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.
The Phoenix Electrolyzer Container is designed to convert water into HHO (hydrogen and oxygen gas) through an advanced electrolysis process. This process separates the resulting HHO gas into pure hydrogen (H₂) and oxygen (O₂) using a patented, high-performance palladium membrane. This innovative design ensures both high purity and efficiency, enhancing hydrogen production effectiveness.
When powered by renewable energy sources, the Phoenix Electrolyzer enables the production of green hydrogen, offering a sustainable energy solution that significantly reduces carbon emissions.
delivery times and more competitive pricing compared to its competitors, providing a reliable and cost-effective choice for the future of hydrogen production. This container is an excellent solution for industries looking to produce green hydrogen efficiently and economically, supporting the global shift towards cleaner, renewable energy sources.
The Phoenix Electrolyzer ontainer stands out as a superior solution compared to alkaline and PEM electrolyzers in terms of energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability. Alkaline electrolyzers consume approximately 5 kW of energy per cubic meter of hydrogen and require large, bulky designs, leading to high energy consumption, space requirements, and operational costs. PEM electrolyzers, on the other hand, consume between 4.5-5 kW of energy, offering rapid start-up times and high hydrogen purity, but face significant challenges due to their dependence on expensive materials (such as platinum and iridium) and membrane degradation, which increase capital expenditures and maintenance costs. Additionally, PEM systems lose their efficiency advantage in large-scale applications because they are not cost-effective.
In contrast, the Phoenix Electrolyzer Container operates with only 2 kW of energy, delivering much higher efficiency and lower operational costs. Its compact and modular design allows for flexible installation and use, offering a more efficient and space-saving alternative compared to large alkaline electrolyzers. While PEM electrolyzers are disadvantaged in large-scale applications due to their expensive and limited materials, the Phoenix system provides a low-cost, long-lasting, and high-efficiency solution with 99.99% hydrogen purity.
Ultimately, the Phoenix Electrolyzer Container offers a more practical, sustainable, and efficient solution for both small and large-scale applications, providing a significant advantage over both alkaline and PEM electrolyzers in terms of energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and scalability.
In this case study, the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of green ammonia production will be analyzed by comparing 40ft Phoenix, Alkaline, and PEM hydrogen (H₂) electrolyzer containers, alongside a PSA (Pressure Swing Adsorption) system that produces 1000 m³ of nitrogen (N₂) per hour. The electrolyzer containers produce high-purity hydrogen, while the PSA system separates nitrogen gas. The study will evaluate the energy consumption, efficiency, and costs of these technologies to assess their potential economic benefits for green ammonia production.
| Criteria | Phoenix Pure | Alkaline | PEM |
| Production Capacity (Nm³/hour) | 1240 | 1000 | 500 |
| Required System Count | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| USD) Investment Cost (Million) | 1.8 | 1.5 | 3 |
| Electricity Consumption (kWh/Nm³) | 2 | 5 | 4,5 |
| Hourly Electricity Consumption (kWh) | 2480 | 5000 | 4500 |
| Electricity Cost (0.13 USD/hour) | 322 | 650 | 585 |
| Water Consumption (USD/hour) | 8,94 | 4,47 | 2,23 |
| KOH Consumption (USD/hour) | 73 | 2 | |
| Total Production Cost (USD/hour) | 403,94 | 656,47 | 587,23 |
| Annual Operating Hours | 8200 | 8200 | 8200 |
| Annual Operating Cost (Million USD) | 3.3 | 5.38 | 4.8 |
| System | (Nm³/hour) Production Capacity | 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 |
| Criteria | Phoenix Pure | Alkaline | PEM |
| Annual Electricity Consumption (kWh) | 20,336,000 | 41,000,000 | 36,900,000 |
| Annual Electricity Cost (USD) | 2,645,760 | 5,330,000 | 4,780,500 |
| Annual Water Consumption Cost (USD) | 73,468.80 | 36,654 | 18,286 |
| Annual KOH Consumption Cost (USD) | 599,6 | 16,4 | – |
| PSA Energy Consumption (kWh) | 4,100,000 | 4,100,000 | 4,100,000 |
| PSA Energy Cost (USD) | 533 | 533 | 533 |
| Total Annual Production Cost (USD) | 3,851,828.80 | 5,916,054 | 5,331,786 |
| System | Annual Revenue (USD/Years) Green Ammonia Price 1400 USD/Tons) |
Annual Cost (USD/year) |
Annual Profit (USD/year) |
Investment Cost (Million USD) |
ROI (Years) |
| Phoenix Pure | 7,311,944 | 3,851,828.80 | 3,460,115.20 | Phoenix Pure : 2.7 Nitrogen PSA : 0.6 Catalyst : 2 |
1.58 years (around 19 months) |
| Alkaline | 5,868,540 | 5,916,054 | -47,514 (Loss) | Alkaline : 1.5 Nitrogen PSA : 0.6 Catalyst : 2 |
Loss |
| PEM | 2,933,644 | 5,331,786 | -2,398,142 (Loss) | PEM : 3 Nitrogen PSA : 0.6 Catalyst : 2 |
Loss |
1) Phoenix Pure System: Most Profitable and
Efficient Option
• Annual Revenue: 7.31 million USD
• Annual Cost: 3.85 million USD
• Annual Net Profit: 3.46 million USD
• Total Investment: 4.4 million USD
• Payback Period (ROI): 1.58 years
(approximately 19 months)
Conclusion: Phoenix Pure is the most profitable and safest option with a high profit margin and very short payback period.
2) Alkaline System: Operating at a Loss (Near Breakeven)
• Annual Revenue: 5.86 million USD
• Annual Cost: 5.92 million USD
• Annual Net Profit: -47,514 USD (small loss)
• Total Investment: 4.1 million USD
• Payback Period (ROI): No return on investment due
to loss.
Conclusion: Although close to breakeven, the Alkaline system is not profitable and presents a risk of higher losses if costs increase. Not recommended for investment.
3) PEM System: Significant Loss and
High Investment
• Annual Revenue: 2.93 million USD
• Annual Cost: 5.33 million USD
• Annual Net Profit: -2.4 million USD (major loss)
• Total Investment: 5.6 million USD
• Payback Period (ROI): No return on investment due
to major loss
Conclusion: PEM is the most expensive system with the highest loss. It is not a viable option under current economic conditions.
Phoenix is an R&D, engineering and consulting firm working on reducing carbon emissions and energy costs in industries with chimneys.
