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!"

90 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Word just in from the oil industry by PatrickThomson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shit.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:Word just in from the oil industry by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean Bull Shit, right? You cant just use any old fecal matter in these things.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Word just in from the oil industry by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny
      Damn, I was just picturing this scenario:
      Wife: Honey, we need more power! The computer's fritzing out and the lights are dimming!

      Husband: *sighs* I'll get the Metamucil.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Word just in from the oil industry by Wun+Hung+Lo · · Score: 5, Funny

      We should put one in Washington, D.C. We could light the whole world up like a pinball machine!!

    4. Re:Word just in from the oil industry by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd prefer that Washington DC didn't light up the whole world. ;)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Word just in from the oil industry by Halthar · · Score: 2

      Damnit, what are you trying to do, put a rip in the fabric of space-time?

      There is no way in hell we could control that much energy.

  2. So cows ARE worth a shitload! by SYFer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So if vegetarianism were to become the norm and these maure-power setups become common, cows would no longer be slaughtered, but still they'd still be raised commercially. For their milk... n' shit.

    --
    "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    1. Re:So cows ARE worth a shitload! by JPriest · · Score: 4, Funny

      My ancestors didn't fight for millions of years to get to the top of the food chain for me to be a vegetarian.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  3. That's all well and good... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...but i'll take a shitload of fuel to power a city.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:That's all well and good... by GuyinVA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just come to Washington DC. We got bullshit all over this town.

  4. Tina Turner by chaffed · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's great and all but what does Tina Turner have to say about it?

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
    1. Re:Tina Turner by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tina Turner controlled Bartertown, Master Blaster was in charge of the underground.

      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.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  5. Just the right time. by mgs1000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..and it arrives at the perfect time, the production of bullshit is at an all-time high!

  6. I was there, it's an impressive setup by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Funny

    This little midget riding a huge musclebound retarded guy challenged me to Thunderdome!

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  7. Cows say... by SoTuA · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...that's a great energy source... for me to POOP ON!

    Oh wait... (or is it "moo wait..."?)

  8. The inherited problem is still by An-Unnecessarily-Lon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The CO2 produced. Without forrest like we used to have CO2 buildup will not slow down. The need to develope better, safer Nuclear Energy.

    1. Re:The inherited problem is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's greenpeace FUD, really. There's not nearly as much CO2 staying in the atmosphere as there should be, and noone knows why not. The best theories are that the oceans (which are most of the planet) sink orders of magnitude more CO2 than all the land-based plants.

    2. Re:The inherited problem is still by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 4, Informative

      Without forrest like we used to have...

      Many forests around the world have been significantly depleted, but the myth of deforestation in the U.S. is just that, a myth. There hasn't been a significant decrease in plantlife except in very urban areas, like New York.

      Also, on a world wide scale, much of the plantlife that handles the CO2 issue is in the ocean. I don't remember the number, but something like 70% of the CO2 converting plants live in the ocean. I think that's the bigger issue.

      --

      Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    3. Re:The inherited problem is still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But wouldn't this be 'carbon neutral'?

      The cows eat hay and grain which are seasonal/renewable resources?

      http://www.eere.energy.gov/biopower/benefits/be_ en v_aq.htm

    4. Re:The inherited problem is still by tbone1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ah, but more carbon dioxide encourages the growth of forests and plankton. Keep in mind that the US east of the Mississippi was twice as forested in 1990 as it was in 1900. That's the most heavily populated area of the country, during a time of tremendous population growth and blow-out urban sprawl.

      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.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    5. Re:The inherited problem is still by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Informative

      I read recently that there's enough old growth forest in the US to make a band as wide as texas from NY to Seattle.

      Much of it is in undesirable areas (mountains etc) or protected parks so it's pretty much safe.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    6. Re:The inherited problem is still by caffeine_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. The problem of global warming is the release of fossilized CO2 - that is, CO2 which has been sequestered in the form of oil and coal for so long that it is no longer part of the balance of the ecosystem. The release of CO2 from organic matter, such as wood and manure, has no effect on this balance because the carbon in it was sequestered from the ecosystem very recently. In other words, CO2 from shit is part of the carbon cycle.

    7. Re:The inherited problem is still by Analogy+Man · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think you more likely heard that on Rush's show. There is a rather insignificant amount habitat in the lower 48 that would qualify as "Old Growth" habitat. Factoring in Alaska there is quite a bit of forest up there, but then Alaska is huge! I still doubt this unless unlogged, tundra, prairie, farmland and desert is counted as "old growth".

      If we cut down the last 3% of lower 48 states old growth and leave the less accessable parts of Alaska's timber alone is it any less of an environmental tragedy?

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    8. Re:The inherited problem is still by rtilghman · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Are you kidding?

      Have you ever heard the old adage that a squirrel could walk from Maine to Florida without touching the ground? The reason for this adage is that the entire eastern seaboard of the US used to be a SUPER-dense old-growth forest. That forest has since been nearly obliterated, and very little of the original growth actually remains.

      That's the greatest example of deforestation in the US, but there are plenty of others that are worthy of note. Then you can look at other countries (Ireland, UK) that used to be almost entirely covered and have less than 1% of their original forests remaining.

      -rt

    9. Re:The inherited problem is still by cens0r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Come to washington some time and gander all the mountains that have been clear cut. We still have a lot of forests left, and they do try to replant them, but that's not always really effective. What I hate is how they leave a narrow strip of trees near the interstates and highways to give the impression of the forrest.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    10. Re:The inherited problem is still by richmaine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah. I once spent about 15 minutes researching an implausible-sounding statistic related to this that someone had quoted from Rush. When he isn't just plain lying, he uses statistics carefully crafted to give misimpressions. In particular...

      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? :-)

  9. Holy cow! by DR+SoB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what's the waste generated from this? Obviously CO2, but what else? Is it considered "clean" energy? Is used poop as good at fertilizing as new poop? Would it work with human poop? Can I build a small version myself? Are their poop bylaws? (I can cover my lawn with poop after all..). And most importantly, does it run Linux??

    --
    Mod +5 Drunk
    1. Re:Holy cow! by Bagheera · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what's the waste generated from this?

      CO2, waste heat, and "digested" solids - which are still effective as fertilizer (though not as rich).

      Is it considered "clean" energy?

      Cleaner than oil-fired plants, but there is still the CO2 output.

      Is used poop as good at fertilizing as new poop?

      Depends on the remaining nutrient levels, but it is still usable, yes.

      Would it work with human poop? Can I build a small version myself? Are their poop bylaws?

      Yes, yes, and yes. There are rural communities in undeveloped countries that use methane produced by the community's waste for cooking and heating.

      And most importantly, does it run Linux??

      Linux is Open Source. I'm sure someone can port it...

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
  10. You're shittin' me right? by Ingolfke · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know if I believe this article... something smells kind of funny about it.

    buh-du-bum-ching

  11. Re:Gotta b good? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Biomass -> electricity -> EV power / hydrogen production. Nope, you're car will smell just fine.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  12. Will it use real rubbish..... by tiger99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... such as the output of Redmond?

  13. Liquid Manure by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was a kid we would visit my Uncle's dairy farm. Even with him using a lot of manure to fertilize his fields - getting rid of it all was still an issue. They went to a system where they processed it to liquid and it went into a big liquid manure pond. I can remember watching their dog- walking around on the 'crust' that formed on the top of it. Every so often his legs would slip through. That was a nasty dog.

    Eventually my Uncle's family farm went under and was auctioned off. I wonder if this kind of thing would have been enough to keep him in business? He now works for a big giant 'corporate' farm. Truth be told- from a purely economic perspective he is better off. He gets regular vacation (never had that with his own farm) and makes o.k. money.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  14. What would get me excited is... by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a generator I could run off my septic tank to power my house. But my whole family doesn't produce as much poop as one cow. Although when we have TexMex, we rival cows in overall methane production. But who wants to carry a mini-generator attached to their butt?

  15. Great Economic News! by Doesn't_Comment_Code · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This ought to help the unemployment rate, as there will be a new employment opportunities in the poop-picking-up field. Someone has got to walk around the field collecting this stuff if they're going to burn it, after all. What a great opportunity! Virtually no training or education requited. If you walk a dob in the city, you are already a seasoned professional, and could quickly rise to management level.

    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! ... until they start shipping in poop from India.

    --

    Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
    1. Re:Great Economic News! by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 3, Informative
      This ought to help the unemployment rate, as there will be a new employment opportunities in the poop-picking-up field.

      I know you're just trying to be funny, but I thought I'd point out there's a reason why this is being done for dairy cows instead of beef cattle. Dairy cows tend to shit in a barn while they're being milked. This creates a lot of waste in a small area, that we typically just hoss out the back. Of course, there's no reason you couldn't hoss it into a container, and then dump that somewhere else where it could be better used.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
  16. Lots of poop = lots of electricity by erick99 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm a big fan of "alternative energy." More for the technology and gee-whiz factor thenenvironmentalism I suppose. Anyway, this is a very cool project. Here are the parts of the article that I found particularly interesting:

    ..switched on a 75- kilowatt generator.

    On the panel, an electricity meter began running backward, indicating that power originating from a nearby poop-filled lagoon near the town of Marshall was feeding into PG&E's electric power grid.

    ..is expected to save the operation between $5,000 and $6,000 per month in energy costs.

    A well-fed dairy cow produces 120 pounds of manure every day, or 40,000 pounds per year per animal.

    ..a single cow can emit 100 to 200 liters of methane per day.

    These cows are pooping money!

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Lots of poop = lots of electricity by Cheap+Imitation · · Score: 4, Funny
      These cows are pooping money!

      If cows are that useful, just imagine if we could harness the output of our politicans!

      Their (previously useless) B.S. could result in a nearly limitless supply of energy!

  17. Manure-Powered Generators On The Rise by nanojath · · Score: 2, Funny

    Manure-Powered Generators On The Rise

    Is "generator" really an accurate name for political campaigns?

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  18. Arizona Landfills Use a Similar Process by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our power company, SRP, does a similar thing with landfills. After the landfill is full, they tarp it and collect the methane in order to generate electricity. Then, a few years later when the methane generation slows down enough they remove the power generation equipment and build a public park on top. Three uses for one piece of land is not a bad idea at all.

  19. Popular in India by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Informative

    In India, they call them gobar gas plants (more details in a 1971 Mother Earth New article). As long as one keeps the 30:1 carbon/nitrogen ratio, they can consume other organic waste too (grass clippings, urine, food waste, etc.). The only problem with them is that they tend to create hydrogen sulfide that makes the gas highly corrisive to iron equipment (some people use a filter of steel wool to remove the H2S).

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  20. Economics by jamesl · · Score: 2, Informative

    This maakes no more economic sense the last "power from poop" story:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/0 9/182320 6

  21. Sounds like a win-win by nanojath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On a more serious note, it sounds like a win-win. If waste-lagoons are being covered and methane tapped for energy, it stands to reason that it will reduce both potentially global-warming inducing methane releases into the atmosphere (yes, it will be released as CO or CO2 emissions eventually from combustion, but by displacing other fuels it will be a net win, and please, let's not have the conversation about whether global warming is real or not today) and reduce noxious emissions, a win for the neighbors of big farming facilities.

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    1. Re:Sounds like a win-win by cluckshot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to disappoint some but the human stuff is at least in the USA very often used for methane production. Many municipal Sewerage Treament plants do this already. Decatur Alabama has done so for years and runs many city cars on it. Florence Alabama drilled their landfill and did same.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  22. New Use Found for Humanities Majors! by Eagle5596 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now they can put all that bull shit which they pile on to their assignments to good use! Finally, a use for humanities majors other than staffing McDonalds!

  23. Useful links.... by Scrab · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/12/manure031112
    http://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnrp/press/2003/0717methane -electricity.htm
    http://www.climatechangecentral.com/resources/c3vi ews/c3Views200309.pdf
    http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2001/11/11272001/ ap_gas_45671.asp
    http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_c owpower.jhtml

    --
    RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
  24. Doubtful by INeededALogin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    cows would no longer be slaughtered, but still they'd still be raised commercially

    I see this as more of a way of recycling. Crap is a by-product of an animal using energy. The actual energy needed to produce that crap is immense. Think of the grass that has to grow and the nutrients placed into the soil, then what your body can't use is the crap. When it gets down to it... we would probably save money, and resources just growing tress on that land and burning those(skip the cow). The benefit to the current setup is that we can raise the cow, eat em, and then recycle the by-products.

    1. Re:Doubtful by strictnein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to the crazied fools over at People Eat Tasty Animals:

      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.

    2. 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!

    3. Re:Doubtful by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC it takes about 3-8 lb of plant matter to add 1 lb to an animal. Fish and Pigs were more efficient, cows were pretty inefficient. Think about the weight of your daily food supply. Before we forget that not all of an animal is edible (no brain cheese jokes please), a bit less than half of a cow's hanging weight is carcass weight. Non-Atkins, of course, I figure in an average meal a person eats about 1/4-1/2 lb of meat, and about 1 lb of veggies/starches. To get that meat required 2-4 lbs of grain (2 if it's a quick growing fish 4 if it's beef). While your potato and salad required 1 lb of plant matter. So 70% doesn't sound too far from my educated guess.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    4. Re:Doubtful by strictnein · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... once.

      I don't know if you know this, but cows have baby cows. That's where cows come from. Strange but true.

    5. Re:Doubtful by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a growing group of ranchers who raise grass fed beef. Try to find a smaller operation like a tractor farm or kid's 4H project. The downside of this is you have to buy beef 1/4 of a cow or more at a time. I think the meat tastes better (it certainly has a different flavor).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    6. Re:Doubtful by cens0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not really a fan of PETA, as I think they take things too far and have bought into the idea that "there is no such thing as bad publicity." I also understand the futile nature of their arguement, you just aren't going to convice a large percentage of humans to give up meat cold turkey. I really do think that's the way they want it though. They secretly deep inside want to be morally superior and preach to people about how much better they are. That's not my thing though. I'm not changing my diet because meat is necessairly bad for you. I'm not doing it because I think we shouldn't murder cows. Nothing is ever that simple. First of all, meat isn't necessairly bad for you. In the same way a piece of cake isn't bad for you. But Americans eat 57 pounds more meat a year than they did in 1950. When taken to extremes almost everything is bad. So this is why I made my choice. I think America as a whole eats too much meat and processed food. Which has lead us to things like the factory farm. I know I can't change many peoples opinions, but I can change the way I eat. The fact that I eat zero meat counterbalances the increases in consumption since 1950 of about 4 other people. Plus when friends of mine who are meat eaters eat dinner at my house or go out to dinner with me we go to places that have a low meat menu (indian, thai, mediteranian, middle eastern, etc) or I cook a meatless dish at home. Again, I'm doing my part . I try to educate people as to why I'm doing what I do, and convice them to eat less meat. Hopefully eventually the whole world will be better because of it.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    7. Re:Doubtful by nelsonal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your are correct that silage is usually for dairy cows. Generally for silage they just chop the whole thing, cobs, stalks, grain, and leaves and stuff it in a big bag (ours looked like giant white sausage. Most of the farmers I knew had a 1/2 acre plot of sweet corn (for firends and family) and the remainder of a circle of field corn. Then occasionally you would see a whole field growing sweetcorn. That does not include the huge amount of land devoted to hay production (grasses and legumes). We had a bit of wheat, and a smattering of everything else. Beef cattle are usually grazed for the first year to 16 months of their lives. It's cheaper to let them eat grasses. If winter is snowcovered they will be fed hay and some mixture of grains. At this point dairy cows and beef cows diets are pretty similar (dairy cows will sometimes get other nutirents to increase milk production). Most beef cattle are not raised in places that will grow corn, the land is too valuable, or silage could be fed in the winter as well.
      Once the steers are being fattened for butcher, they will go on a mostly grain (cracked corn, occasionally soy or other protien sources (in hawaii they use the cores and waste flesh from Dole's cannery)) diet at the feed lot. This produces the thick white fat (grass fat is more yellow and tough).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:Doubtful by Long-EZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You forgot about bone meal, blood meal, hair meal (for your chickens)... plus head and guts to feed your pets.

