<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Alex, that below is both misleading and inaccurate.</DIV>
<DIV>And, are you primarily "selling" your services OR their product? We don't care, but IF you are, you should state that.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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}</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Olyberg system address more of the AD problems that the European ones, but might not maximize certain outputs.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>IF that means nothing to you - economically, environmentally, legally etc - then the cheapest may be just your thing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And, we are aware of all the lagoon systems that were studied, AND rejected, for use in King & Snohomish Counties in WA.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, Alex..., my middle name is Grahame, and my last name is Bell...</DIV>
<DIV>so, try to go a skoshi bit easy on another wee/pee scottish laddy.</DIV>
<DIV><IMG src="http://mail.yimg.com/a/i/mesg/tsmileys2/37.gif"></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Alexander Eaton <alex@sistemabiobolsa.com><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> For Discussion of Anaerobic Digestion <digestion@lists.bioenergylists.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Fri, December 3, 2010 12:49:56 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Digestion] High costs of biogass plants in Norway<BR></FONT><BR>HI Harold, <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>Alex</DIV></div><br>
</body></html>