YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTROLLED LANDFILL PROGRAM RESULTS YEARS OPERATION

Transcription

1 YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CONTROLLED LANDFILL PROGRAM RESULTS YEARS OPERATION Don Augenstein 1,, (presenter) Ramin Yazdani 2, Jeff Kieffer 2, Kathy Sananikone 2 John Benemann 1 1. Institute for Environmental Management, Palo Alto CA IEM (NGO) 2. Yolo County Planning and Public Works, Woodland, CA Landfill Learning Session World Bank, Washington, DC, May 8, 2006 TECHNOLOGY, GRAPHICS IN THIS PRESENTATION MAY APPEAR COMPLEX YOU PROBABLY WANT MOST TO KNOW -- WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN? TODAY: WILL TRY TO GIVE BASIC OVERVIEWS AND BOTTOM LINE CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS WORK 1

2 ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW) LANDFILLED OR DUMPED WORLDWIDE CAN GENERATE BIOGAS/ LANDFILL GAS (LFG). WIDE RANGE OF STUDIES SHOW 1. ENERGY --- LFG HAS POTENTIALTO FUEL 1-3% OF ELECTRICITY IN MOST COUNTRIES (OECD THRU DEVELOPING). LFG HAS BEEN USABLE IN COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT (LIKE PISTON ENGINES) AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE 2. CLIMATE --- LFG EMISSIONS ACCOUNT FOR 3-10% OF GREENHOUSE GAS BUILDUP IN EARTH S ATMOSPHERE (DEPENDS ON CRITERIA AND WHO DOES ACCOUNTING BUT EMITTED LFG IS BIG DEAL IN CLIMATE SITUATION) AND LFG CAPTURE/CONTROL AND ENERGY USE COULD LESSEN ANNUAL BUILDUP OF GHG IN EARTH S ATMOSPHERE (LESSEN GREENHOUSE EFFECT) BY 3-10%. 3. PRESENT LFG CONTROL IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED FAR FROM PERFECT. AND METHANE PRODUCTION FROM MSW IN VESSELS IS AT BEST A PROBLEMATIC ALTERNATIVE BIG BARRIERS REMAIN ENERGY AND CLIMATE ARE STRONG INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVING LANDFILL GAS ENHANCEMENT, CONTROL AND CAPTURE YOLO COUNTY CA CONTROLLED LANDFILL PROJECT THE IDEAS --RECOVER MAXIMUM POSSIBLE LANDFILL GAS (LFG) ENERGY --MINIMIZE LANDFILLS GREENHOUSE METHANE EMISSIONS OPERATE ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPLIANT, WELL- CONTROLLED LANDFILLS (OECD OR SIMILAR ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS). MEET THESE GOALS WITH APPROACHES THAT CAN BE EASILY APPLIED AND IMPLEMENTED IN MOST LOCATIONS WORLDWIDE WORK BEGAN 1970 AND YOLO PROGRAM PLANNING BEGAN IN FIELD RESULTS SINCE 1994 (LONGEST RUNNING PROJECT OF ITS TYPE, WORLDWIDE) 2

3 CONVENTIONAL LANDFILLS USING USA/OECD COUNTRIES AND SIMILAR DESIGNS ISSUES AND PROBLEMS CONVENTIONAL LANDFILLS DECOMPOSE SLOWLY AND MAY DECOMPOSE INCOMPLETELY. GAS RECOVERY, EMISSIONS CONTROL ARE FAR FROM PERFECT SLOW DECOMPOSITION REQUIRES LONG-TERM CARE. MONITORING, MAINTENANCE TO REGULATORY CRITERIA BUT THERE S AN UPSIDE -- LANDFILL IS A PRACTICAL REACTOR FOR WASTE TREATMENT. VERY LOW INCREMENTAL COST AS COMPARED TO VESSEL METHANE DIGESTERS PROGRAM OBJECTIVES --- FOR LANDFILLS WE WANTED TO ACCELERATE DECOMPOSITION GENERATE ALL LANDFILL GAS OR LFG (METHANE) WE CAN, CAPTURE ALL THAT WE GENERATE GAIN ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS (LESSEN LFG GWP) COMPARE ENGINEERED OPTIMIZED LANDFILL DIGESTER WITH ALTERNATIVES IE CONVENTIONAL DIGESTION IN VESSELS INSTRUMENT THOROUGHLY DETAILED PERFORMANCE MONITORING 3

4 General Design of a Bioreactor Landfill APPROACH TO MAXIMIZE LFG ENERGY FILL QUICKLY, MINIMIZE LFG LOSSES COVER WITH CONDUCTIVE GAS RECOVERY LAYER AND POLYMER COVER (GEOMEMBRANE). LOW PERMEABILITY CLAY LAYER CAN ALSO BE USED. ONLY THEN ENHANCE METHANE GENERATION: --THEN COMPLETE LFG GENERATION SOONER -- AVOID LONG TERM EFFORT, DIFFICULTIES WITH THINGS LIKE OXIDATIVE AND DIFFUSIVE LOSSES WITH LONG-TERM LOW- RATE LFG GENERATION. CONTROL OF AIR ENTRAINMENT ALSO MAXIMIZES GENERATION AND RECOVERY CONTROL CAN BETTER MATCH LFG ENERGY RECOVERY TO ENERGY APPLICATIONS NEED 4

5 ELEVATED TEMPERATURE HELPS Temperature Dependence of Methanogenesis R A T E C O N S T A N T HOT 60C (140F) is > 20x FASTER THAN 20C (68F) COOL Test cell oblique view 5

6 MOISTURE ADDITION (9000 TON SCALE) FILL, THEN COVER FOR GAS CAPTURE. ONLY AFTER MEANS FOR GAS RECOVERY IN PLACE, ADD LIQUID TO ENHANCE METHANE: TRIED A SIMPLE METHOD (WIDELY APPLICABLE MOST PLACES AROUND THE THE WORLD) TO ADD LIQUID: HOSE SIMILAR TO GARDEN HOSE (STANDARD, 600 PSI BURST STRENGTH LIKE SEARS ) DISTRIBUTES MOISTURE TO CA. 1M 3 PITS. PITS PREVENT MOISTURE FROM RUNNING OVER SURFACE METERING BY ORIFICES (COINS WITH DRILLED HOLES SANDWICHED INTO GARDEN HOSE COUPLING) PUMP LIQUID WITH SUFFICIENT PRESSURE (SIMILAR PRESSURE TO MUNI WATER SUPPLIES) IN LOW COST, LAYOUT THIS IS SIMILAR IN MANY RESPECTS TO LAWN, ETC. IRRIGATION (RESULTS LATER) Test cell cross sectional view 6

7 FEEDSTOCK FOR TESTS NORMAL AS-IS WASTE, FROM PACKER TRUCKS, TO LANDFILL. REMOVED RECYCLABLES, THEN NORMALLY LANDFILLED W. PERMEABLE DAILY COVER (ADC) NO SIZE REDUCTION. -- LARGE WASTE PARTICLE DIMENSIONS. HOWEVER C&D, INERTS DIVERTED NO ADDED NUTRIENTS -- ONLY WATER BUT WE FIND THAT GOOD WASTE/LIQUID CONTACTING AND SUFFICIENT TIME (SEVERAL YEARS) ENABLES HIGH CONVERSION OF THIS WASTE IN LANDFILL. MORE DETAIL TO FOLLOW Tem perature (Celcius) BENEFICIAL temperature WARMING, of ENHANCED enhanced CELL, cell TO to METHANE REACTIONS GENERATE HEAT. LARGE MASSES (IE LANDFILLS) DISSIPATE HEAT SLOWLY. TEMPERATURES IN WASTE SUMMERS OUTDOOR TEMPERATURES WINTERS Apr-95 Aug-95 Dec-95 Apr-96 Aug-96 Dec-96 Apr-97 Aug-97 Dec-97 Apr-98 Aug-98 Dec-98 Apr-99 Aug-99 Dec-99 Apr-00 Aug-00 Dec-00 Apr-01 Aug-01 Dec-01 Apr-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Date 7

8 Moisture infiltration vs. time 1996 to 2003 moisture manageable, pore pressure instabilities avoidable 2,500,000 Volume (gal) 2,000,000 Initial input /day permeability 3 x 10-5 cm/s 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 ADDED LIQUID OUT INFILTRATION CA. 30 /YEAR LIQUID RETAINED IN WASTE Back pressure assesses pore pressure and stability risks 0 Oct-96 Jan-97 Apr-97 Jul-97 Oct-97 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Sep-99 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Date Leachate Recirculated Supplemental Liquid Input Total Liquid Input MOISTURE PERMEATION DATA VERY ENCOURAGING Enhanced cell moisture sensor readings-1995 to Supplemental Liquid Added Between October 23, 1996 and April 15, 1997 Supplemental Liquid Added Between August 8, 2000 and October 30, 2000 Supplemental Liquid Added Between October 29, 2001 and November 30, Apr-95 Jul-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 Jun-96 Oct-96 Jan-97 May-97 Aug-97 Dec-97 Apr-98 Jul-98 Nov-98 Mar-99 Jun-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 May-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Apr-01 Jul-01 Nov-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Moisture Reading Date L l 1 Pl d i G l L l 2 Pl d i S d L l 2A Pl d i G t L l 3 Pl d i G t 8

9 1.4 Cumulated methane generation, Yolo 9000 Ton Cummulative Methane demonstration cells, Per Pound of Wet Wast e Ft 3 methane per lb gate waste Enhanced Cell Nor mal Range Expected f or a Conventi onal Desi gn Control Cell 0.0 6/1996 1/1997 1/1998 1/1999 1/2000 1/2001 1/2002 1/2003 1/2004 1/2005 Date Comparison of surface profiles--enhanced vs. control cell Control Cell Enhanced Cell 9

10 rate constant calculation data from 1996 to 2002 Enhanced Cell Methane Generation Rate Constant L0 = 1.4 cubic feet per pounds of dry waste 0.0 Ln(Methane Potential Remaining/L0) Control Cell-No Liquid Added Yield = L0 x (1 - e ^(-kt)) Enhanced Cell Rate Constant k = 0.45 year -1 Enhanced CH4 per dry lbs of waste = 1.4 x (1 - e ^(-0.45 t)) R2 = 0.98 Enhanced Cell- Liquid Added Year After Liquid Addiditon to Enhanced Cell volume reduction from 1995 to 2000 Average Settlement over Time Control Enhanced Time (date) 0% 10/28/95 05/15/96 12/01/96 06/19/97 01/05/98 07/24/98 02/09/99 08/28/99 03/15/00 10/01/00 2% 4% 6% % Settlement 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 10

11 11

12 % of Waste Samples by Coring WHAT CORE (DRILLING) SAMPLES SHOW Waste Sample Moisture Distribution Control % Enhanced Cell % Control Cell Enhanced Moisture Content (%) ENCOURAGING DEMO RESULTS: -GAS RECOVERY -MOISTURE SENSOR READINGS -VOLUME LOSS -CORE MOISTURE DATA -LIQUID MANAGEABILITY ALL SUGGESTED CONTROLLED LANDFILL PERFORMING AS HOPED 12

13 TOP VIEW: TEST CELLS LAYOUT ft f e e t Construction of Gas Collection System 13

14 Scaleup: Completed 3.5 Acre (Northeast) cell, 2001 Individual walking 14

15 4 6 Leachate Head Over the Liner (inches) Liquid Addition Rate = 1,012 Gallons per Day per Acre Liqid Recirculation rate = 709 Gallons per Day per Acre y = x R 2 = y = x R 2 = Liquid Volume (Million Gallons) 0 0 Feb-02 May-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Jun-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Aug-04 Nov-04 Feb-05 Date Maximum Head Over the Liner Maximum Head Over Liner* Supplemental Liquid Added Leachate Recirculated Total Supplemental Liquid Added and Leachate Recirculated Linear (Leachate Recirculated) Linear (Supplemental Liquid Added) In August 2004, two out of the three pressure transducers began giving erratic readings that were not supported by pressure tubes, and in October 2004, the third pressure transducer reported readings above 10 in of H20. Maximum Head Over Liner* curve was created using data from the pressure tubes. 4 5 Leachate Head Over the Liner (inches) Discovered Leachate Seeps 7/8/03 Overall Leachate Addition Rate = 888 Gallons per Day per Acre y = x R 2 = Leachate Addition Rate = y = x ,016 Gallons per Day per Leachate Recirculation Rate = R 2 = y = x 210 Gallons per Day per Acre R 2 = /9/03 7/8/03 9/6/03 11/5/03 1/4/04 3/4/04 5/3/04 7/2/04 8/31/04 10/30/04 Date Maximum Head Over the Liner Leachate Recirculated Supplemental Liquid Added Total Supplemental Liquid and Leachate Recirculated Linear (Supplemental Liquid Added) Linear (Leachate Recirculated) 4.5 Liquid Added or Recirculated (Million Gallons)

16 /10/02 Began Full-Scale Leachate Injection Landfill Gas Flow Rate (scfm) Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Jul-04 Oct-04 Dec-04 Date Time (days following the beginning of liquid addition) Methane Volume (scf/dry lb. waste) Northeast 3.5-Acre Area (Full Scale Project) EPA Estimate, Typical Dry Tomb Landfill in Arid Region West 6-Acre Area (Full Scale Project) Pilot Scale Project 16

