Hydrogen & E-fuels KPIs by Sector
Essential KPIs for hydrogen and synthetic fuels evaluation, with 2024-2025 benchmark ranges for production costs, project development, and end-use applications.
Hydrogen and synthetic e-fuels are positioned as essential tools for decarbonizing sectors where direct electrification is impractical—heavy industry, long-distance shipping, aviation, and high-temperature heat. The IEA projects clean hydrogen demand growing from 1 million tonnes today to 70+ million tonnes by 2030 in net-zero scenarios. Yet the gap between ambition and deployment remains vast. This benchmark deck provides the KPIs that matter for hydrogen and e-fuels, with ranges drawn from 2024-2025 project and market data.
The Hydrogen Reality Check
Global hydrogen production is approximately 95 million tonnes annually—but 99% is "gray" hydrogen from fossil fuels without carbon capture. Clean hydrogen (green from electrolysis, blue from reforming with CCS) represents less than 1% of supply.
Over 1,400 hydrogen projects have been announced globally, representing $570 billion in planned investment. But only 10% have reached final investment decision. The gap between announced and realized projects reflects challenging economics, infrastructure gaps, and demand uncertainty.
Cost trajectories are improving but not yet competitive. The IEA estimates green hydrogen production cost of $4-9/kg in 2024 versus a $1-2/kg target for competitiveness with gray hydrogen. Blue hydrogen at $2-4/kg sits between, depending on natural gas prices and carbon pricing.
The 8 KPIs That Matter
1. Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH)
Definition: All-in cost of hydrogen production per kilogram, including capital, energy, operations, and financing.
| Production Method | 2024 Range | 2030 Target | Key Cost Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gray (SMR) | $1.0-2.0/kg | N/A (stranded) | Natural gas price |
| Blue (SMR + CCS) | $2.0-4.0/kg | $1.5-2.5/kg | Gas + CCS cost |
| Green (Alkaline) | $4.0-7.0/kg | $2.0-3.5/kg | Electricity cost |
| Green (PEM) | $5.0-9.0/kg | $2.5-4.0/kg | Electrolyzer cost |
| Green (SOEC) | $6.0-12.0/kg | $2.5-4.5/kg | Early stage, efficiency gains |
LCOH decomposition (Green, typical):
- Electricity: 50-70% of LCOH
- Electrolyzer CAPEX: 15-30%
- OPEX (maintenance, water): 5-10%
- Balance of plant: 5-15%
2. Electrolyzer Deployment and Cost
Definition: Cumulative installed capacity and cost per kW of electrolyzer systems.
| Year | Global Capacity | YoY Growth | System Cost ($/kW) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 0.3 GW | - | $1,200-1,800 |
| 2022 | 0.7 GW | +35% | $1,000-1,500 |
| 2024 | 2.5 GW | +85% | $600-1,200 |
| 2026 (proj) | 8-12 GW | +100%+ | $400-800 |
| 2030 (target) | 50-100 GW | - | $200-400 |
| Technology | Market Share | Efficiency | Maturity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alkaline | 60-70% | 63-70% | Commercial |
| PEM | 25-35% | 65-75% | Commercial |
| SOEC | <5% | 75-85% | Demonstration |
| AEM | <1% | 60-70% | Pilot |
3. Project Development Status
Definition: Pipeline composition across development stages.
| Stage | % of Announced Capacity | Conversion Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Announced/Concept | 50-60% | 20-30% advance |
| Feasibility Study | 20-25% | 40-50% advance |
| FEED/Engineering | 10-15% | 60-70% advance |
| FID/Construction | 8-12% | 85-95% advance |
| Operational | 2-4% | - |
FID conversion challenge: Most projects stall between feasibility and FID. Key barriers: offtake uncertainty (45%), financing gaps (25%), permitting delays (15%), infrastructure access (15%).
4. Offtake Contract Coverage
Definition: Percentage of project capacity with binding long-term purchase agreements.
| Offtake Level | Project Viability | Financing Access |
|---|---|---|
| >80% contracted | Fully financeable | Project finance |
| 50-80% contracted | Financeable with sponsor support | Limited recourse |
| 30-50% contracted | Challenging | Full recourse required |
| <30% contracted | Speculative | Equity only |
| Offtake Sector | Contract Duration | Price Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Ammonia/Fertilizer | 10-20 years | Fixed + index |
| Refining | 5-15 years | Gray parity reference |
| Steel | 10-20 years | Technology-dependent |
| Mobility | 3-10 years | Volume uncertain |
| Power | Variable | Capacity payment |
5. Infrastructure Availability
Definition: Hydrogen storage, transport, and distribution infrastructure deployment.
| Infrastructure Type | Global Status | Growth Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Salt Cavern Storage | 4-5 TWh capacity | +15%/year |
| Pipeline (Dedicated) | 5,000+ km | +10%/year |
| Pipeline (Repurposed Gas) | Minimal | Pilots underway |
| Refueling Stations | 1,200+ globally | +20%/year |
| Liquefaction Plants | 500+ tpd capacity | +25%/year |
Infrastructure chicken-and-egg: Production projects need infrastructure to deliver hydrogen; infrastructure investment needs production to justify. Coordinated development (hydrogen valleys, industrial clusters) addresses this.
6. E-fuels Production Cost
Definition: Cost of synthetic fuels produced from green hydrogen and captured CO2.
| E-fuel Type | 2024 Production Cost | 2030 Target | Fossil Equivalent |
|---|---|---|---|
| E-Ammonia | $800-1,200/tonne | $400-600/tonne | $300-500/tonne |
| E-Methanol | $1,500-2,500/tonne | $600-1,000/tonne | $400-600/tonne |
| E-Kerosene (SAF) | $3,000-6,000/tonne | $1,200-2,000/tonne | $800-1,200/tonne |
| E-Diesel | $2,500-5,000/tonne | $1,000-1,800/tonne | $800-1,200/tonne |
Cost decomposition (E-methanol, typical):
- Green hydrogen: 65-80%
- CO2 capture: 10-20%
- Synthesis: 5-15%
- Balance of plant: 5-10%
7. End-Use Sector Readiness
Definition: Technical and commercial readiness of hydrogen applications.
| Application | Technical Readiness | Commercial Viability | Deployment Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ammonia Production | High | Near-parity with incentives | Commercial |
| Refining | High | Policy-driven | Commercial |
| Steel (DRI-H2) | Medium-High | Requires premium/mandate | Demonstration |
| High-Temp Heat | Medium | 2-3x fossil cost | Pilot |
| Shipping (Ammonia/Methanol) | Medium | Emerging mandates | Demonstration |
| Aviation (SAF) | Medium | Mandate-driven | Early commercial |
| Heavy Trucking | Medium | TCO narrowing | Early commercial |
| Rail | High (where electric impractical) | Competitive in niches | Commercial |
| Power (Peaking) | Low-Medium | Rarely economic | Pilot |
8. Carbon Intensity
Definition: Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions per kg of hydrogen produced.
| Production Pathway | Carbon Intensity | Certification Status |
|---|---|---|
| Gray (SMR) | 9-12 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Baseline |
| Blue (SMR + 90% CCS) | 1.5-3.0 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Some schemes |
| Blue (ATR + 95% CCS) | 0.8-1.5 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Some schemes |
| Green (Grid-average) | 0-15 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Grid-dependent |
| Green (Dedicated Renewable) | 0.3-1.0 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Fully certifiable |
| Green (Nuclear) | 0.5-1.5 kgCO2e/kgH2 | Varies by scheme |
Certification complexity: Different schemes (EU RED, CertifHy, US 45V) have varying thresholds and additionality requirements. EU requires <3.38 kgCO2e/kgH2; US 45V requires <0.45 kgCO2e/kgH2 for full credit.
What's Working in 2024-2025
Industrial Cluster Development
Concentrated hydrogen development in industrial clusters achieves economies of scale and solves infrastructure coordination. Rotterdam's H2 Hub, Germany's HyScale100, and US Gulf Coast clusters demonstrate the model: multiple producers, shared infrastructure, anchor offtakers.
Cluster approach reduces individual project risk through shared demand pools and infrastructure cost-sharing. Leading clusters show 20-35% lower delivered cost than standalone projects.
Policy Support Frameworks
EU REPowerEU, US IRA 45V tax credit ($3/kg for cleanest hydrogen), and similar programs are transforming economics. Projects qualifying for full US 45V credit can achieve $1-2/kg net production cost—competitive with gray.
Key insight: policy design matters enormously. Additionality requirements, temporal correlation rules, and stacking permissions determine which projects are viable.
Ammonia as Hydrogen Carrier
Ammonia (NH3) is emerging as preferred hydrogen carrier for long-distance transport. Unlike liquid hydrogen (requiring -253°C), ammonia is handled at -33°C with existing infrastructure. Japan, Korea, and Germany are developing ammonia import terminals.
Economics: ammonia transport adds $0.5-1.5/kgH2 equivalent versus $2-4/kgH2 for liquid hydrogen over transoceanic distances.
What Isn't Working
Timeline Compression Failures
Most hydrogen projects face 2-4 year delays versus announced timelines. Permitting, supply chain constraints, and financing challenges extend development periods. Projects announced for 2025 operation are now targeting 2028-2030.
Implication: near-term hydrogen supply will fall far short of demand projections. Organizations depending on hydrogen availability should plan for delays.
Blue Hydrogen Methane Leakage
Blue hydrogen's climate benefit depends on both CCS performance and upstream methane leakage. Analysis suggests that with >3% methane leakage (common in some supply chains), blue hydrogen may have higher lifecycle emissions than gray. Verification of upstream methane emissions is critical but challenging.
Mobility Applications (Passenger)
Despite early optimism, hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicles are losing to battery electric. Fuel cell vehicle sales peaked at 20,000 units in 2022 and have stalled. Limited refueling infrastructure, higher costs, and lower efficiency (hydrogen → electricity → motion) versus direct battery use undermine the case.
Hydrogen mobility is increasingly focusing on heavy-duty applications where batteries face limitations.
Key Players
Established Leaders
- Linde — Market leader with $222B market cap and 500+ hydrogen plants globally. Operates ITM Linde Electrolysis joint venture for PEM electrolyzers. Secured $2B Dow Canada clean hydrogen deal (2024). Focus on blue hydrogen with 90% of US projects.
- Air Products — Major merchant hydrogen producer with 100+ plants and 7 million kg/day capacity. Leading $7B Saudi Arabia green hydrogen joint venture (2025). Developing UK green hydrogen facility with Associated British Ports.
- Air Liquide — French industrial gas giant operating one of the world's largest hydrogen pipeline networks. Active in hydrogen since 1995 with 600+ production units across 73 countries.
- Plug Power — End-to-end green hydrogen company with 60,000 fuel cell systems deployed. Operating 15 tonnes/day St. Gabriel plant (Louisiana). Partnerships with Amazon, Walmart, and Home Depot.
Emerging Startups
- Electric Hydrogen — Building the world's most powerful PEM stacks at US gigafactory in Devens, Massachusetts. Selected by HIF Global for Texas e-fuels project (September 2025).
- Sunfire — German company developing solid oxide electrolyzers (SOEC) for industrial applications. Raised €80M from European Investment Bank. SOEC technology operates at 850°C for 75-85% efficiency.
- Ohmium — Modular PEM electrolyzer manufacturer with interlocking design scaling from MW to GW. Focus on rapid deployment and serviceability.
- Lhyfe — French offshore wind-to-hydrogen developer. Raised €149M (March 2024) for Grand Canal du Havre project producing 34 tonnes/day.
Key Investors & Funders
- Toyota Ventures — Lead investor in Ecolectro (AEM electrolyzer startup) Series A (March 2024).
- Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund — Backing NEOM green hydrogen project ($8.4B investment).
- US Department of Energy — Funding hydrogen hubs through $7B Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program.
- European Investment Bank — €80M investment in Sunfire for SOEC technology development.
Examples
NEOM Green Hydrogen Project (Saudi Arabia): World's largest announced green hydrogen project. Capacity: 4 GW electrolyzer, 600 tonnes/day hydrogen, converted to 1.2 million tonnes/year green ammonia. Investment: $8.4 billion. Offtake: 100% contracted to Air Products for global distribution. Status: under construction, targeting 2026 first production.
HYBRIT (Sweden): Hydrogen-based steel production pilot by SSAB, LKAB, and Vattenfall. Demonstrated first fossil-free steel in 2021. Commercial plant targeting 2026. Investment: ~$500 million for pilot phase. Significance: proves hydrogen DRI pathway for steel decarbonization; premium pricing achieved for fossil-free steel.
Port of Rotterdam Hydrogen Hub: Integrated hydrogen infrastructure including 2 GW electrolyzer capacity, pipeline network, import terminals, and storage. Investment: €2+ billion total. Multiple projects including Shell's Holland Hydrogen 1 (200 MW). Demonstrates cluster approach with shared infrastructure reducing individual project costs.
Action Checklist
- Assess hydrogen applicability for your hard-to-abate emissions sources
- Evaluate LCOH projections against carbon price/mandate scenarios for your region
- Identify potential offtake volume and contract terms you can commit
- Engage with industrial cluster initiatives in your geography
- Understand certification requirements for your target market (EU RED, 45V, etc.)
- Plan infrastructure needs (storage, transport) as part of hydrogen strategy
- Consider e-fuels pathway if direct hydrogen use is impractical
- Build optionality—hydrogen timelines are uncertain; maintain alternatives
FAQ
Q: Should we plan for green or blue hydrogen? A: Depends on geography, policy, and timeline. Green is preferred for new facilities in regions with good renewables and strong policy support (EU, US with 45V). Blue may be faster to deploy where natural gas infrastructure exists and CCS is viable. Long-term, green costs are declining faster. Many organizations pursue dual pathways during transition period.
Q: How do I evaluate hydrogen project credibility? A: Key indicators: FID status (has financial commitment been made?), offtake contracts (who will buy the hydrogen?), equity partners (creditworthy sponsors?), policy support secured (are subsidies confirmed?), and infrastructure access (how does hydrogen reach market?). Projects lacking these elements have high failure probability.
Q: When will green hydrogen be cost-competitive? A: With full IRA 45V credit ($3/kg), some projects are competitive now. Without subsidies, parity with gray hydrogen ($1-2/kg) requires: electricity at <$20/MWh, electrolyzer costs <$300/kW, and high utilization (>4,000 hours/year). This constellation is achievable by 2030-2035 in favorable locations.
Q: What's the role of e-fuels versus direct electrification? A: E-fuels (synthetic kerosene, methanol, ammonia) make sense where direct electrification or hydrogen use is impractical: long-haul aviation, shipping, and seasonal energy storage. For applications where batteries or direct hydrogen work, e-fuels are inefficient (30-50% energy conversion losses). Prioritize direct electrification > hydrogen > e-fuels based on technical feasibility.
Sources
- International Energy Agency (IEA), "Global Hydrogen Review 2024," September 2024
- BloombergNEF, "Hydrogen Market Outlook 2024-2050," November 2024
- Hydrogen Council, "Hydrogen Insights 2024," January 2025
- Wood Mackenzie, "Global Electrolyser Tracker," Q4 2024
- European Commission, "REPowerEU Hydrogen Implementation Report," 2024
- US Department of Treasury, "45V Clean Hydrogen Production Credit Guidance," 2024
- IRENA, "Green Hydrogen Cost Reduction," 2024 Update
Related Articles
Data story: Key signals in hydrogen & e-fuels — aviation feedstock constraints
Sustainable aviation fuel demand will reach 30 million tonnes by 2030, but feedstock constraints limit supply to 10 million tonnes — five signals reveal the bottlenecks and pathways forward.
Deep Dive: Hydrogen & E-Fuels — What's Working, What Isn't, and What's Next
From green ammonia shipping fuel to synthetic aviation kerosene, this analysis examines which hydrogen and e-fuel applications are achieving commercial viability and which remain aspirational.
Myth-busting hydrogen & e-fuels: separating hype from reality
Europe's race to scale green hydrogen and synthetic fuels has attracted enormous headlines and investment. Yet supply chains remain fragile, costs haven't fallen as fast as promised and many projects are stuck in the financing queue. This myth-busting brief brings the hype down to earth, highlighting where genuine progress is occurring, what remains aspirational and how founders can allocate capital wisely.