Sun Gas

By, February 13, 2014

This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.

Sun Gas Do you havae any ideas about ”sun gas”?

Share Your Thoughts

ShowHide Comments (108)
    1. Steve Lanier
      Feb 15 2014, 01:17:56 pm

      You might be thinking about “SYNGAS” from W2 Energy. I’m just looking at it now BUT it’s pps right now is .0006 but there seems to be a lot of volume (I think), last I looked over 10 million on Friday under symbol WTWO. (
      UNDERSTAND, I am a new investor with VERY LITTLE experience and am still trying to learn, so I could be WAY off.
      If I’m stupid PLEASE let me know, I can only stand so much of looking like a dummy!

    2. Jason in Denver
      Feb 23 2014, 10:35:58 am

      Same here; looking to see if “Sun Gas” is real or a twist of words on some other product. These financial newsletter guys can be very tricky. All they really want is for you to pay them $50 for their newsletter.

      • richard koeneman
        Feb 23 2014, 03:09:01 pm

        And they tax your patience by forcing you to listen through a half-hour (or greater) presentation which turns out to be a tease for a newsletter subscription.

        • Pam LaReau
          Apr 14 2014, 09:20:00 pm

          Instead of listening/watching the video, hit the red X in the right corner to close it. A box pops up; click on “stay on this page,” and a transcript comes us. Skim down to the bottom to see if there is any actual information in it. Much faster that way. 🙂

            • Bill
              May 19 2014, 07:29:52 pm

              The x refers to closing the tab/page. Most of them will offer you a stay/leave page option.
              If you choose stay, you’ll get the text of the annoying video where you can skip all the crap and see if there’s any actual information.
              You can also just run to the bottom to see the exorbitant price of the newsletter they’re pushing.

      • Mike
        Feb 23 2014, 07:04:12 pm

        I have been following this for several years being in the alternative enegy industry, so the company is Liquid Lightning, but I don’t think they are public yet, but do have several patents involving sun gas conversion, so maybe they are about to go public.

        • Darrel
          Feb 27 2014, 02:18:03 pm

          I also get the teaser emails that link to a very long video sales pitch for a newsletter. But I don’t sit there for 20 minutes watching them any more. I found that if you click on the upper right X to close the video, most email programs will ask you iof you want to stay on the page. If you click that option, the video will close and leave you with the written transcript of the sales pitch. Then you can scroll to the end and see what it’ll cost you.

          • stan
            Apr 15 2014, 12:05:02 am

            Yes, Darrell, I’ve learned that too. Once I see the video come on and it doesn’t have a time counter or a way to pause/stop button, I click on the X. It comes up with the leave/stay option and then I read what I want and when I’m fed up, go to the bottom to see how much this FREE deal is going to cost me…

      • Andy Kattke
        Oct 28 2014, 09:59:16 am

        Checked out SPWR and NRG, seems they are the leaders in Green Energy production on a large scale…
        I too listened to this so called “Guru” for about 15 minutes then finally had to let it go. Nothing more than a sales pitch to buy his book…
        I get better insight coming to this website and reading the blog.. very good stuff here.

      • Sam
        Aug 10 2014, 07:21:18 pm

        James, buy GOLD by the gram. Treat it as though you were buying US Bonds with each paycheck. In five years gold will be between $7K-$9K/ troy oz. It is no joke, the US Treasury already knows this. China is stockpiling gold to offset their loses on our debt.

    3. Matt
      Feb 24 2014, 10:18:36 pm

      I’ve seen these newsletters for years, and there’s one thing you can count one. Anything that is a long shot will lose you everything. Long shots are always someone saying they found the “little-known” company who has a lock on some new technology that is a world-changer. They play on your hopes and dreams and sucker you. The sun-gas says it needs high temperatures (3000), carbon monoxide, and hydrogen. The real red alert here is the need for hydrogen. Why do you think the new hydrogen economy never worked? HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. IT IS AN ENERGY MEDIUM. Unless you can extract pure hydrogen or somehow “mine” it, then it must be produced by something else that requires energy to produce it. And all know processes require more energy to produce it than it gives up in burning it or in a fuel cell. The only exception to this would be a cheap, unlimited source where you don’t care about the losses. Nuclear fission could possibly be used for this through the heat itself or through electrolysis. Solar power is too dispersed to just throw away most of the captured energy from heat or electricity. It takes too much land area to justify the cost of wasting so much as needed for electrolysis or getting the heat necessary through mirrors. So anyone who promises to use hydrogen, I ask, “where do you get the hydrogen?”

      • Ethel Quiram
        Feb 25 2014, 09:50:16 am

        Wonderful reply. You stated the how’s, why, can’s, ifs, an can’ts, information that I am not in the know about and you have put it in layman or ladies terms.
        I do remember the chatter about using hydrogen cells for automobiles. But that didn’t happen, that I know of.
        I thank you for a great post.

      • Mike
        Feb 27 2014, 02:18:59 pm

        Hydrogen is the most abumdant element, the oceans have enough hydrogen to power the world, it is just a matter of extration that stands in the way. Hydrogen is a very unique element, one which has tremendous potential, but without oxygen, it is thought to be near useless. But that is where they are wrong, hydrogen in a vacuum is an entirely different scenario as I have learned during research into hydrogen power.

        As to Sun Gas, it is a plausible solution, although still more expensive to extract, but when you break it down to molecular level, now we need very little hydrogen to produce power, so I know this new method of combining hydrogen with other elements is near which is the holy grail of low cost energy, so time will tell.

        • Dave
          May 8 2014, 11:02:14 pm

          ” it is just a matter of extration that stands in the way.”
          Yes, that is exactly the problem: the cost of “extraction” (pulling H away from oxygen) exceeds the energy that would be contained in the “extracted” hydrogen. Not so useful.

        • kirt
          Jun 2 2014, 12:01:19 am

          Off griders have been diverting some solar elec to split water and store the hydrogen in tanks for night time use to product elec with a cell. The rest of the solar elec is used directly during the day.

      • 4001 |
        frank archambeau
        frank archambeau
        Mar 2 2014, 10:38:53 am

        Matt;I agree & even if you have the hydrogen how do you store & transport it. It is low density fuel but very dangerously explosive. Small molecule is difficult to prevent leaks.
        What happens if car fills with colorless odorless gas & spark occurs? What happens in collisions? Much engineering necessary before practical.

      • Francois
        Mar 2 2014, 08:29:15 pm

        it is now getting clearer every day that fracking is not behaving like traditional wells. the life span is so short that gas frackers now speak of a decline in production in 7 years. The overall reserves ay not last 20 years.
        The move s to keep on pushing for natgas, then replace it with hydrogen.
        Where will it come from? improved boilers from power plants. The last nuclear plant built i the US is not under any radar. This brand new plant has boilers reaching 600celsius. At that temperature, ordinary alloys leak. But that temperature, you can use a simple chemica reaction with iodine producing hyrogen.
        The pipeines dedicated to natgas will move hydrogen. Thanks to the duality of their production, power or hydrogen, base load power plants will be able to match the requirements in electricity.
        All that sun power blab is another errance. We had wind, solar, sea currents, waste, tree leaves, and oher Gory things. That does generate electricity. Not much, and at a high cost. Nothing will replace big plants. Coal or nuke, it is not the point. We need a lot of juice. Only these two fuels can save us. Keep focused, ignore the disturbances and noise on alternative energy and climate change. Leave this to show business. keep coal and nuke, push for fusion. We are late.

        • Anchorite
          Oct 30 2014, 10:35:38 am

          I spent almost two decades working in a state-of-the-art (natural gas fired) co-generation power plant and heating complex and also operated chilling stations. Needless to say, I view the claims of new technology fuels with a rather jaundiced eye. However, I must say I’m in disagreement with Francois with the potential viability of alternative fuels, especially for non-motive power generation. The secret to alternatives like solar is distributed generation, where every commercial and residential building has solar panels on the roof and, perhaps the windows. The problem with our energy usage is that we build centralized power plants that require large transmission equipment that is expensive to build and requires right-of-way easements. Germany fulfills 85% of its energy needs using solar, and it’s at a much more northern latitude that is the USA. As for your scorn for the anthropogenic effects on the rate of global warming, you must ignore accepted science to maintain that attitude. If, for instance, you want to ignore the temperature changes, at least consider how much carbon we’re packing into the atmosphere. As CO2 collects in the oceans, it increases their acidity and warmth. Eventually, they’ll reach a tipping point where the frozen methane hydrates begin to melt and rise to the atmosphere, they will rapidly increase the rate of global warming. As far as developing the alternatives, consider that no enterprise is more heavily subsidized than is the fossil fuel industry. Were alternatives subsidized at a similar rate to the 19th century-era fossil fuels, we would arrive at more efficient economies of scale that would quickly surpass fossil fuels. Nuclear? That’s Armageddon just waiting to happen. Can you say Fukishima? Chernobyl? Three Mile Island? We still have enough fossil fuel in the ground to turn the Earth into a Bakelite oven, and, if we continue to use the fossil fuels, the next two, maybe three, generations will be cursing the Boomer Generation with their dying breaths.

