BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  General Energy Discussion    10K mile flight using plastic fuel
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
10K mile flight using plastic fuel
 Login/Join
 
member

posted
File this under "where there is a will there is a way" topic.

http://www.newsforage.com/2013...10500-mile-trip.html

Maybe now they can do something about the plastic dump floating in the Pacific 2X the size of Texas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxNqzAHGXvs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K-lGDRZOqc



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.


 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2014 Sponsor

posted Hide Post
My bull$hit detector is going off... or did I misunderstand something?

5 tons of plastic into 1000 gallons of fuel translates into 10 lbs of plastic into 1 gallon of fuel... or put another way, 10 lbs of plastic into ~8 lbs of high grade fuel..

I'm no molecular chemist, but those numbers don't seem quite right.

Am I off ??


www.MurphysMachines.Com
The best Do-it-Yourself Construction Plans on the Internet!
Waste Oil Heating - Biodiesel Systems
Biodiesel Pumps Made In The USA
 
Registered: March 09, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ttommy claims he's getting 90% yield with his home-brew pyrolysis system, so it may not be that far out of line.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
His flight will be powered by five tons of discarded packaging and waste collected from rubbish dumps and – using a pioneering technique – melted down into 1,000 gallons of aviation-grade diesel.
I assume he is talking in US gallons and not imperial gallons. 10,000 lb of trash is going to make 1,000 gallons of diesel or about 8,200 lb of diesel fuel.
82% conversion.

Cynar plc says that with their system “Each plant can produce up to 19k litres of fuel from 20 tonnes of End of Life Plastic.”
That works out to 5,109 gallons of fuel which is 41,903 lb of fuel from 44,092 lb of end of life plastic.
A 95% conversion.
I imagine that in the real world these numbers would be difficult to achieve but the 82% mentioned in the article should be doable.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Franklin Westaway:
quote:
His flight will be powered by five tons of discarded packaging and waste collected from rubbish dumps and – using a pioneering technique – melted down into 1,000 gallons of aviation-grade diesel.
I assume he is talking in US gallons and not imperial gallons. 10,000 lb of trash is going to make 1,000 gallons of diesel or about 8,200 lb of diesel fuel.
82% conversion.

Cynar plc says that with their system “Each plant can produce up to 19k litres of fuel from 20 tonnes of End of Life Plastic.”
That works out to 5,109 gallons of fuel which is 41,903 lb of fuel from 44,092 lb of end of life plastic.
A 95% conversion.
I imagine that in the real world these numbers would be difficult to achieve but the 82% mentioned in the article should be doable.


Remember, You are talking weight to Volume.

1KG of water equals 1L of water, 1L of Fuel does NOT weigh 1KG.


Furthermore, The volume to weight ratio changes according to temperature.
This is why fuel for airliners is sold by weight not volume as weight is independent of the Temp/ density for a given volume.

In the weight to Volume measurement, it may be entirely possible to have over 100% conversion especially if you are talking about petrol or Propane because they both weigh well under 1Kg per litre and you are not using a level playing field in the measurements assumed here that they are 1:1

I don't know what the US measurements work out to but Metric is based on volume to weight of water and it's density, not other substances with other density's. In the case of Propane, 1L of that is only half as dense as water so you could have a 60% conversion rate and still come in over 100% by the flawed weight to volume miscalculation.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ttommy:

Remember, You are talking weight to Volume.

1KG of water equals 1L of water, 1L of Fuel does NOT weigh 1KG.

Furthermore, The volume to weight ratio changes according to temperature.
This is why fuel for airliners is sold by weight not volume as weight is independent of the Temp/ density for a given volume.

In the weight to Volume measurement, it may be entirely possible to have over 100% conversion especially if you are talking about petrol or Propane because they both weigh well under 1Kg per litre and you are not using a level playing field in the measurements assumed here that they are 1:1

I don't know what the US measurements work out to but Metric is based on volume to weight of water and it's density, not other substances with other density's. In the case of Propane, 1L of that is only half as dense as water so you could have a 60% conversion rate and still come in over 100% by the flawed weight to volume miscalculation.
I see I have made a major mistake in my calculations. 1000 gallons of Diesel weighs about 715 pounds or about 7.15 pounds per gallon, not the 8.2 pounds I used in my original calculation. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

So in the original post the gallons of diesel produced from the 10,000 pounds of trash is about 7150 pounds of diesel instead of the 8200 pounds I said.
A conversion of about 72%.

