Slashdot Mirror


"Vetrolium" From Agricultural Waste

junctionvin writes "The company Sustainable Power Corp. claims to have created a form of bio-crude oil from agricultural refuse. They use agro-waste from cracked soy beans, rice and cotton seed hulls, grain sorghum, milo, and jatropha and turn it into bio-crude oil. This crude can then be further refined into everything from gasoline to jet fuel and just about every petrochemical in between. The CEO is quoted: 'Our biggest problem is that we are too good to be true. We can literally replace every gallon of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in the United States using just 12 percent of the waste byproducts in the country.' They also claim that their fuel burns to near 100 percent efficiency." The article doesn't mention what price the "vetrolium" would command in today's market or going forward, except to report the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"' he said."

438 comments

  1. snake oil, more like by conspirator57 · · Score: 5, Funny

    vaporware, literally.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    1. Re:snake oil, more like by jrmcc · · Score: 5, Funny

      I bet snake oil gets more MPG than this idea...

    2. Re:snake oil, more like by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      vaporware, literally.

      It may take an amount of time equal to that of the development of Duke Nukem, but gosh darn it, he is gonna follow through with his promise! I think the topic of the next vaporware list should be these promised technologies.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:snake oil, more like by Kamokazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nah, we'll hear about them in a few months.

      You know, after the company goes bankrupt from this guy embezzling the millions of investment capital they get from this announcement.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    4. Re:snake oil, more like by korbin_dallas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Theres more than one way to make money.
      Perhaps hes betting that the PetrolCorps(e) will buy him out to keep his invention OFF the market.

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
    5. Re:snake oil, more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I personally will drink my vetrolium with a bit of tomacco juice, thank you very much.

    6. Re:snake oil, more like by emarks · · Score: 1

      We'll recognize $1 of your $2 investment!! Suckas!!

    7. Re:snake oil, more like by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      I personally will drink my vetrolium with a bit of tomacco juice, thank you very much.

      LOL, good Simpson's reference - even if you are AC.

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    8. Re:snake oil, more like by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative
      You know, after the company goes bankrupt from this guy embezzling the millions of investment capital they get from this announcement.

      His previous endeavour is still chugging along.

      I think he may have discovered a sustainable income source. It's kept him fed for a few years at least.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    9. Re:snake oil, more like by yada21 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Problem is the wear on on you're tires and steering!

      --
      I will have a sig when the market demands it.
    10. Re:snake oil, more like by Goffee71 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clicked on the link and thought it was The Onion, perhaps they've gone undercover

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    11. Re:snake oil, more like by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Funny

      vaporware, literally.

      Running on vapors? That's nothing, I can get my car to run (sometimes, anyway) on nothing but pure vitriol. If your car has fuel invective, it may be able to use this highly volatile energy source as well.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    12. Re:snake oil, more like by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      And it's a steal at a penny a share!

      Lot of biofuel startups out there, and they're doing middlin due to all the interest in biofuels. But they're not exactly setting the world on fire right now.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    13. Re:snake oil, more like by Intron · · Score: 1

      Only if you tune it for proper vituperation.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    14. Re:snake oil, more like by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      vaporware, literally.

      Although TFA has a few obvious errors, they apparently just use thermal depolymerization to crack just about anything organic into a light crude-like goo.

      Not at all vaporware, and not even all that difficult (though not something you can really do on a small scale, thus the need for VC).

      The biggest "problems" with it appear mostly regulatory... At the same time we have everyone crying about the price of energy, we have just about every viable alternative energy proposal shot down for completely assinine reasons ranging from cosmetic to FUD.

    15. Re:snake oil, more like by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 5, Interesting

      True these are snake oil too I guess ?

      Valcent Vertigro Algae Oil:

      http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/vertigro_algae_.html

      Coskata $1/gal Ethanol partners with General Motors:
      (non-crop oriented ethanol)

      http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/13/gm-and-coskata-announce-worldwide-cellulosic-ethanol-partnership/

      Bacteria the eats waste and releases petroleum:

      http://thegoodcity.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/bacteria-that-eat-waste-and-poop-petroleum/

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    16. Re:snake oil, more like by phaggood · · Score: 0, Troll

      > they apparently just use thermal depolymerization

      "High heat? Using what, free energy? But that means the organic crude isn't an actual fuel source but a product that, unlike oil, requires energy input to get energy output."

      Wow, that whiney hydrogen-naysayers argument is like lego; completely interchangable. Wait, lemme try it out on solar energy, wind and nuk-u-lar power...

    17. Re:snake oil, more like by IBMOOSE · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree,
      I sent them an email via their "Contact us" page with the following text. Note that my email address reflects that I work for a major newspaper, maybe they will be forthcoming with some details or run like Hell one or the other :)
      Here is the text of the message I sent them...

      Your site and news release is suspiciously light on details. No disrespect intended, but a little detail on your process would go a long way towards lending your cause some credibility You may wish to read the posting on "Slashdot" "http://slashdot.org/". The Analysis could have been done on any substance. The ability to duplicate your findings by your scientific peers is essential if this is to be the miracle solution that you tout it to be. I look forward to your response.

    18. Re:snake oil, more like by Grepdashv · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Posting to undo moderation.

    19. Re:snake oil, more like by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lot of biofuel startups out there, and they're doing middlin due to all the interest in biofuels. But they're not exactly setting the world on fire right now.

      Now that wouldn't be very Green, would it? Imaging all that carbon from setting the world on fire... Sheesh...

    20. Re:snake oil, more like by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And how, exactly, does oil not require energy input? For that matter (bad pun, I know), can you think of any exchange that does not require energy input? The goal here is to find a renewable, lasting portable supply of cheap energy.
      For what it's worth "high heat" is a pretty abundant and cheap form of energy; using it to create a fuel source from waste sounds like a good option (although I would wait for actual data before investing).

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    21. Re:snake oil, more like by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      After RTF, I don't doubt that he has some sort of fuel that works as advertised. What I remain skeptical about is exactly what that fuel is (sounds an awful lot like alcohol), and if his claims are actually completely legitimate, he still doesn't mention just how much power it takes to produce the stuff.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    22. Re:snake oil, more like by Eccles · · Score: 1

      That's nothing, I can get my car to run (sometimes, anyway) on nothing but pure vitriol.

      I tried that but then some jerk cut me off and it just blew up. It's just too volatile.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    23. Re:snake oil, more like by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Sounds like what the Germans were doing in WW2, actually.

      If so, won't be cheaper than oil until the last barrel is pumped out of the ground.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:snake oil, more like by Zemran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He says "we are too good to be true" and he is telling the truth...

      Trouble with a lot of these wonder solutions is that you do not really know yet how environmentally damaging the production process is. If it is possible I would be happy to pay more to get less reliant on areas of the world that we should get away from... (speaking as someone living in Azerbaijan [north of Iran])

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    25. Re:snake oil, more like by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Anger powered car.

      Approaching $2/gal four years ago. Amazing.

      -Peter

    26. Re:snake oil, more like by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Crude oil is the stored solar energy of millions of years of biomass cooked by the heat of the Earth. The energy we invest is just to drill and pump it out of the ground. The amount of energy needed to cook it out of garbage is much higher.

    27. Re:snake oil, more like by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      The goal here is to find a renewable, lasting portable supply of cheap energy.

      Although, expensive energy will be better than no energy...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    28. Re:snake oil, more like by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know this is how the Germans survived WWII? Even though they had no

      GTL is looking to be the next "big thing" bio-fuels. Now I'm not saying that this guy has figured out all the hard stuff that is holding big corporations back, but there's a chance.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_to_liquid

      If the cost of diesel fuel goes much higher I might look into buying some from racing stores. Shipping is the killer right now.

      There are a few people running it on the forums and say it's great. 63 Cetane Number, 20% more BTU vs regular D2, etc, etc.

    29. Re:snake oil, more like by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      *Even though they had no petroleum reserves in Germany.

      Damn ADHD writing style.

    30. Re:snake oil, more like by mls · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head, options for heat to make the process more cost effective (presuming you can get past regulatory hurdles).

      1) Waste heat from "base load" electric generation stations (i.e. use the waste steam from a coal or nuclear power plant)
      2) Waste heat from other industrial processes
      3) Solar oven. Concentrate the suns rays at a heat exchanger; throw it in the desert in Arizona if you want.

      Now these may not provide all the heat capacity needed, but they may pre-heat the processes such to make them more cost effective.

      --
      -mls
    31. Re:snake oil, more like by clonan · · Score: 1

      The energy input is called "the sun"

      They are taking material that grew from sunlight (or eating things that grew from sunlight) and turning it into an oil. So long as the total amount of energy in the oil is LESS than the total amount of energy in the raw materials you don't NEED an external fuel source.

      If you need high heat yu could always use some of the last batch to fire the furnace for the next batch...

    32. Re:snake oil, more like by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      What I remain skeptical about is exactly what that fuel is (sounds an awful lot like alcohol)

      Alcohol works pretty well:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Automotive_fuel

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

      Ethanol is viable if it not via arable land such as Coskata
      is working on via waste streams for Ethanol or Switchgrass.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    33. Re:snake oil, more like by Lurchicus · · Score: 1

      So you could power your car with road rage? Cool!

      --
      Lurchicus - For Sig, see other side.
    34. Re:snake oil, more like by IAmCthulhu · · Score: 2, Informative

      "High heat? Using what, free energy?

      Thermal depolymerization produces 3 things: 1) bio-crude, 2) carbon ash, and 3) biogas. According to the company's website, they use the ash as fertilizer on the feedstock, and the biogas powers the process. It's not unique. There are quite a few other companies playing with thermal depolymerization right now.

    35. Re:snake oil, more like by Sandbags · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take a look at this. Some good friends of mine work for this research firm in South Carolina. They went live with a project today that they have been working on for nearly a decade.

      www.dotyenergy.com.

      Basically, it's an idea for using wind and other free power to turn water into H2, then combine that with sequestered and other forms of CO2 to make hydrocarbons. It can be done at a very competitive cost to refining oils, and at quite a profit at existing prices.

      Yes, it will take a few trillion in investments, but since it has significant profit potential, it's only a matter of time until the money is invested. This process works, using todays technology, it simply has to be built...

      It's not vaporware, this is the real deal, a good solution that is feasable, and the patents for it are all filed and ready to be licensed.

      They are actively requesting people to read their information, and find the faults in it. Prove to them it can't be done...

      The site just went live a few hours ago, so keep checking over the next week or two as they add to the challenges and references sections, and expand on the details. Contact them with your feedback.

      As a close friend of the family, and a network engineer, I'm doing my part to spread the word. I have nothing to do with the product, process, or any of the information in the site, but I am on a ton of forums, and this looked like a great place to chat about it.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    36. Re:snake oil, more like by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Probably. But how much higher?

      All of that drilling, pumping, shipping, and refining doesn't happen for free. (energy or money)

      Perhaps this could be a step in the decoupling of energy from mining and shipping. The money that you save in drilling or digging and pumping is used to cook this garbage.

      15 yrs ago oil shale and oil sands were questionable. Right now, there are a lot of big companies making big money out of sands and drooling at the thought of open use of shale.

      Do you want to question this, or try to get it off the ground so that someday we cook our poo to make more gas to run our car?

    37. Re:snake oil, more like by nusuth · · Score: 1
      I don't know the process parameters for thermal depolymerization but I'd guess the temperature required is on the order of 500C which is much higher than what is available than waste heat streams from electric generators. Solar ovens might be feasible, but only if they can supply energy for the whole process. Putting the factory away from low energy content raw materials, just to save energy on preheating is bound to be less energy efficient when transportation is factored in. Waste streams of industrial processes are varied, and using them just for preheating may be feasible. However in order to use scattered energy sources such as waste streams, the process must be down-scaled -which is kind of hard.

      IOW, I don't think this process may be made energy efficient. Biological waste streams frequently have huge amounts of water in them, which consumes energy during removal. Thermal depolymerization needs high temperatures. A depolymerization process using biological wastes as raw materials has to be inefficient when energy that goes in is compared to energy that goes out in a useful form.

      What this technology provides is an alternative to oil and that is something valuable even if it "wastes" a lot of energy in the process. The biomass will be wasted in any case, soany energy surplus is a bonus. It is double bonus if using the surplus doesn't need a new infrastructure.

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

    38. Re:snake oil, more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It sounds good if they are opening their tech to reviewers.

      Do your friends have working prototypes of this technology?

    39. Re:snake oil, more like by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My assuption from talking with them is, in a lab, yes, all of the parts that make this plan feasable are either already in use in some way today, or are proven technologies. There's no "magic" here, no vaporware, this is simply a method for producing hydrocarbons from H2 and CO2 using input energy. Building the infrastructure behind it is the real challenge (a 40+ Trillion dollar challenge).

      I however am no scientist, nor have I detailed all the information this company is making available. I know David, and many of the other people working in their firm. They do not make light about new ideas, and they're no stranger to the patent office or cutting edge research. From what I have read thus far, this is a well thought out idea, and the science behind it is in fact NOT really cutting edge. It's a plan, not a technology (though there are several patents involved from what I understand).

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    40. Re:snake oil, more like by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nah, we'll hear about them in a few months.

      You know, after the company goes bankrupt from this guy embezzling the millions of investment capital they get from this announcement.

      It's understandable that you'd be cynical. But there's definitely reason for hope. Another company has successfully done something similar at a turkey plant. The company is called Changing World Technologies and the technology is called thermal depolymerization. My understanding is that they're making money, but only just barely. Waste turkey parts are apparently in higher demand than expected, and the work doesn't qualify for an expected govt subsidy.

      Nonetheless, the technology is real, it works, and does what's claimed - turns garbage (of a specific type) into oil. I have little doubt that with refinement, this technology and others like it could be made to work.

      That doesn't reduce the likelyhood that this CEO is blustering snake oil that will never materialize - the fact that similar stuff has been proven to work may make it more likely that he's blowing it. But it's by no means a definite certainty.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    41. Re:snake oil, more like by colmore · · Score: 1

      Biofuel is still stored solar energy as well. What's your point.

      You think gasoline bubbles up out of the ground? You don't think there's a massive energy expense refining oil? The drill and pump is just step 1 of many.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    42. Re:snake oil, more like by Dmala · · Score: 1

      I'm still working on an engine that will run on bullshit. Washington D.C. will produce enough to meet all of North America's energy needs for 1000 years.

    43. Re:snake oil, more like by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      What about using the sun to cook it? Something like that large mirror-magnifier-assembly-thing from the movie Sahara ( apparently a similar structure was built in Spain to generate 11 Megawatts of electricity )

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    44. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 2

      All it takes is a little napkin math
      With this process, just one bushel (60 pounds) of organic waste can yield about six gallons of bio-crude, Rivera said.

      Six gallons of biofuel weighs about 48 pounds. That is like an 80% yield. I would believe this with pure animal fat or vegtable oil, but to say you can get that from "cracked soy beans, rice and cotton seed hulls, grain sorghum, milo and jatropha" is complete BS. The biofuel would have more engergy in it than would even be available in the waste if it was burned as is.
      I would be excited if he got 1 gallon from 60 pounds of garbage, and this would push the boundries of whats believable.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    45. Re:snake oil, more like by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      I loved this line in the article:

      What's more, Rivera claims that products made from Vetroleum burn at near 100 percent efficiency, leaving behind neither heat nor pollution as proof of the chemical reactions taking place.

      100% efficiency! With no leftover heat! Wow, what a fantastic fuel that would be!

    46. Re:snake oil, more like by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The Solar Energy would still cost the money you didn't make by selling the energy collected to someone else.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    47. Re:snake oil, more like by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bio-crude from thermal depolymerization needs to be refined too. No difference there. The EROEI of refining is typically 10:1, 1 unit of energy (usually natural gas) in for finished product worth 10 units of energy.

    48. Re:snake oil, more like by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      You forgot: FISA just passed Congress.

      So that's another 100 years of BS right there.

    49. Re:snake oil, more like by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Informative

      The metric here is Energy Return On Energy Investment (EROEI). Oil is a very concentrated source of energy. In the early days of oil, EROEI was 50-100:1. These days it's still over 10:1 (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387). Thermal depolymerization is nowhere close to that, and it's probably a net negative. Then remember that the feedstock for it is much less energy-dense, and you're moving a huge amount of mass for a small amount of oil. You can mitigate that by locating the plant at a garbage dump where it's already being collected, but there's not enough garbage to replace more than a tiny fraction of our oil use. If you collect virgin feedstock, you're back to the same old problem.

    50. Re:snake oil, more like by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Energy is like the universal currency whether it takes the form of heat, electricity or the chemical potential energy in an easily stored liquid. You can convert them at various rates of efficiency, and there are financial markets for each type of energy. Given the low efficiency of thermal depolymerization, I suspect it's worth more to use your solar collector to run a steam turbine and sell power to the grid.

    51. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's get real. Supposing the stuff was real, what distribution network would they use to get the fuel to consumers? Who would have the capital to improve on the process and then market the fuel oversees? I don't think oil companies care where the oil comes from as long as they can sell it.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    52. Re:snake oil, more like by CyBlue · · Score: 2, Informative

      The process does not refine the oil out of a product, it uses the carbon content to make oil. So, when you burn the waste, you don't end up with a lot of carbon ashes left behind. Look it up. Thermal depolymerization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

    53. Re:snake oil, more like by Falstius · · Score: 1

      I suspect the American oil companies care a lot where the oil is coming from ... and that they HATE where it comes from now. The fact that most of the worlds oil is from places with political instability or violence is not good for these companies in the long run (even if it boosts short term prices).

      Domestically produced 'crude' would be a godsend to the oil companies. I'll keep my investment money elsewhere though until I see more proof than a press release.

    54. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Most of the content of the waste products mentioned is cellulose, which has a much lower energy density than long chain aliphatics. Look at the yields for cellulose in the article that you linked to for cellulose.

      You can't get something for nothing. I think the ~15% yield on weight that I mentioned is wildly optimisic.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    55. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Think of disasters for oil companies like Nigeria and Venezuala(govt seized all oil production assets)

      Good point.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    56. Re:snake oil, more like by budgenator · · Score: 1

      the feedstock material is first ground into small chunks, and mixed with water if it is especially dry. It is then fed into a reaction chamber where it is heated to around 250 C and subjected to 600 psi (4 MPa) for approximately 15 minutes, after which the pressure is rapidly released to boil off most of the water. Thermal depolymerization

      The big advantage to the CWT process is that they flash off the steam and use the heat from the steam to pre-heat the next batch of feedstock; methane gas generated by the process is than burned to generate the rest of the heat needed. 85% of the feedstock's caloric content is present in the final product.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    57. Re:snake oil, more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Your site and news release is suspiciously light on details.

      That should be: "Your site and news release are suspiciously light on details."

      >Note that my email address reflects that I work for a major newspaper

      Uh huh.

    58. Re:snake oil, more like by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Yeah apparently he's producing magical antimatter.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    59. Re:snake oil, more like by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Cellulose is C6H12O6, or CH2O; while oil is CnHn+2. So, as long as we want C5H12 + CO2 + 2O2, approx. 7/13 or about 58% efficiency. You can raise that to 8/13 or about 63% efficiency IF you hydrogen enrich the process.

      H=1/14, C=14, O=14 (O=12~=14)

    60. Re:snake oil, more like by Divebus · · Score: 1

      If it's true, however, our OPEC friends might need to acquire a taste for sand.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    61. Re:snake oil, more like by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      using wind and other free power

      turn water into H2

      will take a few trillion

      Prove to them it can't be done

      I am on a ton of forums, and this looked like a great place to chat about it.


      Where do I sign up?

    62. Re:snake oil, more like by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      30% less energy density than gasoline

      50% less energy density than diesel

    63. Re:snake oil, more like by chishm · · Score: 1

      Another company has successfully done something similar at a turkey plant.

      A turkey plant is just what we need to solve world hunger! No more having to feed grain to birds to get meat from them. Just plant a turkey seed in the ground and wait for the fruit to ripen, ready for Thanksgiving.

    64. Re:snake oil, more like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA getting the oil from there was what was destabilizing those countries in the first place, so I'd be more than happy if the USA got the fuck out of there.

    65. Re:snake oil, more like by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Its been a long time since I have had any chemistry so I might be compleetly wrong but I still see some trouble here. I think that any synthesis you might to get from C6H12O6 to C5H12 + CO2 + 2O2 is likely to be endothermic. You are going to need input engery, which you probably are going to get by burning either some of the cellulose directly or burning some of your product.

      I would expect that to reduce the yeild substantially. As I stated before I am no chemist, its been a long time and it was never my best subject. I might be completly wrong. It seems to me the losses in the coversion proccess with all these lets make your favorite hydrocarbon from something else schemes later get overlooked.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    66. Re:snake oil, more like by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is the most insane thing I have ever read. Its a fact that without oil revenue the middle is by and large a dust bowl. There is some niche hight dollar crops that can be grown, food agriculture is hardly possible above the subsistence level. The big oil produces in the mideast region import between 25 and 100 percent of their food needs. Those economies don't stand a chance without oil revenue.

      This is why the better run of those nations are essentially using the money they have now from oil to transform their entire nations into what amount to large investment banks. If it was not for the vast and continued transfer of wealth from the United States to the region it would be in the same state of development it was 60 years ago. Even that direct transfer was not enough to build the mideast economy as it exists to day. Our substantial military presence has been a requirement to keep stability in the region. We have been there in large enough numbers to prevent little turf wars and keep sanity and stability for 50 years. That has been a huge expense even before we hotted things up in Iraq this time arround. In the interest of fairness this peace keeping has been good for us as well, its assured as a resonably stable flow of oil we thought our economy needed. The truth is that the Unitied States military has effectively provided a subsidy for oil for our own nation and the entire world.

      The leaders ( OPEC ) have know this, which is why oil has been so cheap for so long. They needed us there at least at arms length. They have kept the prices low enough that we would keep buying it in large quantity and not look for better alternatives. Its getting so expensive now because two things have changed. China has risen and could now provide a market for almost their entire production and fill our void in peace keeping if we left. The other thing being their own reseves are becoming harder to reach so they need to push prices up to keep the revenue coming.

      Again the better run states over there are slow extricating themselves from the oil biz and investing around the world. The rest of the middle east is destine for collaps pure and simple. There is virtually no way around it. It will be just like poorer regions of Africa.

      As to our economic troubles I think it really does come down to trade deficent of which about 30% of is probably oil. All this credit curch business is a response to inflationary pressures. People were paying to much for realestate, with two many dollars that they thought were worth more then they are. This has inturn rippled throug the banking industry. I still think the dollar is way over valued; this fact will come to a head if the government is forced to either bailout reddy mac fannie mae or extend them a large line of credit. It will destroy the governments own credit rating. We can already see T-bills discount rates falling just in anticipation of it. If this goes forward the value of the dollar will drop like a stone. I know everyone is saying "to big to fail" but I think it might be in the best overall economic interest to let one of them fail. In our short sitedness we have incurred a vast anual expense on foreign oil that has gutted our own nation and build the middle east.

      so I'd be more than happy if the USA got the fuck out of there.

      So in short I agree with you, I think to save our own nation that is probablly a requirement. Don't think though that we will be doing anything to stabilize them though. We will infact be plunging vast areas of the region into abject poverty and war, just like large parts of Africa. I say better them the us, but I would also say cut the smug crap and lets not feel to good about it. We will be destroying many lives.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    67. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Where did you learn chemistry?? It takes energy do all the things you mentioned, there is no free lunch.
      Heat of combustion of Cellulose is 4Kcal per gram, fat is 9Kcal per gram.
      There is less energy in cellulose, period. Even supposing you had a majic wand to convert it to oil without losses, the best you could do would be ~45%.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    68. Re:snake oil, more like by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Where did you learn science? There's such a thing as a theoretical maximum; even if it's totally free, there's no way in hell you're going to get more than stated numbers out because the mass simply does not exist.

    69. Re:snake oil, more like by Sandbags · · Score: 1

      www.dotyscientific.com

      read their stuff. Real numbers, no hype, proven processes.

      Sure, 40 trillion over 30 years sounds like a lot of money, but when you considder that the proposed carbon taxes will cost 2 trillion per year, without actually helping add fuel to the mix, the economics start to make sense. Also, that $40 trillion spent is going to generate thousands of jobs, create $60 trillion dollars in sellable materials, and solve our energy chrisis. Considder this: the 4 billon POOREST people in the world have 5 trillion in purchasing power.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    70. Re:snake oil, more like by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of a rough approximation? Your just wrong. And stupid.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    71. Re:snake oil, more like by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      okay so explain to me how "80% of the mass" is roughly 58% of the mass, or roughly 63% of the mass... it seems "60%" or "70% would be a closer rough approximation, and 70% is a big spin. Assuming ONLY the mass present in the original biomass is used, "roughly half" (-8%) versus "Roughly 80%" (28%) is a HUGE step. How would you like an interviewer to promise you roughly $28/hr ($58k) instead of roughly $20/hr ($42k), for a $22/hr ($45k) salary?

      Also: *You're. You Are, you stupid git.

  2. awesome by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    tfa says it burns without generating any heat. i'll be taking a bath in this stuff every night, setting myself on fire, and running around the block screaming. i think the neighbors will get a real kick out of it.

    and it will burn off completely. when it's done- no odor or residue. i mean how great can it get?

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:awesome by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

      tfa says it burns without generating any heat. i'll be taking a bath in this stuff every night, setting myself on fire, and running around the block screaming. i think the neighbors will get a real kick out of it.

      Congratulations, you've just described something called 'alcohol'. Your neighbours already get a kick out of seeing you run around the block screaming after drinking a bathtub full of it.

    2. Re:awesome by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Congratulations, you've just described something called 'alcohol'.

      Alcohol burns without generating heat?

      I had better sell my Bunsen burner stock ASAP.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:awesome by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, while I mostly spent Auto Shop getting beaten up so may have missed something important, isn't that heat what makes a normal engine work?

    4. Re:awesome by maxume · · Score: 1

      Nah, were sick of it. The first couple of years were funny, but come up with something new once in a while.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:awesome by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why sell? Bunsen burners run on gas.

      Alcohol lamps, of course, are another story....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    6. Re:awesome by Tinamil · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, normal engines work by using the expanding gasses that are a product of combustion to exert pressure to move the cylinders.

    7. Re:awesome by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I'm no engineer or chemist - but when gasoline combusts, the gasses that are created expand and drive the piston. The heat is a byproduct - wasted energy basically. So I don't think being cool would be a problem - but the claim that there are no byproducts at all doesn't work. If nothing at all is produced when it burns, the engine wont go. I'm sure there is more that's wrong here, I'm just not educated enough on this stuff to figure it all out.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    8. Re:awesome by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Technically it's the energy generated by the fuel going bang but generally you're going to get heat with your bang unless you're using compressed air or astroglide. (da-dum-tschh. The show changes completely after I've had my coffee.)

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    9. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heat is a by-product - its the expansion of gases in the cylinder when the fuel is ignited.

      But yeah, no heat fuel isn't going to cut it in quite a few places

    10. Re:awesome by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmmm. An alcohol flame gets plenty hot. Hot enough to melt glass rods if you don't have a bunsen burner handy, so temps can probably reach over 1000 degrees F.

      Alcohol flames burn so clean that they look innocuous. You also can do some impressive stunts that exploit the cooling effect of alcohol evaporation. These seem to have combined to create the myth that alcohol burns cool. Anybody mucking around with alcohol flames for amusement would be well advised not to believe this.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:awesome by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mostly - fuel/air vapor is compressed, then detonated. The expansion of that detonation pushes the piston. Heat causes the majority of that expansion force.

      The trick is that their fuel is either: cold as Hell to start with (e.g. like putting dry ice in a bottle of water and sealing the bottle - there's still heat involved in making the detonation, but it's still way colder than pretty much anything immediately surrounding it), or dissipating the heat before the exhaust can get out of the tailpipe.

      The problem is that this alleged wunderfuel is still a hydrocarbon, which means that you still have carbon atoms to dispose of (lots of 'em), and the nature of a car's combustion process still involves compression and ignition of the fuel, which will still generate a lot of heat.

      Now some fuels do burn cooler than others, esp. in a short test run like the CEO was describing (for example, alcohol burns far cooler than gasoline), and a short test run with a cooler fuel will likely not give you as much heat in the exhaust (then again, on a really cool/cold day, a gasoline engine would only produce "some warm air" at your tailpipe if the engine has only ran for "a couple of minutes").

      As for what's in the stuff? *shrug* - I dunno. I'm not holding my breath until/unless I see some show up in marketable quantities, though.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    12. Re:awesome by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's the point. Think of the next generation of students, who no longer will have to play with dangerous bunsen burners in the lab. Instead they'll fashion glassware and boil solutions in the safe, heatless flame of an alcohol lamp.

      For that matter, what about people who use alcohol in their backpacking stoves? Since the alcohol doesn't burn with any heat, they can safely use their stoves in their tents.

      There's no end to applications for this miracle material. We could replace the water in our fire sprinkler systems with cool burning alcohol, which would starve the fire of oxygen while burning at a temperature too low to cause damage.

      I want to point out the obvious here that I'm being sarcastic. Although anybody who can't figure that out is arguably not long for this world, I'd rather not have their demises on my conscience.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:awesome by Ticklemonster · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

      --
      Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
    14. Re:awesome by Otter · · Score: 1

      My p-chem is even sketchier than my brake repair, but are there other examples of combustion that aren't noticeably exothermic?

    15. Re:awesome by budgenator · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Ideal gas law is PV=nRT, so while the increased number of moles of gas will inherently increase the combustion chambers pressures and temperature, but the lion's share of the pressure increase is due to the exothermic nature of the combustion heating the gasses.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:awesome by A+Pancake · · Score: 5, Informative

      Technically speaking the air/fuel charge does not detonate, it deflagrates. In a gasoline engine detonation is a bad thing, and is marked by ping or knock.

    17. Re:awesome by wattrlz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The gases in question expand, mostly, because they are hot. That's why you can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation for Carnot efficiency or Otto efficiency by comparing the difference between the peak combustion temperature and the exhaust temperature.

    18. Re:awesome by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess that CEO did quite good demonstration but the journalist did not get everything right. No smoke - that's ok and experiment proves that. No heat - that's rubbish, of course there was heat - experiment proved that. Efficient burning means that almost all amount really burns. You may think that every fuel does so, but it is not the truth. Coal for instance, does not burn fully. Gasoline is better, but there are still some unburned hydrocarbons. LNG is way better than gasoline, since almost everything goes to either C02 or water. "No smoke" means no visible smoke. You cannot see C02 nor water vapor. The more pure is the fuel, it burns better. Buy some gasoline from a pharmacy (they sell it for some reason), it burns perfectly. But what we buy as gasoline at the pump station is actually a mixture of many different hydrocarbons, and it does not burn so well.

      Long story short, if they are able to produce fuel without heavy hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons etc, it will burn almost 100%, without smell (i.e. unburned hydrocarbons) and without trace (again, unburned hydrocarbons).

      --
      No sig today.
    19. Re:awesome by Captain+Hook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that this alleged wunderfuel is still a hydrocarbon, which means that you still have carbon atoms to dispose of (lots of 'em)

      Carbon from this source wouldn't be a problem at all.

      The Greenhouse Gas problem is really about taking carbon which has been buried and effectively out of the biosphere for millions of years and dumping it into the air in quantities large enough to affect atmospheric carbon concentrations.

      All those Biofuels are effectively carbon neutral (or would be in an ideal world if we weren't using fossil fuels to harvest the feedstock) because the carbon in the feedstock has come directly from the atmosphere within the last 1-2, 10-20 years (depending on the feedstock).

      If we could run the entire worlds fleet of cars/buses/planes/trains on biofuels, it would have eventually balance out and have zero effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.

      Biofuels have a single problem, in the last hundred years we have (in the west at least) got used to burning a fuel store which took millions of years to produce, biofuels have to produce energy in a 1:1 time ratio and there is simply no way to do that without a significant proportion of the earths surface being turned over to energy collection and conversion into an energy store.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    20. Re:awesome by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anybody mucking around with alcohol flames for amusement would be well advised not to believe this.

      All this and yet my suggestion that it was okay to drink a bathtub full of alcohol went completely unchallenged.

      Sometimes I wonder about you people.

    21. Re:awesome by oxidiser · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, what you're saying is... fire hot? Interesting.

    22. Re:awesome by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, a lot of people here aren't familiar with the term "bathtub".

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    23. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All these years of seeing methanol fueled race cars had me thinking they used internal combustion. Now I know they were actually using magic!

    24. Re:awesome by Minwee · · Score: 1

      True. And a lot of people here are attacked by ninjas on a regular basis, too.

    25. Re:awesome by Eiron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The heat is not exactly a wasted byproduct. An internal combustion engine is a way to transfer chemical energy into thermal(heat) energy into linear energy into rotational energy. A Wankel skips the linear energy step. The heat is important, because although you can run an engine off "cryogenic" power, for example using liquid nitrogen as fuel, what you are doing there is taking something very cold, and as it warms due to its environment you harness the energy of its expansion. Similar to an external combustion engine. These are both very ineffective; Google it if you like. If you could use all the thermal energy from combustion, the exhaust and engine would be cool to the touch, no matter how long it ran. Good luck with that. That isn't what is happening here, which is either a reporter making changes to the story in order to show the subject in a more favorable light, or a reporter making mistakes. Either way, the reporter is not a subject matter expert, and is screwing things up; it happens.

      I have had engines I referred to as "cold blooded" before, generally because they were built so heavily that it took forever (one was over half a god damn hour) for them to warm up to peak operating temperatures, and you got no power or reliability out of them until then. These engines pissed me off. If you want one, look for a small displacement (less than 300cc) "universal Japanese model" motorcycle from the 70's. There are lots of other places too, but that is a reliable, inexpensive source.

      Pressure and heat are very closely related. A diesel works by creating enough thermal energy through pressure on the fuel to cause it to spontaneously combust, which vastly increases the temperature, which increases the pressure enough to drive the pistons through their power cycle. Replace the pressure induced heat with an electric spark and you have a gasoline engine. The thermal energy is still the integral part of the operation of the engine.

      As far as no byproducts, the only way you are going to ever end up with no physical byproducts would be a 100% efficient nuclear reaction (again, good luck with that), during which you would expect large quantities of some form of energy, most likely thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, and light. No harmful byproducts, on the other hand, could be as simple as water, in the case of hydrogen power, but is likely claimed to be water and CO2 for this stuff. In reality, there would be some carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide too, just because that stuff gets everywhere, and unburned hydrocarbons.

      The idea that there would be no heat from this fuel source's combustion is silly at best, and certainly wouldn't be a selling point as a gasoline replacement even if true, but the idea that it burns much cleaner than petroleum based fuels is both likely and laudable. If the whole thing isn't a sham, which is possible.

      --
      Apathy; it does a body good.
    26. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No alcohol makes you run around the neighborhood screaming.

    27. Re:awesome by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Think of the next generation of students, who no longer will have to play with dangerous bunsen burners in the lab. Instead they'll fashion glassware and boil solutions in the safe, heatless flame of an alcohol lamp.

      Will vetrolium clean the dr. pepper off of my keyboard?

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    28. Re:awesome by Lurchicus · · Score: 1

      Actually Ping or Knock is pre-ignition. In other words, pressure, heat or some other factor causes the fuel-air mixture to ignite before it's supposed to.

      --
      Lurchicus - For Sig, see other side.
    29. Re:awesome by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, burning alcohol doesn't release any heat; the heat comes entirely from the oxygen. That's why they're currently researching ways of burning alcohol without involving oxygen.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    30. Re:awesome by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      My steam engine does use the heat from the combustion and it's perfectly normal, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    31. Re:awesome by Torontoman · · Score: 1

      Hey - what about an engine that uses the expansion of Dry ice from solid to gas as the catalyst to push the piston?

    32. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were sick of it? Ah, so no longer sick of it any more ("were", being past-tense, or related to lycanthropy, but I digress...).

      Fantastic! We're each already finishing of our first bottle of rum, getting ready to parade around drunk, for all of you now. I was just waiting for drunken marauding to go back into fashion...

    33. Re:awesome by Mr.+Jaggers · · Score: 1

      Look; we slashdot crowd may not get out much, but when we do some of us know a good idea when we hear one! I, for one, welcome our new bathtub-gin overlords...

      I'll bring the olives and my rec.humor.funny archive, and then we can all sing Bruce's Philosopher's Song as loud as we can until the neighbors threaten to snip the DSL with hedge-trimmers!

      --

      When I grow up, I want to have Christopher Walken hair.
    34. Re:awesome by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Hey - what about an engine that uses the expansion of Dry ice from solid to gas as the catalyst to push the piston?

      That might be an idea for the future ... on Mars.

    35. Re:awesome by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I have never heard of that term before and I work in engine design. I guess you learn something every day.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    36. Re:awesome by Atario · · Score: 1

      These seem to have combined to create the myth that alcohol burns cool.

      Cool relative to what? The sun? ("So you see, Luke, what I've told you is true...from a certain point of view.")

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    37. Re:awesome by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, fire burns you!

      Wait.

      In Soviet Russia, you burn fire!

      Goddamnit.

      In Soviet Russia, alcohol fires you!

      Arg! Let me come in again.

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    38. Re:awesome by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      This requires more study, and several billion dollars of government grants.

      Get our top scientists on this post-haste!

      Who knows what grand marvels can be unlocked with this new 'hot fire'?

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    39. Re:awesome by CensorshipDonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have we completely forsaken science in this country?

      Burning something breaks high energy bonds and forms low energy bonds. The energy released is the difference. If you're burning alcohol with oxygen, you are forming the lower energy compounds of carbon dioxide and water. The energy doesn't "come" only from the alcohol or oxygen.

      And, for the love of Ned, burning ANYTHING with ANYTHING releases heat. That's the definition of "burning". Any chemical reaction that is spontaneous once start (burning) releases energy, which becomes heat.

    40. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought it was the explosion creating pressure and pushing the pistons

    41. Re:awesome by Dolohov · · Score: 1

      No, it says that it burns without generating enough heat in a few minutes to noticeably warm an engine block.

      However, do not let me stop you from setting yourself on fire. I look forward to seeing it on YouTube.

    42. Re:awesome by raddan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not a chemist, but I am a backpacker, I can verify what you say is true. I have made several of these stoves (PDF warning), and they work amazingly well. Better, in fact, on most counts than my commercially-made and comparatively expensive backpacking stoves. They are also very lightweight. The main thing for me is: I can buy fuel damn near anywhere. That was a problem for my butane and white gas stoves.

      Anyhow, the interesting thing about these is yes, sometimes it's hard to tell if they're lit-- until you burn yourself. I have done it many times. Also, the bottom of the stove gets very cold-- cold enough that if you run them during the winter they actually extinguish themselves. But butane stoves have the same problem and are actually worse in this regard, in my experience-- they actually condense water vapor into frost on the sides of the bottle, and when this gets bad enough, they just stop working. Boil times for a liter of water are nearly identical for my butane and alcohol stoves, which makes me think that vast amounts of energy is being wasted with conventional stove designs despite the fact that butane (27.7 MJ/L) has a higher energy density than ethanol (23.5 MJ/L).

    43. Re:awesome by A+Pancake · · Score: 1

      Both pre-ignition and detonation will result in the same symptoms. Both will result in the peak combustion occuring at a less than ideal time during the piston stroke. Both situations are also commonly called knock. To use a half assed source the wikipedia article on engine knocking describes it better than I do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking As an aside personally I'd describe it more as filling a tin can with a couple of metal BB's and shaking it, rather than a ping sound.

    44. Re:awesome by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "In a gasoline engine detonation is a bad thing"

      Except if it's a DiesOtto gasoline engine :).

      --
    45. Re:awesome by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      Oblig. Futurama: The Professy will help! AIEE! Fire indeed hot!

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    46. Re:awesome by celle · · Score: 1

      Now that's streaking!!

    47. Re:awesome by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      TFA probably meant that alcohol burns with no *flame*, or more accurately an invisible flame. It sure as hell burns with heat.

    48. Re:awesome by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was joking. I am aware that oxidation doesn't mean that the oxygen magically releases heat. And I'm not American. ;)

      Also, I'm pretty sure that combustion requires a redox reaction to happen by definition. But IANAchemist, so I might be wrong there.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    49. Re:awesome by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      From the article, it sounds like the initial crude product is the heatless burner, however, he also claims that this can be further refined into diesel and gasoline.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    50. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's expansion pressure that pushes the pistons. Heat is a waste byproduct.

    51. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's the expansion of the fuel in the cylinder that creates the power, not the heat the fuel develops.

    52. Re:awesome by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. An alcohol flame gets plenty hot. Hot enough to melt glass rods if you don't have a bunsen burner handy, so temps can probably reach over 1000 degrees F.

      Friend of mine found this out the hard way once. Bunch of us were on a camping trip, and someone was trying to teach him how to down a Flaming B-52 (OK, so not exactly hardcore camping). So he basically threw the thing, lit 151 and all, at his mouth, and missed. Let's just say it was a good thing there was a doctor on hand, and the guy got away merely looking kinda sunburned for a few days...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    53. Re:awesome by mortonda · · Score: 1

      If we could run the entire worlds fleet of cars/buses/planes/trains on biofuels, it would have eventually balance out and have zero effect on atmospheric carbon concentrations.

      As Colonel Potter from MASH woud say, "Horsepucky!"

      The current natural process for scrubbing carbon from the air is not keeping up with our emmisions. It doesn't matter if the carbon fuel came from 1 year ago in biofuel or millions of years ago in oil. Either we have to emit less carbon, or we have to scrub more from the air.

      I havent seen any indication from biofuels that indicate they can dramatically increase the amount of scrubbing of the atmosphere. Thus, all we do is shift the carbon net carbon production from one source to another, but it solves nothing.

      The equation is not balanced - if you could magically make everything run on biofuels and magically create as many biofuel factories as you want, you'd find that demand would outstrip the abilities to produce the fuel.

      Carbon neutrality would be great. In fact, all the resources we use should be neutral if we want to preserve the planet... I wish people would stop waving the flag without thinking it through.

    54. Re:awesome by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Deflagration (Lat: de + flagrare, "to burn down") is a technical term describing subsonic combustion that usually propagates through thermal conductivity (hot burning material heats the next layer of cold material and ignites it). Most "fire" found in daily life, from flames to explosions, is technically deflagration. Deflagration is different from detonation which is supersonic and propagates through shock compression. Deflagration

      That's what it means although I'm not positive that it accurately describes detonation, which caused by shock compression by two flame fronts colliding in the combustion chamber.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    55. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh... no.

      What makes a "normal" (ICE) engine work is the combustion that generates rapidly expanding gasses to push the pistons. The heat is (basically) a byproduct, which is why there's a radiator. If the heat was what made it work, why would you have a radiator to cool the engine; wouldn't that just steal power/efficiency?

    56. Re:awesome by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Thing is, he was to sloshed to remember doing this so it always sounds like a good idea (at the time).

    57. Re:awesome by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Alcohol flames burn so clean that they look innocuous.

      Burning hydrogen is fun, too.

    58. Re:awesome by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      100% wrong.

      The waste is already decomposing and releasing CO2.

      What is being proposed is using some of the waste carbon from crop production for fuel production.

      It's no different than burning corn cobs. You accelerate the release of CO2 by a few months, perhaps a year.

      Look at the detail of the CO2 level graph. There is a constant yearly cycle as the Northern Hemisphere (which has more land mass) sucks up CO2 in the spring and summer, then releases it in the fall and winter.

      Making fuel out of that waste is as green as you can get (Devil in the details of course).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    59. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy some gasoline from a pharmacy (they sell it for some reason)...

      Wait... WHAT?!??

      I've got really good health insurance. Wonder what it would take to get a prescription for a 30 day supply. Right now I am paying $700 for a 30 day supply from the dealer on the corner. If I can get it for the $5 co-pay, I'm golden! :)

    60. Re:awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never taken a drink of it?

    61. Re:awesome by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      A steam engine generates it's energy outside of the combustion chamber. The idea later came to have combustion take place inside the engine as it's more efficient. Why do you think modern engines are called "Internal Combustion Engines".

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    62. Re:awesome by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      you guys BURN alcohol? for fun? i get kicks when I drink it, maybe use it in my car, butjust whaching flames.. well, this is /. so nevermind.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  3. Too good to be true??? by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps, but ever time I hear something like this, I still have the hope it really is true. Each time I'm wrong, but who cares! It would be awesome!

    1. Re:Too good to be true??? by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

      I firmly believe that one day, a new energy source will come, and it will blow us away, and the story on slashdot will be true. I firmly believe that in my lifetime we will see cheap, clean endless renewable energy from a currently undreamed of source. I also believe that this particular news story is horsecrap, and it's not even the first time I've heard the 'perfect garbage' horsecrap.

    2. Re:Too good to be true??? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      At best this is a variation on TDP, therefore it probably works, it definitely doesn't work as economically as the article implies, but you have to over-hype this stuff to get the attention of the venture capitalists. I expect that the ROI isn't really good enough to get the venture capital excited when compared with the risks involved.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Too good to be true??? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That hope, that beautiful little flower of perfect happy hope, is how they take your money away from you.

      Let me tell you how the fuel of the future will come about. Some guy in a lab will come up with something that is woefully inefficient, and they will haggle with it for a decade with little funding and little respect, and it will become more efficient, and then more people will say, "Wow, maybe there is something to (insert inefficient process here)" and they'll start working on it. And a decade or so later it will be roughly equivalent to our current fuel in cost.

      People have been working on the idea of biofuels forever, and we've got some semi-decent methods out there, but every one of them is the fruit of a LOT of crappy thankless work done when oil was cheaper than bottled water.

      Likewise fusion; we know it can be done. One day we will do it, barring an intellectual dark age. But right now its an expensive boondoggle.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Too good to be true??? by Keyslapper · · Score: 1
      Of course it's too good to be true.

      Our biggest problem is that we are too good to be true.

      He's practically telling the world he's a pirate
      (paraphrased: Pratchett, Going Postal)

      Anyone see a pic? Is he wearing an eye patch?

    5. Re:Too good to be true??? by zoward · · Score: 1

      So do I, but there's a difference between hoping it's true and investing in a company whose product at this point is vague, expansive claims. One is optimistic, the other foolhardy.

      --
      "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
    6. Re:Too good to be true??? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sort of hope is what makes scams thrive.

      I don't "hope" for golden bullet solutions. I hope for market pressures to drive R&D that produces many different solutions to energy problems so we grow away from an energy monoculture.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Too good to be true??? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      Of course one of new solutions may end up being better than the rest, leading to a new energy monoculture. But then it will be a sustainable one, as I don't think fossil fuels will go back to being dirt cheap.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    8. Re:Too good to be true??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah..lots of bogus numbers shot out.. One that I know is bogus is the price of fertilizer at 15 cents per pound. You might be able to get that at the corner store retail level, but not anywhere near that at the commercial level. By hearing that exaggeration it makes me disbelieve his other claims.

    9. Re:Too good to be true??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      biofuels already work fine. But the people who SHOULD be growing the biofuels arent - the insanely overproductive farmlands in europe and north america would be _ideal_, but the market is incredibly distorted with government regulation (farmers have repeatedly been shut down for growing biodiesel-yielding crops in both the USA and France, presumably to shield the oil industry from competition). The people now growing biofuels are the ones who should be putting their poor farmland to use feeding themselves, while the people who could supply most of their petrol needs with biofuels are producing butter and wine mountains.

    10. Re:Too good to be true??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statements like this, "Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1" sort of lead one to believe there is no chance this is true. If a viable fuel replacement were found that cost less than current fuel sources, the price of fuel would go down as a whole. You could not sell your "new" fuel for $1 less than "regular" fuel, since the price of "regular" fuel would come down to meet the new market price or regular fuel producers would go out of business.

      The sad part is agricultural waste probably can be refined into fuel-like products, given enough research dollars, but snake-oil salesmen like these turn investors away from the concept.

  4. Oooo magic! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like a pump and dump to me. Their stock is at approximately nothing, this claim has no actual details of process. It also violates common sense (complete combustion from a hydrocarbon? They're not zero impurity fuels), and promises an astounding return from the use of a waste product. They make claims that they can put it into production very quickly, which is extremely unlikely given the issues with biofuel scaling.

    From their website:

    Matters discussed in this press release contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When used in this press release, the words "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "may," "intend," "expect" and similar expressions identify such forward-looking statements. Actual results, performance or achievements could differ materially from those contemplated, expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained herein. These forward-looking statements are based largely on the expectations of the Company and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties associated with: the impact of economic, competitive and other factors affecting the Company and its operations, markets, product, and distributor performance, the impact on the national and local economies resulting from terrorist actions, and U.S. actions subsequently; and other factors available from the Company.

    I think that sums it up nicely.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Oooo magic! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to say these guys are or aren't legit, but that's a pretty standard investment disclaimer. An annual report for even the bluest of blue chip companies will warn you how it contains "forward-looking statements" and how the sky might fall and result in a loss for stockholders.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Oooo magic! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The enter thing seems way to far fetched. Motors running without getting hot?
      Yea it would be freaking brilliant if it worked but until I see the chemistry or the cheap fuel I just don't think it is possible.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Oooo magic! by Crowley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds like a pump and dump to me. Their stock is at approximately nothing, this claim has no actual details of process. It also violates common sense (complete combustion from a hydrocarbon? They're not zero impurity fuels)

      Having RTFA, they actually claim no by-products - by which they mean no smoke. If (and this is a *big* if) the hydrocarbon was burning with 100% efficiency - no soot being produced - then surely the chemical reaction is maximising the amount of CO2 that the engine will then pump out; simple high-school chemistry says that there are byproducts of the combustion, they are just invisible to the human eye. The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want. Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      I still call bull on the claims, though...

      --
      Caffeine fault: operator dumped
    4. Re:Oooo magic! by sjwaste · · Score: 1

      Actually, if I'm not mistaken, that sort of boilerplate is exactly what won't get you into the PSLRA safe harbor. The forward looking statements need to be qualified with specificity as to why they're subject to change.

    5. Re:Oooo magic! by sampson7 · · Score: 1

      You realize that the language you quoted is required by SEC regulations and appears in every single financial document released by every single publicly traded company, right? I'm talking ExxonMobile down to Fly-By-Night, LLC.

      I'm not commenting on the (rather dubious sounding) claims made by the company -- but to target their SEC disclosure statement as evidence that they are full of !@#$ is really not fair.

    6. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      CO2 emission from agricultural waste is a zero sum process. The problem with CO2 release from fossil fuels is that you are releasing sequestered carbon in the form of CO2. When you burn the by products of agricultural waste, or even wood for that matter, the carbon you release was all recently absorbed from the atmosphere. Carbon in == carbon out.

    7. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except that if all the carbon that currently goes into soot would release energy when it became co2, so it would theoretically take less fuel to produce the same amount of energy.
      In other words, the more carbon released as CO2, the more energy. For a given amount of energy required, a certain amount of co2 must be produced. Any process that releases more also provides more energy.

    8. Re:Oooo magic! by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

      How about the implications for composting? Last time I checked, agricultural waste takes either a lot of time or a lot of work to break down enough to use beneficially in perfectly good dirt. If any vegetable matter can be processed like this, we will need to rework our waste management infrastructure just to haul our rotten fruit to the factory for processing. Mulch and compost are cheap but heavy fuel.

      --
      I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
    9. Re:Oooo magic! by caseih · · Score: 1

      If we had biodiesel, or any bio-fuel such as what this company claims to be in on, that could burn without producing any soot, then that would be an absolutely *great* thing. Of course combustion produces carbon dioxide when there are carbon molecules in the fuel being oxidized. But if that carbon came from the air to begin with (via plants) then it just doesn't matter. It's as if there was no carbon dioxide being emitted at all! That's the entire point of the biofuel industry. Once we can produce hydrocarbons from plans efficiently, then all we have to do is control particulate and NOx emissions and we finally do have a completely clean, environmentally-friendly, non-global-warming fuel. CO2 emissions, notwithstanding because the net CO2 emission would be zero. This is the ideal panacea. That's the reason claims like this company's claims can really excite people and investors, which is really unfortunate if the company is just trying to swindle people.

    10. Re:Oooo magic! by mlush · · Score: 1

      Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      I'd prefer they ended up as CO2. then at least the fuel is being used efficiently and since is magic Vetrolium its carbon neutral.

      Becides soot is a PM10 and thats not good for your lungs

    11. Re:Oooo magic! by kharri1073 · · Score: 1

      I will believe that when me shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.

    12. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      surely the chemical reaction is maximising the amount of CO2 that the engine will then pump out; simple high-school chemistry says that there are byproducts of the combustion, they are just invisible to the human eye. The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want.

      Yes, but because that carbon has recently been captured from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, rather than being released from long term fossil stores, you are not causing any harm.

    13. Re:Oooo magic! by Rogerborg · · Score: 0, Troll

      I think it burns really cleanly if you add some snake oil to the mix of magic free ingredients.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Oooo magic! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want.

      Please tell me you're not serious. Any carbon-containing byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion that is not CO2 is even more problematic than CO2.

      Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      I'm sorry, but that's a load of nonsense. Having soot in your exhaust means that the engine didn't extract the energy from that portion of the fuel - so in order to get the same amount of energy, the engine needs to burn more fuel. You'll end up with the same amount of CO2 in the end, plus a load of soot that causes its own problems, compared to a "clean" burn.

      In short: You want a combustion engine to turn CxHx + O2 into H2O and CO2 only. All other byproducts will cause even more problems than the latter two, and mean that your engine is wasting fuel.

    15. Re:Oooo magic! by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment on a potential pump-and-dump scheme, though I'd like to reserve judgment and see if in 12 to 18 months they've got independently verified proof of all their claims, including useful production volume.

      But the disclaimer you cite is a fairly standard thing for any company to attach to their financial statements when their business is dependent on factors beyond their control. Without it someone would invariably sue them for, oh... not being able to sell their stuff for $1/gallon fifty years from now.

      --
      --Udo.
    16. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but plants can't utilize soot for their survival.

    17. Re:Oooo magic! by whopis · · Score: 1

      Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      When you RTFA, did you notice that the diesel was being produced by organic waste? That means plants. The CO2 that is released in that process will be equivalent to the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere by the organic material when it was growing. That is hardly 'absolutely catastrophic'.

    18. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from the fact that these folks need some seriously better marketing types, the advantages of this type of fuel is that it's carbon-neutral. Even though it creates carbon, it just finished collecting this carbon last season rather than millions of years ago.

    19. Re:Oooo magic! by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Shit fertilizes the ground, which plants are grown in and fed to cows, which produce milk, which is made into sherbet. There you go, sherbet-from-shit thanks to the sun.

    20. Re:Oooo magic! by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Soot from diesel is a combination of NOx (which create nasty short-term pollution, e.g. smog) and carbon monoxide (which is both more poisonous and a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2). A diesel that produced only CO2 would be a reason to break out the fine wine.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    21. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The byproduct is also quite honestly the one that we don't want. Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      No. This is not true in the slightest. Please do not spread this kind of terrible misinformation.

      Since this product theoretically comes from waste biomass, then all of the carbon compounds should come from photosynthesis... and photosynthesis is basically a plant's way of pulling CO2 out of the air and using the carbon in that to make sugars.

      So all of the carbon atoms in the biomass, and hence the fuel, correspond to a carbon dioxide molecule removed from the atmosphere.

      Therefore, if this fuel truly burned to completion (CO2 and H2O), it would be carbon-neutral and a great boon to the environment.

      I agree with you on calling the article bull, though...

    22. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, by using agricultural waste as the source material (assumed to be plants grown by consuming CO2, or animals grown by consuming plants grown by consuming CO2 etc...) this process is carbon neutral. This means that the amount of carbon (CO2) in the atmosphere remains constant as it is consumed by plants which are in turn burned as fuel. The entire concept is very similar to one put forward by a company called Changing World Technologies, which I believe has a prototype production facility operating in Pennsylvania.

    23. Re:Oooo magic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      I still call bull on the claims, though...

      When will you nerds get it into your heads that "global warming" is the biggest case of FUD since the "Cold War". They don't even call it "global-warming" anymore, it has become "climate-change" as if there is something wrong with climate change.

      Humans make 1% of all CO2 produced annually. CO2 constitutes less than 1% of atmospheric gas.

      You do the math.

      Check http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ for more common sense analysis of this bogus issue.

    24. Re:Oooo magic! by sir+fer · · Score: 1

      Ecologically, from a global warming POV, having diesel *not* emit useless soot is absolutely catastrophic, as the carbon has to go somewhere. It's either soot, or carbon dioxide.

      I still call bull on the claims, though...

      Since /. seems to ignore my AC comments, here goes again...

      When will you nerds get it into your heads that "global warming" is the biggest case of FUD since the cold war? They don't even call it "global-warming" any more, rather, it has become "climate-change" as if there is something wrong with climate changing or anything we can do about it.

      Humans make less than 1% of all CO2 produced annually. Co2 constitutes less than 1% of atmospheric gases. You do the maths.

      see http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ for more info.

      --
      Debian FTW ;o)
  5. A loss producing company lasts for how long? by Swizec · · Score: 1

    Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1

    Is it just me or does that sound like not the best way to run a business?

    1. Re:A loss producing company lasts for how long? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I think the implication he is trying to make is that he can sell it at that price without taking a loss. The whole thing looks like a huge hoax anyway. I like the truck engine that runs without getting hot.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:A loss producing company lasts for how long? by Ec|ipse · · Score: 1

      I agree, make a profit, but don't rape the customer.

      And in the off chance that it somehow replaces regular crude oil, would we start to see price increases?

  6. $1 less than the pumps, regardless of how much? by Syrente · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh man, I'm just waiting for all competing providers to declare 79 cents fuel - then Mr CEO would have to pay you 21 cents for using each gallon of his fuel. Won't happen, but a schadenfreudist can dream...

  7. price of x-1 for any value of x? sweet! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Funny

    the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"' he said."

    I can't wait until his product comes to maturity -- then demand for gas will be so low that the price will drop below $1.

    "Fill her up with regular, please. You can pay me in cash."

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  8. Energy Input? by IAAE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure they can make a lot of crude and fertilizer out of their agricultural waste, but how much energy are they using to convert it? It's all good and wonderful that they can make gasoline out of "waste", but if the energy costs to convert it are more than the production and transportation costs from other sources, either conventional or unconventional (oil sands for example), they may not really be accomplishing anything useful... However, if they were using say a nuclear plant to power their conversion, that'd be a different story.

    --
    I'm critical, not cynical...
    1. Re:Energy Input? by ad0n · · Score: 0

      This is the real question. It is in the processing that these alternative fuels get 'evened out' in a sense. The same holds for hydrogen. Even if you have a 0 carbon footprint fuel when burned, if you look at the full life cycle of the fuel it will be an entirely different story.

      That being said, biofuel has some great potential. In some European cities they have trains running on biofuel made from grapes. Other cities are using waste (i.e. corn husks) from agricultural industries. However, this company sounds like it could be trying to rake in on the hype and could indeed be a pump and dump scheme.

    2. Re:Energy Input? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not in any way involved with the company, but I have read TFA and having done that I feel as if I can answer your questions and concerns in the same spirit:

      how much energy are they using to convert it?

      Absolutely none! The conversion process requires no energy at all, occurs instantaneously, and releases no harmful emissions. In fact, pure unadulterated sunshine blasts forth from the process at all times and bathes bystanders in with its gentle warmth.

      if the energy costs to convert it are more than the production and transportation costs from other sources

      This is not at all the case! The Vetrolium produced is immediately transported to fueling stations across the globe by faeries or the like. No energy whatsoever is required to do this and no harmful emissions are produced. Blasting forth from the fueling stations is pure unadulterated sunshine, to warm your cockles while you fuel up.

      they may not really be accomplishing anything useful

      Untrue! Think of something you want that uses physical raw materials? Got it yet? What you are thinking of can be produced as follows: Waste -> Vetrolium -> What you thought of + pure unadulterated sunshine. See what is missing? Harmful emissions are whats missing, which is why Vetrolium is so great.

      nuclear plant

      The need for atom splitting is entirely obviated by this Waste to Fuel converson process I'd like you to fund. No harmful emissions or byproducts of anything you don't want. No heat. No muss. No fuss. Shove your trash into the magic machine. When you feel warmed by the sunshine coming out, you'll know the process is up and running. Absolutely no hamrful emissions will be involved in any way.

    3. Re:Energy Input? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's not that it can't be done. It's a matter of economic feasibility. Theoretically it sounds like a great idea. There are similar working ideas out there. Diesel cars can run on vegetable oil, and some companies have been created to refine waste vegetable oil from restaurants into an alternative fuel. At the least the waste oil can be refined to supplement other fuels like diesel.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Energy Input? by delcielo · · Score: 1

      I wonder also what the impact would be of collecting that ag waste instead of tilling it back into the land.

      Although this whole thing seems awfully fishy to me, there are others who talk about using ag waste of particular types to produce oil. I wonder what the impact to the fertility of the land would be.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    5. Re:Energy Input? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      In this context, (other) renewable but unreliable energy sources would make sense. As in, storing electricity from solar or wind energy is a problem, but if it could be used to power the conversion of waste to synthetic oil, the output of that conversion can be stored very well.

      This said, I don't trust the "Vetrolium" promises as they sound to good to be true. But there are other companies that have developed processes to turn agricultural waste into fuel. For instance Choren: http://www.choren.com/en/energy_for_all/.
      For more general information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_generation_biofuels.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:Energy Input? by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

      That makes me feel all warm and squishy!

      Either that, or I need to wear diapers...

      --
      "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
    7. Re:Energy Input? by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Posted elsewhere, so apologies for that, but ag waste is actually a PROBLEM, not a valuable resource:

      http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

      In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

      Most stockyards just keep pumping it over and over again onto the same fields. They can't get rid of the stuff and only do the minimum required to adhere to the law.

    8. Re:Energy Input? by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other words, the only potential problem here is that once this gets into the market, we might have society regress to a machine-worship cult with everyone too busy to work since they're instead talking to their machines, feeding them daintily colored, scented rice seed hulls, and basking in the sacred radiance of the Vetroleum.

    9. Re:Energy Input? by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I'm a computer scientist, you insensitive clod! My pasty-white complexion cannot withstand the abuse of exposure to "pure unadulterated sunshine".

      However, I'm open to a settlement offer of approximately 1/2 of your company's profits.

    10. Re:Energy Input? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely no hamrful emissions will be involved in any way.

      Unless you are a Vampire...

    11. Re:Energy Input? by aembleton · · Score: 1

      In fact, pure unadulterated sunshine blasts forth from the process at all times and bathes bystanders in with its gentle warmth.

      Not true. According to the article, heat is not produced from the chemical reaction taking place as it is 100% efficient!

  9. C'mon now, better than algae by Nexus7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Algae biodiesel is far more advanced as vaporware than agricultural waste biodiesel. It claims 10,000 gallons per acre; whereas this agri-waste one claims 6 gallons per bushel. I heard that agri-animal-waste biodiesel claims 1000 gallons per cow. We need more consistency in our inflated vaporware numbers!

    1. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should switch to measuring it by one of those blue tubs in the picture? I've seen those for sale at wal-mart and target so it should be something that everyone can relate to.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by corbettw · · Score: 4, Funny

      It claims 10,000 gallons per acre; whereas this agri-waste one claims 6 gallons per bushel.

      The real question is: how many furlongs per hogshead will I get in my jalopy with either?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by PacoCheezdom · · Score: 1

      Those blue tubs are, in fact, bushels. Most laundry baskets you buy at a place like wal-mart or target are actually labeled in bushels for their volume.

      Yeah, it's a weird old measurement and it's an even weirder place for it to pop up -- but seriously, just google laundry baskets and "bushel" and look at the results.

    4. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I know all about bushels - my last name is Peck

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    5. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It claims 10,000 gallons per acre; whereas this agri-waste one claims 6 gallons per bushel.

      The real question is: how many furlongs per hogshead will I get in my jalopy with either?

      That leaves me wondering how many furlongs in a rod?

    6. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by Huntr · · Score: 1

      Can I get that in Libraries of Congress?

    7. Re:C'mon now, better than algae by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And looking at those numbers:

      I believe that kerosene (semi-refined fuel, and thus potentially lighter than crude) weighs in at 6lbs/gal, so they are claiming an efficiency of somewhere above 60% by weight from breaking down hard husks and such into a liquid product in a short amount of time. Seems to stretch credibility since the most advanced forms of bio-mass conversion are considered to be enzymes and still in their infancy... Perhaps they have a $31m enzyme research program? or a M.A. in B.S?

  10. Fire the reporter by LSD-OBS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA: "Even after a few minutes of operation, the engine block was cool to the touch while the four-wheelerâ(TM)s exhaust pipe seemed to emit little more than warm, odorless air."

    So. This fuel is oxidised thermally neutral? So what's causing the gas to expand? What's driving the pistons?

    I'm not going to call bullshit on this whole story yet, but when a reporter thinks he sees crap like the above, he needs to ask WHY.

    I refuse to make puns about "hot air" :)

    --
    Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:Fire the reporter by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Well - whatever it is will be driving their power plant and generating enough electricity for thousands of home - all without heat. Nice.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Fire the reporter by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's a massive screaming bullshit call in my book. If you're going to call it "bio-crude" which is weird in and of itself, you're going to have to accept that it is actually a fuel.

      The heat produced out of combustion is sort of required; heat warms up the engine. If there is no heat, there is not much energy in the reaction. If there is no energy, it's not much of a fuel.

      Even if, even if the manufacturing claims were accurate, the stuff doesn't behave like a hydrocarbon fuel.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Fire the reporter by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      I'll call bullshit on it. I can keep an open mind on all kinds of stuff and give the benefit of the doubt -- at least provisionally -- to claims that contradict established knowledge except when the claim involves a suspension of the laws of thermodynamics. Find an exception to those, and you've opened the door to perpetual motion and immortality, never mind auto fuel.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    4. Re:Fire the reporter by spineboy · · Score: 1

      go search for my other post, as I'm tired of writing the same thing. It's very realistic, but produces poor power.

      --
      ..........FULL STOP.
    5. Re:Fire the reporter by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      I'd also have to call bs due to the lack of heat thing. Untill I see it for myself.

    6. Re:Fire the reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the engine was cold, and the air was odorless, then the engine was not running!

    7. Re:Fire the reporter by jockeys · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually, if the engine is highly efficient, the "bang" phase will use most of the heat towards expansion (driving the piston), thus exhaust is cooler.

      just because there was a lot of heat in the burning, highly-compressed fuel/air mix doesn't mean the exhaust can't be cool. in fact, the hotter the exhaust (in naturally aspirated engines) the less efficient the piston. ideally, the movement of the piston would harness every bit of heat energy by decompressing the gas to ambient, but that's not going to happen in the real world.

      check out the Bourke engine... it runs on normal gas (or diesel, sometimes) and has cool exhaust because it uses the energy from the "bang" phase to drive the "squeeze" phase of the opposing cylinder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourke_engine

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    8. Re:Fire the reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The heat produced out of combustion is sort of required; heat warms up the engine. If there is no heat, there is not much energy in the reaction. If there is no energy, it's not much of a fuel.

      Don't four-stroke engines of the types described in the article also incorporate liquid cooling systems and radiators to pull heat out of the engine block? If the Vetroleum-derived fuel burns with less waste heat, it may well be possible that, after only a few minutes of operation, that the cooling system will have been able to keep up with enough of the waste heat to keep the engine cool -- meaning that the engine will have to run longer before it comes up to operating temperature. Remember that, for most vehicles, the lubrication system is designed to operate efficiently after the engine has come up to temperature, so an extended warmup period would increase engine wear with a cooler-burning fuel.

    9. Re:Fire the reporter by brasscount · · Score: 1

      Heat is the waste product. That's why your car has a radiator. To dissipate the waste heat. Expansion is the goal. What he's saying is that the expansion can occur without as much waste product. Whether its true or not, a lower combustion temperature would improve vehicle performance, if the expansion of the gas were similar. Lets assume heat + some chemical process + pressure are required to create the miracle crude. Now let's dissect how real crude was created millions of years ago... Hmmm, also, heat + some chemical process + pressure. Strange, but it seems that the concept holds true with the natural method. What if there is a more efficient product from the artificial method that burns slightly more cleanly. Well, that would be like, what's the word? Refinement. Lets see, there are various qualities of crude oil. Light, sweet, brent, etc. The most pure make the most efficient fuel types. The least pure are used to pave roads. All require a level of refinement. Is it possible that he has created a high purity crude that after refinement makes a more efficient gasoline? I'm not qualified to analyze the process, nor do I know what his process is. But I am going to suspend disbelief and wait until it is disproven before I scream BS. But I know someone with the ability to do the analysis should try to disprove it.

      --
      Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability: without Availability the other two are assured, as is Bankruptcy.
    10. Re:Fire the reporter by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

      That's clever!

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    11. Re:Fire the reporter by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Heat's not a waste product in the way that you mean it. A combustion engine that produces no heat is not a combustion engine. The heat is required.

      The heat in a car engine comes from two places: the actual combustion reaction, and the inevitable friction/inefficency. Of those two sources (given proper maintenance and lubrication) the combustion reaction creates the vast majority of the heat.

      Basically, a combustion engine requires countless controlled explosions to function, and to fuel those explosions you need a high energy fuel that is capable of rapid continuous oxidation...There were early experiments with a gunpowder-based engine, and theoretically you can use anything that will go "boom".

      That reaction is absolutely critical to the function of the engine and it absolutely depends on high grade fuel. Now, while theoretically anything can be a fuel, the best fuels will produce the most vigorous reaction, and the most heat. The less heat produced by the fuel, the lower the quality of the reaction. When the temperature drops, the quality of your combustion drops, and that leads to more pollutants, poorer fuel economy, and an engine that sounds like crap and produces less power.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    12. Re:Fire the reporter by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      There are charge cooled engines. Idling takes very little energy, especially if the engine was well tuned and broken in.

      The four-wheeler could idle for a VERY long time before it ever warmed up enough to cause a burn.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    13. Re:Fire the reporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In cold climates, you can pour water at 4 degrees Celsius into your pistons, seal them, and get propulsion from the environment cooling (and thus expanding) the water in the engine. When the piston reaches bottom dead center, remove the water. You can achieve a compression ratio of 1.0001:1 using this technique in the temperature range 4 - 0 degrees Celsius. Torque relative to the volume of the cylinder will be immense, though.

      Pure endothermic propulsion.

  11. Home Page by bizitch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is their home page

    http://www.sustainablepower.com/

    I can't decide which is harder to believe

    Their Science or the fact that they are a penny stock! - Wow who would have guessed that?

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    1. Re:Home Page by zwei2stein · · Score: 4, Informative

      Vaporware scam success meter - LIVE!:

      http://finance.google.com/finance?q=SSTP

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    2. Re:Home Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing wrong with penny stocks.

      General Motors is doing it's best to get there...

    3. Re:Home Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they do seem to be doing something right: http://www.chemicalanalysis.com/news.php?item.76.2

      Of course, it doesn't say how they got that bio-diesel, but at least there is something to show to the public.

    4. Re:Home Page by jrboatright · · Score: 1

      Feb 2007 - 29 cents. Today - 4 cents. Vaporware success factor: -7

    5. Re:Home Page by e_hu_man · · Score: 1

      just remember, enron wasn't a penny stock.

    6. Re:Home Page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their Science or the fact that they are a penny stock! - Wow who would have guessed that?

      Hint, there is a reason they are a penny stock.

  12. Problem with bio-fuel by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is the bio-fuel from rice the same as the bio-fuel from cotton seed oil? Usually, it isn't. Different sources yield different products. A company that can produce a consistent product from a variety of different sources will make billions.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Problem with bio-fuel by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A diesel engine can run on just about anything, so what's the problem?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Problem with bio-fuel by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Is the bio-fuel from rice the same as the bio-fuel from cotton seed oil? Usually, it isn't. Different sources yield different products.

      That mainly depends on what process you use. If you use first-generation biofuel processes (fermentation/biodiesel/etc), then you will get different products. If you go from biomass to syngas to hydrocarbons (second-generation biofuel process), it doesn't really matter what kind of biomass you use as it'll all get turned into H2 and CO at some point in the process. The only questions then are what you can actually use as feedstock for the process, and how efficient it is.

    3. Re:Problem with bio-fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A diesel engine can run on just about anything, so what's the problem?

      My neighbordhood has this problem with stray animals...
      You think we can work out a way to run a diesel generator off of 'em?

    4. Re:Problem with bio-fuel by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Informative

      A diesel engine can run on just about anything, so what's the problem?

      A common misunderstanding among the general public. I design diesel engines, and these inconsistent sources of bio-fuel are a major issue.

      The largest problem being emissions. In engine design, we are currently at delicate balance in engine tuning to meet emissions standards. One thing we must assume constant, is quality of fuel. Using various kinds of fuels will cause variances in NOx or particulate over running the type of fuel the engine was designed for.

      There are also issues with oil change intervals and fuel injection equipment. There are efforts to overcome these challenges. My point is, just because a diesel engine will burn anything, doesn't mean it will do it well.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:Problem with bio-fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you sound like Sustainable Power Corp.

  13. The DeLorean also ran on trash. by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 1

    Does this mean time traveling car are also in the works???

  14. Boilerplate by sjbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Matters discussed in this press release contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. ... I think that sums it up nicely.

    While you are absolutely correct, that's just a standard bit of boiler-plate required by every company in financial statements so that they can talk about the future. Nothing special about this particular piece of boiler-plate.

  15. Coming up later by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuels from bodily waste. Will you choose peesel or shitroleum?

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    1. Re:Coming up later by jrmcc · · Score: 1

      ++Funny
      oh to have some mod points right now...

    2. Re:Coming up later by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Soylent Brown is ... euuuuw!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Coming up later by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      A mix of propane and butane - pootane?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    4. Re:Coming up later by Paranatural · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Coming up later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peetroleum, obviously

    6. Re:Coming up later by fuzznutz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will you choose peesel or shitroleum?

      Acturally, it's peesel or assholine.

    7. Re:Coming up later by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Assoline?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    8. Re:Coming up later by Rary · · Score: 1

      Fuels from bodily waste. Will you choose peesel or shitroleum?

      No, no, no. We already have a use for that.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    9. Re:Coming up later by An+anonymous+Frank · · Score: 1

      Cold Flusion.

  16. If they could do this, they would just do it. by stankulp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They could just start making fuel and sell it on a small scale, then plow their profits back into their production facilities.

    Apple was profitable from Day One.

    This would be too, if it actually worked.

    The fact that they're not just doing it means they can't.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    1. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      There you go. They say you can drop it right into a tank and run it in any gas burning vehicle. Just start selling it for $3.50 a gallon or something like that and bypass waiting on investment. Means more profit for them in the end.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Apple was profitable from Day One.

      Apple used off-the-shelf components from Day One.

      If these guys actually *do* have a legitimate process for accomplishing this, there's still a great deal of Science and Engineering work that remains to be done. It's a lot harder to make that sort of thing profitable from day one.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could just start making fuel and sell it on a small scale, then plow their profits back into their production facilities.

      Apple was profitable from Day One.

      This would be too, if it actually worked.

      The fact that they're not just doing it means they can't.

      comparing this to apple? That's apples to oranges if I ever heard it. The pun is unintentional.

      Computers and fuels are not the same.

      The fact that they aren't just doing it means they need to work on it, not that it can't be done. Ides don't start out produce-able out-the-box so to speak, but need refining and development.

    4. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Comparing this to Apple is pretty silly. A: Apple did not have to deal with the manufacturers of their customers most expensive personal possession claiming the use of an Apple computer would void their warranty and destroy said possession. B: Apple wasn't relying on free or near free supplies to remain profitable. e.g Company A gives away biomass until bio-fuel factory is built next door then decides it is no longer worthless and starts charging. C: Not buying an Apple meant you bought something that was drastically different than the Apple computer. Not buying Bio-Fuel means that you are buying something else that is almost exactly the same. D: Buying diesel from a Chevron station is not inherently risky. Buying bio-diesel from Fly-By-Night inc. station is inherently risky because you just spent $100 to fill up your truck with fuel that is unproven. These points are reasons why bio-diesel is not "profitable from day 1 like Apple." They are not arguments to not use Bio-Fuel.

    5. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by Concern · · Score: 1

      I was about to post this, but I'm glad someone beat me to it.

      If you can make cheap fuel from agricultural waste, then you do not need investors.

      Given their claims about their existing capacity, these guys are scam artists, prima facie. You don't even need the subtler skills, such as recognizing the smell of a suckered journalist.

      As the energy crisis becomes increasingly acute, we will see their kind more and more.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    6. Re:If they could do this, they would just do it. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      If you can make cheap fuel from agricultural waste, then you do not need investors.

      You do if it takes a bunch of expensive hardware to make an plant of a size to run efficiently.

      You also do if you want to scale it up faster than plowing in the profits would enable. (In-and-Out Burgers was nearly the first drive-through fast food operation, chose to stay wholly-owned and expand on its own earnings, and it's STILL only in a few states on the west coast. Compare to MacDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, Taco Bell, ...)

      You also do if there are a bunch of fixed startup costs (such as regulatory approvals and distributor contracts) that you can (or must) amortize across a large amount of production capacity to achieve profitability.

      There are lots of reasons why it would make sense to go for investment even if it is profitable at the garage-shop level.

      (Which is not to say it ISN'T a scam. Just that "if it worked they wouldn't need investors" fails to prove that.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  17. Soylent Gas is made from People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeaaaaaah, "farm" refuse, like SOY...

    (I think someone is beaming messages into my brain with a raygun)

  18. contrary wise by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

    "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"

    If gas is $10 a gallon he is promising to sell his for $9 a gallon (no matter how little it costs to produce). Not such a good deal now huh?

    Of course the claim of near 100% burn efficiency raises a lot of red flags as to the veracity of the claims.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
    1. Re:contrary wise by pluther · · Score: 1

      If gas is $10 a gallon he is promising to sell his for $9 a gallon (no matter how little it costs to produce). Not such a good deal now huh?

      I drive approximately 400 miles per week.
      Assuming two weeks off (because it makes that math easier), that's 20,000 miles per year. At 25mpg, that's 800 gallons of gas.
      So, at $10/gallon, I'd be spending $8,000 per year. If he's selling for $9, that's a savings to me of $800/year. I won't be retiring on it, but it's not a bad bit of savings. If I owned a fleet of cars, that 10% savings could make the difference between staying in business or not.

