GPI's waste-to-fuel process validated by U.S. military

Top 100
Green Power Inc. has had the U.S. military test the input/output volumes and quality of their municipal-waste and biomass-to-fuel plant, validating that it produces as GPI has stated. U.S. sales may finally take off, and bureaucratic resistance will hopefully melt away.

The following is an exclusive report simultaneously published at PESN.

Here's a photo I shot while visiting GPI's 100 ton/day model plant in Pasco, WA, in May of 2008.

For a couple of years, Green Power, Inc (GPI) has had a 100 ton per day model plant in Pasco, Washington that turns municipal solid waste (MSW) and other like feedstock such as biomass into high grade fuel.  This technology enables the replacement of limited, fossil-based oil with fuel that comes from garbage, which can be thought of as a form of free, sustainable energy, because as long as there are people on the planet, there will be waste.  What's more, usually communities pay to get rid of it, so it is a cash-generating feedstock that with GPI's technology produces a cash-generating product, self-powered by the process as well.

GPI has had their ups and downs, but now they have huge news, and we get to tell it to you first.  (In spirit of full disclosure, I should inform you that GPI has been a major sponsor of us at PES Network, Inc..  CEO, Michael Spitzauer, is a good friend of mine.  So this report can't be considered unbiased journalism.  But I have seen the plant in operation, and I have NDA information at my disposal, so that should add some assurance for the accuracy and credibility of this report.)

Green Power Inc. has had third party testing of their 100 ton/day plant by the United States military (Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines joint effort).  The results of the tests that they ran last November, which are now being published for the first time here [link below], confirm the claims that the company has been making via their own measurements regarding the output capability of the plant.

Here's a synopsis diagram showing the input/output at each stage of the process.

Simply put, the incoming feedstock is first prepared by removing the metals, glass, and dirt as much as possible (those non-organic materials don't turn to fuel).  About 1/3 of a typical MSW incoming stream would be thus removed before going into the GPI device.  Much of what is removed is recyclable material.  The remaining feedstock, broken into particles 1/4-inch or smaller, is then fed into a hopper where GPI's proprietary nanotechnology catalyst that resembles gymnast chalk (made from environmentally benign components) is added to the mix in a small ratio, i.e. 1% catalyst, 0.3% lime.  That is then passed through the primary reaction vessel that involves a relatively low temperature and pressure where the catalytic cracking takes place -- speeding a process that takes millions of years in nature to take place in just a few seconds.  Therein lies the heart of their technology.

Ten percent of what emerges from the reaction vessel is "ash" which can be used as raw material for cement or asphalt.  The rest goes into a distillation column of a fairly standard design, where the remainder of the slurry is separated out into its various levels.  Seventeen percent of this is water; fourteen percent is "producers gas" which is used to run an on-site turbine to generate 2.5 megawatts of electricity, 1.5 MW of which is needed to run the plant.  The remaining liquid (accounting for 59% of the original feedstock) separates into 8 parts Naphtha, 24 parts Kerosene, 45 parts Diesel, and 19 parts Fuel Oil.  (The discrepancy of the remaining 4 parts for a 100% total is because the weight of the fuel is different.  If you calculate the real weight of the fuel you get a complete weight balance).

Naphtha is used primarily as feedstock for producing high octane gasoline.  Kerosene is the typical feedstock for making jet fuel but is also commonly used as a heating fuel.  The diesel that emerges from the process is classified as #2, of ASTM standard level D975, which is the commercial diesel fuel specification. (Ref.)  The fuel oil that emerges from the bottom of the column is classified as #4 fuel oil of ASTM standard level D396, which is the commercial heating oil specification. (Ref.)

You would think from these descriptions that we are talking about the products emerging from an oil field refinery, but instead we're describing the fuels emerging from what hitherto has been piled in a heap of trash and dumped in the ground or incinerated or "accidentally" dumped at sea.  And who verified these input/output production volumes and qualities?  The U.S. government!  Not bad.  (Kudos to them for actually doing something deeply significant.)

Imagine this plant converting 100 tons of trash each day into 1240 gallons of Naphtha, 3700 gallons of Kerosene, 6900 gallons of Diesel and 3000 gallons of Fuel Oil.  And even the ash can be used for cement or asphalt.  In addition, you are producing 1 MW of electricity to sell to the grid 24/7, running three shifts per day to keep the plant going, employing approximately five people per shift.

So you're getting paid for the trash, you're getting paid for the fuels, you're getting paid for the ash, you're getting paid for the electricity, you're getting paid for the recyclable materials.  No wonder the return on investment of this $25 million dollar plant is estimated to be in just over three and a half years, after which it is pure profit -- all while cleaning up the planet (these plants can eventually be deployed to clean up old land fills as well as the seven huge ocean gyres), and reducing our dependence on foreign/hostile oil; so there is the feel-good aspect as well.

Talk to your municipality about getting one of these.  The lead time for delivery and commissioning is under a year.

As a fair warning (Mike won't appreciate me saying this, but I think it will help him by people not having their expectations set too high), you need to know that while Spitzauer is a great guy with a good heart, he does have a problem with following through in a timely way on his commitments.  He does typically come through eventually, but not always when and how he first describes.  If you're aware of that, then you can be more patient when things take longer than indicated.  Don't get emotionally tied to any set dates.

That attribute may have contributed to the misunderstanding he had with Washington state Department of Ecology who ended up shutting down his plant last summer.  They wrongfully classified his plant as an incinerator, which it is not.  It's a new process.  GPI is re-filing their application.

So far, all of his 72 contracts are foreign, guaranteed by letters of credit.  None in the U.S. yet.  What does that say?  With this new development, though, that is likely to change in a major way.  If you are successful in getting a plant in your municipality, you might be able to be written into some of the proceeds or finders fee or something like that.  Or you might just do it as a concerned citizen wanting to make the world a better place for our children.  This is a seventh generation technology -- something that is sustainable to at least seven generations.

# # #

Download

• Third Party Test Results (pdf) received Feb. 15, 2010

Credits

• Today is GPI CEO Michael P. Spitzauer's birthday.  What a fitting present that this announcement comes today.
• Thanks to New Energy Congress member, Sepp Hasslberger, for his editorial input.

Comments

No other completed plants yet?

On Feb. 19, 2010, 11:25 am Rome, Sepp Hasslberger wrote:

This seems strange. If he has 72 contracts (to construct plants), what about any finished plants in operation anywhere? If those plants are all under construction, it would seem that he hardly has any space for making new commitments. Otherwise, those "contracts" should perhaps be called contacts, in the sense of being leads, rather than commitments to construct, which the word "contract" implies.)

* * * *

For a more complete report ...

On Feb. 25, 6:00 pm Mountain, Sterling wrote:

Hi Michael and James,

I would like to make an editing recommendation for your GPI report that we posted. 

This suggestion is coming from me, not spurred by anything I've read from recent comments.

When I was in around 7th grade, I was an excellent math student, and I remember being taught something about what is called "significant digits". I learned more about this in college both undergrad and graduate studies.

In any experiment, there is a measure of uncertainty, e.g. +/- 2%. Some measurements are more accurate than others. In atomic time-keeping, which is the field my dad is in, the level of accuracy is like on the order of one second per a billion years. That is the most accurate measurement known to man. I'm sure your fuel measurements don't come even close, given the number of variables involved from one batch to another, and the limitations of the equipment.

Any report of data should include what the level of accuracy is for that data, and the numbers presented should reflect that.

A calculator pays no heed to significant digits. It will say 45.342991 [end of display], for example, when in fact the accuracy is only true to the tenth place, in which case the proper representation of that digit would be 45.3. Showing digits beyond that means that the accuracy is known to those digits. This can be confusing when a zero is significant on the right end of a string of significant digits, unless several numbers are shown, which show x number of digits to be significant, or unless a memo is give stating the accuracy known.

So when you present data in your report, you should only show digits to the level of accuracy of your equipment, and then round up/down for all digits thereafter.

The numbers shown in your report are obviously what the calculator read-out said, and are not an indication of the accuracy of your measurements.

So what I would recommend is that you redo your numbers to only show the significant digits.

Your data is likely to be taken more seriously if this level of uncertainty is reflected properly.

Another thing that should be mentioned in the report is how many data points were averaged? Was there just one test run, or six? The level of uncertainty is usually derived from the difference between the different test runs. "Standard deviation" is a phrase that reflects that measurement. The more tests that are run, the more accurate the average will be.

Another thing that such a report should include is a description of how the samples were taken, and how the test was run. Given the complexity of your set-up, there should be a least a page describing your sample collection protocol, and that is being brief. A thorough writeup would last many pages. The time and date for stopping and starting each test run should be included in the report. The total volume of material tested is another key piece of information that the report should include to be taken seriously.

Another thing that should be explained is the factors that were implemented in order for this test to be considered "third party verified". Who was measuring what? And what practices were being used to assure that the test set up was not being tampered with in any way during the tests? For example, did the third party team have someone posted on watch through the duration of the test?

Another thing that should be included is any kind of report of emissions other than the desired fuels, and how those were measured and accounted for. People will believe a "low" emissions report, but will begin to grow very skeptical if a report claims "zero" emissions. The regulatory agencies will be keen to know about those emissions, and rightfully so.

If the report doesn't satisfy the criteria of a true third party evaluation, that's fine. It should state to what extent it doesn't fit that criteria. People will be understanding -- much more so than if they later learn that it wasn't a true third party evaluation and feel like they've been bamboozled. That will backfire much more than someone being told up front the extent to which the tests were or were not full third party evaluated. For example, they'll understand if the people running the equipment need to be in-house due to the training required to run the equipment properly. That would probably disqualify the test from being fully third-party tested, but it would not be something that people would get too worked up over. Yes, eventually, a truly independent test in every regard would be good to have.

Best wishes.

* * * *