Evergreen Energy Inc EEE

K-Fuel Tested & Ready to GO!

[no1coalking]

Recs: 0 K-Fuel A Now Solution: Full Test Results Report: Pennsylvania Must Have Clean Power Supply: https://www.evgenergy.com/documents/EEE-PA-Test-Burn-Ex-Summary.pdf ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Connect The Dots: Great presentation yesterday: Coal Power is One Answer: Solid presentation & worth the time to look & learn: https://www.nextgenenergy.org/Portals/Nextgen/video/ALEC_Carrie_Atiyeh.wmv ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Collins comments from today's blog: Collin's Speaks Out: Comments from Evergreen president Positive Mercury Results from Pennsylvania Test Burn by Evergreen Energy on Thu 07 Feb 2008 09:34 AM MST | Permanent Link By Kevin Collins, President & CEO We’ve always felt there was great potential for the blending of K-Fuel® with other coals to improve performance for utility and industrial boilers, especially in the East and Midwest, which are served by our mining and marketing subsidiary Buckey Industrial Mining. The latest round of test burn results provides further evidence of this potential. We tested K-Fuel® blended with the coal normally used at a utility power plant in western Pennsylvania and found that we cut mercury emissions by 82 percent when you compare the amount of mercury in the raw coal normally burned with the stack emissions from the K-Fuel blend. Pennsylvania and about half of the 50 states are implementing mercury emissions regulations that are more stringent than federal rules, and power plants are looking at big bills for post-combustion cleanup technology to meet these new requirements. One key finding of this test was that by using a K-Fuel® blend, a utility could cut significantly, in this case by an estimated two-thirds, the amount of activated carbon it would need to inject into the plant in order to remove the mercury and meet the standards. Activated carbon injection is a post combustion approach to addressing mercury and it is expensive. The activated carbon itself can cost between $1.00 and $1.40 per pound. We’ve published an executive summary of the test results on our web site, and you can find it at 2008 Evergreen Articles and Reports. PROGRESS IN INDONESIA Last week we announced the advancement to Phase II detailed engineering and economic analysis of a deal with a major Indonesian mining group to build a 1.5 million ton per year K-Fuel® refinery on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan. In Phase I we did rigorous, and I mean rigorous, testing of how the K-Fuel® process acted on Kalimantan coal, and it acted very well, thank you. Our process cut moisture by 64 percent and bumped the heat value by 52 percent. The plan is to barge the refined coal to Japanese, Chinese and even Indian markets. As part of our Phase I work we tested the affects of long-distance barge transport on our refined coal and the tests showed no issues with that type of transport. Now, in this second phase of our work, we will dive deeper into the engineering, marketing and economic issues of this project, although the initial economic work done by all the parties shows good viability. After we complete Phase II, Phase III will entail a definitive deal to construct that includes procurement of construction materials from lower cost Asian sources. The market is ripe for our technology. Economic growth in Asia has raised coal demand and prices for bituminous coal, which is in tight supply. Asia has huge reserves of sub-bituminous and lignite coals, but they’re located vast distances from key markets. That’s where we come in and why we’re seeing such strong Asian interest in our process. Sumitomo remains fully engaged with us and enthusiastic in its support for our potential in Asia. THE FATE OF FUTURE GEN On another topic, I can’t help but point out that the US Government has pulled its funding for the Future Gen IGCC with CCS project in Illinois. We’ve said for many months that while IGCC with CCS is something that should be pursued long term, it is not anything that we can hang out hat on in the next 5, 10 or even 20 years. The costs, liabilities and science are all still uncertain. Meanwhile, coal continues to create 12 of the 24 hours a day of electricity that we all use, and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. That’s why we need a technology that bridges the gap between the status quo and future gen, and we believe that our pre-combustion technology can help fill that gap. https://blog.evgenergy.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/7/3510692.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANALYSIS of Test Burns: Pennsylvania test burn report analysis for investors That latest test burn report tells us a lot about what's going on behind the scenes at Evergreen: - You can bet that Evergreen didn't publish the report if the Pennsylvania utility had no intention of using K-fuel. Interest in K-fuel by utilities that operate old non-compliant coal plants is VERY serious. - As the PR indicated, this test took a month to complete. Just think about that for a minute - it took an entire month for this utility to run this test. Imagine the logistics associated with a test like that. With such high barriers to entry into the utility business, a lot of potential competitors are going to think twice before entering the clean coal market. Progress is slow in this business, investors need to understand that. - The Pennsylvania results are especially significant because they currently have the toughest mercury regulations in the country. If K-fuel can meet Pennsylvania's requirements, it can work anywhere in the country. - Investors have been hungry for news. The intention of this report was to provide an update, and the news clearly looks good. - It is true that Evergreen has had some significant plant ramp-up problems, but I believe the single biggest cause for utility inaction over the past couple years has been the delay in enacting tougher emission regulations. In all truthfulness, utilities are not going to clean up their act unless they are forced to by government regulation. This latest PR clearly indicates that there have been delays in implementing tougher new federal emissions standards, so much of the utilities recent "stall tactics" are not Evergreen's fault. It's just the nature of the current business environment in which they operate. (i.e., it would be hard to sell automotive seat belts if there was no government regulation to use them.) From the latest PR: "The fuel and stack-based test results were encouraging, as well, for industrial boiler operators who must comply with new federal emissions regulations known as MACT (maximum available control technology) that were slated to take effect last fall but have been delayed by court appeals." (I guess that strongly suggests that if you want to better gauge Evergreen's potential, you need to keep on top of the current legal situation with emissions control.) - Even the independent test organization that supervised the test burn seems to think K-fuel is a good deal: "The Pennsylvania DEP (PADEP) will enforce a rule requiring all plants to achieve an 80% Hg reduction or 2.4 lb/TBtu emission rate by 2010. According to the utility personal involved with the test, the PADEP emission rate will be their compliance target, which changes their required Hg to 90% in 2010. The K-Fuel Blend achieved an emission rate of about 4.2 lb/TBtu, indicating that only another 43% would be required for compliance. Minimal injection of activated carbon sorbent would be sufficient to achieve the additional Hg reduction. We estimate that the cost of this pathway to compliance would be reduced by 50 to 70 % by using the K-Fuel blend as compared to the baseline coal." - Notice the next compliance deadline - the year 2010. If that deadline holds, that is now less than two years off. It also corresponds to Bechtel's new plant construction guidelines of 18 - 24 months. That strongly suggests that we're going to be hearing about a deal in Pennsylvania very soon.