What is Digg?87 Comments
- nebben, on 05/13/2008, -2/+13RTFA!! It's about capturing naturally occuring methane that eminates from animal manure. Either let the methane escape into the atmosphere where it can do more harm, or burn it and improve indoor air quality.
- BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+11It is kept more as a liquid and in insulated tanks. Plus it generates it's own heat.
- regeya, on 05/13/2008, -3/+11Good stuff, and it's been used for decades in other countries. Natural gas shortage? Hey, I just had beans and brauts; I think not! Seriously! What the heck did people think natural gas was? It doesn't have to be pumped out of the ground, and it's about the easiest biofuel to make.
I'm a little baffled that, here in America, we try to do stuff like pushing the stuff through a fuel cell solely to power the , or building power plants and/or running trash trucks on methane extracted from landfills.
I was just reading about this project yesterday, which will use sweet potatoes for ethanol, and will use the residual biomass in a digester to run a gas turbine to sell electicity to the local utility. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/tobacco_fa ... Sweet potatoes would make way more sense than corn in west Kansas, since they don't require all the water that corn does. Plus potatoes' and sweet potatoes' starch can be used as a wheat flour supplement and/or substitute. - chanop, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8*china = most horrific polluter.
- thcobbs, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7once again.... basic science:
Correlation != Causation - vanashk, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5Rural does not = poor. Many of these rural families are farmers and a $250 dollar piece of equipment is chump change compared to the cost of a new tractor. Farmers live by taking out loans at the beginning of the year and paying them off at the end of the year. Buying this conversion plant is a sound for the money.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5There's always room for Jello.
- EelfinnTy, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7I think the real market for this process would be feed lots and dairy farms. It could be much larger scale and the improvement in air quality would be significant.
- Bovorik, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Was responding specifically to "All burning of carbon based fuels produces C02", *****.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6Settle down dubass
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -6/+12remember that the IPCC ignored 98% of all green house gasses claiming they didnt understand its effects. This is water vapor. CO2 is about 0.0384% of the air, mans contribution is not even the top 2 producers of co2 on the planet. Oceans are number one, active volcanoes are number 2. At least the IPCC report was wrong on its temperature projections for early 2000's, as well as the larger area in antartica that is getting colder not warmer, only a small section is getting warmer, several times by volume is getting colder, and the ice mass is increasing as a whole in antartica. And now we have the next decade of lowering temperatures due to a 60 year weather pattern that is barely understood. There is also a known way that could lower global temperatures, 2% increase in cloud cover, and creating clouds isnt that hard (creating clouds is different from creating rain which is harder).
Really if people wanted the temperature part fixed that could be done by now, instead the loudest arguing for climate change want legislation to break down economies instead of just adjusting the temperature. I dont understand that logic personally. So either they arent the experts they claim to be, or they have other agendas and are latching onto this to further their cause (some groups do have a stated agenda of financial ruin for all because if everyone is poor everyone is equal, others I am sure just havent done their own research instead relying on some politically motivated group to tell them what to think, and there is probably a larger 3rd group that knows but ignores in the attempt to clean the air, which isnt a bad thing but it should not require hiding facts or ignoring facts to accomplish)
for the person that said that "All burning of carbon based fuels produces C02" that is somewhat misleading. Some types of carbon based fuels emit a solid not a gas as their primary emission, it depends on what the fuel is specifically and how its burnt (temperature, pressure, etc). There may be trace amounts of co2 but then opening a soda bottle releases trace amounts of co2 as well, so does breathing.
I still cant imagine why 98% of green house gasses (the #1 gas) are ignored on a constant and regular basis just so that co2 seems worse and thus man can be blamed. It doesnt seem to be rational to intentionally knowingly ignore 98%, and certainly doesnt seem scientific to ignore the vast majority of something to achieve the result you really want. - greenlight2001, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4You use "terrorist United States Government" so often, maybe you should just abreviate it to 'tUSG'. Save everyone some reading time.
- korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4especially pig farms. my lord those are horrendous to drive by.
- johnomaz, on 05/13/2008, -6/+13Did you ever stop to think that what we like to call global warming is actually a normal process? Think about it. Our planet went through an ice age. It was completely frozen. Then it began to thaw. Normal process. Ice melted, land became livable once again. Normal process. Then suddenly, we get the modern world. Enlightened thinkers decide that our world is perfect the way it is and does not need to change anymore. Except that maybe our world is still thawing. Has anyone ever stopped to think that polar caps are just the leftovers of the ice age that have yet to thaw? Scientists love to place blame on C02 emissions causing the ice to melt, but taking a look at history, the ice has been melting for a long long time. Just because we consider the earth to be perfect for us doesn't mean its how the earth is meant to be.
If today's modern society, technology and all were around back in the middle of the ice age where the earth was a big white ball of freezing weather and suddenly the oceans began to thaw, and the dirt under their feet began to appear, would they believe that we were the cause of the thawing? Would they even call it an ice age, or just normal day to day weather. - Bovorik, on 05/13/2008, -4/+8You say that, despite natural gas being one of the, it not THE, cleanest fossil fuels.
- Chode2235, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3This is old news, our farm house (built in 1893) had pipes throughout the walls that were used to light the place via open flames powered by methane gas collectors over the manure piles.
Obviously the open flames, and piping methane into the house is not ideal, but the idea has been around for a long time.
We have gotten too used to cheap and reliable energy. - inactive, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5What do you call a government that stages attacks against its citizens?
What do you call a government that invades Iraq on 1000 lies?
What do you call a government telling lies about Iran, so they can attack Iran next?
What do you call a government that deploys several thousand tons of weapons of mass destruction?
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
The word terrorist just doesn't seem to do it justice.
The terrorist United States Government makes any so called terrorist look like a boyscout! - coyote1284, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Awww, what a cute troll we have here. He can stay in character and doesn't afraid at anything, especially the "terrorist United States Govenment" that has yet to abduct him from his home and make him disappear; a fantasy that he masturbates to nightly.
- BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3They do not burn the actual manure - Never mind... Look it up.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4Greenland is an Anglicization of the native name you stupid *****. It has nothing to do with the color green.
Wow you are by far the dumbest bastard on digg. That ***** is hilarious. lolz. - Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -3/+9The $250 conversion plant pays for itself in two years. This is all well and good, but somehow I don't expect many people in that economy to have $250 to put into a new-to-market machine without expecting any return on the investment for two years.
- EelfinnTy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Seriously? The manure is still there and can still be used on the fields. They are just capturing the methane that it gives off anyways and burning it.
- Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2We're not talking about when your parents stop giving you money to go to college. We're talking about subsistence farmers in India.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Cow ***** and the gas it produces is not a fossil fuel you numb-nuts.
- coyote1284, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Any country using nuclear power does.
Any country that used it in their tanks and such and deployed them has.
Isreal, UK, Palestine, Canada.
I suppose you're refering to "contrails" left by airliners... I'm not even touching that one - BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5Stimulus check? Selling something? I was poor once and sold all but essential things so I could pay for rent and food.
- frostbyt, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1PSA
This natural heating cycle the earth is going into can be misinterpreted for global warming.
The more you knows. - DestroyFascism, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Good! Now we have an excuse for farmers to pick up ***** and get rid of those God Damned Bush FliEs....
- MixMastaKooz, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The market will tend towards the cheapest solution and not the best solution. In this case, if it is cheaper for the villagers to gather wood in the forest illegally, why should they invest in a $250 piece of equipment that may or may not last for two years? Especially in this case, the short term solution is the cheapest. However, the long term effects, deforestation, will have a devastating impact on the villagers: they may not see the forest for the trees (until there are no trees left). In this case, government can stifle the short term gain of forest wood and offer the digester at a price they can afford and/or see a short term gain. Remember, markets are great for the short term, but need guidance for the long term.
- paulvq, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5Why turn this into 9/11 conspiracy?
- BikeMessenger, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Shady,
I also responded to Kooz's comment above.
I think you make a strong point about government subsidies, and how they tend to distort the market. There is a lot of money going to Big Oil, and very little going to ***** digestion. I am as strongly opposed to farm subsidies as i am to petroleum subsidies as i am to ***** digestion subsidies. However, I won't argue with the intentions that started each of these programs: each started out as a way to 'correct' an 'imperfect' market situation, and in the short term may have had some small effect. But it is clear from these and other programs that the effect of government subsidies is to stifle the market and to create anomalies that otherwise would have reached a more natural equilibrium. Ex - in absence of government farm subsidy, we might be eating more fruits and vegetables instead of corn and sugar based products (and all the chemical variants and combinations of the two, think twinkie's) because they would be closer to the same price.
As far as advertisement, it is evident that this is something the market can do (maybe too) well by itself. I would argue that the market is probably aware of this equipment, but has chosen not to buy it, either because of cost (maybe) but probably because, well, would you want a huge vat of ***** right next to your house?
Your last point, about digesting livestock ***** in the US, is a good point. However, instead of starting a new program to subsidize the digesters to farmers, how about we strengthen the runoff pollution laws already in place? This would make digesters attractive as an easy way for farmers to 'clean up' their runoff, and produce some valuable fuel at the same time. No subsidy needed, no coaxing, just make them abide by the laws that are in place and the market will help them find the appropriate solution.
-BikeMessenger - INDOAZZ, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1India rarely gets freezing temps. But where you live it must SUCK!
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2We will control you, we will tax you and make you dependent on the government, individualism or as that ***** from the nation likes to say "hyper individualism is bad.
We are the left, we will save you from the disasters.
I cant believe people are so willing to submit, stop social networking and do something real. - davewashere, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Please reread the article, it answers your question.
- coyote1284, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Your sick fantasy, to each of those questions.
- declawedpaw, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1When I visited Africa the Maasi people cooked food over fires fueled by dried cow manure.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4Do you have pictures of a building falling on building 7?
Your fantasy has nothing to do with reality! Fires burned several days is your proof for molten metal?
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!" - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I always thought Greenland and Iceland's names were flip flopped for defensive/security..
- Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, the investment is returning in those two years, but it's not profit until the original investment is surpassed. (I am presuming that the device itself is not resaleable, though it probably has some intrinsic value, even if just as scrap.)
- sillywampa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1well, that worked for Master Blaster when he ran BarterTown.
- BikeMessenger, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Sounds like a great piece of technology - simple enough to construct, yet immensely useful.
I love to read news like this. However, these articles always include a comment to this effect: "...so governments need to promote biogas in villages of not only India, but also in other countries..." I respectfully disagree to this and other calls for government intervention in places where the market is fully capable. Why should the Indian government have to do marketing for these devices when the companies selling them could? If you are a business trying to install these devices, does it not make sense to have a sales team? Why claim the government should be in that role? I don't understand why the market would work any differently there than it does here. - brainflakes, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1When burning gas is good for the planet: When it doesn't come from fossil fuels, DUH
- cerejota, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Yes, but you are making another fallacy: there is in fact much more to anthropogenic climate change theory than correlation.
But one correction I must make is that there was more per-capita CO2 emissions in the 19th century than the 20th, due to all that horse manure, wood burning and dirty coal. Petroleum actually has made the per-capita emissions go down. Nevertheless, this has been canceled by a population and longevity explosion. - logicet, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2If it pays for itself in 2 years, it's return on investment is 150% over 5 years. 2/5ths of that profit is generated in the first 2 years...
- TherealObadiah, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I remember when the climate never changed, then Bush stole the election.
- BoogieManOh, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I would.
- inactive, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5Excuse me - I have questions:
1. If China refuses to stop, should the US declare war on them?
2. When humans breath we emit Co2 - I'm sure you wouldn't propose we stop breathing, but perhaps population control? Maybe we can kill those hooked up to machines in hospitals because they are producing too much waste?
3. What should we do about volcanos? They deposit tons of toxins into the atmosphere.
4. How do you explain the medieval warm period or little ice age?
5. Why is Greenland (named in the 13th/14th century) now covered in ice? - BikeMessenger, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Same way you buy a new car: the company finances your purchase, and you pay it off a little at a time.
- cerejota, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1LOL, Hydrocarbon Flame War!
- Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Lee Mercer? Is that you?
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is