[Terrapreta] Turkey Poo

[Tom Miles]

Michale, Kelpie,

 

Below see my response to a post on the bioenergy discussion list about the
plant. Any project of this size has a number of facets that don't necessary
relate to the technology. In this particular case there are lots of things
for different people to be upset about. 

 

I support the plant, having developed and proposed a similar technology, but
it is not the only or the best technology for recycling energy and
nutrients. Conversion to charcoal with recovery of the nitrogen is a better
technical and environmental solution for poultry litter. But the market is
not there yet for agrichar and so it would be difficult to raise the
millions of dollars necessary to process 500,000 tons per year of litter.
I'm sure that we will see a mix of technologies used as these manures become
regulated. 

 

The essential problem with litters and manures is the concentration of
nutrients at the site of animal feeding. After 20-30 years of putting these
nutrients on the land, especially phosphorous, it becomes an environmental
hazard. Burning the litter recovers energy from the organic matter and puts
the inorganic ash or nutrients in a form that they can be economically
transported to where they can be used. Not mentioned in the article is the
fact that the ash will be conditioned and sold as organic fertilizer which
helps pay for delivery to the plant. The economic benefits are keeping jobs
and increasing cash flow in the local economy.    

 

Tom Miles

 

To the bioenergy list 6/6/07:

 

We have millions of tons of litter  - undigested feed, manure and bedding -
available from our poultry operations and this is just one way of managing
an environmental problem by recovering energy and nutrients.  

 

The plant recycles all the nutrients except nitrogen, an important aspect
the reporter omitted. Chlorine and other inorganics are controlled. It helps
to solve a nutrient management problem by putting the nutrients in a form
that can be transported to where they are needed for use as fertilizer
instead of concentrating it to unacceptable levels on local soils.
http://www.fibrowattusa.com/US-Corporate/OurTechnologyUS.html It recovers
the energy in the organic matter in the form of heat and electricity. The
power, which is partly subsidized, pays for the collection, transportation
and recovery of the nutrients in the litter. The net ratepayer impact
($/kWh) over time is probably about the same as other renewable energy
alternatives. It distributes the environmental cost of a local industry and
climate neutral renewable energy source to 50,000 homes. The article reports
that the cost of electricity at the plant has improved compared with coal
fired plants since the beginning of the project. The concentrated nutrients
in the ash will be sold commercially as fertilizer. The plant will generate
local income and tax revenues in transportation and employment. The plant
will create jobs in manufacturing, construction and operation and
maintenance. The plant is regulated just like any other biomass power plant.
It is a major pollutant source just like any other biomass or waste to
energy plant and is regulated accordingly. The air permit was approved
October 22, 2002 by the Citizen's Board of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA). Unlike coal plants the plant emits renewable carbon.  The
plant has been through years of political review including public hearings
and debate in the media and elsewhere. It has apparently found financing.
There is a relatively low technological risk. There are probably many other
strengths and weakness of the project.

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Michael Bailes
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:48 PM
To: terrapreta
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Turkey Poo

 

Thanks Kelpie
Very interesting.
I am told BEST 's Australian technology would produce no more pollutants
than a diesel 4WD.

This report is a bit of a worry re the pollutants.

What are they doing with the turkey poo? 
is it being made into charcoal or just incinerated?
M

 as a target of environmental 
advocates who question the earth-friendliness of the operation.
There is a Web site devoted to detailing 
the alleged environmental wrongs at the power
plant, which detractors consider just another
pollutant-spewing, old-technology incinerator dressed up in green clothing.

A related issue is that the electricity is 
expensive, as called for in a utility contract
that led to the plant's construction, and that it
requires a lot of input for a rather small
output. Marty Coyne of Platts Emissions Daily, a
newsletter that analyzes issues related to the 
energy markets, said it would take 10
waste-burning plants the size of the one here to
equal the energy generated by one medium-size coal-fired plant.

David Morris, vice president of the Institute for
Local Self-Reliance, an advocacy group with
offices in Minneapolis and Washington, said: "As
a matter of public policy, it stinks. The problem
is that it's using a resource in an inefficient
way, and required huge subsidies to create a more 
inferior product than what was already being sold on the market."

 What
could be so offensive about burning turkey poop?

"This is the only advancement in manure 
utilization since the manure spreader - that's
100-year-old technology," said Greg Langmo, a 
third-generation turkey farmer who lobbied for
the plant, where he now works as a field manager.

MThe Benson plant, then, has been of
considerable help for farmers with a disposal problem. 

The plant was built by Fibrowatt, a
Philadelphia-based company, with financial
incentives from the State of Minnesota. And,
without precedent in the United States, it is
largely a test case, watched carefully because 
Fibrowatt has plans to expand its operation to other big poultry states.

Officials at the company did not expect a
perfectly smooth start but are surprised by the level of debate over the
plant.


But biomass burning, as it is called, produces
its own pollutants. According to information in
one of its federal air permits, the plant is a
major source of particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and 
hydrogen sulfide. It was granted permission to
operate because of the way the emissions are
controlled and cleaned before being released into 
the air - "All projected impacts were well below
Minnesota's health risk values," the permit says 
- but officials will continue monitoring it.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070611/fa721d19/attachment-0001.html