The Waste-to-Energy Working Group Meeting, Part 2



Photograph of Fibrowatt's Minnesota plant.

 At the risk of over-summarizing the discussion at the work group, this (long, 1,000 words +) second post will highlight a couple of the topics of discussion that took place there. As a reminder, the next work session will take place in Harrisonburg, acknowledging that we are talking about a Valley issue here, and not a Piedmont issue…and you can find the full set of notes that I am working from on the Page County Blog at http://pagecountyblog.com/poultry-litter-meeting  (there’s also a recording of the work session there).  A full history of Hawksbill Cabin posts can be found by clicking the Fibrowatt label below.


On further review, the discussion points this panel is pushing around makes it sound like a Fibrowatt plant is the only way to go as far as addressing the chicken litter waste problem. At its simplest, the Fibrowatt concept only trades off water pollution for air pollution. That’s why communities where these projects have been proposed, like Page County – locations in Georgia, North Carolina, and now Delmarva – are rejecting the proposals.

It remains surprising to me that our governor has chartered this meeting without including alternative energy from litter approaches at the table. As second thought that comes to mind is the absence from tourism industry participants beyond the NPS representation.

Now back to the meeting notes – here is a summary of the questions this study will attempt to address.

• The study is supposed to determine net nutrient load reduction levels - taking into account reductions from litter-to-energy system as well as potential new load from replacing land application with commercial fertilizers.
• The study will analyze effects from emission deposition on the Chesapeake Bay watershed and effects on Shenandoah National Park air quality.
• The study will analyze various waste ash handling options to determine impact on Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• The study will analyze and compare costs of alternative solutions for nutrient reductions in the Shenandoah-Potomac watershed.

Once these basic scope questions were discussed, the session moved onto other topics, including a straightforward listing of the concerns of the stakeholders at the table. There was also a brainstorming session of ideas that might serve to flesh out the study, but due to space constraints I can’t include that full discussion; instead I will summarize after this list of concerns.

• Something needs to be done to improve water quality. Removing 75,000 tons of poultry litter/yr has already been determined as a necessary action.
• Must look at how this alternative affects air quality.
• What are the net impacts if 150,000 tons of poultry litter is removed from the watershed but replaced with commercial grade fertilizer? What are the impacts to the air from the current land application practices? There must be some ammonia currently going into the air with land application. What is the net environmental benefit of using litter as fertilizer versus using litter for energy? Will litter be replaced with commercial fertilizers? How much nitrogen and phosphorus is removed from agricultural application as litter vs. replaced by commercial fertilizer?
• What are the benefits to the Shenandoah River? Look at algae and odor as parameters. Is there an issue with the pesticides in the wood chips that might be burned? Is arsenic an issue?
• What is the sustainability of the fuel? Can emissions be determined from a pilot scale project, and then scaled up? What is the heating value of the fuel, compared to heating value of other fuels? What type of regulations does EPA have on this type of Biomass? Is Bio-char good for the soil? Look at emission depositions, and how it affects the soil. Analyze micro incineration emission as well as emissions from transportation.
• Arsenic has not been attributed to fish kills in the region. DCR has already evaluated the arsenic issue, and determined the poultry industry is not at fault. The poultry growers have nutrient management plans. Litter that is land applied must meet regulatory requirements as well. Who has measured the amount of N and P not making it into streams?
• Bay model is being revised. Make sure research is accurate, reflecting the latest models.
• Comparison of effects that ammonia emissions have on air and water when land applied versus effect on air and water from emissions coming from a large centralized waste-to-energy plant. Also must incorporate effects of the nutrient trading program (HB1102). If nutrients are being reduced in the agricultural sector, they should get the credit.
• Review agro economics of phosphorous and nitrogen.
• Review unintended consequences of each of the alternative solutions. We have baseline information on existing air quality and TMDLs; consider the information we already have.
• What happens to the chemical composition of the Nitrogen, Sulfur, Copper and other pollutants from poultry litter in a high heat environment? Are dioxin and furan an issue?
• Arsenic should be reviewed to rule it out as an issue. Also, need to evaluate how much poultry litter is currently being land applied and use math to determine what the actual excess amount available as potential fuel is.
• Evaluate why Fibrowatt was able to build in Minnesota, but is not having success in the Eastern Shore.
• Also, need to look at potential regulatory changes, such as the nutrient trading program, that might affect pricing, and the overall economics of any such project.
• Fibrowatt’s work on the Delmarva Peninsula is complicated since Fibrowatt needs to find a long term PPA. The Company is also evaluating what to do with the ash.
• Look at current legislative measure that might be outlawing phosphorous in fertilizer.
• Find the chemical composition of the ash.

Here’s a summary of the brainstorming list – actually, just highlights I’ve chosen. It seems like the panel seeks balance in some of these concerns despite the presence of Fibrowatt at the table. The question in my mind remains – why are they the only technology represented at the table here, when alternatives are available – efficient, scalable alternatives, that do not require so much public underwriting. At least those are questions the panel raised in this discussion.

• Can this study be funded for and produced by Universities and technical experts who are objective and have no stake in the outcomes?
• Should the study consider incineration technology only?
• Which technology will be used for the project and how will alternative technologies be evaluated?
• Can other biomass be included in addition to poultry litter?
• What scale? Centralized (large) or on-farm (small) and associated transportation issues?
• Evaluate other smaller, decentralized solutions?
• What are the costs of alternative solutions?
• Change the location of the next advisory meeting to Valley to increasing transparency?

Over the next few weeks, I am going to work on getting a few posts up about the alternatives to Fibrowatt for waste-to-energy plants. It was an oversight not to include them during the discussions last year – so we’ll correct that ASAP.