[Consolidated Reply] Query 7: Green Hydrogen Technologies and Pathways for a Low-Carbon Asia-Pacific

Thank you, Respected Sir Dr. Md Abdus Salam, for raising this timely and highly relevant query. Based on regional observations, policy engagement, and technology assessments in the Asia-Pacific, I would like to share the following insights:

1. Proven Technological Solutions Reducing Green Hydrogen Cost

Several scalable technological pathways have already demonstrated cost-reduction potential in the Asia-Pacific region:

Advanced Electrolyzer Technologies: Large-scale deployment of PEM and Alkaline electrolyzers with localized manufacturing has reduced CAPEX significantly, particularly in Australia and India. Gigafactory-scale electrolyzer production and standardization have proven effective.

Renewable-Powered Hydrogen Hubs: Co-locating electrolysis plants with solar and wind parks (renewable-hydrogen hubs) has reduced electricity costs — the dominant cost component — especially in resource-rich regions of Australia and India.

Grid-Integrated & Curtailment-Based Production: Utilizing surplus renewable energy during off-peak hours has lowered marginal hydrogen production costs, as demonstrated in pilot-to-commercial transitions in Japan.

Improved Storage & Transport Solutions: Deployment of ammonia-based hydrogen carriers and compressed hydrogen storage has reduced logistical costs for export-oriented hydrogen economies.

2. Policies, Finance Models & Collaboration Enablers

Key accelerators include:

Clear National Hydrogen Strategies: Long-term hydrogen roadmaps with demand guarantees (e.g., steel, fertilizer, shipping) created investor confidence.

Blended Finance & Public Risk-Sharing: Use of concessional finance, green bonds, and sovereign-backed offtake agreements reduced project risk and attracted private capital.

International Collaboration & Technology Transfer: South–South and Triangular cooperation (e.g., Asia–Pacific knowledge platforms, joint R&D programs) accelerated learning curves and localized innovation.

Carbon Pricing & Green Procurement Policies: Carbon markets and green public procurement helped narrow the price gap between green and grey hydrogen.

3. Remaining Barriers

Despite progress, challenges remain:

High upfront capital costs for electrolyzers in least-developed countries • Grid constraints and limited renewable penetration in emerging economies • Lack of regional hydrogen certification and interoperability standards • Skills and institutional capacity gaps for large-scale hydrogen systems.

Way Forward (Regional Perspective)

For countries like Bangladesh, a phased approach — starting with green hydrogen for fertilizer, backup power, and port-based industrial use — combined with regional cooperation and concessional finance, could make green hydrogen both feasible and affordable.

Green hydrogen is not only a technology transition but also a governance, finance, and justice transition for a low-carbon Asia-Pacific.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

While green hydrogen adoption in the Asia-Pacific faces cost, infrastructure, and policy challenges, the region’s renewable potential, market size, and collaborative initiatives position it to lead in developing a low-carbon hydrogen economy. Strategic investments, aligned standards, and regional cooperation can unlock significant decarbonization and economic opportunities on the pathway to net-zero by mid-century.

Green hydrogen — produced by electrolyzing water using renewable electricity — is increasingly viewed as a cornerstone of the Asia-Pacific’s energy transition and a critical tool to decarbonize “hard-to-abate” sectors such as heavy industry, shipping, aviation, and steel production. The Asia-Pacific region, home to some of the world’s largest industrial economies and energy consumers, is both a major driver of hydrogen demand and a potential global exporter of low-carbon energy carriers.

1. Core Production Technologies

At the heart of the green hydrogen economy are electrolyzers — devices that split water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity. The main electrolyzer technologies relevant to the region include:

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Electrolyzers: Offer fast response and flexibility, making them suitable for pairing with variable renewable energy sources.

Alkaline Electrolyzers: A more mature and lower-cost option, though with slightly less operational flexibility.

Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) Electrolyzers: A promising hybrid technology that combines the low cost of alkaline systems with enhanced efficiency. For example, Singapore-headquartered HYDGEN has raised significant capital to scale AEM electrolyzers that aim to produce ultra-pure hydrogen efficiently and cost-effectively at point-of-use, reducing logistical stresses.

Beyond conventional electrolysis, research continues into innovative processes that could reduce energy inputs and improve scalability, though most are still in early stages.

2. Storage and Distribution Innovations

Hydrogen’s low volumetric density requires specialised storage and logistics. Key approaches include:

Compressed and Liquefied Hydrogen Storage: High-pressure tanks and cryogenic systems are widely used but require significant energy for compression or cooling.

Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHCs): These chemical carriers allow hydrogen to be bound to organic molecules for safer, more energy-efficient transport and storage. The first international hydrogen supply chain using LOHC technology was established between Brunei and Kawasaki, Japan.

Pipeline Networks and Deep Storage: Emerging hydrogen pipeline projects (e.g., hydrogen “towns” like Ulsan in South Korea) aim to build hydrogen distribution infrastructure that integrates production, storage, and end-use.

3. Policy, Standards, and Regional Cooperation

A major challenge for scaling green hydrogen lies in policy harmonization and standards, which are still evolving in the Asia-Pacific. The lack of an internationally agreed definition and certification scheme for green hydrogen has led to fragmented approaches, complicating cross-border trade and investment.

At the regional level, institutions such as APEC are actively advancing policy frameworks to foster a coordinated hydrogen transition. Policy dialogues emphasize the need for incentives, standardized regulations, and shared best practices to stimulate market development and decarbonization.

Similarly, the Asia Pacific Green Hydrogen Alliance — supported by public and private stakeholders — focuses on catalysing policy leadership, financing, and trade corridors across advanced hydrogen economies like Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea.

4. Economic and Market Pathways

One of the biggest barriers to green hydrogen in the Asia-Pacific is cost. Green hydrogen remains more expensive than conventional fossil-based hydrogen due to the high cost of renewable electricity and electrolyzers. However, costs are projected to fall significantly through economies of scale, technology improvements, and supportive policy incentives between 2030–2050.

Regional hydrogen markets also stand to create substantial economic value. Independent analyses suggest that clean fuels like hydrogen and ammonia could deliver over a quarter of emissions reductions in the Asia-Pacific by 2050, with nearly USD 1.1 trillion per year in new energy commodity markets and significant cross-border trade.

5. Strategic Sector Integration

Green hydrogen offers a pathway to decarbonize critical sectors including:

Industrial Manufacturing: Steel, chemicals, and refining industries increasingly integrate hydrogen and its derivatives (e.g., green ammonia, methanol) to replace fossil feedstocks.

