Investors Have Cooled on Hydrogen. A Second Wave Is Coming. - Kanebridge News
Share Button

Investors Have Cooled on Hydrogen. A Second Wave Is Coming.

By PATTI DOMM
Fri, Apr 12, 2024 9:43amGrey Clock 5 min

Investors may want to give hydrogen a second look, but they’ll need to be patient.

There’s not a lot of love for the fuel on Wall Street. The Global X Hydrogen ETF is down 81% from its high in 2021, and other hydrogen stocks are well below their peaks.

Skeptics say the cleanest hydrogen is too pricey and still far away from becoming part of a viable marketplace. The government is still sorting out regulation and industry incentives. New infrastructure will be required, and it isn’t clear there will be enough customers once it’s built.

But even as investor enthusiasm faded, a raft of companies have been quietly exploring hydrogen as a clean-burning fuel that can be a building block in the energy transition. There are numerous corporate projects in development that could help propel the growth of a hydrogen economy and drive profits in the future. The Department of Energy is investing $8 billion in promoting clean hydrogen, with the creation of seven hydrogen hubs around the U.S. within the decade.

Many energy and petrochemical companies are studying or have hydrogen projects in the works as a way to decarbonise. One reason is that hydrogen is used in the refining process, and cleaner hydrogen could be used in industrial processes. Hydrogen can be turned into ammonia and is used in fertiliser. In its next wave, hydrogen could be widely used in industrial applications like steel making and for fuel in ships and aircraft.

Supporters believe all the money pouring in now will help bring costs down as hydrogen projects scale. Investors may want to look at traditional energy and industrial companies that are currently working on hydrogen projects as a way to play the long-term growth of a hydrogen market.

“All these companies…have decarbonisation aspirations,” said Marc Bianchi, managing director at TD Cowen. There’s a meaningful opportunity for companies that are already using thousands of tons of hydrogen a day to switch from dirtier to cleaner sources.

The U.S. uses about 10 million tons of hydrogen a year for applications such as refining and fertilizer. Hydrogen demand was about 2% of global energy consumption in 2020 and could grow to 20% to 30% in a net-zero economy, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights.

Hydrogen gas is colourless, but industry shorthand assigns colours based on how the fuel is produced. Green hydrogen is the most desirable. Electricity generated from solar or wind is used to split hydrogen from water molecules and produces no carbon byproducts. Blue hydrogen is made by using natural gas along with capture and storage technologies to limit CO2. Grey hydrogen is made with natural gas or methane and generates carbon dioxide.

S&P Global Commodity Insights projects the cleanest hydrogen, even with incentives, would be about three times more costly in parts of the country where renewable energy is more expensive, like the Northeast. In the best case, green hydrogen produced in Texas, using proposed tax incentives and credits, could be as low as $1 per kilogram, slightly less than the $1.3 per kilogram cost of grey hydrogen. In Europe, green hydrogen is $6 to $9 per kilogram.

The energy industry, however, is waiting to see the final structure of U.S. tax credits granted to clean hydrogen under the Inflation Reduction Act. The Internal Revenue Service issued a draft guidance on implementation.

It was viewed as too restrictive by many in the industry, and some industry executives say it put a chill on activity while they wait to see how deep incentives will be for their proposed processes. The comment period has just ended.

“Anyone in power generation wants to talk about hydrogen,” said Richard Voorberg, president of North America for Siemens Energy . “Now, we’ve seen that plateau over the last little while, meaning months. Everyone was excited about [the Inflation Reduction Act], but the guidance that came out Dec. 22 had people scratching their heads.”

Ernest Moniz, a former energy secretary, heads the consortium formed to organise a market for clean hydrogen, called the Hydrogen Demand Initiative. Moniz said recently that the guidance presented by the IRS was too narrow and could slow the industry’s growth if not changed.

“The philosophy has been to require upfront decarbonisation of the electrons that you’re supposed to be using for the electrolysis of water, and the fear—and I certainly fear it—is this will significantly inhibit the near-term demand creation,” Moniz said. “We might end up with a very low carbon grid, but a hydrogen market that’s way behind where it should be at that time.” He added that he’s watching for how the IRS adjusts its plans for the tax credits.

Investors looking at companies with hydrogen projects need to be sure the value is there for the company’s traditional businesses. Analysts say valuations don’t appear to reflect potential for hydrogen, even if some had in the past.

Hydrogen was once the “shiniest new toy” for investors, but disillusionment has set in, said Timm Schneider, CEO of Schneider Capital Group. “Not one investor has asked me about hydrogen at any company, like Chevron or Exxon, that has a hydrogen project, over the past 12 months,” he said.

One way to invest in the transition is through industrial gas companies. S&P Global is projecting that Air Products and Chemicals will be the leading industrial gas producer of hydrogen, in the amount of 5.2 million metric tons by 2030. Exxon Mobil is positioned to be the largest producer among oil-and-gas companies, with 1.5 MMT, S&P Global said.

Air Products CEO Seifi Ghasemi, speaking at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference last month, said his company is currently the largest producer of grey hydrogen globally. He wants to be the leader in green and blue. The company began producing grey hydrogen at the request of the U.S. government in the 1950s for use in the space program.

Ghasemi said the company has two major projects in development. One is in northern Saudi Arabia, where the company will use wind and solar with its partners to create 650 tons of hydrogen a day. That project, he said, IS “30 times bigger than anything that exists today.”

Air Products has been collaborating with Baker Hughes , an energy services and technology company that has developed turbines and compressors. Baker is working on the hydrogen project in Saudi Arabia and the two have another project under way in Alberta, Canada that is expected to be operational next year. “Baker Hughes is interesting. It is supplying a turbine to that project in Alberta that’s going to run on 100% hydrogen. That’s been a bit of a challenge for the industry, to burn hydrogen in a turbine,” said Bianchi. Baker Hughes, he said, was the first to succeed.

The demand for hydrogen is still uncertain and the market is nascent. The anticipated supply of hydrogen is well ahead of demand, Enverus Intelligence Research said in a report last week. Only 30% of the U.S. projects expected by 2030 have disclosed customers.

But there was a bright note in the Enverus report. European Union decarbonisation targets could mean U.S. producers could find a significant export market.

Exports are what helped turn the U.S. into the leading producer of oil and gas. The energy industry might follow that playbook again with hydrogen.



MOST POPULAR

What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.

Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.

Related Stories
Money
Worldwide Efforts to Reverse the Baby Shortage Are Falling Flat
By CHELSEY DULANEY 15/10/2024
Money
Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation
By LISA WARD 15/10/2024
Money
The Trick to Bragging in a Job Interview
By ALINA DIZIK 14/10/2024

Subsidised minivans, no income taxes: Countries have rolled out a range of benefits to encourage bigger families, with no luck

By CHELSEY DULANEY
Tue, Oct 15, 2024 7 min

Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidised minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes.

Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.

These are among the benefits—along with cheap child care, extra vacation and free fertility treatments—that have been doled out to parents in different parts of Europe, a region at the forefront of the worldwide baby shortage. Europe’s overall population shrank during the pandemic and is on track to contract by about 40 million by 2050, according to United Nations statistics.

Birthrates have been falling across the developed world since the 1960s. But the decline hit Europe harder and faster than demographers expected—a foreshadowing of the sudden drop in the U.S. fertility rate in recent years.

Reversing the decline in birthrates has become a national priority among governments worldwide, including in China and Russia , where Vladimir Putin declared 2024 “the year of the family.” In the U.S., both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have pledged to rethink the U.S.’s family policies . Harris wants to offer a $6,000 baby bonus. Trump has floated free in vitro fertilisation and tax deductions for parents.

