Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

40

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.

32

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.

1

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.

2

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.

1

The_Alchemyst t1_itulvni wrote

If they start raising cattle just for their facts then we've got a problem

12

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.

15

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.

1

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.

1

-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.

5

Colddigger t1_itva5ao wrote

I'm less concerned about the methane and more about all the steps to get it there

4

ilovenotohio t1_itunree wrote

Methane's half life in the atmosphere is about 9 years. It breaks down into CO2 and H2O.

3

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.

2

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.

1

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.

1