Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)

Gasification of poultry litter. Case study: Belarus
Dr. Petr V. Dudin 10/09/2012 (Leiden - Minsk)
1

Dr. Petr Dudin | 2012
The BDC R&D company is involved in development
and engineering design of pilot and industrial
gasifiers.
BDC R&D also has a range of gas purification and
catalyst technologies that can to tackle tars issues.
We are open to discuss emerging opportunities in
gasification and gas cleaning technologies with
laboratories, funds and entrepreneurs.
Disclaimer: Please, bear in mind that the information presented hereby might be outdated.
The conclusions and financial estimations are also a subject of chosen process efficiencies, estimations and economic
modeling, which is based on several assumptions.
Please, contact Dr. Petr Dudin via email ( p.v.dudin@gmail.com and
pd@bdc.by ) for further details.

1.1. Chicken farming in Belarus
22
27
32
37
42
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Chickenskept,mln
Years
Poltry farming in Belarus
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
3Dr. Petr Dudin | 2012
• Chicken population in Belarus to exceed 40 million birds in year 2012, giving ca. 200 million
birds grown a year. Chicken meat export is largely relied on Russia, which has recently joined
the WTO. This sets three possible scenarios for the entire sector:
(i) the export will continue to rise, benefiting from lasting exemption duties reliefs in
Russia. (2-5 years)
(ii) Chicken production in Belarus will plateau due to increasing production/import in
Russia (1-4 years)
(iii) the chicken production will decline due to exports decrease to Russia (higher
competition within WTO, 3-10 years)

Manure/litter available in Belarus
at price $2-5 per raw ton
Manure (cage) Litter (floor)
• pure manure excreta
• 3-15 % dry content, looses water
quickly
• higher mineral content
• excreta mixed with bedding material,
feather, waste food and spilled water
• 40-80 % dry content
• straw, wood chips, sawdust and shavings is the typical
bedding material in Belarus
Biomass as Fuel Dry matter, % Higher Heating Value, MJ/kg
Wheat straw (dry) 87.3 14.6
Wood chips 80 18.2
Pig manure pellets 90 15.3
Digested pig manure pellets 90 11.3
Poultry litter 65-80 9.5 - 15.3
Turkey litter 70 11.8
The heating value of poultry litter is variable and depends on (i) type of bedding material, (ii) moisture
content;
4
1.2. What is chicken litter

• Alternatively, chicken litter can be utilized as fuel by three main routes:
1) via Biogas reactor with efficiency <20%
2) via Gasification with efficiency >40%
3) via Combustion (possesses many environmental and technical problems)
• Both Biogas and Gasification technology convert chicken litter biomass to a combustible
gas.
• Digested substrate (biogas) or ash (gasification), which is reach in macronutrients (P and
K), can be further utilized as a fertilizer.
• Biogas digested slurry, in opposition to the gasified ash (GA), yet comes as wet and
‘diluted’ substance, which becomes problematic during transportation and distribution.
• Gasification technology already offers >2 times more effective energy conversion,
compared to Biogas, with other benefits (e.g. insensitivity to cold winters in Belarus,
flexibility of energy output, etc.).
• Taking the number of ca. 200 million chicken grown in Belarus per annum, a conservative
estimation of the manure/litter produced can be made. 250 million tons of manure/litter is
produced, which gives energy value of >3 × 106 GJ per annum (HHV = 12 GJ/ton). This is
equivalent to power of 850,000 GW-h.
• Conventional way of chicken litter utilization is composting with further usage as a fertilizer.
1.3. Chicken litter as fuel. Competing technologies overview

