day two - uk ad & biogas tradeshow 2016 : r&i hub
TRANSCRIPT
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW
6-7 JULY 2016NEC BIRMINGHAM
Can research and innovation rescue on-farm AD?
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
ANGELA BYWATER & DR CLARE LUKEHURST OBE AD NET IEA TASK 37 UK
Potential viability of small scale AD
Clare T. Lukehurst OBEInternational Energy Agency
Bioenergy Task 37/Task 37 (UK)
Anaerobic Digestion & Biogas Association
July 7th 2016
Origin & purpose of the brochure
Request of the UK REA Biogas Group , farmers, landowners and RICS to establish:
• Types and designs of plant available• Establish factors affecting capital and
operating costs• Benefits of the plants
Role of the IEA Bioenergy Task 37
• Collate scientific and technical • experience worldwide
• Review of findings of both financial and environmental performance as reported in nearly 200 papers of which 120 key cited in the brochure
• Assess implications of the process at small scale for farmer AND policy maker
Small scale: Perceptions‘We know it cannot pay’ ‘Look at the costs’
£ 8,000 – £15,000 per kWeCommon knowledge- source of information?
Who says so?Consultants reports
Bank managers? Media accepts
End of discussion – small farm scale manure AD not an option
Too expensive: capital costs < £250kWe?(Source: IEA (2015) Small scale technical brochure))
SMALL SCALE?Digester (left) 20m3
33 family farms in Brazil?Supports 10 kWe CHP/ 5m3 /hrbiogas upgrading
Brazil Part of 33 - farm cooperative
22 km Gas Pipeline links farms
Norway 20 m3 slurry managementSystem 3,000 t/year Finland farmer built
with recycled partsSee case study
Switzerland co-digestion manure &crop CHP
1998 Finland 150 m3 digester CHPBuilt from recycled materials See Case study)
Switzerland manure +crop CHPGrid control to virtual power stationwww.iea-biogas.net
The Indian scaleManure ADmakes money-
Surplus gas goes to market- a cashcommodity
See Mutzner (2013) Workshop
Farmers thinking-structure for analysis
• Costs per kWel ??? No? Is AD for slurry a new money maker - GBP in
the bank? • Money wise I am no worse off -easier budget
forecasts & non monetary benefits
• AD a loss maker – no financial benefit
• Policy makers - no takers - no GHG reduction
The KEY IssuesCapital cost of the whole plantSource and cost of purchase moneyOperating costQuality of feedstock –amount of dirty water ThenSources of income- energy sales. incentives BUT Cash flow – avoided costs as important but but ? taken into account by bank
After 2 yrs operation 7 years laterAvoided expense 29-39k 35-38kNew income 130k-141k
Digester converted from former Heavy duty oil tanker
A key factor
Cash flow – avoided costs as important but ? taken into account by
the bank , finance company, policy advisers
Need to maximise non fiscal benefits
bank
The Way Ahead
Dual Policy approach Government GHG reduction policy
Energy industry for reinforcement of heat, gas and power distribution REWARD TOTAL GHG reduction
Markets - produce what the farmer wants and can afford to buy
SponsorsThe following sponsors through generous donations pay for UK to attend meeting and now bear the full cost of the IEA Bioenergy Task 37 (Energy from Biogas) UK membership subscription
An En, AFBI, AnDigestion, ADBA, Biogas Nord, Bioplex Technologies, Chesterfield Biogas, CNG Services, CLA,Clarke Energy, Edina Group, Envitech, EVH Engineering, Farm Energy, FM Bioenergy, Future Biogas, GOALS, GWE Biogas, J.H.Walter Sustainable Resource Management, Rural Planning Services, Malaby Biogas, Marches Biogas, Methanogen, Lutra, NETZSCH Pumps, Omex Environmental, Red Kite, Rob Heap Consultants, RH & RW Clutton, RICS, Sustraco, University of Southampton, UTS Biogas, Xergi
Avoided costs and self sufficiency
A key for the farmer? Thank you!
Can research and innovation rescue on-farm AD?
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
PAUL ADAMSDIRECTOR, SYNERTREE
Dr Hafez Abdo and Professor Robert Ackrill
Nottingham Business School – Nottingham Trent University
[email protected] funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme small
research funds
Green energy, fiscal incentive and conflicting signals:
analysing the challenges faced in promoting on-farm waste-
to-energy projects
• Research Aims and Objectives.
• Research Questions.• Methodological Approach.• Previous Similar Studies.• Analysis• Concluding Remarks
Outlines
UK Renewable Energy policy is nested within EU policy in a multilevel governance (MLG) setting. To gain analytical traction on suchcomplexity, this study analyzes policies promoting the on-farm generation of energy for heat and power, from farm and food waste, via Anaerobic Digestion.
• To illustrate the impact of UK policies on waste-to-energy AD on-farm projects in the East Midlands;
• To investigate the effects of UK energy policy and its instruments on promoting on-farm generation of energy for heat and power; and
• To explore and explain the impact of AD on energy, environmental and social elements in the East Midlands region of England.
Research Aims and Objectives
The first phase of our study will try to answer the following questions:
1. What challenges faces the on-farm waste to energy AD uptake in the East Midlands?
2. Which policy instruments influence the establishment of on-farm waste to energy AD projects on farms in the East Midlands, and how?
3. What incentives and support mechanisms are required to enhance the on-farm waste to energy AD projects on farms in the East Midlands?
Research Questions – Phase One
The next phase of this study will try to answer the following questions:
1. How does the MLG setting of UK RE policy affect policy delivery?
2. What theoretical insights does MLG offer when seeking to reform UK RE policy in order to promote more effective take-up of waste to energy technologies?
3. How does our case study inform the theoretical formulation of coherent multilevel governance in areas characterised by considerable policy complexity?
4. How does our case study, in a policy area that is relatively new, inform the longstanding literature on path dependency and the challenges of switching to new technologies?
Research Questions – Phase Two
• Our research is of an exploratory explanatory nature and our researchquestions have both qualitative and quantitative aspects; therefore answering these questions requires collecting and analysing qualitative and quantitative data.
• Our data will be collected via three main instruments:• Phase one: document analysis and questionnaire survey• Phase Two: document analysis and interviews.• Whilst document analysis and questionnaire methods will aid the
exploratory side of the project, interviews would aid the explanatory aspect.• Government, energy-related, documents will be searched and analysed• Questionnaires were sent to 1,589 farmers in the East Midlands region
of England (Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire). 158 questionnaires were received back.
• 25 interviews are planned with different personals connected to the AD business: Farmers, Policy Makers, AD Consultants and Academics.
Methodological Approach
Results of Questionnaire Survey - Phase One Descriptive Statistics # %
Farm Location Nottinghamshire 78 51
Derbyshire 75 49
Farmer Gender Male 141 92
Female 12 8
Type of FarmArable 56 37
Livestock 51 33
Mixed 46 30
Farm Ownership
Owned by you 88 57
Shared ownership 29 19
Rented 16 10
Other 20 13
Annual Farm Income
Less than £10,000 8 5
£10,000 - £19,999 6 4
£20,000 - £29,999 4 3
£30,000 - 49,999 8 5
£50,000 - £74,999 9 6
£75,000 - 99,999 10 7
£100,000 - £149,999 14 9
£150,000 - £199,999 11 7
£200,000 and over 61 40
Prefer not to answer 22 14
AD Plant Yes 1 1%
No 152 99%
Production of Renewable EnergyTotal*
# %
85 55.5
Biomass 15 14
Wind 16 15
Solar PV 60 57
Other RE 15 14
Our respondents purchase different sources of non-renewable energy.Electricity and diesel are the most popular forms of energy being used in farms.Other forms of energy sources being purchased by farmers in our sample include logs and wood, however this is the least non-renewable sources of energy purchased.
Purchase of off-farm sources of non-renewable energy
0 20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Coal
Gas
Electricity
Diesel
Petrol
Other
In terms of renewable energy, our respondents purchase energy generated by solar PV the most, followed by energy generated by biomass.Biomass sources include wood and logs
Purchase of off-farm sources of renewable energy
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
PV Solar
Wind
Biomass
Other
Apart from using AD, the majority of our respondent farmers generate energy using PV solar.They generate renewable energy using other means such as wind and biomass.Feedstock used for biomass includes oil seed, slurry, wood, maize and woodchip.Other forms of on-farm generation of renewable energy includes ground heat source pumps, air source heat pump and timber.
On-Farm generation of Renewable Energy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Biomass PV Solar Wind Other
Of our sample respondents, 100 farmers produce renewable energy. Of those, 34 make off-farm sale of part ofthe renewable energy they produce on-farm
Off-Farm Sale of Energy Generated
35%
11%
54% Regularly
Occasionally
No
Awareness of UK Renewable Energy Policy
• The majority of our respondents (127) believe that renewable energy promotion is the most important rational.
• Respondents suggested that some of the other underpinning reasons of the government policy to promote AD are: complying with EU Directives, controlling emissions, diversifying energy sources and to show that the UK government is ‘doing something’, to please their EU cronies, lack of investment by government in power generation for over a decade, to tick the ‘we are doing something about global warming’ box, and to meet UK renewable energy targets.
Rationales underpin governmental policy to promote AD
127
53
20
19
0 20 40 60 80 100 120140
Renewable energy promotion
Waste-disposal
Income-generation
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Not suitable for farming activities
Lack of information about AD technologies
Inadequate financial incentives
Overly-burdensome regulations
Unstable policy or uncertain future policy
Problem with connectivity to the National Grid
Taxation Policy
Access to Finance
Controls over the use of waste products
The off-farm movement of food waste and digestate
Other
Reasons for not adopting on-farm AD Technology
• concerns over increasing labour force in the farm and possible need for dependence on contractors to run the AD business.
• lack of trust in the stability of FiT.
• lack of governmental involvement in connecting AD energy products to the grid.
• planning complication.
• smell of the process in a residential area. • AD is too expensive to be invested in by farmers.
• location of farm near built area. • availability of finance to start-up AD projects.
• local objection to planning permission. • unclear and insecure income from AD.
• lack of sufficient feedstock.• age of farmers that do not allow the
adoption of AD.
• size of farm does not justify the significant investment in AD.
• type of ownership of farm as being rented does not justify investing in AD.
• focusing on building and enhancing farming business rather than shifting focus to a new investment in AD.
• AD power and heat products are not of usefulness to farm.
Other Reasons for non-adoption of AD
• Government policy is fragmented on energy/ transport/food
• I would say grant aid to help smaller farmers work together
• We need cooperation between farmers and bigger incentives, as in Germany
• smaller models of AD units to suit smaller farms
• Grants, interest-free loans• More security of support to
allow banks to fund AD• tax advantages• Perhaps if somehow the
feedstock production could be subsidised this would take some risk out
• Higher and more long term stable FITs
• kick-starting is good but must not be subsidy dependant
Required Incentives for AD Uptake
Awareness
• “does anyone know the cost effectiveness of maize fed AD without subsidy. The amount ofdiesel burnt/energy spent on maize growing and supply surely cannot equate to the small amount of gas produced?”
• “Costs for start-up seem too high. Is this because of new technology?”
• “If we had a unit it would have to be very small scale. There is very little information about this”
• “The public have no idea about AD. When they learn anything they are invariably suspicious”
• Information about the cost of having an AD unit installed, payback period, cost of feedstock, taxes and subsidies and the required fuel to run the AD unit are some of the information required by farmers to make decisions on AD uptake
Awareness of AD
Awareness of UK Governmental RE Incentives and Measures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
UK Renewable Energy Roadmap
Renewable Obligation (RO)
Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)
Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation
(RTFO)
Electricity Market Reform (EMR)
'Connect and Manage'
Transmission Access Regime
Very Aware Somewhat Aware Know the name only Not at all aware
• FiTs is a key incentive measure for AD uptake in the UK.
• Stability of FiTs rates is a key for easing investment uncertainty in AD technologies.
• Financial support and access to finance is essential to promote AD uptake and hence renewable energy generation.
• Planning permission and complexity of regulations are still main barriers for AD uptake and the government is required to review these in order to boost generation of renewable energy from AD technologies.
• Spreading awareness of AD technology and governmental renewable energy policy’s objectives and tools is key for on-farm AD uptake.
Concluding Remarks
QUESTIONS?
THANKYOU
The next phase of our research is focused on in-depth analysing incentives and disincentives of AD uptake, and on the impact government renewable policy and taxation measures on the uptake of on-farm AD.
We would like invite you to take part in this phase of the research by means of an interview. If you would like to participate in this study please contact us.
Professor Rob AckrillEmail: [email protected]
Dr Hafez Abdo618, Newton Building Nottingham Business School Burton StreetNottingham, NG1 4BU Email: [email protected] Tel: 0115 848 6098Mobile: 07872113763
A Call for Participation
Towards digestible plastics: The impact of plastic bin liners on Anaerobic Digestion
Dr Tanja Radu, Dr Richard Blanchard, Prof Andrew Wheatley
Introduction
Plastics Food waste Plastic separation Biodegradable plastics experiments Conclusions
Plastics
Plastics Europe
Plastic Markets
Post Consumer Waste
Plastic Problems
www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org
awesomeoceans.com
Food Waste
Losses in supply chain fields, processing, transport, shops, catering, home.
Food waste
UK around 14M tonnes per year Lovefoodhatewaste.com
How to deal with food waste and plastic packaging?
Plastic waste/food waste collection
Monday 1 May 2023
• Every year, over 10 Mt of packaging is placed on the UK market. About half that amount (5 Mt) goes to households, where it accounts for about 20% of the waste stream. The other half is used in the Commercial and Industrial sectors, where it accounts for about 10% of the waste stream.
(Source: Defra http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/10/26/uk-packaging-recycling-targets/)
• Plastic waste (packaging, containers, bags, lids, cups) accounts for 10-15% of total waste
• Food waste collection using plastic bin liners is becoming increasingly popular
Plastic bags in AD industry
Monday 1 May 2023
The bags or fragments of them can entirely or partially follow three different paths in an AD plant:
Route 1: Bioplastic fragments fed into the digester along with the food waste. After digestion, the digestate with possible remains of the plastics are composted for aerobic stabilization and mature compost production.
Route 2: Bioplastic fragments sorted out during the pretreatment stage, skipping the digestion stage and re-joining the aerobic composting stage of the digestate.
Route 3: Bioplastic fragments sorted out during the pretreatment stage and sent to disposal because of high contamination of the pretreatment residues by non-compostable materials (e.g. conventional plastics) or because of the lack of a final aerobic stage for compost production.
Source: Christian Garaffa and Rhodes Yepsen, BioCycle September 2012, Vol. 53, No. 9, p. 37
Regardless of separation method, some of the plastic will inevitably end up in AD digester
Plastic Separation
Stage 1 hammer mill Stage 2 hammer mill
Food slurry
To AD
Biodegradable plastics
Alternative, based on biological materials such as corn or potato starch and polymer-alcohols
But do they biodegrade? Plastics, in general, often degrade and weather when
exposed to UV light. Some biodegradable plastics need prolonged exposure of temperatures above 50oC to fully break down.
Complete biodegradation of plastic occurs when none of the original polymer remains, a process involving microbial action; i.e. it has been broken down to carbon dioxide, methane and water.
http://www.unep.org/gpa/documents/publications/BiodegradablePlastics.pdf
PLA
Motivations
Plastic bags are an ideal material for the collection of wet wastes, but poor biodegradability.
Accumulations of plastic residues in the environment are an urgent and serious concern.
AD is the most common process for the treatment and conversion of wet organic waste to energy.
Biodegradable plastic would encourage the hygienic collection of household food waste for AD.
Current practice: separation of bags from the food waste prior to digestion, a difficult operation causing loss of organic material and increased costs.
Some of the plastic material inevitably ends up in the digesters and potentially on land.
Experimental Set-up
Standard 10 litre vertically stirred bioreactors at 37oC. Plastic bags were used as a sole substrate and digesters
performance was compared with the control digester fed by sewage sludge only.
pre-treated at 70oC for 1hr, according to the Animal By-product Regulations.
feeding 5 days per week, no feeding at weekends. The organic loading rate was 2.65 g VS/l/day. Monitoring: Cumulative gas production (on line), gas quality
(manually by infra-red). Stability indicators (Ripley’s Ratio, volatile fatty acids, pH and ammonia).
Materials: Alcohol and starch-based bag samples used for the production of biodegradable bags.
Cumulative Biogas Production
Capillary Suction Time
Methane Yield
Conclusions
CONCLUSIONS:
• Poor biodegradability for both types of bags at both temperatures of pre-treatment
• Using bags as sole substrate, biogas production stalls and methane percentage in biogas decreases
• Stability indicators remain stable, indicating that material is inert rather than toxic to digestion.
• Alcohol polymer-based bags completely dissolved when treated at 70oC whereas the starch ones did not, and in this case only digester viscosity rapidly increased (CST)
• An increase in total solids in all test reactors was observed as the plastic accumulated. This may have implications for the mixing of the digesters, with an increase in torque on the stirrer blades, resulting in greater energy consumption.
Thank you
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This research is funded by Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/J000361
For further details please contact Tanja Radu at [email protected] or +44 (0)1509 223808
Digesting the indigestible: plastic and indigestible bags in food waste and how to manage them
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
TONY CLUTTENPROCESS SALES MANAGER, HUBER TECHNOLOGY
DIGESTING THE INDIGESTIBLEORGANIC RECOVERY AND LANDFILL REDUCTION
Grit ,glass. Bone, eggshell heavy and light plastics are not Digestible. But why throw the baby out with the bath water.
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
Household and supermarket waste Ball Milled MSW
HUBER’S EXPERTISE
• Huber are Liquid / Solid Separation Engineers and have a wealth of experience gained in Municipal and Industrial applications throughout the world.
• However many of the problems created in Anaerobic Digestion have required different solutions based on Huber’s expertise but adapted to suit.
In this paper we look at:- Removal of oversize Washing oversize to reduce volume and recover organics Removal of Grit and glass Washing Grit and Glass to recover organics Starch Bags Removal of floating debris Removal of Plastics both Pre and Post Digestion
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM
Screen Grit Removal
Sludge Handling
Digestate Cleaning
Fibre and plastics removal
Grit washing
Screenings washing
INDIGESTIBLE DRIVERS• Waste operators wishing to dispose of waste at landfill sites in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland will need to pay £84.40 per tonne from 1 April 2016
• With gate fees dropping and disposal costs rising the rejects need to be reduced.
• Wear is high due to grit and glass• The bugs can’t digest inorganics.• Downtime is high due to inorganics settling in the system• Gas yield is down if the digester is partly full of inorganics• Greenhouse gas reduction• Vermin control• Legislation• Landfill shortage• NPK recovery• Plastics recovery (tomorrow)
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
DE-PACKAGING
De-Packaging can be done in numerous ways and each handles the plastic , grit and oversize content differently:-• Hammer mills- reject oversize. Rejects often containing organic biosolids.• Pulverisers- May just send all parts forward in the soup cut up or
segregate light and heavy Fraction from soup• Turbo Separators such as Tiger and Attritor spin out oversize.• Slitters –slit all contents and wind sift off plastics.• Squeezers- Squeeze the food from the packaging• Autoclaves- pressure cook total feed. • High pressure water to wash out organics
Every type provides a different soup including different contaminants
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF PLASTICS REJECTS DEPENDS ON THE DE-PACKAGING PROCESS AND
FEEDSTOCK. WE HAVE FIGURES VARYING FROM 7 TO 22% FROM SOURCE SEGREGATED AND SUPERMARKET WASTE.
LETS GET THE ORGANICS BACK IN THE SOUP
RECOVER ORGANICS FROM REJECTS
TIGER DEPACKAGING-TRIAL WASHPRESS UNDER DISCHARGE
TIGER REJECT 7.5% WASHED AND DEWATERED ORGANICS RETURNED OF FEED SCREENINGS TO SOUP 40-60% REDUCTION
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
GERMAN TRIALS –Behind a MEWA Depackaging unit
Pulped food waste feed
Washpress size 6 under MEWA rake discharge
Washed screenings
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
Having undertaken several Lab and full scale trials we have concluded that each de-packaging machine type and feedstock gives us varying results so more trials are necessary. However simple wash trials indicate potential to:-
1. Reduce tonnage to landfill and costs.2. Give cleaner solids3. Recover volatile solids and COD
Screenings Wash trials
Unwashed screenings from Press
Hand Washed screenings No Pressing.
Settled washwater. Left 30minutes settling right 2 minutes
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
Combination unit of screen and Longitudinal Grit Trap
Huber have a range of combination units handling 6 to 120TPH of Digester feed at 6 to 14% Dry solids.
SCREEN AND GRIT TRAP
Screen
Dewatering unit
Longtitudinal Grit Trap
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
An Inlet Screen (Ro 1 BIO) is included in the design incorporating extra rakes, reinforced 10 or 15mm screensLarger drives and higher solids removal rates to cater for the higher solids loading
This screen incorporates screening washing, dewatering, and elevating oversize utilising 1 drive.
Oversize screen
If the de-Packaging unit incorporates its own screen this is not required. However oversize is often contaminated.
SCREENINGS WASHING-Swedish Plant
• Loss of digestible material (Biomass) is to be avoided and Huber have incorporated screenings washing within the auger of the Ro1 Bio with some success, however the plastic content and the size of the pulped solids make washing in the auger more difficult so we would advocate using a wash press. Retrofitting is possible.
Wash Press in Sweden working on screenings from screen
Screenings before washing
Screenings after washing
The weight deduction to Landfill is 10-14% but this depends on the upstream process. Digesting the indigestible-
organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
www.huber.uk
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
German sewage trials
Trials in Germany on sewage screenings gave up to 20% increase in gas yield by washing the screenings of Faeces and returning the organic carbon to the Anaerobic digester
The photo shows a UK site where 2 washpresses are installed to give clean screenings but return the organics back to feed the bugs downstream
Powerful agitation drive
Clean Dry screenings
PLC controlled valve
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
GRIT AND GLASS
Grit and Glass are a major problem to the Operations and Maintenance department causing wear, blockages and mixing power increases. But the other hidden enemy is sedimentation in the digester. If your Digester is say 30% full of grit then that’s 30% less retention time with subsequent gas losses, heating costs etc.
Grit and glass and heavy plastic can be settled out on a Huber longitudinal grit trap
GritGlass
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
LONGTITUDINAL GRIT TRAP TO REMOVE HEAVY FRACTION
12.5% DS Food Waste Soup Ro5 Bio 50 in UK
Trapezoidal channel Grit and glass removed
GRIT WASHING• Simarly biodegradeable material around the grit can be
washed out using a grit washer to increase gas yield
Digesting the indigestible-organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
RETROFITTING A GRIT TRAP AND WASHER
Digesting the indigestible-organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
An existing Anaerobic Digestion plant in Northern Ireland takes in a mixture of Food waste and green waste. In order to reduce the volume of grit in the system which causes a lot of blockages, sedimentation and wear issues, Huber were asked to look at the installing a Grit removal plant between the Hammer mill’s and the soup stock tank.
No pumps between grit trap and washer
Digesting the indigestible-organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
RESULTS
Clean grit, glass eggshell bone and sea shells Removed from soup(Indigestables)
Organics back in the soup
1. Reduced Landfill2. Recovered organics
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
Strainpress Plastics removal
For plastics and packaging removalwe have fitted a Strainpress prior to digestion to remove as much fibre and plastics as
possible or after digestion to separate liquid and solids and protect down stream product.
Strain press opened for inspection
STAND J502
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
PLASTICS REMOVALStrainpress – where is it applied
Delivery by TruckSludge / Scum
Sand trap
Primary tank
Secondary tank
Secondary sludge
Primary sludge
Scum / Grease
CourseStrainpress ®
DewateredScreenings
Drying
Dewatering
Alternative applicationStrainpress ®
Heat exchanger
Disposal
Digester
DewateredScreenings
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
The Press works under 1 bar pressure and the slurry is pumped or gravity fed into the inlet drum. The free liquor drains through the mesh and the solids are squeezed and turned by the auger towards the discharge cone.
The discharge cone and auger is tapered to compact the screenings against a pneumatically controlled plug which releases the screenings when the pressure is reached
CakeSlurry Inlet Filtrate out
Compaction zoneDewatering Pneumatic cone
Strainpress
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
PRE-DIGESTION
Removal of plastics pre-digestion needs careful thought to avoid heavy disposal charges of oversize and loss of gas production.Throughput can be low due to rheology.Gas yield can be reduced. We can remove all + say 10mm wash and return Organics
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
6 off Strainpresses fitted with 5 and 6mm baskets handling 20M3/h at 8-10%DS producing 50% DS cake.
