Ocean News

"A catheter carries methane gas from her intestine to her backpack. It's part of a pilot program in Argentina to create energy for outlying areas. ’’

At ~$10 per thousand cubic feet, this has GOT to be a windup.
The vet fees alone for inserting the "porthole" would cost more than the value of the gas.
U.S. Price of Natural Gas Sold to Commercial Consumers (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3m.htm

 

I just spent 5 minutes of my life reading about cow farts. Done.

 

<LAUGH> Blame it on Hoyt. He has broad shoulders.

Deforestation long overlooked as contributor to climate change | PHYS.org

A paper published in Environmental Research Letters, suggests that the climate impact of deforestation has been significantly underestimated. It concludes that even if all fossil fuel emissions are eliminated, but current tropical deforestation rates hold steady through 2100, there will still be a 1.5 degree increase in global warming.

 

Well, you see 5 minutes of reading is really too short here, as the info was for ± 98% about cow belches, and to keep the methane in it outta the environment, and so to keep the oceans and that little bit of land on earth from further warming, which would enlarge the oceans, and as a consequence shrink the land.

I've of course related it to the oceans here to keep my friend the Mod a happy follower of the thread . . .

 

If concerned about anthropogenic global warming then the question is not if the economic value of the methane is worth to capture it, but if the investment is worth to keep the methane out of the environment.

And besides that, the price of natural gas as sold to U.S. commercial consumers is not valid in remote rural areas in Argentina, which the article is about, and where they have a large methane production and emissions from their massive amounts of livestock.

As all anthropogenic energy costs are much higher there, because of the higher transport and distribution costs to get any of these kinds of energy to the consumers in those remote rural areas.

From the 2th link of the post that you quoted....

 

It's barbaric.

 

What's barbaric Hoyt . . ?​

To breed cattle for killing and eating them, or to harvest the gas of them along the way just like the milk, so that they are freed of that tiresome burping all the time ?

 

They should live happy until you cave in their skulls. Not a fan of animal cruelty. I don't eat veal for the same reason.

Suffering vs. Profit: Veal Calves in the European Community - International Society for Animal Rights http://isaronline.org/programs/animal-rights-education/suffering-vs-profit-veal-calves-in-the-european-community/

 

Good point Hoyt, since phrases like in the below quote don't say much to me when they come from the interested parties themselves, we need an investigation report from an independent vet on this....

‘‘ A cow in Argentina is being milked for the methane she uses in digestion, by government pilot program.
- Its coordinator of animal physiology says the livestock are well-treated in the process. ’’​

 

About Methane :
"Angelique : the question is .... if the investment (in Cow Bags) is worth it to keep the methane out of the environment."

Cows contributions of Methane :
A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2,300 kg CO2 per year....
All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about
2 billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition,
Clearing of tropical forests rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra
2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!" Are cows the cause of global warming? | Time for change http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

"Termites could produce as much as 150 million tonnes of methane a year. " x 23 = 3450 Million tonnes,
3.4 Billion tonnes CO2 per year
Could termites be the world's terminators?: A humble forest insect may http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/could-termites-be-the-worlds-terminators-a-humble-forest-insect-may-be-emitting-dangerous-amounts-of-1394135.html

" Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was estimated in 2013 to release 17 million tonnes of methane per year – a significant increase on the 3.8 million tons estimated in 2006" So, say .2 Billion tonnes methane in 2017, =
4.6 billion tonnes CO2 per year
Arctic methane emissions - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

Less Cow Bagging Effects
So, lets say they put Methane bags on just 200,000 cows
( out of ~ 998,000,000 in the world herd .02 % ) =
.004 billion tonnes CO2 per year.


Conclusion
Doesn't look like good value to me.

 

The gas back-pack doesn't look terribly practical.

 

It reminds me of cars in WWII
"A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year"

So, lets say the average cow produces about .25 kg Methane a day.
The car below stored 13 cubic metres of "production gas", or "wood gas", that gave it a range of approximately 50 km (30 miles) at an energy consumption of 13 litres per km (22 mpg). - about 550 kilos.
("Producer gas has a lower heat of combustion of 5.7 MJ/kg versus 55.9 MJ/kg for natural gas (Methane) , so say about 1/10th. )

So to drive 50 kilometers, you would need around say, about 55 kilos of Methane, so if 4 cows = 1 kilo per day, or around 13 cows for the 55 litres, for the whole 50 klms (30 miles) every day.

"Yes Maude - we can go shopping as soon as I milk and de-gas these 13 cows. "


.

 

I don't think anyone who eats meat produced by the industrial agro-business can possibly be concerned by cruelty to animals. Where is MYARK when you need him?

 

Climate change to have devastating effect in Asia | The Economic Times

According to a report produced by the Asian Development Bank and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, climate change will bring devastating consequences to countries in the Pacific and Asia.

While rice yields could potentially increase in the northern states of India, rice yields may decline by 5 per cent in the 2030s, 14.5 per cent in the 2050s and 17 per cent in the 2080s in the southern states.

For the 136 largest coastal cities, average flood losses in 2005 were approximately $6 billion per year, but will increase to $52 billion by 2050.

 

You don't know what my concerns are.