Green Hydrogen Site Selection: 7 Checks Before Feasibility
The best location for a green hydrogen project is not necessarily the place with the strongest sunshine, wind or lowest advertised electricity price. It is the location where usable power, water, land, infrastructure and a credible buyer can fit together at a cost the market may support.
Site selection is therefore a sequence of decisions, not a search for one impressive map. A developer can identify promising regions with desktop data, but cannot establish project feasibility without site-specific evidence. This guide provides seven early screens, a transparent 20 MW calculation and a practical way to decide what to verify next.
1. Start with the buyer, not the solar map
Ask what product the customer actually needs: gaseous hydrogen, liquefied hydrogen, ammonia or another derivative. Document annual demand, likely start date, delivery pressure, purity, operating pattern and the status of any purchase commitment.
Then map how product would reach that buyer. A plant near exceptionally cheap renewable power could still lose its advantage when compression, storage, trucking, pipeline development, port handling or derivative conversion are added. Do not treat a letter of interest as contracted revenue.
Early evidence: prospective buyer location, demand range, delivery specification and a realistic route. Pause trigger: no plausible offtake market or delivery path. At this stage, the answer may be to change product, location or project size—not to spend more money on electrolyzer design.
2. Test usable power hour by hour
A high annual average solar or wind resource does not guarantee high electrolyzer utilisation. A production plant consumes electricity when it is available under the intended supply arrangement and subject to equipment constraints. Solar peaks during daylight; wind can vary over successive days. A grid supply contract may have curtailment limits, tariffs and carbon-accounting conditions.
For each candidate site, ask:
- Is the supply behind-the-meter generation, grid electricity, a power purchase agreement or a hybrid?
- What is the credible delivered electricity price, including charges and losses?
- Can generation support operation across all 8,760 hours in an ordinary year, or is annual capacity factor only being assumed?
- How long might interconnection, line upgrades or transmission access take?
Use hourly resource profiles for a preliminary dispatch calculation. Treat weather datasets as screening proxies, not guaranteed generation or site-measured results. The H2Hub Site Selection Lab explains the difference between screening rank and feasibility.
3. Model electricity cost and utilisation together
Electricity price matters, but utilisation also determines how many kilograms share the plant's fixed costs. Compare sites using the same electrolyzer performance, system boundaries, financing assumptions and delivery boundary. Otherwise, a lower-cost result may reflect a different model rather than a better site.
The U.S. Department of Energy's published alkaline electrolysis technical-target table lists 55 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen as a historical 2022 system-level status value. This is a reference for an illustrative calculation, not a guarantee for a particular vendor or year. DOE's PEM cost analysis uses different system electricity values and accounts for performance over equipment life. DOE alkaline targets · DOE PEM cost record
Worked example: two possible sites for a 20 MW electrolyzer
Assume a 20 MW electrolyzer, 55 kWh/kg of system electricity, and full 8,760-hour calendar availability for the mathematical screening comparison. The following utilisation and power-price inputs are illustrative assumptions, not data about any real site.
| Assumption or result | Site A | Site B |
|---|---|---|
| Electrolyzer nameplate | 20 MW | 20 MW |
| Illustrative electrolyzer load factor | 45% | 55% |
| Illustrative delivered power price | $40/MWh | $55/MWh |
| Annual electricity used | 78,840 MWh | 96,360 MWh |
| Annual hydrogen output, calculated | ~1,433 tonnes | ~1,752 tonnes |
| Electricity cost only | $2.20/kg H2 | $3.03/kg H2 |
| Theoretical reaction water only | ~12.9 million L/year | ~15.8 million L/year |
Calculation for Site A: 20 MW × 8,760 hours × 45% = 78,840 MWh per year. Dividing 78,840,000 kWh by 55 kWh/kg gives approximately 1.43 million kg of hydrogen. Electricity-only cost is $40/MWh × 0.055 MWh/kg = $2.20/kg.
Site B produces more hydrogen in this illustration but pays more for electricity per kilogram. Neither electricity-only figure is a levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH): it excludes installed capital, financing, operations, maintenance, water treatment, replacements, transport and other costs. The true ranking could reverse when fixed-cost dilution and delivery are included. An actual study should replace assumed load factors with hourly dispatch and evaluate sensitivity to power price, capacity factor, efficiency and capital cost.
4. Separate reaction water from site water demand
The chemical reaction requires roughly 9 litres of pure water per kilogram of hydrogen. That is a theoretical feedstock minimum—not a complete water-supply design. Treatment losses, cooling, utilities and other operations may increase total intake. The UK government's electrolysis guidance explicitly distinguishes the reaction minimum from gross water demand and discusses water quality and treatment. UK Environment Agency guidance
In the 20 MW example, Site A's theoretical reaction water is about 12.9 million litres per year, or around 35 cubic metres per day averaged across the year. Neither that daily average nor a generic multiplier is a valid specification for a real intake system: designers must consider instantaneous operating demand, treatment recovery, seasonal source reliability, cooling method and wastewater disposal.
Early evidence: source availability, water rights or supply agreement, source-water analysis, treatment concept, discharge pathway and competing local demand. The U.S. DOE identifies water scarcity as a legitimate siting consideration, especially in drought-prone regions. DOE water discussion
5. Verify land control and permitting constraints
A promising point on a map does not prove the parcel is available or suitable. Check land ownership and rights, zoning, access roads, setbacks, flood risk, environmental sensitivities, hazardous-area implications and the local approval pathway. The project footprint extends beyond electrolyzer stacks to water treatment, compression, storage, electrical equipment, roads and potential renewable generation.
Classify issues as either hard gates or cost-and-schedule risks. No lawful site access, an impossible water source or an incompatible land use may eliminate a location. A more expensive interconnection or longer road can remain a scenario to quantify. Confirm requirements with the relevant permitting authorities and qualified practitioners; screening data is not a permit opinion.
6. Check physical delivery and utilities
Hydrogen logistics can dominate a project's commercial design when the customer is far from the plant. Identify feasible routes for equipment delivery as well as product delivery. Compare local road restrictions, heavy-lift access, ports or rail, possible pipelines, compression requirements, electricity substations and backup utilities.
Ask not only whether a nearby pipeline or port appears on a map, but whether access is technically, contractually and economically available. An industrial cluster can offer advantages, yet proximity alone does not establish an interconnection, storage arrangement or customer contract. Put infrastructure owner confirmations and quotations on the evidence checklist.
7. Rank sites only after applying hard gates
Weighted scores help decide which survivors deserve the next study, but they should not conceal fatal constraints. Start by excluding candidates that fail indispensable conditions. Then score remaining options for power cost and profile, delivery, water, land, permitting, schedule and evidence quality.
For transparency, a simple decision register could look like this:
| Criterion | Hard gate or ranking input? | What would strengthen the evidence? |
|---|---|---|
| Identifiable offtake and delivery route | Hard gate for a commercial concept | Buyer specification, commercial discussions and transport quote |
| Credible power access | Hard gate / schedule risk | Utility response, PPA term sheet and hourly generation study |
| Water availability and disposal | Hard gate where supply is constrained | Supplier confirmation, water analysis and permit pathway |
| Land control and compatible use | Hard gate | Parcel documents and local authority discussion |
| Delivered cost, utilisation and LCOH | Ranking input | Vendor quotes, hourly model and sensitivity analysis |
| Infrastructure and construction access | Ranking input / possible hard gate | Route review and owner confirmations |
Do not mistake a score for an investment decision. Ranking only makes assumptions comparable. A screening winner is a candidate for due diligence, not a feasible or bankable project.
The first three actions after shortlisting
First, replace the largest assumed input—often delivered power price or achievable operating hours—with evidence from the relevant utility, generator or power provider. Second, establish the intended hydrogen buyer and delivery boundary: plant-gate economics alone cannot answer whether product can be sold at the required delivered price. Third, establish water and land access sufficiently to avoid paying for detailed engineering of a location that cannot be developed.
Use a short decision note for each candidate: advance, redesign or pause, with the single unresolved assumption most likely to change the result. That is more useful than a long list of unverified site scores.
Screen your hydrogen project with H2Hub
Start your first H2Hub project free to screen a candidate location, explore preliminary plant sizing, compare assumptions and test project economics. The current free entry offers one project and its PDF report without a credit card. The Site Selection Lab helps you interpret a screening result before committing to a deeper feasibility study.
H2Hub is a planning and learning tool. Its modelled or proxy inputs are for preliminary screening, not a substitute for site-measured data, vendor commitments, site-specific engineering, permitting advice or professional financial review.
Frequently asked questions
Is the windiest or sunniest location best for green hydrogen?
Not automatically. Compare the usable hourly power profile and delivered electricity cost with water access, land constraints and the cost of getting hydrogen to an actual buyer.
How much water does green hydrogen need?
The reaction minimum is about 9 litres per kilogram of hydrogen. Gross withdrawal can be higher because of water treatment, cooling and other site uses. Verify the process design and source-water conditions.
Can a green hydrogen site be selected using desktop data alone?
Desktop screening can create a shortlist and reveal poor assumptions. It cannot establish land rights, grid availability, water permits, vendor performance or a binding offtake arrangement.
What should be completed before a full feasibility study?
At minimum, define the product and buyer, shortlist locations, run an initial hourly production and cost case, identify land and water constraints, and document which unverified facts could change the go/no-go decision.
Primary sources and further reading
- U.S. Department of Energy — Technical Targets for Liquid Alkaline Electrolysis. Historical system electricity-performance reference used in the worked example.
- U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program — Clean Hydrogen Production Cost Scenarios with PEM Electrolyzer Technology, Record 24005. Shows why system electricity and capital assumptions need a consistent boundary.
- UK Government — Hydrogen Production by Electrolysis of Water: Emerging Techniques. Water quality, minimum reaction water and supply considerations.
- U.S. Department of Energy — Can Water Usage for Electrolysis Pose Problems in Water-Short Areas?. Water-scarcity context.
- World Bank ESMAP — Green Hydrogen Support Program FAQs. Background on water requirements and planning considerations.
Editorial verification: 28 October 2026. Illustrative examples are calculations from stated assumptions, not site-specific performance forecasts or H2Hub-generated results.