Feasibility of Generating Green Power through Anaerobic Digestion

Download Feasibility of Generating Green Power through Anaerobic Digestion

Post on 13-Feb-2017

225 views

Category:

Documents

9 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>FFeeaassiibbiilliittyy ooff GGeenneerraattiinngg GGrreeeenn PPoowweerr tthhrroouugghh AAnnaaeerroobbiicc DDiiggeessttiioonn </p><p>ooff GGaarrddeenn RReeffuussee ffrroomm tthhee SSaaccrraammeennttoo AArreeaa </p><p>Final Report April 2005 </p><p>Report to SMUD </p><p>Advanced Renewable and Distributed Generation Program </p><p>Prepared By </p><p>In Association with MacViro Consultants Inc. </p></li><li><p>Table of Contents Page Executive Summary i Glossary of Terms vi </p><p>1.0 Introduction 1-1 </p><p>2.0 Quantity and Composition of Garden Refuse as Feedstock 2-1 2.1 Quantity of Garden Refuse Available 2-1 2.2 Composition of Garden Refuse 2-2 2.3 City of Sacramento 2-3 </p><p>3.0 Anaerobic Digestion of Garden Refuse and Municipal Solid Waste 3-1 3.1 Anaerobic Digestion Process 3-1 3.2 Experience to Date with SSO, MSW and Garden Refuse 3-1 3.3 Anaerobic Digestion Design Options 3-4 3.4 Anaerobic Digestion Technology Designs Available 3-9 3.5 Feedstock and Gas Production 3-11 3.6 Energy Uses 3-13 3.7 Anaerobic Digestion of Garden Waste 3-15 3.8 References 3-15 </p><p>4.0 Technical Information on AD Technologies - DRY 4-1 4.1 Methodology 4-1 4.2 Kompogas 4-3 4.3 Dranco/OWS 4-9 4.4 Linde-DRY 4-15 4.5 Biopercolat 4-19 4.6 ISKA 4-21 4.7 Valorga 4-26 4.8 Wright 4-31 </p><p>5.0 Technical Information on AD Technologies - WET 5-1 5.1 Methodology 5-1 5.2 Onsite Power Systems 5-2 5.3 Arrow Ecology Ltd 5-7 5.4 BTA 5-11 5.5 Waasa, WABIO and Citec 5-17 5.6 Linde - WET 5-21 5.7 BioConverter 5-25 5.8 Entec 5-28 </p></li><li><p> Page 6.0 Screening and Analysis of Available AD Technologies 6-1 </p><p> 6.1 Overview 6-1 6.2 Technical Screening Criteria 6-2 6.3 Summary of Technical Data for AD Technologies 6-4 6.4 Technical Analysis of AD Technologies By Design Parameters 6-7 6.5 Gas Production and Net Energy Available From Different AD Technologies 6-9 6.6 Technical Screening of AD Technologies 6-11 6.7 Evaluation of Broader Concept Using SMUD Criteria 6-13 6.8 Evaluation Using Sacramento Waste Authority Criteria 6-14 7 Economic Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion of Garden Waste 7-1 7.1 Overview 7-1 7.2 Description of Facility Components 7-2 7.3 Plant Energy Balance 7-5 7.4 Costs and Financial Analysis for 100,000 ton/year Garden Waste AD Facility </p><p>(Dry, Thermophilic) at a Greenfield Site Option 1 7-6 </p><p> 7.5 Costs and Financial Analysis for 200,000 ton/year Garden Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Greenfield Site Option 2 </p><p>7-10 </p><p> 7.6 Costs and Financial Analysis for 100,000 ton/year Garden Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site Options 3 &amp; 4 </p><p>7-10 </p><p> 7.7 Costs and Financial Analysis for 100,000 ton/year Garden Waste with Food Waste AD Facility (Wet, Mesophilic) at a Greenfield Site Option 5 </p><p>7-12 </p><p> 7.8 Costs and Financial Analysis for 100,000 ton/year Garden Waste with Food Waste AD Facility (Wet, Mesophilic) at a Co-located Site Option 6 </p><p>7-13 </p><p> 7.9 Costs and Financial Analysis for 100,000 ton/year Garden Waste with Food Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site Option 7 </p><p>7-13 </p><p> 7.10 Costs and Financial Analysis for 50,000 ton/year Garden Waste with Food Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site Option 8 </p><p>7-14 </p><p> 7.11 Discussion of Costs For Greenfield Site 7-14 7.12 Economic Conditions Which Make AD Viable 7-16 7.13 Next Steps in Research 7-17 </p><p>8.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 8-1 8.1 Conclusions 8-1 8.2 Recommendations 8-2 </p><p> Appendices Appendix A 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Greenfield Site Appendix B 200,000 ton/yr Garden Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Greenfield Site Appendix C 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site Appendix D 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste and Food Waste AD Facility (Wet, Mesophilic) at a </p><p>Greenfield Site </p></li><li><p>Appendix E 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste and Food Waste AD Facility (Wet, Mesophilic) at a Co-located Site </p><p>Appendix F 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste and Food Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site </p><p>Appendix G 50,000 ton/yr Garden Waste and Food Waste AD Facility (Dry, Thermophilic) at a Co-located Site </p><p>Tables Page Table 3.1 </p><p> Key Firms Generating Biogas from MSW Feedstock in Europe in 2003 3-2 </p><p>Table 3.2 </p><p>Communities in the United States Investigating Anaerobic Digestion for MSW 3-3 </p><p>Table 3.3 </p><p>Biogas Yield from MSW Materials 3-11 </p><p>Table 3.4 </p><p>Biogas Yield 3-12 </p><p>Table 3.5 </p><p>Biogas Composition 3-12 </p><p>Table 3.6 </p><p>Biogas Production 3-12 </p><p>Table 4.1 </p><p>Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Profiled 4-2 </p><p>Table 4.2 </p><p>Reported Energy Production, Internal Energy Use and Energy Available for Export at Selected Kompogas Facilities </p><p>4-4 </p><p>Table 4.3 </p><p>Full Scale Kompogas Plants 4-5 </p><p>Table 4.4 </p><p>Planned Full Scale Kompogas Plants or Facilities Under Construction 4-6 </p><p>Table 4.5 </p><p>Reported Energy Production, Internal Energy Use and Energy Available for Export at Selected DRANCO Facilities </p><p>4-10 </p><p>Table 4.6 </p><p>DRANCO Demonstration Plants 4-11 </p><p>Table 4.7 </p><p>Full Scale DRANCO Plants 4-12 </p><p>Table 4.8 </p><p>Planned DRANCO Plants 4-12 </p><p>Table 4.9 </p><p>Feedstocks of Linde Dry Digestion Facilities 4-16 </p><p>Table 4.10 </p><p>Energy Production for Selected Linde Dry AD Facilities 4-17 </p><p>Table 4.11 </p><p>Existing and proposed Linde Dry AD Facilities 4-17 </p><p>Table 4.12 </p><p>Linde Mechanical-Biological Treatment Facilities featuring Aerobic Treatment 4-18 </p><p>Table 4.13 </p><p>Energy Characteristics of ISKA Facilities 4-23 </p></li><li><p>Tables Page Table 4.14 </p><p> Land Requirements of Selected ISKA AD Facilities 4-24 </p><p>Table 4.15 </p><p>ISKA Operational and Proposed AD Facilities 4-24 </p><p>Table 4.16 </p><p>Typical Average Gas Yields for Different Feedstock 4-28 </p><p>Table 4.17 </p><p>Land Requirements for Selected Valorga Facilities 4-28 </p><p>Table 4.18 </p><p>Valorga AD Facilities 4-29 </p><p>Table 5.1 </p><p>Operating and Planned BTA Facilities 5-15 </p><p>Table 5.2 </p><p>Energy Information for Selected Waasa Facilities 5-18 </p><p>Table 5.3 </p><p>Waasa Facilities 5-19 </p><p>Table 5.4 </p><p>Feedstock Used in Linde Wet Facilities 5-22 </p><p>Table 5.5 </p><p>Energy Outputs from Selected Linde Wet Facilities 5-22 </p><p>Table 5.6 </p><p>Existing and Proposed Linde Wet AD Facilities 5-23 </p><p>Table 5.7 </p><p>Energy Information for Entec Facilities 5-30 </p><p>Table 5.8 Entec Operations 5-30 Table 6.1 </p><p> Summary of Key Technical Data For Thirteen Anaerobic Digestion Technologies Processing Some Garden Waste </p><p>6-5 </p><p>Table 6.2 </p><p>Classification of AD Technologies As One Vs Two Stage Systems 6-7 </p><p>Table 6.3 </p><p>Classification of AD Technologies As Wet Vs Dry Systems 6-8 </p><p>Table 6.4 </p><p>Characteristics of Mesophilic Vs Thermophilic Designs 6-8 </p><p>Table 6.5 </p><p>Available Information on Reported Gas Production and Net Energy Available for Export For Dry Anaerobic Digestion Technologies </p><p>6-10 </p><p>Table 6.6 </p><p>Available Reported Information on Gas Production and Net Energy Available for Export For Wet Anaerobic Digestion Technologies </p><p>6-10 </p><p>Table 6.7 Screening of Anaerobic Digestion Technologies 6-12 </p><p>Table 7.1 Plant Capital Cost Estimate 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste (Dry, Thermophilic AD Plant, Greenfield Site) </p><p>7-7 </p><p>Table 7.2 Plant Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimate 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste (Dry, Thermophilic AD Plant, Greenfield Site) </p><p>7-7 </p><p>Table 7.3 Financial Analysis: Input Assumptions and Data 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste (Dry, Thermophilic AD Plant, Greenfield Site) </p><p>7-8 </p><p>Table 7.4 Tipping Fee and Power Price Calculation 100,000 ton/yr Garden Waste (Dry, Thermophilic AD Plant, Greenfield Site) </p><p>7-9 </p></li><li><p>Tables Page Table 7.5 Summary of Costs for Options 1-4 7-12 Table 7.6 Summary of Costs for Greenfield Sites 7-16 Table 7.7 Summary of Costs for Co-located Sites 7-17 Table 7.8 Financial Analysis Summary 7-19 </p><p>Figures Page Figure 2.1 </p><p> Garden Refuse Collected In the City of Sacramento By Month, 2002 and 2003 </p><p>2-1 </p><p>Figure 3.1 </p><p>Flow Diagram for Anaerobic Digestion 3-4 </p><p>Figure 3.2 </p><p>Possible AD System Processes </p><p>3-5 </p><p>Figure 3.3 </p><p>AD Technologies Supplied By Different Vendors </p><p>3-10 </p><p>Figure 7-1 </p><p>On-Site Cogeneration Schematic with Annual Energy Flows 100,000 Ton per Year Garden Waste Facility </p><p>7-6 </p></li><li><p>Green Waste To Energy Economic Feasibility Study Final Report </p><p>Executive Summary Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is a naturally occurring biological process that uses microbes to break down organic material in the absence of oxygen. In engineered anaerobic digesters, the digestion of organic waste takes place in a special reactor, or enclosed chamber, where critical environmental conditions such as moisture content, temperature and pH levels can be controlled to maximize microbe generation, gas generation and waste decomposition rates. Anaerobic digestion has been in use for several decades to treat sewage sludge, animal wastes and industrial wastewater. Only in the past decade, has the technology become a recognized method for processing solid organic waste from residential and commercial sources. The benefit of an AD process is that it is a net generator of energy which can be sold off-site in the form of heat, steam or electricity. Background To Study The Advanced Renewable and Distributed Generation Technologies (AR&amp;DGT) group of SMUD engaged the services of IEC, with RIS International Ltd as sub-contractor, to explore the feasibility of generating green power through the anaerobic digestion of garden refuse from the Sacramento, Citrus Heights and Sacramento County areas. About 260,000 tons of garden refuse are potentially available as a feedstock for a processing facility. Sacramento Waste Authority (SWA) is currently searching for a local site for aerobic composting of garden refuse, in order to reduce transportation outside the county. SMUDs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires 20% of SMUDs energy needs to be met with non-large hydro renewable energy by 2011. The RPS requirement can be met by conventional renewables such as wind and geothermal, as well as emerging renewable energy sources such as solar and biomass. Biomass based sources of renewable energy are seen as desirable because they use a locally generated and sustainable feedstock material (such as agricultural and municipal waste streams), and create local economic and environmental benefits. The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate data on anaerobic digestion technologies, and assess the viability and costs of digesting garden wastes generated in the Sacramento area, and how this technology could be used to generate green energy from garden wastes. </p><p> i April 2005 </p></li><li><p>Green Waste To Energy Economic Feasibility Study Final Report </p><p>Anaerobic Digestion Technologies And Facilities Processing Solid Municipal Waste In total, 74 existing AD facilities are known to be operating at full scale and are processing some type of municipal solid waste. Most of these anaerobic digesters are located in Europe, with a few in Asia. There are two full scale digesters operating in Canada and no full scale operations in the US at this time. There are an additional 33 AD facilities planned or under construction which will process the organic fraction of the municipal solid waste stream. </p><p> 28 in Germany 12 in Switzerland 7 in Spain 5 each in Austria and Italy 4 each in Japan and France 3 each in Belgium and Netherlands 2 in Canada 1 each in Finland, Sweden and Denmark (this </p><p>may be closed), Libya, Korea and Portugal </p><p>Distribution of 74 Existing AD Facilities Processing the Organic Fraction of MSW </p><p> 8 Kompogas 6 Dranco 3 ISKA 3 APS (UC Davis, Industry, Vancouver </p><p>Washington) 1 Bioconverter (Los Angeles) 3 Valorga 2 BTA 6 Linde 1 Biopercolat </p><p>Distribution of 33 Planned AD Facilities Processing the Organic Fraction of MSW </p><p> Some of the key points from the research conducted on the AD technologies are: </p><p> Gas production for the same materials is similar for most of the AD technologies; Gas production for all technologies is lower for garden waste and higher for food waste, </p><p>paper waste and MSW; Dry AD technologies appear to use 20% to 30% of the energy produced on-site for </p><p>internal requirements, leaving 70% to 80% of the energy produced for export; Wet AD technologies appear to use more energy (up to 50% reported) for internal </p><p>operations, and about 50% is available for export although reported values were inconsistent from one wet technology to another; and </p><p> Dry technologies, therefore, are preferred where energy production is a key evaluation criterion. </p><p> Europe has experienced some success handling garden waste in AD systems. Several AD facilities located throughout Europe process a feedstock consisting primarily of garden waste. Screening of AD Technologies Anaerobic digestion systems are broadly defined as wet or dry technologies. Wet AD technologies are suitable for situations where significant removal of contaminants such as plastic bags is desirable at the front end of the process. Dry AD technologies are more suited to relatively clean feedstocks which do not require significant contaminant removal. Dry AD technologies were considered more suitable for the application under consideration. Thirteen (13) commercially viable AD technologies were identified during the course of this study. Six dry AD technologies were researched and evaluated: </p><p> ii April 2005 </p></li><li><p>Green Waste To Energy Economic Feasibility Study Final Report </p><p> Kompogas (Kompogas, Switzerland) Dranco (Organic Waste Systems, Belgium) Linde (Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH, Germany) Biopercolat (Wehrle-Werk, Germany) ISKA (U-plus Umweltservice AG, Germany) Valorga (Valorga, France) </p><p> Seven wet AD technologies were evaluated: </p><p> APS (Onsite Power Systems, United States) ArrowBio (Arrow Ecology Ltd, Israel) BTA (Biotechnische Abfallverwer-tund GmbH, Germany) Waasa (Citec Environmental, Finland) Linde (Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH, Germany) BioConverter (Bioconverter, United States) Entec (Environment Technology GmbH, Austria) </p><p> The viability of using these technologies to treat garden waste, or a feedstock incorporating some garden waste was assessed using a preliminary, qualitative screening process. The technical screening criteria used to assess and compare the 13 wet and dry technologies included: </p><p> Proven Technology (has facilities in operation) Flexible Technology (can handle a range of feedstocks, including garden waste) Company Track Record (has a good operating record in established AD facilities) Energy Available for Export </p><p> Having a local presence in the US or North America was considered an advantage, but not essential. The Onsite Power Systems pilot project at UC Davis provides a valuable opportunity to carry out local research on AD technology. However, this technology will not be ready to construct a facility with a capacity of 50,000 to 100,000 tons/year in the short term, as the pilot plant will only start operation in late 2005, and will require a number of months of operation to generate the results needed to scale to a larger unit. On the basis of the preliminary screening, four dry technologies were...</p></li></ul>