×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

207 comments

Waste not want not (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161940)

What else to say?

Re:Waste not want not (-1, Troll)

Degro (989442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163492)

How about stop eating chickens? I doubt many here would kill a live chicken for fun, yet they'll happily choose to eat a chicken sandwich simply because they think it tastes better than the alternative. It certainly can't be for health reasons. This story and Tyson are fucking sick.

Better (3, Insightful)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161962)

Well at least, if it smells fried chicken, it will be better than actual truck exhaust!

Re:Better (1)

cindyann (1916572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162098)

Undoubtedly.

Although after recently taking a vacation in South Africa, I can tell you that our low sulfur diesel exhaust smells a lot better than whatever it is they're burning there.

Re:Better (2, Insightful)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162528)

Sounds like a win-win to me. Buy stock in KFC - everyone will always have cravings for fried chicken after the ride home from work.

Re:Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163434)

Now wait for the High Fat Fumes medical crisis.

That's disgusting (2, Interesting)

Hemi Rodner (570284) | more than 3 years ago | (#34161978)

I know that the exhaust of falafel oil does smell like falafel [haaretz.com]. So it means that the exhaust of this "biodiesel" will probably smell like fried chicken.

As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

PS: I am disappointed that the article is so short.

Re:That's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162014)

Why? Normal fuel isnt much different in the grand scheme of things. Things get killed, things get eaten, its the way of the world.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162236)

This can be said to be:
1. just explaining nature
2. amoral

I'm not saying it is immoral: just that it is devoid of moral content.

Animals kill to eat. No big deal. But we don't expect animals to express any ethical thought.

When people kill, there may be reason to at least think for a moment about the consequences of our actions.

We have deliberately set up an infrastructure which kills billions of animals annually, just for our pleasure and convenience. It seems rational to give that industry a little ethical examination.

Extending it to fueling our autos just entrenches it further in our minds and our economy. The weird part is grinding up animals to move our inefficient vehicles around. Just seems twisted somehow.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162910)

If you truly believe that the meat industry is "just for our pleasure and convenience", you honestly have a mental illness. I don't say that with hyperbole. You are in the same category as people who hear voices.

Re:That's disgusting (1, Interesting)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163266)

In every instance, no. But in places like the U.S., where grocery stores are abundant, then yes, meat is almost exclusively for pleasure and convenience.

In case you hadn't noticed, doctors and nutritionists generally recommend a plant-based diet. So what is necessary about meat consumption?

It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience).

Re:That's disgusting (1, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163458)

Given the logic of your argument, being a vegetarian and eating plants is "just for pleasure and convenience".

After all, "It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience)."

Claiming that eating a meal that gives you a "nice packet of nutrients" is "just for pleasure and convenience" is at best a lie, but could also be explained through mental illness.

Re:That's disgusting (1, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163188)

Actually, we kill and eat animals because we are hungry, and we need to eat. The world does not have enough resources for everyone to be a vegetarian, or even a vegan. If you think you can grow arable crops on all farmland, you're welcome to come to the north-west of Scotland and try your hand at raising crops on a hill farm. Sheep and cows do just fine on it. Give me a shout once you've worked out how to plough a peat bog on a one-in-five slope.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Informative)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163308)

See reply above [slashdot.org].

And I don't know about northwest Scotland, but around the world it is much more common for meat to be a luxury item and for plant-based human food to be the easy, inexpensive course. In most cases, meat animals compete with humans for plant-based food sources, and eating meat is a less efficient use of land than just eating the plants.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163372)

"Most cases" being where you've got lots of nice flat arable land. As I say, if you can figure out how to efficiently grow crops on a hill farm, you might be onto something. You haven't got long, though, because the oil is running out and cheap vegetables will be *gone* - back to an omnivorous diet when that happens!

Re:That's disgusting (2, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163378)

I commend you on your choice to be a Vegan.

However, you should realize that it's nothing about our "pleasure and convenience" involved with the food industry involved with livestock.

Look at the teeth in your mouth. If you were purely an herbivore, you wouldn't have what we call the eye-teeth in your mouth- you'd have a mouth more resembling a horse's or a cows. Seriously.
You should note, that your body is an omnivore's meaning that it doesn't give a flip about your sensibilities and feelings and is designed to eat meat as well as vegetative matter- in combination.
There are several crucial fatty acids you will have some major difficulty obtaining solely from plants. This SHOULD be a hint to anyone that insists that we don't have to eat animals. There's
some other crucial amino acids and sugars you need that simply will not come from eating nothing but meat. That SHOULD be a hint to anyone holding the polar opposite of your position.

Eating nothing but plants is actually something of an unnatural act for humans- as is eating solely meat.

So, it's not "pleasure and convenience" that it's done.

Re:That's disgusting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162038)

>> As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

Just about anything smells better than diesel exhaust, even with modern small car engines.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162066)

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning... The smell, you know that gasoline smell... Smells like, victory"

Falafel is for wimps.

Re:That's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163480)

You're thinking of quiche.

Re:That's disgusting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162166)

As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me...

As a natural carnivore, vegetarian's disgust me!

Re:That's disgusting (0, Redundant)

chudnall (514856) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163288)

As a natural carnivore, vegetarian's disgust me!

Funny, as a natural carnivore, I find vegetarians to be quite tasty.

Re:That's disgusting (0, Troll)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162168)

Vegetarian? Do you suffer from medical conditions that make eating meat difficult or dangerous for you? An allergy? Heart condition?

Or are you ignoring your nature as a hunter of prey? All the great apes hunt and kill for food. It is argued that the high density calories in meat allowed humanity sufficient free time and energy to develop culture and technology. We have bifocal color vision. We have canine teeth. We have grasping hands. We are among the worlds greatest endurance runners. We have advanced intelligence capable of planning and tactics. Aside from our endurance and teeth (and these are also predatory features), all those traits are unique to predators. We have evolved for millions of years as omnivorous predators, to eat meat. Why do you hate nature so much to go against that?

Re:That's disgusting (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162346)

All the great apes hunt and kill for food.

Nope. Gorilla's are vegetarian (plus a few insects, but that is hardly hunting). Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests, honey, and eggs.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

danlip (737336) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162420)

That should clearly be "insects" on the line above, not that I doubt the other occurs.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162512)

Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests

I can attest to this. We were at the Orang exhibit at the San Diego Zoo, and everyone there got a lesson on where baby orangutans come from.

Even some of the Navy guys who were visiting the zoo were blushing.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162580)

I have seen references for gorilla's catching and eating fish in the wild. Orangutans, agreed are not significantly predatory.

Re:That's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163044)

All the great apes hunt and kill for food.

Nope. Gorilla's are vegetarian (plus a few insects, but that is hardly hunting). Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests, honey, and eggs.

How are we going to get rid of the Chinese needle snakes then?

Re:That's disgusting (2, Insightful)

PeterM from Berkeley (15510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162410)

That's all fine if we want to continue to be nothing more than animals. However, over-riding our natural impulses is also a key element of humanity.
There are plenty of advantages to not eating meat, health wise, environmentally, as well as ethically.

What's more, unless we start eating each other, eating meat isn't going to be viable for every much longer. It takes 100 cal of grain to make 1 cal of beef.
At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity.
We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food. (Though the ratio is 10/1 for pork, and 2/1 for chicken, which are better deals).

Also, ethanol-from-sugar should stop also for the same reason: do we really want the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich?

Re:That's disgusting (2, Interesting)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162624)

Almost there, Pete... ...and while the viability of biodiesel from waste animal products is up for debate, biodiesel from algae solves all our problems.

That makes a lot of faulty assumptions (1)

voss (52565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162956)

You dont have to feed cows grain- Grass fed beef is healthier and natives grasses grows
  over large parts of the United States. If you know any people who can digest grass let me know.

Grain fed beef is only popular because its cheap, but grass-fed beef is healthier and less prone to ecoli
in addition to being more humane.

Re:That makes a lot of faulty assumptions (2, Informative)

PeterM from Berkeley (15510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163184)

Yes, you're quite right, some beef is fed on grass, and that beef is healthier to eat, and people can't digest grass.

And some grass fields aren't arable no matter what, while others are irrigated and could be used for crops instead, which people could eat.

It's a complicated picture and yes, excuse me for over-simplifying: grain-fed beef is an energy loser, grass-fed less clearly so but possibly so (and maybe we'd be better off eating something else grass-fed).

The point is, right now 50% of US grain is fed to animals, 40% worldwide, and 99% of that 50%/40% is wasted.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

Rutefoot (1338385) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163198)

You're oversimplifying a very, very, very complex system. We're getting better at creating vegetarian diets that can fulfill our bodies needs, but we're not quite there yet. And to remove the effects of livestock completely you're talking about a vegan diet and not a vegetarian one (A milk producing cow still requires an inefficient amount of grain to keep producing milk). And there are zero vegan diets that come anywhere close to meeting our bodies needs. And the diets that come closest are thanks to the import of grains and supplements from the other side of the planet (the transport of which kind of defeats the purpose now doesn't it?) So while we might have a Whole Foods down the street from us, the majority of the world does not. So to expect everyone to be able to survive on a vegan diet without the means to stay healthy doing it is rather short sighted.

A more sensible solution would be to reduce our meat intake to more reasonable levels and try to eliminate cows and other inefficient ruminants as long as we can ensure we get proper levels of nutrients elsewhere.

Re:That's disgusting (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163338)

You post is rationalization at best. Your claims for vegetarianism are easily refuted and shown as the ramblings of someone who gets halfway through a problem and assumes they have the answer.

