[Optimist]

According to the quote above, taken from the Kansas City Star article, am I to understand that at current production rates we have done the miraculous and managed, after "several years" of research, to turn a little under 1 TON of turkey into a little more than 1 barrel of crude oil? Or about 45 gallons?

Here's how the TDP mass balance works (at least in theory):
Input: 210 tpd of waste (i.e. 108 tpd water, 92.9 tpd organic matter, 8.2 tpd minerals and 1.0 tpd ammonia) and 3.6 tpd of sulfuric acid.
Output: 8.2 tpd of dry mineral, 8.2 tpd water as vapor, 79.7 tpd water as liquid, 33.6 tpd of liquid fertilizer [which would include water, glycerol and ammonium sulfate], 69.8 tpd of oil, 7.5 tpd of fuel gas and 6.7 tpd of coke/carbon. Total output: 213.7 tpd ~ 213.6 tpd input.

In reality I think CWT overestimated their oil yield, so I think they are producing less oil and more of the fuel gas.

[Optimist]

Well, at least the energy bill did one thing right. TDP oil is now included in tax credits as a "renewable diesel" and will receive the same tax credit as biodiesel ($42/barrel). Thus production cost has been reduced from ~$80/barrel to ~$40/barrel. Remember that this includes a premium of $15 - 20/barrel that RES is paying for the turkey guts. New plants will presumably source free feedstock, which would bring production cost down to $20 - 25/barrel. In some cases you would even be able to find suppliers willing to pay for the disposal of their waste, with a further reduction in production cost.

Bottom line: expect to see several more TDP plants in the next few years!

[Googolplex]

The simple response:

This is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.

[Optimist]

This is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.

CORRECTION: Since TDP converts waste into oil, is is a source. A source that is not currently used. To be precise, the source is the sun that drove the photosynthesis that ultimately produced the waste.

Think of it this way: Currently the waste is just rotting away, releasing heat, CO2, methane and bad odors into the environment. The only thing that benefits is a few microbes. With TDP all that energy is captured, methane release is avoided and fossil CO2 release is replaced by carbon neutral CO2. Sorry, microbes, we are going to eat your lunch!

[Dezakin]

Untill TDP actually gains credibility, its not a source or a sink, but a non-sequiter. I dont know (and neither do most other people) if TDP has any chance of being a viable hydrocarbon source outside a very select type of feedstock... currently turkey waste. If we can turn general garbage into useful stuff with some return on capital, then certainly it will be helpful.

This is the reason I allways bring out nuclear fission as the trump card; Not necissarily because I'm reflexively pro-nuke (although I do find much of the technology facinating) but because the economics and engineering are tractible and essentially solved problems, and the fuel situation for nuclear is secure for one hell of a long time.

I believe solar will eventually displace nuclear because its my hunch that the economics will eventually become more favorable to large solar concentrator farms utilizing economies of scale, but we don't have any idea when it will be competitive economically or how to illustrate when or why it will become less expensive than nuclear.

[Optimist]

Untill TDP actually gains credibility, its not a source or a sink, but a non-sequiter. I dont know (and neither do most other people) if TDP has any chance of being a viable hydrocarbon source outside a very select type of feedstock... currently turkey waste. If we can turn general garbage into useful stuff with some return on capital, then certainly it will be helpful.

Yes, you are right - we don't know what TDP can and cannot do. CWT certainly is not interested in enlightening us. Can you blame them? They are milking this technology for all it is worth. And they are definitely exaggerating about the efficiency.

However, the concept behind the technology is the thing of the future in my opinion. Waste to energy, more precisely waste to liquid fuel. It solves all manner of problems, it uses a feedstock that is not currently used and it is sustainable. I believe TDP or a similar technology (such as "green diesel" from the University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.engr.wisc.edu/news/headlines/2005/Jun02.html ) is the future.

[Googolplex]

This is an interesting new way to produce oil, but like TDP it is not really an energy source like the oil we can get ready-made out of the ground is.

CORRECTION: Since TDP converts waste into oil, is is a source.

No, not a correction. You are wrong, it is not a source. TDP is nothing more then a way to convert our existing energy, mostly in the form of electricity to run the plant, into oil (and at a loss too, as its only 85% efficient overall). The waste is another required ingredient, yes, but its not where the energy input for TDP is.

Think of it this way: Currently the waste is just rotting away, releasing heat, CO2, methane and bad odors into the environment. The only thing that benefits is a few microbes. With TDP all that energy is captured...

...but only through the use of even MORE energy drawn from our existing supplies, thus resulting in an overall loss.

Any process with an EROEI of less then 1 can NOT be an energy source. PERIOD.

[Googolplex]

However, the concept behind the technology is the thing of the future in my opinion. Waste to energy, more precisely waste to liquid fuel.

I agree it sounds good at first, but how do we power it? It would only serve to suck up more energy overall. Once you think about it, the real answer is to reduce both our waste production AND our energy use. Making TDP a significant source of our oil would require us to drasticly increase them!

It solves all manner of problems, it uses a feedstock that is not currently used and it is sustainable.

Actually no, Im afraid not, on all counts. It really only creates more problems, it takes "feedstock" away from recycling centers and power generating incinerators, and it deffinatly NOT sustainable.

[Optimist]

TDP is nothing more then a way to convert our existing energy, mostly in the form of electricity to run the plant, into oil (and at a loss too, as its only 85% efficient overall). The waste is another required ingredient, yes, but its not where the energy input for TDP is.

You know nothing about power generation, do you? A coal power plant converts between 15 and 20% of the energy in the coal to electricity. Compared to that 85% capture is staggering.

Note that the only electricity needed to operate the plant is about 3.6% of the energy produced by TDP, and that is only counting the oil. I believe that is an ERoEI of 99.5/3.6 = 27.6. Way bigger than 1.0 you will be glad to know. See Figure 6, p8 at http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site ... rocess.pdf

Pete may call the above a "company press release" but educated observers will notice it is actually a scientific paper, presented at the Power-Gen Renewable Energy Conference, Las Vegas, NV, March 1-3, 2004. Granted, the presenters have ties to CWT and thus have an incentive to make TDP sound good. However, there is no way around that. This is one of a small number of technical documents on TDP available on the web.

Once you think about it, the real answer is to reduce both our waste production AND our energy use.!

BINGO! And since oil demand would be lower under such a scenario, TDP would be able to supply an even larger fraction of the total demand.

pstarr wrote:

Debating with optomist is a unqiue experience. It gets shriller and then he disappears for a while soon to return with more company press releases. You have to wonder how and where he sourced them.

No press releases just the facts and I don't remember debating anyone just yet. However on that note.

Thanks, go5star! You are exactly right. I have showered Pete with a range of independent sources of information. His only reply so far has been a reference to a paper by Pimentel. One sparrow does not make it spring. If all you need is a single author, you can prove all sorts of things.

I would ask for a moment of silence for Pete's position: he is emotionally tied to a point of view not supported by the FACTS. My deepest sympathies. Ever consider changing your point of view, Pete? Won't it be nice not to be believing that the end of civilization is around the corner?

[Bluster]

Changing World Technologies

[Starvid]

It is debateable. On one hand IIRC, there have not been any outside experts inspecting the plant, nor has any peer-reviewed papers been presented. On the other hand, who would build a big expensive plant if it was just a hoax?

[Aedo]

There is more than one answer to any question - especially when the question is as complex as PO!

The obvious now stated there are lots of ways to better utilise current resources (including waste) - this has potential to deliver a useful product but as Starvid has pointed out there is just not enough information available as yet. It will be interesting to see if the process is profitable in both EROEI and economic terms.

[aahala]

I thoght they had shut down the plant because the costs were greater than
what they could sell the product for.

The citizens of Carthage created a stink over the stink of the plant and
the State of MIssouri(finally) stepped in a while back. I'm sure if you google something like "Carthage,MO" and "smell" you'll get dozens if not
hundreds of hits about the odor. It apparently was really, really bad.

[strider3700]

this is thermal depolymerization(sp) correct? If so my understanding was to be at all efficient they needed a consistant feedstock which is ok in some cases but you can't just dump massive amounts of garbage into it and get back oil. the costs kept it above $60/barrel produced as well if I remember correctly.

[Googolplex]

This is not new. Its TDP, except called TCP instead.

While this could serve as a minor source of oil in the future, it still requires more energy to run it then it produces.

Personally, I think we should focus on ways to use LESS energy, not ways to increase our energy useage like this. Instead of sucking tons more power from the electric grid, lets just reduce the amount of oil we need.

[BrownDog]

http://www.mindfully.org/Air/2005/Chang ... 2apr05.htm

[Googolplex]

You know nothing about power generation, do you? A coal power plant converts between 15 and 20% of the energy in the coal to electricity. Compared to that 85% capture is staggering.

Wow. Ive never seen such an example of flinging numbers around that one doens't understand. Sorry about the lateness of my reply BTW.

The total EROEI of coal is not 15-20%. According to the figures Ive found, its somewhere around 30:1, or 3000%, and that includes the 15-20% efficiency of burning it. Compare that to the 85% of TDP!

You see, the energy in coal, or oil, or any fossile fuel, is already there, ready for use. We don't have to "invest" it. We only need to transport it to where we need it and burn it (or do whatever). Thats why its a source of energy.

Now, we COULD then turn around and take all that energy we get from the coal and use it for TDP, but the oil and gas we get back out would only equal 85% of the energy invested, which itself is only 15-20% of the energy in the coal. So if you have a TDP plant powered by coal, for every 1 unit of energy in coal that you consume, you get only 13-17% back, or somewhere around 0.1275 and 0.17 units back.

Coal liquification would be a MUCH better idea.

Note that the only electricity needed to operate the plant is about 3.6% of the energy produced by TDP, and that is only counting the oil. I believe that is an ERoEI of 99.5/3.6 = 27.6. Way bigger than 1.0 you will be glad to know. See Figure 6, p8 at http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site ... rocess.pdf

See sentance 1 page 9. The efficiency of the process is indeed 85%, which is less then 100%, or an EROEI of less then 1. It is NOT an energy source. That company knows this and specifically states it in the paper you sited, why won't you except it?

[sicophiliac]

Plant produces 500 barrels of oil a day, wow.. wed only need 10,000 of them to really make a dent in oil supply.