Darwin's waste helps power 1200 houses a year
November 3, 2024 6:46 PM Subscribe
Darwin's waste helps power 1200 houses a year as council creates circular economy. For the past 20 years, an energy project on the outskirts of Darwin has been quietly generating renewable electricity 24 hours a day and abating tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide.
So, this burns the methane produced from the landfill to produce power/electricity.
And the alternative is to let the methane escape from the garbage dump? And methane being a worse greenhouse gas it's better if it's burned and turned into CO2 and electricity? Where before it was just burned?
posted by aleph at 7:26 PM on November 3
And the alternative is to let the methane escape from the garbage dump? And methane being a worse greenhouse gas it's better if it's burned and turned into CO2 and electricity? Where before it was just burned?
posted by aleph at 7:26 PM on November 3
This is done in lots of landfills in California. You have to do it carefully, though.
Apparently in Berkeley they had a problem of ground squirrels digging holes in the clay landfill cover, leading to methane leakages which potentially could result in explosions in the park covering the landfill (that's one way to discourage smoking). It appears that duct tape isn't the best way to fix the holes.
Edit add: I just noticed that in the Berkeley landfill, they just burn the methane possibly without getting the energy from it? I know they convert it to energy in the one in my town (Sunnyvale).
posted by eye of newt at 12:23 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
Apparently in Berkeley they had a problem of ground squirrels digging holes in the clay landfill cover, leading to methane leakages which potentially could result in explosions in the park covering the landfill (that's one way to discourage smoking). It appears that duct tape isn't the best way to fix the holes.
Edit add: I just noticed that in the Berkeley landfill, they just burn the methane possibly without getting the energy from it? I know they convert it to energy in the one in my town (Sunnyvale).
posted by eye of newt at 12:23 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
The UK got quite into landfill gas back in the 1990s, with a few hundred units being built since. While being supported as (sort of) renewable energy sources, the economics improved significantly through the 90s. Landfills have been getting smaller though so the opportunity for expansion is very limited. Most local authorities favour Energy from Waste plans now (ie direct combustion of waste) for largely electrical generation (that is, they all generate electricity, some use the remaining heat also).
A lot of the UK LFG sites are getting to the stage where they are reaching end-of-life, with an expected 400MW of capacity expected to go offline in the period 2027-2023, which is a decent chunk by UK standards, especially as it counts as low carbon. The falling size of sites (basically rubbish is going into new holes at a slower rate due to greater recycling) means that repowering is complicated since it may be that future methane production will not be enough to support a device already installed.
I just noticed that in the Berkeley landfill, they just burn the methane possibly without getting the energy from it?
The US EPA reckons about 63% of US LFG sites generate power. You have to scroll about 2/3 of the way down for this info.)
posted by biffa at 3:02 AM on November 4
A lot of the UK LFG sites are getting to the stage where they are reaching end-of-life, with an expected 400MW of capacity expected to go offline in the period 2027-2023, which is a decent chunk by UK standards, especially as it counts as low carbon. The falling size of sites (basically rubbish is going into new holes at a slower rate due to greater recycling) means that repowering is complicated since it may be that future methane production will not be enough to support a device already installed.
I just noticed that in the Berkeley landfill, they just burn the methane possibly without getting the energy from it?
The US EPA reckons about 63% of US LFG sites generate power. You have to scroll about 2/3 of the way down for this info.)
posted by biffa at 3:02 AM on November 4
methane being a worse greenhouse gas
In terms of effect, yes, stronger than CO2. But it lasts a shorter time in the atmosphere.
posted by doctornemo at 3:41 AM on November 4
In terms of effect, yes, stronger than CO2. But it lasts a shorter time in the atmosphere.
posted by doctornemo at 3:41 AM on November 4
From the EU methane page:
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas contributor to climate change following carbon dioxide. In fact, methane’s ability to trap heat in the atmosphere is even stronger than that of carbon dioxide.
On a 100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.
posted by jjj606 at 3:51 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas contributor to climate change following carbon dioxide. In fact, methane’s ability to trap heat in the atmosphere is even stronger than that of carbon dioxide.
On a 100-year timescale, methane has 28 times greater global warming potential than carbon dioxide and is 84 times more potent on a 20-year timescale.
posted by jjj606 at 3:51 AM on November 4 [1 favorite]
Methane in the atmosphere largely decays to CO2, so its relatively short lifespan is not really a bonus.
posted by biffa at 4:56 AM on November 4 [2 favorites]
posted by biffa at 4:56 AM on November 4 [2 favorites]
« Older Some Horrors to Take Your Mind off the US Election | A relative of the bygone nut Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by doctornemo at 6:48 PM on November 3