PEAK OIL - Solution: Thermal Depolymerization

[Silverhair]

I am amazed that so many people who post here about the dangers of peak oil and the need for alternate energy seem to be unaware of TDP.

First let me say that peak oil is a real crisis that is going to hit soon, and will be a big problem. Within the next few years, world oil production will peak. That does NOT mean we will be out of oil. It means that we won't be able to lift it out of the ground any faster. The annual supply of oil will begin to slow decline. At the same time, newly developing counties will be needing oil, so demand will increase. A widening gap will develop between supply and demand which will lead to higher and higher prices, with the resultant economic disruptions. And of course wars over the resource.

THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZATION TO THE RESCUE.

First some links:

This is the company that is developing the technology:
http://www.changingworldtech.com /

Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Other links:
http://kantor.com/usatoday/thermal_depolymerization.sht...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,960689,00.html

Anybody that wants more detailed info can Google around. Lots of good hits. Here is a primer:

Anything that was once alive is a carbon-hydrogen polymer. Potatoes are called carbohydrates for a reason. Hydrocarbons are the same thing with the order of the words switched. So all plant matter, all animal matter, sewage, and all almost all petrochemicals (Plastics, old tires, etc.)toxic wastes, medical wastes, etc, can be dumped into a TDP plant. In a few hours, WITH NO POLLUTION, you get out the other end, oil, pure water, carbon, and some minerals. The ratio varies depending on what went in. Sewage, for example gives lots of water, and some oil. The oil is cleaner and burns with far less pollution than petroleum.

Efficiency is 85%, meaning that of 100 BTU dumped into the machine, 85 is recovered for sale, and 15 is used in the process. This energy is coming for the sun. It is RECENT solar energy, collected and stored by plants.

According to Discover magazine, May 2003, there is enough WASTE agricultural products in the USA to completely eliminate oil imports. That means no more supertankers, no more super oil spills. With some conservation measures and a few other alternate energy programs, we could probably quit offshore drilling too.

Municipal waste management companies spend lots of money to operate landfills. They would be able instead to dump most of that garbage into a TDP plant, saving themselves lots of money, and completely recycling the garbage into salable oil to make still more money.

It would help with Global Warming, since the real problem is carbon oxide itself, but is NEW carbon dioxide. When you burn a piece of wood, you are putting carbon back into the air that was recently there. If you don't burn it, the wood will rot and the CO2 will go back into the air anyway. But when you burn petroleum, you put NEW carbon into the air, and add to the CO2 in the air. By stopping that, TDP reduces global warming.

The economic impact should be tremendous. Any country with arable land could start TDP plants. The one in Carthage MO, is producing 500 barrels of oil per day while disposing of waste from the Butterball turkey processing plant. The plant only cost about $30 million to build, and is very similar to a regular refinery. Once the plant in Carthage fully proves the technology, we should see a lot of these being built. Operating them would mean lots of jobs. And the money that we spend buying oil from other counties would stay here, paying Americans.

If this process is really operating as they say it is, it solves a lot of problems at once.

[trotsky]

1. I remember seeing a show about this.

It was several years ago, but even then the efficiency was pretty high and it seemed only a matter of time before it would become a welcome part of our national energy plan.

Of course, that was before we had 2 oil men in the White House.

[Silverhair]

3. Con-Agra is in partnership with Changing World Technologies.

Con-Agra is big enough to go toe to toe with any oil company. And the amount of money, if Con-Agra can make it work, is huge beyond belief. Sometimes there are advantages to being a really big corporation. I am NOT saying that Con-Agra is pure of heart. Not at all. But this time their greed will work FOR us.

[blurp]

72. Greed itself is neutral

What really determines whether it is good or bad are the results.

If someone gets fed because another person is greedy, that seems fine.

If they steal food and make another hungry, that of course is not fine.

So if Con-Agra can reduce our dependence on oil, and they do this because they're greedy, I'm fine with it.

[Silverhair]

81. I completely agree.

Lots of folks here are more concerned about motives than results. That's why I put that in the post.

[benburch]

2. Wood "producer" gas...

The Germans did this to run cars in WW-II. You put a sealed airtight container full of wood above a wood fire. The wood decomposes through pyrolysis and makes a gas that can be burnt in an internal combustion engine. The vessel self-pressurizes so you can just hook up a pipe to the carburetor.

The fatal problem with all such schemes is the number of acres of land that have to be famed or ranched for fuel. and the fuel input required for efficient mechanized agriculture.

