Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Bindoff

Glenn, can you advise your calculations for the supply of CO2 for your 10Mw plant, how many tons will be required per day?
Is the geographical supply of CO2 coincident with the supply of off peak wind energy?

Is the supply of CO2 a derivative of coal fired power generation - if so what is the method of collection or removal and delivery of the CO2 from the process?
Are the capital costs of delivery of the CO2 included in your capital required?

Glenn Doty


First, I am not the founder - my father is. I am on the development team, but my father is the founder, CEO, and chief engineer both for the root business: Doty Scientific Inc; and the energy development team: Doty Energy.

My father wrote the article for Greentech media, and used the 85% carbon neutral position as a worst-case position, one in which no bi-products (such as oxygen) were sold. This may be the case in some large deployment conditions, as the oxygen market may become saturated in some regions, and oxy-combustion facilities may take longer to build-out than WindFuels is projected to scale-up.

But we decided to use the 85% figure as it is far less controversial than a more full assessment as I gave in the other comment.

We largely agree on near-term oil prices. As conventional oil peaks the price must rise until investors feel safe developing non-conventional oil. The price point for GTL and CTL seem to be ~$120/bbl, tar-sands seems to be ~$150/bbl, and oil shale is probably ~$180/bbl. I doubt oil will average higher than $180/bbl for long, though it may spike as high as $300/bbl. I think the 20-year average will be in the neighborhood of ~$150-$160/bbl (2010 USD).

It's either us or the tar sands as far as fueling transportation, because EV's aren't even remotely competitive within that price range... and we're far more carbon neutral under any analysis than EV's or compressed natural gas (CNG), which only marginally compete at that price point.

As for your questions (this may be a long response):

1. We are self funded and are looking for investors. Doty Scientific Inc is a privately-held 30-year-old company making custom scientific equipment. Doty Energy is a group within DSI that is working on the novel WindFuels process.
The profits from DSI have thus far wholly funded our R&D for the WindFuels project. We are, however, looking for Round A funding, as DSI is a very small company (~$2-3M/yr), and we will need ~$18M in order to build a pilot WindFuels plant and prototypes of the recuperator and heat engines.

2. The capital required to build plants depends entirely on what stage of development we are at. We expect our 200 kW pilot plant to cost ~$16M, and we then expect our first 2MW plant to cost ~$25M. However, we should move very quickly to deployment after the completion and successful demonstration of the 2 MW plant, and we will benefit from standardized designs, mass-produced components, and other economy-of-scale norms. At this point, our plant price projections can only be based on assessing the cost of similar technology, so there is some uncertainty in the projections (these are conservative projections, so the uncertainty is +/-... do not consider these to be best-case).
We're projecting a cost of a 5 MW plant to be ~$9-$13M: (47-49% efficiency);
10 MW plant: $15-$19M (50-52% efficiency);
20 MW plant: $27-$33M (53-55% efficiency);
50 MW plant: $63-$73M (56-58% efficiency);
250 MW plant: $280-326M (58-60% efficiency);

We should have a pilot plant built within 2.5 years of receiving Round A; and we'll have much more clarity concerning the plant costs by that point.

3. The efficiency we calculate is based on the electrical energy consumed by the electrolyzers vs the thermal energy in the fuels that are produced. Hence, if a 20 MW system achieved 53% efficiency, then for every 20 MWhs that were purchased from the grid, a total of 10.6 MWh's in thermal energy would be stored in fuels and chemicals, while 9.4 MWh's of waste heat would be rejected. I can direct you to several papers that explain how we achieve that level of efficiency, but those papers are 10,000 words. In a nutshell though, it revolves around assuming that energy is valuable, and all energy must be recovered or re-used within the system as effectively as possible.

4. 2.5 years from the date of funding we expect to have a pilot plant running. Once we're deployment ready, and have gone through our IPO and raised capital to deploy in full, we expect it will take no more time to build a 20 MW WindFuels plant than it takes to build a comparably sized power plant... So depending on the local politics, it should take between a few months and ~3 years.


Glen, thank you for discovering me. I always appreciate the input and additional information from company founders like yourself. By the way, I try to be fair and balanced in my opinion of green technology innovations. I think you will agree, that what we really need to do is reduce carbon emissions. GreenTechMedia also believes that Windfuels will be 85% carbon neutral, not 100%. Carbon neutral doesn't move us towards that goal. We can't just "chip away" at the carbon emissions problem. We need quantum leaps, and take huge chunks out of the CO2 emissions. That's why I am such an advocate of renewable energy. On another subject, you maybe on to something if the scalability issues can be overcome and cost to produce come down to create economies of scale. America has end its runaway addiction to oil and reliance on foreign oil. I recently wrote about the Peak Oil Crisis, you probably read my article. That's reality. At $4.00 per gallon by mid 2011, and $5.00 by 2012, you maybe very well positioned to take advantage of our immediate needs. In that regard, I have a few questions for you:
1) Are you self-funded or have investors?
2) How much capital will you need to build plants (2MW, 20MW and so forth).
3) Explain efficiency.
4) How long would it take build a small plant.

glen, thanks so much for your comments. I appreciate your input very much.

Glenn Doty

To further follow up on the commentary, I'd like to address the issue of raising capital. Most investors can clearly see that we are a company dedicated to reducing net carbon emissions. By being strongly profitable with or without subsidies, this technology shows more promise for scaling rapidly and making a significant difference in carbon emissions than any other. The problem most VC's have - at first glance - is that the solution involves multiple innovations that must be integrated, adding a greater element of technical risk.

However, upon further consideration, it becomes clear that the multi-innovation nature of this investment is a strength that drastically reduces technical risk, so long as you understand that each of the innovations on their own have very large market potentials. This is actually a diversified investment in efficiency technology with a high chance of being integrated into a major fuels opportunity.

Consider this:

With none of the novel technologies succeeding, and current technology achieving its range of potential, we would be looking at a price-point for oil of ~$150-$200/bbl if we used carbon-neutral energy to recycle CO2. That’s still better than EV’s, but that’s not competitive.
We have patented and are developing a truly novel high-pressure cryogenic separation loop for the product stream, a novel FT reactor, a novel cost-effective recuperator, and a novel heat engine.

The multi-technology approach ensures that any investor faces multiple high-yield exits.

There has not been a single valid scientific or engineering rebuttal against the concept or our detailed simulations, so we can assume that the actual technical risk associated with any component is less than 5%, or certainty is greater than 95% (we actually believe this to be greater than 98% for most of the components). A typical analysis would show a 95% certainty for the heat engine, and the recuperator, the cryogenic separation/recycling loop, and the FT reactor; then a ~75% certainty for the RWGS integration and for the full system integration. Which would compound out to a total technical certainty of ~46% for the full WindFuels system. (or however you choose to assign risk or certainty - again we think 95% is low-balling it, and 75% is insane considering the level of detail in the simulations and the complete lack of any errors found).
However, since any one of the individual innovations has a very strong market potential, the risks are diversified, and only one success needs to be accomplished in order for a highly profitable exit, the true risk that investors face becomes lessened. Let’s say instead that the investor knew very little about the relevant engineering or science - and so had little certainty of any of the processes, so he posed an 85% certainty for the components and a coin-flip (50%) for the integrations. In this case, his certainty of a fully integrated WindFuels plant seems extraordinarily low: ~13%... but his evaluation of the certainty of a profitable exit now is almost perfectly certain, because he sees a 13% chance of this becoming a trillion-dollar industry through total success, and he sees an 85% chance of this becoming a hundred million dollar industry with the FT reactor, and an 85% chance of this being a hundred million dollar industry with the cryogenic loop, and he sees an 85% chance of this becoming a multi-billion dollar industry with the heat engine, and an 85% chance of this becoming a mulit-billion dollar industry with the recuperator, and a 72% chance of this becoming a multi-hundred billion dollar industry if both the recuperator and the heat engine succeed (the Geo-CSP hybrid opportunity).
Now the perceived total certainty (in this outlined perception of risk and certainty) of making a very large return is now ~99.99%... it’s actually much higher, as we see better than 95% technical certainty for all of the innovations, and an 80-90% certainty for the integrations.

I think that any investor who gives us a fair hearing will be very interested.

Glenn Doty

I'm glad I stumbled across this site.

First, I'd like to thank you for looking into our technology and spreading some information about our WindFuels process.

Second, I'd like to point out that the picture that you included is not a picture of an FTS reactor. That was just a picture of some of the equipment in our company and two of our employees. That particular picture is a 7T magnet for spectroscopy.

But the commentary, I feel, requires a response.

There seems to be a lack of understanding concerning the goal of renewable energy here: People who are concerned about global warming have a desire and a duty to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions (and people who are concerned about the environment at large have a responsibility to reduce all other contaminate emissions). That's the goal. Any other random goal that is applied has nothing to do with "green-ness" and has everything to do with vested interests (pride is the most common investment in this sense, but the statement is true nonetheless).

To be “carbon neutral” does not mean that the process cannot involve carbon, it means that the net amount of carbon produced from the process is equal to the amount of carbon absorbed by the process. In a very basic and simplified analysis, the RFTS process is carbon neutral - as it takes in carbon that is currently being emitted to the atmosphere, and it converts that carbon to fuels, which are then burned and emit that carbon into the atmosphere - net neutral.

A more thorough reckoning shows that this process is actually “carbon negative”, in that far less net carbon is emitted when the process is operational than would be emitted if the process is not operational.

First, 100% of the CO2 will either be recycled or converted within the WindFuels plant. 58% of the ENERGY will be converted to fuel, while 42% will be exhausted as waste heat, but 100% of the CO2 entering the WindFuels plant is projected to be converted to fuel. So every 1 gallon of gasoline will be produced from ~8.8 kg of purchased CO2. Which means 8.8 kg of CO2 are sequestered for every 1 gallon of gasoline produced. The gasoline will eventually be burned, emitting 8.8 kg of CO2, for a net total carbon intensity of zero.

Of course, the truth isn’t quite so simple, as we will likely absorb somewhere between 3-8% carbon-sourced energy because the electrolyzer bank must have a minimum of 2% power running through it, and there will be some absorption of carbon-sourced energy from the grid. Furthermore, there will be some carbon-sourced energy required to separate and compress the CO2. So we are anticipating a total carbon intensity in our fuels of between 10.9 and 14.3 kg/gallon gasoline. 8.8 kg of exhaust was sequestered into these fuels, for a net carbon intensity of 2.1 - 5.5 kg-CO2/gallon of gasoline.
However, in a real market evaluation, every gallon of WindFuels gasoline that is produced and consumed will offset the production of a gallon of tar sands fuel, or CTL or oil shale fuel. These fuels have a minimum carbon intensity of 14 kg-CO2/gallon. So thus far for every gallon that is produced and consumed we’re seeing a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 of between 11.9 and 8.5 kg-CO2/gallon.

But O2 is a current commercial product that is derived from fractional distillation of air, with a market of 100 million tons/year. Assuming a net savings of 865 kg-CO2/MWh of fossil electricity (from reduction, this co-produced O2 from WindFuels will offset an additional 3.2 kg-CO2/gallon from the abatement of fractional-distillation produced O2.

Finally, depending on siting, there could be some industrial pre-heating uses for the clean waste heat that is produced. If this is credited, then a further reduction of ~5 kg of CO2 emissions might be reduced.

Hence, every gallon of WindFuels that is produced and sold will reduce net CO2 emissions by between 11.7 and 18.1 kg-CO2.


The blog provides helpful information regarding the topic and it also gives a vast knowledge as well which helps us in our studies and in practical life.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Click to visit our ImaginativePRO website


Blog powered by Typepad
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2010
My Photo