Observational analysis assesses green hydrogen costs in Latvia, indicating electricity prices drive competitiveness.
Green hydrogen produced via water electrolysis is a key pillar of the European Union’s decarbonisation strategy for hard-to-abate sectors. However, its economic competitiveness remains highly uncertain in small, electricity-importing power systems characterised by volatile wholesale electricity prices. The study assesses the techno-economic viability of grid-connected green hydrogen production in Latvia under current and near-term electricity market conditions. A comparative analysis is conducted for alkaline water electrolysis (AWE), proton exchange membrane (PEM), anion exchange membrane (AEM), and solid oxide electrolysis (SOEC) using industry-standard performance parameters and European cost benchmarks for the 2023–2024 period. The levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) is calculated on an ex-plant basis using observed Latvian electricity prices for 2025, a uniform economic lifetime of 15 years, and a weighted average cost of capital of 10 %. Results indicate that electricity prices are the dominant cost driver, accounting for more than two-thirds of total hydrogen production costs under high-price conditions. At electricity prices around EUR 85/MWh, the LCOH ranges from approximately EUR 6.1–6.6/kg for AWE and PEM, exceeding the cost of conventional hydrogen production via steam methane reforming (SMR) and SMR with carbon capture and storage (CCS). Sensitivity analysis confirms a near-linear relationship between electricity prices and hydrogen costs, with a reduction of EUR 1/MWh lowering LCOH by approximately EUR 0.052/kg for low-temperature electrolysis technologies. Competitiveness thresholds are derived analytically: achieving an LCOH of EUR 5/kg requires electricity prices below approximately EUR 50/MWh, while an LCOH of EUR 4/kg requires prices below approximately EUR 32/MWh, excluding compression. Additional electricity demand for hydrogen compression further tightens these thresholds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zemite et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: