JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT (Sub-Committee on Job Creation Through Use of Renewable Energy Resources) debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jul 2009

Renewable Energy Resources: Discussion on Anaerobic Digestion and Biomass Technologies.

Chairman

I thank the delegates for their attendance. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Brendan Cooney to make his presentation and questions will follow.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

I thank the committee members for the invitation to address the sub-committee on the subject of the possible use of anaerobic digestion for the provision of heat and power and the job creation possibilities these new technologies could bring to an area. This presentation will have three parts. Mr. Patrick Berridge, Dr. Andrew Walsh and I will contribute to it. In my part of the presentation, I will elaborate on some of the areas of which I have knowledge. I will refer in particular to the findings of a feasibility study, carried out in County Cavan in the early 1990s, on the possibility of using an anaerobic digester to treat pig slurry. I will comment on the environmental considerations that need to be taken into account when a decision is being made on the location of an anaerobic digester. I will point out some important factors that affect the economics of running such a facility.

I will be followed by Mr. Patrick Berridge of Ballyshannon Recycling Limited, County Wexford, who will make a presentation from the perspective of an operator of an anaerobic digester. Members of the committee may be aware that Mr. Berridge, who is the driving force behind the Carrickbyrne Farmhouse Cheese company, works as a dairy farmer in County Wexford. He has been operating an anaerobic digester on his dairy farm since 2001, thereby facilitating both heat and energy recovery. Mr. Berridge will be followed by Dr. Andrew Walsh, who is the managing director of the Celtic BioEnergy company, which provides expertise in anaerobic digestion technologies and other renewable energy areas. Mr. Berridge and Dr. Walsh have developed a joint venture to demonstrate the capabilities of anaerobic digestion technologies in the processing of a wide range of organic matter.

When I worked for Cavan County Council, I had some experience of the pitfalls which can be encountered when assessing the suitability of anaerobic digestion as a method of waste management. While it is not all negative, it is important to point out some of the problems. I will speak about my first experience of anaerobic digestion of animal slurries. The committee is probably aware that before the late 1960s, Lough Sheelin was a brown trout fishery of considerable repute. By 1970, however, algal blooms were becoming evident on the surface of the lake and beginning to proliferate. In 1972, An Foras Talúntais — the predecessor of Teagasc — carried out a research project on agriculture within the lake's catchment area. The results of the project indicated that the spreading of pig slurry at inappropriate times and in inappropriate quantities was responsible for the deterioration of water quality at the lake. A Government-funded pig slurry export scheme was established and run by an interdepartmental committee between 1981 and 1984. It was eventually taken over by Cavan County Council. This led to an improvement in lake water quality. The scheme eventually closed as a result of the considerable transport costs that were associated with it.

Research was carried out in the early 1990s on behalf of a number of the larger pig producers, in conjunction with Cavan County Council, in an effort to establish the feasibility of using anaerobic digestion to treat animal slurries — specifically pig slurry — in the Cavan-Monaghan area. To that end, an in-depth feasibility study on the technologies available, as well as the economics of using anaerobic digestion to treat pig slurry, was researched. The study found that if an anaerobic digester is to operate properly, it cannot operate solely on pig slurry. It also needs additional organic matter with a higher fat content, such as that originating from hotels, restaurants, poultry litter and milk processing waste. Pig slurry simply does not have enough energy content per tonne to enable an anaerobic digester to work properly. To put it simply, there is too much water in pig slurry. The feasibility study indicated that the Cavan-Monaghan area could support a system capable of taking approximately 400 tonnes of material a day, five days a week. The optimal material would consist of pig slurry, milk processing waste and poultry litter, which could be sourced in the immediate hinterland of the proposed digester.

A number of insurmountable problems continued to exist after the feasibility study had been completed. The overall operating costs were high, compared to the alternative method of disposal of pig slurry. It was simply cheaper to spread slurry on nearby fields, even if they were already saturated with nutrients. At the time, the relevant technologies in this area were immature. Anaerobic digestion technology and the combined heat and power plants were in their infancy. There was no outlet for the heat that was being generated. Little incentive was given for the sale of the electricity that was generated. The concept of micro-generation was just beginning to gain credence. The system ended up with a liquid slurry — the digestate — that had to be disposed of. The cost of transporting the digestate to those farms using it as a fertiliser replacement was very high.

