Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

From Turkey Guts to Fuel Oil 411

Untimely Ripp'd writes "The latest issue of Discover Magazine reports that any day now a plant will go online in Carthage, Missouri that processes turkey guts into high grade oil, natural gas, some minerals, and water. Unfortunately, the Discover article isn't online yet, but here's a newspaper article. The system, developed by Changing World Technologies uses thermal depolymerization and apparently works on almost any and every kind of organic waste. They assert that applying it to 100% of the US' agricultural waste would produce about 4 billion barrels of oil per year -- about the amount we currently import. It sounds too good to be true, it sounds like one of those fly-by-night-in-the-face-of-the-second-law deals, but it isn't happening in somebody's basement -- it's happening in a multi-million dollar facility developed with Con-Agra."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

From Turkey Guts to Fuel Oil

Comments Filter:
  • by TheViffer ( 128272 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @04:48PM (#5640282)
    Hemp for fuel [artistictreasure.com]
  • by ObligatoryUserName ( 126027 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @04:52PM (#5640324) Journal
    I wonder how many people will write this off as an April Fools joke. I've only skimmed The Discover article, but it is an extremely optimistic piece, and the writer seems chagrinned that he couldn't present a more skeptical case. If this technology was widely deployed it could almost eliminate foreign oil dependence.

    The article also talked about no increases in carbon in the environment because oil isn't pulled up from underground, it's created from biological waste (carbon already in the environment). I believe there was a quote in there along the lines of "every living thing becomes a little carbon sink".

    Warren Buffett is an investor (via ConAgra) and the field tests should be done by 2005.

  • Re:Paranoid (Score:3, Informative)

    by Psiolent ( 160884 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @04:53PM (#5640332)
    It's definitely real. I've read the article in Discover, complete with a full page picture of intestines, spleens, and various other turkey pieces. Not a good idea to flip to while you're eating dinner.
  • Re:Old article... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Psiolent ( 160884 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @04:56PM (#5640356)
    Because it just now made it into Discover. I assume that prompted the submitter to seek out another article somewhere discussing the same thing.
  • Not a Joke. (Score:5, Informative)

    by blunte ( 183182 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @04:57PM (#5640361)
    A friend reported this story to me in detail 2 or 3 days ago in great detail.

    There are two plants either in operation now, or just starting up. One is right next to a Butterball Turkey factory.

    The process breaks organic materials down thru some process of super-hydration, 500 degree heat, some moderate amount of pressure, and then results in various oils and water (clean enough to go into normal treatment plants).

    Also, oil companies reportedly support this because the novel approach is actually easier and cleaner for processing crude oils than existing refineries. So they stand to gain from this as well.

    There's a lot of good info on this, so don't discount it just because /. posted it today.

    I hope it's a huge success.
  • More info (Score:4, Informative)

    by lub ( 188080 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:01PM (#5640393)
    At the web site of Changing World Technologies [changingworldtech.com].
  • Re:depolymerization? (Score:3, Informative)

    by barakn ( 641218 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:04PM (#5640418)
    Biological polymers--protein, complex carbs (glycogen, starches, cellulose, etc.), DNA, RNA. After you remove the water, most of it seems to be polymer.
  • old news (Score:4, Informative)

    by constantnormal ( 512494 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:07PM (#5640438)
    ... if you do the following google: "(waste OR trash) into oil"

    you will find similar articles, mostly from the summer of 2001 ?!!?. (Google cached story from Kansas City Tribune [216.239.51.100])

    Either the people involved are doing a series of pilot plants in scaling this up, or somebody's dragging their feet. Or maybe it's just a case parallel developments utilizing similar technology -- but it sure sounds like the same thing.

    The prospect of $14/barrel high-quality oil (the cost quoted in Discover) while providing an environmental service should have the capitalists breaking down the doors. It seems like they're taking a leisurely route to large-scale exploitation -- what's going on here?

    Shouldn't we have oil companies partnering with ConAgra and building refineries adjacent to slaughterhouses? Or at least set up a pipeline to a refinery?
  • by LimpGuppy ( 161354 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:35PM (#5640610)
    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2001/010724/bu siness/story2.html\

    Here is an article discussing the ground-breaking of the TDP plant next to the Butterball factory in 2001.

    If it is an April Fool's hoax, they went through a LOT of trouble to do it well.

  • by LimpGuppy ( 161354 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:40PM (#5640636)
    Their process is 85% efficient. 100 BTU's of biomass input takes 15 BTU's to process.
  • by harrkev ( 623093 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <noslerrah.nivek>> on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @05:57PM (#5640763) Homepage
    APRIL FOOLS! AHAHAHAHA!

    Ummmmmm..... nope.

    Discover magazine has been known to pull a couple of good ones come 4/1, but this is not one of them. First of all, this is in the MAY issue of the magazine (magazines usually publish a month early, remember).

    I read this story three or four days ago when the issue appeared in my snail-mail folder.

    This issue may not be on newsstands yet, but if you know somebody who has a subscription, then they probably already have it.

  • by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @06:18PM (#5640881) Homepage Journal
    I hate this day. Slashdot it really difficult to use. Anyways, here are some links to simular articles which makes me think that this is true:

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2002/020806/ bu siness/story1.html

    http://www.joplinglobe.com/archives/2001/010729/ re gional/story1.html

    http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/projects/s te wardship/alternative072102.html
  • Good but overrated (Score:5, Informative)

    by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris@travers.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @07:28PM (#5641278) Homepage Journal
    There are some substantial differences (good and bad) relating to this method.

    1) Using biomass means that all carbon embodied in the fuel is from CO2 relatively recently removed from the atmosphere. Petrolium products when burned dump carbon into the carbon cycle (CO2->Plant Biomass -> many possible steps (optional) -> decomposition -> CO2. This is good because biomass fuels don't increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere as fossil fuels do.

    2) On the negative side, there is a lot of fuel involved in raising, the turkeys (equipment relating to feed, transport of feed, raising the turkeys, transporting them, slaughtering them, transporting the guts to the factory, etc).

    My suspician is that we will see it use less fuel than transporting the guts of the turkey to the factory, processing them, etc. and since these parts are currently unused, it will ge a good thing. However, I suspect that we will not see a net fuel gain from this process (more fuel will go into raising/transporting feed, etc. than you will get out of the turkey) and so it can only subsidize the fuel cost of raising a turkey, not completely even mitigate that.

    That being said, I am all for it. I think that if we looked at methane digesters for manure of all marge animal farms, this sort of project, etc. it would reduce our petrolium consumption and allow us to leave a smaller ecological footprint.
  • by valkraider ( 611225 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @08:06PM (#5641541) Journal
    This synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is different from biodiesel by two major things: no engine adjustments necessary to run on this fuel

    No adjustments are required to run Biodiesel in any diesel engine made in the last decade or so. The problem is that Biodiesel can eat through some old types of rubber used in seals and fuel lines. Modern diesel engines do not use these types of rubber. Older engines could be retrofitted just by changing out old rubber lines, maybe needed anyway if the car is old enough! The only other thing is that biodiesel will dissolve engine deposits, since American diesel no. 2 is dirty, there can be a lot of deposits. If you have driven a while on regular diesel, biodiesel can lossen deposits, which can then clog fuel filters. Diesels have to replace the fuel filter pretty regularly - so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
    Check out Biodiesel.org [biodiesel.org] or BioDieselNow.com [biodieselnow.com] for more info.

    Lots of Volkswagen TDI owners [tdiclub.com] use Biodiesel [tdiclub.com].

    To remain on topic - there is a plant near Salt Lake City, Utah that is doing something similar to this. Smithfield Foods Inc. [smithfield.com] will be making BioMethanol from pork waste. [nationalhogfarmer.com]
  • by slim ( 1652 ) <{ten.puntrah} {ta} {nhoj}> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @05:28AM (#5643191) Homepage
    Given that the technology already exists for coverting diesel engines to run on veggie oil,

    You don't even need to convert the engine. Used cooking oil (animal or vegetable) treated with a little glycerine works cleanly in an unmodified diesel car.

    News item here [guardian.co.uk]

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.

Working...