Poo power to the people

[anon]

A German town will become the first in the world to be powered by animal waste when it launches a biogas network this year.

Lünen, north of Dortmund, will use cow and horse manure as well as other organic material from local farms to provide cheap and sustainable electricity for its 90,000 residents.

Biogas is already used around the world - it will power buses in Oslo from September - but Lünen claims to be the only town to build a dedicated biogas network.

Material such as animal slurry and spoiled crops from local farms will be fed into heated tanks, where natural fermentation will break it down into methane and carbon dioxide - the same basic ingredients as natural gas. This biogas can then be burned to generate electricity and heat in a combined heat and power plant (CHP) before the heat is distributed across the town through a new biogas pipeline, which is being built underground.

Poo power to the people | Environment | guardian.co.uk

[nishant]

This will never work on a worldwide scale. Nuclear power is just more practical.

[splicer]

fed into heated tanks,

That heat is energy needs to have come frome somewhere; most probably still a fossil-fuel.

[DriftKing]

Lets see how it will be success !

[desodorante]

That heat is energy needs to have come frome somewhere; most probably still a fossil-fuel.

Yeah but it is way better than using fossil fuel or cole only.

[splicer]

If the energy used to heat the tank is coming from a fossilfuel, then CO2 is still being emitted on a mass scale somewhere along the line - which means theres hasn't been a complete transmission to alternatives, which kind of defeats the purpose of even using biogas. The only thing that is in my head concerned with heating the tanks is if it takes more energy to actually heat the tanks, than what can got out.

But if the energy to heat the tanks is being sourced from something else, such as hydrogen power, nuclear power... then it is a true complete transmission.

__________________________________________________ __________

Just noticed this part too:

break it down into methane and carbon dioxide

So it still produces CO2.

Fuck that, go for nuclear power.

[slikrapid]

which means theres hasn't been a complete transmission to alternatives,

there won't be such a change for a long time

then CO2 is still being emitted...which kind of defeats the purpose of even using biogas...So it still produces CO2.

whats wrong with CO2?
you do realize that all plants/trees need CO2 to grow?

[splicer]

You do realise the current amount of CO2 within the atmosphere is melting our... just watch An Inconvenient Truth, but forget the AL Gore autobiography parts. Anyway, I agree that there needs to be and infact always will be some level of CO2 within the atmosphere, eg for plants to be able to fully photosynthesise, but current levels are down to our actions... such actions as producing energy from fossil fuels, with CO2 as a bi-product. If we continue to produce CO2 faster than CO2 can be taken out of the atmosphere, then it will just build up, as it is. If we find the right balance, it would be even better; but the best solution would be to completely stop using fuels which have CO2 as a bi-product. We literally are on the verge of changing our ways, with the introduction of road legal hydrogen cars in California, and the current economic climate, where car companies need to produce cars which sell (as GM have probably find out), switching completely my help the world in more way than one.

[slikrapid]

You do realise the current amount of CO2 within the atmosphere is melting our... just watch An Inconvenient Truth,

no
this global warming theory is a hoax
the warming period ended back in 2001, now the temperatures have fallen (and are falling) so its actually a global cooling period
also CO2 doesn't play a major role here, its the Sun and its higher/lower activity

We literally are on the verge of changing our ways, with the introduction of road legal hydrogen cars

the ways are changing not because of CO2 emissions but because of expected oil shortage in 'near' future - all these technologies are known for quite some time but companies like to squeeze old ones till the last drop of profit

[splicer]

Your first point is arguable, whether global warming is a hoax - on one hand you have natural variations of temperature in history - ice ages anyone? But there is large scale evidence, produced by scientists that CO2 is linked to global warming. Google can provide more than enough links, but in all respects it can be down to a matter of opinion. Just so happens mine is they are linked, yours is that they aren't.

Your second point that the change is due the running out of oil doesn't make much impact. Ultimately we are switching over; be it because large corporations wish to invest in new technology so as to become market leaders, with ultimate intentions of making revenue, when fossil fuel stocks become so low that they are no longer profitable or because as a global community we want change. The first forms of technological change almost always comes from corporations; they are, in the 21st century, the developers of technology, as they have the finance and advantages, so whatever reasons are behind it are their own.

We are both intelligent people, and could probably argue on and on about this (before mods lock the thread), there being countless points on both sides; so lets agree to disagree... agreed?

[slikrapid]

But there is large scale evidence, produced by scientists that CO2 is linked to global warming.

there were very warm periods in our near history (middle ages to name one without going too far in history ), warmer than today and you would agree that their CO2 production was merely a fraction of today's so this argument is nonsense and those scientists that aren't drawn/paid to produce evidence (their number is getting bigger) are moving away from the warming theory

btw, what greater evidence would one need - if there is no warming (cooling!! and its measured ) all that CO2 induced warming theories fail miserably - now we could talk about other fuel burning/combustion products that are causing pollution, but this one just doesn't hold water


the idea behind global warming theory is to come up with a tax for all people to pay because of their CO2 footprint false guilt

as for Al Gore - there is some disturbing evidence, i remember one blogger who follows these things saying - i don't believe it - everything Al Gore is mixed into is a lie, and i mean everything

due the running out of oil doesn't make much impact...

actually thats the biggest factor...so big that wars are started because of it

large corporations wish to invest in new technology...

its nothing new to them, if they are smart enough prototypes are waiting 'in the basement'...

or because as a global community we want change...

unfortunately we as a community have to wait for years until some things change

The first forms of technological change almost always comes from corporations...

actually it comes from scientists (universities/institutes/military) - only those developments/ideas/... that are economically viable are then produced (and improved) by the corporations - of course if they are big enough they can start exploring on their own

--
edit:

mods here like intelligent discussions

[splicer]

Once again, we can argue and argue... there are countless points on both sides.

Last time a checked we can't travel back in time, and so we can't precisely nor accurately state what the average temperature was back in the middle ages, especially as their aren't records, and equipment used by anyone back then was probably inacurate aswell; though I do believe it is possible to tell CO2 levels from things like ice layers and earth cores.

Your second point that the change is due the running out of oil doesn't make much impact.

I meant that the reasons behind corporations changing fuel doesn't matter; not oil running out doesn't matter - sorry for not being precise with my choice of words. If Honda choose to develop hydrogen cars because oil will soon run out - fine with me. If they develop hydrogren cars because people want a change - fine with me.

its nothing new to them, if they are smart enough prototypes are waiting 'in the basement'...

Agreed. Supposedly we have had the technology to build electric cars since the 50s, but it's a well known business scheme to hold back the latest technology for years. Take the Apple iPhone - 1st generation had no 3G capabilities, but why the hell not? Because Apple could release the 2nd generation and make even more money. But other corporations, especially within the computer industry, release their new equipment constantly, always try to gain the upper hand.

I must also argue with you on who develops technology, though please do note, that in my original statement, I accept that not all technology spawns from companies - for example the first home gaming system, not Atari Pong, was developed by a single man; it is the large conglomerates who employ scientists, engineers and other specialists to develop technology, because their ultimate goal is to make money and stay in business.

And yes, these are forums, a place to discuss, interact, and debate but intelligent discussions often linger on and on, and diversify; we've gone from biomas to CO2 to technological changes to who develops it to what starts wars; does off-topic not come to mind?

Can we agree to disagree now?

[slikrapid]

back in the middle ages, especially as their aren't records, and equipment used by anyone back then was probably inacurate aswell; though I do believe it is possible to tell CO2 levels from things like ice layers and earth cores.

not precisely, of course, but certainly to a better extent (since there were scientists and analysts who reported such situations) than by pure guessing (what basically is - calculation from tainted geological layers considering atmosphere composition)

Take the Apple iPhone - 1st generation had no 3G capabilities, but why the hell not? Because Apple could release the 2nd generation and make even more money.

true, but the key is price - you can put inside everything you have - if it costs too much you won't profit from it

but agreed, its getting offtopic and yes, we disagree on some points

[nextor]

Guess it sounds more fun than it is.

I don't really believe in biopower though, there are better ways of sustainable energy sources. Not only that, but the ones that excist can get so much better.

Imho, nuclear power is a good way to go atm, but ofc it's not sustainable. But is surely beats fosile fuels.

[slikrapid]

I don't really believe in biopower...
Imho, nuclear power is a good way to go atm, but ofc it's not sustainable. But is surely beats fosile fuels.

personally i don't hold anything against any of these technologies, imo it is a good thing to go into research & development of many promising technologies at the same time - we need choices, backups in case some of them start failing, that's why it is not wise to force one resource (like oil) up to its limits - depending on something that much will be a problem unless working backups are ready or waiting to jump in when needed

this can be viewed as competition too - always a good thing for the end users


...different is good