|
|
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 19, 2008, 8:48 pm
> wrote:
>
>><snip>
>>Heh, heard today abotu a dairy farmer in CA who extracts the methane
>>from teh manure produced by his cows - teh methane would be goign into
>>the atmosphere in either even, but what he does is uses the methane to
>>power his entire spread, so he doesn't have to buy any electricity.
>
> The other benefit is that (1)CH4 + (2)O2 --> (2)H2O + (1)CO2.. In
> short, besides using up a little breathable oxygen, which we can
> afford to do, it exchanges a possible CH4 released into the air for a
> CO2 released. Since CH4 has a radiative efficiency of about 370 uW
> m^-2 ppb^-1. That's an instantaneous slope, of course, but it gives
> an idea of where it is, right now. By comparison, CO2 has a radiative
> efficiency of 14 uW m^-2 ppb^1. So if you gotta dump one, you might
> prefer to dump CO2 rather than CH4. (The CH4 figure I mentioned
> includes known indirect effects from the creation of stratospheric H2O
> [most of what little moisture does occur there is from CH4 converting
> to H2O] and from related ozone enhancements.)
*Cool*! ;)
THat's why I like you r posts, you have a lot fo good information and
express it inan informative, level-headed way.
I saved this one BTW - I didn't know all of that.
I do know tht it's possible for sweage treatment plants to be self-
powering as well (my "first life" was as a bacteriologist, and I had an
interest in "water bugs" ;) ).
>
> Another important difference, though, is that CH4 doesn't last in the
> atmosphere. It's tau is 12 years. By comparison, CO2 has at least
> three taus below 1000 years (it has some above that), including 1.2,
> 19, and 170 years. CO2 remains well-mixed, as well. So that might
> inure the other way.
>
> Another is that extra CH4 reduces partial pressures of tropospheric
> -OH radicals, which removes them from their use in otherwise scrubbing
> the troposphere of pollutants. That works to wanting to release CO2.
>
> And I'm sure there are other considerations I don't know anything
> about. Of course, none of that addresses the fact that this farmer
> doesn't have to tap into electricity, which is probably one of the
> highest valued forms of energy and which has a huge impact on warming,
> indirectly. So all in all, sounds like an excellent success story.
>
> Jon
>
The thing I enjoyed was the "McGuyver" quality of it, becuase, if I
understood the story correctly, he figured it out himself an dset it all
up himself. I like that sort of independent problem-solving spirit ;)
- Kris
Posted by Michael A. Terrell on July 18, 2008, 6:01 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> Heh, heard today abotu a dairy farmer in CA who extracts the methane from
> teh manure produced by his cows - teh methane would be goign into the
> atmosphere in either even, but what he does is uses the methane to power
> his entire spread, so he doesn't have to buy any electricity.
there was an article in 'Mother Earth news' at least 30 years ago
that detailed what a pig farmer built to to the same thing with pig
crap. A large digester tank to let the crap decay, a modified internal
cobsution enegine to drive a generator, and he had more power than he
needed to run his farm. At that time the utility refuse to buy his
excess.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
Posted by Morris Dovey on July 18, 2008, 6:22 pm Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> there was an article in 'Mother Earth news' at least 30 years ago
> that detailed what a pig farmer built to to the same thing with pig
> crap. A large digester tank to let the crap decay, a modified internal
> cobsution enegine to drive a generator, and he had more power than he
> needed to run his farm. At that time the utility refuse to buy his
> excess.
ITYM John Shuttleworth who was the founder, publisher, and editor of the
magazine.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Posted by Michael A. Terrell on July 18, 2008, 7:51 pm
Morris Dovey wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>
> > there was an article in 'Mother Earth news' at least 30 years ago
> > that detailed what a pig farmer built to to the same thing with pig
> > crap. A large digester tank to let the crap decay, a modified internal
> > cobsution enegine to drive a generator, and he had more power than he
> > needed to run his farm. At that time the utility refuse to buy his
> > excess.
>
> ITYM John Shuttleworth who was the founder, publisher, and editor of the
> magazine.
I don't remember. The magazines were at my mother's home when she
died, and were tossed before I got there. She had a lifetime
subscription, from early on.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 19, 2008, 8:53 pm
>
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>> Heh, heard today abotu a dairy farmer in CA who extracts the methane
>> from teh manure produced by his cows - teh methane would be goign
>> into the atmosphere in either even, but what he does is uses the
>> methane to power his entire spread, so he doesn't have to buy any
>> electricity.
>
>
> there was an article in 'Mother Earth news' at least 30 years ago
> that detailed what a pig farmer built to to the same thing with pig
> crap. A large digester tank to let the crap decay, a modified internal
> cobsution enegine to drive a generator, and he had more power than he
> needed to run his farm. At that time the utility refuse to buy his
> excess.
IIRC, this sort of thing is being implemented (along with garbage-tapping)
in many poor areas of the world which can't afford petroleum, need energy,
and have plenty of, er, "fermentables".
Sometimes I think that the US's high density, so to speka, of advanced
technology actually stifles a lot of people's creative thinking...I wonder
whether too many peole are too accustomed to saying, "Why on earth do [an
activity] like that? There are machines to do it, all you do is plug in the
machine".
Which plugging-in, of course, misses the point ;)
This Thread
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
|
|
XML site map
>
>><snip>
>>Heh, heard today abotu a dairy farmer in CA who extracts the methane
>>from teh manure produced by his cows - teh methane would be goign into
>>the atmosphere in either even, but what he does is uses the methane to
>>power his entire spread, so he doesn't have to buy any electricity.
>
> The other benefit is that (1)CH4 + (2)O2 --> (2)H2O + (1)CO2.. In
> short, besides using up a little breathable oxygen, which we can
> afford to do, it exchanges a possible CH4 released into the air for a
> CO2 released. Since CH4 has a radiative efficiency of about 370 uW
> m^-2 ppb^-1. That's an instantaneous slope, of course, but it gives
> an idea of where it is, right now. By comparison, CO2 has a radiative
> efficiency of 14 uW m^-2 ppb^1. So if you gotta dump one, you might
> prefer to dump CO2 rather than CH4. (The CH4 figure I mentioned
> includes known indirect effects from the creation of stratospheric H2O
> [most of what little moisture does occur there is from CH4 converting
> to H2O] and from related ozone enhancements.)