Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)

1Gasification of poultry litter. Case study: Belarus Dr. Petr V. Dudin 10/09/2012 (Leiden - Minsk)

Dr. Petr Dudin | 2012

The BDC R&D company is involved in development and engineering design of pilot and industrial gasifiers.

BDC R&D also has a range of gas purification and catalyst technologies that can to tackle tars issues.

We are open to discuss emerging opportunities in gasification and gas cleaning technologies with laboratories, funds and entrepreneurs.

Disclaimer: Please, bear in mind that the information presented hereby might be outdated. The conclusions and financial estimations are also a subject of chosen process efficiencies, estimations and economic modeling, which is based on several assumptions.

Please, contact Dr. Petr Dudin via email ( [email protected] and [email protected] ) for further details.

3

1.1. Chicken farming in Belarus

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 201222

27

32

37

42Poltry farming in Belarus

Years

Chic

kens

kep

t, m

ln(i)

(ii)

(iii)


• Chicken population in Belarus to exceed 40 million birds in year 2012, giving ca. 200 million birds grown a year. Chicken meat export is largely relied on Russia, which has recently joined the WTO. This sets three possible scenarios for the entire sector:

(i) the export will continue to rise, benefiting from lasting exemption duties reliefs in Russia. (2-5 years)

(ii) Chicken production in Belarus will plateau due to increasing production/import in Russia (1-4 years)

(iii) the chicken production will decline due to exports decrease to Russia (higher competition within WTO, 3-10 years)

Dr. Petr Dudin | 2012 4

Manure/litter available in Belarusat price $2-5 per raw ton

Manure (cage) Litter (floor)• pure manure excreta

• 3-15 % dry content, looses water quickly

• higher mineral content

• excreta mixed with bedding material, feather, waste food and spilled water

• 40-80 % dry content

• straw, wood chips, sawdust and shavings is the typical bedding material in Belarus

Biomass as Fuel Dry matter, % Higher Heating Value, MJ/kg

Wheat straw (dry) 87.3 14.6

Wood chips 80 18.2

Pig manure pellets 90 15.3

Digested pig manure pellets 90 11.3

Poultry litter 65-80 9.5 - 15.3

Turkey litter 70 11.8

The heating value of poultry litter is variable and depends on (i) type of bedding material, (ii) moisture content;

1.2. What is chicken litter


• Alternatively, chicken litter can be utilized as fuel by three main routes:1) via Biogas reactor with efficiency <20%2) via Gasification with efficiency >40%3) via Combustion (possesses many environmental and technical problems)

• Both Biogas and Gasification technology convert chicken litter biomass to a combustible gas.• Digested substrate (biogas) or ash (gasification), which is reach in macronutrients (P and K), can be further utilized as a fertilizer. • Biogas digested slurry, in opposition to the gasified ash (GA), yet comes as wet and ‘diluted’ substance, which becomes problematic during transportation and distribution. • Gasification technology already offers >2 times more effective energy conversion, compared to Biogas, with other benefits (e.g. insensitivity to cold winters in Belarus, flexibility of energy output, etc.).

• Taking the number of ca. 200 million chicken grown in Belarus per annum, a conservative estimation of the manure/litter produced can be made. 250 million tons of manure/litter is produced, which gives energy value of >3 × 106 GJ per annum (HHV = 12 GJ/ton). This is equivalent to power of 850,000 GW-h.

• Conventional way of chicken litter utilization is composting with further usage as a fertilizer.

