Anaerobic Digestion

A Cost-effective and Environmentally Safe Option for the Disposal of Livestock Waste Tissue

Prepared by
Genesis Projects Corp. #2, 1928 32 Street SW Calgary, AB T3E 2R1

Date: March 26, 2007

The Anaerobic Digestion A Cost-effective and Environmentally Safe Option for the Disposal of Livestock Waste Tissue project is made possible with funding from the Livestock Waste Tissue Initiative. This $5 million initiative is administered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia with financial investments from the Province of British Columbia. The Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC (IAF), and BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (BCMAL), are pleased to participate in the production of this publication funded through the Livestock Waste Tissue Initiative (LWTI). We are committed to working with our industry partners to address issues of importance to the agriculture and agri-food industry in British Columbia. Opinions expressed in this report are those of authors and not necessarily of IAF, or BCMAL.

Executive Summary
Project developers, Bifano Farms and Cedarwal Farms have proposed that two centralized and fully integrated waste to energy centres or Biorefineries be built in British Columbia, one in the Okanagan Valley and another in the Fraser Valley. A Biorefinery is a centralized facility that integrates several biomass conversion technologies to produce a combination of liquid fuels, electricity, heat, chemicals and other by-products from biomass. The proposed centres will utilize anaerobic digestion (AD) as their primary technology. Additional pre and post treatment processes and complimentary technologies will be added over time, allowing the centres to convert multiple feedstocks into a number of marketable by-products including, heat, electricity, gaseous and/or liquid vehicle fuel, nutrients, fibre and GHG emission credits. The success of the proposed projects will be dependent on technical and economic viability and their ability to access adequate volumes of high quality feedstock. Adequate amounts of waste, including livestock manure, source separated municipal solid waste (SSMSW), food processing waste and slaughterhouse offal is available in both areas. Based on an preliminary evaluation of the biogas yield of multiple feedstocks it was determined that animal tissue would be an excellent addition to the process. The biogas yield from animal tissue ranges from 200-300 m3 of biogas per tonne while manure yields only 25-35 m3/t. It was the original intent to include ruminant slaughterhouse waste including deadstock in the feedstock mix. However health concerns and strict disposal regulations associated with the portion of this tissue classified as specified risk material (SRMs) i.e. the portion that could potentially lead to prion contamination and bovine spongiform encephalitis BSE, have led developers to re-evaluate their approach. To meet regulatory requirements these materials require costly pre and /or posttreatment in addition to AD. The determination of technological proficiency and cost-effectiveness were the focus of the study and although it is technically possible to treat these substrates such additions are cost prohibitive with the small volume of SRMs available for treatment. The study identified and reviewed several AD facilities in Europe, primarily in Sweden and Denmark that are successfully digesting slaughterhouse waste and evaluated the additional treatments and technologies that would be necessary to meet both EU and Canadian regulatory requirements and provide the most benefit to all stakeholders. Several viable technical options and/or technological combinations have been identified that would enhance the AD process and allow animal by-products to be disposed of safely and efficiently. These include: Option 1 - A combination of extensive pre-treatment including size reduction and thermal hydrolysis combined with AD with minimal post-treatment Option 2 - A combination of some pre-treatment including size reduction, pasteurization, AD and extensive post -treatment including membrane liquid solid separation and the disposal of solids through combustion or containment in a landfill. Option 3 - The up front separation of all SRMs, with the balance of the feedstock requiring only minimal pre-treatment, AD and minimal post-treatment. SRM material would be disposed of using alternative technologies such as combustion.

After a review of multiple pre and post treatment possibilities and specific equipment suppliers it was concluded that options 1 and 2 are very costly approaches and could only be justified if large volumes of animal by-products were available and high tipping fees were charged. There appears to be adequate volume in existence but accessibility and transportation pose problems. Option 3 is the model most commonly found in European facilities and the one recommended by reviewers. Although available add-on technologies would allow high risk material to be included no existing European or North American facilities were identified where this is still being done. Prior to the introduction of stricter EU regulation facilities digested all of the material. With separation the volume of feedstock in European plants declined by less than 15%, with only minimal effect on their financial viability. Current Canadian regulations require that all SRMs be separated from the rest of the offal and weighed. Given this, it would not be practical to separate this portion from the balance of the offal and then throw it all back together and digest it. Front end separation, although time consuming is relatively inexpensive and offsets the need for costly pre-treatment and back-end solids

ii

separation. It was concluded that the ability to include small volume of SRMs does not warranted the inclusion of high cost add-ons in the initial AD plants. The proposed future Biorefinery would be able to accommodate multiple feedstocks including deadstock which is becoming a problem in many areas. In a Biorefinery high moisture substrates such as liquid manure, offal, cooking oil and SSMSW could be converted to energy utilizing AD and low moisture materials converted using alternative thermal combustion technologies. In both of the regions where the projects are proposed there are large volumes of waste that could not be digested but that could be disposed of using alternative technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis. These feedstocks include non separated MSW, wood waste and chicken litter and animal bedding mixed with sawdust and/or woodchips. The Biorefinery concept warrants further study. To achieve economic viability an AD facility must generate income from as many sources as possible. Sources include the sale of energy in the form of heat and electricity from cogeneration or as vehicle fuel, income from tipping fees, the sale of nutrients and fibre and possibly the sale of GHG credits. Other sources of income may be available from government programs in the form of subsidies and capital assistance. Although these have been the primary drivers in the European experience they do not exist in Canada to the same degree and should not be the primary reason to develop a renewable energy project. There are few areas in Canada where farmers would be willing to pay tipping fees beyond the cost of the transportation of manure but current disposal costs for deadstock and offal could warrant their inclusion in a project. Additional study will be required to determine the marketability of each of the by-products options in BC. Based on the findings of the study it is recommended that animal by-products be included in both of the proposed projects but that the SRM fraction should be separated prior to AD and disposed of separately, preferably using some form of thermal combustion technology. Regardless, both projects will be required to include adequate pre-processing technologies, including a pasteurization stage if animal tissue is added.. Developers should continue to review the feasibility of adding a gasification/pyrolysis technology in the future Biorefinery phase of their respective projects, allowing them to expand their AD facilities and/or partner with other industries. They would then be capable of converting multiple carbon based feedstocks such as wood waste, poultry litter, unseperated MSW and solid residuals from the digester waste into syngas and high nutrient ash. The gases from both processes could be converted to marketable energy (heat and electricity) utilizing cogeneration, sold as pressurized vehicle fuel or converted to liquid fuels such as ethanol. Several proven processes, e.g. the BRI system, utilize chemical and biological catalysts to convert biogas and syngas to ethanol. These technologies are now reaching commercial scale and show considerable promise. Federal and provincial mandatory ethanol content legislation has increased the market for ethanol dramatically and with higher oil prices ethanol has become competitive. Again, additional research, an extensive market review and a more in-depth financial assessment should be completed prior to determining the structure of the Biorefinery. The ability to successfully and affordably treat mixed waste streams simultaneously would provide a much needed solution for agricultural livestock producers, municipalities and industrial food processors alike. It is the premise of the reviewers that a centralized waste treatment facility or Biorefinery, incorporating the base technology of anaerobic digestion (AD), could provide these groups with an environmentally superior and cost-effective waste management technology while at the same time offering them additional income through the creation of marketable value-added products in the form of renewable energy.

iii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 1.1. Project Description / Objectives / Scope of Work 1

2. Technology Assessment
2.1. Anaerobic Digestion 4

2.2. Pre-treatment and Intra-process Technologies 2.2.1.Separation and Size Reduction 2.2.2.Hygienisation 2.2.3.Process Enhancement 8 10 14

2.3. Post-Treatment Technologies 2.3.1.Hygienisation 2.3.2. Liquid / Solid Separation 22 22

2.4. Options for Separated Solids 2.4.1.Incineration 2.4.2.Gasification 2.4.3.Pyrolysis 28 30 35

2.5. Alternative Technologies 2.5.1.Alkaline Hydrolysis 2.5.2.Thermal Depolyermization 37

3. Review of Canadian, US and European Systems

3.1. European 3.2. Linkoping / Sweden / Case Study 3.3. Canada and US and other 40 53 57

4. Economics 5. Bio-Refinery Concept

57 59

6. Summary

66

iv

7. References

68

8. List of Appendices Appendix 1 - Waste Conversion Charts Appendix 2 - Case Studies Appendix 3 - Economic Review Appendix 4- Human fat to Biogas

72

vi

Introduction
Environmental problems associated with agricultural, municipal and industrial waste management are global concerns and include the spread of pathogens through surface and ground water contamination, air pollution and GHG emissions, nutrient mismanagement and uneconomical land use (landfills). Most recently, there have been health concerns over the disposal of animal tissue, primarily portions of ruminant slaughterhouse waste and deadstock classified as specified risk material (SRMs) due to the potential for prion contamination associated with bovine spongiform encephalitis BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis or Mad Cows Disease). Additional concern has risen from the advent of Avian Flu in the poultry industry.

Slaughterhouse offal in British Columbia, including bovine material, has normally been rendered into tallow and bone meal. Due to the issue of BSE and SRMs and restrictions on the use of bovine materials in animal feed, most of the bovine offal in BC is currently being transported across the Province of BC and into Alberta. This has added to the disposal costs for

slaughterhouse operators and livestock producers and is causing the industry hardship. Deadstock is often buried on site or sent to landfill, presenting future problems with ground water contamination. The alternative waste disposal technologies that are most commonly suggested include various forms of combustion. These technologies are energy intensive, costly, can not easily deal with high moisture waste streams and result in increased emissions of GHGs. There is an immediate need for cost-effective solutions to the treatment of livestock waste including manure and animal waste tissue.

The following study looks at the viability of utilizing anaerobic digestion (AD) as a method for the disposal of multiple waste feedstocks in British Columbia. The primary focus is the assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of including animal by-products including slaughterhouse offal and possibly SRM material and deadstock in a centralized AD processing facility. To this end the study has identified and reviewed several AD facilities in Europe successfully digesting this material and evaluated the additional treatments and technologies that would be necessary to meet regulatory requirements and provide the most benefit to all stakeholders.

