Majestyk

I suspect that it might do well in desert environments if, it can process raw sewage. Water reclamation. Abundant solar energy to offset the energy costs.

Processing sewage in this manner could also cut down or eliminate disease outbreaks such as cholera, which stem from water supplies becoming contaminated by human waste.

Thinking of some of the comments in this thread, this thing could be as significant as the development of practical refrigeration was, to the standard of living of the world's population. Then again it just may be my imagination running wild again. It does that occasionally.

Majestyk

Understood. It was my hope that as the depletion of oil reserves came closer to reality we would find means to improve the effeciency of the electrolysis method.

Hydrogen technology, as it stands now, is nowhere near ready to replace oil as the primary vehicle of energy distribution.

Nataraja

Actually, I think it would be best for us to diversify our energy resources as much as possible. Yes, let's keep the oil AND use solar energy AND coal AND nuclear energy AND wind energy AND natural gas AND hygrogen AND methane ET cetera.

We could get the hydrogen by electrolysis pretty easily. Solar and wind energy energy are free, if you don't count maintenance. We could set up production plants in the middle of the desert and transfer the stuff through underground pipes. I'm hoping to switch my home to solar power someday. I have a pretty big lot and don't use much electricity. I'm really quite surprised at the power output of a single solar panel.

Corwin

The problem with solar, aside from the abysmal efficiency, is the environmental damage.

Sure they don't pollute when you use them.... but that isn't the only factor. PRODUCTION of solar cells is an ecological nightmare. Huge amount of embodied energy and several vicious chemicals used to make them.

That having been said I'm all for diverse energy sources. We also have to remember that this tech isn't purely about energy. It produces essentially petroleum, which is also the primary ingredient in plastics.

Gooch's dad

Holy hand grenade! That's a fantastic technology! It beats any hydrogen fuel cell technology hands-down.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's purely a way of storing energy, and not a particularly good one. The thermal depolymerization technology does seem to provide a rather significant net energy gain, and from stuff that we currently throw away. Hot damn!

Majestyk

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of sunlight gathered and focused using mirror fields.

Corwin

Ok now we're talking somewhat more ecologically sound.... but that puts off a lot of excess heat into the environment and takes up a lot of space. (Still an improvement tho...)

Majestyk

You're tough. The reason I specified desert is that space is not generally an issue and the low humidity, unclouded atmosphere would allow most excess heat to radiate into space.

punta

I'm probably the weak science link here but am I the only one to whom this sounds like a bad Disney movie?

And i'm not just talking about this "We would be honoring the balance of nature" sales pitch.

Would our using only the carbon "existing above the surface" really prevent buildup of atmospheric carbon?

and wouldn't converting "buildings", "artificial objects of all kinds, and " industrial raw materials " into oil, really mean you are using belowground carbon as well?

edited to add:

This technology seems ideal for efficiently extracting oil trapped in below ground shale. Trying to market it as reducing atmospheric carbon seems like song and dance to me.

Yggdrasill

Yes, because we would stop adding more carbon to the equation. When we pump oil out of the ground, we are taking carbon that isn't a environmental hazard and turning into such a hazard. If we stopped doing this, the total amount of environmentally hazardous carbon in the environment would stop increasing. So if the carbon in the atmosphere were to increase, we would have less carbon on the surface. If we reduce the amounts of carbon on the surface we would run out of construction materials, forests and the like. So, unless we burn all the forests and stuff like that, the levels of atmospheric carbon would remain stable. No, because the carbon that would be reprocessed is primarily carbon that has at some point been taken from the atmosphere. Meaning that the total amount of carbon aboveground would not increase.

Of course, this technology would not prevent oil companies to still pump up the oil reserves, and I'm sure it is cheaper to pump it up instead of making it. So, it is probable that this technology would not slow down global warming or save the environment. But this technology would make life easier after the world's supply of fossil fuels has been consumed.