Transcript Manure – A Multi-Purpose Resource: ”Things are Changing in

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
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)
Objective 2
To demonstrate the central role of manure processing &
farm bio-energy systems for revitalizing rural economies
- GHG’s
- Odours
Environmental - Pathogens
Remediation - Deadstock
Nutrient
Issues
A.D.
Manure
Processing
- Conservation
- Recycling
- Nutrient
availability
Biogas
Farm
Economic
Benefits
Farm Bio-Industries
Rural Society
Benefits
Priority Issues
for Manure Management
Three primary issues to manage:
 Nutrients
 Odours
 Pathogens
............................. but also …….
 Large water volumes
 Carbon (O.M.) - new use
Energy = $$$
Soil Quality
Conserving Nutrients:
Gaseous Nitrogen losses from Manure
 Two major loss pathways:
 As volatile ammonia (NH3)
 Rapid losses can occur at any stage of handling with
continued exposure to air.
 As nitrous oxide (N2O) (GHG – 310x effect of CO2)
 More prevalent under reducing/denitrifying conditions.
Conserving Nutrients:
Ammonia losses from Manure
 Ammonium (NH4+) - non-volatile;
 pH 9.4
pH 7.5
pH 7.0
Ammonia (NH3) - volatile
[NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.50 (50.0%)
[NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.018 ( 1.8%)
[NH3] / [NH4+] = 0.0056 ( 0.56%)
@(20°C)
Keep pH near 7 (neutrality) to minimize NH3 losses
 Ammonia losses are rapid from bare floors; Remove manure
when fresh to closed storage to minimize NH3 losses.
Conserving Nutrients:
Ammonia losses from Manure
 Why should we minimize these losses?
 Increasing replacement costs for commercial N = $$$
- 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.
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.
LARGE SCALE ONE-WAY NUTRIENT FLOWS
Recycling Nutrients & Organic Matter
Nutrient inputs
Food
Products
Manure
Cereal Production
Human
Consumption
Odour
Pathogens
Annual
Mineral
Fertilizer
Additions
Nutrients & O.M. NOT recycled
Regional nutrient excesses
Wastes
Local Farm
Landfills
Exporting
Surplus Livestock Nutrients
 The need to export surplus nutrients will increase with
continuing intensification of livestock operations.
 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.
Anaerobic Digestion
A 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
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)
Why Digest Manure?
Potential Benefits
Economics
Environmental
 Reduce odours & pathogens
 Renewable energy generation
- flexibility to export surplus nutrients
- energy independence
 Export surplus Livestock nutrients
 Conserve nutrients (N)
- reduce mineral fertilizer use
 Emission reduction trading credits
 Reduce gaseous emissions
 Tipping fees – food-grade wastes
- GHGs, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide
- 20 – 30% energy boost
Societal
 Reduce siting / zoning problems
Regain public support
 Opportunity for new rural partnerships
Balancing Issues
in a Sustainable Farming Operation
1. Yield/Productivity
(Economics)
Pre-1965  1-D
Societal Concerns
2. Environmental Issues
Since 1970s  2-D
Both are science-based
3. Societal Concerns
Since 1990s  3-D
 Perception-based, emotional
 Can over-ride other 2 factors.
 Opposition difficult to reverse
once initiated
Challenges Facing
Confined Livestock Operations
Energy
 Increasing price volatility (S.E. Asia demand)
 Less reliable supplies (Declining fossil reserves)
 Result  Escalating N fertilizer & fuel costs
Environment
/ Health
 Increasing regulations – nutrients, pathogens
 Municipal waste issues (biosolids)
 Rendering / deadstock – limited uses/value
 GHG emission reductions – Kyoto protocol
 Increasing livestock intensities – odour
Economics
 Continuing vulnerability of farm incomes
 Increasing costs of compliance
 Global market competition
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 onfarm 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.
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.
Barriers to Adoption of
Anaerobic Digestion Technology
1.
Investment, Incentive & Payback Issues
2.
Managing Regulatory Issues
3.
Developing Reliability, Trust & Expertise
4.
Managing Complexity
Overcoming Barriers
to Adoption of
Anaerobic Digestion Technology
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
1. (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
Overcoming Barriers
to Adoption of
Anaerobic Digestion Technology
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
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
http://res2.agr.gc.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/hems/ecoamu_main.html
Overcoming Barriers
to Adoption of
Anaerobic Digestion Technology
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 realtime – practical technology now available from
several Canadian companies
A Centralized Co-op Rural Energy System
Potential Components
Dewatered
Digestate
Liquid
Digestate
Co-gen
Food Grade
Organics
water
Resource Centre
Electricity
Heat
Local
Municipal
Organics
Rendering,
Deadstock
Wet Distillers Grain - 15% savings
Organic
Fertilizers
CO2
Clean Water
Co-Located
Industries
Greenhouses
(Veg., Flowers)
Fish Farm
Slaughterhouse
Bio-ethanol plant
Farm Bio-Energy Systems: The Concept
Odours
Pathogens
Nutrient
export &
Recycling
Reduce
herbicide
use
GHG reductions
Deadstock
Income
Stabilization
Environmental
Solutions
Farm Bio-Energy
Energy
Independence
Municipal
Organic wastes
Rural Revitalization
Heat
Electricity
Clean water
CO2
Electricity
Manure solids
Emission
credits
Tipping fees
Independen
t
of
Livestock
prices
Co-located industries
Local biomass inputs
Components of Integrated Farm Energy System:
Anaerobic Digester – Bio-Fuel Facility1
1. A.D. livestock manure processing system
 Biogas  electricity + excess thermal energy used in biofuel 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
Lynn Cattle Turnkey Integrated Manure
Processing Facility
Indoor Beef Feedlot:
Farm Owner/Operator:
Farm Size: 4,500 ac
5,500 head (11,000/yr throughput)
Mr. Phil Lynn & Family
Location: NW of Lucan, Ontario
Project Start: Early 2003; Expected Startup: Spring 2006
Design/Builder:
Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies
Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure
Processing Facility
Rentec Renewable Energy Technologies
www.rentec.ca
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”
Lynn Cattle Integrated Manure Processing Facility
Comparison of
Bio-Fuel Production Models
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
Once-in-lifetime transition from fossil  bio-fuels happening NOW….
Farmers & rural commmunities need to get involved to benefit.
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
In Summary - Benefits

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
3.
Reduces environmental footprint



4.
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)
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.
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
Micro CHP
(Combined Heating and Power)
Distributed Power Generation
Centralized GasFired Plant
Micro CHP
100
100
57
<15
4-7
0
39
20
Useful Heat Energy
0
>65
Net Useful Energy
36-39
85+
INPUT
Waste Energy
Line Losses
Electricity
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
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)