Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Ethanol producers press for higher limits

    Ethanol Producers Press for Higher Limits

    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, March 6, 2009; Page D01

     

    The nation’s ethanol producers are urging the Obama administration to raise the 10 percent limit on ethanol in motor fuel to 15 percent or more, a move they hope will create new demand at a time when many distilleries are idle.

    The producers say higher ethanol blends would help create jobs and reduce petroleum imports. Moreover, without a change in the 10 percent limit, ethanol makers say it could be difficult to fulfill a congressional mandate for renewable fuel use and the makers of new forms of ethanol, which rely on raw materials other than corn, could be locked out of the fuel market.

    “This is about jobs, energy security for America, improving the environment and meeting our legal responsibilities under the 2007 energy bill,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark, co-chairman of a group of ethanol firms called Growth Energy.

    Growth Energy plans to formally request a waiver today from the Environmental Protection Agency to raise the ethanol content of motor fuel to 15 percent.

    Under the existing 10 percent limit, ethanol production would theoretically top out at 14 billion gallons a year based on current fuel consumption trends, or less because of transportation constraints that limit ethanol deliveries in many parts of the country. That falls far short of the targets in current law, which requires refiners to use 36 billion gallons a year of ethanol by 2022, up from the current 10.5 billion gallon production level. President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he favors a 60 billion-gallon-a-year target.

    But many critics say the push for higher ethanol limits is really about propping up the heavily subsidized ethanol industry and giving a boost to venture capital firms that are still struggling to come up with an economically competitive way to produce other forms of ethanol made from plants that do not compete with food products.

    In addition, the American Petroleum Institute and some carmakers say they want to wait to make sure that higher percentages of ethanol in gasoline won’t damage vehicles’ engine parts.

    Edward B. Cohen, vice president of government and industry relations at American Honda, said questions remain about the effect on existing engines in motorcycles, lawn mowers and weed trimmers.

    “What is the implication for those engines of using a higher blend, which has more water and is therefore more corrosive?” Cohen asked. “I think that displacing petroleum with ethanol is a plus, but before moving precipitously, we need to make sure that the products are going to continue to perform and that emissions will not be adversely affected.”

    Not all automakers oppose the change. In a letter two weeks ago to the chief executive of ethanol maker POET, Ford said it would endorse an immediate increase in ethanol blends up to 15 percent.

    The ethanol industry’s push comes as the Obama administration appears to be leaning toward lifting the ethanol ceiling slightly, perhaps to 12 percent, while research on higher concentrations is done.

    “The only issue is what auto companies say about the damage it could do to engines,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters at a recent forum sponsored by the trade publication Platts.

    Many ethanol producers are pressing for a decision quickly. The industry has the capacity to produce 12.5 billion gallons a year of corn-based ethanol, about 9 percent of the nation’s motor fuel supply and three times as much as was produced in 2005.

    But it is falling about 2 billion gallons short of that capacity as prices have tumbled in the economic downturn. VeraSun, once the nation’s second-biggest producer, filed for bankruptcy protection last fall after losing hundreds of millions of dollars on a bad bet on corn prices. It accounts for about half of the nation’s idle capacity.

    Other firms have been hit too. Last week Pacific Ethanol, struggling to negotiate new loan terms with Wachovia and other lenders, announced that it would suspend operations at two 60 million-gallon-a-year facilities, one in Stockton, Calif., and one in Burley, Idaho. Pacific Ethanol had already suspended operations at a 40 million-gallon-a-year plant.

    “It’s because of the economic climate,” said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association. Companies are struggling to get operating capital and profit margins are being squeezed. “Things are bad,” he said.

    Congress might soon weigh in on the issue. Yesterday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the issue was under discussion, adding “it’s unlikely that I would want to roll back” the renewable fuels standard Congress set in 2007.

