“Water is the coal of the future“, said Jules Verne already in the 19th century. This is not the first time hydrogen has emerged as the fuel of the future, but unlike previous failed attempts, today there is a more clear outlook on the benefits of its use. Hydrogen’s flexibility benefits various sectors, aiding climate goals, energy security, and economic development. Factors like climate ambitions, tech cost reductions, investments, and collaborations drive hydrogen’s momentum. Challenges persist, addressed by Marta Lovisolo, Policy Advisor on Renewable Energy Systems, who explores the renewable hydrogen market, proposes improvements, and advocates for women’s participation and empowerment in energy transition policy-making and careers.
“Could you share your insights about the current policy landscape in the EU? And do you think that existing tools provide sufficient direct support for renewable hydrogen?”
There are tools that support hydrogen, there are targets and there are subsidies at different levels, also including at the EU level. Hydrogen is receiving a great deal of attention, sometimes justified and sometimes not. And I feel like it is actually diverting a lot of support that could be directed to technologies with greater potential to achieve carbonization, such as deployment of renewables, direct electrification and efficiency measures. So, I do think there are tools that provide sufficient support and I would dare to say, even too much in many occasions where we are not entirely sure that hydrogen is the most efficient and the cheapest solution available.
“Under the recently proposed Net Zero Industry Act, the EU Commission has presented a plan to set up the European Hydrogen Bank to accelerate investments in renewable hydrogen production. Can you tell us more about the impact European Hydrogen Bank will potentially have on the emerging renewable hydrogen market and if you recognise any opportunities for further improvements of this proposal?”
I think that the Hydrogen Bank largely fails its mandate to decarbonise the European industry. The money in the Hydrogen Bank comes from the Innovation Fund which is supposed to support decarbonisation of ETS sectors. Companies pay for their emmissions into a pot that is supposed to help them with decarbonisation but the reality is that the Hydrogen Bank distributes this money to whatever producer, regardless of the off-taker. This could have been a great chance to channel money to support sectors with no alternative viable decarbonization pathway. Just bluntly widely subsidising the cheapest production might not yield what is actually needed. Furthermore, the way terms and conditions are framed will result in financing only big producers instead of being able to finance on the small ground. Small producers all over the European territory which provide hydrogen for a very specific manufacturing process are mostly those that use hydrogen as a feedstock instead of an energy vector. So, Hydrogen Bank is potentially a very good tool, but completely misses the point because it is no targeted towards the industry sector that need it the most.
“The EU is currently in the process of negotiating the Hydrogen and gas markets decarbonisation package proposals for a regulation and for a directive that set common internal market rules for renewable and natural gases and hydrogen. Do you see any drawbacks of the current proposal and if so, what do you think should be improved?”
Gas Market Package is still under negotiation, so it is hard to comment the draft proposal because there are three different drafts proposed by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council but I can say there are three issues at stake which are important to be negotiated.
The first issue is blending, so whether or not hydrogen will be blended into the fossil gas. The original proposal from the Commission was talking about 5 % which is huge and would end up with having to produce large amounts of hydrogen for blending and having to invest a lot in infrastructure improvement without actually achieving any decarbonisation. Latest discussion has brought blending limit to 2 % and potentially even lower but ideally, we think it should be 0%.
The second point is the governance, so who should be in charge of planning the development of the infrastructure. Today, there is ENTSO-G, which is in charge of development of the infrastructure for gas and ENTSO-E, which is in charge of development of the infrastructure for electricity. The Commission is proposing to establish ENNOH, which would be independent governance body for hydrogen and we think it would be a great idea. Unfortunately, the Parliament has changed this proposal to actually merge ENNOH and ENTSO-G together, so basically giving governance to the fossil gas lobby. Fossil gas companies have vested interest, they have pipelines that they want to survive to keep the business model going. That is why I think it is crucial that these governance structures are divided and if anything, hydrogen should be merged with electricity because even though it is a molecule, in terms of energy systems it is way more connected with electricity.
Finally, the third point has to do with the definition of blue hydrogen, so SMR on fossil gas based hydrogen with CCS. Gas Market Package will contain a definition on how to account for what is included and what is not in terms of emissions. We believe a full LCA analysis that includes both upstream methane leakage and downstream CO2 capture and storage rates should be implemented, as well as strict monitoring and a condition to cut emissions to at least 70 % less comparing to the current grey hydrogen.
“Ambitious targets have been set to achieve boost of demand and scale up the production of renewable hydrogen. What do you recognise as main barriers in achieving these goals?”
I think that the targets included in the different regulations, especially the Renewable Energy Directive, Refuel EU and Fuel EU Maritime are really good because they address exactly those sectors which need hydrogen in order to achieve decarbonisation by 2050. In terms of barriers in meeting these targets, a lot boils down to implementation at the Member State level. So, the targets are there, they are binding and now it is down to the Member States to ensure that companies respect them or to create frameworks within their states obliging these targets or incentivising production.
In terms of market barriers, access to renewables and renewables deployment could be long term bottleneck. We are already facing contraints hindering the growth of renewables for decarbonisation of the electric grid and the amount of renewable electricity needed to produce all this hydrogen is enormous, so unless we really get going with the deployment of renewables, we will be hitting that bottleneck very quickly.
“The EU Hydrogen strategy recognises the role of low-carbon hydrogen production in a transition phase to reduce emissions in the short term and scale up the market until renewable hydrogen is available. Do you see any significant risks in incentivizing low-carbon hydrogen, for example extending Europe’s dependency on energy imports?”
I think regardless of whether it is renewable or low carbon hydrogen, Europe will be partially depending on imports of its hydrogen. It is not realistic to think that Europe can produce sufficient amounts of hydrogen and besides that there are so many countries with geographies much better suited for production of renewable hydrogen on a larger scale and with cheaper prices. So, even if we went completely down the green hydrogen production route, we would still be partially dependent on imports. Now the other part is regarding risks with blue hydrogen. I believe that incentivising it is not a problem per se, but strict definitions in terms of greenhouse gas accounting, which include also upstream methane leakage, need to be set. Both upstream methane leakage and CO2 emissions need to be prominent for blue hydrogen to play a role in decarbonisation, otherwise blue hydrogen can have just as negative environmental impact as grey hydrogen.
“I would like to ask you about your own experience. What inspired you to become an expert in hydrogen and to work within the energy transition?”
I was studying policy and there were different fields of policies that I found interesting, but despite having studied social studies prior to that, I maintained a strong interest in hard sciences. Climate related and energy policy are laying at the intersection between science and social studies. There is technology, energy and chemistry related content but then you need to apply policy and political theory to it to develop a policy. That is why energy policy became the connection between these two parts of me and then hydrogen kind of happened. I started working in Brussels as an energy expert when hydrogen was the main talk of the town and so I started following it very closely and developed my career in this direction.
“What challenges have you faced pursuing a career in predominantly male industry and who has empowered and supported you on your way to success?”
Energy sector and energy policy are definitely predominantly male environment, but I think there is a raising awarness of women inclusion. Relatively early in my career, I was given opportunities because they needed to fill in a gender spot on panels or include a diverse voice in a sense. It was a bittersweet position because one would prefer to be invited for their knowledge rather than their gender. But even if I was only invited because of my gender, once I was in the room I could prove my knowledge and that kickstarted subsequent invitations. In general, my gender was mostly a door opener because of the current shift in narrative where we see increased efforts to include women in conversation and the fact that there are so few of us makes your name start stand out even more. But I think, there should still be more women included in this industry. I shouldn’t be called so much just because it is do exceptional to find a woman in this field.
“Although the share of women involved with the energy transition has increased, large gaps still remain, especially in their participation in policy-making processes. What do you think are the nderlying reasons for such underrepresentation of women in energy policy-making and decision-making bodies?”
I think there is probably many different factors that play their role here. I think there is a basic underlying factor that decision-makers tend to be in more advanced stages of their careers and in the past, significantly less women were studying in the energy related fields. Then of course, there is still a large gap between women’s access to the workplace and progressing to higher positions due to stigma around things like maternity leaves. As long as decision-making is primarily driven by men, decision-making processes inclusive for women will be lacking. There is a generational change that has to come. We, as women currently within this sphere, still have further to go on in our careers to be able to come to the point where we decide. And there is also society that needs to change the way it sees the role of women and not exclude them for reasons such as being mothers.
“Ensuring that girls from a young age have mentors and role models they can identify with is certainly one of the most important ways to encourage interest in a certain field. Therefore, I would like to ask you to give a final message to our readers, preferably something you wish you knew when you were building your career.”
Go ahead and try! We are sometimes told that we shouldn’t believe in ourselves and that there is always somebody better than us but if we don’t believe in ourselves, nobody will. I also think women more often experience imposter syndrome. You are not an imposter. You can do it! Just believe in yourself and give it a try. Worst case scenario, you will fail, but most men fail all the time and they try again, so you should try again as well.