How Polish Cities Are Wasting EU Funds on Hydrogen Buses — Ignoring Energy Efficiency First

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

My comparative review of eight Polish municipal projects purchasing hydrogen buses under the EU-funded Green Public Transport program reveals a systemic failure to apply the Energy Efficiency First (EE1st) principle.

Seven out of eight cities skipped any energy or cost-efficiency comparison with battery-electric buses (BEVs), even though EU law explicitly requires it.

The result: public money flows into the least efficient “zero-emission” technology — hydrogen fuel-cell buses (FCEVs) — which consume 4–5× more electricity at the source and cost 4–6× more to operate than BEVs.

1. Background: when subsidies override logic

Since 2021, Poland’s Zielony Transport Publiczny (Green Public Transport, or ZTP) program has been offering EU-backed grants for zero-emission buses.

However, the subsidy rules make FCEV projects more lucrative on paper:

• up to 90% funding for hydrogen buses,
• vs 80% for battery-electric ones.

That small difference turned into a major distortion. Instead of rewarding efficiency, the system encouraged cities to choose the most expensive and energy-wasteful option available.

Yet under EU law, every project must follow the Energy Efficiency First rule — comparing total lifecycle energy use and costs before making a decision.

In reality, almost none did.

2. What the studies didn’t do

I reviewed nine feasibility studies from cities including Kraków, Konin, Lublin, Piła, Płock, Poznań, Rybnik, Rzeszów, Wejherowo.

Here’s what I found:

• 9 studies had no BEV vs. FCEV energy or cost comparison.
• None contained TCO or primary-energy analyses.
• Justifications were often limited to generic statements like “hydrogen offers greater range and faster refueling” — with no route-level modeling to support it.
• In most cases, the choice of hydrogen was made first, and the “analysis” written afterward to justify it.

The result: projects that directly contradict EU funding principles — but still get approved.

3. Real data from Polish operators

To verify the numbers, I requested operational data from cities already running BEV and FCEV fleets. The results are stark.

Białystok (BEV – Yutong U12)

Based on a full year of data from 2024:

That’s 85–130 kWh per 100 km, plug-to-wheel — excellent efficiency for a 12-meter bus operating in a continental climate.

Hydrogen (FCEV) comparison

Typical FCEV use in Poland: 7.5 kg H₂ / 100 km

Given the full hydrogen chain (electrolysis ~60% efficient + compression + fuel cell losses):

7.5 kg × 65 kWh/kg = ~490 kWh of electricity per 100 km

Even allowing for logistics and optimization, hydrogen buses still consume 4–5× more primary electricity per kilometer than BEVs.

They’re “zero-emission” only in the tailpipe sense — not in real energy terms.

4. Case study: Płock — when numbers speak louder than slogans

KM Płock, a municipal operator, signed a 5-year contract with Orlen S.A. for hydrogen supply to 18 Solaris Urbino 12 Hydrogen buses.

The hydrogen is marketed as “low-emission,” but it’s not green — produced mainly from natural gas.

I analyzed the city’s actual contract and energy data to estimate 15-year total costs (TCO) for four drivetrain scenarios:

• FCEV (hydrogen contract),
• BEV (grid electricity),
• BEV (grid + PV + storage, 40% autarky),
• Diesel.

Key assumptions (based on official data)

Results:

• Hydrogen (orange line) stays consistently above all others — even diesel.
  
• Over 15 years, Płock will lose ≈ 40 million zł compared to BEVs, just on fuel.
  
• That’s about 2.7 million zł per year in avoidable operating costs.
• Even assuming 100% capital subsidy for FCEVs, the fuel alone makes them uneconomic.
• Meanwhile, BEVs are already cheaper than diesel in lifetime cost — and can be 30% cheaper still with partial solar and battery storage.

5. The bigger picture

Hydrogen buses might have limited roles — e.g. long-range or intercity routes — but they are a thermodynamic and fiscal failure in city transport.

Approving such projects without EE1st verification effectively rewards energy waste.

The Energy Efficiency First principle exists to prevent exactly this: spending public funds on options that deliver fewer clean kilometers per euro.

6. Why it matters beyond Poland

• Energy waste = more generation required.
  Every kilometer on hydrogen requires four times more renewable capacity than on batteries.
• Budget waste = fewer buses on the road.
  Cities buy fewer vehicles for the same subsidy, limiting decarbonization speed.
• Public trust.
  When citizens learn that “clean” projects waste 80% of their input energy, confidence in the transition erodes.

As one engineer in Lublin told me off record:

“We were told hydrogen was the future. Then we saw the bills.”

7. I’m happy to share

I can provide:

• Full datasets from BEV and FCEV operators (Lublin, Białystok, Rzeszów, Konin, etc.),
• Comparative tables of all 8 feasibility studies,
• TCO spreadsheets for BEV vs FCEV vs Diesel (+PV scenarios),
• Original contracts and price formulas,
• Verified data from public-record requests (UDIP) and operator responses.

8. The lesson

The cleanest kilowatt-hour is the one we don’t waste. Yet EU funds are now subsidizing a technology that needs five of them to do the work of one.

Hydrogen may have a future — but not inside city buses.

By Jacek Werder, independent energy & transport analyst