Skip to comments.
Research: Pig Manure Can Become Crude Oil
Yahoo ^
| 04/13/04
| JIM PAUL
Posted on 04/13/2004 10:24:01 AM PDT by m1-lightning
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-239 next last
To: Hodar
I guess my concern is that the amount of energy needed to process the manure is more than it produces.
I am leaving the ethanol industry ( on the road to much with all the plants being built!) and I know some of the problems in the renewable energy field.
If this process is manageable on a large scale and if the energy efficiency is right, than I foresee this taking off rather quickly!
To be honest, I would love to talk with some one with an engineering background on this! Might be a career opportunity if my new job doesn't work out!
To: Ditto
"The prime example I'm aware of is the Hyperion Wastewater treatment plant in Los Angeles"
Thanks for the info. I'll look that up.
102
posted on
04/13/2004 12:22:48 PM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: CedarDave
We may indeed be on our way to marginalizing the Arabs, though not for 20 years or more. While I whole heartedly support your statements, and am very pleased (on a personal note) to hear of your recommendation of Mr Riodan; I must disagree with your time table.
Given the price of oil at ~$30+, the national interest in relieving our dependance on (hostile) foreign nations, and the profit potential that TDP provides ... I think that 20 years is pretty pessimistic. Might I venture that the answer is closer to 5-10?
103
posted on
04/13/2004 12:23:20 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Iowa Granny
.
104
posted on
04/13/2004 12:23:34 PM PDT
by
Iowa Granny
(Impersonating June Cleaver since 1967)
To: Hodar
I direct my question in
Post #98 to you as well.
105
posted on
04/13/2004 12:27:30 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
To: redgolum
I guess my concern is that the amount of energy needed to process the manure is more than it produces. That's the case in any production of fuel. But, at 85% effeciency, it's in the right range of pumping and processing raw crude. Plus, we would be getting rid of millions of tons of waste saving us money. It's not profitable yet (no industry is at the beginning) but it has the potential of being very profitable.
To: redgolum
I guess my concern is that the amount of energy needed to process the manure is more than it produces. This was the Achilles heel to the process, until Changing World Technologies came up with a brainstorm. Getting the water out of the material has been the most inefficient part of the process. It used to take MORE energy to dehydrate the material, than the material would produce. Here's the spin.
Heat the material to 300 F, under about 350 psi. Quickly remove the pressure, and the water/steam will immediately leave the material - reclaim the super-heated steam to pre-heat the next batch; then cool the steam and you have sterile water.
The rest of the process can now be done at much higher temperatures/pressures to do the 'cracking' process. The water is gone, and instead of burning energy to dehydrate, you used the water to efficient pre-heat the next batch. Problem solved.
107
posted on
04/13/2004 12:29:50 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: Carry_Okie
What do you know about the byproducts of combustion in the use of refined products from these biodiesel compounds? Nothing, unfortunately; I'm not a chemical engineer. Obviously nitrates could be as much a problem in diesel exhaust as sulfur is in current diesel products. It needs to be looked at as do the other byproducts in fuel from this new process. However the efficiency of the process, if it holds up, will allow for additional refining of finished products to remove harmful contaminants without making the end products too expensive to use.
Having said all that, it just seems too good to be true. Nonetheless, I'd consider putting a few dollars (just a few mind you!) into the company if it was public.
108
posted on
04/13/2004 12:32:30 PM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Democrat campaign strategy: Tell a lie often enough today and it becomes truth tomorrow.)
To: Hodar
The sooner the better, by far!
109
posted on
04/13/2004 12:34:32 PM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Democrat campaign strategy: Tell a lie often enough today and it becomes truth tomorrow.)
To: biblewonk
Do you have any financial ties to the windmill industry? Stock ownership, perhaps, or working for a manufacturer or supplier? Are you a lobbyist trying to get the taxpayer subsidy reinstated, or own land where you want a windfarm to be built?
It seems so unlikely for any conservative to be an advocate like you are for windmills, an alternative source of energy that isn't economic unless taxpayers are forced to pay the producers more than the market price for any electricity produced.
To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Is this process 85% efficient? If that is right, it beats any other "renewable energy" in existence. Anybody got a source of good info on this? (I am a chemical engineer, so this sounds just crazy enough it might be feasible).
