Renewable Oil!!!

Renewable Oil!!!

We have all become accustomed to all the talk about the energy crisis the world over. Prices of oil have more than doubled in just over a year , there are many theories that dependence on oil is ecologically damaging, hybrid cars have become the new badge of environmental awareness, wind farms for the production of electricity are spouting up all over the globe, solar collectors are being incorporated into new commercial buildings as well as residential ones, tar sands have made the Canadian province of Alberta into a global boom area, shale, nuclear and coal are expecting to experience substantial growth and the Thermal Depolymerization Process has plans to go global.

What’s TDP? It is a process that is too good to be true but all indications so far say that the process can deliver on the hype. Very simply it is a process that mimics nature by transforming hydrocarbons in any product into oil without having to wait the millions of years. Mix the hydrocarbon based waste with water and soil. Heat the mixture under very high pressure and presto waste becomes oil. The experimental plant in Missouri uses as its feed stock pig feet and Turkey innards from a Butterball Turkey plant. Production has been going on for almost three years and the plant has attained the scale whereby it is expected to become profitable later on this year.

This process can solve three major problems:
(1) Get rid of waste, any waste.
(2) Produce clean oil
(3)Reduce Global Warming

The first two are obvious but why should it reduce global warming? If the process becomes very widely spread then the oil it produces will not be adding new carbon to the atmosphere since it will in essence be reusing the carbon that is already above the earths surface. It will make oil a renewable commodity.

Does this sound as if it is a phantasy? I think that it is but then I have been wrong before.

Are CFL's worthwhile?

The typical light bulb, the incandescent one, was developed over a hundred years ago. It is just as inefficient today as it was then. The process of generating artificial light from heating a filament enclosed in a vaccum transforms around 90% of the energy consumed by the light bulb into heat and only 10% of the energy is used to generate light.

One alternative whose price per unit has dropped substantially is that of Compact Fluorescent Lamps, CFL's. These light bulbs will generate the same amount of light but consume only 25% of the energy of an incandescent device mainly because it is more efficient; much less heat is produced in the process. CFL's are not the only alternative to the incandescent, LED are even more promising but they are not as readily available nor as affordable yet.

Does the additional cost of a CFL present a barrier to its adoption? It should not. The following example should convince the skeptics to rush to WalMart and buy a few dozen CFL's. (WalMart is championing a national effort to sell over a 100 million CFL's through its 3000 stores in the US).

Assume that the Electric Utility Company charges the consumers $0.2 per KWH and assume that a household uses 10 light bulb for 200 hours. Furthermore assume that the 10 CFL's cost $25 to purchase while the incandescents cost only $5.00 If each light bulb of the regular variety uses 100 watts of power then the 10 incandescent light bulbs would consume 200 Kwh while the CFL will deliver the same lumens for the same time by consuming only 50 Kwh. Voila, the saving on the electricity bill over 200 hours will more than pay for the initial difference in the cost.

But is that the only reason to shift to CFL's? What if the cost of electricity is much lower and so one needs say 1000 or even 2000 hours in order to justify the initial cost. We should still go ahead and replace all our incandescents by CFL's because the resulting lower demand for electric power will translate into less coal being produced and burned. As a result less CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. That is the real savings behind such a switch.