Q&A – Hy2gen: The welcome end of the hydrogen gold rush

Just a few years ago, the green hydrogen sector experienced what many called a 'gold rush': investor enthusiasm surged, major companies rushed to launch their projects, and public tenders poured money into the most ambitious initiatives. Industry giants competed fiercely over government subsidies for what seemed to be the silver bullet of energy transition. 

That fever has now cooled: setbacks have piled up, some flagship projects have stalled, and major players, like Statkraft, BP and Orsted, are shifting focus.  

Troubled times for anyone seeking to secure financing for green hydrogen, one would assume.  

But for Bernd Hübner, Chief Financial Officer of Germany's Hy2gen, this marks a welcome return to fundamentals. The exit of hype-driven actors could be clearing the way for companies with real commitment, expertise, and a long-term vision for green hydrogen.  

It is a bold perspective in a moment of doubt for the sector. inspiratia sat down with Hübner to find out what he sees ahead for green hydrogen in Europe and beyond.

Can you tell us about Hy2gen and its current portfolio? 

When we started the company in 2017, we felt we were the missing brick in the industry. There were electrolysers, there were ammonia producers, the technology was there, and people wanted to sell it.?And we saw that there were use cases as well – not the big scale as of today, of course, but there were use cases in hydrogen, such as in Norway for ferries.? 

And we thought that someone needed to take the risk to actually buy the equipment and take the risk to produce and sell this product. That is the core of our business model: to design, invest, build the production plants, and operate them. 

Risk diversification was key for this endeavour, both in terms of products and geographically. We are now active in Europe, North America and South America, and we produce all the major Power-to-X fuels: renewable hydrogen, e-methanol, e-methane, synthetic sustainable aviation fuel (e-SAF), and renewable ammonia. 

We recently became the first site in Germany to produce RFNBO-compliant e-methane and renewable hydrogen under the EU's sustainability framework for renewable fuels. 

Which sector is the most important for you in terms of end use? 

That is a tough one, because our whole approach is built around diversification: we try not to over-concentrate in any one area. But right now, we are leaning more heavily on two sectors: e-SAF and renewable ammonia. 

E-SAF stands out because of strong regulatory support, especially in Europe, which creates real market demand. And renewable ammonia is key because it is a practical way to transport hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is hard to move over long distances, and while many have tried to crack that challenge, we still believe ammonia is the most viable solution for the next decade, especially with progress in cracking technologies. 

So, while we stay diversified, e-SAF and renewable ammonia are currently the strongest focus areas in our portfolio. 

What is your approach to financing?

We take a classic project finance approach: that is my background, and it is a model that works well for infrastructure-style projects like ours. So, our goal is to structure each project to be financeable on its own merits, with the kind of risk profile lenders are comfortable with. 

We typically aim for a gearing of around 60 to 70% debt, depending on the project's cash flow profile. Subsidies, when available, often act like quasi-equity, which can reduce the amount of equity we need to put in ourselves. 

Of course, the final gearing depends on factors like load hours and technology. Given the same underlying conditions, a project based on hydropower running 8,000 hours a year can sustain more debt than, say, a wind-powered site running 3,000 hours. But across the board, our goal is low market risk, strong back-to-back contracts, and solid fundamentals – so we can reach that higher debt ratio and make the project bankable. 

How reliant are you on public subsidies? Do you see a future where the sector would be commercially viable without government support?

Subsidies help close the gap in early projects, making them bankable. Over time, as the technologies mature and more projects prove themselves, especially in newer areas like methanol-to-jet, the need for subsidies will decrease. Once financiers are comfortable with the tech, projects can support more debt, and subsidies become less critical. 

But government support is not just about subsidies. It is also about regulatory support. Yes, financial support like grants from the EU Innovation Fund or the Canadian government can help move a project from viable to truly investable. But policy plays an even bigger role. 

Take e-SAF, for example. Demand there is largely driven by regulation, like EU mandates that airlines must include a certain percentage of renewable e-SAF. That creates a real market. No airline is going to pay a premium for e-SAF just to be green. It is the rules that drive adoption. 

The sector has faced many setbacks recently. Are you optimistic about the long-term prospects for green hydrogen?

I am actually very optimistic! It is true that the sector has had some challenges, especially on the public equity side. If you invested in listed hydrogen stocks during the hype a few years ago, you probably had a rough ride. But that is more about market sentiment than the real progress being made on the ground. 

Some companies did stumble - projects failed, players exited - but that is typical for any emerging industry. A lot of firms jumped in expecting quick returns, thinking hydrogen would behave like a mature sector, similar to wind or solar. But we are still in the early stages. It takes a different mindset: more patient capital, more willingness to take on technology and execution risk. 

Big players like utilities and oil majors have pulled back a bit, partly due to shifting political winds and lobbying pressure in favour of less costly or lower-risk alternatives like blue hydrogen. But for us, that is actually positive. It opens up more space for focused developers like us to build projects without getting squeezed out. 

Importantly, the fundamentals are still strong. Demand is driven by real regulation – like in synthetic sustainable aviation fuel or shipping – and that is not going away. The hydrogen backbone is being built. That gives us confidence that the market will be there, even if the hype has settled down. The trend is still heading in the right direction. 

What advantage does Hy2gen have over other competitors?

First, we have been in the game since 2017, which gives us deep, hands-on experience with the technologies, markets, and what actually works. We have built up a strong understanding of how to design and run these projects efficiently, so we can model outcomes with a high degree of confidence—and low margin for error. 

This experience and internal know-how allow us to quickly assess whether a project makes sense—sometimes within a day or two. That speed, combined with our ability to move quickly from concept to execution, gives us a real edge in a market where timing matters. 

We are also very partnership-driven, especially at this early, pre-competitive stage of the industry. If you look at our shareholder base, it is intentionally diverse - engineering, finance, offtake - because we believe building this industry requires a collective effort.   

We are supported by some of the biggest names in hydrogen finance and development: like Hy24, Mirova, CDPQ, and Technip Energies for engineering, plus Trafigura on the offtake side. That kind of backing does not just bring capital, it brings serious expertise and reach across the value chain. 

I like to think of Hy2gen as the enfant terrible of the industry. We don't follow the mainstream narrative that calls for constant political support or heavy lobbying. Our view is simple: give us a stable regulatory environment, and we will get on with it.