Slashdot Mirror


NASA Fires Up Jet Fuel That Tastes Like Chicken

coondoggie writes "It may never make it into everyday jet-fighter use, but NASA is checking out biofuel made from chicken and beef fat. The chicken fat fuel, known as Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuel, was burned in the engine of a DC-8 at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center as part of its Alternative Aviation Fuels Experiment, which is looking at developing all manner of biofuel alternatives to traditional Jet Propellant 8. The DC-8 is used as a test vehicle because its engine operations are well-documented and well-understood, NASA says."

147 comments

  1. Disappointment by akkornel · · Score: 2

    I am disappointed that NASA engineers could not come up with a way to use the acronyms CLUCK and MOO.

    1. Re:Disappointment by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Well, they're not DARPA.

    2. Re:Disappointment by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      I am disappointed that NASA engineers could not come up with a way to use the acronyms CLUCK and MOO.

      I'm disappointed because I read it as fuel that tasted like children, and that made more sense, 'cos you'd get a LOT more fat from rendering down the average American kid than you would from a chicken.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Disappointment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'cos you'd get a LOT more fat from rendering down the average American kid than you would from a chicken.

      Only in terms of individual output. When you look at the net gain, it takes too long to grow the kid, and it costs an absurd amount to overfeed him.

    4. Re:Disappointment by lxs · · Score: 1

      Agreed. However this breakthrough means that in wartime the citizens will have to Eat for Victory to ensure a steady supply of raw materials, thus making war even more popular. It's a win-win situation really.

    5. Re:Disappointment by Tsingi · · Score: 0

      'cos you'd get a LOT more fat from rendering down the average American kid than you would from a chicken.

      Only in terms of individual output. When you look at the net gain, it takes too long to grow the kid, and it costs an absurd amount to overfeed him.

      Yes, think of all the chickens that kid would eat, chickens that could have been rendered directly into jet fuel. Not a very green solution.

      I shudder to think that soon the whole world will smell like the alley behind Kentucky Duck.

    6. Re:Disappointment by slick7 · · Score: 0

      'cos you'd get a LOT more fat from rendering down the average American kid than you would from a chicken.

      Only in terms of individual output. When you look at the net gain, it takes too long to grow the kid, and it costs an absurd amount to overfeed him.

      Yes, think of all the chickens that kid would eat, chickens that could have been rendered directly into jet fuel. Not a very green solution.

      I shudder to think that soon the whole world will smell like the alley behind Kentucky Duck.

      Feed the homeless to the hungry and render the hungry for biofuel. FTFY

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    7. Re:Disappointment by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you can offsource the cost onto parents and guardians, wait to harvest them when they're ripe

      if you go for the lazy unmotivated rebellious ones, the parents will thank you

    8. Re:Disappointment by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I am disappointed that NASA engineers could not come up with a way to use the acronyms CLUCK and MOO.

      Well, cluck moo, too.

      :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Disappointment by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points to cluck about. Darpa is known as Derpa these days.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    10. Re:Disappointment by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      Well Charlton Huston isn't around to yell that

      Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuel is made of people

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. No, DC-8s are being used because by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's on the orders of Xenu.

    1. Re:No, DC-8s are being used because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's on the orders of Xenu.

      damn it nasa! I already have too many thetans

    2. Re:No, DC-8s are being used because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn it nasa! I already have too many thetans

      That's perfectly fine. Soon you, along with millions of other Americans, as well as all of your thetans, will be receiving an all expenses paid trip to Mars, the Red Planet, where you'll visit Olympus Mons. Once you're all settled in you'll all be treated to the fireworks display of a lifetime. *chuckle*

    3. Re:No, DC-8s are being used because by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      it's on the orders of Xenu.

      Psychologists run NASA!

      HAHA, sorry, I just can't keep a straight face.

      --
      I8-D
  3. For a Second There by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    I thought it read "Tastes like Children" and was like "... how do they know...?" I'm glad the doubletake cleared THAT up...

    Biofuel, just one more thing that tastes like chicken.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:For a Second There by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about this one. Chicken fat doesn't really takes like anything except... grossness.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:For a Second There by Petersson · · Score: 1

      I thought it read "Tastes like Children" and was like "... how do they know...?" I'm glad the doubletake cleared THAT up...

      Biofuel, just one more thing that tastes like chicken.

      Ever syphoned gas from neighbour's car gas tank? By mouth?

      --
      I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
    3. Re:For a Second There by Sene · · Score: 1

      I thought it read "Tastes like Children" and was like "... how do they know...?" I'm glad the doubletake cleared THAT up...

      Biofuel, just one more thing that tastes like chicken.

      Ever syphoned gas from neighbour's car gas tank? By mouth?

      Would be more impressive to syphon by anus, but then of course you wouldn't taste anything...

    4. Re:For a Second There by dietdew7 · · Score: 1

      Next time use a hose.

    5. Re:For a Second There by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I thought it read "Tastes like Children" and was like "... how do they know...?" I'm glad the doubletake cleared THAT up...

      Biofuel, just one more thing that tastes like chicken.

      Ever syphoned gas from neighbour's car gas tank? By mouth?

      You do know you're supposed to use a length of hosepipe, not just your mouth? Right?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:For a Second There by doccus · · Score: 1

      Boy we really are a dylsexic bunch..

    7. Re:For a Second There by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Just check out Things That Reportedly Taste Like Chicken (Graph) and add this to the list.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  4. "all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by PaulBu · · Score: 2

    Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")? ;)

    Just curious,

    Paul B.

    1. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by qubezz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Consider huge chicken rendering plants (the kind that make chicken nuggets etc), the kind that can load up a truck with green nasty chicken grease. As a purified lipid, it should have as much energy as vegetable oils. I would guess the grease would need to be cracked to be something other than a bunker oil equivalent, since fat is solid at room temperature.

      Interesting the value that we humans put on animal lives: Miles per chicken.

    2. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by mirix · · Score: 1

      Well, jet fuel is almost kerosene. Which isn't too far removed from diesel in the scheme of things.

      Which leads to my thought that vegetable oil or tallow based biodiesel is roughly similar in energy to petro-diesel, of course it has other issues, like viscosity in cold weather and such... but I believe it is only slightly less energy dense. (suppose it depends on the exact feedstock, I can't seem to find a solid number in a quick look, but looks like 5-10% less energy).

      So, seems kinda gimmicky, as well, there are limited amounts of tallow out there... You can put chicken fat into slimjims, but you can't put diesel in them.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    3. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      Fat is mainly esters of glycerol. Usually, fat is transesterified to methyl ester to make biodiesel. The methyl esters have much lower melting points, as their molecular weight is about one third of the glycerol esters. Biodiesel from animal fat is problematic, as turns to jelly at low temperatures. I don't know if DC-8s preheat the fuel, if they do, it shouldn't be a problem.

    4. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by peragrin · · Score: 2

      NASA does more than just space but also test beds advanced aeroflight concepts.

      alternative fuel and production is a big thing for the military to help cut down supply lines.

      Imagine aircraft carrier making their own fuel from seaweed and algee?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")? ;)

      Just curious,

      Paul B.

      Actually, NASA has a very large and robust set of aeronautical research activities, that are largely unknown outside of the aviation community because either they generally aren't "cool" and "newsworthy" unless you're into planes. the aero research predates NASA back to the old NACA days.

      While the green aspect is a good hook; the reran value is developing alternatives to fossil fuels as a price hedge. As the price of oil rises; alternatives become more desirable, even if they are less energy - compact, since they become price competitive to fossils. That acts as a natural break on the price of crude as well can actually cut the cost of the main product since byproducts now have greeter value and / or lower / no disposal costs.

      I recall an article that mentioned free fry oil is becoming harder to find as companies spring up to collect and process it into fuels commercially; proving green becomes popular provided it's the right type of "green."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    6. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just cost. NASA and the armed forces go thru MANY tons of fuel per day. More types of fuel at a cheaper cost (maybe at some point) is just research they are doing. It isnt 'green' or anything. Just research into alternative fuels in case they can not get one of the others. In this case alternative doesnt mean what 'green people' have turned it into (buzz word). In gov parlance it means an 'alternate source' as in someone else we can get fuel from.

    7. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")? ;)

      Just curious,

      Paul B.

      I'd rather bet it's because the Middle East became "an unreliable supplier" in a way CIA and whatever "war on concepts" can no longer fix.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The cold is the problem. Jets fly at high altitude to get their best fuel economy. It is really cold which actually helps with efficiency. Jet engines are after all heat engines. The greater the difference between the hot and the cold side of the engine more efficient it will be. diesle turns to wax in those conditions. Oh and the reason they are using the DC-8 are.
      1. They got it cheap. DC-8s where retired from a lot of airlines about 20 years ago. They where then bought up cheap by cargo carriers and NASA.
      2. They are actually pretty roomy so lots of room for test equipment.
      3. They where re-engined with CFM-56 turbofans. The CFM-56 is a pretty modern engine much more so than the TF-33 on the B-52s. It is also a very common engine and is used on the 737, some Airbus aircraft, KC-135R, and a probably a lot more I don't know off the top of my head.
      4. It has four engines. They will probably start the testing with only one engine using the Biofuel. if they have an engine out issue the plane will be reduced to only 75% of max vs 50% of max if a twin has an engine out.
      5. It is already a flying laboratory.
         

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because everyone with half a clue realizes that the era of easy, simple to get hydrocarbons is over. We are now scrambling (at least those with a clue), to desperately keep our giant, planet-wide oil-driven infrastructure of transport and agriculture going. These are last ditch, feel good efforts. There arent' enough chickens on the planet to keep all the airlines going.

      We are winding down our high-energy, profligate culture. Oh no, we'll have to bike to work! Even grow more of our own food!

    10. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Interesting the value that we humans put on animal lives: Miles per chicken."

      Chickens care even less except when it's their chick or in the case of roosters, one of their harem.

      Chickens find chicken quite tasty, and though our domestic chickens are bred for docility kill each other now and then for nothing much.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by afidel · · Score: 1

      This has *nothing* to do with being green and everything to do with the USAF being worried about the availability of fuel.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that lead to a new rhetorical question: How many chickens does it take to cross the road?

    13. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      "Interesting the value that we humans put on animal lives: Miles per chicken."

      Chickens care even less except when it's their chick or in the case of roosters, one of their harem.

      Chickens find chicken quite tasty, and though our domestic chickens are bred for docility kill each other now and then for nothing much.

      Don't forget the greatest amount of fat is located in Washington D.C..
      All politicians should serve four terms: 2 in office, 1 in prison and one as jet fuel to truly serve their country.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    14. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Jet fuels are all kerosene based specifically for the reason that at high altitudes (and low temperatures), it remains fluid. Something that is jelly at 30 below isn't going to be of much use.

    15. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'd rather bet it's because the Middle East became "an unreliable supplier" in a way CIA and whatever "war on concepts" can no longer fix.

      You'd lose that bet. Oil-sands and shale-oil might be expensive compared to traditional oil supplies, but they're still cheaper than growing "biofuel". Canada and the US have more oil than the middle east, if you're willing to pay $20-ish a barrel to exploit it. And if you can get the greenies off your back.

    16. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets

      No, it's because the name of the agency is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       
      Everyone concentrates on what NASA does in space, and forgets that aviation is also part of their charter.

    17. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Being based on chicken fat and and potentially used in military aircraft, surely you mean more buck for the bang!

    18. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by blackbeak · · Score: 1

      Better yet: How many chickens does it take to get to the moon?

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    19. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1
      This has little to do with the USAF being worried about the availability of fuel, and more about the aviation industry in general.

      The ground transportation industry can move to electric fairly easily. Motor compactness, efficiency, and high torque are very advantageous for ground vehicles. The heavy weight of batteries really isn't that big of an issue. A lot of it is compensated by the smaller motors, and when regenerative braking is used, the inertia issues don't really matter. The only real issue is increased rolling friction, and at even highway speeds, aerodynamic friction is the where the majority of the power is going. Recharge time is a nuisance, but can be limited by high power, fast charge technologies.

      The power industry has plenty of alternatives. Even today, only the peak load plants run hydrocarbons. With an intelligent grid and tens of millions of battery backup units (electric cars) hooked up, the peak load plants could largely be outright discarded. That leaves coal which will run out too, but in a pinch, it really wouldn't be that troublesome to switch to nuclear/solar/wind/tidal. All you need is market forces (coal costs) that make it beneficial.

      When we run out of liquid hydrocarbon fuel, the aviation industry is screwed. High subsonic travel requires a ton of power. Fuel weight is a killer, and while electric motors could conceivably provide similar power density to a gas turbine, even theoretical plans for future battery technologies don't even come close to kerosene. Boranes are very toxic, and have some nasty behaviors with exhaust deposits on turbomachinery. Coal slurry has particulates which shred the high temperature components of engines. Aluminum and beryllium cannot be easily made into liquid fuels.

      Gas fuels such as methane and hydrogen would burn just fine with no side effects, and have the the needed energy density, but the problem with those is storage and safety. They would take up far more volume, and that's volume in very heavy pressurized containers. When the weight of the tank is taken into account, they will still be significantly less energy dense than kerosene. Add to that the fact that storing highly flammable compressed gas in an aircraft effectively drops the crash survivability to zero.

      The aviation industry will not survive as it currently does without liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Either we need to bring back the closed cycle nuclear engine, halve the speed (and quarter the drag) such that our experimental battery technology is up to the task of long distance flight, or come up with some novel as yet unknown fuel cycle. Such a fuel crisis would be a prime opportunity for high speed (300knot+) electric rail to take hold.

    20. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by afidel · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good but the real money and support on the hill for the AAFEX line of tests has been the USAF. Spending money to do research for industry isn't real popular with Congress at the moment but if the USAF brass tells the subcomity that it's a mater of national security it's pretty sure to get funded.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    21. Re:"all manner of biofuel alternatives"... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Better to leave it as biodiesel instead of bio-jet-fuel then. My TDI would thank you [NASA].

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  5. Now if they can make napalm from that ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    checking out biofuel made from chicken and beef fat.

    I love the smell of chicken and beef fat in the morning . . . it's the smell of victory!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Now if they can make napalm from that ... by kabdib · · Score: 1

      "Fry the friendly skies..."

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
    2. Re:Now if they can make napalm from that ... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Just gimme gimme gimme gimme.... fried chicken!

  6. You never know, so take them all! by akkornel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll be kindof surprised if this biofuel can provide the same amount of amount of energy as an equivalent amount of fossil fuel. I think the idea is more along the lines of research: You do not necessarily know what will work, so try many different things. Take what seems to work, and then allow them to play together! Each area takes a common standard, with built-in flexibility, and comes up with their local fuel variant that works best where they are, but can still play with vehicles made somewhere else. It may be a bit of a dream (or not), so you need research!

    1. Re:You never know, so take them all! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's kind of more 'We have this many metric tonnes of beef and chicken fat, and since everybody wants their cuts lean anyways, let's see if we can make a higher profit market to allow us to clean them off while also raising the rates for our meat!'

      But maybe that's just the cynical^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hoptimistic capitalist in me :)

    2. Re:You never know, so take them all! by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

      Put simply selling garbage that would actually be an expense to dispose of?

    3. Re:You never know, so take them all! by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Through the miracle of modern Google:
      Chicken Fat: 16,873 BTU/pound
      Fuel Oil #2: 19,237 BTU/pound

      In fact, I got this from a study that was investigating the advantages of mixing various animal fats with fuel oil to eke the latter -- for example a blend of 1/3 chicken fat and 2/3 fuel oil. You will all be pleased to note that this mix has 18,223 BTU/pound and that chicken fat is readily miscible in fuel oil. By itself it has a moderate tendency to produce ash in the burning process, but this is mitigated in the mixture. Of course this study is investigating the burning of this sort of mix in furnaces, but the principle is the same and I'm guessing that this mix would work fine in any engine that could run on fuel oil #2. An acquaintance of mine already has experience with the standard treatment of animal fats into an acceptable biodiesel (which involves adding a bunch of stuff e.g. methanol and filtering it) and this works too, but is a bigger hassle than just filtering and mixing.

      I also, of course, have the common experience of grilling fatty chicken with the skin still on, which can turn your entire grill into the moral equivalent of a rocket engine on short notice and "render" your chicken into little chunks of charcoal. There's plenty of energy in that fat, although less, as noted, than in standard grades of fuel oil. Alas, if untreated it is vulnerable to oxidation, a.k.a. "going rancid" and besides, however many chickens there are they are a lousy source of fat per se in terms of being able to provide a significant sustainable supply of biofuel. I suppose it is better to render the fat from the skins removed making skinless chicken parts, and better to remove this skin and fat than to eat it, but we're talking a drop in the bucket of energy demand.

      BTW, "tallow" (saturated animal fats) are little different from more polyunsaturated chicken fat in energy content. They appear to produce less ash burning on their own (hence tallow candles) but more ash in a fuel oil blend. Pretty interesting, actually.

      Children fat, however, was not listed. No doubt an oversight on the part of those conducting the study. Personally, I think that using children fat to power rock star tour buses and heat the homes of the elderly would cure the energy crisis in no time at all, as there is little that is wrong with this planet that wouldn't be seriously ameliorated by using up, say, 2-4 billion children (including some of the older children we sometimes refer to as "young adults") and dumping world mythologies in the process that encourage the unrestrained production of still more children. If we used children we could stay toasty warm in the winter and significantly reduce future demand on our limited energy reserves as well as every other fundamental scarcity created by the ongoing Malthusian disaster.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    4. Re:You never know, so take them all! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Children fat, aka depot fat, is well-studied. Here's a PDF that compares various types of fat/lipid. Our fat is approximately 47% oleic acid and 24% palmitic - no wonder I love the Caribbean! Here's a PDF of all sorts of details.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:You never know, so take them all! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You presented an ostensibly very well informed assessment of chicken fat being used instead of regular fuel. I did not know that Google performed miracles, but that makes your post all the more impressive due to the presence of Divine Intervention.

      At first I though you were an engineer, than I thought maybe some BBQ savant, and maybe an economist.

      In any case, your article was fascinating.

      Of course the whole thing makes me feel stupid because my first thought was not nearly as intelligent. I just kept wondering if I was a spectator at one of the shuttle launches if the blast would engulf the viewing public in a heavenly fog of KFC-Goodness. My 2nd thought was could I be stoned with a bucket of chicken and then my 3rd was could I be stoned and make a million dollars of selling chicken to these people after the launch.

      I'm slightly proud of the 3rd thought.

      I'm going to get some KFC now. Been nice talking to you.

    6. Re:You never know, so take them all! by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      I just kept wondering if I was a spectator at one of the shuttle launches if the blast would engulf the viewing public in a heavenly fog of KFC-Goodness.

      You laugh, but a few years ago if you ran a diesel vehicle on privately scavenged biofuel, say peanut oil from a chinese restaurant or oil from french fry cookers from fast food places, you were supposed to pay a fuel tax (which bought you a special dye you could add to your fuel as a marker that you'd paid your taxes on the fuel you were using). This is even if you were a private citizen, basically saving the earth or whatever by burning a waste product instead of oil extracted from the ground at great expense.

      The way cops knew to stop e.g. buses or other diesel vehicles to check their fuel was that if they were driving along behind a diesel vehicle and the exhaust smelled like french fries, hmmm, time to pull the puppy over and dip their tank.

      Or, I imagine, for somebody driving a mercedes burning waste oil from KFC, smelled like chicken...:-)

      Speaking of being stoned, it is difficult to resist posting http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm -- so you could be sitting around watching the shuttle's eventual replacement launch straight and just inhale deeply downrange to get stoned one day.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  7. If it burned human fat..... by kawabago · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it burned human fat Jenny Craig Airlines with autoliposucting seats could have great rates and you get to your destination 50 lbs lighter!

    1. Re:If it burned human fat..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a (lack of) fuel surcharge for skinny and normal weight passengers.

    2. Re:If it burned human fat..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once calculated, that the energy stored in my fat, was 1.21 JIGGAWATTS for 0.8 seconds.
      Now all I need, is a flux compensator, and some massive cooling. ;)

    3. Re:If it burned human fat..... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      If it burned human fat Jenny Craig Airlines with autoliposucting seats could have great rates and you get to your destination 50 lbs lighter!

      and we'd see "skinny people" surcharges...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:If it burned human fat..... by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      That's 1.21 GJ for 0.8 seconds - a watt is a joule-second, so it'd be a mere 0.968 GW.

    5. Re:If it burned human fat..... by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      You managed to get the units totally flipped around. 1 Watt = 1 joule/second. Therefore, 1.21 GW for 0.8 seconds is 0.968 J.

    6. Re:If it burned human fat..... by ThatMegathronDude · · Score: 1

      That is 0.968 GJ. Guess that's what I get for trying to correct someone.

    7. Re:If it burned human fat..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crowbar

  8. Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by scsirob · · Score: 2

    How can chicken fat be a viable renewable fuel? The energy has to come from somewhere. Corn can be turned into biofuel, but can also be fed to chickens. I can't imagine turning corn into chicken, and then into biofuel is a better way. Not in the least because of the fate of chickens.

    Folkes, just because something from nature can be turned into a combustive substance does not mean it is renewable or green.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Arlet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea is that you eat the chicken, and use the waste products for fuel. I don't think the plan is to set up chicken farms specifically to turn them into jet fuel.

      Of course, the big question is how big the supply of waste products actually is. I would guess it's not all that big.

    2. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Folkes, just because something from nature can be turned into a combustive substance does not mean it is renewable or green.

      You apparently underestimate the number of Americans who routinely "knock out the fat" with their George Foreman grills.

    3. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Perhaps NASA will demand KFC go skin-free by 2015? :-) If the skin is the part of the chicken that retains the most oil when fried, the benefit to the consumer is a healthier product.

    4. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by AGMW · · Score: 1

      You apparently underestimate the number of Americans who routinely "knock out the fat" with their George Foreman grills.

      Well I've learnt something today ... I thought to "knock out the fat" was a euphemism for something else entirely.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

      Americans alone eat 60.4 pounds of chicken every year. I'd assume there would be plenty of fat as a byproduct to fuel a couple rockets.

      --
      I will bend like a reed in the wind.
    6. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Bah, you think to small.

      Take a small solar cell connected to a battery and a photoswitch running a light bulb near the chickens. The chickens eat the tasty insects drawn to the light. Add a little water and while you're waiting for the chickens to fatten up, you get eggs to eat with the corn you're no longer turning into biofuel. Additionally, the high-nitrogen chicken poop can be composted to fertilize the growing corn.

      In addition to being tasty, chickens are definitely renewable. And chicken poop is frequently green.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    7. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by DrKnark · · Score: 1

      My guess is the point of developing synthetic, or whatever you want to call it (I know there is work being done in synthesized fuel) jet fuel is to remove the dependency on oil (in military vehicles) in the event of future wars in the middle east. But I'm just guessing.

    8. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by wintercolby · · Score: 2

      I was interested in making biodiesel at home a few years back, and I called all the restaurants in a small rural town near where I live. They were already getting paid for their waste oil. We're starting to see commercially produced biodiesel even in some smaller markets. It's very reasonable to suspect that most if not all commercially produced animal waste fat is already being consumed by the biodiesel market. The industry average for corn based ethanol is about a 40% energy gain, as the OP stated it's unbelievable that they'd get anywhere near that efficiency out of chicken harvesting. Peanuts can produce about 135 gallons of oil per acre, I wonder what the statistic for chickens would be like once one included the acreage to grow feed.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    9. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      The idea is that you eat the chicken, and use the waste products for fuel. I don't think the plan is to set up chicken farms specifically to turn them into jet fuel.

      Of course, the big question is how big the supply of waste products actually is. I would guess it's not all that big.

      Should be enough to ship a cargo of low fat chicken meat/beef to KFC/Macas?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I was interested in making biodiesel at home a few years back, and I called all the restaurants in a small rural town near where I live. They were already getting paid for their waste oil.

      They've been paid for their waste oils and fats for decades, it's refined and what isn't re-used for cooking is used in soaps, cosmetics, and as feedstocks for dozens of other chemical processes. That's a dirty little secret that most bio-diesel advocates either don't want to talk about, or are unaware of - the market for used oils and fats is already a healthy one and there isn't that much to spare for bio-diesel.
       

      The industry average for corn based ethanol is about a 40% energy gain, as the OP stated it's unbelievable that they'd get anywhere near that efficiency out of chicken harvesting. Peanuts can produce about 135 gallons of oil per acre, I wonder what the statistic for chickens would be like once one included the acreage to grow feed.

      The idea here isn't to raise chickens for their fats, but to raise them for food and to re-direct the by-products (fats) into fuel production. But the elephant in the room that nobody want to talk about is that using agricultural output for fuel means re-directing that output from other uses.

    11. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Considering the horrendous efficiency at which corn is converted to ethanol, I can't imagine using rendered chicken fat being all that much worse. Corn ethanol itself isn't a viable renewable fuel.

    12. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      since sugars and now proteins can be made into biofuels, have you tried the jack-shacks and porn theaters for raw material?

    13. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is slashdot, so let's do a simple calculation. Assume that there is 1 lb of fat for each lb of chicken eaten. Assume that fat has the same energy content as oil. What percentage of our energy will that cover? Well, according to this site , in the US, we use about 600 gallons of motor fuel per capita. A gallon of fuel is about 6 lbs (well, depends, really, but close enough for now), so 3600 lbs. So, 60 / 3600 is about 1.67 percent of our motor fuel usage. Is it worth it? I don't think so.

    14. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually you can make ethanol out of the corn then take the brewers corn and feed that to chickens, then people heat the chicken and you use the fat from processing the chicken parts.
      So yes this is renewable because you can make more chickens. Green? I find that some people in the Green movement can do the math in some very interesting ways. I remember someone telling me that a nuclear power plant produced more CO2 than a coal plant... Yea sure... If they don't like it then it is no longer green.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Renewable?? You got to be kidding. by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make it worthless. Most probably you can't fix our addiction to crude with just one fix. Most probably you need many different solutions to form a complete solution. For example: I assume your figure includes cars. It shouldn't, because they can work electric. Some of the flying can be done with airships (like the mile-wide zeppelin-like structure I read about a couple of years back) with solar panel based drives. This would lower the amount of fuel required and thus increase the percentage on chicken fat. There could be some solution with algae based fuels for probably 10-20% of the usage.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  9. Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next you'll be saying crude oil "tastes like dinosaurs" because it's made from that.

    1. Re:Tastes like chicken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next, they'll be making fuel additive from watermelon juice.

  10. Uhh... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

    > The DC-8 is used as a test vehicle because its engine operations are well-documented and well-understood, NASA says.

    Does that mean engine operations for other jets are *not* well-documented and/or well-understood? That would be... troubling.

    --
    What a depressingly stupid machine.
    1. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are probably referring to the operation of other jet engines being classified to a higher level. DC-8s have been around a long time and are probably well documented and understood "by the enemy", so this research can be carried out at a lower level of classification.

    2. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be right not to mention newer Turbines might still be covered by IP like patents and trade secrets. But I thought at least part of the reason was that the DC-8 failure modes are all (In Theory at least) documented. Also the engine has probably log a lot of hours with lower grades of JET fuel then those used in 1st world countries because many DC-8 wound up in less discriminating hands when we gave up on servicing them. So NASA probably even knows about problems caused by poor quality fuel. Other thoughts are that the DC-8 turbine maybe used as standard model when teaching turbine design kind of like the 8088 CPU.

    3. Re:Uhh... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It's more likely to be simpler than that. They have a DC-8 rigged for engine testing. So they use that. And yeah, it's got a lot of history, so it is well-documented.

    4. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comment actually doesn't make sense because they are more than likely using re-engined DC-8's. These engines are newer and more efficient so wouldn't have that track record. I suspect that the DC-8 is being used as an above poster mentioned that if they run this on one engine (not sure how they would do that either as the fuel feed system is shared), the other three engines are on standby using legacy Jet Fuel. Losing an engine in flight is not that big of a deal with a 4 engined plane. Using say an F8 for this, losing the engine would be a Loss of Vehicle Scenario.

      I don't really know what the purpose of this test is however because there just wouldn't be enough of a supply of 'chicken fat' to make a dent in the overall consumption. That is actually my whole argument against the biofuel paradigm. Maybe they are doing this to test out different chemical compositions to determine what can be used or not, and use that to come up with a chemical process.

  11. No animals were harmed during this takeoff... by cyberfin · · Score: 1

    ... oh wait.

    --
    "I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
  12. "Bio-diesel" by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Don't know about taste, but if you ever trailed old busted Mercedes diesel modified to burn used cooking oil (especially on the Berkeley-SF corridor), you know the abomination.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:"Bio-diesel" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Abomination? It smells better than whatever the fuck they put in the new low-sulfur diesel, which FEELS volatile when you breathe the fumes in a way that diesel never did before. Easier to breathe, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:"Bio-diesel" by CompMD · · Score: 1

      The owner of said old busted Mercedes diesel really doesn't care, because while most other people are making car payments and crying at the pumps, he's laughing his way to the bank.

    3. Re:"Bio-diesel" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Abomination? It smells better than whatever the fuck they put in the new low-sulfur diesel, which FEELS volatile when you breathe the fumes in a way that diesel never did before. Easier to breathe, too.

      Strange. A few Google searches and some reading says that low-sulfur fuel has less smell and isn't more volatile. Lower gelling temperature diesel which is used in winter is more volatile. Since the switch to low-sulfur happened in September, they would have been switching to winter fuel at the same time (it's more economical to switch only twice a year) and could have explained the sudden increase in fumes. They probably should have switched in spring for the positive PR.

    4. Re:"Bio-diesel" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The low-sulfur fuel smells less like soot but smells more like my brain cells are burning. Whatever they put in it this last winter did damage to old fuel systems across the country.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. NASA-TY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It tastes like chicken... but does it smell like fish?

  14. Brilliant idea by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Train combustion engines to think of stuff that tastes like chicken as fuel. What could possibly go wrong?

  15. Price by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    So, they've decided to do to chicken what they've done for corn. Make it much more expensive than it currently is. Why do they feel the need to take inexpensive food and convert it to inefficient fuel? Corn was cheap and fed immeasurable numbers of poor people around the world, until they decided to inefficiently convert it to ethanol. Now they are going to take on the meat side of food production, and force the prices up there too. I guess they feel that there aren't enough starving people in the world yet.

    All for the sake of "global warming", no wait, it's now "climate change", or whatever they've changed it to now. I still don't understand why burning 6+ gallons of ethanol is so much better for the climate than 1 gallon of gas. But I guess the subsidys buy plenty of votes, which is apparently the most important thing.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Price by AGMW · · Score: 1

      Corn was cheap ... until they decided to inefficiently convert it to ethanol. ... I still don't understand why burning 6+ gallons of ethanol is so much better for the climate than 1 gallon of gas. ...

      I think I can help here. The problem, as many see it, is that burning fossil fuels (the gas, or petrol/diesel/coal/'gas') is releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere. If you grow corn (or whatever) you are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere as it grows, then converting it (which won't be free) to something to burn (w00t: ethanol) and burning puts that CO2 back into the atmosphere - do you see yet? OK, I'll explain. Because the CO2 was extracted from the atmosphere by 'growing' before being put back by 'burning' there is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 (other than the cost of conversion). Burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, is dumping vast reserves of CO2 back into the atmosphere that were sequestered millennia ago, before the trouble started.

      Hope that helps

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Price by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      There are so many things wrong with your post that I'm not sure where to start:

      First, corn is only cheap in the USA because of the massive subsidies. It isn't cheap anywhere else, and in places where there are an abundance of poor people, it is not one of the major crops.

      Secondly, biodiesel from corn is typically made from the inedible parts (which make up the majority of the plant, although outside the USA it's not economically feasible to make biofuels from corn, since you only get about a 1.1 EROI - elsewhere, other crops with much higher EROIs are used), so has little impact on the cost of the food. Food prices have shot up worldwide since around 2007 for one very simple reason: the USA granted Goldman Sachs an exemption from the normal requirements that the number of speculators in commodity markets should be smaller than the number of real producers and consumers. This led to huge amounts of commodity speculation and a bubble covering oil, food, and a number of other things. This bubble has not yet burst, though it probably will soon. .

      Thirdly, they're using chicken fat. You know, the stuff that's left over after cooking. There is a huge amount of this surplus. There are entire companies that make money because they are paid to take the fat away in one place, and then paid for it as fuel in another place. The difference here is that they're turning it into a high-grade jet fuel rather than a low-grade diesel.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, corn needs help to grow. Heavy machinery is needed to plant, harvest and process the corn. All of which require fuel. The fertilizer they use is also made using fuel. There are some that say that the amount of carbon that is required to grow and process the corn ends up being higher than the carbon that would have been released if we just used fossil fuels in the first place..

    4. Re:Price by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Since all that heavy machinery could be run on corn ethanol, and alternative fertilizers can be used, there is no reason it would end up releasing more carbon than just using fossil fuels directly. The problem is that photosynthesis itself is less than 10% efficient, and when the planting, harvesting, and refining is all taken into account, your net output is only a couple percent of that contained in the pre-processed corn. That same plot of land plowed over with mirrors, a collection tower, and some form of heat engine, would probably produce two orders of magnitude higher useful output. Use it to split and compress hydrogen, and you still come out far far ahead.

  16. OK, I'm lost now. by cheros · · Score: 2

    For years I have been reading that meat production is one of the major causes of the greenhouse effect (not talked about much, because it's politically easier to tax car drivers and industry than subsidised farmers).

    What exactly is the point of using that production for fuel? Would it not be easier to simply reduce the chicken production instead? Or find a way to make turn other waste into fuel. Actually, if we could turn red tape into fuel we could probably stop drilling..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:OK, I'm lost now. by siddesu · · Score: 2

      TFA says the major concern is price, not ecological considerations. Apparently someone in the gubbermint is betting that chicken fat will be cheaper than kerosene in a decade or two.

    2. Re:OK, I'm lost now. by cheros · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that makes sort of sense (apologies about the double post, I got a site failure when I posted). There is, of course, the issue that there is always quite a bit of waste during meat production, but AFAIK we have food mountains too to keep prices up (depressing when there are so many people out of work on one side of the planet and people simply starving on the other side, but I digress).

      Cheers.

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    3. Re:OK, I'm lost now. by danlip · · Score: 2

      Beef and dairy production is a major cause of greenhouse gases because of cow farts - apparently they fart a lot and methane is worse than CO2. I don't think chickens would be as bad - you'd get some because they metabolize and breath out CO2, and you get some methane from the decay of manure (which can be captured and used), but it's less impact. And chickens have a much better input:output ratio caloric than cows.

      But the main point is if the fat is being wasted anyway it's better to turn it into fuel. Anytime we can re-purpose part of the waste stream into something useful that's a good thing, provided we aren't deliberately creating waste.

  17. OK, I'm lost now. by cheros · · Score: 0

    For years I have been reading that meat production is one of the major causes of the greenhouse effect (not talked about much, because it's politically easier to tax car drivers and industry than subsidised farmers).

    AFAIK biofuel is usually made of plants, so what does processing it through a chicken first add? Egg yoke? Would it not be easier to simply reduce the chicken production instead?

    Actually, here is an idea: if we could turn red tape into fuel we could probably stop drilling altogether..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  18. wholesale brand name handbags by paulliu250 · · Score: 0

    Train combustion engines to think of stuff that tastes like chicken as fuel. What could possibly go wrong?For years I have been reading that meat production is one of the major causes of the greenhouse effect (not talked about much, because it's politically easier to tax car drivers wholesale replica handbags

  19. I was disappointed that it was not pork by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    Pigs In Space!

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:I was disappointed that it was not pork by obergfellja · · Score: 1

      Muppets From Space!

    2. Re:I was disappointed that it was not pork by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      pff that'll happen... WHEN PIGS FLY!

    3. Re:I was disappointed that it was not pork by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      Aye said the Wee Free Men!

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  20. wholesale by paulliu250 · · Score: 0

    So, they've decided to do to chicken what they've done for corn. Make it much more expensive than it currently is. Coach handbag Coach handbags wholesale

  21. This is old news by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    This is old news, I have already seen that on Chicken Run.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  22. birdstrikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now birdstrikes are called refuelling

  23. Re:Marxist bullshit by The+Terminator · · Score: 2

    Neither chicken nor beef production are 'green' or 'eco friendly'. They both require huge inputs of energy and water to get out a given quantity of calories, compared to plant foods. Human beings are not supposed to eat meat, eggs, or cows' milk.
    The fact that the idiots at NASA can't even begin to question 'what everyone else is doing' tells you how intelligent they are - not very.
    They are even suggesting that long haul space flights have animals on board 'for meat'. Yeah, like that's a really efficient way of getting calories while in space...

    Plainly bullshit, humans are omnivores and meat and eggs and milk are essential for our health, but at the same time vegetables are also.

  24. Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they don't like to use animal products, will that mean they'd have to wait for the next flight?

    1. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      If you believe that petroleum oil is from dinosaurs, then they're already using animal products. I can't tell you how many vegetarians/vegans I've met that wear various articles of leather, feed their pets canned food (containing meat) and use other animal products. I try to point it out as often as possible.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    2. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels are almost all made out of dinosaur food: plants & algae.

    3. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Well its alright for animals to eat other animals for food, right? I mean you don't see vegans out in the forest hunting predators en' masse before they can kill and eat their prey. Somehow we have been removed from the food chain, and have to live under different rules.

    4. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      Heh, usually, I don't see vegetarians or vegans attempt to climb stairs or exert more energy than it takes to sit down and gasp for air.

      I like to think that I'm still part of the food-chain / circle of life thingy. If I run across an animal that considers me prey, I fully expect to kill or be killed.

      Humans are the only creatures to choose what they eat on principle. Animals will kill when the opportunity presents itself - there are no tofu eating lions out there, unless the lion takes a big bite of a vegetarians stomach.

      Personally, I like already dead food (the more recent, the better....but not squirming in my mouth)

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    5. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Animals will kill when the opportunity presents itself - there are no tofu eating lions out there, unless the lion takes a big bite of a vegetarians stomach.

      I can't tell if that was an intentional reference or not... http://www.knoble.com/family/images/Humor/tofu.gif

    6. Re:Vegetarians / Vegans have a problem with this? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      I am a proud owner of "The Complete Far Side", so yes, it was a reference for those similarly blessed.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
  25. So, let me see if I understand by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Instead of growing vegetables like Soy and Corn to get the oil, which can then trivially be turned into something akin to jet fuel, we're going to grow the vegetables, feed them to chickens first, and then kill the chickens and use their fat to make jet fuel?

    1. Re:So, let me see if I understand by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      We were going to kill and eat the chickens anyway. I'd rather see vegetables used for food, and unwanted chicken grease used for fuel than to see the grease poured down the drain and the vegetables poured into a fuel tank.

      I've seen reports that show a net loss when converting vegetables directly into fuel. Government subsidies are they only reason it remains in practice.

      http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    2. Re:So, let me see if I understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phase 3: Profit!

    3. Re:So, let me see if I understand by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Well... except for the fact that corn can only be painstakingly turned into something akin to jet fuel. There's nothing trivial or efficient about it.

  26. Re:1234 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Do you really think that a recommendation by an illiterate is going to make anyone more likely to buy your product? Oh well, another host goes into the hosts file so I don't accidentally buy anything from them ever.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  27. obligatory by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    but does it smell like fish?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  28. Re:who tasted that? by obergfellja · · Score: 1

    BAZINGA!

  29. Finger Lickin' by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Is it because this fuel packs more bang for the buck than traditional one, or is it because everyone wants to "feel" being green, even when trying to fly to other planets (and using all of 0.0000001% of world's "non-green" emissions of "whatever")? ;)

    Just curious,

    Paul B.

    Don't you want your rocket to be finger lickin' good?

    --
    I8-D
  30. NASA's Going Gonzo! by obergfellja · · Score: 1

    OMG! Gonzo is on NASA's board and he is trying to get back to his home planet. - reference: Muppets From Space.

  31. Fight Club by tekrat · · Score: 1

    In Fight Club, they made soap from human fat.

    But fat can also be made into bio-diesel with the addition of lye and methanol. (Lye is supposedly what Brad Pitt dropped onto Ed Norton's hand to make it burn).

    So I'm assuming that they can collect all the waste product that goes into processed chicken plants (that's a lot, since the USA processes about 100 million chickens per day), add lye and methanol to the mix, and then process it further into some form of Kerosene, as that's what turbines (aka jet engines) tend to burn, although it could also be methane.

    But if it was Methane, they could get it easier from Pig shit than from chicken fat, so I'm betting they found a way to "crack" the biodiesel into Kerosene.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Fight Club by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Methane is a cryogenic liquid (or high pressure gas), meaning in the event of a crash, there would be a huge release of flammable gas and an explosion. It would effectively result in near zero survivability from nearly any aircraft crash.

  32. Regular, Unleaded, or ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will that be Regular, Unleaded, or Soylent Green?

  33. Frozen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they remember to thaw the chicken this time?

  34. Re:1234 by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

    I should point out the link is a cybersquat of the real manufacturer's website (note the curious extra 's' in "vibram") - almost certainly, that link is for a crappy chinese rip-off outfit. Vibram has had a great deal of problems with counterfit products of late, and this sort of crapvertisement is just another symptom. I don't care to see their brand cast into ill-repute by peddlers of fake goods. Use google if you want to find the real website.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
  35. Finally, chickens that fly! by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

    Powering jets with chickens... I don't want to alert the irony police or anything but that's gotta be ironical!

  36. DC-8 by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Xenu is working for NASA now?

  37. asdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the fucking headline says jet fuel that tastes like chicken, but it doesn't taste like chicken at all. Bunch of moronic neckbeards around here.

  38. Would you like... by Mud_Monster · · Score: 0

    jet propelled fries with that?

  39. More Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternative Avian Fuel Experiment, amirite?

  40. Re:who tasted that? by manwargi · · Score: 1

    Well how else are they going to win a tank of gas?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvyOsYjWJlA

  41. what? no bacon grease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does NASA have a Halal/Kosher bio-fuel requirement?

  42. Who is in charge of this project? by Dabido · · Score: 1

    I heard it is lead by a Colonel Sanders!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  43. very important for possible space colonies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised no one has seen the real use of this...

    How else would a space colony supply itself with fuel for either a return flight, or a "second leg" to a further destination? Well, if such excursions are infrequent relative to the population, it makes sense that a chicken-to-rocket-fuel system could supply the necessary fuel...I'm guessing it may be more productive to try to raise chickens in space compared to try drilling for oil (not to mention the dual benefit getting usable food). If you have a few thousand people on some lunar colony eating chicken as a primary protein source, I could see that amounting to some serious fuel.

  44. WTF? by Chili-71 · · Score: 1

    Why not just use the spent oil the chickens were deep fried in? We probably have enough of that to fly to the moon and back several times.