     


  • Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity

    Arctic meltdown is a threat to humanity

    I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”
    The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them
    Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. “Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It’s unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing.”
    No summer ice
    The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.
    Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.
    Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn’t bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.
    Runaway warming
    The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost.
    What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C.
    This intense warming is not confined to the Arctic Ocean. It extends south, deep into the land masses of Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia, and to their snowfields, ice sheets and permafrost. In 2007, the North American Arctic was more than 2 °C warmer than the average for 1951 to 1980, and parts of Siberia over 3 °C warmer. In 2008, most of Siberia was 2 °C warmer than average (see map).
    Positive feedbacks
    Most of this is the result of positive feedbacks (see illustration) from lost ocean ice, says David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. His modelling studies show that during periods of rapid sea-ice loss, warming extends some 1500 kilometres inland from the ice itself. “If sea-ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate,” he says.
    Changes in wind patterns may accelerate the warming even further. “Loss of summer sea ice means more heat is absorbed in the ocean, which is given back to the atmosphere in early winter, which changes the wind patterns, which favours additional sea ice loss,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “The potential big deal is that we now may be having a positive feedback between atmospheric wind patterns and continued loss of sea ice.”
    Incidentally, the changing winds might also be to blame for some of the cold and snowy weather in North America and China in recent winters, Overland says. Unusual poleward flows of warm air over Siberia have displaced cold air southwards on either side.
    Going global
    The rapid warming in the Arctic means that a global temperature rise of 3 °C, likely this century, could translate into a 10 °C warming in the far north. Permafrost hundreds of metres deep will be at risk of thawing out.
    This is where things go global. The Arctic is not just a reflective mirror that is cracking up. It is also a massive store of carbon and methane, locked into the frozen soils and buried in icy structures beneath the ocean bed.
    A quarter of the land surface of the northern hemisphere contains permafrost, permanently frozen soil, water and rock. In places, deep permafrost that formed during the last ice age, when the sea level was much lower, extends far out under the ocean, beneath the seabed. Large areas of permafrost are already starting to melt, resulting in rapid erosion, buckled highways and pipelines, collapsing buildings and “drunken” forests.
    Locked away
    The real worry, though, is that permafrost contains organic carbon in the form of long-dead plants and animals. Some of it, including the odd mammoth, has remained frozen for tens of thousands of years. When the permafrost melts, much of this carbon is likely to be released into the atmosphere.
    No one knows for sure how much carbon is locked away in permafrost, but it seems there is much more than we thought. An international study headed by Edward Schuur of the University of Florida last year doubled previous estimates of the carbon content of permafrost to about 1600 billion tonnes – roughly a third of all the carbon in the world’s soils and twice as much as is in the atmosphere.
    Time bomb
    Schuur estimates that 100 billion tonnes of this carbon could be released by thawing this century, based on standard scenarios. If that all emerged in the form of methane, it would have a warming effect equivalent to 270 years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. “It’s a kind of slow-motion time bomb,” he says.
    One hotspot is the 40,000-year-old east Siberian permafrost region. It alone contains 500 billion tonnes of carbon, says Philippe Ciais, co-chair of the Global Carbon Project, a research network analysing the carbon cycle. East Siberia was at times 7 °C warmer than normal during the summer of 2007, he says.
    Higher temperatures mean the seasonal melting of the upper layer of soil extends down deeper than normal, melting the permafrost below. Microbes can then break down any organic matter in the thawing layer, not only releasing carbon but also generating heat that leads to even deeper melting. The heat produced by decomposition is yet another positive feedback that will accelerate melting, Ciais says.
    Potent greenhouse gas
    What’s more, if summer melting depth exceeds the winter refreezing level then a layer of permanently unfrozen soil known as a talik forms, sandwiched between the permafrost below and the winter-freezing surface layer. “A talik allows heat to build more quickly in the soil, hastening the long-term thaw of permafrost,” says Lawrence.
    The carbon in melting permafrost can enter the atmosphere either as carbon dioxide or methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas, molecule-for-molecule. If organic matter decomposes in the low-oxygen conditions typical of the boggy soils and lakes in these regions, more methane forms.
    Researchers have been monitoring the Stordalen mire in northern Sweden for decades. The permafrost there is melting fast and, as conditions become wetter, it is releasing ever more methane into the air, says Torben Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. This is the future for most of the northern hemisphere’s permafrost, he says.
    Disturbing picture
    It’s not just existing boggy patches that are the problem. In low-lying areas, the loss of volume as ice-rich permafrost melts leads to the collapse of the ground and the formation of thermokarst lakes from the meltwater. Satellite surveys show the number and area of these lakes is increasing and, as the work by Walter and others shows, they could be a major source of methane.
    Put together, the latest research paints a disturbing picture. Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought. “Instead of disappearing in 500 years, the deepest permafrost could disappear in 100 years,” Ciais says.
    The permafrost is not the only source of methane in the Arctic. Shallow ocean sediments can be rich in methane hydrates, a form of ice containing trapped methane. Particularly worrying are the huge amounts of methane hydrate thought to lie beneath the Arctic Ocean. Because the waters here are so cold, methane hydrates can be found closer to the surface than in most other parts of the world. These shallow deposits are far more vulnerable to the warming of surface waters.
    Blowouts
    Juergen Mienert at the University of Tromso in Norway, who has analysed past eruptions of methane hydrates from the Arctic, says current conditions are disturbingly similar to those in the past when warming waters penetrated sediments, triggering the release of hydrates. “Global warming will cause more blowouts, more releases,” he says.
    While shrinking sea ice in 2007 may have attracted all the headlines, some researchers say what is really scaring them is a simultaneous jump in methane levels. While the level of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, for the past decade or so there has been little change.
    Then, in 2007, several million tonnes of extra methane mysteriously entered the atmosphere. Detailed analysis from methane monitors around the world suggests that much of it came from the far north. Ciais says it looks like the biggest source was Siberian permafrost.
    Unstoppable
    This is still contentious. Matt Rigby of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has analysed the methane surge, says we cannot yet say whether emissions from melting permafrost contributed most to the rise. “But 2007 was unusually warm in Siberia, and we would expect emissions increases when temperature rises,” he adds.
    The rise could just be a blip – or the start of something big. “Once this process starts, it could soon become unstoppable,” Ciais says.
    Walter agrees. Right now, she estimates, only a few tens of millions of tonnes of methane are being emitted. “But there are tens of billions of tonnes potentially available for release.” And the faster the warming, the faster the emissions will rise.
    Out of control
    Most worrying of all is the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. The carbon stored in the far north has the potential to raise global temperatures by 10 °C or more. If global warming leads to the release of more greenhouse gases, these releases will cause yet more warming and still more carbon will escape to the atmosphere. Eventually the feedback process would continue even if we cut our greenhouse emissions to zero. At that point climate change would be out of control.
    There is another concern about Arctic melting: the growing amount of fresh water flowing into the Arctic Ocean. The shrinking thickness and extent of sea ice has added a huge amount of fresh water already. Meanwhile, rivers are pouring up to 10 per cent more water into the ocean than they did half a century ago. This is partly the result of rising precipitation as the air warms – warmer air can hold more moisture – and partly the result of melting permafrost, ice and snow. Yet more fresh water is coming from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. As the Arctic warms further, these flows of fresh water will increase.
    All this extra fresh water could weaken the pump that drives the thermohaline circulation, or ocean conveyor current. Its most famous element is the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic, but the conveyor travels all the oceans. It has its beginnings in the far north of the Atlantic, off Greenland, where unusually dense water plunges to the ocean floor. The water becomes dense here partly because it cools and partly because the formation of sea ice increases salinity. As the water gets a bit warmer and a bit less salty, thanks to all the extra fresh water, the worry is that the pump could slow down.
    Fears that the conveyor will soon shut down altogether, causing a fall in temperatures in northern Europe, have receded. Models of the climate system do not predict a shutdown any time within the next century, says oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
    Monsoon warning
    Even a slowdown in the conveyor could produce dramatic changes, though. Climate models suggest that changes in the ocean conveyor will alter rainfall patterns around the world. The models are backed by studies of how the climate has changed during past shutdowns of the ocean conveyor.
    The biggest consequence, says Buwen Dong of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading, UK, is likely to be a disruption, and quite probably a complete collapse, of the Asian monsoon, causing severe droughts in south Asia. “It could have enormous social and economic impacts on these nations,” he says.
    The disruption of the monsoon would have enormous social and economic impacts in south Asia
    You can say that again. The Asian monsoon is the main source of water for large areas of the most heavily populated continent. An estimated 2 billion – getting on for 1 in 3 citizens on the planet – rely on it to grow their food. Take away the monsoon and they would starve. All because of warming in the Arctic.
    Unquantifiable
    Nobody can be sure how likely all this is. Indeed, the scientists at the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who compile its reports cannot even reach agreement on how to quantify the probabilities of such events. As a result, the “scary scenarios” were barely mentioned in the last report.
    Nonetheless, the latest findings suggest we cannot afford to ignore these possibilities, especially given that everything to do with global climate is linked. The loss of Arctic sea ice could lead to the release of ever more methane from permafrost and methane hydrates. That in turn would make a dramatic reduction in the strength of the ocean conveyor sometime this century increasingly likely, which could lead to abrupt changes in the Asian monsoon.
    With the summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean already shrinking much faster than the IPCC models predicted, one thing is for sure. It is not just the polar bears who should be worrying about the warming Arctic

    Please forward this newsletter to your friends and encourage them to join the mailing list at http://www.planetextinction.com/planet_extinction_newsletter_subscribe.htm

  • Climate change hitting entire arctic ecosystem,says report

    Climate change hitting entire Arctic ecosystem, says report

    Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme study tells of profound changes to sea ice and permafrost, among oth

     

    Arctic ice

    Levels of summer sea ice in the Arctic have drastically reduced since 2005

    Extensive climate change is now affecting every form of life in the Arctic, according to a major new assessment by international polar scientists.

    In the past four years, air temperatures have increased, sea ice has declined sharply, surface waters in the Arctic ocean have warmed and permafrost is in some areas rapidly thawing.

    In addition, says the report released today at a Norwegian government seminar, plants and trees are growing more vigorously, snow cover is decreasing 1-2% a year and glaciers are shrinking.

    Scientists from Norway, Canada, Russia and the US contributed to the Arctic monitoring and assessment programme (Amap) study, which says new factors such as “black carbon” – soot – ozone and methane may now be contributing to global and arctic warming as much as carbon dioxide.

    “Black carbon and ozone in particular have a strong seasonal pattern that makes their impacts particularly important in the Arctic,” it says.

    The report’s main findings are:

    Land

    Permafrost is warming fast and at its margins thawing. Plants are growing more vigorously and densely. In northern Alaska, temperatures have been rising since the 1970s. In Russia, the tree line has advanced up hills and mountains at 10 metres a year. Nearly all glaciers are decreasing in mass, resulting in rising sea levels as the water drains to the ocean.

    Summer sea ice

    The most striking change in the Arctic in recent years has been the reduction in summer sea ice in 2007. This was 23% less than the previous record low of 5.6m sq kilometres in 2005, and 39% below the 1979-2000 average. New satellite data suggests the ice is much thinner than it used to be. For the first time in existing records, both the north-west and north-east passages were ice-free in summer 2008. However, the 2008 winter ice extent was near the year long-term average.

    Greenland

    The Greenland ice sheet has continued to melt in the past four years with summer temperatures consistently above the long-term average since the mid 1990s. In 2007, the area experiencing melt was 60% greater than in 1998. Melting lasted 20 days longer than usual at sea level and 53 days longer at 2-3,000m heights.

    Warmer waters

    In 2007, some ice-free areas were as much as 5C warmer than the long-term average. Arctic waters appear to have warmed as a result of the influx of warmer waters from the Pacific and Atlantic. The loss of reflective, white sea ice also means that more solar radiation is absorbed by the dark water, heating surface layers further.

    Black carbon

    Black carbon, or soot, is emitted from inefficient burning such as in diesel engines or from the burning of crops. It is warming the Arctic by creating a haze which absorbs sunlight, and it is also deposited on snow, darkening the surface and causing more sunlight to be absorbed.

  • Fires fuelling global warming :study

    Fires fuelling global warming: study

    By Wendy Zukerman

    Posted Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:36am AEST
    Updated Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:37am AEST

    Members of the CFA tackle a bushfire at Bunyip

    Bushfires appear to contribute to one-fifth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, say researchers (User submitted via ABC Contribute: Mr Bettong)

    Carbon emissions from deforestation fires have a significant impact on global warming, according to an international study.

    The study, which appears in today’s edition of Science, provides the first consensus on the affect of fires on climate change.

    “Fire has been underestimated as a contributor to climate change,” says study lead author Professor David Bowman of the University of Tasmania.

    “In the past it was thought that fires were a steady state.”

    Bowman says scientists have assumed that the carbon released into the atmosphere from burning plants, was equivalent to the carbon reabsorbed when plants regrow.

    But the study’s authors note a marked reduction in fire events since 1870, which they speculate may be the result of intense farming and grazing, along with negative attitudes towards fire.

    As a result, says Bowman, increased fuel loads and climate change has resulted in more intense deforestation fires. These fires release more carbon into the atmosphere, place increased stress on forest recovery, and result in less carbon being sequestered from the atmosphere.

    “If you change the climate then you can see that you’re creating a disequilibrium,” says Bowman. “The forests are struggling to recover from it.”

    He says the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria and recent wildfires in southern California are consistent with the direction of global warming.

    Wide-ranging effects

     

    The researchers used data from a range of sources including the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report along with deforestation fire modelling to calculate the impact of fire on climate change during the past 200 years.

    They compared the amount of landscape burnt in deforestation fires with the amount of carbon dioxide released from burning.

    The researchers found that deforestation fires alone contribute up to 20% of human-caused CO2 emissions since pre-industrial times.

    They also found that between 1997 and 2001, biomass burning accounted for about two-thirds of the variability in the CO2 growth rate.

    Fire also influences climate by releasing atmospheric aerosols and changing surface albedo (surface brightness), they write.

    The study’s authors add, “Regionally, smoke plumes inhibit convection, and black carbon warms the troposphere, thereby reducing vertical convection and limiting rain-cloud formation and precipitation.”

    Dr Jennifer Balch of the National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at the University of California Santa Barbara, and co-author of the study, says the models show fire has an impact on greenhouse gas levels, including carbon dioxide, methane and aerosols.

    “Fire influences the majority of those terms,” says Balch.

    According to Balch, a key to managing fire is accepting that it is as an intrinsic part of the planet.

    “Fire is as elemental as air or water,” she says.

    The study’s authors say future IPCC assessments of global climate change “should include specific analyses of the role of fire”.

  • Advanced Anaerobic Digestion: More Gas from sewage Sludge

    April 27, 2009

    Advanced Anaerobic Digestion: More Gas from Sewage Sludge

    One UK water company is using Advanced Anaerobic Digestion in its wastewater treatment process to generate biogas and is using this in an on-site CHP unit.

    by Graham Neave

    Northumbria, UK [Renewable Energy World Magazine]

    At a time of heightened concerns about waste, climate change and the need for cleaner energy, it is worth pointing out that not all the news is bad. Technologies are redressing the balance — and one of these is Advanced Anaerobic Digestion (AAD).

     

    AAD will not turn muck into brass, or gold, but it does offer the potential to transform the sewage treatment process from a simple clean-up to one that recovers significant quantities of energy.

    In the Northumbrian Water region, in the north-east of England, there are more than 400 (437 to be exact) sewage treatment works that all produce varying amounts of sludge. This material has to be removed from every works but, inevitably, it is difficult to handle and, to say the least, rather smelly.

    To make this sludge stable to further degradation and (nearly) odour free, Northumbrian Water Ltd (NWL) has long employed anaerobic digestion techniques for about 10% of its total sludge.

    These technologies harness natural oxygen-free decomposition by which organic materials break down to produce biogas – roughly made up of 65% methane and 35% carbon dioxide – along with a much reduced residue of stabilized organic material. The latter can be safely deployed as fertilizer. In fact, by returning it to the soil in this way, nutrient and organic matter cycles that occur naturally are completed.

    In the last five years, however, technology has advanced significantly and a technique has been perfected that can do much more.

    Advanced Anaerobic Digestion significantly enhances the benefits of anaerobic digestion by separating and optimizing the key process stages used in more conventional digestion systems.

    A More Sophisticated Process

    There are two main pre-digestion processes used in AAD in the UK — thermal hydrolysis (the Cambi process) or enzymic hydrolysis (the Monsal process). Currently there are examples of each in operation and under construction.

    Regardless of which process is used, the key to the AAD process is a phase that significantly enhances the breakdown of organic materials by, for example, breaking down cell walls. With thermal hydrolysis this is achieved by an initial high temperature of 165°C combined with high pressure (6 Bar) for less than one hour, or with enzyme hydrolysis this is achieved by phasing an increased temperature from 42°C to 55°C over several days.

    The result is a far greater conversion of organic matter into biogas when the material is transferred into the anaerobic digestion phase. Following this digestion phase, there is a 50% reduction in sludge volumes, combined with the additional biogas/CHP- derived energy being produced, and ultimately a better quality bio-solids fertilizer.

    One of the major benefits of this, of course, is that energy from biomass, including sewage sludge, are classed as renewable and therefore contribute to meeting Britain’s international commitments to address climate change.

    But it does more than that too.

    Using AAD reduces the mass of material that is required to be transported off site and offers the benefit of nutrient recovery from materials that are presently wasted.

    Indeed, some particularly difficult materials, such as food wastes under the Animal By-products Order (ABPO), need the conditions of AAD to render them safe.

    One other benefit that is not to be sniffed at, AAD results in reduced odour.

    The digested sludge cake remaining after the process will be a Class A biosolid – a safe and low odour product containing no detectable levels of pathogens, such as E. coli, and may be used as a valuable agricultural fertilizer.

    A New Sludge Strategy

    With the obvious benefits AAD offers, NWL decided to invest in a complete new build AAD and CHP plant at its existing sludge treatment centre at Bran Sands on Teesside. The facility, on a 52 acre (21 ha) site, is the company’s largest, and treats sludge from Northumbrian Water sewage treatment works south of the river Tyne and in the Tees Valley.

    The existing process at Bran Sands has served NWL very well since it was brought online in 1998. It involves the use of a thermal drying plant which dries wet sludge to pellets that have been used both as an alternative fuel and as a fertilizer. The downside is that the plant uses a lot of energy. The introduction of AAD will instead use the sludge to create energy and will reduce more than 500,000 tonnes of sludge — from the treatment of domestic sewage and industrial effluent from a population equivalent of 1.9 million people — to about 60,000 tonnes.

    The methane produced in the process will be collected in 11 metre diameter biogas storage bags (similar to hot air balloons) before being used. The £33 million (US$50 million) contract to design, construct, install and commission the new facility was awarded to Aker Solutions E&C Ltd from Stockton in the Tees Valley.

    The new plant will generate 4.7 MWe from the four on-site CHP engines. The engine heat recovery system captures a further 2 MWth, which is used to minimize the use of natural gas for steam production for the thermal hydrolysis process.

    The process will also reduce Bran Sand’s reliance upon natural gas down to less than a tenth of previous requirements — from 17 MW to 1.4 MW.

    Aside from Jenbacher, key equipment suppliers include Cambi, and Eurograde (boilers).

    The energy recovered from the sewage sludge goes a long way towards making the entire wastewater treatment process energy self-sufficient, producing about half the requirements of the entire treatment works site at Bran Sands. This eliminates the need for large amounts of grid electricity and therefore has the dual benefits of cutting energy use and costs. Annually the advanced digestion facility has an annual output of 37 GWh, of which 22 GWh/year will be utilized to power the rest of the Bran Sands site. Financially, this equates to greater than £5 million ($7.5 million) in operational savings, which includes a renewable obligation certificate (ROC) contribution of £1.6 million ($2.4 million).

    At Bran Sands, the processes also maximizes the efficiency of the solids loading for the anaerobic digestion phase. The thermal hydrolysis pre-treatment process begins with a sludge cake, produced by squeezing sludge to reduce the water content, which therefore provided the opportunity to review NWL’s sludge transport policy. By transporting cake wherever possible this avoids the wasteful transportation of large amounts of water associated with liquid sludge tankering.

    These changes have resulted in a substantial reduction in the road miles associated with moving sludge.

    Changing to AAD from thermal drying at Bran Sands, along with a planned change from lime stabilization at another NWL plant at Howdon on Tyneside, will reduce CO2 emissions by 62,000 tonnes a year for the group.

    AAD has provided the company with a regional sludge management solution in line with their strategic direction statement, with the added benefit of a negligible odour impact on both the site and on the agricultural land when the residue produced is recycled for use as fertilizer.

    There are regulatory benefits to take into consideration as well. Recycling treated bio-solids to agriculture is considered the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) by both the UK and the EU. The process produces an enhanced treated product that improves the public perception of recycling at a time when doubts have been expressed in some quarters.

    The site is covered by Pollution Prevention and Control regulations (PPC), ensuring thorough monitoring of the total environmental impacts of the entire process and, when operational, the site will be registered with regulator Ofgem as a renewable electricity generation station.

    To achieve these benefits does, of course, requirement investment — some £33 million [US $50 million] in total for a construction programme whose principal contractor is Aker Solutions E&C Ltd. There are a further 30 subcontracting teams and a total workforce of over 200 people.

    Construction commenced in summer 2007, although the actual concept of introducing the new technology into Northumbrian Water began in 2005.

    Much of the site construction work is now complete, with equipment already in place. Some 10,000 tonnes of concrete have been poured, a full 100,000 metres of cabling laid, along with 4000 metres of pipe work. Commissioning of the plant will begin shortly with biogas production commencing this summer. The full process and business benefits are due to be realized by the autumn of this year.

    Construction of the new plant has involved the use of a very tight and complex scheme, which was only made possible through the integrated team approach of Northumbrian Water Ltd, the contractor and consultants working very closely together.

    The AAD Advantage

    The process that the Bran Sands AAD plant facilitates is not only environmentally friendly, it is economically attractive too. The plant approaching energy self-sufficiency not only reduces costs, it also shields the company from the impact of volatile and unpredictable energy prices. It further offers demonstrable operational cost savings and improves the efficiency of sludge management throughout the region.

    In addition to the ever-important cost benefits, there are also significant operational benefits. The new AAD process allows reduced maintenance compared to the existing process, which has been operating on a ‘business as usual’ basis while the plant is being constructed. It continues to allow the utilization of existing sludge assets where cost effectiveness has been demonstrated and the current sludge drying facilities will be retained at Bran Sands as a strategic contingency back-up.

    The final completion of the Bran Sands AAD plant (Teesside) is not the end of the process. NWL also plans to roll-out the sludge strategy to a second AAD centre at Howdon on Tyneside, see box panel on page 64.

    Looking still further ahead, and aware of the growing synergy between the water and waste industries in relation to these processes, the company is actively investigating the possibility of co-digestion — the simultaneous digestion of compatible wastes — to understand the technical, regulatory and market implications. It seems that the Bran Sands development proves the old Yorkshire adage that ‘where there’s muck, there’s brass’, more advanced processes are now proving that where there’s muck there’s gas, and that is a valuable resource.

    Graham Neave is a Northumbrian Water executive director and has overall responsibility for the Customer, Technical and Operations directorates.


    Sidebar: Future AAD roll-out plans

    Bran Sands is the first phase of Northumbrian Water’s AAD strategy. A second plant is already planned for Howdon, on Tyneside, subject to the usual regulatory approvals and planning consents.

    Like Bran Sands, Howdon offers the advantage that it can be built on an existing site while the current treatment process continues to operate.

    The two plants will also be all but identical when complete, utilizing many of the same design features and operating the same processes. The project therefore offers an unusual opportunity to take the design of the first and effectively drop it on to the second site as a package.

    The lab tests and trials have already been carried out on the equipment, giving confidence that the second plant will meet Northumbrian’s specifications. Considerable cost savings can also be reaped by using the specifications of the first in the second because of the synergies that this will provide for the company. The detail and operational management of the building site will also be all but identical. Furthermore, having gone through the process once, regulatory approvals will be eased.

    However, all parties — Northumbrian Water, the principal contractor and the various sub contractors — can learn from the implementation of the first to make the second more efficient.

    The relationship with the contractors during construction at Bran Sands has proved crucial and enhancing — and developing that relationship will be a key step in the Howdon project, with the building work planned for 2011–2013.

    The potential benefit of having both plants online to both Northumbrian Water and the Northumbrian region is clear. The end point will see the adoption of an entirely new sludge management strategy for the entire Northumbrian region. Energy will be recovered from sludge from all of the 400-plus sewage plants operated by the company.

    That sludge management strategy will also be one that is entirely energy self-sufficient and may even provide additional energy to off-set much of the power used in sewage treatment.

  • Anger at plans for nuclear power station to replace wind farm

    Anger at plans for nuclear power station to replace wind farm

    • Threatened site is one of the most efficient
    • Proposed atomic plant backed by government

     

    One of the oldest and most efficient wind farms in Britain is to be dismantled and replaced by a nuclear power station under plans drawn up by the German-owned power group RWE.

    The site at Kirksanton in Cumbria – home to the Haverigg turbines – has just been approved by the government for potential atomic newbuild in a move that has infuriated the wind power industry.

    Colin Palmer, founder of the Windcluster company, which owns part of the Haverigg wind farm, said he was horrified that such a plan could be considered at a time when Britain risks missing its green energy targets and after reassurance from ministers that nuclear and renewables were not incompatible.

    “My first reaction was disbelief, quickly followed by a sense of years of commitment to sustainable energy being destroyed,” Palmer said. “At a time when the government is calling for wind energy development to be accelerated, it beggars belief that they are supporting plans that will result in the destruction of existing capacity.”

    Palmer said he was angry that he was never consulted about the plan by RWE or anyone else before the site was put forward for official approval.

    “The first we heard was when the proposals were made public, which is contrary to the nomination requirements that stipulate early consultation with key stakeholders,” he said.

    The Haverigg site, on the fringes of the Lake District, was commissioned in 1992 and is believed to be one of only two of its type in this country.

    The scheme has been praised by Friends of the Lake District as a fine example of appropriate wind energy development and the turbines were financed by a pioneering group of ethical investors. The site was subsequently expanded to a total of eight turbines after £6m additional investment. Haverigg was still one of the most efficient wind farms with a 35% “capacity factor” – or efficiency – compared with an average of 30%, said Palmer.

    RWE confirmed last night that its plans to construct a nuclear plant at Kirksanton could lead to the destruction of the windfarm, but said that was by no means certain. “It is true there is an overlap and it could lead to some turbines needing to be moved or the whole site being used. But we would have to discuss that with the operator and landowner,” said a spokesman for RWE.

    “Its worth pointing out that we could build up to 3,600 megawatts of low or free CO2 power compared to the 3.5MW or so of wind power that we might replace. And it’s not a case or wind or nuclear. We ourselves are spending over £1bn on wind.”

    Triodos Renewables, the owner of three of the turbines on the same site, shares Windcluster’s concerns.

    Matthew Clayton, operations director of Triodos, said: “It’s staggering that they [ministers] don’t exclude areas that are already productive sites for renewable technologies as part of the initial screening process. It just isn’t very joined up. They’re stamping out prime wind sites with arguably a much less sustainable technology.”

    Martin Forwood, a spokesman for local environmental campaign group Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, said the RWE plans had been revealed at a Cumbria county council forum meeting. “It beggars belief that at a time when wind power has never been more vital to the UK, a viable windfarm is to be sacrificed on the altar of nuclear power.

    “It also exposes the duplicity of RWE, who have previously claimed that it was a myth that newbuild will detract from the construction of renewables,” he said.

    The British Wind Energy Association said the enormous speed with which nuclear plants appeared to be moving through the planning process – responsible for part of the anger around Haverigg – compared dramatically with all the problems being faced by dozens of windfarms. “We need a level playing field for all types of generation when it comes to planning regulation and government support,” said the association.

    How they compare

     
    Wind
    Nuclear
    Overall cost of generating electricity/KWh 5.42p 2.8p
    Cost of fuel per Mwh none 4
    Speed of build 5 years 8 years+
    Lifetime 15 years 50 years
    Waste produced none Several grades of radioactive substances, some that remain dangerous for thousands of years
    Lifetime carbon footprint (gC02 equivalent/KWh) 4.64g/5.25g (onshore/offshore) 5g
    Fans Environmental NGOs James Lovelock, UK government
    Opponents David Bellamy, CPRE Environmental NGOs

    • Sources: Vestas, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, BERR, Royal Academy of Engineering