Transport and Shipping: Hydrogen fuel cells and e-fuels (hydrogen-derived synthetic fuels) are promising alternatives for heavy transport and maritime sectors, which are difficult to electrify directly.

Power Sector Flexibility: When integrated with renewable systems, green hydrogen can address variability in solar and wind generation, serving as long-duration energy storage.

6. Future Pathways and Recommendations

To accelerate the transition toward a robust low-carbon hydrogen economy, the Asia-Pacific needs concerted action on several fronts:

Scale Renewable Capacity: Expand wind, solar, and other renewables to supply both grid decarbonization and electrolyzer feedstock.

Harmonize Standards: Develop regionally aligned definitions and certification schemes to facilitate trade and investment.

Invest in Infrastructure: Build pipelines, storage hubs, and regional distribution networks.

Mobilize Finance: Leverage public and private capital to bridge early-stage cost barriers and support large-scale projects.

Foster Regional Trade: Create export/import corridors to match production centers (e.g., Australia, Middle East) with demand hubs in industrialised economies.

Proven Technological Solutions in Asia-Pacific

Countries like Australia and Japan are coupling solar and wind farms directly with electrolysis, lowering electricity input costs for hydrogen production. Deployment of advanced PEM and alkaline electrolyzers in China and Korea has reduced operational costs and improved scalability. Blending hydrogen with natural gas in industrial processes in Japan’s steelmaking and chemical plants in Korea has proven cost-effective while reducing emissions. Liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs) and ammonia-based storage are being piloted in Singapore and Japan to reduce logistics costs.

Policies, Finance Models, and Collaborations

The APEC Energy Ministerial Meetings endorsed clean hydrogen as a key energy vector, encouraging member economies to adopt roadmaps and regulatory frameworks. Japan’s Green Innovation Fund and Australia’s Hydrogen Hubs demonstrate how government seed funding catalyzes private investment. Cross-border hydrogen trade agreements between Australia–Japan and Korea–Singapore are accelerating commercialization by pooling resources and demand. Blended finance combining concessional loans, green bonds, and carbon credits has reduced upfront risks for investors.

Remaining Barriers

High capital costs for electrolyzer and infrastructure investments remain expensive, limiting rapid scale-up. Hydrogen pipelines, storage facilities, and port terminals are insufficient in many Asia-Pacific economies. Lack of harmonized safety standards and certification schemes slows cross-border trade. Fluctuating renewable energy prices and unclear long-term demand projections hinder investor confidence.

Energy utilization increases with advancing human knowledge sharing, societal progress, and rising personal demands for comfort and modesty. Energy consumption varies widely by country, directly correlating with cultural and living standards. Global energy use at a particular region ties closely to land population size. Rising CO₂ emissions are projected to hit alarming levels in coming years due to surging power sector demand. Climate change challenge requires clean energy tech, efficiency in production, and reliable projects/investment to meet global growing targets, while communities seek cheap local energy methods, and innovations from scientists to provide efficient cost-effective production and storage. Today, worldwide struggle is on advancing renewable energy for a sustainable low carbon industry and transportation method. The renewable energy methods have enthusiasm for Green Hydrogen against other energy storage systems (much like batteries, which store & deliver power). Green hydrogen technologies primarily rely on renewable-powered electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, offering a clean alternative to fossil-fuel-based hydrogen. Here production is made by electricity from renewable sources to power an electrolyzer that separates water into hydrogen and oxygen. The resulting hydrogen can be stored and transported, making it a versatile and reliable energy carrier. This process emits no greenhouse gases, making it a sustainable and clean fuel. The Green Hydrogen is playing a fundamental role in industrial scale and approximately in vehicles transportation. The energy shortage demand of the country can be handled suitably if efficient hydrogen storage and transportation is available.

The Green Hydrogen production as alternative fuel gets promoted in Asia-Pacific region. China and India jointly accounted above 25% of hydrogen market share, as it is a green energy solution, secondly it liberates the public from the dependency over fossil fuel. While this struggle has great motivation, but the green hydrogen is not yet matured to assume this crucial task. If we called Car manufacturers to build the Hydrogen generators in their cars because it will make them much cheaper for users, the car required new developments, which make cars more expensive. Accelerated advancement in this sector requires robust scientific and engineering programs that leverage prevailing expertise while maintaining a keen eye on shifting global trends.

Finally, to acquired/achieved an outlined for CO₂ emission as under IPCC guidelines, the safe and efficient Hydrogen production models and methods are needed for the global transition to a low-carbon future. The guide line required as used for renewable energy projects (solar, wind turbine etc.) or Energy-efficient public transportation systems (EV) in urban areas, where fossil fuels utilization in a specific region is replaced by smart energy methods amid in contributing to GHG reductions as well as Carbon reduction.

Green Hydrogen is far more than a decarbonisation tool for hard-to-abate sectors. For developing countries, it represents a once-in-a-generation economic development strategy, one that unlocks access to advanced technologies, new industrial capabilities, and global investment flows.

At its core, Green Hydrogen is a platform for technological leapfrogging. Countries rich in renewable resources can convert that natural advantage into clean molecules, clean electrons, and critically clean economic opportunity. By coupling hydrogen production with emerging demand from data centres, AI clusters, and digital infrastructure, nations can position themselves not just as energy exporters, but as strategic partners in the global digital economy.

Data centres and AI supercomputing hubs are rapidly becoming the world’s fastest-growing energy consumers. Their need for 24/7 clean power, long-duration storage, and firm, dispatchable energy aligns perfectly with the capabilities of hydrogen. This creates a new class of anchor offtakers, stable, creditworthy, and long-term, capable of underpinning entire hydrogen economies.

Hydrogen is much more than a molecule — it is the bridge between natural resource wealth and technical capability. It enables countries to move from being commodity exporters to knowledge economy participants, hosting data centres, AI training facilities, and innovation clusters powered by their own renewable-hydrogen systems.

I passionately believe that Green Hydrogen must be understood not as a niche climate solution, but as a strategic development pathway, one that integrates energy, digitalisation, industrial policy, and global competitiveness. It is a catalyst for new industries, new skills, and new forms of international cooperation.

Especially in the Asia Pacific region, clean hydrogen is not just about decarbonising the old economy, it is the foundation for building a new one.

Green hydrogen deployment in the Asia-Pacific region has moved beyond pilot demonstrations in several countries, with a few technological and institutional approaches already showing cost-reduction potential at near-commercial scale. Based on regional evidence and practical experience, the following situation- and example-based insights are offered.

1. Proven Technological Solutions Deployed at Scale to Reduce Green Hydrogen Costs

a) Large-scale renewable-integrated electrolysis (Australia & India)

Australia has demonstrated one of the most effective cost-reduction pathways by co-locating gigawatt-scale solar and wind farms with centralized alkaline and PEM electrolyzers. Projects in Western Australia and Queensland (e.g., Asian Renewable Energy Hub–linked developments) have achieved significant cost declines through economies of scale, shared infrastructure, and high renewable capacity factors (>55%). These projects reduce electricity input costs — the dominant contributor to hydrogen price — by long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) with renewable generators.

Similarly, India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission has supported deployment of multi-hundred-MW electrolyzer clusters integrated with low-cost solar (₹2–2.5/kWh). Pilot industrial projects in refineries and fertilizer plants have already demonstrated production costs below USD 3/kg under favorable renewable tariffs, primarily using alkaline electrolysis optimized for baseload industrial demand.

b) Electrolyzer manufacturing localization (China & India)

China’s rapid scale-up of domestic alkaline electrolyzer manufacturing has substantially reduced capital expenditure (CAPEX), with system costs reported to be 40–50% lower than early 2020 benchmarks. Large deployments linked to renewable-powered ammonia and methanol production have proven technical reliability at scale. India has followed a similar pathway by incentivizing domestic electrolyzer manufacturing under production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes, reducing import dependency and improving supply chain resilience.

c) Industrial off-take–driven hydrogen hubs (Japan & Korea)

Japan and the Republic of Korea have successfully piloted hydrogen hubs anchored by guaranteed industrial off-take (steel, chemicals, and mobility). Although initially reliant on public subsidies, these hubs demonstrated reduced levelized hydrogen costs through high utilization rates of electrolyzers, shared storage, and optimized compression/liquefaction systems. Integration with existing industrial hydrogen pipelines further reduced balance-of-plant costs.

2. Policies, Finance Models, Collaborations, and Remaining Barriers

a) Enabling policies and market signals

Clear national strategies have been decisive. Australia’s Hydrogen Headstart Program, India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission, and Japan’s Basic Hydrogen Strategy provided long-term demand visibility, production incentives, and regulatory clarity. In India, mandates for green hydrogen use in refineries and fertilizers created assured demand, directly improving project bankability.

b) Innovative finance models

Blended finance mechanisms — combining public grants, concessional loans, and private equity — have been critical. Australia and Japan leveraged contracts for difference (CfD)–like mechanisms to bridge the cost gap between green and fossil-based hydrogen. Multilateral development banks and green climate funds reduced risk premiums by supporting early projects, particularly for electrolyzer deployment and storage infrastructure.

c) International and regional collaborations

Cross-border collaborations (e.g., Australia–Japan, Australia–Korea, and India–EU technology partnerships) accelerated learning curves through shared standards, joint R&D, and harmonization of certification schemes. These collaborations reduced technology uncertainty and supported export-oriented hydrogen value chains.

d) Remaining barriers

Despite progress, barriers remain. Grid integration constraints limit access to low-cost renewable electricity in several developing Asia-Pacific countries. Water availability and desalination costs are emerging concerns in arid regions. Infrastructure gaps — particularly for hydrogen transport, storage, and end-use retrofitting — continue to raise system-level costs. Finally, the absence of universally accepted green hydrogen certification frameworks still restricts cross-border trade and investor confidence.

Concluding Perspective

The Asia-Pacific experience demonstrates that green hydrogen cost reduction is achievable when technological scale-up is matched with strong policy alignment, industrial demand anchoring, and coordinated financing. While advanced economies have led early deployment, the lessons are transferable to emerging economies through regional cooperation, targeted subsidies, and localized manufacturing. Continued focus on grid integration, infrastructure development, and harmonized standards will be essential to move from early commercialization toward full market competitiveness across the region.

1. Technological Solutions – Proven Technologies Deployed at Scale in Asia-Pacific to Reduce Green Hydrogen Costs

a) Large-scale alkaline and PEM electrolysis linked to renewables
Where deployed: Australia, China, India, Japan

Alkaline electrolysers (AEL) manufactured at scale in China and increasingly in India have reduced CAPEX through local supply chains, standardization, and modular design. PEM electrolysers in Japan and Australia have been deployed where flexibility and rapid ramping are needed to match variable solar and wind generation.

Cost reduction is achieved through: (1) MW- to GW-scale projects; (2) Localization of stacks and balance-of-plant; (3) Long-term renewable PPAs at very low tariffs (especially solar and wind).

Impact: China’s domestically produced electrolysers are already reported at 30–50% lower capital cost than imported systems, directly lowering levelized hydrogen costs.

b) Co-location of electrolysers with ultra-low-cost renewable energy
Where deployed: Australia (WA, SA), India (Rajasthan, Gujarat), China (Inner Mongolia)

Co-locating electrolysers with solar and wind farms avoids grid congestion charges and reduces curtailment. Hybrid renewable systems (solar + wind) improve electrolyser utilization factors, spreading fixed costs over higher output.

Impact: Projects in Australia and India have demonstrated higher capacity factors (45–60%), which is critical for pushing hydrogen costs toward USD 2/kg.

c) Industrial-cluster-based hydrogen production and use
Where deployed: Japan, China, South Korea

Hydrogen hubs linked to steel, refining, chemicals, and ports reduce transport and storage costs. Hydrogen is consumed close to production points, lowering logistics complexity.

Impact: Japan’s industrial hydrogen hubs have shown faster commercialization by anchoring demand in existing industrial offtakers, reducing market risk.

d) Ammonia and methanol as hydrogen carriers
Where deployed: Australia–Japan, Australia–Korea, China

Converting green hydrogen into green ammonia enables long-distance transport using existing infrastructure. Australia has advanced ammonia export projects linked to renewables.

Impact: This approach lowers storage and shipping costs, making regional trade in green hydrogen feasible before pure hydrogen pipelines mature.

e) Digital optimization and modularization
Where deployed: Japan, Australia, China

AI-enabled energy management systems optimize electrolyser operation based on renewable availability and price signals. Modular electrolyser skids reduce installation time and EPC costs.

