Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ... Study of Anaerobic ... The Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization Options ... Typical CAD system process flow diagram

Download Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ...  Study of Anaerobic ... The Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization Options ... Typical CAD system process flow diagram

Post on 11-Mar-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents

1 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>Cooperative Extension Lewis County </p><p>Final Report June 2010 (updated) </p><p>Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization Options for the Proposed Lewis County Community Digester </p><p>www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu </p></li><li><p>Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization Options for the Proposed Lewis County Community Digester </p><p> By: </p><p>Curt Gooch, P.E.1, Senior Extension Associate </p><p>Jennifer Pronto1, Research Support Specialist </p><p>Brent Gloy, Ph.D2, Professor </p><p>Norm Scott, Ph.D1, Professor </p><p>Steve McGlynn1, Research Support Specialist </p><p>Christopher Bentley1, Undergraduate Student </p><p> 1Biological and Environmental Engineering Department </p><p>2Department of Applied Economics and Management </p><p>334 Riley-Robb Hall </p><p>Cornell University </p><p>Ithaca, New York 14853 </p><p>June 11, 2010 </p><p> Updated June 30, 2010 </p></li><li><p>Foreword </p><p>The Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Utilization Options for the Proposed Lewis </p><p>County Community Digester project is not a feasibility study in its strictest definition, but rather an </p><p>assessment of the farm and non-farm biomass resources available in and around the village of Lowville, </p><p>an investigation into the available options for co-digesting them (various combinations of materials and </p><p>site locations), an estimation of the biogas that could be produced by the various scenarios, the resulting </p><p>energy produced, and net energy available for use, and an economic profitability assessment for each of </p><p>the options investigated. The scope of work for this project was somewhat dynamic as adjustments </p><p>were continually made based on progress of evaluating the information at hand. This report was </p><p>written to provide the findings and recommendations of the feasibility study to the client, the Lowville </p><p>Digester Workgroup, and also to serve as an educational tool for the stakeholders of this and future </p><p>proposed centralized anaerobic digester projects. </p><p>The proposed Lewis County Community Digester project exemplifies the full potential of a centralized </p><p>anaerobic digester. Manure and, waste biomass materials (processing byproducts from multiple </p><p>sources), are mixed together and heated to produce biogas; a locally generated, clean burning, </p><p>renewable energy. Waste biomass is generated daily by food processing plants and restaurants, public </p><p>facilities and institutions such as schools and hospitals, and at private residences. Co-digesting manure </p><p>and these materials reduces the burden on landfills and reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The </p><p>U.S. dairy industry has formally committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 and this </p><p>project is an example of how this can be effectively accomplished, from a technical/applied perspective. </p><p>In fact, the Lewis County Community Digester project demonstrates the vision behind Dairyville 2020 </p><p> the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairys Dairy Power Initiative flagship project. The major shortcomings </p><p>at this point are high capital costs and less than required energy purchase prices needed to make such </p><p>systems economically feasible. </p></li><li><p>Acknowledgements This document is the culmination of a team effort by the authors and many others who provided their </p><p>assistance and support. The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the following individuals/groups </p><p>for their contributions: </p><p>Senator Joseph Griffo, 47th District in New York State, for funding this project and for his continued </p><p>interest. </p><p>The dairy farmers of Lewis County who completed the farm surveys. </p><p>Representatives for the non-farm biomass suppliers who completed the non-farm surveys. </p><p>Drs. Dave C. Ludington and Michael B. Timmons, Professor Emeritus and Professor, respectively, of </p><p>Biological and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University for their efforts in reviewing drafts of the </p><p>feasibility study and for their constructive inputs and suggestions. </p><p>Members of the Lowville Digester Workgroup for their confidence in the Cornell team to provide a </p><p>feasibility study that would contain unbiased information and for their teamwork and collaboration </p><p>while the feasibility study was being conducted. </p><p>Ms. Christine Ashdown (Cornell Office of Sponsored Programs) for her timely efforts in developing the </p><p>contract for this project and for her continued support to funded project opportunities pursued by </p><p>members of the Cornell PRO-DAIRY program. </p><p>Ms. Michele Ledoux (Cornell Cooperative Extension Lewis County) for her trust in the Cornell team </p><p>and for her work in securing the funding and performing contract administration tasks that resulted in a </p><p>workable means to performing this work. </p><p>Ms. Norma McDonald (North American Sales Manager, Organic Waste Systems, Inc.) for providing key </p><p>information on energy crop digesters suitable for U.S. applications needed to perform the annual </p><p>economic profitability analysis for the energy crop digester scenarios investigated. </p></li><li><p>Mr. Todd Vernon (Senior Sales Manager, GE Energy Jenbacher) for providing key information on the </p><p>Jenbacher engine-generator sets needed to perform the annual economic profitability analysis. </p><p>Mr. Frans Vokey (Cornell Cooperative Extension Lewis County) for his overall leadership of the </p><p>Lowville Digester Workgroup and Cornell collaboration, and for all of his efforts in planning and running </p><p>project meetings. </p><p>Mary Beth Anderson (community resident) for her assistance in collecting samples from non-farm </p><p>biomass suppliers and for work on distributing and collecting non-farm biomass surveys. </p><p>Mike Durant (Soil and Water Conservation District) for designing the project map. </p></li><li><p>Table of Contents </p><p>Foreword </p><p>Acknowledgements </p><p>Table of Contents </p><p>Table of Figures </p><p>Table of Tables </p><p>Abbreviations and Acronyms </p><p>Executive Summary p. 1 </p><p>Introduction p. 15 </p><p>Chapter 1. Basics of Centralized Dairy Manure-based Anaerobic Digestion, Biogas Utilization, and Nutrient Recovery Systems </p><p>p. 23 </p><p>Chapter 2. Literature Review of Centralized AD Projects p. 39 </p><p>Chapter 3. Farm and Community Biomass Survey p. 49 </p><p>Chapter 4. Biomass Sample Collection and Analysis p. 61 </p><p>Chapter 5. Biomass Transportation p. 71 </p><p>Chapter 6. Preliminary Investigation of Five AD Scenarios p. 77 </p><p>Chapter 7. Final AD Scenario Selection and Details p. 93 </p><p>Chapter 8. Next Steps and Recommendations p. 115 </p><p>References p. 117 </p><p>Appendix </p><p>A. Glossary of terms p. 121 </p><p>B. Farm-based Survey p. 127 </p><p>C. Non Farm-Based Survey p. 131 </p><p>D. Substrate Sampling Report p. 133 </p><p>E. Biochemical Methane Potential; Laboratory Procedure p. 137 </p><p>F. Projected Farm Survey Responses p. 139 </p></li><li><p> Table of Figures Page Figure 1. New York State map showing location of project-site ................................................................. 16 Figure 2. Typical CAD system process flow diagram ................................................................................... 23 Figure 3. A CAD in Jutland, Denmark .......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4. Danish above-grade complete mix vertical digesters in background .......................................... 29 Figure 5. Thermal to electric conversion efficiency of six NYS on-farm engine-generator sets. (Source: Gooch, Pronto, Ludington, Unpublished, 2010) ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 6. Basic process flow diagram for advanced biogas clean-up for biomethane production. ........... 34 Figure 7. Advanced digestate treatment to segregate and concentrate nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. ................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 8. Landfill tipping fees ($/ton) by region of the U.S. (Repa, 2005) .................................................. 47 Figure 9. Landfill tipping fees ($/ton), developed from Figure 8 (Repa, 2005). ......................................... 47 Figure 10. Lowville regional map with collaborating dairy farms superimposed along concentric circles of various radii centered on downtown Lowville............................................................................................ 54 Figure 11. Quantity (millions lbs/yr.) of substrates (wet weight). ............................................................. 57 Figure 12. Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) data (cumulative biogas yield) for substrate 4. ........... 62 Figure 13. Graphical representation of biochemical methane potentials for all substrates tested. .......... 63 Figure 14. Estimated annual minimum, maximum, and average methane production by substrate. ....... 66 Figure 15. Estimated aggregated annual minimum, maximum, and average methane production of non-farm biomass substrates and manure. ....................................................................................................... 66 Figure 16. Nutrient concentrations for pre- and post-digestion conditions for N, P, K.............................. 70 Figure 17. Diagram of estimating a break-even tipping fee for non-farm biomass substrate suppliers. ... 75 Figure 18. CAD Site 1 for Scenario Nos. 1 and 2. ........................................................................................ 78 Figure 19. Remote AD Site 2 for Scenario Nos. 3, 3a, and 3b. .................................................................... 79 Figure 20. Remote AD Site 3 for Scenario Nos. 3, 3a, and 3b. .................................................................... 80 Figure 21. Process flow diagram for Scenario No. 1 using the average annual total volume of the seven non-farm biomass substrates. .................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 22. Process flow diagram for Scenario No. 2 using the average annual total volume of the three non-farm biomass substrates. .................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 23. Process flow diagrams for Scenario No. 3 using the average annual total volume of the three non-farm biomass substrates for Site 2 and Site 3. All manure and digestate are trucked. ..................... 85 Figure 24. Process flow diagram for Scenario No. 3a using the average annual total volume of three non-farm biomass substrates for Site 2 and Site 3. Manure and digestate are pumped and trucked. ............ 87 Figure 25. Process flow diagram for Scenario No. 3b using the average annual total volume of three non-farm biomass substrates for Site 2 and Site 3. ........................................................................................... 89 Figure 26. Final Scenario No. 2 process flow diagram. ............................................................................... 94 Figure 27. Energy crop anaerobic digester process flow diagram. ............................................................. 94 Figure 28. Comparison of the volume of manure sent to the CAD and volume of CAD effluent received, by farm. ....................................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 29. Comparison of the volume of manure sent to the CAD and volume of CAD effluent received, by farm, taking into account each farm's nutrient balance situation....................................................... 112 Figure 30. Image of residential food waste sample collected. ................................................................. 134 Figure 31. Meat and butcher waste from substrate number 4. ............................................................... 135 </p><p>Final%20report.doc#_Toc266177221Final%20report.doc#_Toc266177226</p></li><li><p>Table of Tables Page Table 1. Typical fuel-to-power efficiency values (adapted and updated from Wright, 2001). .................. 33 Table 2. St.Albans/Swanton, VT project statistics ...................................................................................... 39 Table 3. LREC project statistics ................................................................................................................... 41 Table 4. Dane County, WI (Waunakee cluster) project statistics ............................................................... 42 Table 5. Cornell project statistics ................................................................................................................ 43 Table 6. York, NY project statistics .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 7. Salem, NY project statistics ........................................................................................................... 44 Table 8. Perry, NY project statistics ............................................................................................................ 45 Table 9. Port of Tillamook project statistics................................................................................................ 46 Table 10. Summary of current (2009) farm survey data ............................................................................. 51 Table 11. Summary of nutrient balance information as provided in farm surveys ................................... 53 Table 12. Summary of non-farm biomass survey results............................................................................ 56 Table 13. Select Lewis County crop farm data ............................................................................................ 58 Table 14. BMP analysis results for all substrates tested ............................................................................. 63 Table 15. Biogas production potential of non-farm biomass substrates and manure ............................... 65 Table 16. Potential biogas production of available energy crop acreage ................................................... 65 Table 17. CES lab results for each non-farm biomass substrate: nutrients ................................................ 67 Table 18. CES lab results for each non-farm biomass substrate: solids...................................................... 67 Table 19. Estimated annual mass of nitrogen series for raw AD feedstock .............................................. 68 Table 20. Estimated annual mass of phosphorus and potassium series for raw AD feedstock ................ 68 Table 21. Predicted annual mass of nitrogen for post-digested AD feedstock ......................................... 69 Table 22. Predicted annual mass of phosphorus and potassium for post-digested AD feedstock ........... 70 Table 23. Capital and annual cost estimates for a project-owned trucking fleet ....................................... 72 Table 24. Contracted trucking fleet example schedule .............................................................................. 73 Table 25. Scenario No. 3a mea...</p></li></ul>