[Digestion] High costs of biogass plants in Norway

Sat Dec 4 13:58:56 CST 2010

Sir,

Nothing I said below was misleading or inaccurate.  Lagoon digesters are
much less expensive than European tank digesters, and may be a viable option
if space is not an issue.  Period.  They should be integrated into a
treatment train that considers how solids and digestate are managed, such as
secondary and tertiary lagoons, that comply with environmental regulations,
sure.  The antibiotics and other issues is an upstream issue that should be
resolved, but has nothing inherently to do with lagoon digesters.  Also,
with full mixing capabilities, heat recycling, and regular maintenance that
removes solids, these systems are perhaps more advanced then lagoons you are
familiar with.

Certainly you would not argue that a lagoon digester is not better than
doing nothing?  "Nothing" is often the option that is chosen when potential
users see the high cost of tank digesters.  It should be noted that there
are additional options, such as lagoons.

Your message seems a bit contrary to the idea of this list, that
understanding all of the AD options is important.  Certainly, all systems
have pros and cons.  The con of thermophilic digesters are high costs, and
high maintenance and operation demands that place them outside of the budget
of many global operations.  That is a rather serious drawback, and can been
seen in some cases as the "ideal" (here, conceding high treatment rates,
etc.) getting in the way of the good (here, referring to lagoon digesters as
a good treatment systems that produces renewable energy and is accessible to
a wider population).

Also, I did mention that I had worked with them in the past, mostly thanks
to their help on public research projects.  I am not selling anything, as I
mentioned I could facilitate contact if that was appropriate.  Also, given
the fact that I run a non-profit effort to disseminate biogas systems to
marginalized populations in the developing world, attacking me personally
because environmental contamination "means nothing" to me rings a bit
hollow.  Your note seems inappropriate and hypocritical, especially given
that you do not use your real name and use a royal "we" that seems to
represents a business (or a crazy person with a sock puppet?).

Regards,

Alex

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, JGBellHimself <jgbellhimself at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Alex, that below is both misleading and inaccurate.
> And, are you primarily "selling" your services OR their product? We don't
> care, but IF you are, you should state that.
>
> Previously, we answered a researcher's question about information sources
> for AD systems available to U.S. What we pointed out was that ONE (1) of the
> European system was high temp and One (1) other was low temp. But, both were
> much more efficient that the "RCM types" of lagoon digester systems. There
> is another system, based in Olympia WA that is even more efficient than the
> either of the two European systems.
>
> What you forgot to say is that IF all you are looking for is the cheapest
> system, and land size is no object, AND minimizing all of the other gas,
> liquid and solid emissions are irrelevant to you - ie, quick and dirty is
> nice - then lagoon AD systems will keep you happy. As you help destroy the
> planet. (Oh, yes, we do know that is bit extreme, but Alex, more info is oft
> better than less, inaccurate info) {and, yes, we are joking, sorta; so if
> offended, we apologize, in advance}
>
> Now, were were we..., what you also did NOT point out is that both European
> systems are highly engineered to accomplish certain goals. The high temp
> system is DESIGNED to produce the maximum usable gas output, while
> minimizing all of the other AD problems. Not perfect, but a heck of a lot
> better then lagoon systems.
>
> The Olyberg system address more of the AD problems that the European ones,
> but might not maximize certain outputs.
>
> What you need to ask is what do we have available for source input? Which
> AD system is the most efficient at processing that source? What do we
> primarily want to get back out of our AD system - usable/salable gas? clean
> water? fertilizer?
>
> And, what do we NOT want to get back: smelly air, not very clean water,
> ammonia, SO2, end-solids that are NOT usable and possibly toxic.
>
> You must be aware that using AD on poop & urine from cows, and chicks, and
> geese how they scurry..., and horses, pigs and littl bo' peep's lambs...,
> ends up leaving you with some very interesting "product". In the U.S.
> commercial animals are laced with antibiotics & pesticides.
>
> All those wonderful little additives are NOT removed by lagoon systems.
> And, many - too? - AD systems currently simply dump the dirty liquids and
> solids back into the environment as if they have no impacts.
>
> IF that means nothing to you - economically, environmentally, legally etc -
> then the cheapest may be just your thing.
>
> However, IF you know that there ARE other problems that you can, and should
> - medically, legally, environmentally and economically - address, you might
> want to look a little harder at the more efficient systems.
>
> Alex, before you take off on me, please note that we ARE aware of the work
> being done at WA State U, using funding from Paul Allen, to try to "clean
> up" lagoon systems, like those in Whatcom County in WA state. Very good
> work, significant progress. So, even your lagoons CAN be improved,
> substantially.
>
> And, we are aware of all the lagoon systems that were studied, AND
> rejected, for use in King & Snohomish Counties in WA.
>
> But, even lagoon systems must be periodically "cleaned out". What you get
> and what you do with it, are important considerations; in addition to all
> the other AD problems that have been ignored.
>
> Now, Alex..., my middle name is Grahame, and my last name is Bell...
> so, try to go a skoshi bit easy on another wee/pee scottish laddy.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Alexander Eaton <alex at sistemabiobolsa.com>
>
> *To:* For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion <
> digestion at lists.bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Fri, December 3, 2010 12:49:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Digestion] High costs of biogass plants in Norway
>
> HI Harold,
>
> I wanted to mention that Europe is dominated by insulated tank digesters,
> common in Germany, that come at a very high cost.  We have presented
> proposals for lagoon digesters that have come in literally 10 times less
> expensive than competitive bids for Euro-style systems.  I have done work
> with RCM-Digesters International, who specialize in these lagoon digesters,
> and have installed them in areas of extreme cold weather.  I am confident
> that these will always come in less expensive than the tank-type systems.
> The benefit of the tanks often includes the use of less space (more of an
> issue in Europe than the U.S.), but that may not be an issue in Norway.  RCM
> would be willing to examine a project of this nature if it were more than
> just one system.  Let me know if you want me to facilitate.
>
> Best,
>
> Alex
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digestion mailing list
>
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Digestion at bioenergylists.org
>
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org
>
> for more information about digestion, see
> Beginner's Guide to Biogas
> http://www.adelaide.edu.au/biogas/
> and the Biogas Wiki http://biogas.wikispaces.com/
>
>
>

-- 
Alexander Eaton
Sistema Biobolsa
IRRI-Mexico
RedBioLAC

Mex cel: (55) 11522786
US cel: 970 275 4505

alex at irrimexico.org
alex at sistemabiobolsa.com

sistemabiobolsa.com
www.irrimexico.org
www.redbiolac.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/digestion_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20101204/c825d40e/attachment.html>