Posted on 06/15/2004 8:29:27 PM PDT by ckilmer
I think you have plenty of time.
I say it's still successful with a net loss, if that net loss is less than what the cost of disposing of the waste products would have been, but other than that, I'm also waiting to hear the results.. just with a bit more optimism, it seems.
:)
Being skeptical is a good thing but nowhere does the description of this process indicate "something for nothing" or "perpetual motion machine". The energy for the process comes from the input material (turkey guts or some similar gunk). It produces oil of some grade which can be used in a normal fashion (ok to be skeptical on this claim).
At no time have I seen claims for 1000BTUs in 2000BTUs out.
It is very interesting to read the various threads regarding this process to see some people reacting like the laws of physics would have to be broken for it to be true. What is the agenda of the knee jerk "it can't be done" crowd?
If you don't get more energy out than you put in then this is nothing more than an expensive incinerator.
Having been burned before?
Not being one of the something-for-nothing (liberal) crowd?
BTW, nice tagline. A pipe organ, no doubt...
The key is extracting stored energy out of the waste products ("feedstocks") in a usable form, rather than just dumping the stuff in a river or landfill to decompose and release its energy over long periods of time.
Numbers from the Missouri plant: the total inputs into the system per hour are feedstocks (122.9 million BTU) and outside electricity (3.6 million BTU). Outputs include natural gas (1.4 million BTU), light crude oil (99.5 million BTU), and carbon (6.4 million BTU). There's also additional natural gas produced that feeds back into the system.
The total energy input into the system is 126.5 million BTU/hr, while the total energy output is 107.3 million BTU, which is 84.8% efficient. (They have additional plans to use water vapor to help heating that could increase efficiency to 90%.) However, when subtracting the energy input from the feedstock, I calculate 2980% efficiency (nearly 30x) as compared to the amount of outside energy added to the system.
If you treat the carbon as a mineral output, instead of an energy output, the total efficiency is 82%, and the efficiency with regard to outside energy is about 2800%.
Hear you on being burned hence my use of the word skeptical. Upon reading the numerous articles and understanding just enough of the chemistry to make myself dangerous I am tempted to invest a small sum. It appears that some serious money has been spent and some positive results are forthcoming.
A cure all, of course not but it could contribute to the numerous sources of energy and possibly reduce waste.
Yes it is a pipe organ 1928 Wurlitzer Theater Pipe organ from the Jamestown, NY Shea's theater.
I read this as a net energy loss. Looks the same to me as the ethanol story. If the primary purpose of the plant is really to get rid of waste then this isn't such a bad thing - I guess, Still you have to get rid of the residue from the process. This plant isn't waste free. I just translate "thermal depolymerization" as "baking garbage"
I just can't help thinking that it's sucking down 19 milBTU/hour to burn garbage. I just wonder how cost effective it is compared to dumping the stuff in a land fill? The only way this is going to continue is if they can get people to pay them to get rid of their garbage.
It is a net energy loss -- no process can be > 100% efficient. But the energy lost comes from the feedstocks, which is energy that would just be wasted in a landfill in the first place. There is no "residue" from the process, everything generated is a useful product: natural gas, oil, carbon, distilled water, a glycerol compound (I have no idea what it's used for, but the Missouri plant is producing it for a commercial purpose), dry minerals, and (lost) water vapor. Anything that isn't converted into a "desired" product falls under the "dry minerals" heading, all of which are saleable.
I just can't help thinking that it's sucking down 19 milBTU/hour to burn garbage. I just wonder how cost effective it is compared to dumping the stuff in a land fill? The only way this is going to continue is if they can get people to pay them to get rid of their garbage.
Again, all of those lost BTUs come from the feedstocks. The process generates 30 times more energy in the form of oil, gas, and carbon than it uses from outside electricity.
NASA Goddard is currently using methane captured from nearby landfills to heat 31 buildings.
The BMW plant in Spartanburg, SC is getting 25% of its energy needs from methane from a landfill.
Check out:
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=778&archive=1
Sounds too good to be true, I'll wait and see if it really works or this is just like the many other "useful materials from garbage" schemes that have collapsed under the light practicality over the years. I'll stand by my cynicism until the plant has successfully operated for a year or so.
ANd BTW "dry mineral" is ash which is a real environmental headache to get rid of in large quantities. Just look at any coal fired generating plant.
One wonders how cost effective these would be without taxpayer subsidies - direct in the case of NASA and indirect in the "green credits' in the case of BMW.
Their definition of "turkey leftovers" includes feathers, heads and feet. Do you put those in your soup?
Actually, no. From a white paper:
The mineral/micronutrients that comprise the typical mineral mix from the Carthage, MO plant are shown in Table 3. Of major interest are the N, P, K elements that comprise the fertilizer. The calcium in the mix comes from the bones of the animals. The N, P, K, Ca components represent nearly 80% of the total fertilizer. The mineral product acts as a naturally self-limiting, slow release soil amendment that puts the essential nutrients back in the soil. The minerals will help to rebalance macronutrients and replace depleted essential micronutrients in the soil, encouraging healthy plant growth and development.
| Mineral/Micronutrient Concentration | kg/tonne (lbs/ton) |
|---|---|
| Nitrogen (N) | 60 (120) |
| Phosphorus (P) | 380 (760) |
| Potassium (K) | 10 (20) |
| Calcium | 340 (680) |
| Chloride | 2 (4) |
| Copper | 0.1 (0.2) |
| Iron | 2 (4) |
| Magnesium | 13 (26) |
| Manganese | 0.2 (0.4) |
| Silicon | 9 (18) |
| Sodium | 9 (18) |
| Sulfur | 6 (12) |
| Zinc | 0.8 (1.6) |
| Fixed Carbon | 20 (40) |
| Organic Matter | 147.9 (295.8) |
| Total | 1,000 (2,000) |
A very good description of the Carthage plant is available in pdf at:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/pdf/GenConfLasVegas3_3_04.pdf
Including:
200 T/D COMMERCIAL PLANT IN CARTHAGE, MO
An operating plant based on the CWT-TP process has been constructed in Carthage, MO next to a turkey-processing slaughterhouse. The CWT-TP facility processes approximately 200 t/d of turkey offal and grease continuously, 7 days a week. Included in the feedstock are the offal, bones, heads, feet, blood and feathers from the turkeys.
The plant produces about 500 bbl/d of API 40+ oil together with about 7 t/d of carbon, 8 t/d of mineral fertilizer, 12 t/d of a nitrogenrich fertilizer, and a medium Btu gas that is used internally.
When I was in high school this was called distructive distellation. In chem class we cooked all sorts of stuff off of wood chips
As for cost efficiency, remember, the gas is essentially free. It would otherwise be burned off. It appears that the county is "purifying" the gas, so they may be charging NASA a fee, but it is clearly cheaper than the previously used natural gas.
NASA plans to use the gas for 10 years and they claim a $3.5 million savings in fuel costs over that period.
Other than construction of the pipeline, I would suspect the "conversion" from natural gas to methane was not significant.
It is estimated that the gas will be emitted by the landfill for 30 years. Obviously, the quantity will diminish over time but NASA hopes to extend their usage to 20 years.
The list has a conspicuously missing element - Oxygen. I find it hard to believe their accuracy when a list of oxidized goo is missing oxygen.
Umm... where does it say that anything is oxidized?
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.