Biofuel facility in worksIf deal is reached, plant would convert grease, fat By Robert Behre (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, July 18, 2008
Berkeley County soon could be in the business of converting kitchen grease into electricity. County Council recently reached an agreement with EcoPlus Inc., a Charlotte company interested in building a new plant at the county's landfill near U.S. Highway 52 and Oakley Road. 
EcoPlus Inc. If negotiations between Berkeley County and EcoPlus Inc. work out, a new plant, that would accept fats, oils and greases from across the Lowcountry and convert them into a dried material that can be burned like coal, would cost between $5 million and $10 million and employ 15 to 20 people. If the deal pans out, EcoPlus could build and operate a new plant that would accept fats, oils and greases from across the Lowcountry and convert them into a dried material that can be burned like coal. Colin Martin, executive director of the county Water and Sanitation Authority, said the idea has the potential to be a win-win for the company and for the county, which no longer would treat this grease in its sewage plant. "If we can keep it out of our treatment plant and create a resource for others to use as energy, I think that's very positive," he said. "It's true recycling." EcoPlus has operated a similar plant in Charlotte since 2002 that processes more than 200,000 gallons a month worth of oils and grease from more than 1,300 places in the Southeast, according to a company statement. EcoPlus President Phil Hicks said the technology has a patent and is gaining wider attention for its ability to produce a high-quality fuel. "It's not a prototype," he said. "We have a full-blown plant and the works." The company currently is working with Berkeley County on a long-term lease or purchase of county-owned property where a new plant could be built. Martin said the most-promising site would be at the county's 1,100-acre landfill near Oakley Road — specifically on a few irregularly configured acres not suitable for landfill use. Hicks said if those negotiations work out, the new plant would cost between $5 million and $10 million and employ 15 to 20 people. It also eventually could accept up to 1 million gallons of oil and fat each month, keeping the material out of local landfills or sewer plants. Martin said Berkeley County currently accepts about three or four tankers full of fats, oil and grease each week, and it processes the material before emptying it into the Cooper River. The county charges a fee for the processing, but it's difficult to say whether that sum covers the county's treatment cost because the grease is mixed in with other waste streams. Still, Martin said the county would benefit if it no longer had to treat the grease because that would increase the capacity of its current treatment plant. "We would appreciate the fact that we can save that capacity of the plant," he added, "but I think the real plus is turning a negative (the greasy waste) into a positive (a new energy source)." EcoPlus turns the greasy material into a dried substance resembling beach sand that has a BTU value similar to eastern coal, but burns more cleanly, Hicks said. The sand can be burned by itself or mixed with coal or wood chips. "We use almost no energy to make it," he added. "It's a total reactionary process." This wouldn't be the first time someone in Berkeley County has tried to harness the energy of garbage. J.W. Aluminum Co. has explored using methane from landfills to heat a new smelter near its Mount Holly plant. Hicks said EcoPlus is looking at other sites across the nation and world for similar new plants. Large volumes of grease and fats are collected not only by restaurants but also by prisons, hospitals, jails, nursing homes, grocery stores and other places that cook food on a large scale. State permits require restaurants to dispose of that grease in a particular way rather than simply pouring it down the drain. Hicks said EcoPlus already has talked with some potential customers who would use the new fuel and predicted it would be burned in the Lowcountry. Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or at rbehre@postandcourier.com. |
Article toolsSponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 27 comment(s)
Posted by dixiegrl98 on July 18, 2008 at 2:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anything to clean up our environment is greatly needed.I think it's a wonderful idea,it would be great if everyone could think of things to come up with as far as eco friendly fuel.I live in berkeley county and for a lower performing county to be one of the first to use this enovation is great.I just can't stomach the thought of all that sludge floating down the river where we fish and swim,yuck!.....lol,I also can't think of berkeley county without thinking of those two cought stealing at isle of palms the other day!
Posted by Neponset on July 18, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is good and will help solve a disposal problem, but I suspect the product will not contribute much toward our energy needs. I assume this sand like material can be mixed with the pulverized coal that power plants use and can be blown into the boilers without gumming up the works.
Posted by DoaMM on July 18, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gadsden,
I haven't researched it a lot and I'm no scientist but I thought biofuels and diesel put off less "harmful" emissions than regular fuel, specifically the carbon monoxide. Sure they look dirty when you see an 18-wheeler gunning it down the highway but they are not required to pass any emissions inspections in any state. If they used biodiesel, they'd just run around smelling like lunch room french fries and pork rinds...
Posted by DoaMM on July 18, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I am 'more stupider' than I thought. disregard my last posting...(see below)
http://ezinearticles.com/?Diesel-vs-Regu...
Posted by Jane on July 18, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, oil did go down the other day by about $10 per barrel right after Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban...just wondering...
I do remember in ECON 101 in regards to supply and demand...the more you have of a product the lower the price because you have more of that product. As I said yesterday, prices will never be as low as they were 20 to 30 years ago, but if we start drilling our own oil we will have more of it and I do think prices will come down some. It's called competition.
Posted by nikkiP on July 18, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I see the smell of burning french fry grease as being horrible for my diet. It's bad enough driving by the bojangles after I leave the gym.
It's an interesting thought though, but the article provided by doamm makes me wonder why this is being pushed so hard. What do the environmentalists have to say about this? It's not oil, but it pollutes more.
I'd look it up on the Greenpeace website, but my head might explode if I read that drivel.
Posted by jeff61 on July 18, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by tripsa on July 18, 2008 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
didnt we have this arguement yesterday?
DRILL NOW. THROUGH A LIBERAL's head if need be!
Glad to see you left Flipper out of this. LOL
Posted by DoaMM on July 18, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...and here's an article that INITIALLY supports the theory of lower emissions for biofuels, but gets shot down in the "comments" section...
http://www.greenstylemag.com/blog/?p=477...
Just remember folks, as you go through these debates and hear all these numbers and percentages, 98% of all statistics are made up...
:)
Posted by DoaMM on July 18, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh so true, Gadsden.
Of course a statistician would disagree and specify the numbers don't lie.
Mathematicians suck.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 18, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gadsden,
Your assertion, that biodiesel is dirtier to burn that petroleum based diesel and gasoline, is inaccurate.
DoaMM,
While your diesel vs. gasoline comparisons may be somewhat correct, placing biodiesel in the same category with petroleum based diesel is misguided. Biodiesel contains no sulfur. It also restores the lubricity lost to desulphurization even in blends of only 2 percent (this saves the life of the engine and converts almost any diesel into a cleaner renewable-fuel burning engine). It is a fuel – not an additive- and it's the only environmentally safe solution that's been proven, and cost effective. Some of the benefits: biodegradable and non-toxic, safe from accidental fires, and biodiesel reduces particulates and emissions.
Petroleum based diesel isn't necessarily better than gasoline because it has lower emissions of greenhouse gases, which it does. Because of their lower per-mile fuel consumption, diesel engines generally release less carbon dioxide. But, it takes 25% more oil to make a gallon of diesel fuel than a gallon of gasoline. When it comes to smog-forming pollutants and toxic particulate matter, also known as soot, today's diesels are still a lot dirtier than the average gasoline car. Burned diesel releases large, coarse, and fine particulate matter (soot particles). Fine particulate matter affects breathing and strains the heart, and can cause bronchitis, asthma, and cancer (yeah, it contains a ton of carcinogens too).
While innovative technology is cleaning up diesel pollution, it makes sense to consider biodiesel because biodiesel reduces particulates and emissions.
Posted by nikkiP on July 18, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I had been told diesel engines are actually more efficient than their non-diesel counterparts. This may be based on something else, and I'm not sure how it relates to their emissions.
what is your information based on?
Posted by newbattleaxe on July 18, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has Ecoplus talked with the company in Goose Creek that collects waste reatuarant fats & oils? (I'm drawing a blank on that company's name. Green trucks, not Fennel, Carolina something.) Hiring them to haul in the used fats & oils would save Ecoplus some bucks.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 18, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DoaMM,
very cool link - such a great debate. so much to look into. I admit the biodiesel conversion process isn't as efficient as it could be, but i assume that will also improve over time.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 18, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NikkiP,
you are right diesel is more efficient than gasoline. Nothing matches a diesel’s combination of durability, economy, engine safety and continuous power under load, which is why it is the predominant fuel used for mass transit of cargo, but some say the numbers could be adjusted due the the amount of oil needed to make diesel vs. gasoline.
I recently did some research on diesel emissions and got information from sources ranging from the EPA to the American Lung Ass'n.
Posted by common_sense on July 18, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Burn fry grease over corn based ethanol anyday.
I'm just sayin...
Posted by willie08 on July 18, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wrote this on some other stories. Perhaps I'm not as intelligent as some of you claim to be, but this is how I feel, and I'm posting it again. I read as much, if not more, as all you do.
Man can only control what he does to his environment, and how he works with it.
Although we will always have Tsunamis, Earthquakes, and Hurricanes, we can learn to survive them through better technology (Architecture, Warnings, Energy, Organization, Community). We CAN control these things, and we must be smart about them.
Great movement of the earth will continue, and we must be prepared for it. Drilling in on our coasts that are constantly destroyed by hurricanes is pointless, if a hurricane will come and knock it all down, spill oil in our already polluted waters.
We must not add to the problem. Whether you think global warming exists or not I don't care. I listen to the Scientists, who over 90% of the world scientists believe it is real (Source is NPR). The cause is our way of life. Now the politicians, EVEN BUSH, are starting to recognize it.
This is a chance for us to really turn our lives around and start becoming dependent on more efficient and environment friendly forms of energy (which already exist, but are not being used to their fullest potential).
Why do we not use the already existing earth friendly sources of energy? Why don't we have more BioDiesel at the Gas Stations?
Why are we feeding the greedy corporate billionaires by becoming so dependent on them?
There is technology out there that will allow us to even produce our OWN energy and food in very limited space. We can change the way we live completely, if we let the scientists come forth with their technology, and give them the merit it deserves. We live in a century if great inventions and science. We can evolve further as human beings. Do you want us to evolve, or become an Idiocracy?
Let's close the doors to the oil companies, that have done nothing but make us dependent on oil that is ruining our environment (water, marshes, mountains, and air- all of which human life needs to survive) and let's open the door to clean efficient, and never ending energy (sun, wind, wave, biodiesel).
Posted by nikkiP on July 18, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We could solve the healthcare problem by doing away with lawyers too.
patricycle77- Ah, makes sense. I took a diesel topics class this past semester. I'm sure it would have been very helpful, but it was also the most boring hour and 15 minutes of my day. The teacher had actually given us a few lectures on the efficiency of biofuels compared to the current dieself fuel. Seems like there are many options available that are used elsewhere, but haven't really been explored here.
Posted by ColdBeer on July 18, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ALL energy technologies are needed right now. Innovative things like this plant along with the energy sources we have already been using.
Posted by nikkiP on July 18, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mmm, oil companies are also trying to find alternative fuels. They realize that they'll need to produce something else if they want to continue into the future.
We already have oil rigs in the atlantic, including off the coast of Louisiana. They are sturdier than people give them credit for. Spills with those are fairly rare, but I'd love to see the actual numbers on those.
Posted by DoaMM on July 18, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I could get behind a convoy of rigs for a while that are burning nothing but Taco Bell grease...oh, man! Hog heaven right there, folks!
Posted by orvinc on July 18, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I realize that this is a private group proposing this, but who is paying out the $5 - $10 million dollars for the facility? Is it Ecoplus, Berkeley co., or both? And "if" Berkeley co. is going to subsidize the cost what is the pay back, is there a property tax incentive, energy incentives? What are the conditions for this proposal? How much will it cost to dump the waste at the new site? And in Charlotte who buys the finished product? I know I am asking a lot of questions, but these should have covered in the article.
Posted by blah_blah_blah on July 18, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
drilling for new oil only eases the symptoms, and does not address the core of the issue, that we are using up a limited resource. We will be right back at this problem, only worse, if we don't address the core issue.
America is built on the consumption of oil, heaven forbid, someone recognize that, and starts to work on the problem.
Posted by Jane on July 18, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do people see it as such a problem that we use oil? It isn't just in our cars, but in plastics and even clothing. There is a great article in National Geographic from June or July of 2004 called "The End of Cheap Oil". There is a page showing all the products in one family's home that use petroleum. Clothes, every plastic item in their house, sneakers, sandals, ...their entire yard is filled with petroleum products. Drilling for oil is a necessity. Even if it is a limited resource (although I read an article about a year ago where there is speculation, I said speculation, I did not say this is a fact)speculation that oil is somehow formed from the earths molten core and that they think one oil field in New Mexico is refilling. Again, I am not saying this is fact. The author did not say it was a fact either merely speculation.
By the way, we have between 150 to 300 years worth of shale oil right now that the dems refuse to let us extract. Insane.
Posted by ChrisPia on July 18, 2008 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
From The Reading I Have been doing on Biodiesel The Finished product is just a little bit less Money than regular diesel to Put on the Market. How they make their money is shipping it to Europe and other countries.
Battleaxe... I might Be Mistaken But Could the Company Be Carolina Marine Handling Inc.(If they are still in Business).
The Problem With Biodiesel is thatfarmers are raising prices on Feed and that raises the price on All Food.
Posted by Neponset on July 18, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have not read all of the above comments - was distracted by the Gay issue and the faux MableX comments, but it must be disturbing to oil speculators to hear that even black dems. in SC want to drill.
Posted by moonpie on July 18, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chrispia that's what I have seen too, and it's still high priced stuff. It's only an alternative to a lack of diesel supply, still pricey at best. And now I hear from above it smells like freedom fries! Well at least they're trying.
Keep it up maybe someone will stumble on solar or wind as a great alternative?!
Posted by Oceanlover on July 18, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Per the NYTimes, here's the breakdown on running vegetable oil vs pure diesel:
Carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent, hydrocarbons by 56 percent,
particulates by 55 percent and sulfurs, by 100 percent.
Now, with modern low sulfur diesel, the sulfur problem is not as great as when these numbers came out a couple of years ago, but you get my point.
Nitrogen oxide numbers ARE slightly higher with vegetable oil. Carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions are way lower because you're replanting the plants that create your oil - and those plants take CO2 out of the air. But of course, it's way better to just drill for new oil. That way our country can stay mired in 20th century technology and lose its competitive advantage faster and faster.