Central or local?
Hyfindr Managing Director Dr. Björn Lüssow shares insights and encounters from the international hydrogen community.
Germany’s hydrogen industry lacks systemic thinking, or so the claim goes. Many are calling for a hydrogen strategy embedded in a broader decarbonization strategy for the economy. A centralized approach, in other words – much like China’s.
That kind of approach demands fundamental decisions on technology and funding. Should electrolyzers continue to be exempt from grid fees? Does the power grid really need such massive expansion just to enable an “all-electric” scenario? Why do we regulate the color of hydrogen so strictly while imposing no such rules on electricity?
In times of tight budgets, these big-picture questions cannot all be tackled at once with the rigor they deserve.
But let’s not kid ourselves: a centralized approach carries its own risks. Weighing multiple trade-offs slows decision-making. Implementation follows years later. And local, potentially disruptive solutions are easily overlooked – or stifled by top-down mandates.
A case in point is Hy2B Wasserstoff. The company operates a 5 MW alkaline electrolyzer with a filling station in Bavaria, supplying two refueling stations for buses and trucks with green hydrogen. Smart power management ensures electricity is purchased when it is cheapest.
The result: green hydrogen below diesel parity. So it can be done.
Central versus local is therefore not the real question, in my view. We need both – a systemic framework that incentivizes local solutions. Local approaches create value and jobs on the ground while reducing energy dependence on foreign suppliers.
Ideas develop a special force when their time has come. When local approaches scale, they gain systemic relevance. “Build local” could be just such an idea.
