Despite its long-standing promise as a clean energy carrier and industrial feedstock, hydrogen continues to struggle for a clear and scalable role in the energy transition. After decades of anticipation, the majority of global hydrogen use still concentrates in traditional sectors such as oil refining and ammonia production, with minimal penetration into emerging low-carbon applications1,2. Globally, fossil fuels still provide about 80% of primary energy, while renewable energy account for 14%. Green hydrogen represents under 1% of total hydrogen output, with most production still derived from natural gas and coal3. Achieving low-carbon hydrogen at a scale consistent with climate goals would require rapid growth in renewable electricity generation and major expansion of supporting networks. Land availability, water use, grid capacity, and infrastructure investment remain key constraints. The persistence of these material limits underscores the structural inertia of the existing energy system, where institutional and behavioral factors reinforce slow transitions even as policy ambitions for hydrogen expand4. Without addressing this inertia, the net-zero agenda risks remaining aspirational rather than transformative.

Production remains overwhelmingly fossil-based, infrastructure deployment lags far behind national targets, and end-use conversion technologies often face fundamental limitations. Even green hydrogen, once heralded as the flagship of clean energy innovation, is constrained by high costs, supply-chain inefficiencies, and water and land use conflicts5. As the deployment gap widens, the global discourse has swung from hype to doubt, casting hydrogen as either a panacea or a failure, neither of which captures the reality6,7. Nowhere is this tension more evident than in the transport sector. While hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFVs) were once considered a breakthrough for decarbonizing long-haul freight and high-duty mobility, sectors notoriously resistant to battery electrification, their real-world deployment remains marginal. Despite a wave of national hydrogen strategies and generous public investment, hydrogen mobility is stalled by expensive refueling infrastructure, low vehicle uptake, and unresolved technological fragilities8. Meanwhile, lithium-ion batteries have rapidly gained ground, pushing hydrogen further to the margins of clean transport narratives. In this polarized landscape, a central question emerges: should hydrogen mobility be written off entirely, or can it still play a meaningful role?

Binding climate targets intensify the need for near-term mitigation. Priority goes to options that are available, technically mature and cost-effective. Passenger road transport therefore follows direct electrification under current cost and performance conditions. Hydrogen is directed to high-load freight and to sectors that require fuels synthesized from renewable electricity. Ports and airports provide settings where synthetic fuels can anchor demand for maritime and aviation systems. Hydrogen’s system role is to convert variable renewable electricity into storable and movable energy for cross-sector use and for duty cycles that remain hard to electrify9. Rather than embracing blanket optimism or premature dismissal, assessment under binding climate targets prioritizes options that are available, technically mature and cost effective, and recognizes that hydrogen transport stands at a strategic crossroads. Understanding persistent technical, financial, geographical, infrastructural and institutional barriers is essential to determine where hydrogen is appropriate and where it is not. Value lies in specificity to place. Pathways differ across countries and regions because resources, infrastructure and market structures vary. Targeted deployments that match supply-side constraints with high-load, hard-to-electrify demand scenarios may yet carve out a viable future for hydrogen in transport within climate targets that favor near term, mature and cost-effective options. Evidence and policy should reflect resource endowments, infrastructure readiness and market structure.

Deployment ambition meets spatial reality

Hydrogen has been increasingly positioned as a central pillar of national decarbonization strategies. Its dual role as both an energy carrier and industrial feedstock has made it a promising solution for sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly transportation10. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have been widely viewed as a key pathway for decarbonizing long-haul freight, heavy-duty operations, and industrial logistics11. As a result, hydrogen mobility has gained strategic importance in long-term energy transition planning. However, this vision is now facing a series of mounting challenges. Lithium-ion battery technology has matured rapidly over the past decade, with falling costs and expanding charging infrastructure that have helped it dominate a growing share of transport applications, placing direct competitive pressure on hydrogen. At the same time, hydrogen mobility continues to suffer from a lack of reliable infrastructure, including sparse and fragmented refueling networks, low station density, and operational instability. High capital and maintenance costs deter private investment, while hydrogen vehicles face elevated purchase prices, complex servicing requirements, and immature supply chains. These conditions have led to a situation in which vehicle deployment waits for infrastructure, and infrastructure waits for vehicles. Hydrogen mobility now stands at a strategic crossroads. The critical question is no longer whether hydrogen can be used, but where and how it can be deployed feasibly. Understanding the structural barriers, particularly the spatial, resource, and infrastructure mismatches between production and demand, is essential for guiding effective policy and investment strategies.

These tensions are especially evident in the development trajectory of green hydrogen. Despite being the most politically favored and conceptually ideal pathway, green hydrogen continues to fall far short of deployment expectations. Even with strong fiscal incentives and carbon pricing frameworks in place, green hydrogen accounted for less than 1% of total global hydrogen production in 202312. Installed electrolyzer capacity reached only 1.4 GW globally, which remains orders of magnitude below the levels needed to align with net-zero pathways12. Furthermore, of the 520 GW in announced projects worldwide, only a small fraction had reached a final investment decision by the end of 202312. This persistent gap between policy ambition and implementation outcomes reflects more than the early-stage nature of the market. It signals a deeper structural misalignment between national climate planning and the physical-material constraints that govern hydrogen deployment at scale.

Among the many barriers to scaling green hydrogen, spatial mismatch represents one of the most fundamental. Producing green hydrogen requires co-located access to high-quality renewable energy, large tracts of land, and reliable water resources—conditions that rarely align with regions of concentrated transport demand. In China, for example, solar and wind potential is concentrated in the northwest, while hydrogen consumption is concentrated in industrial and urban centers along the eastern seaboard. Because hydrogen is difficult and costly to transport over long distances, this geographic separation means that large-scale transport applications rely heavily on extensive delivery infrastructure. Yet the global hydrogen pipeline network remains at an embryonic stage, totaling less than 5000 kilometers, which is only 0.25% of the world’s existing oil and gas infrastructure13,14. Under such limited conditions, transporting hydrogen across regions incurs high costs, high energy consumption, and elevated technical risk. Regions with high renewable potential, often located in the Global South, are increasingly identified as production bases for renewable hydrogen and its derivatives serving industrial demand in advanced economies. Large hydrogen projects in these regions frequently compete with agriculture and municipal water needs and depend on export-oriented infrastructure. The resulting flow of energy and materials can constrain opportunities for local industrialization and direct resources toward external markets15. Such asymmetry has raised concerns about “green colonialism,” where low-carbon strategies risk reproducing established dependencies rather than transforming them16. These asymmetries are not only spatial but also institutional, reflecting how control over resources, infrastructure, and decision-making is structured across regions. Understanding hydrogen development therefore requires attention to both its geographic alignment and the governance arrangements that determine whose interests the transition ultimately serves.

In addition to this spatial disconnect, land and water constraints impose further limitations on large-scale green hydrogen deployment. Utility-scale renewable hydrogen production requires tens of square kilometers per gigawatt, making local production infeasible in land-scarce or densely populated countries such as Japan and South Korea. Electrolytic hydrogen production also requires about 9 kilograms of purified water for every kilogram of hydrogen produced, placing additional stress on regions that are already facing water scarcity, particularly in urban transport hubs. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, where renewable resources are abundant but water is scarce, hydrogen production could increase local water stress by more than 5%, creating direct competition with agriculture, municipal supply, and other sectors5. Meanwhile, in areas such as West Texas, where renewable energy potential is high, limited grid capacity and lack of interconnection infrastructure restrict access to low-cost hydrogen and further exacerbate systemic supply chain inefficiencies17.

These geographically embedded constraints reflect a classic water–energy–land nexus dilemma. Centralized green hydrogen production tends to emerge in resource-abundant regions, but this spatial logic is poorly aligned with the distributed, responsive refueling infrastructure required for transport applications. Nowhere is this mismatch more apparent than in China, where hydrogen production in the northwest is spatially decoupled from demand centers in the east18. This difference increases delivery cost and risk for transport uses. This difference increases delivery cost and risk for transport uses. Japan faces land and water constraints and therefore pursues import strategies for hydrogen and derivatives. South Korea follows a similar path with import-led planning19. Germany now anticipates high import shares for hydrogen by 203020. Resources, infrastructure and market structure shape feasible mobility pathways. Spatial constraints bind deployment. Large projects locate where land, water and renewable resources are available, while transport demand clusters along corridors and hubs. Under time constrained targets, infrastructure should follow concentrated demand first. Siting electrolysis alongside industrial users and fleet depots links power and transport, increases station utilization, and lowers delivered costs relative to long haul delivery. Extending supply chains should wait until utilization is secured.

These empirical realities call for a fundamental shift in hydrogen deployment frameworks. Policymakers should move away from one-size-fits-all, nationally self-sufficient models and instead adopt context-sensitive spatial strategies that align hydrogen supply with localized, high-load demand scenarios. Use cases such as port logistics, industrial corridors, and heavy-duty vehicle hubs offer more promising conditions where hydrogen infrastructure can be efficiently matched to predictable and concentrated consumption. These deployment patterns are already being piloted in initiatives such as Europe’s “Hydrogen Valleys” and at the Port of Los Angeles, where tightly integrated production and consumption systems help reduce delivery risks and create closed-loop operational models21,22. Embedding spatial realities into national hydrogen planning is no longer optional. It is essential for minimizing supply-side risks, avoiding underutilization of infrastructure, and enabling hydrogen mobility to become a viable component of decarbonized transport systems.

Bridging the Lab-to-Market chasm

Efforts to advance hydrogen mobility have been underpinned by robust policy commitments and scientific investment. Several countries have implemented large-scale demonstration programs to test hydrogen technologies under real conditions. Germany’s National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology23 and Japan’s Fuel Cell Vehicle Roadmap24 have generated extensive data on system reliability, safety, and user acceptance. Many governments now position hydrogen as a cornerstone technology for hard-to-abate sectors. Over the past decade, laboratory advances in fuel cells, catalysts, and storage systems have raised hopes for a rapid commercial breakthrough. These pilot and laboratory efforts confirm the technical feasibility of hydrogen systems but have not yet produced stable, self-sustaining market structures. The gap between research success and market consolidation remains significant. The fundamental change is no longer whether hydrogen technologies can work, but how the achievements demonstrated in controlled settings can evolve into reliable, scalable, and commercially viable systems.

This gap does not reflect a lack of experimentation, but a structural disconnect between technological progress and institutional coordination. Although progress in catalyst design, storage materials, and system integration has been considerable, these advances have not yet translated into scalable industrial systems25. The absence of unified standards, slow technology transfer, and fragmented research efforts continue to limit cumulative learning and impede commercialization. At the same time, technology transfer remains slow and fragmented. There is a lack of unified standards across manufacturers and regions, resulting in compatibility issues and inefficient duplication of research and development efforts. Collaboration between research institutions, industry players, and policymakers remains limited, further delaying the maturation and diffusion of core technologies. These barriers are compounded by uncertain intellectual property regimes, which discourage open sharing of breakthroughs and slow the convergence on common technical platforms.

The difficulty of bridging this divide is most apparent in the development of hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Despite years of pilot programs and government support, the number of operational hydrogen refueling stations remains strikingly low. As of the end of 2023, fewer than 1000 stations had been commissioned worldwide, and many face frequent technical setbacks. Even in pioneering regions such as California, the expansion of the network has stalled amid high capital costs, supply bottlenecks, and operational fragility. Station components such as compressors, dispensers, and storage systems often suffer from short lifespans and frequent breakdowns, with reported mean times between failures still well below established norms for other fueling technologies. Maintenance costs remain high and downtime are frequent, eroding investor confidence and undermining the user experience. At the same time, the high capital expenditure required for each station, typically ranging from $5.9 million to $45.4 million, compounds these risks, rendering HRS a high-risk, low-return asset class. Moreover, a lack of interoperability and standardization has led to inconsistent service quality and limited consumer trust, further slowing adoption.

The commercialization of hydrogen mobility remains constrained by persistent technological bottlenecks, despite significant policy support and capital investment. Central to this stagnation is a structural divide between fundamental research and industrial application. While research in areas such as fuel cells and catalyst design continue to deliver laboratory-scale breakthroughs, these advances have failed to translate into robust, cost-effective, and scalable technologies. Across the value chain, from onboard components to refueling infrastructure, the technical maturity and economic performance of key systems consistently fall short of the thresholds required for commercial deployment. This persistent lag between what is technically possible and what is practically usable reflects a deeper misalignment between academic innovation and industry needs. It is further compounded by ineffective knowledge transfer mechanisms, including intellectual property constraints and limited cross-sector collaboration.

This persistent fragility has set off a cycle of mutual hesitation. Consumers face high vehicle purchase prices and “refueling anxiety,” deterred by sparse, unreliable station networks. Infrastructure investors, in turn, are reluctant to expand capacity in the absence of predictable demand or stable supply. When supply disruptions do occur, as seen during the 2021 liquid hydrogen shortage in California, systemic vulnerabilities are quickly exposed, further eroding confidence across the value chain. The resulting negative feedback loop makes it difficult for either side of the market to achieve the scale necessary for commercial viability, leaving hydrogen mobility stuck at the threshold of broader adoption.

Bridging the lab-to-market chasm will require far more than incremental technical progress. The key lies in sustained collaboration across academia, industry, and government. The challenges encountered in hydrogen mobility, including spatial constraints, resource intensity, and technological interdependence, demonstrate the degree of coordination required by contemporary transition pathways. Integrating renewable energy, nuclear generation, and large-scale hydrogen storage within a single system increases both technical and financial complexity and concentrates decision-making within capital-intensive and centralized structures. Such configurations rely on extensive financing and institutional alignment, which can reproduce disparities in capacity and limit participation from regions with weaker infrastructures. The experience of hydrogen development therefore provides insight into the structural demands of technology-intensive transitions and the conditions under which inclusiveness can be broadened through shared standards, open data, and coordinated implementation frameworks.

Collaborative models emerging in practice illustrate this approach. At the Port of Rotterdam26, local actors are developing a corridor that links hydrogen production, distribution and end use for freight and public transport. The corridor enables common technical interfaces and shared safety procedures, which supports standardization and faster learning. Early procurement converts prototypes into serviceable assets and creates predictable demand. Similar corridor designs are transferable to other ports with clustered demand, aligned standards and early procurement. Procurement criteria should reflect modal priorities: passenger battery-electric deployment takes precedence for light-duty mobility, and hydrogen is allocated to high-load freight, ports, and airports. Shared configurations in which one electrolyze serves industrial users and fleet refueling increase utilization and lower delivered costs. Operational data from the Rotterdam corridor feed back into equipment design, operating protocols, and conformity assessment. Transparent data sharing improves reliability, reduces downtime, and supports bankability. As efforts to commercialize hydrogen continue, such collaborative models will be essential for narrowing the gap between innovation and widespread deployment.

Scaling hydrogen mobility through local adaptation

Modal distinctions are essential under binding climate targets. Passenger road transport decarbonizes primarily through direct electrification. Hydrogen finds credible roles where loads are high and duty cycles are hard to electrify, with ports and airports central for hydrogen-derived fuels. The development of hydrogen mobility depends not only on technical feasibility but also on institutional coordination, policy stability, and the allocation of resources across regions. Uniform planning frameworks often overlook these structural factors27. Standardized deployment models that treat green hydrogen as a universal solution have not fully accounted for variations in resource endowments, infrastructure readiness, and market dynamics. The lack of alignment between centralized planning and heterogeneous regional conditions has created supply-chain bottlenecks and limited progress toward commercial-scale adoption. Beyond technical and institutional coordination, the organization of hydrogen deployment also involves significant social and distributive dimensions28. A transition model centered on large-scale, capital-intensive systems may reproduce existing hierarchies of access, governance, and benefit allocation. Incorporating justice-oriented principles into planning and investment frameworks can align hydrogen development with fairer patterns of participation and resource sharing, ensuring that technological expansion supports a balanced and inclusive low-carbon transition. This lack of alignment between planning and reality has resulted in supply chain bottlenecks and slow progress toward commercial-scale adoption.

The color-based categorization, while conceptually clear, often oversimplifies the complexities of real-world deployment. A one-size-fits-all strategy has not accounted for the specific characteristics of each region’s energy landscape and market dynamics. For instance, in areas with abundant renewable energy sources, green hydrogen can be cost-competitive. However, in regions where renewables are less abundant or less reliable, the production of green hydrogen becomes economically unfeasible. In these areas, other forms of low-carbon hydrogen, such as blue hydrogen (derived from fossil fuels with carbon capture) or by-product hydrogen from industrial processes, might provide a more feasible solution. Ignoring these regional realities can limit the effectiveness of hydrogen policies and delay commercialization.

The need for regionally adapted strategies is underscored by examples of current deployments. In northwestern China, high renewable penetration has enabled integrated green hydrogen systems to approach cost parity with fossil-based hydrogen at approximately $2.0 - $3.0 per kilogram13. In the United States, the Gulf Coast benefits from abundant natural gas and existing carbon capture infrastructure, allowing blue hydrogen production costs to fall as low as $1.1 per kilogram by 2030 with support from federal tax incentives13. In Germany’s Ruhr area, industrial clusters already generate significant volumes of by-product hydrogen, which have been successfully integrated into local public transit systems29. Cologne’s hydrogen bus network demonstrates how localized use of existing hydrogen streams can accelerate decarbonization without requiring large-scale infrastructure expansion30.

This regional adaptation extends to hydrogen infrastructure, where centralized models often struggle to meet the needs of diverse geographies. Modular and decentralized systems, such as on-site hydrogen production and mobile refueling stations, offer the flexibility to scale according to demand. Shell’s 10-megawatt electrolyze in Rhineland, for instance, produces around 1300 tons of hydrogen per year while serving local demand31. Modular refueling stations with capacities between 60 and 100 kilograms per day, along with mobile units that store up to 150 kilograms, have demonstrated feasibility in demonstration projects and are suitable for decentralized applications32.

On the demand side, deployment should focus on concentrated use cases where hydrogen offers clear operational advantages and predictable consumption. Hydrogen deployment remains shaped by geographic and infrastructural asymmetries. Production facilities are often distant from major demand centers, and refueling networks remain limited in spatial coverage. Long-distance transport increases costs and logistical risks33. Long-haul freight, urban transit systems, and port-based logistics represent key anchor applications. Europe’s H2Accelerate initiative plans to introduce 150 heavy-duty trucks by 2029, including vehicles with an 800-kilometer range34. The city of Foshan in China operates over 1000 hydrogen-powered buses supported by 36 fueling stations, while Cologne runs a fleet of more than 100 buses30,35. In Rotterdam, hydrogen-fueled terminal tractors can complete full-day operations on a single tank. At the Port of Los Angeles, a dedicated station supplies up to 1.5 ton of renewable hydrogen daily to support freight operations36. In parallel, synthetic fuels including e-ammonia, e-methanol and sustainable aviation fuel create a molecular outlet at ports and airports. Synthetic fuel production anchors hydrogen demand in maritime and aviation. These focused deployments help to build confidence, validate the technology, and create replicable models that can be expanded as demand grows. Their longer-term significance will depend on how effectively hydrogen mobility supports a fair allocation of resources and responsibilities within the transition process, linking technical progress with equitable access and accountable governance (See Table 1).

Table 1 Barriers and Solutions for Scaling Up Hydrogen Mobility
Full size table

To truly scale hydrogen mobility, policies and investments must be aligned with the specific needs and strengths of each region. Moving beyond generalized national or global frameworks, efforts should focus on identifying and investing in hydrogen solutions that are tailored to local conditions. Whether through green, blue, or by-product hydrogen, the key to success lies in deploying the right mix of technologies in the right locations. Hydrogen scales where cross sector links make molecules more valuable than electrons, and where concentrated demand, shared assets and reliable offtake are present. Regional heterogeneity is a design variable. Credible hydrogen mobility emerges where local resources, corridors and offtake align. Ensuring that this process advances both technical feasibility and social equity is increasingly important. Large-scale export systems and cross-border value chains should include mechanisms that promote local participation and transparent benefit-sharing. Without such safeguards, emerging hydrogen markets may reinforce disparities between production regions and consumption centers, an issue that has attracted growing attention under the concept of “green colonialism.” A credible transition therefore, requires combining hydrogen development with broader structural measures that moderate overall energy demand, improve modal efficiency, and widen participation in ownership and governance. Embedding these measures into transition planning can align hydrogen deployment with more inclusive and resilient patterns of low-carbon growth.