Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

[Chris Hodrien]

Usefully disposing of 28,000 tonnes of liquid turkey-poo - great idea!

BBC News 11 November 2011 Last updated at 14:01
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-15691118

Bernard Matthews plans £4m renewable energy scheme

Bernard Matthews hopes the anaerobic digester will provide 13% of the Holton
site's electricity

Turkey producer Bernard Matthews says a £4m renewable energy scheme near
Halesworth would take more than 1,200 lorries off the road each year.
The company plans to build an anaerobic digester at its Holton factory to
convert around 28,000 tonnes of liquid waste into biogas each year.
It says this would cut 60% of the factory's waste traffic and provide 13% of
the site's electricity needs.
The digester is due to be in operation by 2013, subject to planning
approval.
Richard Southgate, group procurement director, said liquid waste from the
turkey factory would sit in the digester tank for about 35 days to generate
the gas.
He said: "For us it's a key opportunity to use that waste to generate green
energy for ourselves.
"We don't want to have to export that waste and put lorries on the road."
Waveney District Council has yet to comment.
More on This Story
Related Stories
* Obituary: Bernard Matthews <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11846786>
26 NOVEMBER 2010, UK
* Will we switch to gas made from human waste?
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8501236.stm> 19 APRIL 2010, MAGAZINE
* Can food waste generate electricity?
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8088000/8088938.stm> 08 JUNE
2009, TODAY

[ca...@aol.com]

Do they think that AD will make the waste disappear?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

[dave andrews]

that is a good point....it will almost no effect on the volume of waste, mainly water...but will render it less unpleasant???

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

[James Skinner]

On the contrary, the “waste” left after the digestion process makes first class organic fertiliser.

 

James Skinner, Sustraco Ltd, Heron House, Chiswick Mall, London W4 2PR

Tel: 020 8995 3000; Mobile: 07718887352

Web-site: http://www.ultralightrail.com/

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

Interesting price for a 28000 tonne plant. Should be about 2.5m

tom cree Add Energy Ltd

[Oliver Harwood]

Dear all,

 

1.         “dewatering” is now accredited and can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry traffic

 

2.         in any case the UK biofertiliser scheme accredits source separated waste via PAS 110 treatment  into biofertiliser.

 

3.         AD treatment reduces volatile solids (smell) and Biological Oxygen Demand (pollutant effect) as well as improving the solubility of the N present, thereby improving its uptake when used as fertiliser.

 

Please see the International Energy Agency  “Digestate brochure” at www.iea-biogas.net

 

I hope this helps

 

Oliver

 

 

Oliver Harwood FRICS

Chief Surveyor

 

T: 020 7235 0511
F: 020 7235 4696	E: oliver....@cla.org.uk

 

      

 

The CLA is the membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales.

For information on our work and how to join online, visit www.cla.org.uk

The Advisory Services are made available to members on the basis that a member’s rights to compensation and the liability (if any) of CLA and its officers and/or its staff advisers, are restricted in the following ways.  In the event of any advice given by any CLA staff adviser being given negligently or otherwise being incorrect no liability whatsoever is accepted by CLA or its officers or by its staff advisers concerned (a) towards any person who is not the current CLA member to whom the advice was directly given, (b) to any person in respect of consequential loss or loss of profits, or (c) to any person for any sum exceeding £50,000 in respect of any one enquiry (whether made or responded to orally or in writing and whether dealt with at one time or over a period of time).

Any person making use of the Advisory Services accepts such restrictions.  If damages restricted to the above financial limits would be inadequate in the circumstances members should consider referring to appropriate professional advisers in private practice before taking any particular course of action potentially or actually involving any substantial amounts of money.

No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this message can be or is accepted by the author(s), the CLA or its officers or trustees or employees or any other persons.  © Country Land and Business Association Limited.  All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as expressly permitted by law.

Country Land & Business Association Limited.  Registered in England and Wales: 6131587.  Registered Office: 16 Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ.

[Pat Wilkinson]

We would all be better off without the turkeys in the first place What
conditions are the birds having to endure to give us 'food?' we could all do
without

Pat Wilkinson
-------------------------------------
www.touchwoodhomes.co.uk
p...@touchwoodhomes.co.uk
07970 119 107 01279 506189
-------------------------------------

[Pat Wilkinson]

With perhaps a high concentration of anti biotics etc ?

 

Pat Wilkinson

-------------------------------------

www.touchwoodhomes.co.uk

p...@touchwoodhomes.co.uk

07970 119 107  01279 506189

-------------------------------------

 

From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of James Skinner

Sent: 13 November 2011 18:52
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com

[ca...@aol.com]

Actually the birds have a relatively carefree and healthy life. If not, there would be no profit in the business. Neal.

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Tom,

Please be very careful about quoting figures like that with out some back up.

The AD market is doing itself a great deal of harm by quoting figures
off the cuff like yours, and blithely telling clients that it is up to
them to do the grid connections, roads, digestate storage, gas engine
etc. etc.

These emerging clients rarely understand just how much these all add
up to, and some poor old contractor works really hard to price it all
and when the answer comes out more like £6 to £7m everybody finds they
can't afford any longer pay for the plant.

You would only get the basic kit for the sort of sum you are talking
about, and would only be able to charge that sort of money if all the
roads, infrastructure and grid connections were already there.

Regards

Nick Balmer

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Oliver,

It is a great step forward if “dewatering” is now accredited and can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry traffic."

However have you any suggestions where one can find the treatment plant to get the digestate up to drinking water standards?

I have been working on options to try to get the digestate liquor up to a standard that the EA would allow me to put it into rivers, and that has proved to be very expensive.

This is really frustrating because it is actually cheaper to tanker it to a private treatment plant.

Things are moving on fast in this area, but in my recent experience you end up with a relatively cheap AD plant with a very expensive water treatment plant.

Regards

Nick Balmer 

[dave andrews]

Certainly a membrane plant would get you up to drinkable standard...Kubota are one company who make such kit. As you say they are not cheap but they are used within the sewage industry and are now well proven

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

Hello Nick

Actually the real damage being done to the AD industry is from uniformed comment and overpricing.

I agree with you about Grid connection as the power companies in Southern England seem to be reluctant to help or spend any money. (as to roads one assumes that Bernard Matthews have roads to and from their production facility. Digestate storeage and treatment can be included in the figure I quoted) 

As to pricing you are quite wrong bout my "Unbacked up figures"

Assuming we are talking the same way and comparing apples with apples then 28000 tonnes of poultry waste is the "wet weight" that is a very small plant with a dry weight of approx 4200 tonnes dry weight. this would produce approx 470 KwH

We have just built one of similar size . 

if, however that tonnage was "dry weight" the unit would need to process 193333 tonnes p.a. 

So, to go back to my point about "damage" the dry weight should not be quoted in conjunction with a price.

It amazes us that the UK seem to be re-inventing the wheel with AD. Its only been around since the 1500s so I suppose it is bit new for us!!!!!

I too am fed up with the amount of garbage talked about AD and is time a few of us spoke up and assured customers that a) it is not fantastically expensive and b) a 28000 tonne wet weight unit would struggle to pay back 4M this side of 10 years

regards

tom cree

[Oliver Tickell]

I once visited the water treatment plant for Westons Cider effluent in Somerset.

Basically, they had a big field on a gentle slope going down to water course. Their effluent with lumps of rotten apple etc was tipped out at the top of the field and it slowly made its way down to the bottom amid water reeds and much bacterial activity. By the time it got to the bottom it was clean enough for discharge. And on the way down in made a nice wetland full of bird life.

Maybe something similar would work for AD effluent?

Oliver Tickell.

On 14/11/2011 16:22, dave andrews wrote:

Certainly a membrane plant would get you up to drinkable standard...Kubota are one company who make such kit. As you say they are not cheap but they are used within the sewage industry and are now well proven

On 14 November 2011 17:09, Nick Balmer <balmer....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Oliver,

It is a great step forward if��dewatering� is now accredited and can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry traffic."

However have you any suggestions where one can find the treatment plant to get the digestate up to drinking water standards?

I have been working on options to try to get the digestate liquor up to a standard that the EA would allow me to put it into rivers, and that has proved to be very expensive.

This is really frustrating because it is actually cheaper to tanker it to a private treatment plant.

