UK firm develops jet fuel made from human poo | The starting material is generated in excess and available in plenty. It is a win-win for everyone that the waste is repurposed. (interestingengineering.com)
from L4s@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 29 Dec 2023 16:00
https://lemmy.world/post/10097150

UK firm develops jet fuel made from human poo | The starting material is generated in excess and available in plenty. It is a win-win for everyone that the waste is repurposed.::undefined

#technology

threaded - newest

Rapidcreek@lemmy.world on 29 Dec 2023 16:23 next collapse

Don’t go anywhere near the exhaust pipe.

robotopera@sh.itjust.works on 29 Dec 2023 16:42 next collapse

Do you smell that Randy? It’s chemtrails and they’re brewing up a shit storm right over our heads.

improbablypoopingrn@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 29 Dec 2023 16:51 collapse

RANDY

jpreston2005@lemmy.world on 29 Dec 2023 17:04 next collapse

POOP FUEL CAN’T MELT STEEL JETS

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 29 Dec 2023 17:48 next collapse

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.

Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works on 29 Dec 2023 20:18 next collapse

That’s a lot of Canola oil!

Ghyste@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 04:29 next collapse

Yeah, screw every effort to get us away from dependency on fossil fuels, am I right?

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 19:48 collapse

No. I just expose that aviation at the current level simply is not sustainable in any way.

skeezix@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 05:14 next collapse

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.

Meowoem@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 05:54 next collapse

Your claimed calculation is very vague, I have to say I don’t believe for a second you actually did that and it’s laughable you’re claiming you did

When someone tells me that they’ve noticed a fundamental flaw that all the leading minds in the field have not it does not lead me to think that the field itself is flawed rather the person I’m speaking to’s understanding of it.

Of course we understand that it’s not all going to come from one source but where there are waste products like stalks and leaves left over from food production, poo, algae, and etc it makes sense to work towards using all of those so we can transition away from the extracting oil and gas.

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 20:23 collapse

It is not that I had found a “fundamental flaw”. Those eco-fuel things simply don’t scale up to realistic levels, and the people who are behind it know that their small-scale experimental systems will never power the current level of aviation fuel demands.

Yes, human poo has some energy left. But it is way less than the same amount of fuel, I.e. you need several tons of poo to create a ton of fuel.

OK, lets have a look at this poo idea. Human faeces have an energy density of 8kJ/g. Source: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1793018/#:~:….

Aviation fuel has an energy density of 43.5kJ/g. Source: s2.smu.edu/propulsion/Pages/energyex.htm#:~:text=….

So if it was possible to get a lossless conversion of human poo to aviation fuel, you would need more than five tons of poo to create one ton of fuel.

A 747 from NY to LA burns about 60 tons of fuel. Source: quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-needed-to-fly-a-Boeing….

So you would need over 300 tons of shit to power that flight - if the conversion was lossless. It most likely is way worse.

Now a human produces between 125 and 500g of faeces per day. Source: healthline.com/…/do-you-lose-weight-when-you-poop…

So you would have to collect the days worth of shit of way over half a million people to power this flight. And all this - again - with a lossless conversion. The reality is probably more like a 10% conversion productivity, meaning you would need ten times the poo.

I leave the question if this technology is actually sustainable to the reader.

And yes, my calculation of rapeseed oil based fuel was similarly funded in facts.

Tangent5280@lemmy.world on 31 Dec 2023 12:00 collapse

And those numbers are for ONE flight. How many thousands of planes are in the air each day?

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 31 Dec 2023 16:18 collapse

Exactly. Bio-fuels simply will not sustain aviation at current levels. The only way to solve this is to drastically reduce air travel down to sustainable levels. Which might be “rescue helicopters only” if push comes to shove.

thecrotch@sh.itjust.works on 31 Dec 2023 16:58 collapse

If push comes to shove the rescue copters will take a back seat to the military. There is what should be, and what likely will be, and those things are often very different.

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 31 Dec 2023 21:35 collapse

Well, the military is known to produce a lot of shit on their own, so their fuel supply should be safe, regardless of.

Tangent5280@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 09:22 next collapse

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.

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 19:52 collapse

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.

pineapplelover@lemm.ee on 29 Dec 2023 18:27 collapse

I mean I’m pretty sure a water treatment center can spare some shit for this test

Treczoks@lemmy.world on 02 Jan 2024 16:13 collapse

This might actally power a few dozen flights a day nationwide. All the other ones will still have to rely on dead dinosaurs.

arandomthought@sh.itjust.works on 29 Dec 2023 18:51 next collapse

Is this another one of these “eco-fuels” that take about ten times the energy they store just to produce them, and no one will tell you where that energy will come from?

1rre@discuss.tchncs.de on 29 Dec 2023 20:21 next collapse

I mean if you can get it from actually good sources (solar, geothermal) where that type of energy is in excess then use ships powered by it to transfer it around the world is that a huge problem?

Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 30 Dec 2023 03:27 next collapse

It might be, if it’s more efficient to use that energy for some other option.

TheFriar@lemm.ee on 30 Dec 2023 13:59 collapse

I mean, if we can’t build more high speed rail, planes will be used. And they’re the largest contributor in transportation, right? Or at least the highest output/least efficient means of travel. Eliminating a huge contributor is a good thing.

Of course there would be other things that are worth curbing, but I don’t think we should shit on (eh?) killing emissions from a large contributor.

4am@lemm.ee on 29 Dec 2023 21:44 collapse

No, see if it’s not the perfect solution to literally everything then it’s just not gonna work. /s

Wrench@lemmy.world on 29 Dec 2023 22:00 next collapse

Well, I’ve always wondered what would happen after humanity burns through all fossil fuels on the planet, if flight and space flight would be impossible. So at least it seems like it’s possible with renewable resources.

It’s comforting that future generations will still be able to reach for the stars in doo doo rockets.

Meowoem@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 05:42 next collapse

The energy comes from excess generation in renewables for load balancing, that base load thing people mistakenly say they can’t do.

It’s clever and simple, you put a whole load of potential generation in knowing that to meet your essential and desired demand on low generation days you’ll need excess capacity which will over produce on high generation days. You then plug that in to a system which has tanks of feedstock in this case poo and empty storage capacity so that in peek generation periods it can run at maximum, when it’s only a little over the requested load it runs at limited power and if there’s a time with no excess power it turns off for a bit.

That’s why all the carbon capture and processing facilities are focusing on modular parallel design, it’s very easy then to create scalable production tied to excess load.

Of course this is only one of the many possibilities, the nuclear lovers want to build nuclear powered sequestration and processing facilities, Iceland made one using geothermal, the American one is wind and the proposed Saudi one trailer about being solar thermal.

Oh and actually the efficiency is incredibly impressive now, with some of the active catalyst chemistry they’re developing we’re getting into heat pump style efficiency gains and it’ll looking more likely we’ll be able to go below parity in cost per gallon Vs mined hydrocarbons.

I know it feels like people never explain the complex side of things but that’s because journalists are bad at their jobs, there’s whole organisations out there dedicated to this sort of planning and a lot of the stuff they talk about and work towards ia incredibly well thought out and sensible.

rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 13:57 collapse

Together, the research team developed a process to convert human waste into a thick, black liquid that looks like crude oil and behaves like it. Using fractional distillation, the team can then derive the fuel of interest, much like oil refineries do.

Based on the (almost no) data available here, this does seem likely to be a lot of steps and a lot of energy required just to turn the poop into the substitute for crude oil, and then do all the standard further refining of that into jet fuel. I’d be very dubious about the actual real-world value until some magical further data is shared, because this innovation surely won’t help anyone if the fuel it makes is more expensive than regular jet fuel.

GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca on 30 Dec 2023 17:20 collapse

I’d be completely unsurprised to learn they were using thermal depolymerization. The process was patented about 30 years ago and can take just about any organic material and turn it into essentially light oil. When there was a plant testing it with turkey carcasses in the US, way back in 2003, it was competitive with oil production costs, provided that turkey guts cost less than $20/ton and oil cost more than $80/barrel.

I have been saying we should use this for waste treatment plants since they first started testing this. The water we get at the end is more pure; drugs, most chemicals, and germs are broken down; and we get a saleable product at the end. Depending on the cost to build and run, we could get a better result for less money.

Now, let’s talk about the efficacy of converting human remains and the price of cemetery plots…

barsoap@lemm.ee on 31 Dec 2023 17:53 collapse

Now, let’s talk about the efficacy of converting human remains and the price of cemetery plots…

I mean seriously but yes crematoriums should be hooked up to district heating, apparently they don’t even use much energy if you operate them right. There’s a slow-burning trend in Germany to move from traditional cemeteries to dedicated forest plots: First you get cremated, then put in a biodegradable urn, then buried under a specific tree. Unmarked, but it’s in a register somewhere so next of kin can find it.

Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg on 30 Dec 2023 04:24 next collapse

Even if it works … Human waste is so heavily contaminated by medications I don’t think this is a good idea

skeezix@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 05:11 next collapse

It’s fine. The chemtrails will sprinkle us all with antidepressants offsetting the general state of despair.

GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca on 30 Dec 2023 17:31 collapse

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.

wikibot@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 17:32 next collapse

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.

^article^ ^|^ ^about^

Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg on 31 Dec 2023 02:19 collapse

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 [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_pit](burn pits).

GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca on 31 Dec 2023 05:35 collapse

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.

iquanyin@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 04:57 next collapse

let poo return to the earth. jets also. we don’t need poo jets adding to the crap in the air.

Meowoem@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 05:23 next collapse

You’re not going to stop people living their lives, visiting friends, family, and having meaningful life experiences. If we can make flying more ecologically sustainable than rail and boats then it would be a hugely positive thing in the fight against climate change.

chitak166@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 08:23 next collapse

We can stop them by taking their money away and giving it to those who need it.

No leisurely intercontinental flights until all children are free from starvation!

First@programming.dev on 30 Dec 2023 08:38 next collapse

You certainly can, with proper carbon emissions taxation. But you can’t stop said people from voting for parties that advocate unrealistic pipe-dream technological solutions like poop jets and full-scale CCS, rather than parties who make them take the red pill and face reality and the consequences of their actions.

Sunfoil@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 10:18 next collapse

To be even more doomer, people will have to stop living their lives when we run out of everything, so we might as well start winding down now.

cosmicrookie@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 10:34 next collapse

I’d argue that private jets would have to be banned before I’d accept any regulation on economy flights to visit my family that I see every two years

Meowoem@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 16:55 collapse

Yes I know that’s what you want to happen but it’s not very likely, we’re not really short of anything that we don’t have a dozen other options for.

We’ll have oceanic floating factories harvesting sunlight and turning sea water into jet fuel and carbon fibre Christmas toys before consumerism gets close to admitting defeat.

If you want to change society I’m afraid you have to do the hard thing of coming up with a better idea and convincing people to try it.

Sunfoil@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 18:11 collapse

I hope we do pull off a 90th minute 720 backflip into futurist utopia, that would be mega. But until people start doing basic stuff like voting in their interest, I’m going to prepare for the worst.

FluffyPotato@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 17:37 collapse

Stop subsidising air travel and people are gonna prefer trains and boats real fast.

fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 21:08 next collapse

A lot of the time it’s just processed in open air tanks to break it down (amoung a lot of other steps before returning it to water ways or used as fertilizer/burnt).

You need a pretty low pop density to have septics work for most people.

exocrinous@lemm.ee on 31 Dec 2023 02:21 collapse

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

Meowoem@sh.itjust.works on 30 Dec 2023 05:57 next collapse

This is a fantastic idea, here in the UK we’ve just been dumping raw sewage in the rivers and poisoning the coast because it’d cut into water companies record profits to treat it (also Brexit chemical shortages or something)- if we can turn the poop into something useful that can sell then the won’t let a drop off that precious filth go to waste.

chitak166@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 08:21 next collapse

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.

cosmicrookie@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 10:32 collapse

Have you tried grinding it into a powder and mixing it with your coffee?

chitak166@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 13:15 next collapse

I don’t drink coffee.

ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk on 30 Dec 2023 13:41 collapse

You drink your cat shit straight, like god intended.

WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 30 Dec 2023 20:10 collapse

That’s why they call me Mr. Mistopoolees.

Akasazh@feddit.nl on 30 Dec 2023 10:49 next collapse

A civet cat isn’t a true cat, it got the name because it remotely looks like s vast

sbv@sh.itjust.works on 02 Jan 2024 05:12 collapse

What about snorting it?

cosmicrookie@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 10:31 next collapse

You get a 10% discount if you use the lavatory during the flight

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 21:36 next collapse

if I eat the fiber heavy in flight meal, will that be knocked up to 15%?

cosmicrookie@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 21:40 collapse

No because the meal is also made of 40% human poo

thecrotch@sh.itjust.works on 31 Dec 2023 16:53 collapse

Not true, the FDA only allows 15%. You’re thinking of rat feces.

Thetimefarm@lemm.ee on 30 Dec 2023 14:11 collapse

Range extender

FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 14:01 next collapse

Will it still pollute the atmosphere?

ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 17:57 next collapse

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.

Numberone@startrek.website on 30 Dec 2023 21:26 collapse

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.

exocrinous@lemm.ee on 31 Dec 2023 01:08 collapse

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.

exocrinous@lemm.ee on 31 Dec 2023 01:05 collapse

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.

deafboy@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 18:17 next collapse

Na kilo hoven, kilo cukru…

IgnatiusJReilly@lemmy.wtf on 30 Dec 2023 19:34 next collapse

What happens when the sh!t hits the turboprop?

A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 21:35 next collapse

As if flying wasnt a shitty enough experience as is.

verdantbanana@lemmy.world on 30 Dec 2023 21:47 next collapse

well shit

shitter will never be full again

ratzki@discuss.tchncs.de on 31 Dec 2023 11:16 next collapse

The environment would be saved if I could turn all the shit I experience at work into fuel.

londos@lemmy.world on 31 Dec 2023 15:20 next collapse

Fast as shit.

FluffyPotato@lemm.ee on 29 Dec 2023 20:33 next collapse

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.

JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee on 29 Dec 2023 22:24 next collapse

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.

FluffyPotato@lemm.ee on 30 Dec 2023 03:04 collapse

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.

exocrinous@lemm.ee on 31 Dec 2023 02:23 collapse

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.

kurcatovium@lemm.ee on 29 Dec 2023 21:09 next collapse

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!

mtchristo@lemm.ee on 30 Dec 2023 09:51 collapse

It’s raining shit. Hallelujah!