Decarbonisation Technology May 2026 Issue

This introduces another coordination layer. Fuel developers must now engage with power developers, grid operators, and storage providers. Long-term power purchase agreements influence hydrogen economics in the same way that offtake agreements influence fuel bankability. Curtailment risk, balancing costs, and certification of renewable origin all affect final project economics. Where hydrogen supply is unstable or expensive, downstream fuel projects struggle to reach FID. Where hydrogen integration is structured early, and electricity pricing risk is managed through durable contracts, capital confidence improves. In this sense, industrial decarbonisation in fuels is inseparable from power system design, and the molecule and the electron must be aligned. Scaling, standardisation, and market integrity Sustainable fuels compete against a fossil system that has been optimised over more than a century. On pure cost today, many advanced pathways require policy support. Scale is the most powerful lever for cost reduction. Larger facilities, repeated builds, and global supply chains drive learning curves. Modularisation accelerates replication. Standardisation reduces engineering effort and contingency allowances. Policy instruments such as mandates, incentives, and contracts for difference create early demand and revenue stability. Over time, as capacity grows and operational experience accumulates, reliance on support can decline. The experience of renewable electricity demonstrates how clear frameworks, industrial scaling, and systematic learning can deliver dramatic cost reductions. Sustainable fuels can follow a similar trajectory, provided stakeholders insufficient. For low-carbon fuels to become globally tradable commodities, certification integrity, and harmonised carbon accounting are equally critical. SAF and synthetic hydrocarbons are increasingly traded across borders. Yet lifecycle assessment methodologies, carbon intensity thresholds, and sustainability criteria still vary align early and commit consistently. Scale reduces cost. But scale alone is

between jurisdictions. Differences in accounting treatment for biogenic carbon, captured CO 2 , renewable electricity sourcing, and indirect land use can materially alter project economics. For developers and financiers, this introduces regulatory risk. A project structured under one certification framework may find its product discounted or ineligible under another. For airlines and end users operating globally, fragmented standards increase complexity and administrative burden. Harmonisation does not require uniform policy, but it does require mutual recognition and transparent methodologies. Clear and durable carbon accounting rules provide the confidence required for long-term offtake agreements and cross-border trade. As the market matures, certification integrity will become as important as catalytic performance. Industrial decarbonisation at scale depends not only on converting molecules, but “ Clear and durable carbon accounting rules provide the confidence required for long-term offtake agreements and cross-border trade ” on converting those molecules into verified and trusted low-carbon commodities within a coherent global framework. Institutional engineering as the next frontier If the past decade was about proving the chemistry, the next will be about proving the coordination. Industrial decarbonisation will not fail because reactors underperform or catalysts degrade. It will fail if contracts are too short, risks are misallocated, infrastructure is built in isolation, and policy frameworks shift faster than capital can respond. The industry now faces a decisive test of institutional engineering. Those who can design partnerships with the same rigour applied to process design will determine whether low-carbon fuels remain demonstration projects or become the backbone of a decarbonised industrial economy.

Maurits van Tol maurits.vantol@matthey.com