Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Technology versus Doomology

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Technology versus Doomology

Unread postby Vexed » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 16:15:13

A couple of years ago, I was laughed at when I said buy oil.

Now those folks are listening to me more closely.

A number of them even have begun to accept that oil is not a renewable resource. Wow. What a victory. :roll:

The problem is that now that I have their attention, they still lack understanding of the situation.

A typical response now is: "That's why we have alternatives." Biofuel is a particular favorite of many folks.

So recently, after once again being told that the future is secure because of bio energy, I sent the offending party a post I made here on P.O.

Here is the former Energy Technology post I sent them:

-------------

Quote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he eyes of the world have been on this Missouri town for several years to see if a New York businessman can really turn turkey leftovers into oil. The answer: A resounding yes. In fact, a revolutionary plant is turning 270 tons of poultry waste into 300 barrels of crude oil every day.


I'm no expert on this subject. (So check my math!).

According 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?

That's pretty amazing.

But... and perhaps I am being a wee bit facetious here, wouldn't that mean if (right now) we wanted to replace the world's current oil use of 82 million barrels a day with TDP, we would need about 74 million tons of poultry waste PER DAY?

Or more than 27 Billion Tons a year?

How many turkeys does it take to produce one ton of turkey guts? Let alone 27 billion tons?

I understand anything "carbonecous" works, so the poultry metaphor doesn't completely fly, but can you really come to terms with what 27 billion tons means?

Do we come anywhere close to even producing that much USABLE waste a year?

It seems like this process could be enormously useful on a local level, but much more complicated on a global scale...

---------
So how did my friend respond? They said, I see your point, but I can't help but think about fiber optics. I, of course, said "Say what?" They then went on to explain how they had been told in the mid 70's that the future lay in fiber optic technology. At the time, they were in disbelief. They said, "there's no way. Too much work. Its not scalable. It won't happen." And, as we all know, they were completely wrong. As a matter of fact, the technology progessed at such lightening speed that "capacity has grown by a factor of 200 just in the last decade."

http://www.fiber-optics.info/fiber-history.htm

My question is: How would you respond in this situation? We have all run into people who believe in an inevitable, someone-else-will-take-care-of-it-for-me, technofix, but in this particular case, how would you argue that the fiber optic revolution was different than what we face with oil? Or, how is it the same?

All comments are appreciated! :)
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ayoob » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 16:20:42

Why are you trying to change their minds? Just position yourself such that when the economic collapse drives them to their knees that they will end up your slaves.
User avatar
Ayoob
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1520
Joined: Thu 15 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby gnm » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 16:20:53

Easy answer - the fiber optics required merely a technological advance to make it viable, not the creation of a huge amount of raw resources (turkeys in this case) - so, while advances in technology happen all the time, there are not a lot of resources being created out there at the moment... 8)

-G
gnm
 
Top

Unread postby RonMN » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 17:03:01

CHEAP OIL IS THE PREREQUISITE (oops...cap's lock) to creating the fiberoptic cable...and laying the cable...and even using the cable.

Without cheap oil there would have been no fiberoptic revolution.

Cheap oil has been the prerequisite to all we do. It's even been the prerequisite to making bio-fuels for cripes sake.
User avatar
RonMN
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2628
Joined: Fri 18 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Minnesota
Top

Unread postby Vexed » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 18:11:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are you trying to change their minds? Just position yourself such that when the economic collapse drives them to their knees that they will end up your slaves.


Doesn't the administration hate competition?

:-D
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Taskforce_Unity » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 18:45:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'W')hy are you trying to change their minds? Just position yourself such that when the economic collapse drives them to their knees that they will end up your slaves.


Ayoob i love your straightfowardness and your sarcasm

Great to ahve you on board

:)
User avatar
Taskforce_Unity
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Holland
Top

Unread postby Vexed » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 18:52:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout cheap oil there would have been no fiberoptic revolution.


But couldn't one also argue that without expensive oil there would be no biodiesal revolution?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..while advances in technology happen all the time, there are not a lot of resources being created out there at the moment..."


As someone wiser than me once said, ""Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting." Any advance in technologies that allow us to harvest our own pollutants, such as TDP promises with turkey parts and human waste, seems like resource creation to me.

In other words, isn't technology creating tons of new resources right now?

:twisted:
Last edited by Vexed on Thu 16 Jun 2005, 19:08:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby MicroHydro » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 18:59:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob', 'W')hy are you trying to change their minds? Just position yourself such that when the economic collapse drives them to their knees that they will end up your slaves.


Agree :twisted:

I participated in the first Earth Day in 1970 and have been frustrated by overbreeding and overconsuming people destroying the planet for the last 35 years. They can't say they weren't warned. They knew they were spending their children's inheritance, they just didn't care.
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
User avatar
MicroHydro
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sun 10 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

TDP feedstock

Unread postby Optimist » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 19:20:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut... and perhaps I am being a wee bit facetious here, wouldn't that mean if (right now) we wanted to replace the world's current oil use of 82 million barrels a day with TDP, we would need about 74 million tons of poultry waste PER DAY?

Or more than 27 Billion Tons a year?

How many turkeys does it take to produce one ton of turkey guts? Let alone 27 billion tons?

Luckily the TDP process works on any carbonaceous waste (the suppliers claim), not just turkey guts. They further estimate that the US produces 12 billion tons of solid waste per year, half of which is agricultural (i.e. prime feedstock for TDP). In their estmate, the 6 billion ton/year of agricultural waste can produce about 12 billion barrels of oil per year (33 million barrels per day, compared to a consumption of about 20 million barrels per day). Add to that agricultural waste all other useful (carbonaceous) wastes (paper, plastic, yard clippings, sewage sludge, dirty diapers, wood chips, etc.) and the US could potentially produce more than 50% of the world's oil demand.

However, I think the plant in Cathage actually produces less oil per ton of turkey that originally estimated, and the numbers from the Kansas City Star that you quoted are probably more realistic, 1.1 barrel/ton of waste. Also, others, see http://www.texasep.org/html/wst/wst_1msw_ussw.html estimate US production at 8 billion tons per year. Using these figures the production from US agricultural waste would be 4.4 billion barrels per year, or 12 million barrels per day. At least that would be enough to replace ALL IMPORTED oil. For now. With all the other sources of waste we might just be able to replace ALL DOMESTIC oil use.

I guess technology beats doomology! Happens every time...
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Vexed » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 20:32:16

Great info. Optimist.

I have read your posts on a number of occasions and find them enlightening.

I am curious though.

As a person who has evidently done a lot of research, are you ever racked by the sense that perhaps you are OVERLY-optimistic about biofuels?

And if so, what is the area that you find challenging your hopes?

I only ask because I go from one extreme to another. I think man will overcome...then I look out my door and see what we have destroyed. Other times, I think man will succumb, and then...I look out my door and see what we have built.

I think it would be vital to know what an Optimist thinks are the challenges that stand before mankind in the biofuel realm?

Thanks for the comments. :)
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Aaron » Thu 16 Jun 2005, 20:35:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')dd to that agricultural waste all other useful (carbonaceous) wastes (paper, plastic, yard clippings, sewage sludge, dirty diapers, wood chips, etc.)


The gasification of diapers & wood chips can mean only one thing...

invasion.

:)
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 17 Jun 2005, 13:21:32

And now we know why the Turkey/Chicken crossed the road:
"Damn, those guys want to turn me into oil! Get me out of here!"
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Vexed » Fri 17 Jun 2005, 14:33:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he gasification of diapers & wood chips can mean only one thing...

invasion.


Maybe I am a bit slow. How does biofuel equate with invasion?
User avatar
Vexed
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby aahala » Fri 17 Jun 2005, 16:23:41

The Carthage plant has been sited a number of times by the
state's Department of Natural Resources, for producing foul, I mean
really foul, odors. :o

Recently the Attorney General got a court order, requiring the plant to
install additional equipment to try to reduce the problem. Local resteraunt
owners were claiming the odor was so bad, they were losing customers.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 01:48:37

Just because one particular technology isn't a winner isn't a condemnation of technological cornucopian arguments nor a vindication of doomsterism. We've illustrated quite clearly that human society wont run out of energy in any reasonable time period (thousands of years) because of workable technology and economics with nuclear power.

Transportation fuel shortage forcing infrastructure realignment is a seperate issue however, one that I'm only qualified to make rough guesses at... except that coal will play a larger part than biofuels for resource substitution over the next several decades.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: TDP feedstock

Unread postby RG73 » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 02:15:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', '[')Luckily the TDP process works on any carbonaceous waste (the suppliers claim), not just turkey guts. They further estimate that the US produces 12 billion tons of solid waste per year, half of which is agricultural (i.e. prime feedstock for TDP).


The carbonaceous waste is dependent upon oil, natural gas and phosphorus, which are either peaking (oil), will peak soon (gas), or will peak in a few decades (phosphorus). Not to mention desertification, climate change, water depletion, and all the other myriad problems that will spell the end of modern agriculture.

We might produce 12 billion tons of solid waste in the short term, but we're unlikely to continue to produce turkeys or much of anything else at the same levels we are presently. I'm all for turning that waste into something useful (like fertilizer), but I don't see it being enough to continue to fuel the auto lifestyle. It's a good idea and all, but I simply do not see us producing the necessary feedstock without the current inputs into modern agriculture.
User avatar
RG73
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri 20 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Austin, Tx
Top

Unread postby nero » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 02:51:46

I think that TDP is a technology that might have some uses in some places, but ignore the nice image of taking garbage and producing oil, to make a significant amount of oil they will have to go to the forests for their raw material. The other sources are too dispersed. They can't even make any money recycling plastic right now.

In general the technofix is very dooable, if we have enough time and if we as a society set our priorities correctly. Those however are two very big "ifs".
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Carbon waste

Unread postby Optimist » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 15:28:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he carbonaceous waste is dependent upon oil, natural gas and phosphorus, which are either peaking (oil), will peak soon (gas), or will peak in a few decades (phosphorus). Not to mention desertification, climate change, water depletion, and all the other myriad problems that will spell the end of modern agriculture.

We might produce 12 billion tons of solid waste in the short term, but we're unlikely to continue to produce turkeys or much of anything else at the same levels we are presently. I'm all for turning that waste into something useful (like fertilizer), but I don't see it being enough to continue to fuel the auto lifestyle. It's a good idea and all, but I simply do not see us producing the necessary feedstock without the current inputs into modern agriculture.

Your argument that we will run out of carbonaceous waste ignores one fact: Producing less waste will mean a smaller demand for oil. Not only do we need less oil for producing the products which are going to end up as waste, we also need less oil to transport the products to market, from market to consumer, and the waste from consumer to disposal. So a nice alround saving in oil demand.

Think of it as two extreme versions of the future. Version #1 is where we are just as wasteful as we are today. Plenty of waste then, making a barrel for barrel substitution of TDP oil for today's crude possible. Version #2 is where we start saving some, we need less oil, the price of oil comes down. Oil still runs out eventually, but we have more time to implement TDP and we needed fewer plants than under version #1 to produce all the fuel we need.

Version #2 is obviously preferable, but try explaining that to our brave leaders, or the wise members of the media...

BTW, remember earth is not as closed system. Thus we do not eventually deplete all waste as we produce oil. Earth is an open system, with sunlight constantly adding new, useable energy to the system. Through photosynthesis this energy is collected and concentrated. The waste products from photosynthesis is what would drive the so-called carbohydrate economy. These waste products include direct wastes (yard clippings, crop residues, wood chips, etc.) and indirect wastes (sewage sludge, manure, inedible parts of crops and livestock [turkey guts], waste paper, food waste, medical waste, etc.).
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Technology versus Doomology

Unread postby spot5050 » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 20:12:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Vexed', 'A') couple of years ago, I was laughed at when I said buy oil.

Now those folks are listening to me more closely.

A number of them even have begun to accept that oil is not a renewable resource. Wow. What a victory. :roll:

The problem is that now that I have their attention, they still lack understanding of the situation.

A typical response now is: "That's why we have alternatives." Biofuel is a particular favorite of many folks.

You also say;

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vexed', '.').. 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?

I've got the same two reservations about biofuel; firstly it's low grade energy and secondly there's a scalability problem. Neither issue is addressed by press articles on the subject. (I'm no doomer btw - I'm annoyed by both sides of the debate. The doomers are overly pessimistic and the head-in-the-clouds brigade are hopelessly optimistic.)
spot5050
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Cheshire, England
Top

Technology

Unread postby Optimist » Mon 20 Jun 2005, 21:40:03

Let's see about those reservations:
Reservation #1: Yes some biofuels look pretty awful. However, the Cathage TDP plant currently produces fuel oil #4. If the original press releases are to be believed, the plant can also produce fuel oil #2, i.e. diesel. Chemically TDP oil is consists of alkanes, i.e. similar to petro diesel and distinct of biodiesel, which consists of methanol esters. Low grade? No way. In fact, the perfect replacement for fossil fuel. Since it is chemically similar it can be blended in over time, without rebuilding the fuel transportation network that the "hydrogen economy" would require.

Reservation #2: Where's the problem? Is there any shortage of waste anywhere? Give it another year or five, while they iron out the problems at the Carthage plant. While crude oil heads for $100/barrel. Just give it some time...
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron