UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW
6-7 JULY 2016NEC BIRMINGHAM
SMALL SCALE AD DEVELOPMENTCHAIR: ANGELA BYWATER, NETWORK MANAGER, ADNET
JAMES MURCOTT, DIRECTOR, METHANOGEN UK
CLARE LUKEHURST OBE, TEAM LEADER, IEA BIOENERGY TASK 37
DAVID KANER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ADVANCED ANAEROBICS
ALICE BAYFIELD, PROJECT COORDINATOR, QUBE RENEWABLES
ANDY BULL, ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER, SEVERN WYE ENERGY AGENCY
Commercialising Small Scale AD Technology
Alice Bayfield
Introduction• QUBE Renewables Ltd designs and builds small scale
local embedded biogas energy generating systems.• Our vision is to provide Energy with out barriers -
Sustainable energy from Sanitation and Wastes
What is the Market?Global - 4 main cross-cutting sectors
– Landowners – farms wanting to utilise wastes and provide own heat, power and fuels, cut utility costs
– Waste Producers – processors or collectors want to cut disposal costs and generate energy from wastes
– Military/Infrastructure – resilience building during deployments in overseas operations, e.g. fuel in Afghanistan was $20/ litre
– Humanitarian – response to natural disasters, or for planned development and relief programmes
Our FleetModular anaerobic digestion technology providing compact biogas system packaged in multiples of standard 20ft or 40ft shipping containers
The rapidly deployed version of bioQUBE designed to sanitise waste and create biogas for energy recovery
Flexible, modular covers for lagoons or open top tanks to collect gas and intercept rainwater. Systems available in Passive or Active modes
Generate electricity and hot water from on site biogas production
Thank You
Alice [email protected]
Tel: +44 (0) 1984 624989www.quberenewables.co.uk
QUBE Renewables Limited, Higher Ford, Wiveliscombe, Somerset, TA4 2RL England
SMALL FARM ADUK AD & Biogas 2016
Photo: Courtesy of Bourne Valley Associates
Larger modern 80kWe digester: slurry from 120 cows, chicken manure from free range broilers & some added maize. Auto de-gritting.
ADVANCED ANAEROBICS LIMITEDPowering the Future of Farming
Dr. David A. Kaner MBA (CEO)
SlurryGen-50
300 cows = 24 tonnes/day50kW electricity + 85kW heatFarmer’s IRR 13-20%
Woodhead Project
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHPOLICY SWITCH TO NEW NUCLEAR
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHPRELIMINARY ACCREDITATION
WITHDRAWN
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHQUARTERLY CAPS CREATE FiT QUEUE
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHNO EXPORT CONNECTIONS UNTIL 2022
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHDAIRY INDUSTRY IN CRISIS
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHACCELERATED FiT DEGRESSION
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHELECTRICITY PRICES UP 60% BY 2025
(DECC)
Woodhead Project
NEWSFLASHACCELERATED RHI DEGRESSION
SlurryGen-30
200 cows = 15 tonnes/day30kW electricity + 50kW heatFarmer’s IRR 13-20%
NEWSFLASHUK VOTES TO LEAVE THE EU
ADVANCED ANAEROBICS LIMITEDPowering the Future of Farming?
Dr. David A. Kaner MBA (CEO)
Trans-national project involving European Biogas Association and partners fromcountries that vary massively in terms of the deployment of AD technology
• AD plant suppliers• Welsh Government, Economic Development, Energy, Animal Health, Agriculture• Academics (Wales AD Centre of Excellence)• Farming Unions and CLA• Natural Resources Wales • SWEA
Main Conclusions
• AD has a lot to offer the dairy farmer in particular – but most of the advantages are not based upon energy generation
• AD on livestock farms has a lot to offer to GHG emission reduction ambitions
• There are very many dairy farms in Wales with herds of between 120 and 150 cows
• The current FiT and RHI incentives are pushing projects in the “wrong” direction.
The Vision
• Economies of scale with standard solutions for very similar slurry based systems
• Separation of “environmental” technology from “energy generation” in order to allow FiT/RHI eligibility
• Aggregated Power Purchase Agreement?
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – ARE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT REGULATIONS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AD INDUSTRY?
JESS ALLAN, ENVIRONMENT AND REGULATION MANAGER, ADBA
DARREN LEGGE, SENIOR ADVISOR (LANDFILL ENGINEERING), THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
PETER STEVENS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CQA INTERNATIONAL
DAN PURVIS, HEAD OF OPERATIONS, FUTURE BIOGAS
DAVE AUTY, BIOENERGY ENGINEERING MANAGER, CAPITA PROJEN
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
JESS ALLANENVIRONMENT AND REGULATION MANAGER
Overview• Who’s on the panel?• What is secondary containment?• AD industry work on secondary containment• Over to the panel
Who’s on the panel?Peter Stevens, Managing Director, CQA International
Darren Legge, Senior Advisor, Environment Agency
Dan Purvis, Head of Operations, Future Biogas
Dave Auty, Bioenergy Engineering Manager, CAPITA Projen
What is secondary containment?• Considered the most important means
of preventing major incidents involving loss of inventory.
• For example, storage tanks, drums, pipework.
Primary Containment
• Minimises the consequences of a failure of the primary storage by preventing the uncontrolled spread of the inventory.
• For example, concrete or earth bunds.
Secondary Containment
• Minimises the consequences of a failure in the primary and secondary containment systems by providing an additional level of protection.
• For example, diversion tanks, lagoons, containment kerbing to roadways.
Tertiary Containment
DIGESTER
LAGOON
Primary containment
Secondary containment
Tertiary containment
BUND
Example
Industry work on secondary containmentTraining, Safety and Environment Working Group• Identified the need for specific guidance for the AD industry.• Wished to ensure that secondary containment arrangements at AD plants are
compliant, fit for purpose and proportionate to the level of risk, and help ensure consistent approach by regulators.
• Produced a risk assessment tool and accompanying guide based upon the principles in CIRIA 736.
• Visit ADBA’s website to find out more: http://adbioresources.org/.
What is “appropriate” secondary containment?
CQA International Ltd
UK AD & Biogas 2016 6 - 7 July, NEC in Birmingham
Session and timingWednesday 6 July, 12.00 - 12.55
Environmental protection - How to ensure appropriate secondary containmentPresentation time: 10 Minutes (followed by Q&A with fellow panellists)
The purpose of containmentPrimary Containment
Prevents loss of material
Secondary containment
For when things go wrong
Purpose Further reduce the risk of pollution
Objective Avoid penalties, shutdowns and adverse publicity
Secondary containment is an implicit requirement
2012/10 Rules 2012/12 RulesFeedstock
Securely storedSpills contained and recovered
Impermeable (10-9m/s) surfaceSealed drainage system
Process Fit for purposeSpills contained and recovered
Impermeable surface within a bunded areaUnderground tanks shall have secondary containment
Digestate
Fit for purpose Fit for purpose
What is Fit for Purpose?Concept Well equipped or well suited for its
designated role or purpose
Design “Purpose” defined in advanceRisk-basedTechnical and economic aspectsBespoke solutions for each site
Good practice
CIRIA C736LFE guidelines, DOT specifications
Achieving compliance in containment
New projects
Containment strategies can be included in the design
Existing sites
May not have secondary containmentRetrofitting can be difficult
Design Combine procedures, natural barriers, topography and engineering
Validation
Independent certification to confirm compliance
Secondary Containment for the AD Sector – A Regulators
PerspectiveDarren LeggeSenior Advisor – Landfill and Waste Recovery TeamJuly 2016
Once you have been provided with a permit you need to refer to our guidance
We are currently reviewing our existing guidance in line with the DEFRA’s Smarter Environmental Regulation Review
Once complete this will be accessed via gov.uk
This will provide further guidance on secondary containment and will likely require the same
generic requirements
All above ground tanks containing liquids whose spillage could be harmful to the environment must be bunded.