          • Alaska Realist
            Nov 2 2014, 04:53:46 pm

            Sorry buddy the earth doesn’t care about us. You probably live in an area of local pollution. You really should get out more. Take a trip to Alaska or the Yukon. You will be amazed how small we really are. Read “The Earth Doesn’t Care”.

      • D
        Mar 28 2014, 10:20:55 pm

        I’m still trying to figure out the reaction: carbon monoxide, water, hydrogen, and concentrated sunlight (photons) leading to natural gas. Let’s say it’s methane (CH4). Then we’re looking at: CO + H2O +2H + photons -> CH4 + O2, that is, methane and ordinary (diatomic) oxygen. (Count the C, H, and O on both sides.) Sounds promising.
        But, not being a chemist, I don’t know what temperatures are needed to reach decent rates. Someone quoted 3000 degrees; hence, the focused solar light.
        And, of course, as a number of people have pointed out, where does the hydrogen come from? This is a red flag.

        Apr 29 2014, 01:19:42 pm

        WE ARE CLOSE to having bacterial breakdown of biomass into Hydrogen without high energy requirements…the first 85Kwt electric plant running on biogas (almost pure Hydrogen) should be up and running very soon…I am aware of two teams working on this idea now, and there is a lot of research going on throughout the world. As soon as we have cheap pure Hydrogen, produced in the vehicle, we will have the Hydrogen fuel cell that we have been promised since the middle of the last century…”Big Oil” doesn’t like that because Hydrogen gas cannot be shipped in conventional pipelines or stored in steel tanks, like liquid fuel…If they want to try doing it, it will take 4″ of stainless steel to keep it in the pipe…so that would be good for USS…a more likely scenario is small biorefinaries in the home, which will be good for high density biomass producers, grasses can be chopped and compressed for shipping to local distributors, and used as the basis for bacterial hydrogen…and someday soon, you will be able to put your food waste and garden clippings into the Mercedes, and drive away…

        May 19 2014, 02:29:46 pm

        My answer is “bacterial hydrogen” the use of bacteria to breakdown any Carbon based material directly into hydrogen gas…we are on the brink of accomplishing this…check out the work being done at Virginia Tech by DR. “Percival”Zhang…he is using a complex “enzyme cascade” process without energy input, to produce pure Hydrogen gas. A similar project from Anaerobe Systems in San Jose, is putting a bio gas generator on line at a food processing plant to offset it’s $100,000/mth electricity bill with it’s waste material right now.
        It may be soon that you will be able to put your lawn clippings and food scraps into your own Bio refinery, and run your home and transport pod with the hydrogen fuel cell that we have been promised for over 100 years….the big problem for now is lack of R&D funding, and resistance from vested interests…the same old culprits, Exxon, Peabody, Chevron, and their strangle hold on Finance, food, and government, which keep “proving” that decentralized power is not “realistic” if you can’t funnel thew profits to the top…

    4. michael young
      Feb 28 2014, 06:46:38 pm

      He lost me when he said he was a “wonder kind” ( with a “w” instead of “v”, and long “i” ). Holy S**t, doesn’t the guy even know how to pronounce his grandness?

    5. francois
      Mar 2 2014, 09:11:32 am

      I just looked at the sun-gas story promoted by a newsletter.
      How to get a liquid carburant remains University research. It does not look cheap to me.
      But the German have already displayed few compressed gas stations. The gas is made out from manure, organic waste though the filling stations are called “sungas”.
      The German have a strange sun with a lot of smell, or they try and get intelligent.
      I am nor a full specialist, but when I see the nature of the process described by the University, we will need a lot of CO2 capture funds to develop the process.
      To me it is a dead end.
      Another approach is the one from HYGS. It is working industrially, at a very small scale somewhere in north Europe, Norway or something. It is not cheap. CO2 capture money is needed. HYGS stock price is rocketing in the meantime, as the concept titillates the dreams of “save-the-world” funny guys. Serious guys, like DOW or GE are not in it. That gives me the answer: It is not practical, with no chance to make a turn-around. Keep it for Gore and co.
      In the meantime, you may still make some bucks on HYGS, momentum oblige. It is only a momentum thing.
      All this is encouraging – we find new ways to get rid of CO2, since we keep on destroying the forests and reproducing ourselves like rats.
      We need unlimited free energy to replace this natural cycle to absorb our waste. Better find it quickly. we are running out of space and time.

      • Jim Leavenworth
        Mar 25 2014, 09:48:37 pm

        Thorium the future? Not on your life! True the wastes from a Thorium reacter would have half lives measured in hundreds of years as opposed to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years for conventional and breeder reactors but would you want one anywhere near your town? I once posed that question to one bonehead on another forum and he said certainly he would be pleased to have such a repository near him. This was a Yahoo business message board and idiots are a dime a dozen on a lot of them. Smetimes NIMBY is good, in fact it often is.

        • cowboybob
          Mar 31 2014, 08:22:16 pm

          my recollection from many years ago working on a thorium breeder reactor design was that it produced plutonium…not a weapons variety, but nonetheless, nasty stuff. Now, if the technology was in place to handle it, you could parlay the next material into another reactor design and have electricity for eons. But of course, since we torpedoed nuclear power in the late 70’s courtesy of Mr. Peanut, we have lost over 40 years of development making these systems better. In the near term, nuclear power will be expensive, but with a long term vision, it is probably the best answer to the world’s energy needs.

          • francois
            May 20 2014, 01:46:33 am

            Lithium is the source of energy used in the tokamak. That machine starts to work, and worries quite few people. Result: no more funding, no media support, it’s “fracking'” disgusting.

            The Russian have a good flair to find the cheapest shortcut to achieve fusion or to produce hydrogen from iodine at 600 degrees celsius.

            Who the hellon earth would want to play with thorium? You must use my oil, it has worse effects than anything else, including thorium. But I make so much money with it…
            Live and let die.

            To confuse evrybody, just promote, via some green guys duly paid off, wind energy, tide energy, solar energy, all things that we know wont work. TWith their guidance, nobody will look at the fundamentals of base load production through fusion or hydrogen mass production. My oil is safe.
            Frack frack frack.

    6. 4001 |
      frank archambeau
      frank archambeau
      Mar 2 2014, 10:24:56 am

      Francois; I think you are correct about momentum. As to CO2 it is miniscule effect compared to water vapor & seems to still be below optimum for plant growth. Global warming in my view is mostly solar cycle effect & as tree line advances north think how much CO2 will be needed for new forests. If we had abundant nuclear power we could irrigate deserts & grow trees. Thorium reactors are likely in future without problems of uranium & in huge supply.

      • David Cannon
        Mar 3 2014, 08:47:01 am

        But , does anyone know the name/symbol of the specific company DiGeorgio is teasing?? This seems to be the secret of the century. Travis, help us out here.

    7. Bruce
      Mar 5 2014, 01:33:24 pm

      I always heard the big reason Hydrogen cars were not logical was because they couldn’t speed up the electrolysis process fast enough to keep up to it. Does anyone know if they tried using a square wave generator, tuned to the harmonic frequency of the electrodes? I should think that it would increase the efficiency. Inquiring mind would like to know?

    8. Matt
      Mar 5 2014, 05:42:20 pm

      I believe you mean hydrogen fuel cells, not using hydrogen-burning engines. There were many problems. Here are the main ones I remember:
      1. Low temperature startup
      2. High cost of non-corrosive electrodes necessary (platinum, palladium)
      3. Use of a gas as fuel
      4. They do not increase or decrease quickly for changing power drains, and the efficiency goes down if not operated at their optimally-designed power transfer rate.
      There were other problems I don’t remember as much. I think the proton exchange mebrane, which is basically a solid electrolyte would degrade and need replacing after time. There was also a high cost in machining the fuel channel passageways in the wafers on both sides of the PEM. These also had to be of a material that could withstand a high acidity environment. Some companies tried using coatings on stamped-metal parts. You are probably speaking about the problem I listed as number 4 above, which is not such a big problem if you feed the electricity to an intermediate storage for quick usage such as a battery. Then the fuel cell can operate at a fairly constant rate to recharge the battery. I think the biggest problem of all was the usage of hydrogen, which is a gas. You can’t store no where near as much energy in a gas as you can a liquid, and when storing as a gas, you have to use high pressure tanks, which are dangerous when in an accident, and they still can’t store enough energy to get the vehicle that far – kind of comparable to the ranges of full-electric cars, although battery technology has improved a lot since then, making full electrics more practical that fuel cell electrics in my opinion. Some work was done with a methanol (liquid) fuel cell, but these clog up the PEM with the carbon that gets released from the methanol. On-board reformers to extract hydrogen from liquid hydrocarbons were also investigated, but these are extra expanse and complication, and wastes energy, and the reforming process produces as much CO2 as burning the liquid hydrocarbon. I see no benefit in your idea of an electrical square wave generator. Fuel cells produce DC current. If you power an AC motor, you can turn process the signal to get AC, but how would this improve the efficiency of the fuel cell itself any or allow it to provide quick changes in power demand?

      • Francois
        Mar 6 2014, 01:55:20 am

        Let the industry decide. There are many ways to produce hydrogen. For transportation, delivery, the CNG is the precursor. For storage, look QTWW.
        Fuel cells are just fine. BMW and the likes have had cars running on H2 since the turn of the century.
        In California, Honda has been selling H2 cars for several years, and in Japan, entire town bus fleets run on H2.
        Fracking shws more and more weaknesses. it is not the panacea, not for the long term. Some estimates that fracking will end by 2020.
        Hydrogen will have risen by then.

      • Herman Rutner
        Apr 1 2014, 02:42:41 pm

        Elaborating on my earlier blog, ETOGAS is a viable process for converting CO2 reacting with low electrolytic hydrogen made from water and low cost electricity into natural gas or methane for use in current gas distribution systems. But methane as fuel is less feasible for powering cars or trucks requiring costly and hazardous liquefied storage of methane, best via fuel cells. In contrast the proposed SUN GAS process presumably involves formation of a liquid fuel like methanol from CO2 and hydrogen as used in racing cars. Even if feasible, methanol has low energy content, about 50% of isooctane gas, about 65% for pure ethanol biofuel, and 100% for methane. And most of the hydrogen used in both processes using CO2 regenerate water as steam, 50% for ECOGAS methane and 33% for SUN GAS if methanol.
        The energy utilization clearly look dismal using more energy than producing it!

    9. John Otradovec
      Mar 6 2014, 01:12:36 pm

      If DiGeorgio is behinded, it probably will smell like gas because he believes to be an expert on many things. He’s pedeled foreign coins,carton cells,and is a silver expert I wan’t be supprised if he can turn cow flop into silver.

    10. Larry McIntyre
      Mar 12 2014, 08:18:24 pm

      I’ll second the above comment about DiGerogio. He will peddle anything he thinks he can ride. I lost a fortune about 7 years ago following his divine wisdom. I read he book, “Peak Oil” and considered his unending rant on how we were going to be out of oil my now. Well, I sure everyone know we have more oil now than at about any time in our drilling history.

    11. Mike
      Mar 15 2014, 10:17:08 am

      Peak Oil, yes, I remember that hyped up story well, and never believed it knowing then that Iraq had billions of barrels in reserves just waiting to be extracted, and given it was sweet crude, not the remaining crap in Saudi Arabia, which is near depleated, sure made for some interesting reading over the years. But now with advances in fracking, never mind Bakken oil reserves being exploited, we have more oil than ever, so forget peak oil story.

      As to hydrogen, this is a story which will advance as I see it having worked with hydrogen for years. Sun gas is quite possible, and I do expect someone to break the code to produce hydrogen more efficiently than is now currently available, primarily electrolysis which takes more energy to produce than it is worth. So to find a way to extract the hydrogen from sea water using solar energy source is the most probably solution as I see it. The key to converting water to hydrogen has always been tied to cost, and with current technologies, producing hydogen is not the issue, storing it is not the issue, it is all about cost until more efficient extraction technologies come to light.

      Hydrogen as some unique characteristics, and many obstacles to producing enough to power an engine, as example. Used with gasoline has been effective as carrier, and with it, more obstacles, engines have to be modified to perform long term with hydrogen energized gasoline which is a great goal given the environmental benefits of introducing hydrogen to gas since it reduces polution significantly. But as usual, it comes back to cost. We have discovered that hydrogen can be used to power an engine, but it has to be under vacuum and then oxigen becomes the ignition, sort of reverse in how others are trying to eploit hydrogen. Under this reverse use of hydrogen, now you need only a fraction of hydrogen, so an onboard electrolysis device could be efficiently used and since hydrogen under a vacuum remains stable, a closed loop system could be the answer, injecting oxygen only, igniting, and this mixture drives a piston just as with traditional internal combustion engines. This would eliminate need for hydrogen fuel cell issues and safety of storing hydrogen gas.

      Of course converting existing engines is not easy as we have been trying for years, so a new design would be needed, rotary motor is what we are now experimenting with. Since hydrogen is one of the lightest gases, it is not practical to try and store it, never mind transport it. Many obstacles, but never the less, very intersting subject, and yes, Sun Gas caught my attention too, so who knows what the future holds for hydrogen, but never say never, we have seen what hydrogen does under vacuum, and it is indeed much more powerful than when exposed at normal atmospheric pressure, so who knows who will break the hydrogen code and reduce the cost of producing enough to be used effectively. It always comes down to cost.

    12. WayneA
      Mar 21 2014, 12:24:58 pm

      Regarding sun gas, I am finding this discussion interesting because I have worked in some of these energy areas mentioned previously. Hydrogen production by electrolysis is not a cheap task nor easy to accomplish without expenditure of a lot of power, so I find it difficult to buy into the sun gas approach if that is what is being proposed. If the idea is to use solar energy to develop the power for conversion of water to hydrogen (by electrolysis or some other means) and to then make a hydrocarbon fuel by combining it with a source of carbon, then my question is where do you locate the plant where you have both good solar energy (a desert?) and pure water together? Hint, desert like conditions and pure water don’t go together. I am still very sold on nuclear power as a energy source that works with minimal water usage in lots of locations and creates a minimal amount of pollution products other than the spent fuel and warming of the source of water used for the steam power plant. No air pollutants. If I invest in energy, it is going to be in the nuclear field and not sun gas, a technology seemingly way far from being suitable for full scale power plants and very limited in where it might be produced in the US.

      • 4001 |
        frank archambeau
        frank archambeau
        Mar 23 2014, 01:30:23 am

        WayneA; The location is Kennewick WA. where they produced plutonium for Abombs.
        Oregon St. University with PNNL is working on it there, using solar-collectors to generate great heat used in conjunction with catalyst to combine CO with H to make fuel.

    13. Rajith
      Mar 24 2014, 08:57:52 am

      I guess it is Liquid light. If you go to their website, you will find that their scientific advisors list contains Dr Andrew Bocarsly. He is one of the main guys mentioned in
      the research report, who is spearheading the research in this technology

    14. Marc
      Mar 29 2014, 11:37:52 am

      From what I’ve read on the subject progress has been made using a synthetic photosyhtesis method incorporating a focused solar mirror array as a heat source, this method has in fact successfully split carbon dioxide as well as H2o, the rebinding of the atomic structures to create a hydrocarbon atomic stucture in the liquid is the magic formula here and won’t be perfected for industrial cost effective production for 20 or so years, barring some unforeseen breakthrough in the current processes. Still worth keeping an eye on this because some progress has been made quite recently ( last two years). Two areas blocking the perfection of the process still exist. method using a focused solar mirror array as a heat source, this method has in fact successfully split carbon dioxide as well as H2o the rebinding of the atomic structure to create a hydrocarbon stucture in the liquid is the magic formula here and won’t be perfected for industrial cost effective production for 20 or so years, barring some unforseen breakthrough in the current processes. Still worth keeping an eye on this because some progress has been made. Two areas blocking the perfection of the process still exist.

      • 4001 |
        frank archambeau
        frank archambeau
        Apr 1 2014, 03:23:03 pm

        Marc; You are correct but also involves a catalyst bed. Very expensive focused mirrors & 20 years probably minimum. I believe also needs some input of NG.

    15. Marc
      Mar 29 2014, 11:41:24 am

      Sorry about the message repeat, the site prevented my first post because of invalid email site address then piggy backed both posts for some reason after resubmission.

    16. steve
      Mar 29 2014, 12:07:07 pm

      But can the technology make the transition from test-tube to the gigatonnes required for industrial scale-up? “We have to be realistic and a series of true breakthroughs is still required to make our scenario a reality. Even if we have these tomorrow, it will take at least 20 years before we see this type of technology providing the majority of the world’s transport fuel,” cautioned Reisner. “That said, we are confident that renewable syngas, a ‘green gasoline’ technology, will be able to drive our current industry in a sustainable way. – See more at:

