Pyrolysis is the process which occurs when material is heated beyond its ignition point in an anaerobic environment (i.e. in the absence of oxygen). Pyrolysis is necessary for converting wood into charcoal, and also for converting plastic back into crude oil. Pyrolysis also occurs naturally in the Earth: the pyrolysis of carbohydrates produces hydrocarbons.
From #14
You're smart enough to figure this out on your own if you really want to. I suggest starting with casting video instructions. Then spend that money on building your first foundry, then build a pyrolyzer unit that will fit in it, and start stockpiling diesel, and making your own gasoline. You could probably build a simple starter set up with $500 bucks. Spend it on you, not me. I want this to spread out. I can help you set up like a Holy Grail manufacturing facility, sheeeeeeit. I really do appreciate everything you've offered though, thank you.
From #17
#30 Overall
September 2 2020 1:50AM
I'm replying to the first few paragraphs. Here's the thing... When it comes to humanity's collective conscience, it is very difficult to escape it, AND not be involved in it. In other words, doing away with Satanic energy completely and immediately is impossible. You're on a planet that is beyond capacity. There is nowhere left to run or to hide from this intrusion on your existence. Likewise, it is futile to assume the position of eradicating crude oil usage from just your own existence. To eradicate the usage of crude oil, will take more crude oil usage. That's why I push for people to familiarize themselves with a pyrolyzer. Along with the continued crude oil burning, there is also a very large plastic situation. It is everywhere in the environment, particularly in the oceans. If people saw value in it, maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. Anyways, a personal outlook on these matters is noble... for education purposes. When it comes to practice, a much more broad outlook needs to be taken. What I'm saying is, it's not good enough to end your usage. First, you have to develop a plan for everyone that doesn't know what you know, and sell them (with factual knowledge) on the merits of any given alternative. Otherwise, you'll go down on a sinking ship with the others... no matter what you tried to do to save yourself.
From #260
August 14 2021 1:57AM
Somewhere during that journey I got suggested a few videos and websites dedicated to HDPE injected plastic molding. I remembered the guy while writing this, so I looked him up today. Apparently he's built up quite a company from where he started. The first time I read his stuff and watched one of his videos it was very unprofessional and unrefined. Now though, there's dozens of high quality videos that are very instructive. His website is full of products and free source information and material about plastic injecting. I realize that bisphenol A is a concern no matter what the application, and from that I've based a lot of my work on plastics in the "pyrolysis for all" arena when it comes to plastic. However, with all of this 3D printing talk lately, as well as my somewhat relaxed attitude on a strict no electricity paradigm, this type of industry might be of interest to you. There's a lot of different uses for the things people throw in the garbage, and plastic forming could be one of the best practices for the issues you're dealing with right now. Given the skillset you're acquiring, along with the dilemmas of not having space for large tooling at home, as well as the inherent expensive material costs, this is an option for you. I started to look into this stuff a long time ago for camera parts, but the correlation to your current project is hard to ignore. Again, I'm not advocating the inspirational use of plastic, and I want that to be very clear. I'm also not advocating getting hooked on electricity applications beyond the necessary involvement to rid yourself of that Satanic energy platform. That said... considering your mold dilemma right now, in accordance with the ideals of copy carving over CNC machining every part, I'm going to link you these videos as an idea for how to complete a mold, for making foam molds.
From #262
August 17 2021 3:06AM
Sugar beets are extremely sugar dense, but they like the cold. Might work for you, might not. If they do, that's a bonus. Crops that are oil dense tend to not like the cold, so yes, a conversion to ethanol from diesel is a smart move to make. If that's impossible, pyrolysis should be the focus. Use plastic depolymerization (pyrolysis) to bridge the gap between unsustainable and sustainable, but I highly recommend converting to ethanol during that transition. That's the basic rundown on what to do with the "farm equipment" in the short term. Long term, use animals for the large scale applications.
…
I'd like to take a minute here and talk about something that we haven't really discussed, and you haven't really keyed in on. Making charcoal is essentially pyrolysis for wood. Same exact concept. The wood needs to be in an anaerobic environment, then heated beyond the point of ignition. The anaerobic environment snuffs out the possibility of igniting, and after the volatiles are extracted through gasification, what's left over is charcoal. That's exactly what you do with plastic pyrolysis, but instead of venting the volatiles, they're distilled and collected as diesel and gasoline. I'm bringing this up because in a previous email I said something to the effect of "if all else fails, just burn wood." That's true, but is overly simplified.
…
I'll link a couple of videos here to show you the process of making charcoal and activating it. Like I said, if you understand pyrolysis, you already know how to make charcoal.
From #298
September 27 2021 10:05AM
Carburetors are without a doubt much more reliable than fuel injection, especially in regards to ethanol. There's many situations where Zeolite isn't really necessary when using a carburetor. Vehicles? You'd probably want to be anhydrous, but there's lots of uses for internal combustion outside of vehicles. Going back even further, magnetos in conjunction with carburetors make many forms of internal combustion possible. Even wood gas from pyrolysis of making charcoal is sustainable. Magnetos take away the necessity of batteries in the triangle of internal combustion. Alternators are not steady, so batteries are necessary for providing spark in a "modern engine. Magnetos run directly from the crankshaft and provide spark to the plugs after combustion has been sustained. Getting to that point is tricky, and battery starting is definitely the easiest method, but hand crank starting is a possibility. I would assume that the majority of magnetos and crank starting engines were phased out by the time your mother became familiar with the process, but it's a good thing that she's familiar with the difference between fuel injection and carburetors. Fairly rare. That's a platform to build on, or at the very least give credence to questioning "modern" fundamental strategies for energy production, why it's so fragile, and dependent upon unsustainable methods.
From #300
September 30 2021 4:10AM
Terpenes are created from the organic process of carbon sequestration, coupled with the interaction of elements for the area they're coagulated to. The pyrolysis process brings those block chain molecules beyond the ignition point, but starves the ignition sequence of oxygen. The crude oil vaporizes, rises through the porous stone layers encapsulating it, cools/condenses, and falls back into the matrix of the crude oil. During that reintroduction period, the condensed vapor/liquid leeches all kinds of elements. Earthquakes, continental drift, volcanic activity, hydrolysis, the carbon sequestration cycle, etc, all create voids and fractures within the encapsulation zone that release those raw elements. In geologic timescales this process, along with the never ending process of pyrolysis occurring beneath it creates a soup of elements interacting with each other under conditions that cannot be replicated. The timescale itself is a paramount addition to the equation. It's not just about the elements, heat, anaerobic conditions, pressure, etc, but it's also about the duration of time those elements are maintaining this process within. Terpenes are just one of many toxic substances within crude oil that got created by a process that's impossible for humans to recreate. The question is then, how do we "undo" something we can't actually "do?" And once again, that answer is complex and nuanced. Since crude oil and all the toxins that come from it like terpenes are specific to the environment the crude oil was created in, and crude oil varieties are so vast due to the oil reserves' locations, the answer is different for all forms of crude oil. Light, sweet, crude that sits within the Permian Basin and Ghawar fields has terpenes, but the heavy, sour crude from Canadian tar sands, shale in Colorado, etc, has A LOT of terpenes. Plus the terpenes are much more toxic due to their variations and coagulation of larger areas' element diversity. In other words, who the hell knows what's in that sludge. All we know is that it's there, and more gets discovered the heavier and more sour the crude oil we use to make gasoline becomes. The terpenes accumulate more as the crude oil quality drops, in other words.
From #351
November 13 2021 5:47PM
Syngas is the byproduct of pyrolysis when burning, or reaching ignition point in cellulose structures. The volatiles that are released in wood (or other plant matter) smoke are funneled into a carburetor to run an engine with an air mixture. This is the basis for biomass generators on a large scale, and wood gasifiers on a smaller scale. Very easy to construct and utilize. In the case of creating steady reliable heat for a nitinol engine reservoir, or distillery, when excess ethanol is not available, and biogas is not accessible, this is the best option.
From #399
December 27 2021 12:33AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sBF5EnK9MPs
I saw this linked beneath the MDI video. This is the exact same process of storage for compressed air I've explained already. Only difference is the compression system itself. I'd use many different inputs; Tesla turbines, direct air vane compressor systems for wind, solar, etc, ethanol engines, biodiesel engines, and of course, nitinol engines that utilize geothermal for placement, ethanol, biodiesel and pyrolysis from making charcoal for input heat (which very little is necessary), all powering cavitation water heaters that would supply the pressure directly, or indirectly by actuation of Di Pietro engines. The engines would be completely automated with transmissions to supply the air pressure for the bulk storage tanks that would exceed several thousand PSI. I'm going to look through this company's videos to see if there's more in depth examples than just this video, but this was a good example for showing what I've already explained prior. Only difference is the actual inputs for creating the pressure.
From #433
January 27 2022 3:30AM
Next is the vitrification phase of the burnout cycle. If there is ANY wood anywhere in your entire setup, I highly suggest NOT doing this phase. Vitrification is extremely hot; like above the ignition point of wood hot. If there is any wood, it will vaporize through pyrolysis, turn into coal then ash, and/or catch on fire. Optimally, everything would be made out of steel. Bearing plates and dowel. Solid steel; all of it, but that's a much more expensive proposition than using wood. However, if you're able to use nothing but steel, yes... do the vitrification phase. Again, it depends on the manufacturer's instructions, but I'm fairly sure the vitrification phase is an actual burner at full blast procedure. It depends on what type of mortar investment you've chosen, so be thorough about reading the instructions for that particular mortar. If wood is used, just maintain the temperature after the moisture burnout phase, and start melting the bell metal bronze.
From #440
February 7 2022 5:17AM
This is him making gun powder from various different types of carbon inputs. His ball mill is small but similar to the type used by my mechanics. He also makes safety a priority by setting up the actuator remotely and enclosing the ball mill with a box in case of an explosion.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uOHdc83ULzA
Here's the previous video of him using pyrolysis to convert the willow wood into charcoal to be processed in the ball mill. Not really relevant to this discussion, but I thought you might want to see it. He uses a paint can and vents the syngas directly back into the fire. That's one way to do it...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IWuEFo55Ino
And here's him making the ball mill.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nG3sMuAqqz0
And just for fun, because I'm guessing you're wondering about it after I mentioned it, here he is making some rudimentary thermite. Keep in mind that his iron oxide and powdered aluminium is not proper processed or rationed for the optimal thermite reaction, but it's the basic premise.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hbQ7AvH_Gec
Ball mills with slats are rarely used anymore, so I couldn't find a video for an example. The general idea now is to equate the RPM optimal speed for centrifugal force to raise the media/balls high enough along the barrel wall so that slats are unnecessary. I've seen slats in a ball mill in person, but not on any videos. While searching for one, I did see this example, which is technically a ball mill, but should actually be called a "tube mill" because it doesn't rotate. Instead it uses vibration to jostle the balls. It's interesting so I thought I'd add it for you, but this is more of an ore processor. I don't think it'd be relevant to recycling clay or plaster.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqW8ii9nMA
From #462
March 2 2022 10:41PM
Switching to a more palatable topic, yeah, I've always been kind of disturbed by the issue of mixing chips. I would think the optimal option is to have two different shops; one for ferrous and one for non ferrous materials. Then clean up would be easier to keep materials separate. The other, more energy intensive method is to run all waste materials through a hammer mill, then separate them on a conveyor belt using a magnet. You'd have to essentially powderize everything because chips corkscrew and get tangled up so there'd be a lot of cross contamination. But yeah, I hear you. It's a concern that should be designed into the shop before commissioning for work. Usually it's just ignored though, and everything is just thrown in the garbage. Good for you for making it a concern at all. I too have tried to make that a priority. When I brought my personal materials in to work on in the shop, I'd clean the lathe coolant drip pan before and after my project. In a heavy production oriented shop that's not really feasible, but on a hobbyist level it's definitely doable. Cross contamination of wood is also a concern if you're using pyrolysis to siphon syngas. You don't want aluminum in the reaction chamber. Cleanliness, however mundane and annoying can really help.
From #556
June 19 2022 7:41AM
Wastefulness and inefficiency is of the utmost importance to recognize and understand. I too, for as long as I can remember, am extremely bothered when I see it happening. I'm also bothered by time constraint pressures applied in earnest that ultimately compound on wastefulness and inefficiency. Biogas and syngas are perfect examples of the extreme inefficiency taking place globally. Both are extremely impractical on a large centralized scale, particularly when grid tied electricity and crude oil are the predominant economic factors of civilization. Using crude oil or electricity to gather the "green," or nitrogen sources that create biogas, and syngas is "robbing Peter to pay Paul." After the crude oil is refined and burned to collect those sources, store them, and digest the material, or pyrolize it, the equation is a net negative concept. In other words, you're burning more oil to create the fuels and subsequent energy, than you will attain from just burning the oil directly, and allowing everything to rot, because that's more "economically viable" in a crude oil economy. However, on an individual and localized basis, there's not a more efficient and effective process. When the centralized crude oil expenditure is removed from the equation, and collection, processing, and usage is factored by point of origin of the materials themselves, there's not a more efficient method of creating fuel. If this process was adapted globally, crude oil and electric grids would be obsolete. It would be quite simple, but would require effort from each individual family. All waste, including wood chips, weeds, excrement from every living thing, garden waste, food scraps, and anything else that rots, would all be dumped into an anaerobic bio digester, and mixed with water. Every 7-14 days (ish) the material, having exhausted its methane production, is put through either a compression screw or centrifuge to separate the remaining solids from liquid. The liquid is divided by roughly half. Half goes back into a new bio digester batch to be started immediately, while the other half goes directly to fertilizing the areas that the material was grown on previously, with an almost 100% nutrient retention rate. On and on that cycle could effectively go, indefinitely, with no need for external fertilization, ever again. The solids from the separation sequence, would be dumped into a pyrolizer directly from the screw or centrifuge. The pyrolizer (or retort furnace (as some would like to call it)) would convert the solids from the digester into syngas, as the only material not liquified by the digester is almost entirely cellulose. From this fuel production, anything can be done with the energy created; energy, mind you, that is literally thrown away to rot and saturate the atmosphere in methane currently. After the syngas is made from the pyrolizer, the remaining material is concentrated charcoal, that's essentially powderized. The powderized charcoal is made into briquettes to be used for the next pyrolysis sequence of making syngas. So, after the very first batch of syngas production, the entire system would self sustain itself indefinitely. The ashes from the charcoal are mixed with the liquid to be redistributed into the growing fertilizer mixture, again, at an almost 100% nutrient retention rate. There is labor required at every step, which is why these types of systems are rare. That said, these systems would essentially eliminate waste, sewage, external fuel implements, external fertilizer implements, and methane production from composting and landfill-ing. No need for power grids, crude oil, or externally regulated infrastructure of any kind... but there is competency and labor required, both of which seem to be the "kryptonite" of modern society.
What I've just explained is a closed loop system from growing, eating, building, and recycling every piece of organic material from raw CO2, to life, and back to raw CO2, with zero waste. In my younger years before learning and understanding these concepts, I too was disgusted by the wastefulness and inefficiency of a crude oil/laziness plagued society. Cutting down trees, wasting food, even the processes of chemically converting shit and composting seemed excessively wasteful to me... because they are. Sewage processing strips land of valuable nutrients and dumps it in the oceans. Composting creates methane that could be used to supplement fuel, but alas it just floats away. All manner of woodworking is nothing more than a slow composting process without pyrolysis. However, when efficiency is the goal, and all stages of decomposition are focused on, wastefulness is eliminated. Thusly, making the notion of nature conservation, basically obsolete. There's also many other stages during this process that can be manipulated to retain variable substances. One of which I've also focused on is ethanol production. Before this mission began I was designing a system that used the waste heat from the pyrolizer/retort furnace to fuel the distillery. I had even drawn up plans where a retrofitted tank could straddle the pyrolysis chamber, with the charcoal combustion chamber chimney stacks venting directly through the distillery tank. Again, all waste from the distillation process (spent fruits, yeast, and remaining liquids, or "backwash"/backings) all going straight into the bio digester for further processing. In my conceptions, nothing was left to waste... NOTHING. Therefore, there's no need to concern one's self with conservation. All of the skills required to create these systems of management start with machining. I knew this concept from a very young age, but didn't have the knowledge to understand such encapsulation. For you, this shouldn't be an issue. Try to conceptualize every material in life as an opportunity for creating and using fuel, because whether or not the intricacies of how to retain that fuel is properly understood, that's exactly what nature is doing. And the fuel tank for everything, is called planetary albedo. Try not to concern yourself with conservation, but instead, use your skills to obtain useful resources from perceived "waste." That's what I did...
From #580
July 26 2022 6:30PM
Anyways, I'm glad you had a good time at the auction. I like hearing about the accumulation of tooling. This recent purchase sounds like you'll be able to build a very decent gasifier (wood gas/syngas) to run a generator, if you wanted to take that route. With fall coming up, leaves will be abundant. It's not exactly an optimum solution for going off grid, actually the most elementary methods possible, but it's quick and very easy to get started on, especially with the skills you've acquired... and tools. Gasification is a great way to start getting hands on experience with pyrolysis, and for your area, wood gas is very abundant. There's a bit of a learning curve to it: getting the mixture right, not stalling the engine, filtering... but it's quite a simple concept. I don't think we've gone into this in depth really, but if you wanted to take your parents' house off grid as soon as possible, with minimal retrofitting to their existent appliances, gasification is the way. I've been thinking a lot about how you can start making an impact on their perception of everything we've discussed in a constructive way, as opposed to strictly philosophical. It might be kind of fun to make charcoal, powderize it, pelletize it, and run a generator for household power... but in my personal experience, I'm usually the only person who thinks that kind of thing is fun, heh. Just a suggestion if you want to take that route. The next level is cellulosic ethanol (or any ethanol) production. Then comes cavitation, but that requires a Di Pietro engine to really take advantage of. And finally, what I was working on; a nitinol powered cavitation system. You're probably like me in that you want the best of the best first, and I totally understand. If you're thinking about building something with your new setup, gasification is a good way to open people's eyes and get real carbon neutral energy from immediately, just from waste/garbage. Something to think about...
From #587
August 9 2022 7:18PM
Another thing barrels like that are good for are retort furnaces, gasifiers, and/or pyrolizers. I'm not saying to buy them. Just giving you other options to use them for other than a foundry. Unless you have plans to immediately use those things, they're a real pain to move around and store, and they're kind of an eyesore. But yeah, they're the perfect size for personal use pyrolization, especially making charcoal. Another use for them is anaerobic digestion (biogas production), but it's better to use plastic because of the rust factor. In reality to make biogas production really viable for even a small scale operation, it needs to be quite large, but experimenting is fun too.
From #592
August 13 2022 6:12PM
So... about that black powder gun, there's a couple ways to go about making accelerants for it. The easiest way is to use basic black powder. From what I understand about it, willow biochar/charcoal is the most optimal wood source. Many types of wood are capable of producing the desired effect, but willow is "the best," at least from what I've researched. Same as any retort furnace scenario: pyrolize the willow. One caveat to making black powder: you are supposed to remove the bark apparently. After you have your willow charcoal, then comes the ball mill. This is an explosive and dangerous process, but necessary, so take the proper precautions. Ball mill the charcoal for several days until a super fine powder is achieved. Test it for combustion, and set aside. This too has a recipe that needs to be clearly defined, and I am no expert in it, so this is more of a general idea, but next comes the sulfur. This is best mined or scavenged for in natural situations, but there are ways to process sulfur. It's just not really necessary with such abundance in rock formations and other resources that can be gathered from. Again, ball mill to a very fine powder and set aside. Next is the ammonium nitrate, which takes you personally, and some time. You take wood ash, and piss into it. Sounds gross and strange, but that's really what you do. A bucket full of wood ash, and pee in it until it's fully saturated. Cap it off, and let it sit for a year... no bullshit. The reaction takes a long time, so this is something that needs to be planned long in advance (if you're doing it this way). Stir regularly throughout the year. After sufficient time has elapsed, the salts from the potassium hydroxide will bond with the nitrates and nitrites in your urine, forming ammonium nitrate salts. Just like making potassium hydroxide, allow the ash to settle out, decant the fluid, and reduce to crystal. Be extremely careful... but also ball mill the salts to a fine powder. There's your three ingredients to black powder. What ratio to mix them in, whether you should pelletize for your application/gun, how large the pellets should be, etc... I have no clue. Never really got into this stuff in depth, but I understand the chemistry behind it all from reading associated materials. For instance, the revolutionary war muskets were used with the aide of women's urine supplying the ammonium nitrate to the black powder mixture. Not joking. In those days, church services ran long. It was considered impolite to leave during a sermon, so the women would urinate right into their dresses (as though that's less disgusting than walking to a shitter while businessman preacher Jim Bob rants about the holy grail with no real idea of what he's talking about [but that's what they did in those days]). After years of this accumulation of women's urine on the floorboards of churches under the pews, a large amount of ammonium nitrate was present. That ammonium nitrate was collected by entrepreneurial black powder producers, processed into accelerant and explosives, and the revolutionary war was won... by using literal piss. I read about that a very long time ago, and have seen it referenced here and there in various ways, but that's how I originally got into this area of research. From what I understand about it, women's urine is better suited for ammonium nitrate production. Never researched why, or if that's even accurate, but it's something I've seen said several times, so if true, you have that to fall back on if all else fails, loool. My chemistry is not very sharp, so if you're really planning on making your own black powder from scratch, I would definitely recommend a better source of information on specifics than just me, but that's what I know about it. Interesting that you bought both a fruit press and black powder rifle at the same time... and I was able to incorporate both in that way, heh.
From #644
September 25 2022 1:26AM
Okay now... "What is equilibrium?" Earth, is entirely dependent upon the heat, light, and radiation from the sun (Sol). The accumulation of this energy is called "planetary albedo." The amount of planetary albedo is a direct and absolute metric for the substance produced in, and on, the entirety of Earth, throughout the Earth's existence. Crude oil... is the accumulation of planetary albedo transmogrified through a process known as photosynthesis, to produce millions of variations of carbohydrates, technically known as saccharides, or elementararily known as "sugar." These sugars have three distinct categories: monosaccharides, disacchrides, and polysaccharides, otherwise referred to as sugar, starch, and cellulose. All of which are aspects of plant and animal life. Some of the more prominent polysaccharides form into dense carbohydrates, which are known as oil. Seeds, legumes, nuts, etc, all form densely packed and highly complex carbohydrates. Every year, through the process known as the changing of the seasons, the plant life sheds its built up carbohydrates to procreate, grow, and die. These carbohydrates accumulate in waterways, and get dumped into ponds, lakes, and oceans. If the depth facilitates an anaerobic environment, free of oxidization elements, these carbohydrates undergo a type of transformation. Under immense weight, they are packed very tightly together. Elements like clay, silica, calcium bicarbonate, and many others, get distributed by erosion and eroding events that are facilitated by plate tectonics, also, into waterways, which are then cocooning the carbohydrates. This changing of the seasons process plays out every year, and for millions of years, these carbohydrate packed voids are pushed ever further into the Earth's crust. A process called pyrolysis then consumes the carbohydrates, ever packed tighter and tighter as the years progress, burying them deeper and deeper into the crust. In an oxygen free environment, these transformed carbohydrates (into now hydrocarbons) have their temperature raised beyond the ignition point, as the pressure is ever growing. Without the ability to ignite, due to the absence of oxygen, the transformation process continues, until the mass of hydrocarbons normalizes into the substance crude oil. Many different types of normalization transformations are possible, depending on the base carbohydrates that supplied the crude oil reserves. That's the basic gestalt on how planetary albedo created crude oil: light and heat, photosynthesis, seasonal change, waterway accumulation, depth facilitating an anaerobic environment, cocooned by eroded elements, compacted and heated through the migration downward, and transmogrified through a process called pyrolysis into hydrocarbons... so that an old Jew can drill into said void and encapsulate the entirety of humanity in "hell." Heh, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Prior to the crude oil economy, all life had to formulate an equilibrium within confines of planetary albedo. Whatever amount of heat and light produced therein, was the sole energy source for all life on planet Earth. Nothing more. The carbon sequestration system of accumulating carbohydrates and transforming them into hydrocarbons, never ceases. Even now, the leaves that fall, seeds that distribute, and dead plant matter is accumulating every year. However, the transformation process of pyrolysis takes an abstract timescale to that of the human perception. This is called geologic time, technically. What the crude oil economy did, and continues to compound upon, is to facilitate the explosion of human life, utilizing these hydrocarbons to produce abundance beyond the capacity of what seasonal change planetary albedo can sustain on its own. In 1970 specifically, a phenomenon known as overshoot was created by these abundance parameters, that were facilitated by crude oil, thusly, breaking through what is known as equilibrium. The human life alive right now, is somewhere in the range of 3 fold overshoot, as per the parameters of planetary albedo being capable of producing enough heat and light, to grow enough sustenance for sustaining that life. In other words, with zero crude oil available, the human life alive right now, would have to decrease by a factor of at least 3, in order to realign with planetary albedo based equilibrium. The ability to improve on that sustenance basis, is possible, but not utilizing Satanic energy sources like crude oil. How far can that carrying capacity of Earth be pushed through Divine energy platforms? As was stated to you in a prior conversation, depends on the genetic structure facilitating that Divine energy. As the demographics of Earth currently exist, that carrying capacity is drastically reduced by the dereliction of inferior subspecies of humans. To be as blunt as possible, some humans don't care to understand the complexity of viewing Earth as a precisely formulated machine, and never will. They simply don't care. As such, the parameters of equilibrium are reduced to include that current aspect of human existence. So... it's not so simple as to say "only 3 billion humans CAN exist on Earth, to realign with planetary albedo equilibrium." One must also account for the those who will exploit any and all aspects of consumption possible, at any given point. A fully informed, well respected and respectful populace, where jealousies, exploitation and consumption are highly and brutally regulated into nonexistence, a carrying capacity well beyond 3 billion humans is possible. However, these equilibrium parameters are based on empirical data as it exists right now, and thusly, given the circumstances of genetic demographics EXTREMELY influencing the equation, overshoot happened in about 1970.
…
The one in the video you linked is very cheap and easy to build. From what I remember, it's a gasifier based on wood gas directly from wood. That's important to understand in pyrolysis. There's wood gas, and syngas, with a fair amount of crossover. Pure wood gas has complications to that of syngas. Syngas is what's produced using charcoal. Wood gas is what's produced by using wood directly. Both are applicable to running a 4 stroke engine no problem. However, there are a lot more terpenes and moisture particulates in wood gas than there are in syngas. If one runs a gasifier on wood gas, you'll have to add an additional condenser (basically a version of a radiator) to cool the gas off after pyrolization. This condenser should have an accumulator at the lowest point because the moisture and terpenes will condense and accumulate in that vessel. The video you linked has that very thing. It's quite simple: a snaking pipe is the condenser, and at the bottom of the piping, he has a glass jar collecting the condensate mixture. It's important to have this feature because if you don't, and run it through your engine, those terpenes will clog injectors, or foul the carburetor. Syngas made from pure pyrolized charcoal from wood, doesn't really have that problem because the vast majority of terpenes and ALL of the water has been converted to gas and evacuated during pyrolysis. Therefore, you can run syngas directly into a carburetor intake (and this is generally speaking because it will always depend on the quality of the charcoal, but you know...) and you'll be just fine. Some do mixtures of both wood and charcoal, and some dictate their systems based on whatever is available. If you're not planning on making a lot of charcoal in a large retort furnace, plan on building a condenser and accumulator included system. That way it won't matter what the input materials are. There is no limit to the amount of engines wood gas and syngas will run, by the way. Sensors in modern vehicles will cause concern, but as far as just running the engine itself? Wood gas and syngas will power them very well. The only issue is the gumming up of internal components if the gas is not relieved of the terpenes and moisture. Gasify, definitely! Especially where you live. All of those carbohydrates usually just get composted or otherwise rot in a landfill anyways. It's essentially free energy at least to you. Funny thing is, if you do it correctly, people will pay you to dispose of their "waste," so often times you can make money, which makes it better than free energy... at least to you. If you start building gasifiers for everyone, people's yards, and the entire environment for that matter, will be a lot cleaner and you won't be paid to "dispose" of yard debris, though. I know... it's a terrifying concept, lol.
From #748
February 28 2023 5:03AM
First, plastic pyrolysis. Apparently the process produces some kind of char, sometimes called, “carbon black.” Could that be used as activated carbon, for filtering purposes?
In theory, yes, however that's to say that the reactor will be able to run 100% efficient, with a 100% conversion rate... and that's not going to happen. The reality of engineering standards is that nothing is 100%. When plastics are polymerized, the base chemicals are given a passing standard of purity, meaning they're not 100% pure. It's similar to machining, where there's a tolerance range. You often times see this in rebuild technician manuals for example, and almost all manufacturing processes. It's just not economically viable to aim for absolute purity in everything. That same strategy exists in plastics manufacturing. It might be acceptable to have 98% purity of a base chemical, just as an example, and the regulatory committees will sign off on that standard. "Organic food" comes to mind, being so it's a fairly recent standard the government accepted. This was one of the conversations that Weldon Warren and I had very early on, and helped cement my trust in his ability, rather than his persuasion. His claim was "beyond organic." That's very true for his products. He even went further into the grass fed confusion. He adamantly stated that his beef was ALWAYS grass fed, which until the "king nigger" years, didn't have to be specifically stated. Weaned, raised, and finished on grass, is what he prides himself on, and grocery stores noticed. With the organic regulations having been "economically swindled," lots of standards fell out regarding the process. Even things like "free range" has an acceptable value to the regulatory committees. For example, "free range chicken" products need only to provide a 10' by 10' area externally of their barns, or coops. There could be thousands of chickens stuffed into a barn, with a 100 square foot fenced in opening, only large enough to have a maximum of 20ish chickens in it at any given time, for their entire lives; birth to slaughter, and that is considered "free range"...
There's a lot of that going on in essentially every industry known to man. As in the case of grass fed, free range, organic, etc, some of those standards are downright ridiculous, but the majority of people are too ignorant and mentally subdued by their virtue signaling garbage that they don't understand how these standards came to be. They just see "organic" on the label, and immediately assume it's healthy, honest, and beneficial to a myriad of factors. Chemicals that are used for polymerization, have to be at a certain standard for the products to function in whatever setting they're used for, however, as with essentially everything, the manufacturers will push that standard to the absolute brink of regulatory standards in exchange for a healthier economic viability. I admit that I don't know the exact standards for vinyl chloride, or any other plastic base chemicals. But just for argument's sake, let's say it's 98% purity to pass the regulatory standards. The next question is what is soluble in vinyl chloride that can account for that 2%? The answer is "who the hell knows?" Could be anything from the bases that made vinyl chloride originally. It doesn't matter to the manufacturer because it's immaterial to the regulations. In this question you asked, not only does the pyrolysis reaction chamber need to be 100% efficient to produce viable carbon for later filtration, but the plastics entering that chamber also need to be 100% pure... NEITHER OF WHICH are in any way guaranteed, as per regulatory standards in hell. So the answer, to be as safe as possible, is a definitive no; you should NEVER use the remaining char from pyrolysis of plastics for any type of filtration system. But, once again, IN THEORY, yes it's possible. Theoretically, it should be nothing more than carbon. Also, keep in mind that the 98% standard I was using as an example, is set by the manufacturer. They could be making million gallon batches at a time, and the chemicals are not perfectly and evenly distributed. Did that vinyl chloride in the train cars come from the top of the manufacturer's container, or was it the last few drops of the container? Which level had the most "2% acceptable" contamination? Could be a 10% contamination at either of those points, but the manufacturer is only beholden to the regulatory standard for "legal protection," so it's almost impossible to find out specifics like these outside of the parent companies. The safest answer to your question is to NEVER use "carbon black" for any type of filtration... BUT... it is possible. Trying my hardest to be crystal clear here...
Also, does plastic pyrolysis produce hazadous waste?
In most cases this is a yes; pyrolysis produces hazardous waste. Firstly, this is entirely dependent on what you're trying to produce from the reaction. Aiming to neutralize, convert into fuel, breakdown the chemicals via cracking into simpler hydrocarbons, complete dissociation between carbon and hydrogen atoms? All of these factors have to be determined before a proper treatment can be discerned. That said, the most rudimentary form of pyrolysis, using the most diesel dense materials (HDPE, and similar plastics), yes; this does produce waste via terpenes that are either condensed during pyrolysis and burned thereafter, or were present in the base chemicals before pyrolysis. This is why I gave that rather lengthy answer to the first question. It's simply not feasible to assume anything is pure, especially in manufacturing. In most cases, it's fairly negligible of a intrusion during pyrolysis, but it's almost certainly there in some capacity. Carcinogenic? That depends on the material being processed more than anything, but on some level, based on what I said in the previous answer, indeed, there is "hazardous waste" in some quantity, somewhere in the resulting gas, and/or distillates from pyrolysis of plastics.
How to contend with this?
The only way to be sure everything within the matrix of pyrolysis materials is neutralized entirely is complete gasification. There's an ensemble of caveats that accompany that statement. First of which is the energy input. For complete and total gasification, there's an enormous energy cost. In the crude oil industry, the substrate of gasification is called cracking. Prior to complete gasification is the breaking down of long chain molecules into more rudimentary forms. For heavier sour crude oil substances with very long and dense molecules, the pyrolysis reaction chamber is set at roughly 900 degrees Celsius, and the pressure within the vessel is set at around 70+ atmospheres. That's the standard of converting long chain hydrocarbons into viable economic fuels like gasoline and diesel, that I'm familiar with. That's also to say that those types of reaction chambers are held in that state of heat and pressure for hours on end; it's not just a "get to that state of suspension, and all molecules react in a standard way" type of situation. This is why it's a type of gamble utilizing cracking: you never really know exactly what will be produced, and in what quantity. That said, it does become fairly predictable when routine sources are readily accessible.
Now, more to your question, I would need access to a significant amount of chemistry literature to properly provide data for each individual material in question; as per the temperatures and pressures necessary to convert everything into base gases. That's the caveat to what follows. Given the example of cracking in the crude oil industry, what I'm willing to say is that it would be significantly more energy intensive to create the necessary environmental for total gasification, than anything you'd get out of it, IF (!) complete neutralization is the goal. So, the real question that needs to be determined first is "what are you trying to get out of this pyrolysis system?" If fuel is the goal; as in converting plastics to say, diesel? In a standard, home based, hobbyist level pyrolysis reactor, the best procedure would be to distill the diesel, and burn any remaining gases exiting the condenser right on the spot. That will not eliminate the problem of hazardous waste entirely, but it will mitigate the problem as best as possible at that scale. That's essentially the pyrolysis > distillation > gasification > combustion route, so to speak. In order to fully mitigate at this scale, by the way, one would need to burn the remaining gases at a very high temperature to ensure all gases combust. This was the biggest problem with what happened during the train derailment, by the way: there was a significant amount of that chemical sludge that didn't burn/combust, and ended up being a highly condensed vapor of unburned fuel, freely dispersing at a high temperature. Very dangerous, and very toxic. Anyways, at a home level of pyrolysis, burn the gases at the highest temperature possible to mitigate the release of hazardous waste. That's the takeaway here.
That's also to say that a pyrolysis reactor on that level is not anything more than a still, basically. There is no real "cracking" via pressurized dissociation taking place. In order to do that effectively, a very strong valve would need to be added to isolate the reaction chamber, and turn it into a "pressure cooker." That... is extremely dangerous on a hobbyist level. Many checks, balances and inspections would be necessary to ensure the operator is not making the equivalent of a bomb. Everything within that reaction chamber is extremely combustible, so any leaks, or cracks develop... and kaboom! That said, if the maker and operator of this type reaction chamber is trustworthy, a viable cracking chamber can be used for effective pyrolysis, and from there, combustion could also greatly reduce the hazardous waste conundrum. However, in plastics processing specifically, I'd assume there would be very little recoverable fuel from that process. You'd essentially be disassociating (breaking down or cracking) already viable fuels into basically pure hydrogen and carbon, respectively. That... is the essence of total and complete gasification into neutral form. From that combustion sequence, you would be left with nothing more than water from the combustion, and pure carbon. That's essentially the furthest extent of "what to do about hazardous waste" in this scenario. Prior to that furthest extent, it's pertinent to first know what the goal is: fuel, neutralizing, etc, before making that determination. That will give you a basic strategy for dealing with the resulting terpenes, and other contaminants that are certainly present in the materials. From there, you can determine what system and vessel is necessary for what you're trying to accomplish, in addition to the inevitable fuel sources required to sustain pyrolysis. There's also a wide range of fuels that will determine the viability of the reactor's pyrolysis capability. In other words, you probably won't be able to sustain a reaction for total gasification using wood, but wood might be enough to sustain diesel distillation. Like I said, this is deep into the chemistry realm, and there's a ton of literature on this subject that's a lot more complex than what I can offer. Temperatures, pressure settings, and whatnot are all written down somewhere...
The orders of magnitude here are also important to note. The ridiculous claims of abiotic crude oil constituency is front and center. What happens within a pyrolysis reactor is not exactly a plasma state. The fourth state of matter is plasma, the first being solid, second is liquid, third is gas. In order to dissociate long chain hydrocarbons specifically, one must cross the boundary of liquid to gas, which under sufficient pressure does break those bonds. When all material has been converted into gas, a further dissociation must take place in order to break the bonds of the rudimentary hydrocarbon molecules that remain. At a certain point, just before the plasma state is reached, all molecular bonds break down, and the gases are at their purest atomic state. Beyond that point, within the plasma state of matter, electrons break the bonds of neutrons and protons within an atom's nucleus. However, for our purposes here, plasma is not created. During the abiotic experiments, the temperatures and pressures reached were hotter and more pressurized than anything on Earth, essentially bringing the gases created to the absolute brink of plasma. We're talking millions of degrees in some experiments. The individual molecules however, did not bond until the vessel was breached, and the gases were suddenly cooled, and condensed by water, and/or air. Apparently the sudden drop in temperature and pressure led to very rudimentary hydrocarbons forming: methane, acetylene, etc. So, it's not the reactor vessel itself that forces bonding into hydrocarbons from molecularly pure gases, but rather the sudden cooling effect. This is the most important caveat to understanding abiotic hydrocarbon processing that apparently, none of these moronic abiotic proponents understand. Why am I mentioning this in this context? Well, in order to take advantage of complete gasification, one must burn the gases as they're expelled from a pyrolysis reactor under these conditions immediately, otherwise methane and other gaseous state hydrocarbons might form. I understand that these elements are not exactly "hazardous" by the standards implied by your question, but in great enough quantity, it could become that way. Complete neutralization is a tricky task, and I'm trying to be as specific as possible in order to create a sense of confidence in you for dealing with this problem. It's not a cut and dry thing to neutralize, and in this subject matter specifically, there's many different caveats that must be applied in a very definitive sequence of events. Plus we're delving into deep chemistry, particle physics, thermonuclear physics, the states of matter, and molecular bonding. We haven't done this before. I'm not exactly an expert in these fields, but I can hold my own in fission and fusion dialogue. I apologize if this is going beyond your comfort zone, but it's important to understand the full spectrum of knowledge, given the questions you've asked here. To be as straightforward and blunt as possible, it's going to take an unfathomable amount of energy to detoxify the environment of these economically based, worldwide chemistry experiments in "cheap" material manufacturing. However impossible that sounds, and at scale, it indeed is essentially impossible to "right all of these wrongs," this is the process as clearly as I can explain it. You're getting an even more detailed glimpse into the enormity of the current dilemma as I've seen it for quite some time. Some things are so overwhelming, it's hard to find motivation for solving these problems, but it has to start somewhere, and the pathway you're on is the best possible starting block. Anything is possible, but scale is of the utmost importance, especially in this case. Hobbyist level pyrolysis reactors simply cannot fix the problem of hazardous waste in any real meaningful way. That's just the basic science involved. That said, you're on your way to developing the skills necessary to fix this problem on the industrial scale, and that's what needs to happen in order to fully neutralize these chemicals.
From #749
March 4 2023 4:04AM
Try not to get consumed by the follies of past shortsightedness. You're absolutely correct in acknowledging the overwhelming toxicity, and you're astute for recognizing the hazards, but there's a limit. Some things are beyond your control, and there's not much you can do to completely rectify the situation. Petroleum based toxicity, be it terpenes, tailings, or product degradation, as is the case with plastics, are everywhere already. Those toxins are already in your body even. The goal should not be complete eradication RIGHT NOW. That's just not a feasible goal, and trying to accomplish that will drive you crazy. That's not to say that complete eradication is not the goal; that actually IS... the goal, but time perspective is important. Just like building a pyramid, knocking down the Rockies, building a Dyson sphere, etc. The reality is that these noble and righteous conquests are going to take many lifetimes to accomplish. In regards to pyrolysis, the toxicity is inevitable, but utilizing that methodology will create a future that doesn't require pyrolysis. That's not to say that all caution should be thrown to the wind in a "fuck it, we might as well poison ourselves because we're already dead" kind of thing, but it is kind of like that. You'll reduce your stress levels about this, and alleviate your fears if you take a realistic approach... is all I'm saying. It's hard not to be frightened of the toxicity when you have such a well balanced understanding of how the hell society functions, but you'll create a lot more opportunity to fix these things if you do, on at least some level, submit to the inevitability.
It would be phenomenal if everything and everyone was enlightened, transcendent, and working together with a clear purpose. That's not the reality, though. The options are quite limited as a result. You can decide to go full "bubble boy," limit your exposure to everything toxic and extend your life now as long as possible while the toxicity builds everywhere around you all the time, or you can say "fuck it; none of it matters," and join in on the destruction of the biosphere. Between those polar opposites are many possibilities where there's plenty of crossover. Pyrolysis is one of those gray area regions where yes, it's toxic and poisonous, but NOT dealing with the materials is actually worse. It's wise to strive for the cleanest possible method for pyrolysis, but like I said, there's a limit, and spending an inordinate amount of time on trying to make the process entirely nontoxic CAN BE a waste of time, considering the enormity of the scenario pyrolysis is trying to rectify. You're right; it's a nasty situation no matter what... for you, and for anyone in the immediate future. All I'm saying is that's not an adequate reason for not doing this. Indeed, be as safe as possible, but don't overdo it. Nobody and nothing is pristine right now anyways, and there's a lot of rectification that must happen in order to produce a pristine existence for future generations. That's not your fault, but it is your problem to deal with... should you accept this mission. Dramatic... I know, but that's the reality. Unfair? Definitely. Sacrificial? Certainly. Rewarding to you personally in this lifetime? Unknown. Beneficial for the preservation of the human race and the entire trophic web of Earth? Yes. So... in conclusion, plastic is better suited in this environment as base gaseous substance. Pyrolysis is one of the most efficient methods of transforming polymerized hydrocarbons back into a nontoxic substance. They're here already. Styrofoam, plastics, terpenes, whatever. These substances will need to be dealt with, plain and simple. There's really no nontoxic-do nothing option. So, there's really only one option: deal with it. From my summation, that means pyrolysis is inevitable. Yes, it's going to be toxic... but so is not doing anything. It's best to maximize safety, and just "bite the bullet," and do it. That's how I see it. Apologies for being so forward and dramatic about this, but I'm sensing your fears about this the more knowledgeable you become on the subject, and the train derailment is not exactly helping calm those fears. Be strong and confident in righteousness. Don't let the fear control your abilities. It's okay to be scared because there is no courage WITHOUT fear. Keep that in mind. Overcome...
From #763
March 30 2023 7:07AM
1. It seems the primary decision to be made is whether to go for complete neutralization or fuel production, and the former requires more energy and a more stringent setup to achieve.
Definitely. Plastic pyrolysis is in no way a sustainable model for fuel refinement, or creation. The only reason why it's even a thing to consider in the fuel production capacity, is because over the last 50 years, the production of plastics has been a nonstop goal of economics. There is so much of this shit in the environment that it's unhealthy to NOT do something about it to counteract the oversaturation. Of all the things that could be done to neutralize the toxic effects of so much plastic, WHILE still getting a useable product out of the transformation, pyrolysis is that process. It's extremely backwards in the EROEI perspective FOR PLASTIC. Pyrolysis is essentially the process of utilizing excessive heat to transmutate polymerization. The amount of energy that went into mining the hydrocarbon elements that are the basis for plastic, along with the energy implements that induced polymerization, not to mention the complexity of transportation in place to distribute all this plastic, can never be recovered. There's also the pyrolysis activity itself: creating the heat to induce pyrolysis, as well as the energy for making a safe pyrolizer. It's feasible that through a complex, but well engineered solar collection apparatus like a parabolic mirror, solatube-similar collector, or Fresnel lenses, one could use direct solar energy for pyrolysis of plastics, but even so, net energy gain and consumption, plastic pyrolysis is not EROEI positive. This is definitely not a long term sustainable energy solution in any way, and should never be relied upon. Plastic pyrolysis is a environmental cleanup project... with the added bonus of the creation of fuels during the process that pair well with currently available internal combustion engines. Complete neutralization, beyond that pyrolysis paradigm, would require even more energy, and much more sophistication. However, after creating pneumatic systems that utilize nitinol, that's much more feasible and sustainable as a neutralization strategy... because the system itself is sustainable. Right now though, given the availability of sustainable energy solutions for creating heat on that scale, neutralization of plastics entirely is excessively backwards, or net-negative EROEI.
That said, complete neutralization would take a lot more system development. Currently, there's not only a problem with fuel availability without the constant supply of sequestered hydrocarbon sources, but there's environmental toxicity on top of that problem. While complete neutralization sounds enticing to pursue, it's not exactly feasible from the current predicament's perspective. Fuel production through pyrolysis is much more feasible. It's definitely not entirely neutralizing, but it's better than allowing those elements into the environment. Given the current state of human activity, capability, and potential, fuel production is definitely the best solution to the problem, as it stands now.
2. I noticed your mention of fusion and fission. I am now wondering whether the conversion of gas to plasma is similar to either of those processes. I think I should do more readin'/re-readin' first though, rather than make you feel obligated to expand on that point.
Similar... kind of, but not on the same scale. Plasma is the fourth state of matter, but it's an entirely different paradigm for temperature displacement than that of the scale of the other three states respectively. Electricity discharges are plasma in arc form. Lightning, static discharge, arc welding, etc; the actual "bolt" itself, is technically plasma. As you well know, that arc is extremely hot; on the scale of thousands of degrees. However, maintaining an arc becomes a difficulty. Within the perimeter of the arc itself, neutralization of matter into the most basic fundamental elements is occurring, but outside of the arc bolt itself, plasma induced neutralizing is not taking place. While using an arc to melt things is a well known and understood industry model for product manufacturing, inducing neutralization through plasma production is a different scale of manufacturing altogether.
It would be possible to neutralize hydrocarbons including plastics by arc conduction, but that's extremely net-negative EROEI. Really, any current form of plasma neutralizing is negative, so if that becomes a strategy for neutralization, the amount of energy used will be excessive. Fission could be used to create the electricity for utilizing plasma for this purpose, but directly, that's not possible, as hydrocarbons by and large are not fissile materials. That said, fission would be the most optimal strategy for creating the plasma (in arc form) necessary for neutralization. Neutralizing plastics in this way would create an enormous amount of gases, and leave very little soot, so there are extreme engineering problems in that process. You would essentially be transforming solids (plastics), back into carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen, which not only would be a carbon saturation issue, but the hydrogen is an explosive issue. There would have to be a sophisticated system in place to even attempt this process. Dangerous, and possibly destructive if not properly designed. It is possible in theory, but that would be a very expensive endeavor, with little to no return on investment, other than the benefit to the environment as a whole in the broader sense, and other than a few of us out there, that's not exactly a selling point in society right now.
3. If you can convert pyrolyzed plastic into pure hydrogen and carbon, why not do that and use the hydrogen as fuel?
You can do that, but it becomes an issue of EROEI. You're already at a net negative EROEI in pyrolysis of plastics in conversion to liquid fuel. When you're talking about conversion from liquid fuel to pure gases, that's an even costlier process to the EROEI equation, thusly further sending the summation into the red. It's definitely possible, and in a world where environmental health is of the utmost importance, it would be a priority. That being said, complex, long chain hydrocarbons can be very difficult to dissociate into gases. More difficult essentially means more heat, and more pressure. As we discussed, it's almost impossible to have a 100% pure hydrocarbon base to polymerize into plastic. Therefore, there will be some percentage, however small it may be, of terpenes and other long chain hydrocarbons, which will add negatively to the EROEI. This will have to be considered if/when this "grand cleanup" of plastics from the environment takes place. If utilizing the hydrogen from that process is a focus, just know that purifying, or isolating those gases will require an even greater level of sophistication, and will most certainly detract from the net EROEI equation. In reality, it might even be more beneficial to burn the hydrogen at the pyrolysis source, and collect the water from the reaction. That's about as simplistic and inexpensive of a solution as I can think of, IF... complete gasification is the goal. In turn, burning the hydrogen at the source could help offset the energy required to run the cracking reactor from liquid to gas, as a direct heating source. The point is that it's a net negative EROEI by even attempting pyrolysis of plastics, but the majority of that energy loss is already gone in the process of making plastic to begin with. The margins are not there to utilize the liquid or gas version of pyrolizer fuels as a sustainable alternative to sequestering hydrocarbons. That said, any fuel type that can be used during this process... should. Just don't rely on it.
Is it less energy efficient than using the fuels which precede those?
Definitely. That is until you realize what types of terpenes and other chemicals are inherently related to the breakdown of plastic. I'm answering these questions based on an economic model of fuel consumption, in the here and now perspective. The hard reality is that plastic saturation in the environment is a very lengthy and costly problem that will eventually be seen as more costly to not take care of the problem. So in a scenario where you're asking me this question as a "is it monetarily cheaper to use sequestered hydrocarbon sources, than to use fuels from plastic pyrolysis" kind of thing... no. It's cheaper to use sequestered hydrocarbon sources. However, if you're asking me this question in a "in the long term outlook of Earth's future health, is it cheaper to utilize pyrolysis as a stopgap to sustainable fuel development, while simultaneously ridding the environment of plastic saturation... all while ending the usage of sequestered hydrocarbon sources of fuel" type of way... yes. Pyrolysis of plastics is a very good way to convert plastics into a usable resource while cleaning the environment. The point though, is to NOT become reliant on those fuels as a source of economic stimulation, otherwise you'll just be right back in a crude oil economy. So, basically, there's two ways to answer that question: the selfishly minded and focused view, and the equilibrium based selfless view. It's less energy efficient to use pyrolysis based fuels... until you view the precedent from a futuristic perspective. Hopefully that's clear...
4. Likewise, could there be a time where you actually do want to cool the vessel quickly in order to yield gases such as methane and acetylene? They have their place.
You're jumping into the experimental stages of abiotic hydrocarbon production here, I see. Yes, that's a possibility, but again, that's going to require a significant amount of sophistication and engineering that will further detract from the EROEI equation. Most of these questions are not a "can we do this" kind of thing. In almost all of the cases, the answer is yes. You most certainly CAN. My retort to that is why? First of all, when the societal paradigm has reached a precipice of energy independence, efficiency and transcendence, those types of fuel sources will not be as relied upon as they are now. The vast majority of fuel consumption these days (in hell), goes toward economic growth of useless junk, luxury based travel that does nothing other than create memories for selfish personalities, war, and transportation of food stuffs into unsustainable population centers, far away from where the food is grown. The amount of energy consumed currently, and more importantly the reason for consuming it, will not be the type of priority worth sustaining in a transcendent environment. Yes, you could convert plastics into gases, and recreate the environment that makes the gases reform abioticly into rudimentary hydrocarbons. But why would you even consider that, when you have biogas recovered from excrement available everywhere anyways? THAT... would actually be sustainable, and you wouldn't have to deal with terpenes or chemicals in any meaningfully toxic way, and the byproduct would be pure fertilizer. I like the way you're trying to implement processes into these equations as you learn about them, but there are sustainable resources and processes available to create the sources you're considering. They're reliable, and healthy for the environment. They're just not economically viable in a meaningful way to sustain the frivolous, and extremely wasteful complexities that have developed in this crude oil economy. Post-transcendence, most of the ways in which energy is consumed now, will not be done. It's just that simple. Plastic pyrolysis is firstly a means of undoing/cleaning up the mistakes of a societal paradigm run amok with extreme selfishness. During that process, there are ways to use spoils from that process. However, it's a much better idea to become energy independent, THEN tackle this type of issue. Otherwise, those fuels will become relied upon, as crude oil is now, and that defeats the purpose of even attempting pyrolysis in the first place.
From #765
April 9 2023 7:13PM
First... the gas. I was under the impression that you were trying to make acetylene from the rawest form of hydrogen and carbon after neutralizing the terpenes and hydrocarbons in plastics. At least that was the first impression of what we were discussing. Yes, I agree that using acetylene is very effective in welding and torch cutting, especially when the job is remote. It's difficult bringing everything required for a plasma torch to remote areas, so acetylene is a very good alternative. My point wasn't really to demonize acetylene itself, nor was I trying to entirely reject the notion that it's possible to get acetylene from raw gases collected from the pyrolysis of plastics. Doing that is indeed possible, as is using the reaction process to produce acetylene. My point is more of an efficiency and sustainability issue. Although it's possible to create acetylene in the pyrolysis of plastics, hopefully eventually, that is not a sustainable solution for creating that gas. It shouldn't be relied upon as a source for hydrogen and carbon, because HOPEFULLY plastics will become obsolete. Thusly, if one were to create a sophisticated system to convert plastics gases into things like acetylene, eventually there would be a surplus of equipment that would become useless. There's also the efficiency aspect, where obtaining the gases in their rawest form, at least from the pyrolysis of plastics, is a very net negative EROEI proposition. There'd be a significant amount of heat required, as well as a very robust pressure vessel... not to mention the fuel to actually produce pyrolysis. All of that is very inefficient, when there are other sources available. I wasn't saying any of your proposals were impossible. I'm just stating that it's one of the most inefficient methods possible for creating raw hydrogen and carbon.
Alternatively, there's the more natural, sustainable, and efficient forms of hydrocarbon acquisition, with far fewer terpenes and other toxic additives. Plus, there would be a neverending supply of the gases, because to create those gases, yields many other benefits, such as food. I was specifically referring to biogas; almost pure methane, collected from anaerobic digesters, excrement processing, and other forms of compost breakdowns that are now just wasted resources. Setting up a system, however sophisticated it would likely be, that converts biogas into raw hydrogen and carbon, then reacts those gases to form acetylene, is a much more efficient and sustainable method of producing fuel and gases for work. Plus, there's no need to ever plan for the obsolescence of the original equipment investment, because as long as food is necessary, there will be biogas in some form, and that's universal. It matters not what the diet is. The scrap and leftovers from any diet, crop, and composting process produces methane, and that will not change. There is a possibility of a world free of plastic... but as long as there's life, biogas will be present. One could always improve the system in place, but it will never be redundant. Methane has been around since before the very first microbe decayed and formed the first biogas molecules, and it will be here indefinitely thereafter. That's the type of sourcing that should be focused on. Again, I'm not saying that your ideas aren't valid, especially given the context of what brought on this conversation originally: the toxicity of the train derailment contents, and the possibilities of dealing with those elements in the most productive, efficient, and useful ways. Plastic pyrolysis is where we veered into, as the polymerized version of vinyl chloride is indeed a plastic. You're absolutely correct in your synopsis of the situation, and in thinking that pyrolysis (cracking of hydrocarbons) to an entirely neutral state is possible. I'm just saying it's not a very efficient way to process these gases... WHEN... there are much better alternatives available for creating the source materials required to make the resources you suggested converting them into. It's actually a great idea to find uses of neutralized toxic elements, and it's wonderful that we're even discussing this. My "but why?" comment was based on the fact that things like acetylene will be useful long into the future, possibly long after plastics exist. Therefore, it'd be wise to formulate a strategy for gathering those sources in a different form now. That was the essence of my comment; "why... when there's much better sources?" Anyways, it's good that you've developed this sense of trying to utilize spoils from degeneracy. It's a much healthier way to view "problems." Instead of trying to lay blame, seek retribution or punishment, and vengeance for past indiscretions, finding possibilities for opportunities from those shortsighted and often destructive methods is much less stressful. Many times people only try to focus on the "blame game," and all the wasted time and effort therein, instead of trying to actually fix a problem presented by the bad decisions. You're there, and you're doing that... and it makes ALL the difference.
From #794
June 4 2023 5:38AM
Let's see how my 2AM rundown is... Exergy is energy which can do useful work. "Energy which can do useful work in a given system or context" may or may not be a helpful specification. I don't know that this "work" has to directly mean movement, or whether it can include heat which enables movement (such as for an animal, which needs sufficient heat to live and therefore to move). "Exergy" should not include energy which is lost from the system as heat, meaning it is not used in any useful and/or necessary manner.
This is fairly decent understanding of exergy, but I will say that yes, the "metabolic costs" to a material that requires exergy to remain in a current state of being, is also considered exergy. Stone is a perfect example of this metabolic process. Presumably, most ancient granite stone (the really dense, stable, and hard granite form), is very old. Some has been in its current state since the formation of Earth. Not all, but a significant portion of it. The idea is that throughout Earth's formation, many different meteorites hit causing heat, the spinning caused friction heat, the density of the Earth itself caused gravity to crush materials together, which also created heat, and the sun's proximity to Earth maintained a stable heat source for these other forces to keep granite liquid, long enough to have a good environment for stone to temper. Without all of these exergy sources coalescing, that granite would have cooled too rapidly, which would cause rapid disintegration. It's the long tempering process that actually gave granite its strength, so the exergy allotment is not only in its initial materialization, but also the very long and stable cooling process. When granite is used as a building material, it's pertinent to understand the enormity of exergy that went into making the granite such a perfect and stable material. The reason is because in order to create "synthetic granite," which is to say gather clay, quartz, metals of all kinds, and various other trace elements, melt them all, mix them until they're evenly distributed, then put this blob under extreme pressure, and allow it to cool slowly for millions of years, most of which it would remain in an almost liquid state, the amount of energy required would be excessively wasteful to a human perspective.
Basalt is an interesting type of "in between stone," as another example. It's generally not as dense and hard as ancient granite. That's because basalt is generally made by lava rock, that found its way into the crust from the depths, and cooled much more rapidly than ancient granite, but not as quickly as exposed lava rock like pumice for example. The Devil's Tower monument is considered a type of basalt. It's a supposedly rare type of basalt, mainly because of the way it formed and cooled into the column-like shapes that seem to be slowly over eons, breaking away from the outer edges. Nevertheless, it's a type of basalt. The formation was a column of lava that filled the internal structure of a volcano as liquid and homogeneous, then slowly cooled and solidified. Some millions of years later, the external portion of the volcano eroded away, leaving the Devil's Tower monument as we see it today. While the general overview of this type of stone is somewhat similar in concept to ancient granite formation, the scale is not. 100-500 million years (ish from some estimates) to cool, and erode away the exterior of Devil's Tower, while ancient granite took a couple billion years to form, and slowly cool. Basalt can be used as a decent building material. It's very stable, and some types are close to being as hard as granite, but it's not as good as ancient granite. Really... nothing is. Ancient granite is not uniform either, by the way. There's many different types of matrix forms with various different types of materials. However, it's the material that was present during the creation of the Earth, and in particular, the Earth's crust as it cooled into a solid shell layer. One other thing about ancient granite is that during its formation, there was a lot less atmospheric free flowing oxygen. Not to say that oxygen wasn't on Earth, but the isotopes that are capable of oxidizing, were trapped in other types of molecules: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, metal oxides, water, etc. Presumably, during most basaltic rock formations seen on Earth currently, they were formed after the introduction of plant born, photosynthesis based life, which was responsible for the bulk of free flowing, currently available oxygen. Meaning that basalt has a much greater chance at having its base materials oxidize, and erode away. This is why I call it an "in between stone." Next down are the rapidly cooled forms of stone like pumice lava rock. It's basically terrible for construction without being ground into a fine powder, and used as an ingredient for a geopolymer. Those types of materials have essentially zero tempering before they're exposed to cooling and oxidation. Kilauea in Hawaii is a good example. The lava exits the volcano, goes into the sea, and disintegrates into basically useless material, at least for construction. It's stone, but the tempering is nonexistent.
That's the essence of exergy: all sources of energy from external sources, coalescing into a conglomerate of development stages, that indeed do, create the materials for useful applications. I used stone as an example here because when humans think of energy, especially now, submerged in an oil economy, the notion of energy is usually dedicated to the consumption of heat and light development in a myriad of forms. The idea of exergy is all encapsulating to every material substance in this entire third dimensional realm. It's important to understand this relationship between exergy, and the materialization of all matter, not just because it gives respect to the processes that created matter of usefulness to a human, but it also quantifies the existence, and ever present attachment to humanity's maker, and all dimensional beings in the hierarchy. The idea of "the big bang" creates a sense of detachment to that very relationship, belittles the creation and metabolic/maintenance energy of maintaining this realm's existence, and instills a sense of randomness that essentially ignores the workload necessary for this realm's creation. In perspective terms of this third dimensional realm, the exergy that created it, AND maintains its current state of stability, came, and comes from an external-to-it source. If... that source was better understood as being present constantly, since inception of this third dimensional realm, a greater respect would exist, and thusly the idea of exergy would be apparent in all matter, not just the energy sources that humans consume to produce degenerative desires. Hopefully this makes sense. Exergy is present during all stages of creation, in every substance that exists in the entire universe. All dimensions, all beings, all substances... not just matter, as humans know this relationship currently. However, to the human perspective currently, on Earth, the exergy principles are fairly simple, and still, this is difficult for the conscience to relate to.
To speak to your example of me working on my property, the exergy which made the trees cannot be recovered: that work is already done. However, I can, as you said, rearrange the available resources in such a way that their energy will perform further useful work. As always, it is important to ensure that my actions will produce a positive EROEI. Indeed, it is possible to use resources for useful means, but it is likewise possible to do so in an inefficient way, meaning that more exergy potential (energy) is lost than that which is created and/or utilized. For example, burning wood in a campfire would be a loss, i.e. negative EROEI, at least when compared to gasifying the wood.
That's a good way of encapsulating the relationship to exergy in a very simplistic way. I would say that the maximization of these biomass sources of exergy, particularly in this context, has to do with promoting efficiency at every possible stage IN ORDER TO create an environment for the upcoming implements of further exergy exposure (planetary albedo), to also be maximized. It's not just about how to use pyrolysis to efficiently reduce the wastefulness of exergy consumption, but also to form a recycling pattern for the nutrients. Reintroducing biochar, and compost from the utilization of pyrolysis, anaerobic bio digestion, and aquaponics, would create an environment for the planetary albedo exergy to bloom excessively more carbohydrates than in a "natural," or uninhibited fashion. This is why it's not necessarily a good idea to just "leave nature alone." So it's not just about being as efficient as possible in consuming the materials that Sol's exergy has produced, but also to maximize the potential for the incoming exergy to flourish. That... is how an abundance is created, and EROEI is maximized. Erosion and entropy when left alone in a natural cycle of processing the materials to create life, at least currently, is not the most efficient method of processing and recovering the optimal amount of exergy. It is effective, and efficient, but it's not the optimal pathway for processing the materials available. Again, hopefully this makes sense. It's not just about the consumption, but also about utilizing every available source and process, to maximize the potential of inevitable exergy sources that are yet to reach Earth.
External Resources
https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/Amid-controversy-industry-goes-plastics-pyrolysis/100/i36
https://archive.is/YdzAE
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/chemical-recycling-greenwashing-incineration-ib.pdf
The former discusses how pyrolysis is conducted on a large scale, while the latter shows the pitfalls of doing so on a large scale specifically. Everyone has half a puzzle piece, I suppose...
Related Pages