1.3. Chicken litter as fuel. Competing technologies overview


1.4. Gasification vs. Combustion and Incineration

+ No emission+ Produces syngas, which is of energy value and can be used/burned on site or transported elsewhere+ Location: rural and urban+ Small and large installations; Mobile gasifiers are also in production+ Modular plant design available+ ~40% electrical efficiency gas engines+ Sanitation and destruction of pathogens and possible pharmaceutical compounds+ No ash melting+ Resulted ash can be used as a fertilizer (reach source of P and K)+ Low temperatures: <750 ˚C

- Hazardous CO (poisonous) and H2

(flammable) gas produced

- Flue gas → heat loss- Emission (eg. NOx, SOx, H2S, HCl,

dioxines, furanes etc.) due to high temperatures, >1000 ˚C

- Corrosion problems (KCl)- Ash melting, slag formation- Ash contains less K recovered

and more heavy metals- Urban location city- Rather low electrical efficiency (~25%) due to use of steam turbine- Large installations

+ Produces more energy+ Sanitation and destruction of pathogens and possible pharmaceutical compounds


Brest regionyear info number, 1000s Farming

ОАО «Птицефабрика «Дружба» (пос. Жемчужный, Барановический р-н) 2010 2,200пф ДРУЖБА, БРЕСТ 2011 687«Барановичская птицефабрика» , пос. Русино (Барановический р-н) 2011 3,133Кобринская птицефабрика - присоединена к Барановической 2011 533Vitebsk region211573, Витебская область , Городокский район , д. Суравни. 2011 600"Птицефабрика Оршанская" 2011 562Витебский район (Витебская Бройлерная птицефабрика) 2011 2139Шумилинский раойн 2011 587 cageGomel region"Птицефабрика «Рассвет» Гомельский район, д. Песочная Буда. 2008 3129ОАО "Гомельская птицефабрика" 2010 920Буда-Кошелевский 2011 1235 floorGrodno regionГРОДНЕНСКАЯ ПТИЦЕФАБРИКА 2011 2,000Орачинская птицефабрика РУП "Племптицерепродуктор "Юбилейный" Гродненский р-н, г. СкидельОАО “Берестовицкая птицефабрика” Гродненская обл., г. п. Берестовица, 2012 700Mogilev regionРУП «Приднепровская птицефабрика» Могилевская обл., , пос. Романовичи + Серволюкс 3,090Minsk region«1-я Минская птицефабрика» (плюс Крупская) 2010 1630РУСПП "Птицефабрика "Солигорская" 2012 1,069 floorОАО "Смолевическая бройлерная птицефабрика" 2011 2450Дзержинская птицефабрика 2011 2292

1.5. Largest poultry farms in Belarus


2. Gasification technology

• Gasification is a technology, where a carbon-containing fuel (e.g. coal, wood, oil, etc.)

is converted in a gasifier to a produced gas, which has a significant heat value.

• The main components of a gas, produced in a gasifier is CO, CO2, H2 and N2 (comes from air) • Relatively low operation temperature of a gasifier (ca. 750-850 ˚C) ensures low NOx content in a produced gas.• Produced gas can be upgraded (purified) and used for methanol, ethanol or alkenes synthesis or, alternatively, burned in a CHP/turbine unit.

• Gasification chemistry is generally driven by two reactions:

steam producing monoxide

water gas shift reaction A schematic of a downdraft gasifier

10

2.1.1. Simple gasifier design (fixed bed)

Updraft gasifier(eg. British Gas Lurgi)

Downdraft gasifier(eg. Ventec)

Crossdraft gasifier

Gasifiers can be classified according to:– oxidation agent: air, oxygen or/and steam– heating: direct (autothermal) or indirect (allothermal)– pressure at gasification: atmospheric or pressurized– reactor type: fixed bed, fluidized bed, entrained flow, twin-bed

H.A.M. Knoef, HANDBOOK ON BIOMASS GASIFICATION, 2005


2.1.2. Simple gasifier design energy parameters

Fixed-bed gasifiers are of simple design and operation, making them suitable for small-scale applications in the range of a few hundred kWth. Fixed-bed gasifiers can be operated in either batch or continuous mode.


Bubbling Fluidized bed (BFB) Gasifier

• Fluidized bed gasifiers have the reactors where solid particulate material is suspended in moving liquid or gaseous fluid. Some can contain Ni particles to promote decomposition of hydrocarbons to CO and H2.

• Ciruclized FB (CFB) gasifiers can handle high-ash-content fuels. They are well suited for continuous operation and scalable to a wide range of sizes, allowing for large-scale industrial plants.

• CFB gasifiers are also somewhat cheaper to construct than are BFB gasifiers of corresponding capacity. The Värnamo gasifier, 18 MWth, is an example of a pressurized, airblown, CFB.

FB Advantages. Feedstock flexibility resulting from easy control of temperature, which can be kept below the melting or fusion point of the ash (rice husks), and their ability to deal with fluffy and fine grained materials (sawdust etc.) without the need of pre-processing.

FB may have some Problems with feeding, instability of the bed and fly-ash sintering in the gas channels can occur with some biomass fuels. Biomass loading can’t be lower 70%

(CFB)

2.2. Advanced gasifier design (fluidised bed)

13

2.2.1. MILENA gasification process (fluidized bed)

• In the MILENA gasification process (Dahlman and ECN, Netherlands) the produced gas is suitable for application in a gas engine or gas turbine because of the higher calorific value of the gas (typical 16 MJ/mn

3 dry, compared to 4 – 7 MJ/mn3 for a conventional air blown gasifier) and the complete conversion

of the fuel (typical fuel conversion for downdraft or fluidized bed gasifiers is 85 - 95%).

• The MILENA lab-scale installation was taken into operation in 2004. A pilot plant was constructed in 2008. The accumulated gasification hours of the MILENA plants is now over 3000 hours. MILENA gasification and OLGA (gas cleaning technology) so have been employed in combination for biomass-gasification (mainly wood).

• The gasifier contains separate sections for gasification and combustion.

http://www.milenatechnology.com/

• The main difference between the MILENA process and the FICFB (Güssing) process is the gasification in a riser reactor instead of Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB). The advantage of using a riser is that the area that needs to be fluidized is smaller; therefore the amount of fluidized gas (steam) is smaller.

• as the ECN claims, MILENA gasifier technology gas overall efficiency ~83% and aims to work at large scale plants (>30 MW-h energy input)

• A pilot plant for poultry litter gasification using the MILENA gasifier has been planned to set-up in Portugal in 2010.


http://www.milenatechnology.com/

14

2.2.2. FICFB (Güssing) process

http://www.ficfb.at/

• A gasifier comprised of fluidized bed gasification reactor that produces a gas with a HVV up to 15 MJ/Nm³ (>13 MJ/m3) and nearly free of nitrogen.

• The gasification process is based on an internally circulating fluidized bed system and consists of a gasification zone fluidized with steam and a combustion zone fluidized with air. The circulating bed material acts as heat carrier from the combustion to the gasification zone. Gas mixing between these two zones is avoided by construction measures.

• The gasifier is characterized by a very compact design.

• 5 electricity producing plants, 1 methanol-producing and 1 hydrogen-producing plant were in operation in 2011

• Low tar content due to steam gasification• Gas quality is independent of water content in biomass feedthe apparatus is very compact• A wide range of feedstock can be gasified (no information about use of poultry litter/manure as a fuel)• Possibility to use a catalyst as bed material (regeneration of catalyst in combustion zone) to influence the gas composition and gasification kinetic in a positive way

http://www.ficfb.at/

15

2.2.3. SilvaGas gasifiers (Rentech)

http://www.rentechinc.com/silvaGas.php

• One of the most mature gasifier technologies, commissioned plant un Burlington in 1984 is still in operation. Tested moisture content biomass ranges from 0% to 50% during >30,000 hours of plant operation in Vermont (182 tons of fry biomass fed per day)• A gasifier comprised of fluidized bed gasification reactor that produces a gas with a HVV up to 18.5 MJ/Nm³ (>15 MJ/m3) and nearly free of nitrogen. • The gasification process is based on an internally circulating fluidized bed system and consists of a gasification zone fluidized with steam and a combustion zone fluidized with air. It rapidly responds to downstream conditions. • The gasifier produces relatively low-tar syngas; the SilvaGas technology allows to combine it with different gas cleaning technologies.

