Thursday, October 30, 2014

Delmarva Comes “Clean” On BLOOMDOGGLE



Suddenly DELMARVA power got real in it submission of charges to the DE PSC for the Bloom Boxes.  Since the inception of the project when the first monthly charge submission was made by DELMARVA to the PSC  in June 2012, DELMARVA has used a very low cost of natural gas to calculate the amount of money owed to Bloom under the “bogus” electric tariff.  Until last month DELMARVA continued to use the falsely low costs of natural gas to calculate the monthly payment to Bloom.  I have questioned why Delmarva was doing this and I have reasoned that they DELMARVA wished to hide the profit they make in the markup of natural gas to fuel the Bloom Boxes. 

In the latest monthly submission dated October 23, 2014 DELMARVA finally comes clean on the cost of natural gas.  On the final page line 10 the cost of natural gas is shown month by month in $ per Dt (dekatherm or million BTU).  It is shown in the very right column for the January 2015 charge to be $9.14 per Dt.  The previous months were $4.24, $3.66, $3.05, $3.75, $5.64 and then the $9.14.  The difference in the latest October 23, 2014 filing is that DELMARVA is finally showing their markup in the price of the natural gas the Bloom Boxes use.  I have contended that DELMARVA was making this profit all along and this is one reason why they went along as “Bloom’s Agent” with the BLOOMDOGGLE of green energy.

The other reason that DELMARVA went along with the BLOOMDOGGLE was to get out from under power purchase agreements for wind and solar power that would have been On Balance Sheet.    Of course helping the Governor help his friends Al Gore, John Doerr, and Collin Powell is also good for business.  By my estimate DELMARVA is making approximately $4 million a year on the marked up natural gas.  DELMARVA is happy that Bloom exceeds its permitted amount of gas usage per megawatt hour.  The more gas Bloom uses the more money Delmarva makes on gas sales.   In the October 2014 submission the heat rate is now 7.39 million BTU per mwh not the 6.6 million BTU per mwh that Mr. Brockenborough a VP of Bloom under penalty of perjury said would be the maximum gas usage when he applied for a coastal zone permit in Deal Away on January 13, 2012.

If you all want to get a big chuckle about the sleaze of politicians in Deal Away click on this NBC link how a state senator’s hubby at 4 am in the dead of night stole the signs of the opposing Republican message.  This senator has had two phone calls with me and others in which she claimed to want to help to get to the bottom of the BLOOMDOGGLE.  Yeah the missing sulfur may have gone the way of the missing signs.


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

The Global Nature of the BLOOMDOGGLE



Readers of the Green Machine have asked who is behind Bloom Energy besides Al Gore, John Doerr, and Collin Powell.    The Green Machine had to tell his readers the profiteers who were willing to go along with the gangrene fake out are global.  The Province of Alberta Canada played a large role in the BLOOMDOGGLE.  They were an early investor via AIMCO their provincial investment arm.


Aimco claims ”good governance has a return” and “we may use our influence as shareholders to improve business practices.”   All I can say is POPPYCOCK!   I approached Aimco years ago to bring about proper governance to Bloom Energy and they did not lift a finger.  Aimco had board representation at Bloom.  Yes they had Jagdeep Singh Bachher  on the board of directors of Bloom Energy and he was an eager greenwasher.  Jagdeep also was Aimco’s board member for their investment in KIOR, they greatest thermodynamic fake to ever have an IPO.  Aimco needs to reflect long and hard as I have email after email asking them to clean up Bloom.

The country of New Zealand also is invested heavily in the BLOOMDOGGLE.  Their pension fund put in $100 million US to keep the greenwashers afloat. 


I certainly have sent Ms. Etheridge dozens of emails to inform her of the greenwashing going at Bloom and she claimed “they will monitor their investment”.  Yeah just like Delaware “monitors” the non-permitted  hazardous solid waste that accumulates in the “desulfurization tanks” and is hauled off without manifests.   All this monitoring of “good governance” has let Bloom greenwash their way to more than $59 million of gift from the poor and middle class ratepayers in Delaware to enrich Al Gore and his global green cronies.