Things are moving on fast in this area, but in my recent experience you end up with a relatively cheap AD plant with a very expensive water treatment plant.

Regards

Nick Balmer�

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)��755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)� 631 926 885

+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

�

�

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Oliver,

What you are describing here is a Tertiary Treatment Works, which is a
well proven technique for treating sewage, but it would not get to
drinking water standards without other forms of post treatment.

The big issue with both liquid and dry digestate is getting it away
onto the land. The theory is very good. The practise is quite tough.

Unless you are fortunate enough to be in an grass growing ahead where
you can spread digestate for all but the winter months and provided
you comply with Nitrate Vulnerable Zones [NVZ] Regulations where you
have 7 or 8 months to spread 12 months output, you really struggle to
make the AD plant pay back.

In most of Britain south of the Tees Exe line the land is filled with
crops for 3 in every 4 years so that you have to get the digestate
onto the land in the last week in July and the first couple of weeks
in August as the last crop comes off and the next one gets drilled.

The logistics of getting 12 months digestate moved and spread in three
weeks is going to be very tough as you are shifting maybe 20,000
tonnes even after drying.

There are ways around this like taking it to stockpiles in fields
throughout the year, but I wonder how long that will actually be
allowed for once many thousands of these stockpiles start to become a
feature of our landscape.

If your feedstock was not a farm grown crop, but is a "non source
separated waste" it becomes a real issue because you have to meet all
sorts of testing and recording regimes as set out in Pas 110 and Pas
100.

These regulations are great in theory, but in practise on the ground
it is a bureaucrats delight and a businessman's nightmare.

I would love personally to see more AD plants and it will come, but
first electricity prices will have to go up to pay for them. This
won't happen through any action by the AD plant people. It will only
come about if the prices of other power generation plants come up to
meet those required to pay for AD.

I am finding that although you get gate-fees for taking waste, that
except in isolated examples like Turkey Factories or food processing
plants, the issues of dealing with the digestate will make it very
hard to get AD's off the ground.

Farm based ones are much cheaper in CAPEX than ones treating wastes
and in the right conditions and with a dedicated cropping area and
patterns they can be made to stack up.

This is borne out in Germany where the vast majority of AD plants
don't take waste, except "waste from farms."

(I don't class cow or pig muck as waste although the EA might.)

Regards

Nick Balmer

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

Hello Oliver

Nice idea but unfortunately poultry waste contains high concentrations of Ammonium Nitrate and if you are in an NVZ (as I think BNs is) putting it straight onto land makes the EA and Defra very grumpy.

Oliver Harwoods answer is a sensible way to deal with it.

tom cree

 

On 14 November 2011 at 17:19 Oliver Tickell <oli...@its.me.uk> wrote:

> I once visited the water treatment plant for Westons Cider effluent in
> Somerset.
>
> Basically, they had a big field on a gentle slope going down to water
> course. Their effluent with lumps of rotten apple etc was tipped out at
> the top of the field and it slowly made its way down to the bottom amid
> water reeds and much bacterial activity. By the time it got to the
> bottom it was clean enough for discharge. And on the way down in made a
> nice wetland full of bird life.
>
> Maybe something similar would work for AD effluent?
>
> Oliver Tickell.
>
> On 14/11/2011 16:22, dave andrews wrote:
> > Certainly a membrane plant would get you up to drinkable
> > standard...Kubota are one company who make such kit. As you say they
> > are not cheap but they are used within the sewage industry and are now
> > well proven
> >
> > On 14 November 2011 17:09, Nick Balmer <balmer....@gmail.com

> > <mailto:balmer....@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hello Oliver,
> >

> >     It is a great step forward if “dewatering” is now accredited and

> >     can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high
> >     quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry
> >     traffic."
> >
> >     However have you any suggestions where one can find the treatment
> >     plant to get the digestate up to drinking water standards?
> >
> >     I have been working on options to try to get the digestate liquor
> >     up to a standard that the EA would allow me to put it into rivers,
> >     and that has proved to be very expensive.
> >
> >     This is really frustrating because it is actually cheaper to
> >     tanker it to a private treatment plant.
> >
> >     Things are moving on fast in this area, but in my recent
> >     experience you end up with a relatively cheap AD plant with a very
> >     expensive water treatment plant.
> >
> >     Regards
> >
> >     Nick Balmer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > --
> > Dave Andrews
> > K.E.N.T.
> > + 44 (0)  755 265 9166
> > + 31 (0)  631 926 885

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Tom,

I agree with the point you made below

> As to pricing you are quite wrong bout my "Unbacked up figures"
>
> Assuming we are talking the same way and comparing apples with apples then
> 28000 tonnes of poultry waste is the "wet weight" that is a very small plant
> with a dry weight of approx 4200 tonnes dry weight. this would produce
> approx 470 KwH
>

It is important that people outside the AD World understand the
difference between the different ways of classifying plants and the
different effects of the very different feed stocks.

Regards

Nick Balmer

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

Actually Nick I think I made an incorrect assumption:- on re-checking I see it is a mesophilic system whereas I assumed it was thermophilic. the difference being a plant that needs tank(s) to contain some 800 tonnes or ones to contain 3000 tonnes making a dramatic difference to capital cost. (hence we are thermophilic people!!)

cheers

Tom 

[James Skinner]

You make it sound delightfully bucolic – but would it not be a waste of all those delicious nutrients if they are not given an opportunity to fertilise some crops?  The birds would have more to eat too.

 

From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell
Sent: 14 November 2011 17:19
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

 

I once visited the water treatment plant for Westons Cider effluent in Somerset.

Basically, they had a big field on a gentle slope going down to water course. Their effluent with lumps of rotten apple etc was tipped out at the top of the field and it slowly made its way down to the bottom amid water reeds and much bacterial activity. By the time it got to the bottom it was clean enough for discharge. And on the way down in made a nice wetland full of bird life.

Maybe something similar would work for AD effluent?

Oliver Tickell.

On 14/11/2011 16:22, dave andrews wrote:

Certainly a membrane plant would get you up to drinkable standard...Kubota are one company who make such kit. As you say they are not cheap but they are used within the sewage industry and are now well proven

On 14 November 2011 17:09, Nick Balmer <balmer....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Oliver,

 

It is a great step forward if “dewatering” is now accredited and can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry traffic."

 

However have you any suggestions where one can find the treatment plant to get the digestate up to drinking water standards?

 

I have been working on options to try to get the digestate liquor up to a standard that the EA would allow me to put it into rivers, and that has proved to be very expensive.

 

This is really frustrating because it is actually cheaper to tanker it to a private treatment plant.

 

Things are moving on fast in this area, but in my recent experience you end up with a relatively cheap AD plant with a very expensive water treatment plant.

 

Regards

 

Nick Balmer 

 

 

 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885

[Oliver Tickell]

Apples are a special case as very low in nitrogen. Hence the rats in the cider!

Ideally there should be a process to concentrate out the ammonia/nitrate and do something useful with it. It is surely valuable stuff.

Thanks for the illuminating replies, Oliver.

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

you are right. we have a system that reduces the ammonium nitrate and increases the nitrite (a useful fertilizer)

(It can also produce potable water if required but the processing cost is quite high for that)

Still I like the idea of rolling downhill full of cider--- or was that just the waste?

tom

[Oliver Harwood]

Reed bed filtration is well established but does not deliver the fertiliser for farmers to use. Best adopted where AD not feasible (in place of high energy use conventional sewage treatment). Prince Charles has one at Highgrove.

 

Whereas using AD and processing the digestate – or applying it direct in accordance with the relevant Code of Good Agricultural Practice, NVZ regulations and RB209 Fertiliser recommendations – is both good for the environment and saves the GHG involved in artificial fertiliser manufacture.

 

Roll on the AD industry – let’s have a higher FIT for very small AD plants (like in Germany), cheaper and quicker grid connections, more work on reducing capex (well done RASE and WRAP!), permitted development rights (light touch planning regs) for farm AD and light touch regulation – including a “positive list” of feedstocks that are not subject to waste regulations when used in AD (as found in Holland).

 

Oliver Harwood

 

 

Oliver Harwood FRICS

Chief Surveyor

 

T: 020 7235 0511
F: 020 7235 4696	E: oliver....@cla.org.uk

 

      

 

The CLA is the membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales.

For information on our work and how to join online, visit www.cla.org.uk

The Advisory Services are made available to members on the basis that a member’s rights to compensation and the liability (if any) of CLA and its officers and/or its staff advisers, are restricted in the following ways.  In the event of any advice given by any CLA staff adviser being given negligently or otherwise being incorrect no liability whatsoever is accepted by CLA or its officers or by its staff advisers concerned (a) towards any person who is not the current CLA member to whom the advice was directly given, (b) to any person in respect of consequential loss or loss of profits, or (c) to any person for any sum exceeding £50,000 in respect of any one enquiry (whether made or responded to orally or in writing and whether dealt with at one time or over a period of time).

Any person making use of the Advisory Services accepts such restrictions.  If damages restricted to the above financial limits would be inadequate in the circumstances members should consider referring to appropriate professional advisers in private practice before taking any particular course of action potentially or actually involving any substantial amounts of money.

No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this message can be or is accepted by the author(s), the CLA or its officers or trustees or employees or any other persons.  © Country Land and Business Association Limited.  All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as expressly permitted by law.

Country Land & Business Association Limited.  Registered in England and Wales: 6131587.  Registered Office: 16 Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ.

From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of tom....@addenergy.co.uk
Sent: 14 November 2011 18:25
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

 

you are right. we have a system that reduces the ammonium nitrate and increases the nitrite (a useful fertilizer)

[tom....@addenergy.co.uk]

Question:- have Glendale Power ever built an AD plant?

Tom Cree

[dave andrews]

[dave andrews]

Thanks Mike....Dave

On 25 November 2011 12:33, Mike Humphries <Mike.Hu...@wessexwater.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Dave - a word of caution here - AD plants can produce a high concentration of ammonia (depending on feed) which will be in solution so you would need to use a reverse osmosis plant rather than the more conventional membrane plants we use to separate activated sludge from treated effluent, expensive and difficult to run...Mike H

---

From: dave andrews [mailto:tynin...@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 November 2011 16:23
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com; Ian Law; Mike Humphries

Subject: Re: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please contact the Wessex Water Support Centre

email :- sup...@wessexwater.co.uk

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by

MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com

***********************************************************************************

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

“This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this communication in error, please tell us immediately by return email and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it from your computer system. Thank you”

Wessex Water Services Limited, Registered in England No 2366648. Registered Office – Wessex Water Operations Centre, Claverton Down Road, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7WW
______________________________________________________________________

[dave andrews]

Thanks again, Mike....Dave

On 25 November 2011 12:44, Mike Humphries <Mike.Hu...@wessexwater.co.uk> wrote:

Possible but hedged round with all kinds of qualifications, including gradient, soil type, available area etc...etc.  I wonder if it's still in use since environmental permits were introduced?

 

The effluent from cider production is normally Nitrogen deficient so the "treated" effluent is unlikely to contain ammonia, this system would almost certainly not work for an effluent containing Nitrogen...rgds...Mike

---

From: dave andrews [mailto:tynin...@gmail.com]

Sent: 14 November 2011 18:43
To: Mike Humphries; Ian Law
Subject: Fwd: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

Guys...is this true / possible nowadays???

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Oliver Tickell <oli...@its.me.uk>
Date: 14 November 2011 17:19
Subject: Re: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com

I once visited the water treatment plant for Westons Cider effluent in Somerset.

Basically, they had a big field on a gentle slope going down to water course. Their effluent with lumps of rotten apple etc was tipped out at the top of the field and it slowly made its way down to the bottom amid water reeds and much bacterial activity. By the time it got to the bottom it was clean enough for discharge. And on the way down in made a nice wetland full of bird life.

Maybe something similar would work for AD effluent?

Oliver Tickell.

On 14/11/2011 16:22, dave andrews wrote:

Certainly a membrane plant would get you up to drinkable standard...Kubota are one company who make such kit. As you say they are not cheap but they are used within the sewage industry and are now well proven

On 14 November 2011 17:09, Nick Balmer <balmer....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Oliver,

It is a great step forward if “dewatering” is now accredited and can split the AD plant outputs into drinking water and high quality concentrated fertiliser, thereby massively reducing lorry traffic."

However have you any suggestions where one can find the treatment plant to get the digestate up to drinking water standards?

I have been working on options to try to get the digestate liquor up to a standard that the EA would allow me to put it into rivers, and that has proved to be very expensive.

This is really frustrating because it is actually cheaper to tanker it to a private treatment plant.

Things are moving on fast in this area, but in my recent experience you end up with a relatively cheap AD plant with a very expensive water treatment plant.

Regards

Nick Balmer 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885

+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885

+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

***********************************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please contact the Wessex Water Support Centre

email :- sup...@wessexwater.co.uk

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by

MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com

***********************************************************************************

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

“This email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, disclose or use the information contained in it. If you have received this communication in error, please tell us immediately by return email and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it from your computer system. Thank you”

Wessex Water Services Limited, Registered in England No 2366648. Registered Office – Wessex Water Operations Centre, Claverton Down Road, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7WW
______________________________________________________________________

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Mike,

I am interested in your experience with the production of ammonia in AD.

I would be very interested in your view on why this happens, and when, and how best to avoid the production of ammonia.

On several MBT projects ammonia production which are aerobic is proving to be much greater than was expected. This is very largely because the feedstocks being sent to the plants has much lower bio-activity than was expected when they were designed.

This in turn is one of those unintended effects of a wholely sensible series of initiatives elsewhere in the waste sector where more and more food derived waste is being removed from the residual fraction that goes to either MBT or EfW.

It means that the nominally bio-degradable material left which is very poor paper, cardboard etc. soaked in grease, fat, and things like hair and the contents of hoover bags just does have enough potential for bio-activity.

There is a spectrum in bio-activity. All things that are derived from biomass are not the same.  Bodies like the EA and DEFRA and the waste authorities try to codify contracts and specifications, and they deem things to be bio-degradable but just because it is in a code of practise or a regulation does not mean it actually will work. In fact very often it is quite the reverse.

A similar situation exists currently with AD.

AD definitely works very well in some cases and for some biomass, but it does not work well for all biomasses.

The problem is that until quite a few plants have been built and operated for a while on these more marginal materials nobody is really going to know.

My concern is that for many AD plants while the actual methane production part of the project is relatively well understood the dealing with the digestate is much less thought through.

The digestate will be in aerobic conditions that will be very similar to those that exist in MBT plants. This will not be an issue for the more straight forward feedstocks like crops or food waste, but they further these move away towards the edges of what is bio-degradable the more potential there will be for some very serious issues with ammonia and other gases like H2S.

For all sorts of historical reasons we seem to have started out in Britain on more marginal waste products for AD.

Sewage sludge's for instance, and cattle and pig slurries.

They are there, and they are a problem....  Ah...., lets digest them.

But it is exactly these sorts of materials that have the lowest gas producing potential because they have already been half processed by humans or cows, and that are likely to cause the most serious issues later.

The public at large are going to encounter these plants first, and it is going to colour their views of all AD plants.

The adverse reactions to any issues with smells will colour the public's long term view, so when we move to far more efficient second & third generation plants fed by specially grown feed stocks, we will encounter a barrage of flack left behind by the smelly legacy of earlier plants if we are not careful.

Regards

Nick Balmer 

[Oliver Harwood]

My understanding is that AD reduces VOC so fewer smell complaints.

 

There has been good work in Denmark on this – see the IEA biogas site for details.

 

And poor feedstocks are not a problem if you have the right AD technology – at Lille they digest pretty much everything that is thrown their way.

 

Oliver Harwood

 

 

Oliver Harwood FRICS

Chief Surveyor

 

T: 020 7235 0511
F: 020 7235 4696	E: oliver....@cla.org.uk

 

      

 

The CLA is the membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales.

For information on our work and how to join online, visit www.cla.org.uk

The Advisory Services are made available to members on the basis that a member’s rights to compensation and the liability (if any) of CLA and its officers and/or its staff advisers, are restricted in the following ways.  In the event of any advice given by any CLA staff adviser being given negligently or otherwise being incorrect no liability whatsoever is accepted by CLA or its officers or by its staff advisers concerned (a) towards any person who is not the current CLA member to whom the advice was directly given, (b) to any person in respect of consequential loss or loss of profits, or (c) to any person for any sum exceeding £50,000 in respect of any one enquiry (whether made or responded to orally or in writing and whether dealt with at one time or over a period of time).

Any person making use of the Advisory Services accepts such restrictions.  If damages restricted to the above financial limits would be inadequate in the circumstances members should consider referring to appropriate professional advisers in private practice before taking any particular course of action potentially or actually involving any substantial amounts of money.

No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this message can be or is accepted by the author(s), the CLA or its officers or trustees or employees or any other persons.  © Country Land and Business Association Limited.  All rights reserved.  No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as expressly permitted by law.

Country Land & Business Association Limited.  Registered in England and Wales: 6131587.  Registered Office: 16 Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ.

From: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com [mailto:anaerobic...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nick Balmer
Sent: 25 November 2011 12:33
To: anaerobic...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Bernard Matthews Ltd plans to build an AD at its Holton factory to convert 28,000 tpy liquid waste into biogas

 

Hello Mike,

[Nick Balmer]

Hello Oliver,

I agree with you, the AD plant at Lille built by Stabag is impressive.

There is an interesting presentation about it here http://www.biogasmax.eu/media/organic_recovery_centre_lille__085752800_1634_26112009.pdf

The problem has been that not so much the technology but the rate at which waste composition changes between the local authority tender process starting and actual deliveries. These changes are coming about because the Waste Collection Authorities [WCA's] are incentivised to avoid sending waste to the Waste Disposal Authorities [WDA's] by the costs.

Of course it is entirely sensible that the WCA's do go for best value. But it leaves the WDA's and their contractors in a very difficult position.

This situation has come about by a lack of joined up thinking in government and from the fragmented nature of government and local government in waste. These structural issues are common to energy policy as well. There seems to be little joined up thinking or pragmatism.

The costs at the WDA plants are ridiculously high because of the way the previous administration chose to procure the facilities via PFI.

It is going to get very difficult to sort out this all out with the contractors who built these plants in good faith for the WDA's.

The straight jacket of the PFI terms and conditions are going to result in some very serious legal cases in time.

This is going to be another situation like the ones faced by several health, education and police authorities.

At present this change in waste flows and composition is affecting mainly MBT's but the same changes in waste profiles are going to hit Energy from Waste plants just as badly, if not worse when they come on line.

This hasn't hit the news yet because EfW take longer to deliver than MBT's so they have yet to experience the changes.

It shouldn't be a surprise however because the Dutch and parts of Western Germany have had a similar issue for five or more years. That's why so much English waste is starting to be trucked as SRF or RDF to those countries. It is being used to burn to fill the gap those countries have because they have realised that much of what is being burnt is worth more as recyclates or when kept clean in privately funded and more efficiency procured AD plants.

You are correct that AD reduces VOC so fewer smell complaints should occur.  But if there are an awful lot of VOC's and digestate there are going to be smells when the quality of the feed stocks falls away from the quality.

The way local authority contracts are written today the clients have considerable powers to lean on to AD operators to take poorer quality material than they would really wish to see in their plants.  The councils have the upper hand and are not interested in pressurising the householder to put things in the correct bins or to make sure that the waste goes in a timely manner and with little contamination into the digester.

Nick Balmer

[Oliver Harwood]

Which is why Ludlow moved to a corn starch bag system which works fine, with the support of the South Shropshire Waste Partnership.

 

Not all local authorities are mad bad and dangerous…..But they have to be led, and managed, by people who “get” sustainable waste management, which sadly (IMHO) is rare.

 

Oliver

 

 

Oliver Harwood FRICS

Chief Surveyor

 

T: 020 7235 0511
F: 020 7235 4696	E: oliver....@cla.org.uk

 

[Richard Leese]

The information in this message is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. We do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message and whilst any attachments to this message may have been checked for viruses, you should rely on your own virus checker and procedures. If you contact us by email, we will store your name and address to facilitate communications. Any statements contained herein are those of the individual and not the organisation. Registered in England as Mineral Products Association Limited: 1634996, Gillingham House, 38-44 Gillingham Street, London, SW1V 1HU