Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Energy Report From Chee4020
Energy Report From Chee4020
If there are any problems or questions regarding the report and the recommendations outlined,
please do not hesitate to contact me using the details above. It was a pleasure undertaking this
project and welcome the opportunity to be involved in the latter stages of the project as well as
future projects.
Yours Sincerely,
Sustainable Waste Consultancy
Louis Fredheim
Chloe Leung
Damien Naidu
Kritik Prasad
Geraldine Terada-Bellis
Project Leader
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
Team Member
1|Page
Contributors:
Louis Fredheim (42665780)
Chloe Leung (42656452)
Damien Naidu (42661782)
Kritik Prasad (42355894)
Geraldine Terada-Bellis (42355492)
2|Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this project was to design a waste-to-energy plant for the Brisbane City Council that
would be capable of generating 25 MW of electrical power for the city using a feedstock of preprepared municipal solid waste. The final design was an anaerobic digestion process with physical
absorption (though later removed due to economics) and Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG).
From mass and energy balances it was determined that the plant would be receiving a total of 781
000 t/year of municipal solid waste and produce 102 000 t/year of biogas at composition of 52 wt%
CH4, 48 wt% CO2. From this feed of biogas, the gas and steam turbines would be capable of
producing a combined generation rate of 53.1 MW. The air compressor, biogas compressor and
pump required a combined consumption rate of 21.3 MW. This resulted in a net power production
rate of 31.8 MW. In addition to this, the plant would be providing 43.0 MW of low grade heat to the
EcoPark in the form of hot water at 79OC.
From exergy analysis it was determined that the HRSG and condenser each had high irreversibilities
due to the fact that phase changes occurred in these units and that the gas and steam turbines had a
combined irreversibility of 10.3 MW, which is fairly high but could only be reduced by purchasing
more efficient, more expensive turbines. The thermal efficiency of the plant was also calculated as
being 42% and once the low grade heat being supplied to the EcoPark was taken into account, this
thermal efficiency increased to 98%.
A payback period of approximately 10-11 years was calculated, within a predicted plant life of 20
years. A long-term fixed interest rate of 4.65% was assumed according to literature. The calculated
Net Present Value is at $194.9 million (AUD, 2014), with an internal rate of return at 9%. Although
9% does not meet the energy industrys hurdle value of 12%, the project is still feasible. The
levelised cost of energy analysis similarly showed that there is a rate of 27.5c/kWh for the overall
plant, which falls short of the literature value of 7.5c/kWh. This highlights that this plant is a service
more than it is a source of income.
In order to offset the greenhouse gas emissions, SWC will invest and buy carbon credits from swine
waste-to-energy projects, totalling a cost of $1.2 million. The sustainability assessment found that
the process was valuable and significant environmentally, with around 1 million tons of CO2
equivalent not emitted.
The political and social drivers for project include the Brisbane community that want to implement a
process that is safe, minimises greenhouse gas emissions, and minimises cost to ratepayers. The
different levels of government have similar goals to promote waste avoidance and reduction, and
reduce consumption of natural resources. It was found that investment in infrastructure will be
important to ensure that electricity from the biogas can be adequately accepted by the electrical
grid. Community research from other councils suggests that anaerobic digestion is the preferred
waste management technology. The limitations of the process are that relative to other methods,
the extent of waste size reduction is less but a fertiliser can be produced. It was found that SWCs
proposed process is a step forward towards achieving sustainable development.
3|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Aim .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Boundary Conditions .......................................................................................................... 8
5|Page
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Composition and quantity of Municipal Solid Waste received by the Brisbane City Council ... 8
Table 2: System performance of Loyd Ray Farms from 24/5/11 - 30/6/12 (Duke University 2012) .... 18
Table 3: Definition of metrics ............................................................................................................... 19
Table 4: Definition of output denominators ......................................................................................... 19
Table 5: Summary of metric intensities ................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Environmental burden for landfill scenario ............................................................................ 19
Table 7: Environmental burden for anaerobic digestion scenario ....................................................... 19
Table 8: Anaerobic Digestion qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) ................................................... 20
Table 9: Summary of Waste Technologies and their sustainability indicators (Chirico 2010) ............. 20
Table 11: Total Revenue before tax ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 12: MSW Variation NVP IRR values ............................................................................................. 31
Table 13: Comparative results with no absorber section ..................................................................... 33
Table 14 Brisbane City Council goals for waste reduction .................................................................... 35
Table 15 Queensland targets and milestones in waste processing (Queensland Government 2010) . 36
Table 16 summarising the stakeholder opinions using SMART (the descriptions are inferred from
discussion in section 1.1) ...................................................................................................................... 37
Table 17: Waste technology sustainability table (Chirico 2010)........................................................... 48
Table 18: Landfill Gas-to-Energy qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) .............................................. 48
Table 19: Gasification and Pyrolysis qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010) ........................................ 49
Table 20: Plasma Arc Gasification qualitative assessment (Chirico 2010)............................................ 49
Table 21: Costs of waste management technologies (Chirico 2010) .................................................... 49
Table 22: Indicators for waste management technologies (Chirico 2010) ........................................... 50
6|Page
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Alternative pathways for conversion of MSW to power ......................................................... 8
Figure 2: The Brayton Cycle Diagram (Feng 2013) ................................................................................ 12
Figure 3: Temperature vs Entropy graph of Rankine Cycle, which the steam turbine follows.
(Beardmore 2013) ................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: 2005 emissions from the agricultural sector (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005) ... 17
Figure 5 - Heat Duty vs. Flow Rate of Air .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 6: Power Generation Breakdown for the Plant (Total 53.12MW) ............................................. 24
Figure 7 - Power Consumption Breakdown for the Plant (Total =21.3MW)......................................... 24
Figure 8 - Net Power Production from the plant (Total = 31.8MW) ..................................................... 24
Figure 9 - Process Unit Exergetic Efficiencies and Irreversibilities........................................................ 25
Figure 10: Capital Cost Breakdown ....................................................................................................... 27
Figure 11: Costs of Operating chart ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 12: Operating costs over time with inflation ............................................................................. 28
Figure 13: Total Sales Revenue (before tax) fractions .......................................................................... 29
Figure 14: Cumulative Cash Flow over Plant life................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Cumulative Cash Flow Diagram Case 1 ................................................................................ 31
Figure 16: Cumulative Cash Flow Case 2 .............................................................................................. 32
Figure 17: Comparative Cash Flow Diagram ......................................................................................... 33
Figure 18 SMART criterion to set objectives (Riley 2010)..................................................................... 34
Figure 19 - community support for different waste processing technologies (Market Research 2009)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 20 Aerobic compost from anaerobic digestate ......................................................................... 35
Figure 21 Waste management pyramid ............................................................................................... 36
Figure 22: Electricity rate prediction as at 2011, using data from previous years (Australia Energy
Market Commission 2011) .................................................................................................................... 39
7|Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIM
The objective of this project was to design a waste-to-energy plant for the Brisbane City Council that would be
capable of generating 25 MW of electrical power for the city using a feedstock of pre-prepared municipal solid waste
(see Table 1).
Sustainable Waste Consulting (SWC) is experienced in providing solutions to these problems and understands that it
is not simply an economic problem that requires a technical solution but rather that for a plant of this nature to
remain operational after start-up, the solution must also be environmentally and socially sound. This concept of the
triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social sustainability) underpinned SWCs approach to the problem.
Table 1: Composition and quantity of Municipal Solid Waste received by the Brisbane City Council
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. timber)
Inorganic (e.g. plastic, glass, metal)
1
30.28%
41.81%
27.91%
8|Page
There are two main chemical pathways when converting municipal waste - biochemical and thermochemical. The
biochemical pathways consist of using bacteria to breakdown organic materials to generate principally carbon
dioxide and methane. Typically 50-70% methane is produced, depending on digester conditions and feedstock
composition (Rao & Singh 2003) (moist feedstock rich in hydrocarbons is ideal). Bacterial digestion must be carried
out in an anaerobic environment, as the bacteria require this condition for optimal methane production. After
digestion has completed, the by-products (sludge, acid gases) and methane are separated. The pure methane is then
combusted in a gas turbine to produce energy, with the exhaust gas then used to run a steam turbine. The use of
two turbines is called a combined cycle (Motuzas 2014).
Thermochemical alternatives are gasification and combustion. Combustion is comparatively the better documented
of the two technologies, as it has been in use for a longer period. Thermochemical options work best with feed
stream that has a dry feed (Rogoff & Screve 2011).Combustion technology uses oxidizing agents (usually air or O2) to
oxidize hydrocarbons within MSW, which is an exothermic reaction, the resultant heat is then captured (Motuzas
2014).
The simplified reaction is as follows:
MSW + Oxidiser Products + HEAT
The feed must be well-mixed and somewhat homogenous before it enters the combustion chamber, where the solid
waste is moved along the chamber on grates exposing it to high temperatures (up to 900 degrees Celsius) and
oxidizing agents (Rogoff & Screve). As MSW will contain sulfurs and nitrogen constituents, by-products of
combustion will contain SOx, NOx along with CO, CO2, H2O, O2 and ash (Motuzas 2014). Whilst clean O2 and H2O can
be safely released back into the environment, all other by-products and contaminated process water must be
captured and treated to prevent harm to the surrounding environment (especially people in the area). Heat
generated by the combustor can then be used to power steam turbines, and produce power. Although combustion
processes are utilized widely, for this application it was not chosen for two key reasons: MSW for this system is
assumed to be moist and the plant will be placed next to an EcoPark. Combustion processes are not suitable for
residential areas as there is a risk of releasing pollutants into the atmosphere.
The thermochemical alternative to combustion is gasification. Gasification uses reducing agents in contrast to
combustion, (Motuzas 2014) to produce syngas (H2 and CO). In the case of WtE, MSW is heated up and treated with
a gasifying agent which results in an exothermic reaction, producing H2, CO, CO2, N2, H2S and tars (Motuzas 2014)
MSW + Gasifying Agent Products + HEAT
The syngas produced is extremely useful, as it can be used to synthesize useful chemicals such as methanol, ethanol
and fertilizers. Since this project requires the output of electricity, the syngas can be used in a combined cycle using
H2 as fuel for combustion whilst CO will be converted to CO2 using water, which is then removed from the product
(Young 2010).
Flue gas from a gasification unit requires treatment, including a water scrubber for CO to CO2 conversion, an amine
scrubber to absorb acid gases and a tar reformer to convert tar to syngas, thereby increasing the syngas yield
(Andersson & Nielsen 2012). Gasification units have a variety of heating options such as pyrolysis and plasma arc
gasification, which dictate the structure of the unit as well as the pressure and temperature of the operation however this is out of scope for alternative technologies section, and will require consideration in future
development. Although gasification has good prospects, for this particular feed and environment it was not selected.
The feed is not ideal for gasification as it will be moist, and gasification runs at extremely high pressures and
temperatures, which significantly increases the risk of running such a process in a residential area. Additionally, by9|Page
products such as CO and H2S are extremely dangerous for people and wildlife; therefore gasification was deemed
unsuitable for this particular project.
10 | P a g e
A packed absorption column is used to transfer carbon dioxide from the anaerobic digester into a pure solvent
stream of propylene carbonate (PC). This is a physical absorption process and therefore there are no chemical
reactions occurring. PC has a high selectivity and solubility for carbon dioxide, making it an ideal solvent for this
application. The stream entering the combustion chamber will now be a higher quality methane gas. An investigation
into the ideal packing type to be used and sizing of the column is required. A second or third generation packing will
be best suited for application. A research by Chen and Guo compared 38mm Plum Flower Mini Rings (PFMR), Pall
Rings, Intalox Saddles and Super Mini Rings for CO2 absorption processes. It was found that Pall rings provided the
highest mass transfer for a broad range of flow rates. However the ideal packing was Intalox saddle if an operating
flow rate of PC is kept within the range of 40-100 m3/m2h.
The combustion chamber is designed to operate at a maximum of 1649C. A cooling jacket is installed around the
chamber which has cooling water pumped through it. As the water passes through the jacket, it will vaporize forming
steam. A heat recovery unit downstream further heats this steam using the stream exiting the gas turbine. This
water is then used in a steam turbine to generate power.
11 | P a g e
Figure 3: Temperature vs Entropy graph of Rankine Cycle, which the steam turbine follows. (Beardmore 2013)
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
Prior to the investigation into carbon offsetting options, baseline emissions were taken into account. Under the
assumption that the municipal waste would have either been incinerated or left in a landfill where it would be
released as methane, the current project would generate carbon offset credits as it is producing less greenhouse
gases. However, SWC recognises and wants to commit to its moral responsibility.
4.2.3 OFFSET PLAN
Following extensive research, SWC has chosen to fund a renewable energy project as the company believes it is the
most effective and accountable form of carbon offsetting. The project consists of implementing a waste-to-energy
anaerobic digester to capture the methane from livestock waste. Currently, livestock waste management in Australia
typically involves treatment to convert to manure (used for land application such as spreading irrigation). In 2005,
the emissions from agriculture totalled to 15.7 per cent of Australias greenhouse gas emissions, amounting to 87.9
MtCO2-e (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005). In the figure below, it can be seen that manure management
makes up around 3.4 MtCO2-e and is a significant emissions contributor to the agricultural sector.
Figure 4: 2005 emissions from the agricultural sector (National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005)
There are several projects that utilise livestock waste to energy such as Geopower Energy Limited and Duke
University have implemented pig effluent digesters and achieved success. Environmentally, these projects provide
many benefits, the following were found by Duke University and Biomass Producer:
The innovative project at the Loyd Ray Farms in North Carolina by Duke University has proven successful, the table
below outlines the system performance. The project consisted of an in-ground lined and covered anaerobic digester.
Methane from the digestion would be collected under the cover and powered a 65-kW microturbine. The carbon
offsets generated from this operation were used to assist Duke Universitys zero gen target by 2024. The electricity
generated was used for farm operations. Geopower had a similar set up, but sold the electricity generated to homes.
17 | P a g e
Table 2: System performance of Loyd Ray Farms from 24/5/11 - 30/6/12 (Duke University 2012)
System Uptime
Biogas Production
REC Production
Monthly Average Production
Monthly Average during Best Producing Months
(December 2011 February 2012)
Actual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential
Climate Action Reserve: Climate Reserve
Tonnes (CRT) verified tons
62%
8.3 million scf
367.5 MWh
24.5-29 MWh
44 MWh
2087 MTCO2-e
5183 MTCO2-e
1442 (CRT)
The total turnkey cost was $1.2 million (EPA n.d.) and included the electrical (digester, gas conditioning unit,
microturbine) and environmental (aeration basin and jet aeration system) systems. Taking the actual greenhouse gas
emission reductions from table 1, SWC estimates implementing this system in a similar sized farm would achieve the
same reductions. Since the national agricultural management plan for animal waste is to be converted to manure,
this satisfies the legitimacy of the carbon offset. Due to the financial burden, the project satisfies additionality as it
would have been a cost that the farmer would not be viable. A third party will be employed to monitor and verify the
results in a similar manner to Duke University. The permeance of this project can be seen as the captured methane is
destroyed and will not be released at a later time. There may be some issues with leakage but with proper
maintenance and quality checks of the HDPE cover (used to capture the methane) will ensure that no leakage occurs.
In terms of the cost to SWC, since the estimated carbon offsets are much greater than what is currently being
produced by the plant, a joint venture with another company and government incentives (currently $120 million is
being set aside for local governments to utilise for environmental projects). SWC also plans to sell some of the
carbon credits generated as a source of revenue whilst continuing to retire carbon credits as an effort to lower the
overall global emissions.
18 | P a g e
Metric
Material intensity
Environmental Burden
Definition
Mass of material wasted (not converted to required product) per unit
output
Mass of greenhouse gases per unit output
Water consumption
Pollutant emissions
Output denominators
Definition
Value
Output product
Dollars of Revenue
$9 600 000
Metric
Unit
Material
3.8 tMSW/MWh
0.089tMSW/$
Water
Kg
0.58kg/MWh
0.013kg/$
Pollutants
0.69tCO2-e/MWh
0.016tCO2-e/$
The water metric calculated took into account that there was a 2% purge each year causing a use of 0.58kg of water
for every MWh produced. The intensity of this metric can be improved via further optimisation of the plant to
increase the recycle of water. In terms of pollutants, the metric is not expected to change since it would increase due
to an increase in municipal waste, which would in turn increase the power produced. Similar to the pollutant metric,
the material metric is not expected to change since an increase in municipal waste would correspond to an increase
in power produced. However, if there are optimisation options to the process i.e. improvement to operating
conditions and units (in line with exergy calculations in section 7), the metric would decrease and result in a more
efficient process.
Table 6: Environmental burden for landfill scenario
Substance
Potency factor PF
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Total
1
21
Tonnes
49 196.16
53 295.84
Emissions
EB value = W x PF
49 196.16
1 119 212.64
1 168 000 tCO2-e/y
Substance
Carbon dioxide
Total
Potency factor PF
1
Tonnes
153 554
Emissions
EB value = W x PF
153 554
154 000 tCO2-e/y
19 | P a g e
It is assumed that if not for the proposed project, the municipal waste would have been sent to a landfill. The tables
above demonstrate the significance and importance of the project, stopping the emittance of around 1 014 000
tCO2-e per year. With the projected increases in municipal waste in Brisbane (Queensland Government 2008), it is
predicted that this project will increase its offset of greenhouse gases per year.
Technology
Anaerobic
Digestion
Principle
Futurity
Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting
Sustainability
Med
High
High
Equity
Public Participation
Public support
High
Environment
Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential
Med
Med
High
Economic
Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee
Med
Med
Med
Low
Table 9: Summary of Waste Technologies and their sustainability indicators (Chirico 2010)
Waste Technology
Futurity
Equity
Public
Participation
Environment
Economic
Traditional Waste
Technologies
Landfill
Recycling
Composting
Incineration
Low
Med
High
Low
Low
Med
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Med
High
Low
High
High
High
Med
Low
Low
Med
Med
High
Med
Med
High
High
Med
Med
High
High
Med
Med
High
Med
High
Med
Med
Advanced Waste
Technologies
Landfill Gas-toEnergy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Mechanical Biological
Treatment
By allocating a number for low, medium and high (1,2,3 respectively) located in Appendix 2, table 17, the qualitative
assessment is analysed and discussed below.
20 | P a g e
From the qualitative assessment, it can be seen that for advanced waste technologies, gasification/pyrolysis,
gasification and anaerobic digestion are all sustainably competitive with each other. Landfill gas-to-energy stands as
the least sustainable with high land space use and low futurity, however with high economic sustainability and high
number of facilities. Table 22 in Appendix 2 show that the emissions for those technologies are all categorised as low.
A key difference and reason anaerobic digestion was chosen was the public participation, with favourable perception
of the technology from the public. Table 8 also shows that there is high sustainability in terms of recycling rate,
composting rate, and renewable energy potential. High public participation is an advantage for getting the project
approved without delay due to disagreement from the general public. The social issues for this project are discussed
in further detail in section 9. Plasma arc gasification in terms of sustainability may not yet be viable as the number of
facilities is low (not well established technology in industry) with the highest average capital cost. As mentioned in
section 2, the operating conditions for gasification are extremely high, that combined with the feed provided from
BBC therefore justifies choosing anaerobic digestion. The average capital cost and average operating cost of these
technologies are shown in appendix 2, table 21, showing anaerobic digestion to have relatively high capital cost and
the highest annual operating cost. This shows cause for concern and would be critical for this proposal to be
accepted, for that reason, an economic analysis is performed in section 8.
5.2.1 LIMITATIONS
The limitations of these studies are clear due to the lack of data available. The quantitative assessment was not able
to be benchmarked with other technologies or plants. Since this is at the scoping stage, there is no plant data for
annual performance to determine where improvements can be made. This would need to be further investigated in
the later stages of project development with a more extensive feasibility study. The final feasibility study would also
include detailed impact to the environment in terms of waste products. The qualitative study provided key
differences for the different technologies with some quantitative figures for the costing, however without
quantitative figures for social sustainability, it is difficult to justify. The lack of data also meant there were many
aspects of sustainability which were not covered; as such the overall sustainability of this project cannot be
quantitatively determined.
21 | P a g e
developed to transfer this heat. The heat lost from condensing the exhaust steam from the turbine will be used to
heat 175 kg/s of water up to 71OC. Following this, a heat exchanger (E-204) on the exhaust flue gases will be used to
further heat this water up to 79OC. In total, 43.04MW of heat are supplied to the EcoPark. This is currently in the
form of hot water, however, SWC are flexible and are capable of tailoring a solution based on the needs of the
Brisbane City Council and the EcoPark.
Other minor process improvements included optimising the flow rate of air into the combustion chamber to
maximise the heat duty released by the chamber. The following graph demonstrates that when the air flow rate is
below a critical point, the heat duty is less than the maximum and when the air flow rate is greater than this critical
point, the heat duty is again less than the maximum:
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
This critical value (approximately 0.92 kmol/s) represents the stoichiometric quantity of air required to react
perfectly with all of the methane in the combustion chamber. However, in reality excess air will be required to
ensure that only complete combustion occurs. If any parts of the reactor are starved of oxygen, they will undergo
incomplete combustion which is detrimental as it results in the production of toxic CO and reduces the efficiency of
the process. As such, 10% excess air (1.012 kmol/s) was added based on literature values from (Engineering Toolbox
n.d.).
The following two graphs represent the power generation and power consumption breakdowns respectively for the
plant on a unit basis: Figure 8 compares the power generation to the power consumption for the plant to generate
an overall net power production:
23 | P a g e
Power Generation
Breakdown
Power Consumption
Breakdown
Air Compressor (C-201)
Power (MW)
50
40
Steam Turbine
Gas Turbine
30
Pump
20
Biogas Compressor
10
Air Compressor
0
Generation
Consumption
Net Power
Production
24 | P a g e
1.00
12
0.80
10
0.60
8
6
0.40
0.20
0.00
Irreversibility (MW)
Exergetic Efficiency
Exergetic
Efficiency
Irreversibilities
As can be seen from the graph, many of the units have significantly different efficiencies, but the overall effect of the
efficiency on the process is negligible as they have relatively small irreversibilities. Most of the units are operating at
relatively high efficiencies, with the flash tank being the exception to this, operating at an extremely low exergetic
efficiency of 6%. This is due to the fact that a flash tank is designed to throttle the process fluid, simultaneously
dropping the pressure and cooling it, which massively reduces its exergy. The gas and steam turbines operate at
efficiencies of 80 and 92% respectively, with a combined irreversibility in excess of 10 MW. This is fairly high but
unfortunately unavoidable. This could only be reduced by purchasing a more efficient gas turbine, which would increase
capital costs and would most likely prove prohibitive.
The HRSG operates at an efficiency of approximately 57%, however, it has a high irreversibility of approximately 10.4
MW. This is for two reasons firstly because the heat being supplied into this heater is extremely large, 28.4 MW, so
any loss of efficiency will result in a large irreversibility and secondly because this heat exchanger involves a phase
change generating steam from water, which massively increases the entropy of that stream, decreasing the exergy
and hence reducing the efficiency of the unit. This also occurs in the condenser, in which the process steam is
condensed to water, resulting in a low efficiency and a high irreversibility.
1 =
31.8
=
0.42
74.9
This is quite reasonable for a power plant, although somewhat lower than the typical efficiency of a combined cycle
power plant. When the 42 MW of low grade heat that is being supplied to the EcoPark is taken into account, the
thermal efficiency of the plant is 98%, which is very high.
2 =
+ (31.8 + 42)
=
0.98
74.9
The sustainability of any processing plant is strongly related to its economic performance. Estimation of a plants
economic performance strongly effects whether or not it is considered a worthwhile investment by stakeholders. It is
important to keep in mind that this waste-to-energy plant will not be implemented with profit in mind; however it must
not run at a negative overall cost which would not be sustainable for rate payers or the council.
Economic performance can be estimated using a variety of different methods; however for this preliminary scoping
stage an order-of-magnitude study was conducted. An error of 30-50% can be expected for the values estimated in
this study, in comparison to the actual economic performance (Towler & Sinnott 2007). This study is a rough estimate,
designed to screen for any issues before moving onto the next phase of project development. This estimate uses similar
plant costing and sizing values to scale to the estimated capacities based on the preliminary mass and energy balances.
It is assumed that construction will start in 2019, and will be completed in 2 years. The plant life is estimated to be
around 20 years, therefore analysis will be carried from 2019 to 2039.
This analysis will include capital cost estimation (Capex), operating cost estimation (Opex), net present value (NPV),
payback period, internal rate of return (IRR) and the levelised cost of energy (LCoE).
26 | P a g e
A land factor of 1.21 (Towler & Sinnott 2007) was applied to all calculated prices to adjust for the Australian market.
See Figure 10 for a graphical cost breakdown. Total calculated cost is $359 549 000. It is evident that the anaerobic
digester accounts for more than half of the total capital costs of the project. As capacity increases so does the cost of
the anaerobic digester, therefore any increase in the anaerobic digester will have a significant impact on the capital cost.
As expected, other expenses which includes any cost which isnt directly related to equipment or land costs.
The overall cost of operation in one year is around $37 million. The key expenses are maintenance, plant indirect costs,
purged PC and PC. A yearly cost that has not been covered is interest, but this will be addressed in the cash flow analysis.
It was assumed that no royalties would be paid on materials, which may have to be revised later in the design
phase.These values are estimated in current economic conditions; however it is likely that the cost of raw materials and
wages will fluctuate with inflation, as well as other factors. It is difficult to predict fluctuations of each factor, which is a
limitation of this estimation. It is however quite simple to predict inflated future prices using the Chemical plant index
(Couper 2003). This is an international standard of chemical engineering, provided by Chemical Engineering2010
27 | P a g e
The following graph was generated by taking past CPI values from Couper 2003 table 4.5, creating a trend and using
those to extrapolate future CPI values. See appendix (6) equation 11 for more detail. The year of the CPI and the year of
each respective price must be the same. The operating costs accounting for inflation can be seen on the following
figure:
$ Millions (AUD)
55
50
45
Operating Costs
40
35
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Years
Figure 12: Operating costs over time with inflation
As expected, there will be a steady increase in operating costs in line with inflation. Although this seems to give a good
indication of what future costs may look like, more complex factors like interest rates and time value of money is
required to examined for the true economic performance of the plant. Before complex analysis can be carried out,
yearly revenue must be considered.
Sale
Price
Electricity
$43.1/MWh
Hot water to
Ecopark
$0.19/MWh
$73, 000
MSW take on
charge
$100/tonne
$89
Million
Annual
Income
$12
Million
$101
Million
Methods
Assumptions
28 | P a g e
As figure 4 demonstrates, the majority of the plant revenue comes from the charge of taking MSW. This makes the plant
economically feasible, however it is important to consider that this charge could be venerable to variation depending on
policies by the local and state governments.
29 | P a g e
The cumulative cash flow rate is represented in figure 4. The Payback Period may be estimated graphically, which
indicates payback from 10-11 years after the project is implemented. The faster the payback, the better for the
company. The NPV was calculated using equation 12 in appendix 6.
The calculated NPV for the base proposal was around $194.9 million, which is a feasible scenario; as a negative NPV
indicates that the investment will never make any return (Towler & Sinnott 2007). Using the NPV, the internal rate of
return (IRR) and the Discounted Cash Flow Rate of Return can be calculated.
--- (13)
Where the capacity of the plant is the total amount of time the plant runs, which is taken at 0.85 for the calculations.
The calculated LCoE for this project is 24.7 c/kWh. A literature value for a similar combined cycle natural gas combustion
system was found to be 7.5c/kWh (Towler & Sinnott 2007). This result leads to the conclusion that the proposed wasteto-energy plant is not an economically feasible option for energy production alone. However because the plant will
serve as a waste mitigation process, this poor LCoE result does not make the proposed plant unfeasible.
Since so much of the revenue is dependent on the $100/tonne charge on taking the MSW, it is important to consider
the entire range of costs, which may be used if and when the plant is implemented. The cost of waste was varied from
$70 to $140 in increments of $10, and the resulting NPV, Cumulative Cash flow and IRR values are as follows: As
predicted, the higher the amount charged, the higher the cumulative cash flow is. This diagram shows that the model is
quite robust, as even at $70/tonne MSW, a profit is made. The NVP and IRR values showed the same trend, the higher
the charge, the better the economics:
MSW
($/tonne)
NVP
($
AUD,
2014)
IRR
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
-19
Million
52
Million
123
Million
195
Million
266
Million
337
Million
409
Million
480
Million
3.3%
5.4%
7.4%
9%
10.8%
12.4%
14%
15.5%
It is key to note that the NVP for $70/tonne is negative, meaning that this investment is not economically feasible. This
suggests that if the charge goes too far below $80/tonne, the plant will no longer be profitable. This also suggests that
the economics are quite sensitive to the charge on the MSW.
400
200
28.6MW
0
0
10
15
20
31.8MW
35MW
-200
-400
-600
This diagram shows very little difference between different values of electrical production. This is because revenue from
selling electricity to the grid is a very small part of the income of the plant; therefore minor changes will not affect the
overall cash flow.
CASE 3: NO ABSORPTION COLUMN
During the economic analysis it was noted that the PC purchase and disposal was a significant percentage of the annual
operating cost. It was noted that since such a high quality natural gas is being produced from the anaerobic digester, gas
sweetening was not required for the downstream integrated gas and steam turbine cycle. A simulation within Aspen
Plus showed that the power output was within 10% of the base case power output.
In order to determine the economic saving through removing this section, the absorption and associated units (biogas
compressor, PC Heat exchanger and flash drum) were removed from capital costs, and PC purchase and disposal were
removed from the operating costs. Figure 8 demonstrates that by optimising the process with no absorption achieves an
increased profit towards the end of the plants life.
32 | P a g e
Analysis Method
No Absorber
Literature Values
$268 Million
Payback Period
9.5 years
11%
19c/kWh
7.5c/kWh
Internal Rate
Return (IRR)
Original
10.5 years
of 9%
In line with the cumulative cash flow diagram, the results show an improvement in overall economic performance.
However the IRR and LCoE values still do not compare with literature values. Another issue that may come up is the
composition of the natural gas produced in the anaerobic digester. If the quality is decreased, gas sweetening will be
necessary and therefore with optimisation option would be out of the question.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the calculations within the economic analysis, it is recommended that the project can be approved to progress
to the next more detailed design phase. This project is economically feasible, however it is not a competitive option as a
power plant, and the revenue should be considered an extra rather than an investment. It is recommended that for the
next phase, more rigorous sizing and costing are used, to decrease the error. Obtaining closed-source historical plant
data would allow for increased precision. Further sensitivity analysis should also be carried out, on a larger number of
parameters such as biogas quality, and ability for increased waste capacity in the anaerobic digester in scenario of
population increase.
33 | P a g e
849 participants across the six councils which provided a theoretical sample error of 3.5% at
the 95% confidence level
34 | P a g e
Figure 19 - community support for different waste processing technologies (Market Research 2009)
Technology
Level of support
Anaerobic Digestion
64%
Gasification
59%
Pyrolysis
55%
Combustion
35%
The survey group specifically highlighted the need for ongoing communication and engagement, this will be especially
important as this project would be working on a larger scale than the one surveyed. The results of this survey also agree
with similar surveys, for example a survey in 2000 into the Hunter region (Hunter Valley Research Foundation 2000). In
summary it found that important objectives for any technology were:
Safety for the community,
Minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions,
Construction and ongoing operation at minimal cost to ratepayers,
Effectiveness in reducing volumes going to landfill (Market Research 2009).
9.2.2 FERTILISER INDUSTRY
The overall reduction in waste sent to landfills presents an opportunity to generate fertiliser by remediating the
digestate purged. The fertiliser can be used to protect soils against erosion, inhibit plant disease and promote the
growth of crops (Ryan 2010). However, the compost would emit carbon dioxide so further offsetting of this carbon will
be needed to achieve zero net emissions.
Indicator
1. Total domestic waste to
landfill
2. Total domestic waste
recycled/recovered
3. Recycled from the domestic
waste stream
4. Green waste
recycled/recovered
5. Recyclables in the general
waste bin (domestic)
Actual 2008
Statistics
380 000t
75%
128 000t
25%
75 000t
47 000t
32%
Target
Goal 2013
Goal 2020
Goal 2026
Initially reduce
by 4%
Increase by 4%
55%
27%
10%
45%
73%
90%
Initially increase
by 6%
-
100 000t
150 000t
200 000t
100 000t
150 000t
200 000t
20%
8%
5%
Reduce by 2%
35 | P a g e
This process will contribute to goals for indicators 1, 2 and 4 in particular. The councils efforts in waste management
seem to focus on reducing, reusing and recycling waste given material available on its website. This is justified as
national reports showed that Queenslands MSW resource recovery rate was 48%, 3% below the Australian average
(Brisbane City Council 2014). Additionally, this focus follows the hierarchy in waste management options with the
council prioritising the higher tiers (see Figure 16).
Council focus
Proposed process
Target
1. Reduce waste disposal to
landfill
4. Increase recycling of
regulated waste
5. Increase recycling of
MSW Increase recycling of
household waste to
150 kg person-1 year-1
6. Reduce generation of
waste
2008 baseline
By 2014
By 2017
By 2020
- no strategy
Reduce by 25%
Reduce by 40%
Reduce by 50%
30%
35%
40%
45%
23%
64 kg person-1
year-1
50%
80 kg person-1 year-
20%
100 kg person-1
year-1
60%
150 kg person-1
year-1
2.4 tonnes
person-1 year-1
5% reduction
2.3t person-1 year-1
10% reduction
2.2t person-1 year-1
15% reduction
2.0t person-1 year-1
36 | P a g e
SMART
SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTION
The Brisbane Community: for governments to implement a solution that is safe, minimises greenhouse gas emissions, minimises cost to ratepayers, reduces the volume of material landfilled and using a technology
that has successful applications elsewhere in the world. They also would like to be informed about developments in this area. Ultimate goal of zero waste.
Fertiliser Industry: for governments to recognise the value and pressure on the industry and as a result receive the aerobic compost at minimal cost
Environmental Groups: for governments and individuals to invest in technology that minimises greenhouse gases, damage to the soil and air quality. The waste management pyramid would be a good way to design
waste management techniques.
The Brisbane City Council: to reduce the amount of material landfilled, increase recycling/recovery of domestic and green waste and reduce recyclables in general waste. It overall has a zero waste goal (agrees with
waste pyramid) and wants a significant behavioural shift within the community.
MEASURE
The State Government & Federal Government: promote waste avoidance and reduction, reduce consumption of natural resources, ensure shared responsibility between governments, and implement national
frameworks into waste management.
The Brisbane Community: in community complaints when process is operational, zero net emissions is met, reduction in landfilled waste has reduced costs to the council to deal with waste, using media platforms
(internet, brochures etc.) to keep the community informed with a survey to check community views in Brisbane.
Fertiliser Industry: measure the amount, quality and cost to businesses using the fertiliser
Environmental Groups: zero net emissions is met, investigation into several technologies, ongoing studies into soil and air quality and meeting waste reduction measures from any level of government
The Brisbane City Council: see Table 13 for indicators
ACHIEVABLE
&
REALISTIC
The State Government & Federal Government: see Table 15 for indicators
The Brisbane Community: these goals seem reasonable and fit within the framework of the process. It is important to consider that WA survey regarded safety as more important than efficiency.
Fertiliser Industry: require research and development into the digestate composition to assess the expected quality/quantity of fertiliser
Environmental Groups : these goals seem reasonable and surveys into soil/air quality will be needed as well as a plan during design to minimise impacts
The Brisbane City Council: zero net generation while an enviable goal is unlikely to achievable and as such the council has not set any timed constraints on this goal. Other specific goals are reasonable and this
project will help contribute to achieving them.
TIMED
The State Government & Federal Government: similar to BBC, it has already begun implementing national frameworks which align very similarly with state government legislation.
The Brisbane Community: throughout design and plant life. Survey community before detailed design.
Fertiliser Industry: should be delivered during plant operation, dependent on aerobic composting time
Environmental Groups: ongoing monitoring with HSE & risk assessment studies during design phase
The Brisbane City Council: see Table 13 for indicators
The State Government & Federal Government: see Table 15 for indicators
37 | P a g e
38 | P a g e
reduce the demand on other energy producers in areas around Brisbane or a more favourable option of reducing
electricity costs. However it is unlikely that electricity prices will change, as the price of electricity has shown a trend
of increasing over time, as seen in figure 14 developed by the Australia Energy Commission.
Figure 22: Electricity rate prediction as at 2011, using data from previous years (Australia Energy Market Commission
2011)
In recent years the solar industry had seen a significant rise as the Australia Government agreed to contract 44c per
kWh to many households across Australia (Free Solar Pty Ltd 2014). Recent changes in the government has led to
abolishment of any new 44c per kWh contract and reducing to 8c per kWh (soon to be removed also), which had
resulted in a decrease in solar panel installations in households. This limitation for the solar industry provides an
optimistic potential for anaerobic digestion.
The report presented an anaerobic digestion process to generate biogas. The gas was upgraded using physical
absorption with PC, and then subsequently combusted to generate heat for a steam-gas heat generation cycle. The
net power from the plant generated 31.8MW. This was an improvement from previous results due improved heat
recovery. The EcoPark will be supplied with 43MW of low grade heat in the form of 79oC water. The process is
producing 155 000 t CO2 a year which will be offset by purchasing carbon offsets swine waste to energy plants that
costs $1.2million. If the no absorber scenario is used the NPV of $268 million with a lifetime of 20years. The internal
rate of return 9%, which was lower than the hurdle literature value. The levelised cost of energy is 24.7c per kWh
which is more expensive than standard power plants. Therefore though the plant is economically feasible, it should
be considered more of a waste management process than a power plant.
The public perception for anaerobic digestion is quite high therefore with community engagement the public could
support the proposed process. There is scope for further investigation to get more accurate results for mass and
energy calculations as well as evaluations for sustainability.
Recommendations
Investigate sizing trommels, filters shredders. Also investigate whether an evaporator would also be needed.
Conduct exergy on chemical units to better understand efficiencies in the design
Further consideration into methods of disposing of excess PC from absorber. More importantly, revisiting the
alternative technology section to look at other ways of upgrading methane content of biogas as a physical
absorption process proved to be uneconomical given the high quality of biogas going into the absorber.
Look at building a pilot plant to investigate values approximated in this report.
Consider investigating more exergetic efficient turbine designs against the increased capital costs.
Conduct full HSE studies into occupational health and safety issues/environmental issues to identify
opportunities to improve our plant sustainability.
Legislative frameworks in this area are dynamic (e.g. carbon credits) so this will need to be incorporated into the
results of this report.
Update the sustainability metrics as better data is available throughout the design of the project.
Look into the design of multiple anaerobic digesters in series to better model the real design of the process.
Further investigation into the start-up and shut-down procedures for the anaerobic digester will be required.
Investigate the use of different equations of state to reduce the error in the Aspen model.
ASPEN Plus was not capable of performing supercritical steam calculations when heat exchangers are used,
meaning that subcritical (220 bar) steam had to be used in the simulation despite the fact that supercritical
power plants are more efficient. Further investigation into models using supercritical steam could lead to better
design
The thermal efficiency of the plant was quite high (98%) this was importantly because it was assumed that the
stream supplied to the EcoPark was fully utilised. The validity of this should be checked as it will affect the
overall plant efficiency
Conducting a survey into the Brisbane community to better understand their views on waste processing and
their ideas about possible solutions will be important to meet community standards.
Consulting widely with stakeholders (fertiliser industry and green groups) will also be needed to ensure that byproducts (fertiliser) can be effectively utilised and whether the reports views on sustainability in regard to the
environment are accurate.
