# Ask Your Congressperson Why Since Oil is now at $60



## Dave_1 (Oct 7, 2006)

If Not US, Wood Europe?

http://gtalumni.org/Publications/magazine/sum90/res.html

After investing $4.5 million to make biomass oil from wood scraps, the United States may be forced to sell the technology abroad, Dr. Daniel J. O'Neil warns. 

As director of the Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at Georgia Tech, O'Neil encouraged the development of a patented biomass conversion process known as "entrained flow pyrolysis." 

Non-polluting and economically practical, the process is believed to be the world's most efficient biomass conversion system, yielding up to 60 percent oil on a dry basis (72 percent on a wet basis), from wood scraps and other agricultural refuse. Further, the process is simple and operates at relatively low temperatures. Earlier biomass technology, also developed at Georgia Tech, produces roughly 30 percent oil.

And yet, O'Neil reports, U.S. manufacturers have expressed little interest in the technology, despite rising domestic oil prices which make the Georgia Tech process commercially attractive. Europeans are more highly motivated to perfect new energy technologies since they pay about $42 per barrel for oil--*twice * the U.S. price, he notes. O'Neil says Georgia Tech has discussed a technology transfer with several European organizations in Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Spain. 

"This technology will probably be commercialized by a foreign entity," O'Neil says. "Five years from now, we'll probably end up *buying * U.S. technology back from a foreign-owned company. That's the irony." 

What makes the Georgia Tech process so efficient? In a conventional biomass conversion system, O'Neil explains, wood scraps move slowly through a large, cross-sectional reactor, producing large quantities of charcoal. To harvest more oil and less charcoal, Tech researchers modified the process by pushing finely-ground wood particles rapidly through a high-temperature reactor.

Since the wood produces oil as a primary product and the oil has little time to degrade into gases or charcoal, O'Neil says, roughly 60 percent has been converted into biomass oil, which is suitable for use in industrial heaters, boilers, or kilns. The technique also generates lesser quantities of valuable charcoal and low-BTU gas. In the future, O'Neil predicts the process will be improved to produce gasoline and specialty chemicals.

If half of the unused wood residues produced annually in the U.S. were converted in a Georgia Tech system operating at just 40 percent yield, O'Neil says, about 98 billion tons of biomass oil--the equivalent of 412 million barrels of crude petroleum--could be produced.”

<snip>


----------



## BrotherBart (Oct 7, 2006)

He wrote that in 1990. How come Europe still seems to be buying a lot of oil?


----------



## Dave_1 (Oct 7, 2006)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> He wrote that in 1990. How come Europe still seems to be buying a lot of oil?



Because politicians are the same the world over?  

Why do businessmen, whether in Europe or the US, earning far more than the job pays, run for public office? ;-)

<snip>
"Polls put Sanders comfortably ahead of Republican Richard Tarrant, a wealthy businessman who has spent more than $*5 million * of his own money trying to buy the name recognition Sanders enjoys after eight years as mayor of Vermont's largest city and 16 years in the House."
<snip> 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/11/sanders.senate.ap/index.html


----------



## webbie (Oct 7, 2006)

Don't always write off entire continents and countries without looking closely at what they are doing.

Denmark, for instance, generates about 1/4 of it's entire electric needs from wind power! 
Denmark has gone from being 99% dependent on sources of foreign oil to becoming completely energy self sufficient. Completely! Now the goal is to add renewables and cut emissions in 1/2 in the next couple decade....yes, these things that our politicians say are impossible!

Other European countries are following the same type of lead, although slower. 

It's no accident that high efficiency wood boilers as well as oil boilers (Buderus, etc.) come from Europe. 

Many things would be possible if we invested some money and resources into things other than Star Wars and other such initiatives.


----------



## Dave_1 (Oct 8, 2006)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Don't always write off entire continents and countries without looking closely at what they are doing.
> 
> Denmark, for instance, generates about 1/4 of it's entire electric needs from wind power!
> Denmark has gone from being 99% dependent on sources of foreign oil to becoming completely energy self sufficient. Completely! Now the goal is to add renewables and cut emissions in 1/2 in the next couple decade....yes, these things that our politicians say are impossible!
> ...



Craig,

According to the following Denmark’s consumption in 2001 was 218,000 barrels a day

http://www.airninja.com/worldfacts/countries/Denmark/oilconsumption.htm

Here is the world comparison according to the CIA World Factbook

http://www.airninja.com/worldfacts/OilConsumptionOfNations.htm

Note that were Denmark’s population 11 times larger, making it the size of the UK’s population, & it's oil consumption per capita increased accordingly, Denmark’s consumption would be 30% *more * than the UK’s per capita consumption. 

Now note that if New Zealand’s (NZ’s) population was 15 times larger, making it the same as the UK’s population, then NZ consumption per capita would be 15% *more * than the UK’s average.

And yet NZ is *not * making the energy strides that Denmark is. So which country is the better oil consuming nation?

But were Iceland’s population 20 times larger, making it the size of the UK’s, & its oil consumption per capita multiplied accordingly, then it's oil consumption would be @ 20% of the UK’s. 

And if NZ’s population was 31.5 times larger, making it the size of Japan’s, NZ’s consumption would be only @ 60% of what Japan consumes.

Consequently, as can be clearly seen, all studies *must * be taken within context. 

My point in posting the article was to demonstrate that US technology has been available to reduce it's oil dependence.  

If everyone forwarded the article to their elected representatives such would start feeling the heat of an irate public about to yank them off their pig trough.  The only way the public ever gets congress’ attention is put the rascals in the unemployment line. Si?

And fwiw here are Denmark’s estimates of their oil reserves.

http://www.ens.dk/sw24673.asp 

Yes, Denmark's endeavors are encouraging, but the facts above are also revealing. Si?

Dave


----------

