Author: Alan Erskine
Introduction
I first became aware
of TDP (Thermal Depolymerisation Process) in 2003 and I have been researching
it ever since; I am convinced it can revolutionise every aspect of our nation’s
industry and energy consumption. TDP is
a process whereby long-chain polymers can be broken down into short and
medium-length polymers (gaseous and liquid respectively) using a combination of
water, heat and pressure (but no combustion or pyrolysis). Materials such as plastic,
rubber, paper, cardboard, food scraps, garden waste, agricultural waste,
forestry waste, most polymer-based industrial waste and even sewage solids can be turned into useful fuel,
including diesel, kerosene and petrol (referred to in this report as LTF –
Liquid Transport Fuels), as well as other materials.
There are other,
equally far-reaching consequences that are dealt with in more detail in the
body of this report.
Less than one percent
of Australia’s total energy consumption is from renewable sources. With TDP, things can change very quickly, and
very much for the better. For instance,
by processing our agricultural waste, Australia could produce several times
more energy than we currently consume.
It is generally
accepted that we are running out of crude oil, but few alternatives are
available, and those that are, will incur considerable expenses, either through
reduced performance (electric cars have limited range, compared to a
petrol-powered vehicle and weigh more per passenger due to the batteries) or
increased cost (using ethanol will require changing gaskets in every component
of the fuel and engine systems that come into contact with it; infrastructure
will need changes similar to those required when LPG was introduced [new
storage tanks at stations, new transport vehicles etc]).
By combining TDP with
other processes, including SRC (Short Rotation Coppice) and Terra Preta (a process of increasing agricultural output
by adding carbon to the soil, which also sequesters carbon for many decades and
possibly centuries), we can make Australia completely energy independent within
15 years and we can completely eliminate crude oil, both imported and
‘domestic’, within about 20 years; without the need to change from our petrol-
and diesel-powered vehicles and machinery.
This latter point is unique amongst all renewable energy
technologies. For example, ‘bio-diesel’
is only going to replace diesel and the industrial plants where bio-diesel is
made cannot make other fuels; the latter also applies to ethanol, although
ethanol will run in both petrol and diesel engines.
Also, whereas ethanol and
biodiesel are at best carbon neutral, TDP can be carbon negative (meaning it takes
more carbon out of the atmosphere than any fuel produced can put back), as will
be demonstrated.
There are several
proprietary versions of TDP, including Vacuum Distillation and Thermal
Conversion, but TDP is the generally accepted umbrella title. Each version has its advantages and disadvantages;
for instance, vacuum distillation only works well with tires and plastics and
is similar to pyrolosis while Thermal Conversion has much greater application
and is the version of TDP referred to throughout this report.
Useful
products from TDP
- Fuel oil used for ships and power generation
- Diesel
- Kerosene
- Petrol
- Gas (similar to town gas as used in Melbourne up to the early-1970’s)
- Chemicals
- Fertilizer
Advantages
of TDP
·
Addition
of over $220 billion to the Australian economy within 20 years
·
An almost
halving of the amount of material placed into landfills
·
An almost
halving of landfill tippage costs incurred by local councils
·
Reduced
environmental impact caused by landfills and sewage treatment plants
·
Reduced
expenses incurred by landfill operators (reduced need for environmental
measures)
·
Reduced
pollution (land, air and water), both directly and indirectly, using several
ancillary processes
·
Elimination
of sewage as a source of pollution
·
Elimination
of agricultural waste as a source of air pollution
·
Reduced
pollution from agricultural production
·
Improved
soil fertility
·
Improved
water retention properties of soil
·
Increased
farm output (either food or fuel)
·
Improved
rural economy
·
Diversification
of rural economy
·
Increased
rural populations (reversing the trend of the past 50 years)
·
Elimination
of the need for welfare for farmers
·
Reduction
of the foul odour in areas surrounding landfills and sewage farms
·
Elimination
of vermin from within these same areas
·
The elimination,
within 15 years, of all imported crude oil
·
The
elimination, within 20 years, of all crude oil-derived ‘Liquid Transport Fuels’
(referred to as LTF in this report) used in Australia
·
The
elimination, within 40 years, of the need for all fossil fuels used in
Australia
·
Using
Calculation 12 (see below), agricultural waste could supply 4 times the total
amount of energy consumed by Australia at current agricultural output
While the latter four
points may seem grandiose, reading this report will confirm them to be
accurate.
According to the
International Energy Agency (report titled: “Energy Consumption by Source 2005”),
Australia currently consumes a total of over 115 million tons of oil
(equivalent) of energy per year. Over 99%
of this comes from fossil fuels; this is for all energy consumption combined,
including transport and electricity generation.
However, the same organisation’s report states that we produce more than
double this amount of fuel, with the excess being exported, mostly as coal and
natural gas. That means that more than
half of all the energy this country produces is exported. Of the total energy consumed, 30,100,000
tonnes of that is for road transport, according to the report titled “Energy
Consumption by Sector 2005”.
By correlation with
American figures (as mentioned in the Discover article referred to in the
bibliography, which state that America could, by processing it’s agricultural
waste in TDP plants, eliminate 4 billion of the 4.2 billion barrels of crude
oil imported in 2001), just by processing Australia’s landfill waste, TDP could
add more than 10% to this and if agricultural waste is also processed, more
than 3.7 billion (3,700 million) barrels of oil would be produced. This
is almost 30 times our current total LTF consumption. If this oil were sold
at $60 per barrel, it would bring over $220 billion into the Australian
economy, while, at the same time, eliminating the ‘export’ of money used to pay
for our current imports of crude oil; a further saving of roughly $9 billion at
$80 per barrel. This is equal to adding
roughly $9,000 to each Australian’s annual income. It is to be noted that Saudi Arabia exported,
at peak production in 1980, less than 3.6 billion barrels of crude oil.
There is a
considerable increase in export revenue as roughly 29 times the amount of LTF
currently consumed by Australia would end up being exported, while at the same
time, imports of crude oil would virtually end (some oils and other lubricants may
still need to be imported).
With current
agriculture output, Australia could provide the Liquid Transport Fuels for over
660 million people, or roughly two thirds of the combined populations of Europe
and North America. At $60 per barrel,
this works out to be about $222 billion per year gained almost entirely from
export and increases our GDP by over 26% (Wikipedia, 2010).
- Melbourne has a population of 4 million (Wikipedia)
- Victoria has a population of 5,547,527 (Wikipedia2)
- Australia has a population of 22 million
- Each Australian produces 2.73kg of landfill waste per day (Australian Government)
- 36% of all landfill waste is recycled (same source as above)
- Approximately 1.75kg of organic matter (putrescable waste – material that putrefies – rots down through bacterial action) is not recycled – 7,000 tonnes per day just for Melbourne and a total of 38,500 tonnes a day for the entire nation – about half the mass of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
- 50% of what is left of that landfill waste is polymer-based materials
- Australia has 473 million hectares of land in agricultural holdings1 (Australian Government). This only counts agricultural holdings and does not include forest land
- The United States has 500 million hectares of agricultural land1. This only counts agricultural holdings and does not include forest land
- The TDP plant in Carthage cost $20 million USD to build (Discover magazine)
- The Carthage plant has a processing capacity of over 200 tonnes of waste per day (same as above source)
- In 2005, Australians consumed an average of 11,221.2kw/h of electricity per person for the entire year (Earth Trends)
- In 2005, Australia’s total energy consumption (all fossil and renewable sources combined) was an average of 5,897.5kg of oil equivalent per person for the entire year (Earth Trends). This is based on an energy content of 41.868 gigajoules, or 11,628 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per tonne (Earth Trends). Roughly, this is over 6,500 litres (or almost 42 barrels) of oil per person, per year.
14. Victorian MSW consists of: 1,302,000 tonnes of organic matter (made
up of Paper and cardboard, food waste, garden waste, wood and timber and other
organic material including nappies) as well as 126,000 tonnes of plastic
materials. (Federal Government, 2010)
15. Point 13 works out to be
- one tonne of municipal waste produces 1.0 tonne of CO2-e, one tonne of C&I waste produces 1.1 tonnes CO2-e, and one tonne C&D waste produces 0.3 tonnes CO2-e. (Federal Government, 2010)
- MSW has an energy content of 11227.26gj per tonne, of which 6,287.26gj is from “biogenic” (food, garden etc) sources and 4,940gj is from “non-biogenic” (plastic and rubber) materials
- From above, it is assumed that, from landfills, Melbourne could produce
Melbourne has a population of about 4
million. Each person in Australia
generates an average of about 1.75kg of waste per day, with 36% being recycled;
it can be assumed that this means 7,000 tonnes of polymer-based waste is buried
per day in Melbourne alone. This is the
same as burying a U.S. Navy
destroyer every day. Most of this
waste goes into landfills and is referred to as MSW (Municipal Solid Waste). In Carthage (USA), there is a TDP plant
processing about 200 tonnes of turkey waste (dead birds, bones, skin, blood,
offal, feathers etc) per day; this plant cost $20 million US to build (DISCOVER
Vol. 24 No. 5 (May 2003). The Carthage
plant produces 400 to 500 barrels (at 159 litres per barrel) of oil per day (Various Authors,
2004)
by processing approximately 200 tons of `high-water-content material’ (waste
from a turkey processing plant); this oil can be cracked in a conventional
refinery into diesel, kerosene and petrol, along with any chemical that can be
produced from crude oil, although the quantities vary. In addition, gas is generated; this gas is
burned to provide the heat for the TDP plant, but can be burned in a gas
turbine to produce electricity - the heat from the gas turbine is more than
sufficient for the plant's needs.
MSW consists of a variety of materials; up
to 50% of which is made of polymer-based materials. However, I have assumed that landfill waste
has a similar energy content per unit of mass as turkey waste. This does not take into account the fact that
the turkey waste has a much higher water content and that landfill waste also
contains plastic and rubber – both of which have a high concentration of energy
per unit of mass. If this is true, processing
this waste would generate between 13,000 and 19,000 barrels of oil a day. At the same time, if all of Australia’s
landfill waste were to be treated, over 100,000 barrels of oil a day would be
produced.
If TDP plants big enough to process all of
Melbourne's MSW were built, it
would cost about $700 million (about one quarter the cost of the Eastlink tollway (and about the same cost as the 27km Peninsular Link Freeway which is
currently being built (Wikipedia, 2010) also (Victorian Government, 2010), and without any
Variable Proportion being taken into consideration [the Law of Variable
Proportion states that as volume increases, costs reduce per unit of volume - a
plant with a capacity of 7,000 tonnes/day would be less expensive to build and
operate than 15 plants each with a capacity of 181 tonnes/day, while the profit
margin would increase in a similar manor] for instance, a 1.25 litre soft drink
bottle weighs less and costs less than two 600 ml bottles. The same generalisation applies to costings
for industrial facilities – a factory with an output of 100 tonnes per day is
more efficient and less expensive to build than 10 factories each with an
output of 10 tonnes per day). This means
the Melbourne system would be less expensive to build and operate per unit of
output. Remembering that the Carthage
plant has a capacity of 200 tonnes a day and cost $20 million USD to build.
While TDP stands for
Thermal Depolymerisation Process, it would better if it were called HTDP –
Hydro-Thermal Depolymerisation Process as water is a most important component
of the process.
- The feedstock (material to be processed) is pulped to loosen fibres (polymers) from one another.
- Water is added and the feedstock is pumped into a reaction chamber where the combination is heated to about 400°C and pressurised to about 40 atmospheres. This weakens the molecular bonds between the monomers.
- The pressurised ‘soup’ is then pumped into a vacuum chamber (a chamber with less than atmospheric pressure) where it ‘flashes’ – the water and other volatiles are instantly vaporised.
- The vapours are collected and condensed at various stages for processing. The exception to condensation, of course, is the gas, which is either stored or used immediately.
With an input of 7,000
tonnes of feedstock (landfill waste) per day, the Melbourne plants would have
an output of over 13,000 barrels (over two million litres; some figures say up
to 19,000 barrels or three million litres per day) of oil per day, as well as gas
and CRS.
This includes the oil,
gas and purified water, as well as carbon-rich solids.
Whereas crude oil
typically produces 35% petrol and other naphthas, TDP oil typically produces
60%.
Both crude oil and TDP
oil produce approximately 35% ‘middle distillates’, including kerosene (made
into jet fuel) and diesel.
According to “Animal
Waste to Marketable Products”, input at the Carthage plant is: 210.1 T/D (made
up of Water 108.0 T/D; Organics 92.9 T/D; Minerals 8.2 T/D; Ammonia 1.0 T/D) plus 3.6 tonnes of sulphuric acid,
and output is 87.9t/d water; 8.2 t/d of dry minerals; 33.6 t/d liquid
fertilizer and glycerol; 69.8 t/d of “TDP-40” oil; 7.5 t/d of fuel gas and 6.7
t/d of coke/carbon.
Energy input is 129.6664
million MJ from feedstock and 3.798201 million MJ from electricity to run the
plant. Output is: 104.9781 million MJ of
oil; 1.477078 million MJ for gas and 6.752357 million MJ for coke/carbon.
Using these figures,
plant efficiency is 82.99% without carbon/coke and 87.3068% if that material is
included. However, plant efficiency is
further improved if the gas generated is burned in a gas turbine and the ‘waste’
heat is then used for the process, thus improving entropy.
Transport and Infrastructure
No changes are
necessary to either. When all is said
and done, TDP oil is still crude oil; it’s just less than an hour old rather
than 150 million years old.
Refining and Export
Any oil for the
Australian market can be refined in Australian refineries, but oil to be
exported will require shipping and oil terminals. Such infrastructure does not exist on a
sufficiently large scale and will need to be built to fulfil the potential of
TDP oil.
Australia has a
refining capacity of 861,000 barrels per day (Wikipedia ,
2011). This capacity is sufficient for current
requirements, but would need to be expanded for exports of various fractions
should this prove to be economic.
Assuming an oil output
of 13,347 barrels per day and if the oil were sold at $60 per barrel, it would
be worth a total of $800,820 per day, or $292.5 million per year – the Melbourne
plants pay for themselves within three years.
Assuming 19,000 barrels per day, the plants pay for themselves in about
two years and the income from oil alone would be over one million dollars per day
(over $416 million per year). Then there
is the sale of the carbon-rich solids (worth about $10 per tonne (Landline, ABC TV, September, 2009) and sale of electricity to the grid.
These latter two sources of income would be more than sufficient for
plant upkeep, including wages.
Once these plants are
paid for, the money would be used to build plants in rural areas in order to
process agricultural waste. This is
where the real money starts to roll in.
- Councils would benefit from reduced landfill charges due to the smaller amount of material being dumped
- Landfills would be less complex and less expensive to build and operate (landfills currently require linings to prevent leachate entering the water table, as well as pumps and filtration equipment to dispose of the leachate itself).
Approximately 6.5% of
the TDP plant’s output is in the form of Carbon Rich Solids (CRS, more commonly
known as ‘biochar’ or simply ‘char’).
CRS can be added to farm land in a process called Terra Preta.
With Terra Preta, 10
tonnes of carbon applied to each hectare of land triples wheat production and doubles
soy bean production. (New South Wales Department of Primary Industry, 2007) As Melbourne would produce roughly 200 tonnes
of CRS per day, 20 hectares of land could be ‘treated’ each day. Over a year, this is more than 7,300 hectares
– just from landfill waste. In ten years,
it would be 73,000 hectares of land, but that’s not the whole story.
With every hectare of Terra Preta land
producing at least twice the crop, I have assumed that mass of crop residues
are also doubled. This means that there
would be an exponential increase in the amount of land that can be treated to
become Terra Preta.
When a unit of land is treated, it would
not only double the amount of food produced, it would also double the amount of
waste. This waste would then go to TDP
plants built in rural towns (built using the profits made by preceding
plants). This waste produces more fuel,
and also more CRS, thus increasing the amount of land that can be treated to
become Terra Preta.
If food production
were doubled, it would normally result in the price paid for crops going
through the floor. However, by doubling
food production per hectare, farmers could halve the amount of land
farmed. While this would not increase
the amount of money the farmer would make, it would halve the farmer’s costs –
half the amount of fuel, half the amount of seed, half the amount of fertiliser
and half the cost of maintenance on equipment.
By doing this, the farmer’s ‘disposable income’ would be greatly
increased, and this would lead to improved self-esteem. Increasing the disposable income would
improve the situation in local towns (farmers spending their money there) and improving
self-esteem would help everyone, including the farmer’s and their families.
The other half of the
land can be used for crop rotation and also to grow less profitable crops for
silage (animal feed) as well as feedstock for TDP plants in the area. This would increase the farmer’s income even
further.
By processing all of
Australia’s agricultural wastes, we would be able to sequester over 150,000
tonnes of carbon each day, compared to the Carthage plant. With the current carbon tax of $23/tonne, it
would provide the TDP plants with an income of over $1.2 billion per year.
With the reduction in
the amount of crude oil needed, imports of this fuel would be reduced. This would impact the Fuel Excise and would
require some form of compensation to the government. This compensation is discussed in greater
detail under Economic Implications.
There might also be a
change in relationships between Australia and the OPEC nations. This can be dealt with in any number of
ways. One would be to assist these
nations in transitioning from an oil export-based economy, into other
industries; this process is underway in several Middle Eastern nations such as
Abu Dhabi. This can be a difficult
transition, as Abu Dhabi has recently shown during the Global Financial Crisis,
but Australia could offer free advice and consultation services as well as
other, more material, provisions.
Economic implications are
also many and varied and include reduced welfare for farmers (added income from
sale of ‘waste’ material; reduced irrigation requirements; reduced fertilizer
requirements; reduced fuel use (tractors run about half the time) etc. This also reduces government expenses, and
goes part way to compensating the government for the reduction in duties currently
gained from importing crude oil.
By increasing the
income of farmers, they will spend more.
More than likely, this will be in the local towns/cities which will
improve the economic situation in these areas.
The electricity generated by burning the
gas, along with the sale of the carbon rich solids, would more than pay for the
operation and maintenance costs of the TDP plant. Just the sale of the CRS would bring in approximately
$9 million per year at $10 per tonne (the market price for carbon).
By building plants in rural areas, there
would be increases in the population of nearby towns to provide workers for the
plants. This also has economic benefits for
these communities.
As Australia would be sequestering massive
amounts of carbon, a carbon trading scheme is vital, and this would be yet
another source of income, not just for farmers, but also the entire nation. This latter could more than compensate the
government for the reduced tariffs from the import of crude oil.
Because of Australia's
agricultural production (Earth Trends), we would be able to
produce up to 30 times as much energy as we currently consume. By exporting what we don't consume, we would
be 'importing money' at world-parity price and not importing any transport
fuels - we would not be 'exporting money' to pay for the crude oil we currently
import.
This equates to being
able to support 660 million people at LTF consumption equal to Australia. That is about 62% of combined population of
the United States of America and Europe.
These are many and varied, but include:
- By processing the agricultural waste in TDP plants, we would be reducing methane generation from agricultural sources by up to 20% (Clarke, 2009). Methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (United States EPA). Therefore, we would be directly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
- By processing MSW, TDP can reduce methane emissions by 62m3 per tonne (Themelis, 2003). This works out to be 434,000m3 for a population of four million.
- By spreading the Carbon Rich Solids (CRS) from TDP plants on farmland, we would be improving the water holding properties of the soil, reducing the amount of water needed per unit of land for irrigation - more crops produced and less water required (New South Wales Department of Primary Industry, 2007).
- As an alternative to (3), the CRS could be spread over semi-arid land (rainfall of 250-400mm/year) and the land used for crop production instead of simply a few head of cattle per square kilometre as is the case at the present. This also increases the amount of food crops produced. Excess food would be exported, increasing our GDP.
- As an alternative to (4), we could apply the CRS onto semi-arid land and grow native grasses and trees (eucalypts for instance) which have reduced water usage compared to agricultural crops, and then process the biomass (wood, leaves and bark) to produce even more transport fuels for export. This can be done by short rotation coppice (SRC).
- By processing crop residues, we would be taking carbon out of the atmosphere and therefore reducing our greenhouse gas emissions even further (carbon sequestration).
- There would be no putrescable landfills (‘putrescable’ means waste that rots down; or ‘putrefies’) - no flies; no rats; no mice; no seagulls; no mess from those seagulls on clothes hanging on clothes lines in the nearby area; and no odour.
- There would be a reduction in energy consumption at landfills - landfills consume much more energy than they can generate. All the machinery used to bury the waste, and all that is gained is landfill gas – and only a limited supply of that. This would also reduce air pollution as only about one third of all the landfill gas generated is recovered; the rest simply escapes into the atmosphere.
- Landfills also require 'infill' - material to cover the MSW. This has to be 'imported' to the landfill site which costs money. TDP plants don't require this infill which is a further saving. The only waste to be buried at a landfill would be non-polymer based – it would, effectively, be inert.
- Also, the amount of material being disposed of is much reduced. This would have economic consequences for local councils and rate-payers. The savings could be put back into the local community and might lead to rate reductions, although sceptics might think the latter is unlikely.
- After the TDP gas is burned to produce electricity, there is more heat than the plant needs for the TDP process; the excess heat can be used to process the water from the TDP plant using a process called Flash Evaporation. This water would be at least as clean as recycled water. Therefore, the TDP plant can also produce water that can be applied to farmland and used within towns and cities, helping to 'drought proof' the city. If the water comes from agricultural waste, it would be a simple task to purify it to drinking water standards.
- The oil from a TDP plant is cleaner than crude oil - it doesn't contain any solids such as grit that must be disposed of. Because of this, the refinery's operating costs would be lower, compensating for the increased purchase price of the oil (the oil from the Carthage plant is sold at $80 US per barrel, but would be much less expensive in a 7,000 tonne/day plant; again, due to the Law of Variable Proportion).
While the economic
implications are considerable, and advantageous to our nation, the social
implications are also considerable. The
suicide rate amongst farmers is 34 out of 100,000 male farmers and is 50%
higher than the rural average1 2 3 4
By increasing the disposable
income of farmers and also reducing the workload, the suicide rate should drop
considerably.
Australian Government. (2010, June
20). Land Use - Australia. Retrieved from Australian Natural Resources
Atlas: http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/land/landuse/index.html
Australian
Government. (n.d.). Management of Australia's Waste Streams (including
consideration of the Drink Container Recycling Bill 2008). Retrieved June
20, 2010, from Introduction (section 1.17): http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/aust_waste_streams/report/c01.htm
Clarke, R.
(2009, May 31). Australian agriculture — a carbon-neutral future?
Retrieved July 13, 2010, from Green Left:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/41760
Discover
magazine. (n.d.). DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 5 (May 2003) . Retrieved from
Access now requires payment.
Earth
Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 5, 2010, from
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=2005-2005&variable_ID=574&theme=6&cID=9&ccID=
Earth
Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 5, 2010, from
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=2005-2005&variable_ID=351&theme=6&cID=9&ccID=
Earth
Trends. (n.d.). Retrieved
July 5, 2010, from
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/variablenotes.php?varid=351&theme=6
Earth Trends.
(n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/agriculture-food/country-profile-9.html
Earth
Trends. (1999-2001). Agriculture and Food COUNTRY PROFILE - Australia.
Retrieved July 13, 2010, from http://earthtrends.wri.org: http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/agriculture-food/country-profile-9.html
New South
Wales Department of Primary Industry. (2007, June). Soils offer new hope as
carbon sink. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/archive/agriculture-today-stories/june-2007/soils-offer-new-hope
Themelis,
N. J. (2003, July). An overview of the global waste-to-energy industry.
Retrieved July 18, 2011, from Columbia University Earth Engineering Center:
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/papers/global_waste_to_energy.html
United
States EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/methane/
USDA.
(2003, October 20). Retrieved July 1, 2010, from http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2002/09/as0916wht/index.htm
Various
Authors, p. a.-1. (2004). Animal Waste to Marketable Products. W.
Hempstead, NY 11552 U.S.A: Changing World Technologies.
Victorian
Government. (2010). Linking Melbourne Authority. Retrieved July 13,
2010, from
http://www.linkingmelbourne.vic.gov.au/pages/about-peninsula-link.asp
Wikipedia
. (2011, June 6).
Retrieved June 10, 2011, from List of oil refineries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Australia
Wikipedia.
(2010, July 10). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula_Link
Wikipedia.
(2010, July 13). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia
Wikipedia.
(n.d.). Melbourne. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne
Additional Information
Changing
World Technologies Initial Public Offering
Page 13 of the IPO states:
“We expect to spend an average of $38 million to
$125 million per plant to construct facilities that can convert from 500
to 2,000 tons of animal and food processing waste per day and produce
approximately 13 million to 54 million gallons, respectively, of
renewable diesel per year. Although we intend to enter into fixed-price
contracts for the construction of our facilities, we may be unable to negotiate
or agree to a fixed price.”
Page 56 of the IPO
states:
“Further, certain aspects of TCP and our products have been reviewed
and tested by a number of leading independent organizations, including a
life-cycle analysis by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a fuel
analysis by the Brookhaven National Laboratory. These studies confirmed the
quality and the environmental footprint of our process and renewable diesel for
a number of industrial applications.”
Page 59 of the IPO
states:
“Facility Size. Our larger
facility design requires approximately five acres for a 1,000 ton of animal and
food processing waste per day plant, which is a considerably smaller footprint
than required for comparable alternative waste processing technologies, such as
incineration. Trap and low-value grease facilities require less than two acres
due to the minimal solids loading and handling of materials in the process
system.”
This works out to be
7.81 hectares for a 3,500 tonne a day plant; two plants for 7,000 tonnes a day.
Page 60 of the IPO
states:
“Energy Efficient Process. TCP
achieves high product yield and recovery of the energy contained in the
feedstock, while consuming little energy in the process. Energy requirements
are minimal due to the moderate processing temperatures and pressures used, the
short amount of time required for the process and the recovery and reuse of
waste heat. Our renewable diesel’s net energy balance is over 7.0. This is
significantly higher than that of soy-based biodiesel at about 3.67 or
corn-based ethanol at about 1.25.”
This means that TDP is
2-5.6 times more efficient than conventional biofuels.
No comments:
Post a Comment