AUDIO: Greenhouse gas reductions by dairies may be thwarted

MODESTO
July 22, 2008 12:01am

John Fiscalini knows how to make cheese. He’s still learning how to deal with government agencies that seem at odds with each other.

That learning has cost him about $3 million and the meter is still running.

The Central Valley businessman owns Fiscalini Cheese Co. of Modesto, part of Fiscalini Farms where some 1,500 cows are milked for the cheese making operation.

He’s about 80 percent through a project to build a system that will convert the cows’ manure into methane gas that he plans to use to run an engine to make electricity and heat for the farm and dairy. If it works as planned, the entire operation could be self-sustaining, he says.

But it’s one thing to install the state of the art methane digesters. It’s another to get the local air pollution district to approve it. Mr. Fiscalini says the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District pulled the rug out from under him.

“After we had spent a million dollars in down payments on engines and parts to this thing, they changed their mind as to what was really the source of the problem and they decided that while methane was a contributor to greenhouse gas (it) was not the bad guy they thought,” says Mr. Fiscalini. “The bad guy is now NOx or nitrous oxide.”

(Mr. Fiscalini outlines the issue from his point of view in today’s CVBT Audio Interview. Please click on the link below to listen or to download the MP3 audio file to your computer or iPod.)

Mr. Fiscalini’s new lean-burning methane-fueled engine built by Grupo Guascor of Spain is due any day, to be mounted on a large concrete pad just north of the digesters, which are in the last stages of construction

Mr. Fiscalini says he thought he was acting in the best environmental interest in using the manure to make gas instead of spreading it out on farm fields. As manure decomposes, it creates methane that rises into the air, something thought to be a contributing factor to global warming.

“If the dairy industry was in fact a major source of air pollution, I wanted to be one of the people that would help resolve the problem,” he says.

But the project, partially funded with a $720,000 grant from the California Energy Commission because it will reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, may never be turned on since the Guascor engine emits about 30 parts per million of NOx – nitrogen oxides, a component of smog.

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District has mandated that no more than nine parts per million is permissible.

Mr. Fiscalini says he know of no engine in the world that can meet that standard.

“We are afraid that we will not be able to meet the expectation that they have because it appears to be completely unachievable,” he says. “There are no engines out there that have been reported to meet the 9 parts per million of NOx that anyone is aware of.”

The air pollution police, however, point to the Joseph Farms company of Atwater, which said it could meet the standard and was given a permit. But while subsequent tests have failed to show compliance, the air district says the standard is the standard. The system is operating with a variance from the air district.

Adding to the problem are the terms of the grant from the California Energy Commission.

“That grant was specifically to build a digester that used an internal combustion engine to make electricity,” says Mr. Fiscalini. “So, I’ve got one agency in California saying we want to give you money to help you with a specific project and another agency saying we don’t want you to build this project at all.”

The problem with using biogas such as manure-derived methane is that it contains a contaminant, hydrogen sulfide, explains Dave Mitchell, an air quality expert with environmental consultancy Michael Brandman Associates of Fresno.

Eliminating hydrogen sulfide is a costly process, he says.

Installing the emissions control equipment to meet the air district’s 9 ppm standard would add $500,000 or more to the cost of constructing new methane digesters, says the group Sustainable Conservation of San Francisco.

Using methane instead for fuel cells or micro turbines also comes with a high cost and unproven technology, says Mr. Mitchell, although in theory it would be cleaner than using it to power an internal combustion engine.

Mr. Fiscalini’s problem may presage a massive problem for all of California’s more than 2,300 dairies and their 1.7 million cows that produce 120 pounds of waste per day -- each.

If methane digesters were installed on all California dairies, they could trap 450,000 tons of methane a year, which is equivalent to taking 2 million cars off the road, according to estimates from Sustainable Conservation.

Dave Warner, director of permit services for the air district, recently told the Modesto Bee newspaper that it is studying why new engines are having trouble meeting the 9 ppm standard.

Mr. Warner told the Bee that the limit has to stay in place to help clean up the region’s air.

But with dairy operators caught between the air district staying its course in an effort to reduce smog, and the prospect of costs becoming unaffordable, chances of widespread use of methane digesters seem clouded.

“Already, half a dozen projects in the pipeline have stalled because of the air district’s stance,” says Sustainable Conservation.

For Mr. Fiscalini, it’s more than dollars on a spreadsheet or statistics. It’s personal.

“They have been less than cordial,” he says of the air board.

“They have told me that economic problems or concerns on my part have nothing to do with their need to enforce the rules, that the air in the Valley needs to be cleaned up … and if it costs me an extra million dollars to comply, they really don’t care,” Mr. Fiscalini says.

“I believe that if they drove all of agriculture and all of business out of the Central Valley, they would feel that they had accomplished their mission by cleaning up the air,” he says.

The air district is currently evaluating its standard of 9 parts per million for NOx gas following the failure of maintain the standard by the equipment in use at Joseph Farms, says Sheraz Gill, supervising air quality engineer for the air district.

Joseph Farms had met the standard in one or two tests, Mr. Gill says, but subsequently was unable to maintain it.

Because the standard was met, albeit briefly, it has become the benchmark all other new, non-mobile, biogas-fueled machines must meet, he says.

“Obviously the control can be met,” he says.

Mr. Gill says it requires catalytic reduction with a sulfur removal system, which “is a little more costly.”

Existing engines burning biogas need only meet a standards of 90-150 parts per million.

Mr. Gill disputes Mr. Fiscalini’s contention that the standard was tightened only after construction began on the Fiscalini system.

“We had multiple, multiple meetings ands discussions,” he says. “We didn’t change it after” the permit to build the facility was issued, he says. “It was issued with 9 parts per million.”

The air district is studying the failure of the Gallo machinery to maintain the 9 ppm standard and could revisit the issue if it’s determined that the standard cannot be met.

“NOx is the driving factor. It is more important to us for public health for the Valley,” Mr. Gill says. “We definitely want to help with greenhouse gas reductions but not at the expense of NOx.”