Is there something wrong with Methane?

ScumLord

I saw a program on a school up north for special needs children that runs completely on Methane produced from the organic waste collected on the farm. They had enough methane to power 3 buildings with central heating and enough spare to sell on.

This seems like the ideal solution for Irelands power needs just hook our sewage systems up to local methane factories. All biological waste could be collect and there ya go renewable energy that will never run out.

Is there some reason this doesn't even seem to get mentioned when talking about renewable energy.

air

No, nothing wrong with it, it's just not something that's really relevant to individuals though. You need a farm or some other source of gas (such as a vent from a landfill) in order to produce it. I know a pig farmer that is building a huge new setup at the moment and apparently the whole thing is going to be powered by methane produced from the pig slurry. A guy called Al Rutan pioneered techniques for people to make it on a small scale in barrels etc, a google should pull up some stuff by him. He's dead now though.

Wantitnow

I saw a TV program recently about the greenhouse gases each cow produces. Amazing figures - 200Litres / 45 gallons of Methane per cow a day! That's a lot of farts :eek:

It got me thinking, if you could put a big plastic bag on the back of each cow to somehow collect all that gas, which could then be emptied at milking time, that could be another possible income source for farmers...

BendiBus

I believe quite a few landfill sites around Ireland use methane generated by decaying waste to generate electricity. Venting it is necessary anyway as it has a tendancy to explode if left to build up! Might as well make use of it.

Capt'n Midnight

Wantitnow wrote: »

I saw a TV program recently about the greenhouse gases each cow produces. Amazing figures - 200Litres / 45 gallons of Methane per cow a day! That's a lot of farts :eek:

It got me thinking, if you could put a big plastic bag on the back of each cow to somehow collect all that gas, which could then be emptied at milking time, that could be another possible income source for farmers...

200L = 140grammes
you'd nearly 10 cows to get the same energy as a litre of petrol/diesel

ircoha

http://www.eper.cec.eu.int/eper/
you would expect Moneypoint and other places, but when you have 4000 pigs....

However methane is a CO2 polluter as well once it is burned

maniac101

ircoha wrote: »

However methane is a CO2 polluter as well once it is burned

As a "greenhouse gas" methane is a much bigger polluter than CO2 if it's not burned. It has a CO2 equivalent value of 22, meaning that a ton of methane has 22 times the global warming potential of a ton of CO2. All methane collected from waste and anaerobic digestion must be burned. Any excesss methane should be flared to effectively convert it to less harmful CO2. So harnessing it and burning it has a positive environmental impact.

Wantitnow wrote:

t got me thinking, if you could put a big plastic bag on the back of each cow to somehow collect all that gas, which could then be emptied at milking time, that could be another possible income source for farmers...

You might need an even bigger bag at the front of the cow! I read somewhere that most of the methane actually comes out their mouths.

ScumLord

air wrote: »

No, nothing wrong with it, it's just not something that's really relevant to individuals though. You need a farm or some other source of gas (such as a vent from a landfill) in order to produce it. I know a pig farmer that is building a huge new setup at the moment and apparently the whole thing is going to be powered by methane produced from the pig slurry. A guy called Al Rutan pioneered techniques for people to make it on a small scale in barrels etc, a google should pull up some stuff by him. He's dead now though.

But for a town or even city level I think it would be ideal. Each town has it's own sewage system that could be hooked up to It would mean every town could become self sufficient for electricity and gas heat. With the national grid only there as a back up. My town like most I'd say is surrounded by farms, mostly cattle around here but there's also a chicken farm (which should be shut down but that's a different issue) Loooads of poop.

All farms produce massive amounts of biological waste perfect for this type of power plant. At the moment that waste is a problem because they can't do anything with it and often dump it illegally to avoid paying to get rid of it. This way they could make money off they're waste which should cut down on the damage to the environment and in particular rivers.

It just seems so ideal the more food and **** we produce the more energy we can produce and our waste gets turned into the valuable products Methane and fertilizer. Fertilizer to grow more food! It's just sounds like one of those natural miracles that's stupid not to take advantage of.

As a "greenhouse gas" methane is a much bigger polluter than CO2 if it's not burned.

That was the only worry I had about it, I know methane is considered one of the worst greenhouse gases but what does it turn into when it's burned? Something worse?


The only other worry I had was with the fertilizer, would it be somehow be contaminated coming from human waste or is it all much of a muchness when it gets broken down into fertilizer.

maniac101

ScumLord wrote: »

That was the only worry I had about it, I know methane is considered one of the worst greenhouse gases but what does it turn into when it's burned? Something worse?

Something better thankfully: Carbon dioxide and water.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

All farms produce massive amounts of biological waste perfect for this type of power plant. At the moment that waste is a problem because they can't do anything with it and often dump it illegally to avoid paying to get rid of it. This way they could make money off they're waste which should cut down on the damage to the environment and in particular rivers.

Here's an example of a Waterford farmer who's been putting methane to good use on her farm.

It just seems so ideal the more food and **** we produce the more energy we can produce and our waste gets turned into the valuable products Methane and fertilizer. Fertilizer to grow more food! It's just sounds like one of those natural miracles that's stupid not to take advantage of.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the energy from the by-products is not nearly enough to replenish the food. Meat production in particular is extremely energy intensive, and this isn't reflected in the energy content of the food. One of the best things anyone can do for the environment is to stop eating animals!

ScumLord

maniac101 wrote: »

That would be nice. Unfortunately, the energy from the by-products is not nearly enough to replenish the food. Meat production in particular is extremely energy intensive, and this isn't reflected in the energy content of the food. One of the best things anyone can do for the environment is to stop eating animals!

The vast majority of problems surrounding animal farming are caused by large scale industrial farming, not even humans should be piled into such small spaces. Small scale local farming is a good thing for all and I'm sure we could survive on it if we weren't obsessed (and more or less forced into it) with cheep food. I'd say a large chunk of the food we make is just dumped.

Maybe one farm couldn't support itself but a whole community could. If every house and business had a garbage disposal for taking your left overs from food (as far as I know things like paper can go into it). Your butcher, restaurants shops and every house and farm contributing to the powerplant is bound to produce enough energy for a town.

My town has around 900 people in it, is surrounded by farms producing everything from cattle to pigs to chickens. We have too chipper/restaurants, 3 petrol station shops that have food, a supper market 9 pubs and a disco. I'm convinced a town like that could easily power itself if it's set up right.

Something better thankfully: Carbon dioxide and water.
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

That's crazy! It's like God, if there is such a man intended it to be done this way.

bonkey

ScumLord wrote: »

Small scale local farming is a good thing for all

Based on what criteria?

ScumLord

bonkey wrote:

Based on what criteria?

Farmings been around for a while and animals have gotten used to it especially in Europe. There is a relationship there some animals even depend on farming cycles for breeding and surviving. I think farming keeps people in touch with nature in a way just reading about it can't do. I don't see anything wrong with keeping animals for food as long as they're respected and treated right, most domestic animals couldn't survive without us at this stage anyway. The food is of much better quality too.

I did the organic farming reps course and you have to ensure wild animals can live and move around on your land.

ircoha

maniac101 wrote: »

As a "greenhouse gas" methane is a much bigger polluter than CO2 if it's not burned. It has a CO2 equivalent value of 22, meaning that a ton of methane has 22 times the global warming potential of a ton of CO2. All methane collected from waste and anaerobic digestion must be burned. Any excesss methane should be flared to effectively convert it to less harmful CO2. So harnessing it and burning it has a positive environmental impact.


You might need an even bigger bag at the front of the cow! I read somewhere that most of the methane actually comes out their mouths.

Based on the following ranging of GHGs, CO2 range ahead of CH4 by a factor of 3 [Radiative effect]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases
but CH4 is 72 times worse than C02 here. [Greenhouse warming potential or GHP]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

air

maniac101 wrote: »

One of the best things anyone can do for the environment is to stop eating animals!

This is true all right but taking beef as an example, irish produce is actually a lot better for the environment than US produced beef for example. Our cattle are some a very small group worldwide that are almost exclusively grass fed, whereas in other countries the cattle are kept indoors year round and fed grain which is hugely energy intensive to sow, harvest, transport etc.

IIRC poultry has less embodied energy than beef, I think it's something like beef, turkey, chicken in terms of the MJ/kilo of meat on the plate.

maniac101

ircoha wrote: »

Based on the following ranging of GHGs, CO2 range ahead of CH4 by a factor of 3 [Radiative effect]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

The radiative forcing is measured in absolute terms per m2 in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is far greater than that of methane, so its contribution to the overall net greenhouse effect is greater.

but CH4 is 72 times worse than C02 here. [Greenhouse warming potential or GHP]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

When comparing two gases directly in terms of their potential to effect global warming, which is more relevant to the burning of methane, the GWP figures are used. The GWP of CO2 is always 1 and other greenhouse gases are measured against this. The GWP can also take into account the period of time that the gas spends in the atmosphere. These figures here show that CH4 has a GWP of 23 over 100 years, but 62 over 20 years. Therefore it's standard environmental practice to flare captured methane, rather than release it into the atmosphere. Some enterprises obtain carbon credits for flaring it. The GWP figures are subject to change and are updated by the IPCC every few years as far as I know, with national bodies like the EPA recalculating emissions accordingly.