[buster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'a'). I tried to tell you this thing would stink.

b. The company's own website says that the process inputs 126 mmbtu/hr of energy, and only gets out 107 mmbtu/hr out the other side. It's kind of an interesting trick to turn organic waste into oil, but it's an energy sink, that is more suited to getting rid of the organic waste rather than production of energy.

c. If they could get it dry, they'd be better off just trying to burn the stuff
directly to power a generator or something, rather than try to convert it to oil. Of course, that would seriously stink.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/pdf/Ge ... 3_3_04.pdf

[Permanently_Baffled]

I don't think the intention of TDP is to be a energy source more a process for converting energy. if TDP can make useful commodities like oil and gas from stuff that would otherwise be in landfill then this has got be worth pursuing. Not a solution to the energy problem but it will surely have a part to play.

Think of 600 million vehicles with four tyres being changed every 2 years, plus what is already in landfill in the form of plastics and old tyres etc. Thats a lot of energy!!!

PB

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B'). "inputs 126 mmbtu/hr of energy, and only gets out 107 mmbtu/hr out the other side" -- I assume this includes the energy in the carcasses themselves? If not, how do they manage to make the 85% efficiency claim with a straight face? Do you have a page reference to this stat handy?

[Optimist]

Question to the administrator:
What happened to the discussion, previously posted, between July 26 and August 14? Did it get censored? Too optimistic, perhaps? No, you wouldn't do that, would you?

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q')uestion to the administrator:
What happened to the discussion, previously posted, between July 26 and August 14? Did it get censored? Too optimistic, perhaps? No, you wouldn't do that, would you?

[buster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B'). "inputs 126 mmbtu/hr of energy, and only gets out 107 mmbtu/hr out the other side" -- I assume this includes the energy in the carcasses themselves? If not, how do they manage to make the 85% efficiency claim with a straight face? Do you have a page reference to this stat handy?

[pup55]

a. The mass and energy balances are presented on page 6.

b. I know what you are thinking. I suppose you could make the argument that in exchange for 3.6 mm btu/hr of external energy, plus a big pile of free turkey guts, you get 99.5 mm btu of "oil" out the other end. Of course, this would assume that the mountain of turkey guts was magically plopped down outside your plant at no energy cost, or other cost to you, which in this case, is exactly what is happening.

c. Leanan and Smiley may wish to check the calculation, though. If you take 210 tons per day (17,500 lbs/hr) of total feed stuff, mostly water and turkey guts, and heat it up from ambient temperature to 400F for the first stage of the process it "should" take 5.8 MM BTU/hr just to get it up to first stage temperature. At that point, they flash off the water and take the remaining goo (5800 lbs/hr) up to 900F to crack it. This "should" take approximately another 3 million BTU/hr. Maybe they are experts at recapturing the heat and using it in the plant. Somebody can tell me whether this is typical for normal refinery-type equipment energy retention. Alternately, they have defied one of the laws of thermodynamics.

d. Maybe these guys can make money at this, if oil gets expensive enough, and they can keep their plant running every day. This $20 million plant is supposed to be capable of producing 182,000 barrels of oil per year plus other by-products. If they finance the plant (8.5 interest) annual financing per barrel would be about $8.00, annual plant depletion (15-year life) would be about $7.30 per barrel. Maybe they have 15 employees in their plant, making $25,000 per year, another $2.05 per barrel. If the 3.6 MM BTU per hour in electricity coming in is converted to KW, at a rate of 7 cents per KWH this is about $3.50 in electricity per barrel. Net water use, assuming recycling most of it would be only about 19 gallons per barrel, at 5 cents per gallon (industrial rate) only about another buck, so all told, about $23 per barrel, give or take. If Matt Simmons invests in this, maybe I will think about it.

e. Much more interesting to read the blurbs on the website about the officers. The "CEO"/front man is a former basketball player, and former salesman for Russell Stover Candies. His main contribution to this effort appears to be to tap into the government/corporate mammary gland, including the Feds, EPA, State of Missouri, and ConAgra to get subsidies and grants to build this plant and keep the officers around long enough to debug the process. They have hired a "military advisor", Mr. R. J. Woolsey, former director of the CIA. This is evidently helpful in opening up doors, etc. on the schmoozing front. There is a nice picture of the CEO next to your president at one of these Chamber of Commerce meetings. One would not be terribly surprised to see some of this grant money "recycled" back into the administration plus local politicians in Missouri and elsewhere in the form of "campaign contributions", but I of course do not have any direct evidence of this. (I will, however, check into it.)

f. It might work. I will keep an open mind, and keep upwind of this, and wait for more information.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, but only if you are including the energy contained in the carcasses themselves. What portion of that 126 mmbtu is in the pre-processed material?

