Sergio Capareda

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY USING BIOMASS FROM DAIRY AND BEEF ANIMAL PRODUCTION

The Texas Panhandle is regarded as the Cattle Feeding Capital of the World, producing 42% of the fed beef cattle in the United States within a 200-mile radius of Amarillo generating more than 5 million tons of feedlot manure/year. Apart from feedlots, the Bosque River Region in Erath County, just north of Waco, Texas with about 110,000 dairy cattle in over 250 dairies, produces 1.8 million tons of manure biomass (excreted plus bedding) per year. While the feedlot manure has been used extensively for irrigated and dry land crop production, most dairies, as well as other concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), the dairy farms utilize large lagoon areas to store wet animal biomass. Water runoff from these lagoons has been held responsible for the increased concentration of phosphorus and other contaminates in the Bosque River which drains into Lake Waco - the primary source of potable water for Wacos 108,500 people. The concentrated animal feeding operations may lead to land, water, and air pollution if waste handling systems and storage and treatment structures are not properly managed. Manure-based biomass (MBB) has the potential to be a source of green energy at large coal-fired power plants and on smaller-scale combustion systemsmorexa0» at or near confined animal feeding operations. Although MBB particularly cattle biomass (CB) is a low quality fuel with an inferior heat value compared to coal and other fossil fuels, the concentration of it at large animal feeding operations can make it a viable source of fuel. The overall objective of this interdisciplinary proposal is to develop environmentally benign technologies to convert low-value inventories of dairy and beef cattle biomass into renewable energy. Current research expands the suite of technologies by which cattle biomass (CB: manure, and premature mortalities) could serve as a renewable alternative to fossil fuel. The work falls into two broad categories of research and development. Category 1 - Renewable Energy Conversion. This category addressed mostly in volume I involves developing. Thermo-chemical conversion technologies including cofiring with coal, reburn to reduce nitrogen oxide (NO, N2O, NOx, etc.) and Hg emissions and gasification to produce low-BTU gas for on-site power production in order to extract energy from waste streams or renewable resources. Category 2 - Biomass Resource Technology. This category, addressed mostly in Volume II, deals with the efficient and cost-effective use of CB as a renewable energy source (e.g. through and via aqueous-phase, anaerobic digestion or biological gasification). The investigators formed an industrial advisory panel consisting fuel producers (feedlots and dairy farms) and fuel users (utilities), periodically met with them, and presented the research results; apart from serving as dissemination forum, the PIs used their critique to red-direct the research within the scope of the tasks. The final report for the 5 to 7 year project performed by an interdisciplinary team of 9 professors is arranged in three volumes: Vol. I (edited by Kalyan Annamalai) addressing thermo-chemical conversion and direct combustion under Category 1 and Vol. II and Vol. III ( edited by J M Sweeten) addressing biomass resource Technology under Category 2. Various tasks and sub-tasks addressed in Volume I were performed by the Department of Mechanical Engineering (a part of TEES; see Volume I), while other tasks and sub-tasks addressed in Volume II and IIII were conducted by Texas AgriLife Research at Amarillo; the TAMU Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department (BAEN) College Station; and West Texas A and M University (WTAMU) (Volumes II and III). The three volume report covers the following results: fuel properties of low ash and high ash CB (particularly DB) and MB (mortality biomass) and coals, non-intrusive visible infrared (NVIR) spectroscopy techniques for ash determination, dairy energy use surveys at 14 dairies in Texas and California, cofiring of low quality CB with high quality coal, emission results and ash fouling behavior, using CB as reburn fuel for NOx and Hg reduction, gasification of fuels to produce low quality gases, modeling of reburn, pilot scale test results, synthesis of engineering characterization, geographical mapping, a transportation cost study to determine potential handling and transportation systems for co-firing with coal at regional coal-fired power plants, software analyses for the design of off-site manure, pre-processing and storage systems for a typical dairy farm or beef cattle feedlot, recursive production functions/systems models for both cattle feedlots, systems modeling, stocks and flows of energy involved in the CAFO system, feedback from an Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) to the investigators on project direction and task emphasis and economics of using CB as cofiring and reburn fuel.«xa0less

Benefits of Onsite Gasification of Cotton Gin Trash for Power Production at Cotton Gins

The decision by the EPA to regulate green house gases (GHG) and to significantly reduce GHG emissions from coal fired power plants (CFPP), will likely result in reduced availability of electricity in the near future. The technology exists to produce electricity from power plants fueled with cotton gin trash (CGT). The utilization of excess cotton biomass (CGT) as the fuel to produce useable energy with a gasification-based conversion technology is not new. Cotton gins will realize immediate benefits from the use of CGT to fuel on-site power plants through gasification. Gins will become a source of reliable electricity and heat energy during the ginning season and beyond. The expense of CGT disposal will be eliminated and replaced with additional revenue streams from the gasification process. Biochar produced as a byproduct of gasification may be sold as a commodity or value-added product. Excess electricity produced at the gin can be sold back to the grid to generate additional revenue. Renewable energy benefits may result in additional savings and benefits. Credits for green energy and carbon sequestration may also contribute to the cotton gin’s revenue stream.

Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in Dairy and Cattle Feedyard Operations

A protocol that consisted of an isolation flux chamber and a portable gas chromatograph was used to directly quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a dairy and a feedyard operation in the Texas Panhandle. Field sampling campaigns were performed 5 days in a week during daylight hours from 9:00 to 7:00 pm each day. The objective of this research was to quantify and compare GHG emission rates (ERs) from ground level area sources (GLAS) at dairy and cattle feedyard operations during the summer. A total of 74 air samples using flux chamber were collected from the barn (manure lane and bedding area), loafing pen, open lot, settling basin, lagoons, and compost pile within the dairy operation. For the cattle feedyard, a total of 87 air samples were collected from four corner pens of a large feedlot, runoff holding pond, and compost pile. Three primary GHGs (methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide) were measured and quantified from both operations. The aggregate estimated ERs for CH4, CO2, and N2O were 836, 5,573, 3.4 g hd-1d-1 (collectively 27.5 kg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) hd-1 d-1), respectively, at the dairy operation. The aggregate ERs for CH4, CO2, and N2O were 3.8, 1,399, 0.68 g hd-1d-1 (1.7 kg CO2e hd-1 d-1), respectively, from the feedyard. Aggregate CH4, CO2, and N2O ERs at the dairy facility were about 219, 4 and 5 times higher, respectively, than those at the feedyard.

Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds from Ground Level Area Sources in a Dairy Operation using Isolation Flux Chamber

Phenol and p-cresol were the most abundant and persistent odor-causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found downwind from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), while more than 200 VOCs contribute to odor. The VOC emissions from cattle and dairy production are difficult to quantify accurately because of their low concentrations, spatial variability, and the lack of appropriate instruments. To quantify two odorous VOCs, a new protocol similar to EPA method TO-14A, has been established based on the isolation flux chamber method and the use of portable gas chromatographs coupled with a purge and trap system. The objective of this research was to quantify and report phenol and p-cresol emission factors (EFs) from different ground level area sources (GLASs) in a free-stall dairy using the new protocol. Two week-long samplings were conducted in a dairy operation in Central Texas during winter and summer. Twenty nine and 37 samples were collected from six-specifically delineated GLAS (barn, loafing pen, lagoon, settling basin, silage pile, and walkway) in a free-stall dairy during the winter and summer. Thirteen VOCs were identified from a dairy operation during the sampling period, and the gas chromatograph (GC) was calibrated for phenol and p-cresol, the primary compounds found. The overall calculated EFs for phenol and p-cresol were 0.97±0.27 and 0.28±0.08 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively, in winter. Overall calculated phenol and p-cresol EFs were 0.43±0.13 and 0.2±0.08 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively, during summer. Overall phenol and p-cresol EFs in the winter were about 2.3 and 1.4 times, respectively, higher than those during the summer.

Direct Measurements of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in a Dairy Operation

A new protocol similar to EPA method TO-14A was used to quantify and report variations in greenhouse (GHG) emissions from different ground level area sources (GLAS) in a free-stall dairy in central Texas during summer and winter. A week-long sampling was performed during each season. Seventy five and 66 chromatograms of air samples were acquired from six delineated GLAS (loafing pen, walkway, barn, silage pile, settling basin and lagoon) of the same dairy during summer and winter, respectively. Three primary GHGs were identified from the dairy operation during sampling period and the gas chromatograph (GC) was calibrated for methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide N2O. Estimated overall emission factors (EFs) for CH4, CO2 and N2O during summer for this dairy were, 100, 2192, 2.9 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively. In winter, estimated overall EFs for CH4, CO2 and N2O for this dairy were, 19, 2726, 1.3 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively. Overall CH4 and N2O EFs in summer were about 5.2 and 2.2 times higher than those in winter for this free-stall dairy. This seasonal variation was due to ambient temperature, dairy waste loading rates, and manure microbial activity of GLAS.

Measurements of Volatile Organic Compound and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ground Level Area Sources in a Beef Feedyard using Isolation Flux Chamber

A new protocol similar to EPA method TO-14A was used to quantify and report variations in odorous volatile organic compound (VOC) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from different ground level area sources (GLAS) namely feedlot, compost piles and lagoon in a beef feedyard in Texas Panhandle. The objective of this study was to measure gas concentrations and estimate emission factors (EFs) of phenol, p-cresol, methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) from this beef feedyard operation. A week-long sampling was conducted and a total of 46 VOCs and 83 GHGs were sampled simultaneously from different GLAS. Thirteen VOCs were identified during sampling period and the gas chromatograph (GC) was calibrated for phenol and p-cresol, the primary compounds found. The GHG GC was calibrated for CH4, CO2, and nitrous oxide (N2O). In the beef feedyard, average measured concentrations of phenol and p-cresol in four corners of the feedlot ranged from 56 to 300 ppbv and 14 to 76 ppbv, respectively. Measured average concentrations for CH4 and CO2 in four pens ranged from 3.6 to 39.6 ppmv and 561 to 626 ppmv, respectively. Average phenol EFs were 0.131±0.111, 0.005±0.002, and 0.001±0.000 kg hd-1 yr-1 from feedlot, compost piles, and lagoon, respectively. Estimated average p-cresol EFs were 0.045±0.036, 0.002±0.001, and 0.0002±0.00004 kg hd-1 yr-1 from feedlot, compost piles, and lagoon, respectively. The overall estimated EFs for phenol and p-cresol were 0.137±0.113 and 0.047±0.037 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively, during summer. The feedlot alone contributed about 95% of the overall phenol and p-cresol emissions for this feedyard. The overall estimated CH4 and CO2 EFs were 2.18±2.98 and 386±157 kg hd-1 yr-1, respectively. During summer, the feedlot alone contributed about 73% and 82% of the overall CH4 and CO2 emissions from this feedyard.

Put Your Title Here Using Capital and Lowercase Letters

A survey of 14 dairies in Texas and California was conducted to determine their total energy use on an annual basis. The goal of the survey was to evaluate the effect of production and management processes on energy consumption. The total energy used on facilities varied widely with the type of operation; e.g., pasture, open lot, or hybrid (a combination of open-lots and free-stall) systems, as well as with the relative age of the facility. The on-farm energy supply sources included electricity, gasoline, diesel, propane, and natural gas. Total energy usage ranged from as low as 464 kWh per year per animal (kWh/yr·a) for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas, to as high as 1,637 kWh/yr·a for a hybrid facility in Central Texas. The electricity usage at the dairies was allocated to four main energy sinks, the milking parlor, the animal housing areas, feeding, and waste management, where possible. Generally, milking and housing components dominated the electrical usage for hybrid dairies with the milking parlor being the primary consumer of energy for the open- lot facilities.

System Responses of Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Measurement Equipment

System response analysis was performed on a chemiluminescence ammonia analyzer, a npulsed florescence hydrogen sulfide analyzer, and tubing used with flux chamber measurement. nSystem responses were measured and evaluated using transfer functions. System responses must nbe taken into account so that data collected is not skewed up or down, causing measurements to be nin error. By taking instrument response into account, an estimate of the true value may be obtained. nThis paper discusses an application of system response analysis to gaseous emission measurement nequipment. The system responses for the analyzers were found to be first order with delay and ndependent on the averaging time and gas input. The tubing response was found to be a first order nresponse with delay.