Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Landfills Case Study

Space Heating with LFG:


Small Project, Big Savings
Michael Cook

The key to generating


LFG for reuse at the
landfill was the
implementation of
the recirculation-toenergy concept.

On a typical January mOrning in minnesOta,


a landfill operator is working on the compactors
transmission. Despite the four inches of snow on the
ground, he opens the garage doors in the maintenance
building to let out some of the excess heat. Unlike
previous winters, this year the operator can afford
to crank up the heat in the building while working
on equipment because the heat is being fueled by a
renewable energy source created right on site.
The Crow Wing County Landfill located in northern
Minnesota recently installed a boiler fueled by landfill
gas (LFG) to provide heat to its two maintenance
buildings. With this investment, the landfill has been
able to significantly reduce its heating costs and its
carbon emissions.

A Small Site with Big Hopes


The landfill serves the countys nearly 60,000 yearround residents and, during the spring and summer,
it serves twice that population as vacationers visit
the many resorts dotting the lakes of the county.
The landfill provides disposal options for nearly all
kinds of waste. The landfills current disposal area is
a four cell, 22.5 acre area. It began operation in 1991
under the U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, Subtitle D rules, and was the first in the state of
Minnesota to do so. In addition to the active areas of
the landfill, there is also an unlined 28-acre landfill
that was closed in 1992.
The county constructed Cell 1 along with two
leachate treatment ponds (700,000 gallons each) in
1991. In 1995, it added Cell II and a third treatment
pond with capacity of 680,000 gallons. Disposal
occurred in Cells I and II for 10 years before the
landfill built Cell III in 2001. Then in summer
2007, it constructed Cell IV and a 2.5 million gallon
leachate pond with the eight-acre Cell IV beginning
waste filling in 2008.
Crow Wing County has worked hard to construct
and operate a facility that is able to manage and
maintain environmental liabilities on site. In 1994,

36

WasteAdvantage Magazine February 2011

it installed a land application system on the closed


landfill. Using the treatment capabilities of the
leachate ponds, the landfill reduced offsite hauling
of leachate by spraying treated leachate over the 11acre spray field. However, as the facility grew, the
need for more leachate storage, treatment and disposal
increased.

Recirculation to Energy
As early as 1997, the County started looking at
other options for leachate management. That year the
County submitted an application to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for a leachate
recirculation pilot project. At that time, leachate
recirculation was not allowed by the MPCA as part
of normal landfill operations and could only be
performed under the pilot project status. During the
first phase of the pilot project, the landfill outlined six
goals, including accelerated settlement (maximizing
airspace) and accelerated waste stabilization, and
identified several potential issues, including odor
control and increased LFG generation.
In 1997, the MPCA approved the application,
and by April 1998, the County began recirculating
leachate. Almost immediately, leachate hauling for
offsite disposal ceased, and the County had the ability
and capacity to manage all of its leachate onsite.
Accelerated LFG generation became evident
over the next few years, so in 2001 the countys
engineering consultant, R.W. Beck (Seattle, WA), an
SAIC company, performed a simple test to measure
flow coming from the landfills leachate collection
system cleanout risers and other venting risers. A basic
anemometer and the landfills four-gas handheld meter
were used to measure gas flow and LFG composition
coming from several of the vents. This test showed
an increased pressure buildup in the landfill forcing
gas out of the cleanout risers and passive gas vents. It
also revealed the LFG was approximately 55 percent
methane. This simple test sparked the idea for the
second phaseRecirculation-to-Energy (RTE).

