Holy Cow! Manure-to-Biogas Could Generate 3 Percent of US Electric Demand
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 07.25.08
photo by Chris Austin
Biogas plants are nothing new in the world of alternative energy. We recently covered a biogas plant in Germany using corn as feedstock: Yay for greener energy, Nay for not using a food crop when there are better alternatives. However, new research coming out of the University of Texas, Austin shows that we may be ignoring the potential of one feedstock, which left to decompose is a powerful emitter of greenhouse gas emissions: Cow Manure.
GHG Emissions from Manure Decomposition Could be Avoided
The report, “Cow power: the energy and emissions benefits of converting manure to biogas", estimates that decomposing cow manure emits somewhere between 51 to 118 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, with the trend increasing over the last fifteen years. This is from approximately 1-billion tonnes of manure produced annually from the livestock industry in the United States alone.
The authors go on the calculate that, were this manure used to create biogas and used to generate electricity it could supply up to 3% of total U.S. electric demand. In the process, 99 million tonnes of net GHG emissions, 4% of the total from electricity, could be eliminated—provided that this biogas was used to replace coal-fired electric generation.
Great Regional Potential for Decentralized Power
Even if we all got on board with this idea today, it will be a bit before we see manure-to-biogas plants creating electricity on a widespread basis. However, at least in areas where there the livestock industry is dominant, there is the potential for a more decentralized power generation system to be developed.
via :: Science Daily
Apologies to Phil Rizzuto about the title of this post.
Biogas
A Dung Deal: Making Power from Poop
Biogas Plant in Eastern Geermany Will Be the World’s Largest
Bio-Digesters in India: Nothing Wasted, A Lot More Gained
Permanent Camping by Casey Brown
|
Big Surprise: America's Fittest Cities are Also Most Walkable Cities
|
there was an article in the Minneapolis StarTribune back in 2000 or so about a dairy farmer who installed a manure collection system in his two barns - approx 800 head of dairy cattle - the manure was stored in an underground storage tank/methane digester - modified a large generator to run on methane - heats his two barns, his house, runs all the lights, farm machinery etc. - employs 18 non-family members full time & has enough electricity left over to sell back into the local utility grid to make $4,000.00 to $6,000.00 per month on excess electricity!
the power of manure!
No can do. Because the only feasable way to collect the animal's manure to strictly control their movements and house them in tight confinement.
It will save much more GHG emission and be much more comfortable for the welfare of animals and health of humans if we just indulge happily in the plant-based diet.
Along with concerted reforestation programs, I believe this should be the major focus of mitigating climate change.
------
author responds:
Agree entirely that a bigger change towards different agricultural methods is the better thing to do from standpoint of animal welfare, human health, land use and GHG emissions. However, as long as people are raising animals in intensive conditions (which I personally find deplorable, but is the norm, sadly) using the manure for energy isn't a bad idea.
And the best part about it is that after you trap the methane, the manure is still available for use as fertilizer. Also, could you store the gas if you wanted to? If so, then biogas could be used to replace peaking plants that use oil or natural gas and are more expensive to operate than coal. While I'd love to eliminate coal from the fuel mix as quickly as possible, the ability to eliminate the most expensive sources of power could increase the speed of adoption.
Additionally, has anyone found a way to trap methane released from cow burps, as opposed to manure? I guess it would take a barn-wide air filtration system, which might not be worth it. But I really don't know.
The feedlots in the Greeley/Loveland, Colorado area would be an excellent location for one of these biogas plants. If you ever get a whiff of the air out there you'll understand.
This would be awesome if it wasn't for the unsustainable nature of the industry. The only reason we get this much cow poo in the first place is because the entire system is run with fossil fuels.
Very cool science, but doubt it's applicability on a mass scale.
Ahhh, the smell of cattle country, how I don't miss it.
This waste is already collected on cattle ranches all over the country, you have do get it out of the way for health reasons. This is a great idea that has been used for many years by small villages in Africa. This also came up in the " Oil Crises" of the 1970's. It's amazing how every new study imagines itself to have invented a new idea. ( or perhaps I perceived it that way)
Let's not forget to add our own waste into the equation, as was mentioned in another TH article. It may have been yesterday in fact.
There is this Farm called Fair Oaks Dairy in Rensallear(sp) Indiana. They have a visitors center, make cheese and ice cream, sell milk. It's a huge operation. The farm uses a lot of electricity. However all the electricity is powered by the manure of the cows. It reduces the smell of the manure as well.
Works for the Dairy industry, as well as poultry, pig and other types of livestock. But it doesn't work so well when there is free ranging or large pasturage acreages involved.
However, the feedlot livestock can't be getting antibiotics, or it will kill off all the microbes that digest the manure.
Manure is more valuable as fertilzier than fuel. If you let it sit on the rangeland, it assists in growing more grass.
To capture the methane, you'd have to enclose the cows, which is not economical either.
May I suggest mining the many tons of 'fecal pavement' that has rendered portions of our rangeland useless? Burn that stuff to generate heat, and create a chance to regenerate the soil at the same time.
They can probably generate three times that figure if they add all the food waste to these biogas plants too.
As I previously commented, food waste produces about 8-10 times more biogas than cow dung.
And since half of U.S. food goes to waste, there's tremendous potential.
Of course, there's no reason we can't adapt biogas systems to use human manure...no real shortage of that...
"Manure is more valuable as fertilzier than fuel. If you let it sit on the rangeland, it assists in growing more grass."
That's the great part about biogas, you get both, and the fertilizer is better than throwing it directly out in a field because the anaerobic bacteria prevent the growth of bad bacteria that produce nitrates and other undesirables.
Rob it sounds like your notion of cattle farmng is limited to open range scenarios. In states like Wisconsin you don't have open ranges and it's perfectly economical and viable to have a barn and have the animals go out to pasture everyday. As any farmer will testify, there is still plenty of manure left behind in the barn and on the feed lot for this to be economical.
And you don't burn the manure directly like they do in Tibet and other regions of the 3rd world. You create a slurry, starve it from oxygen, and let the bacteria produce methane which you collect and burn. You are reducing greenhouse gases from the animals, producing better fertilizer, and using energy that would otherwise be lost.
Win, win, win. The only downside is actually successfully implementing it especially at smaller scales.
It's just cows that can be a fuel source. There's also the potential to use municipal solid waste (MSW) to generate energy. Humans produce tons of waster, both in the biological sense and in garbage, and both types can be burned to generate electricity or in some cases processed into ethanol.
to michael mcd,
in your response to alistair you listed what is wrong with factory farming. i'm glad that you are aware of these problems but why not include them in your post to begin with. whether intended or not, the post serves to endorse factory farming. if you find the industry deplorable, why help them greenwash? is not the purpose of treehugger to enlighten people in service of the transformation of this planet to a healthier, more humane place? to let people know what's going on? lay it on the table.
saying that factory farming is going on already is no excuse in my opinion, more like reflection of the mentality of compartmentalization that got us in this mess in the first place. in being green we understand that the world is interconnected, our actions have far reaching repercussions, and we have a responsibility in choosing our actions. doesn't an environmental awareness show us that we must look at the whole? how can you separate suffering on such a massive scale from a supposedly green aspect of it?
deplorable is a strong word and you are correct in using it because the factory farming industry truly is. why not use your power as a journalist to help end a deplorable institution.
i'm sorry,
matthew mcd.