Doctoral researcher Hadi Vatankhah Ghadim from Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury (UC) found that published cost projections for technologies such as solar power, batteries and some forms of hydrogen production often lag behind real-world price reductions.
In some cases, studies projected costs for 2050 that were already close to prices being seen in the market today.
Vatankhah Ghadim says using more up-to-date cost assumptions could strengthen the case for faster electrification, earlier investment and more ambitious infrastructure planning.
“Clean energy technologies are developing quickly, and their costs have often fallen faster than expected,” he says.
“If planning models do not keep pace, they risk presenting the transition as more expensive than the evidence supports. Better information can help New Zealand identify opportunities sooner, reduce investment risk and plan with greater confidence.”
For his thesis, Vatankhah Ghadim compared projections from more than 110 studies covering clean energy technologies through to 2050.
He compared capital and costs per unit of electricity produced from each technology with the average global cost trendlines to understand why most studies are too pessimistic in estimating the future costs of clean energy technologies.
Rather than producing another forecast, the research reveals how widely assumptions vary and shows why the figures used in energy models matter.
The thesis also identifies where clean hydrogen could make the greatest contribution to reducing emissions.
Vatankhah Ghadim assessed hydrogen demand across 20 potential uses and all 16 regions of New Zealand. If hydrogen was adopted in every technically feasible application, it would require approximately the equivalent to more than three times New Zealand’s current annual electricity consumption.
His analysis therefore suggests a more targeted approach would deliver greater value, prioritising sectors that are difficult to electrify and have few practical alternatives.
The strongest opportunities were methanol production and ammonia for fertiliser, followed by aviation, shipping, steel, and long-duration energy storage. Passenger cars were a lower priority because using electricity directly is generally more efficient.
“Hydrogen could play an important role in New Zealand’s clean energy future, but it should be directed to the places where it adds the most value,” Vatankhah Ghadim says.
“Being selective would allow investment and renewable energy resources to be focused on the sectors that need hydrogen most.”
The research also examined one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, modelling two pathways for producing electro-sustainable aviation fuel (eSAF) in New Zealand by 2050, supplying 40% of aviation fuel or replacing fossil jet fuel entirely.
The 40% pathway was the more affordable option, with eSAF potentially becoming competitive with fossil jet fuel after 2040.
Producing that amount could require roughly half of New Zealand’s current electricity use. Vatankhah Ghadim says the scale provides a clear signal for long-term investment in renewable generation, the electricity grid and supporting infrastructure.
“New Zealand has real opportunities to cut industrial emissions and build a cleaner economy,” he says.
“To seize them, we need to be clear about where to focus, realistic about the infrastructure required and willing to plan ahead. Better evidence leads to better decisions, and better decisions can unlock investment and speed the shift to clean energy.”
