What is the Purpose of the Study?
This study will focus on the energetic differences between Phoenix Hydrogen and fossil fuels. It will also examine the environmental impacts of these fuels when burned, including CO₂ emissions and sustainability, and evaluate production and operating costs from a financial perspective. The aim is to contribute to the discovery of cleaner and more cost-effective energy solutions for the future.
The combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, is a primary contributor to environmental degradation, particularly through the massive CO₂ emissions released into the atmosphere. These emissions significantly contribute to climate change, global warming, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns. The environmental impact is undeniable, as the burning of these fuels produces large quantities of greenhouse gases that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
From an economic standpoint, the environmental consequences of fossil fuel combustion come with a heavy price tag. Many countries are now implementing Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) as part of their efforts to reduce emissions. These mechanisms impose a financial burden on goods produced in regions with high emissions, penalizing industries that rely heavily on fossil fuels. The cost per ton of CO₂ emissions can be significant, leading to heavier operational costs for businesses, particularly in sectors like energy production, manufacturing, and transportation.
As carbon regulations become stricter, industries that rely on fossil fuels face growing pressure to transition toward cleaner alternatives. The cost of CO₂ emissions is expected to rise, making fossil fuel-based industries less economically viable in the long run. This shift highlights the urgent need for sustainable energy solutions that mitigate environmental damage while offering long-term economic benefits.
The combustion of hydrogen as an energy source produces water vapor as the primary byproduct, making it one of the cleanest energy options. Unlike fossil fuels, burning hydrogen releases little to no CO₂, significantly reducing its environmental impact and helping mitigate climate change. Additionally, hydrogen has a high energy content per kilogram, making it a highly efficient fuel for sectors requiring powerful energy outputs, such as transportation and heavy industry.
Economically, hydrogen combustion offers significant benefits. As the demand for clean energy rises, hydrogen plays a key role in the transition to a sustainable energy economy. Its high energy density makes it particularly suitable for applications that require strong, efficient fuel sources. However, hydrogen production—especially through electrolysis—still faces challenges due to high costs. The financial viability of hydrogen depends on technological advancements that reduce production costs and improve efficiency.
Hydrogen burning produces minimal
CO₂ emissions, offering an ecofriendly
alternative.
Hydrogen’s high energy content
makes it ideal for energy-intensive
sectors.
Hydrogen provides clean energy,
making it a sustainable source.
High Combustion Efficiency
Clean Energy Source
Emission Reduction
Fossil fuels like lignite (15 MJ/kg), coal (25 MJ/kg), and petcoke (30 MJ/kg) have lower energy densities. This results in higher fuel consumption for the same energy output, making them less efficient compared to cleaner alternatives.
| Fuel Type | Lower Heating Value (LHV) (MJ/kg) |
| HHO | 142 |
| Hydrogen (H2) | 120 |
| Lignite | 15 |
| Coal | 25 |
| Petcoke | 30 |
| Natural Gas | 45 |
Natural gas, with an energy density of 45 MJ/kg, offers a moderate energy efficiency compared to other fossil fuels. While more efficient than coal and lignite, it still has environmental impacts, making cleaner energy sources a better long-term option.
HHO (Brown’s Gas) and hydrogen (H₂) have high energy densities, with HHO at 142 MJ/kg and hydrogen at 120 MJ/kg. This means they provide more energy per kilogram, making them efficient energy sources.
This table compares the energy equivalence of hydrogen and HHO gas produced by a 1 MW Phoenix Pure and Phoenix HHO electrolysis system with various fuel types. Due to hydrogen’s high lower heating value (LHV) of 120 MJ/kg, a 1 MW electrolyzer can produce 111.5 kg of hydrogen per hour. To match this energy output, the required amounts of lignite, hard coal, petroleum coke, and natural gas are calculated as 892 kg, 535.2 kg, 446 kg, and 297.3 kg per hour, respectively.
| Fuel Type | Lower Heating (MJ/kg) | Amount of HHO Gas Produced Hourly by 1 MW Phoenix HHO Electrolysis | Amount of HHO Gas Produced Hourly by 1 MW Phoenix HHO Electrolysis (kg) |
| HHO | 142 | 111,5 | – |
| Hydrogen (H2) | 120 | – | 170,81 |
| Lignite | 15 | 892 | 1.615,89 |
| Coal | 25 | 535,2 | 969,54 |
| Petcoke | 30 | 446 | 807,95 |
| Natural Gas | 45 | 297,3 | 538,78 |
This table compares the energy equivalence of hydrogen and HHO gas produced by a 1 MW Phoenix Pure and Phoenix HHO electrolysis system with various fuel types. Due to hydrogen’s high lower heating value (LHV) of 120 MJ/kg, a 1 MW electrolyzer can produce 111.5 kg of hydrogen per hour. To match this energy output, the required amounts of lignite, hard coal, petroleum coke, and natural gas are calculated as 892 kg, 535.2 kg, 446 kg, and 297.3 kg per hour, respectively.
The table shows the hourly CO₂ emissions that each fossil fuel type would create to capture the same energy if the Phoenix Pure Electrolysis and Phoenix HHO Electrolysis systems were not used.
In the next section, we will take a detailed look at the financial aspects of natural gas and petcoke, the most commonly used fossil fuels for combustion. We will assess their economic impact and evaluate their role in the industrial and energy sectors.
| Fuel Type | Co2 Emission Corresponding to H2 Produced (kg/hour) | CO2 Emission Corresponding to Produced HHO Gas (kg/hour) |
| Lignite | 1.694,8 | 3.073,20 |
| Coal | 1.338 | 2.423,85 |
| Petcoke | 1.427,2 | 2.504,63 |
| Natural Gas | 817,5 | 1.479,5 |
| Petcoke | 30 | 446 |
| Natural Gas | 45 | 297,3 |
The scenario where no electrolysis method is used is analyzed. For example, a cement company would need to use 446 kg of petcoke to achieve the same energy value as 1 MW of Hâ‚‚ production from the Phoenix Pure electrolysis system. In this case, burning this amount of petcoke would result in a COâ‚‚ emission of 1,427.2 kg per hour.
| System | Annual Petcoke Consumption (tons) | Annual Petcoke Coke Cost (USD) | Annual Petcoke CO₂ Emission (tons) | Annual Petcoke CO₂ Tax (USD) | Total Cost (USD) | Annual Natural Gas Consumption (kg) | Annual Natural Gas Cost (USD) | Annual Natural Gas CO₂ Emission (tons) | Annual Natural Gas CO₂ Tax (USD) | Total Natural Gas Cost and CO₂ Tax (USD) |
| Phoenix Pure | 3,657.20 | 512,008.00 | 11,703.04 | 1,755,456.00 | 2,267,464.00 | 2,441,860 | 824,142.75 | 8,394.89 | 1,259,233.50 | 2,083.376.25 |
| Phoenix HHO | 6,625.19 | 927,526.60 | 20,537.97 | 3,080,695.50 | 4,008,222.10 | 4,419,799.6 | 1,493,668.37 | 15,184.06 | 2,277,609.00 | 3,771,277.37 |
This table includes the petroleum coke and natural gas consumption required to obtain the same energy when Phoenix Pure and Phoenix HHO electrolysis systems are not used, the consumption cost, the amount of CO₂ released during the combustion of petcoke and natural gas, and the Border Carbon Tax amounts accordingly. It also compares the petroleum coke and natural gas values required to achieve the same energy output in the absence of Phoenix Pure and Phoenix electrolysis systems.
In the table, Phoenix Pure, Alkali, PEM, and Phoenix HHO electrolysis containers have been analyzed. This study presents the hourly production cost, investment cost, and the annual energy output (in Kcal) for each container based on a 1 MW electricity consumption. In general, the calorific value of petcoke is
approximately 7,500 kcal/kg, and using this value as a reference for 7,500 Kcal of energy per unit, as well as the calorific value of natural gas, which is approximately 9,000 kcal/kg, and using this value as a reference for 9,000 Kcal of energy per unit, the hourly consumption costs per unit for each container can also be examined in the table.
| Criteria | Phoenix Pure | Phoenix HHO |
| Production Capacity (Nm3/hour) | 1240 | 1900 |
| Number of Systems | 1 | 1 |
| Investment Cost (Million USD) | 2,7 | 1,95 |
| Hourly Electricity Consumption (kWh) | 1000 | 1000 |
| Electricity Cost (USD/Hour) | 130 | 130 |
| Water Consumption (USD/hour) | 8,29 | 8,29 |
| KOH Consumtion (USD/hour) | 73 | 73 |
| Total Production Cost (USD/Hour) | 211,29 | 211,29 |
| Kcal / Year | 26,248,344,240 kcal | 47,693,185,458 kcal |
| Petcoke 7500 Kcal (USD/hour | 0,99 | 0,27 |
| Natural Gas 9000 Kcal (USD/hour) | 1,18 | 0,32 |
| System | Petcoke Consumption Cost and Carbon Tax Exemption |
Natural Gas Consumption Cost and Carbon Tax Exemption (USD) |
Electrolysis Annual Production Cost (USD) |
Investment Cost (Million USD) |
| Phoenix Pure | 2,267,464,00 | 2,083,376,25 | 1,734,558,00 | 2,7 |
| Phoenix HHO | 4,008,222,10 | 3,771,277,37 | 1,734,558,00 | 1,95 |
The investment cost for Phoenix Pure is 2.7 million USD, and when used with petcoke as the fuel, the payback period is calculated to be 5.07 years, while when using natural gas,the payback period is 7.75 years. This indicates that the Phoenix Pure system operates with a higher investment costand a longer payback period.
In the scenario where natural gas is used, Phoenix Pure shows a balance of -955,908.75 USD after 5 years. This is because the system takes 7.75 years to recover the investment, so it is still in a loss position after 5 years. In summary, Phoenix Pure is a system that requires a longer-term investment.
The investment cost of Phoenix HHO is 1.95 million USD, and when used with petcoke as the fuel, the payback period is 0.86 years (~10 months), while when using natural gas, the payback period is 0.96 years (~11.5months). This indicates that the Phoenix HHO system recovers it sinvestment much more quickly and provides high returns in the short term. When used with natural gas, Phoenix HHO achieves a net profit of 8,233,596.85 USD after 5 years, and when used with petcoke, it generates a net profit of 9,418,320.50 USD. This shows that Phoenix HHO yields substantial profits in the short term. In conclusion, the Phoenix HHO system stands out as an ideal option for investments seeking short-term and rapid returns. With a very short payback period, this system is suitable for projects aiming to generate profits quickly.
| System | Investment Cost (Million USD) | Petcoke Annual Savings (USD) | Natural Gas Annual Savings (USD) | Petcoke Payback Period (Years) | Natural Gas Payback Period (Years) | Petcoke 5-Year Net Profit (USD) | Natural Gas 5-Year Net Profit (USD) | Petcoke 10-Year Net Profit (USD) | Natural Gas 10-Year Net Profit (USD) |
| Phoenix HHO | 1.95 | 2,273,664.10 | 2,036,719.37 | 0.86 years (~10 months) | 0.96 years (~11.5 months) | 9,418,320.50 | 8,233,596.85 | 20,786,140.50 | 18,417,193.70 |
| Phoenix Pure | 2.7 | 532,906.00 | 348,818.25 | 5.07 years (~5 years) | 7.75 years | 664,530.00 | -955,908.75 | 3,329,060.00 | 788,182.50 |
The research shows that the stoichiometric mixture of HHO gas, produced through electrolysis, provides more balanced heat distribution, controlled temperature profiles, and complete combustion. Compared to pure hydrogen, the natural oxygen content in HHO accelerates reaction kinetics and reduces harmful NOₓ emissions, thereby enhancing thermal efficiency. Quantitative analyses indicate that HHO can increase energy efficiency by 15-20%. Additionally, HHO gas enables faster and more complete combustion due to the immediate availability of oxygen in the stoichiometric mixture. As a result, HHO is found to offer superior combustion performance, environmental benefits, and economic advantages over pure hydrogen. Furthermore, due to its cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability, HHO is considered the most efficient fuel option for combustion processes compared to fossil fuels.
Faster and more complete combustion with HHO gas
Energy efficiency increase of
15-20%
Reduction of NOx emissions
“Produced using renewable energy sources, green ammonia and green methanol are revolutionizing the chemical and energy industries by providing carbon-neutral alternatives for fuel, transportation, and industrial applications. This presentation explores their production, benefits, and role in the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable future.”
Green methanol is produced through the combination of green hydrogen and carbon dioxide(CO₂) using an environmentally friendly and sustainable process.In the first stage, green hydrogen is generated via water electrolysis powered by renewableenergy sources. This process splits water into hydrogen and oxygen gases using electricalenergy. The hydrogen is then combined with captured CO₂, sourced from industrial emissionsor directly from the atmosphere through Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU) technology.The purified CO₂ and hydrogen undergo a catalytic conversion at moderate temperatures andpressures using copper-based catalysts, forming methanol.As a result, green methanol is produced without dependence on fossil fuels, significantlyreducing carbon emissions. This innovative process offers a sustainable alternative forindustries such as transportation, chemicals, and renewable fuels, supporting the globaltransition towards cleaner energy solutions.
Green methanol plays a crucial role in reducing emissions across several industries. In the transport sector, it is particularly significant as maritime transport accounts for around 3% of global carbon emissions. Traditional ships rely heavily on fossil fuels, contributing significantly to this figure. Green methanol, being carbon-neutral, provides a sustainable alternative by capturing CO₂ during production and converting it using renewable energy. Leading companies like Maersk have already implemented green methanol-powered vessels, achieving up to a 95% reduction in emissions. With the UN’s 2030 goal to cut maritime emissions by 50%, green methanol is key to reaching this target and reducing global carbon footprints. Additionally, in the chemical industry, green methanol is essential for producing products like formaldehyde, acetic acid, and plastics. Annually, 40 million metric tons of formaldehyde are produced, with methanol contributing to 70-80% of this. For acetic acid production, methanol accounts for 70% of the 16 million metric tons produced each year. Furthermore, methanol is crucial in the production of plastics, with 400 million metric tons produced globally each year. Switching to green methanol could reduce emissions by up to 60% in the chemical industry, offering a more sustainable alternative across various sectors including energy production, biofuels, solvents, cleaning products, pharmaceuticals, and electronics.
Green ammonia production is achieved through the combination of hydrogen and nitrogen using a sustainable method. In the first stage, green hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis using renewable energy. In this process, water is split into hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O₂) gases using electrical energy. The resulting hydrogen is then combined with pure nitrogen (N₂), which is separated from the air using PSA (Pressure Swing Adsorption) technology. PSA adsorbs oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases from the air, releasing nitrogen molecules. The pure nitrogen is then combined with hydrogen in a reaction known as the Haber-Bosch process, which occurs at high temperatures (400-500°C) and pressures (150-300 bar), using copper-based catalysts.
As a result, green ammonia (NH₃) is produced independently of fossil fuels and without carbon emissions. This process provides an environmentally friendly method for ammonia production, offering sustainable solutions for applications like fertilizers in agriculture.
Green ammonia has a wide range of applications, particularly in agriculture and energy storage. Annually, 180 million metric tons of ammonia are produced globally, with the majority used as a key component in fertilizers. Green ammonia offers a carbon-free alternative to conventional ammonia production, which is responsible for 1.8% of global CO₂ emissions. Beyond agriculture, green ammonia is being explored as a sustainable fuel for shipping, with the potential to reduce emissions in the maritime industry by up to 90%. It can also serve as an energy carrier in the power sector, providing a way to store renewable energy for later use.
| Criteria | Phoenix Pure | Alkaline | PEM |
| Production Capacity (Nm3/hour) | 1240 | 1000 | 500 |
| Required System Count | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Investment Cost (Million USD) | 2,7 | 1,5 | 3 |
| Electricity Cost (0.13 USD/hour) | 130 | 650 | 585 |
| Water Consumption (USD/hour) | 8,29 | 4,47 | 2,23 |
| KOH Consumption (USD/hour) | 73 | 2 | – |
| Total Production Cost (USD/hour) | 211.29 | 656,47 | 587,23 |
| Annual Operating Hours | 8200 | 8200 | 8200 |
| Annual Operating Cost (Million USD) | 1,73 | 5,38 | 4,8 |
Hydrogen, one of the key components used in methanol production, is obtained through water electrolysis and produced without carbon emissions using renewable energy sources. This table compares the annual production and cost data for three different methanol production systems. The Phoenix Pure system, with a production capacity of 1240 Nm³/hour, has the lowest investment cost (2.7 million USD) and offers a more efficient option with a production cost of 211.29 USD per hour. The Alkaline system, despite having a lower production capacity (1000 Nm³/hour), has higher operating costs (5.38 million USD) and a production cost of 656.47 USD per hour. The PEM system, with the lowest production capacity of 500 Nm³/hour, operates at a cost of 587.23 USD per hour, which is close to Phoenix Pure’s cost.
| System | Methanol Production (Annual) (kg) | Methanol Production Cost (USD) | Methanol Sales Revenue (USD) |
| Phoenix Pure | 4,452,600 | 852,8 | 5,343,120 |
| Alkaline | 4,452,600 | 852,8 | 5,343,120 |
| PEM | 2,868,100 | 852,8 | 3,441,720 |
This table shows the annual production, cost, and net profit data for three different methanol production systems. Both the Phoenix Pure and Alkaline systems have the same production capacity (4,452,600 kg) and net profit (4,490,320 USD), while the PEM system has a lower production capacity (2,868,100 kg) and a lower net profit (2,588,920 USD). The production costs are the same for all three systems (852,800 USD), with revenue and profitability varying based on production capacity.
| System | Investment Cost P2M+ Electrolyzer + CCS (Million USD) | Annual Methanol Production (Ton) | Annual Revenue (USD) | Annual H2 Cost (USD) | Methanol Production Cost (USD) | Total Annual Cost (USD) | Annual Net Profit (USD) | Return On Investment (Years) |
| Phoenix Pure | 5.0 | 4,452,600 | 5,343,120 | 1,732,578 | 852,800 | 2,585,378 | 2,757,742 | 1.81 |
| Alkaline | 4.7 | 4,452,600 | 5,343,120 | 5,380,000 | 852,800 | 6,232,800 | -889,680 | Loss |
| PEM | 6.2 | 2,868,100 | 3,441,720 | 4,800,000 | 852,800 | 5,652,800 | -1,211,080 | Loss |
On the other hand, both the Alkaline and PEM systems show losses.The Alkaline system, with a slightly lower investment cost of 4.7million USD, still fails to generate profit, resulting in a loss of 889,680USD due to its high hydrogen costs and overall higher annual costs(6,232,800 USD). Similarly, the PEM system, with the highestinvestment cost (6.2 million USD), incurs a loss of 1,211,080 USD,driven by high production and hydrogen costs, making it lessfinancially viable than the Phoenix Pure system.
The Phoenix Pure system, with an investment cost of 5 million USD, demonstrates apositive net profit of 2,757,742 USD and a relatively low return on investment (1.81 years).It produces 4,452,600 kg of methanol annually, with a reasonable total annual cost of2,585,378 USD. This system stands out for its profitability compared to the other twosystems.
| System | Production Capacity (Nm3/hour) | Hydrogen Production (kg/hour) | Ammonia Production (kg/hour) |
| Phoenix Pure | 1240 | 111,5 kg/hour | 635,8 kg/hour |
| Alkaline | 1000 | 89,88 kg/hour | 510,5 kg/hour |
| PEM | 500 | 44,94 kg/hour | 255,3 kg/hour |
The table presents the production capacities and hydrogen and ammonia production rates for three different systems. Phoenix Pure has the highest production capacity, generating 111.5 kg of hydrogen and 635.8 kg of ammonia per hour. Alkaline, with a slightly lower capacity, produces 89.88 kg of hydrogen and 510.5 kg of ammonia per hour. PEM has the smallest production capacity, with 44.94 kg of hydrogen and 255.3 kg of ammonia produced per hour.
| System | Annual Revenue (USD/year) |
Green Ammonia Price (USD/Ton) |
Annual Cost (USD/year) |
Annual Profit (USD/year) |
Investment Cost (Million USD) |
ROI (Years) |
| Phoenix Pure | 7,311,944 | 1400 | 3,532,028,80 | 2,731,923,20 | 5,7 | 2,09 |
| Alkaline | 5,868,540 | 1400 | 5,596,254 | 272,286 | 4,5 | Loss |
| PEM | 2,933,644 | 1400 | 5,012,986 | -2,079,342 | 6 | Loss |
The Phoenix Pure system generates the highest annual revenue of $7,311,944, with a solidannual profit of $2,731,923.20. Its ROI stands at 2.09 years, indicating a relatively quickreturn on investment. With a moderate investment cost of $5.7 million, this system isfinancially promising compared to the others.
In contrast, the Alkaline and PEM systems struggle with profitability.Alkaline generates $5,868,540 in annual revenue but has a much higherannual cost of $5,596,254, resulting in a small profit of just $272,286.PEM, on the other hand, faces a significant loss of $2,079,342, despiteits annual revenue of $2,933,644. Both systems have higher investmentcosts compared to Phoenix Pure and do not present an attractivereturn on investment.
Phoenix is an R&D, engineering and consulting firm working on reducing carbon emissions and energy costs in industries with chimneys.
