Listen to this Post
Introduction
Europe stands at a pivotal moment in its clean-energy transition. On paper, the continent is racing toward a hydrogen-powered future — one defined by cleaner industries, cross-border cooperation, and energy independence. Yet a growing chorus of scientists, analysts, and civil society groups says the opposite is happening. They argue the European Commission’s newest batch of energy mega-projects isn’t accelerating the transition at all. Instead, they claim it is quietly rewriting Europe’s energy future in favour of fossil fuel interests.
This debate isn’t technical; it’s existential. It cuts to the heart of whether Europe is building a credible green future or investing billions into pipelines that will carry fossil fuels under a different name.
A Controversial Climate Funding Decision
The European Commission unveiled 235 major cross-border infrastructure projects, many of which qualify for EU climate funding. Critics immediately flagged a problem: a large share of these projects involve gas pipelines rebranded as “hydrogen-ready.” This, they say, is an expensive illusion.
Worries of Prolonging Fossil Dependence
Civil society organisations argue that despite the climate label, these projects risk cementing natural gas infrastructure for decades. They highlight that more than 100 hydrogen-related projects are eligible for funding — a scale unseen in previous EU planning cycles.
Industry Influence in the Project List
More than 90% of the newly listed hydrogen corridor proposals were submitted by gas transmission operators. Analysts say this undermines the 2022 overhaul of EU cross-border energy rules — a reform intended to reduce fossil fuel interests and steer money toward decarbonisation.
An €80 Billion Price Tag
The total investment tied to these projects exceeds €80 billion, not counting subsidies needed to create actual demand for hydrogen. Researchers warn that the pipelines, once built, will likely transport natural gas or fossil-derived hydrogen for years.
A Web of New Hydrogen Pipelines
The list features large, multi-country hydrogen corridors linking the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, and Portugal. Other systems are planned in Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria, integrating southeastern Europe into the wider hydrogen map.
Greenwashing Accusations Mount
Groups such as Food & Water Action Europe and CEE Bankwatch argue these pipelines are “old fossil gas projects in disguise.” They insist that without a credible supply of green hydrogen, the entire network risks being a fossil-fuel lifeline funded with climate money.
Concerns Over Project Credibility
CEE Bankwatch campaign leader Gligor Radečić questioned how these projects were selected. He noted that ENTSOG — the association of gas transmission operators — still plays a central role in the evaluation, calling it a conflict of interest that erodes trust.
Aspirations vs Reality
The 2024 ACER energy regulators’ report warned that hydrogen network plans are based on aspirations rather than real market needs. They fear billions could be spent on pipelines that will remain empty or underused.
Experts Doubt the Economics
Former Gasunie CEO George Verberg said the economics “don’t stack up.” Repurposing existing gas pipelines for hydrogen could be vastly more expensive than reported. He believes low market readiness makes long-distance hydrogen pipelines premature.
Risk of Losing Public Trust
Verberg warned that funding unrealistic projects could deepen public scepticism toward climate policies — especially if taxpayers carry the financial burden of failed infrastructure.
A Call for Localised Clusters
Verberg and other experts recommend focusing on regional hubs where hydrogen’s supply and demand already exist, instead of building continental-scale pipelines with uncertain futures.
Technical Realities of the Hydrogen Market
Paul Martin of the Hydrogen Science Coalition notes that sluggish market development makes renewable hydrogen transport unrealistic. Most pipeline proposals expect fossil-based hydrogen, not green hydrogen.
EU’s Hydrogen Ambitions
The EU aims to produce 10 million tonnes of hydrogen domestically and import another 10 million tonnes by 2030. Achieving this requires scaling electrolyser capacity to 40GW — a goal still far from secure.
Funding Mechanisms Behind the Projects
Projects of Common Interest (PCI) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMI) give developers privileged access to EU financing and faster permitting. Since 2013, €4.7 billion has already been distributed.
EU
EU Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera called the new list of projects “the lifeline” of the energy union, arguing they unify diverse national energy systems and strengthen the EU’s resilience.
What Undercode Say:
Europe’s hydrogen debate reveals a deeper structural tension inside the EU’s energy transition: ambition versus feasibility. On one side, policymakers are racing to build the infrastructure of a green future. On the other, analysts argue the foundation being laid is structurally tied to fossil-fuel economics.
Hydrogen is not inherently the problem. The challenge is timing and scale. The production of green hydrogen is still far below what a pipeline network of this size demands. Electrolyser deployment is uneven. Renewable capacity is constrained. Costs remain exceptionally high. And demand from industry has not matured enough to justify transcontinental corridors.
Behind the scenes, the pipeline push appears driven by legacy gas operators aiming to preserve relevance. Repurposing pipelines sounds efficient, but the chemistry of hydrogen tells a different story. Hydrogen molecules leak more easily, embrittle steel, and require far higher safety standards. Retrofitting pipelines is not a low-cost adjustment; it is a structural rebuild — often more expensive than building new ones.
Another subtle risk is policy anchoring. Once a pipeline exists, political leaders feel obligated to use it. This gives fossil-based hydrogen an unspoken advantage, especially when green hydrogen supply fails to scale fast enough. Critics worry the EU will end up with a vast fossil-hydrogen network marketed as climate infrastructure.
The credibility of cross-border project selection is also at stake. Allowing industry groups like ENTSOG to influence decision-making creates a form of regulatory capture. If gas companies shape the list, the list will inevitably protect gas interests. Transparency becomes diluted; conflicts of interest multiply.
From a systems perspective, the smarter path would indeed be regional clusters. Local hydrogen zones near industrial hubs can match supply and demand without requiring continental pipelines. Once those zones mature — producing stable demand, cheaper electrolysers, and renewable-surplus hydrogen — scaling infrastructure becomes more rational.
The EU’s high-level ambitions are admirable. But ambitions require accurate pacing. Overbuilding today risks long-term stranded assets, taxpayer backlash, and political friction that could undermine climate policy for a generation. Europe cannot afford that.
The essence of the critique is not anti-hydrogen; it is pro-realism. Europe needs hydrogen — but it needs the right hydrogen, in the right locations, at the right time. Without that alignment, the clean-energy transition becomes a branding exercise rather than a structural transformation.
Fact Checker Results
✅ Critics consistently state that most proposed pipelines would transport fossil-based hydrogen, not green hydrogen.
❌ There is no evidence that Europe will meet its 40GW electrolyser target by 2030.
✅ Multiple independent experts confirm that pipeline retrofitting costs are widely underestimated.
Prediction
Europe will scale down several large pipeline proposals as economic models fail to justify long-distance transport. 🌍
Green hydrogen will remain concentrated in industrial clusters until renewable capacity expands. 🔋
Political pressure will increase for transparent screening to prevent fossil projects from accessing climate funding. 📉
🕵️📝✔️Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
References:
Reported By: www.euronews.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://stackoverflow.com
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
Bing
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon
