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."

25 of 400 comments (clear)

  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. for that price... by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who would want to pay more for crappy power?

  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 Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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?
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?)

  11. 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.

  12. 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?
  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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

  17. 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.