Europe and other demographically challenged economies in Asia such as South Korea and Singapore have been pushing back against the demographic tide with lavish parental benefits for a generation. Yet falling fertility has persisted among nearly all age groups, incomes and education levels. Those who have many children often say they would have them even without the benefits. Those who don’t say the benefits don’t make enough of a difference.

Two European countries devote more resources to families than almost any other nation: Hungary and Norway. Despite their programs, they have fertility rates of 1.5 and 1.4 children for every woman, respectively—far below the replacement rate of 2.1, the level needed to keep the population steady. The U.S. fertility rate is 1.6.

Demographers suggest the reluctance to have kids is a fundamental cultural shift rather than a purely financial one.

“I used to say to myself, I’m too young. I have to finish my bachelor’s degree. I have to find a partner. Then suddenly I woke up and I was 28 years old, married, with a car and a house and a flexible job and there were no more excuses,” said Norwegian Nancy Lystad Herz. “Even though there are now no practical barriers, I realised that I don’t want children.”

The Hungarian model

Both Hungary and Norway spend more than 3% of GDP on their different approaches to promoting families—more than the amount they spend on their militaries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Hungary says in recent years its spending on policies for families has exceeded 5% of GDP. The U.S. spends around 1% of GDP on family support through child tax credits and programs aimed at low-income Americans.

Hungary’s subsidised housing loan program has helped almost 250,000 families buy or upgrade their homes, the government says. Orsolya Kocsis, a 28-year-old working in human resources, knows having kids would help her and her husband buy a larger house in Budapest, but it isn’t enough to change her mind about not wanting children.

“If we were to say we’ll have two kids, we could basically buy a new house tomorrow,” she said. “But morally, I would not feel right having brought a life into this world to buy a house.”

Promoting baby-making, known as pro natalism, is a key plank of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’s broader populist agenda . Hungary’s biennial Budapest Demographic Summit has become a meeting ground for prominent conservative politicians and thinkers. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and JD Vance, Trump’s vice president pick, have lauded Orbán’s family policies.

Orbán portrays having children inside what he has called a “traditional” family model as a national duty, as well as an alternative to immigration for growing the population. The benefits for child-rearing in Hungary are mostly reserved for married, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Couples who divorce lose subsidised interest rates and in some cases have to pay back the support.

Hungary’s population, now less than 10 million, has been shrinking since the 1980s. The country is about the size of Indiana.

“Because there are so few of us, there’s always this fear that we are disappearing,” said Zsuzsanna Szelényi, program director at the CEU Democracy Institute and author of a book on Orbán.

Hungary’s fertility rate collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union and by 2010 was down to 1.25 children for every woman. Orbán, a father of five, and his Fidesz party swept back into power that year after being ousted in the early 2000s. He expanded the family support system over the next decade.

Hungary’s fertility rate rose to 1.6 children for every woman in 2021. Ivett Szalma, an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, said that like in many other countries, women in Hungary who had delayed having children after the global financial crisis were finally catching up.

Then progress stalled. Hungary’s fertility rate has fallen for the past two years. Around 51,500 babies have been born there this year through August, a 10% drop compared with the same period last year. Many Hungarian women cite underfunded public health and education systems and difficulties balancing work and family as part of their hesitation to have more children.

Anna Nagy, a 35-year-old former lawyer, had her son in January 2021. She received a loan of about $27,300 that she didn’t have to start paying back until he turned 3. Nagy had left her job before getting pregnant but still received government-funded maternity payments, equal to 70% of her former salary, for the first two years and a smaller amount for a third year.

She used to think she wanted two or three kids, but now only wants one. She is frustrated at the implication that demographic challenges are her responsibility to solve. Economists point to increased immigration and a higher retirement age as other offsets to the financial strains on government budgets from a declining population.

“It’s not our duty as Hungarian women to keep the nation alive,” she said.

Big families

Hungary is especially generous to families who have several children, or who give birth at younger ages. Last year, the government announced it would restrict the loan program used by Nagy to women under 30. Families who pledge to have three or more children can get more than $150,000 in subsidised loans. Other benefits include a lifetime exemption from personal taxes for mothers with four or more kids, and up to seven extra annual vacation days for both parents.

Under another program that’s now expired, nearly 30,000 families used a subsidy to buy a minivan, the government said.

Critics of Hungary’s family policies say the money is wasted on people who would have had large families anyway. The government has also been criticised for excluding groups such as the minority Roma population and poorer Hungarians. Bank accounts, credit histories and a steady employment history are required for many of the incentives.

Orbán’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment. Tünde Fűrész, head of a government-backed demographic research institute, disagreed that the policies are exclusionary and said the loans were used more heavily in economically depressed areas.

Eszter Gerencsér and her husband, Tamas, always wanted a big family. Photo: Akos Stiller for WSJ

Government programs weren’t a determining factor for Eszter Gerencsér, 37, who said she and her husband always wanted a big family. They have four children, ages 3 to 10.

They received about $62,800 in low-interest loans through government programs and $35,500 in grants. They used the money to buy and renovate a house outside of Budapest. After she had her fourth child, the government forgave $11,000 of the debt. Her family receives a monthly payment of about $40 a month for each child.

Most Hungarian women stay home with their children until they turn 2, after which maternity payments are reduced. Publicly run nurseries are free for large families like hers. Gerencsér worked on and off between her pregnancies and returned full-time to work, in a civil-service job, earlier this year.

She still thinks Hungarian society is stacked against mothers and said she struggled to find a job because employers worried she would have to take lots of time off.

The country’s international reputation as family-friendly is “what you call good marketing,” she said.

Gina Ekholt said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child. Photo: Signe Fuglesteg Luksengard for WSJ

Nordic largesse

Norway has been incentivising births for decades with generous parental leave and subsidised child care. New parents in Norway can share nearly a year of fully paid leave, or around 14 months at 80% pay. More than three months are reserved for fathers to encourage more equal caregiving. Mothers are entitled to take at least an hour at work to breast-feed or pump.

The government’s goal has never been explicitly to encourage people to have more children, but instead to make it easier for women to balance careers and children, said Trude Lappegard, a professor who researches demography at the University of Oslo. Norway doesn’t restrict benefits for unmarried parents or same-sex couples.

Its fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman has steadily fallen from nearly 2 in 2009. Unlike Hungary, Norway’s population is still growing for now, due mostly to immigration.

“It is difficult to say why the population is having fewer children,” Kjersti Toppe, the Norwegian Minister of Children and Families, said in an email. She said the government has increased monthly payments for parents and has formed a committee to investigate the baby bust and ways to reverse it.

More women in Norway are childless or have only one kid. The percentage of 45-year-old women with three or more children fell to 27.5% last year from 33% in 2010. Women are also waiting longer to have children—the average age at which women had their first child reached 30.3 last year. The global surge in housing costs and a longer timeline for getting established in careers likely plays a role, researchers say. Older first-time mothers can face obstacles: Women 35 and older are at higher risk of infertility and pregnancy complications.

Gina Ekholt, 39, said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child and allowed her to maintain her career as a senior adviser at the nonprofit Save the Children Norway. She had her daughter at age 34 after a round of state-subsidised IVF that cost about $1,600. She wanted to have more children but can’t because of fertility issues.

She receives a monthly stipend of about $160 a month, almost fully offsetting a $190 monthly nursery fee.

“On the economy side, it hasn’t made a bump. What’s been difficult for me is trying to have another kid,” she said. “The notion that we should have more kids, and you’re very selfish if you have only had one…those are the things that took a toll on me.”

Her friend Ewa Sapieżyńska, a 44-year-old Polish-Norwegian writer and social scientist with one son, has helped her see the upside of the one-child lifestyle. “For me, the decision is not about money. It’s about my life,” she said.