If you had to grow your own food...

Maize

8 (6.1%)

Rice

9 (6.8%)

Wheat

9 (6.8%)

Barley

3 (2.3%)

Sorghum

0 (0%)

Millets

0 (0%)

Oats

0 (0%)

Rye

2 (1.5%)

Triticale

0 (0%)

Buckwheat

2 (1.5%)

Potatos

34 (25.8%)

Cabbage

6 (4.5%)

Apples

11 (8.3%)

Beans

20 (15.2%)

Carrots

4 (3%)

Peas

2 (1.5%)

Other legume

2 (1.5%)

Other fruit

9 (6.8%)

Other cerial

1 (0.8%)

Other root vegetable

2 (1.5%)

Other leafy vegetable

5 (3.8%)

Added late: squash

3 (2.3%)

Total Members Voted: 35

[Bill Brasky]

the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.

Read that sentence five times.  

--

pause


---

The science itself is not terribly hard.  As Joel said, the process is the bitch.  


Ok, now then.  Lets be clear, I'm not turning anything into a big know-it-all.  I've probably got a few details incorrect, and mini-setups on Mythbusters don't work int he long-term.  Just because you can create a cubic foot of methane doesn't mean you can do it consistently and run machines with it.  

Methane, in and of itself, is a viable source of BTUs.  Methane is a BY-PRODUCT of decomposition.  Other gasses are released as well.  It can come from animal waste, compost of garbage, all sorts of sources.  

This is where the term stripping comes into play.  Methane must be isolated from the total release of gasses.  Production of propane and butane are similar processes.  

All of these gasses have a different specific gravity.  Under conditions of temperature and pressure they will separate.  Trapped within the raw vapor is a whole bunch of undesirable chemicals.  Carbon, water vapor, and anything else that is capable of evaporation, depending on the source.  

I'm sure a few of you are familiar with the concept of a gas chromatograph.  A few probably even use them in laboratory settings.  

As you selectively create the mechanical environment prime for isolation of methane (meaning the pipe-works), the other shit will drop out in condensate, and create a wet toxic sludge.  These undesirable condensate particles are known as "heavies".  The remaining gas is raw methane, and anything lighter can be flamed off as it rises above the optimum gravity, as it passes through a process of gas scrubbing.  

You must pass the gas through cooling pressure drops to make this happen, which means compression and pressurization must occur, in order to - in turn - reduce pressure in the separation processing.  To make that pressure, you have to run compressors.  To run the compressors, you have to run engines.  

Trap raw material, pressurize, drop drop drop, separate separate separate.  Result is raw methane and heavies. Scrub scrub scrub, discard garbage, flame other shit, chromatograph, and finally a finished product that is in a BTU range of 1.01 to 1.05

The BTUs must be relatively consistent to burn properly, and any orifice through which the burning tip creates a flame has to be drilled to deliver the gas at a pressure/burn rate.  If the BTU quality fluctuates, it'll flame out the appliance.  

The whole picture I'm trying to deliver is, all the machinery in the process is extensive.  To run one generator, you're gonna have to run at least four engines.  Its totally inefficient.  It only becomes efficient when you have a very large source of gas, like a thousand acre farm with thousands of animals to produce all that waste.  Its like buying a huge fucking wheat combine to farm a tiny little back yard.  Not practical.

The little examples you see on YouTube science projects are done by people to show that it can be done, but that doesn't mean the process is efficient for the amount of energy produced in relation to the BTU requirements of any given situation.  In a small place where five people live, the ratio is totally ridiculous.  If a hundred people were dependent on that delivery of energy, maybe it would be worth it.  

[Bill Brasky]

Now that that unpleasantness is dealt with, I must ask...

Why is Breadfruit not included?


I would think the yield of this crop would be worth protecting in a greenhouse. 



These types of greenhouses are economical enough for businesses to erect to sell plants to soccer moms, I see them often.  Theres no reason you couldn't put one up over a row of trees. 

[libertylover]

Completely diverging from food production to self sustainability or off the grid living.

Algae Biodiesel is probably a better source for electric generation than methane recapture.   But again it is complicated and some will probably argue too complicated for home use by most.  I am not arguing it is a walk in the park so no need for a long winded post on complicated nature of the process.   Distillation can be complicated in fact many self sustaining sorts of applications have various pit falls, can be complicated and expensive to execute.  

Methane gas isn't the only by product of the methane generator process it creates fertilizer and soil amendment to help grow plants and return nutrients to the soil.   But I would have to research if it the waste is rendered safe for use via this method vs simply composting.  I believe with simply composting pig or human fecal mater is still too toxic to be utilized as a fertilizer and would have to be disposed of in another way like constructed wetland.  

This video is not about home use of an integrated methane system but explains the possibilities.   And as the technology improves it might move to smaller or private home use.   I suppose in working with agriculture for cost effective environmental solutions.   I might foster more optimism for these sorts of applications.  [youtube=425,350]0fFIg5WLnm0[/youtube]

Another interesting development in the poo to power field.  Article down the toilet and back into the grid. http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/09/10/down-the-toilet-and-back-into-the-grid-san-antonio-to-turn-sewage-into-energy/#more-649  

Constructed wetlands can be used for sewage handling and feeding algae growth for Algae Biodiesel.   There are individual homes with constructed wetlands instead of the traditional septic tank system.   In a new construction a constructed wetland is on par with the cost of a septic system.  Another benefit perk-able land isn't needed for a constructed wetland application.  I am told that is a big problem in NH due to something called the shelf(?).  http://www.toolbase.org/Home-Building-Topics/Land-Use/constructed-wetlands  The problem with constructed wetlands is that government zoning hasn't caught up with the technology and are still requiring perk testing as a requirement for new constructions.

Of the three options listed wind, solar or hydro.  Which has the lowest start up costs?  We will assume you are in an area with sustained winds over 15 mph, plenty of sun, and running water source near by.  All these systems, I suppose need a bank of batteries and inverters.  Batteries can explode and battery acid is very caustic.  

Can't get too carried away the bio dome experiment was a failure.  

[Bill Brasky]

The only problem with dumping human waste into "constructed wetlands" is, without the proper survey of the geology you can taint your fresh water well.  Waste water and other "gray water" will also collect there, everything that goes down the sink.  Grease and soap, you name it.  Its gotta go somewhere, right?  Human waste is just the half of it, bad enough in itself, we're not talking a little chamber pot with one turd per day.  The average household produces many many gallons of waste per day. 

When you direct that waste into an artificial wetland, you need a very large wetland to absorb it and dilute it down into negligible trace.  This stuff all percolates down through the aquifer, because it is deposited into a central location, wherever the pipe dumps, so it helps enormously if the area has moving water to disperse it into a larger footprint.  This all has to be done on your own property, because if the water leaves your property you are contaminating your neighbor.  Not even gonna begin the ethical argument of that one.

Anyway, the first year may not be bad.  But in time, this waste collects faster than it can be dispersed creating a very unhealthy area in your property.  This concentrated toxin is the concern that can ultimately pollute your fresh water source because it is very difficult to determine where the pollutant may emerge as it filters through underground geological formations. 

This is widely understood in a very common way, and why septic sanitation is   -- A) expensive to install professionally     B) regulated and inspected to adhere to local standards   and C) expensive to be trucked out by honeydippers

Waste disposal is one of the largest problems of going off-grid, the other being independent energy production and consistent food production.  Those are the holy trinity of off-grid situations.    Water is the simplest but most important of all.  Don't fuck with the water is a standing order that holds veto power over other things. 

[libertylover]

Sorry Drifter you need to update your information on constructed wetlands.  They are already in use as a waste treatment system for private homes.   A modern constructed wetland uses a non-permeable barrier method and the effluent is up to standard by the end of the process.  I had to study this technology as part of my waste water management course work for certification. 

In general terms, a subsurface flow wetland consists of a basin, sometimes called a “cell,” that is lined with a barrier to prevent seepage. The basin is then filled with gravel to support the root structure of aqueous vegetation, which is planted directly into the gravel.

You are demonstrating the typical misunderstanding of how constructed wetlands have improved and actually do a better job of keeping ground water cleaner than the traditional septic tank with it's leach field approach.  It really doesn't help when there isn't much information on the subject on the web.  You probably haven't had access to the books I have had or done visited operational constructed wetlands.   

[Bill Brasky]

The constructed wetlands I had on my property didn't use a barrier.  They were to make up for disturbed wetlands that were removed for a sewer easement.  

I owned them.  

I donno how they can be considered wetlands if they have a barrier. 

[libertylover]

The constructed wetlands I had on my property didn't use a barrier.  They were to make up for disturbed wetlands that were removed for a sewer easement.  
I owned them.  
I donno how they can be considered wetlands if they have a barrier. 

What can I tell you they are considered constructed wetlands firestone liners and all.  I am linking a commercial example and this 1 acre wetland which has a 30,000 gallons per day waste water treatment capacity.  The average household waste water is calculated on 150 gallons per bedroom.  So the typical house should be easily handled by constructed wetland with 1000 sq ft of surface area.  http://www.landandwater.com/features/vol50no1/vol50no1_2.html 

Here in NC we have some communities who share constructed wetlands rather than each individual homeowner having a constructed wetland on their property.  This has been a major advancement in that the land was previously unsuitable for development due to the high water table.  Also the wetland has increase the habitat available for flora and fauna.  I wish there was a web site about the project. 

[BonerJoe]

Oh stop arguing for crissakes.

[Bill Brasky]

A thousand sq ft. 

haha


 

[blackie]

Eat crickets.

http://carolinapetsupply.com/crickets.htm

In general crickets are about 69% moisture, 21% protein, 6% fat   and 3% carbohydrates. Crickets have about 21mg of calcium/100g .

[AOD_Horseman]

I voted for potatoes without looking at anything else. Damn the Irish in me! 

[libertylover]

A thousand sq ft. 
haha

Here is a link to a small scale operation. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7671.html  

Sorry whoever sold you a constructed wetland application without a liner was stealing your money.



The biggest advancements in the field have been with swine production because waste disposal for the pork industry has been a major problem.   http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/constructed%20wetland/constructedwetland.htm

Most people simply don't understand how contaminated water is in America.  The old septic and sewage treatment technologies aren't doing as good a job as would be hoped.  And this failure could be another point source for contaminates which could be contributing to the increase in chronic diseases and genetic mutations.  I realize there are many young people who read these boards.  I hope they will get interested in this field of technology because really everyone's future depends on improved water quality.  

And to return this to being back on topic there are several edible wetland plants which can live happily in a constructed wetland.  So the space devoted to a wetland can be productive as well as providing for waste treatment.
http://bogs-marshes.suite101.com/article.cfm/edible_bog_and_wetland_plants

[Bill Brasky]

Sorry whoever sold you a constructed wetland application without a liner was stealing your money.

Nobody sold me anything.  It was an easement.  For the sewer.  As I stated.  Actual wetland  --  not something that looks like a wet tennis court surrounded by fence. 

The sewer authority ran their newly constructed line through my property, and in exchange I was not charged to hook into it.  Which was fucking fortunate, because they calculate the tie-in fee by frontage footage.  Where sewer is located, you cannot refuse a tie-in and opt for sand mound or septic. 

Because they disturbed the corner of a designated parcel of surveyed wetland, they had to re-create the disturbed area elsewhere.  In order to do so, they measured the piece they disturbed, and drove their backhoe down to the edge of the swamp, and dug away some of the non-wetland until it became level and took on water.  They did a few other things like shoot with a transit level, plant flags, and come back the next year to make sure the flags were in proximity to the mucky part they had created.  I didn't ride around on the guys lap, so they may have done other things. 

I thought you took classes on this stuff.  I highly doubt you are supposed to put down non-permeable barriers in such a situation, when the DEP orders a re-creation of the natural environment. 

As far as this wetland stuff goes to deal with waste, I think the best solution is still to physically remove the waste from the property.  For a number of reasons.  If you have animals, they will drink from it.  In the long term, containment of waste can build up and create problems that are unforeseen.  Property is not unlimited, so unless you have an abundance of land, I would not want to use up much on an artificial swamp.  Since I don't trust the science I would want it oversized, if I used it at all.  Large earth-moving projects are expensive, and the application has additional expenses, like a much longer pipe and trench, because you would want it located far from the house, as standing water attracts mosquitoes.  Anyone with a pond in their yard can tell you that. 

Since this is a no-rules kind of "what if" scenario, I would go the opposite direction and use a traditional septic tank.  They're very cheap compared to all this, and people used them for a hundred years with no problems - as long as they were maintained properly, and sized correctly for the number of users. 

How much does this wonderful artificial wetland cost, anyway?  Since you brought up money, and being ripped off. 

[blackie]

I would treat greywater and blackwater differently, and probably use greywater for irrigation.

[Bill Brasky]

I would treat greywater and blackwater differently, and probably use greywater for irrigation.

I probably would too, if I had the chance to start from scratch.  But its probably kinda hard to make the determination what goes where.  Theres soap in shower water and dishwater.