landfill gas to energy feasibility study city of lee’s...

49
LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S SUMMIT Prepared for: City of Lee’s Summit 207 S.W. Market P.O. Box 1600 Lee’s Summit, MO 64063 Prepared by: 10975 El Monte, Suite 100 Overland Park, Kansas 66211 (913) 451-7510 March 2006 File No. 08205010.00 SCS ENGINEERS

Upload: others

Post on 22-May-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY

CITY OF LEE’S SUMMIT

Prepared for:

City of Lee’s Summit 207 S.W. Market P.O. Box 1600

Lee’s Summit, MO 64063

Prepared by:

10975 El Monte, Suite 100 Overland Park, Kansas 66211

(913) 451-7510

March 2006 File No. 08205010.00

SCS ENGINEERS

Page 2: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

i

CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 Landfill Gas Overview .................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Landfill Gas Generation and Recovery............................................................................ 2-1 Model Description........................................................................................................... 2-1 Model Application........................................................................................................... 2-1 Estimated LFG Recovery Potential ................................................................................. 2-3 Model Results.................................................................................................................. 2-3 3 LFG to Energy Technologies for Consideration ............................................................. 3-1 Technically Feasible End Uses at the Lee’s Summit Sanitary Landfill .......................... 3-1 Electricity Power Generation.............................................................................. 3-1 Reciprocating Engines ........................................................................................ 3-1 Microturbines ...................................................................................................... 3-2 Cogeneration ....................................................................................................... 3-3 Medium Btu Gas Utilization............................................................................... 3-4 4 Potential End Users of LFG Energy................................................................................ 4-1 Existing and Planned Facilities ....................................................................................... 4-1 Maintenance Facility........................................................................................... 4-1 Proposed Animal Control Building .................................................................... 4-2 Proposed Water Department Building ................................................................ 4-2 Total Energy Needs ......................................................................................................... 4-2 Offsite Energy Needs ...................................................................................................... 4-3 5 Economic Evaluation of End Use Options...................................................................... 5-1 Microturbine Applications............................................................................................... 5-1 Financial Analyses .............................................................................................. 5-2 Reciprocating Engine and Medium BTU Applications................................................... 5-3

Page 3: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

ii

CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 6 Regulatory Considerations .............................................................................................. 6-1 Applicable Federal Energy Regulations.......................................................................... 6-1 Energy Policy Act of 2005 Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).................................. 6-1 Applicable State Energy Regulations ............................................................................. 6-1 4 CSR 240-20.060 Cogeneration ........................................................................ 6-1 4 CSR 240 20.065 Net Metering......................................................................... 6-2 Applicable Utility Policies .............................................................................................. 6-2 7 Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................... 7-1 Direct Environmental Benefits ........................................................................................ 7-1 Indirect Environmental Benefits...................................................................................... 7-1 Electricity Generation ......................................................................................... 7-1 Direct Use ........................................................................................................... 7-1 8 Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 8-1 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 8-1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 8-2 Appendices A Financial Analyses of Technology Options B Applicable Regulations and Policies FERC Missouri PSC C Aquila Operating Standards for Generators, Small, Paralleling (Missouri) D Technology Information Capstone C30 Roberts Gordon Vantage II E Photographs

Page 4: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

iii

CONTENTS (Continued) Figures 1 LFG Recovery Projection 2 Site Map Tables 1 LFG Recovery Projection 2 Maintenance Building Energy Usage 3 Annual Energy Needs at Resource Recovery Park 4 Base Electric Capacity 5 Potential Energy Users in the Area 6 Energy Generation and Usage to Microturbine Scenarios 7 Capital Cost and Net Present Value Summary for Microturbine Scenarios 8 Capital Cost and Net Present Value Summary for Reciprocating Engine and Medium Btu

Page 5: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES SCS Engineers (SCS) has performed this feasibility assessment for the potential utilization of landfill gas (LFG) from the Lee’s Summit Sanitary Landfill (Site). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the LFG generation and recovery potential at the landfill, and to provide a preliminary evaluation of the technology options and costs for utilizing LFG from the Site for energy recovery. LANDFILL GAS OVERVIEW

Landfills produce LFG as organic materials decompose under anaerobic conditions. LFG is composed of approximately equal parts of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) with trace concentrations of other gases, including non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs). The combustibility of methane can be both an asset and a liability to a landfill owner: an asset when the gas becomes a source of energy recovered from LFG; and a liability because of the potential for fire or explosion when subsurface migration of LFG results in off-site contamination or the accumulation of methane in on-site buildings and underground structures. Methane released to the atmosphere is capable of retaining heat, and because LFG is approximately 50 percent methane, landfills have been recognized as significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, LFG emissions may increase the potential for global warming, or the “greenhouse effect.” Depending on the application, LFG can often be used in place of conventional fossil fuels. One pound of landfill refuse can produce about 3.6 standard cubic feet (scf) of LFG. The resulting fuel is classified as a medium-Btu gas with a heating value of about 500 Btu/scf, which is approximately one-half the heating value of natural gas. Landfill gas is saturated with water vapor when extracted from a landfill and entrained moisture is usually removed prior to utilization. Other minor constituents of LFG include hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and chloride compounds. These compounds typically account for less than one percent of the gas and generally do not cause a hindrance to LFG utilization. Landfill gas is a low-polluting fuel with respect to NOx, CO, unburned hydrocarbons (HC) and volatile organic emissions. Flame temperatures from the burning LFG are relatively low and the resulting NOx emissions are generally about 70 percent less than for natural gas combustion. However, flame temperatures are not so low as to increase HC or CO emissions. Emissions using LFG as the primary fuel can be as low as 22 ppm for NOx and 5 ppm for CO and HCs, depending on the technology used to combust LFG.

Page 6: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

2-1

SECTION 2

LANDFILL GAS GENERATION AND RECOVERY

MODEL DESCRIPTION The LFG generation model requires that the site’s waste disposal history (or, at a minimum, the amount of waste in place and opening date) be known. The landfill gas model used by SCS is a first-order model, similar to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). The model developed by SCS calculates gas collection, not gas generation. The model uses input variables for methane generation potential (Lo) and annual gas generation rate (k) that have been developed specifically by SCS based on a database of over 150 operational LFG collection systems. MODEL APPLICATION Application of the LFG generation model to the Site required developing a disposal history and estimating appropriate values for other model input parameters (k and Lo). To estimate historical disposal, SCS obtained available records from landfill personnel and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). These records provided the following information:

• Year landfill opened: 1982. • Year landfill closes: 2014.

• Estimated disposal rates from 1982 – 1989 (based on amount of total airspace

calculated in SWD 2004 Model given to SCS by the City of Lee’s Summit landfill personnel).

• Actual annual disposal rates from 1990 – 2004 (From MDNR files).

• Projected annual disposal rates (based on past population increase, recorded

waste history, and projected population increase). SCS developed an approximate disposal history using this information. The tonnages are presented in Table 1. Remaining input parameters required for model application include the methane generation rate constant, k, and the methane generation potential, Lo. These were determined by entering the annual precipitation for the City into SCS’ landfill gas model.

Page 7: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

2-2

Table 1. LFG RECOVERY PROJECTION

City of Lee's Summit, Missouri - LFGTE Disposal Refuse LFG Recovery System LFG Recovery from Rate In-Place Potential Coverage Existing and Planned System

Year (tons/yr) (tons) (scfm) (mmcf/day) (mmBtu/yr) (%) (scfm) (mmcf/day) (mmBtu/yr)1982 21,735 21,735 0 0.00 0 0% 0 0.00 01983 21,735 43,470 17 0.02 4,506 0% 0 0.00 01984 21,735 65,205 33 0.05 8,693 0% 0 0.00 01985 21,735 86,940 47 0.07 12,584 0% 0 0.00 01986 21,735 108,675 61 0.09 16,198 0% 0 0.00 01987 21,735 130,410 74 0.11 19,557 0% 0 0.00 01988 21,735 152,145 85 0.12 22,677 0% 0 0.00 01989 21,735 173,880 96 0.14 25,577 0% 0 0.00 01990 43,140 217,020 106 0.15 28,271 0% 0 0.00 01991 30,866 247,886 132 0.19 35,212 0% 0 0.00 01992 34,483 282,369 147 0.21 39,116 0% 0 0.00 01993 60,032 342,401 164 0.24 43,494 0% 0 0.00 01994 89,305 431,706 199 0.29 52,858 0% 0 0.00 01995 106,492 538,198 254 0.37 67,628 0% 0 0.00 01996 107,178 645,376 319 0.46 84,915 0% 0 0.00 01997 76,048 721,424 380 0.55 101,119 0% 0 0.00 01998 80,713 802,137 413 0.59 109,721 0% 0 0.00 01999 104,516 906,653 446 0.64 118,680 0% 0 0.00 02000 114,213 1,020,866 496 0.71 131,940 0% 0 0.00 02001 120,067 1,140,933 550 0.79 146,270 0% 0 0.00 02002 79,318 1,220,251 605 0.87 160,799 0% 0 0.00 02003 81,797 1,302,048 624 0.90 165,849 49% 307 0.44 81,7382004 83,911 1,385,959 643 0.93 171,055 52% 337 0.48 89,5202005 87,482 1,473,441 663 0.95 176,331 55% 367 0.53 97,7362006 91,204 1,564,645 684 0.99 181,974 58% 399 0.57 106,1562007 95,085 1,659,730 707 1.02 187,988 59% 416 0.60 110,5692008 99,132 1,758,862 731 1.05 194,381 59% 433 0.62 115,1172009 103,350 1,862,212 756 1.09 201,159 60% 450 0.65 119,7712010 107,748 1,969,960 783 1.13 208,332 60% 469 0.67 124,6592011 112,333 2,082,293 812 1.17 215,909 60% 488 0.70 129,7882012 117,113 2,199,406 842 1.21 223,899 60% 508 0.73 135,1682013 122,097 2,321,502 874 1.26 232,314 61% 529 0.76 140,8082014 127,292 2,448,795 907 1.31 241,166 61% 552 0.79 146,7182015 0 2,448,795 942 1.36 250,468 81% 763 1.10 202,8792016 0 2,448,795 875 1.26 232,719 90% 788 1.13 209,4472017 0 2,448,795 813 1.17 216,228 90% 732 1.05 194,6052018 0 2,448,795 755 1.09 200,905 90% 680 0.98 180,8142019 0 2,448,795 702 1.01 186,668 90% 632 0.91 168,0012020 0 2,448,795 652 0.94 173,440 90% 587 0.85 156,0962021 0 2,448,795 606 0.87 161,149 90% 545 0.79 145,0342022 0 2,448,795 563 0.81 149,730 90% 507 0.73 134,7572023 0 2,448,795 523 0.75 139,119 90% 471 0.68 125,2072024 0 2,448,795 486 0.70 129,261 90% 437 0.63 116,3352025 0 2,448,795 452 0.65 120,101 90% 406 0.59 108,0912026 0 2,448,795 420 0.60 111,590 90% 378 0.54 100,4312027 0 2,448,795 390 0.56 103,682 90% 351 0.51 93,3142028 0 2,448,795 362 0.52 96,335 90% 326 0.47 86,7012029 0 2,448,795 337 0.48 89,508 90% 303 0.44 80,5572030 0 2,448,795 313 0.45 83,165 90% 281 0.41 74,849

Page 8: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

2-3

ESTIMATED LFG RECOVERY POTENTIAL The potential LFG recovery rates are estimated based on the projected LFG generation rates provided by the model and the estimated current and future collection system recovery efficiency (“collection efficiency”). Current collection efficiency is approximately 23 percent with 25 wells covering approximately 5 of the 80 acres of landfilled footprint. This implies that the Site could be producing beyond modeled potential recovery values or that SCS model predictions may be conservative relative to actual gas recovery. LFG is collected in a network of wells that are located close to the perimeter of the waste. A 500 cfm blower applies a vacuum to the collection system. The extracted LFG is flared in an 800 cfm capacity flare. The maximum potential collection efficiency for the site is estimated to be 80 percent while the landfill is accepting waste because of no final cover. This recovery level assumes periodic expansion of the LFG collection system between now and closure in 2014. Without final cover, some of the LFG will escape through the landfill surface. Upon placement of final cover, the potential collection efficiency is estimated to be approximately 90 percent, as there should be a significant decrease in LFG that will escape through the surface of the landfill. MODEL RESULTS Table 1 and Figure 1 show the historical and projected future LFG generation and recovery potential for the Site. The resulting projections can be summarized as follows:

• Site wide LFG generation potential is estimated to reach a maximum of 942 cfm (50 percent methane) in 2015 and decline thereafter.

• The site wide LFG recovery potential was estimated to reach a maximum of 788 cfm

in 2016 and decline thereafter.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

LFG

Flo

w a

t 50%

Met

hane

(cfm

)

Recovery Potential Recovery from Existing and Planned System Actual Recovery

Figure 1. LFG Recovery ProjectionCity of Lee's Summit Sanitary Landfill

Page 9: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

3-1

SECTION 3

LFG TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONSIDERATION

In this section we present proven technologies currently available for consideration in the application of LFG to Energy at the Lee’s Summit Resource Recovery Park. The preferred alternative for the Site will be dependent on several factors, including amounts of recoverable LFG, availability of customers for the gas or energy, supply and demand for gas and electricity, and environmental benefits associated with each of these options. TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE END USES AT THE LEE’S SUMMIT SANITARY LANDFILL Electric Power Generation This study considered the option of generating electricity using LFG via several different technologies. The feasibility of this LFG utilization option depends on the electricity generated by the LFG for the Lee’s Summit Maintenance Facility and the purchase price that is negotiated with the local electric utility. The average ‘avoided cost’ rate that the local utility, Aquila, Incorporated (Aquila) currently pays for the electricity is $0.032/kWh, which is less than half of the average retail price to commercial and industrial customers. This ‘avoided cost’ rate is the price that a utility must pay to an independent power producer for a unit of electricity that it then sells to customers through its power grid. The ‘avoided cost’ rate is the lowest cost (per kWh) the utility would incur to either produce the same amount of electricity or buy it from another alternate producer. Since the cost to develop and market electricity from LFG can be between 6-8 cents per kWh, an electricity project may be difficult at this Site. Some utilities currently pay a premium for ‘green power’, which is power generated from renewable energy sources. SCS is aware of one Missouri utility currently paying over 40¢ per kWh for LFG generated electricity. LFG qualifies as such a source and is currently being added to the base of both national and Midwest electric utilities. Reciprocating Engines The reciprocating engine is the most frequently used conversion technology for LFG to energy projects. The capacity of the individual engines proven in LFG service varies from 0.5 MW to 3 MW. Reciprocating engines are manufactured in capacities larger than 3 MW; however, the larger units have not been proven in LFG service. It is believed that the largest LFG-fired reciprocating engine-based power plant is in the United States, and has a net power output of 12 MW. There are more than 200 LFG-fired reciprocating engine power plants operating worldwide. The principal advantage of reciprocating engines as compared to other power generation technologies is a better heat rate at lower capacities. An additional advantage of reciprocating engines is that the units are available in incremental capacities, which makes it easy to tailor the size of small plants to the specific rate of gas production at a landfill. Most small LFG power plants employ reciprocating engines.

Page 10: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

3-2

In non-attainment air districts, an important disadvantage to reciprocating engines is that they produce higher emissions of NOx, CO, and NMOCs than other electric power generation technologies. Significant progress has, however, been made in reducing NOx emissions in recent years. A second disadvantage to reciprocating engines is that their operation/maintenance costs on a per kWh basis are higher than for other power generation technologies. Station load for a reciprocating engine plant is about seven percent of gross power output. The net heat rate for a typical reciprocating engine plant is 10,600 Btu/kWh. Reciprocating engines generally require a relatively simple LFG pretreatment process consisting of compression and removal of free moisture. Free moisture (water droplets) is removed by use of simple moisture separators (knockout drums), cooling of the LFG in ambient air-to-LFG heat exchangers, and coalescing-type filters. Moisture removal also removes particulates; however, LFG is generally fairly particulate free. Some of the NMOCs in the LFG are removed as a result of compression and cooling. Compression is usually provided by flooded screw-type blowers or centrifugal blowers. The reciprocating engines can require between 3 psig and 60 psig of fuel pressure. Engine manufacturers place restrictions on the amount of sulfur bearing compounds and the total organic halide content that they will tolerate in the LFG. Hydrogen sulfide is the principal sulfur-bearing compound in LFG. Chlorine is present in some of the NMOCs found in LFG. Chlorinated compounds are responsible for virtually all of the organic halides in LFG. A pretreatment scheme consisting of compression and simple moisture separation (knockout drum, air-to-LFG heat exchanger and coalescing filter) is virtually always the extent of LFG processing at a reciprocating engine plant. The total installed cost of a LFG fired reciprocating engine power plant is in the range of $1,100 to $1,300/kW. The scope of the installation would begin with a LFG booster blower and end with a step-up transformer. The variability in price relates to differences in plant size, site conditions, and whether or not the equipment is installed in a building or is supplied in its factory-shipped containers. Larger plants and containerized installations would fall in the lower end of the price range. The price range quoted assumes a minimum plant size of 800 kW. The operation/maintenance cost of a LFG fired reciprocating engine power plant, exclusive of LFG recovery cost, is in the range of 1.6¢ to 2.0¢ per kWh. The lower cost is associated with larger plants (3 to 6 MW) and the higher cost is associated with smaller plants.

Microturbines The microturbine is a recently commercialized distributed generation technology. The microturbine is a derivative of the much larger combustion turbines employed in the electric power and aviation industries. Combustion air and fuel are mixed in a combustor section, and the release of heat causes the expansion of the gas. The hot gas is sent through a gas turbine that is connected to a generator. The units are normally equipped with a recuperator, which heats

the combustion air using turbine exhaust gas in order to increase the unit’s overall efficiency.

Page 11: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

3-3

The combustion air is compressed using a compressor that is driven by the gas turbine. The fuel must be supplied to the combustor at 70 psig to 80 psig. In some natural gas fired applications, the gas is available at this pressure from the pipeline. In LFG applications, a gas compressor is required. The microturbine differs from traditional combustion turbines in that the microturbine spins at a much faster speed. The microturbines that are now on the market are equipped with air bearings rather than traditional mechanical bearings in order to reduce wear. Microturbines are small combustion turbines that produce 25 kW to 500 kW of power. They produce fewer emissions and are more resistant to corrosion than a typical IC engine; however, they typically have lower thermal efficiencies than IC engines. Microturbines were derived from turbocharger technologies found in large trucks and require little maintenance. Most microturbines are single-stage and have thermal efficiencies ranging from 20 to 30 percent. Thermal efficiencies of 85 percent can be reached if microturbines are used for cogeneration. A typical LFG fired microturbine installation would have the following components: LFG compressor(s), LFG pretreatment equipment, microturbine(s), motor control center, switchgear, and step-up transformer. Microturbines require about 13,900 Btu/kWh of fuel on a gross power output basis. Station load is about 15 percent, resulting in a net power output of about 16,350 Btu/kWh. Microturbines are most applicable where the following circumstances exist: low quantities of LFG are available; the LFG has a low methane content; air emissions are of great concern; emphasis is being placed on satisfaction of on-site power requirements, rather than exporting power; and/or a requirement for hot water exists at or near the landfill. Microturbines can operate on LFG with a methane content of 35 percent (and perhaps as low as 30 percent). A 75 kW unit requires less than 50 scfm of LFG (at 35 percent methane content). Microturbines can be used at small landfills and at old landfills where LFG quality and quantity would not support more traditional LFG electric power generation technologies. The total installed cost of a LFG fired microturbine power plant can range from $2,100 to $4,000/kW. For the smaller plants, the costs of the pretreatment package and skid can be disproportionally high. The cost of a 300 kW installation is in the range of $2,100/kW. Above 300 kW, there is little reduction in cost on a $/kW basis. When and if larger microturbines become available, the cost of a microturbine installation over 300 kW may decrease on a $/kW basis. The operation/maintenance cost of a LFG fired microturbine power plant, exclusive of LFG recovery cost, is in the range of $1.8¢ to $2.2¢ per kWh. Cogeneration Cogeneration is the combined production of electrical energy and heat from the same source. This heat that is produced in the generation of electricity is captured and used to produce thermal energy. Common uses of thermal energy include: heating requirements, provide cooling through absorption technology, and further electric production through another generating process.

Page 12: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

3-4

Cogeneration produces approximately 10 percent of the United States’ electricity. It can increase the application thermal efficiency of the LFG to energy cycle to approximately 50 – 85 percent. If the City opts for electricity generation, the waste heat from both the IC engine and the microturbine could be potential methods for heating the existing and planned City buildings. The waste heat would act as the heat (energy) through a heat exchanger, and ambient air would travel through (separately) this heat via blower into the building as heat. The ambient air would gain heating levels based on the time spent and length traveled in the heat exchanger. Medium Btu Gas Utilization If the City has an opportunity to send the LFG to an off site end-user, it can be supplied as either a dry LFG or as an unprocessed, wet LFG. The success of a direct use project depends on the ability of the project to produce cost savings for natural gas customers. Thus, if the energy project could supply LFG to current natural gas users below the market rate, a project is likely to be economically viable. When LFG is used as a medium-Btu gas, it is directly used as a substitute for fossil fuel with very little treatment. The LFG seen at the landfill’s flare fluctuates between 40 to 55 percent methane. The LFG has an energy value of 400 to 550 Btu/cf. It can be blended with natural gas, which has an energy value of 1,000 Btu/cf or it can be fired separately. The principal advantage associated with medium-Btu gas utilization is that capital investments are not required to remove the carbon dioxide prior to LFG utilization or to convert the energy to electric energy. These cost savings are partially offset by the need to construct a dedicated pipeline direct to the gas user and/or the need to modify the user's piping and fuel burning equipment to accommodate LFG firing. The cost of a dedicated pipeline delivery system is a function of size and distance to the LFG user. Historically medium btu projects targeted sites within several (unobstructed) miles of a landfill but larger energy needs combined with rising natural gas prices are making more projects at greater distances economical. The key element of a successful medium-Btu gas project is identifying a year-round user of fossil fuel near the landfill. Direct use (medium-Btu) projects have three components: the compressor plant; the pipeline to deliver the LFG to the end user; and end user modifications to support LFG firing or LFG co-firing. The cost of the compressor plant is a function of its design flow rate and design pressure. Construction costs and operation/maintenance costs are primarily a function of flow rate. Flow rates for larger projects are typically quoted in million standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd). The total installed cost of a medium-Btu compressor plant is in the range of $600,000 to $700,000/mmscfd. Operation/maintenance costs vary with energy costs but for planning purposes are approximately $400 to $500/mmscf.

Page 13: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

3-5

Specific applications of medium Btu projects for LFG have included the following:

• Co-firing or dedicated industrial and institutional boilers • Distillation of ethanol • Co-firing in coal/natural gas burning electric generating plant • Co-firing cement kiln • Aggregate dryers and asphalt plants • Heating via infra red heaters

The economics and application of these technologies are highly site specific. The standard process for production of medium-Btu gas is compression and refrigeration. Compression is employed in order to: (1) reduce the diameter of the conveyance pipeline; (2) to overcome pressure losses as the gas moves through the conveyance pipeline; and (3) to supply an end point pressure suitable for the user’s needs. Refrigeration is employed for advanced moisture removal to assure that no condensate is formed in the conveyance pipeline and to produce a moisture-free gas for the end user. If the end user’s fuel specification is particularly demanding, then hydrogen sulfide and/or non-methane organic compound (NMOC) removal can be added to the treatment process; however, the addition of such steps is unusual. Infrared heating with LFG. The seasonal heating needs of the Maintenance Facility and planned Animal Control and Water Maintenance Buildings will be investigated further in the Economic Feasibility Analysis. Infrared heating, low–intensity continuous infrared heating systems fueled by LFG have been successfully utilized at a handful of sites to meet space-heating requirements near landfills while requiring only minimal LFG flow. Infrared radiant heating is a proven, energy efficient method of heating that heats objects in a space rather that the air contained in the space. The infrared rays heat objects such as the floor, cars, machines and people. The warm objects in turn heat the air. The custom-designed system of heaters can be sized with input firing rates from 40,000 to 200,000 Btu/hr. Pretreatment of the LFG through moisture removal and activated carbon treatment may benefit the operation and maintenance of an infrared heating system and should be considered.

Page 14: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

4-1

SECTION 4

POTENTIAL END USERS OF LFG ENERGY

The discussion from the previous section suggests that the application of LFG to energy technology can be highly site specific. The technologies are proven and can be applied at various sites. It is the economics of building out each technology to match it with the specific customer’s needs which determines whether various technologies are feasible in this study. The City is interested in identifying not only applicable technologies but also the most economical application. It is important, therefore, to exhaustively search for applications for each of the technologies. EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES There are several new and planned structures in the immediate proximity of the Landfill that are candidates for end-use of LFG in various forms. Maintenance Facility The Maintenance Facility is located north of the landfill. It has been occupied since early 2003. Approximately 2,500 linear feet of piping would be required to connect LFG from the blower/flare with the building. This building is currently utilizes electricity for heating and cooling applications. A summary of electric bills for this building for 12 consecutive months is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2. MAINTENANCE BUILDING ENERGY USAGE

Month Kilowatt-hours Dollars Dollars / kWh Apr-04 76,320 $ 6,017.53 $0.0788 May-04 63,250 7,699.45 0.1217 Jun-04 68,000 7,976.00 0.1173 Jul-04 65,920 7,518.83 0.1141 Aug-04 66,320 7,767.58 0.1171 Sep-04 74,880 4,867.75 0.0650 Oct-04 78,080 4,404.21 0.0564 Nov-04 177,520 7,895.55 0.0445 Dec-04 224,320 9,540.68 0.0425 Jan-05 181,840 8,078.59 0.0444 Feb-05 147,520 6,875.26 0.0466 Mar-05 108,960 5,525.71 0.0507

Totals 1,332,930 $84,167.14 $0.063 From this data we see that recent electricity energy usage has totaled 1,332,930 kWh (April 04 – March 05) and charges have averaged $0.063 per kWh. This calculates to an annual Energy usage charge of 33.3 kWh per square foot and $2.10 per square foot per year for this building.

Page 15: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

4-2

Proposed Animal Control Building The City plans to construct a 10,000 square foot Animal Control building north of the Landfill. This building, which is in the early planning stages, is anticipated to have incineration capabilities. Using the energy consumption data from the Maintenance Facility above, if this building is also to be an all-electric facility, like the existing building we roughly estimate its annual electric usage at 333,000 kWh. Proposed Water Department Building The Water Department is interested in placing a building similar to the Maintenance Facility in size and function, between the landfill and the Maintenance Facility. Using the energy consumption data from the Maintenance Facility above, if the Water Department building is also to be an all-electric facility we estimate annual electric usage at 1,300,000 kWh. TOTALED ENERGY NEEDS The City recently engaged Ameresco to complete an energy audit for City buildings. As part of that study, they calculated that 36 percent of the Maintenance Facility’s energy needs were a base load electric demand, 54 percent was attributed to seasonal heating and 10 percent was attributed to seasonal cooling. Below we show Ameresco’s values for the Maintenance Building and estimate the total energy for the proposed buildings using the same annual energy usage and seasonal allocations for heating and cooling experienced in the Maintenance Building.

TABLE 3. ANNUAL ENERGY NEEDS AT RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK Base

(kWh) Heating (kWh)

Cooling (kWh)

Total (kWh)

Maintenance Building 480,000 715,000 138,000 1,333,000 Proposed Animal Control Building 120,000 179,000 34,000 333,000 Proposed Water Department Building 480,000 715,000 138,000 1,333,000 Totals 1,080,000 1,609,000 310,500 2,999,000 Sizing an electric generating facility to meet these electrical needs could take one of several directions. Sizing can be targeted for the base electric need for the three buildings or to meet the total annual needs. Below we present a matrix for the various all-electric sizing needs for consideration.

TABLE 4. BASE ELECTRIC CAPACITY

Targeted Facility Base Load Capacity

Total Annual Capacity

Existing Building 55 kW 152 kW Existing and Proposed Buildings 123 W 342 kW

These estimated values show that generation from 55 kW to 350 kW could be used to provide energy to this site depending upon if existing or future facilities are targeted. In actuality some of the heating load may best be met by utilization of waste heat from a LFGTE process. The

Page 16: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

4-3

application of this method of cogeneration will be considered. Additionally, direct use of the medium-Btu LFG in infrared heating of the space is another application that will be considered in the feasibility analysis in the next chapter. OFFSITE ENERGY NEEDS SCS performed a local business search within five miles of the landfill to determine if there may be any potential end users for the LFG. When looking for offsite potential end users for LFG utilization, the end user needs to require large amounts of electricity for operation, or have a manufacturer that uses significant amounts of thermal energy for their production process. The most efficient application of offsite LFG usage is a medium-Btu project if there is a facility with a large thermal need. These projects often pay for themselves and provide cost savings more quickly than LFG to electricity conversion because there is no energy loss associated with the direct use of LFG. SCS started with an initial list of 25 potential end users within 5 miles of the landfill that may have a feasible end use option. This list was then condensed based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes to 14 potential end users. Of these 14 potential end users, it is likely that most will not be able to utilize the LFG in a cost effective manner. The following 14 potential end users are included for consideration of a LFG project:

TABLE 5. POTENTIAL ENERGY USES IN THE AREA

Facility Name Distance To Landfill (miles) SIC Code Lawler Gear Corp. 0.65 3566 Precision Crankshaft 0.94 3714 Pfizer Inc. 1.54 2834 Dupuis Redi-Mix Concrete Inc. 2.22 3273 Old Mill Grain & Seed Co. 2.33 2048 Longview Community College 2.87 8221 Saint Luke’s Family Practice 3.22 8062 Lee’s Summit Hospital 3.90 8062 Pain Center 3.90 8062 Corporate Travel Professionals 3.98 3714 Fabtech Inc. 4.13 3674 Central Missouri State Univ. 4.14 8221 Lucent Technologies 4.29 3678 American Foods 1.25 5148 Following presentation of this list to Lee’s Summit officials, preliminary discussions were held with American Foods. They are a large energy user ($20,000/month electric bill and $10,000/ month diesel fuel bill). Their electric needs are fairly constant throughout the day and the year, for cooling of their warehouse. Their plant design includes a 300 kW circuit on a backup diesel generator for their principal cooling needs. Their owners are interested in discussing a proposal for LFGTE electric generation. SCS discussed with them the challenges of selling electricity offsite. They remain interested in exploring a more costly option of pipeline transport of LFG for their onsite generation of electricity or even the economics of converting their truck fleet to methane powered vehicles.

Page 17: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

4-4

The cost to transport LFG to American Food’s site would add over $1,000,000 in capital cost for a reciprocating engine project. Increasing the operating cost for a reciprocating engine project would increase costs several cents per kWh. Large-scale conversion of fleets to methane fuel remains experimental and marginally feasible at this time. Conversion of a small private fleet can be dismissed as not feasible. A detailed analysis of such projects is outside the scope of this project. Based on our experience however, SCS can say either project with American Foods, as discussed, would not be financially feasible.

Page 18: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

5-1

SECTION 5

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF END USE OPTIONS

The previous sections have identified the technologies that are appropriate for consideration by the City at Resource Recovery Park. Section 4 developed some sizing parameters based on current and planned municipal facilities and the associated energy needs near the site. It this section we will present several of these technologies for further development and provide associated feasibility analyses. The concepts to be developed and analyzed are: Microturbine Applications

• 60 kW Microturbines • 90 kW Microturbines • 120 kW Microturbines • 150 kW Microturbines • 60 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery • 90 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery • 120 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery

Reciprocating Engine

• 500 MW Reciprocating Engine

Medium Btu Applications • Infra-red heaters in Maintenance Building • End of Pipe Energy Source in Resource Recovery Park

MICROTURBINE APPLICATIONS In Section 4 we discussed that a 55 kW generator could meet the base electric load at the Maintenance Facility. The seasonal low electric load coincides with approximately 90 kW of capacity and 150 kW of generating capacity would meet the entire facility’s annualized load. Microturbine units as supplied by the two proven manufacturer’s Capstone and Ingersol Rand currently are available in 30 and 70 kW units from these manufacturers, respectively. The economic analyses considered the economics associated with the microturbines with four different generating capacity arrangements. In the pro-formas presented in Appendix A, it is assumed that the generating plants will run near capacity. Revenues for onsite usage are shown at the inflated average cost ($0.065 per kWh in 2006 with 3 percent annual increases. Sales above the onsite electric demand receive revenues at Aquila’s currently stated avoided cost rate of $0.032 per kWh. (No annual adjustments assumed.) SCS analyzed the recent 12 consecutive months of electric bills and was able to determine the portion of these bills that would be able to be met by onsite power of varying capacity. The

Page 19: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

5-2

generated power that will be in excess of monthly usage was calculated for each of the seven microturbine scenarios from these electric bills. Table 6 presents this analysis of electric usage on an annual basis for different levels of generating capacity. Financial Analyses Financial cash flow projections have been developed for the most feasible technical scenarios. Each of the seven microturbine scenarios show annual energy consumed of 1,324,530 kWh, energy produced varies according to the capacity of the plants. Energy is then split between that which is consumed onsite (at 6.5¢/kWh) and that which is sold to Aquila (at 3.2¢/kWh) based on the historical energy use. The cogeneration options add a revenue stream associated with the winter season heating savings (at 6.5¢/kWh) to this mix of revenue sources. Operating costs include only those costs associated with operating the microturbines (2¢/kWh) and those costs are escalated at 2 percent per year. Revenues less operating costs result in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). Estimated capital costs have been developed for each scenario which include the cost of microturbine(s), compressor, filtering, transmission, piping (or wiring if the mircroturbines can be located at the flare) and an allowance for the utility interconnection. These costs are summarized on the bottom of each page in Appendix A. Capital costs are then amortized over a 10-year period. Cash flow projections for each project follow by subtracting the annualized capital costs from EBITDA. Table 7 presents a summary of all seven of the scenarios. The table shows the estimated capital cost and net present value (NPV) calculation of the initial capital investment combined with the resulting EBITDA. Only scenario 7, the 120 kW microturbine with cogenerated heat recovery shows a positive NPV. For further comparison of options, Table 7 also shows the payback period associated with each technology.

TABLE 7. CAPITAL COST AND NET PRESENT VALUE SUMMARY FOR MICROTURBINE SCENARIOS

60kW 90kW 120 kW 150 kW

Microturbine Capital Cost $ 392,500 $ 420,000 $ 482,500 $522,500

NPV $-185,406 $-275,847 $-107,110 $ -96,169 Payback period 8.0 years 10+ years 10.4 years 9.9 years

Microturbine With Heat Recovery Capital Cost $492,500 $582,500 $622,500

NPV $ -74,402 $ -15,610 $ 43,691 Payback period 10.3 years 8.5 years 8.7 years

Page 20: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

5-3

RECIPROCATING ENGINE AND MEDIUM BTU APPLICATIONS During our search for offsite direct use costumers, SCS had conversations with one end user with baseload electric needs of approximately 300 kW. The regulatory aspects of providing power to such an end user are significant and a technical solution for offsite production of electricity would be outside of the current scope of analysis so no cashflow projection has been developed at this time. At this time an offsite medium-Btu application has not yet been identified. SCS has developed proformas showing that LFG can be available for $5.00 to $7.00 per mmbtu. The market cost for fuel is currently approximately $7 per mmbtu after having been as high as $13 per mmbtu in the 4th quarter of 2005. A site-specific proforma (with a positive NPV) could be developed if a medium-Btu energy user is identified. Exhibit A-8 in Appendix A presents the cashflow associated with the installation of 22 infared heaters in the Maintenance Facility. For revenue, this scenario recognizes the electric savings that will be realized when winter heating is reduced by the 50 percent that was going to heating the maintenance bays. Table 8 summarizes the capital cost and the NPV of these final three technologies.

TABLE 8. CAPITAL COSTS AND NET PRESENT VALUE SUMMARY FOR RECIPROCATING ENGINE AND MEDIUM BTU

500 kW Direct Use Infrared Heat

Capital Cost $1,000,000± $1,000,000+ $186,000 NPV negative positive $4,845

Payback Period 8.4 years

Page 21: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

6-1

SECTION 6

REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS The following policies and regulations impact LFGTE projects. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 were implemented on a national level. The State of Missouri adopted 4 CSR 240.20 governing electric utilities. There is a discussion at the end of this section about regulatory constraints. These policies impact the economics, and ultimately, the selection and configuration of a LFGTE project. APPLICABLE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATIONS Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 1303 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREB) in section 54 to the tax code (26 USC). Bonds may be issued to pay for LFGTE projects. The owners of these bonds receive federal tax credits instead of interest payments from the bond issuer. CREBS provide an issuer with the ability to borrow at a zero percent interest rate, but there is 1-2 percent issuance costs associated with the bonds. The bonds will be issued from December 31, 2005 through December 31, 2007. Within 5 years of the date of issuance, 95 percent of the bond proceeds are required to be spent on eligible projects. There will be a ceiling of $800 million available in bonds, $500 million of which will be available to government bodies. Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) The goal of PURPA was to promote conservation of electric energy. It requires utilities to purchase the electricity from small power producers, non-utility generators, and cogenerators if they are located within the utility’s coverage area and they are ‘qualifying facilities’. The utility is required to buy the electricity at avoided cost from the qualifying facilities. It is under this regulation that Aquila offers to buyback excess power at 3.2¢ per kWh. APPLICABLE STATE ENERGY REGULATIONS 4 CSR 240-20.060 Cogeneration This section applies to ‘qualifying’ cogeneration and small power production facilities. It places liability on the qualifying facility as well as the utility, terms and conditions regarding the system, and the connection to the power grid. A ‘qualifying facility’ is defined as a cogeneration facility or a small power production facility that satisfies Subpart B of Part 292 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) regulations. The facility would be considered a topping-cycle cogeneration facility, which is a qualifying facility, if the City of Lee’s Summit elected to produce electricity with a network of microturbines and utilize the waste heat for heating the building. It would be considered a small power production facility, which is also a qualifying facility, if it did not utilize the waste heat from the electric generating process.

Page 22: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

6-2

4 CSR 240-20.065 Net Metering This section applies to a customer-generator (purchases electric energy from a retail electric power supplier and is the owner of a qualified net metering unit). A qualified net metering unit will need to be all of the following:

• Owned by the consumer-generator • Fuel must be hydrogen, sun, wind, or biomass (i.e. LFG) • The electrical generating system must have a capacity that does not exceed 100 kW • Located on City of Lee’s Summit - owned or leased property • Interconnected, operating in parallel, and in synchronization with a retail electric

power supplier (utility company that sells electricity to the ultimate consumer) • Intended to offset customer-generators electric power requirements.

The retail electric supplier calculates the net value of energy for a customer-generator in the following manner:

1. The retail electric power supplier shall individually measure both the electric energy from the customer-generator and the energy provided to the customer-generator.

2. If the value of the electric energy supplied by the retail electric power supplier

exceeds that of the value produced by the customer-generator then the customer-generator will be billed for the net value of energy supplied to them by the retail electric power supplier (net = retail energy – customer generator energy).

3. If the value of the electric energy supplied by the customer-generator exceeds that

of the value consumed by the customer-generator then the retail electric power supplier will credit the customer-generator’s account using the power supplier’s avoided cost for the excess energy produced.

APPLICABLE UTILITY POLICIES Aquila’s avoided costs for the excess energy are $0.0316/kWh. Aquila recognizes that it is required to purchase back all power provided from generators under 100 kW according to both state and federal regulations. Copies of these policies are included in Appendix B.

Page 23: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

7-1

SECTION 7

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

In addition to being a potentially valuable resource for energy production, LFG also is considered an air pollutant. LFG gas contains methane, carbon dioxide, and lesser concentrations of other organic compounds, some of which are classified as hazardous or toxic air pollutants. As our society continues to be concerned about the possibility that human and industrial activities could accelerate global warming, attention has been focused on ways to reduce emissions. Landfill gas recovery projects provide a decrease in overall greenhouse gas emissions from landfills whether the LFG is combusted by a flare, electricity generation equipment, or off-site end uses. In terms of its heat retention capacity, methane is approximately 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In other words, one unit of methane can retain 21 times more heat than the same unit of carbon dioxide. The LFG end uses reviewed in this report (electricity generation and direct gas use) would also destroy most of the hazardous organic compounds. DIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Both direct and indirect emissions benefits are associated with LFG projects. Direct benefits relate to the actual physical reduction in methane emissions and volatile organic compounds from the combustion of gas.

INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

The use of methane in LFG to create energy offsets the use of non-renewable energy sources such as coal and oil, and thereby reduces the emissions of air pollutants from these fuels. The amount of fossil fuel emissions that are avoided by using LFG instead of non-renewable fuels will depend on the type of energy technology used, and is discussed below. Electricity Generation

By utilizing the otherwise wasted methane contained in the collected LFG to generate electricity, fuels such as oil and coal that typically provide fuel for electricity generation are displaced. Direct Use LFG used at a facility could substitute for a number of fuels such as oil, natural gas, or propane. LFG could replace natural gas if utilized by a nearby industry, or fuel infrared heaters to reduce seasonal heating needs otherwise met by fossil fuel powered electrical generation.

Page 24: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

8-1

SECTION 8

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

FINDINGS Based on current records and LFG model runs, recoverable LFG is currently and will continue to be available at the Lee’s Summit Sanitary Landfill to levels which would support various technologies. The current collection system recovery levels of 200 scfm will support the scenarios considered in this study listed below. Microturbine Applications

• 60 kW Microturbines • 90 kW Microturbines • 120 kW Microturbines • 150 kW Microturbines • 60 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery • 90 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery • 120 kW Microturbines with Heat Recovery

Medium-Btu Applications

• Infra-red heaters in Maintenance Building

Expansions to the well field would be required to fuel the 500 kW reciprocating engine application or a dedicated medium-Btu end use project. Only the 120 kW microturbine with heat recovery and the infra-red heater projects show a positive NPV when analyzed for ten year periods so these two projects should top of the list for further consideration. American Foods is interested in further discussions of LFG powering of a dedicated generator to meet their 300 kW base load. The regulatory limitations on providing offsite power could prohibit such a project and the financial limitations on compressing and sending LFG offsite to a dedicated generator would also be significant. Non-economic related benefits should also be considered on these projects. Additional incentives that can make LFG recovery projects desirable include:

• Good Public Relations and Environmental Control - Because they utilize an otherwise wasted resource, and also help to prevent air pollution, LFG utilization projects can provide positive public relations for the landfill owner. Even if the economics are not favorable, this non-fiscal incentive may be enough reason to pursue a LFG utilization project.

Page 25: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

8-2

• LFG as a source of Green Power - Growth in the market for renewable energy, or "green power", is generating increasing interest in cost-effective and accepted sources such as LFG. The demand for green power offers a number of opportunities to develop environmentally beneficial landfill gas-to-energy projects that reduce emissions of greenhouse gas and other air pollutants from landfills while providing a cost-effective and readily available source of clean energy. LFG is a valuable green power source as it directly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, causes additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution by offsetting the use of non-renewable resources, and directly improves local air quality.

• Opportunities to generate financing or additional income from green power

projects include utility green pricing schemes, selling power directly into the grid at market prices, selling tradable renewable energy certificates (‘green tags), and trading emissions reduction credits either directly or through brokerages. In Hawaii, for example, the Hawaiian Electric Company and its subsidiaries offers a “Sun Power for Schools” green pricing program for solar power use in public schools.

• Tax Credits or Grants - If tax credits are available from the government, the economics for LFG recovery can improve substantially. An example of these are tax credits for generating power from “clean” or renewable fuels, or for installing environmental controls that are more stringent than those required by law. In addition to credits, the federal government, states, and foundations provide grants of fixed amounts to help fund projects that have a public benefit. Grant programs applicable to LFG projects are increasingly available, especially in states that have restructured their electricity markets.

• Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards for Power Marketers – In some states,

retail sellers of electricity are required to include a specific percentage of renewable energy as part of their power portfolio. Such requirements include utilities that may also be direct electricity marketers. Under such a standard, the power marketer can either own and generate renewable energy or purchase it from another renewable energy generating facility. A Missouri municipal electric utility is currently paying over $0.40 per kWh to help it reach its portfolio’s green power goal.

CONCLUSIONS This study finds that LFGTE applications at the Lee’s Summit Sanitary Landfill are feasible in several different forms and capital commitment levels. Specifically, three projects with net present value were identified:

• Direct use medium BTU fuel • 120 kW microturbine plant with heat recovery • Infrared heating of the Maintenance Facility

Page 26: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

8-3

The direct use medium BTU fuel option offers the greatest economic benefit, but unfortunately it lacks a local energy end user. This project cannot occur without an end user whose usage closely corresponds with the landfill’s LFG output. There are several other potential projects in the Kansas City metro area that lack such appropriate end users. The 120 kW microturbine with heat recovery project is viable technically and economically, but the 120 kW may need to be downsized to under 100 kW to ensure the acceptability by Aquila according to their literature on qualifying facilities. The 90 kW microturbine with heat recovery project is marginal, but at 8.5 years, it does show one of the shorter payback periods. An investment of approximately $600,000 would be required for this high visibility ‘green’ project. The infrared heating project requires a capital investment of under $200,000. This project shows a positive return on a creative, yet proven technology. SCS recommends that the City consider implementing either the 90 kW microturbine project with heat recovery or the LFG-fired infrared heaters to heat the Maintenance Facility.

Page 27: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY
Page 28: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

APPENDIX A

FINANCIAL ANALYSES OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Page 29: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-7: 120 kW MICROTURBINE w/ HEAT-- CASH FLOW

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ACTUAL ENERGY PURCHASED (kWh/yr) 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465 23,465ENERGY PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600SAVINGS w/ cogen (kWh/yr) 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065 1,301,065OFFSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715 228,715ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.033 $0.034 $0.035 $0.036 $0.037 $0.038 $0.039 $0.040 $0.041

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $7,227 $7,444 $7,668 $7,898 $8,134 $8,379 $8,630 $8,889 $9,155 $9,430COGENERATION SAVINGS $84,569 $87,106 $89,719 $92,411 $95,183 $98,039 $100,980 $104,009 $107,130 $110,344ANNUAL REVENUES/SAVINGS $91,797 $94,551 $97,387 $100,309 $103,318 $106,417 $109,610 $112,898 $116,285 $119,774

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $19,272 $19,850 $20,446 $21,059 $21,691 $22,342 $23,012 $23,702 $24,413 $25,146TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $19,272 $19,850 $20,446 $21,059 $21,691 $22,342 $23,012 $23,702 $24,413 $25,146

EBITDA $72,525 $74,700 $76,941 $79,250 $81,627 $84,076 $86,598 $89,196 $91,872 $94,628

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $51,849 $53,923 $56,079 $58,323 $60,656 $63,082 $65,605 $68,229 $70,958 $73,797INTEREST EXPENSE $24,900 $22,826 $20,669 $18,426 $16,093 $13,667 $11,144 $8,519 $5,790 $2,952

$76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749 $76,749

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($4,224) ($2,048) $193 $2,501 $4,878 $7,327 $9,850 $12,448 $15,123 $17,880

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 55 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 23,465 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 0.8 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4) 28 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

PLANT COST $485,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%PIPELINE COST $137,500

$622,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $622,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) $43,691CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $622,500

Page 30: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-6: 90 kW MICROTURBINE w/ HEAT-- CASH FLOW

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ACTUAL ENERGY PURCHASED (kWh/yr) 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457 186,457ENERGY PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700SAVINGS w/ cogen (kWh/yr) 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073 1,138,073OFFSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160 62,160ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.033 $0.034 $0.035 $0.036 $0.037 $0.038 $0.039 $0.040 $0.041

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $1,964 $2,023 $2,084 $2,146 $2,211 $2,277 $2,345 $2,416 $2,488 $2,563COGENERATION SAVINGS $73,975 $76,194 $78,480 $80,834 $83,259 $85,757 $88,330 $90,980 $93,709 $96,520ANNUAL REVENUES/SAVINGS $75,939 $78,217 $80,564 $82,981 $85,470 $88,034 $90,675 $93,395 $96,197 $99,083

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $14,454 $14,888 $15,334 $15,794 $16,268 $16,756 $17,259 $17,777 $18,310 $18,859TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $14,454 $14,888 $15,334 $15,794 $16,268 $16,756 $17,259 $17,777 $18,310 $18,859

EBITDA $61,485 $63,330 $65,229 $67,186 $69,202 $71,278 $73,416 $75,619 $77,887 $80,224

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $48,517 $50,458 $52,476 $54,575 $56,758 $59,028 $61,389 $63,845 $66,399 $69,055INTEREST EXPENSE $23,300 $21,359 $19,341 $17,242 $15,059 $12,789 $10,428 $7,972 $5,418 $2,762

$71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817 $71,817

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($10,332) ($8,487) ($6,588) ($4,631) ($2,615) ($539) $1,599 $3,802 $6,070 $8,407

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 55 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 186,457 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 0.8 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4) 28 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

PLANT COST $445,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%PIPELINE COST $137,500

$582,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $582,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -$15,610CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $582,500

Page 31: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-5: 60 kW MICROTURBINE w/ HEAT-- CASH FLOW

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMED (kWh/yr 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ACTUAL ENERGY PURCHASED (kWh/yr 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735 483,735ENERGY PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800SAVINGS w/ cogen (kWh/yr) 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795 840,795OFFSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840 1,840ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.033 $0.034 $0.035 $0.036 $0.037 $0.038 $0.039 $0.040 $0.041

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $58 $60 $62 $64 $65 $67 $69 $72 $74 $76COGENERATION SAVINGS $54,652 $56,291 $57,980 $59,719 $61,511 $63,356 $65,257 $67,215 $69,231 $71,308ANNUAL REVENUES/SAVINGS $54,710 $56,351 $58,042 $59,783 $61,576 $63,424 $65,326 $67,286 $69,305 $71,384

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $9,636 $9,925 $10,223 $10,530 $10,845 $11,171 $11,506 $11,851 $12,207 $12,573TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $9,636 $9,925 $10,223 $10,530 $10,845 $11,171 $11,506 $11,851 $12,207 $12,573

EBITDA $45,074 $46,426 $47,819 $49,253 $50,731 $52,253 $53,820 $55,435 $57,098 $58,811

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $41,021 $42,662 $44,368 $46,143 $47,989 $49,908 $51,904 $53,981 $56,140 $58,385INTEREST EXPENSE $19,700 $18,059 $16,353 $14,578 $12,732 $10,813 $8,816 $6,740 $4,581 $2,335

$60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721 $60,721

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($15,647) ($14,295) ($12,902) ($11,467) ($9,990) ($8,468) ($6,900) ($5,286) ($3,623) ($1,910)

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW 55 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr 483,735 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 0.8 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4 28 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

PLANT COST $355,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%PIPELINE COST $137,500

$492,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $492,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -74,402CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $492,500

Page 32: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-4: 150 kW MICROTURBINE-- CASH FLOW PROJECTION

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

POWER CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530POWER PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500 1,204,500ONSITE POWER SALES (kWh/yr) 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890 975,890OFFSITE POWER SALES (kWh/yr) 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610 228,610ONSITE POWER SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE POWER SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $70,657 $72,777 $74,737 $76,756 $78,835 $80,977 $83,183 $85,455 $87,796 $90,206

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $24,090 $24,813 $25,557 $26,324 $27,114 $27,927 $28,765 $29,628 $30,516 $31,432TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $24,090 $24,813 $25,557 $26,324 $27,114 $27,927 $28,765 $29,628 $30,516 $31,432

EBITDA $46,567 $47,964 $49,180 $50,432 $51,722 $53,050 $54,418 $55,828 $57,279 $58,774

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $43,520 $45,260 $47,071 $48,954 $50,912 $52,948 $55,066 $57,269 $59,559 $61,942INTEREST EXPENSE $20,900 $19,159 $17,349 $15,466 $13,508 $11,471 $9,353 $7,151 $4,860 $2,478

$64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420 $64,420

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($17,853) ($16,456) ($15,240) ($13,988) ($12,698) ($11,370) ($10,001) ($8,592) ($7,140) ($5,645)

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 138 RETAIL POWER RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL POWER SALES (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

POWER PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 2.1 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4) 71 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

SKID AND PLANT COST $435,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%TRANSMISSION COST $87,500

$522,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $522,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -$96,169CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $522,500

Page 33: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-3: 120 kW MICROTURBINE-- CASH FLOW PROJECTION

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

POWER CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530POWER PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600 963,600ONSITE POWER SALES (kWh/yr) 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410 879,410OFFSITE POWER SALES (kWh/yr) 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190 84,190ONSITE POWER SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE POWER SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033 $0.033

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $59,822 $61,617 $63,383 $65,202 $67,076 $69,006 $70,994 $73,042 $75,151 $77,323

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $19,272 $19,850 $20,446 $21,059 $21,691 $22,342 $23,012 $23,702 $24,413 $25,146TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $19,272 $19,850 $20,446 $21,059 $21,691 $22,342 $23,012 $23,702 $24,413 $25,146

EBITDA $40,550 $41,767 $42,937 $44,143 $45,385 $46,665 $47,982 $49,340 $50,738 $52,178

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $40,188 $41,795 $43,467 $45,206 $47,014 $48,895 $50,850 $52,885 $55,000 $57,200INTEREST EXPENSE $19,300 $17,692 $16,021 $14,282 $12,474 $10,593 $8,637 $6,603 $4,488 $2,288

$59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488 $59,488

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($18,938) ($17,721) ($16,551) ($15,345) ($14,103) ($12,823) ($11,505) ($10,148) ($8,750) ($7,310)

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW 110 RETAIL POWER RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL POWER SALES (kWh/yr 1,324,530 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh $0.032

POWER PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 1.7 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4 56 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

SKID AND PLANT COST $395,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%TRANSMISSION COST $87,500

$482,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $482,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -$107,110CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $482,500

Page 34: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-2: 90 kW MICROTURBINE-- CASH FLOW PROJECTION

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ENERGY CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ENERGY PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700ONSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700 722,700OFFSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kW $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.074 $0.076 $0.078 $0.081 $0.083 $0.086OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kW $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $46,976 $48,455 $49,982 $51,556 $53,180 $54,855 $56,583 $58,365 $60,204 $62,100

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $14,454 $14,888 $15,334 $15,794 $16,268 $16,756 $17,259 $17,777 $18,310 $18,859TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $14,454 $14,888 $15,334 $15,794 $16,268 $16,756 $17,259 $17,777 $18,310 $18,859

EBITDA $32,522 $33,568 $34,647 $35,762 $36,912 $38,099 $39,324 $40,589 $41,894 $43,241

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $34,982 $36,381 $37,837 $39,350 $40,924 $42,561 $44,264 $46,034 $47,876 $49,791INTEREST EXPENSE $16,800 $15,401 $13,945 $12,432 $10,858 $9,221 $7,519 $5,748 $3,907 $1,992

$51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782 $51,782

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($19,261) ($18,215) ($17,135) ($16,020) ($14,870) ($13,683) ($12,458) ($11,193) ($9,888) ($8,541)

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 83 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 722,700 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 1.3 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4) 42 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

SKID AND PLANT COST $345,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%TRANSMISSION COST $75,000

$420,000CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $420,000 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -$275,847CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $420,000

Page 35: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-1: 60 kW MICROTURBINE-- CASH FLOW PROJECTION

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

ENERGY CONSUMED (kWh/yr) 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ENERGY PRODUCED (kWh/yr) 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800ONSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800 481,800OFFSITE ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/kWh) $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032 $0.032

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------ANNUAL UTILITY REVENUE $31,317 $32,257 $33,224 $34,221 $35,248 $36,305 $37,394 $38,516 $39,671 $40,862

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $9,636 $9,925 $10,223 $10,530 $10,845 $11,171 $11,506 $11,851 $12,207 $12,573TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST $9,636 $9,925 $10,223 $10,530 $10,845 $11,171 $11,506 $11,851 $12,207 $12,573

EBITDA $21,681 $22,331 $23,001 $23,691 $24,402 $25,134 $25,888 $26,665 $27,465 $28,289

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $32,692 $33,999 $35,359 $36,774 $38,245 $39,774 $41,365 $43,020 $44,741 $46,530INTEREST EXPENSE $15,700 $14,392 $13,032 $11,618 $10,147 $8,617 $7,026 $5,372 $3,651 $1,861

$48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392 $48,392

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($26,711) ($26,060) ($25,390) ($24,700) ($23,990) ($23,257) ($22,503) ($21,727) ($20,927) ($20,103)

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 55 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 481,800 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh)(HHV) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 0.8 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% CH4) 28 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

SKID AND PLANT COST $305,000 INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%TRANSMISSION COST $87,500

$392,500CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $392,500 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) -$185,406CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $392,500

Page 36: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

TABLE A-8: INFRARED HEATING -- CASH FLOW

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015POTENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMED 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530 1,324,530ACTUAL ENERGY PURCHASED (kW 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396 974,396SAVINGS w/ Infrared (kWh/yr) 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134 350,134ONSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/k $0.065 $0.067 $0.069 $0.071 $0.073 $0.075 $0.078 $0.080 $0.082 $0.085OFFSITE ENERGY SALES RATE ($/ $0.032 $0.033 $0.034 $0.035 $0.036 $0.037 $0.038 $0.039 $0.040 $0.041

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

ANNUAL REVENUES /SAVINGS $22,759 $23,441 $24,145 $24,869 $25,615 $26,384 $27,175 $27,990 $28,830 $29,695

LFG CONSUMED (scfm) 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28

LFG RATE ($/MMBtu) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00ANNUAL LFG COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0ANNUAL NON-FUEL O&M COST $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $2,388 $2,460 $2,534 $2,610TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING CO $2,000 $2,060 $2,122 $2,185 $2,251 $2,319 $2,388 $2,460 $2,534 $2,610

EBITDA $20,759 $21,381 $22,023 $22,684 $23,364 $24,065 $24,787 $25,531 $26,297 $27,085

PRINCIPAL EXPENSE $15,504 $16,124 $16,769 $17,440 $18,138 $18,863 $19,618 $20,402 $21,219 $22,067INTEREST EXPENSE $7,446 $6,826 $6,181 $5,510 $4,812 $4,087 $3,332 $2,548 $1,731 $883

$22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950 $22,950

------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------CASH FLOW PROJECTION ($2,191) ($1,569) ($927) ($266) $414 $1,115 $1,837 $2,581 $3,347 $4,135

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

NET PLANT CAPACITY (kW) 55 RETAIL ENERGY RATE ($/kWh) $0.065ANNUAL ENERGY SALES (kWh/yr) 974,396 UTILITY AVOIDED COST ($/kWh) $0.032

ENERGY PRICE ESCALATION 3.0%STANDBY/BACK-UP CHARGE $0 RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT $0.000

NET PLANT HEAT RATE (Btu/kWh) 15,400 BASE YEAR NON-FUEL O&M ($/kWh) $0.02FUEL CONSUMPTION (MMBtu/hr) 0.8 NON-FUEL COST ESCALATION 3.0%FUEL CONSUMPTION (scfm at 50% 28 FUEL PURCHASE RATE $0.00

FUEL ESCALATION RATE 0.0%

INTEREST RATE ON DEBT 4%

COST $186,145CAPITAL GRANT $0 DEBT SERVICE (years) 10NET CAPITAL COST $186,145 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) $4,845CAPITAL INVESTMENT $0DEBT FINANCED $186,145

Page 37: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

APPENDIX B

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES

Page 38: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

FERC

Page 39: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

MISSOURI PSC

Page 40: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

APPENDIX C

AQUILA OPERATING STANDARDS FOR GENERATORS, SMALL, PARALLELING

Page 41: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

APPENDIX D

TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION

Page 42: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

CAPSTONE C30

Page 43: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY
Page 44: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY
Page 45: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

ROBERTS GORDON VANTAGE II

Page 46: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

APPENDIX E

PHOTOGRAPHS

Page 47: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

Photograph 2 Photograph 2. Blower Flare – Location of Future Compressor Skid.

Photograph 1. Potential Energy User: Maintenance Facility.

Page 48: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

Photograph 4. Heating ducts from AHU-3 serves West Floor.

Photograph 3. AHU-1 Mezzanine Level.

Page 49: LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF LEE’S …colscf.cityofls.net/RFPLibrary/Feasibility Study LFGTE.pdf · 2017-09-15 · LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY

Photograph 6. Photograph 6. Heating ducts from AHU-2.

Photograph 5. AHU-3.

Photograph 6. Heating ducts from AHU-2 serves East Floor.