Slashdot Mirror


AgroWaste Oil Plant Starts Production

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo, and others has a story about the first Waste-to-Oil plant going online, and selling the oil commercially. Using TCP (Thermal Conversion Process), the plant is producing 100-200 barrels of No. 4 oil a day, and has the capacity to produce up to 500 barrels per day. With the amount of agricultural waste in the U.S., and many more of these plants, we could possibly reduce our need for foreign oil."

32 of 730 comments (clear)

  1. New RFC? by John+Hurliman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will a new RFC be coming out, for Oil over TCP?

    1. Re:New RFC? by John+Hurliman · · Score: 4, Informative

      BTW, 20,799 more of these plants all running at full capacity and we could satisfy our dependency on foreign oil (approx. 10.9 million barrels a day). Assuming there's that much waste to convert.

    2. Re:New RFC? by keraneuology · · Score: 5, Informative
      According to a post I found at http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID= 829
      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.
      The trick is to feed all of those turkeys h erbal v 14 gr.a and give them all a freakishly large p 3.ni5 to increase the mass that goes into the machines, thereby increasing the output. But seriously, Circle Four farms in Utah claims on their website to have produced 1,000,000 market hogs in 2003 - http://www.c4farms.com/FAQ/FAQ.htm#market. A typical market hog can be expected to produce 2 tons of waste every year (large hog farms produce sewage waste in quantities similar to small-to-medium cities). 2,000,000 tons of manure would produce somewhere around 600,000 barrels of light oil/year. Granted, this isn't much (Saudia Arabia will shift their production by 1,000,000 barrels/day), but it would mean that this particular farm and many houses around it could be self-sufficient energy-wise, and they wouldn't need those massive lagoons of pig waste that occasionally break open and flood the neighborhood.
      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    3. Re:New RFC? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Whether there is that much waste to convert or not shouldn't be the main point. If you could lock up a load of carbon that would otherwise go up as C02 emissions that would be a good thing in itself. Cleanly and economically generating 5% of the nations energy otherwise coming from fossil fuels would be a tremendous advancement. If there was not enough doodoo to completely replace oil, it is still a step forward.

      If there was a silver bullet to our tricky problems, the Lone Ranger would have showed up by now. I think our energy dependancy and reliance on fossil fuels will need to change incrementally (not to discount a sense of urgency either). It is a workable problem (always the optimist) and fortunately the business drivers will increase as oil supplies become more both financially and environmentally costly to extract.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    4. Re:New RFC? by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      > be more energy conscious and don't waste it, use *exactly* what you need

      Hold on a sec, all these servers are putting out a lot of heat I have to turn up the AC in here. Ok, better, now what were you saying?

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  2. Oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Decrease our need for foreign oil, and increase our use of domestic oil. Doesn't anyone see oil as the problem behind CO2 increases? The economic short-range thinking sometimes disgusts me.

    1. Re:Oil by Openstandards.net · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't know if oil is the primary contributor. I still can't believe that a cow releases 100-200 liters of methane every day in the form of flatulance. Methane has 31x the "global warming" effect of CO2 on atmosphere, so think of that as 3000-6000 liters of CO2 every day.

      I just wish I could put a cow on the back of my truck so I wouldn't have to pay the high price of gas today.

  3. 500?? 500???????!!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, since daily US oil consumption is what, 20 *million* barrels per day, I'm
    sure it will be no problem to set up another 10,000 of these plants, and there
    will be absolutely no government or corporate resistance, and the oil will be
    just as good as what comes out of the ground and just as cheap!

    Seriously, the only way we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is if we
    reduce our dependence on oil, period. And that will only happen when the price
    of oil goes so high we actually have to stop driving our SUVs once in a while.

    Then maybe we can just fuckin' IGNORE the middle east.

    1. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we could build 10k of these plants, we could also ignore the Middle East, since that would roughly match our foreign oil imports.

      No idea how much it costs to build one of these plants, but let's guess $20M. That'd be $200B to end our dependence on foreign oil. About the cost of the Iraq war.

