Diesel is made from the sludge left over from refining oil
No it's just a heavier mix than petrol/gasoline, easier to make than petrol/gasoline but US refineries don't make a lot of it for some reason. The "sludge" ends up being used for things like making roads and/or gets cracked into lighter stuff.
complete this conversion at a less than or equal cost of energy generated by the oil
How do you know this? Do you have access to information that shows it is not like the sewerage treatment that releases far more methane than is requited to power the treatment or are you just making a wild guess based on gut feeling and ignorance?
I don't know how they define "cost effective", but since the plastic mostly came from oil in the first place, any energy expenditure to recover it is a net minus overall.
While that is undoubtedly true it's likely that the energy is going to come from the waste plastic. Similarly coal fired power stations need to bleed off electricity to run crushers, conveyors, sootblowers etc.
but overall it is a fuel source with an energy return on investment (EROI) less than 1.
Yes thermodynamics sucks doesn't it - but it's the LAW.
We're in trouble if we have to start resorting to this as an energy source. Deep trouble.
Are you seriously resorting to the "all eggs in one basket" argument when nobody else is suggesting to use this as the only energy source instead of a mix? That's the line of PR folk employed by nuclear companies or those of oil companies attacking the PR folk of nuclear companies and both attacking solar. I'm sure you are a better person than that.
A heat source is not the problem here since the stuff is a fuel in itself. I suspect the above poster just wanted to push a nuclear agenda by attaching it to something unrelated, but I could be wrong and they may just be so fixated on a topic that "when you've got a hammer everything is a nail" applies. Maybe we should let "mlts" let us know instead of both of us trying to explain what his mostly unrelated post was about? For all we know it could just be about being able to stay at sea for months at a time.
its because your electric company is spending lots of money on existing coal plants
There's more. The current trick in some parts of the world is spend a lot of money on "poles and wires" (they used this dumbed down term for infrastructure in general even when major parts of the cost are substations) with no oversight whether it is needed or not and charge that on to the consumer. For example in Australia there has been a lot built rapidly despite declining consumption which has led to a major gap between some of the lowest generating costs in the world and close to the highest bill per kW/h for consumers in the world.
is spending lots of money on existing coal plants so they emit less SO2, NOx, PM, and Hg.
Hang on - wasn't most of that done in the 80s and 90s? I thought I saw the tail end of precipitators, bag filters etc going in when I went into the electricity generating industry in 1994, and only holdouts like China did without.
It could even be argued that the competition in China is entirely due to years of political pressure in the USA to not develop the results of US research and have a viable US photovoltaic industry based in Texas or Silicon Valley where items were developed almost to the point of the current Chinese products. By actively opposing a domestic solar industry that left the Chinese plenty of room to take over the market.
They had those burdens earlier which did not slow them down due to a nice big money supply from the taxpayer. Banks and private enterprise haven't stepped in even in places where there are little or no regulatory burdens. I suggest you consider that before suggesting that lowering safety standards is going to magically make Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch want to build a nuclear power station.
As soon as you consider places where there is industry consuming electricity instead of merely residential usage then you get plenty of consumption in full daylight. Slicing the top off that big daytime peak has resulted in a couple of coal fired units being mothballed near me and some expensive to operate gas turbines having a lot less running time.
It appears this one is designed for performance not range. Since that bunch of undergrads 14 years ago got 100km on a relatively low budget I'd say a professionally designed machine with modern batteries could do something with reasonable performance as well as decent range instead of this thing that sacrifices range for performance. So the main cause of the range problem now is designers thinking that other things are more important. There's probably already long range electric bikes out there with a top speed around highway speed limits.
Back in 2000 I had some students who put together an electric bike that could do 0-60km/h in about 5 seconds (the Harley doing miles is of course much more impressive). With a range of around 100km. Fourteen years ago. With lead-acid batteries. Put together by undergraduate students. With vast advances in batteries, motors, everything that range problem is now around equivalent to the "range problem" with a tank of fuel. There's still a fast charging problem but the "range problem" has effectively vanished unless you are talking about an offroad vehicle with nowhere to recharge.
These things almost never get hit out on the highway where there's plenty of room and everything's moving. It's suburbia and relatively low speed where cars are more likely to hit motorcyles so I think they do have a point.
So then, using a bit of logic, how does your example of flimsy plastic digital cameras getting corrosion on circuit boards from some idiot that takes his cameras into the surf without precautions apply to older mechanical cameras that are far less prone to water damage? You have nothing. Since you have nothing it appears you are following the pattern shown in your comment history of jumping on other people's comments for a bit of oneupmanship presumably for the sake of ego boosting. You are effectively masturbating with the aid of other people's comments. I do not like being a part of such an activity.
Since your refutation relied on the premise of all old cameras being broken the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you saw the little marker and decided you wanted to have fun by picking on someone you'd marked as fun person to pick on. You just didn't get someone who would roll over this time like the others on your list to bully.
Following you around? You have a massive sense of self-importance, don't you?
Take responsibility for your actions like an adult. My quite bland and innocent post was clearly hit with your confected controversy just so you could put me in my place because you saw the little marker - quite pathetic. Claiming innocence now is even more so.
Also your argument about old film cameras being crap rests on photos of a broken digital camera. Why do you even bother? Please post seriously instead of a silly game of trolling people you have marked as foe. I don't think we should have to put up with such bullshit.
So your example is some guy that took his camera into the surf unprotected and got it wet? Seriously?
Give up on your petty attempt to troll a "foe" - as if you've ever seen anyone, let alone a lot of people trying and failing to use mistreated cameras instead of the norm that is stored out of the wet.
I don't see why you'd bring up your history in materials science
To point out how I know your bluff in your pointless oneupmanship is worthless and that you can't put one over on me with it. Who tries to sell or give away a badly stored and corroded camera? You find such things in landfill and not in use.
Why not just fuck off?
You are the one that jumped on my comment remember. Oh that's right, you want me to stop writing so you can claim some sort of "win" in a troll game.
Also two of the three early advocates of the fossil record depicting events over geological time instead of a lot of dead things in a single flood actually worked for the Anglican Church.
Slashdot Mirror
It pisses me off immensely despite my wages coming in part from that energy monopoly.
No it's just a heavier mix than petrol/gasoline, easier to make than petrol/gasoline but US refineries don't make a lot of it for some reason. The "sludge" ends up being used for things like making roads and/or gets cracked into lighter stuff.
How do you know this? Do you have access to information that shows it is not like the sewerage treatment that releases far more methane than is requited to power the treatment or are you just making a wild guess based on gut feeling and ignorance?
While that is undoubtedly true it's likely that the energy is going to come from the waste plastic. Similarly coal fired power stations need to bleed off electricity to run crushers, conveyors, sootblowers etc.
Yes thermodynamics sucks doesn't it - but it's the LAW.
Are you seriously resorting to the "all eggs in one basket" argument when nobody else is suggesting to use this as the only energy source instead of a mix? That's the line of PR folk employed by nuclear companies or those of oil companies attacking the PR folk of nuclear companies and both attacking solar. I'm sure you are a better person than that.
Pumps and sieves may be easier than digging in landfill and sieves.
Maybe, but consider the obvious way to fuel an oil producing oil tanker.
A heat source is not the problem here since the stuff is a fuel in itself. I suspect the above poster just wanted to push a nuclear agenda by attaching it to something unrelated, but I could be wrong and they may just be so fixated on a topic that "when you've got a hammer everything is a nail" applies. Maybe we should let "mlts" let us know instead of both of us trying to explain what his mostly unrelated post was about? For all we know it could just be about being able to stay at sea for months at a time.
So we are supposed to trust an anecdote by someone that didn't even bother to get a username or doesn't want to comment under a username instead?
There's more. The current trick in some parts of the world is spend a lot of money on "poles and wires" (they used this dumbed down term for infrastructure in general even when major parts of the cost are substations) with no oversight whether it is needed or not and charge that on to the consumer. For example in Australia there has been a lot built rapidly despite declining consumption which has led to a major gap between some of the lowest generating costs in the world and close to the highest bill per kW/h for consumers in the world.
Hang on - wasn't most of that done in the 80s and 90s? I thought I saw the tail end of precipitators, bag filters etc going in when I went into the electricity generating industry in 1994, and only holdouts like China did without.
It could even be argued that the competition in China is entirely due to years of political pressure in the USA to not develop the results of US research and have a viable US photovoltaic industry based in Texas or Silicon Valley where items were developed almost to the point of the current Chinese products. By actively opposing a domestic solar industry that left the Chinese plenty of room to take over the market.
They had those burdens earlier which did not slow them down due to a nice big money supply from the taxpayer. Banks and private enterprise haven't stepped in even in places where there are little or no regulatory burdens. I suggest you consider that before suggesting that lowering safety standards is going to magically make Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch want to build a nuclear power station.
As soon as you consider places where there is industry consuming electricity instead of merely residential usage then you get plenty of consumption in full daylight. Slicing the top off that big daytime peak has resulted in a couple of coal fired units being mothballed near me and some expensive to operate gas turbines having a lot less running time.
Because banks and private enterprise don't care enough to put up their own money.
It appears this one is designed for performance not range. Since that bunch of undergrads 14 years ago got 100km on a relatively low budget I'd say a professionally designed machine with modern batteries could do something with reasonable performance as well as decent range instead of this thing that sacrifices range for performance.
So the main cause of the range problem now is designers thinking that other things are more important. There's probably already long range electric bikes out there with a top speed around highway speed limits.
Back in 2000 I had some students who put together an electric bike that could do 0-60km/h in about 5 seconds (the Harley doing miles is of course much more impressive). With a range of around 100km. Fourteen years ago. With lead-acid batteries. Put together by undergraduate students.
With vast advances in batteries, motors, everything that range problem is now around equivalent to the "range problem" with a tank of fuel. There's still a fast charging problem but the "range problem" has effectively vanished unless you are talking about an offroad vehicle with nowhere to recharge.
These things almost never get hit out on the highway where there's plenty of room and everything's moving. It's suburbia and relatively low speed where cars are more likely to hit motorcyles so I think they do have a point.
The news that not every tweet is an insightful font of wisdom is old news.
So then, using a bit of logic, how does your example of flimsy plastic digital cameras getting corrosion on circuit boards from some idiot that takes his cameras into the surf without precautions apply to older mechanical cameras that are far less prone to water damage?
You have nothing.
Since you have nothing it appears you are following the pattern shown in your comment history of jumping on other people's comments for a bit of oneupmanship presumably for the sake of ego boosting. You are effectively masturbating with the aid of other people's comments. I do not like being a part of such an activity.
Since your refutation relied on the premise of all old cameras being broken the only logical conclusion I can draw is that you saw the little marker and decided you wanted to have fun by picking on someone you'd marked as fun person to pick on. You just didn't get someone who would roll over this time like the others on your list to bully.
Take responsibility for your actions like an adult. My quite bland and innocent post was clearly hit with your confected controversy just so you could put me in my place because you saw the little marker - quite pathetic. Claiming innocence now is even more so.
Read my second comment then or stop following me around.
Also your argument about old film cameras being crap rests on photos of a broken digital camera. Why do you even bother? Please post seriously instead of a silly game of trolling people you have marked as foe. I don't think we should have to put up with such bullshit.
Seriously?
Give up on your petty attempt to troll a "foe" - as if you've ever seen anyone, let alone a lot of people trying and failing to use mistreated cameras instead of the norm that is stored out of the wet.
To point out how I know your bluff in your pointless oneupmanship is worthless and that you can't put one over on me with it. Who tries to sell or give away a badly stored and corroded camera? You find such things in landfill and not in use.
You are the one that jumped on my comment remember. Oh that's right, you want me to stop writing so you can claim some sort of "win" in a troll game.
Example please.
Yet I was teaching engineering students about materials science even back before the year 2000. Why are you initiating a battle of wits while unarmed?
Also two of the three early advocates of the fossil record depicting events over geological time instead of a lot of dead things in a single flood actually worked for the Anglican Church.