Technoeconomic Assessment of Methanol Production Plant Integrated with Solar and Wind Energy Resources in Iraq

Over the past few years, a global emphasis has been on sustainable and eco-friendly energy solutions. This shift is driven by the urgent need to address climate change and transition toward low-carbon economies [1]. As nations worldwide grapple with the profound consequences of conventional fossil fuel usage, the imperative to explore and implement alternative energy sources has gained unprecedented momentum [2]. Within this context, Iraq, endowed with an abundance of solar and wind resources, stands at a pivotal juncture in its quest for sustainable development and energy independence. The country, having historically relied heavily on conventional oil and gas, now faces a unique opportunity to capitalize on its natural resources and diversify its energy portfolio. The endeavor not only aligns with global efforts to transition towards cleaner energy but also positions Iraq as a proactive player in the broader discourse of sustainable development, offering a promising avenue for economic growth while mitigating the environmental impact of traditional energy sources [3]. Al-Kayiem and Mohammed [4] presented an outlook on the utilization of renewable energies in Iraq. One of the proposed ideas is the utilization of solar energy by integration with the existing thermal power plants to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

Methanol, a remarkably versatile and pivotal chemical compound, takes center stage in this study due to its multifaceted applications spanning a wide array of industries. With an extensive range of applications, including being a crucial component in the production of fuels, plastics, and chemicals, methanol stands out for its ability to drive transformative changes in Iraq's industrial landscape. The sheer versatility of methanol is underscored by its role as an essential raw material, contributing significantly to the production of a diverse range of products vital to various sectors [5]. To put its significance into perspective, methanol is utilized in the synthesis of over 50 million metric tons of chemicals annually worldwide. Additionally, it is crucial in producing around 90 million metric tons of formaldehyde, a key ingredient in the manufacturing of resins, plastics, and textiles. Furthermore, methanol is a critical component in the production of adhesives, paints, and pharmaceuticals, further emphasizing its pervasive role in modern industrial processes [6].

As the global community grapples with the imperative to balance economic development with environmental responsibility, methanol emerges as a numerically in the quest for more environmentally friendly and enduring energy solutions. Its production could greatly help in decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, with estimates suggesting that substituting conventional hydrocarbons with methanol can lead to a notable decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by up to 15%. In the context of Iraq's industrial revolution, the strategic decision to harness solar and wind energy for methanol production reflects not only a commitment to meeting the nation's surging energy demands but also a numerical commitment to minimizing its carbon footprint [6].

The integration of solar and wind energy into methanol production serves as a quantifiable step towards achieving sustainable industrial practices, aligning numerical goals with the broader aspirations of environmental conservation and responsible economic growth. By channeling these energies into the intricate processes of methanol production, Iraq has the potential to significantly reduce its carbon footprint, contributing to the global effort to combat climate change [3]. Furthermore, the utilization of indigenous solar and wind resources positions Iraq at the forefront of sustainable energy practices, fostering energy security and resilience against the volatility of fossil fuel markets [7].

Against the backdrop of Iraq's unique energy landscape and its historical reliance on conventional hydrocarbons, this study seeks to unravel the intricate facets of integrating solar and wind energy into the methanol production process. The potential economic ramifications of such a paradigm shift extend beyond the immediate considerations of initial investment and operational efficiency. A thorough investigation is required to assess the long-term economic sustainability, job creation potential, and overall socio-economic impact on the communities surrounding the proposed methanol production plant (MPP). The diversification of Iraq's energy portfolio to include renewable sources not only aligns with the global trajectory toward sustainability but also presents an opportunity for the nation to cultivate a resilient and dynamic energy sector that can withstand the volatility inherent in fossil fuel markets. Additionally, considerations such as maintenance costs, technological advancements, and potential government incentives or subsidies must be factored into the economic feasibility analysis. A comprehensive understanding of these financial intricacies will not only inform the decision-making process for investors and policymakers but also shed light on the potential for cost competitiveness for traditional methanol production methods.

The European Union has recently prioritized the development of new fuels for 2020 to help reduce the pollution from traditional fossil fuels [8]. Despite methanol having nearly half the energy density of gasoline, about 20.1 MJ/kg compared to gasoline's 44.3 MJ/kg, it boasts excellent combustion properties [9]. Using a high compression ratio and adding hydrogen to a lean burn engine fueled by an ethanol-gasoline mix significantly impacts performance and emissions [10]. Methanol has a higher octane rating (108) than gasoline (95), which permits a higher compression ratio, leading to better combustion efficiency and reduced CO and CO$_2$ emissions compared to conventional gasoline and diesel [9], [11]. Additionally, methanol is crucial for producing various chemicals, including formaldehyde, MTBE, and acetic acid. For these reasons above, methanol production has been subjected to much research in recent years intensively.

For instance, Samimi et al. [12] examined two methods for producing methanol via the reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction, focusing on CO$_2$ conversion. Their findings showed that a membrane reactor using RWGS achieved a higher CO$_2$ conversion rate and CO yield, along with a more favorable synthesis gas composition due to water removal. Methanol production increased by 50.23% (109 tons/day) compared to the initial scenario and by 4.15% (13 tons/day) compared to a conventional reactor. In a second experiment, methanol synthesis in a reactor resulted in 17% less water production than in the first scenario. Monnerie et al. [13] conducted a techno-economic analysis of a solar thermochemical cycle using cerium oxide to produce H$_2$ and CO$_2$. They modeled the process at the system level, utilizing large-scale solar heat to generate synthesis gas (hydrogen and carbon monoxide). Methanol was then produced from this gas in plug-flow reactors without emitting CO$_2$. The process was simulated in a MW-scale methanol manufacturing facility in Spain, optimized for reactor settings. A cost assessment revealed that a 350 MWh solar plant could produce 27.81 million liters of methanol, requiring 880,685 m$^2$ of mirrors and a 220 m solar tower, with an estimated production cost of 1.14 Euros per liter of methanol.

Nizami et al. [14] evaluated two scenarios for methanol production using grid-powered PV electrolysis with and without a battery, focusing on CO$_2$ hydrogenation. An economic analysis and CO$_2$ equivalent emissions study assessed environmental impact and economic viability, with levelized costs determined. The overall energy efficiencies were 48.39% for hydrogen generation and 55.16% for methanol synthesis. The cost of methanol production was found to be \$1,040.17 per ton for the PV-grid scenario and \$1,669.6 per ton for the PV-battery scenario. The PV-grid scenario produced 0.244 kg CO$_2$-eq/MJ MeOH, while the PV-battery scenario resulted in -0.016 kg CO$_2$-eq/MJ MeOH. Schorn et al. [15] explored using an energy storage system combining a battery and a power-to-methanol unit for renewable energy storage. They used a nonlinear programming model to determine the minimum-cost capacities for the battery and power-to-methanol units, evaluating four configurations of the renewable energy system. They found that renewable methanol can be cost-competitive with the current fossil market price of 400 €/t under certain conditions. Hydrogen and methanol have comparable energy-specific import costs of 18–30 €/GJ, depending on carbon dioxide prices. The decision to produce methanol at the origin or destination depends on the relative costs of CO$_2$. If the host country's CO$_2$ price is 181–228 €/t lower than the origin countries', higher hydrogen shipping expenses can be mitigated.

Sharma et al. [16] proposed using wind energy to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen, and utilizing CO$_2$ from industrial processes and atmospheric ozone. The process involves combining CO$_2$ and hydrogen in a reactor to produce methanol and water, with byproducts separated via distillation. Although this method has potential, it faces challenges due to inefficient electrochemical cells and high production costs. The researchers also proposed various wind energy simulations for methanol production, evaluating their feasibility and future potential.

Matzen et al. [17] conducted a techno-economic analysis on a facility that integrates methanol synthesis, CO$_2$ capture induced by bioethanol, and hydrogen production from wind energy. Using ASPEN Plus software for simulation, the study revealed that the facility produced 97.01 metric tons of methanol daily while consuming 138.37 metric tons of CO$_2$ and 18.56 metric tons of H$_2$. The renewable methanol achieved an energy efficiency of approximately 58% and could reduce CO$_2$ equivalent emissions by -1.05 CO$_2$ per kilogram of methanol. Bos et al. [18] evaluated the efficiency and capital costs of converting 100 MW of wind power into methanol. The process achieved a power-to-methanol conversion efficiency of 50%. The cost of methanol production was nearly 300 euros per ton without accounting for wind turbine costs and about 800 euros per ton when including wind turbine costs. The overall facility cost, excluding the wind turbines, was estimated at 200 million Euros, with operating costs for electrolyzers, CO$_2$ capture equipment, and methanol synthesis system at 45%, 50%, and 5%, respectively. The study suggested that producing renewable methanol using CO$_2$ from the air, water, and renewable electricity is feasible at a cost of 750 to 800 Euros per ton.

Decker et al. [19] explored the short-term integration of systems for electro-fuel production. They listed components for a power-to-fuel system in Germany, including an electrolyzer, hydrogen storage, CO$_2$ source, wind farm, and synthesis facility, to optimize design parameters and simulate yearly operations. Their model assessed production costs for different scenarios and locations, suggesting that off-grid systems could be viable for short-term implementation. The study indicated that net production costs of methanol could be 1.73 €/lGE, with optimal wind farm sites potentially reducing costs to 1.32 €/lGE. Their methodology and results are also applicable to other regions.

This study embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the techno-economic feasibility of establishing a MPP in Iraq, leveraging the immense potential of solar and wind energy to power the intricacies of the manufacturing processes. In examining the techno-economic aspects of this pioneering approach, key considerations include evaluating the initial investment requirements, operational efficiency, and overall economic viability of a solar and wind-powered MPP in Iraq. This investigation aims to quantify the potential cost savings, resource efficiency gains, and long-term sustainability benefits associated with adopting renewable energy sources for methanol synthesis. Moreover, by scrutinizing the environmental impact, this research seeks to underscore the positive contribution such an initiative can make towards Iraq's commitment to international climate goals and the broader vision of a greener, more sustainable global energy landscape.

In this study, several factors need to be identified to meet process requirements. These include the temperature and volumetric flow rate of waste gas, the composition of flue gas, the type of renewable energy nearest to the plant, the selection of a CO$_2$ capture technique from waste gas, the method of composing H$_2$ gas with carbon atoms, and the choice of suitable software to solve energy and economic equations.

The thermodynamic analysis of the White Cement Plant in Fallujah is based on its data and operational conditions. The flue gas has a temperature of 380 ℃, a pressure of 1.2 bars, and a flow rate of 126.56 kg/s. The gas composition includes CO$_2$ (26.2%), CO (0.6%), N$_2$ (68.8%), and O$_2$ (4.4%) [20]. The plant is powered by electricity generated from solar panels and WT connected to all its units. To address CO$_2$ emissions, a post-combustion capture (PCC) unit is used. The Engineering Equation Solver (EES) program was chosen to solve the energy and economic equations. A newly developed method to convert waste gases into valuable products at the White Cement Factory in Al-Faluga has been introduced, aiming to offer a practical solution for advancing green and low-carbon initiatives within the initiatives of waste-to-wealth and carbon reduction initiatives. The design of a MPP by previous studies has been adopted [20], [21]. Figure 1 shows that the proposed methanol production facility consists of four primary components.

Solar panels were utilized to produce electricity for the factory. We assumed that large-scale ground-mounted panels would be situated near the factory. These panels cover an area of approximately 1,000 square meters. The specific location is at coordinates $33^\circ 22' 26.3''\,\mathrm{N},\ 43^\circ 50' 56.3''\,\mathrm{E}$, and the data was sourced from the Global Solar Atlas (GSA) as given by the study [22]. Table 1 shows data on the location.

Figure 2 illustrates the monthly mean direct normal irradiance, with peak radiation levels occurring from May through September. Conversely, during the period from October to February, the irradiance rate is lower. Table 2 provides average hourly direct normal irradiance data, including solar radiation rates.

In the proposed facility, wind energy is harnessed to generate electricity and supply power to the factory. The selected location for the wind turbine farm is Fallujah, Iraq, situated at coordinates $33^\circ 22' 26.3''\,\mathrm{N},\ 43^\circ 50' 56.3''\,\mathrm{E}$. Figure 3 illustrates the annual average wind speed [23].

The selected WT are 3-blade and the characteristics are shown in Table 3. The selected wind speed represents the site's annual average value.

The plant was analyzed using thermodynamic and techno-economic methods. The thermodynamic model was developed and solved using the EES software [20]. The thermophysical properties of the flue gas were obtained from the White Cement Production plant. Energy and mass balances were calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2) [26]:

Heat and work are represented by $\dot{Q}$ and $\dot{W}$. The thermal efficiency of the plant is determined and calculated by Eq. (3) [27]:

Two compressors are used to compress pure CO$_2$ into the tank. The power for this two-stage process was calculated using the following equations:

The power required by the compressors, denoted as $\dot{W}$, and the carbon dioxide mass flow rate, represented as $\dot{m}_{\mathrm{CO}_2}$, are essential parameters. A PEM-type electrolyzer operating under conditions of low temperature (400 K) and medium pressure (10000 kPa) has successfully generated hydrogen. By applying Eqs. (6) and (7), one can calculate the power consumption.

where, $\dot{m}_{\mathrm{H}_2}$ represents the hydrogen mass flow rate. The overall cell potential is determined using Eq. (8).

The terms reversible, activation, ohmic, and concentration are denoted as $E_{rev}$, $E_{act}$, $E_{ohm}$ and $E_{con}$, respectively [28], [29]. Eq. (9) was utilized to calculate the voltage of the cell reversible [30].

In Eq. (10), $-\Delta G$ represents the Gibbs energy associated with the reaction of water splitting, $F$ denotes Faraday's constant, and $z$ signifies the number of electrons transferred. The activation, ohmic, and concentration overpotentials of cell voltage are defined and computed as follows:

$R$ stands for the universal gas constant, $T_{\text {cell }}$ indicates the temperature of the cell, $\alpha_c$ and $\alpha_a$ are change coefficients. $J_o$ refers to the exchange current density, defined as follows:

The ohmic cell voltage is calculated using Eq. (13).

where, $t_{m e m}$ and $\sigma_{m e m}$ represent thickness and membrane conductivity, the cell voltage concentration can be determined by:

where, $\beta$ denotes a constant related to cell temperature and pressure, while $J_c$ represents the limiting current density [31]. The calculation of the hydrogen rate was performed as follows:

To calculate the efficiency of the electrolyzer, we use the following equation:

The heat load in the components of the methanol plant is determined using the following:

where, $\dot{Q}_{\text {heating}}$ and $\dot{Q}_{\text {cooling}}$ represent the utilities for heat and cooling. The terms $\dot{Q}_{d c}$, $\dot{Q}_{s t}$, $\dot{Q}_{cond}$, $\dot{Q}_{c o l}$, $\dot{Q}_{het}$ and $\dot{Q}_{rea}$ correspond to the heat loads for each component: the distillation column, stripper, condenser, cooler, heater, and reactor, respectively. The fuel efficiency of a MPP can be expressed as follows:

The plant efficiency is calculated as follows:

The factors that determine wind turbine power include [25]:

where, $\rho_{\text {air}}$ represents air density, while $C p_{w . t}$ denotes the power coefficient of the selected turbine. The latter determines the proportion of wind energy that can be converted into mechanical energy and is capped at a mean value or lower to be on the safe side of 0.38 [25], A corresponds to the rotor area, and $U$ represents wind velocity.

The initial design of thermal systems needs to consider the investment cost of the system [32]. For this study, a thermodynamic model was developed using EES software. The economic evaluations included not only employment and operational costs but also factors like annual operating time, plant lifespan, interest rates, and maintenance expenses [33].

Each component capital cost rate is referred to as $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}$, and is defined in Eq. (22) [20]:

In this context, $C R F$ stands for the capital recovery factor, $\tau$ denotes the annual operating time, $\phi$ signifies the maintenance factor, and PEC refers to the equipment purchase cost for each component in the plant. The CRF was determined by Eq. (23):

An assumed effective interest rate ($i_{\text {eff}}$) of 10% and plant life ($n$) of 30 years have been considered. The total primary energy consumption $P E C_{\text {tot,Renewable}}$ for both PV plants and WT using Eqs. (24) and (25):

where, $P E C_{P V, \text {total}}$, $P E C_{W T, \text {total}}$, $P E C_{P V}, P E C_L, P E C_{W T}$ represent the equipment purchase costs for the PV plant and the WT farm. The cost of the PV plant, $P E C_{P V}$ is calculated based on the rated power $P_{P V}$, while the cost for the WT, $P E C_{W T}$ is determined by the rated power $P_{W T}$ [34]. The purchase costs for the system components are listed in Table 4.

The costs of producing electricity, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methanol products are estimated using Eqs. (26)–(29) [20]:

where, $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {tot,Renewable}}$, $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {elec}}$, and $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{C C P}$ denote the overall cost rates of the PV plant, WT turbines, electrolyzer, and carbon capture plant (CCP) respectively, while $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {Total}}$ refers to the total cost rate of the entire plant. The price of electricity is indicated in \$/kWh, whereas other prices are given in units of \$/kg [37].

Analyzing environmental impacts is essential for quantifying pollutants released into the air. Additionally, reducing emissions can decrease environmental expenses [38], [39]. Hence, procedures to reduce CO$_2$ must include calculations of total emissions. The carbon emission factors used can vary widely among different types of fuels and even within each type. Natural gas, primarily methane but also containing small amounts of ethane, butane, propane, and other heavier hydrocarbons, has its carbon emission factor influenced by its composition. When natural gas is flared at the production site, it is considered 'wet' due to higher levels of non-methane hydrocarbons, further affecting its emission factor. Comparatively, fuels like gasoline, which are less refined than residual fuel oil, generally have lower carbon content per unit of energy. The carbon content of coal per ton depends significantly on its composition of carbon, sulfur, hydrogen, oxygen, ash, and nitrogen. Emissions from all combustion sources are estimated based on the quantity of fuel used and the average emission factor. The carbon emission factor for coal was determined using the IPCC Tier 1 method, as shown in Eq. (30) [40]:

where, $C_c$ represents the carbon emissions factor in tons of carbon per terajoule (tC/TJ), and Hv denotes the gross calorific value of coal, typically ranging from 31 to 37 TJ per kiloton on a dry mineral matter-free basis. The system effectively reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to its substantial carbon dioxide consumption. However, reliance on thermal energy results in significant indirect GHG emissions. Eq. (31) can be used to calculate the system's CO$_2$ reduction capacity.

where, $E R_{\text {n e t}}$ represents the total CO$_2$ emissions, $E R_{\text {utilization}}$ denotes the CO$_2$ utilized within the system's processes, $E R_{\text {generation}}$ indicates the CO$_2$ produced by the process.

The efficiency of a methanol plant, $\eta_{M P}$, electrolyzer, $\eta_{e l e c}$, fuel efficiency, $\eta_{f u e l}$, renewable net power, $\dot{\mathrm{W}}_{\text {Renewable}}$, purchased equipment costs, PEC, and renewable generation costs, $\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {tot,Renewable}}$ have been determined. Additionally, we examined the costs associated with the methanol plant, methanol production, daily CO$_2$ capture, and hydrogen production. The calculations were based on data from flue gas measurements at the Fallujah white cement plant. The results and calculated outcomes are presented in the following sections.

The thermodynamic analysis is essential to understand how the system will operate under specific pressure, temperature, and mass flow conditions. Evaluating the system's performance based on the principles outlined in the first and second laws of thermodynamics is the most effective method. This approach yields detailed insights into the current state of the system. A thermodynamic analysis based on a range of parameters, including varying mass flow rates (from 7,161,000 to 19,820,000 kg/h), enthalpy values (ranging from 6,053 to 2,684 kJ/kg), pressures (from 45 to 1.1 bars), and temperatures (from 443 K to 377.9 K). Additionally, the energy and material balance of the MPP has been examined and detailed in Table 5. The energy duties of the subsystem are summarized in Table 6.

The mass flow of flue gas has a linear impact on the production of hydrogen, methanol, carbon dioxide capture, and emission reduction, as recorded from the control room of the plant, as shown in Figure 4. By rising flue gas levels, it is shown that methanol production rises at the maximum flue gas levels, reaching a maximum of 6,390 tons per day. Also, hydrogen production increases at the highest flue gas rates to 1,358 tons per day. With flue gas levels rising during the process, the amount of carbon dioxide captured rises as well, peaking at 9,962 tons per day. The daily amount of emission reduction at flue gas levels during the process is 9,194 tons per day.

Figure 5 shows the required heat values, where the energy entering the system is considered positive, and the energy leaving the system is negative. The processes in the condenser, cooler, and reactor are exothermic, while the processes in the stripper and distillation column are endothermic.

Based on the required work prediction, shown in Figure 6, compressors used for hydrogen production are shown to have the greatest work input demand, with a value of 444.71 kW. This amount is more than twice the necessary business input requirements of both the carbon dioxide compressors and the CCP combined.

The cost analysis for each product and the annual operating expenses of the plant are determined through a component-based approach. Thermodynamic analysis results guide cost calculations, treating power-consuming and energy-producing components as functions of their energy consumption or production.

Additionally, the plant size impacts the costs associated with the CCP and MPP. The key findings of the economic study are summarized in Table 7.

Figure 7 illustrates the declining cost of the plant throughout its lifespan. For instance, at the 30-year mark (the considered lifespan), the PV plant costs \$9.46 billion, and the wind plant costs \$5.291 billion. By the 40-year mark, the PV plant's value is approximately \$8.72 billion, while the wind plant's value is around \$5.1 billion.

Figure 8 shows the area of the PV panels, the wind plant, and the cost of equipment for the PV panels and the wind plant versus levels of flue gas at 40000 (kmol/s), where the maximum area of the PV panels is 104500 m², the wind plant is 682000 m², and the maximum cost is \$4,211 billion and \$1,515 billion, respectively.

Figure 9 shows the total cost of the wind turbine ($\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{t o t, W T}$) and the total cost of the PV panels ($\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{t o t, P V}$), the total cost of methanol by wind turbine ($\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {Methanol,WT }}$) and the total cost of the methanol by PV panels ($\dot{\mathrm{Z}}_{\text {Methanol,PV}}$) as the plant's life changes, at the 30th point of the plant's life, being \$2.811 per second, \$7.712 per second, \$0.243 per kg, and \$0.4106 per kg, respectively indicating that costs decrease with an increase in the plant's life.

When Figure 10 is assessed, it is seen that the highest PEC is the PV plant. This is because the PV panel area required for the electrolysis of hydrogen, which corresponds to the mass flow rate of hydrogen retained carbon dioxide, is very high. This cost may decrease in the near future with advances in technology and the production of new-generation PV panels that provide higher energy production from less space. Secondly, the highest PEC is observed in the hydrogen plant. This is an expected situation where, as in the PV panel, the energy required for the electrolysis of hydrogen increases linearly with the amount of hydrogen that will react with carbon dioxide. There may be decreases in PEC as alternative methods and new generation technologies for hydrogen production are developed, and their use becomes widespread in the near future. Maintenance and repair costs and initial investment costs in WT are higher than in PV panels. However, in regions where the permissible solar panel area and the amount of radiation are low, WT stand out as a very good alternative. In this study, PV electricity and wind energy were evaluated as alternatives to each other, and it is observed that WT are more advantageous for the selected region.

In this section, we explore the calculated CO$_2$ emissions from the production plant and methods for mitigating them. Figure 4 illustrates the correlation between flue gas levels and emission reduction. At the highest flue gas level, the most significant reduction in emissions amounts to 9194 tons per day. The fact that daily emission reduction increases with increasing flue gas suggests that the process includes a technology to capture emissions that is becoming more efficient as the amount of flue gas increases, where the amount of carbon dioxide captured reached 9962 tons per day in this process. Consequently, it is possible to significantly reduce carbon emissions caused by a cement factory's waste flue gas.

This research conducts a thorough analysis of the economic and environmental aspects involved in operating a methanol production facility that utilizes solar and wind power alongside waste gases from a white cement plant. Below are the key findings of the study:

1. It estimates that 3,894 tons of CO$_2$ can be captured daily, with a heating load of 32,770 kW for the carbon capture process in the case where the H/C ratio has been assumed to be stoichiometric.

2. Under ideal reactor conditions, approximately 2,498 tons of methanol can be produced daily.

3. The PEM electrolyzer cell achieves a maximum efficiency of 0.782% at a 400 K cell temperature and 2.2 kA/m² current density, resulting in a daily hydrogen production rate of 530,874 kg.

4. The overall efficiency of the plant is calculated to be 0.163%, while the MPP fuel efficiency is 0.587%.

5. The total 30-year operational costs for PV and wind turbine plants are \$9.46 billion and 5.291 billion, respectively. This investment could yield over 34,530 million tons of methanol, costing approximately 0.4131 kg of methane for the PV plant and 0.2413 \$/kg for the WT plant.

6. The captures amount to approximately 3,894 tons of emissions daily, with a mitigation rate of around 3,306 tons per day.