A “combined gas-plus-power” benchmark only becomes meaningful if we anchor it to realistic industrial energy intensities, then multiply those intensities by delivered industrial €/MWh corridors for electricity and gas. That is what I do below for four representative heavy-industry products—EAF steel, cement (gas-fired kiln benchmark), ammonia/fertilisers (NH₃ as the energy anchor), and copper cathode (smelting + refining benchmark). The result is a per-tonne energy cost map that shows, very clearly, where Serbia was structurally competitive in 2025 and where it was structurally penalised.
The delivered 2025 price corridors used here are the same ones from our prior discussion, expressed in €/MWh. For electricity, Serbia sits around €120–140/MWh, Hungary €110–140/MWh, Romania €150–190/MWh, Bulgaria €140–180/MWh, Croatia €115–145/MWh, Greece €130–170/MWh. For gas, Serbia €35–45/MWh, Hungary €32–42/MWh, Romania (typical heavy industry) €45–60/MWh, Bulgaria €35–50/MWh, Croatia €34–48/MWh, Greece €38–55/MWh. These are delivered industrial corridors, meaning they implicitly include the procurement reality of transmission/system stack and supplier margin rather than only a hub quote.
Because heavy industry lives on margins, the important output is not one “average” number, but a corridor: the low end reflects a flat, well-hedged procurement and good load profile; the high end reflects a more volatile profile and higher risk premia. I also include a “typical” midpoint interpretation to show how big the competitiveness gap becomes at industrial scale.
EAF steel: Serbia competitive versus Romania, similar to Croatia, slightly behind best-case Hungary
Electric arc furnace steel is electricity-led but not electricity-only. A realistic benchmark for 2025 is 0.35–0.45 MWh of electricity per tonne of liquid steel, plus 0.15–0.40 MWh of gas-equivalent per tonne for ladle heating, reheating, auxiliaries and site thermal needs (the exact split depends on route, product mix and whether the plant has significant rolling/reheat downstream).
Under these assumptions, the combined gas-plus-power energy cost per tonne in 2025 looks like this.
Serbia lands at €47.25–€81.00 per tonne of EAF steel, with a typical midpoint around €64.12/t. Hungary lands at €43.30–€79.80/t (midpoint €61.55/t), Croatia at €45.35–€84.45/t (midpoint €64.90/t), Bulgaria at €54.25–€101.00/t (midpoint €77.62/t), Greece at €51.20–€98.50/t (midpoint €74.85/t), and Romania at €59.25–€109.50/t (midpoint €84.38/t).
The economics are blunt. Relative to Romania’s typical outcome, Serbia’s midpoint advantage is roughly €20.3/t of steel. On a 1.0 million tonne per year EAF site, that is about €20 million per year in energy cost differential before you even discuss labour, scrap, logistics or carbon. Against Bulgaria, Serbia’s midpoint advantage is roughly €13.5/t, or ~€13.5 million per year at 1 Mtpa. Against Greece, the midpoint gap is roughly €10.7/t, or ~€10.7 million per year at 1 Mtpa.
Serbia is not structurally “cheaper than everyone” in EAF steel, because Hungary can outperform Serbia when procurement is optimised and market access is fully used. But Serbia’s 2025 position was clearly competitive, especially relative to Romania and the higher-risk Balkan corridors.
Cement: A gas-fired Kiln benchmark that shows how much gas optionality matters
Most cement in the region is not fired on natural gas; it’s typically coal, petcoke, RDF and other fuels. But the user request is gas-plus-power, so the cleanest way to compare is to set a gas-fired kiln benchmark. A reasonable intensity envelope is 0.09–0.12 MWh electricity per tonne of cement and 0.89–1.00 MWh gas-equivalent per tonne as thermal input (this corresponds to roughly 3.2–3.6 GJ/t thermal).
Under that benchmark, Serbia’s 2025 combined energy cost for cement sits around €41.95–€61.80/t (midpoint €51.88/t). Hungary sits around €38.38–€58.80/t (midpoint €48.59/t). Croatia is €40.61–€65.40/t (midpoint €53.01/t). Bulgaria is €43.75–€71.60/t (midpoint €57.67/t). Greece is €45.52–€75.40/t (midpoint €60.46/t). Romania is €53.55–€82.80/t (midpoint €68.17/t).
The ranking is similar to steel, but the driver changes: cement becomes gas-dominated because thermal input overwhelms electricity. That is exactly why supply optionality and contract structure matter so much more than exchange liquidity in cement. Romania is again the high-cost outlier in typical terms. Serbia’s midpoint advantage versus Romania is about €16.3/t. On a 1.0 million tonne per year cement plant, that is about €16 million per year of energy delta under the gas-fired benchmark. Versus Greece, Serbia’s midpoint advantage is roughly €8.6/t, or ~€8.6 million per year at 1 Mtpa.
Hungary’s best-case can still beat Serbia because gas procurement optionality and hedging toolkits compress risk premia. But Serbia remains competitive if it achieves stable delivered gas close to the lower half of its corridor.
Ammonia and fertilisers: Gas dominates, and small €/MWh differences become massive
Ammonia is the purest “gas competitiveness” test in heavy industry. A realistic 2025 intensity envelope is 7.8–9.2 MWh of gas per tonne of NH₃ (feedstock + energy) and 0.5–1.2 MWh of electricity per tonne for compression, auxiliaries and site loads. This is why ammonia economics can flip on €5/MWh.
With those intensities, Serbia’s 2025 combined energy cost for ammonia is roughly €333–€582 per tonne of NH₃, midpoint €457.5/t. Hungary comes in at €304.6–€554.4/t (midpoint €429.5/t). Croatia at €322.7–€615.6/t (midpoint €469.15/t). Bulgaria at €343–€676/t (midpoint €509.5/t). Greece at €361.4–€710/t (midpoint €535.7/t). Romania (typical) at €426–€780/t (midpoint €603/t).
This is where the competitiveness story becomes extreme. Serbia’s midpoint advantage versus Romania’s typical outcome is roughly €145.5/t NH₃. At 1.0 million tonnes per year of ammonia capacity, that is on the order of €145 million per year in energy cost differential. Even at a smaller 300 ktpa unit, the delta is still ~€43.5 million per year. Against Greece, Serbia’s midpoint advantage is around €78.2/t, meaning ~€78 million per year at 1 Mtpa. Against Bulgaria, Serbia’s midpoint advantage is around €52/t, meaning ~€52 million per year at 1 Mtpa.
The only neighbour that can consistently beat Serbia here is Hungary in best-case procurement conditions, because Hungary can compress gas risk premia. Serbia’s vulnerability in ammonia is that if it drifts into the upper half of its gas corridor while power stays high, it loses competitiveness quickly. Conversely, if Serbia secures gas in the €35–40/MWh delivered range with stable power around €120–130/MWh, it becomes one of the region’s more robust locations for ammonia economics.
Copper cathode: Electricity matters, but gas and volatility premiums still show up
Copper smelting and refining economics depend heavily on concentrate terms and by-product credits, but the energy benchmark is still relevant—especially for refining and downstream electrowinning-type intensity, plus plant thermal loads. A reasonable benchmark envelope is 0.3–0.6 MWh electricity per tonne of cathode and 0.15–0.40 MWh gas-equivalent per tonne.
Under those assumptions, Serbia’s combined energy cost is €41.25–€102.00/t (midpoint €71.62/t). Hungary is €37.80–€100.80/t (midpoint €69.30/t). Croatia is €39.60–€106.20/t (midpoint €72.90/t). Bulgaria is €47.25–€128.00/t (midpoint €87.62/t). Greece is €44.70–€124.00/t (midpoint €84.35/t). Romania is €51.75–€138.00/t (midpoint €94.88/t).
The pattern repeats: Serbia is competitive against Romania, Bulgaria and Greece, and roughly comparable to Croatia, with Hungary potentially best-case. The midpoint advantage versus Romania is about €23.3/t cathode. For a 300 ktpa cathode-equivalent complex, that is ~€7 million per year. For a 1.0 Mtpa scale, it becomes ~€23 million per year.
Copper’s message is slightly different from ammonia: here, electricity structure and volatility premium matter more than gas. Markets with stronger intraday and hedging depth can reduce the risk stack that ends up embedded in “all-in” electricity cost for industrial supply.
What the map actually says about Serbia in 2025
Across all four products, Serbia’s 2025 position can be summarised without relying on country averages that mislead.
For EAF steel and copper, Serbia’s competitiveness is driven primarily by delivered electricity cost stability and secondarily by gas. Serbia is broadly comparable to Croatia, slightly behind Hungary’s best case, and clearly ahead of Romania’s typical heavy-industry outcome, with Bulgaria and Greece often sitting between.
For cement under the gas-fired benchmark, Serbia remains competitive because gas is priced in a relatively stable corridor, but it does not lead the region because Croatia and Hungary can sometimes capture better downside participation through more diversified procurement.
For ammonia/fertilisers, Serbia’s competitiveness is highly sensitive to gas, and the map shows that Romania’s typical delivered cost profile is structurally punitive for gas-intensive chemistry in 2025, while Hungary remains the best-case competitor if procurement is sophisticated.
The highest strategic insight is that the “winner” is rarely the country with the lowest nominal hub price. The winner is the country where heavy industry can secure a delivered energy stack with low risk premium. In 2025, Serbia’s strength was that it often delivered predictability. Its weakness was that it did not always deliver downside participation when the region softened.
