Legendary Glastonbury farm using bovine excreta power plant adds graphene boffinry Worthy Farm, host of the world-famous Glastonbury music festival, already uses cow manure to produce power – and will now allow Cambridge startup Levidian to insert its tech into that carbon-producing process, thereby producing graphene. Levidian is a British climate technology biz working on what it calls LOOP: A process to …
The installation is expected to deliver a saving of up to 25 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year,... [emphasis mine]
That must be an almost useless installation then. The 2022 UK CO2 emission was more than 318 Mega tons of CO2. To compensate the total emissions you'd need, let me do the math, more than 12.7 million of these installations. And then, we're not even talking about real CO2, but about equivalent.
This is a save-the-planet-by-carrying-water-to-the-ocean type of installation.
That's one way to look at it. A very negative way to look at it.
The other way is to say, this is a demonstrator. If it works and actually removes any Methane from the Atmosphere, whilst delivering a useable amount of Graphene, then it's a win...
Me installing Solar panels on the roof is not going to save Mega tons of CO2 either. But it's doing the little bit I can do. And if everyone else did the same, then actually it might begin to make a difference.
As for this specifically, I assume this is a small test demonstrator. Once the tech is proven, they can I'm sure scale up. Methane is particularly bad as a Greenhouse Gas, so removing any quantity of it, is a good thing. Will this be enough to have a major effect? On it's own, No. But combine this with all the other initiatives people are looking at, and we might finally make a bit of a difference to CO2 levels.
Anyway, they're not selling this to the government, they're not wasting your tax dollars, so why not give them a thumbs up, and wish them well...?
Forbes publishes a lot of things. This particular thing is an editorial (analysis) by an analyst who's quite open about being a public advocate for the nuclear industry.
I'm not saying it's worthless, but I would definitely apply a discount to it. It does seem determined to make the worst assumptions at all points.
The problem is that we are trying to create technology that fixes our use of technology, creating more problems, for which we create more technology that requires more technology.
What nobody wants is to have/do/want less and be content. To abstain is seen as a negative and defeat. Therefore, we create technology which brings us into problems for which we create technology to solve our problems that require technology to solve the new problems, ad infinitum.
We should break that cycle.
I have a book on life in Stratford in Shakespeare's time. It's based on analysis of wills, and it's really interesting in that the bequests of even highly commercially successful people indicate how little they owned but were apparently quite content. The big problem we now face is unbridled competition for our attention and dosh among rivals doing much the same thing as each other. I recently counted up the shelves in my local supermarket and found about 80 metres (a whole aisle) dedicated to potato crisps and about the same each to confectionary and fizzy drinks in cans -- multiple very similar product lines from different producers in each case. Encouragement to consume is now essential to keep the wheels (and revenue streams) of commerce turning because most of us in the Western urban culture already have all the basic essentials we need. The snag is that the waste and the environmental impact can't be reduced without loss of revenue, so we try to sidestep this with fantasies such as "carbon credits" and piecemeal technical fixes. And at the personal level it's much the same -- any trip to the local dump (sorry "recycling centre") shows how wasteful we continue to be. I recently saw someone disposing of an entire home cinema system (5ft TV and all). He told me it was fully operational but he'd bought a new one.
"I have a book on life in Stratford in Shakespeare's time. It's based on analysis of wills, and it's really interesting in that the bequests of even highly commercially successful people indicate how little they owned but were apparently quite content."
Like William Shakespeare's will leaving his second best* bed to his wife. :)
I am convinced that until the post WW2 era the general population had surprisingly few material possessions and valued those they had as the cost replacing them would have been prohibitive.
Even growing up in the 1960s (albeit in a backwater) the difference between now and then is stark.
A particularly good example is clothing (and textiles generally) - if I were to compare my wardrobe with that of my father's (and indeed those of my grandfathers') the difference in the sheer number and variety of garments is quite remarkable.
Globalized "free trade" agreements and the required removal of tariffs on textiles etc meant with the higher cost of local manufacturing, production relocated to cheaper labour nations which resulted in much cheaper (if inferior) imported products which helped fuel material consumption. Post covid the prices of many such imports have largely risen much faster than incomes which I imagine is reducing material consumption and noticeably increasing reuse/recycling.
* Apparently this would have referred to their marital bed.
"...the difference in the sheer number and variety of garments is quite remarkable."
I would guess also the difference in sheer quality. Clothing used to be expensive, but also well-put-together and hard-wearing. Not to mention a tailored fit.
Today's clothing might have a breathtaking variety of fabrics, colours and styles, but the quality is frequently abysmal.... it's rare that a much-worn item lasts more than a couple of years.... many things last because they're not worn so much because we have so many options. And anyone with a bit of an unusual body type has to walk around looking like a scarecrow or humpty dumpty because most clothes are made in different sizes but the same cut.
Clothing used to be expensive, but also well-put-together and hard-wearing. Not to mention a tailored fit.
If you are choosy with what you buy then clothing today is expensive, but also well put-together and hard-wearing. It's a tailored fit if you choose to have it made. Off the shelf can't be tailored to everybody.
"the bequests of even highly commercially successful people indicate how little they owned but were apparently quite content"
But would you be content today with the same standard of living?
Actually, it's more complicated than that. If you're dealing with highly commercially successful people they'd have a few apprentices and/or journeymen doing some of he commercial work and a domestic servant or too doing the domestic work. The wills wouldn't necessarily reflect their standard of living.
You won't be seeing the wills of those people (except for those few of the apprentices or journeymen who went on to be masters themselves). You also wont be seeing the wills of those born into such families that might well have lead to expectations of commercial success but whose lives were cut short by the diseases which are either readily treated today or which we now avoid, partly due to greater knowledge and partly due to some of the extra household equipment that we now possess.
> this is a demonstrator
Perhaps. Though it looks far more like token environmentalism (aka 'greenwashing'). We need to stop emitting greenhouse gasses at orders of magnitude more than schemes like this could ever hope to realise.
> they're not wasting your tax dollars
They most certainly aren't old bean!
They're not removing much methane from the atmosphere - the methane produced from the cow shit is a tiny proportion compared to what the cows fart out every day in the fields. And it's a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If they removed the cows from the farm entirely, it would be much more planet saving. But much less cheeseburger producing.
It's a bit like how they have a wind turbine at the festival, supposedly powering the main stage, that makes the hundred thousand people who drive hundreds of miles there and back by car feel like they're saving the planet.
It's a bit like how they have a wind turbine at the festival, supposedly powering the main stage, that makes the hundred thousand people who drive hundreds of miles there and back by car feel like they're saving the planet.
This is the problem with this kind of advertorial-
The installation is expected to deliver a saving of up to 25 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent each year,
Whoopee. If the object was reducing the farm's carbon footprint, it could save far more CO2e by just cancelling the festival. That probably produces thousands of tons of CO2e with 200k+ people descending on the farm every year. Especially as attendees would be exerting themselves, eating bad food and probably emitting more CO2 and methane than the cows do.
Then there's the economics. So CO2e has a notional value because carbon credits etc. Then there's the product. Developing countries produce thousands of tons of graphene annually by burning dung and wood. Challenge is isolating useful forms of graphene from soot. Then figuring out something useful to do with it. So I've been reading about this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot
and there's a graphene form, the Graphene Quantum Dot. Those have an array of interesting and potentially useful properties, eg nanoribbons + GQD or QDs for optical computing, but to be useful, they need to have the precise structure required for the application, and the right price. Get it low enough and future ravers might have really funky light emitting clothing, powered by graphene batteries and recharged via flexible, high efficiency solar panels during the day. But we're not there yet, and maybe this process will produce the wrong kind of graphene, or won't be cost effective compared to alternative production methods.
And it's much the same with hydrogen. Much hyped, but it's all about the money. How much would 1btu cost via this process? How much could be produced, even if the system could be scaled up? So does the ROI stack up. Often the answer is a resounding 'No', but it might allow the farm to be self-sufficient and use the H2 it produces.
it could save far more CO2e by just cancelling the festival
Yes, and we could save it by turning off our computers instead of typing inane talking points at each other, but we all know that's not going to happen either, so let's keep our discussion within the realms of hypothetically plausible.
maybe this process will produce the wrong kind of graphene, or won't be cost effective compared to alternative production methods.
In which case the investors will lose their money. Which will be disappointing for them, but them's the breaks, that's what "investing" is all about. It's their money.
And it's much the same with hydrogen. Much hyped, but it's all about the money. How much would 1btu cost via this process?
Hydrogen is already an underdog in the green energy debate, with most people having written it off as a distraction. With the result that it's not getting the same kind of government attention and backing as solar, wind and nuclear do. It's surely good that some people, using their own private money, are still interested enough to pursue it.
And "BTU" is a really odd way to measure the energy produced. It makes it look as if you're thinking about simply burning the stuff. Have you not heard of fuel cells?
so let's keep our discussion within the realms of hypothetically plausible.
Ecofreaks want to ban beef and force everyone to go vege or eat bugs. Just cancelling Glastonbury is far simpler, far more plausible and would save carbon.
In which case the investors will lose their money. Which will be disappointing for them, but them's the breaks, that's what "investing" is all about. It's their money.
Often with these green pipedreams, it can be our money in the form of grants. If it's not, then you're right, investors take the risk.
It's surely good that some people, using their own private money, are still interested enough to pursue it.
Again that assumes they are. But often these press releases are just advertising pitches. Include all the buzzwords like graphene, carbon capture, carbon negative and hope you get a few more funding rounds in before investment dries up and it goes the way of many a start-up. There's still a lot of green in Green, but that bubble does finally seem to be bursting.
And "BTU" is a really odd way to measure the energy produced. It makes it look as if you're thinking about simply burning the stuff. Have you not heard of fuel cells?
Yes, and I've used them quite a bit. Usually alcohol based ones because that's easier to buy, transport and store. And no, you can't drink it. Well, you can but it would be a really bad idea. But given most of the hype around the hydrogen economy is as a substitute for the methane being used to make it, it's the standard unit the market uses. Or it'll be a standard comparitor between price for CH4, or H2.
"They're not removing much methane from the atmosphere - the methane produced from the cow shit is a tiny proportion compared to what the cows fart out every day in the fields."
And that's something their bovine ancestors were doing for millions of years before anyone came along to domesticate them. It will eventually be oxidised back to carbon dioxide and water just as has always happened. Also the carbon dioxide produced simply replaces that which was removed by photosynthesis by the fodder plants which the cows ate. It's a closed loop of a year or so's duration.
What is different between now and the time of the cows' wild ancestors is the release, as carbon dioxide, of other carbon which was sequestered by photosynthesis hundreds of millions of years ago.
The other difference is the number of cows. I found one source showing that there are 7 times as many dairy cows today versus 100 years ago, and claimed they're larger today too.
You have an interesting point about their food - the CO2 being emitted may well be offset by the growth of the plants they eat. Then again, how much forest has been turned into fields to feed cattle? Hard to estimate the real impact without a complete end-to-end analysis.
> They're not removing much methane from the atmosphere - the methane produced from the cow shit is a tiny proportion compared to what the cows fart out every day in the fields.
Thanks for that! I've just patented the graphene bovine butt-plug. Oh... crap... turns out they belch it out too...
More of these small-scale positive LCA companies should be backed. While each one seems like a drop in the ocean compared with total global emissions they start to add up quite quickly. Often these technologies are currently the only solution for smaller emitters that are a long distance from industrial clusters that are considering bulk scale capture and storage projects.
The ability to deploy this with "only" 25 tonnes CO2eq improvement drives investment in the company to be able to deploy further and scale up the technology to make it a bigger player in decarbonisation. It is also utilising CO2 to make a product that is locking away some of the carbon that would otherwise have been emitted.
It's important to note that this is being installed now. The large scale capture and storage projects that are being talked about for all the major sources of emissions are (like cold fusion power) always years away from meaningful implementation. Any CCUS project that can be rolled out today helps normalise the behaviour towards carbon reductions in industry.
This is fantastic technology that will finally let us make green coal. As a steam afficionado, I am delighted. Of course I do recognise that steam trains can be just as easily fueled with a tender of liquid hydrogen that can be bucketed into the firebox by the stoker, but's great to have choices.
The obvious question is whether this tech can handle the rather less "pure" excrement found in abundance at Glastonbury once a year.
I was at EMF Camp this year, and as usual they used mostly composting toilets (except for next to the bar area, where perhaps the composting toilets would not handle the increased amount of liquid ...) They seem to work really well, there is no foul smell or swarm of flies. All that's needed is a cup of sawdust thrown over each turd, and the microbes handle the rest.
Not sure what is done with it afterwards, but presumably it could be fed into an anaerobic digester to produce methane, which is then either fed into the gas network. I suppose whatever gunk is left afterwards is mostly extra carbon..
Whether or not cow manure, never mind human manure from Glastonbury with all kind of exotic chemicals mixed in would produce good Graphene though is less certain but it does grab the headlines
Whether or not cow manure, never mind human manure from Glastonbury with all kind of exotic chemicals mixed in would produce good Graphene though is less certain but it does grab the headlines
Bring back nitre beds! Come the revolution/societal collapse, people might need a reliable source of nitrates. Always amuses me when preppers horde ammunition, not good'ol muskets. Making black powder is a whole lot easier than 5.56mm centrefire cartridges..
In sieges it was usually lead for musket balls that they ran out of and resorted to stripping the roof to cast more. Or maybe they regarded teh roof as a strategic reserve and didn't worry about a separate stockpile.
Now there's an idea. So I've already got the marketing strapline-
When the SHTF, you'll be glad you S the bed!
But it solves an old problem-
The South was so desperate for saltpeter for gunpowder that one Alabama official reportedly placed a newspaper ad asking that the contents of chamber pots be saved for collection.
And you may have solved another, given the basic product would just be an expensive.. I mean valuable pdf explaining the process. But now I could add coffee machine and printer sales tactics and add LaaS. So offer a tiered subscription for 1-5lbs of lead every month. Premium subscribers would get a 'free' Minié ball mould, regular would get a simple ball mould. Might be some issues with the EPA, but could probably work around those.
But it's also partly related to a rabbit hole I've fallen down in building an off-grid house. There's a whole range of interesting septic systems ranging from basic tanks to digesting and composting systems that are kind of fun. Plus rethinking what gets flushed down toilets, and looking at ways to recycle grey water. Whic also means thinking about all the assorted chemicals that get drained or flushed and the effects those must have on existing sewage systems.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
