About BlueFire Ethanol

Perhaps the best kept secret in the ethanol industry is BlueFire Ethanol Inc. an ethanol development company, that has begun trading under the Symbol BFRE.PK. They use the this process for the conversion of municipal solid waste (MSW), rice and wheat straws, wood waste and other agricultural residues to ethanol. Their use of the Arkenol Technology positions it as the only cellulose-to-ethanol company worldwide with demonstrated production of ethanol from these materials. They have an exclusive, North American license of the technology for use in the production of ethanol for the transportation fuel market.

Since 2003, the technology has been successfully used in the IZUMI pilot plant operated by JGC, the licensee of Arkenol for Japan and SE Asia, to produce ethanol for the Japanese transportation fuel market. Over the last 10 years, the initial testing on a vast array of potential feedstock has been completed both in the U.S. and at various locations throughout the world. BlueFire has completed the arrangement of the major commitments necessary to proceed with final development of its first commercial facility which will be sited in California.

Arkenol has developed significant proprietary improvements to a well known conversion technology known as concentrated acid hydrolysis such that the process is ready for commercial implementation. Some of the most important innovations are:

• Flash fermentation
• Membrane distillation
• Chromatographic separation of the acid from the sugars

The company claims that for the first time the technology enables widely available cellulosic materials, or more commonly, biomass, to be converted into sugar in an economically viable manner, thereby providing an inexpensive raw material for fermentation or chemical conversion into any of a hundred different specialty and/or commodity chemicals

Arkenol determined that the concentrated acid hydrolysis process could be made economically viable through the use of new technology, modern control methods, and newer materials of construction.

To demonstrate the efficacy of the technology, Arkenol has constructed and operated a pilot plant near its Southern California offices for roughly five years. The pilot facility is rated at a nominal 1 ton per day biomass throughput, assuming a 24 hour, 3 shift operating schedule. During normal operation, 1 shift per day is sufficient for feedstock studies, design trials, and normal maintenance. The facility was constructed using readily available pilot equipment using no exotic materials.

Izumi Pilot Plant

A lager pilot facility the 21,500 gallon per year fully integrated Izumi (Izumi is a town located on the southern tip of Japan) pilot plant, using waste wood chips as feedstock, has been operational since 2002. The plant is operated by JGC Corporation in cooperation with Kobe University, Kumamoto University, and four other universities, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science & Technology, the Japan Alcohol Association, XNRI Co., Ltd., and others. The plant is funded by New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) of the Japanese Government under a five year contract ending in 2007.

Some of the significant features and accomplishments are:

• Wood chips are sized to a nominal 10 mm with high fines fraction.
• Cellulose conversion efficiencies have been stable at 70%, with optimization at 80%.
• Sulfuric acid recovery is over 97% with reconcentration of the 18% dilute acid to 75% in continuous use since 2003.
• A simulated moving bed (SMB) chromatographic separation unit, using small plastic beads, is used to separate the acid fraction from the sugars. SMB's are used in the sugar industry for glucose-sucrose separation and separating sugar from molasses.
• Lignin combustion test (requiring 4 tons of lignin) completed successfully.
• JGC developed flash fermentation offers significant operating cost savings. The fermentation takes place in a fluidized reactor with immobilized media
• Uses NREL developed rec. Z. mobilis (under license) in fixed bed and S. cereviscae to produce ethanol at 95% for over one year.
• Uses first commercial membrane distillation and purification system supplied by Mitsui with significant operating cost savings over conventional (molecular sieve) technology.

Process Description

The process, in simplistic terms, separates the biomass into two main constituents: cellulose and hemicellulose (C₆ and C₅, the main building blocks of plant life) and lignin (the "glue" that holds the building blocks together), converts the cellulose and hemicellulose to sugars, ferments them and purifies the fermentation liquids into products. These unit operations require a series of material and energy inputs to produce the primary products of fermentation and the resultant by-products.

If there is no power plant present from which to obtain steam, the production facility would use natural gas or lignin as fuel for its own boilers.

