1 / 44

Humboldt Regional Organic Waste Digester

Humboldt Regional Organic Waste Digester. California Integrated Waste Management Board July 14, 2009. Purpose:. Divert food waste from landfills. Why Divert Food Waste?. ~20% of waste stream Develop diversion infrastructure: AB 939 compliance Population growth

Leo
Download Presentation

Humboldt Regional Organic Waste Digester

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. Humboldt Regional Organic Waste Digester California Integrated Waste Management Board July 14, 2009

  2. Purpose: Divert food waste from landfills

  3. Why Divert Food Waste? • ~20% of waste stream • Develop diversion infrastructure: • AB 939 compliance • Population growth • Future legislation (AB 479) • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions • Landfills emit methane • Waste trucked 190 miles one-way

  4. Diversion Potential Source: HWMA quarterly reports, waste audits Assumes 100% capture

  5. Food Waste Characteristics Wet Heavy Putrefies quickly Contains energy

  6. Food Waste = Energy VS + A.D. = CH4 + CO2 75% H2O RENEWABLE ENERGY!!! 85% volatile solids (VS) 25% Total Solids 15% fixed solids (FS)

  7. Renewable Energy Potential

  8. Food Waste in Landfills • Methane (CH4) • ~23 x more powerful than CO2 • Uncontrolled CH4 emissions • Food waste decomposes: 4 months • Collection systems installed: 2-5 years • Variable LFG capture efficiency

  9. Diversion Options: Food Banks Pig Farms Composting Anaerobic Digestion

  10. Existing Diversion • Food banks • Pre-consumer waste only • Pig farms • Pre-consumer or post-consumer + treatment • Limited in local capacity • Produce high-strength waste

  11. Food Waste Composting Aerobic decomposition Produces soil amendment Green waste used as bulking agent Process time 90 – 180 days Emits some CH4, N2O, VOC Kills pathogens

  12. Local Compost Challenges • Competition for green waste • Food waste prohibited • Odors • VOC emissions • Large footprint • High rainfall levels • Aerobic conditions = high energy inputs

  13. Anaerobic Digestion Oxygen-free environment Mature technology Wastewater treatment plants Dairies & pig farms Produces biogas (CH4 +CO2) Reduces VOCs Positive net energy balance

  14. Benefits: • Renewable energy • Captures CH4 • Shorter process time • 25 vs. 120 days • Smaller footprint • 3 vs. 20 acres • Reduces waste • Soil amendment

  15. Challenges: Permitting Collection Contamination Residuals Cost efficiency Bottle Cap

  16. Food Waste Digestion 70 in Europe East Bay Municipal Utility District Toronto UC Davis* Inland Empire*

  17. Options: • Dedicated food waste digester + compost • Co-digest with municipal sludge at WWTP

  18. Food Waste Diversion Flow Diagram

  19. Digester Feed Stocks

  20. Digester Feed Stocks

  21. Digester Feed Stocks

  22. Digester Feed Stocks

  23. Digester Feed Stocks

  24. Scenarios

  25. LCC

  26. Renewable Energy • Assumes 35% generator efficiency • Assumes 25% parasitic load

  27. $$$ *Assumes $0.10/ kWh

  28. GHG Reductions • Assumes 0.7 MT CO2e / MT food waste (CCX) • Assumes 0.524 lbs CO2 / kWh (PG&E)

  29. Project Development Plan Organic Waste Resource Analysis Permitting – EPA Region 9 Pilot collection Phase 1: Demonstration and testing Efficient pre-processing Appropriate technology Residuals management alternatives Phase 2: Expand to regional scale

  30. To conclude… • Project Benefits include: • Divert waste from landfills • Generate renewable energy • Reduce GHG emissions • Retain $$$ in County • Create jobs • Increase regional sustainability

  31. Acknowledgements • Gary Bird - City of Eureka • Clay Yerby, Gerry Snead - Elk River WWTP • Kurt Gierlich - City of Eureka • Paul Suto, Sophia Scota – East Bay MUD • Charles Chamberlin, Arne Jacobson – HSU • Cara Peck – US EPA Region 9 • Josh Rapport - UC Davis • Mike Leggins, Chris Choate - Recology • Brown and Cauldwell – Eureka WWTP Engineers • Dufferin Organics Processing Facility • BTA Processing – Canada Composting • Cedar Grove & Jepson Prairie composting facilities • Andrew Jolin – HWMA Mad River Composting Facility • Hambro Forest Products • Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority

  32. Questions?

  33. AB 32: Emissions Reductions Goals • State-wide: 146.7 MMTCO2e • Local government: 15% by 2020 • Waste sector goal: 10 MMTCO2e

  34. O&M Costs

  35. Funding Options • Regional partners share funding • Bonds or low-interest loans • Complete ownership • Revenues and “green attributes” allocated to facility owners • Public/Private partnership • Shared ownership and operation • Shared benefits from “green attributes” • Shared revenues • Performance contractors • Delayed ownership – option to buy after 6 years • “Green attributes” and revenues allocated to owner • Flat rate electricity at just below utility rate

  36. Feed-in Tariff • AB 1969 – “requires all electrical corporations to file with the CPUC a standard tariff to provide for payment for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of renewable energy output produced at an eligible electric generation facility” • CPUC Decision 07-07-027 • Tariffs and standard contracts for the purchase of renewable energy from WWTPs

  37. Feed-in Tariff • PG&E: 104 MW capacity allocation to WWTPs • PG&E: 104 MW allocation to non-WWTPs • Rates based on: • # kWh sold • Time of delivery • MPR set by CPUC • 10, 15, 20 year contracts • Interconnection through FERC SGIP • “Green Attributes” • To facility for generated RE they use on site • To IOU for RE sold to grid

  38. Analysis Data & Inputs • HWMA records • CIWMB • EPA region 9 • Food waste digestion projects & case studies • EBMUD • Dufferin Organics • NewMarket • UC Davis • Eureka WWTP • Brown & Caldwell • Equipment manufacturers • Eureka City Garbage, Nor Cal

  39. Regional Waste Streams

More Related