@dervheid @Anonymous Coward @ Ishkandar
'Just HOW MUCH garbage IS required to produce a total of 1800BPD, whilst at the same time generating enough energy to support the plasma furnaces AND the gas liquefaction/refining process.'
From experience, about the same amount of garbage thrown out by an average Californian household each week
Yes a plane can fly on methane, gas turbines are remarkably unfussy what they burn. It would be less energy dense than kerosene, so range would suffer.
However the big problem is storing the fuel. It has to be liquified to be at all practical and that is a real issue. Making tanks for the wings would be bloody hard and also inefficient since they'd have relatively large surface areas in comparison to their volume, so they'd tend to heat up quicker. This would lead to real risks of icing on the wings which is a big aviation no-no. The alternative is to stick a tank into the fuselage, either by stretching the plane or by removing some of the capacity. This is a simpler, more efficient solution, but I'm not sure how the FAA would feel about passengers being in such close proximity to a large deep-frozen bomb.
Lockheed did some studies in the mid 1980s of a TriStar run on liquid hydrogen - a much more challenging fuel - and found no real problems, but there was no funding for a scheme. I also seem to recall some work being done on methane slushes for rockets and jets - take liquid methane and cool it even further into a Slushee consistency and you get even more power per kilo - but I don't think any of that technology has ever been built.
Errr why is this process violating any law of physics? By your rules, oil refineries can't possibly work because they use the residue from fractionation to heat the stills that produce (amongst other things) - crude residue. The waste going into the furnaces contains a lot of energy, it just needs a relatively small amount of energy to release it.