Impermeable/resistant to stored liquids No outlets No penetration of contained surfaces Have a capacity greater than 110% of the
largest tank or 25% of the total tankage whichever is the larger
Regular inspections
What about the specifics; We are not allowed to include specific design or
construction criteria within the permit
Needs to be fit for purpose and will be strongly dependant on the sensitivity of the proposed location
We do not insist on CIRIA C736 but as it reflects current good practice, we would encourage its use
‘Other appropriate measures’
CIRIA C736 ‘Design of containment systems for the prevention of pollution : secondary, tertiary
and other measures for industrial and commercial premises’ (2014)
Is risk based and reflects current good practice for all liquids stored on a permitted site – including AD, landfill and oil and gas sectors
Has driven the need for an AD specific Industry Code of Practice
CIRIA C736 applies the source-pathway-receptor principle;
Leads to a site risk rating which results in a recommendation for the class of containment
For both class 2 and 3 containment an impermeable membrane liner is required in conjunction with suitable ground conditions
Refers to current EA guidance LFE5 ‘Using geomembranes in landfill engineering – which should be used
Things to consider;
Suitability of location Wider impacts of tank failure Appropriate design Compatibility of liner Puncture during and post construction Protection – physical and UV Gas collection Construction Quality Assurance
Key Messages;
Early discussions with the EA recommended to determine suitability of location and design
EA will continue to rely on CIRIA C736 until ICOP is produced
ICOP relies/refers heavily towards CIRIA
Insert slides here Dan Purvis
The (DRAFT) ADBA Containment ToolAD & Biogas6th July 2016
Introductions
Dave AutyBioenergy Engineering
Manager
Why does the industry need a containment tool?
• Because it’s complicated• Clear-cut for waste• Desirable for organics
• Containment failures have occurred• Value engineering and poor design• Operator errors
• AD Industry responsibility is important• To keep the ear of government• To attract investment
What is the ADBA Containment Tool?
+Your site information = advice + knowledge
http://www.adbioresources.org/
Introduction to the tool – what do you need to do?
There are 5 steps to follow:
Identify the hazard posed to the environment
Calculate the Site Hazard Rating
Assess the likelihood of a loss of primary containment
Calculate the Site Risk Rating
Identify suitable secondary containment designs
?
Introduction to the tool – another way of looking at it
Step 1 – Identify the Hazard
Three parts to this bit: The source
The feedstock The Process Chemicals on site Fire fighting
The Pathway Runoff times Topography, geology and
hydrology Local climate Local flood risk
The Receptors Watercourses and bodies Habitation SSSI/SPA/SAC etc
• Look at your site inventory and assess the risk it poses
• Use your judgement to assign High, Medium or Low hazard ratings
• The tool provides guidance and acts as a reference document
• The tool calculates the hazard rating for each part
• The Source will almost always result in a High hazard rating
• The Pathway should be mitigated to Low hazard by the secondary containment
• The Receptors will be site specific
Step 2 – Calculate the Site Hazard Rating
The tool automatically combines the three hazard ratings to provide the Site Hazard Rating
Step 3 – Assess the likelihood of a loss of primary containment
There are three steps to follow:
1. Unmitigated likelihood The tool provides a list of risks and others can be added from
HAZOPs, etc Using the guidance provided, the user decides how often the risk will
occur E.g. a human error leading to a spill is highly likely, a lightning strike is less
likely2. Mitigated likelihood
Mitigation measures can be applied E.g. concrete bollards to prevent a vehicle impact
3. Select the overall likelihood Based on the premise that the highest likelihood gives the site’s
overall likelihood
Step 4 – Calculate the Site Risk Rating
The tool automatically combines the Site Hazard Rating and the Likelihood to provide the Site Risk Rating
The tool then converts this into the corresponding class of secondary containment that is required
Step 5 – Identify Suitable Secondary Containment Designs
The tool provides relevant diagrams, text and data
• There is a need to improve this aspect of the AD industry
• Not doing so could be very expensive
• The ADBA Containment Tool can help by:
• Providing guidance in conjunction with the ADBA Containment Guide• Improving developer/operator knowledge by assessing hazards and
risks• Defining the class of containment required• Assisting with regulator approval
• As an industry, we can work together
Summary
It’s good to talk…
Contact:-Dave Auty – Bioenergy Engineering Manager
E-Mail: [email protected] Line: 01928 752 596
Mobile: 07961 560 104
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
DIGESTATE – DEVELOPMENTS IN END OF WASTE AND THE BENEFITS OF BIOFERTILISER FOR AGRICULTURE
CHAIR: NINA SWEET OBE, SPECIAL ADVISOR – ORGANICS, WRAP
THOMAS MINTER, DIRECTOR , MALABY BIOGAS
FIONA DONALDSON, NATIONAL OPERATIONS WASTE UNIT, SEPA
TIM EVANS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BTS BIOGAS
SIMON BLACK, PRODUCT MANAGER, ANGLIAN WATER
Biosolids Recycling in the UK
Simon Black
Head of Recycling & Environmental Services
Anglian Water Services
Sewage Sludge Production and Outlets
UK untreated sewage sludge output
53 million tonnes/annum from
8,500 water recycling centres
Increasing amounts are treated and
recycled to agricultural land as biosolids
Considered the Best Practicable
Environmental Option - BPEO
Sewage Sludge TreatmentVarious treatment technologies used to produce biosolids
73% treated by AD with advanced AD treatments gradually replacing lime treatment and conventional AD
Energy production of c.850 GWh enough power for 200,000 homes
Potential for much more (> 2,000 GWh) but may be dependent on incentives
Recycling to Agricultural Land
AD biosolids product is mainly cake at 20
– 25% dry solids
It can be safely & securely stored in field
heaps before spreading & incorporation
3.6 million tonnes per annum biosolids (AD,
lime treated and granules) are recycled to
agricultural land
Applied to 146,000 hectares/annum
Equal to 1.3% of agricultural land
Recycling to Agricultural Land
Aligns with UK the Government recycling
strategy and the EC Circular Economy
Nutrient value to UK agriculture
£25m/annum - mainly Phosphate (4.5%)
and Nitrogen (4.0%) plus Sulphur, Potash
and Magnesium
Strong demand from farmers – it is worth
£170/hectare in nutrients alone
Anglian Water sell it as for
>£2.5m/annum - reduces customer water bills
Biosolids is a product with considerable value!
Waste prevention
Re-use
Recycle/compost
Energy recovery
Disposal
Recycling to land
Incineration with energy recovery
Landfill
Sludge management options
Waste Hierarchy
Benefits to Soil and the Environment
Improved soil structure
Increased water retention capability
Increased life in soil (from microbes to
earthworms)
Increased carbon sequestration
Less soil work and energy required
Increased crop yields
Reduced risk of yield loss
Maintain soil structure and nutrient composition
Reduced risk of diffuse pollution
Natural provision of nutrients
Greenhouse gas reduction
Biosolids Recycling to Agricultural land
Completes natural nutrient and
carbon cycles
Biosolids Assurance Scheme - BASWater Industry initiative to provide reassurance to the food chain and consumers
Brings together regulations and best practice into a single transparent Standard
Sets a minimum Standard – protects the environment & creates a level playing field
in advance of potential sludge market deregulation
Stakeholder input and support are essential to maintain validity and credibility
Third party audit by NSF Certification
Aspiration for UKAS Accreditation
Biosolids Assurance Scheme Objectives and Benefits
Biosolids Assurance
SchemeProvides information and promotes public
acceptance
Provides assurance to food chain stakeholders
Achieves operational consistency and
transparency
Combines legislative and non-legislative requirements, and
best practice
Ensures delivery of nutrient benefits to
agriculture
Protection of the environment - sustainability
P
Biosolids Recycling is Safe and SustainableUK Water Industry Research continuously investigates emerging issues
Risk Assessment on source materials, processes and products underpins the Standard
HACCP principals used to control treatment processes
Routine product testing for microbiological
parameters, elements and nutrients
Testing of soils for elements and nutrients
Safe Sludge Matrix (since 2001) defines
treatment standards and minimum periods
between application and harvest/grazing
BAS Certified Biosolids should be recognised as a product - not a waste
Simon Black
Head of Recycling & Environmental Services
Anglian Water Services
Fiona DonaldsonNational Operations Waste Unit
Proposals to change “end of waste” in Scotland
Food Waste Management Consultation
· 18 May to 29 June 2016· Available on the SEPA website· Applies across the whole food waste chain· Supports the duty to segregate food waste
and compliance with the duty of care· Proposed reduced limits on amounts of
physical contamination in compost/digestate output
Proposed Obligations (1)
· Obligations on· Food waste producers:
· Present only uncontaminated food waste
· Primary packaging only by agreement· Collectors:
· Refuse to uplift contaminated food waste
Proposed Obligations (2)
· Obligations on· Food waste treatment sites
· Establish pre-acceptance and acceptance criteria
· Refuse to accept non-confirming waste
· Users of compost/digestate· Check the quality of material· Apply using appropriate equipment
Revised ‘End of Waste’ Criteria
· Compost standard- PAS100· Proposed SEPA standard = 50% by 2018
· Digestate standard- PAS110· Proposed SEPA standard = 8% by 2019
· Launch new guidance October/November 2016?
www.malabybiogas.com
ADBA
6TH JULY 2016
DIGESTATE , BIOFERTILISER & LINKS TO AGRICULTURE:
AN OPERATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
BORE HILL FARM BIODIGESTER
www.malabybiogas.com
BORE HILL FARM BIODIGESTER
• 28,000 tpa food waste
• Excellent road connections
• Operational June 2012
• High Profile: Visitor Centre, Flexible Design, WRAP support, Centre of Excellence
• PAS110 June 2016
• Innovation: In House Odour Control System, Modular Decontamination System, Biochemical Enhancement, Gas Mixing, Integrated Development
www.malabybiogas.com
LOCATION
Food Waste26,000 tpa71,000 ttd
Biofertiliser25,000 tpa64,000 ttdPower8m kWpa25m kWtd2,300 homes
www.malabybiogas.com
DIGESTATE QUALITY
PAS110Physical contaminantsMaceration2mm Screen
Fully digestedMacerationRecirculation
PathogensPasteurisationWeeds & seedsFungus
www.malabybiogas.com
MAKING THE LINK TO AGRICULTURE
Digestate Supply Agreement
Supply ChainTransportation (£1.5-£3/t)Storage (£1-2/t)Spreading (£2-3/t)Knowledge & ExperienceReliabilityContingency
Nutrient PlanningSampling & AnalysisData SharingFarmer/AgronomistSpreading set up
www.malabybiogas.com
PRODUCTIVITY & ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
Demonstrate BenefitTrialsPromoting ValueNutrientSoil HealthEnvironmentalFinancial
Small Field Trial24 days after application
Small Field TrialFull & Half Rate
Application after 1st cut silage
Large Field Trial38 days after application
Large Field Trialafter 1st cut silage
Field Applicationafter harvest
www.malabybiogas.com
4 year operational record
High standardsVisible & accessible siteInnovating for profitDesign for change
CONCLUSION
Control of build qualityAim to be Best in ClassCollaborationLinking academia &
commercial ops.A state-of-the-art proving
ground
www.malabybiogas.com
THANK YOU
Thomas Minter
www.malabybiogas.com
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
DIGESTATE – TURNING AN OPERATING COST INTO A PROFIT
DR DAVID TOMPKINS, BIORESOURCES DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, AQUA ENVIRO
GARY JONES, TECHNICAL DIRECTOR, LANGAGE FARM
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Processing digestate – how can the industry reduce costs and
increase upgrading?David Tompkins, Bioresources Development Manager
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Material characteristics (FW)* Digestate Cattle slurry Pig slurry
Dry matter % 3 6 4
Nitrogen (total) kg/m3 4.4 2.6 3.6
Nitrogen (ammoniacal) kg/m3 4.0 1.2 2.5
Phosphate (P2O5) kg/m3 2.9 1.2 1.8
Potash (K2O) kg/m3 2.1 3.2 2.4
Magnesium (MgO) kg/m3 0.2 0.6 0.7
Sulphur (SO3) kg/m3 2.1 0.7 1.0
*Fresh weight basis. Digestate data from FW AD site; Other data from RB209
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.biocow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/030-1500x430.jpg
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/compost-calculator
Value of readily available nutrients in food-based digestate (fresh weight)
Nitrogen (N) Phosphate (P2O5)
Potash (K2O) Total
Market price of fertilisers (£/kg) 0.74 0.59 0.44
Readily available nutrient content (kg/tonne digestate) 4.00 0.25 1.60
Financial value of readily available nutrients (£/tonne digestate) 2.94 0.15 0.71 3.80
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/A_survey_of_the_UK_Anaerobic_Digestion_industry_in_2013.pdf
Digestate markets in 2013 (fresh tonnes)
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Getting the basics right?
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
• Certification fee £2,000
• Analytical costs £9,000
• Deployments £24,000
• Analytical costs £250
Assume• 30,000 tonnes digestate per year
• Spread at 30m3 per hectare• 40ha of each 50ha deployment used
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Time
Met
hane
per
kg
VS a
dded
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Residual biogas potential (L/g(VS))
ABCDEFGHI
Cow slurry 1Cow slurry 2Cow slurry 3Cow slurry 4Cow slurry 5
Pig slurry 1Pig slurry 2Pig slurry 3Pig slurry 4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
www.aquaenviro.co.ukhttp://smallfarms.oregonstate.edu/sfn/f09Herbicide
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
One step beyond
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.lifemixfertilizer.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/diptico_en.pdf
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.iwarr2015.org/sites/default/files/262/Menkveld_final.pdf
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://ostara.com/nutrients/
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Material characteristics (FW)* Digestate Cattle slurry Pig slurry
Dry matter % 3 6 4
Nitrogen (total) kg/m3 4.4 2.6 3.6
Nitrogen (ammoniacal) kg/m3 4.0 1.2 2.5
Phosphate (P2O5) kg/m3 2.9 1.2 1.8
Potash (K2O) kg/m3 2.1 3.2 2.4
Magnesium (MgO) kg/m3 0.2 0.6 0.7
Sulphur (SO3) kg/m3 2.1 0.7 1.0
*Fresh weight basis. Digestate data from FW AD site; Other data from RB209
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/01/49/15/1491537_f18c239d.jpg
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://wessexwater.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Corporate_Site/Potential%20developments%20in%20the%20commercialisation%20of%20the%20sludge%20treatment%20and%20recycling%20market.pdf
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
http://www.aquaenviro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Assessing-the-Costs-and-Benefits-for-Production-and-Beneficial-Application-of-Anaerobic-Digestate-to-Agricultural-Land-in-Wales-WRAP-Final-Report-2014.pdf
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Eight scenarios (including baseline)
Digestate direct to land
Digestate de-watered
(centrifugation)
Residual liquor to ammonia stripping
and struvite precipitation
Residual liquor to biological NH3
oxidation
Digestate fibre to land
Residual liquor to sewer
Digestate liquor to sewer
Digestate liquor to land
Digestate liquor to ammonia stripping
and struvite precipitation
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Most cost-effective scenario
• Centrifuge separation• Fibre to agricultural land• Liquor to biological ammonia
oxidation and then disposal to water course
Assumed• 25ktpa food waste @ 26%TS• Diluted to 10%TS with water
http://www.zeolite-anammox.com/#!what-is-zeolite-anammox/cst1
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
But…• Different dilution gave entirely different
outcome• De-watering cost ~£2.50 per tonne of
digestate (OPEX only)• Polymer represented ~50% of this
• Food-based digestates notoriously tricky to de-water
• Impacts of return liquors and VFAs?• Impacts of operating temperature?
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Points to ponder
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Questions for discussion• Are digestate costs really make or
break?• If we can’t get the basics right, what
hope for more advanced options?• Beyond nutrient recovery, is it worth it?
• None of these points seems to have changed in the past five years!
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
What would you want?• Safety?• Quality?• Predictability?• Value?
• Do you know who your customer is?• What about any constraints they
work within?
• Do you know what you’re competing against?
What does the customer want?
www.aquaenviro.co.uk
Langage Biogas Presentation ADBA, Turning operation costs into profit
Date: 6th July 2016
Presentation by: Gary Jones: Technical Director
Close the loop
• Operation is in Plymouth, Devon• Land is mostly grass for dairy and beef• Run a 499kw CHP• Opened in March 2011 PAS110 same year• Spreading 10,000M³ • 100% food waste.
A Brief HistoryClose
the loop
Issues
• Milk yields falling - £95k lost revenue • Poor grass production - £8k increase in
bought feedstock• Poor soil structure - compaction in the soil• Grass roots unable to cope with drought.• Made a move to AD to remedy the problem,
but had too digestate for the land available to us.
Close the loop
DigestateHow to get your product to market.
• Advertise.• You only get one shot. Product has to be good.• Invest in efficient clean up systems• Know your market, and know your product.• Be able to adjust your marketing to the market in
front of you.
Close the loop
Fertiliser - what to advertise?
• Ammonium Nitrate - Produced by Haber-Bosch process, uses large amounts of fuel in its manufacture, so directly linked to oil price.
• Phosphate - A finite mineral resource, currently mined e.g Morocco. Recycling P is key to food production security.
• Potash – Mined from salt deposits or found in plant embers, transported globally
• Sulphur - Major nutrient now lacking due to no acid rain. Very important to arable crops. Was mined now oil based production.
• Magnesium - Crushed Dolomitic limestone or Epsom salts. Deficiency in grassland cause of staggers in cows.
Close the loop
Trace elements important to plant growth
• Copper - Livestock health e.g. swayback in lambs• Manganese – deficiency common in arable crops• Zinc - Grain ear development, livestock enzyme functions• Bicarbonate - Alkali, reduces acidification by nitrates so
decreases field liming requirement.• Sodium - Improves silage palatability and can reduce risk of
grass staggers.• Boron – Deficiency causes rot in brassicas and root crops• Cobalt – For livestock Vitamin B12 production • Molybdenum – key element for rhizobia, the N fixing bacteria in
legumes
Close the loop
Markets driven by nutrient Value £.• Ammonium Nitrate £220/t at 34.5 % = 64p per kg• Phosphate (TSP) £300/t at 46%= 65p per kg• Potash (MoP) £265 at 60% = 44p per kg• Sulphur = 36p per kg (Kieserite)• Magnesium = 36p per kg (Kieserite)• Trace elements ?• Langage AD digestate is worth £4.92 /t in NPK alone• Total nutrient £5.29• Last year £7.20.
Markets and market restrictions.
Agricultural market is the only option open at the moment ?Domestic market forming pellets and nutrient rich pots, rich in P,K S and trace elements. Quality guarantee is PAS110 good enough.Organic market perfectly suited for this material - Provides valuable nutrient source, increases yields and will reduce market place costs of organic productsEasiest outlet is to grassland. NVZ and soil indices' give limitations.Crops such as maize need to spread after germination as N is an inhibiting factor in plant germination and early development. Better done for winter crop.
Close the loop
Bottom, line anecdotal evidence is best
Sometimes all the facts and figures generated aren't enough for farmers to take on the change. We had a £145k bill the first year of operation, next year £80k then £35 and 2015 profit £8k 2016 5k to date.Our farmer outlets are asking for it to a point where demand has outstripped supply.We have farms who have been farming with traditional methods and using prill for years have had to build additional clamps to hold their increase in yield. So yes it works.
Close the loop
Any Questions
Close the loop
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR
ODOUR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
CHAIR: PAUL KILLOUGHERY, DIRECTOR, BIO COLLECTORS
MARTIN CHRISTMAS, GENERAL MANAGER, SALVTECH
ANDREW LYON, ENVIRONMENT AND BUSINESS ADVISOR, ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
Odour Management and ControlUnderstanding the problem
The Odour Mechanism
Basic information you need to understand the problem
• Odour source(s)
• Receptor(s)
• Strength of Smell • measured in Odour units per cubic metre
• Type of smell• measured using the Hedonic Tone scale
• Distance• i.e. how much will the smell disperse
• Sensitivity• how sensitive is the receptor?• The normal assumption is “extremely”
Extracted air Abatement
determines odour reduction rate
Air drawn into buildings by extraction system
Odour concentration in OUE/m3 in building
Odour emission rate determines OUE/s/m2 into system
Waste surface area = emitting area in m2
Uncontrolled emission to air(fugitive emissions)
Odour concentration
at stack
Controlled emission
The Odour Mechanism
Model complications
• Strength of Smell changes• With agitation• With maturation• By mixing and treating
• Type of smell changes• with maturation (compounds
alter e.g. limonene)• With concentration
(perception of the smell e.g. strong perfume)
the stages in between the upper and lower hedonic odour tone scale values.
