The global transition to a hydrogen economy is reshaping energy geopolitics, introducing new dynamics that mirror and diverge from traditional fossil fuel trade. Hydrogen trade, particularly under the framework of export-import infrastructure, is influenced by resource nationalism, strategic alliances, and supply chain dependencies. These factors determine how nations secure energy independence, form partnerships, and mitigate risks in an emerging market. The geopolitical landscape of hydrogen trade presents both opportunities for collaboration and potential for conflict, much like oil and gas, but with distinct differences due to hydrogen’s production and transportation complexities.

Resource nationalism plays a critical role in hydrogen trade, as countries with abundant renewable energy or fossil fuel reserves seek to leverage their natural advantages. Nations with high solar or wind potential, such as Australia, Chile, and Saudi Arabia, are positioning themselves as future hydrogen exporters. These countries aim to capitalize on green hydrogen production, using their renewable resources to attract foreign investment and secure long-term trade agreements. However, this also raises concerns about resource hoarding and export restrictions, similar to the oil embargoes of the 1970s. For example, a country with vast renewable capacity might prioritize domestic hydrogen use over exports to meet decarbonization goals, creating supply shortages for import-dependent nations. This scenario echoes the tensions seen in liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets, where export controls by major producers disrupt global supply chains.

Strategic alliances are another key factor shaping hydrogen trade. Bilateral and multilateral agreements are being forged to establish stable supply routes and shared infrastructure. The European Union, for instance, has pursued partnerships with North African nations to import green hydrogen, leveraging proximity and existing pipeline networks. Japan and Australia have also formed a hydrogen supply chain alliance, combining Japanese technology with Australian renewable resources. These alliances reduce reliance on single suppliers and diversify risk, much like traditional energy security strategies. However, hydrogen alliances differ in their emphasis on technology transfer and joint infrastructure development, as hydrogen requires specialized storage and transport solutions like ammonia carriers or liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs). The success of these partnerships hinges on aligning economic incentives and regulatory frameworks, which can be complicated by differing national priorities.

Supply chain dependencies introduce vulnerabilities in hydrogen trade, particularly due to the nascent state of global infrastructure. Unlike oil, which can be transported via tankers and pipelines with well-established routes, hydrogen trade requires significant upfront investment in liquefaction facilities, ammonia conversion plants, or dedicated pipelines. This creates bottlenecks, as only a few countries currently possess the infrastructure to export hydrogen at scale. Germany’s reliance on imported hydrogen for its industrial sector, for example, exposes it to supply chain disruptions if key exporters face production delays or geopolitical instability. The concentration of electrolyzer manufacturing in certain regions, such as China and Europe, further complicates supply chains, as countries competing for limited equipment face higher costs and delays.

Comparing hydrogen to traditional energy geopolitics reveals both parallels and distinctions. Oil and gas markets have long been dominated by producer cartels like OPEC, which influence prices through production quotas. Hydrogen markets may eventually see similar blocs emerge, particularly among green hydrogen producers. However, hydrogen’s versatility in production methods—ranging from renewable-powered electrolysis to fossil-based methods with carbon capture—reduces the risk of monopolistic control. Unlike oil, which is geographically concentrated, hydrogen can be produced anywhere with sufficient energy input, potentially democratizing energy trade. Yet, the high cost of green hydrogen production currently limits this decentralization, favoring regions with cheap renewables or fossil fuels with carbon capture capabilities.

Case studies illustrate how geopolitical tensions and collaborations shape hydrogen trade flows. The rivalry between China and the United States in clean energy technology extends to hydrogen, with both nations investing heavily in electrolyzer production and export infrastructure. China’s dominance in electrolyzer manufacturing gives it leverage over hydrogen supply chains, akin to its control over rare earth elements. Meanwhile, the EU’s hydrogen import strategy reflects its historical dependence on Russian gas, seeking to avoid similar vulnerabilities by diversifying suppliers. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s push to become a hydrogen exporter mirrors its oil-based economy strategy, using hydrogen to maintain geopolitical influence amid declining fossil fuel demand.

Collaborative efforts also demonstrate hydrogen’s potential to foster international cooperation. The Nordic countries are exploring a regional hydrogen market, sharing infrastructure and balancing intermittent renewable production across borders. Similarly, the Asia-Pacific region is developing hydrogen trade corridors, with projects like the Brunei-Japan hydrogen supply chain testing the feasibility of long-distance transport. These initiatives highlight how hydrogen can strengthen energy interdependence, reducing the risk of conflict over resources.

The geopolitical impact of hydrogen trade will intensify as the market matures. Nations must navigate resource competition, forge stable alliances, and build resilient supply chains to secure their energy futures. While hydrogen introduces new complexities, its potential to decentralize energy production and reduce carbon emissions offers a pathway to a more stable and sustainable geopolitical landscape. The lessons learned from traditional energy geopolitics will inform strategies, but the unique characteristics of hydrogen demand innovative approaches to trade and diplomacy. The coming decades will test whether hydrogen can fulfill its promise as a tool for energy security or become another source of geopolitical contention.