Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Biogas as Cinderella, Explored

By Meredith Sorensen, Harvest Power
May 24, 2010   |   57 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

57 Reader Comments
No image available
Comment
1 of 57
Anonymous
May 24, 2010
The article states: "D.C. is putting out a welcome mat for biogas with the Biogas Production Incentive Act of 2009, whereby producers would receive a tax credit of $4.27 for every million British thermal units of produced biogas"

This is a outrageously high subsidy! 1 million BTU is about 10 therms and this month this much natural gas can be purchased at retail pricing for about $4.10; thus, this subsidy is more than 100% of the current retail pricing!!
Steven
Comment
2 of 57
May 26, 2010
Dear anonymous Steven,
There is nothing "outrageous" about helping people to grow an infant industry which has every likelihood of providing for itself later. Why not take advantage of the situation ?
Comment
3 of 57
May 26, 2010
@Meredith: The links you provide to the "Biogas Production Incentive Act of 2009" only talk about a Bill being presented to Congress. Has it indeed become Law?

@Bert Windon: Actually, I would be inclined to agree with Anonymous Stephen. You speak of "helping people to grow an infant industry which has every likelihood of providing for itself later". Where have we heard that before? From that other biomass-based industry, liquid biofuels. And now, 32 years on, are we any closer to ending the subsidies that were enacted to help an "infant" industry (a stretch of the word, given that people have been distilling ethyl alcohol from corn for a long, long time)? Hardly. Ethanol use is now mandated, and there is a bill before Congress to extend the subsidies (and import tariff protection) for another five years.

In short, people who argue for infant-industry subsidies should provide an exist strategy as well as an entry strategy. By when do you expect these production incentives will no longer be needed? What kind of combination of higher natural gas price and carbon tax on natural gas would be needed to level the playing field?

That said, I have nothing against biogas, and wish it well. There certainly seems to be a large potential for a lot of small-scale operations. However, what worries me in the proposed bill is that it seems to be skewed towards agriculture and the food industry. The bill defines "biogas" as a gas that is derived by processing qualified energy feedstock (i.e., manure of agricultural livestock and other organic agricultural or food industry byproduct waste material) in an anaerobic digester. What about "manure of humans" -- i.e., sewage? Why does that not qualify?
Comment
4 of 57
May 26, 2010
Require that new vehicles sold in the US be multi-fuel capable able to use petroleum, biofuels, and methane.
Comment
5 of 57
May 26, 2010
In the rural areas when people realizes that valuable resources (biogas and fertilizer) can be obtained from those wastes, they are delighted. What's needed is proper guidance and easily available turnkey systems or kits for this idea to proliferate. Any manure producer (hog, cattle, horse, chicken, etc should be given incentives at the initial phase to persuade them to venture into biogas production.
Comment
6 of 57
May 26, 2010
People who live in urban areas need fuel and food just as much as people who live in rural areas.
Comment
7 of 57
May 26, 2010
Having tried for the past five years to bring integrated organic solid waste and sewage solids agencies with a consolidated agency; I know a lot about what will work, and what won't.

The European example is a 'success' because natural gas distribution systems abound; and both garbage and sewerage collection is a centralized process, making it easy to consider integrated approaches.

It's also a success because there is a very well established natural Gas powered vehicle industry; to the point of where you have everything from commuter trains to public works trucks, school buses and public vehicle fleets running on natural gas.

It's a success in those countries where livestock farmers have long used anaerobic digesters to convert not only manure, but other substrates, i.e. food waste and even septage into biogas, fertilizer, and other useful saleable by products....farms with greenhouses will strip out CO2 and use to flood greenhouse crops, doubling production! Germany has over 7,000 digesters; while New York state has 7. The industry is so well established there are 'parts' stores specializing in critical components, i.e. FAN extractors, lobe pumps for +20% solids content digesters, etc.

It's a success not because of subsidies; but because there is a ready market for the products.

Ontario has in the past year either completed or is well on the way to completing 37 digesters. A most remarkable accomplishment from a sustainability coalition that covered everything from appropriate technology, to technical training for operators that was imported from Germany.

In Maine, Vermont and probably New Hampshire, the dairy industry at the family owned level is in dire straits and incapable of implementing, let alone running a digester.

In Several Maine towns, I've worked with town council members and sustainability/recycling committees finding they love to discuss the concepts, have lunch, collect brochures and go back to business as usual.
Comment
8 of 57
May 26, 2010
part #2.. There is a waiting industry in Europe that was willing to enter the U.S. Market, i.e. DODO(Italy) marketed systems for a year from a new office in Wisconsin...and apparently either closed it or scaled back the effort. Other large companies, with dozens of integrated systems have turned a cold shoulder the the U.S. "market".

Even PENN STATE's large scale effort involved over a dozen engineering and science professors has been pushed into the background.

There are two major policy thrusts which have stymied these and other efforts:

First, the entire state environmental apparatus and funding mechanisms are focused on energy efficiency....first a farm has to do an audit $$$$$; they they have to remedy the inadequacies..$$$$$$; then they can apply for matching grants, loans etc. Farmers have to hired certified energy auditors; nor can they install alt. energy devices like solar panels without hiring a certifed plumber and electrician. In other words, there is a huge environmental regulatory barrier that they won't jump over...to be sure there are those farmers who get grants; but they are usually politically well connected and their actions are well greased with funding, but of little influence on the rest of the ag.community who has to pay for all of this out of their pocket.

Consolidating a regional sewerage treatment agency and a public works dept. is a major feat of government. Politicians run on Wind or solar not sewerage! Entrenched bureaucracies; and paid boards on regional quasi-public agencies further complicate any integration or consolidation.

For example, Maine has 500,000 tons of green waste thanks to all that CO2 and climate change; some is burned, some is hauled away, but most is landfilled. In our region, haulers are PAID to take it away...imagine getting paid to use excess wind! Even with this incentive, there is little interest among haulers to invest in digesters; because of the other obstacles and impediments.
Comment
9 of 57
May 26, 2010
Frank, I would not agree with your statement that the "success" of biogas in Europe has "not [been] because of subsidies, but because there is a ready market for the products." Can we compromise and say both? There are certainly generous feed-in tariffs in some EU countries for electricity produced from biogas, and generous subsidies to help farmers establish biogas plants.

