I welcome the representatives of Biomass Heating Solutions Limited, Mr Jack O'Connor and Mr. Chris Long, and Mr. Stephen Critchley of Stewart Thermal Limited. I advise the delegation that while committee members have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Biomass Heating Solutions Limited: Presentations.
Mr. Jack O’Connor
I am grateful for this opportunity to present my case as a representative of the chicken growing industry in west Limerick. The disposal of chicken litter emerged as a problem in 1998 and is now a serious one. We propose to highlight the problem and offer a viable solution. I operate a unit of 25,000 birds in west Limerick, which is a typically sized poultry shed. West Limerick is home to an intense chicken growing industry, other areas being Cappoquin in Waterford, Monaghan and all the northern counties. The chicken growing industry emerged in west Limerick in the early 1960s. Co-operatives such as those in Kantoher and Castlemahon diversified into other areas such as pig and duck farming and these two co-operatives are now the two largest growers.
Kantoher Poultry Producers Association, KPPA, is a group of 43 growers and is involved with protecting the well-being of the chicken growing industry in this area. Some 1,000 people are employed directly in the industry and 3,000 indirectly in the west Limerick area alone. According to the 1998 figures, the industry is worth approximately $38 million to the area. Some 30,000 tonnes of chicken litter are produced in Limerick annually and the current disposal methods have reached crisis point. Traditionally, the litter was land spread and the mushroom industry took the remainder of it. Pending and current legislation, however, are removing this as an option.
In the case of a 25,000 bird unit such as mine, chicken litter is collected through the installation of 40 or 50 bales of chopped straw or shavings on the ground of the chicken house. At the end of an eight-week cycle, 25,000 tonnes of chicken litter are produced. Chicken litter is a biomass fuel and, like all other such fuels, is clean, efficient and sustainable. Austria now uses bio-energy for 13% of its energy needs and the United States generated 3% of its electricity from bio-energy. In Europe, biomass has achieved a considerable share of the energy market but Ireland falls well behind in this regard. The Scandinavian countries are to the fore while the UK also performs strongly simply because of the massive tonnage of chicken litter that is handled by a company called Fibrewatt. My colleague, Mr. Stephen Critchley, has worked with this company and will later share some of his experience of the industry.
In its Renewable Energy White Paper, the European Commission set a target to double the use of renewable energy from 6% to 12% of the EU's consumption by 2010. The White Paper suggests that 80% of this will be generated from biomass energy schemes and the use of chicken litter as a bio-energy source is predicted to rise. I do not need to tell the committee members about the Kyoto Protocol, but estimated figures for non-compliance are 130 million per year or 650 million from 2008 to 2012.
The problem encountered by the chicken growing industry in Ireland began for me personally in 1998. Having only 12 acres of land, I had no place to spread the litter and was asking neighbours and others to accommodate it. Limerick County Council has put a stop to this due to the high phosphorous levels. A study the council conducted in my locality last year concluded that chicken litter was not to be spread in many areas around my farm for the next generation in order for phosphorous levels to return to normal. The mushroom industry, long a traditional user of the litter, is at saturation point because of the difficulties with land spreading and the margins associated with compost, particularly in view of the movement of the Polish mushroom industry into the British market. The mushroom industry is now demanding a charge for transporting the litter, whereas 20 years ago we were being paid to bring the litter.
Poultry farmers cannot spread the litter and without any viable means of disposal, some are forced out of business. In my own area, three or four of the smaller growers, those operating sheds of 3,000 or 4,000 birds, have closed their doors in the past few months. The chicken growing industry faces a lot of competition but the litter issue is of major significance. Rainfall such as we had last night makes it impossible to transport the litter across land.
We conducted a feasibility study in 1990 of the different disposal methods, including land spreading, composting, anaerobic digestion and the possibility of export to plants in the UK. The grain growing areas of north Cork are ideal for land spreading but there are issues with transport costs and waste licences so this option was discounted as a long-term solution. The composting industry is not centralised and it is difficult to have an on-farm composting facility because a lot of technical background is required and there are issues with seepage costs and disposal of residue. We teamed up with people in the National University of Ireland, Galway, to consider the anaerobic digestion solution. Again, residue was a significant issue along with the others I have mentioned. In the UK, two thirds of poultry litter is taken to plants such as Fibrewatt. This system works at the central level in UK. My colleague, Mr. Stephen Critchley, will provide a background on what is happening there.
Mr. Stephen Critchley
I thank the committee for inviting us. Most recently, I worked for Fibrewatt for approximately nine years, more or less since the company was established. I managed the world's first poulty fired plant, the 12 MW plant at Oberthai. I also managed the world's largest poulty fired plant in Thetford, which generates 38.5 MW. That is a large scale.
Combined, the two plants I worked at burn approximately 600,000 tonnes of poultry litter per annum, using a centralised system. That is 75-80% of the UK's production of poultry litter. There is also a fluidised bed plant in Scotland which is part of the same group. The two initial plants used grate fired boilers.
The three systems are centralised systems. Mr. O'Connor is proposing a diversified system. In the early days, centralised systems were favoured over diversified systems because fluidised bed technology was not available. The original plants have grate mechanisms which fire the litter into the boiler and it is combusted on a grate. The plant costs are significant. The technology, on a small scale, did not lend itself to do what Mr. O'Connor wishes to do.
The only plant in the world which uses fluidised bed technology combustion of poultry litter is in Fife. It is a 10 MW plant and uses a much cleaner method. The emissions are a great deal less, about half, including acid gases, carbon monoxide, NOx, and particulates. The combustion method results in less emissions.
The other advantage with the fluidised bed system is that it is easier to maintain. The bed is a bubbling bed of sand in which the fuel is immersed. The mixing of the hot sand with the litter ensures complete combustion, and that is partly responsible for the low emissions.
Mr. O’Connor
The system I use in Killeedy is a smaller version of the fluidised bed system Mr. Critchley mentioned. It can handle one tonne of litter a day. Over 25 tonnes of litter will be handled in the period the matter is in the shed. The heat generated by that litter is used to heat the shed. Fuel is fed into the bubbling sand and exhaust gases are used in a heat exchange system which utilises hot water to heat the chicken shed.
It is a proven and reliable system of energy conversion and conforms to emission regulations. The county council has granted planning permission for five years, after which, because it is a new technology, permission will be reviewed. The benefits include a reduction in carbon dioxide from transporting the litter; no additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from combustion; and the ash is nutrient-rich and nitrogen-free. It is biosecurity enhanced. It is an on-farm solution. It will eliminate the annual propane bill.
Currently, the gas I use to heat my chicken shed costs approximately €7,000 per year. I use that sparingly because of the costs. If heat was freely available from this system I could increase that heat to the value of €12,000-€14,000 per annum. It is low maintenance. It has low energy usage. Testing has been carried out by INETI, an internationally respected laboratory, and the system demonstrated no significant pollutants. There is potential for extra income by using other energy crops. There is a possibility, later on, of generating electricity. A farmer could use it for other heating purposes, such as heating the domestic house. We are not getting into those possibilities. Our immediate need is to examine the chicken litter option.
In Kantoher, we have a pre-production working unit on site. It has accrued more than 1,000 hours in its operations to date. We have formed a company, Biomass Heating Solutions Limited, and are ready to instal the system on farms. We have expressions of interests from farmers who want the system in their yards. We have people on board such as Mr. Critchley, as well as a thermal expert from Lisbon. We have been involved with the EPA, the county council, the Department of Agriculture and Food, Bord Bia and the local chicken industry in developing this. All were consulted about it. Not all have given their stamp of approval; however it is under constant review and they are aware of what we are doing. The research undertaken by the University of Limerick and INETI in Portugal has tested emissions and these tests are ongoing. The system was featured on the programme "Ear To The Ground". The county council has been involved and is up to speed on where we are at. We have also located a company interested in buying the residue ash, which amounts to approximately 25 tonnes per annum.
I am delighted Deputy Cregan has given us the opportunity to come and speak to the committee today. The Irish poultry industry must find an alternative for the disposal of litter. We have worked hard on a system over the past five years with some grant aid, as well as our own costs and time. We have developed a method of increasing profits with alternative on-farm income. It helps meet the requirements of the EU Commission contained in its White Paper on renewable energy, it reduces dependency on fossil fuels, and is a means by which issues can be dealt with on-farm and in a manner that is beneficial to Ireland and its environment and safeguards the rural values of Irish farming.
The chicken industry has served west Limerick well. When unemployment was high in Ireland, it was low in the west Limerick area. That was attributed to the success of the chicken industry. Times are tougher now, and we are asking the Government, through this committee, to help us by recognising the benefits of our proposal.
There is a general acceptance that thermal treatment on a small scale is acceptable. I do not see a central unit appearing in Ireland for the next seven or eight years because the public mindset is not ready. There is a danger of other materials being used in these centralised units. Our boiler system, as we call it, is dealing specifically with a fuel on-farm and providing energy for other uses also.
The EU will shortly classify chicken litter as an agricultural waste. That is an issue we are trying to raise with the Department of Agriculture and Science.
Mr. Critchley
It has already been classified as an agricultural waste under the EU waste incineration directive, which affects existing plants in the UK from 20 December 2005. They must comply with lower emission limits as of that date.
Mr. O’Connor
We are attempting to have this energy source included in the scheme of investment aid for farm waste management. Grants are already available for slurry pits and storage areas for agricultural waste. We encourage the committee to support the concept of chicken litter also coming under this category, or the Department of Agriculture and Food viewing it as such. In this way, farmers interested in using the system on their farms would get grant aid. This grant scheme is due for renewal in 2006.
We are grateful to the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our case and take it forward.
I thank Mr. O'Connor and his colleagues for a clear-cut presentation.
I welcome the delegation. I am interested in the comparisons of the various methods of disposal shown in the presentation. I have two chickens in the back garden. I know the scale of the problem with two and I can only imagine what it would be like with 30,000.
On a more serious note, EU directives will impact dramatically on this business. Concerns were expressed about anaerobic digestion. It would strike me that anaerobic digestion might fare well on a number of grounds. Perhaps it would it be possible to compare the proposed thermal treatment process with anaerobic digestion under the following headings: carbon dioxide emissions, climate change emissions, energy production and the waste that remains at the end of the process.
It appears to me that there is, potentially, a good future for anaerobic digestion in this kind of application. European Union grants are available. The dismissal of it in the presentation as a viable process was perhaps somewhat cursory. It was stated that there would be local objections and that the added cost of off-farm transport would have to be taken into account. I would have thought anaerobic digestion was ideally suited to small applications but I would welcome Mr. O'Connor's thoughts on that.
Mr. O’Connor
I will give an initial response and then pass it over to Mr. Critchley to reply on the more technical issues. We were in contact with University College Galway on this point. The land in west County Limerick is very different from the land in County Galway. Land spreading of the residue is not feasible in the months from November to February, which gives rise to the issue of the storage of residues.
Mr. Critchley
One of the key issues with anaerobic digestion is mass reduction. With the combustion method what one gets is a 90% reduction in the residues that remain. If ones treats 300 tonnes of litter one ends up with 25 tonnes of nitrogen free, fairly nutrient rich ash containing 25 P, 17 K.
The second point is that the anaerobic digestion process works on low solid content material. One is really looking for something with about 2% or 3% solid content, which is a slurry. That is why it is ideal for things like cattle and pig manures. In order to turn poultry litter into slurry one has to use vast amounts of water and one will still have the water at the end of the process. The key thing is that one still ends up with 90% of the material, with which one has to do something at the end of the process.
Another aspect is the time it currently takes to process material. Typical anaerobic digestion times can be anywhere between 16 and 20 days. One has to be able to store 16 or 20 days worth of material plus water, which would require a large storage vessel in the digestor. One also has to be able to store the water at the end of the process. That really makes digestion quite an expensive process, which is one of the reasons it has not taken off in the UK.
Systems do exist which could possibly reduce that time but they are currently only at the prototype stage. The methane produced contains hydrogen sulphide which can be acidic, so if one wants to fire the methane through a gas engine or something like that one gets corrosion. Issues of control also arise with digestion systems. It is quite a difficult thing to ensure a consistent flow through the system, keep the temperatures right and so on. It is more complex than one might think, whereas with the fluidised bed system that has been developed here, in essence the controls can be built into the plan, thus requiring a minimum effort on behalf of the farmer. That is how it really has to be for it to make it attractive to a farmer.
The fluidised bed system will actually generate heat and also has the potential down the track, if everything is right on the regulatory side, to provide power. One could put a small steam turbine on the end of it if one could get a grid connection and if there were incentives and so on. They are the benefits of the combustion method compared to digestion.
How would the two compare in terms of energy production and CO2 emissions?
Mr. Critchley
One of the points always levelled at plants in the UK was that we were shipping litter on 200 mile or 300 mile round trips——
Can we discount the travel costs and concentrate on what happens on-site?
Mr. Critchley
In essence, if one combusts 1 tonne of poultry litter one will produce less than 1 tonne of carbon dioxide. Being a renewable, the CO is not new carbon. It is absorbed by the feed stocks such as wheat and everything that is grown to produce the feed that goes back to the chickens. We used to argue in regard to UK plants that they were roughly carbon neutral.
How would that compare to anaerobic digestion? Surely in that case one is not producing the same amount of carbon.
Mr. Critchley
One of the things one is actually producing is methane. Therefore, one is exhausting carbon back into the atmosphere.
Does Mr. Critchley have a rough figure for how the two would compare?
Mr. Critchley
I am afraid I do not. I could get it.
What method of measuring emissions was employed? At what intervals or frequency were those measurements taken? Who took the measurements and were experts employed to carry it out?
In Mr. O'Connor's view, what are the consequences for emissions of a malfunction in equipment? I refer, for example, to an alteration in heat levels due to an error in the equipment.
Mr. O’Connor
The measurement was done by the University of Limerick and INETI, which is an internationally recognised station based in Lisbon. I will refer the other question to Mr. Critchley.
Mr. Critchley
Emissions in UK plants are monitored by the National Physical Laboratory. The figures I quoted for emissions are comparative emissions with the fluidised bed as opposed to the initial grate-fired mechanisms. They are borne out by the National Physical Laboratory. It monitored for dioxins, heavy metals, etc.
On the consequences of problems with the plant, one of the key advantages with the fluidised bed is that few things can go wrong. Ultimately, the fluidised bed could agglomerate but in that case one would shut the plant down and clean it. One would not be able to continue to combust with an agglomerated bed. That is the first point. If one were to restrict air then one would affect the stoichiometric ratio. One would not get complete combustion of the litter so one's carbon emissions would rise, but that is easily remedied. That whole issue is resolved at the design stage. The system with the plant here is that there is under-fire air so combustion is taking place within the bed, but there is also over-fire air, secondary air, so when it is being combusted it is reacted further up into the boiler. Not much can go wrong with the system in terms of emissions.
How often are emissions measured? Are they checked for dioxin levels? A company has been identified for the sale of the ash residue. What would it be used for? Has it been tested for dioxins?
Mr. Critchley
Data exist for the UK plants. The fertiliser is marketed as a product called Fibrophos and last year the company sold 35,000 tonnes of ash. It is also exported to the west coast of Africa for banana plantations. It is tested for dioxins, pathogens and P and K content on a daily basis. The Soil Association stipulated certain P and K limits that the ash must work to and there are emissions monitoring systems in the UK plants because of a stipulation of the Environment Agency. The National Physical Laboratories carry out gas testing for the key components — carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, NOx and particulates — on a three monthly basis. Dioxins are monitored every six months, and heavy metals and VOCs are monitored every three months. The EA limits for dioxins are 0.5 of a nanogramme per cubic metre and the plants are usually three orders of magnitude below the limit. There is typically 0.003 of a nanogramme of dioxins and furans so they are not an issue.
Mr. O’Connor
On my farm there is a pre-production unit. Monitoring will have to be addressed but the results of our tests fell well within the acceptable levels. We have readings and they have been accepted. We can give those readings to the committee later.
I missed the start of the presentation so I do not completely understand if this happens on each poultry site or if there are economies of scale. How large is the unit?
Mr. O’Connor
It is in a shed that measures 30 feet by 40 feet. It is five metres in height and the internal walls are 40 centimetres by 40 centimetres with lagging on the outside.
What sort of chimney does it have?
Mr. O’Connor
It is five metres high and sticks out of the top of the shed.
It is a pre-production unit — does that mean it is not functioning at the minute?
Mr. O’Connor
It is functioning now.
Mr. Critchley
It has operated for over 1,000 hours.
How is it heated?
Mr. O’Connor
It is initially fired up using gas to bring it up to 800 degrees. At that stage, the chicken litter is injected to the fluidising sand.
What temperature does that sand reach?
Mr. O’Connor
Between 650 and 750 degrees.
It takes a great deal of energy to fire it up.
Mr. O’Connor
It takes two or three hours.
It is not in constant use. Would it be better if it was kept at that temperature and reloaded?
Mr. O’Connor
It must run 24 hours a day. It is not feasible to turn it off after eight hours and re-fire it.
Mr. Critchley
Propane gas is used for two hours to get the system to its operating temperature. At that point, the chicken litter is dropped in, the gas is turned off, and the chicken litter self-sustains.
Is this something that could provide energy to the electricity grid?
Mr. Critchley
Certain larger farms with sufficient litter can ultimately supply heat to the sheds. It depends on the market. The key factors are the ability to connect to the grid cheaply and energy incentives. In the UK, the lower tariffs encouraged the building of the plants. The subsidising of those plants meant they were able to pay the poultry growers for the litter. That is still the case but 90% of the cost goes in transport. Typically, the plants pay £10 per tonne of litter, of which £1 a tonne goes to the grower and the rest is used for transport.
That is the issue with the centralised units. In the early days, the technology was not available to build small scale units like this. The fluidised bed system was not developed enough to run on the farm and that is the real beauty of what we propose. We typically had 130 trucks a day arriving that would make a round trip of 200 miles.
Does the disposal of the residue involve truck movements?
Mr. Critchley
Typically it is 8% ash content within the fuel. Poultry litter as fired is 8% ash. At the Thetford plant that ash is blended because there are different ash streams coming out of the process. There is the coarse ash from the grate and fine ash that is carried out with flue gas for heat recovery. The two streams have different P and K contents and they are blended to get the right content.
Can it be sold?
Mr. Critchley
Yes, and the advantage is that it does not contain nitrogen. Nitrogen can then be added to soil as wanted. That cannot be done with poultry litter because nitrogen leaches into the water system.
Is this seen primarily as a way of disposing of the waste in the industry or is it about developing opportunities for renewable energy?
Mr. O’Connor
Initially it is a means of getting rid of a problem — the chicken litter. There is an added bonus that it can provide energy to heat the shed.
Mr. Critchley
Less developed EU countries have poultry production but on a diverse scale. It is a question of shipping litter far greater distances than in the UK, so it does not become commercially viable. If we can develop the process as an on-farm solution, it will be attractive throughout the EU. The development possibilities for it are exciting.
I welcome the deputation and thank it for a first-class presentation. I have a question regarding waste disposal problems in west Limerick and throughout the country and the onus on the Department to find a solution. How many units would it take in west Limerick to meet the current needs of the industry?
Mr. Critchley mentioned that one central unit was not on the cards in the foreseeable future. How many small operators would it take to render such a central unit operationally viable? County development plans have provided for wind energy sites which would have access to the national grid.
Mr. O’Connor
If we take it that there are some 30,000 tonnes of chicken litter in the area, that is equivalent to 3 MW of electricity. Not every farmer would necessarily require one of these units. If, for example, in the Kantoher area, up to 20 growers out of 43 put these on their farms, it then makes the landspreading and the mushroom viable. We are trying to relieve the current saturation.
Mr. Chris Long
We are not saying this is the solution for the entire problem. It is a possibility to help out certain sectors of the market which are suffering financially. We do not believe a centralised unit is the way to go because of the road infrastructure and the CO output that will come from transporting the stuff. An on-farm solution is the way forward and we believe this to be the best one so far.
Mr. Critchely
My company is involved in various projects around the world in Australia, Spain, etc. Looking at the costs of a centralised unit, the minimum size that is commercially viable is about 5 MW. We are currently involved in a 5 MW plant in Australia and that is the smallest one could have for a centralised system.
I welcome the group and compliment it on a fine and detailed presentation to the committee. We are all better informed as a result. I am quite aware that in west Limerick it is becoming difficult for chicken growers to survive in the business. It is becoming increasing difficult to landspread chicken litter. I hope that the committee will, in due course, consider the presentation given to it today and form an opinion on it, to give what support it can.
The deputation has not made any sales pitch on which I compliment it. They have been honest and forthright and pointed out that this is one possible solution to a problem which needs to be addressed by Government. We should put our heads together and be as supportive as possible in seeking a solution to this ongoing problem in west Limerick and other areas. Deputy Morgan will be familiar with areas along the Border where this is an issue. The committee should review the position as favourably as possible.
I have never heard of continuous monitoring because when a sample is taken it normally has to be sent to a laboratory and subjected to rigorous testing. Therefore monitoring tends to happen at intervals that are dictated or decided upon. I am curious about that. I am also curious as to why the ash is going to west Africa, given the desire to be careful in terms of CO.
Let me accept entirely what members of the deputation have said and what Deputy Cregan has just asserted regarding the need for a solution. The deputation is probably unfortunate in that it is visiting this possible solution on the back of a bombardment from so-called incineration operators, which has left a bad taste in the mouths of many people in this State and beyond. That is somewhat unfortunate. There is no point in rejecting this if it achieves a balance. Landspreading is not a solution.
I will give the matter careful consideration. However, I am concerned about west Africa and the continuous monitoring. I find that——
Mr. Critchley
I would like to talk about continuous emissions monitoring. All the UK plants have monitors. There are two systems. One is an in-stack monitor, a laser which measures certain gases such as hydrogen chloride. Then there are systems which continuously extract a sample of gas through a heated pipeline, put it through an analyser and it generates emissions data every 15 seconds. Once it has the 15-second readings, these are averaged out over the hour and the data are returned to the environment agency every month. That data form the basis of the UK pollution inventory.
It does not measure dioxins, however.
Mr. Critchely
One may have continuous monitoring of dioxins. There are monitors available for this, but they are extremely expensive.
One must look at the background data that are available since the fibre power plant was first built in 1992. There are now 12 years of data available across several plants, all supporting the fact that dioxin emissions are extremely low from the process. It all has to do with the 850 degrees residence temperature for two seconds. That tends to reduce the dioxins. Also, one may also have de novo reformation, which creates dioxins. That is from carbon — incomplete combustion. Provided there is enough air for the process for the stoichiometry of the fuel to get the correct reaction with the air, then there is not an issue with dioxins and poultry litter.
I thank Mr. O'Connor and his colleagues for their presentation and for dealing with members' questions so comprehensively. It is also my duty to compliment the members on the able way they dealt with this subject.
It was not aggressive.
The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until noon on Thursday, 21 October 2004.