Biogas in Quebec with household waste

[jonule]

Regarding nuclear power, I find Jonule's remark relevant: the interest in nuclear power decreases as we try to take into account all of what it encompasses.

We can present it in the sense that we want but today nuclear power is the means of production of electricity which rejects the least CO2 per kW (complete cycle taken into account from construction to deconstruction via the 'operation). Come behind gas then fuel oil and finally coal which is absolutely an eyesore in terms of rejection.

you base yourself on the definition of CO2 in the nuclear lobby, which does not take into account several parameters, such as the fact that the H2O released is a greenhouse gas. you are not talking about the transport of raw materials from the pond, or the CO2 is not counted.
Above all, you only talk about CO2, and you only compare it with fossil NRj.

methanization is not one of them.


I will only notice:

If there were any mistakes, it was mostly in the right direction.

Obviously the supermarkets get supplies from these farms in battery because we want the cheapest and that's it.

what reasoning ... what school did you do?





I would particularly like to thank Ahmed in passing, who underlines that waste that we see as the West (it's not our fault but that of the school and the teachers), is in fact a RAW MATERIAL that is not valued at its true value.

I'm sure that Cmoa doesn't have any consideration to "shit in drinking water", since like us he's been doing it since we were little, wrong?

[C moa]

uh wait ... who that, "us", and "we"? you mean you come here to promote nuclear? well you will be received!

I reassure you, that is not my intention at all. In fact, fusion has nothing to do with fission (which occurs in current reactors). It's all about fusing various nuclei to create a lot of energy with helium as residue. It's not too dangerous as helium waste

+ seriously:
According to you, a CET has "a little bit" to do with a Biogas installation, but it's not the same, that's all, there is no recovery of biogas or fertilizer.

If because, as I have already said, this is where the best yields occur (even if I consider them low) and in many cases, the biogas produced is valued by recovering it. In the older CETs, we didn't think about it, now I think it must be almost systematic.

question: can a TEC receive nuclear waste? in the case of recovered gas, can they mix, to give what?

Absolutely nothing to see, the regulations are not at all the same.

wastewater treatment plants are expensive and stink.

Of course, but they are essential. In many WWTPs, the waste and therefore the sludge are very well recovered.

biogas and fertilizers are not valued either (at their fair value, I mean).

There is progress to be made for sure.

when you say that there is not only good in organic I answer: if

Come on, a little provocation for the road. I found a super 100% natural insulation, even rock wool and glass wool is crap next to it. I was told it was called ASBESTOS. In Canada they produce lots of it, it's to tell you how late we are !!! What ?? Did I say something stupid ??

> you say CH4 21 times worse than CO2, on what criteria?
like I said, burning CH4 gives H20 and little CO2.
as you say the flares of the CET burn biogas, it is a waste without name.

The criterion is not mine but scientists. On this point we agree, I never said that it was necessary to let the CH4 escape without burning it and ideally to valorize it.

> you say "use mother nature's gas with a turbine, a boiler": just by a boiler? an example ?

I don't see what you want to know In a boiler we burn gas to produce water ... What else ??

a CET is aerobic, even at 10m thick it is not anaerobic, and the performance is + only mediocre, we say that the difference is waterproofing. right?

Uh no, you have trouble reading, methanization in a CET is done well in an anaerobic environment.

moreover, as you say, anaerobic methanization is much faster, this is the major advantage of this technology unlike the CET, which can even be activated with enzymes (septic tank type).

Certainly faster but the fermentation is very slow all the same .... And then in their system, from what I understood, there will be regular inflows of air, admittedly limited but still.

no a natural product is no less effective than a chemical product in terms of fertilizer, it is propaganda to say that, without any basis in + ...

Again, read it carefully, I did not say that a chemical fertilizer was more efficient than a "natural" fertilizer (it is always the consequence of human activity). But you have to take into account the efficiency, the price and the implementation. At equivalent efficiency and at the same price if it takes three times longer to spread organic waste than synthetic fertilizers, the debate will soon be closed !! In addition, information that you may not have but the rules related to spreading and lagooning are very strict because of the pathogenic risk. It is sometimes complicated to have the authorizations.

I don't see what a sniffer plane is.

It was a joke Elf in his day had financed a study for planes supposedly capable of discovering oil fields in flight. It was beautiful on paper but it was a huge bullshit.

however, you make me (us) laugh when you say that "inspections are carried out, and as soon as there is a problem, we stop": haha, we don't stop like that already,

I think it would be good sometimes for people like you to go for an internship in a power plant. First, a power plant can be shut down in a few seconds without any problem in an emergency. Then what do you think ?? That a power plant is controlled by itself ?? Behind a power plant, there are above all men and women. Do you think that the guy who is at his control panel wants to see the reactor go wild? Do you think the guy who does the maintenance wanted to take risks for his health to die faster? Do you seriously believe that the director of the power plant will take risks to the point of seeing her go wrong and destroy / contaminate her house, her children's school with her children inside?
Let's be serious and stop fabulous !!! Well let's stop there for nuclear, if you want we can discuss it in another post or in private. I am at your disposal.

then, how come there were so many accidents then? how is it that ASn allows sites like SOCATRI to be operated alros that problems had already been reported?

I'm not part of ASN so I wouldn't answer for them. What I do know, however, is that when it comes to nuclear power, we look at power plants a lot, forgetting that in recent years there have been several thousand people who have been irradiated, some of them died, in hospitals. Have we closed all radiology, radiotherapy, angiography departments, etc.? We want to develop fire surveillance in houses ?? Or but what are we going to do with the small ionic detectors which are so many radioactive sources ??

I can see your remark "there was an earthquake, normally nonexistent, and we did nothing, we continued as if nothing had happened": great, I can see the seriousness; If you read the quote correctly, the earthquake occurred in 2006.

Don't make me say what I didn't say !!! I said "the situation was taken seriously and if we had to stop we would have." I can confirm that there was indeed an earthquake in 2002, which was also felt as far as Angers and that it is from this event that the report you quote came from.

for your 4 reactors, "On their own, they supply electricity to nearly half of North-West France,
Center to Brittany "which leaves a lot of room for wind turbines, especially on the coast.

Well, I say fuck yourself with your wind turbines on the Breton coast !!! A few years ago a house which had been there for several centuries was destroyed in the name of the law on the coast. We can no longer plant a tent a few days / weeks in the year on private land in the name of this same law on the coast and you want to come and install these machines 200 m high ?? Well put them at home. It makes me laugh, 30 years ago there were ecologists who were fighting in the Alps and the Pyrenees to prevent the installation of sky stations and ski lifts on the pretext that it was spoiling the landscape !! I agreed with them so don't come and destroy OUR landscape.

[jonule]

It's all about fusing various nuclei to create a lot of energy with helium as residue. It's not too dangerous as helium waste

haha .. it's not just helium I, II, II or IV (artificially modified).

Normally, we only form helium, so nothing is released.
In fact, the constituent materials of the tokamak undergo such bombardment that they become slightly radioactive. So we cannot say that this is a zero waste reaction. Radioactive impurities form
Finally, fusion uses tritium as a reactant, which is radioactive, but above all very volatile and which can take the place of hydrogen in many molecules (water, organic molecules, etc.) So you have to be very careful that this tritium does not escape
Activities of the order of millicurie of tritium do not present a risk of external irradiation, since the low-energy electrons emitted do not pass through the dead layer of the skin - except by inhalation.
As the reactor vessel is not redone every year, the impurities remain trapped in the structure of the metal which will flow more and more. Depending on the type of metal, we have cobalt 57 or 58 among the most radioactive products.

would this debate tend towards ITER? distressing ...

> concerning the TECs that promote biogas, I think we all want links to see that, me who thought that it was not done!
so we want links with waste yields / valued NRJ, that would perhaps advance the debate ;-)
to compare with biogas: I repeat that the yield can only be lower than an anaerobic anaerobic digestion, which improves the substrate (fertilizer) more quickly.

for the CET, there have already been cases where radioactive hospital waste has been found ... a portal at the entrance for gamma sources is not at all the same as for beta or alpha rays ...

WWTPs are not essential, they can be replaced by Biogas installations, waste and sludge are only slightly recovered, not to mention the gas which stinks and which leaves, will ask those who live nearby! the biogas fertilizer does not stink mosieur.

There is progress to be made for sure.

but that's what we are killing ourselves explaining to you: anaerobic digestion is better, so we should stop insisting.

when you say "The criterion is not mine but scientists": which ones? report, source? please provide details: on what criteria do they compare? you know ? by weight can be?

I don't know what you want to know Shocked In a boiler we burn gas to produce water ... What else ??

what I want to know: what is this boiler used for, what does it heat, where is it, how much gas does it use over the quantity produced. you seem informed but not enough I think. precision: a boiler does not burn gas to produce water, but to heat ... what does it heat, water?

Uh no, you have trouble reading, methanization in a CET is done well in an anaerobic environment.

> do you mean that a CET is the same as an anaerobic digestion plant? ...
we will have to draw up a table of each activity I feel ... because if you call from the beginning biogas methanization = CET I do not see why we get carried away talking about the 2.
OR that this confusion that occurs HERE has a specific purpose.
if it is not, it is because they are not the same thing.

> So for you with the same volume of waste, a THIS product AS MUCH Biogas as an anaerobic methanization plant?
without upgrading the fertilizer substrate then?
I still don't understand why the CET does an aerobic fermentation, I'm sorry it's gas leaving, unnecessary CO2
(the combustion of CH4 produces water and little CO2).

Certainly faster but the fermentation is very slow all the same ... And then in their system, from what I understood, there will be regular inflows of air, admittedly limited but still.

Hey, won't you feel like you're contradicting yourself every quarter of an hour? if it's playing on words, I don't find that very funny, it's not me that you have to try to convince.

natural fertilizer not consequent of the activity of the man: the mud of the marshes. which also falls from the trees and which is not picked up. there are still many more I am sure.

At equivalent efficiency and at the same price if it takes three times longer to spread organic waste than synthetic fertilizers, the debate will soon be closed !!

this is where you make a mistake: you only speak quantitative, I speak to you qualitative.
It is obvious that chemically producing fertilizers by the oil industry just for that, and on the other hand recovering a valued substrate from an activity that produces valuable NRJ methane, it's not at all the same thing! it is however simple.
for the pathogenic risk, know that cow manure, manure and others have never been a pathogenic bacterial source, and are still used, to take just this example.

I think it would be good sometimes for people like you to go for an internship in a power plant.

never in life are you not right? and if there is an accident when i am there, imagine i visit tricastion and there is a gas leak as it happened? walking on a route that has already irradiated many of the staff for years? heo! don't you want me to go with kids either ?!
what to visit as a central, fessenheim? chernobyl? well no need to go, ok for you, go take some pictures, and come back after!

the problem if there is a power cut, which will stop the pumps to cool the reaction, is not to press the emergency button, it is that the generator does not start, as it has already happened in Finland and many other places ... these are technical errors combined with human errors. how you say on paper it works.

you say that I am fabulous? you say nuclear accidents don't exist?













Among other things, you take care of other nuclear (medical) concerns, I answer you: I completely agree with you, we should never have modified the atom like that, ESPECIALLY to SELL it to incompetent traders, if you see what I want to say ...

for the earthquake it's false information that you do, like the rest.
wikipedia source:
"
According to a report from the Nuclear Safety Authority dating from October 2002, certain safeguard functions ensuring the cooling of the reactor could no longer be provided in the event of an earthquake. [1]

A magnitude 4 earthquake whose epicenter is almost below the Chinon power station was recorded on November 5, 2006 at 01:37. It was felt as far as Angers and Beaupréau. [2]
"
you understand ? the report indicates in 2002 "be careful if there is an earthquake there is a risk of the reactor overheating" and in 2006: earthquake.
not in 2002. so if you're stronger than wikipédia will ask the nuclear service to change this article? which must be verifiable elsewhere ...


For Bretons, polite one must know how to stay;
you prefer a nuclear power station to a wind turbine, graphically speaking, it is up to you. but on the coast one can also install Tidal turbines, as near Brest. does it suit you like that? or maybe you don't know tidal turbines, and the power of water? (since the wind you are against it and prefer the atom AND its uranium derivatives, plutonium etc).

by the way, do you live near a nuclear power plant? you are from Milan according to your profile? how are you interested in Brittany? the Brennilis power plant and its discharges on crabs, flora and fauna (CRIIRAD sources thank you to them)?

I feel that the weekend is going to be long

[minguinhirigue]

Well, I find it a shame the biogas slippage in technical landfills, nuclear power plants and wind turbines, but that's how it is ... I allow myself to send three links on this subject:
- CO2 balance for all energies combined in Germany, taking into account the fuel supply and all the tattoin, nuclear power is not bad, but it is far behind biogas cogeneration, which by avoiding the release of methane from our waste , with a negative balance in CO2 equivalent (yes, methane is considered to be more harmful for the greenhouse effect). Nuclear power is also less good on this point than wind power (per kWh of electrical equivalent supplied) and equivalent to hydroelectric dams (non-neutral CO2 balance due to their great influence on the surrounding flora and the gray energy required during their construction ?) : http://www.oeko.de/service/gemis/files/ ... te2006.pdf.

- the work evoked by some about the people who extract the uranium ore, it must be a privileged life proposed by aréva of the type seen on this report: http://www.noslibertes.org/dotclear/ind ... 131/Le-FMI
Sorry, it's gold, here is for nuclear safety in PEVD: http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/se ... niger_blog
It seems that it was on econology that I read a quick calculation of the human equivalent of the energy used on average in a "modern" home: 8 slaves. Well, imagine they have a face when they take the minerals out of the ground or when their little hands sew shoes made in taiwan ...

- For wind turbines, they must be done frankly or not at all: decentralized energy must be exploited in a decentralized manner not with "wind power stations" of 10 kW!
Autonomy we quickly have: http://heol2.org/electricite/electric.htm
Well it is true that they have reduced the hunt for negawatts, but still ...

Finally for waste treatment, for the CET I do not know, but for the WWTPs, it should be known for example that our gray water contains less nitrogen than the water leaving modern purification stations! So what is the point of putting shit (black water) in slightly dirty water (gray water)? This point is in line with Ahmed's remarks: the majority of our organic "waste" is due to usage and management errors which makes its purification more complex. See slurry or manure.

The problem is that not everyone is ready to quit their way of life. So for those who don't want to see their crap anymore, recycling biogas for everyone's kitchen, just with the organic extrans of a home, it's pretty cool as a calculation. It certainly involves the storage and purification of biogas at home, but it has been considered in Germany or Quebec, so why not elsewhere.

I note in the presentations on the Vauban district, that they wanted to keep the CO2 degassed with methane, because that makes the mixture less explosive than pure CH4, without fundamentally hindering combustion in the kitchen. Still suffers from it, I don't know if their biogas plant releases it, or how they manage it.

For the idea of ​​recovering biogas today for noble uses (other than burning it with a flare as is often done), it would have to develop quickly. I regret that the engineers did not think about sulfur and burnt out an engine following the example given by Christophe. However, by conditioning the biogas (which is not much more difficult to do than LPG or natural gas, and which requires less investment than off-shore platforms) we can dream of financial charges for public transport greatly diminished. In Strasbourg for example, by developing even more bicycles, and especially velomobiles (already present in the city center for tourists) have can switch to an almost free CTS network !?

HS: The price of the ticket is another problem; it roughly corresponds to the cost of installing and maintaining composters and the salaries of inspectors. The rest is subsidized by the municipality. And yes, we can remove the ticket today, the installations are already funded by our taxes !? Only people degrade what is offered more ...

[Christophe]

Hey we must have the same sources !!

I'm looking at the same doc here: http://blip.tv/file/957389

I wanted to make it a subject

[minguinhirigue]

Lol

[Ahmed]

@Christine:

I take advantage of your question to tell you that I very much appreciate the relevance of your interventions.

Jonule has already largely answered for me, and I thank him for it, it is not unpleasant to be understood!

"How does the word 'organic waste' imply a value judgment for you?"

Attaching the concept of waste to "organic matter" is the result of an insidious linguistic drift which results in disqualifying OM, and therefore justifying both its production and then any treatment.

I remember that the concept of waste does not exist in nature: there is simply a succession of states within a cycle.

It is towards this perception that we must imperatively orient ourselves rather than striving to solve problems that we have created.

I am fairly reserved on the generalized use of biogas, except in third world countries where it seems to me to be a fairly good compromise.

The same applies to composting, which in my opinion should be reserved for what, by nature, cannot be treated otherwise.

Why? Because, on the one hand, there is dissipation of a good part of the OM energy (recovered in the first case), on the other hand, this "externalization" of the transformation does not benefit biology. of the ground.

If we think in terms of nutrients brought to the soil to compensate for the export due to harvests, we remain at a classic accounting level but we have understood nothing about the dynamics of the soil.
Cultivated plants continue to be fed by perfusion, as in the case of the use of chemical fertilizers: good results in the short term but a slow and inevitable degradation of the soil.

As you will have understood, the food problem is, in my eyes, much more important than the energy question.

@ C moa:
Likewise, I complete the answers that Jonule kindly gave you for me:

Of course, the workforce is local, therefore foreign! That doesn't answer my objection.

There used to be a few mines in France: not long ago, a Breton mayor was worried that a former exploitation on the territory of his municipality was left abandoned and open access while it presented a rate of significant radioactivity (ref .: Ouest-France).

I have no doubt that these large multinational groups have an effective communication policy and do not ignore themes such as safety, the environment and sustainable development: it is so "trendy"!
Be careful not to confuse marketing and reality.

As for the pressure from the shareholders, it is rather in the direction of an increase in their dividends!

Let's not be naive, multinationals only defend their interests while striving to maintain an appearance of respectability and governments are on their side, even if they try to maintain a semblance of regulation, in order to justify themselves to the public. their electorate.

[C moa]

> concerning the TECs that promote biogas, I think we all want links to see that, me who thought that it was not done!

a little bit of google ...

so we want links with waste yields / valued NRJ, that would perhaps advance the debate ;-)
to compare with biogas: I repeat that the yield can only be lower than an anaerobic anaerobic digestion, which improves the substrate (fertilizer) more quickly.

I think we're hitting rock bottom here, I'll explain one last time after I throw in the towel !!! Biogas is the natural formation of gas from organic material. Instead of saying that dung produces CH4, it is said to produce biogas it's prettier, it looks "organic".
How is this biogas produced? By methanization !!! Methanization can be done aerobically (case of dung in the field and no !! this has nothing to do with Véronique and Davina). This can also be done in anaerobic environment such as in TECs, WWTPs, biodigesters .... The advantage is that the proportion of CH4 in the gas will allow combustion.

for the CET, there have already been cases where radioactive hospital waste has been found ...

Well yes there are not only in the power stations that there are unconscious.

a portal at the entrance for gamma sources is not at all the same as for beta or alpha rays ...

In this case, there are neither in hospitals nor in CET ...

WWTPs are not essential, they can be replaced by Biogas installations, waste and sludge are only slightly recovered, not to mention the gas which stinks and which leaves, will ask those who live nearby! the biogas fertilizer does not stink mosieur.

Well, there I have nothing to say ... go see on google what a wastewater treatment plant and a biogas plant are used for and you will see that it has nothing to do with it, that it is not made for the same thing .... In most Mediterranean countries there is not or not enough WWTP and suddenly the Mediterranean is one of the most polluted seas in the world. You are probably right, WWTPs are not essential.

when you say "The criterion is not mine but scientists": which ones? report, source? please provide details: on what criteria do they compare? you know ? by weight can be?

It's a bit annoying to have to justify yourself all the time but hey, your Wikipedia buddy ... it's over there

> So for you with the same volume of waste, a THIS product AS MUCH Biogas as an anaerobic methanization plant?
without upgrading the fertilizer substrate then?

Exactly...

[b] I still don't understand why the CET does an aerobic fermentation,

maybe because it is not ??

for the pathogenic risk, know that cow manure, manure and others have never been a pathogenic bacterial source, and are still used, to take just this example.

That's it and then there is the groundhog who puts the chocolate in the aluminum foil ....
When are you going to understand that what is natural is not necessarily harmless and that what is aritificiel is not necessarily unhealthy? The example of asbestos was not enough ?? So let's talk about radon, gangrene, it's natural gangrene, tetanus, malaria, these drugs made from chemicals are bad ...
Good then read it
and this too
ou again that
I'm sure you should be able to find plenty more, but now I'll let you look !!!

never in life are you not right? and if there is an accident when i am there, imagine i visit tricastion and there is a gas leak as it happened? walking on a route that has already irradiated many of the staff for years? heo! don't you want me to go with kids either ?!

Well that would make one less green and then the kids if they are nice I'm sure the MNS will let them swim in the big pool (I'm ashamed especially for the kids but it makes me laugh !!)

Among other things, you take care of other nuclear (medical) concerns, I answer you: I completely agree with you, we should never have modified the atom like that, ESPECIALLY to SELL it to incompetent traders, if you see what I want to say ...

Absolutely, but at the same time, radiotherapy saves people ... when it doesn't kill them !!!

for the earthquake it's false information that you do, like the rest.
you understand ? the report indicates in 2002 "be careful if there is an earthquake there is a risk of the reactor overheating" and in 2006: earthquake.
not in 2002. so if you're stronger than wikipédia will ask the nuclear service to change this article? which must be verifiable elsewhere ...

Okay so I don't know if I'm stronger than Wikipedia but I in October 2002 I was in Chinon and I repeat that in October 2002 (I even think I remember that it was October 2 or 3 something like that ) there was an earthquake that shook the power station. Just because Wikipedia doesn't talk about it doesn't mean there hasn't been one. The report you are talking about was written following this earthquake.

For Bretons, polite one must know how to stay;

This afternoon I took carrots to calm me down !!!

but on the coast one can also install Tidal turbines, as near Brest. does it suit you like that? or maybe you don't know tidal turbines, and the power of water? (since you are against the wind and prefer the atom AND its uranium derivatives, plutonium etc).

There you like me !! This type of installation applies perfectly to the coasts. They are invisible, produce all the time, do not interfere with fishing, create an environment conducive to the reproduction of fish .... That's very good nothing to say !!!

you are from Milan according to your profile? how are you interested in Brittany?

Isn't it allowed to go live in Milan when you're Breton ?? I am simply an expatriate there (for a few weeks).

[C moa]

There used to be a few mines in France: not long ago, a Breton mayor was worried that a former exploitation on the territory of his municipality was left abandoned and open access while it presented a rate of significant radioactivity (ref .: Ouest-France).

It's because of radon but don't worry, it's natural, Jonule will explain to you that it doesn't suck (no hard feelings Jonule ). For info, in Brittany houses are also affected by radon, it comes from granite !!

I have no doubt that these large multinational groups have an effective communication policy and do not ignore themes such as safety, the environment and sustainable development: it is so "trendy"!
Be careful not to confuse marketing and reality.

Well, I won't tell you about my life, but hey in two words:
- My job is to manage the Hygienic, Safety and Environment aspects of projects taking place in Africa (mainly West Africa);
- Since I started working, I have spent more time abroad than in France so I know a little about how things are going there.
Again, we are not in a world of care bears but I know it is not just marketing. Let states put pressure on industrialists. It might surprise you, but their regulations are just as strict as ours. And they apply them !!

As for the pressure from the shareholders, it is rather in the direction of an increase in their dividends!

Not only, when the major sports equipment manufacturers (Nike, Reebok, Adidas, etc.) left for Asia 15 years ago to produce cheaper, it was clearly for financial reasons. When NGOs started showing children working in their factories, investment funds sounded the alarm and they quickly corrected things.
And then companies understood that safety and the environment were growth tools and not obstacles as we thought at the beginning.

[jonule]

never seen such a long post! .....

Methanisation can be done aerobically (case of dung in the field

that's what I'm saying: you're talking nonsense, methanization is done anaerobic, aerobic, GAZ-PART (I don't think anyone has done this again).

you will never be able to achieve the yield of a Biogas COGENERATION with WWTPs and CETs, as long as the gas and fertilizer are not valorized, rather than being spread in a prehistoric way (long live France devellopée).

if, at the entrance of CET there is an anti-radioactivity portal, so that the smart kids do not throw sources there. I don't know if it's everywhere, but if you search, what I did, you will find.

if you go to the FIP site (French oil lobby) you will see that they already know how to make BTL fuel from sewage sludge: this is what an anaerobic digestion installation should be used for rather than a WWTP, it is poru that I say that they are not essential AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY, ie without valuation of the fertilizer and the gas.

get your greenhouse gas wiki link: "Water vapor is responsible for 55% of the greenhouse effect." : isn't it the continuous cooling columns of nuclear power plants? well ... you're not going to tell me it's a NATURAL cycle either? without counting hexafluorides ...
but nothing that says that CH4 is only 21 times worse than CO2, sorry we will have to quote!

you say that the CET produces as much methane as a methanization unit?
I have doubts but hey ... how is the gas used in both cases? burned in a flare in a CET?
what do you do with the fertilizer?
we come back to the beginning, what!

For the fertilizer rules, I don't see how that would prevent a fertilizer from biogas from being spread, if it complies with the standards, such as sewage sludge which is much worse! but if you try to talk about adulterated poo taboo, I think we will be able to go to the end of the process to explain to you that it is not dangerous, after you.
in the corner where I am (center) they want to spread the sewage sludge from Paris .. it shows the limits of this technology. put in a digester, the end product is not the same: do you understand? it was ... digested.


but I am happy that we are talking about what is natural and what is artificial, because it is the very heart of many debates ... nuclear among others, finally industrial what!

now I leave you, have a good weekend, I understand that you are bored in Milan, I hope you will be able to judge the relevance of the words exchanged, and the wisdom of the other members who did not ask that you come look for lice, reread their answers; the weather is nice outside I'm tired of repeating. if you want to come back to the subject, ok, but with a serious comparison table rather than trying to force the issue.

For your information I'm not green, I just like to choose what I want in life, not that I am forced into stupid ways of doing things, cromagnon, y'en had enough!
and I'm not the only one.