The ability to successfully and affordably treat mixed waste streams simultaneously would provide a much needed solution for agricultural livestock producers, municipalities and industrial food processors. It is the premise of the project proponents that a centralized waste treatment facility or Biorefinery, incorporating the base technology of anaerobic digestion (AD), could provide these groups with an environmentally superior and cost-effective waste management

technology while at the same time offering them additional income through the creation of marketable value-added products in the form of renewable energy.

1.1. Project Description / Objectives / Scope of Work

The project developers have proposed that two centralized and fully integrated waste to energy centres or Biorefineries be built in British Columbia. These centres would be located in the Okanagan Valley and the Fraser Valley. They would utilize multiple

feedstocks and incorporate anaerobic digestion (AD) as their primary technology. Based on an extensive review of similar projects throughout the world it is acknowledged that to be economically viable such a facility must have access to high biogas yielding feedstocks in addition to livestock manure. Examples are used cooking oils, slaughterhouse offal, energy crops, food processing waste and source separated municipal solid waste (SSOMSW). However, the inclusion of these complex substrates necessitates considerable pre and post treatment and will require the addition of several other technologies. The inclusion of animal by-products and more specifically materials deemed as specified risk material (SRMs) will yield high biogas production and provide value to the system but the disposal of these materials is highly regulated. The following study evaluates the available technological options that would allow for the treatment of these feedstocks.

The regulations as set forth by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) allow the use of AD for disposal of low risk animal tissue provided a hygienisation stage is included, i.e. sterilization and/or pasteurization. (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Feeds Act, Fertilizers Act, Health of Animals Act and Meat Inspection Act) For high risk material the method employed must be able to contain and/or destroy SRMs. The common method for containment is landfill but due to the putrid able nature of the feedstock and the potential for the release of green house gas emissions (GHGs) in the form of methane it is becoming increasingly less attractive and not suitable to large volumes. The most common form of destruction is incineration, one of many thermal technologies. This technology consumes large amounts of energy and again has the potential for GHG emissions. AD, although unable to destroy prions, will reduce the volume of total solids in the waste by as much as 85%. The remaining solids can then be disposed of more economically, either through containment in a landfill or through thermal destruction. A considerable amount of energy can be recovered rather than expended making the process profitable rather than a cost of doing business.

The study assessed a variety of pre-treatments including separation and size reduction, hygienisation and process enhancements which could potentially speed up the digestive process, increase biogas production and in turn increase profitability. In-process treatments were also evaluated including chemical and biological inoculants. Several post-treatments were reviewed including incineration, gasification and pyrolysis as well as a number of liquid solid separation technologies. Post-treatment is the most critical step in the treatment of animal by-products that could potentially contain SRMs. In order to meet CFIA requirements the liquid effluent remaining following digestion must be treated in a highly efficient separator to assure that the solids content is below .015%. The effluent can then be safely discharged and/or further processed to recover high nutrient nitrogen fertilizer. With the addition of water treatment technology the liquid can potentially be brought back to potable, i.e. drinkable water. The solids after being

separated from the liquid can be contained in landfill or destroyed using one of the thermal technologies.

The study also looked at a number of integrated mixed waste to energy systems in Europe (Germany, Austria, Denmark and Sweden) and other areas of the world, many of which include high percentages of animal by-products. A case study of the Linkoping plant in Sweden is presented as an example of a very successful facility digesting primarily slaughterhouse offal and supplying the biogas that is used to operate the citys buses, municipal vehicles and the worlds first biogas train.

A brief economic analysis is presented showing the potential added costs of the various pre and post treatment options relative to the potential return from the sale of byproducts. A more detailed economic analysis is beyond the scope of this study but is being completed by the project proponents and information will be made available to the committee on request.

Finally, the study reviewed the concept of Biorefineries and evaluated the potential of developing similar integrated facilities in British Columbia. Given the limited amount of animal tissue disposed of at any particular site in BC each year on-site plants would be very costly. However, centralized Biorefineries could be an economically viable option for the treatment large volumes of multiple wet and dry waste streams, including slaughterhouse offal. By integrating a number of technologies and treating large volumes of mixed waste, a number of synergies would be created, allowing for the development of economies of scale and improving overall profitability.

2. Technology Assessment
The selection of anaerobic digestion as the primary technology was been based on an extensive evaluation and comparison of waste to energy technologies that can costeffectively deal with multiple, mixed waste streams. AD has a considerable competitive advantage over many other waste management approaches.

AD is one of the few technologies capable of handling high moisture waste. AD has a positive energy balance producing marketable value-added in the form of heat and electricity, organic fertilizer, clean water and the sale of GHG emission reduction credits.

AD is capable of dealing with multiple waste streams simultaneously. AD will reduce up to 90% of the odor emissions, eliminate pathogens, reducing surface and groundwater contamination reduces green house gas (GHG) emissions. AD increases fertilizer value by fixing nutrients.

2.1. Anaerobic Digestion Anaerobic digestion is the microbiological decomposition of high molecular organic substances into low molecular organic substances in an airless environment, resulting in the production of biogas. A similar but less complete process takes place in the stomach.

Anaerobic digestion is a multi-stage process.

Organic Matter

Hydrolysis Liquid Forming Bacteria

Acetogenesis Acid Forming Bacteria

Methanogensis Methane Forming Bacteria

BIOGAS

Figure #1 - AD process

Facts:
Biogas is a regenerative energy source, made up of approx. 60 - 80% methane, 20 35 % CO2 and 3-5% of combined ( N2O, H2S, H2, N2, NH3 and H2O) Biogas has a caloric value of 6.0 -7.5 kWh / m3 Biogas has a heat value of approx. 630 BTU while the methane portion is equivalent to natural gas which is 900 BTU.

1 m3 of biogas will produce approx. 2 -2.4 kWh of electricity and 3.5 4 kWh of heat

Process
To produce energy from waste, biogenous waste is first freed of foreign matter and then fed to a fermenter. In the entirely enclosed reactor operating according to the anaerobic principle (with absence of oxygen), micro organisms transform the organic substance present in the material into compost and biogas. There are many types of digesters:

Mesosphilic vs. Thermophilic Mesosphilic fermentation process takes place at a temperature of 30 to 35 degrees Celsius and lasts for 15 to 40 days. The thermophilic fermentation process takes place at a temperature of 55 to 60 degrees Celsius and lasts for 10 to 15 days. The thermophilic range is generally considered to be more efficient, producing a greater degree of solids conversion and therefore more biogas in a shorter period of time. The thermophilic range will also increase pathogen destruction. Given increasingly stricter rules regarding the disposal of dead animals, slaughterhouse offals and the treatment of MSW, it is becoming mandatory to either go either thermophilic or to add a pasteurization stage to the process. Thermophilic systems require more energy to operate and can destabilize bacteria and require more operator attention. Mesosphilic systems with extensive pretreatment are most commonly used with animal by-products.

Wet (low solids) vs. Dry (high solids) Dry or High Solids systems have an average TS content of between 20 - 40% whereas wet or low solids systems tend to have a TS content of 10 - 15%. The HS systems leave a much smaller footprint, given their extremely high loading rates and their ability to treat more waste within the same space. In turn, the capital cost of the digester /tonne of waste treated is lower. However, much of this saving may be offset by the need for more expensive shredders and pumps to handle the higher solids content. HS systems are ideally suited to what is called grey waste, i.e. residual refuse which remains after source separation.

The digestion of animal by-products which are primarily protein and high in nitrogen can create ammonia toxicity which destabilizes the bacteria that produce the biogas. Therefore systems digesting protein require a carbon source to balance the nitrogen. High carbon materials such as paper can be added or operators can dilute the mixture

with water or preferably liquid manure. The most common systems used with animal byproducts are wet or low solids systems.

Single Stage vs. Multistage In single stage AD systems all three stages of the process take place in the same reactor whereas multi stage systems generally separate the hydrolysis/liquefaction and Acetogenesis processes from Methanogensis, in an effort to attain more process stability and flexibility. The multi-stage systems reduce the interference between acid forming bacteria and the methane forming bacteria and results in a less overall hydraulic retention time and increased biogas production. Many of the processes treating animal by-

products are multi-stage and involve a hydrolysis stage.

Batch vs. Plug Flow vs. Continuous Batch systems are loaded with feedstock at the beginning of the process and the biogas and filtrate is discharged at the end of the process. In plug flow and continuous mix systems feedstock is continuously added and discharged. These systems are fed much the same as we feed our stomachs. Waste is added at intervals during the day, and eliminated in a similar volume. Continuous mix systems are most commonly used with low solids while batch and plug flow systems are normally used with HS. Although all three types of systems are used in the digestion of animal by-products there seems to be a higher success rate with the batch process.

Benefits of digesting animal by-products

High moisture organic material from municipal, industrial and agricultural sources such as slaughterhouse offal, cooking oil, food processing waste and source separated municipal solid waste from restaurants supermarkets and residences are excellent feedstock for digestion. AD systems digesting livestock manure are seldom profitable unless heavily subsidized. The advantage of adding proteins and fats to the digestion process is

apparent in the following chart.

Figure #2 - Niras Presentation -Washington D.C, Danish Biogas Industry, 11/14/2006

See additional charts in the Appendix # 1

2.2. Pre-treatment and Intra-Process Technologies

Prior to digestion most feedstock will require pre-treatment. Pre-treatment is used to minimize potential biological or physical effects on the digestive process or on the mechanical components of the equipment itself. It may also be employed to enhance the process by increasing process efficiency and ultimately productivity. The type of pretreatment will vary according to type of feedstock used, the potential level of contamination, feedstock size, the digestion process to be used, i.e. dry or wet and the desired quality of the end-product. Pre-treatment is critical and mandatory prior to or following the digestion of animal by-products. Pre-treatment can generally be broken into 3 categories, although hygienisation and process enhancement can often happen within a single stage:

Separation and size reduction

Hygienisation Process Enhancement

2.2.1. Separation and Size Reduction

Separation Separation of feedstock is done to remove all materials, in particular non-biodegradable material that negatively affect digestion, unnecessarily take up space or potentially cause physical damage to the digester components. The pre-treatment of feedstocks like manure are generally simple, only requiring the removal of grit (sand and gravel) that could potentially accumulate in the digester. However, other types of waste including municipal solid waste, slaughterhouse offal and industrial food processing waste require more complex forms of separation. Separation to ensure a clean organic feedstock is the most essential part of the process.

Source Separation - takes place at the source, i.e. the home, food processing plant, supermarket, restaurant, etc. Organic waste is stored separately or undesirable waste is removed. Source separation prevents or lessons the chance of contamination.

Manual Sorting - after the waste has been hauled to the treatment facility it is manually sorted to remove undesirable items such as rocks, batteries and other inorganics

Mechanical Sorters (Screens, Rotating Trommels, magnetic separation, etc.) mechanical treatment is often used with large volumes of waste where source is impossible and manual sorting inadequate. This generally leads to a higher level of contamination as smaller pieces are often not removed and/or are mixed into the organics by the mechanical process.

Note***Source separation of all SRM material is now mandatory when treating animal byproducts.

Size Reduction - Grinding / Maceration / Pulverization / Slurry

Once again regulation mandates that size reduction take place in any process involving the treatment of animal by-products. Both NA and EU regulations specify a particle size > 6 mm. In order to ensure proper hygienisation and to expedite the process of digestion
feedstock must be reduced to a uniform small particle size. According to Gale (2002)

animal by-products particle sizes must be no larger than 5cm (2 inches) in order to achieve proper heat transfer in a sterilization process. Size reduction also improves solubility, allows for better heat distribution, gives bacteria access to more surface area and improves the efficiency of the digestion. Processes range from grinding and maceration, involving cutting and shredding to pulverization and the reduction of feedstock to slurry in such equipment as a hydropulper.

As noted agricultural livestock manure requires little pre-treatment but animal byproducts, particularly whole carcasses require considerable pre-processing. Most large slaughterhouse and rendering facilities use a series of grinders, pulverizers and liquefaction systems as do large MSW handling and composting facilities.

Ideally carcasses and even offal should be pre-processed to some degree prior to being transported to a central waste to energy or AD facility. Portable grinders, hydropulpers and slurry systems are available and could be taken to farm sites and smaller meat processing facilities and the processed material could then be shipped to the central facility in tankers trucks or sealed containers. Morrow & Ferket (2002) Kansas study 2004

A number of companies provide equipment that are used to pre-treat MSW, food processing waste, slaughterhouse offal and animal mortalities. The type and size of the equipment varies considerably depending on what is being processed. Poultry carcasses require very little grinding and less sturdy equipment but entire bovine carcasses will have to be either cut up prior to grinding or placed into a vertical sturdily built tube grinder.

A number of companies were reviewed and detailed information and quotations obtained. Although not specifically designed for the slaughterhouse industry the grinder manufactured by the Canadian company Supreme International has been adapted and marketed for the disposal of bovine carcases and is used extensively on dairies in the US. A bulking agent such as straw is required to eliminate what has been called the frog in the blender effect.

The ground material can be taken to a liquid form with the use of a hydropulper. A hydropulper system commonly used in the treatment of MSW is the Muffin Monster manufactured by JWC Environmental. Another interesting and potentially viable technology is that of another Canadian company, National Challenge. The company is

already well established in the BC Lower Mainland, collecting supermarket waste and used cooking oil and has shown interest in extending their services to the slaughterhouse industry. National Challenge has shown interest in the possibility of establishing a pretreatment and pick-up and delivery system for the slaughterhouse industry.

Manufacturers reviewed include: Rentec Rendering Technology Crushing Systems http://www.rentec.be/engels/breekinstallaties.htm JWC Environmental / Muffin Monster grinders - http://www.jwce.com/products Supreme International - www.supremeinternational.com Karl Schnell GmbH & Co http://www.karlschnell.de/en/produktkategorien/crushers/htm Haybuster - http://www.duratechindustries.net/dt/dtindustries.htm LIPP Crusher Grinder - http://www.lipp-system.de Bomatic Umwelt und Verfahrenstechnuk GmbH - http://www.bomatic.de/en/ Crestwood Recycling Systems / Sabercat and Destroyer - http://www.crestwood.com Jacobson / Carter Day - http://www.jacobsonmn.com/Core/Front.html Diamond Z Manufacturing - Grinders - http://www.diamondz.com National Challenge - http://www..nationalchallenge.com

Note It is necessary to reduce the size of the carcasses for better heat transfer before sterilization is attempted. If the carcasses are not reduced to a size of less than 5 cm (2.0 inches) in diameter, the heat transfer will take a longer time (Table 1), which of course is not desired. According to Gale (2002), the maximum particle size diameter in a biodigester is 5 cm (2.0 inches), which permits good heat transfer for sterilization and bio-digestion.

2.2.2. Hygienisation
Hygienisation is required for any type of feedstock that is considered to be contaminated in some form or contain pathogens or infectious material.

Pathogen Reduction / Destruction - There are some mixed opinions in this area. Many companies conclude that pathogen destruction can be achieved with simple mesosphilic 32C digestion. However, extended research suggests that thermophilic digestion is

mandatory to reduce pathogens to acceptable levels. If the intent is merely to treat

10

manure and spread the remaining effluent on land it would probably not be necessary to be so diligent but in a commercial operation that is using effluent in greenhouses or hydroponics operations it is mandatory that we meet Class A standards for pathogen reduction in biosolids.

In both Canada and the US thermophilic digestion appears acceptable for achieving Class A pathogen reduction. The VERTAD System in the US has conducted a series of tests with temperature phased digestion (i.e. a combination of thermophilic 55C and mesosphilic 32C) and achieved an almost total 7 log reduction of both fecal coli form and salmonella well below the detection limits of Class A Biosolids. (EPA detection levels for fecal coli forms: Less than 1000 MPN/g, salmonella: Less than 3 MPN/4g) (Study Results for VERDAD - fecal coli form: 5 MPN/g, salmonella: 1.6 MPN/4g - Article CFR 503, CLASS A pathogen Reduction, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) The EPA accepts processes employing treatment at 55C for 24 hours, with additional time at lower temperatures.

Similar results were achieved in tests conducted by Iowa State University on Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion (TPAD). Test showed up to 98% and 99% pathogen reductions with a combination of mesosphilic and thermophilic digestion. (Shih Wu Sung, PhD, PE, Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion, System Evaluation for Different Feedstock, Iowa State University, 1999)

Studies conducted by the Water Research Foundation of Australia on digestion of hog effluent showed a reduction of 98.6% on faecal enterococci organisms and 98.7 on faecal coli forms, again with temperatures in the thermophilic range. (Total Waste Management System for the Pig Industry, The Water Institute of Australia) http://www.eidn.com.au/berrybank.html

The United Kingdom recently increased requirements for Class A biosolids by requiring pre-pasteurization at 70C for 30 minutes, upstream to anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic Digestion: Retooling an old process to meet Class A objective, Water Environment & Technology Magazine, May, 2003,

http://www.bv.com/news/articles/may03/anaerobic_digestion.htm
EU Animal By-products Regulation (EC No. 1774/2002) permits the use of both composting and anaerobic digestion in the treatment of catering waste and other low risk (category 3) animal by-products and category 2 manure, stomach contents and gut

11

contents. AD at a thermophilic temperature of 55 C guaranteed for 24 hours with a residence time of at least 20 days or mesosphilic digestion with either pre-treatment of substrates at 70 C for 60 minutes or post-treatment of digestate at 70 C for 60 minutes or composting of digestate.

(EU-initiative - Biological treatment of bio-waste, second draft (ref.32) guidelines that recommend that waste should undergo treatment http://europa.eu.int/comm./environment/waste/facts_en.htm )

The following chart outlines the type of hygienisation and treatment used for manure and slaughterhouse offal in the Rybjerg plant in Denmark:

Biogas Plant at Bovine Slaughtering Facility

Table 6: Substrates for Biogas Plant Model 4 (Bovine Abattoir) Substrate Manure from bovine animals Rumen (stomach) content Rumen Slaughter by-products, bones Parts of s slaughtered animals (not fit for human consumption) 1 Blood Category 2 2 3 3 3 Required Treatment No Pre-treatment Required No Pre-treatment Required Pasteurization Pasteurization Pasteurization

3 or 1

Pasteurization or Incineration

Bones: vertebral column and skull Intestines Screenings (bigger than 6mm) Content of fat removal devices (particles < 6mm) 2 Washings (purely liquid faction0

1 1 1 -

Sterilization, Incineration Sterilization, Incineration Sterilization, Incineration

(1) from animals fit for slaughter 9ante mortem), identified as not fit for human consumption after post-mortem inspection (2) without reduction of particle size and removed from waste water stream after the waste water pre-treatment unit Figure #3 - Danish Biogas Association

12

The extent of micro organism inactivation depends on the combination of temperature and holding time. As previously noted sanitation alone is not an adequate treatment for animal tissue. Anaerobic digesters incorporating potentially contaminated waste including fat and proteins generally use some form of thermal treatment (sterilization / pasteurization) to attain pathogen destruction whether it be in separate or combined systems.

Sanitation - heat treatment at lower temperatures over an extended period of time can be achieved through AD or composting.

Sterilization - At least 20 minutes without interruption at a core temperature of more

than 133 C and an absolute steam pressure of no less than 3 bar

Pasteurization - 60 minutes at 70 - 90 C - enhances AD process. The process of

pasteurization was named after Louis Pasteur who discovered that spoilage organisms could be inactivated in wine by applying heat at temperatures below its boiling point. Pasteurization is critical in the treatment of any waste containing animal by-products. There are two basic methods, batch or continuous. Batch method

The batch method uses a vat pasteurizer which consists of a jacketed vat surrounded by either circulating water, steam or heating coils of water or steam. The vat is heated and held throughout the holding period while being agitated.

13

Figure #4 - Guelph University Continuous Method The continuous process method has advantages over the vat method. It is faster and less energy is required. A high temperature short time (HTST) pasteurizer is generally used. Heat is created by running steam or hot water through a plate heat exchanger which is essentially a stack of corrugated stainless steel plates clamped together in a frame.

14

Figure #5 - Guelph University Manufacturers reviewed:

BioChop hygienisation unit for animal by-products

A 2.5 m3 Landia BioChop hygienisation unit at the Rybjerg plant in Denmark adheres to the regulation which states that Category-3 animal by-products must be pasteurized or hygienised at 70C for at least one hour and that the size of the solid parts must not exceed 12 mm. Landia has also developed a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) for the control system to regulate all phases of the hygienisation process.

15

2.2.3. Process Enhancement

There are several pre-treatments and processes that are coupled with digestion that claim to enhance performance. These treatments often reduce digestion time and/or improve process efficiency by increasing the destruction of volatile solids. This in turn increases methane production and reduces the amount of residuals left post-digestion. These processes include: Homogenization Thermal, mechanical and chemical hydrolysis Chemical treatment Enzyme and catalyst enhancements Pasteurization

Homogenization

A homogenization process can be used prior to anaerobic digestion to ensure uniform composition and stable structure throughout a product (liquification), potentially accelerating the rate and extent of degradation of volatile solids and thereby increasing methane recovery. This is achieved by intensive mixing to achieve suspension and greater soluability and/or cell disruption by introducing pressure, rapid ecompression and/or chemical pre-treatment to break cell walls and allow the spilling of protoplasm that becomes readily available as substrate for the bacteria in the digester. The following are examples of companies utilizing or testing the process.

Paradigm

Environmental

Technologies

Paradigms

patented

process

MicroSludge is a chemical and pressure pre-treatment process that uses alkaline pre-treatment to weaken cell membranes and high pressure homogenization to liquefy the cells of the feedstock, enabling the anaerobic process to work faster and more efficiently. MicroSludge claims that their process will result in fewer biosolids for disposal post digestion and in higher methane production given a 95% destruction of volatile solids.

To date MicroSludge has only been tested outside of the lab on waste water sludges although some work is being done with livestock manure and other substrates. A key problem with the technology is the need to separate solids out prior to the process. Many forms of food processing waste, SSMSW and offal could be pulverized prior to homogenization and would benefit by the process but it would be cost prohibitive to

16

separate the solids from manure. Currently the high cost of separation and homogenizing does not justify the small increase in methane production. http://www.paradigmenvironmental.com/

Hollowman Environmental Corporation (HEC)

Hollowman has developed a new technology that it claims will produce uniform and repeatable homogenates and increase methane production without the use of chemicals and physical stress to the feedstock. The process is called Rapid NonEquilibrium Decompression (RnD). Large quantities of CO2 are first dissolved in the cell under high pressure and then suddenly released. The expanding bubbles rupture the cell membranes and release the contents of the cell.

The process is considered to be much gentler than chemical or high stress mechanical homogenization and therefore does less damage to delicate enzymes and organelles in the substrate. There is no heat damage or oxidization. Other gases including nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide and compressed air have been used in this technique, but carbon dioxide is preferred because it rapidly penetrates cell walls and decreases the pH of the suspending medium. Also, CO2 is generally readily available as a by-product in the process and therefore more cost effective.

The RnD process has been very successful in treating mammalian and other membrane bound cells but has not been used to date in association with the treatment of slaughterhouse offal. http://www.hollomanenvironmental.com

Rentec / GBU mbH

There are several digester companies incorporating homogenization into their systems. Those using the process in the treatment of slaughterhouse offal included Rentec / GBU mbH. GBU accomplishes homogenization, suspension and separation in a single process. Pre-crushed material is fed into a steel tank and diluted to approximately 10% solids. It is intensively mixed and suspended to achieve greater solubility of fats and proteins for hygienisation purposes. The suspension is then heated to 70 C. The agitation causes small particles of wood, plastic, etc to float and they can be scraped off using a special screen. Glass and metals are removed from the bottom of the tank by sedimentation. The homogenous liquid, free of foreign matter, is then pumped into the digester. http://www.gbunet.de

17

Thermal Hydrolysis

Biosphere Technologies Inc. / Biorefinex Biosphere Technology Inc. has developed a bio-refining technology which utilizes thermal hydrolysis to process large volume animal by-products (ABP) and infectious organic waste (up to 5 tonne per batch or 16,000 tonne per year) The patented BioRefinex technology produces sterilized organic feed stock for the production of BioThe system operates at 180 C at 12 bar. The technology breaks down complex protein into amino acids and peptides and claims to inactivate prions.

The potential outputs from the Biorefinex process are feedstock for anaerobic digesters, fuel for the production of syngas, feedstock for the manufacturing of organic fertilizers and safe landfill. The Bio-Refinex process has been approved by several International Health & Environmental Agencies for high risk disease programs. http://biorefinex.com

Cambi In Cambis patented hydrolysis plant, waste is cooked under high pressure and temperature (133-200C) and the organic solids dissolve in the same way as they wood if you cooked food in a pressure cooker. As with Biorefinex cell structures in the feedstock breaks open under the temperature and pressure used and the energy rich substances inside are dissolved. The hydrolysed waste is fully sterilized and has a much lower viscosity making it excellent to use in high solids digesters and any stir type system. In addition the final digestate is much easier to dewater. Cambi claims to provide the following benefits: higher biogas production

The process creates higher levels of dissolved organic compounds and organic acids, which are more easily broken down into biogas in a digester. Cambi claims to be able to increase biogas production by up to 100%. greater biosolids reduction (less solids and less water in final product)

18

Cambi claims that dewatering the properties after hydrolysis can be improved by up to 100% and that solids content of over 30% for digestate can be achieved without problems. The reduction in the mass makes it possible to transport, disperse or/ or burn the material without drying. If drying is necessary, both investment requirement and energy cost will be significantly reduced. enhanced digester capacity due to much higher solids loading rates

Due to de-watering and the change in viscosity achieved through hydrolysis the digester can be loaded with a higher solids concentration and the retention time is also reduced. Together these factors can improve the digester capacity 2-3 times, greatly reducing the footprint and the capital cost. stabilization of digester operations

Hydrolyzed undigested effluent provides a stable internal carbon source for AD. safer end product that is easier to store and with less odour Pathogens are effectively eliminated through the thermal sterilization process. The Cambi Process:

Figure # 6 - Cambi, www.cambi.com

19

BTA Biologische Abfallverwertung GmbH & Co (Germany) - the original BTA plant was initiated in Germany in the early 1980s to test AD technology with a variety of waste streams and their first commercial plant was installed in Denmark in 1990 to treat 20,000 tonne /y of mixed organic waste. BTA offers several technical options. Their single stage systems perform well with manure and sewage sludge and their multistage systems have been used to treat more complex feedstocks such as SSMSW and animal by-products.

The multi-stage systems employ several additional technologies. The initial step is hydropulping to remove plastic, metals and glass. The mixed waste is then

homogenised and circulated through a hydrodynamic de-gritting system to remove additional contaminants such as fine glass, stones and sand. The pulp is then

dewatered into solids and liquids in a pre-separate process. The liquid goes directly to the methane digester with a 2 day retention time while the solids are mixed with more water and fed into a hydrolysis reactor. After 4 days in this reactor the

substrate is dewatered again and the liquid goes to the methane reactor and the solids placed back into pre-treatment along with fresh solids. BTA offers an

alternative 2 stage system for plants in the medium size range. It works similar to the multi-stage but it skips the liquid / solid separation and puts everything into the hydrolysis reactor and then into the methane reactor. It recovers part of the fermented material following the complete retention period and re-injecting it back into the hydrolysis system to accelerate the process. They go even further, offering an additional sanitation phase for systems treating food residuals and animal byproducts (Overview of Anaerobic Digestion Technologies in Europe, Biocycle, January, 2004) The 2 stage systems have been very successful but the multi-stage systems have experienced several problems and are both complicated to operate and highly sensitive to a number of intervening biological variables.

The majority of the AD systems developed by the German parent company are small SSLS systems treating manure and LS mixes of waste. In 2002, 1 multi stage plant (20,000 t/ y) and 10 single stage plants (1,000 t/ y - 150,000 t/ y) were operating in Austria and Germany. BTA has authorized foreign companies to use their

technology. Canada Composting has developed 2 MSLS systems in the Toronto, Ontario area.

20

Figure #7 - BTA

http://bta-technologie.de

IngentaConnect

The process of steam explosion as a pretreatment for anaerobic digestion has been evaluated by the developer to determine whether it enhances biogas generation. Studies to date have only been conducted with municipal wastewater treatment sludges and dewatered anaerobic digester effluent (biosolids). Samples were steamexploded under differing levels of intensity resulting in increased solublization and increased bioavailability under anaerobic digestion conditions resulting in increased yield of methane. Semicontinuous digestion of the biosolids mixture that was

pretreated at 300 psi generated approximately 50% more biogas than the controls and improved the dewaterability of the final digested sludge by 32 and 45%. However, the energy requirements of the steam-explosion process were substantially higher than the additional energy produced from enhanced digestion of the pretreated sludge. There will have to be considerable improvements in energy efficiency before the process could be considered economically viable.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com

21

Technologies Used with Digestion - Chemical and Enzymatic Catalysts

There are a number of catalysts used to speed up or stabilize the process of AD. Only one is reviewed here due to its applicability to animal tissue and SRMs.

Enzyme that degrades prions North Carolina State University, the Central Institute for Animal Disease Control in the Netherlands and BioResource International a NC biotech company have demonstrated the effectiveness of a bacterial enzyme called keratinase that can fully degrade a prion or protein particle. Dr. Jason Shih, professor of biotechnology and poultry science at NC State led the team that tested the effects of keratinase on brain tissues from cows with BSE and sheep with scrapie. The results showed that, when the tissue was pretreated and in the presence of a detergent, the enzyme fully degraded the prion, rendering it undetectable. Shih believes that using keratinase to destroy any harmful prions on the meat processing equipment assists in reducing the risk of spreading BSE. In his more than two decades of work as a poultry scientist looking for ways to manage poultry waste Shih discovered that the bacteria, Bacillus licheniformis strain PWD-1, could degrade chicken feathers. He isolated the bacterial enzyme keratinase, and then isolated and sequenced the gene that encodes keratinase. By fermentation technology, he was able to develop a way to produce mass quantities of the enzyme. www.techjournalsouth.com/news/article.html?item_id=323 http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_release/04_01/001.htm

Pasteurization

Pasteurization has been previously discussed as a hygienisation process but it should be noted that in addition to hygienisation it also enhances digestion by breaking down solids. The following chart is from the Linkoping plant Sweden that digests a combination of manure and slaughterhouse waste and source separated household waste. Note the considerable difference in biogas yields from pasteurized vs. non pasteurized animal byproducts. Methane yields from Batch Digestion Linkoping Sweden

22

Figure #8 - Linkoping Case Study - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI - Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

2.3. Post- Treatment Technologies

2.3.1.Hygienisation Operators of anaerobic digesters may opt to add the pasteurization/sterilization stage at the end of the process rather than the front. This is seldom done as the AD process is actually enhanced by hygienisation and particle reduction in the pre-processing stage.

