http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

I think this is only viable for restaurants, and only those with certain
types of cooking.

Andy

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ?
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:26:30 +0000, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ?
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

Maybe they don't have huge chip pans full of it to get rid of?
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

On 10 Feb, 09:43, mogga wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:26:30 +0000, wrote:
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ? *
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

Maybe they don't have huge chip pans full of it to get rid of?
--http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.ukhttp://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

You can be sure that as soon as this reaches a commercial scale, the
Environment Agency will step in and require the company to have a
waste incineration permit.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:43:13 +0000, mogga
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:26:30 +0000, wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ?
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

Maybe they don't have huge chip pans full of it to get rid of?

Yes but if you use cooking oil at all but you "never throw it away"
then what happens to it .That's what I was getting at ?

wrote:


Yes but if you use cooking oil at all but you "never throw it away"
then what happens to it .That's what I was getting at ?

Good question. I would have hoped the answer would be he

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/acrylamide_branch/

But I can't find it. Does acrylamide accumulate in the oil or does it
(largely) stay on the food cooked therein?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ?
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

filter it and use it again.

A percentage of the oil is absorbed in the food so it all gets used
eventually

tim

"tim....." wrote:
wrote:

What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

filter it and use it again.


Question: How do you know you are filtering out the carcinogens that
build up every time you (re)use it?

Answer: You don't.


..

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:44:57 -0000, "tim....."
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:46:36 +0000, Andy Champ
wrote:

misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

Since I never throw away any oil, and only the waste fat from grilling -
which is less than a cupful a week - I'd be darn cold.

Does that first line make sense ?
and
What do you do with your oil if you don't throw it away?

filter it and use it again.

A percentage of the oil is absorbed in the food so it all gets used
eventually

tim


Oh No......could never do that .I don't believe filtering does
anything other than take the largest pieces of crap out of the oil. I
mean,the regualr heating of the oil must degenerate it regardless of
the filtering

wrote:

Oh No......could never do that .I don't believe filtering does
anything other than take the largest pieces of crap out of the oil. I
mean,the regualr heating of the oil must degenerate it regardless of
the filtering


The carcinogens multiply every time it is used.

On 9 Feb, 22:46, Andy Champ wrote:
misterroy wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

It would be more environmentally friendly to use it in a diesel
generator; the national grid eficiency is something like 35 - 40% due
to transmission & cooling tower losses, so locally generated
electricity would displace more fossil fuel. The heat rejected to the
radiator could be used for space or DHWS heating.

It would be most effective to use it in a diesel vehicle, because then
you'd avoid paying the gobment fuel excise duty. They don't want to
tell you that though.

The diesel engine technology is established, the oil boiler technology
is less so.

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as fossil
fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as much
*fossil* carbon dioxide".

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as fossil
fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as much
*fossil* carbon dioxide".

Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

Not sure I follow the: "Andrew Robertson, of Clean Energy Consultancy,
said: "It’s preferable to use biofuel as a heating fuel rather than for
transport.

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as fossil
fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as much
*fossil* carbon dioxide".

Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

yes, but we can at least now use it for one more thing. OTOH I'd
question the value of that one more thing, since currently its used in
animal feed.


NT

John Rumm wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as
fossil fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as
much *fossil* carbon dioxide".

Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

Not sure I follow the: "Andrew Robertson, of Clean Energy Consultancy,
said: "It’s preferable to use biofuel as a heating fuel rather than
for transport.

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

Its the thought of all those vehicles driving around smelling like kebab
shops :-) Less smelly if it remains in one place.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?
"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as
fossil fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as
much *fossil* carbon dioxide".
Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

Not sure I follow the: "Andrew Robertson, of Clean Energy Consultancy,
said: "It’s preferable to use biofuel as a heating fuel rather than
for transport.

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

Its the thought of all those vehicles driving around smelling like kebab
shops :-) Less smelly if it remains in one place.

The farm next door to us reprocesses oil on a commercial basis. Other
than seeing the occasional sign written van arrive or leave, one is
never usually made aware of this. However a couple of weeks back, I kept
walking outside and smelling Chinese food - thinking hmmm, that smells
nice, who has got a large kung po chicken! Eventually I realised they
must have been reprocessing oil from a Chinese or similar, and the wind
was in a different direction from normal.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...

Not sure I follow the: "Andrew Robertson, of Clean Energy Consultancy,
said: "It’s preferable to use biofuel as a heating fuel rather than for
transport.

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

It would be better to use it for transport and nuclear electric for the
heating.
Just shows that these ecologist types really don't know what they are
talking about.

John Rumm wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:19:08 -0800 (PST), misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

"... delighted researchers, who said it was proving as efficient as
fossil fuel while emitting less than half as much carbon dioxide."

Now that's a neat trick, I guess they really mean "less than half as
much *fossil* carbon dioxide".

Yup, that set my bull**** detector ringing as well!

While not a bad idea, it strikes me there is only a limited amount of
the stuff to go about about.

Not sure I follow the: "Andrew Robertson, of Clean Energy Consultancy,
said: "It’s preferable to use biofuel as a heating fuel rather than for
transport.

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

And adding need for more carbon energy intensive fertilisers to grow it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Erm, so what? Surely the point is you are displacing fossil carbon
emissions wherever you use it?

And adding need for more carbon energy intensive fertilisers to grow it.

Well indeed if you grow it specially. I don't think there is any point
in growing bio-fuels[1] since there is always usually something more
useful you can do with the land. As a way of using the waste oil
however, then fair enough...

[1] With the possible exception of using algee to purify contaminated
water, and making a diesel replacement from the resulting sludge.
--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember misterroy
saying something like:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

More bandwagon jumpers.

misterroy wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

I produce several tonnes a year of "cooking oil". I don't have any spare
for the central heating, nor to run my tractor. I doubt if even the most
pikey house on the pikiest council estate in a pikey town produces the
1-2 tonnes of waste oil per year that would be needed to provide for
central heating and DHW.

"misterroy" wrote in message
...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5690196.ece

any thoughts?

In ecological terms it's as useful as ****ing in the wind.

I guess that it saves some money, but probably not much

tim