This international conference took place on June 19-23, 1984, in Dublin.

Those who participated in the UN Conference at Nairobi in August 1981 on 'New and Renewable Energy Sources', as well as most Mazingira readers, are likely to be uneasily aware of the rapidity with which most developing countries are being de-forested, mostly for domestic fuel. The urban domestic fuel market tends to demand charcoal, 1 Kg of which requires 7 Kg of wood for its production by a process of low conversion efficiency.

The Nairobi conference produced much paper analysis and policy, including aspirations for the development of peat as an indigenous fuel substitute for oil (eg in electricity generation) and for fuelwood and charcoal in the rural and urban domestic fuel markets. Regrettably however it produced no specific machinery for implementing its aspirations (thanks largely to US blocking), or even for promoting the agreed policies within the existing UN machinery. As a consequence, there was no UN presence at the 7th International Peat Congress, which took place in Dublin on June 18-23 of this year; nor was there much participation from developing countries.

This Congress however constituted an important marketplace for the distilled wisdom of no less than 2000 years of accumulated knowhow in peat technology. Europeans have been using peat as a fuel, in the interests of conserving their woodlands, since Roman times. (The earliest reference in the Congress proceedings is to Gaius Plinius Secundus: Natural History, Book 16, Ch 1. Pliny describes the practice of the natives of Delmenhorst in Germany, who kneaded the peat like dough before drying it, thus ensuring that the plant fibre and decomposed material were well mixed, giving a firm, strong sod when air-dried. This principle is at the root of all modern mechanised sod-peat technology.)

Before going further into the history of peat in Europe, it is appropriate to define what peat is.

'Peat, an organic material which develops from the incomplete breakdown of wetland vegetation, may occur as a deposit throughout the world anywhere the natural drainage of rainwater is reduced or impeded...'

'....Air-dried peat (35% moisture content) has a slightly higher energy content than wood.....processed products approach the lower end of the coal spectrum...'

The above partial characterisation of a complex substance is taken from a report prepared by Bord na Mona (the Irish Peat Development Board) for the World Bank, entitled 'Fuel Peat in Developing Countries'. This report, of which more later, should be taken as complementing the Dublin Congress; it represents perhaps the beginnings of the process of implementation via the UN agencies of the Nairobi aspirations, for which it may well become a standard reference-work.

There is to be a symposium on tropical peat in Jamaica in February of next year; this hopefully will make the European experience more easily available to developing countries.

In the meantime, let us see what we can distil from the Dublin Congress.

History of Peat Technology

Regrettably in the congress proceedings there are no systematic papers on the experience of the other leading peat countries, Ireland and Finland, from the standpoint of the history of the take-up of peat technology; these would have provided insights into the process of technology transfer to, and indigenous innovation in, countries which went through a primary development phase in living memory.

In the Irish case, there was some early indigenous development of peat technology, particularly in briquetting (in the 1850s) but also in gasification. This however never became viable under British rule. After the 1921 Treaty, independent Irish Governments encouraged the peat industry, with technology imported from Germany and the USSR; this was creatively adapted by Irish engineers to suit Irish conditions and large-scale production began in the 30s.

Participation in the Congress

There were 25 countries represented. A crude head-count gives the following ranking: Ireland 99, Finland 69, Germany 49, Canada 33, UK 27, Sweden 23, USA 22, Netherlands 10, USSR 10. Applying a 'distance factor' would indicate strong interest from China with 9, Brazil 8 and Japan 5. Budding 3rd-world interest showed in the form of one each from Jamaica and Indonesia, and 3 from Burundi.

The areas of interest of the four main commissions were:

• exploration, identification, resource-evaluation
• resource-exploitation
• agriculture and horticulture
• basic scientific understanding

                            Table 1

     commission:    I          II         III          IV

     Ireland        5           9          15           6
     USSR           5           5           4           4
     Finland        3          17           7           6
     Canada         1           2           3           1
     UK             7           1           2           1
     Germany        3           4
     USA            8                       1           2
     Poland         4                       3           3
     Japan          3
     other          4           5           1           2

The heavy Finnish emphasis on exploitation technology reflects their re-discovery of peat as an energy-source; they had allowed interest to lapse during the cheap oil era, unlike Ireland and the USSR; in the latter case peat has always been economic, while in the former case peat was kept going for strategic reasons despite apparently adverse economics in the 60s. This investment in continuity of experience is likely to pay off.

The Netherlands, despite being the European pioneer of peat, contributed only one paper, from the conservationist/ecological angle, using Irish data. The reason is simple: all their peat is gone, and the land is reclaimed for highly productive agriculture. The German contribution is primarily in a mature technology, with well-tried equipment of excellent design based on generations of commercial exploitation, supplemented by a developing conservationist concern, no doubt under 'green' influence.

Poland, while maintaining an interest, has allowed exploitation to lapse, despite possession of large resources, under the influence of coal availability. The working of the internal pricing system in centrally-planned economies is sometimes mysterious. In one to the review-papers, the reviewer (from the USSR) had some disparaging remarks to make about Polish information-sources, or lack of them. This I feel must be the tip of a rather interesting iceberg, perhaps to be looked into on another occasion.

Canada shows signs of a broad-spectrum approach and could emerge as an important exporter of peat technology, but at present is primarily interested in importing it, as is the USA.

The USSR industry is by far the largest in scale (80-90M tonnes/yr, mostly milled peat for combined heat and power generation); each of the 10 Soviet participants is probably responsable for as much energy production as Ireland and Finland put together. Despite this, the two lead-countries that most developing countries are likely to want to do business with are Ireland and Finland, their scale of activity being more easily adaptable to a young country starting up. Both are neutral, in the sense of not being involved in one or other of the global power-blocs; this makes the politics of trade easier. The Irish, thanks to the World Bank report referred to above, are likely to emerge as the primary contact-point. As well as having continuity of experience throughout the 'lean years' (ie the pre-1972 cheap oil era) they have a good feel for their own and other peoples' equipment, and for adaptation. It is to be hoped that a complementary Irish-Finnish consortium emerges for servicing the 3rd-world technology transfer needs.

Resource Classification and Estimation

Techniques involving remote sensing are available; one was described by J Clark (USA) involving spacebourne radar (SEASAT). This was checked out using Irish bogs, the surface data in this case being well-known. The system described, however, was experimental and the analysis manual. LANDSAT technoloy is also available; this works in 3 optical bands (rather than a single microwave band) and enables various surface vegetative covers to be distinguished. The data is analysed by computer, and a commercial service is provided by Dr Adrian Phillips' group, associated with the University of Dublin, which had a display at the exhibition associated with the Congress.

It is a pity they didn't have a paper, and let themselves appear to be upstaged by Clark, as the Dublin group have been perfecting the Landsat approach to peat resource survey work for some years. In fact, the two techniques are complementary, as Seasat is moisture-sensitive, while Landsat picks up the surface optical spectrum. The two approaches could creatively be combined.

Remote sensing can be supplemented by aerial survey work; the Japanese (Shimizu et al) have developed a tethered balloon system which was noted with interest by the rapporteur. New instrumentation is emerging to speed the ground-survey work (for which remote sensing is only a guide, not a substitute): a British device, reported by A W Blyth, provides a portable mechanical aid for deep-sampling in the field, while the Finns have developed a portable microwave probe (Tiuri et al). This system, along with other electronic systems developed in Finland, has been extensively field-tested by Finnish geologists (Tolonen et al).

Considerable scientific attention has been paid to the problem of estimating the degree of decomposition of peat. It seems that the best method remains the 'feel' of peat, when crumbled in the hand by an experienced person, although sophisticated techniques are being evaluated (eg McDonnell and Farrell in University College Dublin, using electron-spin resonance, reported in Commission IV). The more peat is decomposed, the better fuel it makes. If the decomposition is only slight, the preferred use is horticultural.

The other main factors are ash and sulphur. Alluvial peat (eg in estuaries and deltas) tends to be high in ash; this however is not necessarily disastrous from the fuel point of view, as high-ash fuels can be combusted using fluidised-bed techniques, keeping the temperature below the clinkering-point. Peat laid down under stagnant conditions, in a 'stinking mire' situation, tends to be high in sulphur, and would contribute to environmental problems if burned on a large scale. This however is relatively unusual. Some US survey work from Ohio (Miller et al) illustrates these aspects.

A preliminary survey of Brazilian peat resources, and their trial utilisation, was given by E Suszczynski, in what looks like a computer-translation; clearly an energetic broad-spectrum approach is developing in Brazil, which may yet emerge as an important technology-transfer source. Hopefully they will evolve a more sensitive appreciation of the environmental implications of their developments than they have shown in the context of their large-scale alcohol project.

A practical conservationist view from the Irish angle was given by J B Ryan and J R Cross, while the conservationist ethic was developed philosophically by J A Worley from the USA. The Chinese preliminary resource-evaluation work (Zu et al) cites a Soviet review-article as its main external source.

Peat Resource Exploitation

Production systems for sod peat are immediately transferable to developing countries. The traditional Dutch manual system, which persists in the west of Ireland (see fig...), has already been demonstrated by Irish workers in Burundi, where it has been shown to compete successfully with wood as regards production man-hours per unit of energy. There is, however, resistance from the market, as the traditional charcoal and wood-burning practice needs adaptation with new appliances of appropriate low cost. There was a Burundi presence at the Congress, though no paper was contributed; this is a pity, as according to the World Bank report there is appreciable manual and small-scale mechanised sod-peat production experience there since 1977.