2.3.2. Liquid Solid Separation

Mechanical Separators As previously noted post-treatment of digester effluent following the treatment of feedstock containing animal by-products and SRMs is critical. CFIA regulations require that solids content in the effluent be reduced to <.015%. therefore critical to the process. Separation methods are

Slope Screen Separator Screen presses are the simplest, cheapest and least effective method of separating solid residuals from liquid effluent. They remove less than 25% of the total

particulate matter from the digestate and would not be suitable for the separation of material containing animal by-products and would definitely not meet the requirements for material containing SRMs. Drum or rotating screen are somewhat better but still not satisfactory for effluent containing animal by-products.

23

Figure #9 - US Filter

**** Average system cost - slope screen - 850 gpm - $60,000 US ****Average system cost - rotating screen 850 gpm - $75,000 US Belt Press Belt presses are continuous feed dewatering devices are the most common separator used in waste water treatment. content to 14-18%. Manufacturers reviewed: US Filter - http://www.usfilter.com A good system can reduce moisture

Figure #10 - US Filter

**** Average system cost - $40k gpm - $60K US gpm

24

Centrifuge Centrifuges utilize centrifugal force to dewater effluent and freely on the differences in density between the solid and liquid material. The solid material being denser will settle out. Centrifuges are far more efficient than a belt press method and are often used with agricultural waste. They perform best with effluent that has been reduced to 5-8% solids. Two types of centrifuges are centriseives and decanters or screw presses as shown below. They would be more than adequate in the removal of solids from digester effluent containing animal by-products but would not be able to meet the particle size requirements if the feedstock contained SRMs. Manufacturers reviewed: US Centrifuge http://www.uscentrifuge.com Krauss-Maffei http://kmpt.net/lsseparation.html Pieralisi http://www.sewage.net Alfa Laval - http://www.alfalaval.com

Figure #11 - US Filter

**** Systems available from 500 gpd to 50,000 gpd and prices ranged from $50K US to $350K US http://www.p2pays.org/ref/01/00125.htm

25

Screw Press In general the screw press is the most efficient method to press solids from wet waste and TS concentration and flow rate will determine removal efficiency. Manufacturers reviewed: Agpro USA - http://www.agprousa.com Alibaba - http://www.alibaba.com

Figure #12 - US Filter

****Average system cost 300 gpm - $50,000 gpm

Small Particle Removal Systems

Dissolved Air Floatation Devices (DAF) and Bubble Air Floatation Devices (BAF). These systems are used with waste water treatment and are relatively

expensive and require considerable maintenance. Air is dissolved in the waste water stream and injected into the bottom of the unit. Fine particle solids float to the

surface and are removed. Normally polymers and flocculants are added to improve efficiency. The DAF system will remove up to 95% of TS. Manufacturers reviewed: Accot Technologies - http://www.acottfilter.com US Filter - http://www.usfilter.com

****Average system cost 350 gpm - $120,000

26

Membrane Filtration Membrane filtration is the method of choice of the food processing industry. The systems are used not only to remove solid material but also to recover a number of chemicals and by-products. Membrane filtration is physical separation process that uses varying pressures on two sides of a special membrane to separate molecules of different sizes and characteristics. A single feed stream is passed either parallel to (cross-flow filtration) or through (dead-end filtration) a specialized membrane at high velocity and under pressure. Cross filtration is the most common and has the advantage of being a continuous process with no build up and fouling.

The fluid passes through the membrane which separates it into two separate streams known as permeate and retentate. The pores of the membrane are small (measured in Angstrom (10
10

m) and pressure is required to force the liquid through.

In

nanofiltration and reverse osmosis they can not even be seen with an electron microscope. There are four major categories of membranes:

http://www.alfalaval.com/digitalassets/2/file13899_1_AL__membrane_filtration.pdf

27

Figure # 13 - Alfa Laval

Membrane technology is costly but if used on a industrial scale is far more cost-effective and efficient than other methods. Lower overall production costs High end product quality Flexibility

Ultrafiltration will allow salts, sugars and organic acids to pass through while tapping proteins, fats and polysaccharides. This makes it ideal for the treatment of effluent containing digested animal by-products and materials containing SRMs. The liquid will retain valuable nutrients making it a viable fertilizer and the solids can be contained or destroyed. Membrane filtration when used with AD will meet the CFI requirements for the treatment of animal by-products and SRMs. Manufacturers reviewed: US Filter - http://www.usfilter.com Siemens - http://www.siemans.com Alfa Laval - http://www.alfalaval.com New Logic - http://www.vsep.com

****Average system cost 15 M3 /h $200K - $250 K

2.4. Options for Separated Solids

When treating animal manures and SSMSW not containing animal by-products the normal options for the disposal of solids include: Direct land application Animal bedding Composting Re-feeding

However if animal by-products and in particular SRMs are included the requirement are that all solids be contained or destroyed. Therefore the following options are available:

Landfill

Given that the overall volume of material has been reduced to a fraction of the original containment in a sanitary landfill becomes a viable option for the treatment of animal byproducts and SRMs. The waste is no longer putrid able, will not release either odor or

28

GHGs and pathogens have been destroyed. Landfill costs vary from region to region but this appears to be a very cost-effective option following digestion and separation.

Thermal Conversion

In thermal processes the material decomposes as a result of a high temperature. starting from 300o C.. Depending of the amount of oxygen (the air ratio or lambda) present three separate thermal conversion processes are generally distinguished: Combustion / Incineration - lambda >1 Gasification - lambda <1 Pyrolysis - lambda = 0

The lambda l is used to differentiate the thermal conversion processes. Lambda is the ratio between the amount of oxygen added to the process and the amount that is required for complete transformation of the feed into CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water). This is illustrated in the following chart

Figure # 14 - Pyrolysis network - The Netherlands

2.4.1. Combustion / Incineration

Combustion or incineration is a thermal process where biomass is heated with excess air (oxygen) conditions and converted into a flue gas consisting of CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water). The hot steam that is produced in this process can be used to generate electricity by means of a steam turbine. It is the most common of the thermal

29

processing technologies and most of the worlds large wastes to energy facilities are incinerators. In this process a large amount of air is added to the system.
o

Biomass is usually

combusted at temperatures in the range of 800-1000 C. Enough heat is produced to maintain the combustion reaction and to produce additional heat that can be used to generate energy. In principle all the energy from the biomass except a small part lost due to heat losses is converted in thermal energy in the form of a hot flue gas. To produce electricity the heat of the flue gas is used to generate steam. The steam drives a steam turbine or engine that produces electricity via a generator. The overall electrical efficiency of a combustion installation is dependent of the scale and ranges approximately from 15-35% (indicative for 1 to 100 MWe installations, respectively). There are two types of incineration processes: Direct firing technologies Fluidized-bed Combustion

On-site incineration is generally far too costly for an individual slaughterhouse operator or even an AD plant unless there is high volume of material. The AD operator should either partner with a local incineration operator and haul the remaining solids to their facility if one is available or look for a small cost-effective incinerator. After digestion the volume of material is reduced so dramatically that either option is viable.

There are often Issues over NOX, SOX and GHG emissions from incinerators. New age incinerators have dealt with this issue and are far superior but very costly and again not an option unless volume warrants.

Manufactures reviewed: Imexco Inc. - US company - smaller system, up to 100 lbs - designed for the destruction of animal tissue - http://www.imexcoinc.com/incinerator.htm ACS - US company - incineration systems specializing in hazardess waste with over 700 systems operating worldwide - focus on large scale systems. http://www.acsacs.com/pages/combust/products.htm

EPI - Energy Products of Idaho - US company - fluidized bed combustion / gasification system capable of combusting multiple feedstocks. Over 80 systems operating worldwide - focus on large scale systems http://www.energyproducts.com

30

Eco Waste Solutions - Canadian company - a thermal waste oxidizer focused on combusting hazardess waste smaller systems available

http://www.ecosolutions.com

MESH Technologies - The Orverter - Canadian company - MESH The technology is being marketed as a cost-effective hazardess waste incineration system. MESH has been around for over 15 years but currently does not have a commercial system operating. http://www.meshtech.ca

Richway - Enersave - Canadian Company - specializing in the incineration of MSW - all large scale - no operations in NA. All in China http://www.richwaygroup.com

Advanced Thermal Recycling - German company with state of the art emission free incinerators- plants around the world - focus on MSW - large scale http://www.mvr-hh.de

Heuristic Engineering - Canadian company - specializing in the combustion and gasification of MSW and chicken manure large scale

http://www.heuristicengineering.com

NAANOVO Energy Inc. - US company specializing in hazardess waste and MSW incineration and gasification - large scale - http://www.naanova.com

EPR Resources - UK company specializing in various forms of renewable energy incineration systems focus on chicken litter and MSW and agricultural residue, i.e. straw. - very large systems http://eprl.co.uk

2.4.2. Gasification
Gasification is another thermal process rapidly gaining popularity. It has been around for over a century but until recently was primarily used in the coal industry. In this case the biomass decomposes utilizing heat (usually between 800 C - 1000C) using a small controlled amount of air/oxygen. The biomass reacts with the air (not enough for complete combustion) to create in a fuel gas. Gasification will break down any material containing carbon. The process produces ash or char and synthetic gas (syngas). It uses less oxygen than traditional incineration. Syngas is made up of Carbon monoxide and Hydrogen (85%) with smaller amounts of

31

Carbon Dioxide and Methane. Syngas can be used as a fuel to generate heat and electricity or if further processed, as a basis chemical in the petrochemical and refining industries. The solid residues, ash or char are used as plant nutrients or for industrial purposes.

Figure # 15 - NETL

32

Figure #16 - NETL

The overall efficiency of the conversion from biomass into electricity is higher with gasification than with incineration and therefore should deliver cheaper electricity. It also produces far less GHG, NOX and SOX emissions. It is currently being looked at with great interest as a clean coal technology and in the treatment of MSW. It has a

considerable advantage over technologies as separation is not necessary. However, most gasification technologies require moisture content to be reduced below 25%, making it unviable with most livestock manures and with slaughterhouse offal unless drying takes place or if mixed with high solids materials such as wood. Gasification does not appear to be a viable stand alone option for handling animal byproducts unless very large volumes are being treated or if the wet animal by-product waste is combined with drier materials. In a Biorefinery, incorporating several

technologies, biomass gasification would compliment anaerobic digestion. The wet waste would be digested and the residual solids gasified with dry materials such as chicken litter mixed with wood shavings, wood by-products, dry plant material such as straw or corn husks, slowly degradable MSW such as construction household waste, wood wastes, tires, plastics or even coal. Manufactures reviewed: Thermoselect - German company with branch offices across the world. - one of the most recognised gasification companies in the world. It specializes in MSW - very large systems. http://www.interstatewastetechnologies.com GEEC - Global Environmental Energy Corp. - a Bahamas based company with routes in Germany and the US- has developed a mobile gasification / cogeneration system (up to 6 MW) called the Biosphere - They claim to be able to gasify just about anything. In 2005 there were 5 plants operating in China but none in Europe or NA. http://www.gli-geecf.com BRI - US company - has developed a patented process using a bacterial bioreactor to convert gasified biomass into ethanol - combines thermochemical and biochemical tchnologies, allowing it convert virtually any carbon based material. See detailed description under Biorefineries - http://www.brienergy.com URBAS - Austrian company with plants around the world - specialize in the gasification of wood waste - very advanced low emission technology - very large systems - http://www.urbas.at Lurgi - German company that has been in operation since 1897. Lurgi has built hundreds of gasification plants around the world for the generation of synthesis gas,

33

hydrogen, carbon monoxide as well as sulfur recovery and is highly regarded as one of the leading gasification technologies. Lurgi specializes in coal gasification but is compatible with any carbon based feedstock. Http://www.lurgi.de RTI International - US company that specializes in converting natural gas- and coal-derived syngas to liquid fuels and chemicals. RTI, like BRI works with Lurgi plants are all large scale.

gasification companies to convert gases to liquid fuels. Large scale operations http://www.rti.org Syntec Biofuels - Canadian company that has developed a metal catalyst that will convert syngas and biogas to liquid fuels (ethanol, methanol) and hydrogen. This is a promising company but does not as yet have an operating commercial plant. http://www.syntecbiofuel.com Green Power EMC - US company who has developed a gasification technology who is currently building a $20M US chicken litter to energy facility outside of Atlanta, Georgia. The plant will be operational by mid 2007 and will have a capacity of approx. 20 MWh of electricity. http://www.greenpoweremc.org Enerkem - Canadian company who has developed a fluid bed gasification process focused on the treatment of MSW. Enerkem is currently working with the Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence on a project that will gasify 260,000 t/y. http://www.enerkem.com Thermogenics - US company specializing in the gasification of wood waste, agricultural waste and MSW. Thermogenics has facilities throughout the US and has partnered with Ontario Hydro Technologies in the development of a mobile gasifier. - small scale and large systems available. http://www.thermogenics.com Nexterra - Canadian company specializing in the gasification of wood waste, agricultural waste and MSW. Currently developing a wood waste gasifier with

Weyerhaeuser in Kamloops BC. They are at a demonstration plant level and do not have commercial plants in operation. http://www.nexterra.ca Syngas International - Canadian gasification company who has licensed another technology called Pystr, an advanced low-cost Hydrogen production system

that in conjunction with Syngass gasification technology produces hydrogen. Syngas currently has several projects in Alberta converting wood waste, bitumen and medical waste. http://www.syngasinternational.com

34

Plasma Arc Gasification

Plasma Arc gasification is again the gasification of matter in an oxygen-starved environment. The technology converts any carbon based material. Organic waste is converted into a fuel gas and inorganic waste is converted into an inert vitrified glass.

The process is simple. Electricity is fed to a torch, with two electrodes. This creates an arc through which an inert gas is passed, heating it to internal temperatures as high as 25,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The following diagram illustrates the process.

Figure # 17 - Recovered Energy Inc.

The temperature immediately around the torch can reach 5,000-8000 F. All of the waste is destroyed in the process and broken down into its basic elements. No tars, ash or furans remain and all metals become molten and flow out the bottom of the reactor. Inorganics such as silica, soil, concrete, glass, gravel, etc. are vitrified into glass. The technology can process any type of waste other than nuclear and requires no sorting. The amount of energy required will vary according to waste type.

The technology generally uses large reactors that operate at a slightly negative pressure. Given this the gas does not want to escape and removing it requires a

compressor. The reactors designed by Recovered Energy Inc can process 20 tons per hour but most systems only process approx. 3 tones per hour. Their systems can

handle bundles of waste that are up to 1 meter in size, making pre-treatment easier.

The gas composition of the gas from plasma arc systems is cleaner than gas created with other types of gasifiers. It also has lower stack emissions. The system can handle high moisture in the waste but as it takes additional energy to vaporize moisture maintaining lower moisture content is advisable. Plasma arc is the most effective technology available for the destruction of animal by-products and SRMs but it is very energy intensive and costly.

35

Manufactures reviewed: Recovered Energy Inc. - US company with plants operating throughout the world and processing a wide range of wastes from offals to coal. http://www.recoveredenergy.com Startech Environmental Corp. - US company who produces smaller systems. Has been operating since 1995. Startech has a number of interesting business options for its clients from build own operate to lease. http://www.startech.net

2.4.3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is defined as the chemical decomposition of carbon based materials by heat in the absence of oxygen, i.e. the lambda is zero. Pyrolysis transforms materials into gaseous components, small quantities of liquid, and a solid residue (coke) containing fixed carbon and ash. Pyrolysis produces combustible gases, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane, and other hydrocarbons. If the off-gases are cooled, liquids condense producing an oil/tar residue called pyrolysis oil and contaminated water. Pyrolysis typically occurs under pressure and at operating temperatures between 430 C - 800 C. The pyrolysis gases require further treatment. The off-gases may be treated in a secondary combustion chamber, flared, and partially condensed. Particulate removal equipment such as fabric filters or wet scrubbers are also required.

The ratio of between gas and char production depends on the pyrolysis temperature and the residence time in the reactor. To maintain the temperature of the pyrolysis process heat is required and this can be obtained by combustion of part of the product gas or of the char. The gas from the pyrolysis process can be either gasified or combusted to produce electricity in a gas engine or steam turbine. The char can be burned to produce steam for electricity generation or reacted with air (oxygen) to produce a gas similar to that from a gasifier. The yields and quality of the liquid bio-oil will depend on the type of feedstock processed, the process type and conditions, and the product collection efficiency. We were not able to find any company using pyrolysis to treat only animal by-products although many claim that their systems would be capable of it. New World Technologys thermal depolyermization technique appears to be similar to a pyrolysis process but uses water to assist the process rather than drying the material prior to adding heat.

36

Figure # 18 - Pyrolysis Network - The Netherlands

Manufactures reviewed: Ensyn - Canadian company - has 6 circulating fluidized bed plants operating. Largest capacity 50 t/day. Their proprietary technology RTP has been used primarily with wood and petroleum hydrocarbons but they have tested MSW and agricultural wastes. http://www.ensyn.com Dynamotive - Canadian company - has demonstrated success with its the bubbling fluidized bed process. BioOil plant in Ontario producing oil fro wood which is burned in a generator to produce electricity. Signed a contract with Ontario hydro in

February to supply 2.5 MW to the grid. Have tested MSW and animal by-products. http://www.dynamotive.com Entech - UK company - proprietary technology Pyrolytic Gasification - plants throughout the world -specialize in conversion of MSW - Entech has a liquid disposal system called Liquifire - http://www.entech.net.au Choren - German company - proprietary technology Carbon-Vr process - both a gasification and a pyrolysis system - end products hydrogen and Sundiesel the

company has operating plants in Europe and has recently expanded to Canada and China. Feedstocks include MSW and wood waste http://www.choren.com Kouei Industries - Canadian company - proprietary technology SK-200 Pyrolysis Recycling System - will handle any feedstock including agricultural but specializes in plastics and scrap tires - is the only technology of its kind to operate only on the fuel oil produced by the system rather than syngas. - very energy efficient http://www.koueiointernational.com BTG - Biomass Technology Group - Netherlands company - Flash pyrolysis operates a rotary cone reactor system at 5 t/day and is proposing to scale the plant up to 50 t/d - has successfully been processed in the current pilot plant, such as bagasse, palm residues, rice husks, straw, automotive shredder residues, dried

37

sludge, pine wood, olive husks, beech wood, oak wood, switch grass and poplar http://www.btgworld.com JF Ventures - Canadian company - fully Integrated, self-powered and self-contained waste processing plant - three marketable fuel products (charcoal, bio-oil, and biogas) - powered by its own clean burning charcoal and bio-gas - will process any carbon based feedstock but has demonstrated success with chicken manure - offers both portable and large scale fixed systems - not operating at a commercial scale as of yet. http://www.jfbioenergy.biz

2.5. Alternatives Technologies 2.5.1. Alkaline Hydrolysis

Alkaline hydrolysis is a relatively new method being used for the disposal of animal byproducts. It is an approved method for the destruction of SRMs in the EU, the US and Canada. Alkaline hydrolysis is a natural process whereby complex molecules are broken down into their constituent building blocks by the insertion of ions of water (H2O), H+, and OHbetween the atoms of the bonds that held those building bocks together. The process occurs in nature when animal tissues and carcasses are buried in soil of neutral or alkaline pH and aided by the digestive processes of soil organisms. The process uses sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxides to catalyze the hydrolysis of biological materials (protein, nucleic acid, carbohydrates, lipids, etc.) into a sterile aqueous solution made up of small peptides, amino acids, sugars and soaps. The only solid by-products will be the mineral portion of bones and teeth and make up less than 2 % of the original volume. (WR2, 2003) The sterile solids can be ground into a powder and used as a soil amendment. The addition of heat at temperatures ranging from ~100C to 180C will accelerate the process of alkaline hydrolysis. All proteins, regardless of their origin, are destroyed by alkaline hydrolysis. The temperature and alkali concentration used in the process destroy the protein coats of viruses and break the peptide bonds of prions. An extensive review of the technology has been presented by a group of scientists from Albany Medical College. The group made up of Gordon Gaye, PH.D, Peter Weber, PH.D and William Wetzel PH.D are also the principles of Waste Reduction by Waste Reduction
2 (WR ). They focus on the versatility of the process for treatment as a disposal method

38

that is nonpolluting and more efficient and economical than incineration. emphasize the capability of producing secondary beneficial resources. As noted by the researchers:

They also

Results from different laboratories have indicated that combined treatment with heat and alkali destroys the infectivity of brain macerates or homogenates containing prions (proteinaceous infectious particles), the agents that cause transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) such as mad cow disease (BSE), chronic wasting disease (CWD), and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends combinations of alkali and heat treatment as the only method known to be completely effective for destroying TSE agent infectivity. (WR2, 2003) The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both recommended alkaline hydrolysis as one of only two acceptable treatments and disposal methods for animal tissues and carcasses infected with or suspected of containing prions (the other being incineration at >900C. Alkaline hydrolysis tissue digesters are currently being used in both major chronic wasting disease elimination programs of the USDA. Moreover, large-scale treatment and disposal units are currently being developed for disposal of the specified risk material (SRM) that the USDA has defined (revised regulations 9CFR301-9) in response to the first confirmed case of BSE in the US. http://www.animallab.com/articles.asp?pid=76 and http://fss.k-state.edu/research/books/carcassdispfiles/PDF%20Files/CH%206%20%20Alkaline%20Hydrolysis.pdf Alkaline Hydrolysis has many advantages over other technologies in the disposal of SRMs. It combines sterilization and digestion into one operation and it reduces volume and weight by as much as 97%. It achieves a complete destruction of both pathogens and prions and can even eliminate radioactively contaminated tissue. Biomedical research institutes, health care facilities, veterinary facilities, mortuaries and agricultural facilities around the world use the process for animal tissue disposal. Health Canada is using a WR2 Tissue Digester in their Prion Research Facility in Winnipeg. The CFIA recognizes Alkaline Hydrolysis as an adequate method for the processing of SRMs. Alkaline hydrolysis can be used as a pre-treatment for AD if pH adjustment is made to reduce it below 7. In many situations, in particular with feed crops such as barley, there is up to a 75% increase in methane production. The increase with animal tissue is not as high.

39

The primary disadvantages of the technology is its current limited capacity to process large volumes of carcasses, its inability to digest bones, issues surrounding the disposal of effluent and cost. This is an additional expense and it is questionable if the additional methane production would offset the costs incurred. WR2 claims that the cost per ton ranges from $40 to $60 but others have estimated that it is closer to $320 / ton. The additional cost of pH adjustment would be prohibitive. Manufacturers reviewed: WR2 - see above

http://www.wr2.net

2.5.2. Thermal Depolyermization (TDP) / Direct Hydrothermal Liquification

Thermal Depolyermization or direct hydrothermal liquefaction attempts to replicate the geological processes that produced fossil fuels. It is similar to pyrolysis but uses water in its process. It converts biomass to an oil by grinding it into chunks, mixing it with water and heating it to temperatures ranging from 250-350C, applying pressure of 600 psi for approximately 15 to 30 minutes. The pressure is then rapidly reduced to boil off the water. Under pressure the long chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon

decompose into short chain petroleum hydrocarbons. Alkali may be added to promote organic conversion. The primary product is a liquid oil (75%), fuel gas (15%) and additional carbon and minerals (10%). The liquid oil is sent to a second reactor where it is heated to 500 C breaking down the carbon chains even further. It is then distilled using a process similar to that found in a standard oil refinery. The process also produces both liquid and solid fertilizer and fatty acids that can be used in the production of cosmetics, soaps and chemicals. The process is suitable for animal-by-products and is actually being used to convert turkey offal into oil. They claim to be able to destroy prions but there has not been conclusive proof. The technology has many advantages. Where many technologies

require energy to dry and combust material thermal depolyermization uses water in the process.

40

Figure # 19 - Changing World Technologies

41

Manufacturers reviewed: Changing World Technologies - US company - are probably the most well known company employing TDP - partnered with the US processor ConAgra to convert turkey offal into fuel. In 2005 fortune magazine reported that their one operating plant in Carthage Missouri was producing around 400 barrels of crude oil per day but was running at a loss. They appear to have had several setbacks and have been called snake oil salesmen by many scientists. There have been several odor complaints and they were forced to add a thermal oxidizer and a scrubber at considerable cost. They received a lot of attention in their early stages of development and although still in operation have not attained the level of success that was predicted. See above. http://www.changingworldtech.com

3. Review of European Systems

3.1. Europe At the end of the century most of the worlds biogas systems were operating in Europe (91%), with some in Asia (7%) percent and a few in the US (2%). Germany was the leader with 35% of all AD plants, followed by Denmark (16%) and Sweden and Switzerland and Austria (8%). (www.biogasworks.com (1998)) Today there has been a surge of development in developing countries such as China and India but very little development in North America. Europe is still the global leader and Germany is still the leader in both technological and project development.

Development of Anaerobic Digestion

Figure # 20 - Worldwide Distribution of AD Plants, IEA Bioenergy

42

In 2005 approximately 5 MTOE (5 million tonnes of oil equivalent) of biogas was produced for energy usage in the various countries in the European Union. The UK was the leader with 1.782.6 KTOE but this was made up almost entirely of landfill gas. Germany followed with 1,594.4 KTOE of which 651.4 came from a variety of anaerobic digester projects and another 369.8 KTOE from the digestion of sewage sludge.

43

Figure # 21- EuroObserver Biogas Barometer - May 2006

http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observer

44

Germany still leads in the overall number of digesters with over 4000 in operation (primarily on farm manure), followed by Sweden with over 200 (primarily WWT) and then Denmark with over 200 (primarily co-digestion). Denmark has the largest number of large centralized Many other European countries

digesters and digests the most slaughterhouse waste.

including Austria, Switzerland, Great Britain and Italy have seen recent surges in the development of AD technology. We looked at volumes of material on AD in Western Europe but focused on Germany, Denmark and Sweden, primarily because of the number of plants treating animal by-products.

The development of the technology in Europe has been driven by high energy prices, the introduction of stringent environmental regulation, subsidies and public concern over environmental issues such as GHG emission reductions and the Kyoto Accord. Germany has the highest electricity prices in Europe followed by Denmark. (Berlin S & T Report 09/2005/ Steffen Preusser) Early on Germany introduced a feed in tariff and policies to encourage the development of renewable energy. They guaranteed a minimum price for green electricity generated by AD and also guaranteed access to the grid.

Berlin S&T Report: 09/2005 Dr. Steffen Preusser, Canadian Embassy in Berlin

Figure # 22 -

45

These drivers currently do not exist to the same degree in Canada and without the demonstration of cost-effectiveness and/or the introduction of financial incentives the adoption of the technology will be slow. Profitable demonstration facilities such as the one proposed in British Columbia would assist in the development of the technology in Canada.

Figure # 23 - Baromtre Du Biogaz, May 2006

46

Germany
Germany is still the leader in biogas capacity in Europe. A report completed for the

International Biogas and Bio Energy Centre for Competence concluded that approximately 220,000 biogas plants could be operated in Germany from farm waste alone. The known potential for biogas production, based on current estimates of available feedstock, is 8.7 billion m3 /y. ( Kottner, M., Biogas in agriculture and Industry, Potentials, Present Use and Perspectives, international Biogas and Bio energy Centre for Competence, Germany, 2002 )

Current and Projected Electrical Capacity from Biogas Plants in Germany

1000 800 600 400 200 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 MW

Number of plants: 1999 - 850 2000 - 1050 2001 - 1650 2002 - 1900 2003 - 2000 2005 - 4000

Figure # 24 German Biogas Association

In 2005 Germany had over 4000 biogas plants operating of which 2,700 were farm based. This number rose from 850 in 1999, a good indication of the effectiveness of subsidies. There were 400 SMEs active in the development of AD technology and approximately 8,000 people employed in the biogas sector. Over 775 Biogas plants run on energy crops and in 2005 90,000 ha were set aside to grow feedstock. Biogas in Germany is used for: Boiler heat CHP heat, power reformation fuel cell heat, power compression pressure storage fuel / NG Grid

The drivers behind AD in Germany are: Fixed feed-in tariff for electricity for 20 years / Fixed price for electricity from AD plants

47

Guaranteed access to electricity grid at good rates Access to long term low interest loans Good infrastructure for supporting entrepreneurs interested in biogas plants

The German Legislation for anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste is similar to the EU legislation. Summary Germany has focused on small on-farm digesters and their subsidization schedule has encouraged the most development at this level. It appears common to incorporate deadstock as feedstock in AD systems but only poultry and swine according to EU restrictions regarding SRMs. Many companies sell chopper/grinder systems, e.g. Lipp There are plants processing slaughterhouse offal but were not able to find many where offal is the primary feedstock. Many are processing industrial food waste which could include slaughterhouse. Although most have been building in other countries, there are several German AD companies that have developed systems to digest animal by-products including Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH (BTA) http://www.bta-technologie.de , GBU Rentec, http://www.gbunet.de , Krieg and Fischer GmbH, http://www.kreigfisher.de , common type of ADplant in Germany used for offal / wet / multistage. Claudius de Costa Gomez - German Biogas Association www.biogas.org See Appendix # 2 - Case Studies Krieg & Fischer Plant, Welte Germany, 110,000 t/y - 60% manure and 40% slaughterhouse. The most

Austria
There are over 300 AD plants in Austria. Like Germany the bulk are smaller on farm

digesters but there are also a number of centralized plants digesting commercial waste. Feed in tariffs are gradually being phased out in Austria. See Appendix # 2 Case Studies 1. Graz wastewater Sludge digester, Goessendorf, Austria 400,000m3 of waste - 10% grease and offal (30-40 m3 /day)

48

2. Rosentaler Bio Kraftwerk GmbH & Co KG 50% slaughterhouse waste balance manure and silage10,000 m3 of waste / y or 25 t /d The type of AD in Austria used for offal are wet, multistage systems. The Austrian legislation for anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste is similar to the EU legislation.

