Date post: | 15-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | lpe-learning-center |
View: | 58 times |
Download: | 1 times |
CCurt urt GGooch, P.E.ooch, P.E.andand
Rodrigo Labatut, Ph.D.Rodrigo Labatut, Ph.D.Cornell UniversityCornell University
www.manuremanagement.cornell.eduwww.manuremanagement.cornell.edu
2015 Waste to Worth Conference
Two-year Continuously-Mixed Farm-Based Anaerobic Co-digestion System
Monitoring – Final Project Results
Presentation Overview
1. Background/overview
2. Main results
3. Some detailed results
4. Conclude
120
117
1,680
150
25
4
390
18
94
37
66
9891
310
105
88
31149
31
1,265
134
208
480
301
114 145260
15
247
84
33 19
147
85
20
63
118
590
680
36153
17
80
9
13
23 1.4
20
AK- 1.3U.S. Dairy Farm Demographics
Thousands of Cows per State
On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion in New York State
Operating (22)
Under Construction (0)
Planning/Design (5)
Decommissioned (4)
Dairy Cows Supplying Anaerobic Digesters and AssociatedIn-place Generation Capacity (kW) in New York State by Year
Synergy Digester – Located in Wyoming County, New York
Project Funding
Wyoming County Industrial Development Corporation
and
Cornell PRO-DAIRY Program
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolKey Prerequisites
1. Evaluation for at least 12 months
2. Conducted after start-up is completed (continuous operation for at least 5 HRTs)
3. Monthly influent/effluent & biogas sampling
EPA / ASERTTI Protocol General Requirements
1. Process Performance Characterization
2. Biogas Production and Utilization
3. Economic Analysis
AA DairyRidgeline
Dairy
New Hope View Dairy
Noblehurst Farm
Patterson Farm
Emerling Farm
Sunny Knoll Farm
Other NYS Anaerobic Digesters Monitored to Date
Farber Farm
Synergy Farm MonitoringExecutive Summary
• Synergy Co-digestion system constructed 2011
• System monitored from June 2012 to May 2014
• Avg. daily AD loading rate = 80,408+/-19,266 gal manure from avg 1,891+/-62 lactating Holstein cows imported organics was 25+/-6% on a volume basis
Synergy Farm MonitoringExecutive Summary
• Avg hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 29+/-7 days
• Avg organic matter reduction = 42%
• Avg and VFA reduction = 75%
• Avg biogas production = 495+/-78 ft3/day per 1,000 wet lbs. of influent added (173+/-34 ft3/cow-day)
Synergy Farm MonitoringExecutive Summary
• 1.4 MW IC engine-generator set produced on average 23+/-7 MWh of electricity per day
• AD system’s average daily parasitic electric load was 3+/-1 MWh (14% of energy generated)
• Capacity factor was 0.66 over monitoring period
• On-line efficiency was 80% over monitoring period
Synergy Farm MonitoringExecutive Summary
• Thermal to electrical conversion efficiency was 42%
• 13% of the total biogas energy was recovered as hot water from the engine-generator set
• Average monthly income from energy and renewable energy credit sales was $56,710
Project Report Available on: www.manuremanagment.cornell.edu
Tests and Test Methods Used:Solids, VA, and COD
• Total Solids EPA 160.3
• Total Volatile Solids EPA 160.4
• Volatile Acids SM18 5560C
• COD SM18 5220B
Tests and Test Methods Used:Nutrients (food waste only)
• TKN EPA 351.4
• Ammonia-N SM18 4500F
• Organic-N Subtraction• Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3
• Ortho Phosphorus EPA 365.3
• Potassium EPA SW 6010
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolProcess Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: ∆TS, ∆TVS, ∆COD, and ∆TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling).
Influent Effluent Percent Change in Constituent Concentration
% Change = [influent] – [effluent] x 100[influent]
Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion
80% VFA influent reduction54% COD influent reduction
57% VS reduction of the influent organic matter
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolProcess Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: ∆TS, ∆TVS, ∆COD, and ∆TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling).
2. Ideally, ∆TKN, ∆ON, ∆NH3-N, ∆TP, and ∆S = 0
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolProcess Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: ∆TS, ∆TVS, ∆COD, and ∆TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling).
2. Ideally, ∆TKN, ∆ON, ∆NH3-N, ∆TP, and ∆S = 0
3. Recommend bench-scale trials to establish the readily biodegradable fraction of TVS
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolProcess Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: ∆TS, ∆TVS, ∆COD, and ∆TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling).
2. Ideally, ∆TKN, ∆ON, ∆NH3-N, ∆TP, and ∆S = 0
3. Recommend bench-scale trials to establish the readily biodegradable fraction of TVS
4. Recommend Pathogen Analysis
Influent/Effluent Percent Change:Solids and Pathogens
Source: Gooch and Inglis, 2006
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Production
1. Temperature and pressure compensated meters (0°C and 1 Atm)
2. Biogas meter calibration
3. Biogas water vapor adjustment
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Production
Source: Richards et al., 1991
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Production
Overall Project Average Biogas Moisture Content = 8.5% (v/v)
Biogas (ft3) Production per Lactating Cow
Overall, 173+/-34 ft3 of biogas per lactating cow-day was produced.
Moisture Corrected Biogas Methane and Carbon Dioxide Content
(Pre Scrubber)
Overall Methane and Carbon Dioxide Content was 60% and 37%
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Production
1. Temperature and pressure compensated meters (0°C and 1 Atm)
2. Biogas meter calibration
3. Composition: CO2, CH4 & H2S bi-weekly
4. CO2 , H2S, CH4, and NH3 quarterly
Biogas Scrubber Performance(Hydrogen Sulfide)
Overall, hydrogen sulfide was reduced from 1,209 to 488 ppm,resulting in an efficiency of 62+/-29%.
Total Biogas Thermal Energy (MMBtu) produced by Monitoring Period
Overall, avg. energy produced was 4,766+/-1,340 MMBtu per period.
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Utilization
1. Thermal (LHV) to electrical conversion
2. Eng.-gen. set operating hours
3. Capacity factor
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Utilization
(Thermal to electrical conversion by CHP)
Overall, avg. daily electrical energy produced was 23 MWh/day.
↓ Biogas ProductionCHP Unit Challenges
↓ Biogas Production Multiple Mech. Problems
Thermal to Electrical Conversion Efficiency and Volume of Biogas to Produce a Unit of Electrical Energy
From PD 10 to 24, avg. thermal conversion efficiency averaged 44%.
CHP Unit:Capacity Factor and Online Efficiency
Overall, the avg. capacity factor and online efficiencywere 0.66+/-0.22 and 80+/-23%, respectively.
CHP UnitCapacity Factor and Online Efficiency
CHP Unit: Thermal Heat Recovered and Percent of Recovered Energy to the Total
Produced by the Digester
Overall, an average of 801±260 MMBtu of combustion heat per periodwas harvested or 13±5% of the total thermal energy produced digester.
CHP Unit: Monthly Electrical Energy Generated and Parasitic Energy for System
Overall, the avg. monthly energy generated was 671±258 MWh and theavg. monthly parasitic energy was 92±30 MWh or 14% of that generated.
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolBiogas Utilization
Greenhouse gas reduction do to AD:
Estimate reduced ghg emissions by comparing predicted differences in long-term storage emissions with and without pretreatment by AD
EPA / ASERTTI ProtocolEconomic Analysis
1. Cash flow approach
2. Annual capital cost (turn key approach)
3. Annual operating and maintenance costs
4. Revenue
Capital CostsComponent Cost ($)
Interconnection and switchgear 1,250,000
Site work 1,200,000
Mechanical systems 350,000
Heat exchange and pasteurization 400,000
Digester vessel 1,250,000
Biomass and gas storage vessel 350,000
Hydrogen sulfide scrubber 150,000
CHP unit 1,250,000
Motor control systems 300,000
Engineering installation 1,250,000
Total 7,750,000
Project Grants
$1,000,000 from the New York State Energy Research Development Authority
$800,000 in performance payments (3-yrs.)
$200,000 in capacity payment
Project Revenue
Electrical energy sales ~$45/MWh
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) ~$50/MWh
Tipping fees
Overall, the avg. monthly sum of the electrical and REC revenues was $56,700.
Three Observations
1. Mass flow quantification is key
2. Implementation of the ASERTTI protocol is beyond almost all farms to do or pay for
3. Multiple factors have to be addressed for wide-span adoption of AD. Data shows one such factor is low capacity factors.
Why are you here:
Networking opportunitiesShare knowledgeLooking for new opportunitiesRepresenting products/services for saleLearn about anaerobic digestionMoney
Information on Manure Treatment, Information on Manure Treatment, Including Anaerobic Digestion,…Including Anaerobic Digestion,…
check out:check out:The Cornell Manure Management The Cornell Manure Management
Program’s web site at:Program’s web site at:
www.manuremanagement.cornell.eduwww.manuremanagement.cornell.edu