水素
概要
これからの製造ルートは、炭素回収を伴うメタン改質から、再生可能エネルギーや化石燃料を動力源とする熱分解、廃棄物ガス化、電気分解まで多岐にわたります。水素を製造するために使用されるプロセスとエネルギーの組み合わせは、工業用熱と主要化学物質の既存ユーザーに、困難な状況を突きつけています。
Argus Hydrogen and Future Fuels サービスは、産業用電力、化学品、エネルギーのユーザーに、十分な情報に基づいた意思決定を支援するための重要な情報を提供するよう設計されています。プロジェクトに関する上流、輸送と貯蔵に関する中流、アンモニアとメタノールに関する下流をカバーしています。また、世界中の水素に関する最新の技術開発や政策ニュースもカバーしています。
最新ニュース
世界の水素業界に関する最新の市場動向ニュース
EU parliament committee opposes CBAM suspension clause
EU parliament committee opposes CBAM suspension clause
Brussels, 5 May (Argus) — The European Parliament's environment committee opposes amending the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) with a new article 27a that allows for temporary suspension for certain goods, notably fertilizers. During its first formal debate, committee members broadly backed deleting the proposed article 27a. "Keeping that article would effectively mean game over for low-carbon industry investments in Europe," parliament's draftsman Mohammed Chahim said. If the European Commission believes that CBAM's scope should be adjusted, it should use an urgent legislative procedure, he said. Dutch centre-left member of the parliament (MEP) Chahim has presented a legal report critical of CBAM suspension. Polish MEP Adam Jarubas, speaking for parliament's largest centre-right EPP group, said it also opposes article 27a. But he said that farmers' concerns must be addressed, adding that the EPP will make proposals to support the sector. Parliament's draftsman for CBAM's proposed export support scheme, Pascal Canfin, also said farmers should be protected. He supports covering agricultural products such as grain and wheat, rather than bringing farmers themselves under the EU emissions trading system (ETS). Canfin called for export reimbursement before 2029 and for compensation to be limited to the share of production that is exported. But the French liberal MEP also wants CBAM extended to downstream operators and transformed products, notably in steel. "We support the deletion of article 27a," Austrian Green MEP Lena Schilling said, adding that her group will also seek to remove references to international carbon credits from the CBAM revision. "EU companies cannot replace emissions allowances with such credits. CBAM has to mirror this logic," she said. Like other groups, the Greens will propose amendments to extend CBAM to downstream products. Schilling said that around 130 additional combined nomenclature (CN) codes could be added, including for iron and steel products. More than 100 associations and companies representing the steel and aluminium industries separately urged the parliament and European Council in a joint statement this week to extend CBAM to downstream steel and aluminium-intensive products, arguing that downstream sectors in these industries face increasing competition from imports that are not covered by CBAM, creating imbalances in the market. German EPP MEP Peter Liese also supports extending CBAM to more products, but said including the entire chemical sector would be too complex. He also questioned keeping hydrogen under CBAM given the lack of imports. Liese strongly opposes article 27a. Some far-right and conservative MEPs backed suspension for fertilizers via article 27a. Alternative for Germany's Anja Arndt called for both the EU ETS and CBAM to be abolished, criticising the expansion of EU climate policy. In its EU fertilizer plan expected on 19 May, the commission should at a minimum propose CBAM suspension and long-term measures to offset farmers' costs, farm lobby Copa-Cogeca said. The group also called for clarity on the redistribution of CBAM revenues. It estimates that CBAM could cost EU farmers €820mn in 2026, rising to €3.4bn by 2034, with around 30pc of nitrogen fertilizer imported. The environment committee is set to vote on the issue on 6 July, ahead of a plenary vote in September, enabling talks with EU states on a final legal text. EU member states agreed their position in March , allowing article 27a to apply for at least one full calendar year and no more than two. By Dafydd ab Iago Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
IMO net-zero framework consensus remains elusive
IMO net-zero framework consensus remains elusive
London, 1 May (Argus) — Consensus at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 84) this week remained elusive, with the US leading countries opposed to the proposed Net-Zero Framework (NZF) for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. By late Friday evening, the majority of member states reached an agreement on the J7 document, which sets out future work for the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships to be held between now and November. The current proposed draft of the NZF , would require ships to reduce their fuel intensity by at least 4pc in 2028, rising to 30pc in 2035, creating a global carbon levy for shipping emissions. The creation of the NZF was approved at MEPC 83 in April 2025, but the planned approval of the regulation in October 2025 was postponed to this October because of a lack of consensus. Countries this week reviewed and debated plans for the proposed NZF, in hopes of finding consensus ahead of the October vote. Several countries this week sought to reshape the NZF proposal, with changes to the GHG pricing mechanism and global fuel intensity (GFI) guidelines. But the atmosphere at MEPC 84 was markedly more constructive than in the October meeting, some delegates told Argus . Formal adoptions at MEPC 84 focused on ballast water management, marine plastic litter and bio fouling, while discussions on the decarbonisation of the shipping industry were treated as preparatory ahead of the planned October vote. IMO officials repeatedly framed the talks as an effort to avoid a repeat of last year's breakdown and to prepare the ground for agreement later this year. Proposals by Liberia and Japan As part of the dialogue this week, member states proposed 57 amendments to the NZF. Several delegations reiterated their support for the revised NZF proposal submitted by Liberia, co-sponsored by Argentina and Panama, and a delegate told Argus this appears to be the main suggestion considered by IMO member states. The Liberian proposal calls for adjusting the Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) trajectory to reflect the demonstrated availability and uptake of low-carbon fuels, rather than fixed aspirational targets, and proposes to remove the creation of an IMO-managed fund financed by penalty payments. Under the proposal, fuels would qualify as compliant only if they meet defined viability criteria, including affordability, availability and scalability, with costs capped at no more than 15pc above conventional bunker fuels. But member states' views diverged mainly on the IMO-managed fund and the penalty payments determined in the draft on which members failed to reach consensus in October 2025. Japan's proposal also emerged strengthened from the meeting, a delegate said. The submission seeks the removal of mandatory payments to the IMO Net-Zero Fund. Instead, Japan proposes that compliance deficits should be balanced solely through market mechanisms, allowing ships to meet obligations by transferring surplus units generated by over compliant vessels. The proposal also calls for easing the Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) reduction trajectory from 2030 onwards. Continued lack of consensus The US, Russia, UAE, Saudi Arabia and others were opposed to the framework, while the EU, UK, China, Brazil and India were in favour. US delegate and Federal Maritime Commission chair Laura DiBella said the NZF is an unnecessary tax on US shippers and vessels operating in international waters. "The NZF would cost the maritime industry billions of dollars annually," DiBella said. "As the largest consumer of imported goods, these costs will be directly passed onto US consumers." Last year, the US threatened to retaliate against countries that backed the proposal. The deferral of the vote last October caused price declines in several alternative bunker fuel markets last year. Without at least a two-thirds majority consensus in favour of the framework, the IMO could potentially vote to adjourn or reject the NZF in October. Despite the conflict of views, IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez emphasised progress made in inter-sessional talks on the technical backbone of the framework, particularly GHG fuel intensity calculation guidelines, fuel certification and life cycle assessment methodologies. MEPC 84 discussions also covered how to treat technologies such as onboard carbon capture and storage (CCS), for which the IMO is drafting a future framework. The IMO on Wednesday agreed to designate the North-East Atlantic ocean as an emissions control area (ECA). This should boost demand for lower emission bunker fuels, such as very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO), particularly for European LNG bunker markets, where methane slippage has increased in importance. By Madeleine Jenkins and Gabriel Tassi Lara Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Can collective buying solve the e-fuel offtake problem?
Can collective buying solve the e-fuel offtake problem?
Buyers clubs can secure more competitive terms than bilateral deals, and are making inroads in the maritime and aviation sectors, writes Pamela Machado Paris, 28 April (Argus) — Securing offtake remains the key barrier to progress for hydrogen and e-fuel projects, with producers and buyers struggling to align on the long-term commitments and pricing structures needed to secure financing. Collective procurement schemes, primarily aimed at reducing emissions from the aviation and maritime sectors, are emerging as a potential mechanism to break this deadlock. Initiatives such as the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance (Saba) and the Zero Emission Maritime Buyers Alliance (Zemba) are playing a growing role in facilitating offtake for e-fuels. They aggregate demand from large corporates seeking to cut Scope 3 emissions — from across a company's value chain — and use this pooled demand to tender for clean fuel use in freight and transport services. Members of these alliances include multinationals such as Amazon, Ikea, Microsoft and food and beverage firm Mondelez. Through competitive tenders, Saba and Zemba have contracted air and maritime transport providers that are committing to using a share of e-fuels. Member companies pay the premium associated with e-fuel use and will receive the environmental attributes associated with this through certificates issued under a book-and-claim system. Such collective buying mechanisms are a win-win situation for companies and e-fuel producers, industry participants say. Saba and Zemba members "benefit from the economies of scale associated with a collective procurement model", allowing them to secure more competitive terms than what would be possible through bilateral deals, Center for Green Market Activation (GMA) managing director Andre de Fontaine tells Argus . GMA co-manages Saba, working alongside the Environmental Defense Fund and the Rocky Mountains Institute. Buyers are also increasingly worried about fossil fuel price volatility caused by geopolitical tensions. Beyond cutting emissions, collective buying can help them "future-proof their supply chains", Zemba chief executive Ingrid Irigoyen says. Confidence to invest For producers, aggregated demand offers the scale and duration needed for investment decisions. It provides the "long-term offtake certainty needed to support new supply and attract project financing", US developer Infinium's strategy and solutions senior vice-president, Liz Myers, says. Infinium was recently selected to supply synthetic aviation fuel (e-SAF) through a Saba tender. The arrangements "simplify the offtake process for producers" and offer members a reliable framework that ensures fuels meet certain sustainability standards, Myers says. Infinium expects to supply e-SAF to American Airlines from 2029, while shipping line Hapag Lloyd — one of the winners of Zemba's most recent tender — plans to burn e-methanol on a transoceanic route from 2027. Both initiatives also facilitate offtake of biofuels, particularly during initial tenders. But feedstock availability constraints and expectations for potential future price increases prompted a shift in strategy. After Zemba's first tender selected waste-based biomethane as a shipping fuel, the group focused on enabling e-fuels in a second round, because e-fuels offer greater long-term scalability, near-zero emissions and the potential for price reductions as markets mature, Irigoyen says. Neither Saba nor Zemba receives public funding and financial commitments to offtake must ultimately come from members. For now, Scope 3 emissions reductions remain largely voluntary — although reporting is required in some jurisdictions, including the EU. Collective buying is therefore not a magic formula that will by itself nurture a wider e-fuels ecosystem beyond infancy. But it is already providing a tangible demand signal to developers and has helped to unlock offtake in some cases where bilateral negotiations may have stalled. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
E-Fuel- und Wasserstoffquotenhandel nimmt langsam zu
E-Fuel- und Wasserstoffquotenhandel nimmt langsam zu
Hamburg, 28 April (Argus) — In Deutschland zeigen sich im Rahmen der nationalen Umsetzung der RED III erste Anzeichen für den Handel mit Treibhausgaseinsparungen auf Basis von synthetischen Kraftstoffen nicht-biogenen Ursprungs (RFNBOs), wie e-Fuels und grünem Wasserstoff. Die Aktivität bleibt bislang jedoch gering. Marktteilnehmer führten dies auf die spät finalisierte THG-Gesetzgebung sowie auf das weiterhin geringe Angebot an physischen RFNBOs zurück. Im EU-Ausland zeigt sich ein ähnliches Bild. Mehrere in den vergangenen Wochen gemeldete Transaktionen wurden laut Marktteilnehmern mit Rücktritts- oder Anpassungsklauseln versehen. Diese sahen vor, dass Verträge aufgehoben oder nachverhandelt werden können, sollte die endgültige Gesetzgebung wesentlich von den bis Vertragsschluss vorliegenden Entwürfen abweichen. Diese regulatorischen Unsicherheiten, welche vor der Finalisierung der THG-Gesetzgebung existierten, verhinderten laut Marktteilnehmern bislang einen nachhaltigen Anstieg der Liquidität. Die regulatorischen Rahmenbedingungen haben sich nun allerdings konkretisiert: Der Bundestag beschloss am 23. April eine Anhebung der Quote für erneuerbaren Wasserstoff im Straßenverkehr auf 1,5 % bis 2030. Zudem sollen RFNBOs bis Ende 2036 von einem dreifachen Anrechnungsfaktor auf die Treibhausgasminderungsquote profitieren. Der Gesetzentwurf liegt nun dem Bundesrat vor, dessen nächste Sitzung für den 8. Mai angesetzt ist. Der Entwurf sieht erstmals auch eine konkrete Strafzahlung von 120 €/GJ bei Nichterfüllung der RFNBO-Unterquote vor. Dies entspräche rund 14,40 €/kg Wasserstoff und liegt somit deutlich über gängigen Kostenschätzungen für erneuerbaren Wasserstoff in Deutschland. Marktteilnehmer werten diesen Sanktionsmechanismus als mittelfristigen Treiber für RFNBO-Liquidität in Deutschland, da das Inverkehrbringen von RFNBOs in Deutschland Treibhausgasminderungszertifikate generiert, die zur Erfüllung der allgemeinen THG-Quote eingesetzt werden können. Zusätzlich sind sie nötig zur Erfüllung der spezifischen RFNBO-Unterquote. In den Niederlanden wurden bislang noch keine Einsparungen aus RFNBO-Einsatz gehandelt. Die niederländische Umsetzung von RED III wurde jedoch jüngst verabschiedet und gilt rückwirkend ab dem 1. Januar 2026. Der Marktfokus richtet sich unter anderem auf das Projekt Holland Hydrogen I von Shell in Rotterdam, das ab 2027 signifikante Mengen an erneuerbarem Wasserstoff liefern könnte. Im Vereinigten Königreich bleibt die Liquidität des Marktes für Development Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (DRTFCs) ebenfalls schwach. Die Handelsaktivität konzentriert sich weiterhin auf die Zeiträume kurz vor Ende der Erfüllungsfristen, weshalb sich bislang kein kontinuierlich liquider Spotmarkt etabliert hat. Unabhängig von den unterschiedlichen nationalen Umsetzungen bestehen unter RED III grundsätzlich zwei Wege zur Generierung von RFNBO-Zertifikaten: Der erste Weg umfasst die direkte Bereitstellung von erneuerbarem Wasserstoff oder dessen Derivaten wie E-Methanol oder E-Methan für den Verkehrssektor. Der zweite Weg ist die sogenannte Raffinerieroute, bei der erneuerbarer Wasserstoff als Einsatzstoff bei der Herstellung von Kraftstoffen verwendet wird. Marktteilnehmer erwarten überwiegend, dass die Raffinerieroute den Großteil der Quotenerfüllung abdecken wird, da sie im Vergleich zur direkten Endnutzung von RFNBOs kostengünstiger ist. Einige Länder, darunter die Niederlande und Italien, haben jedoch Regelungen eingeführt, die einen Mindestanteil der direkten RFNBO-Nutzung im Verkehr vorschreiben. Europaweit haben bislang nur Deutschland, Belgien und Spanien Pläne für RFNBO-Unterquoten über das Jahr 2030 hinaus vorgeschlagen — finalisiert wurde jedoch noch keiner. Das Fehlen verbindlicher langfristiger Signale belastet weiterhin Investitionsentscheidungen in Projekte für erneuerbaren Wasserstoff und E-Kraftstoffe, deren Planung und Umsetzung in der Regel mehrere Jahre in Anspruch nimmt. Von Madeleine Jenkins, Marcel Pott Senden Sie Kommentare und fordern Sie weitere Informationen an feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
