Evaluates sustainable hydrogen policy impacts in Türkiye, suggesting improved outcomes with proactive interventions.
Sustainable hydrogen policy and national strategy documents are rich in qualitative information whose systematic evaluation still relies largely on subjective SWOT frameworks. This study proposes a reproducible hybrid methodology that couples expert-supervised Natural Language Processing (NLP) with a stochastic techno-economic model of the Levelized Cost of Hydrogen (LCOH) to convert policy discourse into quantitative, evidence-based recommendations. TF-IDF vectorization, K-Means clustering, Shannon entropy and Correspondence Analysis (CA) are applied to a manually annotated corpus of 107 sentences drawn from Türkiye’s national hydrogen strategy documents (Cohen’s κ = 0.81, substantial agreement). CA positions Regulation/Legislation and Financing near the Weakness quadrant, Renewable Resource Potential in the Strength quadrant, and Export/Demand Risk near Opportunity—revealing structural bottlenecks that challenge the sustainable energy transition. These qualitative findings are subjected to a quantitative consistency check via a Monte Carlo simulation (N = 10,000 iterations) propagating joint uncertainty in CAPEX, electricity price, electrolyzer efficiency, annual operating hours, discount rate and plant lifetime. The deterministic 2025 LCOH baseline of 4.89 €/kg H2 carries a P10–P90 interval of [3.95; 5.92] €/kg. Global Sobol sensitivity analysis identifies electricity price as the dominant driver (S1 ≈ 0.52), suggesting that financing is discursively surfaced by the textual layer. Under business-as-usual technological learning, the probability of reaching a globally competitive LCOH (≤2 €/kg H2) by 2050 is only 17.8%; a stylized proactive policy intervention (carbon pricing + subsidies) raises this probability to 78.4%. The framework is adaptable to other countries and languages (though the current implementation is Turkish-specific), providing a scalable, open methodology for evidence-based sustainable clean energy planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mert et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: