[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ECI - technology for turn
Lawrence London forwarded this advertisement for FPM technologies:
J> One Man's Sludge Is Another Man's Opportunity
I have some comments and questions, being marginally familiar with FPM
and comparable processes.
J> Suppose that the sewage sludge, manure, lawn and garden debris and
J> industrial and commercial food processing wastes now being generated
J> in your community were not going to the landfill but instead were the
J> basis of a valuable commodity, in demand worldwide.
>From what I have seen of the FPM process, which requires raw organics to
be shredded or otherwise mascerated to a point where it can be
pelletized, only sewage sludge is already size reduced sufficiently to
meet the FPM process specification. Lawn and garden debris in particular
are not only contain large particle sizes, they are also full of
contaminants such as glass, plastics, and other inert debris. Again,
these items do not shred or pelletize well.
Manures are again a potential problem depending on the presence of
bedding materials or debris from soil where the manures are scraped.
Bedding free material such as certain chicken manures might meet the FPM
process specification.
Commercial food processing residues are a case by case item depending on
the food being processed, its moisture content, and other factors. Most
of these items are currently land applied or sold as animal feeds. They
are not a significant liability. Virtually none of the items listed are
being landfilled. Yard trimmings are now banned from landfilling in 27
states. FPM is competing with composting, not landfilling.
J> We at ECI are pleased to report that a new process that manufactures a
J> high quality fertilizer from a variety of organic waste streams is now
J> available to waste generators, both industrial and municipal. Our
J> friends at FPM Corp. are making a silk purse of 5-5-5 NPK fertilizer
J> out of sewage sludge, manures, and other organic waste feedstocks (a
J> sow's ear if ever I heard of one).
Aside from the appreciated humor, the actual substance of the FPM
methodology is that they are using organic matter as a "carrier medium"
for delivering synthetic fertilizer. A comparable technology to pelletize
organic debris would cost much less than FPM's system. The only "bell and
whistle" I see in their process is that they add chemical NPK in the
pelletizing process. I am yet to be convinced that farmers will pay a
premium for chemical fertilizer when compared to applying organic matter
and chemicals separately. I have yet to see a farm that will pay for the
value of pelletizing organic materials. What value is a pellet versus a
raw organic matter or a compost?
J> rebuilds the soil for many seasons to come. In most cases, the 5-5-5
J> NPK fertilizers provide higher yields than chemical fertilizers with
J> concentrations as high as 15-15-15. The superiority of the EOF is most
J> pronounced after several seasons or crop rotations allow soil
J> redevelopment.
This value is dubious compared to applying the chemical and organic
materials separately. I assert that applying organic matter alone without
pelletizing will yield equal, if not better, value. What is there about
the FPM process that adds value to either the organic matter or to the
NPK pelletized together that is not there in the two materials alone? I
say there is none. The "secret FPM formula" sounds like snake oil to me.
J> prospective plant owner/operators. Approximately $4 million is
J> required to develop a facility for processing 300 tons of organic
J> waste per day--about half the waste stream of a city of 300,000
J> people; this compares favorably to other competing capital programs.
These capital costs do not include the shredders and bulk storage
areas required to prepare the material for FPM pelletizing. These costs
assume that the material is already conditioned for pelletizing, such as
as thickened sewage sludge. FPM is not a solid waste management system.
It is a sludge pelletizing technology. As such, its capital costs do not
compare favorably with other material handling systems.
Sludge pelletizing is a viable alternative to composting, it is true.
Adding chemical NPK in the pelletizing process may improve the
marketability of the sludge in certain bio-regions. The question is
whether the FPM pelletizer and their "royalty" and "per ton" magic
formula is worth the operating cost versus purchasing a competing
pelletizer.
J> There are two main sources of revenue. Comparable fertilizers (based
J> on equivalent plant yield and soil amendment) sell at wholesale for
J> $150 to $200 per ton and at retail for up to $750 per ton. Waste
J> generators in the USA pay from $10 to $150 per ton to dispose of waste
J> materials that are suitable for the process. Production costs are low.
Production costs are low! Low compared to what? In the FPM or other
pelletizing system, a 20% solids feedstock is dewatered via oil or gas
heat to at least 90% solids. That is a lot of $$$ up in steam, upwards of
$60 per ton. The wear factor on the pellet dies is far greater than the
few dollars per ton (no cost at all in one pro-forma I saw) that FPM
claims in their literature. I know, I have run pelletizers and anticipate
die replacement costs over $20 per ton. This of course assumes that there
are no shredding stages that will have hammer replacement costs in the
$20 to $40 per ton range, if there is a shredder made that can even grind
fine enough to feed the FPM pelletizer.
Pelletizing biomass may have a place IF there is no room to stockpile a
semi liquid sludge, IF there is a seasonal summer or winter market for
organic matter where organics can not otherwise be spread directly on
land in a raw or semi treated stage, and IF there is a buyer for the
pellets who will pay a premium for the organic matter and for the
chemical combined, plus the cost of the FPM foo foo dust.
Turfgrass buyers for example, do not want the large FPM horse pellet,
which is over 1/2" in diameter and 2" long. It will just sit there on
the surface looking like a dog turd. They want a smaller pellet more the
size of a rabbit pellet. The FPM process can make such a fine pellet,
but you can add an additional $30 per ton in die wear cost to make it so
small, if the feedstock is sufficiently fine in its original condition.
Will a turf buyer pay the equivalent of $150 per ton for an organic
matter pellet (aside from the NPK value)? I don't think so when a fine
screened compost will sell for under $40 per ton.
One other point that FPM fails to mention is that their organic matter is
not in the least bit "treated" regarding organic nitrogen or carbon
conversion. True, the pelletizing and heating process sterilizes the
material, killing weeds and pathogens. But the organic nitrogen is still
unstable and does not meet the new EPA 503 stability rules for
unrestricted distribution. This means that the sewage facility will have
to permit every land application site for their sludge product, and the
premium markets they are looking for will vanish. Or they will have to
compost their material first, which suggests a double stage capital and
processing system.
Since the FPM process must market its hardware and "magic formula" mostly
to sewage facilities, the finished product will still be a "sludge". Even
calling it the new term "bio-solids" will not assist the utility in
eliminating the unfortunate stigma, or at least not enough in my opinion,
to recoup the value which is promised from using the FPM methodology.
My recommendation is that biosolids managers and waste treatment facility
officials should look into the new generation of enclosed,
containerized, composting systems that use temperature feedback, oxygen
sensing, and biofiltration of process air. These emerging technologies
will produce a consistent, stable, and stockpile-friendly compost. Five
ton per day facilities start at $300K with 120 TPD operations in the 2
million dollar range.
E-mail me for more information before you get yourself involved with
a questionable pelletizing system.
Mr Compost~~~
Jim~ McNelly
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
* RM 1.3 02460 * What profit to gain the world and lose your soil?
------------------============<>=============-----------------
Granite City Connection (612) 654-8372 28.8K 3 Lines
Email: jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
------------------============<>=============-----------------