[Gasification] Abattoir's pyrolysis plant bucks methane power-making trend

Mark Elliott Ludlow mark at ludlow.com
Mon Oct 26 13:04:56 CDT 2015


Hi Phil,

Thanks for weighing in!

Regardless of the M.C. of the animal offal itself, if a processing facility
is to avoid being the source of a recall (assuming that facilities in S.
Africa are regulated somewhat similarly to those in other countries that
attempt to guard against food-borne illnesses), there is no substitute for
copious amounts of wash-down water, often laced with chlorine or quaternary
ammonium salts. I confess that I have never worked with abattoirs, but I
have paid my dues in seafood and poultry processing facilities where solids
are recovered—to one degree or another—with screens, dissolved-air flotation
systems and decanter centrifuges, but never with enough efficiency to
provide desiccation sufficient for most norms of value extraction. In other
words, it’s just terribly difficult to exceed the point of diminishing
return.

I have no argument with your estimates of the relative water content of lean
versus fat cattle carcasses. Fat displaces water (and protein, to some
extent) in a proximate analysis. However, without grain finishing, this fat
is hard to come by and besides, Western tastes are gravitating toward
grass-fed animals which do have about 65% (or more, even) dry matter, but
this is related to the carcass weight, not the round weight of the animal.

In a paper presented at 33 Congreso Argentino de Producción Animal Comarca
Viedma, Patagonia – 13 al 15 octubre 2010 Conferencia Plenaria (
<http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h1981d0z/pdf/2010-10-viedma/water-footprt.pdf
>
http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h1981d0z/pdf/2010-10-viedma/water-footprt.pdf)
the industry number for water use at time of slaughter is shown as 0.5 m3
per carcass or an amount of water that can represent nearly twice the
finished carcass weight(!) This water—not just the water denoted by the
finished carcass and associated offal—is an inexorable part of the
wastewater budget. Even if a fraction of it is mechanically separated from
the more solid-appearing fractions, it can’t be ignored. Dehydrating the
stomach contents and other solid-appearing fractions doesn’t alter the
arithmetic and only makes the real slaughterhouse waste stream more
difficult to process with more appropriate technologies such as anaerobic
digestion.

 

Best regards,
Mark 

 

From: Phil Marsh [mailto:phil at marshbros.ca] 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:14 AM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org>; mark at ludlow.com
Subject: RE: [Gasification] Abattoir's pyrolysis plant bucks methane
power-making trend

 

Hi Mark and Tom:

 

Just to weigh in on this one
..it may be slightly different than it seems
when it comes to MC.

 

Besides doing foolish things in relation to pyrolysis/gasification I also
own a small abattoir. The actual water content of animals is roughly 65%,
about the same as one of our cottonwood trees, but is susceptible to wide
variation. Lean animals with a lot of muscle could be above 70% and very fat
animals (obese) below 50%.

 

Offal that would go to a digester or a pyrolysis system would be mainly
stomach contents, this usually contains considerable fat and less muscle
tissue which lowers MC but a lot of water is used in the wash down processes
in abattoirs so things are wet. A moister content between 60 and 70 percent
can be expected in the offal. I have done small amounts of offal in my
pyrolysis system as a test, in this case it was mixed with about 50% by
volume sawdust, briquetted and dried before entering the system. Using this
process it appeared to make good char and worked fine.

 

In green SPF we expect between 45-55% MC depending on season, cottonwood
55-70%, of course if you attempt to air dry your wood your neighbours may
not complain, it you attempt the same thing with a pile of offal you may get
some pushback
..just saying:)

 

Phil

 

From: Gasification [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: October 25, 2015 8:05 PM
To: mark at ludlow.com <mailto:mark at ludlow.com> ; 'Discussion of biomass
pyrolysis and gasification' <gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org> >
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Abattoir's pyrolysis plant bucks methane
power-making trend

 

Mark,

 

Shame on you for doing the math. It was probably pitched as a least cost
disposal option with the added benefit of power generation. Nutrient
management, heat and material  balances, or life cycle costs may not have
been considered. We’ll have to get Joel Arcus of BioWaste Technologies into
the conversation. With the instability of power generation in South Africa
you would think that gasifiers could compete.  

 

Just to throw a “spanner” into the works have a look at a recent Spanner
gasifier installation in the UK. 

http://www.holz-kraft.de/images/Blog/FW_article_Nick_Helme.pdf

 

£500,000 (USD $767,000) for 90 kWe and 216 KWth. $8,500/kWe. With the right
fuel these gasifiers have a very high availability of 7,000-8,000 hours per
year. In Germany they have sold 400+ as heating devices for farms. Since the
German utilities pay something like $0.28/kWh  it helps pay off the
investment. We can’t justify the in North America. In the UK, as the article
points out, the customer is the government. You need the Renewable Heat
Incentive (RHI) and the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC) to justify
the investment. So when it comes to gasifiers the UK ROCS! At least this
year. 

 

It would be nice to see gasifiers pay their own way with real revenues but
fossil fuels keep a lid on that opportunity. 

 

Tom 

 

From: Gasification [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Elliott Ludlow
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:39 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org> >
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Abattoir's pyrolysis plant bucks methane
power-making trend

 

This is surely over-hyped, Tom. Eleven-tonnes of waste (which is likely 85%,
or more, water) implies that over 9,000 kgm of water will need to be
evaporated each day just to end up with a couple of metric tons of
pyrolyzable waste. This is beyond ludicrous! Why not simply enzymatically
digest the offal, pasteurize it, and overland apply it as a soil amendment?
HAS to be some govmint money pushing ridiculous projects like this one!

 

Mark

 

From: Gasification [mailto:gasification-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Miles
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:01 PM
To: 'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
<gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org
<mailto:gasification at lists.bioenergylists.org> >
Subject: [Gasification] Abattoir's pyrolysis plant bucks methane
power-making trend

 

An alternative to anaerobic digestion for abbattoir waste in South Africa 

Abattoir’s pyrolysis plant bucks methane power-making trend 
  
Read the article now.
http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/innovation/2015/10/13/abattoirs-pyrolysis-p
lant-bucks-methane-power-making-trend

BioWaste Technologies, Gauteng, South Africa, Joel Arcus 

http://www.biowastetech.co.za/

 


BDlive is a premium digital news publication focusing on the South African
economy, business and politics, updated all day long by a newsroom of expert
journalists.

Read more (link to http://www.bdlive.co.za) 
Subscribe now (link to http://www.bdlive.co.za/subscribe) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/gasification_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20151026/dd12b97a/attachment.html>


More information about the Gasification mailing list