There is only so many times you can give BTU information out for the fuel daily, and there is absolutely no mystery regarding their intentions here. Or the fact the company has published all of their data in addition to independent labs publishing their official test results months ago.
Even Paper Prophet himself did the math just YESTERDAY - but he dismissed it as he compared USSEC's fuel value against the cost of coal, and couldn't be bothered to figure out the value of green certs as in his experience setting up power companies they offer no merit.
The issue is that a few individuals ask for the formula over and over simply because they have no idea how to interpret or use it, and even when it is explained six hundred times, they reset the following week and begin their bash trek against USSEC all over. The greater irony is that the individuals asking the most have no investment with USSEC - and have clearly stated they have no intentions of every doing so.
There is no magic Koolaid being offered here:
128,000 BTU's x 5 gallons = 640,000 BTUs.
The formula for calculating BTU to kWh conversion is one of the most basic principals in power determination. You start by dividing the BTU's by 3413 (number of BTU's per kWh creation).
So 640,000 / 3413 = 187.5kWH.
Power plant units are expressed in efficiency ratios, the combined cycle plants we have earmarked achieving typically 48 to 54%. Utilizing the 50% combined cycle, you would end up 93.75 kWH.
So one bushel can equal 93.75 kWh, the minimum price being paid for green power from 100% renewable resources is being set by fair market value at a minimum of .08 per kWh.
So 93.75 kWh x .08 per kWh is $7.50 per bushel. Plus you have green certs that even figured in conservatively at .05 per kWh = $4.68 per bushel. You further have a blenders credit as a Federal subsidy, plus the biogas and fertilizer produced from every bushel have a clear associated value as well. The biogas itself is most viable to reduce production costs for the energy process, so we typically utilize this byproduct against the bottom line when determining cost versus output ratios.
The minimum bundled prices that fair market valuations have been determining (the price already companies are prepared to pay) is upwards of .15 per kWH for recs/power. 93.75 x .15 = $14.06.
Bottom line: this is easy math, but no matter how you publish it there are three individuals here who rip, roar, and tear, and constantly spin any angle they can towards negativity.
You don't have news on power contracts being completed yet - simply due to confidentiality agreements in place that keep their names from being utilized until all facets are finalized. It doesn't take much to see the building, the reactor, the meetings that have taken place, the team that has built, and the commitment that USSEC's team members have to know that everyone here is on to a very good thing.
The end result will still be the same. USSEC has the single most innovative and powerful green fuel alternative ever created. The rest of it is just learning to connect the dots as quickly as we can to ensure the first contract deals offer the most value possible. There is no mystery here, other than what our highly obsessed, and completely anti-ussec friends on this board help to stimulate and promote.
And by the way, a fuel's basic properties dictate performance expectations for individual generator sets and configured plants, not the other way around. If you are a potential investor, are considering a nice sized investment, and are wanting a better due diligence track: go and hire an engineering firm and have them contact us for number crunching, process validation, and cost analysis. You'll end up with more comfort in your investment, and we'll end up with another engineering firm wanting to pitch USSEC to their own clients due to extreme benefit it offers any party involved.
Hope this helps! Happy holiday. :)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