    17. Herman Rutner, MS chemist, not fuel industry
      Mar 29 2014, 02:56:23 pm

      Many good comments, some from pros better informed than I. My bottom line as a hard nosed industrial scientist is that both Sun-Gas and ETOGAS are impractical energy intense processes for producing liquid fuel , Sun-Gas, actually methanol or wood alcohol and methane gas for ETOGAS with little net gain in energy unless derived natural sources in costly conversion devices or via costlier nuclear power plants, ideally based on thorium.
      Note that 1 mole Carbon monoxide, CO, requires 6 moles hydrogen, with 4 used in methanol, CH4O, and 2 wasted as H2O or water. And 1 mole methanol is about 1 oz of liquid fuel with about 100 moles per gallon methanol. And starting with CO2, 8 moles of H2 is needed with 4 moles wasted for methanol and 6 moles for CH4 or methane production…..rather dismal process facts …unlikely to be economical in the near future with current technology. The ETOGas process has better economics using cheap renewable energy and using electrolysis of water to form hydrogen in co – gen with natural gas burning power plants with methane syngas being the product, possibly capable of also producing liquid fuel, methanol. Using nuclear fission to produce hydrogen may not be a replacement for electrolysis due to high capital expense and safety issues. Also methanol, though used as clean, racing fuel, has less than 50% of energy per gallon compared to gasoline, and less than corn derived ethanol. Sun -Gas is a nice lab project that is unlikely to go commercial for economic reasons even at $250 per gallon crude oil.

      • 4001 |
        frank archambeau
        frank archambeau
        Apr 1 2014, 03:28:20 pm

        Herman I don’t disagree with anything you said, but process is using very high temp focused sunlight instead of electrolysis. Did you mean $250 per barrel. I think that may be close if not higher.

      • Art Innevada
        Jul 4 2014, 10:06:59 pm

        hi, I have been reading the thread since watching the tout video. I get the gist that replacing Natural Gas in pipes with ETO Gas isn’t economically feasible. The facility at LBL only broke ground in Fall, 2012, and the building opened within a year, roughly, so as the facility has been operating for roughly 9 months, I doubt they have researched to conclusion any breakthrough to tout as a multi-trillion $$ solution to the petroleum age. Then there’s DeGiorgia’s ridiculous verbal delivery. You have to watch this shyte video to believe what a moron the guy is. Maybe he did make a lot of money, but he’s probably never been exposed to the diverse elements of life which would lead him to develop a multi cultural understanding and proper pronunciation of the colorful expressions he uses!
        Regarding liquid fuel, speaking as an environmental engineer, it will not be methanol. I studied possible use of methanol as a liquid fuel for fleet operations. 2 big problems are that it is both water soluble and highly toxic. NFPA standard 52 consequently set tight limits on the allowable quantities to be stored on a moving vehicle. Methanol is not something that municipalities want to risk being responsible for cleaning up, which is why nobody uses it for fleet operations. Energy density, as noted, is also a range limiting issue.

    18. Hank Dowgielewicz
      Mar 31 2014, 09:09:46 am

      I read the whole pitch and came across this. I copied it for here.
      Other scientists are working on different designs using different materials … like the Sandia Lab team in New Mexico who estimates that they could make diesel or jet fuel for roughly 10 bucks per gallon.
      At 10 bucks per gallon, that’s over $500 per barrel. It looks like a non-starter to me.

    19. jim nells
      Mar 31 2014, 11:24:41 am

      History looking to repeat itself.
      Small Natural Gas company signs letter of intent for farm-in of Pinedale field well locations in Wyoming.

      There’s a lot more behind that seemingly basic headline.
      Ultra Petroleum (NYSE:UPL) founded and financed on the Toronto Venture exchange ultimately found great success and traded to a pre-split share price of $200/share. Currently, it trades at a post-split share price of $27/share.
      Ultra was one of the biggest, if not the biggest oil and gas success stories to ever graduate from the Toronto Stock Exchange
      The largest shareholder of Outrider Energy was one of the original founders and largest financier of Ultra in its early years.
      He was also the original financier and founder of Pennaco Energy which was acquired by Marathon Oil for $445 M.
      The Company has been able to attract one the best Advisory boards for a company this size, in fact, some of the top Energy Investment Bankers in the U.S have joined. They obviously have high hopes and foresee good things ahead.

      The Companies recently signed LOi has numerous highlights which include:

      Assets are 95% Natural Gas
      The Operator, Ultra Petroleum is the #1 operator in the basin, and one of the Lowest cost producers of Natural Gas in North America
      Allows for participation in a legacy gas field
      Optionality of the deal – call on Natural Gas recovery prices.
      $15 million dollar program = 15 BCF/gas gross
      Bolt on growth opportunities in and around surrounding areas.
      Stable, long–‐life production – proved producing properties
      Mature, low risk repeatable drilling
      Buying Reserves in the ground for $1.59/MCFE.

      We are at the beginning stages of this companies life cycle, and if previous history is any indication of success then Outrider Energy (CSE:MCF) should see great growth in the years to come and a handsome return for investors at today’s share price.

    20. Matt
      Apr 2 2014, 01:11:36 pm

      Ok, that previous message looks like a shameless pump and dump advertisement (by someone trolling) for a company which has nothing to do with the subject of this threat – sungas.

    21. bababa
      Apr 7 2014, 05:24:06 pm

      So nobody bought this sun fuel report so we can share the name of the ticker. Me I cannot buy it because I don’t have a credit card because I cansel it after been victim of fraudulent billing.

      Im currently looking for stock to buy, do you got suggestions? I recently bought capstone turbine (cpst) at 2.05$ and bally technologies at 63.00$. I have the feeling that there is better buying opportunity out there but im new to it so I cannot find great ones. Im 52 years old and those are the first stock I never bought. Wist I bought tesla shares last year but I was not of the stock market and today in 2014 all shares stock seam to be pricy. Im interested in solar panels so it will probably be my next buying.

    22. J. D. Hunter
      Apr 16 2014, 01:31:51 pm

      Ask a chemist or anyone that remembers high school general science. It takes more energy to split water than you get back from the hydrogen. Next they’ll be touting a perpetual motion machine.

    23. francois
      May 9 2014, 01:23:04 am

      Hi Hi,
      what a mess! That’s not a discussion, but a market place dealing with whatever deals more or less with energy.
      I identify:
      A – how to make petrol/gas from manure
      B- how to make H2
      C – how to break CO2
      with interesting mixes between the points. It is normal, it comes down to one, and only one point; how to make dirt cheap clean energy by the TW (terawatt, just following the inflation).
      Once we have that cheap power, we can do what we want. We should focus as mankind on that issue. If we fail to get enough energy to clean our mess, we are dinosaurs.
      Wind, oil, hydro, fission, solar (as we know it), tide, coal, geothermal are either limited in output (hydro, wind) or are not producing energy on demand, but on supply (solar, geothermal, wind, tide), or are killing us slowly but surely (coal, fission, oil) because they are DIRTY. Don’t tell me, I have been living in China. But they are getting good.
      To me the question of eliminating our waste not to be considered. Cleaning our mess would require more energy than what we obtained while producing our waste. We are losing brain power, manpower energy and dreams looking at the wrong side of the microscope. We have to focus on clean and powerful means of production. So far, I see two in reasonable shape, and they should be getting all our attention and support NOW – and we are already very late:
      1 – fusion: this is a real shame. We all know that we can make it work. But the little boys placed on the job are lacking of any kind of backing – financial and brain power. 10 year of focused research is what we need if we join forces, i.e. brain and money. Another 10 years, and you have fusion power home.

      2 – solar panels – with a twist: in orbit. They would be always exposed to the Sun, and may cool down a bit our poor Al Gore and his friend Obama, who both suffer from an apparent
      heat brainstroke. The transmission system down to the Earth is the technical challenge. I note that the japanese, who are extremely practical are beginning small scale tests. They need support from everybody!
      For the rest, we better continue with what we have now, it is not a big deal. We are not going to die in 40 years if we are doing simple basic things, like in China now.

      As mankind, we should concentrate that, and may be another act from a genius to reveal himself. But we cannot wait any more.
      No time to lose guys, if you want to have grand kids. Stop listening to Gore. Act intelligently.

    24. DaveM
      Jun 4 2014, 12:02:53 pm

      I note that in the latest blurb for “Sun Gas”, the talking head says that “By 1975, pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly produced the world’s first vaccine. It was the best “home-grown” product Lilly created that eradicated Polio.”

      The Salk Vaccine was first tested in 1952.

      The Sabin (oral) Vaccine was first tested in 1957, and approved in 1962.

      Neither Jonas Salk nor Albert Sabin were associated with Eli Lilly.

      If this is an indication of the quality of the advice offered, I would advise staying away.

    25. Jo
      Jun 27 2014, 01:20:30 am

      I am wondering why nobody has picked up from where TESLA was headed, free energy from the earth and wireless transmission of it.

    What These Icons Mean

    • The user who posted this comment is a Stock Gumshoe Premium Member (also known as an "IRREGULAR").
    • This user regularly writes articles for Stock Gumshoe. They may or may not be the author of the current article.
    • This user's comments have been "liked” by at least a few members of the Stock Gumshoe community.
    • This user has commented widely, with input that has been liked enough to earn a two-thumbs-up rating from other readers.
    • This is the highest rating a user can get. They are among the most respected commentors of our community.