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....