Cost of Green Hydrogen: What LOHC Depends On
A value-chain cost comparison — pipeline, liquid hydrogen, ammonia and tube trailers — showing why the transport pattern can matter as much as the electricity price.
Key takeaways
- There is no single "cost of green hydrogen" — the delivered cost depends heavily on which value chain moves the molecule from electrolyzer to end user.
- In the case study's model, delivered costs (cost of goods, no profit margins) ranged from 3.00 CHF/kg for pipeline-transported hydrogen to 8.84 CHF/kg for 20-foot trailer delivery — nearly a factor of three for the same molecule.
- Electricity is the dominant cost driver: electrolysis consumes ~50–55 kWh per kg of hydrogen, against an energy content (LHV) of just 33 kWh/kg.
- Where you buy electricity matters as much as how much: the model contrasts 0.03 CHF/kWh at remote wind/solar sites, 0.08 CHF/kWh domestically, and ~0.24 CHF/kWh at the fuel station.
- Conversion steps are expensive: ammonia synthesis adds ~55–61 kWh/kg H₂ and cracking another ~9–11 kWh/kg — yet remote ammonia is today's trade pattern of choice because the infrastructure already exists.
- For trailer logistics, round-trip duration is a hidden cost lever: extending the container round trip from 3 to 15 days can wipe out the savings of cheap remote production.
“Europe is predicting 40,000 kilometers of hydrogen pipeline by 2050 — today we have about 1,500. The numbers are far apart, but I really do see this taking off in Europe.”
Pinky Vijay
Sales Manager H2
@ Burckhardt Compression
What is the levelized cost of hydrogen (LOHC)?
LOHC is the total cost of producing — and, in a full value-chain view, delivering — one kilogram of hydrogen, spreading capital costs (CAPEX) over the equipment lifetime and adding operating costs (OPEX) such as electricity. For green hydrogen, the price and location of renewable electricity is the single largest component.
Why green hydrogen has no single price
The cost of green hydrogen is a chain, not a number: production, conversion, storage, transport and fueling each add their share, and the chain you choose can change the delivered cost by a factor of almost three.
Green electricity is not available where hydrogen is needed. Hydropower, strong wind and cheap solar sit far from industrial demand centers, so hydrogen must often be produced remotely, packaged into a transportable form — compressed gas, liquid hydrogen or ammonia — and shipped to where it is used. Every packaging and transport step costs energy and capital, and those steps are what separate a 3-franc kilogram from a 9-franc kilogram.
The energy budget: efficiencies along the chain
Hydrogen contains 33 kWh/kg (lower heating value), but producing and packaging it consumes far more — which is why process efficiencies dominate LOHC.
Typical energy consumption per process step
| Process step | Energy consumption (per kg H₂) |
|---|---|
| Electrolysis | ~50–55 kWh (60 kWh is a more conservative real-world figure including balance of plant) |
| Hydrogen liquefaction | ~8–11 kWh |
| Ammonia (NH₃) synthesis incl. N₂ separation | ~55–61 kWh |
| Ammonia cracking back to H₂ | ~9–11 kWh |
| Energy content of H₂ (LHV), for reference | 33 kWh |
Two things follow. First, the electricity price applied to each step drives the outcome — and that price varies enormously along the chain, from around 0.03 CHF/kWh at a remote wind or solar farm to roughly 0.24 CHF/kWh at a European fuel station. Second, chains with extra conversion steps (hydrogen → ammonia → hydrogen) carry a structural energy penalty that cheap production electricity must first pay back.
The case study: seven value chains compared
The study models seven ways of getting green hydrogen from an electrolyzer into a vehicle tank, as a cost-sensitivity analysis — not a market price forecast.
All chains assume 55 kWh/kg electrolysis, CAPEX depreciated linearly over 20 years, and cost of goods only — no profit margins. “Remote” production uses 0.03 CHF/kWh electricity; “domestic” production 0.08 CHF/kWh. Sea transport costs are derived from LNG/LPG market data, pipeline costs from natural-gas literature.
Delivered hydrogen cost by value chain (electrolyzer → vehicle tank)
| Value chain | H₂ COGS (model result) |
|---|---|
| Remote pipeline-transported GH₂ to local fuel station | 3.00 CHF/kg |
| Remote large-scale LH₂ shipped to local fuel station | 3.61 CHF/kg |
| Remote ammonia to EU, cracked, H₂ via pipeline to fuel station | 6.42 CHF/kg |
| Domestic small-scale LH₂ to fuel station | 7.04 CHF/kg |
| Domestic 40-ft trailer GH₂ to fuel station (3-day round trip) | 7.57 CHF/kg |
| Remote 40-ft trailer GH₂ to fuel station (15-day round trip) | 8.81 CHF/kg |
| Domestic 20-ft trailer GH₂ to fuel station (3-day round trip) | 8.84 CHF/kg |
*Model results at assumed parameters — cost of goods only, no profit margins. Source: Burckhardt Compression case study, Mission Hydrogen webinar.
The currency, incidentally, is a detail: one Swiss franc is roughly 1.10 US dollars, and the study’s point is the sensitivity of costs to parameters, not absolute values.
Pipeline: the clear winner — where it exists
If a hydrogen pipeline is available, producing at a cheap-electricity location and pushing the gas through the pipe is by far the most attractive chain.
Pipeline, if available, will be the first choice. Liquefied hydrogen as a long-distance trade pattern will develop if and when the technology is available. Remote ammonia is today the trade pattern of choice, because everything is more or less ready. — Thorsten Harder, Product Manager, Burckhardt Compression (Mission Hydrogen webinar)
Pipelines move very large quantities of energy cheaply, and a pressurized pipeline doubles as energy storage — reducing the need for cavern storage. Europe’s ambition to build a hydrogen backbone of some 40,000 km by 2050 (versus roughly 1,500 km of pure hydrogen pipeline today) is therefore a genuine competitiveness lever, though most other regions are far behind.
