Re: Thermal Depolymerization

From: Ed Earl Ross (edearl_at_satx.rr.com)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:38:57 GMT

PowerWorker wrote:
> Hello Ed & all;
>
> Good move making this a separate thread and trimming the groups.
>
> First, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not working for, related to,
> or shilling for the TDP industry (such as it is). I only brought it up
> because I've been fooling around in the alternative energy business for
> years...and found that mechanism by happenstance one day. Since then, I've
> been closely following it, because it appears to me to have promise.
>
> Years ago I was as ignorant as so many posting here, convinced that solar
> power, hydrogen, wind, tides, and "good feelings" were the answer to all our
> needs and prayers. Then I grew up.
>
> As I did the research, built lots of idiotic devices, and studied the
> results of those failures. I learned that you have to be incredibly dense
> or blinded by ideology to believe that you've discovered an energy
> cornucopia in the sun, winds, or tides (all of which are solar in origin).
> So my explorations ranged further afield...and I found out about TDP.
> There are two pilot plants already in service. But, the builders are being
> very closed mouth about their results. Trust me, if it's even only half as
> good as I've been told. There's going to be untold money to be made in
> controlling this industry...
>
> I'm not an expert in or at TDP...but consider myself reasonably well
> informed about it. And no, I don't think it's the "final answer"...but it
> sure seems to be going well in that direction.
>
> Ed Earl Ross wrote:
>
>>My first impression of a TDP unit is that it recycles all kinds of
>>organic material, with around 85% of the material being converted
>>into oil.
>>
>>That being true, 15% of the material is consumed, produces heat,
>>and other waste (gases only?).
>
> The material consumed (the gas portion), is used for process heat.
>
> The output depends primarily on the input. Some things convert to different
> materials than others. But ALL make some fraction of gas, some of oil, and
> a mixture of solid residue.
>
> For the plant that processes some 200 tons (if and when it gets to full
> operation) of turkey offal/day; it's expected to yield 10 tons of gas, 600
> barrels of oil, 21,000 gallons of water, and 11 tons of minerals. The gas
> fraction is "natural" gas, that's clean burning and can be used directly.
> And they do use it to power their process heating needs.
>
> Another fraction of the material comes out as an oil, that I'm told is the
> equivalent to #4 heating oil--but varies from process to process.
> Apparently it can be "cracked" into other lighter components by existing oil
> refinery techniques.
>
> A large part of the output is water, and the water that comes out is pure
> and sterile. Nothing, not even a prion (BSE (mad cow disease)) can survive
> that treatment. It's dumped into the local water treatment system.
>
> The final fractions vary. There is some elemental carbon, in the form of
> what's known industrially as carbon-black. Many thousands of tons this are
> used in the tire manufacturing industry, to mention only that one. It is
> sold commercially for such purposes.
>
> The remaining components are mostly nitrates and such, and are sold to
> commercial fertilizer manufacturers. Metals and such are not affected by
> the process and are recovered and sold to commercial metal reprocessors.
>
> Again, it kinda depends on what you put in. Throw in lots of crushed cars
> and computers, and you'll get mostly metals. Throw in a load of dead turkey
> parts, and you'll get more carbon and nitrates. Throw in a load of old road
> asphalt or used tires and such, and you'll get mostly oils.
>
> A snippet I read said that if a 175-pound man were to fall into the feed
> end, he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas,
> and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. And
> given the apparent surplus of lawyers and econutz we're saddled with, that
> might be a good purpose...(:-o)!
>
> Basically you can put anything into it that's not radioactive. As "Veeger"
> robotically intoned, life on this planet (except for some critters and
> things around those deep-sea thermal vents) is a carbon based life form.
> Anything that's grown here can be used. All forms of garbage, offal,
> plants, animals, trash, anything built out of hydrocarbons can be processed.
>
>
>>Statements below may be either true or not, depending on my current
>>understanding of TDP. I am confident someone will point out my
>>misunderstandings.
>>
>>If all oil flowing from a TDP is burned as fuel, then all the
>>original organic matter becomes heat and pollution.
>
> Well, yes... Sort of. But it becomes a "closed cycle". In other words,
> you won't be adding to the CO2 level that the eco-weenies so fear. Cuz the
> same CO2 emitted by burning those materials, will be "fixed" by the next
> generation of plants & critters that will become the future fodder for the
> process.
>
> If all it did was begin the process of weaning us off of adding the stored
> CO2 from long dead plants to the environment, this alone s/b reason enough
> for all the eco-weenies to actively support and promote this process. But
> trust me, they don't give a darn about that. Their real purpose has always
> been to socially engineer our lives and grab your SUV!
>
>
>>If all oil flowing from a TDP is used to produce plastic, then
>>somewhat more than 15% of the original energy becomes heat and
>>pollution. The resulting plastic may be recycled in a TDP.
>
> Yep. As well as all of the plastics and things--EVERYTHING--already in our
> land fills. They could be excavated and processed into non-toxic and
> eminently more useful materials.
>
>
>>If all the input material is petroleum based, there is no net
>>saving in pollution, compared to brining petroleum.
>
> Ummm, not entirely true. If you're talking about adding petroleum "refuse"
> from what was pumped, then yes. You'd be correct. But, on the second
> go-round of that process, it would be a net neutral result. OTOH; today
> we're at 100% into adding those hydrocarbons to the environment. It would
> seem to me that anything we do to lower that number has got to be a
> desirable outcome.
>
>
>>All of the biological material fed into the TDP results in zero net
>>pollution.
>
> Correct.

I don't understand why you talk of recycling petroleum products. I
didn't find any fault, except it seemed to complicate rather than
simplify this discussion. Once burned, whether or not a TDP is
involved, photosynthesis recycles most CO2 that is recycled.

>>Is per person use of biological material enough to produce oil for
>>transportation?
>
> As of today? Especially given our vast tracts of available garbage, I'd say
> yes. But long term? Probably not. But it's too difficult to say with
> accuracy. Any such changes will of necessity be transitional events. I
> foresee a future where we begin to "ramp-up" to reusing our existing
> hydrocarbon materials. This will take decades.
>
> At the same time we should begin to install and use simple, clean,
> automatic, modular new nuclear electric generation systems like the Toshiba
> 4S (and like devices). Clean, long term electricity will cut directly into
> the coal-fired energy production industry. Currently it accounts for some
> 50+% of our electric needs. The typical coal plant consumes something on
> the order of 100 tons of coal a minute (don't quote me on that...it's been
> many years since I calculated that). Second, minute, day...whatever. They
> burn LOTS of coal. We should be replacing them in an orderly and methodical
> way. Over the next 50 years, they can be phased out.
>
> Then, that very same coal can be TDP processed to yield a more usable form
> of hydrocarbons (in this case, oil & gas) for the transportation industry.
> As more, cleaner, cheaper nuclear electricity becomes available, the option
> to convert cars to H2, more trains to electric, and other less polluting
> means becomes less fancy and more fact.

Seems odd that carbon black and water are emitted from a TDP, if
coal can be processed into hydrocarbons. If a TDP can produce oil
from coal and water, then it is doing basically the same thing as
photosynthesis, which is an energy eater.

> None of this will happen overnight or by itself. But I dare say that if as
> much attention to solving the problem in this (and related NG's) were
> expended as is currently used to either affix blame or debate some minutia
> of data and what it portends, this problem would be much closer to being
> resolved.

>>What kind of oil is produced by TDP?
>
> #4 fuel oil. But I understand that this can be varied by variables in the
> process, and by the material input into the process. And no, I don't know
> exactly what or how.
>
> The best oil that can be pumped out of the ground is known as, "Light, sweet
> crude". This is the best grade of, low sulphur, oil. More sulphur, known
> in the trade as "sour crude", requires more expensive processing and is less
> desirable. Since any component of the feed stock that is oil based is
> already sulphur-free, and other elemental sulphur components are trapped in
> the mineral blocks that remain from the process, the oil output is the
> highest quality of oil you can get. I'm told that it's of a grade that's
> half-fuel oil and half-gasoline. But, I'm not a petro-chemist, and have to
> take the word of others for that...

OK, a TDP is a great recyclers. Their use can extend our supply of
oil. Unfortunately, they cannot be manufactured and distributed
fast enough to make much difference in the oil endgame. The world
population is growing too fast, and people are using more oil per
capita, especially in China and India.

The oil produced from TDP will be useful, but is not likely to
satisfy the world's need for oil. IMO, any process to produce oil
from coal and water will be energy intensive. It still may be more
practical to grow fodder for the TDP to make oil, than making it
from coal. More information is needed.

>>Humbly--Ed
>
> Good "wake up" post, Ed. Thanks!
>
> Dusty

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ISSs purpose?
    ... Mainly to do some research of any kind, like medical, materials, astronomy etc... ... Couldn't all these billions be spent on medical research on earth. ... here on Earth, water and oil do not mix. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Thermal Depolymerization
    ... >>I don't understand why you talk of recycling petroleum products. ... whether or not a TDP is ... >>from coal and water, then it is doing basically the same thing as ... > million years to form our current oil sources. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Atmospheric CO2 mining via water
    ... Domestic TDP ... >> is not going to provide enough oil to satisfy any use, ... whatever oil transport costs might arise. ... nearly enough energy in domestic waste to run the car. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Thermal Depolymerization
    ... So my explorations ranged further afield...and I found out about TDP. ... > into oil. ... The material consumed (the gas portion), ... same CO2 emitted by burning those materials, will be "fixed" by the next ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: TDP and oil wells
    ... > Pete Lynn wrote: ... >> thermal depolymerization and return as gas, oil, etc. ... >> much easier than surface TDP systems. ... Much the same as how the drilling mud is currently circulated. ...
    (sci.energy)