Economic Feasibility Study of Colorado Anaerobic Digester Projects ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Photo 5.7.8 Influent/effluent mechanism (at right) Photo 5.7.9 “Bubbling” indicates “good bugs” (inset) Photo 5.7.10 Effluent water and electricity used to operate nearby irrigation unit (below) Economic Feasibility Study of Colorado Anaerobic Digester Projects Prepared by Dr. Catherine Keske, Colorado State University August 2009 Page 40 of 79
Photo 5.7.11 Wyoming Premium Farms swine barn east of AD #2. Photo is taken while facing southeast. “Flare off” unit for biogas burn off is located on the right hand side of the photo. In the background is a school bus that has been adapted for use as a loading chute. Derouchey finds that the school bus design allows the vehicle to more effectively back in to the barns. As follows is a summary of the financial data provided by Mr. Derouchey: 5.7.1 General Industry Information: Like the dairy industry, the swine industry is struggling. After years of running a profitable business, Mr. Derouchey reports that Wyoming Premium Farms operated $434,000 in the red last year and has lost $8 million over the past two years. He states that he does not believe that it is an appropriate time for agricultural producers to consider AD projects, because they are already struggling with shortages in cash, tightened credit markets, and short payment timeframes to keep accounts current. Operational costs of running an AD unit (such as maintenance costs) would only contribute to problems with tight cash flow. Economic Feasibility Study of Colorado Anaerobic Digester Projects Prepared by Dr. Catherine Keske, Colorado State University August 2009 Page 41 of 79
Page 1 and 2: Department of Soil and Crop Science
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Sum
Page 5 and 6: 1.0 Executive Summary The purpose o
Page 7 and 8: 2.0 Project Overview. 2.1 Introduct
Page 9 and 10: 3.0 Insights Provided by Colorado A
Page 11 and 12: A. Net Metering: Although implement
Page 13 and 14: Alternative energy mandates have be
Page 15 and 16: university level may spark future p
Page 17 and 18: y AD technology. However, energy ma
Page 19 and 20: C. Collapse of New Frontier Bank. T
Page 21 and 22: discourage technology providers and
Page 23 and 24: elieve that carbon prices will rise
Page 25 and 26: 640-acre farm without regard to its
Page 27 and 28: The technical feasibility review fo
Page 29 and 30: Photo 5.3.1 CCI Dairy Herd. The CCI
Page 31 and 32: Photo 5.3.4 Road View of the CCI Ti
Page 33 and 34: federal grants during the past deca
Page 35 and 36: place over the phone and email. Sin
Page 37 and 38: Photo 5.7.1 Electrical generator at
Page 39: Photo 5.7.6. AD Unit #2, view from
Page 43 and 44: negotiated settlement agreement. Th
Page 45 and 46: It is important to note that the en
Page 47 and 48: As previously stated, the net incom
Page 49 and 50: Figure 6.2 Results of Sensitivity A
Page 51 and 52: 7.0 References ActNeutral, LLC. 200
Page 53 and 54: Zimmerle, Dan, Keske, Catherine, an
Page 55 and 56: Email: info@hprenewable.com Website
Page 57 and 58: 2. In addition to the review fee th
Page 59 and 60: Agriculture Program. If an anaerobi
Page 61 and 62: the use of pesticides. The responsi
Page 63 and 64: Once an application is accepted as
Page 65 and 66: discourages a government agency fro
Page 67 and 68: 8.4 Utah Department of Environmenta
Page 69 and 70: money. He says new farms should use
Page 71 and 72: DWQ denied a request to dump more w
Page 73 and 74: Web Notes The Smithfield Foods Utah
Page 75 and 76: Economic Feasibility Study of Color
Page 77 and 78: The principal idea is to increase b
Page 79: 8.5 ActNeutral Project Financial Su

Economic Feasibility Study of Colorado Anaerobic Digester Projects ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?