Syntec Cellulosic Ethanol Sets Price Record

Syntec Biofuel Inc (OTCBB: 'SYBF'), a company developing biomass to fuel conversion technologies, announced that it has achieved a yield of 105 gallons of alcohol (ethanol, methanol, n-butanol and n-propanol) per ton of biomass. This marks a major milestone for Syntec as this yield is equivalent to revenues in excess of $27 million per year for a 300 ton per day biomass processing facility. Syntec's technology is based on thermo-chemical conversion of syngas, produced by gasifying biomass, and passing the gas over the catalysts in a fixed bed reactor.  This process is similar to producing methanol which is an established and well known technology.

“We are consistently seeing monthly improvements in our Biomass to Alcohols (B2A) Process. This level of achievement makes the B2A process profitable in relatively small scale facilities using a wide variety of waste biomass feedstocks in any combination.”

-- Michael Jackson, President of Syntec Biofuel Inc.

The Syntec B2A technology,is focused on second-generation cellulosic ethanol production. Syntec’s innovative technology uses any renewable waste biomass such as hard or soft wood, sawdust or bark, organic waste, agricultural waste (including sugar cane bagasse and corn stover), and switch-grass to produce syngas.

This syngas, comprised of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is then scrubbed and passed through a fixed bed reactor containing the Syntec catalysts to produce ethanol, methanol and higher order alcohols. The Syntec technology can also produce alcohols from biogas (sourced from anaerobic digestion of manure and effluent), landfill gas or stranded methane.

An October 2007 press release Syntec calculated that the variable cost per gallon alcohol on then current yield (approximately 73 gallons per ton) was US$0.48 per gallon, which it expected to shrink to US$0.37 per gallon on reaching a targeted yield of 113 gallons per ton. Current dry mill production of corn ethanol yields approximately 100 gallons per ton of corn (2.8 gallons/bushel corn grain, 1 bushel = approximately 56 lbs).

Comments

[JDT]

These people are wasting their time trying to get a 100% biomass process. There is not enough hydrogen in there. Industrial power is at 4 cents a kWh in BC - this should be used to electrolyze water to get the necessary hydrogen. Then the process' yield will double with fewer pre and post-FT steps (my guess).

So instead of wasting their time on gassification, which is a well-understood thing, they should concentrate on the Fischer-Tropsch and perfect that for the proper stoichometric mix of CO and H2 with least generation of methanol and other non-desirable side products.

But being a stock play (Vancouver penny stocks), they need to produce some "news", such as "virtual revenues".

[Rex Campbell]

I have a way to gasification electronically h20 to HHO gases at low cost.

[fjh]

As a fuel, raw hydrogen has just been rejected in california...compression, transport, refilling safety, and just a few of the major and costly roadblocks to direct fueling vehicles with liquified hydrogen.

Extracting hydrogen from natural bio-gas appears to be the trend of the future--Sweden, etc; while conventional ICE's will still need an oxygenate...Methanol is better than MTBE.

We are probably going to attach a microbial hydrogen generator run by a solar panel to an anaerobic digester as an experiment...a little toke of hydrogen is good! lol.

[GreyFlcn]

==Industrial power is at 4 cents a kWh in BC - this should be used to electrolyze water to get the necessary hydrogen.==

And where is the necessary electricity for that going to come from?

Since we'd need 3.5x our current electricity generation to support that.
http://greyfalcon.net/h2car

AND it would also have to be significantly cleaner than natural gas electricity to qualify as climate beneficial.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png

[GreyFlcn]

==while conventional ICE's will still need an oxygenate==

No they don't.
www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2006/May/Day-08/a4252.htm

Nor should they.
greyfalcon.net/ethanol2

==Methanol is better than MTBE.==

No it's even more toxic than MBTE.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol#Health_and_safety

[bigTom]

This seems to be creating the wrong fuel. Especially the first graphic, where methane (which is our ideal fuel), after a great deal of processing and energy losses is converted to ethanol. Presumably they are doing this because of the subsidy. The only case where this makes sense is that of shutin biomass, i.e. biomass which is too far from a NG pipeline that biogas can be fed into. Why can't we evolve a sensible energy policy?

[JDT]

Grey Falcon - about half of the hydrogen is supplied by the biomass (syngas) in the Synctec+eH2 process. So your numbers are off by a factor of 2 at least.

Second off, the efficiency is much higher than what you admmit. Electrolysis is 80 to 90% efficient.

3rd off, BC power is 90% hydro - zero GHG.

4th - Nuclear power can generate necessary H2, with no GHG footprint.

5th - there is huge amount of hydropower in BC (if the Greenies and the Indians allow).

The whole point that is missed is that Ethanol is superior to H2 or gasoline for transportation.

BigTom - there is no talk of Methanol anywhere in the Syntec process. It is a less than desirable byproduct and should be eliminated. There is no Methanol input, and Ethanol is more valuable than Methanol (higher market price per energy), and Methanol production will be eliminated by tuning the FT process.

[JDT]

Grey - Methanol naturally degrades in soil, while MTBE does not - which is important for leaky fuel tanks. That is the whole point. Nobody directly drinks MTBE, Methanol, or gasoline.

[TheSunHarvest.com]

Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the universe. It is 14.5 times lighter than air and does not naturally exist as hydrogen gas but rather as part of a compound where it is bonded to other elements. For example, it is found in water (H2O) and in hydrocarbons such as natural gas (CH4). To produce pure hydrogen we have to ‘unlock’ the chemical bonds in the molecules that form these substances

Hydrogen is an excellent fuel for several reasons. Hydrogen contains more energy than any other fuel on an equal mass basis – in other words, one kilogram of hydrogen contains more releasable energy than one kilogram of any other fuel. For example, one kilogram of hydrogen has very close to the same energy content as one gallon of gasoline. In addition to being clear and odorless, it is non-toxic, non-corrosive and non-carcinogenic, therefore it doesn't have any adverse effects on the environment

[GreyFlcn]

But of course, there isn't anywhere you can mine raw hydrogen.

Purified hydrogen has to be created.

And the creation of hydrogen is usually quite dirty.

Add also that it's much more dirty than electricity.

Or requires up to 4x more clean infrastructure to deliver the same results.

Hydrogen also has horrible logistics performance, making it unsuitable for distribution.

Which also means that it doesn't have any existing infrastructure.

[pstoller78]

I think hydrogen only becomes feasible if on site generation can become affordable. This eliminates the need for infrastructure, which is my mind the biggest obstacle. I realize that generation is also a large obstacle but I get the feeling that it will be easier to come up with clean and cheap ways of producing hydrogen than it will to develop any sort of nationwide infrastructure.

[JDT]

And how are you going to store and transport meaningful quantities of hydrogen?

Face it, hydrogen is dead. 100 billion dollars (my guess), that could have been used to build schools and infrastructure in Africa and eliminate poverty, was wasted on hydrogen because the activist Greenies thought they knew better than the marketplace. But of course, the Greenies being a tiny minority, paid for a tiny amount of that wastage. It was the average Joe who paid for it.

Hydrogen was an idealistic and socialistic pipe dream, and society paid through their nose for listening to a bunch of activist Greenies who never took a single physics or chemistry course in their whole anti-science "postmodern" education. Yeah, Cultural Studies and Literature Criticism is what these freeloaders know best. Meanwhile, average Joe and the African is paying for the Greenies' arrogance and ignorance.

Next time somebody defends a hydrogen economy here, would they kindly write what they majored in? Thanks.

[Frank]

Did Syntec Biofuel Inc hit the magic catalyst formula or is Syntec perpetrating one of the biggest scams in biofuel history??????
Where is the evidence to Syntec’s claims for 105 gallons of alcohols from 1ton of wood??? Where is the plant or the equipment which is supposed to have produced this miracle? Where is the confirmation of independent investigators??????

I was personally involved with Syntec in the past 6 years, right from it’s conception. I was consulting the Syntec on equipment matters for the lab and for possible future production. My company has built some equipment for Syntec as well. I was not involved in catalyst research itself, however, later on I had access to all information to know what was happening.
From my personal experience the Syntec was always very high on hype and nearly zero on real substance

I visited Syntec company numerous times when it still operated from University of British Columbia campus. My last visit to the company was in the spring 2006 when I was called in to evaluate the progress. At that time the company has already moved to rented facility in Burnaby. I found that all process catalysts developed by Syntec up to date were worthless for any commercial production including those that were developed earlier in University of British Columbia.
The Ethanol yields were absolutely pathetic per volume of catalyst. Catalysis was done on micro laboratory scale, using only 1gram catalyst samples, just enough for gas chromatography analyses.
See the lab pictures at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/kandrnal/SyntecBiofuelIncLaboratory/photo#5169117682052453778

The reaction favored the production of methane, water and some hydrocarbons. Only about 8% of the synthesis products were alcohols and Methanol formation was prevalent. Up to my last visit, the Syntec company has never gasified a single gram of wood or any other biomass for their synthesis feedstock gas. All experimental, and always unsuccessful synthesis was done from pure Bottled Gasses.
I was extremely distressed to see that only one researcher (Caili Su) was working on catalyst research. Only one catalyst sample was run in several days and the results were always bad. After my last visit I realized that the whole Syntec company was based on big hype and nothing else. As shareholder, ( I had over 50,000 shares ) I was personally very disgusted with the pathetic company progress and all the hype. Up to my last visit I was led to believe, as were all other investors, that something magic was happening in Ethanol production catalyst research. Now I suddenly realized it was all worthless hype and that I was being taken to the cleaners.

Shortly after my last visit in early 2006 the company was taken over by Michael Jackson (a minority shareholder up to that time) who by skillful legal maneuvering (he is a lawyer) and his personal greed forced the company very quickly into bankruptcy and then bought the assets of the company from bankruptcy trustee via Montilla Capital Inc. In my opinion the trustee’s appraiser did undervalue the Syntec’s assets and of course there was no second professional opinion as to real value of the company.
The Ethanol catalysts that Syntec was so proud of were worthless, however, the equipment in the lab had higher value than it was sold for by bankruptcy trustee.
See the court case at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/06/2007bcsc0656.htm
In this way the Jackson took complete control of the company and all original 25 Syntec investors lost all their money because no shares were transferred. Jackson simply ruthlessly screwed all previous Syntec shareholders because of $20,000 owed to him.
From there on I did not pay much attention to further Syntec affairs until today when I see another of theirs hyped claims . As far as I know, at present the company has only skeleton staff and no facility to actually synthetically produce alcohol in105 gallon volume.
All their overblown claims and wishful thinking seams to be based on theoretical analyses and practically nothing on solid reality. All seams to be designed to fool the unsuspecting investor.

Am I wrong??? Hardly! Let analyze it very simply by BTU on BTU (British Thermal Unit) basis. Syntec claims to make 105 gallons of Ethanol from one ton of wood waste. We know that oven dry ton of wood waste has about 16 million BTU energy content. 105 gallons of ethanol has 8,820,000 BTU energy content, therefore, the wood conversion to Ethanol and higher alcohols would be 55% efficient. I was not born yesterday to believe this nonsense. Not even coal to liquids conversion is this efficient.
It is highly unlikely that Syntec would all of a sudden go from a few % conversion rate to 55% conversion in less than 2 years with the skeleton staff it has in their mediocre Burnaby facility.
In order to believe it, their claim needs to be independently confirmed by other competent investigators. Before this happens I will consider it nothing else but another hyped scam.
In the past Syntec never had any real success in Ethanol production from their catalysts, even the patented one, however that setback did not stop them from publishing highly exaggerated claims. This company hype will end in future history as another great failure in the quest for useful Ethanol production catalyst. In the end, a lot of investors will end up holding an empty bag.
Before I would personally invest any more money or time into this company I would insist on physical confirmation of their claims. I don’t think it is too much to ask for.

I have also noticed that Syntec includes Methanol in their alcohol mixture. When it come to methanol it is possible to convert one ton of wood waste to 105 gallons of methanol. In this case the conversion efficiency would be 41% using standard commercial methanol catalyst. All of us know that some methanol catalysts produce traces of Ethanol, Butanol and Propanol, hence Syntec could hide behind methanol scheme all along and thus protect itself from being accused of scam since Syntec claims all of these alcohols in their portfolio. Nevertheless, no one needs Syntec for production of methanol because the methanol technology is already well developed and commercial catalysts are available.
I advice all potential Syntec investors to investigate this company in detail before investing your money.

Frank Kandrnal
Dynamic Energy Corp

[JDT]

Very interesting, Frank

Are you saying Methanol FT CC is a proven technology while Ethanol is not?

I knew as of 12 months ago, Syntec had announced it had shelved Ethanol in favor of Methanol.

And their press release is about B2A (alchohols) and not B2E.

What do you think about the Nexterra gassifier. How do they get rid of pyrolysis gasses?

[Don MacKenzie]

Interesting to see you post here about your experiences, Frank.

I was a junior engineer with Syntec from 2002-2004. Syntec's co-founder and CTO, Kevin Smith of UBC, left he company in late 2003. The man left in charge was CEO Lawrence Wong, who had an inadequate background in the industry. I decided then that it was time to head for greener pastures, and left about 2 months after Dr. Smith did. Of the engineers who had been with Syntec at the time I joined, the last one left the company later in 2004 or in early 2005.

I have not had insider information on Syntec in nearly four years, and I do not know Dr. Su. But, I can say that the claims that Syntec is making these days appear little changed from the ones it was making in the days that I was there. Despite a booming ethanol industry, Syntec still has not made demonstrable progress in scaling up its process. I can only agree with Frank that anyone considering investing in Syntec should do their due diligence in validating the company's claims, right down to the calibration of their test equipment.

Don MacKenzie
MIT

[AYP]

Wow…I haven’t seen such blatant smear campaigning against a company in a while. It appears that Frank has some personal vendetta against the company. I’ve noticed his comments on several other blogs that have mentioned Syntec, and they are all cut & paste copies of the comments posted here. And going as far as setting up a photo hosting account just to post up pictures of their supposed lab…that’s going a bit far no?

While I believe it’s fair to remind potential investors to do their due diligence, as they should in any situation and especially when it comes to emerging technology, I think it’s pretty obvious Franks comments should all be taken with a grain of salt. Personal vendettas are ugly and airing ones dirty laundry in public never makes anyone look good

[Frank Kandrnal]

Don MacKenzie, You may think that I have some personal vendetta against Syntec. You may call it whatever you want, however, I am just telling what has happened and anyone can confirm it for himself. The pictures I have taken in Syntec lab are genuine and are only a small fraction of many more pictures of my work for Syntec. Those pictures are a part of my extensive website albums.
You, yourself have lost nothing. You were in Syntec for a short time, you owed no stock as far as I know, you got your fat pay for doing very little and eventually you left for the greener pastures, as you say. It tells me that you did not believe in what you worked for in Syntec so you left.
I was personally more affected by shady dealings and I feel stabbed in the back by dirty tricks from Mr. Jackson.
Since I am not a shareholder of the new Syntec anymore I am not bound by any corporate secrecy, hence I am free to tell the world my experience with old Syntec up to the days when the company was bankrupted and my observations afterwards.

This is a case where the financier, Michael A. Jackson of the original Canadian Syntec Biofuel Inc., petitioned to bankrupt the Canadian company and the assets of the bankrupted Syntec Biofuel Inc were sold by the trustee, D. Manning and Assoc. to Montilla Capital Inc. for CAD $52,000 during the first creditors’ meeting. Montilla (an offshore company) shortly after sold the Syntec assets to US pubco, SYBF.OB which is controlled by Michael Jackson, who valued those same assets at $ 5,000,000.00 US and filed with US SEC. The SYBF.OB was called NIVS.OB prior to the bankruptcy of original Canadian Syntec and its shares were traded at pennies. Now the shares of SYBF.OB are traded at US 85c
I would like to know how could assets purchased for $52,000 be sold by Montilla to SYBF.OB controlled by Jackson for $ 5 million value in a matter of few months.
There is no doubt that Michael Jackson orchestrated the entire bankruptcy of the original Syntec Biofuel company for his own enrichment. At bankruptcy court Jackson was conveniently hiding behind Montilla as a company he claimed not to have any connections with whatsoever, however, he soon got all the assets from Montila for his controlled pubco, SYBF.OB. Other Syntec’s creditors controlled by Jackson were Pelican Financial Corp., Impulse Advertising Ltd. Jackson were also hiding behind other offshore corporate veils including Eurocapital Holdings AVV, Iris International Holdings, Ryerson Corporation AVV who were Syntec’s other creditors.
Jackson hired Doug Hyndman, a bankruptcy lawyer to win back the assets at BC Supreme Court.
Please see the court case at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/07/06/2007bcsc0656.htm
Also please look at US security commission filings for new Syntec Biofuel, SYBF.OB

I was a shareholder in original Canadian Syntec Biofuel Inc. Where I held 56,000 shares. I lost all of those shares and more along with many other investors to clever Jackson's legal maneuvering that forced Syntec into bankruptcy and eventually to his complete takeover of the company where original shareholders lost everything. This is in contrary to his original promises to raise the capital for the benefit of the original company, nevertheless, he took advantage of the error in company agreement to his favor, hence he decided to make a move for the kill.
Frank Kandrnal

[Frank Kandrnal]

Don MacKenzie I apologize! My previous post should been directed to AYP poster. The black lines separating the columns caused me to make an error. Sorry for that!
Frank Kandrnal

[Frank Kandrnal]

In my reply to APY poster! The smear campaign is yet to come. I am considering to take Syntec, Michael Jackson and others involved in this fiasco to court. Stay tuned to see how much more dirt will surface when all is done.
Frank Kandrnal

[Kit P]

Frank, thanks for taking the time to post.

For the record, I think that you have done a credible job of presenting your case.

[Frank Kandrnal]

About Nexterra gasifier. I know very little about their wood waste gasifier except that it is an air blown gasifier and that they work on it for many years.
Nevertheless, the subject of wood waste or any biomass gasification brings us again into negative territory when making biofuels via synthesis from biomass, thereby throwing another monkey wrench into the entire idea of making synfuels from biomass.

When it comes to production of syngas from biomass it is important to use pure Oxygen in gasification process. Today, the pure Oxygen can be only produced in reasonable quantity via expensive cryogenic method. The cheaper pressure swing adsorption rarely exceeds 95% oxygen purity. The main reason for gasification with pure oxygen it is to exclude Nitrogen from gasified syngas.
If you use nitrogen containing syngas in Methanol, Ethanol or FT synthesis the nitrogen gas will rapidly accumulate in the synthesis loop, requiring large volume gas purge from synthesis loop. This high rate purge will waste a lot of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide going out along with nitrogen. Unless these useful gases are recovered and recycled the whole synthesis process from biomass is highly uneconomical. Nitrogen can be removed beforehand from syngas by cryogenic method or by pressure swing adsorption, nevertheless this process cannot compete with ultra simple, low inert gas content, syngas production from natural gas via steam reforming process.
Since biomass has some nitrogen in it anyway, even the oxygen gasified syngas from biomass will contain some nitrogen, hence the biomass represents the worst possible feedstock for any synthesis except Ammonia. The nitrogen and argon build up in the synthesis loop represents really tough engineering challenges to solve in an economical manner. This is the reason why synthetic fuel production from biomass is so elusive.
Oxygen blown gasifier will melt the ash, therefore the gasifier must be designed to handle molten slag removal. The molten slag also represents more engineering challenges. If this were not enough, then there is the challenge in handling solid biomass before gasification.
All of these problems increase the plant and labor costs which is a very negative factor for any enterprise.
There may be a better way to gasify biomass by direct steam reforming of biomass using nickel catalyst as developed by Battelle Laboratories. The process uses no oxygen. However, this technology also has a whole host of it’s own problems. Detailed analyses and project study was made for proposed 1,000 ton/day methanol plant in Oregon.
After you analyze all the problems of both technologies you arrive at the conclusion that biomass is not so great idea for fuel production via synthesis.
I personally think that it is better to use biomass in electric generation where smaller scale power plants can be very useful with acceptable investment costs.
Frank Kandrnal

[Kit P]

“I personally think that it is better to use biomass in electric generation where smaller scale power plants can be very useful with acceptable investment costs.”

I certainly agree but electricity is still a very cheap commodity. About 3% of your electricity comes from biomass plants like Kettle Falls in Washington State. If you are looking at the value of energy, transportation fuel is much higher in value. Using biomass to fire a CHP to supply process steam to ethanol and biodiesel would appear to be the next logical step forward.

[Frank Kandrnal]

I was accused by a person, calling herself/himself Annie, on other website blog for all kinds of wrongdoing. No doubt this person is one of the Syntec stooges!
Here is what she has to say:

What Frank Kandrnal failed to divulge is that he was a creditor of Syntec and a close friend of the founder, Mr Lawrence Wong, and was regrettably not paid money owed to him by Mr. Wong’s company at the time and therefore exceedingly biased. He also failed to divulge the fact that he built a small methanol pilot plant out of used material for which he charged Syntec full cost which did not work.
2. He has also distorted his view of the Syntec process. What he failed to understand was that Mr Wong was more interested in achieving selectivity (ie. more ethanol and not too concerned about yield which is the economic model). That has changed since Dr. Kosanovich (a PhD Chemical Engineer) came on board as CEO in April 2007, and the direction of catalyst development was changed to focus on yield not selectivity, hence Dr Su’s ability to achieve current yield of 105 gpt. Unfortunately, Mr Kandrnal, is totally misinformed and his rambling has no merit.
This will be my only response as Mr Kandrnal is lacking the knowledge to make a sound judgment.

My reply to her accusations is as follows;

Annie fails to divulge a lot more details than she stated in her post
Yes I built the small pilot synthesis plant which was intended for the Syntec proprietary catalyst.
The pilot plant was built according to what Syntec wanted using all new materials and it worked well when tested with standard Haldor Topsoe methanol catalyst.The micro pilot plant was designed to produce 1 liter of crude synthesis products in 24 hour period. Feedstock for that test was landfill gas. Syntec never had the ability or their catalysts were never ready to fill a 1 liter reactor in pilot plant therefore it could not be tested before it was delivered into Syntec lab in Burnaby B.C. Syntec was working on testing 1 gram of catalyst at a time for few hours in a day.
See many pilot plant pictures at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/kandrnal/PilotPlantForSyntecBiofuelInc?authkey=5hXpaxSdKWM
The small pilot plant was built with all new materials and labor. Anyone knows that manufacturing a custom prototype is notoriously expensive, therefore Syntec owed me for a lot of labors in the shop, applied design and in shipping.
At that time Syntec was at financial squeeze due to non performance by Michael Jackson and eventually I was not properly paid at all except for the shipping cost, at a small sum from the bankruptcy trustee after Jackson forced the original Syntec into bankruptcy. The actual person in control of the finances at that time was Jackson, not Lawrence Wong! Instead, Jackson decided to wipeout all shareholders and swallow the whole company for his own benefits. If Annie thinks that I have such a grudge against Syntec then Jackson should have paid me and others properly and be fair to all.
Annie says the pilot plant does not work. Since I am not in control of the competence in Syntec lab I have no comment on this issue. Any competent technician should be able to run the micro pilot plant especially if he would consult with me. Nevertheless, since we all got cheated, my consultation will never come.
Finally, I don't claim to know what is exactly happening in Syntec after my last visit in the Spring 2006. Nevertheless, I seriously question the existing Syntec claims for 105 gallons alcohols/ton wood waste. As I said before their catalyst yield means nothing if that yield is mainly methanol because methanol catalysts are commercially available for over 50 years with outstanding selectivity and yield by other companies and no one need Syntec catalyst for that purpose. When someone puts out a serious claim I want to see even more serious evidence to substantiate those claims.
I have more knowledge in applied science and practical experience than Annie would want to admit. For this reason I don't take present Syntec claims seriously.

[Garko Novis]

buying gas has become a major investment decision, as in "do i invest in some food so i can get thru the day or some gas so i can get where i have to go?" It should never be this way but it is. But that doesn't mean we have to just suffer. There is a real solution in Water4Gas and you owe it to yourself to check it out! http://w4g4mpg.info

[Seo Web Guide]

This is a one of latest technology to make biomass.In this process are using a advance technologies that make it poplar in the world.To get information visit- offshore company formation and see the benefit of trying to get a 100% biomass process.

[Cecelia]

To Frank Kandrnal

Very interesting points and facts. I believe you have some points others should respect on the events. Personally I too noticed their shares we either undervalued as their technology was good, or ...well I did not know what else.

Last year I signed a NDA with Syntec. Information shared before I signed the NDA is all I will discuss.

The facts on the 105 gallons per ton.

1) they do not have a gasifier so they assume certain assumptions are true about gasifiers. Their assumptions are tied to any particular gasifier or technology.

2) their 105 is a mixed alcohol for which I will not disclose the "ethanol" percentage but I will point out. However, there is currently off the shelf technology that beats theirs.

3) while this does not sound so good for them, they are on to something. I the greed part is unabashed for them, Jackson does not hide his greed.

4) while I know certain details and hope the best, they are too expensive to use. There will be new markets for the higher alcohols, but the ethanol need will be with us for a while.

5) their catalyst life needs to be longer to be cost effective though it exceeds others already and they are working on it. But they need to partner up to get to where they want to go and be part of a plant and get on with it. They are stuck. Who knows if it will scale?

Here is a piece of technical knowledge on thermochemical. It is all about the carbons and nothing else matters. Carbon capture efficiencies on mature thermochecmical systems that function in the high temperature ranges is well over 90% and I know intimately one that is 99% efficient for carbon capture. In addition the resulting producer gas is very clean before cleanup processes. However, the power to run them is an issue. The payoff is the ultra pure synthesis gas, less producer gas cleanup, a very expensive costs. Some processes have a method for achieving 108% by adding additional "stuff" in the gasifier. Bottom line, the direct conversion of all lignins and cellulosic biomass, equates their catalyst to 135-145 gallons per dry ton mass. The energy balance to use a high efficiency system drops the overall eff. to close to 70%. However, this is a mixed alcohol from their catalysts though multiple passes increase yields, it is their costs that makes it a barrier to use. COTS with 80 gallons per ton return from a high temperature thermal chemical system is much cheaper to operate.

Cecelia Hickel
Kiona Scientific
Benton City, WA

[HHO Kits]

nicely done.

[HHOGasKitWizad]

Thanks for sharing this very useful information I will be definatly be back soon. Keep Up the Good Work!

[Filipino Car Lease Broker Los Angeles]

I think I've heard of Syntec before, seems like a company that's doing great things!

[parking sensors]

I'm sorry, his name is Michael Jackson?? Lol.

[Rug Cleaning Los Angeles]

I like the fact that they can use any of that biomass you listed and convert it to syngas, good stuff.

[Furniture Stores in Los Angeles]

Great that Syntec was able to do this, but how is it going 3 (almost 4) years later?

[seo services]

Never heard of syngas before, very interesting article to read.

[dentist west hollywood]

They were seeing monthly improvements at the time, what about now?