You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-19   20-33         
 
Author Message
bru
Is this real or a joke? Mark Unseen   Mar 16 02:25 UTC 2006

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
response 1 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 02:52 UTC 2006

All I know is that it reads like a Weekly World News article. 
cross
response 2 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 03:45 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

bru
response 3 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 06:01 UTC 2006

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
response 4 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 06:51 UTC 2006

"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
response 5 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 16:49 UTC 2006


          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
response 6 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 21:09 UTC 2006

What a jerk....
tod
response 7 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 21:29 UTC 2006

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
response 8 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 23:00 UTC 2006

Todd, you can't be from West Virginia! Your legs are the same length!
rcurl
response 9 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 16 23:59 UTC 2006

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
response 10 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 03:54 UTC 2006

thats what is great about this new process, it produces more than it takes
to make it.
nharmon
response 11 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 04:15 UTC 2006

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
response 12 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 05:02 UTC 2006

I was not refering to coal, but to the new plant turning trash to oil.
rcurl
response 13 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 06:29 UTC 2006

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
response 14 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 18:17 UTC 2006

re #8
That's not my leg!
happyboy
response 15 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 20:21 UTC 2006

LOLOLO!!!
scholar
response 16 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 17 20:27 UTC 2006

;)
naftee
response 17 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 18 00:27 UTC 2006

 :)
tsty
response 18 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 18 06:49 UTC 2006

frozen methane ... that is a real answer IFF it can be controled in
te thawing process.
rcurl
response 19 of 33: Mark Unseen   Mar 18 20:30 UTC 2006

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. 
 0-19   20-33         
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss