Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol At The Brady Road Landfillbibeauel/research/... · 2008-12-30 · Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol at the Brady Road Landfill 1 Converting Landfill

Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol at the Brady Road Landfill

1

Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol At The Brady Road Landfill

25.416 Thesis Report

Prepared by: Saduf Shaheen Rana xxxxxx

Muriel Steinbusch xxxxxx


2

Abstract

The feasibility of converting landfill gas to methanol is explored in this report for the

Brady Road landfill in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The study involves costs and methods of

implementing a horizontal gas extraction system, the Acrion CO2 Wash Process for trace

contaminant removal, and a methanol synthesis plant. This report specifically sheds light

on current markets for methanol and CO2, two end products of this renewable energy

endeavour, as well as cost studies for economic feasibility. As of yet, the conversion of

LFG to methanol is not an economically sound investment, but reductions in GHG

emissions are significant and should be considered in the overall feasibility study.


3

Introduction

Manitoba has pledged to reduce its overall GHG emissions according to the Kyoto

Protocol. One possible method of doing so would be to reduce the GHG emissions

produced at landfill sites. The goal of this project is to study the feasibility of not only

reducing the GHG emissions produced at the local Brady Road landfill, but also the

feasibility of capturing and reusing the energy produced in the form of methanol.

Background Greenhouse Gas Emissions In 1997 Canada, along with many other countries, signed the Kyoto Protocol and pledged

to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. The Province of

Manitoba plans to exceed this goal and is expecting emission reductions of up to 18% by

2010, with the federal government’s help [Government of Manitoba]. To effect this

reduction Manitoba launched the Climate Change task force in 2001; part of the focus is

on clean and renewable energy sources, along with capturing landfill gas emissions.

In order to provide financial assistance to climate change initiatives, the Canadian

government has set up the Renewable Energy Technologies Program; this program

provides $8 million per year for renewable energy innovations. This money is provided

through cost-sharing and technical assistance. Changing systems is always costly, but

change is needed. These federal and provincial governmentally funded programs provide

the economic resources and the incentive to change. In order to provide a sound basis for

future endeavours the time to act is now.


4

Brady Road, located just outside the Perimeter highway in Winnipeg, is one of the largest

landfill in Canada and currently has no methane collection system in place. It is the

largest point source of GHG emissions in Manitoba, and remains the largest and most

cost-effective site for capturing methane. If the biogas produced in Manitoba landfills

were captured emissions could be reduced by 0.4 Mt per year, and could subsequently be

used to produce 6.7 MW of electricity [ibid.].

Garbage is a topic of much debate in Winnipeg. The citizens refused the proposed

garbage levy and are not recycling to full capacity. In 2002 approximately 218 000

tonnes of garbage was produced and only 14% of the city’s waste material was recycled

[Welch]. The remainder, a lot of which is recyclable, ends up in the landfill.

Canada is responsible for about 2% of the world’s GHG emissions; of that Manitoba

contributes about 3% [Manitoba Energy]. In 1999 waste disposal accounted for 2.8% of

Manitoba’s GHG emissions (see Figure

1), in reality a small percentage, but if

the biogas were captured and then used

to produce methanol, a possible

transportation fuel, the effects from

waste disposal could be minimised and the

61.3% of emissions from Energy Use could

be offset.

Fig 1: 1999 Manitoba GHG emissions [ibid.]


5

While waste disposal does not represent a large portion of the total emissions, the

emission offset and the energy production could be an effective catalyst for change.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the GHG of primary concern, and is released into the

atmosphere when traditional fuels are burned in engines. Using renewable biomass,

which includes municipal solid waste (MSW), as an energy source represents a closed

carbon cycle with respect to atmospheric CO2; CO2 is taken up during growth and then

released, without an increase in the overall atmospheric levels. Atmospheric levels of

CO2 could also be mitigated by replacing fossil fuels with a cleaner energy source

[Chynoweth et al].

Brady Road Landfill

Brady Road Landfill was opened in 1973 and covers 100 hectares (1 km2), and has a

capacity of 50 million tonnes of waste. Currently it contains 5.5 million tonnes and is

expected to remain open until 2150. Its average daily tonnage of waste deposited is

approximately 1000 tonnes [Kuluk]. There is no methane recovery system in place and

the garbage is not sorted. The current method of landfilling involves the creation of small

hills, about 6-10 m high, and subsequently covering them with topsoil [Thompson].

The Brady Road landfill mainly produces gas containing 50-55% CH4 and 45-50% CO2.

Both CH4 and CO2 are greenhouse gases but CH4 is about 21 times more effective as a

GHG than CO2, making it more potent. The energy value of the gas is believed to range

from 500-550 Btu/scf, or medium quality gas. In general, most landfills in North


6

America, especially in Canada, produce medium BTU gas, which may be used directly in

boilers, internal combustion engines or generation of electricity. Pipeline quality gas is,

however, 1000 Btu/scf, so if the gas produced were to be sold to a gas utility company it

would need to be upgraded, by removing the majority of the carbon dioxide. Some utility

companies have allowed a 960 Btu/scf heating value gas to be delivered into their

pipeline systems [Tanaput].

Shirley Thompson and Sarayut Tanaput from the Natural Resources Institute at the

University of Manitoba have done the groundwork on this site. They have collected

various data from the Brady Road Landfill, including the relative amounts of CH4 and

CO2, the emission rates, and some temperature effects. Their findings relevant to this

report are included, and are the basis for any assumptions and cost estimates.


7

Production and Collection

How the gas is made: Anaerobic Digestion

Brady Road Landfill contains a conglomeration of many different types of waste, organic

and non-organic. The biogas is produced from the decomposition of the organic material

in the waste stream and is composed of mainly CH4 and CO2, with traces of H2S, N2 and

NH4 [Biomass Technology Group]. There is little to no oxygen available to the waste,

most of it is buried and only the top layer is exposed to the atmosphere. The biogas is

produced anaerobically in a process known as anaerobic digestion. Close to 75% of the

anaerobically degradable organic matter can be converted to methane [Silvey et al.].

Anaerobic Digestion is a biological process comprised of four main steps [ibid.]:

1. Hydrolysis: The high weight organic molecules (proteins, carbohydrates, etc.) are broken down into sugars, amino acids, fatty acids and water.

2. Acidogenesis: Further breakdown of the waste into organic acids CO2, H2S and

NH3.

3. Acetagenesis: Products from the acidogenesis are used to produce acetates, CO2 and hydrogen.

4. Methanogenesis: Methane is produced in this step. CO2 and H2O are produced

from the acetates, also CO2 and hydrogen from the products of the acidogenesis and acetagenesis.

In total about a dozen different species of bacteria are needed to completely degrade a

heterogeneous stream such as landfills. Certain moisture levels are needed to sustain the

bacteria and the leachate ensures that these moisture levels are maintained [Silvey et al.].

Snow and rain will also help in providing the needed moisture.


8

A possible problem with anaerobic digestion is fatty acid accumulation. High acid levels

may suppress the bacteria needed to produce methane (methanogens) [Ramana;Singh] .

Recirculation of the leachate helps maintain the pH at a more acceptable level of 6.5

[Silvey et al.]. Brady Road landfill frequently receives new waste and so the

accumulation of acid should not present a huge problem in the production of methane,

especially if there is some recirculation.

Temperature Effects:

Winnipeg experiences extremely low temperatures for much of the year. Biodegradation

is drastically reduced at extreme low temperatures due to a decreased growth rate of the

microorganisms. The reactions occurring in the waste bed are exothermic, and should

theoretically increase the temperature, but a large fraction of the energy is entrapped in

gaseous products, hence the energy available for bacterial growth is very small

[Ramana;Singh].

Low temperature is not seen as a huge problem just because the growth rate is decreased;

methane production still occurs, but at a slower rate. The optimum temperature range for

methanogenesis is 30 to 35°C [Watson-Craik et al.] but bacteria can adapt to

psychrophilic temperatures (<15°C). Production of methane is initiated between 3 and

9°C [Safley;Westerman].

Even in cold climates the surface of bioactive landfills is rarely below 0°C and the

seasonal temperature variations in the waste are small compared to the atmospheric


9

variations [Maurice;Lagerkvist ]. The same amount of methane will be produced but it

takes longer at lower temperatures.

Shirley Thompson and Sarayut Tanaput measured the temperature variations of Brady

Road, and found that the temperature of the landfill waste remained relatively constant at

15°C, while the ambient temperature experienced wide fluctuations (see Figure 2).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84Time (days)

Tem

pera

ture

(o C)

101

102

103

104

Atm

osph

eric

pre

ssur

e (k

Pa)

Gas temperatureAmbient temperatureAtmospheric pressure

Figure 2: Results of seasonal changes in atmospheric pressure and temperature. [Thompson]

Low ambient temperatures should not pose many difficulties in the level of methane

produced, but to be sure methane production levels at Brady Road should be measured

over the entire year to obtain more accurate data and to ensure the success of the project.


10

Why Choose Methanol?

The problem with burning gasoline is the harmful emissions sent into the atmosphere.

The by-products of combustion not only contain previously unreleased CO2, but a

number of VOC’s and NOx, which all play an important role in the air quality. Methanol

is a much cleaner burning fuel than gasoline, and is about 27% more efficient in an

internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), and has a higher octane rating, which

reduces engine knock [Borgwardt, 1998].

Methanol has a greater tolerance for lean combustion (higher air to fuel ratio), which

leads to lower emissions and greater efficiencies [NREL]. FCVs using methanol or

hydrogen are expected to operate at 2.5 to 3 times greater thermal efficiency than

gasoline ICEs, and so the fuel cost per vehicle is expected to be competitive with the

current gasoline cost [Borgwardt,1997]. In addition the federal government has already

exempted methanol and ethanol derived from biomass (which includes landfills) from the

fuels tax, which will help in making methanol cost-competitive with gasoline or diesel.

A methanol fuel cell vehicle (FCV) is expected to emit 99% less CO, 83% less NOx, and

87% less VOCs than conventional vehicles, and may also eliminate particulate emissions.

A major advantage to incorporating methanol into the transport industry is its

compatibility with ICEVs during the transition to FCVs, and also its effectiveness as a

hydrogen source in FCVs. Methanol may also be stored onboard as a liquid whereas

hydrogen must be stored as a compressed gas, which requires a great amount of added

energy. It also has a higher energy density than compressed hydrogen [Borgwardt, 1998].


11

Another benefit to converting to methanol is that methanol-refuelling stations will be

very similar to conventional gas stations, with the same layout and the same types of

equipment. Methanol is corrosive and so acceptable tank materials are carbon steel

coated with fibreglass, fibreglass and stainless steel. The most economical method is to

simply refit the existing tanks [EA Engineering]. Reusing existing stations will also

prove beneficial to the community as no additional major infrastructure will need to be

built, lowering the overall cost of conversion and helping in the promotion of using

methanol as a fuel.

If consumers chose to turn away from using conventional fuels and instead chose

methanol or even ethanol, air quality would improve and could be the catalyst for the

further development of sustainable technologies.

Alternatives to Methanol Production: Microturbines

If the biogas produced is not further processed into methanol it could be used directly to

run a turbine to produced electricity. Microturbines are able to use low-calorie fuel,

require little maintenance, have low NOx emissions and are portable [Hurley]. These

turbines are appropriate at small landfill sites because of their small output (30 -75 kW).

The only costs associated with using them are the pre-cleaning and collection of the gas.

The main problem with using microturbines is the siloxane in the landfill. Siloxane,

which is found in health and beauty products, forms a hard sand-like silica compound

when combusted and will tear apart the turbine [Hurley]. The following is a list of


12

reasons why Methanol is a more appropriate end-use of the biogas than are

microturbines:

• Manitoba uses hydropower, which is already one of the cheapest and cleanest sources of electricity; therefore making running a turbine at Brady Road would not be offsetting any emissions or decreasing the cost of electricity for the consumer.

• It costs 1-2 ¢/kWh (American) just for the O&M of the pre-treatment. As well the

filter media needed to remove the destructive siloxane also needs to be changed frequently and significantly increases the cost [ibid.].

• Only small landfills are appropriate because of the small output of the turbines;

they need to be installed in multi-packs of 10-20. Brady Road has the capacity of 6.7 MW and would need over 200 30kW microturbines (or about 90 75 kW).

• Methanol fuel will help offset fuel consumption, which is an emission problem

and also help in reducing the dependency on foreign oil/gas imports. Microturbines may be more appropriate in an agricultural setting where siloxane is not

present or at small landfills where the electricity is not from hydro but from coal.

Methanol production is a much more appropriate application for Manitoba.

Potential Problems No fuel is without its problems, and methanol is no exception. The major obstacles will

be public education and making a niche in the fuels market. Currently there is no real

market for using methanol as a fuel and no methanol engine manufacturers in North

America (Paul Zanetel).

However, methanol has a variety of uses aside from being a fuel. The largest use is a raw

material of the production of Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive. It is

also used in the production of formaldehyde, acetic acid, chloromethanes, methyl


13

methacrylate, methylamines and dimethyl terephthalate. Methanol is also used as a

solvent or antifreeze in paint strippers, aerosol spray, paints, carburator cleaners and car

windshield washer compounds. It may also experience a local market increase, aside

from regular transportation fleet vehicles, due to the recent agreement with the City of

Winnipeg to implement a Bus Rapid Transit system [Romaniuk].

A neat methanol (100% CH3OH) engine has problems starting in cold weather because of

its low vapour pressure; this problem can be solved by using the M85 mix (85% CH3OH;

15% gasoline) [NREL]. If methanol were to be used in fleet vehicles such as the buses

for Winnipeg Transit, where the engines do not experience cold starts, this problem could

be largely ignored.

Methanol is very corrosive and so special fittings and linings are required in the engine.

Materials such as stainless steel or fibreglass are suitable, but add to the overall cost.

Another problem is that the energy rating is lower, requiring more liquid methanol,

flexible fuel ICEVs using M85 use 1.67 gallons for 1 gallon of gasoline [Borgwardt,

1998]. The increased efficiency of the methanol engine may help to offset this larger

volume, and if used in fleet transport may not even pose any difficulties.


14

Gas Collection System Before implementing any energy recovery process at Brady Road, it is necessary to first

establish a gas collection system. In general, landfill gas can be collected by either an

active or passive collection system.

A passive system is comprised of collection or extraction wells to collect the landfill gas

using existing variations in landfill pressure and gas concentrations. The wells may either

be vertical or horizontal, depending on the situation. Vertical wells are usually installed

after the Landfill site has been closed, and horizontal wells are more appropriate for

landfills that need to recover gas promptly (i.e. landfills with subsurface gas migration

problems), for deep landfills, or for active landfills [Willumsen].

In the passive system, the collection system either vents directly to the atmosphere or to a

gas treatment or control process (i.e. flare). The efficiency of the passive system heavily

depends on how well the gas is contained within the landfill. To ensure containment,

impermeable liners can be placed on top and around the landfill to ensure full

containment, as well as create certain gas migratory pathways to the collection system.

However, efficiency of the passive system also depends on environmental conditions

which can’t be avoided by system design. For instance, passive systems fail to remove

Landfill gas when the landfill pressure is inadequate to push the gas to the venting or

control device. Also, a high barometric pressure can sometimes cause outside air to enter

through the passive vents. Because of these reasons, a passive collection system wouldn’t


15

be reliable for use in areas with high risk of gas migration, especially where methane can

collect to explosive levels in buildings or confined spaces [Landfill Gas to Energy].

Active collection systems may avoid this risk by implementing monitoring devices

throughout the infrastructure, and creating low pressures within the collection wells by

way of a vacuum or pump. The major difference between both systems would be that

active collection systems provide more control to the operator: valves regulate gas flow

and serve as sampling ports to measure gas generation, composition and pressure.

An effective active collection system is composed of horizontal or vertical extraction

wells, a suction system to create the low pressure and preferred migratory pathway for

the gas (via vacuum or pumps), and monitoring devices such as valves, pressure gauges,

condensers, and sampling ports to monitor and adjust pressures if needed, and also to

measure gas generation and content [ibid.].

Because Brady Road doesn’t have a collection system already in place, any of the two

collection systems would be adequate to avoid gas migratory problems, and reduce GHG

emissions. However, because of the need to monitor gas flow rates and content, as well

as the fact that Brady Road will remain open until 2150 and until then a profitable end

use of the gas should be considered, we’ve decided that a horizontal active collection

system would best suit its needs. Seen below is a rough idea of the horizontal piping

system designed.


16

Figure 3: Sketch of horizontal pipe layout, hatched areas represent perforated sections

Specifically, the horizontal piping will be drilled into the active landfill approximately 1-

2 metres above the base, and will run throughout the landfill site. The piping itself will be

HDPE (High Density Poly Ethylene) 12” diameter, Sclairpipe piping, with a pressure

rating of 100psi [Gromniski]. The pipe will be perforated within certain sections in the

landfill, and a low pressure will be caused by means of a pump at the end of the length of

the piping system. This pump or compressor will lead the gas to the utilization plant, or

in our case, the treatment and methanol synthesis plant.

The connection of the horizontal wells to the pump and utilization system can be done in

different ways. The most common way is to connect them all as a main collection pipe

that goes around the entire landfill. The downfall to this option would be the difficulty

involved in regulating the quality and quantity of gas, as well as difficulty in finding

leaks or damages.

One alternative that we recommend is to join the collection wells of similar gas content,

i.e. industrial waste site with industrial waste site, and residential site with residential

site. Another possible idea would be to adjoin piping systems of close proximity. By

doing this, monitoring and maintenance can continue with less uncertainty, and the

separate piping systems can act as back up systems in case one fails.


17

This horizontal system would still be more efficient than vertical wells in

terms of quantity, as well as the fact that the landfill does not have to be

closed before collection begins.

Gas Suction System

The suction system consists of pumps, monitoring, and control systems.

Various pumps are available on the market by companies such as Blackhawk

Environmental and QED Environmental. Both companies have horizontal and

vertical pumps for LFG and leachate removal, and have a long history of

dealing with gas collection at landfill sites. For our purposes, we required a

pump that would operate at the 100 psi of the Sclairpipe HDPE piping, and be

able to withstand the gas flow rate of 900 scfm of LFG being produced. The

number of pumps installed would depend ultimately on the amount of gas

produced.

As a possibility, we’ve selected two horizontal pumps, one from Blackhawk

and the other from QED. The statistics of each pump can be seen in Appendix

A.

La

ndfill Gas

Figure 4: Anchor Pump Model 103 A

[Blackhawk]

Figure 5: SliderTM Pumps for Slant/Horizontal Wells

[QED Environmental]


18

Treatment

The initial and unarguably the most important step in the energy recovery process would

be the removal of trace contaminants in the landfill gas. Certain barriers exist when

attempting to use LFG for energy and merchant CO2, specifically in terms of reliable and

economic removal of the trace contaminants. Because of the various wastes and materials

used in today’s products, each landfill site has a unique composition of literally hundreds

of chemical compounds such as vinyl chlorides and hydrogen sulfide. Aside from this

fact, the contaminant line-up also changes throughout the LFG’s production life [Cook et

al.]. Currently, trace contaminant removal can be done is several ways:

i. using physical solvents such as Selexol and cold methanol

ii. via membranes (Prism)

iii. using solid adsorbents

iv. via the Acrion CO2 Wash Process

Advantages and disadvantages can be seen in Table 1:


19

Acrion Technologies is an innovative company in Cleveland, Ohio that recently

successfully completed a pilot-scale test project at Al Turi Landfill in Goshen, NY. It is

now implementing the first commercial scale application of the Liquid CO2 Wash

Process at a landfill in Ohio under a grant from the US Department of Energy.

Table 1: Comparison of Landfill Gas Treatment Processes [Cook et al]


20

Out of the four purification processes, the Acrion CO2 Wash process is the most efficient

and desired process for he following reasons:

It uses cold liquid CO2 directly from the raw landfill gas as a solvent to eliminate

the trace contaminants such as Freon 12 and Methyl Chloride. This eliminates the

need to purchase, store, and dispose of separating agents such as organic solvents

and adsorbents (i.e. Selexol and cold methanol). Amines and other organic solvents

often react irreversibly with contaminants to form species which foam, become

viscous, or otherwise hinder the desired separation.

The cold liquid CO2 is insensitive to type of contaminant and requires no process

modification as contaminant composition of the LFG varies with time.

In Acrion’s phase I pilot scale test project, the ability of CO2 to dissolve 6

contaminants were tested: Dichlorodifluoro-methane (Freon 12), Methyl Chloride,

acetone, pentane, ethanol and ethylene dichloride. The result was that gas phase

concentrations were reduced by 100 – 500 times, often to levels below the detection

limits of Acrion’s analytical equipment. In fact, the most difficult trace contaminants

to remove, Freon 12 and Methyl Chloride, were reduced to levels that will not poison

synthesis catalysts.

The energy invested in LFG compression is preserved during bulk CO2 removal,

permitting economic recovery of high pressure liquid CO2.

LFG contaminants are concentrated for efficient incineration reducing NOx and

other air emissions.


21

CO2 wash, based on conventional chemical engineering unit operations, affords low

technical risk for production of a variety of fuels and chemicals derived from CH4

and CO2, depending on local market needs [Cook et al.].

Because of these benefits, we have chosen the CO2 Wash Process in our purification step

towards methanol synthesis, and will describe the process in further detail.

Methanol Synthesis

The overall methanol synthesis process can be summarized as a six step process: landfill

gas compression, cooling and dehydration, CO2 condensation and contaminant removal,

sending gas through a reformer, then the methanol synthesis reactor, and finally,

methanol purification (See Figure 6). The first 3 steps are part of the Acrion CO2 Wash

Process. The overall reaction for the process is:

3CH4 + CO2 + 2H2O 4CH3OH

[Brown]

Overall, the Acrion CO2 Washing process is the LFG purification step and produces a

stream of contaminant free methane and merchant Carbon Dioxide. This clean stream of

CH4 and CO2 can be used as medium Btu gas or further refined into products such as for

natural gas production, pipeline quality gas, or in the case of this study, methanol.

The process begins with the filtration of raw LFG to remove particulates and liquid

droplets; typically at a ratio of 55% CH4 to 45% CO2 (Brady Road has 54% CH4 and


22

40% CO2). The product is then passed through a compressor to boost the LFG pressure to

approximately 50 psig, and then cooled and refrigerated to 4 °C, at which temperature a

condensate is formed, and removed. Dehydration at this step eliminates downstream

corrosion [Eden]. The gas is then fed to an adsorbent bed that selectively removes H2S

[Brown].

Figure 6: Acrion Methanol Synthesis Process

Further compression raises the gas pressure to 400 psig in the CO2 condensation and

contaminant removal step as seen in Figure 6. This cold pressurized stream goes through

a sequence of heat exchangers to recover the cooling from returned process streams. The

cold pressurized stream feeds an absorption column where the landfill gas is scrubbed


23

with in situ liquid CO2 solvent. The end result is liquid CO2 after partial condensation

and clean, higher BTU methane at a molar ratio of 2.3:1 (CH4:CO2). To obtain the

highest equilibrium conversion to methanol, thermodynamic equilibrium calculations and

discussions with methanol vendors indicate the desired ratio to be 2.3:1. Careful selection

of temperatures and pressures of contaminant absorption and CO2 condensation yields

this value with the Acrion process [Cook et al.].

The contaminated Carbon Dioxide solution was removed at the bottom of the column and

can be incinerated in a landfill flare to eliminate solvent regeneration. Because the

contaminants are concentrated, NOx and other air emissions are reduced during

incineration. Of the merchant CO2 produced, liquid CO2 sufficient to absorb

contaminants is returned to the column and the balance is merchant carbon dioxide

[Brown].

After the Acrion process is complete, the contaminant free methane and CO2 mix with

steam in the reformer to produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen [Cook et al.]. The

carbon monoxide and hydrogen are further compressed from 400 psig to 1200 psig,

where it then enters the methanol synthesis reactor where the following reaction takes

place:

CO + 2H2 CH3OH CO2 + 3H2 CH3OH + H2O Overall: CO + 5H2 + CO2 2CH3OH + H2O


24

Further separation in another absorption column separates the water and by products

from the purified methanol [Cook et al.].

Gas Collection System

Vacuum or Pump

Acrion Methanol Synthesis Plant TC Flared

Carbon Dioxide

Flare

Re-circulate

Bottle or Sell

Methanol

Fuel Cells Fleet Vehicles

Figure 7: Overall Methanol Production Schematic


25

Financial Summary

Financial Analysis

Typically a gas collection system would range from $20 000 -$40 000 US/ha ($26 600-

$53 200 CDN/ha) for an average 10 m deep landfill. Usually a suction system would

range from $10 000 - $45 000 US/ha ($13 300- $59 900 CDN/ha) (Willumsen). In this

case the cost of the 12” Sclairpipe HDPE piping, including the drilling of holes for the

perforated sections would cost $49.36/ft ($161.94/m). (CDN), according to a quote given

by Perma-Sales Engineering in Winnipeg. If a total length of the piping is assumed to be

twice the perimeter of the site (8 000 m) the total cost would be $1.3 million (CDN).

Using Willumsen’s cost estimate for the suction system, the pumps would also be

approximately $1.3 million (CDN). Thus the total capital investment required for the

entire gas collection system alone would be approximately $2.6 million.

The following is a cost summary of the Acrion CO2 Washing facility, scaled down to the

flow rate of 1.3 million scfd at Brady Road.

Product Gal/day Selling

Price [¢/gal]

Sales/yr. [$million]

Capital [$million]

Operating [$million/yr]

Net Revenue

[$million/yr]CH3OH (4mil scfd)

22000 64 4.92 15.2 1.2 3.78

CH3OH (1.3mil scfd)

7128 64 1.6 15.2 0.37 1.23

Therefore the total capital investment into this project is estimated to be:

$1.3 million + $1.3 million + $15.2 million = $17.8 million


26

This project will only be an option to be considered if it proves to be financially sound. The overall capital is estimated to be $17.8 million with yearly paybacks of $1.23 million. The simple payback therefore would be $17.8 = 14.5 years. This is a very $1.23

long payback period, and would be a risky investment. The following tables demonstrate

the financial summary of this endeavour, comparing different interest rates over different

time periods. All funds are in Canadian dollars.

Time Period (years)

Capital ($ millions)

Annual Revenue

($ millions)

IRR (%)

NPV at 12% ($ millions)


10 17.8 1.23 -6.04 -9.5 -7.7 20 17.8 1.23 3.43 -7.5 -2.2 ∞ 17.8 1.23 6.99 -6.56 6.67

The $17.8 million includes the cost of the collection system ($2.6 million). However the

collection system needs to be in place and so may not need to be in the feasibility

calculations. The simple payback period for $15.2 million is therefore 12.3 years, which

is still quite long.

The following is a revised table based on the $15.2 million capital:

Time Period (years)

Capital ($ millions)

Annual Revenue

($ millions)

IRR (%)



10 15.2 1.23 -3.45 -7.2 -5.2 20 15.2 1.23 5.26 -5.2 0.31 ∞ 15.2 1.23 8.20 -4.2 9.1

For this project to become more viable the biogas production needs to increase, thereby

increasing the production rate of methanol. The production rate at Brady Road was

measured to be 1.3 million scfd, but this rate will increase over time, hence increasing the


27

methanol production rate. Also, the future demand of methanol will drive the market

value and the annual revenue could in fact be greater than is presently estimated. The

$17.8 million capital investment and $1.23 million annual revenue are only the first

estimates. More research will need to be done, including infrastructure costs and market

values for methanol.

If the provincial and federal governments were to provide monies and incentives (such as

tax breaks) this endeavour can become more attractive to the investor. Private or

corporate donations may also be required. Currently the financial estimates indicate that

this methanol project is not feasible.

Conclusion

Based on the financial analysis of the overall renewable energy model presented the

choice of methanol as a possible energy end use is not feasible. However, markets and

LFG production levels may change and could provide the financial basis for this type of

endeavour. The emissions at the Brady Road Landfill need to be reduced and funds must

be made available to achieve this reduction. More research will need to be conducted at

the site to make a more accurate assessment of the biogas potential. The public must also

be made aware of the large amounts of GHG emissions to effectively drive the need for

change.

☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺ The End!! ☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺


28

References

Books Cited Conversion of Landfill Gas to alternative Uses (chapter). US Climate Change

Technology Program: Technology Options for the Near and Long-term. Nov. 2003

Moomaw, William R. Environmental Challenges and Opportunities of the Evolving

North American Electricity Market: Assessing Barriers and Opportunities for Renewable Energy in North America. Tuffs University. June (2002)

Journals Cited Borgwardt, Robert H. “Biomass and Natural Gas as Co-Feedstocks for Production of Fuel for Fuel-Cell Vehicles.” Biomass and Bioenergy 12.5 (1997): 333-345. Borgwardt, Robert H. “Methanol Production from Biomass and Natural Gas as Transportation Fuel.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 37 (1998): 3760-3767. Chynoweth, David P., Robert Legrand and John M Owens. “Renewable Methane from anaerobic digestion of biomass.” Renewable Energy 22(2001): 1-8. EA Engineering. Methanol Refueling Station Costs. Prepared for American Methanol Foundation, 1 Feb, 1999. Maurice, C. and A. Lagerkvist. “LFG emission measurements in cold climatic conditions: Seasonal variations and methane emissions mitigation.” Cold Regions Science and Technology 36 (2003): 37-46. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Methanol from Biomass. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 1995. Ramana K.V. and Lokendra Singh. “Microbial Degradation of Organic Wastes at Low Temperatures.” Defence Science Journal 50.4 (2000): 371-382. Safley, L.M., Jr.and P.W. Westerman. “Performance of a Low Temperature Lagoon Digester.” Bioresource Technology 41 (1992): 167-175. Silvey, P., P.C. Pullammanappallil, L Blackall and P. Nichols. “Microbial Ecology of the leach bed anaerobic digestion of unsorted municipal solid waste.” Water Science and Technology 41.3 (2000): 9-16.


