Turning Waste into Wealth, Drought into Abundance

The massive quantities of cellulose which sit unused and wasted in forests and fields, could be turned into high value cellulosic sugars, fuels, chemicals, and other materials. Here's more on turning cellulose into valuable sugars:

Sweetwater Energy uses a novel technology to produce low-cost sugars from non-food plant materials. The company plans to sell its sugar solutions to refineries, which use it to produce biofuels, biochemicals, and bioplastics.

Initially launched in 2006 under the name SweetWater Ethanol, LLC , the company originally was pursuing a decentralized business model to allow farmers to produce ethanol from crops right on their farms. The company refocused on producing sugar—which can be a key precursor for ethanol as well as for many types of other biofuels, biochemicals, and bioplastics—and changed its name to Sweetwater Energy.

In the spring of 2011, Sweetwater Energy’s team of scientists, led by Dr. Sarad Parekh, devised a way to increase significantly the efficiency of the extraction and fermentability of extracted sugars from a variety of biomass types. The technology generates separate and concentrated individual streams of C5 and C6 sugars.

Sweetwater’s initial $1.2 million seed round closed in February, 2010, financed in large part by Chesonis and Jack Baron, Sweetwater’s President and Chief Operating Officer. That funding, along with grants from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and early revenues from Department of Defense research sales to produce jet fuel for the US military, allowed Sweetwater to develop its novel decentralized sugar platform technology. That technology and other recent advances in the Sweetwater laboratories are now being engineered into Sweetwater’s first commercial facilities.

Earlier this year, Sweetwater began operation of its pilot-scale cellulosic sugar processing facility in Rochester, NY. Sweetwater’s chemists and engineers are using the pilot system in conjunction with Sweetwater’s laboratory to test new ways to quickly optimize the extraction of useful sugars from a wide variety of plant materials. Sweetwater is currently constructing a demonstration-scale facility at the same location later this year, which will allow final vetting of the Sweetwater technology at commercial scale.

In April, Sweetwater and BioGasol ApS, a Danish biotechnology company, entered into a strategic partnership through which Sweetwater will use BioGasol’s pretreatment technology—Carbofrac—as part of its overall solution to maximize the amount of sugar that can be extracted from plant-based feedstocks. _GCC

These beetle kills and drought kills are by no means unprecedented, nor are they indicative of anything other than natural cyclic activity.

But it makes sense to make productive use of natural cycles -- even destructive ones. Rather than to allow all of the waste cellulose to lie dormant and be converted into CO2, methane, etc., why not harvest it for productive use?

It takes a significant shift in attitude to approach problems as opportunities. And yet that is the most promising approach which we can take to the inevitable problems which will come our way.

Current crops of politicians, academics, and journalists tend to be whiners by nature -- virtual total losses. Isn't it time we turned them into something useful?

Plasma Arc Gasification and Other Unconventional Energies

WasteManagementWorld
The images here are reproduced from an article in Waste Management World. They illustrate the revenues, efficiencies, and product choices for various methods of incineration and gasification.  The image above is a basic schematic for plasma arc gasification of municipal solid waste for purposes of power generation.

WMW
The graphic above illustrates net energy production of various technologies in kWh per ton and kWh per tonne, of municipal solid waste.

WMWThis graph compares net revenues before taxes for various technologies, illustrating the advantages of gasification technologies.

WMWFinally we see the various Syngas options -- power production, chemical production, and bio-chemical production.

It should be noted that plasma arc gasification is shown to be superior to the other technologies shown, in terms of efficiencies and revenues. The end products are likewise far easier to dispose of, with very little if any toxicity compared to waste products of other methods. More at original article.

Despite all of the advantages of plasma arc gasification, loudly vocal lefty-Luddite groups have united in opposing all forms of reliable and abundant energy production -- including arc gasification methods.

It certainly seems as if all faux environmentalists who complain about overpopulation, wail about resource scarcity, and also promote a reduction in human energy use and a reduction in human population -- it seems as if these persons should take the proactive step of self-immolation.

Fortunately, Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] has developed just the technology for such as those, which coincidentally enough, consists of a thermochemical approach to the production of fuels and energy. Follow the Oynklent Green label for more information.

Peak Oil: When You've Got Nothing Important to Do

The original concept of "Peak Oil" relates to a mountain peak. You climb and climb until you reach the peak, then it's downhill all the way. That was the idea behind the pre-Hubbert peak theories and remains the idea in the back of people's minds post-Hubbert. Oil production increases until it can't go up anymore, then it falls and falls and falls -- and then the global economy will crash.

That is the simple, original, and largely sub-conscious version of peak oil. A more "sophisticated" version of peak oil claims that oil will never run out and may not even actually peak, but that the world will run out of "cheap oil", and the more expensive oil will grow too expensive for anyone to use -- and then the global economy will crash.

There is another even more "sophisticated" theory of peak oil that states that there is enough oil sands, oil shale, heavy oils, and potential coal to liquids and gas to liquids to replace all petroleum -- except that it will take too long to tool up for the transition, and petroleum supplies will shrink too quickly -- and then the global economy will crash.

You did catch the punchline for all three theories (and several others quite similar)? The global economy crashes. That seems to be a requirement for any peak oil theory that hopes to get a person's blood pumping hard enough for him to be interested in buying books, tapes, seminar tickets, newsletter subscriptions, and whatever else the peak oil proponent happens to be selling at the time.

Any peak oil theory that fails to include a crashing economy and plenty of blood in the streets almost seems too trivial and superfluous to discuss -- much less argue about. So why is their so much argument about "peak oil" when anyone with a brain should understand that the technology and energy feedstocks are there, if the market absolutely has to turn to them (read carefully)?

An interesting concept of "peak demand" has been circulating recently -- and it has a great deal of logic backing it up. In fact "peak demand" has more logic behind it than even Tony Hayward understands.

The demographics of advanced countries in Europe, East Asia, North America, and Oceania is definitely of an imploding nature. Women are having too few babies to maintain populations -- and with populations depleting faster than energy supplies, demand for fuels will fall across the board. Except perhaps for nuclear, coal, and gas for electric and thermal power plants. It is a question of timing.

Along with falling populations, the advanced nations will begin substituting alternative fuels for petroleum -- slowly at first, then at a dizzyingly accelerating rate sometime near the end of the current decade.

The delusional pseudo-scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming catastrophe has held European, North American, and Australian politicians in thrall for over a decade now, but its props are being kicked out from under it by a resurgence of genuine apolitical climate science. With a release from the absurd quasi-totalitarian restrictions on energy use -- with the repeal of "political peak oil" -- modern economies can phase out their petroleum use in a measured and controlled manner.

Believers in Peak Oil DOOM! have no idea how dependent their theories are on the false theories of carbon catastrophe theory. And they probably never will. Because persons who are drawn to peak oil doom are not really looking for solutions to problems. They are looking for exactly what they have found in their books, newsletters, seminars, tapes, and forums: doom. Any doom will do, but a doom from energy starvation is particularly juicy and bound to cause blood to flow.

Why do so many fall for it, besides having nothing important to do?

...when looking ahead more than four years, almost all oil price forecasts over the past 40 years have been wrong, according to Dr Ole Gunnar Austvik, the head of research at Lillehammer University College in Norway.

As it turns out, the flawed forecasts all predicted upwards price trends, whereas inflation-adjusted oil prices actually fell for two decades from the early 1980s.

It was only over the past decade that a seven-year price rally challenged that. A related question, now that oil prices have crashed and partially rebounded, is whether some of the old forecasts are about to be vindicated, or whether the current period of price volatility will run its course, eventually leaving crude lower.

The perennial popularity of forecasts projecting crude prices rising indefinitely reflects the intuitive appeal of the “Peak Oil” theory, which predicts that global oil production will reach a maximum rate and then inexorably decline.

Everyone can grasp the seductively simple hypothesis, which encapsulates deep-rooted insecurities over energy supply. Surely everyone must understand that oil is a geologically scarce resource that must one day run out. _National

Yes, it is a simple idea, easy to grasp, easy to hold ... and hold ... and hold .... in fact, some people have been holding on for forty or fifty years now and show no sign of tiring. Any day now, you'll see, it's all going to fall apart . . . .

Problem solvers look for ways to solve problems. But doomseekers don't want their doom parties spoiled by anyone or anything. Doom is the one thing giving their lives meaning. Don't dare take that away.