Then we have EON the German Utility who invested in the BLOOMDOGGLE.   The Greenies from Germany plonked Euro 91.5 million into the BLOOMDOGGLE.


EON claims their “cleaner and better energy strategy” will save the planet and make them money.  EON I have news for you Bloom generates dirty, expensive, and unreliable power while EON claims they generate clean, affordable, and reliable power.
 

Then we have Credit Suisse investing in the BLOOMDOGGLE.
 

The Swiss banker that hid Nazi looted fortunes also advised Exelon in forming a strategic relationship with Bloom.  Interesting how a shareholder in Bloom can advise the other side in a transaction?  I guess they claimed Swiss Neutrality like they did in WW2???  I have to say there is a conflict of interest and Exelon shareholders should sue their company and Credit Suisse for bringing them into marketing of the BLOOMDOGGLE with all the hazardous waste and high carbon emissions.


Yeah the Swiss Banker that saw no problem in holding on to Nazi money from  1938 to 1998 is both a shareholder in Bloom, an adviser to the other side in a transaction with Bloom, and the debt provider to place Bloom Coffins at third party sites.


Yes the folks who make cheese with holes in it, aided and abetted Bloom in the BLOOMDOGGLE going back to 2011.

“We are very pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Bloom Energy to structure Bloom Electrons, a unique service to secure baseload electricity.  Bloom Energy has developed a technology that can transform the energy landscape and we look forward to supporting Bloom throughout its growth,” said Jerry L. Smith, managing director at Credit Suisse.


Now folks you have how international conspirators helped fleece US ratepayers and taxpayers of approximately half a billion dollars in the BLOOMDOGGLE that promised better electrons and simply delivered gangrene ones.   Greed like the electromotive force is universal.


Friday, October 24, 2014

Breaking News on the Bloom Energy Bloomdoggle



Sulfur the sixteenth element (S) will be the one that trips up Bloom Energy.  I have a document obtained under the freedom of information act that has on Bloom’s Letterhead for Outage Events for March of 2013 for the Red Lion site in Delaware the following statement for system interruption “replace desulfurization tanks as they degrade.”   Now we have the admission by Bloom Energy that they replace and remove tanks with solid waste that includes sulfur.  There was no solid waste with sulfur in the coastal zone permit, but there certainly is solid waste with sulfur in the protected coastal zone.  There is also solid waste with sulfur at each and every customer of Bloom.  These include the following corporations and entities:

Fedex
Macys
Safeway
Staples
Target
URBN
Versacold
Walmart
Adobe
Apple
AT&T
Baker Hughes
Cox Enterprises
Cypress Semiconductor
Ebay
Google
Juniper Networks
NTT Communications
Nokia
Verizon
Yahoo
Bank of America
JMB Realty Corporation
Hines
J P Morgan Chase
The Ratkovich Company
Soft Bank
Altera
Honda
Owens Corning
Taylor Made
Xilinx
The CocaCola Company
Kellogs
Pacific Cheese
Rollglobal
Sutter Home
Taylor Farms
Century Link
BD
Kaiser
Life Technologies
Prime Healthcare Services
Sutter HealthPlus
AC Transit
US Department of Defense
NASA
The County of Santa Clara
Delmarva Power
PG&E
Washington Gas
Caltech
Keio University
Dreamworks
The Ducks
The Sharks


I guess all of these customers will soon be asking Bloom where the solid waste that was generated at their sites has ended up.   These customers are responsible for the proper handling from cradle to grave of any and all hazardous solid waste they create.  They cannot use the Hostess Twinkie defense or the stupidity defense as they all benefited from massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidy for the honor of having been BLOOMDOGGLED. 

Monday, October 20, 2014

The Transcript of the NBC Report on the BLOOMDOGGLE by Bloom Energy



I think I came out smelling like a rose.

Video is in the link

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Is-Bloom-Energy-Greenwashing-the-Public-279813752.html


The bloom is off the BLOOMDOGGLER

I have added the timeline of the Bloomdoggle and Greenwashing.  Law suits and prosecution should be next.

Bloom Energy Bloomdoggle Timeline

Feb 2010 Leslie Stahl of Sixty Minutes helps Al Gore and his team to launch the Bloomdoggle

March 2010 Leveen The Green Machine (GM) contacts Bloom and questions their claims in the 60 Minutes Piece

Bloom emails the GM and claims an efficiency based on lower heating value of natural gas of 57%

The GM responds to Bloom no bloody way but let’s them hide for a while.

November 2011 Bloom submits coastal zone act (CZA) permit application in Delaware, efficiency now only 50% based on lower heating value.

Jan 2012 Bloom revises the CZA permit application to again claim 57% efficient and admit to the solid sulfur waste that is hazardous.

2013 through 2014 Delmarva Power posts the real efficiency of the Coffins in DE and they are not close to 57% efficient.  Bloom is in violation of the CZA permit.

Feb 2014 the California SGIP report through 2012 shows Electric Only Fuel Cells (mainly Bloom as they took most of the money) are only 47% efficient.

Oct 2014 Bloom admits to NBC their initial model ES 5000 (The one the GM questioned back in 2010) is only between 45% and 50% efficient and confirms that four years ago they lied to the GM.  They also lied to get all the money from the SGIP in 2010, 2011 and 2012. 

This link shows the spec sheet of the ES 5000 and yes its heat rate is claiming 57% efficiency. http://c0688662.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/downloads_pdf_Bloomenergy_DataSheet_ES-5000_1.pdf
No doubt Bloom was Bloomdoggling and greenwashing back in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

They are still Bloomdoggling and greenwashing their new model ES 5700 in 2014 based on actual Delaware reported data by public service commission in DE that is not 57% efficient and emits more than 773 pounds CO2 per megawatthour.

What is next?  Other than Al Gore, John Doerr, and Collin Powell facing the music:

  • ·         The FTC has to bring federal charges of greenwashing against Bloom, its officers and its directors.  The GM contacted the FTC in October 2012 when the FTC Green Guides were issued.  Two years is long enough to investigate this clear-cut case of greenwashing .  Time for action from the FTC, Mr Obama has enough of a crisis dealing with Ebola and ISIS
 
·         Lawsuits to get taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money back are and will be filed
 
·         Mr. Huffman my Congressman who was the Assemblyman in CA who helped the Bloomdoggle take place should simply resign.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Lindsay Leveen Green Machine Will Be on NBC News



Tomorrow October 20, 2014 some four years and seven months since I started investigating Bloom Energy and their hyped claims of efficiency for their Bloom Boxes or Coffins as I call them, I will appear on NBC Channel 3 Bay Area in their investigative report “We Investigate Green Energy”




I will post the link to the full report after it airs and NBC makes the link available on their web site.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Virgin Teams with Siemens and LanzaTech To Greenwash Jet Fuel Made From Ethanol



Virgin Atlantic Airlines and their partner LanzaTech believe making jet fuel from ethanol that came from carbon monoxide in a steel mill is green.  I do not have to repeat the ethanol from carbon monoxide story as I have beaten that one to death.  Now let’s look at making jet fuel from ethanol.   Jet fuel is typically 10 carbons long but could be as low as 5 or as high as 15 carbons long.   For simple math let’s use 10 carbons as the chain length of jet fuel.  At this length it will also have 22 hydrogen atoms (to be a saturated paraffin).  As ethanol has 2 carbon atoms, 6 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom we first have to remove some H2O from the ethanol, then we have to polymerize 5 of the C2s to get C10 and then we have to add hydrogen to saturate any unsaturated bonds.  The resulting chemical balance is as follows:

5 C2H5OH + H2 = C10H22 + 5 H2O

Assuming we do this in a pound mole basis we have 230 pounds of ethanol plus 2 pounds of hydrogen yielding 142 pounds of jet fuel plus 90 pounds of water.  The input energy of the ethanol plus hydrogen on a lower heating value basis is 2.748 million BTU, the output on the same lower heating value basis is 2.627 million BTU.  Approximately 4.4% of the energy in the ethanol and hydrogen is lost in producing the jet fuel.  If one were to make the C5H12 jet fuel the heat balance would be a little improved and approximately 3.1% of the energy would be lost.  For our purposes let’s stay with the C10 jet fuel. 

Now we have 20 moles of CO2 being emitted at the steel mill that produces the ethanol and when the jet fuel is burned on plane another 10 moles of CO2 will be emitted for a total of 30 moles of CO2.  Had the CO simply been flared at the steel mill, 30 moles of CO2 would be emitted at the steel mill.   Had the C10 jet fuel been produced from crude oil another 10 moles of CO2 will be emitted when the fuel is burned aboard the plane for a total of 40 moles of CO2.   From this analysis we can see that at best 10 moles out of 40 (25%) is the savings in CO2 emissions by propelling a plane by jet fuel derived from CO from a steel mill.    When all the other emissions associated with cooling the reactors, and purifying the chemicals the CO2 savings will be less than 25%

Virgin has claimed a 60% reduction of CO2 emissions for planes using the LanzaTech technology .   This comes from a quote in the article linked below.  “According to Virgin Atlantic, the fuel has the potential to cut emissions by 60 per cent compared to conventional aviation fuels, while fitting the technology to all steel plants globally could produce enough biofuel to meet 19 per cent of global demand.”


I guess we now have three greenwashers involved in this steel mill off gas to ethanol and jet fuel scam -  Virgin, Siemens, and Lanzatech. 


Thursday, October 16, 2014

Who is Greener GE or Siemens



This is a strange question for the Green Machine to ask.  I really think both behemoth companies offer fantastic combined cycle natural gas power generation facilities.  The question relates to a small niche market of capturing waste carbon monoxide (CO) from steel mills.

GE claims to be able to produce electric power from such waste off gas streams


Siemens has partnered with LanzaTech (who I have opined greenwash) to use this very same waste stream to produce ethanol via a biological reaction.



Jim Lane who runs a pretty mediocre (thermodynamically speaking) web site has added fuel to this fire.



I was in contact with Siemens and do have emails from the company.  As Jim Lane published his article I now have to provide my comments to the comments that Siemens and LanzaTech have given to Jim Lane and that he has published.  Note most of these comments were also given to me by Siemens.  I have never had any direct discussion with LanzaTech.  Here is the content of an email I sent to Norbert Aschenbrenner at Siemens that was sent to him yesterday.  Siemens comments are followed by my comments in italics.

“After teaming up with several experts from Siemens and LanzaTech I can give you the following answer:

The fact that many of these industrial facilities could be making electricity with steam cogeneration now, but are not, tells the story. The question then, with respect to steel mill waste gas, is what provides the highest marginal value, financially/environmentally/socially. Customers and partners have invested in LanzaTech because they realize these three vectors (economics/environment/social good) are aligned in the LanzaTech process, where ethanol production provides a higher IRR, lower CO2 emissions, and lower SOx/NOx/particulate emissions when compared to electricity production.


Norbert looking at this response it already is apparent that the link I referred to that started the conversation has incorrect information. 


You state that the mills are not using the CO or the hydrogen in the above argument But your link refers to mills that are generating electricity with the offgas and how they will lower their CO2 emissions by one third by converting to the LonzaTech process.   “A steel mill that is currently using its off-gases to generate electricity could lower its CO2 emissions by a third using the new fermentation process.
This is the concern I expressed to you that this statement is incorrect. I will elaborate further on that this statement is incorrect and should be rectified.

They also realize that ethanol is just one of many chemicals that LanzaTech can produce, which can be used both as chemical intermediates and fuels. When the products of gas fermentation are used as chemical intermediates (rather than fuels) the LanzaTech process offers an opportunity to sequester waste carbon in the form of durable products, produced from high-value chemicals that create even higher returns from these gas streams.

Yes CO and if there is some hydrogen, although there is not much in a Chinese steel mill, could produce durable chemicals that hold carbon.   In fact I have proposed that steel mills be combined with chemical plants that produce polycarbonate or isocyanates (PMDI) as these chemicals use CO as a feedstock.  Of course it would be by a traditional chemical catalysis routes and not by expensive biological routes that the Polycarbonate or the PMDI is made.  Yes steel mills can create value from their CO.

Transforming energy from one form into another always results in a net loss of energy, by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the reason we transform the energy is to convert it into a form that has a higher value for society, in a more useable form, for reduced pollution, etc., at the expense of a loss of available energy.  There are many ways to use petroleum for example: upgrade crude oil into gasoline, produce chemicals, run it through a combustion turbine to make electricity, etc. But there is a reason the refining industry exists; liquid fuels are needed.

Yes society does need liquid fuels but we are trying to lower the overall carbon emissions and the CO from the steel mill could be used for a higher purpose than ethanol that winds up in an internal combustion engine that is at best 20% efficient.  The whole driver behind this “green” technology is the deployment of Capital to make something out of the CO that is supposedly green and not wasteful.

LanzaTech achieves a higher IRR than power because ethanol is more valuable than wholesale electricity and because the process efficiency is higher for ethanol production (up to 60%) than for electricity production. The efficiency of electricity production is low (~40% and sometimes <<35 because="" combust="" dilute="" found="" gas="" gases="" in="" industrial="" inefficiently.="" low-calorific="" many="" span="" streams="" value="" very="">

OK so now you state the thermal efficiency of the LanzaTech process as < or = 60%.   If the stream is CO and there is little hydrogen two thirds of the carbon in the CO is lost as CO2 in making the ethanol via the LanzaTech fermentation (you did not dispute this).   You agree >40% of the heat value (energy) of the fuel is lost.  Hence my original premise that the better use of the CO to generate electricity (35% efficient) is better than running a car on ethanol from LanzaTech that will by 0.6 time 0.2 or 12% efficient.  You can argue that the Chinese motorist wants liquid fuel but I am simply saying more CO2 is added to the planet’s atmosphere which is the basis of “green” analysis

Further steel mills have little use for low grade heat and so co-gen is often not a good option. LanzaTech is able to achieve a high process energy efficiency because our microbe is highly tolerant to ethanol so distillation energy requirements are quite low (<20 and="" are="" because="" by="" chillers.="" cooled="" cooling="" distilled="" energy="" ethanol="" extremely="" have="" in="" inherent="" input="" low="" of="" product="" rather="" reactors="" span="" than="" the="" towers="" which="">

OK the LanzaTech bugs can tolerate temps that only need cooling tower cooling.  Still means 27% of the energy is lost to heating the broth.   Still means the process has a water footprint.   My rough guess is 4 to 5 gallons of water for each gallon of ethanol (some water for the hydrogen and the rest from evaporative cooling).    The bugs do not take the ethanol beyond the azeatrope with water and as you admit there is energy to purify. 


It is also worth noting that not all energy is created equal. When LanzaTech integrates into an industrial site, we use low-value waste heat for distillation that cannot be practically used for anything else, and therefore the energy required for distillation drops to 0-5%. Finally, we note that the relative value of the ethanol as a product is enhanced by logistical advantages. China and India are experiencing rapid growth in liquid fuel demand. LanzaTech ethanol can be transported to these markets or globally, but the infrastructure is not in place to sell and distribute electricity from their industrial sites.

The steel mills in China and India do generate power so I am not sure why GE can do it and Siemens cannot.


Perhaps Siemens should investigate what GE is doing?

3rd party certification has shown that LanzaTech reduces CO2 emissions using actual performance data. Ethanol produced from a steel mill waste gases through LanzaTech’s process reduces CO2 emissions 50-70% compared to conventional petroleum. At the same time, the CO2 footprint of conventional fuels is getting worse with increasing unconventional fuels coming online, while the CO2 footprint of electricity production is dropping with an increasing amount of renewable electricity coming online. These trends increase further the CO2 benefits of ethanol production over electricity production from waste gases.

Yes I do agree that 73% of the energy in the CO is in the ethanol and perhaps in the best case the process is 50% to 60% overall thermally efficient.  I do not have enough data to opine on the CO2 savings versus conventional gasoline and I would have to review the third party calculations in detail to render an opinion.  

As a consequence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, when using CO as a feedstock, the fermenters release some CO2 (similar to sugar fermentation). Here it is not possible to make a more reduced product like fuels, without also generating a more oxidized product like CO2. There is net CO2 reduction however, when compared to business as usual, flaring or venting these gases, especially when producing a chemical which sequesters this carbon. Further, as we react increasing amounts of H2 in the process (found in other industrial waste gases, MSW or biomass) LanzaTech’s reactors become CO2 consuming, in addition to the process remaining net CO2 reducing. This is a consequence of thermodynamics; the process efficiency has not changed, just the feedstock.


OK you admit the reaction has two thirds of the Carbon in CO becoming CO2.   The steel mill has little free hydrogen.  The question I posed to Siemens was the web link about CO2 reduction at a steel mill not a futuristic MSW or biomass facility.    If I have a large source of hydrogen why not purify this and place in a PEM fuel cell vehicle rather than convert to ethanol and then place ethanol in an ICE vehicle??? PEM is 60% efficient, ICE is 20% efficient. 


Lastly, steel production is the 3rd largest stationary CO2 emitter (after electricity and cement), and LanzaTech’s solution has received a very positive response from this sector.

Steel produced from scrap or DRI in an electric arc furnace is far greener than steel produced from coke in China.  The Chinese steel is the most pollutive in the world.  Of course they want some “green” thing to latch onto

From a human health perspective, the local air quality is so problematic worldwide that it was attributed to 7 million deaths in 2012 (WHO). This is driven by SOx, NOx and particulate emissions. Unfortunately, combustion of waste gases into electricity would exacerbate these emissions. By converting waste gases into ethanol, the LanzaTech process reduces each of SOx, NOx particulate emissions by > 90%. LanzaTech’s customers are keenly aware that the poor air quality locally poses a threat to business in some jurisdictions, and are doubly motivated to make a positive change using our process.

Sox and NOx can be scrubbed.  Our debate is on CO2.   I thank you for your response that was detailed and well thought out.   But I still believe Siemens should fix the web site that made the claim that:  “A steel mill that is currently using its off-gases to generate electricity could lower its CO2 emissions by a third using the new fermentation process.
https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif

OK if we believe GE can install power generators at 35% efficiency (Siemens data) on CO containing off gas at a steel mill, what is greener the power delivered to the owner of an electric scooter or the Ethanol that will be used in an internal combustion engine on a scooter?

GE system has an overall efficiency of 35% at the generation station.  There is a loss of 10% to transmit to a home and then a loss of 10% to place these electrons in an electric scooter.  This is an overall efficiency of 23.85%.

The Siemens/LanzaTech ethanol system is 60% efficient (at best per Siemens) at converting the CO to ethanol.  Assuming that the supply chain in China can get the ethanol blended into gasoline and then the fuel delivered to a service station near the scooter owner with 98% efficiency.   Then assuming the scooter operates at 20% efficiency in converting chemical energy to kwh at the wheel.  The resulting CO to wheel kwh efficiency is 11.76%.  Therefore it makes absolutely no green sense for the CO to become ethanol if it is going to propel a vehicle (in this case a scooter).  This was my point to Siemens.

Of course if GE is greenwashing about their turbine technology to fire power stations on CO in the off gas from a steel mill, then Siemens is doing the right thing not to flare the gas.   I can’t opine if GE is Greenwashing, but I do believe they can generate electricity from the off gas or else I would not have started the debate.   If I owned a dirty steel mill in China I would simply stop producing dirty steel.  Of course this is not going to happen so the market does exist to use off gas from a steel mill for some better purpose.  I just want Siemens and GE to tell us the truth.   I really don’t care who is the winner between Siemens and GE, I just want less CO2 in the air and I don’t want to be greenwashed.


I can opine that Jim Lane gave KIOR the best thermochemical project award and he knows zero about thermo or chemistry.