POOP FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL JETS
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
235 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
73035 readers
3621 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Another stupid fuel idea. How many #2s do you need to fly from New York to Los Angeles? Probably a shitload...
But seriously, this is just another idiotic Idea. Yes, you can make fuel from a lot of sources, but neither the quantity is there, nor is this in any way efficient or cost-covering.
I once calculated that we would need to cover each and every square centimeter of agricultural area in my country with rapeseed plants without crop rotation to produce the bio-fuel that the jets in my country burn. And that does not even include the energy needed to plant it, harvest it, and process it.
Fun thing about calculations is that if you write them down you can pull them out and show it to people who are skeptic about your claims, like I am being right now of your claims.
I actually would if it had not been on the site that should not be named, and which has the most shitty search engine. Maybe I'll try Google, if my posts are still there.
I mean I'm pretty sure a water treatment center can spare some shit for this test
This might actally power a few dozen flights a day nationwide. All the other ones will still have to rely on dead dinosaurs.
They’re going to install more bathrooms on the planes and serve mexican bean salsa at boarding. That way the fuel can be made in flight.
You get a 10% discount if you use the lavatory during the flight
if I eat the fiber heavy in flight meal, will that be knocked up to 15%?
No because the meal is also made of 40% human poo
Range extender
Don't go anywhere near the exhaust pipe.
I've always thought about how cool it would be to find a use for cat shit.
Imagine if every time your cats used the litter box, it made you money.
Have you tried grinding it into a powder and mixing it with your coffee?
I don't drink coffee.
You drink your cat shit straight, like god intended.
That’s why they call me Mr. Mistopoolees.
well shit
shitter will never be full again
Na kilo hoven, kilo cukru...
As if flying wasnt a shitty enough experience as is.
let poo return to the earth. jets also. we don’t need poo jets adding to the crap in the air.
When poo is returned to the earth, it's digested by insects and microbes which use it for energy, and then emit CO2. Poo in the dirt puts carbon in the air the same as poo in a jet
Will it still pollute the atmosphere?
Yes. But the waste is likely to still produce methane that has a bigger climate warming effect that the equivalent co2 of burned but for a shorter period. The general consensus suggests it's better to burn methane than release it into the environment.
The better solution is to fly less, or wait till flying truly green. The big issue is the incredible amount of subsidy we allow for airlines. Tax or fuel for aircraft is very low. If we cut these subsidies and starting taxing aircraft fuel at similar rates to cars electric/hydrogen aircraft would come about much sooner.
Also, if its in human poo it's already in the carbon cycle and so really less of an issue. The problem is bringing up carbon that's been removed from the cycle (subterranean oil or gas pockets) and putting that back into circulation. Granted it would be better to pull carbon out of the atmosphere (somehow), but at least using poo wouldn't be adding NEW carbon. That's my understanding anyway.
Carbon can exist in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, (CH4), or as a lot of bigger organic molecules like ethane. Over years, methane you release will eventually decay into CO2. But until that happens, the methane has 20 times the greenhouse effect that CO2 does. So processes like this can take CO2 from the air and turn it into methane, which is bad.
We need less flying, but if we're going to have flying, it should use technologies like this which have 1/10th the lifecycle emissions of fossil jet fuel.
According to an article I read, the total lifecycle greenhouse emissions is 10% of fossil jet fuel.
Here's how it works: A farmer grows crops like, say, beans, which take energy from the sun and carbon from the air, and use it to make tasty sugars and proteins. You eat the beans, and your body absorbs the easy nutrients to get. But the stuff that's hard to get out is left in the food mass and turned into poo. You go to the toilet and your waste is collected by the sewage system. Then this company takes your poo, and uses energy from the grid to subject it to a process that makes crude oil. Then they distill jet fuel from the crude.
All of the carbon that is in the jet fuel came from those beans you ate, which got it from the air. So the jet fuel isn't adding any new carbon to the air. There are still emissions associated with putting energy into the poo to refine it into oil, though, because it's using energy from the grid.
The environment would be saved if I could turn all the shit I experience at work into fuel.
Fast as shit.
It's raining shit. Hallelujah!
What happens when the sh!t hits the turboprop?
Idk if it's bad idea or not, but I'll happily provide them with some of the precious material to experiment on. For a small fee, obviously, for science!
Even if it works ... Human waste is so heavily contaminated by medications I don't think this is a good idea
It’s fine. The chemtrails will sprinkle us all with antidepressants offsetting the general state of despair.
Read about thermal depolymerization. Not only will there be no medication, there won't be anything more complicated than some moderately long carbon chain oils. That system can even break down the prions from mad cow disease, so it's safer than most methods for getting rid of biological waste.
Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is the process of converting a polymer into a monomer or a mixture of monomers, by predominantly thermal means. It may be catalysed or un-catalysed and is distinct from other forms of depolymerisation which may rely on the use of chemicals or biological action. This process is associated with an increase in entropy. For most polymers thermal depolymerisation is chaotic process, giving a mixture of volatile compounds. Materials may be depolymerised in this way during waste management, with the volatile components produced being burnt as a form of synthetic fuel in a waste-to-energy process. For other polymers thermal depolymerisation is an ordered process giving a single product, or limited range of products, these transformations are usually more valuable and form the basis of some plastic recycling technologies.
I think you're arguing "there's so much heat it won't be medication anymore." I'm unconvinced that, that means it's less dangerous ... consider cases like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_pit](burn pits).
Cool, you go be unconvinced. That has no bearing on reality. If you can't tell the difference between open fire burning and closed vessel pyrolisis (or more advanced methods of chemical decomposition), nothing I have time to present will correct that misconception.
They way you have environmentally friendly planes is by replacing them with trains. I doubt burning shit just to fly will be good for the environment.
Trains aren't the solution to every problem. They are slower than planes, don't work on water, and need infrastructure (tracks). They are great where they do work, but where electric planes work, there's no need to put them down.
They seem to be since electric planes don't really exist for passanger flight and are unlikely to exist in a future near enough to be meaningful. For water we got boats so that's the one place where trains aren't the solution.
Tracks are a lot cheaper than airports as far as infrastructure is concerned while also going to more places and the speed of travel is a worthwhile sacrifice to stop pollution from planes. Plus sleeper trains are so comfy compared to the hell that is the cramped airplane seat with less leg room than you need to actually fit your legs there.
Let's replace all intercontinental flights with high speed rail and sleeper trains, and only use planes for long haul flights over water. For those planes that do stay in the sky, let's fuel them with renewables. Poo based jet fuel does not add carbon to the environment.