Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by jmpet, Feb 8, 2011.
I am sure everyone is going to jump right on that one Billy . Great Idea though
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Thermal Depolymerization on Wiki
I have a long term plan regarding dairy effluent, but it is (at best) in its nascent stages.
Are you Australian Trippy ? We got the carousel equipment from a company in Australia . Westphalia was the branding I believe . I probably got the plans still . State of the art as far as milk production goes , but it is the collection method of the circular pit and gutter system that makes it all wash and work efficiently for a short crew of Dairy Farmers . Cows have a way of shitting all over everything . Aussies are smart fuckers when it comes to milking the cows and scraping away the poop. State of the Art . Thanks for the link
Looks like gas prices will have to go up more before there is financial viability for the polymer stuff to take hold . I see a cross roads coming though , so it seems to be worth an investment of time and energy . To be in the right place at the right time Trip
“… A Thermal Depolymerization demonstration plant was completed in 1999 in Philadelphia by Thermal Depolymerization, LLC, and the first full-scale commercial plant was constructed in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards (91m) from ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball turkey plant, where it is expected to process about 200 tons of turkey waste into 500 barrels(21,000 US gallons or 80 m³) of oil per day. … The CWT company claims that 15 to 20% of feedstock energy is used to provide energy for the plant. The remaining energy is available in the converted product. Working with turkey offal as the feedstock, the process proved to have yield efficiencies of approximately 85%; in other words, the energy contained in the end products of the process is 85% of the energy contained in the inputs to the process (most notably the energy content of the feedstock, but also including electricity for pumps and natural gas or woodgas for heating).
If one considers the energy content of the feedstock to be free (i.e., waste material from some other process), then 85 units of energy are made available for every 15 units of energy consumed in process heat and electricity. This means the "Energy Returned on Energy Invested" (EROEI) is (6.67) … By comparison, the current processes used to produce ethanol and biodiesel from agricultural sources have EROEI in the 4.2 range, when the energy used to produce the feedstocks is accounted for (in this case, usually sugar cane, corn, soybeans and the like). These EROEI values are not directly comparable, because these EROEI calculations include the energy cost to produce the feedstock, whereas the above EROEI calculation for thermal depolymerization process (TDP) does not. …”
SUMMARY: Dead bodies can be converted to fuel and other useful / valuable products at considerable profit and with (6.67 / 4.2) = 1.59 times greater energy efficiency than making alcohol or diesel fuel from vegitable imputs that must be grown and take up land that can be used for food production! Furthermore doing this reduces or totally eliminates the air and soil pollution current body disposal techniques produce.
PS: some years ago, I was swimming in the near shore ocean, when suddenly my body was being given dozens of soft blows every second. I immediately realized a dense school of small fish was swimming past me. Less than one second later I worried that a shark or two was feeding on them, and might like me more. In two seconds or so I knew the best thing I could do would be to continue strong efficient swimming. In ten seconds or so the impacts stopped and I began to consider death by shark. It would be quick, and possibly only painful for a faction of a minute. (From films of pride of lionesses making a kill I think intense pain / huge unusual neural stimulation, can cause loss of consciousness.) After a couple of minutes I had concluded that when dead, the best thing to do with my fresh body (if no parts were required by others) would be to sink it in a coastal sea about 100 meters deep (feed some fish)*. Now I think converting it to profit and helping others via Thermal Depolymerization, if available, is more reasonable.
* That only seems fair - I have eaten several times my weight in fish already - it should be their turn when I die.
Great Billy ! I will stuff you in Me truck as soon as you have been liquefied. I hope I don't fight your relatives as they may want to burn you too!
A) Billy I don't think those energy return ratios take into account energy wasted to make the feedstocks for hydrous pyrolysis while for ethanol they do thus bring ethanol's ratios down significantly.
B) Dead bodies and stuff represent a tiny portion of our organic matter waste and even if we include agriculture waste (the largest amount of organic waste that we produce by far) we could only replace a minority petroleum usage.
C) There is considerable disbelief of their energy return ratios and product quality. In short hydrous pyrolysis end up producing a large amount of secondary products, such as natural gas, reducing primary product yield (octane if we want directly replace gasoline) of course optimizing the process to produce a specific product had been in constant researched, but its very feedstock dependent.
I'm for recycling as many of our waste streams back into useful products as possible, logistically it will not be able to replace geological petroleum, in combination with other energy inputs its a winner but alone its not going to grow fast or take a significant percentage of the market.
I had (have) a couple of schemes for multiple waste streams. My focus on Dairy effluent is purely because that's the predominant form of agriculture locally, and utilizing it would have dual benefits (if I pay dairy farmers to give me their effluent, it becomes a valuable resource to them, so they will institute bettter eflfuent management practices, and clean up the environment).
However Hydrocarbons of any form was never going to be my sole marketable product.
That is true and clearly stated. The cost of growing the organic matter (the body) is not included, but the cost of fertalizer, etc. for growing corn is. Currently thoushand of dollars are paid to dispose of the organic matter - all than cost saving should be treated as additional saving for the ecologically better process. I am surprised at your conventional attitude Electric. Are you also dropping your "trans human" ideas? Ceasing to be rational and letting conditioned emotions overrule your normal logic?
Again true but we already have an energy source mix, no need to demand that one source meet all of the energy requirements. Why not use what we have, especially when it is more ecologically friendly?
As I read the article, they used the combustable gases as the sole fuel - I.e. they were the 15% percent of the total source energy not recovered in the end products.
Are not the steady and dependable supply of bodies a "waste stream" that currently is not recycled for man's benefit and a great cost per pound to disposes of? You are not being consistent with your stated policy. Even it it supplied only 0.000,001% of the market's needs it should be done, if economically feasible as it eliminates a very significant dollar and ecological cost.
They were with there very specific feedstock, other feedstockes will produce a very different ratio. It cannot produce alkanes longer then the source organic matter carbon chains, and they were using animal fat (turkey by-product) which is 16-22 carbons long. If we were to use say cellulose we would not get much bigger the hexane on account the sugar molecules of cellulose only 5 and 6 carbons long. The ligin in cellulose will carbonize to solid carbon. FT synthesis can fix all of that with the drawback of being more complex and expensive.
No, they are dependable but they are cheaper in more countries to bury or worse send to 3rd world countries to be salvaged, pollute and toxify the people over there.
Aah, if economically feasible, generally if its supplies such a small percentage of the market that not a very good sign of economic feasibility.
That may well be true, but I was not suggesting that dead trees be used as the high energy content source. I suggested dead human bodies be used to make less damage to the enviroment (no formalhide leaking into the soil or CO2 released without displacing oil, etc.)... Turkeys, pigs, and people are all going to yield about the same set of simpler chemicals.
wrong on two counts: (1) No one is suggesting shipping dead bodies to Africa, etc. & (2) the processes REDUCES the pollution, especially in places like India where bodies are placed on huge huge stacks of more CO2 producing firewood for cremation, but even if done with natural gas or an electric furnace, cremation is a CO2 source and waste of energy instead of a source of fuel to reduce the petroleum which is now burnt. Also this process is currently used to destroy toxins, like dioxens etc. that are hard to chemically destroy.
From the link given earlier:
"... A Thermal Depolymerization demonstration plant was completed in 1999 in Philadelphia by Thermal Depolymerization, LLC, and the first full-scale commercial plant was constructed in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards (91m) from ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball turkey plant, where it is expected to process about 200 tons of turkey waste into 500 barrels (21,000 US gallons or 80 m³) of oil per day. ..." (At $100/barrel, that oil is earning $50,000 /day for plant owner. No reason why a couple of dozen bodies per day from the local area could not be thrown in also for greater yield.)
Note the oil production plant is only 91m from the source, not in Africa, etc.
Nonsense. If the rate of return is greater than that the alternative source it MORE economically feasible - volume has little to do with economic feasibility when the RoE is greater than current higher volume alternatives. Fact that this plant is to produce 500/BpD is being built proves that it is not only economically feasible but more competitive than deep water petroleum. Currently NYC sends bodies out to "potters field" island by tug boats - a waste of a valuable fuel source and tug boats use a lot of diesel too.
Let's be a little more economical, rational, and ecologically correct, not stupid and emotional, about the dead body problem.
In the US it costs your heirs a lot of money when you die. Instead of that they could at least get coupon for dinner at McDonalds in exchange for your body and feel good about reducing the ecological damage current body disposal processes make.
Separate names with a comma.