the impact of co-digestion on water resource recovery … · 2016. 12. 14. · the impact of...

Sustainable technology solutions . . . © Copyright quasar energy group 2016

1www.quasareg.com

The Impact of Co-Digestion on Water Resource Recovery Facilities

In Order to Achieve Energy Neutrality


2

- Headquarters: Cleveland, OH- Formed in 2006- First digester completed in 2009- Over $150M in executed projects- 14 operational digesters (OH, NY, MA, ME)- Capacity to annually manage 700,000 tons of

organic waste; of which 40% is WRRF biosolids- Three focus markets - municipal, industrial &

agricultural - US components/US supply chain- Emerson collaboration with Grind2Energy

quasar at a glance

Anaerobic Digestion Technology Leader

Full Suite of Services

Design Permit Build Commission O&M


3

Anaerobic digester markets

INDUSTRIAL

MUNICIPAL

AGRICULTURAL


4

Proven, fully operational technology

• 14 operational facilities, vast majority of which are processing biosolids

• Relationships with 30+ municipalities for biosolidsmanagement

System Location Operational FeedstockWooster, OH

(Buckeye Biogas) 2010 biosolids, food waste, FOG

Zanesville, OH 2010 biosolids, food waste, FOG yard wasteColumbus, OH 2010 biosolids, food waste, FOGRutland, MA 2011 dairy manure, food waste, FOG,

North Ridgeville, OH 2012 bisolids, food waste, FOGAshley, OH 2013 hog manure, biosolids, food waste, FOG

Haviland, OH 2012 biosolids, food waste, FOGCleveland, OH 2012 biosolids, food waste, FOGBarberton, OH 2013 biosolids, food waste, FOGWheatfield, NY 2013 biosolids, food waste, FOG

Buffalo-Niagara, NY 2013 biosolids, food waste, FOGDovetail, OH 2013 hog manure, biosolids, food waste, FOG

Wooster, OH (WRE) 2013 biosolids, food waste, FOGBrunswick, ME 2015 biosolids, food waste, FOG


5

Engineering Offices:

Anaerobic Digesters:

Laboratory:

iADs:

5

Construction Division:

The quasar difference

Innovation:Shovel-Ready Designs:


6

Presentation preview

• Anaerobic Digestion – What is it?• Municipal challenges• Public Private Partnership• Co-digestion at WRRF• Optimizing energy production• Wooster, OH – Case Study• The Utility of the Future


7

Anaerobic digestion - sustainable solution

Waste Management

Renewable Energy

Natural fertilizer and animal beddingWWTP

Biosolids

Fats, Oil & Grease

Nutrients

Electricity

Compressed Natural Gas

Heating & Cooling

Food Waste


8

• Treatment plants are facing capital, technical, and regulatory challenges.

• Federal funding to address these challenges has decreased 90% since the 1980’s.1

• Wastewater is rich in natural resources – water, nutrients and energy

• Treatment plants consume 3% of the total US energy demand.

• Biosolids have the potential to produce 12% of the US electric demand!1

1. Source: NACWA, WERF, and WEF The Water Resources Utility of the Future pages 25 and 14

Municipal challenges & opportunities

http://www.nacwa.org/images/stories/public/2013-01-31waterresourcesutilityofthefuture-final.pdf


9

Public-Private Partnership can be the new direction formunicipal projects.

Private entities can:

- Minimize costs to municipalities.

- Allow municipalities to focus on core competencies.

- Accelerate the process of eliminating regulatory issues.

- Stabilize costs with long term contracts.

- Provide additional access to industry specific technologies.

- Expedite and implement project plans and collaborations.

Solution: Public-Private Partnership


10

Value proposition - municipal clientsPublic Private Partnership:

• Reduces or eliminates city debt obligations on infrastructure improvements

• Allows for improvements now – rather than deferring until funding is available*

• Provides for predictable and reduced operational and management costs

• Creates a path toward regulatory compliance

• Removes the burden of performance and compliance from the utility

• Stabilizes or reduces rates to the community

Co-digestion of organic waste streams:

• Supports landfill footprint reductions

• Can eliminate pretreatment of liquid wastes

• Can provide enough renewable energy to take a WRRF “off the grid”**

Infrastructure upgrades can incorporate energy recovery, nutrient recovery and clean water technologies.

* EPA Report concludes $105.3 Billion needed nationally every twenty years** Wastewater treatment plants use 3% of U.S. electricity


11

Co-digestion at WRRF

• Enhanced energy production; can take the WRRF off the grid

• Supports land-fill footprint reduction

• Reduced BOD loading on plants

• Eliminates pre-treatment requirements of waste generators

• Tipping fees supports the operational budget of the WRRF

• Economic Development


12

Which types of biomass are best for a digester?

Biomass recipes will differ based on the type and quantity offeedstock available in the region. quasar’s laboratory on theOSU/OARDC campus validates biomass recipes to guarantee asystem’s energy potential.

TYPE

Glycerin

FOG

Food Waste

Biosolids

Crop Residuals

Dairy Manure

Hog Manure

Energy Value

Tip Fee Value

Biomass Management Benefits


13

Biomass Decision Tree

Feedstock

Energy Value

Regulatory

Logistics

Laboratory


14

Laboratory Testing & Analysis

1 NPK Minerals include: Magnesium, Phosphorus, Iron, Calcium, Aluminum, Potassium, Sodium2 Heavy Metals include: Nickel, Molybdenum, Arsenic, Copper, Cadmium, Selenium, Zinc, Lead, Mercury

Package A: Standard Analysis Purpose: Operational & biological analysis.

Elemental Carbon/Nitrogen/SulfurTotal Solids-Volatile SolidsChemical Oxygen DemandOxidation Reduction PotentialpHDensityPumpability

Package B: NPK MineralsPurpose: Effluent nutrient analysis.

Includes Package A: Standard AnalysisICP-MS: NPK Minerals1

Package C: ICP-MSPurpose: Operational, biological, effluent nutrients, and regulatorymetals analysis.

Includes Package A: Standard AnalysisIncludes Package B:NPK Minerals1

ICP-MS:Heavy Metals2

Package D: Flask Analysis (a:batch; b: semi-continuous)Purpose: a) New feedstocks that we do not have experience with; b)for providing performance guarantees for developmental projects;or c) for non-traditional feedstocks not pre-approved by permit.

Includes Package C: ICP-MSWeekly: pH, VFA/TIC (Volatile Fatty Acids/Alkalinity), VFA profiling, biogas volume and biogas composition analysisFlask Biogas Potential Testing

Package E: 25-gallon Pilot Scale Digester Testing Pupose: a) New feedstocks that we do not have experience with; b)for providing performance guarantees for developmental projects;or c) for non-traditional feedstocks not pre-approved by permit.

Includes Package C: ICP-MSThree times/week: pH, VFA/TIC (Volatile Fatty Acids/Alkalinity), VFA profiling, biogas volume and biogas composition analysisWeekly Ammonia


15

Adverse biological reactions

High pH product(animal byproduct)

Low pH product(acid whey)

Foaming reaction

Cellulose product(pharmaceutical product)

Glycerin(concentrated FOG)

Gelatinous reaction

Product A(individually acceptable)

Product B(individually acceptable)

Exothermic reaction

+

+

+

=

=

=


16

Regulatory Issues:EPA ComplianceDischarge LimitsSewer Capacity Restrictions

Process Issues: Core Competency (Solids Handling)Nonfunctioning DigestersInsignificant Biogas Production

Solids Management Issues:Land Application RestrictionsNutrient Value VerificationValue Proposition for Farmers

Costs:Operating Costs

16

Wooster Renewable Energy – Case Study

Water Pollution Control Plant Prior to quasar Project


17

quasar results

• 3 digesters renovated to fit in the footprintof the existing plant’s layout

• Newly constructed quasar biomass tank

• Liquids & Solids Receiving Module

• 1100 kW generator

• Plant Operations Building

• Belt Thickener


1818

Wooster Renewable Energy – Case Study

Biomass Inputs Wet Tons/ day

Gas (ft3/lbVS)

Methane Content TS VS

Merchant Biosolids 7.43 10 55.00% 22.00% 70.00%Brewery Cake Solids 7.64 10 50.00% 40.00% 50.00%FOG 36.23 17 60.00% 20.00% 90.00%Foodwaste 5.67 15 65.00% 12.00% 90.00%Glycerin 0.88 20 70.00% 25.00% 95.00%Grease Traps 5.97 5 55.00% 3.00% 93.00%Non-Traditional Feedstocks 4.64 12 55.00% 6.00% 90.00%City of Wooster Biosolids 73 7 55.00% 6.00% 65.00%Totals: 141.46 12.50% 75.10%

WRE’s Daily Average of Biomass Achieving Energy Neutrality

Wooster’s Municipal RequirementsWater Pollution Control Plant 600 kWhWater Treatment Plant 300 kWhTotal Requirement 900 kWh

quasar’s WRE Project Energy Output

915 kWh


19

Energy Neutrality


20

The Utility of The Future “The Utility of the Future transforms itself into a manager of valuable resources, a partner in local economic development, and a member of the watershed community seeking to deliver maximum environmental benefits at the least cost to society.”

It does this by:- reclaiming and reusing water- extracting and finding commercial uses for nutrients- capturing heat and latent energy in biosolids.

The Water Resources Utility of the Future: A Blueprint for Action - NACWA, WERF, and WEF

http://www.quasarenergygroup.com/pages/utilityofthefuture.pdf


21

Questions & Contact Information

Contact: Renato ContipelliMunicipal Development, Mgr.quasar energy group5755 Granger RoadIndependence, Ohio 44131www.quasareg.com

the impact of co-digestion on water resource recovery … · 2016. 12. 14. · the impact of...

Documents