SMM Analysis: Global Green Hydrogen Supply Chain Restructuring, January-April 2025 Progress and New Geopolitical Landscape

Introduction
In Q1 2025, the global hydrogen industry underwent a quiet yet profound transformation—the green hydrogen supply chain shifted from single-technology competition to a system reconstruction dominated by geo-economics. With the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) taking effect, the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) details being finalized, and the joint promotion of the Northeast Asia Hydrogen Corridor by China, Japan, and South Korea, the cross-border trade rules, production standards, and supply chain layout of green hydrogen accelerated differentiation, forming a "multi-polar supply chain network" centered on regional blocs. In this process, driven by both technological breakthroughs and policy games, green hydrogen leaped from a "supplementary energy role" to a strategic bargaining chip in great power competition. This article will focus on the reconstruction logic of the global green hydrogen supply chain, analyzing the geo-economic motivations and industrial impacts behind it.

I. Three Drivers of Supply Chain Reconstruction: Policy, Technology, and Capital

1. Policy Barriers: From "Subsidy Competition" to "Standards War" 
 EU: Defining Trade Boundaries with "Green Hydrogen Certification"
  In February 2025, the European Commission passed the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED III), requiring imported green hydrogen to meet a life cycle carbon emission of ≤3 kg CO₂/kg H₂ and introducing blockchain technology to track the origin of green hydrogen. This standard, referred to as the "WTO rules of the hydrogen market" by the industry, directly excluded Brazilian sugarcane bagasse hydrogen and Middle Eastern natural gas blending projects from the "green" label. The EU's "carbon tariff" and certification system essentially built a "moat" for its internal hydrogen industry.  
 Chain Reaction: Brazil filed a lawsuit with the WTO, accusing the EU of "setting up trade barriers in disguise"; Middle Eastern countries accelerated the layout of blue hydrogen capacity to hedge policy risks.

US: Localization Rate Requirements Tear Apart the Global Supply Chain
  In March 2025, the US Department of Energy clarified that clean hydrogen tax credits must meet a localization rate of ≥60% for electrolyzer equipment, and the power source must be domestic renewable energy or nuclear energy. This forced companies like Germany's McPhy and Norway's NEL Hydrogen to adjust their strategies: either invest in building factories in the US or exit the North American market.  
  Data Confirmation: In Q1 2025, European exports of electrolyzers to the US fell by 28% YoY, while the utilization rate of domestic electrolyzer capacity in the US increased to 75%.

Asia: Regional Alliance Against Geo-Isolation 
  On April 16, China, Japan, and South Korea signed the "Northeast Asia Hydrogen Corridor Memorandum of Understanding," planning to use wind and solar resources in Inner Mongolia, China, to produce hydrogen, which would be liquefied and transported by ship to Japan and South Korea. This cooperation was seen by the outside world as Asia's "strategic leverage" against the EU's dominance in green hydrogen, attempting to break the monopoly of European and American standards through the "resource-technology-market" triangular complementarity.

2. Technological Breakthroughs: Storage and Transportation Revolution Breaks Geographic Constraints of the Supply Chain
Solid-State Hydrogen Storage: From Laboratory to Cross-Border Logistics
  In March, China's CORUN Group released a titanium-iron-based solid-state hydrogen storage tank with a hydrogen storage density of 50 kg/m³ and a cycle life exceeding 10,000 cycles. This technology allows hydrogen to be safely transported at room temperature and pressure, reducing costs by 40% compared to high-pressure gaseous storage and transportation. In April, Japan's Chiyoda and France's Air Liquide collaborated to deploy the world's first organic liquid hydrogen storage (LOHC) pilot facility at the Port of Rotterdam, increasing the hydrogen storage density to 60 kg/m³.  
 Strategic Significance: The maturity of solid-state and liquid storage and transportation technologies enables countries with abundant wind and solar resources, such as Australia and the Middle East, to convert green hydrogen into transportable forms, directly connecting with East Asian and European markets.

Liquid Hydrogen Carriers: The "New Oil Pipelines" of the Maritime Network
  In April, France's Total launched the construction of the world's first liquid hydrogen carrier, designed with a capacity of 50 mt per voyage, aiming to establish the Australia-Europe liquid hydrogen trade route; the US's Amprius built the world's longest (500 km) high-pressure gaseous hydrogen pipeline, using nitrogen blending technology to reduce hydrogen embrittlement risk by 70%.  
  Cost Analysis: When the transportation cost of liquid hydrogen drops below $2.5/kg, green hydrogen trade from Australia to Japan will become economically feasible.

3. Capital Restructuring: From "Single-Point Investment" to "Industry Chain Bundling"
Saudi Aramco and Hyundai Motor: Binding Resources and End-Use Markets
  Saudi Aramco plans to invest $10 billion in the Middle East to build an integrated "green hydrogen-ammonia-fuel cell" base, converting green hydrogen into green ammonia for export to Asia, where it will be cracked into hydrogen for fuel cell trucks. This model not only avoids the high costs of liquid hydrogen transportation but also reconstructs the supply chain through the mature ammonia trade network.  
 Industry Impact: Saudi Arabia's layout in the green hydrogen sector directly threatens Australia's strategic position as a "hydrogen export powerhouse."

China's "Wind and Solar Hydrogen Integration": Binding Resources and Technology  
  China Petrochemical's Xinjiang Kuqa Phase II PV hydrogen production project (with an annual output of 20,000 mt of green hydrogen) uses domestically produced ALK electrolyzers, reducing the life cycle cost by 35% compared to imported equipment. Such projects, through the bundling model of "wind and solar resources + domestic technology + ultra-high voltage transmission," form cost advantages, forcing European and American companies to adjust their supply chain strategies.

II. Three Blocs and Focal Points of Supply Chain Reconstruction

1. EU's "Green Fortress": Regional Closed Loop Under High Thresholds
Core Strategy: Build a "hydrogen trade firewall" through CBAM and RED III, mandating that imported green hydrogen complies with EU standards and imposing tariffs on "non-green" hydrogen.  
Bloc Members: Nordic countries (Norway, Iceland) provide hydropower hydrogen, Germany and France lead electrolyzer and fuel cell technology, and Southern Europe (Spain, Italy) focuses on PV hydrogen.  
Weakness: Significant differences in internal hydrogen production costs (Nordic green hydrogen costs $3.5/kg, Southern Europe $5.2/kg), and the reliance on Russia's natural gas pipeline network for energy storage and peak shaving has not been fully replaced.

2. US's "Local First": Technological Decoupling and Supply Chain Internalization 
Core Strategy: The IRA bill details link localization rate requirements with tax credits, forcing companies to keep key equipment such as electrolyzers and compressors in North America.  
Bloc Members: Domestic companies (Plug Power, NEL Hydrogen) lead electrolyzer manufacturing, First Solar and NextEra Energy provide green electricity, and Tesla and Nikola Motors drive end-use applications.  
Risk: Excessive localization slows down technological iteration, and the "semi-local" supply chains in Canada and Mexico face compliance disputes.

3. Asia's "Multi-Polar Alliance": Resource and Market Hedging Layout
China-Japan-South Korea Alliance: Focuses on hydrogen production from China's wind and solar resources, Japan's liquid hydrogen transportation technology, and South Korea's fuel cell applications, attempting to bypass EU standards.  
Middle East-Southeast Asia Alliance: Saudi Arabia and the UAE focus on blue/green hydrogen exports, while Indonesia and Malaysia use biomass hydrogen to participate in regional trade.  
Focal Point: The China-Japan-South Korea alliance needs to address high hydrogen liquefaction costs and insufficient storage and transportation infrastructure; the Middle East faces competitive pressure from Europe's "green ammonia substitution" strategy.

III. Industrial Impacts and Future Challenges Under Reconstruction

1. Role Split of Traditional Energy Giants
Companies like Saudi Aramco and Shell must balance maintaining traditional oil and gas interests with investing in the new green hydrogen track. Saudi Aramco reduces transition risks through its "hydrogen-ammonia" strategy, while Shell faces resistance in the European market due to its adherence to the "blue hydrogen transition" route.

2. Intensified Technology Route Competition and Standard Setting Power Struggle 
The competition between high-temperature proton exchange membrane (HT-PEM) and solid oxide electrolyzer (SOEC) technologies has extended from the laboratory to trade rules. The EU attempts to establish HT-PEM as the sole standard for "green certification" through RED III, while the US supports SOEC to align with domestic nuclear power resources.

3. Geopolitical Conflicts Catalyze Supply Chain "De-Risking"
In the aftermath of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Europe accelerated its decoupling from Russia's natural gas pipeline network but fell into a "green hydrogen supply gap"; Middle Eastern and North African countries seized the opportunity to expand hydrogen exports to Europe, reshaping the geo-economic landscape.

IV. Trend Outlook: The "Triple Transformation" of Supply Chain Reconstruction
1. Trade Form Transformation: From "Direct Green Hydrogen Exports" to "Hydrogen-Based Intermediate (Ammonia, LOHC) Trade," with global hydrogen-based intermediate trade volume potentially exceeding 5 million mt in 2025.  
2. Standard System Transformation: The EU, US, and Asia may form three sets of green hydrogen certification systems, requiring companies to build "standard-compatible" supply chains to reduce compliance costs.  
3. Competition Logic Transformation: The green hydrogen industry shifts from "technological leadership" competition to "resource-technology-market" full-chain control, requiring companies to reposition themselves among the three blocs.

Conclusion
The reconstruction of the global green hydrogen supply chain is essentially a projection of international order transformation in the energy sector. As green hydrogen transitions from a "technological experiment" to a "geopolitical strategic material," its development logic has surpassed mere economic considerations, evolving into a new battlefield for great power competition. In the future, whoever can first break through storage and transportation bottlenecks, build a cross-border supply chain closed loop, and dominate standard setting will gain a voice in this reconstruction. The outcome of this process may determine the final shape of the global energy power structure in the mid-21st century.