digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

When burning gas is good for the planet

environment.newscientist.com — Rural families can slash their energy costs, improve their health and help preserve local forests by harvesting natural gas from rotting manure, researchers argue.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • alanr19, on 05/13/2008, -20/+7All burning of carbon based fuels produces C02, and this is what is causing climate change. An amazingly short-sighted article from New Scientist. You may save some money in the long run but thats about it.
    • 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.
      • lucas911993, on 05/13/2008, -3/+5All you have to do is look at the PPM of C02 in the atmosphere over the last 1.5 centuries. There is an exponential increase that can be directly correlated to our use of combustion heat engines.
        • thcobbs, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7once again.... basic science:

          Correlation != Causation
        • 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.
      • cerejota, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1There is a scientific difference between the natural fluctuations and influence on global average temperatures and hence climate, and the phenomenon described - correctly - as anthropogenic climate change. One is an ongoing phenomenon etched in the geology of the planet Earth, and has existed ever since the Earth has an atmosphere, the other is a phenomenon initially identified when the first stratospheric climate research started to happen in the 1950s and 1960s.

        The science behind anthropogenic climate change is very solid, and in many aspects (such as the ozone layer's "hole" - which was predicted on the basis of temperature readings in the equator long before being observed in Antarctica, and is beyond doubt a result of human activity) prediction after prediction has been corroborated by direct observation.

        This anthropogenic climate change is not independent from the regularly occurring climate change, or from non-human (that is, excluding farm animals) biogenic climate change, however it is a reality, and a scientific consensus.

        It is a mistake, for whatever reasons, to confuse the existence of multiple avenues of study of climate change in general with a non-consensus: everyone agrees there is significant climate change and increasing temperatures, and the consensus is that even if you account for non-anthropogenic factors (space climate, non-human biogenesis, geological activity, etc), the change has been to radical, in too short an amount of time, and too connected to human activities to be able to discount anthropogenic influence.

        There is debate in terms of the concrete mechanisms, the amount of influence, etc. But the consensus is clear, and the data supports it.

        Opposition is similar to the "intelligent design" proposition that scientists are not sure about evolution: there are many fields and camps in the evolutionary sciences, however the core precept of Darwinian evolution, random mutations of the genes selected for via natural selection, is true, accepted, and if this were the 19th century, considered a Law.

        The "humans have nothing to do with it" people are putting themselves in the same position as the "intelligent designers". And like them, they are motivated by ideology rather than science.

        While scientists and informed people in general have to be skeptics, and while we can detest the exaggerated neo-Luddite and neo-Malthusian claims of some environmentalists, denying the scientific reality, the predictive and experimental validation of the theories, of anthropogenic climate change is not being scientifically skeptical.

        It is denying reality for goddidit.
      • amoro99, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I know you really want to believe what you are saying. I understand that you are scared. I get it that you don't trust scientists, since what, they went to fancy schools and all. And that you think that they sat up one day and said, "It's the humans!" I'm sure you think that all the scientists meet in some undisclosed location every year to design more and more ways to profit from their findings. But please take your head out of your ass and stop pretending that you have any leg to stand on other than your piddly little opinion.It's getting really boring.
    • 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.
    • thcobbs, on 05/13/2008, -6/+6Sure, CO2 allllllll by itself. I'm amazed at how you've been able to model then entire earth's climate and distill global variations down to one single factor.

      Just in case: /HUGE SARCASM
    • Bovorik, on 05/13/2008, -4/+8You say that, despite natural gas being one of the, it not THE, cleanest fossil fuels.
      • alanr19, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Cow ***** and the gas it produces is not a fossil fuel you numb-nuts.
        • Bovorik, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Was responding specifically to "All burning of carbon based fuels produces C02", *****.
        • cerejota, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1LOL, Hydrocarbon Flame War!
    • JointVenture, on 05/13/2008, -4/+3Could you please explain Greenland and the vikings to me?

      You do realize that were they alive in todays climate they would not be able to make the trips they did because it is too cold and the oceans too rough.

      So tell me, if Greenland used to be green, and today it is not, what was causing the global warming then?

      Its a simple question, explain it.
      • alanr19, 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.
  • lukemandese, on 05/13/2008, -15/+1Hello guys!
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/13/2008, -33/+6When the terrorist United States Government is making a profit from it!

    United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.

    Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
    How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building 7?
    9-11 was an inside job! 9-11 official story was a lie! What happened to building 7?

    Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!

    Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!

    The elections are rigged, unsecure voting machines & ballots!

    Terrorist United States Government mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.
    • alanr19, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6Settle down dubass
    • paulvq, on 05/13/2008, -2/+5Why turn this into 9/11 conspiracy?
      • greenlight2001, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3Because his username is "usgovterrorists" and that's what he does.
      • rex84, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5There's always room for Jello.
    • usgovterrorists, on 05/13/2008, -7/+4When are we going to stop pretending the terrorist United States Government gives a rat's behind about the environment?
      The terrorist United States Government is the world's most horrific polluter!
      • chanop, on 05/13/2008, -0/+8*china = most horrific polluter.
        • usgovterrorists, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5Are they dumping nuclear waste in the ocean like the terrorist United States Government?
          Are they dumping thousands of tons of depleted uranium all over the globe?
          Are they dropping thousands of bombs like the terrorist United States Government?
          Are they spraying chemicals all over the globe like the terrorist United States Government?
          The world's greatest terrorists, and greatest polluter is the terrorist United States Government!
          • 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.
          • 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
          • Nougat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Lee Mercer? Is that you?
        • coyote1284, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Unh-uh, the rest of the world says evil, emprial, backward, racist, US is.
          /s
    • brianara3, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3Not that I should really even try to respond to this... but.

      -Where's the evidence that kerosene fires melted steel?
      Because it was JET FUEL not kerosene... Second, the towers didn't melt, they were severely weakened because of the fires heating up the metal. Therefore causing the metal to be unable to support the weight of the floors above it. Now, take 20 floors of a building and drop it 5-10 floors on the part below and the kinetic energy will continue the collapse.

      -How did the huge molten pools of metal get under the twin towers and building 7?
      Because there were fires that burned for SEVERAL DAYS. Also, that metal may have been aluminum or lead which has a lower melting point than steel.

      -What happened to building 7?
      It got hit by 2 freaking skyscrapers... Lets see how well your house holds up to a building falling on it.
      • usgovterrorists, 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!"
        • JonyMill, on 05/13/2008, -4/+4Actually, the pools of molten metal found beneath BOTH buildings have many changing their minds about the 'truth' of 9/11.
          After seeing this video, I too am starting to believe usgovterrorists, he may be on to something here.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
          • jerrycurley, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Well...that is becuase you are an idiot too. It is not chaningthe minds of "many" as you say. Unless you mean many other ***** idiots.

            Heat and pressure acting together can cause melting. tThe collapse of hte WTC produced a huge amount of both. EVERY SINGLE expert has agreed. But you don't think so. And you are basing it on your junior high school level physics...oh and becuase Alex Jones says so.

            And you really think your life is worht a damn?
        • buckw1lde, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Omg I never knew about that. Maybe you're right!
    • 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.
      • usgovterrorists, 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, -0/+1Your sick fantasy, to each of those questions.
  • BorsKaegel, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4What happens when the manure freezes? I am sure that'll affect methane output.
    • BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+11It is kept more as a liquid and in insulated tanks. Plus it generates it's own heat.
      • BXRWXR, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Gross - I don't even wanna know.
        • BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1watch the Dirt Jobs episode about Cow Midwife. You will know more then you ever wanted know. Or you remember the scenes in Thunderdome with all the pigs? Same idea.
      • BorsKaegel, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Thanks, I did not know that, BOFH2.
      • INDOAZZ, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1India rarely gets freezing temps. But where you live it must SUCK!
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • 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.
    • 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...
      • 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.)
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4especially pig farms. my lord those are horrendous to drive by.
  • finaland, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1tttt
  • OnlineDatingCod, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3it sounds perfect, but would u burn manure to cook ur food? i think for other uses, it is still reasonable, like using them to turn a turbine or things like tat.
    • BOFH2, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3They do not burn the actual manure - Never mind... Look it up.
    • BoogieManOh, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I would.
    • declawedpaw, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1When I visited Africa the Maasi people cooked food over fires fueled by dried cow manure.
  • galvo, on 05/13/2008, -3/+2The hosts of Top Gear burning gas is good for the planet.
  • trixterIreland, 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.
    • galvo, on 05/13/2008, -5/+1tl;dr
    • cerejota, on 05/13/2008, -3/+4This is so factually wrong is not even funny. Totally up your arse pseudoscience that would make an Intelligent Designer cry with joy. And the stuff about economies is sheer genius: you are just ideologically motivated, old economy dinosaur.

      Oceans have been emitting CO2 ever since oxygen breathing life emerged. There have been climate change cycles before. But the current cycle is unique in its speed, and the concentrated emission of C02.

      This is the 1-percent-in-China Phenomenon. When talking upon billions upon billions of metric tons of atmosphere 384 parts per million by volume is a heaping *****-load of C02.

      And humans are responsible for 35% percent of the increase. Here correlation does equal causation: there was X amount of CO2 emitted, and X amount went up. Its that simple.

      Yet C02 is not even at the center of climate change. Ozone destruction, watershed destruction, deforestation, the combined micro-climates of massive mis-planned urban centers (they are too big to be called cities) and a whole other deal stuff that has nothing to do with emissions is also at play.

      This crap is more complex than the pseudo-scientific musings of a few ideologues. It is paradoxically, solutions are much more simpler: we have to use technology and economic advantages to develop ways that at least preserve current human impact before the changes induces further ecological harm beyond our ability to adapt to it.

      And even more paradoxically, the climate change media circus has actually provoked economic stimulus, entrepreneurial creativity, and technological progress. The leading field of VC startups and R&D in terms of growth is the so-called green sector. And while some of it is motivated by other peripherally related needs (ie waste management, material sciences) a lot of it is driven from identifying.

      Markets don't need ideology, it seems. So stop whining and invest! Old economy types like you should STFU.
      • alphonseragusa, 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?
        • elementop, on 05/13/2008, -1/+11) I'm not going there. Why does everyone assume the U.S. has to be -- or should be -- the world's cop? I'd rather we just quit buying Chinese-produced goods, for more reasons than just this one.
          2) No. Just....no.
          3) Sigh...I'm starting to wonder if I am just feeding the troll, but on the assumption that I am not, here goes. While ***** sapiens may not be the greatest contributor to CO2 emissions, by definition, we have the greatest control over the amount of CO2 that we pump into the atmosphere. Therefore, that is a logical place to begin trying to limit CO2 emissions. If you come up with a feasible way to limit CO2 emissions from a volcano, by all means let us know.
          4) How do you explain El Nino and La Nina? Even within bigger cycles, there are always little perturbations, some of which are also cyclical. That doesn't prove that what we are seeing now isn't exaggerated by human input. If parent post is correct -- and I believe (s?)he is -- then as (s)he said: "But the current cycle is unique in its speed, and the concentrated emission of C02."
          5) IIRC, it wasn't green then, either (or at least, not all green -- a large part was covered by glacier then, as well). From http://web.mac.com/luchardy/Greenland_2007/Greenla ... :
          "The name 'Greenland' comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Norse sagas, it is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ('Greenland'), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ('Ground-land') on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ('Ground'), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer, and was likely even greener in Erik's time because of the Medieval Warm Period."
          So while it may well have been more green then than now, I don't think it was a huge, lush, sun-basked meadow in the 13th/14th century as your point #5 implies.
        • galvo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I always thought Greenland and Iceland's names were flip flopped for defensive/security..
  • thewump, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1I just burned my ass for the great good.
  • 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.
  • brainflakes, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1When burning gas is good for the planet: When it doesn't come from fossil fuels, DUH
  • TherealObadiah, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I remember when the climate never changed, then Bush stole the election.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • BikeMessenger, on 05/25/2008, -0/+1Kooz,
        Thanks for the thoughtful response. You're right when you argue the ease of gathering firewood makes it an attractive option, especially when you consider the experience of taking a walk through the woods, gathering firewood, returning home and having a fire... vs. shoveling cow ***** into a stinky hole in the ground and getting all covered in it, etc. But your argument that the government can sweeten the deal by giving these digesters away is a classic example of more government instead of better government. Allow me to explain:
        The act of gathering firewood involves the illegal act of trespass (entering onto anothers land without permission). Apparantly, there is little or no enforcement of trespass laws and therefore the cost of doing so is very low. A simple way to immediately curb the collecting of firewood and make the digester more attractive is to tighten enforcement of private property laws. Simple, easy, and the mechanisms should already be in place. Then, as less firewood is taken from private land people look to the market for a technology that can meet their needs, and we start to see more digesters installed (with no subsidy!). In this way, the market does need help from the government; however, the government's proper role to the market is as its Referee, not as its Coach.

        I'm also prepared to defend the market when it comes to providing optimal long-term solutions, but this isn't the thread for that discussion.
    • shadywasabi, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Moreover, there's a lot of government money going to Big Oil, and not so much going to ***** Digestion. A common mistake that people make when they say, "let the market work itself out" is that they assume the government isn't already intervening. That is clearly not the case here. Among other things, the US government pays farmers to let surplus corn rot rather than sell it or give it to the hungry in 3rd world countries. So in this case, I partially agree with BikeMessenger that government intervention has the potential to mess things up. Since farming is such a difficult way to make money, the government probably shouldn't stop intervening, but something does need to change.

      Another problem with BikeMessenger's argument is that it assumes that the market already knows about this technology. Hell, this technology's been out for years, but it seems like folks are only starting to learn about it now. Any technology that turns waste into something beneficial is probably worth putting some thought into, and I hope we hear more about it in the near future.

      The initial costs of a digester may be high, but I've heard from a pretty reliable source that one of these will pay for itself a lot faster than other green technologies like solar cells. So maybe there should be some government funding/subsidies going towards digesting the tons of excrement that American livestock generate each day.
      • 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
  • sillywampa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1well, that worked for Master Blaster when he ran BarterTown.
  • JointVenture, 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.
  • shadywasabi, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0What they didn't mention in the article is that there are more advanced digesters than the "covered lagoon" type, which can process a liquid manure slurry faster and more efficiently, while requiring far less space than a covered lagoon.

    One major reason that you haven't heard much about biogas produced from manure is that the US Dept. of Energy doesn't think it's as "sexy" as other technologies, even though using cow manure as an energy source has the added benefit of keeping huge amounts of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
  • 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....
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.