1.4. Gasification vs. Combustion and Incineration
+ No emission
+ Produces syngas, which is of energy
value and can be used/burned on site or
transported elsewhere
+ Location: rural and urban
+ Small and large installations; Mobile
gasifiers are also in production
+ Modular plant design available
+ ~40% electrical efficiency gas engines
+ Sanitation and destruction of
pathogens and possible pharmaceutical
compounds
+ No ash melting
+ Resulted ash can be used as a
fertilizer (reach source of P and K)
+ Low temperatures: <750 ˚C
- Hazardous CO (poisonous) and H2
(flammable) gas produced
- Flue gas → heat loss
- Emission (eg. NOx, SOx, H2S, HCl,
dioxines, furanes etc.) due to high
temperatures, >1000 ˚C
- Corrosion problems (KCl)
- Ash melting, slag formation
- Ash contains less K recovered
and more heavy metals
- Urban location city
- Rather low electrical efficiency (~25%)
due to use of steam turbine
- Large installations
+ Produces more energy
+ Sanitation and destruction of pathogens
and possible pharmaceutical compounds

Brest region
year
info number, 1000s Farming
ОАО «Птицефабрика «Дружба» (пос. Жемчужный, Барановический р-н) 2010 2,200
пф ДРУЖБА, БРЕСТ 2011 687
«Барановичская птицефабрика» , пос. Русино (Барановический р-н) 2011 3,133
Кобринская птицефабрика - присоединена к Барановической 2011 533
Vitebsk region
211573, Витебская область , Городокский район , д. Суравни. 2011 600
"Птицефабрика Оршанская" 2011 562
Витебский район (Витебская Бройлерная птицефабрика) 2011 2139
Шумилинский раойн 2011 587 cage
Gomel region
"Птицефабрика «Рассвет» Гомельский район, д. Песочная Буда. 2008 3129
ОАО "Гомельская птицефабрика" 2010 920
Буда-Кошелевский 2011 1235 floor
Grodno region
ГРОДНЕНСКАЯ ПТИЦЕФАБРИКА 2011 2,000
Орачинская птицефабрика
РУП "Племптицерепродуктор "Юбилейный" Гродненский р-н, г. Скидель
ОАО “Берестовицкая птицефабрика” Гродненская обл., г. п. Берестовица, 2012 700
Mogilev region
РУП «Приднепровская птицефабрика» Могилевская обл., , пос. Романовичи + Серволюкс 3,090
Minsk region
«1-я Минская птицефабрика» (плюс Крупская) 2010 1630
РУСПП "Птицефабрика "Солигорская" 2012 1,069 floor
ОАО "Смолевическая бройлерная птицефабрика" 2011 2450
Дзержинская птицефабрика 2011 2292
1.5. Largest poultry farms in Belarus

2. Gasification technology
• Gasification is a technology, where a carbon-containing fuel (e.g. coal, wood, oil, etc.)
is converted in a gasifier to a produced gas, which has a significant heat value.
• The main components of a gas, produced in a
gasifier is CO, CO2, H2 and N2 (comes from air)
• Relatively low operation temperature of a gasifier
(ca. 750-850 ˚C) ensures low NOx content in a
produced gas.
• Produced gas can be upgraded (purified) and
used for methanol, ethanol or alkenes synthesis or,
alternatively, burned in a CHP/turbine unit.
• Gasification chemistry is generally driven by two
reactions:
steam producing monoxide
water gas shift reaction
A schematic of a downdraft gasifier

2.1.1. Simple gasifier design (fixed bed)
Updraft gasifier
(eg. British Gas Lurgi)
Downdraft gasifier
(eg. Ventec)
Crossdraft gasifier
Gasifiers can be classified according to:
– oxidation agent: air, oxygen or/and steam
– heating: direct (autothermal) or indirect (allothermal)
– pressure at gasification: atmospheric or pressurized
– reactor type: fixed bed, fluidized bed, entrained flow, twin-bed
H.A.M. Knoef, HANDBOOK ON BIOMASS GASIFICATION, 2005
10

2.1.2. Simple gasifier design energy parameters
Fixed-bed gasifiers are of simple design and operation, making them suitable for small-
scale applications in the range of a few hundred kWth. Fixed-bed gasifiers can be
operated in either batch or continuous mode.

Bubbling Fluidized bed (BFB) Gasifier
• Fluidized bed gasifiers have the reactors where solid particulate material is suspended in moving liquid or gaseous fluid.
Some can contain Ni particles to promote decomposition of hydrocarbons to CO and H2.
• Ciruclized FB (CFB) gasifiers can handle high-ash-content fuels. They are well suited for continuous operation and
scalable to a wide range of sizes, allowing for large-scale industrial plants.
• CFB gasifiers are also somewhat cheaper to construct than are BFB gasifiers of corresponding capacity. The Värnamo
gasifier, 18 MWth, is an example of a pressurized, airblown, CFB.
FB Advantages. Feedstock flexibility resulting from easy control of temperature, which can be kept below the melting or
fusion point of the ash (rice husks), and their ability to deal with fluffy and fine grained materials (sawdust etc.) without the
need of pre-processing.
FB may have some Problems with feeding, instability of the bed and fly-ash sintering in the gas channels can occur with
some biomass fuels. Biomass loading can’t be lower 70%
(CFB)
2.2. Advanced gasifier design (fluidised bed)

2.2.1. MILENA gasification process (fluidized bed)
• In the MILENA gasification process (Dahlman and ECN, Netherlands) the produced gas is suitable for
application in a gas engine or gas turbine because of the higher calorific value of the gas (typical 16
MJ/mn
3 dry, compared to 4 – 7 MJ/mn
3 for a conventional air blown gasifier) and the complete conversion
of the fuel (typical fuel conversion for downdraft or fluidized bed gasifiers is 85 - 95%).
• The MILENA lab-scale installation was taken into operation in 2004. A pilot plant was constructed in
2008. The accumulated gasification hours of the MILENA plants is now over 3000 hours. MILENA
gasification and OLGA (gas cleaning technology) so have been employed in combination for biomass-
gasification (mainly wood).
• The gasifier contains separate sections for gasification and combustion.
http://www.milenatechnology.com/
• The main difference between the MILENA
process and the FICFB (Güssing) process is
the gasification in a riser reactor instead of
Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB). The advantage
of using a riser is that the area that needs to
be fluidized is smaller; therefore the amount
of fluidized gas (steam) is smaller.
• as the ECN claims, MILENA gasifier
technology gas overall efficiency ~83% and
aims to work at large scale plants (>30 MW-h
energy input)
• A pilot plant for poultry litter gasification
using the MILENA gasifier has been planned
to set-up in Portugal in 2010.

2.2.2. FICFB (Güssing) process
http://www.ficfb.at/
• A gasifier comprised of fluidized bed gasification reactor that produces a gas with a HVV up to 15
MJ/Nm³ (>13 MJ/m3) and nearly free of nitrogen.
• The gasification process is based on an internally circulating fluidized bed system and consists of a
gasification zone fluidized with steam and a combustion zone fluidized with air. The circulating bed
material acts as heat carrier from the combustion to the gasification zone. Gas mixing between these two
zones is avoided by construction measures.
• The gasifier is characterized by a very compact design.
• 5 electricity producing plants, 1 methanol-producing and 1 hydrogen-
producing plant were in operation in 2011
• Low tar content due to steam gasification
• Gas quality is independent of water content in biomass feed
the apparatus is very compact
• A wide range of feedstock can be gasified (no information about use of
poultry litter/manure as a fuel)
• Possibility to use a catalyst as bed material (regeneration of catalyst in
combustion zone) to influence the gas composition and gasification
kinetic in a positive way
14

2.2.3. SilvaGas gasifiers (Rentech)
http://www.rentechinc.com/silvaGas.php
• One of the most mature gasifier technologies, commissioned plant un Burlington in 1984 is
still in operation. Tested moisture content biomass ranges from 0% to 50% during >30,000
hours of plant operation in Vermont (182 tons of fry biomass fed per day)
• A gasifier comprised of fluidized bed gasification reactor that produces a gas with a HVV
up to 18.5 MJ/Nm³ (>15 MJ/m3) and nearly free of nitrogen.
• The gasification process is based on an internally circulating fluidized bed system and
consists of a gasification zone fluidized with steam and a combustion zone fluidized
with air. It rapidly responds to downstream conditions.
• The gasifier produces relatively low-tar syngas; the SilvaGas technology allows to combine
it with different gas cleaning technologies.
Gasifier efficiencies (carbon conversion) range

