Submitted by redingerforcongress t3_ydo0xd in Futurology
Comments
Elite_Valkyrijn t1_itttwqq wrote
Hopefully they can turn that poop- into wine.
Esox202 t1_itu9iyv wrote
Turn that poop into wine! TURN THAT POOP INTO WINE ! sirene bleeps
Elite_Valkyrijn t1_itv0bm5 wrote
baaa baa bap bap ba bap bap ba baaaaap
[deleted] t1_itxjt96 wrote
[removed]
doppelmember t1_itxr7rs wrote
That'd be some bullshit.
No really, the bull might give the wine more earthy notes.
OffgridRadio t1_ittjn7f wrote
Biogas has been around for a very very long time. It has challenges but the biggest challenge to it was always capitalists. Waste input, power output, doesn't fit the waste cycle.
Some people on homesteads build elaborate systems that heat their houses with their shit.
FerociousPancake t1_ittqs6q wrote
I wonder what the products are from combustion? Sounds pretty neat.
Valennnnnnnnnnnnnnnn t1_itu9god wrote
Burning methane (CH4) with oxygen (2 O2) gives you carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (2 H2O).
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv01ek wrote
Yup, it's actually clean burning which is why this is great, because unlike fossil sourced natural gas, it's not introducing new carbon, it's just skipping the methane step in the carbon cycle, which is 80x more potent as a greenhouse gas over it's normal 20 year decay time.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvlegj wrote
This isn't really true. Even ignoring the supply chain footprint, its not carbon neutral. Methane is a massive polluter. Its very hard to contain and when it leaks its a more problematic greenhouse gas than Co2
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvmkvi wrote
You mean, like how it would be released naturally back into the atmosphere anyways? We're talking about capturing methane released from biological decay.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvn1md wrote
But its not inevitable because the manure is from industry. And its still not carbon neutral.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvobx3 wrote
The manure is from animals that got it from plants which got it from... the atmosphere. It is carbon neutral, it didn't conjure new carbon atoms into existence like magic. Not only that but by burning the methane we shortcut it's 20 year life as a 80x more potent as an greenhouse gas than the CO2 it was originally and will become again anyways.
Why waste the resource when that byproduct of waste exists anyways, isn't introducing new carbon, and burning it actually reduces it's natural warming effect?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvy684 wrote
A) it doesn't exist anyways, we can independently end its production.
B) Methane is much worse than CO2 and you aren't shortcutting anything, you are letting the worse one into the atmosphere
C) ITS STILL NOT CARBON NEUTRAL WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.
Biofuels are industry green washing. They don't solve the problem and make us continue to be reliant on their products.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw05a3 wrote
>A) it doesn't exist anyways, we can independently end its production.
???
>B) Methane is much worse than CO2 and you aren't shortcutting anything, you are letting the worse one into the atmosphere
So you're making the argument we should burn it rather than let it be released as is.
>C) ITS STILL NOT CARBON NEUTRAL WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THAT.
Because it is. It doesn't release new carbon. That CO2 came from the atmosphere and will return to the atmosphere, with a 20 year period of being methane in between, which is an 80x more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 it starts and ends the cycle as.
>Biofuels are industry green washing. They don't solve the problem and make us continue to be reliant on their products.
You dramatically misunderstand what's going on here. This isn't growing crops to process into ethanol. This is the natural byproduct of decay of biomatter. It exists anyways, we're just capturing it from waste and burning it for energy which skips the life it would have been in the atmosphere as methane, causing 80x more warming than CO2, before decaying back into CO2 anyways. It is literally more harmful to not do this. It's not like we're manufacturing it.
FrolfLarper t1_itw2n05 wrote
I think Mr. Hoover was trying to say that the amount of cow shit we have methaning out is not natural, it’s because of our industry. So it’s an offshoot of human activity. The more better solution would be to raise fewer cows rather than try and deal with their emissions. Yes, you can whatabout the shit out of this, just trying to make his point a little more clearly.
shastaxc t1_itwfagc wrote
Your take seems correct. That other dude is really bad at making a point. However, I don't think it's practical to just stop all industrial cow farming as a solution to the methane problem. Burning the methane is a much better solution. And it also solves his hypothetical supply chain emissions problem if you use trucks that run on the methane they're supplying.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwts45 wrote
Even better is using EVs and burning the methane in a powerplant, that's much more efficient. But anything that gets us off of fossil fuels faster at this point, no need to fret over a perfect solution, we just need a working system of solutions.
shastaxc t1_itxln28 wrote
You might be right but there might be good reasons for using methane that I don't know about. Is it cheaper than electric? It almost certainly refuels faster. You can move a gas super quickly. Is it more efficient than electricity? Longer trips without refueling is a good thing. These are all perfect for commercial trucking, but not necessarily for a daily commuter. Large batteries for a truck must be expensive, and at some point I think we will start to see lithium shortages, especially if EVs become more popular. Both methane fuel and electric can thrive together.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itxpckm wrote
Longer trips and heavy duty applications like shipping would be the main benefit. As far as efficiency, burning it in a large scale power plant to make electricity to power an EV is more efficient than burning it to directly power a vehicle. But certainly there are applications that make sense.
Keep in mind though methane capture from waste can only scale so much and trying to produce more would defeat the purpose. We won't be in danger of running out of lithium anytime soon, it is one of the most common elements in the planet's crust and there is a lot of it in the ocean. Any shortage is going to be market driven which, while lithium is abundant, accessing much of it can be difficult and expensive. Remember that batteries are almost entirely recyclable though so you get a really long life out of it once you've mined it.
FrolfLarper t1_itwlo0o wrote
I’m not trying to die on this hill, but just throwing the cow shit in a digester doesn’t capture all their emissions. They burp and fart too. Deep decarbonization will either require dialing back beef/dairy production or massive offsets. Probably both.
BTW I’m not poo pooing the poo poo choo choo.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw3v3p wrote
That still makes it CO2 sourced from and that will return to the atmosphere anyways. I agree our farming practices are unsustainable but they don't conjure new carbon atoms into existence and not utilizing the resource that exists anyways, and in a more harmful form than the CO2 it is destined to return to regardless because of a different, tangentially related issue is ironically a whataboutism.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itw1w86 wrote
It. Does. Not. Exist. Anyways.
Its industrial byproduct.
How is that so hard for you to understand.
Quit repeating the same thing I answered already over and over again and actually engage with what I'm saying.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw2ujm wrote
It does exist anyways because it's byproduct of natural biological processes which occur anyways. If nothing happened to it, it would be CO2 in the atmosphere anyways, if we did nothing it would return to the atmosphere and spend 20 years as methane before becoming CO2 again anyways.
How is that so hard for you to understand?
I did engage with what you said, I informed you of the scientific reality and you're just repeating the same thing instead of actually engaging with that information.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itw98vu wrote
Holy shit.
Do you actually believe all that manure just naturally exists?
I swear, you are either stone cold stupid or avoiding the issue.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwad3m wrote
So you honestly believe that cows just conjure those atoms into existence lol?
You are stone cold stupid, no avoiding that issue.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwhdkn wrote
.... buddy.....
Why do you thunk there are so many cows....
You can't be that stupid.....
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwhvrd wrote
.... buddy.....
where do you think cows get all that carbon?
You evidently are that stupid.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwmxtx wrote
So, to sum up, you are unable to just admit that the methane comes from an unnecessary source that can be eliminated without burning more carbon, are doggedly insisting that its carbon neutral when its not, and seem to think your misunderstanding of the carbon cycle is a gotcha.
Dude, just give it up.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwniyh wrote
So, to sum it up, you are just unable to admit that you have zero understanding of biochemistry and the carbon cycle and are going to continue insisting that cows are magic matter generators because adjusting your position to the science would mean changing your worldview, so it's easier for you to maintain cognitive dissonance and call the other person stupid than to think too hard about it.
Just give it up, you were never attempting in argue in good faith or cared about having a real understanding of the process.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwo98x wrote
My god.
Ok, i guess i have to spell it out for you:
The manure comes from the meat and dairy industry. Its not natural. Its industrial waste. We can eliminate that source. You have to pretend i..... think cows magically materialize matter.... because I already explained to you that carbon cycle isn't that simple and you can't wrap your head around that.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwt6gg wrote
WHERE DO COWS GET THAT CARBON THEN HOOVER? HUH? Do you think because we farm them they magically make more?
No of course not, that's ridiculous, they get it from the plants they eat, which get it from the atmosphere. Why can't you wrap your head around that? You want to argue about our unsustainable farming practices and our need to address that? yeah okay, I agree, does that magically make cows make more carbon atoms? No, so stop being ridiculous.
That CO2 existed, in the atmosphere already, it was sequestered by plants, and would have, in one way or another, through biological decay, ended up back in the atmosphere as carbon after spending some time as methane.
All we're doing here is capturing some of that methane from waste, skipping the 20 years it would have spent as an 80x more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 it will end up as in the atmosphere anyways.
No new carbon is added here. If you think there is, you think somewhere along this process new carbon atoms came into existence, they did not.
Pretending otherwise, and that converting it back into CO2 sooner isn't better than leaving it as methane releasing into the atmosphere at 80x potency, and burning a fossil fuel that is adding new carbon, is simply science denial.
You CANNOT eliminate that CO2 or methane, which is already in the environment, simply by not raising cattle. It's still there, you didn't eliminate squat. The source IS THE ATMOSPHERE.
Is that spelled out enough for you, or are you going to keep repeating the same nonsense, learn nothing, and angrily shake your fist at the sky because the real world isn't what you think it should be?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwx3fm wrote
Holy shit.
My guy.
If you don't breed the cows they don't produce methane.
The two choices aren't in the atmosphere or in the cows.
The actual fuck is going on inside your brain.
The concentration of carbon also isn't the problem. The volume of greenhouse gasses is the problem. And methane is way worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas.
You are actually braindead..... you have no clue how any of this works and apparently think you do which is worrying....
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwxmx9 wrote
> If you don't breed the cows they don't produce methane.
Right, but that methane still gets produced from the biomatter decay that otherwise still occurs, or if you want to go the route of crops we raise to feed the cattle, the CO2 is still in the atmosphere in the first place.
> The two choices aren't in the atmosphere or in the cows.
One of the choices isn't doesn't exist though. That carbon is going to still be in the atmosphere, be sequestered by plants, that goes into other food sources for humans, because people still gotta eat and you need to replace the cows with something, and that's still going to end up back in the atmosphere.
> The actual fuck is going on inside your brain.
Uh, Science, reality, What's going on in yours? blind hatred of cows?
HerbHurtHoover t1_itwzfhy wrote
No..... it doesn't.....
The methane comes specifically from the manure made by the cows.
It doesn't just magically exist otherwise.
Its truly mind boggling you are still going. You're argument is that no matter what the same amount of methane is always going to be produced.
If you use, ie, plant based substitutes, then all that extra methane from the cows is gone. It doesn't magically happen elsewhere, it is a source that doesn't exist anymore.
How are you this dumb. You aren't using science you are making absolutely herculean acts of moon logic.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itx041b wrote
Do I need to draw you a diagram?
You're the one arguing that new carbon is somehow conjured into existence, and also somehow that not converting methane into the CO2 it will eventually become anyways is somehow better than letting it exist as an 80x more potent greenhouse gas for the 20 years it takes to decay.
>If you use, ie, plant based substitutes, then all that extra methane from the cows is gone.
No, it isn't, decay from the waste products still happens, you still produce methane and CO2 as waste from metabolizing. That carbon doesn't just cease to exist.
>How are you this dumb. You aren't using science you are making absolutely herculean acts of moon logic.
You, expect no logic can be found.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itx5ctw wrote
Oh.
My.
God.
If. You. Don't. Breed. The. Cows. That. Methane. Doesn't. Get. Produced.
Period.
There is no other matter that decays into methane.
Also "carbon conjured from nothing"???? What on earth are you talking about????
Like, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itx8oha wrote
You couldn't be more wrong lol. You realize a lot of this methane capture we do is from landfills right? bacteria in tons of organisms and the decay there of, produce methane. It isn't unique to cows. How do you think all that natural gas was produced before there were cows exactly?
And I will once again point out that, concern about an increase in methane that exists at the same time, although it will also decay back into CO2 at the same rate, is an argument for not against burning it to convert it back to the CO2 it was and will reenter the atmosphere as even if we didn't do anything. However, this will skip the 20 years it would take to naturally decay to CO2 and H2O.
> Also "carbon conjured from nothing"???? What on earth are you talking about????
You keep insisting cows somehow add carbon but they don't. They, like all other animals, get their carbon from plant or other animal sources which, ultimately, get it from the atmosphere. No new carbon is introduced in this process yet you insist otherwise as if it just spawns into existence.
HerbHurtHoover t1_itx9f9t wrote
Uh..... ok? We are talking about the meat industry.... why are you talking about landfills....
You are insane, you know that?
I also never said cows add new carbon to the world. I said that the cycle is not carbon neutral. There is a net addition of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
Please, go get checked out. Im not replying to anymore of your batshit responses.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itxb1jm wrote
>Uh..... ok? We are talking about the meat industry.... why are you talking about landfills....
No, we're talking about capturing methane from waste to burn as fuel, thereby preventing it's otherwise release into the atmosphere and it is carbon neutral despite emitting CO2 because that carbon came from and would decay back into CO2 anyways, so no new carbon is being produced.
>You are insane, you know that?
What do you call yourself repeating the same nonsense in total denial of any scientific reality?
>I also never said cows add new carbon to the world.
Yes you did, multiple times, it's all there in the scrollback.
Your responses have been nothing but batshit and literally advocating for more harm simply because you don't understand the biochemistry here.
DaoFerret t1_itvoe75 wrote
It is funny when you think about it.
Obligatory relevant Robin Williams routine: https://youtu.be/u7rH49NePiA
FingerTheCat t1_itvsmhu wrote
But isn't livestock one of the main reasons for climate change? Seems like there's not really a 'win' here when it comes to trying to save the planet and just a source of income from farming.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_iu0fqom wrote
Livestock isn't actually that big of a contributer as is often claimed. The reason is they don't add any new carbon. They get it from plants which get it from the atmosphere, where it later returns. While methane is a part of this cycle and produced from a variety of sources undergoing biological decay or gut microbiome digestion, cows do produce a lot of it.
Methane decays over 20 years back into CO2 and water, but during its life as methane it's an 80x more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and that's the issue, not because it dosen't balance in the end, but because we breed a lot of cows. People gotta eat though and it's gonna come from somewhere in order to sustain the population even if it wasn't cows.
The reason this is a climate win is because we're not adding new carbon, we're capturing methane that exists anyways from waste, converting it back to CO2 and water in order to produce energy, and thereby skipping its life having 80x the warming effect, essentially making it not only carbon neutral, but beneficial to reducing warming. The article might be about a fueling station that's new, but we've been doing this for awhile, not just with manure, but with landfills as well.
Continuing to use fossil sourced natural gas though, that's as we say, no good.
farinasa t1_itv5ssg wrote
It's actually really, really cool.
Prolapseinjudgement t1_ittlrzb wrote
I would be curious to see the lifecycle analysis on this. As others have said burning methane produces CO2, and methane itself is one of the worst greenhouse gasses. Perpetuating an economy that relies upon methane for fuel is not likely to be a good long term strategy. That said, I know methane from cow farts and cow turds is itself a massive methane source. This might be net positive on that issue in that at least that methane is going somewhere to do some positive work before getting converted to the less harmful CO2.
If it moves the needle as a net positive then it could be a great thing. But I’d like to see smarter long term investments in true renewables.
thisischemistry t1_ituqtws wrote
It's a net positive as long as they are getting the methane from sources that would be there already. For example, if the animals are already being farmed for other reasons and the manure is just fermenting and releasing methane that's not being captured.
Capturing this existing methane and burning it is a pretty big win for greenhouse gas reasons. Using that energy to replace burning diesel is also a pretty big win. It's not as good as phasing out the need for both farming animals and running internal combustion engines but it's a great bridge to when that can happen.
mirhagk t1_itxnmdh wrote
Getting it from sources that would already be there, or from sources derived ultimately from the atmosphere.
For instance even if the animals are farmed solely for methane, the animals are converting carbon in plant matter to methane, and those plants are convert atmospheric CO2 to carbon. So ultimately the process is net-zero carbon.
thisischemistry t1_itxvs7m wrote
It's only net-zero if you don't consider all the other inputs, such as the fuel used in processing and transporting feed. A considerable amount of energy goes into farming and there are considerable impacts from the farming.
I agree that if this methane capture and use is a side-effect of farming then it's a bonus to reduce the impact of the farming. It would still be tough to call it net-zero carbon.
mirhagk t1_itxx944 wrote
Well yeah the processing and transportation always complicates things, the net-zero is talking about where the carbon that is released is coming from.
Stuff like feed you can't really analyze in the abstract, since there are many different ways it's done, and AFAIK most cattle farms either grow feed on-site or are grass-fed. Transportation costs are expensive, and better farming techniques have expanded the locations grain can be grown. Of course there definitely exists farms that do transport feed in, but looks like this dairy farm in particular is also a grain farm.
I think when looking at investing in things like this it's more important to look at whether it can be net-zero, and whether it's improvement on the status quo. In this case both are true, it could be net-zero with improvements in other areas and it's definitely an improvement on the status quo.
The_Alchemyst t1_itulvni wrote
If they start raising cattle just for their facts then we've got a problem
emptysoul365 t1_ituq84m wrote
That is true. I don't think cows have enough general knowledge for us to be farming them just for that.
developer-guy t1_ityiqyj wrote
right, as long as we're only using the byproduct (cow shit) and not making cow shit THE product, we're good.
sheilastretch t1_iu1vg5p wrote
From what I've read, dairy prices are so bad that farmers in places like California (where dairy and livestock farming are the biggest drains on the water supply) are actually making more money selling "cow farts" than dairy.
-The_Blazer- t1_itvc1nh wrote
Methane is one of the best synthetic fuels though. It doesn't have the storage and safety issues of hydrogen while being almost as easy to make from relatively simple chemical processes by consuming (renewable) energy.
Since not everything can switch to batteries, we need some kind of fluid fuel to use that can be made without fossil sources.
Colddigger t1_itva5ao wrote
I'm less concerned about the methane and more about all the steps to get it there
ilovenotohio t1_itunree wrote
Methane's half life in the atmosphere is about 9 years. It breaks down into CO2 and H2O.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv3pdx wrote
Remember this is carbon originally sourced from the atmosphere by plants. So burning methane sourced from waste isn't actually introducing new carbon, it's just skipping its 20 year life as methane. So it is in fact a net positive over the natural course of the carbon cycle. This is in effect a true renewable as long as it's not fossil sourced natural gas we're burning. I don't think we can scale an entire energy economy off of the byproducts of waste, but there are applications where this makes sustainable sense.
jonny_jon_jon t1_itv2j05 wrote
LCAs have been done on the use of methane. Methane can be captured from watewater treatment plants and used to power that facility.
As for this particular source and use as engine fuel, why not do it while you can? People are quick to talk about engine performanc and blah blah blah, but think about how many vehicles are on the road where the most action they get is getting up to speed on an on-ramp or hitting the gas when the light turns green. Hybrid vehicles, fuel alternatives, gas mixtures have a reason for use because most vehicles are parked in traffic or in line at a drive thru. Fuel alternatives can be cleaner burning and reduce the waste of gasoline.
therealrunnerish t1_itvm2rk wrote
This is also being suggested at scale for wastewater treatment plants to convert what used to be land applied biosolids- not only do you reduce the carbon emissions from transporting human derived solids to their land application site- but you get renewable fuels... (it also is a good way (theoretically) to remove PFAS as the process is rather intense.
[deleted] t1_itw8oji wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ittckol wrote
[removed]
NickWrightData t1_itthb4h wrote
Doesn't natural gas produce CO2?
And how is natural gas renewable!? I must be way out of the loop
darth_nadoma t1_itthi44 wrote
They are producing it from manure.
I remember writing a paper in college on production of fuel methane from Food Waste.
There are big facilities that make methane from food waste and then use the methane to produce electricity in Barcelona, Catalonia.
Methane Gas from cow manure is how a lot of rural electrification was achieved in India 🇮🇳. It also allowed some peasants to produce their own gas to cook with.
NickWrightData t1_itti3ie wrote
That's actually pretty neat! Thanks!
Enlightened-Beaver t1_ituj25d wrote
Any organic matter can produce RNG: food waste, manure, crop residues, forestry residues, etc. many municipalities have passed rules to divert food waste from going to landfill, since this would produce methane and other GHGs when decomposing. So the waste either goes to composting or to one of these digesters to produce natural gas. We produce an insane amount of food and farm waste, this is putting it to good use. It’s renewable because we are constantly producing this waste. Combusting methane does produce CO2, but compared to the CH4 that would be created from this waste breaking down in a landfill, this is many many times less harmful for the environment. When people talk about reducing your carbon footprint it’s not just CO2, there’s carbon in methane too (CH4).
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv0qib wrote
It's actually beneficial because that carbon would be released anyways as part of the carbon cycle but you're skipping the first 20 years as methane and it's 80x more potent green house effect by burning it.
NickWrightData t1_itv05mm wrote
I think the problem is I've ever connected Methane to Natural Gas in my head. Thank you!
Enlightened-Beaver t1_itv62s9 wrote
Haha yeah Methane = CH4 = Natural gas. Same thing
joaopeniche t1_ittv6xt wrote
Some Indian metane gas bioreactor are some steam punk amazing things
Enlightened-Beaver t1_ituiml9 wrote
There’s hundreds of similar facilities in North America too, and thousands across Europe. Biogas is not exactly a new thing.
darth_nadoma t1_ituixc1 wrote
It’s over a hundred years old. But now it’s the heyday
HurriedLlama t1_itv1h4z wrote
>Literally one click away from being in the loop
NickWrightData t1_itvag79 wrote
GOOOOOOOD point. From near the very beginning of the article I could have just read:
>The RNG fuel it provides is intended as a replacement for diesel, and is sourced from methane in livestock manure. CEFC’s intention is an environmentally-friendly fuel, which it said cuts carbon emissions by around 300% when used instead of diesel in freight trucks.
Noixrouge t1_itu8n5d wrote
Let’s count the days till an anti everything redneck sets it on fire
jesbiil t1_ituy13d wrote
Diesels are interesting to me, not because I have/want one but because of how they've changed SO MUCH in the last 20 years. These days you couldn't pay me to own a newer diesel. What I see though is people get used to their engine, they don't like to change unless this is forced from a big company (e.g. this article says this is for Amazon).
If you want to drop your own jaw, go look up the price of a 20 year old diesel truck, those pre-emissions diesels are sought after because they are so reliable.
[deleted] t1_itvm895 wrote
[removed]
Flipdip35 t1_itw4rod wrote
Yeah, the issue with diesels is that trying to get them to fit emissions targets is a nightmare, involving so many different little systems that often reduce the life of the engine (like EGR which puts exhaust back into the engine to cool it so less NOx).
skupples t1_itve3xw wrote
is this only possible now due to the inflated price of LNG? I know its quite common over seas, and even in Texas. All I know is, it runs great in my in line whole house generator.
[deleted] t1_itvaucg wrote
[removed]
sfier4 t1_itvaxa4 wrote
we are so so fucked if this is the best we can do there will be no future
FuturologyBot t1_ittfa3b wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/redingerforcongress:
This fueling station has opened for business in Groveport, Ohio.
The station acts as as a replacement for diesel, and is sourced from methane in livestock manure.
> Construction crews will build a large tank to collect manure at the farm. This will trap methane gas as the manure decomposes, preventing it from contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and allowing it to be processed and purified to make RNG locally.
They're turning poop into fuel and selling it today. That's pretty cool to me.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/ydo0xd/move_over_diesel_ohio_gets_first_of_its_kind/ittblgn/
[deleted] t1_ittghdp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ittom9g wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ittpy0i wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itu846c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itub1av wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itunier wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ituo22r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ituo59r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ituo9hx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ituty8k wrote
[removed]
HerbHurtHoover t1_itvl8mx wrote
Almost three decades on, and this is the first of its kind.
Renewable carbon fuels are a failure. They are not efficient and they are still massively polluting.
[deleted] t1_itvvt7y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itw4isr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itw9mg9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itxg784 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itxkq54 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itv4foj wrote
[removed]
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv8xeu wrote
This isn't greenwashing if it's sourced from waste. That's CO2 that would have entered the atmosphere anyways, was originally sourced from the atmosphere by plants, and burning it actually skips the 20 years it would have spent as methane which is 80x more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, making it actually a benefit. No new carbon is being released as is the case with fossil fuels. Is this scalable to the entire energy economy? No, is it a sustainable use of a byproduct of waste in place of carbon adding fossil fuels? Yes.
[deleted] t1_itva0h0 wrote
[removed]
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvd1qe wrote
My paycheck isn't reliant on a lack of understanding of science, is yours? Manufacturing opposition to fossil fuel replacements would be a natural course of action for companies reliant on their continued use.
icowrich t1_itvm6m7 wrote
A waste of what? Manure?
KitteNlx t1_ittlvx6 wrote
These already existed. No one wanted to buy the cars decades ago, so they went away except for in very poor nations.
andyschest t1_ituvr1n wrote
This fuel works in diesel engines. You seen to be saying that nobody drives diesel, but we know that's not true, so what are you trying to say?
garsk t1_itv0dye wrote
Hyliion ERX look it up
short_and_floofy t1_itvr67a wrote
And no one wanted electric cars in the 70's. And no one really bought diesel trucks in the 80's. But that's all changed now. Sometimes a technology is introduced at a time that it isn't well received and reintroduced years later and it successful.
atjones111 t1_ituut84 wrote
Conservatives will do anything but move to electric cars and infrastructure so much they will literally put poop in their cars before using electric god the US is doomed
garsk t1_itvqews wrote
What if hear me out... We could do both?
NekuraHitokage t1_itti9rt wrote
This is just exchanging one greenhouse gas for another. Burning methane still produces carbon dioxide. That isn't "clean."
Neat concept, but we really need to lean away from any greenhouse gas emitting fuel. This is money, time, and effort that could have gone into something else. Too much combustion is the problem.
_gravy_train_ t1_ittk35o wrote
I’m prett sure methane is worse add far as green house gases go, so if we are able to capture it and turn it into carbon dioxide, that’s at least a little better.
NekuraHitokage t1_ittnfz5 wrote
Man. I'm pretty sure cyanide is worse as far as poisons go. If we can sip antifreeze instead that's at least a little better.
None are better than another, some are merely worse. It might take more antifreeze to kill you, but they'll both kill you.
Consider methane a nearly literal greenhouse as it rapidly traps heat and co2 a wool blanket. Methane traps a lot very quickly, and CO2 keeps it here.
They both need capture and scrubbing in some nature, not conversion.
thatguy01001010 t1_ittqm9y wrote
But the difference is that nobody needs to drink poison, but the world still actively and perpetually needs energy. I'm 100% in agreement that we're destroying the planet, but there needs to be time allowed for compromise and conversion to other methods unless you're planning on literally killing half the human population yourself, because that's what it'll take to convince a lot of them.
YumaRuchi t1_ittqnq3 wrote
this would be a brilliant comparison if we drank cyanide daily, but we don't, you are going from good to bad here, while in his point he was going to bad to slightly less bad, which is a win.
NekuraHitokage t1_ituww7y wrote
On fire and slightly less on fire are both bad. Their framing means nothing.
It is to say they are both poison and we need be rid of them both. Use alcohol as the comparison then, the point stands. Sorry folks are upset we're at the stage where this doesn't matter. If this came about 20 to 30 years ago maybe, but now it is moot.
[deleted] t1_itv64d2 wrote
[removed]
Enlightened-Beaver t1_ituj9sy wrote
You are sorely uneducated on what you are discussing here.
Bamstradamus t1_itv067x wrote
Imean we are on Reddit so it checks out.
KeijiKiryira t1_itubn5t wrote
> None are better than another, some are merely worse.
So in other words, most are better than some.
NekuraHitokage t1_itv06vl wrote
If you have three different acids, all corrosive yet some are merely more acidic than others, would you say any of them are good to pour on your face?
In the same vein, I was saying all greenhouse gasses are bad and some are worse than others. None of them are "good" all of them are "bad" it is merely that some are worse than others.
Pushing off the due date and claiming this is "clean" is bad. Offer it, utilize it as a stopgap sure... It's foolish to call it "clean" or think it "better." It is merely buying time on the clock.
formerlyanonymous_ t1_itudod3 wrote
Difference is this gas is already being released to the atmosphere where typical oil and gas is extracted from deep underground and added to the atmosphere. It's more like recycling rather than adding.
Not perfect, but a step in a better direction.
Enlightened-Beaver t1_ituj7rt wrote
Except it’s not. Methane is 20 to 40 times worse for the atmosphere than CO2. It’s exchanging an extremely bad GHG for a significantly less harmful one, reducing carbon emissions impact 20-fold.
NekuraHitokage t1_ituyrhx wrote
Yet it is still exchanging a flamethrower for a match. Just because one takes longer to set a fire doesn't mean it won't start a fire.
It is not a solution, it is just more shoving the problem off into "the future" because its "less bad." Something for our children and their children to deal with just like the generations of Exxon did to us through lead and gasoline.
Enlightened-Beaver t1_itv5vfw wrote
It’s a major improvement. Just because something is not a perfect solution does not mean it isn’t a valid solution. The world isn’t that binary
NekuraHitokage t1_itv88w9 wrote
I never said that either, we are at a point where this is becoming binary. This is one issue of many and it's swiftly put itself in that corner. To think I think so generally when speaking on one issue is silly.
Enlightened-Beaver t1_itv9zb1 wrote
You literally said “it is not a solution”, when in fact it is very much a valid solution which significantly improves our carbon emissions. It’s not a perfect solution, but if we only pursued perfect solutions our society would grind to a halt. Perfect solutions hardly exist.
For example, if you think electrifying everything is the ideal solution you may want to look at the environmental and human rights impact of lithium and cobalt mining.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvam65 wrote
It is absolutely not! It is a stopgap at best. It is kicking the can down the road. It is a delay, not a solution. A solution ends the problem. Removing combustion from the energy equation solves the global climate change problem. Not changing what we're combusting... Unless we can perfect hydrogen, but well... I think we'd sooner see nuclear/solar/wind EVs and energy focus as a solution to global climate change. Move away from throwing carbons into the air at all.
Solutions as imperfect as you'd like them, exist. This is not a "solution."
Enlightened-Beaver t1_itvbg9v wrote
So your solution is to electrify transportation. I’d be curious to know what your thoughts are on lithium and cobalt mining and how that fits into your perfect solution?
NekuraHitokage t1_itvc4k1 wrote
I said "as imperfect as you like" didn't i?
Those impacts are local, not global. It is a solution to global climate change, not local mudslides and other shit.
I agree that nothing is perfect. I disagree that this is a "solution." It is a bridge as others I agree with have said and it is not "clean."
Enlightened-Beaver t1_itve7t7 wrote
Ah I see, so because it’s not your backyard getting wrecked by lithium and cobalt mining and not your family being exploited in slave labour to mine it it’s “out of sight and out of mind” right?
Typical.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvhwqd wrote
No. If they wanted to frack my back yard to prevent the world from catching on fire, i might have some problems with the process of fracking and mining needs its own regulations, but at least my driving to my 9 to 5 isn't leading to global extinction. I never said the prectices in mining were great, I'm speaking of the broad spectrum impact on the earth and humanity as a whole.
I also happen to agree mining conditions are terrible and that can be done better too. That isn't the discussion at hand. The discussion is whether this is "clean" or a "solution" and it is neither when other actual solutions exist.
How can you in one breath defend this as great yet imperfect then turn around and make such an accusation when I offer another imperfect, yet non extinction event forming solution.
Did i say it was perfect? Never made the claim. But it at least damages a country side and not the entire atmosphere and is a solution to global climate change. How the people in those mines are treated is an entirely different subject and one I happen to think needs fixing as well. You are making a lot of assumptions.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwv73y wrote
Also that mining can actually be done better, and batteries are recyclable so you get a really long life out of those metals, while you're never going to make fossil fuels not pollute in extraction, production, and consumption.
Earlier I said no one was suggesting Methane to run all vehicles on, but you found the idiot arguing against EVs so maybe I shouldn't say that lol.
thisischemistry t1_itusmln wrote
> Burning methane still produces carbon dioxide. That isn't "clean."
Methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. They estimate this by using carbon dioxide as a baseline and calculating the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane. With this measure the GWP is how many multiples of the energy absorbed by the material vs that of carbon dioxide.
Methane Vs CO2: Which Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas As White House Unveils New Pledge
> Methane has a GWP of between 28 and 36 over 100 years, according to the EPA, meaning it is significantly more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
This is the equation for burning methane: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
That means that each liter of methane will produce one liter of carbon dioxide (equal moles are roughly equal volumes for gasses at the same temperature and pressure). So burning a liter of methane instead of releasing it is about the equivalent of saving 30 liters of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in terms of global warming. This doesn't include using the energy produced to reduce the amount of diesel that doesn't need to be burned to run vehicles.
That means the process the article is talking about is significantly more "clean" environmentally.
NekuraHitokage t1_itux6ve wrote
I stated that rather simply in another comment, but the point of the matter is that we are at a point that we need to eliminate all greenhouse gasses.
Switching from a flamethrower to a match doesn't stop the old wood house from catching on fire.
thisischemistry t1_ituy9zp wrote
Right, this is simply a bridge. It's much better than allowing methane to be released into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide to be produced from burning diesel fuel. Eventually both methane and carbon dioxide production should be reduced as much as possible through other methods.
It will take time to make that kind of transition and this is a good intermediate solution until we get there.
NekuraHitokage t1_ituzmc0 wrote
That i will agree with, I'm just absolutely livid that they have the gall to call it "clean" when it's been given the equivalant of spitting on an apple and rubbing it on your shirt.
I never said it wasn't a neat idea or that it didn't have its uses, but it isn't "clean" for heavens sake. That's just more misleading bs that people will eat up and ignore until "ohhh nooo, but they said it was cleeeaaaan" 80 years into the future.
thisischemistry t1_itv05ik wrote
Calling something "clean" is a relative term. Pretty much everything is "dirty" in some sense but it can be less so than earlier methods. This idea is more "clean" than what it supplants. There are also ideas that are more "clean" than this one, but which aren't ideal at this time.
To be fair, here's what the article said:
> However, a CEFC spokeswoman added it would be open to taking on additional local fleets interested in trying the cleaner fuel.
They didn't call it "clean", just "cleaner". Yes, the company is named Clean Energy Fuels Corporation so that's a bit misleading but I can forgive it since that's a marketing thing. Calling them Cleaner Energy Fuels Corporation doesn't really ring as well.
NekuraHitokage t1_itv1kmn wrote
That's what they say in an article, but all any consumer will ever see is their name and their marketing claims.
Marketing can't just be written off an forgiven, it's the only "education" on the subject matter some people ever get. They're happy to tell a newsperson the truth because they know the average person rolling up and filling their tank didn't read it. They saw "BIOCLEAN!" and heard some marketer say "We're trapping methane and turning it into fuel, keeping the methane out of the atmosphere and helping to fight climate change!"
Then they go in thinking "wow, isn't this great. I'm doing my part!" All the whioe we ignore the CO2 emissions for another 20 years because it's "not as bad" and most people don't realize it's even producing CO2.
Then you have to tell people this beautiful clean coa- sorry, methane they've been burning is actually bad now and they need to stop. Now you're trying to wrest the wheel in a direction we could have been driving in 20 years ago, but someone's marketing team came up with a real good pitch and bent the truth just so.
It isn't marketing. It's lying.
Mitthrawnuruo t1_itus8g0 wrote
Well the environmentalist wackos killed nuclear energy production and research. We were well on the way to nuclear Public transportation and trucking and…..
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv2ddf wrote
This isn't introducing new carbon like cowboy fossil fuels does, this is carbon that was sources from the atmosphere and was going to be released back into the atmosphere as methane, which takes 20 years to decay and is 80x more potent than the CO2 it decays into anyways, so this is actually just skipping that step meaning it has a positive effect.
NekuraHitokage t1_itv8tnl wrote
Yes, but it isn't "clean" and that is my point. It is an alternate fuel and a stopgap. Claiming it as "clean" or a "solution" as it seems to be being touted is a lie. The whole company's name is a lie. It's a fine stop gap sure, but it is not "clean" and that is my entire point.
Kicking the can further down the road isn't a solution.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itv94ok wrote
What makes it not clean? It only produces water and CO2 that came from and would have returned to the atmosphere regardless.
NekuraHitokage t1_itv9uea wrote
Because we are still producing the excess methane and then converting it into CO2. This is all still man made and it is all just slowing the process.
If this was using a natural methane vent? I'd absolutely hear the arguments of "well it was gonna be there anyway.
It isn't. It's from manure we produce from our livestock to feed peoppe and even then a ton of it gets thrown away or unused because it's a bad cut or x or y or z.
It isn't " clean" because it is still combusting something to produce CO2. The other greenhouse gas that, sure, might be "less bad" but is still melting ice caps and acidifying the oceans. As is the major problem with all of our excessive combustion.
I'm not even saying don't do it, but for heaven's sake, calling it "clean" is the same as calling coal "clean." You gotta jump through a few hoops to justify it.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvb7pp wrote
>Because we are still producing the excess methane and then converting it into CO2.
The methane is the result of natural decay of biological matter and again, was sourced from the atmosphere
>It isn't. It's from manure we produce from our livestock to feed peoppe
Um, yeah?
>It isn't " clean" because it is still combusting something to produce CO2
That came from and would return to the atmosphere anyways. It isn't producing new carbon how is that hard to understand?
>I'm not even saying don't do it, but for heaven's sake, calling it "clean" is the same as calling coal "clean." You gotta jump through a few hoops to justify it.
No, coal is polluting several toxic and radioactive compounds in addition to releasing new carbon. There is no such thing as "clean coal". Wildly different, and I think you only perceive it to be the same through a lack of understanding of the science and the difference between fossil sourced natural gas and methane that is already part of the carbon cycle.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvd03e wrote
That methane would not have been produced without human intervention. That is my entire point.
That many cows exist because of humans.
That much manure is created because of humans.
That much methane is produced as a part of that cycle... Because of humans.
Just because it came from and would return naturally does not mean that we are not dramatically accellerating the process.
Granted coal pollutes more, but the equivalance is there when we are talking about the precipice that we are standing on with climate change. The emitted carbons are what I'm talking about.
I'm not going to pretend I have a solution to methane, but putting it in cars and turning it into more CO2doesn't scream "clean" or "solution" to me. It screams delay and marketing.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvds49 wrote
>That methane would not have been produced without human intervention. That is my entire point.
That's a stronger argument to burn it as fuel because, and I repeat, that carbon came from the atmosphere in the first place. So if you're concerned about an increased ratio of methane, you support converting it back to CO2.
>I'm not going to pretend I have a solution to methane, but putting it in cars and turning it into more CO2doesn't scream "clean" or "solution" to me. It screams delay and marketing.
It isn't "more" because that carbon was already in the environment. It is clean because it's non-polluting. It isn't "delay" because it's in place of, carbon adding fossil fuels.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvgqmc wrote
But it is... It is carbon that was trapped in grass being released as gasses. The carbon was in the environment i. The exact same way fossil fuels were.
We had cows eat grass, convert the solid, non-greenhouse carbons in that grass into methane, and we are then releasing that into the atmosphere as a gas.
This is not a direct co2 to methane to co2 process, you are ignoring where that carbon was in the first place. In plants. Just like fossil fuels... Or have we forgotten fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter?
It is absolutely more. It is taking solid carbons and releasing them as gasses producing more co2 in the atmosphere than there was before.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvlpzu wrote
>But it is... It is carbon that was trapped in grass being released as gasses. The carbon was in the environment i. The exact same way fossil fuels were.
What do you think happens to grass when it dies?
>This is not a direct co2 to methane to co2 process, you are ignoring where that carbon was in the first place. In plants. Just like fossil fuels... Or have we forgotten fossil fuels are mostly from plant matter?
Not forgetting this at all, you're forgetting that most of it doesn't end up buried to eventually become fossil fuels either. Most of it is released back into the environment as methane through decay. It takes special circumstances such as pete bogs, wetlands, dense rain forest and shallow ocean basins for plant and animal matter to accumulate, be persevered and buried faster than it could decay to eventually become fossil fuels.
That is why we find fossil fuels in concentrated pockets and not as a fairly uniform distribution. Almost none of the carbon sequestered by grass on the plains grazed by cattle will end up that buried as that.
>It is absolutely more. It is taking solid carbons and releasing them as gasses producing more co2 in the atmosphere than there was before.
sigh as was already stated multiple times and as you're very last point even attempted to address, no, it is not more carbon, it is carbon that was already in the atmosphere, it is the exact amount as was there before it was captured by plants and that's where it would return or have stayed without our involvement, except it would have spent it's first 20 years after reentry as methane.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvr3za wrote
How fast do you think grass dies and decays rather than being mowed through by cows? How fast do you think it decays into CO2that isn't then immediately absorbed by the growth around it? Clear a field and kill the grass on the regular and that is not the "natural" process you're alliding to. Volcano eruptions are "natural" too, so I guess we just keep marching toward a new paleolithic era at a human-accelerated rate because "well, volcanos explode all the time."
Just because there is a natural parallel does not mean this is equivalent. You're comparing slow natural decay to rapid, acid and enzyme-based decay due to the overpopulation of a certain animal in concentrated locations.
I addressed that it is an acceleration of natural processes. Just because it would happen over time does not mean it is ok to press fast forward on the process. This is a foolish argument.
The parallel drawn was merely to point out that whether we are speaking fresh grass or old fossilized plant matter, it is still "carbon that existed in the environment." The fuel was trapped deep underground before we drilled and fracked for it. I even said I'd agree further if you were talking about someone capturing from a methane vent.
This is not that. This is taking methane that we are producing at an accelerated rate and turning it into CO2 that we will be releasing at an accelerated rate.
No matter what, this is humans still releasing solid carbons from their trapped forms into the atmosphere and accelerating the process. That is the root problem.
It isn't "clean" it isn't a "solution." It's fine and dandy as better-than-methane but at this point in the game more can-kicking isn't what we need. We need to find a way to stop releasing carbons as gasses as entirely as possible. It is, of course, going to happen... But doing it in every single vehicle is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvv82w wrote
>How fast do you think grass dies and decays rather than being mowed through by cows? How fast do you think it decays into CO2that isn't then immediately absorbed by the growth around it? Clear a field and kill the grass on the regular and that is not the "natural" process you're alliding to.
You realize cows can't eat it faster than it grows and don't magically conjure more carbon into existence by doing so right? It the surrounding plants would have to wait 20 years for that CO2 to be available again and it will be available again anyways.
>Just because there is a natural parallel does not mean this is equivalant. You're comparing slow natural decay to rapid, acid and enzyme based decay due to the overpopulation of a certain animal in concentrated locations.
>I addressed that it is an acceleration of natural processes. Just because it would hapoen over time does not mean it is ok to press fast forward on the process. This is a foolish argument.
This isn't an argument against burning this methane, it's an argument against unsustainable farming practices. Which I'll certainly agree with you on.
>The parallel drawn was merely to point out that whether we are speaking fresh grass or old fossilized plant matter, it is still "carbon that existed in the environment." The fuel was trapped deep underground before we drilled and fracked for it.
No there is a big difference, the fossil carbon had been out of the environment for hundreds is millions of years, while the methane we're capturing and burning is actively part of the carbon cycle.
>This is taking methane that we are producing at an accellerated rate and turning it into CO2 that we will be releasing at an accellerated rate.
...You realize it's physically impossible to do that at a faster rate than sequestered right? Again, nothing in this process conjures more carbon atoms into existence and no new carbon atoms are introduced that weren't already in the atmosphere. If we are to feed cattle at an accelerated rate we must grow food for them at an accelerated rate which sequesteres CO2 at an accelerated rate. The only hitch is that methane naturally decays over 20 years and is 80x more potent than the CO2 it was before, this will rate match with it's production but we can increase the ratio, you are correct on that. Again however that is an argument for burning it to skip that time period
>No matter what, this is humans still releasing solid carbons from their trapped forms into the atmosphere and accellerating the process. That is the root problem.
No, it isn't, your entire argument is based around "we're doing this more than natural" but that starts with CO2 that was already in the atmosphere we are not, in any way, releasing CO2 that wasn't already there or while soon be returned there.
>It isn't "clean" it isn't a "solution." It's fine and dandy as better-than-methane but at this point in the game more can kicking isn't what we need. We need to find a way to stop releasing carbons as gasses as entirely as possible. It is, of course, going to happen... But doing it in every single vehicle is a bad idea no matter how you slice it.
It is by definition clean and a solution to reduce methane in the atmosphere while cutting fossil emissions at the same time. Not utilizing this would be kicking the can and prolonging the problem. No one is suggesting we do this for every vehicle, I doubt we can fully scale methane capture from waste to run all our energy off of it. But it is a sustainable resource we actually have a net benefit from utilizing and has uses as a niche for applications where batteries just don't get the job done.
NekuraHitokage t1_itvw7gi wrote
I think our disconnect is that you think I'm arguing against this... I'm not!
I'm arguing that we need to call a kettle black and not waste time on psuedo "clean" solutions while lamenting the timing of this. 20-30 years ago i'd have agreed that this was clean. Now? Hardly.
And the rate of growth is not equivalant to the rate of consumption. That's the problem. We consistantly undergrow and use other wastes to make up that lack of growth. Indeed I suppose it is more of an argument to farming practices, but that's attached to this "solution." Again why I said we'd be in full agreement if they were pulling from a natural methane vent.
Hell, we could easily be growing meat in labs with 0 methane production if we could get over it. Just tell some muscle cells to start growing and cut off a slab whenever you're hungry for some meat. It'll grow back soon enough.
That is the other point. Because of how late this has come, I feel that the resources could have gone elsewhere.
It's a good idea... But feels like too little too late. That was and has been my only point. We're past this kind of can kicking. That's my only point and lament.
Heck, I'll even agree for its use in other fuel applications. Using it in cars doesn't feel like it's the one to go for.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itvytqm wrote
>I think our disconnect is that you think I'm arguing against this... I'm not!
>I'm arguing that we need to call a kettle black and not waste time on psuedo "clean" solutions while lamenting the timing of this. 20-30 years ago i'd have agreed that this was clean. Now? Hardly.
These statements are in contradiction, but if it would have been "clean" 30 years ago it's all clean now. Science doesn't change how it works because time passed.
>And the rate of growth is not equivalant to the rate of consumption. That's the problem. We consistantly undergrow and use other wastes to make up that lack of growth.
Again, an argument for addressing unsustainable farming, which I agree with both crop and animal, but not an argument for not utilizing the methane already being released and putting it to use that also reduces it's warming impact.
>Hell, we could easily be growing meat in labs with 0 methane production if we could get over it. Just tell some muscle cells to start growing and cut off a slab whenever you're hungry for some meat.
While our technology is pushing this capability, it's not that simple or cheap, it also still has to source its composites (including carbon) from somewhere and so there isn't much of a distinction here. It's also not just from cows you know?
>That is the other point. Because of how late this has come, I feel that the resources vould have gone elsewhere.
>It's a good idea... But feels like too little too late. That was and has been my only point. We're past this kind of can kicking. That's my only point and lament.
The article is about a station that's new, but capturing methane releases from waste isn't, we've been doing that for awhile, so what resources? the methane that's literally better burned than left alone to be released as is? Every gas plant, every converted truck, every ship, running on this is one not adding carbon to the problem.
NekuraHitokage t1_itw3nwk wrote
You said yourself that "clean" is relative unless I'm conflating conversations. Science indeed does not change. Conditions do. 20 to 30 years ago, we weren't as poor off in all of our greenhouse issues and this kind of planned can-kicking would have been much more beneficial.
And the statements are not. This is not clean and should not waste things actually clean (for the atmosphere) resources should get. That does not mean the product should not exist for uses when fuel is needed. Indeed utilize it... But don't call it "clean" and act like it's the end. That is it.
Having a gas station for vehicles specifically is my argument, I suppose. If using it as a fuel is viable, use it in the use cases that absolutely need combustible fuel. Vehicles don't need that.
I've been speaking of vehicle use the entire time. I've been speaking of our production of methane the whole time. Not about naturally ocurring methane. Not of use cases that are outside of a gas station on the side of the road. That's the biggest over-user of combustible fuels. If methane use in areas where combustion is absolutely needed helps? Cool! Not talking about those.
I'm speaking specifically of this application. A fuel station made for vehicles that combust fuel on the road. You are arguing many other points that do not apply. You even stated that that is what the article is discussing. That is what I am discussing. No more. No less. I am not talking about non-anthrogenic carbon emissions.
But we also need to be looking at the root and trying to stop our own methane emissions entirely. Because those vehicles are the end of a chain that need not exist. That is my entire point. This is kicking the can, not cutting our methane emissions which is what needs to happen. Because there are so many natural sources that our anthrogenic production is overloading the system.
That was... Kinda my point. It's what I was talking about from the start.your "why not utilize it" argument is absolutely beside that point when my entire point was to say "this is just exchanging one gas for another in vehicles... It doesn't address the root... It just kicks the can."
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itw8gaz wrote
>You said yourself that "clean" is relative unless I'm conflating conversations.
I said it was clean because it's byproducts are water and CO2, these aren't toxic pollutants and CO2 emissions are an issue because of introducing new carbon causing an increased greenhouse effect and ocean acidification. This isn't new carbon though it was, and will regardless, remain a part of the environment.
>Science indeed does not change. Conditions do. 20 to 30 years ago, we weren't as poor off in all of our greenhouse issues and this kind of planned can-kicking would have been much more beneficial.
Right but that doesn't change the science on if it's clean or not and I already addressed how not replacing some fossil fuel usage with this sooner is actually can kicking.
>That does not mean the product should not exist for uses when fuel is needed. Having a gas station for vehicles specifically is my argument, I suppose. If using it as a fuel is viable, use it in the use cases that absolutely need combustible fuel. Vehicles don't need that.
Yeah but it's something we can do right now to add to the effort to reduce fossil fuel usage, not in place of other efforts. It dosen't come with the same limitations that batteries do in certain applications, shipping for instance. Largely I agree though batteries are a clear way to go for land vehicles (at least in most applications) and burning it in a power plant would be more efficient.
>I've been speaking of vehicle use the entire time. I've been speaking of our production of methane the whole time. Not about naturally ocurring methane. Not of use cases that are outside of a gas station on the side of the road. That's the biggest over-user of combustible fuels. If methane use in areas where combustion is absolutely needed helps? Cool! Not talking about those.
Ah well, that would be a difference in what we were talking about, because I was talking about capturing and burning methane from waste that would return to the atmosphere if we did nothing anyways.
I agree vehicles aren't the most efficient use of it with some exception and absolutely we should be getting off fossil sourced natural gas as well as every other fossil fuel as fast as possible.
>But we also need to be looking at the root and trying to stop our own methane emissions entirely. Because those vehicles are the end of a chain that need not exist. That is my entire point. This is kicking the can, not cutting our methane emissions which is what needs to happen. Because there are so many natural sources that our anthrogenic production is overloading the system.
Some disagreement here, that methane would largely exist if more dispersed in nature, this also acts as a or part of cutting those methane emissions by releasing it as the CO2 it came from and would return to anyways. I suppose if we buried and sealed it that would be removing carbon but attempts at that kind of carbon capture have been dubious and as long as we're in a capitalist framework, financially uninspired to pursue in earnest.
>That was... Kinda my point. It's what I was talking about from the start.your "why not utilize it" argument is absolutely beside that point when my entire point was to say "this is just exchanging one gas for another in vehicles."
Yeah I was at no point suggesting we should replace all vehicles with this and that we could scale capturing methane from waste alone for all our energy needs. Regardless of what we could, could not, and should do to reduce the amount of methane in the atmosphere at one time as part of the carbon cycle, we might as well use what's already there especially when doing so just converts it back to what it was and out of a more harmful form faster. Not at all suggesting we try to intentionally make more of it.
NekuraHitokage t1_itwaj8t wrote
Then I think we actually... Mostly agree, and I'm glad we kept up the discussion!
As for that, you're mostly right I think, but that dispersion is important. The greater surface area makes it easier to break down in other ways and keeps it from creating concentrated blankets. A pasture is like sticking a straw in the water and blowing bubbles rather than using a fine aerator. The aerator will get some in solution at least, rather than just jetting gobs of the less dense gas up to the top. Hell, if we had many smaller pastures rather than big industrial ones, that could even help. There are a lot of ways to tackle things that I am in no way qualified to speak on.
My only point really was to say "neat but... Why not just stop producing as much methane? And how can we truly call this 'clean?'
I was in no way trying to say this wasn't beneficial in some way, just that it doesn't address the fact that we're creating too much anthropogenic methane to begin with and that this narrative and the conflation of "clean" with being the perfect solution - especially in marketing - is... Misleading.
Perhaps I am arguing semantics here, but had they even called it "green" rather than "clean" I'd have had less to say. To call it "clean," to most, is to imply that it is the solution, not just an effort. Feels like poorly disguised marketing around something that could otherwise have a decent application with a more transparent understanding.
Keeperofthe7keysAf-S t1_itwcfqs wrote
Yeah we seem to mostly agree, just confusion on the exact thing we were each talking about.
>As for that, you're mostly right I think, but that dispersion is important. The greater surface area makes it easier to break down in other ways and keeps it from creating concentrated blankets. A pasture is like sticking a straw in the water and blowing bubbles rather than using a fine aerator. The aerator will get some in solution at least, rather than just jetting gobs of the less dense grass up to the top. Hell, if we had many smaller pastures rather than big industrial ones, that could even help. There are a lot of ways to tackle things that I am in no way qualified to speak on.
I completely agree with all of that.
And yeah it's also true that fossil fuel companies muddied the word "clean". And nothing is a perfect solution either, we just have several imperfect solutions that can all work together at various scale with a variety of effectiveness and drawbacks.
I'm glad we kept it going too, thanks for the actual discussion instead of the arguing and science denial I've experienced elsewhere on this post. o7
NekuraHitokage t1_itwndjg wrote
Agree on all points eh? Gee, thanks. :p
But hey, none of us are. We're mostly arguing opinion here. Fact-backed, but opinion. I'm glad we found the disconnect! I find that truly is where "argument" comes about. Most folks wanna agree, just not at the cost of their morals and standards. But we're all flexible too, or should be. Nobody wants what they think is worst it's just the ignorant sorts that wanna stick their head in the sand that cause issues.
But yeah, the perfect world it'd be like the water cycle. Trap the methane, convert it to CO2, plant the food crop, trap the CO2, rinse, and repeat. The problem I see here is just people seeing this and people calling it "clean" and going "so... That's it, right?" when we still have reduction efforts and alternative solutions in other fields and all that to consider. That's all. This one effort just feels like a "no duh, why didn't we do this 20 years ago? Now this effort is too late!
I am glad it helps! I just... don't think it helps enough in this field. And I just don't want to see it turned into a marketing ploy as manipulatable as "carbon offsets" and all that. Just raising a flag, not chaining to the tree. Lol.
And of course, I'd never directly deny science. It is because science says that we are in an emergency state that I hold this very opinion! Passionate and a bit of a tight pull on the rope, if you'll forgive further idiom; but, i live on the west coast of the US and breathing smoke is rather unpleasant. I'd like to see reduction in production ASAP. XD
And to you a cheers on that. I appreciate your passion and for presenting fact and arguing through logically with me. If ever either of our logics could be flawed. We're human, after all, that's why we temper it with fact. My view, at least. But I ramble! Have a wonderful one, stranger-friend. o7
ilovenotohio t1_ituoaqz wrote
Why do we need less CO2? If you plan to feed the world a vegetarian diet, most crops are at peak productivity around 1000-1300 ppm of CO2. They also use 10-15% less water for that output.
We are currently at 450ppm CO2. Plant death occurs at 150ppm CO2.
NekuraHitokage t1_ituyfgo wrote
Well, if you plan to have humans to feed, turning the planet into a literal greenhouse - the entire reason they are called "greenhouse gasses" - isn't exactly beneficial to those humans. They don't do well in high heat, high CO2 environments.
CO2 traps heat. Less than methane, but for a longer period of time. If you wanna make a super carbonated environment indoors in a real glass greenhouse... By all means. Doing that to the planet is a very, very bad idea for humanity. For many reasons.
Unless you like the idea of acidic, overflowing seas and a return to the paleolithic environment.
Wacky_Eyes t1_ittljji wrote
Hydrogen is the way to go for the automotive industy and internal combustion engines. The only by-product is water. The only issue is that's it's incredibly expensive to produce liquid hydrogen, and it has a nasty habit of exploding.
thisischemistry t1_itutwpo wrote
> Hydrogen is the way to go for the automotive industy and internal combustion engines.
Hydrogen has a lot of tough problems to conquer and it may never be a viable energy storage medium. It embrittles components, it tends to leak easily, it's expensive to produce, difficult to transport and store, and so on. It's also not a fuel, it's an energy storage medium so you need to produce the energy to create it in the first place. At that point you might as well put that energy into a medium that doesn't have all the problems that hydrogen has.
There are a few promising methods of using hydrogen to store energy but they are still in the experimental stages and may never get off the ground. For example, you can store hydrogen in metal hydrides or use it to produce ammonia and then release it from those to use as a fuel when you need it. There are still problems to be overcome with these storage methods but they are probably leaps and bounds better than storing hydrogen as a cryogenic liquid or under high pressures.
garsk t1_itv19nd wrote
Flame less oxidation with a linear generator is the way to go.
NekuraHitokage t1_ittnroc wrote
Indeed, it's a little out of realm for now... But should a breakthrough hit I'm immediately inboard. The most viable stopgap seems to be EV.
I'd love to just see a drop in EV engines. Maybe offer scrap discounts for trading the motor. I think a few are out there, but if it takes off... Hoo!
We need battery exchange stations and easily exchanged batteries at that. Why spend a year charging when you can have 100 in the back and hot-swap them for an exchange and charge a differential fee? If the battery is bad, maybe have a battery recycling fee. There are ways to do it that make sense in the interim!
RDMvb6 t1_itukd2b wrote
Drop in EV batteries have been thoroughly explored and the industry has not found them to be viable yet. They are massively heavy and swapping something that weighs well over 1,000lbs cannot be done as quickly as just charging the battery from a fast 480V charger.
Similar for dropping in an EV motor into an existing gas vehicle. That is a massive structural change and by the time you get into replacing the frame, it’s cheaper to get a new vehicle. Sure it can be done in a lab but it is not large scale commercially feasible.
NekuraHitokage t1_ituz450 wrote
My point was more that we make it feasible. It doesn't have to be all profit all the time when the planet is, in some places, literally on fire because of the changes being brought on.
Indeed it has its barriers and I never said it was a perfect solution either... But if we can find ways to build skyscrapers in weeks, we can find ways to do these things. The problem, as ever, is "profit."
bpknyc t1_itu9bsl wrote
No hydrogen car burns the hydrogen. Theyre using fuel cell, which is full og platinum catalyst and makes electricity from hydrogen-oxygen reaction. The rest of the car is regular electric car.
Also, hydrogen for vehicle use isn't a liquid. Only highly compressed gas. It'd be cryogenic if it was liquid and freeze everything, just like ice forming on space shuttle main tank.
redingerforcongress OP t1_ittblgn wrote
This fueling station has opened for business in Groveport, Ohio.
The station acts as as a replacement for diesel, and is sourced from methane in livestock manure.
> Construction crews will build a large tank to collect manure at the farm. This will trap methane gas as the manure decomposes, preventing it from contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and allowing it to be processed and purified to make RNG locally.
They're turning poop into fuel and selling it today. That's pretty cool to me.