REFERENCES
40 | P a g e
Abdullahi, Y.A., Akunna, J.C. & Stewart, N.A. 2007, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid wastes containing variable
proportions of waste types, Water Science & Technology, vol 56, pp 143-149
Ahring, B & Hartmann, H 2006, Strategies for the anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid
waste: an overview, Water Science & Technology, vol 53, pp 7-2
Air Gas Methane MSDS 2013, Composition, Information on Ingredients, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.airgas.com/documents/pdf/001033.pdf>
Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural Development 2004, Methane Safety, viewed March 17 2014,
<http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex9038/$file/729-2.pdf?OpenElement>
American Biogas Council 2014, Biogas to Bio-methane/Renewable Natural Gas, viewed March 21 2014,
<https://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_processing.asp>
Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Wastes at the city of Kaiserslautern n.d., Technical Description, viewed May 15
2014, <http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/bioenergy /doc/anaerobic/07bm_073_1993.pdf>.
Andersson, KJ and Nielsen, PEH, 2012, Options in tar reforming in biomass gasification, HaldorTopsoe viewed 20
March 2014, <http://www.gasification-freiberg.org/PortalData/1/Resources/documents/paper/ifc_2012/12-1.pdf>
AspenTech 2010, Physical Property Methods, viewed June 2 2014,
<http://www.chemeng.lth.se/ket050/Arkiv/AspenPhysPropMethodsV7_2-Ref.pdf>
Australia Energy Market Commission 2011, Possible Future Retain Electricity Price movements viewed 1 June 2014,
<http://www.aemc.gov.au/market-reviews/completed/possible-future-retail-electricity-price-movements-1-july2011-to-30-june-2014.html>
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002, Solid Waste Generated in Australia, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyReleaseDate/3B0DD93AB123A68BCA257234007B6A2F
?OpenDocument>
Australian Coal Association 2014, Coal Exports, viewed 30 May 2014 <http://www.newgencoal.com.au/coal-aenergy-security/coal-exports.html>
BCS Incorporated 2008, Waste Heat Recovery Technology and Opportunities in U.S. Industry, Department of Energy,
viewed 23 March 2014,
<https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/intensiveprocesses/pdfs/waste_heat_recovery.pdf>
Beardmore, R 2013, Thermodynamics Steam Turbine, Roymech, viewed 23March 2014,
<http://www.roymech.co.uk/Related/Thermos/Thermos_Steam_Turbine.html>
Biarnes, M 2013, Biomass to Biogas Anaerobic Digestion, E-Instruments, viewed 23 March 2014, <http://www.einst.com/biomass-to-biogas/>
Bloch, M 2014, Carbon dioxide emissions calculator, viewed 20 March 2014, <http://www.carbonify.com/carboncalculator.htm>
Bolzonella, D &Pavan, P 2005, Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge:influence of the solid
retention time in the wastewatertreatment process, Water Science & Technology, vol 40, pp 1453 1460.
Bolzonella, D, & Cecchi, F & Pavan, P 2006, Dry anaerobic digestion of differently sorted organic municipal solid
waste: a full-scale experience, Water Science & Technology, vol 53, pp 23-32
41 | P a g e
Brisbane City Council 2009, Brisbane City Council Waste Minimisation Strategy 2009-2026, viewed May 12 2014,
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites /default/files/Towards_zero_waste_strategy.pdf>.
Brisbane City Council 2014, Brisbane City Council goals in recycling and reusing, viewed May 28 2014,
<http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/contact-council/your-say>.
Budge, T, Butt, A & Alan, P 2007, 'Opportunities, Implications and Strategies for Achieving Zero Net Emissions',
Sustainability Victoria and the Central Victorian Greenhouse Alliance, viewed 14 March
2014,<http://www.cvga.net.au/main/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=12&Itemid=72 >
Chaibakhsh, A &Ghaffari, A 2008, Steam Turbine Model, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol 16, pp 11451162.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012, State of Waste and Recycling in Queensland, viewed
March 25 2014, <http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/pdf/state-of-waste-recycling-report.pdf>.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2013, State of Waste & Recycling in Queensland, viewed March
19 2014, <https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/waste/pdf/state-of-waste-recycling-report2013.pdf>
Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council 2007, EMRC Resource Recovery Facility, viewed 1 June 2014
<http://www.emrc.org.au/Documents/8020/download/333/EMRC-Resource-Recovery-Facility-Waste-CompositionStudy-Nolan-ITU-2003.pdf>
Engineering Toolbox n.d., Combustion Efficiency and Excess Air, viewed 18 May 2014,
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiler-combustion-efficiency-d_271.html>
Environmental Change Institute n.d., Waste and landfill, viewed 13 March 2014,
<http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter05.pdf>
Environmental Protection Agency n.d. Clean Energy & Climate Change - Waste Management, viewed 14 March 2014,
<http://www.epa.gov/region9/climatechange/waste.html>
Facility, 12th Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference, Savannah, Georgia, USA, pp. 41-46.
Feng, L 2013, MAE431 Energy Systems Presentation, PowerPoint slides, University of Buffalo, New York.
Freguia, S 2013, CHEE4012 Module 3: Biological Treatment Processes, PowerPoint slides, University of Queensland,
Brisbane.
Funk, K, Milford, J & Simpkons, T 2013, 'Waste Not, Want Not: Analyzing the economic and Envrionemntal Viability
of Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Technology for Site-Specific Optimization of Renewable Energy Options', Joint Institute for
Strategic Energy Analysis, viewed 14 March 2014, <http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52829.pdf>
GE Power Systems n.d., Steam Cycle Optimisation, Evaluation, and Performance Testing Considerations, viewed 6th
June 2014
Goodbody Economics Consultants 2001, Sustainability of Development, viewed 30 May 2014
<http://www.forfas.ie/media/ncc010501b_sustainability_of_development.pdf>
Grundfos 2014, Heat Rejection, viewed 23rd March 2014, <http://au.grundfos.com/service-support/encyclopediasearch/heat-rejection.html>
Hanson, J, Edil, T.B. & Yesiller, N 2000, Thermal Properties of High Water Materials, viewed May 12 2014,
<http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=cenv_fac>.
42 | P a g e
Hunter Valley Research Foundation 2000, Hunter Region Waste Project Community Attitudes Survey, viewed May 13
2014,
<http://www.lakemac.com.au/downloads/Hunter%20Region%20Waste%20Project%20Community%20Attitudes%20
Survey%20-%20November%202000.PDF>
Industrial Health and Safety Information 2012, Gas Flammability Limit, viewed March 19 2014,
<http://www.sensidynegasdetection.com/gasinsite-gas-detection-blog/what-is-a-gas-flammability-limit.html>
Jayarama, RP 2011, Municipal solid waste management: processing, energy recovery, global examples, CRC Press,
Leiden.
Khouzam, K 1995, Feasibility Study of a Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, viewed May 13 2014,
<http://solar.org.au/papers/97papers/046KHOUZ.pdf>.
Loveridge, S & Morse L 1996, Is It For Our Community? viewed 30 May 2014
<http://www.extension.umn.edu/community/business-retention/about/docs/1ISITFOR.pdf>
Market Research 2009, Community Attitudes Towards Resource Recovery Technologies, viewed May 15 2014,
<http://www.emrc.org.au/resources.html>.
Monnet F, 2003, Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste, viewed March 20 2014,
<http://www.biogasmax.co.uk/media/introanaerobicdigestion__073323000_1011_24042007.pdf>
Motuzas, J, 2014, Energy systems and Sustainable Development: Gasification and Combustion, PowerPoint slides,
University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration 2014, Standards Limit and Control Noise Exposure, viewed March 20
2014 <https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/noise/standards.html >
Office of Fossil Energy 2014, How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work, viewed 23 March 2014,
<http://energy.gov/fe/how-gas-turbine-power-plants-work>
Queensland Government 2010, Queenslands Waste Reduction and Recycling Strategy 2010-2020, viewed May 17
2014,
<http://rti.cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2010/nov/qld%20waste%20reduction%20strategy/Attachments/wastestrategy.pdf>.
Queensland Government 2011, Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011,
<https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/W/WasteRedRecA11.pdf>
Randell Environmental Consulting 2014, Waste generation and resource recovery in Australia, viewed 27 May 2014,
<http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/4b666638-1103-490e-bdef480581a38d93/files/wgrra.pdf>.
Rao, MS and Singh, SP, 2003, Bioenergy conversion studies of organic fraction of MSW: kinetic studies and gas yield
organic loading relationships for process optimization, Bioresource Technology, vol. 95, pp. 173-185.
Riley, J 2010, Explain the role of marketing objectives, viewed May 28 2014,
<http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/business-studies/comments/qa-explain-the-role-of-marketing-objectives>.
Rodrigue, JP 2013, The Geography of Transport Systems, 3rdedn, Routledge, London
Rogoff, MJ and Screve, F, 2011,Waste-to-EnergyTechnologies and Project Implementation, 2ndedn, Elsevier.
43 | P a g e
Ryan, T 2010, The Australian fertiliser industry values and issues, viewed March 25 2014,
<http://www.fertilizer.org.au/files/pdf/publications/Australian%20Fertilizer%20Industry%20Value%20and%20Issues
%20August%202010.pdf>.
Safe Work Australia 2013, Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants, viewed March 20 2014,
<http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/772/Workplace-exposurestandards-airborne-contaminants.pdf>
Shabat, D, 2004, Closure of the City of Key West, Southernmost Waste to Energy
Shatil, AA 2006, Design Study of Boiler Furnaces, Power Technology and Engineering, vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 179-184.
Simone, C, Grande, C & Rodrigues, A 2006, Removal of Carbon Dioxide from Natural Gas by Vacuum Pressure,
Energy & Fuels, vol 40, pp 2648-2659
Sinnot, R.K, Coulson & Richardsons Chemical Engineering 2002, Volume 6 (Design), Pergamon Press, Oxford UK
Skrtic, L 2006, 'Hydrogen Sulfide, Oil and Gas, and People's Health', Energy and Resources Group, viewed 14 March
2014, < http://erg.berkeley.edu/people/Lana%20Skrtic%20-%20Masters%20Paper%20H2S%20and%20Health.pdf >
Stern, DI & Common, MS 1996, Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: The Environmental Kuznets
Curve and Sustainable Development, World Development, vol. 24, no.1, viewed 30 May 2014, pp.1151-1150.
Synergy 2014, The Important of Sustainable Energy, viewed 30 May 2014,
<http://generation.synergy.net.au/sustainable-energy/importance-sustainable-energy>
Synergy 2014, What is Sustainable Energy? viewed 30 May 2014, <http://generation.synergy.net.au/sustainableenergy/what-sustainable-energy/overview>
Toolboxes n.d., Hazards associated with plant steam services, viewed 13 March 2014,
<http://toolboxes.flexiblelearning.net.au/demosites/series2/204v2/PROC204/PROC204-020301HazardsSteamServices.htm>
United Nations Economic and Social Affairs 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environmental and
Development, viewed 30 May 2014, < http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm>
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2010, United States Anaerobic Digester: Status Report, viewed 31
May 2014 <http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/digester_status_ report2010.pdf>
Verma, S, 2012, Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes, Department of Earth &
Environmental Engineering, Columbia University.
Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council 2009, Anaerobic Digestion Process, viewed 23 March 2014,
<http://www.wtert.eu/default.asp?Menue=13&ShowDok=12>
Wekgroepterlinden n.d., Biogas Problems, viewed 11 March 2014, http://werkgroepterlinden.be/Biogas.html
World Youth Alliance 2010, Statement on Sustainable Development, viewed 30 May 2014, <
http://www.wya.net/SustainableDevelopmentStatement.pdf>
Young GC,2010, Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Conversion Processes: Economic, Technical, and Renewable
Comparisons, Wiley, NJ, US.
44 | P a g e
Zahorsky, D 2014, The 5 Steps to Setting SMART Business Goals, viewed May 26 2014,
<http://sbinformation.about.com/od/businessmanagemen1/a/businessgoals.htm>.
45 | P a g e
Risks
Biogas
Steam
Waste stream/Solid
waste
Safety Levels/Indicators
Risk Prevention/Minimization
Methane
TLV- TWA =
-1000ppm (8 hours)
-50000-150000ppm
(potentially
explosive)
- 500 000ppm (asphyxiation)
(Air Gas Methane MSDS, 2013)
(Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural
Development, 2004)
LFLUFL = 5-17% (biogas by
volume)
(Industrial Health and Safety
Information, 2012)
Carbon Dioxide
TLV-TWA = 5000ppm (8hours)
LFL-UFL = N/A
IDLH = 40 000ppm
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)
46 | P a g e
Flue gas
General noise/odour
from operational
processes
Hydrogen Sulphide
IDLH = 100ppm
LFL-UFL = 4.3-48% (by volume)
TLV-TWA = 10ppm
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)
Ammonia
IDLH = 300ppm
TLV-TWA = 25ppm (8hours)
LFL-UFL = 15-28% (by volume)
(Workplace Exposure Standards for
Airborne Contaminants, 2013)
TLV = 85dBA (8hours)
= 139dBA (0.11seconds)
Maximum Allowable = 140dB
(Occupational Safety & Health
Administration, 2014)
as fertilizer
Training for transport and handling of wastes
47 | P a g e
APPENDIX 2: SUSTAINABILITY
Table 16: Waste technology sustainability table (Chirico 2010)
Waste Technology
Futurity
Equity
Public
Participation
Environment
Economic
Total
Traditional Waste
Technologies
Landfill
Recycling
Composting
Incineration
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
7
12
15
7
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
12
12
12
Advanced Waste
Technologies
Landfill Gas-toEnergy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion
Technology
Landfill
Energy
Principle
Futurity
Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting
Equity
Sustainability
Low
Low
Low
Public support
Med
Environment
Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential
Med
Low
High
Economic
Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee
High
High
Medium
High
48 | P a g e
Technology
Principle
Futurity
Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting
Equity
Sustainability
High
Low
Low
Public support
Med
Environment
Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential
High
High
High
Economic
Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee
Low
Low
High
Low
Technology
Principle
Futurity
Indicators
Reduction to landfill
Recycling rate
Composting
Equity
Plasma
Arc Public Participation
Gasification
Environment
Economic
Sustainability
High
Med
Low
Public support
Med
Decrease in emissions
Decrease in leachate
Renewable energy potential
High
High
High
Capital costs
Operating costs
Revenue potential
Tipping fee
Low
Low
High
Low
Landfill gas-to-energy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion
$5
$65
$90
$78
$0.6
$7.1
$6.6
$7.9
49 | P a g e
Renewable
Energy
(MW)
# of facilities
3.0
4.0
4.3
Average
Disposal
Capacity
(Thousand
tons/year)
500
350
200
Landfill gas-to-energy
Gasification/Pyrolysis
Plasma Arc
Gasification
Anaerobic Digestion
172
8
5
Low
Low
Low
485
110
3
4.0
225
Low
70
Calculations:
Power produced
Carbon dioxide
emitted
Selling price of
electricity
Municipal waste
$
= 222 854.4
43.1
= $9 605 024.64
= $9 600 000
=
=
222 854.4
854 400
= 3.833
= 3.8
128 351.5
222 854.4
50 | P a g e
= 0.576
153 554 2
=
222 854.4
2
= 0.69
Parameter
MSW Feed
MSW
Composition
Biogas
Composition
Value
Units
780925
tonnes year
Cp MSW
0.8-10
-1
wt%
wt%
-3 o -1
MJ m
-3
tm
Description/Reference
(Dept. of Heritage & Environment
2012)
Brisbane City Council Waste
(Khouzam1995)
51 | P a g e
TD
45
MSW size
< 40
6:1
wt%
Biogas Yield
50-150
m (tMSW)
Digester pH
Biogas Pressure
5.5-8.5
atm
20
days
Steam Values
C:N
Digester Solids
Content
102 C, 1bar
20-30
wt%
Carbon/Nitrogen ratio
35%
wt%
OLR
TMSW
PMSW
Hsteam
12
kgVSS m d
25
mm
-1
Assumption
atm
Filter
Composition
Solids
Composition
-1
-3
MWbiogas
Assumption
-1
-3
Density of air
-1
kJ kg
kg m
23
g mol
70% Solids
30% Water
wt%
99%
1 =
780925t
1y
1d
1h
1min
y
365d 24h 60min 60sec
= 24.76
= 25
4 =
24.76
(31.28 + 41.81)%
Component
Composition
(wt%)
Composition
(wt%)
30.28%(100-33.50)% =
20.14%
41.81%(100-62)% = 15.89%
100-27.91-15.89-20.14 =
36.07%
0.00%
27.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
52 | P a g e
= 17.85
= 25
20.14%*24.76/17.85
=27.93%
15.89%*24.76/17.85 =
22.04%
100-27.93-22.04 = 50.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7 = 24.76 17.85
= 6.91
= 25
2 =
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.8 + 10
(2682 188)
53 | P a g e
= 0.77
= 102
5 = 17.85 + 0.77
= 18.62
= 45
20 =
Component
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Composition
(wt%)
27.93%*17.85/18.62 =
26.77%
22.04%*17.85/18.62 =
21.12%
50.03%*17.85/18.62=52.10%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6
17.85
1
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
65.00%
54 | P a g e
= 111.75
= 45
6 = 111.75 + 18.62
= 130.37
= 45
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
9 = 150
17.85
1.21 3 3
10
35.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Composition
(wt%)
26.77%*18.62/130.37
=3.82%
21.12%*18.62/130.37
=3.02%
100-30-3.02-3.82 = 63.16%
35%*111.75/130.37
=30.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
55 | P a g e
= 3.25
= 45
8 = 130.37 3.25
= 127.13
= 45
21 = 130.37 111.75
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
48.00%
52.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
65.00%
35.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
56 | P a g e
= 15.38
= 45
10 = 3.25
= 45
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
0.00%
65.00%
35.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
48.00%
52.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25
22 = 15.38 7.61
= 7.77
57 | P a g e
Component
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
100-0.69 =99.31%
35%*15.38*(100-99)%/7.77
=0.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
= 25 ( )
Component
Paper & Cardboard
Green & Food Waste (incl. Timber)
Water
Digestate Solids Content
Inorganic (metals, glass etc.) & other
Carbon Dioxide
Methane
Hydrogen Sulphide
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Composition
(wt%)
0.00%
0.00%
30.00%
70.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Steady-state operation.
Neglect N2 & H2S in biogas product.
Biogas behaves as an ideal gas as it is at moderate temperature and low pressure.
Capacity factor of 1 the plant operates all year.
Perfect separation of organic and inorganic streams in trommel/shredder
Flare is not operated ideally so excluded from mass balances
Neglect losses/gains from valves and pumps
All streams are at atmospheric pressure
Assumptions and parameters listed in Table 1 are applicable
These assumptions come with inherent limitations which reduce the accuracy of the calculations:
Calculations do not consider the impact of start-up and shutdown in terms of yield and operating conditions.
Maintenance procedures are also not considered despite the fact that these will result in shutdowns and will
reduce throughput. This is offset by the fact that during shutdown, waste will accumulate at the plant, so
throughput can be ramped up in the short term after restarting the plant.
Yield and composition may have been overestimated for these calculations if the MSW is not as high quality
as is anticipated. Alternatively, if the MSW is of a higher quality than anticipated, the yield and quality may
be greater.
N2 in the biogas will act as an inert downstream in the power generation process, absorbing heat and
reducing efficiency, meaning that these calculations result in an overestimate of the true power production
potential of the plant.
59 | P a g e
Calculations do not consider the impact of start-up and shutdown in terms of power generation and
operating conditions. They do not consider the fact that it takes time to start-up and shutdown these units.
If the exit streams from the absorber do not reach equilibrium values, the separation rate of CO2 from the
biogas may be reduced and there may be additional CO2 and/or less CH4 going through the power
generation system, which would reduce the efficiency of the turbine and hence reduce the total power
generated by the plant.
The Peng-Robinson property method was used which resulted in up to 6% error in the results (AspenTech
2010).
60 | P a g e
61 | P a g e
2 = 1 2 --- (1)
= 0 --- (2)
Where C is the actual cost
C0 is the base cost from value tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending the type of equipment.
S is the estimated capacity from the mass and balance values
S0 is the base capacity from tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the type of equipment.
is a factor from tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.), depending on the type of equipment.
Another version of Williams law was used for Pressure Vessels and tray stacks (Viguri Fuente n.d.):
0
= 0 --- (3)
Where C0 is the base cost from value tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.)on the type of equipment.
L is the estimated length (for horizontal tanks) and the height (for vertical tanks)
D is the estimated diameter of the vessel
a is a factor given in the tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the orientation of the vessel
b is the factor given in the tables on page 27 of (Viguri Fuente n.d.) depending on the orientation of the vessel.
Another correlation was used from (Towler & Sinnott 2007) pp. 319:
Where:
= + --- (4)
S is the capacity size given in the table 6.6 on pp. 319 (Towler & Sinnott 2007)
n is a factor given in table 6.6 on pp. 319 of (Towler & Sinnott 2007)
( )
--- (5)
Where:
A is area required for heat transfer (m2)
Q is heat transfer required (Watts)
U heat transfer coefficient (Watts/m2K)
Tlm is the log mean temperature differences between the cold stream and hot streams (K).
For the Flash drum, capacity for correlations required finding the volume of the vessel. This is done by the following
equations from (Viguri Fuente n.d.):
2 --- (6)
1/3
--
D=
(7)
L = 4D --- (8)
Sizing a packed column requires the estimation of the shell mass and column thickness, following equations from
Towler & Sinnott 2007:
= 20.2
--- (9)
Where
tw is the shell thickness (m)
Pi is the design pressure (10% above design pressure) (N/m2)
Di is the design diameter (m)
S is maximal allowable stress of the column wall (N/mm2)
E is Welded Join efficiency
Where
Dc is the column diameter (m)
Lc is column length (m)
is the density of the material (kg/m3)
= --- (10)
63 | P a g e
CPI accounts for inflation by providing a ratio that current prices can be adjusted with, according to the following
equation:
--- (11)
The NPV is calculated with the following equation from Towler & Sinnott 2007:
Where:
n is the plant life year, year n
CFn = cash flow in year n
t = project life (years)
i = interest rate (4.65%)
= =
=1
(1+)
--- (12)
64 | P a g e
Unit
Anaerobic
(R-101)
Digester
Biogas/PC
exchanger
(E101/E102)
heat
Cost (AUD,
2014)
$207,569,00
0
$54,000
Method of Calculation
Biogas Compressor
(C-101)
$1,077,000
Packed Column
(V-101)
$284,000
Flash Drum
(U-102)
$7,500
Air Compressor
(C-201)
$3,509,000
Pump
(D-201)
$6,000
Heat Exchanger
(E-202)
$45 000
Water Preheater
(E-201)
$52,000
References
Assumptions
Hands
Factor
N/A
3.5
2.5
2.5
N/A
3.5
3.5
65 | P a g e
Combustion
Chamber
(R-201)
HRSG
(R-201)
Condenser
(E-203)
$219, 000
Gas turbine/Steam
Turbine
(C-202/C203)
$14, 444,
000
B4 Ecopark water
heater (E-204)
$29, 000
$29, 000,
000
$29, 000,
000
$44, 264,
000
N/A
3.5
The capital cost does not include the interest paid during
construction, as interest will be calculated separately
during analysis. Hands factor was not applied, assuming
that associated costs have been included in the $/kW
value.
N/A
3.5
$17, 705,
000
$8, 852, 000
$116, 000
AEMO 2012
$359,
549, 000
66 | P a g e
Operating Expenses
Raw materials
PC
By-products
Purged PC
Utilities
Water
Electricity
Other
Labour
Method of Calculation
References
Aspen Model
Couper 2003
Operating Supplies
Supervision
Payroll Charges
Maintenance
357,000 Assuming that there are 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week. Each plant
operator works 5 shifts a week, therefore an average of 4.2
operators are required. Assuming the average salary is ($85,000).
17,850 5% Total operating cost
71,400 20% of Labour
107,100 30% of Labour
17,705,960 6% of Fixed Capital Cost
67 | P a g e