29

Thompson, Shirley and Sarayut Tanaput. “A Model to determine Landfill Gas Generation for Two Waste Management Options.” Natural Resource Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Watson-Craik, I.A., A.G. James and E. Senior. “Use of Multi-Stage Continuous Culture Systems to Investigate the Effects of Temperature on the Methanogenic Fermentation of Cellulose-Degradation Intermediates.” Water Science and Technology 30.12 (1994): 153-159.

Internet Resources Anaerobic Digestion. Biomass Technology Group. 21 Oct. 2003

<http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/anaerobic-digestion.html> Blackhawk Environmental Company. Pneumatic Anchor Pump.15 Mar. 2004.

<http://www.blackhawkco.com/blackhawk/productdetail.asp?product=54367864654341>

Breeze, Heather. “Alternatives to Fuelling our Decline.” Peace and Environment News. May (1995) <http://perc.ca/PEN/1995-05/breeze.2.html> Brown, Bill. “Landfill: Washing Landfill Gas.” Waste Age. 1 Apr. (2000).

<http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_landfill_washing_landfill/> Brown, Bill. Landfill Gas: Capture the Aroma, Create Value, Make Methanol. Alcohol

Solutions LLC. <http://acrion.com/forum_pres_web/> Chemicals in the Environment: Methanol. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (US

EPA). Aug. 1994 <http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemfact/f_methan.txt>

Climate Change: Manitoba’s GHG Emissions. Manitoba Energy, Science and Technology. 1 Mar. 2004

<http://www.gov.mb.ca/est/climatechange/ghg/> Cook, Jeffrey, Lawrence A. Siwajek and William R. Brown. “Landfill Gas Conversion to

a contaminant-free Methane-Carbon Dioxide Reformer Feedstock for Methanol Synthesis.” Acrion Technologies, Inc.

< www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/ 97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NGP4.PDF > Errall, Mark. “Primer on Landfill Gas as ‘green’ energy.” 10 Feb. (2000) <http://www.energyjustice.net/lfg>


30

Hurley, Christine. “Biogas-fuelled Microturbines: A Positive Outlook for growth in the

US.” Cogeneration and On- Site Power Production.4.6 (2003). Nov. –Dec. 2003 <http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/cospp/2003_06/biogas_fuelled.html>

Iacoboni, Mario, Josephine Chow and Ed Wheless. “Gearing Up the Gas.” Waste Age.

1 Jan. (2004). < http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_gearing_gas/> KWH Pipe Ltd. –Sclairpipe Products

<http://www.kwhpipe.ca> Kyoto and Beyond: Manitoba’s Climate Change Action Plan. Oct. 2002. Government of Manitoba. 1 Mar. 2004

<http://www.gov.mb.ca/est/climatechange/pdfs/KyotoClimate.pdf> Landfill Gas Control Measures (Ch. 5)

<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/Landfill_2001_ch5.pdf> Landfill Gas to energy. PIER Renewable Energy Technologies. 22 Jul. 2003 <http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renew/biomass/bioc_en/landgas2e.html> Willumsen, Hans C. Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas in Denmark and Worldwide.

22 Mar. 2004 < http://www.lei.lt/Opet/pdf/Willumsen.pdf >

Newspaper Articles Romaniuk, Ross. “$50-million pledged for rapid transit: Construction underway by next year.” The Winnipeg Sun 20 Mar. 2004 Welch, Mary Agnes. “Let’s talk trash, people: Winnipeg far worse at recycling than others.” Winnipeg Free Press 11 Jan. 2003:B3.

Other Sources Eden, Robert. “Landfill Gas Collection Technologies and Technology.” ETSU Landfill

Gas Conference. Organics Ltd. Coventry, England. 1994 Gromniski, Blair. Fax from Inside Sales Perma-Engineered Sales. (March 17, 2004) Kuluk, Tony. E-mails to the Water and Waste Department: City of Winnipeg (March 5,

2004: March 16, 2004)


31

Tanaput, Sarayut. E-mail to the Natural Resources Institute: University of Manitoba.

(February 4, 2004) Zanetel, Paul. Personal Interview. (March 16, 2004)

Documents

Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol At The Brady Road Landfillbibeauel/research/... · 2008-12-30 · Converting Landfill Gas to Methanol at the Brady Road Landfill 1 Converting Landfill