thermal depolymerization plant

quote:

---

Originally posted by ulev
DE @ froggy, please, get back to adding value to this thread. From my point of view you both have the potential.

---

LOL, I'm shocked it took this long for a personality clash to happen, most forums have it happen in the first couple pages! Froggy, DE has always been acerbic so don't take it personal. I have to agree, though, you did appear to misunderstand where the CO2 generated by burning their product comes from when you said it "does nothing but adds to the CO2 issue". Perhaps an accurate description would be that products that rely on fossil fuels during initial creation that would otherwise be thrown away can be "recycled" into fuel that improves the "net efficiency" value of the fossil fuel originally burned. Feed stock that is independent of fossil fuels would likely add no new carbon into the (above ground) carbon cycle, meaning CO2 was removed from the atmosphere to create the feedstock. Pertaining to resent subjects and Hysto's posts, and I've expressed this before, obviously CWT blew the location choice. Hopefully they know better for construction of future plants. As with much of engineering, version 1.0 will bring to light many design shortcomings and I'm sure all of Carthage wishes them luck in building bigger more successful plants that have the revenue so this first one can be scrapped. As for E. Coli, I can easily see someone hosing down one of the trucks after a delivery of turkey and it getting into the river. That's not to say how it got there though. E. Coli is everywhere, and if the plant is dumping into the river food for E. Coli, regardless of how sterile it is, E. Coli will flourish. I think the government financial stake of $17 million is small compared to private investors. They are probably more interested in keeping the company afloat for development and exporting of the technology than anything else. Signature

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast
I agree, ulev, FOTE tends to be enthusiastic about TDP. As far as the costs go, though, I think his posts show that TDP can post a nice profit if they did not have to pay for the feedstock. And, if you change it to a tipping fee (which would typically be the case), well then they would be raking in the profits, even in the absence of subsidies.

---

Good to be back on track.[:)] Tipping fees. That's what's making us profitable in Europe. However, even if CWT is able to process the high caloric fraction (HCF) of municipal waste, which is about 30-35% of the total mess here in good old Europe, a lot of the cash you get goes into the required preprocessing. Currently you can get up to 120 EUR per ton HCF in Germany (which is absolutely crazy), a good estimate for a 10 year contract lies between 60 and 80 EUR. You require between 2 and 2.5 tons for 1250 liters of fuel. After preprocessing you will have roughly 30 EUR/t left of your tipping fee. The estimated net tipping fee per bbl could therefore be somewhere at 10-12 US$. Unfortunately, current waste management operations in the US typically don't produce HCF, requiring so called mechanical-biological waste processing which is the widely used alternative to regular waste incineration in the (old parts of the) EU. In the EU there is a law in effect for over a year now that requires no waste to be sent to landfills untreated. This actually means that only the final residues of the waste processing can still be disposed of at landfills and it is the clear objective to do away with landfills completely over the next 10 years.

quote:

---

I wonder why their operating costs are so high ($60 - 65/bbl, excl. feedstock). According to their original estimates they require little electrical power. Heat is mostly supplied by recovery and burning non-condensible gases. I guess it has something to do with the stop-start nature of their operation, and perhaps their tendency to run middle of the night (according to Hysto; hopefully not fly-by-night). I guess odor treatment is more of an expense than originally estimated, but it can't be that expensive, especially if it isn't working that well. Perhaps the small scale of the operation (what ~200 bpd on average?) might have something to do with it.

---

I think the operating costs you are quoting are very realistic. Of course there are economies of scale, but they typically come with higher transportation cost for the feedstock being trucked in. Just look at the impact the depreciation cost has on a business plan when you are dealing with a 20plus mio. investment! I believe (don't know) the biggest issue of CWT is the high pressure phase and the huge amounts of water present at that time. It requires a lot of energy to heat/pressurize all that water, just to cool it down again and release it. The odor problem seems to come when they release the pressure. They have to release a lot of high pressure vapors which is a heck of an engineering task to control. Besides, it is very hard to get a permit for high pressure plants in Europe now a days which implies near prohibitive high investment cost for our baby.

quote:

---

At first CWT was talking about producing oil at $15/bbl. Even allowing a $25/bbl tipping fee, their current cost would be $35 - 40/bbl, 2 - 3 times the original estimate. Of course, the fact that process efficiency is 60% rather than the much trumpetted 85% will have much to do with it. Ulev, your thoughts on that?

---

I get back to what I have been saying all along: CWT's technology helped a lot as a stepping stone but has already passed the zenith of it's life cycle before they even got it right. Finally, process efficiency depends greatly on the feedstock. Used tires can yield over 95% while sewer sludge will not exceed 25%. That is measuring weight ratios of course, not energy content. Those results are just due to the feedstock cocktail you are using and not a good way to judge the quality of a process or plant. One phase process? Not a problem, has been proven about 80 years ago for the first time. As soon as I find the time I will post a few links to a number of patents issued about the subject. Choren? It works, but nobody can afford it once the millions of Shell, Volkswagen and Daimler Chrysler have all been sunk. DE, you specifically seem to like them, but their energy balance is outright horrible (think along the lines of ethanol). It will be a long time before this process can recover it's cost through realistic market prices. Cellulosic = paper in municipal waste? Naah. HCF consists 99% of plastic, paper and textiles. Paper is heavily processed cellulosic material that can be transformed into fuel quite easily.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ulev
DE @ froggy, please, get back to adding value to this thread. From my point of view you both have the potential. Don't know, if anybody is interested, but here is my simple opinion on your dispute without reading every word of it cause I got bored quickly: Froggy needs to learn a bit more about the subject. This thread used to be a good place to do so. DE should remember more than just his own earlier statements and maybe even help the not so experienced around here. I am sure you know more than enough to doubt that CWT as much as Choren are the ultimate point in the development. And I am sure, you understand very well, that a good, working one stage process is very likely to have better overall economics. As we (hopefully) all agree cellulosic feedstock is not anywhere close to work economically without subsidies, why don't we concentrate on the near endless feedstock resources from waste and non cellulosic biomass and leave the cellulosic issues to the next generation? And finally, FOTE, teachers are great for kids, but shouldn't they do their homework too. Your praising of the CWT technology seems to lack a bit of study. You can find a lot of information right here that should dampen you enthusiasm. What makes you such a strong believer that CWT technology can be used for a broad range of feedstock, solve the smell issues, be an acceptably safe technology for your neighborhood and all that with convincing economics? Please, lets get back to the kind of valuable discussions we had before. Or, if necessary, you can all go after me now.[:)] I guess I can handle it.[:D]

---

Wow, I may be a dreamer but if a newcomer would casually view this forum, I'm sure they would not label me the only true believer in what TDP offers. Actually, I'm sure they would think that DE is an even bigger fan than I am. Sure, there have been questionable statements about TDP turning "anything into oil" but at the core of the whole 'froggy v. DE' thread is DE standing up for TDP. And it's not the first time someone has shot down TDP and had our hero DE come to the rescue! ulev, ask froggy if he thinks DE is infatuated with TDP; he'll answer you. DE said a page ago that TDP would "kill large scale biodiesel" - now that is an endorsement for BiodieselNow.com I don't think DE or, even you ulev, have an issue with the core TDP technology - just the assertions made by CWT representatives about processing anything into oil and the 85% efficiency. But even DE's calculations show that TDP is more efficient (60%) than Choren's process (45%) he frequently talks about. And that lower efficiency has to do with having to dry the Choren feed, whereas, you don't have to dry TDP's. Now, I've read near about every page of this forum because I believe in this technology and sure, there are quite a few uncertainties about thermal depolymerization or thermal conversion or whatever it will be called over the next few years, but the facts are there - CWT is turning waste into oil and if not for screwy U.S. energy & food waste policies and odor issues, this technology would be touted as the cure for what ails us: energy independence. I'm a bit more blantant in my adoration than most because why beat around the bush, TDP is the best "renewable technology" available to handle certain types of trash. Sorry ulev and froggy for the secret projects you're working on but TDP is out there and you're playing catch-up. Now, ulev - to address your question, "What makes you such a strong believer that CWT technology can be used for a broad range of feedstock, solve the smell issues, be an acceptably safe technology for your neighborhood and all that with convincing economics?" You should read ALL 51 PAGES OF THIS FORUM that addresses each and every one of your points but here is a short review course for you: 1. Feedstocks that we know TDP can process (favorable statements in the general press from outside of CWT that we don't dispute here): turkey guts verified by ConAgra, beef products from Ireland, sewage from Philadelphia, and car residue from General Motors. That last item puts them in direct competition with Alphakat and Dr. Koch so is that the real problem, ulev? 2. The odor issues have been settled in Carthage as referenced by the dismissal of the lawsuit and the favorable reports coming out of Missouri (besides from Hysto). 3. There have been no issues raised by anyone on the safety of operating TDP plants. The temperature is not too hot (less than an incinerator) and I never heard of any water pollution until Hysto brought it up. 4. DE agrees with my off-the-cuff financial numbers that TDP could work if they did not have to pay for WASTE that should be thrown away and not feed to chickens And finally, I have done quite a bit of homework as evidenced in the many posts that I have submitted. Each one has been thoroughly thought out, hopefully well-composed, and I feel that I add something valuable to the conversation. In my opinion, if you don't care about what happens with TDP, you would not post more than a handful of times. The posters that have filled up 51 PAGES believe... Oh, and ulev, as a teacher, I feel that we all should be committed to a lifetime of learning. Especially since the rest of the world is kicking our US students in the can![:D] Because once you stop learning, you run the risk of falling out of touch with today's technical/political/social realities and end up getting outsourced for a new, sleeker, updated model. F.O.T.E.

quote:

---

You should read ALL 51 PAGES OF THIS FORUM that addresses each and every one of your points but here is a short review course for you:

---

Dear F.O.T.E., I have read ALL 51 PAGES OF THIS THREAD.[:)] Actually more than once. And as I said before I have learned a lot from and through it. Unfortunately you don't seem to have read my posts well enough as they have addressed all your statements already, so that's what I suggest for reading if you are interested.

quote:

---

1. Feedstocks that we know TDP can process (favorable statements in the general press from outside of CWT that we don't dispute here): turkey guts verified by ConAgra, beef products from Ireland, sewage from Philadelphia, and car residue from General Motors. That last item puts them in direct competition with Alphakat and Dr. Koch so is that the real problem, ulev?

---

Animal waste is an important segment of waste treatment, but one of the smaller ones. Sewer sludge is not profitable, whatever you do with it. Car residue? What are you talking about? Alphakat, Dr. Koch? Please read my posts!

quote:

---

2. The odor issues have been settled in Carthage as referenced by the dismissal of the lawsuit and the favorable reports coming out of Missouri (besides from Hysto).

---

Hysto is not the only messenger of bad news. Sorry, I have inside knowledge a can't share.

quote:

---

3. There have been no issues raised by anyone on the safety of operating TDP plants. The temperature is not too hot (less than an incinerator) and I never heard of any water pollution until Hysto brought it up.

---

I was talking about permits for high pressure equipment in Europe. Are you an expert on this or even an engineer?

quote:

---

4. DE agrees with my off-the-cuff financial numbers that TDP could work if they did not have to pay for WASTE that should be thrown away and not feed to chickens

---

If they would ever get their equipment working and if they would come to a real continuous process. Why aren't they using different waste, that would be free if they can use all kinds of waste (including municipal) as you seem to believe? As they obviously didn't make it by now, after all this time, after how many more millions do you think they will become competitive?

quote:

---

And finally, I have done quite a bit of homework as evidenced in the many posts that I have submitted. Each one has been thoroughly thought out, hopefully well-composed, and I feel that I add something valuable to the conversation. In my opinion, if you don't care about what happens with TDP, you would not post more than a handful of times. The posters that have filled up 51 PAGES believe...

---

TDP stands for thermal depolymerisation process, which is in no way a definition that is limited to or owned by CWT. Yes, I do care very much, as I am spending most of my time on the implementation of an alternate (one phase) technology to implement TDP. However, it makes a big difference, whether you believe in TDP or CWT!

quote:

---

You require between 2 and 2.5 tons for 1250 liters of fuel.

---

That's about 3.5 bbl/ton of waste. It has to be dry tons, right? How does water content factor into all of this? You have to pay tipping fee on the water content of your waste, but form an energy point of view it is obviously useless. Depending on the technology, you may need to get rid of the water, which can be costly. Processing wet waste is one of TDP's strengths.

quote:

---

I believe (don't know) the biggest issue of CWT is the high pressure phase and the huge amounts of water present at that time. It requires a lot of energy to heat/pressurize all that water, just to cool it down again and release it. The odor problem seems to come when they release the pressure. They have to release a lot of high pressure vapors which is a heck of an engineering task to control.

---

This is CWT's genius, I believe. Adding pressure is relatively cheap - as long as you are working with a liquid. The pressure is needed to keep the water in a liquid form at the first stage temperature (check your steam tables). That is a lot cheaper than adding heat to try to evaporate all that water. Once they are done with the first stage, pressure is lowered in a stepwise fashion, flashing off steam, while allowing the product to cool. The steam goes back to heat the first stage feedstock (recovering much of the heat), while it condenses to produce liquid effluent (clean water? that's a bit rich). In short: this is the most energy efficient way to operate the first stage, I believe. PS, for those who don't know what a steam table is, I suggest a Google search. You are going to have to do some homework before this paragraph makes any sense... I wish I could reference Terry Adam's MIT lecture here, but it seems MIT removed it from their website "due to copyright concerns". The fate of all usefull information on the web? Hope you got your copy while it lasted... As you mention, ulev, this is probably at the heart of their odor issue. I bet the original design assumed negligible incondensibles. Now that gas is building up, and venting, it is a lot harder to go back, capture and treat.

quote:

---

Cellulosic = paper in municipal waste? Naah.

---

Paper = cellulose, some starch and other nasties for the nice white color. What am I missing?

quote:

---

Paper is heavily processed cellulosic material that can be transformed into fuel quite easily.

---

Transformed into fuel easily? How come nobody is doing it? Or am I showing my ignorance here?

quote:

---

TDP stands for thermal depolymerisation process, which is in no way a definition that is limited to or owned by CWT. Yes, I do care very much, as I am spending most of my time on the implementation of an alternate (one phase) technology to implement TDP. However, it makes a big difference, whether you believe in TDP or CWT!

---

Ulev, I guess strictly speaking you are right, but for the purpose of the discussion here I have always assumed TDP to refer to CWT's process. As illustrated, that does not necessarily make me a true believer in CWT!

quote:

---

1. Feedstocks that we know TDP can process (favorable statements in the general press from outside of CWT that we don't dispute here): turkey guts verified by ConAgra, beef products from Ireland, sewage from Philadelphia, and car residue from General Motors. That last item puts them in direct competition with Alphakat and Dr. Koch so is that the real problem, ulev?

---

FOTE, I would have to reply to this as: Check! Check! Not a chance! Maybe! Turkey guts verified by ConAgra: OK, no problem here, they are obviously successful with this. Beef products from Ireland: As long as it is not too different compared to turkey guts, i.e. mostly lipids, it would probably work just as well as the Carthage plant. Sewage [sludge]from Philadelphia: I know CWT claims they have performed a succesful test, BUT... Sewage sludge is typically ~20% lipids. So, if you take the raw sludge, only about 20% will yield fuel, ignoring the small contribution from proteins. Most sewage plants use anaerobic degestion to reduce the sludge mass, and produce biogas that can be used to generate electricity. Anaerobic digestion is very effective in destroying lipids, so digested sludge would be a lot worse. Admittedly, if you were doing TDP, you would not do anaerobic digestion. Also note: sewage sludge is typically very wet (70 - 80% water) so by itself it won't work to well in a thermal process. Car residue from General Motors [or anyone else]: Note to ulev: When an old car is shredded, the metals are obviously recycled profitably. Currently the plastic waste (aka automotive shredder residue) is a head ache to these operations. CWT claims TDP can convert this into fuel, and has apparently done successful trails. I am not fully convinced that TDP technology will convert this to liquid fuels. OTOH, it is a pretty simple conversion, basically cracking the polymer into shorter units, so it may work. FOTE, note that ulev is not part of Alphakat and Dr. Koch, although he seems to know his competition. FOTE and ulev: How shall I say this? Perhaps I'll just use a quote: "Please, get back to adding value to this thread. From my point of view you both have the potential.";)

quote:

---

That's about 3.5 bbl/ton of waste. It has to be dry tons, right? How does water content factor into all of this? You have to pay tipping fee on the water content of your waste, but form an energy point of view it is obviously useless. Depending on the technology, you may need to get rid of the water, which can be costly. Processing wet waste is one of TDP's strengths.

---

Can't stress enough the fact that I am not talking about waste in it's original state, but a processed fraction of the waste with an energy content of around 20 GJ/ton with a humidity level at 8-10%. That's more or less our feedstock specification using waste product, while the tipping fee I was talking about refers to the same kind of HCF material with about 20% water content. Our water output consists of extremely clean distilled water, so no tipping fees there, rather some (ignorable) extra income. The water is not at all useless in the process, as it serves as a source of extra hydrogenation through vapor pressure. We also need it for technical reasons to give the material the required consistency.

quote:

---

This is CWT's genius, I believe. Adding pressure is relatively cheap - as long as you are working with a liquid. The pressure is needed to keep the water in a liquid form at the first stage temperature (check your steam tables). That is a lot cheaper than adding heat to try to evaporate all that water. Once they are done with the first stage, pressure is lowered in a stepwise fashion, flashing off steam, while allowing the product to cool. The steam goes back to heat the first stage feedstock (recovering much of the heat), while it condenses to produce liquid effluent (clean water? that's a bit rich). In short: this is the most energy efficient way to operate the first stage, I believe.

---

Yes, pressure is often helpful for an endothermal technical process. But there are quite a number of alternatives to apply energy to your reaction mass. Think plasma for example or super critical fluids. Before you make wrong assumptions, this is not what we are doing. But we are at least as innovative.[;)]

quote:

---

Paper = cellulose, some starch and other nasties for the nice white color. What am I missing?

---

If you take it literally you are of course right, but various cellulosic materials are not at all equal. Partial hydrogenation plus our catalyst can handle paper (or even lignites). Just a matter of how much oil we get opposed to coke.

quote:

---

Transformed into fuel easily? How come nobody is doing it? Or am I showing my ignorance here?

---

Come on, you are not ignorant. You know the Choren process well. Don't you think it could handle paper? It is just way more economical to recycle paper to paper, that's why nobody is doing it. Alphakat can handle paper, we can handle paper. Again, it's just a question of the oil/coke ratio you get out of it. BTW, I am really getting in trouble here as I don't want to talk about our process yet. OTOH this is making my statements more and more meaningless. So if you want to contact me directly just email me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast FOTE and ulev: How shall I say this? Perhaps I'll just use a quote: "Please, get back to adding value to this thread. From my point of view you both have the potential.";)

---

You couldn't resist....[:D] However, I think I am extremely tame compared to you my friend. And FOTE too BTW.

quote:

---

Come on, you are not ignorant. You know the Choren process well. Don't you think it could handle paper? It is just way more economical to recycle paper to paper, that's why nobody is doing it. Alphakat can handle paper, we can handle paper. Again, it's just a question of the oil/coke ratio you get out of it.

---

Yes, I know Choren can convert paper into diesel. As for recycling being so much more economical: why is 40% of US landfill waste paper? Is it: 1. That there is just way more paper waste than what can be recycled? 2. The fact that paper degrades and can only be recycled X times. 3. Demand for recycled paper is just too low. 4. All of the above. Under all four scenarios there is plenty of feedstock for fuel production. So, why isn't it happening?

quote:

---

However, I think I am extremely tame compared to you my friend. And FOTE too BTW.

---

Guilty as charged, your honor!

This is really interesting. I'm actually hoping that CWT can't turn "anything" into oil, more competition for me. I'm getting involved in power generation from biomass, and anything that would take large amounts of biomass and make it into something more valuable than electricity is a threat to my future. lol So while I think they are probably legit in their claims... part of me is secretly hoping it's all just a scam. I guess that's just the greed in me lol. Well, ok, maybe I'm being paranoid ;) From what I'm reading though there are suggestions that it can only process the fats and some protein into oil, but not cellulose. That would be a relief ;) lol Of course that means less "green" diesel potential but hey I'm selfish I want electricity lol. I'm interested to learn more about the limitations. Is this limitation to fats/some protein and/or plastics, rubber, etc just a rumor or is it confirmed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast Yes, I know Choren can convert paper into diesel. As for recycling being so much more economical: why is 40% of US landfill waste paper? Is it: 1. That there is just way more paper waste than what can be recycled? 2. The fact that paper degrades and can only be recycled X times. 3. Demand for recycled paper is just too low. 4. All of the above. Under all four scenarios there is plenty of feedstock for fuel production. So, why isn't it happening?

---

Now I turn out as the ignorant person. Didn't expect the paper content to be that high. Anyway, under the European circumstances I described before we would take it on as part of the high caloric waste fraction, which would most likely reduce our oil yield slightly and therefore increase the coke in our residues.

Hello everyone this is my first post. I have been following this subject for several years. http://thermaldepolymerization.org/ http://www.catalyticdepolymerization.org/ These are both my sites. At the moment I have no dog in this fight. I have no business, financial, or legal association with any energy related efforts - yet. That may change, but so far I am just watching and gathering information. I went to the CDP public demo in early August 2006 then went home bought the CDP web site name and put up that site. The site contains pictures of the demo unit and interviews with Spitz and Koch. I then went back about 2 months later to watch an independent mass energy balance done by http://www.combustionresources.com/ I met the guy doing the measurements and have pictures and video of the measurements being made (not yet on the site). I believe the results are available but not yet public. I do not have those official results. The independent review included pulling the entire unit apart and draining all working fluids etc. I did my own very rough energy balance. That demo unit will produce about 15 gals / hr of diesel. About 10 to 15% of that diesel will be used to run the on board generator. There is no other hook up. That machine is not a fraud it does work. My latest communication with Spitz says they now have 3 plants on the books in Wash state and will break ground in December. http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/story/6139826p-5375428c.html here is latest press I believe you can refine any organic material more less same way you refine crude oil. Crude oil is the easiest because it is easy to handle liquid with much of the raw material already the correct chain lengths. But even oil is not perfect and must be cracked and reformed and impurities removed. TDP and CDP are a cracking and reforming process which also strip out some oxygen and balance the Carbon Hydrogen ratios to get chain lengths in the liquid range. Solid organic material have too much Carbon. So you must either add Hydrogen or remove Carbon. To add Hydrogen, the hydrogen must come from somewhere and hydrogen production itself is energy intensive. The TDP inventor (I have met with) says the additional hydrogen can be obtained from water at 875 deg F and 250 PSI – That is the TDP process. CDP strips excess carbon and oxygen which are both contained in MSW and most non oil organic material and release CO2 as part of the process. CDP operates at 750 deg F and 0 psig. Using the catalyst allows the milder conditions and allows the process to occur without generating solid carbon (char) or dioxins (poison). CDP uses “spinning disk” technology which is a known process to facilitate chemical reactions. I suspect the CDP process magic includes elements of catalytic chemistry and mechanical shearing and mixing. CDP claims to avoid producing any poisonous byproducts and the process claims to not produce any Char. Converting MSW to fuel would supply 10 to 15% of US energy demand, Ag Waste another 10 to 15%, easily harvested forest land which will burn anyway another 10 to 15%. The rest could be produced with grown for purpose plants. If all feed stock were grown for purpose – ie no plastics etc then TDP would work and would be safe for the environment. MSW needs CDP to avoid serious environmental problems. These processes are carbon neutral and should not cause global warming if all feedstock started off as plant material. Tar Sands, Shale oil, Coal to oil, Gas to oil are all closely related technology. Germany used Fischer Tropsch in WWII and Sasol has been using it since http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/ The latest claims I have seem are talking about $13 / bbl to produce oil from Tar Sands. Green Power is claiming under $1 / Gal to produce refined diesel. The CWT plant is costing $80 / bbl primarily because the feedstock is being paid for because Rendering Plants would pay for the turkey offal. Rendering is somewhat related process but works at about 300 deg F – not hot enough to do much in the way of chemical processing. In Summary CDP TDP technology can solve the world’s energy problems. The resource base is large enough (solar to plant material) and could supply enough energy that everyone in the world could have plenty of energy. Jim Trounson Southern California

jet49t, a remarkable first post. You are saying about everything I tried to say in many posts, but in a much better compact way. Here are just 3 tricky question for you for a starter: What do you think the catalyst is doing to the carrier oil in Dr. Koch's version of CDP? Which I would prefer to call CTDP, as there is still a lot of thermal energy required in addition to the catalyst. How will Green Power succeed to grind household waste to a granularity of less than 1mm? Which is required to mix it effectively with the carrier oil in an efficient way (=feedstock volume/unit of time) What will happen to the fabulous turbine pumps once they get bombarded with inert particles contained in the feedstock? The problem compares well to sandblasting a jet engine's interior during flight. It's been a long time, but that was exactly what grounded the US helicopters in Iran during the embassy crisis. Sand in the turbines for flying over the desert for too long.

With all due respect Jim, I think you are seriously oversimplifying. Cracking crude into light fuels is basically breaking the (-CH2-) chain into shorter chains, pretty straight forward. Gasification/Fischer-Tropsch is quite different. First the feedstock (coal in Germany WWII and Sasol) is patially oxidized with oxygen to produce syngas (H2 and CO), which is then recombined to form a waxy oil product (-CH2-) that can be cracked (like crude) into light fuels. Biomass is a very different ballgame again. The most abundant form of biomass would be ligno-cellulose. Let's look at cellulose first: it is a carbohydrate with -CH2O- as the repeating unit. Note that the carbon: hydrogen ratio is exactly the same as in oil, the problem is the presence of oxygen. Since oxygen (O2) is so reactive, it is not going to come out as O2. It can come out as either CO2 or H2O. To maintain the right C:H ratio in the remaining product, it would have to come out in a 1:1 ratio as CO2:H2O. This is assuming it can be done. In the real world it all tends to come out as H2O leaving C as carbon black, which is not the liquid fuel you are trying to produce. Rendering is quite different from all of the above: it is basically cooking the offal for an extended time to breakdown some of the macro-structures and allow it to be more readily biodegradable. No transformation to oil - no more than cooking dinner would transform the food into oil. TDP is a two stage process that converts lipids into hydrocarbons, with a slight contribution from fat-soluble amino acids (proteins). In the first stage, TDP uses a process similar to [url="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/dilute_acid.html"]Dilute Acid Hydrolysis[/url] to break carbohydrates into sugars (water soluble), proteins into amino acids (most of which are water soluble) and lipids into glycerol (water soluble) and fatty acid (fat soluble as long as the pH is low). The high pressure (500 - 700 psi) used in the first stage is required to keep the water in a liquid form at the first stage temperature (~250°C). After the first stage the pressure is released and some of the water flashes off as steam (that is used to heat the feedstock). The remaining water separated from the fat fraction. This is key. The water fraction contains all the water soluble monomers, in other words all the sugars (from carbohydrate) and most of the amino acids from protein, as well as the glycerol from fat. Refer to [url="http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site/B_Articles%20&%20Reports/Changing%20World%20Technologies%20-%20Thermal%20Process.pdf"]Figure 5[/url], and note that the 5th output on the right is "water + glycerol + (NH4)2SO4". Also note the first input on the left "H2SO4 (dry) 3.6 tpd". CWT's own Terry Adams stated in his MIT lecture (April 2005) that was unfortunately recently removed from the site, that the main reaction in the second stage is decarboxylation with some deamination. In other words, the bulk of the oil comes from fatty acid (thru decarboxylation) and a small fraction from amino acids (thru decarboxylation and deamination). Unfortunately, not a drop comes from carbohydrate. Catalytic depolymerization is similar to cracking crude into lighter fuels, it just starts with the really long chains (plastic). There is no way you are just going to crack a carbohydrate into a hydrocarbon, because as I pointed out above, you need to remove an oxygen atom from every single carbon atom.

quote:

---

The rest could be produced with grown for purpose plants.

---

That would be the ideal. In reality it is a lot more complicated than what it sounds, due to the large energy consumption, especially in the US, and the land that would be required.

Looks like Hysto was right: [url="http://www.carthagepress.com/articles/2006/11/06/news/05%20valve.txt"]the odor issue lingers on[/url]. It is a bit troubling that they seem to struggle that much to get this under control. OTOH, as I said before, with all the feedstock bins open to the surroundings, it is clear they did not think this was going to be an issue during design. Closing things off afterward is obviously not that simple...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast Catalytic depolymerization is similar to cracking crude into lighter fuels, it just starts with the really long chains (plastic). There is no way you are just going to crack a carbohydrate into a hydrocarbon, because as I pointed out above, you need to remove an oxygen atom from every single carbon atom.

---

As long as you are working with this kind of theoretical model you are right beyond any doubt. OTOH, a lot of tests have been done by many different people and institutions with clearly different results. While the direction where the oil/coke ratio of the product output is moving is certainly along the lines of your obviously too static model, you still get some oil even from processing pure straw! Just the lipids? Impossible. Proteins? Not really. So what is going on? What might be the reason? There can only be one answer (except the possibility of course, that a lot of people are lying conclusively w/o any obvious reason to do so): The catalyst is doing more than just simple cracking down long hydrocarbon chains. Why? 1. Because we are throwing a different feedstock at the catalyst than the refinery. 2. The catalyst is similar but not identical to those used for "crude" cracking. 3. CTDP is using a completely different process. Feedstock contact with the catalyst in the refinery is very short at very high temperatures, IIRC at least 800 degrees Celsius for around 1 sec or even less. While all CTDP processes I am aware of have much longer reaction times of 5 to 15 min. and longer in a much lower temperature range (approx. 150 - 300 degrees Celsius) where the catalyst is active. This is not the only process out there, where theory has no conclusive explanation about what a catalyst is really doing. The catalyst in this case has dual capabilities, a physical one acting as a molecular sieve and a chemical one due to it's specific metal oxide dotation. I am not a chemist, so how ever much I try, I am always struggling with the theory, but I still trust my own eyes.[:)] BTW, one more thing that proofs you right on a statistical level is the fact, that the more coke, the more water you get. I remember test with lignite, the earliest stage of coal. There was less than 20% of oil, huge amounts of coke and similarly huge amounts of distilled water. But there was (some) oil.

Let me answer ulev first My background is mechanical engineer and am now involved with machine tool controls etc - have no chemistry back ground. I talked with Dr Koch at the open house for over an hour - part of which I recorded and is on my web site above. Koch considers the catalyst the magic which took him 35 years to get right. The relevant patent is on my site and the catalysts are named. Koch just will say that the catalysts allow the process to occur just below the threshold where dioxins and char form. I do not believe this process would work if you just heated the mixture with a flame. The flame produces hot spots which then forms char. I also believe the spinning disk mechanical effects are critical. The Trash was delivered by Waste management. They picked out the metal and glass by hand then ran everything else thru a shredder - cardboard, paper, plastic, food - anything organic. When shredded looks like blown in insulation. There are pictures on my site. They then mix that with oil and catalyst then feed that into the "reactor" with a small progressive cavity pump. The shredded material must be dry. They have a drier which is run off the diesel generator exhaust. So the stuff went in as oily mush. The instant it hits the liquid inside the reactor I guess all solids just turn to a liquid. I guess 750 Deg F will do that. The turbine details have not been disclosed. Koch always calls it a turbine - not a pump. What I believe it is - is a tesla turbine. Tesla turbine is similar to a centrifugal pump except the impeller has no blades (flat disk)- it uses boundary layer effects. With a boundary layer based process even if you have particles - the boundary layer will protect the impeller. When the unit was pulled apart and the system drained, there were no particles in the oil. It all looked like dirty engine oil. Very smooth between your fingers. The cardboard had turned to a liquid and stayed that way back at room temperature. So the cardboard is turned into light crude oil then the diesel fraction is separated. Directly above the reactor there is a vortex unit which I guess creates a pressure field and only the diesel fraction escapes up the center. Above the vortex unit is a distillation column. Pure clean diesel is the output. Before you all jump all over the fact that the cardboard is mixed with oil. They now have a new demo unit which allows the shredded waste to be feed dry, or mixed with oil, or you can feed pure oil - the unit produces only diesel somehow. The new unit will come up to temperature in 1 hour now compared to 6 hours before. Diesel Enthusiast This process takes randomly mixed any organic mixture carbohydrate, cellulose, plastic, oil cardboard - anything you can burn and converts it directly to pure straight chain hydrocarbon in one step in a machine which takes up about 10x10x20 ft space. Dr Koch sat with me and sketched the carbohydrate molecules and showed how the process removes carbon and oxygen and produces CO2 which is a byproduct. H2O is not a byproduct of this process. From the time you start pumping the mixture into the reactor it takes about 3 minutes before diesel starts to pour out. We are neighbors - it is easy to contact me if you would like to visit my shop, we can talk about this in great detail. I have other pictures and video. I am telling you guys what I saw with my own eyes and what I was told by Koch. I also have seen a TDP machine at a shop near St Louis. The guy who owns it says he invented TDP and all the stuff at CWT came from him. I have pictures and video of that also. This TDP machine is 50 ft long 8 in dia and operates at 875 deg F and 250 PSI. I have not had a chance to get those up on one of my sites yet. Koch says CDP is even a better way to refine crude oil. Can be done on very small scale and is cheaper than conventional refineries. Green Power is building plants which cost about $80 million each. These plants will be very economical and very profitable - at least at first. Until there are enough built to start driving the price of energy down. If anyone wants in on the next big thing - I believe CDP is it. However, please do not take my word. Of course you will do your own due diligence. If anyone wants to build one in Southern California - I would like to be involved. Slightly off subject http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72058-0.html?tw=wn_technology_1 Seems Nano Solar is claiming they can build large solar generating plants for about 25 cents/watt. At $1 / watt solar takes the entire electric power market. I think CDP will produce fuel and Solar will produce electric power and both these technologies will be proven beyond any doubt in a year or two. Jim Trounson

quote:

---

Originally posted by jet49t Koch considers the catalyst the magic which took him 35 years to get right. The relevant patent is on my site and the catalysts are named.

---

The catalyst really does magic, everything else is a lie. Can't believe he is still getting away with it. I happen to know all the details about the catalyst, its supplier, the true cost... The patent you refer to is not describing what is currently in use and it does not cover the catalyst at all.

quote:

---

The flame produces hot spots which then forms char.

---

That's about right.

quote:

---

I also believe the spinning disk mechanical effects are critical.

---

No. The pump is used to apply the energy without creating the "hot spots" that would be clogging the whole unit with carbon.

quote:

---

The instant it hits the liquid inside the reactor I guess all solids just turn to a liquid. I guess 750 Deg F will do that.

---

This would be way too much magic.[:)]

quote:

---

What I believe it is - is a tesla turbine. Tesla turbine is similar to a centrifugal pump except the impeller has no blades (flat disk)- it uses boundary layer effects. With a boundary layer based process even if you have particles - the boundary layer will protect the impeller.

---

Interesting point. Might be an improvement, put you still have erosion problems in other parts. The problem is part of the design when you use it with MSW. It will not go away.

quote:

---

When the unit was pulled apart and the system drained, there were no particles in the oil. It all looked like dirty engine oil. Very smooth between your fingers. The cardboard had turned to a liquid and stayed that way back at room temperature. So the cardboard is turned into light crude oil then the diesel fraction is separated.

---

That's the kind of test results DE has his problems with.... The particles are (1) too small to be recognized and (2) will be rare after only a very short period of operating time. Their volume will grow continuously as they remain in the carrier oil. Therefore the consistency of the carrier liquid will not remain what it was during the test. And you have not answered my question what the catalyst is doing to the carrier oil. Do you know for a fact, that the product you saw coming from the unit is not just very expensive, depolymerized carrier oil?

quote:

---

Directly above the reactor there is a vortex unit which I guess creates a pressure field and only the diesel fraction escapes up the center. Above the vortex unit is a distillation column. Pure clean diesel is the output.

---

Sorry, but it's a lot more complicated here. Before the "diesel-like oil" can be distilled, steam has to be separated and you have to get rid of lighter, gaseous hydrocarbons. That's not chemistry, that's physics!

quote:

---

Before you all jump all over the fact that the cardboard is mixed with oil. They now have a new demo unit which allows the shredded waste to be feed dry, or mixed with oil, or you can feed pure oil - the unit produces only diesel somehow. The new unit will come up to temperature in 1 hour now compared to 6 hours before.

---

Preheating the unit is done with electrical heaters. It is no engineering magic to use more powerful heaters. All this is more or less describing the Alphakat unit as it was demonstrated since 2004 in Germany. Dr. Koch is still making a secret out of all the obstacles he has to overcome for a large scale, continuously operating plant. On the catalyst he is not saying the truth as usual.

quote:

---

This process takes randomly mixed any organic mixture carbohydrate, cellulose, plastic, oil cardboard - anything you can burn and converts it directly to pure straight chain hydrocarbon in one step in a machine which takes up about 10x10x20 ft space. Dr Koch sat with me and sketched the carbohydrate molecules and showed how the process removes carbon and oxygen and produces CO2 which is a byproduct. H2O is not a byproduct of this process. From the time you start pumping the mixture into the reactor it takes about 3 minutes before diesel starts to pour out.

---

This is the typical kind of unfortunate half truths Dr. Koch is spreading again and again. I was personally talking with him about H2O and the problems it creates. Where do you think the water contained in the feedstock disappears, as untreated MSW contains at least 30% of it? Other byproducts are light gaseous hydrocarbons that will not liquefy after distillation, coke that will fall out at a certain percentage depending on feedstock and process control parameters, the used (deactivated) catalyst, salts, metals.

quote:

---

I am telling you guys what I saw with my own eyes and what I was told by Koch.

---

I believe you 100%, as I have seen the same thing 18 months ago, and a actually a lot more. However, I did my homework afterwards and learned a lot about the facts Dr. Koch is constantly hiding. And I can tell you, he is not the only one in the world working on this process. Over time I really came to hate the kind of negative publicity he is giving the subject in his mysterious "magician" way.

quote:

---

Koch says CDP is even a better way to refine crude oil. Can be done on very small scale and is cheaper than conventional refineries.

---

OMG, he gave you his complete treat.... I hate to tell you, but he doesn't know what's going on in a refinery.

quote:

---

Green Power is building plants which cost about $80 million each. These plants will be very economical and very profitable - at least at first. Until there are enough built to start driving the price of energy down.

---

The price is outrageous. Tell me their intended capacity and I give you a rough estimate of investment, processing cost and profit. (Typ of feedstock and volume and intended output would be enough) How about some exact figures before you say that? Do you know the price of the catalyst and the amount required? Do you have any idea about the cost of proper preprocessing equipment for MSW? When I am not writing here I am currently doing a business case with all bells and whistles for a similar plant. I also did one on an Alphakat plant in the past. So I have extended calculation sheets available where I only have to change a few plant specific details. As an interesting example only: Catalyst cost can jump up to 70% of your total operating cost under certain circumstances. The plant can very quickly become a certified money losing machine.

quote:

---

If anyone wants in on the next big thing - I believe CDP is it. However, please do not take my word. Of course you will do your own due diligence. If anyone wants to build one in Southern California - I would like to be involved.

---

I am in for 18 months. I am sure, the process will get implemented in your area. However, chances are very small Alphakat will supply the equipment. I did my due diligence long before Dr. Koch showed up in CA for the first time. One of the outcomes is, that output from this process can and will never drive down market prices as you obviously assume. Actually it requires crude prices to remain above 60 Dollars with tipping fees for your feedstock. There is a recent post of mine with detailed insight on tipping fees and the MSW situation. Now I'll go and look at your websites.

Ok, I am back from this website: http://www.catalyticdepolymerization.org/ and I have to say I am shocked. I am shocked by the fact that the website publishes all the stuff coming from Dr. Koch unfiltered and in an absolutely uncritical, euphoric way. Even all the silly lies I had completely forgotten about pop up again. Believe me, I have heard all of it before in German. In Germany Dr. Koch left behind literally hundreds of disappointed fans and a couple of them lost big amounts of money over it. I know, as I am one of the victims. I have not lost any money and jumped horses quickly. Today, we are contacted all the time by people who have lost their faith in this machine. Will it all start again now in the US? What a waste of valuable time and brain!

Ulev Thanks for your detailed and forceful response. I only just found this blog and I did my first post immediately. As I have said, I have no dog in the fight. I will put links on my site to this blog. Also if you would like to put some language together, I will be happy to put your thoughts on my site. I have been talking to people here in Southern Cal who are in a position to finance and build Trash to fuel plants. If you have a more economical solution, lets have the details – at least as much as you wish to disclose. Contact me outside of this blog if you like. I would not personally be involved in any project which tries to withhold technical details – no black boxes. I have a very complete manufacturing facility here which I can build just about anything. We use Solid Works, we have many cnc machine tools, laser cutting, any kind of welding etc etc. We do mechanical, electronics, and software. I might build a prototype unit if I think it has a chance of working and being economical. I saw the system operate. In Fife Wash. I was there twice. They dry the feedstock before mixing and feeding it into the reactor. There is no water coming off There is CO2 coming off They claim no light ends are produced just diesel. I understand that seems somewhat hard to believe but that is what they claim. Salts and other impurities come off mixed with oil – seems this needs more attention. I don’t think the unit I saw had electrical resistance pre heaters. They have a new unit which might. I do not like mysteries either. Wastes time – not the way I do things. Koch claims CDP started inside Siemens and was spun out 15 years ago and about $65 million has been spent on R&D. I don’t know much about refineries other than they are very large complicated looking places. It would be remarkable if you could do the same thing in a small space. I am simply reporting the claims Spitz claims the catalyst costs under 5 cents / gal. Again I do not know what all they use but they bags of lime at the site. Spitz claims the diesel will cost 60 cents / gal if the feedstock is free. IE - No tipping fees, no cost for trash, no subsidizes. The $80Million plant produces 2000 gals / hr. Spitz claims they have everything arranged to start building their first full scale plant. Construction begins in Dec. Spitz claims they have total of three plants committed We are talking with him about plants here in California – No money has changed hands here. Jim Trounson