This is really cool, I know a few different teams that have taken a look at similar approaches over the last 20 years, I hope you're able to make it work! I've been wanting something like this to succeed for a long time. Please take these questions (and assumptions) as earnest curiosity. I realize you may not be able to share answers if it touches anything proprietary.
On the chemistry side:
In step 1, you say using adsorbents, so i'm guessing some combo of iron oxide to desiccant to activated carbon for the siloxanes, and then maybe ZnO (based on your likely catalyst chemistry). At typical anaerobic biogas H2S concentrations, that's quite a bit of OPEX for media I imagine, and the risk of some breakthrough poisoning your reaction catalyst. Are you only working with partners that have desulfurization in place already? And how much attention do these skids need day to day, are you expecting full-time operator presence? Remote monitoring? How are you catching breakthrough before it takes out a catalyst charge?
I'm guessing bi-reforming is partly how you tune your way out of the carbon deposition problem, but in my experience real biogas composition drifts around depending on what's going into the digester, so i'm curious how much margin you actually have on the H2O/CO2/CH4 ratio before you're back in the coking regime. Are you trimming steam in real-time based on gas composition or running fixed excess (further trading economics)? Was the bench-scale test run on a simulated dynamic biogas stream? Was there much activity decline over the run?
On the economics side:
DME into cosmetics seems like a great high-margin entry point. As you point out, most methanol is produced from large centralized plants, but they have real fixed-cost advantage that a modular approach structurally doesn't (along with storage and distribution headaches from many smaller production sites). Are you assuming some customers will pay a premium for the resilience of a distributed network? How much of the methanol case is cost reduction at your expected scale versus 45Z-type credits? And you probably can't share, but I'm curious the most you can pay a producer for their biogas and still pencil relative to RNG buyers who may be bidding for the same stream?
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and questions :)
We take in raw biogas and do the scrubbing ourselves. We are working with a specialized gas cleaning firm to build the gas cleaning step of our process. It is not as OPEX heavy as you would expect and we have a very good sense of how clean we will be able to get the gas with this system (down to low ppb levels). We monitor H2S levels continuously and that informs us whether there is a risk of poisoning the catalyst. At scale the whole unit will be automated, including this step of the process and will only require attention for maintenance and restarting after a shutdown.
I cannot comment to much on how we attack this problem. What I can say is that we do have a solution for the biogas composition drifting. The bench-scale test was partially run on a dynamic biogas stream as we did tune it once or twice over the 1800 hours, but not heavily. There was no real activity decline over the 1800 hour run, we stopped it because our methane cylinder ran empty funnily enough.
You make a great point on competing versus large scale plants with the economies of scale advantage. One way we look to attack that advantage is by numbering up, going down the manufacturing learning curve and seriously reducing our CAPEX from FOAK to NOAK. Another way is simply by being able to deploy these units super fast and have them paid back by the time a large plant would be in the permitting phase.
From an OPEX perspective, we have found that Urban Areas as well as some rural areas present really great opportunities for localized distribution networks where a chemical customer is always surrounded by a multitude of biogas sites. This enables us to cut transport down to a fractional cost because we are moving DME only 50 miles instead of 500.
Lastly, we do not bake in any credits into our cost models. Even so, our TEA and ASPEN simulations show we have some of the lowest cost green DME and Methanol outside of China. Part of that is because we do get biogas for quite cheap, many of the sites we are targeting are too small for RNG. Even if they are large enough for RNG, many sites really like the 0 capex solution that we are commercializing. At the current price we are paying for biogas we are the most profitable biogas utilization solution for 80% of biogas volume (measured by how much net cash flow we generate for the biogas producer over a 20 year lifespan)
We really appreciate the questions! If you are interested in asking more questions feel free to reach out via linkedIn or at jona@rise-reforming.com!
Congrats on everything you've accomplished so far! You emphasize two-sided marketplace so, I'm wondering, from y'alls POV which side is more difficult/which side are you going after harder? Naturally you need to do both, but realistically, one side is always more challenging and more important and it's not always obvious which is which.
Awesome question! I've spent all of my time this summer grinding out both the biogas supply and the chemical offtake and I think it will always be slightly easier to convince someone to let you buy something from them than to get someone to buy something from you. We do also intend to always be ahead on biogas supply volumes (ensuring we have more signed biogas supply than signed chemical offtake). Overall I think the biogas supply side is less challenging but I will say that they are equally essential to how we operate.
Congrats! I've worked on a similar technology converting waste syngas to 3-hydroxy-butyrate for further applications. Unfortunately in my case, we couldn't see any valuable and scalable end products from that particular molecule but I'm excited to follow your journey. Best of luck!
Thanks for the comment and the kind words! That does sound like a pretty cool technology! Is 3-hydroxy-butyrate a specialty chemical? Or would you also end up selling it as a commodity? What does the process look like in going from syngas to 3-hydroxy-butyrate?
It was using genetically modified bacteria via industrial fermentation. It's essentially a specialty chemical used in pharma, automotive, paints & adhesives and theoretically for biodegradable plastics but unfortunately PHB (the plastic you can make out of it) doesn't have great properties. All in all, the 3HB market was pretty small with tight supply chains and not a huge amount of growth. I'm sure you guys will have more success depending on your outputs.
Congrats on breaking ground. Curious about the electricity input side. Reforming is endothermic, so I assume the unit has a meaningful power draw. At a wastewater plant, do you run off the facility's existing service or do you need a utility upgrade, and can the unit ramp with power prices or does the catalyst want steady state? Asking because at small sites the electrical interconnection can quietly become the long pole even when the gas is free.
The power draw is meaningful but from our ASPEN simulations it is not as crazy as you would expect. So far all of the utilities we have spoken to have the power capabilities to host us on their sites without any upgrades. We do intend to operate at steady state. Naturally, we are still targeting states with low industrial electricity prices to lower this aspect of our cost.
I'm curious how hard the go to market in hard tech like this is? What is the long term economic model in terms of what you think the margin can be and what the incentives for plants to adopt this technology?
Great question! Thanks for asking. The GTM is tricky because it is so closely linked with scaling the technology, and because it is so two-sided. The way we currently do it is we look to build strong relationships with potential customers over time, getting in contact early and strengthening relationships as we scale the technology. So with many potential customers, we will first sign an LOI or MOU and then with every scale-up in technology we can formalize those relationships a little bit more. Until you get to a point where you have customers that you can convert to binding offtake agreements. We use a very similar script on the biogas supply side. And everytime you scale the tech further it becomes a little easier because a larger pool of companies is willing to engage and take the risk of doing business with you.
In the long term, we will look to be build, own and operate these units. Based on chemical engineering simulations and techno-economic modelling, we think we can be price competitive with fossil-derived DME and be the cheapest green methanol on the market with pretty strong margins for the chemical industry (where margins usually hover around 10%).
Thanks for question! One of the benefits of our tech is we think we can go to pretty small sites and still be profitable. Our latest estimate is that a site would need to produce around 45 SCFM of biogas for us to be able to install a unit (around 14000 MMBtu/yr).
Initially we will likely have an operator on-site keeping an eye on the first few units. But as we scale the idea is for these units to be automated. No labor needed to run it. We can keep tabs on all of the units from a centralized location and if there are any process hiccups it shuts down automatically. We could then send a technician (who oversees multiple sites in the area)_come out to the site and restart the unit.
Why biogas specifically? This should work fine with regular fossil methane, and it will de-risk your deployments. There are plenty of places in Texas that uselessly flare the natural gas instead of doing anything with it.
We do it with biogas specifically because it enables us to produce chemicals with a 90% lower carbon footprint. Our thesis has always been that when you combine cheap waste feedstocks and an efficent enough process, you could produce green chemicals that are cost competitive with the fossil alternative. Biogas is the ideal waste feedstock because it gives us a low CI, is produced 24/7 and is quite consistent in its composition. We also get it for relatively cheap.
Our process is also more efficient with CO2 so we actually like the CO2 being present.
I think the first priority for you should be getting _something_ built and proving your core technology. But you are making it harder for yourself by adding more variables.
Natural gas is abundant in some areas and is wasted. If you can prove that you can build cost-efficient small-scale synthesis units, then moving to biogas should later be a no-brainer.
I'm also pretty sure that you need to pre-treat the gas to remove stuff like sulfur or ammonia from it. And you can get that for "free" in places that distill the LPG from the well gas.
From a "cynical investor" point of view, it looks like you're knee-capping yourself by going for a vastly smaller market. To me this is a huge red flag, usually pointing to companies that either do green-washing, or already plan to pivot once they get the initial investment.
I disagree with this, I work in the same field and I left a startup for the exact same reason of what you're proposing. There are a subset of founders probably like these folks and myself who would rather not build anything at all then continue to create BAU and raise money/build a product with the intention of 'one day maybe we'll make it sustainable'. How about RIGHT NOW, how about building things FROM THE GET GO based on deep principles that what you introduce from the start is already more beneficial for the planet. And I doubt they're greenwashing because there are several 3rd party verified certifications that can attest to whatever theyre producing is what they say it is, and then it becomes a matter of which certification.
A technology that would reduce the amount of uselessly flared natural gas is going to help in itself. It's not a question of abandoning principles, but starting from something that is easier to do and reducing the risk of not getting _anything_ out.
We really need solutions like this if we are going to reverse atmospheric carbon the necessary amount to mitigate planetary catastrophe. Thanks for working on this. Good luck.
Thanks for the kind words! We appreciate it, let me know if you'd like me to add you to our newsletter. You can also sign up for it at rise-reforming.com/team.
If you know the name of this site I will reach out to them this week because the location is pretty ideal. Texas is the walhalla for chemicals in the U.S. so we are definitely scouting as many sites as possible in Texas. Do you happen to know the address of the site?
This is really cool, I know a few different teams that have taken a look at similar approaches over the last 20 years, I hope you're able to make it work! I've been wanting something like this to succeed for a long time. Please take these questions (and assumptions) as earnest curiosity. I realize you may not be able to share answers if it touches anything proprietary.
On the chemistry side: In step 1, you say using adsorbents, so i'm guessing some combo of iron oxide to desiccant to activated carbon for the siloxanes, and then maybe ZnO (based on your likely catalyst chemistry). At typical anaerobic biogas H2S concentrations, that's quite a bit of OPEX for media I imagine, and the risk of some breakthrough poisoning your reaction catalyst. Are you only working with partners that have desulfurization in place already? And how much attention do these skids need day to day, are you expecting full-time operator presence? Remote monitoring? How are you catching breakthrough before it takes out a catalyst charge?
I'm guessing bi-reforming is partly how you tune your way out of the carbon deposition problem, but in my experience real biogas composition drifts around depending on what's going into the digester, so i'm curious how much margin you actually have on the H2O/CO2/CH4 ratio before you're back in the coking regime. Are you trimming steam in real-time based on gas composition or running fixed excess (further trading economics)? Was the bench-scale test run on a simulated dynamic biogas stream? Was there much activity decline over the run?
On the economics side: DME into cosmetics seems like a great high-margin entry point. As you point out, most methanol is produced from large centralized plants, but they have real fixed-cost advantage that a modular approach structurally doesn't (along with storage and distribution headaches from many smaller production sites). Are you assuming some customers will pay a premium for the resilience of a distributed network? How much of the methanol case is cost reduction at your expected scale versus 45Z-type credits? And you probably can't share, but I'm curious the most you can pay a producer for their biogas and still pencil relative to RNG buyers who may be bidding for the same stream?
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment and questions :)
We take in raw biogas and do the scrubbing ourselves. We are working with a specialized gas cleaning firm to build the gas cleaning step of our process. It is not as OPEX heavy as you would expect and we have a very good sense of how clean we will be able to get the gas with this system (down to low ppb levels). We monitor H2S levels continuously and that informs us whether there is a risk of poisoning the catalyst. At scale the whole unit will be automated, including this step of the process and will only require attention for maintenance and restarting after a shutdown.
I cannot comment to much on how we attack this problem. What I can say is that we do have a solution for the biogas composition drifting. The bench-scale test was partially run on a dynamic biogas stream as we did tune it once or twice over the 1800 hours, but not heavily. There was no real activity decline over the 1800 hour run, we stopped it because our methane cylinder ran empty funnily enough.
You make a great point on competing versus large scale plants with the economies of scale advantage. One way we look to attack that advantage is by numbering up, going down the manufacturing learning curve and seriously reducing our CAPEX from FOAK to NOAK. Another way is simply by being able to deploy these units super fast and have them paid back by the time a large plant would be in the permitting phase.
From an OPEX perspective, we have found that Urban Areas as well as some rural areas present really great opportunities for localized distribution networks where a chemical customer is always surrounded by a multitude of biogas sites. This enables us to cut transport down to a fractional cost because we are moving DME only 50 miles instead of 500.
Lastly, we do not bake in any credits into our cost models. Even so, our TEA and ASPEN simulations show we have some of the lowest cost green DME and Methanol outside of China. Part of that is because we do get biogas for quite cheap, many of the sites we are targeting are too small for RNG. Even if they are large enough for RNG, many sites really like the 0 capex solution that we are commercializing. At the current price we are paying for biogas we are the most profitable biogas utilization solution for 80% of biogas volume (measured by how much net cash flow we generate for the biogas producer over a 20 year lifespan)
We really appreciate the questions! If you are interested in asking more questions feel free to reach out via linkedIn or at jona@rise-reforming.com!
Congrats on everything you've accomplished so far! You emphasize two-sided marketplace so, I'm wondering, from y'alls POV which side is more difficult/which side are you going after harder? Naturally you need to do both, but realistically, one side is always more challenging and more important and it's not always obvious which is which.
Awesome question! I've spent all of my time this summer grinding out both the biogas supply and the chemical offtake and I think it will always be slightly easier to convince someone to let you buy something from them than to get someone to buy something from you. We do also intend to always be ahead on biogas supply volumes (ensuring we have more signed biogas supply than signed chemical offtake). Overall I think the biogas supply side is less challenging but I will say that they are equally essential to how we operate.
Congrats! I've worked on a similar technology converting waste syngas to 3-hydroxy-butyrate for further applications. Unfortunately in my case, we couldn't see any valuable and scalable end products from that particular molecule but I'm excited to follow your journey. Best of luck!
Thanks for the comment and the kind words! That does sound like a pretty cool technology! Is 3-hydroxy-butyrate a specialty chemical? Or would you also end up selling it as a commodity? What does the process look like in going from syngas to 3-hydroxy-butyrate?
It was using genetically modified bacteria via industrial fermentation. It's essentially a specialty chemical used in pharma, automotive, paints & adhesives and theoretically for biodegradable plastics but unfortunately PHB (the plastic you can make out of it) doesn't have great properties. All in all, the 3HB market was pretty small with tight supply chains and not a huge amount of growth. I'm sure you guys will have more success depending on your outputs.
Not exactly similar technology* but similar domain.
Congrats on breaking ground. Curious about the electricity input side. Reforming is endothermic, so I assume the unit has a meaningful power draw. At a wastewater plant, do you run off the facility's existing service or do you need a utility upgrade, and can the unit ramp with power prices or does the catalyst want steady state? Asking because at small sites the electrical interconnection can quietly become the long pole even when the gas is free.
Great question! Thanks for asking :)
The power draw is meaningful but from our ASPEN simulations it is not as crazy as you would expect. So far all of the utilities we have spoken to have the power capabilities to host us on their sites without any upgrades. We do intend to operate at steady state. Naturally, we are still targeting states with low industrial electricity prices to lower this aspect of our cost.
This is very cool.
I'm curious how hard the go to market in hard tech like this is? What is the long term economic model in terms of what you think the margin can be and what the incentives for plants to adopt this technology?
Great question! Thanks for asking. The GTM is tricky because it is so closely linked with scaling the technology, and because it is so two-sided. The way we currently do it is we look to build strong relationships with potential customers over time, getting in contact early and strengthening relationships as we scale the technology. So with many potential customers, we will first sign an LOI or MOU and then with every scale-up in technology we can formalize those relationships a little bit more. Until you get to a point where you have customers that you can convert to binding offtake agreements. We use a very similar script on the biogas supply side. And everytime you scale the tech further it becomes a little easier because a larger pool of companies is willing to engage and take the risk of doing business with you.
In the long term, we will look to be build, own and operate these units. Based on chemical engineering simulations and techno-economic modelling, we think we can be price competitive with fossil-derived DME and be the cheapest green methanol on the market with pretty strong margins for the chemical industry (where margins usually hover around 10%).
Let me know if you have more questions!
How much biogas per year would a site need to produce to justify installing a unit? How much on-site labor is needed to run it?
Thanks for question! One of the benefits of our tech is we think we can go to pretty small sites and still be profitable. Our latest estimate is that a site would need to produce around 45 SCFM of biogas for us to be able to install a unit (around 14000 MMBtu/yr).
Initially we will likely have an operator on-site keeping an eye on the first few units. But as we scale the idea is for these units to be automated. No labor needed to run it. We can keep tabs on all of the units from a centralized location and if there are any process hiccups it shuts down automatically. We could then send a technician (who oversees multiple sites in the area)_come out to the site and restart the unit.
Hope that answers your questions!
For a little more context. Any wastewater treatment plant treating more than 5MGD is likely to produce more than 45 SCFM of biogas.
Congrats. Will be watching with great interest!
Why biogas specifically? This should work fine with regular fossil methane, and it will de-risk your deployments. There are plenty of places in Texas that uselessly flare the natural gas instead of doing anything with it.
We do it with biogas specifically because it enables us to produce chemicals with a 90% lower carbon footprint. Our thesis has always been that when you combine cheap waste feedstocks and an efficent enough process, you could produce green chemicals that are cost competitive with the fossil alternative. Biogas is the ideal waste feedstock because it gives us a low CI, is produced 24/7 and is quite consistent in its composition. We also get it for relatively cheap.
Our process is also more efficient with CO2 so we actually like the CO2 being present.
I think the first priority for you should be getting _something_ built and proving your core technology. But you are making it harder for yourself by adding more variables.
Natural gas is abundant in some areas and is wasted. If you can prove that you can build cost-efficient small-scale synthesis units, then moving to biogas should later be a no-brainer.
I'm also pretty sure that you need to pre-treat the gas to remove stuff like sulfur or ammonia from it. And you can get that for "free" in places that distill the LPG from the well gas.
From a "cynical investor" point of view, it looks like you're knee-capping yourself by going for a vastly smaller market. To me this is a huge red flag, usually pointing to companies that either do green-washing, or already plan to pivot once they get the initial investment.
I disagree with this, I work in the same field and I left a startup for the exact same reason of what you're proposing. There are a subset of founders probably like these folks and myself who would rather not build anything at all then continue to create BAU and raise money/build a product with the intention of 'one day maybe we'll make it sustainable'. How about RIGHT NOW, how about building things FROM THE GET GO based on deep principles that what you introduce from the start is already more beneficial for the planet. And I doubt they're greenwashing because there are several 3rd party verified certifications that can attest to whatever theyre producing is what they say it is, and then it becomes a matter of which certification.
A technology that would reduce the amount of uselessly flared natural gas is going to help in itself. It's not a question of abandoning principles, but starting from something that is easier to do and reducing the risk of not getting _anything_ out.
Yeah I agree its also a worthwhile use case rather than flaring methane into the atmosphere
We really need solutions like this if we are going to reverse atmospheric carbon the necessary amount to mitigate planetary catastrophe. Thanks for working on this. Good luck.
Thanks for the kind words! We appreciate it, let me know if you'd like me to add you to our newsletter. You can also sign up for it at rise-reforming.com/team.
Bro this sound's great. Have you considered deploying it to Lulling, Texas? It constantly smells like ass^Wbiofuel
If you know the name of this site I will reach out to them this week because the location is pretty ideal. Texas is the walhalla for chemicals in the U.S. so we are definitely scouting as many sites as possible in Texas. Do you happen to know the address of the site?