Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Integrated Manure Biogas Systems: Impacts on Farmers & Their Rural Communities Bruce T. Bowman Expert Committee on Manure Management Canadian Agri-Food.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Integrated Manure Biogas Systems: Impacts on Farmers & Their Rural Communities Bruce T. Bowman Expert Committee on Manure Management Canadian Agri-Food."— Presentation transcript:

1 Integrated Manure Biogas Systems: Impacts on Farmers & Their Rural Communities Bruce T. Bowman Expert Committee on Manure Management Canadian Agri-Food Research Council Presented to: Enhancing Biogas Opportunities in Alberta Edmonton, AB April 3, 2006

2 Objective 1 To identify and discuss links between:  Environmental issues,  Economic issues, and  Societal issues ….. …. challenging livestock farming that can be mediated by manure processing. (e.g. treating the entire manure volume)

3 Farm Bio-Industries A.D. Manure Processing Rural Society Benefits Farm Economic Benefits Objective 2 To demonstrate the central role of manure processing & farm bio-energy systems for revitalizing rural economies - GHG’s - Odours - Pathogens - Deadstock - Conservation - Recycling - Nutrient availability Environmental Remediation Nutrient Issues Biogas

4  Large water volumes  Carbon (O.M.) - new use Three primary issues to manage:  Nutrients  Odours  Pathogens Priority Issues for Manure Management but also ……. Energy = $$$ Soil Quality

5  Two major loss pathways:  As volatile ammonia (NH 3 )  Rapid losses can occur at any stage of handling with continued exposure to air.  As nitrous oxide (N 2 O) (GHG – 310x effect of CO 2 )  More prevalent under reducing/denitrifying conditions. Conserving Nutrients: Gaseous Nitrogen losses from Manure

6  pH 9.4 [NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.50 pH 7.5 [NH3] / [NH4+] = ( 1.8%) pH 7.0 [NH3] / [NH4+] = ( 0.56%) Keep pH near 7 (neutrality) to minimize NH 3 losses Conserving Nutrients: Ammonia losses from Manure  Ammonium (NH 4 + ) - non-volatile; Ammonia (NH 3 ) - volatile  Ammonia losses are rapid from bare floors; Remove manure when fresh to closed storage to minimize NH 3 losses.

7  Why should we minimize these losses?  Increasing replacement costs for commercial N = $$$ - Urea production  energy intensive + GHG emissions  Ammonia emissions receiving more scrutiny from both animal and human health perspectives (smog potential – aerosols - lower Fraser Valley in BC)  Ammonia - a toxic substance under CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act)  Secondary source for nitrous oxide (N 2 O) production. Conserving Nutrients: Ammonia losses from Manure

8 Trends in the Fertilizer Industry -- Post WWII (1945) --  Cheap & plentiful mineral fertilizers helped spur intensification and specialization in production agriculture after  Cereal production (cash-cropping) is often separate from livestock production, relying only on mineral fertilizers.  Has created some regional nutrient surpluses (Quebec, North Carolina, mid-west USA).  Consequence: Nutrients in livestock manures originating from imported feeds - not recycled back to source for next cash-crop production cycle.

9 Food Products Human Consumption Cereal Production LARGE SCALE ONE-WAY NUTRIENT FLOWS Recycling Nutrients & Organic Matter Annual Mineral Fertilizer Additions Nutrients & O.M. NOT recycled Regional nutrient excesses Local Farm Manure Odour Pathogens Wastes Landfills Nutrient inputs

10  Conditions for exporting surplus manure nutrients: 1. Odour-free 2. Pathogen-free 3. Dried (dewatered) for transportation Manure processing (anaerobic digestion) can remediate these issues. Composting also… BUT without renewable energy component. Exporting Surplus Livestock Nutrients  The need to export surplus nutrients will increase with continuing intensification of livestock operations.

11  Mimicking fermentation in a ruminant stomach (no oxygen). (most digesters are mesophylic ~ 37°C – body temp.)  Closed system – no nutrient or gaseous losses (e.g. N)  closer N:P ratio than with raw manure – better for crop growth  ~ 50% of carbon  biogas (CH 4 + CO 2, 65:35, tr. H 2 S)  Labile fraction of carbon  biogas (easily converted in soil)  Biogas  generate electricity by co-gen units or for thermal uses  Digested nutrients in more plant available, predictable form  ~ 25% C blown off conventional slurries by bacterial decomposition Anaerobic Digestion A Few Facts

12  Certain antibiotics can STOP digestion processes  Processing Time: 20 – 35 37°C  Odour Reduction: ~ 90% or more  Pathogens Reduced to: ~ 1/1000 to 1/10,000 (37°C)  Eliminate pathogens of concern by pasteurizing 70°C) Anaerobic Digestion …….. More Facts

13 Economics  Renewable energy generation - energy independence  Export surplus Livestock nutrients  Emission reduction trading credits  Tipping fees – food-grade wastes - 20 – 30% energy boost Environmental  Reduce odours & pathogens - flexibility to export surplus nutrients  Conserve nutrients (N) - reduce mineral fertilizer use  Reduce gaseous emissions - GHGs, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide Societal  Reduce siting / zoning problems Regain public support  Opportunity for new rural partnerships Why Digest Manure? Potential Benefits

14 Yield / Productivity Environmental Issues Societal Concerns Balancing Issues in a Sustainable Farming Operation 1. Yield/Productivity (Economics) 2. Environmental Issues Both are science-based 3. Societal Concerns Perception-based, emotional Can over-ride other 2 factors. Opposition difficult to reverse once initiated Pre-1965  1-D Since 1970s  2-D Since 1990s  3-D

15 Challenges Facing Confined Livestock Operations  Increasing price volatility (S.E. Asia demand)  Less reliable supplies (Declining fossil reserves)  Result  Escalating N fertilizer & fuel costs  Continuing vulnerability of farm incomes  Increasing costs of compliance  Global market competition  Increasing regulations – nutrients, pathogens  Municipal waste issues (biosolids)  Rendering / deadstock – limited uses/value  GHG emission reductions – Kyoto protocol  Increasing livestock intensities – odour Energy Environment / Health Economics

16 Co-Digestion of Livestock Manures  Co-mingling of different manure sources (on-farm, off-farm) and / or the addition of other organic wastes to the on- farm manure stream. Purpose  increase digester efficiency. – Safest option: food-grade wastes (beverage wastes, cooking oils, vegetable wastes, etc.)  Benefits  Increases biogas output at minimal cost (20 – 30%)  Facilitates recycling of organic wastes from the food & beverage industry (tipping fees?)  Limitations  Current regulations for importing off-farm manure or wastes require Certificate of Approvals – Ontario  changes to allow up to 20% off-farm inputs.

17  Know your inputs – Keep them consistent. Sudden changes disrupt digester performance.  Pre-mix + equilibrate input wastes before digestion.  Digester bacteria are highly sensitive to some antibiotics (e.g. tetracyclines) and to some feed additives.  Best to pasteurize inputs before digestion (70°C for 1hr).  Minimizes competition with digester bacterial culture.  Minimizes pathogens in digestate final product. Co-Digestion of Livestock Manures

18 1. Investment, Incentive & Payback Issues 2. Managing Regulatory Issues 3. Developing Reliability, Trust & Expertise 4. Managing Complexity Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

19 1. Investment, Incentive & Payback Issues  $300K - >$5M, depending on scale of operation – Plant Life –- 20 – 30 yr before reconditioning – Payback –- <7 yr (electricity, solids sales, emission credits) – Breakeven –- 110 cow dairy; 1200 hog; 25,000 poultry  Policy Issues – Need complimentary policies & incentives across 3 levels of government - Environ. Loan Guarantees to manage risk (US. Farm Bill) - Standard Purchase Offers for green electricity (Ontario - 11¢/Kwh) - Business Energy Tax Credits (Oregon) – up to 35% of cost  Feasibility Assessment - value of odour & pathogen-free manure? A Switch” - Change from societal opposition  Opportunities for new partnerships. Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

20  Sale of Processed Solids (Org. Fertilizers) – Surplus nutrients exported – promotes nutrient re-use  Emission Trading System (currently developing) - sell credits for reducing emissions – 2 cases in USA (Jan. 2006) - recent value of e-CO2 in Europe ~ $10/tonne  Tipping Fees for Receiving Food-Grade Wastes – boost biogas output (20 – 30%)  increases revenue 1. (cont’d) Payback - Establishing Revenue Streams  Electricity Purchase Agreements – Std. Purchase Offers – single most important  long-term stable planning and ability borrow capital Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

21 2. Managing Regulatory Issues  Electrical generation – interconnects for net/dual metering Power Utilities starting to change policies for small renewable energy generators (up to 500 kw) (2-phase/3-phase lines)  Off-farm biomass inputs (boost biogas production) can result in C. of A.’s – regulations being changed to allow up to 20% food-grade wastes  Managing emissions / discharges Biogas flare, fugitive GHGs, liquid discharges  Fertilizer/amendment products - quality assurance, certification; labeling requirements Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

22 3. Developing Reliability, Trust & Expertise  Small number of installed Ag digesters in Canada (< 2 doz. in advanced design or already built)  Limited knowledgeable Canadian design/build firms - very limited track record  Demonstration Program – AAFC/NRCAN - 3 yr - Energy Co-generation from Agricultural/Municipal Wastes (ECoAMu) 4 digesters (AB – Beef; SK – Hogs; ON – Beef; QC - Hogs) ECoAMu Program On ManureNet Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

23 4. Managing Complexity  A.D. adds yet another new technology to be managed by farmer – Time; Skill-sets  Service agreements  Co-Generation – Power Utility – electricity export  Remote monitoring & process control in real- time – practical technology now available from several Canadian companies Overcoming Barriers to Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology

24 Resource Centre Electricity Clean Water HeatCO 2 Co-Located Industries Greenhouses (Veg., Flowers) Fish Farm Slaughterhouse Bio-ethanol plant A Centralized Co-op Rural Energy System Potential Components Liquid Digestate Dewatered Digestate Food Grade Organics Local Municipal Organics Rendering, Deadstock Organic Fertilizers water Co-gen Wet Distillers Grain - 15% savings

25 Farm Bio-Energy Systems: The Concept Electricity Manure solids Emission credits Tipping fees Heat Electricity Clean water CO2 Municipal Organic wastes Co-located industries Local biomass inputs Odours Pathogens Nutrient export & Recycling Reduce herbicide use GHG reductions Deadstock Environmental Solutions Income Stabilization Rural Revitalization Farm Bio-Energy Energy Independence Independen t of Livestock prices

26 1. A.D. livestock manure processing system  Biogas  electricity + excess thermal energy used in bio- fuel production facility – increases efficiency 2. Bio-Fuel Plant ( output ≤ 10 M L/yr alcohol/bio-diesel)  Biomass sources – corn, sweet potato, switchgrass, etc. < 10,000 acres local inputs per facility  Byproducts from alcohol plant – value-added animal feed 3. Local Bio-Fuel Refueling Centre  Refueling Network  Decreased transportation costs  Decreased GHG emissions, air pollution 1 Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies Components of Integrated Farm Energy System: Anaerobic Digester – Bio-Fuel Facility 1

27 Lynn Cattle Turnkey Integrated Manure Processing Facility Indoor Beef Feedlot: 5,500 head (11,000/yr throughput) Farm Owner/Operator: Mr. Phil Lynn & Family Farm Size: 4,500 ac Location: NW of Lucan, Ontario Project Start: Early 2003; Expected Startup: Spring 2006 Design/Builder: Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies

28 Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure Processing Facility Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies

29  Expected Outputs  11,000 head/yr beef (2 cycles of 5,500)  7,000 Mwhr/yr electricity surplus (=1600  9,000 tonnes/yr organic soil amendment/fertilizers  10M L/yr alcohol production  Direct GHG emission reductions – 25,000 tonnes/yr e-CO 2 Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure Processing Facility  Partnerships  Local Municipality – will purchase green electricity for municipal buildings, street lighting, sports complexes. A “Green Community”

30 Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure Processing Facility

31 1. Centralized Bio-Fuel Production (> 200 M L/yr)  Controlled by large energy companies or large co-ops  Large source area for biomass inputs  high transportation costs (GHG emissions & air pollution)  Most benefits accrue  corporate investors 2. Distributed Farm-based Bio-Fuel Production (<10 M L/yr)  Large single farm operations or small farm co-ops  Local sources for biomass inputs (↓Transportation/GHG emissions)  Increased local employment + Municipal tax base  Distributed production facilitates re-fueling centre network  Most benefits accrue  local farms & rural communities Comparison of Bio-Fuel Production Models  Once-in-lifetime transition from fossil  bio-fuels happening NOW…. Farmers & rural commmunities need to get involved to benefit.

32 Examples of Manure-Powered Bio-fuel Production  Panda Energy, Dallas, TX is building three, $120M 100 M gal/yr manure-powered ethanol plants in Texas, Colorado and Kansas.  E3 Biofuels LLC, Omaha, NE is building a $45 M closed loop alcohol-from-manure facility at a Mead, NE 30,000 head feedlot (8 M bu. of corn/yr  24 M gal/yr) – to be in production Fall ManureNet Digester Compendium:

33  Future livestock operations will be structured around bio-energy  energy independence & financial stability for farmers, using anaerobic digestion/co-generation technologies. 1.Facilitates conservation and recycling of resources (nutrients, carbon = $$$) 2.Income stabilization through diversification (New revenue streams independent from cyclic commodity prices, providing stable base for income!) In Summary - Benefits

34 3.Reduces environmental footprint  Reduced odours, pathogens  diminished societal concerns  Flexibility for applying/exporting processed manure products  Kills weed seeds – reduces herbicide usage 4.Strengthens rural economy using local inputs (employment, resource inputs – biomass crops)  Municipality can be a partner (green wastes, buy energy)  Farmer co-ops take increased control of rural businesses ADD value to products BEFORE leaving farm gate  Reduced transportation costs for manufacturing (bio-based) In Summary - Benefits

35 Conclusions  Economics are rapidly improving, but policies, incentives & regulations need to be coordinated across 3 levels of government to facilitate adoption.  Environ. Loan guarantees, long-term std. purchase offers, etc  Access to electrical grids for small renewable generators  Farmland energy & conservation subsidies considered by WTO as legitimate “green box” programs – not subject to trade sanctions.  Need to increase technical support and assistance to foster timely adoption of the technology.  Agriculture sector needs to get involved in bio-fuels production at farm-scale – one-time transition from fossil sources  benefits to rural communities.

36 Micro CHP (Combined Heating and Power) Distributed Power Generation Electricity + Heat generated at each residence Small engine + generator  replace furnace & water heater Grid 85 % Efficiency

37 Centralized Gas- Fired Plant Micro CHP INPUT 100 Waste Energy 57<15 Line Losses Electricity 3920 Useful Heat Energy 0>65 Net Useful Energy Micro CHP (Combined Heating and Power) Distributed Power Generation

38  Micro CHP units run on natural gas or biogas  More efficient use of resources (15% vs 60% loss) (39 vs 85 % efficiency)  Excess electricity exported to grid (10 kw units - $$)  Blackout & Terrorist proof (totally distributed generation)  Significant GHG reductions  Almost eliminate line losses (electricity used on-site)  In Ontario – 2 million homes would produce 10,000 Mw – equivalent to several nuclear power plants  No environmental assessments required – minor impacts  Several thousand units being tested in Europe & Japan; USA senate holding hearings on technology potential Micro CHP (Combined Heating and Power) Advantages

39 Resource Information on  6,500 external web links  Several hundred digital technical/research reports  Manure Treatment  Digester Compendium  Nutrient Recovery  Ammonia Emissions  Nutrient Management  Environmental Issues  GHG Emissions  Odour Management  Land Application  Renewable Energy Systems  Storage & Handling  Housing / Feedlots  Feeding Strategies  Codes, Acts, Regulations  Health & Safety  Digital Library  Expertise  Environmental Archive (200 digital reports)


Download ppt "Integrated Manure Biogas Systems: Impacts on Farmers & Their Rural Communities Bruce T. Bowman Expert Committee on Manure Management Canadian Agri-Food."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google