Report: Review of Technologies for Gasification of Biomass and Wastes, 2009
Entrained Flow
Bubbling Fluidised Bed
Circulating Fluidised Bed
Twin-Bed
2.3. Gasifier type comparison

2.4. Tar reforming and Scrubbing
Gas scrubber technologies
Oil Gas Scrubbers:
• Oil scrubbers (BKW Güssing
and MEVA)
• OLGA scrubbers (ECN built
plants)
Danish TARWATC
• Condenses tar and the
water in the gas.
• Light and Heavy tars are
separated
• Discharge of
contaminated water is the
issue
(Vølund Harboøre
Technology)
Partial oxidation
• Injected Oxygen oxidises the tar
Ctar + O2 → CO2
• Reduction in efficiency
(Viking, Nexterra gasifiers )
Catalytic steam reforming
CH4 + H2O ↔ CO + 3H2
Producer Gas
With higher LHV

2.4.1. TARWATC cleaning technology scheme
• The contaminated waste water inlet for TARWATC may contain 15 – 20 g/litre of
organic acids (causing an acidity about pH = 2), 5 – 10 g/litre of phenols (and similar
compounds) and a total organic carbon content (TOC) of 40 – 50 g/litre.
• The clean condensate from TARWATC has a TOC below 15 mg/litre, a total phenol
content below 0.15 mg/litre and an acidity of pH = 6.90 – 7.10

2.4.2. OLGA cleaning technology scheme
• Invented by the Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) and further commertialized in
collaboration with Royal Dahlmann.
• Goal of the OLGA technology is to lower the tar dew point to a level at which problems can be excluded.
• OLGA operates above the water dew point, but decreases the tar dew point to a level under the lowest
process temperature. Tar & water are not mixed.
• Tars trapped by oil are returned to the gasifier and the oil returned back to the cleaning cycle.
http://www.renewableenergy.nl
OLGA stands for OiL GAs scrubbing technology

20
• There has been a few poultry litter gasification plant built, one of the most well-known is a gasifier in
West Virginia (USA) by COALTECH company. It employs a fixed bed gasifier, that consumes 5 ton/h of
the PL and produces heat and bio-char.
• The existing business model of poultry litter gasification in the USA relies on converting the PL to
biochar with certain fertilizing value + use the produced heat to warm the chicken-houses. Additional
benefits from carbon trading (PL gasification is carbon-negative, i.e. it removes carbon from the carbon
cycle).
• Mobile fixed-bed gasifiers (low efficiency, high in tars and ash-carbon) are rapidly and successively
penetrating the USA market and become very popular among the farmers. Low investment cost
(~$1,000,000) ensures pay-back time 4-5 years by replacing the value of LPG (liquid propane gas) and
producing a value fertilizer (“bio-char”).
(BTG Biomass Technology Group, 2001)
4.1. Process for the small-scale farm based gasification of poultry manure

21
• In Europe gasification of poultry litter is potentially seen in large-scale projects that can either produce
electricity of bio-fuels. However, this requires a mature technology, which can demonstrate:
i) Gasification the poultry litter with high efficiency (>50%);
ii) Produce a low-N2, low-tar, low-NOX syngas with high LHV value;
iii) Low-carbon gasified ash.
• Recently achieved progress of Circulated Bed Gasification (CFB) in combination with advanced gas-
cleaning technology (such as OLGA) offers promising venues for PL gasification.
• A pilot plant in Portugal to gasify poultry litter has been built (5 MWth + 1 MWe CHP) to utulize chicken
manure in a CFB gasifier, supplied by HoST.
• Plans to build a 15 MWth plant were announced in 2010. The 15 MW plant would be a good demonstration
of the technology progress. However, the project is stuck due financial difficulties.
http://www.host.nl/en/gasifier/projects/
4.2. Overview of PL gasification technology

moisture content HHV (*dry) ash content bedding material reference
8.20% 9.53 28.80% unknown Kirubakaran, IJERT, 2007
21.50% 13.54 28.6% wood shawings McKenna et al., Waste management, 2012
33.72% 13.83* 20% unknown Hunt et al., IECR, 2007
25.50% 14* 23.90% unknown Reardon et al., 2001
27.40% 14.8* 15.70% unknown Antares group report, 1999
10.60% 12 26.58% unknown Whitely et al., 2006
10% 13 17.20% unknown Zaccariello et al., conference paper, 2010
no data 10.2 39.70% wood shavings, rice hulks US feasibility study, Pensylvania, 2008
24% 11 no data variable Capareda & Maglinao, ASABE meeting, 2008
43% no data 16.40% unknown Heningan et al., 2003
27% no data 25.50% unknown Patel et al.
34% 14 22% variable Community power Corporation report, 2001
25.4% 12.9 26.0% Average value
5.1. Proximate analysis of poultry litter
General “rule of thumb” for poultry litter as fuel: the more bedding
material in the litter, the higher the HHV and the lower is the ash content.
22
• Although, wood and cellulosic biomass is a well-studied and common fuel in gasification, poultry litter
has hardly been used in commercial gasifiers. It becomes apparent form the increasing number of
literature publications, that poultry litter, as a fuel for gasifiers, becomes of high interest for academic
engineering community.
• Poultry Litter contains high amounts of phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). The later acts as a
‘catalyst’ in a gasifier, but stipulates lower operation temperatures, compared to other raw materials, as
it can cause slagging and ash melting at temperatures >730 ˚C, which leads to lower process
efficiencies. E.g. wood gasification performed at 800-900 ˚C with efficiency up to 73-82%.
• the HHV of dry poultry litter is ~15 MJ/kg, which is lower than that of wood (18.2-20.2 MJ/kg).

5.2. Macronutrient value of poultry litter
Wet poultry litter consists of four major elements:
i) moisture (8-60%) - serves H2 yield upon
gasification the
ii) volatile matter (38-64%) – actual gasifier fuel
iii) fixed carbon (10-14%)
iv) ash (11-25%) – light mineral deposit
“Fly” and “Bottom” ash from gasifier
Acts as gasifier fuel.
Reacts into CO and CO2
N2 in flee gas.
NOx emission is
minimized
23
N, % P, % K, % reference
0 19 10 Primenergy LLC presentation, 2009
0 24 16 Antares group report, 1999
0 25 no data Kirubakaran, IJERT, 2007
0 14 10 Patel et al, 2004
0 9.8 10.15 Community power Corporation report, 2001
3.4 25 16 McKenna et al., Waste management, 2012
- 20.6 12.9 average
Typical literature values for gasified PL ash content:

• 75% of the water could be evaporated during 60 days of
composting of a mechanically separated fiber fraction*
• Digested manure in a biogas reactor can used as fuel with 30-40%
lower HVV
• Litter pellets can be more cost-effectively transporter to a
gasification plant. On average, a pelletizing facility requires about
ca. 2000 m2 area.
• EU law does not allow to place pelletizing facilities next to feed at a
farm. Belarus’s law is unlikely to possess such restrictions
*K. Kuligowski. ‘A greener agriculture for a bluer Baltic Sea’ Conference 2011
** http://www.manureintomoney.com
5.3. Improving energy efficiency of poultry litter
• Economic feasibility of drying/pelletising vs. using raw poultry litter should be estimated on the first place. It
should be kept in mind, that wet litter might come from farm due to poor management, so it can be avoided.
24
Disadvantages: associated odors when handling and drying the poultry litter
Drying shed for poultry litter in Illinois, USA

