It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leak of German Company's Synthetic Oil Production Technology - $12 a barrel oil coming soon!

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
There is no such company registered in germany according to the official database.
And the german watermark has wrong grammar, maybe translated with google.




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: antibyte
There is no such company registered in germany according to the official database.
And the german watermark has wrong grammar, maybe translated with google.


---

Same Here!
I could find NO OTHER names for Petro-Cyan
in the EU patent databases NOR in US/Canada/Japan, etc.

Unless they are changing names who knows...???

Grammatically, I speak German better than
I can read it BUT the Grammar seems to be
correct to me if I say out out loud, It's a
BAVARIAN which is a heavily regional-oriented
German and not the Saxon High-German that is
prevalent in Germany.

I'm translating literally but it says to me:


"Internal and our material" (i.e. the document itself)
"Distribute it not Openly!"

That's a literal word-for-word translation
based upon my childhood German, but to
me when I say it out-loud, it sounds like a
normal Low-German to me, which makes
sense because it mentions in the document
the city Munich which is in the Bavaria
province of Germany.

I tried putting "Anmerkung 4" in Google
and to me it gives the name of a nightclub
and food establishments in multiple countries
after a few pages of wiki dictionary terms!

sp

edit on 2016/3/19 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: StargateSG7

I am a real engineer. This process, as described, makes no sense. It is not even a good scam so I think it is just a joke.



Then as a scientist, please refute with detailed chemistry issues..ergo
gimme the chemical reactions that would occur during polymerization
with heat, catalysts such as Ferric Oxide, Sodium BiCarbonate,
Sodium Hydroxide, and the Chlorates, Chlorides and Chlorine gasses
that are produced/consumed, and also detail the approximate
caloric consumption/production of the chemical processes involved.

We need to know if there is NET USABLE energy from the
combined solar array inputs, seawater pyrolysis, capilliary-based
piping seawater ingestion pumps, and other material inputs/outputs.

AS I BELIEVE IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I would rather have
evidence of Experimental Disproof rather than conjectural disproof.

On a technical basis, if the engineers (i.e. real phsyicists, a nuclear and
organic chemist, mechanical systems and process engineers and MSCEE's)
think there might be something to this, we can always run a very basic
computer simulation to see if there is a NET caloric output.
.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics indicates to me a slight NET output
as the PROBABLE outcome (i.e. as inputs from the sun via solar mirror array)
in order to produce short-chain and long-chain hydrocarbons. There is a LOT
of energy in a beam of light and conversion of that light into heat for
pyrolysis and chemical catalytic conversions seems POSSIBLE but the
key factor is.....WILL THE COST OF BUILDING, ALL MATERIAL INPUTS
AND PERSONNEL MAKE IT FINANCIALLY WORTHWHILE?
.
I have NO CLUE...but I WILL try to find out!
.
I personally DO NOT have the chemistry expertise
nor the engineering expertise to make ANY definitive
statement BUT I do know people who AS A TEAM CAN
make that determination!
.
NO PROMISES AS TO OUTCOME but we'll see sometime next week!



The process description is vague, to say the least. The killer is the 20 million bbls/day using a solar + bio process in a floating plant. Solar processes don't work at least 12 hours a day, so the hydrogen generators will have to be even more improbably large and compression and storage will have to reflect that. Cloudy and stormy days add to the problem of hydrogen generation, compression, and storage. Bio processes are often the least expensive route but they are sensitive and not robust with respect to excursions of temperature, pH, salinity, ionic strength, and trace components. The chemistry, as alluded to, is a bit unusual. Chemical plants on dry land are tough enough to operate, but putting one on the high seas is asking for trouble, to say the least, especially one that is many times larger than any existing plant. Now, the plant has to be designed to allow for center of gravity, center of buoyancy and righting arm and the floating platform has to be many times larger than any other vessel ever built. I can go on but this will self destruct at some point and is not worth further analysis until a more detailed process scheme is published. I doubt that anything but a laugh will be the result.

The watermark is Sud Deutsch and not Hoch Deutsch, which is a bit unusual but also hints that this is ein großer Schabernack.
edit on 3/19/2016 by pteridine because: Rechtschreibung und Grammatik



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

===

RE:
"The watermark is Sud Deutsch and not Hoch Deutsch, which is a bit
unusual but also hints that this is ein großer Schabernack."

I agree Sud Deutsch (i.e. Bavarian) seems to operative here
in terms of the watermark but that only makes it an issue
of the GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE of the document (fake or not!)
which would be SOMEWHERE in Southern Germany.
Which means the document could be nothing more
than Schweinne Sheisse (sorry my bad translation!)

...

NOW ... this being ATS...I must raise the POSSIBILITY of
an INTENTIONAL misdirection of an upcoming technology
that has been leaked. I think many of us can agree that
using bio-process for petroleum products seems infeasable
at this time...but as noted above by another poster about
using a purely CHEMICAL process using cabonates and
chlorides/chlorates and iron oxides, I THINK we on
ATS MAY HAVE ACCIDENTALLY stumbled on a TRULY
WORKABLE process of seawater pyrolysis and
chemically-based polymerization to create
short-chain and long-chain hydrocarbons!

Again, I will show our engineers this
thread and see what THEY have to say!
I will also ask a local organic chemist
from our university that I know to
see if he can do a quick and dirty
real-world experiment just to test
the theories postulated here.
It will be an after-hours experiment
using the labs and engineers I have
access to in exchange for some beer
and steak so it can't hurt to ask!

I'm willing to put up the beer and steak money!
So let's see what multi-degree eggheads have to say!



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


Solar processes don't work at least 12 hours a day,


Yeah but do you remember that space mirror Russia is sending up. That could direct solar light to any part of the world day or night.


edit on 19-3-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: pteridine

===

RE:
"The watermark is Sud Deutsch and not Hoch Deutsch, which is a bit
unusual but also hints that this is ein großer Schabernack."

I agree Sud Deutsch (i.e. Bavarian) seems to operative here
in terms of the watermark but that only makes it an issue
of the GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE of the document (fake or not!)
which would be SOMEWHERE in Southern Germany.
Which means the document could be nothing more
than Schweinne Sheisse (sorry my bad translation!)

...

NOW ... this being ATS...I must raise the POSSIBILITY of
an INTENTIONAL misdirection of an upcoming technology
that has been leaked. I think many of us can agree that
using bio-process for petroleum products seems infeasable
at this time...but as noted above by another poster about
using a purely CHEMICAL process using cabonates and
chlorides/chlorates and iron oxides, I THINK we on
ATS MAY HAVE ACCIDENTALLY stumbled on a TRULY
WORKABLE process of seawater pyrolysis and
chemically-based polymerization to create
short-chain and long-chain hydrocarbons!

Again, I will show our engineers this
thread and see what THEY have to say!
I will also ask a local organic chemist
from our university that I know to
see if he can do a quick and dirty
real-world experiment just to test
the theories postulated here.
It will be an after-hours experiment
using the labs and engineers I have
access to in exchange for some beer
and steak so it can't hurt to ask!

I'm willing to put up the beer and steak money!
So let's see what multi-degree eggheads have to say!


No one can really do any experiments as the process is not described well enough. The statements in the "leaked press release" are pure fiction. The hydrogen costs alone will force the product to top $12/bbl.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: pteridine


Solar processes don't work at least 12 hours a day,


Yeah but do you remember that space mirror Russia is sending up. That could direct solar light to any part of the world day or night.



It is much cheaper to build three or four redundant systems on the surface than to send up a mirror and operate it safely. That $12/bbl was off by a factor of 100 before; with a space mirror it will be off by a factor of 10,000.



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I facetimed my organic chemist friend and I found out
that barring any technological breakthrough, conversion
using cyano-bacteria of seawater, a catalyst and heat
is impractical at the scale of 20 million barrels a day.
.
Most bacteria ingest and excrete biotic material,
sugars or alcohols at specific rates and for many
such organisms the self-pollution rate before
organism die-off is around 6% to 11%, so for
this to work at 20 million barrels you would
have to have the equivalent of 200 Million barrels
of bacteria in order for this to work and the
self-thermal production would kill off the
tiny beasts in no time if they were packed
in so tightly, literally cooking themselves to death!

I should note that at smaller scales, I was told that
hydrocarbon production from organic materials
is NOT OUT OF THE QUESTON although he had
not heard of seawater as a major source material.

---

As to the 2nd part of my questionof bypassing the
bacteria-based system and using straight chemistry,
he said re-polymerization is part and parcel of many
labs being used to make advanced plastics and the
source reading material for such reactions can be
found in most libraries.

For seawater conversion, his concern is where is enough
heat going to come from in order to perform pyrolysis
and if solar mirrors is going to be enough of a heat input.

After a quick search, his suggestion was to read
the following books and papers to if there is
applicability to my suggestions:

Marine Organic Chemistry
edited by E.K. Duursma, R. Dawson


This one applies to land-based biomass...BUT....there is SOME applicability to Seawater:

Catalytic conversion of biomass pyrolysis vapors into hydrocarbon fuel precursors:
Ofei D. Mante, Jose A. Rodriguez, Sanjaya D. Senanayakeb and Suresh P. Babua

Key Message: "...The process entails the conversion of multifunctional
oxygenates generated from biomass pyrolysis over a metal oxide catalyst
into ketonic-rich monofunctional molecules suitable for making hydrocarbon
fuel components for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel..."

"....as there is enough NATURAL 3,6,9, 12, 15, 18-heneicosahexane organics
in ocean saltwater to make small scale operations technically feasible..."

One paper which is not fully peer reviewed but has some INTERESTING ideas,
is to use Acoustic Waves in shock tubes to perform organic material separation
and reformation (i.e. polymerization):

Sonochemistry/Cavitation:
by M.A. Margulis


His main concern that while catalytic conversion of biomass
and other substances into hydrocarbon precursors is not out
of the question (he pointed out that the human body is VERY
efficient in doing so), heat input is the killer question here.
Where is it going to come from? Is solar power from mirror
arrays enough of an energy input to start the catalytic
conversion process?

===

My OWN research turned up THIS idea which means it IS feasible
but the base heat input was electricity rather than sunlight:

US Navy Game-Changer: Seawater Turned in Fuel
Apr 8, 2014 08:45 AM ET // by AFP
news.discovery.com...

===

So we got the base organic chemistry answer but NOW I need the
process engineering answer as to how much heat a solar array can
output in a given amount of time....THAT I will find out tomorrow.
My math is only basic college level so I need a REAL engineer!


----

I did find this though for thermal inputs:

Concentrated Solar Power:
en.wikipedia.org...

Which MIGHT give credence to using some large enough solar mirrors
to power lmost ANYTHING not just for oil production. It is being suggested
though that photovoltaics are much CHEAPER to do than solar mirror arrays
in some cases 1/3rd the cost which means straight ELECTROLYSIS of seawater
into hydrocarbon precursors can be done probably pretty cheaply!

edit on 2016/3/20 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The U.S. Military has done this also so they can make jet fuel. it does however require energy to do this

if you do a cnn search you'll find the information there
edit on 21-3-2016 by bigx001 because: added sentence



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

I think the point of this technology is that it will be the death bell for the Oil corporations and the end of the so-called oil economy.

The cheap cost per barrel is a red herring, as the cost of the resulting pollution will attractb a higher than barrel cost to clean up and will probably attract heafty carbon taxes etc.

But it will herald the end of the oil economy and will prevent untold war and suffering in the ME as is currently the situation.

If i had stocks in Oil...i'd get out yesterday.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: TechniXcality

I think the point of this technology is that it will be the death bell for the Oil corporations and the end of the so-called oil economy.

The cheap cost per barrel is a red herring, as the cost of the resulting pollution will attractb a higher than barrel cost to clean up and will probably attract heafty carbon taxes etc.

But it will herald the end of the oil economy and will prevent untold war and suffering in the ME as is currently the situation.

If i had stocks in Oil...i'd get out yesterday.


Making fuels from atmospheric CO2 is carbon neutral. Existing technology can probably produce synthetic fuels from CO2 at about $160-200/bbl.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: TechniXcality

I think the point of this technology is that it will be the death bell for the Oil corporations and the end of the so-called oil economy.

The cheap cost per barrel is a red herring, as the cost of the resulting pollution will attractb a higher than barrel cost to clean up and will probably attract heafty carbon taxes etc.

But it will herald the end of the oil economy and will prevent untold war and suffering in the ME as is currently the situation.

If i had stocks in Oil...i'd get out yesterday.


Making fuels from atmospheric CO2 is carbon neutral. Existing technology can probably produce synthetic fuels from CO2 at about $160-200/bbl.


===

Actually, the costs I have been quoted are MUCH
cheaper when amortized over jus ONE YEAR.

Here is my basic, very generallized and
with many rounding errors math:


Monocrystalline Solar Pannel Module 400 Watts
with Built-in High Quality Inverters and
Long-Duration solar modules (25 Year Warranty)

Bulk-Price $310.00 at 12,500 panels for
5 megawatts/hr = $3.875 Million Dollars

One Litre of Ocean Water 25 Degrees
centigrade South Pacific Warm Oceam Water
To boil ALL the water to steam
Energy = 2256 kJ/kg x 0.998 kg = 2251 kJ = 0.625 kW-hr and then
add AVERAGE 20% energy conversion loss ( x 1.2) = 0.750 Kw-hr
= 6.67 Million Litres of water per hour flash-steamed.

Gross multi-compound content of South Pacific Ocean water = 3% of weight.

There are about 907 Kilograms in one US ton

Bicarbonate HCO3 conten of ocean water is 145 ppm
or 0.41 of 3% salinity per kilogram (about 1 litre) of
seawater concentrate or 0.012% per kilogram of
seawater or 12 grams of bicarbonate per kilo
or 0.423288 ounces per kilo of seawater or
383 ounces (23.9 Pounds) per US ton.

Gross Hydrocarbon Conversion is
175,722.75 pounds per hour (300 lbs per barrel)
or 585 Barrels per hour or 7,025 barrels per day
using 5 megawatts per hour (12 hour day).

So, in order to get the Oil-From-Seawater production to 20 million Barrels per Day
at 12 hours of sunlight per day using Electrolysis you need 14.22 Gigawatts of
solar panels or about $10.31 Billion Dollars worth of Solar Panels.

SO ON A FINANCIAL BASIS, A LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONCERN
COULD DO THIS TYPE OF INVESTMENT and recover their costs
within only one month or less at $15.00 per barrel bulk sales price!

Ocean Concentrate Data Source:
www.seafriends.org.nz...

So on a financial basis MAYBE THIS ISN'T SUCH A BAD IDEA!
No NORMAL person could do this but a large industrial company
like GE or Google COULD EASILY afford 10 billion dollars in initial
UPFRONT investment costs and then rake in a proft after only
a month of operations at $15.00 a barrel!



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: TechniXcality

I think the point of this technology is that it will be the death bell for the Oil corporations and the end of the so-called oil economy.

The cheap cost per barrel is a red herring, as the cost of the resulting pollution will attractb a higher than barrel cost to clean up and will probably attract heafty carbon taxes etc.

But it will herald the end of the oil economy and will prevent untold war and suffering in the ME as is currently the situation.

If i had stocks in Oil...i'd get out yesterday.


Making fuels from atmospheric CO2 is carbon neutral. Existing technology can probably produce synthetic fuels from CO2 at about $160-200/bbl.


===

Actually, the costs I have been quoted are MUCH
cheaper when amortized over jus ONE YEAR.

Here is my basic, very generallized and
with many rounding errors math:


Monocrystalline Solar Pannel Module 400 Watts
with Built-in High Quality Inverters and
Long-Duration solar modules (25 Year Warranty)

Bulk-Price $310.00 at 12,500 panels for
5 megawatts/hr = $3.875 Million Dollars

One Litre of Ocean Water 25 Degrees
centigrade South Pacific Warm Oceam Water
To boil ALL the water to steam
Energy = 2256 kJ/kg x 0.998 kg = 2251 kJ = 0.625 kW-hr and then
add AVERAGE 20% energy conversion loss ( x 1.2) = 0.750 Kw-hr
= 6.67 Million Litres of water per hour flash-steamed.

Gross multi-compound content of South Pacific Ocean water = 3% of weight.

There are about 907 Kilograms in one US ton

Bicarbonate HCO3 conten of ocean water is 145 ppm
or 0.41 of 3% salinity per kilogram (about 1 litre) of
seawater concentrate or 0.012% per kilogram of
seawater or 12 grams of bicarbonate per kilo
or 0.423288 ounces per kilo of seawater or
383 ounces (23.9 Pounds) per US ton.

Gross Hydrocarbon Conversion is
175,722.75 pounds per hour (300 lbs per barrel)
or 585 Barrels per hour or 7,025 barrels per day
using 5 megawatts per hour (12 hour day).

So, in order to get the Oil-From-Seawater production to 20 million Barrels per Day
at 12 hours of sunlight per day using Electrolysis you need 14.22 Gigawatts of
solar panels or about $10.31 Billion Dollars worth of Solar Panels.

SO ON A FINANCIAL BASIS, A LARGE INDUSTRIAL CONCERN
COULD DO THIS TYPE OF INVESTMENT and recover their costs
within only one month or less at $15.00 per barrel bulk sales price!

Ocean Concentrate Data Source:
www.seafriends.org.nz...

So on a financial basis MAYBE THIS ISN'T SUCH A BAD IDEA!
No NORMAL person could do this but a large industrial company
like GE or Google COULD EASILY afford 10 billion dollars in initial
UPFRONT investment costs and then rake in a proft after only
a month of operations at $15.00 a barrel!



Your solar energy would allow boiling the water to steam. Then you would condense the water so you could thermolyze it to make hydrogen. Alternatively, at this point, you could electrolyze the water to get hydrogen. Electrolysis is about 70% efficient, at best, so one would have to allow for that. There are other processing costs that we don't have enough information to estimate. In either case, there would be what are called capital costs [buying the equipment that we cannot yet estimate] in addition to the operating costs. Then there are the costs associated with interest payments on the loan.
To do an economic analysis would take much more detailed information of the process which I don't expect because I think that this is a prank.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

I did the basic cost estimate more as a curiosity sake
to see if there is ANY POSSIBLE financial viability to
chemical-based solar-powered electrolysis of warm
southern ocean seawater into saleable bulk
hydrocarbon products.

ANSWER: for a large ongoing commercial concern
the size of GE or Google, this would be a NO-BRAINER
money-making exercise...EVEN IF...we had to DOUBLE
our initial investment costs --- So it takes TWO MONTHS
instead of ONE MONTH to recover their costs.

THEY COULD ACTUALLY DO THIS !!!!!

----

Let us Agree that using Bacteria to Convert Seawater
to Oil'n'Gas is ABSOLUTELY IMPRACTICAL based upon
what has been outlined so far.

BUSTED! SO INTO THE HOAX BIN IT GOES !!!!

...BUT....Let us ALSO agree that I think that there is
empirical data that concludes that a purely chemistry-based
seawater-to-petroleum products conversion system MAY NOT
BE SO OUTLANDISH for the bigger world players!

If ANY large company has enough financial clout
or if ANY GROUP can raise 10 to 15 billion dollars
for upfront costs then I must say this is a truly
PLAUSIBLE idea!


edit on 2016/3/21 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Um. It's been done.
news.discovery.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StargateSG7

Um. It's been done.
news.discovery.com...


outlined the link that VERY ARTICLE in previous posts,
but in this case the Navy used straight Electrolysis
from normal industrial power sources.

I was trying to figure out costs from usage
of Solar Panels or Solar Mirror Arrays instead
of expensive and polluting power plants.

AND I should ALSO point out that we don't have
to just get OIL and GAS from this but we could
also CHEAPLY GET Carbon Fibre/Carbon nanotubes
by the BILLIONS OF TONS which would start a
materials science revolution with Cars bodies,
airplanes, bicyles, sporting goods, clothing,
shoes/boots, phones even computers being
made FULLY out of ultra-strong and lightweight
carbon fibre and/or carbon nanotubes/graphene
obtained from the CO2 stored by the MANY
BILLIONS OF TONS in ocean seawater!


edit on 2016/3/21 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
It's an application of synthesis chemistry in oil field. But I was wondering the effect of the artificial oil.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StargateSG7

Um. It's been done.
news.discovery.com...


outlined the link that VERY ARTICLE in previous posts,
but in this case the Navy used straight Electrolysis
from normal industrial power sources.

I was trying to figure out costs from usage
of Solar Panels or Solar Mirror Arrays instead
of expensive and polluting power plants.

AND I should ALSO point out that we don't have
to just get OIL and GAS from this but we could
also CHEAPLY GET Carbon Fibre/Carbon nanotubes
by the BILLIONS OF TONS which would start a
materials science revolution with Cars bodies,
airplanes, bicyles, sporting goods, clothing,
shoes/boots, phones even computers being
made FULLY out of ultra-strong and lightweight
carbon fibre and/or carbon nanotubes/graphene
obtained from the CO2 stored by the MANY
BILLIONS OF TONS in ocean seawater!



First, synthetic fuels from CO2 require a lot of hydrogen to produce hydrocarbons. A rough estimate is 3 H2 for every CH2 unit [mer] in a hydrocarbon. For stationary power plants, this is a non-starter because if electrical power is available to produce the hydrogen, then it is far more efficient to just supply the grid with that power rather than waste it making hydrogen to make hydrocarbons to make the power. If you do need to make hydrocarbon fuels for transportation, the cost of hydrogen is central to the cost of the fuel. The cost of the CO2 does not change the overall cost of the fuel very much.
Because the energy requirement to run combustion processes backwards is so large, it is not easy to generate enough power to make even a small fraction of hydrocarbons using any number of schemes.
It is possible to use biomass to make fuels through hydrogenation, pyrolysis, or gasification based systems. This lets sunshine do some of the work of reduction of CO2 and then uses a reduced carbon compound to make the fuel. Unfortunately, the amount of biomass available at any one place is relatively small. Diminishing returns limit the collection radius for each individual processing plant meaning that the output of a plant is limited by how much biomass can be collected in a collection radius that doesn't use all of the fuel produced by the plant to collect and process the feedstock. Growing algae suffers from a parallel limitation. To have enough sunlight reach all algal bodies, the algae has to be fairly dilute; on the order of a few hundred milligrams per liter which means that large amounts of water have to be moved to process a relatively small amount of product. It also has to be fed, then stressed to produce hydrocarbons, and these have to be processed further.
To give you an idea of what concentrated biomass is like, let us consider coal. The Pittsburgh seam of coal is about 8' thick. That is equivalent to a layer of plant matter 160' thick. Now you know why coal [fossil biomass] is difficult to replicate by harvesting a few years supply of plant matter. As a point of interest, coal is not black nor is it all carbon. Bituminous coal is about 70% carbon and has about 6% hydrogen and varying amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and mineral matter. It is composed of defined macerals that include spores and waxes among other things. Thin slices of coal can be red, brown, yellow, or clear depending on the macerals. There are even inclusions of charcoal like carbon in it from forest fires at the time of its formation.
What people generally don't understand is the amount of biomass needed to produce a given amount of liquid. A ton of coal can make 3-4 barrels of liquid. A ton of wet plant matter will give you far less. Production of 20 million bbl/day would require 5 million tons of coal every day or 50-100 million tons of plant matter. As a reference point, the US produces about 3 million tons of coal per day, or did until recently, and would be able to account for 12 million bbls/day if all of it were converted to liquids. Costs are probably on the order of $150/bbl.
Finally, you should understand that economics is a driver. Fuels are a cheap mix of expensive chemicals. Why sell those expensive chemicals as cheap fuel when you can sell them as expensive chemicals? Why make algal fuel when you can sell the algae as a nutriceutical and make 100 times the profit? When Shell built a plant in Bintulu to make hydrocarbons from natural gas, they discovered that Fischer-Tropsch waxes were far more profitable. People pay more for candles than diesel.

Biomass derived 20MM bbl/day is not doable or economically possible. $12/bbl is a laugh. This thread topic is a gullibility test or a joke.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

It writes

"Vertrauliches und eigenes material
verteilen sich nicht öffentlich"

It´s clearly a translation error because even if this was a valid german sentence, it´s still wrong on the Upper cases.
The right way to word it like in the PDF would be:

"Vertrauliches, internes Material/Papier,
nicht öffentlich verbreiten"

But I can see the translator making the mistake.
Because "verteilen sich nicht öffentlich" is the direct, but grammatically incorrect translation of
"do not spread in public"

where the translator made the mistake of assuming the "do" is associated with the paper, not the reader.
the word "verteilen" gave that mistake away.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine
The watermark is Sud Deutsch and not Hoch Deutsch, which is a bit unusual but also hints that this is ein großer Schabernack.


No it´s not süd-deutsch or bavarian/swabian. It´s just faulty high german (hochdeutsch).
I live in south germany and speak both bavarian-accent, swabian-accent and of course high german.

It´s also more than uncommon to use any accent in offical papers. There is also no official south/north dialect and certainly not an agreement how to write those custom words.

But it hints at Kalauer/Schabernack, you´re right with that.
edit on 22-3-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join