Re: Thermal Depolymerization
From: PowerWorker (npower_at_innerCOAL&OILlodge.com)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: harmony: "Re: Bharath To Launch 2 Lunar Missions By 2015"
- Previous message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Wind energy extraction"
- In reply to: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Next in thread: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Reply: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:49:04 -0800
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
...
> I don't understand why you talk of recycling petroleum products. I
Only from the standpoint that it's just another feedstock. For instance,
used asphalt. At the moment it's only good as landfill. Cook it, and you
recover all of the hydrocarbons, leaving only the dirt & rocks.
Other examples would be the heavy sludge left at the end of regular refinery
processing, as well as waste oil, oil-shale, oil-sand, etc.
> 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.
That is correct.
...
> 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.
Um, yeah. I think you could say that. It does reform the chains at the
molecular level to a "C-18" (18 carbon links) chain. But I see it more as
doing what heat & pressure did to long-dead materials over a few hundred
million years to form our current oil sources. Except that it'll do it in
15-minutes. I mean what is coal? Compressed dead plants...? As opposed to
using live ones. I don't see a major difference.
...
> 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
I would have to agree with you. OTOH; you don't need one on every corner
like a gas station. It seems to me that we seem to be able to make and
install oil wells fast enough. Don't know why this would be that much
harder.
The only fly that I see in that ointment, the producers don't "pay" for the
oil they pump. The "purchase" cost is in the (accessing and) pumping it.
While it certainly wouldn't be true today (folks are desperately trying to
get rid of garbage), I can see the day coming where they're going to start
charging the TDP processors for that feedstock. And I'd be damned put out
if I had to pay for garbage...(:-o)!
> population is growing too fast, and people are using more oil per
> capita, especially in China and India.
All the more reason to get started! (:-o)!
> 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
I'd say no more so than the "regular" TDP usage. But, that's based on what
I've learned about the process. I don't know that for a fact...
> practical to grow fodder for the TDP to make oil, than making it
> from coal. More information is needed.
True enough.
Later all,
Dusty
-- RemoveCOAL&OILto reply
- Next message: harmony: "Re: Bharath To Launch 2 Lunar Missions By 2015"
- Previous message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Wind energy extraction"
- In reply to: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Next in thread: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Reply: Ed Earl Ross: "Re: Thermal Depolymerization"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
