"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."

Comments

snake oil, more like

[conspirator57]

vaporware, literally.

Re:snake oil, more like

[jrmcc]

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

Re:snake oil, more like

[Kamokazi]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:snake oil, more like

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[Junior J. Junior III]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[pla]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[Ex-MislTech]

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/

Re:snake oil, more like

[houstonbofh]

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...

Re:snake oil, more like

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[mcrbids]

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.

Re:snake oil, more like

[avandesande]

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.

awesome

[stoolpigeon]

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?

Re:awesome

[Minwee]

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.

Re:awesome

[TripMaster Monkey]

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

Alcohol burns without generating heat?

I had better sell my Bunsen burner stock ASAP.

Re:awesome

[Otter]

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?

Re:awesome

[Tinamil]

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

Re:awesome

[hey!]

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.

Re:awesome

[Penguinisto]

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

Re:awesome

[hey!]

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.

Re:awesome

[budgenator]

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.

Re:awesome

[A Pancake]

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.

Re:awesome

[Captain Hook]

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.

Re:awesome

[oxidiser]

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

Re:awesome

[SomeJoel]

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

Too good to be true???

[pablo_max]

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!

Re:Too good to be true???

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Oooo magic!

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:Oooo magic!

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:Oooo magic!

[Crowley]

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...

Energy Input?

[IAAE]

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.

Re:Energy Input?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

C'mon now, better than algae

[Nexus7]

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!

Re:C'mon now, better than algae

[corbettw]

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?

Fire the reporter

[LSD-OBS]

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" :)

Home Page

[bizitch]

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?

Re:Home Page

[zwei2stein]

Vaporware scam success meter - LIVE!:

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

Coming up later

[Bastard of Subhumani]

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

If they could do this, they would just do it.

[stankulp]

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.

TFA Looks Sketchy

[Dire Bonobo]

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.

A bad idea even if true

[Bob Uhl]

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.

low temp cleaner burning makes sense/is real

[spineboy]

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)

Re:Problem with bio-fuel

[Hatta]

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

Someone will eventually shut them down...

[BobMcD]

...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?

Owner currently involved in a lawsuit...

[Kirgin]

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.

We need a much broader energy portfolio

[Temujin_12]

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.