Wow, am I impressed! Why that's a whopping 0.005% of our yearly imports! Heck, with only 200 more plants (and next-door turkey processors) just like this one, we'll import 1% less oil! By gum, that'll teach those nasty a-rabs and put a big dent in their income! (Of course we only import a 1/4 of our oil from the Persian Gulf!)
The only reason I can figure that you'd want to mis-represent this Rube Goldberg contraption as any kind of energy solution or a solution to foreign oil imports, is that you (they) intend to seek government subsidies to support this boondoggle. It is not an energy solution. It will not lower our dependence on foreign oil in any significant way.
The only advantage to this technology (and it is a substantial one) is its ability to efficiently treat waste products.
--Boot Hill
I think you are under the assumption that these "next-door turkey processors" don't already exist. If you have read my posts on this thread, you will see that I try to keep focussing on the fact that coupled with actual oil production, this technology will in fact reduce the amount of animal waste products (hazardous materials) that are a constant problem for our Ag related communities.
You act as because these plants won't magically turn off the Middle-East spigot for oil that they are a boondoggle. They aren't. This technology will help each and every agriculture business than needs to transport and dispose of animal waste. It will help their bottom line, and yes, it will allow for more U.S. based oil production without more drilling or exploration. And if they can successfully use these plants to help with waste treatment of sewage in large cities, the environment will be helped, city finances will be helped, and U.S. oil production will be helped.
It's like you see a quarter on the ground and complain that it isn't worth picking up because your mortage is $800 a month. No, a quarter won't pay your mortage, but how in the hell can it hurt to be a quarter richer?!?
It's one thing to say you doubt the science, it's another thing to just rant on without knowing any of the facts just because you don't think it is possible. Reminds me of the Atkins bashers who will never be convinced because they once went on a diet in the 70's and never lost weight.
In case others think Boot Hill just made up these numbers (he's not), check the statistics yourself. In 2002, the United States used an estimated 19.7 million barrels. Per day.
The articles allude to the exact engineering problem we face to make this practical as an energy production source: scaling it up. If we do work it out however, and if some organic waste streams convert at the same ratio as this pilot plant, then the numbers are interesting to look at.
A plant of this size produces 180,000 barrels per year as others have pointed out in this thread. That works out to 493.15 barrels per day out of 200 tons each day. There are 160 million tons of wood waste per year (1998 figures) alone. That works out to 1,080,876 barrels per day if we assume the same conversion rate of 200 tons of organic matter to 493.15 barrels per day. 5.4% of our daily total oil demand from wood waste alone. Enough to affect prices at the margin, where it counts. At current rates, we will import 68% of our oil by 2025. This same reference cites DOE figures that say we currently import about 50%, or about 10 million barrels. If we put this in place today, the percentage of imports this represents rises to 10.8%.
Pulling our focus back a bit, we find that agriculture produces about 1 billion tons of waste per year. Remember, agricultural waste streams are not the only feedstock; some manufacturing waste streams are also eligible. But for the sake of back of the envelope calculations, let's assume that all eligible waste streams for TDP amounts to 1 billion tons per year. That works out to 6,755,479 barrels per day, or about 67% of daily import demand today.
Even if we project out increased demand for petroleum in the future, the potential for this technique to affect prices at the margin should not be dismissed out of hand. Boot Hill is still right however; it is highly unlikely that we can use this technique (assuming all the engineering, business and logistical details are worked out) to supplant import demand. Fortunately, we don't need it to wholesale replace imports: if we can make it affect the marginal price, that's still a useful tool in our national assets.