RE: Hey Spaceboy, how does IBR deal with lipids?I am neither an agronomist, a plant pathologist or a microbiologist. I suspect neither are you. We trust that the money spent on R&D is well spent and that the end product is proven. If we are being misled then that is another story.
Your statement regarding lipids is interesting and I'd be interested to hear from someone with a background in this field. as far as getting off the board. Hmmm. let me think about that for a while.
I only brought to light the question of aerobic vs. anaerobic because I was following the developments with the City of Toronto. IBR's EATAD technology was being considered. Ultimately the City went with Canada Composting (CCI) who uses an anaerobic technology. They now are operating a demonstration plant at the Dufferin site. I felt that a combination of these technologies would create a winning combination.
Quoted from Toronto City council 14 page study between CCI and IBR.
"As requested by the Works Committee, and concurrent with our negotiations with CCI, staff undertook a technical and financial evaluation of the use of enhanced autothermal thermophylic aerobic digestion (EATAD) processing and its possible application at the Dufferin site or other sites in the City.
In this regard, staff met with representatives of International Biorecovery Corp. (IBR), an EATAD supplier, and visited IBR’s processing facility in Vancouver B.C. Staff also reviewed an unsolicited proposal from IBR for the design, construction and operation of 75,000 and 150,000 tonne per year facilities at Dufferin and elsewhere in the City."
"The IBR process is, none the less, an interesting and promising technology for processing our SSO material. A technical comparison of IBR’s EATAD process to CCI’s AD process is presented in Attachment 1.
Based on our visit to IBR’s Vancouver facility and our review of literature and IBR’s unsolicited proposal, it would appear that EATAD technology could successfully process Toronto’s SSO into fertilizer products, and that construction of an IBR facility would not pose challenges or risks greater than those expected with other technologies. However, while IBR’s unsolicited proposal is interesting and promising, it is not site specific and therefore does not include site development costs, which could be significant. It is also not possible to determine from the information provided whether all the design elements meet the City’s minimum design standards. Care must therefore be taken in comparing IBR’s proposal, and in particular, their pricing, to other options. Nor does their proposal provide details on local partnership arrangements, making it difficult to confirm IBR’s ability to construct a facility in Toronto."
If anyone would like to read the full report, search for it online.