In order to combat the global climate crisis, our energy provision needs to be decarbonized. One of the potential methods that can help is Green Hydrogen Energy Storage (GHES). GHES is a complex technology/energy carrier combination. It comprises of a conversion process of renewable electricity to hydrogen to then be used for conversion back to electricity at times of high electricity demand and low renewable supply e.g., in winter. Describing sociotechnical imaginaries on this technology/energy carrier combination can provide better alignment of the technology/energy carrier combination with the normative ideas of actors & stakeholders. The research question is thus formulated as: “What are the different sociotechnical imaginaries of green hydrogen energy storage (GHES) in the Netherlands?” These sociotechnical imaginaries will be described by using Q method. The scientific relevance is twofold. First, insight into the conflicting and overlapping imaginaries on this topic. Second, methodological because Q method is relatively new for studying sociotechnical imaginaries. The master Management of Technology is organized around technology, innovation, organization, commercialization, engineering economics, research, and reflection. Research and reflection are by design embedded in this research thesis and technology and innovation are connected because the aim of the thesis is to describe the sociotechnical imaginaries of GHES in the Netherlands and to have that knowledge be utilized by the stakeholders to better align the technology to the sociotechnical imaginaries. And finally, organization relates to the industry stakeholders who will be aware of desired technology futures and can innovate towards those desired futures. The imaginaries have been named: [1] “We are hydrogen-optimistic and critically realistic”, [2] “Hydrogen: a driver for economic opportunity”, [3] “We’re not excited”, [4] “Welcome state intervention”, and [5] “Hydrogen storage is the way to go but be aware of big industry”. The first imaginary mainly describes how hydrogen should be a part of the energy mix, not the sole solution. The second imaginary emphasizes the economic opportunity that GHES can have with an emphasis on cooperation between parties. The third imaginary shows that there are respondents who feel concerned for climate change, but don’t see hydrogen as a solution at all. The fourth imaginary sees government intervention as the only way to facilitate this transition. The final imaginary shows that there is a concern for social implications on who will benefit from the transition towards GHES. Practical and theoretical implications are subsequently formulated to better align the technology/energy carrier combination to the normative ideas of stakeholders. According to the respondents, the case looks promising for GHES as there is agreement on GHES becoming a part of the Dutch energy mix. Methods of achieving this goal are e.g., a higher fossil fuel tax, development of technology standards, and the need for international cooperation. Furthermore, conflict items are defined, as is also the goal of Q method, the degree of the focus of economic development, the role of the government to guide and intervene, and the focus on the social implications of the transition towards GHES. These conflict items could be addressed according to an agonistic approach by utilizing social learning and reflexive governance. These practices defined in the literature that have gained eminence and are becoming more accepted. Pertaining to the theoretical implications, sociotechnical imaginaries as a concept fall short of describing the normative future visions as expressed by the respondents. Other scholars have also recognized that the concept might miss diversity in future visions because of its singular interpretation. However, it has been proven possible to, in a quantitative manner (using Q method), describe the sociotechnical imaginaries of around 3/4 of the respondents. The results of this study could be thus for further research be placed in a different social concept such as one of the concepts in the rich umbrella of foresight studies. An example being ‘normative scenarios’ which recognizes more diversity. Another implication is that it is also possible to use Q-method to peek in the ‘black box’ of wicked problems. The results show that conflicting visions about the future could be better understood in the context of contestation, uncertainty, and complexity (in other words; wicked problems). Additionally, according to the results, private sector stakeholders are divided on their views of GHES, meaning that shared value creation using open innovation is problematic. An alignment of normative future visions or even a possibility of open innovation without such an alignment is designated as a direction for future research.