If you incur at least $5,000 per month in electricity or natural gas expenses, anaerobic digestion might be economically feasible for your operation. Digesters are very expensive and will last about 15 years. At this time, they are most economically feasible for operations with large energy needs. Even then, it will require considerable effort to investigate whether a digester is feasible for your operation since there are many variables to consider. A 2009 study by Keske found that minimizing anaerobic digestion production costs (eg. maintenance/repairs, and labor) and boosting energy production showed the greatest impact on net income from an anaerobic digester. A 1% change in production costs changed net income by 14.54%. A 1% change in energy production (a function of billing capacity and methane production) changed income by 11.14%. Generator downtime and inefficient feedstock conversion both affected energy production.
It is important to recognize that many variables can affect the economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion projects. Other financial considerations include: Net metering that returns electricity to the grid
Payments through a carbon market to offset carbon dioxide emissions or to sequester carbon Availability of bank, and loan terms/conditions. The specific financial aspects should be analyzed for every project. Industry partners also can provide insight into other revenue streams or cost offsets.
Co-digestion has shown to be economically viable in other states. When agricultural producers and related industries (eg. food manufacturers) are located nearby, there are typically efficiencies in feedstock availability and transport, as well as the energy end product. The economic efficiency improves when the biogas can be used onsite or nearby.
Feasibility studies have shown that co-digestion projects might be economically viable in Colorado (Stewart Environmental, 2008; Keske, 2009; City of Greeley and Symbios, 2009). However, at this writing, there is not a co-digestion project currently operating in Colorado. In summary, while there have been national efforts to compile information about AD and co-digestion, Colorado and the Intermountain West possess unique environmental characteristics that affect the economic feasibility of these systems. Low humidity, scarce water resources, western farm management practices, and regional policies are examples of such unique issues. If you or your community has an interest in a co-digestion project, it is suggested that you review one of the attached reports, and contact the corresponding author to learn more information.
If you incur at least $5,000 per month in electricity or natural gas expenses, anaerobic digestion might be economically feasible for your operation. Digesters are very expensive and will last about 15 years. At this time, they are most economically feasible for operations with large energy needs. Even then, it will require considerable effort to investigate whether a digester is feasible for your operation since there are many variables to consider. A 2009 study by Keske found that minimizing anaerobic digestion production costs (eg. maintenance/repairs, and labor) and boosting energy production showed the greatest impact on net income from an anaerobic digester. A 1% change in production costs changed net income by 14.54%. A 1% change in energy production (a function of billing capacity and methane production) changed income by 11.14%. Generator downtime and inefficient feedstock conversion both affected energy production.
It is important to recognize that many variables can affect the economic feasibility of anaerobic digestion projects. Other financial considerations include: Net metering that returns electricity to the grid; payments through a carbon market to offset carbon dioxide emissions or to sequester carbon Availability of bank, and loan terms/conditions. The specific financial aspects should be analyzed for every project. Industry partners also can provide insight into other revenue streams or cost offsets.
Manure management practices are important for animal farming operations of any scale. Regardless of operation size, the EPA requires proper treatment and removal of onsite manure. States may have even more rigorous standards than the federal standards. Information about manure management regulations can be found at:
It is important that your operation complies with state standards and does not violate standards governing the discharge nutrients into a western water source. Under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is regulated by the EPA, all CAFO's must submit a formal permit which begins with the submission of a notice for intent. Additional information can be found in ยง122.28(b) in the CAFO implementation guide.
The main objective of the permit is to regulate the nutrients discharged associated with land application, direct discharge and manure storage of the CAFO operation. Manure storage area includes but is not limited to lagoons, runoff ponds, storage sheds, stockpiles, under house or pit storages, liquid impoundments, static piles, and composting piles. If your facility does not have a manure management plan, it is likely that you do not have a permit, which might be necessary, depending upon your facility's size. For more information about obtaining a permit, contact the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE) at PHONE NUMBER
Anaerobic digestion may be an economically feasible solution for odor control, particularly when an agricultural producer is susceptible to a nuisance lawsuit. Producers who receive persistent or harsh complaints about farm odor should evaluate the feasibility of an anaerobic digester as a cost offset to a lawsuit. Poultry and swine producers, in particular, should strongly consider an anaerobic digestion system. Legal research shows that poultry and swine producers are particularly vulnerable to odor-related lawsuits. During interviews conducted by Keske (2009), both technology providers and agricultural operators affirmed that AD units effectively reduce agricultural odors that often prompt nuisance lawsuits. Work by Martin (2003) also notes that AD units can provide a measurable reduction in odor, in addition to playing a role in the management air emissions, water quality, and waste management. A summary of recent nuisance lawsuit awards and settlements are shown, below. The cases are ordered by year. Also listed are the states where the lawsuit was filed, case or plaintiff as available, and type of operation. The settlement and damage values (which include punitive damages) have not been corrected for inflation. The type of agricultural operation appears in the right hand column. It should be noted that the majority of cases are settled out of court and the financial data are not readily available.
The awards ranged from $12,100-$50,000,000. Seven of the ten reported cases involved swine operations. Two cases involving large awards were against the same owner of two Ohio egg production facilities. There was one example of a settlement to a Kansas cattle feedlot. Six of the documented cases occurred west of the Mississippi. In summary, a lawsuit could result in more millions in damages (including punitive damages). Off setting legal costs can make an anaerobic digestion project pay for itself. Poultry and swine operations should strongly consider anaerobic digestion systems as their operations appear vulnerable to lawsuits.
Claims Awarded in Nuisance Suits
Year
State
Award
Plaintiff/Case
Operation
1991
NE
$375,600
Kopecky v. National Farms, Inc.
Swine
1996
KS
$12,100
Settlement-plaintiff/respondent both undisclosed in news article.
Swine
1998
KS
$15,000
Twietmeyer v. Blocker.
Beef feedlot
1999
MO
$5,200,000
Vernon Hanes et al. v. Continental Grain Company
Swine
12001
OH
$19,182,483
Seelke et al. v. Buckeye Egg Farm, LLC and Pohlman
Egg/Poultry
2001
OH
$19,182,483
Seelke et al. v. Buckeye Egg Farm, LLC and Pohlman
Egg/Poultry
2002
IA
$33,065,000
Blass, McKnight, Henrickson, and langbein v. Iowa Select Farms
Swine
2004
OH
$50,000,000
Bear et al. v. Buckeye Egg Farm, Anton Pohlman and Croton Farms, LLC
Egg/Poultry
2006
AL
$100,000
Sierra Club, Jones, and Ivey v. Whitaker and Sons LLC
Swine
2006
MO
$4,500,000
Turner v. Premium Standard Farms Inc.; Contigroup Co., Inc.
Swine
2007
IL
$27,000
State of Illinois (Plaintiff). Respondent undisclosed.
