Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Articles that don't help the cause

Unread postby VMA131Marine » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 17:29:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'O')kay so how much energy would get fed back into the grid really, when H2 production is going on in the basement? And even if a bare surplus balance were to occur between the house and the grid, could that difference power those living in apartments plus all those nonresidential uses such as offices, factories, schools. To be sure some of those buildings could also be generators of electricity, but I don't think he has taken the time to calculate the EROEI or even if the total wattage of the proposed generation would still be enough to power our way of life.

Articles like this are not the slightest bit helpful and lull many into a false sense of security. "Don't worry...technology will save us" or my favorite (NOT) "The stone age did not end because a lack of stones."

Full article: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... _after_oil


It is already possible to build a home that produces more power than it consumes. Among other things the company I work for actually helps home builders to do this. We recently helped in the design of a "zero energy home" in upstate New York that has been built and is now occupied.

In addition, there are active programs in the DOE to improve the technology and process for designing zero energy homes. One of those is the Solar Decathlon, in which colleges from around the country design and build a home to operate independent of the grid with a fixed amount of solar PV generating capacity. Excess power generated by the home is used to charge an electric vehicle which must be driven so many miles per day during the contest. I have been a judge on the last two contests and the amount and diversity of effort that goes into each design is quite impressive. Of course, one of the big issues is to use passive solar design techniques to minimise energy use due to air conditioning and heating loads.

The point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.
User avatar
VMA131Marine
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon 05 Jul 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby pea-jay » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 18:53:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.


Yes, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.
UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
User avatar
pea-jay
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Sat 17 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: NorCal

Unread postby RainShadow » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:19:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', 'Y')es, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.


Eh. For me, the only question is can *I* get one before TSHTF.

Yes, it would be nice if the world got saved, powered down, and sang songs together. But personally, I'll do what I can to save my own ass, power down, and sing offkey.

No, renewables won't save the world, but that isn't really an obstacle you saving yourself.
User avatar
RainShadow
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed 06 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby savethehumans » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 23:22:46

P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

P.T. Barnum was an optimist! :P
User avatar
savethehumans
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby jdmartin » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 01:56:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pea-jay', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.


Yes, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.


Actually, in terms of electricity, once you get past the actual production of the generating items (windmills, solar panels, whatever), it is much more efficient to product it just for yourself than to product it in one big spot and ship it down lines to the various houses, since you lose quite a bit just in the transmission.

But your point is well taken and I agree with you. Most people live in places where batteries for storage are a necessity (meaning someone has to produce batteries), and even secondary generation forms for those times when there's crap for sun for days. Everything is pretty expensive, even these days, and we're never going to retro everyone's home. The best hope regarding conserving electricity rather than that is to produce really energy-efficient appliances and provide the means for everyone to be able to buy one. Since the second part is unlikely to happen, we're all likely screwed.
After fueling up their cars, Twyman says they bowed their heads and asked God for cheaper gas.There was no immediate answer, but he says other motorists joined in and the service station owner didn't run them off.
User avatar
jdmartin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu 19 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Merry Ol' USA
Top

Unread postby KevO » Wed 06 Jul 2005, 04:50:27

As for giving out the wrong message or signal, well call me a selfish twat but the more I look around, the more I realise that nobody much is ever really going to get it.

The WCS is that when TSHTF 'they' are going to remember that you were the one harping on about peak oil for years and then they're gonna come a runnin to you and your food and your set up.
As has been said at
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8391.html
we have done the wake up calls, we've left notes by the bed and we've spiked the coffee. Now it's time to say fuck em and let em sleep

??

KevO
KevO
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue 24 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT USA

Base Oil and Diesel from Waste Plastic

Unread postby Pablo2079 » Tue 19 Jul 2005, 21:27:06

Here's a link to an article regarding getting a base oil and diesel from waste plastic.....

Here's part of the article:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he plastics they tested were mostly polyethylene. They began by pyrolyzing the material, heating it in a furnace in the absence of air to break down molecules to form a waxy fluid with molecular weight in the range of lube oil. Isomerization dewaxed the fluid to produce diesel and base oil. The base oil yield varied between 30 percent and 40 percent by weight, although that output could be increased by oligomerizing short-chain olefins, the main byproduct of the process.

According to the researchers, the quality of the base oil was consistent and exceptionally high – viscosity of between 3.4 centistoke and 5.4 cSt, pour points ranging from minus 13 to minus 37 degrees C, and viscosity index of 150 to 160.

“This is probably about as good as you’re going to get in a base oil,” said Miller, a fellow and senior consulting scientist at Chevron Energy Technology Co. in Richmond, Calif.



http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article0 ... ?x=b11,0,w
User avatar
Pablo2079
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Cascadia
Top

TDP has the edge

Unread postby Optimist » Wed 20 Jul 2005, 16:18:19

IMHO TDP has the inside track on all the waste to fuel technologies for the following reasons:
1. Claimed ability to process mixed waste. Proven ability to process a real world waste (turkey guts), as opposed to processing a single component in a laboratory. No need to separate the "useful" part of the waste from the rest!
2. Proven ability to process wet waste, thus potentially including such diverse feedstocks as sewage sludge, yard clippings, dead animals, garbage, etc.
3. Full scale operating facility in Carthage, MO.
4. Known economic feasibility thanks to full scale operating facility. While $80/barrel does not sound particularly attractive right now, this may change if:
4.1 Crude prices pass $80/barrel.
4.2 TDP product can be used directly in diesel engines, thus converting to a diesel price of $1.90/gal, very competitive in today's market.
4.3 They can get the feedstock free (either due to the government outlawing the awful practise of feeding offal to farm animals, or by switching to an alternative feedstock). This would reduce the price to $60-65/barrel, touching current crude prices.
4.4 If the new energy bill qualifies TDP for the biofuel tax credit (as I believe it should), that would reduce the price immediately to $40/barrel - BINGO! Unfortunately, it appears that the biofuel tax credit is more about more handouts to farmers than creating a meaningful supply of homegrown, alternative energy.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

TDP mass balance

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 16:27:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ccording to the quote above, taken from the Kansas City Star article, am I to understand that at current production rates we have done the miraculous and managed, after "several years" of research, to turn a little under 1 TON of turkey into a little more than 1 barrel of crude oil? Or about 45 gallons?

Here's how the TDP mass balance works (at least in theory):
Input: 210 tpd of waste (i.e. 108 tpd water, 92.9 tpd organic matter, 8.2 tpd minerals and 1.0 tpd ammonia) and 3.6 tpd of sulfuric acid.
Output: 8.2 tpd of dry mineral, 8.2 tpd water as vapor, 79.7 tpd water as liquid, 33.6 tpd of liquid fertilizer [which would include water, glycerol and ammonium sulfate], 69.8 tpd of oil, 7.5 tpd of fuel gas and 6.7 tpd of coke/carbon. Total output: 213.7 tpd ~ 213.6 tpd input.

In reality I think CWT overestimated their oil yield, so I think they are producing less oil and more of the fuel gas.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Energy Bill

Unread postby Optimist » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 16:28:35

Well, at least the energy bill did one thing right. TDP oil is now included in tax credits as a "renewable diesel" and will receive the same tax credit as biodiesel ($42/barrel). Thus production cost has been reduced from ~$80/barrel to ~$40/barrel. Remember that this includes a premium of $15 - 20/barrel that RES is paying for the turkey guts. New plants will presumably source free feedstock, which would bring production cost down to $20 - 25/barrel. In some cases you would even be able to find suppliers willing to pay for the disposal of their waste, with a further reduction in production cost.

Bottom line: expect to see several more TDP plants in the next few years!
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Googolplex » Mon 05 Sep 2005, 00:00:06

The simple response:

This is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.
User avatar
Googolplex
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 19:08:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.

CORRECTION: Since TDP converts waste into oil, is is a source. A source that is not currently used. To be precise, the source is the sun that drove the photosynthesis that ultimately produced the waste.

Think of it this way: Currently the waste is just rotting away, releasing heat, CO2, methane and bad odors into the environment. The only thing that benefits is a few microbes. With TDP all that energy is captured, methane release is avoided and fossil CO2 release is replaced by carbon neutral CO2. Sorry, microbes, we are going to eat your lunch!
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 06 Sep 2005, 21:31:43

Untill TDP actually gains credibility, its not a source or a sink, but a non-sequiter. I dont know (and neither do most other people) if TDP has any chance of being a viable hydrocarbon source outside a very select type of feedstock... currently turkey waste. If we can turn general garbage into useful stuff with some return on capital, then certainly it will be helpful.

This is the reason I allways bring out nuclear fission as the trump card; Not necissarily because I'm reflexively pro-nuke (although I do find much of the technology facinating) but because the economics and engineering are tractible and essentially solved problems, and the fuel situation for nuclear is secure for one hell of a long time.

I believe solar will eventually displace nuclear because its my hunch that the economics will eventually become more favorable to large solar concentrator farms utilizing economies of scale, but we don't have any idea when it will be competitive economically or how to illustrate when or why it will become less expensive than nuclear.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Optimist » Wed 07 Sep 2005, 22:12:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ntill TDP actually gains credibility, its not a source or a sink, but a non-sequiter. I dont know (and neither do most other people) if TDP has any chance of being a viable hydrocarbon source outside a very select type of feedstock... currently turkey waste. If we can turn general garbage into useful stuff with some return on capital, then certainly it will be helpful.

Yes, you are right - we don't know what TDP can and cannot do. CWT certainly is not interested in enlightening us. Can you blame them? They are milking this technology for all it is worth. And they are definitely exaggerating about the efficiency.

However, the concept behind the technology is the thing of the future in my opinion. Waste to energy, more precisely waste to liquid fuel. It solves all manner of problems, it uses a feedstock that is not currently used and it is sustainable. I believe TDP or a similar technology (such as "green diesel" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2005/Jun02.html ) is the future.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Googolplex » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 05:20:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.

CORRECTION: Since TDP converts waste into oil, is is a source.


No, not a correction. You are wrong, it is not a source. TDP is nothing more then a way to convert our existing energy, mostly in the form of electricity to run the plant, into oil (and at a loss too, as its only 85% efficient overall). The waste is another required ingredient, yes, but its not where the energy input for TDP is.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hink of it this way: Currently the waste is just rotting away, releasing heat, CO2, methane and bad odors into the environment. The only thing that benefits is a few microbes. With TDP all that energy is captured...


...but only through the use of even MORE energy drawn from our existing supplies, thus resulting in an overall loss.

Any process with an EROEI of less then 1 can NOT be an energy source. PERIOD.
User avatar
Googolplex
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Googolplex » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 05:29:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', 'H')owever, the concept behind the technology is the thing of the future in my opinion. Waste to energy, more precisely waste to liquid fuel.


I agree it sounds good at first, but how do we power it? It would only serve to suck up more energy overall. Once you think about it, the real answer is to reduce both our waste production AND our energy use. Making TDP a significant source of our oil would require us to drasticly increase them!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', 'I')t solves all manner of problems, it uses a feedstock that is not currently used and it is sustainable.


Actually no, Im afraid not, on all counts. It really only creates more problems, it takes "feedstock" away from recycling centers and power generating incinerators, and it deffinatly NOT sustainable.
User avatar
Googolplex
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon 11 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Viable way of getting oil from shale

Unread postby Optimist » Fri 09 Sep 2005, 15:54:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')DP is nothing more then a way to convert our existing energy, mostly in the form of electricity to run the plant, into oil (and at a loss too, as its only 85% efficient overall). The waste is another required ingredient, yes, but its not where the energy input for TDP is.

You know nothing about power generation, do you? A coal power plant converts between 15 and 20% of the energy in the coal to electricity. Compared to that 85% capture is staggering.

Note that the only electricity needed to operate the plant is about 3.6% of the energy produced by TDP, and that is only counting the oil. I believe that is an ERoEI of 99.5/3.6 = 27.6. Way bigger than 1.0 you will be glad to know. See Figure 6, p8 at http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site ... rocess.pdf

Pete may call the above a "company press release" but educated observers will notice it is actually a scientific paper, presented at the Power-Gen Renewable Energy Conference, Las Vegas, NV, March 1-3, 2004. Granted, the presenters have ties to CWT and thus have an incentive to make TDP sound good. However, there is no way around that. This is one of a small number of technical documents on TDP available on the web.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nce you think about it, the real answer is to reduce both our waste production AND our energy use.!

BINGO! And since oil demand would be lower under such a scenario, TDP would be able to supply an even larger fraction of the total demand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'p')starr wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ebating with optomist is a unqiue experience. It gets shriller and then he disappears for a while soon to return with more company press releases. You have to wonder how and where he sourced them.

No press releases just the facts and I don't remember debating anyone just yet. However on that note.

Thanks, go5star! You are exactly right. I have showered Pete with a range of independent sources of information. His only reply so far has been a reference to a paper by Pimentel. One sparrow does not make it spring. If all you need is a single author, you can prove all sorts of things.

I would ask for a moment of silence for Pete's position: he is emotionally tied to a point of view not supported by the FACTS. My deepest sympathies. Ever consider changing your point of view, Pete? Won't it be nice not to be believing that the end of civilization is around the corner?
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Too good to be true? or not?

Unread postby Bluster » Mon 12 Sep 2005, 02:14:57

User avatar
Bluster
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: Too good to be true? or not?

Unread postby Starvid » Mon 12 Sep 2005, 03:58:43

It is debateable. On one hand IIRC, there have not been any outside experts inspecting the plant, nor has any peer-reviewed papers been presented. On the other hand, who would build a big expensive plant if it was just a hoax?
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
User avatar
Starvid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3021
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron