Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby TomSaidak » Wed 24 Dec 2008, 20:33:43

Wow.....

Did anyone actually READ the materials on TDP?

Thermal inputs....
The process takes any hydrocarbon or CARBOHYDRATE and turns it into gas, kerosene, naptha (gasoline), diesel oil, sterile and clean water, and chemicals, including materials either immediately useable for fertilizer or easily synthesized into fertilizer, metals and industrial carbon.
Note the first out put - gas. The plant burns the gas to produce heat, pressure and electricity. The plant requires external power for about the first hour of operation. After that, it creates its own power and doesn't require external power. While the Carthage plant is said to produce 600 BBL per day, it ACTUALLY produces 720 bbl. The first 120 bbl equivalent of energy is used to run the plant to produce a 600 bbl per day surplus. No external energy source is needed once the plant is up and running. It takes 60 minutes to process a batch.

Feedstocks.

TDP talks about feedstocks - whether turkey guts and bones or sewage or trash or tires or people. Each feedstock has its own mix of gas, liquid fuels, water and chemicals. Each comes in with LONG hydrocarbon chains that are broken down into short chains, called fuel.

The US produces 4,700,000,000 tons of household waste a year. Catalytic Depolymerization would yield 2,000,000,000 bbl, or 25% of our oil useage. Check out the sources, any way you cut it, our waste products would replace all our oil needs based on US consumption. US aggricultural wastes alone would produce 4 billion bbl per year. The two sources would net out 6 billion bbl. IF we went ahead and mandated that all passenger cars, light trucks, medium trucks (FEDEX/FRITOLAY/ALHAMBRA) and shuttle buses were all PHEV's, US oil consumption would drop about 40% to about 4.6 billion bbl per year. That would leave us with at least a 1.4 billion bbl per year surplus.

Caveat: Any plastics or tires used represent fossilized oil. The amount of oil produced by a "waste" tire is much less then the oil initially used to produce it. The same can be said for plastics. On the other hand...... How far this technology can go depends on how widely deployed it is. It can handle industrial waste such as pulp from paper mills. US papermill wastes could be changed from caustic, poisonous and ecologically damaging products to oil, gas and clean water, while providing 2.5% of current US oil consumption. There are figures floating around that deployed world wide would net 60 billion bbl per year. Current world consumption is 30 billion bbl per year. If true, that would take care of any concern about replacing losses from converting plastics/tires to oil and back to tires/plastics.

Global Warming, Air pollution and the Environment: The fuels derived from TDP have had almost all contaminants removed, and have not sat in the ground for millions of years collecting other chemicals. This results in less sulphur emissions and for the diesel almost zero particulates. The NOX problems remain the same - that is a function of efficiency in burning. The CO2 problem dissapears to the degree that we are using carbohydrates for the feedstock. That CO2 is released by burning, then taken up into the food chain, which becomes waste or produces waste and is turned back into oil. Legacy tires and plastic will release fossilized CO2, but as the TDP oil starts being used to make tires and plastic, the C02 ceases to be from fossilized sources. Initially, 60 to 70% of the C02 is "current", and as production ramps up it will top out at 100%. Another immediate impact is that the materials places into landfills will drop by about 95%. For laughs and giggles, we can even revisit old landfills that are releasing methane (20x worse the CO2 as a green house gas) and dig them up for additional feedstock.

Costs and common misunderstandings about Carthage......
The cost... It depends on the feedstock and whether you have to buy it or are paid to collect it. Carthage is a partnership started with I beleive ConAgra. They had a waste product worth nothing. They saw an opportunity to make money by converting the waste into oil. At the time the Carthage plant started, concerns about mad cow disease made turkey offal a favored stock for animal feed. The Carthage plant went from being given feedstock to having to pay to buy the turkey offal. The processing costs, including capitalization, maintenance, staff, etc. comes to about $30.00/bbl. The cost per ton of turkey offal forced the change to $80.00/bbl. IF this plant had used household trash instead, then the plant would be making money at $40.00/bbl, as under todays market pressures they would be paid to take the trash from peoples homes. Obviously, uneconomical while oil is at or below $40/bbl. But wait.. theres more.... The last energy policy bill included TDP for the $42.00/bbl tax credit for "bio fuels". So now, the plant can sell at $38.00/bbl and make a profit.
About the smell....... Sigh... Picture if you will that I buy the land next to your home. And every day, I plunk down 250 tons of turkey offal first thing in the morning. Do you think you might notice a slight odor by 6 in the evening when you come home for dinner? Carthage gets most of its money from tourists. The plant was built 6 blocks from their money making downtown. This was not a case of planning to fail, or being an industrial failure. IT was a case of failing to plan more intelligently.

