Manure-Powered Generators On The Rise 444
Sunkist writes "The San Francisco Chronicle has a report on Marin County rancher Albert Straus that, after 25 years of work, began using a generator powered by manure. While this type of 'power' has been in use for a while, recent legislation has made it more widespread. From the article, 'The Straus Farms' covered-lagoon methane generator, powered by methane billowing off a covered pool of decomposing bovine waste, is expected to save the operation between $5,000 and $6,000 per month in energy costs.' Let's hear it for poop!"
The inherited problem is still (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Tina Turner (Score:2, Insightful)
Btw mods, grandparent is not a troll. If you haven't seen the Mad Max films you have no business moderating on a forum for geeks.
Great Economic News! (Score:3, Insightful)
I also see a new market opening for human droppings. Why limit ourselves to animal manure? People donate plasma for a pocketful of money don't they? Why not have pay toilets pay us?!
All of this is good news for out-of-work and soon-to-be-out-of-work programmers!
Sounds like a win-win (Score:3, Insightful)
but on a serious note - Re:That's all well and (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The inherited problem is still (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, more plankton leads to more krill leads to more whales. Greenpeace is against this? Besides, all our energy comes from either the sun or radioactive decay. Ultimately, it's all nuclear.
You're missing the point -- (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a win-win situation, for those involved -- they de-water the waste, compact the waste for easier removal, and get energy back in the process to help offset the operational costs for the process.
For those who didn't take sewage treatment classes in college, there are four main types of setting -- type 1 is for things that accelerate from gravity (sticks, rocks, etc), type 2 is things that floculate (clump together as they're falling), type 3 and 4 are not typically done in a water treatment plant as they don't happen quickly enough. So, what they do is syphon off the 'mostly' clean water at the top, and dump the sludge at the bottom... but the sludge at the bottom is still mostly water, which is heavy, and bulky. Depending on the area, they'll spread it out to dry in the sun, or use anaerobic digestion (such as in the bottom of a pond), to get it to compress further.
And let's not forget that composted manure makes great fertilizer, which the farmer might otherwise be buying for the plants that go into feeding the cow. It's all just an example of a nice little ecosystem.
Re:The inherited problem is still (Score:3, Insightful)
Great Tech - But I have a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
"With net metering, small producers like Straus can reduce or erase their energy bills but cannot be paid for pumping excess energy into the grid. Net metering has been available to owners of home solar systems for several years."
Why do we allow laws that strip us of potential income, and benefit companies like PG&E?
Fuel consumed in Feed Lots (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doubtful (Score:3, Insightful)
U.S. livestock alone consume about one-third of the world's total grain harvest, as well as more than 70 percent of the grain grown in the United States.
I have heard similar numbers elsewhere (although not as high as 70%). PETA is, of course, one of the growing numbers of groups that feel that making up facts and figures *cough*MADD*cough* is ok, since what they're doing is "good".
Farmers have also been doing this in Minnesota recently (the manure energy, not making up facts and figures). I'm trying to remember if it worked year round.
Re:Doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, a cow grazing on one acre of land produces enough meat to sustain a person two and a half months; soybeans grown on that same acre would nourish a person for seven years.
And the point is? Growing those soybeans for food using current methods requires anywhere between 12-18 times the energy that you receive from the food, including lots of nasty things like fossil fuels and fertilizer! OH NO THE PLANET IS GOING TO DIE! 7 years of energy for a human is ~ 7yr * 365days/yr * 2000kcal / day = ~ 5.1 million kCal. The EVIL TOXIC energy needed to create that food: ~61 million kCal - ~92 million kCal!
Having a cow graze that same acre of land requires no power as the energy in the grass it is eating is from the sun. No nasty chemicals, no icky big tractors. So, 2 1/2 months of food = 375000 kCal. To produce this food required only about 375000 kCal of FRESH HAPPY SUN energy. And they included only meat as a by-product of the cow. I can get milk too.
So, clearly in this setup (obviously things are different in real life, but I'm just going with what the super-smart folk at PETA tell me), the cow is the better alternative. I can eat its meat, drink its milk (if it's a female), wear its skin, and create power from its shit! All I need to make it through the year is about 4-5 cows and 4-5 acres of grass land. And since I'm using the shit to make power, I'm not relying on the nasty nuclear or dirty coal based energy! Three cheers for Mother Earth! Thanks for making it so clear PETA! If I love my planet, I should raise cows and eat meat!
Environmental impact (Score:4, Insightful)
All of this led me to one question (Score:4, Insightful)
How does the shit get to the lagoon?
At 120lbs/day/cow, moving that shit around could require a lot of energy. Are they only using the shit from the barn? Is there someone riding the range looking for shit? Are the cows wearing shit bags like horses in the city do? Are they doing anything to catch the cow farts (100-200 liters/day/cow according to the article)?
Well, I guess it was more than one question...
Can't see the grass for the trees (Score:4, Insightful)
Replacing the cow might have its features, though. The cow is actually the indirect consumer of grass; the grass is first consumed by bacteria which convert its cellulose and other things to simpler carbohydrates and proteins (like growing mushrooms on straw) and then the cow digests the results. There isn't anything standing in the way of us growing such bacteria in vats rather than in cows and then feeding the results to e.g. fish, getting closer to the 2:1 feed/meat ratio than the cow's 8:1.
The price has a floor (Score:3, Insightful)
You can make up for this with the difference between wholesale and retail (avoided) cost and other things, though. The analysis isn't trivial.
Greenhouse Gas Damages Ozone Layer. WTF ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"This naturally occurring methane is a potent greenhouse gas, estimated to be 21 times as damaging to the ozone layer as carbon dioxide."
Perhaps, given the topic, it is appropriate that that the article itself contain some bullshit. But that statement is excessive.
Greenhouse gasses DO NOT deplete the ozone layer. A single egregious falsehood within the article undermines the credibility of the entire article; The author has demonstrated that she can not acurately report important facts, therefore all statements made in the article fall into question.
Re:The inherited problem is still (Score:3, Insightful)
He had a statistic about the amount of forested area in the US actually increasing by some significant percentage over a period of a few decades. In trying to figure out any way that this might actually be true, I realized that the decades in question covered the time when Alaska became a state. A brief check of an Almanac showed that Alaska accounted for the claimed growth and quite a lot more. Factoring that in, it was clear that the same statistic showed a pretty alarming rate of destruction.
Guess we just need to annex Brazil to keep the trend going.
After that? Mars maybe? Can we somehow count Mars as all forested?
In Nicaragua... (Score:2, Insightful)
They had the goats in a pen elevated off the ground so that they could collect their waste and fertilize stuff with it. Leaves that had fallen off plants were turned into windbreakers. There was even a little symbiotic relationship thing going on between the banana plants and a smaller shrub. EVERYTHING was linked into each other, and according to the farmers there, this kind of farm produced a lot more than the typical kind they've got there, and it requires less work. Now THAT'S engineering.
Re:Doubtful (Score:3, Insightful)