The question that separates tactical decisions from strategic choices in the green hydrogen sector is rarely “whether to produce,” but rather “how and from where.” As the market matures and the first commercial supply chains begin to take shape, the choice between installing in-house electrolysis capacity or contracting external supply has become one of the most consequential dilemmas for industrial and energy managers.
There is no universal answer. There are, however, objective variables that determine which path generates more value, and ignoring them can compromise both operational competitiveness and return on invested capital.
The two models, in brief
The on-site model consists of installing an electrolyzer directly at the consumer’s facilities, typically powered by contracted renewable energy or generated on-site. Control is total: the producer defines the operation, manages quality, and eliminates transportation costs.
By contrast, external supply—whether via pipeline or through carriers such as ammonia or liquefied hydrogen—transfers production responsibility to a specialized third party. The consumer contracts volumes and quality without bearing the generation asset.
In practice, the two models are not mutually exclusive. Companies with large industrial demand often combine an on-site base with supply complemented through the network.
When on-site makes sense
Local production is justified when:
- Demand is continuous and predictable, allowing for a high electrolyzer utilization factor;
- There is access to competitive renewable energy, since electricity accounts for up to 70% of green hydrogen production costs;
- Transport infrastructure is nonexistent or costly in the region, making logistics a real bottleneck.
The Energiepark Bad Lauchstädt in Germany illustrates this logic: a consortium led by VNG, Uniper, and Ontras built a 30 MW electrolysis plant adjacent to a wind farm, connected by a 25 km pipeline repurposed from natural gas directly to TotalEnergies’ Leuna refinery. The facility is expected to deliver up to 2,700 tonnes of green hydrogen per year to the refinery, with operations scheduled to begin in late 2025. In this case, the geographic proximity between production and consumption was decisive for the project’s viability.
When external supply is more efficient
For most industrial companies, building and operating an electrolyzer represents a diversion from their core business, in addition to requiring capital, technical expertise, and exposure to regulatory risks. External supply, by contrast, turns hydrogen into a manageable input, with contracted price and volume.
This reasoning underpins one of the largest agreements in the sector to date. TotalEnergies signed a contract with RWE to receive approximately 30,000 metric tonnes of green hydrogen per year starting in 2030, the largest volume of carbon-neutral hydrogen ever contracted from an electrolyzer in Germany. The 300 MW electrolyzer will be located in Lingen, while consumption will take place in Leuna, hundreds of kilometers away. Transportation will be enabled by Germany’s core hydrogen network, with more than 9,000 km planned by 2032.
For TotalEnergies, this model was the right choice: the company’s core competency is refining, not operating electrolysis plants.
The transport infrastructure dimension
A factor often underestimated in the analysis is transport infrastructure. Without it, external supply simply does not work. And building it is a task that takes decades, or ambitious public policies.
Norway, for example, is betting on imports as a central pillar of its supply strategy. The Norwegian shipping company Hoegh plans to make a final investment decision on an ammonia-derived hydrogen project for direct delivery to German networks. This represents a bet on the complementarity between offshore production and continental industrial consumption.
On the maritime front, infrastructure for transporting liquefied hydrogen is being developed at an unprecedented scale. Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Japan Suiso Energy signed a contract in January 2026 to build the world’s largest liquefied hydrogen carrier, with a capacity of 40,000 m³, designed to meet the global demand expected for the 2030s.
The criteria that should guide the decision
Before defining the model, it is essential to map four dimensions:
- Demand volume and profile: smaller or variable demand tends to favor external supply; large and stable demand makes in-house assets more viable.
- Access to renewable energy: the cost and availability of electricity largely determine the competitiveness of on-site production.
- Local infrastructure maturity: regions with developing hydrogen networks create opportunities for long-term contracts with specialized producers.
- Risk appetite and investment horizon: in-house assets create capital lock-in and technological exposure; external contracts transfer risk to the supplier but limit the upside from cost reductions.
The convergence of the two worlds
In practice, the market is moving toward hybrid structures, in which a base of in-house generation covers the most predictable demand, while external contracts ensure flexibility and security of supply. This logic replicates, with adjustments, what the power sector has been doing for decades with electricity.
What is clear is that the decision between on-site generation and external supply is not merely technical. It is strategic. And companies that approach this choice with the analytical rigor it deserves will gain an edge, both in decarbonizing their operations and in managing costs over time.
