Potential Financing Mechanisms for Green Hydrogen Development in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive review of potential financing mechanisms to support green hydrogen development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It is well-structured, extensively referenced, and covers both technical and financial perspectives. It identifies critical opportunities and risks, integrating insights from the H2Atlas Africa project. On the other hand, I found out that the paper is excessively long and dense with substantial repetition and many descriptive sections that could be condensed. MY comments are presented below:
1. The manuscript exceeds 30 pages with highly detailed narrative sections some of which repeat similar ideas. For example: the same definitions of green hydrogen and green financing repeated in several places. Similar data on African development banks, climate funds and financing sources are discussed in multiple sections. I suggest authors to combine overlapping discussions in Sections 3, 4, and 5. Moreover, authors may consider placing large tables (e.g. multilateral fund tables) in supplementary materials.
2. The manuscript does not provide region-specific cost estimates for hydrogen production (e.g., $/kg in SSA). Please add Estimated LCOH (Levelized Cost of Hydrogen) for SSA.
3. Another point of concern is that current manuscript barely discusses technology readiness levels (TRLs) for hydrogen technologies in SSA.  TRL status of electrolyzer projects in SSA is important. 
4. Most of the manuscript remains descriptive rather than critical. It lists many financing tools without deeply comparing their feasibility in SSA’s unique context. The risk matrix is useful but should connect more clearly to mitigation strategies.
5. A broader readership may expect strong discussion of hydrogen’s potential socio-economic impact in SSA (jobs, local industry). Also consideration of environmental justice issues tied to large hydrogen projects. Briefly include these considerations, especially for a policy-focused journal audience.
6. Figures are helpful but some are redundant. E.g. Figures 1 and 2 could be merged.
7. In Figure 1 and Figure 2, improve image resolution for clarity.
8. Check acronyms (e.g. AfDB, GCF) are defined at first mention.
9. References are solid and up-to-date, but a few are older than 10 years and could be updated (e.g. older AfDB reports).

Author Response

Please find attached the response to the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper employs a mixed research approach, integrating primary data from the H₂Atlas-Africa project and secondary data from international organizations, to systematically examine potential financing mechanisms (including green bonds, public-private partnerships, and carbon finance), risk factors (with a quantified risk coefficient of approximately 35%, primarily involving power grids, transportation, and political instability), and scaling strategies (such as green public procurement, regional hydrogen hubs, and policy incentives) for green hydrogen development in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). The study concludes that despite financing gaps and infrastructure challenges, green hydrogen can serve as a viable pathway for energy transition in the region through targeted financing tools and robust policy frameworks. It also offers specific recommendations for policymakers and financial institutions, providing both theoretical and practical foundations for the sustainable development of green hydrogen in SSA. The paper is recommended for publication after major revisions.

1. The abstract should specify concrete cases or performance data of various financing mechanisms (e.g., green bonds and public-private partnership models) to enhance the practical reference value of the research findings.
2. The degree of "insufficient capital flows" has not been quantified (e.g., the ratio of existing funds to the funding gap), which weakens the paper’s argumentation.
3. The analysis of "differences in financing needs between green hydrogen and other renewable energy sources (such as solar and wind energy) in SSA" is inadequate, failing to explain why hydrogen requires a dedicated financing mechanism.
4. The specific link between the H₂Atlas-Africa project and this study (e.g., how the data complement each other) has not been elaborated in depth, compromising the completeness of the research background.
5. In the research methodology, the "expert selection criteria" (e.g., professional background and years of experience) for primary data collection have not been clarified, which may affect the representativeness of the sample.
6. The quantitative basis for "risk factor weight allocation" in the risk matrix (e.g., why "power grid connection issues" receive a risk score of 8) has not been detailed, lacking scientific justification.
7. Potential biases in the data collection process (such as respondents’ subjective tendencies) and error control measures have not been discussed.
8. The "climate fund allocation data" in Table 1 is not accompanied by a time frame, making it difficult to assess its timeliness.
9. Cost-benefit differences between various financing mechanisms (e.g., green bonds versus public-private partnerships) in SSA have not been analyzed, preventing the provision of priority recommendations for decision-makers.
10. The correlation between "risk scores and actual project failure cases" is insufficiently analyzed (e.g., whether any projects were terminated due to "political instability," which scores 7), weakening the persuasiveness of the results.
11. The analysis of "how green hydrogen financing can integrate with existing industrial policies in SSA (such as those related to mining and agriculture)" is inadequate, failing to explore cross-sector synergy potential.
12. The relationship between the "35% risk coefficient" and the "effectiveness of financing mechanisms" (e.g., the extent to which risk reduction can attract private investment) has not been clearly explained, lacking quantitative correlation analysis.
13. The relationship between the "35% risk coefficient" and the "effectiveness of financing mechanisms" (e.g., the extent to which risk reduction can attract private investment) has not been clearly explained, lacking quantitative correlation analysis.
14. There are minor grammatical errors (e.g., "Just" in " of which Just over a third or 37% " should be lowercase) and redundant expressions (repeated references to "green hydrogen economy").

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Potential Financing Mechanisms for Green Hydrogen Development in Sub-Saharan Africa" is highly relevant and timely, addressing a very pertinent issue within the sustainable energy transition agenda. It is clearly organized, presents a comprehensive literature review and has provided a great deal of timely data and information on the green hydrogen financing options. There are, however, issues that need to be improved for paper clarity, conciseness, methodological rigour, and academic insight.

General Comments

1. Page 1, line 2: The word "Development" on the title is hyphenated incorrectly as per standard journal publication practices (I suspect there is further hyphenation issues throughout the manuscript). At a minimum the authors should correct the hyphenation issues in line 2 on page 1.
2. Page 1, line 25: The authors claim that green hydrogen is zero-carbon energy carrier. True in principle, however they need to the clarify that this only refers to renewable-based production, not fossil-based production utilizing CCS.
3. Page 2, lines 51 - 55: The authors assertion about a general stakeholder conviction in green hydrogen is strong. They provide no citation to support this shift. A citation to more recent global investment trends or a policy paper that makes this claim would be helpful.
4. Page 3, line 88 The statement "most financial institutions negotiate project financing considering the future potential returns of the projects..." is vague. The authors should specify what types of offtake agreements or risk models are typically used?
5. On Page 4, Line 112, the list of study objectives is excellent but the objectives are presented as bullets in the paragraph; this is more confusing than clarity, please restructure the study objectives using proper numbering and formatting.
6. On page 5, line 137, the manuscript states, "there has not been enough information or demonstrated deployment of electrolysis technology, whether as a study or in practice, of in SSA." This is an important limitation, therefore it is critical to amplify this limitation in the discussion.
7. On page 6, line 173 the listing of institutions that were involved in the primary data collection is unclear. How were these organizations selected? What sampling approach was undertaken?
8. On page 7, line 233 more explanation of the risk matrix methodology would help. What weightings were applied and why? The scoring rubric is useful, although there is very little empirical support/citations.
9. On page 10, lines 363–373 while the UNFCCC climate finance definition is cited, it is not clear how it relates to hydrogen-related financing. How do climate finance flows get to hydrogen investments in SSA?
10. On page 12, line 425 Table 1 (summary of climate funds) is useful to read, but it should have had a discussion or interpretation. Which funds are not used? What are the trends?
11. On page 13, line 429-430, it was stated that green finance has been "critical," but no metrics or trends in data are presented to support this claim. Please include some quantitative growth data or case examples.
12. On page 14, line 490, "Green bonds and subsidies mobilize substantial capital..." this statement is too broad and should include case examples rather than just trends from SSA or globally.
13. On page 15, lines 551-552, "SSA represents 5% of the total cumulative volume of PPP investment from 1990 to 2020..." that is a great statistic; however, there is not source cited.
14. On page 16, line 617, Section 5 (Scale-Up Strategies) is a very broad section. Helping the reader understand the various strategies in this section may help with more precise subsections or flowcharts.
15. On page 18, line 748, there is a discussion of institutionalization and knowledge dissemination, but the concept of hydrogen hubs and digital platforms is not grounded in the realities of SSA. Are there any existing pilots?
16. Line 772, page 19, gives a comprehensive discussion on defining and identifying SOPs. This would be better placed as an appendix or summary table.
17. Line 798, page 20, The risk section is strong but could be further enhanced by tabulated representations of risk weights across specific sectors or financing tools.
18. References have been inconsistently cited throughout the manuscript (e.g., “[17]” vs “[29]”, or not reported for some claims). Please check that all references are linked and valid.
19. Language/tone: Several paragraphs read more like a policy brief, or advocacy statements than academic analysis. Phrases like “huge opportunity” or “urgent demand” should use a balanced language for an academic audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The entire manuscript requires professional proofreading.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to the comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found authors reply to be satisfactory and the manuscript has been improved after revision. I recommend accept this manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the problems have been  addressed, it is recommended to be accepted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept