| You are not logged in. Login Now | register | search | |||||||||
|
| |||
| Author | Message | ||
|
bru |
seems like the time has come to have a really great discovery come along, one that provides us with oil, gets rid of our garbage, and reduces global warming. OH! look! Here it is! Pardon me, says a reporter, shivering in the frigid dawn, but that sounds too good to be true. "Everybody says that," says Appel. He is a tall, affable entrepreneur who has assembled a team of scientists, former government leaders, and deep-pocketed investors to develop and sell what he calls the thermal depolymerization process, or TDP. The process is designed to handle almost any waste product imaginable, including turkey offal, tires, plastic bottles, harbor-dredged muck, old computers, municipal garbage, cornstalks, paper-pulp effluent, infectious medical waste, oil-refinery residues, even biological weapons such as anthrax spores. According to Appel, waste goes in one end and comes out the other as three products, all valuable and environmentally benign: high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing. Unlike other solid-to-liquid-fuel processes such as cornstarch into ethanol, this one will accept almost any carbon-based feedstock. If a 175-pound man fell into one end , he would come out the other end as 38 pounds of oil, 7 pounds of gas, and 7 pounds of minerals, as well as 123 pounds of sterilized water. While no one plans to put people into a thermal depolymerization machine, an intimate human creation could become a prime feedstock. "There is no reason why we can't turn sewage, including human excrement, into a glorious oil," says engineer Terry Adams, a project consultant. So the city of Philadelphia is in discussion with Changing World Technologies to begin doing exactly that." Is this for real? This is from the April issue of Discover magazine, but there seems to be some suggestion that this was originally brought out in Discover in April of 2001. I am confused. Does Discover go in for big practical jokes? | ||
| 33 responses total. | |||
|
slynne |
All I know is that it reads like a Weekly World News article. | ||
|
cross |
This response has been erased.
| ||
|
bru |
it is the april 2006 issue, but I found discussion on the web that implies it had been printed before. The question is, Would DISCOVER Magazine purposefully print a hoax even for april fools day? | ||
|
rcurl |
"thermal depolymerization" has also been mentioned in the professional literature. But so far I've only seen general descriptions, not any peer-reviewed quantitative information about conditions and products. Some of the history and this kind of unsubstantiated information is recounted in the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization A lot of the accounts that appear quote pretty much directly from the inventor's remarks. What is questionable is that this process has been touted since 2001 but only one pilot plant has apparently been built. Also there are many chemical plants that produce smelly intermediates or products with little or none getting released if they are designed and run properly, so why isn't this process operating without odor? | ||
|
trap |
re#0
don't you know that you are pathetic? you worthless bag of
filth.
hey you fucking americans! you're the shit-bags of the earth.
:(
| ||
|
rcurl |
What a jerk.... | ||
|
tod |
I've seen how they can condense coal to a liquid form which could run cars. We could then change our dependence from the Middle East to West Virginia. <spits chaw on your wingtips> | ||
|
nharmon |
Todd, you can't be from West Virginia! Your legs are the same length! | ||
|
rcurl |
Re #7: that doesn't reduce our dependency on fossil fuel. In fact, it increases it as the conversion is itself very energy demanding. | ||
|
bru |
thats what is great about this new process, it produces more than it takes to make it. | ||
|
nharmon |
Before people start chiming in that bru's statement violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics...he means that the process of converting coal to liquid fuel uses less energy than the new fuel provides. | ||
|
bru |
I was not refering to coal, but to the new plant turning trash to oil. | ||
|
rcurl |
Well, no, it doesn't - if you consider the raw materials themselves as fuel. If you consider the raw materials as free, then yes, of course, one gets a net fuel production. They say that "that for every 100 BTUs in the feedstock, they use only 15 BTUs to run the process". However "CWT wont reveal exactly how the process works. There have been no peer-reviewed papers and no conference talks. Adams is unapologetic: 'This is a commercial enterprise. We want to keep the details secret because we are trying to make a buck on this.'"" This is often the sign of optimism over reality. Proprietary information can still be protected. | ||
|
tod |
re #8 That's not my leg! | ||
|
happyboy |
LOLOLO!!! | ||
|
scholar |
;) | ||
|
naftee |
:) | ||
|
tsty |
frozen methane ... that is a real answer IFF it can be controled in te thawing process. | ||
|
rcurl |
Do you mean the seabed methane clathrates? Using those would aggravate global warming as methane is a greenhouse gas (and some will be released unburnt in any recovery process) and its combustion releases stored carbon as CO2. Whether the seabed methane was formed from fossil carbon or carbon in circulation in the biosphere is not particularly relevant as it is now in storage, and releasing it contributes to greenhouse gases. | ||
|
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In |
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss