Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Thermal Depolymerization Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: TDP

Unread postby 0mar » Thu 17 Feb 2005, 22:10:41

Optimist wrote:
I haven't seen the numbers that support the idea that it can be anything more than a nice supplement to oil requirements, not a huge savior.

Let's talk about numbers then. According to Changing World Technologies (CWT http://changingworldtech.com/what/problems.asp#energy ), the inventor of TDP, there is enough agricultural waste (6 billion tons/year) in the US to replace all oil imports. Using all solid waste produced in the US (12 billion tons/year) could yield 24 billion bbl/year, compared to a demand of ~ 19 billion bbl/year in 1998.

Even if CWT are lying through their teeth and the process is only 20 - 25% as effective as they claim, it still has the potential to be very significant.


Let's work the math.

Let's assume TD can cover our imports. That's ~13 million barrels per day. At 1,000 bpd per plant, we would need 1,000 plants. So 13 million barrels will need 13,000 plants. Bringing this online in 15 years would require 2.5 plants being built daily (365 x 15 = 5475, 13,000 / 5475 = 2.38....). TD is viable at a technical level only, not on an economic level.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

TDP

Unread postby Optimist » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 13:54:08

At 1,000 bpd per plant, we would need 1,000 plants. So 13 million barrels will need 13,000 plants. Bringing this online in 15 years would require 2.5 plants being built daily (365 x 15 = 5475, 13,000 / 5475 = 2.38....). TD is viable at a technical level only, not on an economic level.


You're joking, right? There is no reason why the size of the plant would be limited to 1,000 bpd. The MO plant is sized for 500 bpd because that is what they expect to make from the 200 t/d of available waste. If, for example, you wanted to treat all of New York City's waste with TDP you would build one big plant and realize the benefit of scale, not multiple small units.

The economics of TDP depends mainly on the price of crude.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Re: TDP

Unread postby eric_b » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 15:24:05

Optimist wrote:
At 1,000 bpd per plant, we would need 1,000 plants. So 13 million barrels will need 13,000 plants. Bringing this online in 15 years would require 2.5 plants being built daily (365 x 15 = 5475, 13,000 / 5475 = 2.38....). TD is viable at a technical level only, not on an economic level.


You're joking, right? There is no reason why the size of the plant would be limited to 1,000 bpd. The MO plant is sized for 500 bpd because that is what they expect to make from the 200 t/d of available waste. If, for example, you wanted to treat all of New York City's waste with TDP you would build one big plant and realize the benefit of scale, not multiple small units.

The economics of TDP depends mainly on the price of crude.


I think the gist of Omar's argument is correct. You don't seem
to fully understand the magnitude of the problem. I can see TD
playing a minor role as an alternative energy source - say in line
with solar/wind/hydro (a few percent of total) but there's no way
it's ever going to replace most of the oil we currently use.

Don't make me throw more numbers at you.
User avatar
eric_b
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: us

Unread postby 0mar » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 16:33:45

The most optimistic of sites say that TD plants can have a capacity of 1,000 bpd.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Very convincing

Unread postby Optimist » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 19:29:22

That's very convincing guys!
Don't make me throw more numbers at you.

Throw! I may even hit it over the fence.

The most optimistic of sites say that TD plants can have a capacity of 1,000 bpd.

Based on what? There is no reason to limit it to 1,000 bpd.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby 0mar » Fri 18 Feb 2005, 22:54:56

Because that is the inherent limitation of the technology.

Things just can't scale up to something convienant.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby RdSnt » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 19:36:26

Let's look at this in a much more basic way.

Assume for a moment that fossil oil took 1billion years to create. I just using a nice round number. There was a certain amount of energy expended to create that fossil oil. From year to year though the amount was very small.

In our present circumstances, we want to convert waste material into oil. However we don't want to wait a billion years, we need to accelerate the conversion process. Acceleration requires additional energy. In the end we don't have enough energy to convert the waste to oil in any type of positive EROEI calculation.

Also keep in mind some products, such as plastic, require much more energy to break down than it took to create the origin component from fossil fuel resources. Also it is good to keep in mind that we don't calculate the cost of the making of fossil fuel in our estimates for making a product. We should.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

Unread postby nero » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 20:56:03

One factor to consider with TD is that the quality of the trash is important. Not just the energy content but the contamination. If the waste is homogenous and reliably contamination free then you're golden but what happens if you start throwing in real trash, then you will get oil contaminated with heavy metals that would be dangerously polluting.

Another consideration is that agricultural waste often isn't. It's fertilizer.

A third consideration is that waste is dispersed. If it must be trucked to a central TD processing unit to achieve the efficiencies of scale, that aslo is a significant cost.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby 0mar » Sat 19 Feb 2005, 23:41:42

RdSnt wrote:Let's look at this in a much more basic way.

Assume for a moment that fossil oil took 1billion years to create. I just using a nice round number. There was a certain amount of energy expended to create that fossil oil. From year to year though the amount was very small.

In our present circumstances, we want to convert waste material into oil. However we don't want to wait a billion years, we need to accelerate the conversion process. Acceleration requires additional energy. In the end we don't have enough energy to convert the waste to oil in any type of positive EROEI calculation.

Also keep in mind some products, such as plastic, require much more energy to break down than it took to create the origin component from fossil fuel resources. Also it is good to keep in mind that we don't calculate the cost of the making of fossil fuel in our estimates for making a product. We should.


The EROEI is always going to be negative for TD because you are synthesizing the energy products. We just are converting something that wouldn't have normally been energy into energy.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby FrankRichards » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 18:55:17

Omar,

Would you please post a reference that explains why a TDP plant can't be scaled?

And I can't avoid the feeling that when you're talking about waste, EROEI calculations on just the waste are all bogus. You need to get rid of the stuff and that cost is part of the EREOI of what you really wanted to do, which I expect is never to just make a pile of waste. So for the extant case of turkey guts, the issue is "does using TDP to rid of the offal improve the EREOI of raising turkeys by 'conventional' means?" I haven't seen any claim by anyone that implies that it doesn't.

The PITA is that you have to look at each waste stream individually. I'm sure that TDP is better than say landfilling feedlot manure, but it's less clear that you can't get a better return using a conventional methane digester, and then either TDPing or just using the (much smaller now) residue for fertilizer.
User avatar
FrankRichards
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Licho » Sun 20 Feb 2005, 20:12:16

There is probably no real obstacle in sizing the plants or even building enough of them in few decades.. There is also no problem with powering these plants, as they casn use their own produced methane to power self.
What I see as an obstacle is stealing the energy from ecosystem. If you treat all biological waste this way, you are certainly not going to return it back to ecosystem (as fertilizer and base for next generation of plants/animals) but instead throw it into atmosphere as CO2. But ecosystem is where it belongs. If you remove tonnes of biological material from it, then you need to use tonnes of synthetic fertilizers and other stuff to "refill" organic base for plants. You can't increase efficiency of primary energy source (which is photosynthesis) this way for longer period, if you do, you are stealing from organic base and reducing fertility of land. You can only come as close as possible to photosynthetic efficiency limit with tdp. If we are now using 1/5 or 1/10 of energy provided by plant photosynthesis, using this process we could come closer to 100%, but we cannot go beyond it.. we cannot surpass limits of plants which actually capture this energy from sun with this technology.

If we put it this way, then the question is not how many TDP do we need to construct, but rather:
How large area of farmland do we need to capture enough energy from sun to power society.
User avatar
Licho
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon 31 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU

Unread postby nocar » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 11:54:31

To give a hint on the scaling potential, let's look at Stockholm, Sweden

We have a very great sewage treatment system, and it actually produces biogas for running buses (aside from treating the sewage).

Shit and toilet paper from a million people now power about ten buses.
That's it. All the thousands other buses and about 300.000 cars and xx thousand trucks just have to sit still if we would have to rely on this sources of waste for powering motor vehicles. (We have electric trains and subways that can keep running on nuclear and hydro like they do today)

Nocar
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Unread postby 0mar » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 12:18:41

Frank, I can't find a link right now that puts it into hard barrels per day numbers, but I know the website of the company says something on the order of :

Currently, our one plant does 400 bpd, but the process is scalable to 1,000 bpd if the process is profitable.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby pup55 » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 12:34:44

http://peakoil.com/fortopic505-30.html

There is some detail on the BTU inputs and outputs in this thread.

Unfortunately, those reptiles at CWT have pulled the technical papers off of their website, so the link to this diagram no longer works.

Also, I have been checking the local newspaper in Carthage MO to see if they are hiring, which they are not.
User avatar
pup55
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5249
Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby FrankRichards » Mon 21 Feb 2005, 20:38:24

0mar wrote:Frank, I can't find a link right now that puts it into hard barrels per day numbers, but I know the website of the company says something on the order of :

Currently, our one plant does 400 bpd, but the process is scalable to 1,000 bpd if the process is profitable.


I certainly see how you get the idea, but depending on context it sounds like he could also have been referring to upgrading _this_ plant, with no implications either way about what could be done in a new plant.

If the process is profitable we'll doubtless soon find out it it scales to a municipal sewage plant size.
User avatar
FrankRichards
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon 11 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby RdSnt » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 09:44:55

nero wrote:One factor to consider with TD is that the quality of the trash is important. Not just the energy content but the contamination. If the waste is homogenous and reliably contamination free then you're golden but what happens if you start throwing in real trash, then you will get oil contaminated with heavy metals that would be dangerously polluting.


Contamination is more complicated than that. Processing oil of any kind is a chemical process that is extremely sensitive to the chemical make up of the raw materials. This is why all oil from the ground is not equal, even though the general public thinks so.
So, with your heavy metal contamination, this could alter the nature of the resulting oil to such an extent that the chemical reactions used to "crack" the raw oil may simply not work at all.
Someone mentioned using turkey guts as a feed stock. A major factor in how to process this is whether there is food residue in the guts or have they been cleaned out. This would significantly alter the chemical makeup of the feedstock requiring different solutions.

It's not that we don't know how to do this, it is whether it is cost effective both in monetary terms and energy/technical terms. Neither is the case right now or the oil companies would be doing it.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

TDP

Unread postby Optimist » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 13:50:30

Acceleration requires additional energy. In the end we don't have enough energy to convert the waste to oil in any type of positive EROEI calculation.

Acceleration requires heat. Much of the heat in a TD plant is recycled (steam from the first stage is condensed to heat incoming feed) which is why such high efficiency can be achieved, according to CWT. Apparently the energy you require for heating and all other process needs represent only 18% (15/85) of the energy in the fuel produced. Note much of the required energy is in the feedstock.

Also it is good to keep in mind that we don't calculate the cost of the making of fossil fuel in our estimates for making a product. We should.

We should not, unless you are telling me that trash has value.

A third consideration is that waste is dispersed. If it must be trucked to a central TD processing unit to achieve the efficiencies of scale, that aslo is a significant cost.

Many big cities already collect the dispersed trash for disposal at a central facility. No additional energy required for collection.

If you treat all biological waste this way, you are certainly not going to return it back to ecosystem (as fertilizer and base for next generation of plants/animals) but instead throw it into atmosphere as CO2.

CO2 is not fertilizer. The main constituents of fertilizer is nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. According to the missing technical papers from CWT, much of the nitrogen in the feedstock will leave as ammonium sulphate, which can be used to make fertilizer. In addition, the mineral byproduct from the plant consists of 6% nitrogen, 38% phosphorus, 1% potassium, 34% calcium, etc. This byproduct is also available for making fertilizer. Think of fertilizer as similar to energy in this regard: it can't be made or destroyed. If anything, TDP converts the fertilizer from a stinking organic mess into a mineral product that would be much easier to handle.

See http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site ... rocess.pdf for one of those "missing" papers.

How large area of farmland do we need to capture enough energy from sun to power society.

Zero: We would be using existing waste, which currently goes to waste, if you will excuse the pun.

Shit and toilet paper from a million people now power about ten buses. That's it.

I don't think so. Most sewage treatment plants need gas to heat the anaerobic digesters that convert the waste to biogas. So the gas left to power vehicles is probably a small fraction of the total biogas produced. Compared to other waste streams (agricultural, solid waste, i.e. trash, etc.) sewage sludge is a small component.

So, with your heavy metal contamination, this could alter the nature of the resulting oil to such an extent that the chemical reactions used to "crack" the raw oil may simply not work at all.

True. According to CWT theyn have tested a number of different wastes, and was able to make the process work on all of them. So, I think your concern may already have been addressed. It is true that a plant designed for turkey guts probably cannot be converted to a different feedstock without a major redesign.
User avatar
Optimist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue 28 Sep 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Eustacian » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 20:24:26

Taskforce_Unity wrote:Thermo Depolarisation, Or the recycling of organic waste (bodies, corpses, manure etc.) into Oil.

I believe it is also called thermo Carbon depolarisation sometimes.


If someone hasn't beat me to it - it's Thermal Depolymerization.
User avatar
Eustacian
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon 20 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sun 27 Feb 2005, 14:53:04

Capitalism being what it is, any company in possession of a technology that is likely to deliver results on a problem as big as foreign oil reliance/oil depletion/high gas prices etc. . ., usually doesn't need a grant from the governement to keep its head above water.

See:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/smallbus ... 47,00.html

Technical machinations such as BTUs, EROEI, etc aside, this fact alone should tell us something, espcecially since it's not like this technology is "unknown" by the investor class at this point.

Matt
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby 0mar » Sun 27 Feb 2005, 15:51:00

With that article Matt posted, it should be obvious that TD doesn't solve the dilemna of the end of cheap oil.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1499
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Davis, California

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests