1979
DOI: 10.1021/i360070a015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methane Production from Biomass and Agricultural Residues

Abstract: The status is presented of the Fuels from Biomass program of the U.S. Department of Energy, especially with respect to fuel gas production from biomass and residues. The entire scope of this Fuels from Biomass program is given, followed by a perspective on fuel gas production. Anaerobic fermentation has been the primary processing system under investigation for methane production. Cattle manure, both beef and dairy, has been the primary substrate evaluated in this bioconversion process although agricultural re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1987
1987
1987
1987

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
(1 reference statement)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In that year, 41.4 billion pounds (18.8 billion kilograms) of milk was produced at an approximate value of seven billion dollars, making milk the leading agricultural commodity in the state (California Milk Advisory Board 2013). Manure from these dairies is a potentially large source of methane fuel (Wise et al 1979) however it must be dealt with in a manner which promotes the safety of the animals, protects public health and prevents environmental damage (Hart & Turner 1965;Wilkie 2003, Krich et al 2005.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In that year, 41.4 billion pounds (18.8 billion kilograms) of milk was produced at an approximate value of seven billion dollars, making milk the leading agricultural commodity in the state (California Milk Advisory Board 2013). Manure from these dairies is a potentially large source of methane fuel (Wise et al 1979) however it must be dealt with in a manner which promotes the safety of the animals, protects public health and prevents environmental damage (Hart & Turner 1965;Wilkie 2003, Krich et al 2005.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%