[Fudd]

Found this on this web site ...

---

You see, I am convinced that most science is like computer programming which I know a little about. The question is not if something is possible, but rather how long it will take and at what expense--more specifically, is it worth it. Let's use a simple example. An electric car is possible, but each car costs SO much money that it is not economically feasible. What is obvious to me from the article is that the interviewer did not ask the hard detail questions on costs. Sure, I realize that he did have some lines about costs, but let's look at them. First quote:

"We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel," says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process.

Please note the future tense there. Right after the reporter got done listing the $50 million invested by individuals and government just to do the research. Further in the article you will read that the first plant cost $20 million to build. Next quote:

It will make 11 tons of minerals and 600 barrels of oil [a day]

600 barrels of oil which will sell on today's market for $30 a barrel for a total of $18,000 a day. At that rate it will take him three years just to cover the cost of building the facility. Not too bad so far. Final quote:

And it will be profitable, promises Appel. "We've done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs," he says. "This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we'll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we'll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there."

That is where he exposes himself. You see the reporter should have asked why the costs will go down. Is that because turkey guts will get cheaper, or he will have written off the fixed costs, or is it because he is assuming that more people will adopt the technology and he will be able to spread the costs over multiple locations? I think he is only talking about the variable costs of turkey guts and keeping the lights at the factory on. He is not including the initial investments, or the reality of how much more his oil cost in terms of the opportunity cost of the natural gas he claims to pump back into the system. The real give away that they might be using rosy estimates was that the "authority" on how good an investment this is was the venture capitalist--you don't think he has an agenda, now do you? I love technology. I am very excited about things like this. I really believe that scientists will make drilling for oil a non-issue long before it runs out. But I am not so excited that I think it will happen tomorrow. I would guess that this guy has really discovered a spectacular process, but I would also guess that it is more costly than he lets on. All new technology tends to be. Will it get cheaper? You bet it will, but can the idea last long enough for the idea to get cheaper? How long will it take to get cheaper? Many great ideas fail for reasons unrelated to the greatness of the idea, let's hope that this is not true of turning turkey guts into oil.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Iowa Granny]

My question is related to economics, as well. I'm assuming they've crunched their numbers based on the assumption of 'free' chicken guts. Many of the items they propose to turn into fuel currently have some monetary value.

For instance: refrigerators, stoves, computers and other white goods hold some value to recyclers. Granted it is not a high dollar value, but value, just the same. Have their numbers been crunched based on the assumption that people will give them these fuel sources? How long will people give away something that has value?

I just had my son, the pig farmer, read this article. The area where we live is composed of family farmers and almost all of them raise livestock of some kind. Livestock sometimes die before they go to market and the farmers must pay a rendering truck to pick the 'deads' up. Son thinks our county could build one of these. But the reality is: altho a dead cow, pig, chicken, whathave you has no monetary value to a farmer, once it becomes a fuel source it will have value and farmers wouldn't be willing to give it away. See my point?

This is a facinating article. I'm glad I'll be home all day to track it.

Conservativegreatgrandma: Too bad about the septic being pumped yesterday. Perhaps by the time you need it done again, they will pay you to haul your stuff away.

[ckilmer]

ConAgra has chipped in 20 million bucks for the program. Their turkey offal plant in Missouri is now in operation. ConAgra does not have a reputation for being softheaded. Something like this is something they have to do. Agribusiness can't use stuff like turkey offal to make feed for animals anymore. Same in Europe. Its to do with the MAD COW disease.

That's why they're first in line. There are about 20 other sites slated to be started in the next year.

Europeans won't be far behind on this for the same reason. Captive markets come first.

[ckilmer]

ConAgra has chipped in 20 million bucks for the program. Their turkey offal plant in Missouri is now in operation. ConAgra does not have a reputation for being softheaded. Something like this is something they have to do. Agribusiness can't use stuff like turkey offal to make feed for animals anymore. Same in Europe. Its to do with the MAD COW disease.

That's why they're first in line. There are about 20 other sites slated to be started in the next year.

Europeans won't be far behind on this for the same reason. Captive markets come first.

[glorgau]

While no one plans to put people into a thermal depolymerization machine,

The product name could be called "Soylent Green".