If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Airline uses cooking oil to fuel transatlantic flights between New York and Amsterdam   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 45
    More: Interesting, transatlantic flight, Amsterdam, New York, cooking oils  
•       •       •

4443 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Mar 2013 at 9:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-09 09:14:28 PM
Wouldn't hemp oil be more appropriate?
 
2013-03-09 09:57:14 PM
Airports are going to inexplicably smell like fries.
 
2013-03-09 10:03:45 PM
Why would it be so much more expensive?  I don't get that at all.

Also, I had no idea jet fuel was so relatively cheap.
 
2013-03-09 10:12:03 PM
i can't see why we can't have 3D printed electric airplanes
 
2013-03-09 10:14:43 PM
It must smell like french fries and frustration in there.
 
2013-03-09 10:20:16 PM

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: It must smell like french fries and frustration in there.


smells like a Big Mac and Fish McBites

FISHEH FISHEHHHH!!!!!
 
2013-03-09 10:23:50 PM
I also read that many middle and high school buses wiil soon be fueled directly from the faces of the students!
 
2013-03-09 10:40:53 PM
Typical daily fail article.

Fresh virgin oil is 10 bucks a gallon, used oil a restaurant pays to have taken away, is not.

I also note the traditional ignorant English sneer at the US's love of deep fried food.

England has the highest rate of heart disease in the world because they fry EVERYTHING, they aren't whales for the only reason that they walk everywhere. And when I say EVERYTHING I mean it. Not many places in North America you will find the method of making toast involves a deep fryer. Nor eggs.
 
2013-03-09 10:41:35 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: i can't see why we can't have 3D printed electric airplanes


We do.
 
2013-03-09 10:47:06 PM

camaroash: Why would it be so much more expensive? I don't get that at all.


It's a scale thing. You can suck all the magic goop you need from one hole out of the ground, but cooking oil? You need to drive around and collect it a few gallons at a time, and filter and process it. Fuel is a complex mix of chemicals, not just some random stuff that happens to burn. There are all kinds of weird things that can happen to turbines if you're not careful.

Quick, name all the different kinds of oil called "cooking oil" and how do they react in a turbine? What is "vegetable oil" versus safflower oil?

Jon iz teh kewl: i can't see why we can't have 3D printed electric airplanes


I know, right? I mean, why not just 3D print yourself at the destination and just skip that whole nasty "reality" bit? I'll 3D print myself with a larger penis, that's for sure. You really are kewl!
 
2013-03-09 10:50:09 PM

C_Canuk: England has the highest rate of heart disease in the world because they fry EVERYTHING, they aren't whales for the only reason that they walk everywhere. And when I say EVERYTHING I mean it. Not many places in North America you will find the method of making toast involves a deep fryer. Nor eggs.


I was curious about this claim so I looked it up and the winner is ... Turkmenistan. The UK is lower than the US.

Link
 
2013-03-09 10:50:31 PM
So is there any environmental benefit to using this "biofuel" or is this all a public relations ass licking stunt that is actually more environmentally damaging than simply sticking with standard jet fuels?
 
2013-03-09 10:51:12 PM

Jument: C_Canuk: England has the highest rate of heart disease in the world because they fry EVERYTHING, they aren't whales for the only reason that they walk everywhere. And when I say EVERYTHING I mean it. Not many places in North America you will find the method of making toast involves a deep fryer. Nor eggs.

I was curious about this claim so I looked it up and the winner is ... Turkmenistan. The UK is lower than the US.

Link


Damn it. That should have read the that the US is lower than the UK (in terms of death by coronary heart disease) .
 
2013-03-09 10:56:16 PM

Jument: Jument: C_Canuk: England has the highest rate of heart disease in the world because they fry EVERYTHING, they aren't whales for the only reason that they walk everywhere. And when I say EVERYTHING I mean it. Not many places in North America you will find the method of making toast involves a deep fryer. Nor eggs.

I was curious about this claim so I looked it up and the winner is ... Turkmenistan. The UK is lower than the US.

Link

Damn it. That should have read the that the US is lower than the UK (in terms of death by coronary heart disease) .


Ah, so England has improved their rates a bit since 2003...

I got my info from watching a documentary (about EMTs) while waiting for a call when I was in London on the BBC that stated England had the highest rate... should have looked it up I suppose since it's been... 10 years...

I'll just be over here feeling really farking old...
 
2013-03-09 10:59:16 PM

MrHappyRotter: So is there any environmental benefit to using this "biofuel" or is this all a public relations ass licking stunt that is actually more environmentally damaging than simply sticking with standard jet fuels?


Tax breaks, I'm sure. Sort of how Marriott (of the hotels) got huge tax breaks for spraying turpentine on coal and called it "synthetic fuel".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,493241,00.html

But hopefully I'm wrong, because airplanes are a big deal. They're magic. Lightweight hollow metal tubes that fly across the Atlantic in 6 hours by burning 20,000 gallons of kerosene is not something you can replace with any other known form of transportation. Despite what the sci-fi crew wants you to believe, there simply isn't any other technology that even comes close to gas turbines when it comes to power and practicality, and even then they're at the outer limits of what's practically achievable. (Seriously, look into it some day.)

When the cheap energy runs out (it's already started to), and flights start becoming more expensive and scarcer, it's going to be quite a shock to some people who remember hundreds of daily flights per airport.

If burning cooking oil is the only way to go to keep just a few planes going, that's all there's going to be. We might bring back the ocean liners.
 
2013-03-09 10:59:22 PM
Next week:

'Rash of accidents where jet engines are destroyed by flocks of birds leaves airlines baffled'

/seagulls love french fries
//seagulls love everything you throw at them
 
2013-03-09 11:55:01 PM

camaroash: Also, I had no idea jet fuel was so relatively cheap.


Per gallon, sure.  It's cheaper than avgas (100LL, what piston planes like little Cessnas use) right now.

But when you're burning 2100 gallons per hour, it still gets pretty pricey.
 
2013-03-10 12:06:49 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: We might bring back the ocean liners.


That won't happen.

The Queen Mary 2 uses 24 tonnes of oil per hour at a speed of 26 knots or about 30 MPH it is 3400 miles transatlantic by ship so the trip can be done in 113 hours that would use 2700 tonnes of oil. The QM2 has a maximum passenger load of 2,620 people.  A 747 burns 21,500 lbs of fuel per hour a transatlantic flight takes 7 hours total fuel usage 150,500lbs or 60 tonnes. A 747 has a maximum passenger load 345 people.  So for the same amount of fuel usage you can take 1 Ocean Liner and haul 2,600 people or 45 747s and haul 15,525 people.
 
2013-03-10 12:42:52 AM

MrHappyRotter: So is there any environmental benefit to using this "biofuel" or is this all a public relations ass licking stunt that is actually more environmentally damaging than simply sticking with standard jet fuels?


Yes. Maybe. No.
Biofuels release less CO2 when burned. The problem is that producing it takes away from food production, and drives up food prices like corn ethanol has. Also politics and subsidy schemes tend to screw things up for everyone but a select few who can already afford to buy themselves a few politicians.
Biofuels will not replace fossil fuels untill large scale algae production is in place. The building and research is making good headway though. The best thing about algae derived fuel is that CO2 from power plants can be used to grow the algae.
2 birds. One stone.
 
2013-03-10 12:48:01 AM

camaroash: Why would it be so much more expensive?  I don't get that at all.

Also, I had no idea jet fuel was so relatively cheap.


I'm pretty sure that the author was pretty loose with facts there.  I mean I've never seen Crawdad oil  have you?  Why would you move the oil from LA to NY?  $10/ gal?  I'm thinking this article was meant for the checkout aisle at Pathmark.
 
2013-03-10 12:52:37 AM

Tom_Slick: Quantum Apostrophe: We might bring back the ocean liners.

That won't happen.

The Queen Mary 2 uses 24 tonnes of oil per hour at a speed of 26 knots or about 30 MPH it is 3400 miles transatlantic by ship so the trip can be done in 113 hours that would use 2700 tonnes of oil. The QM2 has a maximum passenger load of 2,620 people.  A 747 burns 21,500 lbs of fuel per hour a transatlantic flight takes 7 hours total fuel usage 150,500lbs or 60 tonnes. A 747 has a maximum passenger load 345 people.  So for the same amount of fuel usage you can take 1 Ocean Liner and haul 2,600 people or 45 747s and haul 15,525 people.


747s don't burn bunker fuel. You also can't run a 747 on coal or wood. Boats, yes. You're assuming we'll have light sweet crude forever.
 
2013-03-10 01:38:08 AM
My question is... if cooking oil is 3x the cost of regular jet fuel, why are they using it, and why are we reading about it?
 
2013-03-10 03:01:25 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: 747s don't burn bunker fuel. You also can't run a 747 on coal or wood. Boats, yes. You're assuming we'll have light sweet crude forever.


and you are assuming that we cant convert coal/wood/cellulose to jet fuel
but go on ....

please show your math on how much cooking oil would be need to provide one day of jet fuel or diesel fuel.
please also show your math on when we might run out of crude oil (no, not light sweet), include oil sands, shales, esp paris basin and the like

/you think that the french wont drill if the price of crude gets high enough?
 
2013-03-10 03:02:44 AM

CasperImproved: My question is... if cooking oil is 3x the cost of regular jet fuel, why are they using it, and why are we reading about it?


journalists can not do complex math
like calculating how much used cooking we would need to run the world for one day.
or figuring out that fuel prices are fungible.
 
2013-03-10 03:20:04 AM

CasperImproved: My question is... if cooking oil is 3x the cost of regular jet fuel, why are they using it, and why are we reading about it?


The US military is experimenting with converting everything they have - planes, ships, tanks, everything - to biofuel so we can maintain the empire when the fossil fuels run out and the rest of the world looks like the Mad Max movies.
 
2013-03-10 03:22:00 AM

namatad: and you are assuming that we cant convert coal/wood/cellulose to jet fuel
but go on ....


What is the efficiency of this magical process, please?

namatad: please show your math on how much cooking oil would be need to provide one day of jet fuel or diesel fuel.


I'm not the one making these extraordinary claims...  You should be the one to do the damn math since you think we'll just magically find "something else" just in the nick of time.
 
2013-03-10 03:37:16 AM
dlt.wpengine.netdna-cdn.comIt's an entirely different kind of Frying altogether....
 
2013-03-10 03:47:54 AM
"The grease American's love to cook their french fries and chicken wings in, is now being used to power flights across the Atlantic.


The oil for the flight on KLM Royal Dutch Airlines comes from Louisiana and consists of waste oil left over from frying up spicey Cajun food."


C'mon, MailOnline, you've got to have one more light-hearted lead for this story? Why stop at two?
 
2013-03-10 04:09:17 AM
Now they're cooking with gas!
 
2013-03-10 07:40:02 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: camaroash: Why would it be so much more expensive? I don't get that at all.

It's a scale thing. You can suck all the magic goop you need from one hole out of the ground, but cooking oil? You need to drive around and collect it a few gallons at a time, and filter and process it. Fuel is a complex mix of chemicals, not just some random stuff that happens to burn. There are all kinds of weird things that can happen to turbines if you're not careful.

Quick, name all the different kinds of oil called "cooking oil" and how do they react in a turbine? What is "vegetable oil" versus safflower oil?

Jon iz teh kewl: i can't see why we can't have 3D printed electric airplanes

I know, right? I mean, why not just 3D print yourself at the destination and just skip that whole nasty "reality" bit? I'll 3D print myself with a larger penis, that's for sure. You really are kewl!


what about a 3D printable HELICOPTER/?

or PIRATE SHIP
 
2013-03-10 09:43:41 AM
I wonder what kind of fuel they use on flights between New York and Amsterdam that aren't transatlantic...
 
2013-03-10 10:39:01 AM

Tom_Slick: Quantum Apostrophe: We might bring back the ocean liners.

That won't happen.

The Queen Mary 2 uses 24 tonnes of oil per hour at a speed of 26 knots or about 30 MPH it is 3400 miles transatlantic by ship so the trip can be done in 113 hours that would use 2700 tonnes of oil. The QM2 has a maximum passenger load of 2,620 people.  A 747 burns 21,500 lbs of fuel per hour a transatlantic flight takes 7 hours total fuel usage 150,500lbs or 60 tonnes. A 747 has a maximum passenger load 345 people.  So for the same amount of fuel usage you can take 1 Ocean Liner and haul 2,600 people or 45 747s and haul 15,525 people.


Yeah, but...

You can much more easily power a ship with a nuclear reactor than you can an airplane.

Not that a nuclear powered airplane is impossible, of course.  We did tests of flying reactors back in the '50s, and it wasn't quite practical then, but technology has improved a bit since then.
 
2013-03-10 11:13:40 AM
Just drain off a few of those greasy New York pizzas and you're good to go.
 
2013-03-10 11:21:39 AM
Quantum Apostrophe: namatad: and you are assuming that we cant convert coal/wood/cellulose to jet fuel
but go on ....

What is the efficiency of this magical process, please?
No clue. MUCH MUCH MUCH less that pumping from the ground.
MUCH MUCH more convenient (and cheaper) to transport liquids via pipes that coal on trains.
So long before the day we run out of CRUDE, we will be converting coal to liquid.
Long before the Price of crude is 2x the price of syngas.

MAGIC process? syngas is one of many. We dont use it today because it is more economical to pump crude.


namatad: please show your math on how much cooking oil would be need to provide one day of jet fuel or diesel fuel.

I'm not the one making these extraordinary claims...  You should be the one to do the damn math since you think we'll just magically find "something else" just in the nick of time.


FIND? dont need to look for anything. we have everything that we need today.
nuclear fission. thorium fission real soon now. burning coal. liquifiying coal.

/will we continue to find new processes? hell yes. we will never run out of fuel/energy.
 
2013-03-10 12:24:37 PM
Greener, they say.
Can you imagine how many thousands of gallons of diesel were burned travelling between hundfreds of different resturants?
Then to a refinery, then to a fuel depot?
How many megawatts of electricity was burned rendering the fat?
How many trucks had to haul the waste away?
At least people are getting rich of this scam.
 
2013-03-10 01:24:20 PM

DarkVader: You can much more easily power a ship with a nuclear reactor


We tried that. Didn't work.

namatad: MAGIC process? syngas is one of many. We dont use it today because it is more economical to pump crude.


We won't use it ever because it takes more energy to run than what you get out of it. It only works either in wartime when all social niceties are suspended, or for the military in peacetime, because the free market is suspended for them. Either way, you can kiss this world goodbye if we are reduced to depending on that.
 
2013-03-10 01:48:01 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: DarkVader: You can much more easily power a ship with a nuclear reactor

We tried that. Didn't work.

namatad: MAGIC process? syngas is one of many. We dont use it today because it is more economical to pump crude.

We won't use it ever because it takes more energy to run than what you get out of it. It only works either in wartime when all social niceties are suspended, or for the military in peacetime, because the free market is suspended for them. Either way, you can kiss this world goodbye if we are reduced to depending on that.


1)what in sweet fark are you talking about, there are at least 4 nations sailing nuclear navy fleets right off the top of my head.

2)And WRONG, it is more efficient thus cheaper to use oil, but you still get more energy out of syngas than you put in. If you are under the mis-impression that because a syngas plant consumes some of it's inputs to operate, be aware that so do oil refineries. The net energy output is still higher that input.

I hate it when people with no farking clue what they are talking about speak as if they are an authority on the matter.
 
2013-03-10 01:55:09 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: We won't use it ever because it takes more energy to run than what you get out of it.


you are using the wrong measure. Energy to produce is a false equivalent. Proper is price per barrel. It allows us to compare current energy, crude oil to the replacement.

In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range, according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures-a 10,000 barrel-a-day plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told, the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomes even more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel, according to the.

so the fixed cost of producing massive plants is the only sticking point. Illinois started and then stopped.
At some point, the ppb for crude will be high enough to investigate and build plants. all about economics.
 
2013-03-10 02:42:52 PM

C_Canuk: 1)what in sweet fark are you talking about, there are at least 4 nations sailing nuclear navy fleets right off the top of my head.


Navy. Read my comment again, Sparky.

C_Canuk: And WRONG, it is more efficient thus cheaper to use oil, but you still get more energy out of syngas than you put in.


And where do the inputs come from? Where will they come from when the oil is gone and we're scurrying for frying oil? Idiot.
 
2013-03-10 03:15:46 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: And where do the inputs come from? Where will they come from when the oil is gone and we're scurrying for frying oil? Idiot.


The inputs? HAHAHAHAH trillions of tons of coal. Or are your pretending that there is no coal?
 
2013-03-10 05:00:38 PM
Thurston Howell III testifies to Congress:

It was horrible. The wife and I took the yacht from Bermuda to Monte Carlo for the season and all the way across the Atlantic we could not escape the inexplicable smell of french fries. And they weren't even good french fries. They were those horrible plebian sticks made of recycled plaster and tinned mashed potatoes left over from World War II and the Korean Conflict. I know how horrible those are because my grandfather made and sold them to the army to get rid of the tenements he was knocking down in New York City.

I am asking you Congress critters to make it illegal to recycle food except to make bulk feed for plebs and other animals.
 
2013-03-10 07:34:34 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: DarkVader: You can much more easily power a ship with a nuclear reactor

We tried that. Didn't work.



ORLY?
 
2013-03-10 08:07:50 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: C_Canuk: 1)what in sweet fark are you talking about, there are at least 4 nations sailing nuclear navy fleets right off the top of my head.


Navy. Read my comment again, Sparky.

Your comment was simply "we tried that, didn't work" in response to saying we'd use nuclear to power transcontinental shipping... since several NAVY fleets use reactors quite successfully that's a pretty idiotic statement, wouldn't you agree sparky?


C_Canuk: And WRONG, it is more efficient thus cheaper to use oil, but you still get more energy out of syngas than you put in.

And where do the inputs come from? Where will they come from when the oil is gone and we're scurrying for frying oil? Idiot.

Traditional input for syngas is from coal sparky, but you can also a slightly different process on generally anything that burns. It's also known as wood gas or bio-gas when you use bio matter. there sparky.

You see what you do is pile a bunch of coal in the reactor, and a little bit under it to generate steam, that you then use to break down the coal in the reactor. Since the amount of Syngas you get out has more energy than what you burned to generate it, we generally conclude that inputs are lower than outputs. This is largely how oil refineries work too... they take a whole bunch of crude, burn some of it to process the rest.

For someone who likes to use the sarcastic label "sparky" there isn't much of a spark of intelligence in your head is there?
 
2013-03-10 09:15:44 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-10 10:57:06 PM

Wrencher: MrHappyRotter: So is there any environmental benefit to using this "biofuel" or is this all a public relations ass licking stunt that is actually more environmentally damaging than simply sticking with standard jet fuels?

Yes. Maybe. No.
Biofuels release less CO2 when burned. The problem is that producing it takes away from food production, and drives up food prices like corn ethanol has. Also politics and subsidy schemes tend to screw things up for everyone but a select few who can already afford to buy themselves a few politicians.
Biofuels will not replace fossil fuels untill large scale algae production is in place. The building and research is making good headway though. The best thing about algae derived fuel is that CO2 from power plants can be used to grow the algae.
2 birds. One stone.


Biofuels made from reused cooking oil, such as that being used by KLM as well as most biodiesel fuel, do not take away from food production.  The same is true of biofuels made from waste animal fat.

The CO2 emitted by burning biofuels is CO2 that was already circulating in the atmosphere just a few weeks ago, before being absorbed by a plant from whose seeds the vegetable oil is extracted, resulting in no net increase in atmospheric CO2. The CO2 from fossil fuels is made from carbon which has been sequestered away underground for the past millions of years, resulting in a net addition to atmospheric CO2.  That is the fundamental environmental advantage of biofuels.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report