      So, still a pretty good deal.

      Though I still agree about the red flags being raised in this case.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    2. Re:contrary wise by rodney+dill · · Score: 1

      Yes I agree on the 'savings' since he's selling it for less.

      My thinking was a little more along the lines of -- if he can make the Vetroleum for fifty cents a gallon, for example, but still sells it for $9.00 a gallon (to keep his promise) then he is really gouging the public, and not giving the public as good a deal as his promise would lead you to believe.

      --

      Use your head, can't you, use your head,
      You're on earth, there's no cure for that
      - S. Beckett
  19. Other options seem to exist w/more believability by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a regular subscriber to Popular Science magazine, and I recall seeing several similar-sounding devices covered in there over the years.

    Maybe the problem is, most of them work great in a lab environment, as a "demo", but can't scale up to cost-effective, usable/functional products for the real world?

    Like what's going on with Frank Pringle's microwave emitter:

    http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/innovator_2.html

    Or Joseph Longo's plasma trash converter thing:

    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage?page=1

  20. TFA Looks Sketchy by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rivera claims that products made from Vetroleum burn at near 100 percent efficiency, leaving behind neither heat nor pollution as proof of the chemical reactions taking place.

    Burns without heat? WTF?

    Correct me if (when) I'm wrong, but doesn't no heat output mean no enthalpy in the reaction means no ability to do useful work with that reaction? How is a reaction with no heat output supposed to do work in a heat engine like your car?

    Your car converts gasoline into mechanical energy by mixing it with air and using the resulting explosion to push a piston (see, for example, here). Without heat output, how is the reaction supposed to cause the rapid pressure change needed to drive the piston?

    If "no heat output" is one of their big selling points, I don't see how this can be legit.

    1. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      The useful work is not only through heat. If you inject essentially a liquid and ignite it, even without any heat, it will nearly instantly vaporize, which increases the pressure, plus it decomposes into smaller molecules, which also increase the pressure.

      A car engine isn't a straight up heat engine because it extracts energy from the chemical bonds of the hydrocarbons.

    2. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by BIK · · Score: 1

      Methanol has been used for many years as a racing fuel. Some of the cars don't have radiators because the engine runs so cool. Also, when methanol burns, you see no flame. Methanol fires are very difficult to locate and extinguish as a result.

    3. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I made a comment earlier about how some dragsters and monster trucks will actually build up ice on the outside of the block because they run cold. Evaporation of the atomized fuel takes heat away, even though there's an explosion. But, as I mentioned earlier, the fuel-to-air ratio is really high, and compression ratios need to be high as well to take advantage of this. Think 6 or 7 MPG in a Honda Civic.

    4. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burns without heat? WTF?

      Claiming this i think was their biggest mistake. The rest is almost believable.

    5. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heat is not required. If it converted directly to a gas with little heat released, that would still be able to do work.

      Of course the article was written by someone who has maybe, just maybe, touched a chemistry book, once, by accident, and then he washed with gasoline. I just don't think the article has enough information to say much of anything about the company or the process.

      Perhaps we could find a science writer somewhere who didn't fail 7th grade science, perhaps? Just one, somewhere?

    6. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

      The useful work is not only through heat. If you inject essentially a liquid and ignite it, even without any heat, it will nearly instantly vaporize, which increases the pressure

      Yes, of course. My main concern is that they're saying "it's just like crude!" (to the extent that they're basically saying it can be refined much the same way) while demonstrating properties wildly different from those of crude.

      Others have had a good point that some fuels burn cooler - I'm familiar with alcohol, but didn't know it could cause ice buildup due to expansionary cooling - but if it burns like methanol then it's not similar to gasoline, which is what they were claiming.

      Fundamentally, there aren't all that many hydrocarbon fuel molecules one can make, meaning their fuel will be some other, already-used fuel. The fact that they're selling it as "gasoline that's so efficient it burns without heat!1!" instead of, say, "we have an efficient means to distill methanol from agri waste" makes them sound like snake-oil salesmen.

      Maybe the writer was just a moron, but it sounded like they had a whole dog-and-pony show prepped to demonstrate how "amazing" their "new" fuel was. There's just not that many hydrocarbon fuel molecules - even heavier fuels like kerosene are 12-15 carbon molecules - meaning their fuel just plain can't be all that different. That they appear to be claiming it is just doesn't help their credibility.

    7. Re:TFA Looks Sketchy by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      There's just not that many hydrocarbon fuel molecules - even heavier fuels like kerosene are 12-15 carbon molecules - meaning their fuel just plain can't be all that different.

      One of the biggest differences between "synthesized" fuels and ones that are made from crude is that the former don't contain all the crap (sulfur, heavy metals, etc) that crude contains. Synthesized diesel fuel, for example, will be virtually sulfur-free.

  21. A bad idea even if true by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This may or may not be a scam (my bet's on the former). But even if by some chance it is true, it's still a horrible idea. Think about it: it's taking agricultural waste and burning it up in car engines. It's one thing to burn petroleum--it's a nasty poisonous substance with few uses other than fuel, plastics and medicines.

    But agricultural waste is chock-full of valuable organic substances. It should be composted and returned to the soil so that it can fertilise the next year's worth of food. Burning it up is not all that different from burning corn in the form of 'ethanol' (really, just whiskey): it's just another way to take the last remaining topsoil in the United States and use it to fuel our car addiction, not entirely different from a junky selling his blood every day to get his fix.

    1. Re:A bad idea even if true by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      The industrious among us have sorted out "dirt-optional" growing, so it will be okay... We promise.

      Aquaponics

      (Our soylent green is not made of people. People have a poor feed conversion ratio.)

      -ellie

    2. Re:A bad idea even if true by Interl0per · · Score: 2, Informative

      My father has been an organic gardener for 30 years and he purchases cottonseed hulls every couple of years for mulch. The parent is correct, these are not "waste" products that are being miraculously turned into useful energy, this application would be a net loss. Hopefully the biofuel bubble will collapse quickly enough for people to wake up to the necessity of responsible energy policy rather than hoping for a magic pill.

    3. Re:A bad idea even if true by c · · Score: 2, Informative

      > But agricultural waste is chock-full of valuable organic substances.

      Well, yes and no. Specific agricultural wastes aren't necessarily balanced enough to be immediately reused, if you've even got enough land handy to be able to spread it as fertilizer. And composting takes time. On a large scale, storage, transportation and/or enrichment of ag waste is a huge problem.

      Pig shit from factory farms in places like South Carolina is the canonical example. Besides all of the above, it's also full of antibiotics and other goodies you might not want in your food.

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    4. Re:A bad idea even if true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, but if you weren't aware, currently it is not reused, primarily due to disease issues. The right way to do this is to pile up the waste in nice heaps of the right size and leave it for a year, it heats up and sterilizes itself making nice rich soil. This takes time though so agrobusiness is not a fan. Additionally to have the sterilization be sufficient the animals have to be kept in resonable conditions, which is also not acceptable to agrobusiness. The other option is to just use it straight, but this means a) "burning" the plants with the high acidity levels and b) major disease problems. So currently it's not re-used at all.

      It seems really really strange I know (especially if you grew up on a small farm).

      In fact, re-using a lot of this waste is quickly becoming illegal because when agrobusiness does do it, they do it wrong. This is where people get ideas like pasteurization of milk and cider are required for safety.

    5. Re:A bad idea even if true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt you'll read this but coming from Wisconsin, farmers have stockpiles of shit. They seriously do not know what to do with it all. If this new fuel was real (it isn't), it would be far more productive to burn it in our vehicle than let it break down to CO2 and methane naturally. Also, I don't get the FUD with the topsoil. After doing some quick googling I see anecdotal reports on it being a threat, but the majority of organic matter is left in the field. No one eats corn stalks. If you would like to further expound on this topic, it would be apreciated.

    6. Re:A bad idea even if true by RGRistroph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the article implies that one by product of his process is fertilizer. It emphasizes the cleaniness and clarity of the fuel. I think what the article is trying to imply, although it and the company's web site are extremely non-technical and informationless, is that the carbon is extracted from the feedstock to make fuel, and the "contaminants" of phosphorous, nitrogen, and minerals, are pulled out and labeled "fertilizer". Because of emissions issues it is unlikely that a fuel with nitrogen and phosphorous compounds in it could be widely used.

      Although there is no technical information in the article, the picture shows merely agricultural feed hoppers and a table of buckets and pans. No picture of a vessel that could cook waste at around 500 psi and 500 degrees F is shown, and that is roughly the temperatures and pressures needed for those kinds of reactions. I'd be more interested in seeing that apparatus. You can look at the wikipediate articles on Thermal Polymerization and the Fischer-Tropsch process to confirm this.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch

      I collected some notes on various books and articles I read, because I was thinking of attempting some small scale way of powering an internal combustion engine:

      http://rgr.freeshell.org/woodgas/

    7. Re:A bad idea even if true by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And those cottonseed hulls are useless to the plants until they've decomposed. What happens during this decomposition? Microbes and other dirt dwellers feed on the cottonseed hulls energy and break it down into waste products that the plant can use.

      This process cuts out the dirt dwellers, leaving the energy for us and giving plants what they crave.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    8. Re:A bad idea even if true by rujholla · · Score: 1

      Just curious what do you consider a "responsible energy policy?"

    9. Re:A bad idea even if true by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      But agricultural waste is chock-full of valuable organic substances. It should be composted and returned to the soil so that it can fertilise the next year's worth of food.

      They claim that one of the output products is precisely that fertilizer. Preserving the fixed nitrogen, trace elements (especially sulfur), and other nutritious miscellanea for recycling into the soil and keeping them out of the fuel product (where they'd be fouling contaminants) is a win-win.

      Granted you end up burning the cellulose, rather than plowing it back in. But in some soils that's not a big deal, while in others it just means the farmer has to reserve a part of the crop waste for mulch rather than selling it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  22. The proof is in the investors. by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    Now Rivera must convince potential investors that his trade secret - 21 years and $31 million dollars in the making - isn't just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

    If his claims are true, this will be a trivial task. The fact that he keeps talking about how difficult it will be is telling.

    1. Re:The proof is in the investors. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      If his claims are true, this will be a trivial task.

      Never underestimate the resistance of investors to believe in the amazing.

      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" From my own experience with investors, you could tie down the investor and force them to watch the entire decomposition process over however many days it took to convert the soybean leftovers into this stuff, put this stuff into the investors own car after forcing the investor to suck out the gasoline himself, then enter his car in the Indy 500 and win, and he'd still assert that you've faked it somehow.

      Unless, of course, you tell him alllll about every step in exact detail. Then he still won't believe you, but he'll be doing it himself in a month.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  23. low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by spineboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder just how much "bio-waste" is available anyway, to supply this venture. Would the specific ingredients they require ever amount to enough so as to provide a significant percentage of a states fuel needs.

    The engine temperature observation from the story may just imply that the vetroleum has a very low flash point, or combustion temperature. My friends and I used to set our hands on fire with alcohol from alcohol burners, The alcohol burns at a fairly low temperature, and thus doesn't heat your hand much.

    Lower temperature burns would probably generate less side products, producing a cleaner smoke. That's nothing surprising nor revolutionary. It's actually a bad thing too, since the amount of power produced is also less (less heat -> less thermal expansion = less power)

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by LSD-OBS · · Score: 2, Informative

      And what you've said is not in any way at disagreement with what people are saying when they call this story bullshit.

      Anything that causes expansion can be used to drive a piston. This can include air heated by sunlight, or really slow burning hydrocarbons. Also, I'm sure everybody has played with burning methylated spirits and such.

      However, for the purposes of a combustion engine suited to road vehicles, you need decently fast (and therefore hot) combustion to make it practical.

      Therefore, this "Vetrolium" is completely unsuited to the purpose, if indeed everything described in the story is accurate.

      --
      Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
    2. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't this be a bad thing considering the high compression ratios cars have? I wouldn't want the fuel to ignite early due to the heat generated by compression.

      That's why we have octane in our gas. To raise the burn temperature so it can take higher compressions. Higher Compression = more power.

      It seems to me that a fuel that burns at low temp. is exactly what we don't need.

    3. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I wonder just how much "bio-waste" is available anyway, to supply this venture. Would the specific ingredients they require ever amount to enough so as to provide a significant percentage of a states fuel needs.

      Not as much as you might think - as a very large portion of such 'waste' is processed into animal feed (for cattle, pigs, and chickens). A very large portion of the remainder is burned to provide steam and/or power for the processing plant itself. A very large portion of the balance is commercially composted. Very little is 'wasted'.

    4. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      There is a LOT of bio-waste available. Almost every food crop plant produces far more leaves, stems, husks, etc. than actual "food product". For example, look at corn - the cob and husk is far bigger and heavier than the kernels. It's the same for all grains.

      Plus, look at how many pounds of just grass clippings mowing a normal suburban yard creates in a year.

    5. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on what your definition of "waste" is. Some of the stuff they mention isn't really waste, but possibly a by-product of a process. Cracked soybeans may be a "waste" product of one process, but it is certainly still usable as food or livestock feed. Rice is another example of that and more specifically the grains are size graded for retail sale so that cracked ones or aodd size ones would be considered waste and most likely then used in another process.

      Lets be specific. I say if he can make crude oil from real waste like stover, straw or manuer then he deserves a chance. I am more skeptical about the heat claims. Unless someone reversed the laws of physics (or I'm a complete idiot), the more light and heat you get when you burn something, the more energy is stored in it. If the flame puts out little light and little heat then there isn't much energy in it. Further more isn't it true that most of the heat generated by an internal combustion engine comes from the friction of the internal parts, not the burning of the fuel?

      Finally to the comments I read claiming this wouldn't be a "green" tech because you still get carbon from burning it, I say... Are you high or what?! It's about the carbon cycle, not just the carbon. If you burn a plant or a derivative of that plant, yes, you generate carbon. However, the next year when you grow a plant again, that plant will use the exact same amount of carbon to grow that was released into the atmosphere when you burned the plant from last year. The net effect is then neutral on an ongoing basis.

      Also, as an old farm boy I can tell you that if you consider all crop "waste" as feed stock for this process then there probably is enough to go round. It isn't otherwise wothless though as some people claim. Keeping healthy agricultural grade soil requires organic matter and fertilizer. The less residue you plow under, the more fertilizer you will need to compensate with to maintain fertility. Cost of collection of this "waste" is another issue. If they can get 6 gallons per bushel, it may well cost them most if not all of that to collect, transport, process, refine and distribute the end product

      In the end, I sincerely hope he's right, but he and the article were disturbingly vague.

    6. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by SBrach · · Score: 1

      The reason you didn't burn your hand is not because alcohol doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to do so. Think evaporation.

    7. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by SBrach · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't want the fuel to ignite early due to the heat generated by compression.

      Diesel engines work in exactly this way.

    8. Re:low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      less heat -> less thermal expansion = less power)

      The power may be less but the engine may be more efficient. It works in EGR. (I don't really care for the article) The amount of fuel consumed goes down more proportionally than the amount of power produced (aka bsfc goes down). (citing Heywood chapter 15)

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  24. Wrong market by Dolohov · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Assuming for the moment that their claims are legit (TFA doesn't give us anywhere near enough information to evaluate them) it seems to me that the US is the wrong market for this. If I were in their shoes, I'd deploy this in China: the country's still very agricultural (that fertilizer might be worth a lot more there) but growing rapidly (i.e. they're looking for new sources of fuel, not just for cars but for power plants), there is a strong political will to invest in infrastructure, and they like to boast about any engineering feat. Prove it there, work out the kinks for large-scale production and refinement, then bring it west. That's what I'd do.

    1. Re:Wrong market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the US is the right market for it - where else do you get the largest group of people throwing money on penis enlargement pills (and other such scams).

      Africa is the wrong market. They dont need either scam - agricultural gdp and ...aint need no pills.

  25. Lots and Lots of magic... by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to agree - this doesn't inspire confidence in me.

    I'd much rather see samples sent off to independent testing labs. Heck, I'm sure there's some mechanical equivalents to Dan out there.

    Heck, Popular Mechanics and consumer reports will occasionally provide free testing of various 'too good to be true' methods and devices.

    His idea, taken raw, sounds a lot like thermal depolymerization, which does have a test plant up. But the TD guys aren't proposing a 100% replacement for oil, or making claims that their fuel is almost magical(the lower heat). It IS naturally lower in a number of contaminants such as sulfur, but nothing magical.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  26. One Problem With Biofuels by slughead · · Score: 0, Troll

    The one and only problem with biofuels (apart from the fact that they produce as much greenhouse gas as petroleum products) is and always has been that we really like our food prices low, and diverting food to vehicle fuel increases the demand and therefore price.

    In fact, the main factor in the current food price increase is not oil prices or inflation (though they're helping), it's actually the higher demand for corn due to ethanol subsidies for vehicles [citation: The Economist magazine].

    Making more biofuel will increase food prices which is probably not a good idea from a political standpoint. What we need to do is continue to work on hydrogen tech--the main hurdle being the low energy density. Hydrogen is chiefly derived from extracting it from water using electricity (thermodynamics states this does not "create" energy, just change its form).

    At present, per joule, electricity (which can be converted into hydrogen energy) is 1/4 the cost of gasoline. Obviously, as with food prices, that would change if we were using electricity to fuel our cars. However, it still may ultimately be less costly to switch over to hydrogen (or some other pure electric car).

    1. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Well the claim is that it is from "waste" ... you know, leaves, shells, the stuff you don't eat.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    2. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the article specifically states that it's agricultural *waste* that they use to produce their marvelous elixir. I seriously doubt that we'll see anyone start growing rice just for the hulls.

    3. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this insightful? The parent seems to believe that all biofuels are made from food. While this is the case for the bulk of current biofuels, the argument is misleading in the context of an article on biofuels from waste (which should be discerned merely from reading the first sentence of the summary).

      Furthermore, I challenge parent to provide citations for the claim that "hydrogen is chiefly derived from extracting it from water". This not true; a small fraction of worldwide hydrogen production comes via electrolysis of water; a large majority of our hydrogen is extracted from hydrocarbons.

      And when I say "citation", I don't mean [citation: some article I read], or [citation: The InterWebs], or [citation: my cousin's girlfriend]. At least give us a URL; anything less is either lazy or dishonest.

      Lastly, while I appreciate parent's assurance that electrolysis does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, it should be noted that using current technology, only some of the energy input into the reaction goes to the production of O2 and H2; the rest is waste heat, a "changed form" that is not typically exploited.

    4. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by Whatsisname · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that the vast majority of that electricity is made from coal in the united states.

      Oh well, a little CO2 and Mercury never hurt anyone.

    5. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      What we need to do is continue to work on hydrogen tech--the main hurdle being the low energy density. Hydrogen is chiefly derived from extracting it from water using electricity (thermodynamics states this does not "create" energy, just change its form).

      So why use the electricity to create hydrogen? The low energy density of gaseous hydrogen is an unsolvable problem, and thermodynamics also states that converting electricity to hydrogen must be less than 100% efficient. We should instead focus on making purely electric vehicles more viable with better storage cells and on generating the electricity in a more sustainable way. There are also large hurdles in safely handling and distributing hydrogen, while there is already a distribution network for electricity in place. Granted, the power grid would need improving as the demand for electricity for cars increased, but we've got over 100 years of experience handling that, with 0 for hydrogen.

    6. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one and only problem with biofuels (apart from the fact that they produce as much greenhouse gas as petroleum products) is and always has been that we really like our food prices low, and diverting food to vehicle fuel increases the demand and therefore price.

      Apart from the fact that biofuels produce as much greenhouse gas as the plants they were derived from pulled out of the atmosphere, rendering them 'carbon-neutral' between growing the plants and burning the derived fuel (the overall process may not be, depending on the energy cost of turning the biomass into fuel). Fossil fuels are produced from carbon pulled out of the atmosphere by plants millions of years ago, putting carbon back into the atmosphere now. Biofuels are produced from carbon pulled out of the atmosphere by plants a few days or weeks ago, putting carbon back into the atmosphere now. However, your claim of 'diverting food', while it is true with regard to the current corn-based or sugarcane-based ethanol, is not relevant to the process producing Vetroleum as described in the article, which uses "...such agricultural refuse as cracked soy beans, rice and cotton seed hulls, grain sorghum, milo and jatropha..." as its raw material and produces a synthetic form of crude oil, leaving a material usable as fertilizer as a residue. Now, the entire claim for the process may be fertilizer, but it is describing a biofuel production process that does not divert foodstocks to fuel production.

    7. Re:One Problem With Biofuels by SBrach · · Score: 1

      Except that hydrogen is not "chiefly extracted" from water using electrolysis because that is too expensive and uses more energy then is created. Hydrogen is "chiefly extracted" from natural gas.

  27. Wow! Thats almost as good... by oneal13rru · · Score: 1

    Thats almost as incredible as my new process to recycle old broken computer parts into perfectly functional bandwidth! I'm planning to start an ISP soon, as soon as my server finishes building itself, which should only take 12-18 months, and a small fortune. And since broken electronics are so readily available, I promise to sell broadband service for half of what anyone else is doing, so if broadband becomes free, I'll pay YOU to use my service!!

    --
    Never disregard the raw power inherent to stupidity... they call it "dumb luck" for a reason...
  28. Low temp fuel burns by spineboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    see my prev message. If a fuel has a low combustion point, then it doesn't generate much heat. It also, unfortunately, generates less power too.

    So the truck engine that runs w/o getting hot is realistic. Of course it might not be able to pull anything either.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Low temp fuel burns by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      I did just read that and appreciate the info.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  29. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then let's get the price of gas to $0.99. Then he'll have to pay us to use his stuff.

  30. I would have gotten away with it too... by Minwee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...if it weren't for those pesky laws of Thermodynamics!

    Okay, it's not a perpetual motion machine but the article glosses over or completely ignores a few important details about his ultra-secret process, like just how much energy is required to produce and refine this stuff. He could make the nicest bio-diesel around, but if it takes fire barrels of oil just to make one barrel of it then he's going to have some troubles making his power plant work.

    "Our biggest problem is that we are too good to be true"

    Yup, that would be one way of putting it. I'd be happy to see this project succeed, but it has been tried before and always run into the same problems.

  31. Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...just like keep trying to do with the plant in my neck of the woods.

    http://www.res-energy.com/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

    Scroll to the bottom, under 'Current status' and 'Smell complaints'.

    Too bad there's not a section for 'pressure from big oil'. If it isn't the case today, it certainly will be tomorrow.

    This outfit in Carthage is already producing 500 barrels a day from guts and fat, at a profit of $4 per barrel. In January 05, their price was $80/barrel ($1.90/gal).

    The tech is real, so why don't we have the gas yet?

    1. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the answer to your question is right in your own post..

      Only 500 barrels a day. Stinks up a whole town...

      Oh, and there's this that you neglected to mention:

      In April 2005 the plant was reported to be running at a loss. Further 2005 reports summarized some economic setbacks which the Carthage plant encountered since its planning stages. It was thought that concern over mad cow disease would prevent the use of turkey waste and other animal products as cattle feed, and thus this waste would be free. As it turned out, turkey waste may still be used as feed in the United States, so that the facility must purchase that feed stock at a cost of $30 to $40 per ton, adding $15 to $20 per barrel to the cost of the oil.

      Their plan to be profitable was based on the (incorrect) assumption that they would be getting their inputs for free. Now they're turning a profit because of a federal energy subsidy (you're giving them tax money as profit).

      Sounds like a complete dead-end. No "big oil" conspiracy theory required.

    2. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The problem is that production is slow and low. 500 barrels a day is great and all, but that's not even close to what is needed.

      I've got plenty of biofuel plants around me as well, and the things that are keeping them from taking over the world are low supplys of feed stocks, long cook times, and low peak output.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      If only there was more pig shit in the world, and it wasn't so very valuable, then, right?

    4. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Making small scale bio diesel from waste fats is not scalable to an industrial process, mainly due to lack of feedstock. There is a limited amount of fryer oil, rendered fat and other organic based greases available, not enough to make a dent into our need for diesel from hydrocarbon sources.
      Being able to use all the waste products from the agriculture would be extremely beneficial - you're having plenty of feedstock, the minerals in the biomass would be sequestered and could go back into fertilizer, and it's basically carbon neutral. Making it work so without putting so much energy in that you blow that "carbon neutral" all the way to hell is the trick.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    5. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      The problem is that production is slow and low.

      Considering they're manufacturing the most valuable material on the planet, you'd think there enough demand to warrant additional production...

    6. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I should have included this in my parent post:

      http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm [fao.org]

      In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

      People seem to be missing out on the fact that this is WASTE material. Not only is it waste, but this waste actually causes environmental issues all its own. So we have the option of taking a problem and turning it into something we need.

      Yes, it requires energy. Can you think of a better way to spend it?

    7. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The problem is, that the process doesn't scale well. A lot of biodiesel needs several days of cooking, so there is a limit to how much stock you can be working with at any one time.

      Even with the thermal depol process, you have a multistage process that takes a significant amount of time, and takes up a significant amount of space. And there as well you have availablity issues with feedstock.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "if only they could actually run this thing off pig-shit?"

      They imply that they're using turkey shit, but then it says "the full output of the turkey processing plant" (That would include flesh, fat, feet, heads, etc..) and "egg production waste". It implies that pig and even human waste could be used, but then says "Much of this mass is considered unsuitable for oil conversion."

    9. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      I'm all kinds of copy+paste happy today, so apologies, but:

      http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

      In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

      The process needs to be refined, I'm sure, but livestock waste is a problem that this would help solve.

      Use the land to solve a problem and make oil. This is your basic no-brainer.

      Even if it didn't help the cost situation at all, we'd still be seeing a net-gain.

    10. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I agree completely, especially with regards to animal waste->fuel conversion. The animal waste is costly enough to dispose of already to make it profitable.

      Still, its never going to eliminate oil as a fuel source. It'll take something epic like algae for that. In my mind, biofuels are something to sort of tide us over while cleaner renewables hit their stride. Having a car burning biofuel is not nearly as nice as one that just runs on pure electricity.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by Dolohov · · Score: 1

      Water is probably even more valuable, but the problem there is also that while it is precious in general, it is not especially expensive. Being able to produce large quantities of potable water cheaply would make a company far wealthier than producing gasoline, but with so many schemes and such large expense and investment necessary to start production, it's like the old New England joke: I don't think you can get there from here.

      The problem is that the nation is suffering from a form of menu paralysis: there are thousands of promising methods, but none of them will really work without a lot of investment. So we sit and dither over whether to get the veal marsala or chicken cacciatore, afraid of either picking a loser or passing up something we'd like better, and meanwhile we're just filling up on bread (OK, I think I took that analogy a little too far). Basically, since there's no clear winner and instead there are a lot of promising potentials, we don't really wind up picking anything. Eventually the funding will dry up and whatever's left will be chosen, whether because it had particularly tenacious investors, had particularly intelligent managers who managed to keep it profitable long enough, or simply got lucky. And then we'll pretend that's what we would have picked all along, and the history books will make it look like "the market worked!"

    12. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      That makes sense. Either tide us over, or exist to support the old-school stuff that won't likely ever get converted.

    13. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by funkify · · Score: 1

      The problem is that production is slow and low. 500 barrels a day is great and all, but that's not even close to what is needed.

      Let it flow!
      Let-cha-self go!
      Slow and low,
      That is the tem-po!

      ...Brass monkey...that funky monkey...

    14. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cant smell it from joplin.. ;)

    15. Re:Someone will eventually shut them down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are. It's simply being purchased by the big oil and mixed... same as with traditional bio-diesel. Hell they had to get lubricity back somehow after they tore out the sulfur compounds.

  32. mod up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Parent is making an excellent point; what the company describes as "agricultural waste" is a nutrient-rich and fiber-rich compostable material, essential to keep topsoil in top condition for growing crops. If you don't recycle the so-called "waste" into the ground, the topsoil starts to lose aeration capacity, nutrient load, compaction resistance, etc, after which crop yields can easily fall 30% or more.

  33. What if gasoline is = $0.99/gallon? by profet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do they pay us to pump their fuel?

  34. one good sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that it isn't vaporware, they are hiring millwrights, welders and electricians, instead of the typical web page "masters" heavy on Flash experience you see at some other places. Besides that, no idea, haven't found any of their patents yet to look at.

  35. Perhaps he could also make gas from Bull@!#$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the end, all bio-fuels are solar powered, and the maximum production they can possibly obtain is limited by the light falling on the cultivated area. This company is claiming to produce energy far beyond 100% efficiency for the amount of soy, rice and cotton grown. Also, they area claiming they are getting that energy from the leftovers of the the agriculture process.

    There we go... fraudulent and easily provable. Why do these stories keep making the front page? Slashdot is getting as bad as TreeHugger for not even doing basic common sense screening of stories.

    I hope their "Chief Con Artists" ends up in prison before he disappears with his investor's money.

    1. Re:Perhaps he could also make gas from Bull@!#$... by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      Or you could look at it another way - what better place to let knowledgeable people publicly post an informed discussion of the technology?

      Or should we just let all the comments indexed by google be made by people who don't have a clue?

      Discussing it here is a good thing in my book.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Perhaps he could also make gas from Bull@!#$... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate your desire for open discussion, but not everything is worthy of discussion.

      Free energy quacks are a dime a dozen on the internet. They shouldn't get press here unless they:

      #1 -- Have some plausible evidence of their claims (an engine seen running by one community newspaper reporter does not count).

      #2 -- Already have a tremendous amount of press. If the idea is already a topic of discussion, then it may be worth going over here regardless of plausibility.
      --------------------

      This is neither. There are plenty of bio-fuel and bio-waste-fuel projects out there, but Slashdot is feeding this jerk because he's louder than the rest, not because it looks like he's a good horse to back.

      There are too many amazing things happening in this world for us to be wasting time on hokey scams.

  36. Owner currently involved in a lawsuit... by Kirgin · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/news/2007/sep/28/judge-oks-rivera-fraud-suit/ Yup, do people that get scammed by these people not have access to google? That took me 32 seconds to find.

  37. there is a point... by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    fully aknowledging the snake-oil odour present, there is a point to be made here. Modern biotech uses GMO produced enzymes to break down the cellulose from agricultural waste in lighter sugars which can then be fermented to alcohol in granddaddys style. But each and every step breaks down the amount of energy present in the soup. How about a working opposite? Take a big mean motherf*** nuclear reactor. Use its power to heat up the waste and turn it into very hot gas or maybe even plasma. Control the chemical composition by adding coal, water, air,... Pass it over some catalysers cracking the long molecules and let it condense recuperating as much heat as possible for heating up the next batch. That should be able to give you a kind of crude oil soup which you can feed into a traditional refinery, possibly blended with normal crude.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:there is a point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wiki says jatropha is promising, along with Switchgrass, sugarcane and Hemp as candidates.
      The Indians are growing jatropha, and it may be economical at $40 bbl.
      Just don't know how toxic the waste will be. This weed even grows on railway tracks - will now be harvested.

    2. Re:there is a point... by jdschulteis · · Score: 1

      Using catalysts to crack long molecules is part of what a traditional refinery does. It makes more sense to just directly create the kind of molecules you want, rather than make some sort of synthetic crude oil and then refine that back down.

      Much work has already been done on this general idea.

  38. Oil Bubble by sesshomaru · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This Oil Bubble has been fun, huh? Sort of like the Housing Bubble, different than the Tech Bubble. With the Housing Bubble it was "oh no, real estate is going to just keep going up, after all, no one is making more land." Of course, looking at the situation now, it seems someone was making more land, at least with the price declines we've been seeing.

    .

    Now we have an Oil Bubble, and it is fun in its own way. Peak Oil! We're all doomed, the great die-off! Foriegners are eating our lunch! Kuntsler hasn't been this happy since we were all going to be totally doomed by Y2K!

    Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing trains make a comeback, and some serious investment in improving nuclear tech, but I'm guessing that the current bubble will pop before we get very far in either on one them. You know its bad when, 12 U.S. airlines call on Congress to curb excessive speculation.

    I'm wondering what the next Bubble will be. Some are thinking a Green Tech Bubble, but I'm hoping for a Water Bubble. You know, sort of like that episode of Darkwing Duck with the Liquidator.

    Of course, someone could do something about all the insane, emotion-driven speculation but that wouldn't be as much fun. It might lead to economic stability, and who wants that?

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    1. Re:Oil Bubble by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Stability == Stagnation. All economic activity is cyclical, and the goal should be to bring the peaks closer together, not flatten them out.

      I'm frankly fine with speculators speculating because, frankly, it always ends up with them losing their asses. Commodities will even back out as the markets settle down.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Oil Bubble by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm frankly fine with speculators speculating because, frankly, it always ends up with them losing their asses. Commodities will even back out as the markets settle down.

      It's pretty generous, I think, to call "cornering the market" "speculating".

      They're not simply betting on continued price increases. They're creating continued price increases. They're working with a pile of capital that's bigger than the market.

      90 days of oil futures inventory is worth about 810 billion dollars at $150/barrel. Given the tight correlation between supply and demand, controlling 1/10th of the inventory will maintain upward price pressure for a long time. $81 billion is chump change for these guys. Way less than half of what they pulled out of their sub-prime mortgage investments.

      Speculation is fine. Cornering the commodities market is extortion.

    3. Re:Oil Bubble by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This Oil Bubble has been fun, huh? Sort of like the Housing Bubble, different than the Tech Bubble. With the Housing Bubble it was "oh no, real estate is going to just keep going up, after all, no one is making more land." Of course, looking at the situation now, it seems someone was making more land, at least with the price declines we've been seeing.

      Those, like myself, who invest in land and housing with an eye on making returns on a time scale of decades will do nicely. The bubble only hurt those who had an eye on the short term.

    4. Re:Oil Bubble by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Eh. The problem is the drop in demand that accompanies a high cost for fuel. The oil market is extremely volatile right now, and the reason for that is that the big investors know that if demand drops significantly, they're going to lose their asses. They're banking on disasters, frankly, and if one doesn't arrive before september they're going to the poor house.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:Oil Bubble by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      Oh, I'm not opposed to some fluctuation in the market, don't misunderstand. I just don't think Bubbles are normal. I mean, yes, the Tulip Bubble was great for the Tulip Industry, tons of new breeds were created, and it was a golden age for tulips if you could afford them. However, it led to a lot of mal-investment. Also, I'm not saying government regulators should even need to step in. If it truly is a bubble, then people in the finance industry should be stepping in to tell their customers to diversify their investments.

      .

      Of course, I think a lot of people who should know better get dragged along, and some of those who don't are opportunistically (which is not an evil thing, don't misunderstand) exploiting the situation, riding the wave and trying to judge when to divest. Anyway, no one needs to worry about what I think anyway, because nobody's going to listen to me anyway. I just like playing Cassandra.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    6. Re:Oil Bubble by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, someone could do something about all the insane, emotion-driven speculation but that wouldn't be as much fun. It might lead to economic stability, and who wants that?

      We can always pass a law making it so there's no uncertainty about the future and that everyone should be rational and omniscient. That would fix the bubble problem. In fact, that would be the only thing that could fix the bubble problem.

    7. Re:Oil Bubble by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      They're banking on disasters, frankly

      They're banking on being "too big to fail" and being saved by taxpayer money.

      Meanwhile, nobody will ask where the actual cash that is supposedly being lost came from, or where it all went to.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Oil Bubble by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Is that so?

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    9. Re:Oil Bubble by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hrmmmmm. I meant to say that elimination of uncertainty about the future and having your society consist of all knowing, rational beings is the only way you can get rid of bubbles and similar phenomena. The law wouldn't help. Bubbles are ultimately a readjustment of unrealistic expectations. Government really doesn't help here. All it can do is prolong the period of time before the herd changes its mind. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.

    10. Re:Oil Bubble by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It's conceivable that they could buy 20, even 30% of all futures contracts that hit the market. Do you really see global consumption dropping 20-30% due to increasing prices?

      The current bubble can maintain itself for 3-4 years before it tops out unless there is some regulatory intervention. Even disasters wouldn't justify the current price. All it can do is provide rationale for irrational buying of an overpriced commodity.

    11. Re:Oil Bubble by Atario · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering what the next Bubble will be. Some are thinking a Green Tech Bubble, but I'm hoping for a Water Bubble.

      Let's have a Soap Bubble. Maybe lots of them, with Lawrence Welk music.

      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    12. Re:Oil Bubble by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      The problem with the housing bubble and oil bubble is they aren't the same as the dot-com bubble - normal people are getting hurt. Predatory lenders and real estate agents told people they could afford more than they could and those people have lost real money. Oil is tanking peoples budgets, although the move toward smaller cars and mass transit is nice - i think the net result will be a gain.

      The dot-com bubble hurt a lot programmers and IT folks who were making more than they should have on stuff they knew was crap. And VCs will always lose money when they don't do their due diligence, which they didn't do. The thing that tanked the economy at the time wasn't just the dot-coms, it was 9/11 - it just all gets attributed to the dot-coms.

      I started at a tech startup about 3 months before 9/11 and our hard times started on that day. VCs disappeared for months and money was very very tight. In the end we made it through without VC funding because we actually made something other than an online dating website and weren't trying to sell pizzas over the web. I'm no millionaire unfortunately but I learned a ton from that experience.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    13. Re:Oil Bubble by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Stability == Stagnation. All economic activity is cyclical, and the goal should be to bring the peaks closer together, not flatten them out.

      no
      stability=="bring peaks closer together"
      stagnation=="flatten them out"
      The goal is controlled growth without irrational exuberance.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    14. Re:Oil Bubble by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      Hmm, Bubbles aren't caused by a lack of omniscience. They aren't characterized by overly cautious investement, which if people didn't feel certainty about the future would be the case. We also can't absolve investors of being ignorant of the concept of bubbles or of being unaware of historical data regarding past bubbles.

      .

      But you misunderstand my post, it wasn't in support of, or critical of, the airlines attempt to have the oil market regulated differently. (It would be naive to believe that the oil market isn't already heavily regulated along with the energy industry as a whole, so what the airlines are proposing is a change in regulation not regulation of an unregulated market.)

      No, I was merely pointing out the Bubble, because some people believe that we have hit Hubbert's peak, and the Bubble provides an alternative explanation for the high price of gas. I picked on the airline's letter, because it's evidence that some of our largest fuel users, who believe me analyze all kinds of economic data to come to their conclusions believe that the price of fuel's relation to the cost of fuel is largely an illusion.

      However, I take issue with your idea that economic instability and the boom-bust cycle are a necessary part of a free market. I believe it lets greedy fools and economic bottom feeders off the hook. Every Bubble brings more government control over the economy, we don't want that and we don't want any more Bubbles. Can government regulation fix it? Unlikely, the government seems to like Bubbles and do what it can to fuel and nurture them with its regulations, so no help there. (Well, they tend to be friendly toward economic bottom feeders who grow rich on the distortions they in the government introduce into the economy.)

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    15. Re:Oil Bubble by khallow · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Bubbles aren't caused by a lack of omniscience. They aren't characterized by overly cautious investement, which if people didn't feel certainty about the future would be the case. We also can't absolve investors of being ignorant of the concept of bubbles or of being unaware of historical data regarding past bubbles.

      Omniscience is knowing everything, not just feeling you know everything. Overly cautious investment is the other side of overly optimistic investment.

      No, I was merely pointing out the Bubble, because some people believe that we have hit Hubbert's peak, and the Bubble provides an alternative explanation for the high price of gas. I picked on the airline's letter, because it's evidence that some of our largest fuel users, who believe me analyze all kinds of economic data to come to their conclusions believe that the price of fuel's relation to the cost of fuel is largely an illusion.

      There's two things to remember about US airlines. First, they have one of the biggest axes around to grind when it comes to the price of oil. Second, a large portion of that industry hasn't turned a profit in decades, at least on paper. All is not as it seems.

      However, I take issue with your idea that economic instability and the boom-bust cycle are a necessary part of a free market. I believe it lets greedy fools and economic bottom feeders off the hook. Every Bubble brings more government control over the economy, we don't want that and we don't want any more Bubbles. Can government regulation fix it? Unlikely, the government seems to like Bubbles and do what it can to fuel and nurture them with its regulations, so no help there. (Well, they tend to be friendly toward economic bottom feeders who grow rich on the distortions they in the government introduce into the economy.)

      I can't imagine why you think it lets greedy fools off the hook. Because when the particular market collapses in the wake of a bubble burst, they're the ones losing money. For greed, the disease is the cure. Second, I don't see what your problem is with scavengers or "bottom feeders". If a business is failing due to either the incompetence of the managers or the obselescence of the business, do we a) bail the industry out (the airlines being a good example), or b) appoint managers more competent, also known as the "bottom feeders"? Who else is going to invest in or run a failing business?

      Finally, how do you propose to introduce "economic stability" into these sorts of markets? And how can we tell the difference between that and the various government schemes for growing bubbles. My take is that they are indistinguishable. Stabilizing a market means to me that the bubbles grow bigger before they burst. You get longer periods of stability interspersed with deeper and more harmful corrections. That's why I see economic stabilization strategies as self-defeating.

    16. Re:Oil Bubble by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      The oil market is extremely volatile right now, and the reason for that is that the big investors know that if demand drops significantly, they're going to lose their asses.

      September? This bubble could go on for years. All we need is the LA times to have four^H^H^H^Hthree missiles on the front page. Oh yes, notice the ground-plumes of the third and "fourth" ones--HTF did the Times editor miss that?

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
  39. Um, ok by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    we are too good to be true.

    Ok. Next?

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  40. sustainablepower.com by Anonmyous+Coward · · Score: 1

    sustainablepower.com? Sounds like their most valuable asset is their domain name.

    As for selling it for $1 less than petrol, I'll just wait until a market glut puts gas at $0.97/gallon again and start MAKING 3 cents for every gallon I burn!

    1. Re:sustainablepower.com by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to making 3 cents for every gallon we burn, then we'd finally be able to afford to fuel up!

      Oh wait.

  41. If it sounds too good to be true... by oneTheory · · Score: 1

    ...it probably is.

    Common Sense 101 - I guess a lot of kids missed that class because their parents kept them at home due to fear of terr-a-wrists.

    1. Re:If it sounds too good to be true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey asshat... there was a daycare in the World Trade Center.

      Hopefully you and your kids will be in the next one.

  42. Don't hold your breath by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changing_World_Technologies

    A few years ago we all got excited about a company that was converting agricultural waste (turkey guts) to oil. That company, Changing World Technologies, is a legit company and is very open about how their process works. They are indeed processing turkey guts into oil and seem to be making a small profit.

    Robert Appel (the brains behind CWT) also pointed out that, if we could convert all our agricultural waste, we wouldn't have to import oil.

    The problem with CWT is that their process seems to be very fussy about its feedstock. You can't just throw random organic waste into the reactor and get good results.

    Given CWT's experience, and given that they have been very up-front and honest, I would rate this other company's chances of success very poor. The first thing I tried to find when I went to their web site was a description of the technology. I couldn't find it. On that basis, I sure wouldn't invest in the company.

  43. We need a much broader energy portfolio by Temujin_12 · · Score: 4, Informative
    While I believe a lot of the claims made are a bit hyperbolic, this kind of biodiesel certainly is more scalable than food-crop based ethanol, and does have some promise (as well as problems).

    I make a point to follow emerging trends in new energy technologies and there is certainly no silver bullet (unless we can get cold fusion going). However, I'm also of the opinion that the US (and certainly most other nations) has the ability to independently supply its own energy through using a healthy balance of diverse energy technologies.

    Off the top of my head:
    • Solar (both photo voltaic and focusing mirrors): Huge potential (especially in south). This can be done both commercially as well as deployed residentially to offset customer's bills (and in some cases even sell excess energy generated back onto the grid).
    • Wave and tidal
    • Geothermal: Yellowstone is sitting on top of on of the earth's largest super volcanoes. I know it's a national park, but the material pumped from geothermal stations is water. As long as the infrastructure is responsibly deployed and maintained, this is a no brainier.
    • Wind: huge potential on coasts, mountain ranges, and through the entire mid-west. Concerned about the effects on birds? No problem. There are some pretty ingenious non-propeller turbines (some of which can work with wind blowing in any direction).
    • Hydro-electric dams: Tried and true.

    Combine this with newer technologies that reduce consumption.

    • LED lamps
    • Better fuel efficiency (fuel mileage, hybrid drives, alternative fuels)
    • Broader use of recycled goods
    • Better energy consumption of electrical appliances and devices
    • Thermal underground radiation for residential and commercial climate control
    • Better insulation requirements

    Again, none of the above (which are incomplete lists) alone can be a viable solution and each as their own set of problems to overcome. What is needed is a diverse portfolio of renewable energy technologies combined with a more conscious responsible use of resources. I really do believe that in doing this, there is a potential to achieve complete energy independence. What people seem to be having a hard time with is that this requires a huge infrastructural investment as well as the creation of a whole new industry. The infrastructural problems, I think, will work themselves out as the potential of ROI of these different technologies becomes attractive. A jump start from the government would help as well.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    1. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word.... SCAM!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by spectrokid · · Score: 1

      I like it how you put "better insulation" at the bottom of the list. The average household spends 40% of its energy on heating / cooling his house. FORTY!!! For the average plod, investing in insulation has a payback time of four years. You want to beat that on the stockmarket, you either have to be VERY lucky, or do something like what these guys are up to. Disclaimer: I work for an insulation company. We have 15 factories world wide (insulatin = air = expensive to transport), of which 2 in Canada. In the US? None! Guess why...
      LED lights are good fun, but why not start with the low hanging fruit?

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    3. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by Temujin_12 · · Score: 1

      Good point. Though my lists were in no particular order and there are other items deserving of being on those lists that I'm either unaware of or simply didn't come to mind.

      You're right, though. Insulation can have huge savings individually, and a huge impact on national/global energy usage with wide-scale deployment.

      My main point is simply that just because one thing doesn't solve all of our energy problems that doesn't mean it's not worth doing and that it's only by using a diverse set of technologies that our energy crisis will be brought under control.

      --
      Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    4. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Expanding on your suggestions:

      Solar: In order to construct large-scale thermal collectors, one would need to counter the FUD being spread about the desert tortoise habitat. Residential photovoltaics would take off if it became cost-effective (the recent MIT work looks very promising).

      Nuclear: As long as people equate nuclear power with the WMDs, we will never be able to put newer, cleaner reactor technology into action (thorium, for example). Because politicians and lobbyists still use fear to put the kibosh on nuke technology, it will still be a while before anyone in DC will have the nuts to start funding this, and the brains to evaluate choices other than the traditional U235-based reactors.

      Hydro: Hydro is clean and reliable energy, BUT we can't build more large dams. Aside from potential habitat destruction at the dam and downstream, large dams have diminishing returns because of sediment that collects in the reservoir. This sediment displaces the water in the reservoir, reducing its capacity, and therefore its potential energy. A possibly more sensible approach would be to use turbines similar to wave and tidal generators in rivers.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    5. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why nobody is talking about ethanol from Sugarcane??

      The U.S. might use their valuable corn to make food, and buy cane ethanol from developing countries like Brazil.

      And this is nothing new, here in Brazil we use cane ethanol in cars since the 80's... The technology is already very mature!

      But no, the US government prefers to tax brazilian's ethanol, encouraging the production of ethanol from corn, what makes the food prices rise...

      Biofuel from waste is also a good alternative, since you can make something valuable from waste, but as far as I can see this is not a very mature technology... (yet)

    6. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by Temujin_12 · · Score: 1

      There are a few reasons why the US would tax non corn-based ethanol crops (none of which are valid reasons):


      1.    
      2. Corn is HEAVILY subsidized
      3.    

      4. There's already a huge investment in corn production/processing
      5.    

      6. Majority of corn crops are owned by only a few companies (ADM I'm looking at you) who stand to profit hugely from this and are agnostic towards the human toll (hiding behind capitalism).
      7.    

      8. The "made in America" mantra (which doesn't fly anymore in a global economy)

      Despite all these reasons, the fact that corn is horribly, horribly inefficient at producing ethanol is reason enough to not use it and use bio-waste or non-food crops instead. However, corn-ethanol is an quick and easy solution (see #1 above). However, as we introduce new energy technologies, there are always risks and unintended consequences that have to weighed into the cost (ie: starving 3rd world countries).

      --
      Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
    7. Re:We need a much broader energy portfolio by rujholla · · Score: 1

      turbines similar to wave and tidal generators in rivers

      Like these? nytimes - East River Fights Bid to Harness Its Currents for Electricity

  44. Not sustainable at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sustainable Power Corp"

    Getting the agricultural waste out of the food chain is exactly the opposite of sustainable. This means even more exhaustion of the soil, and even more chemicals to be pumped into the soil to compensate for the loss of nutrients. Will people never learn?

    1. Re:Not sustainable at all by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Getting the agricultural waste out of the food chain is exactly the opposite of sustainable.

      And where in the article does it say that once the process is up and running, 100% of all agricultural waste must be used as feedstock ?

      This means even more exhaustion of the soil, and even more chemicals to be pumped into the soil to compensate for the loss of nutrients.

      Most of the "nutrients" (nitrogen compounds, minerals) in the agricultural waste will probably come out of the process as waste products, and can then be put back into the soil.

    2. Re:Not sustainable at all by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      This is complete and total bullshit.

      Do you have ANY IDEA what happens with the current agricultural waste output?

      It goes, quite literally, TO WASTE. So here we're taking a waste product and turning it into the most valuable material on the planet and you're STILL complaining.

      http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

      In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

  45. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A vegan-friendly bio-fuel.

  46. Iocanesoline by The+Neck · · Score: 0

    What you do not smell is called Iocanesoline. It is odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more vaporious gasses known to man.

    The_neck

  47. Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what if gas was $1 per gallon? Think about that.

  48. Vaporware? Maybe not. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    A lot of people are calling this "vaporware", and yet there are these guys, who are actually doing about the same thing already.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  49. sounds like VIVOLEUM... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  50. Haven't heard this before..... by morgauo · · Score: 1

    So, these guys are the miracle company of July 08 whom claim to be able to make cheap high-quality fuel from waste. When did we start getting these monthly reports? 2003 was it? Or even earlier. I wonder who will make the claim only to be never heard from again next month? Meanwhile we have a few chains selling tiny amounts of Ethanol and BioDiesel for just slightly less then their petrolium counterparts (or about the same $/mile), skyrocketing gas/diesel prices and even grossly inflated food prices. I'll be thrilled when I see this at the pump. If, that is, I'm still young enough to drive. Or am I just being impatient?

    1. Re:Haven't heard this before..... by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      And those prices are only slightly less due to government subsidy.

  51. Patent-pending technology? by spacecowboy99 · · Score: 1

    I checked on Google Patents but I couldn't see any patent applications for John Rivera as they claim they have in their website... ok I know not *all* patents are on there yet Please note I have recently applied for a patent on "method for extraction of fuel oils from male bovine excretia"

  52. Alcohol by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure it's some form of alcohol. Alky-burning dragsters and monster trucks can have ice built up on the outside of the block after a run, due to the way it's atomized and evaporates. Sure, it explodes, but with not a lot of heat. High compression ratios and a really high A/F mixture rule the roost here.

    Sure, it runs cool, but my guess is he'll be getting 6 or 7 MPG in a Honda Civic with it.

  53. New tag needed by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we get a "Mr. Fusion" tag for stories like this?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  54. Let me know by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Let me know when I can pump it in my car....

    If it where true at the current price of gas someone would be slamming in a plant the very next day.

    --


    Got Code?
  55. This is the same guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That ran "USSEC" into the ground, yet another pump and junk stock. USSEC ran on the "Rivera process" instead of thisn "Rivera method" ... the only thing that matters to this guy is Ego. nay nay nay!

  56. Reminds me of the turning turkey guts into oil... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

    These guys set up shop next to a turkey processing plant. They take the waste and turn it into oil.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  57. Spell check - it's Vertroleum - and it's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    By the way, it's Vertroleum, not Vetrolium. Now go to their web site at
    http://www.sustainablepower.com/
    and click on the stock link. Check out current price and the 5 year price chart. It's a penny stock that at one point - years ago - hit about $25 a share. I smell scam.

    1. Re:Spell check - it's Vertroleum - and it's a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked at the stock's report on Google Finance. The stock trades in the range of 3 to 4 CENTS, the 5-year stock price chart only goes back to March 2007, and the latest reported financial results are from 1999. Just on that information alone, neither the company nor its claims should be touched with a 10-foot pole arm.

  58. I already bought stock in a biofuels company by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Called Novabiosource Fuels. Ticker NBF (AMEX).

    They are actually ramping up production of a 120mgy facility in Seneca and for them it is a race against time - will they be profitably producing biofuels before they run out of money, or will they not. Their stock is taking one heck of a beating right now, but, I'm hanging in their in hopes that this magical alternative energy future pans out for real, rather than just the hypothetical dreams of a few pundits.

    --
    This is my sig.
  59. that's nothing by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    every year in this country, hundreds and hundreds of people are injured, maimed, and even killed by rattlesnakes, copperheads, coral snakes, cottonomouths, and the like

    what i do is i take specially trained teams into the places these vermin hide, and for free, for free, i take the snakes to a special pressing plant, where i press the snakes and turn them into a fuel you can use in your car!

    i call this amazing product...

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  60. Oh really... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    On a scale large enough to feed the nation? REALLY? You're high.

    Besides, that waste needs to return to the soil or else we get a dust bowl effect.

    --
    Blar.
  61. Vitriolium... by Monkey_Genius · · Score: 1

    From angry /. posts

    --
    I've got your sig, right here.
    1. Re:Vitriolium... by FernandoBR · · Score: 1

      Too volatile to be of any use...

      --
      -x- Sorry my bad English. I'll have him tarred and feathered. -x-
  62. Reactor? by yoinkityboinkity · · Score: 1

    “Plant workers weigh out the raw farm waste before it is fed into the reactor, where it will be turned into fertilizer and combustible oil.”

    Reactor?!

    I didn’t realize this was a nuclear situation.

    1. Re:Reactor? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I didn't realize this was a nuclear situation.

      Good. If you had realized it, you'd be wrong.

      A reactor is a place where reactions occur. It doesn't specify whether those reactions are chemical or nuclear.

    2. Re:Reactor? by yoinkityboinkity · · Score: 1

      That was the joke.

  63. Approaching Impossible by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Apple was profitable from Day One.

    How was a customer able to write a check to a company that didn't exist?

    Do you mean when Apple incorporated that Steve, Steve, and Mike already had a profitable business that they gave to Apple Computer, Inc?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Approaching Impossible by stankulp · · Score: 1

      Do you mean when Apple incorporated that Steve, Steve, and Mike already had a profitable business that they gave to Apple Computer, Inc?

      What else would I mean?

      The founders never borrowed penny one. Jobs sold them as fast as Woz could make them.

      --
      We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    2. Re:Approaching Impossible by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What else would I mean?

      Well, we're comparing this to a company that's engaged in R&D before it turns a profit, so I thought perhaps you were making a direct comparison I wasn't following.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Approaching Impossible by stankulp · · Score: 1

      Well, we're comparing this to a company that's engaged in R&D before it turns a profit...

      They claim to have a functioning process that produces more energy than it consumes.

      Do you mean to say that they really don't?

      --
      We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
    4. Re:Approaching Impossible by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They claim to have a functioning process that produces more energy than it consumes. Do you mean to say that they really don't?

      All I know is what TFA said, that they're working on building a four-hundred reactor facility and a power plant to burn that fuel:

      Brent expects the facility to be ready within the next 12 to 18 months. "We have to build this from the ground up. This is just our proof-of-concept," he said.

      My assumption is that this is the size required to be scalably profitable.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  64. Variation on thermal depolymerization? by swb · · Score: 1

    That's what it sounds like to me.

    The nonsense about clean burning, etc may be some refined byproduct, like say LP gas which is generally clean burning enough that it can be used for engines used in indoors environments where gasoline would be a problem, like fork lifts.

    The question is whether their process is net positive in energy creation vs. energy usage.

  65. Eek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    except to report the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost.

    Looks like they've discovered a great new way to scare off venture capital.

  66. Heck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck

  67. A buck under unled.. Oh to have $0.97 gas again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I remember gas in the late 80's fall to $0.97 a gallon... does that mean he is giving us $0.03 to take a gallon of his gas???

  68. Reminded by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Gee, their five year chart reminds me of something...

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  69. fph is way too big for people to comprehend by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Informative
    furlongs are kind of small, so the fph numbers are pretty big. I used to like leagues per hogshead.

    However, your system of measurement does have some merit. For example the average 500 lph car could be relabled as getting over 13,000 fph!

    These kinds of fuel economy numbers have staggering marketing potential, but may be just too good to be true. Nobody would believe a car could get "over 13,000 fph", the number is just too big for the average consumer who can't handle numbers bigger than, say the number of digits on their cable tv system.

    Therefore, I suggest we stick with simple furlongs per gallon, for an instant 8-fold increase in numberage. We can work our way up to yards per pint (but not the kind in those silly tourist glasses) and eventually to mindnumbing feet per barrel (where the average car would get over 4 MILLION).

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:fph is way too big for people to comprehend by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      >13,000 fph
      Let's not over-exaggerate, a more realistic approximate value is 12.7KiFPH

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:fph is way too big for people to comprehend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Go back to school.

      500 lph is over 13K fph even if you use 1024 for "k"

      google says so

  70. If there's so much energy there by hey! · · Score: 1

    Why not burn it in place and dump it on the electricity grid?

    This shows, in my opinion, how important battery technology is. Once battery technology gets good enough, literally anything you might convert into gasoline could just as well be burned in a clean, efficient, high temperature engine and dumped onto a superconducting grid, no exotic tech required.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  71. FTLOG - RTFA - it ain't THAT hard... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    With this process, just one bushel (60 pounds) of organic waste can yield about six gallons of bio-crude, Rivera said.
    .
    .
    And if that wasn't enough, the sole byproduct from the crude-making process is fertilizer: 737-grade, all organic fertilizer.

    "The fertilizer is worth about 15 cents per pound, but the fuel byproduct is worth much more," said General Manager Gerald Brent.

    There.
    Bio-fuel AND fertilizer.

    Yup... Sounds quite too good to be true.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  72. You DO want to produce CO2 by GerardM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you burn carbon based material, you do want it to burn to CO2. When the process of burning is incomplete, you get stuff like CO and soot. One is poisonous the other carcinogenic..

    The fact that we do not want to produce CO2 implies that we need more efficient engines and/or burn less fuel.
    Thanks,
            GerardM

  73. Might be legit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some articles that lend some air that they might not be a scam:

    http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1773

    http://www.chemicalanalysis.com/news.php?extend.76

    The fact that they have secured a deal with a major european energy provider and that their product passes gasoline efficiency standards might give them some legitimacy. What do you guys think?

    1. Re:Might be legit by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      Well, even a major European energy provider can make mistakes. They're made of people too, y'know.
      What the ASTM rating means is that he supplied them something that passed their tests. I don't believe, and I might be mistaken, that obtaining the rating requires any inspection of their process. The rating was also for biodiesel, which won't run in most gasoline engines because it has less than 60 octane and would knock something fierce. So biodiesel and Vetroleum are probably two different products.

  74. Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away ideas by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 1

    Perhaps hes betting that the PetrolCorps(e) will buy him out to keep his invention OFF the market.

    Should that happen, I could see some politicians push for a cancellation of the patent. Why should the notion of "[promoting] the Progress of Science" be able to be used to stifle that very Progress? Not to mention the national security concern of being dependent on unstable oil supplies? If I remember correctly, there have been times in the past where the government forced patents open during wartime.

    As an added bonus, the politicians who favor farming subsidies would love to see this process work, just like they love ethanol.

  75. new lamps for old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost.

    When I left Georgia, not too many years ago, gas was $0.67/gallon. I look forward to being paid to fuel up.

  76. Self-hosting? by ewg · · Score: 1

    So they have a facility that uses energy, right? How do they power it?

    Seems like the easiest test a reporter can put to anybody claiming to have a cheap, simple energy alternative: show me your zeroed-out energy bills. If you pay for power from traditional sources, why?

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  77. "Anything into Oil" by Verdatum · · Score: 1

    I don't see any explanation of how this process is any different from Thermal depolymerization, which was popularly announced in Discover Magazine back in May 2003. Nothing has really come of that, certainly not their grandios claims. So why should this be any different?

  78. So what does he do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article doesn't mention what price the "vetrolium" would command in today's market or going forward, except to report the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"' he said."

    So what does he doe if it's under $1 per gallon? Start paying us to use it?

    I'm thinking the CFO wasn't in on that decision.

  79. How will I heat my car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heat in the car comes from the coolant. The coolant gets warm because of the heat from the combustion.

    I'm not going to pay $1 less per gallon to drive around wearing a blanket. $1.25 perhaps.. but not $1.

  80. oblig futurama by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    It is perhaps a were-car?

    Calculon: They were working on Project Satan, a savage, evil intelligent car built out of the most evil parts of the most evil cars in history. The steering wheel from Hitler's staff car. The left turn signal from Charles Manson's VW. The windshield wipers from that car that played Knight Rider.
    Fry: Knight Rider wasn't evil.
    Calculon: His windshield wipers were. It didn't come up much in the show, though.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  81. Re:Other options seem to exist w/more believabilit by Zemran · · Score: 1

    Please do not forget the water car that was discussed here a couple of weeks ago

    http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

    I loved that one, we promise you a car that runs for free :-) I am already in the queue...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  82. Dear Mr. Fantasy by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    Be nice if these papers would occasionally have a chemist or engineer to cover the announcement instead of sending down whatever college intern is handy to rewrite a press release. I mean I'm not expecting much from the daily flood of "this one will really change the world" energy articles, but if newspapers hope to survive as a viable news distribution medium, editors might give pause before allowing their products to be used for recycling too-good-to-be-true nonsense.

    - js.

  83. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by emagery · · Score: 1, Informative

    The problem with this is that if this invention turns out to be 100% true, than it is a MAJOR problem for the oil companies who, it turns out, are the constituents that politicians care most about. They'll be all for silencing any kind of competition for their oil buds.

  84. I've heard of this company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't they the makers of "Mr. Fusion"?

  85. Booze Bath by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I'm challenging it. What size bathtub? Are there any mixers involved? If it is gin is there a dash of vermouth and an olive included?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Booze Bath by sticky_charris · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Pimm's o' clock!

  86. Is it just me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or does that guy look like the guy that builds motorcycles ...

  87. No need for heat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since the pressure depends not just on T but also on moles of gas you could use a completely non-combustion process to power the piston. You could use bits of dry ice which would sublime into a much greater volume of gas. This process wouldn't exactly be practical though as you slowly creeped down the road.

  88. So, is the company's website correct... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or the article and every slash-dotter who's posted so far?

    "Vetrolium" or "Vertrolium"?

  89. I can't wait untill by One-FISH- · · Score: 1

    A major U.S. Oil company buys them out and closes all patents for it. There's too much politics in {d}ethanol for this company to get off the ground. I would assume the government would make it illegal to process waste as an "environmental concern", or some crap. I don't see this happening unfortunately.

  90. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Informative

    If this pans out, it's a major problem for the oil companies, but a major boon to consumers, many of whom are voters.

    I don't anticipate many politicians standing in the way of $2/gallon gas with no net carbon emissions, no matter what happens to big oil. They'd get trampled in the stampede.

  91. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by budgenator · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why this will be a problem for the energy companies, might possibly take a bite out of the ass of drilling companies, but tell the Energy Co. they don't have to partake in the high-risk crap shoot that punching new holes in the ground entail and I'll show you a company with an all-day woodie!

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  92. Oil prices... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    But right now its an expensive boondoggle.

    On the other hand, given the current trend in oil prices, almost any boondoggle, however expensive in the first place, is bound to get much cheaper than gasoline very fast.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  93. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by Peter+La+Casse · · Score: 1

    The problem with this is that if this invention turns out to be 100% true, than it is a MAJOR problem for the oil companies

    Except for the one that buys this guy's company and corners the market on cheap fuel.

  94. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

    If his invention is described in a patent, then the information is already public. Go look it up. In a few years the patent will expire and you can start your own company to make the stuff.

  95. OK ... Fine ... Great ... Terrific ... by krygny · · Score: 1

    Problem solved. I'm glad we got through that one. Whew. That was close.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  96. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by budgenator · · Score: 1

    FTA

    Rivera must convince potential investors that his trade secret â" 21 years and $31 million dollars in the making â" isnâ(TM)t just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

    so it's not a patent

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  97. Re:A buck under unled.. Oh to have $0.97 gas again by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    I remember gas in the late 80's fall to $0.97 a gallon... does that mean he is giving us $0.03 to take a gallon of his gas???

    I remember that in either fall 1999 or spring 2000, gas hit $0.99 in the Chicago suburbs. Hasn't been that long...

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  98. They claim the energy used by the plant ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Sure they can make a lot of crude and fertilizer out of their agricultural waste, but how much energy are they using to convert it?

    They claim they're supplying the production facility's energy needs by burning one of the output fuel products (the gas).

    So that just leaves transportation of the raw material to the plant and finished product from it as major energy requirements. Siting such plants scattered around farming areas or near railroad lines from them minimizes the "to" part. Pipelines or railroads into the fuel distribution network make the "from" part manageable.

    If the plants can be efficient at scales significantly smaller than petroleum refineries and the fuel is usable (as claimed) at 100% as-is, you can also keep your distribution energy costs low by selling it to consumers near the plant. So fuel ends up cheapest in the farming areas - good for further reducing the cost of the raw materials by cutting the cost of the farmers' production.

    The FUN part would be if the plants can be reasonably efficient at a scale where the farmers can run their own - turning their own crops into fuel for their own processes and selling the surplus. (Something like the Pennsylvania farmers before the Whiskey Rebellion - growing grain, then cutting shipping cost to the east coast markets by "processing" it into whiskey.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:They claim the energy used by the plant ... by IAAE · · Score: 1

      The point I was getting at is the following: It takes a certain energy input and chemical processing to convert the "agricultural waste" into "crude oil." Let's call this value X and it has units of kJ/kg. There are also transportation costs to bring this crude to a refinery where they turn it into all of those fun petroleum products like gasoline and jet fuel, but we'll ignore that for simplicity's sake. Now we compare it to the amount of energy required to get crude from the Alberta oil sands, and we'll call this value Y, it is also in kJ/kg. Then, since Alberta is "far" away from the refineries in the US, we'll say that there is an amount Z in kJ/kg required to transport the crude. Now if X is less than Y + Z, then this technology might be viable nowadays. However, I don't think this is the case as the oil from the ag waste requires energy for an actual chemical reaction (X), while the energy required for separation (Y) and transportation (Z) are just physical transformations. You've said that they use the gas by-product to power the reactions, but this is still using energy and will still be producing emissions. The oil sands use natural gas for the most part (until someone has the vision/balls to build a nuclear reactor up there) to fuel their reactions, which also releases emissions. The natural gas is very clean burning, resulting almost entirely in CO2 and H2O, while burning ag waste gaseous by-products could release all sorts of fun products. So yeah... speaking from a "green" point of view, if X (Y+Z), this technology might be a step forward. This is ignoring financial considerations like building the ag waste plants, etc.

      --
      I'm critical, not cynical...
  99. Easy choice. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Will you choose peesel or shitroleum?

    That's easy. There's lots more energy per unit of processed waste in shitroleum. B-)

    Using either, of course, assumes the processing renders it inoffensive.

    (Now if we could just process this thread to render IT inoffensive. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  100. They are not the only ones... by outcast3d · · Score: 1

    As a pilot, I was made aware several years ago about a moratorium placed on the 100LL (Low Lead) fuel for general aviation piston powered aircraft. This moratorium requires that aviation fuels must be lead free by 2010. Unfortunately, many GA engines are built on old tech and the aircraft themselves operate in harsher environments, and thus require leaded fuels for anti-knocking, to decrease it's freezing point, and to a lesser degree, anti-corrosion.

    Swift Enterprises they had a similar solution to this issue with synthetic fuels derived from bio-mass, similar to that of this Vertroleum product. Here is the AvWeb announcement on the subject, and an update with an interview of the people involved.

    Apparently these guys have a working fuel that can seamlessly transition to the current market. What's more, this tech can also be adapted for jet fuel and mogas as well. Because there are several of these companies working on similar technologies, I have hopes that this isn't just a one off scam. Let's hope these companies can promise what they preach.

  101. Re:price of x-1 for any value of x? sweet! by Surt · · Score: 1

    the CEO's promise "to one day sell his gasoline for $1 less than the pump price for regular fuel, no matter what the cost. 'Even if it's $2 per gallon, I'll sell mine for $1,"' he said."

    I can't wait until his product comes to maturity -- then demand for gas will be so low that the price will drop below $1.

    "Fill her up with regular, please. You can pay me in cash."

    It will still be a profitable business model because they're essentially paying you to haul away farm refuse.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  102. waste not by barnaby-jones · · Score: 1

    Do farmers use their waste to fertilize their new crops? Isn't that what compost heaps are for? Wouldn't the farmers then need to buy petroleum-based fertilizers to supplement their shortage of compostable waste? Any farmers out there?

  103. Carefull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone will show up and offer you a purple rainbow sherbet traumatic colonic.

  104. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Remember though that right now the big interest in biofuels is in corn ethanol. If something comes along that replaces oil as a fuel and makes gas cheaper, the voters will like it. But if that same thing makes all those corn ethanol plants currently sprouting up all over the corn belt go out of business and makes the price of corn go down, the corn farmers (who have a lot of voting power) wont like it and will want congress to do something about it to protect their income.

  105. So? by crhylove · · Score: 1

    How is this better than solar power? Is it because it will allow corporations to continue to control the energy and transportation industries? Is this good for some reason?

    If everyone had a Tesla (or a cheaper version) and a bunch of solar panels on their garage, we'd all be driving around for free. I don't understand how this isn't happening faster than it is, and why everyone is buying this bullshit about biofuels, ethanol, hydrogen, etc....

    Why replace one corrupt fuel industry with another? We could eliminate them altogether!

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  106. Think about it this way by Therefore+I+am · · Score: 1

    It took millions of years worth of decayed vegetation, compressed and heated by natural processes, to produce the oil we have squandered in the last century.Just how likely is it that all today's plant waste, fully loaded with oil, has simply not been noticed in recent decades? You can extract oil from waste plant material in small amounts, but small amounts only. This company is just one more of the many that promise everything, and deliver nothing. Run Away! Run Away!

  107. Re:Progress o Science doesn't mean locking away id by hitmark · · Score: 1

    got to love democracy...

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  108. Don't doubt until you do your due diligence... by megawump · · Score: 1

    You can call me stupid, but I invested in this company months ago. It's a pink sheet stock, about $.04/share right now. Symbol is SSTP. Upside is huge, downside is small. Process looks good; check out videos, read up on recent partnerships and development deals. Company website is http://www.sustainablepower.com/ Things are starting to pop, and every now and then someone actually manages to start something big from something small (HP, Apple, Evilsoft, etc.). Don't be a player hater.

    1. Re:Don't doubt until you do your due diligence... by megawump · · Score: 1

      Also, recent test was done producing aviation fuel mixture. Even if these products were only mixed with existing fuels, any reduction in petroleum consumption would be a good thing.

    2. Re:Don't doubt until you do your due diligence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you're INCREDIBLY stupid. I'm an industrial chemist; I've have checked it out and it is a complete and utter scam. They use terms in the video that show that they don't understand chemistry at all!

  109. Where does Kdawson get this tripe? by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Where does KDawson get this tripe and why can't he do even the simplest verifications before he posts it as a story?

    One (1) ton of any biomass (not plant oils mind you) has the energy equivalent of about 2 barrels of oil if you can do the conversion for free. We can see this from the chemistry of cellulose, lignans and pentosans.

    The issue is that a plant is (CH2O)n while our liquid fuels are C(n)H(2n+2).

    That oxygen is heavy and it breaks two (2) bonds.

    There is simply NO WAY the guy can get 6 gallons of gas from a bushel of plant waste. The max he could get is about 84 gallons per ton which is 60/2000*84 = 2.5 gallons. So we know the claim is crap before we even read the article. If the company cannot even do the basic chemistry then we can regard their claims as crap as well.

    Here is a more detailed calculation if they want octane;

    Octane is C8H18O8, its an alkane with n=8

    (CH2O)13 = C13H26O13 so we have a little more than 2 simple sugars. Sucrose is C12H22O11. Sucrose is the sugar we buy in the store.

    C13H26O13 -> C8H18 5(CO2) 4(H2O) - O so we have some energy in

    This is just approximate anyways because we lose OH radiacals when we use sugars to create sugar polymers.

    12*13 + 26 + 16*13 = 390
    12*8 + 18 = 144
    144/390 = 29.23%
    23.23% of 2000 = 584 lbs octane.

    584/8 = 73 gallons per ton

    60/2000 * 73 = 2.2 gallons per bushel.

    This is assuming there is enough energy supplied by that one (1) oxygen to drive the reactions. One must balance the energy as well and account for inefficiencies.

    I simply do not know why people can not do high school chemistry.

    In fact the yield in a real plant will be about 1 ton of fuel for 5 tons of biomass if that. This would be 400 lbs per ton and about 1.5 gallons per bushel.

  110. This is a scam and should be removed from Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is defintely a scam. I downloaded their promotional video that has the man who says he invented the catalyst. I can tell you that he definitely isn't a chemist. He claims...

    "we are performing a chemical hydrolysis with a modified pyrolysys and the use of nano bacteria. We are taking the hydrogen molecule, putting it with the oxygen molecule producing more oil. If you split that the waste byproduct is pure oxygen, which is why our jet fuel, our gasoline, is naturally oxygenated"

    As a chemist myself, I cannot emphasis enough just what bullsh*t this is. Firstly hydrolysis requires water, which they don't add. Secondly, no chemist would use the term "We are taking the hydrogen molecule, putting it with the oxygen molecule, producing more oil" it makes no sense whatsoever!! Thirdly, the last thing you want is for fuel to be naturally oxygenated.

    That's just the start... that say so much contradictory stuff as leave me in no doubt that this is a scam.

  111. Vertroleum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's real. I've personally seen the process from soybeans to fuel. The CEO has faced some obstacles from investors who tried to take over the company in Mississippi, but he is back on track in Baytoen TX. www.usse.us

  112. Vertroleum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, that website is www.biocrude.us and www.ussec.us

  113. New SSTP PR by megawump · · Score: 1

    BAYTOWN, TX, Jul 14, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Sustainable Power Corp. (PINKSHEETS: SSTP) is pleased to announce today a Strategic Alliance has been formed with Envirocompanies, Inc., a Nederland, TX based company, to purchase and distribute up to 140 million gallons a day of Sustainable Power's revolutionary biocrude. Envirocompanies, Inc. is a 100% American owned logistics company, dedicated to improving the energy industry by making it green and environmentally friendly. "We are looking forward to working with SSTP under our Strategic Alliance to produce value added products to be introduced to the petroleum industry. We will begin converting their revolutionary biocrude into BG100 biogas, jet fuel, marine fuel and diesel. We will refine, blend and assimilate the end products to our large, diverse existing client base. Envirocompanies, Inc. is fully licensed in the fuel and chemical industry in the state of Texas. We are anxiously working to reduce and help eliminate the dependency of foreign oil," stated Robert Romero, President and CEO of Envirocompanies, Inc. Seven very successful companies make up "Envirocompanies, Inc.": Enviro Solutions, Enviro Waste Solutions, Petrofuels Quality Marketing, Petroleum Express, Webb Communications, Bayou Construction and High Island Petro Chemical. For more information, please visit http://www.envirocompanies.com/ -- Petrofuels Quality Marketing is the flagship company of the Envirocompanies Group. Petrofuels specializes in the gathering and marketing of various hydrocarbon and petrochemical streams, heavy and light fuel oil cutters, marine fuel cutters and feed stocks. Petrofuels may also purchase co-products or by-products from various manufacturing processes. -- High Island Petrochemical, LLC operates an atmospheric distillation process which separates light fractions from heavy fractions through heat and various distillation processes. After separation, each fraction stream is marketed into the respective area for which that product is viable. -- Enviro Solutions' management has been in the hydrocarbon recycling and related businesses since 1982. Its experience in handling waste and recyclable streams will ensure its customers their by-products are handled correctly. -- Bayou Construction & Excavation, LLC is a rapidly growing and very aggressive company that caters to the refining, petrochemical, pipeline, transportation and liquid natural gas industries, as well as private and commercial property owners. -- Petroleum Express treats each customer as if they were its ONLY customer. They specialize in chemical, petrochemical, waste water, lube oils, and used oil transportation services. They are a bulk liquid contract carrier servicing the continental US. They maintain an updated fleet of Freightliner trucks and make sure they meet all industry standards. John Rivera, CEO of Sustainable Power Corp., stated: "With today's Strategic Alliance we have closed the circle for total self sufficiency in the energy market. We are not dependent on any one feed stock to manufacture, produce, refine and sell our Vetroleum(TM) biocrude family of green energy products. We can now concentrate on the production of our Vetroleum(TM) biocrude and let the experts with more than 30 years' experience, Envirocompanies, Inc., complete the circle and bring up to 140 million gallons per day to market. I believe that with the expertise of the Romero Family and Envirocompanies, Inc. we can be a major contributor to our goals of energy independence for the America we love." About Envirocompanies, Inc. Envirocompanies.com is provided to our current and future clients to showcase the abilities, products, and services of seven very successful companies. All of our companies are built on the belief that hard work, honesty, and a can do attitude can accomplish anything. We strive to be the best at what we do, and it shows in everything we provi

  114. One word by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

    Volumes? Ethanol 'works'... but what volumes can we grow? CTL 'works'... but how fast can we scale it up? (It'll take 20 years -- see Hirsch report). Just because something works in the lab does not mean it can actually be scaled up to provide the same enormous VOLUME of oil that the world currently consumes. If the oil the world consumes in one year were placed in an enormous building, that building would be 1 km long and 1 km wide... and 4 km high! Can turkey guts and rice husks really supply that enormous volume of high energy density liquid fuels? I don't think so. The only real answer to peak oil is to use less oil. That means massively upgrading public transport, and over the next 20 years rezoning the land around the train and tram stations to New Urbanism to have the population density to justify the public transport. Sorry, but the only answer is to become "more European than the Europeans" in city design... and Australia and America have a lot of catching up to do.