DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of the Emissions and Energy Impacts of Biomass and Biogas Use in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of the Emissions and Energy Impacts of Biomass and Biogas Use in California Assessment of the Emissions and Energy Impacts of Biomass and Biogas Use in California Provided to the California Air Resources Board by Marc Carreras-Sospedra Michael MacKinnon Professor Donald Dabdub University of California, Irvine In collaboration with Robert Williams California Biomass Collaborative February 27, 2015 Agreement #11-307 Contact Information: Professor Donald Dabdub Email: [email protected] Phone: 949-824-6126 Marc Carreras-Sospedra Email: [email protected] Phone: 949-824-5772 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Direct funding of this work was provided by the California Air Resources Board through Contract #11-307. DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported here in is not to be construed as actual or implied endorsement of such products ii Table of Contents List of Figures v List of Tables ix Abstract 1 Acronyms 2 Executive Summary 4 1 Introduction 19 2 Biomass Resources 19 3 Uses of Biomass 28 3.1 Biopower 28 3.1.1 Feedstock 28 3.1.2 Electricity Conversion Technologies 30 3.1.3 Emissions Impacts 42 3.1.4 Biopower Conclusions 48 3.2 Biomass Derived Transportation Fuels 49 3.2.1 Ethanol 53 3.2.2 Compressed Natural Gas 59 4 Biomass Scenarios 63 4.1 Description of Biomass Scenarios 63 4.2 Emissions from Biomass Scenarios 69 4.2.1 Conversion of Solid Biomass 69 4.2.2 Conversion of Biogas 74 4.2.3 Emissions Displacement from Biomass Use 79 4.2.4 Summary of Emissions from Biomass Scenarios 80 5 Air Quality Modeling 89 5.1 Modeling Framework 89 5.2 Air Quality Modeling Performance 90 5.3 Air Quality Impacts of Biomass Scenarios 96 5.3.1 General Air Pollution Dynamics 96 5.3.2 Air Quality Impacts 98 iii 6 Conclusion 110 7 References 113 iv List of Figures Figure 1: Solid residue potential for biopower production in 2020 and capacity and location of existing facilities in California. Data on facilities from CBC, 2013; data on potential from Williams et al., 2008. 21 Figure 2: Landfill gas potential for biopower production in 2020 and capacity and location of existing facilities in California. Data on facilities from CBC, 2013; data on potential from Williams et al., 2008. 23 Figure 3: Capacity and location of existing biopower facilities in California in wastewater treatment plants (WWTP). Data on facilities from CBC, 2013. 24 Figure 4: Capacity of existing biopower facilities in California using biogas from animal manure. Data on facilities from CBC, 2013. 25 Figure 5: Capacity and location of existing biogas facilities in California from anaerobic digestion of food residue (CBC, 2013). 26 Figure 6: Capacity and location of existing biofuel facilities in California (CBC, 2013) 27 Figure 7: Allocation of biomass resources in California (Williams et al., 2007) 29 Figure 8: Different biomass conversion technologies and the associated potential products (Brusstar et al. 2005) 31 Figure 9: Typical electrical conversion efficiencies for different types of gasification technologies (Bridgwater, 2006) 35 Figure 10: Schematic representations of different types of gasifiers (West et al., 2009) 36 Figure 11: Schematic of an updraft gasifier, taken from Basu, 2006 36 Figure 12: Schematic of a fast pyrolysis process (Bridgwater, 2006) 39 Figure 13: Illustration of the various sets of biological reactions that occur in anaerobic digestion (U.S. EPA, 2010) 40 Figure 14: Rate of anaerobic digestion vs. digester temperature (U.S EPA, 2010a) 41 Figure 15: Life cycle GHG emissions for several different scenarios of electricity generation (Bain et al., 2003) 44 Figure 16: Life cycle pollutant emissions for several different scenarios of electricity generation (Bain et al., 2003) 45 Figure 17: Emissions performance for several biopower technologies (Thornley, 2008) 46 v Figure 18: Emissions performance for several biopower technologies (Le et al., 2011) 47 Figure 19: Federal RFS2 volume requirements mandated by 2022. Adapted from Greene, 2011 51 Figure 20: Estimated gasoline-equivalent costs of alternative liquid fuels in 2007 dollars. Note: BTL=biomass-to-liquid; CBTL=coal-and-biomass-to- liquid; CTL= coal-to-liquid fuel Source: NRC 2009 53 Figure 21: Percentage of lifecycle GHG reductions for corn ethanol compared to motor gasoline for plants utilizing various technologies and fuels. Source: Kaliyan et al., 2011 56 Figure 22: Schematic of RSNG