1) health wise

Wrong. Vegetarian diet is so unhealthy that you can frequently spot vegetarians by sight. They tend to be gaunt. Low in muscle mass and low in muscle tone. When vegetarian from childhood, they tend to be shorter due to malnutrition.

2) environmentally - At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity. We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food.

The problem you are describing is overpopulation. Humans overbreeding for their food source. If populations continue to grow as you suggest, being vegetarian will not stop starvation. At best it will only delay it. I suppose eating as vegetarians COULD reduce the populations health enough that the population drops off, but humans are biologically pretty robust. I doubt the poor health of being a vegetarian is going to be enough to reduce our population.

3) ethically

Eating meat is not unethical. If we are going start playing the "killing lower life forms is unethical" game, then it is vegetarians that are unethical. They kill the most helpless life forms on the planet. They line them up and force them to live unnatural lives in unnatural environments. They genetically manipulate them to suit their needs, and consume them while they are still alive.

Life includes killing. It is unavoidable.

4) the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich

There is not one single person on the planet that is going hungry due to ethanol-from-sugar. World hunger is a byproduct of corrupt governments, (to a lesser extent) parental irresponsibility and the inherent difficulties in distribution. Here in the US, my aunt is actually paid NOT to grow corn. She is not alone. As long as there are thousands of farmers who are paid not to grow corn, any claim of people going hunger because there isn't enough is at best misinformed. At worst an outright lie.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163342)

That's all fine if we want to continue to be nothing more than animals

Actually, the vast majority of animals are vegetarian (or herbivorous). So far, humans are the only animals to live an agrarian existence. The earth just does not have the resources to sustain turning all farm land into arable land. In 50 years time when petrochemicals are too scarce to support your arable-only farms, you'll need to switch back to eating meat.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Interesting)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162600)

Hunter-gatherer societies typically eat meat about once a fortnight. Not a great hulking chunk of it, either, but a few strips.

You're deluding yourself if you think "omnivore" means half:half.

I think the ignorance of human nature is firmly your domain, sir.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163574)

He was talking w/a person excluding all meat (Vegan...duh...) and wondering why his ratio was zero and insisting on everyone else's to be the same- which is what most of the people pointing out his personal preference versus the reality of his body were pointing out. Not eating meat isn't healthy in the slightest for Humans, contrary to popular beliefs to the otherwise (A hint should be showing in your and everyone else's mouth...eye-teeth aren't needed in herbivores (which what a Vegetarian and a Vegan is attempting to accomplish...).

But then, this IS /., after all... Ignorance and willful ignoring of what's actually being said to "prove" their points is part for the course.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Insightful)

bieber (998013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162792)

I'm not sure what I should go after first, the massive non-sequitur or the blatant naturalist fallacy. Perhaps I should start by asking you when was the last time you chased down, killed and ate an animal using nothing but your physical prowess and devilish cunning, since you seem to think that that's how modern humans acquire their animal products...not, you know, herding docile, tamed animals from the pens we keep them in their entire lives into narrow boxes where we can kill slaughter them without them ever having the opportunity to put up a fight.

Anyways, macho-man nonsense aside, whether or not we're physically capable of doing something has absolutely zero bearing on the morality of that action. I don't have any medical problem that keeps me from forcibly procreating, and my bifocal color vision, canine teeth, grasping hands, and mad endurance skills would certainly make it easy to hunt down, restrain and impregnate a woman to spread my superior predator genes, yet I'm pretty sure most of us would frown on that.

So now, if we may take a brief trip back to reality, we have no biological need to consume animal products (don't believe me, read the ADA's position paper on vegetarian diets), and producing them, any cruelty issues aside (since you clearly don't care about the feelings or pain of any creature too feeble to resist being hunted down and eaten by you), is grossly inefficient and utterly abominable for the environment (you'll want to read the UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow" for that one). But hey, if it makes you feel better to just put someone's lifestyle down with your super macho cave man fantasy, by all means go ahead, don't let silly things like facts get in your way.

tl;dr - If you think you can just dismiss a well-established philosophy or system of ethics with a single super-witty paragraph, you're not being clever, you're just being a douche. Trust me, you're not the first person to say "Umm we have pointy teeth so you should eat meat!"

Mod up parent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162916)

Wishing I had mod points... well written retort

Re:That's disgusting (-1, Troll)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163294)

So, you don't want to use animal products? Better stop eating organic vegetables, then, and switch to those lovely eco-friendly petrochemicals!

Here's a hint - most of the world's farms are *not* rolling Iowa cornfields. We *do* need to eat meat, because there isn't enough room to grow vegetables for everyone.

Get your blubbery malnourished backside off your seat, and go and work on a farm.

Re:That's disgusting (2, Insightful)

bieber (998013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163448)

No, I don't. I'm sure there are animal products used in the production of some of the things I rely on for survival, but there's nothing I can do about that. Vegans avoid animal products to the greatest extent possible. Obviously we can't effect any change in society if we refuse to be a part of it at all.

As for the scarcity argument, are you kidding? You do realize that like 80% of the grain we grow is being consumed by animals that humans will eat later, right? There's plenty of room to grow plant food for everyone, it's the animals that we can't afford to keep growing grain for. Producing animal products is massively inefficient.

Of course, that "blubbery malnourished backside" nonsense (because it's not like vegans can be world-class athletes, or enjoy generally lower rates of heart disease and cancer) makes it obvious enough that you're just trolling, so I won't expect an intelligent response...

Re:That's disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163442)

All positions aside, if you didn't need to eat animals for portions of your diet, you wouldn't have these things called "eye-teeth" which are ripping canines for eating meat...

You're an omnivore, not an herbivore- and they've found that all vegetable diets have their own issues. (You have difficulty obtaining select Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids through plants...you have to get them at least from fish if not other sources...).

Anyone that tells you that you don't need to eat animals is selling you a bill of goods.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163624)

Anyone that tells you that you don't need to eat animals is selling you a bill of goods.

And yet the fact that millions upon millions of people are doing it quite successfully doesn't change your point of view at all?

Old news (3, Interesting)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162446)

As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

As an omnivore who's also a hunter, I'm glad that they're finding a green use for what would otherwise be a waste product.

This is a kind-of 'old tech' come back in a new form. Animal fat used to be used to produce candles and lantern oil; so the idea of using it for power isn't a new one.

BTW, this is old news; I first heard about this factory several years ago.

MUCH better article [cleantech.com]
- Hmm... Looks like a new plant, and it'll also produce fuel for the B-52. Sweet.

Ah, here's what I was remembering [nationalgeographic.com] - light crude from turkey fats and other waste via thermal-depolymerization .Article dates from 2003.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162540)

Fried chicken is typically boiled in oil, typically canola or some other vegetable oil, and then salted and spiced. This is so you don't smell or taste the actual carcass.

Biodiesel made from dead chickens will smell of dead chickens. If you want a clue what that smells like, try visiting a henhouse after Monseiur Reynard has called by. Then set it on fire.

Re:That's disgusting (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162756)

"As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me..."

Get a modern Diesel and you can fill it up with the same vegetable oil you use in your salads.

Re:That's disgusting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163176)

and gum it up with glycerin - modern vegetable oil needs to be processed to remove the glycerin by-products, or you do risk gumming up the works.

(next door neighbor owns a bio-diesel facility - why am I driving a gasoline powered vehicle?)

Re:That's disgusting (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162786)

PS: I am disappointed that the article is so short.

It's always scary when the Slashdot summary and the article are practically identical. Worse, the article just seems to be a reworded press release.

Re:That's disgusting (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34163190)

As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

As a human, this really disgusts me.

But seriously, would you rather see these things go to waste?
I mean, let's be serious, you'll never prevent people from eating meat, until artificial meat becomes mainstream and tastes at least >80% of what regular meat tastes like. (i personally love quorn, but it still isn't a good alternative for those who love the taste of meats)
So all that food waste would just end up in a food tip somewhere.

I'm also all for separate food waste collection so it can be re-used for feeding crops, instead of ending up in the same usual landfills as most rubbish does. (i'd love for everything to be recycled, but sadly that isn't being realistic)
Such a large amount of food ends up not even being used... really good food as well. Worse yet when meat actually goes to waste since it took so much effort to grow the animal, so much energy, then to have it killed uselessly to end up in a landfill...

What was the previous use? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162006)

What was the previous use?
My guess is they mixed it in with the chicken feed to fatten up the next batch. They'll need a new source of oil. Maybe corn oil?

Re:What was the previous use? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162152)

One also wonders why they switched from the previous use... Where the expected higher oil prices and/or some sort of biofuel subsidy good enough to make it cost effective, or did feeding animals their own ground up con-specifics break some new health and sanitary regulation?

I suppose they could also have just taken advantage of some improvement in refining technology to change the point of combustion. I'd suspect that a coal-fired plant wouldn't even notice some chicken fat mixed in with the coal; but that the price per ton paid for the fat would be unexciting; while, with the right refining technology, you could turn those same lipids into a vehicle fuel, which is rather more valuable per ton....

Re:What was the previous use? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162376)

or did feeding animals their own ground up con-specifics break some new health and sanitary regulation?

You get around that by adding the ground up chicken parts to the cow feed, and the ground up cow parts to the chicken feed. Insert sheep (oops NZ joke) or whatever.

Re:What was the previous use? (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163126)

I seem to remember hearing this practice cited back when mad cow disease was all the rage. Oh, plus applying the same treatment to roadkill they found along the way.

Re:What was the previous use? (5, Informative)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162312)

Unlike cattle, chickens are not "fattened up". Marbling is not a desirable feature in chicken meat. They get plenty of residual fats from the soybean meal that constitutes nearly half of typical feed. The chicken fat was probably used in pet food or cattle feed previously.

