Power Reality Engine — Beta

    Analyze an energy challenge

    Compare the cost, carbon, reliability, infrastructure and time-to-power of competing energy architectures — then go deep on the pathway that survives. Hydrogen is one option tested, not the assumed answer.

    Run the AI data-center scenarioDevelop a hydrogen project

    Engineering-led. Scenario-based. Transparent assumptions.

    Energy architecture — illustrative

    Schematic
    SolarWindGridNatural gasBatteryElectrolyzerSOFCH₂ storageCarbon captureFuel cellFirm clean powerData center load

    H2Hub compares these building blocks as competing architectures — cost, carbon, reliability, infrastructure and time-to-power — rather than assuming one technology wins.

    Every pathway judged on five dimensions

    Traditional comparisons stop at cost and carbon. For AI, industrial and infrastructure loads, reliability, infrastructure availability and time-to-power decide the project.

    Cost

    Estimated $/MWh, CAPEX and annual fuel cost

    Carbon

    kg CO₂e/MWh, onsite vs lifecycle, CO₂ captured and residual emissions

    Reliability

    Firm-power capability, storage duration and grid dependency

    Infrastructure

    Grid, gas, hydrogen, CO₂ transport/storage and water requirements

    Time-to-power

    Interconnection, lead times and permitting, expressed as ranges

    Scenario 1 — Available

    AI & data centers: eight ways to power a continuous load

    Set the load and the site, then compare grid supply, co-located renewables, batteries, onsite gas, gas fuel cells, fuel cells with carbon capture and two hydrogen pathways on cost, carbon, reliability, infrastructure and time-to-power. Every figure is calculated deterministically from the inputs and the assumptions listed below — no AI, no black box.

    Define the load

    A continuous computing load, served every hour of the year. Change the site and the ranking changes.

    250 MW

    2,190 GWh per year of delivered electricity.

    Strong solar and wind, cheap gas, moderately carbon-intensive grid

    Lowest cost

    Onsite gas generation (islanded)

    $46/MWh

    Lowest carbon

    Renewables → electrolysis → fuel cells

    4 kg CO₂e/MWh

    Fastest to power

    Onsite gas generation (islanded)

    1.5–3 yrs

    Three different pathways usually win the three columns above. There is no universal winner — the decision depends on which constraint binds hardest at your site: price, carbon, firmness or schedule.

    Onsite gas generation (islanded)

    Reciprocating engines or turbines sized with reserve margin, bypassing the interconnection queue.

    $46

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    500 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $331m
    Annual opex
    $70m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (islandable)
    Time to power
    1.5–3 yrs

    Why: Fastest route to firm power where gas is cheap, but it is the highest-carbon pathway and carries air-permit and future carbon-price exposure.

    Depends onGas pipeline capacityAir permit / NOx limitsWater for cooling

    Grid + co-located renewables

    Solar and wind built onsite to cover about 40% of annual energy, grid supplies the rest and all firming.

    $59

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    234 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $448m
    Annual opex
    $88m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (grid-backed)
    Time to power
    3–6 yrs

    Why: Renewables cut energy cost and carbon on an annual basis but provide no firm capacity, so the grid connection still has to be sized for the full load.

    Depends onTransmission capacityLand for generationRenewable resource qualityCannot serve the load alone

    Grid supply only

    Full load served from the transmission system with a new large-load interconnection.

    $61

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    390 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $30m
    Annual opex
    $131m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (grid-backed)
    Time to power
    3–7 yrs

    Why: Lowest capital exposure; cost and carbon are inherited from the grid, and the schedule is set by the interconnection queue rather than by construction.

    Depends onTransmission capacityInterconnection agreementUtility large-load tariff

    Renewables + 4-hour battery

    Onsite solar and wind with a 4-hour battery for diurnal shifting and ride-through; grid retained for firming.

    $67

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    109 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $908m
    Annual opex
    $57m/yr
    Reliability
    Partially firm
    Time to power
    3–6 yrs

    Why: A 4-hour battery raises the usable renewable share and covers short outages, but multi-day low-resource periods still fall back on the grid.

    Depends onTransmission capacityLandBattery supply chainFire code / siting approvalsCannot serve the load alone

    Gas fuel cells (SOFC)

    Solid-oxide fuel cells on natural gas — higher efficiency and near-zero NOx compared with combustion.

    $68

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    382 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $825m
    Annual opex
    $64m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (islandable)
    Time to power
    2–4 yrs

    Why: Higher electrical efficiency than combustion lowers fuel burn and carbon per MWh, but capital cost per kW is roughly three times an engine plant.

    Depends onGas pipeline capacityFuel cell supply chainAir permit

    Gas SOFC + carbon capture

    Solid-oxide fuel cells on natural gas with 90% CO₂ capture, plus CO₂ transport and permanent storage.

    $119

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    94 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $1,481m
    Annual opex
    $109m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (islandable)
    Time to power
    3–6 yrs

    Why: Capture removes most stack CO₂ but adds capital, a ~9% parasitic load and a hard dependency on CO₂ transport and storage that few sites actually have. Upstream methane remains uncaptured.

    Depends onGas pipeline capacityCO₂ pipeline or truckingPermitted geological storageAir permit

    Hydrogen fuel cells (purchased H₂)

    Hydrogen fuel cells running on delivered low-carbon hydrogen, with onsite storage.

    $312

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    12 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $1,062m
    Annual opex
    $580m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (islandable)
    Time to power
    2–4 yrs

    Why: Round-trip efficiency is the problem: about 51 kg of hydrogen per MWh delivered means the hydrogen price, not the equipment, sets the answer.

    Depends onHydrogen supply contractOnsite storage and safety caseFuel cell supply chain

    Renewables → electrolysis → fuel cells

    Fully self-supplied: onsite renewables and electrolysis produce hydrogen, fuel cells convert it back to firm power.

    $416

    $/MWh delivered

    Carbon
    4 kg/MWh
    Capital
    $7,541m
    Annual opex
    $185m/yr
    Reliability
    Firm (islandable)
    Time to power
    4–8 yrs

    Why: Carbon is near zero and the site is grid-independent, but two conversion steps at roughly 50% each mean the renewable build is several times the size of the load.

    Depends onLand for renewablesWater supply and treatmentBulk hydrogen storageHydrogen safety case

    Preliminary model result. Results are estimates derived from your inputs, stated assumptions and third-party data. Actual project economics may differ materially. This is project-economics analysis, not personalised investment advice or a lender term sheet.

    If hydrogen survives this screen, go deep

    This comparison is deliberately coarse. Where a hydrogen pathway holds up, the Hydrogen Reality Engine models real solar and wind data, hourly dispatch, LCOH and stress tests, then carries the case into the seven-stage project workspace.

    Open the Hydrogen Reality Engine Screen a site
    Scenario 2 — Available

    Hybrid optimiser: the answer is usually a combination

    Single-technology pathways are a starting point, not a design. This searches renewable size, battery duration and firming technology together, and reports the configuration that meets your objective — lowest cost, lowest carbon, or cheapest within a carbon cap.

    What should you actually build?

    Single pathways rarely win. This searches every combination of onsite renewables, battery duration and firming technology, then reports the configuration that best meets your objective.

    250 MW

    Strong solar and wind, cheap gas, moderately carbon-intensive grid

    Lowest cost that still meets your carbon limit

    100 kg CO₂e/MWh

    Applies only to the capped objective. 633 configurations evaluated per run.

    Best configuration for this objective

    2.7× renewables · 8h battery · Grid import

    A 75% renewable share with 16% spill is the balance point: more capacity adds generation the flat load cannot absorb.

    Delivered cost

    $97/MWh

    Carbon intensity

    96 kg CO₂e/MWh

    Capital cost

    $1,466m

    Annual operating cost

    $65m/yr

    274 MW solar

    401 MW wind

    2,000 MWh battery

    Grid import

    Firm (grid-backed) · time-to-power 3–7 years · depends on transmission capacity, interconnection agreement, large-load tariff. The carbon cap is binding — it is ruling out cheaper, dirtier configurations.

    Cost / carbon trade-off frontier

    Each configuration below is the cheapest way to reach its carbon level. Moving down this list buys lower carbon and costs more — nothing else on it is worth building.

    0.0× renewables · 0h battery · Onsite gas engines

    Cost

    $46/MWh

    Carbon

    500 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    0%

    Spilled generation

    0%

    0.9× renewables · 0h battery · Onsite gas engines

    Cost

    $57/MWh

    Carbon

    400 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    20%

    Spilled generation

    33%

    1.0× renewables · 0h battery · Grid import

    Cost

    $66/MWh

    Carbon

    304 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    22%

    Spilled generation

    34%

    2.1× renewables · 2h battery · Grid import

    Cost

    $79/MWh

    Carbon

    206 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    47%

    Spilled generation

    32%

    2.5× renewables · 8h battery · Grid import

    Cost

    $95/MWh

    Carbon

    106 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    73%

    Spilled generation

    12%

    3.0× renewables · 12h battery · Hydrogen fuel cells (purchased H₂)

    Cost

    $159/MWh

    Carbon

    6 kg/MWh

    Renewable share

    92%

    Spilled generation

    7%

    Best hybrid per firming technology

    Grid import

    0.0× renewables · 0h battery · Grid import

    $61/MWh

    390 kg CO₂e/MWh · 0% renewable

    Onsite gas engines

    0.0× renewables · 0h battery · Onsite gas engines

    $46/MWh

    500 kg CO₂e/MWh · 0% renewable

    Hydrogen fuel cells (purchased H₂)

    3.0× renewables · 12h battery · Hydrogen fuel cells (purchased H₂)

    $159/MWh

    6 kg CO₂e/MWh · 92% renewable

    How the search works. Renewable capacity is swept from 0 to 3× the load, battery duration across 0–12 hours, and each firming option in turn. Self-consumption of variable generation against a flat load follows a diminishing-returns curve, and storage is limited by both available surplus and annual cycling. This is an annual energy balance for screening — not an 8760 dispatch simulation, interconnection study or firm-capacity accreditation.

    Preliminary model result. Results are estimates derived from your inputs, stated assumptions and third-party data. Actual project economics may differ materially. This is project-economics analysis, not personalised investment advice or a lender term sheet.

    Other energy challenges

    Implementation status is stated plainly. Hydrogen project development, site screening, economics and stress testing are fully available today.

    Industrial decarbonization

    Coming soon

    Pathways for replacing or reducing fossil energy in industrial heat, feedstock and process loads.

    Long-duration energy storage

    Coming soon

    Where hydrogen complements batteries and renewable generation across duration and cycling regimes.

    Microgrids & resilient power

    Coming soon

    Onsite generation, storage and clean backup-power architectures for resilience-driven projects.

    Start broad, then go deep

    1. 1. Power Reality Engine — compare competing architectures for the problem you actually have.
    2. 2. Hydrogen Reality Engine — deep hydrogen engineering, LCOH and stress testing where hydrogen holds up.
    3. 3. Project workspace — the existing seven-stage development path, with your assumptions carried across.
    Open the project workspace Screen a site

    H2Hub supports preliminary project development, screening, learning and decision analysis. Outputs do not replace detailed engineering, independent due diligence, legal advice or professional engineering services.