If this event ...

... occurs, you'll have read about it here first. Well, actually you can read the whole story here, but at least credit me with pointing you in the right direction.

Beneath the shimmering surface of Africa's Lake Kivu, a deadly time bomb awaits. A "gold rush" to extract valuable methane from the lake's depths might trigger an outburst of gas that could wash a deadly, suffocating blanket over the 2 million people who live around Kivu's shores.

For some reason, I get the feeling that the Rwandan government probably doesn't care. All around, it's an environmental nightmare, which should be of great concern for all of us. We can clean up our neck of the woods as well as we can (and desire), but what are we to do with every other country (especially those that are developing) that wants to pollute their environment?

Unfortunately, there's an economic incentive for companies to pump waste water into the shallows, says Finn Hirslund of COWI, a Danish environmental and engineering consultancy. This nutrient-rich water triggers algal blooms that then die and sink, helping to form even more methane. "If companies mess around with the lake's density structures and accidentally trigger an entirely avoidable and deadly gas outburst, it will be a crime against humanity," he says.

Crime against humanity indeed.

Cow Power

Article in USA Today.

Farmers in the Cow Power program still pay for the electricity they use on the farm. But they produce more than they use, and they sell what they produce to the electric company for 95% of the wholesale price plus 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. The St. Pierres calculate that they'll gross $200,000 a year on the sales.

Might we come to a point where farmers are more focused on converting animal waste than they are on the animals themselves? Of course, this is a great way for farms to remain profitable. Feeding animals is no cheap endeavor ... they're as hard hit by the prices of food as we are, and cows and hogs eat a lot more than us as well. Combine that with a consumers demand that food be cheap, and they're hit doubly so ... high feed prices combined with a demand that they sell their product at low cost. The two are diametrical opposites. That is, they were ... but perhaps converting the waste (which also resulted in a cost to house/treat) into energy converts that cost into revenue.

Bacterial Farts - Part Deux

In the comments section of previous blog entry of the same name, Blake asked:

Fantastic! The GM article points me in the direction of the next question on my mind, i.e. to what extent can this technique replace current consumption. It looks like a significant source already; could it become a primary source, largely or even completely replacing diminishing mined reserves?

Answer: It would depend on what you mean by "primary source". According to the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), a total of 445 landfill programs were active in 2007. They generated 11 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. They also delivered 236 million cubic feet/day of usable gas for direct consumpion (I'm assuming mostly for heating and cooking). According to the DOE, in 2001 the United States consumed 1,140 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity. One can only assume that energy consumption has increased over the last half a decade. If we take those numbers however at face value, it appears that landfill gas (LFG) currently supplies ~1% of the electricity for US consumption. What is also important to know is that the number of facilities collecting LFG is set to double in the near future. So in the immediate future, ~2% of our electricity will be provided by methane (natural gas) produced by landfills. I'd consider that substantial. I also doubt that that accounts for every major landfill in the country. Also, according to PowerScoreCard, ~40% of LFG is produced by landfills which don't fall under EPA guidelines given their small size. If the proper infrastructure was put in place at all landfills (currently, large landfills must flare (burn) the methane so the wells have already been drilled), I would think that it might be possible to see LFG account for between 5% (reasonably) and ~10% (best case scenario) of our electricity. We might not think of, under those circumstances, calling LFG a "primary source" but it'd definitely be a significant source.

That's not even considering methane produced by anaerobic digestion from municipal waste projects.

According to the California Energy Commission, anaerobic digestion from their cows could result in ~1.25 kWh per cow per day. If I'm doing my math right: At average kWh/year usage rates (10,000 kWh/year/family), California's cows (all 1.2 million of them) would be able to provide electricity to ~55,000 families/homes. (For reference: In 2004, there were ~96 million cattle and calves in the United States.) If you take the swine numbers from California (~0.33 kWh per pig per day) and apply them to North Carolina (which is home to over 10 million swine) you'd be able to provide electricity to ~120,000 homes a year (~3% of North Carolina homes). And we haven't even touched on anaerobic digestion from municipal waste ... and with over 300 million individuals, there is a lot of waste which is generated. Whether the non-fecal waste would be best suited to be sent to a landfill, or used as a feedstock for direct anaerobic digestion would need to be determined (it may have already, but I'd need to look).

Couple these with solar and nuclear, as well as (where applicable) geothermal and wind, and I'd say we could drop dramatically our need to use fossil-fuels for heat and power purposes.

The other issue is energy consumption. According to an article by Salon, vampiric energy consumption results in ~5 to 8% of our energy consumption per year. That is obscene. So not only do we need to look for (and apply) alternative energy sources, we need to be mindful of electrical usage, and insist on new appliances/devices being energy friendly. If we do this, I can honestly say that I can envision non-fossil fuel sources making up the major portion of our electrical supply by the time the next generation is faced with this issue.

The questions now are: Are we willing to pony up for the changes in infrastructure? Can we be innovative enough to cut those costs? Can we come up with even better technologies to make these processes more efficient?

Bacterial Farts

New Scientist Bloggers write about how we should be more worried about methane than we should be about carbon dioxide.

From the blog:

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, warming the planet 25 times more, molecule-for-molecule, than CO2. It doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, which tempers its kick, but it's still enough to give you nightmares.

As Fred Pearce has reported, thawing Arctic permafrost could give off massive amounts of methane, which would warm the planet. Permafrost is basically frozen mud, and when it thaws, microbes start chewing it up, emitting both methane and CO2, the amounts depending on the temperature, how wet it is, and other factors.

If you want to track methane levels, you can click here on the NOAA link. To choose methane, under "Gas" select CH4.

Methane is produced by methanogens (methano - methane, gen - birth/generate), bacteria which generate methane as a metabolic byproduct. They're found in nature where there isn't much air (i.e., anaerobic conditions) and different types produce methane from different sources. Some use carbon dioxide to produce methane, others use longer chain carbon sources.

These are the same bugs used in anaerobic digestion to make methane that, when cleaned up, can be used as natural gas ... so they're definitely useful and can be used for practical applications.