Replies to post #21689 on NewStream Energy Technologies Group Inc (NSGP)

[Blaine222]

I did previously read both those articles and found them to be encouraging.

The better of the two articles refers to the Integrated Environmental Control Model(IECM)developed by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)& the Department of Engineering & Public Policy (EPP)

However, they offer no comparison to any Washed Coals just PRB Coal(Wyoming Powder River Basin)


Stats on PRB Coal: from http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1625a/Chapters/PQ.pdf

Actively mined coal from the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana (fig. PQ-1) is considered to be “clean coal.” For the location and description of this coal zone, see Chapter PF-Framework Geology of Fort Union coal in the Powder River Basin. This coal zone contains a lowcontaminant, subbituminous coal resource that has the following arithmetic mean values (on an as-received basis) for coal that is not presently being mined or under lease to be mined in the future: moisture–27.66 percent, ash–6.44 percent, total
sulfur–0.48 percent, calorific value–8,220 Btu/lb, lb SO2 per million Btu–1.24, and moist, mineral-matter-free Btu–8,820. Arithmetic mean concentration (in parts per million and on whole-coal and remnant-moisture basis) of elements of environmental concern for coal in the Wyodak-Anderson coal zone (and stratigraphically equivalent beds in Montana and Wyoming) are: antimony–0.50, arsenic–2.6, beryllium–0.54, cadmium–0.21, chromium–6.1, cobalt–1.9,lead–3.0, manganese–26, mercury-–0.13, nickel–4.6, selenium–1.1, and uranium–1.3.

So PRB is considered a "Clean Coal" as far as coal can be clean unchanged straight from the earth. That's good for comparison at least...

However the IECM Simulation also notes several things and

1. While the IECM is not as reliable as a fully constructed pilot plant, it nevertheless provides a degree of confidence for investors and first-time users of a new technology to proceed toward a commercial or POC scale plant demonstration.

I think we all know simulations are just what they claim to be a simulation, while i agree the information is encouraging it only deals with a plant running 100% perfectly and doesn't account for any issues with the plant itself in its cost analysis of whether or not the "Pristine Coal" is economically fessiable...it basically assumes everything will run just as planned all the time at 100% output.

2. The real question for CCTC in my viewpoint is whether the "Pristine Coal" is better than "Washed Coal" and which costs less to produce per BTU(Cost would include the offset of any side products taken from the coal for resale)

Was unable to find any Non Coal Industry breakdowns on what various washed coals BTUs output or cost of washing etc to make a valid comparison against CCTC's "Pristine Coal"

I was also unable to find an IECM on any Washed Coals(Probably because they don't need to simulate "Washing Coal"

If anyone else can please post it!!