Incoming biomass feedstocks are cleaned and ground to reduce the particle size for the process equipment. The pretreated material is then dried to a moisture content consistent with the acid concentration requirements for decrystallization (separation of the cellulose and hemicellulose from the lignin), then hydrolyzed (degrading the chemical bonds of the cellulose) to produce hexose and pentose sugars at the high concentrations necessary for commercial fermentation. Insoluble materials, principally the lignin portion of the biomass input, are separated from the hydrolyzate by filtering and pressing and further processed into fuel or other beneficial uses.

The remaining acid-sugar solution is separated into its acid and sugar components by means of an Arkenol-developed technology that uses commercially available ion exchange resins to separate the components without diluting the sugar. The separated sulfuric acid is recirculated and reconcentrated to the level required by the decrystallization and hydrolysis steps. The small quantity of acid left in the sugar solution is neutralized with lime to make hydrated gypsum, CaSO₄ 2H₂O, an insoluble precipitate which is readily separated from the sugar solution and which also has beneficial use as an agricultural soil conditioner. At this point the process has produced a clean stream of mixed sugars (both C₆ and C₅) for fermentation.

In an ethanol production plant, naturally-occurring yeast, which Arkenol has been specifically cultured by a proprietary method to ferment the mixed sugar stream, is mixed with nutrients and added to the sugar solution where it efficiently converts both the C₆ and C₅ sugars to fermentation beer (an ethanol, yeast and water mixture) and carbon dioxide. The yeast culture is separated from the fermentation beer by a centrifuge and returned to the fermentation tanks for reuse. Ethanol is separated from the now clear fermentation beer by conventional distillation technology, dehydrated to 200 proof with conventional molecular sieve technology, and denatured with unleaded gasoline to produce the final fuel-grade ethanol product. The still bottoms, containing principally water and unfermented pentose sugar, is returned to the process for economic water use and for further conversion of the pentose sugars.

Commercial Project

Arkenol is in final development of its first commercial-scale biorefinery, a combined 4 million gallon per year ethanol production and 40,000 metric ton per year citric acid facility in Sacramento, California the feedstock being cellulosic woody waste and agricultural waste.

The project has already secured through BlueFire Ethanol, Inc., the project development and operation vehicle, long-term feedstock supplies from a major American solid waste treatment and disposal company under a Letter of Intent, as well as sale of the full amount of ethanol product to a domestic retailer under a long-term commitment.

JGC Corporation will do the process design development for this first cellulosic bio-ethanol production project.

The process design package is due in the 3^rd Q of 2006, start of engineering and construction will start in the 1^st Q of 2007 and commercial operation is to start in the 1^st Q of 2009.

Hypothetical Ethanol-only Plant

To give some idea of what a commercial stand-alone fuel-ethanol plant configuration would be, one can assume an available feedstock supply on a 330 days per year, twenty-four hour per day basis which has an average cellulosic content of 75%, having the following inputs and outputs:

Inputs
Feedstock	454 dry tonnes per day	500 dry tons per day
Sulfuric Acid	21.45 tonnes per day	23.6 tons per day
Lime	8.25 tonnes per day	9.1 tons per day
Electricity	5,000 kw	5,000 kw
Steam	61,700 kg. per hour	136,000 lbs. per hour
Outputs
Ethanol, 200 proof	227,000 liters per day	60,000 gallons per day
Carbon Dioxide	172.5 tonnes per day	190 tons per day
Lignin (50% moisture)	136.2 tonnes per day	150 tons per day
Gypsum (40% moisture)	27.2 tonnes per day	30 tons per day
Yeast (80% moisture)	45.2 tonnes per day	49.8 tons per day

Typically, yeast would be grown at the site. Water usage would be minimal because of complete recycling of the water contained in the incoming materials.

Such a plant would utilize approximately five hectares (twelve acres) for the process itself; feedstock intake, preparation and short-term storage (five days); product loadout facilities; CO2 processing; administration and laboratory buildings. The plant is designed on a zero-discharge basis and normally uses public sewers only for sanitary purposes.

A standalone plant would use lignin or natural gas to fire its boilers and therefore will require air permits for the boiler exhaust. Note that a plant sited next to a co-generation facility and using steam from the power plant would have no combustion emissions whatsoever. Volatile organic chemical ("VOC") emissions of ethanol are readily contained by closed fermentation tanks, closed top storage tanks, and vapor recovery transfer systems. In the United States, the only other permits in addition to those for construction and general operations, would be those required by the US Treasury Department for the production and storage of alcohol

The following was taken directly from the Arkenol website, and is obviously outdated but may be of some value in judging their economics:

Arkenol believes that it is necessary to compete in commodity markets with its current capital and operations cost structure. In engineering the Arkenol biorefinery, a focus on cost control has resulted in significant reductions in the overall cost of a facility. Arkenol engineers have already identified process blocks where additional capital and O&M reductions are possible with future operating experience. The table below compares Arkenol's cost with industry using assumptions of $20 per barrel for oil and $3.10 per bushel for corn (current spot costs are over $4.50 per bushel):

Commodity Chemical Type	Industry Standard	Arkenol Process
Fuel - Ethanol ($/gallon)	$1.29	$0.83
Solvents - Butanol ($/pound)	$0.26	$0.18
Organics - Citric Acid ($/pound)	$0.45	$0.39

Arkenol, Inc., is a privately-held company headquartered in Mission Viejo, California. Arkenol is a technology and project development company whose focus is the construction and operation of biorefineries on a worldwide basis to produce a variety of biobased chemicals and transportation fuels. The company was formed in 1992 as an affiliate of ARK Energy, a successful developer of independent power production facilities.

JGC Corporation (Tokyo exhange:1963/T) was formed as Japan Gasoline Company in 1928 and changed its name to JPG in 1976. Today it is globally recognized as a world leading engineering contractor with many very large LNG and refinery projects throughout the world. Nippon Oil Corporation Group selected JGC as the main contractor for Japans first IGCC power generation project. In a words first JGC was responsible for aspects of the project, engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the 430,000KW plant which started up in 2003.

BlueFire Ethanol Inc intends to build a multinational company that leads the world in producing biobased transportation fuels. Its business will encompass development activities leading to the construction and long-term operation of production facilities while maintaining technological advantage of the process technology and all its improvements. In doing so, BlueFire expects to grow the company's revenues to over $10 billion per year domestically.

I thought that concentrated acid plants were supposed to be outdated technology, but this sure sounds like something special.  JGC is a real powerhouse-something no other biofuel company has going for it. They have been going at it for a long time and the timing of this announcement is near perfect. Membrane purification is supposed to be the holy grail and flash fermentation cuts the retention time and size of equipment drastically.  This should be an interesting development to watch.

Resources:

BlueFire Ethanol, Inc., the Global Technology Leader in MSW Cellulose-to-Ethanol Conversion, Completes Entry Into the Public Market, BlueFire press release, July 11, 2006
Arkenol Inc., Irvine, CA
BlueFire Ethanol Inc., Irvine, CA
JGC Corporation, Yokohama, Japan

Comments

[Mel.]

This is so weird. You get the idea that ethanol is doomed to be a total crap runaround and then... bang. You read something like this, and wonder what the hell the rest of the market is waiting for.

[Cervus]

And this process can likely be used to make butanol, which is much more suitable for gasoline engines as a total replacement.

[hamerhokie]

This kind of article generates questions.

1. What are they paying for their feedstock? Do they count on free waste? If they have to buy their feedstock, does it remain cost effective?

2. That last table is puzzling. Why would the cost of their product be dependent upon the cost of oil? If this process is more cost effective than the one used to make corn ethanol, as this implies, then why is the cellulouse ethanol process generally considered too expensive to be competitive?

[mcr]

James you have outdone yourself again.

Sounds very interesting to me provided that the reactor can be retrofitted / strain modified to generate (Bio)butanol ... this is going to overtake ethanol eventually in transportfuel applications - its inevitable due to BTU considerations and decreased water contents, pipelining etc (See James' previous post on this).

I still would like to see hard figures - was pleased to see those above.

Anyone got any ARKENOL/BLUEFIRE relevant patent applications AND patent NUMBERS???

WPO or US or EU (aka esp@cenet / EPO) NUMBERS?

POST THEM ON HERE IF YOU HAVE THEM

- they make useful further reading AND ARE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE).

ALSO,
What's the likely hood of a Dupont/BP/Bluefire linkup?

I say this considering the (UK) oil price hit $76 per barrel today (with the international situation)...

[mcr]

Hamerhokie said: "This kind of article generates questions.

1. What are they paying for their feedstock? Do they count on free waste? If they have to buy their feedstock, does it remain cost effective?

2. That last table is puzzling. Why would the cost of their product be dependent upon the cost of oil? If this process is more cost effective than the one used to make corn ethanol, as this implies, then why is the cellulouse ethanol process generally considered too expensive to be competitive?"

You are absolutely right. In all aspects.

I make the point that if I were a farmer and I saw my crops (likely) to be undercut by WASTE masses ... I'd have made sure I'd already bought into OR bought the actual biorefinery techology.

This is since I would have ownership on the techology that potentially gives VALUE-ADDED STATUS to my "waste" crop...

This is a simplistic arguement but true ... since CELLULOSE is the ONE OF THE MOST ABUNDANT (bio)chemicals on the planet... and available from a huge variety of sources...

[amazingdrx]

Even at this lower cost the liquid fuel will still be burned, which means that CO 2 will still cause global climate change even if all oil consumption were replaced by cellulosic feedstock.

And without signifigant new sources of biomass, like algae from solar collectors, water and land shortages will severly limit the percentage of oil replaced by this process.

And last but not least, the so called waste product cellulose will not go back into the soil and sequester carbon. Turning land that absorbs cO 2 into land that gives off all the cO 2 it is now storing as soil is depleted of organic matter through chemically based fuel farming.

Blinders are necessary to ignore all these factors.

Reducing the amount of liquid fuel that is needed through renewable electric transportation could make this the process that wins out though, once only a small percentage, say 10% of the present liquid fuel we use is needed.

[hamerhokie]

amazingdrx - CO2 is released by burning cellulose ethanol but even at E85 levels it is offset by the CO2 used to grow the feedstock, so it is considered carbon neutral. I don't know whether burning pure cellulose ethanol would be considered carbon negative.

As far as abundance of feedstock, between waste plant material, switchgrass, and whatever else is deemed economically useable, I don't think that will be an issue. Although I agree that electric transportation emphasis is the way to go for limiting need for biofuels.

[mcr]

Hamerhokie: "amazingdrx - CO2 is released by burning cellulose ethanol but even at E85 levels it is offset by the CO2 used to grow the feedstock, so it is considered carbon neutral. I don't know whether burning pure cellulose ethanol would be considered carbon negative."

AN ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS needs to be done here on these cellulosic-ethanol processes - because sometimes suprises do come up! That you don't expect...

I recently was previlaged to see some (as yet unpublished research - and I do recall at least one such biomass example was SIGNIFICANTLY carbon (emission) negative. Which you would not expect - WHEN COMBINED WITH LARGE SCALE ELECTRICITY GENERATION IN PARALLEL. Since avoidance of CO2 emissions when generating necessary process required energy could be achieved... than the coventional process...

However, I cant discuss it on here yet. But once it is published I'll give more details and we can all have a good look - once the author has had time to publish & have peer scrutiny.

Final point - although these biobased routes are energy intensive now (compared with conventional peterochems) ... that WILL COME DOWN as technology improves ... as the oil industry has - thats my opinion.

[Engineer-Poet]

Do you mean that the bio-fuel system is carbon-negative by itself (not counting the carbon-positive generation system which supplies its process heat), or that the system as a whole (generation and fuel production) becomes carbon-negative?

[mcr]

Engineer-Poet: "Do you mean that the bio-fuel system is carbon-negative by itself (not counting the carbon-positive generation system which supplies its process heat), or that the system as a whole (generation and fuel production) becomes carbon-negative?"

The generation and fuel production together (as a whole)... don't ask about specifics as the research itself has gone for referee-ing and is yet to be published.

The two specifics on the graph he showed where:
1. "Emissions in feedstock production (avoided emissions due to electricity already considered)"
2. "Emissions in peterochemical production"

As I understand it - the generation negates the need for fossil fuel CO2 production and higher emission...

The research is a chemico-economic FEASIBLITY analysis and takes into account many parameters including effects of carbon trading etc.

The other key thing is the HIGH ENERGY INTENSIVE PROCESSING ASSOCIATED WITH BIOMASS (AND COAL!) ... is offset by electric generation at the same time... in terms of emissions

BUT THE AUTHOR OF THE RESEARCH RIGHTLY MENTIONS ALL THE VARIABLES IN THIS - electricty price - therefore becomes a variable.

Or so I read.

This is all I am able to say until the author publishes - sorry...

[amazingdrx]

Maybe a new measure of carbon neutrality needs to be introduced to clear up these misconceptions? 3 levels of cO 2 related climate difficulty.

For instance: Renewable electricity from wind or solar charging a battery powered electric vehicle produces no CO 2. that is carbon neutral.

Ethanol burned in an internal combustion vehicle does release CO 2 that was captured by crops through photosynthesis (This disregards fossil fuel inputs to the crop and fuel production). Fuel farming also prevents soil from sequestering carbon further shifting the cO 2 atmospheric balance the wrong way.

Fossil fuel burned in a vehicle releases CO 2 stored by photosynthesis over eons. And is in no way carbon neutral. Producing the most severe greenhouse gas problems.

My argument is why not use the very best technology that sidesteps combustion completely. Stop the quibbling, go renewable electric.

Behind all the debate looms the huge tax dollar giveaway plan for agri bizz fuel farming, buying votes, science, and legislators.

[hamerhokie]

"Ethanol burned in an internal combustion vehicle does release CO 2 that was captured by crops through photosynthesis (This disregards fossil fuel inputs to the crop and fuel production). Fuel farming also prevents soil from sequestering carbon further shifting the cO 2 atmospheric balance the wrong way."

Three steps in the analysis:

1. Amount of CO2 it takes to produce x quantity of feedstock. This is the negative portion in the equation.

2. Amount of CO2 generated in the process to convert x quantity of feedstock to Y quantity of biofuel. If sequestered this figure should be ZERO. And it will probably always be sequestered.

3. Amount of CO2 released through burning Y quantity of biofuel.

Then balance the results of Steps 1 and 3. According to the sources I have read, For E85 the balance is essentially ZERO.

[Engineer-Poet]

Zero?  Is that the net emission or the net improvement?

IIRC, the best appraisals today say that E85 from corn reduces net CO2 emissions only about 15% relative to straight gasoline.  When the nitrate and phosphate fertilizers are all made using fossil fuels and the distillation is done with natural gas or even coal, it's hard to claim that even E100 (let alone E85) is carbon-neutral.

[mcr]

Yes ... but Switchgrass and other grasses ... (CELLULOSIC) don't need fertilizer apparently.

This is what the BlueFire Ethanol - Arkenol process mainly looks at if you read the article and Arkenol's PDF file presentation on their Japanese pilot plant.

Plus they also use residential waste as a mixed feedstock...

And anyway looking at the bigger picture I'd take an 85% CO2 cut relative to straight "gasoline" as you Americans call it anytime. The amount of energy required in real terms is coming down in ACTUALLY CREATING THE ETHANOL. There's still room for improvement also.

I take your point about "renewable electric" I keep telling you this is a partner technology / stepping stone to get to that "PERFECT POINT" you describe. Even if this is later and that in the meantime we use the fuel in these via reforming catalysts in HYBRID OR ELECTRIC VEHICLES (FUEL CELLS).

My main concern is parallel chemicals from biomass (to the fuel processing steps). One must not get too focused in - and always look for sister applications of the same technology.

~1/3 of the entire global economy is either dependent or related to the chemical industry. Fuel is important - but its not the complete picture.

[Engineer-Poet]

1.  What's the end-to-end efficiency of a system using alcohol in fuel cells?  DCFC's look like they can get close to 40% end-to-end.

2.  The process of carbonizing biomass for DCFC's yields byproducts which have substantial heat energy as well as fuel or chemical value.  BRI's process can ferment such byproducts to ethanol, condensed tars (like bio-oil from fast pyrolysis) might provide other useful chemicals, and the leftover CO2 could feed one of the algae schemes currently being proposed for powerplant exhaust.

The hydrolysis/fermentation schemes need added energy for distillation and don't yield the pyrolysis products which might be so useful to chemists.  You mention ethanol fuel cells, but that's a completely new technology so we have no reason to prefer a less-efficient system over a more efficient one.  It doesn't produce carbon in any form which could be easily sequestered.  The only "advantage" it has is that ethanol is compatible with petroleum-burning vehicles today.  This also means that most vehicles produced to burn E85 will be compatible with, and maintain demand for, petroleum... and that's exactly the thing we have to get away from.

[mcr]

I agree with all you say about "pyrolysis" being another useful technology. I do agree - I've read numerous relevant articles about the advantages of pyrolysis and gasification technologies in biomass. I don't argue against that at all. They have their function.

I HAVE THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

BUT THIS (FERMENTAION/MICROBIAL TECHNOLOGY) IS JUST ONE TOOL IN THE "GREEN CHEMISTRY" toolkit.

It's no good simply having one screwdriver!
"One size fits all" is NOT GOING TO WORK HERE IN THIS ENORMOUS PROBLEM!

We're talking about AN ENTIRE/WHOLE RANGE of REACTOR SIZES HERE - and needed applications/products needed.

Your talking about VERY LARGE CENTRALISED PLANTS...

I'm thinking more LOCAL LEVEL / SMALLER MODULAR REACTORS ... USING THE TERM "PROCESS INTENSIFICAION" ... or more relevant to my research "SCALE - OUT" (NOT! "SCALE UP" ... AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE!).

BOTH WILL HAVE USES DEPENDING ON THE LOCAL GEOGRAPHY!

HAVE YOU READ THE BLUEFIRE ETHANOL INC. ARTICLE ABOVE PROPERLY?

The system incoporates MEMBRANE REACTOR TECHNOLOGY. Something I work with in my research ... incidently.

USING (A SEMI-PERMEABLE DISCRIMINATING MEMBRANE) THIS NEGATES THE NEED FOR COSTLY DISTILLATION PROCESSES - AS SEPARATION OCCURS INSITU / IN PARALLEL TO THE REACTION WITHIN THE REACTION ...

THIS IS CLASSIC "GREEN CHEMISTRY" / "GREEN CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY".

I SUGGEST YOU REREAD THE ARTICLE AND LOOK INTO THESE TWO GUYS WHOM I KNOW PERSONALLY:

Prof. Andy Livingstone, IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON, UK).

ALSO Keith Scott at Newcastle University (Newcastle, UK).

Both are interesting characters in this area of research (MEMBRANE REACTOR TECHNOLOGY AND NOVEL REACTOR DESIGN).

ALSO CHECK OUT:
Crystal Faraday
(Crystal Faraday is the UK's innovation centre for green chemical technology.)

http://www.crystalfaraday.org/

[Engineer-Poet]

Your talking about VERY LARGE CENTRALISED PLANTS...

I am?  That's news to me.  I didn't think I'd mentioned a size, but I was thinking about things as small as you see here.  Oh, fermentation of off-gas and algae capture of CO2 will probably be more cost-efficient on a scale of several farms, but small is definitely possible.

One of the beauties of the DCFC is that it doesn't inherently lose efficiency as it gets smaller.

HAVE YOU READ THE BLUEFIRE ETHANOL INC. ARTICLE ABOVE PROPERLY?

The system incoporates MEMBRANE REACTOR TECHNOLOGY.

That's nice.  How much does that improve the field-to-wheels efficiency of its ethanol product?  What are the limits?  What new technologies have to be developed to get there?  If you specify a system around it, how does it rate with regard to:

1. Handling of varied feedstocks?
2. Buffering of energy stocks?
3. Pollution from both normal operation and fuel spills?
4. Ease of carbon sequestration?

A system built around carbonization, fermentation of off-gas and feeding algae on the CO2 operates on a potentially very small scale, yields both solid and liquid fuel, can store both indefinitely or use the solid product for sequestration, and can sell the liquid for either fuel or chemical synthesis.  Field-to-terminals efficiency of the charcoal alone could hit 40%, ignoring any improvements from the algae side.

The US uses about 17.6 quads of gasoline per year; at 15% average drivetrain efficiency, that puts 2.65 quads of energy to the wheels.  Compare the potential product of 1.3 billion tons of waste biomass:  if it were converted to 325 million tons of charcoal (~300 million metric tons), it would yield about 7.5 quads of electricity.  Figuring losses in motors and such, that's still more than twice what we need to replace gasoline.  Can the Bluefire process replace all the gasoline used in the USA?  If not, why's it so great?

[In-Vestor]

Why did this company gone public on
pinksheet? What is the potential of this
co. I will appreciate any responses.
Thanks
In-Vestor

[hamerhokie]

E-P, I was speaking in terms of cellulose ethanol E85, not corn ethanol.

[Jasmine Dey]

why did you go public in pink sheet? When are truly filing with SEC? when is your stock down at $2.25? i'm glad to hear that have a chosen a lanfill out in the California.

[Ssembonge]

BFRE's licence with Arkenol allows for its CEO to have his cake and eat it. Arnold Klann, BFRE's CEO, is also the owner of Arkenol Inc. This relationship allows him to profit from BFRE even if it does not make any profits while he collects payments, royalties and fees associated with the commercialization and production of ethanol using Arkenol's technology. Although he has invested a lot of equity into both BFRE and Arkenol, he stands to gain the most from the exclusive licencing agreement between the two companies.

http://lovelymoney.blogspot.com/2007/05/making-cash-out-of-trash.html

[Ilikewood]

Interesting comment Ssembonge (and I would say quite correct)

I am personally involved in this research and have been to the Izumi (Japan) site several times. My picture is even included on their Powerpoint presentations as their "friendly staff of professionals", even though I don't work for either of the companies listed and was just part of another subcontracter picture.

The question has been raised about the viability of the strong acid vs. enzyme (weak acid) methods and how come the US is not pursuing the strong acid method in full effort....it all comes down to politics, sorry to say. The big energy research facilities have unilaterally agreed that the enzyme approach will be the way of the future and have invested all their time and effort in that direction.

I can't say for sure if the strong acid method of bio-ethanol is more economic than the enzyme method, but at least there is a working strong acid demonstration plant that is actually producing ethanol.

[Rob Mida]

E85 is not carbon neutral when looking at the entire life cycle. You have farming/harvesting equipment using diesel. Fertilizer using natural gas. Of course, switchgrass growers will initially claim they won't use fertilizer, but they will to increase their yields. It also doesn't take into account soil degradation, erosion, and compaction. This releases CO2 from dying soil microbes and the earth, not just the sequestered carbon from the atmosphere.

Similar problems will occur with cellulose that have happened with the first generation agrofuels. There are also the dangers of the GE enzymes, which in one study (I have source) the GE microbes created alcohol around the root system and killed all plants. Most research and funding is going into GE microbes and plants as this will be the only foreseeable way for this to be cost effective.

Also, as been brought up here - switching to plug-in hybrids, and a clean electrified transportation system is the only real solution so far. This would include using trains more, trucks less, and lots of redesigning our logistical systems. All these agrofuels (mostly funded by oil giants) just seek to delay (or the buzz word, 'transition') us to what will eventually be necessary.

As for this proposal, I'd like to know how much MSW or trash they will use. As been highlighted, farmers will sell their 'waste' which would be compost in non-monoculture farms, to this company. Urban trash is limited and only economic if in relative proximity. What will most likely happen, as it has historical precedence, is they will use dirty MSW as they can get paid for taking that in as a feedstock. Hazardous wastes, toxics, and heavy metals will then be present in the fuel, which will then be burned.

Dilution is pollution. Internal combustion is greatly inefficient in itself, then you have all the inefficiencies of agrofuels. The picture gets much much worse when you see how these policies, and that of the EU effect the 3rd world resources.

Why spend all this money in these technologies when we (at least some of us) already know what needs to happen?

Steeping stone!? please, these corporations have stepped on enough of us already.

[Sohaib Naqvi]

Can you help me out on my project on "Production Of Biodiesel" which i got as a part of the requirement for the completion of my degree??
Sohaib Naqvi
Chemical Engineering (Final Year),
NFC-IET Multan,
Pakistan.

[Used Dump Trucks]

Blue Fire Ethanol Interesting Concept

[فيس بوك]

im very interesting to learn about this

[düzce haber]

And this process can likely be used to make butanol, which is much more suitable for gasoline engines as a total replacement...

[temporary internet miami]

oh my god, I didn't know anything of this, awful..
but we keep, buying cars and contaminating more the environment