$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dohboi', 'U')mm, tanada, note that he said "in nature" right up there in the first line.
The point is that the more we make things that don't fit this natural cycle, the more we are dooming ourselves and everything else.
You might not like mq's rhetorical style, but the basic point is valid, IMVHO.
PeakOil is You
THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)
Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?
by Tanada » Sat 10 Jan 2009, 17:00:09
Coal, petroleum, asphalt and many other 'natural' waste products are not consumed by any organism in the same way that leaf little, grass clippings or feces are. As far as that goes very few detrivores can break down Lignin, which is why cellulocis detrius tends to build up and form deposits in the first place, a good percentage of humas is lignin because it in general is very hard to biologically break down.
When the discusion is about mining landfills to supply TDP conversion plants the argument gets silly IMO because the biological waste in those landfills is very carefully isolated from the biosphere which prevents it from being fed on by any microbes be they aerobic or anerobic. Some anaerobic breakdown does occur very slowly, thats where the landfill methane comes from, but the rate is minescule compared to what happens if you just dump food and paper waste in a pile and let nature take its course breaking it down.
This all goes back to the argument from a couple years ago is man a part of nature or apart from nature? Nothing we do can violate natural laws of the universe therefore nothing we artificially create can reasonably be called un-natural. Anything we do will over geological time scales be undone by entropy. I don't care if your talking about the Empire State Building, the next time the Earth goes through glaciation everything we have done north of about 40 degrees is going to be erased as if it had never existed. Stuff closer to the equator close to mountains will have the same treatment, when a glacier runs over a skyscraper the skyscraper looses.
I just tend to look at things much longer term than most of the people on here, Agriculture started somewhere between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago and thats when human history started to get interesting, agriculture isn't going to dissipear for the future as far as can be projected even when we go into the next glaciation. Looking 12,000 years into the future either we will have flipped the climate into the hothouse and things will change greatly, or we will have fallen back into a glacial period. Either way microbial life will still be the dominant life on this planet.
Funny thing is while I am seen as a Moderate here on PO.com I am seen as a raving doomer by the sheeple in the real world who know me
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?
by dohboi » Sat 10 Jan 2009, 17:16:28
As you suggest we might be talking past each other because of terminology. He used "in nature." You turned that into "natural." "Natural" is almost impossible to define, so not very useful, IMHO.
"petroleum, asphalt and many other 'natural' waste products"
These are not wastes produced "in nature," that is, they would not exist if not for humans creating them.
This is the traditional use of this term. Changing the denotative (dictionary, more or less) meaning suddenly without adjusting for the connotations associated with the word leads to confusion at best.
It is like a racist who hears that there is no biological basis for race and so declares that he cannot possibly be a racist, and all his past and future attitudes cannot be criticized as being such. This is a kind of sophistry. Very self serving and deceptive.
Anyways, I'm not much interested in continuing the discussion here, since it only serves to keep this obnoxious thread near the top of the discussion list.
Cheers
"petroleum, asphalt and many other 'natural' waste products"
These are not wastes produced "in nature," that is, they would not exist if not for humans creating them.
This is the traditional use of this term. Changing the denotative (dictionary, more or less) meaning suddenly without adjusting for the connotations associated with the word leads to confusion at best.
It is like a racist who hears that there is no biological basis for race and so declares that he cannot possibly be a racist, and all his past and future attitudes cannot be criticized as being such. This is a kind of sophistry. Very self serving and deceptive.
Anyways, I'm not much interested in continuing the discussion here, since it only serves to keep this obnoxious thread near the top of the discussion list.
Cheers
-
dohboi - Harmless Drudge
- Posts: 19990
- Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?
by TomSaidak » Sun 11 Jan 2009, 14:49:47
Okay, mainly posting to just let folks know I haven't given up yet, I am busy running numbers I can back up, trying out scenarios and judging which ones seem realistic.
Montequest:
Yes, bio waste products are something else's food. No microbiological entity is in any danger of becoming extinct. In the right place, they do things for us. In the wrong place, they do things we do NOT want. Manure vs fertilizer vs oil is a complex and multisided debate. I have read your article, done some other research, and have thought about including or excluding manure in my calculations. I have spent so much time on my computer and thinking about this to the point my wife is really mad at me for being "unavailable". Bottom line, I will keep the cow manure number, but my conclusions will be listed as ranges, i.e. with the manure line in, and with the manure line set to zero. If the manure is not being used properly or at all, it is material available for energy conversion. This IS a policy debate, and I am open to that, but I am not sure how to proceed. Should that debate happen here? Should it happen elsewhere? Once that is decided, let me know!
As for thermogoddamics and food and oil.........
I will respond to people who use numbers.
Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o that would be a 2:1 ratio
Montequest:
Yes, bio waste products are something else's food. No microbiological entity is in any danger of becoming extinct. In the right place, they do things for us. In the wrong place, they do things we do NOT want. Manure vs fertilizer vs oil is a complex and multisided debate. I have read your article, done some other research, and have thought about including or excluding manure in my calculations. I have spent so much time on my computer and thinking about this to the point my wife is really mad at me for being "unavailable". Bottom line, I will keep the cow manure number, but my conclusions will be listed as ranges, i.e. with the manure line in, and with the manure line set to zero. If the manure is not being used properly or at all, it is material available for energy conversion. This IS a policy debate, and I am open to that, but I am not sure how to proceed. Should that debate happen here? Should it happen elsewhere? Once that is decided, let me know!
As for thermogoddamics and food and oil.........
I will respond to people who use numbers.
Kublikhan wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o that would be a 2:1 ratio
I ran the numbers. That 2:1 ratio is to high by a factor of at least 4 as regards oil. At 2:1 for just growing and harvesting the corn, corn would use 91% of 6.6% of US oil consumption budget set aside for farm equipment and machinery. The only other item for oil consumption is pescticides, and that only accounts for 3.9% of farmers' costs. Ergo, it is a neglible number. As we have previously discussed, fertilizer comes from NG, so does not figure into the oil based share of energy. Bottom line, from a TDP viewpoint, you get more energy OUT of corn then you put in. Whether you want to call it stored solar, transformation of electrical and/or NG to oil, it is not relevant to this part of the discussion. In rereading your post - did you actually get that "2" from somewhere, or was it a WAG? If it was a WAG, could I ask a favor? Could you please break out your own spreadsheet? My wife is not happy with the time I am spending infront of spreadsheets...... Thanks!
Interim Numbers.....
I am working out scenarios that show TDP might be able to displace as much as 38.21% of current US oil consumption (Yes Monte, that number includes cow manure.
). It is obvious that TDP alone will not supplant drilled oil as a solo strategy. Forcing a changeover to PHEV/BEV vehicles where possible will get a number as high as 63.68%. I have more numbers to chase down and my wife to placate. There is an awful lot of wasted wood out there, but a large number is listed as "unrecoverable". I have no idea what that means in relationship to TDP/CDP. Potentially, that number could a) just replace BS b) Replace BS and ADD to the oil produced or c) turn out to be a waste of time.
KK, gotta run. Wife and RL calling - will be back soon!
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
-
TomSaidak - Wood
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?
by kublikhan » Sun 11 Jan 2009, 17:28:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TomSaidak', 'I') ran the numbers. That 2:1 ratio is to high by a factor of at least 4 as regards oil. As we have previously discussed, fertilizer comes from NG, so does not figure into the oil based share of energy. Bottom line, from a TDP viewpoint, you get more energy OUT of corn then you put in. Whether you want to call it stored solar, transformation of electrical and/or NG to oil, it is not relevant to this part of the discussion.
Most energy analysis of growing corn was done from the perspective of turning corn into ethanol. I don't have the figures for how much more or less efficient it is to use TDP instead of ethanol. Even just talking about ethanol, there is disagreement if it is energy positive or negative, depending on who's numbers you believe. But here are the numbers that are favourable to ethanol production. Keep in mind many analysis disagree with these numbers and find corn ethanol production net energy negative.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')orn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.
So looking at the best numbers, ethanol is slightly energy positive. But an EROEI of 1.34:1 is pretty bad. Every single alternative source of generating energy that we have have much better EROEI's. Solar is around 10:1, wind 20:1, hydro can be 80:1 or more. You have to keep in mind, an internal combustion engine is very inefficient. One of the main reasons we use it at all is because of the incredible energy bounty provided by oil. When oil was first discovered, its EROEI was around 100:1. Even today, its still around 25:1. So even if ICE is very inefficient, we can get by because of the great EROEI of oil. But when the EROEI of your fuel source falls to 1.34:1, the ICE doesn't look so great anymore.
And then there's the problem of insufficient acreage. Even if we convert the entire US crop to ethanol, that is only 16% of our transportation fuel needs.
Overall, I think corn ethanol(or food fed TDP) is a very bad idea. The EROEI is pathetic, and our food production system is going to have enough problems just dealing with problems like topsoil erosion, declining soil fertility, oil depletion, etc. Trying to divert large portions of our food production to oil production will not make a dent in our oil needs, and will only exacerbate our food production problems.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan - Master Prognosticator
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
![[smilie=happy6.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/happy6.gif "happy6")