[cyberax]

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.

[jonavanoord]

Really appreciate the critical comments. I'd love to give some insight into how we look at these different ideas.

I wholeheartedly agree that the priority should be to get something built. We are currently in the process of doing that at a wastewater treatment plant. There is obviously additional risk in doing that at a biogas site. We believe we have the team and the technology to achieve that.

We do actually use quite a large amount of the CO2 in the process. An amount of CO2 that would not be present at those methane sites.

The biogas volumes in the U.S. are smaller than the wasted natural gas volumes, however it is still a substantial volume (that could cover the methanol industry 3x-5x over) and it is expected to continue to grow.

Let me know if you have any more comments or questions.

[cyberax]

Well, good luck to you!

Catalyst engineering for methane/syngas is extremely tricky and getting it working reliably is always a challenge. Hope you succeed.

[jonavanoord]

Appreciate the kind words, we are beyond pumped to get to building this thing

[Johnny_Bonk]

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.

[cyberax]

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.

[jonavanoord]

We are not not interested in flared natural gas sites. It is often just a logistical question of where we are going to get the CO2 from.

[jonavanoord]

Yes we could, we have briefly looked into that. Ultimately, it did not make sense for us to pursue that at the time, but it definitely means that if we ever feel the need to expand/pivot into natural gas, that that option is definitely feasible. Thanks for the helpful comment!

[gus_massa]

Can you split the pipe and burn a half to generate the electricity and get CO2 for free?

[Johnny_Bonk]

Yeah I agree its also a worthwhile use case rather than flaring methane into the atmosphere