As I have already mentioned, animal slurry is naturally high in water content. The last of the problems to which I referred — transport costs — proved to be the most intractable and is often forgotten. One needs to decide what to do with the digestate that is produced at the end of the anaerobic digestion process. While the content of the organic matter may be reduced as it is broken down to methane, that process has little impact on the water content of the slurry and virtually no impact on the nutrient value of the slurry, which needs to be disposed of in an environmentally sustainable manner. It cannot simply be dumped on the nearest fields.

A necessary component of the Cavan project was that the sludge be removed from the Lough Sheelin catchment, which already had high nutrient status, and be brought to those areas that needed it most, particularly the tillage counties of Meath, Carlow and Kilkenny. However, animal slurry, even that which has been treated by anaerobic digestion, is low in nutrient value, especially when compared to artificial fertilisers. This is due to its very high water content. The additional cost of separating the solids from the water fraction was proving expensive. Thus, the project failed due to the high cost of transporting the digestate, the lack of gate fees charged to other operators for the disposal of their organic waste and the large distance from the end user of the product of the anaerobic digestion, particularly the slurry.

Since the project began, however, a number of developments have taken place that may negate many of the problems encountered in the early 1980s. These include more advanced technology, particularly combined heat and power plants; higher prices being paid for electricity generated; the advent of district heating; more stringent environmental legislation pertaining to the regulation of the disposal of waste; the cessation of the disposal of organic matter to landfill; and the nitrates directive, which prohibits excessive nutrient application to farmland. New uses for digestate, particularly the liquid fraction, are being examined, including its use as a fertiliser for willow and miscanthus. These crops are growing in importance as there is a growing market for woodchip and wood pellets for home heating.

The changes to the regulatory framework concerning how we deal with waste and the increasing costs of importing fossil fuels are resulting in an environment in which anaerobic digestion, if correctly planned and executed, is becoming economically viable. For example, to comply with the landfill directive's target of removing all organic matter from landfill by 2016, this country would be required to develop additional capacity to manage upwards of 1 million tonnes of organic matter. Much, if not all, of this could be utilised in anaerobic digestion to generate bio-gas heat and power. The resulting digestate, after further treatment, could be utilised as a soil conditioner or, after further drying through the CHP system, could be used as a biofuel itself.

There are a number of issues pertaining to economic support, including gate fees and prices for electricity, that need to be addressed to support the start-up enterprises. These will be highlighted by Mr. Berridge and Dr. Walsh.

Job opportunities will arise. Experts will be needed for the design and installation of the anaerobic digester plants and agronomists will be needed to produce biannual reports on the nutrient needs of the energy crops. This area will grow in importance as environmental matters come to the fore. People will be needed to operate the plants. Farmers will be required to continue farming to generate animal slurry and accept the digestate for application to tillage crops, be they food or energy crops.

InterTradeIreland, a North-South intergovernmental business development body, recently published the results of research it carried on the composting and anaerobic digestion sector. Its report, Market Report on the Composting and Anaerobic Digestion Sectors, suggests that if every household and business on the island were provided with a brown bin, between 1.5 million to 2 million tonnes of organic waste could be diverted from landfill, thus meeting our obligations under the landfill directive while at the same time generating approximately 1,500 jobs directly and nearly 10,000 indirectly. Even if only 6,000 jobs were generated, the number would be substantial.

The facility at Mr. Berridge's farm was originally developed in 2001 to process the manure, animal slurry and cheese waste generated on his dairy farm and cheese manufacturing site. It is currently being upgraded through the inclusion of a pasteurisation unit, reception hall and storage tanks. To that end, Mr. Berridge has recently applied for and was granted planning permission by Wexford County Council to upgrade his anaerobic digestion facility, which, by using modern technology, will make more efficient use of the energy generated. The digestate will be used as a fertiliser replacement on his agricultural lands.

As well as dealing with the development by Mr. Berridge, Wexford County Council has had, over the past six months, pre-planning discussions with a large established enterprise based in County Wexford with a view to opening another anaerobic digester in the county. This proposal is substantially larger that the former one and the documentation received to date suggests a site is being considered that would utilise approximately 99,000 tonnes of organic matter per annum from a variety of sources. Initially it will be able to generate up to 5 MW of electricity. Put another way, it will be able to supply enough green electricity to power approximately 2,500 homes. This ambitious project, which is at an advanced stage of planning, also proposes that the digestate emanating from the digester be split into two waste streams. A solid fraction will be used as a fertiliser and soil conditioner on nearby tillage lands and a liquid fraction will be utilised on an on-site willow plantation, the aim being that the willow itself will eventually be utilised as an energy crop in the project. There will be a variety of jobs required using varying skills to plan, construct and run these plants. They will vary from the collection of waste to the design and planning of the projects, from evaluating environmental impacts and the preparation of NMPs, nutrient management plans, to the running of the plants. The jobs will range from engineers, agricultural scientists and steel installers to general operatives, as well as specialist electricians, structural engineers and farmers. They will also benefit the country in replacing imported fossil fuels.

From a local authority perspective, it is imperative that careful consideration be given to the selection of the sites for anaerobic digesters so as to minimise the distance for transporting raw material to them. They should be situated close to a site where the liquid fraction can be cheaply transported and utilised and areas where heat and power can be utilised. It is imperative that every aspect of the site is thought through with consideration given to all of the end products. The Gussing project and other similar successful projects in Europe were sourced locally with all final products – electricity, recovered heat and digestate – locally utilised. This aspect will be need to be incorporated into Irish proposals for such projects to be environmentally and economically unique and sustainable.

Mr. Patrick Berridge

As Mr. Cooney outlined, I have been operating a 200 tonne anaerobic digester for some years. Built in 1990, it was operated on cow slurry and whey from my farmhouse cheese plant. The plant only performed at optimum level in the winter months because the cows were outside in the summer. To have an all-year round supply of slurry, one would need pigs or poultry. We researched the possibility of growing energy crops such as maize and grass, visiting Holland, Germany and Denmark. The figures, however, did not add up. It was a non-runner when the raw material cost 5p, while it was only 7p per kW hour provided.

We got a contract under AER 6 but did not fulfil it. While the tendering system has worked for wind energy production, it does not suit anaerobic digestion. It has worked in Germany, France and Spain which operate a feed-in-tariff system, whereby the large plants receive a lower price, while the smaller plants receive a higher price.

In 2005 we obtained a waste permit allowing the plant to run all year. We co-digested waste food from restaurants, molasses, milk, milk powder, vegetable sludge and grease trap waste. We enlarged the capacity of the digester by 50% to 300 tonnes, which allowed us to process 15 tonnes of waste a day.

In 2008 we were stopped from taking waste food from the catering sector. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food decided the digesters were too close to the farmyard and new regulations required a pasteurisation unit. It has taken two years to get planning permission to build a facility and work will begin on it next month.

My recommendations for development of a vibrant renewable energy sector in biogas are to adopt a feed-in-tariff with a set price capped at 15 years and supports for smaller operations. Any operation under 500 kW is much easier to embed in the ESB network and it means a turn around time of six months as opposed to a two to three year queue for grid access.

I am also involved in another small renewables operation, selling 5,500 tonnes of woodchip each year. One of our newer customers is the new Wexford County Council offices. The Enterprise Ireland office is being built beside them, with a brand new boiler running on oil. Would it not make more sense to run the two new buildings on the one biomass boiler? We need more leadership from, say, the OPW and a champion for policy making and direction. Enough reports have been commissioned. This technology is quite mature, so let us embrace it and get on with it.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

I appreciate that the sub-committee is short on time and I expect that I would have referred to some of the contentious questions in the presentation. I am keen to get the members going, so I am ready to answer any questions. The committee will have my paper.

Chairman

Dr. Walsh's paper is there for members to look at, so it should stimulate questions.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

I can read it, if the Chairman wishes, although perhaps it would be better just to answer questions from members of the committee.

Chairman

That will be all right. I call on Deputy Damien English.

Deputy Damien English

What are the negative aspects as regards neighbours, complaints and so on in the context of planning problems, since I am convinced that it is a question of getting applications through the system and processed, with the community buying into particular initiatives?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

My presentation would focus on the German experience. There are 4,500 biomass plants in Germany, 4,000 of which are farm based. Any system that is not managed well will have problems. Because the material is being handled and anaerobic, meaning that there is no oxygen or air getting in, the only way emissions can get out, effectively, is through an engine. An engine, effectively, is a thermal oxidiser, which means state of the art odour abatement. The one thing we must appreciate is that in world terms we are very late in embracing this technology and there is a great deal of experience internationally. Take the US, for example, which does not have much anaerobic capacity yet, but what it has is typically applied at large-scale agricultural installations. The only reason it is there is for odour abatement purposes. Therefore it is being mainly used as an odour abatement tool because large pig farms and so on put in anaerobic installations because the process of digestion would knock out 85% of the odour. There were major issues as regards the odours from manure, for instance, being spread in the spring. That problem is eliminated to a large extent, however, by digestion.

A good public relations job needs to be done in terms of decent demonstrations. We in Celtic Digestors, along with Mr. Patrick Berridge, have Enterprise Ireland support for a demonstration in Wexford. We shall use that to demonstrate that these plants should not be a cause for public concern. No doubt, there have been a couple of cases in Ireland where people have raised concerns, and much of this has arisen from the scale of these plants. With the support of Enterprise Ireland, however, we shall demonstrate that such plants can be "good neighbours" and do all the good things we are all aware of.

Deputy Damien English

The problems that arise probably relate to small-scale rather than large-scale plants.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

As Mr. Cooney pointed out, proximity is critical. Just as it was argued that Ireland needed only one mass incinerator, it could be argued that we only need one anaerobic digestor. However, decentralised processing is the way to go so that material from the local catchment area may be dealt with.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

I can talk from a local authority perspective. Mr. Patrick Berridge here has applied for and been granted permission to run an anaerobic digestor. It is on a smaller scale and has gone through without any problems, as such. Several issues arose during the planning process, but these were addressed.

As I indicated in my presentation, we have one more application for a relatively large development of about 99,000 tonnes per year. While not necessarily controversial, many questions have been raised about this project. People had worries in regard to it, but many of these were ill founded. People talked about areas that had nothing at all to do with anaerobic digestion. Unfortunately, such concerns have all rolled into one at this stage as people say, in effect, "This thing is bad" and others join in the chorus and so on.

The Internet has a great to deal to answer for in that regard. People get a small amount of information, which is suddenly taken completely out of context.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I am delighted to welcome the delegation. In my constituency, County Kilkenny, there is a good anaerobic digestor at Camphill where they are using liquid digestion to inject the material back into the soil. A number of farmers are contracted to supply the slurry and they are heating a number of houses in the area, as well. It is a perfect small model, and we need to replicate that.

I should like to put a few questions to Mr. Berridge. As regards the fixed feed-in tariff, while we now have an increase of price, what sort of price would he like to see, to make his operation viable, because we can now sell back to the grid? There has been an increase in the fixed feed in tariff, but what price does Mr. Berridge consider necessary to ensure the scheme is feasible? The capacity to sell back to the grid is new and a welcome initiative. As the delegates outlined in their presentation, we have more advanced technology and a higher price is being paid for electricity, but they remain dissatisfied with the price they are currently obtaining. In my constituency Carlow town is hoping to become the first green energy town in Ireland, although we have some competition in this room. There is a proposal to install an ultra light rail system which would run on biogas or methane. This is a very simple method of transporting people around a medium-sized town such as Carlow from the centres of population to the bus and railway stations, shopping centres and so on. However, problems have arisen due to the cost of building and operating such a project and in ensuring there is sufficient biogas to maintain it. I am very supportive of what Mr. Berridge is doing with Carrickbyrne, but I detect a slight negativity in what he and his colleagues have said. Are their concerns mainly about costs and the projections for the fixed feed-in tariff?

Mr. Patrick Berridge

Deputy White has pointed out that we can now sell power back to the grid. The Irish Farmers’ Journal published an article earlier this year pointing out that a 6 kW turbine would have a 30-year payback under the current scheme. One receives only 19 cent for the first 3,000 kW hours, which is nothing. The anaerobic digester on my farm produces 12,000 kW hours a year. In other words, the scheme supports only the first quarter output in the first year. I am not sure whether it will do so in the second year. Under the German model, if one takes in food waste, one can obtain 12 cent per kW hour for selling the electricity back to the grid. If one is not taking in food waste, the extra tariffs apply. I understand it is 4 cent or 5 cent for growing one’s own crop and another 2 cent for using the heat from the generator.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

The slide on display deals with a report produced by Ernst & Young for the United Kingdom biogas industry where there are proposals to undertake a mass injection of biomethane into the natural gas grid. The report looked at the base costs of various renewable energy sources. As the graph shows, for manure, slurry and so on, the costs are more than £112 per MW hour. On a basic euro to pound comparison, the renewable tariff in Ireland, at 12 cent, is below cost. The same applies to renewable crops such as silage which dominates some 80% of biogas plants in Germany and where there is a need to get above approximately 15 cent in order to be viable.

The current tariff of 12 cent per kW hour is a welcome increase from the previous rate of 7 cent and has been useful in creating incentive for food waste plants. As the graph shows, in the case of food waste and potentially biodegradable waste, because they can be tipped, the benefit of the figure of 12 cent is considerable. However, if one has to factor in production costs in terms of energy crops or manure handling costs, the figure of 12 cent is below cost. The German model which has had a massive impact in terms of the vitality of the agriculture sector and employment in it has been driven by a very simple relationship between cost and revenue. While the costs are similar, at approximately 12 cent, there is a profit to be made because the tariff is 15 cent or 16 cent. The reality is that the 12 cent agricultural digestion tariff is not viable.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

Is that purely from an economic point of view?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

Absolutely. For a farmer to bear the costs of building a digester and connecting to the grid, with variable costs, a tariff of 12 cent will probably only allow him or her to break even. There is no incentive to undertake the project when the payment is only 12 cent.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

Dr. Walsh is proposing that we take another look at the cost to farmers.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

The tariff to farmers needs to be adjusted, possibly in line with the German model and what is currently being reviewed in the United Kingdom, which is a tiered system. The waste guys probably do not need the 15 cent but the farmers certainly do. I am sure there would be a significant response in the farming sector if that were done such that all the benefits we have identified from biogas generation could be availed of. It is ultimately an economic decision for farmers to become involved in digestion. There is currently no incentive to do so because it would effectively be a below cost operation.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I have an ancillary question. I met representatives of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association in Kilkenny last night when we had a fruitful discussion on the current difficulties in the sector in regard to milk prices and so on. We also spoke about the disposal of waste and slurry. The farmers to whom I spoke are interested in becoming involved in something like anaerobic digestion. The point is to have on-site disposal facilities for one's waste, as does Mr. Berridge himself. However, the issue of price came up again. Despite the improvements being made, the economic factor is what drives change towards spreading its use in a different way and towards combined heat and power.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

I cannot envisage the farming sector taking on more costs associated with slurry management. It already is a tight business as I am sure Deputy O'Keeffe will confirm. Nevertheless, there are proven models in this regard. If one looks around the European Union, it is evident that once financial incentives based on a cost-benefit analysis are provided, a significant opportunity arises to deliver on employment, as well as to meet carbon dioxide reduction targets and targets for renewable energy sources. I refer to all the benefits that could accrue in this regard on foot of a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis. However, the bottom line is that to induce farmers to invest, they will need to see more than 12 cent per kW hour. Were the price set at 12 cent per kW hour in Germany, nothing would be happening there. However, as the price there is 15 cent per kW hour or 18 cent per kW hour in some cases, there are 4,500 plants.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

Does Germany pay the most?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

Italy pays more than 20 cent per kW hour. The United Kingdom uses renewables obligations certificates, which is a slightly different scenario, and the price in this regard is approximately 18p per kW hour. Consequently, there is massive interest in the United Kingdom. Its Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued the aforementioned documents earlier this year and the aim is to take the United Kingdom to the forefront of Europe with regard to anaerobic digestion. It is envisaged that thousands of plants will be built in the next ten years. Again, however, the British authorities are incentivising this activity because they have the correct fiscal instruments to make it happen.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

I thank the delegates for the presentations. On the subject of the feed-in tariff, I assume arguments are being made in favour of incentivising farmers to participate. Is the level of the feed-in tariff a political or commercial decision?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

It is both. Obviously, politicians have obligations in respect of landfill directives, nitrates, renewable energy sources, carbon, etc. Such obligations can be driven through a number of renewable options, of which biogas is one. Ultimately, if one wishes to make this happen, it will be about investment. As for returns for farmers or any other investors, it simply is a case of considering what payments one will receive. I am involved in three or four biogas projects that will be waste-derived and the waste sector is quite straightforward. The material involved needs to go to landfill and the operator will be paid tip fees on the gate. As for making a major impact and getting the agriculture sector on-side, in most cases farmers will not receive tip fees and as a result, must make their revenues from electricity and heat production. I will present a slide to provide members with an idea in this regard. It shows the biomass available in Germany for biogas production. Waste contributes less than 5% of the potential to provide renewable energy on the grid and the figures are dominated by biomass and bio-manure. However, if the price of putting such material into a digestion plant is uneconomic, it will be a marginal waste management activity.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

I assume that is the case in Ireland in respect of local authorities and brown bins.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

Yes. On introduction of a brown bin service, people will pay for the waste to be taken away and the operator immediately will receive money for so doing and, consequently, will not worry so much about being paid for electricity. However, in the case of smaller operators such as farmers who only use whatever grows on their own sites higher tariffs are required because they will receive no fees from using waste. Some farmers are beginning to consider doing so. While they will use whatever is grown on their sites, they also will begin to take in brown bin waste. It will be a combination for them and they will be compensated to an extent by the fees they will charge for taking in such brown bin waste.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

On its completion, how many will be required to operate Mr. Berridge's plant?

Mr. Patrick Berridge

One and a half.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

Employment will be low.

Mr. Patrick Berridge

It is an issue of scale, which is small.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

One should note that Mr. Berridge's system is designed to cater for a single farm. Were every farm to employ a single person, thousands of people within a county would be involved. For example, as County Wexford has approximately 10,000 to 15,000 farms, one would have 10,000 to 15,000 people in employment straightaway. In addition, one can build larger systems such as the one to which I referred.

Chairman

There is tremendous job potential in this regard.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

Mr. Berridge's plant will attain 100 MW or 200 MW. In Germany where there are larger plants, the average is 300 MW or 500 MW. It is a supplemental income that deals in on-farm issues for the farming sector.

Senator Brendan Ryan

I welcome the delegation. In Mr. Cooney's opening remarks, he stated that the feasibility study identified a number of insurmountable problems, since which time several developments may have negated many of those. However, a number of issues remain and work has yet to be done. Success depends on the many "ifs" having positive outcomes.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

Much of it relates to tying everything together, including electricity, heat, digestate and so on. People in County Cavan viewed it as a way of removing their pig slurry. It was sold as a solution to all of their problems, which did not turn out to be the case. No one took account of the resultant digestate, thousands of tonnes of which must be dealt with every year. Only in recent years have people got to grips with separation. Since there is so much water in slurry, its nutrient value is low. If a farm is close by, bringing slurry to it is fine. However, transporting it over large distances, as was the case in the Cavan instance, incurs a high cost. Effectively, one would be transporting water.

When the liquid fraction has been separated from the solid fraction, the latter has a large amount of nutrients and can be transported economically over large distances to counties Meath, Kildare, Carlow or Wexford. The liquid fraction can be dealt with on site utilising willow, which is a new development that is often mentioned, as it takes up a great deal of water. A number of our sites in Wexford have operated for a couple of years and have proven effective in taking the water in. They have had no impact on the environment in terms of ground water, soil and so on. The willow also provides an energy crop. It is a win-win situation. Only in recent years has everything started to be tied together.

Senator Brendan Ryan

The potential of slurry is limited by its availability.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

No, slurry is quite good. The problem in Cavan was never with the energy derived from slurry. Rather, the problem lay with the disposal of the digestate.

Senator Brendan Ryan

I mean that it is limited nationally, not regionally. The potential to collect——

Mr. Brendan Cooney

Not really.

Senator Brendan Ryan

If one is housing animals, slurry collection is easy.

Deputy Damien English

The nitrates directive.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

Under the nitrates directive, nearly 22 weeks of slurry storage are required in some parts of the country. There are vast quantities of slurry, but the problem was with tying everything together. Every county has slurry, but it was a matter of tying the technologies together so that one piece of technology could feed another and so on. This is becoming the case. Many of the problems identified in the Cavan project are being overcome.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

As shown in my slide, 132 million tonnes of sludges and slurries are produced in Ireland every year. Anaerobic digestion does not produce more, but the advantage is that the material, which must still be spread, will be less odorous and energy production will have been maximised. Since the 1980s, the technology risk has been removed to a large extent. One need only consider Germany and Austria, which the committee has visited. All the experience acquired there is readily available in Ireland.

Over a long period, the country has become full with slurry stores. What we are examining is how to lid those tanks and extract the gas. Currently, the gas is liberated into the atmosphere and forms part of our CO2 balance sheet. The advantage to us lies in putting lids on tanks, extracting the gas, generating renewable electricity and providing agriculture with a more benign material. This process would not make the material disappear and the nutrients would remain.

Senator Brendan Ryan

What are the capital costs of a digestor?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

The typical agricultural digestor in Germany, doing 0.5 MW, would be about €1.5 million.

Deputy Damien English

A good deal of money has been spent on existing farm facilities, grants and so on. Are they easily adaptable?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

Not easily, but it is possible. With joined up thinking it would be great to get some anaerobic digestors in when the tanks are being built, but it is not impossible

Deputy Damien English

That is the story of our lives around here.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

We have talked to some farmers already in this regard and many tanks may be used for digestive storage. It is a matter in each case of putting in a number of anaerobic digestors at the front end.

Chairman

Earlier Mr. Brendan Cooney mentioned willow and other schemes and the fact that there was a limited grant scheme available from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. One of the schemes, the willow one, was over-subscribed while the others were under-subscribed. There are limiting factors as regards harvests and in relation to the return three or four years down the road. The point being made by Dr. Walsh is that if there could be cohesion by means of a joined up thinking process there could be enormous logistical as well as environmental advantages.

Mr. Brendan Cooney

In the Cavan area particularly, where I worked for a number of years, there was a large number of piggeries, based on small farms. Straight away, that meant problems since an enormous amount of nutrient was being imported as feed for the pigs, but they had no means of getting rid of it. Then there was the problem of pig slurry because of the wash-down in the sheds etc. A great deal of water had to be added to it. When people were taking this away from the catchments, they were literally removing water. That was part of the problem. However, with this system, given the joined up thinking as regards what will happen afterwards, in theory there can be a win-win situation, energy is produced from the pig slurry as biogas, nutrients are utilised for growing willow from which energy is obtained, again, as well as other benefits. If there is joined up thinking the whole way through it should be possible to make this very viable economically.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

One does not necessarily need willow. In many cases there is manured land mixed in with grassland. The EPA has done a major study on grass as a feedstock for digestion in recent years, purely from an energy perspective. It is a closed loop, with land under grass which can also support cattle, manure is being digested and so is the grass — and with all that manure going back out onto the grassland, this is supporting the growth of grass for the next year etc. The one advantage of biogas is that it is very versatile. As regards the landfill directive, in terms of taking food, waste etc. and the whole issue of the potential benefits from manure management, we are talking too about renewable energy and using other biomass products.

Chairman

Where does chicken waste fit into all this?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

As a co-digestate it is not suitable to digest on its own very well but if it is mixed with other materials it digests quite well.

Chairman

Can it be accommodated?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

Yes, it can. I am currently seeking planning permission for a large NBT plant, which is going to be digestion as well. We shall be taking in mixed blackening waste, digesting it down and getting it stable before landfill. The range of applications is enormous and that does not need incentivisation, as it will happen anyway. However, the main area in terms of our focus for today is employment. The biggest opportunity for employment in the agricultural sector is getting that incentivised.

Chairman

What recommendations should we make to Government on incentives?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

The simplest scenario is to concentrate on the feeding tariff for agricultural applications where waste is not being brought in. That could be incentivised at a higher level, similar to the feeding tariff model they have in Germany.

Chairman

The German model is what Dr. Walsh is looking for. I call Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, who probably can afford to get one of those anaerobic digestors.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I welcome the delegation. This is a very important area and looks as if it could be very lucrative for the future. Have the delegates looked at any systems in Denmark or Holland, which are on a comparable scale? Denmark covers a very small area, with 20 million pigs. It was big into renewable energy ten years ago, using straw for heating the pig operations. Holland, too, has about double our milk quota. These are relatively small countries where these systems should be really working. Has any study been done into systems in those two countries, which are enormously agriculture-intensive, as their experience would be very relevant at this time?

Is scale very important where large numbers of pigs or dairy cattle are involved? Is it important that the slurry be fresh rather than having it build up over a period of time? Does it lose its energy value over time? While pig slurry is very high in protein, phosphate and so on, dairy slurry is different. Would the delegates consider it feasible for local authorities to operate a centralised digester to take slurry from intensive farming operations in their areas? Would it be economically viable and provide employment in local areas to have that type of central digestion arrangement where the slurry would be drawn and processed at one site rather than having a digester at each farm?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

I shall answer the Deputy's last question first. Denmark is similar to Germany in that it has a high level of anaerobic digestion per farm and there is not a great difference in approach between the two countries. The main difference relates to the financial instruments used. That drives the level of investment, the types and sizes of plants and so on. The economics are driven by these tariffs which dictate the level at which one enters. In terms of a centralised site, the bottom right hand corner of the slide currently displayed shows a site near Hamburg where as part of a co-operative 120 farmers bring their slurry together at one location. The economies of scale at the site also allow them to bring in abattoir waste. Effectively, it is a winter slurry store which is actively managed in the form of biogas generation and some waste management in the form of taking in agri-industry abattoir waste. It produces 2.4 MW of electricity and also provides heat for a local piggery.

It is certainly possible, therefore, to opt for a centralised system if it is economically viable to do so. The economies of scale will follow if it makes sense to operate on a larger-scale, co-operative basis. In Ireland we need to build a few small plants before considering any massive ones. I am coming from the compost industry where it is the same story; we need some small plants before committing to building large facilities for cities. The German model allows for a mixture of small and large facilities. In that country, if a plant is below 150 kW, which would be a typical small or medium-sized farm, there is a slightly higher tariff than is the case for a large operation of greater scale. It is not a case of either-or but of facilitating both.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

The delegates mentioned Cavan and north and west Cork as areas in which there is high intensity farming. Are these areas not ideal for a large-scale digester?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

Absolutely.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

How could such a development be financed?

Dr. Andrew Walsh

It would be mostly financed by the feed-in tariff. If one considers manure management in the form of pig slurry, it is not very energetic in that the number of kilowatt-hours obtained per cubic metre of pig manure is lower than with cattle slurry and considerably lower than with food waste. However, in the case of the co-operative facility near Hamburg to which I referred, it was decided to provide a relatively large plant to achieve economies of scale and allow for the taking in of higher energy material to increase the gas yield. Such initiatives are possible in Ireland. However, at a tariff of 12 cent, it will more likely be a case of focusing on waste before bringing in manure as a supplemental material, rather than the other way around. On the basis of the 12 cent tariff, we will see waste first and manure second as opposed to manure as the starting point.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I understood pig slurry was higher in methane than cattle slurry.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

No.

Mr. Patrick Berridge

It is if it is not diluted, but washing dilutes it by some 50%.

Deputy Edward O’Keeffe

I understand methane is a very valuable gas.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

It is the material that uses the energy. Most renewable energy farms in Germany are using silage because silage produces four to five times the amount of gas per tonne as pig manure. Anybody who is considering investing in a digestion plant will look first at the revenue from electricity and second at the manure management benefit. I recently went through a feasibility study for a pig farm which was going to manage its own pig manure but also take in some sludges. We looked at the mass balance of the energy, and found that the sludges would make up only about 20% of the material coming in but would generate more than 70% of the gas. Thus, we were asking why we would bother putting in the manure in the first place when we could build a dedicated sludge facility. There must be incentives to get the manure into the plants on the basis of obtaining a reasonable tariff for the electricity generated. Manure tends to be voluminous and the tanks are very big; as a result it is all down to the bottom line in terms of the investment per cubic metre of digester capacity vis-à-vis the payment obtained from the gas produced.

Deputy Damien English

I do not understand one of the pictures.

Dr. Andrew Walsh

That digester is processing approximately 150,000 tonnes. It represents all the farmers coming together. The smaller one beside it is processing perhaps 30,000 tonnes — again, mostly silage and manure. The top one is the largest food digester in the world, processing half a million tonnes of sludge from a potato factory and producing 8 MW.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I have one more question.

Chairman

The Deputy must be brief. I must be strict on this.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I know, but it is important.

Chairman

They are all important questions.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

Mr. Berridge said it took two years to obtain planning permission. This is sometimes a problem; a plan is submitted and people who may be nervous of an anaerobic digester or composting plant delay the planning process. Was it a case of local objections? If we want to increase rural employment we in this committee must ensure the wider community understands exactly what an anaerobic digester or composting plant does. These offer the possibility of good, long-term sustainable jobs in rural Ireland.

Mr. Patrick Berridge

Since I started I have never had an objection to my plans on any of my four applications. Perhaps I was slightly naive in not having pre-planning meetings; if I had, things might have been sorted out a little faster. It was not an issue of objections at all.

Chairman

I thank all three witnesses for helping us in our deliberations, particularly Mr. Cooney, who went to much trouble to prepare his submission and assist us in our work. Coming from Westmeath, I am aware of the work that was done in Cavan. Their presentation has made obvious to us that we have a wide range of raw materials at our disposal to produce cheap and efficient power and heat, and we can use those to create jobs, both in processing the raw material and in providing energy needed by industry, especially small industries located in rural and semi-rural areas. This is important. The witnesses have indicated what is needed now. They are not the first to indicate that incentivisation is critical in ensuring this becomes a reality. If we do not move forward we will be left behind. We are already behind. It is appropriate to state, on the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing, that we need to make a few giant leaps, because at the moment we are standing still.

The witnesses are excused, but should they wish they may observe the proceedings with our next witnesses from the Public Gallery. We thank them for coming before the committee. We might ask Dr. Walsh whether he does consultancy work because we may have some work ourselves in the not-too-distant future as we evaluate matters.

Our next group has been waiting patiently in the Gallery and are ready for the off. I am not referring to the journalists in the front row, although I am delighted to see our proceedings being covered today.