Anything Into Oil?

[Teallaura]

This article (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Changing-World-Technologies4apr04.htm) came to my attention after seeing an update on a similar article published in Discovery magazine. One small plant is in production and another larger one is under construction In Carthage, Missouri due to open in the fall. I admit it's an idea I like (dump in trash, get out energy) but this one seems to hold some real promise.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Arnold]

Sounds promising. Seems too early to make a solid judgement of where this technology's place will be, but even if it only becomes a better waste treatment industry it will be a success in my opinion.

[Teallaura]

This seemed an appropriate time to resurrect this thread. The Carthage plant was built and is online now.

TCP is a form of biodiesel - but it is made from a plentiful resource here in the US - trash. The Carthage plant uses the remains of turkeys from a local slaughter house, but the process can use virtually anything (including old tires, although that would not be biodiesel). Further, the biodiesel produced has the potential to be further refined into gasoline using existing refining technology and refineries.

The Carthage plant was competitive at lower gas prices - I'm wondering how it's doing now. Still, this seems to me to be one of the brightest spots on the alternative fuel horizon.

[sc_q_jayce]

Wait wait wait.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but they're using extreme pressure and heat to change anything into oil?

Where is this energy coming from to do this?

I'm sorry if I missed this in the article. I'll look again.

[TheOneAndOnly]

The Carthage plant was competitive at lower gas prices - I'm wondering how it's doing now. Still, this seems to me to be one of the brightest spots on the alternative fuel horizon.


I don't think it's going to have much impact on your fuel prices, and in the long term, it's not an answer to any kind of fuel crisis.

And P.S., neither is biodiesel.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Wait wait wait.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but they're using extreme pressure and heat to change anything into oil?

Where is this energy coming from to do this?

I'm sorry if I missed this in the article. I'll look again.

I think it can turn pretty much anyhting organic (carbon based) into oil. Plastic, tyres, animal remains, human and animal waste(?) etc. Since all these items are considered "waste" and possibly obtained freely or cheaply, any oil derived from them is an energy profit, minus the enrgy it takes to power the process.

I wouldn't get too excited, it's basically just making the oil based economy run that much more efficiently. Don't forget that tyres, plastic and chickens (via oil based fertilizers used for feed) are themselves derived from oil, so this process just uses extreme heat and pressure to "reverse the clock" so we can get a bit more juice out of the oil we pumped out of the ground.

[sc_q_jayce]

I think it can turn pretty much anyhting organic (carbon based) into oil. Plastic, tyres, animal remains, human and animal waste(?) etc. Since all these items are considered "waste" and possibly obtained freely or cheaply, any oil derived from them is an energy profit, minus the enrgy it takes to power the process.

I wouldn't get too excited, it's basically just making the oil based economy run that much more efficiently. Don't forget that tyres, plastic and chickens (via oil based fertilizers used for feed) are themselves derived from oil, so this process just uses extreme heat and pressure to "reverse the clock" so we can get a bit more juice out of the oil we pumped out of the ground.
Don't worry, you don't need to tell me what organic is. ;) I'm about to start my graduate studies in Chemistry in a few months.

But my point is how much OIL is used to make OIL?

Extreme heat and pressure, that sounds like the Haber-Bosch process in nitrogen fixation. Extremely inefficient and therefore a huge waste of energy (though absolutely necessary for our agriculture) as a whole. It might be cheaper for individuals, but it seems to me like it's just causing more problems in the long run.

[Teallaura]

I don't think it's going to have much impact on your fuel prices, and in the long term, it's not an answer to any kind of fuel crisis.

And P.S., neither is biodiesel.

Guess again - TCP is classifed as biodiesel. Try reading the article.

[Teallaura]

Don't worry, you don't need to tell me what organic is. ;) I'm about to start my graduate studies in Chemistry in a few months.

But my point is how much OIL is used to make OIL?

Extreme heat and pressure, that sounds like the Haber-Bosch process in nitrogen fixation. Extremely inefficient and therefore a huge waste of energy (though absolutely necessary for our agriculture) as a whole. It might be cheaper for individuals, but it seems to me like it's just causing more problems in the long run.


To have been competitive, it can't take more energy to produce than it delivers. Initially they may well need to use petroleum - but why would that necessarily be the case always? Why couldn't they put some of the fuel they produce back into production? Surely the petroleum industry does just that.

As I recall (it's been a while since I've read all the material), the process you mention is not the one they use. I'm thinking I saw that in the Discovery article, however.



Edit: Maybe this will help?


For every ton of turkey slop that goes in, what comes out at the end are 640 pounds of clean-burning oils that are sold for use in fuels and manufacturing, 100 pounds of propane, butane and methane gases that are burned at the factory site to generate the electricity that powers the garbage-to-fuel process, and 60 pounds of solid minerals that are sold as fertilizer. Because each type of raw material -- tires, plastics or sewage, for example -- produces different grades and quantities of oil and gas, the company prefers to limit the process to one kind of garbage at a time.

Incredibly, the only "waste" that's left behind is distilled water. There are no smokestacks bellowing chemical-laden smoke, and no pipes discharging fetid wastewater. Plus, the plant produces more than enough fuel gases to power itself without using any additional energy.

Source (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2004/Changing-World-Technologies4apr04.htm)


*emphasis mine

[sc_q_jayce]

To have been competitive, it can't take more energy to produce than it delivers. Initially they may well need to use petroleum - but why would that necessarily be the case always? Why couldn't they put some of the fuel they produce back into production? Surely the petroleum industry does just that.

As I recall (it's been a while since I've read all the material), the process you mention is not the one they use. I'm thinking I saw that in the Discovery article, however.

Still too costly. How much energy was put into the original materials? In order to get a chicken, for example, to have bones, you need to feed it and grow it and, well, that takes a lot of supplies, time, and energy. Not to mention the chicken feed. How much energy was put into making chicken feed? Grain? Now we must go back to the Haber-Bosch process. Thus, there is no way that the energy it gives compares even remotely to the energy it costs to make everything. Bones don't just... appear, for example.

Trying to have an alternative based on this method is already far too late in the process for there to be anything redemptive or efficient from it. If you keep tracing the materials back before the intermediate processes, then you will see that we need to start before the animal, before the crop, before the tire, before the organic processed materials.

I do admit that it's an interesting "recycling" program, though. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me as an "alternative fuel."

[TheOneAndOnly]

Guess again - TCP is classifed as biodiesel. Try reading the article.

I meant neither is biodiesel a solution to a fuel crisis.

[JSDileo]

Still too costly. How much energy was put into the original materials? In order to get a chicken, for example, to have bones, you need to feed it and grow it and, well, that takes a lot of supplies, time, and energy. Not to mention the chicken feed. How much energy was put into making chicken feed? Grain? Now we must go back to the Haber-Bosch process. Thus, there is no way that the energy it gives compares even remotely to the energy it costs to make everything. Bones don't just... appear, for example.

Trying to have an alternative based on this method is already far too late in the process for there to be anything redemptive or efficient from it. If you keep tracing the materials back before the intermediate processes, then you will see that we need to start before the animal, before the crop, before the tire, before the organic processed materials.

I do admit that it's an interesting "recycling" program, though. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me as an "alternative fuel."

The turkeys weren't raised specifically to be turned into oil, they were using excess turkey from restaurants that would have otherwise been thrown away.

[Teallaura]

Opps! My bad - I'd forgotten I'd looked at some other stuff as well.

Here are some of the links:

http://www.changingworldtech.com/who/index.asp

http://www.msu.edu/~orlicchr/CahngeWorldTech3.htm

[Teallaura]

Still too costly. How much energy was put into the original materials? In order to get a chicken, for example, to have bones, you need to feed it and grow it and, well, that takes a lot of supplies, time, and energy. Not to mention the chicken feed. How much energy was put into making chicken feed? Grain? Now we must go back to the Haber-Bosch process. Thus, there is no way that the energy it gives compares even remotely to the energy it costs to make everything. Bones don't just... appear, for example.

Trying to have an alternative based on this method is already far too late in the process for there to be anything redemptive or efficient from it. If you keep tracing the materials back before the intermediate processes, then you will see that we need to start before the animal, before the crop, before the tire, before the organic processed materials.

I do admit that it's an interesting "recycling" program, though. It just doesn't seem to make sense to me as an "alternative fuel."

TCP isn't the Haber-Bosch process as that hasn't been mentioned in anything I've read on the subject - including some harsh critiques by chemists.

As JS mentions, nothing is being raised specifically for the process - they're using turkey waste from a slaughter house - not the stuff that goes on the table. The waste would have otherwise required disposal (quite possibly by incineration, but I won't swear to that one).

I haven't the foggiest why you think materials need to be traced back to before the intermediary processes when the energy has already been expended - and will be regardless of whether or not TCP is used on the waste materials. Why grow a crop when you can just use the stuff coming out of the other end of the pig? (Yes, TCP can use that sort of waste as well.)

You really didn't read any of the stuff, did you?

[sc_q_jayce]

TCP isn't the Haber-Bosch process as that hasn't been mentioned in anything I've read on the subject - including some harsh critiques by chemists.

As JS mentions, nothing is being raised specifically for the process - they're using turkey waste from a slaughter house - not the stuff that goes on the table. The waste would have otherwise required disposal (quite possibly by incineration, but I won't swear to that one).

I haven't the foggiest why you think materials need to be traced back to before the intermediary processes when the energy has already been expended - and will be regardless of whether or not TCP is used on the waste materials. Why grow a crop when you can just use the stuff coming out of the other end of the pig? (Yes, TCP can use that sort of waste as well.)

You really didn't read any of the stuff, did you?
What you're talking about is the very point I'm bringing up. The plant works as a recycling plant, but will always lose in the long run due to the points I brought up earlier.

Haber Bosch refers back to the creation of ammonia to fertilize materials to raise animals, not the TCP. (Also, you didn't edit the quote in your post when I wrote the following post. Coincidentially, your post also proves my point which is that it's an interesting recycling program.)

The reason why I bring the intermediate processes up is simply because I don't believe the plant is very efficient for the reasons as stated before.

Again, it's a nice recycling program, but I don't think it can be viable as a alternative energy source.

[TheOneAndOnly]

still too costly. How much energy was put into the original materials? In order to get a chicken, for example, to have bones, you need to feed it and grow it and, well, that takes a lot of supplies, time, and energy. Not to mention the chicken feed. How much energy was put into making chicken feed? Grain? Now we must go back to the Haber-Bosch process. Thus, there is no way that the energy it gives compares even remotely to the energy it costs to make everything. Bones don't just... appear, for example.


Yeah, but from the point of view that these things are waste products and the thermal depolymerization plant is getting them for free ( I assume) or at least cheaply, as long as the energy it takes to turn a turkey into oil is less than the energy in the oil, you have an energy profit, and presumably a monetary profit as well.


The turkeys weren't raised specifically to be turned into oil, they were using excess turkey from restaurants that would have otherwise been thrown away.

No, but raising, breeding, feeding a turkey, keeping it warm, killing it, taking it to a shop to be sold etc all take energy. A lot of which is taken from oil (fertilizers, petrol to transport the turkey to a supermarket etc). Turning a few giblets into oil, may be economically and energy viable to the plant owner, but in reality you've lost a lot of energy. You're just recycling a fraction of the oil it took to get that turkey to market.

[Teallaura]

:hrm: Um, guys - we're talking about waste products which will be created regardless of what is eventually done with that waste. No energy is 'wasted' because the actual purpose of the product (turkeys in this case) is accomplished.

We're talking about taking what's left from the end of a separate process and beginning a new one - to account for all the intial energy expended to breed, raise et al is just dumb. It's like calling solar inefficient because it takes so much energy to get from the sun to the earth. That energy will be expended no matter what you put on your roof.

If you'd read the articles, you'd know that much of the energy needed to raise, et al turkeys - including fertilizers - can be created in the TCP process as well. Intially, petroleum would still be the dominant source of energy for turkey raising - so what? It's gonna be done regardless. Should this process succeed (and being already in production in two plants is certainly a good start) there's no reason it can't eventually replace petroleum in those areas as well.

Yes, energy is used initially, but you guys seem to be arguing that because raising turkeys uses energy, there's no use in collecting energy from the waste products - this despite the yields being claimed. It's illogical sans evidence that energy expended exceeds the energy yields - which neither of you have demonstrated. That's like saying we shouldn't drill for oil because it takes energy to find it (and a whopping huge amount of energy at that).

[sc_q_jayce]

Yeah, but from the point of view that these things are waste products and the thermal depolymerization plant is getting them for free ( I assume) or at least cheaply, as long as the energy it takes to turn a turkey into oil is less than the energy in the oil, you have an energy profit, and presumably a monetary profit as well.

Actually, I don't really mind recycling. Since the process is patented and its information isn't released, we have no idea about its reaction mechanism, its energy processes, or anything else, for that matter. I'd be really interested to see the specifics, though I remain skeptical in some senses. There's always going to be an energy loss in conversion... otherwise you'd have a perpetual motion machine. I'd love some more specifics.

Taking a closer look at the link:

It is indeed a mini Haber-Bosch process:

At the experimental factory, which can handle up to 250 tons of animal waste per day, the turkey parts are mixed with leftover restaurant grease and with lots of water. The sticky, smelly mixture then runs a gauntlet of grinders, boilers, and separation tanks. Along the way, the mixture is heated up twice -- to about 500 and 1,000 degrees, respectively, and subjected to air pressures 50 times greater than what we feel on the Earth's surface.

Even 50 times greater and 1000 degrees is pretty high. I would note that Haber Bosch is much worse in one regard: 450 degrees Celsius and 200 atmospheres, compared to a meager 50. This is the source of energy consumption. The more you can reduce the process to room temperature and atmospheric pressure, the better energy efficiency you have. This is a major reason why I am skeptical.

---

Again, note that profit doesn't mean that it takes less energy to make more energy... the profit comes from the need for other companies to use their services.

Appel acknowledges that producing a barrel of oil through thermal conversion costs about 50 percent more than doing it by conventional refining. But he said costs are falling as the technology improves and that the Missouri plant is currently operating at a "small profit" because it's selling the oil and fertilizer it produces. If the price of oil keeps rising, he said, so will profits. Plus, he said, ConAgra no longer has to pay anyone to take away its turkey waste, which had been used as an ingredient in animal feed until the new waste-to-oil plant opened.

Again, a really interesting recycling program.

[sc_q_jayce]

:hrm: Um, guys - we're talking about waste products which will be created regardless of what is eventually done with that waste. No energy is 'wasted' because the actual purpose of the product (turkeys in this case) is accomplished. I don't disagree with you there, and have no issue with this.

We're talking about taking what's left from the end of a separate process and beginning a new one - to account for all the intial energy expended to breed, raise et al is just dumb. It's like calling solar inefficient because it takes so much energy to get from the sun to the earth. That energy will be expended no matter what you put on your roof. As a side issue on the sun to earth system, the system in question is the earth, so when the surroundings give the system more energy, we're happy, whether through work or heat. However, in these processes, the system releases either work or heat to the surroundings, which is the issue. So you didn't quite get the point of what I was addressing.

Again, I don't have a problem with recycling. I'm just skeptical of how much energy it actually conserves.

If you'd read the articles, you'd know that much of the energy needed to raise, et al turkeys - including fertilizers - can be created in the TCP process as well. Intially, petroleum would still be the dominant source of energy for turkey raising - so what? It's gonna be done regardless. Should this process succeed (and being already in production in two plants is certainly a good start) there's no reason it can't eventually replace petroleum in those areas as well. Yes, I read the articles, and note that you said much, not all. There is still loss in the process. I think it's great that we have means to dispose of waste in a good way. Just... not sure how well it actually conserves. I need some physical chemists to do some statistical calculations of the energy systems of the process in order to see exactly how much input and output there really is. Until then, my dear!

Yes, energy is used initially, but you guys seem to be arguing that because raising turkeys uses energy, there's no use in collecting energy from the waste products - this despite the yields being claimed. It's illogical sans evidence that energy expended exceeds the energy yields - which neither of you have demonstrated. That's like saying we shouldn't drill for oil because it takes energy to find it (and a whopping huge amount of energy at that).It's not illogical. It's thermodynamics, that the best engine one can create in the real world (because we have no such thing as true adiabatic systems) will always lose energy to heat. There is no ideal energy conservation in a system in reality, though it can be theorized in mathematics.

Second, that's not my argument. My argument originally was about this system being able to create a sustainable, alternative fuel source. And to that, I would definitely say no.

Recycle is good, though.