Yup (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162032)

From experience with homebrew biodiesel, the exhaust really does smell like the fat/oil used to produce it. My dad's truck smelled like french fries or chinese most of the time.

Re:Yup (4, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162434)

From experience with homebrew biodiesel, the exhaust really does smell like the fat/oil used to produce it. My dad's truck smelled like french fries or Chinese most of the time.

Ftfy, murderer.

In related news, Tyson announced their entry into the crematorium market.

Poor vegetarians (2, Funny)

evolvearth (1187169) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162056)

Life is going to be a lot harder for those poor vegetarians

Re:Poor vegetarians (0, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162102)

Given that the origins of conventional oil aren't exactly vegetarian safe(coal is good and vegetarian, though), and they seem to deal with current petro-fuels as well as anybody else, it will only be the whiny "Cry, cry, the smell of your burning animal flesh disgusts me!" purity fetishist vegetarians who have any trouble with it. Given how annoying those ones are, I'm not too concerned.

Re:Poor vegetarians (1)

o'reor (581921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162282)

Hell yeah ! Up your nostrils, veg'tarians !

Oh, and how do we get that fat off those chickens ? The answer is : Grill, baby, grill !

Neve ending cycle. (1, Interesting)

Andy_w715 (612829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162128)

Eat the crap; Makes you fat. Need a bigger car to lug your fat ass around. Burn it in your car; Exhaust smells like it, making you hungry. Repeat. Also 75 milllion gallons sounds like a lot, but when compared to the annual gasoline consumption of the US (~140 billion gallons), you'll need to eat a lot of chickens to make a dent. Sound like some gov't make work program.

Re:Neve ending cycle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162412)

"The first plant in Louisiana will be able to churn out 75 million gallons"

If they build, say, 50 of these at the same size and productivity, that's three and three quarter billion gallons of fuel we don't have to purchase or harvest from the earth. Sure, that's not really a dent at all when you look at fuel use, but this could help regions where diesel costs upwards of three to four dollars a gallon. That's 11.25 to 15 billions dollars worth of fuel that doesn't need importing from foreign countries.

I don't think any gas stations would be willing to sell bio diesel at a dollar below market price for diesel, but if you turned around and sold this fuel to farmers, maybe even construction firms, both of which are likely using diesel for their heavy machinery, it could help them lower their cost of operations and generally become more survivable, especially if you offered them the fuel in the region of 2 dollars a gallon compared to the 3 or 4 you pay in CA.

I'm not in the business, so I don't even know where they would typically get their fuel, but it seems reasonable to me.

They tried that nearby for a few years (2, Interesting)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162198)

There was a plant owned by Renewable Environmental Solutions near Carthage, MO that would take leftovers from Tyson's chicken plants and turn it into various oils, including fuel. Problem was that the plant *stank* and the wind sometimes blew the odor into town, leading to many complaints and attempts to fix it.

Eventually the state shut 'em down because they were unable to control the smell. Maybe this place in Louisiana is way out in the middle of nowhere, so they won't have to worry so much about the neighbors complaining.

Re:They tried that nearby for a few years (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162424)

Maybe this place in Louisiana is way out in the middle of nowhere, so they won't have to worry so much about the neighbors complaining.

Have you ever smelled Louisiana? Not some kind of weird ethnic joke, but a comment on the unique bouquet of oil refineries and swamps?

Re:They tried that nearby for a few years (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162466)

Supposedly they were unable to conclusively link the odor to the plant - people complained about the smell even when the plant wasn't operating. The state suspension was only temporary and the plant operated afterward in face of more complaints. But despite having proven that the odors were not coming from their plant and spending millions on upgrading tech to deal with the potential odors the whole thing kinda went belly-up when the parent company declared bankruptcy.

Basically the reported stench was pure NIMBY and nothing else.
=Smidge=

Not really sure THAT was the reason... (4, Informative)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162484)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-mysterious-death-of-the-chicken-fat-car-45445497.html [washingtonexaminer.com]

The mysterious death of the chicken-fat car
By: Timothy P. Carney
Senior Examiner Columnist
May 20, 2009

As President Barack Obama unfurls his fuel-economy standards and Congress takes up global warming regulations, it’s useful to remember that what emerges from environmental policymaking is not necessarily what’s best for the planet, but instead what’s best for special interests.

Consider the epic and somewhat bizarre struggle over clean fuels that ended last week. As usual, special interests were central to the drama. But the antagonists seemed right out of a Monty Python sendup of Washington politics: An oil company, hoping to profit from making trucks run on chicken fat, was thwarted by the soap industry’s lobby.

The chicken-fat story is a cautionary tale about how environmental policy actually gets made.

It began in 2005, when President George W. Bush signed an energy bill including a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” Writer Rina Palta reported in the liberal American Prospect that Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., wrote the measure “to benefit a floundering company in his home district that produces boiler fuel from turkey offal, which did not qualify chemically as ‘biodiesel.’ ”

At the time, Congress was eagerly providing subsidies to turn plants and animals into fuel, so it didn’t seem farfetched to boost the cause of fowl entrails. But unintended consequences soon arrived, proving once again that the biggest companies usually find a way to profit from government intervention.

In April 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Blunt’s tax credit had broader applications. Within two weeks, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods saw that the IRS had opened the door for a joint venture to melt chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel. Conoco Chief Executive Officer James Mulva was honest about his unusual undertaking: “It’s not profitable without the $1 per gallon tax credit,” he said at a news conference.

But this renewable fuel had enemies. First, Democrats didn’t like any subsidy that helped an oil company like Conoco. (Blunt, for his part, said he never wanted to help oil companies, and that the law should be changed.)

Second, business lobbyists were also working to kill the subsidy for chicken fat. The obvious opponents were chicken fat’s competitors — the companies that turn vegetables into diesel fuel. The National Biodiesel Board, which spends nearly $1 million a year on lobbying, pushed hard to ensure the $1-per-gallon subsidy for clean diesel didn’t also apply to the Conoco-Tyson operation.

But the issue of “renewable biodiesel” also turned up on the lobbying filings of the Dial Corporation and the Soap and Detergent Association. Just as ethanol subsidies have driven up the price of food, it turned out that fat-to-fuel subsidies boosted the cost of manufacturing soap, which is also made of animal fat. So Dial and the Soap and Detergent Association, displeased that Tyson now had somewhere else to peddle its fat, also lobbied to kill the chicken-fat diesel subsidy.

While their own interests were obvious, the soap and biodiesel lobbies argued that chicken-fat diesel was not good for the environment. But the Environmental Protection Agency ruled this month that “biodiesel or renewable diesel made from animal fat or used cooking oil results in an 80 percent reduction from carbon emissions versus petroleum diesel,” according to Darling International, a company that deals in animal-fat diesel. Darling added in its first-quarter 2009 report, “That is the highest level of carbon reduction available from any commercially ready fuel.”

Both sides claimed to be aiding the environment. Both had profits at stake. The soap side just had better lobbyists than the chicken side. When Congress rushed the massive Wall Street bailout to passage last fall, it extended many special-interest tax breaks, but it specifically killed the $1-per-gallon break for animal-product diesel, leaving chicken-fat diesel with a subsidy of only 50 cents per gallon. Big soap and big biodiesel had defeated big oil and big chicken.

Last week, Conoco and Tyson announced they were axing their joint venture, at least until the $1-per-gallon credit returns.
Maybe Congress can take a lesson from the chicken-fat story: Stopping the oceans’ rise or cleaning the air are lofty concepts, but behind closed doors, environmental policy is often driven by less ambitious motivations.

Yup. Sounds about right. It was the money they were expecting but didn't receive.
http://robertrapier.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/update-on-cwt-ipo/ [wordpress.com]

Update on CWT IPO

A couple of months ago, in response to a story that Changing World Technologies was going to file an IPO to help commercialize their TPD technology, I reposted my story:

TDP: The Next Big Thing

Turns out they decided against the IPO. Bankruptcy seemed the better option:

Renewable Environmental Solutions owner closes plant in Missouri, files for bankruptcy

        Changing World Technologies Inc., based in West Hempstead, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11 protection Wednesday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

        In a news release, the company, which owns the Renewable Environmental Solutions plant in Carthage, said it was trying to reorganize its business and find new financing “to fund its operations going forward and to move ahead with its expansion strategy.”

        The company said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had lost $18.8 million for the nine months ending Sept. 30 and had an accumulated deficit of $117.8 million.

They have had a long fall from the cover of Discover magazine, where they were going to be the solution to the world’s energy problems. Let’s review some of the quotes from that initial article, and then consider the fact that the company never made a dime:

        “This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind,” says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. “This process can deal with the world’s waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming.”

        Pardon me, says a reporter, shivering in the frigid dawn, but that sounds too good to be true. “Everybody says that,” says Appel. “The potential is unbelievable,” says Michael Roberts, a senior chemical engineer for the Gas Technology Institute, an energy research group. “You’re not only cleaning up waste; you’re talking about distributed generation of oil all over the world.”

        “This is not an incremental change. This is a big, new step,” agrees Alf Andreassen, a venture capitalist with the Paladin Capital Group and a former Bell Laboratories director. “We will be able to make oil for $8 to $12 a barrel,” says Paul Baskis, the inventor of the process. “We are going to be able to switch to a carbohydrate economy.”

        And it will be profitable, promises Appel. “We’ve done so much testing in Philadelphia, we already know the costs,” he says. “This is our first-out plant, and we estimate we’ll make oil at $15 a barrel. In three to five years, we’ll drop that to $10, the same as a medium-size oil exploration and production company. And it will get cheaper from there.”

CWT and their TDP promises are the poster child for the strategy of “overhype your technology to pull in investors, and hope the technological problems are resolved.” They had endorsements from lots of people, and a gushing article in Discover. But reporters and investors didn’t ask the right questions, and they didn’t do their due diligence, and the result was a lot of dollars flushed down the toilet.

The sad thing is, history is repeating itself right now with most of these cellulosic ethanol and algal biodiesel companies. They all have a great story to tell, they are all going to solve the world’s energy problems, and the majority of them will be bankrupt inside of 5 years.

March 13, 2009 - Posted by Robert Rapier | Changing World Technologies, Thermal Depolymerization, bankruptcy

Remember kids!
Lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists, lobbyists...

Re:They tried that nearby for a few years (2, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162640)

The problem wasn't the stink. It was the economics. From the get go, they were relying on subsidies [ncpa.org] to make the process pay. These kind of businesses sprout up whenever there are government subsidies to be had or fuel prices spike. Their prospectuses will have a phrase that states that the company isn't profitable if you take away the subsidies or it will be profitable if the price of fuel rises faster than the rate of inflation. Had Renewable really developed a viable technology that delivered fuel at $15/barrel as they promised, there would have been more than enough money to clean up the stench.

Re:They tried that nearby for a few years (1)

wronkiew (529338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163038)

Very sad story. The plant had some odor problems in the beginning, but then it turned into a classic case of mass hysteria. People were calling in complaints on days when the plant wasn't even operating.

Environment friendly, but not human-friendly (2, Interesting)

fluor2 (242824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162266)

We already know Men living in areas with polluted air may be more likely to develop lung cancer, according to scientists. [bbc.co.uk].

So we thought this biofuel should be great. But now recent studies have found some evidence that indicates that biofuel is even worse for humans! Norwegian researchers have found this (published in a large norwegian magazine named technichal weekly).
Read this article [google.com]. The findings are new, but disturbing for the future of biofuel.

But hey, after all it's environment friendly. :)

Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly (3, Informative)

takowl (905807) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163174)

The findings are new, but disturbing for the future of biofuel.

To put this in perspective, the newspaper article you link to describes some scientists who've done a computer simulation of burning mixtures including biodiesel (a particular type of biofuel), and predict that it will produce a greater amount of PAHs, which are known to cause cancer, than simulated pure fossil fuels. As far as I can see, they've not even burnt anything.

Assuming real experiments match their simulation, the mixture will most likely be tweaked a bit--some chemical change, some additive, or something--to bring down the resulting amount of PAHs. We already drive around with catalytic converters bolted to our cars to clean up various pollutants. What you've described is a minor pothole in biofuel development, not the roadblock you seem to be implying. By far the greater challenge is how to devote the necessary land to grow biofuels while we simultaneously increase food production to feed a growing world population, and try to conserve land for nature.

Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163606)

Plus might help solve the "aging population problem" that many developed countries seem so worried about :).

That said, the great work by McD, Coca Cola, Frito-Lay, Philip Morris, Yum! Brands and friends towards solving this problem have so far been under appreciated...

YOU8 FAIl IT! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34162296)

Goals I personally d0ring which I 'I have to kill

Cholesterol (5, Funny)

TVDinner (1067340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162330)

Great, now I'll have to add Lipitor(tm) to my diesel tank so my car's fuel line doesn't get plaque build-up.

Re:Cholesterol (3, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162822)

Yeah, but given its price as pills, a pint of liquid Lipitor(tm) will cost like $6,000 in the U.S. (Or $4.95 in Canada/Mexico.)

When you find youself in danger, (3, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162348)

When you're threatened by a stranger,
When it looks like you will take a lickin', (cluk, cluk, cluk)
There is someone waiting,
Who will hurry up and rescue you,
Just Call for Rendered Chicken! (cluk, ack!)

A good thing, not so much (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162520)

I read in a few places that I can't remember right now that it takes feeding an animal 26 calories to get 1 calorie of food out, by eating their meat. In other words you have to put more energy in than you get out. This is good for Tyson's if this is about waste they could not do anything else with. It isn't an alternative energy solution though. It isn't even an efficient way to get food.

Re:A good thing, not so much (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162684)

People kind of have a taste for meat though. I don't think anyone is selling this as "the solution to oil dependence" or anything, but it *is* a way to recycle waste from a food production process that will occur anyways. Other than people liking short sound-bitey things I don't know why everyone has this need for there to be a single tech that solves all energy problems in the work.

Combustible liquid fuels powering ICE-powered cars is the situation for the near future. Given that, anything that lets us turn waste from one process ro another into supplemental fuel without doing so at a loss (as in more energy from converting waste->fuel than we get from the fuel, as in you don't get to count the energy spent to produce whatever the waste is the waste from -- you aren't raising chicken for fuel [that would be ridiculous], you're raising chickens for food and using the waste from that process for fuel) is a good thing.

Re:A good thing, not so much (2, Insightful)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162928)

People kind of have a taste for meat though.

Yep, in a calorie-sparse hunter-gatherer existence, a taste for meat, fat, and sugar— all with a very high calorie density— is a Good Thing. In a calorie-rich sedentary society, not so much.

Re:A good thing, not so much (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163226)

Well, the 26 calories is probably as much of a guess as the other figures I've heard reported, anything from 2 to 100.

The thing is, those calories, 26 if you like, can come from stuff that humans can't eat, like grass. Animals can (and do) graze on farmland that isn't really terribly suitable for growing crops. Without raising animals for meat, most of the people in the world would starve.

Re:A good thing, not so much (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163638)

Factory farms feed cows other things than grass because it is more efficient ( cheaper and more profitable). Grass fed beef would be expensive beef beyond what many Americans can afford, let alone other people in the world.

Marginal land, is just that marginal land. There isn't enough of it to raise enough life stock to feed a significant number of people.

I don't mean any personal insult to you, but you last statement is egregiously wrong. Raising animals for meat actually contributes to world hunger.

It takes about 10 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of beef out. In other words, you converted 10 pounds of food ( or crops that could have been food if you chose to grow something else ) into one pound of food.

Then there is all of the pollution from livestock farming that slowly using up fresh water and damaging other agricultural resources.

It is added to pet food (1)

justthinkit (954982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162560)

I assume the submitter was joking, but chicken fat is also added to pet foods. I saw the chicken fat on ingredient labels at Costco. We just switched from a dog food that had corn in it, based on a friend's advice that a corn allergy is common in dogs. Wish we had known 6 years ago.

How many million chickens is that? (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 3 years ago | (#34162794)

It's rather shocking that one company can actually *source* 75 million gallons of chicken fat per year in one country. How many billion chickens have to be slaughtered to make 75 million gallons of chicken fat?

Re:How many million chickens is that? (1)

michael_cain (66650) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163118)

Per USDA figures [worldpoultry.net], there were about 765 million chickens slaughtered in the US last year. The major share of the "fat" is probably the oil used to fry things. The US produces [foodnavigator-usa.com] something over 12 million metric tons of fats and oils per year, about 70% of that vegetable oils. Back-of-the-envelope, 12 million metric tons of the stuff is on the order of 3 billion gallons.

Re:How many million chickens is that? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163158)

As cited in another response [slashdot.org] to your post, it's about 3 billion chickens to make 75 million gallons of oil, at about 40 chickens per gallon. But that fat doesn't come from whole new chickens - it comes from fat from chickens already slaughtered. The fat is either a waste product currently "discarded" in landfills or holding tanks, or else possibly used in other applications not as valuable as the fuel oil product. My understanding is that the chicken industry, despite finding all kinds of uses for every part of the chickens slaughtered to make the meat that determines the number and size of chickens slaughtered, still creates lots of waste in "renderings" like fat and other grisly parts. Likewise, to produce 75 million gallons of oil we have demand for consuming we currently do a lot of drilling and refining that consumes other resources, including generating lots of pollution when it's burned.

Recycling chicken waste for fuel oil can be a net improvement on our previous operations in each of those industries. If indeed the chicken oil production actually delivers more energy in the oil than is consumed to make it, or if the consumption of the waste is more valuable than any possible net energy cost to make it.

The real world is about actual alternatives, not single actions in a vacuum. Until I hear of some significant new downside, recycling chicken waste into fuel oil sounds like a good move. Better than dumping the waste while drilling for oil.

Not A CO2 Sink (1)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163200)

Just so that everybody is clear, this is NOT better than burning fossil fuels in terms of CO2 released.

All of that chicken fat would simply have been put into a land fill, thus acting as a CO2 sink (kind of like fossil fuels right?).

Vats of chicken fat (4, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34163230)

I have a friend who produces biodiesel semi-professionally (sells to local farmers to run their tractors and other farm equipment, the rest is unofficially sold to friends) and for a while he was using rendered chicken fat. The raw material stinks like hell, but the resulting biodiesel doesn't really smell like much of anything. Remember that the manufacture of biodiesel is a chemical process that changes the oil into something else. The chicken fat no longer exists at the end of the process. Any odor is due to particulate or a fraction of oil that wasn't completely converted.

Generally all biodiesel smells the same unless it's been manufactured improperly. I've managed to get some in my mouth before (a siphoning error). It doesn't have much of a taste but it coats your mouth with a terrible film that is very hard to get rid of.

One time I was over at the plant with my dog. She managed to find an open container of chicken fat and stuck her head in there. I don't know how much of it she ate (drank? gulped?) but you can imagine, if you dare to, what sort of things were coming out of the other end of the dog for several days afterward. Oh god... Oh, oh god.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...