17 Ln(CH4 Potential Remaining/Lo) ,000 TON 6-ACRE(2.4 HA) West Cell k = 0.14yr -1 R 2 = 0.98 Northeast Cell k = 0.31yr -1 R 2 = ,000 TON 9000 TON DEMONSTRATION k = 0.51yr -1 R 2 = Years Northeast 3.5-Acre Cell West 6-Acre Cell Enhanced Pilot Scale Linear (Northeast 3.5-Acre Cell) Linear (West 6-Acre Cell) Linear (Enhanced Pilot Scale) BIOREACTOR LFG PERFORMANCE -- LACK OF SIZE REDUCTION SEEMS TO BE MAKING RELATIVELY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. LONG TERM OF DECOMPOSITION MAY COMPENSATE ALLOWING LARGE PARTICLE OUTSIDE IN CONVERSION TIME IS AN ALLY -- PARASITIC ENERGY VERY LOW 2% OF GROSS METHANE ENERGY. LESS THAN 10% OF PARASITICS TYPICAL OF OTHER (VESSEL) MSW TO FUELS CONVERSION NET COSTS = $1-4 / ton WASTE. IF ASSIGNED TO FUEL, EQUATING TO $ 6 - $ 30 PER EQUIVALENT BARREL OIL. ATTRACTIVE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND: VOLUME REDUCTION AND LANDFILL CAPACITY EXTENSION, SIMILAR BENEFITS CAN INDEPENDENTLY JUSTIFY CONTROLLED LANDFILL IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES 17

18 US LFG ENERGY/CLIMATE IMPLICATIONS -- ESTIMATE APPLY TO 50-75% of US WASTE FUGITIVE METHANE EMISSIONS < -5-10% OF GENERATED INCREASE RECOVERED METHANE BY %: POTENTIAL FOR 100, ,000 DAILY BARREL OIL EQUIVALENT (BOE) GREENHOUSE BENEFITS FOR US ca MILLION TONS CO 2 EQUIVALENT AT COST GENERALLY $1-5/ton CO 2 EQUIVALENT. IEM, Landfill Operation for Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, for National Energy Technology Laboratory, USDOE, Program DE-AC26-98FT40422 CONTROLLED LANDFILL ECONOMICS VS. VESSEL BASED PROCESSES (MANY NOW IN EU) COMPARED TO VESSEL PROCESSES: COST OF METHANE (BIO-METHANE) ENERGY FROM ENGINEERED BIOREACTOR LANDFILLS RUNS (10x or more) LOWER THAN VESSELS CONTROLLED BIOREACTOR LFG ENERGY GROSS COSTS $0.50-$5 per Million Btu (IEM, Augenstein 1999). OTHER BENEFITS LIKE AIR SPACE CREATION CAN INDEPENDENTLY JUSTIFY CONTROLLED LANDFILL PROCESSES CONSISTENT RESULTS FROM OTHER STUDIES 18

19 WE ARE INTERESTED IN NET USABLE LFG ENERGY = GROSS MINUS ALL INCREMENTAL PARASITIC ENERGY Vessels: Parasitic energy use includes shredding---- slurry stirring heating--air classification filtration, fermentation slurry heating, etc Parasitic energy of vessel processes (Dranco, Valorga) -- repeatedly documented at 25%-100% of gross methane energy (De Baere, Wellinger, others) NET ENERGY IS REVENUE. FROM STANDPOINT OF WORLD S NEEDS, NET ENERGY ALSO OFFSETS FOSSIL FUEL REQUIREMENTS -- ADVANTAGES TO LANDFILLS --Conversion can be vessels --Landfill parasitic energy less than 2% of gross energy ( LFG IS FROM PHOTOSYNTHETICALLY FIXED CARBON IN MSW BY DEFINITION RENEWABLE) FIELD COMPARISONS: BIOREACTOR NET ENERGIES VERSUS DOCUMENTED VESSEL PERFORMANCE MSW DIGESTION NM3 MIXED GAS (LFG) NET METHANE PLANT PER TONNE MSW ENERGY NM3 OR LOCATION PER TONNE MSW YOLO TEST CELL VESSEL DIGESTERS AMIENS, FRANCE VARENNES, FRANCE CADIZ, SPAIN MONS, BELGIUM BASSANO, ITALY BARCELONA, SPAIN LA CORONA, SPAIN SOURCES FOR VESSEL DIGESTER DATA: VERMA, 2002, DeBAERE, 2004 LANDFILL TAKES EVERYTHING VS TYP < 10% MSW STREAM FOR VESSEL 19

20 LANDFILLS VS. IN-VESSEL DIGESTION: ENERGY/ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES I VESSEL GROSS METHANE YIELD VERSUS POTENTIAL: 50-75% II. VESSEL PARASITIC (PROCESS) ENERGY USE): 35% - 70% of output III ECONOMICS: WHAT DOES METHANE OUTPUT REALLY COST? A. Compare two technologies that give same compost output: MSW-to-Compost: $35/ ton MSW Vessel MSW-to-Methane + Compost $100/ton MSW (Based on European Vendor and Field Data) B. Cost of Methane: Typical NET yield: 50 liters/kg = 0.8 ft3 CH4/lb NET METHANE ENERGY COST $ 200 dollar / barrel oil BIOREACTOR DOES MUCH BETTER 39 Ramin Yazdani, Project Engineer, Yolo Co. Data Collection SCADA System 20

21 CONCLUSIONS (some) PROCEDURE FILL WASTE ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS THEN COVER SUBSEQUENTLY ENHANCE METHANE MAXIMIZE METHANE ENERGY RECOVERY AND MINIMIZE MET EMISSIONS ACCELERATION OF METHANOGENESIS AND DECOMPOSITION, OVER FIVEFOLD. (k year -1 ) VIA MANAGED MOISTURE ADDITION AND ELEVATED TEMPERATURE. GAS CAPTURE CAN BE VERY EFFICIENT (MAYBE > 95%?) MEMBRANE OVER PERMEABLE LAYER. CAN MAXIMIZE LFG ENERGY RECOVERY PREDICTABILITY, MIMINIZE EMISSIONS COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL PRACTICE. FAST VOLUME REDUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH CONTROLLED LANDFILL SOLIDS CONVERSION TO GAS. (LANDFILL CAPACITY EXTENSION) CONTROLLED LANDFILLS FOR MSW-TO METHANE COMPARE VERY WELL WITH ALTERNATIVES (VESSELS) CONCLUSIONS CONT. EASY APPROACH --- SLOW, MULTIPOINT SURFACE LIQUID ADDITION GAVE (SURPRISINGLY) GOOD MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT WASTE.. INFILTRATION RATES SLOWER THAN RECOMMENDED IN SEVERAL STUDIES WERE EFFECTIVE. TEMPERATURE MANAGEMENT (BENEFICIAL WARMING) IS EASILY ACHIEVED WITH CONTROLLED LANDFILL. LOW PERMEABILITY INTERMEDIATE COVER SOIL MUST BE AVOIDED. PERMEABLE ALTERNATIVE DAILY COVER (ADC) FAR BETTER THAN SOIL SCALEUP RESULTS ENCOURAGING CONTROL CELL (MOISTURE EXCLUDED) RESULTS STRONGLY VALIDATE DRY TOMB PROBLEMS. 21

22 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Support (since 1970) Dynatech R/D / Consolidated Natural Gas Services Co. and Dr.Robert Weast California Energy Commission ETAP and PIER Programs Yolo County, CA, (1) People (2) Board of Supervisors US Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (USDOE-NETL) Greenhouse Gas Program US EPA Project XL Region 9 staff, Federal (Washington DC) Staff, USEPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program Solid Waste Association of North America EMCON (And John Pacey and Andy Wang) Sacramento Municipal Utilities District Waste Management Corporation Exxon Research and Engineering AND OTHERS!

23 45 COMBUSTION WORKS BUT IT S EXPENSIVE SO: MOST WORLD WASTE IS LANDFILLED (OR DUMPED) ENERGY WASTE CAN DECOMPOSE TO METHANE (LANDFILL GAS OR LFG) WITH POTENTIAL TO FUEL 1-3% OF ELECTRICITY NEEDS FOR MOST OF THE WORLD S COUNTRIES. CLIMATE ATMOSPHERIC METHANE IS CONTROLLED BY SOURCES/SINKS. LANDFILLS A BIG SOURCE. AND LFG CAPTURE COULD LESSEN BUILDUP OF RADIATIVE FORCING DUE TO ALL GHG IN EARTH S ATMOSPHERE (IE LESSEN GREENHOUSE EFFECT) BY 3-10%. ENERGY AND CLIMATE ARE STRONG INCENTIVES FOR IMPROVING 46 LANDFILL GAS CONTROL AND CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES 23