He’s Full of Chicken Crap

And that’s a good thing if he can get it off the ground.

A Madison County man’s plan to generate electricity with chicken litter and wood scraps has hit a snag trying to attract private investors, but he still expects the $29 million plant to be up and running next year.


  1. Full of it is right. 20 mW? Sheesh. At a cost of 1.5 Million per mW this is 3-4 times more expensive than a nuclear power plant. Let’s see, burning wood and chicken crap, CO2 anyone? How is this any greener than just plain wood or coal for that matter?

    The US puts out 1.3 Trillion tons of CO2 a year just to make electricity. If these “warmers” really wanted to make a difference we have viable means that are not pie-in-the-sky bandaids. If people would just get serious about this.

  2. Doug Deal says:


    It is a “greener” plan in that it costs more money (green). I think the real motivation behind most pie in the sky ideas that “warmers” put forth is that they:

    1) Need something to worry about, since the world is too safe and real dangers too few and far between.

    2) Need something to feel good about their own self worth, so meaningless gestures become paramount.

  3. I agree with the meaningless gestures. I would like to see more meaningful solutions put into the pipeline instead of the endless stream of feel good, high cost/low returns plans that are currently being tossed around.

  4. Doug Deal says:

    It would be nice if we moved into the atomic era, but as much as people love easy to propose, hard to implement feel-goodery, they also unreasonably fear anything with the word “nuclear” in it.

    Chernobyl is often used as the example of why we should fear nuclear power, but Chernobyl was not actually as bad as forcasted predicted, and it was caused by Soviet Governmental engineering decisions that did not have to worry about the human cost.

  5. Holly says:

    Though the fear of a nuclear disaster is an understandable fear, it should be noted that none of the US reactors are the type that Chernobyl was. Ours are more likely to implode than explode.

  6. Doug Deal says:


    Even further, the cause of the accident was conventional materials. The reactor was encased in graphite. When the hot fuel contacted the graphite casing, it vaporized. Does anyone guesses what hot pulverized and vaporized graphite (pure Carbon) does in the pressence of oxygen?

    I’ll give everyone a hint, it contributed to the concentration of greenhouse gasses.

  7. joe says:


    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Chernobyl was a big explososin, so I am guessing that there was also a big implosion which took the pulverized grahite and turned it into diamonds. Those that found the diamonds immediately became so rich that they each bought a new SUV and began to contribute to the concentration of greenhouse gasses.

    Is that a close enough guess?

Comments are closed.