Gasifier efficiencies (carbon conversion) rangeDr. Petr Dudin | 2012

http://www.rentechinc.com/silvaGas.php

Dr. Petr Dudin | 2012 16Report: Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes, 2009

Entrained Flow

Bubbling Fluidised Bed

Circulating Fluidised Bed

Twin-Bed

2.3. Gasifier type comparison


2.4. Tar reforming and Scrubbing

Gas scrubber technologies

Oil Gas Scrubbers:• Oil scrubbers (BKW Güssing and MEVA)• OLGA scrubbers (ECN built plants)

Danish TARWATC• Condenses tar and the water in the gas.• Light and Heavy tars are separated• Discharge of contaminated water is the issue(Vølund Harboøre Technology)

Partial oxidation• Injected Oxygen oxidises the tar

Ctar + O2 → CO2

• Reduction in efficiency (Viking, Nexterra gasifiers )

Catalytic steam reformingCH4 + H2O ↔ CO + 3H2

Producer GasWith higher LHV


2.4.1. TARWATC cleaning technology scheme

• The contaminated waste water inlet for TARWATC may contain 15 – 20 g/litre of organic acids (causing an acidity about pH = 2), 5 – 10 g/litre of phenols (and similar compounds) and a total organic carbon content (TOC) of 40 – 50 g/litre. • The clean condensate from TARWATC has a TOC below 15 mg/litre, a total phenol content below 0.15 mg/litre and an acidity of pH = 6.90 – 7.10


2.4.2. OLGA cleaning technology scheme

• Invented by the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) and further commertialized in collaboration with Royal Dahlmann.

• Goal of the OLGA technology is to lower the tar dew point to a level at which problems can be excluded.

• OLGA operates above the water dew point, but decreases the tar dew point to a level under the lowest process temperature. Tar & water are not mixed.

• Tars trapped by oil are returned to the gasifier and the oil returned back to the cleaning cycle.

http://www.renewableenergy.nl

OLGA stands for OiL GAs scrubbing technology

http://www.renewableenergy.nl/


• There has been a few poultry litter gasification plant built, one of the most well-known is a gasifier in West Virginia (USA) by COALTECH company. It employs a fixed bed gasifier, that consumes 5 ton/h of the PL and produces heat and bio-char.• The existing business model of poultry litter gasification in the USA relies on converting the PL to biochar with certain fertilizing value + use the produced heat to warm the chicken-houses. Additional benefits from carbon trading (PL gasification is carbon-negative, i.e. it removes carbon from the carbon cycle).

• Mobile fixed-bed gasifiers (low efficiency, high in tars and ash-carbon) are rapidly and successively penetrating the USA market and become very popular among the farmers. Low investment cost (~$1,000,000) ensures pay-back time 4-5 years by replacing the value of LPG (liquid propane gas) and producing a value fertilizer (“bio-char”).

(BTG Biomass Technology Group, 2001)

4.1. Process for the small-scale farm based gasification of poultry manure


• In Europe gasification of poultry litter is potentially seen in large-scale projects that can either produce electricity of bio-fuels. However, this requires a mature technology, which can demonstrate:

i) Gasification the poultry litter with high efficiency (>50%);

ii) Produce a low-N2, low-tar, low-NOX syngas with high LHV value;

iii) Low-carbon gasified ash.

• Recently achieved progress of Circulated Bed Gasification (CFB) in combination with advanced gas-cleaning technology (such as OLGA) offers promising venues for PL gasification.

• A pilot plant in Portugal to gasify poultry litter has been built (5 MWth + 1 MWe CHP) to utulize chicken manure in a CFB gasifier, supplied by HoST.

• Plans to build a 15 MWth plant were announced in 2010. The 15 MW plant would be a good demonstration of the technology progress. However, the project is stuck due financial difficulties.

http://www.host.nl/en/gasifier/projects/

4.2. Overview of PL gasification technology

http://www.host.nl/en/gasifier/projects/


moisture content HHV (*dry) ash content bedding material reference8.20% 9.53 28.80% unknown Kirubakaran, IJERT, 2007

21.50% 13.54 28.6% wood shawings McKenna et al., Waste management, 201233.72% 13.83* 20% unknown Hunt et al., IECR, 200725.50% 14* 23.90% unknown Reardon et al., 200127.40% 14.8* 15.70% unknown Antares group report, 199910.60% 12 26.58% unknown Whitely et al., 2006

10% 13 17.20% unknown Zaccariello et al., conference paper, 2010no data 10.2 39.70% wood shavings, rice hulks US feasibility study, Pensylvania, 2008

24% 11 no data variable Capareda & Maglinao, ASABE meeting, 200843% no data 16.40% unknown Heningan et al., 200327% no data 25.50% unknown Patel et al.34% 14 22% variable Community power Corporation report, 2001

25.4% 12.9 26.0% Average value

5.1. Proximate analysis of poultry litter

General “rule of thumb” for poultry litter as fuel: the more bedding material in the litter, the higher the HHV and the lower is the ash content.

• Although, wood and cellulosic biomass is a well-studied and common fuel in gasification, poultry litter has hardly been used in commercial gasifiers. It becomes apparent form the increasing number of literature publications, that poultry litter, as a fuel for gasifiers, becomes of high interest for academic engineering community.

• Poultry Litter contains high amounts of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). The later acts as a ‘catalyst’ in a gasifier, but stipulates lower operation temperatures, compared to other raw materials, as it can cause slagging and ash melting at temperatures >730 ˚C, which leads to lower process efficiencies. E.g. wood gasification performed at 800-900 ˚C with efficiency up to 73-82%.

• the HHV of dry poultry litter is ~15 MJ/kg, which is lower than that of wood (18.2-20.2 MJ/kg).


5.2. Macronutrient value of poultry litterWet poultry litter consists of four major elements:

i) moisture (8-60%) - serves H2 yield upon gasification the

ii) volatile matter (38-64%) – actual gasifier fueliii) fixed carbon (10-14%)iv) ash (11-25%) – light mineral deposit

“Fly” and “Bottom” ash from gasifier Acts as gasifier fuel.

Reacts into CO and CO2

N2 in flee gas.NOx emission is

minimized

N, % P, % K, % reference0 19 10 Primenergy LLC presentation, 20090 24 16 Antares group report, 19990 25 no data Kirubakaran, IJERT, 20070 14 10 Patel et al, 20040 9.8 10.15 Community power Corporation report, 2001

3.4 25 16 McKenna et al., Waste management, 2012- 20.6 12.9 average

Typical literature values for gasified PL ash content:

24

• 75% of the water could be evaporated during 60 days of composting of a mechanically separated fiber fraction*

• Digested manure in a biogas reactor can used as fuel with 30-40% lower HVV

• Litter pellets can be more cost-effectively transporter to a gasification plant. On average, a pelletizing facility requires about ca. 2000 m2 area.

• EU law does not allow to place pelletizing facilities next to feed at a farm. Belarus’s law is unlikely to possess such restrictions

*K. Kuligowski. ‘A greener agriculture for a bluer Baltic Sea’ Conference 2011 ** http://www.manureintomoney.com

5.3. Improving energy efficiency of poultry litter

• Economic feasibility of drying/pelletising vs. using raw poultry litter should be estimated on the first place. It should be kept in mind, that wet litter might come from farm due to poor management, so it can be avoided.

Disadvantages: associated odors when handling and drying the poultry litter

Drying shed for poultry litter in Illinois, USA


http://www.manureintomoney.com/

http://www.manureintomoney.com/


6. Fertiliser value overview

• While K (and N) mineral fertilisers are available and produced in Belarus, phosphate rock salt is imported (mainly from Russia) and processed at Gomel Chemical Plant. Farmers in Belarus purchase K- and N-fertilisers at low subsidised prices, value of P-fertilizers (phosphate) are high and have a tendency to grow.

• Ultimately, ash can replace K- and P-containing inorganic fertilisers (K as KCl and potash; and P as phosphate rock, Na2HPO4, Ca(H2PO4)2, etc. ).

• World fertiliser prices for phosphorus soar as the demand grows, while phosphate rock reserves are limited and are expected to deplete in 50 years time.

• Gasifier ash (GA) falls under “import-replacement” of P-fertilisers and offers sustainable future to local farmers, locking up a so-called “phosphorus cycle”.

• BIO-Char – a gasified poultry litter ash with high carbon content has already stepped in the American and Australian fertilizer market, enjoying “CARBON-negative” reputation.

• Based on significant content of phosphorus (higher than in any other animal manure) and potassium in gasified ash it can be used as a fertilizer. • Transporting and dispensing the gasified ash is more cost-effective (volume and mass) than bulk poultry manure/litter. Although, organic and nitrogen nutrient components are lost through the gasification.

26* K. Kuligowski , PhD thesis. Utilization of ash from thermal gasification of pig manure as P- fertilizer and soil amenment. 2009

Advantages.• GA contains less soluble form of phosphorus, that prevents P-leaching problem and helps to retain P in soil.* • Water holding capacity of soils increase upon bio-ash addition• Gasified ash is alkaline in nature, which helps tackling the problem of acidic soil in Belarus (2% addition of bio-ash helps increasing soil pH from 4.5 to 7.9) and replaces limestone additive. • GA generally contains lower amounts of heavy metals than that of phosphate rock salt

Disadvantages. • Due to fine nature of GA there should be special techniques employed for spreading it on land (e.g. mixing with water, granulation, etc.). • Granulation is the most commercially attractive option, however, requires additional equipment. • Very slow leaching time of G-ash (in pigs manure ash studied*) provided quite low P-levels for crops. But gradually P from added G-ash became more available to plants.

Gasified pigs manure ash. Courtesey: Dr. K. Kuligowski

Generally, soils in Belarus are P- deficient. Phosphate rock salts and potassium fertilisers as well as raw poultry litter are prone to leaching of phosphorus (and nitrogen), which leads to eutrophication of ground waters.

6.1. Gasified ash as fertiliser


• It is feasible to gasify the poultry litter in a mixture with other biomass, such as wood or straw. This would lead to a certain alteration of the gasifier output, which are the following:

- The larger is the wood content in PL-biomass mixture, the higher is the HHV of the fuel;

- The more bedding material (or ‘dilute’ fuel, like wood) is added, the lower is P, K content in ash;

- Use of straw as a bedding material (rare practice in Belarus) increases the K-content in ash.

6.2. Gasification of PL in combination with other biomass

• There is a report by Matsumura et al. (2012 in I&EC research) claiming that mixing the poultry manure with eucalyptus wood led to a lower gasifier efficiency in a supercritical water gasification. This was attributed to a reaction between wood and PL at elevated temperatures and led to overall deceleration of the process.

• The pilot plant in Portugal, using the CBF gasifier (BIVKIN gasifier technology, similar to MILENA technology) successfully uses a mixture of wood chips and poultry manure, taking up to 1 ton/h of such mixture.

28

1. Substantial analysis of poultry litter should be performed beforehand to estimate the moisture content, LHV and ash proximate content

2. Building a larger plant is more cost-effective, so the logistics of the litter transportation should be well considered.

3. Chicken farms in Belarus might want to preserve some produced chicken litter for themselves as they regard PL as a good fertilizer with great ‘organic value’. Chicken farms use the PL as a fertilizer for their own crops (it is a common practice for the meat farms in Belarus to have their own cultivated land).

7. General considerations for poultry litter gasification plant

4. Based on location and scale of the chicken farms in Belarus, it is suggested to place the gasification plant to either Dzerzhinsk or Baranovichi county.

4.1. Dzerzhinsk might be advantageous, since there is a growing number of new industries appear in the county to consume energy/heat.

4.2. Baranovichi has a potential to produce more chicken litter/manure and yet provide good logistics for litter transportation from Dzerzhinsk.

29

Model parameter Assumed value notes

Raw litter price per metric ton, BYR (USD) 28,000 ($3.33) Fixed rate assumed

Litter moisture content as received 30% It is an average value

Exchange rate USD/BYR 8400 The exchange rate assumed to be flat throughout the analysis

Electricity cost (130% tariff) kW-h, BYR (USD) 1034.3 ($0.16) The tariff rate assumed to be flat

Total investment cost € 13,000,000 This value is rather high. However will be a solid ball-park figure for the investment

Discount rate, % 7% S&P500 interest rate is consideredCHP electrical efficiency 38% A medium efficiency is taken. Typical value is 40 ± 3 %CHP thermal efficiency 45% A rather low value is used in the modelDry litter LHV 12.8 This an underestimated value, as it may be up to 15 MJ/kg

Gasification plant efficiency 50% The modern technology can deliver higher efficiencies, up to 80%

Working days in a year, days 300 The assumption is made on working hours of wood gasification plant in Gussling.

Operating in a day, hours 24 Continuous operation assumed

Electricity/ heat consumed by the plant 7% / 15%

% of ASH in litter dry matter 20% This is an underestimation. The average ash content is 26%, but is highly variable

P and K content is gasified ash 20 and 11% Average values are takenDiscount for fertilizer (P-base) and for heat (as NatGas replacement) 50% A competitive price to attract new customers is proposed

Reference P-fertilizer (double-superphosphate) P content % 21% (48% P2O5) Single-superphosphate has 8.5% of P

Price for a ton of double-superphosphate 4,700,000 / $560 Actual price in Belarus

8.1. Model key parameters

30

8.2. Gasification plant financial overview

Basic scenario: 150 tons of poultry litter input per day (30%moisture content) = 55,000 tons per year which requires $180,000 cash

• This will produce a (brutto) 3 MWe and 3.5 MWth output

• Electricity sold per year (19 GW-h) = $3,000,000

• Gasified ash sold as a P-fertilizer will be equivalent to 6,000 tons of double-superphosphate, generating $1,600,000 income (50% discount).

• An equivalent of 2,200,000 m3 of NatGas will be generated, assumed to be sold for $380,000 (50% discount);

• A 3% maintenance cost is assumed.

Basic Scenario(IRR = 8.4%)No heath sold

(IRR = 4.3%)

All the heath sold at 20% discount(IRR = 10.7%)

Ash sold at 20% discount(IRR = 17.8%)

Ash sold at 80% discount(IRR = -3.3%)

ASH33%

Heat as NatGas replacemen

Gasification plant REVENUE brakedown


31

-20 -10 0 10 20

0

5

10

15

CHP efficiency

IRR = 8.4%litter moisture

litter costP/ash content,ash/DM %

gasifier efficiency

IRR

/ %

VARIATION / %

operation days

8.3. Sensitivity analysis

• Effective running of the gasification plant is essential for the project;

• Moisture content of the purchased poultry litter has a an important implication on plant’s running costs and profits;

• Gasifier efficiency is considered quite low here, so much room is left for improvement;


9. Conclusions

1. Chicken litter must be systematically analyzed for its moisture, ash content and LHV values.

2. The information of chicken litter quality will provide insight to consider the supply chain. considering the investment in the project

3. Success of the poultry litter gasification plant depends on bio-char/GA sales. Hence, a thorough investigation of the poultry manure/litter composition must be performed.

4. Selling only the electricity to the grid at current price will not pay back the investment

5. Produced heat can be utilized for heating of the poultry farm and other farm units.

6. Heat value can be estimated as an alternative to that (HHV) of natural gas, burned on a farm for heating.

7. Marketing of bio-char in a conservative farmer community can be challenging since its novelty and availability of traditional fertilisers. Although, Bio-char export should be considered.

Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)

Engineering

Transcript of Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)