Only if the current captains of (the imported oil) industry can get their mitts on it. Otherwise, we may be in for a technoloical siege of sorts. Dubya's buddies aren't going to just stand by and allow one of their cash cows to be rendered insignficant.
Read the article before posting, dumbass. Then you won't sound like an idiot when you spew the typical BS politics conspiracy theory. More likely than not, the oil industry is going to be one of the early adopters of this technology. So Bush's buddies, and those of us who have made a killing on their stock this year (current return at 300% in 03), are going to use this technology to get richer. Something else for the little bitches on this board to cry about. Oh, and one of the biggest backers of this technology happens to be named Buffett. You think he'd get behind it if the boys he plays poker with on Friday night were planning on snuffing out the project before it gets off the ground? Now that would be a great bluff.
Re: Re: The Middle East might have just gotten A LOT less important... I thought you were going to say the Senate changed its mind about drilling in ANWR. This is great news too, however. Who the hell cares?? What matters is that we won't be reliant on the Middle East for oil, if this pans out.
I don't know why I found this disturbing.Maybe it's this: "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. " (What was soylent green again?Ohhh yeahhhh..)
I read it the first time, you stringy-haired peckerwood chairsniffer. More than likely, they'll stall the process until they control it. It really is good news not to have soldiers securing oil elsewhere, but any real reduction in my expenses as a consumer will depend on their willingness not to pass the cost of building the depolymerization plants on to me. I'll jump for joy at a later date.
Re: Re: Re: The Middle East might have just gotten A LOT less important... Good point. Let's hope it matters at the pump.
I certainly think this is important and should be pursued, but I would be careful about thinking it is going to change things. First, as energy is the prime requirement of the economy, bringing in new energy sources does not mean you stop using old ones. When the world started using oil, it used more coal, not less than before (because you can use more efficient oil powered machines to get it and ship it). Second, depending on a waste product means there are limits to the source, and those limits could change unexpectedly. For example, if the economy were to drop (like, say, what would happen if worldwide oil production dropped), there would be fewer waste products as people use less and switch to lower waste, cheaper foods. The solar energy industry is dependent on waste products from the semiconductor industry, and it causes lots of problems in getting solar off the ground. This could be an important part of making a sustainable society in the future. And I always though that landfills were an important resource that one day would be tapped - I think this is a tool to do it. The government should be spending far more than $12 million on this and dump that stupid hydrogen stuff.
I think it is premature to be excited about this. But suppose we become less dependent on oil. Does that mean that all the fanatics and terrorists in the Middle East will go away? I don't think so. They will probably be even more pissed at the USA.
I'm with spejic on this, maybe it is a breakthru but the jury's out. There's other technologies out there which can process the kind of wastes they are talking about here. They are effective, but they all have these typical weaknesses: 1) no waste source is very homogeneous, they spend alot of money sorting and classifying the feed 2) the homogeneous waste sources, like waste oil and fat and such, are not usually available at sufficient amounts to take advantage of economies of scale. Also, they have some value already, these wastes are already being sold for other purposes 3) Collecting the wastes tends to be a major cost factor 4) Tailoring the process to do each batch differently is difficult to do on a large scale 5) Some of the things mentioned are highly corrosive, very expensive to get equipment which is compatible. Maybe they've figured out how to get over these hurdles. We'll see, the things I listed above are well known from previous "breakthrough" technologies. If it really is that good, no evil protector of the status quo will be able to squash it - it would be a license to print money, everyone will want a piece.
I've read you can run a diesel engine with vegetable oil, too. We'll be hitting the pumps, and they'll ask (in Jersey, anyway) Will that be regular, or vegetarian, Sir?
Yeah, but it supposedly fvcks up the engine like none other (altho I don't know, I've never done it and don't know anybody who has).
Au contraire mon ami. Well sort of. Apparently if misused, it can cook the engine, but if used appropriately apparently it's a better engine lubricant than ordinary diesel - and as such better. There's been a big hoo-haa over it here. Bigger news here because our petrol (or more precisely diesel) prices are so darn stupid. You could actually hear the beads of sweat forming on the brow of the Treasury. Saw on some motoring show here that basically you get 1 gallon of used vegetable oil and to it add a few spoonfuls of white spirit (or something similar - I don't have a diesel so it doesn't matter), and you have a fantastic option.
Anyway, back to the original topic: Changing World Technology Home Response from story - 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." This is why I will bet big money on this process: The cost of waste is a HUGE cost to the oil industry. Turning that cost into profit, despite the necessary investments in building the Depol plants, means big money to big oil. Which is why Autodumbass' retort really is short-sighted. If you don't understand how turning operational costs into net profit will impact the bottom line, I can't help you. The oil industry does understand that their product is finite. They know it is going away, and they spend good money on alternatives. If this works, it is by far the best alternative to date. Response from story - 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. I realize your point wasn't about coal per se, but this is a great example of how this process will make existing technologies even more efficient than they are today. There is a 15% overhead in creating this energy. That stacks up quite nicely compared with anything else that I am aware of. I would tend to agree with your point except that unlike solar, the waste in this case is not constrained to one sector. This is any waste. And beyond that, even if your scenario unfolded, having more alternatives alleviates the affects of an economic downturn. With all your eggs in one basket (oil), a war with Iraq has an enormous impact. Spread the eggs, and the impact of that same war decreases dramatically, or the war doesn't happen at all.
I just read a simplified description of this process here, pg. 65 http://www.gri.org/webroot/downloads/en/4ReportsPubs/4_3RDPlan/2003Workpaper2Results.pdf All that they do is heat the stuff in water and depressurize. Don't hold your breath that this is any kind of miracle cure to our energy problems. In fact, it's not even an answer to landfill problems, and if it is even useful on low-value turkey renderings I'll be surprised. My guess is that the EPA got sucked into funding a marginal process to turn turkey trimmings into fertilizer in a very costly way. The propaganda on the website is eye-catching, I'll give them that.
Here's an intersting site for those of you tempted to use vegetable oil in your diesel http://www.vegburner.co.uk/votheory.htm Be careful or you could ruin an expensive engine to save a few pennies
Yes, the idea is simple. That's one of the main reasons I think it has such potential. I'm confused about how the link you post here (thanks BTW) refutes anything that Changing World claims. From what I read, it bolsters it. From what I understand, it has already proven useful on Turkey offal. The EPA hasn't provided much of anything to this process as far as funding, relative to other energy projects (hydro-car comes to mind). OTOH, a good deal of money is being invested by shrewd private investors who have shown over time to have somewhat of a Midas touch. No offense, but I think I'll take the optimistic route and side with them on this one for now.
One of the critical things you have to learn in life is, who do you think has credibility. So, good luck, Nutmeg. But I can tell you that the description of the process and claims of what it can do don't add up. This one has a suspicious smell, mark me down against all those shrewd investors.