ClimateOpenAlex
Ranked by formulaVerdict: NotableGlobal green hydrogen site suitability and cost competitiveness: an open-source geospatial and uncertainty assessment across 182 countries
Green hydrogen facility siting is commonly guided either by techno-economic cost minimization or by multi-criteria suitability assessment, yet the extent to which these approaches identify the same development…
Key numbers
- 81% of eligible areas
VerdictWorth a reader's time today.
Abstract
Green hydrogen facility siting is commonly guided either by techno-economic cost minimization or by multi-criteria suitability assessment, yet the extent to which these approaches identify the same development priorities remains unclear. A site that can produce low-cost green hydrogen may not necessarily be suitable. Here, we develop an open-source, spatially explicit framework covering 182 countries that applies both approaches independently to a common technically eligible land base. The framework's methodological novelty lies in independently applying cost minimization and multi-criteria suitability assessment to a common eligible land base, enabling a consistent spatial comparison of cost-optimal and highly suitable locations while integrating spatial exclusions, hourly solar and wind generation modelling, plant-gate levelized cost of hydrogen estimation, spatial water-supply pathways, and Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis. Spatial exclusions reduce globally eligible land to 40%. Solar is the least-cost option across 81% of eligible areas, whereas wind-dominated locations achieve a lower median hydrogen cost of $2.8/kg compared with $3.1/kg for solar. However, it was demonstrated that the lowest-cost locations do not consistently coincide with the highest-suitability areas. These findings show that cost competitiveness and development suitability are related but non-equivalent, and that their combined assessment provides a more robust basis for prioritizing large-scale green hydrogen production.
The editor's rubric
- Leverage3 / 5
- A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year.
- Magnitude3 / 5
- Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
- Evidence4 / 5
- Strong: large scale, preregistered, independently replicated, or a well-powered randomized trial.
- Novelty1 / 5
- A minor twist on a known approach.
- Trajectory2 / 5
- Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
- Stakes3 / 5
- Meaningful benefit to many people within a few years.
Editor’s rationale
Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose); gains (relative gain); design (multicenter); verification (error bars, independent replication, code released); scale (scalable, low cost); stakes (global scale, energy). Red flags: derivative (comparative study, we apply).
How the score was computed
Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.
- Merit
- 5.7 / 10
- Adjusted merit
- 4.8 / 10
- Attention
- 0%
- Freshness
- 85%
- Citations0 (reference 15, via openalex, Oct 19, 2026, 06:46 UTC)