Slashdot Mirror


Manure-Powered Generators On The Rise

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!"

4 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. You're missing the point -- by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're getting energy from what was considered to be a waste product. If they weren't doing this, we would have to make larger nuclear power plants, or whatever other form of energy product you feel is acceptable for the environment.

    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.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  2. Great Tech - But I have a problem... by HogGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... with the following statement:

    "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?

  3. Re:Doubtful by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A good example of made up PETA BS:

    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!

  4. Environmental impact by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This naturally occurring methane is a potent greenhouse gas, estimated to be 21 times as damaging to the ozone layer as carbon dioxide.
    Does this make any sense? I think the writer confused the greenhouse effect with the ozone layer. They're two totally different things! CO2 doesn't damage the ozone layer. It makes no sense.
    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.