the part I have a problem with is quote]and the oil barons put a stop to the distribution channels
[/quote]
which was the main gist of the post and I’d like to see that proven.
Um, that’s a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Burning any fuel releases less useful energy than originally went into it.
Will you now abolish batteries because it takes more energy to charge them than they can release? :rolleyes:
Uh, no. Nor will I advocate building many batteries in order to solve our energy problems. Sheesh.
As for the second law, it’s not as obvious as that when it ccomes to Ethanol, because the claim is that Ethanol is a form of solar energy. The plants absorb sunlight and grow, then you cut them down and make fuel from it. People used to use that form of solar energy all the time in high-tech devices known as ‘fireplaces’.
It’s just that the the process of making the ethanol consumes more energy than the amount of solar energy stored in the plant material. So let’s go easy on the rolleyes smileys, shall we?
TVAA, the thing about oil is that we didn’t make it, and thus it’s energy relative to us is only a measure of pumping it up. If we had to make fossil fuels ourselves, than they would really suck as fuel, because the odds are that we could use whatever was fueling the making of fossil fuels as fuel for whatever the fossil fuels were to be fueling.
I’d go with the bouncing bettys. Anti tank mines would be worthless. I do understand the goals, but wouldn’t it be more cost effective to use a shotgun against the seaguls and vermin? 
The one interesting one in the article that got me is tires. Currently, the cost of efficiently getting rid of tires is immense. Some localities have begun tire burning energy plants, but the polution control measures, as well as environmental concerns, bring the cost up immensly. Some of the tire burning plants have already been shutdown, either by the locals in a NIMBY type move, or by financial concerns. But the plus side of the tires is that the yards that collect them have a huge interest in having a market for them. They charge the average person to take a tire, then grind it up, and charge an extremely low price per ton to get rid of them. Heck, there are even abandoned waste tire piles all over the nation. I bet I could have states pay me to take them over.
So the raw material costs are nearly nil, or possibly a slight profit. I could even envision states giving grants since it is activly getting rid of pollution. Most states are spending a couple million a year on the tire problem as it is. So an added benefit would be environmental. Heck, Virginia has a superfund cleanup site in Winchester that has cost 10 million to clean up so far (A fire was at the site, so that may be part of it). Tell the states that you’ll clean up their problem sites for 10 mil a pop, and you have the funding for your plant. Plus beer money.
With the west Nile virus rampant in the mosquito population, and tires being the mosquito breeding ground,you could even twist a little more out of the states, and maybe convince them to front the money for construction as a public safety initiative.
There are just so many upsides to this. That is what is leaving me doubting it works like they are selling it. If it was really this wonderful, what the hell is this moron doing? Has he never heard of patent expiration? He took over the operation 7 years ago, and all he has to show for it is one lousy plant? I would have a herd of lobbyists in every damn statehouse, I’d have plants stradling state lines as a twofer, and taking in tires. I’d have a plant at every major city’s sewage plant in the top twenty cities.
And this moron has one plant. And this inventor, Baskis, starts shopping it around in the early nineties, and he can’t find an investor for 6 years!?
I dunno. I think something stinks here, and it aint turkey guts. I hope to be proven wrong, and it’s just a case of business ineptitude of the highest degree.
Ineptitude in bringing such an invention to market could easily be the answer. I too am hoping that this is the case.
I am a patent attorney and deal with clients all the time that have good ideas and inspiration on how to commercialize them. I’m constantly referring people to business incubators and universities for help in generating business plans and the like.
Plus, the very concept of the invention, that it can do all things to all waste, is a bit hard to swallow. It might take a while to get the money put together to build even a single plant.
cj
Well from the business aspect of it, more specific information had to be know about it before they could put up the cash for say, 3000 plants around the country. I mean, that is after all 60 billion dollars, and for it to be really effective you would need at least 3000 plants to really change the way America, indeed the world, gets its fuel. Not to mention the purified water benefit. There are lots of places in the world where purified water is more valuble than gold. Places in the desert and places where the water is too contaminated to use.
60 billion is more than any one person, or even small group of investors are going to be able to put up. There are few business ventures in life of that large scale that you can start with nothing and have everything you want inside of 10 years. I’m sure Buffet et. al. do not want the government to have to much of a say so in this matter, and the government is about the only entity with the means to really mass prooduce these plants.
My point is, don’t make the fact that they aren’t capitilizing on this as fast as they should deter you from believing in TDP. It will take awhile for them to get everything going. It looks like they primarily used the first plant to get some specific recipe’s and to experiment with different types of waste (both things that you would have to know before being able to capitilize on this in the best way).
I personally think that given the time and effort needed, this new TDP process could revolutionize the oil industry, and be a huge boon to economies, and personal comfort around the world.
But each plant can be profitable in little over a year. It could easily be the next tech bubble. Break down that 60 billion by individual projects, and you have Buffet and Gates digging in their couch cushions for more money to throw at it. As a business move, they could franchise it out to reduce risk, and still retain their patents. Each franchise raises their own capital, and the core group yields a percentage. Off a 20 1/2 year patent, they’ve pissed away nearly 13 years.
I’m definantly jumping on the first stock offered in this area, I’m just saying that anyone with a little more business saavy would have this flying by now.
I confess to having an insufficient patent knowledge to be able to comment on them only having 8 years left on their patent. I was thinking that there was a way to permanently patent something.
Either way it goes though, as far as I am concerned, I don’t care if there patent runs out or not, and it may even be in my best interest if it does, as there would be increased competition then. which, one would hope, would speed this to market.
Most inventors only wish you could patent somethign forever. The term is for 20 measured from the first filing date. I think I read that they filed something like 7 years ago, though that date could be related to something else.
In any case, they have 8 years of no competition to gain a lead in the field after which the hounds will be released. Then its dog eat dog . . .
cj