360 likes | 577 Views
E N D
1. DCWASA Biosolids Management Plan: Thermal Hydrolysis, Advanced Digestion, and Green Energy Production Chris Peot, P.E.
Biosolids Manager
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
3. Current DC Water and Sewer Authority Biosolids Reuse Program 1200 wtpd lime stabilized biosolids
Agriculture – 39 counties in two states
Silviculture – 40,000 acres permitted in 8 Virginia counties
Poplar Plantation on Gravel Mine
Reclamation Projects – three sites to date, 400 acre site in West Virginia
16. Two Composting Projects
25 wtpd onsite facility 200 wtpd contracted facility
17. Biosolids Management Plan Update 1999 Biosolids Management Plan (BMP) has been updated to:
Evaluate potential markets for various products
Evaluate new proven technologies for volume reduction
Reduce cost – goal is minimize adverse impact on rates
Assure long-term viability of BMP
BMP Update Approach – 2 Steps
Screened potential technologies
Performed in-depth evaluation of several alternatives
18. BMP Update Findings Maintain digestion as the foundation of the BMP
Size digestion facility for peak loading
Digestion should be pre-requisite to heat drying to increase product market options
Use digester gas to produce electricity and use waste heat from power generation
Continue land applying while developing a market for blended Class A products
19. Update Continued The WASA Board, in October 2006, accepted Management’s recommendation to reject the Egg-Shaped Digestion Facility (EDF) bid, due to the high bid price, and placed the project on hold
WASA Management recommended continuous monitoring of:
Construction bidding environment
Regulatory initiatives that could impact the viability of land application
Maturing of evolving technologies
WASA’s related financial position
20. Screened Processes for DCWASA Biosolids Management Plan Acid Gas Phase Digestion
ATAD-TPAD
Thermal Hydrolysis
Composting
Drying
Enzyme Hydrolysis
Gasification
Incineration
Lime Stabilization
Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion
Pasteurization
TPAD Digestion
Vitrification/Glass Pack Process
21. Criteria for screening Cost (50%)
All Other (50%)
Process (25%)
Ease of Operation and Maintenance (15%)
Large WWTP Installation History (5%)
Process sustainability (GHG and energy use) (5%)
Implementation (30%)
Constructability (10%)
Salvage value of EDF plans/specs (5%)
Site requirements (10%)
Ease of permitting (5%)
End-Product (45%)
Quality – potential for odor and pathogen growth (15%)
Marketability and diversification (10%)
Product sustainability (20%)
22. Evolving Technologies Preliminary investigations indicate that:
New technologies are now available that were not proven/available when EDF facility design started
Some of these technologies produce Class A biosolids with less digestion tankage than the EDF project
Evolving technologies reviewed:
Thermal Hydrolysis
Enzymic Hydrolysis
Gasification
SlurryCarbTM drying and gasification
23. Evolving Technologies Findings:
Thermal HydrolysisEmploys pressure and temperature to hydrolyze the sludge followed by mesophilic anaerobic digestion
Enzymic Hydrolysis Involves an enzymic hydrolysis process followed by mesophilic anaerobic digestion
EnerTech Technologies – Slurry CarbUses heat and pressure to produce a pelletized “e-fuel” end product
Gasification – several demo projects planned, none operational yet
24. Thermal Hydrolysis – Highest Ranked Technology Price tag within our approved budget
Proven technology (in Europe)
Class A product, opportunities for end-use diversification
Gas production, renewable energy (10 MW)
Potential for alternative feedstocks (grease) for enhanced energy production
Heat (energy) recovery
25. Carbon Footprint Estimates at DCWASA DCWASA is participating in two WERF research project measuring:
GHG emissions off liquid processes
Fugitive methane emissions
WERF projects are designed to refine some of the assumptions we are currently using.
Staff is developing a working model to track carbon emissions at Blue Plains.
Uses some emission assumptions
Dynamic model that can change as new info is gathered
26. Goals and Expected Uses Develop a working model for use in determining:
impact of plant process improvements
impact of construction
Auditable estimate for Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) registration (or other certifying body) in order to:
establish a baseline
document improvements
sell greenhouse gas credits
27. World Resources Institute Model Scope I, direct, required
Liquid stream emissions
WASA vehicle use
Combustion of natural gas
Combustion of biogas
Combustion of biosolids
Scope II, indirect, required
Purchased electricity
Scope III, indirect, optional
Contract vehicle and activities
Fertilizer offsets
Carbon sequestration
Embodied carbon
Chemical delivery and production
Employee travel
28. Biosolids and Climate Change Land application of biosolids:
sequesters carbon in the soil
avoids the use (and energy associated w/production) of industrial fertilizer
helps farmers get through drought conditions via secretion of essential (naturally occurring) plant growth regulators (auxins – ongoing research at VA Tech).
29. Typical Month – February, 2009 37,704 wet tons recycled net benefit 2,033 MT CO2 equivalent avoided emissions.
equivalent to taking 4,611,708 car miles off the road in the month of December (assumes 20 mpg, 19.4 lb CO2 emissions/gallon gas – EPA estimate).
30. Breakdown of Benefits
31. Summary of 2008 CO2 Balance for Blue Plains Biosolids Management
32. Carbon Footprint Effect from Planned Capital Improvements Energy use at Blue Plains 85% of carbon footprint
Fine Bubble Diffusers – on-line 2012
8 MW energy reduction
Digester Project – early 2014
10 MW renewable energy production
Enhanced Nitrogen Removal (ENR) – on-line 2014
0.8 MW energy increase
33. GHG Emissions Estimates
34. Carbon Footprint Comparison for Planned Improvements
35. CO2 value with voluntary trading – Chicago Climate Exchange
36. Value of potential credits from the digester project ~65,000 metric tons CO2 eq avoided with the digester and FBD projects
At CCX value of $2/tonne, = $130,000/yr
At $7.50/tonne (value 05/08), =$500,000/yr
At ECX 11.5 euros/tonne, = $975,000/yr
37. Conclusions
DCWASA is interested in:
Producing a Class A product
Reducing production by 50+%
Producing gas for power production (10+ MW)
Developing a more diverse quiver of options
Products for use in ag, energy, and for sale to the public
Helps hedge against changes in regulations, politics, and public acceptance
Developing DCWASA carbon footprint with post-digestion projections
Interested in supporting the development of embryonic and emerging technologies through research