Slashdot Mirror


10,000 Cows Can Power 1,000 Servers

CWmike writes "Reducing energy consumption in data centers, particularly with the prospect of a federal carbon tax, is pushing vendors to explore an ever-growing range of ideas. HP engineers say that biogas may offer a fresh alternative energy approach for IT managers. Researchers at HP Labs presented a paper (download PDF) on using cow manure from dairy farms and cattle feedlots and other 'digested farm waste' to generate electricity to an American Society of Mechanical Engineers conference, held this week. In it, the research team calculates that 'a hypothetical farm of 10,000 dairy cows' could power a 1 MW data center — or on the order of 1,000 servers. One trend that makes the idea of turning organic waste into usable power for data centers is the moves by several firms to build facilities in rural locations, where high-speed networks allow them to take advantage of the cost advantages of such areas. But there are some practical problems, not the least of which is connecting a data center to the cows. If it does happen, the move could call for a new take on plug and play: plug and poo."

221 comments

  1. matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Humans in a matrix is next...

    1. Re:matrix by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well its not matrix, its moo-trix

      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    2. Re:matrix by Some.Net(Guy) · · Score: 2, Funny

      or the poo-trix

    3. Re:matrix by mewt · · Score: 1

      Neo will be so poo-ed off!

    4. Re:matrix by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      But in this case it isn't your "electricity" they would be after. It's your biogas. Using big, lubricated hoses.

      And all this in the name of changing a human being to a gas pump.

    5. Re:matrix by PhetusPolice · · Score: 1

      And the Kung Pow Cow will be imbued with the Prime Program, giving him the ability to freely manipulate the simulated reality of the mootrix !

    6. Re:matrix by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm an intelligent slashdot crowd, and I'm vegan you insensitive clod!

      But in essence, I agree (I mean read my handle). So I want to rephrase your question a little.... Ok given our current cow-poo management policies, it seems like it would make sense to get electricity from it, but if people we to stop eating cows, drinking, milk, dedicating land to cows, the land and water that is used for raising cattle (and growing grain to feel the cattle), could be used much more effectively. I think in order to be fair, we need to compare a cow-poop scheme to a growing mustard, and producing biodiesel from it scheme.

      Of course given that we are engaged in this wasteful misuse/abuse of animals, I don't see anything wrong with using the poop. I would surmise that the energy generate from cow-poop is less than the energy needed to run the tractors to feed the cows. But I'm not anti-poop digestion at all. I think humanure is probably one of the greatest sources of untapped energy.... (insert human poop jokes here) But seriously, why aren't we looking at running data centers (or at least their generators) off humanure? Centralized poop collection must become culturally acceptable!

    7. Re:matrix by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The energy that is wasted producing meat and milk would be far better used to grow crops that humans can eat directly.

      I agree, but it is much easier to increase the efficiency of farming than it is to make humans give up its products. I'm a vegetarian, but I'd need a much more convincing argument than that to give up cheese. By using power generated from byproducts of farming (which, by the way, a lot of farms do already, so this isn't really news), we can increase the efficiency of farming and reduce the environmental impact of meat and dairy consumption now, rather than in a hundred years once we've convinced everyone to become vegan.

      We are not supposed to be carnivores

      I'll have to have a word with my intelligent designer about that, and ask why he gave me these canine teeth that look like they're designed for tearing meat apart...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or of course, we could all stop eating meat and drinking milk, the production of which is incredibly energy intensive, not to mention completely unnatural (you cannot have 6 billion carnivores or omnivores, of the size of human beings, living on a planet the size of Earth).
      The energy that is wasted producing meat and milk would be far better used to grow crops that humans can eat directly. We are not supposed to be carnivores.

      (Cue the knee jerk reactions from the 'intelligent' Slashdot crowd, who have never thought any of this through in their entire lives...)

      No one's stopping you from offing yourself to help relieve some of that population pressure.

      Oh, wait, I forgot. You're one of the GOOD people that's BETTER than everyone else.

      FOAD, you arrogant shit. Literally.

    9. Re:matrix by mpeskett · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (Cue the knee jerk reactions from the 'intelligent' Slashdot crowd, who have never thought any of this through in their entire lives...)

      You must be terribly disappointed with the responses; one agree, one "agree, but...". For my part I'd agree that it's clear that growing plants then eating them is going to be more efficient than growing plants to feed to animals that we then eat, but I think it's more realistic to seek to increase the efficiency of farming animals than just give up on animal products.

      not to mention completely unnatural (you cannot have 6 billion carnivores or omnivores, of the size of human beings, living on a planet the size of Earth) [...] We are not supposed to be carnivores.

      The unnatural part is that there's so many of us, which is enabled primarily by agriculture. Before we started farming, hunting (and the implied eating of meat) was a major source of energy-dense food and we're 'supposed' to be omnivores; we didn't fuel the massive expansion in the size of our brains by eating grass/leaves, bark and roots like the other apes. Fruit has more energy, but it's not the most dependable food if you're foraging rather than farming.

      Now that we do have agriculture, maybe we could survive quite well on plants alone, but that's the result of a few thousand years of improving farming methods and selective breeding. The hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution prior to that have set us up as omnivores, not vegans, and therein lies the flaw in your plans - generally speaking, any idea to improve society that requires people to act against their nature isn't going to work out, no matter how much sense it might make that things would be better if they did. See also communism ("Let's share" is nice enough, but people don't work that way en masse).

      Hell, even while agreeing that it would be more efficient to just farm plants for food, I'm thinking that I don't want to give up meat... it tastes really good and I like eating it. That in itself is something of a demonstration that we're designed to eat the stuff; if we weren't built that way then why would so many of us want to carry on eating it?

    10. Re:matrix by DevConcepts · · Score: 5, Funny

      Eat what you want but I did not make it this far up the food chain just to eat grass....

    11. Re:matrix by siloko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      er hate to break it to you dude but you didn't make it up the food chain. Unless, of course, you were complicit not only in your own birth but that of a few dudes before you!

    12. Re:matrix by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are not supposed to be carnivores.

      There is nobody supposing us to be anything. Biologically, we are not carnivores because we can digest things that are not meat. We are also able to digest meat. That makes us omnivores.

      You make a good case that meat production has a higher per-calorie cost than crops, but when you then go on to say what kind of organism we are "supposed to be", it kind of damages your point.

      Also,

      you cannot have 6 billion carnivores or omnivores, of the size of human beings, living on a planet the size of Earth

      Interesting. You refer to sustainability in the long term, of course, since there are over six billion omnivores the size of humans (and several larger alpha predators such as tigers) living on Earth. Like, right now.

      What simulation models and parameters did you use? What per-calory post is the limit for sustainability? What potential technologies, such as artificial protein cultures, new sources of energy, etc. affect this?

      Or is that "no six billion omnivores on Earth" an article of faith?

    13. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BULL shit.
      It's a shit idea.
      Using shit to power Windows. Shit end to end.

      Any more?

    14. Re:matrix by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      er hate to break it to you dude but you didn't make it up the food chain. Unless, of course, you were complicit not only in your own birth but that of a few dudes before you!

      First of all, great-great grandma was a total babe: Don't judge me.

      Secondly, I have half a mind to go back and erase you from history, mister.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:matrix by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you? Watch this!

    16. Re:matrix by trum4n · · Score: 1

      It's generally a shitty idea.

    17. Re:matrix by mldi · · Score: 1

      We are not supposed to be carnivores.

      I guess that's why we evolved meat-tearing teeth and a need for highly accessible protein.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    18. Re:matrix by crmarvin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ok, FUD busting time...

      Ok given our current cow-poo management policies, it seems like it would make sense to get electricity from it, but if people we to stop eating cows, drinking, milk, dedicating land to cows, the land and water that is used for raising cattle (and growing grain to feel the cattle), could be used much more effectively.

      Our current manure management policies are to improve digestive efficiency of the feed given to livestock, thus decreasing the quantity of manure produced, and then to use the manure as a source of fertilizer to grow more feed. What exactly is wrong with that. Farms were "Green" before being green was cool. Furthermore, you obviously have no idea as to how much surplus food is generated in the country. A large portion of the US grain production is in fact exported. I've always seen that as evidence that we are using the land very effectively. We can feed the entire US population along with a significant portion of the rest of the world. There is a reason that the Midwestern US is referred to as the "World's Bread Basket".

      Of course given that we are engaged in this wasteful misuse/abuse of animals, I don't see anything wrong with using the poop.

      I'll start by asking you a question. How many farms have you visited? How many animals have you personally seen abused (and I tend to discount PETA & HSUS's video's seeing as they are not above abusing the animals themselves, or creatively editing the videos to make things appear worse than they are). I have personally worked on half a dozen dairy farms, and visited at least 15 others. Routinely abused animals produce less milk, and thus are unprofitable. Anyone routinely abusing animals goes out of business in very short order. Hell even the most efficient farms spend months and occasionally years at a time selling milk at a loss because bulk milk prices drop below production costs. In the swine industry (where I work now) they just got off of a run of ~18 months of hog prices being below production prices due to increased input costs for feed (ethanol has more than doubled corn prices) and fuel and reduced demand (swine flu, which is not actually a risk but fear is irrational).

      As for the original article:

      I think this is an excellent idea. It could be used as an incentive for ISPs to offer higher bandwidth connections to rural areas, where many are still stuck with dial-up. It benefits the farmer because he can get higher speed connections for data transfer (many proposed animal tracking programs require a lot of data be sent in for tracking purposes fairly quickly), they also get money from the server farm for the electricity generated. The farm gets a rural location (potentially more secure), potentially cheaper electricity, cheaper land costs and taxes. The local community gets access to higher technology, and potentially higher paying jobs. Workers at the facility get the benefits of lower cost of living. It's potentially a win-win-win-win situation, assuming that the efficiency of electricity generation and facility construction costs work out.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    19. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      intelligent and vegan don't go together. also the animals are not abused on a dairy other wise they wouldn't produce milk.

    20. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Cows can eat grass ... I can't
      I have celiacs disease
      Cows can eat wheat... I can't
      Cows can eat oats ... I can't
      Cows can eat rye ... I can't
      Cows can eat barley ... I can't

      But I can eat cows and drink milk and wear leather, and eat jello
      Cows eat the grass that grows on hills and on land that is otherwise not suited to growing crops for human consumption.
      Cows can graise on grass in the summer and corn stalks in the winter, suplemented with alfalfa hay grown on land that is "resting"
      The alfalfa is a legume that puts nitrogen in the soil which makes next years crop all the better without having to use fertelizer.
      The cow manure also fertelizes the soil.

      Your view that eating plants is better fails to recognize that not everyone can eat said plants and said plants can't be grown everywhere.

      What you eat is your choice but please get over it nobody likes it when you run around trying to down everyone who chooses differetly than you.
      You might as well say that people whos favorite color is brown are stupid

    21. Re:matrix by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Now I'm just waiting for someone to post the numbers of gallons of water a beef-eating sysadmin uses. (Note: such numbers are largely crap, short of the ones for cooling a datacenter.)

      This is an innovation and an improvement. It's not something to be poo-pooed. If we can make better use of the resources we have, everyone wins.

      I should note that I'm not for industrial farming: free-range meats are by far preferable, largely because they make better use of land. But if we're going to farm industrially, making better use of cattle barns seems like a good step in reducing ecological impact - doesn't it?

      As far as the whole "meat is wasteful", something many anti-meat people don't realize is that most cattle are raised on open land which isn't suitable for anything else. We're talking semi-arid land which is barely able to support native grasses - 10 thousand acres per head of cattle.

      These ranchers only then "finish" their cattle for a week or so to fatten them for market. This land is being put to good use: you'd be hard pressed to "grow" anything, unless we're talking about scrub brush. Not every locale in the US is the Shenandoah Valley.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    22. Re:matrix by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Of course given that we are engaged in this wasteful misuse/abuse of animals

      I like to call it "nature."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:matrix by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      I should note that I'm not for industrial farming:

      Why? It is irrelevant.

      free-range meats are by far preferable, largely because they make better use of land.

      Patently false. Free range requires far more land for animal housing, far more feed, and therefore far more land for grain production. Free range is less efficient than Intensive management. That's why farms have moved away from free range in the first place. No one intentionally changes from a more efficient system unless they have a ideology to live up to, or a niche market they want to address. There was no niche market for intensively managed swine or chicken production like their is for the horribly inefficient Organic or Free Range systems. And before you argue with me, be aware that I have a doctorate in animal agriculture, so unlike most /.er's my opinions on this topic are actually informed ones.

      10 thousand acres per head of cattle.

      I'd love to see the source of that number.

      Otherwise I'd have to agree with you that cmdr_tofu is being a bit of a naive troll.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    24. Re:matrix by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      How much biogas could we generate by fermenting illegal immigrants and violent criminals?

    25. Re:matrix by BranMan · · Score: 1

      I for one am glad we grow a whole lot more food than we can possibly eat. One word- insurance. I like the idea that a drought, a disease, natural disaster, you name it, could come along and wipe out half our crops - and we'd be OK (mostly - we wouldn't starve).

    26. Re:matrix by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of national security that is so well settled that we never need to think about it.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    27. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we're 'supposed' to be omnivores...

      ...The hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution prior to that have set us up as omnivores, not vegans...

      Hell, even while agreeing that it would be more efficient to just farm plants for food, I'm thinking that I don't want to give up meat... it tastes really good and I like eating it. That in itself is something of a demonstration that we're designed to eat the stuff; if we weren't built that way then why would so many of us want to carry on eating it?

      If you compare humans and other animals you would see that the evidence shows that humans aren't biologically omnivores. Some choose or are taught to be omnivores which may produce a psychological addiction or habit of consuming animal products. I guess you'd call them cultural omnivores.

            Here's some info from a short search:

      http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html

      http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

            I agree that many people will probably continue to raise livestock, and they might as well make it more efficient by using the manure for power production and the byproducts of that for fertilizer.

    28. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the people who are always complaining about farm subsidies. How else does anyone think we 'secure' the food supply??

    29. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is that "no six billion omnivores on Earth" an article of faith?

      Probably on the fact that many people in poor countries or for religious reasons lead vegetarian lives, therefore not actually being omnivores on the sense they are not eating meat.

    30. Re:matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet again:

      Omnivore, Carnivore and Herbivore are classifications for biological organisms, not lifestyle.

      A human does not become "not an omnivore" because he abstains from meat any more than he becomes a fish if he puts on scuba diving gear, or a woman becomes "not a mammal" if she doesn't breastfeed.

    31. Re:matrix by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      I don't argue that farm subsidies can get out of hand at times. I'm of the opinion that any money wasted on wool subsidies is completely useless pork. I'm also of the opinion that we should try to eliminate farm subsidies whenever possible, as long as they don't endanger our national food supply (corn-ethanol anyone?).

      However, farm subsidies generally do more good than harm in my opinion.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    32. Re:matrix by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      And before you argue with me, be aware that I have a doctorate in animal agriculture, so unlike most /.er's my opinions on this topic are actually informed ones.

      How about 1st and 2nd hand ranching experience?

      10 thousand acres per head of cattle.

      I'd love to see the source of that number.

      The land is too arid to be grazed annually, and the number of head varies. So 150-200 head will graze a third of the land one year, then move on to another the next, and so on.

      My understanding of moving from 'free range' to intensive barn-raised animals is largely attributable to several factors, the largest being specialization (husbandry vs. husbandry + land management + machinery maintenance + so on). It's more efficient in that less indepth knowledge in a mix of fields is necessary.

      Not sure where you're getting "far more land for feed, animal housing", etc. figures from, but let me help you understand: much of the land used for ranching can not produce crops in any commercially viable fashion: we're talking yields under 15 bushels/acre (with fertilizing), assuming enough water could be acquired. This is, in the scheme of things, a use of 0 acres to raise said cattle: there's no way in hell you're going to get the land to produce anything else.

      I know someone who just went 'organic free-range' with their cattle. Why? Well, they were already mostly doing it - not for dogmatic reasons, but because that's how they raised their cattle. The minor changes they made to get into 'organic' compliance actually saved them money, never mind being able to sell the resulting meat for more per pound.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    33. Re:matrix by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry if that part came across as hostile, but I was more interested in Where this is. My cattle experience is mostly in the northeast.

      It's more efficient in that less indepth knowledge in a mix of fields is necessary.

      It's also more efficient from the stand point of land usage. Acres previously devoted to housing livestock can be used to grow more feed. Intensive husbandry also can lead to decreased predator losses, increased feed efficiency (feed costs being upwards of 80% of total production costs), better reproductive efficiency (in part due to specialization as you point out, but also because it's easier for producers to observe signs of heat), etc. I should point out that my perspective is based largely on the swine and poultry industries. However, I did work in the dairy industry for several years before moving to non-ruminants.

      Not sure where you're getting "far more land for feed, animal housing", etc. figures from

      Free range animals spend more energy on locomotion, social behaviors, and thermoregulation. As a result they need to consume more energy dense feed, more feed of the same energy density, or simply grow slower and as a result they consume more feed during their longer growing period. Free range animals require more land in order to meet most definitions of "Free Range".

      never mind being able to sell the resulting meat for more per pound.

      Which is addressing a niche market. Niche markets frequently end up having higher price tags which can translate into higher profits for the producer. I've no argument with doing the smart thing financially. I just have issues with FUD masquerading as fact. Organic is a step backward in efficiency, but farmers get more money for the reduction in efficiency for a net increase in profit. However, that doesn't make Organic a good thing. If you are interested in being "Green" then you should be aware that organic production is more wasteful, and thus less "Green" than conventional production techniques.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  2. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, i just had to.

  3. Couldn't they just hook it up to the IT staff? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    The IT staff is already there and at least for me personally, after some late night debugging with a pretty poor diet I have produced some ... Um.... "energy rich by-products"

    1. Re:Couldn't they just hook it up to the IT staff? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      When I go to my company's toilet, it has two different flushes: 1 for urine and 2 for solids. I guess now we'll need a 3rd option - Gas collection. "Insert hose into hole to begin procedure"

      1 megawatt is really not that impressive. Put another way 1 cow makes 100 watts. So if I wanted to run my central AC (10,000) I'd need to squeeze 100 cows in my basement, plus hire several dump trucks to move tons of feed to my location. Not exactly an energy reduction.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Couldn't they just hook it up to the IT staff? by sexconker · · Score: 0

      This is a stupid idea.
      Any farm worth a damn is already using that manure to fertilize their shit, or to power their shit.

      If you want energy, just skip the cows and burn the stuff they were going to eat.

      Or hell, burn the cow too.

      Your typical value meal from burger king has more energy than a kilogram of TNT.

  4. Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... Bullshit!

  5. missing clubbed baby seal option by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Troll
    please can we just go back to the good old days when green peace was outraged about cutting down trees and spray painted baby seals blue, which were then eaten by polar bears because they could no longer hide in the snow.

    the constant contridictions made by the global warming crowd hurts my head. methane was a bad gas last week?

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by hcpxvi · · Score: 2, Informative

      methane was a bad gas last week?
      Still is if you release it into the atmosphere, especially if it came from somewhere where it has been locked up for centuries.
      As fuel, though, it can be a good thing, especially if you got it by having some grass suck the carbon out of the air before using a cow to convert that carbon into an easily-usable form such as methane.

    2. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how are you going to trap 10,000 cow farts? i know they are talking about digesting manure here, but i remmeber reading a rabid anti macdonalds article somewhere about how cow farts are contributing to global warming.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by alfredos · · Score: 0, Insightful

      After you solve that one, you still have to find a company whose techies want to live surrounded (or uncomfortably close to) quite a large amount of cows farthing, hundreds if not thousands of miles from the nearest Apple Store.

    4. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      i know i miss the days when green peace just hung banners on the back of oil tankers ( on a side note the banners said i brake for fat chicks )

    5. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      First of: the mayor part of the methane from cows come from the burps. Also it wouldn't be that hard to collect methane I think. Methane is lighter than air so just put some kind of collector in the roof that then seperates the methane from the rest of the air (obviously easier said than done; I reckon it's still doable though)

    6. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      how are you going to trap 10,000 cow farts? i know they are talking about digesting manure here, but i remmeber reading a rabid anti macdonalds article somewhere about how cow farts are contributing to global warming.

      Youtube is being stupid right now, so I'm not sure if this will show what I want it to show, but they had an ep on Dirty Jobs where they visited a farm that did just that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QvUBkVfHZM

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:missing clubbed baby seal option by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 0

      Put the cows indoors?

      It's not like the MegaFarms actually use grass to feed the cows. Given how they grow chickens, I'm surprised that cows aren't moved indoors with artificial light.

      Food, Inc is an interesting movie.

  6. Plug and poo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's backwards! Surely it's more poo and plug...

    1. Re:Plug and poo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still plug and play, since I like to play in poop.

  7. I smell... oh, never mind. by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyway, how many cow's worth is it going to take to cart around all these tonnes of shit to the nearest power plant?

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You build the power plant on site.

      My wife worked at farm that had 2k worth of cattle with a methane power plant on site. These days 2k+ is standard for new dairy facilities and that is about the size where methane capture becomes profitable.

    2. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by gsmalleus · · Score: 1

      I live in Lancaster county. There are dairy farms all over the place here. In fact there is one less than a mile from my office. If they could build a small shit-powered generator somewhere between that farm and my office, I would not have to worry about backup power for my servers.

    3. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by waveformwafflehouse · · Score: 1

      Probably about the same it would take to mo(o)ve tonnes of coal.

    4. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, how many cow's worth is it going to take to cart around all these tonnes of shit to the nearest power plant?

      The caring around has to be done regardless, so you might as well use it for something productive. The concept isn't new:

              http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/05/06/manure-power050506.html

      Some places are using sewage as well:

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335635/

      The earth is a closed system, and so "nature" doesn't have waste--everything is re-used. Might as well try to mimic that as closely as possible.

    5. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by xj · · Score: 1

      Umm 1 - 2 ? You don't move the poo very far you build a small power plant where the cows are ... it is called a methane digester. An engine burns the methane and produces electricity and heat which is used to keep the input material at the right temp to keep the microbes that produce the methane happy. Excess heat can be used to heep the ranchers house warm. After being processed the spent "fuel" is used as fertelizer. More power can be produced if you put the cows on treadmills. http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/04/19/cows-on-treadmills-could-produce-six-percent-of-the-worlds-power/ All this reminds me of mad max ... who rules bater town? Master blaster!

    6. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Hey fellow PAer, Dauphin County here.

      I can confirm what the poster says. When I travel down their way, I pass several dairy farms. Go even further into the County, which has a large Amish population, and you have farms everywhere you look.

      There are a few farms near me but nothing on the scale that Lancaster County has.

      Another source might be chicken farms. There is one about a mile from where I live and sometimes, when the wind is just right, its odor wafts my way.

      I realize the amount of crap a chicken produces compared to what a cow produces is orders of magnitude different, but if there was a way to use the droppings on-site, that would solve two issues: power production and waste disposal.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    7. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by gawaino · · Score: 0

      Come to Lancaster County and smell our "dairy air"!

    8. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by anOminousCow · · Score: 1

      Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft. That ought to keep one server going for an hour.

      --
      Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
    9. Re:I smell... oh, never mind. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would think the digester would be kept at the dairy. The resulting methane can then be compressed and shipped as LNG.

  8. Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how hard is to create a closed artificial environment with cows, plants that feed them. All powered with sun for the plants and manure for everything else; including the robots that manage everything.

    Then I wonder if cows and their food can live in space.

    1. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then I wonder if cows and their food can live in space.

      They already do. What you mean is "how much smaller can you make a spaceship in which cows & their food are living".

    2. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Heh. I should've said "in a low gravity environment".

      But now I think that we could build one of those rotating rings, with clear walls so the sun reaches the grass.

      I can see it now. The guy jogging around, dodging the cows as he goes around the circle.

      New exercise: Imagining this toroidal clear ship, with grass oriented towards the center, which would be the optimal orientation to the sun?

      - Perpendicular: to receive the same amount of sun everywhere. Put mirrors to get a better light angle and simulate night by making the walls opaque.
      - Diagonal: In a sharp angle to avoid the sunny part being shadowed by the other side of the torus. However, in that case, how big would the torus have to be to have reasonable days and nights and eathlike gravity?

    3. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Informative

      how big would the torus have to be to have reasonable days and nights and eathlike gravity?

      a radius of 42000km

    4. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      a radius of 42000km

      Wouldn't that generate an artificial gravity equal to that of the earth at 42000km of altitude?

    5. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent confused radius and perimeter. No biggie. Unless you're NASA.

    6. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that generate an artificial gravity equal to that of the earth at 42000km of altitude?

      Oops, you do have a point. But it would equal gravity at 36000km of altitude (the 42000km include the earth radius of 6000km).

      So, in order to get gravity like at ground level, the station would need to much larger, more like 1500000km. Or rotate much faster than once per day.

    7. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Then I wonder if cows and their food can live in space.

      They already do. What you mean is "how much smaller can you make a spaceship in which cows & their food are living".

      Would you stop trashing his space-cowboy dream? You're harshing his buzz that bringing him down to earth lke that.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how fast you spin it.

    9. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Depends on how fast you spin it.

      You spin it at one revolution per day, or you'd get no Earth days.

      The question is how big it would have to be to generate Earth surface gravity while rotating at 1RPD.

    10. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by fizzup · · Score: 1

      Approximate radius of a ring spinning once per day that has centripetal acceleration about equal to earth's surface gravity.


      g = 4 * pi ^ 2 * r * f
      r = g / ( 4 * pi ^ 2 * f )
      r = 9.81 / ( 4 * pi ^ 2 * (1/86400) )

      r ~= 21,500 meters = 21.5 km ~= 13.5 miles

      If the ring was 500m wide, that would give you an area of about 1,000 hectares, or 2,500 acres. About one tenth the area of Manhattan. I am not a farmer, but I think the rule of thumb is that you can raise a cow per hectare without using fertilizer.

    11. Re:Today, rural locations. Tomorrow by Laser+Dan · · Score: 1

      a radius of 42000km

      Wouldn't that generate an artificial gravity equal to that of the earth at 42000km of altitude?

      no.

      Earth's gravity is caused by its mass, the further away from the centre of mass the less you are affected.

      Rotational "gravity" increases with distance (for the same rotation rate) as you are accelerated at a higher rate.

  9. outsourcing opportunity!!! by iamwhtiam · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Its funny, as in India its being used as a fuel since decades in rural areas. Now companies can outsource this too ;)

  10. Doesn't poo add nutients back to the earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are we not just removing more from the earth. I though the poo adds nutrients back into the earth. It allows plants to grow, in the form of compost.

    1. Re:Doesn't poo add nutients back to the earth? by chudnall · · Score: 5, Informative

      The raw material is still there after the methane is extracted. It's still good fertilizer.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    2. Re:Doesn't poo add nutients back to the earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we not just removing more from the earth. I though the poo adds nutrients back into the earth. It allows plants to grow, in the form of compost.

      This comment should be moderated as Insightful.
      It takes hundreds of years to form a few inches of fertile soil. Taking away manure and stover breaks the soil cycle.

    3. Re:Doesn't poo add nutients back to the earth? by JustABlitheringIdiot · · Score: 1

      The Nitrogen is more detrimental to the environment than helpful. It is one of the main contributors to the dead zones in the Gulf. The other being oil but that's another topic...

  11. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

    If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

  12. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sound's like the music-industry...

  13. Powered by Shit by black_penguin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Giving "Powered by shit" a new dimension and meaning :)

    1. Re:Powered by Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel's new slogan: "Shit Inside"

    2. Re:Powered by Shit by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not shit.....ENERGY!

  14. Oh, now I get it! by lokpest · · Score: 1

    So this is what "This APT has Super Cow Powers" was about all along!

  15. Care not to upset Ag Industry by stimpleton · · Score: 0

    To sell this they would have to not focus on the huge waste cows and the cattle industry put into the environment. I would recommend they just sell it on some economic benefits to farmers. If it is sold as a method that utilizes some of the massive waste dairy imparts on the environment, it'll get killed by farmer lobby groups faster than you can say Methane Tax.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  16. plug and poo, hilarious.. by ajeeyunz · · Score: 1

    looks like a good start for our greenie environment! Otherwise, if we can make that "smell-less", that will be a great invention.

  17. Wait... by drsquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be more economical to simply directly use the energy that otherwise would have been used to raise the cattle in the first place, i.e. growing, harvesting and transporting the feed?

    1. Re:Wait... by andrea.sartori · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too logical. Same thing as electric cars: you get the illusion of not depending on petroleum by increasing the distance between you and the gas pump.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    2. Re:Wait... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It would be more efficient, although more economical is less certain. You will then need to find some way of reducing the market for cattle products, such as milk, leather, and meat, or another farm will simply expand and you'll be wasting the same amount of usable energy.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Wait... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Coal isn't petroleum.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Wait... by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1
      S**t isn't petroleum either, I was just trying to draw a parallel to this:

      Wouldn't it be more economical to simply directly use the energy that otherwise would have been used to raise the cattle in the first place, i.e. growing, harvesting and transporting the feed?

      BTW cows are not electric, so we woudn't be burning coal to raise them and gather their manure and move it somewhere else (with probably non-electric vehicles) and use it to produce electricity. And if we did, why not just burn the coal for electricity and leave the cows alone? Poor cows. Do you want to feed them with coal you insensitive clod?

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    5. Re:Wait... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I just want you to say fossil fuels when that is what you mean.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Wait... by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels.

      Now have you ever heard about "analogy"? Let me google that for you.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    7. Re:Wait... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Sure, I've heard analogies. When one side of them is patently untrue they work even less well than usual.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cows are raised for producing milk products and meat, manure is a byproduct

    9. Re:Wait... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Too logical. Same thing as electric cars: you get the illusion of not depending on petroleum by increasing the distance between you and the gas pump.

      True, electric cars are not zero-emission vehicles but emission-concentrating vehicles. But concentrating emissions has the advantage that it's easier to increase efficiency and decrease emissions on a couple coal power plants than on a thousand cars.

    10. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What do you think they do with the cows once they've collected their manure? Throw them in a ditch? No, we eat them.

      Raising cattle is something we do anyway, something we do to live. Manure is a waste product of an already established system, they're just trying to find more ways to make use of a pre-existing unwanted by-product. You /could/ use the energy, used to raise livestock, directly to power your servers... or you could have food to keep you alive.

      So no, it's not more economical if we all starve.

    11. Re:Wait... by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Probably, but that would be assuming that you were raising cattle to produce energy, not raising them to produce milk/meat and using the by products. The two are totally different metrics.

      A bigger question that the article does not even remotely touch is what are the extra energy costs to do this. Sure 10000 cows may produce 1 megawatt of energy but what if it takes and extra 1.5 megawatts to gather and process it? You also have to factor other things that are not included in the simple metric of how much net energy is produced - time needed, labor needed, cost of upkeep, etc. So lets say you get .5 megawatts net power but have to have a 2000 person team and a plant the size of North Dakota to process it - not so good then. Then you have other environmental impacts not really talked about all.

      Of course, what I wrote above in terms of sizes is going t be WAY off they were chosen to be illustrative. Many small dairy farms already do this type of thing because in that mode of operation it has proven to be economical. Small on site plants that offset their electricity costs and offset some of the environmental issues with too much waste and its disposal. While that may not be as visible as a single large plant it is still taking that load from the power grid. Further methane is a fairly nasty gas in the atmosphere, its rather unhealthy to breathe, few or no life forms processes it, and it is WAY worse than any carbon emissions - even most that are skeptical of CO2's impact aren't about large amounts of methane. This converts it to CO2 which in this amounts aren't harmful to breath, last I checked plants really like the stuff, and you are getting a VERY significant reduction in greenhouse emissions.

      Personally I rather suspect (but have no evidence whatsoever) that it would be difficult to scale up. For it to scale to a large size would require too much driving and work for a farmer (who is in the business of farming, not driving cow patties around) to bother with unless the pay was high. Further unless there was some govt solution (similar to the way most in the US have recycling done through the garbage collection agencies) it would also not be worth the effort monetary wise for a private company (and even if a govt did it, still not but more often than not govt do not really care if something is bleeding money). Small local plants make some amount of sense, small farm sized plants a great deal of sense - but that is why they are available and used today.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
  18. Cow power here I come! by Scozza · · Score: 1

    That's great news! I have 5 cows so I'll be hooking them up to my server ASAP!

    1. Re:Cow power here I come! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure to set your network cable muplex setting to half.

  19. What, 27 comments... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    ... and not one Dell joke?

    1. Re:What, 27 comments... by lazn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't you mean Gateway and their formerly famous cow boxes?

    2. Re:What, 27 comments... by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought he meant HP, which can now mean Heifer Power!

    3. Re:What, 27 comments... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  20. Mahana you ugly by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess she's a ten cow server

  21. shmoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cant wait for shmoo con

  22. How many libraries of Congress... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...is this?

    Seriously. Every time I see such stupid headlines, I cringe (and that's quite often these days, that's why I'm becoming ever grumpier).

    10000 cows => 1MW. OK. That's all we need to know.

    Besides, they're allotting 1KW per server. Power hungry, those HP servers, ain't they?

  23. Energy to move the waste to the data center by techmuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How much energy is required to collect the waste and move it to the burning facility? Also, how much methane and CO2 is emitted when the energy is extracted from the waste? The calculation needs to take the entire system into account, not just the cost of the electricity.

    1. Re:Energy to move the waste to the data center by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      1. It is the methane that is extracted! Not spent.

      2. The technology is ridiculously simple. I was teaching Indian villagers to build bio gas plant ages ago when I was just a sophomore in college. Essentially dig a 25' deep 10' dia well. Cover it with plastic/metal sheets. There is a rudimentary stirrer turned once a day by the cows themselves. That is all that is needed to handle about 10 dairy cows.

      3. The manure has methane, organic fertilizer and smelly substances mixed up together. All you need to do is to separate them. In the well the bacteria breaks down manure, release methane which is collected at the top vent, and the fertilizer settles at the bottom and is drawn out. The smell is contained and vented near the rim of the dome like cover.

      4. In India we dont have much use for the heat generated in this process. In USA you could actually use the heat of decomposition to heat the barns for the cows in the winter.

      5. USA has 100 million cows and 300 million pigs. If their waste is properly handled, you get renewable energy, organic fertilizer, odor pollution abatement, green house gas containment and enough waste heat to heat barns and farm houses.

      6. We could be reducing our oil imports by 30% if we use the methane captured from these cow-gas plants to run cars.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Energy to move the waste to the data center by sjames · · Score: 1

      The CO2 is irrelevant since it can never be more than the plants that the cows eat absorbed in the first place. The methane is the desired fuel and would likely be generated on-site with the cows and then just the gas gets transported (the remnants of the digestion process are valuable fertilizer). Keep in mind that natural gas power plants are not built next to the well, so to be fair you have to consider transport costs for fossil fuel as well.

  24. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by shri · · Score: 1

    Holy cow... that was bullshit???

  25. Old news by TRRosen · · Score: 4, Funny

    As I remember there is already a site that can power a sever with Tucows. What was its name again?

    1. Re:Old news by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Plus, there's already a project for cracking encryption and other mathematical challenges using bovine power.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  26. A whole new meaning to server farm. by TRRosen · · Score: 2, Funny

    and if we use to render the next Avatar movie the cycle is complete.

  27. Beyond the Thunderdome by kondziu · · Score: 1

    Now all anyone needs is a former engineer to run it, and a big dumb guy to be his muscle and we're all set for the future.

  28. You'll need Debian though, because... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    ... because only apt has super cow powers.

  29. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Jurily · · Score: 1

    The most abundant energy source in history! You, sir, deserve a Nobel Prize.

  30. Ok Providing CO2 Less Harmful Than CH4 by Fleetie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's what this seems to rely on: The conversion of methane (CH4) to CO2 by combustion. Is CH4 a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? I seem to remember it is, but I'm not sure.

    --
    "Absorbing your worst..."
    1. Re:Ok Providing CO2 Less Harmful Than CH4 by cheesewire · · Score: 1

      Is CH4 a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2? I seem to remember it is, but I'm not sure.

      As far as I recall methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, but not so long-lived in the atmosphere, while carbon dioxide's effects are lesser, but much longer lived. Which wikipedia agrees with.

      So I guess in reality the answer's pretty complicated, requiring that we look at the cumulative costs going into the future.

    2. Re:Ok Providing CO2 Less Harmful Than CH4 by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Methane has 21x global warming power compared to CO2

      What I want to know is, how much soil depletion would occur now that the manure isn't going back into the fields as quickly? I've also wondered how much depletion would occur if we converted switchgrass and other leftover farm products into ethanol.

    3. Re:Ok Providing CO2 Less Harmful Than CH4 by russotto · · Score: 1

      As far as I recall methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, but not so long-lived in the atmosphere, while carbon dioxide's effects are lesser, but much longer lived. Which wikipedia agrees with. So I guess in reality the answer's pretty complicated, requiring that we look at the cumulative costs going into the future.

      Nope, it's simple. Methane breaks down into CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere; by burning it you're merely hastening that process, so there's no downside as far as reducing greenhouse gases is concerned.

    4. Re:Ok Providing CO2 Less Harmful Than CH4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about 25 times more powerful than CO2 over a 100 year period (with studies suggesting even this number may be an underestimation).

  31. There is no by CoolGopher · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would just like to say
    There is no cow level

  32. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Bullshit, eh? I'd hate to drink some of the "milk" from this dairy farm.

  33. Already being done... by vikingpower · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...here in Germany and Austria, where a lot of larger farms invested into a biogas plant; they sell the electric power they generate to the national grid, at slightly preferential rates. One large farm, my last client, runs a 500 kW plant, without anyone making a fuss or being amazed about it.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Already being done... by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how do you say "I, for one, welcome our bovine overlords" in German? ;-)

      I've long wondered about the short-sightedness of modern farming practices where farmers need to buy both seeds and fertilizer each year to produce a crop, when once upon a time in the not-to-distant past, both were free, and in the present, the abundance of animal waste has become an environmental problem.

      I mention that because I've read stories of other countries doing what you're doing in German and Austria. In the Netherlands, for example, I've read of manufacturers that operate in such a way that the waste and by-products of both farms and factory are integrated in a near-closed loop not only with respect to materials, but also energy production.

      The conclusions from these case studies is that location is key. While that may be true, I'm left wondering why, if location is so important, shipping by rail isn't just as cost effective? Certainly it's good to have things close, but the city of Chicago was built around the processing of cattle that were shipped from other parts of the country directly to "factory" spurs, and the finished "product" distributed from. If shipping by rail is cheap enough for cows (and similarly cheap for coal, oil, corn, water, among any number of other products), why wouldn't it be cheap enough for cow (or any other kind of animal) waste?

    2. Re:Already being done... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Yay! let me comment, I am actually working on this... kind of.

      In my project we are looking at one region in eastern Germany which has invested a *lot* of money in this BioEnergy technology.

      There are a lot of advantages for farmers, although there is one slight problem: It still depends a lot on the subsidies.

      Bio-energy producers get paid a constant electricity price, they also get some extra subsidies if they use manure (instead of pure corn and other fodder). It is well known that if there were no subsidies, the technology would not be profitable.

      I have visited about 3 or 4 bio-energy plants. They are indeed quite interesting (although also quite smelly!)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Already being done... by mrsurb · · Score: 1

      So how do you say "I, for one, welcome our bovine overlords" in German? ;-)

      Heil Heifer!

    4. Re:Already being done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking... I believe that there are over 4000 of such installations in Germany. The surrounding countries are using it as well, although not on the scale of the Germans.

      You can also mix in a lot of agricultural waste to increase gas production.

      It's simply called "anaerobic digestion", or "biogas"...

    5. Re:Already being done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ich, für meinen Teil, heisse unsere Kuh-Herren wilkommen!"
      oder: "Ich jedenfalls heisse unsere Kuh-Herrscher wilkommen!"
      Or something like that.

    6. Re:Already being done... by sheph · · Score: 1

      This is being done in Idaho as well. You're not going to replace a 500MW coal plant with it. It's not a huge amount of energy, but every bit helps, and it's more consistant than wind. Nevertheless I'm sure some environmentalist will find a problem with this too. Hydro kills the fish, wind kills the birds and obstruts the view, etc. I guess they think it's better to keep pumping soot into the enviroment or generating radioactive waste.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    7. Re:Already being done... by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Remember the old phrase "Garbage in, Garbage out"?

    8. Re:Already being done... by osvenskan · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've long wondered about the short-sightedness of modern farming practices where farmers need to buy both seeds and fertilizer each year to produce a crop, when once upon a time in the not-to-distant past, both were free, and in the present, the abundance of animal waste has become an environmental problem.

      Wendell Berry said it very nicely:

      Once plants and animals were raised together on the same farm -- which therefore neither produced unmanageable surpluses of manure, to be wasted and to pollute the water supply, nor depended on such quantities of commercial fertilizer. The genius of America farm experts is very well demonstrated here: they can take a solution and divide it neatly into two problems.

      The Unsettling of America : Culture & Agriculture (1996), p. 62

    9. Re:Already being done... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      My client considered buying even more manure, from other farmers, but decided against it because of - the prohibitive cost & environmental load of 1 ton-kilometer of manure transport.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    10. Re:Already being done... by anOminousCow · · Score: 1

      Yes, we could go back to that style of farming. Just beware that about 2 billion people would then starve to death in the next year or two.

      --
      Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
    11. Re:Already being done... by value_added · · Score: 1

      Wendell Berry said it very nicely:

      Delightful reading. Thanks for that. I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know who he was.

  34. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

    Boole shit.

    Haven't got a cow, man.

    How many flops is that?

    Is that a real server farmer in the Dell?

  35. Large Rural Data Centers by jamesl · · Score: 1

    One trend that makes the idea of turning organic waste into usable power for data centers is the moves by several firms to build facilities in rural locations, where high-speed networks allow them to take advantage of the cost advantages of such areas.

    An example of this trend is the world's largest, the Lakeside Technology Center (sounds rural enough) located ... in downtown Chicago.
    http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/special-report-the-worlds-largest-data-centers/worlds-largest-data-center-350-e-cermak/

  36. Ahh... by robinvanleeuwen · · Score: 1

    See that that USB meat grinder wasn't a waste of money....

    --
    If you don't like my sig then don't read it.
  37. Steak/Server tradeoff? by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    So if I want a frickin' steak I have to sacrifice a server? Easy decision - yummmm!

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  38. Should use horses on treadmills by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If 10,000 cows can produce 1 megawatt of power, which is 1,314 horsepower, surely it would be more efficient to use the output of 1,314 horses running on treadmills instead? That's about 1 horse to 7.5 cows, meaning big savings on space which is great for a data-centre. Even greater efficiencies could be had if the waste from the horses was used in the manner intended for the cow waste.

    Don't even think about using hamsters in wheels though, because they'll only generate a useful 1/2072 horsepower each, which means you need about 2.7 million hamsters to generate 1 MW. I think the overhead of cage and wheel cleaning would become prohibitive at that point.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    1. Re:Should use horses on treadmills by maxume · · Score: 3, Funny

      It would probably be more effective to just burn the horses.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Should use horses on treadmills by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      thank you for making me lol :-)

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Should use horses on treadmills by dwillden · · Score: 1

      But with Hamster-power(tm) your generation capacity would double every few months. And the poo generating capacity of hamsters is quite impressive, producing an additional power source.

      I think you're on to something here. We'll have to look into it.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    4. Re:Should use horses on treadmills by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the sheer entertainment value of a horse in a giant hamster wheel.

  39. oh crap... by Schoenlepel · · Score: 1

    just says it all.

  40. Nope, cows is still better by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    If you decided to use horses, you would have to make a setup to move horses on treadmill. Horses which sit all day, will eat extra food.
    Now with cows, all this poo is anyways going to be there. Cows give milk, thats the main product. Its just that the waste also is being put to use.

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Nope, cows is still better by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do you realize how much milk 2.7 million hamsters could produce?

    2. Re:Nope, cows is still better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, about a cup or 2

    3. Re:Nope, cows is still better by anOminousCow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cows is always better than dem horses. But I'm ok with having them walk on the treadmills. Oh, here's a pie i just made especially for you.

      --
      Spokesbossy for ominous cow herds everywhere.
  41. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

    ide hate to be the guy milking them sounds like a job for mike rowe

  42. Away with you! by justinlee37 · · Score: 3, Funny

    We won't listen to any logic and reason here! No, sir! Who do you think we are!? Where do you think this is!? What you speak of is madness, sir.

  43. physcial server-farms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consolidating a physical server-farm to tens or hundreds of virtual linux servers running on an IBM mainframe under z/VM can significantly reduce power needs.

    Using cows to create power is certainly clever but wouldn't it be more efficient to reduce the power requirements to begin with? Using the cows seems to me to be putting your efforts at the wrong end of the pipe, so to speak.

    I suggest this from hands on experience in a z/Linux environment.

    Of course this may not be the solution for everyone but I note that most of the outside "knowledge" about this tends to be a lot of self-serving marketing mis-direction. You know, "treat them like mushrooms..."

    Physical server-farms? How quaint...

  44. I prefer... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Cowbuntu.

  45. how long by tris203 · · Score: 0

    until animal supporters say it should be the cows choice if its manure is used to generate power..

    --
    http://snappeh.com/blog/ - My Blog, not that any of you care...
  46. Plug and serve by tronkel · · Score: 1

    One bull can serve 10,000 cows ;-O

    1. Re:Plug and serve by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      That's... a lotta fuckin'.

      --
      Balderdash!
  47. We could expand this concept by grizdog · · Score: 1

    Cows have magnets in their first stomach - farmers and ranchers throw them in there so that any metal the inadvertently swallow won't go any further and will get barfed up with the magnet.

    Just put big coils of wire out in the fields or the dairy barns and have the cows constantly walking through them (in the same direction - that's the tricky part) and generate electricity.

    1. Re:We could expand this concept by Amarantine · · Score: 3, Funny

      I assume we can also use other magnets to rotate the magnets in the cow's stomachs, and use them for data storage! Ok, right now 1 bit per cow might seem a bit low, but we're working on that. We might consider describing the capacity as 1Mb (one moo-bit), for marketing reasons.

    2. Re:We could expand this concept by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      "That's weird. The RAID array's lost a volume *again*, just like last week. Dave, you any idea what's going on? Dave? Hey, where did that steak come from? DAAAAVEEEEE!"

  48. Re:10 cows per server... by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    Except you can still use the cows for meat/dairy while using their shit to produce electricity.

    and the shit can still be spread onto a field after it has been depleted of methane. so really you are not dedicating 390 square miles to running a bunch of servers

  49. Fresh alternative, eh? by Eraesr · · Score: 1

    "HP engineers say that biogas may offer a fresh alternative energy approach for IT managers. Researchers at HP Labs presented a paper (download PDF) on using cow manure from dairy farms and cattle feedlots and other 'digested farm waste' to generate electricity..."

    Not really so fresh after all then...

  50. "Cow Power" is in production NOW in Vermont by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The state of Vermont has had its Cow Power program available in production for a few years now. The primary power company in the state, Central Vermont Public Service, has been driving the expansion of this alternative energy. To my understanding the primary problem is that there is far more demand from CVPS subscribers for this form of energy then there currently are producers. The bottom line however is that this type of energy is in a broad-use production, feeding the power grid in Vermont...

  51. A new SI unit is born by somecoffeemug · · Score: 1

    Maybe this could become the new unit by which we measure the power consumption of computers. Like my laptop requires 10 cowpower - why not, they use horsepower for cars :)

  52. Research team? by Poodleboy · · Score: 1

    "An idea sketched out by a [HP] research team?" At least the reporter corrected HP's claim to innovation. In fact, here in VT, CVPS has been doing this for years...

  53. poo-gas! by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    Guitierrez: So... graphite bars charged with negative ions. That is your weakness, eh? Freakazoid: That, or poo gas. Guitierrez: You know, it's a funny thing. Nobody likes poo gas, my friend. Blagh!

    --
    Balderdash!
  54. Unfortunately above poster doesn't know shit by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How much energy is required to collect the waste and move it to the burning facility?

    To use a common Australian term - shitloads of energy. However since it's very easy stuff to move you get several shitloads of energy back per load of shit especially if you can get gravity to do a lot of the work for you.
    As for methane - that's your fuel so almost nothing is released. As for carbon dioxide - not much since methane doesn't have much carbon and you get far more energy per unit of carbon than longer chains of hydrocarbon.
    In fact this is all so easy that many sewerage treatment plants have been burning methane for power for decades, not to mention a lot of the stuff was used in WWII. As a primary source of power huge hydro and coal plants are of course a lot cheaper but methane has been cheap enough to use in specific circumstances for a very long time.
    There's not much better for "green" credentials than methane - even the coal industry is busy chasing environmental funding with coal bed methane since less CO2 is released per Watt that way than just about everything (only about twice the CO2 per Watt of a theoretically perfect nuke plant that has never been built yet - nukes run off processed rocks too guys which means NOTHING has zero emissions).

    1. Re:Unfortunately above poster doesn't know shit by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Add the fact that methane, as a green house gas, is 20x more powerful then CO2, you can see that burning methane and converting it into CO2 is a net gain in terms of green house gases.

    2. Re:Unfortunately above poster doesn't know shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As methane is a strong greeen house gas than carbon dioxide, and 1 mol of methane produces 1 mol of carbon dioxide, burning the methane is good for the environment.

    3. Re:Unfortunately above poster doesn't know shit by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      many sewerage treatment plants have been burning methane for power for decades

      I visited the local plant years ago, and they had special designs in their 13-stories-deep shit silos so that the top would fly off in case of an explosion, but no way to capture and use the methane. Their rationale was a cost-effort-gains ratio. The local "dump" runs off its methane though (and you get a 10 minute speech about how they're different from a dump if you call it a dump in front of them).

      I hope this "using the methane we have" trend caches on.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  55. The biggest problem is NOT harnessing the cows by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem is the soil depletion from removing the cow's fertilizer production from the field.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:The biggest problem is NOT harnessing the cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but since methane is CH4, the only nutrient that gets depleted is carbon, which is a rather common substance.

      Biomethane production, if done right, does not deplete nitrogen or phosphor or minerals. Those are leftovers from the production process that can be returned to the soil.

      Biomethane is probably just a stepping stone to hydrogen or liquid synthetic fuels anyway.

  56. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power company here has been using cow power for years http://cvps.com/cowpower/

  57. Checking date.... by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    ....no, it isn't the first day in April.

  58. Animal Power is not reliable by tronicum · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Well, you probably dont want to have your servers depending on cows (or any other animals). There are some circumstances that they will fail:
    • animal disease (e.g. mad cow disease). government might order to kill them to spread its growth.
    • crop failure, crop prices. cows depend on food, if a crop failure/desease happens, crop prices will go up, so will be their food, as probably their poo as well.

    Beside that, bio-energy does not count the CO needed for stuffing the animal with food, so you might to count all the chemicals, fuel and machinery a farmer will use to grow that animal into account.
    Given those unreliableness, you would have to have a long time backup energy for that (like it would take time to get new, uninfected animals in case of an disease).

    That given in account I would'nt go for poo-energy and stay with an alternative mix of green energy.

    1. Re:Animal Power is not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't take into account that the cows are already there, for other reasons.
      Farmers are not raising the cows for power generation. They are doing it for either dairy or meat.
      The cow patties are already there, we might as well use them for something...

    2. Re:Animal Power is not reliable by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      There's another problem noone has mentioned. In a typical data cebter, the operators frequently leave piles of candy bar wrappers and empty soda cans laying around. What happens if the cows get loose and wander around the data center? First you'll have to card everybody, and someone is going to forget his card that day. Then convincing the cows to leave, before their programs have finished running, will be a challenge. If you have those electric prods, you need to make sure the senior VP doesn't get one, because he'll probably lose it to the first cow he meets, and the fun will really begin.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:Animal Power is not reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you probably dont want to have your servers depending on cows (or any other animals). There are some circumstances that they will fail:

      You still realize the servers run on electricity and that can come from different sources, if the primary source is not available...

      Beside that, bio-energy does not count the CO needed for stuffing the animal with food, so you might to count all the chemicals, fuel and machinery a farmer will use to grow that animal into account.

      And you do realize that farms already exist and the manure is already produced and the methane is being release to the atmosphere...

  59. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey green fruitcakes.... the cost of that is prohibitive, or it would already be done. And note, when I say "cost", I mean cost to the environment as well. Specialized equipment, transportation, etc. 1000 servers is a drop in the bucket and 10,000 cows is a LOT of cows. Calculate the numbers of dairy farms, the number of cows required to support them, then all of the additional impact on th environment of what you are trying to accomplish.

    Same goes for "old" solar power. Large investment in natural resources and effort for little bitty return. The way to make it better is to improve the EFFICIENCY of solar and wind, such that it actually makes sense. If your dire predictions of fossil fuel shortages come true, that cost-benefit ratio will invert naturally. relax.

    If you are full of cow-poo, then it will not.
      Personally, I think the advances will arrive before the price inverts, but I'm an optimist. Unfortunately, you are an ignorant and irrational "chicken little" who is actually counterproductive to reasonable discussion.

  60. Welcome Cow Overlords by azadrozny · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would like to welcome our new cow overlords.

  61. Human waste by sorak · · Score: 1

    Could something like this be done with human waste? If you have an office complex with several bathrooms, it seems like it would be more efficient to either have the plumbing go straight to the processing area (or to have a fan sucking out all the gas), than to hire people to shovel it into a truck and drive it to the center. (Of course there may not be enough employees to power all the servers, but it still seems more efficient than the alternative)

  62. Not enough vegetarian server admins by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be more economical to simply directly use the energy that otherwise would have been used to raise the cattle in the first place, i.e. growing, harvesting and transporting the feed?

    Yes, but we'd have to give up sausage pizza, cheeseburgers, steak burritos, and the other sustenance that is required for proper server maintenance.

    1. Re:Not enough vegetarian server admins by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      Isn't sausage usually a pork product?

  63. Shitty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid there'll be a lot of shitty outages.

  64. Where does the feed come from? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    oil/gas -> fertilizer -> grass/grain -> cow

    This is really just a crap way of running a Diesel generator.
     

    --
    Deleted
  65. Being obvious here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... this gives a new meaning to server farm!

  66. Soy milk is not milk by tepples · · Score: 1

    Poor cows. Do you want to feed them with coal you insensitive clod?

    No, silly, we'd feed them with grass and/or grain grown with fertilizer made with other fossil fuels. This appears to be just a way to use the energy in the BS (bovine stool) from existing dairies. If we took cows out of the loop entirely, people would have no milk to drink because apparently, soy milk is not milk.

    1. Re:Soy milk is not milk by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I'm really sorry, I misunderstood completely. I thought cows would be hired as personnel in energy plants which would have created an unemployment problem maybe, as I was told that coal is not a replacement for oil and I think that oil workers are not easily requalified as milk producers. Thanks for making it clear for me.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
  67. Research fundamentally flawed by New+Breeze · · Score: 1

    Farmers spread the manure from their animals back on the fields as a way to maintain field fertility. They're not likely to want it shipped off and used to power a server farm, as that will just increase their chemical fertilizer costs.

  68. Multi-purpose farms by ishmalius · · Score: 1

    Put those cows on land that also has windmills or solar, and you start to benefit from bigger efficiencies.
    But what they are talking about is using manure that is already being created now that might be wasted or used inefficiently otherwise. You're going to have the dairies and feed lots anyway, why not put it all to use?

  69. On that basis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... my brother Mike should be able to support a small data centre.

    Finally: a steady job!

  70. Tearing fruit apart by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'll have to have a word with my intelligent designer about that, and ask why he gave me these canine teeth that look like they're designed for tearing meat apart

    My intelligent designer says canine teeth were originally invented for tearing fruit apart.

    1. Re:Tearing fruit apart by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      My intelligent designer says canine teeth were originally invented for tearing fruit apart.

      What does he have to say about a digestive system capable of processing meat and nutritional requirements best served by meat ?

      While you're at it, ask him how many tequilas he'd had before coming up with the reproductive system.

  71. What is the Meatrix? by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's The Meatrix.

  72. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    Ha! Try outsourcing that to India!

  73. Gentoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Super cow powers!

  74. phosphorus by zmooc · · Score: 1

    Cow manure is obviously produced from plants that have been grown using fertilizer to provide - amongst others - phosphorus. Since we're rapidly running out of phosphate, I think it's an absolutely brilliant plan to burn it.

    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/33164

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  75. Master Blaster run Bartertown!!! by jzarling · · Score: 1

    I have read about some Manure digester projects in MN, that allowed farmers to make a bit more selling electricity thank milk.
    http://www.mnproject.org/e-biogaslinks.html - not the article but had some interesting reading.

    --
    It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
  76. *sigh* by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I, for one, hate our new cow fart powered future. :(

    I miss Hugo Gernsback.

  77. Renewable power on calm nights by tepples · · Score: 1

    I was told that coal is not a replacement for oil

    If nonrenewable energy sources such as coal and oil are deprecated, then what renewable energy source do you recommend to provide power on calm nights?

    1. Re:Renewable power on calm nights by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      Moonshine.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
  78. Cow-shit is already very useful by Andtalath · · Score: 1

    It may be called manure, but cow-shit is in quite high demand as it is.
    This is kinda like saying we could burn the cows themselves instead of eating them (not that I do, vegan and all).

    So, cow-shit=manure=fertilizer.

    Burning it up is idiotic in comparison.

  79. two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    borg cows

  80. Design failure? by cheros · · Score: 1

    We're obviously not using the cows correctly. There are 4 connectors per cow.

    Oh, wait, that's milk. What are we going to do with that?

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  81. Bit Bucket? by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    echo 'bit bucket" |sed s/bi/shi/

  82. Doesn't sound efficient by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be easier to just burn grain instead? You can use a shovel to toss grain into a boiler. A pitchfork isn't sturdy enough to toss cows in, unless you chop them into smaller bits first. And with the burnt offerings, you could end up accidently summoning assorted Gods by accident, especially when someone says "god damn it" at just the wrong time. Something like this is probably what gave Lovecraft the ideas for his books. Cows should be left where they belong, between two slices of bread with tomatoes, onions, lettuce, pickles, and assorted sauces.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  83. Ethanol isn't perfect either by tepples · · Score: 1

    In that case, I was told that only a fool thinks moonshine is the answer, at least with current biofuel technology.

    1. Re:Ethanol isn't perfect either by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      Chapeau, sir.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
  84. Sad, really sad by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    This is another one of those schemes whereby you take a waste product with zero value (and zero cost) and use it for something productive. Sounds exciting because you are getting something for nothing. Two examples of this kind of thinking come immediately to mind, with the first being biodiesel from waste restaurant oil. The second from a bit further back in history is bird guano.

    Bird guano was originally viewed as just a nuisance - a substance without purpose. Only it is rich in potassium which is needed for gunpowder and other explosives. Oddly and for no apparent reason when this was discovered all sorts of people came forth trying to actively sell this former nuisance substance. Entire companies were formed to collect and process this. There is a famous movie showing the logo U.S. Guano, for example. It is worth belaboring the point that once a use was found for bird guano it became a valuable commodity. The price didn't stay at zero for very long.

    Similarly today with waste restaurant oil. Today, fast food restaurants pay special waste haulers to take their used vegetable oil away. Should conversion to biodiesel be practical on a large scale this waste product will suddenly become quite valuable and restaurants will no longer give it away. This pretty much destroys the "economics of free" touted by many biodiesel supporters. It works as long as there is no market - as soon as there is a market for it, it won't be free any longer and will be priced according to its new value. This will be a significant hurdle for biodiesel production and probably is one reason why it hasn't gone anywhere but small-time individual production.

    So while today animal manure is often considered a waste product with zero value the moment this changes you can expect it to be priced in accordance with its new value. This means that even a small pilot plant that was getting free manure will have to start paying for it, likely drastically changing the economics of using manure.

    This is the sort of thing that looks great on the surface and can even work in a very isolated small-scale implementation. If a bunch of data centers started having digesters, methane extractors and generating systems put in place to run off manure it would quickly become far more costly than being grid-tied. It isn't even that it doesn't scale - it is that you are counting on a temporary economic condition which is assured to be very temporary.

  85. Been there done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was predicted in Road Warrior where the town ran off methane from Pig crap. Of course there was a midget running the place with a giant baby as his henchman.

  86. Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus creating the world's least efficient source of electricity. Taking solar energy to grow corn to feed cows to produce dung to run a furnace to boil water to move turbines to create electricity. With an efficiency of .00000001%. This sounds like the worlds best way to waste resources.

  87. Point of comparison by mejesster · · Score: 1

    My numbers are wildly out of date (from the 1960s), but in India, about 700 million tons of cow dung were collected per year, about 300M tons of which were used as fuel, providing about the same heat output as 35M tons of coal. See Marvin Harris' work on the myth of the sacred cow.

    --
    MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
  88. This is already being built in the UK by 1sockchuck · · Score: 1

    The concept HP described in an academic paper is not new, and is already being built into a UK data center that has won awards for its approach. The Infinity ONE data center in East Anglia, England is working with a local farming co-op to use cow manure to power a combined heat and power (CHP) plant that will provide electricity for the data halls. The data center is already operational (using utility power) and expects to integrate the poop power sometime this year.

  89. Road Warrior patent suit pending? by msimm · · Score: 1

    Didn't Mad Max and friends pioneer this?

    --
    Quack, quack.
  90. Rain, rain on my face by tepples · · Score: 1

    What does he have to say about a digestive system capable of processing meat and nutritional requirements best served by meat ?

    In Judeo-Christian mythology, a worldwide disaster caused a population bottleneck 1,656 years after the emergence of H. sapiens sapiens. This resulted in destruction of biomes and their replacement with new biomes, as well as several kinds of plants and fungi going extinct. Species that depended on these plants and fungi had to adapt to meat in a process called "microevolution", which even young-earthers believe in.

  91. Sewage Treatment Plant have tonnes of Biosolids. by pH7.0 · · Score: 1

    why worry about collection issue? All big cities have Sewage Treatment Plant right?

    "Toronto Hydro Energy Services has received approval from City Council to build, own and operate a 10 MW Cogeneration Plant on a parcel of land at 7 Leslie Street. The Cogeneration Plant will utilize the biogas from the Ashbridges Bay Treatment Plant (ABTP) to produce both electricity and thermal energy."
    http://www.torontohydroenergy.com/ashbridgesbay.html

    pH7

  92. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Setsquare · · Score: 1

    Fringe science like this is just too dangerous to release on the world. The inventor of this should be locked up in that asylum Walter Bishop was in.

  93. Data centers? by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 1

    Uh, what does this have to do with data centers? Last time I checked people use electricity for lots of different things, and there is this cool technology called a grid that's made out of copper that allows you to move energy (in the form of electricity) to any user (within geographical limits) at nearly the speed of light.

    Oh yeah, marketing BS. Forgot about that.

  94. Oh, genius... by marco.antonio.costa · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and how much shit and CO2 do those 10 thousand cows generate?

    Depressing.

    --
    Send your spendthrift head of state this
  95. Re:Confirmed! the IT industry runs on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Bullshit!

    Precisely