DIG-L: a note on "philosophical" vs. "technical" discussions

[aj574@detroit.freenet.org (Lowell Prag)]

a note on "philosophical" vs. "technical" discussions
-----------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

I have been subscribed to this discussion for a couple of years and
haven't contributed much, as my technical background is limited to basic
chemistry and biology but what I've noticed is a lack of "philosophical"
rather than "technical" discussion of how best to make anaerobic digesters
a focal point in changing our USA "lifestyle" of wastefulness. 

For example, if I might digress a moment:

My main interest is designing superinsulated homes with very high r values
and low air infiltration, to reduce the heating and cooling loads by up to
90%. Technically, this is very easy and the result is that one requires
only passive solar gain and a very, very small furnace to heat the home
even in the coldest of climates. 

This fact lead me to explore composting as a heat source, as I also am an
avid gardener, growing my own food in the summer and I visit all the local
horse stables to pick up manure for aerobic composting. 

This lead me to some "philosophical" musings:

I live in Detroit, Michigan and out of curiosity, I looked up just how
many farms were using anaerobic composting to not only recycle the sludge,
but also generate methane. To my surprise, there were less than a handful
of farms listed and all had abandoned their attempts to recover methane. 

I found this curious, as I am aware that in Europe this is not the case
and I concluded that the USA was not only technically behind Europe but
also in general, ill informed about just how much methane is available not
only on farms but from all our waste products in the urban and industrial
centers. 

To get to my point:

if methane recovery is to become a way of life, the general populace
itself must become aware of the feasibility and begin to support it,
rather than put their tax dollars into landfills, incinerators, and waste
treatment plants which recover no methane. 

To accomplish that, I have a couple of questions for which
the answers should be made a focal point of public discussions:

For our entire USA, how much organic waste is generated annually? This
would include farms, cities, food processing, industry, sewage, etc. 

This should also be calculated for individual cities, to use
as a point of departure in gaining public support.

i.e: in Detroit, Michigan how much organic garbage and waste presently
ends up in landfills, incinerators, down the toilet to sewage treatment,
etc. 

In short, is this type of data readily available and where?

Once one has that data, convert it all to a realistic methane
output, if it was all collected and utilized in digesters.

Again, have these conversions been done and where?

Then, calculate the pay back to the community for investing in the
technology and calculate the utility savings if that methane was
redistributed as electricity, compared to energy costs from standard
fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. 

If that cost of electricity was reduced compared to conventional
energy costs, I should think it would be an "easy sell" to communities.

Even if it was a "breakeven" amount compared to conventional energy costs,
it would still be supported when one also considers the ecological
advantages and cost savings. 

For example, methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon
dioxide and it is better to burn it for fuel, rather than just let it
escape to the atmosphere from landfills, etc. 

Also compare methane to coal in generating electricity, which continues to
add sulfur dioxide to the air and the problems with acid rain. 

In addition, with the present interest in fuel cells rapidly increasing,
methane is the fuel of choice for both automotive and residential fuels
cells for the creation of electricity, at least until we establish a pure
hydrogen pipe line distribution system in the USA or create better forms
of solid metal hydrides for distribution. 

Even then, methane could still compete in the marketplace if the cost of
the technology was reduced with widespread usage of anaerobic digesters,
as fuel cells can convert any hydrocarbon to electricity. 

In conclusion, I have seen very little if any, of these types of
"philosophical" rather than "technical" discussions in this discussion
group. 

I realize that this group is mainly a "technical" forum but it seems there
is a certain amount of futility in discussing technical matters if one
does not also discuss realistic ways to inform the public, so that there
is also a way to support the widespread implementation of the technology. 

Last, I would point out that other alternative energy technologies have in
fact, done their "public homework" to build support. Just look at the
advances in greater use of photovoltaic systems and wind power in the USA
over the last 10 years. 

Then, compare that increased use to that of methane recovery and I think
you will agree, that we have failed in the USA to educate the public about
the feasibility of widespread use of anaerobic digesters. 


--
         .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
         .   From: Lowell Prag  -  Email: aj574@detroit.freenet.org  .
         .      WWW Home Page: http://detroit.freenet.org/~aj574     .
         .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
DIGESTION List Sponsors, Archive and Information
http://www.crest.org/renewables/digestion-list-archive
http://www.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/
Beginners Tour of Biogas
http://WWW.roseworthy.adelaide.edu.au/~pharris/biogas/beginners