Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 08 Jan 2009, 21:51:33

CWT still exists as a company today. Like cellulosic ethanol, TDP is a technology that actually works. But the technology was hyped beyond reason. People did not apply enough skepticism before embracing the promise of the technology. It was really going to be "the next big thing."

But costs and complications were grossly underestimated. They fell victim to The Law of Receding Horizons. They learned that the public doesn't like smelly plants in their community. Discover ran an updated article in 2006 in which Appel admitted "We have made mistakes. We were too aggressive in our earlier projections." The hype just ultimately did not match the reality. And while TDP may make some small contribution to our energy needs, it isn't going to make any measurable dent in our fossil fuel usage.

I remember when Discover published their first article about this. Many readers couldn't believe it, and wrote angry letters accusing Discover of falling for a perpetual motion scam.

I knew it wasn't a scam, but those objections pointed to what I saw as the real reason this technology was never going to replace imported oil. The feedstock, even if it was free monetarily, would not be free energy-wise. There's not enough turkey waste out there to replace oil, and it would be really silly to farm turkeys just to feed the thermal conversion plant. Assuming we could farm enough of them, which we can't.

I think this technology may prove to be a useful way of getting rid of waste - sewage, old tires, mad cow infected carcasses, etc. - but as a replacement for oil, it was never going to fly.

Basically, it's a form of recycling. Recycling is good, but it doesn't actually produce any new energy.
TDP: The Next Big Thing
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby TomSaidak » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 00:09:02

Kublikhan Quoted:
Another US pulp mill contact said black liquor, a byproduct of cooking wood chips, is burned in a recovery boiler and the heat value creates steam to power the pulp mill.
The contact added that the key problems with considering black liquor as a biodiesel source is in the reliability of the gasification process and the need to replace the energy source created from the black liquor. About two-thirds of the energy for running a pulp mill comes from the black liquor recovery.


An interesting point, that needs more research. [s]I will leave the number in for now, but will do a bit more research. Expect that it will go down. I will be looking for oil replacements and environmental impacts (where do all the nasty chemicals go). Also, MIT Pulp To Power[/s] I reduced the number by 75%, you can see the revised spreadsheet here:
My TDP Spreadsheet


MSW. I knew you were going to comment on that. I have changed that number. MSW now represents 2%.

First off, sow manure is unuseable for anything else, and is being blamed for creating a dead zone the size of New Jersey in the Gulf of Mexico. One of those factoids I have picked up.

Cow manure. Some of it SHOULD be put back into the soil. Not all of it - the soil can't utilize it. That is in numerous articles. The phopshates end up in the water. I know that is a problem personally - used to work a Renne Faire next to a reservoir, and no end of dicussion of problems caused by manure. Or vomiting drunks. Don't ask unless you really, really want me to explain.... This includes NOX emissions and methane emissions. Both of which are nasty air pollutants.
Much of the manure use can be replaced by NG. My Prius won't burn NG, but it will burn oil. So I suggest as a strategy that to the point we can find alternates to manure as fertilizer, use the maure for oil. The arm rassling from here should look like a series of numbers with citations. We both agree manure should be used as a fertilizer. The question becomes one of how much. That number should be based on a) how much can the soil accept (no point in putting 2lbs of manure in if the soil can only use 1lb) b) How much manure as fertilizer can be supplanted by non oil substances. We are talking Peak Oil issues, not peak NG issues. Though that will come up at some point..... ;)

So, get some manure numbers and you OWE ME BEER YOU RAT!!

Let's see....
Tons to bbl.... Convert tons to pounds by multiplying by 2000, divide by 7.7 lbs (weight of one gallon of oil), and divide by 42 gallons to get bbl. Silly Kublikhan - that's why I put up the spreadsheet - so you could SEE the formulaes!! [smilie=icon_cheers.gif]

Kublikhan wrote:
That number is in energy equivalents.

Yes, we have had that discussion. Pstarr likes to criticize, but has yet to EVER produce numbers when numbers are used. I started my posts with a number. You supplied counter arguements that included numbers. I have modified my numbers. This is in effect a science argument that will lead to an economic argument at some point. By the way, I use the term "argument" in it's mathematical/science context. You are being very polite and helpful. :)

Which reminds me, that 400 gallons of oil equivalent, after subtracting non oil energy sources, turns into about 1.6 billion bbl per year, which still strikes me as high. I can discount 45 percent or so as non oil sources of energy, but the various breakdowns leave a lot to be desired in teasing out electrical vs non electrical sources. It also leads me to wonder how much of that energy that IS oil based can be changed to non oil based sources.

And about agricultural sources in general. Places like Georgia University, which are Ag colleges keep talking about using cornstover and cotton stalks as biomass. So a number of peeps in the Ag business who also use fertilization costs in their number crunching are suggesting that such stocks be used for energy, not fertilizer. One source of efficiency is cost, if they can get more selling cornstover then it costs to fertilize, then it may be better to go that route. Frankly, there is some wriggle room for discussion there.
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 18:23:02

TomSaidak wrote:Cow manure. Some of it SHOULD be put back into the soil. Not all of it - the soil can't utilize it. That is in numerous articles. The phopshates end up in the water. I know that is a problem personally - used to work a Renne Faire next to a reservoir, and no end of dicussion of problems caused by manure. Or vomiting drunks. Don't ask unless you really, really want me to explain.... This includes NOX emissions and methane emissions. Both of which are nasty air pollutants.
Water runoff and odor problems can be addressed by using alternative farming methods, such as subsurface injection. And it's not a matter of more manure is generated than can be utilized. It's also things like livestock feedlots are not always mixed with croplands. Thus the manure would have to be hauled from the feedlots to the croplands. Application of organic fertilizer also is more labor intensive, and depending on natural gas prices could also be more expensive. But it is the route we need to take if we want to live sustainably.

Another problem with extensive and abundant use of inorganic fertilizers is that their use does not improve soil fertility and structure over the long term. Further, as they are used more and more in place of alternative practices that do build the soil, we become increasingly dependent on their use -- an addiction.

SO, WHAT HAPPENS OVER TIME AS INORGANIC FERTILIZERS ARE USED IN PREFERENCE TO ORGANIC SOURCES OF FERTILITY?
A dramatic example of this loss of organic material in agricultural soils is in the midwestern US, whose prairie soils have lost 1/3 - 1/2 of their organic material since they began being cultivated. This is a common pattern: conversion to cropland is almost universally associated with a rapid decrease in soil organic matter and soil nitrogen content. High inputs of nitrogen fertilizers can also result in soil acidification. Essentially, as growers add inorganic fertilizers without due attention organics, they step onto a one-way street. The combination of factors described above means that they need to add ever-increasing amounts of inorganic fertilizers to sustain their yields. It is similar to any addiction, where increasing amounts of the desired substance are required to achieve satisfaction. The amounts of inorganic fertilizers required increase because natural inputs of fertility and the nutrient retentiveness of the system diminish.
Consequences For Organic Matter In Soil

Winter wheat-maize rotations are dominant cropping systems on the North China Plain, where recently the use of organic manure with grain crops has almost disappeared. This could reduce soil fertility and crop productivity in the long run. A 20-year field experiment was conducted to 1) assess the effect of inorganic and organic nutrient sources on yield and yield trends of both winter wheat and maize, 2) monitor the changes in soil organic matter content under continuous wheat-maize cropping with different soil fertility management schemes, and 3) identify reasons for yield trends observed in Xuzhou City, Jiangsu Province, over a 20-year period. There were eight treatments applied to both wheat and maize seasons: a control treatment (C); three inorganic fertilizers, that is, nitrogen (N), nitrogen and phosphorus (NP), and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK); and addition of farmyard manure (FYM) to these four treatments, that is, M, MN, MNP, and MNPK. At the end of the experiment the MN, MNP, and MNPK treatments had the highest yields, about 7 t wheat ha−1 and 7.5 t maize ha−1, with each about 1 t ha−1 more than the NPK treatments. Over 20 years with FYM soil organic matter increased by 80% compared to only 10% with NPK, which explained yield increases.
Long Term Effect Of Manure And Inorganic Fertilizers

The energy savings achieved by fertilizing with liquid manure instead of inorganic fertilizer ranged from 36 to 52% (calculated from Table IV data) over the three test sites. This is in good agreement with McKyes et al. (1986) who reported energy savings ranging from 38 to 47% when manure was substituted for inorganic fertilizer. Current recommendations are to incorporate manure, either by cultivation or subsurface injection to reduce both odor and ammonia losses which represent a loss in nitrogen available for crop production.

It should be emphasized that the savings reported for the manure based corn production are energy inputs and not necessarily economic. Many producers cite extra cost of manure based over fertilizer based corn production as a reason for not exploiting the manure resource. Most fertilizer application is done by the supplier/custom applicator and is only a phone call away. Manure based corn production requires extra labor and equipment and requires an additional level of management to ensure proper application uniformity, rate, and timing.

The analysis showed that the indirect energy requirement for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer (starter fertilizer plus general broadcast fertilizer) represented the single largest energy input for no-till grain corn production and ranged from 40 to 50% of the total energy input. The analysis clearly shows the potential for substantial reduction in energy requirements for crop production by using livestock manure in place of inorganic fertilizer.
Comparison Of Energy Inputs
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 18:55:22

TomSaidak wrote: Pstarr likes to criticize, but has yet to EVER produce numbers when numbers are used.

pstarr wrote:The energy to make the TDP feedstock must be far more than the energy in the resulting fuel. It can be no other way.
This is basically the bottom line for this technology. Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you will get less energy out of the feedstock than the energy that was put into it. Now not all of that energy in the feedstocks came from fossil fuels. Some of the energy came from the sun. Tom, IMO if you want to show that this technology can replace a significant percentage of our fossil fuel usage, you would have to do the following. For the feedstocks you are promoting, show that the energy provided by the sun represents significantly more energy than the energy provided by fossil fuels. I don't think you are going to be able to do that. Perhaps crops grown pre Green Revolution style would fit that bill, but then those are grown at a much lower yield. Remember this quote if you want to get an idea of where the energy in your feedstocks comes from:

Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%. That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby TomSaidak » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 20:04:55

Kublikhan wrote:
This is basically the bottom line for this technology. Because of the laws of thermodynamics, you will get less energy out of the feedstock than the energy that was put into it. Now not all of that energy in the feedstocks came from fossil fuels. Some of the energy came from the sun.


Thank you. You finally put into words what I have beleived to be the central confusion of the 10:1 ratio regarding the Green Revolution and TDP is.....

I am going to ramble, but there IS method to my madness.......
In dealing with me, you need to know that a) In this arena, my "expertise" is in physics. Not biology. b) I work intuitively. The best example of this I can give is that Membrane Theory is EASY for me to understand, I can explain why the 11th dimension is about 2 to 3 feet long. I have tried my explanation on practicing cosmologists and physicists, and they LIKED it...

Thermodynamically speaking, NONE of the "10" calories represents ANY thermodynamic transfer of energy. This is why the word "nutrients" is used. Food is nutrients PLUS energy. Applied to humans and their diet, the word "nutrients" is called vitamins and minerals. ALL the energy found in food comes from the Sun. This is basic middle school science. Which I have taught. I have already given the numbers in my response to Pstarr, and demonstrated the fallacy of the 10:1 ratio looked at THERMODYNAMICALLY. The ratio is VALID looking ONLY at how we a) farm (get 163 bushels/acre as opposed to 16 or 4) and b) turn that corn into popcorn, corn, corn on the cob, corn flakes, corn bread, corn meal, etc.., and get it to the store in good enough shape to eat a year after it was grown. Pesticides make a good example. It takes energy to create it. It uses chemicals we would otherwise use as fuel (oil). It takes energy to apply it. It takes energy to get it OFF the foods we eat. Nowhere does it add to any energy stored in food. Refridgeration is another good example. We use it so that we can eat food LONG after we have harvested it, but NOWHERE does it add ANY energy to food. Milking MACHINES take energy, but NOWHERE does it add any energy to the milk we drink, butter milk, butter, cheese, sour cream or yogurt we eat. Churning machines are yet another example, as the act of churning does not add ONE calorie to butter. It simply TRANSFORMS cream into something some of us LIKE to eat. Corn silo's take energy to fill. Nowhere does it add to the energy content of food. Milling wheat takes energy, but adds NOTHING to the energy content of the food. Transportation adds NO eneregy to food from a biological viewpoint.

Kublikhan wrote:
For the feedstocks you are promoting, show that the energy provided by the sun represents significantly more energy than the energy provided by fossil fuels.

I already have. I would suggest you start by attacking the numbers I used in my response to Pstarr. We can argue "concepts" until the cows come home. USE NUMBERS folks! This is SCIENCE, not editorials we are debating. I have demonstrated that using HALF of cow manure gets us 10.8% of US oil consumption, I have already demonstrated that solar power ADDS to the energy output. That scientists have already PROVED the thermal energy potential in WET cow manure is 2110 btu/POUND, and that has already PROVED that the 10:1 ratio doesn't control here. Please do NOT keep repeating the laws of thermodynamics when referring to Green Revolution numbers - you are mixing apples and oranges. If you disagree - cool. THEN USE NUMBERS AND PROVE IT FOLKS!!

{added}
About nutrients.... Think of each nutrient as a lego block. Pretend lego's represent atoms, not plastic which DID require oil.
You are presented with a bunch of lego blocks (atoms). You assemble the legos to make car/planes/trains/houses etc. As atoms, the legos did not add ONE btu or calorie of energy into the object you built. YOU supplied the energy. In this "thought experiment", you played the part of the sun.
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 20:42:23

Man. I still see that a few fail to grasp that, in nature, there is no such thing as waste.

This waste is some other living thing's food.

Now, we want to deprive the fungi, bugs, and other detritivores their food so we can feed it to our machines.

Since we already apppropriate 40% of terrrestrial NPP, how much more do you think we can take from other living things and divert it to human use?

And to top it off, this is still trying to find a way to continue "happy-motoring."

We don't need more fuel for cars, or more cars for that matter, electric or otherwise.

This constant struggle for solutions for a continuation of an unsustainable existance is part of the problem, folks.

Give it up.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Fri 09 Jan 2009, 20:47:31, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 20:42:55

TomSaidak wrote:ALL the energy found in food comes from the Sun. Corn silo's take energy to fill. Nowhere does it add to the energy content of food. Milling wheat takes energy, but adds NOTHING to the energy content of the food. Please do NOT keep repeating the laws of thermodynamics. USE NUMBERS AND PROVE IT FOLKS!!

The average U.S. system takes 10 calories oil invested to make 1 calorie of food energy. Growing food accounts for only one fifth of this. The other four-fifths is used to move, process, package, sell, and store food after it leaves the farm.
It is true that much of that 10:1 ratio could be cut if we took the crops from the fields and stuffed them directly into a TDP plant. So we could cut out silo filling, wheat milling, grain drying, etc. But according to the quote above, 1/5 of that energy is still used just to grow the crops. So that would be a 2:1 ratio. Plus you still need some energy on top of that to harvest the crop and stuff it into the TDP plant as well.

in the United States, the amount of corn produced per hour of labor is today 350 times higher than the Cherokees could raise with their traditional agriculture. This enormous jump in farmer productivity would not have been possible without large injections of fossil energy and machine power. In fact, the flow of energy input in modern U. S. agriculture is 50 times higher than in traditional agriculture.
Population, Energy Use, And the Ecology Of Agriculture

Just because the energy stored in the corn kernel that gets fed into the TDP plant came from the sun does not mean that no non-sun energy was expended to grow the crop. You can't just say "the sun put 222040 Kcals in 10 bushels of corn. TDP uses 20% of that energy for itself. Therfore we transformed 222040 Kcals of sun provided corn energy into 177632 Kcals of oil" You have to look at the total amount of energy that was expended to grow that crop. Since TDP consumes 20% of the energy for itself, just to break even you would have to show that the sun provided at least 20% more energy than the energy that was expended growing the crop. How much energy did the farmer expend to grow those 10 bushels of corn?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby TomSaidak » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 20:52:34

Kublikhan wrote:

Water runoff and odor problems can be addressed by using alternative farming methods

I wasn't referring to odor problems. I was referring to emissions. Manure gives of NOX and methane. To stop that, it has to be transformed. Soil can only transform it at a slow rate, during which the gas emissions continute. Chemically speaking, the odor comes from a third emission, which I believe is a hydrogen sulphide. Also not a good gas to just let go into the atmosphere. But humans can detect that at an incredibly low level, like 1 part in a million.

Hmm.. How to say this..... I am not concerned at this point with peak NG. I AM concerned about peak oil. IF I can stave that off or avoid it completely, mission accomplished for me. :). Keep in mind, there is going to be a deficit to fill. Solving that deficit may provide a solution too. In examining TDP/CDP as a solution, getting a number for current feedstocks is only the FIRST of several steps.

Also, the articles state specifically "more then the soil can handle". That is NOT an interpretation on my part, that is the conclusion of numerous scientists. Crop rotation plays a significant part in soil depletion as well. If corn farmers planted kenaf or soybean every other year, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as that would replace nitrogen. Grr... Trying to think of how it could be explored numerically. That it is causing problems with ground water is proof that it is "too much" as done. If you inject, that takes MORE energy. If you tranport it, that takes more energy as well. Gathering it takes energy, even from feedlots. Other questions that would help define the situation - are we experiencing fertility problems with Pasture lands? My experience even in pasture land there is a run off problem (signs of too much). Remember, water run off leads to ecological problems in water environments.
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 21:07:47

TomSaidak wrote:Also, the articles state specifically "more then the soil can handle". That is NOT an interpretation on my part, that is the conclusion of numerous scientists.
For thousands of years humans more or less lived in balance with nature. Food goes in, manure comes out. Same with our domestic animals. We are not suddenly making more manure than the food we eat. The industrialization of agriculture is what has thrown this balance out of whack. Monte can probably explain it better than I. You might want to check out his post on why taking "waste" manure and turning it into oil is not such a good idea.
Last edited by kublikhan on Sat 10 Jan 2009, 04:54:28, edited 1 time in total.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 09 Jan 2009, 22:03:22

kublikhan wrote: Monte can probably explain it better than I. You might want to check out his post on why taking "waste" manure and turning it into oil is not such a good idea.


Here is an article I wrote recently:

The Pure Folly of Large-scale Biofuels

We have seen many reports of late regarding the impact of feeding our food to our machines, from food shortages to escalating prices. Many propose that we move way from using corn and other foods to make biofuels. In a recent article I read, the author showed his ignorance of basic biological concepts by stating the following:

“Moving away from food crops, the biofuel of the future may come from the tall grass growing wild by the roadside, from grain stalks left behind by the harvest, and from garbage dumps and dinner table scraps. They don't compete with the food chain."

Implicit in this statement is that this organic waste stream is not used by anyone for food.

This type of residue may not compete with the human food chain, but they most certainly compete with the food chain of plants and other animals, upon which we are totally dependent. In nature, there is no such thing as waste. Wild grass, cornstalks, leaf litter, and other organic debris, are food sources for everything from fungi to bugs and other detritivores. Detritivores are scavengers which feed on dead plants and animals or their waste. They are essential for recycling of nutrients: without them dead plant material would not be returned to the soil for new growth. If we burn up this waste to feed our machines, what will replace the soil tilth?

“Removing "crop residues…would rob organic matter that is vital to the maintenance of soil fertility and tilth, leading to disastrous soil erosion levels. Not considered is the importance of plant residues as a primary source of energy for soil microbial activity. The most prudent course, clearly, is to continue to recycle most crop residues back into the soil, where they are vital in keeping organic matter levels high enough to make the soil more open to air and water, more resistant to soil erosion, and more productive."

The only true waste stream I can think of at the moment is nuclear. By diverting a supposed waste stream we are taking a resource from some other process. Equally, using land to grow anything is going to take away from its’ existing use, and there's very little arable land left on the planet that isn't being used for something, even if it's not us that's using it, but some other species that has as much right to live here as we have. We currently appropriate 40% of the earth’s terrestrial net primary production (NPP) to human use.

Sustainable biofuels have a place in our future energy mix, but not on the huge unsustainable scale that is often proposed to continue “happy motoring.”

For more on this subject, I invite you to review this article: Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 10 Jan 2009, 08:06:09

MonteQuest wrote:Man. I still see that a few fail to grasp that, in nature, there is no such thing as waste.

This waste is some other living thing's food.

Now, we want to deprive the fungi, bugs, and other detritivores their food so we can feed it to our machines.

Since we already apppropriate 40% of terrrestrial NPP, how much more do you think we can take from other living things and divert it to human use?

And to top it off, this is still trying to find a way to continue "happy-motoring."

We don't need more fuel for cars, or more cars for that matter, electric or otherwise.

This constant struggle for solutions for a continuation of an unsustainable existance is part of the problem, folks.

Give it up.


The above statement is non-sensical. Plastic waste is nothings food. Asphalt waste is nothings food. Metalic waste is nothings food. Pressure or creosote treated lumber is nothings food and environmentally contaminating to boot. Gypsum board is nothings food in the landfill but can be rendered into a soil amendment in soils lacking sulfur.

