Fliegl Okodry and/or Stronga Flowdrya

[Whynot]

Good luck trying to get a deal sorted with Alvan Blanch. We tried TWICE to Buy British, but couldn't even get a quote
We've got 2 NewEcotec dryers and couldn't praise them enough. They are both belt driers, as well as using a drying floor. We have a contract to dry wood chip for a third party, but have also dried Maize for bedding, digestate, paper mulch as well as currently drying wheat.
They are made by a company near Munich, just down the road from Fliegl. They've also treated us to a visit to the Oktoberfest!!
Please contact me for any info and welcome for people to visit.

 

[woodworm]

Good luck trying to get a deal sorted with Alvan Blanch. We tried TWICE to Buy British, but couldn't even get a quote
We've got 2 NewEcotec dryers and couldn't praise them enough. They are both belt driers, as well as using a drying floor. We have a contract to dry wood chip for a third party, but have also dried Maize for bedding, digestate, paper mulch as well as currently drying wheat.
They are made by a company near Munich, just down the road from Fliegl. They've also treated us to a visit to the Oktoberfest!!
Please contact me for any info and welcome for people to visit.

Your not the only one I can promise you.
I've heard very good reports about the New ecotec dryers but never seen one in operation.

 

[Whynot]

Your not the only one I can promise you.
I've heard very good reports about the New ecotec dryers but never seen one in operation.

Currently putting wheat through one of our dryers and the flexibility is one of the big plus points.
We're also adding Nitrogen capture to the emmisions of our main dryer. We should be capturing the equivalent or circa 100t of Nitram a year.

 

[DGC1]

Why not look a the Nutrient value benefit and just spread to land ?

Seems to me with the removal of any RHI, drying digestate is a waste of good heat.

In addition, what about the cost of dealing with the emissions from the dryer under the latest regulations ? How much is the additional cost ?

local AD plant dries the pressed fibre on new-ecotec and then this beds the LARGE dairy herd. once spent the p&k nutrient gets spread back to land via the dung/slurry
they have lower cell counts on the dried digestate than they have ever had before on sawdust or sand... mainly down to liberal use of it and drying it properly
the digestate has low N and even if spread through vertical beater this N would be mostly lost so drying not that much different and especially if you count in that sawdust has a Co2 footprint when bought in.
I agree that drying digestate is not a great thing to do across the board but the above setup makes it work very well for them and its sustainable in my opinion.
it doesn't work for us here as we have no use for the end dried product and I think pelletizing it properly is too energy / capex hungry.

there should be reward for ad companies who want to invest properly in reducing liquid volume and doing it efficiently and unreward those who are simply heating up digestate or sheds for the purpose of claiming the rhi.
without support and investment proper r&d has stalled greatly over the last year into the age old issue of dealing with the liquid volume

 

[Digester Man]

I can see a bit of merit in drying digestate if you plan to pellitise it for sale but I have yet to hear of anyone actually doing it..

 

[DGC1]

as far as I know some have tried to burn it recently in raw in loose format but cant get it to pass emissions tests so they are now looking at pelleting or briquetting it to put back through the same walking floor boilers.
I don't know enough about pelleting or briquetting but the process is too energy hungry to make the figures stack up.
I do think that the irish chicken litter fluid bed burner has a good chance of burning it in raw format and passing the emissions testing but its mega money @ +£1m + orc capex to setup and I just don't see any payback on that sort of capex- all risk.
--
also depend what fibre is in the end digestate, a high rye diet and it will have good calorific value vs foot waste digestate that would be pointless trying

 

[thesilentone]

Most AD plants deliver over 90% of what went in the front end, out of the back end. In most cases this is valuable organic fertilizer, and should be utilised as such.

Why would you briquett perfectly good digestate fertilizer ?
Why would you dry digestate ?
Why use it as bedding ?
Why would you burn digestate ?

High bactoscans are caused by muck, or contaminated bedding, drying digestate is not the solution!!

In Countries where a District heating system exists, the generation of heat is put to good use, mainly reducing household bills and many systems to generate heat are used, however, we have no district heating systems, so why bother ?

Creating a system to simply claim RHI is counter productive.

The AD story is sustainable, however this must include re-cycling the nutrient.

There are exceptions, mainly large food-waste plants with no land bank.

 

[Fowler VF]

Not sure how much of the NPK is in the solids, since its all been immersed in the tank for weeks I would have thought most of it was in the liquid?

In terms of briquetting the digestate I have just taken delivery of a small unit for briquetting wood fines to go into a biomass boiler. Works fantastically, and have seen it used on dried digestate in Germany. Its a small machine, only does about 50kg an hour, but its surprising what that adds up to over a year, but doesn't use much power, 5kw motor only, probably not all used either. Produces a sort of 40mm diameter by 30mm thick "puck", ideal for a G30 chip boiler. Was about £25k, but my thought was 400 tonnes a year of "free" fuel from what is otherwise a problem material, so well worth the cost. Same might apply to digestate?

 

[thesilentone]

The Nutrient in the storage tank is still the same as what went in at the front end. However, if the tank and or lagoon is not roofed, then most of the N may be lost to evaporation.

If a separator is used, most of the N (not all) follows the liquid, most of the P&K follows the solids.

 

[DGC1]

hi fowler vf
what dm are the wood fines at that you are pucking?
one main issue with the digestate fibre was that you were having to dry it from 35% dm to almost 86% dm before the commercial puck machines would handle it- and then they were very power hungry

 

[thesilentone]

Not sure how much of the NPK is in the solids, since its all been immersed in the tank for weeks I would have thought most of it was in the liquid?

In terms of briquetting the digestate I have just taken delivery of a small unit for briquetting wood fines to go into a biomass boiler. Works fantastically, and have seen it used on dried digestate in Germany. Its a small machine, only does about 50kg an hour, but its surprising what that adds up to over a year, but doesn't use much power, 5kw motor only, probably not all used either. Produces a sort of 40mm diameter by 30mm thick "puck", ideal for a G30 chip boiler. Was about £25k, but my thought was 400 tonnes a year of "free" fuel from what is otherwise a problem material, so well worth the cost. Same might apply to digestate?

Your free fuel is costing close to £100.00/week.

 

[DGC1]

Most AD plants deliver over 90% of what went in the front end, out of the back end. In most cases this is valuable organic fertilizer, and should be utilised as such.
AGREE 100%

Why would you briquett perfectly good digestate fertilizer?
SOME MAY SAY WHY CHIP PERFECTLY GOOD TIMBER TO CREATE WOODCHIP!!

Why would you dry digestate ?
Why use it as bedding ?
High bactoscans are caused by muck, or contaminated bedding, drying digestate is not the solution!!
THE LOCAL DAIRY FARM MAKES IT WORK VERY WELL AND THEIR CELL COUNTS ARE LOWER THAN THEY HAVE EVER BEEN- KEY IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DRIED PROPERLY AND THE RIGHT TYPE OF DIGESTATE NEEDS TO BE DRIED.
BIG BIG SAVING ON SAWDUST COST WHEN MILK PRICE WAS ON ITS KNEES

Why would you burn digestate ?
IF THERE IS A USE FOR THE HEAT THATS SUSTAINABLE THEN IT COULD BE BETTER THAN IMPORTING WOODCHIPS
DONT THINK THAT THERE WILL EVER BE A CASE WHERE THERE IS A HIGH AMOUNT OF FIBRE BURNT


In Countries where a District heating system exists, the generation of heat is put to good use, mainly reducing household bills and many systems to generate heat are used, however, we have no district heating systems, so why bother ?

Creating a system to simply claim RHI is counter productive.
THAT UP TO THE RULE MAKERS TO SORT THAT OUT BUT IT SHOULD BE READ WITH THE BELLOW POINT

The AD story is sustainable, however this must include re-cycling the nutrient.
WE DONT GET ANY REWARD FOR APPLYING IT BACK TO THE SURROUNDING LAND THAT THE CROP HAS CAME FROM. ON THE CONVERSE, WE DONT GET PENALISED FOR HAULING IT HUGE DISTANCES - ITS ALL WRONG!
GRASS STRUGGLES TO MEET SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA GOING INTO G2G PLANTS (IF IT PASSES) YET MAIZE AND RYE PASS WITH BAGGED NPK WITH NO LINK TO DIGESTATE APPLICATION - THEY HAVE MADE A REAL PIGS EAR OF THE RULES.

There are exceptions, mainly large food-waste plants with no land bank.
THESE FOOD WASTE PLANTS DONT GET ANY REWARD TO HAUL THE DIGESTATE OUT LOCAL AND MANY ARE HAULING IT HUGE DISTANCES AND SOME ARE AT TIMES OF THE YEAR SENDING IT TO SEA OUTFALLS AFTER 'PROCESSING'
THE RULE MAKERS SHOULD SORT THIS OUT

THE RULE MAKERS ARE THOSE WHO DRIVE FARMERS, AD OPERATORS AND BIOMAS BOILER OPERATORS TOWARDS DOING STUFF THATS NOT SUSTAINABLE BY OFFERING SUPPORT IN THE WRONG DIRECTION WHEN THEY HAVE IGNORED THE BIGGEST BASIC, AS YOU SAY 90% OF WHAT GOES IN MUST COME OUT!

 

[thesilentone]

We must re-cycle the nutrient, or we lose the argument. The objective with all renewable project financial support is to make them sufficiently profitable that we attract City money - and no more !!
Early adopters always do well, they get the market moving.
However, the tax payer pays, therefore we can be turned on and off as Government see's fit, hair-brained schemes to exploit the tax payer run the risk of killing us all off !!
Some of the wording above is surprising, such as: "WE DONT GET ANY REWARD FOR APPLYING IT BACK TO THE SURROUNDING LAND THAT THE CROP HAS CAME FROM."

...and what reward did you have in mind, a knighthood, or maybe an OBE ?

I assume:

a) Improved soil structure and conditions
b) Reduced pollution in our watercourse.
c) Hugh carbon reduction by off-setting chemical N
d) Huge financial saving by reducing chemical N
e) Long-term sustainability
f) Organic credentials
g) Profitable.....

are insufficient reward..........................

 

[DGC1]

hi
you assume correctly.... in an ideal world....
BUT
in the real world....
if you assume that the AD plant is not the farmer/grower of the crop..... an AD plant can sell its digestate to the highest bidder, whoever that may be, and this huge digestate tonnage can then travel for example 50-100km and on its way, pass many farms that could make full use of it.
OR
it may not even go back to agriculture at all!

I'm maybe wording it wrongly but what I'm trying to say is the sustainability system does not reward AD for using it locally and conversely it does not penalise for hauling it long distances.
reward/penalty/incentive/rules- whatever way its worded the rule makers have got it wrong.

as the rules are written, ad plants can grow/get all of their crop requirements solely using bagged npk and zero digestate use, hauling crop in from far & wide from one direction and the digestate can and does get hauled far and wide in the other direction and never the two shall meet!

many ad plants loose custody of the digestate the minute the tanker leaves the plant gates and this digestate is then the custody of an agent who can hawk it to whoevers so the reality is that there is ZERO link between ad feedstock and the plants digestate

in some areas there is the perverse situation where digestate is being hauled 50km towards another ad plant and spread on its surrounding lands yet Ad plant 2 is hauling its digestate back into the AD plant 1's footprint and then even more perverse is that most of it is being spread onto livestock lands that have nothing to do with the AD plant cycle

imo there should be base rules in place that digestate should be used within say a 30km radius of the plant at all times throughout the year and if hauled further there should be a financial or co2 burden.
this would force farmers and ad plants into investing in proper digestate storage and in each others relationships.
the overall sustainability of the entire industry would benefit.

so no OBE's required.... just a good measure of common sense mixed with reality is needing dosed to the rule makers!

 

[Fowler VF]

Your free fuel is costing close to £100.00/week.

Probably true. But then again I am replacing 400 tonnes a year of bought in dry wood chip, costing me £700/week, and earning a lot more than that from burning it in an RHI registered boiler. Raw material for the pucks is otherwise a problem material with little or no value and sometimes even a cost of disposal.

hi fowler vf
what dm are the wood fines at that you are pucking?
one main issue with the digestate fibre was that you were having to dry it from 35% dm to almost 86% dm before the commercial puck machines would handle it- and then they were very power hungry

Still need to be that 86% or less on the dm. You just cant beat the physics of briquetting! The machine we have is a lower power user than most and definitely a lot less than a pelleting machine. The original question was centred around the fact that some people have dry digestate (lets not go in to why they dried it in the first place!) and are then looking for something to do with it, probably to help with the argument as to why they dried it. I don't want to go into the politics of whether RHI administration is right, but it is what it is. So if you are looking for a reason to dry digestate, then you could make the argument that turning a stack of shitty fibre with little value into pucks of a fuel material that replaces expensive bought in wood chip is probably as good a reason as you might find.

 

[Fowler VF]

If a separator is used, most of the N (not all) follows the liquid, most of the P&K follows the solids.

You would probably find that if you dry the solids, briquette them and then burn the briquettes a high proportion of the P and K would most likely still be in the resulting ash, which can then be recycled back to land.

 

[thesilentone]

"as the rules are written, ad plants can grow/get all of their crop requirements solely using bagged npk and zero digestate use, hauling crop in from far & wide from one direction and the digestate can and does get hauled far and wide in the other direction and never the two shall meet"

Environmental permitting is in place to avoid this, unless of course you are willing to pay for a waste permit.

 

[DGC1]

"as the rules are written, ad plants can grow/get all of their crop requirements solely using bagged npk and zero digestate use, hauling crop in from far & wide from one direction and the digestate can and does get hauled far and wide in the other direction and never the two shall meet"

Environmental permitting is in place to avoid this, unless of course you are willing to pay for a waste permit.

sorry I don't follow.... agri plants in Scotland don't need enviro permits as long as no waste going into feedstock makeup.

 

[thesilentone]

Sadly Scotland is currently anti-digestate, or should I say the SNFU are.

A bad experience some years ago has set a bad rapport for the product, with the Quality Assurance Standards for spreading to land being restrictive. (led by the SNFU)

SEPA have been anything but helpful.