6. Fertiliser value overview
• While K (and N) mineral fertilisers are available and produced in Belarus, phosphate rock
salt is imported (mainly from Russia) and processed at Gomel Chemical Plant. Farmers in
Belarus purchase K- and N-fertilisers at low subsidised prices, value of P-fertilizers
(phosphate) are high and have a tendency to grow.
• Ultimately, ash can replace K- and P-containing inorganic fertilisers (K as KCl and
potash; and P as phosphate rock, Na2HPO4, Ca(H2PO4)2, etc. ).
• World fertiliser prices for phosphorus soar as the demand grows, while phosphate rock
reserves are limited and are expected to deplete in 50 years time.
• Gasifier ash (GA) falls under “import-replacement” of P-fertilisers and offers sustainable
future to local farmers, locking up a so-called “phosphorus cycle”.
• BIO-Char – a gasified poultry litter ash with high carbon content has already stepped in
the American and Australian fertilizer market, enjoying “CARBON-negative” reputation.
• Based on significant content of phosphorus (higher than
in any other animal manure) and potassium in gasified ash
it can be used as a fertilizer.
• Transporting and dispensing the gasified ash is more
cost-effective (volume and mass) than bulk poultry
manure/litter. Although, organic and nitrogen nutrient
components are lost through the gasification.

* K. Kuligowski , PhD thesis. Utilization of ash from thermal gasification of pig manure as P- fertilizer and soil amenment. 2009
Advantages.
• GA contains less soluble form of phosphorus,
that prevents P-leaching problem and helps to retain P in soil.*
• Water holding capacity of soils increase upon bio-ash addition
• Gasified ash is alkaline in nature, which helps tackling the problem of acidic soil in Belarus
(2% addition of bio-ash helps increasing soil pH from 4.5 to 7.9) and replaces limestone
additive.
• GA generally contains lower amounts of heavy metals than that of phosphate rock salt
Disadvantages.
• Due to fine nature of GA there should be special techniques employed for spreading it on
land (e.g. mixing with water, granulation, etc.).
• Granulation is the most commercially attractive option, however, requires additional
equipment.
• Very slow leaching time of G-ash (in pigs manure ash studied*) provided quite low P-
levels for crops. But gradually P from added G-ash became more available to plants.
Gasified pigs manure ash. Courtesey: Dr. K. Kuligowski
Generally, soils in Belarus are P- deficient. Phosphate
rock salts and potassium fertilisers as well as raw poultry
litter are prone to leaching of phosphorus (and nitrogen),
which leads to eutrophication of ground waters.
6.1. Gasified ash as fertiliser
26

27
• It is feasible to gasify the poultry litter in a mixture with other biomass, such as wood
or straw. This would lead to a certain alteration of the gasifier output, which are the
following:
- The larger is the wood content in PL-biomass mixture, the higher is the HHV of
the fuel;
- The more bedding material (or ‘dilute’ fuel, like wood) is added, the lower is P, K
content in ash;
- Use of straw as a bedding material (rare practice in Belarus) increases the K-
content in ash.
6.2. Gasification of PL in combination with other biomass
• There is a report by Matsumura et al. (2012 in
I&EC research) claiming that mixing the poultry
manure with eucalyptus wood led to a lower
gasifier efficiency in a supercritical water
gasification. This was attributed to a reaction
between wood and PL at elevated temperatures
and led to overall deceleration of the process.
• The pilot plant in Portugal, using the CBF gasifier
(BIVKIN gasifier technology, similar to MILENA
technology) successfully uses a mixture of wood
chips and poultry manure, taking up to 1 ton/h of
such mixture.

1. Substantial analysis of poultry litter should be performed beforehand to estimate the moisture content,
LHV and ash proximate content
2. Building a larger plant is more cost-effective, so the logistics of the litter transportation should be well
considered.
3. Chicken farms in Belarus might want to preserve some produced chicken litter for themselves as they
regard PL as a good fertilizer with great ‘organic value’. Chicken farms use the PL as a fertilizer for
their own crops (it is a common practice for the meat farms in Belarus to have their own cultivated
land).
28
7. General considerations for poultry litter gasification plant
4. Based on location and scale of the chicken
farms in Belarus, it is suggested to place the
gasification plant to either Dzerzhinsk or
Baranovichi county.
4.1. Dzerzhinsk might be advantageous,
since there is a growing number of new
industries appear in the county to consume
energy/heat.
4.2. Baranovichi has a potential to produce
more chicken litter/manure and yet provide
good logistics for litter transportation from
Dzerzhinsk.

Model parameter Assumed value notes
Raw litter price per metric ton, BYR (USD) 28,000 ($3.33) Fixed rate assumed
Litter moisture content as received 30% It is an average value
Exchange rate USD/BYR 8400
The exchange rate assumed to be flat throughout the
analysis
Electricity cost (130% tariff) kW-h, BYR
(USD)
1034.3 ($0.16) The tariff rate assumed to be flat
Total investment cost € 13,000,000
This value is rather high. However will be a solid ball-park
figure for the investment
Discount rate, % 7% S&P500 interest rate is considered
CHP electrical efficiency 38% A medium efficiency is taken. Typical value is 40 ± 3 %
CHP thermal efficiency 45% A rather low value is used in the model
Dry litter LHV 12.8 This an underestimated value, as it may be up to 15 MJ/kg
Gasification plant efficiency 50%
The modern technology can deliver higher efficiencies, up to
80%
Working days in a year, days 300
The assumption is made on working hours of wood
gasification plant in Gussling.
Operating in a day, hours 24 Continuous operation assumed
Electricity/ heat consumed by the plant 7% / 15%
% of ASH in litter dry matter 20%
This is an underestimation. The average ash content is
26%, but is highly variable
P and K content is gasified ash 20 and 11% Average values are taken
Discount for fertilizer (P-base) and for heat
(as NatGas replacement)
50% A competitive price to attract new customers is proposed
Reference P-fertilizer (double-
superphosphate) P content %
21% (48% P2O5) Single-superphosphate has 8.5% of P
Price for a ton of double-superphosphate 4,700,000 / $560 Actual price in Belarus 29
8.1. Model key parameters

30
8.2. Gasification plant financial overview
Basic scenario: 150 tons of poultry litter input per day (30%moisture content) = 55,000 tons per year
which requires $180,000 cash
• This will produce a (brutto) 3 MWe and 3.5 MWth output
• Electricity sold per year (19 GW-h) = $3,000,000
• Gasified ash sold as a P-fertilizer will be equivalent to 6,000 tons of double-superphosphate,
generating $1,600,000 income (50% discount).
• An equivalent of 2,200,000 m3 of NatGas will be generated, assumed to be sold for $380,000 (50%
discount);
• A 3% maintenance cost is assumed.
Basic Scenario
(IRR = 8.4%)No heath sold
(IRR = 4.3%)
All the heath sold at 20% discount
(IRR = 10.7%)
Ash sold at 20% discount
(IRR = 17.8%)
Ash sold at 80% discount
(IRR = -3.3%)
ASH
33%
Heat as NatGas replacemen
GASIFICATION PLANT REVENUE
BRAKEDOWN

31
-20 -10 0 10 20
0
5
10
15
CHP efficiency
IRR = 8.4%
litter moisture
litter cost
P/ash content,
ash/DM %
gasifier efficiency
IRR/%
VARIATION / %
operation days
8.3. Sensitivity analysis
• Effective running of the gasification plant is essential for the project;
• Moisture content of the purchased poultry litter has a an important implication on plant’s
running costs and profits;
• Gasifier efficiency is considered quite low here, so much room is left for improvement;

32
9. Conclusions
1. Chicken litter must be systematically analyzed for its moisture, ash content
and LHV values.
2. The information of chicken litter quality will provide insight to consider the
supply chain. considering the investment in the project
3. Success of the poultry litter gasification plant depends on bio-char/GA sales.
Hence, a thorough investigation of the poultry manure/litter composition must be
performed.
4. Selling only the electricity to the grid at current price will not pay back the
investment
5. Produced heat can be utilized for heating of the poultry farm and other farm
units.
6. Heat value can be estimated as an alternative to that (HHV) of natural gas,
burned on a farm for heating.
7. Marketing of bio-char in a conservative farmer community can be challenging
since its novelty and availability of traditional fertilisers. Although, Bio-char
export should be considered.

Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)

Semelhante a Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Feasibility and technology study: Chicken litter gasification in Belarus (2012)