Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

24
Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content April, 2013 Dana Kirk, Ph.D., P.E. Louis Faivor Steve Safferman, Ph.D., P.E. Wei Liao, Ph.D., P.E. Anaerobic Digestion Research and Education Center Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

description

Proceedings available at: http://www.extension.org/67610 To improve the energy production and revenue generation, many farm digester operators are including off-farm feedstocks in the blend. Off-farm feedstocks are raw materials with high carbon concentrations that can be degraded anaerobically. Common off-farm feedstocks include food service or retail waste, food processing byproducts, residuals from biofuels production and FOG (fat, oil & grease) resulting from food preparation. Typically, off-farm feedstocks have a higher energy potential when compared to manure. Manures generally have biogas potential in the range of 280 to 500 L of biogas/kg of VS, compared to off-farm feedstocks which can range from 300 to 1,300 L of biogas/kg of VS [1]. In addition to the increased biogas production, revenue can also be generated from tipping fees collected for feedstock brought onto a farm. The tipping fee is typically comparable to the cost of disposing of the material at a landfill or wastewater treatment plant.

Transcript of Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Page 1: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

April, 2013

Dana Kirk, Ph.D., P.E.Louis FaivorSteve Safferman, Ph.D., P.E.Wei Liao, Ph.D., P.E.

Anaerobic Digestion Research and Education CenterBiosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Page 2: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Industry growth – on-farm anaerobic digesters

2012 –192 operating systems

Up from 151 systems in 2010

Page 3: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

• Revenue generation• Low value of products• Assessing value of environmental benefits

• Access to markets• Location• Utilities

• Capital cost• Manure & nutrient management• Feedstock availability• Technological gaps

• Nutrient recovery• CNG vehicle conversion

Challenges with anaerobic digestion

Page 4: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

• Pro’s & con’s

• Energy potential • Nutrients• Tipping fees• Infrastructure• Regulatory • Management

Non-farm feedstock as a way to address revenue

Page 5: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Disclaimer

Page 6: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Energy Potential

Page 7: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

ADREC classification of feedstock

Values

Feedstock Count (n) Avg, TS raw (%) Avg, VS raw (% of TS)

Avg of Normalized per Initial VS, Biogas Production (mL/mg) Max Methane (%)

Acid food 3 5.74% 58.77% 0.427 70.67%Algae 1 1.01% 50.29% 0.051 60.00%Bakery 1 92.86% 71.51% 0.169 15.91%Blend

Beef 6 92.86% 71.51% 0.433 66.92%Chicken 3 0.85% 59.04% 0.477 60.33%Dairy 141 14.01% 68.56% 0.466 63.19%Pomace 16 0.135 25.81%Swine 16 0.110 25.83%Undisclosed 3 19.54% 88.07% 2.913 70.67%

Blend Total 185 16.94% 68.87% 0.445 56.92%Dairy

Cheese whey 3 28.16% 82.19% 1.204 70.28%Whey 3 6.06% 68.38% 1.218 64.17%

Dairy Total 6 17.11% 75.29% 1.211 67.23%Dairy food 1 6.60% 74.63% 0.452 75.00%Food manufacture 10 25.63% 80.96% 1.469 69.20%Food waste

Cafeteria(blank)

Cafeteria - breakfast 1 20.31% 77.04% 0.451 74.00%(blank) Total 1 20.31% 77.04% 0.451 74.00%

Cafeteria Total 1 20.31% 77.04% 0.451 74.00%Food waste 6 27.37% 80.32% 1.445 59.11%

Food waste Total 7 26.20% 79.78% 1.303 61.24%Formic acid 1 0.17% 78.70% 0.199 0.00%Fruit & Veg 22 12.68% 93.87% 0.712 43.90%Light industrial 41 25.15% 80.05% 1.450 60.85%Manure 111 7.61% 57.35% 0.503 58.88%Meat 17 5.35% 75.51% 0.663 61.88%Municipal 12 1.09% 73.10% 1.957 64.37%NMP 2 0.28% 97.95% 1.376 57.00%Seed 83 2.48% 67.94% 0.384 54.32%Standard 10 121.40% 81.20% 0.904 61.37%

• 14 general categories of non-farm substrate• 558 data points as of June, 2012

Page 8: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Energy potential of non-farm feedstock

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Substrate

Biog

as P

oten

tial (

ft3/

ton

VS)

Page 9: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

FeedstockBiogas Potential (ft3/ton VS) TS VS

Low High % %

Liquid dairy manure 16,018 3.3% 2.3%

Cheese Whey 22,746 32,000 5.3% 4.5%

Fish offal 28,833 35.4% 29.2%

FOG/food grease 15,378 29,794 60.2% 58.3%

Mixed food waste 14,417 20.3% 15.6%

Food processing waste 21,785 26,590 52.3% 50.6%

Fruit & Vegetable waste 16,659 18,902 11.2% 10.6%

Glycerin 27,872 32,000 29.8% 26.8%

Switchgrass, fresh 10,892 51.0% 48.8%

Waste Potatoes 17,300 23.2% 16.5%

Energy potential of non-farm feedstock

Page 10: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Energy potential of non-farm feedstock

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Substrate

Biog

as P

oten

tial (

ft3/

ton

as is

)

Page 11: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Digester feedstocks & nutrients

Page 12: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Feedstock P2O5 (lb/ton)

TN (lb/ton)

Fish offal 59 317

FOG 3 to 16 24 to 37

Mixed food waste 20 to 118 116

Food processing waste 8 to 43 32 to 42

Glycerin 19 to 33 38

Meat 31 to 69 69 to 300+

Milk 51 44

Nutrient composition of non-farm feedstock

Page 13: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Feedstock nutrients: benefit or liability?

Acres Needed to Utilize P2O5

Feedstock P2O5 (lb/ton of feedstock)

Alfalfa(8 ton/ac)

Corn Grain (180 bu/ac)

Corn Silage (20 ton/ac)

Soybean(60 bu/ac)

Wheat (75 bu/ac)

Fish offal 59 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.3

FOG 3 to 16 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.3 <0.3

Mixed food waste 20 to 118 0.2 to 1.1 0.3 to 1.8 0.3 to 1.8 0.4 to 2.5 0.4 to 2.5

Food processing waste

8 to 43 0.1 to 0.4 0.1 to 0.7 0.1 to 0.7 0.2 to 0.9 0.2 to 0.9

Glycerin 19 to 33 0.2 to 0.3 0.3 to 0.6 0.3 to 0.5 0.4 to 0.7 0.4 to 0.7

Meat 31 to 69 0.3 to 0.7 0.5 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.1 0.7 to 1.4 0.7 to 1.5

Milk 51 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.1

Agronomic land base for required for phosphorus utilization

Nutrient Recommendations for Field Crops in Michigan. (Warncke et al., 2004a)

Page 14: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Feedstock nutrients: benefit or liability?

Acres Needed to Utilize TN

Feedstock TN (lb/ton of feedstock)

Alfalfa(8 ton/ac)

Corn Grain (180 bu/ac)

Corn Silage (20 ton/ac)

Soybean(60 bu/ac)

Wheat (75 bu/ac)

Fish offal 317 0.9 2.0 1.7 1.4 3.5FOG 24 to 37 0.1 0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.3 to 0.4Mixed food waste 116 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.3

Food processing waste 32 to 42 0.09 to 0.1 0.2 to 0.3 0.2 0.1 to 0.2 0.4 to 0.5Glycerin 38 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4Meat 69 to 300 0.2 to 0.8 0.4 to 1.9 0.4 to 1.6 0.3 to 1.3 0.8 to 3.3Milk 44 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5

Nutrient Recommendations for Field Crops in Michigan. (Warncke et al., 2004a)

Agronomic land base for required for nitrogen utilization

Page 15: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Substrate P2O5

(lb/ton)P2O5 value

($/ton)

Fish offal 59 $30

FOG 3 to 16 $2 to $8

Mixed food waste 20 to 118 $10 to $60

Food processing waste 8 to 43 $4 to $22

Glycerin 19 to 33 $10 to $17

Meat 31 to 69 $16 to $35

Milk 51 $26

Feedstock nutrients: benefit or liability?

Feedstock nutrient fertilizer values

Page 16: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Substrate P2O5

(lb/ton)P2O5 value

($/ton)TN

(lb/ton)TN value ($/ton)

Fish offal 59 $30 317 $200

FOG 3 to 16 $2 to $8 24 to 37 $15 to $23

Mixed food waste 20 to 118 $10 to $60 116 $73

Food processing waste 8 to 43 $4 to $22 32 to 42 $20 to $26

Glycerin 19 to 33 $10 to $17 38 $24

Meat 31 to 69 $16 to $35 69 to 300+ $43 to $189

Milk 51 $26 44 $30

Feedstock nutrients: benefit or liability?

Feedstock nutrient fertilizer values

Page 17: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Tipping fees

Page 18: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

• Landfill1 • National average tip fee of $18.43 per ton MSW• Largest public and private landfills is $49.27 per ton• Least cost in the western US, highest cost in the east

($100+/ton)• Cost associate with waste characteristics

• Wastewater2

• FOG tip fee ranges from $0.05 to $0.15 per gallon ($12 to $36/ton)

• Fee vary depending on waste characteristics• Availability can be an issue

Tipping fees

1 2012. Tipping fees vary across the U.S. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20120720/NEWS01/120729997/tipping-fees-vary-across-the-u-s2 Partanen, W.E. 2008. Fats, Oils & Grease to Green Energy

Page 19: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

It could be worse!

Page 20: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

• Planning since 2006, seriously since 2010• MSU South Campus anaerobic digester planning

(2006)

• Goals energy, odor control, renewable energy credits• MSU feedstock only 150 to 180 kW• Not economically viable

• Including non-farm feedstocks (2010)

• MSU + non-farm (campus) feedstock 380 to 450 kW• Capital cost increased $500,000• Tipping fees = 37% of the revenue• Disposal cost increased by $50,000 ($0.32/gal)

• Non-farm feedstocks & net metering allowed the business plan to work

South Campus AD Proposed Feedstock Blend

Page 21: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

MSU South Campus Anaerobic Digester

Page 22: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content
Page 23: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

• Non-farm substrates do impact project financials

• Do your homework on non-farm substrates• Energy potential • Composition (solids, COD, nutrients…)• Consistency• Current management practice/tipping

• Plan for changing feedstocks• Don’t forget the digestate• Understand the regulatory constraints

Conclusion

Page 24: Valuing Feedstocks for Anaerobic Digestion – Balancing Energy Potential and Nutrient Content

Questions?