Hydrogen’s Recapitalization Cycle: Thirty Years of Survival Without Profit

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

For roughly three decades a group of publicly traded hydrogen and fuel cell companies has persisted through repeated cycles of enthusiasm and disappointment. Ballard Power was founded in 1979. FuelCell Energy traces its technology roots to the late 1960s. Plug Power was created in 1997 and went public in 1999. Bloom Energy was founded in 2001. Nel ASA and ITM Power are other examples. Across those decades the companies have reported billions in cumulative losses. Ballard alone has accumulated deficits exceeding $2 billion according to its annual filings. Plug Power’s accumulated deficit exceeded $8 billion by 2025 according to company disclosures. FuelCell Energy’s accumulated deficit is roughly $1.8 billion. These numbers do not describe a young industry waiting for its first product cycle. They describe firms that have existed long enough to outlast multiple waves of investor enthusiasm.

The puzzle is not technological experimentation. Energy technologies often require decades to mature. Wind turbines took roughly thirty years from early demonstration to large scale deployment. Solar photovoltaics required similar time frames. The puzzle is financial persistence. Companies that never generate operating profits continue to exist as public entities with executive teams, investor relations departments, and recurring capital raises. That persistence requires explanation. The answer becomes clearer once the sector is viewed through the lens of capital markets rather than through technology alone.

The stock histories of hydrogen energy firms show a repeating pattern. Ballard Power’s share price surged around 2000 during the first hydrogen automotive wave. It surged again around 2005. Another rise occurred around 2014 during the hydrogen vehicle revival. The most recent peak occurred during the 2020 to 2021 hydrogen economy narrative. FuelCell Energy and Plug Power show similar trajectories. Each cycle includes a rapid price increase followed by a collapse that erases the gains. The pattern is visible when plotting share performance across multiple decades. Peaks appear roughly every six to ten years. Those peaks correspond to policy announcements, media coverage, and investor narratives about hydrogen becoming a dominant energy carrier.

These cycles do not appear randomly. They occur when political interest and investor enthusiasm align. Hydrogen has an attractive conceptual story. It promises energy storage, decarbonization of heavy industry, and zero emissions at the point of use. Governments repeatedly publish hydrogen strategies that project enormous future demand. In 2020 the European Union proposed installing 40 GW of electrolyzers by 2030. Japan and South Korea issued national hydrogen roadmaps. The United States included hydrogen support in several federal funding programs. Investors respond to these narratives by searching for publicly traded vehicles that represent the theme. Because the hydrogen sector contains only a handful of listed companies, capital flows toward the same names repeatedly.

A conventional industrial scale up follows a different trajectory. A company develops a product that solves a specific problem for customers. Early sales are small and margins are thin. Over time demand becomes repeatable. Manufacturing scale improves margins. Operating cash flow eventually funds growth. Equity markets may accelerate expansion but do not remain the primary source of operating capital. Mature industrial companies exhibit this transition clearly. Their share issuance declines as their cash generation increases.

Hydrogen energy firms have largely followed a different sequence. Equity markets open first. Companies raise large amounts of capital relative to their revenue. Expansion follows. Factories, demonstration projects, and partnerships appear before large scale demand exists. When the expected market fails to appear, companies retrench and conserve cash. The process repeats during the next enthusiasm cycle.

The hydrogen narrative cycle begins with actual technology. Fuel cells produce electricity through electrochemical reactions. Electrolyzers split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Both technologies have been demonstrated for decades. Ballard’s proton exchange membrane fuel cells powered early demonstration buses in the 1990s. FuelCell Energy’s molten carbonate fuel cells produced electricity from natural gas in stationary installations. Nel developed electrolyzer systems for hydrogen production. These technologies function. Their existence provides the foundation for investment narratives.

The second stage occurs when policy and investor enthusiasm expand the perceived market opportunity. Analysts publish projections of global hydrogen demand reaching hundreds of millions of tons annually. Governments announce hydrogen corridors, hydrogen vehicles, and hydrogen infrastructure plans. Media coverage amplifies the story. Investors begin purchasing shares in companies associated with hydrogen.

The third stage follows immediately. Share prices rise sharply. Plug Power’s market capitalization increased from roughly $1 billion in early 2020 to more than $40 billion in January 2021 according to market data. Ballard Power approached $10 billion during the same period. FuelCell Energy rose above $8 billion. Nel ASA reached about $5 billion. These valuations appeared while revenue remained modest. Ballard reported $103 million in revenue for 2020 according to its financial statements. Nel reported about NOK 651 million in revenue. McPhy reported €13 million.

Capital raises follow rising valuations. Plug Power raised $344 million in August 2020, $927 million in November 2020, and $1.8 billion in early 2021 according to company filings. FuelCell Energy raised about $98 million in October 2020 and $156 million in December 2020. Ballard raised roughly $402 million in November 2020 and $550 million in February 2021. ITM Power raised £172 million in 2020 and £250 million in 2021. Nel raised NOK 1.225 billion in 2021 and another NOK 1.5 billion in 2022. These sums were large relative to company revenue. A firm producing $100 million and negative cash flow annually suddenly controlled hundreds of millions or billions in capital.

Expansion comes next. Companies announce manufacturing plants, strategic partnerships, and hiring plans. Plug Power announced hydrogen production plants targeting hundreds of tons per day. ITM Power constructed a 1 GW electrolyzer factory in Sheffield. Nel expanded manufacturing capacity at Herøya in Norway. McPhy began developing its Belfort gigafactory targeting 1 GW of electrolyzer production. These announcements often describe scaling ahead of demand and establishing market leadership.

The fourth stage begins when demand grows more slowly than anticipated. Hydrogen passenger vehicles illustrate the gap. Global sales remain well below 20,000 vehicles annually according to industry estimates. Battery electric vehicles exceed 20 million, three orders of magnitude more, annually according to International Energy Agency data. Buses show a similar pattern. China deployed hundreds of thousands of battery electric buses. Hydrogen buses remain a small fraction of that number, with Beijing’s Winter 2022 Olympics fleet increasingly parked on fenced in, weed infested, closed hydrogen refueling stations. Heavy trucks increasingly adopt battery electric platforms. Battery electric heavy truck adoption in China exceeded 30% of new sales in 2025 while hydrogen truck sales dropped by 40% according to transport industry data. Ferry markets show the same trend. More than 70% of new ferry orders globally are battery electric while hydrogen ferries remain expensive, high-emissions demonstration projects.

Electrolyzers face a related issue. Project announcements greatly exceed projects reaching final investment decision. Industry assessments suggest fewer than 5% of announced hydrogen projects proceed to construction, and that’s by deals, not manufactured volumes, where the percentage is much lower. A gigawatt of electrolyzer capacity announced in press releases does not translate directly into equipment orders. Manufacturing capacity built during the enthusiasm phase remains partially idle.

When revenue fails to absorb the cost base built during expansion, companies move into retrenchment. Workforce reductions become common. Nel announced workforce cuts affecting about 20% of employees in its alkaline electrolyzer division. ITM Power reduced headcount by roughly 30%. Ballard introduced restructuring measures intended to reduce operating expenses by more than 30%. Plug Power announced restructuring programs in 2024 and 2025 including layoffs, facility consolidation and maintenance cuts. McPhy entered financial restructuring before judicial liquidation of portions of its business.

Financial engineering appears alongside operational retrenchment. Reverse stock splits help maintain exchange listings when share prices fall. FuelCell Energy executed reverse splits in 2015, 2019, and 2024 according to company filings, with the most recent being a 30 to 1 reverse split, hence it’s apparent high peak share price in the chart above.

Share authorization increases allow companies to issue additional equity. Plug Power sought approval to increase authorized shares from 1.5 billion to 3 billion, diluting previous investors’ equity in order to pick up new investors’ money to keep afloat. At the market share sale programs allow firms to sell stock gradually to raise operating capital. Convertible notes provide additional financing while deferring dilution.

Ballard Power illustrates a strategic approach to surviving these cycles. The company has participated in hydrogen enthusiasm waves since the 1990s while never turning a profit. During the automotive fuel cell boom Ballard partnered with Ford and Daimler. When that effort slowed, the company pivoted toward fuel cell buses and heavy duty transport. During the 2020 hydrogen surge Ballard raised more than $900 million in equity. Unlike some competitors it avoided committing large amounts of capital to manufacturing expansion before demand materialized. As of a couple of years ago, it had lost an average of $55 million a year since 2000. The cash on its balance sheet came from investors who purchased shares during the bubble. That capital now funds what operations exist while revenue remains limited.

Bloom Energy presents a related case. Its solid oxide fuel cells are often marketed as green distributed power systems. In practice the vast majority run on natural gas with carbon emissions per kWh are similar to combined cycle gas turbines. Bloom promoted the concept of hydrogen ready fuel cells during the hydrogen enthusiasm phase. Sales increased but profitability remained elusive. Now its stock price has shot up as data center developers come calling.

The company raised money against its newly high value stocks through convertible notes including 3.0% green convertible senior notes issued in 2023 and 2024 and 0% convertible senior notes issued in 2025 according to its financial disclosures. Convertible notes are not immediately dilutive like a direct share issuance, but they are explicitly designed to become equity later if the stock price remains high. Senior ones get first dibs in the case of bankruptcy.

In other words, Bloom is monetizing the high valuation indirectly. Bloom also established a $600 million revolving credit facility to maintain liquidity. These financial instruments allow the company to continue operating despite decades of annual losses.

FuelCell Energy demonstrates the pattern in its clearest form. Its accumulated deficit exceeds $1.8 billion while annual revenue has remained roughly in the $100 million to $150 million range, far below what is needed to sustain its cost structure without external capital.

The company has executed three reverse stock splits to maintain listing and reset its share structure: 1-for-12 in December 2015, 1-for-12 in May 2019, and 1-for-30 in November 2024. Each followed prolonged share price declines and effectively compressed existing shareholders’ positions without changing underlying value.

Between and after these resets, the company has repeatedly issued equity. During the 2020 hydrogen bubble, it raised about $98 million in October 2020 and $156 million in December 2020, then a further ~$369 million in 2021 through ATM (at the market) sales. It has continued using ATM programs since, including a $300 million facility still active in recent filings, with ongoing share issuance even in weaker market conditions.

The pattern is consistent. Reverse splits restore the share price. Equity issuance expands the share count again. As dilution and weak fundamentals pressure the stock, another reset becomes necessary. This is not a one-off response to a downturn. It is a repeated mechanism for maintaining the company’s existence using investor capital rather than operating cash flow.

Plug Power shows another variation. Plug built a small commercial foothold in warehouse material handling, and grew total revenue to roughly $900 million annually across all lines of business, but has not translated that into profitability. The total of 50,000 to 60,000 hydrogen forklifts that exist in the USA, with 1,000 to 3,000 in annual sales are a rounding error globally, as 1.5 million electric forklifts of the 2.2 million forklifts sold annually are battery electric. They also exist mostly because the federal and state money funded the refueling facilities and forklifts for most of them. During the hydrogen bubble Plug expanded into hydrogen production, infrastructure, and electrolyzers using billions raised from investors. By 2025 the company’s accumulated deficit exceeded $8 billion. Restructuring and share issuance continue.

Electrolyzer firms follow the same pattern. Nel’s revenue declined from NOK 1.39 billion in 2024 to NOK 963 million in 2025 while EBITDA remained negative. ITM Power generated £26 million in revenue in fiscal 2025 despite raising hundreds of millions earlier in the decade. McPhy generated €13.2 million in revenue in 2024 before entering restructuring proceedings and selling assets during liquidation.

The common element across these companies is the absence of any operating profits, often for decades. Their survival depends on access to capital markets. Investors purchase shares during enthusiasm cycles. Creditors provide loans and convertible notes. Government subsidies support pilot deployments. Customers contribute some revenue but do not yet fund anywhere near the full operating cost of the companies.

Executive compensation continues throughout this cycle because the firms remain functioning public corporations. Boards approve compensation packages consistent with technology sector norms, not fuel or logistics firm norms. Leadership teams manage strategy, investor relations, and corporate operations. Investors supply the capital required to sustain those structures. The system persists as long as capital markets remain willing to fund the companies during enthusiasm cycles.

The hydrogen sector has profitable industrial businesses like Air Liquide, just none in hydrogen for energy use cases where the economics make no sense and never have. Industrial hydrogen demand in refining and ammonia production already exceeds 90 million tons annually according to International Energy Agency data. Some of that demand will shift toward lower carbon production methods. Electrolyzed hydrogen will become more competitive as facilities are built in global regions with high wind and solar, adequate water and no other demands for electricity. However, it won’t be shipped as hydrogen, but instead used to manufacture industrial feedstocks like ammonia, methanol and green iron.

What the financial histories of hydrogen energy companies demonstrate is that technological potential alone does not create sustainable businesses. Over the past three decades hydrogen for energy firms have survived by raising capital during enthusiasm cycles and cutting deeply to conserve it during downturns. The gap between narrative and commercial reality has been financed by investors and creditors rather than by customers purchasing profitable products. That’s their real business model, whether they admit it to themselves or not.