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.