Rules – Let’s change the game – oversized means overpriced
In my first article I described the overall challenges we face and the potential solutions to each of them. In the next four articles over the coming months, I will go into more detail on each specific area. This week, I want to share the importance of rules, certification, and our vision of a more reasonable approach to air scrubbing.
Strategy towards 2030
Now that Air scrubbing has become a fact, practicality will be the next point on the agenda. How do we develop a strategy to reach the targets being set by 2030? At the same time making it beneficial for the farmers? We can learn from other countries how to do better, and not also what to do. It’s the government’s responsibility to devise a solid plan that benefits all, to keep things in balance. Only then will we succeed.
The rules
Air scrubbing has been around for decades and was introduced as a way to address a variety of environmental concerns, regards the air quality leaving a livestock building. Many would argue that it has found a place because we have failed to address the processes in the house that create excessive emissions. There is a level of truth in this, but we cannot ignore the fact animal production is very dynamic and the pure nature of it, means there will always be some mess to clean up.
This is where air scrubbing comes in, as it provides a level of guarantee when the house process becomes challenging. Based on this assumption, scientists developed protocols to measure air abatement and the effects air scrubbers have on emission reduction. From the science came guidelines and a basis for testing and certification.
The process of testing usually takes a minimum of 1 year (summer and winter seasons) but can go on longer depending how the assessment runs. The result is an air scrubber design with a stamp of approval, that states it will achieve certain levels of reduction based on ‘X’ percent of the air leaving the building.
In Europe the accepted standard being, that if a minimum of 70% of the maximum air volume is cleaned, then the air scrubber should be able to achieve a good level of reduction. Something that would be accepted by most planning authorities.
A single or multi-stage scrubber could therefore achieve:
- Ammonia management – 70 to 90%
- Odour – 30 to 40%
- Dust – 80 to 90%
With proven or certified technology.
Best available techniques
Today guidelines around this are drawn up in the commonly accepted BAT (Best available techniques) – specifically chapter 4 where it covers the implementation of end of pipe air abatement.
But is this practical?
BAT is a guide or protocol for air abatement. It leans on experience from countries where air emission management is more mature, namely Germany and the Netherlands. As such guides the reader to a conclusion, that whilst helping the farmer to achieve a ‘license to produce’ (extend production but not adding to the environmental load). Does not necessarily provide the tools to deal with the wider issue of livestock emissions, across the board at national level.
70% + air scrubbing comes at a high cost, because the systems required are large. This means farmers working on tight margins are unlikely to implement unless forced to and others with a vested interested, like the food retailers who could help with the cost. Are also unlikely to pay for it…. until it becomes too painful in terms of brand damage. On top of that, we have created a system that penalizes farmers putting up environmentally sound buildings and lets the current building stock (old buildings where the main problem lies) off the hook.
In short, the rules don’t work. If we are serious about hitting emissions targets by 2030 and helping farmers protect their businesses, then we have to think differently.
So, what is the alternative?
Partial air scrubbing
A farmer maximum ventilates around 5-10% of the year, meaning for the rest of the time ventilation rates are significantly lower. We can therefore assume an airscrubber is oversized for between 90-95% of its operational life. Oversized means overpriced. On top of that, large Air-Scrubbers operationally have a greater carbon footprint. So yes, we can do this better.
By lowering the emission reduction target from eg. 90% to 60%, we could reduce the size of airscrubbers significantly. Which has several benefits,
- It becomes more affordable and therefore, a more reasonable solution for the farmer.
- A better price means farmers will invest sooner and a higher the percentage of Air-Scrubbers will be operational by 2030. Therefore, a higher result.
- Happy farmers, less fight, no tractors on the highway or visits to politicians’ homes.
Small compact air scrubbers, in combination with a subsidy of 40%, will make it perfectly affordable for the farmer to invest.
Fact based scrubbing
Another problem that has to be addressed and perhaps not the easiest to fix. Is to base air abatement reductions on actual figures. At present, most permits are granted on emission figures created over 20 years ago, when buildings and livestock management was at a very different place. This means a big assumption is made as to what the emissions are, as opposed to looking at what is really happening. We have started to see farmers who keep records on house climate, being able to negotiate with authorities on levels of emissions to be reduced and getting these accepted, which is a positive step forward. However, most do not have this level information at hand and remain subject to the official guidelines.
We now have experience of farmers who could have been forced to install a 70% air scrubber, being allowed to attach an air scrubber module to clean 20% max air.
Three approaches
For the majority we therefore need to find a way to de centralize the problem and make it attractive for farmers to buy-in. Realistically, we will see a combination of three approaches:
- Current certified methods – where authorities will insist on levels of reduction based on a desire to minimize local environmental load. This will mean sticking to official ‘certification rules’ as laid out in the DLG, BWL or Vera and mean dealing with 70-100% of the max air volume emitted from the house.
- Partial air scrubbing – countries that realize full certification will make it difficult to meet environment targets. Will introduce a different approach, by lowering the levels of reduction required and encouraging farmers to act with heavy subsidies. In effect decentralizing the problem. The result, more small air scrubbers to create a greater net effect. Rules for this will still be based on theoretical emission numbers.
- Fact based scrubbing – using farm-based evidence in the form of historical climate data to agree levels of reduction for permitting.
Certification
To do this correctly and not saddle the farmer with unnecessary problems, certification is critical! We can learn from the Netherlands what happens if anyone is allowed to build and install a box at the end of a building. In many cases untested equipment can’t do the job properly, and farmers end up investing twice when their unproven equipment fails. A solid protocol and certification model in air scrubbing, reduces the risks of this happening.
Finally
We should develop a better alternative to what we have now, that benefits all parties. A solution that makes farmers smile again. We see what happened in the Netherlands, and nobody wants that.
The farmers and the government have something to win here. Continuing to do business at a good profit and reaching significant reduction levels by 2030. If we want to achieve together, we must work together.
More information about our systems
More interesting stories
Optimize your business
If you would like to schedule a no-obligation appointment to see what is possible to optimize your business. Please contact:
Pieter Hanssen
Phone Number: +31 6 10 49 96 79
Email: Pieter Hanssen phanssen@inno-plussystems.com
Or complete the form below…