Feasibility of an Integrated Poultry and Ethanol Production System in North Alabama

1
Feasibility of an Integrated Poultry and Ethanol
Production System in North Alabama

• Project Rationale and Description

2
Goals for North Alabama

• An economical alternative to local land
  application of poultry litter--remove water
  quality constraints on retention and further
  growth of the poultry industry
• A new corn-ethanol industry in north Alabama

3
Feasibility Study

• One of 19 out of 400 projects funded in 2003
  USDA/DOE bioenergy solicitation
• Matching funds from
• TVA PPI
• TVA Resource Stewardship
• Poultry Water Quality Consortium
• In-kind support
• TVA Economic Development

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
Potential Solutions for P Surpluses

• Reduce P imports and excretion--feed management
  (partial solution)
• Export unprocessed poultry litter (requires
  subsidies logistical limitations)
• Export value-added organic products (low-volume
  markets)
• Produce process heat and/or electricity
• Export ash nutrients for use in fertilizers
• Reduce P imports by using ash as P feed
  supplement
• (Large-vol., year-round, non-subsidized market
  for poultry litter)

7
Process Heat from PL hasFavorable Economics, If

• Ash value offsets delivered PL feedstock cost
• Ash value gt PL cleanout and transportation costs
• Large continuous demand for process heat (replace
  natural gas)
• Promising option New corn/ethanol plant
• Southeastern corn/ethanol plants already proposed
  
• MTBE phase-out
• Expect Renewable Fuels Standard (2.7 to 5.0
  billion gallons)
• State incentives

8
Integrated Poultry and Ethanol Production

SE U.S.
Markets
DDGS 128 K tons
Carbon Dioxide
Corn 15 M bu
Ethanol 40 M gal
Carbon Dioxide
Poultry Litter 178 K tons
Steam
Hot Air
6.5 of feed
Ash 26 K tons
Poultry Feed
1/2
Meat
35 of PL
of P supp.
Fertilizer
9
Win-Win for All Participants

• Poultry growerseconomical, non-subsidized,
  alternative use for poultry litter
• Poultry integrators
• Lower feed and carbon dioxide costs
• Non-subsidized alternative use for poultry litter
  (no ownership but vested interest)
• Ethanol producers
• Lower and more stable energy costs vs. natural
  gasLower ethanol transportation costseastern
  U.S.
• Local DDGS market
• Local CO2 market
• Above advantages more than offset higher corn
  costs
• IPEP ethanol competitive with regular octane
  gasoline in SE US(10 ethanol blend sold as
  medium octane grade)
• Thermal energy providers
• Large continuous demand for thermal energy
• Ash nutrient value offsets fuel cost
• Potential local ash market as mineral feed
  supplement

10
Objective

• Assess technical, economic, and environmental
  feasibility of vs.
• Traditional stand-alone corn/ethanol plants
• Other alternative uses of poultry litter

11
Expected Outcome

• Provide documentation required to1. Develop
  business plans2. Acquire financing to
  commercialize -----------------------------------
  ---------------------------
• Facilitate commercializationSE U.S.
• Improve economic and environmental performance
• Poultry production
• Corn/ethanol production

12
Responsibilities for Core Tasks

• Sparks Companies, Inc. vs. traditional
  corn/ethanol
• Energy Products of IdahoFluid bed combustion of
  PL
• TVAPoultry litter ash use in fertilizers
• Auburn Poultry SciencePoultry litter ash use as
  a mineral supplement (feeding trials) DDGS use
  in poultry diets
• Tennessee Valley RCDPoultry litter supplies and
  prices

13
Responsibilities for Coordination/Integration

• TVA
• Technical project coordination
• Transportation costing
• Overall economics
• Life-cycle analysisGHG, energy
• IPEP vs. other poultry litter alternative uses
• TR Miles Technical Consultants, Inc.
• Prime contractorfinancial administration/bio-ener
  gy consulting
• Poultry litter and ash handling and storage
• Carbon dioxide capture and clean-up from ethanol
  fermentation