Small-scale systems fitted to standard agricultural tractors, privately operated, are now providing in Ireland the bulk of commercial sod-peat; the process is basically that described by Pliny, mechanised: a chain-saw-like scoop feeds a mascerator with material from all levels of the bog; the resulting paste is extruded like tooth-paste on the bog surface, where it air-dries in days to firm cylindrical sods. The principal equipment supplier is Herbst of Wicklow, an Irish firm with German links.

Irish experience with electricity production, using locally-produced (manual or small-scale mechanised, see fig....) sod-peat, was reported by M Brophy and L O'Connell of the Irish Electricity Supply Board, who described a 5 MW unit commissioned at Cahirciveen in the 1950s (see fig...). This technology is exportable and likely to be appropriate in small communities where the competing source is diesel electricity generation. Grid-standard electricity is produced, at 10 kV, suitable for eventual linkage to a national grid when developed. Production unit-costs are given in man-days per unit energy, for ease of site-specific assessment.

Large-scale mechanisation experience in Ireland was described by B J Keville, J McKernan and others (Bord na Mona), and the overall Irish electricity production experience was described by J F Lang. This however does not extend to CHP, which is well developed in Finland and dominant in the USSR. Herbst is tending towards medium to large scale mechanisation; he had a prototype on display at the exhibition, as yet untested.

The key problem is: how soon can the equipment be moved on to the bog surface? Heavy, large-scale equipment of the traditional Bord na Mona type, with roots in the Soviet and German traditions, reequires the bog to compact for 5 to 7 years after drainage. The trend with the new generation of small and medium equipment, as developed by Herbst, is towards being light-weight enough to move in after one or two years, or even to work in some cases on undrained bog.

Some bogs, especially in estuary or delta situations, are intrinsically undrainable, and a wet process has to be used, with the basic extraction system mounted in a barge. Mascerated slurry is pumped and spread for drying on the nearest accessible land surface. A Dutch wet process has been evaluated by the Canadians (Gelfer et al), and the Finns have specified a wet process for Jamaica (described in the Congress by B A Wade: this is the only 'developing countrY' application among the papers). In this case the slurry is projected to be filter-pressed and dried to 10-15% moisture using waste heat from the 60 MW steam turbo-generator set. If the Jamaican electricity authorities decide this year to go ahead, electricity would be fed to the grid by 1988. The internal DCF rate of return is estimated in the range 15-32%, and the capital cost per installed kW is in the region of $1700. This should be watched closely, as the first major peat-to-electricity project in a developing country since Ireland in the 50s. I wonder are they overdoing the steam drying? Irish peat burns happily at 35-40% moisture; the sun in Jamaica is free. Estuarine and delta bogs should be looked at from the point of view of barge transport of sod-peat to the nearest town, for the domestic market. Peat came to Dublin by canal from the midlands from the 1780s right down to the 1940s.

Before leaving Commission II, it is noteworthy that the Chinese have established the utility of peat for the removal of metal ions (eg Pb, Cd, Zn, Ni, Cr) from effluents.

Also, and outside the Congress, Mike Jones of Dublin University has been looking at the papyrus swamps of Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda; see the New Scientist 11/8/83. Originally interested in the peat, he found that the papyrus grows at such a rate that the current annual crop can be harvested economically and briquetted into a transportable fuel. Pilot projects are currently in progress. This is not strictly peat, but it is renewable biomass in a peat-generating environment. Thus tropical peat, after mining, may in some cases be replaceable by a viable energy crop, due to the high productivity of the tropical environment.

Agriculture and Horticulture

Peat can also be used in the reclamation of land destroyed in mining operations: J A Campbell reported on its use with Alaska oil-sand tailings.

The use of saccharified peat (this is an industrial conversion process) as animal-feed is confined to the USSR.

Peat Science

Some work on self-heating and spontaneous combustion in stored milled peat was reported by P J Coffey and P J Byrne (Bord na Mona, Ireland); this was a development of some earlier work, involving the University of Dublin (Trinity College), in which the present writer had a hand. Losses in stored milled peat by this process, which involves thermophilic micro-organisms and catalytic oxidation, are significant, especially with nutrient-rich fen peats.

Conclusion

According to preliminary survey-work reported, the following developing countries appear at first sight to have worthwhile resources: Angola, Burundi (*), Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda (*), Senegal (*), Uganda, Zaire, Zambia, Bangladesh, China (*), Indonesia (*), Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Jamaica (*), Brazil (*), Colombia, Guyana, Uruguay, Venezuela (*), Greece (*). Those marked thus (*) already have an evaluation or development programme at some level; in many cases however this may be dominated by agricultural thinking and lack appreciation of peat as an energy-source. The coming symposium in Jamaica (February 1985) is likely to be of interest to most if not all of the countries listed above.

Some navigational notes:

Copyright Dr Roy Johnston 2005