Ammonia: expensive on paper, ready in practice
The ammonia route carries the biggest conversion penalty — yet it is the long-distance pattern actually being built, because the whole infrastructure already exists.
Synthesizing ammonia (nitrogen from air separation plus the electricity-hungry Haber-Bosch process) and cracking it back to hydrogen together consume more energy than the hydrogen itself contains. But ammonia is a well-known industrial gas: about 240 Mt were produced in 2023, more than 120 port terminals worldwide can already load or unload it, and sea transport is mature and cheap at scale. Adding an electrolyzer on the production side and a cracker on the receiving side is enough to start a remote supply chain today — which is why ammonia trade patterns are developing ahead of the more efficient liquid-hydrogen route.
Liquid hydrogen: attractive at scale, not yet mature
Remotely produced, sea-shipped LH₂ lands at ~3.61 CHF/kg in the model — close to pipeline — but the large-scale technology to do it does not exist yet.
Cheap remote electricity slashes both production and liquefaction cost, and shipping adds surprisingly little. The catch is hardware: to carry the energy equivalent of one standard 174,000 m³ LNG tanker, you would need 2.5 to 3 LH₂ carriers of the same size — and neither those carriers nor the very large liquefaction plants are commercially available today. Notably, boil-off is not simply lost along the chain: on ships it fuels the propulsion system, at the plant it is recycled into liquefaction, and at terminals it feeds pipeline injection or trailer filling.
Tube trailers: watch the round-trip duration
Trailer transport is the most expensive chain in the study — and its hidden cost lever is how long the hydrogen sits inside the container.
Two effects dominate. First, economies of scale: a 40-foot container carries roughly twice the hydrogen of a 20-foot one for less than twice the capital cost, so cost per kilogram falls. Second, and less obvious, the container’s CAPEX is financed per day of use. At a 3-day round trip the containerization cost is modest; stretch the round trip to 15 days — as in the remote production case — and the financing cost per delivered kilogram balloons, largely cancelling the benefit of cheap remote electricity. Anyone planning trailer logistics should treat round-trip duration as a first-order design parameter.
Where compression fits in the cost picture
Compression is present at almost every step of every chain — but it is a small share of the total cost, dominated by the electrolyzer.
The electricity consumed by compression is typically in the range of one to a few percent of what the electrolyzer consumes, and compressor CAPEX is significantly below electrolyzer CAPEX. Annual operation and maintenance for a medium-size piston pipeline-injection compressor is roughly 6–7% of its CAPEX. One genuine optimization lever is the electrolyzer’s discharge pressure: moving from atmospheric to 15–30 bar can eliminate one or two compression stages, cutting both compressor CAPEX and electricity — a trade-off worth studying early in plant design.
Can hydrogen imports from remote places be competitive? The answer, like always: it depends. — Thorsten Harder, Product Manager, Burckhardt Compression
Learn more about Hydrogen Technologies
Join our free weekly webinars and gain insights from experts.
FAQ - Green Hydrogen Costs
What is the cheapest way to transport green hydrogen?
Pipelines, where they exist. In the case study, remote production plus pipeline transport delivered hydrogen to the vehicle for about 3.00 CHF/kg — the lowest of all seven chains. Pipelines also act as energy storage. Where no pipeline is available, large-scale liquid hydrogen is the next most attractive option, once the technology matures.
Why is ammonia as a hydrogen carrier so expensive in the study?
Because the figure includes everything: hydrogen production by electrolysis, nitrogen from air separation, the electricity-intensive Haber-Bosch synthesis, storage, shipping, and cracking back to hydrogen. Synthesis costs ~55–61 kWh and cracking another ~9–11 kWh per kg of hydrogen. It still leads today’s trade patterns because the infrastructure — plants, tanks, ships, terminals — already exists.
Is 50–55 kWh/kg a realistic electrolyzer efficiency?
It is a common literature value, but a more conservative real-world figure is around 60 kWh/kg once the full balance of plant is included — cooling, fans, electronics, transformer losses. Data sheets have even trended slightly less efficient as manufacturers move to more robust designs with thicker membranes.
Are boil-off losses a problem for liquid hydrogen transport?
Less than often assumed. On ships, boil-off gas fuels the propulsion system; at the liquefaction plant it is recycled; at receiving terminals it feeds pipeline injection or trailer filling. Apart from minor leakage, the value chain does not lose significant amounts of boil-off gas.
How much does compression add to the cost of green hydrogen?
Comparatively little. Compression electricity is typically a low single-digit percentage of the electrolyzer’s consumption, and compressor CAPEX is significantly below electrolyzer CAPEX. O&M for a medium-size piston compressor runs roughly 6–7% of CAPEX per year. The bigger lever is choosing a pressurized electrolyzer to skip compression stages.
Do trailer size and round-trip time really matter?
Yes, substantially. A 40-foot container beats a 20-foot one on cost per kilogram through scale effects, and extending the container round trip from 3 to 15 days adds so much financing cost that it can cancel out the advantage of cheap remote production — in the study, remote 40-ft trailer hydrogen (8.81 CHF/kg) cost more than domestic 40-ft trailer hydrogen (7.57 CHF/kg).
Watch a clip from the Webinar
This is a short clip from the session
The full webinar recording is available to members in our Webinar Library.
← Back to the Hydrogen Knowledge Hub
Browse more articles — production, storage, transport and applications.
Article based on a Mission Hydrogen webinar. Technical figures are the speaker’s field estimates, presented for general understanding rather than as design specifications.