[TomSaidak]

Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his further undermines your argument of using municipal waste for TDP, it does not strengthen your argument.

[TomSaidak]

Lonewolf wrote:
... 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 ...

It is not a scam. As to whether or not it should die...
In the movie Battle of the Bulge, there is a scene where a chaplain starts his sermon to the US troops fighting the battle by saying “Is this trip worth it?”
My purpose in jumping in on this thread is to see whether or not either TDP or CDP is “worth it” and how much it can deliver. Obviously, at this point I feel it is.
Is TDP/CDP “the answer?”
No. Not by itself, and it will never be. As part of a comprehensive strategy, I believe it can be an important factor. It should be clear that just making oil from anything HAS to be coupled with greatly reduced consumption of oil. At this point in time, I do not know how much can be done. A full 80% of our oil consumption goes to transportation. Given the current state of technology, I do not know how much we can reduce that amount, nor how quickly. Forced deployment of PHEV technology can cut that down to 40%, after that, I do not know how much lower we can go. Aviation gains in efficiency would potentially lead to more air travel. I do not know that a PHEV tractor is something we want to do as the extra weight may do nasty things to our farm land. So that would leave 6.6% as untouchable. All electric trains may be more efficient then diesel electrics, but stringing the lines may be problematical. The average 5 wheeler uses a 450 hp engine, but I don’t know what the cost benefit of changing that to HEV would do. At the current state of technology, the cost may just be too high. This is important to the TDP discussion for the obvious reason – the less oil we use, the less oil TDP/CDP will have to replace.
The value for me in all this is determining what the real capacity of TDP/CDP is. I want real numbers. I could take the 3% from MSW Kublikhan calculated, and since MSW only represents 4% of total US waste, argue that means we can still hit 75% from total waste. A reasonable proposition if it was a simple ratio problem. As Kublikhan and others have taken the time to use real numbers, I want to use real numbers in response.
Pending review by you all (thank you very much ), I believe I have demonstrated that a lot of energy does get left behind in the agriculture cycle. Waste does produce more energy then we “put into” it. As Kublikhan has pointed out, a lot of waste has other uses. We have yet to agree on a final number, though I feel we are getting there. While TDP can take an unspecified amount of waste and produce an as yet unidentified amount of oil, we have not reached consensus/agreement at the numbers. I would ask that peeps continue to bear with me and help me answer that question.
My google foo has appeared to have hit its limits. I could use help with coming up the following numbers:
We are producing over 10 tons of “ag waste” a year per person. I have NOT been able to find a breakdown for that. Of that waste, how much exactly is being plowed back into the soil? How much of what is being plowed back is too much for the soil to handle? A large percentage of wood waste is listed as unrecoverable – what the heck does that mean? Is it buried in cement? Soaked in copper green? What does our current paper to recycled paper to what (left in the landfill or recycled again?) exactly?

Once we can agree as to what TDP/CDP can do with existing feedstocks, I will start working at filling in the gap. There may or may not be much to do there. One example is the algae to oil process. In watching Ecopolis, several issues were pointed out. One was getting algae to produce suitable diesel without further petrochemical refining. I have to wonder how much solar energy is wasted doing that? The second issue is processing the algae to get the fuel out of it. That ultimately may be another pathway to TDP/CDP oil. A plant, called kenaf is being suggested as a replacement for wood pulp for paper. It grows 15’ in 5 months. Without fertilizers. That could be another pathway. Before I get headed there, I would like to know how much of a gap to fill. “A lot” will not be a helpful answer.
Another possible future path for TDP/CDP is delaying when we hit peak oil, buying us time to come up with “the answer.” Another reason it would be a useful to pursue is that once we can get away from using oil for transportation, the next step would be to start replacing industrial uses for oil. This would suggest that there is a future for TDP/CDP beyond transitioning transportation.

[dohboi]

I don't have the numbers, but I doubt we are putting more back into the soil than it can take.

Without fossil fuel-based and -fascilitated fertilizers, we will have to put much more back into the soil.

As industrialized society collapses, there will be much less "waste" of any sort. Things will be reused to a much larger extent, and while mining of landfills for various things (in other words living on waste heaps as happens now in much of the third world) will happen more and more, the economics of this will never be very remunerative, as pops notes.

You are obviously convinced that this is the bright, shining path for the near future. Perhaps you have already invested in this in some way and are looking for recruits. If so, you may be wasting your time on this kind of forum. We are mostly confirmed doomers.

[TomSaidak]

As a good teacher, I have put off all my grading until the day before I have to go back to class. I am taking a short break.

Dohboi wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps you have already invested in this in some way and are looking for recruits. If so, you may be wasting your time on this kind of forum.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'I') saw a table that I have not been able to relocate that broke US oil consumption by sector. I remember many of the numbers, passenger cars and light trucks use 40%, large trucks use 24 or 26%, Farmers use 6.6% for their machinery. Industry uses 20%. Using math, 23%-6.6% is 16.4%. If we are assuming oil is used, where is it being used? And how exactly is it being used. Nothing I can find suggests that we are using 10%'s or our oil consumption for fertilizer and pesticides.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'm')uch of the fertilizer is WASTED by putting too much of it in the soil - more then the soil can handle.

[dohboi]

"My largest concern is that if push comes to shove, this country will turn to coal. For me, THAT is the nightmare scenario to be avoided."

Well, we can agree on this at least.

As for the rest, you seem to be shockingly, absurdly, perhaps intentionally? naive (at best). If you have been aware/thinking about peak oil for decades but have only just hit on this sight, perhaps you have not been trying very hard to look beyond your own little brain for info and perspective on this enormous issue.

Don't now assume that those many of us who have sought out info from a wide variety of sources are the ones that are hopelessly naive doomers while you are the fully informed realist.

Being new to the thread does no give you street cred. If you are going to come in making major claims, you will need to carry some major evidence, and ideally you would have done your homework, not only by searching what has been discussed here already, but what has been found generally in this area.

Look over carefully what k said. If you are sincere, come back with a realistic assessment of your proposal based on the real limits we face. Otherwise, do us all and yourself a favor and take your snake-oil peddling elsewhere.

[dohboi]

And charlieh (to the extent you are a different person from toms), please don't post titles like this on this web site: "thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Besides being in bad headline-speak, it's just an embarrassment to the whole thread to have headings like this on it that don't conform to the basic rules of written (at least) English (an is the form of the indefinite article used before nouns beginning with a vowel). It's one thing to post an idea that has been proven bankrupt on this and other sites many times. But to do so in nearly incoherent English...it just makes you look really, really foolish and frankly reflects badly on the whole forum.

Please spend a moment thinking about your topic and the language you write it in before posting such headlines. But I know that's a lot to ask these days, thinking being such hard work, and a moment seeming such a long time to spend at it.

[Tanada]

I like TDP as a recycling tool, I think it would be smart to recycle municiple waste and sewage with TDP for example, but I never for a moment thought that would replace a majority of oil usage in the USA.

My concern with TDP is the claim aparently backed up with test data that they can use Lignite or sub bitimus coal as a feedstock and make "clean coal technology" fuel out of it. If that practice ever takes off in earnest then coal mining is going to take off in an even bigger way than it already has.

[lonewolf]

To those that have objected to my use of the 4-letter word "scam", if you were an investor or would-be investor back when - it was a SCAM (and still is)- a complete hoax, a utter fraud, a blatant lie and overt misrepresentation of facts (ntm defying the laws of thermodynamics NTM chemistry and 'common sense'). Back, what now seems like almost a decade ago, I was one of the principle technical debunkers of this overt "LIE" (aka fraud aka SCAM). Ain't going there again. It's a FARKING scam folks - at least as portrayed by the corporate goons and pukes-persons. OTOH, a fool is born every second and most now have internet connections, so believe whatever it is that 'blows your socks up since everyone else apparently does. Facts be damned.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', 'T')o those that have objected to my use of the 4-letter word "scam", if you were an investor or would-be investor back when - it was a SCAM (and still is)- a complete hoax, a utter fraud, a blatant lie and overt misrepresentation of facts (ntm defying the laws of thermodynamics NTM chemistry and 'common sense'). Back, what now seems like almost a decade ago, I was one of the principle technical debunkers of this overt "LIE" (aka fraud aka SCAM). Ain't going there again. It's a FARKING scam folks - at least as portrayed by the corporate goons and pukes-persons. OTOH, a fool is born every second and most now have internet connections, so believe whatever it is that 'blows your socks up since everyone else apparently does. Facts be damned.

[lonewolf]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')... It was not however a scam, overt lie, nor does it violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lonewolf', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', ' ')If it is in fact a scam, could you provide a source for this?

[TomSaidak]

Kublikhan wrote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lot....

[TomSaidak]

About "scam" as a four letter word.....

Kublikhan and I are in a friendly debate backed by numbers. No scam there...

CWT and Green Energies may or may not be involved in "scamming" the world. IF you go by the numbers, then "scam" is irrelevant. I spoke to my dad who has a degree in Industrial Engineering. Now, he went into the US Navy, and so does not have alot of experience in taking an idea from the labratory into industrial applications. He does have a ton of experience of dealing with claims from weapons vendors and how they played out in real battlefields. He participated in the major retrofits of at least two ships, and saw how claims versus reality played out in one actual shooting war. His response to TDP was that the initiator of a new technology will ALWAYS play UP the possibilities. It only becomes a "scam" if there is little or no truth to the claims. CWT in maintaining a figure of 52% of US oil consumption is not a "scam" in the dictionary sense of the word. It does represent an outlook that oil production is more important then any other possible use of a feedstock.

Ultimately, the best discussion concerning TDP/CDP is NOT whether it is a scam, but what the math says. We have two pilot plants and a test plant in operation, plus at least 5 licenses for more plants being persued. That will determine the reality of TDP/CDP. Not back and forth discussions about what constitutes a "scam".

So play nice, or I WILL break out my Lemur Speaking totem!!


Or, play nice, and use NUMBERS!!! Both CWT and Green Energy's patents will be running out soon, and it won't matter what EITHER of those two corporations are saying ANYWAY...

Tanada wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y concern with TDP is the claim aparently backed up with test data that they can use Lignite or sub bitimus coal as a feedstock and make "clean coal technology" fuel out of it. If that practice ever takes off in earnest then coal mining is going to take off in an even bigger way than it already has.