You got me, I forgot about that one.  And it does look promising.  It's yet to
be proven, but it's being tested in a fair sized installation by a turkey
processing plant I think.  And that's got to be about as good a test of waste
disposal as you get.

So, Old Country Buffet?

tom

On 16 Feb 2004 at 20:19, Ryan Press wrote:

> tom ring said:
> > What most people don't seem to understand, is we have to get that energy
> > from
> > somewhere.  The only practical large scale sources right now are oil,
> > coal,
> > relatives of the previous 2, hydro, and nuclear.  Of the "clean"
> > alternatives,
> > wind and solar will never cut it in the near future, and probably not ever
> > due
> > to the low power density of what they run off from, and hydro is maxed
> > out, and
> > has it's own environmental problems.
> >
> > And soybeans, alcohol, etc don't count, 'cause they take about as much
> > energy
> > to produce them as they deliver.
> >
> > So no matter what fuel you run in your vehicle, it's not going to be
> > derived
> > from anything new in your lifetime.  Bet you lunch.
> >
> > tom
>
> I wouldn't be so sure - thermal depolymerization seems to be a strong
> possibility...
>
> <http://home.everestkc.net/tasir/CWT/Depolymerization.htm>
> <http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/newoil.htm>
>
> Supposedly CWT has a self-powering process, as much as 85% of the energy
> in comes out as fuel.  Discover Magazine had a article on it in May '03.
>
> <http://www.changingworldtech.com/>
>
> I see changes in 10 years - if the big oil companies do not stifle the
> technology.
>
> Depolymerization combined with cleaner & hotter engines (ceramic?
> turbine?) seems likely for the future.
>
> Ryan
>

------
Tom Ring K0TAR, ex-WA2PHW  EN34hx
85 Westphalia GL Albert
96 Jetta GL The Intimidator
taring@taring.org

"It is better to go into a turn slow, and come out fast, than to go into a turn fast
and come out dead." Stirling Moss