[lotrfan55345]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Q')uestion to the administrator:
What happened to the discussion, previously posted, between July 26 and August 14? Did it get censored? Too optimistic, perhaps? No, you wouldn't do that, would you?

[buster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'b'). I know what you are thinking. I suppose you could make the argument that in exchange for 3.6 mm btu/hr of external energy, plus a big pile of free turkey guts, you get 99.5 mm btu of "oil" out the other end. Of course, this would assume that the mountain of turkey guts was magically plopped down outside your plant at no energy cost, or other cost to you, which in this case, is exactly what is happening.

[EnviroEngr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')es, but only if you are including the energy contained in the carcasses themselves. What portion of that 126 mmbtu is in the pre-processed material?

[buster]

Are you referring to:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have a hard copy that I've read and it's not a joke as far as I can tell. But, quoting myself at EHS-Net, "All I wonder is if this is true, will GHGs still be a problem? Still hydrocarbons I believe; ergo, CO2."

[EnviroEngr]

I'm referring specifically to:
http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

Good link to Nt'l Geo though.

I have the article from Discover printed out; rather long - hard to post. Could refer to it to answer some questions.

[Leanan]

I have the Discover article, and its sequel, in my personal web space here:

http://members.aol.com/leanan7/main.htm

It's a page where I put articles that are being discussed by my mailing lists and message boards.

[EnviroEngr]

Thank you kindly for that little piece of relief, Leanan.

[Optimist]

It appears that the TDP plant has lately been operating at 100% design capacity, http://energybulletin.net/1666.html . So, now we just have to wait until they either brag that they are producing the intended 500 barrels per day (thereby effectively confirming the 85% claimed efficiency) or admit that they cannot quite get there (which would require a longer wait).

Watch this space.

[buster]

They have reached 100% efficiency, but they are having odor problems that have required frequent stops and starts in production to try and nail down where the problem is in their "zero emissions" plant.

see
http://www.peakoil.com/article987.html

Each time they've increased production, this odor problem has re-emerged, and so far they have licked it at each level.

From what I've read elsewhere about problems with some of their contractors, it seems that some of the seams made during construction were not as thoroughly sealed as they should've been.

[Optimist]

The odor issue, while serious, is hardly going to derail the technology. Yes, it's ironic that this would be the problem with a "zero emissions" technology, but it could be an honest mistake. Looks like the designers forgot that when you put steam in a pipe, you need a blow-off to prevent the pipe from popping. And if the steam contains the cooked turkey parts, the blow-off would tend to be odorous.

So far, there is no reason to believe that things would not work out for CWT. As I have said before, we will keep watching.

Of course, there is a major difference between "100% capacity" and "100% efficiency".

[SmokeStack]

First of all, there seems to be some confusion here regarding the energy efficiency of TDP. IF the figures given by CWT are correct, they will TDP will be a net source of energy. The following quote is pulled from Page 2 of the Life After The Oil Crash web page.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '3'). According to the company itself, the TD process has an efficiency of 85 percent. You stick 100 units of energy into the process to get out 85. This means TD has a negative net-energy profile. Thus, it’s not an energy source, folks!

Simply physics dictates that TD will never have a positive or even break even net-energy profile. The process requires energy to turn garbage into oil. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the energy obtained from the TD process will be less than the energy used to create it.

[Optimist]

Excellent summary, SmokeStack!

TDP is a new source of energy for the simple reason that most trash today goes to landfills where it simply rots away. Some bugs get the benefit of the energy, but not humankind. These landfills have many negative impacts on the environment such as seepage of polluted liquids, release of biogas (carbon dioxide and methane), release of odorous and sometimes toxic gases. While TDP would not eliminate all these negative impacts, it would significantly reduce all of them.

What sets TDP apart from other renewable energy technology is its ability to utilize a widely available fuel, which is currently mostly unused. No need to take agricultural land from food production to fuel production. No need to build acre upon acre of solar panels. No need to build windmills in hard to reach mountain areas. Just an oil refinery to replace the landfill.