production from biomass through gasification and methanation (Zwart et al. 2006). This example includes a stage for tar removal using a proprietary technology called OLGA. 61 Figure 23: SNG production efficiencies for different gasification technologies (From Zwart et al., 2006) 62 Figure 24: Summary of power generation capacity from biomass scenarios with current biomass technology estimated for the year 2020 65 Figure 25: Summary of emissions from biomass in scenarios with current biomass technology (group A) 82 Figure 26: Net emissions from biomass in scenarios with current biomass technology (group A) 83 Figure 27: Comparison of emissions from biomass in scenarios with maximum biomass potential with current technology (group A-4) and with technology upgrades for efficiency and emissions (group B) 84 Figure 28: Net emissions from biomass in scenarios with maximum biomass potential with current technology (group A-4) and with technology upgrades for efficiency and emissions (group B) 85 Figure 29: Comparison of emissions from biomass in scenarios with maximum biomass potential using current technology for biopower (group A) and scenarios with a shift end use from electricity to fuel (group C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4) 86 Figure 30: Comparison of emissions from biomass in scenarios with maximum biomass potential using current technology for biopower (group A) and scenarios with a shift end use from electricity to fuel (group C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4) 87 vi Figure 31: Ambient air concentrations for July 13, 2005: (a) 8-hour average ozone, (b) 24-hour average PM2.5. 91 Figure 32: Modeled and observed hourly ozone concentrations for July 13, 2005 at selected locations 92 Figure 33: Modeled and observed 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations for July 13, 2005 at selected locations 93 Figure 34: Modeled pollutant concentrations for December 7, 2005: (a) 8-hour average ozone, (b) 24-hour average PM2.5. 94 Figure 35: Modeled and observed hourly ozone concentrations for December 7, 2005 at selected locations 95 Figure 36: Modeled and observed 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations for December 7, 2005 at selected locations 96 Figure 37: Locations of emissions from biopower production for the Maximum technical potential for biopower production with current technology (group A-4). Top: NOX emissions from biopower facilities. Bottom: NOX emissions from forest residue collection 99 Figure 38: Changes in peak ozone concentrations due to biomass scenarios in a summer episode with respect to the baseline case: (a) No Biomass Case, (b) Maximum biopower production with current technology (group A-4), (c) Maximum biopower production with enhanced technology (group B), (d) Maximum production of CNG from biomass for vehicle consumption (group C-1). 101 Figure 39: Changes in 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations due to biomass scenarios in a summer episode: (a) No Biomass Case, (b) Maximum biopower production with current technology (group A-4), (c) Maximum biopower production with enhanced technology (group B), (d) Maximum production of CNG from biomass (group C-1). 102 Figure 40: Changes in peak ozone concentrations due to biomass scenarios in a winter episode: (a) No Biomass Case, (b) Maximum biopower production with current technology (group A-4), (c) Maximum biopower production with enhanced technology (group B), (d) Maximum production of CNG from biomass (group C-1). 105 Figure 41: Changes in 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations due to biomass scenarios in a winter episode: (a) No Biomass Case, (b) Maximum biopower production with current technology (group A-4), (c) Maximum biopower production with enhanced technology (group B), (d) Maximum production of CNG from biomass (group C-4). 107 vii viii List of Tables Table 1: Technology distribution for biomass solid residue biopower installations (CBC, 2013). 