Project HySpeed, one of the UK’s most heavily promoted hydrogen projects, is facing serious doubts despite bold claims about its potential. The project, which promises £6.5 billion in investment, 24,000 new jobs, and major emissions cuts, is led by a group of companies including JCB, Wrightbus, Ryze Hydrogen, National Gas, Centrica, and others. They say they’ll build enough hydrogen production capacity to power a gigawatt of green energy by 2030, reports Clean Technology.
On the surface, the project appears ambitious and aligned with the UK’s climate goals. But behind the optimistic headlines lies a much more complicated and risky reality.
The two main players driving HySpeed — the Bamford family companies (including JCB and Wrightbus) and National Gas — have strong financial interests in making hydrogen succeed. JCB and Wrightbus have invested heavily in hydrogen-powered vehicles and fuel stations, while National Gas sees hydrogen as a way to keep using its vast gas pipeline network as natural gas declines. If hydrogen doesn’t succeed on a large scale, both could be left with equipment and infrastructure they can’t use.
JCB, for example, is focused on building hydrogen-powered engines, even though electric construction machines are already on the market and proving more affordable. Wrightbus faces similar problems. Battery-powered buses are becoming the norm across Europe due to lower costs and simpler charging setups, and hydrogen buses are losing out to these faster-growing options.
Meanwhile, National Gas is depending on hydrogen to keep its pipeline network in use. But as the UK moves toward clean electricity, gas use is falling, and many experts say hydrogen won’t be able to take its place — especially not cheaply.
The core problem with HySpeed is that the numbers don’t work. Producing green hydrogen is still very expensive. Current prices in the UK are often £9 to £10 per kilogram, and even higher at fueling stations — sometimes over £21. Supporters hope costs will fall to £6 by 2030, but those figures don’t account for the high costs of moving, storing, and delivering hydrogen. Even if it’s cheaper to make, it’s still expensive to use.
By comparison, battery-powered vehicles and equipment have made big strides. They’re cheaper to run, easier to charge, and getting better every year. In buses, trucks, and even construction gear, batteries are winning out. Hydrogen simply can’t compete on cost or convenience.
This puts HySpeed in a tough spot. The project is built on the hope that hydrogen use will grow dramatically — even before it becomes affordable or widely needed. It’s a high-risk plan that depends heavily on continued government support and public funding. Without subsidies or regulations to force hydrogen into use, demand could fall short. And if businesses like bus companies or steel factories aren’t confident in stable, low prices for hydrogen, they’re unlikely to invest in switching to it.
There are also major risks with building the infrastructure HySpeed depends on — including new hydrogen production plants and the conversion of old gas pipelines. These are large, complicated projects that could run into delays, cost overruns, or safety concerns. Similar efforts in other countries, like the Netherlands, have already seen budgets spiral out of control. A Dutch hydrogen pipeline originally expected to cost €1.5 billion is now projected to cost more than €3.8 billion — possibly even €5–6 billion by completion. It’s also expected to operate well below capacity, meaning taxpayers could be left footing the bill for something barely used.
HySpeed’s backers hope that if they build big enough, fast enough, they can push the market to follow. But this strategy has failed many times before when based on over-optimistic assumptions. Hydrogen still isn’t cheap, practical, or necessary for most uses. It works best in a few specific areas, like certain industrial processes, but not for transport, heating, or everyday power.
If HySpeed fails, the consequences could be widespread. Public money would be wasted, and the UK’s broader efforts to cut emissions could lose momentum. Confidence in clean energy strategies might be shaken, and real solutions like renewable electricity, energy efficiency, and electric transport could be pushed aside.
The smarter path, experts argue, is to narrow the focus. Instead of trying to use hydrogen everywhere, the UK should target it where it’s truly needed — like replacing fossil fuels in heavy industry — and let proven technologies like batteries and clean electricity lead the way elsewhere.
Unless the HySpeed team adjusts its plans, the project risks becoming a costly mistake, driven more by the need to save old investments than by a clear, affordable path to a cleaner future.
