CBP/TRS-289-08
Turning Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Poultry Manure and Litter into Energy:
An Analysis of the Impediments and the Feasibility of
Implementing Energy Technologies in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed in Order to Improve Water Quality
Vitalia Baranyai, Hungarian American Enterprise Scholarship Fund
Sally Bradley, Chesapeake Research Consortium
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
January 2008
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
-------
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the members of the Chesapeake Bay Regional Manure and Litter
Use Technology Task Force and other key experts who shared their knowledge with us,
allowed us to tour their litter-to-energy facilities, and provided extensive input into the
final report. Specifically, we would like to thank:
Norman Astle, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Hobey Bauhan, Virginia Poultry Federation
William Boyd, NRCS East National Technology Support Center
Pat Buckley, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Glenn Carpenter, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mark Dubin, University of Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic Water Program
Suzy Friedman, Center for Conservation Incentives at Environmental Defense
Josh Frye, Frye Poultry Farm
Malcolm Furman, Pennsylvania Office of Energy
Barbara Gaume, Coaltec Energy USA, Inc.
Doug Goodlander, Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission
Darren Habetz, American Heat and Power LLC
Matt Harper, Alleghany Biomass, West Virginia
Dr. Jeannine Harter-Dennis, University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Beth Horsey, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Bud Mai one, University of Delaware
Mike McGolden, Coaltec Energy USA, Inc.
Eileen McLellan, Environmental Defense
Doug Parker, University of Maryland
Tim Pilkowski, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Bill Satterfield, Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.
Dr. Tom Simpson, University of Maryland
Ken Small, Ken Small Associates LLC and American Heat and Power LLC
Dr. Matt Smith, USD A Agricultural Research Service
Charlie Wachsmuth, Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center
Hank Zygmunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3
Finally, a special acknowledgement to Kelly Shenk of EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office for her assistance and guidance throughout all stages of this report.
Cover photos (from left to right)
- Chickens; University of Warwick http://www2. Warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/bio/research/ee/ee/research/modelling/avian flu/
- Gasification system in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho: Farm Pilot Project Coordination Inc. http://www.fppcmc.org/pouitrv.htm
- Model of a typical biomass gasification plant: USC Times, February 2005 article by Chris Horn
http://www.sc.edu/usctimes/articles/2005-02/biomass gasification.html
- Power lines: Article on electricity distribution, photograph provided by Matteo Mode
http://gis.vsb.cz/webcastle/scripts/picturebook.php?KB Code=winl250&PF=PB&ID Svstem=&Vmod=Single&ID=7&Pressed= view one
-------
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
I. INTRODUCTION 9
II. LITTER AVAILABILITY 10
III. TECHNOLOGIES 14
Overview of Poultry Litter-to-Energy Technologies 14
Combustion 15
Farm Scale: On-site Combustion 18
Industrial Scale: Poultry Litter-Fueled Power Plants 21
Co-burning 26
Gasification 27
Pyrolysis 34
Combined technologies 35
Cellulosic ethanol 36
IV. STATUS OF POLITICAL INTEREST AND SUPPORT 36
Federal Policies 36
Federal Farm Bill 37
Energy Policy Act of2005 41
State Policies 42
Renewable Portfolio Standards 42
Maryland's Water Quality Improvement Act of1998 45
Maryland's Statewide Plan for Agricultural Policy and Resource Management 45
Pennsylvania's Energy Development Plan (Draft) 45
Air Quality Regulations 46
Air Quality Requirements 46
Air Emissions from an Industrial Scale Litter-to-Energy Project. 48
V. ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND IMPEDIMENTS 49
Tax Credits 49
Federal Tax Credit 49
Maryland Tax Credit 50
Pennsylvania Tax Credit 50
Funding Sources 50
Profit Options 51
Net Metering 51
Green Pricing Programs 52
Renewable Energy Certificates 53
Trading Programs 54
Ash Sales 54
Heat Generation 55
VI. CONCLUSIONS 55
APPENDIX A. LITTER-TO-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXAMPLES 60
APPENDIX B. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR A MANURE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT.. 71
APPENDIX C. POTENTIAL PROFIT OPTIONS FOR A LITTER-TO-ENERGY PROJECT 75
APPENDIX D. RULES FOR NET METERING IN THE CB WATERSHED STATES 76
REFERENCES 77
3
-------
Executive Summary
Introduction
In its 2005 Manure Strategy, the Chesapeake Bay Program recognized the significance of
controlling nutrient loads from manure in order to restore the Chesapeake Bay. An
important component of an overall nutrient management strategy for agricultural lands,
therefore, involves finding alternative uses for excess manure. This is particularly
important because as animal operations become more concentrated and the acreage of
cropland available for manure application is lost to development, the challenge of manure
management is only expected to intensify. Additionally, regulations that limit land
application and require phosphorus-based nutrient management plans will likely result in
an increase in the amount of excess manure that is available.
One potential use for the region's excess manure is energy generation. Using excess
manure to feed energy generation systems could potentially result in a reduced nutrient
load to the Bay, thus improving water quality. This report explores this option by
analyzing the feasibility of using poultry litter for energy in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Poultry litter, rather than manure from other livestock types, was chosen for
this report because the Chesapeake Bay watershed is known to be a major national
producer of poultry and poultry litter is often concentrated in particular regions and is
easier to transport. In order to better assess the feasibility of this option, this report looks
at technologies that could potentially be used to convert poultry litter into energy and
identifies impediments and incentives that a litter-to-energy project may encounter in this
region.
This report provides the following:
¦ Technology Analysis that summarizes:
- Poultry litter-to-energy technologies, including their effectiveness, their
challenges, and their applicability in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
- List of ongoing poultry litter-to-energy projects in the United States and
United Kingdom, including information on scale, litter requirements,
energy outputs, operation and maintenance requirements, emissions, ash
byproducts, and cost.
¦ Policy Analysis that summarizes federal policies, state policies, and air quality
regulations that relate to poultry litter-to-energy projects.
¦ Economic Analysis of incentives and impediments to implementing poultry litter-
to-energy projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including discussions on tax
credits, funding sources, and profit options.
¦ Findings and Recommendations that look at whether litter-to-energy systems
should be promoted in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including information on
commercial-scale vs. farm-scale systems and a list of issues that still need to be
better addressed.
Findings
¦ The current political climate supports the use of renewable and alternative energy
sources to some extent. Federal and state governments are showing increased
interest in alternative energy and have implemented a number of programs that
4
-------
encourage the development and use of alternative energy technologies, although
often not specifically manure-to-energy technologies.
¦ The thermal processing of poultry waste is generally feasible from a technological
standpoint. Instead, barriers often tend to be economical, political, or based on
litter availability. For example, it may be difficult to acquire air quality permits for
litter-to-energy systems in some regions due to already poor air quality.
¦ Financial assistance is needed to make litter-to-energy systems economically
feasible. There are a number of financial assistance options already in existence
that may be able to provide support for these systems, although high cost will
likely be an impediment for the foreseeable future.
¦ There are a number of ways that a farm-scale litter-to-energy system could
potentially earn a profit or lead to savings in operation costs. These options include
net metering, green pricing programs, renewable energy certificates, trading
programs, ash sales, and heat generation. Not all of these options are currently
available in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, although they could one day be
offered in this region.
¦ Deciding which type of system, either farm-scale or commercial-scale, is the most
viable in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and best meets the needs of the region is
not necessarily a clear-cut decision due to a number of factors. There are pros and
cons to each system type (see the following text boxes).
Small Farm-Scale
Pros
- Avoids high transportation costs
- Avoids road damage and air emissions caused by litter transporting vehicles
- Does not require a large, constant litter supply
- Provides energy benefits to the fanner and helps promote farm viability through energy cost savings
(propane, electricity)
- Provides income generation for the fanner through value-added by-products (ash, electricity,
renewable energy credits, nutrient trading, carbon trading)
- Provides an efficient alternative for on-site disposal of poultry carcasses
- Biosecurity of facilities maintained due to on-site litter processing
- Potentially improves bird health and bird quality by reducing the levels of introduced water vapor
and ammonia emissions within the poultry houses (compared to heating with propane)
Cons
- Limited number of experimental-level fann-scale litter-fueled systems in existence
- On-fann storage of litter needed for extended periods of time
- Higher system capital cost per unit of energy produced
- Higher operational and maintenance costs (financial and labor) for the fanner
5
-------
Large Commercial-Scale
Pros
- Several large commercial-scale litter-fueled energy plants are already successfully operating
- On-fann storage of litter is reduced or eliminated
- Lower system capital cost per unit of energy produced
- Lower operational and maintenance system costs (financial and labor) for the fanner compared to
farm-scale systems located on-site
- Energy and employment benefits provided to the community
Cons
- Requires a large, consistent litter supply
- High transportation costs
- Litter transporting vehicles may negatively impact roads and air quality
- Biosecurity measures must be taken into account due to off-site litter transportation
- Higher system capital costs which typically require government subsidies for sustainable economics
- Does not provide direct energy benefits to the fanner and continues reliance on purchased energy
sources (propane, electricity) for fann operations
- Does not replace the use of propane heat in the poultry houses, thus it does not provide the benefit to
bird health that may result from using the litter-generated heat rather than propane heat
- Does not necessarily provide the fanner with income generation through value-added by-products
(ash, electricity, renewable energy credits, nutrient trading, carbon trading); the appropriate programs
would need to be in place in order for the fanner to benefit from these options
- Does not provide the fanner with an alternative for on-site disposal of poultry carcasses, which can
be a benefit of small fann-scale systems
Conclusions
Both farm-scale and commercial-scale litter-to-energy systems may be a potential way to
use the excess litter found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The findings of this report
suggest that litter-to-energy systems are, for the most part, technologically feasible;
however, there are other challenges that must be overcome to make these systems a viable
option in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including high system cost and the issue of litter
availability. In addition, there are still a number of variables that need to be better
understood in order to determine whether litter-to-energy systems are truly feasible in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and whether or not they should be promoted by organizations
such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Following is a list of questions and issues that still
need to be better addressed.
If current and future research studies and demonstration projects explore these issues and
their findings indicate that projects like this should be pursued in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, then steps that could be taken to increase the feasibility and promote the
adoption of litter-to-energy systems in this region include:
¦ Educating farmers on the feasibility and benefits of litter-to-energy projects
¦ Increasing the number of renewable energy programs that litter-to-energy projects
qualify for (both for financial assistance and profit options)
¦ Working with EPA and USDA to incorporate litter-to-energy technologies into
their grant program priorities
6
-------
¦ Talking with states to assess how their existing programs could be used to promote
litter-to-energy systems
Recommendations for Further Research
Environmental Impacts
> What level of nutrient load reduction can be achieved through the use of a litter-to-energy
system? A more in-depth analysis is needed to quantify the reduction resulting from the use of
litter-to-energy systems versus the status quo (e.g. land application).
> What sort of air emissions do these systems release (type and amount)? Although there is
already some information on this, additional information would be useful.
> What impact do the air emissions from these systems have on water quality?
> Are there potential toxic air pollution concerns that need to be better addressed (such as those
resulting from the release of airborne arsenic)?
> Are state and federal air permitting programs set up to allow for these types of operations?
Poultry Litter Supply
> How much excess litter is available in different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
What other factors affect litter supply (e.g. price of energy and other market forces)? Is there
enough excess litter to support a large commercial-scale litter-to-energy plant?
Co-Firing / Blending Potential
> What is the combustion performance of poultry litter when co-firing with conventional fuels
(e.g. coal or natural gas) and unconventional fuels (e.g. waste coal)?
> If there is an insufficient amount of litter for an energy generation system, could the litter be
blended with other biomass feedstock, agricultural waste, or sewage sludge?
> What are the optimal blending ratios, the required combustion/gasification conditions, and the
necessary pollutant emission controls when co-firing or blending the litter?
> Do the ammonia and urea-based compounds found in poultry litter have a NOx reducing
effect? Several studies have indicated that they may. This issue should be further investigated.
Cost
> How much does an on-farm litter-to-energy system cost? On-farm systems are still relatively
new and many of the current systems have been constructed as part of demonstration or
research projects, making it difficult to determine the cost of future systems.
> How much money would a farmer need to put up to get a system installed and operating on his
farm?
> What is the potential payback timeframe for a litter-to-energy system? Several ongoing studies
are expected to quantify this. Understanding this component is critical in determining the
marketability of these systems.
Ash / Bio-Char
> Is there a viable market for the ash and bio-char byproducts? A number of projects have
already shown that these byproducts can be used as fertilizer.
7
-------
> What price could these byproducts be sold for?
> Are there other potential uses for these byproducts (e.g. construction, activated carbon
production)?
> How do the ash characteristics vary under different combustion/gasification conditions?
Farmer Willingness
> Are farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed willing to participate in litter-to-energy
projects? If it is determined that litter-to-energy systems are viable and should be promoted in
the watershed, then education and outreach efforts will be needed to encourage farmer
adoption of these systems.
> How much time must a farmer devote to operating and maintaining an on-farm litter-to-energy
system?
8
-------
I. Introduction
In its 2005 Manure Strategy, the Chesapeake Bay Program recognized the significance of
controlling nutrient loads from manure in order to restore the Chesapeake Bay.1 An
important component of an overall nutrient management strategy for agricultural lands,
therefore, involves finding alternative uses for excess manure. This is particularly
important because as animal operations become more concentrated and the acreage of
cropland available for manure application is lost to development, the challenge of manure
management is only expected to intensify. Additionally, regulations that limit land
application and require phosphorus-based nutrient management plans will likely result in
an increase in the amount of excess manure that is available.
In order to help address this issue, the Chesapeake Executive Council signed Directive
No. 04-3: Building New Partnerships and New Markets for Agricultural Animal Manure
and Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This directive was based on
recommendations that were developed at the Chesapeake Bay Program's 2004
Agricultural Summit by a wide range of stakeholders. In this directive, the Chesapeake
Executive Council committed to six objectives that were intended to help develop
sustainable solutions for reducing nutrient pollution from animal manure and poultry litter
in the Bay watershed, including demonstrating the feasibility of using manure as an
energy source.2 In order to determine how to follow through with these objectives, the
Chesapeake Bay Program developed their Manure Strategy. This strategy was formally
called the Strategy for Managing Surplus Nutrients from Agricultural Animal Manure and
Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and it was endorsed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council, the headwater states, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
November 2005.3
One of the goals of the Manure Strategy was "to identify and promote a range of
economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternatives to applying raw manure
and litter nutrients to agricultural lands". According to the Strategy, this goal will be
achieved by focusing on developing technologies and building markets for litter and
manure products for use as compost, soil amendments, fertilizers, and energy throughout
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, particularly in those regions with significant manure and
litter nutrient surpluses. The Strategy called for the creation of a Regional Manure and
Litter Use Technology Task Force. The purpose of this group was to identify and promote
promising technologies for producing manure and litter products. This task force met for
the first time in March 2006 and identified a list of promising technologies to explore.
During this meeting, the Chesapeake Bay Program was tasked with further researching
these potential technologies. This report is an outcome of that charge.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the feasibility of using poultry litter for energy in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Using excess manure to feed energy generation systems in
this region could potentially result in a reduced nutrient load to the Bay, thus improving
water quality. Poultry litter, rather than manure from other livestock types, was chosen for
this report because the Chesapeake Bay watershed is known to be a major national
9
-------
producer of poultry and poultry litter is often concentrated in particular regions and is
easier to transport. In order to better assess the feasibility of this option, this report
explores technologies that could potentially be used to convert poultry litter into energy
and identifies impediments and incentives that a litter-to-energy project may encounter in
this region.
II. Litter Availability
A region or a farm operation has excess poultry litter if more nutrients are available from
the litter than can be used for local land application. A number of factors affect whether or
not a farm has excess manure, including concentration of the livestock, nutrient levels in
the soil, crop rotation and crop choice, acreage of crop and pasture land, and nutrient
content of the manure.
If excess litter is present, then the excess will either need to be transported to an area in
need of nutrients or an alternative use will need to be found for it. According to the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Manure Strategy, "after feed management, the best long-term
sustainable solution to dealing with manure and poultry litter nutrient surpluses is to
develop alternative uses for litter and manure nutrients".4 Energy generation is one
potential use for excess poultry litter. Other potential uses include compost, soil
amendments, and fertilizers. When discussing the feasibility of a litter-to-energy project,
an important question that needs to be addressed is whether or not there is enough excess
poultry litter available in a particular area to make the construction and operation of such a
project feasible.
The amount of litter required by a litter-to-energy system varies depending on the
technology being used and the amount of energy being generated. For example, a 60 kW
(0.06 MW) farm-scale gasifier system in the Netherlands that was developed by Biomass
Technology Group in cooperation with poultry farmer Duis v.o.f. requires 900 tons of
poultry litter per year,5 whereas the 55 MW Fibrominn plant that was recently constructed
in Benson, Minnesota requires 700,000 tons of poultry litter and other agricultural
biomass per year.6 To put this into perspective, 720 thousand birds per year generate
approximately 900 tons of litter annually and 560 million birds per year generate
approximately 700,000 tons of litter annually.7
Since manure can be applied to cropland as an alternative to commercial fertilizer, the
price of fertilizer tends to impact the demand for and thus the availability of excess
manure and litter. If fertilizer prices are high, then litter will be more in demand and the
available supply will likely be limited. The amount of poultry manure and litter available
for use is also dependent on the frequency of poultry house clean-outs. Many poultry
growers line the floor of their houses with bedding material that consists primarily of
wood shavings and sawdust. When a house undergoes a total clean-out, all of this bedding
material is removed along with the accumulated manure. Today, bedding material is
relatively expensive, thus many poultry growers use the same material for several flocks.
Poultry houses on the Delmarva Peninsula typically undergo a complete cleanout every 2-
10
-------
4 years,8 although some poultry companies have gone to yearly cleanouts. 9 If a poultry
house is not undergoing a complete cleanout after a flock, only the cake is removed. Cake
is the term used to describe clumps of surface manure. Cake typically accumulates around
water lines and feed stations where the birds spend a disproportionate amount of their
time. Because of this, it is important to take cleanout frequency into consideration when
calculating the amount of litter available for use.
Animal production operations are widespread throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
however, not all areas have high concentrations of livestock. The three regions that have
the highest concentrations of livestock, including poultry, are the Lower Susquehanna
River basin in Pennsylvania; the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and West Virginia; and
the Delmarva Peninsula in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.10 Although the New York
portion of the watershed has a large number of dairy and beef operations, they have
essentially no poultry operations. According to one analysis, the amount of excess manure
produced in each of the concentrated regions listed above by all livestock types (not just
poultry) ranges from approximately 250,000 to 600,000 tons.11
Regions with concentrated poultry production operations may be the most appropriate for
large, off-site litter-to-energy facilities. These facilities would need to be supplied with a
substantial amount of litter. Due to the cost and logistics of litter transport, obtaining litter
from nearby poultry operations would be more feasible than obtaining litter from more
distant, less concentrated poultry operations. Maryland's Manure Transportation Project
estimates that it costs 15 cents per ton-mile to transport manure,12 while American Heat
and Power LLC estimates that it is even more expensive, with a cost of approximately 35
cents per ton-mile. Using American Heat and Power's estimate, hauling a 20 ton load 25
miles (which is equivalent to 500 ton-miles) would cost approximately $175 or $8.75 per
ton. In addition, American Heat and Power suggests that $5 per ton should be added to
cover clean-out costs, thus making the total cost in this example roughly $13.75 per ton.13
Smaller, on-site litter-to-energy systems may be suitable for a wider range of locations
than larger off-site facilities since these systems could potentially be constructed on farms
both inside and outside of concentrated poultry regions. In addition, an on-site facility
would not need to deal with the biosecurity issues that an off-site project would encounter
since the litter is not being transported off of the farm.
There are several manure transport programs and manure matching programs in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed that may be able to assist litter-to-energy facilities in acquiring
poultry litter. If a litter-to-energy facility is designed to accept litter from off-site farms,
transportation cost is often an issue. Manure transport programs are in place in some areas
that can lessen the cost of transport by providing financial assistance for the transportation
of manure from the farm to the facility. For example, Maryland's manure transport
program, which is administered by the Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share
Program, and Delaware's nutrient management relocation program, which is administered
by the Delaware Nutrient Management Program, both provide animal producers with cost-
share assistance of up to $20 or $18 per ton, respectively, to transport their excess manure
to other farms or alternative use facilities.14'15 Pennsylvania also has a manure
transportation assistance program that provides funding to farmers or industries to help
offset the transportation costs incurred from transporting manure to alternative use
11
-------
facilities, but not for transport from farm to farm. This program is relatively new and is
expected to provide cost-share assistance equivalent to 5 cents per pound of nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus).16
There are also several manure transport programs in the region that litter-to-energy
facilities may not be able to benefit from at this time. West Virginia's program is
administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which
considers litter transfer to be an eligible practice under their Agricultural Management
Assistance (AMA) program. The purpose of this practice, however, is to transfer excess
poultry litter from the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of WV to eligible areas of WV
outside of the Chesapeake Bay drainage area.17 Therefore, since a litter-to-energy facility
would most likely be located close to the farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion
of WV, and not outside of the drainage area, poultry producers may not be eligible to
receive cost-share assistance for transferring their litter to these facilities at this time,
although this could change in the future.
A similar circumstance arises with Virginia's poultry litter transport incentive program,
which is administered by Virginia's Department of Conservation and Recreation and the
Virginia Poultry Federation. This program offers $5-$ 12 per ton of litter transported, but
in order to be eligible for this payment, the litter must be transported to an area far from
where it is generated, which will most likely not be practical for many litter-to-energy
projects. In order to receive payment, this program requires that the poultry litter must be
transported from farms in Page and Rockingham counties to a final destination that is not
within Accomack, Augusta, Northampton, Page, Rockingham, or Shenandoah County.18
Manure Transport Programs
Maryland
MD Department of Agriculture
Website:
htto ://www.mda. state.md.us/resource conservation/financial assistanc
e/manure manaaement/index.php
Phone: Contact the local soil conservation district or call MDA's toll
free hotline at 1-877-7MANURE
Delaware
DE Nutrient Management Program
Website: httt>://dda.delaware.aov/nutrients/nm reloc.shtml
Phone: (302) 698-4500
Pennsylvania
PA State Conservation Commission
Website:
htto ://www. agriculture, state.oa.us/aariculture/cwo/view. aso?a=3&a=l
27144
West Virginia
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Website:
htto://www.wv.nrcs.usda.aovA>roarams/ama/07 AMA/ama.html
Phone: Contact Herbert Andrick at (304)284-7560
Virginia
VA Department of Conservation and Recreation
and the Virginia Poultry Federation
Website: htto://www.dcr.virainia.aov/soil & water/mnlitter.shtml
12
-------
Manure matching programs are another type of program that litter-to-energy facilities may
be able to benefit from. These programs link farmers who have excess animal manure
with nearby farms or alternative use projects that can use the manure. This service is
typically free and available to both sending and receiving operations. Maryland, Delaware,
19 20 21
and Pennsylvania all have manure matching programs. ' ' A similar program, called
the Virginia Poultry Litter Hotline, is also operated in Virginia by the Virginia Poultry
Federation and the Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council. This
hotline was created to help connect poultry farmers with excess manure in the Shenandoah
Valley to litter buyers and haulers throughout Virginia.22 Manure matching programs such
as these could be used to help those developing litter-to-energy products locate available
litter sources.
Manure Matching Programs
Maryland
MD Department of Agriculture
Website:
littD://www.mda.state.md.us/rcsourcc conservation/financial assista
nce/manure manaacmcnt/indcx.DliD
Phone: Contact Norman Astle at 410-841-5874
Delaware
DE Department of Agriculture
Website: littD://dda.dclawarc.aoy/nutricnts/DMmatch.slitml
Phone: (302)698-4500
Pennsylvania
PA Small Business Development Centers
and PA State Conservation Commission
Website: htto://www.manuretrader.ora
Virginia
Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council
and the Virginia Poultry Federation
Phone: Contact Becky Barlow at 1-800-418-0768
Other poultry litter uses that a litter-to-energy project may need to compete with for an
adequate litter supply include land application, pelletization, and compost. These uses
should be taken into account when determining whether or not there is enough poultry
litter available to fuel a litter-to-energy system. If more poultry litter exists than can be
applied to local cropland, then the litter can potentially be transported to a nearby area that
is in need of nutrients. The feasibility of this will depend on the cost of transportation and
the cost of commercial fertilizer.
In addition to land application, litter-to-energy projects may also need to compete with
pelletization and compost operations for a consistent litter supply. The Delmarva
Peninsula is home to a large-scale litter-pelletizing operation called Perdue AgriRecycle.
Perdue AgriRecycle contracts for approximately 60,000 tons of poultry litter annually,
which is equivalent to about one-eighth of the Peninsula's poultry litter.23 In exchange for
their excess litter, Perdue AgriRecycle provides participating growers with professional
cleanouts and hauling.24 Composting operations also typically use up a portion of a
region's excess litter. On the Delmarva Peninsula, typically 10-15,000 tons of poultry
13
-------
litter, which is equivalent to 1-2 percent of the region's total poultry litter supply, is used
for compost.25 In addition, a significant portion of the poultry litter in Pennsylvania and its
surrounding states is used to generate compost specifically for Pennsylvania's mushroom
industry.26 In order to gain a better understanding of the location and amount of excess
litter in the watershed, it is recommended that these attributes be better assessed.
III. Technologies
Overview of Poultry Litter-to-Energy Technologies
In poultry production, the three wastes of primary concern are the bedding material used
to line the floor of the poultry houses, the manure resulting from poultry production, and
the dead birds. Throughout this report, the term "litter" is used to refer to a combination of
poultry manure and bedding material (woodchips and sawdust). Litter composition is
predominantly made up of water and carbon with smaller amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorous and trace levels of chlorine, calcium, magnesium, sodium, manganese, iron,
copper, zinc, and arsenic.27
Land application, which currently is the major disposal method for litter and manure, is
under pressure due to its ability to pollute water resources through leaching and runoff28
Once manure application rates exceed a crop's ability to uptake the nitrogen and
phosphorus found in the manure and surpass the land's ability to assimilate the remaining
phosphorus, repeated applications can lead to a buildup of nutrients in the soil, thus
increasing the potential for leaching and runoff to ground and surface water sources.29 In
order to help restore and protect water quality, cost-effective alternative technologies need
to be employed to remove the excess litter from concentrated areas.30 This section
provides an overview of possible poultry litter-to-energy technologies, which are a
potential alternative use for the Chesapeake Bay watershed's excess litter.
Waste materials
Thermal processing Biochemical process Chemical process
Combustion Gasification Pyrolysis Anaerobic Fermentation Esterifi cation
digestion
Heat and power Chemical feedstock Ethanol Biodiesel
Figure 1. Pathways to convert waste materials to energy or energy related product/1
14
-------
As can be seen in Figure 1, combustion, gasification, and pyrolysis are three types of
thermal processing methods that can be used to convert waste material into energy. The
main difference between these three methods is the ratio of oxygen present. The
combustion process takes place at a very high temperature and requires either
stoichiometric conditions (consuming reagents in the exact proportions required for a
given reaction) or excess oxygen, whereas pyrolysis takes place at a relatively low
temperature with almost no oxygen present. Gasification falls into the middle range,
requiring a temperature between that of combustion and pyrolysis and a limited air or
oxygen supply (see Table 1). Appendix A provides an overview of the poultry litter-to-
energy technology examples that are explored in this report, as well as several others that
are not mentioned in the text.
Table 1. Characteristics of the different thermal processing methods.32
Combustion
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Temperature (F)
3600
1100-1800
390-1100
02 supplied
> stoichiometric
Limited,
< stoichiometric
None
Products
C02, H20, ash
CO, H2, ash
Oils, tars
Combustion
The different combustion technologies can be classified based on a variety of criteria, such
as the system used (stoker boilers, fluidized bed boilers); however, a broad classification
can be made between mass burn incineration and other types.33 Mass-burn combustion is
large scale incineration in a single stage chamber unit in which complete combustion or
oxidation takes place. Typical volumes of waste are between 10 and 50 tons per hour.
Other types of combustion involve small-scale volumes typically between 1 and 2 tons per
hour. The systems used in small-scale incineration include fluidized bed, cyclonic, rotary
kiln, and liquid and gaseous incinerators.34
In this report, the two most commonly used boiler types, stoker and fluidized bed boilers,
are discussed. Stoker boilers are boilers that burn solid fuel in a bed on a stationary or
moving grate that is located at the bottom of the furnace. Fluidized bed incinerators can
burn wastes with difficult combustion properties, including municipal solid waste, sewage
sludge, and biomass. Fluidized beds consist of a bed of sand particles contained in a
vertical refractory-lined chamber through which the combustion air is blown from
below.35 This air keeps the bed in a floating or fluidized state, which contributes to more
efficient contact between the fuel and the combustion air.
15
-------
CLEANED FLUE GAS
Gas
cleaning
Excess air
Fuel Combustion Hot gases Boiler steam
preparation Fuel
ASH POWER AND/OR HEAT
Figure 2. Flow chart of conventional waste combustion.Jb
The direct combustion of poultry litter is a promising alternative to land application due to
the litters' relatively high energy content. However, burning chicken waste is
technologically challenging; unlike fossil fuels or wood, poultry litter is a more complex
material without a consistent composition and moisture content. The relative percentage of
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in the poultry litter is similar to typical wood waste, but the
ash content is significantly higher in the poultry litter due to the contaminants originating
from the handling operations and dirt mixing into the bedding material (see Table 2).37
The moisture content of poultry litter is also relatively high, which can cause difficulties
in feeding the combustor and maintaining sustainable combustion. In addition, a higher
moisture content results in fuel with a lower caloric value.38 The moisture content of the
poultry litter varies depending on the type of operation. Broilers typically result in litter
with a moisture content of about 20-35%, whereas layers result in litter with a higher
moisture content (around 50%). One way that the moisture content of layer litter could be
reduced, perhaps even bringing it on par with broiler litter, is through the installation of
belt drying systems within the layer houses.39
Table 2. Characteristics of different fuels and poultry litter.40
Poultry litter
Coal
Wood
Carbon, dry wt%
39.5
74
49.7
Hydrogen, dry wt%
4.3
5.1
5.4
Nitrogen, dry wt%
3.9
1.6
0.2
Sulfur, dry wt%
0.8
2.3
0.1
Ash, dry wt%
22.9
9.1
5.3
Chlorine, dry wt%
1.28
0
0
Oxygen, dry wt%
27.3
7.9
39.3
Moisture, %
20-35
5.2
50
Dry HHV", Btu/lb
6572
13250
8800
LHV", Btu/lb as fired
3600-4400
12050
3315
* High Heating Value; ** Low Heating Value
Engine or
turbine
16
-------
In addition to the characteristics of the litter, the availability of the litter is a significant
issue. Maintenance and cleaning practices, as well as the use of bedding materials, can
differ from farm to farm. At most poultry operations, wood shavings are used as bedding
material and total clean out happens only once every 2-4 years. Having an adequate
storage facility is therefore very important in order to prevent rain from falling on the litter
and increasing its moisture content. Improper storage can also result in nutrient and
pathogen pollution of the soil, groundwater, and surface waters; nevertheless, proper
storage can be very expensive.
Combusting poultry litter concentrates the nutrient contents (P and K) in the ash and
results in significant volume reduction, thus making it easier to transport. The ash content
of the poultry litter is relatively high, requiring high-volume ash-handling equipment and
increased attention to particulate removal, slagging, and fouling.41 The high ash content
and the high levels of K and Na increase the chance of fouling and slagging tremendously.
Generally, the silica salts formed by K and Na show strong tendencies to become sticky
and form slag on the hot surfaces of the combustion equipment and the boiler.42
In terms of combustion, air pollution is a substantial issue. One of the advantages of
combusting poultry manure is that none of the nitrogen remains in the solid phase. On the
other hand, due to the high concentration of nitrogen in the poultry manure, there may be
significant fuel NOx emissions. Nitrogen-oxides dissolved in the moisture of the
atmosphere cause acid-rain and immediately end up in surface waters. Therefore, without
adequate emission controls, these systems will not lead to improved water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay. Selective non-catalytic reduction of NOx is one of many emission
control methods that could be used. Several studies also implied that the ammonia and
urea-based compounds in the poultry manure may possibly have an NOx reducing
effect.43'44'45 Urea reacts with NOx at temperatures between 1650°F and 2100°F to
produce molecular nitrogen (N2) and water.46 This is similar to the NOx reduction
mechanism employed in selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) flue gas control
systems.
Organo-arsenic compounds are added to poultry feed in order to increase weight and
improve feed efficiency.47 Arsenic may therefore be an air pollution concern when
burning poultry litter; however, no related studies have been found on this issue.
Poultry litter is considered to be a biomass fuel because, unlike fossil fuel power
generation, the combustion of poultry litter adds no new CO2 to the natural carbon cycle.
In addition, the sulfur content of poultry litter is significantly lower in comparison to fossil
fuels.
Pilot Scale Test: Energy Products of Idaho
Energy Products of Idaho (EPI) maintains an operating pilot plant in Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho. This plant consists of a scaled-down fluidized bed combustor (3-5 MBtu/hr), a fuel
metering system, and a delivery system. It also includes flue gas cooling and cleanup
equipment with typical boiler and baghouse applications. In bubbling fluidized bed
17
-------
technology, the combustion air is injected at the bottom of the bed which causes the sand
bed to be suspended.
The poultry derived fuel (PDF) used in this test program is typical of litter generated
throughout the Delmarva poultry producing region. All of the litter used in this program
was from the Delmarva Peninsula, but unfortunately no information was available on the
size of the facilities that the litter was collected from. The litter was transported via truck
in Super Sacks. Upon arrival at EPI's facility, the sacks were emptied and the litter was
stored in EPI's fuel storage bunker. This is a three-sided building with a roof and concrete
floors. The litter was not pre-processed in any way prior to the pilot plant tests. The
objectives of the test program were to evaluate the emission potential of this fuel, to
evaluate the slagging tendency of EPFs technology, and to explore conditions which
could reduce or eliminate slagging completely.
The test results showed that under established operating conditions there was not any
significant ash slagging or accumulation. The typical operating temperature out of the
furnace was below 1750°F and the fuel feed rate was around 500 lb/hr. However, when
the furnace temperature was raised to between 1800 °F and 2000 °F for a short period of
time, they observed measurable slagging and ash buildup on the furnace walls.
In terms of emissions, the results were promising. Lime was added to the poultry litter in
order to eliminate the S02 emissions. 100% of the sulfur was captured and retained in the
ash as calcium sulfate. Fhe combustor is also equipped with SNCR technology to reduce
the NOx emissions. Fhe NOx emissions were much lower than expected, which can be
correlated with the ammonia or urea-based compounds in the manure. Significant
achievements were reached in HC1 capture as well.
Fhis demonstration project showed that the fluidized bed combustion technology is a
suitable method to produce energy from poultry litter. With proper design and control,
good efficiencies and low emission levels can be achieved. Fhey determined that on a
design basis, producing 200,000 pounds of steam per hour and generating 18,000 KW of
power required a fuel feed rate of 21.4 tons/hour. For the typical 20 MW facility described
above, the required amount of fuel could reach 200,000 dry tons per year, which could be
supplied by a poultry operation with an annual capacity of 11 million birds.48
EPI has performed additional testing on a variety of PDF from various locations and from
various types of facilities (broiler, layer, etc.). Fhey have run pilot plant testing on chicken
litter and manure as well as turkey wastes. In all cases, the litter and manure performed
very well. A majority of the data collected from these pilot plant tests is proprietary to the
firms paying for the tests, but several studies were funded by grants from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Energy and this data is available.
Farm Scale: On-site Combustion
As an alternative to land application in sensitive watersheds, poultry litter could be burned
on-site to produce heat and electricity for use on poultry farms. Fhe generated heat could
be used to heat the poultry houses and/or to dry the manure before it is fed into the
combustion equipment. In addition, the electricity produced could help cover the farm's
18
-------
energy needs, with the surplus being delivered to the local power gird. Both of these uses
are potential economic incentives for a farmer.
When considering the installation of a combustion system on a single farm, the interest of
the farmer needs to be closely evaluated. Besides the high cost of such equipment, the
management and operation costs can increase the overall expenses tremendously. To
achieve efficient combustion, the poultry litter must be the right size before it is fed into
the combustor. Due to the special composition of poultry litter, this can result in high
maintenance requirements. Slagging, fouling, and high levels of corrosion are also factors
that need to be eliminated in order for farmers to use such systems.
One of the advantages of the on-site utilization of poultry litter is the elimination of
transportation costs. On the other hand, a proper storage facility is needed in order to
prevent water and air pollution.
Study: Combustion of Poultry Litter in a Fluidized Bed Combustor (Portugal, Ireland)
A group of Irish and Portuguese researchers studied the combustion of poultry litter and
poultry litter mixed with peat in an atmospheric bubbling fluidized bed combustor. The
addition of peat was used to improve combustion due to the uncertain combustibility of
poultry litter with a high moisture content. The study, however, showed that as long as the
moisture content was kept below 25%, there was no need for peat to be added. Besides
investigating the effect of moisture content on poultry litter combustion, they also studied
air staging and variations in excess air level along the freeboard. The combustor was
operated over a temperature range of approximately 1290°F-1830°F. Their main
conclusions were: (1) the condition of the fuel supply had a significant influence on the
combustion process, (2) the moisture content of the poultry litter had a great effect on the
fuel supply, (3) the temperature influenced the reduction level of unburned carbon and
hydrocarbons released from the residues, (4) air staging enhanced the combustion of
volatiles released from the residues in the riser, and (5) air staging in the freeboard
lowered the NOx emissions.49
Fluidized Bed Combustors: Biomass Heating Solutions Limited (Ireland)
The group that was working on the above project is now manufacturing small scale
fluidized bed combustors to combust poultry litter for heat/energy. Biomass Heating
Solutions Limited (BHSL) is an Irish company based in County Limerick, Ireland that
provides a turnkey, on farm solution to the problems of poultry litter disposal for poultry
farmers. Several years of research and development involving biomass experts, poultry
farmers, and regulatory agencies have led to the development of a boiler system which
deals with the two main problems facing the industry: litter disposal and the continuing
increase in energy costs.50
Their system has been designed to comply with all of the relevant regulations and fits in
with the existing technical and physical structures of existing farms. The fuel consumption
of the system is approximately 80 lb/hr and it can burn litter with a moisture content of
between 25% and 50%. Ash is typically produced at a rate of around 7 lb/hr and is suitable
to use as fertilizer. The energy produced by these systems can be used to heat the poultry
19
-------
houses, replacing a portion of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) that is typically used.
This can result in financial savings for the farmer. The litter that is collected once a flock
is removed from a poultry house could provide the fuel to heat the house for the next
incoming flock. If a cycle of six weeks is used for each flock, they calculated that a 25,000
bird operation could save over €2000 ($2700) per flock, or approximately €12,000 per
year, on LPG and the costs associated with litter disposal. They also estimated a savings
of 4 UK tons of LPG, which is equivalent to 12 UK tons of CO2 reduction.51 It is
important to note that the average temperature in County Limerick, Ireland, which is
where this company is based, is between about 39.2°F-48.2°F degrees in winter and
51.8°F-68°F degrees in the summer.52 This should be taken into account when considering
the amount of heat savings, since the amount saved will depend partly upon the climate in
which the operation is located.
Feasibility Study: Poultry Litter Combustion (University of Arkansas)
A feasibility study/demonstration project that looked at using broiler litter as a fuel was
conducted in Harrison, Arkansas by Tom Costello at the University of Arkansas Division
of Agriculture in December 2006. The purpose of this study was to determine whether or
not on-farm litter combustion was feasible. In addition, this study collected information
that they thought growers should consider when deciding whether or not to invest in
furnaces such as these. In order to help the grower make an informed decision, they
intended to offer details about the thermal performance of the litter, the amount of
material needed daily and annually, the economic implications, the management
requirements, the amount of ash produced, and any environmental effects.
The equipment used in this test was a broiler litter-fired combustor prototype that was
manufactured by Lynndale Systems Inc. A direct combustion process was used in the
furnace and the combustion air was delivered by a fan. There was a thermostat operating
in the house which called for heat when the temperature dropped to a certain level. When
there was no need for heat, it was exhausted outside of the house. The system was
designed to provide heat for the poultry houses. The heated air was distributed
longitudinally in the house by several stirring fans. The fuel was obtained from a broiler
house's annual cleanout and was stored in a bunker for a year before it was used.
The furnace system was operated during two grow-outs (approximately four months) on
the UA Applied Broiler Research Farm in order to provide heat for one of the farm's
poultry houses. Fuel use, ash accumulation, and heat extracted were measured during the
test. The demonstration was successful in showing the technical feasibility of burning
100% litter in a direct-combustion furnace on a farm. However, the test results showed
relatively low furnace system efficiency and ash containing a small portion of carbon.
This indicates that litter combustion may have been incomplete. Another potential
explanation for the presence of carbon in the ash could be that unburned litter fell into the
ash due to improper handling. System design amendments should be implemented to
capture the energy of this carbon and to improve combustor efficiency.
Excessive CO levels were also observed during stack emission checks, which is another
indicator of incomplete combustion. System modifications to extract the energy from CO
20
-------
would improve system efficiency. The NOx emission levels were not high, although with
system improvements to achieve more complete combustion, the NOx levels are likely to
rise. Particulate emissions were not measured; however, the low amount of ash recovered
during the test implies that a significant amount of particulates may have been released
into the air.
Once this system is implemented on a farm it would not require a full-time operator. The
fuel would need to be loaded into the system two to four times per day and an occasional
furnace check would be needed. In a typical chicken operation, approximately one ton of
litter would need to be used on a winter day for space heating.
In this study, the economic feasibility of implementing such a system on a grower's farm
was also evaluated. In order to achieve significant savings in the conventional fuel
consumption that is used annually for space heating, improvements in furnace system
performance would be crucial. The objective is to achieve the elimination of 80% of the
annual fuel, such as propane, that is used for space heating. To hit this target, system
efficiency should be increased to 40% and the fuel feed rate should be increased to 100
lb/hr. If these modifications (either burning fuel at a faster rate or extracting more heat
from each unit of fuel) are carried out, the savings from the increased heat generation may
provide a net cash flow that could help pay off the investment in the system. Over a seven
year period, they calculated that the possible savings could be as much as $24,000.
In order to keep the rain off of the fuel (poultry litter), an adequate storage facility is
needed that should ideally be located close to both the poultry house and the furnace. In
addition, sufficient storage capacity is also needed for the ash by-product. Prior to starting
an operation such as this, potential markets for the ash should be established. Potential
products include using the ash as an additive in concrete or using it to manufacture
fertilizer.53
Industrial Scale: Poultry Litter-Fueled Power Plants
Development of a Poultry Litter-to-Energy Furnace: American Heat and Power LLC
American Heat and Power LLC developed a multiple hearth furnace that uses circle slot
jets to introduce combustion air in order to create high turbulence and improved air-fuel
mixing. The high turbulence and improved mixing increases control and combustion
efficiency and reduces CO and hydrocarbon emissions. This system provides a
combustion environment in which the temperature is high enough to achieve complete
combustion, but low enough to avoid slagging, agglomeration, and high NOx emissions.54
In addition to poultry litter, this furnace can also handle many different types of biomass.
This type of multiple hearth furnace is best suited for a large commercial or industrial
scale project, such as a large regional plant. Though technically feasible for an on-farm
application, it is not economically feasible. The capacity of a system such as this varies
depending on the application. For stand-alone economical viability (no government
subsidy), the plant should be sized to process at least 100 tons of litter per day. Typically,
capacities would range from 250 tons per day to as much as 1000 tons per day (with
multiple units) at a single regional plant. The energy output for a single regional facility is
21
-------
100,000-35,000 lb/hour for steam only and 10-50 MW for electricity only. Combined heat
and power plants would provide a combination of these.
These are multi-million dollar units and although the units have standard sizing criterion, a
unique system would need to be specifically designed for each project. As such, pricing is
specific to the project. However, as a ballpark estimate, a hypothetical 15 MW plant
would cost roughly $2500 per kW and a biomass to steam plant would cost approximately
$120 per lb/hour of steam capacity installed.
A facility that uses this technology would require a full-time staff, with plant operators
typically working three 8-hour shifts. Maintenance would be commensurate with a mid-
sized energy plant and normal maintenance would be provided by the operators. Long
term service agreements with equipment suppliers could provide a large portion of the
plant's major equipment maintenance.
Poultry Litter-Fueled Power Plants in the UK: Energy Power Resources Ltd
A great example of the successful conversion of poultry litter to energy involves mass
burning and step-grade combustion systems.55 Large scale, centralized power plants
fueled with poultry litter can generate 10-55 MW of energy. These kinds of facilities exist
in the United Kingdom and are operated by a company called Energy Power Resources
Ltd, which was the first company in the world to succeed in turning poultry litter into
energy.
The first poultry litter fueled power station was opened in Eye, Suffolk, UK in 1993. This
12.7 MW plant consumes 140,000 tons of chicken litter annually. The fuel consists of
poultry litter, horse bedding (12%), and feathers (7%). The employed technology is a
conventional moving grate boiler and steam cycle.56 After on-site use of electricity, the
net output is supplied to a 33kV power line for distribution.57 The wood shavings and
straw used in the poultry houses help control the moisture content of the fuel and improve
the burning process. The high calcium content of the litter reduces the need for the
addition of calcium (lime), which typically is used to help capture the SO2 and HC1
emissions. Negative pressure is used in the storage facility to minimize odorous emissions.
The fuel from the different farms is mixed before it is fed into the boiler and the grate
system moves the fuel through the furnace. An electrostatic precipitator is used to ensure
low dust emissions.58
A 13.5 MW plant in Glanford, UK was the world's second poultry litter-fired renewable
energy power station. Based on the company's experience with the Eye power plant, they
decided to introduce a new technology at the Glanford plant to overcome the problems
that had resulted from the higher than expected moisture content of the fuel. The boiler
used in Glanford is a chain grate with spreader stackers which blow the fuel into the boiler
ensuring that the majority of the fuel is burned in mid-air.59 In May 2000, the plant was
re-commissioned to burn meat and bone-meal (MBM) and in 2004 the plant got
permission to burn any other biomass.60
22
-------
The Thetford power station was completed in June 1999 after three years of construction
work.61 With its 38.5 MW capacity, this plant is currently the world's largest poultry litter
fueled power plant and Europe's largest biomass fueled electricity generator. This plant
requires 420,000 tons of poultry litter annually.62 Based on the company's experience
with their first two plants, they decided to make a number of modifications to this third
plant. For example, the Thetford plant uses a much more efficient process to transfer the
fuel from the delivery bunkers to the boiler furnace. Spiral screw feeders transfer the litter
to a conveyor belt, which moves the litter to the steam generator. The litter is then
pneumatically transferred to the boiler furnace. The emissions from this plant are
controlled using a cyclone. In addition, a baghouse series is used to achieve increased
particulate emission reductions. Unlike the other two plants, the Thetford station injects
lime into the flue gas in order to minimize the S02 and HC1 emissions.63
The poultry litter fueled power station in Westfield, Scotland began operating in early
2001. This plant was the first to use the advanced (bubbling) fluidized bed combustion
technology with poultry litter. The plant's annual fuel consumption is 110,000 tons and its
maximum power output is 9.8 MW. Chicken litter is supplied from farms all over
Scotland with 85% being provided by one major company that is under long term
contract. Trial combustions showed success in burning feathers.64
The combustion ash from all of these plants is further processed to produce high quality
agricultural fertilizer containing all of the nutrients needed by plants except for nitrogen.65
The fertilizer consists mainly of phosphate and potash with sulphur, magnesium, calcium,
sodium, and other essential trace elements required by crops and grass. After size grading,
the ash is marketed as Fibrophos Fertilisers. In 2005/2006, Fibrophos sold over 70,000
tons of product.66
Poultry Litter-Fueled Power Plants in the United States: Fibrowatt LLC
There are several plants proposed in the United States that, if built, would use the same
technology as the UK plants. Fibrominn is one of the plants that was proposed and is now
being constructed in Benson, Minnesota. This plant is being built by Fibrowatt LLC,
which was founded in 2000 by the management team that built the world's first three
poultry litter-fueled power plants in the UK, which were discussed earlier. Benson was
selected as the location for this plant because it is in the heart of a turkey-growing region.
Local turkey litter is expected to provide most of the 2,000 to 2,500 tons of litter that will
be needed on a daily basis.67 The fuel will be trucked to the site following prescribed truck
routes established by Fibrominn to minimize the impact of traffic on the local
community.68
The Fibrominn plant will generate 55 MW of electricity from approximately 700,000 tons
of turkey litter and agricultural biomass (including woodchips and sawdust) per year. The
plant will be composed of the following parts: an enclosed fuel reception area, a fuel
storage hall, a boiler building, a steam turbine and generator, flue gas pollution control
equipment, an air cooled condenser, a stack with continuous emission monitoring, a truck
weighing and cleaning facility, ash conditioning, and a storage and loading building. The
plant will be connected to a new 115 kilovolt power line that will run approximately a
23
-------
quarter of a mile to a major substation owned by Great River Energy. The plant is
designed to use "grey" water from the Benson Municipal water treatment facility to meet
some of its cooling water requirement.69 They will also use untreated well water supplied
from Benson City wells.70 Propane or natural gas will be used as the start-up fuel. 1
The emission controls planned for the plant agree with recent national determinations of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for similar power plants that use biomass
fuels. The plant will use the following procedures and emission control equipment: a high
combustion efficiency to ensure a clean burn; the use of Selective Noncatalytic Reduction
(SNCR) to control NOx emission by injecting ammonia-based reactants into the furnace; a
spray-dry absorber to control acid gasses (SO2, H2S04, HC1); and particulate matter
removal by a fabric filter baghouse./2
The ash will be sent to a nearby facility operated by North American Fertilizer to be
converted into high value fertilizer. Eventually they are expected to produce 80,000 tons
of fertilizer per year. 400 pounds of this fertilizer will contain roughly the same amount of
nutrients as 4 tons of litter. The ash will be conditioned with additional moisture, stored
for a period of time, ground and screened to produce uniform size granules, and then
marketed as a fertilizer through already existing dealer networks.73
As of May 2007, Fibrominn's system was still being synchronized and its combustion
performance was being tested with various biomasses and poultry litter fuels. They expect
to start operation in mid-summer 2007.
Figure 3. Webcam image of the Fibrominn plant.
nutson Construction - Fibrominn Biomass Project Sun 09:10:05 AM 2007
24
-------
FibroShore, a similar plant that has been proposed for Maryland, would generate 38.5
MW of power from up to 300,000 tons of poultry litter and 50,000 tons of forestry
residues annually.75 If built, the plant would be located in the poultry growing area on the
lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. Although building a poultry litter-fueled power plant on
the Eastern Shore seemed to be promising when Fibrowatt proposed it in the late 1990's,
no construction work has begun as of yet. Whether or not there is a sufficient amount of
poultry litter available in the region for a power plant of this size is questionable. A large
portion of the region's litter is already being used by Perdue AgriRecycle, which is a
large-scale litter pelletizing operation located in Sussex County, Delaware. Perdue
Incorporated invested more than $13 million in Perdue AgriRecycle, which started
operation in 2001 and can process the equivalent of 400 poultry houses worth of litter
each year.76 In addition to the amount of litter available, another factor that will partly
determine whether or not FibroShore is built on Maryland's Eastern Shore is the level of
subsidy that they are able to obtain from the state.
Fibrowatt continues to pursue the FibroShore project while attempting to gain acceptance
from the Eastern Shore poultry growers. Exactly how much excess manure would be
available in a radius that is close enough to allow them to avoid the transport of waste
over long distances and enormous transportation costs is unknown at this time. Fibrowatt
would ideally like to obtain the litter directly from the growers and then transport it by
truck to the plant. If this were done, biosecurity issues would need to be taken into account
since the trucks would be traveling many miles on public roads between the fuel suppliers
and the power plant.
Recently there seems to be an increased interest in a project such as this by Maryland's
Attorney General Doug Gansler. In fall 2007 at events such as the Eastern Shore Poultry
Summit and a Maryland Business for Responsive Government meeting, Gansler called for
a litter-to-energy power plant to be built on the Eastern Shore, even going so far as to say
that they have a site and a plan for such a plant.77'78 Before plans can move forward,
however, another obstacle beyond those that have already been mentioned is that a power
company must still be found that will agree to buy and distribute the power that this plant
would generate. Fibrowatt has said that they will need a 20-year power purchase
agreement from either the private sector or the state of Maryland before they will be able
to secure bank financing for this $125 million project.79
Case Study: Retrofitting Conectiv Vienna Power Station (Vienna, Maryland)
A case study was conducted that looked at how the Conectiv Vienna Power Station could
be retrofitted so that it could use poultry litter as a fuel source. The Conectiv Vienna
Power Station is located on the Delmarva Peninsula in a region that has a high
concentration of poultry growers. Conectiv previously considered replacing systems in the
power plant with systems exclusively designed to be fueled by poultry litter. At the time
of this case study, this plant was being used as a peaking unit and was fueled with No.6 oil
(No.2 oil is used for startup). Two different system modifications were proposed: (1)
adding a new stoker boiler or (2) adding a new fluidized-bed boiler specifically designed
for poultry-derived fuel. A third proposal that was considered was retrofitting the existing
25
-------
boiler so that it could burn poultry litter, however this proposal was disregarded because
the modifications needed to do this would cost only a little less than the addition of a new
boiler.80 In addition to a new boiler, poultry litter receiving and handling equipment would
also be needed in order to successfully retrofit the facility. If the plant was retrofitted, it
would have required approximately 400,000 tons of poultry litter per year to produce 35
MW of energy. If the required amount of poultry litter was not available on the Delmarva
Peninsula, then supplemental fuels may have been required. Eventually, Conectiv sold the
Vienna plant and the matter of retrofitting the facility was dropped.81
Study: Poultry Litter as a Fuel Source at the Eastern Correctional Institution
Cogeneration Facility (Princess Anne, Maryland)
Working with Maryland Environmental Service, the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) completed a study focusing on the
reliability and suitability of litter as a fuel source and the ability of the existing Eastern
Correctional Institution Cogeneration Facility (ECICF) to burn litter as a fuel. As part of
this study, they identified the modifications that would be needed in order to address
operating and maintenance-related problems that would arise if ECICF were to primarily
burn poultry litter. The cumulative capital cost for the modifications identified was
estimated to be approximately $6 million, with a 20-year life-cycle cost of slightly less
than the life-cycle cost of continuing the current operations.82 A full-scale poultry litter
test burn was also conducted in 1999. During this test burn, they encountered some
problems due to the fouling of the combustion equipment. As a result of the test burn, it
was determined that significant additional modifications to the ECICF would be necessary
in order for the facility to be able to burn poultry litter. Eventually, they determined that
the conversion of the facility would be technically unfeasible and economically
questionable. The revised cost of modifications was 30% higher than the original cost
83
estimates.
Co-burning
In order to offset the few adverse qualities of poultry litter, such as its high moisture
content and its slagging and fouling characteristics, dilution with other biomass fuels may
be a suitable solution. Blending the poultry litter with sawdust or wood (e.g. willow) as it
is fed into the combustion equipment has been suggested as the best dilution alternative.
The decreased moisture and ash content would improve the combustion and conversion
processes. Burning poultry litter with switchgrass might be less beneficial due to the silica
content of switchgrass, which could react with the sodium and potassium present in the
poultry litter causing slagging and persistent deposition on heat exchangers.84
Combusting poultry litter combined with conventional fuels, such as coal, in an existing
power plant may be another option. A potential benefit to burning coal with poultry litter
is that excess sulfur may be absorbed by the potassium, sodium, or calcium that is present
in the litter. Co-firing biomass fuels with coal would reduce SO2 and NOx levels in the
existing pulverized-coal fired power plants.85 On the other hand, sulfur and chlorine could
form compounds that would cause deposition or corrosion of the equipment. The ash
deposits would reduce the heat transfer and would be more difficult to remove compared
to deposits generated during coal combustion.86 In addition to co-firing poultry litter with
26
-------
conventional fuels, another option would be to co-fire poultry litter with unconventional
fuels, such as waste coal.
Study: Co-Firing of Coal and Broiler Litter (Tsxas A&M University)
Researchers at Texas A&M University conducted a study that looked at co-firing coal and
broiler litter fuels for power generation. This study focused on analyzing and
understanding the characteristics of broiler litter as a fuel source and determining its
potential for being co-fired with coal. As part of this study, a 90:10 blend of coal and
broiler litter was used to fuel existing coal-fired combustion devices. This 90:10 blend
(coal 90: litter 10) resulted in a fuel quality and cost that was similar to coal and a fouling
potential that was less than pure litter. The long-term goal of this study is to develop an
animal biomass and coal co-firing technology. However, before this can be done,
researchers indicated that further testing is needed to better determine the combustion
efficiencies and the fouling and corrosion potential of broiler litter fuels.87
Study: Combustion of Poultry Waste with Natural Gas (Morgan State University)
Two researchers at Morgan State University in Maryland were investigating the co-
combustion performance of poultry waste with natural gas in an advanced swirling
fluidized bed combustor. Three different types of fuel were investigated: poultry litter (the
lower layer of the poultry farm composting windrows), poultry manure (the surface layer
of the poultry farm composting windrows), and sawdust. The poultry waste samples were
collected from Maryland's Eastern Shore. The results of this study indicate that excess and
secondary air play an important role in achieving stable combustion with the given ash
and moisture content in wastes. They found that the co-combustion of poultry waste has
the following advantages: (1) it potentially lowers fuel costs since biomass fuel is cheaper
than fossil fuel; (2) it minimizes waste; and (3) it reduces air pollution, water pollution,
and soil contamination. This study shows that the swirling fluidized bed combustor waste
disposal system is a cost effective and environmentally friendly solution for disposing of
poultry litter and manure.88
Gasification
The gasification process converts most wastes that contain carbon into a combination of
gases in an air-deficient (or oxygen-deficient) environment. The resultant gas is composed
primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. In addition, it also contains carbon dioxide,
methane, and water. This mixture of gas can be used as a fuel for boilers, internal
combustion engines, or gas turbines. The combustible gas produced from most waste
sources contains varying amounts of tars and particulate matter that may need to be
removed prior to further use.89
Gasification of coal is a well documented and proven technology that has been used since
the early 1800's.90 To handle feedstocks of widely different physical and chemical
properties, various designs have been developed. These designs differ in their method of
feedstock introduction, the type of bed material (if used), the operating pressure and
temperature, the presence or absence of steam inputs, and whether the reaction heat is
supplied internally or externally.91
27
-------
The quality of gas (H2, CO, CH4, etc.) generated in the system is influenced by fuel
characteristics, gasifier configuration, and the amount of air, oxygen, or steam introduced.
The moisture content of the fuel has an impact on gas quality; the wetter it is the more
heat is consumed by evaporation and the less energy remains for volatilization. Better gas
quality is achieved at lower temperatures; however, when the temperature drops too low
the char oxidation reaction is put down and the overall heat release decreases.92
Gasification can be used with poultry litter and other difficult to process bio-wastes.
Since gasification occurs at a lower temperature than combustion and takes place with
only a limited oxygen supply, the risk of NOx emissions is lower. Instead, the nitrogen
present in the manure forms ammonia.93
FLUE OR EXHAUST GAS
Limited air or 0,
Gas
Boiler,
Fuel
Gasifier
Gas
cleaning Cleaned gas
engine or
preparation Fue|
turbine
ASH AND CHAR POWER AND/OR HEAT
Figure 4. Flow chart for the gasification process.94
BARC Gasification Facility (Beltsville, Maryland)
The USD A Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is conducting a feasibility study on the
construction and use of a gasification facility at the Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland. This study is being done under an agreement with
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory. The 1-2
megawatt gasification unit that is being constructed at BARC will be used to test the
suitability of a variety of feedstocks for generating steam and electricity. Feedstocks that
will be tested include animal manure, other farm wastes, and specialty biomass crops such
as switchgrass and poplar trees. The electricity and steam that is generated by this unit will
be used by the BARC labs, offices, and farm buildings. In addition to analyzing the
potential of a variety of feedstocks, this feasibility study will also look at whether this
technology could be transferred to rural communities and farm cooperatives.95' 96
Coaltec Energy Test Facility
The Coaltec Energy Gasification Test and Demonstration Facility is located in the Coal
Research Park of Southern Illinois University in Centerville, Illinois. Several different
types of alternative fuels, including turkey litter, have been successfully tested in this
commercial-scale modular designed coupled gasifier.
The system at this facility includes a gasifier, an oxidizer, and an exhaust stack. The stack
emissions and the gas composition between the gasifier and the oxidizer are measured by
28
-------
gas analyzers. A test burn of poultry litter was conducted on November 16-18, 2005 with
litter supplied by West Michigan Turkey. The purpose of this test was to determine the
feasibility of using poultry litter as a fuel in an energy producing project and to use the
data from the test to develop a design and evaluate economics for a power generation
project.
Demonstration Project: On-Farm Gasification System, Frye Poultry Farm (West Virginia)
Based on the results of the above mentioned project, a small scale gasification unit has
been constructed by Coaltec Energy on a poultry farm owned by Josh Frye in
29
-------
Wardensville, West Virginia. The purpose of this demonstration project is to prove the
economic viability and feasibility of converting poultry litter into energy using a gasifier
unit. At the time that this report was written, the first test burns had been conducted and
the equipment optimization had taken place.
The system on the Frye farm is a fixed bed gasification unit that is used to produce heat
from poultry manure in order to provide heating for the farm's three chicken houses.
Although this unit will only be heating three houses, it has the ability to heat up to a total
of six houses. In addition to saving the farmer money on propane costs, heating the
chicken houses with heat generated by this unit rather than by propane is expected to
improve bird health since it provides dryer heat to the houses, thus reducing the humidity
level in the house and lowering ammonia generation and exhaust."
The moisture content of the manure varies depending on where in the chicken house it
was collected and whether or not there was a hole in the roof through which the rain could
drain onto the floor of the house, thus increasing the manure's moisture content. Wetter
fuel makes it more difficult to maintain the gasification process and causes less energy to
be gained from the process. The three houses on the Frye farm will be cleaned after every
flock (6 weeks), which provides a total of approximately 70 tons of litter. On occasions
when the litter is too wet, it will be blended with wood chips. This is what happened on
the first day of the test burn. The mortality will also be gasified in the unit. The
preliminary results showed improvement in the performance of the gasifier when the dead
birds were mixed with the litter. The reason for this is uncertain, but one possibility is that
the fat of the birds improved the process.
The labor required to maintain and feed this unit is very low because it is equipped with a
control panel that can be managed remotely, the temperature and emissions are measured
with automatic sensors, and the computer calls for fuel when it's needed. A hopper will be
attached to the unit which will gradually feed the gasifier. This hopper will need to be
filled with fuel every three days, except for when the fuel requirement is relatively low,
such as in the summer when the hopper will need to be filled even less frequently, perhaps
only once a week. The litter doesn't need any preparation; it will be used as it is when it
comes out of the barn. Two storage facilities will be built on the farm close to the gasifier,
one for the litter and one for the ash/char.
In the primary stage of the process used by this system, a relatively low temperature
(around 1300° F) and oxygen starved conditions are maintained. The resulting product is a
gas mixture (synthesis gas or syngas) which is burned in the secondary chamber at 2000°F
to generate heat. The volume of the ash that is produced is significantly lower than the
original litter, causing it to be cheaper to transport. The ash content of the litter is expected
to range between 18%-20%, thus if 750 tons of litter were gasified in this system per year,
then they should be left with approximately 150 tons of ash per year.100 The ash is odor
and pathogen free and has characteristics that make it suitable for land application.
Another end product that this system could produce, rather than ash, is bio-char. The bio-
char product would contain all of the phosphorus, potassium, and micronutrients that were
30
-------
originally present in the litter. The fertilizer value of char is higher than that of the ash
because it contains a portion of the nitrogen that was not oxidized in the gasification
process. It also contains some of the carbon that was not totally oxidized. What is special
about bio-char is that it is much more effective than other organic matter, such as common
leaf litter, compost, or manures, in retaining most nutrients and keeping them available for
plants. Interestingly, this is also true for phosphorus which is not at all retained by 'normal'
soil organic matter.101 Bio-char also behaves as a carbon sink which is effective in the
mitigation of climate change. However, because the benefits of biochar are just now
beginning to be understood and studied, the Frye Farm does not expect to be able to find a
market for it any time in the near future. Therefore, they have decided that they will
instead make and try to market the conventional ash. It is thought that cultivating a viable
market for this product is much more realistic, especially in the near term.102
The equipment being installed on the Frye farm is manufactured by Westwood Energy
and costs approximately $600,000. Funding for portions of this project has been provided
by the Natural Resources Conservation Services through a Conservation Innovation Grant
and from the West Virginia Department of Agriculture. The poultry grower also expects to
receive payback from the propane savings, which is expected to total about $30,000-
$40,000 per year. Additional income could also potentially be gained by trading nutrient
and carbon credits and selling the char as agricultural fertilizer.
Figure 7. Chicken house with space heaters at the Frye Poultry Farm.
31
-------
Figure 8. Gasifier at the Frye Poultry Farm.
Several other poultry litter fueled gasification units have been proposed in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and throughout the U.S., but many of them have not actually been
constructed.
Case Study: Poultry Litter-Fueled Boiler at Perdue Feed Mill (Bridgeville, Maryland)
A case study was conducted that evaluated the feasibility of building a poultry litter fueled
boiler at the Perdue Feed Mill in Bridgeville, MD in order to produce steam for the feed
mill operation.10 They evaluated cost, capacity, location, access, biosecurity, and air and
solid waste management issues. The mill at Bridgeville was selected for the case study
because it is strategically located for an average delivery of 28 miles or less from the
farms and it is also close to a major highway. If all of the five mills were converted so that
they could use li tter for fuel, they would consume approximately 24,000 tons of litter per
year. The fuel demand is relatively low and the system would require only one or two
deliveries per day. A 1,500 cubic foot storage facility would provide 48-hour storage and
on-farm storage would be used to buffer deliveries of small quantities. Nine different
boiler suppliers were considered and only two of them had litter test burned. The
estimated capital costs of the system varied from $600,000 to $1,200,000 depending on
the plant configuration.
Proposed Cogeneration Facility: Allen Family Foods, Inc. (Hurlock, Maryland)
Several years ago (around 2001) Allen Family Foods, Inc. was planning to install a 4 MW
co-generation facility (CFEP) to generate electricity and steam by processing poultry
manure in a poultry processing plant in Hurlock, MD. CHx Engineering, a Michigan
based engineering firm that specializes in the design, construction, and operation of solid
32
-------
waste gasification systems, was expected to be the builder, owner, and operator of the
proposed cogeneration facility.106 Currently two fuel oil fired boilers are used to generate
the required steam for the processing plant, using over 300,000 gallons of No.6 fuel oil per
year. Using poultry litter from nearby growers as a fuel would greatly reduce the
company's dependence on fossil fuels and their need to buy commercial power. The
surplus electrical power from the facility could be sent to the gird and the ash could be
collected and used as a commercial fertilizer.107 Staged oxidation would substantially
reduce the chemical reaction between nitrogen and oxygen, thereby reducing NOx
production. No significant air quality impacts were expected and it was anticipated that
the facility would comply with all federal and Maryland state air regulations.108 Finally
due to financial difficulties and problems with the design firm, which was unable to meet
the conditions of the contract, the plans were dropped.
Proposed Poultry Litter Gasification Unit: Allen's Hatchery, Inc. (Linkwood, Maryland)
Within the last year, Allen's Hatchery, Inc. in cooperation with REM Engineering, Inc.
tried to get Dorchester County, Maryland to allow a poultry litter gasification unit to be
constructed and operated adjacent to its protein conversion plant in Linkwood, Maryland.
There were no technical, design, or financial barriers that precluded their poultry litter
gasification plant. The proposed gasification unit was expected to consume about 1 V2
tractor-trailer loads of manure a day, which equals approximately 14,000 tons per year.
The litter would have been supplied from 25-30 poultry farms in Delaware and
Maryland109 and the boiler would have produced 15 million BTU and 10,000 lbs of steam
per hour, replacing about 12 percent of the fossil fuel used at the facility.110 Nitrous and
sulfur oxides would have been cleaned by the naturally occurring ammonia and calcium
within the waste and particulate emissions would have been captured by a fabric filter.
They also highlighted that the REM boiler stack would not have emitted arsenic. The ash
produced as a byproduct of this system would have contained 20 percent phosphorus, 13-
14 percent potassium, around 14 percent calcium, and some magnesium and it would have
been sent to fertilizer companies to be mixed with nitrogen.111 They were planning to
begin construction in September 2006, but due to political reasons, this system was never
installed. The state approved the unit, but there was opposition from the Dorchester
County commissioners.112
Proposed Poultry Litter Gasification (CHP) Unit: Tyson Foods, Inc. (Virginia)
Approximately seven years ago, Tyson Foods, Inc. worked on a project to have a litter
gasifier electric-producing unit built at its processing plant site on the Eastern Shore of
Virginia. Again, for a variety of reasons, it did not happen. The three major obstacles that
the proposed Tyson gasification project encountered were:
(1) They had trouble securing a consistent source of litter. It was difficult to get the
growers to commit.
(2) The company that was going to build the gasifier for the project went out of
business.
(3) They were having difficulty acquiring the building permit from the County Board
of Supervisors; however, since the project was abandoned, they never finished
going through this process.113
33
-------
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of organic waste in the absence of oxygen that
produces oil, combustible gases, and carbonaceous char. The portion of each product
produced is dependent on the conditions of the process, temperature, heating rate, and pre-
treatment.114 The typical pyrolysis temperature ranges from 750°F-1500°F.115 At lower
temperatures and longer reaction times a larger amount of oil is produced and at higher
temperatures the proportion of gases increase. The gas consists mainly of C02, CO, H2,
CH4, lower concentrations of other hydrocarbon gases, and uncondensed pyrolysis oil.
The ratio of gas product ranges from 10-20%. The caloric value of the gas can reach about
half that of natural gas and can be further used for energy generation such as for powering
the pyrolysis unit.
The percentage of generated liquid, which is mentioned in different literature as bio-oil,
pyrolysis oil, biocrude, or pyrodiesel, can reach up to 60-70%. The oils derived from the
pyrolysis of waste materials tend to be chemically very complex, mainly composed of
carbohydrate, lignin, and other decomposition compounds.116 This liquid product is
generally unstable, acidic, corrosive, viscous, and includes both water and ash contents,
however, bio-oil can be refined further and used as a diesel-like fuel.117 A notable feature
of pyrolysis oil is that it can be produced at a location different from where it is finally
used by applying transportation and storage infrastructure similar to that used for
conventional liquid fuels.118
The solid product of the pyrolysis process is char, which contains noncombustible
inorganic material and carbon. The ratio of char generation ranges from 10-40%
depending on the composition of the feedstock and the conditions of the process.
Phosphorous, potassium, calcium compounds, and other trace elements are expected to
concentrate in the char. The amount of nitrogen compounds retained is uncertain.119 The
char byproduct could potentially be used and marketed as a fertilizer.
HEAT EXHAUST GAS
Fuel Pyrolysis Bio-oil Storage/ Boiler,
preparation Fuel reactor Bi° processing Cleaned oil transport engine or
turbine
ASH AND CHAR POWER AND/
OR HEAT
Figure 9. Flow chart of the pyrolysis process.120
34
-------
Study: Pyrolysis Technology (Virginia Tech)
Foster Agblevor of Virginia Tech and his research team are working on developing a rapid
pyrolysis technology to produce value added products, such as bio-oil, slow-release
fertilizer, and producer gas, from poultry litter.121 Another objective of their project is to
evaluate the char fraction as a slow release fertilizer to land application. Their research is
part of a concentrated effort by Virginia Tech researchers, Virginia Cooperative Extension
specialists and agents, conservation organizations, state agencies, and private industry to
determine the most effective means to support the agricultural community and manage
excess nutrients in the Shenandoah Valley.122 The National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Program funds this research through a
$1 million grant. $406,000 of this grant will be devoted to the construction, installation,
and demonstration of a portable pyrolysis unit.
Through their research, the team has successfully pyrolyzed poultry litter samples in a
bubbling fluidized bed pyrolysis reactor at three different temperatures ranging from
840°F tol020°F. They achieved lower pyrodiesel yields using the poultry litter compared
to when they used other biomass feedstocks. It was 23 wt% to 43 wt% and they attributed
this to the high ash content of the poultry litter. Improving the condensation of the oils
might cause this percentage to be higher. The energy content of the oil is almost two times
as much as that of raw poultry litter. Due to the heterogeneity of the litter, the char yield
varied quite randomly from 22 wt% to 40 wt% with a carbon content of about 48%. This
material is odorless and potentially bio-safe. They conducted a leaching study of the
generated char in order to determine the effect of pyrolysis on the release of P, K, and Ca.
Compared to the corresponding raw poultry litter, the char released the P, K, and Ca more
slowly, showing that the char may potentially be able to be used as a slow-release
fertilizer.
This study did not focus on how the nitrogen content of the poultry litter is split between
the three phases, but it did make some measurements on the nitrogen content of the
different products. The percentage of N in the bio-oil is about 8%, which is higher than in
fossil fuels or raw litter. The char also contains some nitrogen, which might increase the
value of the bio-char as a fertilizer. The potential markets for bio-oil (which is easily
transportable) include chemicals, electricity generation, process heat, and heating and
cooling (including heating poultry houses).
Although this study demonstrated the potential of poultry litter pyrolysis, further research
is needed to test the effectiveness of the char as a fertilizer and to evaluate the generated
pyrodiesel in furnaces to determine its suitability as a heating oil. The gaseous emissions
released during the pyrolysis process and during the combustion of the bio-oil should also
be analyzed.
Combined technologies
One of the main criticisms of the bioethanol manufacturing process is that it uses too
much fossil fuel to power the ethanol plant, which results in high costs and high
greenhouse gas emissions. If fossil fuel was not used in the production of bioethanol, then
no additional CO2 would be added to the atmosphere when bioethanol was used as a fuel.
35
-------
Powering an ethanol plant with poultry manure may be a way to help reduce production
costs and to provide a use for the excess manure in the watershed. The installation of a
CHP unit would be a suitable way to power an ethanol plant since it can generate steam
and electricity reliably. The most common CHP technology used in ethanol plants today
consists of a gas turbine-electric generator unit placed in tandem with a waste heat boiler.
The turbine-driven generator provides electricity for the facility and the turbine exhaust is
used in a waste heat boiler to produce process steam.123
In November 2006, Panda Ethanol Inc. announced its plans to build an ethanol plant in
Muleshoe, Texas that will generate 100 million gallons of ethanol per year. The steam
used in the ethanol production process will be generated by gasifying more than 1 million
pounds of cattle manure annually.124 A similar facility is already under construction in
Hereford, Texas where cattle manure will be converted to energy using a fluidized bed
system supplied by Energy Products of Idaho (EPI).125
Cellulosic ethanol
Converting poultry litter into liquid fuels is attractive for several reasons, although a
recent assessment of litter-to-ethanol options concluded that the characteristics of litter
make it much less attractive than other biomass feedstocks and that cellulose-to-ethanol
conversion technologies are not yet ready for commercialization.126
IV. Status of Political Interest and Support
Federal Policies
The United States government is currently showing an increased interest in the
development and use of alternative energy. For example, in his 2007 State of the Union
address, President George W. Bush discussed the need to diversify the country's energy
supply by continuing to change the way that we generate electric power.127 During his
address, he also introduced a new initiative, Twenty in Ten, to reduce gasoline usage in
the United States by 20% by 2017. In order to help reach this goal, President Bush
proposed a new alternative fuel standard that would require the production of 35 billion
gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017, an amount that is expected to replace
approximately 15 percent of the country's projected annual gasoline usage. This proposal
is nearly five times the country's previous renewable fuel standard of 7.5 billion gallons
by 2012.128
In addition to this initiative, there are also other federal policies in place that encourage
alternative energy production. Two such policies are the Federal Farm Bill and the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. These policies encourage the production of alternative energy through
provisions that support research, provide financial assistance, and promote alternative
energy technologies. It is important to note, however, that many of these provisions focus
primarily on energy sources other than manure, such as cellulosic biomass. Despite this,
these policies may be able to indirectly benefit manure-to-energy projects by increasing
the country's interest and enthusiasm in renewable energy and thereby encouraging the
36
-------
development and use of additional renewable energy technologies, potentially even
technologies that use manure as an energy source.
Federal Farm Bill
The Federal Farm Bill dictates federal agricultural policy and funding, thus it is an
important document to understand when determining the federal government's support of
agriculture-based energy production. The 2002 Farm Bill, which is the most current
version of this policy, is the first Farm Bill to contain an energy title (Title IX). Title IX
promotes the development of agriculture-based renewable energy by encouraging the
federal procurement of biobased products, providing grants and loans for renewable
energy projects, and funding research and development of agricultural energy
technologies. Sections of Title IX that contain financial incentives for the production of
biomass energy include Section 9003 Biorefinery Development Grants, Section 9006
Renewable Energy System and Energy Efficiency Improvements, Section 9008 Biomass
Research and Development, and Section 9010 Commodity Credit Corporation Bioenergy
Program. The Farm Bill's Rural Development Title (Title VI) and Conservation Title
(Title II) also contain potential financial incentives for agricultural renewable energy
projects. Section 6401 of the Rural Development Title amends the Value-Added
Agricultural Market Product Development Grants Program to allow renewable energy
systems to qualify for grants and Section 2301 of the Conservation Title authorizes the
Conservation Innovation Grants Program.
Although sections 9003 and 9010 of the 2002 Farm Bill contain incentives for certain
types of biomass energy production, they do not offer incentives for manure-to-energy
projects. Section 9003, which has not received funding from Congress since its creation in
2002, offers grants for the development and construction of biorefinery projects, whereas
Section 9010, which was not authorized for FY07, offers payment support for the
production of ethanol and biodiesel. Manure-to-energy projects would not qualify for
funding under either of these programs. They may, however, be eligible for funding under
the third Title IX section mentioned above, Section 9006.
Section 9006 established the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency
Improvements Program, which provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees to farmers,
ranchers, and rural small businesses for the development of renewable energy projects and
energy efficiency improvements. This program has proved to be very popular since its
creation in the 2002 Farm Bill, with applications typically exceeding the program's
available funds (see Figure 10). Between 2003 and 2005, this program awarded 434
projects a total of more than $66 million in grants and $10 million in loan guarantees. Of
the grants that were awarded during this time period, 38% were for energy efficiency
projects and 62% were for renewable energy projects. Renewable energy systems that
have received grants from this program include wind turbines, anaerobic digesters, biofuel
production facilities, and solar electric systems.129
37
-------
70
,1 . 11
IlkllL
2003 2004 2005 2006
| Grant Guaranty Requests Appropriated Funds
Loan Guarantee Requests
No1t: Lja-i gjanrnlM; rtquaife; o1 S10 rJIfcci .200=;.
and ¦* E-i ~ lllifl |200ffi art. shewn -is grant sqJvitsrt; fl£0t£11
Figure 10. Grant/loan requests for the Section 9006 program compared
to appropriated program funds.130
Section 9008 of the 2002 Farm Bill re-authorized the Biomass Research and Development
Act of 2000, which provides for the distribution of grants through the Biomass Research
and Development Initiative. Grants distributed under this program are awarded to eligible
applicants for research, development, and demonstrations of biobased products,
bioenergy, biofuels, biopower, and related processes.131 Because these grants are
primarily for research purposes, these grants may not be an appropriate funding source for
manure-to-energy projects without a research focus.
The Value-Added Producer Grants Program, which was amended in Section 6401 of the
Rural Development Title, may also be able to provide financial assistance to manure-to-
energy projects. This program provides grants that can be used for planning activities and
working capital for marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based
renewable energy. Almost 950 grants have been awarded since the beginning of this
program, including grants for anaerobic digestion projects.132
The Conservation Innovation Grant Program (CIG) is a third potential Farm Bill funding
source for manure-to-energy projects. This program was authorized under the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) by the Conservation Title in the 2002
Farm Bill. CIG provides grants to eligible applicants in an effort to stimulate the
development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies that
address natural resource conservation concerns. Because of this, manure-to-energy
projects that enhance water resources by improving water quality may be eligible to
receive grants from this program.
38
-------
The 2002 Farm Bill's energy title programs have been largely successful to date. In his
testimony before the U.S. Senate's Agricultural, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in
May 2007, Howard A. Learner, executive director for the Environmental Law and Policy
Center, stated that: "With this Committee's leadership and only a modest financial
investment, the 2002 Farm Bill took vital steps toward achieving energy independence
through rural clean energy development. The Farm Bill's Energy Title programs are a
model for successful agriculture and energy policy. Those programs which have received
appropriations have been successful".133
As alluded to in the above statement, appropriate funding is needed for the operation and
success of these programs. Unfortunately, program funding is often below authorized
levels. Table 3 shows the authorized funding levels for several of the aforementioned
Farm Bill sections, as well as the enacted and proposed funding levels for FY05-07.
Table 3. Funding levels for four of the sections related to bioenergy incentives in the 2002 Farm Bill.134
2002 Farm Bill Section
Authorized Level
FY05
Enacted
FY06
Enacted
FY07
Proposed
Section 9006: Renewable
Energy System and Energy
Efficiency Improvements
FY03-07: $23 million/yr
FY07: $3 million/yr
(FY07 reduced by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005)
$23 million
$23 million
$10.2 million
Section 9008: Biomass
Research and Development Act
FY03-07: $14 million + $49
million = $63 million/yr
FY06-15: $200 million/yr
(FY06-15 reauthorized in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005)
$14 million
$12 million
$12 million
Section 9010'.Commodity
Credit Corporation Bioenergy
Program
FY03: $115.5 million/yr
FY04-06: $150 million/yr
$100 million
$60 million
$0
(not authorized
for FY07)
Section 6401: Value-Added
Agricultural Market Product
Development Grants Program
$40 million/yr
$15.5 million
$20.5 million
$20.3 million
Although the energy programs in the 2002 Farm Bill are a good starting point, there is still
room for improvement. Congress is reauthorizing the Farm Bill in 2007, providing an
opportunity for changes and revisions to be made to the policy's clean energy programs.
As part of their recommendations for the next Farm Bill, the Environmental Law and
Policy Center (ELPC) has proposed that Congress improve the Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (Section 9006) by:
1. Increasing funding from the current $23 million annual appropriation to at least
$250 million by 2012.
2. Creating a block grant rebate program.
39
-------
3. Restructuring the grants as production-based payments to prevent projects from
losing some of the value of the federal production tax credit.
4. Expanding eligible applicants to include all farming operations.
5. Providing competitive grants to support feasibility studies and market development
plans for renewable energy projects.
6. Increasing loan guarantee limits.135
ELPC considers an increase in funding to be the "single most important improvement to
the Section 9006 program".136 As mentioned previously, applications for this program
typically exceed available funds, thus leaving many worthy projects unfunded. Improving
and expanding this program would help provide more farmers, ranchers, and rural small
business with assistance and funding for on-site and small-scale energy projects.
Renewable energy from agricultural sources is a priority issue for many of the farmers and
stakeholders in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 2005, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission developed a report entitled 2007 Federal Farm Bill: Concepts for
Conservation Reform in the Chesapeake Bay Region. The purpose of this report was to
provide recommendations to Congress regarding the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization. The
report's recommendations were based on the outcome of forty listening sessions that were
held throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed involving more than one thousand
individuals and stakeholder organizations. One of the five priority actions recommended
by the report for the 2007 Farm Bill involved the production of renewable energy from
agricultural sources. This recommendation stated that the Farm Bill should "provide
increased support for the viability of agriculture by providing farmers with assistance in
market development, renewable energy applications, and risk management". Specifically
in regards to renewable energy and manure, the stakeholders suggested that the 2007 Farm
Bill "target increased funding to facilitate the development of renewable energy
production including biofuels and manure to energy solutions" and "provide cost-share
funds and ready approval for a much wider array of tools and practices that enable farmers
to create a value-added off-farm use of manure and poultry litter".137
USDA has also recognized that renewable energy is an important issue that should be
addressed in the next Farm Bill. On January 31, 2007, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns
unveiled USDA's 2007 Farm Bill proposals. Keep in mind that these are only proposals.
At the time that this report was written, the final version of the federal 2007 Farm Bill had
not yet been developed. USDA's proposal package for the 2007 Farm Bill included more
than $1.6 billion in new renewable energy funding, including $500 million for a bioenergy
and biobased product research initiative, $500 million for a renewable energy systems and
efficiency improvements grants program, and $210 million to support an estimated $2.1
billion in loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol projects in rural areas.138
In their proposal, USDA listed several recommendations for Energy Title IX detailing
how the federal government could support the production of renewable energy in the
country's agricultural sector. These recommendations include the following:
40
-------
1. Create a new, temporary cellulosic bioenergy program to provide direct support to
cellulosic ethanol producers.
2. Reauthorize and improve the Federal Procurement of Biobased Products program.
3. Reauthorize the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
loan guarantee program.
4. Reauthorize the Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
grant program.
5. Add a biomass reserve program to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
6. Increase the annual competitive grant funding in the Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000 for biomass research, focusing on cellulosic ethanol.
7. Create a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Research Initiative to expand USDA and
university research.
8. Authorize mandatory funding for Forest Service Research in order to develop and
improve technologies that use woody-biomass for energy production.139
Five of these eight recommendations may potentially benefit manure-to-energy projects
and technologies by providing funding, accelerating research, and helping create markets.
As mentioned earlier, however, many of these recommendations focus primarily on
energy feedstocks other than manure.
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is another federal policy that contains provisions for
agricultural renewable energy production. Title IX of this Act, which is dedicated to
energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application, includes a
subtitle on agricultural biomass research and development programs (Subtitle D). This
subtitle consists of eight sections:
Section 941 Amendments to the Biomass Research and Development Act of2000
Section 942 Production incentives for cellulosic biofuels
Section 943 Procurement of biobased products
Section 944 Small business bioproduct marketing and certification grants
Section 945 Regional bioeconomy development grants
Section 946 Preprocessing and harvesting demonstration grants
Section 947 Education and outreach
Section 948 Reports
Similar to the USDA 2007 Farm Bill proposal, many of these sections focus primarily on
agricultural energy feedstocks other than manure. For example, Sections 942 and 946 are
dedicated to cellulosic biomass.
The Biomass Research and Development Initiative, which was previously re-authorized in
Section 9008 of the 2002 Farm Bill, was amended by Section 941 of this Energy Policy
Act. Section 941 increased authorization of this initiative to $200 million for FY06-15
(see Table 3) and it expanded the initiative beyond just research to include the
development and demonstration of biobased fuels and products.140
Unfortunately, funding for biomass programs in the Energy Policy Act is expected to fall
short of authorized levels in fiscal year 2007. The President's FY07 budget provides only
$161.7 million for these programs, totaling just 11% of the authorized funds.141
41
-------
State Policies
When looking at political incentives and impediments for manure-to-energy projects, state
policies, in addition to federal policies, need to be taken into account. The Chesapeake
Bay watershed includes parts of six states: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
West Virginia, and New York, as well as the District of Columbia. Due to individual state
policies and regulations, different regions of the watershed have different levels of
acceptance for renewable energy projects.
Based on the policies and regulations that have been enacted thus far, it seems as if the
watershed as a whole is showing an increased interest in renewable energy. In fact, some
of the watershed states even seem to be showing an increased interest specifically in litter-
to-energy projects. For example, Maryland's Attorney General Doug Gansler is currently
pushing for a large commercial-scale litter-to-energy plant to be built on Maryland's
Eastern Shore. This plant, if built, would be similar to the Fibrominn plant that was
recently built by Fibrowatt in Benson, Minnesota.142
Renewable Portfolio Standards
A renewable portfolio standard (RPS) encourages the increased production and use of
renewable energy by requiring that a certain amount of the electricity sold by an electrical
utility be generated by renewable energy resources. To date, a national RPS has not yet
been adopted by the federal government. The Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 included a mandatory RPS, but the provision was dropped due to opposition in the
House. The Senate version would have required all utilities under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to generate at least 10 percent of their
electricity from renewable sources by 2020.143 Although an RPS was not included in the
Energy Policy Act, the Act did require the federal government to purchase an increasing
portion of its power from renewable sources, specifically 3% in fiscal year 2007 and
increasing to 7.5% in 2013.144
Even though there is not currently a federal RPS, a number of states throughout the
country have adopted jurisdictional renewable portfolio standards. In the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, such policies have been adopted by Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New
York, and the District of Columbia. As of October 2007, Virginia and West Virginia were
the only two states in the watershed that had not yet adopted such a policy, although
Virginia had adopted a voluntary renewable energy portfolio goal.145
Delaware's RPS, which was enacted in 2005 and revised in 2007, requires that the state's
electric utilities use renewable energy to generate at least 20% of the electricity that they
sell in Delaware by 2019, of which 2% must be generated by solar photovoltaics. Eligible
renewable technologies include solar thermal electric, solar water heat, photovoltaics,
landfill gas, wind, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal electric, anaerobic digestion, tidal
energy, wave energy, ocean thermal, and fuel cells using renewable fuels.146
Maryland enacted their Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard and Credit Trading Act in
May 2004 and revised it in 2007. The RPS included in this act requires that renewable
energy be used to generate at least 9.5% of the energy sold by Maryland's electric utilities
42
-------
by 2022. Eligible renewable energy sources are divided into two tiers. Tier 1 requirements
begin at 1% in 2006 and increase to 9.5% in 2022 (2% of which must come from solar
power). Tier 2 requirements begin at 2.5% and remain at that level until 2019 when Tier 2
is eliminated. Tier 1 sources include solar; wind; qualifying biomass (excluding sawdust);
methane from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in a landfill or wastewater
treatment plant; geothermal; ocean; fuel cells powered by methane or biomass; and small
hydroelectric plants. Tier 2 sources include hydroelectric power, waste-to-energy facilities
that were in existence as of January 1, 2004, and possibly poultry litter incineration.
Poultry litter incineration will only be included as a Tier 2 source if it is determined that
there is a "sufficient quantity of poultry litter available for the economic viability of any
existing and operating entity that is sited on the Delmarva Peninsula and that, as of July 1,
2004, processes and pasteurizes chicken litter as fertilizer".147 Maryland's Attorney
General Doug Gansler recently urged state lawmakers to revise this law in order to include
poultry litter-to-energy systems as a Tier 1 source. This change, however, has not yet been
made.148
In November 2004, Pennsylvania enacted Act 213, which is the Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standards Act of 2004. The RPS in this act requires that Pennsylvania's electric
utilities use renewable energy sources to generate 18% of the electricity that they sell to
customers by May 31, 2021. Specifically, 8% of their electricity must be generated from
Tier 1 renewable energy sources and 10% must be generated from Tier 2 renewable
energy sources. Tier 1 sources include photovoltaic energy, solar-thermal energy, wind,
low-impact hydro, geothermal, biomass, biologically-derived methane gas, coal-mine
methane, and fuel cells. Tier 2 sources include waste coal, distributed generation systems,
demand-side management, large-scale hydro, municipal solid waste, pulping process and
wood-manufacturing byproducts, and integrated combined coal gasification technology.149
New York adopted a statewide RPS in September 2004. Their standard, which applies to
investor-owned utilities, requires that 25% of the state's electricity be generated by
renewable sources by the end of 2013. At the time that this standard was adopted, 19% of
the state's electricity was already being generated by renewable sources. Eligible sources
identified in this RPS are photovoltaics, landfill gas, wind, biomass, hydroelectric, fuel
cells, CHP/cogeneration, biogas, liquid biofuel, anaerobic digestion, tidal energy, wave
energy, ocean thermal, ethanol, methanol, and biodiesel. These sources are divided into
two tiers: a Main Tier and a Customer-Sited Tier. Sources eligible for the Customer-Sited
Tier include fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind turbines, and anaerobic digestion systems.150
Anaerobic digestion systems were added to this list in November 2005 after a petition was
filed by the Farm Bureau of New York.151
The District of Columbia's RPS, which was enacted in January 2005, requires that 11% of
the electricity sold in DC be generated by renewable sources by 2022. Eligible renewable
sources are divided into two tiers. The percentage of electricity required from Tier One
sources begins at 1.5% in 2007 and increases to 11% by 2022, whereas the percentage of
electricity required from Tier Two sources begins at 3.5% and decreases to 0% by 2022.
Tier One sources include solar, wind, biomass, landfill gas, waster-treatment gas,
43
-------
geothermal, ocean, and fuel cells fueled by Tier One sources. Tier Two sources include
hydropower and municipal solid waste.152
Virginia's renewable portfolio standard differs from that of the other states in that it is a
voluntary goal rather than a requirement. This goal, which was established in April 2007,
encourages investor-owned utilities to produce a percentage of the electricity that they sell
in VA from eligible renewable energy sources. Eligible sources include solar, wind,
geothermal, hydropower, wave, tidal, and biomass energy, with wind and solar power
receiving a double credit towards RPS goals. As incentives for the utilities to participate,
the state will allow for RPS program cost recovery and they will provide a performance
incentive in the form of an increased rate of return for each of the RPS goals that are
reached. This voluntary program outlines a set of three goals:
Goal I: 4% of base year (2007) sales in 2010 generated by renewable sources
Goal II: 7% of base year (2007) sales in 2016 generated by renewable sources
Goal III: 12% of base year (2007) sales in 2022 generated by renewable sources153
Similar to RPS policies, there is an initiative called 25x'25 that, if adopted, may help
encourage the development and use of agricultural renewable energy technologies
throughout the region. 25x'25 is a renewable energy initiative that is grassroots-led and
supported that calls for agriculture to supply a significant portion of the country's energy
in the coming years. The 25x'25 vision is that "by the year 2025, America's farms,
ranches, and forests will provide 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United
States, while continuing to produce safe, abundant and affordable food, feed, and
fiber".154
In order to meet this goal, the 25x'25 action plan calls on farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners to: produce biomass and create value-added energy feedstocks and biobased
products from plant residues, processing byproducts and animal wastes; generate
electricity using wind power, solar energy and biogas emissions; and increase the
production of liquid transportation fuels. Although this action plan does not specifically
mention generating energy from poultry litter, litter-to-energy technologies may still
indirectly benefit from the plan's efforts to implement supportive policies in a number of
areas, including policies that:
Increase production of renewable energy
- Deliver renewable energy to markets
- Expand renewable energy markets
Improve energy efficiency and productivity
Strengthen conservation of natural resources and the environment155
Over 350 key groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National
Farmers Union, have announced their support for this initiative. In addition, several
governors in the Chesapeake Bay region have endorsed the 25x'25 vision: Pennsylvania's
Governor Ed Rendell, Virginia's Governor Tim Kaine, Maryland's former Governor
Robert Ehrlich, and New York's former Governor George Pataki. There is also federal
interest. In January 2007, 25x'25 Concurrent Resolutions that would establish 25x'25 as a
national vision were re-introduced in both houses of Congress.156
44
-------
Maryland's Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998
Maryland's Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 increases the need for alternative
uses of poultry litter within the state. This Act imposes new regulations that are aimed at
reducing nutrient loads into the Bay from animal production. These regulations include
new restrictions on the application of poultry litter to cropland as fertilizer. Because of
these new restrictions, land application of poultry litter is not always feasible. This makes
alternative uses of poultry litter, such as energy production, more desirable. The Inter-
Agency Nutrient Reduction Oversight Committee was created in order to carry out the
provisions of this act. This Committee recognized the potential need for alternative uses of
poultry litter and they provided funds from the Animal Waste Technology Fund, which is
no longer authorized, for pilot studies on alternative uses, including energy production.157
Maryland's Statewide Plan for Agricultural Policy and Resource Management
On June 16, 2006, the Maryland Agricultural Commission released a new agricultural
strategic plan entitled "Statewide Plan for Agricultural Policy and Resource
Management". The Commission developed this plan in conjunction with an Advisory
Committee and American Farmland Trust. This state plan focuses on three issue areas:
1) enhancing profitability; 2) ensuring an adequate base of well-managed agricultural
land; and 3) advancing research, education, and the advocacy of agriculture. These issue
areas were selected based on public input.
The section of this plan that relates to litter-to-energy projects is the Enhancing
Profitability section. One of the three marketing endeavors identified in this section is the
promotion of bio-energy product development and use: "Ethanol and biodiesel production
and the use of biomass would enhance the market for some of Maryland's agricultural
products and byproducts, help diversify current production, and help offset increasing
energy prices". In order to promote this market endeavor, this plan recommends that the
state support incentives that would increase the production and use of bio-energy.
Although poultry litter is considered a form of biomass, the specific actions recommended
in this plan focus primarily on ethanol and biodiesel production.158
Pennsylvania's Energy Development Plan (Draft)
In Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) was created
by the state's Energy Development Authority and Emergency Powers Act of 1982. This
authority has the ability to help finance energy projects by awarding grants, loans, and
loan guarantees and by issuing revenue bonds and notes. PEDA released its most recent
Energy Development Plan in draft form in April 2006. This document describes PEDA's
energy policy goals and outlines a plan for the authority's distribution of financial and
technical assistance. The five policy objectives that are listed in this plan are:
1. Enhancing energy security and energy diversity
2. Promoting cleaner, more environmentally beneficial energy production
3. Increasing economic growth for the clean energy sector
4. Furthering technological innovation in critical areas and promoting energy
efficiency
5. Increasing public confidence and support in clean energy technologies
45
-------
Technologies that PEDA considers to be advanced energy technologies include solar
energy, wind, low-impact hydro-power, geothermal, biologically derived methane gas,
biomass, fuel cells, coal-mine methane, waste coal, coal liquefaction, coal polygeneration,
integrated gasification combine cycle, biodiesel, ethanol, and demand management
measures.159 PEDA's adoption of this plan may result in increased funding and support
for litter-to-energy projects within the state.
Air Quality Regulations
All litter-to-energy projects are required to be in compliance with federal and state air
quality regulations. The regulations that a project needs to comply with are very
site/project specific. They depend on several factors, including:
The amount of emissions allowed in the site's current permit
- How the proposed project will affect the site's emissions
The size of the project
- What type of equipment will be used
- Whether the site is in an attainment or non-attainment area (explained below)
- Whether or not the project will trigger PSD or Title V (explained below)160
Because every project must comply with all relevant air quality regulations, the fact that
there are litter-to-energy projects already in existence is evidence that projects such as
these are capable of meeting the current requirements.
Air Quality Requirements
As part of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is required to set
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain air pollutants. EPA has
developed standards for six "criteria pollutants": ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. These pollutants have been selected to
serve as air quality indicators. Geographic areas that meet the NAAQS for these pollutants
are classified as "attainment areas", whereas geographic areas that exceed the NAAQS are
classified as "nonattainment areas". According to EPA, "nonattainment classifications
may be used to specify what air pollution reduction measures an area must adopt and
when the area must reach attainment".161 EPA's AirData website provides information on
which U.S. counties are classified as nonattainment areas:
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/nonat.html7us~USA~United%20States.
The Clean Air Act and its amendments also establish several air quality permitting
programs, including the New Source Review (NSR) program, the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program, and the Title V Operating Permit
program. The NSR and PSD programs require that a permit be obtained before
construction is started on a new major or significant source of air pollution or before
modifications are made to an already existing major or significant source of air
pollution.162 "Major" sources of pollution typically have the potential to emit at least 100
tons per year of a criteria pollutant, whereas "significant" sources of pollution surpass a
designated threshold for either a criteria pollutant or for certain non-criteria pollutants.163
NSR and PSD permits specify necessary air pollution control devices, emission limits, and
operation procedures. Pollution sources in nonattainment areas are required to obtain
46
-------
nonattainmentNSR permits, whereas pollution sources in attainment areas are required to
obtain PSD permits. If a source does not require either of these permit types, it may still
be required to obtain a minor NSR permit.164 Minor NSR permits are often issued to
prevent the construction of sources that would interfere with NAAQS attainment.165
Title V permits are designed to reduce violations of air pollution laws. They do this by
consolidating all of a facility's air pollution requirements into one document; adding
monitoring, testing, and/or record keeping requirements; and requiring the facility to
annually report whether or not it is in compliance with the permit's pollution limits. Title
V permits are required for major industrial sources and certain other sources.166
Title V permits, NSR permits, and PSD permits are usually issued by state and local
permitting authorities, although PSD permits are also sometimes issued by the EPA. The
following state agencies are responsible for issuing permits in the watershed:
Maryland Department of the Environment
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
As mentioned previously, the necessary permits and requirements are very project
specific. Therefore, it is important that the appropriate department be contacted during the
planning stages of a project to determine what the permit requirements are for that
particular project.
It may be difficult to acquire air quality permits for combustion processes in some regions,
such as the Delmarva Peninsula, due to the region's already poor air quality status.167 As a
result of their degraded air quality, Delaware, which is located on the Delmarva Peninsula,
does not allow the construction of off-site poultry litter incineration facilities. Their
regulations permit only on-site poultry litter incineration by farmers, with litter being
supplied only by the farm on which the system is located on and the adjacent farm.168
In order to help limit air quality degradation in Maryland, the state places restrictions on
project size. Since smaller projects are less efficient and are therefore often unable to meet
particulate matter and visible emission standards, projects in eastern and western
Maryland are required to have a rated heat input of at least 13 million BTU per hour and
projects in central Maryland are required to have a rated heat input of at least 35 million
BTU per hour.169
Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality is currently trying to determine whether
or not litter-to-energy projects should be classified as incinerators. If they do decide to
classify them as incinerators, then every project, regardless of its size, would require a
170
state permit.
47
-------
Air Emissions from an Industrial Scale Litter-to-Energy Project
Several years ago, Fibrowatt, LLC proposed that an industrial scale poultry litter fueled
power plant called FibroShore be built on Maryland's eastern shore. If this plant were
built, it would be required to meet stringent air emission permit limits. These limits would
be set by the Maryland Department of the Environment. Air pollutants that would be
limited by permit conditions would most likely be particulate matter, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen chloride.171 In order to meet these
emission limits, the FibroShore plant proposed to install the following emission control
techniques:
o Particulate Matter: Fabric Filter
o Nitrogen Oxides: Selective Noncatalytic Reduction or Selective Catalytic
Reduction
o Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds: Good Combustion
Practice
o Sulfur Dioxide: Spray-Dry Adsorber (scrubber) and a Fabric Filter
o Hydrogen Chloride: Spray-Dry Adsorber (scrubber)172
Limits for most of the emitted pollutants would be based on Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) requirements. However, because Maryland is located in the U.S.
EPA designated Ozone Transport Area, emission limits for nitrogen oxides would be
based on the more stringent Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) technology
requirements. Permit compliance would be monitored by either continuous emission
monitors or by periodic stack emissions tests.173 In addition to the air pollutants already
mentioned, a plant such as this would also emit small amounts of metals, ammonia,
arsenic, mercury, and organic compounds such as dioxin.174'175
In 2001, Alternative Resources, Inc. conducted a preliminary analysis of the expected air
emissions from the proposed FibroShore plant. As part of this study, they compared the
expected emissions from the FibroShore plant to emissions from wood, oil, and coal
power plants:
Metals:
FibroShore < Wood, Oil, Coal
Dioxins:
Wood, FibroShore < Coal
Acid Gases:
Wood < FibroShore < Oil, Coal
According to their findings, the FibroShore plant is expected to emit amounts of
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and trace metals that are similar to
emissions from wood, oil, and coal power plants; whereas FibroShore's anticipated dioxin
emissions are expected to be less than those from coal plants and their acid gas emissions
are expected to be less than those from both coal and oil plants.176
Particulate Matter:
FibroShore ~ Wood ~ Oil ~ Coal
Nitrogen Oxides:
FibroShore ~ Wood ~ Oil ~ Coal
Carbon Monoxide:
FibroShore ~ Wood ~ Oil ~ Coal
48
-------
After conducting this analysis, Alternative Resources, Inc. concluded that: "The
FibroShore plant, as planned, can reasonably be expected to meet all applicable air
regulations of the MDE and U.S. EPA. Thus, the prospects for successful permitting of the
plant in Maryland are excellent".177 While the FibroShore plant is only a proposal,
construction of a similar Fibrowatt plant, called Fibrominn, is currently underway in
Benson, Minnesota. In 2002, the Citizens' Board of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency unanimously approved the air quality permit for the Fibrominn plant, indicating
that this facility would meet all of the federal and state air quality requirements.178
By burning poultry litter and forestry residue instead of fossil fuels, facilities such as the
proposed FibroShore plant and the Fibrominn plant could provide significant reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Alternative Resources, Inc. report, the
FibroShore plant, which was designed to produce 40 megawatts of electric power, "would
avoid about 583,000; 403,000; and 291,000 tons per year of greenhouse gas emissions,
respectively, compared with generating the same power using coal, oil, or natural gas
fuels".179 Litter-to-energy facilities emit carbon dioxide, which is a type of greenhouse
gas; however, the U.S. EPA does not consider this to be a greenhouse gas emission
because the combustion of poultry litter and forestry residue simply recycles carbon that is
already in the environment. It does not release new carbon into the environment, which is
what occurs when fossil fuels undergo combustion.180
V. Economic Incentives and Impediments
Litter-to-energy systems are currently very expensive, with costs typically ranging
anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars to over one hundred million dollars.
Because of these high costs, financial assistance is nearly always needed to make these
projects economically feasible. Forms of financial assistance that litter-to-energy projects
may be eligible for include tax credits, grants, and loans.
Tax Credits
Federal Tax Credit
The federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) is a per kilowatt-hour tax credit
for electricity that is generated by qualified renewable energy resources. Eligible sources
include electricity produced from wind power, geothermal power, biomass, landfill gas,
hydroelectric, small hydroelectric, municipal solid waste, refined coal, and Indian coal.
The PTC provides a maximum 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour benefit for the first ten years of
a renewable energy facility's operation. Technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, and
"closed-loop" bioenergy facilities can receive the maximum tax credit, whereas
technologies such as "open-loop" biomass, incremental hydropower, small irrigation
systems, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste receive a tax credit of lesser value. In
December 2006, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 extended this credit through
2008. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
49
-------
(DSIRE), certain poultry-waste energy resources are considered to be eligible for this tax
credit.181
Maryland Tax Credit
Maryland is the only Chesapeake Bay watershed state that offers a state tax credit for
renewable electricity production, and it is one of two watershed states that has a tax credit
program that may be able to benefit manure-to-energy systems. Maryland's tax credit is
called the Clean Energy Production Tax Credit and eligible electricity sources include
electricity generated by wind, geothermal energy, solar energy, hydropower, small
irrigation power, municipal solid waste, and biomass resources. Eligible biomass
resources include anaerobic digestion; landfill gas; wastewater-treatment gas; and
cellulosic material that is derived from either forest-related resources (excluding old-
growth timber), waste pallets, and crates or agricultural sources. According to DSIRE:
"An individual or corporation that applies for and receives certification from the Maryland
Energy Administration may claim a credit equal to 0.85 cents per kilowatt-hour against
the state income tax, for a five-year period, for electricity generated by eligible resources.
The electricity generated must be sold to an unrelated person during the taxable year".182
Unless anaerobic digestion or thermal decomposition processes are used, litter-to-energy
projects may not be eligible for this tax credit at this time.183
Pennsylvania Tax Credit
Pennsylvania is the other watershed state that has a tax credit program that may be able to
benefit manure-to-energy systems. In July 2007, the Pennsylvania General Assembly and
Governor Rendell approved Act 55, which included a new tax credit program for
agriculture and participating businesses called the Resource Enhancement and Protection
Program (REAP). This program offers transferable tax credits to farmers for the
establishment of a number of conservation practices that will help protect the area's
natural resources. A farmer who is enrolled in this program would be eligible for up to
$150,000 in tax credits over the life of the program. Applicants may receive between 25%
and 75% of project costs as state tax credits, depending on the type of best management
practice implemented.184' 185 Since eligible best management practices include alternative
manure technologies, manure-to-energy systems may be able to benefit from this new
186
program.
Funding Sources
There are also many potential funding sources for manure-to-energy systems and research.
A list of some of the past and present funding sources is found in Appendix B. Not all
manure-to-energy projects will be eligible for all of the funding sources listed in this table.
The listed funding programs have varying objectives, applicant types, and award amounts.
The following are several examples of funding programs that have provided financial
assistance to various manure-to-energy projects to date (please note that this is not a
complete list and that other funding sources may have also funded similar projects):
¦ Anaerobic digestion
- Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc.
- PA Energy Harvest Program
50
-------
- Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program
- Small Business Innovation Grant
- Sustainable Energy Fund of Central Eastern Pennsylvania
- Value-Added Producer Grants*
¦ Pyrolysis
- PA Energy Harvest Program
- Small Business Innovation Grant*
¦ Gasification
- Conservation Innovation Grant*
- Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc.*
¦ Bio-Oil
- Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc.*
¦ Biomass Heat System
- PA Energy Harvest Program*
* At least one of the funded projects indicated that it specifically used poultry litter as a fuel,
rather than another manure type
Profit Options
Once a litter-to-energy system is installed and operating, there are also a number of ways
that it could potentially generate a profit. These options include net metering, green
pricing programs, renewable energy certificates (RECs), trading programs, ash sales, and
heat generation. The potential profit options are discussed in more detail below and are
summarized in Appendix C. Not all of these options are currently available for a litter-to-
energy project in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; however, they are worth mentioning
because they could one day be offered in this region.
In addition, it is important to note that although there are a number of potential profit
options in existence, a litter-to-energy project may not be able to benefit from all of these
options due to certain regulations. For example, participating in net metering, green
pricing programs, and trading programs may affect the number of RECs, if any, that a
renewable energy project receives.
Net Metering
With net metering, you do not necessarily make a profit. Instead, the energy that is
generated by the litter-to-energy project can be used to offset the site's energy
consumption. Essentially, this means that during times when electricity generation
exceeds electricity use, the excess electricity is banked for use at another time. The
electricity that is banked replaces electricity that would have been purchased at the retail
rate. When the amount of excess electricity generated in a billing period exceeds the
amount of electricity consumed in a billing period, the customer is usually credited for this
'net excess' at either the retail rate or at the avoided cost rate, depending on the state.187 In
order to participate in a net metering program, the customer must have a bi-directional
meter. Bi-directional meters register the flow of electricity both to and from a site.
Residential and small commercial sites are often already equipped with a bi-directional
meter, although sometimes a new meter will need to be installed.188
51
-------
If net metering programs are not available, then the customer is only able to use the
electricity that they generate to offset the electricity that they are using at that instant.
They cannot bank excess electricity to be used at another time. Without a net metering
program, excess electricity can often be sold to the utility, but only at the avoided cost
price, which is much lower than the retail price.189 Fortunately net metering programs are
offered in all of the Bay states, although the details of these programs vary between
jurisdictions. Appendix D describes the rules for net metering as of Spring 2007 in each of
the Bay states. Please note that biomass is included as an eligible technology in all of
these programs.
Green Pricing Programs
Green pricing is an optional utility service in which participating customers pay a
premium on their electric bills to support the utility's investment in renewable energy
technologies. Several states have adopted policies that require electricity suppliers to offer
green power options; however, none of the watershed states have adopted such policies as
of yet.190 Despite this, some of the electrical utilities located in the watershed do offer
green pricing options to the customers in their service area.
In Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C., local electrical utilities such as Baltimore
Gas and Electric, Pepco, and Dominion Virginia Power offer their customers the option of
purchasing green power, which is provided by Pepco Energy Services. Pepco Energy
Services, which is a subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc., is a leader in supplying renewable
electricity in the Mid-Atlantic region. The two programs that Pepco Energy Services
offers through the aforementioned utilities are the NewWind Energy Program, which
offers electricity generated by wind farms, and the Green Electricity Program, which
offers electricity generated by a variety of renewable sources, including hydroelectric
plants, solar panels, wind farms, and biomass fuels. In March 2007, the premium that a
customer could pay to participate in these programs ranged from $0.1156 and $0.1319 per
kWh, depending on the utility.191 In addition to these pricing programs, green pricing
programs are also offered by certain utilities in the watershed states of Pennsylvania and
New York.192
Currently none of the optional green pricing programs offered by the utilities in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed include energy generated from manure. Because of this, litter-
to-energy projects in the watershed may not benefit from current green pricing programs;
however, they may be able to benefit from similar programs in the future. A green pricing
program that supports farmers generating energy from cow manure is already operating in
Vermont.
Central Vermont Public Service (CVPS), which is the largest of Vermont's twenty-one
utilities, created a green pricing program called Cow Power in late 2004. This program
gives customers the option of paying a premium of 4 cents per kWh on their electric bill in
order to support the generation of renewable energy by dairy farms in the region. The
premium paid by the customers often goes directly to the participating farmers. In addition
to receiving the 4 cent premium for every kWh bought by CVPS, the farmers are also paid
95% of the market price for the electricity that they generate and sell back to the utility. If
customers request more Cow Power kWh's than are being produced by the dairy farms,
52
-------
then the premium will either go towards purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates from
other renewable energy sources in the region or it will be deposited into the CVPS
Renewable Development Fund. Money from the Renewable Development Fund is used to
provide incentives to farmers in order to promote farm energy generation.193
Dairy farms that participate in the CVPS Cow Power program generate energy through the
anaerobic digestion of agricultural products, bi-products and wastes, specifically cow
manure. There are three dairy farms currently producing electricity for this program and
another three farms are expected to be online by the end of 2007. Each of these farms
produce, or is expected to produce, between 1.2 and 3.5 million kWh's of electricity
annually.194
At first there were doubts about whether or not customers would be willing to pay a
premium for this optional service. Today, however, over 3,700 customers have opted to
enroll in the CVPS Cow Power program.195 When enrolling, customers are given the
option of purchasing 25%, 50%, or 100% of their electricity through the Cow Power
program. This typically increases their monthly electric bill between $5 and $20.196 The
positive support that the Cow Power program has received so far suggests that one day
programs similar to this may also be available in other regions of the country, perhaps in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. If this does happen, it could potentially provide an
additional income stream for farmers who generate electricity using poultry litter.
Renewable Energy Certificates
Certified projects that generate renewable electricity earn renewable energy certificates
(RECs), which are also known as tradable renewable certificates, renewable energy
credits, green certificates, and green tags. Rather than representing the actual electricity
that is generated by a renewable energy project, RECs instead represent the electricity's
environmental attributes. RECs can usually be sold separately from the electricity that is
generated by the project, thus providing the producers with another source of profit.197
RECs, which are typically in 1 megawatt-hour units, were being sold for between $200
and $300 in 2006.198
RECs provide a way for a customer to purchase renewable energy even if their local
electricity supplier does not offer a green power option. When RECs are purchased, a
customer does not necessarily receive a "delivered" power product, which is when the
project's generated electricity is fed directly into the electric grid that the customer is
connected to. However, by purchasing RECs, the customer is still able to offset a portion
of their electricity use with energy generated by a renewable source. Typically local
energy producers sell their RECs to a broker, who then aggregates them and sells them to
a buyer.199
It is important to note that in some states, participating in other profit options may affect
the number of RECs that a renewable energy producer receives. For example, if a
producer in the watershed wishes to receive carbon offset credits for their renewable
energy system, then they must agree to surrender and retire any REC credits that their
project qualified for.200
53
-------
Trading Programs
In addition to RECs, litter-to-energy projects may potentially be able to generate
greenhouse gas and water quality credits. As mentioned previously, litter-to-energy
projects can provide significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Chicago
Credit Exchange (CCX), which is the nation's only greenhouse gas emissions market,
allows CCX members who are unable to reduce their emissions to purchase credits from
members who make extra emission cuts or from verified offset projects. One carbon credit
is equal to one metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions.201 Eligible agricultural offset
projects currently include methane capture and combustion, no-till and low-till farming,
202 203
grass cover planting, and certain renewable energy systems. ' In order for a
renewable energy system to qualify for this program, the energy it generates must not be
sold as "green" energy or be used to meet renewable portfolio standard mandates. In
addition, any REC credits the project qualified for must be surrendered and retired.204
Water quality credit trading programs are also beginning to emerge in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. These programs allow a pollution source to achieve its pollution reduction
requirements by purchasing credits from a credit-generating source in the same watershed.
Depending on the program, the credits can be generated by either point or nonpoint
sources. Point sources are sources that discharge pollution at an identifiable "end of pipe"
location, such as wastewater treatment plants. Nonpoint sources are diffuse sources of
pollution that cannot be attributed to a specific location, such as agricultural runoff. Litter-
to-energy projects that reduce nutrient pollution and provide a water quality benefit may
one day be eligible to earn marketable credits in trading programs such as these, although
no such trade has taken place as of yet. Water quality credit trading programs that allow
point-to-nonpoint trades were recently established in Pennsylvania and Virginia and have
been proposed in Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia.205 In April 2007, it was
reported that a typical nutrient credit was worth between $2 and $9 for the reduction of
approximately 1.6 pounds of pollutants.206
Ash Sales
Another potential way to profit from litter-to-energy production is to sell the nutrient-rich
ash byproduct as fertilizer. This was suggested in a number of reports, including
Economic Value of Poultry Litter Supplies in Alternative Uses by Erik Lichtenberg, Doug
Parker, and Lori Lynch,207 Poultry Litter to Energy: Technical and Economic Feasibility
by B.R. Bock,208 and Economic and Technical Feasibility of Energy Production from
Poultry Litter and Nutrient Filter Biomass on the Lower Delmarva Peninsula by Antares
Group Incorporated, T.R. Miles Technical Consulting, Inc., and the Foster Wheeler
Development Corporation.209
The litter-to-energy process concentrates nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium in
the ash, creating a product that is denser and more stable than raw manure.210 In addition,
the ash lacks the pathogens and odors that are typically present in poultry litter
feedstock.211 According to Bock's report, "these benefits greatly simplify export and use
of poultry litter nutrients outside of concentrated poultry areas".212 Selling the ash as a
fertilizer would also make a project such as this more economically viable. After taking
into account transportation costs, additional processing costs, and marketing costs, Bock's
report determined that the net fertilizer value of poultry litter ash at an energy plant would
54
-------
likely range from $25 to $75 per ton.213 Another estimate, which was conducted in 2002,
determined that ash sales would likely bring in between 0.7 and 1.3 cents per kilowatt-
hour of energy generated.214 These sales would potentially be able to help offset the cost
of the project, as well as provide an additional source of income. In addition to ash, bio-
char is another byproduct produced by some of the thermal processes discussed in this
report that could also potentially be sold as a fertilizer.
Heat Generation
Besides providing a possible source of income for farmers, litter-to-energy systems may
also provide a way for them to save in operating costs. Certain on-site litter-to-energy
systems, such as gasifiers, could be used to heat a site's poultry houses. Using heat
generated by a litter-to-energy system would displace some of the fossil fuel that is
traditionally needed to heat the houses. This could potentially result in a significant cost
savings because, according to an article by the Foundation for Organic Resources
Management, Inc., "fuel for space heating is typically the single greatest operating
expense for broiler and turkey producers in the United States".215 Assuming that the price
of propane is $1 per gallon and each house uses 4,000-6,000 gallons of propane per year, a
typical four-house broiler operation would spend between $16,000 and $24,000 per year
on propane.
Reducing fuel costs, however, may not directly benefit poultry growers on the Delmarva
Peninsula. In this region, contracts between poultry growers and poultry companies differ
from contracts used in most other regions of the country. On the Delmarva Peninsula,
contracts require that the poultry company pay for the propane used by the poultry grower.
Because the propane is already provided free of charge to the poultry grower, they would
not directly benefit from any savings in fuel cost (although the poultry company could
decide to pass this savings on to the grower). Due to this difference in contracts, litter-to-
energy technologies that can be used to offset electric costs on a farm may be more
beneficial to growers in this region than technologies that can be used to offset propane
costs.216
VI. Conclusions
The findings of this report suggest that using poultry litter for energy generation is a
potential use for excess litter found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. From a
technological standpoint, the thermal processing of poultry litter is generally feasible. The
main technological concerns regarding these systems typically involve fuel handling,
maintenance issues, emissions control, and slagging and fouling of the equipment.
Combustion and gasification are well studied and the actual implementation of these
technologies shows that in most cases, the main barriers instead tend to be economical,
political, or based on litter availability. The political and economic incentives and
impediments that have been discussed throughout this report are summarized in the
following boxes:
55
-------
Incentives & Support
• The amount of excess litter in the
watershed is expected to increase due to
loss of cropland, more concentrated animal
operations, transition to phosphorus-based
plans, and other regulations that limit land
application.
• Increased interest in alternative energy by
federal and state governments.
• Programs in existence that encourage the
development and use of alternative energy
(but not specifically manure-to-energy
technologies).
• Financial assistance options in existence
that may be able to provide support for
projects.
• Potential income options that may be
available for projects now or in the future.
Disincentives & Impediments
• A consistent source of litter must be
identified.
• Many of the programs that support
renewable energy focus on energy sources
other than manure, such as cellulosic
biomass, wind, and solar.
• Financial assistance is needed to make
projects economically feasible.
• A project may not be able to benefit from
all potential profit options due to certain
regulations.
• It may be difficult to acquire air quality
permits for litter-to-energy processes in
some regions due to already poor air
quality.
There are two potential scales for a litter-to-energy system: either a large commercial-
scale system or a small farm-scale system. Commercial-scale litter-to-energy technologies
have already been proven and have been implemented successfully in the UK with large
economies of scale. The first poultry litter-fueled power plant in the US also recently
began operation in Benson, Minnesota. The viability of a system such as this in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed would depend on the region's ability to provide a consistent
and adequate litter supply and on the facility's ability to receive adequate financing and
support for things such as plant construction and litter transport. As of 2007, no large
commercial-scale litter-to-energy systems had been implemented in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, although a plant had been proposed by Fibrowatt for Maryland's eastern shore.
Farm-scale litter-to-energy technologies may also hold promise for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. These systems do not require such a large litter supply, they avoid high
transportation costs, and they could potentially help promote farm viability through
operational cost-savings and income. A good example of an on-farm operation is the on-
farm gasification system that was recently constructed on the Frye poultry farm in West
Virginia. Systems such as this can be used to heat a farm's poultry houses. Although on-
farm litter-to-energy systems pose significant challenges for farmers, the potential benefits
and attractiveness of these technologies are increasing along with increasing energy prices
and manure management regulatory pressures. The technical viability of these systems
depends on furnace reliability, sufficient fuel storage and handling, and the presence of
heat distribution and control systems. In addition to the technological challenges that are
associated with farm-scale technologies, other challenges that need to be overcome in
order to make farm-scale systems more feasible include high system cost and the time
required by the farmer for operation and maintenance.
56
-------
Deciding which type of system, either farm-scale or commercial-scale, would be the most
viable in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and would best meet the needs of the region is
not necessarily a clear-cut decision due to a number of factors. A summary of the pros and
cons of farm-scale and commercial-scale systems is found below:
Small Farm-Scale
Pros
- Avoids high transportation costs
- Avoids road damage and air emissions caused by litter transporting vehicles
- Does not require a large, constant litter supply
- Provides energy benefits to the fanner and helps promote farm viability through energy cost savings
(propane, electricity)
- Provides income generation for the fanner through value-added by-products (ash, electricity,
renewable energy credits, nutrient trading, carbon trading)
- Provides an efficient alternative for on-site disposal of poultry carcasses
- Biosecurity of facilities maintained due to on-site litter processing
- Potentially improves bird health and bird quality by reducing the levels of introduced water vapor
and ammonia emissions within the poultry houses (compared to heating with propane)
Cons
- Limited number of experimental-level fann-scale litter-fueled systems in existence
- On-fann storage of litter needed for extended periods of time
- Higher system capital cost per unit of energy produced
- Higher operational and maintenance costs (financial and labor) for the fanner
Large Commercial-Scale
Pros
- Several large commercial-scale litter-fueled energy plants are already successfully operating
- On-fann storage of litter is reduced or eliminated
- Lower system capital cost per unit of energy produced
- Lower operational and maintenance system costs (financial and labor) for the fanner compared to
fann-scale systems located on-site
- Energy and employment benefits provided to the community
Cons
- Requires a large, consistent litter supply
- High transportation costs
- Litter transporting vehicles may negatively impact roads and air quality
- Biosecurity measures must be taken into account due to off-site litter transportation
- Higher system capital costs which typically require government subsidies for sustainable economics
- Does not provide direct energy benefits to the fanner and continues reliance on purchased energy
sources (propane, electricity) for fann operations
- Does not replace the use of propane heat in the poultry houses, thus it does not provide the benefit to
bird health that may result from using the litter-generated heat rather than propane heat
- Does not necessarily provide the fanner with income generation through value-added by-products
(ash, electricity, renewable energy credits, nutrient trading, carbon trading); the appropriate programs
would need to be in place in order for the fanner to benefit from these options
- Does not provide the fanner with an alternative for on-site disposal of poultry carcasses, which can
be a benefit of small fann-scale systems
57
-------
In conclusion, both farm-scale and commercial-scale litter-to-energy systems may be a
potential way to use the excess litter found in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The
findings of this report suggest that litter-to-energy systems are, for the most part,
technologically feasible; however, there are other challenges that must be overcome to
make these systems a viable option in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including high
system cost and the issue of litter availability. In addition, there are still a number of
variables that need to be better understood in order to determine whether litter-to-energy
systems are truly feasible in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and whether or not they
should be promoted by organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. Below is a list
of questions and issues that still need to be better addressed.
If current and future research studies and demonstration projects explore these issues and
their findings indicate that projects like this should be pursued in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, then steps that could be taken to increase the feasibility and promote the
adoption of litter-to-energy systems in this region include:
¦ Educating farmers on the feasibility and benefits of litter-to-energy projects
¦ Increasing the number of renewable energy programs that litter-to-energy projects
qualify for (both for financial assistance and profit options)
¦ Working with EPA and USDA to incorporate litter-to-energy technologies into
their grant program priorities
¦ Talking with states to assess how their existing programs could be used to promote
litter-to-energy systems
Recommendations for Further Research
Environmental Impacts
> What level of nutrient load reduction can be achieved through the use of a litter-to-energy
system? A more in-depth analysis is needed to quantify the reduction resulting from the use of
litter-to-energy systems versus the status quo (e.g. land application).
> What sort of air emissions do these systems release (type and amount)? Although there is
already some information on this, additional information would be useful.
> What impact do the air emissions from these systems have on water quality?
> Are there potential toxic air pollution concerns that need to be better addressed (such as those
resulting from the release of airborne arsenic)?
> Are state and federal air permitting programs set up to allow for these types of operations?
Poultry Litter Supply
> How much excess litter is available in different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed?
What other factors affect litter supply (e.g. price of energy and other market forces)? Is there
enough excess litter to support a large commercial-scale litter-to-energy plant?
Co-Firing / Blending Potential
> What is the combustion performance of poultry litter when co-firing with conventional fuels
(e.g. coal or natural gas) and unconventional fuels (e.g. waste coal)?
58
-------
> If there is an insufficient amount of litter for an energy generation system, could the litter be
blended with other biomass feedstock, agricultural waste, or sewage sludge?
> What are the optimal blending ratios, the required combustion/gasification conditions, and the
necessary pollutant emission controls when co-firing or blending the litter?
> Do the ammonia and urea-based compounds found in poultry litter have a NOx reducing
effect? Several studies have indicated that they may. This issue should be further investigated.
Cost
> How much does an on-farm litter-to-energy system cost? On-farm systems are still relatively
new and many of the current systems have been constructed as part of demonstration or
research projects, making it difficult to determine the cost of future systems.
> How much money would a farmer need to put up to get a system installed and operating on his
farm?
> What is the potential payback timeframe for a litter-to-energy system? Several ongoing studies
are expected to quantify this. Understanding this component is critical in determining the
marketability of these systems.
Ash / Bio-Char
> Is there a viable market for the ash and bio-char byproducts? A number of projects have
already shown that these byproducts can be used as fertilizer.
> What price could these byproducts be sold for?
> Are there other potential uses for these byproducts (e.g. construction, activated carbon
production)?
> How do the ash characteristics vary under different combustion/gasification conditions?
Farmer Willingness
> Are farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed willing to participate in litter-to-energy
projects? If it is determined that litter-to-energy systems are viable and should be promoted in
the watershed, then education and outreach efforts will be needed to encourage farmer
adoption of these systems.
> How much time must a farmer devote to operating and maintaining an on-farm litter-to-energy
system?
59
-------
Appendix A. Litter-to-Energy Technology Examples
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Combustion
The combustion process usually takes place at temperatures as high as 3600° F and requires either
stoichiometric conditions (consuming reagents in the exact proportions required for a given reaction) or an
excess amount of oxygen. The main products are C02, H20, and ash.
Pilot Scale
Combustion Test:
Energy Products
of Idaho (EPI)1
Fluidized bed
combustor.
The objectives of this
test program were to:
(1) evaluate the
slagging tendency of
EPFs technology and
explore conditions
that could reduce or
eliminate it
completely; and (2)
evaluate the emission
potential of poultry
litter when used as a
fuel.
Commercial/large scale
(scaled down for research)
21.4 tons/hour
On a yearly basis
it could be
supplied by 11
million birds
20 MW
¦ The litter was not pre-
processed
¦ No significant ash
slagging or
accumulation
¦ Typical operating
temperature out of the
furnace was below
1750°F
¦ NOx: SNCR was
used (emission
was lower than
expected ->
ammonia or urea-
based compounds
in the manure)
¦ 100% of the
sulfur was
captured with
lime
¦ Significant HC1
capture
The ash is
suitable for
use as a soil
supplement.
Other
disposal
methods will
also be
evaluated.
No info
Poultry Litter-
Fueled Power
Plants in the UK:
Energy Power
Resources Ltd11,111
Mass burning and
step-grade
combustion systems.
Energy Power
Resources Ltd was
the first company in
the world to succeed
in turning poultry
litter into energy.
They have since
constructed plants at
a number of locations
in the UK, including
Eye, Thetford,
Westfield, and
Glanford.
Commercial
110,000-420,000
tons of litter per
year
10-55 MW
24/7 operators required
The emissions are
controlled and
meet the
applicable air
emission
standards.
The ash is
further
processed to
produce high
quality
agricultural
fertilizer.
After size
grading, the
ash is
marketed by
Fibrophos.
No info
I Michael L. Murphy, Fluidized Bed Technology Solution to Animal Waste Disposal, Energy Products of Idaho, presented at the Seventeenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, September 2000
(accessed February 2007); available from http://www.brbock.com/RefFiles/FluidBedSolutions.pdf.
II B.P. Kelleher, J.J. Leahy, A.M. Henihan, T.F. O'Dwyer, D. Sutton, and M.J. Leahy, Advances in poultry litter—a review, 2002, Bioresource Technology 83: 27-36.
III Energy Power Resources Limited (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from www.eprl.co.uk
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Poultry Litter-
Fueled Power
Plant in the US:
Fibrominn
(Benson,
Minnesota)"
Fibrominn is the first
poultry litter-fueled
power plant in the
U.S. It began
operation in mid-
2007. It was built by
Fibrowatt LLC.
Commercial
500,000 tons/year
(2,000 - 2,500
tons/day)
They will burn
mainly turkey
litter, although the
plant will also
burn hay, straw,
out-of-condition
grain, and upland
hay.
55 MW
24/7 operators required
¦ NOx emissions
controlled by
SNCR
¦ S02, H2S04, HC1
controlled by a
spray-dry
absorber
¦ Particulate matter
controlled by a
fabric filter
baghouse
The ash will
be sent to a
nearby
facility
operated by
North
American
Fertilizer to
be converted
into high
value
fertilizer.
Cost of project: Approximately
$150 million
Proposed
Poultry-Litter
Fueled Power
Plant: FibroShore
(Maryland's
Eastern Shore) v
FibroShore is a
poultry-litter fueled
power plant that has
been proposed by
Fibrowatt LLC.
Commercial
Up to 300,000
tons of poultry
litter and 50,000
tons of forestry
residue annually.
38.5 MW
24/7 operators required
¦ Emission control
techniques would
be used to control
particulate
matter, NOx, CO,
VOCs, S02, and
HCL
No info
Cost of project: Approximately
$125 million
Development of a
Poultry Litter-to-
Energy Furnace:
American Heat
and Power
LLCvi
A modified Multiple
Hearth Furnace has
been developed in
which the
combustion air is
introduced by Circle
Slot Jets that create
high turbulence and
increased air-to-fuel
mixing. The poultry
litter is burned in a
controlled
environment at
temperatures high
enough to allow
complete
combustion, but low
enough to avoid
agglomeration and
slagging in the ash
end exhaust.
Large commercial or
industrial scale. This
technology is best suited
for a large regional plant.
Though technically
feasible for on-farm
application, they have
found that it is not
economically feasible.
For stand-alone
economical
viability (no
government
subsidy), the plant
should be sized to
process at least
100 tons of litter
per day.
Typically,
capacities would
range from 250
tons per day to as
much as 1000 tons
per day (with
multiple units) at a
single regional
plant.
Steam only
output:
100,000 -
350,000
lbs/hour
Electricity
only output:
10 - 50 MW
Combined
heat and
power plants
would
provide a
combination
of these.
¦ The facility would
require a full-time staff.
Plant operators would
probably work three 8-
hour shifts.
¦ Maintenance would be
commensurate with a
mid-sized energy plant.
Normal maintenance
would be provided by
the operators.
¦ Long term service
agreements with
equipment suppliers
could provide a large
portion of the plant's
major equipment
maintenance.
¦ hcl,ci2, so2,
HF, and PM
reduction by wet
scrubber
¦ Very low NOx
emissions
Concentrated
fertilizer
These are multi-million dollar units
and although the units have
standard sizing criterion, a unique
system would need to be
specifically designed for each
project. As such, pricing is specific
to the project. However, as a
ballpark estimate, a hypothetical 15
MW plant would cost roughly
$2500 per kW and a biomass to
steam plant would cost
approximately $120 per lb/hour of
steam capacity installed.
1V Fibrominn, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http ://www,bensonrnn.org/fibrominn/faq, html.
v Bill Miles, FibroShore Project Representative, FibroShore: Domestic Renewable Energy Production from Poultry Litter and Forestry Residues, Presented to Maryland's O'Malley Administration, June 2007.
V1 Darren Habetz and Richard Echols, Development ofSuccessful Poultry Litter-to-Energy Furnace, written for presentation at the 2006 AS ABE Annual International Meeting, Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006.
61
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Study:
Combustion of
Poultry Litter in a
Fluidized Bed
Combustor
(Portugal,
t 1 J\vii, viii
Ireland)
Atmospheric
bubbling fluidized
bed combustor. This
project studied the
effect of the moisture
content on
combustion, the
variations in excess
air level along the
freeboard, and air
staging.
Pilot scale/ research
No info
No info
¦ The addition of peat
was used to improve
combustion due to the
uncertain
combustibility of the
high moisture content
poultry litter.
¦ Operation temperature:
1290°F - 1830 °F
¦ The air staging in
the freeboard
lowered the NOx
emissions
No info
No info
Fluidized Bed
Combustors:
Biomass Heating
Solutions Limited
(County Limerick,
Ireland)1X
This company
manufactures
fluidized bed
combustors to
combust chicken
litter for heat/energy.
Small / farm scale
80 lb/hr litter with
a moisture content
of 25 - 50%.
45-115 KW
No info
No info
7 lb/hr
(suitable for
use as a
fertilizer)
No info
Feasibility Study:
Poultry Litter
Combustion
(University of
Arkansas)x
Broiler litter-fired
direct combustor
prototype
manufactured by
Lynndale Systems
Inc.
The purpose of this
test was to determine
whether on-farm
litter combustion is
feasible.
The system was
designed to provide
heat for poultry
houses.
Small / farm scale
1 ton of litter per
day in winter
Peak heat
output: 93k
btu/h
(to achieve
significant
savings in
propane this
needs to be
175k btu/h)
¦ Doesn't require a full
time operator.
¦ The fuel would be
loaded two to four
times per day and an
occasional furnace
check would be
needed.
¦ 15-30 minutes of labor
per day plus 30
minutes ash handling
every 1-3 days.
¦ Excessive CO
(indicator of
incomplete
combustion)
¦ NOx emissions
levels were not
high
¦ PM levels were
not measured
A small
amount of
ash was
recovered
(this implies
that a
significant
amount of
particulates
may have
been
released into
the air)
According to Tom Costello
(University of Arkansas), a
reasonably efficient furnace could
pay for itself as long as the capitol
costs were less than $20,000-
$30,000. It remains to be seen what
the sales price for a commercial
product would be.
™ P. Abelha, I. Gulyurtlu, D. Boavida, J. Seabra Barros, I. Cabrita, J. Leahy, B. Kelleher, and M. Leahy, Combustion of poultry litter in afluidized bed combustor, 2003, Fuel 82: 687-692.
™ Biomass Heating Solutions Limited (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://biomass.ie/index.html.
K Biomass Heating Solutions Limited (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http ://biomass.ie/index.html.
x Thomas A. Costello, Feasibility ofOn-Farm Broiler Litter Combustion, Spring 2007, AVIAN Advice, Vol. 9 (1): 7-13.
62
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Case Study:
Retrofitting
Conectiv Vienna
Power Station
(Vienna,
Maryland)"1'xn
Conectiv considered
replacing systems in
this power plant with
systems exclusively
designed to be fueled
by poultry litter. Two
different system
modifications were
proposed: (l)the
addition of a new
stoker boiler, or (2) a
new fluidized-bed
boiler specifically
designed for poultry-
derived fuel.
Eventually, Conectiv
sold the Vienna plant
and the matter of
retrofitting the
facility was dropped.
Commercial
1,920 tons per day
(400,000 tons of
poultry litter per
year)
35 MW
No info
¦ NOx: air staging
¦ S02, HCl:lime
addition
¦ PM: cyclone and
baghouse
The ash
could have
been used as
a fertilizer.
Expected cost: $52. 2 million
Study: Using
Poultry Litter as a
Fuel Source at
the Eastern
Correctional
Institution
Cogeneration
Facility (ECICF)
(Princess Anne,
Maryland)™1' XIV
Working with MES,
PPRP completed a
study that analyzed
the reliability and
suitability of litter as
a fuel source and the
ability of ECICF to
burn litter as a fuel.
They identified the
modifications that
would be needed for
ECICF to primarily
burn litter and a full-
scale litter test burn
was conducted.
Commercial
54,000 tons of
litter per year
4 MW
No info
¦ Emission controls
required for NOx,
HC1, and PM
Ash would
have been
used as a
fertilizer or
fertilizer
feedstock.
Cost of modifications: $5.9 million
+ an additional 30% identified later
X1 Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Case Study 1: Repowering Vienna Station, Vienna, Maryland, Appendix F in "Economic and technical feasibility of energy production from poultry litter and nutrient filter
biomass on the lower Delmarva Peninsula", 1999 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub20b.pdf.
xu B. R. Bock, Poultry Litter to Energy: Technical and Economic Feasibility, 2000 (accessed January 2007); available from http://www.msenergv.ms/Bock-National%20Poultrv%20Waste%20 8-15-00 .pdf.
xm Environmental Resources Management, Eastern Correctional Institution Cogeneration Facility Full-Scale Poultry Litter Test Burn, Report of November 1999, PPES-00-1, Prepared for Maryland Environmental
Service, July 2000 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://esm.versar.com/pprp/eci/2-Test%20Burn%20Report%20PDF.pdf.
X1V Environmental Resources Management, Comprehensive Engineering and Socioeconomic Assessment of Using Poultry Litter as a Primary Fuel at the Eastern Correctional Institution Cogeneration Facility,
Volume I, Prepared for Maryland Environmental Service, October 2000 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://esm.versar.com/pprp/eci/l-VolumeI-IIPDF.pdf.
63
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Study: Co-Firing
of Coal and
Broiler Litter
(Texas A&M
University)™
This study looked at
co-firing coal and
broiler litter fuels for
power generation. As
part of this study, a
90:10 blend (coal 90:
litter 10) was used to
fuel existing coal-
fired combustion
devices. This blend
resulted in a fuel
quality and cost that
was similar to coal
and a fouling
potential that was
less than pure litter.
Research scale
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
Study:
Combustion of
Poultry Waste
with Natural Gas
(Morgan State
University,
MD)XV1
Study of the co-
combustion
performance of
poultry waste with
natural gas in an
advanced swirling
fluidized bed
combustor.
Pilot scale
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
Project: Poultry
Litter as a Fuel
Source for Poultry
Growers
(Penn State)™1
Penn State received a
grant from the PA
Dept. of Ag. The co-
investigators are
Dennis Buffington,
Mike Hulet, and Paul
Patterson.
They will assist a
number of farms in
installing litter-to-
energy systems that
will serve as
demonstration sites.
Combustion systems
and gasification
systems may be used.
Farm scale
Varies depending
on system
Varies
depending
on system
Unknown
Goal: No more than one
hour per day for farmer
No info
The ash
could be
used as
fertilizer.
The farmer
could either
keep the ash
or it could
potentially
be shipped
back to the
integrator.
The costs of the systems vary. The
goal is to use systems that would
have a 3-year payback (based on
propane use). At this time, it is
thought that this is a reasonable
goal; however, this project is still in
its early stages. The first system is
not expected to be installed until
early 2008.
The farmer will be responsible for
paying for the system, but Penn
State will assist with the legwork.
Farmers could potentially receive
financial assistance through cost-
share programs.
S. Mukhtar, K. Annamalai, B. Thien, and S.C. Porter, Summary: Co-Firing of Coal and Broiler Litter (BL) Fuels for Power Generation- BL Fuel Quality and Characteristics, Texas Animal Manure Management
Issues , September 2003 (accessed November 2007); available from http ://tammi.tamu.edu/coalitter.html.
XV1 S. Zhu and S.W. Lee, Co-combustion performance of poultry wastes and natural gas in the advanced Swirling Fluidized Bed Combustor (SFBC), 2005, Waste Management, 25: 511-518.
64
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Gasification
Gasification occurs in a limited air or oxygen supply. The typical temperature ranges from 1100°F to 1800 °F and the products
are syngas (CO, H2) and ash.
Case Study:
Poultry Litter-
Fueled Boiler at
Perdue Feed Mill
(Bridgeville,
Maryland)™111
A case study was
conducted to evaluate
the feasibility of
building a poultry
litter fueled boiler at
the Perdue Feed Mill
in Bridgeville, MD to
produce steam for the
feed mill operation.
Small scale
24,000 tons per
year
8 mm Btu
per hour
The two maintenance
and operation workers
that are already working
at the mill would have
handled the operation.
¦ Baghouse dust
collector on the
fuel handling
system
¦ Mechanical
collector for PM
30 tons of
ash per week
(agricultural
use)
$600,000 to $1,200,000 depending
on the plant configuration.
Feasibility Study:
Gasification
Facility
(Beltsville,
Maryland)"'" xx
USDA ARS is
conducting a
feasibility study on
the construction and
use of a gasification
facility at the
Beltsville
Agricultural
Research Center
(BARC). This unit
will be used to test
the suitability of a
variety of feedstocks,
including animal
manure. This study
will also look at
whether this
technology could be
transferred to rural
communities and
farm cooperatives.
Research scale
No info
1-2 MW
Electricity
and steam
generated by
this unit will
be used by
the BARC
labs, offices,
and farm
buildings.
No info
No info
No info
No info
xvn Paul Patterson, Penn State Department of Poultry Science, phone conversation, December 12, 2007.
xvm Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Case Study 2: New Gasifler-Boiler for a Feed Mill, Bridgeville, MD, Appendix G in "Economic and technical feasibility of energy production from poultry litter and nutrient
filter biomass on the lower Delmarva Peninsula", 1999 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http ://www,nrbp,org/pdfs/pub20b,pdf.
XK USDA Agricultural Research Service, Science Update, Agricultural Research Magazine Vol. 55, No. 8, September 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www, ars.usda. gov/is/AR/archive/sep07/sci0907.htm.
** Don Comis, ARS Center Searches for "Opportunity Fuels", March 30, 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from http: //www, ars .usda. gov/is/pr/2007/070330. htm.
65
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Demonstration
Project: On-farm
Gasification
System, Frye
Poultry Farm
(Wardensville,
West Virginia) "'
xxii
A fixed bed
gasification unit was
constructed on the
Frye poultry farm.
This unit will
produce heat from
poultry manure to
provide heating for
the farm's chicken
houses. This unit was
constructed by
Coaltec Energy.
Small/ farm scale
500-1000 lbs/hr
No info
¦ A control panel
measures the
temperature and the
emissions.
¦ This system can be
managed remotely.
¦ The computer calls for
fuel when it's needed.
¦ A hopper will be
attached to the unit
which will gradually
feed the gasifier.
¦ The litter doesn't need
any preparation.
¦ NOx, and SOxcan
be controlled
¦ The system meets
all air emission
requirements
¦ The ash
content of
the litter is
18%-20%
¦ Plan to
market the
ash for land
application
¦ Bio-char
could be
produced
instead, but
finding a
market for
it would be
more
difficult at
this time
$600,000. Funding is provided for
portions of this project by NRCS
through a Conservation Innovation
Grant and from the West Virginia
Department of Agriculture.
Proposed
Cogeneration
Facility: Allen
Family Foods,
Inc.
(Hurlock,
Maryland)™111'XX1V
CHx Engineering
proposed
constructing and
operating a
cogeneration facility
at the existing Allen
Foods poultry
processing plant to
generate electricity
and steam using litter
as the primary fuel.
Finally, due to
financial difficulties
and problems with
the design firm,
which was unable to
meet the conditions
of the contract, the
plans were dropped.
Commercial
40,000 tons per
year
4 MW
No info
¦ NOx emissions
reduction by
staged oxidation
¦ No significant air
quality impact, in
compliance with
regulations
The ash
would have
been used as
commercial
fertilizer.
No info
XX1 Coaltec Energy USA, Inc., Poultry Litter Project: Frye Poultry Farm (accessed November 2007); available from http ://www. coaltecenergv.com/poultrvlitterproiect.html.
34X11 Matt Harper, personal email correspondence, 2007.
30011 Gary Walters, Diane Mountain, Daniel Goldstein, and Peter Hall, Environmental Review of the Allen Family Foods/CHx Engineering Cogeneration Project, Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources Power Plant Research Program, November 2002 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliographv/PPSE-AFF-01/PPSE-AFF-01.pdf.
™v CHP in the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry, Allen Family Chicken Processors (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.sentech.org/CHP4foodprocessing/industrvleaders.htm.
66
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Proposed Poultry
Litter
Gasification Unit:
Allen's Hatchery,
Inc.
(Linkwood,
Maryland)™' xxvi'
xxvii
Allen's Hatchery, Inc.
in cooperation with
REM Engineering,
Inc. was planning to
construct a poultry
litter gasification
unit. They were
planning to begin
construction in
September 2006, but
for several reasons,
the county
government would
not allow this unit to
be installed.
Commercial
1 V2 tractor-trailer
loads per day
(14,000 tons per
year, supplied by
25-30 farms)
15 million
BTU per
hour
No info
¦ NOx cleaned by
the naturally
occurring
ammonia in the
litter
¦ Sulfur-oxides
captured by the
calcium within
the manure
¦ PM removed by
fabric filter
The ash
would be
sent to
fertilizer
companies to
be mixed
with
nitrogen.
No info
Proposed Poultry
Litter
Gasification
(CHP) Unit:
Tyson Foods,
Inc.
(Virginia's
Eastern
Shore)™11
Tyson Foods, Inc.
worked on a project
to have a litter
gasifier electric-
producing unit built
at its processing plant
site on the Eastern
Shore of Virginia.
For a variety of
reasons, this unit was
not built. The three
major obstacles they
encountered were: (1)
they had trouble
securing a consistent
source of litter; (2)
the company that was
going to build the
gasifier went out of
business; and (3) they
had difficulty
acquiring a building
permit.
No info
No info
No info
No info
No info
The ash
would have
been used as
fertilizer.
No info
Glenn Rolfe, Poultry Waste a Source of Fuel, 2005 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.remenergv.com/The%20Leader%20and%20State%20Register%2011-03-05.pdf.
XXV1 Pete Macinta, "Boiler 'not a done deal'", Daily Banner, January 18, 2006 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.remenergy. com/DAILY%20B ANNER.pdf.
xxv" Chesapeake Bay Program, Minutes from the October 18, 2007 Regional Manure and Litter Use Technology Task Force Conference Call.
xxvm Bill Ricken, phone conversation, May 31, 2007.
67
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Poultry Litter
Gasifier System:
Biomass
Technology
Group
(The
Netherlands)xxlx
Biomass Technology
Group (BTG)
developed a farm-
scale gasifier system
with close
cooperation from
poultry farmer Duis
v.o.f. This system
uses a bubbling fluid
bed gasifier.
Farm-scale
900 tons per year
¦ Annual
electricity
output: 450
MWh
¦ Electricity
is mainly
used on-
site; the
surplus is
delivered to
the power
grid
¦ Heat of the
CHP unit is
supplied to
the boiler
No info
No info
Ash could be
sold as
fertilizer or
for road
construction.
€ 450,000 (approximately
$614,000), resulting in a payback
period of 7 years. This was a 'first-
of-its-kind' installment and the
company thinks that the payback
period can be improved. They
expect scaling-up, replication, and
further optimism to lower the
expected payback period for a
similar system to a period of less
than five years.
Poultry Litter-
Fueled Power
Plant: Plant Carl
(Franklin County,
/-i • \XXX, xxxi
Lreorgia)
This proposed plant,
which is being built
by Earth Resources,
Inc. (ERI), will be a
typical traditional
boiler-turbine
operation that will
feed the fuel (chicken
litter, woody
biomass, and other
renewable resources)
into a bubbling
fluidized bed.
Construction is
expected to be
completed in late
2008.
Commercial-scale
Chicken litter and
woody inert
biomass will be
placed into the
furnace at a rate of
800 tons/ day.
20 MW
Will be operated on a
24-hour continual basis
for a planned 350 days
per year. ERI anticipates
that the plant will
require approximately
21 full-time employees.
No info
The ash will
be sold at the
site as a
fertilizer.
Received a $28 million loan from
US DA Rural Development's
Utilities Program.
™x Biomass Technology Group (accessed Fall 2007); available from http://www.btgworld.com.
*** Earth Resources Inc., Environmental Assessment: Plant Carl (Carnesville, Georgia), Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, December 2006 (accessed Fall 2007); available from
http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/pdf/Plant%20Carl%20EA121506.pdf.
XXX1 Anne Mayberry, "Georgia Alternative Energy Plant to be Fueled by Wood and Poultry Waste", Rural Cooperatives Vol. 74, No. 4, July/August 2007 (accessed Fall 2007); available from
http://www.rurdev.usda. gov/rbs/pub/iul07/utilitv, HTM.
68
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Poultry Litter
Gasification
System:
Hillandale-
Gettysburg LLC
Poultry Farm
(Adams County,
Pennsylvania)^1
This plant is being
built by Energy
Works North
America LLC. It is
expected to be
completed in late
2008.
Large farm-scale
This plant will use
manure from the
3. 5 million
chickens on the
farm. It will get rid
of 85% of the
farm's manure.
3.5 million
kilowatt-
hours of
electricity
per year.
There will be one full-
time person working at
the facility 8 hours per
day. When there is no
one working after hours,
someone will be on-call
just in case a problem
arises.
Not yet
determined
They are
planning to
try to market
the ash as
both a feed
supplement
and a
fertilizer
additive.
$6.5 million. Primarily being
funded through private investment,
although the project also received a
$410,250 state grant from the
Pennsylvania Energy Development
Authority in fall 2007.
Project: Poultry
Litter as a Fuel
Source for Poultry
Growers
(Penn State)
Both combustion
systems and
gasification systems
may be used.
See description in the
combustion section
for more details
(page 64).
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a relatively low temperature (390°-11000 F) process that occurs when almost no oxygen is present. The main
products are oils and tars.
Pilot Project:
Mobile Pyrolysis
Unit, Renewable
Oil International
LLC and Mills
Poultry Farm
(Franklin County,
Alabama)30"*
This pilot project
uses a mobile
pyrolysis unit to
produce nutrient rich
ash and vapor that is
converted to bio-oil.
The technology
provider is
Renewable Oil
International, LLC.
Farm-scale
Pilot project will
treat 3 poultry
houses on the
Mills Poultry
Farm (22,000
birds per house).
Creates bio-
oil, which is
a low-grade
fuel that can
be used for
furnaces or
heaters to
warm
poultry
houses.
No info
No info
The nutrient-
rich ash is a
marketable
product.
Received a grant from the Farm
Pilot Project Coordination, Inc.
xxx" Dan Miller, "State Grants to Fuel Alternative Energy Projects" ,The Patriot-News, Oct. 17, 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.pennlive.eom/business/patriotnews/index.ssf7/base/business/l 19263114478600. xml&coll=l.
xxxm Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc., Poultry Projects (accessed Fall 2007); available from http://www.fppcinc.org/poultrv, htm.
69
-------
Description
Scale
Litter
Requirement
Energy
Output
Operation/
Maintenance
Emissions
Ash
Cost
Study: Pyrolysis
Technology
(Foster Agblevor,
Virginia
Tech)xxxlv'xxxv
Foster Agblevor of
Virginia Tech and his
research team are
working on
developing a rapid
pyrolysis technology
to produce value
added products, such
as bio-oil, slow-
release fertilizer, and
producer gas, from
poultry litter.
Through their
research they
successfully
pyrolyzed poultry
litter samples in a
bubbling fluidized
bed pyrolysis reactor.
Small/ farm-scale
No info
No info
No info
The gaseous
emissions should
be analyzed
through the
pyrolysis process
and during the
combustion of the
bio-oil.
An objective
of the project
is to evaluate
the char
fraction as a
slow release
fertilizer for
land
application.
The NFWF's Chesapeake Bay
Targeted Watershed Program funds
their research through a $1 million
grant. $406,000 of the grant will be
devoted to the construction,
installation, and demonstration of a
portable pyrolysis unit (see next
row).
Portable
Pyrolysis Unit:
Oren Hcatwolcs's
Poultry Farm
(Rockingham
County,
Virginia)3™*
Researchers from
Virginia Tech,
Virginia Cooperative
Extension, and other
ag and environmental
agencies are
conducting a pilot
project that will use a
portable pyrolysis
unit to turn poultry
litter into bio-oil and
char. They plan on
installing the unit in
late 2007 on
Heatwole's farm. If
the unit works, they
may move the
portable unit to other
nearby farms.
Farm-scale
No info
¦ Create bio-
oil to be
used on the
Heatwole
farm to heat
the poultry
houses and
possibly the
farmer's
residence.
¦ The
synthetic
gas
byproduct
will be used
to run the
pyrolysis
unit.
No info
No info
The char
could be
used as a
slow-release
fertilizer.
This project has received grants
from the National Fish and Wildlife
Federation, the Virginia Poultry
Federation, and the Farm Pilot
Project Coordination Inc.
XXX1V F.A. Agblevor and S.S. Kim, Final Report on Thermal Conversion of Poultry Litter to Pyrodiesel and Fertilizer, Prepared for the Virginia Poultry Federation, Inc., under contract no. 208-11-110°-002-814-l,
November 2006.
xxxv Lori Greiner, "Solving an Age-Old Problem", Innovations, Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, January 2007 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http: //www, cals .vt-edu/news/pubs/innovations/i an2007/problem.html.
XXXV1 Jenny Jones, "Poultry Goes to Work on Energy Problem", The Daily News Record, August 10, 2007 (accessed Fall 2007); available from http://www.dnronline.com/news details.php?AID=l 1626&CHID=1.
70
-------
Appendix B. Potential Funding Sources for a Manure-to-Energy Project
Program or Funding
Opportunity
Eligible Region
Eligible
Applicants
Range of
Awards
Description
Website
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Programs
All States
Local governments,
nonprofits,
businesses, farmers,
and individuals
Low-interest loans
are limited to the
construction costs
for the portion of
the project with a
water quality
benefit
In the CWSRF program, each state maintains revolving loan funds to
provide independent and permanent sources of low-cost financing for a
wide range of water quality infrastructure projects. State CWSRF
programs were established and continue to be capitalized by grants
from the U.S. EPA with states matching 20%. CWSRF programs
provided more than $5 billion annually in recent years to fund water
quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, nonpoint source
pollution control, and watershed and estuary management.
http://www.epa.qov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf
(All state CWSRF program websites are
linked to EPA-Headquarters' website)
Conservation Innovation
Grants Program (USDA
NRCS)
All states
State and local
governments, non-
governmental
organizations,
federally-recognized
tribes, and individuals
Maximum of
$1,000,000
"Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) is a voluntary program intended
to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation
approaches and technologies while leveraging the Federal investment
in environmental enhancement and protection, in conjunction with
agricultural production."
(http: //www. n res. u sd a. g ov/p rog rams/ci g/pdf_f i I es/C I Gf actsh eet3-1 - 06. pdf)
http ://www. n res. u sd a. a ov/ p roq ra m s/c iq/
Farm Pilot Project
Coordination, Inc.
All states
Farm operations
Varies by project
"Farm Pilot Project Coordination, Inc. (FFPC), a non-profit organization,
was designated by Congress to assist in implementing innovative
treatment technologies to address the growing waste issues associated
with animal feeding operations." (http://www.fppcinc.org/)
http://www.fppcinc.orq/
National Research
Initiative: Biobased
Products and Bioenergy
Production Research
(USDA CSREES)
All states
Land-grant
institutions, state-
controlled institutions
of higher education,
private institutions of
higher education,
state or local
governments, for-
profit organizations,
small business, non-
profits, and state
agricultural
experiment stations
$0-$500,000
"Program activities will expand science-based knowledge and
technologies to support the efficient, economical, and environmentally
friendly conversion of biomass, more specifically agricultural residuals,
into value-added industrial products and biofuels."
(http: //www. csrees.usda.g ov/f o/f u n d v iew. cf m?f o n u m=1073)
http://www.csrees.usda.qov/fo/fundview.cf
m?fonum=1073
Renewable Energy
Systems and Energy
Efficiency Improvements
Program (USDA)
All states
Farmers, ranchers,
and rural small
businesses
Renewable energy
grants: $2,500-
$500,000 (not to
exceed 25% of
project costs);
Loan Guarantees:
$5,000-
$10,000,000 (up to
50% of project
costs)
"The 2002 Farm Bill established the Renewable Energy Systems and
Energy Efficiency Improvements Program under Title IX, Section 9006.
This section directs the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans, loan
guarantees and grants to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses
to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency
improvements." (http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/what_is.html)
http://www.rurdev.usda.qov/rbs/farmbill/wh
at is.html
Small Business
Innovation Research:
Animal Manure
Management (USDA
CSREES)
All states
Small businesses
$80,000-$350,000
"The objective of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Animal Manure Management research area is to develop new or
improved technologies and environmentally sound approaches for
improved management of animal manure that will reduce the adverse
impact of animal manure on the environment and people, and improve
the economics of animal production by optimizing manure management
technologies and creating value-added products derived from animal
manure." (http: itwww. cs rees. u sd a. g ov/f o/f u n d v i ew. cf m?f o num=1221)
http://www.csrees.usda.qov/fo/fundview.cf
m?fonum=1221
-------
Program or Funding
Opportunity
Eligible Region
Eligible
Applicants
Range of
Awards
Description
Website
Value-Added Producer
Grants (USDA Rural
Development)
All states
Independent
producers, farmer and
rancher cooperatives,
agricultural producer
groups, and majority-
controlled producer-
based business
ventures
$3,000-$300,000
(in 2006)
"Grants may be used for planning activities and for working capital for
marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based
renewable energy." (http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm)
htt p ://www. ru rd ev. usda .a ov/rbs/cooos/vad
q.htm
Chesapeake Bay Small
Watershed Grants
Program (National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation)
Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Eligible: non-profit
501(c) organizations
or local governments;
NOT Eligible:
individuals, state and
federal government
agencies, or private
for-profit firms
Project Planning
and Design Grants:
$10,000-$30,000;
Implementation
Grants: $20,000-
$200,000
"The Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program provides
grants to organizations and local governments working on a local level
to protect and improve watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay basin, while
building citizen-based resource stewardship. The purpose of the grants
program is to support protection and restoration actions that contribute
to restoring healthy waters, habitat, and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay ecosystem."
(http: //www. nfwf. o rg/A M/T e m p late ,cfm?Section=B rowse_A I l_P rog ra ms&T e m p late=/
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentlD=3768)
http://www.nfwf.orq/AM/Template.cfm7Sec
tion=Browse All Proqrams&Template=/C
M/ContentDisplav.cfm&ContentlD=3768
Chesapeake Bay
Targeted Watersheds
Grant Program (National
Fish and Wldlife
Foundation)
Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Eligible: non-profit
501(c) organizations,
universities, and local
or state governments;
NOT Eligible:
individuals, federal
government agencies,
and private for-profit
firms
Maximum of
$1,000,000
"The overall goal for the Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant
Program is to expand the collective knowledge on the most innovative,
sustainable, and cost-effective strategies- including market-based
approaches-for reducing excess nutrient loads within specific
tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay. To achieve this goal, the program
awards grants of up to $1 million on a competitive basis to projects that
target and reflect diverse conditions (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and
sources of nutrients (e.g., agricultural, stormwater, other non-point
sources) that exist throughout the Chesapeake watershed."
(http: //www. nfwf. o rg/A M/T e m p late ,cfm?Section=B rowse_A I l_P rog ra ms&T e m p late=/
CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentlD=3750)
http://www.nfwf.orq/AM/Template.cfm7Sec
tion=Browse All Proqrams&TEMPLATE=/
CM/ContentDisplav.cfm&CONTENTID=42
48
Green Energy Fund's
Research and
Development Program
Delaware
Applicants located
within DE for projects
conducted in DE
Up to 35% of
project cost, but not
exceeding
$250,000
"The Green Energy Fund's Research and Development Program offers
grants to projects that develop or improve renewable energy technology
in Delaware. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control will accept proposals for Research and Development Program
grants for qualifying projects that improve the engineering, adaptation,
or development of products or processes that directly relate to
renewable energy technology."
(http://www.dsi reusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cf m?lncentive_Code=DE04F&st
ate=DE&CurrentPagelD=1 &RE=1 &EE=0)
http://www.dsireusa.orq/librarv/includes/inc
entive2.cfm?lncentive Code=DE04F&stat
e=DE&CurrentPaqelD=1&RE=1&EE=0
Chesapeake Bay Trust's
Pioneer Grant Program
Maryland
Organizations and
public agencies in
Maryland (includes
public and private
schools and
universities; non-profit
organizations; youth
clubs, service groups,
and community
associations;
municipal, county,
state, and federal
agencies; soil and
water conservation
districts; forestry
boards; and resource
conservation/develop-
ment councils)
Up to $150,000
"The 2007 Pioneer Grants Program is designed to help organizations
demonstrate, analyze, and deliver to users innovative approaches,
technologies, techniques, and practices that will lead to water quality
improvements in local streams, rivers, and ultimately, the Chesapeake
Bay. The Trust seeks pre-proposals in the fields of agriculture or
environmentally sensitive land development that focus on direct or
indirect reduction of nutrient and sediment inputs to the Bay in the
following ways: 1) Demonstration of an existing technology or practice,
2) Economic analysis of technology or best management practices, and
3) Delivery to users."
(http://www.cbtrust.Org/site/c.enJIKQNoFiG/b.2028497/k.5880/Pioneer_Grant_Progr
am. htm)
http://www.cbtrust.orq/site/c-enJIKQNoFiG
/b.2028497/k.5880/Pioneer Grant Proqra
m.htm
72
-------
Program or Funding
Opportunity
Eligible Region
Eligible
Applicants
Range of
Awards
Description
Website
Animal Waste
Technology Fund
Maryland
...
...
NO LONGER AUTHORIZED (Originally authorized in the Maryland
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998)
...
Metropolitan Edison
Region Sustainable
Energy Fund- Grants and
Loans
Pennsylvania
(Metropolitan
Edison Service
Territory)
Any organization,
governmental entity,
individual or
corporation in the
Metropolitan Edison
service territory
Grants: Maximum
of $25,000;
"First Energy established the Metropolitan Edison Company
Sustainable Energy Fund (Met Ed Region) within Berks County
Community Foundation in 2000 with an initial contribution of
$5,700,000. The purpose of the fund is to promote: the development
and use of renewable energy and clean energy technologies; energy
conservation and efficiency; sustainable energy businesses; and
projects that improve the environment in the companies' service
territories, as defined by their relationship to the companies'
transmission and distribution facilities."
(http://www.bccf.org/pages/gr.energy.html)
httD://www.bccf.ora/Daaes/ar. enerav.html
Penelec Region
Sustainable Energy Fund
of the Community
Foundation for the
Alleghenies- Grants and
Loans
Pennsylvania
(First Energy's
Penelec Service
Territory)
Any organization,
governmental entity,
individual or
corporation in
FirstEnergy's Penelec
service territory
Grants: Maximum
of $25,000;
Loans: Maximum of
$500,00
"The Penelec Sustainable Energy Fund was funded in 2000 as a result
of energy deregulation and utility settlement agreements in
Pennsylvania. The fund promotes the use of renewable energy, energy
conservation and efficiency, and renewable energy business initiatives."
(http://www.cfalleghenies.org/penelec.htm)
httD://www.cfalleahenies.ora/Denelec.htm
Pennsylvania Energy
Development Authority
(PEDA) Grants
Pennsylvania
Businesses, non-profit
corporations, PA
colleges and
universities, and local
governments
(research projects not
eligible for grant
financing)
Maximum of
$1,000,000
"The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) is offering
grant funding for clean, alternative energy projects in Pennsylvania, and
investment in Pennsylvania's energy sector. PEDA is seeking
applications for innovative, advanced energy projects, and for
businesses interested in locating or expanding their alternative energy
manufacturing or production operations in the Commonwealth."
(http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/enintech/lib/enintech/peda/2007application/peda p
df_7000-uk-dep4010.pdf)
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/enintech/c
wD/view.asD?a=1415&a=504241
Pennsylvania Energy
Harvest Grant Program
Pennsylvania
501 (c )(3) non-profit
organization; a county
or municipal
government; a school
district, college or
university; a
conservation district; a
for-profit business
registered with the PA
Department of State
as a corporation,
limited liability
partnership, limited
partnership, or limited
liability company; or a
watershed
organization
recognized by DEP
$18,000-
$1,000,000
(in 2006)
"Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Grants are intended to address the dual
concerns of energy and environmental quality. As such, proposals must
simultaneously reduce or supplement the use of conventional energy
sources and lead to improvements in water or air quality."
(http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/lib/energy/docs/energyharvest/2007applicati
on/eh_pdf_7000-bk-dep3087. pdf)
httD://www.deDweb.state.Da.us/enerav/cwo
/view.asp?a=1374&q=483024
73
-------
Program or Funding
Opportunity
Eligible Region
Eligible
Applicants
Range of
Awards
Description
Website
Sustainable
Development Fund
administered by The
Reinvestment Fund, Inc.
(TRF)
PECO Energy
Service Territory
(Pennsylvania)
Businesses or
organizations working
or planning to work in
the PECO Energy
service territory
Grants: Average
approximately
$25,000
"TRF's Sustainable Development Fund (SDF) offers innovative
financing in the areas of renewable and clean energy. SDF serves
customers from PECO Energy's service territory and is dedicated to
promoting: renewable energy and advanced clean energy technologies
among residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial customers;
energy conservation and energy efficiency among residential,
commercial, institutional, and industrial customers; and sustainable
energy businesses that benefit customers in its service area."
(http: //www. trf u n d. co m/sdf/)
http://www.trfund.com/sdf/
Sustainable Energy
Fund of Central Eastern
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania (PPL
Service Territory)
Commercial,
industrial, non-profit,
local government, and
state government
usually located in the
PPL service territory
(research projects not
eligible for grant
financing)
Varies by project
"The Sustainable Energy Fund (SEF) invests in projects related to its
mission to promote the use of renewable energy, clean energy
technologies, energy conservation, and educational programs that
benefit customers in the PPL energy service territory."
(http: //www. th esef. o rg/kb/?V i ew= e ntry& E ntry 1 D=36)
http://www.thesef.orq/
West Penn Power
Sustainable Energy
Fund
West Penn Power
Service Territory
(Pennsylvania)
Grants: non-profit
companies and
community-based
organizations in the
West Penn Power
service territory;
Commercial Loans:
manufacturers,
distributors, retailers,
and service
companies in the
West Penn Power
service territory
Varies by proposal
"The West Penn Power Sustainable Energy Fund (WPPSEF) invests in
the deployment of clean energy technologies throughout the West Penn
Power service region in Pennsylvania. Investments are made to:
promote the use of renewable and clean energy; promote energy
conservation and energy efficiency; and to promote the attraction,
establishment and retention of sustainable energy businesses."
(http://www.wppsef.org/)
http://www.wppsef.orq/
Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund
Virginia
State agencies, local
governments, and
public or private not-
for profit agencies,
institutions, or
organizations
(Individuals not
eligible)
Varies by project
"In 1995, legislation was passed creating the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee was
given the responsibility of developing goals and guidelines for the use of
moneys collected from the sale of the special Chesapeake Bay license
plates. By December 1 of each year, the Advisory Committee is to
present to the Governor and the General Assembly a plan for
expending these funds. The Advisory Committee will recommend that
such expenditures be in the form of financial grants for the support of
specific Chesapeake Bay projects. Preferences will be given to
environmental education and action-oriented conservation and
restoration projects within Virginia's Chesapeake Bay watershed."
(http://dls.state.va.us/groups/cbrfac/GUIDELNS.HTM)
http://dls.state.va.us/qroups/cbrfac/GUIDE
LNS.HTM
Virginia Energy and
Environment Network
(VEEN) Request for
Proposal
Virginia
DEADLINE FOR THIS
RFP WAS JANUARY
2007
Maximum of
$200,000
"This funding opportunity is targeting opportunities to study the
feasibility of using alternative feedstock for energy production and
overcoming barriers associated with alternative energy projects."
(http://www.eng.odu.edu/veen/Grant_lnfo/Biomass_RFP_06-001_Rev1.pdf)
http://www.enq .odu.edu/veen/
74
-------
Appendix C. Potential Profit Options for a Litter-To-Energy Project
Profit Type
Drst nplioii
Plfilll Potcilll.ll
Curri'iilly .iv.nl.lhle111 CB v.dlfislicri
states? «
Net
Metering
With net metering, the energy that is generated by the litter-to-
energy system can be used to offset the site's energy consumption.
In order to participate in net metering, the system must be connected
to the electric grid.
Net metering allows for savings in electrical costs by allowing generated
electricity that exceeds the site's current electricity use to be banked for
use at another time. The electricity that is banked replaces electricity that
would have been purchased at the retail rate. In addition, when the amount
of excess electricity generated in a billing period exceeds the amount of
electricity consumed in a billing period, the customer is usually credited for
this 'net excess' at either the retail rate or at the avoided cost rate,
depending on the state.
Net metering programs are offered in all of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed states. Biomass is
included as an eligible technology in all of these
programs.
Green
Pricing
Programs
A green pricing program is an optional utility service in which
participating customers pay a premium on their electric bills to
support the utility's investment in renewable energy technologies. A
green pricing program in Vermont called Cow Power directly benefits
farmers who generate electricity from cow manure using anaerobic
digestion.
In Vermont's Cow Power program, farmers receive the 4 cent premium for
every kWh bought by the electric utility, in addition to being paid 95% of
the market price for the electricity that they generate and sell back to the
grid.
Although no states in the watershed have adopted
policies that require electricity suppliers to offer
green power options, several of the electrical
utilities in the watershed do offer green pricing
programs. Currently, none of these programs
include energy generated from manure and none
offer a payment system to farmers similar to that of
Vermont's Cow Power Program.
Renewable
Energy
Certificates
Certified projects that generate renewable electricity earn renewable
energy certificates (RECs), which are also known as tradable
renewable certificates, renewable energy credits, green certificates,
and green tags. Rather than representing the actual electricity that is
generated by a renewable energy project, RECs instead represent
the electricity's environmental attributes.
RECs can usually be sold separately from the electricity that is generated
by the project, thus providing the producers with another source of profit.
RECs, which are typically in 1 megawatt-hour units, were being sold for
between $200-$300 in 2006. Typically, local energy producers sell their
RECs to a broker, who then aggregates them and sells them to a buyer. It
is important to note, however, that in some states, participating in other
profit options such as net metering, green pricing programs, and trading
programs, may affect the number of RECs, if any, that a renewable energy
producer receives.
No matter where they are located in the U.S.,
certified projects that generate renewable electricity
are eligible for RECs.
Greenhouse
Gas Trading
Programs
The CO2 that litter-to-energy systems emit is not considered to be a
greenhouse gas because the combustion of poultry litter simply
recycles carbon that is already in the environment and it does not
release new carbon. Therefore, these projects may be eligible for
carbon credits. One carbon credit is equal to one metric ton of
carbon dioxide emissions. The Chicago Credit Exchange (CCX)
allows CCX members who are unable to reduce their emissions to
purchase credits from members who make extra emissions cuts or
from verified offset projects. Certain renewable energy systems are
considered to be eligible offset projects.
In order for a renewable energy system to qualify for this program, the
energy it generates must not be sold as "green" energy or be used to meet
renewable portfolio standard mandates. In addition, in order for the CCX
offset credits to be issued, any REC credits the project qualified for most
be surrendered and retired.
The Chicago Credit Exchange is a national
program.
Water
Quality
Trading
Programs
Water quality trading programs allow a pollution source to achieve its
pollution reduction requirements by purchasing credits from a credit-
generating source in the same watershed. Depending on the
program, these credits can either be generated by point or nonpoint
sources. Litter-to-energy projects that reduce nutrient pollution and
provide a water quality benefit may one day be able to earn
marketable credits in these trading programs.
In April 2007, it was reported that a typical nutrient credit was worth
between $2 and $9 for the reduction of approximately 1.6 pounds of
pollutants.
Water quality credit trading programs that allow
point-to-nonpoint trades were recently established
in PA and VA and have been proposed in MD, DE,
and WV. A trade involving a litter-to-energy system
has not yet taken place.
Ash Sales
Litter-to-energy production creates a nutrient-rich ash byproduct
which can potentially be sold as fertilizer. The litter-to-energy
process concentrates nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium
in the ash, creating a product that is denser and more stable than
raw manure. In addition, the ash lacks the pathogens and odors that
are typically present in poultry litter feedstock.
After taking into account transportation costs, additional processing costs,
and marketing costs, a report by B.R. Bock determined that the net
fertilizer value of poultry litter ash at an energy plant would likely range
from $25 to $75 perton. Another estimate, which was conducted in 2002,
determined that ash sales would likely bring in between 0.7 and 1.3 cents
per kilowatt-hour of energy generated.
The ash that is generated by litter-to-energy
systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed could
potentially be sold as a fertilizer as long as a
market can be found.
Heat
Generation
Certain on-site litter-to-energy systems, such as gasifiers, could be
used to heat a site's poultry houses. Using heat generated by a litter-
to-energy system would displace some of the fossil fuel that is
traditionally needed to heat the houses.
This could potentially result in a significant cost savings because,
according to an article by the Foundation for Organic Resources
Management, Inc., "fuel for space heating is typically the single greatest
operating expense for broiler and turkey producers in the United States." A
typical four-house broiler operation spends between $16,000 and $24,000
per year on propane for heat generation, assuming that the price of
propane is $1 per gallon and each house uses 4,000-6,000 gallons of
propane per year.
Reducing fuel costs may not directly benefit poultry
growers on the Delmarva Peninsula. In this region,
contracts require that the poultry company pay for
the propane and litter used by the poultry grower.
Because the propane is already provided free of
charge to the poultry grower, they would not
directly benefit from any savings in fuel cost
(although the poultry company could decide to pass
this savings on to the grower).
-------
Appendix D. Rules for Net Metering in the CB Watershed States
Eligible Technologies
Applicable Sectors
Limit on
System Size
Limit on Overall
Enrollment
Treatment of Net Excess
Utilities Involved
Delaware
Photovoltaics, Wind,
Biomass, Hydroelectric
Commercial, Residential
25 kW
None
Varies by utility
All utilities (applies to
municipal utilities only
if they opt to compete
outside their municipal
limits)
Maryland
Photovoltaics, Wind,
Biomass, Anaerobic
Digestion
Commercial, Residential,
Schools, Local
Government, State
Government, Federal
Government
200 kW (500 kW
with MD Public
Sen/ice
Commission
approval)
34.7 MW (0.2% of
state's adjusted
peak load for 1998)
Credited at retail rate to
customer's next bill for up to 12
months
All utilities
New York
Photovoltaics, Wnd,
Biomass
Residential, Agricultural
10 kW for solar;
25 kW for
residential wind;
125 kW for farm-
based wind; 400
kW for farm-
based biogas
0.1% of 1996
demand per IOU
for solar; 0.2% of
2003 demand per
IOU for wind; 0.4%
of 1996 demand
per IOU for farm-
based biogas
Credited monthly at retail rate,
except for wind greater than 10
kW, which is credited monthly
at avoided-cost rate. Accounts
reconciled annually at avoided-
cost rate.
All utilities
Pennsylvania
Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas,
Wnd, Biomass,
Hydroelectric, Fuel Cells,
Municipal Solid Waste,
CHP/Cogeneration, Waste
Coal, Coal-Mine Methane,
Anaerobic Digestion, Other
Distributed Generation
Technologies
Commercial, Industrial,
Residential, Nonprofit,
Schools, Local
Government, State
Government, Federal
Government,
Agricultural, Institutional
50 kW
residential; 1MW
non-residential;
2MW customers
with systems
that are part of
microgrids or
are available for
emergency use
No limit specified
Customer compensated
monthly at utility's avoided-cost
rate
Investor-owned
utilities
Virginia
Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Wnd,
Biomass, Hydroelectric,
Geothermal Electric,
Muncipal Solid Waste, Tidal
Energy, Wave Energy
Commercial, Residential,
Nonprofit, Schools, Local
Government, State
Government, Institutional
500 kW non-
residential; 10
kW residential
0.1% of a utility's
annual peak
demand
Credited to following month,
then either granted to utility
annua Illy or credited to
following month
Investor-owned
utilities, electric
cooperatives
Washington, DC
Solar Thermal Electric,
Photovoltaics, Wnd,
Biomass, Hydroelectric,
Geothermal Electric, Fuel
Cells, CHP/Cogeneration,
Anaerobic Digestion, Tidal
Energy, Microturbines
Commercial, Industrial,
Residential
100 kW
None
Credited to customer's next bill
at utility's retail rate
All utilities
West Virginia
Photovoltaics, Landfill Gas,
Wind, Biomass, Fuel Cells,
Small Hydroelectric
Commercial, Residential
25 kW
0.1% of utility's
total load
participation (utility
tariff provision)
Credited to customer's next bill
at utility's retail rate
All utilities
Source: Database of State Incentives for Renewables& Efficiency. 2006,2007. Net Metering Rules for Renewable Energy.
Accessed 2007 March 21.
76
-------
References
1 Chesapeake Bay Program, Strategy for Managing Surplus Nutrients from Agricultural Animal Manure
and Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, November 29, 2005 (accessed January 2007);
available from http://www.chesapeakebav.net/info/pressreleases/ec2005/doc-Manure Strategy.pdf.
2 Chesapeake Executive Council, Directive No. 04-3: Building New Partnerships and New Markets for
Agricultural Animal Manure and Poultry Litter in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, January 10, 2005
(accessed January 2007); available from http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/ANRWG 03-09-
06 Handout 1 6890.pdf.
3 Chesapeake Bay Program, Strategy for Managing Surplus Nutrients from Agricultural Animal Manure
4 Ibid.
5 Biomass Technology Group, Energy from Poultry Litter (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/pdf/leaflet-chicken-litter.pdf.
6 Fibrominn (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.fibrowattusa.com/US-
Benson/index.html.
7 Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences, Maximizing Poultry Manure Use Through Nutrient Management Planning, March 2004
(accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/B1245.pdf.
8 Bud Malone, University of Delaware, personal correspondence, May 17, 2007.
9 Norman Astle, Maryland Department of Agriculture's Manure Transportation Project, Memo commenting
on the 1/2/08 version of this report, January 9, 2008.
10 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Manure 'sLmpact on Rivers, Streams and the Chesapeake Bay, July 28,
2004 (accessed January 2007); available from
http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/0723manurereport noembargo ,pdf?docID=2143.
11 Ibid.
12 Norman Astle
13 Darren Habetz, American Heat and Power LLC, personal email correspondence, October 18, 2007.
14 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Manure Transport Program/Manure Matching Service (accessed
March 2007); available from
http://www.mda.state.md.us/resource conservation/financial assistance/manure management/index.php.
15 Delaware Department of Agriculture, Relocation Program (accessed March 2007); available from
http: //dda. delaware. gov/nutrients/nm reloc. shtml.
16 Chesapeake Bay Program, Agricultural Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Workgroup: December 6, 2007
Meeting Minutes (accessed December 2007); available from
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?EventDetails=9220&DefaultView=2.
17 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, West Virginia, Agricultural Management Assistance
Program (AMA): Manure Transfer/Nutrient Management Practice Guidelines (Revision 1) (accessed April
2007); available from
http://www.wv.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ama/05 AMA/Practices/05 manureTrans.pdf.
18 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Poultry Litter Transport Lncentive
Program, October 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil & water/nmlitter.shtml.
19 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Manure Transport Program/Manure Matching Service
20 Delaware Department of Agriculture, Delaware Manure Matching, March 19, 2007 (accessed March
2007); available from http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/DMmatch.shtml.
21 Douglas Goodlander (PA State Conservation Commission), Malcolm Furman (PA Office of Energy), and
Patricia Buckley (PA DEP), Letter commenting on the 9/4/07 draft version of this report, October 31, 2007.
22 Virginia Poultry Federation and Shenandoah Resource Conservation and Development Council, "New
Poultry Litter Hotline Available to Farmers", February 12, 2007 (accessed March 2007); available from
http://www.vapoultrv.com/assets/Docs/poultrv%201itter%20hotline%202007.doc.
23 Doug Parker, Creating Markets for Manure: Basin-wide Management in the Chesapeake Bay Region,
Annual Meeting of the of the Northeast Agricultural and Resource Economics Association and the
Canadian Agricultural Economics Society, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, June 20-23, 2004 (accessed
-------
Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/waterqual/Publications/pdfs/creating markets for manure.pdf.
24 Perdue AgriRecycle, For Delmarva Poultry Producers, 2006 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available
from http://www.perdueagrirecvcle.com/delmarva.html.
25 Eric Lichtenberg, Doug Parker, and Lori Lynch, Economic Value of Poultry Litter Supplies in Alternative
Uses, Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy, Policy Analysis Report No. 02-02, October
2002 (accessed January 2007); available from
http://www.arec.umd.edu/agnrpolicvcenter/Publications/Reports/Parker PoultrvLitter.pdf.
26 Douglas Goodlander, Malcolm Furman, and Patricia Buckley
27 B.P. Kelleher, J.J. Leahy, A.M. Henihan, T.F. O'Dwyer, D. Sutton, and M.J. Leahy.. Idvances in poultry
litter—a review, 2002, Bioresource Technology 83: 27-36.
28 Seung-Soo Kim and Foster A. Agblevor, Pyrolysis characteristics and kinetics of chicken litter, 2007,
Waste Management, 27(1): 135-140.
29 Chesapeake Bay Program, Finding Solutions to Excess Nutrients in Animal Manure and Poultry Litter: A
Primer, 2004.
30 Ibid.
31 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Waste to Energy: A Guide for Local Authorities,
May 2005 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.bcse.org.au/docs/Publications Reports/WasteToEnergy%20Report.pdf.
32 Preston Burnette, BGP Continuous Feed Gasifier General Lnformation, North Carolina State University,
Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center, March 2, 2006.
33 Paul T. Williams, Waste Treatment and Disposal, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley, 2005).
34 P. Abelha, I. Gulyurtlu, D. Boavida, J. Seabra Barros, I. Cabrita, J. Leahy, B. Kelleher, and M. Leahy,
Combustion of poultry litter in a fluidized bed combustor, 2003, Fuel 82: 687-692.
35 Williams
36 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
37 Michael L. Murphy, Fluidized Bed Technology Solution to Animal Waste Disposal, Energy Products of
Idaho, presented at the Seventeenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, September 2000
(accessed February 2007); available from http://www.brbock.com/RefFiles/FluidBedSolutions.pdf.
38 Abelha et al.
39 Mark Dubin, UMD/USDA-CSREES Mid-Atlantic Water Program, personal email correspondence,
November 5, 2007.
40 Murphy, Fluidized Bed Technology Solution
41 B. R. Bock, Poultry Litter to Energy: Technical and Economic Feasibility, 2000 (accessed January
2007); available from http://www.msenergv.ms/Bock-National%20Poultrv%20Waste%20 8-15-00 .pdf.
42 Murphy, Fluidized Bed Technology Solution
43 Ibid.
44 Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Case Study 1: Repowering Vienna Station, Vienna, Maryland,
Appendix F in "Economic and technical feasibility of energy production from poultry litter and nutrient
filter biomass on the lower Delmarva Peninsula", 1999 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub20b.pdf.
45 Gene Charleton, Biomass and Clean Air, Texas A&M Engineering Research Magazine, 2006 (accessed
Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://engineering.tamu.edu/research/magazine/2006/biomass/.
46 Environmental Resources Management, Comprehensive Engineering and Socioeconomic Assessment of
Using Poultry Litter as a Primary Fuel at the Eastern Correctional Lnstitution Cogeneration Facility,
Volume I, Prepared for Maryland Environmental Service, October 2000 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007);
available from http://esm.versar.com/pprp/eci/l-VolumeI-IIPDF.pdf.
47 B.P. Jackson, J.C. Seaman, P.M. Bertsch, "Fate of Arsenic Compounds in Poultry Litter Upon Land
Application", Chemosphere 65 (2006): 2028-2034.
48 Murphy, Fluidized Bed Technology Solution
49 Abelha et al.
50 Biomass Heating Solutions Limited (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://biomass.ie/index.html.
51 Ibid.
78
-------
52 MSN Weather, Weather Averages: Limerick, Ireland (accessed November 2007); available from
http://weather.msn.com/monthlv averages.aspx?&wealocations=wc%3aEIXX0026&setunit=F.
53 Thomas A. Costello, Feasibility of On-Farm Broiler Litter Combustion, Spring 2007, AVIAN Advice,
Vol. 9(1): 7-13.
54 Darren Habetz and Richard Echols, Development of Successful Poultry Litter-to-Energy Furnace, written
for presentation at the 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006.
55 Kelleher et al.
56 Energy Power Resources Limited (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from www.eprl.co.uk.
57 Kelleher et al.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Energy Power Resources Limited, www.eprl.co.uk.
61 Kelleher et al.
62 Energy Power Resources Limited, www.eprl.co.uk.
63 Kelleher et al.
64 Energy Power Resources Limited, www.eprl.co.uk.
65 Ibid.
66 Fibrophos (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.fibrophos.co.uk/.
67 Ted Olsen, "Poultry Litter to Fuel Minnesota Power Plant", Renewable Energy Access, March 14, 2007
(accessed April 2007); available from http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/.
68 Fibrominn, Frequently Asked Questions and Answers (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.bensonmn.org/fibrominn/faa.html.
69 Fibrowatt LLC (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.fibrowattusa.com.
70 Fibrominn, Frequently Asked Questions
71 Fibrowatt LLC, http://www.fibrowattusa.com.
72 Fibrominn, Frequently Asked Questions
73 Ted Olsen
74 Knutson Construction Services, Web Cams, (accessed Spring 2007); available from
http://www.knutsonconstruction.eom/htdocs/webcams/index.htm#.
75 Bill Miles, FibroShore Project Representative, FibroShore: Domestic Renewable Energy Production
from Poultry Litter and Forestry Residues, Presented to Maryland's O'Malley Administration, June 2007.
76 Perdue AgriRecycle (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.perdueagrirecvcle.com/index.html.
77 Sara Michael, "MD Eyeing Way to Convert Chicken Waste Into Power", The Baltimore Examiner, Oct.
16, 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from http://www.examiner.com/a-
991693~Md eyeing way to convert chicken waste into power.html.
78 Tom Pelton, "Poultry Power Seen Saving Bay", Baltimore Sun, Nov. 2, 2007 (accessed November
2007); available from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay environment/bal-
md.poultrv02nov02.0.3983177.story.
79 Bill Miles
80 Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Case Study 1
81 Bock
82 Environmental Resources Management, Eastern Correctional Institution Cogeneration Facility Full-
Scale Poultry Litter Test Burn, Report of November 1999, PPES-00-1, Prepared for Maryland
Environmental Service, July 2000 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://esm.versar.com/pprp/eci/2-Test%20Burn%20Report%20PDF.pdf.
83 Environmental Resources Management, Comprehensive Engineering and Socioeconomic Assessment
84 Antares Group Incorporated, T.R. Miles Technical Consulting, Inc., Foster Wheeler Development
Corporation, Economic and Technical Feasibility of Energy Production from Poultry Litter and Nutrient
Filter Biomass on the Lower Delmarva Peninsula, Prepared for the Northeast Regional Biomass Program,
August 2, 1999 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub20a.pdf.
85 M. Sami, K. Annamalai, and M. Wooldridge, Co-firing of coal and biomass fuel blends, 2001, Progress
in Energy and Combustion Science, 27: 171-214.
86 Ibid.
79
-------
87 S. Mukhtar, K. Annamalai, B. Thien, and S.C. Porter, Summary: Co-Firing of Coal and Broiler Litter
(BL) Fuels for Power Generation- BL Fuel Quality and Characteristics, Texas Animal Manure
Management Issues , September 2003 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://tammi.tamu.edu/coalitter.html.
88 S. Zhu and S.W. Lee, Co-combustion performance of poultry wastes and natural gas in the advanced
Swirling FluidizedBed Combustor (SFBC), 2005, Waste Management, 25: 511-518.
89 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
90 Ibid.
91 Preston Burnette, BGP Continuous Feed Gasifier General Information
92 Michael M. Murphy, Repowering Options: Retrofit of Coal-fired Power Boilers Using Fluidized Bed
Biomass Gasification, Energy Products of Idaho, May 2001 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.energvproducts.com/documents/Gasifier%20Retrofit%20MLM.PDF.
93 Timmenga & Associates Inc., Evaluation of Options for Fraser Valley Poultry Manure Utilization,
Prepared for Broiler Hatching Egg Producers' Association, BC Chicken Growers Association, BC Turkey
Association, Fraser Valley Egg Producers' Association, May 2003 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007);
available from http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/poultrv/publications/documents/evaluation poultry manure.pdf.
94 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
95 USDA Agricultural Research Service, Science Update, Agricultural Research Magazine Vol. 55, No. 8,
September 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/sepQ7/sci0907.htm.
96 Don Comis, ARS Center Searches for "Opportunity Fuels", March 30, 2007 (accessed November 2007);
available from http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/07033Q.htm.
97 Coaltec Energy (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.coaltecenergy.com/.
98 Ibid.
99 Mike McGolden, Coaltec Energy USA, Inc., Letter commenting on 9/4/07 draft version of this report,
October 22, 2007.
100 Matt Harper, personal email correspondence, November 6, 2007.
101 Johannes Lehmann, Biochar: The New Frontier, Cornell University (accessed Winter/Spring 2007);
available from http://www.css.cornell.edu/facultv/lehmann/biochar/Biochar home.htm.
102 Matt Harper, November 6, 2007
103 Coaltec Energy, http://www.coaltecenergy.com/.
104 Ibid.
105 Northeast Regional Biomass Program, Case Study 2: New Gasifier-Boiler for a Feed Mill, Bridgeville,
MD, Appendix G in "Economic and technical feasibility of energy production from poultry litter and
nutrient filter biomass on the lower Delmarva Peninsula", 1999 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available
from http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub20b.pdf.
106 Gary Walters, Diane Mountain, Daniel Goldstein, and Peter Hall, Environmental Review of the Allen
Family Foods/CHx Engineering Cogeneration Project, Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources Power Plant Research Program, November 2002 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPSE-AFF-01/PPSE-AFF-Ql.pdf.
107 CHP in the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry, Allen Family Chicken Processors (accessed
Winter/Spring 2007); available from http://www.sentech.org/CHP4foodprocessing/industrvleaders.htm.
108 Walters et al.
109 Glenn Rolfe, Poultry Waste a Source of Fuel, 2005 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.remenergv.com/The%20Leader%20and%20State%20RegisteiVo2011-03-05.pdf.
110 Pete Macinta, "Boiler 'not a done deal'", Daily Banner, January 18, 2006 (accessed Winter/Spring
2007); available from http://www.remenergv.com/DAILY%20BANNER.pdf.
111 Ibid.
112 Chesapeake Bay Program, Minutes from the October 18, 2007 Regional Manure and Litter Use
Technology Task Force Conference Call.
113 Bill Ricken, phone conversation, May 31, 2007.
114 Williams
115 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
116 Williams
80
-------
117 F.A. Agblevorand S.S. Kim, Final Report on Thermal Conversion of Poultry Litter to Pyrodiesel and
Fertilizer, Prepared for the Virginia Poultry Federation, Inc., under contract no. 208-11-110°-002-814-1,
November 2006.
118 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
119 Agblevor and Kim
120 Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy
121 Agblevor and Kim
122 Lori Greiner, "Solving an Age-Old Problem", Innovations, Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and
Life Sciences, January 2007 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.cals.vt.edu/news/pubs/innovations/ian2007/problem.html.
123 Gulf Coast CHP Application Center, How is CHP used in Ethanol Plants? (accessed Winter/Spring
2007); available from http://www.gulfcoastchp.org/Markets/Industrial/Medium/Ethanol/.
124 Panda Ethanol, "Panda Ethanol to Build 100 Million Gallon Ethanol Plant in Muleshoe, Texas",
November 1, 2006 (accessed June 2007); available from
http://files.harc.edu/Sites/GulfCoastCHP/News/Other/PandaMuleshoeAnnouncement.pdf.
125 Energy Products of Idaho, "Energy Products of Idaho to Provide Cow Manure Fired Energy System for
Panda Hereford Ethanol, LP in Hereford, Texas", September 2006 (accessed June 2007); available from
http://www.energyproducts.com/panda hereford%20prl.htm.
126 The Foundation for Organic Resources Management, Inc. "Converting Poultry Litter into Energy in the
US", September 2002 (accessed Winter/Spring 2007); available from
http://www.thepoultrvsite.com/articles/15/.
127 President George W. Bush, President Bush Delivers State of the Union Address, January 2007 (accessed
January 2007); available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/2007Q123-2.html.
128 The White House, Twenty In Ten: Strengthening America's Energy Security, January 2007 (accessed
January 2007); available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2007/initiatives/energv.html.
129 Environmental Law and Policy Center, An American Success Story: The Farm Bill's Clean Energy
Programs, August 2006 (accessed March 2007); available from
http://www.farmenergv.org/documents/AmericanSuccessStories.Aug2006.pdf.
130 Ibid.
131 US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Energy, Biomass Research and Development
Initiative: 2003 Request for Proposals, March 18, 2003 (accessed April 2007); available from
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/BiomassRFP.pdf.
132 USDA Rural Development, Value-Added Producer Grant Success Stories (accessed March 2007);
available from http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/success%20Stories.htm.
133 Environmental Law and Policy Center, Securing Energy Security, Economic Progress and
Environmental Quality through the Farm Bill's Clean Energy Development Programs, Testimony of
Howard A. Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, for the United States
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, May 9, 2007 (accessed June 2007); available
from
http://www.farmenergv.org/documents/HLearnerTestimonvSenateAgCmteFarmBillMav92007FINAL.pdf.
134 Environmental and Energy Study Institute, "Administration's Proposed Biomass Budget for Fiscal Year
2007", February 9, 2006 (accessed April 2007); available from
http://sungrant.oregonstate.edu/highlights/press release 02 09 2006.html.
135 Environmental Law and Policy Center, Securing Energy Security
136 Ibid.
137 Chesapeake Bay Commission, 2007 Federal Farm Bill: Concepts for Conservation Reform in the
Chesapeake Bay Region, November 2005 (accessed February 2007); available from
http://www.chesbav.state.va.us/Publications/Farm%20Bill%20Report.pdf.
138 Sara Wyant, ed., "Johanns unveils America's Farm Bill", Agri-Pulse Update, Agri-Pulse
Communications, Inc., January 31, 2007.
139 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA 2007 Farm Bill Proposals: Title IX, Energy, 2007 (accessed
Spring 2007); available from http://www.usda.gov/documents/07title9.pdf.
140 Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Energy Policy Act of2005: New Provisions for Biomass
(accessed February 2007); available from http://www.agobservatorv.org/librarv.cfm?RefID=88471.
81
-------
141 Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Celluslosic Ethanol State-of-the-Art Conversion Processes,
January 8, 2006 (accessed May 2007); available from
http://www.ef.org/documents/ce conversion factsheet ef eesi final l-08-07.pdf.
142 Sara Michael
143 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Current Developments in Federal Energy
Legislation (accessed April 2007); available from http://www.aceee.org/energy/06nrglegistatus.htm.
144 Shirley Neff, Review of the Energy Policy Act of2005, August 2, 2005 (accessed March 2007); available
from http://www.cemtpp.org/PDFs/EnergyBillHighlights.pdf.
145 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (accessed October 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org.
146 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Renewable Portfolio Standard: Delaware,
October 24, 2006 (accessed October 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=DE06R&Search=Type&tvp
e=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE=l.
147 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard:
Maryland, 2006 (accessed October 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=MD05R&Search=Type&tv
pe=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE= 1.
148 Tom Pelton
149 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard:
Pennsylvania, 2006 (accessed February 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=PA06R&Search=Type&tvp
e=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE=l.
150 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Renewable Portfolio Standard: New York,
2006 (accessed February 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=NY03R&Search=Type&tvp
e=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE=l.
151 NY RPS Proceeding Home Page, Retail Renewable Portfolio Standard Case 03-E-0188: About the
Initiative (accessed April 2007); available from http://www.dps.state.nv.us/03e0188.htm.
152 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Renewables Portfolio Standard: District of
Columbia, February 21, 2007 (accessed April 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=DC04R&Search=Type&tvp
e=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE=l.
153 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Voluntary Renewable Energy Portfolio
Goal: Virginia, June 7, 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=VA10R&Search=Type&tvp
e=RPS&CurrentPageID=2&EE=0&RE=l.
154 25x'25, 25x '25 Action Plan: Charting America's Energy Future, February 2007 (accessed March 2007);
available from
http://www.25x25.org/storage/25x25/documents/IP%20Documents/ActionPlanFinalWEB 04-19-07.pdf.
155 Ibid.
156 25x'25 (accessed March 2007); available from http://www.25x25.org/.
157 Lichtenberg, Parker, and Lynch
158Maryland Agricultural Commission, A Statewide Plan for Agricultural Policy and Resource
Management, Submitted to Agriculture Secretary Lewis Riley, June 2006.
159 Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, The Pennsylvania Energy Development Plan, April 2006
Draft (accessed February 2007); available from
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/enintech/lib/enintech/The Pennsylvania Energy Development Planl.pdf.
160 Kim Crossman, EPA, phone conversation, April, 27, 2007.
161 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Book: Criteria Pollutants (accessed April 2007);
available from http://www. epa. gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/o3 co. html.
162 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, Air Permits: New Source Review (accessed April
2007); available from http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/newsource.html.
163 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, Air Permits: Who Needs It? (accessed April 2007);
available from http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/whoneedsit.
82
-------
164 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, Air Permits: New Source Review
165 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Minor NSR Basic Information (accessed April 2007); available
from http://www.epa.gov/nsr/minor.html.
166 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, Air Permits: Permit Programs (accessed April 2007);
available from http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/index.html.
167 Bud Malone, May 17, 2007.
168 Tom Lilly, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, phone conversation,
May 4, 2007.
169 Suna Sariscak, Maryland Department of the Environment, phone conversation, May 1, 2007.
170 Tamera Thompson, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, phone conversation, May 4, 2007.
171 Alternative Resources, Inc... I Review of the Expected Air Emissions for the Proposed Fibroshore 40-
MW Power Plant to be Fueled with Poultry Litter and Wood, Prepared for Maryland Environmental
Service, February 2001 (accessed April 2007); available from http://www.nrbp.org/pdfs/pub27.pdf.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid.
174 Ibid.
175 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, "MPCA Approves Air Emissions Permit for Proposed Power
Plant Fueled by Turkey Litter", October 25, 2002 (accessed April 20); available from
http://www.fibrowattusa.com/US-Press/MPCA%20News%20Release%20-
%20Permit%20Approved%2025%20Qct%2002.pdf.
176 Alternative Resources, Inc.
177 Ibid.
178 Fibrominn, "MPCA Approves First Federal Air Permit in US for a Poultry Litter Fueled Power Plant-
Fibrominn", October 22, 2002 (accessed April 2007); available from http://www.fibrowattusa.com/US-
Press/Press%20Release%20MPCA%20Air%20Permit%20Approval%2022%20Qct%2002.pdf.
179 Alternative Resources, Inc.
180 Ibid.
181 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Federal Renewable Electricity Production
Tax Credit, January 5, 2007 (accessed February 2007); available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentivesearch.cfm7Incentive Code=US13F&search=Implementi
ng&implementingsector=F¤tpageid=2&EE=0&RE= 1.
182 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Maryland Incentives for Renewables and
Efficiency: Clean Energy Production Tax Credit- Personal, November 3, 2006 (accessed March 2007);
available from
http://www.dsireusa.org/librarv/includes/incentive2.cfm7Incentive Code=MD17F&state=MD&CurrentPag
eID=l&RE=l&EE=l.
183 Comptroller of Maryland, Clean Energy Incentive Tax Credit (accessed February 2007); available from
http://business.marvlandtaxes.com/taxinfo/taxcredit/cleanenergy/default.asp.
184 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Pennsylvania Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) State Tax
Credit Program, 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.cbf.org/site/DocServer/REAP Summary 090607.pdf?docID=9903.
185 Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Resource Enhancement and Protection Program (REAP),
October 2007 (accessed November 2007); available from
http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=145155&PM=l.
186 Douglas Goodlander, Malcolm Furman, and Patricia Buckley
187 Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, Glossary (accessed March 2007); available
from http://www.dsireusa.org/glossarv/glossarv.cfm?&CurrentPageID=8&EE=0&RE=l.
188 Home Power, Net Metering FAQ (accessed March 2007); available from
http://www.homepower.com/resources/net metering faa.cfm.
189 Ibid.
190 U.S. Department of Energy, Green Power Policies (accessed March 2007); available from
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/state policies.shtml.
191 Pepco Energy Services, Products and Services: Residential Services (accessed March 2007); available
from
http://www.pepcoenergy.com/Products AndServices/residentialServices.aspx?MarketCode=Residential.
83
-------
192 U.S. Department of Energy, Green Power Marketing: Retail Products by State (accessed March 2007);
available from http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/marketing.shtml?page=l.
193 CVPS Cow Power (accessed March 2007); available from http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/.
194 Ibid.
195 "CVPS Cow Power, Audets Receive State's Highest Environmental Honor", January 29, 2007 (accessed
March 2007); available from http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/NewsJan292007.html.
196 CVPS Cow Power, http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/.
197 U.S. Department of Energy, Renewable Energy Certificates (accessed March 2007); available from
http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/markets/certificates.shtml?page=Q.
198 Jeffrey Gangemi, "Selling Power Back to the Grid", Business Week, July 6, 2006 (accessed March
2007); available from http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/iul2006/sb200607Q6 167332.htm.
199 Ibid.
200 Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX GHG Emission Offsets from Renewable Energy Systems, June 2006
(accessed April 2007); available from
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/pdf/CCX Renewable Offsets.pdf.
201 Carbon Credit Solutions LLC (accessed April 2007); available from http://carboncreditsolutions.com/.
202 Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX Agricultural Methane Emissions Offsets, February 2006 (accessed
April 2007); available from
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/news/publications/pdf/CCX Ag Methane Offsets.pdf.
203 Chicago Climate Exchange, CCX GHG Emission Offsets from Renewable Energy Systems
204 Ibid.
205 Chesapeake Bay Program, Agricultural Sector Briefing: Implementation Committee for the Chesapeake
Bay Program, April 19, 2007 (accessed April 2007); available from
http://www.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/ANRWG 05-10-07 Handout 1 7897.pdf.
206 Felicity Barringer, "A Plan to Curb Farm-to-Watershed Pollution of Chesapeake Bay", New York Times,
April 13, 2007 (accessed July 2007); available from
http://www.nvtimes.com/2007/04/13/us/13bav.html?ei=5090&en=d87f5f731cab8e9b&ex=1334116800&a
dxnnl=l&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185223050-aDuL6g7Thf8Zo2/VUSX+vQ.
207 Lichtenberg, Parker, and Lynch
208 Bock
209 Antares Group Incorporated, T.R. Miles Technical Consulting, Inc., and Foster Wheeler Development
Corporation
210 Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Manure's Impact on Rivers
211 Bock
212 Ibid.
213 Ibid.
214 Lichtenberg, Parker, and Lynch
215 The Foundation for Organic Resources Management, Inc.
216 Bud Malone, May 17, 2007.
84
------- |