U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. (USSEC) (OTC:USSE.PK) announced that they have completed the assembly of their new reactor system located at the USSEC Bioenergy plant and fuel production facility in Natchez, Mississippi. The new reactor includes a number of component upgrades, and process improvements made since introducing the prototype last year. The patent pending process is claimed to be a major advancement for green energy that creates a quality 7-3-7 organic-based fertilizer, while also producing unique biofuel and biogas byproducts at very low cost.
The Rivera Process, named after the inventor, John H. Rivera, CEO of USSEC, is a modified pyrolytic process with hydrolysis. The new reactor is capable of producing 6000 gallons of biofuel daily, producing five gallons of fuel from each bushel of soybean stock -- a conversion ratio three times higher than the ratio for traditional biodiesel. The biofuel has a thermal value similar to petroleum diesel, displays no corrosive behavior, and is resistant to temperatures as low as -70 degrees Fahrenheit. The technology is also claimed to be also to run on cow manure and wood chips. Further announcements of additional site locations for operation in 2008 are expected by March.
The reactor is the first of more than 200 planned reactor tubes scheduled for installation over the next 12 months at the Natchez facility, which will have a capacity of 1.5 mgd when completed.
In the Rivera Process natural feed stocks and a proprietary catalyst are heated in a reactor to a relatively high temperature. This heating is typically performed below atmospheric pressure for a time sufficient to vaporize all oils and water from the feedstock and to allow the resultant chemical/mass transfer reactions to occur. The remaining solid is a substantially dry ash, wherein the vapor is extracted to form two biofuels via condensation while recovering lighter gases that are non-condensable at atmospheric pressure. The process is a “volume gain” process similar to catalytic cracking.
USSEC claims that it is able produce biofuel at a cost of less than $1 per gallon, compared with about $2.50 for most biodiesels on the market (prices assume soybeans cost $6 per bushel). And the USSEC cost includes production of biogas and carbon ash.
The heating value of the USSEC biofuel is 128,000 BTU/gal, while the heating value of biodiesel is typically about 117,000 BTU/gal and petroleum diesel is about 130,000 BTU/gal. For comparison, the heating value of typical regular unleaded gasoline is 114,200 BTU/gal, premium gasoline is 116,200 BTU/gal and jet fuel is 122,200 BTU/gal.
The pour point, an indication of the lowest temperature at which the fuel can be pumped, is typically less than or equal to -90°F. For comparison, the pour point for petroleum based diesel is around -16°F; the typical pour point for soy bean based biodiesel is 30°F.
Like pour point, the cloud point is lower than that of a typical biodiesel. At low temperatures, paraffin constituents in a fuel oil may precipitate as a wax forming a cloud. As a practical matter, cloud point is important since the wax formation can clog many fuel filters and render the engine useless. The cloud point is determined as the temperature at which a cloud of wax crystals first appears in the oil when it is cooled. The biofuel has a cloud point less than or equal to -70°F. For comparison, cloud point for petroleum based diesel is about 15°F (without winter fuel conditioners), the typical cloud point for animal fat based biodiesel is 68°F while the cloud point for soy bean based biodiesel is around 35°F.
Thus in addition to being a valuable fuel in its own right, the biofuel can be used as a supplement or blended with other biofuels and diesels to improve their cold weather performance.
The biofuel has a flash point between that of regular gasoline and petroleum diesel, ranging from 90°F to 95°F.
The biofuel also has a viscosity (cSt at 50°C) ranging from 0.8 to 1.1. This range is lower than that of traditional bio-diesels, which range from 1.9 to 6.0 cSt. The higher viscosity of traditional biodiesel has been known to result in gum formation on injectors, cylinder liners, etc. For this reason, it has been required to blend biodiesel with petro-diesels in blends of up to 20% of petro-diesel. The lower viscosity associated with the U.S. Sustainable Energy biofuel is a significant difference and advantage over biodiesels that suffer from gum-formation problems.
