landfill methane recovery projects lessons learned – part ... · 2 presentation topics • review...
TRANSCRIPT
Landfill Methane Recovery Projects Lessons Learned – Part 1: Project Design vs. Actual Performance:
Evaluation of Landfill Gas Models Using Monitored Recovery from Projects in Latin
America, China, and Eastern Europe
2
Presentation Topics• Review of selected international biogas models• U.S. EPA’s LMOP biogas modeling projects:
– Mexico and Central America models and workshops– Other LMOP modeling project work (M2M countries)
• Evaluation of 18 biogas projects at landfills in Latin America, China, and Eastern Europe– World Bank evaluation of CER under-delivery: Comparison of
projected recovery in PDDs to actual recovery from monitoring reports
– Focused analysis using biogas recovery projections and recovery data for 8 sites
– Evaluate reasons for shortfalls: project under-performance or optimistic model estimates?
3
Selected International Landfill Biogas Models
• U.S. EPA’s LandGEM– v. 3.02 (2005) calculations in 0.1 year increments– older versions most often used in PDD’s
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Model (2006)
• LMOP’s International LFG models:– Mexico Biogas Model (2003)– Central America Biogas Model (2007)
• Proprietary models:– World Bank Model– SCS Engineers’ International Model
4
LMOP Landfill Biogas Modeling Projects by SCS
• Mexico Landfill Gas Model (12/2003)
• Thailand World Bank - LMOP Workshop (4/2004)
• Central America Biogas Model (3/2007)
El El TrebolTrebol Landfill, Guatemala CityLandfill, Guatemala City
• Numerous Assessment Reports and Pre-feasibility Studies involving LFG model development (Latin America, India, Ukraine, Russia).
• Future country or region-specific models planned
5
Thailand LMOP Project• World Bank – LMOP Landfill Biogas Training
Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand (April 29-30, 2004)• Visits to 5 landfills to observe site conditions• SCS: 56 sites modeled, 15 using multi-phase FOD (3k)
PhitsanulokPhitsanulok LandfillLandfill NonthaburiNonthaburi Open Dump SiteOpen Dump Site
6
LMOP’s Central America Biogas Model (EPA, 2007)
• SCS evaluated waste composition and site conditions, developed model with separate modules for each country
• LMOP workshop in El Salvador, March 29, 2007– Included one day workshop and training on model use – Site visit to Nejapa Landfill outside of San Salvador
Workshop group at Workshop group at NejapaNejapa LandfillLandfill
NejapaNejapa Landfill extraction wellLandfill extraction well
7
World Bank Evaluation of LFG Project Under-Performance
• SCS Engineers evaluated projected vs. actual project performance (in Monitoring Reports)
• Results used in World Bank presentations:
– Workshop on project shortfalls at World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C. on April 19, 2007
– Carbon Expo Conference in Cologne, Germany on May 3, 2007
8
Actual Project Performance % of Projected Recovery
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber
of S
ites R
epor
ting
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
>100%75%-100%50%-74%25%-49%<25%
• Model needs to account for waste composition and site conditions very different from developed countries
9
Waste Compositionin Developing Countries
• Models must account for:– High moisture content: Model Lo needs to be
adjusted to account for moisture content (inert %)– High food waste content: fast decay rates (k)
cause a steep decline in generation after closure– Potential for high inert % in some regions – Model error introduced unless different k values
are used to account for different waste decay rates
– High waste moisture content also contributes to leachate buildup
10
World Bank Evaluation –Modeling Study of 8 Projects
1. Grobina Landfill in Liepaja, Latvia.2. Tianjingwa Landfill in Nanjing, China.3. Bandeirantes Landfill in Sao Paulo, Brazil.4. Villa Dominico Landfill in Buenos Aires,
Argentina.5. Salvador de Bahia Landfill in Salvador, Brazil.6. Eight landfills in the Province of Guangdong,
China.7. San Nicolas and Cumbres Landfills in Aguas
Calientes, Mexico.8. Nejapa Landfill in San Salvador, El Salvador.
11
Grobina Landfill, Liepaja, Latvia
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2005 60 59 98% 2006 80 54 68% 2007 148 89 60%
12
Grobina Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 1. LFG Recovery ProjectionsGrobina Landfill, Liepaja, Latvia
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2005 - 2007 Recovery WB Model at 55% RecoveryIPCC Model at 55% Recovery PDD Projected RecoverySCS Model at 55% Recovery
13
Tianjingwa Landfill, Nanjing, China
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2005 3,240 389 12% 2006 3,419 531 16%
14
Tianjingwa Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 2. LFG Recovery ProjectionsTianjingwa Landfill, Nanjing, China
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
225,000
250,000
275,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2005 - 2006 Recovery WB Model at 55% RecoveryIPCC Model at 55% Recovery PDD Recovery (55%)SCS Model at 55% Recovery
15
Bandeirantes Landfill, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2004 10,666 9,941 93% 2005 15,797 11,350 72% 2006 20,703 6,897 33% 2007 18,061 12,424 69%
16
Bandeirantes Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 3. LFG Recovery ProjectionsBandeirantes Landfill, Sao Paulo, Brazil
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2004 - 2007 Recovery WB Model at 50-60% RecoveryIPCC Model at 50-60% Recovery PDD Projected RecoverySCS Model at 50-60% Recovery
17
Villa Dominico Landfill, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2005 14,416 1,544 11% 2006 13,299 1,584 12% 2007 12,270 1,421 12%
Leachate at Villa Leachate at Villa DominicoDominico
18
Villa Dominico Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 4. LFG Recovery Projections - Implemented AreasVilla Dominico Landfill, Buenos Aires, Argentina
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2005 - 2007 Recovery WB Model at 70% RecoveryIPCC Model at 70% Recovery PDD Projected Recovery (70%)WB Model at 20% Recovery SCS Model at 70% Recovery
19
Salvador de Bahia Landfill, Salvador, Brazil
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2004 12,300 2,900 24% 2005 13,990 4,559 33%
20
Salvador de Bahia Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 5. LFG Recovery ProjectionsSalvador de Bahia Landfill, Salvador, Brazil
0
2,0004,000
6,000
8,00010,000
12,000
14,00016,000
18,000
20,00022,000
24,000
26,00028,000
30,000
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2004 - 2005 Recovery WB Model at 70% RecoveryIPCC Model at 70% Recovery PDD Projected Recovery (80% efficiency)SCS Model at 70% Recovery
21
Eight Landfills in the Province of Guangdong, China
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2006 3,066 559 18%
22
Eight Landfills in Guangdong Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 6. LFG Recovery Projections8 Landfills in Guangdong Province, China
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
25,000
50,00075,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000225,000
250,000
275,000
300,000
325,000350,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2006 Recovery PDD Recovery (68%)WB Model at 50% Recovery IPCC Model at 50% RecoverySCS Model at 50% Recovery
23
San Nicolas and Cumbres Landfills, Aguascalientes, Mexico
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2006 2,445 1,454 59%
24
San Nicolas and Cumbres Landfill Gas Curves
Figure 7. LFG Recovery ProjectionsCumbres and San Nicolas Landfills in Aguascalientes, Mexico
0200400600800
1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,4002,6002,8003,000
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2006 Recovery PDD Recovery (50% old; 70% new)WB Model (40-50% old; 60-70% new) IPCC Model (40-50% old; 60-70% new)SCS Model (40-50% old; 60-70% new)
25
Nejapa Landfill, San Salvador, El Salvador
Year
Projected LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual LFG
Recovery (m3/hr at
50% CH4)
Actual Recovery / Projected Recovery
(%) 2006 1,148 596 52% 2007 2,169 2,218 102%
26
Nejapa Landfill Gas CurvesFigure 8. LFG Recovery Projections
Nejapa Landfill, San Salvador, El Salvador
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025
LFG
Flo
w a
t 50%
Met
hane
(m3/
hr)
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
550,000
CE
Rs (
tonn
es C
O2e
)
Actual 2006 - 2007 Recovery PDD Projected Recovery (70% efficiency)WB Model at 13-70% Recovery IPCC Model at 13-70% RecoveryLMOP Central America Model (13-70%) SCS Model at 13-70% Recovery
27
Overly Optimistic Models or Under-Performing Projects?
• Summary of common model problems:– Model Lo value too high
– Use of simple first order decay model with high k value
– High collection efficiency assumptions– Leachate problems not
anticipated
• Full impact of site conditions not always predictable – e.g., Villa Dominico and Bandeirantes
Leachate at Villa DominicoLeachate at Villa Dominico
28
Summary and Conclusions• Monitoring data to date indicates that most LFG
recovery projects are not meeting PDD expectations
• Shortfalls often result from inappropriate model assumptions rather than from project under-performance
• LMOP, IPCC, and SCS models better account for waste composition and site conditions
• Models need to apply:– Multiple k values account for rapid food waste decay
– Conservative Lo, MCF values and collection efficiency estimates to reflect site specific conditions
29
For More Information• LMOP continuing to provide training to developing countries
through M2M (www.methanetomarkets.org)• For more information on LMOP’s M2M programs, contact Brian
Guzzone at [email protected]• Information on World Bank’s Landfill Gas to Energy Initiative
available at: www.bancomundial.org.ar/lfg• A link to the World Bank workshop on April 19, 2007 on project
design vs. actual performance is at: http://go.worldbank.org/AIKAGIXIN0>, or contact Chuck Peterson at [email protected]
• Central America Landfill Biogas Model is available at: www.epa.gov/lmop/international.htm
• IPCC Model is available at: www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.htm
• For more information about this presentation, contact Alex Stegeat: [email protected]