Rawnoc challenges self-anointed expert's foolish claims

Reality from the Department of Energy vs. the big guy's claim:

FALSEHOOD:

"I have been in industry on such projects and i know that it is about 5-10% of the cost if that." ~~thebigguy
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52848400

REALITY:

"The feedstock cost of the oil or grease is the largest single component of biodiesel production costs." ~~The U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel

======================================

Yes, profitability is a no-brainer. Proof that the trade secret catalyst is going to make JBII and its shareholders rich...

Original machine: http://www.donghechina.com/bg0.asp

40% yield. 5-10% waste.

JBII's modified machine with catalyst: http://tinyurl.com/263dhad

85-90% yield. 1% waste.

JBII's modified machine + catalyst more than DOUBLES than yield, making JBII's P2O massively profitable with little to no expensive of disposing waste. Zero pollution.

====================================

112.5 to 125% the yield or more than double plus 12.5 - 25% more.

Waste of the original machine is 400-900% more than the John Bordynuik and Islechem modified machine + catalyst.

So you see, the notion that John and Islechem aren't doing anything special here is just more fantasy bullshit, kind of like when somebody foolishly concludes that free feedstock means nothing because feedstock is only a small part of biodiesel costs.The US Department of Energy backs me up:

"The Energy Information Administration (EIA) uses a process-costing approach to model the impacts of net feedstock production costs plus capital and operating costs. The feedstock cost of the oil or grease is the largest single component of biodiesel production costs."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/

Me:
"Considering pyrolysis oil projects main challenges has been quoted as 85-90% of the cost of doing so being the cost of the feedstock, and JBII's cost of feedstock is zero, it doesn't take much analysis to figure out that when you eliminate the cost of something by 85-90% it's probably going to get a profit, especially when some processes are even profitable before the 85-90% cost is taken out."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52845575


Now I'm trying to figure out what you have experienced that leads you to believe that Rawnoc, the US Department of Energy, and the financial statements of many biodiesel firms are all wrong. Since you self-proclaimed to have experience in the biodiesel field in addition to your petroleum refining, nuclear power, computer software, construction, and children's clothing expertise, I'm curious to get your take.

"I have been in industry on such projects and i know that it is about 5-10% of the cost if that. I can bet where that came from, probably the usual source... and on FB no less."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=52848400

It doesn't take a self-anointed expert to know that refining in reality is one of the least costs in the process vs. the feedstock. Surely if a refinery can figure out a way to make a profit I'm sure little old JBII with their $200,000 machines and $0 feedstock can figure out something. :)