Frankly, some waste streams for feedstock may push the price to $80.00 per bbl without the tax credit. Other waste streams would let the price potentially coast profitably at or about $40.00/bbl. Depending on the exact mix of feedstock, the price would average out to about $67.00/bbl. This ignores the additional impact of keeping ALL our dollars here at home as opposed to adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our trade deficit, and address issues like global warming or energy independence.

Costs: The biggest weakness in TDP or CDP is capitalization. My best guestimate is that it would take 5.4 trillion dollars to fully deploy the technology. Using a banking strategy, assuming a standard reserve of 20%, that would mean about 1.08 trillion would need to be put together in some sort of banking consortium.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent, feel free to ask questions and pot shots will be dealt with based on whim.....
Sources:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... on_(Oiling)
http://www.changingworldtech.com/index.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... on_Process
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby Ludi » Wed 24 Dec 2008, 21:06:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', '
')The biggest weakness in TDP or CDP is


Its incredible stench.
Ludi
 

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby nicknick » Thu 25 Dec 2008, 19:10:46

You could throw hundreds of thousands of dead things into it and turn it into oil.

Sounds like something that may be arriving soon.
User avatar
nicknick
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed 24 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby TomSaidak » Fri 26 Dec 2008, 16:07:16

Ludi wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts incredible stench.

Shush you!! You live on fantasy world and so you can make it ANY scent you want!!

nicknick wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou could throw hundreds of thousands of dead things into it and turn it into oil.


Hmm..... Flat EEG (i.e. braindead...) can be used for a declaration of death. Does this mean we can throw G. W. Bush in one end and finally get something useful out the other end??
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby kublikhan » Sun 28 Dec 2008, 23:07:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'T')he US produces 4,700,000,000 tons of household waste a year. Catalytic Depolymerization would yield 2,000,000,000 bbl, or 25% of our oil useage. Check out the sources, any way you cut it, our waste products would replace all our oil needs based on US consumption.
You are off by a few decimal points. The US produces about 133 million tons of non-recycled municipal waste per year. Turning that into 57 million barrels of oil would account for less than 1% of the US's annual oil usage.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')SW in 2005 included 245.7 million tons of material before recycling, composting and energy recovery. The amount left to landfill was 133.3 million tons.
Waste

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'U')S aggricultural wastes alone would produce 4 billion bbl per year.
Most of that waste is recycled or left in place. The total amount of all waste that actually makes it to a landfill is only 330 million tons. Assuming 100% recovery and 100% was convertible using TDP, that is still only 140 million barrels of oil a year, or less than a week's worth of US oil consumption.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')bout 330 million tons of trash went into landfills in the United States last year alone, according to Solid Waste Digest
Waste

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'C')aveat: Any plastics or tires used represent fossilized oil. The amount of oil produced by a "waste" tire is much less then the oil initially used to produce it. The same can be said for plastics.
The same can be said for nearly every single feedstock. Sewage, turkey guts, paper, etc.

I think Matt Savinar got it right. This is a nice technology to use for recycling unwanted wastes, but it cannot be used as our primary energy source.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby TomSaidak » Mon 29 Dec 2008, 22:06:00

Hrrrmm.....
Thanks Kublikhan!
Lessons Learned (aka Notes to Self….):
1.) Please put notes on tables that they cannot be trusted or erase…
2.) Please note these are intelligent peeps – do NOT go by memory…
3.) Breathe. Do NOT get so excited as to forget #1 and #2 above….
Using numbers from Green Energy (you have to email them to get the brochures) and based on 4.6lbs/per person/per day MSW and population of 305,000,000 in the US……
701,500 tons MSW per day.
2,735,569.4 bbl per day
At 21,000,000 bbl per day, that is 13% of US oil consumption.
47 gwh of electricity per day. Or 0.1% of US electrical consumption. Okay, this IS chump change, but it is elegant!
All US sewage at 9900 lbs per person per year, 4% solids (sludge) as per San Jose Water Company Sewage treatment plant engineer, yields 312,900 bbl per day, or 1.49%
Paper mill pulp and chemicals yields 525,000 bbl per day, or 2.5% of daily consumption. Based on figures from http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21811/?a=f.
CWT sticks by its figure of 52% of US oil consumption and gives no figures for excess electricity. As to sources of agricultural waste, US cows patriotically ;) produce 1 billion tons of manure annually.
This all adds to 68.99% of our current oil consumption. It does require putting all of every waste stream into making oil. That would mean no recycled paper or recycled plastic. Use it, waste it and then turn it into oil. All US waste comes out to over 20 tons per person per year from all sources. The one untapped source that has not really been looked at is industrial waste (8% of aggregate). The paper pulp figure is significant in two ways: 2.5% is not chump change and it points to the fact that many – NOT all industrial waste streams can be used to produce oil, including the 1 billion pounds of medical waste the US produces every year.
IF on the other hand, we mandated PHEV technology, we could drop from 66% of our oil going to transportation to 26%. This turns 68.99% of US consumption to 115% of US oil consumption. We can now build HEVs to FedEx van and shuttle bus sizes - http://www.azuredynamics.com/products/b ... ectric.htm.
The upshot is that we can get away from both foreign oil and drilled oil in one strategic move.
Will this be problem free? No.
Will this be better than using fossil oil? You betcha!!
Will using TDP and/or CDP as a solo strategy work? No. It only works out if you use it in conjunction with other strategies, such as PHEV deployment and shifting recycling priorities.
Will we need to continue drilling oil? Maybe. Industry uses 24% of our oil (http://www.oilshockwave.com/pdf/OS_FactSheet_042808.pdf.) I don’t know if CDP or TDP derived oil will do for that, but it is well within our domestic oil reserves to replace while we find alternatives.
Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he same can be said for nearly every single feedstock. Sewage, turkey guts, paper, etc.


Au contraire mon frere. This is NOT a case of getting something from nothing. Over 90% of the feedstock is derived from carbohydrates – NOT hydrocarbons. This is similar to ethanol in that most feedstock is taken from biological products. It is WILDLY different in that we can hit targets of billions of bbl simply by changing how we handle waste, NOT setting aside major food production. CRASSNESS WARNING: If it poops, we can turn that poop into oil. If we kill it, anything we do not eat directly can be turned into oil. And then when we poop, THAT can be changed to oil. There is ONE change that this will require. We have to get the waste to the conversion plant. There are people playing with making a portable processor and bringing it to the source for some feedstocks, some means building it where we collect it, and some building next to the producers. There is some guy/team going door to door for poultry droppings.
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby kublikhan » Tue 30 Dec 2008, 07:48:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'U')sing numbers from Green Energy (you have to email them to get the brochures) and based on 4.6lbs/per person/per day MSW and population of 305,000,000 in the US……
701,500 tons MSW per day.
2,735,569.4 bbl per day
At 21,000,000 bbl per day, that is 13% of US oil consumption.
There are at least 2 mistakes here.
#1, you are using the outdated 2.4 bbl/ton of waste conversion factor. CWT's more recent numbers put the real number at 1.7 bbl/ton.
#2, you are using the total municipal waste numbers, including the amount of trash recycled/composted. You should subtract out the recycled material from the trash. Total recycled material was 85 million tons a year, or about 232,876 tons a day.
Fixing these 2 mistakes, I get: 468,623 * 1.7 = 796,659 bbl per day. That's about 3.8% of our oil use.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou may have notice a subtle shift between those two breathless Discover articles. Instead of producing 500 bbl from 210 tons of waste (first article), they now need 290 tons (20 tons of it pure pig fat), or a 28% reduction in oil yield. Instead of claiming 2.4 bbl/ton of waste, it is now 1.7 bbl/ton (validating an estimate of the maximum yield of ~2.0 bbl/to). Funny thing is Appel and his team still use the 2.4 figure in their financial analysis, even when it would help their argument to use the 1.7 real number.
TDP, What Went Wrong


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', '4')7 gwh of electricity per day. Or 0.1% of US electrical consumption. Okay, this IS chump change, but it is elegant!
All US sewage at 9900 lbs per person per year, 4% solids (sludge) as per San Jose Water Company Sewage treatment plant engineer, yields 312,900 bbl per day, or 1.49%
Paper mill pulp and chemicals yields 525,000 bbl per day, or 2.5% of daily consumption. Based on figures from http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21811/?a=f.
CWT sticks by its figure of 52% of US oil consumption and gives no figures for excess electricity.
As to sources of agricultural waste, US cows patriotically ;) produce 1 billion tons of manure annually.
This all adds to 68.99% of our current oil consumption. It does require putting all of every waste stream into making oil. That would mean no recycled paper or recycled plastic. Use it, waste it and then turn it into oil. All US waste comes out to over 20 tons per person per year from all sources. The one untapped source that has not really been looked at is industrial waste (8% of aggregate). The paper pulp figure is significant in two ways: 2.5% is not chump change and it points to the fact that many – NOT all industrial waste streams can be used to produce oil, including the 1 billion pounds of medical waste the US produces every year.
It is really a pretty stupid idea to take an item that can still be used(recycled), and turning it into oil. You use up much more energy recreating that product from scratch then you would get out of the oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kublikhan', 'T')he same can be said for nearly every single feedstock. Sewage, turkey guts, paper, etc.
Au contraire mon frere. This is NOT a case of getting something from nothing. Over 90% of the feedstock is derived from carbohydrates – NOT hydrocarbons. This is similar to ethanol in that most feedstock is taken from biological products. It is WILDLY different in that we can hit targets of billions of bbl simply by changing how we handle waste, NOT setting aside major food production. CRASSNESS WARNING: If it poops, we can turn that poop into oil. If we kill it, anything we do not eat directly can be turned into oil. And then when we poop, THAT can be changed to oil. There is ONE change that this will require. We have to get the waste to the conversion plant. There are people playing with making a portable processor and bringing it to the source for some feedstocks, some means building it where we collect it, and some building next to the producers. There is some guy/team going door to door for poultry droppings. And where do you think the energy in those carbohydrates comes from? Our modern agriculture and livestock methods are extremely dependent on oil. From the fertilizer to the pesticides to the gasoline the runs the farm equipment and transportation, and so on. This idea you have of replacing the US's oil usage with TDP really is not going to work. Anything and everything that you can possibly use as a feedstock took more energy to create than the energy you get out in oil. Like I said before, this technology may provide a small amount of oil, and it's nice for getting rid of things that would have otherwise ended up in a landfill, but you can't get more energy out of the product than you put in in the first place.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he average U.S. system takes 10 calories oil invested to make 1 calorie of food energy Ecosystems Notes
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby Cabrone » Wed 31 Dec 2008, 07:36:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')omSaidak you need to understand EROEI (energy return on energy invested--use the search function above.) It is a key concept in the study of industrial ecology which looks at energy flows and especially energy accounting.

It is highly likely that the amount of energy required to cook the turkey guts into fuel is greater than the energy that would be available in the resulting stew.

What you propose is really a form of perpetual energy, a variant of that old saw perpetual motion. Think of modern turkey production. They are raised in hot houses kept warm all winter with copious quantities of fuel oil or propane. Their food is grown on giant farm with monster tractors and then shipped to Purina to be ground, hydrolyzed, formed, packaged into Turkey Feed. Which is trucked on big Semis to the turkey farm.

And you expect the entropic waste product of a modern industrial system to power that system and also drive Mom, Chuck, and Britney to the Mall? That Sir is . . . Madness :shock:


Exactly, thermodynamics in action.

Whenever you change one energy source to another you will always lose energy in the conversion process.

Therefore it stands to reason that the more conversions you make, the more you will lose. That's entropy I'm afraid.

This process may slow losses but it will never be a solution to our energy woes.

The only realistic escape routes are renewables, nuclear and energy conservation I'm afraid.

Alternatively if you don't care about cooking the planet then burn coal.
User avatar
Cabrone
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri 21 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: London
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby TomSaidak » Thu 01 Jan 2009, 06:19:11

Pstarr wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')omSaidak you need to understand EROEI (energy return on energy invested--use the search function above.)

Thank you, but I understand it quite well.

The 10:1 ratio given for food production is flawed. At that ratio taken literally, then we are using 23% of oil consumption just to PRODUCE food. I assure you, we are not. 20% of US oil consumption goes to "industrial processes". Not just food production.
The 2nd mistake that using that ratio is that it totally ignores energy input from the sun. TDP ultimately is a form of solar power, deriving its energy from the sun, stored in biological "batteries".
This is not new science. Its old science. First discovered when people noticed plants need light to grow..... And then confirmed when they discovered this little thing called photosynthesis. On top of the solar energy, the 10:1 ratio doesn't mention the actual biomass produced for that 10 calorie input, just what hits your table. The actual biomass produced is several orders of magnitude greater then that one calorie that arrives for dinner. You don't eat all of the corn plant - just the kernels, leaving the cob, leaves, cornsilk, stalk and roots you don't eat behind. And without all those parts that those 10 calories were used to produce, you wouldn't have your kernels to eat.
As for the energy required to convert, I repeat that for every 5 barrels of oil delivered, 6 were produced, and the 1st barrel is used to provide the energy to "cook" the feedstock to produce the other 5 barrels. TDP is not interested in your food as feedstock until you throw it away. The major feedstock is the entire biomass left behind as trash. To get your 1/4 pound hamburger, someone kills a 1260 pound steer. When dressed, the weight of the carcass is reduced to about 800 pounds. TDP uses the 460 pounds of carcass labeled inedible PLUS the 5 tons of manure that steer produced in the 12 month before it was killed. And that 10:1 ratio pretends that the 460 pounds of waste and manure do not exist.
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby kublikhan » Thu 01 Jan 2009, 15:42:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'T')he 10:1 ratio given for food production is flawed. At that ratio taken literally, then we are using 23% of oil consumption just to PRODUCE food. I assure you, we are not. 20% of US oil consumption goes to "industrial processes". Not just food production.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US food system uses over 10 quadrillion Btu (10,551 quadrillion Joules) of energy each year, as much as France's total annual energy consumption. Growing food accounts for only one fifth of this. The other four-fifths is used to move, process, package, sell, and store food after it leaves the farm.

Globally, some 28 per cent of the energy used in agriculture goes to fertiliser manufacturing, 7 per cent goes to irrigation, and 34 per cent is consumed as diesel and gasoline by farm vehicles used to plant, till, and harvest crops. The rest goes to pesticide production, grain drying, and facility operations (see latest data from the Earth Policy Institute
Rising Oil Prices Will Impact Food Supplies
Energy Conversion

10 quadrillion BTU is about equivalent to the energy in 1.7 billion barrels of oil. The US used 7.5 billion barrels of oil in 2005. Which is about the equivalent of 23% of US oil consumption. Of course, not all of that energy comes directly from oil. Some comes from electricity, some from other fossil fuels, etc. But you get the idea. If you still think this is wrong, please provide a source to back up your argument.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'T')he 2nd mistake that using that ratio is that it totally ignores energy input from the sun. TDP ultimately is a form of solar power, deriving its energy from the sun, stored in biological "batteries".
I am not ignoring the energy input of the sun. It's just that the energy input from the sun is far outweighed by the energy input of the fossil fuels used. Again, actually growing the crops is only 1/5 of the energy used. Most is used for transportation, processing, etc.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby kublikhan » Thu 01 Jan 2009, 18:31:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'O')n top of the solar energy, the 10:1 ratio doesn't mention the actual biomass produced for that 10 calorie input, just what hits your table. The actual biomass produced is several orders of magnitude greater then that one calorie that arrives for dinner. You don't eat all of the corn plant - just the kernels, leaving the cob, leaves, cornsilk, stalk and roots you don't eat behind. And without all those parts that those 10 calories were used to produce, you wouldn't have your kernels to eat.
As for the energy required to convert, I repeat that for every 5 barrels of oil delivered, 6 were produced, and the 1st barrel is used to provide the energy to "cook" the feedstock to produce the other 5 barrels. TDP is not interested in your food as feedstock until you throw it away. The major feedstock is the entire biomass left behind as trash.
This is another mistake you have made. You assumed the inedible biomass left behind is trash. This is not the case. The inedible portion of the biomass left behind is not hauled off to landfills. Is is left in place and helps maintain soil fertility. Already, our modern agricultural techniques are depleting soil fertility faster than it can be naturally replaced. One farmer referred to modern farming methods as "soil mining" because of the way we are depleting the soil's fertility. If you remove the inedible portions of the plants from the fields as well, you are going to accelerate topsoil depletion past their already alarming levels.

Another factor you have failed to consider is the inefficiency of nature's form of solar power. Even if you grew the biomass in a sustainable fashion, trimmed down the use of oil to minimal levels, and build your TDP plant directly on the farm to minimize transportation and storage costs, you still would not be able to compete with alternative energy from either an EROEI perspective or a cost perspective. Plants are not designed solely to harvest the sun and convert it directly into a form of energy humans can use. They have to survive a host of conditions like weather, predators, etc. Where as alternative energy is designed solely to harness the sun and turn it into human usable power. This gives AE an enormous advantage over biomass derived energy generation.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow biofuels are kinda like solar power. Plants capture the the sun's light and convert it to energy. We then convert the plants into fuel, and then turn the fuel into useful power.
Photovoltaics skip a few of those steps, converting sunlight directly to power without any pesky nature getting in the way. It turns out that creating biofuel with an acre of land produces about 100 times less power than covering that same land with solar panels.
Photovoltaics 100X More Efficient than Biofuel

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are we trying to grow our energy when we can harvest it directly from the sun.
Cellulosic Ethanol Vs. Solar
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby Pops » Fri 02 Jan 2009, 13:55:28

This has all been said before but I'm bored so:

TDP could be a decent transition tech but relies on a primary energy source the depletion of which this site is all about - just like ethanol. Except TDP, ethanol plants and even power lines have a real problem with NIMBRism short term - and the short term is the period in which we'll have the best chance to make a transition.

Con-Agra had a waste product it found a market for - it might have been a better plan to use that waste for fertilizer but oil gave a better return. I did work for the largest egg producer west of the Rockies and they used everything but the cluck - chicken shit and almond shells make great compost.

But in the end, compost for the flower bed, guts from a Butterball plant, Egg McMuffins and that stuff in the landfill all rely on cheap energy and it ain't always gonna be around.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby TomSaidak » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 04:40:02

Oh, where to start, where to start.....

Pstarr wrote:

Somewhat like methane, an attempt to capture waste and mitigate pollution but in no way a primary energy source.

And as you said, like methane capture, an annoyance and potential danger. The less this stuff is handled the safer all of us are.

If you don't touch it, what do you think is happening with it? In Mt. View, our Shoreline Ampitheatre is still belching methane. When it first opened, they had to shut it down while they installed a pipe system to carry the methane away. Methane is function of decomposition and is happening whether we do something about it or not. TDP would stop the methane cycle cold. Well, hot. Or something...

Pops wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut in the end, compost for the flower bed, guts from a Butterball plant, Egg McMuffins and that stuff in the landfill all rely on cheap energy and it ain't always gonna be around.

That 10:1 ratio is more about processing food or conditioning land. Though the 6.6% of oil consumption for farm machinery and equipment isn't chump change either. Your comment about transition goes to the heart of the matter. Ideally, we want BEV vehicles. For a number of reasons, that is not going to happen too quickly. I agree NIMBYism is a concern, but much of the waste is all ready creating smell problems. Heck, try East San Jose in June when the garlic et al drying plants in Gilroy are going full bore... Not to mention landfills. And I don't even want to get into stockyards or manure piles large enough to be a concrete form for a football stadium...
About ain't gonna always be around....... One of the possible TDP feedstocks is old landfills. Or even current ones - we can still excavate those out. They will run out - eventually. But not for 10 to 20 years or more.

Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is another mistake you have made. You assumed the inedible biomass left behind is trash. This is not the case. The inedible portion of the biomass left behind is not hauled off to landfills.

I never said anything like that. That is why I specify MSW and Aggricultural Waste as two separate categories. As evidenced by the 4.6lbs of MSW per person. As for plastic, we MAY start using recycled plastic in the US. But we have been exporting it to Asia for I don't know how many years - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... tml?page=2. And I shudder to think about the environmental mess that has been causing. Not to mention the mess Ag Waste is causing being plowed back into the fields, causing major environmental problems, http://www.aquatechnology.net/agriculturalwaste.html has the prettiest pictures and graphics.

A mid 90's State of Tennessee article for elementary kids stated we produce over 21 tons of waste per person per year. That was 10 years ago, and everything else I could find keeps talking about that number increasing. A full 51% of that was AG Waste, 38% mining, 8% industry and 3% MWS. I wish my google shei was better as I would love to see what the break down for Ag Waste is. I am beginning to wonder how much of that is wood. If that is the case - even better as dried wood chips yield between 20% and 50%. I know lots of it is being used for electricity, but bio diesel would seem a better use. As for the MSW figures, I didn't get those from CWT. I got those from Green Energy. They have been running a 100 ton MSW/day facility since March 2008. I got the figures in September 2008.

Thanks for the energy breakdown. I notice we both got to 23% oil equivalent. The upshot of your figures is most of the energy is electrical. We don't use oil for electricity in the US.

Someone said something about going to the farmers. Funny you should mention that...... http://www.energy-arizona.org/archive/x ... io-oil.php.

For the moment, I am off in search of better numbers on US waste as I cannot get all the figures to match. Manure plus carcasses is leaving a really big deficit in the numbers. Suggested websites will be greatfully appreciated. :)
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby Ludi » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 13:40:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'O')ne of the possible TDP feedstocks is old landfills. Or even current ones - we can still excavate those out. They will run out - eventually. But not for 10 to 20 years or more.


Wow, 10-20 whole years! Neat. So what then?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby Pops » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 18:06:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A')bout ain't gonna always be around....... One of the possible TDP feedstocks is old landfills. Or even current ones - we can still excavate those out.

I agree they will eventually be mined.

But again one comes up against the ROI.

I'm just wondering when some company decides it is worthwhile to make the commitment to chase expensive TDP oil with equally expensive diesel in a volatile market.

Yea, we have wasted lots and some will mine those troves at a point but it seems to me the time for investment in such is growing to a close.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby lonewolf » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 19:15:33

... not this turkey shitte again - how many freaking times/ways do we have to debunk this stinking offal? Old turkey gut scams apparently never freaking die ...
User avatar
lonewolf
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun 06 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: past tense

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Postby kublikhan » Sat 03 Jan 2009, 19:22:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A')s for plastic, we MAY start using recycled plastic in the US. But we have been exporting it to Asia for I don't know how many years - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... tml?page=2. And I shudder to think about the environmental mess that has been causing.
This source says even in the days of shipping recycled plastic to China, it was still recycled. And with the high price of oil, there is even more demand to recycle plastic. With new technology, we will probably be seeing even more recycling going forward. This further undermines your argument of using municipal waste for TDP, it does not strengthen your argument.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'N')ot to mention the mess Ag Waste is causing being plowed back into the fields, causing major environmental problems, http://www.aquatechnology.net/agriculturalwaste.html has the prettiest pictures and graphics.
This source confirms much of the waste is used as fertilizer or is already used for fuel. This source is advocating a new processing technology for the animal waste that pollutes rivers to turn into into a high grade organic fertilizer, an alternative to costly chemical fertilizers. I don't see how this strengthens your argument either.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'A') mid 90's State of Tennessee article for elementary kids stated we produce over 21 tons of waste per person per year. That was 10 years ago, and everything else I could find keeps talking about that number increasing. A full 51% of that was AG Waste, 38% mining, 8% industry and 3% MWS.
Again, even if you minimize the amount of fossil fuel energy spent on processing and transporting the food, it still takes more oil to grow the food than you get out of TDP. You will still come out net oil negative using TDP if your feedstock is AG waste grown using modern agricultural methods. Mining waste cannot be used as a feedstock. Some industrial waste could, but not all. That leaves the 3% of MWS that we already discussed as providing only a tiny fraction of our oil use.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'T')hanks for the energy breakdown. I notice we both got to 23% oil equivalent. The upshot of your figures is most of the energy is electrical.
Source?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '.').. not this turkey shitte again - how many freaking times/ways do we have to debunk this stinking offal? Old turkey gut scams apparently never freaking die ... I would not call it a scam. It's a nice way of turning waste into oil. Of course it could never provide more than a fraction of our oil needs, but that does not make it a scam.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron