Lynne Kiesling
Check out this Wired article about methane capture from a trash dump in Bangaledesh. Methane capture technology can serve three objectives here: generating power, improving the utilization of the dump, and creating fertilizer that can enrich the thin soil in the area. When it gets going, this system can produce enough electricity to power 50,000 Bangladeshi households.
Do you get the feeling that there's less here than meets the eye?
To date, progress on the project has been slower than its backers would have liked, as the Dhaka city government has repeatedly delayed it.
But Enayetullah is optimistic, claiming that recent approval of the project by a United Nations oversight board mandates that the city allow the project to move forward within the next few weeks.
What, exactly, is preventing the project from "moving forward"? Is it additional subsidy? I have to wonder because it will be vitally important to address energy matters as clearly and intelligently as possible. Leaving as loose ends such details strikes me as being disingenuous.
Perhaps. My primary reason for skepticism is the distortion introduced by the Kyoto connection, which means that there's government money being thrown at creating carbon credits, purporting to internalize the carbon "externality".
But I do think that if the technology is not prohibitively expensive, methane capture from landfills that have too much organic matter in them can be a way to align economic and environmental benefits. The subsidies distort the decision, though.
Back in the days ... methane capture was practiced in the US. When energy costs dropped so the capture was dropped. I remember that LA used sewer gas to power the pumps at the main processing plant.
When energy costs rise many interesting things will happen, some good some bad.
Methane capture is alive and well in the United States. The following links provide some useful information: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/index.htm and http://region6.epa.gov/public/earth1r6/6pd/pd-u-sw/wte.htm