���˿���

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, May 1, 2025

Official Report 1006KB pdf

---

Scotland’s Hydrogen Future

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17399, in the name of Gillian Martin, on Scotland’s hydrogen future. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I call the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin, to speak to and move the motion. You have up to 12 minutes, cabinet secretary.

14:59  

Colleagues, today’s debate on Scotland’s hydrogen future is important, and I am pleased to open it. Hydrogen stands as a critical pillar of Scotland’s route to net zero by 2045. Alongside the development of offshore wind capacity, it is one of Scotland’s greatest industrial opportunities since the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea. I will set out some of the progress that we have made to further develop the sector, the challenges that we still face and need to overcome, and why collaboration across Governments, sectors and borders will continue to be absolutely essential if we are to realise our hydrogen ambitions for Scotland and those for the whole of the United Kingdom.

As I have said many times, Scotland is committed to the target of reaching net zero by 2045. That ambitious target reflects our determination not only to lead by example in the UK and Europe in our response to the climate emergency, but, critically, to harness the vast economic opportunities that an energy transition presents for Scotland. The global shocks that we have experienced since 2022—geopolitical instability, energy market disruption caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the urgent drive towards energy security in Europe—have only underscored the need to work together in Scotland, across the United Kingdom and with our international partners, particularly in continental Europe, to bolster our energy security.

A just transition remains at the heart of our approach. We are determined that no community—particularly not the ones that have powered our economy for generations—will be left behind as we move away from the burning of fossil fuels towards a low-carbon energy system. We are working to build a hydrogen economy in which the benefits of our energy transition are shared and that harnesses the full potential of our skilled workforce and world-class industries, both of which are the envy of neighbouring countries, as well as the natural resources that Scotland is so lucky to have.

Our hydrogen action plan offers a pathway to decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. It can balance our power system, improve our energy security and, at the same time, secure high-quality jobs in our communities. Our hydrogen action plan and green industrial strategy dovetail to set out clear actions that will establish a thriving hydrogen economy in Scotland. Despite changing global conditions, we are firmly in delivery mode. We are not wavering from that ambition, and we have already made significant progress. We have a growing pipeline of more than 100 hydrogen production projects that are at varying stages of development, the majority of which are green hydrogen production projects. Those projects provide confidence in the future growth of the hydrogen economy in Scotland.

The UK Government’s hydrogen allocation rounds—HARs—are a vital mechanism for supporting low-carbon and renewable hydrogen production across the UK and providing revenue support to bridge the gap between clean hydrogen and fossil fuels. The first hydrogen allocation round—HAR1—delivered funding to two early Scottish projects—Cromarty hydrogen project and Whitelee wind farm—both of which are targeting production in 2026. A further eight Scottish projects, which were shortlisted last month in the HAR2 funding round, provide a significant boost to our progress on production capacity. Six Scottish projects have been boosted by capital funding awards from the UK net zero hydrogen fund.

In addition to the UK Government’s support, the Scottish Government has invested £30 million in the hydrogen sector. That includes £7 million in grants to 31 projects across Scotland via the hydrogen innovation scheme. That has been driving advances in renewable hydrogen production, storage and distribution and the innovation that is associated with that. A £3.1 million grant to Storegga’s Speyside hydrogen project in Moray is developing clean energy to help to decarbonise the whisky industry. I am immensely proud that our iconic whisky industry is one of the first movers in adopting that technology, which I think we will see happening at pace. Via the just transition fund, £6 million is also going to HydroGlen, which is a green farming pilot in Aberdeenshire. Additionally, the H100 project in Fife, a hydrogen for home heating trial that is run by Scotia Gas Networks and is the first of its kind in the world, is soon to commence. It is supported by £6.9 million in Scottish Government funding.

The cabinet secretary began by talking about hydrogen’s role in helping to decarbonise “hard-to-abate” sectors of the economy. Why is she now talking in positive terms about using it to decarbonise an easy-to-abate sector such as home heating?

I think that H100 is a proof of concept. We will have to look at multiple opportunities to decarbonise heating. Some areas in Scotland, such as the western and northern isles, will probably produce more green electricity than could even be put into a grid system. If the H100 project can prove the concept in the houses to which it supplies hydrogen, can do that safely and can then be rolled out to other areas, so that we are using green electricity to provide hydrogen, I see no problem in trialling that. It is being trialled by a company that is putting a tremendous amount of money into proving the concept when we are having to look at all the alternatives for fossil fuels as we work to decarbonise every aspect of our society.

Patrick Harvie raises an important point, because hydrogen is not an uncontroversial choice. It is not as energy-dense as gas, so there has to be a judgment about whether it is a sensible choice for some uses. I agree that we need to trial it, but does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that we must make a very careful judgment as to whether hydrogen is a sensible alternative to natural gas and a better choice than straightforward electrification, which is more direct and therefore more efficient, above all else?

This sort of debate can sometimes be frustrating, because some people are very keen on particular types of technology when there is a myriad of technologies. If SGN wants to prove the concept by investing in that project, for which we have given it a small amount of assistance, there will be learnings not only for Scotland but for the whole of the UK and for Europe, which is no bad thing.

I will talk about some of the other areas of work that we have given funding to. Projects in Orkney, Dumfries and Galloway, and Perth and Kinross are among 11 to be awarded a share of £3.4 million to develop the hydrogen supply chain. Further Scottish and UK Government investment, alongside private capital and privately funded innovation, continue to drive the establishment of a thriving hybrid sector and should mean that we will see fruits.

However, certainty and pace are also key to seizing the benefits of hydrogen, and, if we are to maintain momentum, we really need to see the UK Government setting out a clear timetable for the future hydrogen allocation rounds, because many projects want to bid for those. We must also confirm how GB Energy and the national wealth fund will help to boost hydrogen development across the whole of the country, so I am grateful for the conversations that I have been having with the UK Government on both of those points.

It is increasingly clear that realising Scotland’s hydrogen potential and delivering a balanced decarbonised system will require a national hydrogen network with integrated storage infrastructure and a national market for nitrogen, along with recognition of the international market for hydrogen. There is uncertainty about how, where and when network and storage infrastructure will be supported, which is one of the barriers hampering private sector investment in green hydrogen production.

Once built, a national hydrogen network is likely to deliver significant advantages for hydrogen producers located close by. The strategic spatial energy plan that is being developed by the national energy system operator—NESO—will identify the optimal locations for future energy generation and storage, as well as hydrogen infrastructure across the whole of Great Britain. That important work will be completed as soon as possible.

Scotland’s natural resources are not only vital to our own transition, but can and will contribute, and are contributing, significantly to energy security and decarbonisation goals in the UK and Europe. One important context, which I alluded to earlier, is that Europe’s largest manufacturing economy, Germany, is going through a massive energy shift from gas to hydrogen but is unable to produce hydrogen domestically at the scale that it requires and will need to import it from nearby or further afield. Germany is very interested in what is happening in Scotland and among our near neighbours, so we share a huge potential for the production of hydrogen and could play a significant role in helping our neighbours to decarbonise.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

There is time in hand, cabinet secretary.

I will not make my intervention too long. I very much understand the concept of exporting hydrogen, but we have to build the infrastructure. Professor Jim Skea, who leads the Government’s Just Transition Commission, said that he did not see evidence to justify where the export markets are going to be. Have work and research now been done to look at the costs and the opportunities?

The Scottish Government produced its own hydrogen export plan, which looks into exactly that, but it is not something that Scotland could do alone. We need to be working with the UK Government on it. We need to look at how we can partner with those who want to buy hydrogen that is produced in these isles to get it over there, and Germany is the biggest market for that at the moment. Since the election of the new Government, or in the embers of the previous Government, a great deal of borrowing has been taken on for infrastructure development, and it is critical that the UK Government is in the room with the German Government to talk about how we can improve the infrastructure that is associated with the export of hydrogen.

First, however, we need to be very clear that we need to use our hydrogen domestically, particularly to decarbonise our industry. If we get signals that a market in Germany will take on hydrogen as we produce more and more, that will mean that we have confidence in hydrogen being used domestically on a smaller scale in the meantime.

I am probably running over my speaking time. I have set out a lot of the things that we are doing. A lot of the challenges are well known. It is important for us not to delay on this. We need to speak with one voice, and I hope that we can do so, putting aside our disagreements about where hydrogen is best used. I hope that we can all agree that there is an opportunity for Scotland to capitalise on the fact that we will produce far more green electricity than we can get into our grid, even with the grid upgrades; that that represents a significant opportunity to show that Scotland is a world leader in hydrogen production; and that we must work with other nations on solutions for decarbonising industry. On my party’s benches, we are being consistent on that. I hope that we can also be consistent as a Parliament in driving that ambition forward.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that Scotland has the potential to be a leading hydrogen nation and is fully committed to helping the Scottish hydrogen sector to develop and grow as part of a wider European and international network; notes that, following the successful shortlisting of Scottish projects in the recent UK Hydrogen Allocation Round, Scotland is creating a hydrogen economy that will provide economic benefit and a renewable and low-carbon source of energy to help meet its net zero ambitions; supports efforts to ensure that hydrogen is supported via continued investment, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue taking steps to deliver the hydrogen sector export plan.

15:12  

I welcome this debate because, amid all the hoo-hah about net zero, just transition, affordable transition or whatever we want to call it, if we asked people whether they would like to be able to use a fuel that gives off nothing but water to power their homes and vehicles, most would say yes. That is, in essence, what hydrogen can deliver, and here in Scotland we can be at the forefront of developing the technology to do just that. It is a great opportunity, as the cabinet secretary said.

As ever, however, we need to get on with it, because, as ever, we are not doing well enough. I will give a small example of that. For all the cabinet secretary’s warm words, it remains true that, although a £100 million hydrogen action plan was announced in 2022, when she was at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on 14 January, she could not say how much of it had been spent. Having said that, I do not want this debate to be a point-scoring exercise, which that committee session was in parts, because I think that we all want pretty much the same thing. That is why we support the Government’s motion, why the amendment in my name is so relentlessly positive—as you would expect from me, Deputy Presiding Officer—and why everyone should support both it and the motion.

The Government has done some good stuff—we must recognise that. There was the £7 million in-year funding for grants to support strategically important green hydrogen projects. Four applications for that were submitted in December. There was another £7 million for the hydrogen innovation scheme, which supported 31 projects. In January, Ms Martin could not say what that had achieved, so I was hoping that today would be the day for that information, and it almost was—she gave us a little bit of detail in her speech.

There was £6 million from the just transition fund to HydroGlen, which is the green hydrogen farming pilot. Another £15 million went to the green hydrogen hub in Aberdeen, with some going to the Storegga green hydrogen project in Speyside, which is working to decarbonise whisky distilling and is working with the local authority to potentially provide green hydrogen for fleets of vehicles. That is all well and good, but the story so far is one of the country having great potential but not quite getting over the line yet.

I am grateful to Graham Simpson for listing all those projects. Cumulatively, there are quite a lot of projects, and because I took so many interventions, I did not quite land the point that we are also working with Scottish Enterprise to deliver even more funding to 11 projects, which are being awarded a share of £3.4 million, so he can add that to his list.

I am not here to do the cabinet secretary’s job for her, but I am happy to assist on this occasion.

There are promising projects. I am grateful to Green Cat Hydrogen for letting us know about the Creca hydrogen facility next to Chapelcross, the Binn Ecopark project, the Strathallan hydrogen facility, which could be operational by 2027, and the Hammers Hill development in Orkney.

I mentioned how hydrogen could be used in heating. That would help us to decarbonise and increase our energy security, if we make the hydrogen in Scotland. The H100 project in Fife, which has already been mentioned, should tell us a great deal about how feasible that roll-out would be.

Will the member take an intervention?

Is there time in hand, Deputy Presiding Officer?

There is.

Jolly good. I will take Mr Harvie’s intervention.

The member talked about energy security. In what way does it assist energy security to power home heating with something so massively inefficient as hydrogen, compared with the extremely high level of efficiency that comes from direct electrification? That will undermine the country’s energy security rather than help it.

I am mystified by the Greens’ approach to hydrogen. It is a fuel that gives off nothing but water; I thought that the Greens would be on board with that. Surely the idea of a pilot project is to test the technology to see whether it works. Mr Harvie is shaking his head as though he does not want a pilot project. His position is, indeed, bizarre.

It should be possible to use hydrogen in existing infrastructure and boilers. If there are signals to the market to that effect, it could be a game changer.

As I said before, I think that it is important to pilot this, but hydrogen has about one quarter of the energy density of natural gas. Is it not better to focus on direct powering of domestic heating through electricity rather than trying to substitute it with hydrogen, because it is so much less energy dense?

I agree with the cabinet secretary that our energy system should be a mix. That is why I am keen to pilot hydrogen—just to see whether it works. I see Mr Johnson nodding at that point, so I am glad about that. Let us see how it goes. If it does not work, we should not proceed with it, but if it does, it has potential.

It is a little bit concerning that the Scottish Government does not include low-emission heating systems such as hydrogen-ready boilers in its Scottish house condition survey data. In response to a written question, Alasdair Allan said:

“these forms of heating will be considered for inclusion in future surveys when they become more prevalent in the Scottish dwelling stock.”—[Written Answers, 9 January 2025; S6W-32993.]

I say gently to Dr Allan that we need to know the state of play now, and not sometime in the future, so he might want to reconsider that.

I turn to transport, which is the biggest carbon-emitting sector but the one with the most potential for using hydrogen. There is a lot going on in transport. In November last year, the cross party group on aviation heard from Jane Golding of Sustainable Aviation Test Environment, who spoke about delivering sustainable regional aviation and improved connectivity for the Highlands and Islands. She told us that HITRANS is looking at a number of projects, including a nine to 19-seater inter-island aircraft powered by hydrogen, which HITRANS hopes will be ready for 2027. The aviation sector in general is looking at hydrogen as a future fuel.

Those ���˿��� who follow my contributions will no doubt have picked up on my keen interest in European Union regulation 2023/1804 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. I see no nods of recognition, so I will refresh members’ collective memory. This will be of interest to all those members who are desperately keen to keep pace with EU regulations. The regulation says that, by the end of the year, there should be one recharging pool at least every 37 miles on the main road network in the EU. Imagine if we had that here—it would be transformative. Mr Golden, who is sitting to my left, might be happier to have an electric car than he is, and refuseniks such as me might consider getting one. On hydrogen, the regulation says that publicly accessible hydrogen refuelling stations must be deployed, with a maximum distance of 124 miles between them. That is why, across the EU, you can see hydrogen filling stations popping up.

I note from your look, Presiding Officer, that you might want me to conclude, despite having a little bit of extra time. I will finish by mentioning Grangemouth, which is in my region. We have known about the potential to make lots of hydrogen there since well before project willow. It is for the UK and Scottish Governments to turn warm words into action and make it happen. In general, however, there ought to be consensus on the issue. I am happy to support the motion in Gillian Martin’s name, and I hope that she will support my amendment.

I move amendment S6M-17399.1, to insert at end:

“, and further calls on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government on developing plans for hydrogen to be part of Scotland’s energy mix, and to set out how it can play a role in transport and heating.”

15:22  

We need a constructive debate, because this will affect us right across the country. It is important in terms of our environmental and economic ambitions. It is about ensuring that we can develop opportunities now to deliver jobs and a sustainable and greener future tomorrow. It means action now. In the first two speeches, we have heard that the amount of research and technology development that is happening is an on-going issue.

The amendment that I have lodged is an add amendment—I did not do a delete-all-and-insert type of amendment. It is important that we work constructively together, but I wanted to emphasise the need for joined-up thinking, not just about the production of hydrogen but about how we use it. From talking to different sectors, I know that that is absolutely critical.

The UK Government’s recent announcement of 27 new hydrogen-powered projects across the UK under HAR2 should be celebrated, as 30 per cent of those projects are in Scotland. Projects such as those in Cromarty and Whitelee will produce green hydrogen, which will be used by local industry, transport and distilleries. We know that it can be made to work.

Scottish Labour is in full support of the expansion of green hydrogen projects in Scotland, as it is the most sustainable on-going opportunity for hydrogen projects. However, we need a clear strategy that links hydrogen to the green industrial strategy and the long-awaited energy strategy, which is why, in my amendment, I call on the Scottish Government—

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. I note and welcome the fact that Sarah Boyack is specifically referencing green hydrogen. I was a little confused by the fact that the Labour amendment talks about “low-carbon opportunities”. Will Sarah Boyack clarify whether she agrees that neither Government should be giving any support to hydrogen production from fossil fuels?

There is a hierarchy in maximising the lowest-carbon opportunities for hydrogen. I know that there is an argument for using blue hydrogen, which I will reflect on at the end of my contribution. However, most of my focus will be on green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen potentially has a place, but it is CO₂ emitting so the carbon capture and storage aspects would need to be pulled together. The solution will be to pursue the most effective low-carbon opportunities, and that is what I will focus on.

Our strategy must address how we intend to use the green hydrogen that we will produce in Scotland. Reference has already been made to transport. We can potentially use green hydrogen for various types of transport. Buses do so already. There are also opportunities in the rail and heavy goods vehicles sectors, but those would need a joined-up approach. We must consider which sectors we can work with, and we need to get the regulations right for private companies. There are huge numbers of opportunities. As I flagged in my response to yesterday’s statement on Grangemouth, sustainable aviation fuel must be part of the mix, too.

Given what is happening at Grangemouth, we should consider the implementation of the project willow report, which highlights the need for action and investment now. We must form links to potential opportunities for using green hydrogen and to sustainable aviation fuel, which takes us back to transport. We must examine the various types of transport and decide where the various fuel types could be used most appropriately as changes emerge over the next couple of decades.

The RWE project at Grangemouth is really important, so we must ensure that its work, together with that on project willow and the Just Transition Commission’s report from two years ago, will be acted on. Our approach should not be to wait until something bad happens but to plan ahead.

Will the member give way?

Can I just keep going on this point?

The key factor about the situation at Grangemouth is that it is not just about increasing the supply of green hydrogen; we also need the demand and the market to supply it to. That involves encouraging industry growth in the private sector, as well as exploring how public investment could unlock existing opportunities, and linking them with our key renewable energy sources.

I am keen to see our Governments working together. I noted the positive aspects of the cabinet secretary’s speech. We need a clear approach to new onshore and offshore wind resources to ensure that the electricity that we will generate across our homes, our transport and our economy will be used where we need it. We are already seeing the development of pumped hydro storage and battery storage, so factoring in how we will supply electricity to deliver green hydrogen will be key. Last year, constraint payments made to wind farm operators reached the level of £380 million for curtailing 4.3 terawatt hours of wind energy. That is bonkers, and it is why I am articulating the need for a joined-up approach.

Hydrogen production could use that extra electricity, lead to lower network costs and help to bring down bills for individuals and businesses. However, we must also ensure that we have the grid capacity to supply that electricity where it is needed. Where sites are due to be developed for green hydrogen, we must ensure that they have electricity supplies.

Earlier in the debate, members discussed where we can do that, but we must also do it for our industrial and transport sectors. I mentioned buses, transport, rail and heavy goods vehicles. We must decide the locations across the country where the best opportunities sit. The Scottish Government needs to do some work on thinking strategically about locations, and we must consider how we prioritise the opportunities. As we look to the future, it is clear that green hydrogen will be a cornerstone of Scotland’s renewable energy strategy, which just needs to be joined up. We have had a long history of project commitments, but we have not always seen them being delivered.

If we are to meet our climate targets, support new jobs and see economic development across the country, we need a strategy that maximises the use of our natural resources but also develops industrial sites that could deliver on those opportunities. By investing in cutting-edge technology, we can drive innovation, foster economic growth and protect our planet for future generations. We all need to work together across the parties, but we must also see our Governments doing so. By that I mean not only our UK and Scottish Governments; we need to bring local government in, and think about planning, the supply chains and transport connectivity.

I hope that members will support Scottish Labour’s amendment. It aims to be constructive and to ensure that we have a joined-up approach to production, supply and use of hydrogen where it makes most sense, which potentially ticks our climate boxes, creates new jobs and supports our economy. If there were to be support across the chamber I hope that that would give confidence to new investors. It might not be 100 per cent—that would be impossible to achieve in here—but at least there could be positive support for ensuring that we maximise the opportunities in Scotland and get on with them.

I move amendment S6M-17399.3, to insert at end

“; further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that clear, strategic plans for hydrogen infrastructure are included in its long-awaited energy strategy, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver joined-up thinking on how to maximise the low-carbon opportunities and efficient usage of hydrogen.”

15:29  

I welcome the fact that we have the opportunity to debate this issue. It should not be seen as a simplistic debate, and there certainly should not be a split between unequivocal hydrogen enthusiasts and hydrogen sceptics. The issue is much more complicated than that. The role that hydrogen could play in Scotland’s energy system and in several industries could be very significant. It could become a significant part of our economy, too, if we produce large amounts for export. I would disagree with anyone who suggests that that cannot happen, but hydrogen is not a magic solution for some of the challenging aspects of the transition to sustainability. I would equally disagree with anyone who wants to see hydrogen in the same category as carbon capture and storage, direct air capture of greenhouse gases or foolhardy experiments to dim the sun.

There are, sadly, some people in our society, and too many current and former politicians—as we have seen this week—who want to abandon real climate action in favour of implausible techno-fixes. Hydrogen has the real potential to be seen in the same way, and we cannot afford that. Neither can we afford the same simplistic, unrealistic thinking to affect the way that we develop the hydrogen sector.

Sarah Boyack was right to say that there are two critical questions—how we produce hydrogen and how we use it. The answers to both questions will determine the value that it has for our society and for the transition to sustainability.

First, where does hydrogen come from? The internationally recognised colour code for hydrogen has about as many shades on it as the pride flag does, but fundamentally, most industrially produced hydrogen to date has been made using fossil fuels with no abatement of emissions. Whether that is the most polluting fuels such as lignite, which some countries use to produce hydrogen, or others such as fossil gas, we need to be clear that that approach has no role to play in a transition to sustainability. It should not only be denied Government investment but simply not be permitted.

Then there are people who advocate for blue hydrogen, which is still produced using fossil fuels but with the addition of long-promised carbon capture and storage technology. Even if CCS can ever be made to work at high enough capture rates to result in negligible overall emissions—there is still plenty of doubt about that question—it will always be a huge additional cost, making the production of blue hydrogen dramatically less efficient. If hydrogen is to play any meaningful role, it must be produced using renewable electricity—it must be green hydrogen.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with some of what Patrick Harvie has to say—I am very much an advocate for green hydrogen. Blue hydrogen, however, can be produced from waste. The reusing of waste to deliver blue hydrogen should be considered as a potential alternative.

If I understand the argument correctly, that still depends on the development and efficiency of carbon capture and storage, which has yet to be proven and will always add additional cost.

Green hydrogen is where Scotland has a massive advantage. The potential scale of renewables generation in Scotland is immense, and if we develop that potential fully, we will be producing far more electricity than we need or can export through transmission infrastructure, which means that the production of hydrogen is an obvious opportunity.

Where hydrogen comes from is not the end of the story. We also need to address how it is used. There are still those who cling to the idea that we can simply inject hydrogen into existing energy systems, whether that is the gas grid for heating or transport systems to displace fossil fuels, but there are some fundamental limits that we need to address.

We can generate renewable electricity and use it to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be stored, transported to where it is needed and turned back into useful energy, but at every step in that journey, efficiency is lost, so we end up with less useful energy at the end of the process than was generated at the start. Any use case in which direct electrification can be achieved will always be the better choice when compared with hydrogen, not only with today’s technology, but under the laws of physics.

That argument is only stronger for heat, because the technology that some countries have been deploying at scale for decades, and with which Scotland is struggling to catch up, goes far beyond even the theoretical limit of the 100 per cent efficiency that a closed system can reach. Heat pumps do not turn electricity into heat, but rather use electricity to gather heat from the ambient environment. They can produce up to three or four times as much heat output from the electrical input that they run on. Hydrogen can never do that, yet the Scottish Government continues to promote the notion of hydrogen for domestic heating.

Will the member take an intervention?

Do I have some time in hand?

I can give you the time back, Mr Harvie.

I very much agree with Patrick Harvie, who is setting out why we need to consider the issue carefully. If he is right about the physics, there is a point to be made about consumption and chemistry, in that hydrogen is one small atom, whereas natural gas is a one-to-two-chain carbon molecule. The energy density is different—it is a different gas. Would he agree with that point?

Absolutely. The size of the molecule, compared to the atom, also factors into the infrastructure, because leakage would be significant if we do not replace some of the infrastructure.

As recently as February, the First Minister made a speech describing hydrogen heating as a

“shining example of how Scotland is leading the way in finding solutions to tackle climate change.”

He said that it was

“ a clear signal of the path that we must take.”

That is absurd. Most of those in the gas industry who have been pushing that nonsense have started to give up on it. The idea is that it is a trial or a proof of concept, but the question is not whether using hydrogen for heating would work. Of course it would work, just as flushing your toilet with sparkling mineral water would work, but it would never be a sensible thing to do.

Does the member acknowledge that, notwithstanding everything that he has said about the benefits and preferability of electrification, there may be parts of the country where electrification may be difficult to achieve and, therefore, other solutions such as hydrogen should at least be experimented with?

I will address that in my closing comments.

In presenting its advice on the seventh carbon budget to the UK Government, the UK Climate Change Committee wrote that hydrogen has

“an important role within the electricity supply sector as a ... long-term storable energy that can be dispatched when needed and as a feedstock for synthetic fuels. However, we see no role for hydrogen in buildings heating and only a very niche, if any, role in surface transport.”

I urge the Scottish Government to listen to the UK CCC, which is its own adviser and source of expert advice on climate action, to understand and accept its position, and ensure that our approach to the development of hydrogen focuses on the most efficient use of what could be an important part of our energy system and economy.

I move amendment S6M-17399.2, to leave out from “be a leading” to end and insert:

“play a leading role in developing a green hydrogen industry, both to help decarbonise challenging sectors of the economy, and for export; recognises that hydrogen produced from fossil fuels not only produces greenhouse gas emissions but also risks undermining confidence in the future of the green hydrogen sector; further recognises that the use of green hydrogen needs to be prioritised in areas that are hard to decarbonise in other ways, and that its use for domestic heating can never achieve the efficiency of other clean heat sources, and therefore regrets that the First Minister described hydrogen for domestic heating as ‘the path that we must take’, in February 2025; recognises that the UK Climate Change Committee sees ‘no role for hydrogen in buildings heating and only a very niche, if any, role in surface transport’, and urges the Scottish Government to accept that the value of green hydrogen will be in areas such as hard-to-decarbonise industrial sectors and energy storage.”

15:38  

It was a joy to hear from Graham Simpson and to see his cheery disposition as a newborn man next to Maurice Golden, who has new lunch mates on an occasional basis. I am sure that Graham Simpson would benefit from that as well—maybe that is why he is so cheery this afternoon.

We need cheeriness on a Thursday afternoon when we are debating hydrogen, because it is important that we focus on its many upsides. However, it is not just about the upsides and debating the principles—many have strong views in this debate—but about the fact that we need to make it happen. Too often in the Parliament, we pontificate about principles. Plans for delivery tend to be rather dull, but they are incredibly important if we are going to achieve our objectives.

There are incredibly expensive constraint payments that we use regularly in order to cope with issues of supply and demand of electricity. If we can have hydrogen play an important role in minimising those constraint payments, that would be a good thing. It would be supremely logical—this follows on from Sarah Boyack’s contribution—if we did that.

We know that batteries—there is much talk about batteries, and many more planning applications for them than I expected—store energy for only a short period and are, perhaps, not able to cope with wide fluctuations in supply and demand over a longer period of time.

Pumped storage plays an important role in our storage capacity, and new facilities are being developed. However, hydrogen could play an important role in the storage of energy over longer periods of time. I discovered that hydrogen can be stored in salt caverns, which sound like wonderful places, perhaps not just for eastern Russia but for Scotland as well.

The use of hydrogen should be given urgent priority in the production of green steel and the move away from the use of grey hydrogen for the generation of fertilisers and the production of chemicals. We will continue to need chemicals and fertilisers in certain cases, and I want them to be as green as we can make them. Green hydrogen would play an important role in decarbonising steel and chemical production.

The opportunities for hydrogen are really quite positive, which is probably why Graeme Simpson was so positive this afternoon. However, I want to sound a note of caution, because I wonder whether the targets that we are setting are a little bit wild. The global potential for hydrogen production was 1.4GW in 2023. For Scotland alone, the aim is to have 25GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2045. Green Cat Renewables, which has provided us with a valuable briefing, says that its four projects produce 800MW. That is minuscule compared with that target of 25GW. In Scotland, if all the projects that are being talked about go through—not all of them will—that will come to 28GW, and hydrogen will account for 25GW of that.

I am all for big, ambitious targets, but we need to have a plan that works. The figures that I have mentioned require skills development, planning and investment. Reaching that target is not cheap, and it will require a lot of people to make it happen. My question to the cabinet secretary is about how realistic the target is. Green Cat Renewables was diplomatic in its briefing, but I think that it has sounded a note of caution on the extent of the target.

Green Cat Renewables also rightly points out that demand generation is incredibly important. We need to ensure that demand is domestic rather than involving exporting, because we need to have a reliable demand. We know that that will be difficult, because change is hard. For people who have done things a certain way for a long time, change is difficult. There will need to be a lot of investment, skills development and training. Inertia comes into play—people often ask why, if something is already working, we should bother to change it. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have the demand generated locally with the practical measures to make that work.

St Andrews University, in my constituency, is involved in a green hydrogen accelerator project, together with the University of Strathclyde. The project is very positive. It has £13 million of investment, and is led by Professor John Irvine, who has a long track record in that area. The purpose of the project is to set up a world-leading research facility to drive up efficiency, because we should not just think that where we are now is where we need to be. We need to be incredibly efficient, and the project is looking at energy storage and chemicals, which are the prime areas for the use of hydrogen.

I am coming to the end of my time, so I will close by talking about public acceptance. I have heard a lot of complaints from people who are concerned about battery storage facilities in their neighbourhoods and about solar farms. We know that nuclear power stations are not popular, and that wind turbines are not popular with certain sections of the population. There is no energy source that is universally popular. Hydrogen will fit into that pattern, too, so we need to be ahead of the game on that and provide people with assurance and confidence. If we are going to get to that 25GW target, there will have to be hydrogen facilities in many parts of Scotland. Therefore, let us get ahead of that and build confidence that those facilities are safe in our neighbourhoods. If we do not do that, we have no chance of getting to that 25GW target.

We move to the open debate.

15:45  

I believe that hydrogen offers an extraordinary opportunity for Scotland that promises not only to transform our energy landscape but to secure our economic prosperity for generations to come.

As a Parliament, we should be fully committed to helping the Scottish hydrogen sector to develop and grow, including by integrating it into a wider European and international network.

Scotland has a vast capacity for renewable energy production, which gives our nation the potential to become a world leader in renewable hydrogen production and to export at scale. Scotland not only has in abundance all the raw ingredients that are necessary to produce low-cost, clean hydrogen; we are also well placed when it comes to the workforce and industrial base.

Scotland’s reputation for excellence in energy, our extensive oil and gas supply chain and our strong onshore and offshore wind sectors will be the key to our achieving a just transition to a low-carbon and, subsequently, net zero age, with hydrogen at the very heart of that transition.

Hydrogen will play a significant part in the decarbonisation of our energy system by being a key component in an integrated energy system. The first key area is green energy storage. That is because hydrogen is an ideal partner for wind energy. When there is too much wind energy to utilise, that energy can be stored as hydrogen and, when there is not enough wind, that hydrogen can be turned back into clean green energy.

In that partnership, hydrogen has the potential to be the large-scale and long-term energy store to replace or augment the critical balancing and resilience services that natural gas provides to our energy system today.

The growth of renewables and the hydrogen economy are complementary, so we need a strong renewables sector to support the development of a range of green hydrogen projects. That is why I am glad to see that the Scottish Government’s ambition for hydrogen production is closely aligned with its ambition for expanding the capacity of both offshore and onshore wind.

Just like natural gas, hydrogen can be stored as a compressed gas or liquid, but there is also the potential for storing hydrogen underground, including in depleted natural gas fields. With its expertise in oil and gas, Scotland should be at the forefront of hydrogen geological storage as well as carbon capture and storage.

We also need to explore the recent discovery of natural hydrogen reserves, where hydrogen produced underground has been trapped, much like natural gas. Although that work is still in its infancy, we should be exploring whether Scotland has hydrogen reserves. The skills base in the north-east is ready to be called into action, at home or abroad, if that discovery bears fruit.

I have touched on the issue of carbon capture, and I do not think that we could have this debate without mentioning Grangemouth. Research has shown that the Grangemouth refinery could have a future in hydrogen production. The UK and Scottish Governments both invested in the project willow study, which identified hydrogen production as one of the key pathways for the cluster’s future.

Project willow confirmed that hydrogen production at Grangemouth would be significantly more commercially viable if the Acorn carbon capture project had track 2 status. Ed Miliband has recently announced huge deals for carbon capture in England. It is now time for Scotland’s share; it is time that Ed Miliband and the UK Labour Government confirmed track 2 status for Acorn. If Scotland is to realise its vast green energy potential, the UK Government must urgently ensure that resources are put into Acorn so that we can move forward with our ambitions. We have waited far too long. It is now time for those resources to come to Scotland, which will help to boost Grangemouth’s potential.

15:51  

I am delighted to speak in the debate. As many members know, I extol the virtues of green hydrogen.

From listening to the debate so far, my concern is that too many of the renewable eggs are being put into the electricity basket. The reality of moving every aspect of our lives that is currently powered by fossil fuels to an electric alternative is that the resources that are required either do not exist or cannot be extracted in a way that is economically or environmentally viable. Studies project that, by 2030, the UK will require up to 40 per cent of current global lithium production and 29 per cent of current global graphite production. That would require us to increase copper mining by 300 per cent and cobalt mining by a staggering 8,000 per cent. Are we really going to support increased strip mining of cadmium in Canada or cobalt in east Africa, or even the coal-powered extraction of lithium in China, just so that we can import those rare metals and be smug and self-righteous? That approach does little for climate change.

A point on which all members broadly agree is that hydrogen has an important role to play in our future energy mix. How big that role will be remains to be seen and will, in no small part, be determined by the Scottish Government’s choices in the coming months and years. Too often, our approach to decarbonising the country has been focused on what can achieve the quickest win, or on strategies that are overambitious and unrealistic but generate good headlines, leading to an inevitable ditching of targets.

The reality is that the priority for Scotland should not be how quickly we can decarbonise but how we use the opportunity to sustainably decarbonise, to demonstrate to the world what can be achieved to the benefit of our economy. We are in danger of picking winners too soon before all that research is done. There is no doubt that heat pumps are important to the jigsaw, but they are not the silver bullet that I think Patrick Harvie has tried to make us believe.

There is an issue. It is not just about being ahead of the game but about learning from other countries. Lots of European countries have heat networks that are supplied by electricity. It is not just about inventing new tech; it is about learning from other countries and making that work where possible in our communities.

I appreciate that intervention. I will come on to what other countries are doing.

The UK Government is taking decisions that could lead to the gas grid being wound down before we know for sure what its potential is for the hydrogen economy. Right now, the gas grid could take blended green hydrogen of up to 10 or 20 per cent, if we had the will to do that. Given that home heating is such a big part of our emissions, why are we not making that change very soon? We should be encouraging innovation in all aspects of renewables, especially in green hydrogen, given that Scotland’s natural resources of wind and water are exactly what the production of green hydrogen requires.

We have a chicken-and-egg situation with supply and demand. Hydrogen companies want to grow and invest significantly but hesitate to do so without a clear demand from offtakers. Potential hydrogen users want to convert to a greener fuel source but hesitate to make that investment without confidence that the supply of hydrogen will be available to them.

All the while, global demand for hydrogen continues to rise. The German federal Government estimates that total hydrogen demand will be up to 130 terawatt hours by 2030, with about 70 per cent of that supply having to be imported. A joint statement on industry co-operation between Danish producers and suppliers of green hydrogen and the Dutch industrial offtake market said that the Dutch offtake of hydrogen of 1.3 million tonnes per year

“is the second largest in Europe and is expected to increase significantly towards 4.5 Mton per year by 2050.”

The International Energy Agency states that Belgium is positioning itself as an “import and transit hub” for hydrogen, with domestic demand estimated to be as much as 6TWh of renewable hydrogen or its derivatives by 2030, potentially rising to 165TWh by 2050.

In 2024, the United States of America exported $1.8 billion of hydrogen. Despite President Trump stating that the USA would “drill, drill, drill”, hydrogen is still in the top 15 per cent of US exports to Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Belgium, Mexico, Denmark and even Saudi Arabia. What are we waiting for? Do they know something that we do not?

We are already behind the curve. Why are so many other countries benefiting from hydrogen production? It is increasingly being recognised that, although decarbonising our economy and society remains a crucial long-term objective, the approach that we have taken to meet that goal risks costs becoming too great for too small a gain.

Ultimately, Scotland, or even the UK, reaching net zero will not be the turning point in reducing global emissions. With that in mind, I believe that our approach should focus less on when we reach net zero and more on how we reach it. The shift to decarbonise the world has enormous economic potential for Scotland if it is in a position to make the most of its knowledge and natural resources. When it comes to net zero, we need to consider not only how we decarbonise but, crucially, how we benefit economically from the decarbonisation of the world.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I realise that I am running out of time. Is there a little bit extra?

We have exhausted most of the time that we have in hand. I can give you the time back for the intervention.

Hydrogen represents one such opportunity to capitalise. Global demand for hydrogen is growing rapidly, as an alternative to natural gas and, in some cases, as an alternative to electrification. Scotland has the well-developed renewable electricity sector that is needed to create hydrogen and significant expertise in working with gas, both offshore and onshore. Crucially, it also has generating capacity, as nearly £1 billion paid to generators in constraint payments shows. Imagine that, instead of paying to switch off generation, we would be able to use that electricity to generate hydrogen for use elsewhere. Not only would we eliminate constraint payments and lower bills, but we would build a new industry that creates jobs and tax revenues that benefit the whole country.

We can continue to tinker around the edges of hydrogen production, only to adopt and import technology as the rest of the world develops and adopts those fast-developing technologies, as we did with wind and solar, or we can buck the Scottish Government trend, be bold and encourage the development of those technologies so that we can lead the world in decarbonisation to the benefit of the economy. That goal is worth shooting for.

Before I call the next speaker, I confirm that the time that we had in hand has been just about exhausted. Interventions will need to be accommodated within the time allocation.

15:58  

It has been an interesting week to have a debate on Scotland’s hydrogen future. The week began with Portugal and Spain experiencing major disruption caused by failure of the power system, which underlined the fragility of the way in which we live our lives. It was a week in which crude oil refining ceased at Grangemouth and in which the Climate Change Committee reported that the UK Government has yet to change its approach to effectively tackle climate risks. This is not where we want to be. The window for keeping global warming within the limit of 1.5°C is closing. If we ever needed any more evidence that the world is running short of time to avert catastrophic climate change, this was it.

However, today is about acknowledging and even celebrating the progress that is being made in Scotland’s hydrogen industry and about looking ahead to the future, so, in my case, what is needed is less higher chemistry and maybe a bit more higher economics.

Scotland has ambitious climate goals. I have always believed that setting rigorous targets shows that we are prepared to take strong action. That action will be delivered through the just transition targets. Targets focus minds, they remind us that we must always do more and they make us innovate, which is important.

Scotland is a treasure trove of innovators in the energy sector, including companies and investors who are now applying years of experience in the oil and gas industry to support the wind, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen markets. As the motion outlines, hydrogen represents one of Scotland’s greatest industrial opportunities since oil and gas. We have the energy history, skills and experience to be a driving force in the hydrogen sector in Europe and beyond.

As we continue the transition to net zero, green hydrogen will play an increasingly important role, particularly in industry, as organisations decarbonise their operations. Underpinning the development of a hydrogen economy in Scotland is the Scottish Government’s hydrogen action plan, which commits £100 million of capital funding for renewable hydrogen projects and enterprise agencies, supporting businesses to access new opportunities. The Scottish Government’s hydrogen export plan recognises the opportunities that are arising from countries that are looking to countries that can provide energy from hydrogen at scale. As we have heard, Scotland is well placed to service future export markets for hydrogen, presenting us with a significant industrial opportunity.

Not to disappoint, Aberdeen continues on its journey as a hydrogen city and has a strong track record as an area of innovation, working across European and domestic Governments to develop the working technology for hydrogen vehicles. In addition, the Aberdeen hydrogen hub, a collaboration between Aberdeen City Council and BP, supported by £15 million of Scottish Government funding, is making very good progress. That links to Sarah Boyack’s point about hydrogen being an issue right across the Government.

As I have been listening to Audrey Nicoll, I have been reminded of the success of Aberdeen City Council in providing hydrogen for various vehicles. Is she aware that Aberdeen has made hydrogen a more attractive prospect for other cities, too? Inverness could be the next place for development, with its collaboration with Storegga on producing hydrogen and potentially powering its local authority vehicles with hydrogen.

Yes, I am aware of that. That example goes to show that, although developments in Aberdeen have not been without challenges, they have led the way across Scotland, which is to be commended.

The flagship hydrogen campus in the energy transition zone in my constituency is set to become home to a new green hydrogen test and demonstration facility, a multimillion pound collaboration between Energy Transition Zone Ltd and TÜV SÜD, which will help to drive forward the use of industrial green hydrogen and deliver the energy transition.

This week’s Scottish Renewables supply chain impact statement reflects the progress that is being made in green hydrogen, including the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which is pioneering developments in green hydrogen, and a highlight in the form of the Ardbikie distillery becoming the world’s first distillery to be powered by green hydrogen.

I note members’ comments on transport. At least one business in my constituency is seeking to transition to manufacturing hydrogen pressure vehicles for the renewables sector. However, key to that is funding a cost-efficient and safe option.

Scotland has two Governments in relation to energy, and many of the levers that are required to develop Scotland’s hydrogen economy sit with the UK Government. One of those levers is the regulatory framework, without which progress is restricted, so I ask the cabinet secretary for an update on progress on developing the necessary regulations to further develop hydrogen infrastructure, power and storage.

That leads me to my final point. Project willow, which has already been mentioned, has identified hydrogen production as one of the key pathways for the cluster. However, it is more commercially viable if the Acorn carbon capture project has track 2 status. I join business leaders, the Government, colleagues and stakeholders in calling on Scottish Labour to put its shoulder to the wheel and demand that the UK Government provide urgent clarity on the project today.

16:05  

Hydrogen is a key part of our journey to net zero. Although we can decarbonise many parts of our economy through electrification or renewables, hydrogen is necessary in the areas where that is not viable.

The sector has immense potential. The Hydrogen Energy Association has estimated that hydrogen technologies will be worth £700 billion globally by 2050 and will deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland alone. Given our existing knowledge in our energy sector, we should be pursuing those opportunities, and I am glad that there is agreement across parties and Governments on that point.

The shortlisting of eight Scottish sites in the second hydrogen allocation round should be welcomed, particularly that of the Selms Muir hydrogen project in Livingston, which could deliver 6 tonnes of hydrogen a day and fuel the Lothian bus fleet. That would be complemented by Grangemouth hydrogen and a pipeline to Forth Ports in Leith, which could enable exports to other countries. All that would build a cluster of hydrogen knowledge in the central belt.

If we want to be successful, we must build up capacity quickly. However, as we have seen in other areas, the planning system is sluggish and inefficient in introducing new energy infrastructure. We have heard from the Improvement Service that understanding of hydrogen among planners and decision makers is limited and can vary between areas. I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is establishing a planning hub to improve that situation.

We need knowledge to be embedded in all parts of the system—including local development plans—and a clear pipeline of projects so that decision makers can have clarity. In addition, as with all planning, we need to ensure that there are enough planners working to make decisions.

Public engagement is also key. Some industry figures report public unease regarding hydrogen proposals. Much has been said about community input in energy infrastructure. When people hear the word “hydrogen”, many think of the Hindenburg disaster, so ensuring understanding of the safety of such systems should be a priority.

I come back to skills. With our expertise in oil and gas, Scotland is well placed to enable the hydrogen economy. Those sectors include people with transferable technical skills, such as those in engineering and project management, and people with skills in safety, risk and regulatory compliance. Creating a clear pathway from oil and gas to hydrogen should be on the cards to ensure that workers can adapt and to guarantee them a just transition.

However, ClimateXChange found that skills transfer from industry alone will not be sufficient in the long term to meet the objectives of the hydrogen action plan. Therefore, this is a great opportunity to boost apprenticeships and deliver opportunities for young people across all areas of the country.

That brings me to my last point on infrastructure. Hydrogen is a versatile element. It can be transported in liquid or gas form and by pipeline or boat. Infrastructure to ensure that hydrogen can flow cheaply and easily from where it is produced should be delivered at the same time as investment in green generation so that we do not find ourselves playing catch-up in the years to come.

I again welcome the shortlisting of eight Scottish sites in the latest hydrogen allocation round. That reflects the talent and appeal of Scotland in the hydrogen sector. However, we cannot just hope to be a world leader in green hydrogen. The Scottish Government should tackle the planning and skills issues that I have outlined and develop a clear strategy that ensures that green hydrogen can be used in as many areas of our economy as possible in order to hit our net zero target.

16:10  

Today’s debate brings to mind a recurring problem that we have in Scotland—one that I have seen across a number of areas, particularly in science. We do not talk up the incredible scientific developments that are taking place here enough. We are all familiar with the country’s rich scientific and engineering legacy. At the height of the industrial revolution, the prodigious Scots practically invented the modern world, but what about more modern developments? What about the genuinely world-leading research in life sciences, our burgeoning renewables industry, our tech sector and our games ecosystem?

I recall a meeting of the cross-party group on science and technology that I chaired that focused on the groundbreaking work in Scotland on quantum tech and semiconductors. Quantum tech, semiconductors, photonics and wireless all have a role to play in healthcare, net zero, communications, financial services and space—you name it. We need to celebrate the work that is going on in Scotland more and recognise just how much research, development and delivery is taking place here.

Last month, my colleague Kenny Gibson hosted an event for Scotland’s critical technologies supercluster in which the following sub-sectors were included: photonics, quantum tech, semiconductors, wireless and sensing technologies—and hydrogen. We do not hear enough about that incredible work. In my research for this debate, I found that the same problem is apparent for hydrogen. I confess that I was not aware of the scale of Scottish hydrogen projects. The Scottish Government has implemented funding schemes to kickstart green hydrogen projects across the country, and such projects will be an integral part of the energy mix in the transition to a more sustainable society.

Our hydrogen economy is growing rapidly. The Scottish electrolytic hydrogen production market is estimated at 126 terawatt hours. Scotland is one of Europe’s largest offshore renewable energy zones, which makes it ideally placed for large-scale hydrogen projects and inward investment, while also giving us the tools that are required to become a major green hydrogen exporter—we heard earlier about the money that would be involved in that. That critical demand for hydrogen looks set to grow.

Let us be clear: hydrogen is not our only green energy market but is part of a mix. We need to work across different sectors and different types of sustainable energy generation, and hydrogen will become a more important player. The need for the energy transition is an existential reality for us in Scotland, because the climate crisis is an existential threat. It is depressing that I feel the need to reiterate that point, but anti-scientific sentiment is rife. Bad faith actors are intent on obscuring the reality of climate breakdown, because many perceive it as a threat to their profit margins or political interests.

The fact remains that we need to shift to sustainable energy sources. The natural disasters that we have become used to seeing in the news cycle are not natural in the true sense; they are the result of accelerated climate breakdown that is caused by human activity. The science is clear on that. Addressing the climate crisis is both an economic and environmental necessity.

Our European allies are pivoting away from reliance on Russian gas in response to Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, and that threat to energy security is also a reflection of the need to move to sustainable energy sources, as an environmental imperative and an economic strategy.

I first became aware of the interest in hydrogen during my first session in Parliament, when I hosted an SGN event. At that point, it was talking about the possibility of using hydrogen in a domestic setting in Scotland. Following the Government’s investment of £32 million in the Fife hydrogen hub for H100 Fife, we have seen the first hydrogen-powered homes being opened by the First Minister in February this year. Although I appreciate that some concerns have been raised, we must explore the opportunities, and that proof of concept is the first stage in looking at how we might be able to roll that out around the country. That has gone from being a concept in 2011 to being delivered in 2025, when we see people using that technology in their homes.

The Scottish Government has funded two North Sea energy alliance bilateral Scottish-German research projects to investigate hydrogen pipeline infrastructure between Scotland and Germany. I believe that that will be a crucial part of the future of energy security and energy delivery in Scotland, and I welcome everything that the Scottish Government is doing to support the industry and to create proof-of-concept projects that will let us start rolling out hydrogen across many areas of industry and in our homes. I look forward to seeing that work developing in the coming years and contributing to Scotland’s economy.

16:16  

Graham Simpson opened his speech on a positive note, and I shall follow where he leads, because I welcome the Scottish Government’s ambition on hydrogen. The Government is absolutely right that Scotland should be leading in this space. It is also right that significant resources are being committed, as we have heard about already today. There is the multimillion-pound investment in strategic green hydrogen projects, support for the Aberdeen green hydrogen hub and the investment in a green hydrogen farming pilot. All of those are welcome, because hydrogen, especially sustainable green hydrogen, offers another useful tool in our efforts to decarbonise our economy and reach net zero.

However, this debate is not only about climate; it is about seizing a significant economic opportunity. The Scottish Government’s hydrogen action plan aims for 5GW of production by 2030, which would account for half the UK production target. The target for Scottish production is 25GW by 2045 and there is the potential for Scotland to export 2.5 million tonnes of green hydrogen by that date. That could be exported across Europe, given the estimate that the EU will import around half of its hydrogen by the end of the decade. Because of the uncertainty about energy supplies in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, that huge market is waiting for a reliable supplier, and Scotland is well able to fulfil that role. In fact, Scotland could supply as much as a third of Germany’s demand, so it is encouraging to see that the UK has signed a hydrogen partnership agreement to collaborate with Germany on research, standards and trade.

Behind such trade, there would be new supply chains, new inward investment and, perhaps most importantly, new jobs. That is exactly what a just transition is supposed to mean, especially for my constituents in North East Scotland, who have built their careers on oil and gas and now need long-term opportunities to use their skills in a net zero economy.

The member has done an excellent job in setting out the scale of the opportunity and highlighting the 5GW target rising to 25GW, but the 5GW is to be achieved by 2030 and, at present, as I understand it, we are not producing any green hydrogen at an industrial scale. Does he believe that we are making sufficient progress to realise the targets and the opportunities that he has set out?

I do not. I think that we all agree with the ambition on green hydrogen, but it is more realistic to say that we are actually seeing grey or even blue hydrogen. Ultimately, that is an issue. We need to make progress on that, because the case for hydrogen is, in my view, inextricably linked with being green. Ultimately, the business case for net zero changes significantly if we are talking about different ways of producing the said hydrogen.

I also caution that we have been here before on green jobs, with promises being made and then broken. We see the same story repeated across the entire net zero and low carbon portfolio: emissions targets are repeatedly missed, recycling is stalled and net zero policies are watered down or abandoned. Although Government ambition and investment are welcome, we need to be concerned when the Scottish Government cannot say what is happening with its hydrogen action plan or how the investments will ultimately deliver a green hydrogen future. It is delivery that counts.

One place where that delivery is happening is at the H100 project in Fife, which is the first project of its kind to use clean power to provide hydrogen for domestic heating. I was able to visit it recently with colleagues and see its progress for myself, ahead of renewable hydrogen starting to be delivered into hundreds of homes later this year. I can confirm that the pancakes that were made using the hydrogen hob tasted exactly the same as those made using natural gas.

As an aside on transport, I note Graham Simpson’s comments on the EU mandating hydrogen refilling stations every 124 miles, not to mention electric vehicle charging stations every 37 miles. As an EV driver who is frequently frustrated by access to chargers, I can only hope that the Scottish Government learns from such issues when, or if, it develops future hydrogen infrastructure for transport.

Returning to heating, it is important that we have a robust mixture, which will undoubtedly include heat pumps, but we have to acknowledge that heat pumps are not suitable for everyone. Scottish Government estimates suggest that they will not be suitable for about 24 per cent of properties by 2040, even with upgrades. The provision of hydrogen utilising existing grid infrastructure is theoretically possible, but it is certainly not the first port of call. The most likely scenario is that hydrogen will be used in domestic properties either as part of a blend or where the properties are in proximity to industrial clusters.

I will close with a simple appeal to the Scottish Government. I do not doubt its intentions and there is much in its motion to agree with, but we need it to provide the detail and, ultimately, to help to deliver a green hydrogen future.

The final speaker in the open debate is Emma Harper.

16:23  

Marrying up hydrogen production with the clean renewables of which Scotland has an overwhelming abundance is not just the right thing to do in our quest for a just transition when we are aiming for net zero, but also means smarter and cleaner management of our natural resources, creating better places for our people and making sure that the economic dividends of the hydrogen industry are put to good use right here in Scotland.

The UK has spent decades wasting finite natural resources and putting our energy eggs in one basket, including with the dash for gas of the 1990s. Marrying up renewables generation with the production of hydrogen will provide load balancing across the grid just as pumped storage hydro does for peak demand, but it will do so across much longer periods of time. Using surplus electricity generation to produce and store hydrogen will allow for the reconversion of that stored hydrogen back into electricity and into the grid.

The technology is there, and it has been for decades, but only now is there the political and organisational will to make that a key priority for Scotland’s energy future. This cannot involve only the Government; we need business and industry to work collaboratively with the state to drive things forward. That is why last year alone, £7 million-worth of funding was on the table for businesses as seed money for green hydrogen projects

In my South Scotland region, schemes such as the Chapelcross initiative in Annan are repurposing the facilities of the 20th century nuclear power plant and putting in place the technology of the 21st century. It was great to hear colleagues mention Green Cat Hydrogen, at Creca, near Annan. In fact, it was positive to hear the south of Scotland mentioned in the chamber at all during the debate.

Just six weeks ago, Green Cat Hydrogen announced plans for a green hydrogen facility at the new energy transition zone at Chapelcross. If the plans get the go-ahead, 150 jobs will be created during construction and another 50 long-term, high-skilled jobs would be in place once the plant is complete. That is a large number of long-term, high-skilled jobs, and that amount of jobs is important for our rural region. Schemes like that would not even make it on to the drawing board without the support of the Scottish Government and South of Scotland Enterprise. That is only one example of how the Government’s backing of hydrogen is reaping economic dividends for Dumfries and Galloway, South Scotland and the rest of Scotland.

Anyone who knows the history of renewables on these islands and further afield knows of the opportunities for wind generation that the UK missed time after time. Meanwhile, small, independent Denmark was leading the way, and today the Danes remain world leaders in wind tech, which, importantly, has brought high-skilled, high-value jobs to that part of the world. If Scotland gets in early—and that is exactly what the Scottish Government plan for hydrogen aims to do—we can be for the hydrogen industry what Denmark has been for the wind industry for decades: we can be a world leader and an exporter of technology, industrial plants and expertise, with all of that boosting our industrial sectors and our economy.

Scotland has seen more than five decades of the dead hand of Westminster frittering away our energy future. We cannot allow the new energy technologies of the 21st century to suffer the same fate. Our green industrial strategy aims to harness the full benefits of our natural bounty to the betterment of our economy and ultimately the people of Scotland.

I want to highlight the carbon capture and storage work of The Carbon Removers at Crofthead farm, near Crocketford, just off the A75, which is making inroads into carbon capture and the sequestering of biogenic carbon. The cabinet secretary and the First Minister have visited that site to see for themselves the potential of what The Carbon Removers can achieve. That is another fantastic project based in the south-west of Scotland. Part of what it is doing is carbon sequestration of carbon dioxide for the whisky industry, and The Carbon Removers was a crucial business during the pandemic when it provided dry ice for vaccine storage and transfer. That is another project that it is worth us shouting from the treetops about to get Dumfries and Galloway on the map as part of the just transition. I am conscious that we often talk about the north and the north-east, and that is absolutely the right thing to do, but there are also places in the south that are doing a great job as part of the just transition.

Hydrogen is a key strand of the green industrial strategy, and I am delighted that the Scottish Government is taking that seriously rather than kow-towing to the interests of Whitehall and Westminster and the short-termism that was on display only this week from the former Prime Minister Tony Blair. I hope that ministers give his latest outburst all the respect it deserves, and I hope that colleagues will support the motion in Gillian Martin’s name at decision time.

16:29  

I very much welcome this afternoon’s debate. I would characterise much of it as being about the laws of physics versus magic solutions. I certainly thank Daniel Johnson and Patrick Harvie for reminding us of some of the laws of physics and chemistry in relation to hydrogen and for setting out some of hydrogen’s advantages as an energy vector, as well as some of its limitations. We need to start the debate by understanding the facts on what hydrogen can and cannot do.

The cabinet secretary said early in the debate that the Government’s focus is on the hard-to-abate sectors. As Greens, we very much see a role for green hydrogen, in particular, in the hard-to-abate sectors such as fertiliser production, heavy shipping, aviation, cement production and, potentially, steel. Willie Rennie talked about the need for us to build up the domestic demand for hydrogen in Scotland. However, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, that can come only through an industrial strategy and just transition planning, for example, at the cement factory at Dunbar, at Grangemouth and at Mossmorran. We need to start with the role of hydrogen in our domestic industrial sector and then build up supply chains and understanding around that.

The cabinet secretary moved on quite quickly to talk about the role of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors, which is where the Greens disagree with the Government. It makes no sense to invest in hydrogen in uncompetitive uses such as domestic heating, trains and buses in our cities, which are grossly inefficient uses of hydrogen.

The cabinet secretary talked about the 100 pilot projects around Scotland in which the Government has invested, and a number of Scottish National Party members have spoken about the pilots in their constituencies. How many of those pilot projects are focused on the hard-to-abate sectors, and how many of them are experimenting with uses of hydrogen in easy-to-abate sectors for which we already know the answers?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the H100 project in Leven as a domestic application of hydrogen for heating and there being a need to prove the concept for that. However, we have already proven the concept of hydrogen heating many times over. Globally, 54 independent studies have been done that have picked up on hydrogen heating projects. The studies have all reported, and not a single one of them—across Europe or around the whole world—has recommended the widespread use of hydrogen heating. That is partly because each of those studies has shown an increase in energy costs as a result of hydrogen heating. On average, the studies show an 86 per cent increase in costs for householders.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con) rose—

Brian Whittle rose—

I want to make some progress.

Graham Simpson talked about people out there wanting a wonderful heating system whereby the only thing that is produced at the end of the day is water. That is absolutely fine, but it cannot come at the expense of fuel poverty. If Mr Simpson genuinely wants pensioners and hard-working families to pay astronomically high energy bills because of a hydrogen heating solution, I think that that is wrong and would drive people into fuel poverty. That is exactly why the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended against the widespread adoption of hydrogen for home heating.

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

I need my time on this.

On H100, Brian Whittle and Maurice Golden pointed to what the real driving interest is behind that particular home heating project: it is quite clear that SGN manages a gas grid and wants to continue to put fossil fuel into that gas grid. It wants to blend hydrogen in, but 80 per cent of what will be flowing through that gas grid in future will be fossil fuel gas, which will make us more and not less dependent on fossil fuel heating. Of course, we cannot put carbon capture and storage on millions of domestic boilers in people’s homes, so there is a danger that we would lock in emissions if we went down the route of blending hydrogen into the gas grid.

Will Mark Ruskell take an intervention on that point?

I would like to make progress.

A number of members have spoken about the role of blue hydrogen in the mix as part of the transition. I recognise Kevin Stewart’s enthusiasm for CCS, and a part of me really hopes that CCS works and is effective and efficient, but there are still major concerns about CCS and whether it is deployable at scale. It is not just the Greens who are saying that. Several years ago, the UK Climate Change Committee advised the Scottish Government to develop a plan B in case the Acorn project does not match the expectations that Kevin Stewart set out earlier. It is not a dead cert that CCS will be available, will be cost effective and will work.

Several members have mentioned potential applications for hydrogen in the transport sector. I can absolutely see its being used for heavy transport and shipping, but not for lighter forms of transport such as coaches, buses, cars or heavy goods vehicles. It was interesting to hear Graham Simpson and Maurice Golden getting so excited about potentially having hydrogen refilling points every 124 miles. To be honest, that filled me with range anxiety, given that I can charge my own EV at home, overnight, for 8p per kilowatt hour. Why would we move towards a hydrogen transport system that would create so much range anxiety?

A strong hydrogen economy in Scotland is in the offing, but it must be focused on the hard-to-abate sectors. That is where we should put in the research and the just transition planning. It is also where we should put in the science and the effort from Government and industry working together, rather than wasting time on applying hydrogen to areas that will be not cost effective and will end up driving up bills for hard-pressed families around the country.

16:36  

This has been an important debate. I like debates like this one, when we talk about big topics and there is broad consensus, but there are aspects that we need to navigate.

I begin by reflecting on what Clare Adamson said about rediscovering our heritage of innovation in science. I believe that science can make our lives better. It has the answers to the challenges that are in front of us. Scotland has an enormous legacy in that regard, and I believe that hydrogen has a huge future here.

The cabinet secretary and others, including Kevin Stewart and my colleague Sarah Boyack, set out a compelling case for why we have such a great opportunity in front of us. It is partly a consequence of our huge investment in renewables. As Ms Boyack pointed out, we must ask what we will do with the excess electricity that we will inevitably generate. It is absurd that, right now, we are paying providers to switch turbines off, which in turn simply increases current electricity costs.

Kevin Stewart rightly pointed out that another incredibly important element in Scotland is the fact that, given our history of working in the North Sea, we possess geological knowledge and the ability to undertake engineering work offshore. Those factors come together to form an extraordinary opportunity, because hydrogen energy will be a very significant part of the world’s energy economy in the future.

I very much appreciate Maurice Golden’s illustrating that in the context of Germany’s ambitions, which it has made very clear. It has huge targets for hydrogen consumption, which require a demand range of between 95 and 130 terawatt hours of hydrogen by 2030 alone, and that figure will double in 2045.

The issue concerns not only our energy economy and our energy security, but what we have to offer the world. Given that we are where we are, and given our incredible geographic opportunities because of our offshore wind potential and the fact that Germany and other parts of Europe lie just across the North Sea, there is extraordinary potential here.

In my contribution, I referred to the possibility of integrating into a wider European and international network. Does Mr Johnson share my view that there should now be discussions right across Europe about establishing such a network, so that we can get our approach right, with a view to achieving energy security throughout Europe and so relying much less on the likes of Russia?

I could not agree more. That is why the UK Government has sought to establish agreements with Germany, and it is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently pointed out the importance of Europe as a trading partner.

Willie Rennie was right in saying that, above all else, we need to concentrate on making this happen, but that requires us to have a dose of realism, which is why I very much value Patrick Harvie’s contribution. There is some fundamental physics and chemistry to consider. In order to make using hydrogen for energy possible, we need to store it at a compression of 700 times atmospheric pressure and at -253°C. We absolutely can come up with the engineering and scientific solutions to do that, but it is not trivial. I am concerned that we simply think, “We can stop using that kind of gas and start using this kind of gas,” when the reality is that the energy density of hydrogen is considerably less than that of natural gas, because of the difference between the hydrogen atom and natural gas, which is made up of ethane, methane and propane. Those are considerably more energy dense, which allows you to do different things.

We need our pilots, and the H100 pilot project is interesting for a number of reasons. The end use is probably the least of it, because we need to explore how we can repurpose our current gas networks for using hydrogen. Indeed, the cabinet secretary alluded to that point, and projects and pilots such as H100 are part of that.

However, we need to understand a couple of things, and there is one sort of footnote to the issue. As Willie Rennie alluded, this is not just about energy; it is also about the other things that we currently use hydrocarbons for, in which context Grangemouth and project willow are important. We will need hydrogen in order to produce dyes, pharmaceuticals and such things, in combination with biorefining. Hydrogen is critical to that, and we need to get into the detail of that.

Ultimately, to make that happen, we need to recognise that there will be different options, and decisions will need to be taken. This is not about racing for as much hydrogen as possible. There are limitations to hydrogen, whether they are about energy density or the physical requirements.

I speak as an industrial chemist by trade. The whole point of using hydrogen is that it is limitless, as opposed to hydrocarbons, which, of course, are not limitless. Extraordinarily, my ambitions on this matter are much higher than the Green Party’s ambitions, given that Mark Ruskell would not let me intervene to discuss the matter.

I share that view.

I do not know whether members remember the demonstration that took place at the exhibition stand a couple of years ago, which showed the amazing possibility of producing hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. It was almost like magic.

I say to Mr Whittle, an industrial chemist, that there are physical limitations to what hydrogen can and cannot do. As we pursue hydrogen fuel, we will have to understand where the decision points are. At each one of those decision points, whatever we choose to do, there will be an option that we choose not to do. That needs to be crafted carefully, because we will have to move at such pace, and we have not always been good at delivering at pace. The hydrogen strategy itself was delivered three years late. It is good, but it is also very broad and non-specific.

Let us embrace hydrogen, but let us also be clear about what it can and cannot do, and let us make sure that we maximise our potential.

16:43  

I am delighted to speak in this debate on a motion that I broadly agree with. That does not always happen in a Government debate. Before I talk about it in any great depth, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, in which I declare that I have a farming interest. I may talk about fertiliser, and I have an interest in a fishery on the River Spey that may be affected by a hydrogen plant. I have made that clear at the outset.

I also agree with the Labour amendment. I have been enthralled in the debate by Daniel Johnson, Brian Whittle and one or two others quoting physics and chemistry. I now remember why I did not do those subjects at school and did others instead.

I support most of the Green amendment, until it gets to the bit about heating, then I lose the thread, so I cannot support it. Frankly, I think that the Greens’ amendment is disappointing and shows a lack of vision.

Let us be clear: I have had to brush up my knowledge of hydrogen, but I know from my experience on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that about 40 to 45 per cent of electricity is lost when producing hydrogen and that about another 10 per cent of power is lost when hydrogen is turned back into electricity. A huge amount of power is lost in the process, which means that it is quite an expensive way of producing electricity. I have also found out that 9 litres of water are required to produce 1 litre of hydrogen. The process uses quite a lot of that resource, which I will return to in a minute.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will in a minute, Mr Harvie. I just want to make a point.

The production of hydrogen has costs for the environment as well as for the industry. Therefore, we need to send the industry clear signals about the need for hydrogen, which requires us not to talk down all the things that it could be used for.

The member expressed some scepticism about the Green’s position on heating and, in the very next sentence, went on to explain how much energy loss is involved in the production of hydrogen. Can he not accept, as the UK Climate Change Committee has advised, that hydrogen is an extremely inefficient way of providing heat for people’s homes and buildings in comparison to the forms of electric heating that are already available?

I always think that it is good to listen to an argument as it develops rather than jump in at the outset. I have tried to explain to you on numerous occasions why it is important to look at different fuels instead of focusing blandly on energy performance certificates when it comes to housing insulation. You did not listen to me then, so I hope that you will listen to me now.

Through the chair, please, Mr Mountain.

I would like the UK Government to give a clear steer to the industry that hydrogen will be important. If we said to the industry that a percentage of the power that it uses has to come from hydrogen, that would encourage investment and reduce the cost of production. Benefits could then be derived from it, which would allow hydrogen to be produced at a level that could make it affordable for use in housing.

Sarah Boyack said that we would not have to pay constraint payments. Would it not be nice if we could develop hydrogen so that we did not have to pay people not to generate power and to have idle turbines? Would it not be nice if battery storage plants did not have to be dumped all over the Highlands in a way that has not been thought out? Would it not be nice if the Highlands did not have to have pylon lines everywhere and we could use underground pipelines? We heard this afternoon that the underground pipeline that is available will become redundant. Emma Harper and one or two other members spoke clearly about how the gas pipeline could be repurposed to transmit hydrogen.

We have to be careful when we are thinking about hydrogen, and I offer a couple of words of warning. Choosing the hydrogen plant sites will be important, as we cannot denude our watercourses and lochs to produce the water they will require. We need to harvest the water used for hydrogen production when there is a surplus of it, and there will not be a surplus of water every summer if temperatures remain high. We also need to think carefully about the by-products that will come about. What will we do with the oxygen from a hydrogen plant? Will there be a role for it, and could there be a subsequent industry? I think so.

I am pleased that we have heard from the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy during this afternoon’s debate. She is very open minded and wants to see a market being developed.

I was pleased to hear from Graham Simpson that hydrogen fuel gives off only water and that it must be part of the mix.

I agree with Sarah Boyack that hydrogen should be used for transport. Is it not mad that we can transport hydrogen in a lorry but the same lorry cannot be fuelled by hydrogen? There is something wrong with the regulations, and I think they need to catch up.

I have given enough air to Mr Harvie, so I will just say that I do not think that he is on the right track when it comes to domestic heating. [Interruption.] You can make lots of noises if you want to, Mr Harvie. I tend not to do that when you are speaking.

Through the chair, please, Mr Mountain.

Sorry, Presiding Officer.

I agree with Mr Rennie about the storage of energy and about hydrogen being a resource for that. I note that it is also a resource for the production of e-ammonia, which would be a useful fertiliser for farmers. That is important, because, let us be honest, we do not produce fertiliser anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Maurice Golden made the point that about a third of Germany’s demand could be met from what we have in Scotland.

I could go on, because I agree with most of the speakers. There is only one section of the speakers with whom I do not agree: the Greens. I do not agree that they have got it right. I think that they are missing the point. If they were slightly more open minded, instead of looking just at preconceived ideas, they might well see that there is a role for hydrogen in domestic heating, provided that they do not take a position that puts industry off.

I call Alasdair Allan to wind up the debate.

16:50  

The tone of today’s debate has been constructive. I think that it was Willie Rennie who urged us at one point to keep the tone of the debate cheery. We more or less achieved that, although I might disappoint Mr Rennie by telling him that, unfortunately, there are no salt caverns in Scotland, thanks to the geology that we have.

Pessimist.

That is not pessimism; it is just data. However, Willie Rennie is right that there is a great deal to be positive about, and a great deal of room for consensus, in the debate about the hydrogen sector and how we need to help it to develop and grow.

As we have heard throughout today’s debate from speakers such as the cabinet secretary, Patrick Harvie and many others, developing Scotland’s hydrogen sector presents huge opportunities for Scotland. As the United Kingdom’s energy future and economic prosperity are important to all of us, I think that, although we have heard differences of opinion this afternoon, there is common ground on some of the issues.

There has been a surge in momentum on and enthusiasm for hydrogen. I have been able to see that in my role as chair of the Scottish hydrogen industry forum. The opportunities and technical challenges in hydrogen deployment are conveyed to me whenever I speak to companies that are active in the new sector.

Before going on to anything else, I want to address the issue of hydrogen and domestic heat, as it came up a fair bit in our discussions today, and I listened carefully to what the Greens had to say. At this stage in the debate, it is important to introduce a bit of perspective. The Scottish Government has supported the SGN hydrogen for heating project, which seeks to help us to understand the potential role of hydrogen in this area. It is important that we do that, and that, as we do so, we are mindful of the fact that one of our asks of the UK Government is about the price of electricity. That stems from our recognition that, in many circumstances, the priority is the electrification of heating in houses around the country. I hope that there is not quite as much disagreement about some of those things as has sometimes been the case today.

Without rehashing the disagreement that we have had, I ask whether, if the UK Climate Change Committee presents the Scottish Government with the same advice that it has given to the UK Government, which is that hydrogen does not have a role for home heating and has a limited or niche role for transport, the Scottish Government will accept it.

I am not going to pre-empt any decisions by the Scottish Government, but I will say that the member is right to point out that the same advice applies in both cases.

We want to support the scaling up of hydrogen projects, and we have taken steps to ensure that our planning and consenting regimes are responsive to the growing number of developments that are emerging across the country.

We have taken action to improve capacity and capability in our planning system to enable local planning authorities to respond to the growing number of hydrogen developments across Scotland. That point was picked up today by Sarah Boyack, Foysol Choudhury and others. We have sought to address that. In collaboration with the University of Strathclyde and the University of Aberdeen, we have developed a continuing personal development course that is entitled “An introduction to hydrogen for the public sector”. The course, which launched in July 2024, is targeted at local planning professionals. The modules that have been developed for the course are free to access via the Improvement Service website.

A planning hub for Scotland was established in September 2024 and is hosted by the Improvement Service. Its initial focus is to improve consenting speed for hydrogen developments. The hub is working to identify the pipeline for hydrogen projects and to gain an understanding of the operational barriers to their delivery. Comprehensive planning and consenting guidance for the development of hydrogen production facilities will be published this year.

By developing our domestic hydrogen sector, Scotland, in partnership with the UK Government and our European neighbours, can play a key role in meeting the growing global demand for low-carbon and renewable hydrogen technologies and the skills that will be required in the energy system of the future.

As Audrey Nicoll, Kevin Stewart and others pointed out, the wider situation would be greatly assisted if the UK Government could come to the right decision on Acorn. We have been taking steps to work out a way forward—a reality—by forming international agreements, building relationships and collaborating on research.

Scotland has very strong international relationships, most notably with the EU and individual member states such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. I have seen for myself the strong interest in Scotland’s hydrogen capacity that exists in those countries. As Maurice Golden and other members—

The minister is talking about the international market. Does he recognise that, while we pontificate in this chamber and decide what we will or will not do with hydrogen, countries around the world are already doing it? There were $1.8 billion of exports from the United States—hydrogen is in the top 15 per cent of its exports. While we listen to the Greens saying that hydrogen is not for transport and we have this debate, the Chinese have more than a million cars that are powered by hydrogen. Other countries are just doing it, so it is time that we caught up.

Scotland has a great capacity in this regard. Within the constraints of our devolved powers, the Scottish Government is working to forge relationships, overcome many of the barriers and ensure that we respond to the fact that, as other members have alluded to, the German Government expects to import between 50 and 70 per cent of its hydrogen demand by 2030, to name but one opportunity.

As our relationships deepen, we are keen to work with our near northern neighbours—Denmark, Norway and Ireland—as an alliance of producing nations that can supply some of that demand.

I cannot remember who made this point, but we are also keen to meet the demand for hydrogen derivatives such as ammonia.

Last year, we welcomed the signing of a joint declaration of intent on hydrogen between the UK and Germany. That agreement opens the door for deeper collaboration with our key partners in Germany and other hydrogen markets. The first output of that agreement—a UK-German hydrogen trade feasibility study—was published only this week. The study includes research findings by the Net Zero Technology Centre’s hydrogen backbone link project, which is co-funded by the Scottish Government, to assess how Scotland could connect to the European hydrogen backbone and facilitate the export of hydrogen produced in Scotland.

As other members have pointed out, Scotland has a long and proud history of innovation, and hydrogen is no exception to that. A strong evidence base is crucial to the development of the sector. We are, therefore, supporting a range of research initiatives to assist us in laying the groundwork to innovate and build on all of that.

That work includes 31 projects that are funded via our hydrogen innovation scheme, such as the Clyde Hydrogen Systems novel decoupled electrolysis project, which is based at the University of Glasgow, as well as projects by Gravitricity, on geological storage, and by Intelligent Plant and Green Cat Renewables on the development of artificial intelligence-powered decision-making tools.

In November 2024, we published the hydrogen sector export plan. That ambitious plan, which was developed in consultation with industry and international partners, sets out the steps required for Scotland to realise our hydrogen export potential.

Scotland has enormous potential in this area. Hydrogen is not the only answer to Scotland’s energy needs, and I say in response to one or two comments that were made today that it is certainly not a magical solution. However, it is part of the answer and it has the potential to benefit our environment and our economy in the years to come.

Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate on Scotland’s hydrogen future.