aerobic vs anaerobicIBR's process uses 'aerobic digestion' vs 'anaerobic'.
Why can't these two systems be integrated? Anaerobic technology produces a methane gas that would run the whole operation but the end product is not pathogen free and requires further processing. Also the waste water needs to be dealt with. IBR's process can use the energy produced and take the left-over matter along with other organic waste and create a saleable end product- fertiliser. Also there would be no waste.
No energy cost. No pollutants. Valueable end product for sale. There's a merger needing to happen here... or am I completely out to lunch? Does anybody know if this has been considered?
"Aerobic digestion is a bacterial process occurring in the presence of oxygen. Under aerobic conditions, bacteria rapidly consume organic matter and convert it into carbon dioxide. Once there is a lack of organic matter, bacteria die and are used as food by other bacteria. This stage of the process is known as endogenous respiration. Solids reduction occurs in this phase. Because the aerobic digestion occurs much faster than anaerobic digestion, the capital costs of aerobic digestion are lower. However, the operating costs are characteristically much greater for aerobic digestion because of energy costs for aeration needed to add oxygen to the process."
"Anaerobic digestion is a bacterial process that is carried out in the absence of oxygen. Anaerobic digestion generates biogas with a high proportion of methane that may be used to both heat the tank and run engines or microturbines for other on-site processes. In large treatment plants sufficient energy can be generated in this way to produce more electricity than the machines require. The methane generation is a key advantage of the anerobic process. Its key disadvantage is the long time required for the process (up to 30 days) and the high capital cost."