On the other hand, I can well imagine that there might be environmental and regulatory barriers in a number of U.S. states. You mention requirements for energy audits and the like, and requirements to use certified tradesmen. Could you elaborate on some of the others? (I'm writing a report that, among other climate-related goods and services, looks at barriers to trade in goods and services related to biogas.)
Comment
10 of 57
May 26, 2010
Anyone know how much it costs to convert a vehicle to dual fuel? Since NG isn't very available where I live at the moment, can I convert to propane, and later use NG with the same equipment when the pipeline is extended to my area in a few years?
Comment
11 of 57
May 26, 2010
Ronald, I tend to over generalize, but subsidies , in the view of the many people in Europe I correspond with, pale besides the saleability of the byproducts.

I am very impressed with Ontario's approach and have recommended it to our director of Energy Policy....fell on ears deafened by wind turbine noise I guess.

Let me clarify, the starting point for any energy production on farms are the energy audits, which uncover a host of expensive to replace pieces of equipment....so you just can't go out and convert your manure management over to a small digester using public monies.

A farmer with a manure lagoon can pump it into a tank truck and sell it; without running it through a digester...so why spend more money?

Gas extraction and handling is a hazardous aspect that must be safely implemented; even if you get a green rate, i.e. under MOO POWER(VT), of 24 cents/kW you now have an expensive generator that has to be tended and maintained.

I would have a public utility like a milk producers coop---strangely silent as an implementer?, buy the raw gas, clean and compress it, and either feed into a natural gas grid or 'gas' stations or generate power with it. You could go one step further and have a public agency build and operate the digester or haul the manure to a centralized location---gotta love German and Swedish socialism for these 'solutions'.

Solutions should maximize the return to the farmer and minimize manure management.

We've run out of places(my town) to spread sewerage sludge---Richmond doesn't want it near their organic farms; while the next town over is out of landfill space...an opportunity waiting for someone to put together the solution....so where's the leadership? out wasting millions on floating offshore turbines and on shore transmission facilities!

Go google NATURAL GAS VEHICLE coalition and there are lists of companies who sell conversion kits....best to buy a multi-fueled vehicle, its cheaper!
No image available
Comment
12 of 57
Anonymous
May 26, 2010
A DOE report claims that if half of all the waste biomass is the US is used to make biomass it could replace 5% of our natural gas usage. In other words, if the country is wildly successful at reprocessing waste biomass it may be a tiny component of our renewable energy mix. Meanwhile the subsidies in the senate bill for this energy source exceed 100% of the cost of natural gas from fossil fuel sources. The US produces in the ballpark of 2*10**13 cubic feet of natural gas in a year. 1 therm = 100 cubic feet~100000 BTU. The subsidy suggested is ~0.427 dollars/therm. Thus, if we do produce 5% of our natural gas from biomass sources we would be paying ~$4.3 billion dollars/year.

That is a nontrivial amount of money to pledge for an energy production scheme that isn't going to play much of a role in addressing climate change even if we are wildly successful in the implementation. Wind and solar merit a degree of national funding because they represent scalable energy solutions. One could envision a huge boom in manure to biogas production due to excessive federal funding (as has occurred for ethanol) that ends up costing a sizable about of money but which never establishes an industry that can survive on its own. Meanwhile a similar amount of funding for something such as enhanced geothermal electricity generation could actually spawn an industry that could meet a large part of the nation's energy needs. As a taxpayer, I rather only fund things that could actually wind up being game changers rather than niche players--and possibly unsustainable even at such low levels.
Steven
No image available
Comment
13 of 57
Anonymous
May 26, 2010
Frank Heller (in comments 7,8,11, and 12) argues that northeast dairy farmers end up with large amounts of manure that is a waste management problem and it would be nice to be able to turn it into an energy source. This is a good argument for some sort of state level funding to try to fund small co-operatives that could operate digesters and that could do so in an economically viable manner. One-size-fits-all national programs tend to have lots of unintended consequences and cost overruns.
Steven
Comment
14 of 57
May 26, 2010
Noooo, Steven, you don't understand! The logic of subsidies in a federal system is not to enable each community to decide what is in its own economic interest to fund, but to provide conduits through which communities can get taxpayers in OTHER parts of the country to pay for schemes that otherwise they wouldn't fund on their own!
Comment
15 of 57
May 26, 2010
ANON. blithly quotes anon. DOE reports as if they were factual analyses....it gets more realistic at the Maine State level, where data from towns is far more accurate. I call your attention to the annual report found at http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/docs/gencapdraft040110final.pdf.

In it, you'll note the fractions that can be processed in a digester. In 1997, the total organic waste coming into landfills was 86,170 tons; in 2008 this jumped up to 111, 287 tons. Recycled organics has decreased during the same time period from 313,090 tons to 245,294 tons.

What is missing are imported materials to fuel the 4 biomass boilers, the huge amounts of 'green' waste that is privately disposed of by tree trimming firms, food & other waste flushed into the sewer system---a local school flushes about 200 lb. of food waste daily into the sewer; the sewerage solids, and livestock & animal manures.

Collection and aggregation is made easy because most towns pay haulers to take away material in their 'stump dumps'; there are over 100,000 septic tanks which are emptied every year and the septage may or may not wind up in a sewerage treatment system. In both instances, data is readily available.

While wind and solar would die were it not for extensive subsidies; anaerobic digesters would not since current disposal, processing and transportation costs would be either mooted or reduced; the sales of gas as a fuel for public fleets and heating public buildings would be a fraction of the current costs; and the cost of making energy may see some breakthroughs as fuel cells appear to have some potential to replace internal combustion engines.

Real cost savings can accrue where you have projects...housing, corporate, etc. that are NOT on a sewer system and can incorporate a heat or gas distribution grid and a central processing facility to convert various organics and septage into gas and fertilizer and other saleable by products.
Comment
16 of 57
May 26, 2010
European companies can quickly provide efficiency quotients for converting various organic substrates into bio-gas and other saleable products using their proprietary processes.

The last time I checked, the ROI on energy produced by such digesters is a lot better than biomass boilers; which produce their own toxic ash, etc. that has to be carefully disposed of. Digesters can also process certain toxic wastes as well.

You can read all those DOE reports you want; but you'll get a more accurate reading on the potential of anaerobic digesters by starting with your State's organic wastes, aggregating them and then converting them to a usable form of energy. Real natural gas can convert vehicles far faster than electricity ever will; in fact the greenest cars are now the natural gas ones made by Honda and others.

Gas production can be localized easing the cost of aggregation and distribution; something even smart grids can't do. Gas can be compressed and stored, something that is difficult and problem-some to do with electric on a large scale basis.

The forecasts on the lifespan of existing land fills in Maine is scary....at best 23 years; then what? Disposing of sewerage sludge is becoming even more of a problem as more communities invite large scale certified organic farmers to set up shop, like FAIRWINDS in Richmond and Bowdoinham, Maine.

This is definately the time to cherry pick a dz. communities that are ripe for such integrated facilities....but where is the leadership coming from ?

..say 'hello' to David for me...he wrote the 'bible' on A.D.
Comment
17 of 57
May 27, 2010
Methane from biogas can be scrubbed and mixed with methane from fossil natural gas. There is no loss of performance in any application---both are methane(CH4), chemically exactly the same stuff.

Scrubbing biogas is an inexpensive and easy process.

Methane is very clean, and can be used directly for any process we need done--from producing electricity to powering vehicles.

--------" The logic of subsidies in a federal system is not to enable each community to decide what is in its own economic interest to fund, but to provide conduits through which communities can get taxpayers in OTHER parts of the country to pay for schemes that otherwise they wouldn't fund on their own!"--------

Taxpayers in other parts of the country all want cheap milk, but they don't want to clean up the manure. You can't have the milk without the manure.

That is the problem with many environmental issues today Ron. Everyone wants the milk, but no one wants to shovel the manure.
Comment
18 of 57
May 27, 2010
"Taxpayers in other parts of the country all want cheap milk, but they don't want to clean up the manure. You can't have the milk without the manure."

In other industries, Fred, it is the producers who have to pay for complying with regulations on preventing or treating their pollution. It's called the "polluter pays principle". When it comes to agriculture, by contrast, it is often taken for granted, especially by the farming community itself, that taxpayers should pick up the bill.

And, by the way, traditionally government policies are not aimed at providing cheap milk, but managing supply to keep prices from falling too low. Admitedly, these policies don't always work (or other policies drive up the price of feed grains, thus undermining dairy-farmer returns), but you have the intent of the policies the wrong way around.
No image available
Comment
19 of 57
Anonymous
May 27, 2010
Frank writes: "ANON. blithly quotes anon. DOE reports as if they were factual analyses"

I am technically quoting the Biomass article the author provided a link for, which quotes Senator Brown as quoting an unspecified DOE source. In an ideal world, we would get articles here with full citations to all relevant source materials and an analysis of economic consequences associated with any proposed policy. It isn't an ideal world, so I must make do which such poor hints as are readily available to estimate total costs. Hopefully, the other 99 senators are as skeptical of a >100% of market price subsidy as I am and insist on a detailed analysis of the overall costs and consequences for such a policy. If it is decided that some sort of program is in the national interest, it would also seem more reasonable to provide a specific sum of money rather than an open ended match for the amount of gas produced.

If, on the other hand, this bill will only profit farmers at the expense of the general public I hope it is voted down. If New England dairy farmers have a waste control problem they should solve it on their own like every other industry is expected to do. Perhaps this will lead to higher milk prices (or milk produced by areas other than New England), but that is the way markets are supposed to function, with the cost of producing a good reflected in its price. Then consumers can make a rational choice between soy milk, almond milk, rice milk, or cow's milk--or maybe even juice, soda, or water.... I don't care to pay higher gas prices so someone else can get cheap milk. And I don't care to see scarce funds needed for scalable energy sources squandered on niche schemes with exorbitant costs.
Steven
No image available
Comment
20 of 57
Anonymous
May 27, 2010
In comment #7 Frank writes: "...farms with greenhouses will strip out CO2 and use to flood greenhouse crops, doubling production! "

Do crop yields really vary so much with CO2 concentrations? Could anyone point me to a study indicating the correlation between CO2 concentrations and yields? If this is true, I'd expect that greenhouse growers would be preferentially located near coal generation plants because a ready source of concentrated CO2 should be available from them already....
Steven
No image available
Comment
21 of 57
Anonymous
May 27, 2010
Frank writes in comment 11 that: "Solutions should maximize the return to the farmer and minimize manure management. "

I'm worried that that is exactly what this legislation is designed to do--maximize the return to the farmer, with little or no tangible benefit to anyone else....
Steven
Comment
22 of 57
May 27, 2010
I thought everyone knew how commercial growers use CO2 to accelerate and enhance plant growth. I have a friend who grows winter salad crops in his greenhouse and floods them at night with CO2. As a result he reduces his growing time in half; doubling his income and enabling him to raise exotic greens....at $7/lb!

"Indoor Growing - Using CO2 by Green Air Products

First a little Plant Science 101 - For a successful, productive garden, hydroponic, indoor and greenhouse growers must control six "essential elements" - air, light, nutrients, water, humidity and temperature. Remove or alter the ratio of only one of these elements, growth will slow, and plants could eventually die. In this article, we will review the air element, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), it's role in the most vital plant process - photosynthesis - and how to effectively implement CO2 systems.

Photosynthesis begins when stomata, pore-like openings on the undersides of leaves, are activated by light and begin breathing in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. This CO2 is broken down into carbon (C) and oxygen (O). Some of the O is used for other plants processes, but most is expelled back into the air. The C is combined with water to form sugar molecules, which are then converted into carbohydrates. These carbohydrates (starches) combine with nutrients, such as nitrogen, to produce new plant tissues. CO2 is vital to plant growth and development, and yet is often the most overlooked element in indoor gardening.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%."
Comment
23 of 57
May 27, 2010
Part #2..."Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.

Commercially available CO2 generators offer the most economical, practical and consistent method of enriching indoor gardens. Using atmospheric control systems in conjunction with CO2 generators, ensure the most effective production and use of CO2."

"with little or no tangible benefit to anyone else"...Benefits include eliminating methane and other gases that occur during natural decomposition of manure; the reduction of nutrient runoff from stored manure; the production of 'natural' fertilizers in a liquid form; the reduction of both energy and by product costs; and the ability to integrate other forms of advanced food production like aquaculture and winter greenhouses.

Family farmers are an endangered species in New England; restoring their profitability would restore a vital part of American...unless you like corporate farms with 1,500 cattle in one barn and robot control day care for Calves? To NOT supplement family farming would be a poison pill to American life and culture...or do you prefer your fruit to be jetted in from S. America?
Comment
24 of 57
May 27, 2010
Using unspecified DOE sources is a license to fabricate results that bear more resemblance to one's political beliefs, instead of factual realities.

I deal in facts and have spent a decade formulating national policy, and drafted the first Environmental policy statement for the 1972 Democratic Convention; as well as conducting research on Muskie's air pollution legislation. I relish taking apart the arguments based on 'unspecified sources'.

If I were president, I would abolish the Dept. of Agriculture...and start all over again...the burden of filling out the paperwork for even the best intended programs now REQUIRES a grants specialist for about $1,500. In fact, I went to a USDA roll out of their energy subsidy programs that was lead by a consultant; who then turned about and hustled interested farmers with her consulting services. J.S., the regional manager, just shrugged when I pointed out the obvious conflict of interest.

Let's back up even further, and eliminate all the Legislation that rolls out of Congressional committees since it is rotten with loopholes for insiders. Whether A.C.O.R.N. or CARGIL; someone has left their fingerprints on AG. Energy legislation and staffers convert it into a 1,000 page strangulation of do's and don't's.

Pellosi's statement about the complexity of the health care bill was 'pass it now, you can read it later', is a red flag to the rage sweeping my Part of America.

So now you're trashing family farms; while endorsing 6 million dollar salaries for the heads of Freddie & Fannie?
Comment
25 of 57
May 27, 2010
-------" In other industries, Fred, it is the producers who have to pay for complying with regulations on preventing or treating their pollution. It's called the "polluter pays principle"."---------

I think you are living in a complete fantasy world.

Check out how much of damages were actually paid out by Exxon from the Exxon Valdez disaster. They paid far more to lawyers than they did in damages. And there is still oil on the beaches.

There is a lot of talk about BP paying for all damages and costs in the current spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a $75 million cap in the law.

Let's just wait and see how much they end up paying. Of coarse, just like Exxon---we'll have to wait over 20 years.

My bet is, after 20 years and billions in litigations, lawyer's fees, and gifts and bribes to politicians----they won't even pay a tiny fraction of the damages they are causing right now.

Meanwhile---if we mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US need to be multi-fuel, biofuel and methane capable, it costs nothing in new taxes---and we can run our vehicles on methane made from livestock poop. We have cleaner water, farmers have another income stream from exactly the same thing they are producing right now, and we reduce the need for oil, and we can still do everything we are doing right now.

We can have vehicles that run on petroleum, or, we can have vehicles that run on petroleum or no petroleum at all. It's a no brainer to me.

Frank is absolutely right on this one. My only caveat is that we need to create the market for his methane before we worry about producing the methane----we need to have demand before large scale production becomes feasible. When demand is present, production will follow. When people can drive their cars twice as far on methane compared to what it costs to drive with petroleum---demand will be there. Consumers will see to that.
No image available
Comment
26 of 57
Anonymous
May 27, 2010
In comment #25 Fred rants that various oil companies have managed to get around the "polluter pays principle." This seems to have been true for Exxon, and the jury is still out on whether or not BP will act responsibly. Certainly liability caps for oil rig disasters are too low. The fact that certain companies have evaded responsibility for their actions in no way justifies letting others get away with such behavior--that is a recipe for chaos. If some farmers have to pay for manure disposal, that is their responsibility and I don't see why we need a federal program to help them.

In comment #25 Frank writes: "Family farmers are an endangered species in New England; restoring their profitability would restore a vital part of American...unless you like corporate farms with 1,500 cattle in one barn and robot control day care for Calves? To NOT supplement family farming would be a poison pill to American life and culture...or do you prefer your fruit to be jetted in from S. America?"

The percentage of citizens making their living from farming has been a monotonically decreasing function of time for over a century. This is a measure of progress and has led to higher mean standards of living. If, in certain areas, family farms are no longer economically viable, then some other form of farming will take its place--and American culture will survive just fine. Most citizens cannot afford to pay double the cost of natural gas just so that a small number of farmers can resist economic realities. As for Frank's rant that some of us are "trashing family farms; while endorsing 6 million dollar salaries for the heads of Freddie & Fannie" neither is the case, but there are limits to how much largesse we can afford to lavish on possibly outmoded business models.
Steven
No image available
Comment
27 of 57
Anonymous
May 27, 2010
In comment #7 Frank claimed that enhanced CO2 concentrations "double" greenhouse production. In his comment #22 he claims "These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%."

I note that 25-60% is quite a drop from "doubling." And Frank, who complained when I referred to an unspecified DOE report apparently cited by the Senator who introduced the legislation, provides zero documentation of his reduced growth enhancement claim and no credible alternative to the admittedly questionable DOE estimate for biomethane limits. I point out though, that if biomethane is actually by some chance capable of producing more than 5% of our current methane needs then the subsidy will total even more than the $4 Billion/year cost of my rough estimate and some form of plan for eventual market viability would seem even more important. I don't think the government ought to spend billions of dollars/year on subsidies without a very detailed market analysis--especially when we are more than a Trillion dollars over budget already. Eventually we have to adjust to hard fiscal realities....
Steven
Comment
28 of 57
May 28, 2010
Fred, I think readers can tell who is living in "a complete fantasy world" and who is grounded in reality. Yes there are some powerful industries who have succeeded in not paying for their pollution, especially related to accidents, but damage from accidents (including car accidents) almost always leads to drawn out litigation. Most people agree that the $75 million liability limit on damage from oil spills needs to be scrapped, and there are moves afoot in Congress to do that.

But, as Stephen puts it, "that certain companies have evaded responsibility for their actions in no way justifies letting others get away with such behavior--that is a recipe for chaos."

What we are talking about here is routine pollution, not accidents. Look at the Code of Federal Regulations and you will see that there are all manner of laws restricting what (non-agricultural) companies can emit, dispose of, etc. But the starting point for agriculture seems to be, whatever they deem to be the least-cost way of producing is the starting point. To get them to change to cleaner production we have to pay them. You could call it the "Polluter Gets Paid Principle."

Fred writes, "Meanwhile, if we mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US need to be multi-fuel, biofuel and methane capable, it costs nothing in new taxes--and we can run our vehicles on methane made from livestock poop." True. But costing taxpayers nothing doesn't mean that the compliance costs are zero. Building a car to run on alcohols or gasoline costs maybe $100 more than one that can run only on E10. But building one that can run on compressed methane as well costs more than that. (For one, it will need an extra tank.) If Congress decides having such flexibility is worth the extra cost for energy-security reasons, then at least it is car owners who will ultimately foot that bill. But there is no guarantee that they would choose compressed biogass as a fuel -- unless, course, such gas is heavily subsidized.
Comment
29 of 57
May 28, 2010
I would like to say, regarding GW Bushe's desire to "make a profit out of the environment", that that has allways been the goal since man started making gardens. The problem is that there is a greater profit to be made out of destroying the Environment - then moving-on.
Current windfarm "technology" does just that - returning only a pitiful fraction of the energy which is required to construct it. George Bush most likely was/is not aware of this.
Wind energy can can stand up on its own energy, but it is a very differnt thing visually, and happily does not affect landscapes.
There are 4 reasons which account for the disparity in the rresults from "modern windfarms" and what is obtainable from "best practice" - about 5% p.a. of cost. bertdotwindonatgmaildotcom
Comment
30 of 57
May 28, 2010
Methane is already the cheapest consumer available form of energy we have.

Natural gas(fossil methane) and methane produced from biogas are exactly the same thing---CH4. Methane from fossil natural gas and methane from biogas can be mixed in any proportion at all, they are the same stuff.

Sewage needs to be treated anyway. Biogas or no biogas. That goes for human as well as animal.

It costs about 1/2 the amount to drive a vehicle the same distance that it costs to use petroleum.
Comment
31 of 57
May 28, 2010
Bertwindon: I think you posted your comment on the wrong string.
Comment
32 of 57
May 28, 2010
"Methane is already the cheapest consumer available form of energy we have. ... It costs about 1/2 the amount to drive a vehicle the same distance that it costs to use petroleum."

I agree, if you are talking about fossil methane.

"Natural gas(fossil methane) and methane produced from biogas are exactly the same thing: CH4. Methane from fossil natural gas and methane from biogas can be mixed in any proportion at all, they are the same stuff."

Fred, you are not talking to dummies here. Did anybody suggest that CH4 from the ground differs chemically from CH4 from a biodigester? I don't see that anybody did.

However, most gas coming out of a biodigester does not meet the quality standards (especially regarding CO2) of pipeline natural gas, unless it has been upgraded, which adds to the cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas#Biogas_upgrading

That is why it is common, at least in Europe, for the gas to be used either for small-scale power generation or fed directly to a single heat-generating device, such as a boiler. It is only where governments (e.g., Switzerland) have spent a lot of money on paying for upgraders and compressors that the biogas is used as a transport fuel.

"Sewage needs to be treated anyway. Biogas or no biogas. That goes for human as well as animal."

Great, so how come it is not being done on a large scale already? (That is not a flippant question; I'd be interested to know.)
No image available
Comment
33 of 57
Anonymous
May 28, 2010
In comment #32 Fred writes: "Methane is already the cheapest consumer available form of energy we have."

I'd rank coal, hydro power, nuclear power, wind, and possibly waste biomass (mainly wood) as being cheaper than methane. For heating and transportation purposes it is convenient and more affordable than oil but the claim was not restricted to these sectors.
Steven
Comment
34 of 57
May 28, 2010
For those of you who want to see the future of integrated organic solid waste and sewerage disposal plants in N. America; I invite you to:

Dear Friend of OSEA,

OSEA's Executive Director, Kristopher Stevens will be speaking on policy perspectives at the BIOMASS FOR ENERGY CONFERENCE on Monday at Queen's University. Register now - space is limited!

We would also like to bring to your attention a Community Energy Partnership Program webinar that will take place next Wednesday,

Read below for more information.

Sincerely,
Ontario Sustainable Energy Association
Comment
35 of 57
May 28, 2010
Steven, I assumed that Fred was talking only about transport.
No image available
Comment
36 of 57
Anonymous
May 28, 2010
Fred also writes: "Sewage needs to be treated anyway. Biogas or no biogas. That goes for human as well as animal."

True, but surely sewage management is a regional issue best funded at the local level. Why should the federal government be involved in such minutia (except possibly to create environmental standards)? Where I live we don't heap untreated sewage into landfills and I don't feel like I should subsidize treatment plans for regions with lower standards.
Steven
Comment
37 of 57
May 28, 2010
Anon, is well an anonymous poster...I tend not to give them citations; I also prefer to use local farmers who are actually using CO2 to increase production; than unspecified and undocumented ANON references.

FRED...methane is indeed a renewable and sustainable...that makes it very cheap indeed...I have a clipping of a farmer with about 60 barrels lined up along side of his barn; each filled with manure and food waste and sealed. They slowly decompose and the methane goes through hoses to a collection tank, where water condenses out, and then to a boiler in the milking parlor. Doesn't get any cheaper than that.

PEAT is another renewable N. Maine has by the hundreds of thousands of acres; peat bogs in Ireland have been 'mined' repeatedly for thousands of years.

Converting bio-gas to 'pipeline' quality gas is now a market sector and numerious companies are marketing machines that both clean and compress the gas, i.e. QWEST, etc. A farm in Vermont bubbles the gas through a polytank of marble chips. There are both machines and kits to monitor the quality of the gas; esp. for corrosive sulphids. A number of vendors are making generators and fuel cells which take the gas directly, with only condensing out the water.

This is a huge industry in Europe, with a reference base that covers every topic in detail, i.e. http://www.biogasmax.co.uk/downloads/ . & the European Union at http://www.agrobiogas.eu/agrobiogas.0.html .

Unsubstantiated sniping won't make it go away.

When Bert says: "The problem is that there is a greater profit to be made out of destroying the Environment - then moving-on" he's never lived in Amish country in E. Penna. like I have; where over ten generations of farmers have farmed the SAME land, over and over again, leaving it more productive than the previous generation; or the Family owned tree farms that are more productive than raw land and often harbor stands of rare and endangered trees....private hands are usually more protective.
Comment
38 of 57
May 28, 2010
another educational point...Digesters 'treat' human sewerage by subjecting it to 100 degree to 140 degree temps for up to 30 days. Effluent can even be flash pasteurized. The head veterinarian for Vermont found expressed solids from a digester to be as safe as conventional bedding for cows; and MOO POTs are sold to the public after drying.

yet another point...Federal air and water pollution legislation has funding sewerage treatment plant upgrades for about 50 years now, long validating the Federal role in cleansing our waters and aquifers.

We have a problem with restoring salmon runs; they just don't come back. I tend to think it is the chemicals in the treated sewerage outflows which deter them; some think it's a broken food chain. But with A.D. we have saleable end products, and lessening the need for chemical treatment of liquid effluent. Sewerage solids can be safely spread on ag. or other fields; in fact they can be bagged and sold as fertilizer.

Distributing the bio-gas is a problem because of an entrenched natural(pipeline) gas network and propane distributors. Local governments can lead the way by converting heating plants, school buses, and municipal fleets to burn locally produced bio-gas. A reference point...GOTTENBURG, Sweden even runs a commuter train and a large 'gas' station.

When you can make your own fuel; the government loses sales tax revenue and this makes government very reluctant to promote alt. fuels or 'energy farms'....No one has addressed this yet...In Maine we have Government opposing private casinos run by Tribes, since they would reduce the gambling revenues they now receive....Government is a powerful opponent to alt. fuel production unless it can make money off it!
Comment
39 of 57
May 28, 2010
Frank, there are many people who subscribe to the idea of global warming.

They think that carbon, or CO2 is an enemy.

This is an over simplification that leads to an erroneous assumption.

Tne problem is not that we produce CO2---the problem is where the CO2 comes from. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation(from the sun) and converts that energy to heat. This makes CO2 a GHG(greenhouse house gas). CO2 is not the only GHG. Methane is also a GHG. CH4 has 17X the infrared absorbtion of CO2. If we capture methane that would have ordinarily escaped into the atomosphere anyway--for example, treating sewage or tapping landfills---just a 6% mixture of biomethane in fossil methane will create a neutral GHG effect. We would be exchanging high GHG effect methane to relatively low GHG effect CO2. Any mixture of greater than 6% biomethane will result in emissions that will capture less infrared radiation than if we had done nothing at all. This is the only way we have that can actually cool the atmosphere.

The problem is not CO2---the problem is the effect it has on the atmosphere and where it is coming from, rate of production and rate of uptake.

Using biofuels(biodiesel, ethanol, biomethane, biomass, etc.) it is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 levels. Every atom of carbon in a biofuel had to fist be removed from the atmoshphere by plants to produce the biofuel. If it is not removed from the atmosphere by plants---you have no plants to produce the biofuel from, plants need CO2 to live. Without plants to balance the equation, you can not produce a biofuel.

Using biofuels is the only means we have of actually producing a cooling effect on the atmosphere.
Comment
40 of 57
May 28, 2010
Frank:

(1) You have not addressed Stephen's question: why should the federal government pay to solve local waste-disposal problems?

(2) Peat is decidedly NOT a renewable reource, except when harvested at a very small rate relative to the total resource, or in geologic time. To say in defense that peat bogs in Ireland have been 'mined' repeatedly for thousands of years is to focus on the low level of harvesting that took place until the mid part of this century and ignore the intensive harvesting that has taken place in recent decades. The IPCC recommends that peat be treated as coal in national carbon accounts. (Actually, it is worse than coal because it is wetter and therefore the thermal efficiency of power plants that use it is lower.) Plus, much of the harvesting of peat these days permanently destroys the peat bogs. Surveys in Finland have shown that only a fraction of those harvested ever return to sequestering carbon again.

(3) You write that "when you can make your own fuel; the government loses sales tax revenue and this makes government very reluctant to promote alt. fuels". That is true, but why shouldn't they be concerned, especially if the fuel is being used for transport? Taxes on fuels are there (in the United States, at least) to help cover the cost of using roads. People who make their own fuel and don't pay the tax are free-riders. Many states allow people to make their own transport fuels as long as they declare the production for tax purposes.
Comment
41 of 57
May 28, 2010
ron s.-------" "Sewage needs to be treated anyway. Biogas or no biogas. That goes for human as well as animal."

Great, so how come it is not being done on a large scale already? (That is not a flippant question; I'd be interested to know.)"--------

It is, in India, Pakistan and China. For the last 150 years(known and described to western civilization anyway, the actual origin of the practice probably dates back to either ancient Persia or China).

In India there are over 2 million biogas production points on family or village size facilities----and expansion of biogas is actively and aggressively encouraged by the government. In Pakistan, somewhere around 500,000 production points. And an unknown but substantial number of biogas production points in China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

In Europe---at least Germany and Denmark are actively persueing biogas production. There may be others I'm not aware of.
No image available
Comment
42 of 57
Anonymous
May 28, 2010
Frank writes: "Anon, is well an anonymous poster...I tend not to give them citations"

In my line of work I give and receive anonymous criticism all the time--in the form of the peer review process of scientific journals. It tends to keep matters focused on ideas and the careful verification of claims. Frank seems unaccustomed to having discrepancies and/or ambiguities pointed out, but then he claims to move in political circles where clarity and truth don't seem to be as highly valued.

I'll point out one discrepancy here:
In comment #37 he writes:
"...methane is indeed a renewable and sustainable...that makes it very cheap indeed..."
Conventional usage of the the word "cheap" is not so elastic that it encompasses a fee of more than twice the market rate, which is what one would be paying if the government gives a matching subsidy of more than 100% of the market price of the gas. And, of course, the farmers would also sell the expressed solids and save on their pollution control obligations. If such a large subsidy is really needed the process is far from cheap, and if these subsidies are not really needed we should be asking why farmers suddenly deserve a windfall profit from taxpayer largesse. This is why reasonable people request economic analyses before Billions of federal funds are dispensed and why reasonable people provide them.

Steven (semi-anonymously, as there has only been one "Steven" commenting on this thread)
Comment
43 of 57
May 28, 2010
ron s.----" (1) You have not addressed Stephen's question: why should the federal government pay to solve local waste-disposal problems?"-----

Because environmentally, there is no such thing as a local problem. There is only one environment. People who live in the city live on the same earth as the farms from which the food they eat comes from. People who want to eat the food that comes from farms have just as much stake in managing the waste from producing the food they eat as the farmers who produce the food. Extend your attitude of "their problem not mine" out far enough---and you put farmers out of business. Then YOUR problem becomes no food to eat. Your attitude carried far enough will end up in death by starvation to keep a few pennies in your pocket.

Farming is the one basic industry on which all of civilization depends. We can get along without anything else---but you can not have civilization without farming.
Comment
44 of 57
May 28, 2010
Fred, I am aware of the long tradition of biogas in places like India, and know that there are lots of plants in Europe. What I was wondering was what you see as the impediments to more widespread generation of biogas from human sewage in the United States.

You write, "People who want to eat the food that comes from farms have just as much stake in managing the waste from producing the food they eat as the farmers who produce the food." They would, if the farmers themselves paid for their waste management. In that case, the higher cost of high waste-generating activities would be passed on to consumers. But when taxpayers foot the bill, people in cities do not see the different relative costs of agricultural pollution control reflected in the cost of the different foods they eat, so the feedback loop is broken.
Comment
45 of 57
May 28, 2010
Ron------" . But when taxpayers foot the bill, people in cities do not see the different relative costs of agricultural pollution control reflected in the cost of the different foods they eat, so the feedback loop is broken."-----

That's correct Ron. People do not see the entire system. People want low cost foods---but they do not want to help farmers make the investments that will keep the cost of foods low. Your reasoning of having farmers shoulder the entire investment in waste control will result in slightly less taxes---but end up costing more in food prices. Farmers who can not make the investment will go out of business, which then means less food to meet the same demand. Repeated often enough, food becomes scarce and prices skyrocket. I do not have a pilot's license, and I do not own an airplane. But I still benefit from federal subsidies that build airports and direct federal funding that provides the FAA, ATC, FCC, weather service, emergency services, and all the other tax supported programs that make air travel possible. The same is true of people who do not own or drive a car or boat. They benefit from the road and water traffic control systems indirectly even if they don't use them directly. In the preamble to the Constitution this is called "...promote the general Welfare,...". I do not know of very many people who do not benefit from having clean water to drink, food to eat, and the goods and energy available to meet their needs.

Farming, sanitation, transportation, communications, health care, environmental, housing, defense and many other fields of government intervention are all legitimate aspects of governmental funding and control as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States---the outline statement for the reasons and purposes the constitution was written and adopted in the first place. It is basically just a statement of why there is government.
Comment
46 of 57
May 29, 2010
"Your reasoning of having farmers shoulder the entire investment in waste control will result in slightly less taxes--but end up costing more in food prices. Farmers who cannot make the investment will go out of business, which then means less food to meet the same demand."

Fred, there are two points being made here: (1) polluters should pay for their pollution. (2) If there are going to be subsidies, they should be alligned with the geographic level at which the benefits from reduced pollution will occur.

Not all agriculture pollutes the same. Pollution from the growing of, say, apple trees varies according to the chemical intensity of the orchard and how the grower manages his or her ground cover, but it is generally much less than from intensive livestock operations. On the other hand, a small dairy farmer who also grows his or her own fodder, and uses best practices for spreading the cow manure on the fields also will not pollute very much.

The point about making polluters pay is that the differences among the low-polluting and the non-polluting farmers will be reflected in their returns, both providing an incentive for the polluting farmers to do something to reduce their pollution and sending a signal to consumers, via prices, to more often choose apple juice over milk. The overall effect on food prices is likely to be modest. The main effect will be on the composition not the level of output.

But the point to remember also is that, at the end of the day, society pays for pollution clean up, whether as consumers or as taxpayers. The difference in how the incentives are structured, however, can make the difference between an efficient and an inefficient policy. When taxpayers pay, polluting farms are put at a relative advantage to non-polluting farms, and consumers keep consuming products from those farms, making the overall cost of the policy higher than would be if farmers competed, in part, on their ability to minimize their pollution.
Comment
47 of 57
May 30, 2010
So, what is your proposal Ron? Yes, differing types of farms produce differing types of pollution. But then, apple orchards are not directly in competition with feeder lots either.

I think your question to me is, what is the impediment to more widespread use of human sewage to produce methane in the US? Well, I suppose there is no real impediment other than not being able to use it. I was talking with a gentleman who had worked for many years in the Phoenix AZ area sanitation system. He was telling me that for years they had simply flared off the methane produced. They have now installed scrubbers, and use the methane in the city vehicles.

A simple thing to do---but it turns a completely wasted source of energy into a usable asset that offsets the necessity to purchase a lot of gasoline. But they did need the scrubbers, compressors and properly set up vehicles to be able to use the methane.

In your example of the apple orchard vs. feeder lots----I fail to see your point. Feeder lots produce more pollution(manure)----but apple orchards do not produce the raw material to produce methane. I do not understand your comparison of apples to poop---uh, I mean oranges.

The pollution(manure) becomes an asset---but the necessary equipment to be able to use the asset need to be in place.
Comment
48 of 57
June 1, 2010
Unconventional sources of natural gas (or methane) is the game changer sustainability advocates have been waiting for; both natural gas and biomethane create pathways to more sustainable motor fuels that liquid motor fuels cannot match. The end game is simple; large scale conversion from liquid petroleum-based motor fuels to methane (or natural gas) vehicles is based on market economics; vehicle owners can save money and reduce all forms of pollution, air, water, toxics and greenhouse gases. Methane motor fuels also happen to be the safest, cleanest and most affordable motor fuels available today; tomorrow we will have low-carbon hydrogen and electricity, but today we have methane.

The most cost-effective way for Americans to capture the benefits of methane is to bring millions of NGVs to market asap; this is cost-feasible with current oil prices IF federal policy motivates auto and truck makers to mass produce bi-fuel or multi-fuel capable vehicles. Mass production makes NGVs affordable; it eliminates the artifical barrier of vehicle certification by eliminating the high cost of aftermarket conversions. It also starts the process of creating infrastructure, hardware and institutional, and teaches consumers to embrace high pressure gaseous fuels; consumer acceptance of high pressure gas fuel systems is essential for the near-term introduction of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

Carpe diem,
Comment
49 of 57
June 1, 2010
http://www.epuron.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-204/414_read-531/

EPURON, a member of the Conergy Group, is currently developing a 1.79 megawatt biogas installation in Jüterbog, Germany (near Berlin in the state of Brandenburg). Energy generated would be sufficient to supply the entire Jüterbog community with electrical power. The installation, which will go on stream in April, is designed to handle the fermentation of approximately 24,500 tons of pig liquid manure and 31,500 tons of corn silage per annum. Input feedstocks will be supplied by a neighbouring pig farm and the Jüterbog agricultural co-operative society. A long-term supply has been contractually secured. The fermentation substrates by-product from the power generation process will, in turn, be purchased by the agricultural co-operative society and used in local fields as organic manure. This mass has less odour compared to conventional manure and does not pollute the environment. Six and a half million cubic metres of biogas will be produced annually in three fermenting vats with a total capacity of 7,500 cubic metres. The biogas will thereupon be converted to approximately 13.7 million kilowatt hours of electrical power in three block power heating stations. The electrical power will be fed into the E.ON.edis grid over a period of at least 20 years. The annual electrical power output is sufficient to supply some 4,000 households; i.e., more than the population of Jüterbog. In addition, e.distherm, a partner company of E.ON.edis, has agreed to purchase a large portion of the heat produced by the power generation and feed this into its long-distance heating network.
Comment
50 of 57
June 1, 2010
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1156
Europe, however, is committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and is increasing its use of wind, solar and biomass technologies. Biogas is a small but rapidly expanding part of the continent's renewable energy portfolio. Sweden, Austria and Denmark are leaders in the development of biogas, but nowhere is the potential of this industry being realized like it is in Germany. The German Biogas Association (GBA) projects that biogas will provide 17 percent of the country's electricity by 2020, according to GBA Secretary General Claudius da Costa Gomez. German expertise in biogas production could become a marketable commodity. More than 400 companies perform engineering, components manufacturing, construction, and technical and laboratory services for the biogas industry. The GBA estimates that 30 percent of the country's biogas engineering services could be exported by 2020. At the present time, manufacturers have to work hard just to keep up with the German demand. "Our manufacturers have enough experience (to exploit the export market), but they don't have enough workers," Horbelt says. "The demand for biogas plants in Germany is very high, and they aren't able to build enough plants for the German market before they go to foreign lands."
Comment
51 of 57
June 1, 2010
Exactly what is "POLLUTION"? If CO2 is pollution; how much are you paying to pollute it? One person's pollution is another's asset....greenhouse growers who use CO2 to increase crop production, for example.

Any subsidies for farm or community based anaerobic digesters must take into effect the huge subsidies for wind and solar power---including distribution facilities. Kind of silly to be promoting off-shore floating wind turbine farms, given the high cost and the cost of distributing the power produced to on-shore transmission lines...I mean the State just gave wind developers the power of Eminent Domain, setting off alarm bells up and down the coast.

The subsidies must also take into effect the impact on natural methane generation by decomposing manure...a greenhouse gas & pollutant; on stabilizing family farms, something most Americans cherish; by converting farm equipment to run on gas produced from formerly wasted materials; and by producing salable by-products, further stabilizing farm income. Farms are beehives of enterprise, especially when run by large families; and perhaps that rankles the socialists now engaged in putting the government in charge.

Any subsidies appear to be largely necessary to enable the capitalization of infrastructure for large scale projects; however there are units from India that are designed to handle the manure from 2-12 cows...perfect for new organic dairy farms popping up in New England. And they only cost between $400 & $1,700. Similar small scalable designs are available from S. Africa and Turkey.

a-b....thanks for the update on Germany. We are so, so far behind them!
Comment
52 of 57
June 1, 2010
Let me also add that 'IRISH GOLD' digesters are somewhat modularized.

Peat bogs are renewable; and have served villages for centuries. Peat is dug, dried, and burned...and it eventually regrows making it a renewable. The Maine bogs have been dug for nurseries for a long time; with no sign of being exhausted. I also include bio-mass as a renewable.
Comment
53 of 57
June 1, 2010
Peat from bogs can be renewable -- if not over-harvested. It is all a matter of harvesting at a rate no greater than the reformation of the bog. In Canada they are trying to keep it that way (www.peatmoss.com/pm-me2.php), and I'll take your word that there are bogs being exploited in Maine that are not being exhausted. But there are plenty of bogs, especially in Europe, being destroyed through over-harvesting:

www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/water/water/peat_bogs/index.asp

Or see slide 35 here:

www.greenlightevents.ie/epa/downloads/Presentations/Johnston%20-%20Wed/Florence%20Renou-Wilson.pdf

From the standpoint of CO2 emissions, harvesting the peat and burning it increases the CO2 in the atmosphere because that release is still higher than would occur in the absence of its burning (i.e., if the bogs were just left alone).
Comment
54 of 57
June 3, 2010
This should readily illustrate the level of governmental complexity in converting conventional manure management over to one which produces electricity and other products:

"Stonyvale Farms Methane Digester Approved as Community-Based Renewable Energy Project

At a special town meeting on May 19, Exeter became one of the first municipalities to pass a community resolution of support for a locally-owned renewable energy project, enabling Exeter Agri-Energy Anaerobic Digester Project to take advantage of the 20 year purchase contract made available through Maine's Community-Based Renewable Energy Pilot Program.

The community resolution of support demonstrates that those living in the area welcome the project, citing "reasons including odor reduction, harmful greenhouse gas emission reduction, energy security and local economic benefit." The Exeter resolution is available as a model to other communities seeking to endorse a locally-owned project.

A request has been made to the PUC to set a purchase price for methane-derived energy at the 10¢/kWh maximum allowed under the statute, which has been already set for wind and solar projects. Bangor Hydro and PUC staff have both worked patiently with the developers to assist with hurdles such as interconnection studies. The law is working as intended - bringing communities together around appropriate locally-owned renewable energy.

Stonyvale Farms, operated by the Fogler family, is a large dairy operation. The $3 million, 600 kW digester will be sized for 1500 adult cows. Travis Fogler and cousin Adam Wintle, d/b/a Strategic Equity Analytics, are leading the development process and will manage operations. Applications for the USDA REAP, Efficiency Maine Recovery Act emissions reduction program and federal production tax credits will join the certified long-term contract in making the project business plan come together.
Comment
55 of 57
June 3, 2010
Contrast this 'package' with the one-stop center in Ontario. I should point out that this is the first digester in Maine and one of only about a dozen in New England.....600 kW at 10 cents/kW is ...well you do the math and figure out the R.O.I.
Comment
56 of 57
June 3, 2010
Nice analysis of Peat mining.."4 million tonnes of milled peat harvested per annum for electricity and briquettes"... Peat provides 7.3% of the power; and 3 new peat fired power stations have just been built.

It appears that Ireland has identified the various threats to sustainable management of peat bogs---including wind farms; and is addressing them. This is similar to the movement to sustainable forest management in the N. New England forest; and the recognition of the urban forest canopies contribution to climate change mitigation.
Comment
57 of 57
June 13, 2010
Hello,
Very interesting and informative discussion going on here.

1. Can anyone enlighten me if there are small and modular plant designs available for biogas production?

2. Are there biogas producing systems available that are either fully or semi automatic to run in a household of say 5 family members?

3. As there are complex chemical reactions taking place in the anaerobic digestion chamber, are there empirical formulas devised to calculate the statiometric energy and mass balance of the reactions?

Thanks, Quaid (qsurti-at-gmail.com)
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Meredith Sorensen

View Meredith Sorensen's Profile
About:

Meredith Sorensen, Marketing Manager, Harvest Power


Harvest harnesses the maximum value from organic materials through the production of renewa... more »

Advertise With Us

Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems IntertechPira Free Hot Water Delta Rigging & Tools Intersolar UnThink Solar 350 Media
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters