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.
1. Summary of results
12
Real projects modelled
10
Countries with independent site data
30
Comparable parameters scored
24
Directly published reference figures
What the comparison showed
A parameter is only scored where a published reference figure exists and covers the same scope.
16
Within ±10%
2
Within ±20%
12
Beyond ±20%
54
No reference figure
H2Hub does not publish a single accuracy percentage. At this sample size no statistically defensible methodology supports one, and a headline number would hide which parameters carry evidence and which do not.
2. Project-by-project comparison
Cost plausibility, project by project
No scope-aligned project LCOH reference is available in this benchmark, so each modelled result is banded against the cost range public institutions (IEA, IRENA) publish for that power configuration. 12 of 12 modelled projects fall inside the published cost range for their power configuration; the cohort spans 3.33–9.25 USD/kg. This is a consistency check against institutional modelling, not measured project costs.
3. Where H2Hub missed, and why
NEOM Green Hydrogen Company · Annual hydrogen production (design basis)
Published 219000 t/year · H2Hub 70413.46 t/year · -68%
H2Hub value from independent resource data, dispatch and the production efficiency basis.
NEOM Green Hydrogen Company · Load factor
Published 68.18181818181817 % · H2Hub 22.6 % · -67%
Off-grid configuration: load factor comes from the hourly dispatch of the co-located fleet at these coordinates (22.6%).
Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub / Orica · Annual hydrogen production (design basis)
Published 4700 t/year · H2Hub 6566.02 t/year · +40%
H2Hub value from independent resource data, dispatch and the production efficiency basis.
Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub / Orica · Load factor
Published 59.018264840182646 % · H2Hub 85 % · +44%
Grid or PPA supplied: utilisation is set by contracted power availability, modelled at the H2Hub default 85% (continuous supply less planned and forced outages), not by the local renewable profile.
Yuri Renewable Hydrogen (Phase 0) · Annual hydrogen production (design basis)
Published 640 t/year · H2Hub 344.52 t/year · -46%
H2Hub value from independent resource data, dispatch and the production efficiency basis.
Yuri Renewable Hydrogen (Phase 0) · Load factor
Published 40.182648401826484 % · H2Hub 22.3 % · -45%
Off-grid configuration: load factor comes from the hourly dispatch of the co-located fleet at these coordinates (22.3%).
HIF Haru Oni eFuels demonstration · Renewable capacity
Published 3.4 MW · H2Hub 2.16 MW · -36%
H2Hub reconstructed fleet at 1.8× the stack for this power supply mode.
Sinopec Kuqa green hydrogen project · Annual hydrogen production (design basis)
Published 20000 t/year · H2Hub 34143.29 t/year · +71%
H2Hub value from independent resource data, dispatch and the production efficiency basis.
Sinopec Kuqa green hydrogen project · Load factor
Published 48.296452406041446 % · H2Hub 85 % · +76%
Grid or PPA supplied: utilisation is set by contracted power availability, modelled at the H2Hub default 85% (continuous supply less planned and forced outages), not by the local renewable profile.
Sinopec Kuqa green hydrogen project · Renewable capacity
Published 300 MW · H2Hub 0 MW · -100%
Grid or PPA supplied configuration: H2Hub models no co-located fleet.
Holland Hydrogen I · Load factor
Published 68.75 % · H2Hub 85 % · +24%
Grid or PPA supplied: utilisation is set by contracted power availability, modelled at the H2Hub default 85% (continuous supply less planned and forced outages), not by the local renewable profile.
ACES Delta · Annual hydrogen production (design basis)
Published 36500 t/year · H2Hub 28890.48 t/year · -21%
H2Hub value from independent resource data, dispatch and the production efficiency basis.
4. What the benchmark can and can't tell you
What this report does not prove
Consistency with published evidence is not accuracy, and it is not a prediction that any project will succeed. Published figures are themselves reported at different dates, scopes and confidence levels.
Results are preliminary project-development analysis. They are not engineering sign-off, not a permitting or construction basis, and not investment advice.
Free. No subscription needed — the full report stays open on this page either way.
Run the same methodology on your own project
The seven-stage workspace applies this methodology to your site, your capacity and your offtake, with the same site resource data used in the benchmark.