Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

How Many Cowpower is That? 46

Posted by timothy from the and-giggles dept.
Zlorfik writes: " Accoring to a a Des Moines Register story, a new facility in Iowa can generate enough renewable energy from 700 cows to power 1,000 100-watt bulbs." This sounds like a good reason to switch to a slightly more efficient lighting system.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Many Cowpower is That? More

How Many Cowpower is That?

Comments Filter:

  • India (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Screaming Lunatic ( 526975 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @12:02AM (#3996810) Homepage
    This has been done for years in third-world countries for a long time. Particularily in India. It's nice to see industrialized countries following suit. Especially since we don't have an endless supply of gas (pun intended).
  • Now I can power my George Foreman grill to cook up a nice juicy steak and some hamburgers with the electricty that was produced by the very same cow. Yummmmmmmmmmmmie.
  • ...700 cows to power 1,000 100-watt bulbs

    But can it power 1 100,000-watt bulb?

  • Possibilities (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LagDemon ( 521810 )
    This is very neat. A good way to get rid of all that cow pollution. But when they say they reduce the methane production, aren't they just converting it to CO2(this assumes i am right to this they are burning it in the generator). Also, why stop with only cow manure? There are 6 billion people on this planet, which must translate into a goodly amountof methane. And cows produce methane directly, too. Don't forget that.

    • Re:Possibilities (Score:3, Informative)

      by vrt3 ( 62368 )
      I didn't read the article since the link seems to be broken, but I assume you're right:

      CH4 (methane) + 2 02 (oxygen) -> 2 H2O (water) + CO2

      But, considering that the greenhouse effect of methane is much larger than that of CO2, this is not a problem.

      On a related note, many gasses have an effect on the greenhouse phenomenon. CO2 is the most famous one because it's the one that varies the most, and the one that (according to most scientists) has an increasing concentration due to human activities.

      • IANAC
        #include NaCl

        if the methane was going to be created anyway (because the cattle were pre-existing for human consumption) this at least reduces the pollutants to a less harmful pollutant, like a catalitic (sp) converter. also, since the cows get fuel from grass which gets its fuel from CO2 and H2O we're closing the loop.
        • Bogs, piles of manure, improperly aerated compost piles generate methane. It is a byproduct of anaerobic bacteria. Since it is a more potent greenhouse gas it would be in our interests to aerate bogs, manure piles, and compost piles. Global warming will speed up the biological activity in said bogs, etc.
    • As others have noted, what's remarkable is that anyone thinks this is new. "Gobar gas" generators have been around for a quarter century or so, and the occasional sewage-plant worker has converted engines or whole vehicles (such as their personal cars) to run off of gas emitted by the decaying organic matter. That does include human waste, BTW...

      Oddly, despite all the interest I've seen in composting toilets in various back-to-the-land magazines I cannot recall seeing one which is designed to produce methane as a byproduct. Maybe there is some liability issue, such as somebody would be certain to run a leaky gas-line indoors and poison themselves without the ethyl mercaptan additive to give the gas a strong warning smell.

      Landfills also produce quite a bit of methane, which is burned off in most places. There are some projects going to convert this free fuel to useful energy; I don't have a URL handy but I've read a somewhat tedious PDF of a white paper about the power potential of a certain landfill (King county, WA I think) and how cost-effectively it could be harnessed. Food for thought.

      • The problem with BURNING THINGS is that you get ASH. Did anybody read the article in News Week where some Penn. incinerator was ordered to dispose 14 TONS of ash? They dumbed 4 on I think South Africa, telling them it was fertilizer, but by the time the country found out, the ship was gone. It was sailing for some 10-20 odd years, and finally dumped 10 tons in the Indian Ocean. You see, if we burn things, we're increasing the heat on Earth, and we still have the remaining carbon to find a place to use...

    • Re:Possibilities (Score:2, Informative)

      by GodsMadClown ( 180543 )
      As long as the cows aren't eating coal, petroleum or natural gas from a well, the carbon in their manure came from plant sources. Plants get thier carbon from the air. It's a zero-sum game. The big idea behind the problem with CO2 release is all the people releasing the carbon that was locked away deep underground as limestone (to make concrete) or fossil fuels.

      Additionally, methane is much less stable than CO2 in the atmosphere. I forget the pricise figures, but I think the residence time for your average methane molecule is 1-2 years. Depending on your ocean uptake numbers, CO2 residence is in the 100's of years.
    • This is very neat. A good way to get rid of all that cow pollution. But when they say they reduce the methane production, aren't they just converting it to CO2(this assumes i am right to this they are burning it in the generator).

      Don't forget that just about all the carbon processed by the cow is originally from agricultural products, and that all the carbon in agricultural products is originally atmospheric. So in that sense it's a closed cycle which doesn't emit any excess CO2 (*).

      (*) This ignores CO2 from fossil fuels used by agricultural machinery and fertilizer production.
  • 7 cows per kilo-watt... sounds kinda steep.
    I can generate electricity rubbing a balloon
    on my head, but is it economically feasable?
    probably not.

  • obDidn'tRTFA (Score:3, Funny)

    by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Friday August 02, 2002 @04:24AM (#3997441) Homepage Journal
    .
    But aren't cows more expensive to burn than coal or oil?

    --
    Evan (no references in this message)

  • One Mouse power (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) on Friday August 02, 2002 @04:52AM (#3997485) Homepage Journal
    Or you can use one mouse to power an asynchronous microprocessor [man.ac.uk].
    We never found the need to use any bigger animals.

  • Well, the article link seems out, so how about a little reference material on biomass for energy generation: Iowa Renewable Energy Resource Guide - Biomass [state.ia.us] and from the same site Methane Recovery [state.ia.us].

    Since I can't find the article to read it (broken link as I post), I can't say definitively, but from the above site, it appears methane has been used for energy generation in Iowa since 1972. So this would appear to be nothing new, even for Iowa. Not to poo poo the post or anything.

  • This sound like The Matrix... for cows ;)
    • The parallels between The Matrix and modern farming are intriguing:

      "There are fields, endless fields, where human beings are no longer born, we are grown."
      Female animals in factory farms are kept in an almost perpetual state of pregnancy to satisfy our demands for meat.

      "I watched them liquefy the dead so they could be fed intravenously to the living."
      Better than grinding up the dead and mixing it with the food for the living, like we do with livestock (though not so much anymore, thanks to BSE).

      "... in order to change a human being into this (holds up battery)"
      Or to turn a cow into a Happy Meal. And we don't even give them a fantasy world to keep their mind off what's happening.

      Just some 'food' for thought....

  • Cows in the news (Score:3, Funny)

    by n-baxley ( 103975 ) <nate@NosPAm.baxleys.org> on Friday August 02, 2002 @09:02AM (#3997997) Homepage Journal
    In an unsuccessful attempt to find the real story link, I searched the Des Moines Register for "cow power". I ended up with over 50 hits. Not many news sites can say that!
  • Leave it to this wonderful state (which I happen to live in), to have its biggest newspaper prove how tech illiterate the state is by hiding/removing stories from their site. This is why I go to school in Illinois:).
  • It's a good step in the right direction -- I'd personally like to see more and better sources of renewable energy developed and deployed. I'm not, however, overly zealous about the replacement of our current technology. That's another matter.

    Either way, if you really want to spend hours digging through all manner of excellent research and papers on alternate fuels, feel free to peruse the US Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Centre [doe.gov].

  • ....do you go about plugging a 100watt lamp into a cow?
  • What *IS* the deal with geeks and cows? They're not exactly intelligent, graceful creatures, and they're not even that nice looking. I mean, compare a cow to, say, a nice white horse.

    (moo.)

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close