Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anything into Oil(solution to dependence on foregn oil?)
DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 5 ^ | May 2003 | Brad Lemley

Posted on 04/21/2003 5:57:41 AM PDT by honway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last
To: zeugma
The thing the surprises me most is the near complete silence on this subject in the mainstream media.

Do you recall how the media covered Ginger, which was a scooter?

Unless this mult-million dollar venture is a complete fraud, and I am with Howard Buffett betting it is not,this may be one of the most important news stories of the year. Yet, there is little coverage in the media.

51 posted on 04/21/2003 8:21:52 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: *Energy_List
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
52 posted on 04/21/2003 8:21:58 AM PDT by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Hmmm... My organic isn't that good, but this sounds interesting...
53 posted on 04/21/2003 8:24:54 AM PDT by Chemist_Geek ("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
Nice tagline for this thread.
54 posted on 04/21/2003 8:33:46 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: honway
Bump.

The next big thing. Please flag me to any new reports on this process and the tests of the Missouri plant.

I'd buy stock now if it was public. But the Buffets and their buddies have a lock on it, I would guess.
55 posted on 04/21/2003 8:42:33 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Yeah, the Buffets have been moving out of the market to private companies.
56 posted on 04/21/2003 9:27:44 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: honway
"Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He contends the efficiency is even better for relatively dry raw materials, such as plastics."

So long as the efficiency is < 100% (which it must be) you cannot get 'something for nothing'. That 15% simply means you are putting in 100 Btus and getting 85 back as fuel.

57 posted on 04/21/2003 9:50:53 AM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: m1911
google search for "thermal depolymerization" lists 243 links, some already posted on this thread

[I couldn't get the google search link to work here]
58 posted on 04/21/2003 9:56:12 AM PDT by citizen (Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: CollegeRepublican
I was thinking the same thing.

Question now is: how many molecules make up a single prion, and if a prion is more than one molecule, can broken-up "individualized" prion molecules act as mini-infectious particles/agents?

59 posted on 04/21/2003 9:57:35 AM PDT by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: honway
Seems to have President Bush fooled too. Not!


Dubya: A new generation of technology has been developed by Changing World Technologies which can solve the nation's energy crisis and turn waste materials into valuable and marketable fuel alternatives. These processes also solve the nation's waste disposal problems by eliminating all residuals. The time has come to utilize waste materials as resources and the technology has advanced to make such a transformation achievable.

60 posted on 04/21/2003 10:01:53 AM PDT by Tunehead54 (Support Our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: m1911
The company has also obtained multiple DOE grants. The DOE folks are a notoriously skeptical group so this is a significant endorsement of the workability of the company's technology.
61 posted on 04/21/2003 10:10:27 AM PDT by ggekko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tunehead54
where is that Pres. Bush qoute from?
62 posted on 04/21/2003 10:20:44 AM PDT by citizen (Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: boris
Some feedstock contains 100 BTUs worth of energy locked into organic molecules in the form of waste. It takes 15 BTUs worth of energy to process that 100 BTUs out of the feedstock into 100 BTUs worth of oil, gas, etc. In other words, waste + 15 BTUs = 100 BTUs of energy. The "something for nothing" is the energy locked in the waste. It is like using 15 BTUs of energy to pump 100 BTUs of oil out of the ground and refine it into 100 BTUs of oil, gas, etc. You aren't making energy. You are converting it into a usable form. If, of course, this works as advertised.
63 posted on 04/21/2003 10:21:30 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: honway
IMO, you never see anything really important in the major media. They are too busy printing any words of wisdom that come out of Sean Penn's mouth.

The biggest question I have about the output of the tech mentioned in the article concerns the non-oil related stuff. I'd be interested in knowing if they are able to separate out the heavy metals and such. Otherwise, they'll have a hard time disposing of anything they can't actually use. Now, if they can process that stuff down to the point where you end up with neat little piles of FE, AL, SI and such, then I'd have to say that this is the biggest news of this young century.

64 posted on 04/21/2003 10:23:29 AM PDT by zeugma (If you use microsoft products, you are feeding the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: boris
You wrote:
That 15% simply means you are putting in 100 Btus and getting 85 back as fuel.

From the article:
That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process

The process uses 15 Btus to produce 100 Btus. Keep in mind that 15 Btus comes from discarded plastic, used tires, waste from a turkey processing plant, etc.

Considering waste that would end up in landfills is being turned into energy, the process is actually better than getting something from nothing, imo.

65 posted on 04/21/2003 10:26:10 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: citizen
http://www.changingworldtech.com/publicprivate.htm

"America must have an energy policy that plans for the future, but meets the needs of today. I believe we can develop our natural resources and protect our environment." -President George W. Bush

66 posted on 04/21/2003 10:30:32 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: honway
just to keep track of this info.
67 posted on 04/21/2003 10:30:50 AM PDT by US_MilitaryRules (A penny saved is a governmental oversite!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I would buy stock too, but would prefer to open fanchise businesses all over the country.
Create independant States and communities.
License the technology to government military bases to produce jet fuel from all the recycled paper refuse and sewage.
68 posted on 04/21/2003 10:32:48 AM PDT by Chewbacca (My life is a Dilbert cartoon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Chewbacca
Just stay away from the garbage mashers on the detention level.
69 posted on 04/21/2003 10:55:39 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: boris
Yeah, but we are talking about most of the "energy" coming from fairly useless stuff. When you look at the entire process of drilling and refining oil in the traditional sense, I'm sure its efficiency, when viewed as an entire process, isn't too great.

70 posted on 04/21/2003 10:57:46 AM PDT by Crusher138 (crush her? I don't even know her!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: IWONDR
I read a book a few years ago about Mad Cow and other prion type diseases and at the time of publication it was thought that prions were simple protiens that were somehow mutated versions of normal protiens. The mutated protiens would change the normal proteins into mutated protiens in a chain reaction like process. These "bad" proteins would then die or kill areas of the brain causing a spongy area in the brain. It was stated in the book that it was hard to break down these proteins. However, I am sure that it is possible under the right pressure and heat conditions, but this process may not produce the given requirements. It is too early to know. I do like the idea and would be interested in reading more about it. :)
71 posted on 04/21/2003 10:57:53 AM PDT by CollegeRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: honway
"It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil, high-quality stuff, the same specs as a number two heating oil."

Number two oil. I'll say! That's offal clever.
72 posted on 04/21/2003 11:05:00 AM PDT by manic4organic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crusher138
"Yeah, but we are talking about most of the "energy" coming from fairly useless stuff. When you look at the entire process of drilling and refining oil in the traditional sense, I'm sure its efficiency, when viewed as an entire process, isn't too great."

If it were not then nobody would drill and refine oil. The reason oil drilling pays off is that the 'battery' was charged over millions of years by photosynthesis from the Sun. Oil is condensed solar energy, which is 'free' because we are obtaining it for far less energy than one can release by burning it.

73 posted on 04/21/2003 11:07:17 AM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: honway
"The process uses 15 Btus to produce 100 Btus."

With math like that I am not surprised this approach appeals to you. My original statement is correct: 100 BTUs in (feedstock); 85 BTUs out (useful energy).

Period.

--Boris

74 posted on 04/21/2003 11:08:30 AM PDT by boris (Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: honway
"That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

If that is true and this process is all that it is cracked up to be, then the Saudis will be sucking hind teat before long.

75 posted on 04/21/2003 11:17:16 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: honway
Just converting all the U.S. agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually.

A nice dream but doing it would present quite a number of logistical nightmares.

76 posted on 04/21/2003 11:22:06 AM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: m1911
you caught that line too? Call me when it is up and running.

77 posted on 04/21/2003 11:28:13 AM PDT by Mr. K (I'm formidable with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: boris
Those turkey parts (or plastic bottles, or whatever) have btus stored in them also - but not in a form that's useful. This process changes the form of the energy storage without adding any. According to the article, the energy used to recover (not create) those btus is 15% of the btus recovered.

This doesn't seem to be about mystical energy from nowhere, it's about reforming available energy into a usable form.
78 posted on 04/21/2003 11:37:33 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: honway
"If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. "

Sounds like it will be of interest to the guys who took care of Jimmy Hoffa and the rest of the "family". Ain't technology grand?
79 posted on 04/21/2003 11:44:27 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m1911
"I bet any money the environmental wackos will find something wrong with it though."

That's easy - it's still hydrocarbon fuels. It doesn't do anything about greenhouse gases. In fact, it encourages them.

Negative on that. Here's the cycle.

1. Corn plants grow by extracting carbon from atmosphere

2. Turkey's eat the corn plants

3. Turkey guts get reprocessed into oil

4. SUV burns oil, returning carbon to atmosphere

It's a closed carbon cycle. The only time carbon gets added to the atmosphere is when something is fed into the machine that was originally manufactured from drilled oil. For example, plastic made from Texas crude; but that's no worse than the situation today. All other organic sources, slaughterhouse waste, sawmill waste, agro waste and sewage reprocessing represent a closed carbon cycle and a vast improvement in the global warming scenario.

Of course you know this means a new ice age is coming since we need increased atmospheric carbon to offset the previously scheduled ice age ;)

80 posted on 04/21/2003 11:50:15 AM PDT by MalcolmS (I Engineer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MalcolmS
LOL. Good points. Somehow the Luddite faction is NOT going to dig this though. I guess instead of trying to outguess them I'll just let them come up with their own insanity.
81 posted on 04/21/2003 11:51:47 AM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: honway
If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.

The moral of the story: don't fall in, lest we extract your 'net worth'.

Very interesting article and a very hopeful technology BUMP.

82 posted on 04/21/2003 11:57:15 AM PDT by spodefly (This is my tag line. There are many like it, but this one is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
The fly in the ointment is that you might need more energy than can be recovered from the fuel you make.

With math like that I am not surprised this approach appeals to you

Let me be more clear, since you seem to be having trouble with the concept here.

Garbage which would otherwise end up in a landfill goes in one end. More energy is produced in a useable form (oil and gas) than is consumed in the process. That is a good thing.

Is that simple enough for you, or would you like more help?

83 posted on 04/21/2003 11:58:29 AM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: citizen
Re Bush quote source:

Public Partnerships

I recall this as being a public - pro-energy development speech within the last 6 months.

84 posted on 04/21/2003 12:00:21 PM PDT by Tunehead54 (Support Our Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: honway
A definite bump.
85 posted on 04/21/2003 12:04:02 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
With math like that I am not surprised this approach appeals to you. My original statement is correct: 100 BTUs in (feedstock); 85 BTUs out (useful energy).

The point is that it is 100 BTUs of waste material (not useful energy) being run through a process to turn it into 85 BTUs of fuel (useful energy). Given that the waste material is waste, that's like putting rocks into a blender and getting oil for the energy needed to run the blender. 15% is incredibly efficient. FYI, normal chemical-to-electrical power plants lose about half the energy during the conversion.

86 posted on 04/21/2003 12:16:17 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Anoel
This is the thread I was telling you about.
87 posted on 04/21/2003 12:19:50 PM PDT by DeSoto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boris
So long as the efficiency is < 100% (which it must be) you cannot get 'something for nothing'. That 15% simply means you are putting in 100 Btus and getting 85 back as fuel.

The raw materials aren't "nothing". They are carbon-based products that could burn even without processing. The fact that they are waste products -- some very difficult to dispose of -- would make this process desirable even at lower efficiencies. Recall the controversies over incenerators. If this is cleaner than incenerators, it will be useful even if it only partly pays its way.

My one big question revolves around heavy metals. When you grind up computer monitors, what becomes of the lead in the CRTs?

88 posted on 04/21/2003 12:22:53 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: MalcolmS
I wonder if the homeless tribe could be weaned away from shopping carts into harvesting kudzu. And what about leaves and yard waste? right now the lawn services in my neighborhood sweep yard waste illegally into the storm sewers.
89 posted on 04/21/2003 12:27:31 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Even better - miniaturize this process and as your mower cuts the grass, it goes into the hopper and is processed back into fuel for the engine and fertilizer for the yard!

Before anyone explains economies of scale to me, I'm joking here

90 posted on 04/21/2003 12:32:40 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: honway
So let's keep a running scoreboard:

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS BROUGHT ABOUT BY PEOPLE LOOKING TO MAKE A BUCK vs. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS BROUGHT ABOUT BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

The "make a buck" crowd currently has a huge lead, and may be about to pile it on.
91 posted on 04/21/2003 12:32:42 PM PDT by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m1911
You are joking, but I am not. Even a break even process for converting organic waste into something other than landfill would be a wonder.
92 posted on 04/21/2003 12:35:39 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: m1911
I realize you are joking here, but I would be interested in how small they could make this process and still have it pay off. If you could set up a reasonably small facility, it could even be solar powered, as heat is something that can be harvested rather well. Anyone who has ever sat in a car that was parked outside of the shade in texas during the summer can readily attest to this :-)

I think it would be pretty cool (so to speak) to be able to feed a (relatively) biomass of some kind (leaves, lawn clippings etc) and have it, by using a solar concentrator, produce oil for you. Granted, here in texas, we don't have much use for heating oil, but I'm sure you could use it to run a generator of some kind. I'd gladly take the yard-based waste from my neighborhood and turn it into a readily salable and transportable petrolium product.

93 posted on 04/21/2003 12:51:24 PM PDT by zeugma (If you use microsoft products, you are feeding the beast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: boris
A quick google search on thermal depolymerization will turn up dozens of articles, including some on the turkey waste plant under construction. The folks building the plant are not promising a profit. They are doing it for efficient management of waste, with the hope of eventually breaking even.

In my opinion, any new technology that manages to break even in its first commercial application can probably be improved to the point of being profitble.

94 posted on 04/21/2003 1:19:52 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: OKCSubmariner
http://www.forester.net/mw_news_030416_cwt.html


Changing World Technologies Debuts First Commercially Successful Thermal Process to Convert Organic Waste into Clean Energy

West Hempstead, NY, April 8, 2003 - Changing World Technologies, Inc. announces the first commercially successful application of thermal technology to convert organic waste into clean energy. Building on scientific research dating to the 1920s and human history extending from the Stone Age, CWT has patented, tested and deployed a technological process that has been awarded $12 million in grants from the US government and produced a joint venture with ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Utilizing low-value waste by-products such as tires, plastics, municipal sewage sludge, paper, animal and agricultural refuse as feedstocks, CWT's thermal technology provides a commercially viable solution for some of the earth's gravest environmental challenges, including arresting global warming by reducing the use of fossil fuels, and reforming organic waste into a high-value resource. In addition, it has the potential to substantially reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

95 posted on 04/21/2003 1:44:38 PM PDT by honway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: honway
If a 175-pound man fell into one end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water.

SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!! IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

96 posted on 04/21/2003 1:48:49 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
"Outside, a tanker truck idles, full to the top with fresh turkey blood."

Gives a whole new meaning to "No Blood for Oil", huh?
97 posted on 04/21/2003 1:59:42 PM PDT by m1911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: m1911
LOL!
98 posted on 04/21/2003 2:04:55 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro
Figured you guys might like this one.
99 posted on 04/21/2003 2:16:57 PM PDT by Junior (Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Figured you guys might like this one.

If I could hook up one of those converters to the back end of each of my dogs, I'd have enough oil around here to light up the whole city.

100 posted on 04/21/2003 2:51:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson