Open TFIE Strategy Report | Michael Barnard | November 2026
Europe has spent years planning how much hydrogen it should produce, where that hydrogen should come from and which pipelines and storage facilities will be required to move it. Those questions depend on decisions that hydrogen planning often treats as settled. What industrial products will Europe manufacture? Which production processes will remain competitive? Which inputs will be imported? And which transport services will still require liquid fuels after electrification and efficiency have changed demand? Hydrogen demand follows from those decisions. It should not be treated as independent of them.
Europe’s Hydrogen Strategy After Competition examines the consequences of allowing industrial processes, production locations and energy carriers to compete to deliver equivalent products and services. The research was developed as an independent contribution to the European Commission’s renewed hydrogen strategy consultation, but its implications extend to industrial strategy, infrastructure investment and public spending.
What happens when industry can choose?
Europe’s existing hydrogen economy is largely an industrial economy. Refining and ammonia manufacture dominate current consumption, while methanol and other chemical processes account for additional demand. The future of those activities will depend on product demand, production costs, technology and international competition.
Maintaining European steelmaking does not necessarily mean producing all its iron inputs domestically. Retaining fertiliser and chemical manufacturing does not necessarily require synthesising every ton of ammonia in Europe. Industrial heat may be delivered more economically with direct electricity. Ships and aircraft will still need liquid fuels on some routes, but their remaining fuel requirements depend on electrification, efficiency and changing activity. The report compares these alternatives before calculating the hydrogen they require.
In the 2050 central case, qualifying imported green ammonia costs €755–839/t, compared with approximately €1,222/t for European synthesis using on-site hydrogen. Qualifying imported reduced iron costs approximately €605/t of equivalent iron input, against €733/t for European hydrogen-based production.
These are modelled route comparisons, not contracted prices or claims that imports are always preferable. Product quality, emissions, industrial capabilities, resilience and supply security must also be considered.
The important finding is that Europe can retain valuable downstream industrial activity without necessarily producing every upstream input or hydrogen molecule domestically.
How much hydrogen does Europe need after industrial competition?
The model evaluates selected European industrial and transport markets in 2030, 2040 and 2050 under different transition pathways, energy prices, technology constraints and import conditions.
Under the Strong pathway with central costs, physical EU hydrogen consumption in those markets is 6.184 Mt/year in 2030, 4.191 Mt/year in 2040 and 1.887 Mt/year in 2050.
These figures are not forecasts of total EU hydrogen consumption. They reflect the specific sectors and accounting boundaries represented in the model, with hydrogen embodied in imported industrial products and finished fuels accounted for separately.
The results also change when constraints change. Halving modelled product-import capacity raises the 2050 requirement to 3.206 Mt/year. Combining reduced import availability, higher foreign hydrogen costs, limits on electrochemical iron and constrained sustainable biofuels raises it to 5.119 Mt/year.
Those sensitivity results matter as much as the central case. They show which assumptions materially influence hydrogen demand and how the consequences of different industrial choices accumulate.
Test the investment before changing the scenario
The report’s principal policy recommendation concerns how Europe evaluates hydrogen infrastructure. A pipeline can appear attractive when its demand forecast assumes customers will purchase hydrogen. The investment may look different when those customers can electrify, change production processes, import industrial intermediates or select other fuels.
The proposed test is to hold the actual infrastructure investment unchanged across policy-aligned and economic-competition scenarios. Assess the same pipeline, terminal, storage facility or subsidy programme under alternative assumptions about the industrial and transport markets it expects to serve.
Report the products and services delivered, actual hydrogen requirements, infrastructure utilisation, tariffs, costs, emissions and public financial exposure. Assess security, resilience and industrial benefits where they could justify a premium. Then compare smaller, delayed, staged or alternative investments.
This approach separates the performance of the investment under consideration from the performance of a redesigned investment tailored to each scenario.
The objective is not to rule out hydrogen infrastructure. It is to identify which investments are commercially justified, which require a demonstrable public benefit, and which should change before capital is committed.
Evidence, Python modelling and an interactive dashboard
The research combines published evidence, industrial and transport cost comparisons, a reproducible Python model, a supporting evidence workbook and an interactive scenario dashboard.
The evidence workbook records assumptions, source material and quantitative comparisons. The Python model calculates the consequences of alternative industrial processes, energy costs, imports and fuel availability. The dashboard allows readers to examine selected sensitivities without running the model themselves.
The analysis has defined limits. Chemical substitutions are assessed through illustrative cost and capacity screens rather than a complete optimisation of Europe’s chemical industry. Full lifecycle emissions, employment, welfare impacts and detailed network financing remain outside the completed calculations. The economic-competition case excludes hydrogen-specific uptake mandates and does not establish compliance with current EU law.
The evidence and limitations are available for inspection because both matter when the results are used to guide investment.
Read the report and explore the analysis
Europe’s Hydrogen Strategy After Competition
Michael Barnard | TFIE Strategy Inc.
November 2026 | Open report
The full report includes the public introduction, original independent EU hydrogen policy submission, technical annex, nine analytical figures, scenario comparisons, methodology and references.
Download the full report PDF below.
The original submission-and-annex PDF is retained as the canonical consultation source edition. The public-report cover and introduction are separate TFIE Strategy Briefing editorial additions. They do not imply European Commission endorsement.
Explore the interactive EU hydrogen scenario dashboard. The dashboard also provides the complete research package, including the evidence workbook, executable Python model and offline dashboard.
Applying this approach to a real investment decision
The public model assesses a defined set of European industrial and transport markets. A commercial or policy decision requires the same discipline applied to its particular circumstances.
An industrial producer may need to compare process technologies, electricity procurement, imported intermediates and future product markets. An infrastructure investor may need to test contracted demand, utilisation, tariffs and competing supply routes. A policymaker may need to distinguish observed evidence from assumptions and compare the costs and benefits of different interventions.
TFIE Strategy undertakes scoped techno-economic assessments, investment and pathway reviews, and evidence-led policy analysis. The work can combine source assessment, executable modelling, sensitivity testing, decision frameworks and supporting technical documentation.
The relevant starting point is a decision whose outcome matters: an investment approaching approval, a strategy built around uncertain demand, an infrastructure proposal facing competing alternatives or a policy whose economic consequences need independent assessment.
For a professional assessment, contact Michael Barnard, Chief Strategist, TFIE Strategy Inc., at michael@tfie.io, with the decision, relevant market and timing.
The report and supporting tools are publicly available. The value of a commissioned assessment lies in applying that analytical approach to a specific decision, with its actual constraints, alternatives and financial exposure.