esi assets, page-13

Nope,,,Claims are one thing but the reality is;

Using wec's own stats they are not capable of refining high moisture content lignites commercially. ( read the bottom line of this post )

Coldry is about 10 times more efficient when you look past the gross stats and incorporate holistic nett model...and about 50 times more efficient when you factor in COLDRY PURE WATER BY-PRODUCT V WEC EQUIFER/STREAM/RIVER/TAILINGS DAM POLLUTION.

That makes wec and hrl models definitely inferior by comparison...BUT CLEAN TECH AND VALUE ADDED EFFICIENCIES ASIDE.....the ultimate end users will also want EFFECTIVE OPEX AND CAPEX TOO ! ( read the last line of this post )

You see...anyone can heat and squeeze sub-b coal...and get a calorific increase of around 50ish% ...but that's gross...nett is more like 25% when you take into account the amount of energy used to ''lo tech'' produce, and the implied cost of the toxic water by-product that is wec equivalent ( lets not forget wec is predominantly involved with the briquette style compression of black coal tailings ,,and their brown coal refining process is a permutation of nothing more than a mechanical energy intensive semi-concept )

WEC model is basically a simple ( but expensive ) energy in.. high temp cook, squeeze and dry process that uses shed loads of gas fired heat energy, and produces river loads of dirty water, in the case of it's lignite processing ( waste water that contains energy enhancing catalysts and waxy hc molecules that have been squeezed out of the raw product, that further adds to their wasted energy/resource model....So wec process = something akin to the 24 to 48 hr process that ALL brown coal fired power stations use and abuse at the moment....a process that uses more than the industry stated 5% of raw product to dry and pulverize lignite into a semi-dried burnable energy medium in brown coal boilers atm. ( remember,,the 5% stated by the industry is as high as 62% water and is thus 12.4% in physical reality...but that is still understated...you would be amazed at just how much brown coal is used in the semi-drying process atm....All those steam clouds in the valley could just as easily become a pure water resource....you do realise those steam clouds have a mammoth carbon foot print...a foot print that can be almost completely removed using the coldry model.

Here's the thing...

Coldry's shake'n bake uses wasted exhaust/cooling tower energy ( but can be adapted to use geothermal or other heat sources), but predominantly harnesses known physical, exothermic lignite properties,,,, it allows the lignite to do most of the work ( to dewater and energy enhance ),,,, utilises wasted cooling tower/exhaust stack heat...keeps all the vitamins minerals and trace elements IN the bonn bonns, ( NOT the water ), and produces 2 valuable resources....PURE WATER, and REFINED BCE...you end up with 1 tonne of water and 1 tonne of 24gJ/t bce from 2 tonnes of lignite that originally had a calorific value of 8gJ/t ...now thats a 200% enhancement with little to zero ''energy in'' and no waterway polluting by-product...so you see...no ''hidden'' carbon footprint as in wec hrl models ,,no toxic waste in waterways to hide from the greens....wec = dinosaur backyard 3rd world bucket chemistry by comparison....and...if you dont believe me.....ask a number of large Indonesian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indian, EU, Aussie, and US coal intensive entities that have ALL run tests on the ''heat and sqeezers'' and have dropped the idea in favour of Coldry...or to put it more clearly......''The current interested jv parties all tested wec product first''