22 Table 2: Technology distribution for landfill gas biopower installations (CBC, 2013) 23 Table 3: Technology distribution in biopower installations in wastewater treatment plants (CBC, 2013) 24 Table 4: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of various direct combustion technologies (Van Loo, 2008) 33 Table 5: Summary of challenges and advantages of the various gasification technologies (compiled from (Bridgwater, 2006; Basu, 2010; Wang et al., 2008) 37 Table 6: Typical product yields obtained from different modes of pyrolysis of dry wood (Bridgwater, 2006) 39 Table 7: Summary of Fuels and Vehicles Used in Each Scenario to Meet the 2020 Standard for Gasoline and Fuels that Substitute for Gasoline (LCFS ARB staff report, CARB, 2009a) 52 Table 8: Summary of Fuels and Vehicles Used in Each Scenario to Meet the 2020 Standard for Gasoline and Fuels that Substitute for Diesel Fuel (from LCFS ARB staff report, CARB, 2009a) 52 Table 9: Current and future estimates of biomass feedstock and corresponding volumetric ethanol availability for use as a transportation fuel 55 Table 10: Estimates of LCA GHG Emissions for Various Ethanol Production Pathways with and without Estimates of Land Use Change Impacts. Source(s) CARB 2009a & Searchinger,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biogas Current Biofuels
    Current Biofuels - Biogas Keywords Bioenergy, biofuel, biogas, sustainable, renewable, biomass, anaerobic, waste, bacteria, microbes, fermentation, methane. Background Biofuel feedstocks that have high water content, such as food wastes and livestock manure cannot be easily incinerated, but can produce biogas. Biogas can be burnt to produce heat for cooking, warming homes and producing electricity. It can also be compressed and used as a transport fuel in specially © istockphoto® converted vehicle engines. The digested residue is of use as fertiliser in agriculture. Biogas storage containers Biogas is 60-80% methane and is created by a process termed anaerobic digestion, leaving behind a nutrient- rich substance termed digestate. Anaerobic digestion is carried out by a range of bacteria in the absence of oxygen. A number of bacteria and yeast have been identified in biogas production. Initially carbon dioxide is produced by the decomposing organic matter until an anaerobic environment is created. After the initial digestion a group of bacteria known as methanogens convert the products into methane and carbon dioxide. Anaerobic digestion has a number of environmental benefits including production of ‘green energy and natural fertilisers. The production of biogas can substitute feedstocks for fossil fuels and artificial fertilisers, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The problems associated with waste disposal are also alleviated by the generation of useful products and decreased release of the potent greenhouse gas, methane, from landfill sites Biogas is successfully generated in a number of developing countries and Europe. In the UK, research is being conducted in a number of areas of biogas production including: • Assessment of how more automated production can be achieved and scaled up to make it efficient and cost e fective.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding the Use of Biogas with Fuel Cell Technologies
    Expanding the Use of Biogas with Fuel Cell Technologies Biogas with Fuel Cells Workshop Sunita Satyapal National Renewable Energy Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy Golden, Colorado Fuel Cell Technologies Program Program Manager 6/11/2012 1 eere.energy.gov U.S. Energy Consumption U.S. Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector Renewable Electric Power Energy 8% Fuel Cells can apply to diverse Nuclear Industrial sectors Energy 9% Share of Energy Consumed Petroleum 37% by Major Sectors of the Economy, 2010 Residential & Commercial Coal 21% Residential 16% Transportation Natural Gas Electric Power 25% 29% Commercial 13% Transportation 20% Total U.S. Energy = 98 Quadrillion Btu/yr Industrial 22% Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 1.3 2 eere.energy.gov Fuel Cells – An Emerging Global Industry Fuel Cell Patents Geographic Source: Clean Distribution 2002-2011 Energy Patent Growth Index Japan 31% United States 46% Other 3% Clean Energy Patent Growth Index France 1% Korea Great Taiwan 7% Top 10 companies: GM, Honda, Samsung, Britain 1% 1% Toyota, UTC Power, Nissan, Ballard, Plug Canada Germany Power, Panasonic, Delphi Technologies 3% 7% Clean Energy Patent Growth Index[1] shows that fuel cell patents lead in the clean energy field with over 950 fuel cell patents issued in 2011. • Nearly double the second place holder, solar, which has ~540 patents. [1] http://cepgi.typepad.com/files/cepgi-4th-quarter-2011-1.pdf 3 eere.energy.gov Fuel Cells: Benefits & Market Potential The Role of Fuel Cells Key Benefits • up to 60% (electrical) Very High • up to 70% (electrical, hybrid fuel cell / Efficiency turbine) • up to 85% (with CHP) • 35–50%+ reductions for CHP systems Reduced (>80% with biogas) CO2 • 55–90% reductions for light-duty vehicles Emissions /Biogas • >95% reduction for FCEVs (vs.
    [Show full text]
  • LMOP Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model (Lfgcost-Web) User's Manual
    User’s Manual Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC LFGcost-Web User’s Manual Version 3.2 Table of Contents Section Page Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Using LFGcost-Web ....................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Revisions ................................................................................................................ 2 General Instructions and Guidelines ........................................................................................... 2 Inputs........................................................................................................................................... 2 Outputs ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Calculators .................................................................................................................................. 3 Summary Reports........................................................................................................................ 3 Software Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4 Cost Basis...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Operation & Maintenance Manual E85 Compact Excavator
    Operation & Maintenance Manual E85 Compact Excavator S/N B34T11001 & Above 6990616 (6-13) Printed in U.S.A. © Bobcat Company 2013 OPERATOR SAFETY WARNING Operator must have instructions before operating the machine. Untrained WARNING operators can cause injury or death. W-2001-0502 Safety Alert Symbol: This symbol with a warning statement, means: “Warning, be alert! Your safety is involved!” Carefully read the message that follows. CORRECT WRONG CORRECT WRONG P-90216 B-19792 B-19751 B-19754 Never operate without Do not grasp control Never operate without Avoid steep areas or instructions. handles when entering approved cab. banks that could break cab. away. Read machine signs, and Never modify equipment. Operation & Maintenance Be sure controls are in Manual, and Operator’s neutral before starting. Never use attachments Handbook. not approved by Bobcat Sound horn and check Company. behind machine before starting. WRONG WRONG CORRECT CORRECT Maximum Maximum MS-1784 MS1785 B-19756 MS-1786 Use caution to avoid Keep bystanders out of Never exceed a 15 slope Never travel up a slope tipping - do not swing maximum reach area. to the side. that exceeds 15. heavy load over side of track. Do not travel or turn with bucket extended. Operate on flat, level ground. Never carry riders. CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT CORRECT STOP Maximum TS-2068A NA-1435B 6808261 B-21928 NA-1421A Never exceed 25 when To leave excavator, lower Fasten seat belt securely. Look in the direction of going down or backing the work equipment and rotation and make sure up a slope. the blade to the ground.
    [Show full text]
  • WHY BIOGAS? Biogas Systems Protect Our Air, Water and Soil While Recycling Organic Material to Produce Renewable Energy and Soil Products
    WHY BIOGAS? Biogas systems protect our air, water and soil while recycling organic material to produce renewable energy and soil products. In cities, biogas systems recycle food scraps and wastewater sludge, reducing municipal costs and avoiding transport to disposal sites. In rural areas, biogas systems make agriculture more sustainable and create additional revenue streams for farmers. Since biogas systems prevent greenhouse gases, like methane, from entering the atmosphere, all biogas systems make our air cleaner to breathe and combat climate change, displacing fossil fuels. Biogas systems produce soil products that recycle nutrients, contributing to healthier soils 1211 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 650 and creating opportunities to eliminate nutrient runoff that pollutes our waterways. Waste management, renewable Washington, DC 20036-2701 energy and fuels, clean air, healthy soils and crystal clear waterways—you can get all of this when you build a new 202-640-6595 biogas system. [email protected] Use the interactive map at https://americanbiogascouncil.org/resources/biogas-projects/ Operational U.S. Biogas Systems The U.S. has over 2,200 sites producing biogas in all 50 states: 253 anaerobic digesters on farms, 1,269 water resource recovery facilities utilizing anaerobic 101 digesters, 68 stand-alone systems that digest food waste, and 652 landfill gas projects. For comparison, Europe has over Alaska 10,000 operating digesters, with some communities essentially fossil fuel free because of these systems. In 2018, investment in new biogas systems Puerto Rico totaled $1 billion. Over the last five years, total investment in the U.S. biogas industry has been growing at an annual rate of 12%.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Properties Comparison
    Alternative Fuels Data Center Fuel Properties Comparison Compressed Liquefied Low Sulfur Gasoline/E10 Biodiesel Propane (LPG) Natural Gas Natural Gas Ethanol/E100 Methanol Hydrogen Electricity Diesel (CNG) (LNG) Chemical C4 to C12 and C8 to C25 Methyl esters of C3H8 (majority) CH4 (majority), CH4 same as CNG CH3CH2OH CH3OH H2 N/A Structure [1] Ethanol ≤ to C12 to C22 fatty acids and C4H10 C2H6 and inert with inert gasses 10% (minority) gases <0.5% (a) Fuel Material Crude Oil Crude Oil Fats and oils from A by-product of Underground Underground Corn, grains, or Natural gas, coal, Natural gas, Natural gas, coal, (feedstocks) sources such as petroleum reserves and reserves and agricultural waste or woody biomass methanol, and nuclear, wind, soybeans, waste refining or renewable renewable (cellulose) electrolysis of hydro, solar, and cooking oil, animal natural gas biogas biogas water small percentages fats, and rapeseed processing of geothermal and biomass Gasoline or 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 1.12 B100 1 gal = 0.74 GGE 1 lb. = 0.18 GGE 1 lb. = 0.19 GGE 1 gal = 0.67 GGE 1 gal = 0.50 GGE 1 lb. = 0.45 1 kWh = 0.030 Diesel Gallon GGE GGE 1 gal = 1.05 GGE 1 gal = 0.66 DGE 1 lb. = 0.16 DGE 1 lb. = 0.17 DGE 1 gal = 0.59 DGE 1 gal = 0.45 DGE GGE GGE Equivalent 1 gal = 0.88 1 gal = 1.00 1 gal = 0.93 DGE 1 lb. = 0.40 1 kWh = 0.027 (GGE or DGE) DGE DGE B20 DGE DGE 1 gal = 1.11 GGE 1 kg = 1 GGE 1 gal = 0.99 DGE 1 kg = 0.9 DGE Energy 1 gallon of 1 gallon of 1 gallon of B100 1 gallon of 5.66 lb., or 5.37 lb.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Study on the Potential of Increased Use of LPG for Cooking in Developing Countries
    Final Report Study on the Potential of Increased Use of LPG for Cooking in Developing Countries September 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 General ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Purpose and Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Practical Are Alternative Fuel Vehicles?
    How Practical Are Alternative Fuel Vehicles? Many of us have likely considered an alternative fuel vehicle at some point in our lives. Balancing the positives and negatives is a tricky process and varies greatly based on our personal situations. However, many of the negatives that previously created hesitancy have changed in recent years. Below, we have outlined a few of the most commonly mentioned negatives regarding the two leading alternative fuel vehicle types: Flex Fuel vehicles and Electric/Hybrid vehicles. Then, you can decide for yourself whether one of these vehicle types are practical for you! Cost – How much does the vehicle cost to purchase and operate? Flex Fuel: Flex Fuel vehicles typically cost about the same as a gasoline vehicle.1 For fuel cost, E85 typically costs slightly less than gasoline, however, due to decreased efficiency has a slightly higher cost per mile than gasoline.2 Overall, a Flex Fuel vehicle is likely to be slightly more expensive than a gasoline counterpart. Electric/Hybrid: This situation varies quite a bit depending on where you live. Electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles often cost considerably more than a conventional gasoline vehicle. For example, a plug-in hybrid will cost around $4000-$8000 more than a conventional model.3 However, there are federal rebates and local rebates that can refund thousands of dollars from the purchase price. Electric/Hybrid vehicles also tend to save money on fuel, with the possibility of saving thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the vehicle.4 Whether these rebates and fuel cost savings will eventually account for the higher purchase price can be estimated with comparison tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Technologies and Projects for Biolpg
    energies Review Process Technologies and Projects for BioLPG Eric Johnson Atlantic Consulting, 8136 Gattikon, Switzerland; [email protected]; Tel.: +41-44-772-1079 Received: 8 December 2018; Accepted: 9 January 2019; Published: 15 January 2019 Abstract: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)—currently consumed at some 300 million tonnes per year—consists of propane, butane, or a mixture of the two. Most of the world’s LPG is fossil, but recently, BioLPG has been commercialized as well. This paper reviews all possible synthesis routes to BioLPG: conventional chemical processes, biological processes, advanced chemical processes, and other. Processes are described, and projects are documented as of early 2018. The paper was compiled through an extensive literature review and a series of interviews with participants and stakeholders. Only one process is already commercial: hydrotreatment of bio-oils. Another, fermentation of sugars, has reached demonstration scale. The process with the largest potential for volume is gaseous conversion and synthesis of two feedstocks, cellulosics or organic wastes. In most cases, BioLPG is produced as a byproduct, i.e., a minor output of a multi-product process. BioLPG’s proportion of output varies according to detailed process design: for example, the advanced chemical processes can produce BioLPG at anywhere from 0–10% of output. All these processes and projects will be of interest to researchers, developers and LPG producers/marketers. Keywords: Liquified petroleum gas (LPG); BioLPG; biofuels; process technologies; alternative fuels 1. Introduction Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) is a major fuel for heating and transport, with a current global market of around 300 million tonnes per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogas As a Transport Fuel—A System Analysis of Value Chain Development in a Swedish Context
    sustainability Article Biogas as a Transport Fuel—A System Analysis of Value Chain Development in a Swedish Context Muhammad Arfan *, Zhao Wang, Shveta Soam and Ola Eriksson Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden; [email protected] (Z.W.); [email protected] (S.S.); [email protected] (O.E.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-704-400-593 Abstract: Biofuels policy instruments are important in the development and diffusion of biogas as a transport fuel in Sweden. Their effectiveness with links to geodemographic conditions has not been analysed systematically in studying biogas development in a less urbanised regions, with high po- tential and primitive gas infrastructure. One such region identified is Gävleborg in Sweden. By using value chain statistics, interviews with related actors, and studying biofuels policy instruments and implications for biogas development, it is found that the policy measures have not been as effective in the region as in the rest of Sweden due to different geodemographic characteristics of the region, which has resulted in impeded biogas development. In addition to factors found in previous studies, the less-developed biogas value chain in this region can be attributed particularly to undefined rules of the game, which is lack of consensus on trade-off of resources and services, unnecessary competition among several fuel alternatives, as well as the ambiguity of municipalities’ prioritization, and regional cultural differences. To strengthen the regional biogas sector, system actors need a strategy to eliminate blocking effects of identified local factors, and national policy instruments should provide mechanisms to process geographical conditions in regulatory, economic support, Citation: Arfan, M.; Wang, Z.; Soam, and market formation.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Fuels Final Report
    The Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources Interim Report to the 78th Legislature Opportunities for Alternative Fuels and Fuel Additives: Technologies for Converting Waste into Fuel August 2002 Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources Report to the 78th Legislature Opportunities for Alternative Fuels and Fuel Additives: Technology to Convert Existing Waste into Tomorrow's Fuel TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 3 INTERIM CHARGE .......................................................... 4 ETHANOL .................................................................. 5 FUELS FROM ANIMAL WASTES ............................................. 16 CREATING ENERGY WITH BIOMASS ......................................... 24 RECOVERING ENERGY FROM SOLID WASTES ............................... 33 GRAVITY PRESSURE VESSEL .............................................. 38 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 43 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .......................................... 44 APPENDIX A: properties of fuels .............................................. 45 APPENDIX B: landfill gas recovery projects in Texas ............................ 46 2 Senate Interim Committee on Natural Resources Report to the 78th Legislature Opportunities for Alternative Fuels and Fuel Additives: Technology to Convert Existing Waste into Tomorrow's Fuel Necessity first mothered invention. Now invention has little ones of her own, and they look just like grandma. E.B. White1
    [Show full text]
  • G&, Solid Waste Management Authority
    Oneida Herkimer 2£!g&, Solid Waste Management Authority Regional Landfill Landfill Gas Utilization Alternatives Study March 2009 irton 290 Elwood Davis Road omiidice, PC. Box 3107 Syracuse, New York 13220 Engineers • Environmental 5< tenti^ts • Planner* • i andu:ape Arcfutects Landfill Gas Utilization Alternatives Study Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary E-1 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 General Site Information 1 1.2 Purpose 2 2.0 Landfill Gas Management 3 2.1 LFG Composition 3 2.2 Landfill Gas Generation Estimates 3 2.2.1 AP-42 Model 5 2.2.2 Clean Air Act Model 6 2.2.3 Wet Landfill Model 6 2.2.4 Summary of Generation Estimates 8 2.4 Active Landfill Gas Collection System Implementation 9 2.4.1 Typical LFG Controls 9 2.4.2 Proposed Landfill Gas Collection System 11 3.0 Landfill Gas Utilization Alternatives 13 3.1 Electricity Generation 13 3.1.1 Combustion Engines 14 3.1.2 Combustion Turbines 16 3.1.3 Microturbines 18 3.1.4 Small Diesel Engines 20 3.2 High BTU Gas 22 3.2.1 LFG to Natural Gas Pipeline 23 3.2.2 Vehicle Fueling 25 260 043/3 09 -i- Barton & Loguidice, P C Landfill Gas Utilization Alternatives Study Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority Table of Contents - Continued - Section Page 3.3 Direct Landfill Gas Utilization 28 3.3.1 On-Site Use 28 3.3.2 Off-Site Gas Sales 30 3.4 Emerging Technologies 31 3.4.1 Fuel Cells 31 3.4.2 Liquefied Landfill Gas 32 3.4.2.1 Vehicle Fueling 33 3.4.2.2 Off-Site LLG Uses 33 4.0 Public-Private Partnership 35 5.0 Secondary Benefits
    [Show full text]