A low electrolyzer quote is useful only when its scope is understood. Comparing a Chinese stack price with the installed cost of an overseas plant can make the apparent saving much larger than the saving a project can achieve.
The benchmark that can be traced
The IEA’s Global Hydrogen Review 2025 gives the following 2024 manufacturing-and-installation estimates, including an overseas estimate for Chinese equipment.1
| Installation context | Reported cost, USD/kW |
|---|---|
| Manufactured and installed in China | 600–1,200 |
| Manufactured and installed outside China | 2,000–2,600 |
| Chinese equipment installed outside China | 1,500–2,400 |
These are historical estimates with broad boundaries, not September 2026 supplier quotes or separate alkaline and PEM price lists. The ranges overlap: a Chinese domestic installation cost should not be carried unchanged into a Middle Eastern project budget.
The 2026 IEA review reports global installed electrolysis capacity exceeding 4 GW in 2025, with China accounting for nearly three-quarters of additions. That is deployment evidence; it is not a new like-for-like tender-price comparison.2
Reconcile offers before ranking them
For a live procurement exercise, ask each bidder to complete the same scope sheet:
- Stack, balance of plant, rectification, transformers and controls.
- Water treatment, cooling, drying and compression.
- Civil works, installation, commissioning and acceptance testing.
- Freight, duties, site interfaces and contingency.
- Replacement assumptions, service arrangements and guarantee exclusions.
Also reconcile the basis of the denominator: rated electrical input, AC or DC boundary, and the conditions under which hydrogen output is specified. An offer with less equipment included may be cheaper without offering better value.
Electricity and utilization still matter
Use a separate operating-cost sensitivity. At an assumed 52 kWh/kg system electricity use, a USD 10/MWh difference in power price changes the electricity component by USD 0.52/kg hydrogen:
52 ÷ 1,000 × 10 = 0.52.
This is an illustrative calculation, not a performance claim for a supplier. Replace 52 with a guaranteed, consistently defined figure; then account for part-load behavior, degradation and actual operating hours.
The earlier claim that equipment pricing alone explains a 30–50% hydrogen-cost gap was not supported by a comparable project model and has been removed.
Evaluate a supplier, not its nationality
Request operating references relevant to the proposed duty cycle, written guarantees and a workable local service plan. Apply the same requirements to all bidders. A mixed stack-and-controls arrangement introduces integration responsibilities that must be assigned explicitly; it is not automatically the best combination.
Likewise, a forecast that a PEM cost gap would close “by 2026” is no longer an adequate current statement. Evidence would require dated offers, comparable scope and operating references. This review does not establish that such convergence has occurred.
Implication for China–Middle East work
The useful question is what the complete offer costs at the actual site, who is responsible for each interface and what evidence supports performance. Start with a scope comparison and a list of unresolved technical questions before making a supplier recommendation.
This article is based on public references. No developer interview records or private supplier quotations are used as evidence in this revision.
Discuss a project opportunity brief →
Sources
IEA (2025), Global Hydrogen Review 2025 — Executive summary, section on Chinese electrolyzer deployment and overseas barriers; cost year 2024. ↩︎
IEA (2026), Global Hydrogen Review 2026 — Executive summary, deployment data for 2025. Both sources checked 14 September 2026. ↩︎
