 | The Bullroarer - Tuesday 18 March 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer - Friday 21 March 2008 |  |
157 comments on Banana Methane Powered Cars, Pig Poo Power And Other Uses For Biogas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
157 comments on Banana Methane Powered Cars, Pig Poo Power And Other Uses For Biogas
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Hmmm - you didn't seem to read the post.
If you do believe collapse is inevitable, aren't those Indian single-home biodigesters kind of useful things ? No oil or anything else required.
How about banana farms that can power their vehicles using the gas they produce - and the local town ?
With the same applying for pig farms, and cattle farms etc ?
How about the Swedes powering their public transport systems using biogas from wastewater and sewage plants ?
How about German's supplying some (or maybe all) of their natural gas needs with biogas ?
I would have thought these were positive developments worth considering.
Oil isn't the only energy source - there are a myriad of other options.
I think its worthwhile considering all of them.
The German's have done much that is not worth emulating, and this is one of them. You have not responded to my questions concerning how much energy is used in developing this gas infrastructure (how many millions of Indian houses for the biodigesters and how much piping and energy that goes into it)? Nor did you respond to the questions regarding the trade off between gas production and fertilizer; this is not only important in nations like India and China, but in the so-called developed world, where soil depletion means that when we run out of chemical fertilizer, we are in a world of starvation. Gas production from agricultural "waste" means reduced food production. Moreover, the farm animal economy is wasteful of grain. Raising animals for food wastes much grain, as animals expel much energy in body heat and the elimination of methane gases. In the last few days I have been talking with an old man who was about to sell me his 100 acre/40 hectare little ranch in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. He and few people working with him have never had electricity or telephone. They do everything by hand, and all of the animal waste goes back into agricultural production. I realized, that farm and home life is possible without electricity. I have never seen a happier person in all my life! The quest for more energy is the problem, not the solution. Some gas production methods may make sense, like using the gas from land waste fills and probably sewage for heating. In that case, I'm sure that in that case the gas obtained was not taken from agriculture and the EROEI is positive.
The sooner you stop using Electricity, the sooner you'll be happily rid of TOD, and this silly insistence on there being SOME forms of energy generation out there.. you seem to think that None At All is the best amount, in which case, walk your talk already.
If you object to this imagined mass of wasted production energy used to build a reasonably simple system, then bring some numbers or articles and make a CASE. Gav doesn't have to support your argument for you.
In the article I linked below as well, http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html the author and Mssr Pain explained that the used slurry was then applied as mulching to their soil, which had previously been poor for growing.. so it hardly seems like they're compromising their growing capacity by producing cooking, lighting and driving gas beforehand.
" Once fermentation ends, the big, magic cake produces no more energy, but it will still render 50 tons of natural fertilizer. By spreading a layer of this humus on the poor, stony soil around the house, Jean Pain has created a luxurious farm garden where even tropical vegetables grow. I admire tomato plants two-and-a-half metres high, lift a six-kilo watermelon and inspect a chayote (a kind of sweet Zucchini -- hitherto found only in the West Indies and in Africa), What surprises me most is that these giant vegetables need no watering; all the water they require, Pain tells me, is synthesized in the compost."
Bob
If one is peddling poo as a viable energy solution, he or she must bring the figures to show that is environmentally sound and provides more energy than it uses.
Shit is a renewable resource. People and animals continue to create a lot of shit whether we put it in biogas digesters or not.
I'm not sure why you imagine that shit put into a biogas digester takes more energy to produce than shit which is flushed down the loo. Do you feel an energy deficit after going to the toilet?
The stuff is going to decay and produce some methane anyway, whether we bury it, put it through a sewage settling system, chuck it in the sea, or whatever.
In nature animals eat plants, the digested plants are turned into manure and urine which gets dropped onto the soil, the manure and urine break down and gives nutrients to the plants, it's a cycle. Humans currently break this cycle by removing their manure from the system and putting it through machines, because we're paranoid about disease.
The machines we put our excrement through already produce a lot of methane. The only question is whether we bother using that methane or we just discharge it into the atmosphere. Since it's 23 times as strong a greenhouse gas as the carbon dioxide it'd turn into if we burned it, it seems better to use it.
Of course, ideally we keep the sludge afterwards to be fertiliser. As this paper notes,
In fact the faeces and urine per person varies according to diet. Urine is about 500lt annually on average, and faeces 36-100kg annually; vegetarian diets give higher volume. The faeces are useful as a soil conditioner, and the urine for its nutrients (the traditional nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium of artificial fertilisers).
Maybe we could just hook cj up to a bio-gas digestor. Hes seems to be full of it. ;)
This says more about you, than me. Personal attacks rather dealing with the issues.
Thanks - that was one of my main points - this methane is getting produced and we might as well make use of it - in some cases we'll actually be cleaning up festering and polluting eyesores (aka the burning poo mountains).
The fact that we end up producing less total greenhouse gas (in terms of effect) is just another bonus.
On a semi-related note, given the scatological bent of this thread, here's a post from WorldChanging which includes a DIY home fertiliser manufacturing kit - you pass your urine through it and voila - happy house plants...
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007883.html
It is important to reduce the volume poo generated in the world, as it wastes the energy in food (from body heat and methane generation), and much of food comes from natural gas/fertilizer, so poo wastes natural gas and also oil that was used to plant and harvest. In short, animals are very wasteful of energy in comparison to growing vegetables and grain. When there is poo, get it into the ground as fast as possible to reduce the generation of methane, or dry it as fast as possible to reduce the generation of methane. And don't give others a lot of #$%@.
CJ, very few on this board would argue that industrialized meat industry isn't oversized and way out of balance, not the least because of the degrading quality of food that we end up with, as well as the inputs, the pharma Hormone and Antibiotic components, as well as the mountainous wastes at the other end. It doesn't change the fact that we raise all sorts of animals, and will continue to do so. We raise chickens, pigs, cows, horses, oxen, rabbits, Bison, Ostriches, Sheep, Goats, Turkeys etc, etc. Even if the industrial scaling of these operations is brought back into balance, the fact will remain that we have all sorts of waste matter from both humans and animals, and we can use it BOTH as Fertilizer and for Digesting the Methane for other energy needs. Beyond that is the use of probably much MORE scrap material from plant sources, and which again, is NOT pulled from the growing cycle, as it is returned to the fields as compost later on.
Bob
Having fairly large operations such as 500 dairy cows gives a rational biogas plant and a small cluster of such would be good for an economical gas treatment plant to get the biogas up to wehicle gas specification.
A central purpose of TOD should be to advise people to do wise things regarding food and energy, like reducing the use of animals for food and dairy products. So, I suggest we do that, rather than advise people to keep on wasting energy by raising animals and then implement another techno-fix that wastes energy and fertilizer.
I would rather eat more mostly grass fed beef that during the summer grazed land that has been grazed for more then a thousand years.
CJ!!!
You are not wasting the fertilizer! Just take the 'Jean Pain' example, if you still want to ignore ALL the other ones posted here, and show me how the fertilizer was wasted. If you cannot, then stop saying that. Are you seven? what is up with you?
You are capturing energy that is OTHERWISE wasted!
Alright, other readers are probably fed up with my trying to communicate with you.
You have nothing to say.
Well - I'd like to commend you for your persistence - sometimes when people dogmatically insist on something, no matter how wrong, it does end up influencing those reading.
But hopefully your point has been made now.
.. and hopefully the point was right, too.
I'm happy to get rebuttals, that's how I can learn here.
Thanks,
Bob
Your comments indicate a negative bias toward me. If you can't comport yourself in a more professional fashion you should resign your position at TOD.
Mate, you're on the internet. Complete stranger, words on a screen. Get up from your chair, walk around outside for a bit, have a cup of coffee, relax. Return refreshed and with perspective. Or you could just remember to take your Hard Pills (TM) in the morning.
If you are talking to me then I would like to point out that you have been completely disrespectful to me (and TOD) since this thread started and you have made one incorrect statement after another.
If your accuracy and your manners improve I may start to show you some respect in return.
This isn't "bias" - its a simple case of being treated the way you treat others. Get over it.
Also, after crap has gone through a digester the sludge that remains is pretty mineral rich. In some cases it makes a good fertilizer (although you have to watch the salt level as you do with manure) on its own or is easy to process into a good fertilizer.
On the contrary, I have much to say. Please stop your personal attacks in saying "You have nothing to say." I have not ignored ALL of the other biogas projects, as you say. I was a professor of political science at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) until January 2008, and I am well informed about the use of natural gas from a not-so-local land fill, and I commented so on this post today. Even in this case I have doubts about what was accomplished. A pipe line was constructed from Rochester, NH to Durham, NH. That is laying some 20 miles of pipe. The natural gas, oil, and coal used to make 20 miles of pipe and transport it many miles from where it was made is significant, and the diesel used in digging and the gasoline in transportation is significant. Add to that all of the people who were employed in making the pipe, transporting it, making the equipment that dug deep trenches and channeled the pipe under the Cocheco River -- all of those employees who make a salary and will spend it and thus use more oil. The companies where the stuff is manufactured use oil and natural gas to heat factories and offices, and they all use electricity. Imagine how many hundreds of people are involved in the companies that make pipe and dig and move land -- land moving trucks, pick up trucks, back loaders, back hoes, etc. Think of all of the people commuting to all of these jobs. Think of all of the administrative and clerical personnel in all of these companies, and all of the profits that will go to stockholders. And the salaries and profits will go on car or air travel vacations, trips to the mall or whatever. The digging, welding, architectural firms, etc. And all of the time spent on this means time is not spent on other projects that could save energy. When I was chair of the Energy Policy Committee at UNH, the head of the energy office and I estimated that we could save a million dollars per year just by implementing a program to get students and faculty to shut windows in classrooms at the end of night classes. It is common to walk by big classroom buildings with most of the windows open ALL NIGHT LONG when it is 10 degrees outside -- just pouring out the heat from #6 fuel oil into the air. The administration ignored our plans, they probably were not sexy enough and they would have to work at it on a regular basis. The million dollars a year in 1985 is probably 5 million today. That is a lot of #6 oil over 22 years ... that is a lot of oil. So now they have a natural gas project that is very sexy (and their careers will be advanced), but will it save much energy, I doubt it. No one knows how many years the land fill will generate gas, I doubt many years. They could save a lot more energy by educating students, faculty and administrators about the need to close windows, but that wouldn't be sexy. Good grief!
It is best to quit fooling around with trying to control nature. We've can't win that battle. Most of these techno-fixes are wasting energy, not conserving it. The problem is the continued quest to use more energy from fossil fuels (most farm waste gets its energy originally from fertilizer/natural gas). Quit using a lot of energy in making pipe and equipment and quit wasting energy on farm waste and instead put it into the ground where it will do some good, but it isn't very sexy.
Well Clif, you've finally said something new. I'm sorry I said you had nothing to say, but from the last several DOZEN posts, that was the only conclusion I could come to. And with your final conclusion to this one, I probably won't take this much further. How many times have people said that the effluent FROM many of these systems went back INTO THE GROUND as fertilizer?! If you can say it's not good fertilizer, then say it. But giving jobs to people laying pipe, making pipe, mining metals for pipe? If it's a durable system to carry a completely renewable energy supply, then why is that not a healthy investment?
The above was a Good story, and I'm sorry to hear that UNH was unwilling to work on some of the most basic efficiency measures. Their loss and ours. I'm going over to USM (Southern Maine) This morning for a symposium "Preparing Our Region for a Sustainable Energy Future".. they have an Energy Efficiency and Renewables/Sustainability program led by Dudley Greeley which has made a lot of noise and impact in the College Community there. They do use PV and Solar Hot Water Collectors, but this is not the beginning or the end of their effort. Basic, personal habits, reduction of waste everywhere Dudley could find it has made him respected and frequently just barely tolerated in his zealousness there, but he has managed to get the program going very well, and has served USM in many ways.
Your objections still aren't making your point. This pipeline in NH might have been a huge waste, who knows? Make that the story and show us how.. but to lump it together with the whole category, where example after example have shown modest infrastructure and clear benefits .. you come off as a crank, unwilling to hear the idea that there is a balancing point, and ways to apply this with reasonable inputs and get useful returns.
Bob
That's right, the central purpose of TOD is to promote vegetarianism, rather than energy solutions.
Yes indeed, and as cjwirth has just shown, people can of course *talk* this valuable substance as well ...
You requested figures. I'll supply them.
Please stop peddling your pig poo here. It is very stinky stuff. It is important to reduce the volume poo generated in the world, as it wastes the energy in food (from body heat and methane generation), and much of food comes from using natural gas/fertilizer, so poo wastes natural gas and also oil that was used to plant and harvest. In short, animals are very wasteful of energy in comparison to growing vegetables and grain. When there is poo, get it into the ground as fast as possible to reduce the generation of methane, or dry it as fast as possible to reduce the generation of methane.
Request denied. You stated that people should be produce figures to back up their argument and when someone does (and there are people here that have far more expertise than you profess to have in your bio), you further dig yourself into a hole. So, you just made a bunch of claims inyour reply...let's see you back them up with data.
Otherwise,
Stop peddling YOUR poo here.
It is important to reduce the volume of YOUR poo generated in the world, as it wastes the energy in food, and much of food comes from using natural gas/fertilizer, so YOUR poo wastes natural gas and also oil that was used to plant and harvest. In short, YOU are very wasteful of energy.
Unless you are able to demonstrate that you physically and personally produced more of the following either singly or in combination in equivalent energy production, you have an EROEI of less than 1 and by your metrics are deemed wasteful:
3,222 gallons of distillate oil (#2 ULSD),or
3,687 gallons of gasoline, or
3,349 gallons of kerosene, or
598 cubic feet of pure methane, or
14.63 tons of bituminous coal w/ HHV of 12,010 BTU/lb, or
19.41 tons of subbituminous coal w/ HHV of 8,735 BTU/lb, or
a nominal 34,500 kWh net electrical energy ouput
If you cannot meet these minimum standards for an EROEI you should, therfore, apply the appropriate remedy to yourself.
Thanks for providing the numbers earlier - I'll give CJ one thing - his constant insistence that all energy sources are bad does prompt people to come forward with additional information - which is what I love about TOD.
Makes me wonder how he powers his computer, or why he's online at all.
Just as I suggest that the people who think population is a problem should prove the strength of their convictions by topping themselves, so too do I think those who are against modern civilisation should get offline.
I don't insist that all energy sources are bad, rather I promote conserving fossil energy, rather than wasting them. And, as you well know, I have regularly commented on the utility of passive solar and have asked for more posts on passive solar, but you continue to post techno-fixes. Your comments indicate a negative bias toward me. If you can't comport yourself in a more professional fashion you should resign your position at TOD.
@cjwirth
One of the great things about TOD is that if you have something to say, they will post it for you. If you want more posts on passive solar, why dont you write it and I'm sure they'll put it up.
Passive solar is also a technolgy issue. You have to build something to catch the energy which is to a degree a techno fix. The best passive solar uses modern building material of concrete, glass steel, and insulation materials.
I get quite frustrated by Luddite purists who lump all technolgy together as unsustainable. We are not going to lose the all the knowledge gained from the oil fossil fuel age and much of what we have learned will find new applications in the post peak future.
Securing and preserving that knowledge is essential for the future as we will not be able to dedicate spare resources for pure research in any area.
If you want to dismiss all knowledge of technology just because it won't scale to power BAU, then you miss the point of why we here - to learn from eachother, prepare ourselves and hopefully be able to emerge from the post peak turmoil relatively unscathed.
I see you a re political scientist so I would like to see you post on your area of expertise. My challenge is for you to write a post about what action we need to take to prevent World War in the not too distant futre as the oil supply declines.
You are welcome. This is an operating system.
It's intersting that my senior ChE project was anaerobic digestion of swine waste using solar power as the energy source to maintain and operate the digester in the desired temperature range. never thought that something I did more than 30 years ago would be relevant to what I work on today.
So you'd like us all to hold it in?
I think Freud would have something to say about your ideas.
First remove the beam that is in your own eye.
I'm with Starship Trooper here; I found his response sufficiently valuable to bookmark it as a reference. On the other hand you've contributed nothing to this but nay-saying, and while it's good for you to damage your credibility this way, you're getting very tiresome.
I have never seen a happier person in all my life!
Could it have been because he finally found a crazy gringo to buy that worthless, non-electrified farm of his? :)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. BUT, he was moving, wasn't he?
CJ, you can make nitrogen fertilizer using natural gas, OR bio-methane. And, the dry mass that is left is Excellent Organic Fertilizer.
Yesterday Cristi and I drove the one lane dirt and rocky road 25 minutes to tell the old man, Sr. Melicio, that we wouldn’t’ buy his little ranch. He wasn’t there so we left a note saying we would come back to talk to him today at 2:00. When we arrived today it was cold and misty and the hills and mountains were shrouded in a light fog. It is so beautiful and peaceful there. There was no noise except for the sound of the little river and the birds. Just 3 days before, we had promised him we would buy his ranch and care for it, his people, and his animals, and we shook hands and hugged him. What a nice old man, what a smile and look in his eyes. He has found peace. Arriving today was the saddest moment for us. We walked across the little foot bridge to his house. He came out to greet us and said he wasn’t home the day before, as his son came from Mexico City to see him and they went to town. Then he said he had something new to show us. The night before his horse gave birth to a colt. What a beauty she is. Cristi is crying and I am very sad, seeing the colt and knowing this paradise can’t be ours and we will soon disappoint the old man by telling him we won’t buy his ranch. The beauty of the valley is overwhelming, it is so overwhelming that we agreed that we can’t change our minds when we are there talking with him, we have to say no. We went into his home and explained to him about the land invasions and our fears and that we won’t buy his ranch. After some discussion he explained that he would sell it to us if we wanted it, because he gave his word, but that if we didn’t buy the ranch he wasn’t going to sell it. The day before his son came from Mexico City to say “Pa, don’t sell your ranch, Mexico City is a terrible place to live and it is getting worse everyday.” And that night, last night, his horse gave birth to the colt. What a beautiful animal. I love horses, they are such wonderful animals, and I see how much he loves his horses and the little colt. He said he wants to watch the colt grow up. He won’t sell his ranch and we know he will be happy. His sons live in Mexico City. I explained to him what will happen to Mexico City soon and then he sees that soon his sons will come to live with him. This is something he has always wanted. I explained to him the amount of research I undertook to find the town and his ranch. He is amazed and the look in his eyes and face are peace, joy, and relief that he didn’t sell his ranch. I have never seen a happier person. He has lived there for some 30 years without electricity, telephone, radio, and TV. He has his people, dogs, horses, valley, chapel, and God. We said good-bye and he invited us to visit him often, and we will. The valley can’t be ours, but we will return to see the old man, his people, his dogs, the colt, and the valley. Hey, come visit us and we can all go visit Sr. Melicio and his beautiful little valley.
Leasing a few acres from him would seem a viable option, wouldn't it? That would, presumably, eliminate the problem of land invasion? If you set up a corporation in Mexico, you will need a Mexican National, if memory serves. Just add a Mexico office and have Sr. Melicio on your papers. Awaken the people of that town who know Mr. Melicio and are trustworthy to the issues and you've got your little bit of heaven all sown up, perhaps?
Cheers
What happens when Peak Oil impacts and I have no money to lease land? And planting macadamia trees on leased land would not be wise. The town is far away, and few care about Sr. Melecio. As it is, the land invaders respect him and leave him alone, it would not be so with me and is from Mexico City. I can buy land here with no problem, but my land is somewhere else.
I don't see the problem. The Indian company isn't the only source for biodigesters.
BIOGAS DIGESTERS
Overview
http://www.energyfarms.net/biogasdigesters
Where there's muck, there's megawatts
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/02-4/develop/dev02.html
Further, they look like a pretty simple contraption. It is obvious they can be made locally out of salvaged materials or materials made from other uses. I see this as a perfect solution to the small/subsistence farm: toss in garbage and get out fuel and fertilizer. What's not to like?
Cheers
You didn't answer the question about how much piping, and how much oil, natural gas, and coal energy goes into manufacturing, transporting, and installing this equipment and piping. And is this good use of all of this instead of fertilizer?
I did answer it. I said D-I-Y. Fertilizer is one of the products from the unit. This way, you get power and fertilizer. I've nothing against going back to no power, per se, but the world has never just stopped. It eventually moves forward again after a collapse. I'm all for stabilizing the ecosystem AND maintaining those scientific advances that help us advance as a species. I see no contradiction in a hi-tech/lo-tech world. I.e, I envision an off-grid home with internet access. Why should knowledge die with a crappy culture/socio-economic system?
Cheers
Many words, but little about pipe and energy used.