Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (268)	4/14/2010 6:51:05 PM
From: scion	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 53574

Amazing how he answers meaningless questions and ignores all the ones that really matter. Still waiting for answers on the unprofitable tape business, the media credits, the $22 million in assets on the books, why p2o hasn't been running commercially, when is the next PIPE? These are the questions that need to be answered for JBII to get anywhere. siliconinvestor.com Posted by: jjsmith Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:08:50 PM In reply to: rowgr who wrote msg# 37510 Post # of 37614 Amazing how he answers meaningless questions and ignores all the ones that really matter. Still waiting for answers on the unprofitable tape business, the media credits, the $22 million in assets on the books, why p2o hasn't been running commercially, when is the next PIPE? These are the questions that need to be answered for JBII to get anywhere. Quote: More from John B: (positive net energy balance) JG: John, There is a lot of talk on the boards about what is meant by this statement: "The energy balance of the process is positive; that is, more energy value is produced than is consumed by the process. Early data suggests that it is by as much as a factor of two." I am seeing comments like: "Energy value in this case is barrels produced. Their statement says that the energy factor is "as much as two" which means for every 2 barrels created you have to consume 1 barrel. That means 50% of the feedstock is consumed in the process. Their previous claim was 15%."... See More Please let me know if the following explanation I provided is correct: Energy Value: "Energy Value is the heat of combustion of a fuel given per gram of fuel. The higher the energy value, the more energy is released, the better the fuel." From the IsleChem report: "The energy balance of the process is positive; that is, more energy value is produced than is consumed by the process. Early data suggests that it is by as much as a factor of two." John Bordynuik emphasized this: "Our process has a high positive energy balance of 2.0 while gasoline from crude has a negative energy balance of 0.81." It takes 340 lbs. of plastic to produce 1 barrel of oil using the P2O process. That 340 lbs. of plastic has an initial energy value, usually expressed in Joules per unit of weight (see the definition above). The barrel of oil produced has its own energy value. Another way of talking about energy value is the amount of heat that can be produced from the potential energy in the fuel being burned. IsleChem is saying that the energy value of the plastic is about 1/2 that of the oil produced by the process. This is separate from the cost required to go from the plastic to the oil, which John Bordynuik has stated is around $10 per barrel. A barrel of gasoline has a smaller energy value than the crude oil that it started from. But we don't burn crude oil in our cars, so we need to process it. There is a cost to the process that is separate from the starting and ending energy values. If it cost more to convert the crude to gasoline than the value of the gasoline produced, do you think there would be a business model that makes sense to do that? Clearly there would not be. The oil companies are making lots of money. Do not confuse energy value with process cost. John Bordynuik Hi J. A "positive net energy balance" does NOT mean we consume 1 barrel for every two we produce. I was going to explain what is scientifically meant by "the positive net energy balance" yesterday but I believed some fools would actually think either: "perpetual motion" or "2 at the high cost of 1 barrel" which would then give skeptics and ... See Moreinvestors an idea of who really knows what they are talking about and those that don't. The energy conversion of our process shocked islechem actually. If our net energy balance was highly negative then it would not be worth processing plastic (like our competitors). Our process consumes approx. 4000 BTU of heat (off gas) to convert 1kg of plastic into approx. (0.9046kg) 44,000 BTU of fuel. The positive net energy balance means we get twice the energy out of the fuel than we get in the combination of: (energy in the plastic feedstock plus energy used to convert to fuel). This is independent of the price/barrel because in most cases we get the source energy (that is feedstock) for nothing or paid to accept (tip fee).Therefore, we are not paying for that energy. The off-gas comes from the feedstock. We actually have a surplus of natural gas so we will pipe it to a generator. BTW: The $10 cost/barrel is the result of our P2O FL management team heavily loading up costs on the overhead side (building, staff, utils, maintenance, legal, permitting, capital costs, etc..) +and cutting production in half. We are proceeding conservatively to provide JV's achievable numbers. siliconinvestor.com

To: scion who wrote (268)	4/15/2010 10:39:00 AM
From: scion	Respond to of 53574

A "positive net energy balance" does NOT mean we consume 1 barrel for every two we produce. I was going to explain what is scientifically meant by "the positive net energy balance" yesterday Kick in the face 13-Apr-10 05:09 pm What a kick in the face to the shareholders. The validation actually validated what we all aready knew. There is a very good reason why they didn't release any details of what the results are when other items other than plastic enter the machine. The biggest problem they have is the hazardous waste associated with unknown materials entering the machine. The only material item in the "validation" PR is that John grossly understated how much fuel required to run the machines. 15% to over 50% what a kick in the face. If he is off by over 330% on this MAJOR detail and is failing to adequetly let shareholders know, what else is he grossly underestimating? Are the costs still $10 per barrel? If it were $10 a barrel before, now with a 330% increase in fuel required to run the machine, there is no way it is still anywhere near $10 per barrel. Re: Kick in the face messages.finance.yahoo.com Actually, pretty silly that they even put that in the PR. I thought they were referring to how much feedstock were used in the process. There was no point in talking about the energy balance like it is a big deal. So if it took double the plastic, the energy balance would be 1. Who cares if it can make money then it doesn't matter. Gasoline has a negative balance and obviously it still makes money. Just another attempt at whoooowwwing the croud with stuff that doesn't matter. See they did a great job at it, because none of you idiots are questioning why they would validate the machine using "pristine" feedstock. Their claims of using landfill waste and curb collected plastic seem to be out the door. The report mentions none of that so we must assume as i pointed out to John many months ago, the feedstock will need to be KNOWN not to contain any hazardous materials. This rules out anything other than feedstock collected from a manufaturer of plastic where it can be known that antifreeze and other hazardous residue aren't left in the bottles. Re: Kick in the face 13-Apr-10 10:04 pm Exactly and in this context, john said the feedstock is free or they get paid for it, so you can't count the plastic. That means they must be referring to the oil created from the feedstock that is used to run the processor at a rate of 2 to one meaning 2 barrels created for every one barrel burned. This is 333% higher that originally claimed which on 2500 processors equates to a staggering loss of fuel in production of $2,915,437,500 yeah that is billions. "You can't be that stupid. No, I guess you can: helpfuelthefuture.org. I will keep your post at the top everyday. It shows how unbelievably stupid you really are. Stupid. Energy balance does NOT determine the cost per barrel."

To: scion who wrote (268)	4/15/2010 11:56:26 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53574

According to the Islechem report summary filed with the 8K, Islechem only tested the process - they are not involved with improving the catalyst or eqpt efficiency improvements as we were all led to believe. Posted by: SteveF Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:48:19 AM In reply to: Estimated_Prophet who wrote msg# 37639 Post # of 37658 According to the Islechem report summary filed with the 8K, Islechem only tested the process - they are not involved with improving the catalyst or eqpt efficiency improvements as we were all led to believe. sec.gov Quote: JBI, Inc retained IsleChem in Dec 2009 to analyze their plastic to oil solution and assist with preparing documentation required for state permits. We modified JBI's P2O processor to collect data from sensors, residue, and off gas for analysis. Until they release the actual report we have no idea if the secret catalyst had any effect (or if it was even tested at all). It sounds like they simply tested the Blest/Donghe machine as-is. Those mfgr's make this same data available (as their other customers require the same permits) so I can't figure out why Islechem was even hired (except to sell more stock). siliconinvestor.com Posted by: SteveF Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:59:46 AM In reply to: clu82 who wrote msg# 37642 Post # of 37658 I'm talking about the portion Islechem provided on their own letterhead. They appear to be distancing themselves from the claims being made about their involvement here. They were hired to gather data required for permits. The only modifications they've made to anything were to collect such data (adding sensors, etc...). No mention whatsoever from Islechem that they've ever even heard about JBII's secret catalyst. sec.gov Quote: JBI, Inc retained IsleChem in Dec 2009 to analyze their plastic to oil solution and assist with preparing documentation required for state permits. We modified JBI's P2O processor to collect data from sensors, residue, and off gas for analysis. Also, JBII's PR Tuesday about Islechem says nothing about them helping to improve anything. Islechem was simply hired to test. This is not at all what JBII associates and supporters on this message board have led us all to believe. Quote: Other Events, Financial Statements and Exhibits Item 8.01 Other Items On April 13, 2010, JBI, Inc. (the "Company") announced that IsleChem, a state certified laboratory, has validated its P2O process. Since December 2009, IsleChem has conducted extensive chemical, analytical and process engineering testing for JBI's P2O technology on a diversified range of plastic feedstock's. A wide variety of plastics were tested and all produced residue of only about 1%, which is allowed in landfills. In their continuing efforts to analyze the P2O process Islechem has performed more than 40 small scale runs of various multicoloured, mixed plastic feedstocks through the process. After analyzing the energy consumption, residue, off-gas, and material balance in the process, Islechem has determined JBI's P2O process to be repeatable and scalable in addition to the confirmed validity of the overall process. If Islechem has now officially validated the P2O process, why does another testing company need to be hired to validate it again? siliconinvestor.com