      Forcing grazing animals like cows and chickens to be carnivors is now illegal after the big agribusiness companies were finally forced to acknowledge science and admit that such unnatural practices cause bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, aka "mad cow disease"), which is passed to people who consume the cows as vCJD, which is fatal. There is no cure, for cows or people. Of course, there is little enforcement and the laws are still widely ignored.

      insulin for the diabetic friends

      For about a decade, insulin has been almost exclusively provided by hard working recombinant DNA bacteria. This is actual human insulin, free of transgenic viruses and foreign proteins that trigger a human immune response.

      We evolved with cows.

      Not even close. In the span of time appropriate for a reference to evolution, it's true to say we evolved with plants. Evidence indicates that humans evolved eating mostly plants, with a small amount of animal protein, much like the diets of chimps, lowland mountain gorillas and baboons. Proto-humans are believed to have supplemented their primarily plant based diet with almost as much insect protein as protein from mammals. It would be almost as correct to say "I've been using a computer my entire adult life, so humans evolved to use computers", or "I've been eating pizza since 1970, so humans evolved to eat pizza." The association with eating cows goes back a few more generations, but not nearly enough to justify a connection with evolution.

      From a health perspective, people eat far too much meat and milk. There are much healthier plant sources of protein. PETA is probably exagerating the energy difference between raising plants for humans versus raising plants for cattle to feed humans, but it's still true that an acre of crops can feed more people than the same acre could feed if routed through a cow. Reasonable estimates I've seen indicate a 7:1 advantage.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    9. Re:Doubtful by ElectricRook · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cow hair and blood go into chicken feed as high protein suppliments. Often chicken feather meal goes into cow suppliments.

      In the span of time appropriate for a reference to evolution, it's true to say we evolved with plants. Evidence indicates that humans evolved eating mostly plants

      When we humans discovered husbandry, is about the time that we developed language, construction, civilization.

      but it's still true that an acre of crops can feed more people than the same acre could feed if routed through a cow

      The important fact here is that an acre of land too arid, rocky, steep, or otherwise too poor to farm feeds that cow. In reality, it's economics that determines the source of food for the cow. When cattle prices are up, and feed prices are up, that acre of ground can make two to five tons of hay (US $80 per ton) with very little input. That same land could make one ton of wheat (US $125 per ton), or one of maize. But those are dependant on the climate. However for the farmer, the wheat or maize probably has to be sold to a grain buyer, and they are notorious for doing their best to buy low and re-sell high. That is their business. If the farmer grew five tons of hay, he could sell that to a horseman, a cowman, store it, or feed it to owned livestock. A $80 ton of hay makes about 400 lb of $0.32 per lb cull cows, or $120. If fed to calves, it makes 400 lb of $1.00 feeders, or 400 lb of $0.60 fed cattle (ready for slaughter as finished cattle). If however the farmer turned livestock out on the grass, he saves $40 per ton on the processing of grass to hay (costs $2 to mow, rake, bale, harrow, stack each 100lb bale of hay). Of course you know there are 20 100 lb bales per ton. That was my experience when I was involved in agriculture. But it really comes down to economics. Many people complain about the subsidies to ag industry, but the players look at them as tax refunds. I look at them as vote buying, and believe there is vote buying in every district, every industry, every office.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  25. but on a serious note - Re:That's all well and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think a variety of energy-producing methods is a great first step towards lessening oil dependency. It doesn't have to be one size fits all: for some areas, solar would work well, others, wind or thermal. Less chance for monopoly that way as well. Then, we could use the oil that was still around for the situations that truly required it. Now if we could just get the prices down for the equipment it takes to use alternative sources....

  26. 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.
  27. Can you imagine... by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...a beowulf cluster of these? Pew!

  28. 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?

  29. Fuel consumed in Feed Lots by yintercept · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are probably right. I personally doubt that the amount of energy produced by a methane powered generating plant in a feed lot would equal the cost of the energy consumed by farmers raising crops and shipping crops to the feed lot. This is more of a way to minimize the loss of energy from our fuel dependent farm economy.

    1. Re:Fuel consumed in Feed Lots by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another benefit is reducing the animal waste load on local water systems. With those huge factory farms, just dumping it in the river is not an option, and there's only so much you can spread on the fields before it ends up in the drinking water along with e-coli. (The leftovers from generating methane can still be used as fertilizer, but less hazardous than the .. raw .. stuff.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  30. Great news! by Rumagent · · Score: 2, Funny

    So, basically it runs on bullshit? Looks like SCO may have a business model after all...

  31. Dialogue: by FlyingOrca · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Bob fell into the manure pond yesterday."

    "Can he swim?"

    "No, but he sure went through the 'movements'!"

    *ducks*

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
  32. Old news! by Sarojin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Collecting methane at sewer plants and from city dumps is being done on a large scale at over 200 US municipalities. It works quite well.

    World wide there are literally hundreds of thousands of them (methane digesters using arobic digestion), most of them being single family sized units where the collected gas is burned in small cookers and for lighting.

    I built a digester in the mid 70's, was EXTEREMELY easy to make. I worked on a large dairy then, despite running the digester for all summer and collecting gas, just a small display size prootype unit, I could NOT get the farmer to drive over one mile to my cabin to look at it. His stock question was "why aren't THEY doing it if it is so good?" The gas collected was great, basically burned like propane. I tried other farmers over the years,I have yet to get one to take the plunge and actually do anything different, alwatys the same, it ain't in their propaganda magazines for their particular niche for farming. You can NOT get those guys to do anything practical until they get "permission" from the agribiz cartels, and right now, the agribiz cartels want the farmers to buy expensive petroleum and chemical products from them or their country club buddies. and the farmers WONDER why they keep going broke....and they TEACH going broke in the ag colleges, which is AMAZING to me they can suck young guys into doing that.

    At least this one dairy farmer in the article gets it, it's probably only one in a thousand or less that can actually think for themselves. Work hard, 7 days a week, YEP! They do, been there done that meself. think outside the box? Hardly ever happens, so petrified of their buddies at the co-op and the feed store thinking they are "enviros" or something near as I can tell.

    Flash forward almost 30 years now, I get the same thing today, I work part time on a large poultry farm, besides methane digestion I have also asked why they don't use sprouted grains instead of the dismal dried up crap they call "feed" that barely keeps the cluckers clucking. SAME ANSWER, because "they" don't do it, this "they" guy who tells them what to do, it's not in the trade mags so "it doesn't work, it's hippie pie in the sky stuff enviro whackos".

    I LAUGH every time I hear of a farmer going broke, because if they only thought just a smidgen outside the box and stepped back from being brainwashed by archerdanielsdowmonsantoexxon, they could make money, and easily. But no, they'll defend practices that they follow that produce for them a lower profit return than their grand daddys got in world war two. Sure, they can grow huger volumes of much crappier food off an acre, deal is, it IS crappier food and they hand over their cash to the big companies, then the bank takes their property eventually. Lead around by the nose don't even begin to describe it.

    And I get the same thing from urban internet engineering "experts" who have constantly told me over the years my solar panels don't work, they "aren't practical". Funny, my electric bill is PAID OFF, I don't get a "monthly" bill with no idea what it will be if there's any political or middleman trading shenanigans. but, "solar isn't practical".

    Right.

    The 21st century will belong to those who can think out of the box and stop making money for THE MAN, who work FOR THEMSELVES, and stop supporting those brane dead politicians and political parties who are in THE MAN's pockets.

    --
    HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
  33. What it's like to live inside of a fart by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is yet another reason why we have the "Sonoma Aroma" in Marin / Sonoma County.

    You'd think the Sonoma Aroma would smell like wine and vineyards. Nope. It smells like shit.... especially in the summer. Nothing beats endless acres of giant turd piles baking, up wind, in 95 degree temperatures.

    If you've ever wondered what it's like to live inside of a fart... move here.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  34. Works at the office too by hode · · Score: 2, Funny

    To increase productivity and save power, management has upgraded all of our chairs to toilets. Each bowl says "Is this good for the company?"

  35. Damn... by computational+super · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, damn - I wish somebody had said something sooner... I just threw out a whole diaper genie worth of potential air conditioning...

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  36. Referred to commonly as "biomass" power generation by tbmaddux · · Score: 4, Informative

    See the Green-E website. Many landfills already extract their methane emissions. This is good even from a global-warming perspective, as methane is also a greenhouse gas. Finally, the EPA has tips on reducing methane emissions from livestock themselves, as opposed to their turds.

    --
    Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
  37. 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.
  38. Actually Kyoto friendly by Yokaze · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Still pretty sh*tty in terms of greenhouse gas emissions so it wouldn't help meet Kyoto targets

    On the contrary. First, it would cut HC4-emission, which is an even more effective greenhouse gas and listed in the Kyoto protocol. Second, it could reduce CO2 emissions, as the energy is produced locally and cuts the transport losses.

    --
    "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
  39. All of this led me to one question by TamMan2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article talks about using a covered lagoon full of shit to collect the methane as the shit breaks down. The article said a well fed cow craps ~120 lbs/day.

    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...

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
  40. Fresh water needs too. by UrgleHoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since cattle need to drink water, they add to the load on fresh water demands. Cattle consume from 1 (for a 1 month old) to many gallons (for a lactating cow) per day. Ref: Water intake and quality for cattle

    --

    Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
  41. Finally,,, by Intocabile · · Score: 2, Funny

    a use for my powered manure generator.

  42. Re:inefficient usage by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

    They still use it as fertilizer. While it's sitting in the lagoon decomposing, they capture the methane (instead of letting it outgas into the atmosphere). Then they take the good stuff out of the lagoon and spread it.

  43. How about pig lagoons? by DivideX0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are many pig lagoons in rural NC that are problematic due to the 'factory farms' that are being run by some large corporations. Seems like this might be a good alternative for them while sparing their neighbors from the smell and run-off of their operation.

    --
    My next Slashdot post will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
  44. Can't see the grass for the trees by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Think of the grass that has to grow and the nutrients placed into the soil, then what your body can't use is the crap. When it gets down to it... we would probably save money, and resources just growing tress on that land and burning those(skip the cow).
    Your logic assumes that the trees are equally efficient in converting sunlight, water etc. to combustible biomass as grass is. Given that the candidates for biomass crops for feeding powerplants are typically not trees but grasses such as switchgrass, I strongly suspect that you are wrong there.

    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.

  45. Been done for decades in rural India by thodu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Goes by the name of "gobar gas". "gobar" means "animal shit" in Hindi. Was pretty big in the early eighties when the government planned this as a way of electrifying villages. Still used in places, but guess it does not meet increasing energy demands for pumpsets (irrigation), crop threshers, etc. Electrifying all of rural India is still an unfinished task.

  46. The price has a floor by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Now if we could just get the prices down for the equipment it takes to use alternative sources....
    There's a limit to how far you can go with this. Full exploitation will bring economies of scale in the production of equipment and let you run down the experience curve, but with any diffuse energy source you are going to need substantially more equipment to gather and use it than you would with more concentrated energy sources. Barring some technological breakthrough which only applies to the "alternative" sources, you're always going to be at a cost disadvantage.

    You can make up for this with the difference between wholesale and retail (avoided) cost and other things, though. The analysis isn't trivial.

  47. Greenhouse Gas Damages Ozone Layer. WTF ? by Jodka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from the article:
    "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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  48. Of no use for most people. by melted · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is shitty energy, who's gonna use it?

  49. depends by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it really just depends. One, you don't have to use manure, you can use a variety of any biomass that will anerobically digest, which is hmm, all of it. One idea I heard of was from jaque cousteau, his was to use kelp, because of it's incredibly fast growing nature and the make-up of kelp makes it ideal for digesting. It seems industrial hemp would be ideal, too, it's cellulose production per acre/year is amazing, and it doesn't require that much fertiliser, you could get by just plowing under 1/2 the plants every year for that, then re apply the slurry as well. If you could see in meat space how much quite useable burnable gas you get from even a small amount you'd see it's very practical and economic. The deal is, the big energy companies CAN'T send you a bill for it,because you can own it, so no way will this be pushed officially by the government or it's controllers, big industry, that much. They *dig* having you pay forever into their monopoly, both with cash and with mindshare. It's the same with solar, with wind generation, etc.

    Second,to get back to some farm savings, although the nitrogen level % remains the same in the manure and water slurry after digestion, it is in a more available form to plants than normal aerobic digestion or composting (farmers just shoot this stuff back on the fields now, with conveyor spreaders or flail spreaders). I have read it is as high as 600% better with anerobic digestion, so you get significant savings on fertilizer (which is a HUGE cost now and going up because artificial fertiliser is made from natural gas), which is what's done with the slurry after it has exhausted methane production potential. And last, it is "relatively" cheap to build these things,and they are incredibly scalable, there's a size and technique to fit any size operation, from joe water buffalo rice farmer on up. There are hundreds of thousands of them around the planet now,of various sizes,just not much in the US, so here it's stayed mostly "experimental",and they have to "study it", etc, that's all, any place else it's just normal, and sunlight is an excellent conversion tool for getting solar energy into various useful products. It's very productive sunlight is,a great energy conversion tool, especially with living plants, and it's the only practical fusion generator we have, and it's "free and open source", the government or industry can't charge you for it directly. They will play act at supporting it, that's about it, it doesn't lend itself to monopoly control, so they spread a lot of economic FUD around it.

    Remember, farming has always been profitable and useful,well, from obvious reasons, food is kinda nice, even before modern techniques were invented, so it's quite do-able. Look at giant forests, grow all on their own, no high tech anything needed for them to grow, just water, dirt, sunlight, air, done. They are just huge biological manufacturing plants, quite sophisticated really, and that's all any farm is, a biological factory, and there's various ways to cut costs and remain profitable, ONCE you as joe big farmer STOP being brainwashed by monsanto and the energy companies and the equipment companies and the banks. You have to break that mindset of "dependence" first before you can wrap your brane around "how to do it" better. That first step is just too much for most people to get over. It's not really their fault, it's how they were taught, and what the "approved" techniques are as taught at ag colleges and in industry orgs. There are VERY few independent farmers around, the vast majority are really just coporate sub contractors and have to follow these corporation rules. The guy I work for owns three large farms, he is controlled by his suppliers and marketing org down to an obscene picky little level like you wouldn't believe on how to run his farm, or he can't market, and that's the biggest problems farmers have now, and they get trapped into it, go along, or go broke. Once in and in debt, they are trapped, it's almost like a form of serfdom on a large scale. It's a hard

    1. Re:depends by yintercept · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great info. The point of my post was precisely that big business has corralled the American farming industry into extremely consumptive and wasteful practices. As you mentioned, we are using fertilizers made from natural gas. The big feed lot business plan has farmers expending a great deal of energy to harvest and move materials to the feed lots. Bio mass plants on the tail end of this ineffiencient structure simply reduces the amount of energy lost through the process.

      For biomass to become a net producer of energy, we need to first get around the energy wasting processes of the big business agriculture.

      Farmers using biomass generators is a completely different situation.

      The deal is, the big energy companies CAN'T send you a bill for it,because you can own it...

      I had to read this twice. This is not a failure of the free market...but a failure of big business and politics. An individual owning an asset that produces energy is the type of thing that exists in free markets. The blocks big oil and utilities put to small operations like this are anti-market forces.

      he declined, it was just "too hippy" for him.

      On the up side, the natural food market is strong. Large sections of the farming market are becoming hippy. In some cases there is big money in natural produces...and more of the money in natural foods gets to the farmer. There is growing support for the use of renewable energy...so the mindset of the farming community is apt to change.

      it's "free and open source", the government or industry can't charge you for it directly.

      In part this is backward thinking caused by seeing biomass only from the position of a consumer. A farmer that produces energy from biomass could consume it...or they could sell it. For that matter, I think there is more future in developing a market for biomass energy than simply as a way to cut costs.

  50. Feed lots are far from free range by ChartBoy · · Score: 2, Informative
    You seem to have the idea that California cows are happily roaming the hills. Some may be, and I doubt it would be economical to collect their droppings.

    But in feed lot operations all over the state there are a high density of cattle, where collection of the waste is not only economical it is probably essential.

  51. Of course there is still a problem... by dnamaners · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This my not ever see wide spread use. decomposition ponds as described inthe article make lots of methane but much more pollution. manure may be natural but when it decomposes it makes massive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus waste. in the case of pig manure they actually add phosphate to the diet of the animal. when decomposed and freed of the organic poop all these fertilizers readily leach into the ground water and if allowed into the surface run off. this process is of course accelerated buy the fact the the poop is in a liquid state. and most ponds are lined with clay or plastic. this is not a perfect barrier as clay leaks and plastic degrades. concrete would be better but is potentlay very costly. if the basin of the pond leaks it will allow the liquid fertilizers to pass into ground water it make it unusable as drinking water (nitrates in water can poison children quite easily). As surface run off this form of pollution has lead to massive eutrophication damage of rivers and lakes. eutrophication is when it turns water pea green with algae and then all that growth dies, decays and sucks up all the oxygen killing the water body.

    Another interesting bit is that at least in the USA many agricultural soils are quite rich in nutrients, such as phosphorus. in places like the midwest were dairy and pig farms are common manure is often liquefied and spread on fields. this is good fertilizer but in the case of pig manure it actually leads to phosphorus overload of the soils. so in Essence we don't need to do this but farmers need to get rid of the manure. this has lead to increased P contamination of water ways as well. id expect that their deodorized doncomposer sludge and water will be no different.

    these facts have been know for quite some time. already there is allot of legislation on the books or in the works against liquid manure holding ponds. The elimination of fertilizer runoff into the surface and ground waters is also heavily regulated. i suppose that if done right this can work but it is not as easy or as low cost as it may seem. maybe a centralized facility can buy manure and process it in large scale for methane and be safe and then market the byproducts as assayed fertilizer. but allot of small unlined pond operations randomly spreading sludge and runoff can easily lead to trouble.

    *something from "nothing" is great, except when "nothing" it is more than you can pay....

  52. Net Metering & The Interconnection Process by sampson7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Regarding Net Metering, you asked "Why do we allow laws that strip us of potential income, and benefit companies like PG&E?"

    Well, it's actually a bit more complicated than all that. One of the major problems with building a new generator is getting that generator to play nice with the existing transmission/distribution grid. This business of connecting the generator with the grid is called "interconnection." It's not an easy thing to interconnect a generator, and hooking up new green power technologies is especially troublesome. (Wind is the most difficult, with solar being the easiest.)

    The federal government has been working on creating new standardized rules for interconnection of small (read: green) generators, but it's an incredibly complicated process that's taking years to complete and isn't even done yet.

    So, what does all this have to do with Net Metering, you ask? Well everything.

    Net Metering is a state jurisdictional program (meaning each state has its own rules) that avoids the whole interconnection process. While you are still hooking up with the grid, the power flows involved in a Net Metering program are so small in comparison that the process is much quicker and much, much cheaper.

    The deal is however, that you cannot export (meaning feed energy into the grid) more power than you consume over the course of the billing period (usually a month).

    Take a photovoltaic system - during the day a well built system (and we're not talking people who are entirely off the grid here) may both supply the energy needs of your house and produce some extra energy. That energy is sent out to the grid. Your electric meter essentially runs backwards for that period of time. Then, at night, you resume taking energy from the grid to run your house. At that point your meter is running forward and your bill is increasing. Say over the course of a month you take 1000 kw of electricity of the grid at 8 cents / kw. Usually your bill would be $80. But, over the course of that same month say you pumped 100 kw of energy back into the grid (for a net consumption of 900 kw) - you would receive an $8 credit off of your bill.

    Now take the example of Farmer Brown who wants to turn shit into gold (that's the phrase the brochures use - "shit into gold"). Say he (through whatever means) puts 10,000 kw (or 10 MW) onto the system - all of a sudden he likely no longer qualifies for a net metering program and has to take the trouble of actually entering into an interconnection agreement and conducting studies to make sure he's not going to fry some lineman somewhere further down the grid (or more likely, simply overload the local lines and fry a small portion of the grid). Sure, he'd love to use net metering - the utility is required to buy whatever power he produces, the price is set at the retail price for electricity, the price of interconnection is cheap, but he's no longer eligible. So he has to go through the interconnection process, find buyers to buy his energy at wholesale (either by himself, or more likely through what are called "Aggregators"), and he's basically in the energy business with all the regulations and resonsibilities that entails.

    But don't feel too sorry for Farmer Brown -- turns out that one of the major expenses in running a dairy farm (who knew) is electricity! Most spend thousands and thousands of dollars on their electric bill every month - so to the extent they can offset even a portion of that through net metering, that there shit really is golden!

  53. In Nicaragua... by edwardog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    While in Nicaragua a year ago, I saw this method of fuel production being used. However, the farm went beyond just the re-use of the methane gas - EVERYTHING on the farm fed something else. The farm was an incredibly balanced eco-system.

    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.

  54. Always remember, by ByteHog · · Score: 2, Funny

    When life gives you poop, make poop juice.

    --
    - This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along, move along..
  55. another "hippy" example catching on by zogger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have a friend of mine, Roy at Four Winds Energy,(great guy and company, shameless plug for him there) who's doing a bang up business with solar and wind, and a large part of it now is installing water pumping stations for farmers livestock using the alternatives. Some of them are finally coming around, as are hundreds of thousands of non farmers, just folks who can see beyond the FUD and just go "do it" with the alternatives. I've said this before but I'll repeat it. Alternatives WILL get better in the future,this is true, and what is also true is that like with computers in the early 80s, we need many more people to invest time, effort, cash into them NOW if we want to speed up the process. We could literally put back to work millions if we went mass production on a national scale with the various alternatives. It's another place we could "generate" an entire new critical industry, just when we need MORE jobs and MORE energy. Seems like a win/win to me. Wind in particular lends itself to being much cheaper from economies of scale, it's no more complicated than- say- building a vacuum cleaner. Mine has a housing, a prop, a small circuit board, and some wirez coming out of it, it mounts on a normal 2" steel pole. Ain't nothing to it really. You can go in any auto store and get a generic delco alternator for like 50$, building the main deal on a wind genny can be just as cheap once it went from them building hundreds to thousands to millions. Solar is nice because we already got one buhzillion roofs out there sitting baking in the sun all the time. this stuff is all doable, that and make appliances and BUILDINGS better, just doubling insulation standards in new construction would be like finding another arctic circl whopper oil field, just from energy savings on heating and collong costs. R-18 or 22 sucks, it's way too low for a "standard" in construction.

    I've got a few PV panels and the rest of the rig for my solar installation(it's mounted on my RV now since we moved and got a small house), a small wind genny, and two fuel gennys,one a 120 VAC output and one just a 12 VDC. So even if the grid completely poofs I have *some* power available and it's *paid off*, I own it. And I'm at the bottom of the economic food chain in the US income-wise, so if I can do it, almost anyone can to some degree, we just need to get the interest up to a critical threshold, like what happened with computers. Look around now, 20 years ago hardly anyone owned a personal computer, now its ridiculous common. We CAN change if we can bypass big government and big energy FUD that we got to "study it" for another 50 years. We done did studied it since the 60's, time to build a lot of them, IMO. Let's get it on, time to act, not think about acting.

    In california it's taking off,look at the example in the article, because they got burned, bad, relying on government and big business to be honest and fair and to watch out for the poor peepuls, phooie, they BURNED the folks out in cal, so you have more awareness there of the importance of backups, and diverse sources.

    And de centralised power is better for national security! A few more million points of production spread out over the USA makes it much less likely that if any large plants go out from attack/damage/political & economic shenanigans that it will have as bad an effect. As to selling it, sure! If you have more than what you can use, you SHOULD be able to market it into the grid, or offer it in other ways. The exisitng energy industry has been fighting this for decades now, they do NOT want competition. They got mandated the lock-in generations ago,and they wanted to keep it. It's changing but they fought it constantly and still are whenever they can Now ME if I had a surplus of electricity or burnable gas, I'd use it for more projects/businesses, I wouldn't just sell it, that's just selling off raw materials in a sense, and it's usually a better deal to just keep converting until you have a better, more profitable pr

  56. Re:Wait, no really... by Omega+Leader-(P12) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many municipal wastewater plants use anaerobic digestion, and methane is the natural byproduct. The research now is trying to increase the amount of hydrogen production as it is more energy efficient and less wasteful.

    As for diluting the biomatter anything organic will work and you will get methane. Ask any environmental engineer and we can go on for hours on this wonderful subject.

    This is nothing new, only on a smaller scale.

  57. glad you noticed by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and many of the remnants of the independent ranchers totally agree with you. What has happened over the last 30 years in ranching is that the stockyards and big feedlots/packers conglomerates have monopolized marketing to the extent that a lot of ranchers were forced into selling at a loss, or went under. A few who owned their land outright, and more importantly could still market effectively, have done quite well on grass fed beef, but they are in a severe minority now. I prefer grass fed myself, and I also agree on the economics of using grains for the beef critters-it's quite nuts and wasteful..

    On a dairy, it's better to have a larger herd, the equipment costs are (I am being quite broad now)almost the same for a 50 cow herd as a 500, so it just makes sense to try and max out there, even if the daily chores are more. It would also lead to schemes such as the methane plant being more cost effective to implement. With free range grass fed ranching, it isn't practical, your methane producing stock (heh) is not all easy to scoop up, it's all over yonder all over the pastures. On a dairy it is highly concentrated and you got to do something with it. Same with the poultry farmers now, MAN, they get a lot. usually now it'scomposted, then spread, it's held in very large barns for a year or so, various EPA regs and so on to control runoff. I think that's reasonable, although I'd like to see them use more methane production as well, and in fact, that's where a lot of the large methane plants are now.

    heh, one of my jobs on a dairy once, head poop scooper in the free stall barn. man, that's a lotta stuff! I used a bobcat to scoop to an underground chain driven dealie that moved it outside and directly into a HUGE spreader wagon. That's exactly why I built that example small digester I was talking about in my post. Saw all that methane gas going to waste, thought it would save joe farmer some cash, maybe get me a raise...maybe.

    Nope. too hippy of an idea....

    Back to ranching, it's very close to being akin to desktop dominance with the big packers. In fact I'd say it's a worse monopoly than with MS. There are few alternatives, you go with the packers and sell your beef, or struggle spend half your time developing a market rather than ranching. the independnets hate it, but they are enscrewed in it. There's some effort going on now with the independents to get some sort of anti trust relief, but it's a struggle for them, as you can imagine.

    And as to land valuation, etc, there's a vital interst there that goes beyond current day to day economics. Food isn't a luxury. To me, it is more important to have widely diverse and localized points of production in "food", same as I mentioned for energy. In a crisis, or say something happens, transportation gets borked, fuel costs skyrocket from some new war, etc(man, if that ain't happening now, sheesh), you are gonna want *real close by* food production. It'll come in handy. The average US grocery store has around 3 days food before they are tapped. In a crisis, you don't want to rely totally on stuff being able to get shipped in from thousands of miles away, not all of it anyway, and with what might get in, you sure ain't gonna wanna pay them prices.

    I don't think you can place an adequate $ price on that, that can address the main issue there.. That's why I think nations as a rule should first always make sure they are completely indpendent on food and fresh water and energy supply and a nice bare minimum manufacturing, it is just too critical for national security to ignore or to "farm" it out to another nation, even if it involves protectionism to some degree. Human necessities SHOULD be protected, other products, just "wants" and luxuries, sure, let the market determine what gets done where, no problems there much from my POV as long as the tariffs are equitable.