Hydrogen News, page-6995

PART 2

Comparison of Graphitic Energy vs. Hazer Group Processes

Both Graphitic Energy and Hazer Group target methane pyrolysis for clean hydrogen, but they differ in reactor design details, catalyst choice, and certain operational strategies. Below is a detailed comparison of key attributes of the two processes:

Reactor Design:Graphitic uses a circulating fluidized-bed reactor, whereas Hazer uses a more traditional fluidized-bed reactor (likely not circulating). Graphitic’s circulating design involves moving catalyst between reactor and regenerator, leveraging cyclone separators and standpipescen.acs.org, which enables internal heat generation (via H₂ combustion) and handling large throughputs. Hazer’s reactor keeps the catalyst mostly in one vessel, with continuous addition/removal. Both designs address the challenge of solid carbon accumulation: Graphitic flushes out carbon with circulating particles, and Hazer precipitates carbon on catalyst and separates it out. Hazer’s patent-envisioned cascade of multiple beds is a different approach to maximizing conversion and carbon puritypatents.google.com, whereas Graphitic focuses on one large robust reactor. In terms of heat transfer, Graphitic’s fluid-bed and in-situ combustion give excellent heat distribution, and Hazer’s fluid-bed with external heating also gives good heat transfer into the gas-solid mixture. Neither uses plasma or direct electric heating, which sets them apart from some other turquoise H₂ technologies.

Catalyst Usage: This is a major differentiator. Graphitic employs an undisclosed proprietary solid catalyst, not publicly specified but designed to sustain H₂ combustion cyclescen.acs.org and promote methane cracking at <800 °C. It is likely a specialized material or coating that does not contaminate the carbon (since Graphitic’s carbon is very pure). Hazer, on the other hand, explicitly uses raw iron ore (Fe₂O₃) as the catalystchemengonline.com. The iron ore is cheap and abundant, though it introduces iron into the system that must eventually be managed. Hazer’s catalyst is effectively consumed/altered in the process (Fe₂O₃ → Fe → Fe₃C → Fe + C), but the iron can in principle be reused. Graphitic’s catalyst seems to be more of an inert or stable material that doesn’t get consumed in large amounts (since they don’t report constant addition of catalyst apart from makeup for losses). Thus, catalyst composition and lifecycle differ: Graphitic likely has a higher-tech catalyst but one that remains separate from the carbon, while Hazer uses a low-cost catalyst that becomes intimately mixed with the carbon. Both processes rely on catalysis to reduce reaction temperature and avoid coking, but the nature of the catalyst and how it’s handled (continuous addition for Hazer vs. circulating reuse for Graphitic) is a key contrast.

Operating Temperature: Both processes operate in the high-temperature regime but Graphitic is a bit lower: <800 °Cgraphitic.com, versus Hazer’s roughly 850 °C (in a range of 800–900 °C)luxresearchinc.com. This difference is likely due to catalyst and design choices. Graphitic’s catalyst plus hydrogen-burning scheme supply active radicals and heat even at slightly lower temperature, and keeping <800 °C allows use of standard steel alloys in the reactorgraphitic.com. Hazer’s iron catalyst works well around 850 °C – hot enough to get decent kinetics and allow carbon to crystallize, but not so hot as to melt iron or sinter particles. Both are far below purely thermal cracking temperatures (>1200 °C), highlighting the benefit of catalysis. Neither process requires plasma torches or electric heating, though they require robust furnaces or internal combustion to maintain these temperatures.

Hydrogen Production & Purity: Both Graphitic and Hazer produce high-purity hydrogen with minimal post-processing. In both cases, the raw product gas is mainly H₂ (~75% of feed gas ends up as H₂ by volume when CH₄ fully converts) plus any uncracked CH₄. They each use cyclones/filters to remove solid carbon from the gaschemengonline.com. After that, the remaining impurities are CH₄ (and in Hazer’s case a bit of H₂O or CO if any side reactions, though ideally none). Typically, a small PSA unit can upgrade the H₂ to 99.999% by removing CH₄. Graphitic has indicated that due to high conversion, they can avoid complex recycle or purification – implying most of the methane is converted in one passchemengonline.com. Hazer has mentioned expecting >99% conversion across their process (especially if using a cascade of reactors)patents.google.compatents.google.com, but in practice there may be some slip. Both companies likely recycle any small methane slip to maximize efficiency. One difference: Graphitic’s process does introduce a small amount of H₂O vapor (from H₂ combustion) into the gas, which must be condensed out; Hazer’s introduces some H₂O from iron oxide reduction, similarly condensed out. Neither produces CO₂ or CO in the main stream, so hydrogen purity is high and free of carbon oxides, a big advantage over SMR (which needs water-gas shift and CO₂ removal). In sum, both deliver fuel-cell-grade H₂. As evidence, Hazer’s hydrogen is already being used to power a fuel cell on-siteresearch.csiro.au, and Graphitic’s hydrogen is positioned for refinery/ammonia use where purity specs are stringentglobenewswire.com.

Carbon Product Form & Purity: Both processes aim to produce solid carbon in graphitic form, but the characteristics differ slightly:

Graphitic Energy: Produces graphite with high crystallinity – described as highly crystalline graphitic carbongraphitic.com. This carbon comes out essentially free of catalyst or other contaminants (since the catalyst is separate and not incorporated into the carbon structure). No additional thermal processing is required to achieve crystallinitygraphitic.com. The particle morphology hasn’t been publicly described in detail, but likely it is a fine graphite powder (possibly agglomerated flakes). Graphitic has offtake partners testing it for battery and industrial usescen.acs.org. The purity is presumably very high (>>95% C, low ash), given they tout it as a valuable product.

Hazer Group: Produces synthetic graphite as well, often characterized as 99%+ graphitic carbon in communications. However, because iron is used, the graphite may initially contain some iron or iron oxide impurities. Achieving “high-purity graphite” has been a focus of their optimization**promotion blocked**.com.au. Techniques such as running the reactor in certain conditions to favor carbon over iron, or post-treating the product (e.g. acid washing), might be employed. Hazer has shown confidence by lining up trials for their graphite in demanding applications like battery anodes and advanced materialschemengonline.com, so they likely can reach purity levels in the high-90s% carbon, with controlled impurity levels. An interesting nuance: Hazer’s carbon might come off in larger graphite flakes (precipitated layers) attached to iron cores, whereas Graphitic’s carbon might nucleate and grow on inert surfaces, possibly yielding different particle sizes. Hazer’s product is explicitly called “graphite” and targeted to be structurally similar to commercial synthetic graphite used in industryglobenewswire.com.

Carbon handling: Graphitic’s carbon is continuously removed and can be packaged directly, whereas Hazer’s carbon is removed mixed with catalyst fines that may need separation. Hazer might recycle the iron after separating graphite (perhaps magnetically or by sieving if sizes differ). In the demo plant, Hazer likely collects a mixed carbon/catalyst and periodically sends it for analysis/purification off-line. In commercial design, a continuous separator to recover iron for reuse (and yield pure graphite) would improve economics. Graphitic avoids this issue by keeping catalyst separate in a circulation loop and only letting pure carbon exit.

Energy Supply & Integration:Graphitic and Hazer both avoid heavy electricity usage, but their heat supply strategies differ:

Graphitic integrates heat generation internally by catalytically combusting hydrogen within a molten salt or directly on catalystcen.acs.orgchemengonline.com. This means the endothermic methane cracking is directly coupled with an exothermic H₂ oxidation in the reactor system. The benefit is highly efficient heat transfer and zero emissions heat. The trade-off is sacrificing some hydrogen (product) for heating, but as noted, the fraction is relatively small and the economics can tolerate itgraphitic.com.

Hazer uses a more traditional heat supply – an external furnace or heat exchanger. In the CDP, they leveraged biogas combustion in a separate unit to heat the reactor (the mention of a heat-exchange vessel fabricationresearch.csiro.au). They also convert some product H₂ to electricity via a fuel cell for auxiliary powerresearch.csiro.au. In a full-scale plant, Hazer could burn a portion of natural gas feed or product hydrogen in a heater to maintain the reactor temperature. This is somewhat analogous to SMR’s fired heater (though here no CO₂ from the reactor, only from the heater if fossil fuel is used). Both approaches can be tuned to recover heat: Graphitic can potentially recover heat from hot solids/gases in the fluid loop; Hazer can recover heat from flue gas or the product gas sensible heat. Both companies aim for high overall thermal efficiency to beat competing H₂ routes.

Energy Efficiency: In terms of theoretical energy use, both need ~75 kJ per mole CH₄ reacted. Graphitic’s internal heating might reduce losses and enable efficient heat use. Hazer’s external heating could have some stack losses but can be optimized with heat integration (e.g., preheating feed gas with hot effluent, etc.). Given Hazer’s statement of competitiveness, we can infer their pilot is achieving decent thermal performance. Neither has published an exact energy-per-kg-H₂ figure yet, but generically pyrolysis can reach ~60-70% thermal efficiency (with the rest of energy ending in the carbon’s chemical energy). If the carbon is sold, that “lost” energy isn’t wasted but embodied in a product.

Environmental Impact: Both processes belong to the “turquoise hydrogen” category with near-zero direct CO₂ emissions. This is a huge advantage over gray hydrogen (SMR without CCS). Any CO₂ emissions would come from upstream power or fuel used for heat. Graphitic claims essentially zero direct CO₂globenewswire.com, and minimal indirect since little electricity is used. Hazer similarly has no direct CO₂ from methane cracking; at the CDP, the only CO₂ was from burning some biogas for heat, which is biogenic CO₂ (carbon-neutral) or from grid electricity usage, which they mitigated via the fuel cell. Both processes avoid methane slip (unburned methane emissions) by design – Graphitic recycles or converts essentially all CH₄, and Hazer’s closed-loop ensures any unreacted CH₄ is not vented but would be captured and recycled or burned. One environmental consideration is solid carbon handling: both produce solid carbon that must be managed or utilized. If either process were to produce more carbon than can be sold, long-term storage or disposal would be needed (landfilling graphite is possible but not ideal). However, both companies are banking on selling the carbon. If carbon is sold into industrial uses that eventually burn it (e.g., using the graphite in steelmaking will oxidize it to CO₂), then the overall cycle isn’t carbon-free – it just displaces other carbon sources. If used in batteries or materials, the carbon stays sequestered for a long time. In any case, the immediate process emissions are negligible, and both Graphitic and Hazer tout a much lower lifecycle CO₂ footprint than competing H₂ production methodschemengonline.comglobenewswire.com. Notably, Hazer’s use of biogas can make the hydrogen carbon-negative on a lifecycle basis, since it effectively locks away biogenic carbon that would have been emittedresearch.csiro.au.

Commercial Readiness: Both companies are at advanced pilot/demo stages (similar scale) but have different commercialization models:

Graphitic (C-Zero) is a venture-backed startup working with industry partners (Technip) to license or build its first commercial units. Its pilot (Texas, 2024) is producing large samples and scale-up dataglobenewswire.com. They target an FID on a commercial plant by 2026graphitic.com and emphasize scaling to world-scale hydrogen without subsidiesglobenewswire.com. They have raised significant funding (~$65 million) to dateglobenewswire.com.

Hazer is an ASX-listed company that has built a “commercial demonstration” with government (ARENA) support and is pursuing licensing and joint venture projects globally**promotion blocked**.com.au. Their first commercial plant will be via FortisBC in Canada, likely operational in the mid-to-late 2020s. Hazer’s strategy is to prove the tech in the CDP, then enable deployments by partners; they have multiple MOUs and collaborations (North America, Asia, Europe) in the pipeline**promotion blocked**.com.au. They have also secured patents in many jurisdictions**promotion blocked**.com.au.

In terms of timeline, both are looking at the late 2020s for scaling to tens of thousands of tons of H₂ per year. Graphitic’s aggressive single-train scale (up to 100k t/yr H₂) claimglobenewswire.com, if realized, would leapfrog in capacity. Hazer might take a modular scale-up approach (e.g., a few thousand tons per plant initially, then bigger units if graphite markets allow). One must note the carbon market constraint: Both processes produce roughly 3 tonnes of carbon for every 1 tonne of H₂. The global hydrogen demand is orders of magnitude larger than current graphite demandcen.acs.org. Lux Research analysts pointed out that if methane pyrolysis were scaled to supply significant global H₂, it would saturate the carbon market and make the carbon nearly worthlesscen.acs.orgcen.acs.org. Both companies are aware of this and thus are targeting high-value carbon markets to make early projects profitablegraphitic.comchemengonline.com. Over time, scaling might depend on finding bulk uses or disposal for carbon (e.g., building materials or permanent storage). In the near term, however, both can likely sell their limited quantities of graphite at premium prices, aiding their economics.

The table below summarizes key attributes of Graphitic Energy’s vs. Hazer Group’s methane pyrolysis processes:

AttributeGraphitic Energy Process (C-Zero)Hazer Group Process (Hazer)Reactor DesignCirculating fluidized-bed reactor (gas–solid); integrates in-situ heating via H₂ combustioncen.acs.orgcen.acs.org. Large single-train design possible (up to 100k t H₂/yr)globenewswire.com.Fluidized-bed reactor (gas–solid) using a fixed bed (with continuous feed/withdrawal); externally heated. Potential cascade of multiple beds for conversion/purity (per patents)patents.google.com. Scalable via multiple trains or larger FBRs.CatalystUndisclosed proprietary solid catalyst. Used to catalyze CH₄ cracking and burn H₂ for heat; not consumed in bulk (circulates in system)cen.acs.org. No catalyst contamination of product carbon.Low-grade iron ore (Fe₂O₃) as catalystchemengonline.com. In-situ reduced to metallic iron, which catalyzes CH₄ decompositionchemengonline.com. Iron participates in reaction (forms iron carbides, etc.); continuous addition of fresh ore and handling of spent catalyst required.Operating Temp.< 800 °C (catalytic regime)graphitic.com. Lower temps enabled by catalyst and H₂-burning; easier materials of construction.~850 °C (800–900 °C typical)luxresearchinc.com. Iron catalyst lowers required temperature vs thermal; still need high temp but manageable with standard alloys.Operating PressureNot publicly specified; likely ~1 atm (pilot). Design could allow elevated pressure if needed for kinetics.Not explicitly stated; possibly near atmospheric in demo. Patent suggests higher pressures in later stages could boost yieldpatents.google.com.Hydrogen ProductionTurquoise H₂ gas with no direct CO₂. After carbon removal, H₂ ~99% purity (small CH₄/H₂O impurities removed via drying and PSA). Uses a fraction of H₂ as fuel for process heatgraphitic.com, but net H₂ output is high. Pilot: few hundred kg H₂/daycen.acs.org. Commercial design: up to ~100,000 t/yr H₂ in one trainglobenewswire.com.Turquoise H₂ gas, also CO₂-free. Product gas (H₂ with some CH₄, H₂O) is cleaned by condensation and (likely) PSA to high purity. A portion of H₂ can be used in a fuel cell or burned for energy. Demo scale: ~100 t H₂/yr (~0.27 t/day)research.csiro.au. Future plants expected in the thousands of t/yr H₂ (FortisBC project, etc.).Carbon ProductSolid graphitic carbon (“graphite”) with high crystallinitycen.acs.org. Formed as fine particles; continuously separated via cycloneschemengonline.com. High purity – no metal contamination, usable without further processinggraphitic.com. Marketed as synthetic graphite for batteries, additives, etc.Solid graphite (graphitic carbon) precipitated on iron particleschemengonline.com. Collected as graphite powder mixed with iron. Needs separation from iron for high purity. Targeting high-purity graphite (demonstrated in CDP runs) for use in steelmaking, batteries, etc.chemengonline.com. Some post-processing (e.g. magnetic or chemical separation) may be required to achieve battery-grade purity.Heat/Energy InputEndothermic heat supplied by burning H₂ in-situ (catalytic combustion in reactor)cen.acs.org. Minimizes external energy input. Very low electricity requirement (only for auxiliaries)graphitic.com. Efficient heat integration due to direct coupling; less than 1/5th the energy per H₂ vs electrolysis neededchemengonline.com.Endothermic heat supplied externally, e.g. via a fired heater using feed gas or product gas. In demo, biogas is burned in a heat exchanger vesselresearch.csiro.au. Incorporates a hydrogen fuel cell to generate on-site power from some H₂research.csiro.au. Overall energy use still far lower than electrolysis (CH₄ splitting << H₂O splitting)chemengonline.com. Heat recovery and integration (feed preheat, etc.) employed to boost efficiency.Emissions/By-productsNo direct CO₂ emissions from processglobenewswire.com. Only by-product is water (from H₂ combustion). Carbon is captured as solid. If renewable electricity/O₂ used, process is essentially zero-carbon. Solid carbon can be stored or sold, avoiding CO₂ release.No direct CO₂ from reactor. Minor CO₂ only if fossil fuel is burned for heat (which can be mitigated by using a portion of biogas or H₂). Using biogas feedstock can make the process carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative (solid carbon sequesters biogenic CO₂)research.csiro.au. No other emissions; the only gas outputs are H₂ (product) and some H₂O/unused CH₄ which are managed.Current DeploymentPilot plant (2024) at SWRI, Texas – 1 ton C/day + few hundred kg H₂/daycen.acs.org. Thousands of hours operated with no carbon foulinggraphitic.com. Planning FOAK commercial plant by ~2026 (FID)graphitic.com. Partnered with Technip Energies for engineering scale-upglobenewswire.com. Backed by venture funding ($65M raised)globenewswire.com.Commercial Demonstration Plant (2023) in Perth – 100 t/yr H₂, 380 t/yr graphiteresearch.csiro.au. Achieved first H₂/graphite production Jan 2024globenewswire.com; demonstrated 10+ days continuous operation in 2024hydrogen-central.com. Supported by ARENA (grant) and strategic investors. Moving to first commercial projects: e.g. licensed plant with FortisBC in Canada (in development)**promotion blocked**.com.au, and MOUs with partners in Europe/Asia. Scaling likely via partnerships; ~70 patents protecting technology**promotion blocked**.com.au.

Sources: The comparison above is synthesized from company publications, patent filings, and independent analyses, including Graphitic Energy’s technology briefgraphitic.comgraphitic.com, a C&EN news report on Graphitic’s pilotcen.acs.orgcen.acs.org, Hazer Group’s patent WO2016154666 (2016)patents.google.compatents.google.com, an article in Chemical Engineering with input from Hazer’s CTOchemengonline.comchemengonline.com, and recent press releases and updates from both companiesglobenewswire.comresearch.csiro.au.

Conclusion

Graphitic Energy and Hazer Group have each innovated a methane pyrolysis route to clean hydrogen, but with different philosophies. Graphitic’s process centers on a proprietary catalyst and clever integration of hydrogen-burning for heat, yielding a high-purity graphite byproduct and enabling large single-train scales at slightly lower temperatures. Hazer’s process leverages the innate catalytic power of iron ore to crack methane at moderate temperatures, producing synthetic graphite while using a readily available catalyst and aiming for simplicity and low cost. Both processes achieve the primary goal of “turquoise” hydrogen: no direct CO₂ emissions and solid carbon co-production.

In terms of reactor and catalyst design, Graphitic’s circulating bed with an engineered catalyst contrasts with Hazer’s simpler fluidized bed with a commodity catalyst – each approach has pros and cons (e.g., potentially higher carbon purity for Graphitic vs. lower catalyst cost for Hazer). Operating conditions are in the same ballpark (~800–850 °C), proving that catalytic methane pyrolysis can indeed run much cooler than non-catalytic cracking. Hydrogen quality from both is high, and in both cases a fraction of H₂ can be used to drive the process (either via direct combustion or via fuel cell power), demonstrating innovative energy integration to minimize external inputs. Carbon product management is crucial for both: Graphitic appears to have an edge in producing very pure graphite free of catalyst, whereas Hazer is mastering techniques to separate and purify graphite from an iron-rich process stream. Ultimately, both companies treat carbon as a value-added product, which is key to making the economics work without subsidiesgraphitic.comglobenewswire.com.

Regarding energy efficiency and emissions, both methods are far more energy-efficient than electrolytic hydrogen and avoid the vast majority of emissions associated with SMR. They illustrate two viable ways to leverage methane’s energy while preventing CO₂: one by pre-combustion carbon removal (solid carbon) and the other by using methane as a hydrogen carrier where the carbon is dropped out as a solid. Lifecycle analyses indicate that, provided the heat supply is clean, these processes can reduce CO₂ per kg H₂ by an order of magnitude relative to SMRchemengonline.com.

On scalability and status, Graphitic and Hazer are roughly neck-and-neck in demonstrating their technologies at scale. Each has a pilot/demo capable of ~1 ton carbon per day, proving continuous operation. The next hurdle is scaling to commercial plants that are an order of magnitude larger. Graphitic’s strategy leans on industry partnerships (Technip) and large capital infusion to build big units in the U.S., while Hazer leverages regional partnerships and public funding (in Australia, Canada, etc.) to deploy units via licensing. Both must also nurture markets for their graphite: high-purity graphite from renewable sources is itself in demand (e.g., for batteries), but volume growth must be balanced against global supply needs to maintain valuecen.acs.orgcen.acs.org.

In conclusion, Graphitic Energy’s and Hazer Group’s methane pyrolysis processes are leading examples of “turquoise hydrogen” technology. They share the fundamental chemistry (CH₄ → H₂ + C) and goals, yet implement it differently – one with a more engineered catalyst system, the other with a raw-material catalyst approach. These differences influence reactor design, product handling, and scalability, as detailed above. Both have shown that their approach can produce clean hydrogen and solid carbon continuously at pilot scale, marking significant progress in the quest for low-carbon hydrogen. As they move to commercial deployment, factors like economic viability, catalyst/coke management, and carbon product marketability will determine their success. If successful, these technologies could allow abundant natural gas (including biogas) to be used for hydrogen energy without greenhouse emissions, while also supplying valuable carbon materialscen.acs.orgchemengonline.com – a compelling win-win for energy and materials industries in the transition to a lower-carbon future.

References:

Graphitic Energy – Technology Overview. Graphitic Energy (2025). – Explains methane pyrolysis basics, temperature ranges (catalytic 800–900 °C vs non-catalytic >1200 °C), and common challenges with high-temperature reactorsgraphitic.comgraphitic.com.

Graphitic Energy – Technology Page. Graphitic Energy (2025). – Describes Graphitic’s unique process: fluidized-bed design for scalability, <800 °C operation, low electrical energy use, and production of crystalline carbon without extra treatmentgraphitic.comgraphitic.comgraphitic.com.

Chemical Engineering – “Commercial Progress on Turquoise Hydrogen” (Jenkins & Fromm, 2023). – Industry article summarizing various methane pyrolysis players; notes C-Zero (Graphitic) uses a molten-media bubble-column reactor with external molten salt H₂ combustor, and Hazer uses raw iron ore in a fluidized-bedchemengonline.comchemengonline.com.

Chemical Engineering (ibid.) – Direct quotes from Hazer’s CTO on the process: iron ore catalyst is reduced by H₂ then cracks CH₄; carbon dissolves in iron and precipitates as graphite; lower temperature reduces wall carbon foulingchemengonline.comchemengonline.com.

Lux Research – Methane Pyrolysis Tech Landscape (Lux, 2021). – Categorizes pyrolysis approaches; notes Hazer as leading catalytic player (fluidized bed at 850 °C with iron ore) and C-Zero (Graphitic) as a newcomer likely using a catalytic process with molten salt for carbon separationluxresearchinc.comluxresearchinc.com.

C&EN (ACS) – “Graphitic Energy starts up turquoise hydrogen pilot” (Bettenhausen, 2025) – News article on Graphitic’s pilot plant: 1 t/day carbon and few hundred kg H₂/day in Texas; Graphitic’s carbon is in form of graphite; technology shifted from a liquid catalyst to an undisclosed solid catalyst that oxidizes some H₂ for heat (prompting name change from C-Zero)cen.acs.orgcen.acs.orgcen.acs.org.

Hazer Group – Patent WO2016154666A1 (2016). – Patent for producing hydrogen and graphitic carbon with iron ore catalyst: suggests operating 700–950 °C (pref. 800–900 °C); iron oxide is reduced to iron, methane forms iron carbide and then precipitates graphite; mentions cascade reactor setup for higher purity graphitepatents.google.compatents.google.compatents.google.com.

Hazer Group – ARENA Project Report (HyResource/CSIRO, 2024). – Details of Hazer’s Commercial Demonstration Plant: 100 t H₂/yr, 380 t graphite/yr capacity; uses biogas feed; portion of H₂ runs a fuel cell for power; plant co-located at wastewater facility; capital cost A$23–25Mresearch.csiro.auresearch.csiro.auresearch.csiro.au.

Globe Newswire – “Hazer Achieves First Hydrogen and Graphite at Commercial Demonstration Plant” (Jan 2024). – Announcement of Hazer’s first H₂ and graphite production at the CDP, calling it the world’s first commercial-level demonstration of methane pyrolysis producing clean H₂ and graphiteglobenewswire.comglobenewswire.com.

Small Caps (AU) – “Hazer Group demonstration plant on track for 2024 completion” (Hay, Sep 2024). – Update on Hazer CDP progress: 362 hours continuous operation achieved; fluidized-bed reactor chosen for scalability; over 70 patents filed; focus on high-purity graphite production in final test campaign**promotion blocked**.com.au**promotion blocked**.com.au**promotion blocked**.com.au.

Hydrogen Central – “Hazer Group – 240 Hours Continuous Operation… 97.5% Uptime” (Aug 2024). – Reports Hazer’s sustained operation milestone: stable hydrogen & graphite production over 10 days, ongoing optimization of conversion rates and graphite qualityhydrogen-central.comhydrogen-central.com.

Graphitic Energy – Press Release: Pilot Plant Commissioned (Graphitic/Globe Newswire, Mar 2025). – Confirms Graphitic (ex C-Zero) pilot at SWRI is online (1000 kg C/day, few hundred kg H₂/day); virtually no CO₂ emissions, little electricity; can scale to 100k t/yr H₂; funded by BEV, etc.globenewswire.comglobenewswire.com.

Graphitic Energy – Press Release: Technip Energies Collaboration (May 2025). – Announces Technip partnership; mentions Graphitic’s fluidized-bed tech can produce 100k t H₂/yr in one train, with no direct CO₂ and low electricity; Technip to help standardize design and scale globallyglobenewswire.comglobenewswire.com.

Chemical & Engineering News – (see Source 6 above). – Contains Lux Research commentary: Graphitic’s earlier liquid catalyst gave low-value amorphous carbon, new solid-catalyst approach yields crystalline graphite and is easier to scale; also notes market mismatch between H₂ and carbon volumescen.acs.orgcen.acs.org.

FuelCellsWorks – “Hazer Group Secures US Patent for Hydrogen & Graphitic Carbon Production” (2021). – Highlights Hazer’s patent approvals, protecting its methane pyrolysis using iron ore; underlines that the Hazer process produces clean hydrogen and high-quality graphite.fuelcellsworks.com (Note: general context).