As far as being profitable, I worked for 5 years in ethanol and most of the time the companies I worked for/with did not make a profit. Talking with some of the old hands, if the subsidy was removed the ethanol industry would disappear. As it is, many of the small plants won't make it.
However, the economics are improving. The cattle market is up, so the demand for DDG (dried distillers grains, cattle feed) a byproduct is up, so maybe the ethanol plants will start being solidly in the black soon.
To: m1-lightning
..another *GOLDMINE* for the Kennedys'. :|
112
posted on
04/13/2004 12:37:13 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :)
To: m1-lightning; CedarDave
None of the above! Wrong on ALL COUNTS!!! Cedar Dave cleared it all up in reply #86, above:"though not for 20 years or more."
In other words... all this dreamy speculation is irrelivant for at least the next "20 years or more." By that time the phoney energy crisis will be resolved in some other, more conventional way. It happens repeatedly!!!
The laws of thermodynamics, economics and common sense make all this hoplessly laughable on it's face!!! (plus the timing)
113
posted on
04/13/2004 12:37:18 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(John Fallujah Kerry! Now we REALLY know what HE meant, by "Bring... It... On!!!" He sure DID!!!)
To: CedarDave
The way I see it, the results of that question might determine if this class of products becomes a general replacement for petrochemicals or a niche market substitute. Too often researchers (and investors) get too excited about the gozinta without addressing the gozouta. Once the money for production is committed, the momentum cannot be ignored, but then, neither can the consequences.
Witness MTBE. Both the major oil companies and the EPA knew that MTBE contaminated groundwater as early as 1981 and they went ahead anyway. You can thank the Natural Resources Defense Council for that.
114
posted on
04/13/2004 12:39:34 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to manage by politics.)
To: redgolum
To: Carry_Okie
I guess my concern is that the amount of energy needed to process the manure is more than it produces. Absolutely nothing. But you are comparing bio-diesel with TDP; which are two totally and completely seperate processes. They literally have nothing in common, other than they can produce a fuel source.
Thermal De-Polymerization is a process in which just about any long hydrocarbon molecule is broken down into smaller molecules. Like in nature, the components are time, pressure and heat.
Biodiesels, on the other hand are usually fancy names for refined french fry oil. These are typically vegetable oil derivatives, which contain various ingredients for flavoring, preservatives and color. What these various 'ingredients' do, when used as a combustable fuel is something I cannot comment on; because I simply do not know.
However, chemically speaking, TDP uses the SAME ingredients that mother nature uses. The process is just sped up a few billion-fold.
116
posted on
04/13/2004 12:42:32 PM PDT
by
Hodar
(With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: m1-lightning
There is irony here... "Irony" was the first word that popped into my head when I saw the headline.
117
posted on
04/13/2004 12:43:32 PM PDT
by
Redcloak
(Over 13,000 served.)
To: m1-lightning
The only mental image I get is a gas tank stuffed with Democrat politicians.
To: Hodar
While I whole heartedly support your statements, and am very pleased (on a personal note) to hear of your recommendation of Mr Riodan; I must disagree with your time table.The 1980's and 1990's were the best years for GRI. They did wonderful research in areas of natural gas exploration, processing, transportation and end use. It was mainly funded by a FERC surcharge on pipeline gas until the era of deregulation when the pipelines successfully fought for its removal. Some of the products that came out the research are in common use today by industry and GRI research in coal-bed methane technology, which allowed development and production of that gas, significantly expanded our domestic natural gas reserves.
119
posted on
04/13/2004 12:47:47 PM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Democrat campaign strategy: Tell a lie often enough today and it becomes truth tomorrow.)
To: Dog Gone; newgeezer
Do you have any financial ties to the windmill industry? Stock ownership, perhaps, or working for a manufacturer or supplier? Are you a lobbyist trying to get the taxpayer subsidy reinstated, or own land where you want a windfarm to be built? No, not at all. Neither is newgeezer.
It seems so unlikely for any conservative to be an advocate like you are for windmills, an alternative source of energy that isn't economic unless taxpayers are forced to pay the producers more than the market price for any electricity produced.
It's a very small supplement. Wind is not the most expensive form of electricity by the way. All forms of power are supplemented in some way.
120
posted on
04/13/2004 12:48:29 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(The only book worth reading, and reading, and reading.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 221-239 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson