PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 011
Table 4. Costs for wetland manure handling system for Farm B. First Year Expense Ten Year Expense Operation and Maintenance Nutrient Value Remaining Solids Sold Net Income Net Income per Cow Present Value ($94,920) ($1,880) ($62,396) $32,930 $58,910 ($66,346) ($390) Yearly Amount ($6,355) $3,354 $6,000 ($20) Without including the nutrient value the system has a negative present value of ($584) per cow over the 20 year life of the system. Some farms may not be able to obtain a benefit from the manure. Farms with fields that have high to excessive levels of phosphorus and potassium may even see these nutrients as a detriment. The lower amounts of these nutrients in the effluent of this system will make this less likely. Still appropriate nutrient management will be needed to utilize the nutrients properly. The variation of the nutrient concentrations because of the effects of weather on the process may make this system a little more difficult to develop a nutrient management plan. The ability to irrigate the effluent on growing crops without excessive odors will increase the likelihood that the nutrients can be used. Discussion Both systems have some expansion capabilities planned in them. Farm A sized their system for 1000 cows while Farm B sized their system for 300 cows. Using their systems to their full capacity would of course reduce the per cow costs. A comparison on just the cost basis is not complete since the electric prices, the farm sizes, and management objectives at each farm are different. Still table 5 shows the present value of each system with and without the nutrient value of the effluent. Table 5. Present values of the manure handling systems with and without the value of the nutrients. Farm A Present Value per cow (without nutrients) $15 Present Value per cow (with nutrients) $698 Farm B ($584) ($390) The irrigation cost of the effluent was not included on both systems. The amount to be irrigated on a per cow basis will be similar for each farm. Irrigation of the effluent should be the cheaper than tank spreading for both farms. The irrigation on both farms should be relatively easy since they both have low total solids in the effluent. Farm B has very low solids content in the effluent so irrigation will be very efficient. Both systems have biologically treated the effluent so that palatability problems as the effluent is sprayed on growing forage crops should not be an issue. 11PDF Image | ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND WETLAND TREATMENT CASE STUDY: COMPARING TWO MANURE ODOR CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR DAIRY FARMS
PDF Search Title:
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION AND WETLAND TREATMENT CASE STUDY: COMPARING TWO MANURE ODOR CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR DAIRY FARMSOriginal File Name Searched:
biogas07.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Capstone Turbine and Microturbine: Capstone microturbines used and new surplus for sale listing More Info
Consulting and Strategy Services: Need help with Capstone Turbine, sizing systems, applications, or renewable energy strategy, we are here to assist More Info
Container Lumber Dry Kiln: Since 1991 developing and innovating dry kilns using standard shipping containers More Info
Supercritical CO2 Lumber Dry Kiln: Compact fast drying in 3 days or less for small amounts of wood and lumber drying More Info
BitCoin Mining: Bitcoin Mining and Cryptocurrency... More Info
Publications: Capstone Turbine publications for microturbine and distributed energy More Info
FileMaker Software for Renewable Energy Developing database software for the renewable energy industry More Info
CO2 Gas to Liquids On-Demand Production Cart Developing a supercritical CO2 to alcohol on-demand production system (via Nafion reverse fuel cell) More Info
Stranded Gas for low cost power Bitcoin Mining Using stranded gas for generators may provide breakthrough low power costs for cryptocurrency miners. More Info
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@globalmicroturbine.com (Standard Web Page)