Impact: Operational expenditure (OPEX) reductions of 10–15% have been reported in commercial projects using smart dispatch and predictive maintenance.

2. Enabling Ecosystem – Policies, Finance Models, Collaborations and Remaining Barriers

a) Policies that accelerated adoption

Clear national hydrogen strategies: Japan, Australia, India, and China have adopted national hydrogen roadmaps with defined targets and demand sectors. These strategies reduce investor uncertainty and support long-term planning.

Demand-side mandates and offtake assurance: Japan’s support for hydrogen use in power and industry. India’s Green Hydrogen Mission with refinery and fertilizer blending mandates.

Carbon pricing and standards: Emissions intensity benchmarks and clean fuel standards improve green hydrogen competitiveness against fossil-based hydrogen.

b) Financing mechanisms and business models

Public capital de-risking: Grants, viability gap funding, and concessional loans from governments and development banks. Australia’s Clean Energy Finance Corporation and similar institutions in Japan and Korea played a catalytic role.

Long-term offtake agreements: Take-or-pay contracts with utilities, steelmakers, and chemical producers reduced revenue risk.

Public–private partnerships (PPPs): Governments provided land, infrastructure, and policy support. Private sector led technology deployment and operations.

Industrial anchor-offtaker model: Large industrial users commit to early demand, allowing projects to reach bankability faster.

c) Regional and cross-border collaboration

Australia–Japan and Australia–Korea hydrogen supply chains • Technology transfer from Japan and Korea to emerging markets • Regional platforms for standards, certification, and guarantees of origin.

d) Key barriers that still remain

Technical: (1) Limited electrolyser lifetimes at high utilization; (2) Water availability constraints in arid regions; (3) Lack of mature hydrogen storage at scale.

Financial: (1) High upfront CAPEX despite falling costs; (2) Limited access to low-cost, long-tenor finance in developing Asia.

Regulatory: (1) Absence of harmonized hydrogen standards and certification; (2) Unclear rules for hydrogen blending in gas networks.

Institutional: (1) Weak coordination between energy, industry, water, and transport ministries; (2) Skills gaps in hydrogen project development and operations.

Asia-Pacific experience shows that cost reduction in green hydrogen is already happening through scale, localization, industrial clustering, and renewable integration. However, sustained commercialization depends less on technology alone and more on policy certainty, demand creation, financial de-risking, and regional cooperation. Bridging remaining institutional and regulatory gaps will be decisive for moving from early deployment to mass adoption.

From my perspective — combining experience in developing hydrogen ecosystems, collaborating with industry, and working within regulatory and market frameworks — the most effective ways to reduce the cost of green hydrogen in the Asia-Pacific region do not come from a single “miracle” innovation. Instead, they result from a comprehensive package of solutions: scale, low-cost renewable energy, high electrolyzer utilization, efficient infrastructure, and stable demand-side instruments.

1. Proven Technological Solutions Deployed at Scale to Reduce Green Hydrogen Costs

A. Scaling Electrolyzers: Industrialization, Standardization, and the Learning Curve

The most demonstrably effective cost lever in green hydrogen production has been the rapid transition from small demonstration units to large-scale installations — typically in the range of tens to hundreds of megawatts. Projects that adopt modular architectures, simplified balance-of-plant designs, and standardized grid and process interfaces achieve significantly stronger cost performance.

Scaling drives down CAPEX through bulk procurement, standardized manufacturing processes, and shorter construction timelines. Larger order volumes improve supplier pricing, while repetition reduces engineering uncertainty and installation complexity. At the same time, service contracts benefit from clearer performance benchmarks and stronger warranty structures. This industrialization process activates the learning curve effect: each additional deployment reduces unit costs, improves reliability, and enhances operational efficiency. In the Asia-Pacific region, where manufacturing capacity and supply chain integration can be scaled rapidly, this approach has proven particularly effective.

B. Integration with Renewables Under a High-Utilization Model

Where green hydrogen begins to approach cost competitiveness, a consistent factor is not simply access to renewable energy — but achieving high annual operating hours for the electrolyzer. The economics of hydrogen production are highly sensitive to utilization rates. Low load factors significantly increase the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen because fixed capital costs are distributed across lower output volumes.

Successful projects in Asia-Pacific increasingly rely on hybrid renewable portfolios (e.g., solar PV combined with wind) to smooth intermittency and extend operating hours. In some cases, grid access complemented by Guarantees of Origin or credible certification frameworks enables additional flexibility. Advanced dispatching strategies and energy price forecasting allow operators to optimize production during favorable price windows. This combination — diversified renewable input, intelligent grid interaction, and operational optimization — maximizes asset productivity and reduces overall production cost.

C. System Optimization Through Digitalization and Advanced Control (EMS/SCADA/AI)

Commercially mature projects increasingly integrate advanced Energy Management Systems (EMS), SCADA platforms, and AI-driven optimization tools. These systems synchronize renewable generation profiles, grid constraints, electricity price signals, water parameters, and real-time industrial demand (e.g., refineries, ammonia plants, or steel facilities).

The cost impact of digital optimization is often underestimated because it does not require breakthrough hardware innovation. However, it significantly improves asset utilization, reduces curtailment losses, minimizes downtime, and enhances process stability. Improved forecasting and automated control also contribute to consistent hydrogen quality and lower maintenance requirements. Compared to major infrastructure investments, digital optimization is a relatively low-cost intervention with high systemic return.

D. Shortening the Value Chain: On-Site or Near-Site Production

A substantial portion of hydrogen costs can accumulate in logistics rather than production. Compression, liquefaction, transport, and reconversion processes add both capital and operational expenditure. Projects that locate hydrogen production directly on-site or near-site — particularly within ports or industrial clusters — significantly reduce these downstream costs.

Short pipeline connections, localized hubs, and direct integration with industrial processes eliminate unnecessary transport steps. Avoiding costly stages such as liquefaction or long-distance compression — where not technically required — can materially improve project economics. In Asia-Pacific’s emerging hydrogen hubs, proximity between production and consumption has proven to be one of the most practical cost-reduction strategies.

E. Aligning Product Specifications with End-Use Requirements

Some hydrogen projects inadvertently overspecify product quality parameters — such as purity levels or dew point thresholds — beyond what the end-use process actually requires. While safety and technological compatibility remain non-negotiable, aligning hydrogen specifications more precisely with industrial application needs can reduce both CAPEX and OPEX.

Lower purification requirements may reduce equipment complexity, energy consumption, and maintenance needs. In certain industrial applications, ultra-high purity hydrogen is unnecessary, and overengineering the system increases costs without delivering proportional value. Rational specification management is therefore an important — though often overlooked — lever for cost optimization.

F. Efficient Water and Heat Management (Especially in Water-Scarce Regions)

In several Asia-Pacific jurisdictions, particularly those with arid or semi-arid climates, water management becomes a critical enabling factor. While water costs are typically not the dominant component of hydrogen production economics, inefficient water use can create permitting challenges, social opposition, and operational risks.

Effective solutions include water recovery systems, minimizing process losses, integrating desalination only when required, and utilizing waste heat where a thermal off-taker exists. Waste heat integration can improve overall system efficiency and reduce auxiliary energy demand. Although these measures may not represent the largest direct cost savings per kilogram of hydrogen, they often determine project feasibility, regulatory approval timelines, and long-term operational stability.

2. Policies, Finance Models, Collaborations, and Remaining Barriers

The most decisive acceleration in hydrogen deployment occurs when projects are underpinned by predictable and contractually secured revenue streams. Renewable and low-carbon hydrogen remains structurally more expensive than fossil-based alternatives in most markets, which means that without mechanisms stabilizing revenues, projects tend to remain confined to pilot or demonstration scale. The turning point typically comes when policy frameworks introduce demand-side instruments that reduce uncertainty and provide long-term visibility.

Long-term offtake agreements — often spanning 10 to 20 years — create revenue stability that significantly improves project bankability. Contracts for Difference (CfD) and Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) bridge the cost gap between hydrogen and fossil-based alternatives, effectively compensating for the green premium during the early market phase. Similarly, auctions for green end-products such as green steel or green ammonia establish price discovery mechanisms while guaranteeing demand. Premium support schemes that compensate for the cost differential further strengthen the commercial case. These instruments directly reduce the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). In capital-intensive infrastructure projects, even a reduction of 2–3 percentage points in WACC can translate into double-digit reductions in the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH). Financial institutions ultimately finance cash-flow stability rather than technological ambition. Once revenues are secured through contracts or public mechanisms, projects move from being technically promising to financially bankable.

Hydrogen deployment also accelerates significantly when projects are embedded within cluster-based development models rather than developed as isolated installations. Ports, industrial hubs, special economic zones, and hydrogen valleys provide integrated environments where infrastructure, demand, and logistics evolve simultaneously. In such ecosystems, renewable energy infrastructure, grid connections, water sourcing and treatment systems, storage facilities, safety systems, and port logistics are developed in a coordinated manner.

Successful clusters are typically anchored by two or three large industrial offtakers — such as a steel producer, a chemical plant, or a mobility operator — which secure baseline demand and reduce volumetric risk. These anchor customers enable economies of scale and improve the predictability of cash flows. Scale is not only economically advantageous; it strengthens political and regulatory legitimacy. Larger, integrated projects are easier to align with national industrial policy, energy security strategies, and employment objectives, which in turn improves access to public funding and regulatory support.

Another critical enabling factor is blended finance combined with structured risk mitigation mechanisms. In practice, hydrogen projects tend to reach Final Investment Decision (FID) only when supported by a carefully engineered mix of public and private capital. This typically includes CAPEX grants or investment subsidies, tax incentives or accelerated depreciation mechanisms, concessional loans from development banks, credit guarantees, technology risk insurance, and public co-financing of shared infrastructure.

Such arrangements should not be viewed as simple subsidization but rather as structured risk-sharing during the early market transition phase. Public participation in grid reinforcement, hydrogen pipelines, or storage facilities often becomes a prerequisite for lowering hydrogen production costs to levels acceptable for heavy industry. Without this financial engineering, even highly efficient electrolyzer technologies cannot compensate for high electricity prices and elevated capital costs. The financial structure, therefore, becomes as important as technological performance.

Time efficiency in permitting and regulatory clarity further determines the pace of deployment. Lengthy approval processes increase capital exposure, delay revenue generation, and elevate regulatory risk. Efficient permitting systems, clearly defined safety standards, and stable regulatory frameworks can shorten development timelines by several years, substantially improving project economics. Every additional year of delay increases financing costs and erodes competitiveness.

Equally important is credible, internationally recognized certification of green or low-carbon hydrogen. Investors and lenders require legal certainty regarding compliance with taxonomy regulations, climate policies, and ESG reporting standards. For export-oriented projects, the bankability of sustainability credentials can be as decisive as technological performance. If sustainability classification remains jurisdiction-dependent or politically uncertain, financing becomes more expensive and more complex.

Barriers That Continue to Constrain Deployment

Despite accelerating policy frameworks and technological progress, several structural barriers remain.

The most fundamental constraint is the cost and availability of electricity. Hydrogen competitiveness is intrinsically tied to renewable energy pricing and grid accessibility. If renewable power is not genuinely low-cost and available in sufficient hourly profiles, or if grid infrastructure is congested, subject to curtailment, or delayed in connection approvals, hydrogen production costs remain elevated regardless of improvements in electrolyzer efficiency. In several markets, grid bottlenecks effectively neutralize otherwise promising offshore wind or large-scale solar opportunities. Without parallel grid expansion and market reform, hydrogen cost reductions remain limited.

Demand risk continues to represent a core investment challenge. The central question for financiers remains whether durable and creditworthy demand exists. Without firm long-term offtake agreements or cost-differential support mechanisms, industrial buyers hesitate to commit to price premiums, while banks are unwilling to provide project financing without predictable revenue streams. The hydrogen sector remains caught in a structural “chicken-and-egg” equilibrium: buyers wait for prices to fall, and producers wait for guaranteed demand. Absent targeted policy intervention, this equilibrium slows commercialization.

Infrastructure and midstream gaps also constrain deployment. Hydrogen production is only one component of a broader value chain that includes transport, storage, conversion, and safety infrastructure. Pipelines, ammonia conversion facilities, liquid organic hydrogen carriers, compressed or liquefied storage solutions, salt cavern storage, and port handling infrastructure remain underdeveloped or insufficiently standardized in many regions. The lack of scalable and interoperable midstream solutions increases transaction costs, operational risk, and logistical complexity, limiting the formation of international hydrogen trade corridors.

Regulatory inconsistency and certification fragmentation further elevate uncertainty. Divergent definitions of green hydrogen, inconsistent rules on additionality, and varying requirements for temporal and geographical correlation of renewable electricity sourcing create legal and financial risk. Export-oriented projects require long-term assurance that hydrogen will remain recognized under foreign regulatory regimes over asset lifetimes of 15 to 20 years. Without international harmonization, cross-border trade remains exposed to policy volatility, which directly translates into higher capital costs.

Finally, human capital and industrial capacity constraints remain underestimated barriers. Rapid deployment requires specialized engineering expertise, local maintenance and service capabilities, reliable access to key components such as electrolyzers and compression systems, and resilient manufacturing supply chains. Without these elements, project costs increase, implementation timelines extend, and operational risks intensify. Hydrogen deployment today competes not only for financial capital but also for skilled labor, industrial manufacturing capacity, and critical materials.

Following the bio-based outcomes of COP30, we in Hydrogen Ireland have been reflecting on how green hydrogen can serve not only as a clean energy vector, and decarbonise dirty industries but how it can serve as a catalyst for transformation across agriculture, food security, and economic resilience specifically in developing countries. Fertilisers are a critical part of this story. Through sustainable green ammonia production, we can ensure affordable access to fertilisers that boost agricultural productivity, enable climate-smart farming, and strengthen food sovereignty specifically in countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

What makes this compelling is that with the systems coupling research we are working on, bio-refineries integrated with hydrogen production can form the backbone of a new clean fertiliser supply chain. By harnessing renewable-powered electrolysis, we can produce hydrogen that feeds directly into green ammonia pathways, while also unlocking synergies with bio-based feedstocks. This creates a circular, resilient model where clean hydrogen, bioeconomy resources, and fertiliser production are aligned to deliver both climate and development outcomes.

In this way, fertilisers are not separate from the green hydrogen agenda, they are embedded within it. Clean hydrogen enables the transition to sustainable fertiliser production, while bio-refineries and agrifood systems provide the context for coupling energy, water, and food security. Together, these innovations can reduce dependency on fossil-based inputs, stabilise rural economies, and empower smallholder farmers with tools to adapt to climate volatility.

Clean hydrogen production is not just an energy solution; it is a lever for global equity. By unlocking energy sources for countries that have long been energy poor because of lack of fossil fuels, it redistributes opportunity and rebalances the energy world. In doing so, it ensures equality of access to resources, equality of participation in the clean economy, and equality of outcome in shared prosperity. This is the promise of hydrogen, a pathway where every nation, community, and farmer can stand as an equal partner in shaping a resilient and sustainable future.

As the world looks to clean energy we must widen the lens and focus beyond just energy use, we see a unique opportunity to broadcast this integrated message, that clean hydrogen is not only about energy, but about building resilient supply chains for fertilisers, food, and water. We would welcome continuing this dialogue with you and exploring how our shared focus on fertilisers can be advanced through the lens of hydrogen-powered systems coupling.

The big picture: what is hydrogen, and what is it good for?

Green hydrogen is a scalable and flexible energy carrier produced by converting renewable electricity (electrons) to split water into hydrogen (protons) and oxygen, which can be stored indefinitely or converted into other molecules. The oxygen by-product can be sold into existing markets depending on local demand. Hydrogen-derived chemicals (molecules) can be transported in bulk as is the case for crude oil, natural gas, refined petroleum products, and other chemicals. Like fossil fuels — which are formed by a combination of solar, biomass, geothermal energy, and geologic time — hydrogen is an energy carrier. Specifically, solar-to-hydrogen mimics the natural processes that create fossil fuels, and potential uses of green hydrogen mimic the existing global hydrocarbons business. The scalability of intermittent solar and wind resources is limited by the ability to time-shift renewable energy output to match demand, and hydrogen appears to be a scalable solution for both time-shifting and location-shifting of renewable energy. A key point that is rarely mentioned: for each ton of H₂ produced from water, we get 8 tons of oxygen. Who cares? The average person can survive for 3 minutes without oxygen. More than ½ the oxygen in the atmosphere comes from the ocean, so the ocean (SDG 14) deserves a lot more attention. Most approaches to commercial green H₂ is focused only on the H₂. What if we work from the oxygen markets back to producing oxygen with H₂ as a by-product? More comments to come — thanks! From a policy perspective, green hydrogen is energy-intensive and commercial viability is likely to be location-specific.⁵

Green hydrogen is a “power-to-X” business proposition based on selling molecules rather than selling electrons via power purchase agreements. Today there is no global hydrogen market analogous to global crude oil and other hydrocarbons. Therefore, the viability of green hydrogen production depends primarily on electrolyzer costs, local energy costs, specific end-use applications, and willingness of hydrogen buyers to commit to long-term offtake agreements (not unlike traditional liquefied natural gas export projects). Hydrogen supply chain development is expected to continue globally, and as global electrolyzer manufacturing capacity increases, a virtuous cycle of development may emerge. Others have noted the activity in China, and I believe we will see electrolyzer cost reductions similar to what has happened with solar and batteries largely due to the massive brute force investment in China. Green H₂ may still look “expensive” today, but we should ask ourselves “expensive compared to what?” Producing H₂ from renewable electricity has embedded cost certainty versus cost and price volatility associated with producing H₂ from natural gas.

Analogous to stranded gas, we have enormous renewable energy resources waiting to be harvested/monetized, e.g., offshore wind resources which may be too far offshore to justify a transmission connection back to shore. Our business model is “power to X” rather than a power purchase agreement. The potential illustrated is quite theoretical in that liquefying and transporting the H₂ is not commercial today and may never be: the commercial pathway is more likely to be conversion to methanol or ammonia which can be sold into existing markets.

⁵ Asian Development Bank (2024). Emerging Hydrogen Energy Technology and Global Market Study. Sustainable Development Working Paper No. 96, p. 44. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/996296/sdwp-096-hydrogen-energy-technology.pdf

Oil India Limited (OIL), Government of India company, has set up Green Hydrogen Pilot Plant at Jorhat in Northeast India. The plant has been set up in collaboration with a private company. The plant is based on Anion Exchange Membrane Electrolysis Technology. It has a capacity to produce 16m³/h of 99.999% green hydrogen using 100 KW of renewable solar power. There are plans to blend the hydrogen with natural gas so that it can be utilized, after blending, in domestic piped natural gas network, natural gas-based burners used by tea gardens for drying of tea leaves and for internal combustion engine. A study undertaken by OIL has shown that natural gas blended with small quantities of hydrogen can be transported through existing pipeline infrastructure without causing any embrittlement.

OIL is also supporting a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle through its start-up program.

Government of India policies have supported the adoption of green hydrogen by energy companies at a fast pace as they are in a position to finance alternate energy projects. However, partnerships with private companies are essential for adoption of these technologies. One of the barriers for faster adoption of hydrogen in mass transport system is related to safety which has to be adequately addressed.

India has set a target of 5 MMTPA of annual green hydrogen production by 2030. The majority of projects expected to be commissioned by 2030 are likely to be based on alkaline electrolyser technology due to its cost competitiveness. The recent bid of ₹279 ($3.08) per kilogram to supply 10,000 tonnes of green hydrogen per year to Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., majority owned by state-run Oil India Ltd., in the northeastern state of Assam, demonstrates the government’s strong commitment to achieving this target. Several states have also released their Green Hydrogen Policies; for instance, Gujarat has set a target of 3 MMTPA of green hydrogen production by 2035.

While the government’s focus is evident, key challenges must be addressed, particularly securing long-term offtake agreements to ensure demand certainty. Additionally, India needs to align its green hydrogen regulatory framework with EU and U.S. standards to facilitate exports of green hydrogen and its derivatives. This would require compliance with guardrails such as additionality, deliverability, and temporal matching.

Based on my experience working in an industry body, focused on industry decarbonization, and engaging with project developers, technology providers, financiers, and policymakers across the Asia-Pacific region, the following factors have emerged as key accelerators and constraints influencing green hydrogen deployment from an industry perspective.

What has accelerated adoption:

Clear national hydrogen roadmaps and long-term demand signals creating investment visibility: India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission has provided long-term clarity on production targets, priority end-use sectors (refineries, fertilizers, steel, Sustainable Aviation Fuel), and export intent, enabling developers to plan integrated hydrogen–SAF projects with greater confidence.

Production-linked incentives, viability gap funding, and CapEX subsidies reducing early-stage project risk: Incentive schemes for electrolyzer manufacturing and green hydrogen production have helped offset first-mover costs, particularly for integrated hydrogen-to-Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and hydrogen-to-ammonia pathways.

Blended finance models combining concessional public capital with private equity and debt to lower the weighted average cost of capital: Public finance institutions and multilateral development banks have played a catalytic role by offering concessional debt and risk-sharing instruments alongside private capital for early hydrogen projects.

Sovereign-backed guarantees and public sector off-take commitments improving project bankability: Commitments from public sector refineries and fertilizer companies to gradually substitute grey hydrogen with green hydrogen have strengthened long-term demand visibility and supported bankability.

Public–private partnerships enabling industrial cluster development and shared infrastructure: Hydrogen and SAF hubs emerging in regions such as Gujarat and Maharashtra, which are anchored around refineries, ports, and renewable energy zones, demonstrate how PPP-led cluster development can lower logistics, storage, and infrastructure costs.

International collaborations and hydrogen export partnerships enhancing technology access and scale confidence: India’s bilateral cooperation with countries in Europe and Asia-Pacific is increasingly aligned with Article 6 mechanisms, enabling future transfer of mitigation outcomes through green hydrogen and e-fuels while supporting export-oriented SAF supply chains.

Barriers that remain:

High renewable electricity costs and grid access constraints limiting cost competitiveness: Despite declining tariffs, round-the-clock renewable power for electrolyzers remains expensive due to balancing, storage, and grid charges, particularly for high-capacity-factor hydrogen production.

Inadequate hydrogen transport, storage, and port infrastructure: Absence of dedicated hydrogen pipelines, limited high-pressure storage facilities, and lack of hydrogen-ready port infrastructure constrain large-scale hydrogen and SAF export ambitions.

Policy and certification uncertainty around “green” hydrogen definitions affecting trade and financing: Evolving standards for additionality, temporal matching, and carbon intensity create uncertainty for international off-take, SAF eligibility, and carbon market participation.

Limited commercial bank appetite for first-of-a-kind projects due to perceived technology and policy risk: Banks remain cautious on integrated hydrogen–SAF projects given technology novelty, evolving policy frameworks, and unclear long-term price signals.

Misalignment between policy timelines and industry investment cycles: Hydrogen mandates, SAF blending expectations, and incentive durations are not always synchronized with the long gestation periods required for large-scale infrastructure investment.

Lack of firm, long-term off-take contracts to support project financing and scale-up: Absence of binding SAF purchase agreements from airlines limits developers’ ability to lock in hydrogen supply contracts and achieve financial closure.

The Community of Practice (CoP) on Climate Technologies extends its sincere appreciation to members for their thoughtful and experience-based contributions to Query 7. The responses collectively highlight both the strategic opportunity and the practical complexities of scaling green hydrogen across the Asia-Pacific region.

Below is a synthesis of the key insights shared:

1. Green Hydrogen as a Strategic Energy Carrier

Several members emphasized that green hydrogen should be viewed not merely as a fuel, but as a flexible energy carrier that enables renewable energy monetization, industrial decarbonization, and energy trade. Drawing an analogy to LNG export models, green hydrogen projects may similarly depend on: (a) Long-term offtake agreements; (b) Firm pricing structures; (c) Government-enabled permitting and licensing; (d) Infrastructure investment mobilized after demand certainty.

Like stranded natural gas resources underpinning LNG projects, the Asia-Pacific region possesses vast underutilized renewable resources (e.g., offshore wind and solar) that could be monetized through “power-to-X” pathways.

However, members noted that large-scale liquefied hydrogen trade remains commercially uncertain. More viable near-term pathways include conversion into: (1) Ammonia; (2) Methanol; (3) Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). These derivatives benefit from existing markets and transport infrastructure.

2. Technology Pathways and Demonstration Projects

India’s Pilot Experience

The example shared by Oil India Limited (OIL) demonstrates how pilot-scale deployment is advancing technical confidence. Key highlights include: (1) Green hydrogen pilot plant in Jorhat, Northeast India; (2) Anion Exchange Membrane (AEM) electrolysis; (3) 100 kW solar-powered system; (4) 16 m³/h production capacity; (5) 99.999% purity hydrogen.

Blending hydrogen with natural gas for use in: (a) Domestic piped gas networks; (b) Tea garden burners; (c) Internal combustion engines.

Importantly, studies indicated that limited blending can occur without pipeline embrittlement risks. OIL is also supporting hydrogen fuel cell electric mobility initiatives. These demonstrations reinforce the importance of: early-stage pilots • infrastructure compatibility testing • public–private collaboration.

3. National Targets and Policy Signals

India’s ambition of 5 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA) of green hydrogen production by 2030 reflects growing regional commitment. Alkaline electrolyzer technology is currently expected to dominate early deployments due to cost competitiveness.

State-level initiatives, such as Gujarat’s green hydrogen policy and targets, further demonstrate subnational leadership.

Clear national roadmaps — such as India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission — have provided: (a) Production targets; (b) Priority end-use sectors (refineries, fertilizers, steel, SAF); (c) Export orientation; (d) Manufacturing incentives. These policy signals are accelerating private investment planning.

4. Financing Models and Market Enablers

Members highlighted several emerging enablers: Accelerators • Production-linked incentives and capex subsidies • Viability gap funding mechanisms • Blended finance combining concessional and private capital • Sovereign-backed guarantees • Public-sector offtake commitments • Industrial cluster development (e.g., hydrogen hubs near ports and refineries) • Bilateral cooperation aligned with international carbon market mechanisms.

Public financial institutions and multilateral development banks are playing catalytic roles in de-risking first-of-a-kind projects.

5. Persistent Barriers and Structural Constraints

Despite strong policy momentum, several systemic challenges remain:

Cost and Infrastructure: (1) High round-the-clock renewable electricity costs; (2) Grid access and balancing constraints; (3) Lack of hydrogen pipelines and storage facilities; (4) Insufficient hydrogen-ready port infrastructure.

Market and Regulatory Uncertainty: (5) Evolving definitions of “green hydrogen”; (6) Uncertainty around additionality, temporal matching, and carbon intensity standards; (7) Need for regulatory alignment with EU and U.S. frameworks for export competitiveness.

Financing and Bankability: (8) Limited commercial bank appetite for first-of-a-kind projects; (9) Technology novelty risks; (10) Policy timeline misalignment; (11) Lack of firm long-term offtake agreements.

In particular, the absence of binding purchase agreements — especially for SAF — remains a critical bottleneck for financial closure.

6. Strategic Implications for Asia-Pacific

From the collective responses, several overarching themes emerge:

Demand certainty is paramount. Long-term offtake agreements remain the cornerstone of project bankability.

Hydrogen derivatives may lead early trade flows. Ammonia, methanol, and SAF offer more practical near-term export pathways.

Cluster-based development lowers system costs. Co-locating renewable generation, hydrogen production, refining, and port infrastructure improves economics.

Public–private collaboration is essential. Governments provide policy direction and risk mitigation; private actors deliver innovation and scale.

Standards alignment will determine export competitiveness. Regulatory harmonization is critical for participation in global hydrogen markets.

Conclusion: The Asia-Pacific region possesses substantial renewable resource potential and emerging policy momentum to position itself as a major green hydrogen producer and exporter. However, translating ambition into scaled deployment will require: Stronger demand-side commitments • Infrastructure buildout • Financial de-risking mechanisms • Certification clarity • Coordinated industrial ecosystem development.

I thank all contributors for sharing practical insights from project development, policy formulation, industry engagement, and financing perspectives. These shared experiences strengthen collective understanding and support smarter pathways toward a low-carbon and climate-resilient Asia-Pacific.

Many Thanks to Dr. Md Abdus Salam, for kicking off this amazing discussion — it’s really enlightening to see all the developments in pilots and policies in the Asia-Pacific region. I’ve been reading through the responses, and while there’s good coverage of electrolyzers, hubs, and basic finance, a few key pieces seem to be missing to me. From my experience in policy analysis here in Delhi, I’d like to add to these missing pieces with some down-to-earth ideas and examples.

First, the side effects of environmental issues aren’t getting much emphasis. Green H₂ is great-sounding, but electrolyzers are water-hungry — 9–10 litres per kg in arid areas like Rajasthan or Gujarat. These could lead to possible aquifer depletion or desalination plants that hike energy consumption up 20–30%. This has happened in India-based projects that turned to wastewater recycling or dry cooling to mitigate this, but without initial LCA (life cycle analysis), we would be vulnerable to greenwashing complaints down the road. Huge solar arrays for H₂ hubs are also devouring agricultural land, conflicting with food security in countries like Indonesia. More thinking on this trade-off is needed.

Regarding standards, there is much discussion about fragmentation, but barely any solutions. We do not have a regional certification scheme for “greenness” — things like additionality (no theft of grid power), time matching (Renewable Energy used in same hour), and location. The EU has strict certification requirements; without APAC harmonization through APEC or IPHE, exports face major challenges. Japan is advancing Guarantees of Origin (GOs), but India and Vietnam lag behind. Developer feedback indicates this undermines bankability — addressing it via a straightforward ASEAN+3 protocol could help.

Demand creation remains a critical bottleneck, with discussions rarely moving beyond vague offtake commitments. Effective mandates could address this: for instance, India is targeting 10% green hydrogen use in steel production by 2030, while Korea has introduced blending quotas for shipping. Airlines could secure long-term sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) contracts linked to hydrogen, as seen in Air India’s pilot initiatives. Without binding agreements, developers risk stranded assets — global data shows only 7% of announced capacity has materialized, highlighting the need for firm demand signals.

On financing, blended models are noted, but unaddressed risks — such as policy uncertainty driving weighted average cost of capital (WACC) to 12–15% against the required 8% — undermine viability. Sovereign guarantees or carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), like Australia’s Hydrogen Headstart program, are essential. Banks remain cautious on first-of-a-kind projects without such mechanisms; the Asian Development Bank (ADB) could lead by quantifying risks in large-scale funds.

Infrastructure receives limited attention. Dedicated pipelines are scarce beyond Japan’s Kobe terminal, while Southeast Asia requires around 5,000 km by 2030 for regional hubs, alongside port upgrades for liquid hydrogen (LH₂) and ammonia. Grid constraints currently waste up to 20% of renewable energy — deploying smart grids and hydrogen production from curtailment could mitigate this.

In summary, these gaps are addressable with focused action. For Bangladesh, a practical entry point could involve hydrogen for fertilizers, financed by ADB and linked to certification and water usage audits. I welcome further discussion or sharing relevant contacts to advance Asia-Pacific leadership in green hydrogen.

Many thanks to all who contributed to this query!

The Community of Practice on Climate Technologies aims to foster technology cooperation and transfer through enhanced knowledge exchange and cross-border collaboration in Asia Pacific.

If you have further information to share on this topic, please send it at [email protected].