NationStates Jolt Archive

http://kantor.com/useful/thermo.shtml

Thermodepolymerization -- or "thermal depolymerization" -- is a process that converts stuff into oil. And by "stuff" I mean just about anything: garbage, medical waste, animals and animal parts (e.g., cows with mad-cow disease, or offal from chickens that have been made into McNuggets), used computer parts, tires, and so on, seemingly ad infinitum.

This is not just a theoretical process. It is real, out-of-the-lab stuff happening on an industrial scale. It's being done by ConAgra Foods in Carthage, Missouri -- at one of the company's Butterball Turkey plants, where up to 200 tons of turkeys are being turned into oil every day.

Once more: This is real stuff. Garbage is being turned into oil by a process that's safe, clean, and in use today.

Essentially, thermal depolymerization or TDP mimics a process the earth itself uses to 'process' what gets buried and break it down. Over millions of years, heat and pressure break the bonds that hold these waste products together. TDP accelerates the process. The leading company doing TDP is Changing World Technologies of West Hempstead, N.Y.

http://kantor.com/useful/mittdp.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-01-22-kantor_x.htm

This was going to be a column about oil. Instead, it's also about disease, poison, and a cool way to get rid of both.
Actually, it's about a new technology — a new process that is going to make a Difference. One that's going to change things, and one you're going to be hearing a lot more about.

The process is called thermal depolymerization or TDP, and the company that's doing it is West Hempstead, N.Y.-based Changing World Technologies.

Don't be intimidated by the name. It's just a nine-syllable way of saying "using heat to break down complex material into simple material."

Specifically, TDP turns just about anything into oil and fertilizer. And when I say "anything," I mean that: animal waste, medical waste, human waste. Used diapers, used computers, used tires. Anything that's not radioactive can be tossed into the hopper.

And this is not just a theoretical process. It ain't cold fusion. TDP is real, out-of-the-lab stuff. It's happening on an industrial scale, today. At the ConAgra Foods facility in Carthage, Missouri, hundreds of tons of turkey waste from the company's Butterball plant are being turned into oil every day — enough oil to generate 11-12 megawatts of power, according to Changing World's chairman and CEO, Brian Appel.

The City of Philadelphia currently turns a lot of its sewage sludge into landfill. (All together now: Eww.) But working with Changing World, the city is planning a TDP project to divert that sludge — and whatever pathogens are living in it — away from the land and into oil. Local power companies can then turn the oil into electricity. Win, win, win.

At first, it was the oil angle that was TDP's selling point. In case you hadn't noticed, we get a lot of ours from countries that don't like us very much. Then they give our money to people who use it to kill us. So TDP was being touted as a way to reduce our imports. In fact, get this: According to Appel, there are more than 12 billion tons of agricultural waste generated every year in the U.S. (And that's undoubtedly a low number; it's based on 1988 figures.) Were it all to be put through the TDP process it would turn into more than four billion barrels of light crude oil.

That ain't chicken feed. (Not once the system's done processing it, anyway.) According to the U.S. Department of Energy, we imported about 3.3 billion barrels of crude oil in 2002.

In other words, if we converted just our agricultural waste to light crude using TDP, we could stop our oil imports…and then some.

Yes, yes, yes—these are perfect-world numbers. So cut 'em in half. Or more. Heck, imagine the benefit of weaning ourselves of just 10% of our oil imports.

How much does it cost?

How much does it cost?

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829

Private investors, who have chipped in $40 million to develop the
process, aren't the only ones who are impressed. The federal government has
granted more than $12 million to push the work along. "We will be able to
make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the
process. "We are going to be able to switch to a carbohydrate economy."

The real question is probably whether or not it's efficient. How much net energy is gained by using this method? Does it take loads of energy to convert things to oil, which in turn may not give back enough usable energy to make it worthwhile?

EDIT: Also, by weaning the Western nations off oil imports, we'll kill the single export oil-dependant states of the Middle East.

How much does it cost?
My thoughts exactly.

The real question is probably whether or not it's efficient. How much net energy is gained by using this method? Does it take loads of energy to convert things to oil, which in turn may not give back enough usable energy to make it worthwhile?

http://kantor.com/usatoday/thermal_depolymerization.shtml

Follow-Ups

A few people have written to be asking the same (or a similar question) regarding the efficiency of the TDP process.

Specifically: How much energy is used to power it? Does it use more energy to process the animal/medical/industrial waste than it gets back in oil? (If so, that would make TDP a terrific waste-disposal system, but not a good energy producer.)

Jason Preiser was the first to question this. He wrote:

The key fact you fail to mention in your article for USAToday is that creating one barrel of oil from TPD requires 1.15 barrels of oil! The idea that it will somehow enable us to 'get off foreign oil' is completely fallacious.
The way I read it, 85% efficiency means that for every 100 BTUs I put in (to convert the waste), I recover 85 BTUs worth of energy.
This turns out not to be the case. According to the company, about 15 percent of the fuel that comes out of a TDP plant is used to power the plant itself -- the other 85 percent is new energy. So if a TDP plant generated 100,000 BTUs worth of oil, it would only use about 15,000 BTUs to power the process.

According to Changing Worlds' Terry Adams:

15 Btu's from the original 100 Btu's is used in the process. The other 85 Btu's becomes fuel. Think of a box with 100 Btu's of turkey offal coming in and 100 Btu's of fuel coming out. After the fuel comes out, 15% of it is put back into the process. These Btu's eventually leave as heat. The other 85% is sold as product. Total in = 100 Btu's. Total product out = 85 Btu's. 15 Btu's used in the process.
(For you purists, he does point out that "Turkey offal is not really a good fuel so the '100 Btu's in' is only a theoretical value.")

He also wrote:

Another way of looking at this is that 85 BTU's of fuel is generated for each 15 BTU's used in the TCP process, a ratio of 5.7 units of fuel for each unit of energy consumed by the process...not a bad payback!

A couple of people also questioned TDPs efficiency in terms of the laws of physics -- you know, energy cannot be created or destroyed. One was Mark Ellison who wrote, "It takes energy to turn garbage into oil using TDP, and, of course, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the energy content of the oil so obtained will be less than the energy used to create it."

Create, yes. But the energy in, say, turkey offal is created when the animals eat and drink. It's stored in their bodies. The energy content of the oil obtained through TDP is less than or equal to the energy used to to create it (e.g., turkey food and water), but greater than the energy used to extract it. That's what makes it an exciting energy source.

The bottom line: TDP produces more energy from the garbage that's thrown into the 'hopper' than is used to power the process.

Carthage, MO, May 19, 2004 – Renewable Environmental Solutions LLC (RES) today announced that its first commercial plant is selling an equivalent of crude oil No. 4, produced from agricultural waste products. The Carthage, Missouri, plant is currently producing 100-200 barrels of oil per day utilizing by-products from an adjacent turkey processing facility.

RES is a joint venture of Changing World Technologies, Inc. and ConAgra Foods, Inc. established in 2000 as the exclusive vehicle for processing agricultural waste material utilizing CWT’s Thermal Conversion Process technology, throughout the world.

TCP is the first commercially viable method of reforming organic waste into a high-value energy resource. The oil being produced by RES is being sold to a local oil blender and to customers who will use it as a heat source for their operations.

Because TCP utilizes above-ground organic waste streams to produce a new energy source, it also has the potential to arrest global warming by reducing the use of fossil fuels, and to create a means of energy independence by reducing U.S. reliance on imported oil. At peak capacity, expected to be achieved by the end of this year, the first-out plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer, and solid carbon.

“Until now our focus has been on completing commissioning of the plant, but now that we are selling oil commercially, our focus is shifting to what we can do with the TCP technology in the bigger global picture,” says P.J. Samson, President of RES.

“TCP is based on simple science, and is the only proven solution to our mounting environmental and energy problems,” said Brian Appel, Chairman and CEO of CWT.

Thermodepolymerization - wasn't that the ancient battle where a few hundred spartans held off the hundreds of thousands of persia... you know the whole ;"oh stranger who passes by, go tell the spartans, that we who here lie, died faithful to their laws" thingy.

The chemical part of this process is sound, I can say as a student of a relevant field. Actually, fat-derived diodiesel is of better quality than oil derivatives. (Living things make only a narrow range of hydrocarbon chains. Oil has all sorts of unwanted stuff in it, which has to be chemically converted to better stuff.)

The questions come with the question of the large scale. There is simply not enough of the raw material, it is not even POSSIBLE to produce enough in Europe - just imagine how it's in America with their 5 liter engines being standard. Another problem is that the cultivation and transport of the raw material takes currently more energy than for oil. So, it's not better than for oil in environmental or money terms.

The only reason we should start using is this: the production is on home soil, or controlled. Oil is running out soon, and just imagine what POLITICAL mess it's going to be. This oil war (Iraq) was the first one. There will be more.

EU has a goal to require 5% of biodiesel in diesel. The problem is that with regular agriculture - rapeseed - we only get to 2% and it's an open question where the 3% would be taken from.

When oil runs out, we'll probably resort to something akin the Finnish invention, the carbon monoxide fuel. It is produced by partial oxidation of organic matter, such as wood. When wood is burned in low oxygen, it gives off carbon monoxide (CO) instead of the regular carbon dioxide. CO can be used as a fuel. The funny thing is that the plant is in the car: you just pile in chops of wood, and drive.

The questions come with the question of the large scale. There is simply not enough of the raw material, it is not even POSSIBLE to produce enough in Europe - just imagine how it's in America with their 5 liter engines being standard. Another problem is that the cultivation and transport of the raw material takes currently more energy than for oil. So, it's not better than for oil in environmental or money terms.

I guess YOU missed the part where they explain that OVER HALF of the Oil that is used in the U.S. could be produced by the Agricultural WASTE produced in this Country...

http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829

Andreassen and others anticipate that a large chunk of the world's
agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste may someday go into thermal
depolymerization machines scattered all over the globe. If the process works
as well as its creators claim, not only would most toxic waste problems
become history, so would imported oil. Just converting all the U.S.
agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4
billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2
billion barrels of oil. Referring to U.S. dependence on oil from the
volatile Middle East, R. James Woolsey, former CIA director and an adviser
to Changing World Technologies, says, "This technology offers a beginning of
a way away from this."

So, it's not better than for oil in environmental or money terms.

So getting rid of "Toxic waste" as well as all other types of waste wouldn't be "good for the environment", in your mind?

Ok, it doesn't matter that this "new" oil can be made from anything, but it does matter that this is still oil. Oil pollutes! Why is it that america can't understand this? Sign the bloody Kyoto protocall! Instead of researching a method to turn one form of pollution into another, why don't you spend the cash on researching alternative fuels? Hello! Solar Works! Wind Works! Wake up and feel the breeze on your face, not the acid rain!

I guess YOU missed the part where they explain that OVER HALF of the Oil that is used in the U.S. could be produced by the Agricultural WASTE produced in this Country...

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

The problem isn't the energy equivalent, it's the entire process of waste production to gas station. The waste won't instantly teleport into the plant, it has to be transported. And this takes energy. The supply chain with respect to waste is much larger and more energy-consuming than that for oil.

To make enough biodiesel you need to produce it agriculturally, which is harder than you think.

But, as I said, the main reasons we should switch into alternative fuels are political. Biodiesel is home-grown. It's about time we stop wasting our money with the Arab plutocrats.

I guess it's also relevant regarding what is economically viable. We have a capitalist-based economic system, designed to generate large profits and built on the principle of an ever-expanding market. Environmental issues are secondary.

EDIT: Also, by weaning the Western nations off oil imports, we'll kill the single export oil-dependant states of the Middle East.
You mean we'll force them to model themseloves after Israel if they want to be successful? Cool.

Emphasis mine.

The problem isn't the energy equivalent, it's the entire process of waste production to gas station. The waste won't instantly teleport into the plant, it has to be transported. And this takes energy. The supply chain with respect to waste is much larger and more energy-consuming than that for oil.

To make enough biodiesel you need to produce it agriculturally, which is harder than you think.

And perhaps that is why they are building these facilities RIGHT NEXT DOOR to Plants that produce the waste?

We also ALREADY have methods of transporting waste to places, that can have these plants also built right next door. These facilities are quite "scalable" and can even be made "portable" if that is the need.

And since JUST the Agricultural Waste in this Country could account for over half our energy needs, I wonder what ALL of the Waste produced in this Country could produce, energy wise?

Regards,
Gaar

So, it's not better than for oil in environmental or money terms.So getting rid of "Toxic waste" as well as all other types of waste wouldn't be "good for the environment", in your mind?
Stop assuming people are ignorant or idiots.

The amount of CO2 released by the supply chain alone is larger than the CO2 given off from burning the equivalent fossil fuel.

Hello! Solar Works! Wind Works! Wake up and feel the breeze on your face, not the acid rain!
Actually current solar takes more energy to create than you get back from it, and wind tech has some serious problems, one being that without a much better battery system in place storing energy for when the wind lulls/stops doesn't work.

Can't people ever have a civil debate? :(

Stop assuming people are ignorant or idiots.

The amount of CO2 released by the supply chain alone is larger than the CO2 given off from burning the equivalent fossil fuel.
The amount of CO2 we give off is negligible compared to the amount given off by natural sources

I guess it's also relevant regarding what is economically viable. We have a capitalist-based economic system, designed to generate large profits and built on the principle of an ever-expanding market. Environmental issues are secondary.

But when the two can go hand in hand, then we have surely found a truly "Environmentally freindly" way of producing our Energy needs, have we not?

Sure, there is still a bit of pollution being generated by the Oil, but it is a clean Oil and we are continuing to develop ways of making it much less pollution than it has been in the past. And doesn't the fact that it "cleans" other "waste" from our Society account for just a bit of that also?

Regards,
Gaar

Stop assuming people are ignorant or idiots.

The amount of CO2 released by the supply chain alone is larger than the CO2 given off from burning the equivalent fossil fuel.

I assume nothing. I am merely asking questions regarding the questions you are asking. Is there a problem with that?

And perhaps you would be kind enough to back your ASSERTION with a link to the pertinent facts, as I have, since it seems you may not be entirely correct in your ASSUMPTIONS?

Regards,
Gaar

The amount of CO2 we give off is negligible compared to the amount given off by natural sources

Let's not confuse them with FACTS...

Ok, it doesn't matter that this "new" oil can be made from anything, but it does matter that this is still oil. Oil pollutes! Why is it that america can't understand this? Sign the bloody Kyoto protocall! Instead of researching a method to turn one form of pollution into another, why don't you spend the cash on researching alternative fuels? Hello! Solar Works! Wind Works! Wake up and feel the breeze on your face, not the acid rain!
The short answer: No.
The long answer: Nope.
The elaborate answer: For each ton of plant-derived carbon burned, there are plants which bind the same carbon. So, if you burn one tree and plant one in return, there is no net pollution. For this reason, the Kyoto protocol does not include biofuel CO2.

Solar and wind energy don't work - we haven't, as yet, figured out how to store energy in the really large scale, or for transport purposes. Hydrogen cars are still in development. We have to use nuclear power, the only actually environmentally good alternative there is. But, environmentalists are ignorant and want to ban everything that has a hint progress. For example, environmentalists opposed building dams to rivers; they opposed nuclear energy; and now, they oppose genetic engineering. The Greens don't know any more about what's actually environmentally friendly than you know about what the Kyoto protocol says about biofuels.

Ok, it doesn't matter that this "new" oil can be made from anything, but it does matter that this is still oil. Oil pollutes! Why is it that america can't understand this? Sign the bloody Kyoto protocall! Instead of researching a method to turn one form of pollution into another, why don't you spend the cash on researching alternative fuels? Hello! Solar Works! Wind Works! Wake up and feel the breeze on your face, not the acid rain!
Oh yes, lets strap solar panels all over our car and hope it stays sunny or exchange all cars for wind racers with big sails sticking out of the top. The problem isn't powering homes, WHAT DO YOU THINK VEHICLES RUN ON

I assume nothing. I am merely asking questions regarding the questions you are asking. Is there a problem with that?
The question we're talking about wasn't a question, it was an accusation dressed as a question. No question that begins with "So you think..." can't be a pure question. Simple rhetoric.

And perhaps you would be kind enough to back your ASSERTION with a link to the pertinent facts, as I have, since it seems you may not be entirely correct in your ASSUMPTIONS?

http://www.vtt.fi/virtual/amf/pdf/amfinewsletter2005_january.pdf

Well, it seems that there's been a simple comma-placing mistake, or that they're talking about a different time scale :confused:, but by 2020, we'd get about 20% of oil-derived diesel replaced by biodiesel in the EU.

Interestingly, this source indicates some help to the CO2 problem;
http://www.fortum.com/gallery/pdf/Biodiesel_presentaatio_Final.pdf

Now I'm confused, which is true, what was said in the lecture about the CO2 equivalent, or the marketing material?

Ethanol.

I'm glad something is being developed. But with the research culmulating in other fields, this process may die out before it has a serious chance to begin, because consumers may want something less polluting while they're at it. Besides, the technology involved is probably too advanced for any inefficient economies, like China's, to be of great use.

EDIT: Also, by weaning the Western nations off oil imports, we'll kill the single export oil-dependant states of the Middle East.

That's a crying shame, it really is :rolleyes:

Why, us Americans would have no reason to go invade other countries...
We'd get all of our soldiers back where they're supposed to be...
No more pants-soiling from European nations...
We stand to stimulate our own economy by offering foreign aid, in turn coming out smelling like roses...

Hmm. I don't see why this is totally a BAD thing.
I think Ethanol is a better solution for the here-and-now, though.

The question we're talking about wasn't a question, it was an accusation dressed as a question. No question that begins with "So you think..." can't be a pure question. Simple rhetoric.


http://www.vtt.fi/virtual/amf/pdf/amfinewsletter2005_january.pdf

Well, it seems that there's been a simple comma-placing mistake, or that they're talking about a different time scale :confused:, but by 2020, we'd get about 20% of oil-derived diesel replaced by biodiesel in the EU.

Interestingly, this source indicates some help to the CO2 problem;
http://www.fortum.com/gallery/pdf/Biodiesel_presentaatio_Final.pdf

Now I'm confused, which is true, what was said in the lecture about the CO2 equivalent, or the marketing material?

Hmmmm...

I don't see anywhere in the first link that addresses your statement about the "supply chain" creating more CO2 than the Oil itself...

And I can't understand anything at the second link, given I don't speak the language.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm glad something is being developed. But with the research culmulating in other fields, this process may die out before it has a serious chance to begin, because consumers may want something less polluting while they're at it. Besides, the technology involved is probably too advanced for any inefficient economies, like China's, to be of great use.

Actually the technology is very old...

So how does it work? In the cold Philadelphia warehouse, Appel waves a
long arm at the apparatus, which looks surprisingly low tech: a tangle of
pressure vessels, pipes, valves, and heat exchangers terminating in storage
tanks. It resembles the oil refineries that stretch to the horizon on either
side of the New Jersey Turnpike, and in part, that's exactly what it is.
Appel strides to a silver gray pressure tank that is 20 feet long, three
feet wide, heavily insulated, and wrapped with electric heating coils. He
raps on its side. "The chief difference in our process is that we make water
a friend rather than an enemy," he says. "The other processes all tried to
drive out water. We drive it in, inside this tank, with heat and pressure.
We super-hydrate the material." Thus temperatures and pressures need only be
modest, because water helps to convey heat into the feedstock. "We're
talking about temperatures of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of about
600 pounds for most organic material—not at all extreme or energy intensive.
And the cooking times are pretty short, usually about 15 minutes."
Once the organic soup is heated and partially depolymerized in the
reactor vessel, phase two begins. "We quickly drop the slurry to a lower
pressure," says Appel, pointing at a branching series of pipes. The rapid
depressurization releases about 90 percent of the slurry's free water.
Dehydration via depressurization is far cheaper in terms of energy consumed
than is heating and boiling off the water, particularly because no heat is
wasted. "We send the flashed-off water back up there," Appel says, pointing
to a pipe that leads to the beginning of the process, "to heat the incoming
stream."
At this stage, the minerals—in turkey waste, they come mostly from
bones—settle out and are shunted to storage tanks. Rich in calcium and
magnesium, the dried brown powder "is a perfect balanced fertilizer," Appel
says.
The remaining concentrated organic soup gushes into a second-stage
reactor similar to the coke ovens used to refine oil into gasoline. "This
technology is as old as the hills," says Appel, grinning broadly. The
reactor heats the soup to about 900 degrees Fahrenheit to further break
apart long molecular chains. Next, in vertical distillation columns, hot
vapor flows up, condenses, and flows out from different levels: gases from
the top of the column, light oils from the upper middle, heavier oils from
the middle, water from the lower middle, and powdered carbon—used to
manufacture tires, filters, and printer toners—from the bottom. "Gas is
expensive to transport, so we use it on-site in the plant to heat the
process," Appel says. The oil, minerals, and carbon are sold to the highest
bidders.
Depending on the feedstock and the cooking and coking times, the process
can be tweaked to make other specialty chemicals that may be even more
profitable than oil. Turkey offal, for example, can be used to produce fatty
acids for soap, tires, paints, and lubricants. Polyvinyl chloride, or
PVC—the stuff of house siding, wallpapers, and plastic pipes—yields
hydrochloric acid, a relatively benign and industrially valuable chemical
used to make cleaners and solvents. "That's what's so great about making
water a friend," says Appel. "The hydrogen in water combines with the
chlorine in PVC to make it safe. If you burn PVC [in a municipal-waste
incinerator], you get dioxin—very toxic."
Brian Appel, CEO of Changing World Technologies, strolls through a thermal
depolymerization plant in Philadelphia. Experiments at the pilot facility
revealed that the process is scalable—plants can sprawl over acres and
handle 4,000 tons of waste a day or be "small enough to go on the back of a
flatbed truck" and handle just one ton daily, says Appel.

I'm glad something is being developed. But with the research culmulating in other fields, this process may die out before it has a serious chance to begin, because consumers may want something less polluting while they're at it. Besides, the technology involved is probably too advanced for any inefficient economies, like China's, to be of great use.

First off, this technology can be used to ELIMINATE Waste and make all sorts of by-products, including Oil and Gas.

Secondly, given the "low-tech" it uses, it could easily be used as a Basis for creating an "Economy" in a Nation that has yet to fully develop theirs. They could design their Economy around such Technology rather than have to try and adapt an already set Economy on a new technology.

And that this new Technology has the potential to all but eliminate "waste" in our World is a benefit that may far outweigh the potential it gives in producing Energy.

Talk about killing two Birds with one stone!

Regards,
Gaar

I first read about Thermal Depolymerization three years ago. Fascinating stuff. Revolutionary, yet so obvious. It's really a gorgeous innovation.

THe biggest setback they have had in the last three years is some complaints about the smell of their prototype turkey offal rendering plant got them shut down for a while. They claimed to have dealt with that situation. I haven't heard of any follow-ups to that.

There were plans to build a sewage and garbage processor in Chicago. I don't know how close they are on that, but that'll be a huge test. If they can effectively process sewage in an efficient way, that'll be it. They can write their own checks. *nods*

What really impresses me is that the major oil companies haven't shut them down. Do you know why? Petroleum waste. The by-products of standard oil processing are large amounts of really nasty environmentally hazardous waste. Stuff that they can't process efficiently, and they have major hassles dealling with in an environmentally sound manner. Thermal depolymerization can proceess it into useable oil too! :D

What really impresses me is that the major oil companies haven't shut them down. Do you know why? Petroleum waste. The by-products of standard oil processing are large amounts of really nasty environmentally hazardous waste. Stuff that they can't process efficiently, and they have major hassles dealling with in an environmentally sound manner. Thermal depolymerization can proceess it into useable oil too! :D

Why would they? The Oil that is produced can STILL be used to then produce gasoline in the same manner they always have.

The reason they haven't helped out is that they are getting record prices for their gasoline now. Once this technology becomes widespread the price of Oil is going to plummet, so less cash flow and therefore less profits for the same amount of product sold...

That is another thing that is so beautiful about this. We don't have to redesign our entire Economic system to transfer to it, it already is how we do business, for the most part.

It is just a WONDERFUL Solution to our ever growing WASTE problem at THE SAME TIME!

Regards,
Gaar

My personal feelings:

1) Use the method to convert all of our landfill and waste products. Clear that land already. Maybe even shove a few plants down in Mexico and such and take THEIR garbage (that nation could use a good scrubbing anyways). I'm sure Canada will have their own, so no need to bug them.

1a) This is where we stop. I don't feel we need to actively produce oil from growing products. Just enough to eliminate chemical needs, and clean up our messes.

2) Still keep working on alternatives. We'll ALWAYS need oil or the like for plastics and other special chemicals, but we don't have to keep relying on it for everyday fuel. Smog still sucks muchly.

3) This way, the Middle East might have to create an economy based on SKILL, rather than warring over resources. Though most likely the Saudi family will just start making and selling weapons.

Also, last I heard Nuclear waste still exists, so you can't completely knock the environmentalist sorts for being annoyed at it. Fission is not the final answer, its a step.

...And why the hell do you sound like a Salesman?

I read about this last year. I'm surprised that it hasn't gotten more media recognition.

I don't see anywhere in the first link that addresses your statement about the "supply chain" creating more CO2 than the Oil itself...

And I can't understand anything at the second link, given I don't speak the language.

This is not the first time I notice this problem. Give a link to a site in another language than English, and the anglophone refuses to even consider browsing it thru :confused:

The calculation is in the document.

I read about this last year. I'm surprised that it hasn't gotten more media recognition.

Eh. Remember when that guy patented a way to double mileage?

That was over ten years ago.

Still no doubled mileage.

There's also acne treatments that actually work, which would ruin the acne-fighting industry, and some sort of oral vaccination that fights off oral bacteria, which would make even MORE dentists commit suicide, and who knows what else.

If the american government wasnt corrupt to the core, we would invest one hundred billion dollars a year into technologies like this.

Eh. Remember when that guy patented a way to double mileage?
Aren't we already over 50% of the theoretical energy limit from standard gasoline? If we are I don't see ho that would work.

If the american government wasnt corrupt to the core, we would invest one hundred billion dollars a year into technologies like this.


Exactly. Hurray for OPEC and people like GWB!

They're so great. I mean it. They're absolutely perfect examples of great Humans.

This is not the first time I notice this problem. Give a link to a site in another language than English, and the anglophone refuses to even consider browsing it thru :confused:

The calculation is in the document.I suppose you spend your days perusing things you can not read, I however prefer to spend my time in a bit more "productive" manner.

How would I know what ANY "equation" meant in the context of text I cannot read?

Reagrds,
Gaar

...And why the hell do you sound like a Salesman?

Perhaps because the idea that we Humans have a way to produce untolds amounts of energy out of the WASTE we produce, which in and of itself is a HUGE problem...

Sorry, that excites me!

Regards,
Gaar

If the american government wasnt corrupt to the core, we would invest one hundred billion dollars a year into technologies like this.

Yeah, why let Capitalism and Free Trade Rule the World?!?!

Not like we have a Huge deficit already, right?!?!

I suppose you spend your days perusing things you can not read, I however prefer to spend my time in a bit more "productive" manner.

How would I know what ANY "equation" meant in the context of text I cannot read?
I agree here, it's a bit tricky to understand something that you can;t read. How would we know which equation was which?

Aren't we already over 50% of the theoretical energy limit from standard gasoline? If we are I don't see ho that would work.

It worked by gasifying liquid gasoline before it enetered the carbeurator, which in turned burned the fuel more efficiently.

It worked by gasifying liquid gasoline before it enetered the carbeurator, which in turned burned the fuel more efficiently.
Um, most cars nowadays use DFI's which basically do just that.

Um, most cars nowadays use DFI's which basically do just that.

DFI's???

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=DFI%27s

Perhaps not using an acronym when citing it for the first time is in order?

DFI's???

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=DFI%27s

Perhaps not using an acronym when citing it for the first time is in order?
I believe he's talking about direct fuel injection.

I believe he's talking about direct fuel injection.

I don't see anywhere it saying it "gasifies" the liquid form of Gas in this process, just that it uses compression to make sure the 'propper amount' of Gasoline is injected, in each cylinder, each time...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-48,RNWE:en&q=direct+fuel+injection

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/892244452.Eg.r.html

http://www.autointell-news.com/news-2000/April-2000/April-18-00-p10.htm

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Like it's said before, brilliant conservation measures will never be acted on in America because the government is too deep in the pockets of the energy industry who sees these measures as either cutting their profits or even threatening their industry as a whole.

:D And since nobody made the remark yet, how many people were pissed when they saw "Thermodepolymerization" in this thread and found out it had nothing to do with Yu-Gi-Blow?

Like it's said before, brilliant conservation measures will never be acted on in America because the government is too deep in the pockets of the energy industry who sees these measures as either cutting their profits or even threatening their industry as a whole.

It isn't a "conservation measure" it is a whole new process for doing two things we NEED very much, POWER and WASTE DISPOSAL.

And when the Oil Companies have built their OWN Plants to do this, you will see them embrace the Technology whole heartedly, in my opinion.

And since it doesn't actually "threaten" their Industry but rather enhance what may be used to "create" their end product, it is just a matter of time until others are already doing it and if those who are ALREADY in the Industry fail to grasp the new tech they will fall by the wayside...

Regards,
Gaar

Like it's said before, brilliant conservation measures will never be acted on in America because the government is too deep in the pockets of the energy industry who sees these measures as either cutting their profits or even threatening their industry as a whole.

:D And since nobody made the remark yet, how many people were pissed when they saw "Thermodepolymerization" in this thread and found out it had nothing to do with Yu-Gi-Blow?
*raises hand*
*looks around, realizes everybody disagrees, goes into corner to cry*

Perhaps because the idea that we Humans have a way to produce untolds amounts of energy out of the WASTE we produce, which in and of itself is a HUGE problem...

