Posted on 06/15/2004 8:29:27 PM PDT by ckilmer
The gas was free in the IEEE study too. What has changed? As I remember the IEEE study found that the capital costs were what made it cost ineffective plus they were trying to generate electricity for the power grid. When the taxpayer is footing the bill for the equipment you can claim the cost savings over the natural gas not used, but 9+ miles of pipeline pumps and collecting networks ain't cheap and require maintenance. I'm sure NASA didn't count that cost. Still it's probably closer to break even than if they were trying to generate electricity with it.
You heat stuff that contains oxygen and you'll have some oxidized material guaranteed, and turkey goo has oxygen in it - essential element.
It is heat, pressure, and chemical reactions. Oxygen is output in the forms of water and (NH4)2SO4 at the very least. My organic chemistry sucks, so I have no idea if there's oxygen in hydrocarbon chains. Oxygen is likely missing from the list because it is insignificant, by weight, to the listed minerals (or it may be lumped under the organic materials).
" WILTON, Conn., June 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Startech Environmental Corporation (OTC: Bulletin Board: STHK), a fully reporting company, today announced its new Plasma Converter System for the safe and irreversible destruction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The new system integrates an automatic metal recovery system operating before the Plasma Converter, as well as a hydrogen recovery system and an electrical power generation system after the Converter. The complete Plasma Converter System enables customers to process MSW at zero dollars per ton. " snip
Maybe they did, I just find it odd that the second most reactive element in the universe is missing from the list. Makes me think that their analysis is off.
As oily as a lot of lawyers are all you have to do is squeeze them to get a nice light crude.
you dismissed the technology out of hand
Not really - this sort of "garbage" has been around in many guises for years and comes under the heading of "something for nothing" or "perpetual motion machine" It's just like the ethanol for motor fuel myth. It uses more energy than you get out of it. I get tired of the fervent, but credulous, believers tooting the the horn
////////////
you didn't read the specs.
//////////////
And, BTW, stating a non-sequitor is not an argument. It's not even clever.
/////////////
you still didn't read the specs.
They're analysis has to be off, the plant is working, producing a real product in quantity, and people have watched it work. Something fishy here!
The economics of the process will determine its use. We know the process does what it says. If they can produce barrels of oil, in the right price range it will work.
Here's their take:
"The new technology also promises profitability. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," Appel said. "This is our first out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at fifteen dollars a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to ten dollars, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."
Of course the process stuff will go faster, since a prof in Chicago has demonstrated the process for pig waste, and the market has become competitive.
DK
And now you have to add in the cost of beheaded American contractors snatched at random from those maintaining the Saudi oil infrastructure. Suddenly the cost of extracting Saudi oil goes exponential.
What would be the cost to the Middle East, if they had a worthless product everyone could produce cheaper than the cost of shipping, or even competitive to the cost of shipping?
A ninth century culture, in the twenty-first, looking for a way to go back in time. Suits me fine.
DK
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.