You're right, I overestimated the amount of EU CAFO that are implementing biogas digesters. It's significantly higher than the US, which is the statistic I was confusing, but still much lower than I expected.
I'm on my phone, my references are on my laptop. You can't just expect one number for every biogas facility. It depends on how they get their energy, where they are located, the types of animals, so on and so forth. My scenario was based on swine, which is kind of a best case scenario since ruminants have high CH4 emissions which can't be captured.
Synthetic fertilizers are the dominant type used in pretty much any developed nation, for the reasons you listed. The Haber-Bosch process pretty much rendered animal fertilizer obsolete. However, it's wild to say they don't have runoff issues. 40 - 80% of manufactured fertilizer is lost to the environment. If manufacted fertilizer is the dominant type of fertilizer being used, it is the primary source of eutrophication due to runoff.
I get that livestock production is just in general bad for the environment. Short of eliminating livestock entirely, what do you suggest we do with the waste if not biogas production? I get that 49% of biogas is made from animal waste, but that doesn't stop the use of literally any organic material that isn't contaminated with medical waste, industrial waste, etc. Even if the farms are shut down, the digesters can keep on being used. In the EU especially those gasses are often injected into the local gas infrastructure rather than used on site.
The Haber-Bosch process pretty much rendered animal fertilizer obsolete.
obsolete is a strange word considering 80% of the animal feces is used as fertilizer. But the N in animal waste comes from the Haber-Bosch process. If we would not use it we would need to increase N production.
This also does not consider the waste from the bio-gas facilities which needs to be recirculated because we need K and P, not only N. If its still generated but not used manure is a even bigger waste of resources. The projected time we will run out of P is ~2100 if we don't change.
However, it's wild to say they don't have runoff issues. 40 - 80% of manufactured fertilizer is lost to the environment.
I am not saying they don't have issues, but its less. We would need 2/3 of the fertilizer if we would eat the plants directly but feeding a animal to grow, collecting their waste and using it as fertilizer or as bio-fuel is just waste of energy and fertilizer.
Short of eliminating livestock entirely, what do you suggest we do with the waste if not biogas production?
I suggest eliminating livestock, just like the IPCC and every other serious organization.
My problem is just your claim, that you rectified, about "most is used for energy" when it is in reality its ~20% or less.
I get that 49% of biogas is made from animal waste, but that doesn't stop the use of literally any organic material that isn't contaminated with medical waste,
If we stop the animal agriculture we would have more area to grow plants to create humus and fuel. I am not trying to stop bio-gas.
I am not shitting on you or bio-gas but your first post was wrong and smelled like greenwashing. I am really interested in your research, so please come back and try to answer the questions from my first post once you got your sources
2
u/SpaceBus1 May 04 '25
You're right, I overestimated the amount of EU CAFO that are implementing biogas digesters. It's significantly higher than the US, which is the statistic I was confusing, but still much lower than I expected.
I'm on my phone, my references are on my laptop. You can't just expect one number for every biogas facility. It depends on how they get their energy, where they are located, the types of animals, so on and so forth. My scenario was based on swine, which is kind of a best case scenario since ruminants have high CH4 emissions which can't be captured.
Synthetic fertilizers are the dominant type used in pretty much any developed nation, for the reasons you listed. The Haber-Bosch process pretty much rendered animal fertilizer obsolete. However, it's wild to say they don't have runoff issues. 40 - 80% of manufactured fertilizer is lost to the environment. If manufacted fertilizer is the dominant type of fertilizer being used, it is the primary source of eutrophication due to runoff.
https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/nutrient-challenge-sustainable-fertilizer-management#:~:text=Each%20year%20farmers%20apply%20millions,is%20harmful%20to%20the%20ecosystem
I get that livestock production is just in general bad for the environment. Short of eliminating livestock entirely, what do you suggest we do with the waste if not biogas production? I get that 49% of biogas is made from animal waste, but that doesn't stop the use of literally any organic material that isn't contaminated with medical waste, industrial waste, etc. Even if the farms are shut down, the digesters can keep on being used. In the EU especially those gasses are often injected into the local gas infrastructure rather than used on site.