Coffee in the Morning, Biogas in the Evening

The Huffington Post has a story about the waste generated by items you use in the morning, though it stretches things a bit by including your cell phone and clothing. The interesting one is coffee:

[O]ne of the major sources of river pollution in Central America is coffee processing plants since large volumes of wastewater are generated from the separation of the coffee bean from the cherry.

The story recommends you buy “shade-grown” or naturally grown coffee, though I imagine it is processing coffee that creates the problem not growing it. Still, I wondered whether coffee processors, whether on their own or by government regulation, might have a means to do something about the wastewater.
Why, yes, at least some do:

The Energy from Coffee Wastewater project by UTZ Certified has proven that is possible to generate energy, tackle climate change and protect water resources by treating discharges from coffee mills.

How does it generate energy? Through the production of biogas that is used to power small communities. Frankly, this sounds like methane, which isn’t very climate friendly. The Biofuels Association of Australia offers this definition:

The term 'biogas' is commonly used to refer to a gas which has been produced by the biological breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. The gases methane, hydrogen and carbon monoxide can be combusted or oxidized with oxygen and the resultant energy release allows biogas to be used as a fuel.

That doesn’t inspire confidence, nor does this:

Myth: Biofuels don’t have any environmental benefits.
Fact: Biofuels produce significantly less CO_² emissions over the full life cycle of production through to use.

Less than what? Wood? Oil?

To be honest, it would take more research to balance the risk with the benefits – perhaps even to identify the risks and benefits. In this cursory look, making energy from coffee wastewater would seem to solve two problems – clean up the water and electrify villages – but at the cost of producing methane – not to mention carbon monoxide (deadly) and hydrogen (explosive).

Ecovillage lists the pros and cons of biogas and finds it, in sum, worthwhile. The disadvantages it identifies are these:

1. The process is not very attractive economically (as compared to other biofuels) on a large industrial scale.
2. It is very difficult to enhance the efficiency of biogas systems.
3. Biogas contains some gases as impurities, which are corrosive to the metal parts of internal combustion engines.
4. Not feasible to locate at all the locations.

Naturally, we’d recommend throwing up a couple of nuclear facilities – and joking aside, nuclear can scale and it can provide economic uplift, both as an employer and through generating electricity. Some Latin American countries (Bolivia quite recently) are considering it and some (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico) have built nuclear plants. But it isn’t the complete solution – it can’t answer directly to the coffee wastewater issue, for example – and biogas seems to have the capacity to provide small scale electrification and clean up the water.

Not every energy source can solve every problem – and some, like biogas, might work especially well in specific niches. We shouldn’t ignore that, especially in developing countries. Electrification is key to that development – and the moral imperative of improving people’s lives can burn away many first world objections. Nuclear energy and biogas both can be said to have their places in achieving that goal, even if biogas might seem problematic at first blush.

A visit to UTZ Certified is worth the trip to get a fuller view. Apart from the wastewater project, this coffee industry group aims to improve farming methods with an eye on sustainability. Sounds good – hopefully, it can do some good.

Edit: I refer a couple of times to making energy from wastewater. It’s really from the coffee processing waste that would otherwise go into the water. Still, using the waste this way keeps the water clear, so the point is still valid.