1 / 18

Army Landfill Gas to Electricity Feasibility Study

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

Download Presentation

Army Landfill Gas to Electricity Feasibility Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


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

  2. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  3. Purpose of Study • Identify renewable energy potential from landfill gases at all Army installations in CONUS • 121 sites considered Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  4. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  5. Evaluation Criteria Most important Least important Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  6. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  7. 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 XD Report

  8. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  9. 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) Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  10. Top 11 Candidates after Questionnaire/Scoring • 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

  11. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  12. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  13. Ex: Fort Meade: Methane Produced vs. Captured, Cells 1 and 2 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  14. Fort Meade:Methane Production by Cell Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  15. Fort Meade: Energy Density Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  16. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  17. Results of Records Review, Second Screening State why Yuma and Belvoir are gone Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

  18. 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 Net Zero through Emerging Technologies

More Related