N ETWORK D ESIGN M ETHODOLOGY T OP -D OWN N ETWORK D ESIGN 1.
UI C OMPOST S YSTEM D ESIGN AND P ILOT Green Machine.
-
Upload
bernice-dixon -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
3
Transcript of UI C OMPOST S YSTEM D ESIGN AND P ILOT Green Machine.
PROJECT GOALS
The purpose of this project is to design, develop, and implement a composting system for the University of Idaho by July 2010.
This system will incorporate 100% of the food waste created by the university.
It will also process any animal carcasses produced by Vandals Meats, the university dairy, beef or sheep units.
The design will be flexible and allow for the possible expansion of operation in size and capability.
Secondarily, the design will allow for the possibility of producing a commercialized product, and for research into composting and waste streams.
NEEDS
Compost 100% of University of Idaho Food Waste
Compost all Dairy, Beef, and Sheep Carcasses
Robust and Expandable Low Cost Low Daily Manual Operations Instructional Use Material (Operations
Manual)
SPECIFICATIONS- WASTE STREAM Food Waste: Approx. 100 tons/year
sorted Daily Waste Volume: <900 lbs/day
Carcasses: 6-7 Full Bovine Carcasses/year 60 gallon drum slaughter offal/month
Dairy manure with bedding for mixing Final Product:
Dairy Bedding, C:N Ratio near 30:1
COMPOSTING PROCESS OVERVIEW
1. Separation and Sorting (occurs at facility)
2. Establish initial pile conditions for feedstock degradation, including pile structure, nutrient balance, oxygen %, and moisture %
3. Biodegradation and stabilization of the compost
4. Collection of air from process and treatment in biofilter (if required)
5. Finishing step to develop level of compost stability required and ensure sufficient degradation
6. Removes physical contaminants (glass, metal, plastics, etc.) and oversized materials (rocks, bulking agents) down to specified size
PROCESS CONTROL PARAMETERS
Nutrient Balance- C:N Control Pile Moisture %Control Pile TemperatureControl Pile Oxygen %
Overall Feedstock Ratio by weight (food waste: manure: wood chips)1: .28 : .63
Total weight per day treated: 1700lbs weekdays
MIXER BENEFITS AND COSTS Using a mixer prior to loading compost bays
would provide smaller and more uniform particles, speeding the composting process and improving quality of product
Range for Mixer Costs $6221-$30000 140 cu. ft from Patz Corp. = $20000 Carbon Steel Paddle Mixer 46 cu. ft from Hayes &
Stolz $25000-$30000 Used 36 cu. ft Carbon Steel Paddle Mixer from Aaron
Equipment = $7000 S-1with 5.4 cu. ft mixer from H.C. Davis Sons
Manufacturing = $6221
CURING
Provides additional stabilization Further degradation Can proceed until desired C:N ratio is
achieved as further biological activity will lower the ratio as CO2 is released
Only requirement is space
GENERAL COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS
Capital and operational costs are related to processing capacity of the technology and its sophistication
Capital costs increase with technology Operational costs decrease with technology Area requirements decrease with technology Process control capability increases with
technology Processing capacity increases with technology
WINDROW COMPOSTING-MECHANICALLY TURNED
Aeration by natural/passive air movement with periodic turning to build porosity, release trapped gases and heat
Suited for larger waste volumes Large area required Equipment reqs:
Tractor/FEL Windrow Turner
Tractor pulled Self propelled
WINDROW COMPOSTING- MECHANICALLY TURNED
Extensive labor required No enclosure, ventilation Typically 1 acre can handle 5000-7000 cy of
composting material Seasonal weather will affect pile size and
process speed 5-6 Weeks 1st phase
WINDROW COMPOSTING-MECHANICALLY TURNED
Advantages Turning processes mix and pulverize
compost for uniform end product May require less final screening
Disadvantages Space limited Weather considerations Low process control Odor Release Labor intensive
Windrow Composting Cost Breakdown Equipment Cost:
Tractor/Front End Loader: $50,000-$150,000 (dairy owns)
Windrow Turner: $30,000-200,000 (FEL could be used instead)
WINDROW COMPOSTING-AERATED STATIC PILE
Mix of food waste, bulking agents, carcasses placed over perforated pipe on prepared base
Aeration positive or negative Negative allows filtration for odor control 3-5 Weeks 1st Phase
WINDROW COMPOSTING-AERATED STATIC PILE
Advantages More space
efficient Fewer, larger
piles Reduced
temperature variation
Closer process control
Shorter composting time
Less labor
Disadvantages Higher capital cost Collection of final product
difficult due to piping Control System for
blower regulation Pile drying Areas of Anaerobic
activity caused by pile settling
Learning curve, trial and error by operators
Aerated Static Pile Cost Breakdown Flooring
Concrete: $5,000-$7,000 Blower
$3,000-$5,000 Piping
120 feet @ $10 per foot =$1,200 Mixer
$6,000-$20,000 Total Costs = $15,200-$33,200
AERATED BINS
Aeration in covered or uncovered bays through porous floor plates or perforated pipes
Size of bays can be changed Large number of bays may be needed
for continuous processing Compost 3-4 weeks Equipment
Front end loader Blowers
AERATED BINS
Advantages Easy in-and-out rotational system Compact Rectangular piles in bins for simple loading,
unloading Disadvantages
Expensive construction Anaerobic areas can develop
Aerated Bins Cost Breakdown Flooring
Concrete: $5,000-$7,000 Elevated Flooring
$4,500 Blower
$3,000-$5,000 Piping
120 feet @ $10 per foot =$1,200 Mixer
$6,000-$20,000 Total Costs = $19,700-$37,700
IN-VESSEL SYSTEMS
Varied technology for volume of waste stream Often modular systems, more containers or
“boxes” can be added to expand systems Careful process monitoring and control
possible Mixing occurs with fixed augers or agitated
beds Aeration forced Systems insulated to retain heat Employ leachate capture and management
(moisture recycle)
IN-VESSEL SYSTEMS
Advantages Close process control Low labor, highly automated
Disadvantages Require extensive screening/shredding
before process begins Very expensive Loading and Screening equipment cost Still require curing Not recommended for mortalities
composting
B W ORGANICS
We make the following proposal for your food, manure, and wood shavings up to 4 cubic yards per day. To make an excellent bedding for dairy cows.
One Model 405 B W Organics composter, portable, w/1/3 hp drive unit $ 39,400.00
One Model 910 U-trough screw loading conveyor $ 3,450.00
One Model 101 mixer $ 8,950.00 One Single phase electrical control panel $ 650.00 Total equipment package fob Sulphur Springs, Texas $
52,550.00 Delivery and installation to Idaho $
3,500.00 Total $ 56,050.00 Note: Customer to furnish single phase service to the control panel Note: We would suggest some type roof structure cover approx. 20 ft by 40 ft to protect system
and waste materials from rain, snow, and bitter north wind. Note: Terms: 50% down with order, balance upon delivery
GREEN MOUNTAIN TECHNOLOGIES- EARTH TUB Earth Tub System package for University
capacity would cost about $38,000 Would consist of 3 separate units
BIOSYSTEM SOLUTIONS
$300-350K Includes: Grinder (Mixer), Biochamber,
Computers to automate Pros: Possible partnership, Shared PR,
Research center to reduce cost- $150-175K Not all up front
Cons: Doesn’t include site costs
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Attributes Wind RowsAerated
Static Pile In Vessel Aerated BedInitial Cost 30,000$ 15,441$ 56,050$ 19,700$ Space Requirement High Medium Low MediumSmell High Low Low LowMaintenance Costs Low Medium High MediumWeekly Management High Medium Low MediumAnimal Carcasses No Yes No NoLength of Composting Time (typical) (Days) 60 28 21 21Curing Time 1-2 Months 1-2 Months 2 Months 2 MonthsEnvironmental Control Low Medium High Medium
Alternatives
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Additive Weighting Chart Wind RowsWeighted
ValueAerated Static
Pile Weighted Value In VesselWeighted
Value Aerated BedWeighted
ValueInitial Cost 0.64 0.14 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20Space Requirement 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.10 1.00 0.19 0.50 0.10Smell 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00Maintenance Costs 1.00 0.14 0.50 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.07Weekly Management 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.01 1.00 0.03 0.50 0.01Animal Carcasses 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00Length of Composting Time (typical) (Days) 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.14 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17Curing Time (Days) 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Environmental Control 1.00 0.06 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.03
Sum 0.42 0.76 0.39 0.57
Weighted Alternatives
RECOMMENDED SYSTEM
•Choice: Aerated Static Pile/Bin•Initial Costs are the most manageable•System will incorporate both food waste and animal carcasses•Smaller foot print•Expandable
SYSTEM OPTIONS
Flooring Blower Mixer Control Screener
Steel Decking
One LargerBatch Manual Batch
Concrete Multiple PTO Automatic None
Asphalt None None
Gravel
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS: FLOORING
Steel DeckingCost: Free, provided
ConcreteCost: $5,000-7,000
•Positives:•Affordable•Easy to install•Can be installed without outside help
•Negatives:•Possible Drainage Issues•Life Span•Flexible
•Positives:•Long Life Span•Ridged construction•Pipe/Drainage Control•Aesthetics
•Negatives:•Cost•Labor Intensive
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS: FLOORING
AsphaltCost: $2000
GravelCost: $500-750
•Positives:•Long Life Span•Pipe/Drainage Control
•Negatives:•Cost•Flexible
•Positives:•Inexpensive
•Negatives:•Shorter life span•Sorting Problems•Possible Drainage Problems
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS: BLOWER
One BlowerCost: 3,000-5,000
MultipleCost: 3,000-5,000
•Positives:•Fewer Moving Parts•Simpler Filter Design
•Negatives:•Cost•If it breaks down, the whole operation stops
•Positives:•Simpler Control Scheme•Energy Saving•Easy to Expand
•Negatives:•Control Difficulty•Increase Housing Cost•Complication of Filter
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS: CONTROL
ManualCost: None/Time
•Positives:•Cost•Less Power Requirements
•Negatives:•Increased Labor•Increased Composting Time•Limited Control
AutomaticCost: <$1,000
•Positives:•Less Management•Faster Compost Time
•Negatives:•Cost•Increase Operator Knowledge
Recommended Components
Surface: Asphalt Cost: $2000
Blower: Single Cost: $5,000
Control System: Automatic Cost: $1,000
Walls: Eco-Blocks Cost: Free; $35 a block
Piping: Industrial Grade PVC Cost: $10/foot
Mixer (Used) Cost: $6,221
Total: $15,421
Future Schedule
Finalize Conceptual Design (Dec. 4) Interim design report (Dec. 11) Testing (January)
C/N ratio Moisture Content Density
Material Acquisition (February) Build conceptual design (March) Testing components of design (April)
REFERENCES
1. Leege, Philip B. and Thompson, Wayne H.1997. Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost. 1st Edition. Bethesda, MD. The US Composting Council.
2. Haug, Roger T. 1993. The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. 2nd Edition. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.
3. Recycled Organics Unit. 2007. Food Organics Processing Options for New South Wales. 2nd Edition. University of New South Wales. Sydney, Australia.
REFERENCES
4. Washington State University. October 2000. Compost Systems. Available at: http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/compost/ImagesWeb/CompSys.html#anchor21101. Accessed 20 October 2009.
5. Renewable Carbon Management, LLC. Available at: http://composter.com/. Accessed 20 October 2009.
6. Green mountain Technologies. In-Vessel Systems. Available at: http://www.compostingtechnology.com/. Accessed 20 October 2009.