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 human condition occurring NOW (actually, still)
‘We’ are so totally ignorant, arrogant, selfish, and ultimately discontent. NTM, Destroyers of Worlds!

Change that (TDP,CWT)
/ . . . with a proprietary technology
/ . . . and, we’ll do lunch sometime!

Posted by: dr mac at May 3, 2003 09:36 PM

On the lighter side, I'm glad I don't got feathers. Between ConAgra and these dudes

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2002/020329.htm

I'd be plucked!!

This is my first-ever post on a Blog.

whoopie-doo.

The argument over the claimed efficiency is really boring.

I had a few peole read the original article as I told them how it was going to change the world in thirty years and would mean the end of OPEC for sure.

One person told me it would be more on the order of 100 years and made a few interesting criticisms which would be well worth noting and discussing.

First, unless we (the world) stop procreating or acheive 0% population growth, we are going to continue to need to explore and find new energy sources (oil).

The infrastructure is not currently present to handle:
a) the movement of feedstock to a multitude of plants (if they existed)
b) the distribution of the resources generated to refining facilities.

Opps. Let's postpone the celebration...

The creation of this infrastructure will take considerable planning and time. Would we (society) build many small plants throughout the country, (several or more in every town to handle different sorts of wastes)? Would we opt instead for building huge complexes on the order of chemical plants (in the vicinity of refineries and chemical plants) and ship the 600 million tons of waste to these facilities? Would it entail building tens of thousands of miles of pipelines (as now exist for transporting various fuilds) to carry our poo to the plants or do we build thousands of trucks to do it?

To read the original article, go to Discover.com and search for "Anything into oil"

So many bonehead arguments here, I was hoping for better. Dr. Mac, your comments are the worst. Always sad to see someone torture scientific arguments to produce confusion. Do you really enjoy creating an atmosphere of misunderstanding? Is that fun for you?

Regarding "reduction of carbon in the atmosphere" I'm sure most of you are already clear that the CWT process, if true, WOULD absolutely reduce carbon in the atmosphere, just as they claim. If we convert turkey guts to CWT oil and burn the oil, yes it would create CO2, but it doesn't matter because the turkey guts would emit that CO2 anyway. Basically biomatter degrades and releases almost 100% of it's carbon to the atmoshpere within a few months.

However, there is another even more interesting point, which some of you may not realize. The CWT process process could actually eliminate MORE THAN 100% of the carbon in the oil.

Yep, sounds impossible, but here's how it works. You need to think in terms of what FORM the carbon takes.

Most greenhouse gas calculations are done based on CO2 "equivalents"...so many tons of CO2. Most hydrocarbon burning (in cars, power plants, and so on) produces CO2.

However, much of the biological waste that our society dumps actually releases it's carbon as Methane, not as CO2. This happens because waste is often buried (in the case of solid waste) or insufficiently aerated (in the case of liquid waste). It's then digested by anerobic microbes, which produce Methane instead of CO2.

Here's the interesting part...Methane is 16 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. That means that carbon that "returns" to the environment as Methane is 16 times worse than carbon returning as CO2.

So if we take turkey guts and convert them to oil via the CWT process, and then burn that oil, not only are we saving the "equivalent" of the carbon in the CWT oil (we burn the CWT oil, thus we we avoid burning oil from the ground, thus we avoid pumping carbon dioxide into the air)...

But we actually are at the same time reducing the amount of methane being produced by that waste, and producing CO2 instead. That adds even greater "carbon reduction" to the equation.

That multiplication factor of 16 between CO2 and Methane is just magic.

Sorry if this is brief, and convoluted, so maybe hard for you non-atmospheric scientists to understand. However, trust me, my firm spends millions of dollars every year on carbon dioxide "avoidance credits" (being traded because of the impending Kyoto treaty restrictions). We finance projects JUST for the sole purpose of processing waste, not even with the intent of getting the energy, but just to eliminate the methane. Landfills all over the world are spending a lot of money to pump air into the ground, or to burn the methane, even without collecting the energy.

The CWT process, if it works, would allow us to creat usable energy AND eliminate the methane...well, that would be extraordinary.

Wasted daze said:

--
"The creation of this infrastructure will take considerable planning and time. Would we (society) build many small plants throughout the country, (several or more in every town to handle different sorts of wastes)? Would we opt instead for building huge complexes on the order of chemical plants (in the vicinity of refineries and chemical plants) and ship the 600 million tons of waste to these facilities? Would it entail building tens of thousands of miles of pipelines (as now exist for transporting various fuilds) to carry our poo to the plants or do we build thousands of trucks to do it?"
--
Now THIS is an interesting question. If CWT can actually make their plants work economically, then this is the other big problem...transportation.

However, consider this: we already have a huge distribution and collection system for liquid human waste. It's called "the sewer system". We have another huge collection system for solid waste. It's called "garbage trucks". These systems already centralize and process megatons of waste every year.

S, for the 300 largest cities in the USA, you could just plop a CWT plant right next to the waste treatment plant, and then burn the oil right there, and pump the energy into the grid right on the spot. Cities are all working to build "small power plants" as we speak, to try to make the power grid less centralized...so the CWT plants might actually fit right in perfectly.

Yes, it's a lot of infrastructure, but frankly the waste handling infrastructure of the country has to be rebuilt frequently anyway. This would just be an upgrade.

And finally...compare this to OTHER types of renewable energy like Solar or Windpower! Those systems have NO centralization infrastructure in place.

By that measure, CWT would be massively better than other types of renewable energy...because CWT piggybacks on existing collection infrastructure.

In a sense, CWT uses the solar power that we are already collecting. It just squeezes a few more BTU's out of our massive "agricultural" solar infrastructure.

Here's your answer dr. mac, a bit off topic:

"It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country, the United States of America, are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies of civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe." - General Lafayette (French, served under General Washington)

It's called the Counter-Reformation. They (Jesuits/Illuminati) want to destroy the protestants and return temporal authority to the pope. They work through high level Freemasons, Knights of Malta, Knights of Columbus, Council on Foriegn Relations and others. Did you know many high level intelligence officers are Roman Catholics, Knights of Malta and members of the CFR? Can you say 9/11? Don't forget Bush and his father are Skull and Bones members too. I think that is one of the reasons CWT is trying to stay low key, because if the oil interests feel threatened they will try to crush them.

Chilly Dog-

"Here's your answer dr. mac, a bit off topic:"

Man, I didn't see THAT one coming. From turkey guts to conspiracy theories involving the Illumanati/Jesuits/Freemasons/KoM/KoC/CFR and their involvement in 9/11? Why no mention of Dreamland, the Trilateral Commission or the Dark Lords of the Sith?

"I think that is one of the reasons CWT is trying to stay low key, because if the oil interests feel threatened they will try to crush them."

Since when is having your company featured in a national magazine, not to mention the commercial website and affiliation with a multinational conglomerate, considered staying "low key"?

It took longer than usual, but this discussion has finally sunk into the rant and paranoia mire that characterizes most message boards on the web.

**sigh**

silly dog: I do not recall asking (you) a question. However, since you have supplied an 'answer', I suppose you could have 'heard' me whispering across the void.

Lampere: wrt time, yes. Stephen Hawking said "... the time we experience is illusory." I am not sure that I fully comprehend what the kind Doctor meant. However, I have confidence that chilly dog does.

WRT Topic

Laughter is indeed medicine. The following statement from thomasrex is priceless (on several levels).

] "The CWT process process could actually eliminate MORE THAN 100% of the carbon in the oil."

I had no idea that one could actually weave five (or is it 6?) false concepts (propositions)in a single sentence. The term 'gift' comes to mind.

After I stopped hiccuping from laughing so hard, I drafted a multipage response (rant) to T-rex's prior post.

I'm fairly certain that he would not 'like' to 'read' it. I'm also fairly certain many would find 'need' to object strenously! Why? Because, it was generated by someone else. Duh! Encounters with these types who 'build' themselves up in their own imaginations by 'tearing down' others is getting so old.

] "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Anyhow, I have not posted it. If anyone actually want's to read my tandrum as precipitated by T-rex then may request same.

So after all this "discussion" the bottom line is that only CWT and ConAgra know the truth here

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/energydiagram.html

In keeping with his attempt to keep a low profile, Brian Appel, CEO of CWT, gave Pat Gray of TALKRADIO 950 AM KPRC an on-the-air interview this date in the AM.

Obviously, he must have been afraid to give an interview on CNN Television - probably to keep the Jesuits from being able to see an image of him.

Mr. Appel said that they have no plans on taking CWT public and when asked about the profit motive, he disappointed Pat Gray (IMO) by giving very socially-conscious motivations as the impetus behind CWT. He spoke of the incidence of asthma in neighborhood children and the desire of the investors to "make a difference".

"Socially-conscious" capitalists - what is this world coming to? What is the Left to do? The Capitalists have even subverted their warcry of "No Blood for oil". CWT is all about "Blood into Oil"

dr.mac
"I want to know who the men in the shadows are."

Lampare
It can only be a "theory" if there is some evidence for it, otherwise it's just a "hypothesis". Ever heard of the Inquisition? One guess who was behind it.

The part about low key was a joke. duh.

Cgilly(?)Dog

You wrote:
"It can only be a "theory" if there is some evidence for it, otherwise it's just a "hypothesis"."

I stand corrected. You are promoting a conspiracy "hypothesis" with no supporting evidence. Silly me, I should have picked up on that.

"Ever heard of the Inquisition? One guess who was behind it."

I didn't expect that...but then, NOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

"The part about low key was a joke. duh."

It can only be a "joke" if there's some humor in it, otherwise it's just a "statement". double duh.

Hi! I was just wondering if any of you all are experts on this process? Or are these simply just your comments? Also, what kind of a site is this exactly? Do any of you know who sponsors it?
Thanks for all of your help.

"I was just wondering if any of you all are experts on this process?"

Some are. Some are not. All claim they are. How could it be otherwise?

"Or are these simply just your comments? "

Yes! Some are informed Others are not.

"Also, what kind of a site is this exactly?

Site (URL) is a Blog (contraction of 'web log')

"Do any of you know who sponsors it?"

Frank Boosman=> http://www.boosman.com/blog/

Merlie, I think most -- if not all -- of the people here are interested observers as opposed to "experts" on thermal depolymerization. We're trying our best to understand the viability of the technology given the limited marketing information available and the patents issued to date.

As for this site, it's a blog, it's mine, and it's sponsored by me -- I alone pay the bills.

Further reading in depolymerization of organics and energy physics

Thermochemical Conversion of Swine Manure: Temperature and Pressure Responses
http://www.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/tcc/tccpaper1.htm

Hybrid Thermal Biological Conversion to Industrial Chemicals
http://www.energy.iastate.edu/renewable/biomass/cs-therm_bio.html

Medium- and High-Energy Thermal Technologies:Depolymerization, Pyrolysis, and Other Systems.
http://www.noharm.org/library/docs/Non-Incineration_Medical_Waste_Treatment_Te_9.pdf

Thermal and Chemical Stability of Polymers
http://www.rit.edu/~axlsch/classes/polychar/604e03.pdf

- - - - - - - -- - - - -

Conversion Factors
http://www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_all.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Entropy is Simple
http://www.entropysimple.com/

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.2ndlaw.com/

Entropy and Gibbs Free Energy
http://www.2ndlaw.com/gibbs.html

The Essential Link Between Life and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f00/energydiagram.html

Thanks for your help. I have one more question for you. Do you think that companies that promote solar energy for power will be opposed to this new process? Also, do you think that companies that already drill for oil will have a problem with this? Sorry for all these questions, but I am doing a paper on this new technology.

A few calculations based on "data" as provided in Discovery article using Standard Measures/Values.

IN Turkey Offal 200 T
OUT “gas” 10T (used to drive reaction)
“mineral” 11 T (to be sold as ‘fertilizer)
water 87.6 T (1)
(600 bbl)“oil” 90.2 T (2)

1. Water (s.g.=1) 21,000 US gal = 78,645 liters (or kg) = 87.63 T
2. Oil ( equiv. #2 HO) 600 barrel = 81,840 kg (crude) = 180,441 lb (crude) = 90.2 T

600 bbl = 25,200 US gal#2HO @ $1.50/gal = $37,800/200T(day) = $109/ton offal
E equiv. To 630 bbl crude @ $25/bbl=$15,750 /200T (day) = $78.75/ton offal

1 bbl (l.s.crude) = 42 US gal = 136.4 kg = 0.56E+07 btu = 0.591E+07 kJ = 1641.1 kWh

TCC: 1 ton Poo (@ 8% oil, max) = 160 kg oil @ 30,500 J/kg = 0.416E+07 kJ/bbl = 0.70 bbl of crude

TDP: 1 ton offal (@ 45.1% oil???) => 0.451 ton oil (equiv to #2 heat oil) = 409 kg = 3 bbl
= 0.1764E+08 btu/ton offal = 3.15 bbl crude
Where: #2 heat oil) = 140,000 btu/gal = 5,880,000 btu/barrel (136.4kg) = 43,108 btu/kg

200 T (wet)- 88 T H2O = 112 T DW = 101,587 kg x 21,254 kJ/kg = 2,159,130,098 kJ/200T = 10,795,650 kJ/DW ton

Poultry 'Offal'data:
IFN #5-03-798 Viscera w/head & feet @ 5,080 kcal/kg = 21,254 kJ/kg =>10,795,650 kJ/ ton(dw) = 0.1079565E+08 kJ/ton

DW 100%
KCal/kg = 5080 = 21,254 kJ/kg
Fiber crude 2.5% Either extract 6.0%
Ash 16.3%
Ca 4.17%
Crude protein 62% ether extract 13.2%
Arginine 4.13%
Cytosine 0.98%
Histodine 0.94%
Isoleucine 2.73%
Leucine 4.44%
Lysine 2.97%
Methiodine 1.15%
Phenylalanine 2.48%
Threonine 2.27%
Tryptoohan 0.50%
Tryosine 0.97%
Valine 3.21%

Patent No. 5,269,947
Thermal depolymerizing reforming process and apparatus
Baskis December 14, 1993

Full Text, Drawings, Specifications, Claims, and Corrections

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?TERM1=5%2C269%2C947&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=0&f=S&l=50

A bit of triva that Discovery article (developers) failed to mention:

According to their Patent, the TDP process ALSO requires an input of anthracite coal as an emulsion in water (steps 10 through 24). They state "The amount of water may be approximately 50 to 100% (mass to mass) of the coal." (detailed description par.2)

DUH!

That's 44 to 88 short tons of high-quality, powered coal per 200 wet tons of 'offal' (with their numbers). Are we to assume that none of the Carbon in this coal ends up in the 600 barrels of oil per 200 wet tons of 'offal'?

From Discovery article:

In Section "Garbage In, Oil Out"
“Feedstock is funneled into a grinder and mixed with water [AND COAL!]to create a slurry that is pumped into the first-stage reactor, where heat and pressure partially break apart long molecular chains.”

ONLY mention of Coal:

In section “A Boon to Oil and Coal Companies”.
“One might expect fossil-fuel companies to fight thermal depolymerization. If the process can make oil out of waste, why would anyone bother to get it out of the ground? But switching to an energy economy based entirely on reformed waste will be a long process, requiring the construction of thousands of thermal depolymerization plants. In the meantime, thermal depolymerization can make the petroleum industry itself cleaner and more profitable, says John Riordan, president and CEO of the Gas Technology Institute, an industry research organization. Experiments at the Philadelphia thermal depolymerization plant have converted heavy crude oil, shale, and tar sands into light oils, gases, and graphite-type carbon. "When you refine petroleum, you end up with a heavy solid-waste product that's a big problem," Riordan says. "This technology will convert these waste materials into natural gas, oil, and carbon. It will fit right into the existing infrastructure."
Appel says a modified version of thermal depolymerization could be used to inject steam into underground tar-sand deposits and then refine them into light oils at the surface, making this abundant, difficult-to-access resource far more available. But the coal industry may become thermal depolymerization's biggest fossil-fuel beneficiary. "We can clean up coal dramatically," says Appel. So far, experiments show the process can extract sulfur, mercury, naphtha, and olefins—all salable commodities—from coal, making it burn hotter and cleaner. Pretreating with thermal depolymerization also makes coal more friable, so less energy is needed to crush it before combustion in electricity-generating plants.”

Correction:

Patent Statement: "The amount of water may be approximately 50 to 100% (mass to mass) of the coal." (detailed description par.2)"

That's 88 to 176 short tons of high-quality, powered coal per 200 wet tons of 'offal'

Since this is so off topic i'm not going to post about it anymore in deference to the other users. There is plenty of stuff on the web to examine. Then make up your own mind.

Retraction:

Had it right the first time!
(I think) It's Late!

At a minimum it is 3 lb coal to process 1 turkey's guts (13.33lb offal/bird w/ their numbers)

As an organic chemist, I guarantee you there are no "experts" on this site, just the usual assortment of armchair scientists, cranks, and blowhards.

Yawn.

Oh, and by the way Dr. Mac, your comments about "coal" are utter nonsense.

The discussion of coal in the patent very clearly states that the coal itself is the material being processed. Coal is not being "added" to the process...in the patent it is the process material.

From the patent:
"the following description relates to a specific example wherein the material being processed (the process material) is coal and the liquid (the process liquid) mixed with the process material is water"

Next time, you might want to quote your source material a little more accurately.

Fine!
CWT puts 200 ton �offal (10.8 million Btu) IN to TDP processor (without coal)
-- raises 200 tons of �offal� to 250 degrees C at 500-700 psi
--�flashes� 88 tons (21,000 US gal) of water
-- 0.78645E+08 g H2O ^ +250 C = 0.1966E+11 cal. = 0.78E+08 Btu
-- or ^ +200 C = 0.624E+08 Btu
--�break down� 69 tons of protein(s)
--�break down� 23 tons of lipids, etc
--�disassociate� 11 tons of �mineral� (Ca, N, P, K, etc.)
--�distills� 92 ton of hydrocarbons to #2 heating oil equiv. (43,108 Btu/kg)
AND extracts/returns 17.6 million Btu (600 bbl) of refined oil plus 10 tons of �gas�
Now that is �efficiency�!
Organic chemistry sure is cool.
Praise Be TDP!

Turkeys can no longer defy gravity but they can now defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics!
Turkeys have true "expertise".

Thank you, Frank Boosman, for providing this blog, which I just discovered today.

I think what we have here is a perfect example of disciplinary parochialism. dr mac, you seem to have a need to dismiss the process described in the Discovery article based on their failure to hold to conventions used in your particular discipline for describing energy efficiencies. However, there are other conventions in use, and the one they should have used (but which I am sure you will squawk about) is the one used in the biofuels arena.

Basically, my reading of the article is that you stick in a bunch of turkey goo (in the example they use, goo containing 100 BTU of potential energy), you invest some energy into reforming it (15 BTU in the example), and you end up with a variety of products, including some that can be used *conveniently* as fuels. (They subtract the 15BTU used to run the process, for a yield of 85 usable BTUs in fuel oil).

The calculation that would be applied to this conversion in the biofuels world would be to simply divide the usable output by the *energy used to run the process* , or 85/15, which yields an overall efficiency of 567%, not the 85% reported in the article.

Yes, I agree, as one who works in biochemical energetics, that this is odd. It even grates when I hear it. But, please spare me any claims that I or anyone else expressing efficiency in this idiosyncratic manner is making claims for creating of energy out of nothing.

You have to remember that it is the convention of the field, and although you can criticize their choice of this convention, you have to recognize that the people in the field understand what they mean. And that is th point of all this, isn't it? TO communicate, not to obfuscate??

The reason this calculation yields efficiencies over 100% is that the input -- the 100 BTU worth of turkey goo -- is not figured into the calculation -- it is considered "free" energy or something like that.

For comparison purposes, the conversion of soy to biodiesel yields efficiencies on the 300-400% range. (I believe that figure includes the energy used to harvest and process the soy, but it does NOT include the energy contained within the soy) I don't have the figures in front of me right now, but you could probably find this info with a little digging on the web.

I believe the reason efficiencies are calculated this way is because the people working in the field are mostly interested in how many gallons of fuel it takes to produce each gallon of product. For example, how often do you think of how many gallons of gasoline (or its diesel, etc equivalent) it takes to deliver a gallon of gasoline to your tank? The refining process represents a significant part of this figure, and when someone is developing a new process, that is what they are focused on. Rest assured, all the other aspects of efficiency will be examined carefully if this process ever takes hold.

By the way, the figures I came up with is contingent upon many things -- the honesty, integrity, and accuracy of those providing the information (the company and the outhor of the article), and that my (and others') interpretation of the numbers as provided is correct. Most people I have talked to about the article agree with that interpretation, and it is a reasonable one.

OK, have at me.

David, it's good of you to give Dr. Mac the benefit of the doubt, but the bottom line is this:

He just got caught red-handed, so to speak, posting some really nonsensical comments about coal in the process. He either A) was incredibly sloppy in his read of the the patent or B) was intentionally trying to mislead other people, by selectively editing his patent quotes.

In either case, IMO his integrity is blown, and I would suggest to anybody who cares that they might want to ignore all his comments. On the internet, there is a huge risk of wasting precious time arguing....only to realize that the person at the other end of the debate is not arguing in good faith. I would suggest that this is the problem here.

Too bad, it could be a very interesting topic. There are hundreds of real potential pitfalls in the CWT process...there's certainly no need to invent unreal pitfalls.

Well, I usually try to avoid bickering myself, and you are certainly correct that the web seems to invite it (I'm sure there is a good MS project for a psychologist or a sociologist here...).

In fact, given the tenor of the thread above, I almost didn't post at all. THat comment isn't directed at anyone in particular.

On the postitive side, I have seen much, much more disturbing breakdowns of civility elsewhere.

http://www.monkeymind.net/test/biodiesel/article_alge.html

since we are talking about good ideas for producing energy and processing waste, I thought you guys might be interested in one man's estimate of what it would take to provide renewable fuel for our entire transportation sector. (141 billion gallons of biodiesel per year, 11,000 square miles of desert land... or 9 percent of the Sonora Desert in California, $169 billion to build the algae farms, $51 billion to run them every year)

also, he talks about efficiency the same way that the TDP guy does... "Electrolysis systems are around 60% efficient. That means that for each unit of energy you put in, the amount of recoverable energy in the hydrogen produced is equal to 0.6 units."

http://www.monkeymind.net/test/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Thanks David and Philx. It usually becomes obvious when someone starts pushing an agenda. I admit getting discouraged not having the energy or the expertise to respond to some of these postings. But your knowledgeable posts have done that and provided a real service to those of us who just want to learn a little more about this process.

wrt dr macs #'s.

GE (gross energy)

animal feed stock...

The average total caloric values for protein, lipid, and carbohydrate
are ............................... 5.65 kcal, 9.45 kcal, and 4.15 kcal/g, respectively.
http://msucares.com/pubs/bulletins/b1041.htm#energy

for herring gives a GE 6731 kcal/kg
http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/elibrary/archive/lives/furfacts/ration.htm

for poulty offal gives GE 22.7 kj/g ---> 5425 kcal/kg
http://www.uanl.mx/publicaciones/maricultura/acuiculturaV/dsmith.pdf

for dry corn =~ 8250 btu/lb EQUALS 8704.kJ/lb --->19149 kj/kg ----> 4576 kcal/kg
http://energy.cas.psu.edu/energycontent.html

So dr mac's 5080 kcal/kg for DW offal sounds close.

5425 kcal/kg =~ 4931818 kcal/ton =~ 3.49 equiv bbl crude

http://www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_ene.htm (easy to use)

112 ton dry weight in ...... 3.49 bbl/ton * 112 ton = 391 bbl crude =~ 54.5 ton crude equiv. avaliable energy.

YET the CWT claim is "600 bbl--90 tons oil equiv plus 10 tons gas equiv =~ 100 tons equiv energy"

Even if the input was all fat (lipids DW @ 9450 kcal/kg) the yield would still only be 94.9 tons crude equiv.

I don't doubt that the process is feasible but the stated input--->ouput #'s cannot be supported.

Must I retract ?

The average total caloric values for protein, lipid, and carbohydrate
are ............................... 5.65 kcal, 9.45 kcal, and 4.15 kcal/g, respectively.
http://msucares.com/pubs/bulletins/b1041.htm#energy

Furthermore, poultry has in Dry Mass
15 % ash, 60.2 % crude protein (CP), 18.3 % crude fat (CF) and 22.7 kj/g of gross energy (GE).

http://www.uanl.mx/publicaciones/maricultura/acuiculturaV/dsmith.pdf

poultry
15 60.2 18.3 22.7 kj/g

protein, lipid, carbohydrate
5.65 kcal, 9.45 kcal, and 4.15 kcal/g

Total avaliable energy then is......

poultry 3390 kcal/kg + 1729 kcal/kg + 5425 kcal/kg = 10544 kcal/kg

So

10544 kcal/kg = =~ 9585454 kcal/ton =~ 6.78 equiv bbl crude

112 ton dry weight in ...... 6.78 bbl/ton * 112 ton = 759 bbl crude =~ 105 ton crude equiv. avaliable energy.

"YET the CWT claim is "600 bbl--90 tons oil equiv plus 10 tons gas equiv =~ 100 tons equiv energy""

Go CWT

I guess I'm sort of comfortable with input--->output.

It's time for a beer!!!

reinharg: "I don't doubt that the process is feasible but the stated input--->ouput #'s cannot be supported."

thank you - whew! So glad to see I am not the only one here with a calculator.

my sources are quite similar to yours

The International Network of Feed Information Center (INFIC)lists:

IFN#5-03-798 viscera w/head & feet @ 5,080 kcal/kg
= 21,254 kJ/kg =>10,795,650 kJ/ (dw)ton = 0.1079565E+08 kJ/ton

Philx

wrt Patent quote cited: read the Patent for yourself.

The quote posted was unedited (albeit without sufficient context)

Statements made by patent applicants were not qualified in "Detailed Description" section.

David : you said, "Ok, have at me."

mailto:nospam@yahoo.com = this is not a valid address.

I wrote you a personal letter (email) of appreciation for your non-venomous tone, input and perspective. I appreciate your excellent point that “convention” does vary [substantially] by discipline.

I prepared a detailed presentation of my 'analysis'of TDP energetics (w/source citations). I was requesting you to perhaps 'show me' (really) where I may have errored. I do not post it here since so many (with notable exceptions) seeming object strenuously to the mere concept of quantative analysis/assesment of data (as available).

No matter how one slices the ‘energy pie’, it does not work out to be “85%” ‘efficient’ by any convention/discipline I am aware of (e.g. per your explanation, per mine, and likely by many others). That was my initial point (period). I have repeatedly stated this and have attempted to ‘explain’ several times in different ways (quite unsuccessfully).

My initial statement (posted 4/26) was, “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 statement is principally what others have been strenuously objecting to – and creatively ‘developed’ (twisted) to provide much foment.

The ‘efficiency’ claims as expressed by Appel and Discover was considered by me (IMO) at first blush and remains to date, at best, misleading. Insults and will never change the numbers.

Obviously, one can not extract more energy OUT of a system than has been put IN to it. I have conservatively calculated their output claim to be >1.6 kJ per 1.0 kJ of input - with the energy requirements of processing the non-water fraction ignored/assumed ‘free’ (unlikely, IMO). This cannot be accurate.

The perceived relative merits (advantages) of this technology is not my concern here nor my purview – that is the domain of CWT, ConAgra, et al. If it makes sense ($) to them, then they will attempt development regardless of ‘efficiency’, public opinion, scientific scrutiny, etc. It may also be advantageous for ConAgra to implement TDP even if it should prove to be not profitable in immediate-economic sense.

Should you wish to review my (naive) quantitative analyis (as deluded as some here may consider it to be)then email me accordingly (copy shortcut @"dr mac" link)and I will respond.

I thank you for your time, consideration and civility.

PS: Quoted from "hector" on Stephen Hawking Forum this date:

"Like in society there are different kinds of individuals here.

1. Curious and honest ignorants like me.
2. Know-it-all guys that time has showed they were know-it-barely-at-all.
3. Rigid people that lack any flexibility in their views and feel any questioning is insulting.
4. Jokers of a nasty nature, spreading only shit and fetidness around.
5. Heros of the forum that have managed to launch serious efforts to teach us something.

The golden rule that insults are directly proportional to weakness of mind is routinely confirmed here." [emphasis added]

end quote

I apologize for not providing a valid email address. I had a very bad experience once, and I now probably overvalue my on-line privacy.

I think it is difficult to analyze with any precision the validity of the claims using the information in the Discover article. However, dr mac and reanharg have made some good efforts. I think reinharg's analysis at 8:27 PM is very interesting.

I have no doubt that Conagra's engineers have looked this over, and have liked what they have seen. I remain cautiously optimistic. I also have serious reservations regarding removal of toxics, particularly heavy metals, from the waste stream.

In any case, even if the efficiencies are not quite what they claim, even a relatively inefficient process would solve a rather serious waste problem we have in this country. And that might just make the whole thing cost-effective even if the energy is not as cheap as they make it sound.

After all, the efficiency of burying organic matter in landfills is pretty darned low, no matter how you cut it.

G'night.

In defense of my retraction. Just had a 3 hr drive to think this thru.

In defense of dr mac, my initial calcs supported ~5000kcal/kg.
However, I realized that I could not be comfortable with 50 in and 100 out.
Where is the missing 50. I know, darkmeat, sorry dr mac I could not resist.

As the science of biochem wrt to offal is NOT my area of expertise, like all
tis easier to read numbers quickly. The study of energy content in offal and like offal subjects
is primarily limited to energy conversion as a feed stock for agri stock. I initially took the ME
(metabolizable energy) vs DM (dry mass) as a relative unit for recoverable energy. What put me off
was GE (gross energy) and carbohydrates are used intechangably in the papers. Mind you some of them
use g and kg interchangably as well, but give geeks some space.

What the CWT process suggests, via the break down of the molecular C chains, is that the Energy value of
protein and lipids plus the GE is realized.

If this is valid, Philx you might know, then maybe we can determine a realitively accurate value for the
input. From there, life is easy. To me, efficiency is how fast this is solved.

Dr. Mac wrote:

“A bit of triva that Discovery article (developers) failed to mention:
According to their Patent, the TDP process ALSO requires an input of anthracite coal as an emulsion in water (steps 10 through 24). They state "The amount of water may be approximately 50 to 100% (mass to mass) of the coal." (detailed description par.2)”

With all due respect, Dr. Mac, I think you misread the patent. I went back and re-read it several times and I think most references to coal are made in the context of specific processes for depolymerizing coal. In fact, the author implies that coal may or may not be used in the process:

“It is a general object of the present invention to provide an improved process for converting a process material such as organic materials (coal AND/OR organic waste) and inorganic materials into useful oils, gas and solids.”

This statement seems to make the same implication:

“While the foregoing specific example relates to the reformation of coal, any other organic or inorganic material may be used, which can be chemically reformed into other products by varying the temperature and the pressure.”

I cannot find any references to coal as an integral and necessary adjunct to other types of feedstock. The writer only seems to have chosen coal as his primary example:

“While a processor constructed in accordance with this invention may be used to process a variety of organic and inorganic materials, the following description of the first embodiment relates to specific examples wherein the material being processed (the process material) is coal and the liquid (the process liquid) mixed with the process material is water.”

As you know, the narrative continues describing the processing of the coal/water slurry.

Later, the writer describes processing other feedstocks, including “most organics” and triglycerides. In the abbreviated descriptions of these processes, the need for coal as an additional material necessary for the TDP process was neither explicitly nor implicitly stated. Coal is mentioned once again in a brief discussion of the use of TDP to remove sulfur from coal.

Granted, I’m not a scientist and I only have a layman’s understanding of most of the academic and technical principles being discussed, but I am a pretty good reader. My impression was that while coal could be used in the process, it was in no way integral to the process. Could you point me towards those portions of the document that lead you to believe that it is?

(By the way, I am referring to US Patent 5,360,553)

I am more than curious DrMac. You really seem to go out of your way to criticize the developers of TDP when you write:

A bit of triva that Discovery article (developers) failed to mention:

According to their Patent, the TDP process ALSO requires an input of anthracite coal as an emulsion in water (steps 10 through 24). They state "The amount of water may be approximately 50 to 100% (mass to mass) of the coal." (detailed description par.2)

DUH!

That's 44 to 88 short tons of high-quality, powered coal per 200 wet tons of 'offal' (with their numbers). Are we to assume that none of the Carbon in this coal ends up in the 600 barrels of oil per 200 wet tons of 'offal'?

From Discovery article:

In Section "Garbage In, Oil Out"
“Feedstock is funneled into a grinder and mixed with water [AND COAL!]to create a slurry that is pumped into the first-stage reactor, where heat and pressure partially break apart long molecular chains.”
______________________________________________

You injected the emphasis [AND COAL!] I read the patent you listed and agree with Lampare. So please tell me where did you get the information that high quality coal is required to process turkey offal?

reinharg:

"However, I realized that I could not be comfortable with 50 in and 100 out." (you too?)

"Where is the missing 50." (my point)

"I know, darkmeat, sorry dr mac I could not resist. (don't be sorry, I like dark meat, humor, puzzles and mystery)

WRT GE vs ME you make a intersting observation- however,
IFNIC reports GE values

IFN Data:
IFN# 5-03-795 Poultry, feathers, hydrolized
DW% 100
GE (kcal/kg) =5,620
Protein, crude (%) = 91.7 Ether extr.= 3.2
Fiber, crude (%) = 1.2 N-free extr. = 0.0
Ash (%) = 3.8
total vitamin content (%) = 1.1
elemental, vitamin & amino acid composition avail. on request
Calc: protein + ash +fiber + vit = 97.8%
Calc: lipid + carbo = 2.2%
Calc: 5,620 kcal/kg => 3.48 bbl crude equiv.

IFN# 5-03-798 Poultry, viscera w/ heads & feet
DW% 100
GE (kcal/kg) =5,080
Protein, crude (%) = 62.0 Ether extr.= 13.2
Fiber, crude (%) = 2.5 N-free extr. = 6.0
Ash (%) = 16.3
total vitamin content (%) = 6.9
elemental, vitamin & amino acid composition avail. on request
Calc: protein + ash +fiber + vit = 87.7%
Calc: lipid + carbo =12.3%
Calc: 5,080 kcal/kg => 3.15 bbl crude equiv. or 3.0 bbl #2 h.o.

For number crunchers:
lipids = 9.4 kcal/g
carbohydrates = 4.1 kcal/g
proteins = 5.6 kcal/g
oxidation of H = 34.5 kcal/g
oxidation of C = 8 kcal/g
oxidation of glucose = 686 kcal/mol
hydrolysis of ATP = 8 kcal/mol

source: http://www.cabi-publishing.org/Bookshop/Readingroom/0851995195/0851995195ch1.pdf

I reiterate: (risking accusation of stating the obvious)

GE = (Ein + Ep) = (Eout + Ep) or Ein = Eout
where:
GE = gross energy
Ein = TDP organic input energy content,
Ep = TDP processing energy requirement,
Eout = TDP organic output energy content,
AND n = any value

Example: If (Ein + Ep) =115; then (Eout+Ep) =115

Discover text statements (IMO) suggests (implies):
If: (Eout-15)/(100+15) =0.85; then Eout = 112.8 (≠, not possible)
or If:(Eout+15)/(100+15) =0.85; then Eout = 135.3 (≠, not possible)
However, If: (Eout +15)/(85 + 15) = 0.85; then Eout = 85 (which is 100% “efficient”)

'my' calculations on values presented by Discover article (IMO)=>

Calc.: Organic Input @ 5,080 kcal/kg = 10.8 million Btu/ DW ton offal
“oil” output of 600 bbl #2 equiv./200 wet tons “waste” (ignoring 10 tons unspecified “gas” energy)
#2 equiv = 43,108 Btu/kg.
43,108 Btu/kg x 136.4 kg/bbl x (600/200) bbl = 17.64 million Btu/ton (offal wet)
17.64/10.8 = 1.63

1 kJ Ein + n kJ Ep => (~1.63 kJ Eout + n kJ Ep); where n = any value
If: Ein =100 and Ep =15; then Eout ≠(163 + Ep) ≠175 (not possible)
If: (Ein + Ep) =115 then (Eout + Ep) = 115; therefore when Ep=15; then Ein =100 =Eout
If: (Ein + Ep) =100 then (Eout + Ep) = 100; therefore when Ep=15; then Ein = 85 =Eout
If: Ein = 100 and Ep = any value (n); then (Eout + nEp) =100 and Eout = (100 – n)

Assuming: Ep = n kJ, and (Eout + Ep) = GE = (1.63 kJ + Ep); then Ein = 1.63 kJ
Calc.: If GE = Eout = Ein = 1.63 kJ; then E content of processed “waste” = approx. 8,280 kcal/kg

So reinharg, Where's the “dark meat”?

Response to Lampere et al:

With respect to the “coal issue” I posted late in the night, I errored in my undue haste. Haste does indeed make ‘waste’. I came across the quotation I cited (unedited from “Detailed Description” section of the US Patent) while searching this large document (using keywords) for water, temperature and pressure information. I read the adjacent sections wrt the coal emulsion/processing and I did not see a qualification statements (caveats) made in this section. My ‘bad’.

I saw where they stated adding coal (in large quantity, as posted) and regrettably, inappropriately concluded “Viola! So that is where the ‘other’ energy is coming from! Mystery solved! Now I can go to bed!” I also provided link (URL) to the full patent documents such as to facilitate informed discussuion.

Assuming, as I now do, that I was incorrect about the coal input issue, I nevertheless continue to puzzle over the validity (‘nature’) of CWT’s claims. The foregoing statement does not suggest that an “efficiency” (regardless of formula applied or value derived) actually affects the probable efficacy of a TDP implementation (for ConAgra or others), a point I have repeatedly attempted to make on this forum.

Please excuse my hasty post as directly resultant to “insufficient information” coupled with the (unwarranted) exhilaration of ‘discovery’. I extend my apology for any confusion this error may have created. It is not my intention of obfuscate the issues being’discussed’ here. I will wager that at least one other forum participant sought out the Patent documents as a direct result of my error – a silver lining so to speak (IMO). This is hardly a valid excuse for poor/sloppy research.

However, my original observation wrt integrity of GE remains unresolved (IMO). I hope that someone can illustrate (to me, for us) any error in judgment or of calculation in what I have presented above with equal civility. I, like all others here, am attempting to understand what CWT/ConAgra is claiming/attempting. Thank You.

The discussion has been very interesting so far, and the energy output calculations notwithstanding, I am most interested in the use of this TDP as a clean-green-technology to solve our planetary waste problems. I can see that DrMac is very concerned about the issues of Thermodynamics and energy but he is also as concerned with - 3rd world exploitation, oil exploration and modern societal damnation...as are most of us...I contend that we have more in common that in opposition in our desires for a clean future...indeed I wonder about any future at all on some days! What is most concerning to me, is the nature of CWT's interest in releasing the license or patents to local municipal cleanup for the use of human prophets, not corporation profits. If you read the bios of the Principals you will see a heavily-corporate group, with one guy having a past Monsanto background changing to recent Nature Conservancy as well as others with major Real Estate interests (Hmmm)
Anyway, these are the signs of Corporate Exploitation that mark this project as potentially another "hands-off, you dirty hippies" type venture - well, at least they didn't buy the patent and bury it (sorry, couldn't resist)
I am rambling - but anyway, David - I tried to post you about biofuels, so perhaps you can post me instead - I am interested in creating a public forum at the Solfest this summer to discuss biofuel, TDP and other current energy sourcing possibilities. I am also going to find a way to visit the Philadelphia plant. Press credentials? Well, why not....

I no longer have the issue of Discover so went back and read the online issue. I wonder if some are trying to hang CWT because of a poorly written article. Only in the caption of the photo of turkey offal does the author write: "Each day 200 tons of turkey offal will be carted to the first industrial-scale thermal depolymerization plant, recently completed in an adjacent lot, and be transformed into various useful products, including 600 barrels of light oil." Note he writes "will." Yet in the write-up of the article he writes that, "The $20 million facility, scheduled to go online any day, is expected to digest more than 200 tons of turkey-processing waste every 24 hours." Note it is now "more than 200 tons." These are the writers words. Then Appel is quoted as saying the plant will make 600 barrels of oil a day. Nowhere is a CWT representative quoted as saying that 200 tons of waste will be turned into 600 barrels of oil. Nowhere on the CWT site is this claim made.

Later in the article numerous examples are given where various 100 pounds of input are converted into different ouputs of oil, gas, carbon, water, etc. I am only guessing but I would suppose these figures come from the company. Perhaps someone with the expertise could try to do the efficiency calculations based on those examples.

http://www.monkeymind.net/test/biodiesel/article_alge.html

Annie, are you referring to my post about biodiesel which happened to be after something written by David? if so, please seek help from the folks at http://forums.biodieselnow.com

oooops! Never mind!

Those examples of various 100 pound inputs of material does not have the input energy, so no efficiency calculations can be made. Let's go back to arguing over uncertain data.

I have been reading all of this 'discussion' about the efficiency claims. I read the article when my copy arrived at my house and I was inthralled with the possibilities. When I read the part about 85% efficiency, I never floundered.

My interpretation of the numbers were not
(Ein-Ep/Eout=85%)
where:
Ein = Btu content of feedstock
Ep = energy required to run process
Eout = energy output of process

I understood the claim of efficiency to be
(Eout - Ep)/Eout = .85

interpreted to be feasible because:
Xin = (Eout) = 100Btu
read: Xin = any value with regards to feedstock needed to produce enough product to achieve an energy potential of 100Btus.

Hence, whatever the amount of feedstock needed, the example from the article indicated that enough product will be output to provide an energy potential of 100 Btu and of that 100 Btu output only 15 Btu will need to be recycled in order to opperate the plant. The entire issue of Btu content of feedstock, etc. is way over my head, but seems irrelevant given my interpretation of the numbers.

In other words, The efficiency claim (IMO) was not a depolymerization efficiency but rather a power efficiency. Regardless of how much potential energy in contained in 200T of turkey offal, only 15% of the resulting product energy is needed to turn the thing on and make it do what it does.

Ok to retract a retraction.

I went and did my homework for the day wrt. GE (gross energy).

What are Ether Extracts
http://www.avs.uidaho.edu/avs305/feedanalysis.htm

WHAT IS A LIPID?
http://www.lipid.co.uk/infores/Lipids/whatlip/

What is a carbohydrate
http://bestlowcarbs.com/article1118.html

What is Crude Fibre
http://www.avs.uidaho.edu/avs305/feedanalysis.htm

Went and did my 101 on the "Bomb Calorimetric" method used to determine GE values.

And my finding and assumptions are:

DM=Dry Mass
EE=Ether Extract ~=Lipids
CP=Crude Protein
Ash=Ash
Carbohydrate=~NFE

and

Carbohydrate = DM - (EE+CP+Ash+CF)

Given the following for offal (from DR Mac and backed by many publications)

DW% 100
GE (kcal/kg) =5,080
Protein, crude (%) = 62.0 Ether extr.= 13.2
Fiber, crude (%) = 2.5 N-free extr. = 6.0
Ash (%) = 16.3

Plugging the data to determine carb content.

carb=100-(13.2+62+16.3+0)
carb=8.5% of DM

Using the energy values as follows

lipids = 9.4 kcal/g
carbohydrates = 4.1 kcal/g
proteins = 5.6 kcal/g

9.4 * 13.2 = 124.08
6.0 * 4.1 = 24.6
5.6 * 62.0 = 347.2

total = 485.88

Accounting for the decimals yeilds 4858.9 kcal/kg

I didn't learn where to put the crude fibre so 2.5% of DM GE is missing.

Conclusion:

"So reinharg, Where's the “dark meat”?"

Dr Mac, "maybe it's in the 11 different herbs and spices" added to the input.

I liked the comment noted "in excess of 200 tons input". Would that translate to what ever it takes.

Look Dr. Mac, the fact remains that you posted something utterly nonsensical, and it looks like you did so to be deliberately misleading.

You seem to have carefully chosen a paragraph to lead to *exactly* the wrong conclusion.

Immediately above that paragraph was another paragraph which completely contradicted your point. I see no way that you could have simply "overlooked" that contradicting paragraph. Reading the patent, I see no way for a reasonably intelligent adult to have missed it.

I'm not trying to say this to insult you. I'm just trying to alert the other readers to the fact that you seem to be debating in bad faith. Like me, they may not want to spend the time and effort to dig through your posts, knowing that they can't be trusted.

This thread is stuck in a rut, discussing useless boring nonsense, and you are working hard to keep it in that rut. I just wonder why.

reinburg: "Would that translate to what ever it takes."

Apparently! STOP

So you and I agree that 200 offal cannot yield 600 bbl#2 + nEproc. ? STOP

Certainly CWT should do quite well on spot market STOP
-when the inputs are worth less than nothing ('disposal' costs $) to ConAgra now. STOP
(ntm regulation, litigation, PR costs of BAU). STOP

I'm so very happy they did this for me (us). STOP

Such a 'good' process in so many ways. STOP
Much potential for CWT, ConAgra etc. STOP
- and indirectly 'us'. STOP
Too bad they 'think'(appear, IMO) that they have to hype it to us. STOP
- or is that make up as they go? STOP

Buy all CAG shares possible ASAP. STOP

Of course TMDEguy, you are right. The "efficiency" they discussed was clearly the power required to process the system, as a percentage of the total energy output.

Yawn. I wonder if this thread will ever get to the real issues....that would be much more interesting.

Like, how corrosive is water at the temperatures and pressures they are claiming? Damned corrosive. I bet their process will run into huge numbers of technical problems once they try to scale it.

I like time zones, seems you can get the last word for the day.
To PhilX, the efficiency of the system wrt. output DOES NOT MATTER "to me".

Conagra is a business
$in=x$out

I have a business. Would I build this system not knowing my input costs. No, because nothing is free!

As for YAWN "real issues" "corrosive water" "technical difficulties". What, been involved at the wrong end of a poorly designed project?

I live in the land of billion dollar oil sands projects. I think these little engineering issues have been solved. This CWT system is really just a baby version. Maintenance is like death and taxes. Plan for it.

If the in's and out's stated can verified, the potential impact may well be understated.

Economic reality is $In = useable energy out.
So far this has held true for:
solar power
solar cells
wind power
tidal power
fossil fuels
geothermal
thermo electric's
fuel cells
Hydro power
Wood fireplaces
Gas fireplaces
etc.

We can only try to fit this in!

reinharg:

Oh yes, I have been at the wrong end of MANY badly designed projects, so I know how much could go wrong.

Yes, oil sands seem like a very similar situation.

One Point:

Remember, again, that the CWT process is using materials coming IN where THEY PAY YOU. Conagra will "pay" to get rid of turkey guts, because it's required that they dispose of them.

Cities will PAY to get rid of human waste.

Polluters will PAY if you can prove you are avoiding greenhouse gases, which I believe CWT can.

So the economics of the CWT process are sweetened a little.

Total income from CWT will equal:

Value of oil and other products + avoided cost of otherwise processing the waste + greenhouse gas credits.

These are all substantial revenues.

What would be interesting from an economic standpoint is to come up with some questimates of the value of this process. For instances, using the figures given in the article (at the grave risk of stirring that pot again)it would be interesting to see what the value of the byproduct may be for different inputs. A reasonable guess at the cost of disposing this input (or buying in the case of heavy oil) and you would have some idea where this process may find its first applications. Anyone with the knowhow care to do a study comparing 100 pounds each of plastic bottles, municipal waste, tires, heavy oil and medical waste?

TO: TMDEguy and Philx
RE: "I understood the claim of efficiency to be (Eout - Ep)/Eout = 85%

1. On this blog, you are in the majority. Congratulations!
2. So, when they stated/wrote, “That means for every 100 Btus in the feedstock . . .” they actually meant to say "output instead, or that they confused “feedstock” and “output”, or that they cannot tell the difference?
3. n/100 = 0.n% (definition of % is “n” divided by 100). So?

If they are returning 100% content of CE as Eout then any value of Ep one could select/have is irrelevant since said value would appropriately be placed (IMO) on both sides of the equation (comes out of one, goes into the other). Therefore, Ein/Eout = 1/1= 1 = 100% recovery = 100% 'efficient’ no matter what value of Ep you have selected.

Those who say (Out a+b – (Out b)/Out a+b where a+b =100 are expressing a fractional relationship between “a” and “b” as a percentage rather than as a ratio. IMO, this is not a measure of ‘efficiency’ wrt the energetics of any system. This is also not an especially useful measure of ‘efficiency’ in an economic sense as mentioned previously by others.

Example 1. This idiosyncratic usage of “efficiency” is (IMO) rather like saying that an apple contains pericarp (exocarp+mesocarp+endocarp), petiole (stem), ovary and seed. The stem, ovary and seeds collectively are, for illustration, =1% of the total mass in the apple, and we ‘choose’ to not ingest them. Therefore, by extension, the apple is then (100-1)/100 = 99% efficient? That may be convenient (or not). It may be considered as 99% edible but 100% of its mass contains energy. I cannot see how it’s relevant to the ‘value’ or energetics of an apple. This merely expresses the fractional relationship of selected aspects (components) of an apple. The apple is not 99% efficient chemically or otherwise (IMO).

Example 2. You go to a bank and borrow $100. The bank charges you a 5% processing fee and 10% annual interest on the loan. You keep the loan 1 year. You pay back the loan. How ‘efficient’ was the money if you received $100 worth of the value in goods and services in exchange? (100 – 15)/100 = 85%??? Have you created ‘value’ by your choices/action/process? What if you had applied the borrowed money to pay off a bill that had a $25 late fee penalty, then how ‘efficient’ was the money to you? If you loose n % or otherwise ‘waste’ a portion or is devalued due to inflation before exchange, then how ‘efficient’ was it for you to have borrowed the money from the bank? You figure it out. Any way you would choose to spend the $100 (or subdivide/categorize one sub unit (say $15) as compared to remainder ($85)) is irrelevant wrt the total value that $100 represents the economy in terms of actual goods and services it could provide (be received). However you may decide to spend or compartmentalize any fraction of the $100 is totally irrelevant wrt the ‘value’ (or “efficiency”) of the currency in the fiscal economy today.

Back to Physics and Chemistry
Some of us here on this blog are speaking of ‘efficiencies’ wrt energy transferences in bio/organic chemistry. TDP takes organic molecules (biomolecules of turkey ‘waste’ as one example), ‘breaks these down’ to ‘simpler’ molecules of hydrocarbons, ‘removes’ the non H and C elements, and assembles hydrocarbon chains into what they (we) call “oil”. This is a chemical process involving the transference (transition) of energy from one set of chemical bond (Enthalpies) arrangements (configuration) to another. This is not ‘creating’ energy or producing ‘efficiency’ (this is a fact). CWT may be creating ‘value’ in a fiscal sense, but this is also a judgment (albeit convention) – an opinion, a valuation – not science or fact. The only ‘opinion’ (valuation) that is relevant in an evaluation of TDP are those held by CWT and CAG wrt its perceived economic efficacy and convenience to them (IMO).

A particular ‘opinion’ may be ubiquitous but this does not make it factual. To say, “I value “a” and devalue “b” therefore ((a + b) – b)/(a+b) = % ‘efficiency’ is absurd nonsense and categorically irrelevant (IMO) when speaking of energy (physics) or chemistry.

Assuming they (CWT, CAG) can use (values) some albeit large fraction of an output may be a (one) measure of economic ‘efficiency’ but this is not relevant wrt the energetics of a chemical process (IMO).
Assuming they can sell 85% of what they get out (for sake of argument) is also a trivial measure (IMO) but not to them.
I agree that this is one means of expressing the percentage of the ‘valued’ fraction to the whole. It does not speak to or relate to "efficiency" in physics or chemistry. This is merely a way of stating that an alleged 15% of the output was used to continue driving the reaction (process). I acknowledge that such ‘measure’ is indeed significant to CWT/ConAgra decision-making wrt TDP.

The TDP process IS applied chemistry and physics. In either discipline Eout/100 is not n% “efficiency” nor is Eout-Ep/100 (IMO). Those of us who function within these disciplines may freely express our perspective; as so may those with a fiscal economic or other bias. However, for another to ‘call us stupid’ or otherwise be intentionally insulting to those of a perspective other than their own is: a) serving no ‘vital’ purpose other than obsessively promoting one’s own self-aggrandizement (at best), and b) adds no perspective or input to the discussion here.

Definition of Efficient, - cy:
There are many conventions of usage associated with the term “efficiency” as previously suggested by David.
There are indeed several definitions of “efficient”, “efficiency” in any dictionary:
I choose (in biochemistry and physics) to mean, “efficiency 2b(2): the ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system to the energy supplied to it.”
Efficiency 2b(1): works for me also but not as well, “the effective operation as measured by a comparison of production with cost (as in energy, time, money).” Ex: TDP#’s; production =(100 –15)=85; Cost = (100+15); ratio = 85/115=74%
CWT/CAG and others may be using “efficient 2: productive of desired effects esp.: productive without waste.”

IMO, ‘efficiency’ of TDP (in chemical/energy terms) is the ratio of Ein to Eout for a given value of Ep.
Or (85+15)/ (100+15) = 100/115=82% when using ‘their’ convenient numbers. IMO, this is not accounting for all inefficiencies.

Thermodynamics:
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Which can also be stated as: energy is conserved and the total energy of a system plus the surroundings is (remains) constant. It can, however, become unavailable for all practical (our) purposes by various mechanisms not addressed here (via 2nd & 3rd laws).
The Second Law states (observes) the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. Complex, ordered arrangements tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. This is known as “Entropy”.
The Third Law states that the entropy of a totally pure, perfectly ordered crystal at 0 Kelvin is equal to 0. We can't actually achieve temperatures of 0K, since quantum mechanics prohibits it. This law speaks to Spontaneity and Entropy
For further definition see: http://www.genchem.net/thermo/laws.html (for example)
Additionally, there are defined Laws in regard to chemical equilibria, physical equilibria, diffusion, kinetics etc.

GIVEN:
TDP is an “open” system meaning both energy and matter are exchanged.
TE = (GE + Eproc) = Eout
Where:
TE = total energy in (of) system
GE = energy content of the organic input
Ein = GE+ Eproc
Eout = (Eoil + Eproc + Eother)
Eproc= (Etemp + Epressure + Efriction + Eelectromechanical + Eheat of reaction + Eother)
Eother = (Eentropy + Eunaccounted, Eresidual in ‘mineral’ fraction, etc.)

Therefore:
TE = Ein = (GE + Eproc) = (Eoil + Eproc + Eother)
TE= (GE + Eother) for any value Ep
(1 GE + 0.15 GE) = 1.15GE = (0.85 GE – (-Eproc) - Eother)
1.0 GE = Eoil + Eother
When:
GE/ton =10.8 Mbtu
Then: Eoil= (10.8 Mbtu – Eother)
If Eother = 0 then GE = Eoil and GE/Eoil =1 =100%
IMO, Eother can never = 0

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that Eother = 0
And compare apples to apples (i.e. btu to btu, kJ to kJ, etc)

CWT states that they produce 600 bbl oil + Eproc from unspecified mass of turkey ‘waste’ > 200 ton including H2O
Calc: 600 bbl # 2ho equiv. x 43,108 btu/kg x 136.4 kg/bbl = 3.53 Billon btu
Therefore GE >= 3.53 B btu = 630 equiv bbl crude = 600 equiv bbl #2ho

When:
Energy content of GE = 5,080 kcal/kg = 20,145.6 btu/kg
Conversions: 1 kcal = 3.96567 btu = 0.708144E-06 equiv. bbl crude
source: http://www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_ene.htm
Then:
3.53 B btu / 20,145.6 btu/kg = DW mass of input = 175,123 kg = 193.1 DW short ton
Assuming moisture content of ‘offal’ is 43.8% (calculated from 21,000 US gal/200 wet ton)
Then 56.2% of the total wet mass is the DW mass of GE input
Therefore: total mass of ‘offal’ input required = 343.64 wet ton
(Note: value of Eproc is irrelevant wrt energy conservation)

If GE mass = 112 DW ton (from 200 wet ton);
then GE >= 8,280 kcal/kg (from a previously posted calculation)

If Eother =0 and Eproc = any value
Then 5,080 kcal input => 5,080 kcal output = 100%
And 8,280 kcal in => 8,280 kcal output = 100%

I can state with 99.9% confidence (statistically speaking) that Eother is not = 0. (e.g. Entropy is real and unavoidable)
We do not know what value (n, or n%) Eother takes (is) in the TDP process as envisioned
IMO, it is likely that CWT does not know Eother precisely either.
They may very well have a ballpark guess based on small-scale experimentation

Opinion:
Someone purporting to be a biochemical/energy ‘expert’ - a technological ‘genius’- (i.e. Appel) who makes public statements that a system is“85% efficient” based on output compartmentalization /division alone is being disingenuous and/or deceptive (IMO) and obviously has an agenda to perpetrate. I suspect this agenda is more money for him (them).
IMO, someone who cannot make the distinction (tell the difference) is not “thinking” but rather engaging in conjecture (fantasizing).
IMO, anyone who chooses to believe this to be a useful measure of either “efficiency” or of “value” is either ignorant, stupid, delusional, or any combination thereof. I recognize that the world is full of such people.

TDP Economics 101:
IMO, it may very well be that the TDP process is the most economically viable (productive) means of disposal of turkey (and other) ‘wastes’. Instead of costing ConAgra say $25/ton in disposal costs (+ regulatory costs + litigation costs + public relations costs, etc) they make money.
Assuming disposal and associated costs to ConAgra = $25/ton (now)
Then the disposal of 343.6 tons currently costs them $8,590 (per day?)
Assuming a barrel of #2ho is $45.00 on the spot market.
1.0957 dollars a gallon (08 Feb. 03) = $46/bbl
600 bbl returns them $27,000 (per day?)
The gain to CWT/ConAgra is ($8,590 + $27, 000) = +$35,590/day (or $102.76/wet ton offal)
If CWT generates $27,000/day worth of oil, then how much can (will) ConAgra charge them for the ‘offal’? Anyone’s guess!
Would anyone care to perhaps attempt to calculate the ‘efficiency’ of disposal in economic terms?

More Opinion:
And CWT/ConAgra/Discover would have us believe that they are doing this for us – for the environment – for humanity?
IMO, when ‘disposal’ by an alternative method is deemed more profitable than the currently employed method, then this is exactly what they will attempt to do (no matter what others may ‘think’ individually or collectively).
Regardless of any n(%) Eproc requirement – or of any calculated contrivance of claimed ‘efficiency’ - this is ‘marketing’ hyperbole (‘blowing smoke’) – and not science.
IMO, the n% Eproc requirement is erroneous and the ‘efficiency’ claim as presented is intentionally deceptive (and effectively so). e.g. an apple is 99% ‘efficient’. \
Yes, they will probably make money (generate wealth) and ‘save the landfills’. Halleluiah!

The above opinion(s) should not be construed by others to suggest (indicate) that I ‘think’ (believe) TDP a ‘wasted’ effort in any other respect. e.g. apples taste good to me.

I post this with an expectation that some set of actors here will ‘pull a Clinton’ and quibble about what the meaning of what “is” is!

dr mac I don't understand the point you are making. Go slow, I am not a scientist. You go through calculations to show that to produce 600 barrels of oil you would need a minimum of 343 wet tons of offal. So far so good. As I pointed out no one at CWT has said that they are turning 200 tons of offal into 600 barrels of oil. But then your next calculation is:

If GE mass = 112 DW ton (from 200 wet ton);
then GE >= 8,280 kcal/kg (from a previously posted calculation)

If Eother =0 and Eproc = any value
Then 5,080 kcal input => 5,080 kcal output = 100%
And 8,280 kcal in => 8,280 kcal output = 100%
_______________________________
I don't follow what this means. Why are you using 200 wet tons again? What do you mean by input = output in these statements?

doc

Your right, they did not say 200 tons. The quotes follows.

"The $20 million facility, scheduled to go online any day, is expected
to digest more than 200 tons of turkey-processing waste every 24 hours."

Based on the known energy value of 5080 kcal/kg, the offal input would be 350 tons/day. Quite a
difference.
Maybe the 200 ton number is the minimum break even, or minimum load to meet efficeincy's. Who knows.

If the input "was" 200 tons/day the energy value of that input would be 8280 kcal/kg.
(which is about the value of pure fat)

Some turkey facts:

The average US tom turkey is grown to 30 lb (an institutional turkey reaches 40lb, when they let them out)
The average dressed weight is 65% or 19.5 lb
That leaves 10.5 lb of offal per bird.

"At the Butterball plant, workers slaughter, pluck, parcook, and package 30,000 turkeys each workday"

So 30000 turkeys @ 10.5lb offal each:

30000 * 10.5lb / 2000 lb = 157.5 tons

See a problem, to get 350 tons of offal my turkeys have got to weigh ~65lbs each. Those are above average turkeys.

On the lighter side you watch for the poultry at the end of this one

http://www.shagrat.net/Html/cows.htm

Thanks reinharg but the real problem is that we simply do not know what the input is for this plant. We have one statement by a reporter that it will process in excess of 200 tons of turkey offal per day. Appel does say the plant will make 600 barrels of oil a day. Was he referring to max capacity? Daily average? Will the plant handle only turkey offal or other materials as well? I agree the numbers do not work out if we just rely on the reporter's numbers. But shouldn't someone get some input numbers before accusing the company of fraud?

doc

If we 'know' Eout then we ‘know’ Ein
- But not necessarily GE exactly.
They are not creating energy.
They are rearranging molecules and atoms
- reorganizing the energy bonds, the physical configuration
- to influence the enthalpy of reaction, the reaction pathways and the reaction properties.
What goes in must come out (minus entropy and spillage)
What comes out must have gone in.
e.g. 5080 = 5080, 8280 = 8280, etc

- Enthalpy: A thermodynamic function of a system, equivalent to the sum of the internal energy of the system plus the product of its volume multiplied by the pressure exerted on it by its surroundings.
- Enthalpy of Reaction: The change of the thermodynamic state function (enthalpy) due to a chemical reaction. The enthalpy of reaction is a feature [component, aspect] of any [all] chemical reactions and of the initial and final states of the system.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/topics/Energy.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/ChemicalReactions.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/chemistry/topics/OrganicChemistry.html

Observation does not = allegation
Opinion does not = fact
Fact does lead to understanding of truth.

doc

The following is from a press release on CWT's website.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/newsfr.htm

"ConAgra Foods was one of the first enterprises to express early interest in the commercial application of CWT's thermal process. A joint venture between the companies was entered into in December 2000 for the first commercial application of the technology for the conversion of poultry offal at one of ConAgra's
large Butterball Turkey plants. When it is commissioned later this month, the $20 million facility in Carthage, Missouri -- funded in part by a $5 million grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency -- will process 200 tons per day of fats, bones, feathers, grease and oils."

So we have beat to death fats, bones and feathers. Note "200 tons per day"

The grease and oils could well be operational wastes. A processing facility that size has a lot of machinery being serviced. As this is a joint venture between conagra and cwt, there is nothing to say that this facility will process only congra waste. I've asked CWT about this so we will see.

DEFINITIONS: “Glossary of Energy Terms” from http://www.electromn.com/glossary/e.htm

"Efficacy - The amount of energy service or useful energy delivered per unit of energy input. Often used in reference to lighting systems, where the visible light output of a luminary is relative to power input; expressed in lumens per Watt; the higher the efficacy value, the higher the energy efficiency."

"Efficiency - Under the First Law of Thermodynamics, efficiency is the ratio of work or energy output to work or energy input, and cannot exceed 100 percent."

"Efficiency - under the Second Law of Thermodynamics is determined by the ratio of the theoretical minimum energy that is required to accomplish a task relative to the energy actually consumed to accomplish the task. Generally, the measured efficiency of a device, as defined by the First Law, will be higher than that defined by the Second Law."

SO:
I can agree that (100-15)/100 = 0.85 efficacy or effective.

If they had said "efficacy" I could not quibble.

The article's use of "efficiency" ignores the 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics.

What comes out MUST have gone in.

What goes in does NOT necessarially come out

TE = (GE + Eproc) = ((Eoil + Eproc) + Eentropy + Emisc)
Example
When GE=100, Eproc=15, Eentropy=1, and Emisc=2
TE = (100+15) = ((85+15) – 1– 2) therefore 97/115 = 0.8435

Econsumed = Eproc
Eproc does not = Eminimum

IMO

A minor point, YES!
Is TDP a 'good' idea? YES

Regardless, 200 wet short ton of "viscera w/heads and feet"(offal)cannot yield 600 bbl #2ho.

Increasing bone content of input will reduce GE/kg, reduce Eoil out, and increase % Eproc

Increasing lipid (fat, oil, wax) content of input will increase GE/kg,increase Eoil out, and decreases % Eproc.

We have been aware for some time, ad nauseum actually, that 200 tons of offal will not produce 600 barrels of oil. But once again no representative of CWT has stated that would occur, we keep making that inference. But if asked directly, what would 200 tons of offal produce? I wonder what the company would say. Well let's take their figures (actually the reporter's) for human offal (we have plenty of that here). 175 pound man produces 38 pounds of oil and 4 pounds of gas. Therefore 200 tons of offal would produce 86,857 lbs of oil or 289 barrels of oil. Feel free to check my math. And 9143 lbs of gas. Amazed at our low gas figure? I sure am. My guess is that is closer to what they would claim and the 600 barrel figure represents a peak production or some future scaling up of the facility.

Notice how the posts in this thread keep getting longer and more convoluted, yet seem to only make the questions more confusing?

Yawn.

On a more interesting note, I've contacted a couple local waste treatment departments of major cities...they are going to visit Philadelphia to to get a look at the CWT claims and process. I may wangle a trip with them. The only way to judge the validity or potential of this type of process is to meet the developers in person.

Here is an interesting article from the NY Times today. You may have to sign up to get access. But it is a well worthwhile freebie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/health/11HOGS.html?pagewanted=1&th

As hog farming has turned from family farming to large scale operations the waste has become a nightmare. As attempts have been made to protect groundwater the result is now reported to be airborne toxins in the form of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. The very fact that these are now large industrial operations makes the solution of the problem with TDP more feasible. So despite the "efficacy" arguments it is the pressing disposal problems that may cause TDP to become widespread.

For those of us in Alaska it doesn't matter as much just what the true efficiency of the process is. We have many bush Alaska villages which have no sanitary sewer processing at all and water contamination is is a major problem. If flush toilets are available at all, pipes have to be above ground due to permafrost, in ground composting is so slow as to be non-existant, and many places still have 'honey buckets' collected, pured into oil barrels and put out on the ocean ice to disappear with summer break-up. We deal with third world sanitary conditions and resultant dieases. Just to have a way to render sewage and other human/animal-generated waste non-pathogenic would be wonderful. If the process was just break-even it would still be extermely valuable! Fuel costs are very high in bush Alaska. If the process could just fuel itself we would be delighted.

Reinharg, I read your calculations again and I see you're making a good faith effort to come up with the numbers. So let me tell you where I see the problems.

Basically, you guys have done pages of calculations without talking about the potential error factors. The error factors in your calcs are huge, and the CWT process falls well within the range.

For example:

1. Dry Weight. Your entire calculation is based on the assumption that 200 tons of offal yields 112 tons of dry weight. YOu then multiply that DW with the GE of turkey offal (which you're showing as about 5,000 per kg).

The problem is, you're making an unsupported assumption. The DW of the turkey offal cannot be calculated by subtracting the 88 tons of end-product water.

- DW as it is used in the offal energy calculation is DESSICATED dry weight. That is totally different from the water that comes from CHEMIAL BREAKDOWN of the polymer. Polymers contain all kinds of OH strands that would NOT come out in dessication but WOULD come out in depolymerization.

- Plus, how do you know that the 200 tons of offal weren't already somewhat dessicated, from processing? Again, that would raise the effecive DW of the offal.

So let's assume an error ratio of +- 30% on the DW of the turkey offal. The DW of 200 tons might be as high as 150 tons.

2. Composition of Turkey Offal. How do we know that the Conagra turkeys aren't just VERY fatty turkeys? That could increase their polymer content greatly. +- 20%

3. Selection of the Turkey Offal. Maybe the CWT people are going to screen the offal to make sure that their 200 tons is the oilyest and juicest offal, that will yield the best oil output. I sure as hell would, and so would anybody. That's not deceptive, it's just good engineering. +- 20%

Add up these error factors, using YOUR calculations, and it is perfectly conceivable that CWT can squeeze 600 bbls of oil out of 200 tons of turkey.

Is that a best-case scenerio? Yeah, probably. Is there anything deceptive or inappropriate about CWT advertising their best-case scenerio? Of course not.

It's ridiculous to come on this board and make wild accusations about CWT's "deceptive" claims---especially when you base your accusations on sloppy calculations.

RE: Swine Manure

http://www.age.uiuc.edu/bee/research/tcc/tccpaper1.htm

"In this preliminary [1998] study, 8.5% of volatile solids were converted to a low quality oil-like product. We are in the process of increasing the oil production from the TCC process. Many researchers have employed liquefaction, one type of TCC process, to increase the yields of oil from different types of biomass (Appell et al., 1980; Datta and McAuliffe, 1993) by applying reductive compounds (e.g., hydrogen and carbon monoxide) to the de-oxygenation process. In our next stage research, we will use hydrogen and/or carbon monoxide as reductants to increase oil production.

SUMMARY
A preliminary study on the TCC process of swine manure has been carried out with aims of reducing swine waste and odor emission, and producing oil. A TCC bench processor has been developed and tested. COD levels of the swine manure sludge were reduced by 94%. Approximately 8.5% of the volatile solid were converted into oil product. The preliminary results show that the TCC technology has the potential to be applied to swine manure treatment. Further studies are in process to explore the optimum operating conditions for maximum oil production and waste/odor reduction."

"The extracted oils showed an average Heat Value of 30,500 kJ/kg."

At 8.5% TVS => 2,293 kJ/ton manure
= 5.7% equiv bbl #2h.o./ton swine manure

#2h.o. = 45,481 kJ/kg

WRT Third World, Alaska, and municiple sewerage treatment applications of CWT/TDP: look up "proprietary"and "patent".

Reinharg:

One of the first after-school jobs I held was working on the cleanup crew at a local turkey processing plant, so I feel I can speak with some authority on the apparent discrepancy between the number of birds killed each day (and their expected offal yield) and the number of tons of waste that ConAgra intends to process daily through TDP.

Your calculations seem to be based on the assumption that ConAgra is taking live birds in one end of the building and shipping out whole dressed birds out the other. As was implied by the Discover article (some remark was made referring to the perpetual aroma of Thanksgiving Day hanging over the city) the plant in question is probably producing processed meat products in addition to whole birds. And as we all know, most manufacturing processes produce waste of one sort or another. In this case, I would assume the additional tonnage is made up of skin, bones and fat discarded during the manufacture and cooking of processed turkey products. In addition, you would probably have waste from other food ingredients used in the plant. I imagine there could be other subsidiary waste streams being figured into the total, such as shipping dunnage, packaging material, waste paper from the lunchroom, and shredded Skull and Bones newsletters from the executive suite. Considering all the crap your typical factory spews into the environment, I find the figures cited in the article to be within the limits of plausibility.

Back to that after school gig at the turkey factory…one of my regular duties was cleaning the “Blood Tunnel”. Imagine a serpentine (following the path of the over head conveyor from which the unfortunate poultry was suspended) mound of jellied turkey blood three feet high meandering in twenty foot loops through a dank smelly concrete block room. Wearing hip boots and wielding industrial-size squeegees, we would push the gruesome jello into a drain that lead to the plant’s septic system. And on a busy day our plant only killed 10,000 birds. Kind of gives me a personal appreciation for the potential benefits of TDP.

Thanks Lampare, that was the final nail in the coffin.

You made me think about this: In a CAG turkey plant, I would think they are cooking turkey meat, and de-fatting turkey meat, since the majority of turkey sold during the year is cooked or fat-free.

If that's the case, we could assume that might be:

- drippings from cooked turkey
- fat stripped out of turkey meat
- cooking oil and other wastes (as you pointed out)

All these drippings and fats are probably thrown into the "mix" going to the TDP process. And those drippings and fats are almost pure oil. They would boost the oil output a lot.

Again, if you were a smart engineer designing your first demo TDP plant, wouldn't you "go for" the highest-quality fattyest raw materials you could get your hands on? Heck yes.

So this is what we've established:

1. It's absolutely plausible for CWT to get 600 bbls a day out of 200 tons of turkey offal at a typical plant. Reinharg's calculations, with some modest error factors, and with the realization that CWT will certainly choose the highest quality raw material, easily lead us to that number.

2. If they don't get 600 bbls a day in large-scale production, maybe they only get 500 bbl a day or 400 bbl a day, that's fine, it doesn't make the CWT process any less a breakthrough. No industrial process runs at perfect efficiency, and we don't expect them to.

3. We should be careful with our calculations

4. We shouldn't be so quick to fling around accusations that CWT's claims are "deceptive". Let's strive for understanding and discussion of the TDP science, and avoid wild finger-pointing.

Lampare: I bet that job sticks in your mind. I was raised on a farm and 4-H basic's are processing plant tours
on a regular basis. These tours were to give us an appreciation of the process, and what "dressed weight" entails.
I have been trying to get a handle on the facilties waste stream that may be included in the TDP input.
Yes, my assumption was live turkey in, roasting turkey out. I know, never assume!

Philx: I agree. I have done your calculations, but didn't post because of lack of info in the published data.

I am wrong to suggest that a "Butterball turkey facility" produces only " Average Butterball turkey's". Indeed,
roasting turkey's are usually only sold in quantity during thanksgiving and xmas.

One scenario I ran or embodied "patent lingo":

"parcooked" suggests that this facility will be producing some % of processed turkey.
IE, boneless and fat reduced.

I try to stick to average or mean for quantities in the 30000 range.

So Average dressed weight could be as low as 40%. Offal @ 60%

Using "instutional turkeys" @ 40lbs = .6 * 40 = 24lbs/bird offal

24lb * 30000 / 2000 = 360 tons wet offal.

From that 360 tons CWT could pick and choose the choicest 200 tons.

As to "ridiculous" "wild accusations" "deceptive" "sloppy", oh well. I will just keep trying to determine
reasonable process variables in support of CWT. I like their idea. Thru this board I have a far better understanding
of TDP than when I first read the Discovery article. I will continue to assUme some of the data is extrapolated and
not yet proven. We wouldn't want to think the data on the 175 man was based on live trials.

We may have to live with the 175 pound man trial. The company sure is tight lipped about everything. Tried calling again and only got shunted into voice mail. Checking the FAQ on their web site: Due to the propietary nature of their plants, no tours are offered and all information regarding costs and economics are confidential. 200 tons of human offal doesn't get us even close to 600 barrels but maybe their figures were for a lean man and didn't account for the fact that 30 percent of adults are not just overweight but obese.

Perhaps they picked someone with a very high fat-to-weight ratio. You know, that test where they float you in a pool of water...

Oh and Reinharg, I apologize..the "sloppy" "wild accusations" part certainly wasn't referring to you.

Cheers!

PS. CWT is being tight-lipped because they are convinced that they are going to make a zillion billion dollars. Unfortunately this tends to make people clamp down and clutch their "secrets" to themselves, which, of course, is a sure fire way to encourage competitors to bypass your patents.

Personally I hope that 100 other smart researchers in the US, asia, and europe start improving on this idea.

From the past posts it looks like a gallon of oil weighs roughly 5.5 lbs. Therefore 600 bbls would weigh around 90 tons (600x55x5.5/2000). That seems resonable from an input of 200 tons.

I agree CWT being tight lipped may come from the fact it might be relatively easy to get around their patents. Since TDP is an old process they may also be worried that the patents could be invalidated due to prior art.

You people can forget whether this process helps global warming since that is an environmental fraud. What is intresting is whether this is a process that will make efficient use of oil shale which could make the US/Canada energy independant again.

In my opinion, the idea of "energy independence" based on fossil fuels is wholly unrealistic.

If overseas oil shipments are restricted in the future -- whether due to OPEC action, war, or some other event -- then worldwide oil prices will rise, no matter how much oil we're pumping out of the ground (or converting) here in the US. To assume otherwise would be to assume that US energy producers would look at rising world prices and say, "If we're selling our oil to Americans, we're going to sell at below-world-market prices." That's laughable.

I agree that total energy independence based on fossil fuels is probably unrealistic, even in the long term (the next century) due to increased usage world-wide both as a result of increased populations and advancements in quality-of-life in the third-world.

However, as this technology is implimented worldwide, the stranglehold that the major oil producers have will be greatly diminished.

Every country in the world _must_ use TDP just to keep from being buried in its own waste.

Each TDP unit that comes on-line results in more autonomy and less dependence on the outside. This is a strong incentive for any country to forge ahead with this technology.

There is no doubt in my mind that TDP marks the dawn of a radically new world - one that should see less conflict - especially as soon as the decline in petro dollar funding causes the terrorists to look for honest employment.

Too bad we won't live long enough to see the fruition - sigh.

And the bad news:

www.newsociety.com/News/oilgarb.html

Wasted Daze

I have not read all of the above, but I read through about the first half. I just would like to make a few observations:

-The oil industry will not lose out... who else already has the infrastructure distribute the output from TDP plants? If the fat cats that run the oil companies had a single brain cell to share among themselves, they would be trying to replace every sewage treatment plant in the US with a TDP plant. Besides, the people who now work at oil refineries would be eminently qualified to run a TDP plant, perhaps with a few hours or tens of hours of training.

-Who really cares if this process is 85% efficient? If it operates at better than break-even, it's worth developing. This process sounds as though it does much better than break-even... and beyond that, it can process waste streams that we don't otherwise know how to deal with effectively in a manner that is viable LONG TERM.

-Those of you like dr mac who are falling all over themselves to make TDP out to be a hoax sound just like the idiots who in the 1800's pooh-poohed the notion of rail travel, insisting that the human body could not survive travel at over 25MPH. Why don't you(plural) sit the F___ down, shut the F___ up, go for a ride and see for yourself? If it's that important to you to prove TDP isn't viable, take a ride down to the plant and prove it. Most of us see hope in this, and the rest of you running around trying to convince everyone that the earth is flat just make yourselves look stupid.

Wasted Daze:

I don’t place much stock in the article you cited (“And the bad news: www.newsociety.com/News/oilgarb.html”). It is essentially a PR blurb put out by New Society Publishers to support the marketing of a book by one of their house hacks, anti-oil activist Richard Heinberg. One begins to suspect an agenda when a writer uses charged phrases and insider jargon like “the Empire”, “the depletion curve” and “global oil peak”

Mr. Heinberg’s main point seems to be that most of the energy embodied in the waste processed through TDP had its origin in fossil fuels and, because of this, TDP will ultimately do nothing to slow the “depletion curve” and stave off the “global oil peak”. Heinberg conveniently fails to mention that the process, as advertised, will allow the exploitation of previously uneconomical sources of energy, such as tar sands, oil shale, turkey guts, discarded toaster ovens, and toxic waste from Area 51. And it will essentially turn landfills into oil fields. I wonder why Heinberg stops at the fossil fuel point in the energy cycle. When it comes right down to it, aren’t fossil fuels composed of the remains of plants and other organisms that ultimately derived their energy from the sun? So, if you faithfully follow the energy path back to it’s genesis on Earth, you have to conclude that TDP will actually be recycling SOLAR ENERGY! If this isn’t the Holy Grail of the Birkenstock and hemp cloth crowd I don’t know what is.

Seriously though, I think Heinberg is being disingenuous in his criticism of TDP. He whines that the oil produced through TDP will not completely replace fossil fuels and mewls that TDP will only(?!) increase the efficiency of our energy usage. I get the feeling that he would scoff at any solution embraced by Big Business, regardless of its merits. He seems to dismiss the entire process since it isn’t a complete solution. This is like advocating throwing out a piece of a jigsaw puzzle because it doesn’t contain the entire picture.

"but over the long haul it cannot overcome the downward momentum of overall energy availability"

another statement that shows his bias. No one can predict the future but I see possibilities. If the "efficacy" of the process is as advertised then economics will cause people to exploit the process for profit. Which by the way should have the car manufacturers strongly supporting this as much as the black helicopter people theorize that the oil companies will subvert it.

It may be that crop waste is better plowed back into the ground than transported for processing. But suppose there is a rapid growing plant, requiring one planting, no care except occasional fertilizing and continual havesting. Maybe something like kudzu in the south. Or maybe a multistep process where cuttings are treated with bacteria or some other agent then processed. The point is that there has been no incentive for society to look in that direction. Even if nothing like that is found, the ability to deal with waste products will drive this development in the near term.

Maybe someone from the oil patch can comment. You invest $20 million in a facility that produces 600 barrels a day of refined oil (important point). Let's say that translates into 300x600=180,000 barrels of refined oil per year. How does that compare to current development costs?

Sorry to be disjointed in my posts but the refined oil seems to me to be a very big point. I remember from somewhere that no refineries have been built in the US in over 10 years. They represent a critical bottleneck in our energy availability. If someone familiar with the economics could comment on the value added by either eliminating or reducing the amount of refining needed with TDP produced oil.

Poultry data http://www.co.merced.ca.us/ag/croprpt01/livestock%20and%20poultry%20production.htm
2001
US produced 3.544 Million turkeys
avg live weight = 26.26 lb/bird
Assume 'waste'/bird @ 35% and averages 5080 kJ/kg
Total industry'waste'/year = 16,286 ton/yr

US produced 81 M chickens and 1.75 M misc poultry
avg live weight = 5.19 lb/bird
Assume 'waste'/bird @ 35% and averages 5080 kJ/kg
Total industry 'waste'/year = 75.158 ton/yr

Assume 1 ton 'waste' yields 3.15 bbl crude equiv. (big assumption)
Therefore:
Total 'Waste' above yields 288,049 bbl crude equiv./year

US oil consumption in 2001 was 19.7 million bbl/DAY (many sources including DOE)

Total Poultry 'Waste' recovered as oil (max) = 14.6% of one days usage.

2001, the United States imported 30 quadrillion Btu of energy and exported 4 quadrillion Btu.(DOE)

Correction: ALL poultry waste/YR = 1.46 % ONE DAYS USE

2001
US transportation used 69% of all oil consumed

An increase in overall fuel economy in US of 0.004% (0.00004/100) would 'save' energy equivalent to all annual poultry waste in US if 100% was TDP'd according to Hoyle.

An average fuel economy increase for all motor vehicles operating in US of 0.058% would 'save' energy equivalent to all annual poultry waste in US if 100% was TDP'd

This equates to a national average fuel economy inceasing from 24.50 mpg in 2001 to 24.514 mpg in future.

What is your point? Poultry is a very small part of total agricultural waste. I don't think anyone is claiming that processed poultry waste will solve our energy problems.

But an even more important question since you have had trouble presenting facts in the past. Why are using the poultry production figures of one county in California, in this case Merced, and trying to portray it as total US production? The more you post the more agenda driven you appear.

RETACTION of two former posts

was not Total US production statistics

You are so good at educating us. Okay so you screwed up again. You just have to get that desire to "dis" this process under control. But still, even with your suspect statistics, what point were you trying to make?

Doc - I saw my error as soon as I posted. Big error? Yes? However, it should be obvious that I am attempting to put the "oil" potential from TDP in context of total US energy (oil) usage. I failed to find US production statistics for poultry (despite searching same). Maybe you can find total US poultry production to your liking?

Or, consider multiplying Merced County output by factor of 1000 (1000 such countys). Still, this process does not begin to wean us from dependence on oil inputs as some here have asserted and as CNN has reported this date.

WRT other livestock - the vast majority of these 'wastes' are already used for other products. Every heard of meat byproducts or pet food for example? With cattle, every posssible fraction has a value in the current economy. Same is probably true for hogs.

So what are you contributing to this TDP foment. Just nay-saying and insult? Were you perhaps retained by CWT to monitor the internet chat they generated? You can bet someone is.

"Maybe you can find total US poultry production to your liking?"

Sorry, you are the one with the agenda, not me. Do your own work. What I have seen mentioned is that if ALL agricultural waste was processed by TDP the output would match current current oil imports.

"Doc - I saw my error as soon as I posted."

Oh really? You posted first at 7:26. Even tried to further strengthen your argument (as false as it was) at 8:02. I posted your mistake at 8:10 and you then retracted at 8:18. Do you think I just fell off the offal truck? Do you really believe what you write?

"So what are you contributing to this TDP foment. Just nay-saying and insult? Were you perhaps retained by CWT to monitor the internet chat they generated? You can bet someone is."

Good lord, man. Do you always project onto others what you so plainly do? And if you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger.

received my reply from cwt.

My question:

"Wrt. the facility currently being built. Will it only be processing the
animal byproducts, or will the system be reprocessing operational wastes
such as oils,greases, etc., as well"

Reply:

"Thank you for your interest. We will be processing the wastes coming from
the slaughterhouse e.g, blood, bones, feathers, meat. the plant will also
process the sludge produced."

A more realistic interview about TDP @
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/health/5641957.htm

As to last posts:

US annual's

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/pbh-bbp/plva0403.txt

poultry production

http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/pth-bbt/tuky0103.txt

turkeys

http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldp-mbb/2003/ldpm106f.pdf

Totals meat (a bit of a read)

My 2 bits worth.........

consumption page 7 @ 221lb/ person / year

Say 300lb live weight/ person

@65% dressed

leaves about 100lb waste/person meat consumption only.

through tpd would make about 40lbs #2oil/person each year. What's that? 8 gal's.

if the US daily oil consumption is 19.7mil bbl/day (Crude?)
then per person is .065 bbl/day (300mil people?)
or 3.6 gal per day per person. ~2gal #2

That get's to 3 or 4 days consumption. Certainly the right direction.

have at'er.

Doc - you may have nothing better to do than sit here and critic others. Fine. I do have plenty else going on than to wait on your drivle. You still contribute no information whatsoever. Nothing offered therefore no opportunity to error.

You said, "What I have seen mentioned is that if ALL agricultural waste was processed by TDP the output would match current current oil imports."

No source given. Of course you can't error with hearsay and fanciful conjecture without attribution. I suppose some peole will believe anything.

Reinharg obviously got my point. Nice attempt to put this in some perspective.

"Just converting all the U.S. agricultural waste into oil and gas would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. In 2001 the United States imported 4.2 billion barrels of oil."

I will go one step better. This is from the original article in Discover that got this all started. I am not "critic others" just your falacious postings. I don't damage your credibility....there is no way for me to compete with your own efforts.

I drivel.....you distort and darn if it doesn't appear quite intentional.

in case anyone (e.g. Doc) missed any of my previous stated bias

IMO

Does TDP 'produce' oil? YES

IS it energy 'efficient'? YES

Is it economical? YES, great potential for CWT/CAG

Can it be evaluated on info available? NO

Do their numbers work out? NO

Does it slow landfill closures? YES

Is it a 'good' use for this rescource? YES

Does it stink less than rotting? YES
Who said the only option is the landfill anyway?

Is TDP "new"? NO
Appel has published since at least 1990- As have others. The chemistry has been known for at least 50 years.

Is TDP patent valid? YES

Can the patent be circumvented? Probably. but not without $ and a fight.

Will CWT allow others access to the technology and so be benefited? Doubtful

Will it solve US oil dependence? NO, barely a dent. Many other technolgies have more potential.

Will it "Change" the "World"? NO - not like they project (hype). On one hand everything changes and every contribution (thing) has an effect.

WRT the world energy/resource utilization, well that won't change until (unless) we change.

Yes, and thanks, we all know where you are coming from. Just spare us the attempts to undermine the discussion of TDP's pros and cons with your false postings. So while I didn't miss any of your postings which showed your bias I also didn't miss any of your criticisms of or pedantic writings directed at others. Your humble poster included. While I am always willing to accept when someone acknowledges a mistake both your big ones have attempted to discredit TDP's value. Both would not have been discovered had someone not taken the effort to check up on you. Even when I did you tried to distort (nay, I think any rational person can see a lie) by trying to have us believe you immediately recognized your error. Help me believe in your credibility, tell me how you could make such a mistake about poultry production and when it was pointed out try hard not to take responsibility? So just in case you missed my previous post:

"Doc - I saw my error as soon as I posted."

Oh really? You posted first at 7:26. Even tried to further strengthen your argument (as false as it was) at 8:02. I posted your mistake at 8:10 and you then retracted at 8:18. Do you think I just fell off the offal truck? Do you really believe what you write?

Doc, Please believe whatever pleases you to believe. I have made two significant errors of haste and from sloppy research - not from spite or malicious intent. I have also contributed several valid observations/contributions to this blog. You have made no contriution whatsoever except for excercisng your ego and obvious prejudice against those you attempt an analysis. So What? What makes you thing I give a ___ what you think anyway. I am ever more convinced you are a CWT PR want-to-be. But So what? Hey, if it weren't for my admitted mistakes you'd have nothing else to do in life - so be happy.

Ahhh drmac, you are a classic. Continue to dodge responsibility if you want. You really are a piece of work. You castigate someone and accuse them of fraud because they use the word efficiency intead of efficacy. They of course aren't here to respond to your accusations. But your intellectual dishonesty is very clear. You claimed to see your error as soon as you posted. Why then did you post again, even more certain of your data 30 minutes later?

"You have made no contriution whatsoever except for excercisng your ego and obvious prejudice against those you attempt an analysis."

My BIG contribution to this board is exposing how you distort and falsify. While I would like to take credit it was someone else who first checked your false statements about the patent and called your honesty into question. The way you put people down only motivated me to check what you printed after that.

First I would like to thank Frank for his efforts in maintaining this.

I was directed here yesterday when I brought up this subject on a message board, where I said` to someone I would read the link. I have just finished. Ouch!!! It was long and at times tiresome to do in one sitting. I am in no mood to kind to Dr. Mac. But overall I remain excited.

The reason, I am peeved at Dr. Mac, being that he has stated a negative, based on science, and insisted that it is up to others to disprove his negative.

Even in the face of different areas of human endeavors, using different measures, having been pointed out, he has insisted in making the world come to him. That stubbornness has not only confused the entire discussion, but his original, and reasonable, question has been lost in his defense of its validity as its being the one most critical question. It is not.

At the end of the day, the efficiency of this process will be measured in the international unit of energy procurement, US Dollars.

However, in fairness Dr. Mac, the thermodynamics do need to reasoned out. There is not enough information given to so, and if there is an apparent shortfall, the efficient thing to have done would be to assume the facts given are correct, and find the shortfall.

Now, when I first read the article, I was excited. However, early on, they mentioned methane production in a positive light, and I thought, here is the rub.

Methane is a waste product in so many systems, including me. It is always sited by dreamers as the answer to all our energy problems. But it is too hard to collect in commercial volumes, transport and it burns cool relative to alternative gases, so it is always just a waste product. It is "flared off" at the oil refineries and at the well- heads, because, well…. that says all that needs being said about its commercial efficiency. (I wonder if oil refineries would measure up to your standards, Dr. Mac?}

However, later on in the article it became clear that the methane produced in the process was utilized on site. Eureka, the missing BTUs.

The methane does not exist as it enters the system in the form of feed stock, it is produced as a by product, recycled as energy back into the system and thus does not show up on the "E in" side of the equation, but its effects, relative to the overall process, is present when "E out" is measured.

Were it not recycled back, as the energy needed to make the process work, the overall equation have to account for methane produced, wouldn’t it? Does it, according to your figures, Dr. Mac?

That is my theory, stated positively, so the scientific method can be utilized, properly, to disprove it, if I am wrong.

On to the politics of it: Those who worry about economic displacement being a result of using alternatives to imported oil are what were called, at the turn of the last century, "anti-progressive". If I may be forgiven for generalizing, if these people were not coming from a conservative point of view, and the terms having taken on polarizing political connotations, making it appear to be an oxymoron, one might say these generally conservative free marketers, are being anti America to hope this process works. Why should ever trust OPEC again?

If these same people ever take a free market position on another issue, then they are being hypocritical now. The health of the American economy comes first; let the benefits of that trickle down to rest of the world. That is current philosophy, in all things economic, except energy independence, isn't it?

Besides, compared to other alternative energy schemes, the domestic effect is minimal and the net effect, beyond a better balance of payments, would be job creation in America, where the wealth that matters, is created. Just as job creation is key to the current Tax Cut Plan, the jobs potential, American jobs, that shifting to this would create, must go the positive side of the economic and political equation.

This being, because, until all foreign oil imports were replaced, there would be no logical reason to reduce our domestic production, would there?

Meanwhile third world country would absorb the imported production we now consume, as the price fell so they could afford it, or at least if oil is really a free market item. If not, why worry about OPEC? In a free market the chips fall where they will, and to Blazes with a protective overseas cartel. What is anyone's problem with American energy running America?

But America is less of free market then anyone wants to admit. The things we proud of are often government funded, like NASA, the Interstate Highway system and the nuclear industry. The present waste water treatment plant are Federally mandated, and if, and only if, this is as positive a idea as it appears, then there is reason on earth that it should not become the waste water treatment standard for America. It pays after all.

That brings me back to science, sewerage and heavy metals. Heavy metals are only an issue when they escape into the environment. Relative to this process, the only fair measure of how much of an issue heavy metals would be is if they were introduced into the environment at a greater rate then is currently accepted with sewage sludge.

My feeling is they might be extracted by simple chemistry as they would be concentrated in an ore of mostly carbon wouldn't they? What is market price of mercury? Forgive me, I am getting ahead of myself, but could someone with a better knowledge of industrial chemistry comment?

200 tons of turkey innards have an energy content of about 1,888,920 Btus. 600 barrels of light "golden oil" has an energy content of about 3,661,416,000 Btus or about 2000 times the energy provided by the innards. Must we rewrite the laws of thermodynamics (and common sense)? Remember, energy can not be created. Each time you transform it you lose a little or a bunch.
Folks, the principals are all stock brokers with political ties. The turkeys they will process will be govermental agencies giving grants and perhaps a few greedy wealthy people weak in basic science. Cheers

John, could you cite the sources for your figures? They are at odds with what others have posted above. 200 tons of turkey offal should have an energy content of approximately 3,500,000,000 BTUs or slightly less than the BTU content of 600 barrels of oil.

Once again, this blogs’ “CWT-spy” (“Doc”) criticizes others (selectively) but provides no information himself- while misrepresenting efforts made by others (valid or not). He eagerly ascribes a nefarious purpose/intent to those who challenge a Discover/CWT claim.

First, he can’t even read (or use a calculator). His last post states “200 tons of turkey offal should have an energy content of approximately 3,500,000,000 BTUs or slightly less than the BTU content of 600 barrels of oil.”

However: prior calculations (also see below) have indicated that 200 wet tons ‘offal’ could potentially yield 2.047 B Btu at 100% ‘efficiency’. At 85% ‘efficiency’ (aka, less “gas” aka Eproc) this yields 1.74 B Btu, which equates to 266.42 bbl #2 h.o. (@ 6,530,862 btu/bbl)

Second: “Doc” conveniently ignores “MoJoJo’s” post where he claims oil has a mass of 5.5 lb/gal and that a barrel contains 55 gallons and therefore the weights (mass) stated by CWT somehow works out!

FYI: 1 barrel crude = 136.4 kg = 300.76 lb and contains 42 US gallons (energy content below).
Density of L.S. Crude is therefore 7.16 lb/US gal. (Irrelevant to energy calculations).
FYI 1 barrel #2 (medium) heating oil = 151.5 kg and contains 42 US gallons (energy content below).
Density of #2 h.o. is therefore 7.954 lb/US gal. (Irrelevant to energy calculations).

Third: Doc conveniently ignores “Gee’s” post. When most of us are attempting to find where the alleged ‘extra’ energy is coming from in the TDP/Discover numbers, Gee is out looking for a mysterious ‘missing’ energy.

When a post to this Blog makes an assertion that conveniently meshes with “Doc’s” pro-CWT prejudice, he categorically ignores the obvious errors therein. When a post questions, challenges or refutes a claim made by CWT, “Doc” merely resorts to insulting the messenger (whether correct or incorrect). It is also curious that he asks others for their references but never provides any himself. I suggest to “Doc” that he either do his own research/calculations (with sourcing info) or continue to ‘believe’ whatever he wishes, but to cease insulting those who make a good-faith effort to analysis the potential impact of TDP/CWT on the US energy economy.

’Good-faith’ calculations of TDP (with reference sources):
Energy content of poultry ‘offal’ = 5,080 kcal/DW kg = 20,145.6 btu/DW kg (source: International Network of Feed Information Center (INFIC))
Conversions: 1 kcal = 3.96567 Btu = 0.708144E-06 equiv. bbl crude (source: http://www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_ene.htm)
And 5080 kcal = 0.00359742634 bbl crude equiv.
When 200 Wet ton ‘waste’=> 112 DW ton input = 224,000 lb = 101,587.3 kg
At 100% recovery = 101,587.3 kg X 0.00359742634 = 365.453 bbl crude equiv. (or 3.262 bbl/DW ton or 1.827 bbl/wet ton)
And 365.5 bbl crude equiv. = 313.7 bbl #2 equiv. http://www.processassociates.com/process/basics/oil_vw.htm

Crude oil (light sweet) =136.4 kg/bbl and 0.56E+07 btu/bbl = 41,100 btu/kg
# 2 (medium) heating oil equiv. = 43,108 btu/kg x 151.5 kg/bbl = 6,530,863 btu/bbl
( source: http://www.processassociates.com/process/basics/oil_vw.htm)

From above: 3.262 bbl crude equiv./DW ton = 2.8 bbl #2 h.o. equiv./DW ton (at 100% recovery)
At 85% recovery => 2.77 bbl crude equiv./wet ton or 2.38 bbl#2 equiv/wet ton

Organic Input (GE) @ 5,080 kcal/kg = 20,145.6 btu/kg = 18.273 million btu/ DW ton ‘offal’
100% of 18.73 M btu/DW ton X 112 DW ton = 2.047 B Btu
Doc: Please notice that 2,046,537,143 does NOT equal 3,500,000,000
Assuming recovery ‘efficiency’ of 0.85: net Energy recovered = 2.047 B Btu X 0.85 = 1.74 B Btu/112 DW ton (200 Wet ton)
Note: 1.74 does NOT equal 3.50
CWT states that they produce 600 bbl #2 oil equiv.+ Eproc (of 15%) from an unspecified mass of turkey ‘waste’ > 200 ton including H2O
Calc: 600 bbl #2 h.o. equiv. x 43,108 btu/kg x 151.5 kg/bbl = (600X 6.531 M btu/bbl)= 3.81852 B btu = 681.5 equiv. bbl crude
DW mass of input = 3.81852 B btu / 20,145.6 btu/kg = 189,546 DW kg = 209 DW short ton
Assuming moisture content of ‘offal’ is 43.8% (calculated from Discover/CWT statement of 21,000 US gal/200 wet ton)
Then 56.2% of the total wet mass is the DW mass of GE input

Therefore: (based on “standard units and measure”) mass of wet ‘offal’ input required for claimed 85% output = 372+ wet ton ‘offal’ Therefore: (0.85 Eoil out + o.15 Eproc) = (372 wet ton + 65.65 wet ton) = 437.65 wet ton ‘offal’ input for 600 bbl#2 equiv +15% Eproc

TOTAL US POULTRY ‘WASTE’ CONVERSION
TDP of All Poultry ‘waste’, in theory:
100% annual US poultry production: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/poultry/pbh-bbp/plva0403.txt
Poultry production statistics (US, 2002)
Chickens: 44.1 Billion lbs; assuming 65% dressed weight => 7,717,500 tons ‘waste’/yr (= 7.0 B kg)
Turkey: 7.41 Billion lbs; assuming 65% dressed weight =>1,296,750 tons ‘waste’/yr (= 1.177 B kg)
Total ‘waste’ = 8,176,190,476 kg/yr Doc: if you don’t like USDA’s numbers and/or multiplication, then make up your own

Total ‘waste’ @ 5080 kcal/kg (average) = 4.1535E+13 kcal = 1.647143E+14 Btu
Recovery of 85% => 1.4E+14 Btu = 24,974,340 bbl crude equiv. (= 21,437,775 bbl #2 h.o. equiv.)
100% recovery => 3.26 bbl crude equiv./ wet ton or 2.8 bbl #2 h.o. equiv/wet ton
85% recovery => 2.77 bbl crude equiv./wet ton or 2.38 bbl#2 h.o. equiv/wet ton

US DOE reports US oil consumption in 2002 was 19.7 M bbl/day (7.2 B bbl/year) and represents 40% US energy usage
24.974 M bbl crude equiv. from all poultry ‘waste’ /19.7 = 126.8% of ONE DAYS oil consumption in US
= 0.347% annual oil use.
= 0.139% US Energy consumption/year (a ‘positive’ direction)

Some Further Perspective on Energy
”Good energy crops have a very high yield of dry material per unit of land (dry tonnes/hectare). A high yield reduces land requirements and lowers the cost of producing energy from biomass. Similarly, the amount of energy which can be produced from a biomass crop must be less than the amount of energy required to grow the crop. In some circumstances like the heavily mechanized corn farms in the U.S. midwest, the amount of ethanol which can be recovered from the corn is barely larger than the fuel required for tractors, fertilizers, and processing.” [ Not-to-mention, the energy required to extract/transport ore and refine metals etc.; to manufacture, ship, operate and maintain machinery or the energy represented by the fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides applied to the crops. Others (World Watch Institute) have estimated that US agricultural practices use at least one barrel of oil ($25-30) and perhaps more to produce each bushel of grain ($6-8) and deliver it to our store shelves.]

“Using recycled material as the feed-stock for manufacturing consumes far less energy than manufacturing items from virgin (raw) materials.”

“Producing new plastic from recycled material uses only two-thirds of the energy required for manufacturing them from raw materials.” (TDP’d plastics costs US energy)

“Recycled paper requires 64% less energy than making paper from virgin wood pulp, and can save a lot of trees.” (TDP’d paper costs US energy)

“Retreading automobile and truck tires uses only about 30% of the energy required to produce a new tire and can provide 80% of the mileage.” .” (TDP’d tires costs US energy)

“The most effective method of reducing the amount of energy consumed by the manufacturing sector of our economy is to reduce the amount of unnecessary products produced, and to reuse items in their original form wherever possible.”

“The simplest, cheapest [most efficacious] and most common method of obtaining energy from biomass is direct combustion.” (14% of global energy use in 2002 was from combusted biomass fuels (DOE/IEA))

“Pyrolysis, used to produce charcoal since the dawn of civilization, is still the most common thermochemical conversion of biomass to commercial fuel.” (TDP is basically ‘fancy’ pyrolysis.)

“Anaerobic digestion of biomass has been practiced for almost a century, and is very popular in many developing countries such as China and India.” [and throughout Africa] (Turkey guts, etc. is great ‘digest’ input material.)

“An ever-increasing number of people on this planet are faced with hunger and starvation. It has been argued that the use of land to grow fuel crops [includes grain for livestock] will increase this problem. Hunger in developing countries, however, is far more complex than just a lack of agricultural land. Many countries in the world today, such as the U.S., have food surpluses. Much fertile agricultural land is also used to grow tobacco, flowers, food for domestic pets and other "luxury" items, rather than staple foods. Similarly, a significant proportion of agricultural land is used to grow feed for animals to support the highly wasteful, meat-centered diet of the industrialized world. By feeding grain to livestock we end up with only about 10% of the caloric content of the grain.”
Above quotes from http://www.iclei.org/EFACTS/BIOMASS.HTM

From World Watch Institute 1997
“It takes 7 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of beef: the conversion is 4 to 1 for pork and 2 to 1 for chicken.” “36 percent of the world's grain goes to feed livestock and poultry, inefficient converters of grain. …industrial nations, where nearly 70 percent of grain is fed to livestock.” Oh! I checked other sources for FCR data, which confirm WWI’s reported values (rounded average)

“Food grains [including animal feeds] now contain between 4 and 10 calories of fossil fuel for every 1 calorie of solar energy”
AKA: 1 cal radiation + 4 cal ‘oil’ => 5 cal grain TO 1 cal rad. + 10 cal oil => 11 cal grain
(source: http://www.sharelynx.net/Papers/TheComingOilCrashAndYou.htm

"Food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods (including packaging and delivery) now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. It has been estimated that about four percent of the nation's energy budget is used to grow food, while about 10 to 13 percent is needed to put it on our plates. In other words, a staggering total of 17 percent of America's energy budget is consumed by agriculture! " p. 172, BEYOND OIL, Gever et al.; Univ. Pr. Colorado 1991.

Example:
(2 kcal solar radiation via photosynthesis + 8 to 20 kcal ‘oil’ energy) => 10 to 22 kcal grain (feed) => 5-11 kcal live poultry => don’t ‘believe’ this either, well – do your research

Feed conversion ratios (FCR) for feed-lot cattle ranges 6:1 to 9:1, industrial swine about 4:1 to 5:1, factory poultry 2:1 to 2.5:1

FYI: Freshwater finfish FCR from 0.85:1 to 1.2:1 “Save OIL, Eat FISH !” yeah! Aquaculture!
(Examples: Carp 0.85:1 to 1:1, Tilapia and Catfish 0.9:1 to 1.1:1, Salmonids 1.1:1 to 1.2 :1)

“Each kilo of meat represents several [many] kilos of grain, either corn [soybean] and/or wheat, that could be consumed directly by humans. If the 670 million tons of the world's grain used for feed were reduced by just 10 percent, this would free up 67 million tons of grain, enough to sustain 225 million people or keep up with world population growth for the next three years. If each American reduced his or her meat consumption by only 5 percent, roughly equivalent to eating one less dish of meat each weak, 7.5 million tons of grain [and more ‘oil’] would be saved; enough to feed 25 million people - roughly the number estimated to go hungry in the United States each day.” (World Watch Institute, 1977)

Either reducing US poultry production by approx. 3% or increasing the fraction actually consumed by approx. 3% (or 1.5% each) would ‘save’ as much fossil fuel energy as TDP can theoretically produce from the total current poultry 'waste' resource. Alternatively, a tiny fractional reduction in beef consumption or a minor increase in fish consumption per capita would ‘save’ as much oil as TDP could envision ‘producing’ (not that it is ‘bad’ for CWT to do this). However, making an inherently inefficient, sustainable production system a few percentage points less ‘inefficient’ (which is a ‘good’ thing) is NOT going to “Change the World”. That will require a much greater collective, consistent effort. IMO.

The average automobile engine is 20% efficient in converting gasoline heat energy into mechanical work. (or 24 mpg (DOE))
(Source http://www.sharelynx.net/Papers/TheComingOilCrashAndYou.htm)

69% of oil consumed in US is for transport (DOE).
An increase to 21% avg. efficient engines (to 25.2 mpg) would ‘save’ 343 M bbl/yr (or 14 times 100% TDP poultry ‘oil’ capacity)

"Future food" [is now] being consumed by using gasoline in [inefficient] vehicles:
“Gasoline consumed ‘now' will deprive future agriculture of energy required for producing food.
Here's how much future food a 30 m.p.g vehicle is "eating" now
Bread, 1 kg loaf = 6 miles= one slice per 422 yards
Beef, 1 kg = consumed by driving 76.2 miles
Canned corn 1 kg= consumed by driving 5.4 miles” http://www.sharelynx.net/Papers/TheComingOilCrashAndYou.htm

Third World country’s have long known and used anaerobic digestion (and direct combustion) to extract energy from organic wastes and will continue to do so as it’s known and simpler technology, a much cheaper capital investment with lower processing costs and is much more readily decentralized than TDP could be envisioned particularly considering the proprietary nature of CWT’s technology and its US patent. If CAG really has been disposing of their poultry ‘waste’ by dumping it in a landfill then they are criminally stupid IMO (which I tend to doubt). TDP is not a long waited panacea for ‘our’ energy woes or the path to sustainability but rather a more economic means for CAG et al. to extract greater financial value from their products and reduce our exposure to their corporate waste stream (‘good’). They are not creating energy.

HOWEVER: 24.974 M bbl crude equiv. from ALL poultry ‘waste’ at $30/bbl = $749,230,000/year (income potential, all to CWT)

And TDP/CWT is going to “Change The World”?
Yep, they will produce a few more Billionaires by continuing to creatively manipulate a totally unsustainable process (and us).

”If biomass is to supply a greater proportion of the world's energy needs in the future, the challenge will be to produce biomass sustainably and [then] to convert and use it without harming the natural environment.” Taking a tiny fraction of 17% of US total energy demand (for agriculture, which is itself far less than 10-20% energy ‘efficient’) and increasing said ‘efficiency’ by a few percent is not going to begin addressing US energy security concerns or sustainability, IMO. TDP could potentially be developed as a small step in the ‘right’ direction’ on a very long road.

If you ‘really’ want to ‘save’ oil, Then:
- Eat less beef, pork, lamb and poultry (or less beef/pork and more poultry).
- Eat more fish (not from oceanic catch), fruit, veggies, and whole grains.
- Shop smart. Eat what’s on your plate. Give scraps to pets. Etc.
- Use energy efficient appliances and light bulbs. Use wisely.
- Turn down heat and AC (use sweaters and fans). Insulate.
- Install solar water heater, photovoltaics and/or wind generator.
- Ride a bike sometime. Park the SUV (e.g. car pool, even 1 day/wk)
- Reuse/Recycle your waste stream. Buy recycled products.
- Etc.
You’ll be richer (and healthier) for it - and the landfills not as full – and CAG won’t be quite so ‘fat’.

drmac what hypocrisy on your part.

"He eagerly ascribes a nefarious purpose/intent to those who challenge a Discover/CWT claim."

I challenge you to show me where I did that to anyone other than you. You claimed sloppy research twice as a defense. I can accept that but in presenting that defense the second time you lied. You still haven't responded to that. You just keep changing the subject. Care to show us why you claimed, "Doc - I saw my error as soon as I posted.", but then posted again to strengthen your point 30 minutes later? A hypocrite and a liar? Should anyone be surprised?

"First, he can’t even read (or use a calculator)." My, my...aren't we condescending. But then that describes many of your posts. No, I didn't use a calculator. The figure was just eyeballed from the dry weight. When there is a descrepancy of some 2000 times does 50% or 100% matter? Since we don't even know how much will be processed daily why are you so apoplectic? Wouldn't it be better to ask someone how they got from point A to point B? Like I did of John, rather than the name calling you engaged in?

I posted at 05:54 PM MSST
"doc" replied a 07:25 PM EDST (it is 05:56 PMhere now)
Thats 1 minute people!

I do not explain to anyone (esp. to Doc) how I use my time or what I may or may not have doing during his "obsessed" 30 min. gap between two of my former posts. Too funny!

He is apparently sitting here ready to pounce on anyone who does not think as he seems to that CWT is the new "Savior" and the cure to what ails us! Ha ha ha. Hope he is being paid well.

Oh drmac, drmac, drmac. You are simply amazing!

"I posted at 05:54 PM MSST
"doc" replied a 07:25 PM EDST (it is 05:56 PMhere now)
Thats 1 minute people!"

You only see what you want to see. Seems you don't know anything about time. It is 5:56 there now but look at your post time.....7:32! Get a grip man! You really are losing it. This should post about 7:55 and it is not even close to that time here. Do you understand yet?

Your in a different timezone idiot.

and I know a waste of my time (and yours) when I see it

Yes, I am in a different time zone. But do you see your posting time? Do you see how your post times are two hours after your actual time? Of course you do. Now explain to the people how you could have claimed to post at 5:54 your time when the posted time is..... Posted by: dr mac at May 19, 2003 05:54 PM . Now that is EDT. I am the idiot, so explain to us, in simple terms, how you can have one post where the time is local but all other posts seem to be EDT?

Is this your habitual sloppiness? Do they have therapy for that? Or did this idiot catch you lying again? :-)

drdiatribe (can I call you that?)

Waste of time? Not when one gets to expose a pompous ass such as yourself. With your social graces one can only hope you live alone.

Please explain the above discrepancy for everyone. Wouldn't one need to embrace the concept of reversible time flow to have accomplished what you did? But what does entropy (you do love beating us over the head with it) have to say about reversible time? ;-)

Unfortunately I have to leave for a few days. But drdiatribe this has really been fun. So when I get back I sure hope to see your explanation. People really deserve to know if you are sloppy or lying. I know taking responsibility is not your bag but, come on, bite the bullet. Who knows, you might even learn something from this.

It still comes out to between 90 and 100 tons. So whats your point.

One (1) pound of turkey contains 1190 calories or 4.7 Btus.
It takes one calorie to heat 1 gram 1 degree C.
The process requires the temp. to be 600 degrees F or 500 degrees F (260 degrees C)above an assumed ambient of 100 degrees F. there are 453.6 grams in a pound.
Thus it takes 553.6 grams X 260 degrees or 117,780 calories to get one pound of turkey up to the required 600 degrees F for depolymerization. This would require the heat of 99 burning turkeys to depolymerize one turkey.

Remember; the principals are out to nab government grants or depolymerize a few bucks from the unwary.

PS A general rule is that the best way to recover energy from waste is to burn it in a power plant with out going to the trouble of violating every known thermodynamic principal and then lying about it with clever jargon.

As Phil X has said,
1. It's absolutely plausible for CWT to get 600 bbls a day out of 200 tons of turkey offal at a typical plant. Reinharg's calculations, with some modest error factors, and with the realization that CWT will certainly choose the highest quality raw material, easily lead us to that number.
2. We should be careful with our calculations
3. We shouldn't be so quick to fling around accusations that CWT's claims are "deceptive". Let's strive for understanding and discussion of the TDP science, and avoid wild finger-pointing.

And DR Mac speaks,

Third: Doc conveniently ignores “Gee’s” post. When most of us are attempting to find where the alleged ‘extra’ energy is coming from in the TDP/Discover numbers, Gee is out looking for a mysterious ‘missing’ energy.

While Dr Mac, is on his fifth or six method of calculating how the material in can’t reach the material out and , basing his figures, at first, on dried poultry waste as used in live stock feed and now every other close material as per his engineering library, none of the figures are worth anything.

They ignore what is the stated as the difference in this process, the water and all the wet material is used for its fill chemical potential in the process and then the water is removed at no cost in terms of energy loss.

Traditional thinking is this:

PS: A general rule is that the best way to recover energy from waste is to burn it in a power plant with out going to the trouble of violating every known thermodynamic principal and then lying about it with clever jargon.Posted by: John Gasell

But that can only be done once the water is removed, or it will not burn, will it? So in extracting the water, by what, heat is the only way, be it forced or plain evaporation, how much other chemical energy is being removed, as well, and what happens to the overall efficiency?

However this is how it is done, so this is how it must be done, according to some. The same type who said, get a horse and man can't fly.

If you boil off the water, to get any wet material to a burnable dry condition, have you not also boiled off anything that is LESS VOLATILE THEN WATER? That is a lot of chemical mass and lot of chemical energy lost to conventional thinking and negativity, isn’t it, Dr Mac?

But you know there is a solution, sharpen your pencil, assume the 600 barrel estimate is the correct projected output, and work back from that and then we can see if the chemicals, all those liquids and gasses that are less volatile then water (given that I am trying to shake up conventional thinking, I love saying that, less volatile then water) and let’s see what is missing. Lets’s see if the energy out is reasonable. Dry weight vs, wet wiegh might find a place in this, but it is not traditional engineering is it?

How much more potential chemical engery is in blood compared to blood meal? Got the figures on that, Dr Mac.

Lapare and phil X have already addressed this:

Back to that after school gig at the turkey factory…one of my regular duties was cleaning the “Blood Tunnel”. Imagine a serpentine (following the path of the over head conveyor from which the unfortunate poultry was suspended) mound of jellied turkey blood three feet high meandering in twenty foot loops through a dank smelly concrete block room. Wearing hip boots and wielding industrial-size squeegees, we would push the gruesome jello into a drain that lead to the plant’s septic system. And on a busy day our plant only killed 10,000 birds. Kind of gives me a personal appreciation for the potential benefits of TDP.

You made me think about this: In a CAG turkey plant, I would think they are cooking turkey meat, and de-fatting turkey meat, since the majority of turkey sold during the year is cooked or fat-free.
If that's the case, we could assume that might be:
- drippings from cooked turkey
- fat stripped out of turkey meat
- cooking oil and other wastes (as you pointed out)
All these drippings and fats are probably thrown into the "mix" going to the TDP process. And those drippings and fats are almost pure oil. They would boost the oil output a lot.

Again, if you were a smart engineer designing your first demo TDP plant, wouldn't you "go for" the highest-quality fattyest raw materials you could get your hands on? Heck yes.

While there is no point in questioning your contention that the facts of thermodynamics are unquestionable, Dr Mac, there is also the undeniable fact that your math will work equally well in both directions, if it is correct in the first place.

You would be wise cover your position on this subject, as the pilot plant is the ultimate proof. If this process were my intellectual property, and I was confident in it, I would be wishing for and waiting for someone like you, wouldn’t I? Feed him too little information, let him go on and on, and then prove him wrong, with facts on the ground. It is great PR for this company.

Likewise there is little question that the article is not a scientific publication, but again the proof is in the pilot plant isn’t it?

I have some questions about the overall process myself. I have just looked and can’t find who said it, but someone who supports your position, Dr Mac, said that there seemed to be to too little gas, overall.

I wondered about that and think that the gas accounted for is the waste gas only, and methane, which there could be a lot of, (it could even be maximized just by managing the handling of the raw material for it production) is not even accounted for at all, relative to your methods.

Even though I know Dr Mac does not accept the alternative energy method of calculations of energy efficiency, being the purist he is, it is logical that the methane producted is not a factor in that method.

It is accounted for in that method, only as a cost saving, really, one that contributes to the overall cost effiecency of the useful products produced. This being, as it is consumed as energy to fuel the process, that it is the heat, the calories, that boil the water and does not need to be listed in the output of products produced, as it is not available to be used at the end of the process, and therefore is not a net economic gain or a diosposial waste cost.

On the surface this might appear to support Dr Mac’s contention as it is more energy that HE does not account for, but just because it is so much fun to say, I have to explain that is because it is less volatile then water, and his method assume it is losted energy, worse that is was never even available, as it was too wet to burn when he wants to do his measuring, beig tied up in a wet slimey mass.

As to : Some Further Perspective on Energy… “Food grains [including animal feeds] now contain between 4 and 10 calories of fossil fuel for every 1 calorie of solar energy” AKA: 1 cal radiation + 4 cal ‘oil’ => 5 cal grain TO 1 cal rad. + 10 cal oil => 11 cal grain …. Either reducing US poultry production by approx. 3% or increasing the fraction actually consumed by approx. 3% (or 1.5% each) would ‘save’ as much fossil fuel energy as TDP can theoretically produce from the total current poultry 'waste' resource…. And on and on….

Thinking no one will, all be it that, no one should have to, point out the simple fact that does not change the fact there are tons and tons of slippery slimey turkey guts sitting there anyway, no matter what would be more energy efficient, or how many Btu's of which kind of energy it took to get them there.

The egocentricity to try to sweep 200 tons of turkey guts under the rug, because you are losing a silly argument, is outrageous.

So to not use it would be to what, bury it? This whole tirade is sad. People have generally just mentioned the issues of commercial valued added by saving the cost of disposal of this waste, in passing, as you are focused on the mass and energy flow,it is disingenuous to throw that back in their faces, now.

The argument will be settled when the plant is in operation. Some of our motivation for being optimistic about this may well be political and liberal, but what is wrong with using US energy before importing it?

Moreover except for your egocentricity and negative attitude, which you are very good at, by the way, what are your motivations for hoping it doesn’t work?

As to your used of "Either reducing US poultry production by approx. 3% or increasing the fraction actually consumed by approx. 3% (or 1.5% each) would ‘save’ as much fossil fuel energy as TDP" as an argument just has me dieing to know how you would come down on the argument, “yeah, we, anyone interest in American energy issues, knows that already, and what is more; a concerted effort to conserve energy could could end our need for imported oil tomorrow. All it would take is the life style changes like you have advocated above. Especially driving smaller cars.”

The reason that this is so interesting, is that you sound so much like the nay-sayers in that discussion, and hearing that from a nay-sayer is really novel, in enrgy discussions.

GEE! You completely ignored the first two paragraphs containing the "meat" of my calculations. These are published numbers easily verified on line.
I would ask you to get additional details from Changing World Technologies or Ex CIA James Woolsey as I have. You will get NOTHING in reply.
Why? Because it's all voodo science and a ploy to sell stock to the unwary.
Now to the PS. Assume the guts are dried. The energy content of the dried guts is the same (1109 calories per pound. Mix them with sand...still the same, eat them, still the same. You can not create energy PERIOD. That is why ALL processes have an energy balance; except the fraudlent ones.

"dr mac" never said TDP was a 'bad' idea, either in theory or practice - quite the contrary. Repeatedly! It could well be ‘advantageous’ (economic and otherwise) in specific applications.

Prior calculations (math) are not 'his math' (as Gee suggests) or anyone else’s math. Math is math. Multiplication, division, etc. (Excel, calculators, equation) 'work'. Starting with the givens (e.g. known (proven) energy content of organic molecules and of outputs) one cannot extract 600 bbl #2 equiv. energy from 200 wet ton of poultry 'offal'. Wishing it could be otherwise won't make it happen no matter how cleverly one markets a hoped for scenario. The energy value of all organic molecules is well known to chemists and cannot be changed by convenience. Energy cannot be created or destroy. The mass (“Gee”, that means weight) of the material in question is irrelevant to energy conservation in chemistry. This is not some sort of fission or fusion process.

Sure TDP works. It is well known chemistry. The values provided in Discover article for input(s) and output(s) just do not equate. Either 'direction'. Nevertheless, even assuming 600 bbl out would require at least 350 wet tons input, CWT/CAG would create tremendous 'wealth' nevertheless. Fine! Business as usual.

An obvious implication in the 'constructed' Discover article was that "Eproc" = 15% = "energy content of "gas"(10 tons) produced". The 15% “dr mac” keeps subtracting from output and adding to input to balance (conserve) the energy ('he' also assumes zero entropy loss); therefore, Eproc is the "gas" which "Gee" alleges "dr mac" forgot.

The vast majority of this Eproc "gas" is Methane. Anaerobic bacteria 'produce' methane as 'waste' product of their metabolism of organic 'wastes'. The world has known this for at least hundred years. This has been widely used (exploited) around the world - for many decades. Bacteria 'do there thing' on a 24/7 basis and with a small fraction of TDP capital investment, without a patent, with almost 0% Eproc, without 'fancy' pyrolysis and without BS marketing/PR hype. Bacteria do not have a Union or principals, stockholders, or consultants (ex-CIA or otherwise). Bacteria are extremely 'efficient'. Bacteria do not get wealthier.

Ignorance is the mother of devotion. (Robert Burton)

Disorder increases with time because we measure time in the direction in which disorder increases. (Stephen Hawking)

REQUESTING REDIRECTION.

Slightly in keeping with topic( the reason to process animal waste) CANADA has been hit with the latest case of mad cow's, and the "mad" people to go with them. A roving CWT TDP would be busy right about now.

Would any of the fine reader's know of a blog for this one. The possibility of 3 million cows and the feed to host them, being suddenly avalaible, must be being discussed somewhere.

My apologize's Mr. Boosman for the off topic request.

reinharg- good point

Just for fun:

3,000,000 cattle
X 1,260 lb ea (USDA)
= 3,780,000,000 lb cattle
= 1.71612E+12 g cattle
avg cal/g LW @1350 cal/g (1.35 kcal)
= 2.31676E+15* cal (cattle)
FCR=7:1 (X 7)
= 1.62173E+16* cal (feed)
cal oil/cal grain 6:1 (X 6)
= 9.7304E+16* cal ('oil' for feed)
-------------
9.96208E+16* total cal (cattle + 'oil' for feed)

crude =5,606,040 btu/bbl
X 252.16 cal/btu
= 1,413,643,717 cal/bbl
9.96208E+16/1,413,643,717
= 70,470,915* bbl crude equiv. ?????

* Not to be considered as "fact"

Cattle slaughtered in US approx 3 million/month (USDA)

Gassell,
So your saying that ConAgra/CWT are in collusion to build a 20 million dollar TDP plant so they can sell stock then show the process is a fraud and then do what? Short it so when it crashes a few people in the know can make some money? Come on. Plus you completely ignore the fact that the steam generated at the end of the process is sent back to the beginning to preheat the incoming stream. Your calcs assume all incoming material is at "room temp".

Oh ya, I forgot to add CWT is a privately held company you can't by stock in it anyway.

DrM. Not quite a redirect but...

Thing's that make you go ummm in the night.

I think that the 3mil is Alberta only. Will check.

Cann't correlate so fast but my calc's for biomass energy conversions suggest equally out of wack #'s.

"chilly dog"

IF 350 ton offal
= > 600 bbl#2
then 200 ton offal/day
= 343 bbl#2/day

@ $45 bbl #2
= > $15,429 $/day
x 5 $77,143 $/wk
x 50 $3,857,143 $/yr

IF 200 ton offal/day
= > 600 bbl#2/day

@ $45 bbl #2
= $27,000 $/day
x 5 $135,000 $/wk
x 50 $6,750,000 $/yr

Not all $20 M capital costs are out of pocket (e.g. grants)
All capital costs will be depreciated
Operating costs assumed less than current disposal cost

That's completely irrelevent. However the thing is financed doesn't matter. When it's finished the plant will have a "value" of 20 million dollars according to the article. All of which according to Gessell is to perpetrate a fraud. That's just stupid.

chilly dog: It works like this. A firm like CWT spins a "Break Through" process description and "demonstration" that appears to the uneducated to be a new scientific process. In reality it is a very well known process not in common use because other processes are more efficient. Usually the figures cited are bogus and that is where the secrecy comes in. Name dropping is always used. It is probally true Woolsey said "this might lessen dependence on foreign oil". The X CIA man has no technical expertise and little other experience in the real world. Then there is the clossal returns of mega barrels of "light Golden Oil" made from turkey discarded turkey guts.
OK, CWT claims it is closed to investors, but the SEC will allow wealthy investors meeting minimum net worth (about $1MM) and income (about $200K/yr) to be unregistered stock holders. They even allow about two dozen poor folks to invest. Other than this means of infusing cash into a organization they must issue registered stock in which case they can not lie about the returns etc under penalty of fines and jail time.
I contacted EPA and they did give a $5MM grant to Con Agra in 2001. The contractor was not CWT.
The grant was given inorder to correct polution and not to make "600 barrels of oil". As a by product I imagine some yellow liquid was condensed out of the system but very little.
As noted before ,gentlemen, there is simply not much energy in turkey guts to reclain substantial energy. Turkey guts are mostly water.
During the early 1990s the big deal was making ester (for diesel fuel) out of used fry oil. All of the tricks noted above were used. The only problem it was cheaper to make the methyl-ester out of virgin soy bean oil. The product using either raw material sells for much more than diesel per gallon and contains less btus. Politicans joined the program and subsidised some of the production. I have asked USDA,DOE, and the Biodiesel associations for the name of a farmer,processor, or trucker using this fuel. There are none. It cost to much. If they were forced to buy it biodiesel production would become history.
There are very few recycling processes that are economically attractive. Be on guard!
John Gasell
PS: Why not E-mail Julie Gelfand at CWT

jgelfand@hldcreative.com

Ask lots of questions!

Welcome John.

This blog is in dire need of regular injectons of sanity/reality (rational/informed thought). IMO.

Don't give up the 'good' fight!

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Phillip K. Dick)

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." (Albert Einstein)

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." (E.F. Schumacher)

"Ignorance is the mother of devotion." (Robert Burton)

TANSTAAFL

John,

The calories you refer to in one pound of turkey are actually kilocalories, a convention we use when dealing with food. The calories to heat are actual calories. Not only does that mean only about one-tength of a turkey is needed to raise the turkey in your example to the necessary temp but when we account for the recycled hot water, even less is required.

Also I am amazed that we keep trying to push this calculation of 200 tons into 600 barrels. As I have written repeatedly, no one from CWT has specifically said that 200 tons of offal will be turned into 600 barrels of oil. So why the wild speculation which leads to accusations? The CEO did say the plant would produce 600 barrels. A news release said the plant would process 200 tons a day. And this is the key point, not just offal! One reporter said more than 200 tons a day. So let's compromise and agree it will produce 400 barrels a day. Can we move on? You can see why I asked where you got your figures. It was simply too big a discrepancy.

That said I do think TDP will find limited use, only because I don't have enough information. But I am guessing this is a volume sensitve process. Animal waste has a much higher caloric content than plant waste. That would imply much larger systems (with then higher capital costs) processing plant waste to produce the same amount of oil from animal waste. That is why I asked about kudzu some time ago. I thought I read once where the plant had a high oil content. If plants could be engineered to have high oil or fat content then maybe the niche for TDP would expand. Currently I can only see waste that has a high caloric density or high disposal cost being processed this way.

BTW, we are the major exporter of turkey offal to China. This suggests that until all nations ban the use of recycled animals in feed there will be other ways of disposing it....for profit.

I think the "decrease dependance on foriegn oil" comment includes the "alleged" fact that the process can be used on tar sands and shales, plastics, coal, baby diapers, plant fiber and other types of carbon containing wastes. It's not just about turkey guts. Maybe the guts are just about more efficient and less costly disposal but there has been little or no analysis of these other potential raw materials.

Yes, chilly you are right. But what gets me more excited about TDP is the relatively neutral effect it has on adding CO2 to the atmosphere. That is unless we discover that more CO2 is needed to prevent the next ice age.

And of course this process may have a future that will take off with other developments. The trouble is that until the economics of TDP is known and its efficacy, there will be less of a drive to invest in developments that could use it. For instance developing fat laden plants. Then growing our way to energy indepence would be the best of both possible worlds. So I am hopeful. If this can work I hope these guys become billionaires which will only happen if it revolutionizes they way we do things. They made the effort, they deserve it. They will make chump change if this is all hype.

John,

Trying to remember more about calories versus food Calories. The convention tries to prevent confusion by refering to food Calories always capitalized. Hope this helps.

For Doc:

From Exploring Food Magazine Vol. 14 #4 1990

In my undergraduate biophysics physics course at MIT, Professor George Benedek burned a peanut. That may not sound impressive, but it was. Professor Benedek stood in the front of a small 50 seat lecture hall. He was a middle age man who had the build of a swimmer under a tweed suit, and he always wore white socks. He held the peanut in a loop of wire made from a bent paper clip and held the bent paper clip in a pair of pliers. He positioned the peanut under a test tube which contained ten grams of water.

Beneath the peanut was a large pan filled with water. A very large fire extinguisher stood on the floor nearby. I thought the fire extinguisher was excessive for a single peanut. For that matter, so was the pan of water.

Then professor Benedek set the peanut on fire. The peanut burned, and burned, and burned, and then burned some more. Drops of flaming oil oozed from the nut and dripped into the pan of water. The water in the test tube started to boil. When the peanut finally burned out, there were only eight grams of water left. Not only had the peanut heated the water from room temperature to 100 degrees Celsius, it had also boiled away two grams of water.

Heat flowed from that burning peanut as combustion converted the hidden chemical energy stored in the nut into the easily measured energy of heat flow. When you eat a peanut, your body does the same sort of thing: it converts the energy stored in the peanut into the energy it needs to keep running. As professor Benedek's demonstration showed, a little bit of food stores a great deal of energy in its chemical bonds.

Heat from "warm water or return steam". When making an energy balance it simply equating energy in Vs. energy out. If you like your turkey guts hot OK: but heat the "golden oil" also! JG

Help me John,

What is the point you were trying to make with that story? The only point I was making is that by recycling the heated water less energy is needed in the heating process. Less, but that is not the main point. In your calculation you used calories when referring to the energy content of the turkey. Do you agree those are 1190 kilocalories not 1190 calories? Do you agree then it would take far less than the 99 turkeys to heat one turkey that you claimed? If not please show me where I may have it wrong.

For Doc: MY BAD!
You were right about the food calories nomeclature. I will have to recalculate the ennergy balance but it still seems like there is a huge excess of energy recovered Vs. energy contained in the raw material.
I took a lot of effort to find this!

Although the metric unit of energy is the joule, heat is commonly also measured in units called calories (there are about 4.19 joules in a calorie), or in larger units called Calories (note the capital C). A Calorie is 1000 calories, and should always be called a kilocalorie, but it is common practice in food labeling and nutritional references to simply call it a Calorie. The food Calorie is the kilocalorie

“Doc” states, “As I have written repeatedly, no one from CWT has specifically said that 200 tons of offal will be turned into 600 barrels of oil. So why the wild speculation which leads to accusations?”
He assumes that CWT had zero input to or editing opportunity in the Discover article and also did not review/proof the pre-press copy.

Discover (CWT) Statement A:
Subtitle, “Technological savvy could turn 600 million tons of turkey guts and other waste into 4 billion barrels of light Texas crude each year.”
Oh Really?
NOTE: 600 M ton/yr = 1,643,836 ton/day (or 8,220 times “200”)
NOTE: 4 B bbl/yr/600 M wet ton = 6.67 bbl crude/wet ton (or 1,333 bbl per 200 wet ton)
FACT: 4 B bbl crude equiv. = 22,424,160,000,000,000 btu
(@ 600 M wet ton input would require mean E content of Input(s) to be 37,373,600+ btu/wet ton = (or) 43,473 kJ/kg)
Note: Crude oil = 43,316 kJ/kg

NOTE: Statement A was “could” not “would” – So what? The obvious implication was ‘600 M ton => 4 B bbl’ (which is total BS, IMO)

NOTE: Total ‘waste’ from 100% US poultry production (USDA) = ~8,176,190,476 kg/yr = 9.01425 M wet ton ‘waste’/yr.
And “600 M ton” is 66.6 times the entire (100%) US poultry waste generated/yr (yes, they said “…and other wastes…” So what?

Comment: I could believe 600 B tons => 4 M bbl. Or even: 6 B tons => 4 M bbl
Or even: 6 B tons => 400 M bbl
But not: 600 M tons => 4 B bbl

Discover (CWT) Statement B:
“Each day 200 tons of turkey offal will be carted to the first industrial-scale thermal depolymerization plant, recently completed in an adjacent lot, and be transformed into various useful products, including 600 barrels of light oil.”

! ”Each day 200 tons of turkey offal will be …”; what part of “200”, or “tons”, or “each day” does “anyone” not comprehend?

Discover (CWT) Statement C:
“The $20 million facility, scheduled to go online any day, is expected to digest more than 200 tons of turkey-processing waste every 24 hours.”

! “more than 200 tons”? Yes!
Assuming: Eproc =15%, Eentropy = 0, and Eother = 0 (each dubious, at best, IMO)
Assuming: ‘waste’ is (approx.) 56.2% DW (from: “21,000 US gal water” per 200 wet ton input)
and is 5,080 kcal/kg (‘known’ (proven) value for poultry viscera w/ heads and feet)
Then: approx 438 wet ton ‘offal’ input minimum is required to yield (600 bbl#2 equiv +15% Eproc)
Yes, 438 is indeed “more than 200”!

Note: 100% DW feathers, hydrolyzed = 5620 kcal/kg and 100% DW bloodmeal = 5,660kcal/kg)
If one further assumes that DW feathers (hydrolyzed) plus DW bloodmeal would raise the mean Einput content to, say 5,300 kcal/kg, then required input mass (with above ‘assumptions’) would come to approx. 420 wet tons for 600 bbl #2 equiv.

Comment: If CWT’s version of TDP is such a ‘miraculous’ (breakthrough) technology, then why would they find a ‘need’ to “invent” (perpetrate) ridiculous, unsupportable and contradictory claims (or allow a “reporter” to print them) ?

Rational correlation of statements A, B, and C (above) in any coherent manner is highly problematic. Intentionally so, IMO.

A term I previously quoted (from another blogger) wrt CWT’s claimed ‘data’ was “specious”.
Would anyone perhaps prefer: invention, fictional, falsehood, erroneous, lie, bullshit, crapola, April fool’s, fantasy, delusional, etc.

Who is obfuscating what? You decide.

PS: If I am 'so full of TDP' and a congenital "liar" (as "doc" insists) then why do I have other 'energy' companies and researchers e-mailing me (past two days) for additional 'analysis' and opinion? Could their inquiries be an elaborate rouse? I think not. They have 'better' things to do with their time than to perpetrate a rouse or 'lay traps'. IMO.

PPS: Anyone choosing to not 'accept'(believe)"MY" math, would be well advised to consider doing their own calculations.

My thanks to Doc for correcting me in the proper use of Calories VS. plain old heat calories. My revised calculations using Btus are now:
1,888,800,000 Btus of turkey parts in
2,419,200,000 Btus of "golden oil" out
Of course, there are many losses but I'm not considering them.
I frankly don't see how the stock brokers at CWT get more energy out than what's put in. Must be in their training.

Next, I suggest this site be checked. http://www.darlingii.com/about.htm
Darling has been reclaiming animal waste since 1880 and has sells the majority their oils and grease for high value added products like lip stick, lotions etc. In other words the reclaimed products are more vauable than converting them into fuel. For those investors that were chased away from CWT, investing in DAR would be a much better choice.
Thanks for reading my stuff! John G

drdiatribe (aka drmac for any newcomers) you come across as one angry little man. You admitted to two episodes of sloppy research and are unwilling to respond to the third distortion you posted in another of your false attempts to make me out as a CWT shill. You truly are an ass and a very tiring one at that. But I get the feeling that the only validation you get in life is when you get to argue with people. Excuse me if I don't respond to your asinine comments anymore.

Thank you "doc"

Can I TDP your comment!

I have always used your peer review as requested to validate my calculations. However, if you continue with personal attacks on the best efforts of the contributors, you will TDP yourself into feedstock.

"Excuse me if I don't respond to your asinine comments anymore."

Maybe now the contributors of real #'s, vetted by the community at large, can get on with determining if the TDP process, promoted by CWT, is valid.

Then we will not need needless responses to asinine comments.

Okay John,

Calculations are fine by me. But to claim that the "stockbrokers at CWT get more energy out than they put in" you must then somewhere have a statement from any official at CWT that states they can turn 200 tons of offal into 600 barrels of oil. Can you direct me to that statement anywhere? I am not interesting in anything implied or inferred. Just show me one statement from any official of CWT and I will be your biggest supporter that this is a fraud.

reinharg, you want real numbers? Vet this!

Assume all 200 tons input is the highest caloric density animal waste...all fat.
each gram fat has 9 kcal (apprx to keep numbers simple). 454 gms to a pound, so each pound has 4086 kcal~4000 kcal/lb. 200 tons is 400,000 lbs. So the entire input has a content of 4000 kcal/lb x 400,000 lbs = 1,600,000,000 kcal. Since 1 kcal = 1 BTU approximately. Good enough for this calculation. Then the energy content of our idealized input has 1,600,000,000 BTUs.

Now assume no losses whatsoever. No heated water, no gases. We are going to convert the entire idealized input to oil. There have been several calculations above Showing that 600 barrels of oil based on what you assume to have a total energy value of 2.5-4,000,000,000 BTUs.

So it is not possible to turn 200 tons of offal into 600 barrels of oil. Now go reread my post of 10 May. Where I said it was obvious ad nauseum that this couldn't be done.

So what understanding do you gain by engaging in two weeks of ASSUMPTION making constantly trying to prove what we already know? 200 tons of offal cannot be turned into 600 barrels of oil.

Such incredibly narrow focus here (which I truly believe now has been shown to be agenda driven). Conagra invested $20 million in a plant to make 600 barrels of oil from 200 tons of offal? Of course not. CWT is claiming 200 tons of offal can be converted into 600 barrels of oil? Of course not!

If anyone on this board has any interest (other than a search for black helicopters) in trying to move forward in understanding the process...its economics and potential applications, then vet this next calculation for them rheinharg.

What is the amount of idealized input, assuming no loses that one needs to produce 600 barrels of oil? I will be conservative and assume 600 barrels has an energy value of 4,000,000,000 BTUs. That will be (4/1.6)x 200 or 500 tons of our idealized input approximately.

So what is my point? We can for another two weeks make assumptions about input and output. We can get actual figures of input and output (good luck). Or we can make a reasonable assumption about input and output, take it as our standard for the process and move on. While you are in the vetting mode: Inputs and therefore outputs will vary greatly with this process. Why not use the example of the 175 pound man for input and output as a guess for agricultural waste? It is the only example we have for numbers that give a specific input and output.

Reply to doc: My AP article states "200 tons per day of chicken parts is enough to produce 600 barrels of oil daily,(CWT) officials say."
I had e-mailed Julie Jelfand at CWT for confirmation and she replied in so many words that CWT was privately funded and did not operate with government funds. Why don't you try:
jgelfand@hldcreative.com
EPA advised me their funding was to a different company for:
Demonstration of Thermo-Depolymerization (TDP) and Chemical Reformation of Agricultural and Food Processing Wastes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I make this gurantee. You will NEVER get any factual information from any principal associated with CWT. Ask your self why? JG

Doc

"We can for another two weeks make assumptions about input and output. We can get actual figures of input and output (good luck). Or we can make a reasonable assumption about input and output, take it as our standard for the process and move on."

I thought that is what this blog was doing!!

Sorry to be in a pissy mood but people here are up to their a...... in BSE beef and if TPD and CWT could be proven (implementable and verified)
I'll be the first to crow the SH.. out of it.

"What is the amount of idealized input, assuming no loses that one needs to produce 600 barrels of oil?"

600 barrels??? idealised!

For Mr. Reinharg:

I gave you the energy content in and the energy content out. The quantities of material in and out have been published. With this data you can do the math for any situation you wish including diesel truck miles per turkey if desired.
The purpose of this debate is to determine if the process energy yields are valid. The laws of thermodynamics say not and common sense say not.
If the ex stock broker managers say otherwise and you believe them I am sure they would be VERY happy to meet you. If you had several hundred thousand dollars to invest and can cluck like a turkey you would likley make VP overnight. But,I'm afraid we will never hear you crow as the published process data is flawed. JG

John, now we may be getting somewhere. Please give me a link to this AP article that quotes CWT officials. Just want to read it for myself. If true, the burden now falls on the company to explain a possible misrepresentation. I say possible... actual once I have read it. Thanks

John

Sorry you missed my point. Was trying my best to be polite.

Greg

rheinharg,

Sorry about the BSE problems up there. Incredibly scary stuff. Just heard on the news that it could have come from contaminated feed. It may have been feed not intended for use with cows. The presenter was pointing out how human error may be to blame.

Looking to the future it could lead to a total ban on recycling of animal waste. That would provide an important niche for TDP. If John's reporting is accurate I doubt the process will see any major contrubution to energy supplies in the near future which would leave me disappointed.

for doc:
The AP article appeared in many NY Times newspapers, the Lakeland Ledger locally. The AP article was written by a Bill Bergstrom, AP writer. I tried to contact him via the AP web site but he never responded.
I hate to tell people this but a cheaper replacment of petroleum fuel is not likely nor will we ever be nondependent on foreign oil.
For example one half of the US surface area would have to be covered with proto-voltiac cells to furnish our present electrical needs. I have not bothered calculating what is required for the balance. Wind power won't help much either. Fossil energy is by far the cheapest and CLEANEST fuel available. I say cleanest because soy diesel and ethanol require petroleum fuel for fertilizer, tractor fuel,punping, making poison (herbicide & pestcide), process fuel, and transportation fuel. In effect we are just transforming petroleum fuel into the stuff we call alternative fuel or in effect doubling the polution by first consuming petroleum fuel and then burning it again. All this energy diverted to grow fuel crops makes no sense. The alternative fuel cost more than petroleum because of the losses associated in the transformation. It a burden on the tax payer by having to subsidize needless farming,and loss in tax revenues. For those thinking ahead about using "abundant" hydrogen, forget it. Presently the production cost is about 10 times what gasoline cost. Ain't mother nature a bitch? JG

Well, here is the exact quote.

"A $20 million facility at ConAgra's Butterball turkey plant in Carthage, Mo., is undergoing testing and expected to start using the technique by the end of May, said Terry Adams, chief technology officer for Changing World Technologies.

The plant ultimately will grind up, heat, pressurize and process 200 tons a day of leftover turkey innards, bones, feathers, fats and grease -enough to produce 600 barrels of oil daily, officials say."

This is the closest I have seen. Curious why he didn't say Terry Adams claim instead of officials say. If this is intentional on CWT's part it is a true misrepresentation. Since my main goal in looking at this was to become an investor (in something that I really thought could benefit society in a revolutionary way)I am now in the camp that believes this has been over-hyped, if not deliberately misleading. It is still possible that "officials" were misquoted (I know, the press never does that) but CWT has an obligation to correct what has been repeatedly presented. Not the type of people I would want to invest with. For those who may be wondering, no public stock is offered but you can invest via a qualified investor.

I also still believe this will find its niche in processing animal waste and other high disposal cost organic waste like sludge and medical.

So I am out of here. Best of luck to all.

John G,

You know, I just happened have done turkeys to miles. I'm going to fill my slip tank with 100gal Can diesel, drive the 2400 miles to Texas shooting USDA average turkeys as I go. I figure I should have 65 turkey's stuffed in the van by the time I get there. Sure going to smell bad!
I have have no money left cause I stopped in Vegas.

What are the odds that TDP and my 65 turkey's will get me home?

"Doc" Mengele die Semantik der Berechnung
Thanks for your invaluable psychotic contribution.

John,

"In effect we are just transforming petroleum fuel into the stuff we call alternative fuel or in effect doubling the polution by first consuming petroleum fuel and then burning it again. All this energy diverted to grow fuel crops makes no sense. The alternative fuel cost more than petroleum because of the losses associated in the transformation."

That was truly worth repeating. So succinct!

US grain production is totally, irretrievably dependent on massive quantities of 'cheap' oil. Any hoped-for 'efficient' conversion process would need 'yield' 4-10 times the energy out than is in the grain to merely break even. Which CANNOT happen, and leads (me) to livestock FCR and associated energy cost issues... blah blah

Save OIL - Eat FISH!
- best FCR to protein on the planet!-
- (recycle fish guts as animal feeds)

BTW Reinharg
BSE is also carried by mule deer and elk (perhaps antelope and bison). How prevalent it is in these populations I do not know. Around here, cattle and deer etc. share the same 'open'range.

One more comment:
It has been assumed that turkey waste and other animal parts, together with used cooking oils were hauled to the landfills. Far from it. Dead animals and road kill have been sent to "rendering plants " for over a 100 years. The products of these plants provided millions of candle power while,at the same time, saved many a whale's ass.
As mentioned before the products also find there way into the cosmetic industry. While kissing your sweetie, try not think of where that lip stick came from.
The market price of used cooking oils and "light goldens" from rendering plants has always been a little higher than Brent crude.
The idea the stock brokers are trying to exploit is they have a secrete process for converting pig ears into silk purses.
I'm putting this turkey to bed! So long. JG

But the process isn't secret. The patents are published for god's sake. It's not a "secret" it's an "improved" TDP process.

This string has pretty much degenerated into a bunch of people without enough facts trying to keep a conversation going.
IMO, CWT doesn't really give a damn about a bunch of no-name blog readers trying to disparage their "baby".
Neither does ConAgra.
To paraphrase someone way up there at the top: Their concern is E$out and they probably had a bunch of number-crunchers doing calories and all that boring stuff for weeks on end not to mention analyzing how much money their money could make in some other endevour instead of this plant.
ConAgra will have to answer to their stockholders as to the profitibility of the process.
They don't care exactly what was told to a pop-science reporter or exactly how it was reported by that pop-science reporter or what headlines the reporter's pop-science editor put on the article in order to make the article more exciting.
Discover magazine is not, to the best of my knowledge, an acknowledged journal of science whose reporters worship the scientific method.
ConAgra only cares about how their investment in an experimental technology will affect their bottom line.
IMO anyone who spends all the time that has been spent crunching speculative numbers without knowing all the facts either really really needs a hobby or has an ulterior motive for all their effort.
That's my two-cents for the day.

Maybe "crunching speculative numbers without knowing all the facts" is their hobby? rofl.

FOR CHILLY DOGG: Read my Blog! I clearly stated the secret was the stock brokers. As a former engineer, crunching numbers was part of my job. Rejecting voodo science was also a part of it. I thought every one knew the process was ancient. Presenting old technology as "new break through" is the standard prelude to fraud. Check the web for dozens of companies touting waste cooking oil to diesel (tranesterification oil to methyl-ester)
the process is 30 years old yet it is troted out as new. I know of three companies that have sold up to $30MM in stock with out making one drop of anything. Some of the stock is on the market for LESS than one half cent. They call themselves "holding companies", which is exactly what they do, hold & KEEP.

FOR WASTED DAZE: CWT is very much interested in getting the story out to the vast number of potential suckers other wise they would not have "named dropped" Con Agra and X CIA James Woosley. You are the very type person CWT wants to reach and I'm truly sorry about that. JG

PCL -- Playstation to Cray with Linux

The # crunchers have allies with hobbies in high places.

Scientists at the US National Center for Supercomputing Applications, (NCSA)
have linked together 70 PlayStation 2s to find out how good they are at crunching numbers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2940422.stm

"number crunchers" may (or may not) have a neurosis.

"chilly dog" and his 'peers' instead have psychosis.

As I said almost a month ago:

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

"Ah! Humans!! Arrogance and stupidity all in one package. How efficient!"
(Centauri Ambassador Londo Mollari, Star Trek, Babylon 5)

That was not clearly stated at all. Who has or is the secret? The TDP process is secret? The fraud is secret? The stock is secret? Is the turkey offal secret? What about the little green men are they secret? I have no idea if the thing works or not. Neither do you. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. When the hell is the thing suppossed to go online?

Anything to get off getting oil from the arabs has got to be good!

Following are some potentially pro tdp ramblings, just because it gets tiring be pessimistic.

I had brought up earlier the issue of dealing with animal byproducts being used as feed.
With Canadas 1 case of BSE a whole industry has been effectively closed to the world market.
The US has forced a recall of all pet foods produced by Champion Pet Foods,
(the Alberta company that likely rendered the infected carcass).

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), which include BSE,CJD and others, are thought to
be prion (`proteinaceous infectious particle') based.

see : http://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/intro.htm

It appears to me that the "rendering for feed" process does not break down the prion protien.
Hence the pet food ban.

Certainly this will bring the Rendering industry under the microscope for the short term. This is a large
and established industry as previously noted. They will not bow lightly. I have looked at the Rendering
industries product stream, which is heavily feed and supplement based.

What if animal byproducts are no longer allowed to be rendered for feed?
Have a look at what the UK is doing. I wouldn't want to live downwind from these incinerators.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/bse-publications/enforce5/render5.htm

I've tried getting a handle on current landfill disposal rates for animal waste. You would assume they
are some % of the MSW (municipal solid waste) #'s. I was suprised to learn that MSW #'s (~4lb/capita/day)
do not include Municipal Sludge, Industrial nonhazardous [offals], Construction/Demolition, Agricultural waste,
Oil+gas waste, mining waste.

Pages 17 + 18 of 182: found @ http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw97.htm

There was a study in Oregon that shows most is rendered.
see: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/solwaste/animalmortality.HTML

If you extrapolate the 220lb/capita/year meat consumption is equal to waste @ 50% dressed weight, the MSW
management of this waste would be an issue. Just read the comments section of the Oregon study.

Putting aside some obvious discrepancies in the Discover article, and seeing that the chemistry appears
to be old news with a new spin, could this be the right time for TDP. Is the writing on the wall?

I guess we'll have to wait till 2005 to see.

From the original Discover article:

""We've got a lot of confidence in this," Buffett says. "I represent ConAgra's investment.
We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't anticipate success." Buffett isn't alone. Appel has
lined up federal grant money to help build demonstration plants to process chicken offal and
manure in Alabama and crop residuals and grease in Nevada. Also in the works are plants to process
turkey waste and manure in Colorado and pork and cheese waste in Italy. He says the first generation
of depolymerization centers will be up and running in 2005. By then it should be clear whether the
technology is as miraculous as its backers claim."

"Experiments at the pilot facility revealed that the process is scalable—plants can sprawl over acres
and handle 4,000 tons of waste a day or be "small enough to go on the back of a flatbed truck" and
handle just one ton daily, says Appel."

Contact:
Julie Gross Gelfand
CWT Press Office
(516) 536-7258
jgelfand@hldcreative.com

Dear Julie:
I know you want interested persons to respond to you news articles as you have given us your phone number and E-mail address.

From the recent AP article I note that 200 tons of turkey parts entering your thermo deploymerization process will yield 600 barrels of "light golden oil."
When doing the math (and not allowing for process heat losses or outside energy inputs) I have determined for each pound of turkey parts, containing 4,722 Btu/lb, we get a yield of 0.441 pound of "light golden oil" containing 6,615 Btus. My question is how can we get more energy out than we put in?

There is some confusion relating to the start up at various sites. One article states that a ConAgra plant is presently being started up. Another states it will be five years before a plant is finished. Can you state if CWT has an a plant that will be operating within the next two months?

According to published information investors already have $40MM invested in CWT unregistered stock. Of course, the SEC rules allow only wealthy persons to invest in unregulated companies. When do you expect to certify plant performance in writing and perhaps have an IPO?

There are many interested persons at this site that would welcome your brief answers.
(http://www.boosman.com/blog/archives/000725.html)

Sincerely, John Gasell

I sent an e-mail to CWT earlier this week pointing out that this page comes up first on a Google search for "thermal depolymerization," and offering them the opportunity to post a guest blog entry containing whatever information they liked. No response yet.

Good for you Frank! I don't expect you will hear from them. Anything you read will be via "third" parties for legal reasons. As far as can be determined a review of hype associated with the "deploymerization" process of turkey waste would indicate the same pattern used in promoting "transesterification" of used cooking oil. I've had first hand experience in that one. About 2,800 investors lost over $21,000,000 before it was shut down by the SEC. The promotor was also an X stock broker and is presently wanted by the FBI after skipping town.
Rienhard quoted Appel saying the process can be scaled down to a one ton per day flat bed sized unit. Even this pitch is identical to its biodiesel (methyl-ester) promoters managing companies now listed at fractional cents per share.
Been there before! John Gasell

Dear Frank,

Your web site is an interesting tool to review in part public opinion regarding our process. It provides some hope since the majority of the comments were positive and correct, but like all open forums you realize there is another very small group whose anger blinds their ability to see things clearly and who impede breakthroughs. Basically they fail to see the positive impact companies like ours will have on our environment. We were not looking for any public exposure but it certainly has found us. This exposure was not meant to be disruptive to anyones business or to be a surprise.

We have received thousands of inquires with the majority of those looking to make an investment. We are flattered by the interest. We have no current plans to hype a market or to go public, although we are asked daily to do so.

Some of the comments we received are very amusing, in particular the ones where the armchair engineers and scientists are guessing the mass and energy balances for a process that they know nothing about. It underscores why we have environmental problems because these are the same people we are counting on to find solutions to a growing concern. I think some still think the world is flat.

In any event we offer some comments to your audience. Right now we can only offer you "hope" that a more peaceful world is within our reach. Once we shortly begin operations and confirm our process we can deploy many facilities that will impact our waste markets in a more dramatic fashion.

CWT's process is for real. The plant in Missouri is complete and we are in the start-up phase. The energy efficiency is correctly stated. How we do this is our business but it is standard within many industrial applications. This is not transesterficatin, incineration, gasification or the biodiesel. Our first out plant is competitive with a small E&P company. Our diverse talented team has developed a business model that can be quickly replicated. I suggest you visit MIT's science publication web site at www.technologyreview.com and to pull up the article "Garbage into Oil". They have cleverly provided an animation of a turkey going through the process. This will help provide a visual as to what happens in our multi-step system.

You can expect additional articles in the near future regarding what we do. The SEC already opened and shut an investigation regarding our company. They also thought we were hyping something here. The goods news for all of us is that they appear pro-active in protecting the public. I applaud their efforts. To some we know that is disappointing but to the majority of you it is one more step to validate that a paradigm shift is blowing in the wind.

We are committed and focused on cleaning up waste, validating renewable energy, and helping to minimize global warming. Our partners and our staff are committed to making the world a better place.

We can not respond to all of the letters and e-mail. Most we can only say thank you for your kind words. To the negative ones this is our only comment. No statues erected for critics. Stand aside and get out of the way of real progress. The world needs solutions not town criers.

Frank, we do thank you and most of the writers for you support and comment. We know hope is resting on our shoulders. We will not let you down, as we are committed to our business, our environment and to all the worlds' well being.

Best Regards,
Brian Appel
Chairman & CEO

One more thought, some of the questions we received was from teachers looking for teaching aid information to educate our children. I taught my 11-year-olds science class the other day. They are studying the environment and effects from pollution people have created. They we all glowing with excitement. They were interested in what we could all do to make the world a better place. They didn't take the position of what we are not and what we could not do. It was refreshing to hear out of the "mouth of babes" this perspective. It gives me hope!

To forestall the obvious questions, I have placed a call to Brian's office to confirm the authenticity of his comment. Once so done, I'll repost it on the main page. Presuming that the comment is indeed from Brian -- as it certainly appears to be -- I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank him for contributing here.

At Last a note with facts:From: Terry N. Adams [SMTP:tnadams@harbornet.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Julie Gelfand
Subject: Re: Questions

Most of the fat from the turkeys is trimmed off before the turkey meat is
packaged for sale. As well, we also get a substantial amount of fryer
grease. Fat and grease have much higher heating values than protein and
carbohydrate. This makes the effective heating value of our turkey offal
feedstock north of 7,000 Btu/lb instead of 4,722.

OK, the AP article did not state turkey fat and used cooking oil were added. Most of the poultry (and other meat)I purchase has the fat attached. Used cooking oil has a high energy content. Dr. Adams is on the staff of CWT.

Regarding CWT and the SEC. The SEC does not check for the accuracy of any statement or suitability in private placements. It only assures that the investors have sufficient reserves to weather a bad investment. When a company goes public it must offer a prospectus giving the true facts. In summary, Mr.Appel only stated the process and numbers are "real" and that a plant start up is near.

I just had an extremely pleasant conversation with Brian Appel. I'll post a new entry shortly.

For Frank:
May I congratulate you for providing a medium for discussion of the issue?
Mr Appel's input shows that this blog is NOT a no-name blog even though most of your readers are (myself included of course).

For JG:
Though this post may seem moot coming after Mr Appel's input, I don't think an IPO would be the way to properly work with this product.
Even if there was an IPO, I am not one to sink hard-earned money into experimental technologies, so if Mr. Appel were in the business of fleecing greedy people who want to be "in" on the next "Microsoft" (and I, for one, do NOT believe that is the case), I would not be the sort of person he wanted.
If it was my "baby", I would be selling turn-key operational plants to existing public and private waste management companies like BFI and Waste Management as well as every municipal government in the entire world. That alone would keep as big a staff as I could attract extremely busy 24/7 for about 1000 years.

Also for JG:
I re-read my last post and am properly embarrassed.
It makes no sense.
What I meant was, I would not want a bunch of investors on my back who are more interested in quick, massive stock price increases.
If this product is a valid one, and I believe it is, there will be no want of customers.
One would be able to make outrageous demands from these customers in the way of loan guarantees (but maybe not-it's not my field) so the need for public funding (and a certain loss of control over the company) may not be a primary concern.

Wasted Daze: Dr. Adams, a CWT Engineering Ph.D. sent me a recent posting (copy on request) explaining a few facts about their process. He stated the efficiency of their process and conventional rendering plants were about the same,products sold to the same markets; meaning these products have more value than if used in makiing gasoline and diesel. Dr. Adams added, since their process operates at 250 C any prions in the turkey waste would be destroyed. He also stated minerals and charcoal were recovered.
Dr. Adams described the technology as ordinary, the economics as extraordinary.
As an prospective and prudent investor you would want to check out the competion. Had you invested the same amout of money in the following entities one year a go, your returns would be:
S&P 500 -10%
CAG ConAgra (CWT's Limited Liab. Ptnr.) 0%
CWT ?%
DAR(Darling International)a rendering Co.)200%
Good Luck on your investments! JG

>>John G wrote: "I have determined for each pound of turkey parts, containing 4,722 Btu/lb..."

Is JG's calculation based upon how many BTUs would be produced from burning a pound of turkey meat? And if so, isn't that completely besides the point? TDP is all about converting various carbon compounds into more "efficient" forms.

Burning a pound of turkey is not anywhere near 100% efficient. Similarly, crude oil, if burned right out of the ground, does not produce as much energy as it does when refined into gasoline, etc. Yet I doubt the refining process requires an energy input greater than that of the final product [less the original energy of the crude]. If it did, it wouldn't be worth refining the oil.

Perhaps someone with a stronger background in science can back up (or refute) this idea...

Eric

I have to say I find this thread draining- all I wanted was some real information and intellectual discussion on it. Christ! It would have been less draining to go to an unattended kindergarten class!

The bottom line for me- a computer geek that loves science- is that if it works- great!

We dont have the transportation to move garbage somone claimed?? What are you freaking nuts??! Where does all the garbage go from NYC?? All you would have to do is see the railroad line right along the Hudson to see it moving- Roads, rail lines and the such exists- instead of moving it to a dump to be capped off it goes to a plant- big deal!

So what if we dont know all the numbers- we dont have to know and they dont have to tell us. The last I knew we lived in a free society with the ability to create a business to produce MONEY. In case anyone forgotten the secrecy with code and Microsoft- duh!

The world changes, markets change- if you cant deal move out of the way. I pray every day for the day this country can tell the Middle East to kiss off.

God Almighty! More bickering goes on here than at the feedlots for Congra!

Have a great day

This is getting cumbersome, but...
This is fantastic!!!
An efficient loop can be established. Yes, there is decay and nothing can be 100% efficient but 85% is as good as weve ever seen.

Sunlight + water + minerals + dna = Animal/Veg.
Animal/Veg = Food + oil, gas, water, minerals.
Oil/gas gets recycled as plastics or fuel.
Water/minerals are put back into the system as fertilizers or products themselves.

The only thing we need (that we cant produce) is what has been provided for us, namely dna and sunlight.
We have the genetic code, we have the sun.

Lets just not let governments and unions block this becuase workers at the incinerators and waste disposal plants will be out of work. Afraid of being left behind you say? Let the "Oil producing nations" put their populace to work at the TDP plants and well ship the offal there. Just get it done.

This is an interesting development.

I work in the waste industry and there seems to be some scepticism about this process.

However, I haven't read anything yet which convinces me that in principle the claimed benefits are not realisable.

Let's wait and see...but in the meantime what's wrong with a bit of optimism. At least these people are on the right track.

David Field

TDP seems to be a very promising. The process seems to be an unseen manuplation of chemical reaction paths under controlled conditions thus involving quantum chemical kinetics. The question is whether these quantum chemical reactions will behave steadily everytime for long runs or some complications will arise every now and then in terms of end products?

I want one under my motor home

If the people of this board enjoy reading the belchings dr. mac, I can tell you another board he is equally held in contempt. It's a small internet afterall.

For JG:
Rendering plants don't excite me. First is their implication in mad cow disease. The very idea of using animal waste to feed animals (vegetarian animals) turns my stomach. I don't like to think that the chicken I just ate was nourished with its mother's flesh. In the human species it is refered to as cannibalism.

Also, with the CWT process, I don't think we would have the following problem (and the cost of the regulatory agencies involved):

From http://www.saveourwatersupply.com/newsroom/stories/gorzeman.html

"Attorney General Patricia Madrid today announced the entry of felony guilty pleas by two of five defendants, and disposition of charges against another, in the prosecution of the illegal disposal of rendering plant wastes by a Texas rendering plant operator in New Mexico. The crimes are in violation of the New Mexico Water Quality Act."

I could get an even better return on my investment by using it for smuggling but I frown on that particular business and the social ramifications as well. Call me a "compassionate conservative" but that's the way it is.

Actually, that would be 'compassionate Capitalist" - wouldn't it?

For Wasted Dave: To bad you get squeamish about eating dead animal parts. Do you ever eat jello? Do you take any medications? Did you know that the majority of heart valve replacments come from pigs and cows. Those things you ware on your feet are they made of leather?. What are thoe little things floating in your chicken noodle soup? Does your wife of GF use lotions, lipstick etc?
As to the investments; check out DAR whose price has increased 200% in one year. This company is run by folks that know the "innards" of the business. Compare them with the work experience of stock marketers. Don't be fooled!

John:
You misread the post.
I am not vegetarian.There's nothing I enjoy more than good meat.
What I object to is society deciding that it's okay to turn vegetarian animals into meat-eaters.
That is contrary to nature (a crime against nature).
Worse yet is turning them into "cannibals" by feeding them the rendered flesh of their own kind-something they wouldn't normally seek in nature.
That is the cause of madcow disease or at least the cause of the transmission of it throughout a herd and then to humans.
Rendering plants are an instrument of the process.
That is why I say they are implicated in the disease.
Do I make myself clear now?
Your other questions:
No. I don't care for jello. It has no substance.
I have been known to take aspirin and, on occasion, at the insistence of a doctor, anti-biotics.
I don't believe we should be replacing hearts or other body parts.
One per customer.
Nothing will guarantee immortality - none of us are getting out of here alive.
Society's acceptance of the inevitability of death would go a long way towards making basic health care affordable to all without government (taxpayer) subsidies.
Most people have/will disagree with me strongly in this regard. They think we should spend every dollar available to extend the life of anyone so that they can die later.
But that's off-topic.
As I said, I am not vegetarian.

Wasted Dave: I think the jury is still out on the cause of mad cow disease (BSE) but in any event the whole life cycle is based on all living matter feeding on other living matter. Who is to say a stalk of corn has no feelings when you yank it's sex organs off and plunge them into boiling water and then ( it gets nasty now) smeared with curds churned from milk squeezed fron a cow's tit.
The food "vegetarians" consume thrive on the remains of other dead plants (and animals). Think about that the next time you munch on a cannabilistic carrot.
Lastly, the top of the food chain is not mankind as generally accepted...it's the lowly maggot.
If you ever get into a situation where you need some extra parts (pig valves etc) I'm betting you will have a "change of heart". What if your wife or child needed one of your kidneys?

John:
Europe is convinced that madcow disease and rendered feed are related.
The timeline related to the one documented US case also fits into the animal feed theory.
I don't doubt that the politicians will "err" in favor of protecting the food supply and ban the use of animal parts in cattle feed.
The logical economic result will be to make rendering plants less attractive and thermal depolymerization more attractive.
What I like is that TDP is "clean". The need for government regulatory snoops will be minimum.
Did you read the URL regarding the New Mexico case? Judging from the number of contributing agencies, the cost of investigation was probably much more than the resulting fines.
I don't think we have scratched the surface of the benefits that TDP will bring to society in the long run.
As for the "cannibalistic" carrots...
It is in their nature to break down organic compounds into whatever their nutritive needs are.
Once having starved a pig to see if I could get it to eat pork (to my undying shame), I know that animals will not eat their own kind under normal circumstances.
As for pig heart valves, I have no doubt that society will eventually grow genetically-engineered clones for the specific purpose of harvesting body parts for replacements.
Is it "right"?
When it is possible, society will be convinced that it is "right".
Pig heart valves are a non-issue in that light.

Wasted Dave: If pig or cow heart valves are not made of tissue what are they made of? You never answered regarding your stand on the donation of human body parts to save another's life. Many of Internet's surfers will be saddened by your view.
I understand that elevating the temperature of offal to 150 degrees F will kill off all known germs.
I have no arguments against the CWT version of TDP only the marketing statements that it is "new,will reduce the dependence on foreign oil etc". Their own consultant,Dr.Adams, states their process is no more efficient than rendering plants and they also share common products and markets. Since the market for products fron either process have been established and command a better price than crude oil foreign oil depenfence should remain the same.
The key elements of the CWT process are not new. Their may be some some minor "know how" involved but nothing that would be considered a break through. This is most likely why the rush to get people (potential investors) interested before the plant gets into full operation.
During start up,which can last for many months, no one is in a position to evaluate the process against another process.
I don't think one not seeing either process can discuss degrees of cleanliness. TDP has been done with microwaves.
About that pig you starved to death. Had you done that in Florida you would be spending about 5 years in the pen. There have been several non fictional accounts of humans dining on others. Would we be more moral iving like pigs? J

I see that John Gasell is still reading/posting here. Previously, he wrote (and I commented upon):

"I have determined for each pound of turkey parts, containing 4,722 Btu/lb..."

I asked whether this calculation is based upon how many BTUs would be produced from burning a pound of turkey meat and put forth the suggestion that this is a meaningless number, since the point of TDP is to break long, complex carbon chains into shorter, more energy efficient ones (ie. burning a pound of turkey meat is going to produce a lot less energy than burning a pound of methane; however, I'm not suggesting that one can be converted into the other at 100% efficiency).

How about replying to this, John?

Eric: I did not reply initially because you are talking about many different things in one sentence.
1. Turkey meat or any other fuel has a given amount of energy in it measured in Btus, calories, ergs, joules etc. You can never get any more energy out than the material has no matter how you process it. If you process it inefficiently the some of the heat value is left some where.
2, Dr, Terry Adams Ph.D, a consultant for CWT stated the process was 85 % efficient meaning 15% was used in heating, pumping etc. This energy was not destroyed or lost it was disappaited into the atmosphere in accordance with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
3. Dr.Adams also stated TDP is no more efficient than conventional processes.
4. Dr.Adams stated the products made with TDP can be sold in existing markets which are more profitable than motor fuels.
Hope this will help you. In other words 10,000 Btus from turkey has the same heat value from 10,000 Btus of propane. The type of carbon chains make no difference

John:

You wrote:
"Many of Internet's surfers will be saddened by your view"

If I cared about other people's feelings regarding what I said or thought:
1) I would be just another PC wimp.
2) I would be allowing others to control my freedom of speech. (another way of saying "PC wimp")
To even write such drivel indicates to me that your method of changing another's opinion would be to bring peer pressure to bear rather than the logic and accuracy of your argument.
This assumption of your debating technique is reinforced by:

You wrote:
"About that pig you starved to death. Had you done that in Florida you would be spending about 5 years in the pen"

Go back and read. The "to death" is either a figment of your fertile imagination or a deliberate attempt to paint me as _evil_ and invalidate any points I may make in the course of discussion.
Either instance is reproachable.
Please refrain from such sophomoric behavior.

As for the pig, I fattened it up and traded it for a case of beer.
All evidence was completely gone in less than 24-hours and both parties involved throughly enjoyed the taste of the transaction.
So, if you are going to try to use this report of a past indiscretion as "meat" for an investigation by various governmental agencies, don't waste your time.
Geez!

Now, let's test:
Though this is totally irrelevant to TDP and the discussion...
It is included just to satisfy one person.
I wrote:
"Nothing will guarantee immortality - none of us are getting out of here alive.
Society's acceptance of the inevitability of death would go a long way towards making basic health care affordable to all without government (taxpayer) subsidies."

To be perfectly clear, I am of the opinion that _delaying_ death by making transplants part of the normal routine of health care will, in time, become expensive enough to destroy the health care system.
They should be, at best, procedures that are paid, in full, by the recipient or his family so that the cost involved is not distributed to society in the form of higher medical costs (via insurance premiums).
This would make the procedures a venue for only the very rich, but so what?
One more time:
Nothing will guarantee immortality-none of us are getting out of here alive.

Back to the issue:

"I understand that elevating the temperature of offal to 150 degrees F will kill off all known germs."

Is it done by rendering plants? Is it required by law? Are the minimal heats "built into" the equipment so that there is no chance of operators taking shortcuts?
I would venture to guess that this is an open system, open to manipulation.

TDP doesn't have this problem.
1) Output is fuel, minerals and water. If the water is less than 150 F, the process is not going to produce anything. The article mentioned 256 F to make it "work".
2) The water will be pure enough to discharge directly into the water supply unlike in the New Mexico case which shows that there are rendering plant operators who will take shortcuts that can endanger society.

What you don't seem to understand is that plant managers will take short cuts to cut expenses. Reducing heat would cut expenses considerably.

Was it a Jack in the Box restaurant some years back that was undercooking their meat (to save energy costs) and caused an outbreak of e coli infections?

Is it too hard to imagine a rendering plant manager cutting corners with the same results?
I don't think that it would be incorrect to state:
Less rendering and more TDP would be beneficial to society.

You continually harp on how TDP is nothing new.That was stated by Appel in the original article.Discussion of that point is useless.
_How_ the (knowledge of TDP) is being used by CWT is new (and patented). They have made the process profitable enough to invest in plants.
Your view seems to be that they are merely spending tens of millions of dollars of their money, other people's money and the taxpayers' money in an effort to "salt" an IPO sometime in the undefined future.
You continue to infer that this is the case even though Appel has dropped by and:
1) denied that he tried to engineer the effect that his story has had.
2) mentioned that the SEC had already opened and closed an investigation of his company.
That should be a matter of public record if you choose to assume he is a big fat liar.

So, what is your real problem with a new technology trying to "make it" in the free market?
Please don't tell me you are a lone voice in the wilderness with a life mission of trying to save gullible investors from a "bad" investment.
That can be better done in letters to the editor to the Wall Street Journal and to the SEC.

Wasted Daze: My applogy to the starved pig for assuming his untimely death and for mixing thermometer scales, noting the temperature for killing germs to be 150F instead of 150C.
Also I hope you make a killing when, and if, you make a substantial investment in TDP as a result of reading hyped up articles in newspapers. You can make more money easier and faster by not taking the time to study the competition, talkng to engineers and scientist to get a better grasp in the principals involved before leaping into a situation. GO FOR IT!

John:
If life was only about making money, I would be a drug dealer or a politician.
There is more to it than that. The satisfaction one gets from what he accomplishes would be a much more important factor to me than income in excess of what I need for a comfortable life.

Wasted Dave:My point exactly! One must be careful where they invest inorder to maintain a comfortable life. Would you not achieve a higher degree of santification if you gave you excess money to charity instead or polutry plants or engage in swaping thin swine for ale?

Hey guys
Well, i must say i've made my best efforts to wade through this morass, and boy, what a pile it's been at times!

Anyway, respect to reinharg, Philx, Lampare & doc for their contributions to the discussion, though i might suggest that this is not perhaps the place for detailed equations. We just need some proof-of-concept figures, thats all. Dr mac, i appreciate where you're coming from, but seriously, you need to go outside, put your feet in some grass and feel the sun. An while you're there maybe you can learn how to spell...?

Ok, now my contribution. I think we all agree that this is a good idea if it's economic and scaleable. There's no smoking cancer-man here, the chemistry works, and if it can be proven large-scale it'll take off. I'd like to emphasise again that i think maybe you guys got a little distracted with all these poultry calculations, and tons of wet this and gristle the other. It'd be nice to reprocess all our waste, but i'd say that's the least application of this tech.
Western society, for better or worse is addicted to oil, we can't live without it, and the addiction's only going to get worse over time. Between the infernal combustion engine and our existing technology and production/distribution networks i think our society's going to be running on an oil-like substance for rather a long time to come. Our only hope is to leap-frog from finite resources to infinite resources (ie-we cycle the substance used, and the only input is energy, which we get from the sun). So while no doubt eventually we'll have monstrous great TDP plants consuming our embarassing carboniferous wastes, i think that the real focus will be on the thousands of square kilometres of crops which will get processed into oil/biodiesel, which then gets fed directly into existing refineries, through existing distribution networks, and into existing IC engines, to power exsting needs. We're addicted to oil, we've invested heavily in it with technology, money, time, and infrastructure, and we're not about to give up on just because it's gonna run out. So i suggest we just leapfrog to a different source until a long-term solution comes along. (who knows? maybe our descendants on alpha-c will still be driving Ford V8's?)

As for the "renewable energy" scene...
Ultimately, economics (read: capitalism) rules. I'm a communist at heart, but ultimately you have to be a realist, and fuel-cells, electric cars, and wacky little inventions aren't going to save us from the energy crunch that's coming. Nor will soft-and-fuzzy technologies like wind/tide or any of these other 'green' techs, they're just too particular. They require special conditions and even then they're still more expensive, they're a good effort, and will always have niche value, but they won't save us. Solar is ultimately the way, but not by covering our roofs with Silicon, rather by having thousands of square kilometres of cells in orbit beaming microwave power to receivers on earth, and that won't happen for a long time yet. Fusion is nice, but it's just too finicky too rely on.
I prefer to back proven technology, use what works i say. And oil has worked very well for us so far, but we need to not mine our carbon-sinks to get it and instead focus on creating it ourselves. So let's leave all this calculating of turkey-guts behind and look to the bright future: one in which energy costs follow other commodity prices with the increase of technology and efficiency and steadily drop, and other values with them

And while we're saving the world, how about people start using their brains to look at things from other angles, and think of the BIG picture, as well as that leetle bit that directly affects them.
And Pleeeease!!!!! stop using blogs for personal vendetta's !!!!!!! these things are here to feed our minds, not procrastinate our time.

thanks.

Only time will tell if TDP works. THe company says it does. If so there is a tremendous potential. CWT is now dickering with Philadelphia to treat their sewage sludge and they are planning a chicken plant and a onion waste plant. If these work they will go on if they do not then too bad for us. I estimate our town could produce a few hundred barrels of oil daily and send them to the N Salt Lake City refineries. RP

I have been following this technology with a great deal of interest since I ran into it’s predecessor (single step gasification of waste). If it works as advertised it may revolutionize the US economy. With our vast agricultural capability and already large waste production, I believe that a cost efficient process would not only replace our dependence on Mid East oil, but it may replace some of the current domestic production of oil. I think that it is unlikely that this process will have a major effect on the use of crude oil in most of Europe as they have much more limited agriculture and a smaller per capita waste production. They are also unlikely to be able to drastically increase agricultural production. For Europe this process will be a very good method for disposing of waste generated rather than a primary fuel source. For the Third World, this process may provide inexpensive clean water, safe waste disposal, and a local fuel supply. It will however be very painful to countries which depend on oil production for their livelihood. I expect that First World countries will heavily subsidize production of oil by this method. It is in the national interest to minimize foreign oil dependence for all of the major oil users. Crude oil prices can be expected to drop to a level which matches the minimal price acceptable to producers of oil using this process.

The economic impact of this development will be fascinating to watch. I hope that the production plant proves out the concept and that rapid deployment of this technology occurs. It would be fantastic if boom times were here to stay.
I did not intend to imply in my last posting that only the US would benefit from this technology. My comments on Europe and many other regions having a lesser benefit was based on the fact that North America as well as some of South America and Africa have large tracts of land not currently being used for agriculture or as population centers which could be harvested for organic material. The process discussed may provide enough clean drinking water for a sparsely populated arid agricultural area but not much for use in irrigation. The fuel & excess heat produced in the process could be used for desalination but this would only effect regions near salt or brackish water sources. These areas my also benefit from farming offshore. Algae, plankton and salt tolerant plants could be used as feedstock to this process.

My understanding from discussions with several European engineers I work with is that agriculture in Europe is very inefficient and expensive. With a relatively high population density and limits on large corporate farming (not to mention labor, environmental & widespread phobia about any engineered crops) I think many of the regions of the world with the highest population density will have difficulty competing in the production of organic material as feed stock for this process.

My opinion on using this technology to switch over to a hydrogen economy is largely negative. I believe that outside a few isolated instances where geothermal or other renewable power sources are realizably available or for mass transit in areas plagued with smog any cost benefit analysis would show that there are far better ways to improve peoples quality of life. Converting fuel to hydrogen and then burning it will generally be less efficient than using the fuel directly. I fully support continued research into fuel cells and hydrogen powered vehicles but think most of the talk by auto companies about building these vehicles is an attempt to get the environmentalist lobbies off their backs. Conversion to a hydrogen based economy will only occur with major improvements to the technology which may or may not occur or with government regulation forcing people to make the change (kicking and screaming all the way).

This process may work well in conjunction with another technology being developed at University of Wisconsin. This technology converts a glucose rich mixture to H2 and CO2 using an inexpensive catalyst under pressure at 437° F. This condition is close to the conditions present in the first stage of the CMP process. Adding H2 as an additional product of the process my help make the process more viable economically. While I believe that hydrogen will have very limited use in automotive applications, it will have many uses and providing an inexpensive source would make these more viable. This technology is described in an article available at the following URL:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/931784.asp#BODY

My hope, (yes I am a bit of an idealist) is that if agricultural surpluses can be profitably disposed of by this process, subsidies can be reduced over time to zero. I feel that droughts, floods, and other predictable disasters to the livelihood of farmers should be insured by insurance paid by the farmers instead of by government subsidies or assistance programs. I believe that government interference in agriculture and other industry warps the decision making process of many and has probably caused more harm than good.

My hope is that this technology will provide a distinct economic advantage to agriculturally rich countries such as the US. The environmental benefits everywhere provided by a safe clean method for disposing of organic waste and converting it to clean energy, water, and other saleable products is immense. In the very long term this process may benefit the populations of even oil producing countries. A switch from reliance on only one export directly involving only a very small percentage of the population to trade involving a much larger percentage of the population would be very beneficial. The ramp up of this technology should be slow enough for forward thinking countries who export oil to convert to other exports.

Have people forgotten E=mc^2 so soon. Imagine the theoretical energy contained in all the world's waste. Even a child can realize that the world cannot continue use its resources with such a paltry return (energy wise) at such a rate without eventual mass extinction. THIS IS NOTHING BUT A LONG OVERDUE START of saving the world from mass extinction.

Note sent to ConAgra:

Changing World Technoligies claimed to be a partner of ConAgra in a joint venture using "thermo-depolymerization" to process plant waste Dec. 2000. The plant was reported to start up in April, 2003.
Is the plant now in operation and are the operating efficiencies better than the customary process? Thank you for any comment you can make. John Gasell

As of late July, ConAgra and CWT have not opened the Carthage plant due to inadequate welds on the pressure containers, according to second hand info. Apparently inspections found that the welds may not survive the pressures inherent in the procedure. TIFIW
Also, even going with the higher fat content 'sweet' offal, if you look at the total production of veal, pork, beef and poultry as being used (which is highly unlikely, I would imagine), the total output of oil would be just over 1% of oil used in the US, approximately. I used tonnage of ag products listed in the USDA pages, a 35% wastage/offal, and came up with an annual production of 23,500,000 tons of red meat/beef/pork/veal which yields about 16,000,000 tons of meat and nearly 8,000,000 tons of offal. Poultry production (annually) is about 2,200,000 tons, of which 1,620,000 tons are ready to eat and approximately 570,000 tons are offal. If we are getting 8.5 m tons of offal per year, we are looking at 25 m barrels of oil per year, which is about 2.5 days worth of imports. Worth doing, but not earth shaking. We may see this amount stretched slightly by adding sewage or agricultural waste to the mix, but this doesn't look like it will enhance the numbers too much. Again, secondhand information.
BUT, I have another USDA link that claims poultry production has risen to the point that it is rivalling that of beef production, if that is true we would get oil production equivalent to almost 4 days worth of imports! Just over 1% of imports could be produced domestically. Not bad.

US Oil consumption http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

Poultry http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
Cattle/pork http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/
But there is another USDA link that says broiler production is 40,000,000,000 pounds or 20,000,000 tons per year.
http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphs/lbspr.htm

Although I have spent a lot of time discussing this technology, I have spent just a few minutes putting the post together, so don't savage me too much if I slipped a decimal.

If nothing else this has generated more discussion than most topics around here.

The bottomline of the CWT thermaldepolyization process is that it costs ~$10/barrel to produce oil, factoring in the value of the reclaimed materials, and "natural" oil of the same quality costs ~$3/barrel to pull out of the ground. The cost will drop somewhat with mass production but it's simply not competitive with natural oil and never will be.

That being said, we ARE running out of natural fossil fuels that we can economically pump out of the ground. At any given time over the past 60 years we've had about 20 years of proven reserves; we've kept going because we keep finding new oil reserves. One of these days we'll run out of places to look for the stuff and REALLY start running out of oil. So the TDP process, or one like it, will one day replace the oil& gas industry.

The real benefit of the process is in landfill conservation. Many people don't realize it but used tires are the hardest things in the world to recycle. They tried making highway material out of them but the metal bits left in the fill spark and there's one highway that periodically catches fire just from being driven on. Landfill are stacked to sky with old tires and TDP promises to deal with this problem once and for all. Likewise for toxic wastes - anything with a carbon chain molecule can be reduced to a useable petroleum product. Through TDP we can recycle hazardous wastes instead of dumping them in the ground to contaminate the water supply.

ConAgra didn't build a TDP plant because they want to join OPEC, they have (literally!) mountains of turkey parts to get rid of each year. The fact that they can run their delivery trucks on one of the byproducts is just an extra benefit.

Oh, one comment on the "carbon cycle". You don't HAVE to burn the oil the TDP reactor puts out, you know. You can make any petrochemical product you like out of it, or even modify the output product to make petrochemical conversion easier. If you use the output to make, say, plastic lawn chairs and then throw those back into the hopper when their useful life is done in effect you've REMOVED carbon from the environment. Turn plant waste into recyclable plastic, and then recycle the plastic, you've lowered CO2 production. It's nothing but a win-win-win situation.

I think this is a great idea. I may be too young to know it yet but i beleive that your company will make millions if not billions on the process alone. All i have to say is that with every new invention is a new critic. this stems all the way back to newton at least. don't be discouraged. you have an exellent invention in the palm of your hands and as answer to one of your critics as to why it's not a widely acknowledged process, because it's a new invention and no one can predict the wide use of such an invention. Take the computer for instance not to mention the worldwide web. the world wide web was partially developed by Fermi labs as a way to comunnicate lab results to other physicists around the world. the thought of being able to acess the worlds information from a desktop never occured to them. the only question i have is are you selling any stock?

Please contact me at my E-mail address about stock options KPolecastro@aol.com thank you

Been following this innovation with great interest.

I'm from the Kansas City area so Carthage MO is an hours drive from here. If I can locate the plant I'll take some exterior pics when I'm down there next weekend. Give everybody a better idea on the completion status.

I do have a couple of questions if anyone has answers. The discover article stated that this process could potentially be used on all agricultural waste. Now the vast majority of Ag. waste is cellulose based stuff. Can this process handle cellulose. I'm doubtful but there are processes that break cellulose into sugars & alcohol so it it may not be such a stretch.

As has been repeated several times, the amount of poultry, cattle, etc waste is probably not sufficient to produce the volumes actually needed. but if this process handles cellulose at even a 15%-20% yield the usuable product volumes will be just staggering.

Theo

TDP can be used on anything with a carbon-chain molecule which includes cellulose waste. Remember that naturally occurring "fossil fuels" came from the decay of animal *and* plant matter: The CWT process simply accelerates this process so that it only takes a few hours instead of thousands of years to convert the material to oil.

If you chop up an old tire and throw it into the hopper you get oil, methane, carbon black, and a couple of handfuls of metal dust (from the steel belt) out the other end. You get the same, in different proportions, if you throw in Granny's rocker. I'm not sure it can handle contaminated soil unless you first leech the toxins out and process those separately. It can't handle nuclear wastes and organic acids are probably too rough on the pipes to process successfully. Aside from that they really do mean, "Anything into oil".

Thanx orion,

Any pointers on what the yield of cellulose processing might be?

You are right about the toxic minerals stuff. Esp mercury or arsenic which can dissolve in water and even in trace amounts are bad.

Percapita oil consumption in the US is roughly 25 Barrels/year (20 Mil. Brl. x 365 days / 300 mil people all approx.) This is about 3 1/2 Tons oil req./ annum.

Per capita garbage waste in my county (Johnson,KS) is about 7-1/2 lbs/day = 1 tonne approx/year. Post processing usable fuel volume depends on yield so I not gonna speculate on that.

I does seem this process will have to depend on multiple streams of raw material to ever be successful in volume.

God knows there is potential there but cost is the bottomline determinant.

Theo

Difficult to say w/o precise figures to work with but from the example in the Discovery story you get about a 5-to-1 yield; 5 kilos of organic material yields 1 kilo of light oil (plus gas and other material). Cellulose is fairly dense so it might be more like 4-to-1 but don't quote me on that. Your per capital figures would indicate like 400# of light oil per annum and that works out to ~1.5 barrels of light oil. So each person in Johnson KS would produce around 1.5 barrels of oil per year and the county would produce 750K - 800K barrels worth of waste material (pop. 451,086 in 2000) if you could recycle it all.

(This is a very rough estimate.)

This conversation is great! I want to add - yet again - that TDP should be seen as part of a total energy picture - we need to reduce our energy needs, and also diversify our energy sourcing, for political and snvironmental reasons...if there were local TDP plants in every county processing local waste of all kinds, including blackwater sewage, weed cuttings (think kudzu), we would stop landfill creation and its toxic leaching into our waters, and we would add to our clean water ratio ( this will REALLY look important in just a few years)
There is an important note here - though - the use of household garbage should really be added back to the soil- as our ag soil is radically losing vitality - hopefully TDP will not encourage people to overuse plastics or to stop composting, etc....needs to be carefully implemented as a useful part of a total community sustainablity package.

Most of the organic waste that goes into landfills never gets used to fertilize the soil; some years back there was a study of landfills where they found 25-year old newspapers still readable and plastic diapers with the contents still largely intact. Many materials, like old tires and plastics, will still be around when the cockroaches take over.

We make a lot more waste than can ever be used to fertilize soils. NYC takes its garbage out 20 miles and dumps it into the ocean. Occassionally it washes back up on shore after a big storm. The point about TDP is that it converts otherwise useless/toxic wastes into valuable commodities and conserves landfill space. The drawback until now was the cost of the process; it's REALLY expensive to process wastes through 1000oF ovens to cook off the carbon chains. The CWT process promises to do this at ~400oF which would make TDP quite economical.

Er...for some reason this board drops numerals down half a space: That should be One Thousand (1000)oF and Four Hundred (400)oF respectively.

Well my first attempt at pictures of the plant was a bust!! I did get to Carthage but it was late and we had to get back to KC by midnight so I did a perfunctory search for 411 main st where the plant is but got lost. After ten minutes we turned around and went home.

All is not lost however as I am going down next week as well so keep your fingers crossed.

While mulling over the many comments on this page I became curious about the chemical processes that make this possible. On the off chance that there is Chemist who can elucidate I gonna give it a shot.

First from my reading of super critical water it seems the water itself acts as a reactant. Is this correct. I always thought of water as the universal solvent but this is a new one on me.

Second the process apparently works on protein chains as well. This is curious as protein chains have nitrogen, phosphorus and just about every other element included within them. Not just the plan C, H & O chains. What happens to these. And how does the chain survive when the amino acids are broken up. I'm of course assuming the amino acids themselves cannot be converted but put me straight if I'm wrong.

Theo

For All:

CWT was kind enough to reply to my question to them 8/25/03 regarding start up:

"Thank you for your interest in our process. The Carthage, MO plant is scheduled to start up any day now. We had some normal construction delays"

Found this over on a biodiesel fansite (yes, there are such things on the Internet!)

-----------------------
ROTARY CLUB NOTES

The first commercial Renewable Environmental Solutions plant will be operational in Carthage in about two weeks, Don Sanders, operating manager of the plant, told Carthage Rotary Club Thursday night (August 7) at Broadview Country Club. Sanders said the plant, which will convert waste from the Butterball Turkey Plant into renewable energy, is in the final construction stages and once operational, ground will be broken at five other locations in the United States and Italy. Changing World Technologies, which is in partnership with ConAgra in the local plant, will build, license and operate future plants. Plans are to build five plants a year.

The five plants scheduled this year are partially funded by the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to the plant in Italy, others will be at Enterprise, Ala., Longmont, Colo., and Reno and Tahoe, Nev. The Carthage plant received $5 million EPA funding. The plant uses the same process as the earth did in converting dinosaur remains into fossil energy. He explained how waste products from the turkey plant that are not food products are processed through a depolymerization technique using pressure and heat. A pulp-like mixture resembling pumpkin pie filling is first converted to fertilizer, followed by a liquid fertizer, fatty acids that can be converted to plastics and a breakdown into carbons that eventually convert to diesel fuel and oil that can be sold to a refinery. The final product from the carbon is coal. The only waste, Sanders said, is water, which because of the process, is clean.

The plant, with a capacity of 200 tons of material a day, will not be overtaxed by Butterball because of its seasonal operation which has periods of low production. But Sanders noted that underground tanks of grease at many area restaurants would provide enough waste material for the plant to operate without Butterball's waste.

The speaker was introduced by Joe Adrian, program chairman.
---------------
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=829

Anybody reading this thread should know that DrMac is a fraud. He is not an academic; made perfectly clear by his repeated use of "per review" instead of "peer review." The first time I saw that I just assumed a typo, but then after he repeated it multiple times it became clear that he really thought it was "per review" and therefore is obviously not an academic. I would suggest he is likely to be a 3rd or 4th -year undergraduate.

Furthermore, people should realize that merely posting lots and lots of data, does not make a good argument; however, it does obfuscate mistakes in basic assumptions. Examples of basisc assumptions are the estimates for the energy content in turkey offal and barrels of produced oil. There is more than enough room for error when using average figures to make such calculations unuseable in a specific case except as rough order-of-magnitude estimates.

For ConAgra to be interested in this process it merely has to make economic sense to them. Mad Cow and other diseases such CWD, scrapie, etc. have drastically reduced the value of offal (to the point where it has negative value -- you have to pay to dispose of it). Therefore, TDP in this case does not have to compete with the cost of fossil fuel, it simply has to save the company money in disposal costs.

As is the case with most popular-press articles, there are undoubtedly errors and mis-statements in the Discovery article. If you've ever been involved with trying to get scientific studies published in the popular press, you will know it is nearly impossible to get it accomplished in a way that stands up to scientific scrutiny like a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal.
Where the article goes wrong (in my opinion) is interpreting this as a world-changing technology; typical of popular-press articles on new technologies.

Finally, I see this as an interesting technology that may have great potential in waste-stream reduction/diversion, but not as a revolution in energy production.

According to Orion:
The "Rotary Club Notes" description of TDP by plant manager Don Sanders 8/8/03 includes a pulp like punking pie filing fertilizer and a liquid fertilizer as being products of the process which are entirely different from those described originally. CWT stated after the water was flashed off the solids would yield valuable minerals in addition to light oil. After distillation the residue would be mostly carbon.
Using the above material as fertilizers is not much differnent than using the material as animal food as it still enters the the food chain. The offal is only ground and cooked but not depolymerized.
It is still to early to make definitive analysis as the plant has not started up and the process has not been reviewed by qualified Chemical Engineers regarding the economies when compared to the present rendering plants.

for the 'observer'

Do you really think that an english critic can determine academic standing? Before crying fraud you should do a more detailed "peer review" of the "lot's and lot's of data". You may then wish to retract your "rough order of magnitude" statements. Why, this plant might just put out 60 or 6000 barrels of oil 'per' day!

The rest of what you say is pretty spot on.

"Do you really think that an english critic can determine academic standing?"

Yes, I believe that anybody using the term "per review" instead of "peer review" is obviously not an academic. There's no two ways about it; you can not be an academic and confuse the two... it's impossible.

I also stand by the rough order of magnitude statements. The average values are means that don't reflect the range of values. There was a response here stating that their offal had approx. double the energy content as the NRC average. It's equally plausible that the produced oil has less than half the energy content as an average barrel of crude oil. Of course, "60 or 6000" is not a "rough order of magnitude" anyway.

Well I have read some of the impossibles' published papers. We are all not perfect.

I am just as confused about your generalizations.
You state average are means, when in fact these are two seperate and distinct statistical expressions. You use double and half to defend "rough orders of magnitude", when order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1, usually to base 10.

You are right that with so many unknowns and variability in the given data, results that are order of magnitudes in error are possible. Those errors are also pretty obvious because of the magnitude.

Back in May this thread put a lot into mitigating errors based on the avaliable data. I think we are still waiting for some new data when this system gets funtional.

If John is right about the Rotary comments, it would be too bad if this plant ends up being a fancy fertilizer factory.

p.s. On the assumption that Baskis' process works;

It strikes me the ideal feed stock is probably algae. I'd intentionally culture it in huge shallow retention ponds in sub-tropical areas like Florida. Literally an algae farm. Algae has a doubling time of 2-6 hours, meaning it grows REAL fast.

This eliminates the initial steps of transportation of feedstock and grinding. Alage is already 'ground up' and slurried. Use an intake pipe and remove sufficient water from the intake to create the optimum slurry mix. Rich in phosphorus and nitrogen byproducts, too.

Another great location for a large number of TDP plants would be the shores of Lake Okeechobee. When they're not cleaning up Okeechobee they can recycle the agricultural waste.

Up in colder climates I'd check into culturing yeast for a feedstock since we want to eliminate distribution transportation as much as possible. This is a nontrivial cost of petroleum products.

Baskis' original patent discussed soybeans as a great feedstock since they're already loaded with water. Whatever else it does, Baskis' TDP machine would serve as an agricultural price stabilizer by providing an alternate market for crops.

THERMAL DEPOLYMERIZING REFORMING PROCESS AND APPARATUS.

U.S. Patent Number 5,269,947.
Inventor; Paul T. Baskis
December 14, 1993.

1. The 7 page patent with drawing is infinitely more informative than the Discovery article. Baskis' process doesn't just make coal 'more friable'. It turns it into coke, oil, gasoline, kerosene, toluenes, etc.

The Discovery article said that this process was fractionating the feedstock into short chain polymers which were in a 'gaseous state' after the 'second stage reactor'.

At that moment I wondered why they didn't just go on and recapture gasoline, diesel fuel, etc. in a distillation column. Especially since they were producing natural gas, which rises to the very top of the fractionation column and is often flared off. If they had the top of the column product and were using it to power the process then why not recover the rest of them?

What were told was they were getting 'light sweet crude oil' and then 'natural gas'. What happened to the rest of hyrdocarbons in between?

Baskis' original patent asserts a claim to do precisely this.

Baskis' original patent also discusses scalability. I quote "The processor may be built in various sizes such as a small unit for a single family home to a large unit for use by a municipality or large hospital."

Two possibilities here. The first is this is total b.s.

The second is that the 'system' has suppressed large parts of something that in fact would revolutionize economics everywhere. When we see an agro-giant, directors of the CIA, Buffett's kid, et al then I'm inclined to the second answer.

Many home experimenters will answer the question soon enough. The patent is sufficiently informative to actually build a small machine.

There are some one way check valves that need to be inserted into the pipeage design but the average engineer, experienced garage inventor or decent plumber will quickly see where they should go.

I'm curious to find out how the plant at Carthage is doing. Everything I've seen implies that it should be operational by now. Does anyone have any information?

John Monroe
(jjmonroe@aol.com)

"You state average are means, when in fact these are two seperate and distinct statistical expressions. You use double and half to defend "rough orders of magnitude", when order of magnitude is an exponential change of plus-or-minus 1, usually to base 10."

I was speaking in generalities. Look at this way: Suppose that using NRC values for energy content, I calculated that this system could only produce 100 barrels of oil. A rough order of magnitude around this estimate would be 30 barrels to 300 barrels of oil produced. If I was relying on the NRC values, that order of magnitude estimate is as specific as I would be comfortable with.

observer

Hey thanks, I think we have both made a position.

I now follow this blog because of the impact of BSE in Canada. The cattle industry is in turmiol. One of the big issues is disposal. Currently discussed numbers are 50% live weight as being rendered. A large percentage of the rendering process is animal feed. Someone earlier in this post suggested that rendering disables the prion(BSE) protien. The UK determined this not the fact, and set the incineration temp. at some 900F(C? who cares). The result is the rendering industry has as much to lose as the human feed chain 50-50.

So my interest is now not whether TPD can make oil, or how much, but could this be a viable alternative to rendering.

thought for the day GR

Taking a look at tar sands operations (bitumen to oil), I think that 85% efficiency is totally bogus. Even 0% efficiency seems like a stretch. Tar sand operations are big business in Alberta, Canada producing about a million barrels per day of oil.

The tarry sand consists of about 80% sand, 15% bitumen (oily substance), and 5% water.

The process of turning bitumen to oil involves first digging it out of the ground (strip mined, which doesn't take that much energy, perhaps 10% of the bitumen's energy). Then it is refined using hot steam (thermal polymerization) and upgraded using natural gas to fix the hydrogen deficiency. Massive amounts of energy are needed for hot water to seperate the bitumen from the rock, and then to crack the bitumen into oil.

The overall efficiency is around 0%-40% depending on the facility in question and who you ask, but these operations are nonetheless profitable as less valuable coke residue, coking gases, and stranded (not marketable) natural gas are used to run the plant and valuable (per Joule) oil is sold and the industry receives substantial subsidies.

Getting back to turkeys, manure, and farm waste, thermal depolymerization is just that for plastics and oil (which can far more efficiently be processed by plastic recycling and skimming), but for the much more common cellulose, it's essentially coking. C6H12O6 (glucose, fructose, and galactose, which make up cellulose and starch) will decompose to C6 and 6(H2O) when heated in an oxygen-free atmosphere. Sure, it'll work, but energy is lost from the glucose and