Green methanol production is achieved through the combination of green hydrogen and carbon dioxide using a sustainable method.
In the first stage, green hydrogen is produced through water electrolysis using renewable energy:
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 Container 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.
This case study examines the operational costs and investment return period of the Phoenix Pure, Alkaline, and PEM Electrolysis Containers and the Power-to-Methanol (P2M) system. The analysis is based on a single Phoenix Pure, Alkaline, and PEM Electrolysis Container and one P2M system, providing detailed calculations of hourly and annual energy, water, and chemical consumption. Additionally, the study assesses sustainability and economic efficiency, ultimately evaluating the investment return period and profitability.
| 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 | Methanol Production Annual (Kg) | Methanol Production Cost (USD) | Methanol Sales Revenue (USD) | Methanol Sales Revenue (USD) |
| Phoenix Pure | 4,452,600 | 426,400 | 5,343,120 | 4,916,720 |
| Alkaline | 4,452,600 | 426,400 | 5,343,120 | 4,916,720 |
| PEM | 2,868,100 | 426,400 | 3,441,720 | 3,015,320 |
| 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 | Investment Cost P2M+Electrolyzer (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 | 3.3 | 4,452,600 | 5,343,120 | 3,300,000 | 426,400 | 3,726,400 | 1,616,720 | 2.04 |
| Alkaline | 3.0 | 4,452,600 | 5,343,120 | 5,380,000 | 426,400 | 5,806,400 | -462,280 | Loss |
| PEM | 4.5 | 2,868,100 | 3,441,720 | 4,800,000 | 426,400 | 5,226,400 | 1,784,680 | Loss |
The analysis shows that Phoenix Pure offers the best investment return with a positive net profit and a return on investment of 2.04 years, while both Alkaline and PEM systems result in losses.
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: 5.75 million USD
• Payback Period (ROI): 1.66 years (approximately 20 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.
