Composting vs Methane Capture: A Climate Smackdown

| Fri Jun. 12, 2009 9:56 AM PDT
COVERweb.jpg

Across the pungent world of waste, a climate debate has been raging. Which is better: turning yard clippings and food scraps into compost, or landfilling them and capturing the methane that they release to produce energy?

Last month, I happened across this question while riding in a muddy pickup across the top of Altamont Landfill, a 30-story hill of garbage run by Waste Management, the nation's largest trash collection outfit. "To me, I think it's good to have more organics in the garbage," operations manager Neil Wise told me. Organic matter in landfills generates methane, a potent and flamable greenhouse gas; Altamont currently captures enough methane to power 8,500 homes.

On the other side of this debate is the City of San Francisco, which this week voted to make composting lawn clippings and food scraps mandatory for every city resident. The nutrient-rich product fertilizes more than 200 Bay Area vineyards. Composting advocates worry that outfitting more landfills with "methane wells," possibly with the aid of carbon offsets created through a climate bill, will detract from those efforts. 

Here's my take: While capturing methane from landfills is certainly worthwhile, evidence suggests that composting is far better. A nine-year study by the Rodale Institute, to be published in the next issue of Compost Science and Utilization, a peer-reviewed journal, found that applying compost to cropland sequestered a staggering 10,802 pounds more carbon dioxide per hectare each year than farming with conventional manure fertilizer. That's more than the yearly emissions of a Chevy Impala. "That's a pretty big deal," says Rodale research director Paul Hepperly, the author of the study. "When you are composting, you are stablizing the carbon" in organic matter.

And though capturing methane at a landfill also reduces greenhouse gasses, it can't match composting's associated benefits. Compared to raw manure, Rodale also found that compost applied to farmland led to a 600 percent reduction in nitrate leaching, which can pollute steams and groundwater, and improved the soil's retention of water by a factor of three. "This relates to looking at things wholistically," Hepperly said, adding that the ultimate goal should be an "agricultural system that invests more in our environment and takes less out of our resources."

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Josh Harkinson is a staff reporter at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Get Mother Jones by Email - Free. Like what you're reading? Get the best of MoJo three times a week.

Comments

How about using the manure for methane instead!

tagged as: 

I recall way back in the 1960's there was a South African Pig farmer that set up a major methane operation as a means of controlling the well documented issues of pig manure. In the result he became a major producer of methane power and higher grade fertilizer and the pork was a byproduct.

Can you read?

You seem to have managed to miss the point of this article -- methane "mining" of manure is far less environmentally beneficial than composting it for soil enrichment.

I'm being silly. If you didn't understand 5 paragraphs of this point, why would you understand the one-sentence version?

Methane from manure is a different issue

Farmers making methane from manure are not landfilling the manure, they are composting it anaerobically (air is excluded) in large tanks, and collecting the methane that is generated during decomposition. This is a slower process than aerobic composting (where the material is kept just moist and well-supplied with air, decomposing so rapidly it actually gets hot), but compost is still produced as an end product.

What this article is discussing is aerobic composting of municipal organic waste versus burying it in the landfill with the garbage, then tapping the methane that is generated as the landfilled wastes decompose anaerobically. In the latter case, nothing is recovered except methane - the plant nutrients in the organic waste remain in the landfill, truly going to waste.

In case you're thinking, "why not anaerobically compost municipal waste, and get both methane and compost?" - the cost would be prohibitive, to process such large volumes of material that way.

Interesting article... in

tagged as: 

Interesting article... in a similar vein I don`t see why regional sewage authorities that take in local residences human waste can`t be converted into methane producers ... the electricity that could be generated from it could be added to the power grid and help with the new electric plug in cars that the administration and the auto firms are developing...

Post new comment

Alternately, you may login to or register an account
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback

We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.

Photo Essays

The chaos and humanity of war.
The craftspeople and musicians of Appalachia.
A selection of '70s ads depicting African-Americans.
As climate change melts the permafrost, native villages slip into the sea, taking a way of life with them.