Sorry, that excites me!

Regards,
Gaar

Don't worry, when you realize that society despises progress, you'll grumble like the rest of us. :D

But, environmentalists are ignorant and want to ban everything that has a hint progress. For example, environmentalists opposed building dams to rivers; they opposed nuclear energy; and now, they oppose genetic engineering. The Greens don't know any more about what's actually environmentally friendly than you know about what the Kyoto protocol says about biofuels.

This is a fantastic example from my country:


Greens Support Ban On Water!
Thursday, 25 October 2001, 9:43 am
Press Release: New Zealand National Party
"The Green Party's support for a ban on water in New Zealand shows how naïve and unscientific the Greens are and illustrates why the Government should ignore their extreme views to ban genetic technologies from New Zealand", says National's Environment spokesperson Nick Smith.

In an email response to a spoof highlighting all the dangers and deaths from water, Green MP Sue Kedgley's office said she was 'absolutely supportive' of a ban on dihydrogen monoxide in New Zealand.

"The Greens' support for a ban on dihydrogen monoxide shows just how scientifically illiterate the party is. They would ban anything if it has a slightly scientific name, regardless of the fact that all life would cease without water," Dr Smith said.

The email on dihydrogen monoxide points out it is a colourless, odourless, tasteless chemical used in all sorts of dangerous industries and that in gaseous form it causes thousands of burns; in liquid form millions of deaths from overdose (drowning), and in its solid state causes tissue damage.

"This spoof pulled on the Greens is not indifferent to that which they have pulled on New Zealanders in their campaign against gene technology. They have highlighted all of the dangers of gene technology, but ignored the huge benefits the new technology can offer to mankind. The 31,000 diabetics who survive because of GM-produced insulin is just one example.

"Gene technology, just like water, offers both benefits and risks. The Government must reject the scientifically illiterate Greens and instead support the Royal Commission's proposals for sensible controls on this new technology," Dr Smith said.

Ends

I laugh at green voters :D

There's also acne treatments that actually work, which would ruin the acne-fighting industry Uh, there is one commercially available...

Went on it myself.

Patients spend 5 months on a drug, then 80% are cured for life.

Had moderate acne a year ago, now not a pimple.

I don't see anywhere it saying it "gasifies" the liquid form of Gas in this process, just that it uses compression to make sure the 'propper amount' of Gasoline is injected, in each cylinder, each time...

It atomizes it extremely fine, thus giving what i assume is your gasifying effect. If you atomize something like gasoline or alcohol finely enough it basically instantly converts to it's gaseous form.

Uh, there is one commercially available...

Went on it myself.

Patients spend 5 months on a drug, then 80% are cured for life.

Had moderate acne a year ago, now not a pimple.

I've been given the impression that you have to jump through hoops to get it in the states, if I'm wrong, then I'm very curious as to why so many people in this country have Acne Scars.

I've been given the impression that you have to jump through hoops to get it in the states, if I'm wrong, then I'm very curious as to why so many people in this country have Acne Scars.I'm not in the states, that could be it.

Here it sells at "Roaccutane," you need a dermatologist to prescribe it.

The only "hoops" I had to jump through here was a doctors appointment, followed by a consultation with the dermatologist.

Last I asked about it around here I was told that movie stars go out of the country to get it...

It atomizes it extremely fine, thus giving what i assume is your gasifying effect. If you atomize something like gasoline or alcohol finely enough it basically instantly converts to it's gaseous form.

I believe that heating gains the advantage of expanding the gas to a state that burns more efficiently, but I may be wrong.

I believe I have seen people who have developed their own method for heating the liquid with varying results.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm not in the states, that could be it.

Here it sells at "Roaccutane," you need a dermatologist to prescribe it.

The only "hoops" I had to jump through here was a doctors appointment, followed by a consultation with the dermatologist.

http://www.skinsite.com/info_accutane.htm

10% hair thinning? Hell. Glad my face never got that bad to need it in the first place.

I agree here, it's a bit tricky to understand something that you can;t read. How would we know which equation was which?
May be tricky, but not impossible. It's called intelligence, finding patterns in data. In this case, the pattern is such that there is a diagram, where three sorts of diesel are compared, and the NExBTL is highlighted in blue. Another hint is that the values are in the unit kg CO2/kg.

But, I'll list the results: diesel 3.8 kg CO2/kg, NExBTL 0.7-1.0 kg CO2/kg, RME 1.4-2.0 kg CO2/kg, where BTL is Biomass-To-Liquid and RME is Rapeseed Methyl Ester. Fortum actually claims that their NExBTL gets a better carbon dioxide equivalent than diesel.

I think I need to consult my professor on this.

May be tricky, but not impossible. It's called intelligence, finding patterns in data. In this case, the pattern is such that there is a diagram, where three sorts of diesel are compared, and the NExBTL is highlighted in blue. Another hint is that the values are in the unit kg CO2/kg.


You call it intelligence, I call it ignorance and or stupidity...

In order to derive ANY information from text I am unable to read I would likely have to make MANY ASSUMPTIONS about what it is I am looking at, I prefer NOT to do that and instead look for sources I can read so as to increase my understanding.

Regards,
Gaar

May be tricky, but not impossible. It's called intelligence, finding patterns in data.

So you wouldn't mind finding the stats for the differences between a Celeron2.8G, Barton and a AthlonMP 2600+ from this site for me then, since you are obviously so much smarter than I am...

http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-Bay/8521/

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.skinsite.com/info_accutane.htmThat's the one.

I didn't get much in the way of side effects: had dry lips constantly, had to use moisturizer a lot and burnt more easily. Oh, and bleeding noses for the first time since primary school :)

These site has a bunch of information regarding the process as well as a bunch of links to supporting information...

http://www.answers.com/topic/thermal-depolymerization

*bump*
Thanks for posting this. Thanks also for the quantitative arguments as well.
As a few others here posted, this came up a few years back and then last year or the year before in some science mag.

*bump*
Thanks for posting this. Thanks also for the quantitative arguments as well.
As a few others here posted, this came up a few years back and then last year or the year before in some science mag.

Yeah, I suppose it went on a bit of a hiatus because of the difficulties they experienced in the first plant they were building...

It seems there was some problems with the welding done on some of the equipment that had to be x-rayed and then fixed, it set them back some 9 months or so in getting it up and running, and hence the lag in information about how well it is coming along.

It seems that has all been worked out now and they are working their way towards full production. Last I had heard is that they are producing between 100 - 200 Barrels of Oil a day, and that should ramp up to some 500 - 600 Barrels at full production.

This is some very exciting stuff on both the Power and Waste Disposal Arena's.

Regards,
Gaar

Really, American's should be shot. Well, at least their polluting government. Thermodepolymerisation might provide an emergency supply of oil when all your saudi oil fields run dry, but in the long run, we need to stop researching fuel sources that pollute. I know it's like "OOO! Look What We Found! we can finally run our 14 seater SUV on sewage! Yey for us! arn't we clever?!?!?!?!"

Seriously, what's the point? the US releases more toxic emissions (not just CO2) per person than any country in the world. They release more CO2 than europe, china, russia, the middle east, Canada and South America put together. Take some responsibility! accept that CO2 emissions DO increase the density of the atmosphere, DO heat up the world and WILL cause environmental problems that will last for centuries, or even millenia. :headbang:
It doesn't matter where your oil comes from, it's still oil. It still pollutes. Why is the US so addicted to oil? Is it just some sick factor that you get off on knowing that if you wanted to, you could drive your car to the moon and back?

I know it's not the ordinary american citizen's fault, put pressure on your government! Oil wouldn't be profitable without the cost of respatory problems it creates, Nuclear wouldn't be profitable without government insurance, and which is more dangerous for a terrorist attack? 3 Mile Island Nuclear Plant? Or a Wind Farm in Maine? Which is a terrorist more likely to target? (yea, terrible human rights abuses here by the US, but let's not go there)

And for all the people that say that there is no way to store such massive amounts of energy for when the wind dies down, or when it's cloudy, THERE BLOODY WELL IS! Germany has been doing it since the early 1990's! Now, this might come as a relativly new idea for the Yanks, but they are called Batteries! you can put them in things like torches! Ok, they might be big and bulky, but more so than the rails going into a coal power station? nope! See, the Germans bought Russian submarine batteries, big, bulky, but store a hell of a lot of power.

Deal with it america! Sign Koyoto and stop being a bloody nusiance to the rest of the world! (You too austraila . . .)

I've only read the first post!!! but someone recently told me that there is no evidence that people ate dodos, and they more likely went extinct because they were used as fuel!!!

We know that Oil is a polluting form of energy. But it's used in *tons* of stuff, not just power plants.

We wouldn't put out even half as much pollution of the government would actually do something bout the over-polluting industries. All they do is inforce a fine for each extra ton of pollution that goes over the limit, and I'll tell you this --- It isn't a big fine at all. It's even less money than it would cost for said industries to actually modernize and clean up.

If our fucking money-hungry government would think for a change, we'd have much more breathable air, far less pollution from factories, refineries, mills, and plants, and we'd generally have longer life expectancies.

Just look at it this way: If it's 45% cheaper to pay a fine for over-polluting than it is to modernize your factory and put out not even half as much pollution, what will you do? Of course you'll pay the fine! Oh, FUCK the environment, I just want my filthy money!

The fucking government needs to stop fining people and actually do something about this bullshit.

Really, American's should be shot. Well, at least their polluting government. Thermodepolymerisation might provide an emergency supply of oil when all your saudi oil fields run dry, but in the long run, we need to stop researching fuel sources that pollute. I know it's like "OOO! Look What We Found! we can finally run our 14 seater SUV on sewage! Yey for us! arn't we clever?!?!?!?!"

Seriously, what's the point? the US releases more toxic emissions (not just CO2) per person than any country in the world. They release more CO2 than europe, china, russia, the middle east, Canada and South America put together. Take some responsibility! accept that CO2 emissions DO increase the density of the atmosphere, DO heat up the world and WILL cause environmental problems that will last for centuries, or even millenia. :headbang:
It doesn't matter where your oil comes from, it's still oil. It still pollutes. Why is the US so addicted to oil? Is it just some sick factor that you get off on knowing that if you wanted to, you could drive your car to the moon and back?

I know it's not the ordinary american citizen's fault, put pressure on your government! Oil wouldn't be profitable without the cost of respatory problems it creates, Nuclear wouldn't be profitable without government insurance, and which is more dangerous for a terrorist attack? 3 Mile Island Nuclear Plant? Or a Wind Farm in Maine? Which is a terrorist more likely to target? (yea, terrible human rights abuses here by the US, but let's not go there)

And for all the people that say that there is no way to store such massive amounts of energy for when the wind dies down, or when it's cloudy, THERE BLOODY WELL IS! Germany has been doing it since the early 1990's! Now, this might come as a relativly new idea for the Yanks, but they are called Batteries! you can put them in things like torches! Ok, they might be big and bulky, but more so than the rails going into a coal power station? nope! See, the Germans bought Russian submarine batteries, big, bulky, but store a hell of a lot of power.

Deal with it america! Sign Koyoto and stop being a bloody nusiance to the rest of the world! (You too austraila . . .)

Hmmmm....

http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/jmitroy/sid101/uncc/fs011.html

http://www.natenergy.org.uk/co2mment.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=965

Looks to me like China, Russia and Japan together release more CO2 than the U.S. by over 20%, let alone all of the others you listed there.

Perhaps you would like to be a bit INFORMED BEFORE you make such wild-assed statements?

And if you had bothered reading the material on TDP you would have found that it is a MUCH cleaner Oil and produces far less omissions than crude Oil, and that the CO2 released is much more easily "absorbed" by plant life than crude Oil...

But let's not bother you with FACTS! Especially when you would rather just ASSUME things and say them as if they were some sort of fact.

Regards,
Gaar

And for all the people that say that there is no way to store such massive amounts of energy for when the wind dies down, or when it's cloudy, THERE BLOODY WELL IS! Germany has been doing it since the early 1990's! Now, this might come as a relativly new idea for the Yanks, but they are called Batteries! you can put them in things like torches! Ok, they might be big and bulky, but more so than the rails going into a coal power station? nope! See, the Germans bought Russian submarine batteries, big, bulky, but store a hell of a lot of power.

Deal with it america! Sign Koyoto and stop being a bloody nusiance to the rest of the world! (You too austraila . . .)

And yet Germany is still looking for a way to meet the Kyoto accords themselves...

http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-136239-16&type=News

The debate over what measures best serve Europe's growing electricity needs while at the same time keeping CO2 emissions at levels compatible with the Kyoto protocol on climate change is being re-launched after the publication of a survey by the German Energy Agency (DENA) on 24 February.

The report shows a 20% share for renewable energies in Germany is "possible" by 2015-2020 provided that further developments are made in the electricity supply infrastructure. Between 20 and 40 million tonnes of CO2 could be saved by then, depending on the structure of power plants, says the report.

But, according to DENA, expanding the wind energy parks will cost between 1.6 and 2.3 billion euros by 2015, or the equivalent of 0.39-0.49 cents per KW for each German household. This, it says, would bring the cost of cutting CO2 emissions with wind power to between 41 and 77 euros per tonne.

European electricity transmission system operators (ETSO) have warned that the emergence of big wind farms would raise security of supply issues. "The installed and expected wind and renewable capacity needs new grid infrastructure," it said in a position paper. ETSO Technical and Economical Adviser Carlo Degli Esposti argues both strengthening transmission capacities and energy-efficiency measures to reduce consumption need to be put in place in order to meet the Kyoto reduction targets

We know that Oil is a polluting form of energy. But it's used in *tons* of stuff, not just power plants.

We wouldn't put out even half as much pollution of the government would actually do something bout the over-polluting industries. All they do is inforce a fine for each extra ton of pollution that goes over the limit, and I'll tell you this --- It isn't a big fine at all. It's even less money than it would cost for said industries to actually modernize and clean up.

If our fucking money-hungry government would think for a change, we'd have much more breathable air, far less pollution from factories, refineries, mills, and plants, and we'd generally have longer life expectancies.

Just look at it this way: If it's 45% cheaper to pay a fine for over-polluting than it is to modernize your factory and put out not even half as much pollution, what will you do? Of course you'll pay the fine! Oh, FUCK the environment, I just want my filthy money!

The fucking government needs to stop fining people and actually do something about this bullshit.
>SUPPLEMENT<
NY Times (Week including Dec. 28 '04)
Felicity Barringer ....

In Congress, the Pentagon has won exemptions in the last two years from parts of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It has also sought in recent years to exempt military activities, for three years, from compliance with parts of the "Clean Air Act" (note: quotations mine).
Also, the Pentagon, which controls about 140 of the 1240 toxic Superfund sites around the country, is seeking partial exemptions from two laws governing toxic waste. And two months ago, it drafted revisions to a 1996 directive built on a pledge "to display environment security leadership within the Department of Defense activities worldwide."
The draft revisions eliminate the reference to environmental security, emphasizing instead that it is the Pentagon's role to sustain the national defense mission. Potential risks to the environment and worker safety, it says, should be addressed as part of a larger effort to manage risks, save money and preserve readiness.
....The 1996 directive was produced under the Clinton administration. It was unclear when the revised draft directive might go into effect.
In interviews last week, Pentagon officials would not comment on the draft directive or predict whether the department would renew its push for legislation exempting the agency from some "Clean Air Act" (note: again, quotation marks mine) and toxic waste disposal requirements.

.....AND .....
Associated Press, (week including Dec. 27 '04)
David Pace .....

Bonds posted by companies with federal oil and gas leases cover only a small fraction of the projected costs of plugging wells and restoring land once the fuel is extracted, leaving TAXPAYERS (note: emphasis mine) with the potential for huge cleanup bills, an Associated Press analysis of federal records shows.
The Bureau of Land Management has collected $132 million in bonds from oil and gas companies responsible for more than 100,000 wells on federal lands. The government estimates it costs between $2,500 and $75,000 to cap each well and restore the surface area.
In the past five years, the BLM has spent $2.2 million to clean up 167 wells where operators defaulted on their bonds.
At that average rate of $13,066 per well, the shortfall between the bonds and the actual cleanup costs could leave TAXPAYERS (note: yadda) with as much as $1 BILLION (note: see other note) potential liability if companies reneged on their cleanup responsibilities, the AP analysis found.

One day apart. Sheesh.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

They just like to fuck people over. That's all they seem to do these days.

Seriously, what's the point? the US releases more toxic emissions (not just CO2) per person than any country in the world. They release more CO2 than europe, china, russia, the middle east, Canada and South America put together. And that evil polluting bitch Mother Nature releases more CO2 in a few volcanic eruptions than humans have over their entire existance! :eek: I'm planning to start "Greens for Volcano Capping."

Seriously, how can you not like a way to turn trash into something we can use? Reuse, Refill, Recycle, eh?

And that evil polluting bitch Mother Nature releases more CO2 in a few volcanic eruptions than humans have over their entire existance! :eek: I'm planning to start "Greens for Volcano Capping."

Seriously, how can you not like a way to turn trash into something we can use? Reuse, Refill, Recycle, eh?

Yep, and that Bitch Mount St. Helens just gave off another plume of Ash tonight, spewing some 36,000 feet into the air.

Wonder how much CO2 that gave off?

Regards,
Gaar

Now that's what I'm talking about.

They just like to fuck people over. That's all they seem to do these days.

Dude, we're capitalists. We're SUPPOSED to sell out. :D

Everything eventually gets warped in the cash flow. Part of why actively rebellious people are always so cranky. Every time they start enjoying something, it gets bought out.

Yep, and that Bitch Mount St. Helens just gave off another plume of Ash tonight, spewing some 36,000 feet into the air.

Wonder how much CO2 that gave off?Lol, i'm betting more than my motorbike has :D

Lol, i'm betting more than my motorbike has :D

What's really funny is, the anti-U.S. people are likely going to blame us for that CO2 emission too.

After all it happened on U.S. SOIL! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Imagine the CO2 this puppy would spew...

http://www.solcomhouse.com/yellowstone.htm

Not to mention Ash and a few other nasty gasses.

Although it won't likely matter for us Humans anyway, not many of us would likely survive if it were to do one of those 600,000 year events anyway!

Regards,
Gaar

And that evil polluting bitch Mother Nature releases more CO2 in a few volcanic eruptions than humans have over their entire existance!

source it

source it

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ppiZmxSTu2cJ:forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library%3Fl%3D/science_englischdoc/_EN_1.0_%26a%3Dd+Natural+CO2+emissions&hl=en

In fact, CO2 concentrations have been far above today's level further back in earth's history and it has also been much warmer than today...

Natural CO2 'emissions' are much greater than anthropogenic emissions, but so is the natural uptake. Natural emissions are more or less equal to natural uptake, which keeps the atmospheric concentration constant. Anthropogenic emissions are additional and partially accumulate in the atmosphere (roughly half of it is absorbed by plants and oceans).
______________________________________

Which points to the validity of using a "cleaner" burning Oil so that these emissions can be more easily absorbed by the environment.

Regards,
Gaar

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ppiZmxSTu2cJ:forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library%3Fl%3D/science_englischdoc/_EN_1.0_%26a%3Dd+Natural+CO2+emissions&hl=en

In fact, CO2 concentrations have been far above today's level further back in earth's history and it has also been much warmer than today...

Natural CO2 'emissions' are much greater than anthropogenic emissions, but so is the natural uptake. Natural emissions are more or less equal to natural uptake, which keeps the atmospheric concentration constant. Anthropogenic emissions are additional and partially accumulate in the atmosphere (roughly half of it is absorbed by plants and oceans).
______________________________________

Which points to the validity of using a "cleaner" burning Oil so that these emissions can be more easily absorbed by the environment.


It is my opinion that, the deforestation around the Globe is a MUCH LARGER contributor to the growing CO2 levels in our atmosphere than any emissions Humans are making.

Why is it the Kyoto accords don't address the different Nations that are cutting their Forests down in droves?

Regards,
Gaar

On a semi-related note (power, energy, etc.)...

What about Nikola Tesla's turbine (http://www.rexresearch.com/teslatur/teslatur.htm)
? Or space energy (aka "vacuum energy" or "zero point energy")? Both are viable methods of producing energy (for homes, vehicles, industrial processes, etc.) with a helluva lot less waste than existing process use.

(Note: I know that oil would still be necessary for many products, but gasoline and power production would no longer be such a waste.)

On a semi-related note (power, energy, etc.)...

What about Nikola Tesla's turbine (http://www.rexresearch.com/teslatur/teslatur.htm)
? Or space energy (aka "vacuum energy" or "zero point energy")? Both are viable methods of producing energy (for homes, vehicles, industrial processes, etc.) with a helluva lot less waste than existing process use.

(Note: I know that oil would still be necessary for many products, but gasoline and power production would no longer be such a waste.)

I am all in favor of replacing as much of the power generation from coal, first and foremost, and from Oil all that we can.

But, as you point out yourself, we are still going to need Oil, at least for a while, to practically power our vehicles as well as heat a few Homes.

But I still contend that TDP's greatest potential is ridding ourselves of not just our everyday Waste, but Toxic Waste as well.

Regards,
Gaar

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ppiZmxSTu2cJ:forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library%3Fl%3D/science_englischdoc/_EN_1.0_%26a%3Dd+Natural+CO2+emissions&hl=en


that has nothing to do with the claim that a few volcanic eruptions put out more carbon dioxide than the total anthropogenic emissions in human history.

i suppose i should just come out and say that there will not be a decent source claiming the above, as anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide vastly outweigh volcanic ones every year. and, of course, volcanic emissions do not actually cause warming - the dust and other emissions from them actually serve to cool things down.

Bush tried to do this:

Iraq+Soldiers=Oil

It is my opinion that, the deforestation around the Globe is a MUCH LARGER contributor to the growing CO2 levels in our atmosphere than any emissions Humans are making.

carbon released by deforestation and other land use changes is part of what is measured when people talk about anthropogenic sources of co2. but it amounts to less than a third of the amount of carbon emitted due to fossil fuel use.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm

carbon released by deforestation and other land use changes is part of what is measured when people talk about anthropogenic sources of co2. but it amounts to less than a third of the amount of carbon emitted due to fossil fuel use.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm

Perhaps it would be best if we simply got to the "Heart" of the matter here.

Greenhouse gasses and what part Humans play in them...

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Perhaps it would be best if we simply got to the "Heart" of the matter here.

Greenhouse gasses and what part Humans play in them...

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


confuses the general greenhouse effect with the issue at hand, which is that of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (for transparently political purposes, i might add). if the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was on par with the general greenhouse effect, the earth would be venus.

confuses the general greenhouse effect with the issue at hand, which is that of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (for transparently political purposes, i might add). if the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was on par with the general greenhouse effect, the earth would be venus.

I guess you didn't get around to looking at the site...

It goes into detail about the different effects of each and how they "weigh" into the equation.

They also explain why some choose to ignore the "whole" of the problem in favor of just looking at less than 5% of it. It seems most of the reasoning lies in the Politics of the Liberal Left's "Greenies".

Try reading the "entire" thing and then tell me they haven't represented the ENTIRE Problem in a clear and concise way, rather than singling out certain aspects of the equation and citing them as though they were the ONLY factors in the equation, as YOU seem to be doing now.

Regards,
Gaar

I guess you didn't get around to looking at the site...

It goes into detail about the different effects of each and how they "weigh" into the equation.

They also explain why some choose to ignore the "whole" of the problem in favor of just looking at less than 5% of it. It seems most of the reasoning lies in the Politics of the Liberal Left's "Greenies".

no. just no. the difference between the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we are concerned about) and the non-anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we aren't) is that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is directly caused by our activity and it is an additional push added to a previously self-regulating system - and when you poke at a complex feedback system, even just a little bit, you can affect it in rather dramatic ways.

as for not reading the cited sources, perhaps someone ought to check the source that site cites for its very first table. as far as i can see, its sources do not provide the data on natural vs anthropogenic additions to the pre-industrial baseline that the rest of everything is based on. in fact, the source it explictly cites for it does not say a damn word about 'natural additions' to the atmospheric concentrations of the various gases. which is just a bit sketchy if you ask me.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Does anyone know if the same tech could be uset to turn waste into a usable gas for home heating???????

As a mod-green I don't think it's a bad idea. Using this stuff in a hybrid car like the Toyota Prius so that you wouldn't use as much gas as a regular car. I personally would invest in a plant and also gas stations sell it for .50c a gallon and watch as i put the gas industry out of business.

I don't care who started global warming just as long as we fix it

Hey...

Has anyone considered...

Using corpses in this process? We're a heck of a lot of carbon...

Soylentoline, anyone?

Does anyone know if the same tech could be uset to turn waste into a usable gas for home heating???????

I don't care who started global warming just as long as we fix it

Actually, that is the PRIMARY Oil that is produced from the Turkey Ofal.

Hey...

Has anyone considered...

Using corpses in this process? We're a heck of a lot of carbon...

Soylentoline, anyone?
:D

"Soon they'll be breeding us like cattle! You've got to warn everyone and tell them! Soylent green is made of people! You've got to tell them! Soylent green is people!"

no. just no. the difference between the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we are concerned about) and the non-anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we aren't) is that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is directly caused by our activity and it is an additional push added to a previously self-regulating system - and when you poke at a complex feedback system, even just a little bit, you can affect it in rather dramatic ways.

yes, yes that is the "Greenie" argument. However the FACTS say something QUITE different...

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

as for not reading the cited sources, perhaps someone ought to check the source that site cites for its very first table. as far as i can see, its sources do not provide the data on natural vs anthropogenic additions to the pre-industrial baseline that the rest of everything is based on. in fact, the source it explictly cites for it does not say a damn word about 'natural additions' to the atmospheric concentrations of the various gases. which is just a bit sketchy if you ask me.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Yes, again try reading the WHOLE of the Report before you comment...

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.


3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O, and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity, only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).


The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

_____________________________

Hope that helps your understanding of the ENTIRE situation we are facing. You can find all the Graphs and illustrations at the link provided.

Regards,
Gaar

:D

"Soon they'll be breeding us like cattle! You've got to warn everyone and tell them! Soylent green is made of people! You've got to tell them! Soylent green is people!"


I was thinking exactly the same thing!!!!!

Actually, that is the PRIMARY Oil that is produced from the Turkey Ofal.


Yeah I wouldn't think it would be too hard to change it into a butuane or propane like gas to use in home heating or simply use methane from hog waste.

Yeah I wouldn't think it would be too hard to change it into a butuane or propane like gas to use in home heating or simply use methane from hog waste.

They get Gas too...

And just doing the Agricultural WASTE in this Country gets us HALF of our Oil consumption, so sorry guys NO NEED to use Humans.

;)

Regards,
Gaar

They get Gas too...

And just doing the Agricultural WASTE in this Country gets us HALF of our Oil consumption, so sorry guys NO NEED to use Humans.

;)

Regards,
Gaar


Gross.

no. just no. the difference between the anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we are concerned about) and the non-anthropogenic greenhouse effect (which we aren't) is that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is directly caused by our activity and it is an additional push added to a previously self-regulating system - and when you poke at a complex feedback system, even just a little bit, you can affect it in rather dramatic ways.

as for not reading the cited sources, perhaps someone ought to check the source that site cites for its very first table. as far as i can see, its sources do not provide the data on natural vs anthropogenic additions to the pre-industrial baseline that the rest of everything is based on. in fact, the source it explictly cites for it does not say a damn word about 'natural additions' to the atmospheric concentrations of the various gases. which is just a bit sketchy if you ask me.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

How is it that you can talk about what is known to be only one, very small, part of what IS the GreenHouse Effect, and overstate the Human affect on even that part, and then try to suggest that it is I or even a SOURCE cited that am misrepresenting the problem?

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.res-energy.com/faq/index.asp

Will you be building other plants? Where will the next plants be?
There are plans for additional RES plants in the U.S. and Europe. Possible locations for the next RES plants include Colorado, Alabama, Nevada, Ireland and Italy.

Is your Carthage plant currently producing oil? How much?
RES’ Carthage plant is producing and selling oil derived from the application of TCP technology to food processing by-products from an adjacent ConAgra Foods turkey processing facility. We are currently generating approximately 100 to 200 barrels per day, subject to the normal on-off cycling of operations during commissioning. At peak capacity, this plant is engineered to produce up to 500 barrels of oil daily

What other materials are you producing?
We also produce gas, minerals and fertilizer.

Is RES’ oil production cost efficient? How does it compare to other types of energy production?
RES’ bio-derived oil can be competitive with small exploration and production (E&P) companies finding costs for most applications. Costs should lower as the technology matures. More specific information regarding RES energy production is confidential.

Hasn’t waste-to-energy been tried before?
The modern roots of Thermal Conversion Process (TCP) technology date back to the 1920s. However, RES is the first to apply the technology commercially in a way that is efficient, utilizes the existing energy infrastructure, and produces high-quality energy products that are fungible in the commercial marketplace. Most other waste-to-energy technologies combust the feedstocks to generate electricity. Combustion of the raw material can release many pollutants into the environment, such as dioxins. RES’ Thermal Conversion Process does not combust the feedstock but instead transforms the material in an environmentally friendly manner into salable products. More than 80% of the original Btu content is retained in the final products.

Emphasis mine.

The problem isn't the energy equivalent, it's the entire process of waste production to gas station. The waste won't instantly teleport into the plant, it has to be transported. And this takes energy. The supply chain with respect to waste is much larger and more energy-consuming than that for oil.

To make enough biodiesel you need to produce it agriculturally, which is harder than you think.

But, as I said, the main reasons we should switch into alternative fuels are political. Biodiesel is home-grown. It's about time we stop wasting our money with the Arab plutocrats.

Its true the supply chain requires energy.. but think in economic terms.. how much does waste producing companies spend annually to "safely" dispose of waste. IF they can solve this problem by merely providing transport to a plant, they reduce their costs of housing or safely disposing wastes tremendously.

I'm gonna keep this thread open.


The Bush/Oil Industry have a lot of $$$ to lose if a tech like this ever becomes available and thats why u will never hear about it. It's the same about cold fusion, hydrogen car or the AIDS cure, major corporations will lose money if they ever come out.

I'm gonna keep this thread open.


The Bush/Oil Industry have a lot of $$$ to lose if a tech like this ever becomes available and thats why u will never hear about it. It's the same about cold fusion, hydrogen car or the AIDS cure, major corporations will lose money if they ever come out.

Never hear about it?

They have ALREADY Built a plant and it is running...

This will only happen on larger scales as the Industries see it as a more cost affective way of dealing with their waste.

Which shouldn't be too long now... ;)

Regards,
Gaar

The simple truth is that we use Oil for many thousands of products, not just for fuel. It's used in composite materials, plastics, and virtually every synthetic product on the market.

But, do refineries and chemical plants have to pollute as much as they do? Not nearly. That's just corporations caring more about profit margins than the environment. Getting a monthly over-pollution fine is cheaper than modernizing a refinery or chemical plant, so that's what they'll continue to do until the government decides to really take action.

The simple truth is that we use Oil for many thousands of products, not just for fuel. It's used in composite materials, plastics, and virtually every synthetic product on the market.

But, do refineries and chemical plants have to pollute as much as they do? Not nearly. That's just corporations caring more about profit margins than the environment. Getting a monthly over-pollution fine is cheaper than modernizing a refinery or chemical plant, so that's what they'll continue to do until the government decides to really take action.

Or until people demand it of the Corporations...

ConAgra is the main Business behind these first few "Projects" and it is being done so they can be a better Corporate Business.

So when people say that ALL Businesses do the wrong thing, perhaps they aren't looking hard enough for those who are and then supporting them?

I guess it's just a LOT EASIER to ask the Government to do it, so WE don't have to be responsible for our OWN actions, right?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I agree with you for the most part.

Yeah, a lot of corporations are truly bad, but there are indeed good ones. Still, I'm not quite sure of what you're implying by "being responsible for our own actions".

Are you saying that we're somehow responsible for over-pollution from factories, chemical plants, mills, and refineries?

Are you saying that we're somehow responsible for over-pollution from factories, chemical plants, mills, and refineries?

In part, yes...

It is incumbent on the Public to be informed about how the items they use are being produced, and if it is in a way that doesn't conform to what you believe a Corporation/Business should be doing then you shouldn't buy their product, plain and simple.

It would be very difficult to find ANY item that is so dominating that you can't find a substitute for their product. And if you can't perhaps you should reconsider how badly you NEED it...

Corporations are MUCH more driven by profit, and if they SEE a trend that suggests people are going to only buy things that are made in the most environmentally safe manner as possible, you will be amazed at how quickly it could ALL change.

Consumers are the most powerful force in a Capitalistic Society... "Use the Force Luke..." :p

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, but simply "not buying" their products isn't gonna make them clean up. It'll just make them cut costs more, thus pollute even more than they already do. It'll still be cheaper than modernizing their machinery and smokestacks.

Consumers are the most powerful force in a Capitalistic Society... "Use the Force Luke..." :p

Regards,
Gaar

Unfortunatly most people here are brainwashed by the evil corporations like Wal-Mart that they cannot make up their minds also people here are so uneducated they don't realize that they are being used by that idget W.

If you want to hear about evil corporations try Avon. I used to work their as security officer in a distibution center in Atlanta and that place was a sweatshop.

Yeah, but simply "not buying" their products isn't gonna make them clean up. It'll just make them cut costs more, thus pollute even more than they already do. It'll still be cheaper than modernizing their machinery and smokestacks.

If no one is buying their product they die as a business, plain and simple...

Many businesses have done just this. They didn't wake up to the "trends" of the time and they die as a business...

There was a day that Buggy Whip Companies littered the Nation. The ones that didn't recognize the future of the automobile and "change" their businesses accordingly, died.

Again, Consumers are the "center" of the Capitalistic Society, they should learn to use that power better than they do.

Regards,
Gaar

Unfortunatly most people here are brainwashed by the evil corporations like Wal-Mart that they cannot make up their minds also people here are so uneducated they don't realize that they are being used by that idget W.

If you want to hear about evil corporations try Avon. I used to work their as security officer in a distibution center in Atlanta and that place was a sweatshop.

Like I said...

It's much easier to blame others so we don't have to accept our own parts in the "conspiracy".

Brainwashed indeed, it just can't be that people don't agree with YOU about some things and don't see "conspiracies" in everything they don't like, could it?

Regards,
Gaar

If no one is buying their product they die as a business, plain and simple...

Many businesses have done just this. They didn't wake up to the "trends" of the time and they die as a business...

There was a day that Buggy Whip Companies littered the Nation. The ones that didn't recognize the future of the automobile and "change" their businesses accordingly, died.

Again, Consumers are the "center" of the Capitalistic Society, they should learn to use that power better than they do.

Regards,
Gaar


But then, what about the other companies we buy substitute products from? I really don't see this going anywhere.

Again read my post above.....people today are brainwashed compared to the people of the early 20th century. People back then actually belived that we were moving forward to a better society the years between 1900-1960's were actually full of hope. But look at us now we watch TV all day, depressed, selfish and no hope.

Like I said...

It's much easier to blame others so we don't have to accept our own parts in the "conspiracy".

Brainwashed indeed, it just can't be that people don't agree with YOU about some things and don't see "conspiracies" in everything they don't like, could it?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes I agree kind of like what happened with Hitler but right know we the uninformed/idiot masses are bigger than the informed.

But then, what about the other companies we buy substitute products from? I really don't see this going anywhere.

Then don't buy them...

Something about that you don't get?

Again, both of you just seem insistent on denying YOUR OWN culpability in the process... It's ALWAYS someone else’s fault that everything is screwed up, and we should listen to you because you know!?!?

Sorry, I refuse to paint myself as some victim that doesn't have a choice in the matter, and I would like it if you wouldn't paint me in such a manner also.

You are free to have any OPINION you like, but to state it as some sort of fact and saying it applies to everyone is just a bit disingenuous, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

People fear change.
We have always used natural oil-so why should we change to something else? I mean, it's not as if we have to go to other countries that we already have explosive relationships with for oil and pay outrageous prices for a barrel of crude oil....
Also, as said earlier, many are uninformed...perhaps because they don't seek outside knowledge and accept what they are told.

People fear change.
We have always used natural oil-so why should we change to something else? I mean, it's not as if we have to go to other countries that we already have explosive relationships with for oil and pay outrageous prices for a barrel of crude oil....
Also, as said earlier, many are uninformed...perhaps because they don't seek outside knowledge and accept what they are told.

Yes....and green alternatives can save people money. Gaar back to the original subject I think the future will be a mixture of Green/High tech society hopefully by then this s*** will be gone.

Yes....and green alternatives can save people money. Gaar back to the original subject I think the future will be a mixture of Green/High tech society hopefully by then this s*** will be gone.

It may be easier for some Societies than others...

As many have pointed out in this thread, we are ALREADY an Oil Based Economy, switching to a new "Technolgy" will neither be easy or quick. I am afraid we are stuck with an Oil Based Economy for some time to come. Fortunately for all of us, it has become some ~99% cleaner as well as much more efficient since we started using it.

I would say that OUR BIGGEST problem right now is burning Coal to generate Electricity. Coal is a MUCH WORSE Polluter and it accounts for nearly half of what we use. Starting with THAT Resource would be better for the U.S. since the U.S. is the "OPEC" of the World when it comes to coal...

Regards,
Gaar

It may be easier for some Societies than others...

As many have pointed out in this thread, we are ALREADY an Oil Based Economy, switching to a new "Technolgy" will neither be easy or quick. I am afraid we are stuck with an Oil Based Economy for some time to come. Fortunately for all of us, it has become some ~99% cleaner as well as much more efficient since we started using it.

I would say that OUR BIGGEST problem right now is burning Coal to generate Electricity. Coal is a MUCH WORSE Polluter and it accounts for nearly half of what we use. Starting with THAT Resource would be better for the U.S. since the U.S. is the "OPEC" of the World when it comes to coal...

Regards,
Gaar

It is true that coal is a greater threat to the environment. But how to take down the coal industry when it is such an integrated part of this country? Maybe not take down, but clean up...that costs money-money that the coal corporations likely won't want to spend on cleaning up if they don't have to. What consequence do they face if they don't clean up or become better for the environment? Just asking if you have ideas-I'm afraid my brain has been shorted out on a research paper. :p

Well until the oil supplies run which will be aproxmatly 2012-2019 which will cause a massive economic downturn but until we wake up and realize that this reliance on one energy source will be massive drain.

As far as coal that is one of the worse things that we could use but right now nuclear is dangerous due to the release of radiation due to a meltdown or a terrorist act. Until fusion becomes available we are gonna have to find a new source of energy.

Microwave energy-energy saterlites that beam energy to collection plants.
Solar Energy
Thermal-shooting water to a hot spot that will produce steam.
Hydroelectric.
Wind Power.

Wind and Solar power are probably the most useless. Solar takes up far too much space, the maintenance is outrageous, and the energy output is relatively low.

Wind power takes up a hell of a lot of space, it's extremely ugly, and it requires a good amount of wind to generate power.

Microwave, Thermal, and Hydroelectric are probably the best right now.

Well until the oil supplies run which will be aproxmatly 2012-2019 which will cause a massive economic downturn but until we wake up and realize that this reliance on one energy source will be massive drain.


Were you trying to say... "until the Oil supplies run out"?

If so, I believe you need to actually read this thread from the beginning.

In 5 - 10 years we will be producing more Oil than we will know what to do with, at 1/5 the price it is now...

Regards,
Gaar

Then don't buy them...

Something about that you don't get?

Again, both of you just seem insistent on denying YOUR OWN culpability in the process... It's ALWAYS someone else’s fault that everything is screwed up, and we should listen to you because you know!?!?

Sorry, I refuse to paint myself as some victim that doesn't have a choice in the matter, and I would like it if you wouldn't paint me in such a manner also.

You are free to have any OPINION you like, but to state it as some sort of fact and saying it applies to everyone is just a bit disingenuous, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar


So, you're saying for everybody to stop buying one company's products, kill it, move on to the next company which will start polluting just as much, stop buying their products, kill it, then move to another similar company?

You're not making much sense.

So, you're saying for everybody to stop buying one company's products, kill it, move on to the next company which will start polluting just as much, stop buying their products, kill it, then move to another similar company?

You're not making much sense.

So you have just become one of those saying there are no responsible companies, even in light of the Company that this thread is about?!?!

And even IF we are able to only find a very few, it has to START somewhere, does it not?

I don't think you are looking very hard for corporations that are ecologically sound, if you are saying you can't find ANY.

And are YOU also trying to say that EVERY Company Pollutes?

That's just a BIT of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

Regards,
Gaar

So you have just become one of those saying there are no responsible companies, even in light of the Company that this thread is about?!?!

And even IF we are able to only find a very few, it has to START somewhere, does it not?

I don't think you are looking very hard for corporations that are ecologically sound, if you are saying you can't find ANY.

And are YOU also trying to say that EVERY Company Pollutes?

That's just a BIT of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

Regards,
Gaar


You take things way out of context, man. That's not nearly what I'm saying. And, along with that, you're still not making any sense.

Were you trying to say... "until the Oil supplies run out"?

If so, I believe you need to actually read this thread from the beginning.

In 5 - 10 years we will be producing more Oil than we will know what to do with, at 1/5 the price it is now...

Regards,
Gaar
I was actually refering to nautral oil or oil that comes from the ground. That will run out soon now what ure talking about which is man made oil can be a replacement.

Solar power could be used in a small scale as just heating for housing and small amounts of electricity.

Also we could develop ocean wave power and develop superconductors that will allow use less power.

You take things way out of context, man. That's not nearly what I'm saying. And, along with that, you're still not making any sense.

You contend that EVERY Company Pollutes and can find NONE to buy products from because of it and YOU say it is I that doesn't make sense?

What part about ConAgra's Policy do YOU believe is "wrong"?!?!

Looks to me like you continue to want to find excuses for your compliance in the matter, while complaining about it at the same time...

I am saying that, a bit of "responsibility" in these matters on YOUR part may be in order.

Something about THAT you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

I was actually refering to nautral oil or oil that comes from the ground. That will run out soon now what ure talking about which is man made oil can be a replacement.

Solar power could be used in a small scale as just heating for housing and small amounts of electricity.

Also we could develop ocean wave power and develop superconductors that will allow use less power.

Not only "can” it be, it already IS becoming a replacement...

And my reference was so that it is obvious that we don't NEED the Oil that comes from the ground any more. So when it may or may not run out should become immaterial to us soon.

Regards,
Gaar

From a cursory glance of a google search of ConAgra foods, I find nothing that seems illigetimate about the company. Granted, not everything makes it into the news, but it seems that ConAgra may be the type of good corporations that we need to start supporting.
By not supporting companies we know to be operating in a manner which is harmful to the environment, we can bring change.

It is true that coal is a greater threat to the environment. But how to take down the coal industry when it is such an integrated part of this country? Maybe not take down, but clean up...that costs money-money that the coal corporations likely won't want to spend on cleaning up if they don't have to. What consequence do they face if they don't clean up or become better for the environment? Just asking if you have ideas-I'm afraid my brain has been shorted out on a research paper. :p

The consequences, if people become informed as you have suggested we should be, would be that their bottom line would suffer, which is really what business is all about.

This also is the basis behind a Capitalistic Society, you "show" others what your "interest" is and how it is in "their interest" to accommodate you or they don't get you business.

So, by becoming more responsible consumers we are, very much, able to affect change...

Regards,
Gaar

Not only "can” it be, it already IS becoming a replacement...

And my reference was so that it is obvious that we don't NEED the Oil that comes from the ground any more. So when it may or may not run out should become immaterial to us soon.

Regards,
Gaar

1. TDP is a big gain in efficiency, it extends the lifetime of oil in the system. However each time it passes through the TDP 15% energy is lost, plus losses due to wastage. Crude oil is required to make up these losses. Any growth in energy demands needs to be met with fossil resources, or solar, tidal, wind, hydro, nuclear.

2. The claim is made that to produce 85 Btu of TDP oil 15 Btu must be burned. To produce 90 Btu of Gulf Crude oil 10 Btu must be burned. This means even at peak TDP efficiency Gulf oil is cheaper to produce.

This makes Gulf oil very price competitive to TDP. Plus TDP price will vary subject to cost of turkey offal, corn stalks and old milk bottles which can only increase.

If no one is buying their product they die as a business, plain and simple...

Many businesses have done just this. They didn't wake up to the "trends" of the time and they die as a business...

There was a day that Buggy Whip Companies littered the Nation. The ones that didn't recognize the future of the automobile and "change" their businesses accordingly, died.

Again, Consumers are the "center" of the Capitalistic Society, they should learn to use that power better than they do.

Regards,
Gaar


you stole that from "Other People's Money"

you stole that from "Other People's Money"

Sorry, I am not sure what "Other's People's Money" is but yes, I have heard the reference before, does that make it any less true?

Regards,
Gaar

1. TDP is a big gain in efficiency, it extends the lifetime of oil in the system. However each time it passes through the TDP 15% energy is lost, plus losses due to wastage. Crude oil is required to make up these losses. Any growth in energy demands needs to be met with fossil resources, or solar, tidal, wind, hydro, nuclear.

2. The claim is made that to produce 85 Btu of TDP oil 15 Btu must be burned. To produce 90 Btu of Gulf Crude oil 10 Btu must be burned. This means even at peak TDP efficiency Gulf oil is cheaper to produce.

This makes Gulf oil very price competitive to TDP. Plus TDP price will vary subject to cost of turkey offal, corn stalks and old milk bottles which can only increase.

1) 15% is not lost, it is "used" to "extract" the other 85%... And what "waste"?!?!

2) You wouldn't mind supplying a "link" to some Information to support YOUR assertion, would you? Seeing how I have supplied links to mine?

And even if this is true, how much energy is "used" to extract "crude oil" from the ground, not just "convert it"? And that crude Oil is a MUCH dirtier Oil that burns less efficeint and creates LESS Pollution doesn't matter to you?

So just how does Oil coming from the Middle East at better than $55 per Barrel EVEN COMPARE to CLEANER Oil that can be produced from OUR WASTE for less than $15 per Barrel?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Perpetuum mobiles don't work.

You need oil to make tyres which you then can turn into a small part of oil just to burn the oil.

Cattle need more agricultural land and water than grain and vegetables to produce the same amount of nutrition. If you build streets and housing, then you need to irrigate the moon or become vegetarian.

Put animals and humans close together and you get SARS and/or ebola.

The question remains - how to transform solar energy into matter?

Cattle need more agricultural land and water than grain and vegetables to produce the same amount of nutrition. If you build streets and housing, then you need to irrigate the moon or become vegetarian.

Put animals and humans close together and you get SARS and/or ebola.

The question remains - how to transform solar energy into matter?

The TDP process produces CLEAN WATER as its MAIN output...

Others are fertalizers and nutrients that may be used in Agriculture.

And the "process" destroys all known pathogens, which will allow us to get "rid" of much of the threats.

And that we will be able to "TDP" the animal waste, rather than try and "use it" to "feed" the animals, we will do away with the damger of creating Mad Cow Disease and the like.

Again, I believe some should actually "read up" on the Technology BEFORE they try to comment on it.

Regards,
Gaar

You take things way out of context, man. That's not nearly what I'm saying. And, along with that, you're still not making any sense.

Perhaps you could explain what it is YOU don't understand about what I have said so I may clarify for you?

Or perhaps your intent isn't really to become informed on the matter and instead just use an insult to try and walk away from the discussion...

Regards,
Gaar

I just wanted to bump this thread back because it is by far one of the coolest things I have seen in quite some time.

Sorry, I am not sure what "Other's People's Money" is but yes, I have heard the reference before, does that make it any less true?

Regards,
Gaar

Just pointing out that I know some movie trivia too.

Just pointing out that I know some movie trivia too.

I see, my apologies...

I took the reference wrong, made more of it than you obviously meant.

Regards,
Gaar

Ok, it doesn't matter that this "new" oil can be made from anything, but it does matter that this is still oil. Oil pollutes! Why is it that america can't understand this? Sign the bloody Kyoto protocall! Instead of researching a method to turn one form of pollution into another, why don't you spend the cash on researching alternative fuels? Hello! Solar Works! Wind Works! Wake up and feel the breeze on your face, not the acid rain!

The more that America attacks its natural resources and environment the more its people will want to attack their neighbours to get more water/oil, the more money goes to war, the more benefit for the economy...

Cyclic insanity...

*BUMP* yet again.

Don't bump, go thermodepolymerize things. Help the economy! It's easy enough, anything goes!

Why is it I haven't heard or read anything about this except on this internet forum? Can it really be that big if no major news outlet is making a peep about it?

Oh shut up Trammwerk! It has been proven in this thread! Go and turn things to oil already, you bastard.

Why is it I haven't heard or read anything about this except on this internet forum? Can it really be that big if no major news outlet is making a peep about it?
*BUMPING THE THREAD UP TO PAGE 1 FOR THOSE WHO MAY INQUIRE*
Actually, this came up a while back in a couple of different places, like SciAm and even Time magazine i think ....
I think though, unfortunately, you already know the answer to your own question.

Unfortunately, yes, I do.

Er.. ignorance is strength?