На главнуюНовости и политикаПохожее видеоЕще от: Senator Bernie Sanders

Converting Methane Gas to Electricity

Оценок: 303 | Просмотров: 9109
The Washington Electric Co-op is one of two Vermont electric utilities with a 100 percent renewable energy portfolio, thanks in large part to its 8-megawatt generator fired by waste methane on Vermont’s only operating landfill. Washington Electric’s Coventry landfill facility produces enough electricity from waste methane to power approximately 6,000 homes and generates more than half of Washington Electric’s electricity.
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Текстовые комментарии (68)
FeelingShred (13 дней назад)
Simcity 3000 has been teaching this for us for a loooong time
Ekanksh Raj (11 месяцев назад)
I have a project conversion of mithen in electricity
cbzombiequeen58 (1 год назад)
in a human compost, sawdust is used to cover the poop. would this create a problem in the digester?. Will the saw dust build up or will it break down fast enough? We do compost and I would like to go with biogas, but we use sawdust to cover the poop. so in a five-gallon bucket, there is a good amount of it.
Asghar Malik (1 год назад)
Great video .thank you for sharing
Matthew Love (1 год назад)
This is SO much better than Fracking, why AREN'T we doing this everywhere.
Marutan Ray (1 год назад)
Mark Smed (1 год назад)
No, it's biogas and would have been emitted anyways. Just like letting a tree rot also produces CO2 it is a lot more efficient to burn it (Of course having trees rot is good for biodiversity, so we shouldn't over do it).
Marutan Ray (1 год назад)
Aha. Since this is Bernie channel endorsed idea, it doesn't generate CO2
Russell Mercer (1 год назад)
LOL, too bad the commentator doesn't have a good script. There is much more going on around the country than you realize. I have been building and operating these plants across the US and abroad since 1988, usually the limiting factor is some one to take the electricity for a fare market value. I also worked on the Burlington facility
Cao Ang (1 год назад)
My left ear has enjoyed this.
Hem Ramachandran (1 год назад)
I wonder how long the landfill will produce methane?
goartist (1 год назад)
since people stopped producing waste, that sounds like a real concern. oh wait...
tauofwar (1 год назад)
This is not renewable. This is waste to energy. Waste is not a renewable energy source, since it is produced by a fossil fuel driven economy. You need to use fuels to produce the goods first, and the waste from those goods is moved to landfills by vehicles (not renewable) and then plants like this are constructed by heavy machinery (not renewable), and then the plant is run by workers who drive to the plant everyday (not renewable). the list goes on.
Mark Smed (1 год назад)
The difference is between renewable and carbon friendly. If you have biogas it's often low carbon and renewable, but the infrastructure around is not. Some energy sources like biomass (Burning wood), is renewable, but not low carbon, since it takes a long time for the forrest to regrow and reabsorb the CO2, therefore leaving a long time where the CO2 can cause damage. And nuclear which is low carbon, but not renewable since we have to use uranium (Although we have supplies for 10000+ years).
thethegreenmachine (1 год назад)
+mickdemi I don't know if their process leaks or not, and if it does, I don't know if this leak is any faster than what's already coming out through the ground.
tauofwar (1 год назад)
They burn the methane and it converts to CO2 and that is released to atmosphere. Unless there are leaks in the system, these systems don't release CH4 to atmosphere.
Ben Dreis (1 год назад)
What do the haters have to say about this?
Henry Way (1 год назад)
A little more detail on the level of pollutants released would be helpful to promote this cause. It sounds like it's very clean, but there's no data presented.
Marietta Carter (1 год назад)
Agree. There are unanswered questions about what is released, what the potential is for accidental release of methane gases if equipment breaks, how many jobs are produced (we need to be able to promote this idea to the Reps who are pushing energy independence and job creation)... I can't remember if she said whether it was profit or no-profit, but of course, profit would be more appealing to most.
Natalie Mae (1 год назад)
CC to read it
Gary Weaver (1 год назад)
So, we can power N. America from Capitol Hill, right ?
UniversalPotentate (1 год назад)
Landfill Methane as a power source! Would NOT have thought of that!
Ultimate Reality (1 год назад)
That's what human beings do best (produce excrement.)
aristotle313 (1 год назад)
Dead Parroting (1 год назад)
My dad knew about this in the 70s and I realized its potential before I got into high school. Why so long for progress? Big oil? Military/industrial complex? You bet your sweet ass! Who has more to lose if we don't keep trading lives for oil?
Mark Smed (1 год назад)
Simply too expensive.
Henry Way (1 год назад)
Dead Parroting I think the point is that this is a much larger plant than others operating on the same principle and it seems that the level of cleaning they do before and after burning is significant related to reducing pollution. All that and they only charge $0.06/kW-hr. That's impressive.
Swan Electro (1 год назад)
wow, that's cool!
Mathew Brunetta (1 год назад)
money out of politics and then we can probably have all these no-brainers. we gotta fight first
The Pyat (1 год назад)
Did you do any research to make this statement or is it just wishful thinking?
tauofwar (1 год назад)
This isn't a no brainer. Many of these systems are shut down because they don't pay for themselves. They aren't as productive as this video leads one to believe.
Luficarius Ratspeed (1 год назад)
it's yooge!
Video Archives (1 год назад)
Jonah Supreme (1 год назад)
Editor, set your right channel to output the left or edit on a mono timeline, or just hire me.
FeelingShred (13 дней назад)
audio is an overlooked art... and if someone needs subtitles/transcription, hire me! I can transcript up to 80 minutes a day if it's a clean audio/slow speaker
Victoria Allen (1 год назад)
It's too bad so many millions of whatever the unit is have gone into the atmosphere. Tragic really.
Daway Legit (1 год назад)
My right ear felt lonely :(
Tammi B (1 год назад)
We need a third party with Bernie as the leader! If the Dems had a clue, we wouldn't be stuck with President Trump. They shoved Hillary down our throats and that party can't be saved. Ditch Shumer, Pelosi, Brazile and lead a party for the people, not for frackers and Wall Street. The Dems aren't progressive. They are Repubilicans posing as Democrats. We need to build from the ground up.
Andrew Isaac (1 год назад)
Tammi B
I can't hear anything! I feel like I am missing so much! D:
Thenotsofly1 (1 год назад)
there is no excuse for why all states can't use this. It saves space, the environment, and money in the long run. This needs to be implemented nation wide
The Pyat (1 год назад)
Ants are prosperous, robots are prosperous. Would you hail them as gods? Trump is one of the richest human beings on the planet, and he's a threat to it. He's as miserably ignorant as an Indonesian shrimp peeler, or rather the shrimp being peeled. His picks all have one blaring thing in common: they're ignorant like him. Quite a few of, say, the top 10% are amazingly and sadly ignorant as hell. So, no. Prosperity for prosperity's sake is no panacea; there have to be brains somewhere in the picture. And good science. The Nordic countries understand that there's a limit to how well a society can function if there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor. It's not that those people are working their teeth off, it's that a gas station attendant makes what an overworked corporate shil might make here in the States. Heck, Finland's introducing basic income for all. People in developing countries like China are getting more educated along with seeing a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, and technology is helping. But prosperity in and of itself can doom a society to collapse from corruption, greed, narcissism, and ignorance.
The Pyat (1 год назад)
I HATE it when people spit out that little piece of dogma: Technology isn't the solution. If the world believed that, no one would have received a polio vaccine, no one would have flown in a plane, no one would have come up with the first solar panel, and there would be no Internet to even have this conversation. The fact is that in most developed countries, populations are declining, with or without your soapboxing. Thank Christ we've got engineers figuring out how to tap myriad sources of renewable energy while systems theory is being used to devise workable solutions for societies large and small, rich and poor. We absolutely must employ science, research, development, and yes, technology to deal with the issues facing the globe. It's grotesquely ignorant to be a technophobe.
Mark Smed (1 год назад)
+tauofwar Growth for growth sake? If you want population growth to stop, look at the facts. The more wealthy a country is the fewer births. That's why we need growth. We need to have growth so that we can have prosparity and then we can consider things like population. Uneducated and poor people cannot afford / have knowlegde of contraceptives. The fact is simple, we need everyone in this world to be as prosperous as possible, because then they will care about the environment, population, democracy and all the other things we have fought so hard for. If you're barely having food on your table you cannot afford to care about the environment. You care about food and jobs above everything. However in a properous country like the US, you can afford to have concerns, but they can't. Look at China. They used to not give a shit about the environment, dumping whatever they had in nearby lakes and polluting the air. Now, because people are getting richer it is starting to change. People care about the air quality, because they can afford to. If we want a healthy environment, simply have people get out of poverty.
tauofwar (1 год назад)
Mark Smed actually what I am suggesting is that technology isn't the solution when the problem is people. i think you can lull yourself into a sense of security by suggesting technology will save us, but I view that approach as fantastical. what I suggest is moving toward a gradual decline in population by focusing on well being, and communal living rather than growth for growths sake.
Mark Smed (1 год назад)
+tauofwar What are you suggesting? Seems like something that involves a whole lot of death. Not cool. Look, I think we can all agree that certain experiments and development processes have helped the earth. Cough cough, Early windmill pioneers, NASA developing the photovoltaic solar panel, Shippingport all showed ways to reduce CO2 emissions. Are you saying we should go back to the cave? If we really wanted to go green, we would GTFO of nature and get into cities powered by clean energy. We would have high intensity agriculture producing a lot more food per acre than today and recycle basicly everything. That's how we become green, not by reducing population. If we lived in a relatively closed loop where 90% of our food came from high intensity vertical farms, the planet could support 10 billion without breaking a sweat. Could it be done? Yes, but it would be a hell of a challenge. We choose to become clean in this century and do the other things. Not because they are easy but because they are hard.
Erik Hillebrand (1 год назад)
Henry Way (1 год назад)
Erik Hillebrand $0.06/kW-hr is wasteful? Pretty cheap power just about anywhere.
Erik Hillebrand (1 год назад)
Why FULE busses instead. Chemical energi like METHANE is Wasteful to transform to eletrical energy. Look att EXERGY and conversion loss.

Хотите оставить комментарий?

Присоединитесь к YouTube, или войдите, если вы уже зарегистрированы.