September
2002 Issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Favorites
Mini to the Max
|
|
ARCHIVES |
|
Cow Power
Weighing Prospects for On-Farm Energy Production
Four-legged power sources dot Wisconsin’s
rural landscape, calmly grazing, chewing cud, and ambling
in and out of milking parlors. But these days, their untapped
potential as providers of fuel for generating electricity
has prompted producers, government officials, and electric-industry
leaders to explore ways of efficiently harnessing the power.
People have known for years that livestock manure contains,
among other things, methane, or natural gas. Methane can be
used as fuel in a generator engine to produce electricity.
But it hasn't been until the last few years that most of the
country's 30 manure digesters producing electricity have been
built. The process is known as anaerobic digestion—the
production of methane gas from livestock manure without the
presence of oxygen.
Anaerobic digesters do not "convert" manure to gas.
Utilizing the services of a variety of microorganisms, digesters
extract methane gas from the manure, leaving the nutrient
value of the fertilizer intact.
A digester itself is basically an enclosed tank that excludes
oxygen and which contains bacteria that break down manure
into a variety of gases, including methane and carbon dioxide.
An impermeable cover on the digester traps the gas, which
can then be burned in an open flame or passed through an internal-combustion
engine attached to an electrical generator. Electricity can
be used strictly on the farm, or it may be hooked into the
electrical system that feeds the farm.
Interest Increases
Interest in this technology is increasing
rapidly in Wisconsin. Many farmers are now interested in harnessing
this process, and not just for the electricity it can produce.
Researchers in Minnesota, studying the 150-kilowatt digester
system at the Dennis Haubenschild farm near Princeton have
found that 97 percent of the odor from a dairy farm can be
eliminated by the installation of a properly functioning manure
digester. Moreover, the remaining manure residue is easier
to apply to fields, and propane costs on the farm are reduced
because the digester can produce hot water for farm operations.
The researchers at the Minnesota Project even found that there
were fewer flies present as a result of the digester's operation.
There are benefits for the environment, too. Methane is a
greenhouse gas; burning it to produce electricity prevents
its release into the atmosphere.
Estimates and results vary for how much electricity can be
produced by a given number of cows. A 750-cow herd can comfortably
support a 150-kilowatt generator, enough to supply about 40–50
homes. Smaller herds will support lower amounts of generation.
Training, Good Management Vital
If manure digesters are such a good idea,
why doesn't every farm have one?
The Discovery Farms project of the University of Wisconsin–Extension
has looked into the three principal reasons why manure digesters
fail: poor design/installation, improper selection of quality
components of the system, and poor maintenance/management
of the system. Plus, the cost of producing electric power
from manure systems is higher than that from, say, a coal-fired
plant. Costs of power from anaerobic digesters range from
5.5¢ to more than 6¢ per kilowatt-hour.
AgStar, a project of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
indicates that many digester systems built before 1982 failed.
But there has been more success in those built after 1982.
Some digester systems built in the past simply were not compatible
with the farms’ layout or manure handling systems. In
many cases, training and technical support were not available
to producers.
Currently, there are at least two working manure digesters
in Wisconsin, but more are being planned.
Costs for the systems vary, depending on the size of the generator
and what type of technology is used. The cost of the system
on Dennis Haubenschild's farm in Minnesota was about $350,000
for an initial 150-kilowatt system. At the other end of the
scale is Carl Theunis' digester system near Wrightstown, Wisconsin.
The system is estimated to cost more than $1,500,000 and is
able to produce other by-products from the manure that can
be sold commercially.
At Taylor Electric Cooperative, Manager Mike Schaefer is exploring
the possibility of constructing such a system with local dairy
producer Steve Bach, in cooperation with Dairyland Power Cooperative
of La Crosse.
Optimism, Realism
Officials at the Wisconsin Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) are excited
and guardedly optimistic about increasing farm income through
the sales of electric power generated on farms. Wisconsin's
18,000 dairy farms produce a lot of manure. If another use
can be found for it, in addition to its fertilizer value,
that's more money in a producer’s pocket.
But farmers should be realistic in considering this technology.
“A producer needs to have a clear view of the goals
of a digester system. Generally, those goals are odor reduction
and energy production that can help offset the cost. A producer
needs to have a good understanding of the costs and benefits
of the system,” says Ed Odgers, chief of the Conservation
Engineering Section of the Ag Resource Management Division
at the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Odgers, an engineer, observes that in managing a manure digester
system a livestock producer takes on responsibility for managing
“another herd: the bacteria that extract methane from
manure.” There are many variables that need to be monitored
and controlled: temperature, residency time, pH, consistent
loading, and keeping chemicals and pesticides out of the digester.
“Even having too much sand in the material can cause
problems with digester operation,” he says.
Asked about the role of DATCP, Odgers states, “The department's
role is to facilitate the development and the advancement
of the technology. This is still in its infancy; we have to
learn more about the right and wrong ways to manage these
systems before there is widespread investment in them.”
Roger Kasper, the Research and Education Coordinator for DATCP's
Rural Electric Power Services Program, notes that "valuing
the intangibles in these system is difficult." Also,
he points out, “Boiler-plate, cookie-cutter systems
are unlikely. Each farm, each herd, each farmer is different.
Producers will find very creative innovations for using this
technology," says Kasper.
Earlier this year, Kasper organized a bio-gas workshop in
Plover, Wisconsin, attended by nearly 100 people, many of
them producers.
More research, data needed
Despite the prospects for more anaerobic
digesters being built in Wisconsin, obstacles still remain.
Though the technology is not experimental, there are not enough
of these systems in the country to have generated a large
database on which to improve the technology. The financial
incentive for energy production is also lagging: costs for
producing power this way are still higher than conventional
methods.
Making the systems more efficient and reducing the capital
expense will help lower costs of power generated by digesters.
So will the improvements in efficiencies of such devices as
microturbines, points out DATCP's Odgers. “Microturbines
may help make this technology more size-neutral because the
generation equipment can be better tailored to meet the conditions
on individual farms,” he notes.
Co-op Model
Another approach to this technology is cooperative
or community production. This is the notion that several producers
would join together to jointly operate a system. But this
approach has concerns such as liability, regulation, bio-security,
and transportation costs that must be addressed. Success in
these kinds of experiments would open the door to more smaller
producers adopting and utilizing the technology.
In a state that spends $6 billion a year for primary energy—most
of it sent out of state—locally produced energy sources
have an extra value because the dollars spent stay in the
state.—Dave Jenkins, Statewide Manager, Wisconsin
Electric Cooperative Association
For more information:
The Minnesota Project: www.mnproject.org
AGSTAR, US-EPA: www.epa.gov/agstar/
|
TOP
|
Meet the Beetles!
Using An Exotic Species to Eat Another
As a reminder of home, immigrants in the 1800s
brought the pretty purple plants with them to grace their Midwestern
flower gardens. More than a century later, the plants’ undisputed
beauty still occasionally prompts illicit transplantation of purple
loosestrife—a move that most property owners ultimately
regret.
The plant, native to Europe and Asia, will quickly take root and
begin crowding out all other plants nearby. It’s what’s
known as an “invasive” species, a wetland plant that
aggressively takes over and, if spread into the wild, will also
deprive wildlife of habitats and food sources.
More Than a Nuisance
“Purple loosestrife doesn’t have
any real ecological value,” asserted Brad Foss, environmental
biologist at Dairyland Power Cooperative in La Crosse. “It
will drive out plants such as wetland cattails, which are important
to nesting waterfowl. It will clog drainage ditches and lower
land values.”
A local conservation group to which Foss belongs has been working
for the past several years to control purple loosestrife in wetland
habitats along the Mississippi River. But instead of herbicides
to kill the plant, the Brice Prairie Conservation Association
has been using a tiny six-legged assassin with an exclusive appetite
for purple loosestrife.
Galerucella beetles—also called leaf beetles—feed
on a plant’s buds, leaves and stems, preventing flowers
and seed production and bringing eventual defoliation and death
to the loosestrife. The insects are native to the same parts of
the world the purple loosestrife originally came from—meaning
that their introduction as a control force in U.S. ecosystems
has involved much research and government oversight.
Two-Bit Bugs
Foss said Dairyland Power paid New York’s
Cornell University 25¢ each for 4,000 Galerucella beetles
as a way to control a several-acre patch of loosestrife not far
from the co-op’s hydroelectric dam near Ladysmith, Wisconsin.
“We had been using herbicides at the site for five or six
years, but in a plot that size, total eradication is difficult.
The plants keep coming back,” he explained. “I thought
the option of using one exotic species to control another offered
a more environmentally friendly way to deal with the problem.”
His bosses at Dairyland agreed, as did the Wisconsin Department
of natural Resources, which oversees such biological control programs.
“The DNR was fully supportive of this action; it’s
just the direction they want to go with weed control,” Foss
stated.
In order to release the beetles, Dairyland obtained a permit from
the agency, a step necessary whenever biological-control species
reared outside Wisconsin are introduced here. The permit detailed
the number of beetles, where they were obtained, and information
on the site where they were to be released.
On July 11, Foss and other Dairyland staff gingerly
opened the six jars containing the Cornell University beetles,
depositing the insects directly on plants in different parts of
the marshy plot near Ladysmith.
Picky Eaters
Foss explained that Cornell researchers had
determined purple loosestrife was the only thing the beetles would
eat, and when the food source was depleted, the insects would
simply starve. “They’re not expected to present danger
to other plant species or to be an infestation problem for humans,”
he noted.
Square-meter test areas set up at five locations within the loosestrife
patch will permit detailed monitoring of the beetles’ progress.
“Next spring, we’ll count the number of loosestrife
and cattails within each test quadrant and look for beetle eggs,
larvae, and adults,” said Foss. “We hope to see a
decrease in loosestrife and an increase in the other plants.”
He said it could take several years—and possibly additional
releases of beetles—before “equilibrium” is
reached within the plot.
“We’re not expecting to totally eradicate the purple
loosestrife,” he continued. “What we want is to get
to the point where there’s balance between the beetles and
their food source at a level that will allow the rest of the wetland
habitat to thrive,” said Foss.—Perry Baird
|
TOP
History’s Transparent Lessons
by Perry Baird, Editor
History repeats itself, and that’s one
of the things that’s wrong with history, according to
the famous lawyer/agnostic Clarence Darrow. His pithy observation
laments how people have a hard time learning lessons that might
prevent future troubles.
Former Oklahoma Congressman Glenn English, now serving as CEO
of the National Rural Electric Cooperative association, recently
took to the Wisconsin airwaves and told how the 70-year-old
failure of a giant energy company should have been seen as a
precursor of the Enron collapse.
“We had a fellow named Sam Insull in the 1920s and ‘30s
with Middle West Utilities that had many of the same problems
Enron has,” English told the audience of a Wisconsin Public
Radio broadcast. “They took bankruptcy, they had accounting
problems, and they had multiple partnerships, and all of that
created a crisis in American business just as the Great Depression
was unfolding.” English said the unraveling of Sam Insull’s
giant holding-company pyramid led to the creation of both the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Power Act.
“We may see a similar response to Enron and these other
difficulties that are occurring in this market, such as some
new regulations to attempt to deal with those who would do wrong,”
English predicted.
Regulatory Vacuum
The regulatory environments that allowed Middle
West Utilities and Enron to flourish had some similarities as
well. In the case of Sam Insull in the early 1900s, the concept
of holding companies was so novel that adequate regulations
did not exist to address the scope of his business scheme. For
Enron, it wasn’t the lack of regulation as much as it
was the lack of enforcement and vigilance by regulators, according
to English.
“Government has gotten to the point that regulators don’t
want to regulate,” English asserted, noting that both
Democrat and Republican administrations during the past 30 years
have repeatedly appointed people to regulatory posts who don’t
believe in regulation. He said an example is enforcement of
the Public Utility Holding Company Act by one of the products
of the earlier-mentioned 1930s shakeup: the Securities and Exchange
Commission. “The SEC—caught up in the deregulation
fervor that swept the country over the past 30 years—didn’t
really want to enforce this law,” he charged. “If
they had been watching closely, there’s a question as
to whether Enron would have been able to form many of the partnerships
that led to their later difficulties.”
“Traffic Cop” Needed
Answering phoned-in questions from state listeners
during the broadcast, English said he doubted that a truly competitive
energy market can exist in the U.S. without some sort of “traffic
cop” to guard against unscrupulous businessmen who seek
to “game” the marketplace for their own profit.
The “cop” English suggested could come in the form
of new regulations to make public more of the details about
business dealings of energy-trading firms.
“An Enron official last November told the New York Times
the political objective of Enron was to create a regulatory
black hole and then to make money out of the chaos and lack
of transparency that followed,” said English. There’s
increasing evidence that the company may have achieved that
very goal during the much-publicized California energy crunch,
and English said the executive’s own words provide a key
to addressing at least a portion of the abuse.
“We need transparency in these markets so people can see
what’s being traded and by whom. That will, I think, prevent
most of the shenanigans and will give us an idea of what’s
really happening in the marketplace,” he stated.
It’s a lesson worth learning—permanently.
|
TOP
Mini
to the Max
No doubt many Wisconsinites yearn to see famous
landmarks of many nations, but some just can’t stretch
their budgets to accommodate world travel. If that describes
your situation, there’s a solution: In a few hours at
La Reau’s World of Miniatures near Pardeeville, you will
encounter detailed, built-to-scale models of architectural wonders
you may never get to see in real life. Just a few of the edifices
you can visit are the Alamo, the Great Wall of China, Egypt’s
pyramids, the Taj Mahal, the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore,
Germany’s Neuschwanstein Castle, and many of the government
buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. France’s Chartres
Cathedral is one of Paul La Reau’s latest and most time
consuming projects, taking more than 9,000 hours to build over
the course of five or six years.
Also included are scenes that, though not famous, evoke the
essence of particular locales. A New England fishing village,
a Bavarian village with homes and shops, a Vermont mill, an
English pub, and a Louisiana plantation transport viewers to
locations they may have only dreamed about. Also be sure to
visit the section of the nine-acre site that features the miniature
life of Christ.
Midwesterners will identify with the many Wisconsin buildings
and scenes, including farms, homes, churches, and a one-room
school. Like most of the other miniatures, these models were
built primarily of Styrofoam. Paul began crafting them in 1972;
he and his wife, Clarice, who are both retired teachers, opened
La Reau’s World of Miniatures at the present site about
14 years ago.
When you visit, get ready for a stroll through architectural
history—and be sure to bring your camera!
La Reau’s World of Miniatures is located on State
Hwy. 22 just south of Pardeeville. It is open daily, 10–5,
from May 1 through September 30. For further information, call
608/429-2848.
|
TOP
|
