T Nation

Too Good to be True?

Thermo-Depolymerization Process

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1470289

Discussion?

Very interesting. I didn’t realize the process was that efficient. I knew there was a test facility up, but wow.

85% is huge. This is a great thing for us, but it depends on how well it can be pushed and encouraged to grow. I don’t want to take a gander at the cost of the facilities.

It’s got nothing on renewable energy.

You’re right lixy, you are no fun at parties.

Who cares? Is this thread about renewable energy? No. It is not.

Renewable energy is a great thing and should be pursued accordingly. However, this is also a great stride forward. 85% efficiency is astronomical for an industrial process, particularly a reclamation one.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You’re right lixy, you are no fun at parties.

Who cares? Is this thread about renewable energy? No. It is not.

Renewable energy is a great thing and should be pursued accordingly. However, this is also a great stride forward. 85% efficiency is astronomical for an industrial process, particularly a reclamation one.[/quote]

I work with thermopolymers for a living, and what I’ve read on TDP isn’t convincing. Yes, 85% efficiency is good. But then what do you do with the oil you produced? What do you do about the air pollution you just generated?

A process that unzips polymers to make oil is going to help sell more internal combustion engines, further increasing our dependency on oil.

Think outside the box for a change.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

An article on a company producing oil.

There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil.

I recently herd about genetically modified microbes that eat waste, and convert it to oil.

Tons of methane go to waste, or is not pumped out of sources simply because of transportation issues, but gas to liquids technology changes that. And in fact you can get a synthetic crude which results in an ultra clean synthetic fuel.

All of this means we will have plenty of fuel, as long as the idiot environmentalists stay out of the way that is. (They won’t.)

We will eventually move beyond oil, once technology advances enough, and, again, the ignorant environmentalists get out of the way.

But until that day arrives, we will need oil. And the more, and cheaper, the better.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil. [/quote]

Are you serious?

“Changing World estimates that a 175 pound person would result in 38 lbs of oil, 7 lbs of gas, 7 lbs of minerals (mostly rust and chalk), and 123 lbs pure water.”

Soylent Green, anyone? :smiley:

Lixy, why do you want to take us back to an age prior to the internal combustion engine, to the ‘comfortable’ age of Feudalism? We want science, modern medicines, industry, electricity, cars, and modern homes and apartments. You want us to live in mudhuts?

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil.

Are you serious?[/quote]

Are you?

You say you “work with thermopolymers for a living” here, yet live in a dorm where the mean old dorm mates steal your food at college.

Isn’t your excuse for being in Sweden that you are a student?

I don’t think you know a fucking thing about TDP. You just want to be a little fucking bitch.

Good job.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil

An article on a company producing oil.

There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil.

I recently herd about genetically modified microbes that eat waste, and convert it to oil.

Tons of methane go to waste, or is not pumped out of sources simply because of transportation issues, but gas to liquids technology changes that. And in fact you can get a synthetic crude which results in an ultra clean synthetic fuel.

All of this means we will have plenty of fuel, as long as the idiot environmentalists stay out of the way that is. (They won’t.)

We will eventually move beyond oil, once technology advances enough, and, again, the ignorant environmentalists get out of the way.

But until that day arrives, we will need oil. And the more, and cheaper, the better.[/quote]

Where is the “Peak Oil” crowd on this? One would think they would be in here acting like lixy.

TDP could do away with land fills. and that would be worth the investment in the technology all by itself.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil.

Are you serious?

Are you?

You say you “work with thermopolymers for a living” here, yet live in a dorm where the mean old dorm mates steal your food at college.[/quote]

The one stealing my food is neither mean, nor old.

Excuse? WTF?

Yes, I’m a student. What’s your problem here?

[quote]I don’t think you know a fucking thing about TDP. You just want to be a little fucking bitch.

Good job. [/quote]

My research area is in thermal applications of conducting polymers, which doesn’t have a thing to do with TDP. That said, having read a couple of papers on the process should give me credence when opposed to vulgarized hyped junk that the for-profit media passes for science.

Now, the OP asked if it was “too good to be true”. My reply was that it’s far from being a silver bullet or even a crotch we want to rely on. The most obvious reasons being its non-sustainability, air pollution and the fact that it would keep us entangled in the oil loop. I really don’t know how knowing anything about TDP has to do with my argument.

Besides, it’s not like anyone can challenge their claims anyway. There’s one plant running (or is it still shut down? I can’t keep track) and all the figures we have are compiled internally.

Bottomline, this here is no bleeding edge technology. The process is well understood. But the fact that after all these years there aren’t anymore plants popping around should clue you about whether it’s wise to unzip polymers for energy.

But hey, why argue a point when you can just insult the person?

[quote]lixy wrote:

Now, the OP asked if it was “too good to be true”. My reply was that it’s far from being a silver bullet or even a crotch we want to rely on. The most obvious reasons being its non-sustainability, air pollution and the fact that it would keep us entangled in the oil loop. I really don’t know how knowing anything about TDP has to do with my argument.
[/quote]

Uh, Beavis, he said “crotch” ha-ha.

[quote]lixy wrote:

But hey, why argue a point when you can just insult the person?[/quote]

So you admittedly know nothing about TDP, but felt the need to say you work with polymers but only under the supervision of your teacher.

There is no point to argue. You are not what you say you are.

And who is this “us” you refer to? You are a fucking little bitch-assed college kid with a hatred of anything american. You are a “them” and will never be an “us”.

What is so bad about staying in the oil loop?

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Uh, Beavis, he said “crotch” ha-ha.[/quote]

The question is: Was that a misspelling, or does lixy actually search for crotches he can rely on?

I’d guess a big part of the problem is that not only should there be demand, but also sustainable profitability for the industry to start really working on the issue. Even if something cheap and efficient exists, it’s still more likely of them to suck all the $ out of oil first(pesky wars be damned), instead of likely rendering themselves obsolete. And it’s doubtful our government can pull the plug and force them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You’re right lixy, you are no fun at parties.

Who cares? Is this thread about renewable energy? No. It is not.

Renewable energy is a great thing and should be pursued accordingly. However, this is also a great stride forward. 85% efficiency is astronomical for an industrial process, particularly a reclamation one.

I work with thermopolymers for a living, and what I’ve read on TDP isn’t convincing. Yes, 85% efficiency is good. But then what do you do with the oil you produced? What do you do about the air pollution you just generated?

A process that unzips polymers to make oil is going to help sell more internal combustion engines, further increasing our dependency on oil.

Think outside the box for a change.[/quote]

Wind and solar will solve all our problems. Obesity and overpoplation especially.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Uh, Beavis, he said “crotch” ha-ha.

The question is: Was that a misspelling, or does lixy actually search for crotches he can rely on?
[/quote]

He is still searching for the first he can rely on. Including his own.

[quote]
The Mage wrote:
There is also the idea of taking carbon out of the air and converting it to oil.
lixy wrote:
Are you serious?[/quote]

Yes

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
You’re right lixy, you are no fun at parties.

Who cares? Is this thread about renewable energy? No. It is not.

Renewable energy is a great thing and should be pursued accordingly. However, this is also a great stride forward. 85% efficiency is astronomical for an industrial process, particularly a reclamation one.

I work with thermopolymers for a living, and what I’ve read on TDP isn’t convincing. Yes, 85% efficiency is good. But then what do you do with the oil you produced? What do you do about the air pollution you just generated?

A process that unzips polymers to make oil is going to help sell more internal combustion engines, further increasing our dependency on oil.

Think outside the box for a change.[/quote]

Well now, this makes more sense. How was I supposed to know you work with thermopolymers for a living? Especially when all you say is “that’s got nothing on renewable energy”.

Shit, at least this post actually contributed to the thread in some way and I feel like you stayed on topic. Any more you’d care to add to the discussion on this topic? Seriously. I’m interested.

As for your “think outside the box for a change” comment, you don’t know me or my education. I’m pretty well educated scientifically, just not on industrial processes.

I’m pretty sure you couldn’t handle my area of expertise off the cuff either (that being biophysical biochemistry, specifically peptide synthesis, de novo ion-channel protein synthesis, and peptide-based nanomaterials).

Feel better? I don’t know much more than an educated layperson about industrial process, but I’m pretty sure you know dick about my expertise. Think outside the box for a change.

I’ll believe it when I see it pass the stringent testing of the Myth Busters.