Detrivores, if we were to recycle every bit of human caused waste, would have no shortage of food in leaf litter, grasslands, or croplands as far as that goes. Microbes are the dominant life forms on this planet, they always have been and they always will be, to claim we could do anything to change that or that we are starving the little beasties is huberistic in the extreme.

I think you should follow your own advice Monte and give it up, we do not all agree with you because facts do not back up your constant assertions. You might be right about some of the things you beleive are going to happen, but using statements contrary to reallity to try and prove you are right just makes you look desperate, wrong, and too proud to use truth and let people make their own minds up based on the facts, not the hype.

Hubris, pure unadulterated hubris. Sad really because I think you are an intelligent person with a real concern. Unfortunately the Emporer has no clothes.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 10 Jan 2009, 14:22:49

Umm, 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.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 10 Jan 2009, 17:00:09

dohboi wrote:Umm, 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.


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 :)
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We 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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby 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
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby 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:
So 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....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 11 Jan 2009, 17:28:20

TomSaidak wrote: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.

Corn 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.
The Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol

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.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 11 Jan 2009, 19:47:01

TomSaidak wrote:Could you please break out your own spreadsheet? My wife is not happy with the time I am spending infront of spreadsheets...... Thanks!
As I stated before, I am not inclined to include most of the feedstocks that you include for various reasons already discussed(agriculture sources are needed to maintain ecological balance, black liquor is already used as an energy source, etc.) I think this technology has the most potential as an additional recycling technology for the portions of MSW that is not already recycled or used for other waste to energy technologies. The total amount of MSW that is landfilled per year is about 138 million tons(I am not including recycled MSW or MSW used with other waste to energy technologies). Now this decomposing garbage generates methane, which is captured and used for energy. Not all landfills currently have methane capture. 427 landfills out of 2300 active or recently closed landfills currently have methane capture, or about 18%. Since this methane is currently providing energy, I subtract it out of the energy available for TDP. 138 million - 25 million = 113 million tons. You can't use the same conversion factors CWT uses for turkey guts because that is mostly oil whereas trash has many parts, much if it paper, metal and glass.
The energy produced by the nation’s 89 waste-to-energy facilities is the electricity generating equivalent of 30 million barrels of crude oil. (30 million tons of trash = 30 million barrels of crude oil)
Waste To Energy

Using the conversion factor above, that gives TDP producing 113 million barrels of oil, or about 1.5% of the US's annual oil usage. Slightly less than I calculated earlier, but I think this number is more accurate.

Before researching this topic, I did not realize such a large portion of MSW was recycled or used for current waste to energy efforts. I am glad we are making such efforts and I think they should be expanded. However it does further reduce the feedstocks available for TDP. And I am not sure how well TDP would work if given such a widely varied feedstock as MSW. I read in the articles that each type of feedstock has to be cooked with different "recipes" of heat, pressure, cooking time, etc. Even if the trash was sorted I am not sure how well this technology would work in practice. Turning a consistent stream of turkey guts into oil is one thing. Turning the inconsistent stream of MSW into oil is another. We might be better off using conventional waste to energy plants for the task.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5000
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby TomSaidak » Sun 11 Jan 2009, 23:32:23

Kublikhan wrote:

black liquor is already used as an energy source, etc

Are you aware I revised/updated my spreadsheet? Did you catch that I had revised it? I used your source to determine 25% of black liquor was NOT recovered, and thus was available for TDP. Also, your article did state it was used, it did not state what if any byproducts were left. Without that information, it is hard to determine how ecologically friendly it is. Frankly same figures are lacking for TDP, though the article's author was of the opinion it would greatly reduce the caustic chemicals.

My MSW figures reflect your comments. Please note I foot my spreadsheets and the equations are visible so it is easy to see what numbers I am actually using.

Cornstover has been removed. Cotton remains because due to bo weevil infestation it is actually a bio hazard if you want to continue growing cotton.

Paper was reduced to a figure based on 55% of current paper being recycled. Depending on what I find out about kenaf, I may or may not revise that figure.

Plastic was removed.

Sow manure comes from pen fed pigs, and is NOT useable for fertilizer. The sulphur content is too high. It is creating a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey.

Manure is NOT being used totally for fertilizer and many who do use it are not using it properly. I will continue to include it on my spreadsheets, but all conclusions will be based as a range or stated as two figures, i.e. with manure and without manure.

In my research, one of the reasons manure may not be used is that the yield is 14% lower then with chemical fertilizers (140 bu/acre as opposed to 163 bu/acre national average). That statement is based on looking at one farm only, so take it as a question or suggestion, not a proven fact.

I don't use the same conversion factors. I use the WIKI figures. Paper is an 8% conversion, not 1.7 bbl/ton. Sewage is 28%. Not 1.7 per ton. Look at the equations, and you will see what I use. If you read the MSW section, you could read what numbers I am using. For some materials, I am using actual BTU figures, derive a number based on 5.8 mmbtu per bbl, and then multiply by 5/6 for the final number, to account for the fact TDP burns one bbl per 6 bbl produced. The only places where I use CWT figure, I use the 1.7 bbl/ton figure, and only on beef and sow offal (Labelled as SPAM, I couldn't resist.....).

Kublikhan wrote:
Turning the inconsistent stream of MSW into oil is another

Inconsistent is a mathematical concept in this conversation. Do you have some numbers to demonstrate the inconsistency?

All organic waste should be put back in the soil..... Maybe, maybe not.... One of the problems with biological recycling is biological contaminants such as BSE. This was a major problem for the Carthage plant. Just as they went on line, EPA banned cow byproducts from being used for animal feed. Hence the switch to turkey offal for animal feed. I have read that there is some concern regarding cow manure. I have no opinion on the veracity or the size of the problem. Frankly, the specific concern about BSE may be a chimera. It is illustrative of not having knee jerk reactions one way or the other, which leads to my next point....

Pretending that chemical fertiziler is problem free (am very well aware it is NOT), whether to use chemicals vs manure becomes a strategic consideration. If you can derive problem free fertilizer from NG, then I would suggest using the feedstock for oil. Methane is plentiful, and not used for transportation. Oil is not plentiful, and IS used for transportation. Any coherent energy policy has to take those two facts into account.

About electricity vs oil.....
We have many excellent options for electricity. We do not have many options for transportation fuels. Our current practice of turning waste products into electricity is good given the lack of alternatives. IF TDP/CDP makes sense, then it will likely make more sense to start using some or all of those feed stocks for oil. Frankly, I am not there mathematically to make or disprove that statement. I am laying it out more as a "think aloud".

Kublikhan wrote:
Even if the trash was sorted I am not sure how well this technology would work in practice

Good question. And there is an answer. You hold the cooking temperature at the lower temperature until all you are getting is water vapor, then heat it up for the next item you are "cooking". You keep raising the temperature until you quit getting volatiles. Then you remove what is left. CDP has so far shown itself to be quite good at an omnivore approach and gets "clean water" and material suitable for use in asphalt. TDP claims "clean water" and "fertilizer" which I believe someone showed turned out to be water with glycerin. TDP also claims "other chemicals and black carbon" among it's mineral leftovers. TDP has a license application for medical wastes and I believe another one for a MSW facility. If nothing else, CWT seems to feel comfortable using their technology in the omnivore mode.

Is there a biochemist in the house?? I am not arguing that chemical fertilizers do not have problems. I just have trouble understanding why. I can think of no technical problem that can't be solved. I do not see why a plant cares WHERE it's nitrogen or phosphates come from. If the chemistry is lacking - put it in. I noticed with one manure suggestion, two applications were being suggested, one before planting and one after harvesting. If chemical fertilizers need more then one application, then do it. Or put it in teeny, tiny time release pellets.... Or add small amounts to irrigation water and install backflow devices... Something..??
Every problem has its solution, and every solution has its problems....
User avatar
TomSaidak
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon 22 Dec 2008, 04:00:00

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Jan 2009, 01:18:28

Tanada wrote: I think you should follow your own advice Monte and give it up, we do not all agree with you because facts do not back up your constant assertions.


That is why I always back up my assertions with studies like the one I linked to.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: thermal depolymerization a end to peak oil?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 12 Jan 2009, 01:27:20

TomSaidak wrote: If the manure is not being used properly or at all, it is material available for energy conversion.


Implicit in this assumption is that the manure is going to waste.

In nature, there is no such thing as waste.

It doesn't just sit there holding energy or drops down some dark hole.

Something consumes it. Something transforms it to another form.

If it is not being used properly doesn't mean it is available for conversion, but that some other system is being denied it. Most likely, some topsoil area.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests