Category: Biofuels

Animal Wastes: An Energy Resource That Is Win-Win

I first became aware of the animal waste issue in 1995 when a lagoon of liquid pig wastes in Iowa overflowed its banks and contaminated a nearby waterway. It made the national news, including the Washington Post, and resulted in one of my DOE colleagues asking me if we had a program to generate fuels/energy from such wastes. This was a logical question as I then headed DOE’s renewable electricity programs and biomass issues were under my purview. I answered honestly, no, but immediately headed to the offices of my biomass program and directed that such a program be started. I designated one of the senior biomass staff to head it up, it started the next day, and the new program head, a Ph.D, was unofficially given the title “Dr. Poop”.

Not having such a program earlier was clearly an oversight on my part, and I began to educate myself on the realities of animal wastes and their possibilities for productive application. One step was tracking down people in the DOE national laboratory system that knew about such things, and I found an expert at Oak Ridge. He directed me to useful information, of which there was quite a bit, and helped me organize an all-day meeting at the University of Tennessee with animal waste experts that explored these issues in detail. It was illuminating to say the least, especially for this boy from the Bronx who didn’t see his first bull until he was 16 and his first pig until he was in graduate school. I’ve never been the same since.

A few facts and numbers will put the issue in context. The U.S. produces lots of livestock (cows, chickens, turkeys, etc.) and therefore lots of animal wastes. Until recently the U.S. was the leading global meat producer but is now #2 behind China (42 million metric tons/MMT vs. 83 MMT), with Brazil coming in third at 25 MMT. EPA, which plays an important role in animal waste management in the U.S., estimates that this waste is produced on 1.3 million farms across the nation. The numbers of animals raised each year in the U.S. is staggering – more than 9 billion chickens, 250 million turkeys, 100 million beef and dairy cattle, 65 million pigs, and other animals (sheep, goats, ..) that are raised as part of our food economy. The net result of all this is about one billion annual tons of animal wastes – about ten times the amount of municipal sewage – that have to be dealt with in a way that does not jeopardize human, fish, or ecosystem health.

image

Why are animal wastes a threat? Agriculture, including livestock, is a major source of nitrates that pollute water supplies. Animal wastes also contain disease-causing pathogens such as E coli, Salmonella, and Cryptosporidium that can be many times more concentrated than in human waste. “More than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure.” Antibiotics added to animal feed to project against infection and speed up llivestock growth (about 30 million pounds annually, or 80% of antibiotic use in the U.S.) gets into human foods and contributes to the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria. In addition, wastes at pig farms emit hydrogen sulfide, a corrosive gas that if inhaled at high concentrations can lead to brain damage and death.

Can’t we just contain this stuff so it doesn’t get into our water supplies? The facts are that some waste lagoons are as big as several football fields and are prone to leaks and spills.

image

To quote the Natural Resources Defense Council:
“In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina iburst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.

In 2011, an Illinois hog farm spilled 200,000 gallons of manure into a creek, killing over 110,000 fish.

In 2012, a California dairy left over 50 manure covered cow carcasses rotting around its property and polluting nearby waters.

When Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina in 1999, at least five manure lagoons burst and approximately 47 lagoons were completely flooded.

Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina is believed to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish and causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people.

Nutrients in animal waste cause algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water, contributing to a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where there’s not enough oxygen to support aquatic life. The dead zone fluctuates in size each year, extending a record 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002 and stretching over 7,700 square miles during the summer of 2010.

Ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen released in gas form during waste disposal, can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before being dumped back onto the ground or into the water, where it causes algal blooms and fish kills.”

Complicating all this is the reality of ‘intensification’, the fact that “..smaller family farms have been replaced by corporate operations hounding thousands of animals in assembly-line conditions.” For example, the number of pig farms in the U.S. in 2011 was one tenth the number in 1980 but the number of pigs sold was about the same. Ten companies today produce more than 90% of the nation’s poultry and 70% of U.S. beef cattle come from farms with at least 5,000 head of cattle.

This concentration of livestock growing in factory farms, called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is driven by economic imperatives. It leads to a buildup of animal wastes in small land areas, which if properly stored and used, can be a valuable resource. If not properly managed the waste produced by CAFOs can pollute the environment, especially water sources. Waste is often pumped into open-air lagoons from which liquid manure is sprayed onto fields as fertilizer. The amount of waste applied often exceeds what the crops can absorb, leaving the rest to escape into the air or as runoff into surface waters.

There are many productive uses of manure, including fuel and energy production. These include recovery of undigested anti-biotics, recovery of solid materials for use in building materials, and production of dry plant and crop fertilizer that is the byproduct of biodigestion. It is this latter activity that offers a ubiquitous and large energy resource.

As reported by the Agriculture Extension Division of Colorado State University: “The demand for clean energy, coupled with concern for management of livestock wastes, has revived an interest in generating methane from livestock manures. The most widely accepted technology currently available for converting organic wastes present in livestock manure is anaerobic digestion (AD). AD is a biological process by which microorganisms convert organic material into biogas, containing methane and carbon dioxide. Biogas produced by this process can be utilized to generate electricity or can be cleaned up and supplied to natural gas lines. Collection and utilization of methane generated from livestock manure offers the potential to reduce global emissions of methane (a greenhouse gas), reduce CO2 released from fossil fuels, diminish odor from agricultural facilities, and improve water quality. In many cases, anaerobic digestion either decreases on-farm energy costs or increases revenues from energy resale.” An interesting number is that, on average, “..a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day” which has an energy value of about 14,000 BTU. Thus, “It would take manure from approximately 50 cows to produce enough biogas for heating a typical home.”

image

Proper management and use of animal wastes is clearly a ‘win-win’ if we can prevent water and air pollution and tap into a potentially large energy resource. For example, China is actively pursuing biodigestion of human and animal wastes, particularly in rural areas that lack grid connections, for producing biogas for lighting and cooking. The International Energy Agency’s CADDETT Reneable Energy Program (http://www.caddett-re.org) “..gathers information on full-scale commercial projects which are operating in the member countries..”. Its Renewable Energy Register, a database of demonstrated renewable energy projects, contains many biodigestion entities – e.g., ‘Poultry Litter as a Fuel for Electricity Production’, ‘Electricity and Heat from the Aanaerobic Digestion of Farm Wastes’, and ‘Centralized Manure Digestion Plant’. Information is readily available; what is now needed is widespread implementation.

Subsidies For Energy Technologies: Are They Fair?

Subsidies for energy technologies is a complicated and contentious issue and one that a few studies have tried to illuminate for the rest of us. For what I consider informative and balanced discussions I would refer you to
– ‘Reforming Fossil-Fuel Subsidies to Reduce Waste and Limit CO2 Emissions while Protecting the Poor’, Global Subsidies Initiative of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), September 2012
– Ken Silverstein’s October 23, 2013 piece in the e-journal energybiz entitled ‘Fossil Fuels and Green Energy Feed Mightily at the Public Trough’
– ‘Analysis & Projections: Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010’, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August 1, 2011
– ‘Federal Financial Support for the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies’, Congressional Budget Office (CBO), March 2011.

There are many other useful sources of information as well. Of course vested interests on all sides of the energy debate have taken their shot at this topic. For example, the views of the fossil fuel industries can be found in the publications of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) and often in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Supporters of subsidies for renewable energy technologies are active as well in expressing their views via statements by trade associations such as the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association. All in all, a difficult subject to get one’s objective hands around, but I will try (foolishly?) in this blog post. Admittedly a strong advocate for rapid progress toward a renewable energy future, I will try to be as balanced as I can in my discussion, as I truly want to better understand this subject and believe that informed public opinion is the long term prerequisite to a sustainable energy future. I will let you judge how successful I have been.

I start with a few definitions and some ‘facts’ that all sides in this debate can hopefully agree upon.
– “Subsidies are one of many policy instruments used by governments to attain economic, social and environmental objectives.” (iisd)
– “Energy subsidies, in particular, are often used to alleviate energy poverty and promote economic development, by enabling access to affordable modern energy services.” (iisd)

The EIA, in its analysis, refers to ‘energy subsidies and interventions’ in five categories: direct cash expenditures to energy producers and consumers, tax expenditures via provisions in the tax code, R&D expenditures for increasing energy supplies or improving energy efficiency, loans and loan guarantees for certain energy technologies, and electricity supply programs targeted at specific geographical regions (e.g., TVA and BPA). The discussion in this blog post touches on the first four.

U.S. tax code energy incentives were first established in 1916 and until 2005 were focused on stimulating domestic production of oil and natural gas. Incentives for improved energy efficiency and renewable energy (solar, wind, ….) were introduced starting in 2006 and by 2011 accounted for 78% of a substantially increased amount of federal energy-related tax expenditures in that year. However, it is important to recognize that this large support for ‘clean energy’ was due to passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), and did not imply a reduction in tax code incentives for fossil fuels or nuclear energy. To put some numbers into this discussion, CBO estimates that tax preferences (“..special deductions, special tax rates, tax rates, tax credits, and grants in lieu of tax credits..”) in 2011 amounted to $20.5 billion. An additional $3.4 billion was provided in FY 2012 by DOE in R&D support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.

CBO also points out that of the four major tax preferences operative in 2011, only four were permanent parts of the tax code (the energy efficiency part of ARRA expired at the end of 2011 and the tax preferences for renewable energy were scheduled to expire by 2013), of which three were directed at fossil fuels and one at nuclear energy.

image

A quick word about nuclear energy: the Atomic Energy act of 1946, following the end of WWII, created a framework for government control of civilian nuclear power plants for electricity generation. Industry was concerned about potential liability in the event of a nuclear accident and the limited amounts of liability coverage initially offered by the insurance market, so in 1957 Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law the Price-Anderson Act, which has been renewed several times since, and “..governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear accidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public.” (Wikipedia). In its latest incarnation the Act requires the nuclear industry to cover the first $12.6 billion of damages, with costs above that to be covered by retroactive increases in nuclear utility liability or the federal government. Regardless of one’s view of nuclear energy, I believe it is fair to say that a U.S. civilian nuclear power industry would not exist without the Price-Anderson Act.

What is my take on all this, an issue I followed closely through my many years in federal service and still follow? Energy is clearly a driving force in economies, and prominence of nations at various points in history have reflected their energy sources – e.g., the Dutch with wind power in the 1600’s, the British with coal in the 1800’s, and the U.S. with oil in the 20th century. So energy is critically important and U.S. policies to encourage oil, natural gas and coal production were central to America’s emergence as a leading economy and nation. However, the context has changed – we now have well-established fossil fuel industries, supplying approximately 80% of global energy today, and we now understand that combustion of fossil fuels puts large amounts of pollutants and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. These carbon emissions, which mix into the global atmosphere regardless of where they are generated, cause global warming as they change the earth’s energy balance with the sun and create climate change that seems irrefutable and which we are struggling to better understand. So the world has a conundrum: use of fossil fuels helps improve human welfare in lots of ways, but that use is creating a problem that is a severe threat to the planet’s health. These considerations have led to major efforts to develop and deploy clean energy technologies – improved energy efficiency to reduce our need for carbon-emissive fossil fuels, and renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, ocean) that do not emit carbon dioxide during power generation. Nuclear power is also a non-carbon-emitting power source that is receiving increased attention.

image

Some people, including President Obama, have called for a phase-out of oil industry incentives, especially in light of unusually high profits recorded by major oil companies such as Exxon and Shell. This seems reasonable, as high oil prices today are providing adequate incentive to these companies. A complicating factor is that smaller, independent producers drill most of the onshore U.S. oil wells today, and are responsible for creating the wells that are delivering increasing amounts of home-grown shale oil and gas that are reducing consumer costs, creating domestic jobs, and bringing some factories back to the U.S. from overseas locations. If jobs and national security are our immediate priorities, then incentives for this domestic production by small producers should be maintained. The hitch is that this should not slow down national investment in clean energy technologies which are critical to our long-term economic and national security interests. This is where Congress has to exercise wise judgement as it sets national energy policy – taking care of today’s needs while investing in the future. The transition from today’s fossil-fuel-dependent world will take time, but it would be irresponsible to not look down the road and make necessary investments today that put us firmly on the road to a sustainable energy future. Without government intervention of this type, “..households and businesses do not have a financial incentive to take into account the environmental damage or other costs to the nation associated with their choices about energy production and consumption…unless the government intervenes, the amount of research and development (R&D) that the private sector undertakes is likely to be inefficiently low from society’s perspective because firms cannot easily capture the ‘spillover benefits’ that result from it.” (CBO). Our current energy pricing system does not take into account the ‘externalities’ of energy use such as public health effects and dependence on other countries for part of our energy needs.

In the end it comes down to values, as reflected in policy and budgets. When I first came to Washington, DC and worked on Capitol Hill I was told quickly that ‘budgets are policy’. I feel strongly that we lack a forward-looking national energy policy, which I ascribe to a failure by Congress to do its job of looking to the future, anticipating issues that will face the country, and taking the necessary steps to begin addressing those issues. When such a policy vacuum exists in Washington states often take the lead out of necessity, and that is happening now. We can clearly do better at the federal level to serve our long-term national interests.

Biomass Energy: An Old and Future Technology

Biomass is defined by Wikipedia as “biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms.” It includes plant material and animal wastes. Combustion of biomass has been used throughout human history to provide heat, ever since the discovery of fire, and is the oldest form of renewable energy (it has an extensive literature). It is still widely used for heating purposes but other ways to obtain useful energy from biomass have now been developed, including gasification and conversion to liquid fuels. Each of these applications and biomass’ significant potential are discussed below.

image

A lot of biomass is produced each year in the world, about half in the oceans and half on land. It is biologically-produced matter based in carbon as well as hydrogen and oxygen. Estimated annual production is 100,000 billion kilograms of carbon. An important point to keep in mind is that the chemical arrangements of these organic materials can be changed, an important focus of biomass research.

image

On land biomass can be obtained from a variety of sources:

image

Wood, in the form of trees, tree stumps, branches, wood chips, and yard clippings remains the largest source of biomass energy today. In many developing countries it is still the only combustion fuel source for domestic use. Other common fuel sources include municipal solid wastes, animal wastes (e.g., ‘cow chips’ or bio-digested manure), and landfill gas (primarily methane and carbon dioxide).

image001

In recent years pellet fuels, made from compressed biomass. have been used increasingly for heating in power plants, homes, and other applications. Wood pellets are the most common type, but grasses can also be pelletized. Pellets are extremely dense and can be produced with a low moisture content that allows them to be burned with a high combustion efficiency. Further, their uniform shape and small size facilitates automatic feeding. According to the International Energy Agency global wood pellet production more than doubled between 2006 and 2010 to over 14 million tons. In a 2012 report, the Biomass Energy Resource Center anticipated another doubling of wood pellet production in North America within five years.

wood pellets

An important application of biomass is its direct conversion into liquid fuels, or biofuels, that can replace petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. These ‘alternative’ fuels fall into two categories, first generation biofuels such as ethanol that are derived from sugarcane and corn starch (and therefore compete with food crops) and second generation biofuels that use as feedstock non-food and low value agricultural and municipal wastes that are not edible. Production of first generation biofuels is well underway in Brazil and the U.S. but second generation production is still limited by high production costs. The problem is the difficulty in breaking down the lignocellulosic biomass that constitutes the bulk of plant matter. Governments and many private sector firms are attacking this problem and 2014 could be a breakthrough year as a number of second generation production plants come on line.

ethanol from corn

Ethanol, which is usually mixed with gasoline to produce E-10 (90% gasoline and 10% ethanol) can also be produced by gasification of biomass. Gasification processes use high temperatures in a low-oxygen environment to convert biomass into synthesis (or ‘syn”) gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This gas can then be chemically converted into ethanol (C2H5OH) or a wide variety of other C-H-O molecules and fuels.

An emerging and potentially major biomass field is the production of alternative fuels using algae (algaculture). Algae is Latin for ‘seaweed’ and are “..photosynthetic organisms that occur in most habitats. They vary from small, single-celled forms to complex, multicellular forms, such as the giant kelps that grow to 65 meters in length.” ‘Photosyntheic’ refers to algae’s ability to capture light energy to power the manufacture of sugars, carbohydrates composed of C-H-O that can then be converted to other C-H-O molecules. . Algae differ from plants in that they are primarily aquatic.

algae

Interest in algae was triggered by the need for alternatives to petroleum fuels and the world food crisis. Algae produce lipids (a variety of organic compounds) that can be used for making biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biojetfuel, biomethanol, biobutanol, and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture (e.g., land with saline soil). They can be produced using seawater, brackish water, and wastewater, and are biodegradeable. An important, and perhaps critical, aspect of algaculture is that it is claimed that algae farming can yield 10-100 (one claim says 300) times more fuel per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops. It is estimated that growing enough algae to replace all U.S. petroleum fuels would require only 0.4% (15,000 square miles) of the U.S. land area, or a small fraction of land currently devoted to corn production. Algae crops also have a short harvesting cycle – 1 to 10 days – and so can be harvested repeatedly in a short time-frame.

The biggest barrier to greater use of algae-derived biofuels is the cost of scaling up to commercial production levels. Another concern, for open-pond algae facilities, is contamination by invasive algae and bacteria and vulnerability of monocultures to viral infection. Many schemes for reducing costs and potential contamination are being explored, given the large potential markets available. One obvious target is ground transportation. Another such market is the U.S. military which is already testing biofuels in aircraft and ships. A third large potential market is commercial air transportation. Finally, like all energy sources, biomass has environmental impacts and risks – e.g., water demand and deforestation if land is cleared for biomass production.

A brief word on biochar, a form of charcoal that is created by pyrolysis (low- or no-oxygen heating) of biomass. It is believed that pre-Columbian Amazonians used biochar to increase soil productivity. In addition, biochar has attracted growing attention because of its ability to sequester carbon for centuries (and thus reduce global warming) and its ability to attract and retain water because of its porous structure and high surface area. its production also does not compete with food production.

biochar

In my view, and that of many others, biomass will be a major part of our renewable energy future. It is available world-wide, grows in great and diverse quantity, can be used for direct heating and electricity production via heating of water, can be converted to liquid fuels and other C-H-O commodities, and, if used carefully, has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. . The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that biomass can provide up to 248 GWe of power generation capacity if fully utilized in the U.S. Current U.S. generating capacity is just over 1,000 GWe. Costs, the major barrier, will come down and our children and grandchildren (and probably many of us) will be traveling in biofuel-powered cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships before too long in the 21st century. It is an exciting option and real possibility that is just over the horizon.