Wêrom wetterstof net de enerzjyrêder is dy't politisy tinke
March 4, 2026 · Frisian News
European governments pour billions into hydrogen as a climate solution, but the technology remains inefficient and expensive compared to direct electrification. Most hydrogen still comes from fossil fuels, undermining the green narrative.
FryskIn gloednij wetterstoftestsintrum yn Noard-Dútslân iepene koartlyn mei folle bombarie. Europeeske ynstellings wize op sokke projekten as bewiis dat grien wetterstof it kontinent yn de takomst fuedzje sil. Dochs kostet grien wetterstof produsearje noch altyd mear as it ymportearjen. De kostenkleau bliuwt it ferhaal dat gjin ien politikus fertelle wol.
Regearingen yn hiel Europa behannelje wetterstof as in tsjoerstôkje. Dútslân plant njoggen miljard euro út te jaan oan wetterstofynfrastruktuer tsjin 2030. Frankryk en Nederlân dogge itselde. De logika klinkt skjin: produsearje wetterstof mei fernijbere elektrisiteit, ferbaarn it yn frachtweinen en fabrieken, stjitten allinich wetterdamp út. Mar dit negearret in brute wierheid. Fiifennjoggentich prosint fan it wetterstof dat hjoed produseare wurdt, komt út ierdgas troch stoomherfoarming, in proses dat koaldiokside yn de loft spuit. Blau wetterstof, dat in diel fan dy koalstof opfangt, kostet noch altyd folle mear as it smoarge soart.
Elektrifisearring wurket better en kostet minder. In batterij-auto is better as in wetterstofauto op wichtige maten: effisjinsje en totale eigendomskostens. Wetterstof ferliest sân fan elke tsien joules as waarmte wannear't jo elektrisiteit yn wetterstof omsette en wer werom. In batterij ferliest mar twa joules út tsien. Dochs bliuwt Brussel wetterstofprojekten finansieren as soe dizze termodynamyske werklikheid net bestean. Yndustrylobbyisten hâlde derfan om't wetterstofprojekten massale ynfrastruktuerinvestearrings fereaskje en ôfhinklikens fan nije oanfierketens kreëarje.
De wetterstofmerk tsjinnet in doel foar politisy dy't hurde karren mije wolle. It fertellen oan wurknimmers yn koalestêden dat har banen ferdwine as wy ferfier elektrifisearje, is net populêr. Wetterstof biedt falske hoop. It belovet dat yndustry gruttendels ûnferoare bliuwe kin, allinich mei in oare brânstof. Dit stelt sawol fakbûnen as enerzjybedriuwen gerêst. It resultaat is miljarden útjûn oan technology dy't nea mei ienfâldiger oplossingen konkurearje kin.
Lytse naasjes en mienskippen moatte dizze ferspilling mei heldere eagen besjen. As Brussel belestingsjild yn ynferieure technology pompt om't it ferhaal goed klinkt, betelje lokale belestingbetellers de rekken. Better om direkte elektrifisearring, opslachbatterijen en netstabiliteit wêr't jo wenje te easkjen. Dat wurk is dreger en minder glânzjend as lint knippe op wetterstoffasiliteiten. Mar it wurket echt.
A gleaming hydrogen test facility in northern Germany opened recently with much fanfare. European institutions have pointed to such projects as proof that green hydrogen will power the continent's future. Yet producing green hydrogen still costs more than importing it. The cost gap remains the story no politician wants to tell.
Governments across Europe treat hydrogen like a magic fix. Germany plans to spend 9 billion euros on hydrogen infrastructure by 2030. France and the Netherlands follow suit. The logic sounds clean: produce hydrogen with renewable electricity, burn it in trucks and factories, emit only water vapor. But this ignores a brutal fact. Ninety-five percent of hydrogen produced today comes from natural gas through steam reforming, a process that belches carbon dioxide into the air. Blue hydrogen, which captures some of that carbon, still costs significantly more than the dirty kind.
Electrification works better and costs less. A battery truck beats a hydrogen truck on key measures: efficiency and total cost of ownership. Hydrogen loses seven out of every ten joules as heat when you convert electricity into hydrogen and back again. A battery loses only two joules out of ten. Yet Brussels keeps funding hydrogen projects as if this thermodynamic reality does not exist. Industry lobbyists love it because hydrogen projects require massive infrastructure investment and create dependency on new supply chains.
The hydrogen dream serves a purpose for politicians who want to avoid hard choices. Telling workers in coal regions that their jobs will disappear if we electrify transport is unpopular. Hydrogen offers false hope. It promises that industry can continue much as before, just with a different fuel. This comforts both labor unions and energy companies. The result is billions spent on technology that will never compete with simpler solutions.
Small nations and communities must watch this waste with clear eyes. When Brussels pours public money into inferior technology because the story sounds good, local taxpayers foot the bill. Better to push for direct electrification, storage batteries, and grid stability where you live. That work is harder and less glamorous than cutting ribbons at hydrogen facilities. But it actually works.
Published March 4, 2026 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân