Slashdot Mirror


Vermont Launches 'Cow Power' System

odyaws writes "Central Vermont Public Service has launched Cow Power, a system by which power users can opt to buy 25, 50, or 100% of their electricity from dairy farms that run generators on methane obtained from cow manure. Cow Power costs only 4 cents/kWh more than market price, so a household like mine would only pay $5-6/month more at 100% usage. The big question now is whether Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will use power generated from the manure of cows treated with Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone."

400 comments

  1. Let me be the first to say... by bcat24 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That idea really stinks!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

      I call BS. This is a complete load of manure.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Zemran · · Score: 1

      sounds like a load of shit to me...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      "It stinks!"

      Jon Lovitz??? Is that you?!

    4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1
      "It stinks!"

      Oh no. I'm in Pod People!

      It was MST'ed, by the way.

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will I get mad cow disease from the power line?

    6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by plopez · · Score: 1

      methane is odorless

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by srk2040 · · Score: 1

      I choose not to have my house powered by a cow fart!

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say... by bcat24 · · Score: 1

      But manure is not.

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say... by thewrathoffluffy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove Along. Nothing to see here.

    10. Re: Let me be the first to say... by Vadim+Makarov · · Score: 1

      Electricity does not smell.

      --
      17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
  2. for that price... by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who would want to pay more for crappy power?

    1. Re:for that price... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economics 101 (or something) :

      Positive Externalities : the Social benefit or burning Methane over oil is greater than the Private Benefit.

      Therefore, to get private citizens to utilize the the gas at the Socially Optimum level, we need to subsidise its usage.

      They're going to tax it.

      What on earth is going on in their heads?

  3. let's marginalize alternative power by humankind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Way to go... let's marginalize every single attempt to seek out alternative power sources. This way we can be married to oil for that much longer. Look on the bright side.. your kids get to see the middle east.

    1. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      humankind can be a real jerk.

    2. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by legallyillegal · · Score: 2, Funny

      want to stop using oil? use more oil. the more oil you use, the quicker it runs out.

      --
      ?giS
    3. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm looking forward to cow-tipping being classed as a terrorist attack on the energy supply.

    4. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unfortunately, there's a good chance that we'll run out of oxygen before we run out of oil.

    5. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What to quit smoking? Smoke all the cigarrettes in your current pack right now. After all, the more you smoke, the faster they run out, right?

      I'll leave aside the global warming debate (which will only bring flames) and focus on the economic and technological side of things. Depending entirely on a problematic, finite fuel source and saying to ourselves that "we'll quit when it becomes neccesary, and not a moment sooner" is essentially procrastinating and pretending the problem isn't there.

      The simple facts are:
      1) We have a finite supply of easily tapped oil. We have larger, but still finite supplies of less easily extractable sources of oil (like tar sands).
      2) Our demand for the aformentioned oil is increasing.
      3) We have no oil eqivalents yet that can take it's place. Nuclear isn't good for small vehicles. Solar/wind/hydro/etc are good for local power generation and little else. Fuel cells require either hydrocarbons or cheap electricity.
      3) We will need to find another source of fuel eventually, whether in 10 years or 50.

      None of these are in dispute, right? Unlike global warming, there isn't even any debate in the oil industry, much less the scientific world. All of these facts are easily demonstrated.

      Now given that, why on earth would we wait til we've used our exisitng oil supplies up? For one thing, we do use oil for a lot more than just fuel, so we don't want to run out too soon even if we do develop a non-fossil fuel alternative. For another, we already have the technology to start tackling this problem now, even if it'll take years to completely kick the habit.

      Waiting until we're almost out is a recipe for disaster. It's akin to quiting smoking once you've started coughing up blood. What if it runs out on us and we're still 10 or 20 years away from having a viable plan B? Do you really think a massive economic recession in the future is better than a taking a few expensive steps in the right direction today?

      Saying "use more oil, the more you use the quicker it runs out" is ridiculous and irrational. I honestly hope you were joking, but even if you are, I've seen plenty of other people express the same idea as a serious solution. Complacancy is an extremely bad idea when you can see a disaster coming.

      And like I said, all of the above is true regardless of global warming or the environment.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    6. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      3) We have no oil eqivalents yet that can take it's place. Nuclear isn't good for small vehicles. Solar/wind/hydro/etc are good for local power generation and little else. Fuel cells require either hydrocarbons or cheap electricity.
      3) We will need to find another source of fuel eventually, whether in 10 years or 50.
      *Slaps forehead*

      That'll teach me to proofread before I post. That should read 3), 4).

      -RsG
    7. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're raising the terror alert level to Brown :-P

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    8. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll leave aside the global warming debate (which will only bring flames)

      Was the flames a global Warming joke?

      -ed

      --
      So you see what had happened was....
    9. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by humankind · · Score: 1

      The official name is "entropy" and it's a bitch.

    10. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      saying to ourselves that "we'll quit when it becomes neccesary, and not a moment sooner"

      You misspelled "beneficial".

    11. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I'm in the "global warming is real, and worth worrying about" camp. Your flame was misdirected, and I can only assume that either you suffer from poor reading comprehension, or that you're so emotionally tied up in the issue that a few trigger words will send you flying off the handle.

      The reason I left it out of my post was to avoid getting drawn into a debate. The usual arguement against doing anything to combat global warming is that doing so would be expensive. If I can show reasons for quitting oil that are economic, ie consequences that'll bite us in the ass whether the polar caps melt or not, then I can avoid any debate based on the costs of switching away from fossil fuels.

      Any time someone brings up the greenhouse effect as an arguement for alternative energy, the debate over anthropic global warming re-erupts and the issues are forgotten about amidst the flames and political bullshit. Better to simply avoid that debate, leave it for the environmentalists and the neocons to fight it out, and focus on the other issues so that people understand why we need to quit fossil fuels. It isn't just a matter of the enviroment; relying on a dwindling fuel suppy to support our entire economy without looking for alternatives is moronic. We shouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    12. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 1

      It's beneficial already. We're funding corrupt regimes in oil rich countries, and tying our economic prosperity to people who are not our allies. Economic and geopolitical self-sufficiency is always a good idea.

      Besides, even ignoring that, any technological advance worth developing has initial costs. The first generation of any tech takes more effort that the subsequent ones. The benefit of doing this sort of work now is that we'll need to do it eventually anyway, and the sooner we start, the sooner it'll pay off.

      Plus we have more resources available now. If we don't start until those resource dwindle, it'll be harder to get the mature version of the technology in time to avoid a recession. That's not even counting the environmental costs.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    13. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Humankind to Rsg:
      There is no debate on the global warming issue either. Don't you have something better to do, like lick Karl Rove's ass instead of posting here?

      Rsg (the guy who was told to rim out Rove's arse) to another poster:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190831&cid=156 95909
      It's also worth mentioning that methane is a greenhouse gas. It's actually worse than Co2 in this regard, though far less common and also less stable.

      Since decomposing cow manure is going to emit methane whether we tap it for power or not (as will the cows themselves) it stands to reason that letting the methane go to waste is more of a greenhouse gas contributor than burning it. After all, the Co2 we release from combusting it will be resorbed by the plants the cows themselves eat, whereas the methane will not. And if we don't burn the stuff, it'll just end up in the atmosphere anyways.

      A wee bit slow, huh Humankind? You just vehemently attacked another enviro-hippy. I salute you on one of the most spectacular examples of /. frothing-at-the-mouth zealoty i've ever seen:) I'm sure you'll fit right in.
    14. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out. What's the cheapest source of portable energy at the moment? OIL. Is it getting more expensive? YES. As the cost of oil rises, more and more people are looking for acceptable, viable alternatives. Eventually they will be found and implemented to an acceptable level. Has this happened yet? No, because it's not cheap to come up with a complete paradigm shift. BUT, the shift will eventually become economically necessary - barring complete market failure. I'm not ruling market failure out, but considering that renewable and clean and other more healthy forms of energy are becoming mainstream at a slow pace, I'd say market failure is not really a complete given yet.

      If global warming, however, is as dangerous as advertised, well, then we have a market failure. But I don't think gasoline is going to be what causes it.

    15. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The market tends to be a reactive, rather than proactive, solution. That makes it ideal for short term adaptation and blind effeciency, but terrible for problems that are urgent and require long term investment - and this is the latter.

      What we need to do now is mostly R&D and prototype work. When and if those pan out, then the free market takes over; even a less than totally cheap solution can be competative if it has advantages otehr than price, and "green" marketing is exactly the sort of thing that can make up for the difference in price.

      However, as is usually the case, the groundwork can't wait for the free market to take an interest. We won't get alternative fuels without someone doing research into possible sources and people building prototypes that might or might not work. There's no gain in that if you're a for-profit corporation. Money takes the path of least resistance; trying to get it to flow somewhere that's not conductive to profit is like trying to get a lightling strike on a street level object in manhattan.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    16. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's beneficial already. We're funding corrupt regimes in oil rich countries, and tying our economic prosperity to people who are not our allies.

      Hang on, the oil companies do not give a shit what regimes they prop up. No company or country does, it's all 100% self-interest. The issue here is that the benefit in switching away from oil benefits US not THEM. In fact, we've even propped up these regimes on purely political reasons, e.g. getting rid of a socialist alternative. So it's not going to happen any time soon unless it benefits those who get the decission.

      We are fucked. Enjoy the world while you can, these are the "golden days" we'll look back on. Soylent Green was probably the most likely future-scenario right now; our food growth and distribution are completely married to fossil fuels. The cost of living is so tied to oil prices that the inevitable rise due to increased demand and dwindling supplies will mess our ecconomies up big time.

    17. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny
      Also a whole (a-hole?) new meaning to "dirty bomb".

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    18. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Instine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out.

      Just like it sorted out Katrina? This blind faith in the economy is THE biggest problem we face on this issue. Because not only will people keep rationalising doing nothing, using this argument, but also it is seen by so many intelligent people as being a solution. It is not. It is doing nothing. The markets are driven by greedy bankers and speculators. They do like a long bet sometimes, but usually they're after a quick buck. Plus they don't have the expertise to predict the fallout from a slow but final oil crisis. When they do invest in a long term payoff, they want it to be rock solid. When it goes bad, they'll just invest in the next best "stable" investment (copper, grain, water....). They will not switch their vast accounts over to biodeisel.

      The government MUST force the hand of industry, for the betterment of the majority! Such situations are rare, but this one is clear to me.

      --
      Because you can - or because you should?
    19. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Generally, I believe the market is going to sort this problem out.
      And what pray tell is the market going to use to sort the problem out? Unless there's some kind of mirical in fusion power development the shit's really going to hit the fan which ever way you look at it.

      And let's not forget that when energy starts running short the cost of living is going to be huge and there's not going to be any money left to invest in sorting the problem out.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    20. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      "3) We have no oil eqivalents yet that can take it's place. Nuclear isn't good for small vehicles."

      We don't need oil equivalents. You can use vegetable oil rather than the black stuff though. This will "just work" in new diesel vehicles. Old ones require some cleaning out (if you just put the veg oil in, it'll loosen sediments collected from the diesel, and muck up the engine). Petrol cars, well, you can spend a couple grand converting them. Not perfect, but not an "end of the world" scenario. The big stuff (artic lorries) already uses diesel, so no problems there.

      As for aircraft, well, their form of "oil" is practically lamp oil, I'm guessing there's a ready replacement from the plant world for that too (of course, the refining process needs power).

      So there you go, no end of transport as we know it.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    21. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by JDevers · · Score: 1

      I agree that vegetable oil is a decent replacement for diesel, but if we were to convert all the gasoline vehicles too we would easily overwhelm our ability to produce vegetable oil.

    22. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      What to quit smoking? Smoke all the cigarrettes in your current pack right now. After all, the more you smoke, the faster they run out, right?

      Actually, the most effective solution is the "Russian Roulette" technique: give your smokes to your fattest coworker, and get them to stick one of them up their backside, filter-first, then put it back in the box somewhere...

    23. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually they will be found and implemented

      "In the long run we will all be dead" - Keynes. Problem solved, right? Leading up to that is widescale famine from the giant megafarms running out of oil and being unable to reap their thousands of acres of crops by hand, what little is produced is consumed on the spot without transportation to move it somewhere else.

      Sure, necessity gives birth to the invention of a new way, unfortunately, the new way requires about 10 tons of equipment to be moved down the street to a warehouse, and not a working truck in sight.

    24. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
      Way to go... let's marginalize every single attempt to seek out alternative power sources. This way we can be married to oil for that much longer. Look on the bright side.. your kids get to see the middle east.

      All the same...

      There are questions worth asking:

      Methane gas has been killing american farmers for generations. Fatalities Attributed to Methane Asphyxiain (in) Manure Waste Pits -- Ohio, Michigan, 1989

      The up-front costs for the farmer can be huge. From Waste to Profit (1988)

      If I were the cynical Yankee, I'd be asking why, if Vermont Power really believes in Cow Power, it isn't bulding economical centralized facilites for waste collection and processing under more controlled comditions.

    25. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the end of the black stuff is not an overnight thing. Some people might convert (and the cost reflects the labour expense, the physical resources and energy of the new parts isn't as substantial), others would simply switch to a diesel car when upgrading. In any case, an instant switch is possible with diesel vehicles, thus taking the pressure off requirements for black stuff, and a phased changeover can easily be done with petrol cars.

      Besides, a large quantity of people have diesel cars already (at least here in Europe). They are more economical to run even on diesel; than a petrol car is to run.

      Of course, probably different in the US. The government there ensures absurdly cheap petrol, so historically people don't care as much about mpg. Now that even in the US petrol has gone up in price a fair bit (still way cheaper than here in Ireland), I really hope Ford and GM crash and burn soon for encouraging "gas-guzzlers".

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    26. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1
      I don't know about where you live. But in Alabama, we use coal to generate electricity. We also have a couple of nuclear reactors.

      There are sources of fuel, other than Middle Eastern Crude. In fact, we have natural gas too.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    27. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but did you see how they died? 5 people, one after the other, rushed in to try to save the previous entrants. Surprisingly, they all met the same fate. What're the chances of that happening every year?

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    28. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by operagost · · Score: 1
      Just like it sorted out Katrina?
      Drop any red herrings lately?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by operagost · · Score: 1
      The government there ensures absurdly cheap petrol
      You obviously have no idea how many taxes are laid on petroleum products here. Gasoline is still relatively cheap because we drill and refine most of it here.
      I really hope Ford and GM crash and burn soon for encouraging "gas-guzzlers".
      That's very kind of you. Japanese automakers have been building gas-guzzling SUVs for many years now, too. Would you like them to crash and burn as well? What about Ford's hybrid and E85 vehicles? Don't they count for anything?
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    30. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You obviously have no idea how many taxes are laid on petroleum products here. Gasoline is still relatively cheap because we drill and refine most of it here.
      Errr, no. For the most part, stripped of taxes the price of gasoline is pretty much (but not exactly) constant anywhere in the world. In some countries (like Britain and Germany), its actually cheaper without taxes.
    31. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by True+Vox · · Score: 1
      When asked for clarification on Entropy, notied physicist Stephen Hawking broke into rhyme...

      Harm me with harmony. Doomsday, drop a load on 'em.

      Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it, to have you all jumping, shouting saying it. Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder, in a system that is closed, like with a border. It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness, proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress. "What the fuck is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming, it seems I gotta start the explaining.

      You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break? You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake. But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true, if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.

      That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y, the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die. Order from disorder is a scientific rarity, allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity. Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility, at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy. That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it, if you are here's your membership.

      You down with entropy? Yeah, you know me! (x3) Who's down with entropy? Every last homey!

      Defining entropy as disorder's not complete, 'cause disorder as a definition doesn't cover heat. So my first definition I would now like to withdraw, and offer one that fits thermodynamics second law. First we need to understand that entropy is energy, energy that can't be used to state it more specifically. In a closed system entropy always goes up, that's the second law, now you know what's up.

      You can't win, you can't break even, you can't leave the game, 'cause entropy will take it all 'though it seems a shame. The second law, as we now know, is quite clear to state, that entropy must increase and not dissipate.

      Creationists always try to use the second law, to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw. The second law is quite precise about where it applies, only in a closed system must the entropy count rise. The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun, so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun! That, in a nutshell, is what entropy's about, you're now down with a discount.

      You down with entropy? Yeah, you know me! (x3) Who's down with entropy? Every last homey!

      Hit it! Doomsday, kick it in!

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    32. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by brianerst · · Score: 2, Informative
      Any time someone brings up the greenhouse effect as an arguement for alternative energy, the debate over anthropic global warming re-erupts and the issues are forgotten about amidst the flames and political bullshit. Better to simply avoid that debate, leave it for the environmentalists and the neocons to fight it out, and focus on the other issues so that people understand why we need to quit fossil fuels.
      I don't have much of a beef with what you're saying, but I find it funny that whenever someone wants to say "evil Republicans", they use the word "neocon", even when it doesn't fit.

      Many (if not most) neocons are actually very strongly in favor of alternative energy. They even drive Priuses.

      Now, they generally become boosters of alternative energy for geopolitical reasons rather than environmental ones (they don't want to subsidize Middle Eastern kleptocracies), but most of them are happy that there are other, pro-environment reasons to do so as well.

      The original neocons were generally are ex-Trotskyites (I'm thinking of Irving Kristol here). The second wave were also ex-liberals or leftists (William Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, James Q. Wilson - members of the anti-communist left that turned rightward). The primary failings of the neocons are the primary failing of the left in general - they think that the world is perfectable, given enough (love/power/use of force/crystal energy).

      That leads them to do things you may not like (topple bad regimes in a [misguided?] attempt to liberalize them), and others that you may like (push for alternative energy, campaign to eliminate third-world debt). But they're very different from the corporate Republicanism that has historically been most resistant to new energy.

      Now, of course, that they're starting to figure out the angles to make money off alternative energy, you can bet that the corporate Republicans will rapidly become "green". That may not be ideologically "pure", but it sure beats the alternative...

    33. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by westlake · · Score: 1
      Surprisingly, they all met the same fate. What're the chances of that happening every year?

      It happens all too often in manure pits and silos. To sewer workers as well. Request for Assistance in Preventing Deaths of Farm Workers in Manure Pits, Sewer Gas

    34. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Shhhh! Don't apply common-sense economics on slashdot....the natives might get restless :-/

    35. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Entropy248 · · Score: 1

      I am not a bitch! You don't even know me that well....

    36. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the market is more proactive than you give it credit for. One of the main job of an executive is to plan out the strategic future of the company. I guarantee you that each company has an estimate of the number of barrels they still have in the ground for their current and planned oil fields. If it appears that they only have X years left, and NO additional prospects, you can bet they will be searching for an alternative simply because they don't want to fold.

      Furthermore, fossil fuels are not going to dry up over night. The cost of supplying the market will exceed the cost of possible alternatives long before oil disappears completely. At that point you can expect those viable alternatives to be hitting the market. As you have plainly stated, no one is disputing that the end is coming, and it doesnt take an idiot to figure out that having a product ready to go when the market shifts will put you in a position to make substantial economic gains. The reason we aren't seeing more research than what is currently being performed, is that the end is still a considerable way off. There are still HUGE reserves in russia, alaska, and elsewhere that make it more economical to continue using oil at this point.

    37. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is your mom!!

    38. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Katrina is a horrible example because it was a sudden disaster. It's not like we're not completely aware that there's less and less oil in the ground. Katrina's real problem was that it was a governmental failure not a market failure. You can call our government a market entity, but then you have to remember that Katrina was NOT a failure to our government because it flat out doesn't care whether or not that portion of the country exists. Sorry.

      And you're wrong about 'not switching over to biodiesel.' When it can be produced for the same flat market price as it costs to deal with all the crap that comes along with drilling for oil, they'll switch. At the moment they don't consider ALL the costs because our government subsidizes the cost of, for example, supporting really really bad governments in foreign countries. But it is extremely likely that the flat market cost of producing oil will soon be higher than the cost of producing biodiesel. That's when shifts will happen more quickly.

      We're all waiting on a major breakthrough though, in reality. Without it modern society is really in deep trouble. What would be best would be ambient heat -> electricity, because we have so much excess heat in certain uninhabited areas, or scalable and effective cold fusion. But I don't see either of those happening anytime soon.

    39. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by minion · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Just like it sorted out Katrina?
       
      I can't wait for us to have a black president, so you damn assholes who keep blaming our government for being racist can't keep playing that card every damn time something hurts the black population.

      --

      -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    40. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by bowmanje · · Score: 1

      Its ironic that you would use the case of Katrina, since the blame would most squarely fall on the shoulders of government for dropping the ball. Who was in charge of maintaining the levy system anyway? For evacuations?

      I would also argue that people in industry would have a great deal more insight into the issue than any legislator/goverment lackey. And the investment we are talking about is not individuals betting on the stock market, but the strategic use of resources to insure the survival of a company. Companies don't just jump to a random 'stable' market, they tend to branch out into markets where their expertise can provide an advantage. In this case, alternative fuels would be a natural extension for many companies in the energy sector.

    41. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by stonecypher · · Score: 1
      Just because we're marginalizing the silly ones, like animal feces, which have a theoretical limit of less than two percent of the national power consumption with a resultant sulfur output comparable to six times our current car fleet, doesn't mean we're marginalizing all of them.

      1. Water is good.
        • Water power tends to come primarily from large scale renewable resources like waterfalls, where the ecosystem is easily maintained by branch diversion and limiting. Water power can provide a tremendous amount of power, and has more than a century of proven stability, safety and maintainability (the Hoover dam, Niagara falls, Anwar, and so on.)
      2. Wind is bad.
        • Wind has an unacceptable impact on local wildlife, the manufacturing costs for large blade generators are higher than the resultant power output, the maintenance costs are absurdly high, the generation is not reliable, the power output is not high enough to be worth mention, and there are questions about possible impact on weather patterns.
      3. Nuclear is good.
        • Whereas nuclear has several safety concerns, especially now that international situations are stepping up large-destruction terrorism, it actually has a better safety record than any other form of power besides hydro even after you consider the staggering cost of fault, and newer designs like pebble bed reactors are actually quite an improvement over the massive installations we're used to considering. Nuclear can now be buried unmanned, and developed in small, cheap packages suitable for small towns and well suited to reducing the loss to transmission resistance.
      4. Better coal is bad.
        • Coal's emissions are unacceptable even in modern designs, and coal mining continues to be one of the most dangerous jobs on Earth.
      5. Land geothermal is good.
        • There isn't any life around volcanoes to screw up, and we can do land geothermal in single-column deep mines. Geothermal is more predictable than essentially any other power source in near-term imaginable technology, and can be achieved with technologies that have built up remarkable reliability in other forms of industry. The initial deployment cost is very high, but the long term payoffs are more than worth it.
      6. Ocean geothermal is bad.
        • Ocean thermals come in the form of large-scale small temperature gradient exploitation, which screws with a remarkably large ecology, or from oceanic geothermal vents, which have a tremendous importance to the gas exchange, thermal trends, and complex ecologies which have built up around them.
      7. Fusion is great.
        • It's just too hard right now. We're getting close - some reactors, starting with ITER, are now break-even, just not by enough to justify the cost. We're maybe 15-20 years from realistic deployment.
      8. Cow flop is stupid.
        • Volume. Environmental side-effects. Sulfur and methane emission. Ecologically unsound farm placement. It's just wrong from every direction that isn't "omg it's not oil."


      Does that help?
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    42. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by manifoldronin · · Score: 1

      It may be emotionally effective to use Katrina as an analogy here, but not logically. Katrina was something that happened all of sudden, while this running-out-of-oil thing isn't.

      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
    43. Re:let's marginalize alternative power by RsG · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify something - I'm Canadian. Here, the various brands of conservative don't include "republicans", and the self-described neocons are quite a different beast from the old-school conservatives (which we tend to label "Tories").

      Old tories in Canadian politics are actually somewhat closer to the democrats in the US than they are the repubs. They're right of the middle, but not far right. The new conservatives (who describe themselves as neocons) are closer to American style republicans. Ergo, the tendancy here is to refer to "neocon politics/policies" when talking about both the repubs south of the border and Harper's party, at least in so far as the policies they both have in common.

      It's entirely possible that you know the history of neoconservatism far better than I do, and that technically the republicans in America and the conservative party of Canada don't fit the bill. Words and meanings in politics get corrupted all the time - the liberal party here is the centerist one, and the NDP are the left wing. Likewise, the positioning of the two major American parties in the political spectrum has shifted repeatatly.

      But the common usage of the word "neocon" today is in reference to that area of politics. And I have seen self-described neocons and self-described environmentalists engage is massive flamewars over topics like global warming, so I call them like I see them. YMMV.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  4. What it actually costs by mshurpik · · Score: 0

    >For a residential customer using 500 kWh per month, that would add $20 to the monthly electric bill

    Also,

    >For every kilowatt-hour requested by customers and provided by a Vermont farm, CVPS will pay the farmer the market price for energy plus the Cow Power charge of 4 cents for the environmental benefits of the generation.

    What a scam.

    1. Re:What it actually costs by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't get what you're saying. How is it a scam? They pay the farmer for the power, plus a little bonus as an incentive to use otherwise wasted gas to provide an environmentally friendly source of power. I personally think it's an awesome idea - I wish there were more incentive for people to use and produce alternative power sources.

    2. Re:What it actually costs by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      You like being taxed at 40%?

    3. Re:What it actually costs by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It looks like the plan was to NOT letting this get too popular. The fact that customers have to pay more for this power AND the plan is to pay the farmers more than the current rate is the exact technique I'd use if I didn't want too many customers picking this option. Who's going to make the choice to pay about 30% more for energy?

      This looks like a scam to make this look like the "green" thing to do when in fact, the result is going to make very little difference in how their energy is produced. Sounds just like Bush's hydrogen vs hybrid strategies.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    4. Re:What it actually costs by Aranth+Brainfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calculations, done correctly:

      20 dollars = 2000 cents
      2000/500 = 4 cents per kwh. Which then goes to the farmers.

      40%? Where?

      --
      "Quoting yourself is stupid." -Me
    5. Re:What it actually costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a good thing.

      You see, most farmers aren't really interested in investing in power generation equipment. This is an incentive to get them to do that. Once (if) it catches on and becomes more popular, the laws of the free market will kick in, and you'll see the farmers only getting the going rate (or LESS) for the power.

      steve

    6. Re:What it actually costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently. but if someone is stupid enough to sign up for this, let them. it's all about letting a bunch of tree hugging hippies think that they're doing something good for mother earth and fleecing them at the same time.

    7. Re:What it actually costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This same thing is true in New York; Long Island residents have the option of paying extra for "Green Power", which is produced only from hydroelectric plants/geothermal in upstate NY/other places.

      Of course, last year when oil prices went up, the power company sent out a notice that "due to increased oil prices, we are forced to raise rates"... and the rates went up even if your power was supposed to be not coming from oil to begin with.

    8. Re:What it actually costs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Troll

      We're going to spend a $TRILLION on the Iraq War, and we're paying at least 50% more for gas than before we invaded. If we all ran on cow power, we'd have saved at least that amount. How do you like it?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:What it actually costs by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Colorado requires the local utulity to sell wind and solar. They entered into agreements for all the power long ago. Now, the company is going to charge .1 more/watt than the oil does or the true costs of the energy, whichever is higher. But none of the extra will go to the alternative. IOW, they are not providing incentives to the generator.

      Just like the monopoly for the net, we have issues with how we handle power distribution and generation.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:What it actually costs by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well in case you're not familar with the area, Vermont used to be something like 95% farmland in area that wasn't forested. We're losing that out to relatively large urban development and a huge influx of people to the Burlington area to hit our new array of large chain stores (WalMart, Home Depot, Circuit City, Best Buy, Bed Bath and Beyond, etc). Less than ten years ago, the only big store in the state was Costco, and that's about 20 miles north of everything else (which is a decent distance in VT, considering how freakin' small we are) and has been there for as long as I can remember. Prior to the development, there used to be nothing more than large open fields with a whole lot of nothing.

      Long story short, you're actually exactly right - we don't want this becoming extremely popular in the area. The simple fact is that we don't have nearly as many cows as we did ten years ago, since it's all done in massive superfarms out west. We've had laws passed that keep the milk prices artifically high just so the few family-owned farms still in business don't go under - they're all operating on razor-thin margins as it is, and many are losing money but stay around out of love for what they do.

      We actually have a fairly large percent of our population that ARE willing to pay more to be green. My neighbors coughed up for a hybrid not for the gas savings (my father did the math pre-Katrina - even at $3.50/gal, you need to drive about 250,000 miles before you break even after the premium over a standard model) but because it's green - they also paid what I'd imagine is a good bit more for an electric lawnmower instead of a gas-powered one. We've voted down at least half a dozen times a bypass that connects all of the largely-retail areas together, simply due to pollution. While we're largely divided on things like the same-sex civil unions, most of the people in my state put the environment before the economy.

      So while the idea may sound like a load of shit to you, the fact is that there wouldn't be enough shit to go around. I hate to be cliche', but this is a perfect example of "if we all do a little, we can all do a lot". Yes, one person using an alternative energy source just makes that person feel good inside, but if we all do it, there's a significant impact. It's not our only alternative idea - we've also looked into using trees in a similar way to a potato-battery (which largely did nothing, one tree had less power than a potato) among several other out-there ideas.

      If we've got a dozen different alternative energy methods out there, and each has just 2% of the population using them, we've gone and shifted a quarter of the country - 75 million people - away from oil. While vehicles do tend to need a standard, there's absolutely no reason for every house in the country to get their power from the same method. And already they aren't. But say that we can make all farms not only self-sufficient but even generate a bit of extra power. It may not do a lot out here where the farms are going the way of the Dodo, but out in the land of megafarms, it could actually make a significant impact. I actually know Jerry's (of Ben and Jerry's) wife and son personally (had class with him, in fact), and I can assure you that it would certainly be a B&J thing to do if they found yet another way to support the local community and do something good for the environment.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    11. Re:What it actually costs by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      Oh definitely. Imagine subsidising a power source.. the government putting vast amounts of money into an unsustainable business proposition. The only thing stupider than that would be to, hmm lets see, fight a war for such a resource when other resources could be used instead.

      Imagine that, huh? what a waste of money (not to mention life)!

      But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..

    12. Re:What it actually costs by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If you're paying 10 cents per kwh, then an added 4 cents is a 40% increase.

      So in other words, take your annual electricity bill, add 40%, that's what you're now paying. Just for the 'benefit' of using cow shit.

    13. Re:What it actually costs by Mage+Powers · · Score: 1

      I don't think taxes are optional, this is premium, who knows, some people might want to pay money so they can crack jokes about anything being powered by shit.

    14. Re:What it actually costs by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      We're going to spend a $TRILLION on the Iraq War, and we're paying at least 50% more for gas than before we invaded.

      What makes you think it was done for your benefit? I cannot understand how folk are confused by the price hike. Did you think it was done for you and that your cheque for share of the profits is in the post? ;-)

      All of the people who contributed to the last two election campaigns (and who made the presidency possible) got what they wanted. You'll need to wait in line.

    15. Re:What it actually costs by smchris · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Yes, too many city boys here. I suspect almost all the "farms" that would install these facilities would be the massive cow factories. Bad in so many ways. It's a little like saying we could burn every book in every library to solve our energy "needs" and society would be the better for it in the trade-off.

    16. Re:What it actually costs by Wicked187 · · Score: 1

      Here is the issue with that reasoning, and why most people turn away from those statements and just ignore you:

      1) You act as if there is a switch that the POTUS just have to flip and all of our energy problems would go away. Some would like to think that switch is the Kyoto Treaty, others would think it is hydrogen fuel cells... The point is, there is no switch. Nothing we do today, about alternative energy, is going to have a drastic effect tomorrow; it is going to take years, and nearly 99% of the population will welcome that day, but they are generally just being realistic about the situation.

      2) We are talking about electricity powered by manure, but you segway into a political rant about war. Yes, we are war; war sucks, people die, however, you will likely get more attention to your opinions if don't act like everyone is stupid evil hate mongerers... because if you actually used rational thinking, you would realize that they aren't. This electricity has absolutely nothing to do with oil today. Electricity will only have something to do with oil when we are either running electric only vehicles or using sources of energy created from electical output. We aren't there and we won't be there for years. The rational connection would be "This feces power is great! Now, if we could find some more ways to produce excess electricity, we would have more incentive to get our vehicles to use it instead of oil!"

      3) If you focused your attention toward creating more civility, you would have a better impact on society as whole. One can only assume (which can be a dangerous thing) that you would like to think your are a societal thinker; Act like it.

      Here is the real deal. We are not going to be off of oil today. It is sad, because we have so many reasons to not use oil, but it is reality. Further, we will not be off of oil tomorrow, next year, next decade, or likely the decade after that; this is all sad for the same reasons, but further compounded by the effects of time.

      So, what can be done? Get off of your butt and do something productive about it. Stop using so much energy. As much as you might like to rant, it is highly likely that you use a considerable amount of energy, but you are speaking as if you are on a pedestal of energy greatness. If you are comparable to the absolute vast majority of the civilized world, then you are using too much energy. Further, you are wasting energy sitting around whining about everybody else while you are not doing anything.

      We need to keep working on alternative energy; that is quite simple to understand, and we are actually doing that. Private industrial is doing that, research groups are doing that, it is in the works... quite acting as if it isn't. We also need to diversify our current supply of oil. This is for economic and geopolitical reasons. That certainly does mean ANWAR. There is great debate about how much oil is available, and that a good thing. However, there is a point when debate gets in the way of productivity, and I think we have reached it. I am not going to debate it here, as it has been done ad nauseum. There is a potential for reduced demand on oil from places that we should not wish to send money; we ought to use it while we can. Further, we should all work to reduce our usage of energy. You seem to be among those who think we are doing nothing. I am going to disagree. We have a new tax credit that was put in place by our current Congress, with the advise of the current Administration (who is run by a guy who actually uses alternative energy in his real life... he doesn't play a guy, who does, on TV). This tax credit gives incentive to be energy efficient. Light bulbs, appliances, building materials, solar panels, hybrid vehicles... they are all part of it. Every light bulb in my house has been switched to CFL bulbs; we are in the process of buying a new front-load wash machine paired with a NG dryer with a moisture sensor as well as an on demand, tankless water heater; we are purchasing solar s

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    17. Re:What it actually costs by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      How's it a tax? You're making a market decision. You can buy the bargain, cut rate 'power' from 'dirty' sources such as coal, nuclear, and hydro, or you can buy 'premium clean power' at .04 more than cut rate.

      It's like buying LandoLakes's brand milk, or organic eggs or whatever versus store brand. You pay more, but most people can't tell the difference.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    18. Re:What it actually costs by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Who's going to make the choice to pay about 30% more for energy?

      The same people who went out and bought hybrids the first year they came out and such?

      People make uneconomical decisions all the time. Frankly, given that the total possible amount of 'cow power' is limited, keeping it a limited market is a good idea. Cow manure should be carbon neutral and such, hopefully it's burned clean, etc... But it's still limited market.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    19. Re:What it actually costs by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      But seriously now, I've heard that the nuclear industry gets similar government rebates - can anyone quantify this? I suppose future governments having to deal with the waste could be seen as a government subsidy..

      At least in the USA, all the government does for them is act as a forth level insurance underwriter. And they haven't had to pay out since TMI. It's the Price-Anderson act.

      For 'cheap' incidents the companies insure themselves. For medium level events, like $300 million right now, they have individual insurance. After that, all the nuke reactor owners each pay $95.8 million($8.6 billion total), and the government still hasn't paid a dime. It's only after $8.9 Billion is paid by the nuclear industry that it's call a disaster and the federal government steps in.

      Oh, and the $300 Million insurance only costs $400k a year. .13%, not a bad charge.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:What it actually costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This adds 40% only to the actual usage charge. The transmission and distribution fees are fixed, and can be a very large fraction of the bill, in the abscence of electric A/C or electric heat. In my own case, my monthly bill is typically $20, of which $13 is fixed. A "40%" surcharge on usage would increase the total bill by less than 15%, and if I think the extra $3 is worthwhile to encourage farms to consider methane harvesting, I don't see how it's a scam.

    21. Re:What it actually costs by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      Sorry, hate to be a downer here, but a 4 cent subsidy from people who opt-in, isn't going to save small farms in VT. For example, my dad is calling it quits after a life of small dairy farming.

      Energy subsidy won't raise milk prices, increase production, or cut the price of diesel. Running a 3-Phase variable speed milk vacuum pump will go a lot further on the bottom line.

      It all sounds good though.

    22. Re:What it actually costs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't think the Iraq war was done for my benefit. What makes you think I do? I'm not confused by the price hike. Put a loser oilman in front of a tyrannical warmonger oilman in the White House, everyone pays a lot more for oil and wars.

      The people who contributed money and votes to Bush/Cheney got some things they wanted: lots of killing and some rich corporations. Of course, they were promised cheap oil and safety, as well as actual (tax refund) checks in the mail, but I know that only a few fools actually believed it.

      None of that reality means I have to like it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    23. Re:What it actually costs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You can invent whatever strawman arguments you want to shadowbox with. I said none of what you're claiming. I said only that we're wasting a huge amount of money in Iraq, and implied we should be unhappy about that. That we'd be happier spending the money on something like cow power.

      People like you who will pretend that Bush "uses alternative energy" because he bikes or somesuch insignificant activity on his part will "turn away from my statements and just ignore me" because you're CRAZY. You will say anything, no matter how nonsensical, to cover up your guilt. You think buying 225W in solar panels over the next 5 years will compensate for that SUV you drove, the tax breaks that paid for it? You're living in a fantasyland. You're a "concern troll", who cares nothing for whether people listen to me, except that they listen to you instead.

      You voted for Bush/Cheney, the oil screwups who hustled into power on the kinds of lies you apparently live on. Like your hunger for the too little/late ANWR that you can't even spell, let alone justify - it's just another buzzword you heard on Rush Limbaugh junkie radio.

      The actual reality, the kind we all live in together, that you can touch and measure, not the kind you create with your delusions in your medium of choice, is that most Americans have realized we've put the foxes in charge of the henhouse. That we've already done so much damage that there are few, if any, good options. That Bush/Cheney and their cheering section has squandered so much American resources that we'll take generations to recover, if ever. That change has come partly from people like me who don't let people like you just spin your lies unopposed. Which has gradually used the power of the truth against the power of your media, greed and unmitigated selfishness.

      You're losing, no matter how you care to spin it. Even when you were winning you were losing, because you were destroying our country. Now your hideous dream is falling apart, and people like me who never believed it because we live in reality are picking up the pieces. I already use much less than the national average of energy (less than 1/4). As I have for years, with a pretty lush lifestyle. You're trying to catch up with how I live with relatively low impact. Just try to stop alienating the sensible people like me who've been doing this for years with your lies, attacks, nonsense and public ignorance. You've got a lot to learn. Start acting like you've already learned a minimum required to act like a real person.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    24. Re:What it actually costs by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Moderation -1
          30% Troll
          30% Interesting
          20% Flamebait

      TrollMods apparently love it so much, they can't get enough of it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  5. Cow Power web server is surviving Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Amazing that the Central Vermont Public Service web server handles a good Slashdotting better than virtually every other web server I've ever seen.

    Viva le Cow Power!

    1. Re:Cow Power web server is surviving Slashdot! by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      While we don't always build 'em purty here in Vermont (though sometimes we do) but we ALWAYS build 'em sturdy.

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
  6. Global Warming? by lionheart1327 · · Score: 1

    While definetly greener than burning oil this still contributes as much to global warming? Right?

    1. Re:Global Warming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it doesn't, because the carbon was recently removed from the atmosphere by the growing of the plants that the cows ate to produce the, um, fuel. OTOH, when we burn oil, we're bringing up carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago, and putting it back into the atmosphere instead of leaving it in the ground. The only way this isn't closer to carbon-neutral than burning oil is if the cow manure that is going to be burned for power would otherwise be buried deep underground, which I kind of doubt would happen.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While definetly greener than burning oil this still contributes as much to global warming? Right?

      Wrong, the key word is "renewables" the cows feed with plants that take CO2 from the air.

    3. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the carbon dioxide emmissions of automobiles contributes to global warming is that the carbon in the gasoline had previously been outside of the global carbon cycle. The rapidly increasing levels of carbon in the cycle are a major cause of global warming. The CO2 from "cow power" contains organic carbon that is already in cycle. More importantly the methane would normally be released into the atmosphere, decay, and release its carbon anyways.

      Semi-Offtopic: I'm pretty sure that this isn't a new program, I've heard spots for it on Vermont Public Radio for quite some time.

    4. Re:Global Warming? by RsG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's also worth mentioning that methane is a greenhouse gas. It's actually worse than Co2 in this regard, though far less common and also less stable.

      Since decomposing cow manure is going to emit methane whether we tap it for power or not (as will the cows themselves) it stands to reason that letting the methane go to waste is more of a greenhouse gas contributor than burning it. After all, the Co2 we release from combusting it will be resorbed by the plants the cows themselves eat, whereas the methane will not. And if we don't burn the stuff, it'll just end up in the atmosphere anyways.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Global Warming? by robbak · · Score: 1

      Actually, it has a large anti-greenhouse effect, well, for something done by one person on one farm, anyway.
      Remember that methane is a very effective greenhouse gas. Collecting and burning it exchanges it for much more friendly CO2, as well as replacing coal produced energy.
      There is a town in europe (Germany, maybe?) that is running its bus and train fleet on methane.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    6. Re:Global Warming? by AJWM · · Score: 2, Informative

      While definetly greener than burning oil this still contributes as much to global warming? Right?

      Wrong.

      First, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are a significant contributer to global warming. This is not proved, beyond the obvious fact that without any greenhouse effect at all the average temperature of Earth would be around freezing. There is nothing to prove a causal relationship between elevated CO2 levels and warming. Indeed, it could be that warming (perhaps caused by increased solar output) has increased CO2 levels (warmer water holding less dissolved CO2, etc).

      Second, even if greenhouse gases were causing global warming, you're assuming that the combustion products of methane (H2O and CO2) are significant greenhouse gases. In fact, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is. Water is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than either by about an order of magnitude, but burning methane (or fossil fuel, for that matter) doesn't significantly add to the atmosphere's H2O load because that's pretty much in equilibrium anyway, between 75% of Earth's surface being open water and the fact that it frequently precipitates out.

      That said, reducing dependence on foreign oil is worth doing for other reasons, as is reducing dependence on any fossil fuel as an energy source (waste of a good chemical feedstock).

      --
      -- Alastair
    7. Re:Global Warming? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      The only way this isn't closer to carbon-neutral than burning oil is if the cow manure that is going to be burned for power would otherwise be buried deep underground, which I kind of doubt would happen...

      Umm, it does. The technical innovation that permits this is called the "Plow".

      Forget cows, I want to go Tractor Tipping.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Global Warming? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here's an idea

      Instead of growing food to feed the cows and having methane producing manure to contend with, we eat the food and not the cows !!

      Meat production (especially from cows) is a crazily inefficient way to feed ourselves and at 50x the water consumption of potatoes.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really shouldn't be modded informative. It IS proved that greenhouse gases are a contributer to global warming, but besides that can of worms this post fails to point out the difference between the carbon equilibrium of living organisms between the growing of green plants (fixing carbon from the atmosphere), eating of plants by cows and other animals, then these animals shitting/dying, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Even the methane, which is far worse than CO2, would eventually be decomposed into CO2 which would then be fixed by a green plant.

    10. Re:Global Warming? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1
      Because we're omnivores that have had meat in our diets for most of the last two million years.

      Then again, based the URL you have, you're a lot like the guy with whom I had a fairly pointless debate on Technocrat a few weeks ago. He maintained that just because we'd been eating meat for two million years didn't mean that we were designed to eat meat, and that if we just got rid of all meat we'd get rid of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other economic and health issues. It was my position that we are omnivores, that our anatomy is based on an omnivorous diet, and that eating vegetarian/vegan is a choice. It can be a healthy choice, so long as it's entered into when well-informed of the sources of certain essential nutrients, but it's still a choice.

      Indeed, the very site to which you link is being disingenuous with its quote on the main page:

      "The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent osteoporosis is another step in the wrong direction. ... Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than 300 calories a day. This is a real issue for the millions of Americans who are trying to control their weight. What's more, millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and even small amounts of milk or dairy products give them stomachaches, gas, or other problems. This recommendation ignores the lack of evidence for a link between consumption of dairy products and prevention of osteoporosis. It also ignores the possible increases in risk of ovarian cancer and prostate cancer associated with dairy products."

      I went and looked up the source for that quote, and found the following further down in the article:

      Dairy or Calcium Supplement (1 to 2 times). Building bone and keeping it strong takes calcium, vitamin D, exercise, and a whole lot more. Dairy products have traditionally been Americans' main source of calcium. But there are other healthy ways to get calcium than from milk and cheese, which can contain a lot of saturated fat. Three glasses of whole milk, for example, contains as much saturated fat as 13 strips of cooked bacon. If you enjoy dairy foods, try to stick with no-fat or low-fat products. If you don't like dairy products, calcium supplements offer an easy and inexpensive way to get your daily calcium.

      While the site does point out the downsides of certain dairy products and that its nutrients can be gotten from other sources, it does not say that they should be outright avoided. The above quote mentions the fat content of whole milk, while most people I know drink 2% or 1% milk, and a growing number of them drink non-fat milk. Low-fat ice cream is just as tasty as -- and often identically priced to -- normal ice cream.

      There are plenty of good arguments in favor of a veg diet. Resorting to half-truths and out-of-context quotes doesn't do anything to bolster them.
      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:Global Warming? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I am a lot like someone you've met, though you've never met me, based on a URI ! lol

      Truth is, half or not, factory farmed meat is killing us, either through disease, anti-biotics, deforestation, water consumption.

      Changing the factory would have positive benefits.

      I've been vegan for 15 years, no supplements, and my body chemistry is normal. ymmv

      Omnivourous capability means we can do away with meat as much as it means we can eat it.

      Go sit in the mall & look at all the fatties and see what problems the food factories are helping create.

      Society is diseased, it needs a cure : Coke Zero is not it !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    12. Re:Global Warming? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      First, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are a significant contributer to global warming. This is not proved, beyond the obvious fact that without any greenhouse effect at all the average temperature of Earth would be around freezing. There is nothing to prove a causal relationship between elevated CO2 levels and warming.

      The laws of thermodynamics aren't proved either. Evidence is examined, and tentative theories are formulated. Nothing is proved. Welcome to science.

    13. Re:Global Warming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record, I am against factory farming for it's horrible environmental effects.

      I have vegetarian/vegan friends. Many of them have heavy iron deficiencies, and must take supplements to counter this. I don't see this as natural.

      I grew up on a small beef farm, so there was red meat quite often. Originally, it was the "meat and potatoes" meals every night, as most farm families did. But that is too much red meat, which in excess is bad for you. It's called moderation. You can lead a perfectly healthy life, while still eating meat.

      And the fat ones in the mall aren't due to milk or meat. It's called over-eating or transfats. I think those are a much worse problem than someone drinking milk or having a steak.

    14. Re:Global Warming? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I said deep underground. When manure is plowed back into the soil, it's still part of the carbon cycle. Now, to be fair, the purpose of doing this is to fertilize the soil, and the alternative is to use manufactured fertilizers which themselves require a lot of energy to manufacture -- but the problem is that AFAIK, most modern farming uses manufactured fertilizers anyway, while the manure collects in waste ponds and eventually ends up in groundwater. "Cow power" may not be perfect by a long shot, but it really does seem to me that it's a lot closer to carbon neutrality than anything else we're likely to do with the stuff.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    15. Re:Global Warming? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The laws of thermodynamics aren't proved either.

      Oh, come on, that's the best you can do? How lame. That you have purple skin, gills, and feathery antennae isn't proved either.

      Let me rephrase my original "First, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are a significant contributer to global warming. This is not proved," then. "First, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are a significant contributer to global warming. Numerous alternatives to this hypothesis (e.g. fluctuations in solar output, or that 'global' warming is a misinterpretation of observations) have not been disproved."

      Happy now?

      --
      -- Alastair
  7. This is just.... by Anoraknid+the+Sartor · · Score: 2, Funny

    bull shit....

    --
    Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
  8. Secret ingredient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    The big question now is whether Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will use power generated from the manure of cows treated with Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone."

    So long as it doesn't become the secret ingredient in their barn yard swirl I don't care.

  9. Cow Power....? by dartarrow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is all bull..

    --
    I love humanity, it is people I hate
  10. New math? by chuckfee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $0.04 per kwh on top of the regular rates is about 50% higher.
    I think someone misplaced a decimal point. I use about 1500
    kwh per month. This extra cost would be $60 per month, not $6.

    It would be cheaper to pay farmers not to farm than to come
    up with kooky schemes like this that pay them twice - once for
    their crazy milk subsidies then again to get rid of the methane
    gas that it produces.

    We might as well run power plants fueled by combusting dollar bills.

    1. Re:New math? by glitch! · · Score: 1

      Where I am, the power is just under 4.4 cents per hw/hour from 8AM to 10PM (peak) and 2.4 cents off peak most of the year. (June, July, and August is about 5.2 cents.) While I would certainly welcome clean power, doubling my power bill is a hard pill to swallow. Now if only the IRS allowed the difference in tax credits, you bet!

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    2. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I use about 1500 kwh per month.
      WHAT THE FUCK? Where I live 4000KWh per year is a lot if you live alone.

      Dude, is it common over there to be such a power hog? Geez.
    3. Re:New math? by tibike77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      One PC operating most of the day (monitor operational say 12h/day, etc) easily "eats" in excess of 1500 kWh/year.
      Consider also having a few light bulbs on 4-6 hours a day, a fridge, a washing machine, a refrigerator and so on and you easily get to more than 3000 kWh/year while living alone.

      A typical house(hold) of 4 would easily be consuming 500 kWh per month, if not more if you don't bother restraining power usage (power-saving lightbulbs, etc).

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    4. Re:New math? by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Just read their (CowPower guys) own FAQ page... it's NOT deductible as a donation (was wondering myself a bit earlier).

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    5. Re:New math? by StikyPad · · Score: 1
      power plants fueled by combusting dollar bills.

      GENIUS!

    6. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A typical house(hold) of 4 would easily be consuming 500 kWh per month

      Yeah, so what the hell is the GP doing to use THREE TIMES THAT? Does he use his refrigerator to cool his back yard or something?

    7. Re:New math? by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      Vermont has expensive electricity, and once the long-term HydroQuebec contracts expire, it will only be more so. Here in Burlington, I'm paying over 6 cents per KWH, without including other fees. CVPS probably has higher rates. I personally think this is a neater dairy subsidy than just making us all pay more for milk, but the problem is that it's just one farm. So go buy some artisan cheese and Ben and Jerries, too.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    8. Re:New math? by plover · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It would be cheaper to pay farmers not to farm than to come up with kooky schemes like this that pay them twice

      The point of subsidies such as this is that it may provide incentive to other "green" energy producers to hook up to the grid. My electric co-op offers a similar sort of deal: I can pay a premium for blocks of 100kWh of wind-generated power per month.

      Most of these schemes that I'm familiar with are for otherwise "free" energy: solar or wind power (or now reclaimed methane.) They are trying to offer these producers a limited time subsidy to help offset the startup costs. A 1mW wind generator costs about one million U.S. dollars to get up and running. Unless you get help with the interest up front, it will take quite a while to get that ROI back.

      The radio recently reported that my state, Minnesota, published a paper showing that if windmills were erected at all the economically feasible points in the state, our generating capacity would exceed our current consumption by a factor of fourteen. That would mean total independence from fossil fuels for electric production for a long time to come. Just think what that would do towards stabilizing the price of energy, especially when compared to OPEC's cartel.

      Remember, the "energy industry" isn't a single entity. The electric power companies have no particular love for the oil or coal companies. (Certainly mine doesn't, as it's a member-owned non-profit co-op.) They're business partners, and nothing more. Being forced to constantly raise their rates to compensate for the costs of fuel and seeing no profit from the increased prices has not instilled friendship. If they can do anything to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, it lowers their costs as much as anybody else's.

      Sure, it's "extra" profit for the small energy producers. But it helps reduce dependence on foreign energy, and could eventually replace it at a much more stable price.

      --
      John
    9. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell do you use 1500 kWh per month? I run air conditioning all summer, my computer runs 24x7 with a 20" CRT, and I do all my cooking with a microwave and I only use about 300kWh per month. What kind of irresponsible citizen are you?

    10. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One PC operating most of the day (monitor operational say 12h/day, etc) easily "eats" in excess of 1500 kWh/year.
      Either your math is way off or you are terrible power hogs over there. 1500KWh/year with 12h/day runtime would mean the whole setup eats over 340W. That's a lot even with a monitor.

      A lightbulb should never use more than 12W, a fridge not more than 150W etc.

      I'm shocked, really.
    11. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vermont has expensive electricity

      Holy shit! Are you insane? Just because you don't like your power bill doesn't mean it's expensive. Try paying 11 cents per kWh in California where the summer spends a large amount of time over 100F and the rates aren't less at night.

    12. Re:New math? by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      Only the monitor (EIZO FlexScanF78, 21") consumes ~195 W (5-10 W in power save mode)... the system itself uses easily 150 W while doing light tasks (like, say, posting on Slashdot) and in excess of 300 W while playing a game or burning a DVD. Use this machine for 4 hours a day at "full force", 8 hours a day lightly, and 12 hours a day idle (monitor powered down but the machine itself is almost always on) and you get more than the average I posted there (I assumed I also shut it off from time to time and use it less in weekends, for instance).
      350 W power usage for a computer is not that much if you ask me.

      And lightbulbs... hmmz, "power saving" lightbulbs are not common in Romania (where I live), and certainly not in our household. Kitchen and bathroom have 150 W bulbs, most rooms have a 40 W and a 100 W bulb (two wall switches) depending on how much light you actually need, corridor lights are also 40 W, etc.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    13. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHAT THE FUCK? Where I live 4000KWh per year is a lot if you live alone.

      Do you have electric heating, or do you burn fossil fuels to heat your home in the winter? Do you run an air conditioner in the summer? Do you have insuite laundry, or do you drive your car to the laundromat and get your clothes washed there? My dryer is rated for an average consumption of 877 KWh/year. Are you saying that my dryer should only be one fourth of my total energy usage? How about my washer, stove, oven, refrigerator, blender, computers, lights, etc.?

      Just because you live in the middle of Bumfuck, USA and you never cook because you eat at McDonald's all the time, your mother does your laundry for you, and you don't require electric heating or cooling... it doesn't mean that other people are power hogs. I live by myself and use over 1000 KWh per month on average. But hey... it's cheap and it comes from hydroelectric power so I'm not burning coal to power my lifestyle. And on that note: holy shit, coal burning is *so* 1800s.

    14. Re:New math? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Most of these schemes that I'm familiar with are for otherwise "free" energy: solar or wind power (or now reclaimed methane.) They are trying to offer these producers a limited time subsidy to help offset the startup costs. A 1mW wind generator costs about one million U.S. dollars to get up and running. Unless you get help with the interest up front, it will take quite a while to get that ROI back.
      You also have mechanical parts, hence wear and tear, leading to maintenance overhead as well.

      Still, back in the early 80's when shipping lines were converting to containers, some of the conversions were financed by small investors purchasing containers and then renting them out (though a management agency) to the shippers. If the price of oil rises high enough, I don't see why we wouldn't see some pooled investments like that be possible as well.

      You could do it through the stock market of course by floating up some stocks or bonds, but maybe it might be possible to do something similar by providing shared ownership in a particular wind turbine and its power output... People might be more willing to invest if they can see something tangible that they own.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    15. Re:New math? by chuckfee · · Score: 1

      3 words: central air conditioning. I live in Las Vegas.

    16. Re:New math? by Tim · · Score: 1

      That would mean total independence from fossil fuels for electric production for a long time to come. Just think what that would do towards stabilizing the price of energy, especially when compared to OPEC's cartel.

      You do realize that the majority of US electric power is generated by burning domestically-mined coal, right?

      --
      Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    17. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a situation where you can save *a lot* of energy! Energy-saving bulbs are an investment, but they last longer and the monetary aspect is not the only one.

      (imho you have your rooms quite brightly lit, I wouldn't use more than 25w for auxilliary lights like corridors or small lights in rooms, and 40-60W in kitchen or bathroom. but to each his own taste...)

    18. Re:New math? by BovineSpirit · · Score: 1

      1500 kWh a month?!? What are you doing with all that power? Here in London, in an admittedly brand new 2 bedroom flat, we're using 300 kWh a month. We don't have gas. Seriously, I'm fasinated, where is all that extra power going?

    19. Re:New math? by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      My parents aren't able to read a newspaper without glasses and a bright light, they hate wearing their glasses any other time than when they read, basically they're one-quarter-blind. Any less light and they'd go berserk.

      Me, personally, I never light up the "big bulb" in my room... and I am quite bothered by the bathroom light, but hey, I'm not alone.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    20. Re:New math? by ElBeano · · Score: 1
      How did the parent get modded so high?

      It is alleged that "...it would be cheaper to pay farmers not to farm than...(nonsensical, but inflammatory language)". How so? By that logic, we pay them to produce nothing vs. paying them (admittedly above market rates) to produce valuable commodities, food and electricity. Check the cost of milk vs. inflation. Check it vs. the cost of energy. It starts to look like a bargain doesn't it? Check the farmer's share of a dollar spent on milk and you'll see most of the increase in the price of milk is going not to the farmer, but to all the handlers, marketers and others further down the supply chain.

      The 4c paid per KWH of electricity would most likely be temporary. It would be an incentive and source of capitalization for the equipment needed to begin producing the electricity. Viewed that way, it is a very good idea. The technology is sound. The practice is economically sound, especially when compared to the practice of burning nonrenewables. Speaking as a former dairy farmer, I am aware of farmers who have built the systems for this, and their experience with payback. A little help with the beginning stages is all that is needed and is mutually beneficial. Long term, 4c is not really needed. Just being able to sell excess power (beyond that needed by the dairy farm itself) at, or just slightly above, market rates is sufficient.

    21. Re:New math? by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      not everyone enjoys the light of the electricity saving bulbs.

      for my eyes the flicker all the time, and i just can't use them. sry, no can do. my eyes go berserk on those things. and a light is no use if it doesn't make me able to see or read.

      when i don't need the light to read, i actually prefer a candle, it's monotonic emitting light is nice and doesn't get into interference with the herz rates of my crt and tft monitors.

      for most people i give a slightly better idea: switch the damn a/c or heater off when you don't need it. a lightbulb that saves you 50w per hour compared to a device that consumes 1-4kW of power per hour, isn't a big gain in a small household, especially a household that doesn't run lights more than 6 hours a day. my neighbour let's his a/c run all the time. he's almost never at home. yea sure he can afford it, but even the politicians can't produce enough bs to methan that. and a bit isolation for either cooling or warming, isn't such a bad idea neither

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    22. Re:New math? by plover · · Score: 1
      You do realize that the majority of US electric power is generated by burning domestically-mined coal, right?

      Well, I'd like to think I'm not so naive as to believe that wind power alone will ever suffice for electric production. The wind isn't nearly reliable enough to be our only source of energy. We'll still have to burn coal (and operate nuclear plants) to make up the difference. But this could mean a shift from coal as our primary source of electricty to a backup role for when the wind isn't blowing, just as we use expensive natural gas today to fuel peak power plants.

      --
      John
    23. Re:New math? by zenyu · · Score: 1

      Where I am, the power is just under 4.4 cents per hw/hour from 8AM to 10PM (peak) and 2.4 cents off peak most of the year.

      Nuclear or Coal?

      I pay about 16 cents per kw/hour in the winter and 18 cents per kw/hour in the summer. The rate actually fluctuates quite a bit, so sometimes at the end of the month it is 13 and other times it is 20. My building generates about 30% of it's own electricity using oil, so it's at the higher end of the range right now. (It doesn't make sense to just turn of the generator when oil is expensive because of long term contracts, god damned flat taxes and the one puny, sometimes smoldering, powerline strung to our end of the island.)

      A 4 cent per kw/hour fee would only add about $9.38 to my monthly bill averaged over the year.

    24. Re:New math? by lukehan · · Score: 1

      As someone who grew up on a small family dairy farm (60-80 cows in the milking rotation at a time) I can say that these "crazy milk subsidies" do not benefit all farms equally, like other farm subsidies they can bring in millions for large operations that work loopholes, but for a small farm don't amount to much. When my parents finally got out of the dairy business, the price they got for milk was not much more than 25 years ago when they first started. Most of the money goes to the middle man. At least I remember my father saying that out of a gallon of milk, we only saw about $ .30- $ .50

    25. Re:New math? by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      Nope, Vermont's average rates are about the same as CA:
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profil es/e_profiles_sum.html


      Perhaps my power's cheap, relative to the rest of the state, although the additional fees make my real rate something like 9 or 10 cents per KWH anyways. Point was that the CVPS cow power surcharge isn't likely 100%, as some claimed.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    26. Re:New math? by glitch! · · Score: 1

      Coal. Nice job on the cogeneration there.

      I have thought about ways to set up an efficient diesel generator to double as a source of home heating, but nothing has really clicked yet. With diesel around $3/gallon, the power would cost 23 cents per kw/h not counting the heat benefit. Obviously it can not compete by price alone today, but who knows what may change tomorrow?

      I am also increasingly tempted to get some experience with solar power. It is still expensive, but it would be nice to have some real world experience in place if and when new technology brings the price down.

      --
      A dingo ate my sig...
    27. Re:New math? by plover · · Score: 1
      If the price of oil rises high enough, I don't see why we wouldn't see some pooled investments like that be possible as well.

      I think you made a great point in favor of the subsidies. They help get some of the infrastructure in place before the fuel prices cripple the oil burning plants and pass the prices on to us consumers.

      Markets are reactionary -- that's one of the basics learned in Econ 101. Sure, we could wait until oil hits $200/barrel, but even then nobody can build a wind turbine in a day. It takes a long time to manufacture the parts, acquire the land and permits, and then get it erected, and even then our transmission grid capacity simply isn't there today to deliver all the potential energy from the wind-rich parts of the country.

      Subsidies can help move things along now in an orderly fashion, before the country reaches crisis stage. Waiting for market forces is not a good short-term plan, unless you like years of rolling brownouts during the conversion.

      --
      John
    28. Re:New math? by Tim · · Score: 1

      Fine, fine...I understand. I was pointing out that OPEC has very little, if anything, to do with our energy production. The figures I've seen estimate that oil-burning power plants make up about 2% of the US generation capacity.

      --
      Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    29. Re:New math? by gharris · · Score: 1

      This isn't really a new program. They rolled this program out in the fall of '04. I signed up for the 100% plan. The extra money gives the farmers an incentive to install the manure capture system which in addition to providing methane for electricity generation, also prevents manure run-off into streams, etc and further reduces pollution. It really is a win-win situation.

      As someone else pointed out, there really isn't enough supply for everyone to sign up for this. However, the plan agreement states that if they cannot buy enough 'Cow Power', they will use the additional money to buy electricity from other alternative energy sources.

      --Glenn

    30. Re:New math? by plover · · Score: 1
      OIC. Good point, according to the DOE
      • Coal 50%
      • Nuclear 20%
      • Natural Gas 18%
      • Hydro 7%
      • Oil 3%
      • Non-hydro Renewable 2%
      The same page also says we import only 15% of our natural gas. It's interesting, it looks like we're already generating almost as much electricity by wind power as we are from oil.
      --
      John
    31. Re:New math? by Shadowlore · · Score: 1
      The radio recently reported that my state, Minnesota, published a paper showing that if windmills were erected at all the economically feasible points in the state, our generating capacity would exceed our current consumption by a factor of fourteen. That would mean total independence from fossil fuels for electric production for a long time to come. Just think what that would do towards stabilizing the price of energy, especially when compared to OPEC's cartel.


      Unless you get your electricity from oil reserves, it would have no measurable effect on OPEC. Even if it is currently powered by natural gas.

      OPEC deals in oil not the generic term "fossil fuels".
      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    32. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, don't forget the reliability of wind power. Generally 1 MW of controllable capacity (coal, nuclear, hydro) is considered equivalent to 2 or 3 MW of wind capacity, because a 1.5 MW turbine is seldom generating 1.5 MW of power. I don't know if that factor of 14 considers that or not. Also, because of fluctuations, you need some sort of energy storage or backup capacity to reconcile the peaks and troughs of supply and demand. Although there are some promising looking technologies like flow batteries (I suppose hydraulic storage wouldn't be very feasible in most areas), nothing stands out as a perfect solution, and all of the options add quite a bit of cost to relying soley on wind power.

      As a side note, I read in today's paper that the University of Minnesota just published a report finding that ethanol production could only be reasonably expected to cover 14% of the US's transportation energy needs. It's nice and it's a start, but it also shows how much hype is circulating in the energy debate.

    33. Re:New math? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Large nuclear and coal-fired power plants don't get switched on and off like light bulbs in order to "fill in" when the wind isn't blowing or the Sun isn't shining. These are positively enormous machines that are require complicated processes to start up and shut down, and suffer some risk when doing so. You don't turn one off unless you have a really good reason. The converse will likely be true: the major plants will operate at capacity while any alternative power sources connected to the grid will serve to level the load. Solar electric, if widely implemented, would help ease the air conditioning load of major population centers when they most need it during the day. But I'm not holding my breath.

      I have the feeling that America is not going to be the nation leading the charge to a non-fossil-fueled global economy. Oh sure, we may come up with the tech: we're good at that. What we are not good at doing, from a Federal perspective, is sustaining any kind of massive long-term effort in any meaningful way. Even once we come up with something that will work, something to replace petroleum for power production, what are the chances that any such economic development program will survive past the next Administration? It's not the kind of thing you can accomplish in two Presidential terms.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    34. Re:New math? by zenyu · · Score: 1

      Coal.
      Very dirty electricity. :-|

      Nice job on the cogeneration there.
      Not really my doing, the builder had a bad relationship with the local electrical utility. But in winter it does provide all the heat for the building, which is a good thing.

      I have thought about ways to set up an efficient diesel generator to double as a source of home heating, but nothing has really clicked yet. With diesel around $3/gallon, the power would cost 23 cents per kw/h not counting the heat benefit. Obviously it can not compete by price alone today, but who knows what may change tomorrow?

      I am also increasingly tempted to get some experience with solar power. It is still expensive, but it would be nice to have some real world experience in place if and when new technology brings the price down.


      The real benefit of local co-generation is that you can use the waste heat for heating the building. If you have cold winters where you are it might be worth it, even at 23 cents a kw/h. But co-generation efficiency depends on the building's size. Bigger is better for efficiency of both heating and electricity generation. Even a smallest gas turbine is too big for the typical home. A steam boiler + turbine can be small, but needs to run continuously.

      I'm looking for a small two family building to buy and live in and am toying with the idea of solar power. Mostly for the geek toy reasons, I think they would look very mod on top of a 19th century brownstone. More cost effective is solar preheating of water before it goes into the water heater, and some of the other less sexy green tech. But generating electricy directly from the sun is not just cool but allows for geeky projects like writing software for solar & cloud tracking, weather prediction, electricty generation prediction, and electricity use prediction and electrical control. You know, if the cloud you are tracking with your camera is predicted to drop electricity production in 3 minutes turn on the AC compressor now so we can shut it off when production drops and still maintain a comfortable temperature inside.

    35. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying extra for bogus "green" power is stupid. In Minnesota (yeah I am there too) the bastards charge extra for the "wind" power. And the Xcel gets a cut and charges rate payers extra for the "wind" that they slowly add to the grid. But they do not really want to add
      a distributed power grid. Centralized systems are much more profitable, for them.

      - Dept of Defense has stopped all windfarm construction at behest of congress,
            Radar interference for HOMELAND SECURITY, a problem just "made up."

      - In Minnesota over half the "wind" electricity is dumped due to lack of powerlines,
          but rate payers pay for 100% to the tune of $30 million per year.

      This is a joke, we could have wind power all over the place but the large power
      companies do not want it. And we wont get it until we burn all natural gas and oil and
      coal and uranium and soylent green squeezin's.

    36. Re:New math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell do you live? I live in New england, like 40 miles from anything close to a city. electricity has been about $0.12 to $0.14 per kWh for as long as I can remember

    37. Re:New math? by ppanon · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the speed at which the market will adjust to changing conditions, given the correct amount of oversight to encourage competition.

      Case in point is the Alberta tar sands. In development for 20 years, it was not expected that they would become economically viable for another 15 years. However with the rapid increase in fuel prices, exploitation of the tar sands has been quickly accelerated through massive investment by established oil companies in the existing pilot projects with rapid commercial exploitation planned within the next couple of years. Indeed this is a problem because the extraction process is still quite heavily polluting and it was anticipated that there would be more time to refine the process. It also uses large amounts of relatively clean-burning natural gas as a power source to extract the petroleum, because we are so dependent on gasoline-powered engines, instead of using the natural gas directly.

      The issue with wind farms is quite different. The technology is quite mature but the financial break-even point just hasn't been reached with market forces. Based on the example of the tar sands, I have little doubt that if market price of energy increases to the point were wind farms are financially competitive with hydrocarbons as a fuel source, existing wind turbine manufacturers would have no problem getting financing to increase their manufacturing capacity 10 or a 100 times over. However yes, it won't happen overnight and there will be some pain involved during the transition. The natural resources for making the parts will increase in price due to the energy cost of their extraction and processing, and high demand will make the price go up initially. However it's not clear waiting until fiscal competitiveness of wind power would be worse than prematurely accelerating the transition process. It might not even aid the global warming problem since it would probably just encourage excessive energy consumption (i.e. waste), while using up the most efficient wind-generating locations.

      In the end the biggest problem with switching to wind power may be making sure that, in more remote and less easily monitored areas, nobody steals the generators for resale as scrap metal.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  11. Remember.. For giving us power, by dartarrow · · Score: 1

    .... our cows must be tipped

    --
    I love humanity, it is people I hate
  12. lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    further entrenching the enslavement of animals

    1. Re:lame by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1
      further entrenching the enslavement of animals
      Riiiiiiight. Because if humans weren't enslaving them, cows wouldn't shit.
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:lame by geekoid · · Score: 1

      OTOH, if stopped enslaving cows, they would all die.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  13. Why pay more ? by tibike77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, I get the whole "pay a bit more because it's a GoodThing(TM)" concept, but as a marketing strategy it stinks (forgive the pathetic pun).

    So let me get this straigth: you (the consumer) enrols to receive a percentage of your "power" from these guys (up to 100% only from them), and all your money (including the extra 4 cent per kWh, no idea how much the actual price per kWh you have, but I personally pay only about 10-15 cent per kWh, so an extra 4 cent would increase my bill easily by 30% or more) and only "markert price" (no idea how that much that is, but definetely way less than what you get charged as end-user) goes directly to the "manufacturer".

    In other words, you basically just make a donation to the "cow power" people, but a donation that's not regarded as donation per se (well, it doesn't specify that, I was just assuming).
    So what's stopping you from just using regular power and donating as much $$$ as you want directly to the people involved ?

    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    1. Re:Why pay more ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that the power itself is pretty close to regular electric prices. What you are paying for to get the green power are the profits the electric companies are loosing to the alternative provider. The most important thing is that the corporation still gets the profit no matter who provides the power. From all I've read there's no reason why this type of power should cost more and if the farm operation is large enough it's cheap for the farmer to produce. Power is a monopoly in this country. Anyone living in California was reminded of that during the Enron profit grab. Go to a cheaper source for power? You can't and they own you. You can put solar cells on your roof or get some wind generators but those are your only options. Power isn't like cable TV these days. There's no competition and that's not likely to change so long as there are lobbist.

    2. Re:Why pay more ? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because unlike just writing some farmer a check, this actually encourages/ensures that they're doing something environmentally important with the money. (Or something that you, the theoretical buyer of said power, thinks is environmentally important.)

      If I want to encourage certain behavior -- in this case, the use of Green power -- it makes more sense for me to pay you to do that behavior, than it does for me to just give you some cash for being yourself.

      So yes, it's basically a donation to a bunch of farmers, but it's a donation to a bunch of farmers in return for doing something that assumedly you think is important (if you're participating).

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    3. Re:Why pay more ? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Ok, I get the whole "pay a bit more because it's a GoodThing(TM)" concept, but as a marketing strategy it stinks (forgive the pathetic pun).

      Just like hybrid cars. Pay more, but bask in the glow of personal 'greenness'.

    4. Re:Why pay more ? by BraveSlice · · Score: 1

      First: This is no different than buying stuff from a supermarket! There are lots of similar products and you choose the product you want. Some will cost more, like eggs from non cage egg factories.

      Second: If this is so stupid idea come up with the better one and Im sure they will do it. However, the fact is that somehow the system has to make sure that you (the consumer) will never run out of electricity.

      Third: This is done for so many years now so the whole concept is not new. You can (at least in civilized countries - pun intended) for example buy wind power with a fraction of more expensive price from the same electric grid.

      Fourth!: If you dont want to pay more because it is a Good Thing then DON'T but bitching about it is very very very stupid. Just relax and be happy that some morons like me happily pay some extra to get the product they want.

    5. Re:Why pay more ? by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      From their FAQ:

      "For every kilowatt-hour requested by customers and provided by a Vermont farm, CVPS will pay the farmer the market price for energy plus the Cow Power charge of 4 cents for the environmental benefits of the generation. If not enough kilowatt-hours are available from participating CVPS farms, CVPS will attempt to acquire and retire Renewable Energy Certificates from other regional renewable generation, issued by the regional system operator, to support renewable generation in a broader sense. If no certificates are available in the regional market for 4 cents per kWh or less, the company will deposit Cow Power payments into the CVPS Renewable Development Fund. This fund, overseen by an independent board, will provide incentives to farmers to stimulate further renewable farm generation in the CVPS service area. CVPS will not profit from the program. "

  14. bah by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

    Forrest Gump did this first.

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  15. Bovine Biofuel by Onuma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is really a mooving story.

    But seriously, it's about time people started doing things like this en masse. We waste a shitload of resources we could otherwise make use of on a daily basis (no pun intended). If this catches on and becomes more widespread across the dairy sections of the country, and perhaps the world, people will quickly start looking at how to use other resources to their advantage - how about the methane from other farm animals, or perhaps human waste passing through sewers? Admittedly most will seek profit from it, but it's really what's happening that counts, not why in this circumstance.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    1. Re:Bovine Biofuel by Wicked187 · · Score: 1

      Here in Indiana, we are on a big ethanol kick. We are building several ethanol refineries and they have recently inked a deal with local dairies to take their manure and use the methane to power the ethanol refineries. Pretty sweet.

      --
      Politics, Life, and More on my Aspiring for the Future
    2. Re:Bovine Biofuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent last weekend at a music festival. The bad and expensive food just builds up and builds up. (You don't really want to use the portaloos). Could even more energy be gotten from the violent release of that food when it does decide to come out? I could have powered a small factory today, twice :(

    3. Re:Bovine Biofuel by Onuma · · Score: 1

      Eh, I've been deployed to the Middle East for the last 10 months. I could definitely power a small ciy by now.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  16. The cows are not happy... by pentapenguin · · Score: 1

    A Chick-Fil-A spokescow just informed me that their "Eat mor chikin!" slogan will be replaced soon with a "Youse mor chikin powr!" slogan due to the cow's products be seized without remuneration.

    --
    -pentapenguin
    1. Re:The cows are not happy... by Wocko · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be remooneration?

  17. As Robin it would say ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 0

    ... Holy cow shit!

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  18. WHO RUNS MAINE? by caffeineboy · · Score: 1

    MasterBlaster runs Maine.

    But seriously, it's pretty cool that a utility is playing friendly with independent energy producers like this. I wonder if the individual farms are paid the premium rate for their renewable energy, or what the deal is.

    --
    +++ ATH0 +++
  19. Way to increase FPS... by carlmenezes · · Score: 4, Funny

    Feed the cows lots of beans.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  20. Economy! by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1, Troll
    To be honest, I don't care about the environment. I ride my bike because it's cheap, not because it saves trees and whales and penguins (or, for that matter, humans).

    Given the way market forces work, it wouldn't surprise me if this eventually fell to a price comparable with regular power, and stopped billing seperately. I mean, seriously, what else are they going to do with this stuff?

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    1. Re:Economy! by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      fertilizer?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:Economy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...it wouldn't surprise me if this eventually fell to a price comparable with regular power,...
      The more likely scenario is the cost of regular power will continue to rise until it's eventually the same cost as the cow power.
    3. Re:Economy! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      that's a byproduct of the process anyway. What remains of the manure once the methane has been extracted makes for excellen fertilizer.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  21. Beggers can't be choosers. by megaditto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A 200W PSU for a computer will consume 144 kWh per month. Just that comp alone would cost $6 extra to run.

    Given that the submitter "odyaws" reports his electricity usage at about 150 kWh/month, that puts him smack in the middle of cheap-ass mom's basement dwellers.

    Either the guy is blowing smoke outta his ass about the true cost, or he's the kind of guy that runs AC off the street lamp.

    Average American person sucks up over 700 kWh/month. Traditional successfull 'geek' household (decent AC, two-car heated garage, freezer/fridge, range/microwave, CCTV, plasma in the basement, gadgets, 24/7 computers, VAX cluster (winter heating), wireless, hot tub) will eat up 10,000 kWh easily.

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, I am not saying this alternative power thing is a bad thing, I am saying it's lame to hide true costs from people.

      While this 'clean energy' could be great for businesses that can earn a buck by being 'green', we cannot expect an average person to pay the extra premium given how expensive everything already is (you guys still in college, just you wait until you get out, you will not know what hit you: $2000/month just for necessities is rough).

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    2. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The average American household uses 5KW across the year. Since heating that two car garage is helping keep America dependent on foreign oil, seems to me that whining about $6 a month to run on local energy is cheapass. Especially while Americans are paying around $3 a gallon for gas in cars that get an average 22MPG, less than 10 years ago.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $6 will get you 25% cow power if you only use 600kWh, or 100% cow power if you use 150kWh. The parent claims the average person takes 700kWh (I read 800-850). For me, it would be a rate increase of 66% if I went 100% cow power.

      Any way you cut it, you're essentially donating to charity. If you think the best charity to donate $6 - $100 / month to is this cow power initiative, then so be it.

      If you're saying the average american family pulls 5KW continuously, that would be 3650 kWh / month, or a $146 per month increase for going cow.

    4. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by rgravina · · Score: 1

      What is the deal with America not wanting to be dependent on foreign *anything*? Haven't you guys heard of trade? You know, you have some resources I want and I exchange them for some resources of equal value that you want (resources include money of course)? Some other countries are 100% dependent on trade. Take Japan for example, they have to import almost all of their *food*, let alone their oil.

      Could someone please enlighten me why the US is so eager to become so self-sufficient?

    5. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful
      seems to me that whining about $6 a month to run on local energy is cheapass.


      Try $60/month? At average price of $0.10/kWh, $0.04/kWh bull shit surcharge will result in 140% premiums over what consumers would pay.

      How about you ask your parents how much they are already paying for electricity? I will tell you how much my modest household of two spends: $2000+/year at the current rates in CA; +$0.04/kWh will cost me $60+/month.

      10 years ago, from http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press142.html :
      * The average household spent $1,338 for energy in 1997. Total annual energy expenditures per household were highest in the Northeast ($1,644) and lowest in the West ($1,014).

      * Electricity accounted for 35 percent of all the energy consumed in U.S. households in 1997


      _____________
      Oh, and Ruby, I like your posts, but why do you keep trolling about Iraq? Someone already told you that if we really needed their oil that badly, you could easily drill through glass!
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    6. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 0

      That's an average of 5kW? Times 24 hours times 365 days times .04 dollars/kW ==

      $1752!

      Thanks' I'll just ride my bike.

    7. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two points:

      1. I somehow doubt that there is enough cows even in Vermont to supply the manure needed for all the state residential power consumption.
      2. There is one major problem with Biogas - it has a very high sulphur content. It will be interesting how did they get around this. 'cuse if they did not the environmental cost of this will be enormous.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    8. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by damiam · · Score: 1

      Because the world oil supply is largely controlled by countries with which we have shaky political relationships (Venezuela, most of the Middle East, etc.).

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    9. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      lol, i read your post and pictured Matrix-like plantation, with cows hooked up to the system to collect their farts...

      great. now gotta clean pepsi off the monitor :(

    10. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Because oil will become much more rare, much more expensive, and that this ressource is controled by less-than-friendly country (that fact could be explained by the constant intervention in their domestic affairs during the last 50 years)
      Trade, espiecially free trade, suppose that if you don't like a supplier, you can turn to another one. On the oil market, the day Saudi Arabia wants it, it can create an economical crisis in the US and the world (already happened twice). Maybe it is desirable to prevent such effect isn't it ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    11. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by lisaparratt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Call me a cynic, but I reckon it's because once they're no longer dependent upon anyone else, they're free to force their will and values on all and sundry.

    12. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always be optimistic and hope they won't feel the need to force their will on anyone if they are not economically dependant on any other countries.

    13. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aah, you mean like they do on other countries dependant on them?

    14. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      I think we're all hoping that they'll just leave us the hell alone.

    15. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's probably it. Has nothing to do with not wanting to need things from countries who use "Death to America" like Hawaiians use "Aloha."

    16. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Crisses · · Score: 1

      I don't understand where you're getting your KWH numbers.

      I run a laptop 24/7 (put it to sleep when I sleep), and leave other gadgets and computers on overnight occasionally. I have an a/c, microwave, often forget to turn my monitor off so it just sleeps. I have 3 servers under my desk. My partner is also a geek, he has several computers, sometimes running multiple computers at a time as well. My kids both have computers. We have a dehumidifier in the basement running 24/7. Lights, microwave, cell phones, iPod, radios, clocks, fridge, gameboys, printer, router, modem, several switches, etc. In terms of conservation, we turn our lights and the printer off when not in use, use compact florescents wherever feasible, and make the kids shut down their computers when not in use (which I admit is hypocritical, but it's far more important to keep my work files open and accessible than their games). Oh, yeah, and the water pump -- we have well water.

      My entire household used 765KWH last month. Not per-geek, but for an entire household. We rent the entire house and garage, the heat and hot water is gas.

      So where do you get the 10,000KWH statistic? I don't know what your "successful geek" statistic is talking about -- people who cashed in from the dot-com era? Hot tub? VAX cluster? How is that a "traditional successful 'geek'"? If I were "successful" (read: filthy rich) I'd have a custom built home, partially submerged in the ground, with radiant floor heating, thermal exchange heat, facing south, with solar paneling and, oh yeah -- for extra fuel, I could burn some manuer. And fuck the hot tub.

      --
      ---- I'm out of your mind!
    17. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by kamochan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Average American person sucks up over 700 kWh/month. Traditional successfull 'geek' household (decent AC, two-car heated garage, freezer/fridge, range/microwave, CCTV, plasma in the basement, gadgets, 24/7 computers, VAX cluster (winter heating), wireless, hot tub) will eat up 10,000 kWh easily.

      Just out of curiosity, I checked my last electricity bill. I run a fairly successful 'geek' household (no AC but in winters we get down to -22F so some heating is involved; no garage either, and I have a projector instead of plasma, but otherwise pretty much what you describe) and I seem to consume about 4 kWh per year. And I drive a nice, roomy Korean car which gets 24 mpg.

      I don't doubt your estimates about the average Americans; I was just curious about it. Since we have cold winters, our building code requires considerable insulation and similar considerations (which of course jack up the cost of housing). I remodeled my apartment completely 4 years back and installed low energy versions of all household devices. I just traded my car down to one size smaller, because the top-of-the-line model a) was really really gas-hungry and b) it was a bitch to maneuver downtown Helsinki.

      As I traded my car down, I also began to use fuel, which has 5% - the maximum allowed by law here - of alcohol in it. No modifications needed, but it's about 17 euro-cents per gallon more expensive than the lowest grade 95-octane. Which just hit 3.7 euros (= 4.7 US$) per gallon (so the bio-version is 3.87 euros per gallon)!

      The points I'm meandering towards are thus: 1) it's quite possible, without much trouble or much investment at all, to decrease your yearly power consumption by a few kWh (or, "Americans seem to use twice what they'd need to for their lifestyle" ;-). And 2), myself, and most people here I know, would quite probably go for cow-dung/whatnot-greenish electricity if it was no more than about 5% more expensive than coal/nuclear originated. More than that would probably exceed our convenience level (none of the referred to people are environmentalists, just somewhat environmentally aware consumers).

    18. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Wordsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Being able to turn to other countries for a valuable resource = good.
      HAVING to turn to other countries for a vital resource = bad.

      It's particulary bad when many of those countries are hostile to America, or could become so at any point. Our Middle Eastern peers aren't likely to shut off our oil supply any time soon - they like those oil profits, and we're an awfully big consumer - but they COULD. Or they could jack up the price to something even more obscene. They could play major havoc with our economy and way of life with very little effort.

      Knowing we have other options would be a good thing.

    19. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Some of those places aren't that far away.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by jrobinson5 · · Score: 1

      "and I seem to consume about 4 kWh per year."

      Wow, you must be really energy efficient.

    21. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Or here's a thought: He doesn't leave the computer on 24/7?

      If we assume he has a 700W electric refrigerator (which is large if he lives alone) that runs for 10 minutes every hour (which is pretty frequent), a 300W computer that he uses 2 hours a day with a 75W LCD monitor, and a 150W television (~20" or so) that he uses 2 hours a day:

      700 * 1/6 * 24 = 2800 Watt-hours/day
      375 * 2 = 750 Watt-hours/day
      150 * 2 = 300 Watt-hours/day

      That leaves him with a full 1150 watt-hours per day for everything else, such as lighting, cooking and heating. If he has natural gas appliances and home/domestic water heating, he only needs electricity to run the controls and ignition which is virtually negligable. That leaves about 1000 watt-hours a day for lighting, which is certaintly doable if you sleep all night and are out of the house all day... and moreso if you use flourecent lighting where possible and turn the lights off when nobody's in the room.

      I couldn't live the way I do on 5kWh/day, but I certaintly believe it is possible.
      =Smidge=

    22. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by w1ras · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actually a very successful program. There are more customers signed up than electricity from that source to supply them.

    23. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      95 octane in Finland is approximately 89 octane in the USA, using the American method of computing octane ratings.

    24. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by kamochan · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must be really energy efficient.

      I do try, but I don't go out of my way for it... I've got my home computers on 24/7, for example, mainly because I'm fundamentally a lazy person. Simply being a conscious consumer helps to a healthy start - those computers, for example, have fairly modern TFT displays, which enter sleep mode when not in use.

    25. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by raddan · · Score: 2

      Simple. Dependency diminishes power.

    26. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by necro81 · · Score: 1
      1. I somehow doubt that there is enough cows even in Vermont to supply the manure needed for all the state residential power consumption.
      You haven't been to Vermont recently, have you?
    27. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by jsight · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point. 4 kWhr for an entire year is impossible if you run so much as a light bulb occasionally. :)

    28. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the price per gallon of gasoline here is obscene. It hovers around $3 right now.

      But!

      Compared to bottled water, gasoline is cheap! $1.20 for a .33L bottle of Evian, for example. Google tells me that 1 gallon = 3.78 Litres (we'll round to 3.66 for simplicity). That means that I'm spending $13 per gallon of water and that's a necessity for life! Now if THAT isn't price gouging I don't know what is... WAR ON THE BOTTLED WATER COMPANIES!

      --
      Love sees no species.
    29. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people know this, but the fact remains that the US economy keeps many other economies in the world going. If the US economy were to plummet it would affect many others as well. This did not use to be so true, but because of the 'flatter' world we live in today it is. China could affect the US much more than any other country in the world, sort of scary, but they won't at least for now because in their current state it would affect them negatively. They're growth is dependent on our need for cheap labor + cheap products.

      All the people saying this country is out for oil in the Iraq war are idiots. Go look where the US gets all its oil from. It doesn't come from Iraq (only a small portion does). Most of it comes from Mexicao and Canada. Some also comes from the Saudia's, but that isn't Iraq now is it? Not to mention we get more from them than we do Iraq. This has been true since the onset of the war.

    30. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by chrish · · Score: 1

      Canada provides the majority of America's imported oil. We're not exactly "shaky" or "unpredictable" or "building weapons of mass destruction" (unless you count moose).

      --
      - chrish
    31. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for comparison I checked last month's bill - 1200 KWH for a smallish, older (read: poorly insulated) house with a family of 4, moderate AC use, no heated garage, sprinkling of compact flourescent bulbs, server & pc running 24/7. My wife & kids are home all day right now so AC & lights are used all day. We have natural gas heating so our electicity consumption goes down in the winter, so I'd guess that this would cost me $400 or so a year. That's in the ballpark of what I'd be willing to pay to support a renewable energy source, but it would be too much for many people. I'd guess, though, that they don't have enough capacity to supply all that many people anyway, so it's not a dealbreaker.

    32. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Guffy9 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever been to Vermont? I grew up in upstate NY, not too far from Vermont. We never had an air conditioner (the average temperature in July is around 70), we surely didn't heat the garage (the cars still started when it was -20 in January). In addition, many Vermonters lead a more simplistic life sans the plasma, gadgets, 24/7 computers, and VAX cluster.

    33. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I have my (unpaid) electric bill here in front of me. I actually live in VT. Over the last year, my peak electric use was last July, when it was smoking hot (a good chunk of the month was above 90) and I was in the middle of writing two 50 page research papers. I spent a good chunk of that month sitting in front of my AC, drinking cold beverages, and using my computer with a 400W power supply. My usage: 575KWh.

      I'm in a 2 bedroom apt with a couple of computers and a not-so-efficient bunch of appliances. Even so, I've dumped compact fluorecent bulbs in all the lights I can, and I don't run my computers when I don't need them on. While this is modest usage, cow-power would still cost me (@ an extra 4 cents/KWh) an extra $23 a month.

      Now, CVPS is currently looking for a 6.15% rate increase. Granted, they haven't increased rates for five years, but that translates into about a half-cent/KWh increase. If they can hold "cow power" rates steady, or drop them, it could quite possibly become much more economically viable as energy costs continue to increase. That is, if there are any farmers left in VT to provide the cows. Low milk prices combined with high energy costs are driving them out of business...

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    34. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you can simply drink water out of tap. If you are afraid of bacteria or contaminants, you can invest in a tap filter or pitcher for pennies a day. Or drink juice or milk. But running your car on O.J. doesn't work too well. The best you can do is run an ethanol blend, but it seems that ethanol costs slighly more at present anyway.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    35. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by operagost · · Score: 1
      VAX cluster?
      No, no. We only run that in the winter for supplemental heating.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by cagle_.25 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where your figures come from. According to this, the average American uses about 6,000kWh per year. At that rate, an extra $.04/kWh is $240 per year. Not great, but it's competitive for those with the "green" bug.

      --
      Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    37. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by kamochan · · Score: 1

      I think you missed his point. 4 kWhr for an entire year is impossible if you run so much as a light bulb occasionally. :)

      I had to actually go and double-check the electricity bill I referred to. Duh, it was 3965 kWh for 6 months... which makes me in reality an 8 kWh yearly power hog. Bwaah, I can hear the baby squirrels dropping dead from the trees... :-)

    38. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      What kind of junk are you running? My monthly bill is $48-$50 /month summer $70-$80 winter or > $800/year for 2 people... live in South Orange County. You must live in a heat trap and run your AC all day long.

      Course we just have a 37in HD LCD TV (w/DVD + TiVo +Amp), 2 Mac Laptops (iBook & MBP) our Electric range, Clothes Washer/Dryer (gas heated), Dishwasher, Various FL Bulbs, Water Heater, MicroWave, Forman Fullsize Grill ;-p (works great), Espresso Machine and various small electronics (cells, hair dryers, tooth brushes, etc.)

      We have AC but don't use it, prefering to open a few windows and run a single overhead fan (never gets over 80 and usually around 77, quite comfortable).

      What are you using continuously that boosts your bill 250% over mine?

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    39. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by True+Vox · · Score: 1
      I, for one, bow before our new Mooseie Overlords.

      */me Runs!*

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    40. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Azar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Canada supplies a fair amount (for a single country), but by no means the "majority". According to 2002 figures, Canada supplies approximately 15% of the oil imported into the U.S (3rd largest importer behind Saudi Arabi at 16.9% and Mexico at 15.1%).

      Recent figures (April 2006) show Canada as the largest supplier for that month at a whopping 17.4%, followed by Mexico at 16.3%, and Saudi Arabia at 16.1%. Nearly half (49.4%) of our oil comes from OPEC countries. And even a non-OPEC country is not guaranteed to be stable or even friendly to the US. Also, when you buy oil from Canada there is no guarantee that it's actually Canadian oil. Some of it might have originated in Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, etc. A funny thing that "trade".

      For the April 2006 figures, see here (PDF warning):
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/petroleum_supply_monthly/current/pdf/ table37.pdf

    41. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Raw price is often a good measure if an idea is wise. Not in this case. Electricity is a product sold on US Markets with many hidden cost adjustments. I will illustrate:

      I live in the region served by the US TVA. Our electricity is fairly cheap. I have for years heard the private guys in the industry fussing about US TVA being a subsidy power generation system. It isn't. When the Cold War ended and the USA decided not to have more nukes, it shut down the Oak Ridge and Paducah facilities to make and enrich fuels for atomic weapons. The problem was the US TVA had a massive demand for power in these facilities. It was something like 1/4th of US total demand. As a result the US TVA got saddled with these power plants (Many not completed) and their costs without a customer. It gave us $58 Billion in non-producing debt. This could hardly be called a subsidy. It kickes up the price of electricity in the TVA region by about 25%.

      The North Eastern USA uses fuel oil and LNG a lot for power generation. This would seem a straight forward cost factor. It isn't so. The USA is engaged in warfare and defense costs to the tune of nearly $500 Billion a year to make sure that oil arrives. If that cost were cranked into the cost of that oil fired and LNG fired generation the cost per KWh would be something in the order of 20 times its current level.

      With this sort of economics going on, it hardly is funny business for the people of an area to simply sit down and vote with their dollars to try to end the high cost that they know is going on. Most Americans know that the high cost in blood and treasure plus national humiliation that we are paying right now is too high to pay. Most Americans realize that even though their leaders are not disposed to do something about it, they must do something about it. Paying more for "Green" "Home Grown" electricity is actually a good deal if you save your neighbor or brother from dying in a war because if the alternative. Paying more for this makes real sense if we take a look at the issues a bit more than just the utility bill.

      Sure there are a lot of silly alternatitives out there and some are really silly. Recycling and fermenting manure isn't one of those silly ideas. It saves pollution. It is domestically produced. It doesn't cause war. It doesn't result in some massive super congomerate ruling your life and the benefits include making fermented material that is good for fertilizer. It is a good deal.

      In comparison to coal and domestic oil this might not seem such a good deal, but it is there as well. It extends supplies and reduced damages to the earth. I know that some will deny that the damage is occuring. The US Geological Survey reports that Oil field subsidence damages topped $500 Billion a year 10 years ago. They are worse now. Mines and such also do tremendous damages most of which never come out of the fuel bill. I think it would be wise for people to think a bit before they measure everything by the price at the meter. I am not suggesting we ignore the meter either.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    42. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by trix7117 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the GP, but in San Diego my monthly bill runs ~$100/mo for a 2 bedroom apartment w/o running the AC. I'm still waiting/dreading my bill for the last month when the AC was on most of the time. We aren't running anything out of the ordinary (for Slashdot at least). Just one PC on full time and then a couple of laptops, 2 TVs, and the standard appliances.

    43. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by trix7117 · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something? How does 3965 kWH * 2 = 8 kWH?

    44. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Every day I look at "early adopters" of technology who pay "too much" for what they get. It pays for the investment in starting the new tech, as well as (often) significant profit for those risking the actual investments across many techs. That's not charity, that's investment. Though investment in going cow sounds like a pretty good charity, even if it's never competitively profitable, in taking oneself out of the energy/pollution loop, even flipping it positive by "recycling" the waste.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    45. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by rgravina · · Score: 1
      All the people saying this country is out for oil in the Iraq war are idiots.

      Well if not for the oil, then what are they there for? Liberation? There are plenty of other areas in the world where injustice is going on but unfortunately they lack the natural resources to attract the attention of the US.

      It doesn't come from Iraq (only a small portion does)

      Perhaps not, but the war helps the US gain some influence in the region, and there sure is a decent amount of oil in that part of the world.
    46. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The US has a huge, unsupportable imbalance of foreign trade. We've got a huge, unsupportable debt. Our foreign policy is an exploding ruin, led by the nose by foreign energy dependence. There's not enough cheap petrofuel for the US and the rest of the world to maintain production as we all grow.

      Of course the US has "heard of trade". We produce about a quarter of everything consumed on the planet - even our fattest gluttons can't consume that ourselves with only 5% of the population. We're the tradingest nation in the world - Japan imports much of that food from us.

      That's why we are experts in dependence, and it's downside. And the upside of independence. Our national holiday is Independence Day.

      The US dependence on foreign energy is our worst threat to our existence. That's why we have so many people who want to become more self-sufficient in it. Even while most of us work every day to increase our overall trade with the world, which dominates world trade.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    47. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by smithmc · · Score: 1


        The average American household uses 5 KW across the year.

      No way. That would amount to over 43 MWh per year per household. According to the DOE, it's more like 11 MWh, or about 900 KWh per month.

      Meanwhile, at 4 cents per kWh for the surcharge, that's 36 dollars a month, not 6. Still not a huge amount, but enough to be significant for some folks.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    48. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by smithmc · · Score: 1


        Canada provides the majority of America's imported oil.

      Canada is the largest source of imported oil for the US, but nowhere near the majority. More like 17%, according to the DOE, with Mexico and Saudi Arabia providing nearly as much.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    49. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about I look at my own electric bill, as I have for decades? In NYC, where I pay $0.09:KWh (the highest rate in the country, I'm told), cow power would cost me 45% more. I haven't said whether I'd buy cow power myself, but I did comment on your own contradiction. Complaining about even $60:mo is cheapass compared to the true costs of petropower - $6 is really cheapass. I'm a cheapass myself, but I'm not criticizing others for being cheapass.

      As for Iraq, there's no trolling. I post to get people to talk about our invasion, think about it for themselves, entertaining the possibility someone will say something I can learn from myself. There's no trolling. As for whether "we" need their oil that badly, the reasons why we invaded that oil tank aren't simply the oil, but all the other things that country has because it has oil. The oil is the basis for the invasion, not merely the spoils of war. We're going to spend over a $TRILLION because of that invasion, even before that oil is tapped by anyone. We've already driven oil profits to unprecedented amounts, over $75:bl without significantly increasing the cost (to the producer) of production. While destroying the credibility of democracy, and creating the kind of theocrat opportunity we made in Somalia, conveniently within Iran's grasp. If we spent all that time, money and personnel on cow power, we'd be a lot richer and more free.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    50. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      rgravina makes an excellent point. Proof is in this question: Would China ever attack its biggest customer?

    51. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by f1055man · · Score: 1

      "It's particulary bad when many of those countries are hostile to America, or could become so at any point." All correct, but missing a key piece of the puzzle. Securing access to that oil has made those countries hostile to America. Our conflict with Iran begins with British/American sponsored coup of (democratically elected) president Mossadegh after he nationalized the oil industry. We have had to buy off (with funds and troops) the Royal Saudis, earning the hatred of the Saudi people. Without a dependency on oil we could have been kinder and gentler or just ignored the middle east altogether.

    52. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Proof is in this question: Would China ever attack its biggest customer?


      Probably not, but what makes you think the USA will always be China's biggest consumer? "Forever" is a long time, and China has a lot of people... at some point their economy will likely advance to the point where it is largely self-sufficient (no longer dependent on exports). At that point China will be free to dismiss us if they wish. I wouldn't expect an actual military attack (unless the competition for resources has become very grim indeed) but they might well call in the mountain of IOUs we've written them, which would be pretty uncomfortable for us just the same.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    53. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Compared to canned air, bottled water is cheap.

      If either of those products were necessary to American life, rather than a fringe luxury, and sold by a cartel making unprecedented profits which drain a feeble economy, American people would be clamoring for war against their dealers.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      While this 'clean energy' could be great for businesses that can earn a buck by being 'green', we cannot expect an average person to pay the extra premium given how expensive everything already is


      I don't know that paying a premium up-front is so unreasonable... by doing nothing, we end up paying more through other means (read: higher taxes to pay for a larger military, more deaths and injuries in the course of foreign invasions and/or terrorist attacks, more deaths and injuries due to pollution and/or global warming, higher/volatile fuel costs, etc). Perhaps by paying a little more up front we'll save a lot in the long run.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    55. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Way. Your DOE citation is just electricity. The actual DOE reports for just 2001 total residential energy consumption (5 years ago, but their most recent) show that our 107M households consumed over 21QBTU, which is actually almost 7KW. Which doesn't include per-household transit consumption etc.

      And I never said $0.04:KWh isn't expensive. I just pointed out that the post was criticizing someone as a cheapass while explicitly whining about $6:mo. I'm a cheapass myself, but I don't deny it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    56. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by vivian · · Score: 1

      Paying a premium for the green power is actually backwards!
      From TFA, it says that the farmer gets paid the market price for the electricity, plus an "environmental benefit" bonus. This is just plain stupid, and is an artificial negative incentive for people to switch to an environmentally frendlier energy source! What's next? a "sun tax" on solar panels, and "wind tax" on wind turbines? That'll really help with the take up of these energy sources. NOT!

      It is the traditional polluting energy producers (ultimately, their customers) that should be paying the environmental benefit fee to the farmers, not the farmer's customers - who are responsibly buying green electricity.

      Alternatively, the bonus should be paid by the govornment (hence everyone would be paying a little for it, since everyone benefits from the environmental improvment.)

    57. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Then wouldn't better advise be "improve the relationships with your suppliers"?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    58. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by orielbean · · Score: 1

      Please keep in mind the real issue with those hostile countries. Their nobility are the only ones who are really reaping a benefit from the West - their poverty is embarassing because they control such a vital resource and yet only a few benefit. Chavez did the opposite with his countries resources - booted the private companies and kleptocrats and shared the wealth with the poor. He was removed by a coup back in the day, and the poor people rose up and stuck him back in power. Maybe if the Saudis, et al, were interested in improving their country and not building indoor ski mountains in Dubai - maybe then I wouldn't have as much of an issue with foreign oil involvement. But don't blame the whole countries, just their rotten kleptocracies. I wouldn't mind buying oil from Chavez, even though he is a autocratic blowhard - he puts the money to good use for the impoverished and might pull the country out of its nosedive. That is why the countries that hate us so much would not think to slow down the flow - there is a disconnect between the poor who hate and the rich who enjoy. The Shah of Iran is a great historical example of what happens in that disconnect. It's the same reason why Bush can call the Saudis great allies and incubators of terrorism in the same breath.

    59. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1
      Canada provides the majority of America's imported oil. We're not exactly "shaky" or "unpredictable" or "building weapons of mass destruction" (unless you count moose).

      Mynd you, m00se bites kan be pretti nasti...

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    60. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Redding CA, temps can get up over 115 in the summer. Try opening the windows to get cool when it is that hot.

    61. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Elminst · · Score: 1

      700kWh a month per person? wow... either the average person wastes a lot of electricity, or i'm not as avg as a i thought i was...
      2 bedroom apt (with high ceilings), 2 pcs, fridge, airconditioner in main bedroom, and I'm up with lights on till usually 4 AM.. and my last bill was;
      This meter reading, Jun 09 (Actual)............... 7561
      Last meter reading, May 10 (Actual)............... 7174
      Amount of electricity used KWH.................. 387

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    62. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Elminst · · Score: 1

      http://www.virtualvermonter.com/trivia/trivia20.ht m
      Although not having more cows than people, VT does have the highest ratio of cows/people. ie. the most cows per capita.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    63. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 4 kWh is 14.4 joules (or about .0034 food calories). You consume more energy in a spec of sugar...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    64. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are there any experts in the use of the apostrophe in the U.S.?

      IT'S = IT IS

    65. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Tower · · Score: 1

      Well, what is the humidity like in your area? In many parts of MN, the average humidity during the mornings can be ~80%. 77 degrees is only comfortable for me if the humidity is at/below ~40%. Heck, 70 is nasty if it is up at 80+% RH. There are a lot of days where that is the case here. If it were 30% RH outside all the time, I'd have my windows open a lot more. That and the 85+ degrees days (it isn't Texas heat, but still significant).
      Basement dehumidifiers and A/C to pull all of that water out of the air adds up quickly.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    66. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Tower · · Score: 1

      Just as an aside on the contaminants issue (not to pick on your post, OG)- you should be able to find out about your local water quality. Example of a PDF for Rochester, MN water quality report. Can't say I get those with a case of Dasani, Aquafina, or Evian, though the labels of some do list all of the non-water that they add in (magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, sodium chloride, sodium silicoaluminate, dextrose, potassium iodine and sodium bicarbonate among others).

      Honesty, if you don't like the taste of your tap water, a home filter or filter pitcher works well, and is way cheaper than bottled water. Just buy a sports bottle or camping bottle and refill it... oh well.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    67. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Tower · · Score: 1

      That's 8MWh/yr, then...

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    68. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Tower · · Score: 1

      Yeah, apartments are more efficient if you look at the use for just that unit (though there are a lot of other costs associated with the common building facilities (halls, exterior lighting, sometimes water heating, etc.) and such that you don't see. A big one is if you have an electric clothes dryer in the home/apt vs going to a laundry room/laundrymat. Those can use a lot of power.

      A three person family in a 1500 sq ft house would not be an uncommon part of the average, and in that case you have a couple of extra rooms, plus more external exposure (the apartment walls are usually shared on a few sides, so the individual unit isn't losing/gaining heat as rapidly on those surfaces.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
    69. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by jubei · · Score: 1
      Yeah, 4 kWh is 14.4 joules (or about .0034 food calories). You consume more energy in a spec of sugar...


      Not quite right.

    70. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we put the Shah back in power. The Brits and Russians put him in power in the 40s because they thought he would be easier to control than his father. Prime minister Mossadegh was a nutcase supported by Communists and was appointed into that position by the Shah. The only national election he ever won was a referendum to dissolve Iran's parliament. http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/04160 0iran-cia-mossadegh.html

    71. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      it's too bad for Venezulea that Chavez put yes men in charge of the oil fields and they aren't producing as much as they were before he came into power.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    72. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by orielbean · · Score: 1

      Great point there! We have that balance that private industry is almost always more efficient at production, but the capital created from their efforts is almost never benefiting the people who create.

      Like the diamond mines in some of the poor African nations or the Coca-cola bottling in India that dries up irrigation for farmers and doesn't help the people whose wells they are draining.

      Chavez's popularity is certainly in part to his opposition to the strong arm companies who want to privatize the national resources and take the lion's share outwards. Definitely a comparable situation to the Middle Eastern poverty problem.

    73. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      Please tell me that's a Monty Python allusion!

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    74. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      It's not that we don't want to be dependant on foreigners for anything. It's that everyone who has oil except Canada, Russia and the UK abuses it dramatically, and if oil gets cut off, we're screwed.

      Why do you think we're handing 1/8 of our economy to the Middle East and Venezuela? It's because we don't have a choice!

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    75. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      canned air is usualy diflorethane, FYI, and not actual air.

    76. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      And sometimes it's CO2, when tanks of it are used in industrial drying.

      I know, I've snorted all of it in my day, almost always inadvertently.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    77. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      And that's just their allies ;)

    78. Re:Beggers can't be choosers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been to Vermont? The people in Vermont are largely like people anywhere else. They have air conditioners, plasma televisions, computers, light bulbs, refrigerators, and so forth. It's the minority of the population that occupy certain counties that lead "simpler lives," and they still have televisions, computers, air conditioners, and so forth. Farmers have a good deal of technical equipment on their farms these days, as it's difficult to compete even with subsidies otherwise. Going to Central NY is more like "simple ville" than Vermont is, and we don't even have any major cities in Vermont.

  22. Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone by solosaint · · Score: 1

    dam, that stuff is nasty, so glad the poster was aware of it, more people need to know its effects

    1. Re:Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone by The+Hobo · · Score: 1

      I never even found out about this until I came to the US (as I am from Canada, where this stuff is banned), but I notice here that a lot of milk producers put "from cows not treated with rBST"

      Though I'm usually not too worried about this kind of stuff, I ingest a lot of milk (1-1.33 L or 0.94-1.4 quarts) a day. I've found one brand I like and I just stick with it, it happens to have that 'from cows not..' label on it. I also remember when Monsanto sued a Canadian farmer when their patented wheat ended up contaminating a farmer's field, and they sued him for using their product without paying for it. There's an interesting bit under the last link I posted..

      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  23. Set up a generator at the White House! by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Bush Administration emissions could power the entire planet!

    (And who knew Al Gore had such incredible ecological foresight in not contesting the 2000 election?)

    1. Re:Set up a generator at the White House! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The Bush Administration emissions could power the entire planet!

      On the flip side, Bush Administration slip-up admissions couldn't power an ant's wristwatch.

    2. Re:Set up a generator at the White House! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Congress.

  24. Dirty Fuel? by uarch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I generally have better things to do than read up about burning cow poo but I'm curious about one thing...

    I'm assuming this is marketed towards people who want some sort of "green energy" powering their homes. Is this really a clean(er) fuel source?

    Sure, burning your favorite fossil fuel on a large scale isn't exactly clean. It is however heavily regulated and uses countless filters & scrubbers to clean up most of the nasty by-products. I'd be tempted to believe that a random milk farmer burning a few tons of cow manure in the back yard would be worse for the environment.

    1. Re:Dirty Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A very late response but... they are not burning the manure. It just sits there releasing methane all day into the air, further polluting the world. Capturing and burning the methane actually helps the situation by both providing power as well as keeping that nasty gas out of the atmosphere.

    2. Re:Dirty Fuel? by aprilsound · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Burning methane is better than letting it escape. See Burning methane produces 1 CO2 molecule per molecule methane, but methane is 23 times worse as a greenhouse gas.

      Also, its methane obtained from cow manure. I imagine the farmers keep the cow manure and uses to fertilize the grass.

    3. Re:Dirty Fuel? by Draka · · Score: 1

      1. Burning methane is a lot cleaner than burning coal (assuming that cow poo produces little amts of other sulfur, nitrogen contaning gases). This comparison of SOx and NOx emissions with coal/natural gas powered plants will get interesting if we consider the emissions (frm equipment) handling the cow poo into and out of the reaction vessel (or whatever produces methane)...

      2. as others in other threads 've mentioned, it certainly is carbon neutral since the CO2 is produced from plant material which has been renewed (i.e. more carbon from the atmosphere has been fixed as plant material) ..

      has anybody compared SOx adn NOx emissions of methane from cow manure to coal powered powerplants (using a life cycle assessment)?

    4. Re:Dirty Fuel? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      In India, cow pats are a major fuel. No ...ah, kidding.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    5. Re:Dirty Fuel? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      sulfer is one reason ass gas (and cow shit) smells so bad. The sulfer content is quite high.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    6. Re:Dirty Fuel? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      One of the advantages of a system like this is that it can be carbon neutral. The carbon in the methane comes from the carbon in the manure, which comes from the carbon in whatever plant matter the cow was eating. That carbon was taken from the atmosphere by the plants. So, taken as a cycle, the carbon dioxide released during methane combustion is offset by the carbon dioxide uptake of the plants that contributed to the manure.

      This is in start contrast to the carbon dioxide emissions from fossile fuels, which release sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels is leading to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (over pre-industrial levels) within our lifetimes.

    7. Re:Dirty Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA doesn't say how they extract the methane from the manure, but I would imagine that the farmers are using an anaerobic digester to produce the gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digester). This process breaks down the manure into biogas (which can be burned for power) and sludge (which can still be an excellent fertilizer). For the farmers, it's a win-win.

      I'm an engineer at a Canadian sewage treatment plant and we use biogas from our digesters to heat our entire plant (including the process tanks in the winter - and it can get pretty cold!), and we still have excess gas which is flared. We are the biggest power consumer in the area, and a recent study at our plant showed that if we burned the gas in a generator, we could basically remove the plant from the grid.

      If efforts like this one were applied across North America, I think we'd see a real decline in the dependance on fossil fuels for electric power.

    8. Re:Dirty Fuel? by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Dairy Farmers and more notably swine (pig) farms to the best of my knowledge always produce far far more manure than they could ever use as fertilizer. The economics of shipping it to suburban/urban areas for use as fertilizer apparently do not work either, though I don't know why and find it hard to believe. Swine farms though in particular often have HUGE lagoons full of the manure- the pigs eat feed, they don't graze on grass.

      As an aside, I have read several comments here about how this is "subsidizing" the farmers and alternative electricity forms. I think these people are forgetting that burning the methane prevents this greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere and doing damage. Combustion of the methane produces something like 1/20th of the greenhouse gasses. The cost is high, but this is really a huge win for the environment, and we are taking waste and making it productive.

  25. It gets even better... by patio11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... there is no way you can actually draw power specifically from the farm. Electricity flows into The Grid, it flows out of The Grid, but once its on the Grid it doesn't care whether its coal, nuclear, cow flatulence, whatever -- there are no special ways to flavor an electrical charge. So what you're really doing is making a donation to the Cow Power farm to put a little juice back onto the grid... when they get paid already for doing that (you can, too: most states will let you bill the electric company if you use negative amounts, for example if you install a home solar system).

    If you really have your knickers in a twist about global warming take the money you were going to spend on donations to Cow Power and use it on insulation. You'll reduce your heating/cooling costs and decrease your own personal energy consumption, which will have a bigger environmental impact (measured in units of "infintessimally small", of course) than just changing x% of your energy budget from fossil fuels to marginally cleaner methane.

    1. Re:It gets even better... by Alfred,+Lord+Tennyso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's true: the electrons are fungible. You're getting plain old electricity from the grid, and paying a premium which goes (more or less) to the cow people.

      But the cow people won't produce it for the rates the electric company is willing to pay them. It's more expensive to produce a watt-hour of juice from cow-fart than it is from coal. Without the subsidy they're paid based on the fossil-fuel rates, and they lose money. This is a way for people to say, economically, "Non-fossil fuel power is more important to us than other uses of our money."

      In the limit, enough people being willing to pay for it could reduce the amount of coal burned and replace it with methane-burning, which is marginally better for the environment. How much better, as you point out, is entirely debatable, especially relative to other energy-conserving uses of the money. Nonetheless the fact that power is fungible does not alter the fact that people subsidizing the cow-power reduces fossil fuel consumption.

      (Or, more likely, reduces coal demand, lowering the price of conventionally-produced power, thus convincing people to leave the lights on all night. Or perhaps putting thousands of coal miners out of work. Or other horrible knock-on effects.)

  26. B&J already have done something like this... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a commemorative "Vermont's Swinest" Ben and Jerry's T-shirt (complete with holstein styled pigs), they made them when they started a deal to supply a local pig farm (I believe near the Waterbury plant) with milk waste.
    The milk waste would be fed to the pigs along with the ususal feed, I don't recall where the pig waste / methane was headed.
    IIRC The first three pigs, by contract, were to be named "Ben", "Jerry" and "Ed" in honor of Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield and Ed Stanek - the Vermont EPA official who brokered the deal.
    When I worked on the old NSF Student Originated Studies program, one of the 1980 projects out of Iowa was to use manure methane to fire a still, ferment leftover corn waste into alcohol, feed the leftovers from the fermentation back into the pig feed, and use the alcohol in the machinery. Decent efficiencies in the pilot, but a hard sell to the farmers, as they needed smaller farms to go in together to get the delta-t they needed for peak efficiency, and it smacked of big entities twisting little family farm arms. In fact despite the NSF badge, it was just a bunch of undergrads, but still no sale.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  27. So Much For... by Joebert · · Score: 1

    I don't think the cows are gonna like this, what will they do on the weekends with nothing for mushrooms to grow in ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  28. Effect of goods... by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

    ...if it takes 10 calories of gasoline to make one calorie of crop, and that food is used to feed cows, which use more gasoline, this doesn't sound like too much of a sustainable bit of agriculture.

    Of course, that gasoline would be used anyway in the production of these crops, milk, meat and byproducts, and that gasoline can be replaced by some other energy storage medium... but it seems to me that the onus is still on replacing gasoline and other fossil fuels, not burning whatever waste we can find and calling ourselves carbon nuetral-by-proxy.

    That, and the removal of potentially massive ammounts of manure from our agricultural system doesn't sound like a sound investment in a sustainable agriculture either. But that's a consideration further down the path of long-term sustainability, and a fairly minor one in the current scope.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Effect of goods... by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ***That, and the removal of potentially massive ammounts of manure from our agricultural system doesn't sound like a sound investment in a sustainable agriculture either. But that's a consideration further down the path of long-term sustainability, and a fairly minor one in the current scope.***

      The manure isn't removed from the agricultural system. The stuff is piled -- mostly over the Winter because the cows spend most of their time in the fields when the weather isn't too awful. It is spread on the fields in Spring. The stored manure generates methane whether the methane is burned for electrical generation or not.

      Nothing wrong with this idea, but if you ask me, what Vermont really needs to stabilize rates and reduce carbon emissions is two more nuclear power plants. The chances of 'environmentalists' embracing relatively non-polluting nuclear power appear to be close to zero. The panacea d'jour seems to be gargantuan windmills in someone else's backyard.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  29. You are in Luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GWB, Cheney, and all the major oil companies agree with your logic. In fact, they have been trying hard to get America to use it up quickly.

  30. 1500 kWh/month by tibike77 · · Score: 1

    With no idea about what this guy is actually doing, I can tell you that the house I live in right now uses about 1000 kWh/month during summer and up to 1500 kWh/month during winter. What the heck are we (it's 7 people by the way) using so it's that much ? Let's see...

    1 "always-on" home server, ~0.2*24*30 = ~144 kWh/month
    4 semi-used PCs, ~0.3*12*30 *4 = ~432 kWh/month
    2 TVs (~4h/day), 2 refrigerators, 2 washing machines running almost non-stop during afternoons (spin cycle uses up alot of power), I can only assume that's even up to another 400-600 kWh/month
    we stay up pretty late most of the time, so kitchen light and other lights in the house are on a long time each day (another ~50 kWh/month, or more)

    And during winter (lighting power usage spikes too, as there's just not enough natural light), sometimes the normal heating just isn't enough, so we use electrical radiators when and where needed (the baby is especially sensitive to cold), so we really use up a lot of energy.

    I could come up with a lot of other scenarios where a larger household or a small IT company would easily go beyond the 1MWh/month limit.

    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    1. Re:1500 kWh/month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My PC draws about 250W with a 20" CRT and a 450W power supply. I doubt you are pulling 300W, and especially not for 12 hours per day. I run my PC 24x7 and use it for about 8 hours per day. It uses an average of 145kWh per month. So even if you had 4 computers running for 12 hours per day, that would only be about 300kWh. Add the server and we're talking 450kWh.

      My refrigerator is on the energy-hog side of the Energy Star rating and it uses about 29kWh per month. I watch my 32" CRT television about 4 hours a day and it uses about 25kWh per month. That means for you, it should be about 60kWh + 50kWh + 450 kWh = 560kWh for your house. In order to get up to 1500kWh per month, you would have to have a 24x7 draw of over 1300W over and above your televisions, refrigerators, and computers. That's just ridiculous even for 20 people.

      Electricity usage doesn't increase linearly for each member of the household. One lightbulb lights the room equally well for one person or fifty, and the same goes for the television and refrigerator.

      It would be more efficient to price electricity by marginal usage. First 100kWh = $5, second = $10, third = $20, fourth = $40, fifth = $80 and so on.

    2. Re:1500 kWh/month by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      With no idea about what this guy is actually doing, I can tell you that the house I live in right now uses about 1000 kWh/month during summer and up to 1500 kWh/month during winter. What the heck are we (it's 7 people by the way) using so it's that much ? Let's see...

      Well, I'm not the GP but I work at a power company so i deal with electricity usage numbers every day. The average Dutch household consumes about 3000 kWh per year. Then again, we use gas for heating, which is a great deal more efficient in terms of Joules/buck(a cubic meter of gas, while costing about 3 times as much as a kWh, contains 10 times the energy), so perhaps that makes a difference. Might be it's the cost of slightly over .25 euros/kWh that helps though...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  31. Fact check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love all the negativity. People might like to do a little research before they go farmer bashing on this one. From what I read digester systems for a fair sized farm, these days about 700 cows, runs between a hundred and two hundred grand. An operation of that size produces enough power for the farm and 70 to 100 homes. Outside of the intial investment it's mostly labor harvesting the fuel source. If an average household electric bill was $150 a month that would mean 12 to 15 grand a month. I think you'll find why the electricity is more expensive is the the farmer gets a percentage of the power sale. The bulk of the money goes to the power provider not the farmer. If a 100% went to the farmer I think you'd see more of them dancing in the streets. The power companies know you'll pay more for green power so they charge you more for it no matter the cost. Everyone seems quick to blame the greedy farmers that are doing a good thing instead of the real villians the blood sucking power corporations.

  32. oh come on now by aendeuryu · · Score: 1

    Who fact checked this story? It's udderly ridiculous.

  33. googling for prices... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    According to this page (found via google for "cost of electricity").

    http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

    "The average cost of residential electricity was 9.86/kWh in the U.S. in March 2006."

    The fee charged by Cow Power is 4 cents per kilowatt hour. That makes the price almost, but not quite, 40% higher. The 4 cents also does NOT go to the farmers. That goes to Cow Power. The farmers presumably get market price for the electricity, minus a commission for Cow Power, presumably. Chances are, after the capital expenditures (cost of generators and methane collection equipment) and maintainence costs, they won't make any money on this either. Cow Power are presumably the only ones who would make money on this deal, since they seem to just be brokers for the selling of this power.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:googling for prices... by spitfeuer · · Score: 1

      Well if you'd googled some more you'd find that VT has higher than the average power costs @ $0.1107/kW-h. I know that VT'ers used to pay an even higher rate just a few years ago (highest in the nation while I was in high school). I think most people from Vermont would be willing to pay the slight premium (27% increase) for the fact that they'd be using a renewable, alternative energy source. Perhaps in your cynical view, the farmer's won't see those extra four cents AND pay for their own equipment. But this is the People's Republic of Vermont. Cow Power is run by CVPS, which is a highly-regulated company. Capital expenditures are handled by CVPS, cost of production (for the farmers and CVPS) is far less than Vermont's market rate for electricity (Which is mostly purchased from HydroQuebec, locked in at long term, graduated rates). I think it's pretty win-win all around.

  34. Estimate is way too low. by gpw213 · · Score: 1
    Where I live, the power company has a similar plan where you can sign up for "green power" from wind and solar installations. This costs an extra 1.5 cents per kWh, and they estimate that to be about $7 per month for the average household. (And that tracks pretty well with my own power bill.)

    And yes, they freely admit that it all mixes together in the power grid. But they buy power from the "green" providers based on the usage of the customers signed up for the program. This means they have to burn less fossil fuel to run their own generators.

    If you are curious, you can look at their program information here

    --
    However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -- Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Estimate is way too low. by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Green Mountain Energy in Texas now offers Pollution Free energy, generated from wind and water, that is priced the same as the major local provider's product (from natural gas, coal, and nuclear). Same price, renewable pollution free, you just have to switch. They also offer 100% wind that is a bit more expensive, and long-term contracts to lower the price a little.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  35. subsidize that sh*t ! by cathector · · Score: 1

    Taking in arguments about the actual $/kWh cost to consumers along with notions of environmental foresight, it seems clear to me that technology like this should be subsidized. Plus wide adoption will naturally increase the efficiency of the technology, so the cost-to-subsidize will decrease over the years.

  36. Uhh... by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    I'm all for alternative energy sources but this is a little nuts. Even if it really is only a few bucks more every month, I really don't want to "donate" money to my neighbors who are already pretty well off.

    Granted not every farmer is sitting pretty, but most of the farmers I know that have the money to invest in methane-harvesting technology are alreaddy pretty wealthy. And this is just another way to get them higher up on the list.

    I'm far more likely to support my farmers by going to the local Farmer's Market. At least then I'm helping a lot of different farmers, and not just the rich ones.

    --
    -David
    1. Re:Uhh... by beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      I'm far more likely to support my farmers by going to the local Farmer's Market.

      The nuclear generation industry sends its regards, together with the coal folks. Various worldwide petro- (and natural_gas-) dictators are indirectly saying thanks to you too.

      But you stuck it to the plutocrats and that's what matters.

    2. Re:Uhh... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm all for alternative energy sources but this is a little nuts. Even if it really is only a few bucks more every month, I really don't want to "donate" money to my neighbors who are already pretty well off.

      YEAH! Cos like, the domestic farm industry is litteraly rolling in money, right? In actual fact they need government subsidies and regulation to stay afloat. That's the simple matter of it.

      And if the best you can do is "bad because someone receives money from it", then how the hell do you live your life? Do you mind your oil money going to even richer and textbook-"evil" Saudis?

    3. Re:Uhh... by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. This article makes it sound like we can "donate" money to the poor starving farmers. The farmers that can afford to provide this service are anything but starving.

      Granted, they're not billionaire oil or nuclear tycoons either. But I would much rather see my energy dollars go towards efficient renewable energy like solar or nuclear than the dairy farmer and his mansion down the lane.

      --
      -David
    4. Re:Uhh... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      But I would much rather see my energy dollars go towards efficient renewable energy like solar or nuclear than the dairy farmer and his mansion down the lane.

      Doesn't the US goverment keep milk prices artifically high to allow these guys to stay in business? Granted I'm on the other side of the pond here and I have no direct visibility of the issue, but I was under the impression that most western farmers are in financial difficulty. Of course, I do mean the independent ones, there are some huge, highly profitable groups that make life difficult for the smaller guy. All the more easier to gobble him up.

      You know, technically this IS solar energy when you think of it. I've always considered bio-fuel to be solar, but I guess as the cows are eating the grass it's second generation. I completely agree with you on this; we should be spending a lot more on research. Personally I think it will be some kind of mould/fungus that ultimately harnesses solar. Nature's had a much longer time to devise schemes to extract usable energy from the sun and I believe that this (like most things) will have a natural precident that inspires someone to take the next step.

    5. Re:Uhh... by mike77 · · Score: 4, Informative
      But I would much rather see my energy dollars go towards efficient renewable energy like solar or nuclear than the dairy farmer and his mansion down the lane.

      Being from Vermont, I think you have a skewed view of dariy farmers (in VT). I don't know about where you're from but most of the dairy farms here are small family owned business that have been operating for generations, and out of all of the ones I know, NONE of them have mansions. They all have small family farms, work long hours for low income and constantly worry about being able to do it again next year. They do it because they've always done it, because they love it, and its a vermont way of life. They don't do it to get rich, they do it to keep Vermont's agriculture industry alive.

      What I see is a local family owned farm which was suffering the same fate as most of the other farms in the state (1-2 bad years from being broke and out of business) finding a unique way to increase their income (and be sustainable, hey novel idea), provide "green-power" in the state where there is a huge demand for it, and be kind to the environement.

      These people don't own mansions, these people work hard, bust their ass all day long, and continue a tradition dating back generations, while at the same time doing good for the state, and the environment.

      Now, it may not be efficient, but it is a good use of what was being wasted before. What exactly is the problem you have w/ it again?

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    6. Re:Uhh... by gary+gunrack · · Score: 1

      What? you must be kidding. Most farmers cant even make ends meet without subsidies. Dairy farmers around here live in run-down old farm houses, if they're lucky. More likely its a tiny ranch-style house. They live surrounded by and covered in mud and cow dung. When I drive by some of these farms, I think to myself "damn, I'm glad I don't do that for a living". "Wealthy farmers"? that's crazy talk.

    7. Re:Uhh... by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      I guess we have some different farmers here in California, then. And I agree not all are like that. But many of the dairy famers here in California are well-off.

      And, I know the equipment needed to set up this kind of thing is insanely expensive. So what bank is going to lend hundreds of thousands to a "dairy farmer... in [a] run-down old farm house"? Thus the ones that are poor will stay poor, but the ones who have tons of money will get even more. No news there, though.

      --
      -David
  37. Sorry? What was that? by dupper · · Score: 0

    Who runs Bartertown?

  38. But do they warn you about... by wildsurf · · Score: 1

    the Brownouts.

    --
    Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
  39. Methane from Marijuana.. er um I mean HEMP! by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I really have to put in a plug for hemp (biomass). I'll not insult you with my IIRC facts, since I can so easily insult you with a quick google search for methane hemp. I'll tell you what I've personally seen though, a field of 7 foot Canadian Hemp (on the road to Blenheim from Rondeau Provincial Park) growing so thickly you couldn't force yourself 6 inches into them. All long stems just perfect for industrial use and not a damn thing even close to smokable. Now on with the mini cut and paste, see "more" links for the rest.

    more This one has a tons of facts covering replacing various industrial materials, historical uses, etc.
    * Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops (Hemp) would provide all of America's Energy needs.
    * Biomass can be converted into methane, methanol, or gasoline (which could eliminate our ties with the Middle East) at a cost comparable to petroleum and hemp is much better for the environment.
    * Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution.
    * One acre of hemp can produce as much usable fiber as 4 acres of trees or two acres of cotton.
    * Trees cut down take 50-500 years to grow, while hemp can be cultivated in as little as 100 days and can yield 4 times more paper over a 20 year period.

    more Much shorter page but some others on the site are good reading.
    There are many interesting facts about hemp such as Van Gogh and Rembrandt painting on hemp canvasses, and also painting with hemp paints. Benjamin Franklin used hemp in the first paper mill, and Henry Ford thought methane, not gasoline, should be used to fuel cars. Biomass can be converted to methane (ethanol) at a fraction of the costs of oil, coal, or nuclear energy. (Imagine world politics if oil was off the table?) Wretchedly, the world swathed its destructive path, cutting down trees for paper, when hemp could have been harvested every three or four months, and, by using petro-chemicals instead of methane, at untold costs to our planet.
    Jonah HEX
    1. Re:Methane from Marijuana.. er um I mean HEMP! by lisaparratt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that, along with just a dash of racism, is why it's illegal.

      What a wonderfully long tradition buying laws has...

    2. Re:Methane from Marijuana.. er um I mean HEMP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which begs the question; why can't we buy gasoline made from hemp from Canada for $1.50/gallon at the local filling station ?

    3. Re:Methane from Marijuana.. er um I mean HEMP! by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Nope. Industrial Hemp is more valuable to other industries such as textiles and plastics. As a result, higher bidder will win and you won't have the hemp->methane cycle you seem to want.

      And your last link/paste is as wrong as it can be. Methane -> Methanol NOT Methane -> Ethanol. Methanol is WOOD alcohol, Ethanol is GRAIN alcohol.
      Also, Ford was talking ethanol, not methane/methanol. Methanol is POISONOUS, ethanol is "mildly toxic". Your first quote is incomplete in that it does not include ethanol production from Hemp. However, the aforementioned demand outside of transportation fuels applies here as well (even if less so).

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    4. Re:Methane from Marijuana.. er um I mean HEMP! by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

      While the value to other industries may be higher, and therefore those industries would win in a bidding war, wouldn't an even larger supply of hemp mean more industries would have a shot at getting some as well as driving down prices? Also rising costs of non-renewable might make even "expensive bid" hemp a cheaper alternative. Frankly I don't know, just throwing out some thoughts. Thanks for the correction about Methanol/Ethanol, I'm a computer hacker with little knowledge of chemicals.
      Jonah HEX

  40. Screw Ben & Jerry's... by rjoseph · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Vermont is one of the poorer states in the nation, where a large percentage of the population has serious trouble during the winter heating their homes. But at the same time, Vermont has dairy farms every where you look, it's one of the dominant traits of the landscape. Might as well use what you've got!

    Also, kudos to the people who thought to start this program in the summer, give it time to work out all the kinks. I've always admired Vermont for their forward-looking thinking, after all the yeller Howard Dean was their gov'na for long time (and despite his unfortaunte public persona, he's got great ideas too).

    1. Re:Screw Ben & Jerry's... by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      You know, that portrayal of Dean in the media was really unfair. That "scream" was made when he was holding a noise-cancelling mic that was using then-new technology. What you didn't hear is that Dean was speaking in a tone that would be natural when you're surrounded by a noisy crowd, which he was. But really, lopsided portrayals and dirty shenanigans are like water, food, and air to mass media and politics.

      So, Vermont's doing even better than that from where I'm standing.

    2. Re:Screw Ben & Jerry's... by MaceyHW · · Score: 1

      Vermont is not one of the poorer states in the union. It's median household income is above average.

      Of course per household heating costs are probably also above average...

    3. Re:Screw Ben & Jerry's... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How ia increasing the power cost to the consumer going to help?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  41. Revised slashdot slogan by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Slashdot: shit that matters"

  42. This APT has Super Cow Powers by sohp · · Score: 1
  43. What effect will this have on Sci-Fi? by xRelisH · · Score: 1

    I mean, think about it... this will change the face of Science Fiction forever...

    I can just imagine it:
    In Star Trek: Cows in Space -- "We've lost anti-manure containment... Ahhhh!!!"

  44. WTF by tibike77 · · Score: 1

    In 1998, a Canadian committee found that while there were no significant risks to human health, there may be increased risks to animal safety due to injections of rbST. According to their report, use of rbST increased the risk of mastitis by up to 25%, infertility by 18%, and lameness by up to 50%.


    Lameness ?!?
    --
    By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    1. Re:WTF by The+Hobo · · Score: 1
      --
      There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
    2. Re:WTF by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      And here I was, thinking it's about cows sniper-camping :p
      My dreams are ruined :'(

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
  45. Conspiracy 72 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Feed the cows lots of beans.

    I notice a lot of Taco Bell's next to power plants, and the seats are funny.

  46. Untied States by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Leave it to us Americans to poop our way out of problems...

  47. Vermont got the idea from Debian? by eco2geek · · Score: 1
    Why did this sound so familiar? Let's see...

    apt-get --help
    ...
    This APT runs on Super Cow Power.

    Aha!

    (OK, close.)

  48. Just imagine by panchoguayaba · · Score: 1

    how much power we could derive of this if we apply this tech to diablos cow level

  49. Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles.

    If you read US Patent # 4,835,433, you'll see that a device about the size of a keg of beer will crank out about 7500 W for 29.1 years, if you put a small amount of Strontium-90 in it (one gram - about 2mm of 16 gauge wire worth of material). Since Strontium-90 is generally considered nuclear waste these days, it's very easy to "mine" it out of our current waste dumps. If you want something smaller, then something the size of a "D" battery will crank 75 W for the same amount of time.

    Even if you don't want to carry it around with you (it emits only alpha and beta particles, not gamma, so it doesn't actually require heavy lead shielding), you can use the electricity generated to generate fuel for use in fuel cells, if you'd rather carry around something combustible with you, instead of a keg of beer with neck-bolts.

    What really annoying about the whole nuclear fear in the U.S. is that it's really a very green source of energy. You get more radiation released into the atmosphere from a coal-fired plant, not to mention the sludge for your lungs to filter ut of the air. If the U.S. would follow the lead of France and Japan, and build breeder reactors, and did fuel cycling like Japan does, we could stop digging for more fuel (it'd be generated as a by product of the reactor running), and it'd never be in a form where it could be used to build a nuclear weapon.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by RsG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I'm not disagreeing with you on the whole "nuclear is better for the environment than fossil fuels" idea here, I gotta say, you'd have to be batshit fecking crazy to want to use Sr-90 as a fuel source.

      This stuff will give you bone cancer . Not exactly what I'd want to put under the hood of every car in the world, especially when accidents are so common. Plus, there's the whole "spontainiously combusts in the open air" business.

      I'd think you'd get better results using nuclear plants to generate hydrogen from water using high-temperature electrolysis - that way you centralize your nuclear waste and fuel. You wouldn't really want a mini-generator in every home or every car for the reasons listed above, but regulated and properly governed nuke plants have a solid safety record.

      The problem with that of course is it's a huge overhaul of our transportation system.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      What really annoying about the whole nuclear fear in the U.S. is that it's really a very green source of energy. You get more radiation released into the atmosphere from a coal-fired plant, not to mention the sludge for your lungs to filter ut of the air.
      That is only correct as long as there is no major accident. As in Chernobyl. Now the Chernobyl rector was poorly designed from a safety point of view and the crew made stupid experiments, but shit happens.
      So even with modern designs, I think you have to figure in the "one meltdown per 1000 years" or so in your calculations.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    3. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As others have said, reactors built today won't meltdown even at a rate of "one meltdown per 1000 years". Even if they did, there are far more containment structures in place to prevent it from getting off the plant grounds.

      TMI was the USA scare that got us to pay more attention to disaster scenarios. Even IF we had a Chernobyl type explosion in the states, it wouldn't be the big deal it was in Chernobyl since all nuclear reactors are covered by a pressure rated dome. Basically, they're pre-enclosed in a sarcophagus already.

      Basically, even with Chernobyl you can argue that coal has killed more people.

      Nuclear Power deaths: 3 Japanese workers*
      Chernobyl: 47 workers/accident responders, 9 children died of thyroid cancer, and IAEA/WHO estimate that 9000 more might die of cancer. Please excuse me for not using Greenpeace numbers, as they are both biased and known to exaggerate. 9000, in the last 20 years.

      Let's take a look at coal.
      Wiki says:2004 alone cost China 6,000 workers, though some estimate as high as 20,000. US Coal mining is far safer, with only about 30 deaths/year. Still, we have yet to cover the health effects. 23,600 per year due to air pollution, in the USA alone.

      If you figure 1 nuclear meltdown/worst case disaster every thousand years, that kills the same # as chernobyl, that's an average annual death toll of 9 people. Meanwhile, coal mining in the US kills 30, even if you figure in that pollution controls eventually stops all the air pollution.

      There's a reason I'd love to shut down every coal plant and replace it with a nuclear one. Preferably breeders that allow us to take all the 'waste' piling up around current reactors and burn it as more fuel again.

      *who violated every safety reg in the book, mixing many times the amount of nuclear materials in a steel bucket rather than using the provided shielded equipment meant to do it in limited, but safe, quantities.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by JDevers · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because, after all, gasoline and oil don't cause any sorts of medical problems when burned in incredibly large quantities non-stop for 75+ years straight.

      A well built reactor could have FAR more than adequate shielding to prevent escape of either the beta radiation or the Sr90 itself (where the bone cancer comes in...it gets absorbed as Ca and then is an internal and localized beta emitter). Hyping up the danger of this while ignoring the danger of 10-40 gallons of explosive liquid in every car on Earth, which has to be refueled CONSTANTLY, is crazy. These generators would EASILY last longer than virtually any car. Electric motors are at a pretty close to perfection state, combine it with a long term source of power like this and you have cars which drive for all but free.

      Don't forget that this is a source of fuel which we are already MAKING in abundance as a by-product of another industry.

    5. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Then when the cars blow up in a nuclear accident, we'll get a double bonus: Fewer cars and fewer asshole drivers who would suggest this sort of thing instead of waking up and realizing that for a trip of 5 KM or less, it's not much to ask for human to walk or ride a fucking bike.

    6. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, even with Chernobyl you can argue that coal has killed more people.

      The problem is sociological. As a species, we've lived with smog for 200 years: it's not an immediate problem to most people. We've also lived, for the past 60 years, with the images of Hiroshima, which has become the popular notion of a nuclear meltdown. After all: a nuclear power plant contains a lot more uranium than the Hiroshima bomb. There are hundreds of movies encouraging the fear of all things nuclear. I'm aware of no movies based on the themes of a post-smog apocalypse, smog-powered giant spiders, or even emergency repairs to the air scrubbers at a coal-fired power plant.

      Part of this is because we're all now complicit in the creation of air pollution, to the point that we've emotionally decided the pollution is worth the convenience of a car. Deaths of mine workers...well they know the risks. Besides, "everyone" knows those deaths result from either malicious negligence on the part of an evil corporate entity or the workers' own irresponsible behavior. It doesn't really impact the populus, aside from morbid curiousity. Any possibility that an incident at a nuclear power plant could expose a civilian to radiation (regardless of whether that radiation is smaller than an ounce of iodized salt) and turn them into a giant spider is somehow worse than a coal mine collapse because the notional victim is innocent.

      People are irrational.

    7. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      You see, the whole problem is this driving around for free business, or lack thereof. The oil companies will not want this, so the car manufacturers will not want it. Your local government wil not want it. How much is this going to cost? If it is the same gasoline for the same period, it will be over $32,000. See where the problems might be?

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    8. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by spaceman375 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most nuclear power proponents are missing one important fact: We use concrete and lead to "shield" the plants. There actually is no such thing as a radiation shield. All we can do is slow it down a whole lot by surrounding it with mass. The problem with this is that the nuclear plant itself becomes radioactive. The whole building soaks up the radiation and holds it. Once it's been running for 30 years, the operators can only do one hour shifts or they get too much exposure. After 50 years of operation, a typical plant is so contaminated that you can either dismantle it and put the whole building and the ground it stands on into a nuclear waste repository, or you can close it and keep people away for 500 YEARS before it cools enough to even approach. The only way nuclear plants can be called "cheap" is with shortsighted budgets that don't take this into account. The long-term view shows a fast return followed by a LONG period of worse than useless liability.

            The US is all of 200 years old. It's pretty arrogant to make stuff this dangerous and force our grandkids to deal with it. Take this dirty path now and you'll lower the incentive to develop the alternative sources that are less ethically (and economically) questionable.

      I'm all for nuclear power. As long as it's 93,000,000 miles away, right where it belongs.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    9. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Also, if you take the time to look at *WHY* Chernobyl occured it becomes quickly apparent that it was a classic case of PEBKAC [Problems Exists Between Keyboard and Chair]. The russians knew the plant was getting a little sticky and they could have, at ANY time, dropped the reamining rods in to the reaction thus slowing things down..they didn't want to take a hit in energy production so they thought they could stick it out and then things would be gravy; by the time they realized that the reaction needed to be slowed down/stopped it was already too late...user error rocks!

      Moreover, Nuclear Power Plants are being developed that have built in mechanisms to prevent run-a-way nuclear reactions; it is accomplished through very specific geomeotry in the raction chamber and probably a bunch of very technical things that I do not understand but my point remains the same :)

    10. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      You see, the whole problem is this driving around for free business, or lack thereof. The oil companies will not want this, so the car manufacturers will not want it. Your local government wil not want it. How much is this going to cost? If it is the same gasoline for the same period, it will be over $32,000. See where the problems might be?

      That's a ridiculous argument. If we actually could make a car that didn't need refuelling for 30 years don't you think someone would start making and selling them? I'm sure the government would love it, and oil companies don't *actually* control everyone in the world.

    11. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      You're wrong on pretty much the entire post. There are quite a few different types of radiation shields, or more relevantly, radiological protection.

      The simplest is something that blocks radiation (the electromagnetic kind, not the imaginary magical glowing stuff you see in scifi channel specials or referred to by greenpeace activists with a degree in philosophy). Sunglasses are an example I hope most people are familiar with. They block a limited range of wavelengths, typically in the UV, to protect the eyes. In reactors, gamma rays (high energy radiation) are typically blocked by heavy atoms (lead) or thick layers of concrete and steel, or a combination. 2 feet of concrete reduces gamma radiation flux to 0.1% of incoming intensity.

      Then there is protection against beta particles (high energy electrons) and alpha particles (radioactive helium isotopes). These are far easier to contain than gamma rays due to their mass, and lightweight materials like a thin layer of aluminum or many plastics are sufficient. Gamma radiation is often produced from "braking" of high speed electrons or decay of helium isotopes, but we already dealt with that above. Beta particles and alpha particles are not technically radiation, but they are radiological threats.

      Neutron bombardment is probably what you were thinking of. Neutrons are released during fission and absorbed by other atoms, making the nuclei unstable and causing further breakdown, perpetuating the chain reaction. Neutrons are also, however, absorbed by surrounding material such as the steel casing and control rods, doping those materials to form radioactive isotopes. As a result, these parts, all of which are inside the reactor vessel as opposed to all over the entire plant like you claim, become low-level radioactive waste when the vessel is decommissioned. Decommissioning has to be done, not because the whole thing becomes so radioactive it's dangerous to operate, but because neutron bombardment causes the metals to become brittle and less structurally sound.

      Re-reading your post, I think you're confusing what you've read about the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident with typical plant operations. Chernobyl is completely different because the radioactive particles (a little bit of alpha particles, mostly radioactive fuel, reaction products, and neutron bombarded reactor materials) escaped the containment structure due to the explosion. Once scattered around the countryside by the explosion and weather, their proximity (especially when ingested) is what caused problems like thyroid cancer and, immediately after the accident, radiation sickness. The one hour rule was workers in the zone when they were building the "sarcophogaus" over the remains of the reactor. You've probably heard the claim that a person living a mile downwind from a nuclear power plant receives less radiation than if they watched an extra hour of TV per day. The ground is fine. Certainly not radioactive. The Trojan plant 40 miles from my house is currently being decommissioned. 15 years from now, when that's done and the last of the low-level waste is removed from temporary storage and taken to a long-term repository, the site will be a park.

      The one problem left, that you actually almost did get right because it's a cost that wasn't initially appreciated (currently there is a tax on nuclear-generated energy to cover it), is the waste fuel, by-products, and reactor that have to be disposed of. The material is sorted by radioactivity and type and disposed of in various ways. This is pretty complicated, so I'll just describe the nastiest threat, which is the spent fuel. It's chemically processed into a solid, chemically stable ceramic that is not water-soluable. This is then encased in steel and further encased in reinforced concrete and will eventually be buried 1000 feet underground in a federal repository. Degredation of the containers in the next 10,000 years is unlikely, after which the most radioactive stuff will have decayed. Contamination by natural mea

    12. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by myopic_bingemaster · · Score: 1

      But what do you do about the Y-90 that is the result of the decay (which emits gamma and becomes Zr-90 which is stable)? I don't know how you calculate the power split between Alpha/Gamma, so it may not be a problem...

      But I like the Alpha transformer you mentioned as well as the power-keg idea... This is in the natural emission mode, so you can't turn it off, right? (Then again, I wouldn't mind hooking it to the grid when I'm not using it)

    13. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      ... a classic case of PEBKAC [Problems Exists Between Keyboard and Chair].

      At work we often term such malfunctions a "mouse driver problem." Oddly enough, most people seem to accept that as an adequately technological explanation, even though you're really saying they're too stupid to use a computer.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      iamlucky13 is pretty much spot on. However, there's a couple points that he missed. There are substances that can be used to absorb the radiation without becoming radioactive themselves, even with neutron bombardment.

      For example, plain water can aborb quite a shocking amount of it without becoming any more radioactive. That's part of why it's a popular shielding/cooling material.

      As for the rest of it, they keep extending the life of current reactors, because they can produce so much power so cheaply. Finally, there's a huge difference between the reactors currently in operation and the designs we have today. If we were to build new reactors, they would be built safer and far more efficient than the old ones. Without greenpeace FUD, they'd likely be even cheaper for the capacity.

      Add in how the Price-Anderson act works, and the more reactors you have, the more money is available in case of a disaster.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Oooooooooooo daddy likes....I'll have to use that next time.

    16. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And I would of pulled it out if somebody objected to my including China's annual coal worker death toll in the coal numbers. If they get to throw out China because they're primitive/unsafe/commies, well, I should get to throw out Chernobyl for the same reason.

      I instead concentrated on a couple ways(out of dozens) that US(and most of the rest of the world) reactors are far safer than USSR ones.

      Yes, there have been deaths in the nuclear power industry. The problem comes from having to point out that they're comparing the lifetime of nuclear power, to frequently include military applications and experimental reactors in the early days, along with horror stories and 'what ifs', compared to the relativly solid data on annual coal deaths(though, just like the '9000 may eventually die from cancers spawned by the Chernobyl radiation release' figure, it's up for argument by orders of magnitude.

      On the other hand, sick days and illness rate changes from smog/air pollution can be tracked fairly well.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:Actually, nuclear is a good match for vehicles. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      PEBKAC certainly was a factor, and I expect it will remain a factor. Idiots like that russian reactor crew will appear now and then in positions they are not suitable for. For a slightly off-topic example, consider the NASA guys who decided to launch Challenger despite the temperatur being outside spec for the boosters.

      So what remains as difference is the inherently safer design of modern reactors. But don't expect the quality of the users to save future reactors.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  50. Scotland has done this for years by glesga_kiss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over here in good old-jock-land, we've been doing this for years. When we are not drinking whiskey we are building hydroelectric dams and wind power farms. Several of the electicity companies offer schemes where you pay a little more for your energy, but get a guarantee that it's coming from green sources.

    It's not the feel-good factor or the money that's important. What matters is that you aren't pissing in your childrens swimming pool.

    1. Re:Scotland has done this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      exactly. What I don't understand in the US is how we as Americans can NOT think of the future. If I could afford one, I'd buy a hybrid, not because I believe I'll make this *huge* difference. But it's like the public good such as parks and libraries (environment, mother earth and all that jazz). If no one contributes back to it then they'll just rot. Look at the brand newly built libraries in your area, and then go to the one that's been around for 30-40 years. You can tell whether or not a community cares about the future of their education by the $$$ they put into it. I'm a librarian, and I can tell you with certainty that if you ask these questions in a funding support survey you'll get a lot positive support.
      "Do you wish to see the library to provide better facilities?"
      "Do you wish to see the library update and provide more access to information technologies such as computers and Internet access?"
      but guess what? if you have just a minority of opponents who show up to the library commission meetings and city hall, then you won't get the support. I know because at a certain library I know and love, they are always the same people who show up. And what is worse is these people have the majority voice because even though there are more proponents to library support, they never ever show up.
      The same goes for the environment and alternative energy sources. The same people who argue against these are the minority, (not because they are insane, but because they have their own reasons. When the $$$$$ of oil goes up, you'll see more and more support.
      In the US we're spoiled because we are still cheaper than most nations. Except Venezuela, where the price of oil cheaper than water (my brother in law fills up an SUV for $5). But that freakish socialist country run by that nutjob Chavez is a completely different problem.

      ps: For those Chavez fans, please meet some Venezuelans (especially educated middle class backgrounds) before praising him.
      One patron of mine was insistant that he was the equivalent of Franklin D. Roosevelt! While his policies are good for the poor,
      let us not forget he is also a military fascist and that country is as corrupt as ever.

    2. Re:Scotland has done this for years by Shadowlore · · Score: 1
      What matters is that you aren't pissing in your childrens swimming pool.


      At least when you aren't drinking whiskey ....
      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  51. already there in India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biogas has been in use in India as a cooking fuel for many years now and in a big way. http://www.ieiglobal.org/ESDv1n5/biogasinindia.pdf . Good to see US catching up ;-)

  52. my reservations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This isn't the first time I've seen this. Up in minnesota, we actually received letters giving us the option to use wind power - for more money on the KW-hour of course. What bothers me about all these advertisements for alternative power from utility companies is that they don't give me a business case for paying the extra money to switch to an alternative form of energy.

    Who are they kidding? Why would I want to pay more for energy? One could argue that energy prices will always increase, but what utility companies are asking us to do is to pay extra money on top of already increasing energy prices.

    I say, why not provide us with a sustainable business case? Tell me why I'm paying extra, and what the alternative utilities are going to do to try and eventually be competitive with fossil fuels because - let's face it - if it costs more it's not competitive.

    There may be some immeasurable social benefit, or a measurable ecological benefit, but in the end, if it just plain costs more, then it's not going to make me switch. In my opinion, without presenting the sustainability, profitability, and lowering future of alternative energy to the consumer, all these efforts by utility companies are really just posturing. Tell me why I'm paying the extra money!

  53. Here's my contribution by XB-70 · · Score: 1

    I summer in Vermont. My wife feeds me beer and has my ass hooked up to the grid. On a good day, I'm able to power a toaster.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  54. Mod parent down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the last mental image I wanted to see was Rove getting a rimjob. You are one _sick_ motherfucker.

    Also, like the other Anon pointed out, you just trolled another libberal greeny like yourself for the crime of not including global warming in his post. Grats on being a fucking moron, mate! I think he did say something about 'not wanted to start a fight over global warming', but you went and started one anyways. Betcha made your momma proud.

    I guess it must hard for you to read when you've got a warm mouthful of Al Gore's cock in your mouth.

    (Posting Anon myself to avoid the downmods. Plus I already downmodded your sorry ass, and don't want to repeal it by posting in this story. Jackass.)

  55. A small correction by tlambert · · Score: 2, Informative

    A small correction; Chernobyl happened because of very bad reactor design (the four reactors were RBMK reactors). It was inherently unstable. because it used water moderation, and as the water converted to steam, it had a runaway power increase (this is called a positive void coefficient), leading to the steam blowing the top off the building.

    Reactors don't have to be built that way, and not all designs are intrinsically risky. For example, a Pebble bed reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor can't melt down, and is self-moderating due to neutron dopplering.

    Even so, Japan, the only country which has ever had an atomic bomb dropped on it by a foreign power, has a lot more to fear from nuclear energy than the U.S., and they have 23 breeder reactors and 30 other reactors that commercially generate a little over 25% of Japans total electrical needs. Their current plans are to increase this by 30% by 2011 as part of their compliance with the Kyoto accords on CO2 emissions.

    -- Terry

    1. Re:A small correction by Ansonmont · · Score: 1

      Japan also has very few energy resources. No oil to speak of, little coal, and people all over the place. Unlike China, which has TONS of coal (to the 10th power). Japan is almost forced into using nuclear, but they still use a lot of oil as well.
      -A

    2. Re:A small correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ontario, Canada has plenty of power resources (wind, solar, hydro-electric, tar sands from neighbouring provinces, etc...) yet over 50% of its energy comes from nuclear.

      Ontario isn't forced to use nuclear at all. It's simply cheaper. And it shows in Ontario's incredibly low electricity prices (less than 6 cents per kWh). Furthermore, Ontario is encouraged to make more power at a price that's right because we sell excess power to the USA at a ridiculous profit.

    3. Re:A small correction by Krezik · · Score: 1

      Because things like import and export are myths.

  56. Only a few cents more per kWh? by CountExtreme · · Score: 1

    That means that this will quickly become a cheaper option as energy costs rise, seeing as it is at least in theory a renewable resource. Looks like we might be mooooooving to renewable energy sooner than I thought!

  57. For the scientists... by mlow82 · · Score: 1
    Set up a generator at the White House! The Bush Administration emissions could power the entire planet!
    Here are some sample emissions for the scientists!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_6B6vwE83U
  58. Yes, we are cheapass by Ogemaniac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can and do offset the carbon emissions from my small truck for $50/year, and get all of my energy from green sources (mostly wind and biomass) by paying an extra 1.6 cent/kwhr.

    I am almost completely green for $120 a year. Why aren't you?

    50% of people (and 99% percent of liberals) whine about the environment, and what the government should do to force everyone else (especially big business) to do something about it. 1% do something avoid hypocrisy and do something themselves.

    Join the one percent...

    1. Re:Yes, we are cheapass by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I live in NYC, where our average energy consumption is less than 1/2 the nation's (something like 2KW vs 5KW per household). I use mass transit or walk; most people I know with cars often share rides with other people. We're a gigantic city, with our energy profile footprint covering over 15 million people, really bringing down the average energy consumption. Who voted something like 3:1 or more for the more liberal candidate, as usual.

      I also worked for a long time running a recycling warehouse. I've personally already recycled more material and energy (even just my share of that team) than I will consume in the rest of my life. I've planted trees that will sequester more carbon than I will exhale.

      I'm part of much less than 1%. Which is why I want our government to manage the rest of the selfish, doomed slobs into doing what it takes to keep us from destroying ourselves. I'm cheapass, too, and lazy. I don't want to keep pulling for the rest of them. You want to get into the politics, I'm tired of 60% of the population (nonvoting) doing nothing, not even whining, plus 20% of the population (Republicans) whining about people protecting the environment, making 80% of the country working hard at both destroying our environment and denying it. I can't recycle enough to cover them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Yes, we are cheapass by stonecypher · · Score: 0, Troll

      by paying an extra 1.6 cent/kwhr ... I am almost completely green for $120 a year.

      Wow, when did the Amish hit slashdot? Given a 200w power supply consumes 144kWh/mo assuming a 30-day month, that's $28/year for the PC alone. If you honestly think you're running a truck and a house on four and a quarter modest PCs' worth of power, then you need to replace your calculator. Apparently it's getting bad results on all the low voltage.

      (Don't even try to tell me it's a margin issue. I'm measuring margin size. $120 margin / 144 * 12 * (365.25/360) is the margin size.)

      For a sense of scale, at this margin, the average air conditioner will consume about $270 per year. A Toyota Prius gets about 10 kilowatt hours per gallon of gasoline (search for "500w of battery drain"), and the government says it gets 55 mpg, so even if your pickup was actually an efficient car, your 1.6 cent per kilowatt hour margin will consume (10/55)*1.6 = 0.18 kilowatt hours per mile. The government cites national gas price averages every Monday, which yesterday was $2.97. Therefore, you will burn $120 of margin in (12000 / 0.1818 / 297.3) = 221.99 miles. This means that if you have no power drain at all in your house - you don't even have anything plugged in and turned off - then you drive on average 0.6077 miles per day. Most people drive more than that just getting to the grocery store twice a month.

      (I actually did the math as one big equation, to get around rounding error. If you do it yourself based on my averages above, you're gonna see 0.586. I didn't feel like writing out everything to 20 places.)

      Yeah, dude, you're a bastion of cheap green energy. Time to check your numbers.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    3. Re:Yes, we are cheapass by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      There is, of course, nothing trollish about the above. Yay mod abuse.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  59. MOD PARENT THE FUCK DOWN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is pure flamebait! The parent is pure flamebait! THE PARENT IS PURE FLAMEBAIT!

  60. don't believe the hype folks by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    this whole scheme is just a lot of hot air

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  61. why so eager to become so self-sufficient? by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Because they are becoming so inefficient in doing whatever that sooner they won't have anything that others want for a price others are willing to pay. In that case, it wouldn't hurt to be self-sufficient... :-)

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  62. It's not that uncommon by technoextreme · · Score: 0
    I have a commemorative "Vermont's Swinest" Ben and Jerry's T-shirt (complete with holstein styled pigs), they made them when they started a deal to supply a local pig farm (I believe near the Waterbury plant) with milk waste.
    The milk waste would be fed to the pigs along with the ususal feed, I don't recall where the pig waste / methane was headed.
    IIRC The first three pigs, by contract, were to be named "Ben", "Jerry" and "Ed" in honor of Ben Cohen, Jerry Greenfield and Ed Stanek - the Vermont EPA official who brokered the deal.

    Yep. Dirty Jobs also had a pig farmer that got spoiled food from Las Vegas and obtained milk. Aparently, milk ferments and turns into beer and well moving drunk pigs is annoying. Also, Im pretty sure the oil from the spoiled food actually went into cosmetics though I could be confusing it with another episode. San Fransico takes garbage and has it rot into methane in which it is burned.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  63. I say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets milk this for all it's worth.......

  64. Why pay more? by waif69 · · Score: 1

    Aside from the feeling-good that you are not supporting foreign oil, what incentive is there to pay more for alternative energy? Purely from an economical stance, there is no reason to support this, it costs more.

    1. Re:Why pay more? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      There's an ecological reason too.

      From the article:

      Typical manure storage facilities allow methane to escape into the environment, while a farm with a digester captures the methane. Methane is roughly 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The generation process produces CO2, but on the Blue Spruce Farm in Bridport, for example, the reduction in CO2 equivalents is estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 tons annually.

    2. Re:Why pay more? by waif69 · · Score: 1

      I'll concede that, and admit that I failed to mention that, however, the impact would be years away if not decades or centuries. From a business standpoint, I can't see a good fiscal reason to switch. The bottom line is still the bottom line, which is that a green fuel is more costly and will remain undesirable while that condition remains. Convince me otherwise, please.

  65. Vermont forces out youth by amightywind · · Score: 1
    Long story short, you're actually exactly right - we don't want this becoming extremely popular in the area. The simple fact is that we don't have nearly as many cows as we did ten years ago, since it's all done in massive superfarms out west. We've had laws passed that keep the milk prices artifically high just so the few family-owned farms still in business don't go under - they're all operating on razor-thin margins as it is, and many are losing money but stay around out of love for what they do.

    You succeeded. You stiffle economic growth with a subsidy ridden, high tax environment and make it impossible for young people to stay in the state. The only new residents of Vermont are New Yorkers with trophy homes that stand empty most of the year or retirees. Vermont has become an anachonism and charactature of an eden it never was. I have lived half of my life in New England and this peculariar "Hooterville" phenomenon makes Maine and Vermont steadily more unlivable. I have no doubt poor rural Vermonters would take big box stores.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Vermont forces out youth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not impossible for the youth to stay in Vermont, there's simply little incentive. Unless you want to participate in a service economy there is limited opportunity. Opportunity that wouldn't be provided by "big box stores," which actually aren't desired which is why they aren't permitted to move in in large numbers. Oh the youth will stay for those high-paying jobs, I'm sure. People leave to move to cities where there are more economic opportunities. New opportunities rarely move to Vermont because there's little incentive. Energy costs are higher, you have to conform to environmental standards, and when you're done you get to employee people from the U.S. with those U.S. salaries. If you want to setup new R&D or new manufacturing you just setup in India. There is little ecnomic growth in the rural U.S. Picking Alabama, Kansas, Vermont, or Utah. All different in terms of governence and none of them experiencing significant economic development in rural areas. Everything is easier to setup abroad or within urban population centers. It's just a better return on the money invested.

  66. I will be very disappointed by dafragsta · · Score: 1

    If this article doesn't get metatagged with "bullshit"

  67. Big question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big question now is whether Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will use power generated from the manure of cows treated with Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

    How is this even close to even approximating a big question? Seriously, raise your hands - who here had this as their first thought when they read the first half of the summary? Is this supposed to be some kind of attempt at humor, or some sort of weak political jab at people who use steroids on their livestock?

    Now the big question is "Is odyaws simply out of touch, or just suffering from ADD?"

  68. Another intersting use of green power by plopez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    New Belgium brewing http://www.newbelgium.com/sustainability.php not only uses wind turbines, but also harvests methane from their waste water used in brewing. Between the 2, they claim to be fully sustainable in energy, using zero fossil fuels.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  69. Cow power is extremely green. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    It draws lots of fart jokes. But infact cow manure methane is very much viable and very green.

    It does not stink. Infact all the gases emitted by rotting maure are captured and thus it actually reduces stink of the dairy farms for the neighbors.

    The manure has two componants. Combustible methane and non-combustible fertilizer. By separating the two, and organic, non-chemical fertilizer is available to the farms.

    USA has 100 million cows. Six cows produce enough methane in a year to run one car for a year. There is potential to bump off 15 million cars off middle east oil into a fully renewable energy source. If you include pig and chicken wastes, we could cut middle east oil imports by 30 to 40%!! The key is using the CH4 for transportation, not electricity generation.

    There are plenty of sources for electricity, coal, nuclear, wind, etc. But our transportation infrastructure is too heavily dependant on foreign oil. That dependance threatens both our security and prosperity.

    Instead of trying to make electricity out of the cow-manure methane, Vermont should simply bottle it and supply it to bus/truck fleets. It should encourage conversion of farm machinery to run on methane.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Cow power is extremely green. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      sweet, we can replace 15million cars that burns middle east methane to local methane!

      wait.
      This would not be used to power, replace cars. It would be used to make electricity.
      So, where does the elctricity it is displacing come from?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Cow power is extremely green. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Already there is a huge infrastructure to burn methane to produce electricity or heat homes. So it is relatively easy to sell the cow manure derived methane into this market. So Vermont trying to peddle electricity from cow manure is understandable. But from energy security point of view, there are alternative energy sources for electricity generation. Coal and nuclear energy are not very green, but atleast we (USA) are self sufficient in them.

      But when it comes to energy sources for the automotive sector, we are so dependant on middle east oil. So it would be wise to encourage our cars and trucks to run on methane. It is not a very difficult conversion to make gasoline engines to run on methane. Infact many bus/truck fleets in many US cities have done it. Heck, even New Delhi, India, has completely outlawed diesel engines within the city. All the buses and trucks there run on methane. From energy independance and security standpoint, it makes sense to encourage conversion of our automobiles to run on methane than to produce electricity from methane.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  70. Power Users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...a system by which power users can opt to buy...

    So, only adminstrators can take advantage of this?
  71. Cow Power by edrobinson · · Score: 1

    This project should be moved to DC. We could power the entire country!

  72. Natural Gas is plentiful by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Please. Heating a house has nothing to do with America's dependency on foreign oil. Nearly all houses that don't use electricity directly for heating use natural gas, which is plentiful according to http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp - 1090.997 Tcf (trillion cubic feet).

    1. Re:Natural Gas is plentiful by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Oh, right - according to the natural gas industry, there's no problem with America's dependence on foreign natural gas.

      And according to the oil industry, there's no problem with our dependence on foreign oil.

      And according to the nuclear power industry, nuke power is too cheap to measure, and perfectly clean and safe.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  73. Cow tipping by Yenshee · · Score: 1

    I feel kinda silly for commenting on this, but it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, so here goes: despite being part of the canon of crazy high school hijinks, cow-tipping is not actually feasible, as far as I can tell. I grew up on a dairy farm, so I can attest to the facts that: 1. Cows DON'T SLEEP STANDING UP! 2. Being a prey species, they don't sleep very deeply, nor for very long. You can't walk into a pasture in the middle of the night without waking the entire herd; a crew of rowdy teenagers invading the meadow at night would tip them off (argh, unintentional pun) pretty quickly.

    1. Re:Cow tipping by Don853 · · Score: 1

      I didn't grow up on a cow farm, but I grew up in a rural area, and EVERYONE I've met from more urban areas has asked me about cow tipping. It was kind of a pet peeve of mine, too, but for slightly different reasons:
      1. Cows are big, and would be hard to tip over if you got close to them.
      2. Cows are big and stupid, and seem prone to all start running in a big group. I wouldn't want to be in the way.
      3. Cows are expensive, and farmers have shotguns.

    2. Re:Cow tipping by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1
      cow-tipping is not actually feasible, as far as I can tell.
      I have to dissagree. My experience is that with some practice and a little help from a hazer, a 200lb man can tip a medium sized Corriente steer quite reliably. The preferred method is to chase it down from behind, lean off your horse and drop your upper body substantially onto the steer's neck. Then you wrap your far elbow around the far horn, simultaneously grabbing the near horn with your near hand. Allow the steer to pull you off your horse then dig your heels in to bring the animal to a halt. Push down on the near horn with your near hand while pulling the far horn towards your body with your elbow. A skilled practitioner can use this method to tip a cow in a few seconds, provided his hazer keeps the animal moving in a straight line. It looks something like this.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    3. Re:Cow tipping by Yenshee · · Score: 1

      Sure, and there is also special veterinary apparatus for hoisting animals up and onto their side, but this isn't what I meant. By cow-tipping, I mean the activity where a group of people steal into a pasture at night, find a cow that's obliging enough to just stand in one place, and tip it over for fun. I'd be willing to bet that no-one has ever actually done this. It's curious how well known this activity is, despite the fact that no-one has ever done it. I think it's a symptom of the fact that in the current age very few people have much experience of farm life, so an implausible but humorous (if you're into animal cruelty as humour) activity is accepted as a common occurrence.

    4. Re:Cow tipping by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      I was joking. Of course cow tipping is impossible. Hell, horses DO sleep standing up (for the most part) and tipping them is impossible too, for all the other reasons you mentioned.

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
  74. renewables and the power companies by shummer_mc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read an article about a family who installed enough solar energy panels to cover their yearly costs... or so they thought.

    The math was simple, they added up their kwh and sized their system accordingly. Winters would be balanced by summers, etc. During the summer they'd build a credit with the power co. and during the winter they'd consume the credit. Their mistake was assuming that the power company would buy the power at the same price at which they sold it. The power company actually purchased at about 50% of the charge rate for the power. So, this family (after a good effort to live 'green') ended up with a power bill anyway.

    This story is interesting because they're taking methane (which is 'free' as in 'sunk cost') processing it (probably with gov't subsidy) and charging the customer more for it.

    I love the idea. It's efficient, and useful. However, I hate that the power co. is charging marginally more for the 'BS energy' (which is truly BS because the energy would be produced regardless of consumption).

  75. Here's a good link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  76. only 4cents more expensive?? by amigabill · · Score: 1

    Cow Power costs only 4 cents/kWh more than market price

    Uhm, even after this month's amazing 72% electricity increase where I live (Thank you deregulation, "competition" really is better for me!), my price per kWh is 11.03cents. This 4 cent increase is 36% increase. My current bill is $153.78, and a 36% increase over that would have me paying $209.14. That's a little mroe than your $5 to $6/month increase. There's no natural gas available on my street, so the whole house is electric, including furnace, basement electric baseboard heating, water heater, clothes dryer, etc. And this is after I just spent $5700 on a new Air Conditioning system in an attempt to reduce my bill.

    Last year this month I paid about $220 in electric with the old 8-SEER system, my new bill is my first month with the new 16-Seer system, with the same average outside temperature as this month last year. A 36% increase on the old system wouldhave had me paying $299.20 then, and would be $514.62 today considering our new 72% rate increase that took effect on my current billing statement. I'd be paying about $378.74 now if I'd kept the old AC system. (Yes, I think that $5700 will be well worth it in a couple years)

    I don't think that the word "only" works well on a 36% rate hike compared to the new market price I'm now paying. You might have gas for everything other than your computer and TV, but there's a lot of people out there that would see huge monthly billing increases on this additional 4cents/kWh.

  77. Shit is more expensive than coal or oil? by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    How is this possible?

  78. Power Trip by rogersryanc · · Score: 1

    This is shit with power!

    --
    AIMS Logistics
    EDI Programmer

    Univ of Memphis
    B.B.A.
    MIS
  79. enhanced cows? by goodminton · · Score: 1

    How long before someone either a) selectively breeds or b) genetically modifies cows that produce more "gas" and/or bigger cowpies? My bet is 2 to 3 years.

  80. Wind power by mknewman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I recently changed my plan here in Houston, Tx from Reliant Energy's standard plan to their 100% wind power. The difference in cost was negligable, maybe $5/month, and now my 2000-3000kw/h per month are totally green. They replace at least 100% of the energy I use with wind power. I figure this is about 2/3 of my total carbon footprint I have reduced in one swoop, and I have cast my vote for clean energy.

  81. i can see it now by jaimz22 · · Score: 1

    "why does it smell like farts every time i turn on a light?"

  82. Fantastic... by MojoBox · · Score: 1

    How can all those vegans up in vermont be against "exploiting" animals but for burning their manure? Screw them, lets just go nuclear allready, dammit.

  83. Transparency in power marketing by Honest+Man · · Score: 1

    What they should really call this is "Pay for power scheduling to allocate the use of more green power." instead of making it sound like you, yourself, will be using green power.

    Power is power when it hits the lines - electrons can't be distinguished from one another. So, yes, you're paying the power company to have their schedulers and power traders to work with cow-power plants instead of Natural Gas or Coal Fired plants - your power is whatever hits your home.... a mix of everything.

    The only way to ensure you're on green power is buy solar panels and a battery system and disconnect from the grid.

  84. this doesn't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone stopped to think of the energy that is being used to evetually create that manure? More than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals http://www.goveg.com/environment-wastedResources-f ood.asp. The energy required to grow and harvest all that grain fed to the cattle has to be greater than whatever you could get from methane.

  85. Next Hoover Dam? by Beltway+Prophet · · Score: 1

    I was curious about how the 1.75 million kWH produced by a single 1500-cow farm stacked up, so I checked the Hoover Dam - that facility produces "over 4 billion kWH," or roughly the output of 2285 such farms. So, how many of these bovine bioreactors do they have in Vermont? According to the Vermont State House of Representatives, there were 160,000 dairy cows in the state in 2001. If they were all participating in the project (an unattainable goal, unless the technology can scale to the individual cow), it would still be less than 5% of the output of the Hoover Dam, at 186 million kWH.

    But we need more distributed, small sources of power like this. This 5% plus another 5% from solar rooves and another 5% from landfill gas and another 5% from windmills and another 5% from tidal power and another 5% from somewhere else...that's lots of redundancy, and lots of hands-on, local knowledge of how to produce power, that would secure the energy supply if widespread.

    A failure or, sadly, an attack could take out power to over a million people if it shut down the Hoover Dam. If one dairy's local methane power plant goes out temporarily in a world where nearly everything is used as a source of energy, it's no big deal (well, except to the farmer who's losing money every minute he's out of operation, and that's a motivation to every power producer to keep things going).

  86. Small margins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of our oil does come from stable sources, but the portion that doesn't is a lot greater than the excess supply.

  87. I think you are overlooking the fact by geekoid · · Score: 1

    that oil won't run out over night, as it gets more expensive, more and more financial resources will be put into alternative sources.
    Bear in mind that billion are already going into alternative research. There may be NO alternative to oil.
    Which means everything will change.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I think you are overlooking the fact by RsG · · Score: 1
      that oil won't run out over night, as it gets more expensive, more and more financial resources will be put into alternative sources.
      Except that developing those alternative sources won't happen overnight either. And what's more, technological development does not scale up indefinately as more money is spent on it - you can't blow a billion dollars at once and expect to get results. R&D takes time, testing takes time, and even when they're done, getting a developed tech to the marketplace takes a long time even when the demand is there for it.

      Understand, I do think that the market will kick in when the oil prices get high enough. What I'm saying is that it may kick in too late. The best energy solutions are 30 years off or more. Simply dumping money into them at the last minute may not be enough.

      To give an example, you've probably heard it said that fusion is always X years in the future (usually given as 30, sometimes 50). This is due to the fact that in the 1970's, fusion researchers and the press essentially said they could have a working fusion reactor by 2000. What people forget is that what the researchers actually said was prefaced "with adequate funding" - and they never got it.

      Fusion research is expensive and time consuming, and almost entirely government funded. It's far and away the best alternative energy source out there, but if we want it in time to avert a massive energy crisis in the next few decades, we need to start spending the time and money on it now, not when we're looking at only a few years of time left. We can't afford to wait for the price of oil to force a market shift.

      Bear in mind that billion are already going into alternative research. There may be NO alternative to oil.
      Which means everything will change.
      Yes, that would mean we're essentially screwed. However, we already know there are possible oil alternatives, so that outcome seems unlikely. The problem is knowing that we could quit oil, and actually doing it, are two very different things.

      It's like a smoker knowing on an intellectual level that he could quit, but lacking the willpower or motivation to do so. For that person, waiting until his health worsens isn't a good idea.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  88. Your 'facts' by geekoid · · Score: 1

    come from questionable sources.

    Next up, using high times articles as 'facts'.

    Find some place less biased.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Your 'facts' by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 1

      While the sources are questionable to you, the facts are real. Hemp grows like weeds, and you can get 3 to 4 crops out of a field with no nitrogen depletion of the soil. It's the most efficient biomass material, and can replace many industrial materials for paper, construction, petrochem, food, clothing, etc.
      Jonah HEX

  89. this has little to do with oil or the middle east by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    If you're interested in reducing dependence on foreign oil, what you need is an alternate source of vehicle fuel. Alternate sources for electricity generation don't do much there, because we generate very little of our electricity from oil to begin with---the biggest source of U.S. electricity is burning domestically-mined coal. As far as I can tell, burning methane that cows produce to generate electricity is not somehow going to magically reduce the use of gasoline in cars.

    Now there's surely an environmental argument that burning coal isn't too good, but it's not a geopolitical argument and has nothing to do with the middle east.

  90. Environmentalist Pans Cow Pie Plan by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    What's the point? If you pay 4 cents more per KWH, you have to produce 4 more cents for each KWH used, which translates into less efficiency and more pollution all around.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  91. Get better friends by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    because yours are stupid

    Reference Nutrient Intakes for Iron, mg/day
    Age RNI Age RNI
    0 to 3 months 1.7 mg
    4 to 6 months 4.3 mg
    7 to 12 months 7.8 mg
    1 to 3 yrs 6.9 mg
    4 to 6 yrs 6.1 mg
    7 to 10 yrs 8.7 mg
    Men 11 - 18 yrs 11.3 mg
    Men 19 + yrs 8.7 mg
    Women 11 - 49 yrs 14.8 mg
    Women 50 + yrs 8.7 mg

    Sources of Iron (single servings)
    Chick peas (200g or 7oz) 6.2 mg
    Bran flakes (45g or 1½oz) 5.3 mg
    Spinach, boiled (100g or 3½oz) 4.0 mg
    Baked beans (225g or 8oz) 3.2 mg
    Black treacle (35g or 1¼oz) 3.2 mg
    Muesli (60g or 2¼oz) 2.76mg
    4 Dried figs (60g or 2oz) 2.1 mg
    8 Dried apricots (50g or 1¾oz) 2.1 mg
    Egg, boiled 1.3 mg
    Asparagus (125g or 4¾oz) 1.1 mg
    Avocado (75g or 2¾oz) 1.1 mg
    1 slice wholemeal bread (40g) 1.0 mg
    Broccoli, boiled (100g or 3½oz) 1.0 mg
    Brown rice (200g or 7oz) 0.9 mg
    Peanut butter (20g or ½oz) 0.5 mg
    Banana (120g or 4¼oz) 0.48 mg
    Yoghurt (150g or 5½oz) 0.36 mg
    Cow's milk (½ pint) 0.14 mg
    Hard cheese (30g or 1oz) 0.12 mg
    Margarine (7g or ¼oz) 0.02 mg

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  92. NYC is an unsustainable system by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    The people there have a birthrate FAR below replacement. Saying that a couple of young men living together in a tiny apartment in Manhattan use less energy than a family of five living in the burbs is rather meaningless. Those couple of guys either have to move out of their hole in the wall or we go extinct. Also, NYC cannot provide its own food, energy, materials etc. That Iowa farmer with the F350 isn't just driving it for himself - he is driving it for you.

    High-density living is probably more energy efficient on the whole (due to public transport and smaller homes) but not as much as you are estimating.

    I don't give much credit for planting trees, unless you bought the land and converted it from something else to forest. Trees will grow on their own if you let them.

  93. I am not doing it that way by Ogemaniac · · Score: 1

    My carbon offsets for my vehicle are independant of my green electricty program. I pay someone to offset my truck's carbon (actually, I overpay, according to their statistics). It is of no matter to me how they do it, as long as they do. As for my electricity, my company purchases green power with the money I pay them. Because of this program, they are installing a number of wind generators right now in part of my state.

  94. NYC Was Here First and Will Be Here Long After by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you talking about? NYC is the oldest and the largest city in America. It's absolutely sustainable. In fact, we sustain the rest of the country with our hard work. That Iowa farmer is getting back about $1.11 for every dollar they send to Washington, while I'm getting back about $0.72 - the rest goes to Iowa and the rest of the Welfare States we're subsidizing. Since we've got all the people, and they've got so few, we're supporting quite a lot of those freeloaders. They'd better be driving that F350 for me. Especially since my gas costs so much more than theirs, though mine comes right off the ship, right out of the NJ refinery, and theirs comes across the prairie in trucks, heating their homes through their endless winters. That prairie that NYC spent centuries populating through subsidies and management - that they're blowing in just a few generations.

    High density living is certainly more energy efficient. Especially in NYC, where we are smarter, so we live more efficiently. Not only do we use mass transit and walk (look at how goddamn fat those Iowans are, on our welfare), but we prepare food centrally too, in restaurants, which are much more efficient in every phase.

    And the trees I planted were planted in deforested areas where trees weren't growing on their own, though people had "let them" without results for years.

    Who cares what credit you give? You've found one of the weirdest venues for homophobia I've seen, ornamented with being totally wrong about everything. I bet you voted for Bush. You have no business talking as if you had a clue about reproduction, energy, economics, New York City or anything else. Go entertain your friends with your ignorance - in NYC we don't have time for it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:NYC Was Here First and Will Be Here Long After by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. How'd you get an entire city shoved up there?

    2. Re:NYC Was Here First and Will Be Here Long After by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Our city will kick your ass, Anonymous hick Coward.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  95. Are you an engineer, or just playing one? by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    The primary reponsibility of an engineer is to know what happens when things go wrong and plan for them.

    In that reguard, this post was absurd. While the medical costs of coal miners and oil rig workers is high, the risks for everyone else in coal generated and gasoline power and is mostly limited to accidental suffication from car exhaust and climate change. Labelling the well known medical dangers of a gas powered car anywhere near the long term effects of strontium is the "crazy" part, sir.

    You ever see a car explode on impact? I haven't. The worst I've seen is when a F1 driver took off before his gas line was detached, resulting in a firey spray, a short burn off on gasoline on the car, and a couple of poor burn victims. The ER people were fine, most of the driver's crew was okay. The crew in the next pit over was fine. The crew in that station on the next race suffered on ill effects. Gasoline mostly doesn't explode. Only when you've refined it with a good mixture of oxygen and gasoline mist does it even come close.

    Contrast this with what happens when you put substantial fissile material in a car. Strontium is dangerous because it's chemically similar to Calcium (hence the bone cancer stuff - it replaces calcium in your bones then decays). If any of this leaks out in a collision, the driver and passengers suffer the usual impact trauma, and instead of the somewhat rare likelyhood of fire, you're now threatened with an invisible specter. Moreover, emergency response crews are subjected to the same stuff, and unless it's cleaned up, the site remains contaminated with the stuff, and seeps into the groundwater as rains come in. And god forbid these things end up in the creek bed like idiots with worn tires try. To quantify these potential social costs as "all but free" is ludicrious, and the implicit suggestion that this would be cheaper than gasoline systems simply takes the cake.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  96. No, it *ASKS* the question by Slithe · · Score: 1

    'Begging the question' is different from 'asking the question.' See Wikipedia for more information.

    --
    ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  97. Cease Operations by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I can assure you that it would certainly be a B&J thing to do if they found yet another way to support the local community and do something good for the environment.

    Ben and Jerry's should shut down if they care that much for the environment.

    Making ice cream in Vermont and shipping it all over the country and keeping it cold and frozen that whole time emits enormous amounts of greenhouse gases.

    It's not as if somebody else would just fill the void - Ben & Jerry's tastes so good people will eat it even when regular ice cream just isn't appealing.

    Oh, you meant, anything else they could do as long as it doesn't affect profitability too much; capitalism is great, let's just not pretend it isn't.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)