DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California. i PREFACE The California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program supports public interest energy research and development that will help improve the quality of life in California by bringing environmentally safe, affordable, and reliable energy services and products to the marketplace. The PIER Program conducts public interest research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects to benefit California. The PIER Program strives to conduct the most promising public interest energy research by partnering with RD&D entities, including individuals, businesses, utilities, and public or private research institutions. PIER funding efforts are focused on the following RD&D program areas: Buildings End‐Use Energy Efficiency Energy Innovations Small Grants Energy‐Related Environmental Research Energy Systems Integration Environmentally Preferred Advanced Generation Industrial/Agricultural/Water End‐Use Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Technologies Transportation Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up is the final report for the Renewable Energy Resource, Technology and Economic Assessments project (contract number 500 – 11 – 020, Task 8) conducted by the University of California, Davis. The information from this project contributes to PIER’s Renewable Energy Technologies Program. For more information about the PIER Program, please visit the Energy Commission’s website at www.energy.ca.gov/research/ or contact the Energy Commission at 916‐654‐4878. ii ABSTRACT The goal of this report was to summarize the technical limitations, state and county regulations, and investor‐owned utility companies’ guidelines that shape biogas use for distributed power generation and injection into natural gas pipelines in California. Data and information were collected from a multitude of literature and public sources to compare and assess these various specifications and standards, along with the technologies used to remove contaminants and refine raw biogas required to meet them. Detailed information is provided about all major biogas sources, cleaning and upgrading technologies, and utilization systems. In addition, several example projects from California and other states and countries are discussed for each biogas source. Cost comparisons of individual equipment are also presented, and total project development economics or distributed power generation and pipeline injection are discussed. Review of current standards and technology specifications demonstrates that California investor‐owned utility gas contaminant standards for biomethane pipeline injection are comparable to those found in other states and countries, and that meeting these standards is easily achievable using conventional gas cleaning technologies. In contrast, the higher heating value standards required in California are stricter than those found in other states and countries, and most conventional and emerging gas upgrading technologies may have difficulty in achieving them. Additional discussion and conclusions about biogas cleaning and upgrading, pipeline injection, and distributed power generation, and recommendations to resolve current issues are provided. Keywords: amine absorption, adsorption, biofiltration, biogas, biomethane, cleaning, composition, conditioning, cryogenic distillation, distributed power generation, fuel cells, gas membrane separation, investor‐owned utility, microturbines, pipeline injection, quality, reciprocating engines, regulations, solvent scrubbing, standards, syngas, upgrading, utility companies, water scrubbing Please use the following citation for this report: Ong, M.D., R.B. Williams, S.R. Kaffka. (California Biomass Collaborative, University of California, Davis). 2014. Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up. Contractor Report to the California Energy Commission. Contract CEC‐500‐ 11‐020. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................... i PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. ix Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 3 Report Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Biogas Resources, Production, and Utilization .................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: Biogas Quality and Composition .................................................................................. 9 Anaerobic Digestion Process ................................................................................................................ 9 Thermal Gasification ........................................................................................................................... 12 Biogas Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Landfills ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Wastewater Treatment Plants ........................................................................................................ 14 Agricultural Waste and Manure Digesters ................................................................................... 14 Municipal Solid Waste Digesters ................................................................................................... 15 Biomethane via Thermal Conversion Pathways (Gasification) ................................................. 16 Biomass‐Derived Gas Quality by Source ...................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 3: Available and Emerging Biogas Utilization Technologies .................................... 20 Flaring .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Distributed Generation ........................................................................................................................ 20 Boilers ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Reciprocating Engines ..................................................................................................................... 21 Microturbines ................................................................................................................................... 22 Fuel Cells ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues
    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogas Membrane Reformer for Decentralized Hydrogen Production
    Biogas membrane reformer for decentralized hydrogen production Newsletter – Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 This Newsletter Previous release Membrane & Catalysts Industrial specifications development Reference case First results @ Lab scale First membrane & First release of LCA catalyst release analysis March September March September March September 2016 2017 2018 Editorial Dear BIONICO friends I am glad to welcome you to the second project newsletter! The last project meeting was held at the end of August, allowing all the consortium members to take stock of the situation: in the second six months of the project new membranes, membrane supports and catalyst specifically designed for operating with biogas have been tested at TU/e labs and soon new promising finger-like porous asymmetric ceramic supports will be tested. The information collected allow now the Abengoa Hidrogeno engineering team to start with the design of the pilot scale reactor that will contain around 100 membranes! The scale of the project represents a strong step forward for CMR technology. Not only experimental, but also simulation work was performed by POLIMI in order to have benchmark cases for BIONICO. At the same time environmental performance of these technologies is being evaluated by Quantis, in order to demonstrate not only improved efficiency performance but also environmental ones for the BIONICO technology! I hope you will find the info in this newsletter interesting. On our website www.bionicoproject.eu you will find public presentations, all the public deliverables of the project and many other interesting news. Stay tuned! BIONICO newsletter - Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 www.bionicoproject.eu In this Issue: Editorial .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Synthesis Gas Processes
    Review of Synthesis Gas Processes This review is extracted from the following report: SOFC AS A GAS SEPARATOR By M.A. Korobitsyn F.P.F van Berkel G.M. Christie December 2000 Synthesis gas production 1. Introduction There are a number of technologies available to produce syngas, these technologies are summarized in Fig. 1. Of the technologies shown in Fig. 1, steam methane reforming (SMR) is the most common. In this process light hydrocarbon feedstock and steam are converted in an endothermic reaction over a nickel catalyst. Heat to the reaction is provided in a radiant furnace. Due to the sulfur content in heavier hydrocarbons their use in the SMR process can cause problems with the catalysts, also there is a risk of tar and coke deposition. The second most common technology is partial oxidation (POX) which proceeds exothermically. Non-catalytic oxidation reaction allows a wider range of feedstock, however, an oxygen source is needed in most applications. Carbon dioxide reforming is a less common technology, which is primarily used for the production of syngas with a low H2/CO ratio. The combined and advanced processes, also detailed in Fig. 1, are either a combination or an enhancement of the three basic processes. In the following sections firstly the three basic processes are further described, shorter descriptions of the combined and advanced processes follow later in the section. Fig. 1 General overview of the routes from natural gas to chemicals. 2. Steam methane reforming (SMR) Background The steam methane reforming (SMR) process can be described by two main reactions: CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2, ΔH = 198 kJ/mol (1) CO + H2O = CO2 + H2, ΔH = -41 kJ/mol (2) The first reaction is reforming itself, while the second is the water-gas shift reaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas
    DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2021 Project Peer Review Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas March 25, 2021 WBS: 3.5.1.405 Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 1 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Project Overview 2 Project Overview Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Goal is to produce 100 gallons of Jet Fuel from Biogas using the Cool GTL Process – GTI will demonstrate a new simple GTL process which converts biogas, CO2, and methane directly to jet, gasoline, and diesel – Show the technology to be significantly lower cost, and more efficient than previous GTL processes- produce jet fuel at < $3/GGE – Also complete modeling, engineering, technoeconomic and LCA for Cool GTL biogas commercial process- advance from TRL 3 to 5 3 3 Cool GTL • Converts CO2-rich methane, ethane and propane to high-quality gasoline, diesel and jet fuel • Works well for any gas containing CO2 or CO • Uses unique CO2/steam reforming catalyst to directly make 2:1 H2/CO synthesis gas • Uses unique combined Fischer-Tropsch and wax-cracking reactor • Simple and compact with unique catalysts in each stage 4 SM Unique Cool GTL Technology Novel Features Beneficial Results • Unique bi-reforming catalyst • Modular, low-cost GTL • Unique wax cracking-FT catalyst • Small footprint • Unique electric reformer design • Great economics • Distributed plant locations Two patents issued Current GTL Cool GTLSM and several others pending 5 SM