    2. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless of the SUV's... and the fact that the article seems overly optimistic, this is a step in a good direction. While this one plant obviously doesn't come near to providing a solution, time could yield increased efficiency and more plants.

      Also, redirection of organic waste that would otherwise end up elsewhere isn't a bad plan either. Perhaps if they started adding reprocessing plants to major landfills we could exchange waste for oil.

      In the meantime, while SUV's etc are definately a problem, the high oil prices provide a visible indicator that perhaps such vehicles cost more than they're worth. Lots of oil is still being used for fueling things other than automobiles though.... so to be fair it's a lot more than just SUV drivers that need to cut back - overconsumption is a much more global issue.

    3. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a lot more Escalades than Blackhawks.

      An Escalade on the highway will burn 1 gallon per 16 miles. Assuming highway cruise speed of 75, we're talking about 5 gallons per hour, or roughly $10 per hour (at the national average).

      So we need 40 Escalades to match one Blackhawk.

      36,114 Escalades were sold in 2002, according to GM. 35,621 in 2003. So in just 2 years, we have a little over 70,000 Escalades on the streets; this is equivalent to about 1750 Blackhawks. Though exact numbers are hard to find, there appear to be about 2000-2500 Blackhawks in the US Armed Forces.

      Even assuming we run the Blackhawks as much as the Escalades, *one model* of SUV counterbalances the entire US military stock of Blackhawks.

      Enough research for you?

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    4. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tell me where you're finding this 20%. I have a Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality transcript for the 2001 Energy Policy (specifically our policy on oil) that says that the transportation sector accounts for 69% of total oil consumption.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    5. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Guess what? Last time I looked we lived in a free, capitalistic society,

      Feh. I can't speak for your country, but the only reason goddamn soccer mothers can afford SUV's in my country is because the government only tarrifs them at 5% instead of the regular 15% for passenger cars - i.e. the very opposite of free capitalism, government price interference.

      This tarrif break was originally for farmers who required 4WD's/SUV's to work their land - it should not apply to people who aren't making their primary income from primary industry.

      YLFI

      I feel obliged to point out, btw, that not all SUV's/4WD's are gas guzzling monsters - Landrover Freelander is a good exception.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    6. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, since daily US oil consumption is what, 20 *million* barrels per day, I'm
      sure it will be no problem to set up another 10,000 of these plants, and there
      will be absolutely no government or corporate resistance, and the oil will be
      just as good as what comes out of the ground and just as cheap!


      Yep, you've got it about right.

      US demand is closer to 11 million barrels per day, and with over 20,000 factory farms in the US that could apply the technology, 10,000 is optimistic but not impossible. 5 million barrels a day won't supply all the demand, but it could reduce it 50% which means a lot.

      Of course, since the net effect is to reduce the waste produced by factory farms, the government might actually mandate the building of the plants, but since the plants make money they'd probably be built anyway - government involvement will just make it happen faster. American oil is mostly in the oil refining business so they won't really mind have a second source for raw materials. The only companies likely to dislike it would are the oil drillers, oil shippers and of course OPEC.

      And while the price will naturally be the same as the stuff that comes out of the ground, the price of both is likely to be lower than it would be without the plants online.

      As for quality, it's supposedly the same, but since most oil is simply burned, I doubt it matters much if it's little higher or lower.

      -- not a .sig
    7. Re:500?? 500???????!!!? by njcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/infocardnew.html I think this is what he was talking about.

  4. Don't be so quick to judge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Human activity might indeed be modestly affecting global temperatures. In fact it might be the reason for the extended inter-glacial period we're currently enjoying. A little global warming is a good thing, as it may stave off another catastrophic ice age. The earth left to it's own devices has other ideas that we would find most inhospitable.

  5. Initial Costs by IllogicalStudent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds like a solution to 2 problems: overflowing landfills, and soaring oil prices. The question, of course, comes to down to the almighty buck. The article (yes, I read it, I'm new here) states that it such plants are self-sufficient in terms of producing their own energy to operate, but fails to state their initial cost.

    In these times of short-sighted administrations led by politicians unable to see the big picture beyond getting reeleced in 4 years, how likely is this to be implemented en-masse in municipalities such as Toronto, for example, where it could be used to curb (apparently in an eco-friendly manner, while providing needed petroleum) exports of waste to Michigan?

    --
    But Maaa! Everyone else has a .sig !
  6. This *is* useful by PHPhD2B · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Discover Magazine ran an article on this process, and it's incredibly versatile. It can serve a dual purpose: reducing the dependence on foreign oil, AND reducing the amount of waste going into landfills.

    100-200 barrels a day is NOT to laugh at, many privately owned oil wells produce far less than that per day. It still pays off to run them. And yes, it is realistic to set up hundreds or even thousands of these plants - I'd imagine many municipalities would be interested in using a plant like this to turn their waste into a resource rather than a drain. The process isn't just for turkey guts, it can convert plastic scrap, old tires, and other such refuse into oil as well.

    So don't knock it just because the output seems puny - this can be used not only to reduce the dependence on foreign oil, it is also useful in creating a decentralized energy infrastructure.

    --
    --I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
  7. Can do this with coal, too... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Victoria, Australia, one of the power companies is planning to do a similar thing with coal, except they're going to churn out enough of it to supply most of the local market. If it works, they're going to generate cheap, low-sulfur (and thus low-emission) diesel, run a whopping great electricity plant from the byproducts, and all the CO2 from the generation will be stuffed underground for a very long time. While it's not ideal, it's a heck of a lot better than the current situation (burn the coal straight into the atmosphere and import oil from overseas).

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  8. Re:Oil No. 4? by rengav · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a standard grade of heating oil. If you live on the West Coast of the U.S. you have no idea what heating oil really is since we use electric or natural gas, but on the East Coast and in the Midwest it is still widely used.

  9. Re:Three simple words: Build more refineries. by JohnsonWax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering how much better air quality in LA has become (I should know, I live here too) perhaps the rest of the nation should adopt the same boutique blend.

    That way, all refineries would be making the same stuff and the regional demand issues could go away. Refineries can be built. They're easier to build in TX than in CA, true, but they can be built.

    Of course, nobody is going to reduce their gas consumption as an act of philanthropy. Gas consumption will go down as soon as the price of gas is high enough to pick something else.

  10. Good business plan by Openstandards.net · · Score: 4, Informative
    I actually believe this is a very viable business plan, because of my experience at BP Chemicals. BP Chemicals (originally part of Standard Oil), was created to process the waste of the oil business, in an attempt to at least recoup some of the costs, and possibly make a profit.

    It turned out to be very lucrative, and became a major cash producer for BP. When oil income was down, they counted on Chemicals to keep cash and profits up.

    One of their earliest less complex chemicals they produced happened to be nitrogen, used to create fertilizer. Later, they produce a lot more complex chemicals, and even sold their nitrogen facilities in the 90s. Their acrylonitriles business was booming, the last time I worked for them.

    The bottom line is that a business created to reduce the cost of waste, and possibly even make a profit by processing it turned out to be a major industry success. Thus, I believe that since they are not merely producing oil through an unconventional means, but using the savings from waste management to drive the business, this could be a huge success and create a new industry.

  11. The logical error is your own. by Behrooz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Error. You ignore the fact that the rollover risk is partly under the driver's control, by avoiding driving in ways that are prone to rollover. The heavier frame, on the other hand, helps in accidents caused by other people that the driver could not avoid. ...and not incidentally, kills other people in accidents that the driver causes.

    As for driving in ways that are prone to rollover; if you drive at highway speeds, you are prone to rollover if you have to avoid any sudden obstacle. Unless you're planning to avoid driving over say, 35 miles an hour, there's not a shitload you can do to actively avoid rollovers other than drive with reasonable caution.

    SUVs are bad mojo from a safety perspective. Arguing that they'd be safer than cars if everyone drove a certain way is absolutely asinine in light of clear evidence that people don't drive that way.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  12. Re:Kill 'em all and let the market sort 'em out. by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Increased auto emissions start this year and take effect for all vehicles including SUVS for the first time by 2007 (2009 for the HUGE SUVS). There are going to be a lot of SUVs that are going to be hard pressed to meet these new regulations. This is one of the biggest clean air regulations to ever be put into place. About an 85% reduction in non-CO2 emissions. It's equivalent to around 150 million cars being removed from the road once these new cars get out there. It's especially great for everyone in CA since it means that everyone will use the same clean gas as us, lowering our price since cheap gas from OR will become a possibility driving down in state production. Best of all is the reclassification of really big SUVs are consumer vehicles (the H2 isn't right now). This means they'll get the gas guzzler take and their poor MPG will count against their parent companies.

    --

    Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
  13. Planes and trains beat cars for fuel efficiency. by Behrooz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    747s average about 0.2 miles per gallon for a reasonable-distance flight. When you figure in their larger passenger capacity, it costs significantly less fuel to transport a passenger in a 747 than it does to transport a passenger in even a fully-occupied SUV.

    To burst your bubble a little more, diesel-powered trains are significantly more efficient than planes or cars. A representative example would be the aggregate fuel efficiency of Burlington Northern, a large freight railroad. 751.2 GTM (gross ton-miles per gallon) in 2003 for their entire fleet of trains. We'll stick with the previous poster's comparison to the Cadillac Escalade EXT. With a gross curb weight of 3175kg (3.5 standard tons) and highway fuel efficiency of 16 miles per gallon, the Escalade weighs in with a whopping 56.0 GTM.

    So, freight trains are 13.41x as fuel-efficient as Escalades. Now that must be a surprise...

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  14. Re:Damn - Still no free lunch! by gerardrj · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't know who ConAgra is do you? These are the people who are just about solely responsible for the addition of ethanol to gasoline. ConAgra (and I think Arthur Daniels Midland: ADM) lobbied hard for those requirements.
    See.. they had a whole lot of land they couldn't use profitably under then current government farm subsidies, so they came up with a way to grow corn and turn it in to an automotive fuel required by law.
    They get paid a farm subsidy to grow corn, then they are paid a federal clean-air subsidy for creating a clean-air fuel, then they sell that fuel at full market price to gasoline blenders. It's quite the cash cow.
    You as a consumer are actually paying well over the listed pump price for gasoline because of these hidden payments.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  15. It all has to do with the carbon cycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Doesn't anyone see oil as the problem behind CO2 increases?"

    In this case, no. The waste would decay on its own naturally, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere upon doing so. At least through Thermal Depolymerization, we are harnessing the energy from that process. The reason fossil fuels in general cause global warming is that by drilling and burning them we are taking carbon out of the ground and putting it in the air. Carbon from conventional petroleum has been sequestered in the ground for millions of years, while carbon from turkey guts has been part of the closed carbon loop, and thus does not add to the total amount of carbon in the cycle.

    1. Re:It all has to do with the carbon cycle by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't tell me that the same amount of CO2 is generated by decaying e.g. a ton biowaste to soil than by burning it.

      Of course not, but you're overlooking some critical parts of the process:

      First, All of the carbon involved was taken out of the air to begin with as the plants grow. (which are the start of the cycle, whether you are using plant or animal wastes as feedstock). So Even in the worst case scenario, the net increase in CO2 from straight burning of the waste is ZERO.

      Second, the TCP process yields more products than just light crude oil:

      1) Light Crude oil
      2) High quality fertilizer (as a solid)
      3) Solid carbon
      4) Medium to high quality fuel gas (methane, used internally to the process)

      And a few other products in no real quantity...

      The key here is that one of the products is solid carbon, which is almost as good as coal in terms of energy density should you use it as fuel. However, it is more useful (physically and economically) to use as an activated carbon filter for water treatment, because of the quality of the product.

      In other words, at worst the process has a zero net increase of carbon from the atmosphere if you use 100% of the products as fuel and at best a net decrease if you don't. Plus it produces fertilizers and materials that can be used for water treatment! Talk about eco-friendly!
      =Smidge=

  16. Wrong view by ChiralSoftware · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem with looking for solutions to the energy problem is that there isn't a solution. There are a whole bunch of small solutions that, when added up together, will be the solution. One plant producing 500 barrels/day is 1/10,000th of the solution. One thousand such plants is 1/10th of the solution. Add in a few nuclear reactors, some solar panels, wind turbines, more efficient cars, biodiesel, 100% electric cars with lithium batteries, telecommuting, maybe even a Segway, and it starts adding up to a solution to the energy problem. If we did all of those things in parallel, within a few years, OPEC would be sweating and we would not have to spend billions of dollars a year on oil, and then billions more on trying to keep our oil suppliers stable and friendly.

    I also hear people say "the oil industry has too much power here for anything to change." This is also the wrong view. Sure, the oil industry does have a lot of power, but the result of their machinations is that our entire economy is dependent on a commodity which we must import from politically unstable and hostile parts of the world which are far away. There are plenty of other powerful industries in the US that have nothing to do with oil that must see this as a hazardous situation, one which should be remedied by moving the US to having multiple energy options to choose from, including cost-competitive domestic solutions. Is the oil industry in the US more powerful than all the other non-oil industries? I don't think so.

    ------------
    Create a WAP server

  17. Untrue, the actuarial tables are interesting. by Behrooz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your assumptions are false, anonymous one.

    To be charitable, I will assume that you are considering only bodily injury liability, since most other insurance coverage is directly related to a vehicle's cost.

    The actual costs to an insurance company from an SUV accident are masked by the following factors:

    In multiple-vehicle accidents:

    Responsibility: The cost of the accident is covered by the insurance of the party who caused the accident. Which vehicle caused the most damage or which vehicle is unsafe has little to no correlation with who pays.

    In single-vehicle accidents:

    Rollover accident spread: In rollovers, the typical range of injuries is far more narrow than in the aggregate of auto accidents. Typically, either the passengers remain in the vehicle and do not sustain serious injuries, or they are ejected from the vehicle and die. Dead people cost the insurance company significantly less than ongoing hospitalization for serious/chronic injuries.

    In a microcosm of the SUV concept in general, the overall increased insurance cost of having SUVs on the road is distributed across the entire spectrum of auto owners.

    Look back at historical examples of unsafe vehicles and you will see a similar trend. The risk posed by one model of vehicle has very little relation to the cost of insuring a person driving that vehicle.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  18. I am already doing this... by dant77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in the UK and petrol / diesel prices are over $6 per gallon. In light of this, and the fact that petrol consumption is the cause of all kinds of environmental devastation (my girlfriend comes from Northern Spain, recently wrecked by the Prestige spill) and war, I have decided to make my own diesel fuel from waste vegetable oil.

    Biodiesel and associated technologies can only ever be a part of truly sustainable glabal energy policy, but it has a large part to play in these early stages as it uses existing technology.

    Not many people know that the original diesel engine ran on peanut oil!

    I bought a cheap diesel car and built an oil refinery from scrap metal in my shed. I have made friends from my friendly, local, Kurdish kebab seller and I am well on the way to fuel independence.

    Check out my project at:

    Dan's biodiesel

    Peace and grease!

    1. Re:I am already doing this... by dant77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So far I have only made small experimental batches - the equipment is not yet ready to make a fuel-tank full (should be this weekend once I get my filter equipment up and running).

      I am relying on the hundreds of case studies for people using this stuff in unmodified diesel engines for my confidence of success! The best site I have found is:

      Journey to forever - biofuels

      Uk regulations can be found at:

      UK biodiesel production regulations

      But a little googling will turn up much more info.

      I will be updating my site as soon as I have more to tell on my own little greasy odyssey ;o)