Slashdot Mirror
Power Plant Converts Fruit and Veggie Waste Into Natural Gas For Cars
Zothecula writes "Some readers might remember the Mr. Fusion unit in Back to the Future that Doc Brown fills with household garbage, including a banana peel and some beer, to power the iconic time-traveling DeLorean. While we're still some way from such direct means of running our cars on table scraps, researchers at Fraunhofer have developed a pilot plant that ferments the waste from wholesale fruit and veg markets, cafeterias and canteens to make methane, which can be used to power vehicles."
Lots (around 40%) of harvested fruits and veg' rot in the field because the US consumer wont buy imperfect produce. Seems like a lot of potential fule out there.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Rather than using the methane in cars would be to run it directly into an electrical generation plant. More efficient. Local landfills are collecting the methane, one is uses it to power generators and the other uses the methane to heat city schools.
Master Blaster
I convert fruits and veggies into gas, but not for cars.
I'm sure the power plant requires fuel to process the food, so is it realy practical? Besides, how is this any better than using Corn or Suger Cain for fuel, that's already being done.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Great idea, maybe we should expand this.
Lets pile all our waste in a big pile, or dig a hole and "fill the land", a "landfill" if you will.
We should seal it so it doesn't contaminate groundwater of course.
Then as it ferments and releases methane we could install a venting system and collect or use all that methane for years!
Oh wait, they've been doing this for decades.
The Parent post everstates the case, a lot of imperfect produce becomes tomato sauce, potato flakes, strawberry puree, applesauce, carrot juice, etc.
There is a lot of agricultural waste, some scratch and dent from retail, and a LOT of uneaten or wasted food from restaurants.
I expect there are some enzyme or bacteria treatments that can cause this mash to release more starches or sugars before the fermentation phase begins.
Cars powered by fruit farts. Technology at its finest.
Yes, you'd have to be a fule not to us all that biomass.
Does it rot in the field, providing fertilizer for the next generation of crops and thus reducing the overall costs due to the fact so much artificial fertilizer doesn't need to be used? It isn't waste if it is actually being used for something.
But when they rot in the field, the nutrients go back into the soil. If you plan on collecting all this fruits and vegetables, in order to capture the gases from them rotting, you also have to have a plan for returning the compost back to the fields. Not saying it's impossible, but can you get more natural gas from these things that it takes to transport them back and forth between the field wherever the gas is harvested?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
My preference is to consume the fermented fruit matter prior to the generation of methane.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Methane gas is recovered from many land fill sites. Nothing new to see here, please move along.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I can do something with my dinner-smuggled hoard of kale and okra.
Fermentation is a very passive process as far as the plant is concerned. Very little extra energy is introduced into the system. Once the energy is exttracted the leftovers can probably be used as a livestock feed like many distilleries do with their dried mash.
Plus were also looking at a source material feedstock if you will that comes from waste that already exists, not Corn and Sugar Cane that would otherwise be feeding people and keeping the prices of those goods at a reasonable level.
there just isn't a lot of gas there--
all your poop (about 45kg) for a year produces about 28 liters of gas (cite: rose george, the big necessity), enough to make you one 8oz cup of tea a day. Food waste generates twice the gas per volume input--, Americans generate about 90kg of food waste a year, enough for an additional 110 liters of gas-- so hey, for all that work you can have oatmeal for breakfast and tea at every meal!
driving cars? I call BS.
biodigesters have been "the future" since the early 19th century. unless you live on a hog farm, this whole process is a waste. aerobic compost produces better soil additives and is actually commercially profitable. Biodigesters need government subsidies. Growing biofuels with good compost makes more sense than biodigestion. Always will.
Converting fruit scraps into methane requires transportation to expensive processing plants. Can't they just install methane collectors on the seat bottoms of SUVs and pickup trucks instead? They could throw in a case of Bud Light as a deal sweetener (also to help demonstrate how fast the collection works).
And that is a reason why we cannot optimize the use of our resources. For the most part wasted food when decaid will just produce carbon back into the atmosphere anyways why not get some energy out of it first.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I believe this will really take off when they start genetically engineering bacteria to be efficient fuel producers. I believe that bacteria engineered to produce hydro-carbon fuel will be the power source of the future.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Unfortunately the chemicals that industrial agriculture uses interferes with the nutrient cycle that you're thinking of. Because everything other than the plant of interest is treated as something to be killed off with insecticides, fungicides, etc., the soil microbes are killed off, and the survivors are in an imbalanced ecological state which means that they're more likely to act in ways not helpful to the crop. It all leads back to dependency on oil-based fertilizers and pesticides while the soil is little more than a medium to hold the plant upright.
Otherwise, your solution would fit right in.
Does it rot in the field, providing fertilizer for the next generation of crops and thus reducing the overall costs due to the fact so much artificial fertilizer doesn't need to be used? It isn't waste if it is actually being used for something.
Yes. The stalks, top leafs, roots, unripe or spoiled produce becomes food for the next crop, usually some other crop in a rotation. There's a lot of science behind this, too, as some crops enrich the soil, f'risnstance with Nitrogen, for the next crop which is more dependent upon it (usually something leafy) as an example.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...a new product will turn human hair into candle wax to run your iPhone.
I'm sure the power plant requires fuel to process the food, so is it realy practical?
Yes it is. considering that there are about 5 gorcery stores within a 4 mile radius of me, I am quite confident that there's enough food. Because we all know this is going to be powered by farm raised salmon, lamb, best cuts of beef, fresh lettuce, and an assortment of fruits and veggies.
I think that will be the new status symbol.
"Why, that guy is soooooo rich, he get's his methane from caviar!"
On another note. I once saw an incredibly distressful state - I think it was in Scientific American: about 50% of the food produced in the US ends up in the trash bin as waste. Considering what's happening to our fisheries, that thought that half of what's caught ends up in a landfill just disgusts me. If you look at your local fish counter, most of it is wild caught.
We waste way too much food in this country and judging by our collective waistlines, we consume too much too.
... Doc Brown fills with household garbage, including a banana peel and some beer, to power the iconic time-traveling DeLorean. While we're still some way from such direct means of running our cars on table scraps...
The Mr. Fusion only powered the Flux Capacitor not the DeLorean. The DeLorean still ran on gasoline and is why Marty gets stuck back in 1885 when the arrow pierces the gas tank.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
I got a Breville Ikon juicer and it works wonders...but I'd been trying to think what to do with all the dry pulp that comes out of it.
I'd been thinking to try to save some of it, particularly the veggie stuff from the green juices...and maybe boiling it to make vegetable stock....I don't know anything about composting, but was thinking to research and explore that, to see if it was viable to try to compost all of this stuff, and use it for fertilizer for my garden this spring.
Anyone out there know much about reusing plant 'waste' or leftovers from the home in such a manner? Links? Suggestions?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
...but isn't this the thing I've known since my childhood as "biogas"? What's the difference?
Ezekiel 23:20
This is nothing new. People have been using biogas in India for ages. I first learned about it over 30 years ago. The Indians use mostly manure, but any organic material can be used, the more plant products you use, the more biogas you get.
There's a book from 1980 called "The Mother Earth News Handbook of Homemade Power" that goes into it (and other 'green' technologies that work well on small scales) that goes into greater detail. You can find it for 4-5 bucks on bookfinder.com
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
because the volume of methane from vegetable waste will make a huge difference on our dependence on foreign oil.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
and methane...the wonders of a fermenting rumen.
Why?!?! Why are we still burning things to make things go!?!?! This is the epiphany that hit me the other day. We, as a species have been burning stuff for heat for MILLENNIA! It is so bad now that we are affecting our climate. I don't care how "clean" it is we have to stop burning stuff to get energy. PERIOD! We have to stop supporting research to produce more "burning stuff" alternatives. It's the WRONG DAMN DIRECTION! Tidal, wind, solar that's where we need to go. We have a 4 billion year supply of energy coming from our sun (the heating from which also drives our winds)...USE IT! We have tidal forces driven by the sun and our moon that are just as limitless...USE IT! For crying out loud, we need to pull our collective heads out of our arses and wake up and smell the coffee! We can't keep burning stuff for energy, it's gonna kill us as a species if we don't quit soon, i.e., within a few more generations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_gasification
There was just recently a show that talked about this, which were common back in the day. They used to be used on tractors & old auto mobiles. By burning wood ( or anything combustible) they can produce a diesel alternative.
I can't be more specific because I'm not really knowledgable of how it works, other then the "no shit you can do that" moment watching the host on the tv run a generator from burnt trash / wood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_gasification#Transport_fuel
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
I produce natural gas myself, using only beans as input...
"Fraunhofer"
There ended my interest in the process... the Fraunhofer Gestapo will be checking to see if your using approved waste....NO THANKS!
Their antics over MP3 is absolute BS.. NO I do NOT recoginize IP, trademark, license, copyright, or any other of that BS. Its just another reason why I won't travel to Germany again. Would love to go stand at the Brandenburg Gate and compare it to when I was there last and AK47 wielding soliders were poised on top, and would love to get Diebels Alt direct from the brewery. (Sadly InBev took them over, and they have quit importing to the US, but the first is enough to quick drinking it, along with the fact that they purcashed schloheiser... Budvar Budweiser is the ONE, ONLY AND TRUE Budweiser!)
Do not touch any tech from Fraunhofer.
1311393600 - Back to Black
Its 40%-70% depending on the farm, the crop, and impact on weather and pests. The amount of wasted produce in America is greatly disturbing. The 40% number is the average amount of produce which is 100% safe and ediable, which has some minor flaw which causes shoppers to pass it over. Basically it means American shoppers needlessly pay 55%, on average, high prices for produce than the supply allows.
Yeah its the American's fault, people in Europe love mishapen brown fruit. This is flamebait!
Anyway I agree the best varieties are the ones selected for flavor not shipping/color and are homegrown.
The more responsible farmers around me will rotate between soy beans and corn as the soy beans (any legumes for that matter) are nitrogen fixers which the corn really depletes from the soil.
Time to offend someone
All energy producing industries consume energy. Coal and uranium don't mine themselves, gas doesn't pump itself through the pipeline and purify itself. Electrical generators not only use electricity to energize the generator windings, but also electricity loses energy by heating the transmission wires whenever you move it around. Don't even get me started about battery losses.
The trick is to get more energy out than you put in. Currently, you can't do that at all with fusion, and you can't do that both economically and safely with fission (although you can do one or the other) but you sure can do it with coal, wood, natural gas, or any number of other burnable resources.
But the goal is to use something renewable that does not release into the air carbon that used to be locked in the ground. Since plants take all of their carbon from the air, and none from the soil, that's the ticket!
Sugar cane and sugar beets are great in the parts of the world where they can grow without fertilizer. Corn ethanol fuels are not economically viable without government subsidies - the same sort of anti-humanist socialism that makes nuclear plants viable - because it takes too much energy to farm and reduce corn. Corn ethanol is just corporate welfare, not a real energy policy.
You meant it converts dead vegetarians into fuel for cars?
There's one major difference, which I'm surprised that I have to point out to a slashdot audience: fusion releases a whole lot more energy than decomposition and burning. Like, orders of magnitude. So to compare this to the Mr. Fusion unit in BTTF is quite misleading. It may seem odd to use a car analogy in a story about cars, but I'm going to take a stab at it. This is like rolling a log down a hill and claiming that you've invented the Ferrari. :)
Sorry, in European units that would be a metric fuck-tonne of money. For Americans, a standard fuck-ton, equivalent to the traditional shitload.
There's plenty of waste at every stage of production. Just look through a grocery store's dumpster or compactor some time. You'll be amazed at what goes in there.
Your use of PERIOD makes your argument that much more persuasive. Why should we stop biofuel research? Because you said so. PERIOD.
And you're supposed to do it at home.
Jean Pain was a step ahead of this in the 1970's, heating his home's water and producing fuel for his truck, both free.
Will a commercial launch be in time for the four heads of lettuce i bought from Costco four weeks ago?
Burning stuff for energy produces the most energy at the least cost. This isn't a corporate thing, it's a 'we live in an oxygen-rich environment and things burn easily here' thing If we were in space and there wasn't as much oxygen we wouldn't burn as much stuff. Also, the cost, in terms of time+effort = energy produced/recovered means we have a long way to go before we can get the energy we need out of tidal and solar. It is difficult to do and the energy in the above terms isn't free.
On the other hand the cost in terms of time+effort= destruction-of-habitat, which is very high for the 'burning stuff' choice means we should continue developing solar and tidal as fast as we can. The price of habitat is rising and we ain't making any more of it. It's the ultimate limited resource.
It may seem that way, but consider also that if the value of produce sinks too low, it is a hardship on farmers. I think there are actually quota systems in place to prevent this from happening. So may not just be picky consumers, but also, the farm may be selling all that they are allowed to sell (and naturally sell the best). I am not an expert on this by an means, but have heard this before, can anyone confirm?
... I object to this inhumane treating of our fellow fruits and veggies! Carrots are people too!
"Unfortunately the chemicals that industrial agriculture uses interferes with the nutrient cycle that you're thinking of."
Nice, general statement, unsupported by fact. Your post reflect old techniques, not modern farming.
Where I live (Stockholm, Sweden), there are many households that have done this for years and the amount is growing.
Households throw their food waste in special paper bags and put in separate bins. The contents of these are then collected and processed into methane at a factory.
The incentive for housing cooperatives and households to join the program is that collection of food waste is free while collection of ordinary garbage is not. There should be less amount of normal garbage and thus the cooperation's garbage costs would be reduced.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
if it's just fruit and vegetables, I wonder if distilling them for ethanol could be more efficient than rotting them for methane.
http://www.axpo-kompogas.ch/index.php?path=home&lang=en
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
the US consumer wont buy imperfect produce
Judging by my experience in the USA, this is categorically untrue. US consumers will happily tolerate vegetables that taste of (slightly) crunchy water. What they won't buy is vegetables that look imperfect. Imperfections in the taste and texture are fine.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah its the American's fault, people in Europe love mishapen brown fruit.
Walk around a French market. Walk around an American market. You will notice that, in comparison with their French counterparts, the American fruit and vegetables are:
The same is true in much of Europe, although in the UK we tend further in the American direction than most of the rest of Europe (more true in supermarkets than markets).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Ok, you seemed to argue against my point in the first paragraph then you seemed to get my point and come to some agreement in the second. I didn't say this was going to be an immediate transition, but it does need to happen faster on the scale of "as fast as we can".
Ummm, maybe because biofuels, although renewable as a source of combustion still produce carbon byproducts that are harmful to our environment? Lower emissions, sure, but not zero and still being burned in engines that are at best 50% efficient at turning that burned fuel into useful work. So, yeah, still bad. Still wrong direction.
Burning stuff produces most energy at least cost, huh? Me thinks someone needs to go back to school:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Measures_of_engine_performance
"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[11] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they operate at very high temperatures and pressures and can have very high expansion ratios.[12]"
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station
"Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and up to 50% for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Plants designed to achieve peak efficiency while operating at capacity will be less efficient when operating off-design (i.e. temperatures too low.)[3]"
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine
"GE H series power generation gas turbine: in combined cycle configuration, this 480-megawatt unit has a rated thermal efficiency of 60%."
"A large single cycle gas turbine typically produces 100 to 400 megawatts of power and have 35â"40% thermal efficiency.[15]"
"Typical microturbine efficiencies are 25 to 35%. When in a combined heat and power cogeneration system, efficiencies of greater than 80% are commonly achieved." [80% or better is great, but limited applications]
And all these methods of combustion produce carbon emissions, even the gas turbines. Granted, smaller amounts, but not zero.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Efficiency
"Single p-n junction crystalline silicon devices are now approaching the theoretical limiting efficiency of 37.7%, noted as the Shockleyâ"Queisser limit in 1961. However multiple layer solar cells have a theoretical limit of 86%"
From: http://renewableenergyindex.com/renewable-energy-questions/how-efficient-is-tidal-power
"Tidal power is actually incredibly efficient (85% efficiency) when compared to things like coal power plants (30% efficiency) which is where the majority of electricity currently comes from."
From: http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/wind-enrgy.html
"Mr. Betz pointed this out and then proceeded to prove, with solid physics and math, that the best that could be achieved by a wind turbine is around 59%. In other words, a perfect best-possible wind turbine would be able to convert almost 59% of the power in the wind into mechanical rotating power."
Looks to me like efficiencies aren't that far off from burned stuff alternatives, and at least solar has some head room to get a lot better. Wind and tidal are mechanical-to-electrical processes so you would expect them to be lower efficiencies, but still within acceptable ranges given the zero emissions.
So, my point? We need to bring up the efficiencies of non-combustible means of power generation for work and stop burning stuff! Burning stuff does us no good and, is not overall more efficient than wind, solar and tidal when combined in similar usage patterns. To use the "but-it's-the-most-efficient-way-we-have" argument is ridiculous because that's true only due to the oil, coal and LNG industries stifling research budgets and buying up (and then dumping in a closet somewhere) technologies that might change their dominance. The tidal, solar and wind technologies would be farther along if research budgets hadn't been cut in the past 30 years. Advances are coming quickly now that renewed funding has been
Carbon from renewable sources moves in a cycle. The carbon dioxide that is released by burning plants is absorbed by growing plants. Carbon, being an element, can't be created or destroyed except in nuclear reactions (something plants aren't capable of doing), so there can be no net carbon release from renewable processes. The reason why fossil fuels contribute to carbon dioxide release is because fossil fuels represent stored carbon over millions of years, from an epoch when carbon dioxide was more prevalent in our atmosphere.