    [Show full text]
  • Decarbonisation Options for the Dutch Sugar Industry
    DECARBONISATION OPTIONS FOR THE DUTCH SUGAR INDUSTRY K. Rademaker, M. Marsidi 20 August 2019 Manufacturing Industry Decarbonisation Data Exchange Network Decarbonisation options for the Dutch sugar industry © PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; © ECN part of TNO The Hague, 2019 PBL publication number: 3481 TNO project no. 060.33956 / TNO publication number: TNO 2019 P10393 Authors K. Rademaker and M. Marsidi MIDDEN project coordination and responsibility The MIDDEN project (Manufacturing Industry Decarbonisation Data Exchange Network) was initiated and is also coordinated and funded by PBL and ECN part of TNO. The project aims to support industry, policymakers, analysts, and the energy sector in their common efforts to achieve deep decarbonisation. Correspondence regarding the project may be addressed to: K.M. Schure (PBL), [email protected], or A.W.N van Dril (TNO), [email protected] Production coordination PBL Publishers This publication is a joint publication by PBL and ECN part of TNO and can be downloaded from: www.pbl.nl/en. Parts of this publication may be reproduced, providing the source is stated, in the form: Rademaker, K. and Marsidi M. (2019), Decarbonisation options for the Dutch sugar industry. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency is the national institute for strategic policy analysis in the fields of the environment, nature and spatial planning. We contribute to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making by conducting outlook studies, analyses and evaluations in which an integrated approach is considered paramount. Policy relevance is the prime concern in all of our studies. We conduct solicited and unsolicited research that is both independent and scientifically sound.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: from Conventional to Emerging Technologies
    environments Article Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies Andi Mehmeti 1,* ID , Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis 2 ID , George Arampatzis 3 ID , Stephen J. McPhail 4 and Sergio Ulgiati 5 1 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80143 Naples, Italy 2 School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; [email protected] 3 School of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, 731 00 Chania, Greece; [email protected] 4 DTE-PCU-SPCT, ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy; [email protected] 5 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-327-556-3659 Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 2 February 2018; Published: 6 February 2018 Abstract: A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H2) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas
    applied sciences Article A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas Timo Blumberg 1,*, Tatiana Morosuk 2 and George Tsatsaronis 2 ID 1 Department of Energy Engineering, Zentralinstitut El Gouna, Technische Universität Berlin, 13355 Berlin, Germany 2 Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] (T.M.); [email protected] (G.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-23343 Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 24 November 2017 Abstract: Methanol is one of the most important feedstocks for the chemical, petrochemical, and energy industries. Abundant and widely distributed resources as well as a relative low price level make natural gas the predominant feedstock for methanol production. Indirect synthesis routes via reforming of methane suppress production from bio resources and other renewable alternatives. However, the conventional technology for the conversion of natural gas to methanol is energy intensive and costly in investment and operation. Three design cases with different reforming technologies in conjunction with an isothermal methanol reactor are investigated. Case I is equipped with steam methane reforming for a capacity of 2200 metric tons per day (MTPD). For a higher production capacity, a serial combination of steam reforming and autothermal reforming is used in Case II, while Case III deals with a parallel configuration of CO2 and steam reforming. A sensitivity analysis shows that the syngas composition significantly affects the thermodynamic performance of the plant. The design cases have exergetic efficiencies of 28.2%, 55.6% and 41.0%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Strumentazione Analitica Per La Misurazione Di Composizione Di Biogas E Biometano Lorenzo Cocola, Fabio Melison Et Al
    Strumentazione analitica per la misurazione di composizione di biogas e biometano Lorenzo Cocola, Fabio Melison et al. CNR Istituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie Padova Verso un’economia circolare: tecnologie al servizio delle rinnovabili in agricoltura: principi guida e casi studio. DEI- Aula Magna A. LEPSCHY via Gradenigo, 6b 35100 Padova 15 settembre 2020 Gaseous fuel mixtures • Mainly hydrocarbons (HC) • LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) Propane (C3H8), N-butane, I-butane (C4H10), liquid at few bars (RT). Wildly variable composition. • NG (Natural Gas) Methane (CH4), small amounts of ethane (C2H6) and heavier HCs up to pentane (C5H12), H2, N2, CO2 and contaminants (depending on source type). Usually distributed in gaseous phase. • Town Gas (obsolete) Hydrogen (H2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ethylene (C2H4). • SNG (Substitute Natural Gas) Other mixtures (such as propane-air) mimicking the fuel properties of NG. • Odorizing gas added for safety, detectable by nose at ppm levels. • Common contaminants: water vapour (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) L. Cocola, F. Melison et al. - Strumentazione analitica per la 2 misurazione di composizione di biogas e biometano Higher Heating Value An indicator of the energy value of a fuel gas is the Higher Heating Value: • The quantity known as higher heating value (HHV) (or gross energy or upper heating value or gross calorific value (GCV) or higher calorific value (HCV)) is determined by bringing all the products of combustion back to the original pre-combustion temperature, and in particular condensing any vapor produced. • Main gas families, typical HHV in MJ/Nm3: 1 Town gas: 22.5 to 30.0 2 Natural gas: 39.0 to 45.0 3 LPG: 72.0 to 87 L.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production
    Paper ID #12042 Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production Prof. Yeong Ryu, State University of New York, Farmingdale YEONG S. RYU graduated from Columbia University with a Ph.D. and Master of Philosophy in Mechan- ical Engineering in 1994. He has served as an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Farmingdale State College (SUNY) since 2006. In addition, he has conducted various research projects at Xerox Corporation (1994-1995), Hyundai Motor Corporation (1995-1997), and New Jersey Institute of Technology (2001-2003). He has been teaching and conducting research in a broad range of areas of system identification and control of nonlinear mechatronic systems and vibrations in structures requir- ing precision pointing to eliminate the detrimental effects of such diverse disturbance sources. He has authored or co-authored more than 70 publications. His work currently focuses on the development and implementation of modeling and control of renewable energy systems, characterization of nanomaterials, photovoltaics, and nanoscale integrated systems. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the Materials Research Society (MRS). Dr. Hazem Tawfik, State University of New York, Farmingdale Prof. Tawfik obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, from University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He has held a number of industrial & academic positions and affiliations with organizations that included Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Stony Brook University (SBU), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Atomic Energy of Canada Inc., Ontario Hydro, NASA Kennedy, NASA Marshall Space Flight Centers, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tommann Tullutu Muhimu
    TOMMANNUS009969949B1TULLUTU MUHIMU (12 ) United States Patent (10 ) Patent No. : US 9 , 969 , 949 B1 Foody et al. ( 45 ) Date of Patent: May 15 , 2018 ( 54 ) METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING ( 58 ) Field of Classification Search UPGRADED BIOGAS CPC . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. CIOL 3 / 101 ; CO2F 11 /04 USPC . .. .. .. .. .. 585 /802 (71 ) Applicant: Iogen Corporation , Ottawa (CA ) USPCSee application . file for complete search history. @( 72 ) Inventors : Brian Foody , Ottawa (CA ); Patrick J . (56 ) References Cited | Foody, Ottawa ( CA ) U . S . PATENT DOCUMENTS (73 ) Assignee : Iogen Corporation , Ontario (CA ) 6 , 789 ,288 B2 9 /2004 Wijmans et al . ( * ) Notice : Subject to any disclaimer , the term of this 8 , 158 , 378 B2 4 / 2012 Mitariten patent is extended or adjusted under 35 (Continued ) U . S . C . 154 (b ) by 0 days . days . FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS ( 21 ) Appl. No. : 15 / 458, 760 EP 2974781 AL 1 / 2016 WO 2011150899 A2 12 /2011 ( 22 ) Filed : Mar. 14 , 2017 OTHER PUBLICATIONS Related U . S . Application Data Schill , S . R . “ The 2014 D3 RIN Leap - For Biogas” , Ethanol Producer @(60 ) Provisional application No . 62 /410 ,730 , filed on Oct. Magazine (Mar . 16 , 2015) , pp . 1 - 4 . * 20 , 2016 . ( Continued ) @ Int . CI. Primary Examiner — Philip Y Louie C07C 7700 ( 2006 .01 ) Assistant Examiner - Aaron W Pierpont C10L 3 / 10 ( 2006 .01 ) (74 ) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Knobbe , Martens , Olson (Continued ) & Bear, LLP @(52 ) U . S . Cl. CPC .. CIOL 3 / 104 ( 2013 .01 ) ; B01D 53/ 047 (57 ) ABSTRACT ( 2013 .01 ) ; B01D 53 / 22 (2013 .01 ) ; BOID A method for providing upgraded biogas includes feeding a 53/ 261 (2013 . 01 ) ; BOID 53/ 263 ( 2013 .
    [Show full text]