Tyson Renewable Energy
renewableenergyinfo@tyson.com
Re: Processing Arkansas poultry farm litter with biomass gasification would generate
renewable energy and improve water quality.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to ask your consideration in deploying biomass gasification to process
poultry farm litter in Arkansas. Processing Arkansas poultry farm litter with biomass
gasification would generate renewable energy and improve water quality. I grew up rural
northwest Arkansas, and am concerned with declining water quality that results from
frequent over-application of litter as a fertilizer. By combusting litter in a gasification unit
to generate clean electricity and heat and using the ashes as fertilizer, water pollution
problems would be avoided. My initial calculations indicate this could be deployed at 352
poultry farms in Arkansas, annually processing 490,000 short tons of litter and displacing
more than 150,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, with minimal internal rates of return of
15.8% and payback periods of 7 years.
Tyson’s recent move into the renewable energy sector is admirable, and would benefit by
expanding beyond processing fatty residues of slaughterhouses into liquid fuels. This fat
represents the small fraction of waste streams generated in poultry production. Tyson
would receive a variety of benefits from deploying gasification units on large poultry
farms to process litter: Economically, Tyson would receive income from electricity
generated (leveraging Arkansas’s net metering laws), reduced fuel costs for winter
heating, carbon credits, as well as tax credits. Environmentally, this would help meet
Tyson’s goals to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and maintain water quality near
farms, while proactively addressing future regulations. Finally, this project would
generate positive publicity, demonstrating Tyson’s commitment to environmental
stewardship, sustainability, and public welfare. Public benefits from this project include
improved water quality, decreased odors, and a stronger regional economy (as fewer
dollars are spent on fuel produced out-of-state).
These conservative cost estimates are detailed in the attached supplemental document. In
summary, I urge you to consider adding gasification to your renewable energy portfolio.
My motivations for writing this letter are purely based on personal beliefs; I hold no
financial interest in any company producing biomass gasification products.
Sincerely,
Josiah Johnston
Ph.D. Student
Energy and Resources Group
University of California, Berkeley
310 Barrows Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3050
siah@berkeley.edu
Economic Estimates
Loan rate
Loan payback, years
Equipment lifetime2, years
Plant capacity1, kW
Capital Costs1, $/kW
O&M Costs1, $/kW/year
Capacity Factor1
Capital Costs, $/kWh
Levelized Capital Costs, $/kWh
O&M Costs, $/kWh
Cleanout Costs1, $/kWh
Ash Value1, $/kWh
Cost of Production, years 1-10, $/kWh
Cost of Production, years 11-20, $/kWh
Average retail cost of commercial electricity in AR in 20063,
$/kWh
10%
10
20
100
$2,000
$200
82%
$0.2793
$0.0454
$0.0279
$0.0078
$0.0235
$0.0577
$0.0122
$0.0696
Payback and Internal Rate of Return
Average retail cost of commercial electricity in AR in 2006, $/kWh
Maximum Capital repayments
Internal Rate of Return (over 10 years)
Payback period with a 10% rate of return (years)
$0.0696
$0.0574
15.8%
7.0
Factors that would lower cost estimates
 Combined heat and power: harnessing exhaust to heat poultry houses in the winter
would lower fuel costs, and increase avoided greenhouse gas emissions.
 Rising costs of electricity: the payback period and internal rate of return are low
estimates because they assume a constant price of electricity over the next 10
years, and electricity prices are likely to rise. IRR is also low because it does not
consider revenues once capital costs are paid off.
 Tax credits for renewable energy production.
 Bulk purchasing: Community Power Corporation may offer capital discounts for
bulk purchases.
 Increasing plant capacity from 100 kW to 1 MW would reduce both capital and
operational costs by 25%. However, the poultry litter from a single large farm
would no longer be sufficient to meet fuel needs. A 1 MW facility would need to
gather fuel from several farms, possibly including cellulosic crop residues or
sawmill scraps.
Deployment potential
There are 108 turkey farms in Arkansas that on average raise 183,000 turkeys per year4.
Assuming 1,000 turkeys produce 12.3 short tons of litter1, these farms on average
produce 2,250 short tons of litter annually.
There are 224 chicken farms in Arkansas that on average raise 1.08 million chickens per
year4. Assuming 1,000 chickens produce 1.2 short tons of litter1, these farms on average
produce 1,300 short tons of litter annually. The average chicken farm would need to
supplement litter with 1 ton of crop residue or straw, which could be obtained at
negligible cost.
Fuel needs
Annual Energy Produced per farm, kWh
Heat Rate1, BTU/kWh
Energy Value1, BTU/lb
Litter needed, short tons
716,182
18,000
4,600
1,401
Greenhouse gas offsets
Number of eligible farms in Arkansas4
Annual Energy production potential, GWh
352
252
AR electric carbon intensity5, metric tonnes CO2e/GWh
588
Greenhouse gases offset, metric tonnes CO2e
AR greenhouse gases from electric production 5, metric tonnes
Fraction reduction in AR GHG emissions from the electric
power sector
Litter waste diverted, short tons
148,196
32,107,800
0.5%
493,232
Emissions
The Biomax Modular Power System has passed California air emissions standards with
wood chip feedstock6. A 2001 report7 indicates the engine would need to be retuned and a
catalytic converter added to achieve acceptable levels with a poultry-litter feedstock.
Vendor Information
Community Power Corporation of Littleton, CO produces a 100 kW gasification unit
capable of processing poultry litter that is sold under the product line Biomax Modular
Power System. The capital costs of a 100 kW unit capable of annually processing 1,400
short tons are $2000/kW, and operations and maintenance costs are $200/kW/year.
Community Power Corporation
http://www.gocpc.com/
Art Lilley artsolar@aol.com
Robb Walt rwalt@gocpc.com
Telephone: (303) 933-3135
FAX: (303) 933-1497
8110 Shaffer Parkway, Suite 120
Littleton, CO 80127
The spreadsheets that derived these estimates are available at
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~siah/MiniProjects/PoultryLitterGasification.xls
References and footnotes
1. Flora, J.R.V., Riahi-Nezhad, C. AVAILABILITY OF POULTRY MANURE AS A
POTENTIAL BIO-FUEL FEEDSTOCK FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION. Submitted to
South Carolina Energy Office on August 31, 2006. Available online at:
http://www.scbiomass.org/Publications/Poultry%20Litter%20Final%20Report.pdf
2. Equipment lifetime drawn from a report made by the equipment manufacturer to the
Department of Energy. Available online at:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/course_biomass_lilly.pdf
3. Cost of commercial electricity in Arkansas obtained from the Energy Information
Administration. Available online at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/arkansas.html
4. USDA, 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 1: Arkansas State Level Data.
Available online at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/ar/index1.htm
5. Arkansas greenhouse gas data obtained from CARMA. Available online at:
http://www.CARMA.org/
6. Community Power Corporation internal document. Available online at:
http://www.gocpc.com/Biomax%20meets%20CARB%20Standards.pdf
7. Reardon, J.P., Lilley, A., Browne, K., Beard, K., Wimberly, J., and Avens, J.,
“Demonstration of a Small Modular Biopower System Using Poultry Litter,” Final
Report submitted to the Department of Energy, 2001. Available online at:
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/794292-6l279H/native/794292.pdf