Transcript Army Landfill Gas to Electricity Feasibility Study Mary Matthews Hains, PE AMEC Environment and Infrastructure.

Army Landfill Gas to Electricity
Feasibility Study
Mary Matthews Hains, PE
AMEC Environment and
Infrastructure
Learning Objectives
• Understand the criteria that can be applied
to identify strong landfill candidates for
production of methane gas for electricity
• Understand the technical and economic
factors that prove the feasibility of landfill
gas to electricity projects
10-3-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
2
Purpose of Study
• Identify renewable energy potential from
landfill gases at all Army installations in
CONUS
• 121 sites considered
10-3-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
3
Process
• Develop evaluation criteria; score database
• Identify strongest candidates through
questionnaires, modeling, and on-site
records review with stakeholders
• Identify equipment specs and preliminary
cost to calculate potential feasibility
• Conduct charrette of feasible options;
prepare programming documents
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
4
Evaluation Criteria
Waste
Composition
Excellent
Good/
Marginal
Poor
MSW
reported
NA
NA
Local
Electric
Rates
>10
¢/kWh
>7.5
¢/kWh
<7.5
¢/kWh
Most important
3-4-12
Size
(Waste in
Place)
Gas
Collection
Net Zero
System
Installation
Landfill
Age
>1.5
M Tons
Active or
Closed <5
yrs. ago
Yes
Yes
>0.75
M Tons
Closed >5
and <10
yrs. ago
NA
NA
<0.75
M Tons
Closed
>10 yrs.
ago
NA
NA
Least important
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
5
Initial Screening
• Southern DoD Landfill Database
– Desktop analysis; uses broad assumptions
• Unknown waste composition? Assume some MSW
– Supplemented with other databases
• DoD Solid Waste Annual Reporting
– Shows remaining waste volume, projected closure date,
and gas collection system type
• EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program
– Defines candidates as active or closed <5 years, with >1M
tons of waste, and no planned/operational LFG project
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
6
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
O&M + Replacement Costs Lifetime Savings Project SIR
Fort Belvoir 0 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,021,733 $ 2,207,520 1.07
Fort Lewis-McChord 2 $ 1,900,000 $1,509,267 $ 2,365,200 0.69
Fort Meade 0 $ 1,050,000 $ 551,880 $ 3,090,528 1.93
Fort Riley 1 1,050,000 315,360 883,008 0.65
Fort Hood 0 $ 1,900,000 $10,479,960 $ 23,935,824 1.93
Fort Roberts Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas quantities.
Fort Pickett 1 1,050,000 $ 197,100 $788,400 0.63
Fort Irwin 0 $ 11,250,000 $ 6 3,087,293 $ 145,349,424 1.96
Sierra Army Depot Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas
quantities.
Fort Bliss Preliminary modeling indicates insufficient gas quantities.
Yuma Proving Ground 2 $ 1,900,000 $ 4 ,539,980 $ 6,527,952 1.01
3-4-12
XD Report
7
Results of Initial Screening
• 32 landfills of 121 in the database were
recommended for further consideration
– Produced red-yellow–green measles chart
• To refine the data, questionnaires were
sent to 32 locations; 28 responded
• Scored to reflect completeness of the data
received, the year closed, landfill size, %
MSW, type of gas management system,
and electricity rates
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
8
Scoring and Refining
Score = (A + (B + C) x D + E) x F; where:
A = Completeness of data set (values = 0, 1, or 2)
Not Submitted – 0; Partially Complete – 1; Substantially Complete – 2
B = Closure date (values = 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)
Unknown – 0; Prior to 2001 – 1; 2001-2006 – 2; 2006-2011 – 3; Active – 4
C = Landfill Size (values = 0, 1, 2, or 3)
>1.5 m tons (large) – 3; >0.75 m tons (mid) – 2; <0.75 m tons (small) – 1; Unknown – 0
D = Percent Municipal Solid Waste (values = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)
None – 0; Unknown – 1; <25% - 2; 25-50% - 3; 50-75% - 4; >75% - 5
E = Gas Management System (values = 0, 1, or 2)
None – 0; Passive – 1; Active – 2
F = Local electric rate (values in cents/kWh)
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
9
Top 11 Candidates after
Questionnaire/Scoring
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3-4-12
Fort Irwin, CA
Fort Hood, TX*
Fort Bliss, TX*
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ
Fort George G Meade, MD
Fort Riley, KS
Fort Belvoir, VA
Camp Roberts, CA
Fort Lewis-McChord, WA*
Sierra Army Depot, CA*
Fort Pickett, VA
*Net Zero Base
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
10
Scored better than Fort Pickett
but discarded...
•
•
•
•
White Sands Missile Range, CA*
Fort Hunter Liggett, CA*
Fort Sill, OK**
Fort Jackson, SC**
* Lack of a gas collection
system, low precipitation levels,
and methane monitoring reports
showing only a few ppm
methane
** Low % MSW, low ($0.06$0.08/kwh) electric rates
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
11
Preliminary Modeling
• Used EPA’s LandGEM software to model
potential methane output
• Model estimates savings-to-investment
ratio for proposed plant (>1.0 = feasible)
– Using data, scoring, modeling results and
discussions with client, further investigation
through records review was proposed
– Pickett, Belvoir, Meade, Hood, Yuma, Bliss,
Lewis-McChord chosen
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
12
Ex: Fort Meade: Methane Produced
vs. Captured, Cells 1 and 2
35,000
Methane (cubic feet per hour)
30,000
25,000
Average
Methane
Production
20,000
15,000
Methane
Captured
10,000
5,000
0
1970
3-4-12
1990
2010
2030
Year
2050
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
2070
13
Fort Meade:
Methane Production by Cell
Methane Production (cubic feet per hour)
12,000
10,000
8,000
Cell 2
6,000
Cell 1
4,000
2,000
0
2015
3-4-12
2020
2025
2030
2035
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
2040
2045
14
Cell Area (Acres)
24
41
1
Methane Production (cf/hr/acre)
Fort Meade: Energy Density
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
2
3-4-12
1
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
2
Cell
Average
15
Refinements from On-site
Records Review
• Some electric rates were incorrectly
reported, skewing results
• Trade-offs are challenging to evaluate:
– Some cultural barriers exist in defending the
“closed landfill” status
– Non-attainment areas biased against
installation of new plant equipment
• If you are going to wander around landfills,
you need to watch out for ticks
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
16
Results of Records Review,
Second Screening
Location
Waste in
Place
Closure Year Electric
Rates
Fort Meade
0.51m tons
Pre-2001
Small
Fort Pickett
Fort Hood
Fort Bliss
JB LewisMcChord
% MSW
$0.14/kWh
Annual
Precipitation
41 in.
Bad
Good
Good
Good
0.51m tons
Pre-2001
$0.10/kWh
43 in.
100%
Small
Bad
Good
Good
Good
3.14m tons
Active*
$0.053/kWh
32 in.
95%
Large
Good
Bad
Good
Good
2.16m tons
2013
$0.08/kWh
9 in.
82%
Large
Good
OK
Bad
Good
1.20m tons
2004
$0.038/kWh
41 in.
79%
Mid
OK
Bad
Good
Good
83%
Gas
Collection
System
Passive
Methane
Present?
Passive
Yes
None
Yes
Passive
Yes
Passive
Yes
Yes
State why Yuma and Belvoir are gone
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
17
Design Considerations
• LFG plants have an estimated installed
cost of $5000/kW
• The potential plant output from this study
group ranges between 250 - 848 kW
– Small compared to total base demand
– $1.2M - $4.2 M capital investment
• Meade, Hood and Bliss will likely prove to
have a reasonable payback period and
sites with SIRs> 1.0
3-4-12
Net Zero through Emerging Technologies
18