Oil pricing is subject to a wide range of forces. But politics should be placed near the top of every list. We all know where Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Salazar, etc. fall on the politics of energy. "Let them eat cake!" In other words, we'll make it impossible to burn coal, to drill for domestic oil, to use oil shales or oil sands, or any fossil fuel for that matter. If they can't get by on wind and solar, then too bad. Let them eat cake.

Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] has some interesting ideas for turning a bad political situation into a net energy plus. You may want to look into investing in OYNK.

Mass (achusetts) Insanity! Political Peak Oil For Dummies

Peak Oil is easy to achieve: simply outlaw all forms of energy that might conceivably substitute for light sweet crude oil. That includes coal, oil shale, oil sands, heavy oils, nuclear, and now ...... biofuels!!! The state of Massachusetts has decided to ban all biofuels from algae, miscanthus, microorganisms, etc!!!

Under the proposed regulation, Massachusetts will ban the use of all non-waste feedstocks, which include algae, cyanobacteria, jatropha, miscanthus, switchgrass, or oils produced on a harvestable basis by microorganisms, such as employed by Joule Biotechnologies.
_BiofuelsDigest

The action by Massachusetts regulators is particularly stupid, and indicative of what to expect under a regime of political peak oil and faux environmentalist dieoff.orgiasm.

Recent decisions by Obama's EPA and Pelosi's congress lead the entire nation in the same direction: energy starvation by decree. This is the result of extremists in high places, enabled and elected by a dumbed down electorate. It is only the beginning, unless individuals and groups begin to act in their own defense to block and reverse these trends.

The Earth needs wisdom, not extremism. If the green extremists have their way, they will destroy the Earth's ecosystems by shifting world power from governments and civilisations that have protected the environment, toward populations and civilisations that have always devastated the environment. Of course, the idiots are too far gone in their fanaticism to think the thing through.

Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK], where are you?

How Will Barak Obama Keep the Lights On?

Barak Obama's political party--the US Democratic Party--appears dedicated to eliminating every single currently viable energy source that is available to US utilities. Obama and his party are against offshore oil drilling, arctic oil drilling, shale oil exploration and development. Obama's Democrats are against the use of coal, they are against the use of coal to liquids, they are against the use of Canadian oil sands. Obama and his cohorts oppose the widespread use of nuclear power to provide electricity.

So just how will the baby Senator from Illinois keep the US lights on, after being elected messiah US President?

While American oil consumption has grown only 15% since 1973, electricity use has shot up 115%. Right now the U.S. has 760 gigawatts of power to meet consumption. We will need 135 gigawatts of new capacity over the next decade to keep the lights on, but right now only 57 gigawatts of power are planned. No matter what Barack Obama and Al Gore tell you, alternative energy sources cannot meet demand. Solar is still only one-tenth as efficient as the cheapest fossil fuels. Today 97% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro power. Wind provides 1% and solar .01%.

The rest of the world knows that green sources of energy are inadequate to keep their people out of poverty. That is why around the world, from Europe to South America to Asia, countries are building coal and nuclear power plants at a dizzying pace while also drilling for oil wherever they can find it. Meanwhile, the United States, crippled by an out-of-control environmental movement, is refusing to develop needed energy sources. _Foundry

I have been involved in renewable energy (wind, solar, micro-hydro) for almost ten years. No one is more eager than myself to see these technologies succeed at every scale in the marketplace. But realistically, they are not going to be able to step in for fossil fuels anytime in the next 20 years, no matter what the cretin Al Gore may demand. They will get incrementally better over the next couple of decades or so, until before you know it they are providing 5 or 10% of US power. But not soon.

As much as I like renewables, including biomass, the technologies simply are not ready to scale up to the huge quantities of power the North American economies will need. That leaves nuclear, coal, gas, and oil.

Over time, fossil fuels will be displaced by improved efficiencies, better ways of salvaging energy from waste, and better methods of fitting renewables into advanced energy schemes--such as micro grids. But changing such a huge energy infrastructure takes time. If Barak Obama and his cronies are not willing to ease the US through the transition period--if they force a "cold turkey" energy withdrawal on US taxpayers--the backlash against Obama and his faux environmentalist backers could be severe. Extremely severe.

So we will wait and see if Obama has even half a clue what he is getting himself and the rest of the world into. I suspect he does not. But somewhere behind the would-be messiah's back-finance, pulling strings and putting words into his mouth, are people who think they have a clue--and they are wrong.

Finding out who they are will be important, when Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] kicks into full scale production.

Pelosi and Boxer Need Some Tough Discipline

Recently the US Bureau of Land Management proposed to treat solar energy like other forms of energy in the way of requirements and time delays for environmental impact studies. Suddenly, the "constituency" was up in arms, and the policy change was quickly reversed. But in terms of US oil policy--which is where the rubber meets the road in today's energy prices (rhymes with crisis), where is the constituency willing to raise hell over government mismanagement?

While stunning, the BLM’s announcement illustrates the nightmare of U.S. energy policy. Or is it? That the ban could be reversed so quickly is a good sign that the old law on the books can be overwhelmed when enough people stand up and shout. On the other hand, when looking at the crude oil speculators driving oil prices up there are shouters on both sides that can keep the obvious policy move locked down. The difference is that the plants and creatures will get attended to, but the consumer will have to wait until the lenders putting up some 93% of the money to keep the oil futures market going will have a day of reckoning that might be a catastrophe. Imagine oil went down precipitously and lots of those borrowers can’t make the margin calls. Do you suppose the taxpayers will be cornered into bailing those lending guys out too? Just wait and see.

Let’s be sanguine about this and salt the concept with a dash of reality. Policy in the democracies is a market, too. Write that down. As noted above the shouting can come from lots of places and the power measured in money and the old boy network plays a powerful hand against the invisible individual voter. Just to keep things completely confused the media is busily making like they can write intelligent stories to guide us to think properly.

It enough to make the well informed mind swim in its own confusion. __NewEnergyandFuel

Everything rests at the food of the US Congress. If Congress cannot get its act together to adjust policy to meet the needs of its constituency, then Congress needs to get the boot, and hard!

Two congresspersons who are particularly obstructionist over energy policy, and causing more than their share of hardship, are Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi. If there was ever any redeeming social feature from either of them, it has long since passed them by. By promoting energy approaches that will take decades to replace current infrastructure--at the expense of supplying current and near/intermediate term needs--Boxer and Pelosi (and the usual suspects) are painting the US economy into a corner.

I know what you are saying, that booting them back to the dying south-left coast is too easy on them. You are saying they should be drawn, quartered, burned, hung, then pulverised with a heavy mallet. You have a point, but there may be more important things to attend to than mere payback. High oil prices are killing economies around the globe, from inflating costs of doing business, and destroying consumer reserves.

Boxer and Pelosi are true believers in "global warming catastrophe". In order to save the planet from climate change, they are willing to sacrifice the economy of the US and the rest of the developed world. They are creating a "political peak oil", which is a self-fulfilling form of peak oil that is hard to argue with. If political cronies such as B and P make it impossible to drill for new oil and develop oil equivalents such as shale oil and newer coal technologies, then peak oil becomes something of a tautology. Even the borons at the peak oil sites can pat themselves on the back for their perspicacity.

No need for revenge. Just send them back to caw-lee-forn-ya, and Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] will weigh the pros and cons.

Oynklent Green Looks at the American Congress

We at Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] refuse all political endorsements and all government grants and backing. We feel it is important for us to maintain strict neutrality, given the sensitive nature of our feedstock. However, we at OYNK believe that we should disclose to potential investors and the public, how we go about selecting our prime feedstock.

Currently, our list of official feedstocks contains only corrupt politicians and trial lawyers. But we must select only the very most corrupt of politicians, because otherwise who would be left? The same is true for trial lawyers. So, in the interest of full disclosure, we will occasionally post information on AlFin 2300 Energy to help keep the public informed as to our selection process.

In the US Congress, we follow voting on all important energy issues. In this area, it is clear whether votes are being guided by the desire to help the US maintain energy independence, or are motivated by corrupt hidden vested interests. Following is a summary breakdown by political party on important energy votes in the US Congress:

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas. __Source

Clearly, within the US House of Representatives, Democratic Congressmen have voted against the interest of US citizens at least 86% on average on important energy issues. This puts Democratic Congressmen (including Nancy Pelosi) at the very top of the list for prime feedstock for the OYNK "corrupt politician to bio-energy" process.

According to various world corruption indices, the US is far from the most corrupt government in the world. Even so, within a moderately corrupt system, certain politicians are bound to stand out as being closely connected to notorious felonious corrupters of political systems, both locally--as for example Chicago, Detroit, or San Francisco--or nationally.

We at OYNK are watching out for you. Watch us as we provide a multi-faceted service for you, our customers.

Nuclear Battery Powered Oil Sands Extraction

Image Source

Canadian tar sands represent most of the oil that the US will be using in 20 years, unless US voters elect a more honest and rational Congress. A better US Congress would also open up shale oil in the Green River Basin for development--with more oil resource than in all of Saudi Arabia. As it is, the inept current US Congress may make Canadian tar sands off limits to US refiners and distributors. Yes, they are that stupid now in Washington DC.

Just when better ways of extracting Canadian tar sands are coming along. Like the new Hyperion nuclear battery, that can be used for in situ tar sand extraction.

Since it is portable, the reactor can be deployed virtually anywhere power is needed -- remote industrial operations such as the Alberta oil sands, military installations or communities looking to supplement grid-supplied power. Once deployed, the Hyperion module delivers approximately 70 megawatts (MW) of heat (thermal energy) and 25 megawatts (MW) of electrical power via steam turbine. This is enough power to provide electricity for a community of 20,000 average-sized, American-style homes. Hyperion modules can also be "ganged" to provide even more power.

...About 4,000 units of the initial design will be manufactured at a new U.S. site yet to be determined. The initial rector will be a compact, self-regulating, self-contained design with no moving parts and about the size of a hot tub. Sealed at the factory, the module is not opened until it is time for the unit to be refueled — at the factory — approximately every five years or so. This helps guard against tampering. __Source__via__NextBigFuture

While the US Congress is only interested in political power and pillage, most intelligent observers understand that nuclear energy is the key to a better long-term future. Nuclear batteries such as Hyperion are a small, unconventional form of fission power, but they can fit into incredibly important niches. Incrementally larger and more conventional nuclear fission reactors can provide reliable baseload power for large towns and small cities, large industrial facilities and developments, and could be ganged together to provide larger quantities of power if needed.

We at Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] have become unhappily aware of the fact that the current US Congress is all about restricting energy--depriving the US citizen and resident of access to energy. That is why we developed our patented "corrupt politician to bio-energy" thermochemical process. We believe that if an elected official betrays his duty to the public's trust, that he should be utilised for the benefit of the public in one way or another. At OYNK, we are all about a better future, no matter what the politicians want. ;-)

Biomass Gasification for Electricity, Liquid Fuels

Image Source

Biomass gasification is the most versatile approach to bioenergy at this time. The gas produced by rapid pyrolysis can fire gas turbines to generate electricity, process heat for industry, or can be turned into liquid fuels for transportation and heavy machinery. Iowa's Frontline Bioenergy plans to use corncobs to replace natural gas, in the production of maize ethanol. Given natural gas prices lately, that substitution should certainly help the bottom line.

Chippewa Valley is owned by 980 farmers, so it's natural that the company wants to make its ethanol using a natural resource that is grown close to home.

"We're looking at harvesting 5,000 acres of cobs next fall" for use at the plant, Lee said.

The biomass gasification technology developed by Frontline BioEnergy uses a thermochemical process to break down wood residues, corncobs or prairie grasses into a substance known as producer gas.

Producer gas is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and methane that can be burned like natural gas.

Frontline provides a proprietary process called Cleangas that allows producer gas to be piped to several locations within an industrial facility without the typical hydrocarbon condensation concerns associated with conventional biomass gasification.

Besides providing a source of heat, Frontline BioEnergy's biomass gasifiers will be able to produce synthesis gas that can be converted to ethanol through catalytic or biological methods, the company said. __Source

The chemistry of pyrolysis gas was worked out a century ago or more. The work being done now is to adapt the process to different types of waste biomass feedstocks, such as corncobs, grasses, garbage, etc.

The main problem is the lack of developed infrastructure in farming country, to take low energy density, distributed biomass, and pre-process it into higher density, more compact biomass. Bailing, pelleting, briquetting, torrefaction, and other processes are being perfected to accommodate that need.

The US has never had as incompetent a US Congress as now. The Congress is doing everything possible to reduce the ability of the US to become more energy self sufficient. Oynklent Green [OTC:OYNK] officials are monitoring the situation closely.