1 / 39

Objective 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. Objective 1.

flann
Download Presentation

Objective 1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Integrated Manure Biogas Systems:Impacts on Farmers & Their Rural CommunitiesBruce T. BowmanExpert Committee on Manure ManagementCanadian Agri-Food Research CouncilPresented to: Enhancing Biogas Opportunities in AlbertaEdmonton, ABApril 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. Objective 2 To demonstrate the central role of manure processing & farm bio-energy systems for revitalizing rural economies - GHG’s - Odours- Pathogens - Deadstock NutrientIssues Environmental Remediation - Conservation - Recycling - Nutrient availability A.D.Manure Processing Biogas Farm Economic Benefits Farm Bio-Industries Rural Society Benefits

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

  5. Conserving Nutrients:Gaseous Nitrogen losses from Manure • Two major loss pathways: • As volatile ammonia (NH3) • Rapid losses can occur at any stage of handling with continued exposure to air. • As nitrous oxide (N2O) (GHG – 310x effect of CO2) • More prevalent under reducing/denitrifying conditions.

  6. Conserving Nutrients:Ammonia losses from Manure • pH 9.4 [NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.50 (50.0%) @(20°C)pH 7.5   [NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.018 ( 1.8%)pH 7.0   [NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.0056 ( 0.56%)Keep pH near 7 (neutrality) to minimize NH3 losses • Ammonium (NH4+)- non-volatile; Ammonia (NH3)- volatile • Ammonia losses are rapid from bare floors; Remove manure when fresh to closed storage to minimize NH3 losses.

  7. Conserving Nutrients:Ammonia losses from Manure • 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 (N2O) production.

  8. Trends in the Fertilizer Industry-- Post WWII (1945) -- • Cheap & plentiful mineral fertilizers helped spur intensification and specialization in production agriculture after 1945. • 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 Odour Pathogens Manure Wastes Local Farm Landfills LARGE SCALE ONE-WAY NUTRIENT FLOWS Recycling Nutrients & Organic Matter Nutrient inputs Annual Mineral Fertilizer Additions Nutrients & O.M. NOT recycled Regional nutrient excesses

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

  11. Anaerobic DigestionA Few Facts • 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(CH4 + CO2, 65:35, tr. H2S) • 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

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

  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 Why Digest Manure?Potential Benefits Societal • Reduce siting / zoning problemsRegain public support • Opportunity for new rural partnerships

  14. Yield / Productivity Environmental Issues Societal Concerns Balancing Issuesin a Sustainable Farming Operation • 1. Yield/Productivity (Economics)2. Environmental Issues • Both are science-based Pre-1965  1-D Since 1970s  2-D • 3.Societal Concerns • Perception-based, emotional • Can over-ride other 2 factors. • Opposition difficult to reverse once initiated 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 Energy Environment / Health Economics • Increasing regulations – nutrients, pathogens • Municipal waste issues (biosolids) • Rendering / deadstock – limited uses/value • GHG emission reductions – Kyoto protocol • Increasing livestock intensities – odour • Continuing vulnerability of farm incomes • Increasing costs of compliance • Global market competition

  16. Co-Digestion of Livestock Manures • Co-mingling of different manure sources (on-farm, off-farm) and / orthe 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. Co-Digestion of Livestock Manures • 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.

  18. Barriers to Adoption ofAnaerobic Digestion Technology • Investment, Incentive & Payback Issues • Managing Regulatory Issues • Developing Reliability, Trust & Expertise • Managing Complexity

  19. Overcoming Barriersto Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology • 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.

  20. Overcoming Barriersto Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology • (cont’d)Payback - Establishing Revenue Streams • Electricity Purchase Agreements– Std. Purchase Offers – single most important  long-term stable planning and ability borrow capital • 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

  21. Overcoming Barriersto Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology • Managing Regulatory Issues • Electrical generation– interconnects for net/dual meteringPower 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 allowup to 20% food-grade wastes • Managing emissions / dischargesBiogas flare, fugitive GHGs, liquid discharges • Fertilizer/amendment products- quality assurance, certification; labeling requirements

  22. Overcoming Barriersto Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology • 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-generationfrom Agricultural/Municipal Wastes (ECoAMu)4 digesters (AB – Beef; SK – Hogs; ON – Beef; QC - Hogs) ECoAMu Program On ManureNet http://res2.agr.gc.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/hems/ecoamu_main.html

  23. Overcoming Barriersto Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology • 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

  24. CO2 Resource Centre Electricity Heat Clean Water Local MunicipalOrganics Rendering, Deadstock A Centralized Co-op Rural Energy System Potential Components DewateredDigestate Organic Fertilizers LiquidDigestate water Co-gen Food GradeOrganics Co-Located Industries Greenhouses (Veg., Flowers) Fish Farm Slaughterhouse Bio-ethanol plant Wet Distillers Grain - 15% savings

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

  26. Components of Integrated Farm Energy System:Anaerobic Digester – Bio-Fuel Facility1 • A.D. livestock manure processing system • Biogas  electricity + excess thermal energy used in bio-fuel production facility – increases efficiency • 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 • Local Bio-Fuel Refueling Centre Refueling Network • Decreased transportation costs • Decreased GHG emissions, air pollution 1Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies

  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 www.rentec.ca

  29. Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure Processing Facility • Expected Outputs • 11,000 head/yr beef (2 cycles of 5,500) • 7,000 Mwhr/yr electricity surplus (=1600 users @350Kwh/mo) • 9,000 tonnes/yr organic soil amendment/fertilizers • 10M L/yr alcohol production • Direct GHG emission reductions – 25,000 tonnes/yr e-CO2 • 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. Comparison ofBio-Fuel Production Models • 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 • 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 • 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 2006. ManureNet Digester Compendium: http://res2.agr.gc.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/man_digesters.html

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

  34. In Summary - Benefits • Reduces environmental footprint • Reduced odours, pathogens  diminished societal concerns • Flexibility for applying/exporting processed manure products • Kills weed seeds – reduces herbicide usage • 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)

  35. Conclusions • Economics are rapidly improving, butpolicies, 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 85 % Efficiency Grid

  37. Micro CHP(Combined Heating and Power)Distributed Power Generation

  38. Micro CHP(Combined Heating and Power)Advantages • 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

  39. Resource Information on http://res2.agr.gc.ca/initiatives/manurenet/manurenet_en.html • 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)

More Related