Fibres glass and plastics are removed from MSW before Digestion
BIFFA WANLIP RDF REMOVAL
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
POST DIGESTION SHANKS-WESTCOTT PARK STRAINPRESS
At Westcott Park we have a Strainpress fitted with a 3mm mesh screening digestate between the digester and the 3 Pastuerisers
Screenings removed which otherwise would be on the fields
HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
Thermally treated food waste trials
BEFORE AND AFTER
Digesting the indigestible-organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
Without Strainpress With Strainpress
Results of trials in Italy
Tel.: 01249 765050eMail: [email protected]
Thank you very much for
your attention
Digesting the indigestible-organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016 www.huber.uk
Networking Lunch
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
12:30 – 13:30
The digestate challenge: research to maximise nutrient use efficiency
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
ANDREW MCLEODCRANFIELD UNIVERSITY
Digestate processing Using membranes: breaking the barriers to valorisation
Dr Robert W LovittMembranology Ltd / Swansea University
The challenges The problems of digestate:
– Environmental Hazardous– Difficult to handle– Dilute
• Storage• Transport
– Variable composition– Seasonal use
Slurry
Energy crops
Food waste
Anearobic Digester
Digestate storage
Biogas CHP Unit
Electricity
Heat
Digestate to land
Slurry
Energy crops
Food waste
Anearobic Digester
Digestate storage
Biogas CHP Unit
Electricity
Heat
Digestate to land
Concentration
Water
Nutrient Formulation
FertiliserGrowth media
PHBProteinFats/oilChemicals
Current situation
Added value possibilities
Reduced storage
Reduced transport and distribution costs
Membrane technology• Membrane technology now a mature process with many large
scale applications– Low cost simple processes easily intgerated with digestate processing
• We have applied this to digestate sludge processing– Solid liquid separations– MF/UF/NF/RO
Hollow fibre filters
Spiral wound membrane
Concentrating Nutrient
• Reverse Osmosis
Recovery of nutreints
• Phosphate– Critical resource
• Ammonia– Large carbon footprint
• Metals– Essential and important
micronutrients
• Water– Clean decontaminated
water
Reformulation of nutrients
• Fertilizers – Precise formulation, solid or concentrated form
• Algae growth media– Protein, Oils
• Microbial growth media– PHB, Oils, Protein, Platform chemicals
• Plant growth media– Hydroponics
The digestate challenge: research to maximise nutrient use efficiency
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB
DAVID STYLESLECTURER, UNIVERSITY OF BANGOR
98
Dr David Styles (Bangor University)
Dr Paul Adams (Bath University)
Environmental balance of digestate upgrade
© Tim Scrivener
METHOD
RESULTS (GWP)
RESULTS (AP)
RESULTS (FRDP)
CONCLUSIONS
Climate change
Water qualityAir quality
Nutrient cyclingEnergy balance
Economics…
Dr Richard Wadsworth; Dr Ruben Sakrabani; Dr Stephen Hallett
Phosphate acceptance map: A tool to determine suitable land for the application of biosolids – potential for AD
Many modern agricultural soils are significantly degraded
Increase in Inorganic Fertilisers
Higher CropProductivityPopulation2
Increases
Increased requirements for
food
Reduction in SOM
Reduction in Nutrient
Retention
Introduction
Rickson RJ, Deeks LK, Graves A, Harris JA, Kibblewhite MG, Sakrabani R (2015). Input constraints to food production: the impact of soil degradation. Food Security (accepted). DOI 10.1007/s12571-015-0437-x
Biosolids/Anaerobic digestates
Research Question ?
• Where can we target application of biosolids to meet crop nutrient demand using national geo-temporal environmental ‘Big Data’ ?
Project Overview
Three test locations : Silsoe, Shropshire and North Wales
NUE
CU : LandIS – Data on soil and crop
Water Utilities : Data on biosolids
UKCP09 : Data on climate – past and future projections
Digital Map + protocol and user guide
Crop uptake for at least 3 years after application of biosolids
Data Flow
Stakeholder groups and physical constraints
Constraint Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Protected Area - pollution * *Protected Area - biodiversity * *Protected Area - landscape * *Heavy metal accumulation * *Erosion > soil formation * *Distance transported * *
PAM data and maps organised in ESRI ArcGIS Online
Lessons from biosolids to AD
• Data availability is challenging – sensitive matter• Validation to other locations• Industry engagement
• Locations of AD plants • Volume of AD generated • Nutrient (P) content of AD and its variation depending on feedstock
used• Land bank applied with AD currently and future projections • Yield response of crops applied with AD – Nutrient Use Efficiency• Data is required for the above • PAM for biosolids can be adapted for AD
Summary
• PAM offers new tool to manage biosolids use in sustainable agriculture
• A water treatment works is a P ‘mine’ – can utilise PAM to target suitable crop / landbank
• PAM utilises stakeholders interests and constraints
• PAM – needs to be further exploited with additional dataset and other application such as AD sector
Thank you, any questions?
UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB