1121.05兆瓦与1062MW：2026上半年电解槽订单两个口径的差，与份额集中到46%的真相1121.05 MW vs 1062 MW: The difference between the two metrics of electrolyzer orders in the first half of 2026, and the truth about market share concentrating at 46%

1. Why the two calibers seem to conflict: 1121.05 MW vs. 1062 MW

When judging the boom or bust of the electrolyzer industry, putting together the two sets of data from the first half of 2026 can be confusing. One set comes from domestic public bidding statistics: in the first half of the year, the domestic public bidding market for electrolyzers reached 1121.05 MW, a year-on-year increase of 35.74%. The other set comes from S&P Global's "Quarterly Power-to-X Report (Q2 2026)": in the first half of 2026, China's total OEM orders for electrolyzers were approximately 1062 MW, with 769 MW domestic orders and 293 MW overseas orders, representing a year-on-year decrease of about 29% compared to the same period in 2025. One shows a year-on-year increase of more than one-third, while the other shows a year-on-year decrease of nearly one-third, going in completely opposite directions. Looking at the total volume first: 1121.05 MW and 1062 MW are very close in absolute terms, with a difference of only about 5%, indicating that the two statistics are actually quite consistent in judging the 'size of the market.'

The real divergence lies in the base period—the year-on-year base period for the public bidding caliber is the bidding data for the same period last year, while the year-on-year base period for the S&P caliber is the OEM order data for the same period last year. The difference between the two base periods determines opposite signs in growth rates. The implication for the market is clear: in the first half of 2026, electrolyzer orders are in the one-gigawatt scale, but the incremental pace has already clearly slowed down. Interpreting 35.74% directly as industry acceleration would misjudge the market trend; interpreting -29% directly as demand shrinkage would also misjudge it—because the total scale has not decreased, what has changed is the structure.

2. Layering by caliber: What exactly do 1121.05 MW, 1062 MW, and 826.93 MW each count?

To clarify the differences, it is necessary to match the three sets of numbers that appeared in the first half of 2026 to their respective statistical boundaries. The first set is 1,121.05 MW, corresponding to the 'domestic public tender market,' which counts projects that enter the bidding process and produce bidding results. This is the measure closest to the actual project implementation pace, a year-on-year increase of 35.74%. The second set is about 1,062 MW, corresponding to 'OEM orders in the Chinese electrolyzer market,' which counts the actual orders received by equipment manufacturers, including 769 MW domestically and 293 MW overseas, a decrease of about 29% year-on-year. The third set is 826.93 MW, with the statistical scope further narrowed to 'the total orders divided by winning bids, contracts, and deliveries.' Under this measure, Sunshine Hydrogen ranks first with 243 MW, and Qingqiji is second with 160 MW. The relationship between the three sets of numbers is not contradictory but progressively narrower: the tender statistics have the broadest scope, OEM orders are in the middle, and contract and delivery statistics are the narrowest. Companies looking at their actual production schedules should focus on the third set.

To assess the competitive landscape of the industry, you should focus on the second set; to evaluate the investment pace at the project end, only look at the first set. The simultaneous occurrence of these three sets of numbers itself indicates an increase in industry maturity — divergence in statistical criteria usually occurs when an industry transitions from the stage of 'whether there are orders' to 'who can secure orders.' The picture drawn by the three sets of numbers in the first half of the year is: projects are still advancing, equipment-side orders are slowing down, and deliveries are highly concentrated among a few companies. This combination is a typical feature of the eve of capacity clearance.

3. Concentration: the four numbers 46%, 35%, 91%, and 45% are all telling the same thing.

Even more noteworthy than the total amount are four sets of figures reflecting the concentration of market share in the first half of 2026. The first set: in the 1,121.05 MW scope of public tenders, Sunshine Hydrogen Energy alone secured 518 MW, accounting for more than 46%. This proportion is rare in the equipment manufacturing industry—it means that nearly half of the public market demand is taken on by a single company. The second set: according to S&P Global's OEM order data, Sunshine Hydrogen Energy holds 35% of the domestic electrolyzer orders, topping the list and described as a 'structural lead.' The second-ranked Qingqiji's share dropped to 15%, while the third to fifth ranked—Shuangliang, CRRC, and Aerospace Engineering—each hold between 7% and 9%. The sixth to tenth ranked companies each have a share of 5% or less, with the top ten collectively taking about 91% of domestic orders.

Group 3: In terms of overseas expansion, domestic companies received a total of 502.25 MW in overseas electrolyzer orders in the first half of the year. Sungrow Hydrogen led with 243 MW, followed by Shuangliang Hydrogen with 90 MW, Cockerill with 45 MW, Guofu Hydrogen with 43 MW, and CRRC Zhuzhou Institute with 40 MW, with destinations covering Europe, the Middle East, South America, North America, and Africa. Group 4: Looking at global shipments, longi Hydrogen, Sungrow Power, and Proton Hydrogen, three leading domestic companies, together account for more than 45% of the global electrolyzer shipment volume. By combining these four sets of figures, a clear industry judgment can be made: the competition in the electrolyzer sector has ended the 'fragmented market share' phase. Note the figure of 91%—the top ten together account for about 91%, meaning all other manufacturers share less than 10% of the market. In an environment of slowing total growth, this increase in concentration will create a self-reinforcing Matthew effect: customers will place more emphasis on delivery capability, project performance, and reliability, making it even harder for small and medium-sized companies to win orders, and orders will continue to tilt toward the leading companies. This is consistent with the paths taken by industries such as photovoltaic modules and lithium battery cells during phases of overcapacity.

IV. Technical Route: 96.54% Alkaline Share, and the Waiting Window for PEM

The data at the technical route level is equally clear. In the first half of the year, the winning bid scale for alkaline electrolyzers was 797.625 megawatts, accounting for 96.54%, while PEM and AEM combined accounted for less than 4%. The alkaline route dominates absolutely, and the reasons are not complicated: the threshold is relatively low, costs are controllable, and in continuous hydrogen production scenarios such as large-scale wind and solar hydrogen production bases, the economic advantage of alkaline is obvious. But the figure of 96.54% has a background that is easily overlooked—it reflects the proportion of the winning bid scale, which is highly concentrated in large integrated wind-solar-to-hydrogen projects. The load characteristics, hydrogen production duration, and operation and maintenance modes of these projects naturally suit alkaline technology better. The waiting window for PEM is elsewhere: it has better dynamic response capabilities and is more suitable for scenarios such as direct hydrogen production from fluctuating power sources, small-scale distributed hydrogen production, and supporting hydrogen refueling stations.

The progress of the industry chain is also happening simultaneously: the localization rate of core materials such as proton exchange membranes and catalysts has exceeded 90%. Dongyue Group's proton exchange membranes are already being supplied in bulk to mainstream domestic PEM electrolyzer companies, 50 MW-level PEM electrolyzers have achieved large-scale applications, and MW-level AEM has completed trial operations. The significance of these three developments is that the bottleneck for PEM previously was mainly not the electrolyzer itself, but the price and supply stability of core materials such as membranes and catalysts; only after the localization rate of materials crosses the 90% threshold does the cost curve of PEM truly begin to have a basis for decline. Industry statistics predict that the growth rate of PEM will be significantly faster than the industry average. This judgment is reasonable based on cost reduction at the material end rather than on the expansion of electrolyzer assembly capacity. To determine the timing of technological route switches, one should focus on material prices rather than electrolyzer capacity.

5. Cost Curve: from $250/kW to below $100, correlating with green hydrogen at 18 to 25 RMB/kg.

The data on equipment cost reduction provides direct evidence of the improvement in the economic viability of hydrogen energy. With the combined effects of scale and technological iteration, the price of electrolyzers has dropped from $250/kW to below $100/kW, and leading domestic equipment suppliers have reduced the unit price of electrolyzer systems to below 1,500 RMB/kW. The significance of this reduction needs to be viewed within the project's return model: the proportion of electrolyzers in the total investment of integrated wind-solar hydrogen projects usually ranges from 20% to 35%. Halving equipment prices directly improves the initial investment intensity of the project, and the initial investment intensity is one of the variables that most sensitively determines the internal rate of return. The improvement in electricity prices is equally critical. In Northwest and Northeast China, wind and solar electricity prices have fallen to 0.15 to 0.2 RMB/kWh, and in some regions such as Inner Mongolia, special green electricity prices have been offered as low as 0.168 RMB/kWh.

Electricity prices and equipment costs are both declining, pushing the cost of green hydrogen to a new level: in regions with resource advantages, the cost of green hydrogen has dropped to 18 to 25 yuan per kilogram, approaching the cost line of gray hydrogen at about 15 yuan per kilogram. Carbon prices, on the other hand, are narrowing the price gap from another angle: domestic pilot carbon prices are approximately 50 to 70 yuan per ton, while EU carbon prices are as high as 80 to 100 euros per ton, corresponding to a carbon reduction benefit of about 2,000 yuan per ton of hydrogen. In some regions, green hydrogen is approaching the breakeven point. An estimate from the investor of a central enterprise wind and solar hydrogen project provides verification: a 30-billion-yuan-level wind and solar hydrogen project, under the conditions of high-quality wind and solar resources, long-term agreements, and carbon benefits, can achieve an internal rate of return of 8% to 10%. The significance of this figure is that green hydrogen projects have moved beyond the category of 'pure policy-driven' initiatives and entered a semi-market economic assessment range.

However, it must be noted that the 8% to 10% rate of return is based on the simultaneous fulfillment of three premises: high-quality wind and solar resources, long-term agreements, and carbon benefits. Removing any one of these factors will significantly lower the return model.

VI. Project-Side Empirical Evidence: 56 Units in Zhongheke Youqian Banner and Repeat Purchase by SDIC Da’an

Macroeconomic data requires cross-verification with first-hand project information, and there are two milestones in early October worth noting. On October 7, the Zhongheke Youqian Banner wind-storage-hydrogen integrated demonstration project completed the installation of the first batch of 28 electrolyzers. This project is the first hydrogen-based energy demonstration project by CNNC and adopts wind-storage-hydrogen integrated control technology to achieve flexible hydrogen production from variable power sources. It involves constructing a 500,000 kW wind farm, a supporting 50,000 kW/100,000 kWh energy storage station, the installation of 56 sets of 1,000 Nm³/h atmospheric square electrolyzers, and the construction of hydrogen gas tanks, oxygen tanks, and ancillary facilities. It is important to note that the completed installation represents the first 28 units out of the total 56, accounting for half of the total configuration—this milestone indicates that the project has entered the accelerated equipment installation phase but has not yet reached full-capacity operation. Another milestone pertains to the equipment side: on October 8, SANY Hydrogen confirmed winning the bid for SDIC Da’an wind-photovoltaic green hydrogen and ammonia integrated demonstration project for one additional 1,000 Nm³/h alkaline electrolyzer for hydrogen production.

The nature of this order is a repeat purchase—eight Sany hydrogen electrolyzers in the early stage of the project have been stably put into operation, and this time is an additional equipment order. The scale parameters of the Daan project are: annual hydrogen production of 32,000 tons, annual synthetic ammonia production of 180,000 tons, with the construction of one air separation unit and hydrogen storage facility. This detail of a repeat purchase is more noteworthy than the order amount: it indicates that under real operating conditions, the equipment’s reliability has been verified over a considerable observable period. This corroborates the previous judgment about market share concentration—in tendering, downstream customers pay more attention to project performance and operational results, and operational results require time to accumulate, which is precisely the source of the moat for leading companies. At the same time, it should be noted that an additional order of a single 1000Nm³/h unit is not large compared to the hundreds of megawatt orders some companies took in the first half of the year, indicating that the expansion pace of existing projects is gradual and will not create a surge in demand.

7. Assessment: The growth in total volume is no longer the core variable; delivery concentration is.

Based on data from six aspects, three judgments are given. First, when assessing the prosperity of hydrogen energy equipment, the measurement criteria must be distinguished. 1,121.05 MW at 35.74% and 1,062 MW at -29% are not contradictory; the former statistics are based on project-side bidding rhythm, while the latter are based on equipment-side order rhythm. Both sets of numbers hold simultaneously, precisely outlining the current typical state of the industry: projects are being promoted, orders are slowing, and deliveries are concentrated. Drawing conclusions from a single number would be inaccurate. Second, by 2026, the core variable has shifted from overall growth rate to delivery concentration. The top ten companies account for approximately 91% of domestic orders, a single company accounts for over 46% of public bidding, and 96.54% of the alkaline route bidding is concentrated; these three sets of numbers together indicate that the main phase of the price war has passed, and competition has shifted to delivery capability, project performance, and full-cycle service.

For equipment companies, this means two things: first, decisions on capacity expansion must be more cautious, because the concentration of orders among top players means that the utilization of small and medium capacities will continue to be under pressure; second, the overseas market is a certain second battlefield. In the first half of the year, overseas orders amounted to 502.25 megawatts, with the top companies leading, indicating that the channel to go overseas has opened, and that the certification barriers and service requirements in overseas markets will raise the threshold for competition. Third, the economic critical point is approaching but has not yet been fully crossed. The cost of green hydrogen ranging from 18 to 25 yuan/kg versus gray hydrogen at 15 yuan/kg, and project internal rates of return of 8% to 10%, both point to the feasibility under the threefold premise of 'high-quality resources, long-term contracts, and carbon benefits'; for projects lacking these prerequisites, the profitability calculations are still difficult to establish. The signals truly worth tracking are threefold: first, whether the total volume of electrolyzer bids in the second half of 2026 can return to year-on-year growth; second, the speed of cost reduction for PEM after the domestic material penetration rate surpasses 90%;

Thirdly, the proportion of green hydrogen substitution is increasing in the three major sectors: chemical industry, steel, and ammonia synthesis. The lag between capacity implementation and revenue realization will remain the main contradiction in the hydrogen energy industry chain from 2026 to 2027.

[Data Survey-Type · Conclusion] The electrolyzer industry has passed the stage of total capacity expansion: the difference in scope (1121.05 MW versus 1062 MW) reflects the divergence in pace between the project side and the equipment side; the concentration of market share (46% in public tenders, about 91% for the top ten OEMs) reflects pricing based on delivery capability; and the cost decline (equipment dropping from $250/kW to below $100/kW, green hydrogen from 18 to 25 CNY/kg) reflects that economic efficiency is approaching the critical point but has not yet fully crossed it. The core variable is delivery concentration, not total growth rate.