Table 2. Hedonic Scales (VDI3882 and H4)
Score VDI3882 Definition Hedonic Odour Tone DEFRA Definition Perceived Hedonic Tone
+4 Extremely pleasant Very pleasant +3 Pleasant +2 Moderately pleasant +1 Mildly pleasant 0 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant Neutral odour / no odour -1 Mildly unpleasant -2 Moderately unpleasant -3 Unpleasant -4 Extremely unpleasant Very unpleasant
Making a model
m2
Area
Area A 906Area B1 453Area B2 469Area C1 337Area C2 531Area D 829Area E1 373Area E2 628
Examples of data collection
Stockpile reference (refer to Figure 3)
Type Derived Surface Area (m2)
Measured Odour concentrationouEm-3
Derived Emission rate ouEs-1m-2
Derived Odour emissionsouEs-1
ST1 Recovered over size mixed waste 74 861 8.4 626ST2 Segregated 40 mm fines 72 1880 18.4 1325ST3 Recovered over size mixed waste 37 861 8.4 314ST4 Segregated glass 134 1880 18.4 2473ST5 Segregated 10 mm fines 134 1020 10 1335ST6 Segregated 10 mm fines 42 1020 10 417ST7 Segregated 15 mm fines 42 10205 10 417ST8 Recovered over size mixed waste 42 861 8.4 352SRF Secondary Recovered Fuel 669 645 6.3 4218F1 Organic Growth Medium (reject) 92 1330 13 1192F2 Mixed waste feed stock 158 2900 28.4 4476Metal Skip Segregated Aluminium 16 861 6.3 104MS1 Segregated metal 6 645 6.3 38MS2 Segregated metal 6 6457 6.3 38MS3 Segregated metal 6 6457 6.3 38
Examples of model outputs
Compare results to H4 guidance using odour concentration and hedonic tone at the receptors
Design odour systems to reduce impact at the nearest receptors
06:0008:00
10:0012:00
14:0016:00
18:0020:00
22:0000:00
02:0004:00
06:000
5001000150020002500300035004000
Simulated typical current day values(worst case number used) Air change 1
(door wind speed 0.8m/s) - ouE/Nm3
Air change 2 door wind speed 0.5m/s) - ouE/Nm3
Air change 3 door wind speed 0.3 m/s- ouE/Nm3
Thank-You for your attention
Contact:
Martin Christmas General Manager | Salvtech Ltd | 07789 583602 Salvtech LtdUnit 12 - Engineer ParkBabbage RoadSandycroftFlintshireNorth WalesCH5 2QD
Tel: 01244 638900
Odour management and control Name: Andrew LyonJob title: Environment & Business Technical Advisor Date ADBA – 06 July 2016
Odour surrounds us, it is part of daily lifePleasant / unpleasantCan be offensive, may cause annoyanceOften seen as an indication of something more dangerous
Many reasons why we perceive odours differentlyPersonal experience and circumstances Adaptation
Understanding why odour is subjective is essential to help you deal with odour issues
Odour causes an emotional response
Is odour a problem?
The Agency’s National Incidents Recording System (NIRS) records all reports receivedA primary classification code for amenity issues was added in October 2013Data from 31 October 2013 – 31 October 2015:
33,621 reports of odour pollution10,183 reports of noise pollution3,504 reports of dust pollution2,182 reports of flies
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Odour Impact by Sector31/10/13 – 31/10/15
Total Odour Reports
Sites
Tota
l Odo
ur R
epor
ts
Site
s
NonHaz
Landfi
llMRF
Compos
ting AD
Abattoir
IF Poult
ry
Incine
ration
WW
TW
Land
fill/R
ecov
ery
IF Pigs
Haz Was
te Tre
at...
Chemica
ls
Rende
ring
Pet food
Food P
repa
ratio
n0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Odour Impact Distances by Sector90% of Reports Within (m)75% of Reports Within (m)50% of Reports Within (m)25% of Reports Within (m)Total Odour ReportsSites
Met
res
/ Tot
al O
dour
Rep
orts
Site
s
Understanding risks
Always consider the risk of odour pollution:Site location – proximity to receptorsWaste types received – odour potential of old and/or putrescible wastesOdorous materials produced during the processIs the site using established practices or novel techniques?
risks
mitigation
Main sources of odour emissions
Reception buildingBuffer storageDigestate separation buildingDigestate storage (tanks or lagoons)BiofiltersDigester(s)Gas storage
Systematic approach to odour control
1. Eliminate / reduce at source
2. Containment / housekeeping (good practice)
3. Extraction and abatement (end-of-pipe)
Management is keyUnderstanding feedstocksMinimising double handlingMinimising quantitiesMinimising storage timesHousekeeping – deep cleansStaff training / competenceProcess monitoringRecording and using this information
Containment of odour emissionsMust be appropriately designed
Local extraction; building extraction; building integrity
Volume of odorous emissions – air changes per hour?Experience shows building containment doesn’t work
Extraction maintained when doors are open?
Abatement techniquesThere’s no single solution for all scenarios
If it sounds too good to be true it probably is
Must be matched to air streamHow can you treat the air if you don’t know what’s in it?
Does it work under the full range of operating conditions?Is it monitored and maintained
i.e. how do you know it’s working?
If the process changes will it still be fit for purpose?
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR