Comments on: Food Waste http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/ RobFisher.net Sun, 20 May 2012 09:23:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Rob Fisher http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/comment-page-1/#comment-480281 Rob Fisher Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:16:24 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/#comment-480281 Thanks for the insightful comments, Bruno. There is more to this landfill issue than I thought. Thanks for the insightful comments, Bruno. There is more to this landfill issue than I thought.

]]> By: Bruno Prior http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/comment-page-1/#comment-478575 Bruno Prior Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:10:38 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/#comment-478575 By the way, I forgot to mention that, if you want to see the future for converting food waste into energy, have a look at <a href="http://www.andigestion.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">the website of our subsidiary, Andigestion Ltd</a>, and particularly our Holsworthy site, the largest centralised anaerobic digestion (AD) facility in the country (and one of the largest in Europe). This process provides (near enough) 100% capture of any methane produced. We will be reinvesting some of the money from our landfill gas business into developing out the AD business, provided that the government don't make it too difficult. By the way, I forgot to mention that, if you want to see the future for converting food waste into energy, have a look at the website of our subsidiary, Andigestion Ltd, and particularly our Holsworthy site, the largest centralised anaerobic digestion (AD) facility in the country (and one of the largest in Europe). This process provides (near enough) 100% capture of any methane produced. We will be reinvesting some of the money from our landfill gas business into developing out the AD business, provided that the government don’t make it too difficult.

]]> By: Bruno Prior http://robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/comment-page-1/#comment-478567 Bruno Prior Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:59:00 +0000 http://www.robfisher.net/blog/archive/2007/03/16/food-waste/#comment-478567 Right as usual, Rob. Let me put one counter-argument, and then explain why it doesn't alter your conclusion. Methane has a global warming factor (GWF) of 23, meaning that the effect on global warming of a given mass of methane over a 100-year period will be 23 times greater than the same mass of carbon dioxide. So if we convert our hydrocarbons into methane (CH4), we are theoretically doing 23 times more damage than if we convert it into carbon dioxide (CO2), which is what our metabolism is mostly doing (though you will have noticed that methane is a part of that process, and in the case of cows, a very big part of that process). However, the great lie of many of those opposed to landfilling is that this methane is released into the atmosphere. It is actually captured and, in most cases in the UK, used to produce renewable energy (renewable because, as you say, the carbon released was simply part of the natural carbon cycle and therefore does not add more carbon to the atmosphere). The methane is converted into energy (which displaces fossil fuels), and carbon dioxide and water, which do no more harm than if (as you say) we had ingested the food and emitted the CO2 and H2O ourselves. There are nuances about how much of the methane is captured, but the irony is that current waste management policy, by making landfilling more expensive, and by changing the volume of putrescible waste going into the fill, reduces the proportion that is captured, partly because the operators manage the site to minimise costs, which means waiting as long as possible before "capping" the site (putting a lid on it to keep in the gas), and partly because lower volumes and proportions of methane are harder to capture and utilise. The government's incentives are actually driving down this most important renewable resource, which is not only our most reliable source (load factors similar to conventional power generation, compared to wind's 27%), but has always provided the biggest proportion (around 30%) of our renewable energy - far more than wind power, which most people assume is the main renewable. It will take 3 MW of wind to replace 1 MW of landfill gas, in terms of output, and even then they will not match in terms of reliability. This is a specialist area of mine. I was, until last month, MD of one of the leading landfill gas generation companies. We have just sold the business, partly because the market is very hot, but partly because of fear and frustration at the consequences of wrong-headed government intervention in every aspect of our activities. Typical result of a meddling government that doesn't understand the detail of the things on which it pontificates, regulates and legislates. Right as usual, Rob. Let me put one counter-argument, and then explain why it doesn’t alter your conclusion. Methane has a global warming factor (GWF) of 23, meaning that the effect on global warming of a given mass of methane over a 100-year period will be 23 times greater than the same mass of carbon dioxide. So if we convert our hydrocarbons into methane (CH4), we are theoretically doing 23 times more damage than if we convert it into carbon dioxide (CO2), which is what our metabolism is mostly doing (though you will have noticed that methane is a part of that process, and in the case of cows, a very big part of that process).

However, the great lie of many of those opposed to landfilling is that this methane is released into the atmosphere. It is actually captured and, in most cases in the UK, used to produce renewable energy (renewable because, as you say, the carbon released was simply part of the natural carbon cycle and therefore does not add more carbon to the atmosphere). The methane is converted into energy (which displaces fossil fuels), and carbon dioxide and water, which do no more harm than if (as you say) we had ingested the food and emitted the CO2 and H2O ourselves.

There are nuances about how much of the methane is captured, but the irony is that current waste management policy, by making landfilling more expensive, and by changing the volume of putrescible waste going into the fill, reduces the proportion that is captured, partly because the operators manage the site to minimise costs, which means waiting as long as possible before “capping” the site (putting a lid on it to keep in the gas), and partly because lower volumes and proportions of methane are harder to capture and utilise. The government’s incentives are actually driving down this most important renewable resource, which is not only our most reliable source (load factors similar to conventional power generation, compared to wind’s 27%), but has always provided the biggest proportion (around 30%) of our renewable energy – far more than wind power, which most people assume is the main renewable. It will take 3 MW of wind to replace 1 MW of landfill gas, in terms of output, and even then they will not match in terms of reliability.

This is a specialist area of mine. I was, until last month, MD of one of the leading landfill gas generation companies. We have just sold the business, partly because the market is very hot, but partly because of fear and frustration at the consequences of wrong-headed government intervention in every aspect of our activities.

Typical result of a meddling government that doesn’t understand the detail of the things on which it pontificates, regulates and legislates.

]]>