Biogas certainly has earned the nickname as the orphan biofuel, or even as the orphan alternative energy.
Until ten years ago, ethanol held the crown as the “sexy” energy. It was considered clean, renewable, and a boon for North American farmers. Then study after study found that the energy inputted into its production nearly equalled the resulting energy. Only a modest number of gas stations bothered to install pumping facilities. E-85, or “flex-vehicles” did not garner popular approval. And, slowly, locally owned plants declared bankruptcy or were swallowed up by national petro-fuel operations.
Around 1998, biodiesel made its charge for recognition as the fuel of the future. Its input/output ratios were extremely favourable, production methodology was so simple that a backyard hobbyist could produce the fuel, and most of the feedstocks used to produce biodiesel were legume-based oilseeds, which provided natural nutrients for the soil. But, although new technology. The resulting “output waste” is a healthy, pathogen-free compost that is perfect for growing gardens, enhancing crops, etc. It is a hands-off process, with gas being produced almost benignly and the fuel being stored for weeks or months without “spoiling.”
However, we have been led to believe that the only effective systems are large systems, costing millions of dollars. After all, economies of scale always matter, right?
But there are dozens of designs that can be built for under $200, can work in an urban backyard, a small hobby farm or a town landfill, equally well.
Yet, biogas research lags behind all other alternative energy research. Cooler climate countries assume that biogas is not viable because production requires warmer temperatures, and farm communities are reluctant to commit to a process that seems so simple, so “in front of their noses” that it could not possibly work.
Consequently, the energy that is the easiest to produce is the one that is given the least attention, like a character actor who is ignored as soon as the glamour stars appear.ies were touted as potential game-breakers in reducing cost of production, these innovative processes have met with limited success. In addition, unlike Europe, relatively few North Americans have embraced diesel vehicles, in spite of better fuel efficiencies.
Solar has had a slow climb to the status of a “sexy” alternative energy, largely due to its delicate design, high capital cost and lack of energy storage capacity. Hybrid passive solar –photovoltaic systems that offer greater efficiencies have not been mass-produced.
Wind is climbing to the pinnacle of acceptance at the same time that OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) and wave energy are reaching for that crown. But wind power already has an army of detractors, with claims that it is harmful to the nearby environment, too noisy, unreliable, etc.
Under the glamour radar, biogas struggles for acceptance, largely due to the distinctly non-sexy feedstock on which it relies for production: manure, garbage, waste materials, rotting straw & hay, and so on. Who, after all, wants a backyard full of manure, even if it saves the environment?
What is lost in the rejection of biogas as a “sexy” fuel are the numerous advantages of biogas production. Because it is produced from waste, it is converting nothing into something, at almost no cost.. The process is so simple, it is used by tens of thousands of families in underdeveloped countries as a backyard source of heating & cooking fuel.
For hobby researchers wanting to construct their own small-scale biogas system, a how-to article with diagrams and photos will be available by contacting the author at admin@robertflee.com with the subject heading “Biogas Plans.”