[Optimist]

What are you on about? Are you implying that a reactor cannot be made bigger that a certain size? How does that work? Why would "physical size" limit TDP to 1,000 bpd, but not traditional refineries? I am affraid you make no sense.

TDP is still in development. They are still ironing out various issues. Just because nobody has spoken publicly about 25,000 bpd, does not mean it cannot be done. In fact, even when people think something is impossible, it does not mean it is impossible. See Roger Bannister and the four minute mile.

Heck, there is no reason why they can't do 250,000 bpd!

[big_rc]

What are you on about? Are you implying that a reactor cannot be made bigger that a certain size? How does that work? Why would "physical size" limit TDP to 1,000 bpd, but not traditional refineries? I am affraid you make no sense.

TDP is still in development. They are still ironing out various issues. Just because nobody has spoken publicly about 25,000 bpd, does not mean it cannot be done. In fact, even when people think something is impossible, it does not mean it is impossible. See Roger Bannister and the four minute mile.

Heck, there is no reason why they can't do 250,000 bpd!

Why are you being so difficult? Do you realize that at 25,000 bpd they would need 10,000 tons of turkey guts each and everyday. So yes there is a reason why this process is going to be very hard to scale up and it involves the astronomical amount of waste/feedstock that has to be produced in order to feed this process. At some point, a waste producer cannot affordably expand the operations to accomodate a 250,000 bpd plant and until CWT gets that 500 bpd plant to work anywhere near advertised, nobody is going to give these guys the time of day.

[Optimist]

Well, excuse me for being "difficult", but we are living in a world where waste disposal is becoming a huge a problem (in case you have not noticed). The "astronomical amount of waste/feedstock" is just a by-product of modern life, much like the "paperless office" is producing mountains of waste paper. Whatever the problems with CWT's technology, getting enough feedstock is not one of them.

And, talking to Omar, do you have a reference for this statement?

They say they are scalable to about 1,000 bpd, straight from the horses's mouth.

I guess I was not paying attention when that statement came form the horse's mouth...

until CWT gets that 500 bpd plant to work anywhere near advertised, nobody is going to give these guys the time of day.

Wrong again. If PO come to pass, and crude hits $100/bbl (or $150 or $200), many investors are going to come rushing.

Sorry to burst your pessimistic bubble, but TDP is the perfect answer to PO. The higher the price of crude, the better for TDP!

[0mar]

Sorry to burst your pessimistic bubble, but TDP is the perfect answer to PO. The higher the price of crude, the better for TDP!

I can't find a source for that 1000bpd comment, so I might have been smoking crack or something. We'll just keep it at 500 bpd then.

$80 a barrel oil effectively self destructs the economy. At least that's the consensus among economists. So even if TDP is profitable at $80 crude, it won't help.

[Optimist]

In a peak oil world the basic concentrated industrial-agriculture model fails. Food will be localized. It costs LOTS of energy to grow and ship feed corn, to incubate baby turkeys, to house and move turkeys to a processor, to process turkeys.

You seem to think oil will disappear overnight. That won't happen. Over the last 35 years US oil production has fallen by 36% ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8124325/ ), or about 1.27% per year. Global production would probably follow a similar decline. Say after me GRADUAL. Lots of time for alternatives to penetrate the market. And with higher oil prices, many will work on this.

The relative cost of the guts remains the same--expensive.

No, the relative cost of the guts remains the same--FREE!

Geologist Kenneth S. Deffeyes remembers as a young man being instructed that as soon as a barrel of oil hit $5 (it was $2-3 at the time) then oil shale would be make Colorado rich because it would become magically economical to extract it. It is ALWAYS going to be too expensive to extract. The same can be said about biomass etc.

I am not familiar with what was said to Kenneth S. Deffeyes. I was probably based on a preliminary cost estimate. Thanks to the MO plant, TDP can be evaluated using REAL numbers. Big difference.

In conclusion, here's what we have:
1. Oil will run out.
2. It will not happen overnight. It will happen gradually.
3. Oil gets more expensive.
4. Eventually alternatives are cheaper than oil.

Not too hard to follow, is it?

[ubercrap]

In a peak oil world the basic concentrated industrial-agriculture model fails. Food will be localized. It costs LOTS of energy to grow and ship feed corn, to incubate baby turkeys, to house and move turkeys to a processor, to process turkeys.

You seem to think oil will disappear overnight. That won't happen. Over the last 35 years US oil production has fallen by 36% ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8124325/ ), or about 1.27% per year. Global production would probably follow a similar decline. Say after me GRADUAL. Lots of time for alternatives to penetrate the market. And with higher oil prices, many will work on this.

The relative cost of the guts remains the same--expensive.

No, the relative cost of the guts remains the same--FREE!

Geologist Kenneth S. Deffeyes remembers as a young man being instructed that as soon as a barrel of oil hit $5 (it was $2-3 at the time) then oil shale would be make Colorado rich because it would become magically economical to extract it. It is ALWAYS going to be too expensive to extract. The same can be said about biomass etc.

I am not familiar with what was said to Kenneth S. Deffeyes. I was probably based on a preliminary cost estimate. Thanks to the MO plant, TDP can be evaluated using REAL numbers. Big difference.

In conclusion, here's what we have:
1. Oil will run out.
2. It will not happen overnight. It will happen gradually.
3. Oil gets more expensive.
4. Eventually alternatives are cheaper than oil.

Not too hard to follow, is it?

How do expensive alternatives make energy cheap again? Nobody said oil was running out anytime soon, but I am certain of one thing, no matter how you slice it, expensive alternatives means average first world folks will be using using far less energy in the future, and everybody else has a good chance of using none.

[Optimist]

I have no idea what energy prices will do in the future, there are simply too many factors affecting it. What I am arguing against is the melt-down scenario that most on this board seem convinced is unavoidable and some even appear to be looking forward to.

Some thoughts:
Do we need cheap energy? Moderately expensive energy may not be such a bad thing - it would encourage everybody to use energy wisely and to save it where possible. It would also encourage research into alternative energy and energy saving, unlike what we have seen in the last decade or two.

Would alternatives remain expensive? Again, who knows what prices will do. But as alternatives get market share and start competing against each other, it is hard not to believe that continuous improvement will bring prices down over time.

As for the third world, they may discover that high energy prices make it too expensive to fight wars and oppress people. How tragic would that be?

[pea-jay]

Peak Oil may be getting more mainstream media attention, but that may be a mixed blessing. At worst, it will lull folks into a false sense of security. Case in point, this article (which doesn't mention peak oil or even limitations) that discusses the future of energy.

I discovered something amazing recently and I tried to tell a bunch of friends about it. A guy in Illinois has, it seems, invented a device that can turn almost anything into oil, plus a few byproducts (all useful).

...

Inventor Paul Buskis is not planning to process people, of course. He's going after trash. His thermo-depolymerization process works on any carbon-based substance--chicken entrails, tires, plastic milk jugs, you name it. Garbage in, oil out--that's the promise.

My friends scoffed. "Sounds too good to be true," was their consensus. "It'll never work."

Ah, but it's already working. A company called Changing World Technologies has built a plant in Carthage, Missouri, based on Buskis's process. It's producing 400 barrels of oil a day right now, extruded from the wastes of nearby turkey processing plants. The company is building another plant in Philadelphia to process sewage into black gold.

My friends would have none of this. They assured me the invention will emit toxic pollution. (It doesn't.) It will use more energy than it produces. (Quite the opposite.) It's voodoo science: "How can oil be created?"

Well, it's been done before. The earth created oil by heating, cooling, and squeezing the rotted remains of plants and animals. Buskis replicates that process mechanically. What took millions of years in nature, his process achieves in a day.

Ah, yes. Thermal depolymerization. The stench issue aside, no consideration was given to the fact you would still need to feed it all of that waste to create oil. Most of that waste material, incedentally create by consuming or using oil in the first place.

Didn't TD get debunked somewhere in here already?

He goes on...

What's a Cynic to Do?
Today, most of our electricity comes from a few big power plants that use coal, oil, gas, or nuclear fuel. At this point, therefore, even electric cars run on fossil (or nuclear) fuel, since you have to plug them into the grid to recharge them.

Yet even now electricity doesn't have to come from just a few sources. It can come from any number of generators, they can be of any size, and the electricity they supply can come from any source including wind and sunlight. Electricity is electricity.

What's more, right now you can buy a wind or solar generator that will not only power your household devices but send electricity into the grid: That technology exists.

If you live in Germany and have such a generator, you can definitely sell the power you produce because German law requires utilities to buy it. In 2001, in fact, the German government started paying subsidies to people who installed such renewable energy devices in their homes.
...
But even if the usage keeps growing at the current rate, Germany expects to generate 14 percent of its electrical power from non-polluting renewable sources by 2010. Much of this will come from generators owned by individual households.

My inner cynic is feeling cornered. I'm thinking: Why can't we do that?

Because the existing sources of electricity (fossil fuels) still fuel a majority of generation today, the renewable sources intermitent and not dispatchable and in the case of solar requiring sizable upfront energy investments. And would electrical increases really remain steady? Oil (and gas) substitution requires additional energy increases beyond what we were planning on.

Finally, lest any good discussion of "alternatives" skip hydrogen, he delivers.

Let's say you have a solar generator on your roof and a hydrogen-making mini-plant in your basement. Anytime your solar generator makes more energy than you're using, the excess flows to your basement and makes hydrogen.

Later, when the sun isn't shining, your fuel cells kick in and you draw down on your hydrogen supply.

If your hydrogen tanks fill up, the excess energy flows into the grid. When the grid has more power than it can sell, the excess goes to big electrolyzers that store energy as hydrogen on a commercial scale. The massive fuel cells then emit energy as needed to keep the overall supply constant.

In this system, more or less everybody produces energy. They sell to the grid when they have more than enough. They buy back when they're running a deficit.

Hydrogen, ever ubiquitous in energy discussions and always elusive in real-world applications. Okay so how much energy would get fed back into the grid really, when H2 production is going on in the basement? And even if a bare surplus balance were to occur between the house and the grid, could that difference power those living in apartments plus all those nonresidential uses such as offices, factories, schools. To be sure some of those buildings could also be generators of electricity, but I don't think he has taken the time to calculate the EROEI or even if the total wattage of the proposed generation would still be enough to power our way of life.

Articles like this are not the slightest bit helpful and lull many into a false sense of security. "Don't worry...technology will save us" or my favorite (NOT) "The stone age did not end because a lack of stones."

Full article: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... _after_oil

[MicroHydro]

People are going to bite on every energy scam that comes down the pike, just like in the 1970s. PT Barnum was right.

One just has to take human nature into account. I don't believe in the hydrogen economy or fuel cells, but I know that the techno-optimists will give them a try. So I invested in a platinum mining company.

[Choon]

I was really pleased when one of Malaysia's more popular bloggers wrote about Peak Oil.

http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/07/peak_oil.php

Wasn't so happy when the comments came streaming in. That last commenter shrugged off PO based on...

http://www.the7thfire.com/peak_oil/peak ... lation.htm
http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

I can understand it if people don't believe about PO because "the market will provide", but for those that read a website that starts with "The Seventh Fire is a means to Soar beyond mind. Enter through the Heart"???

I think I've just seen a new low on how desperate people want to hear good news, no matter who says it.

[aahala]

The Carthage, Missouri turkey plant was discussed in a thread here the
last few weeks.

It's the "mother of foul odors." After many complaints, the state finally
was able to get the plant to agree to reducing the smell; I haven't heard
if things have improved.

[VMA131Marine]

Okay so how much energy would get fed back into the grid really, when H2 production is going on in the basement? And even if a bare surplus balance were to occur between the house and the grid, could that difference power those living in apartments plus all those nonresidential uses such as offices, factories, schools. To be sure some of those buildings could also be generators of electricity, but I don't think he has taken the time to calculate the EROEI or even if the total wattage of the proposed generation would still be enough to power our way of life.

Articles like this are not the slightest bit helpful and lull many into a false sense of security. "Don't worry...technology will save us" or my favorite (NOT) "The stone age did not end because a lack of stones."

Full article: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... _after_oil

It is already possible to build a home that produces more power than it consumes. Among other things the company I work for actually helps home builders to do this. We recently helped in the design of a "zero energy home" in upstate New York that has been built and is now occupied.

In addition, there are active programs in the DOE to improve the technology and process for designing zero energy homes. One of those is the Solar Decathlon, in which colleges from around the country design and build a home to operate independent of the grid with a fixed amount of solar PV generating capacity. Excess power generated by the home is used to charge an electric vehicle which must be driven so many miles per day during the contest. I have been a judge on the last two contests and the amount and diversity of effort that goes into each design is quite impressive. Of course, one of the big issues is to use passive solar design techniques to minimise energy use due to air conditioning and heating loads.

The point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.

[pea-jay]

The point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.

Yes, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.

[RainShadow]

Yes, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.

Eh. For me, the only question is can *I* get one before TSHTF.

Yes, it would be nice if the world got saved, powered down, and sang songs together. But personally, I'll do what I can to save my own ass, power down, and sing offkey.

No, renewables won't save the world, but that isn't really an obstacle you saving yourself.

[savethehumans]

P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

P.T. Barnum was an optimist!

[jdmartin]

The point is that living in a home with modern conveniences that is independent of the grid is feasible with current technology.

Yes, but can everyone live in one? Do we have enough resources to build everyone one? Is there enough time to retrofit or replace existing homes to meet the expected need for renewables to offset declining fossil fuel supplies? It's a lofty goal, but do the numbers (and implementation schedule pan out?) I am not sure if it does.

Actually, in terms of electricity, once you get past the actual production of the generating items (windmills, solar panels, whatever), it is much more efficient to product it just for yourself than to product it in one big spot and ship it down lines to the various houses, since you lose quite a bit just in the transmission.

But your point is well taken and I agree with you. Most people live in places where batteries for storage are a necessity (meaning someone has to produce batteries), and even secondary generation forms for those times when there's crap for sun for days. Everything is pretty expensive, even these days, and we're never going to retro everyone's home. The best hope regarding conserving electricity rather than that is to produce really energy-efficient appliances and provide the means for everyone to be able to buy one. Since the second part is unlikely to happen, we're all likely screwed.

[KevO]

As for giving out the wrong message or signal, well call me a selfish twat but the more I look around, the more I realise that nobody much is ever really going to get it.

The WCS is that when TSHTF 'they' are going to remember that you were the one harping on about peak oil for years and then they're gonna come a runnin to you and your food and your set up.
As has been said at
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8391.html
we have done the wake up calls, we've left notes by the bed and we've spiked the coffee. Now it's time to say fuck em and let em sleep

??

KevO

[Pablo2079]

Here's a link to an article regarding getting a base oil and diesel from waste plastic.....

Here's part of the article:

The plastics they tested were mostly polyethylene. They began by pyrolyzing the material, heating it in a furnace in the absence of air to break down molecules to form a waxy fluid with molecular weight in the range of lube oil. Isomerization dewaxed the fluid to produce diesel and base oil. The base oil yield varied between 30 percent and 40 percent by weight, although that output could be increased by oligomerizing short-chain olefins, the main byproduct of the process.

According to the researchers, the quality of the base oil was consistent and exceptionally high – viscosity of between 3.4 centistoke and 5.4 cSt, pour points ranging from minus 13 to minus 37 degrees C, and viscosity index of 150 to 160.

“This is probably about as good as you’re going to get in a base oil,” said Miller, a fellow and senior consulting scientist at Chevron Energy Technology Co. in Richmond, Calif.

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article0 ... ?x=b11,0,w

[Optimist]

IMHO TDP has the inside track on all the waste to fuel technologies for the following reasons:
1. Claimed ability to process mixed waste. Proven ability to process a real world waste (turkey guts), as opposed to processing a single component in a laboratory. No need to separate the "useful" part of the waste from the rest!
2. Proven ability to process wet waste, thus potentially including such diverse feedstocks as sewage sludge, yard clippings, dead animals, garbage, etc.
3. Full scale operating facility in Carthage, MO.
4. Known economic feasibility thanks to full scale operating facility. While $80/barrel does not sound particularly attractive right now, this may change if:
4.1 Crude prices pass $80/barrel.
4.2 TDP product can be used directly in diesel engines, thus converting to a diesel price of $1.90/gal, very competitive in today's market.
4.3 They can get the feedstock free (either due to the government outlawing the awful practise of feeding offal to farm animals, or by switching to an alternative feedstock). This would reduce the price to $60-65/barrel, touching current crude prices.
4.4 If the new energy bill qualifies TDP for the biofuel tax credit (as I believe it should), that would reduce the price immediately to $40/barrel - BINGO! Unfortunately, it appears that the biofuel tax credit is more about more handouts to farmers than creating a meaningful supply of homegrown, alternative energy.