Looking at the numbers for the Cynar process the 19,000 litres of fuel works out to about 15,580 kg of diesel produced from 20,000 kg of trash
A conversion of about 78%

I hope that is correct.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
To be realistic one must also factor in the energy required to make the trash into fuel. Unless of course that conversion energy was free, like fairy dust or unicorn farts.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It would be interesting to know what the input energy requirement is for this process no matter what the cost of the input energy is.
I wonder how it would stack up against other high energy consuming processes like the Canadian tar sands.
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
To be realistic one must also factor in the energy required to make the trash into fuel. Unless of course that conversion energy was free, like fairy dust or unicorn farts.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
I wonder how it would stack up against other high energy consuming processes like the Canadian tar sands.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...d_on_energy_invested

That's the problem with inconvenient facts, they always get in the way of preconceived notions.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes, your chart clearly shows what I mean about the tar sands. They have a very low EROEI, not much better than corn ethanol and not as good as sugarcane ethanol.

There is a better chart just below the one that you have posted that is much easier to read. For some reason I can not copy the cart.
It shows that tar sand oil has a very low EROI of 3, World oil production has an EROI of 35 and coal is way up there at 80.
I had not realized until now just how bad tar sand oil stacked up.
Thank you for providing this eye-opening information.


quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...d_on_energy_invested

That's the problem with inconvenient facts, they always get in the way of preconceived notions.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have never measured the energy input on my Tiddly winks backyard efforts but I think the process would be feasable.

One thing to keep in mind with it is that even if it's only a break even, the amount of good that could be done for the environment by cleaning all the plastic rubbish up would be magnitudes more worthwhile than the current idiotic folly of trying to make ethanol from corn and Bio from specially grown crops.

In many countries garbage is largely put to use, even if only for Boiler fuel to power co-gen systems. With this you are using a complete and utter detriment and a problem material of no value at all so I'd say yield % if you can get a system to be self fueled is almost irrelevant. As you were dealing with garbage in the first place, you would either use the feedstock to fire the boiler or use another related feedstock such as paper or wood waste to supplement the energy requirements.
Any problematic rubbish you convert to a usable fuel has to be a good thing.


There are you tube vids of Mobile plants that are highly commercially Viable to make a profit from the process and use no more power than is required from a standard outlet. Once the things are heated up, they are largely self sufficient and use off gasses to fuel the heating process along with a little product. I forget the numbers exactly but they did produce a substantial commercial qty of fuel a day.... and they get rid of a substantial problem as well.

The same technology is being put to use cracking Tyres back to fuel. There seems to be a lot of plates doing this in the Asian countries where fuel is expensive and rubbish is plentiful although places to dispose of it are not. They fire the tyres up in large Tubular ovens and extract and refine the resulting gasses and liquids into different fractions of fuel.
It's nothing new either, they have been doing it for many years.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
There is a better chart just below the one that you have posted that is much easier to read. For some reason I can not copy the cart.

Yes, I couldn't get it to post properly either, but I knew the link would work.

While wind power looks good in theory, in actual installations it's providing only 15% of the installed capacity which the EROI is based on, which plots it's EROI much lower with biodiesel and ethanol.
http://theenergycollective.com...acity-less-estimated

Solar PV and Small Scale Nuclear are the most promising where hydroelectricity can't be developed.

In the future the oilsands in Alberta will use small scale nuclear instead of natural gas for extracting the oil. This will improve the EROI and reduce operating cost. Plans for implementation are already moving ahead.

The best long term energy and waste management solutions come from countries like Sweden:
http://now.msn.com/sweden-has-...mporting-from-norway

Despite it's 'attractive' EROI, coal remains the most damaging of all energy sources. The number of deaths and environmental destruction from coal power far exceeds those from nuclear power, by several orders of magnitude.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member

posted Hide Post
This Chart ?



** Biodiesel Glycerine Soap - The Guide
- on 5 continents helping people make & sell soap from the Biodiesel Glycerine.




Imageroi.jpg (35 Kb, 7 downloads) ROI Chart
 
Location: :-) Great White North eh ? | Registered: December 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
hey LE, how did you morph the chart into an image?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I was wondering about that. Right now they are using huge amounts of natural gas to process the tar sands. Experts predict that the Natural gas will run out well before all the tar sands have been processed. So it seems they plan on using Nuclear after they have used up all the available natural gas.

One slight correction though. EROEI is Energy Return on Energy Invested. If they change the energy source from natural gas to nuclear, unless they also change the process they are using this will have no effect on the EROEI. It will still require the same amount of energy to run the process.
They will just be using a different source of energy with no improvement of the EROEI

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

In the future the oilsands in Alberta will use small scale nuclear instead of natural gas for extracting the oil. This will improve the EROI and reduce operating cost. Plans for implementation are already moving ahead.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yes, the use of nuclear will change the extraction and upgrading process, thus increasing it's efficiency considerably. BTW they won't wait till the natural gas is gone before implementing small scale nuclear.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Unless they change the process they are using to extract the bitumen from the tar sands, the use of nuclear will only change the source of energy. I hope you are correct that they are really planning on upgrading the process because at the moment the EROEI for tar sands extraction is pretty dismal.

I have done some google searching about the change to nuclear power and almost everything I can find is very pie in the sky planning that maybe one day far in the future this will happen.
I have found a site that says "Toshiba developing small N-reactor / Reactor to be used to mine oil sands in Canada; initial operation by 2020 eyed"
My personal opinion is that there will be many obsticals to overcome before this can happen and I do not think we will see nuclear powered tar sand processing any time in the next 10 years- if ever.

quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Yes, the use of nuclear will change the extraction and upgrading process, thus increasing it's efficiency considerably. BTW they won't wait till the natural gas is gone before implementing small scale nuclear.
 
Registered: January 24, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
My personal opinion is that there will be many obsticals to overcome before this can happen and I do not think we will see nuclear powered tar sand processing any time in the next 10 years- if ever.

No doubt your opinion means a lot to the people running the oilsands operation, NOT. The Chinese have a major stake in the oilsands and are also developing small scale nuclear reactors. The newest technology is so small they will be able to have it on site and operational with no public knowledge. The Alberta govt and energy companies are on-side, that's all they need. Have a nice day.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Using nuke power to process oil sands will be when we know the world has really gone to hell in a hand basket. Bad enough now they are using natural gas. Better off using that straight up without the huge losses that would be encountered with changing one energy source to another.

This is exactly why all this feel good save the planet, protect the environment Crap is a complete and utter load of Bullchit. Instead of using a detrimental waste product like plastic and tyres to make fuel, they lunacy of even thinking of using nuke power to make oil in an incredibly low yield operation defies all rational logic... except there must be subsidies and grants in it.

Given the cost of Nuke anything, if they do do down this road with the sands processing you can kiss huge areas of land goodbye. The cost of processing will mean every corner possible it cut, every short cut is taken, every bribe and payoff to inspectors and officials possible is made, all in an effort to cut costs and in the process compromise saftey.

Anyone that believes it will all be safe and clean and run to the highest standards is having themselves on. It's a money making operation and that automatically ensures corruption and human greed will take over on something that is way too risky to start with.
 
Registered: July 30, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Anyone that believes it will all be safe and clean and run to the highest standards is having themselves on. It's a money making operation and that automatically ensures corruption and human greed will take over on something that is way too risky to start with.


Like coal mining in Australia, the biggest threat to the planet and human health, bar none.

More importantly we don't have to personally insult anyone to prove it. The evidence is irrefutable.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Other Energy Options  Hop To Forums  General Energy Discussion    10K mile flight using plastic fuel

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014