RTE would allow the County to recirculate leachate in all cells of the landfill
without the use of a control cell and was approved by the MPCA as a pilot
project in 2002. The County initiated the RTE demonstration to show how
recirculation at a small landfill exempt from New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) would lead to an increase in LFG generation and make energy recovery
more feasible. Plus, the County added two additional goals to the original six:
Voluntary LFG reuse for energy recovery at a small landfill that otherwise
would not require an active system
Voluntary reduction in landfill greenhouse gas emissions through energy
recovery or flaring
As part of the RTE project, the county and R.W. Beck conducted verification
field tests on several potential LFG collection locations. Each test yielded
positive results and indicated that the landfill was highly active and producing
a usable volume of quality LFG. As the RTE concept was developing, the
County designed a new 6,400 square foot maintenance building. The promise
of significant LFG generation allowed the design of the maintenance building

to include installation of tubing for an in-floor heat system. The county


planned to install a heat source (boiler) that would be fueled by LFG at some
point in the future.
The testing results combined with LFG generation modeling verified that
installation of an active gas collection and control system (GCCS) was feasible.
The county used the results of the testing to present data to potential industries
for LFG reuse projects. Any installation of a GCCS would be designed to fit the
reuse project. The end users systems would need to be evaluated to determine
what the facilitys LFG fuel requirements were and whether upgrades were
needed to its equipment. A GCCS would need to be flexible and provide LFG
based on the facilitys needs.

Reuse, a Reality
From 2002 to 2007, the county explored several reuse options for direct
LFG use and electric generation. Although these options stalled due to the
economy, the County realized the potential a GCCS could provide and began

Operational LFG flare skid.

Images courtesy of Michael Cook.

WasteAdvantage Magazine

February 2011

37

space Heating with lFg: small project, Big savings

Typical vertical dual phase gas well (GW-1 on side


slope with intermediate cover).

LFG flare skid with new storage building in background (houses LFG fueled boiler).

click this ad FOR


MORE iNFORMatiON!
38

WasteAdvantage Magazine February 2011

the design with flexibility for future reuse in late 2007. Gas collection would be
maximized using dual-phase gas wells (including electric pumps), connections
to all the leachate collection cleanout risers and connections to the recirculation
laterals. The dual-phase wells included pumps to remove accumulated liquids
from the wells due to recirculation, improving LFG collection. The connection
to the leachate cleanout risers would allow for gas collection from the bottom
of the landfill. This also allowed the County to begin collecting LFG from the
newly opened Cell IV soon after waste placement. The recirculation laterals
would provide limited LFG collection during the year.
As part of the flexibility for future reuse, a condensate knockout pot (KOP)
was designed with an additional future use connection. This structure is used
to further reduce condensate from the LFG stream prior to its destruction
location. The KOP would feed a flare skid, and the diversion pipe could feed
a compressor system or electric generator. This system or generator could be
installed in a new storage building.
The flare skid required two additions from typical flare skidsa diversion
pipe on the main piping of the flare skid downstream of the blower and an
additional flow control valve. The flow control valve would provide the ability
to create a back-pressure on the LFG flow and force LFG through the diversion
pipe to a LFG fueled boiler.

LFG-fueled boiler.

Crow Wing County planned to install a LFG fueled


boiler in the new storage building to provide the heat
source to the in-floor heating system and heat for the new
storage building. Essentially, the boiler required needed
to be a typical commercial-sized boiler, so based on these
requirements, finding the appropriate boiler was difficult.
Manufacturers do not typically provide boilers of this size
to run on LFG because typical direct use LFG projects use
large industrial size boilers that have been built to handle
LFG from larger landfills. In addition, commercial boilers
run on natural gas and are typically too expensive to convert
the unit to handle LFG.
The requirements for the in-floor heat system were less
than one million British thermal units (MMBTU), less
than five inches of water column (in-w.c.) gas pressure,
and a flow of less than 30 standard cubic feet per minute
(SCFM). A small commercial boiler would easily meet these
requirements. However, the heat output would be less
than the design capacity of the boiler because the methane
content of LFG was approximately 50 percent of natural gas.
The design moved forward using a typical indoor
atmospheric commercial boiler that was able to meet
the requirements. The landfill operator was prepared for
additional maintenance necessary to ensure the boiler would
work continuously. The maintenance essentially consisted
of cleaning the burner deck and draining the piping as
condensate accumulated.
During 2008, the County installed the GCCS, including
the boiler and flare skid, and commissioned the flare skid in
December. Gas flow at start up was approximately 350 SCFM
and has since stabilized around 250 SCFM, and methane

click this ad FOR


MORE iNFORMatiON!
WasteAdvantage Magazine

February 2011

39

space Heating with lFg: small project, Big savings

content has remained about 50 percent. The boiler did not run during the
first winter because the winter startup made it difficult to work out the system
bugs and balance the collection field to stabilize flow, which was necessary
to ensure optimum operation of the boiler. This delay allowed additional
work to be completed on the boiler prior to use. The pilot system used LFG
but required a modification to use natural gas. Safety pressure switches were
installed to shut the boiler down should the incoming fuel pressure fall out of
the specified ranges. If the gas pressure rises above the set value of 7 in-w.c.
or below 3 in-w.c., the boiler automatically shuts down. Generally, this only
occurs when the flare skid shuts down. The pressure in the fuel line drops to
zero shutting down the boiler and stopping flow.
The boiler first fired in October 2009 and continued in operation with
minimal down time until February 2010. A particulate buildup on the burner
deck reduced efficiency. At this time, the County added a few additional
modifications. It installed a continuous methane analyzer to measure methane
destroyed at the flare and allow the operator the ability to automatically shut
down the boiler should methane content drop below 45 percent at which

click this ad FOR


MORE iNFORMatiON!
40

WasteAdvantage Magazine February 2011

point the boiler loses the ability to maintain a steady flame. Due to the
particulate buildup, a particulate scrubber was installed to reduce the potential
for recurrence. The County also registered the GCCS on the Climate Action
Reserve (CAR), which requires each destruction device to have a flow meter, so
a flow meter was installed for the boiler.

GCCS by the Numbers


The County installed the GCCS at a cost of approximately $1.2 million.
The boiler and mechanical work portions were about 10 percent of the total.
The estimated annual operational cost for the entire GCCS is approximately
$60,000. The annual operating cost for the boiler portion of the GCCS is
estimated at $1,500.
The County does not currently have a revenue stream from the sale of their
LFG and is still actively seeking potential reuse projects. However, the use
of the boiler has allowed the county to save money by offsetting the natural
gas they would normally use for heat. During peak months of operation
(January and February 2009), the county saved $1,000 or more compared to
previous years by heating the two buildings with the LFG boiler. The ambient
temperatures for the winter of 2009/2010 were comparable to previous years.
Natural gas is still required as both a backup and as a pilot gas with minimal
used during the winter months.
Although the County does not receive revenue from LFG sales, they are
registered with CAR. In 2009, the county entered an agreement with TerraPass
through a request for proposal process for the purchase of its verified carbon
offset credits. That year, the County verified 17,249 metric tons of emissions
reduction in conjunction with TerraPass and First Environment (an emissions
reduction verifier) and earned nearly $100,000 in the sale.
Smaller landfills, like Crow Wing County, typically do not produce the LFG
capacity to install large industrial boilers or electric generators that could be
used in combination with heat recovery systems. However, an installation of an
active GCCS could provide an opportunity for the installation of a commercial
boiler system, which has the potential to be used in several ways, including an
in-floor heat system, forced air heat system and leachate heating system during
winter providing additional treatment. The Crow Wing County Landfill has been
considering the use of boiler heat for further treatment in their leachate ponds.
The key to generating LFG for reuse at the landfill was the implementation
of the RTE concept. This allowed the County to recirculate leachate knowing
that the accelerated LFG generation would be reused. The recirculation
resulted in the production of higher quantity and quality of LFG than would
have otherwise been produced without it. | WA
Michael Cook is a civil engineer in the solid waste practice of R. W. Beck (Seattle,
WA), a wholly owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC). Based in the Minnesota office, his work is mainly focused on providing facility
siting and design, permitting, environmental reporting and construction management
services for municipal solid waste landfills in the Midwest.He has also performed due
diligence services related to a multi-state energy production operation that generates power
from multiple LFG sites. He can be reached at (651) 289-2519 or mcook@rwbeck.com.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai