pseudorandom

Yeah, that's amazing stuff...taken at face value, I would expect this to be huge news. Why isn't it? There's gotta be a catch.

I would say one catch is that we're still going to burn the stuff eventually.

yeah but think of what you will be burning... waste instead of fossil fuels. This is a big difference! When you burn fossil fuels, you are taking carbon out of the ground and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

When you burn waste, the carbon dioxide you produce comes from a cycle, not from the ground. So you would not be *adding* carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Example: a paper farm grows trees to have wood to make paper. The trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Wastepaper is turned into oil and burned. This produces carbon dioxide which matches the gas absorbed by the trees in the first place.

The thermal depolymerization process is not, of course, 100 percent efficient. Some energy must be used. This implies, even in a best-case scenario of high efficiency and widespread deployment, continued utilization of energy from outside the loop, so to speak. Fossil fuels and nuclear power are options, but certainly the preferable option would be some sort of renewable energy source.

As for the emissions from fuels produced through thermal depolymerization, the oil from the process could be used to run centralized power plants. Presuming gradual switchover to hydrogen-based automobiles, this would leave relatively few emissions sources to clean.

quote:"The thermal depolymerization process is not, of course, 100 percent efficient. Some energy must be used. This implies, even in a best-case scenario of high efficiency and widespread deployment, continued utilization of energy from outside the loop, so to speak."

really? The way he puts it in the original article in Discover magazine is: you bring in waste that contains 100 units of energy. You end up using 15 units of energy. Your final product has 85 units of energy. Now you have enough energy to process 5 more batches of waste.

He makes it sound like you add energy to the loop not from fossil fuels but rather by feeding waste which contains energy....?

Whether the energy to convert the waste comes from a source outside the system (fossil fuels, etc.) or inside the system (waste material itself), energy must be used to convert waste.

As you wrote:

...you bring in waste that contains 100 units of energy. You end up using 15 units of energy. Your final product has 85 units of energy.

ya. my point was that you don't have to think about fossil fuels or nuclear power or some other energy source to take care of the TDP plant. The waste stream takes care of it.

The critical point is where the input for the process comes from. It can be used on oil waste or shale or even coal. They would all be carbon sources that are not in essence recycled. Any carbon source like plastic that originally came from oil (you chemists please correct me)would also represent a net addition of co2 to the atmoshpere. But rubber which came from a plant would be a co2 neutral event as would all algricultural waste, even though 15% is consumed in the process since that came out of the atmosphere to begin with. But even plastics would solve an incredible solid waste problem. I believe this process if it is truly economically feasible could revolutionize society. I sure hope these pilot projects support the claims that have been made.

This is just one of many emerging technologies that convert waste streams to energy. For instance, do a websearch for plasma processing (companies like Westinghouse Plasma Corp., or Resorption Canada Ltd., or Startech Env.) and you will find technology that can convert municipal solid waste (or agricultural wastes such as corn stover or rice straw) into syngas (H2 and CO - take it a step further and do steam reforming for 'pure' H2). Or do a websearch for Sunfuel, which burns waste to syngas, then does gas-to-liquid converstion to a diesel fuel - projected to be competitive with the price of diesel in Europe. Or burn biomass directly for electricity production. Ultimately, the issues will be, which kind of fuel or power is needed (e.g. electricity versus transport fuel), which of these processes yield the highest energy efficiency, and which will be economically viable. Ultimately, all of our energy needs will compete with one another for biomass and waste.

I read the article a few weeks ago, and must say that it indeed sounds much too good to be true. One must be weary when one hears of such things. I just find it hard to believe that every single landfill could become worthy mine!
I remember watching something about the polution problem in Hong Kong on the discovery channel, how they export a zillion tons of waste material each day. These huge cities could become, in a sense, gas stations! Unbelievable!
This is the kind of enginering that will have a profound impact on mankind for the rest of time. I think that if the technology works as well as claimed, the inventor should become an international hero to be worshipped!

Has anyone considered the consequences of this technology on the world ecomony. It would be seriously disruptive. The ecomonies of many countries would be negatively affected on a large scale. These include Russia, Saudia Arabia, Mexico, Argentina, Libya, Iran, Venezuala, Nigeria etc, etc. (I must admit I wouldn't object to some of these countries being affected). It would also affect the oil companies (though they mention in the article no, I find that hard to believe).

Whenever there is a major change of the sort that this technology may produce, there is always the law of unintended consequences and that may apply here. When the world economy has to adjust to these large changes it can cause some fairly nasty side affects, even for countries that may seem to benefit from the changes. Any comments.

I remember the story of Paul Bunyan. When ever there is shift, there will be pain.
In the logging industry, the same quantity of trees are havested, but only a fraction of the number of workers are used - caused by better machines

So I say "Good"
This will help with the modernization of the 2nd and 3rd world areas and reduce the environmental impact in doing so.

You could be right. This may only affect 3rd world countries, but what happens if it affects you directly. Don't forget that there are major ecomomies that depend on oil (Britain, Norway) and secondary (Mexico) that buy U.S. products. (This is only a short list there are many more). If their economies suffer heavily due to lack of oil revenue it could cause a worldwide economic meltdown. If you had to suffer through a major recession would you be so easily saying good.

As to the issue of efficiency, always using a little more than you produce, that is legitimate, HOWEVER... think how much garbage and crap there is in the world. It would be a PLUS to use up all of that, wouldn't it? Albeit, when it's all gone, we would have to find something else to do, but we're also always forming new waste, and so are those turkeys.

From this article on the Discover website -

"Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He contends the efficiency is even better for relatively dry raw materials, such as plastics."

So not only does the process gobble waste, it produces more usable energy than it consumes. It's selfpowered. This is /neat/!

