Comments on: The Power of Poo

By: lil_miss_geekiness

lil_miss_geekiness — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:24:30 +0000

OH MY GOD ITS LARRY! THE COW THAT COMFOTS ME WHEN PPL MAKE FUN OF ME FOR SHITTING MYSELF AND LICKING WINDOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Michel

Michel — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:26:11 +0000

I think this is a great article. It points out the multiple benefits of biogas production.

By: Mark Fellows

Mark Fellows — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:17:57 +0000

Anaerobic digestion is a very promising technology indeed — some big dairies are generating power from the methane produced and selling it back to the electric grid. (NY Times, Sept. 24, 2008)

Problem is, it isn’t really cost-effective for smaller dairy farms, which although a dwindling portion of the total in the U.S., still produce half our milk.

Michigan State University researchers aim to develop scalable, modular technology to digest manure and use the methane to generate electricity — and use the liquid and solid byproducts for additional biofuel, fertilizer, animal bedding, feed and even building materials.

The story, linked to a wealth of background, can be read at: http://news.msu.edu/story/5695/

By: Kay Hunt

Kay Hunt — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:48:40 +0000

Enlightening article…thanks for explaining the system and process in layman’s terms and for the humorous personal interjections. Such a fresh approach – a serious global concern addressed responsibly without the gloom and doom undertones many writers feel compelled to burdon the reader with. Question: What are the chances that human poo will also find a niche in natural energy production?

By: Monica

Monica — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:20:38 +0000

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide–about 20 times more potent. This just means that one molecule of methane traps more heat than one molecule of carbon dioxide.

By using the biogas from the cows to make energy, you are preventing that methane from entering the atmosphere.

When you use methane as energy, you are essentially breaking the bonds that hold it together, which creates the heat used as energy. So the end product is no longer methane. One of the byproducts is carbon dioxide. However, you are still emitting less greenhouse gases because you are preventing the methane itself from entering the atmosphere.

Does that make sense?

By: Stephanie Heger

Stephanie Heger — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:47:19 +0000

This is a really great article! But, I have a question. I recently went to a lecture on energy and the environment given by an economist, of all people. But, there was a scientific discussion about the amount of greenhouse gases produced by methane. I don’t remember the specifics, but essentially many people brought up the point that methane has a higher concentration of greenhouse gases per molecule than say carbon dioxide. One, is this accurate? Two, is less methane required for to generate heat/power than other forms of energy so that the higher concentration of carbon dioxide per molecule is essentially canceled out because less methane is needed?
Thanks!