Because of the combination of the above properties USSEC biofuel can be used at 100 percent in diesel engines and with a 50/50 blend for gasoline engines without retrofits or modifications. Initially USSEC is using the biofuel for power generation, however it shows great promise for use in cars and trucks. They have run a variety of engines and vehicles, 2 cycle and 4 cycle, diesel and gasoline on the biofuel, for short term testing, which demonstrated the capability of using the biofuel in vehicles. They are considering a variety of transportation markets and will pursue them when it makes sense to do so.
The gas product has a heating value of 1,811 BTU's per cubic foot, while the heating value of natural gas is approximately 1,000 BTU's per cubic foot.
The "Rivera Process" was featured on Channel 13, WHO TV, in Iowa, in a special news cast that presented how low cost energy production is being applied to the creation of ethanol. The video piece, located at www.ussec.us/vde1.html highlighted the impact and importance of USSEC's technology, along with an overview of how it will be applied to partnering company Diversified Ethanol.
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Vidalia, LA
USSEC and Turnkey Electric, the joint venture partner of Pratt & Whitney Power Systems, have a strategic alliance leading to a joint venture to build the world's largest 1,000 Megawatt green power utility in Vidalia, Louisiana, the first United States 100% green power public utility.
John Rivera, CEO of U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp. "USSEC," stated, "With the opening of USSEC's new 500,000 square-foot biofuel facility in Natchez, MS., we will be supplying 100% of the power and electricity consumed by the city of Vidalia, Louisiana through the Vidalia Power and Light Public Utility. Since the electricity will be produced from 100% bio-waste product derived from the production of USSEC's organic 737 fertilizer created from soybeans, the power generated is renewable, recycled and green."
Diversified Ethanol
USSEC and Diversified Ethanol, a division of Originally New York, Inc. (OTC BB:ONYI.OB), have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) designed and intended to capture and dominate the multi billion dollar ethanol marketplace.
Diversified has built a 70,000 GPY pilot plant, in Eagle Grove, Iowa at the company headquarters, that is fitted to run on the biofuel from the Rivera reactor. Once the ethanol plant is running, a Rivera reactor will be installed so that it will be able to run on biomass. Their ethanol process uses inexpensive by utilizing a "cold microwave" to break down corn , which can result in ethanol plants using up to 30% less corn to get the same amount of sugars. The process "creates no waste water, and no waste solids, and their is no venting of bad waste gasses." As of Jan. 14, 2006 Diversified had powered up its pilot plant, one piece at a time, successfully completing sectional testing.
At he signing of the MOU Rivera stated, "Our immediate goal, is to construct a million gallon per day ethanol plant to be supported by the excess energy generated by USSEC and our subsidiary Sustainable Power Corp (SPC). Using Diversified Ethanol's technology we will obtain up to 30% more sugars from the corn we will process, according to independent university research. In addition, according to industry experts we will also save between 30-35% on our energy costs in producing ethanol, making our product the most cost competitive ethanol anywhere in the world."
Diversified intends to begin utilizing the low-cost fuel to power its own ethanol plants with nearly free steam. By combining Diversified Ethanol and USSEC's technology, the company believes it can produce 200 proof ASTM certified ethanol 60% cheaper than any other technology in the world.
Massachusetts Consortium
In a separate announcement a Memorandum Of Understanding was signed detailing the creation in Western Massachusetts of what could be the largest green electrical energy consortium in the Northeast.
The MOU calls for the formation of a green consortium to be owned jointly by USSEC, Vegetable Energy Group, LLC d/b/a Vee-Go Energy; and E2M.org (www.e2m.org). This consortium will work with USSEC subsidiary Sustainable Power Corporation to provide wholesale green electrical energy and generation plants to public and municipal electricity buyers throughout the state. The green electricity will be generated by SPC using their biofuel.
USSEC and SPC have offered to provide the fuels and equipment that could enable the Mt. Tom Power Station to significantly reduce their current CO2 and other emissions and provide 150 megawatts of new green generation capacity. The consortium has also offered to install smaller turbine generators in municipal utilities located in Western Mass. and throughout the state. They have offered to provide buyers with green electricity at a guaranteed 10% discount below the lowest fossil fuel electricity prices for a term of ten to twenty years.
This "biofuel" and the process for making it seems to be one of those things that is to good to be true. Companies with a lot of press releases, low stock prices and a lot of MOUs and "strategic alliances" always make me wary of what is going on. However USSEC seems to be backing it up with a considerable investment in the facility and a logical development plan - it seems to me to be a big risk to have such a large facility with only one reactor ready to test, although they have tested a previous version. If they can produce a fuel with those properties, for the cost that they claim, they certainly will revolutionize the biofuel industry. Biodiesel never made that much sense to me for temperate climates with its problems with cold weather, but this fuel seems to have those problems fixed. And it even can use wood chips a feedstock! I will certainly be waiting and watching to see how this one turns out. Best of luck to them, we certainly could benefit from having a process like theirs.
I agree... Seems too good to be true.
Best thing to do in a situation like this...
Visit the company!
Posted by: PO'd Patriot | January 30, 2007 at 03:00 AM
Indeed, it does sound too good to be true...but research on them seems credible. What really caught my attention was that their fuel could be mixed 50/50 for use in gasoline engines. Very interesting. I've never heard of this before. Imagine a single fuel that powers both diesel and gas engines. If the other half of the 50/50 is ethanol, then we have a winner for gas replacement. And it looks to be a more viable solution in terms of cost and readiness than Butanol/Biobutanol.
Posted by: greg | January 30, 2007 at 03:00 AM
Gee I feel so bad for OPEC. What are they going to do when all these coon a--es start making cheap fuel? JohnBo
Posted by: JohnBo | January 30, 2007 at 03:21 AM
Why use soy as the input if manure or wood waste wood suffice? Doesn't make much sense.
Soy or corn cannot supply enough fuel to replace oil. It's another dead end fuel farming scheme unless it works on waste products. Even then it would be a marginal source.
Posted by: amazingdrx | January 30, 2007 at 03:26 AM
I'd like to see what they can do with algae.
Posted by: Richard Wilson | January 30, 2007 at 07:05 AM
Um, 6$/bushel, 5 gallons per bushel, 1.2$ raw material cost alone; claimed cost of less than 1$, what am I missing?
Posted by: WW | January 30, 2007 at 08:18 AM
WW--- maybe they included the income of the by-product in the cost of the biofuel?
Posted by: Mouseplatterman | January 30, 2007 at 09:22 AM
If it runs on cow POOP, it's worth a look.
Posted by: Thomas Marihart | January 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Manure and other waste to biogas then the cO2 captured by algae growing solar collectors. All fuels used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbines and serial plugin hybrid drivetrains for transportation energy.
With biodiesel from the algae serving as the liquid fuel for the fuel cell backup in the serial plugin hybrids.
That beats this agribizz chemical fuel farm soy/corn process. Which does not even come close to being able to power ICE transportation as it exists today.
Unless some kind of reason is introduced into the choices made, lobbying cash will make the decisions. And we see where that has got us.
Drought, fires, ice storms, increased storm intensity, insect infestations spreading,rising ocean levels from melting ice caps, oil wars, wars over nuclear proliferation, and on and on. We are going to have to demand some common sense from government and industry.
It's a matter of survival. With the present level of compentence in decision making on the part of our leadership, disaster is assured.
Posted by: amazingdrx | January 30, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Does this kind of farming deplete the soil in time?
Posted by: No Mercedes | January 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Manure may have to be pre-dried before it can be used. Wood generally has to be chipped very fine before it can be used in a pyrolytic process (which costs a lot of electricity).
It's interesting, but I'd like to actually see a car drive on that stuff before believing they are as far as they claim.
Posted by: Gerben | January 30, 2007 at 11:37 AM
These pronouncements dare credibility.
Between the "simplified 'Rivera' process" diagram and the photo of the reedy thin "high temperature tube" I have to wonder where the heat comes from, what mechanism moves the biomass forward, and where the actual biologic conversion takes place? Certainly not from the vacuum chamber. I'd be interested in the "due dilligence" reports.
And are the fuels really marketable? They have to meet some pretty stiff emissions standards to be permitted for distribution.
Posted by: C. Scott Miller | January 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM
These processes are exciting. Soya fixes nitrogen so it can be rotated with corn. Hopefully they will adapt to using biomass from landfills soon.
Posted by: edgar | January 30, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Hi Jim,
Much thanks for your work.
I forward all relevant info to my daughter.
She is a materials scientist/ceramic engineer who owns her own shop at RPI commercial park in Troy NY: CERALINK
She was just awarded a 350K DOE grant contract for inventions and ideas for saving energy. She has also gotten NYSERDA contracts as well as research job shop work from companies like GE, Englehardt (BASF now), Omnisource and others---see her website.
PPG was supposed to work on this with her but because of internal company problems they have pulled out. They say they are still want to explore the technology. So she is looking at another major international company who seems interested.
From time to time, we put out press releases with real information----not puffery. I would like to send an occasional one to you for the web-site.
This last one is about combining microwave energy with traditional sources (electric, gas} with great savings for many sintering processes...neat stuff.
Posted by: FRANK SHULMAN | January 30, 2007 at 01:57 PM
This company puts out a mightly lot of PR. but when you start to add up their numbers, things start to break down. the cost of feedstock, the weight of feedstock, they get roughly 130% more BTU's than started + the energy cost of (20 lbs out of 60 lbs of soy???) carbon based fertilizer and their 'biogas', their material balance is off, their carbon material balance is stunningly far off, their energy balance is off and last but not least, they claim to get energy out of water.
it seems that these people are either an elaborate hoax or they have a fusion reactor in their factory. by the way...if they have a fusion reactor, why use soy? id start with water and dirt...they are cheaper way cheaper than soy.
im slightly disappointed that the author didnt try and dive into their numbers more. I think Jim added a valuable postscript.
Posted by: brian hans | January 30, 2007 at 02:32 PM
This company is an obvious scam. Pitiful.
They don't even deserve a second look.
Posted by: Jay | January 30, 2007 at 07:36 PM
In small print. Adding a proprietary catalyist. Could that be Coca Cola. Wow. What an investment that would be.
Posted by: J.C., Sr. | January 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM
In small print. Adding a proprietary catalyist. Could that be Coca Cola. Wow. What an investment that would be.
Posted by: J.C., Sr. | January 31, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Guy's.. please read my new comment in the "Zap" post... something very special just happened!!! I appologize for repeating this comment on the latest posts but I really think this is some very important news!!!
Enjoy
Posted by: Jimmi | February 01, 2007 at 12:17 AM
This company is a scam. There is NO WAY their claims can be true. This will go down in history with the other big scams like the "200 mpg carburetor" "the car that runs on water" "bigfoot" and thousands of perpetual motion machines.
Simple energy balance analysis will show that they claim to get out more BTUs than exist in the feedstock. Can't be done! End of story. There are other clues, but none more obvious tham the "over unity" fraud.
It's a pump-and-dump scam!
Posted by: barry ford | February 01, 2007 at 12:20 PM
USSE is on the level! You must contact JR or visit the company before you can call them a fraud! Their new reactor is one of a kind with 30 years of knowledge behind it!
Your numbers are incorrect because there is a difference between wet and dry soybeans!
Look at the companies leaders! Top shelf!
Posted by: Ron Adamowicz | February 07, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Find anyone who has gotten better than a "C" grade in both a college-level organic chemistry course and physics, and they will tell you - this is a scam.
I have a Masters in Biochemistry and have worked for years in research related to catalytic reactions and I can tell you this company is making claims that are false.
Posted by: barry ford | February 09, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Scientific analysis of properties and qualities of the liquid biofuel USSEC produces.
http://www.maximuscommunications.com/set_report.pdf
Posted by: Bob | February 13, 2007 at 09:31 PM
secrets but truthful secrets? thats what makes this stock different from ALL the rest. usually a penny stock hides behind a mask a false claims etc, and in they end they are just that! but something big is going on here. this is the big shift in focus from oil, they have the solution or they are a complete total scam. If so, how dare they show their faces to the world and hide behind claims they can't back up. Then again, I saw it before my eyes, but what do I know? I see the company is 110% real, and they have been playing with this process for over 17 years, refining it daily. Now many think they come out of no where, just boom they're making claims since a few months ago, but thats really not true. So, take my random post on a random website as you will, but this is like nothing I have seen before. I really can't wait to see how this pans out! I'm waiting for a higher price per share to really dive in. The market for this is way into the billions so still huge room to grow if USSEC does what I saw happen.
Posted by: chriso | February 14, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I figured this was a fraud about 1/4 through the video, laughed the other 3/4.
What a pony show! Always a few who are willing to throw money away.
Sombody making millions! Not the ones who bought this stock! HA
Posted by: bill | February 18, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I've been had! This rat paid me in restricted stock, now it is almost worthless! I'm going back down on the 24th and he better have some good answers. I can't sell these shares for 18 months if they are even tradable then. This whole thing stinks.
I think my friend Ron A. from CT might have something to say to him too, he lost a bunch on this stock.
AAAAAAaaaaaaaggggghhhhhhh!
Posted by: Zardiw | April 04, 2007 at 07:13 PM
FYI, that comment above by 'Zardiw' is bogus. I am the real zardiw, and did not write it. I wish people would stop taking my name in vain...........lol..........z
Posted by: TheRealZardiw | April 05, 2007 at 09:33 AM
I am Ronald Adamowicz 860-301-6813. Seems like these pesty little bashers have been using my name around the boards to bash USSE.
I have investigated USSE/SSTP and after many hours of research, I am fully supporting JR and his process, no company on the market can match what they produce. USSE/SSTP has the answer for America!
Posted by: Ron Adamowicz | April 05, 2007 at 04:04 PM
I have now found evidence that USSEC has a process that works! They have shown me the process and all the products. I will now ask for forgiveness. I am buying 200,000 shares with my Dads money. I will represent USSE/SSTP in my next AA meeting.
Posted by: Paperprophet | April 05, 2007 at 06:41 PM
Re:
The previous poster has falsely posted under my name. Although I have started to consider that USSE's claims have some merit, I have NOT bought any shares in the company, although if the price drops to an attractive level, I will consider doing so.
Posted by: Paper Prophet | April 05, 2007 at 10:16 PM
I saw the demo video and also read their literature. The comments from the viewers/readers seem to be extreme at both ends. I believe the process is worth looking at even though the claims seem to be far out. I don't know of any 'proprietary' catalyst that can speed up a reaction from 24 hours to 8 minutes! However, I will keep an open mind on the subject and give this company the benefit of doubt.
Posted by: Yogesh Goradia | November 15, 2007 at 06:14 PM
It does not matter whether you believe or not. The company is now selling product to George E. Warren out of Florida who will add it to reg. petroleum at a 4% mix to meet new mandates....
Vice president of Amspecc LC just joined the board of directors.....
They have successfully tested algae mixed with spoiled soybeans and other mixes including sawdust and woodchips.....
Bio jetfuel is REAL possibility, waiting on test results from four independent labs plus amspec has tested it.
Cornell University has reported on it
Alcorn State University
So on and so on.
Got my shares, and dont care if you dont.
Posted by: Mr. Joel Maki | January 16, 2008 at 09:04 PM
has anyone got any info on dyai or icad tks
Posted by: bronagh | March 09, 2011 at 02:15 PM