I wanna invest, but it's all private. :(

I read the article, too, and it said that the plant in Philadelphia has been around since 1999 and it is a small scale operation consuming only a few tons of waste materials in a 24 hour period. The $20 Million plant in Missouri is new and will be capable of consuming 200 tons of waste from the Butterball Turkey Plant (100 yards away) every 24 hours and produce 600 barrels of "light Texas Crude" from that mess of Turkey Guts. And they use the gas that is produced in the process to fuel that process, yielding a respectable 85% efficiency.

And, while it is true that using plastics in the process would continue to contribute to the CO2 in the atmosphere, using the oil from the process to make more plastics would eventually diminish the percentage to a near zero, due to the continued use of "bio waste". Also, it would keep the plastic out of the landfills. I read somewhere that disposable plastic diapers were the #1 contributor by volume to filling up the dumps.

As far as the economies that may be affected by this, most of the industrialized countries that produce oil do not produce as much as their people consume on an annual basis, so being able to reduce their pollution by human and animal waste while reducing the outflow of cash to purchase imported oil could do amazing positive things for their economies.

If people were free'd from the cost of energy, there would be a great deal more cash flowing in everyone's economy.

First of all, this technology WOULD in fact be a renewable resource. It is basically a form of solar power. Our agricultural system collects solar energy, converts it into plant and animal biomass.

This biomass is *mostly* used to fuel our bodies (2500 calories per day times 6 billion people...how many barrels per day of oil does THAT convert to??)

But a large percentage of that bioenergy is wasted as plant leftovers, animal guts, and human waste. What this process does is convert all that solar-derived bioenergy into a form (oil) that our society can easily pump back into the energy grid.

Basically we're tapping into that part of the solar/agricultural energy grid which we've traditionally ignored. Very, very smart.

If it works, that is. 15% efficiency is hard to believe.

PS. none of these comments apply to plastic, of course. that is just a form of oil pumped from the ground. And actually, plastic in a landfill would stay inert and never release it's carbon to the atmosphere, so in the case of plastic we are actually creating more pollution. That's not the case for biomass, because it would decay and release all it's carbon to the atmosphere anyway.

Hope it works, it would be a huge boon to mankind, but I'm not holding my breath.

Geez, way to many negative naysayers. You people would have wanted to stop the first automobilies from transforming society. Yes, the horse stables and horse shoe makers were disrupted, but a new world emerged. This was a dirty world with way more wealth and way too much garbage. Give this fellow a standing ovation. This is the best and simplest idea that actually works, not a prototype. I'm going to try to invest, not snipe at it.

This is classic pseudoscience - bordering on fraudulent!

FROM Discovery article May 03 :
"Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock, we use only 15 Btus to run the process."

HOWEVER
"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output. This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy required to drive the reaction/process.

"[This] is called marketing. Anybody selling anything has an interest in convincing you that it will give you eternal life and the Buddha's ten secrets of personal enlightenment. Their energy estimate is so dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A 100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted into useable energy. It's probably better to just heat your home by burning the chicken." {Atlantic Online post}

WRT Economics:
"If the New, Improved Poo Fuel and OPEC oil both come to market at $30/barrel or so, the only difference will be in the profit margin for Poo Energy Co. " {metafilter.com post}

This is NOT new. Chemistry is chemisty, period. It sure looks like a pyrolytic process to me, even though they've given it a snazzy new name. Their comparison chart also sets up pyrolysis as a straw man -- pyrolysis can also handle slurries,liquids, etc. and yields highly uniform products. So this appears to be 'fancy'[read: hyped, creatively marketed] pyrolysis to me. Also appears to be a 'classic' example of "research" finding the results they want to find. Virtually all experimental design (methodology, instrumentation, analytical tools) are carefully chosen (crafted) to identify the expected outcome. Choices are directed by prejudice - in this case, economic. Given sufficient data, statistics can be employed to 'prove' any theorum. Unless someone can tell me what I'm missing, of course...

"Most men think that they think, but what they are actually doing is rearranging their prejudice"(Bertrand Russell)

Get a grip folks! TANSTAAFL

Dr Mac, you posted:

--
"Their energy numbers are [highly] specious. They give efficiency as the energy content of the input waste over the energy use. That's flat-out misleading. They should tell us usable energy of the output fuel. That's all the matters. We do not rate coal plants by the energy of the coal they burn, after all, all we care about is the output. This little evasion suggests that they are not being completely honest in their entire analysis." (Bonehead at Metafilter.com)

An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy required to drive the reaction/process"
--

I don't think the way they present their numbers is particularly dishonest. It is no more or less honest than any other way you could present them. The numbers are perfectly clear, within the limits of a Discover popular science article.

Maybe they are accurate, maybe they aren't, but don't tell me you or the other poster can look in your magic ball and tell us, based on the wording of that article.

There is also nothing particularly "pseudo-scientific" about any of this. Depolymerization is an old, old chemical process, perfectly well known. The only reason it hasn't been big news in the past is that it has required more energy to perform, than the useful energy content of the materials being processed.

Now these people are claiming to have invented a process that reduces that processing energy required. AGain, no reason to assume that their claim, on it's face, is false. In theory, if we could figure out some sort of really clever trick, one could depolymerize materials with very little energy. There is no thermodynamic reason you couldn't...since you are not actually *adding* energy to the materials, just snipping chemical bonds.

Of course, what they are claiming to do is VERY difficult chemically, so we have every reason to be skeptical, just as people should be skeptical of all big claims.

But there is no reason to use words like "pseudoscience". That is inappropriate, and insulting. What would the scientific world be like if EVERY researcher ran around slinging those insults at any competitor who made a big claim?

"Their energy estimate is so dishonest that it hardly seems useful to give it any more time. A 100-BTU chicken couldn't possibly yield more than a few BTU's of useable fuel, a small percentage of which could actually be converted into useable energy."
----------------

And THAT is one of the poorest arguments I've ever read.

"An actual [honest] measure of TDP efficiency would contrast usable energy content of the OUTPUT (not of the inputs) to the energy required to drive the reaction/process"

If you don't get the point from the above, clear, statement, then you never will (because you do not want to)

"Depolymerization is an old, old chemical process, perfectly well known."

That's what I strongly implied - No New Chemistry here - just new marketing ploy.

Depolymerization is not pseudoscience. TDP, however is presented in such a (misleading, disingenuous, non-scientific )way that it quacks (if it walks, sounds, looks like a duck . . .)

Ever hear of per review?

Are you an investor in this 'technology' or what?

Has anyone thought what this process will mean for the THIRD WORLD economies, if it it PROVEN to perform as the "marketing claims" suggest?? Not all of them have vast reserves of petroleum in the ground. But almost ALL of them have WASTES that they cannot efficiently dispose of. JUST GETTING RID OF THE WASTES is worth the price of admission, especially to those countries still trying to pole vault into the 21st century.
So, OF COURSE, you cynical...people (I must use this term on a public post!) suggest that it is ALL "smoke and mirrors," without any scientific or engineering basis. I'm guessing that data from the ConAgra plant in Missouri will show soon enough if this technology is for real or not, and if there are any significant drawbacks. In the meantime, either PROVE your POINT with data, or take out a patent yourself!

nE(∑ inputs) + nE (processing power requirement) => nE (∑usable output) – nE(∑ losses)
where: n = quantity of measure in consistent units

SINCE the purveyors of TDP do not report an entire side (nE out or nE loss) of the above equation they cannot state the efficiency of their process by reporting only the other side. They almost certainly know Eout and Eloss but they do not report same. That fact alone is ‘curious’ at best. Basing an ‘efficiency’ rating on hidden/disguised information is suspicious enough. But, implying to a gullible audience that 100 in + 15 in = 85% efficient is FRAUD. They might have achieved an 85% efficiency recovery process but they can't prove it with the information presented. This conjurer’s trick might go over well ohm Madison Avenue (working fine in marketing) but hardly withstanding informed scientific scrutiny.

Take a look at my latest entry on this subject. Patent numbers generously provided.

"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, . . ."

PuHLEASE!!!

Have these folks succumbed to a Messianic complex?

Well, at least they couched their assert with phrasing "three of the. . ." versus "the three. . ."!

A forum (thread) wrt "the three (or 'n') biggest problems facing mankind" could prove informative as well as entertaining.

FRANK - how about it?
- present your top 3 (n)list!

. . . since there are so many possibilities from which to select, perhaps this topic could be further subdivided into A) anthropological (e.g. sociopolitical) and B)technological (the sciences) categories.

In response to achoo about the matter of CO2 emissions, here is a passge that was originally in the arcticle that was not included on this website:

Can Thermal Depolymerization Slow Global Warming?

If the thermal depolymerization process WORKS AS Claimed, it will clean up waste and generate new sources of energy. But its backers contend it could also stem global warming, which sounds iffy. After all, burning oil creates global warming, doesn't it?
   Carbon is the major chemical constituent of most organic matter—plants take it in; animals eat plants, die, and decompose; and plants take it back in, ad infinitum. Since the industrial revolution, human beings burning fossil fuels have boosted concentrations of atmospheric carbon more than 30 percent, disrupting the ancient cycle. According to global-warming theory, as carbon in the form of carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps solar radiation, which warms the atmosphere—and, some say, disrupts the planet's ecosystems.
    But if there were a global shift to thermal depolymerization technologies, belowground carbon would remain there. The accoutrements of the civilized world—domestic animals and plants, buildings, artificial objects of all kinds—would then be regarded as temporary carbon sinks. At the end of their useful lives, they would be converted in thermal depolymerization machines into short-chain fuels, fertilizers, and industrial raw materials, ready for plants or people to convert them back into long chains again. So the only carbon used would be that which already existed above the surface; it could no longer dangerously accumulate in the atmosphere. "Suddenly, the whole built world just becomes a temporary carbon sink," says Paul Baskis, inventor of the thermal depolymerization process. "We would be honoring the balance of nature."
— B.L.

www.discover.com

Hey folks.

I'm pretty jazzed about this idea, as far as dealing with waste products (assuming it works as described. I'm not qualified to weigh in on that debate.). However, I find the claim that it would help address global warming a bit unbelievable.

The idea, as I understand it, is that by running things like plant and animal waste through the process, and then burning the resulting oil, you wouldn't be adding anything to the natural carbon cycle, since any carbon released from burning the oil had to have been absorbed by the feedstock in the first place.

Fine, even if that's true, if a chicken dies, gets eaten by a person and then pooped out, wouldn't most of the carbon in the poop (i.e. in the chicken) be absorbed by the ground and the plants growing in it? If the chicken is run throught the TDP process, however, and the resulting oil is burned, the carbon from the chicken forms carbon dioxide, goes into the atmosphere, and contributes to global warming. So, even if we're not changing the total amount of carbon in the system, it seems to me that we'd be changing the relative concentrations of it between the atmosphere and the ground. Essentially, we'd be taking solid carbon out of plants and animals, turning it into carbon dioxide, and pumping that into the atmosphere, which in turn would increase global warming.

Everyone who is focusing on the potential effect of TDP on world economies is missing an essential element to that equation: time. If TDP proves to be as efficient and effective as Baskis and Appel claim, there will be countries and companies ordering their own machines for use worldwide, but this is not going to happen like a whirlwind. There will be quite a number of eyes watching the Missouri plant, and probably another plant or two a year set up over the next two or three years -- probably all within North America. After that, assuming success, the growth rate will accelerate fairly rapidly, but it still won't be fast enough to entirely destabilize any countries or companies that have been doing their homework. There's no need for the Chicken Little act right now, just watchfulness and analysis.

maybe they were claiming

100 btu waste - n - m = 85 btu product

where n = energy to process
m = losses
n+m=15

?

impressive since diesel engines are very efficient
at *half* 85!

As I see it, even on a best case scenario, it would take years for this technology to reach 100% usage which would provide the cushion needed for the the oil producers to transition. Any technology that reduces the USA's dependance on foreign energy sources is a good thing, both for us and them. Since it appears that nuclear fusion will forever remain the energy source of the future (it was only ten years away when I was in college in the 70's) I hope this process is for real.

BOB,
you said "maybe they were claiming
100 btu waste - n - m = 85 btu product
where n = energy to process
m = losses
n+m=15

What I read in their reported claim is:

100 btu waste + n = 100 btu product - n
= 85 net product out
where n = energy to process = 15 btu

that is not merely ridiculous and intentionally misleading but borders on fraudulent.

Sure, their data/results are understandably proprietary. They hold the patent afterall.

However, that does not provide 'authorization'- or indemnify them - to purvey intentionally misleading efficiency claims.

TDP may eventually help reduce the rate of landfill closures and perhaps even minimally mitigate geo-C withdrawals and more doubtfully slow oil revenue flows into middle-Eastern fiefdoms (et al)
HOWEVER
from a 'science' perspective: a) this is not new, b) reported information does not support their claims, c) has not received ANY 'per review' (that I can find), d)the purposeful misrepresentation/manipulation of the basic tenets of thermodynamics and energy transfer (to an audience of gullible neophytes and dreamy futurists) carries less then zero weight.

WRT the 'per review' issue: these actors surely know (appreciate) the value (benefit) of same - and since they have apparently chosen to not release (open) their methodology/data/conclusions for scruntiny, then I strongly suggest they have an undisclosed ulterior motive for so doing. When coupling this with item 'd' (above), I cannot restrain my cultivated skepticism. Since they have 'cried Wolf!' already (in my view), my requirement for 'proof' has expotenitally increased. This is not meant to imply that TDP can't or won't be economic in a given circumstance or otherwise have merit under specific conditions. To present it as salvation for the woes of a technological world is to say the least - audacious. Time will tell but 85% efficient (recovery) - I think NOT!

indeterminate 1 a: not definitely or precisely determined or fixed: VAGUE b: not known in advance c: not leading to a definite end or result 2: having an infinite number of solutions 3: being of one of the seven undefined mathematical expressions (e.g. 0/0, 0^0, 1^infinity, etc.)

TDP's claims are akin to stating "anything divided by itself = 1" This is not true! - not in math, chemistry, physics or biology.

Until and unless they provide (to any audience) the numerical values of BOTH the numerator and demoninator of their mystical TDP division, a solution is not possible.

To say that x/n = 85, where: x=100 and n is unknown is a farce. As it is for division, so to is it for multiplication, addition/subtraction, expotentiation, etc).

Let's not jump to any conclusions. I think we all remember what happened with "IT," the so-called miracle machine that flopped. There is one major difference, though, in that while "IT" was shrouded in mistery, we already know essentially how this depolymerization machine works and what it's capable of. As far as other nations' economies are concerned, we're under no obligation to support them (and possibly their terrorists.) Freedom from OPEC is worth it all, but remember, it's all mute when fuel cells become mainstream.

Whether or not this process proves to be economically feasible is in my thinking almost secondary, it would, of course, increase its chance as a surviving technology. The needs for companies that produce high volumes of organic waste to be able to environmentally dispose of these wastes are primary. Something has to be done with it. There are many ways to dispose of organic waste, but almost none of them provide usable products of any consequence.
The fact that this process appears to convert the previously troublesome matter to usable byproducts, that don’t have to gotten ride of (generally expensive), and have marketable value is a huge gain for companies. They can then claim at the same time that they are helping the environment by recouping energy that would have been wasted and supplying a renewable fuel (assuming we burn it in cars).
I hope this pans out; it really bothers me that we discard colossal amounts of potential energy in the form of organic materials. If it does prove to be economically feasible we should see free market forces apply considerable pressure for its implementation.

The comments about this being an "old" process and chemistry is chemistry must not have read the article carefully. The "new" thing is how they deal with the water in the process. They clearly state the effort to drive out water in the old process made it an energy hog. The new process uses water to help the breakdown of the waste and when it is flashed off as steam, it is used to preheat the incoming stream. Now I don't know if this is all hype or not anymore than anyone else does, but it seems to me if Conagra is buying there must be something to it. Surely their scientists and lawyers and managers have checked it out and been convinced that the process works. I doubt they would build such a complex 100 yards from their largest facility if it was bogus.

sticky notes " yes, true. not saying otherwise.

chilly dog - yes, true, Conagra has seen the 'numbers' that CWT undoubtedly generated, we haven't. They may have actually achieved the conversion efficiencies they claim. But you can not draw their conclusions from the limited infomation with sound thermodynanics. Not from the information cited in the pop-press article or from marketing info. And I read it, and I know enough chemistry and enough research chemists & biolgists to be aware that this not a new methodology. But, at the sought for industrial scale, yes it's 'news'. It may be environmentally friendly (let's hope). It may well be economic at some level (the investors hope), perhaps lucratively so! Particularly when factoring mitigating downstream consequences of currently available alternatives. However, my prior points (posts)remain unchallenged and unrefuted. Show me the net E(output) value per unit input and then one can speak of efficiencies.

An interesting article and a promising technology; however, we still cannot seem to break out of the "treatment parigdam"

You still must generate a waste to make this process work. We should be focusing our technological efforts and venture capital upstream to find solutions that actually prevent waste generation. I think the term for this activity is still called pollution prevention!

Really. How do you propose to prevent waste generation? Kill all the people? As I understand it, waste generation is part of the natural cycle, ie we all generate waste. Having this process, if it works as claimed, would take what we have been burning, dumping or burying since the dawn of civilization and turn it into something useful.

Doesn't dr mac realize that we are not talking about energy-to-work conversion here, but conversion from one form of potential energy to another? You could burn the chicken to get the energy from it, or you can burn a small portion of it to convert the rest into a different form of potential energy. An analogy would be the process of coking coal, which uses up a portion of the energy of coal to convert it into a source of potential energy more suitable to steelmaking

Dr. Mac,

Whether or not your rational arguments are correct (i.e. that there was insufficient information provided in the Discover article, that the depolymerization process is old tech, and so on), the remainder of your claims are just as rabidly nonsensical as the views of those you'd refer to as gullible hippy dreamers.

Is anyone claiming that thermal depolymerization is a free lunch, thermodynamically or otherwise? Of course not.

And yet, you're suggesting that we should look upon CWT as borderline-fraudulent pseudoscientists . . . that they're trying to hide something, holding back information in a suspicious manner, and so on.

Dude, lighten up. First off, your own claim that it's old tech requires that they can't possibly be shifty-eyed evildoers who run from peer review . . . obviously, the basic procedure is well-known. Even beyond your foaming-at-the-mouth self-contradictions, though, there's the simple fact that you need to lighten up.

The Discover interview was with the salesman of the technology, not its inventor . . . you should not judge it as a scientific treatise, but as the sales pitch that it was. Then, if your curiosity is piqued, you should try to learn more, instead of declaring it heresy and demanding that everyone involved be burned at the stake.

would someone please think of the children!?!

RE bobby mac
] Doesn't dr mac realize that we are not talking about energy-to-work conversion here, but conversion from one form of potential energy to another?

YES, what's your point. your steel analogy is valid (partially) but irrelevanmt to the point I raise.

RE: MacDaddy
] "you should not judge it as a scientific treatise, but as the sales pitch that it was"

My point exactly. And, how much of what is pitched at 'you' is made manifest. My intent is not to denigrate worthiness TDP or to impune CWT's integrity. I hope this 'industrial novelty' is as avertised. I however do note a (perceived) conclusion [claim wrt efficiency) being drawn (stated)without provision of quantatative support(s).

]"foaming-at-the-mouth self-contradictions . . "

Chapter and Verse please

] "instead of declaring it heresy and demanding that everyone involved be burned at the stake.

NOT - I have stated I perceive the concept to be sound (as are the patent rights) and I think it may/would have significant utility in specific applications plus could well be VERY economic, 'friendly', etc. No heresy engaged or stakes required. I suggested the cautionary acceptance of superfical 'information'- e.g. beware of both wolves and sheep in any clothing'.

So who is foaming-at-the-mouth!!

] “Biology is the study of the informational complexity from which particulate existence, suspended on 4D event horizon surfaces, can observe and perpetuate the universe!” Samuel A. Cox

RE bobby mac
] Doesn't dr mac realize that we are not talking about energy-to-work conversion here, but conversion from one form of potential energy to another?

YES, what's your point. your steel analogy is valid (partially) but irrelevanmt to the point I raise.

RE: MacDaddy
] "you should not judge it as a scientific treatise, but as the sales pitch that it was"

My point exactly. And, how much of what is pitched at 'you' is made manifest. My intent is not to denigrate worthiness TDP or to impune CWT's integrity. I hope this 'industrial novelty' is as avertised. I however do note a (perceived) conclusion [claim wrt efficiency) being drawn (stated)without provision of quantatative support(s).

]"foaming-at-the-mouth self-contradictions . . "

Chapter and Verse please

] "instead of declaring it heresy and demanding that everyone involved be burned at the stake.

NOT - I have stated I perceive the concept to be sound (as are the patent rights) and I think it may/would have significant utility in specific applications plus could well be VERY economic, 'friendly', etc. No heresy engaged or stakes required. I suggested the cautionary acceptance of superfical 'information'- e.g. beware of both wolves and sheep in any clothing'.

So who is foaming-at-the-mouth!!

] “Biology is the study of the informational complexity from which particulate existence, suspended on 4D event horizon surfaces, can observe and perpetuate the universe!” Samuel A. Cox

The point is that the figure of 85% is not unreasonable and that there is not nearly enough quantitative information in the article to make the blanket statements you posted on Apr 26 and later. Why not read it for what it is, a rather general article on a new process that may or may not work out? It's not like you can even invest in it.

Everyone is making valid comments. Now I have to remember the article but the point that I thought was being made....for 15 gallons of energy equivalents in, 100 gallons of energy equivalents came out. In the past using a one step process it took almost 100 gallons of energy equivalents in to accomplish the same thing. Not very economical. The main point seems to be there is a large margin here to find economical uses for this process. So combine this with the fact that nothing toxic comes out, only what are claimed to be useful products. As I have looked at some of the research articles on TDP it would appear almost impossible to come up with an efficiency figure. Everytime temp, pressure or cooking times change the output changes, not to mention the drastic effect of input. I am willing to give this company the benefit of the doubt. I think they were trying to take a complicated concept and simplify so it could be understandable. Has anyone tried emailing the company and asking for some efficiency figures? Assuming it is that important.

Finally you could have a process that is 99.99999% efficient but if it requires a large highly paid workforce to operate then it will be less useful. It is the economics that will drive this process. 15 in, 100 out.....leaves me hopeful that something big and useful is brewing.

Actually it's 100 in, 85 out. 15 in and 100 out would be 666% efficiency

RE: Doc 4/30/03 12:08PM

] . . ." the point that I thought was being made....for 15 gallons of energy equivalents in, 100 gallons of energy equivalents came out."

Quoting the Article (reporter)
] "Thermal depolymerization, Appel says, has proved to be 85 percent energy efficient for complex feedstocks, such as turkey offal: "That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock[INPUT], we use only 15 Btus to run the process." He contends the efficiency [85% !]is even better for relatively dry raw materials, such as plastics."

My point is that "feedstock" is the INPUT - not OUTPUT

Interesting discussion here, especially about the 85%/15% figures.

The way I read the statement is that if you take a quantity of waste, run it through the process, you generate x amount of usable energy products (oil, gas, whatever) and that the process itself uses energy equivalent to .15x, thus leading to a figure of .85x efficiency.

Think of a car engine. According to estimates and figures I've seen long ago, a car engine, at idle for the sake of arguement, is capable of producing x amount of torque, however an amount close to .5x is used by the engine itself just to keep itself running and to turn the alternator, a/c compressor, power steering pump, water pump, etc., thus a car engine could be thought of as .5x efficient. Similar setup there.

Sounds like a simple email to the company for clarification is in order. The 100 BTUs in the feedstock.....does it refer to input or output? Only recoverable output makes sense to me. Since theoretically all matter can be converted into energy (physicists feel free to correct me)how do you arrive at 100 BTU of input? I will write the company and post their reply.

Re Sean
I think you mean .95x efficient, but your analogy is not really to the point because the .5x you cite is but one of the many losses (and a minor one at that) that an IC engine suffers in converting gasoline to work. In the TDP process we are converting one form of energy equivilant material to another. The 85% figure must be taken as a very rough estimate, and not worth arguing over, because the output is not all in usable energy forms, but also as minerals and such

Algebraically a+b = b+a
and (a+b)+c = a + (b+c)
(a-b)+C = (a+c)-b
etc. (for real numbers)

e.g. If: 100 + 15 = n - 15
then: n = 100 - 15 = 85

I do not judge the relative (anticipated) merits of TDP in socioeconomics.

FACT 1: TDP is NOT algebra. It involves complex thermodynamic transformations in organic chemical compounds.

Fact 2: Entropy is real and inviolate
En-tro-py
1 a: a measure of the unavailabile energy in a closed thermodynamic system so related to the state of the system that a change in the measure varies with change in the ratio of the increment of heat taken in to the absolute temperature at which it is absorbed.
1 b: a measure of the disorder of a closed thermodynamic system in terms of a constant multiple of the natural logarithm of the probability of the occurence of a particular molecular arrangement of the system that by suitable choice of a constant reduces to the measure of unavailable energy.

I do suggest with a high degree of confidence the probability that the TDP process, regardless of it's X% 'efficiency'rating (however defined, documented, proprietary, economic, worthwhile etc, etc.) is NOT as (equally)'pure' as the associative princple above. Period.

That is my ONLY point. I judgeth [merit] NOT lest I be judged .

Some posters here appear to 'think' I am on a some type of witch hunt - and responding as if [like] I had just pissed on their socks - or stripped their favorite Barbie(^TM)!

I am investing in facts - not conjecture or opinion.

CWT 'may' have achieved converstion (transfer) efficiency of 85% - now wouldn't that be special !!!

If the input energy equivalent is 100 Btu and the output energy equivalent is 85 Btu and the 15 Btu difference is used to run the process, what is the efficiency percentage?
Do we care, if it works and makes energy from waste?

Truth is a majority on one.

Love is a religion of two.

Every sperm is sacred.

In its own way.

U of waterloo research on thermal depolymerization.
http://www.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/tcc/tcc_2_ASAE'99.doc

The numbers seem to agree with the first stage % and products of the "gizzard wizard".

The second stage cooking c/w reflux distillation and a thermally coupled desuperheater will just improve the numbers.

I think these guy's have a great idea that works. I want one deal with all the b.s.

RE: paper referenced above by reinharg

Yes, I read it a few weeks back, and again today.
Yes, I understand it. No 'shock & awe' here!
Classical presentation.
Note: these authors reference Appell

Note that they do NOT make ANY claims regarding "efficiency"of their "TCC" process (supported or nonsupported). The energy fraction recovered as a percentage (fraction) of energy input is irrelevant.

They do state they have acheived oil yields as high as 63% (parameter dependent) of the total volatile solids in the input feedstock (swine manure in this case). (- for lay people, this not 63% of the mass, energy, etc. of the INPUT)

The extracted oils showed an average Heat Value of 30,500 kJ/kg. (that's per kg of extracted oil, not of the per unit input). The energy content of the oils extracted is the primary relevant consideration to its suitablity as a economic/viable fuel.

Per Review!! What a concept.

Remember Dr. Mac,

Conservation of Energy/Mass. Energy is not being destroyed in this process. Every single element that goes in comes out again. That proves that the number of BTUs of input is IDENTICAL to the number of BTUs of output.

The output is then distilled and separated in a maner similar to classic oil refinery. The gas produced is used to heat the process, and all other outputs are sold.

These outputs include Oil from most polymers, Carbon Black from car tires, Metals, Calcium from turkey bones, and Hydrochloric Acid from Polyvinal Chloride (did I spell that correctly), or PVC.

Wait a minute. Chemical bonds can raise the energy contained by a polymer, as well as reduce it. An energy released by the breakup of bonds will help to heat the process. Any energy needed to seperate the bonds will stay in the chemicals as they are separated and sold.

You wouldn't be 'pushing my leg' would you? Jerking my chain?

Yep, elements immutable
Energy conserved.
In so far as entropy permits

however - not my point.
words are prejudicial
choose them wisely
and I will attempt likewise

I think that some people are getting misled by the whole 100-15=85 equation here. This process converts an unusable product (waste) into a more easily used product (oil and carbon black) using energy. There's nothing unfeasable about this. It's just a conversion.

Whats going to happen to the oilpatch, in Alberta our economy would crash if the oilpatch was put out of business.

offered for your consideration . . . That's the signpost up ahead . . .

for each kg in your body there are 3kg of bacteria (and CWT) waiting to convert you.

Soylent Tan is people . . .

circuitboy -> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/QuantumChemistry.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/Bonding.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/ReactionEnergy.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/ReactionPathways.html

Dr. Mac:

It's a shame that all of this virtual space is wasted by your masturbatory rants, you arrogant, condescending pedant.

Most of the people here are smart enough to think critically and to be skeptical of claims made by company executives. And who cares about those aren't?

Even if this process were to break even in your thermodynamic terms, it would warrant further development.

So go...git...get out...

Yours Truly,

Dr. Finklestein

Dr. Mac,

Any particular topics in Quantum Chemistry, Bonding, Reaction Energy, and Reaction Pathways you want me to look at? I have taken AP-Chemistry and am aware of most of the concepts that are presented on this website.

I can't seem to find much of a logical flow from point to point in your posts. All I can see is you trying to say that they are being fraudulant with their data.

As some people here have said, Read the whole article.

Where else could the energy go than to the output? Since everything that goes in comes out again, this is basically a fancy refinery.

I am also working on a research project about this right now, so I am trying to find as much positive and negative information about this as possible.

uhhhh...PEER review, right?

,.i..

BTW Dr. Mac,

Soylent Green is People.

circuit boy

links provided FYI
if you find future utility (tools) there- great
if not

pf

Ahh! YES my bad

Dear moderator F_-queststein

It is not my purpose to provide for your edification. I could recommend remedial reading course to you, but why bother.

Beauty,like arrogance, intelligence and other attitudes exists soley in the eye of the beholder

Clowns have grins
Fools rush in
Neurotics have problems
Fools rush in
Psychotics have solutions
Fools rush in

Oh, and do the rest of us a favor and don't forget to whip your dog (or beat your wife) today.

I recall when I first read the article on thermal depolymerization in Discover magazine I thought it was an April Fool’s joke. In fact, I even checked the cover to make sure that I was reading the May, not the April, issue. My next thought was that it was a hoax, ala Martin Flieschmann and Stanley Pons and their miraculous cold fusion machine. But on further reflection and a bit of research, I think these folks might be on to something.

Several facts lead me to this conclusion.

First - The folks developing this technology have little need to pull the wool over the eyes of the general populace. Changing World Technologies is a privately held corporation and, as others have pointed out, the average schmuck reading Discover magazine just plain can’t invest in it. Since they already have their backers in place, including the agri-business corporate monolith ConAgra, they would derive little benefit from promoting the process in the popular press. Indeed, one of the more predictable results would be discussions amongst smart people such as the one currently happening here on this blog. Unfortunately, like most forums like this, the strident bleatings of the nattering nabobs of negativity (thank you Mr. Safire) tend to get the lion’s share of attention.

Second – According to the article, CWT is not only talking the talk, they’re walking the walk. They have already proven the concept well enough with their pilot plant to convince ConAgra to cough up $20 million for a full-scale plant at the Butterball facility. $20 million – that’s not turkey feed. Even if the efficiency of the process and the value of the resultant products merely breaks even, both ConAgra and the world at large benefit - ConAgra has found a politically and environmentally acceptable method of dealing with their waste stream and we don’t have to deal with all the negative aspects of the traditional utilization/disposal methods. The fact they are already in the process of scaling up the technology to commercial operations explains why there is so little emphasis placed on per (peer?) review by the developers of the technology. They want to exploit the technology, not garner academic accolades.

Third – Wishful thinking. It has always been my contention that if the USA were energy independent our political interest in most of the rest of the world would virtually vanish. If we controlled our own energy destiny, countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, and any of the other festering pits of fanaticism and barbarism in that part of the world would no longer have the rest of us by the short hairs. Personally, I’m tired of being held hostage by fourth-rate medieval dictators and despots just so my sister-in-law can drive her full-size SUV to her spinning class. And don't even get me started on sending our sons and daughters to the Mideast to die for their ungrateful populace...

I hope that in the next few years TDP delivers even a quarter of what it promises. I think it would be the start of a better world for everyone.

Lampare,

Thank You. I concur with your assesment unreservedly. Excellant articulation.

The degree of highly 'invested' posters here has amazed me. Those 'select' few who can not "read" or otherwise follow a logical construct (pertinent or not) have a remarkable tendency to ascribe (transfer) their personal limitations to any who may challenge them (at any level). No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the poor lighting conditions in their colon. To those of such propensity I can only suggest installation of a bulb with higher wattage.

Both worship and insult are limited to the extent of one's imagination.

FYI, I have direct personal experience wrt 'world changing technologies' and how the megaliths (in my case ADM) actively conspire, pervert, and usurp 'technologies' which can boost their corporate image and/or revenue stream (or limit competition) at the expense of appropriate technology transfer to people (nations) in greatest (real) "need". Hence my cynicism. I do hope TDP is developed for the benefit of humanity and not merely for the investors. However, when is the last time this actually happened in multinational corporate enterprise?

TDP can only become "CWT" if the world beyond the corporate boardroom can actually access/employ it. The interests of corporate boards are not likely the interests of humanity at large. That they shall attempt implementation of TDP-CWT in a manner that can maximize actual benefit to 'our' shrinking planet is indeed "wishful thinking".

dr mac:

I didn't ask for your edification. I would go to someone with real wisdom for that.

Your reflection of our hostility towards you just proves all the points made earlier.

Enough.

Dr. Finklestein

It is the economics of this process that will determine if all mankind benefits especially when you look at the capital investment required. I hope Conagra makes billions off of it. While that won't benefit me directly it will indirectly. The last thing we need is something uneconomical that gets government backing. Ecomonics drives realtively efficient decision making. Okay, those with agendas, take aim....

I emailed and called the company. No response, no return calls. Tried calling one of their partners and got the same response. I was upfront with all of them and let them know this was for an internet discussion. I can therefore understand my low priority. If anyone works for the press there is a number just for you at the CWT website. I am just not comfortable faking credentials.

Here is the response from my eMail request to CWT.

--

Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, our cost and operating data is
confidential. We are however, competitive with E&P costs.

-- Original Message --
From: <CircuitSoft@GMX.net>
To: <cwt@invision.net>
Sent: April 25, 2003 9:59 AM
Subject: Website Question or Comment

I am working on the Minnesota technical writing Graduation Standard right now. I need information that might interest a student who is exploring this technology, including cost compared to oil imports.

What's E&P?

Just think of the ramifications if this is true. It would change everything. Would they even dig for oil anymore? It would cost more to find it and pump it out of the ground than it would be worth. Maybe there would be huge algae farms next to power plants.

In the future, maybe they could shrink the system to fit inside robots. The robots would then seek out and eat anything with carbon for more energy, including humans! Scary

checked out offal (fat and tallow cost) ~$45/mton in 1996

http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1996/96-11/tng1.gif

Crunched numbers for 350hp grinder---~21 gjoule/day

Heat 200 tons to 500f--------~200gjoule/day

Lots of spare.

10 tons of lpg produced-------~400 gjoule

Gas produced will run the system easily.

Sell 600 barrels at spot---$25per---15k$/day

Cost of 200tons input-------~9k$

Diff without operating costs----~6k$

$2m loan @ 10 year + 7% =~$7500/day

operating guess for 24/7--1 queen + 4 drones/shift ------~$3500/day

diff of -$4000/day

Sell the fertilizer @ 200/ton ------~$2000

Scavenge heat blah blah blah

This first go costs $20m. A standard learning curve should yield 1/4 cost after 20 units. Things get really interesting then.

These are all $usd, I think our offal is cheaper up here. :)

The loan cost should have been $20m.

That oil could yield $100/barrel if converted to electricity @ .06/kwh

H2

so many possibilities for good b.s.

I just read the whole section. I am wondering why someone doesn't just take any of the stated
breakdowns of actual product from the process given in the article and compute the energy out
from the process? Would that not then give the
numbers needed to determine efficiency for
any given source? (It seems obvious on the face of it that efficiency will vary dramatically depending of the source material). I don't have the article in
front of me at the moment, but I recall breakdowns of content given for humans, turkey leftovers, tires and other items. It should be possible to figure out how much energy would
be obtained from oxidizing (burning) some or all
of the items mentioned. The btu value of
"a light oil, averaging c-18" would seem to be
determinable. SO, somebody (drmac), figure it out. Then say what actual efficiency is! But don't pretend this is all that matters. TOTAL
VALUE is all that matters. Since sewage, turkey guts and some humans are SERIOUSLY on the negative side of value, just bringing the value
up to zero is a noble endeavour. To make a profit on it would be nearly astounding... JG

E&P, incidentally, is "exploration and
production". As in the "all bidness".

Does anyone know the current aproximate cost to the factory for processing the turkey remains?

Not knowing the btu value of offal make energy calc's difficult. I suppose you could determine how many lb's of corn to raise a turkey, find the average weight and number of bird's processed by congra each day and determine the ratio of corn to offal. I would need Wild Turkey to do those calc's. My bet is that 200tons is not all the offal produced each day though. You would need a lab to determine the btu content of the 11 tons of solids, which is just not relevant anyway. I just was testing some known commodity prices to see when the economic's add up. I don't believe that conagra is doing this only for the good of the world. They were making money selling this stuff before. Mad cow disease has shot that market.

LMAO

"It was when I found out I could make mistakes that I knew I was [truely] on to something big." - Ornette Coleman

Apparently, many others have discovered this also!

Such is the 'nature' of human inquiry.

Anyway . . . made you look

? If E=mc^2 then does Э = ψ c^2
where: Э is dark energy, ψ is mass of antimatter

? In antispacetime are the ‘black holes’ white?

”I ain't no physciscisk, but I knowsk what matters” (Popeye)

dr

The question should be..

?In antispacetime are turkey breasts darkmeat?

in keeping with the topic!

LMAO

vive la différence

vive le naivieté

QUESTION: can any other birds be used to create energy, or rather should I say Oil? I think there are alot more chickens created and used than turkeys?

"In the future, maybe they could shrink the system to fit inside robots. The robots would then seek out and eat anything with carbon for more energy, including humans! Scary "

Leaping dog, you are a fool. Why do you want to wrek this good website. People like dr mac are trying to teach us something and you are messing it up. Good going.

Have any of you invested in this company yet? You all seem so smart!

Question: why are people like leaping dog trying to mess up this great and amzingly ausume web site chat room for smart people like dr mac can teach us the true nature of matter eg. e=mc2, which I think Einstign came up with along with his theory on balck holes and aintimatter, he also came up with the theory of relativity when he was young and then they used his ideas to mess up the world when the "japers" where comming to invade us when we were not even doing anything to provoke them while they snuck up and attacked us at pearl harbor when we were not expecting it. What a joke that was, but now we may have this new science that will revolutionize the earth!!!

What a great and amazing and truly phenomenal idea to use turkey leftovers to create energy.

Wee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if the whole thing is for real or if it is just an imagination or something like a delusion or maybe some one didnt take their medication again like the doctor always says, better take your medds or you end up in not feeling to well in the head again.

Youall seem like a nice fellas, unlike some others in this chat site. Have you ever read discover magazine it the amazing stories that all are so real sounding. I wounder if any of them are realy true to nature and not just pretend.

You are all the smartest, you should write to Discover and see if they will publish any of your mazazines in this day of terrorism we need every type of idea that could add amazing and extravagent researching mechanisms to our already populated earth.

RE "MattDrudge"

biting satire is nowhere diminished (unlike turkey offal)

too bad its not C-based or we could all fuel our SUV's at $0.349/gal

thanks to the miraculous synergy of CWT's thermo-altruism as coupled with the generosity of ConAgra we all can now be freed to consume presumptively without regard to conscience (while 6+ children die every bleeping second in Africa alone (15/sec globally) from easily preventable dehydration (mainly dysentery)as just one'trival' example). No problems, Mate!

It won't be long now.

Soon, ConAgra can honestly state, "Problems?,What Problems? We don't have no 'stinking' problems!"

There are shadows on the faces
of the men who fan the flames
of the wars that are fought in places
we can’t even say their names.

They sell us our Presidents the same way,
they sell us our clothes and our cars [oil].
They sell us everything from youth to religion,
at the same time they sell us our wars.

I want to know who the men in the shadows are.
I want to hear someone ask them; why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they are never the ones to fight and to die?

And there is lives in the balance, there IS…
People under fire, there IS…
Children at the canons, there IS….
And there is “blood on the wire”. Jackson Browne. Lives in the Balance 1986

We smug Americans ‘observe’ the wire (CNN, AP, etc).
But, we do NOT “see” ANY of the normative abject status of the hum