MixAlco in retrospect

=chemistry =energy =startups

 

 

In 2013, I had an idea for making biofuels.

In 2015, I made this site.

In 2016, I posted that biofuel idea here.

In 2018, I found the right search terms to find a similar process. The MixAlco process was developed in 1995 by Prof Mark Holtzapple. He continued working on it for decades.

 

1995: Terrabon was formed to commercialize technologies including MixAlco.
2007: Terrabon started trying to deploy its research.
2017: Terrabon went bankrupt; its MixAlco technology was purchased by Earth Energy Renewables (EER).
2021: EER went bankrupt and was purchased by Ara Partners.

 

The MixAlco process was not quite the same as what I proposed. That used naturally occuring mixed cultures, which produce mainly acetate, and calcium hydroxide because using CaCO3 gave conditions too acidic for good growth. I proposed using engineered microbes that produce mainly butyrate and tolerate lower pH. That would allow using (cheaper) CaCO3, make separation slightly easier, and give (maybe) more valuable products.

 

 

I emailed Prof Holtzapple in 2018 and we talked a bit. He said:

EER has changed direction and now extracts the acids from the fermentation broth, for the following reasons:
- Acids are very valuable as a chemical product
- Calcium carbonate is a poor buffer
- Pyrolysis loses about 10% of the product
- High-temperature salts are difficult to handle
- The ketones are contaminated with sulfur and nitrogen, which interfere with downstream catalysts
- The acids are easily transported to a centralized facility for further processing

 

I argued that it's better to use engineered strains and CaCO3, and his position was that the robustness of natural mixed cultures is more valuable. In retrospect, I was right about that, but the basic concept wasn't economical.

I also said it would be better to replace some rubber in vehicles and use ketones directly as high-octane fuels than to try to convert them to hydrocarbons...but in the short term, what people wanted to fund was small amounts of drop-in replacement renewable fuels for PR purposes.

 

 

Fermentation of cellulosic biomass to carboxylic acids which are then separated and used as an energy source is what cows do. Cows are able to digest many grasses in 1-3 days, but fermenting chopped grass in a tank takes much longer, perhaps 20 days. Also, the viscosity of water with cellulosic biomass increases exponentially with concentration, so concentrations are generally 10-20% if pumping is required. This means very large tanks are needed.

If those large tanks aren't stirred, then the biomass will settle at the bottom and form an un-pumpable sludge. But such large tanks with active stirring would be expensive.

Calcium butyrate is less soluble in water than calcium acetate or propionate, but it's still pretty soluble. To precipitate any of those from the fermentation broth, almost all of the water would need to be removed. Water desalination is quite cheap, but this water would have more stuff in it, and more of the water would need to be removed than the ~50% typical for desalination. Membranes would get fouled, and multiple-effect distillation would probably be more than 2x as expensive as for desalination. (Cows have stomachs with large surface areas that use proteins to actively transport stuff. Doing the same thing artificially isn't feasible.)

Let's suppose calcium butyrate concentration is 3% and water removal is $2/m^3, similar to the cost of thermal desalination. The cost of just the water removal would then be ~$150 per ton of oil equivalent. That's very optimistic - $18/m^3 for filtering solids and water evaporation would be more realistic, which by itself is slightly too expensive for competitive fuels. Then there's the cost of the biomass used, the tanks, and processing the precipitated salts.

 

 

So, a half-assed idea I had 10 years ago and only spent a few hours on was on the same level as something that:

- was developed by a smarter-than-average professor 20 years earlier, after years of research
- got patented and used as a basis for startups that raised millions of dollars
- worked but wasn't economically viable

 

That's simultaneously not good enough and more than the people with influence consider credible from me. (I seem to have made more progress on the 1st problem than the 2nd, which is probably the opposite of what you should do.) This isn't a cherry-picked example, it's pretty average.

As I've said here before, the biomass conversion process I currently like best is thermochemical conversion to hydrochar, levulinic acid, and furfural. (GFBiochemicals is the company doing the most similar thing to that, but I think large improvements vs their process are possible. They sell levulinate esters as premium solvents.) That has several advantages over MixAlco - for example, it's much faster, and there are no microbes that need protection from acids. But for many countries, there simply isn't enough land to grow enough biomass to use that for most energy usage, and recent subsidies have been aimed more at hydrogen and water electrolysis.




back to index