New technology converts used motor oil into useful fuel

[Wil Ferch]

Simply FYI....moderator....feel free to move to OT if necessary....

Microwaves utilized to convert used motor oil into fuel

[sammyg2]

New technology? hardly. We've been cracking heavier oil molecules to turn them into lighter gasoline and diesel for 50 years. Hydrocracker, coker, fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCC) and all units that work on this principle.
The only difference is they are using microwaves instead of conventional heaters. What they didn't explain is that it would take more energy to perform that process than they'd get out of it.
Oh, but electricity is free and magically appears, right? ignorant libs.
They claim a 90% conversion rate, big deal. That's easy on a small scale but impractical. It's more economically feasible to run a conventional high volume stream at a 70% conversion rate and recycle (rerun) the non-converted oil. It all gets converted, some of it just has to run through again as it gets mixed into the feed stream.
If we really wanted to boost the conversion rate higher it would be easy: more expensive platinum catalyst, slower feed rates, less efficiency.

Here's the SMART way to do it:
take the light ends (butanes, propanes, hydrogen) that are produced during the thermal and catalytic cracking process and BURN them in an environmentally controlled heater to heat the oil to crack it. That way the process is self-contained as long as you have a steady stream of oil.
Then strip off the uncracked oil in the fractionator and pump it back into the feed as a side-stream. It's already hot so it takes much less heat energy the second time and is more energy and thermally-efficient.

That's how the EXPERTS have been doing it since before we were born. But of course THEY had to figure it out themselves, they didn't have the stoopid gubmint giving them millions in gubmint research grants to discover something the private sector already knew.
Now if their little experiment could hit 98 or 99% conversion on a small scale and maintain high conversion rates at higher flow rates and lower reactor cycle times, then it would be worth looking into.

[MarKoBrow]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

New technology? hardly. We've been cracking heavier oil molecules to turn them into lighter gasoline and diesel for 50 years. Hydrocracker, coker, fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCC) and all units that work on this principle.
.

Not to get into another debate over energy but didn't the original article refer to USED Motor oil? And if this is the case wouldn't the amount of electricity needed to convert offset in potential savings? For what it's worth I burned waste oil in two buildings until I converted both to Geothermal it made since other than maintenance, the heat was relatively cheap.

[island911]

new tech?

I think they are just trying to toot their own horn.

[M.D. Holloway]

We have a product called PATRIOT OIL which has re-refined oil as a base stock. The gov has mandated that it be used instead of engine oils made from a bright stock or synthetics. Used engine oil, hydraulic oil an gear oil is basically distilled and cleaned up. It actually can be done cheaper than using regular crude in that you don't pay for the raw materials and the refining and clean up is the same costs.

[wdfifteen]

I have a machine that converts motor oil to fuel. It's called a Porsche 3.2.

[Flieger]

My MFI system used to convert fuel to oil...

[red-beard]

Compared with gasoline, how much oil is used in engine lubrication? My Diesel engine uses about 50 gallons per month of diesel fuel. I change oil about every 5000 miles or 5 months. 8 qts = 2 gallons vs. 250 gallons of diesel fuel. So the ratio is about 100 to 1. It doesn't look like a big oil source.

[RWebb]

For every scientist, there is always a bunch of naysayers...

yes, the general process is not new, BUT "the Cambridge scientists state that traditional pyrolysis doesn't heat the oil very evenly, making the fuel conversion process difficult and impractical."

hence the uwave method

as to scalability, that remains to be determined.

[stomachmonkey]

There are those who can't see beyond the knowledge that they currently posses on any given subject matter. They think that because science and research has not produced the answer yet then there is no possibility that it ever will.

“The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote…. Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.”
Albert. A. Michelson, German-born American physicist, 1894.

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895

“It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.”
Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now; All that remains is more and more precise measurement.”
Lord Kelvin, speaking to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1900.

“There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom.”
Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, 1923


“That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.”
Scientific American, January 2, 1909

“The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.”
Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time

“Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition.”
Dennis Gabor, British physicist and author of Inventing the Future, 1962

“Very interesting, Whittle, my boy, but it will never work.”
Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle’s plan for the jet engine, before 1930.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”
Albert Einstein, 1932

[red-beard]

Well, show us something friggen new!

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Well, show us something friggen new!

"traditional pyrolysis doesn't heat the oil very evenly, ...
hence the uwave method"

[flatbutt]

On a tangent but aren't there furnaces designed to burn used motor oil as heating fuel?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

There are those who can't see beyond the knowledge that they currently posses on any given subject matter. They think that because science and research has not produced the answer yet then there is no possibility that it ever will.

Great post! Thank you.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

“Very interesting, Whittle, my boy, but it will never work.”
Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle’s plan for the jet engine, before 1930.

Whittle's first jet engine plan wouldn't work - he used a piston engine to power the compressor. But he didn't listen to the "experts" and kept trying.
I had the privilege to attend a joint lecture by Frank Whittle and Hans Von Ohain at the University of Dayton where they discussed their work in developing jets. It was a most fascinating couple of hours.

[Flieger]

Did they argue about "I did it first!"? " That sounds way cool.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

On a tangent but aren't there furnaces designed to burn used motor oil as heating fuel?

yes - emissions can be pretty toxic tho

[cgarr]

Been using it straight out of the engine to heat the garage for years.....whats new?

better than flushing it down the toilet like we did in the 60's

[RWebb]

used oil is chock full of both organic combustion products and metal particles - both are toxic

used oil should be recycled; it is legal to burn it in an approved 'stove' in many areas, but that doesn't make it a good idea