National Geographic: Ten Biofuels Plants to Produce $10/barrel Oil.

[NNadir]

Wow.

Great!

As Americans prepare to gobble down 45 million turkeys on Thursday, a factory in Carthage, Missouri, is turning the feathers and innards of the feted bird into a clean-burning fuel oil. Changing World Technologies (CWT), a New York environmental technology company that is behind the project, also has plans to turn the organic waste from chickens, cows, hogs, onions, and Parmesan cheese into light crude oil—and those are just the some of CWT's proposed ventures.

The company works such miracles through thermo-depolymerization (TDP), a process by which waste materials are broken down by intensive heat and pressure to produce natural gas, fuel oil, and minerals. The company's CEO, Brian Appel, says he can turn any type of carbon-based waste—be it computers or offal—into combustible fuel...

...Appel received U.S. $5 million from the EPA to build the $20-million dollar Carthage facility it jointly owns with ConAgra, one of North America's largest packaged food companies. At full capacity, the plant is designed to turn 200 tons of turkey guts into 500 barrels of oil a day. If it performs as expected, proposed plants in Nevada, Colorado, Alabama, and Italy will also get off the ground—and make the oil more competitively priced. Appel estimates he would need around a few dozen plants in operation to put the cost of producing the oil at around $10 a barrel. The price could drop further as more plants are built, he says...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1125_031125_turkeyoil.html

Um...Thursday?

Oh wait a second, this article dates from 2003.

Where's the $10/barrel "anything into oil" oil?

The ten plants?

Next to the Iogen cellulosic ethanol plants I guess.

[Fledermaus]

1. CTW Files for IPO; Planned Expansion to 54M Gallons of Renewable Diesel Fuel

Changing World Technologies (CWT), developer of a non-combustion thermolytic deploymerization process for the conversion of organic waste into renewable diesel fuel oil and fertilizers (Thermal Conversion Process, TCP), has filed an S1 registration statement with the SEC for an IPO.

CWT currently operates a TCP production facility in Carthage, Missouri, that has the capacity to convert 78,000 tons of animal and food processing waste into approximately 4 - 9 million gallons of renewable diesel oil per year, depending on the feedstock mix used. The produced renewable diesel can be run as a straight, unblended low-sulfur fuel oil and has been EPA-approved as an additive in diesel fuel; full use as a transportation fuel will require upgrading.

Using the current feedstock mix—waste from the adjacent ButterBall turkey plant—the Carthage facility produces approximately one gallon of liquid nitrogen concentrate fertilizer for every gallon of renewable diesel produced, and approximately three pounds of solid mineral phosphate fertilizer.

The company intends to use the proceeds of the IPO to support its expansion of TCP facilities to produce approximately 13 million to 54 million gallons of renewable diesel per year. It also intends to establish trap and low-value grease facilities that can convert from 150 to 600 tons of feedstock per day and produce 5 million to 19 million gallons of renewable diesel per year. It expects to locate future facilities near sources of feedstock.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/changing-world.html

Ha Ha Ha...

[NNadir]

3. Well, a plan to scam more investors is NOT $10/barrel "renewable" oil.

It's a plan to scam more investors.

Even if they were not lying and the statement you link is merely a repetition of the same claims they made 5 years ago, to wit: "We are planning to build a plant." Not "we are producing 54 million gallons" but "we could produce 54 million gallons..."

There is NOT ONE "renewables will save us" advocate who uses the present tense. All of them use the future tense or the conditional tenses.

And now one needs to ask how much 54 million gallons of oil is, since 100% of these promises lack any sense of scale.

There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel of crude oil.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm

Thus 54 million gallons is about about 1.28 million barrels per year. As of about a week ago, the United States was importing about 14 million gallons per day.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

Thus even if Changing World is not lying - and there's no evidence, based on their previously distorted projections about themselves, to suggest that they are being truthful and accurate - their yearly production will amount to about 2 hours and 13 minutes worth of US oil imports.

I suppose this is supposed to be, according to the "renewables will save us" religion, a sign from God that we can save the stupid destructive car culture with turkey appeals.

We can't. A turkey is a turkey.

[bahrbearian]

2. I still think we need to give oil incentives to explore for new feilds.

Drill here, and drill now,,, My fiends are any of you tired of $4 a gallon gasoline?

[Indenturedebtor]

7. You won't find much sympathy for that point of view here

Most of us are familiar with the following facts:

US Exports of oil/gas have been at their highest levels in history over the last 2 years.
It would take around 10 years to bring a new offshore rig online, at which point all the new drilling might possibly best case lower the price of gas 20 cents a gallon... more likely 2 cents a gallon. How much are your oceans worth???
The planet is being choked to death in a fog of CO2.

[bahrbearian]

8. Sorry I didn't think I needed a Scarcasm Smiley

Here it is :sarcasm:

[Indenturedebtor]

10. Ah ok thanks :D I was being slow I guess ;) n/t

[amandabeech]

4. I still think that this technology has potential in recycling some organic wastes.

It is not, however, the same thing as an oil well.

What I particularly like is that it has the ability to separate out phosphorus, calcium and nitrogen, all of which are crucial fertilizers and soil amendments for farming. Phosphorus and nitrogen are high demand products whose prices have absolutely skyrocketed recently. Phosphorus for fertilizer is 3 times more expensive than it was last year according to my farmer friend. Nitrogen has been increasing for several years and is now nearly all imported because it is made with natural gas which is much more expensive in North America than anywhere else, IIRC. Much of the imports come from Trinidad & Tobago, but others come from less friendly and less coerciable spots like the Persian Gulf and Russia.

If nitrogen and phosphorus agricultural products continue to increase in price, TDP's ability to extract those elements from waste products may be as attractive as the process's ability to produce a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, and increase interest in the technology.

[The Croquist]

18. There is allot of organic waste produced in this country

Turkey guts is minor compared to chicken, beef and (my favorite) hog.*

Turkey 7,200,000,000 pounds
Chicken 21,000,000,000 pounds
Beef 29,040,000,000 pounds
Pork 20,160,000,000 pounds

* I got these numbers from lots of places and I don't trust them for being accurate.

I don't think that this will do anything significant to satisfy our energy needs but it could get rid of allot of animal guts. Now if you can find a use for pig manure we'll all be in hog heaven.

[struggle4progress]

5. West Hampstead-based Changing World Technologies ... (LI Business News 2005)

West Hampstead-based Changing World Technologies sees inequity in ...
Long Island Business News, Apr 15, 2005 by Ken Schachter

... Meanwhile, each day, the CWT facility in Carthage, Mo., turns up to 270 tons of animal waste from the ConAgra plant and turns it into 300 barrels of oil ... CWT Chairman & CEO Brian Appel .. noted that diesel engines can burn the oil his company produces without modification. Many diesel engines require modifications to run on straight biodiesel from other sources. The oil being produced at Carthage is being bought by a local utility ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20050415/ai_n13612323

[NickB79]

9. 109,000 barrels per year is pretty short of the 13-54 million barrels per year they shot for

Which is a shame, really, because this is a useful way to recycle some otherwise discarded waste.

[struggle4progress]

11. Article in OP says max projected Carthage plant capacity is 500 brrl/da (c. 180 000 brrl/yr)

[NickB79]

12. Arguing about 71,000 barrels a year, out of 30 billion used annually, is splitting hairs pretty thin

:evilgrin:

[struggle4progress]

13. I say: "Get the facts right before making any argument"

I haven't expressed any opinion about the technology. And if you look down-thread, you'll see I've posted a link indicating that odors are a real concern

Nobody ever claimed this plant would produce millions of barrels (as you suggested in your prior post): the most that was claimed was less than 200,000/yr. And I am sure you yourself realize that it is ridiculously disingenuous of you to read my posts as suggesting that such a technology alone will replace tens of billions of barrels

I suspect just about everyone in this forum realizes that sooner (rather than later) we will face a number of potentially catastrophic global resource shortages, among them fossil fuels and potable water. These problems will not be solved by some magical and invisible market forces: they will require great technical ingenuity, a commitment to eliminate wasteful misuses, and international diplomacy of the highest caliber. Effective solutions must be non-ideological in nature and they must be robust, in the sense that potential failures of one approach can be accomodated by ramping up other approaches. Solutions must also address international political realities, because they will fail unless people around the world consider the solutions fair: in my view, it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely) that humanity will fail to solve these problems, with the result that ever dwindling resources are squandered through high-tech warfare over resource control. I do not believe there are any silver bullets to slay these monsters

[NickB79]

14. Actually, Fledermaus DID post a claim of 13-54 million barrels per day from future expansions

First response in this thread:

"The company intends to use the proceeds of the IPO to support its expansion of TCP facilities to produce approximately 13 million to 54 million gallons of renewable diesel per year."

Other than that, though, I AGREE with everything you just posted. I stated in my previous post that I do like this technology as a way to recycle material into usable fuel, but I also agree that there are no silver bullets in our arsenal.

I was simply making a smart-ass joke; I thought the :evilgrin: smiley would convey that.

[kristopher]

15. Pssst....

Note unit of measure - barrels versus gallons.....

[Nederland]

25. Pssst Part II....

He also swaps "per year" with "per day"...

[The Croquist]

16. I think you missed the only long term solution

Population control.

I don't know what the best population for the world is but no matter how efficiently you use resources if you keep increasing the size of the population eventually it won't matter.

We are doing better (the world is currently growing at about 1.159% per year but at that rate the population still doubles every 61 years. At that rate by the end of the century the population will be almost 3 times the current size and by the year 2200 9 times the current size.

[GliderGuider]

17. Careful, people will play the "you go first" card on you.

The bun-fight generally devolves into a stand-off: "The first world has to reduce their consumption, but not their population" vs. "The third world has to reduce their population, but not their consumption."

One thing that would be helped by a reduction in human population, no matter which "world" you're talking about, is biodiversity loss. Human populations out-compete all other species for habitat, and it takes very little human encroachment to reduce regional biodiversity.

Beyond that one area it becomes a question of human impact as symbolically expressed by I=PAT, where the higher levels of technology and activity come into play alongside sheer population numbers.

In order to avoid puerile charges of promoting genocide, I've adopted the following position (which I also think is how it's actually going to play out):

1. Human population growth (but not our absolute numbers) will continue to decline due to the ongoing world-wide decrease in birth rates. This decline is being driven largely by the spread of affluence.

2. Absolute human numbers will eventually be reduced by involuntary resource shortages and system failures induced by the spread of affluence through a growing population as described in point 1.

We can help along the declining growth rate in point 1 by educating and empowering women as well as by expanding access to family planning knowledge and technology. Mother Nature will take care of point 2.

[The Croquist]

19. I completely agree regarding number #1 but disagree about #2

Affluence is the key. If you are right about #2, #1 doesn't happen and kids start coming back out.

I also don't think that the World couldn't support the current population although I would rather it be much lower.
I think the biggest issue regarding population control is cultural. Poor people look to their children as their retirement plan and it is a tough idea to defeat. Frankly I don't really blame them. If you only have one kid and they die you are screwed. Nor would I trust the government of a poor country to provide me with retirement if I promised not to have kids. I don't trust the US to live up to it's Social Security obligations. I would trust the government of Guatemala even less (nothing personal about Guatemala).

[GliderGuider]

20. Affluence isn't the only factor in the decision.

The decision of whether or not to have a child is the outcome of a complex (and largely unconscious) cost-benefit calculation by the parents. In this analysis, economic factors coexist alongside cultural norms, religious influences, biological urges, the number of children the couple already has, the parents' perceptions of the economic and cultural future, the social support mechanisms available, etc. etc., and it's all mediated by the access to fertility control mechanisms. "Fertility control mechanisms" don't include just birth control and abortion, they also include abstinence and even infanticide if the cost is perceived to be too high and more humane means are not available.

So, if the economic, physical and cultural milieu changes, as it would in a fragmenting, resource-depleted country in the grip of climate change, the decision to have more children might well be "No" even if affluence is declining.

[struggle4progress]

21. I completely agree population control is necessary but note that we Americans per capita

suck up about 20x our fair share -- a reality that has been traditionally enforced by our military power, corresponding to the fact that we account for 50% of all world military spending

A little reflection should convince you that the associated political problems are substantial

First, there is the fact that absolutely everyone always feels justified in their own position. For example, the famines in India during the period of British rule were not caused by lack of food but by inequalities in political power, yet the British reliably blamed over-population in India for the famines. As another example, warfare represents an almost total economic waste, since it primarily produces wreckage and garbage, at great human cost, but the industries that supply it benefit; it is difficult to imagine that the US will significantly reduce its military production voluntarily, as we invariably tell ourselves that such expenditures represent nothing but our virtuous effort to spread democracy and to defend ourself against the alleged nuclear threats of states such as Iraq. As a third example, consider the difficulties faced by a poor couple, whose retirement is guaranteed only by their children and whose current economic status may depend precariously on the number of small hands they can put to work today

[The Croquist]

22. Population control and other things

I agree regarding the relationship in poor countries between children and retirement but I don't really buy the idea that children actually provide more then they use. I know that farmers have been doing it forever but think about it this way.

A pregnancy really cuts back on the wife's productivity as does taking care of the kid for the first 5 years of life.
Kids require attention, food and clothes.
When you finally get them in the fields they require supervision and are not nearly as efficient as an adult.
Maybe by the time they are teenagers they are contributing but there is a good chance that they will have died before they became productive in which case your entire investment was wasted.

If having kids made farmers better off, China would have been the richest country in the world in 1960.

I agree that war results in economic waste and very often (probably way over 50%) results in huge economic losses for everyone including the industries. Ask the industries of Europe or Japan how much money they made during the war. They probably did OK until their factories were bombed into oblivion. War is sometimes the answer but just wars are few and far between and if it starts because of economics even rarer. I don't think that economic wars however are that common. They may look like economic wars but I think they are more often power trip wars justified for economic reasons like previous wars were justified over religious reasons. Religion was / is used to motivate the poor sap doing the dieing but the guy in the palace wanted to show the world that he had a big dick.

The US has already reduced it's military significantly. As a percent of GDP spending peaked at 37.8% in 1944. In 2003 it was 3.7%. A decade average works out to:
1940's 17.04%
1950's 10.40%
1960's 8.73%
1970's 5.83%
1980's 5.75%
1990's 3.96%
2000 - 2003 3.28%

The actual 200's will be higher but I can't find more recent numbers but I think you get my point. Before you argue that GDP isn't important keep in mind that US soldiers won't work for the same pay as Chinese soldiers and that things cost more here then in China.

I don't feel guilty about the US sucking up 20% of the worlds resources. Just because the people of Bangladesh, India and China have too many people for their land is not our fault.

[struggle4progress]

6. Carthage plant pays $100,000 over odor lawsuit (2006)

By KELLY WIESE
Associated Press Writer


A Carthage, Mo., plant that turns turkey waste into fuel oil will pay a $100,000 penalty to resolve a state lawsuit over odor problems under a court order issued Tuesday.

Neighbors have complained about odors, the plant has faced litigation, and for a time it was ordered shut down by the state because of the smell.

The company, Renewable Environmental Solutions Inc., installed new odor equipment, and the Department of Natural Resources allowed the plant to resume full operations in March.

Under a consent judgment filed Tuesday in Jasper County Circuit Court, the company will pay a $100,000 fine - the largest ever for an odor violation in Missouri, Attorney General Jay Nixon's office said ...

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2006/06/28/news_state/186state39odor.txt

[Chemical Bill]

23. Here, now.

I've run my diesel car for almost 20,000 miles on commercial biodiesel made locally from restaurant waste.

Bill

[NNadir]

24. Who gives a fuck?

I don't.

Let me know when you're powering whatever province you live in without driving your stupid car around to the back door of every restaurant in town.

The fact is that nobody anywhere is selling biodiesel for $10 a barrel. Not you. Nobody.

It was just wishful thinking. Pipe dreams. Fluff.