[Silverhair]

4. I was raised on a farm.

I know the amount of fuel we used in a year. I have seen a grass fire sweep across a field, and believe me, the fire was many times bigger than if all of our fuel had been burned at once.

You are thinking of the energy from the food part of a crop alone. I am talking about the whole biomass. It is SOLAR ENERGY, collected by plants.

[Silverhair]

6. Also, much of the fuel is used for fertilizer to get desired food crops.

But in every area, there are local plants that love it there and grow without special chemicals. A TDP plant doesn't care what kind of plant goes into it. Wheat waste, corn waste, weeds, - all the same.

[RafterMan]

8. It uses agricultural waste

as well municipal solid waste.

A great deal of that is produced, but I'm not sure how much is not already used for some recyling purpose. I'm not prepared to say there's any "fatal problem" with it, since we don't know how much solar energy is going into the system.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Where did those "waste agricultural products" come from?

From our modern petrochemical- and energy-intensive farming?

It takes approximately 10 calories of petrochemicals+energy to grow one calorie of farmed stuff.

source: http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

Can't wait until cars are competing with mouths for farmland....

[Silverhair]

9. You are talking about only the food part of a plant.

Have you ever actually looked at a stalk of wheat? We eat only the tiny kernel. The rest of the plant is wasted. Eat the wheat, and put the rest in the TDP plant. And there are lots of weeds that grow fine with no special care that can be harvested several times a year.

[Peak_Oil]

11. Would this deplete the topsoil faster?

I've heard that we're depleting our topsoil at some alarming rate, and that every time you take from the soil and fail to replace it, you deplete more quickly.

?

[Silverhair]

14. Crop rotation.

Different plants take different things from the soil, and each kind of plant puts something back into the soil. By rotating the crops you can keep the soil balanced.

The problem comes when you grow the same crop over and over again. Then you damage the soil. Crop rotation isn't new. I knew about it as a kid, and that was a long time ago, and it was old then.

In fact some of the Bible's Old Testament laws regarding farming require giving the land a rest from time to time. So taking care of the soil is very ancient.

[illflem]

16. Not only would it deplete the soil faster

but CO2 that is normally tied up in the soil in the form of plant residues would then be in the atmosphere contributing to global climate change.
Agriculture isn't a good source of energy.

[Silverhair]

18. Most plant decay takes place ON TOP of the soil.

The CO2 released from plant decay goes back into the air anyway. Only the tinest fraction goes into the soil.

[illflem]

26. Only in no till agriculture,

which isn't as widespread as conventional farming.
Plus on most plants half of the biomass is underground, the roots

[Silverhair]

31. Agreed.

But for TDP purposes you could simply let a field lie fallow and harvest the upper 2/3 of the "weeds". A weed is only a plant that isn't wanted by humans. Leaving the lower half would help keep the ground fertile.

Tilling agriculture does put the plant underground to rot and does put the CO2 into the soil.

[Peak_Oil]

27. TDP will help, that's for sure.

This is one technology I'm behind. This is going to be useful. Question: How do we ramp up to 45 million barrels a day, and how long will it take to get up to 80 million? China's going to need some as well, so let's make it an even 100 million barrels a day. If that one factory is putting out 500 barrels a day, which I'm sure could be ramped up significantly, how many factories do we put up to offset production loss? Australia could use a couple right now, as could China and India.

[illflem]

29. We don't ramp up, instead conserve

and develop more efficient systems

[Peak_Oil]

49. I don't know about that.

I got two words for you to think about.

China
India

We only have 5% of the world's population here in the US.

[Silverhair]

33. Ramping up should not be that hard.

The technology to make a plant is pretty basic. Very much like a normal refinery. Cost isn't too bad, especially since you get to start keeping the money at home instead of sending it abroad. The money is spent in you own economy.

The Carthage plant is more of a trial plant, than for regular production. It was designed to for the volume produced by Butterball turkey. But larger units of differing scales should not be a major problem.

Once this is proved, (And I will admit that is the big "IF") I would expect them to start going up everywhere. Con-Agra will get licensing fees, but for something this good, I don't mind if they get really rich over it.

[Peak_Oil]

73. Couple more questions.

I hear you can put just about anything into TDP as a feedstock and it will work pretty much the same way. Water, oil, minerals, waste heat. I'd imagine that you could put one next to any landfill operation and just shovel it in for years and years.

I like the technology and hope it's useful to us on the decline side of the equation. I don't think it's the magic bullet that you do, due to the scale of the problem. I don't think we have enough stuff to feed into the TDP process to replace the ungodly amount we use here.

1. How much feedstock do we have available to put into TDP plants?
2. What is the throughput on a TDP plant? By that, I mean to say, how much oil can you get out of a TDP plant in a day?
3. When oil depletion starts removing a million barrels a day from the total available amount worldwide, we're going to have to make up the difference somehow. How many TDP plants will we need to produce a million barrels a day, and how much feedstock will it take to produce that much oil? Please keep in mind that the US is now a net food importer.
4. Do you honestly think that TDP will replace pumping oil out of Ghawar in fifty years' time?

[RafterMan]

79. I agree that it's a supplement, not a complete solution

1. The feedstock question is tough. From memory, there are over 4 billion tons of agricultural waste produced, but much of that is already recycled. I can't find numbers on how much. 400 million+ tons of municipal solid and industrial waste are produced each year, with a lesser amount recycled.

Factoring out a wild guess about what's used and how much of the tonnage would feed the process, I don't see 40-60 million barrels per year as being outrageous. That's two to three months at current consumption. Again, this number is pulled from the air, but it's conservative.

2. Throughput depends on the plant design. You can scale up or down, as required by local feedstocks

3. Again, depends on the size of the plant. As for feedstock, if the Hannibal equation holds true, it's 400ktons/day.

4. This is the same question, rephrased. I don't think so, but here's a 90 mpg diesel to cheer you up: http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/concept_cars/2001/1/GM_hybrid_gets_80_mpg/index4.phtml

[Silverhair]

80. My answers.

Your questions & my answers:

1. How much feedstock do we have available to put into TDP plants?

According to the May 2003 Discover (And Discover IS a reputable science magazine) we have enough agricultural waste now to completely replace all of the oil we import.

2. What is the throughput on a TDP plant? By that, I mean to say, how much oil can you get out of a TDP plant in a day?

That would depend on the size of the plant. They can be built on different scales, just like refineries are.

3. When oil depletion starts removing a million barrels a day from the total available amount worldwide, we're going to have to make up the difference somehow. How many TDP plants will we need to produce a million barrels a day, and how much feedstock will it take to produce that much oil? Please keep in mind that the US is now a net food importer.

You are considering food items only as feedstock. Remember that it can use stuff that humans don't eat. The clippings from your lawn can be feedstock for a TDP plant. Any organic material, or petrochemical waste can be feedstock. Even coal can be run through the process to clean up the coal so it burns cleaner.

4. Do you honestly think that TDP will replace pumping oil out of Ghawar in fifty years' time?

Far less than fifty years time. Once the concept is proven, building TDP plants is fairly easy, and not very expensive. The one in Carthage cost about $30 million to build. And with standardization of design, the cost to build would come down, and efficiency would go up. They are really nothing more than specialized refineries. Once the concept is proven, (And I admit that is an if.) then there will be lots of corporations that will want to get in the act and build plants. Con-Agra would be only to happen to enter into licensing agreements.

Nor do I fear that the oil companies will try to wreck it as some believe. No, the oil companies will simply try to re-invent the process and build their own plants. That shouldn't be that hard for them to do. The basic chemistry is not subject to patent (It was demonstrated in the 1960s, but because the heat was not recovered it used more energy than it produced), and the basic concept isn't either. All he is doing, basically, is piping the hot output back through the feedstock to preheat it, thereby recovering the previously lost heat.

An ocean going semi-submersible to drill at sea costs hundreds of millions to build and drilling a single well cost millions, and there may NOT be oil there. What oil company wouldn't love to build a plant for less that will be certain to produce oil? Try to stop the technology????? No, the oil companies will try to jump on the bandwagon. They aren't stupid.

[rustydad]

37. NO,no

The "wasted" plant matter should be returned to the soil to replenish the tilth of the soil. Otherwise the soil will eventually be depleted. Ther is no free lunch and if you did a bit of research on any of the energy sites devoted to peak oil you would not have started this ridiculous thread. Been there done that and this is poppycock. Bob

[Silverhair]

40. Have you ever heard of crop rotation?

Crop rotation answers your problem very easily.

[rustydad]

51. No it does not

Crop rotation has two intentions. One is to stop the insect infestations by removing back to back crops of the same insect vulnerability. The second motivation is to plant a nitrogen fixing crop, usually a legume, after planting a nitrogen depleting crop such as corn. There is nothing about crop rotation that eliminates the need to add crop waste back to the soil. I suggest you sir get a shovel and plant a garden rahter than post BS. Bob

[Jose Diablo]

52. What was not discussed is the mineral content as a byproduct

of the TDP. At the turkey waste plant in Missouri it is expected that about 7% by weight of the output of the plant will be a mineral residue, such as calcium, phosphates, etc. The content depends on the waste being processed.

Now there is no smoke from the plant as nothing is really 'burning' except the low energy content methane, which is part of the output of the plant. Therefore any minerals going into the process remain after the process concludes.

These minerals would then be the fertilizer to put back into the soil.

Contrary to your claims about depleting the soil, the fertilizer to place back into the soil is also made in the TDP process. Thus, no soil depletion per your claim.

Back to school Dad.

[rustydad]

58. No Jose

I have been home schooled in gardening. Many years of practice have taught me that while minerals are important in a healthy soil, organic matter is more important. As organic matter decomposes it releases nitrogen and other plant nutrients. And more importantly it opens up clay soils to allow good root growth. It also acts like a sponge in sandy soils to hold in moisture that otherwise would leach away. It is amazing how many no-it-all folks post here on subjects they no little if anything about.

TDB may have a place in recycling some organic wastes into a synthetic oil and I have no problem with that. But to think it can solve the problems of petroleum depletion is pure Pollyanna. Reminds me of Lovins (Rocky Mtn Institute) pure bullsh*t sell on the "hydrogen economy". Any want to buy a bridge? Bob

[Jose Diablo]

60. Gee, all this time I thought nitrogen in a usable form

was placed in the soil through a process called Nitrogen Fixation. Which in turn is caused by:

"Microorganisms have a central role in almost all aspects of nitrogen availability and thus for life support on earth:

* some bacteria can convert N2 into ammonia by the process termed nitrogen fixation; these bacteria are either free-living or form symbiotic associations with plants or other organisms (e.g. termites, protozoa)
* other bacteria bring about transformations of ammonia to nitrate, and of nitrate to N2 or other nitrogen gases
* many bacteria and fungi degrade organic matter, releasing fixed nitrogen for reuse by other organisms.

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/nitrogen.htm

Now you say the vast amount of Nitrogen Fixation is caused by the decay of organic matter as indicated in process 3 above. I wonder, is this correct? How much nitrogen that can be used biologically comes from bacteria breaking down and releasing already fixed nitrogen? This is a good question.

I also wonder if nitrate is also a byproduct of the TDP. After all if the bio waste contains nitrogen, then it would be in the nitrate form usable biologically and it would make sense that nitrate would also be in the mineral waste (you know, the 7% by weight mineral byproduct). You know, turkey shit is loaded with nitrate.

When bacteria break down the decaying organic matter, aren't they in fact extracting the nitrate and releasing the already fixed nitrogen back to the soil?

You being home schooled in the fine art of gardening should be able to supply the chemistry of soil nitrogen fixing very easily. How about it, if the mineral byproduct of TDP is also nitrates, would that replenish the soil?

Remember, all that leaves the TDP process is water, oil, heat and minerals. Any free nitrogen (N2) released from the process? No? Then where does it go? Does oil contain nitrogen? No? Methane? No? Then where does the nitrogen go? Could it be transmuted to some other type of atom?

I would like to see it confirmed that the minerals coming out of the TDP do indeed contain nitrates also.

"Any want to buy a bridge?"

I presume you mean, AnyONE want to buy a bridge?

No, I do not.

All sarcasm aside, its amazing what one little electron can do. The difference better living matter and dead matter.

[Warpy]

7. It will certainly help in situations

where there is no substitute for petroleum. It will also take care of those leaking landfills all over the country.

However, it won't provide adequate fuel for those SUVs, momvans and king cab pickup trucks.

[RafterMan]

13. Good!

[BlueEyedSon]

10. BTW, there is a "Peak Oil" DU Group

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=266

[Silverhair]

23. Thanks. I hadn't noticed it. NT

[bahrbearian]

12. Oh Boy we get to keep spewing green house gases, Great.

[RafterMan]

15. Uh

It would help with Global Warming, since the real problem is (sic) carbon oxide itself, but is NEW carbon dioxide. When you burn a piece of wood, you are putting carbon back into the air that was recently there. If you don't burn it, the wood will rot and the CO2 will go back into the air anyway. But when you burn petroleum, you put NEW carbon into the air, and add to the CO2 in the air. By stopping that, TDP reduces global warming.

[illflem]

21. I know quite a bit about this as I'm a researcher for the USDA

whose main focus right now is trap plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and return them to the soil.
Your logic is flawed, most crop resides end up back in the soil enriching it not in the atmosphere. The fuel derived from plant residue when burned will add CO2 back to the atmosphere.

[Silverhair]

17. I address that in my post. Didn't you read it?

TDP reduces global warming.

[Emillereid]

19. Thermal depolymerization is more recycling than original energy.

This is what Mike Ruppert says about thermal depolymerization:
"Similarly, the new technology of thermal depolymerization is not a legitimate alternative energy source. This process transforms carbon-based wastes back into hydrocarbon fuel. This technology is useful, and may help us on the downside of the Hubbert curve, but it will never replace fossil fuels. Why? Because the wastes were produced by the use of fossil fuels.


Even using turkey offal, one must account for 1) the feed, 2) what fertilized the feed (natural gas), 3) how the feed was planted, 4) harvested, 5) irrigated (oil and gas), and 5) how the turkey got to market (oil). Thermal depolymerization should be more properly viewed as a form of recycling. But this process will never have the net energy of the original fossil fuels. As fossil fuels dwindle, so will the source material."

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html

I talked to him about this energy source one evening and he convinced me that while the technology was useful and could ameliorate some of the pain post-peak but will never replace fossil fuels. I think he's right that any alternative fuel source must take into account all the energy used in its creation.

[Silverhair]

22. And your error is: Looking only at turkeys.

It also works on plant mass. The grass clippings from your lawn will do. Plants are solar collectors. You are putting recently collected solar energy into a TDP plant. The recycling aspect is just an added bonus. Most of the energy would come from newly collected solar energy in the form of plant mass.

[NoFederales]

35. TDP in Carthage

Very little is actually reported to the community about this plant RES. The greatest publicity generated results from the overwhelming stench this place creates--it is a permeating, gagging odor that can envelop large portions of the City. The Mayor is unconcerned because Kit Bond and other MO politicians wrangled special deals for RES and ConAgra/Butterball to the tune of a few million dollars.

I monitor the river water which receives the effluents from RES/ConAgra/Butterball and have consistently found exceedingly high e coli bacteria counts (greater than 2416 CFUs--which is off scale--on IdexxQuantaTray equipment). The State of Missouri considers 200 CFUs--colony forming units--the maximum allowable. Our R Gov-elect, Matt Blunt is already having legislation written to dismantle the Dept. of Natural Resources and who knows where this will put enforcement. Blunt is the son of Roy Blunt, House Whip for the Republicans. So far the Mayor, County Health, and DNR do not seem alarmed about public health issues.

I won't toot the TDP horn until it proves environmentally sound--and that's by pre-Bush eco standards. Stay tuned.

NoFederales

[Silverhair]

38. Yes, I have read about the smell.

They are working on eliminating that. After all, they don't want to work in the smell either. Maybe the plants will have to be built far away from anybody.

I had not heard about the bacteria problem. The chemistry requires everything to be heated so hot that everything falls apart into smaller chains of atoms. Nothing, not even viruses can live through that.

Something other than the TDP process itself is causing the bacteria count.

[NoFederales]

45. RES or ConAgra It Doesn't Matter

A major health and environmental issue exists and these two entities are entwined in the venture. The science cannot, and should not be separated from the economic, political, and social-environmental impact.

I may believe fundamentally in the nuclear energy industry and could provide many upbeat issues that are significant in comparison to other forms of energy development, but there is that one issue about waste that is hazardous, and cannot be easily waved away. The same is true for the Carthage situation. Pollution which causes ecosystem damage to the river and puts public health at risk is simply not a feasible/sustainable venture.

That said, I do wish RES success with their project because it's good science, something that damned few companies can claim to be doing. It just needs to be an all inclusive SAFE science and economic venture.

NoFederales

[RafterMan]

42. Did the e coli

not appear until the TDP plant came? It seems more likely tied to the turkey plant.

Also, the wiki article says that it was found the smells were not from the plant. Do you know the full story? If so, please go there and edit it into the page. People really want hard facts about this thing.

[NoFederales]

50. Wiki Article

I'm sorry I don't know about the Wiki article. My group started monitoring the river, taking data for the Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, last February, 2004. We essentially monitor the macroinvertebrate population in the stream to determine the longterm effects of pollution. Our chemical tests for pollutants are good only at the moment of testing, but we started out doing monthly tests, then went to weekly tests. It has been an experience to understate it.

The disagreeable smell is most definitely from RES, but ConAgra/Butterball can aggravate the problem depending on how the offal is transported. Before RES came around, the turkey processor did ocassionally create a rotten vomitous odor. That was bad enough, but this new odor has additional facets, most noticeably a "burnt" smell mixed in with the rest of the stench. I heard the Mayor claim a few months ago that the smell only occurred when the RES facility was idle between batches. Before that the Mayor claimed there was no odor, but thousands of nostrils to his alone would not buy the story.

Little is actually reported to the community, and NO one in the media is going to ask. Since water effluents can be dumped into the millrace where the two facilities sit adjacent, we can only monitor the water as it is released back into the main river flow. But these two companies are in a partnership that does not absolve them from stewardship principles.

[Jose Diablo]

55. I do not see how any microbe could survive the high pressure/temperatures

of the process.

It would seem to me that if the plant is causing a elevated microbe count in the waste water, then a search should be made as to why. The water released should be pure. Maybe there are minerals in the water the microbes feed on.

Are the samples from the waste water or downstream in the river itself?

[Silverhair]

62. I am trying to talk about the TDP process itself.

Granted, the only commercial scale plant is the one in Carthage so we all emperical evidence has to come from a single case study. But it is impotant to know what is being caused by TDP itself, and what is due to other causes.

You have just said that you can't pinpoint the source of the bacteria count. I will readily agree that Con-Agra/Butterball needs to do something about that. But that in no way means that TDP itself should be thrown out. No bacteria can survice being broken down into smaller atomic chains. So the TDP process is NOT causing the bacteria.

[Solon]

20. I have several problems with this...

the first and foremost is the overly optimistic 85% effeciency. Call me a sceptic, but unless some independant verification of how this is done, I would call bullshit on that alone. I would say, that if they turn a profit at all, it would be closer to half that efficiency. Plus, how much biomatter is needed for a single barrel of oil? I also am skeptical of the assessment on no pollution, I don't see how that is possible. Even organic matter has all sorts of chemicals in it that are hard to break down and are highly toxic. Its not just the yucky brown stuff that is in sewage, there's clorine, and a variety of other chemicals that take a LOT of energy to break down.

Second, your assessment of why CO2 levels are so high is only partially correct. To begin with that, while a log that rots does emit CO2, it does not emit it at the rate burning it would, nor would it be nearly as much as burning it would. Bacteria and other microbes, fungi, and other creatures, like termites, also do a pretty good job breaking down biomatter into usable forms for plants and animals, returning nitrogen to soil, etc. this includes lessening the pollution of CO2 back to the atmosphere. Third is the frivolous use of calling this solar energy, ALL fossil fuels, at the most basic level, are simply pools of solar energy converted to a more usable form, plus they are highly concentrated.

This pretty much sums up my problems for this idea. I'm not saying it doesn't have ANY value, just that its value may be overstated, like hydrogen and fuel cells. The problem I have most with these things is that these technologies claim to "save" us from ourselves, when in reality they basically will create new problems out of old ones. There is no magic bullet that will save us from Peak Oil, and it is best not to put all our eggs into one basket, as of right now we only use, for over 90% of all energy usage, 4 major sources, Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, and Nuclear.

The key, I think, is to diversify our energy sources as much as possible, using the best of as many alternatives as possible in our localities(for example Solar in Deserts, wind in valleys, etc.), and at the same time develop new solutions, real solutions that are sustainable in the long term. This will include learning from past mistakes and actually having to change the way we live to have lifestyles that are sustainable for ourselves. That would include using less fossil fuels in general for transportation and electricity. Redesigning towns and cities to be more efficient in business and housing, as well as making them on a HUMAN scale, where you could walk or bike to work rather than drive 30 miles. There are no simple solutions to these problems, it is complex and should be attacked on all sides by innovation, just make sure to think about the negatives that come with our innovations.

[BlueEyedSon]

24. deleted.

[bahrbearian]

28. Thanks, that makes sense.

[BlueEyedSon]

25. BTW, what do you get from TDP? Heat? Combustible gasses?

Liquid hydrocarbons? Electricity? Hydrogen?

Depending on what energy carrier comes out, a solar water heater or PV cell might be even better.

[Silverhair]

34. Oil. Same as the stuff from wells, except cleaner. NT

[BlueEyedSon]

39. You piqued my interest so i checked your links

Your are not entirely correct, the max is 70% oil output (source was petrochemical to begin with), worst case is 26% oil. See below:

Feedstock Output
Plastic bottles

* Oil: 70 %
* Gas: 16 %
* Carbon solids: 6 %
* Water: 8 %

Turkey offal

* Oil: 39 %
* Gas: 6 %
* Carbon solids: 5 %
* Water: 50 %

Sewage sludge

* Oil: 26 %
* Gas: 9 %
* Carbon solids: 8 %
* Water: 57 %

Medical waste

* Oil: 65 %
* Gas: 10 %
* Carbon solids: 5 %
* Water: 20 %

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

[RafterMan]

43. That's either by mass or by volume

The 85% figure is based on energy.

If I recall some distant reading correctly, they burn up all the gas created in the plant and some of the oil.

[BlueEyedSon]

44. The point is that the output is not all oil (which would be ideal based on

"energy quality").

[rman]

30. the statement on the efficiency is misleading

"Efficiency is 85%, meaning that of 100 BTU dumped into the machine, 85 is recovered for sale, and 15 is used in the process."

If it is so that of 100 energy units input you can sell 85 and use 15 for the process, then the total put would 100.
100 in, 100 out = 100% efficiency.

If efficiency is 85% then of 100 units input there will be a loss of 15%, the loss can not be used to power the plant.

It's either 100% efficiency, which is impossible, or it's 85% (probably at best, depending on the source material). That means the total energy output is less then the input.

[Solon]

32. That's true...

Forgot to mention the waste heat, and solid/liquid waste in my post, I noticed that wasn't mentioned at all.

[Silverhair]

36. Basic thermodynamics time.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed. (OK folks. We aren't talking about quantum physics or vacumn energy here. This is Newtonian stuff.)

Put 100 units in, and 100 units is going to go somewhere. 85% is recovered for sale. The other 15 is used to power the process and is eventually lost as waste heat.

That's a two sentence description that is grossly oversimplified, but is essentially accurate.

[NoFederales]

41. Energy Degradation

Each time an energy source is used, it is degraded to less and less available usage. The waste heat generated in most systems, which is significant, has been largely unrecoverable. Efficiency is the comparison of energy inputs and outputs and is often obscured by the interests and bias of researchers.

NoFederales

[rman]

46. if you'd use 15% to power the process then it'd be converted to usefull

'labor'; it would go into ripping appart the input material; breaking up molecular bonds. that means it wouldn't "eventually" be lost as waste heat.

if you use, one way or another, 85% + 15% then you end up with 100% efficiency, which is impossible.

[slutticus]

54. Yes, but unless the process is reversible (which it cannot be),

then some energy will be "lost".

When someone says that something has an efficiency of 85%, that means that 15% of the energy is "wasted". It cannot be used, especially to "power the process".

So if you have a feed of 100BTUs, then 85% efficiency will give you 85 BTUs of usable energy. If it takes 15 to power the process, then that gives you 70 BTUs for sale.

Nonetheless, an efficiency of 85% is impressive for a process, so I'm very skeptical.

[RafterMan]

59. This has been much discussed

Lots of people home in on the definition of energy efficiency when discussing TDP -- I saw one discussion where some guy actually called them to confirm it. I think they mean that they are comparing total output BTUs to output BTUs less operating energy and coming up with 85%, not that 15% is lost in the transition from turkey to oil with operating energy yet to be considered. So the measure is "We consume 15% of our product". I don't know what the number of output BTUs is vs. the number of BTUs available in the raw turkey. Maybe we should call Weight Watchers.

The plant is still experimental, though, and whether it meets its goal of 85% is uncertain.

[Silverhair]

61. You are counting the same 15% twice. NT

[rman]

63. No, that's what you are doing:

according to you first the 15% is used to power the process, then the same 15% is lost as "waste heat".

[Silverhair]

66. No, I am not.

You have a plant. You put into it 100 BTU, total. At the end of the process you have 85BTU available for sale. The other 15 was consumed in the process.

[rman]

67. you keep changing your argument:

"The other 15 is used to power the process and is eventually lost as waste heat."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2884070&mesg_id=2884700&page=

Now according to you the 15% is "consumed in the process". Consumed how? To power the process and then lost as waste heat?

[slutticus]

68. It's hopeless.

Maybe we can sell some of these people a perpetual motion machine.
:evilgrin:

[slutticus]

69. No.

Any energy that is used for any useful purpose, whether it's for powering the process or selling as product, must be factored in to the efficiency.

I'm assuming that the quoted eff. of 0.85 is that of the entire optimized process, including heat recovery streams, adiabatic walls etc...

[RafterMan]

70. Yes, 85% for the entire process

So it's not 85% less another 15% net 70% as you suggested in post #54.

That was the point of the post. Please reread my post #59 if that helps clear up any confusion.

[rman]

71. the article says different

"Efficiency is 85%, meaning that of 100 BTU dumped into the machine, 85 is recovered for sale, and 15 is used in the process."

That amounts to 85% + 15% = 100% total useful output. But we've been through that discussion already.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2884070&mesg_id=2884525&page=

[RafterMan]

74. But that's what I just said...

:shrug:

[slutticus]

75. You cannot define efficiency like that.

I now see that they got the number 85 by taking 100 BTU as the exit of the process, and just subracted 15. You can't state efficiencies without some knowledge of what is going in to the process, as well as what is exiting. It will mislead people. For all we know, the true efficiency of the process could be 0.1.

If you dump energy into a process, and expect to get the same amount of usable energy back out (whether it's for powering the process or for selling), you're fooling yourself.

Stating an efficiency for the process of 0.85 is misleading. If you tell someone that the efficiency of the process is 0.85, and that you input 100 BTUs of usable energy into the process...they will get the same numbers I did.

[RafterMan]

77. I went to Weight Watchers

I chose turkey giblets as my input, since that seemed like it would be closest to what they were dealing with at the plant. Obviously, it's a ballpark number

Here are the results:

kcal turkey giblets/lb 1700
kcal ton turkey 3,400,000
kcal/btu 0.252
btus/ton-turkey 13,492,063
input tons* 200
input btu 2,698,412,698
btus/barrel oil 5,500,000
barrels at 100% 490.62
actual barrels* 500
efficiency 1.02

* indicates Hannibal plant numbers from wikipedia.

So it seems likely to be closer to 1 than 0.1. I would argue the 85% figure is not misleading when you're dealing with waste inputs, but becomes so when you're talking about sustainability. It may be less misleading when you consider the solar input to the feedstock, which I have no way of deriving.

Hope this helps.

[RafterMan]

47. But what would be the point in breaking it down further?

We recover 85%, use 7.5% to power our 50% efficient plant, and lose 7.5% in waste heat...

It's pointless. The question is the efficiency of the process, not the plant.

[rman]

48. disregard the very last sentence

"That means the total energy output is less then the input."

Since "waste heat" is also energy - just useless to us - total energy output is equal to input.
It is usefull energy output that is less then input.

[slutticus]

53. Hydrocarbons are the same thing with the order of the words switched.

Wow. I can't believe I just read that. Do I dare read more.

"Efficiency is 85%, meaning that of 100 BTU dumped into the machine, 85 is recovered for sale, and 15 is used in the process."
This is not a correct definition of efficiency.

I'm not convinced that this process is self-sustainable. But if it is, that would be great.

I will do more research, this is interesting.

[Silverhair]

65. Yes, I greatly simplify some things in my posts.

When you try to state a concept in one or two sentences, and for a mostly nonscientific readership, I have to simply to an extreme. Carbohydrates and hydrocarbons are both chains of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Yes, you have a few other atoms here & there in the stuff.

And yes, I simplified on the definition of effeciency. But the purpose of this post is to make people aware of TDP, create discussion about it, and also to maybe learn more about it from those with more knowledge.

My purpose is not to give a science class.

[nascarblue]

56. An online "banned in the US" documentary on exactly this topic

Narrated by Ed Asner with all kinds of military and political guests. It's a must see.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/22/143233&mode=thread&tid=25

[BlueEyedSon]

57. I'm watching it, there is NOTHING about TDP here. nt

[rman]

64. about oil wars, not "Thermal Depolymerization" n/t

-

[AG78]

76. So what's the downside?

This is Earth we're talking about. This is humanity we're talking about. There's always a catch.

I'm not saying these guys shouldn't try it. Go for it. They're far smarter than I, so I wouldn't say stop. But there has to be a downside to this process as well.

Take our need for oil. Its put humans on the moon, and sent machines beyond that point. It's been the life-blood of our current civilization. But it's also brought pollution, shady dealings, etc, etc.

Water is good. Life needs it to live. But it can also kill.

Nothing can be that perfect. If it works on a large scale, it sounds like a great breakthrough. There just has to be another side to the coin.

[rustydad]

78. Downside?

The process may indeed not have a direct downside. As a way to recycle certain waste products it must surely be better than landfilling or burning. The real downside is starting threads that give people (sheple) hope where there is none. This technology will have no effect on the coming fuel shortages. We would need to convert all our farmland to grow feedstock for this process and still not have enough fuel for our present lifestyles. Ain't gonna happen. The best use of this process might be to use it to dispose of the bodies of humans when the dieoff really gets in motion. Sort of a "Soylent Green" stratagy. Bob