Welcome to Manure Du Jour

Transcription

1 Welcome to Manure Du Jour Serving Pennsylvania s Best Practices for Animal Ag-, Air- and Water Quality Protection Small and Medium Scale Anaerobic Digesters for Temperate Regions Dr. Bob Graves, Professor of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Penn State Dr. Stephanie Lansing, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science & Technology, University of Maryland 11 AM October 4, 2011 \aec Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center

2 Manure Du Jour October 4, 2011 PA s Best Practices Dr. Bob Graves Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Penn State University, College of Agricultural Sciences \aec Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center

3 Manure Du Jour October 4, 2011 PA s Best Practices Dr. Stephanie Lansing Assistant Professor, Ecological Engineering University of Maryland, College of Agriculture & Natural Sciences \aec Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center

4 Stephanie Lansing, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Technology University of Maryland 1109 H.J. Patterson Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742

5 Microbial Process Organic material CH 4 and CO 2 Organics Simple sugars Fatty acids Amino acids Hydrolysis Acetogenesis Products of hydrolysis Organic acids Alcohols Acetate Acetate/methanol/H2 Biogas Methane Carbon dioxide Methanogensis Series of Reactions occurring in Stepwise Fashion

6 Primary wastes Animal & livestock manure Food waste Energy crops Secondary wastes Human manure Agricultural waste Sources: (Akinbami, 2001; Bi, 2006; Voegeli, 2008) Photo Credits: (U.S. NRCS, Jean Ryder,

7 Biogas Primary: Cooking, Heating, Lighting (Munyehirwe & Kabanda, 2008; Mi, 2007; Singh & Sooch, 2004 ) Secondary: Electricity (Lansing et al., 2008) Effluent Fertilizer Feed Solids Compost

8 Improved water quality > 90% pathogen removal (Lansing et al., 2008; Lusk, 1998; Olsen and Larsen, 1987) 50-90% solids degraded (Lansing et al., 2008) Creation of a liquid fertilizer Reduction in environmental nuisances Odor reduction (Powers et al., 1999; Wilkie, 2000) Decrease fly propagation (Nelson and Lamb, 2002)

9 Production of renewable energy Biogas (60-70% Methane) (Lansing et al., 2008; USEPA, 2002) Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Livestock waste contribute 8% of methane emissions in US (USEPA, 2008) Methane has 21 times global warming potential as CO2 (Calandar, 1995) Revenue from Carbon Credit Programs (Turnbull, 2004; USEPA, 2006; USEPA, 2009)

10 (Burns, 2009)

11 162 digesters currently in United States ~ 15 new digesters annually (Agstar, 2011)

12 (AgSTAR, 2010)

13 Herd Size (Head Cattle) Number of Farms in 2006 Percent of Total Farms , % , % , % , % , % , % 1,000-1, % 2, % Total 75, % 71,997 Farms % of Total Adapted from: USDA, NASS Farms, Land in Farms and Livestock Operations

14 Over 1 million livestock and poultry operations (USDA, 2009) 6.6% are dairy facilities (USDA, 2009) Majority of anaerobic digesters (78%) are on dairy facilities (Burns, 2009) Maryland 663 dairy facilities (USDA, 2009) Over 90% of Maryland s dairies have <200 cows (USDA, 2009) Maryland has 2 anaerobic digester (BARC & Kilby Cream)

15 U.S. potential: 1.8 million applications US annual natural gas consumption MMcf/yr MMt CH 4 emissions from livestock waste/yr Current With Smaller Scale Dige sters U.S. natural gas consumption reduced by 25% (equivalent to 1 billion barrels of oil per year) Current With Smaller Scale Diges t- ers U.S. methane emissions reduced by 5% per year (reduction of 34.5 million tons of CO 2 equivalents)

16 Current policy (incentives and subsidies) Economics (price of electricity) Low economic return Difficulties obtaining financing Further research simpler, less management intensive systems (Source: Garrison and Richard, 2005)

17 Temperate Climate Digestion Methanogens have optimal methane production at mesophilic temperatures (30-35 C 86 F-95 F) Longer lag phase and decreased biogas production in lower temperature digesters (Masse et al., 2003; Connaughton et al., 2006; Zeeman et. al., 1988) Need to increased retention time Leads to increased size/capital requirements Maintenance of mesophilic digester temperature Leads to higher energy inputs/sophisticated equipment Additional insulation Higher material costs, excavation costs, site design and engineering

18 Cumulative Methane (ml/gvs) Lab-Scale Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure oC 14oC 24oC Days

19 Generator malfunction Lack of skilled technicians Construction Maintenance/troubleshooting Blockages within systems Solids accumulation & associated maintenance Photo source: AIDG Sources: Munyehirwe, 2008

20 Early Implementation India - reports as early as 1852 (Voegeli & Zurbrügg, 2008) China (Nianguo, 1984) Early Government Support China, Widespread dissemination of AD begins (Agromisa, 1984) India, National Project for Biogas Development Source: Mi, 2007

21 China and India lead the way Increased economic viability Spreading widely throughout Asia, Southern Africa, & Latin America (Buxton & Reed, 2010) Cold-climate, small-scale AD lags behind Most projects promoting concept

22

23 Diagram credit: Mi, 2007 Integrated farming systems (Mi, 2007; Todd, 2006; Marchaim,1992) Increased government subsidization (Mi, 2007)

24 All attempting to minimize cost & maximize performance

25 Chinese fixeddome Floating Drum Taiwanese-Model Covered Lagoon

26 Credit: Aziza Kenya Credit: Jay Martin -OSU

27 42 corrugated drainage culvert Internal sampling ports and gas collection Radiant barrier Geomembrane digester bag Radiant piping Influent pre-heated Effluent recirculated & reheated Digesters insulated & buried Hot water circulation for additional heating Foam bed

28 Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) located in Beltsville, Maryland Lagoon Storage barn Solid Separator Completemixed digester Site of UMD Digesters

29 Schematic of experimental design: Recirculation Tubing Heating Kettles Sampling Ports Influent Recirculation Collection Biogas Collection Effluent Digesters

30

31 Ohio State University Modification of Chinese fixed-dome digester Designed for small family/farm use Also looking at effluent recirculation

32 University of Wisconsin - Platteville Compost heated plug-flow digester

33 Other research The Minnesota Project Six options mid-sized farms 100-cow dairy System #1: Upright Digester System #2: Upright Mixed Digester System #3: Conventional Plug Flow Digester System #4: Covered Pond Digester System #5: Low Cost Plug Flow Digester System #6: Community Digester $160,000 $136,000 $163,000 $184,000 $105,000 $230,000

34

35 Minnesota Project s Jer-Lindy (160 cows) $460,000 Universities Private Dairies $152,000 - $266,000 Commercial Avatar (>100 cows) Bioprocess (250 cows) Agreen Energy/Quasar ( cows)

36 Capital Costs: Theoretical 100-cow UMD Digester Capital Costs Per Unit (dollars 2010) Total (dollars 2010) Digester 4,890 79,270 Sampling Ports - - Recirculation - 3,790 Biogas System - 5,000 Subtotal: 4,890 88,060 Site Preparation 10,000 Conveyance 51,560 Automation 8,520 Electrical 4,800 Other 16,000 Total: 178,940 Total with Gen-set: 278,940

37 Name Type Description/Location # cows Items UMD 1 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester UMD Beltsville, MD 100 Gen-set UMD 2 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester UMD Beltsville, MD 100 Boiler Theoretical 1 Covered Pond Digester Boiler Theoretical 2 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Boiler Theoretical 3 Upright Digester Boiler Theoretical 4 Upright Mixed Digester Boiler Theoretical 5 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester Boiler Theoretical 6 Upright Mixed Digester WA State Dairy Farm, WA 200 Gen-set Digester 1 Upright Digester USDA Beltsville, MD 220 Boiler Digester 2 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Northeast IA CC Farm, IA 120 Gen-set Digester 3 Upflow-tank Jer-Lindy Farm, MN 160 Gen-set Digester 4 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Freund Dairy, CT 250 Boiler Digester 5 Fixed-film JJ Farber Dairy, NY 100 Boiler Digester 6 Manure Activation/Covered Pond Spring Valley Dairy, NY 236 Gen-set Digester 7 Attached Growth Williston Cattle Co., VT 250 Boiler Digester 8 Upright Mixed Digester WA State Dairy Farm, WA 200 Boiler

38 Name Type Description/Location # cows Items UMD 1 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester UMD Beltsville, MD 100 Gen-set UMD 2 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester UMD Beltsville, MD 100 Boiler Theoretical 2 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Boiler Theoretical 5 Low Cost Plug Flow Digester Boiler Digester 2 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Northeast IA CC Farm, IA 120 Gen-set Digester 4 Conventional Plug Flow Digester Freund Dairy, CT 250 Boiler

39 Cash-Flow Analysis Annual Revenue - (Annual Capital Costs +Annual O&M Costs) = Net Income Boundary Conditions Only those components required solely by digestion All costs are incurred by the farmer

40 Annual Capital Costs Capital Discount Rate = 8% Useful life 20 years Items with lower lifetime accounted for in operating costs All costs in $2010 using ENR Index

41 Annual O&M Costs Operating* 3% of capital costs (boiler systems) 5% of capital costs (gen-set systems) *Unless better data available

42 Annual Revenue Benefit Qualitative Quantitative Improved Water Quality X Odor Control/Fewer Flies X Biogas Production X Electricity Generation X Bedding Reuse X Decrease GHG Emissions X Tipping Fees X

43 Annual Net Income (2010$) Name Annual Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Annual Revenue Annual Net Income UMD 1* ($32,764) ($13,947) $18,881 ($27,830) UMD 2 ($21,018) ($5,368) $19,467 ($6,919) Theoretical 2 ($22,629) ($5,780) $19,467 ($8,942) Theoretical 5 ($14,577) ($3,723) $19,467 $1,167 Digester 2* ($31,354) ($13,347) $21,717 ($22,984) Digester 4 ($27,591) ($7,047) $48,668 $14,030 *gen-set - (Annual Capital Costs +Annual O&M Costs) + Annual Revenue = Net Income

44 Annual Revenue (2010$) Name Biogas Electrical Generation Bedding Reuse CO2 Reduction Total Revenue UMD 1* $4,701 $13,500 $680 $18,881 UMD 2 $5,270 $13,500 $697 $19,467 Theoretical 2 $5,270 $13,500 $697 $19,467 Theoretical 5 $5,270 $13,500 $697 $19,467 Digester 2* $4,701 $16,200 $816 $21,717 Digester 4 $13,175 $33,750 $1,743 $48,668 *gen-set

45 How does volatile solids breakdown affect biogas production? Existing farm components Solids separation Revenue from bedding Manure Storage

46 (AgSTAR, 2009) 13,308 x (# cows)

47 Number of Cows 300 Capital Costs of Digester per Cow ($2010) 250 * * 200 * 150 * Existing Digesters 100 * * Theoretical Digesters 50 UMD Research Digester 0 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 Cost per Cow

48 Annual Cost/Cow (2010$) Name Net Income Annual Cost/Cow UMD 1* ($27,830) ($278) UMD 2 ($6,919) ($69) Theoretical 2 ($8,942) ($89) Theoretical 5 $1,167 $12 Digester 2* ($22,984) ($192) Digester 4 $14,030 $56 *gen-set

49 Tipping Fees Additional revenue Additional VS source Risk of upsetting digester Funding/Grants Capital cost burden distributed CO2 Credits Greater revenue source Price of biogas/electricity Greater revenue source UMD System Boiler Gen-set $570/mo. $2,320/mo. 35% 86% $570/mo. $2,320/mo.

50 Economic Viability of Small-Scale Digestion Recognize market: Small-scale digesters (up to 2,000 ft 3 or 100 cows) represent 50% of market There are examples of economic small-scale systems University of Maryland Dystem Need to further decrease capital costs Actual O&M costs unknown Recommendations Scale up, not down Engineering based on viable small-scale designs Reporting on anaerobic digesters needs to be uniform Improved record-keeping on existing systems Co-digestion of food waste Kilby Farm, Rising Sun, MD (Humboldt Waste Management Authority, 2010; Chanakya et al., 2008)

51 Funding Sources Maryland Water Resource Research Center NE Sun Grant Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) UMD College of Agricultural and Natural Resources Experimental Station USDA Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Walter Mulbry Jack Messinger Jon Leith Brad Green University of Maryland Gary Siebel and the ENST Project Development Center Gary Felton and UMD Extension Students: Katherine Klavon Andy Moss Freddy Witarsa Ashley Belle Akua Nkrumah Caiti Jackson Sol Lisboa Kotlik Kayoko Iwata Grant Hughes-Baldwin Owen Williams Faaiz Ajaz Allen Scott

52

53

54 Question and Answers Recording of this session can be viewed at: Bob Graves \aec Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center Stephanie Lansing

55 Next on Manure Du Jour Serving Pennsylvania s Best Practices for Animal Ag-, Air- and Water Quality Protection Upcoming Topics Fall 2011 Poultry Litter Burning Systems Conservation Planning and Regulatory Compliance Handbook To subscribe and receive schedule announcements: MAILTO:L-AGENVIRONMENT-SUBSCRIBE-REQUEST@LISTS.PSU.EDU \aec Penn State Agriculture & Environment Center