RALEIGH -- Technology to convert animal waste to energy is available, and policies are in place to encourage its implementation. However, progress has been delayed -- and for reasons that may not be based on objective considerations.
Consider the following:
• livestock and poultry make up approximately two-thirds of North Carolina's agricultural economy, although the industries are facing challenges in the current economy,
• some people argue that regardless of economic recovery, the future of these industries will depend upon implementation of new waste-management technologies,
• waste-to-energy technologies to meet established environmental standards have been determined to be too expensive for widespread implementation,
Senate Bills 3 and 1465 (both passed by the General Assembly in 2007) provide opportunities for implementing environmentally improved and /or waste-to-energy technologies. However, controversy has slowed the progress and environmental benefits these technologies provide.
Specifically, incentives for implementing technology provided in Senate Bill 3 include mandates for renewable energy generated from poultry and swine waste. On the poultry side, one technology available involves processing in an electricity-generating power plant. Some argue that this process should be delayed or prohibited due, in part, to emissions from such a facility.
I have visited two such operational plants in the United Kingdom and reviewed emission data for them. I also visited with many residents in the communities around the plants. These observations indicated that emission standards were being met and that the company was considered a good neighbor by all of the individuals I spoke with (none of whom were company employees).
Recognizing that emission standards in North Carolina may not be equivalent to European Union countries, the point is that this is not a new technology -- it is one with an extensive operational and environmental performance record. What that comprehensive record (not isolated events) shows should be part of an open and transparent discussion to determine if these facilities are suitable for North Carolina.
On the swine side, SB 1465 defines environmental standards for lagoon conversion technology; requires new and expanding swine farms to meet these standards; and makes lagoon conversion voluntary for existing farms but provides some cost incentives for existing farms that qualify and incorporate the technology.
This law also provides an incentive program for farms that incorporate technology that generates "green energy" but does not necessarily meet all of the environmental standards. A result of SB 1465, along with SB 3, is that targets for environmental performance have been identified and economic incentives are provided. Several researchers, university and private, are working to develop new technologies and improve existing methods.
Any notion that farmers are resistant to these technologies is not consistent with my observations. Many appear interested in taking advantage of these incentives, especially for implementation of technology that may generate cash receipts from green energy or carbon credits. However, some groups argue that the implementation of any new technology that is incentive-based must meet all of the performance standards identified in SB 1465.
I agree that this should be a non negotiable requirement for new or expanding farms. For existing farms, implementing technology that results in improved environmental conditions should be encouraged, even if the technology does not meet the full slate of environmental standards.
Objective research has shown that society benefits significantly from reduced emissions of ammonia. Reducing ammonia, as well as odor and greenhouse gases, will occur with waste-to-energy technologies. The argument that allowing such technologies impedes implementation of more comprehensive technologies is not valid.
Work is in progress to reduce the costs of the more comprehensive technologies, and incentives in SB1465 will enable a few (perhaps four to six) of those technologies to be placed on existing farms -- which is good. But those technologies will not be incorporated onto the hundreds of swine farms in the state given the current resource limitations of the incentive-based programs and the state of the economy.
So yes, concerns over emissions from animal waste to energy plants are legitimate and should be carefully assessed. Costs to consumers for implementing renewable energy programs are also important. However, costs should be considered relative to all benefits that would be gained by North Carolinians if we process animal wastes in a manner other than the current land application practices.
Discussions related to these decisions should include all those affected by them. Senate Bills 3 and 1465 provide a good start for implementing technology that will contribute to environmentally sound sustainability of the state's animal agriculture industry. It is unfortunate if that process lags due to reasons other than legitimate and well-documented environmental or economic concerns.
Get the biggest news in your email or cellphone as it's happening. Sign up for breaking news alerts.
Keep up with the latest opinions from the News & Observer, delivered straight to your inbox, for free!
Subscribe to Editorials - it's free!
