quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast Take a look at this http://web.mit.edu/10.391J/www/0405SE05adams.pdf if you will. It raises serious doubts about TDP's ability to process anything other than waste fat/oil/grease. By the sounds of it, only fat-soluble components make it to the second stage processing, thus excluding the bulk of the amino acids. More importantly, it does not sound too encouraging for processing cellulose, does it?

---

That's what I was saying earlier in this thread - since it's a depolymerization process, it can only be making oil from the large molecules - primarily the triglycerides. That's why I really question their claims on how much oil they are getting out. For example, look at the food label they have in the presentation from a Butterball turkey - out of 112 grams, only 10 grams is oil. And the whole turkey should have higher oil concentration than the offal they're processing (the "waste" parts of the turkey, which has a higher concentration of bones and such). So, if less than 10% by mass of the turkey is oil, how can they claim in their flow diagram that of 210 tpd of feedstock, that they get out 69.8 tpd of oil? Plus, some glycerol is coming out in another stage - and that's a portion of the triglycerides making up that fat in the turkey. They're not going to be converting proteins or carbs into oil through depolymerization. See the amino acids on slide 21, and see if there's any way you can break those SMALL molecules apart to form LONG oil molecules like shown a few slides earlier. Nope. So, how can they be getting around 35% oil from the feedstock, when a whole turkey (which should have higher oil content than their feedstock) is less than 10% oil?

quote:

---

There is also some nice pictures of the Carthage, MO plant. Check out the weird color of the "TCP-40" oil.

---

Ew, looks like blood!

Would the residual amino acids be a good feedstock for say oil producing algae as a secondary production, rather than used as landspread liquid fertiliser? I did some research in the late 80s along these lines but more for primary waste treatment leading to food related production.

quote:

---

A) The energy balance chart shows that 81% of the energy in the organics comes out as oil (99.5/122.9)

---

You should note that the energy balance predates actual plant performance, see http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site/B_Articles%20&%20Reports/Changing%20World%20Technologies%20-%20Thermal%20Process.pdf presented at a conference in March 2004. At the time they were having all sorts of start-up trouble. Anyone familiar with these conferences will know this scenario: you send your abstract in many months before the conference. At that time you are confident that by the time of the conference you will have a lot of operating data. Then you have a personal encounter with Murphy's law. When the conference arrives you have nothing to talk about other than your design assumptions. It sure looks like that is what happened here. As for Figure 5 and 6 in the link listed: I am pretty sure it is wishful thinking. Figure 5 would have it that 210 tpd of waste is converted into 69.8 tpd of TDP-40 oil, or ~470 barrels per day or 2.25 barrel of oil per ton of waste. Some reports, http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2005/07/20/ would have it that the real performance is more like 270 tpd to 300 bbl/d or 1.11 bbl/ton. Note that is less than 50% of the original estimate! 81% energy efficient? More like 50% on a good day!

quote:

---

In my opinion, I think that CWT is doing all of the right things to get this technology off of the ground.

---

Yes, but it would be great if they did something unprecedented in today's political climate: spoke the TRUTH!

quote:

---

That's what I was saying earlier in this thread - since it's a depolymerization process, it can only be making oil from the large molecules - primarily the triglycerides.

---

Let us call it what it is, shall we? Dilute acid hydrolysis followed by thermal decarboxylation.

quote:

---

Ew, looks like blood!

---

My point exactly! Looks like some heme (including Fe3+) is making it into the product. So much for a clean burning fuel.

Perhaps the confusion about reasonable yields from TDP can be addressed by looking at the chemistry, as proposed by Dr. Adams at http://web.mit.edu/10.391J/www/0405SE05adams.pdf As I see it, the conversion can be presented as three chemical reactions: hydrolysis, decarboxylation and product degradation (for lack of a better term). 1. Hydrolysis (aka depolymerization) H2-C-O-CO-(CH2)14-CH3 H--C-O-CO-(CH2)14-CH3 + 3H2O => C3H8O3 (glycerol) + 3 CH3-(CH2)14-COOH H2-C-O-CO-(CH2)14-CH3 Of course, there are many different fatty acids that occur, rather than the palmitic acid shown. However, for the sake of calculating the yield, the choice of fatty acid would have a fairly minor affect. Thus, palmitic acid will be used as an example. 2. Decarboxylation CH3-(CH2)14-COOH => CH3-(CH2)13-CH3 +CO2 3. Product Degradation CH3-(CH2)13-CH3 => 7C + 8CH4 Product degradation is necessary to explain the presence of carbon and low BTU gas in the products from TDP. While the actual reactions are likely to be very complex, the balanced reaction shown will suffice for the purpose of calculating yields. Assumptions: 1. All available fat/oil undergoes hydrolysis and all the fatty acid thus produced undergoes decarboxylation. 2. Deciding what fraction of the product undergoes degradation is more difficult. From Figure 5, http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site/B_Articles%20&%20Reports/Changing%20World%20Technologies%20-%20Thermal%20Process.pdf it appears that CWT was originally expecting about a 10:1 mass ratio between oil produced and carbon produced. Using this ratio, it is estimated that about 20% of the product undergoes degradation. The calculation below will illustrate how this leads to the desired 10:1 ratio. 3. The entire feedstock consists of oil/fat, as far as organics is concerned. 4. All separations are perfect, i.e. all the fatty acid from the first stage proceeds to the second stage and all remaining product is recovered as TDP/TCP-40 oil. From these assumptions, it would be obvious that the calculated yield would represent a maximum theoretical yield, as for example separations in a real plant can never be 100% perfect. Calculations The original fat (glyceryl tripalminate?) has a molecular mass of 806, the final oil product 212. Since each unit of fat produces three units of oil, the yield (before degradation) is: 3 x 212/806 = 78.9% Factoring in degradation, the remaining yield (80%) would be: 78.9 x 0.8 = 63.1% Proceeding in this manner the yield of all products can be calculated. The results are summarized below. Note that water is consumed during hydrolysis, hence the negative yield. Product_____________ Yield w/o degradation ______________ Yield with degradation Oil ____________________ 78.9% ___________________________63.1% Carbon dioxide (CO2)_____ 16.4% ____________________________16.4% Methane (CH4) __________ 0 ________________________________9.5% Carbon (C) ______________ 0 ________________________________6.3% Glycerol ________________ 11.4% ____________________________11.4% Water _________________ -6.7% _____________________________ -6.7% TOTAL ________________100.0% ___________________________ 100.0% Total gas production ______16.4% _____________________________25.9% Now let us do some comparison to Figure 5, which Dr. Adams is still holding up as a valid mass balance for the TDP process. On the left we have 92.9 t/d (of organics) entering the process and on the right we have 69.8 t/d of oil produced, thus allowing for a yield of 69.8/92.9 = 75.1%! As our calculations, show that would only be possible with very limited product degradation. Now look at the fuel gas production, listed as 7.5 t/d for a yield of 8.1%. As our calculations show, even with no product degradation you will produce more gas than that. With product degradation, we expect to see THREE times as much gas. Did CWT forget to factor in the CO2 that would be produced? My earlier comment about the oxygen in the feedstock refers. Keep in mind, these are theoretical maximum yields. Look at the four assumptions. Most importantly, we have not factored in the fact that any protein in the feedstock is effectively lost as amino acid fertilizer. According to the label on the turkey, the feedstock is 2/3 protein. As friend_of_the_earth showed above, the contribution of protein to the product is likely to be negligible. Let us now consider the actual plant performance (300 bbl/d from 270 t/d of waste). 300 bbl/d x 42 gal/bbl x 7.05 lb/gal / 2,000 lb/ton = 44.4 t/d oil. Assuming CWT got the make-up of the feedstock (left hand side of Figure 5) right, 270 t/d of feedstock would consist of 44% organics or 119.4 t/d. Based on the maximum theoretical yield (with degradation), the feedstock must include at least 44.4/0.631 = 70.4 t/d of fat. Thus, in spite of what the label claims it appears that the feedstock is at least 70.4/119.4 = 59% fat. Bottom line: CWT’s original mass balance of the TDP process is a flight of fantasy, most likely because they forgot about the CO2 that the process produces. By continuing to present this mass balance as representative of plant performance, they are deliberately misleading people. Specifically, they are claiming a conversion efficiency that simple chemistry proves impossible to achieve. They should by now be able to factor in the correct gas production, carbon production and unconverted organics reporting to the “fertilizer” stream. The fact that they are reluctant to do so speaks volumes. As for the actual conversion efficiency, I think most people will agree that the main product of interest is the oil. Yes, energy in the gas and carbon products can be recovered, but the main excitement is about the oil. Assuming the reported conversion (300 bbl/d from 270 t/d of waste) is correct, that would mean 158 MM BTU/h in the feedstock and 63.3 MM BTU/h in the oil, for a conversion efficiency of 40%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dowlingm
Would the residual amino acids be a good feedstock for say oil producing algae as a secondary production, rather than used as landspread liquid fertiliser? I did some research in the late 80s along these lines but more for primary waste treatment leading to food related production.

---

You could also argue for using the amino-acid fertilizer to grow trees and help sequester atmospheric CO2. There are many ways to influence the carbon cycle positively. After all the side trips we're still left with the fundamental economic problem that the oil costs more to produce than it can be sold for. IF Congress had outlawed the use of turkey-guts in animal feed that wouldn't have been a problem: Could have cut $20-$30 off the (imputted) cost of TCP-40 oil. The price of oil has shot up recently and they got their tax credit but that really just keeps the project on life support until they can find a feedstock that makes it economically viable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast
Assumptions: 1. All available fat/oil undergoes hydrolysis and all the fatty acid thus produced undergoes decarboxylation. 2. Deciding what fraction of the product undergoes degradation is more difficult. From Figure 5, http://www.itcnet.org/Fire%20web%20site/B_Articles%20&%20Reports/Changing%20World%20Technologies%20-%20Thermal%20Process.pdf it appears that CWT was originally expecting about a 10:1 mass ratio between oil produced and carbon produced. Using this ratio, it is estimated that about 20% of the product undergoes degradation. The calculation below will illustrate how this leads to the desired 10:1 ratio. 3. The entire feedstock consists of oil/fat, as far as organics is concerned. 4. All separations are perfect, i.e. all the fatty acid from the first stage proceeds to the second stage and all remaining product is recovered as TDP/TCP-40 oil. From these assumptions, it would be obvious that the calculated yield would represent a maximum theoretical yield, as for example separations in a real plant can never be 100% perfect. Calculations The original fat (glyceryl tripalminate?) has a molecular mass of 806, the final oil product 212. Since each unit of fat produces three units of oil, the yield (before degradation) is: 3 x 212/806 = 78.9% Factoring in degradation, the remaining yield (80%) would be: 78.9 x 0.8 = 63.1% Now let us do some comparison to Figure 5, which Dr. Adams is still holding up as a valid mass balance for the TDP process. On the left we have 92.9 t/d (of organics) entering the process and on the right we have 69.8 t/d of oil produced, thus allowing for a yield of 69.8/92.9 = 75.1%! As our calculations, show that would only be possible with very limited product degradation. Now look at the fuel gas production, listed as 7.5 t/d for a yield of 8.1%. As our calculations show, even with no product degradation you will produce more gas than that. With product degradation, we expect to see THREE times as much gas. Did CWT forget to factor in the CO2 that would be produced? My earlier comment about the oxygen in the feedstock refers. Keep in mind, these are theoretical maximum yields. Look at the four assumptions. Most importantly, we have not factored in the fact that any protein in the feedstock is effectively lost as amino acid fertilizer. According to the label on the turkey, the feedstock is 2/3 protein. As friend_of_the_earth showed above, the contribution of protein to the product is likely to be negligible. Let us now consider the actual plant performance (300 bbl/d from 270 t/d of waste). 300 bbl/d x 42 gal/bbl x 7.05 lb/gal / 2,000 lb/ton = 44.4 t/d oil. Assuming CWT got the make-up of the feedstock (left hand side of Figure 5) right, 270 t/d of feedstock would consist of 44% organics or 119.4 t/d. Based on the maximum theoretical yield (with degradation), the feedstock must include at least 44.4/0.631 = 70.4 t/d of fat. Thus, in spite of what the label claims it appears that the feedstock is at least 70.4/119.4 = 59% fat. Bottom line: CWT’s original mass balance of the TDP process is a flight of fantasy, most likely because they forgot about the CO2 that the process produces. By continuing to present this mass balance as representative of plant performance, they are deliberately misleading people. Specifically, they are claiming a conversion efficiency that simple chemistry proves impossible to achieve. They should by now be able to factor in the correct gas production, carbon production and unconverted organics reporting to the “fertilizer” stream. The fact that they are reluctant to do so speaks volumes.

---

The one thing that I'm finally realizing is that the encampments of the TDP believers and skeptics seem to remain constant and separated by their beliefs. For every TDP success, we hear of a CWT shortcoming and vice versa. Diesel Enthusiast, you are indeed an excellent scientist and quite a bit smarter than I assume most of us other posters are but I think we need to clarify a few things. For any scientist or engineer will tell you that calculations based on the wrong assumptions are just that... wrong. Looking at the following link from the Carthage plant website, http://www.res-energy.com/press/pdf/RES%20Plant%20Daily%20Output.pdf, we see that they are not just processing fat/oil. The list includes fats, bones, feathers, sludge, and grease. Same thing when you read the older articles. So your third assumption is incorrect. The label of the turkey just shows the bird composition for a food label but the stuff Carthage is processing is not edible (look at the bloody bones picture and the slop). So besides fats, you have a lot of protein in the feathers and blood, a lot of minerals like calcium in the bones, and whatever gunk they find from washing down the plant (what I assume 'sludge' to mean). I haven't seen an exact composition of what the Carthage plant is producing but I bet it's not all fat. And any grease that the Butterball factory recovers, I'm sure that they sell to a renderer for profit instead of sending to the waste pile heading to RES. Next, proteins are abig deal in TDP! Because they also undergo hydrolysis to become amino acids (i.e. that's why they have so much liquid fertilizer to contend with). And amino acids also decarboxylate so I'm sure that there's no way to tell if the CO2 is from the protein or the fats but, like you said, the turkey is 2/3 protein so I would assume that any CO2 is mostly from the amino acids. The RES article shows that the oil-to-gas ratio is 6.5 (right around where the plant performance is if we us the 45 t/d oil you suggested and Dr. Adams' 7.5 t/d of gas... 6:1 ratio). Since some of the amino acids are fat-soluble, it's not that much of a stretch that say, 10% of the amino acids end up in the final oil like I suggested earlier. So of the total organics (in our case, fat and amino acids), 63% of the fat goes to the oil as fatty acids plus 10% of the amino acids. Now, what about the glycerol? I haven't heard mention of a glycerol recovery loop so I'd assume that some of it remained in the oil. Lastly, the fuel gas that TDP wrote about does not mean the CO2 produced. I read that their fuel gas has 75% of the value of natural gas so that means that they are not talking about a CO2-heavy stream. I'm assuming that the decarboxylation happens early in the process and it's only in the 2nd stage at higher temp do you start to have the "fuel gas". Whew! Time to take off my science cap and grab a beer. We can do this for the next 5 years and never get anywhere as long as CWT doesn't enlighten us on the intricate parts of their process. I back them fully but wish that they would open the vault a little bit and answer these types of questions. Any new articles coming up that anyone has heard about? F.O.T.E.

friend_of_the_earth, Don't get me wrong - I like this technology. But since I have the ability, I am going to look at the claims critically. As I point out, not all of CWT's claims pass the smell test. This does not mean that TDP is worthless, it just allows me to understand the limitations of the technology. One of the key contradictions I have come accross is this: CWT claims it can process all kinds of waste, which would make it a very useful technology indeed. Dr. Adams' presentation of the inner workings of the process, http://web.mit.edu/10.391J/www/0405SE05adams.pdf includes this key point: Only the fat/oil fraction goes to the second stage. For any waste from a biological source that means only: 1. The fatty acids (in acid medium) part of fat/oil. 2. Some amino acids. This excludes most amino acids and ALL carbohydrates (most of which yields glucose after hydrolysis). Since the bulk of the useful agricultural waste out there is carbohydrate, this would limit TDP rather severely. You also seem to miss the point of the stated assumptions I used in my analysis above. The point of the analysis is to be as generous as possible to TDP. Since fat/oil pack more energy per lb than either protein or carbohydrate, assumption #3 is part of being generous. In reality, as you point out the Carthage plant would have a lot of protein in the organic portion of the feedstock, hence the oil yield will be somewhat lower than the 63% I calculated. Glycerol is of course water-soluble and would not go to the second stage. Look at the mass balance (slide #11) in Dr. Adams' presentation. Glycerol is part of the "fertilizer" liquid waste. As such it (and the water-soluble amino acids) represents a loss of energy from the feedstock, a fact that the energy balance (slide #12) fails to acknowledge. Another hint that CWT's efficiency calculation is optimistic. As for CO2: Here is what Dr. Adams say about the second stage "Decarboxylation is main reaction" - slide #15. So whether CWT acknowledges it or not, we are talking about CO2 heavy gas streams. Their failure to ackowledge the fact does not change the process chemistry!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast ...As I point out, not all of CWT's claims pass the smell test...

---

I think that's why they keep getting in trouble! [:p] Thanks for the link to the MIT presentation. Regardless of much oil they're able to recover, the end products look pretty useful. CWT is definately a company to keep your eye on. It'll be interesting how things progress with Carthage and future plants now that they have a lot more experience with the technology on a commercial scale. I guess CWT is pretty happy with the new energy bill(everybody and their brother gets some pork from this thing). It seems they'll finally recieve some tax credits.

quote:

---

RES in line for energy act initiatives By Dennis W. Sowers Of The Press Staff The new federal energy act may be the catalyst for Renewable Environmental Solutions to take its production and distribution capabilities to another level. "They've indicated they're at the center of renewable initiatives in the new energy bill," said City Attorney David Mouton. "They also plan to add additional employees and make Carthage the training center for similar facilities." [url="http://www.carthagepress.com/articles/2005/08/11/news/news1.txt"]Link[/url]

---

quote:

---

Regardless of much oil they're able to recover, the end products look pretty useful. CWT is definately a company to keep your eye on.

---

Agreed. That red color in the end product has me worried, though. Could it be that some haemoglobin made it into the end product? Haemoglobin (and blood) is red thanks to the presence of ferric (Fe3+). Don't think there are too many diesel engines that can handle a lot of iron in their fuel... Also, proteins contain sulfur. I wonder what TDP does with sulfur? Certainly would not convert it to hydrogen sulfide, would it? What was it the neighbors complained about again? Sniff...

Heme degradation: http://www.porphyrin.net/Heme_iron/degradation/_degradmain.html Bilirubin is highly lipid soluble.

From http://www.porphyrin.net/Heme_iron/iron/storage.html Iron is stored, mostly in the liver, as ferritin or hemosiderin Ferritin is a protein with a capacity of about 4500 iron (III) ions per protein molecule. This is the major form of iron storage. If the capacity for storage of iron in ferritin is exceeded, a complex of iron with phosphate and hydroxide forms. This is called hemosiderin; it is physiologically available. As the body burden of iron increases beyond normal levels, excess hemosiderin is deposited in the liver and heart. This can reach the point that the function of these organs is impaired, and death ensues.

Your point being? Specifically concerning iron-contamination of TDP/TCP-40 diesel?

quote:

---

Originally posted by aironeous
Heme degradation: http://www.porphyrin.net/Heme_iron/degradation/_degradmain.html Bilirubin is highly lipid soluble.

---

Bilirubin is green/brown color not red. (that is the main color component of our stools (trying to use a politically correct word here)). True that it is highly fat soluble. Actually its more like a fat/water emulsifying salt. Helps to solubilize fat and oils during digestion. Bilirubin is also a waste by-product of hemoglobin and cholesterol metabolism. Lukianlife

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast
One of the key contradictions I have come accross is this: CWT claims it can process all kinds of waste, which would make it a very useful technology indeed. Dr. Adams' presentation of the inner workings of the process, http://web.mit.edu/10.391J/www/0405SE05adams.pdf includes this key point: Only the fat/oil fraction goes to the second stage.

---

According to his charts the ratio of input feedstock to ouput oil is 3:1 and 85% of the energy in the feedstock is recovered. I fail to see what's so terrible about that.

As I pointed out above, the charts are outdated and were generated before they had actual operating data. The charts are therefore based on design estimates and if some of the later reports are to be believed, wishful thinking. Instead of getting 470 bbl/d from 210 tpd of waste (or 2.2 bbl/ton of waste) they appear to be getting 300 bbl/d from 270 t/d of waste (or 1.1 bbl/ton, i.e. about 50% of the original estimate). Hence my suspicion that actual conversion efficiency is 40%. I would love to be proved wrong, but doubt that it will happen. But that is not the point I was making with the statement you quoted above. The point here is that no water-soluble organics get converted to diesel. These form part of the "fertilizer-rich" effluent (which btw may explain the reduction in efficiency since unconverted organics would represent a drop in efficiency). Note that most agricultural waste would be carbohydrate, not fat/oil. Carbohydrates would yield water-soluble products after hydrolysis (first stage) and hence be part of the "fertilizer" not the diesel. Not being able to convert carbohydrate to oil would be a major limitation for TDP.

Why would that be a limitation? That is like saying because I cannot breathe underwater, I am majorly limited as a living being. It converts waste into a usable product at a profit. Indeed, if it were given more fat and less carbs, it would... produce more oil and less fertilizer! Indeed, why is fertilizer being removed from the energy output calculations? I am quite sure one is able to calculate the inherent energy in fertilizer quite easily, as Misters McVeigh and Nichols quite imfamously proved...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orion

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diesel Enthusiast
One of the key contradictions I have come accross is this: CWT claims it can process all kinds of waste, which would make it a very useful technology indeed. Dr. Adams' presentation of the inner workings of the process, http://web.mit.edu/10.391J/www/0405SE05adams.pdf includes this key point: Only the fat/oil fraction goes to the second stage.

---

According to his charts the ratio of input feedstock to ouput oil is 3:1 and 85% of the energy in the feedstock is recovered. I fail to see what's so terrible about that.

---

What's "terrible" is that it's wrong. I hope people don't interpret our being critical of some of the claims as meaning that we are critical of TDP itself, or even of CWT. We're just trying to get to the truth of the matter, and it looks like their process can not achieve the yields and efficiencies they initially claimed (and the pilot plant seems to be bearing that out). I think TDP has a lot of potential - I'm just skeptical of some of their efficiency and yield claims.

quote:

---

Indeed, why is fertilizer being removed from the energy output calculations?

---

Ask CWT that. They have not assigned an energy value to the fertilizer (and glycerol). It appears that it was done so that they could claim a higher energy efficiency - energy in the fertilizer is not recoverable, not as fuel anyway. Now, it might have been an honest oversight. As Mike points out, just because they overestimated their efficiency does not mean this not useful technology. Just to be clear: carbohydrate (unlike protein) cannot be converted to fertilizer (there is no nitrogen in carbohydrate). It just happens to come out of the plant in what CWT labeled the fertilizer stream. In other words, being unable to convert the carbohydrate into oil would mean energy that enters the plant as carbohydrate is lost. This is part of the error in CWT's energy balance. They do not account for energy lost through the glycerol in the fertilizer stream. Another factor which is not mentioned, is the fact that the fertilizer/effluent would be quite acidic (pH ~ 1.5). It would need to be neutralized before use/disposal. Add a few dollars to the operating cost.

40 divided into 60 is still a 66 percent fuel conversion. That still is a pretty damn high conversion rate for anything, especially when this offal used to cost ConAgra money, and now it is making money...

Too bad that plants high in monounsaturated fats are not feasible - Olive oil (73 per cent) rapeseed oil (60 per cent) hazelnuts (50 per cent) almonds (35 per cent) Brazil nuts (26 per cent) cashews (28 per cent) avocado (12 per cent) sesame seeds (20 per cent) pumpkin seeds (16 per cent). Agri waste is going to have dirt on it and air in the feedstock and the grinder is going to be exposing soft iron and other minerals in the dirt. Chlorins are sort of the plants version of heme (see link I posted earlier) except it's magnesium based. http://www.eurofreehost.com/ch/Chlorin.html Bilirubin is not water soluable until changed by the liver and it is only brown after the bacteria change it in the intenstines. http://www.eurofreehost.com/bi/Bilirubin.html Those amino acids look like energy to me. Since I'm a life form and some of those are "essential amino acids." Remove anything else except the amino acids and water and It looks like something a vitamin producer would pay for. I wonder who they are selling it to. Hmmm.... looking through this supplements brochure here in my hands on soy products, here is one called "soy power powder" which has all of the following: alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, cystine, glutamic acid, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, trytophan, tyrosine and valine. Another way to take advanatge of this "fertilizer" is to burn it using an electric arc and "coal" electrodes made partially of their "carbon black" product that they get from the CWT process. Maybe now that CWT will get their "renewable diesel" qualification they can afford to start using Santillis Magnegas http://www.usmagnegas.com/technology/part321.htm to turn that "fertilizer" after it comes out of the first stage into gas to sell or produce electricity with it. Many possibilities with this stuff to change the efficiency of the carthage location and turn a profit, especially since most of the normal expense to do this magnegas thing is already there at the plant (personell, carbon for electrodes, water, feedstock, and possibly self provided electricity). Maybe they would further qualify for additional credits as "clean coal gassification." Also apparently just "quickly" running liquid feedstocks through the santillis reactor (where it recirculates) renders normally water insoluble fats soluble in the liquid.