Denmark
Next to Germany, Denmark is the largest producer of biogas from substrates other than sewage sludge and from landfill. According to the ENS (Danish Energy Authority although Denmark has over 200 AD facilities the balance of its biogas production comes from its 20 co-digestion units and 60 farm-based plants. Denmark has 22 joint (cooperatively owned) plants producing 80% of the biogas output. There are 20 large scale plants treating a combination of manure and slaughterhouse waste. In 2003 plants processed approx. 1,600,000 tonne of manure and 275,000 tonne of organic waste. Approximately 150,000 tonne of that was from slaughterhouses

Figure # 25 - IEA - Bioenergy, Task 37 Braunschweig, Germany, September, 2006, Biogas in Denmark, Country update 2006, Jens Bo Holm-Nielson and Teodorita Al Seadi

As noted due to very high electricity prices in Denmark approx. 22 cents/ kWh CN all of biogas from AD is used in cogeneration plants to produce combined heat and power.

49

The drivers behind AD in Denmark are:

Fixed price (6-8 years), Low interest loans for district heating systems Investment subsidies (20 50%);

Guaranteed access to electricity grid at good rates

Figure # 26 - Niels Bahnsen - NIRAS - Danish Biogas - Co-digestion for Energy and Environment, November 14, 2006

The Danish Legislation for anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste: Denmark requires a hygienic stage (sterilization/pasteurization and size reduction) to ensure the elimination of pathogens and weeds if recycling nutrients. If the effluent is not going to be applied to land the pasteurization stage can be eliminated. Often a separate units is used to digest mixed waste to ensure retention time. Denmark adheres to EU regulations for the treatment of waste containing animal by-products,

50

Danish Biogas Plant Design

Figure # 27 - Niels Bahnsen - NIRAS - Danish Biogas - Co-digestion for Energy and Environment, November 14, 2006

The most common type of AD in Denmark used with offal are / wet / single stage batch and/or continuous processes. The development of AD in Denmark has been coordinated by a special government agency that coordinates all matters relating to the sector. They have had tremendous success with what they call the Danish Demonstration Programme
www.biopress.dk

Sweden
The development of biogas technology has developed rapidly in Sweden in the last decade. In 2005 there were 220 biogas plants of which 134 were sewage treatment facilities and another 60 associated with landfill recovery or cell digesters. The balance digested agricultural and industrial food processing waste. There are several farm based plants and 10 co-digestion plants, 7 of which incorporate

slaughterhouse offal. Estimated total volume of slaughterhouse waste is 75,000 tonnes per year. www.sbgf.org The biomass used is primarily from source-separated municipal solid waste and animal manure a minor feedstock. The development of biogas in Sweden is promoted by investment subsidies (436 per kW), a feed in tariff established according to household electricity prices; administrative costs and profit surplus. As electricity prices are relatively cheap compared to other areas of Europe, biogas in Sweden is primarily used as a vehicle fuel. There is no direct subsidy of electricity produced from biogas.

51

There are 24 biogas refuelling stations and 20 biogas/NG refuelling stations. There are 779 buses operating on biogas and over 4,500 NG bi-fuel vehicles operating on a combination of petrol and biogas. Sweden is currently building one of the worlds largest biogas plants in the city of Goteborg. It will have a capacity of 1600m3 per hour. Swedens first passenger train running totally on biogas started running in March 2006. The train operates between

Linkoping and Vastervick and the gas comes from the Linkoping plant where feedstock is primarily slaughterhouse offal.

Figure # 28 - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/07/biogaspowered_t.php

The drivers behind AD in Sweden are: Agenda 21 - UN Rio Conference The 15 Swedish national environmental goals - 1998 http://www.environ.se/milmainet98/ The Swedish generation goal 1996 Key Green Notes for energy use, emissions, etc. Government Re cycling Strategy 1997 Environmental protection Act 1997 Landfill tax 2002 Ban on organics to landfill 2005 Land spreading restrictions Investment program including grants to municipalities, to biogas vehicle, to landfill reduction and climate change Tax incentives

52

Swedish Biogas Plants Treating Animal By-products

Figure # 29 - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI - Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

Two additional plans are planned, one in Rattvik and another in Gotland. Both will be small scale. The Linkoping, Kritianstead, Skovde and Uppsala plants are all located close to slaughterhouses and the waste is simply pumped into the biogas plants. Waste is hauled to the others. At the Laholm plant the waste is collected from 10 regional slaughterhouses.

53

Figure # 30 - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI - Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

54

Regulations for disposing of animal by-products were not a direct incentive for the development of AD. However, the material proved to provide large amounts of biogas and combined well with other feedstock. The Swedish Legislation for anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse waste (SJVFS 2000:166) Low risk material must pass a pasteurization unit at 70 C for at least 60 min, max particle size: 12mmm High risk material must pass a sterilization unit at 133 C, 3 bar for at least 20 min, max particle size: 50 mm High risk material blended with SRM must go to incineration

Figure # 31 - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI - Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering - http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

The most common type of AD in Sweden used with offal is wet single stage batch or continuous reactors both mesosphilic and thermophilic. New waste is gradually added in accordance to gas production and the discharge of effluent. The moisture content ranges between 85-98%.

55

3.2. Linkoping / Sweden / Case Study Linkoping, Sweden is a city located southeast of Stockholm. The population of city

proper is 82,000 and when combined with the surrounding area, 132,000. Linkoping started experimenting with biogas in 1989 due to increased motor traffic and rising air pollution. From 1989 to 1993 five buses. Today more than 64 buses, a 125 other municipal vehicles and a train are operated on biogas supplied daily by a 5 km pipeline from the local biogas plant. The plant is located in Aby Vastergard just outside of Linkoping. It produces approximately 35 GWh of biogas per year which is upgraded to 98% methane, 250 bar.

Figure # 32

- http://www.energie.cities.org/db/linkoping

The partners involved in the Linkoping plant include: Tekniska Verken I Linkoping AB, a municipal engineering firm that looks after the citys energy and water supply and is in charge of waste collection in the region Scan- Farmek a large food producer Konvex, which operates recycling plants for slaughterhouse waste The Swedish farmers Association Linkoping Biogas AB, owned jointly by Tekniska Verken I Linkoping AB, and ScanFarmek

The Linkoping plant treats approximately 50,000 t/y of feedstock of which a high percentage is slaughterhouse offal (see chart). They classify waste as red, white or blue and treat accordingly.

56

Red Waste is the protein and fat portion of the waste that comes from slaughterhouse and requires additional treatment for safety reasons. Approximately 70% of the biogas produced by the plant comes from the red waste.

Blue Waste is the blood, stomachs and bowels as well as process water from the slaughterhouses White Waste is livestock manure and stomach contents

Originally slaughterhouse waste was mixed with up to 50% slaughterhouse process water and manure. This has varied over the years as has the inclusion of high risk material. (see chart) Manure is added to slow down the process of digestion and reduce ammonia toxicity created by the protein portion of the offal.

Feedstock Breakdown - Linkoping Plant

Figure # 33 - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering

57

http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

The Linkoping Process

The plant has incorporated both sterilization and pasteurization stages into their process which is mesosphilic. Red waste is preprocessed to slurry in a shredder and then passed through a magnetic separator. It is then sterilized at 133 C for 20 minutes. Blue and white wastes are shredded and mixed. The 2 waste streams are then mixed and

pasteurized at 70 C for another hour and then passed into the digester where it has a retention time of 25 days. The biogas produced is cleaned to remove CO2, vapor and hydrogen sulphide using an absorption technique. The methane is then pumped by pipeline at a pressure of 200 bars to the fuelling station in Barhall where filling is done overnight with a slow filling process. 45 buses can be filled simultaneously.

Figure # 34 - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

Linkoping Process

58

Figure # 35 - http://www.energie.cities.org/db/linkoping

Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Quality Assurance and certification system http://www.sp.se/cert/cert_prod/spcr/spcr120.pdf

Figure # 36 - Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering Quality Assurance and certification system http://www.sp.se/cert/cert_prod/spcr/spcr120.pdf

The cost to date of the Linkoping plant is 8.7 million Euro, including waste treatment and gas upgrading. A subsidy of 1.7 million Euro was received from the Swedish government. The Linkoping plant has proven to be both environmentally and economically viable.

Emission Cycles from Different Fuels and Grants from Swedish Government for Using them:

Figure # 37

- http://www.energie.cities.org/db/linkoping

59

As noted in the above chart emissions of both NO and CO2. Each bus contributes to reducing 1.2 tonnes of NOX pear year and 90 tonnes of CO2 per year. In addition it has reduced both dust emissions and noise. As noted in the case study prepared by Energie-Cities and the Municipality of Linkoping and Tekniska Verken, the plant is economically viable for 3 reasons: Landfill taxes and water discharge taxes are avoided There is a viable market for biogas and the price is comparable to diesel The manure produced by Aby Vastegard is sold

3.3. Canada and US There are no identified projects in Canada or the US and the specializing in large amounts of animal by-products. However there are several digesting smaller amounts of the feedstock in conjunction with other waste streams.

Companies reviewed that are successfully using anaerobic digestion to treat animal by-products: Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH (BTA) http://www.bta-technologie.de - project in Toronto Canada, treats deli waste GBU Rentec, http://www.gbunet.de , project planned for Ontario Canada that will include slaughterhouse offal Krieg and Fischer GmbH, http://www.kreigfisher.de , projects in the US treating both deli waste and offal RCM Digesters Inc., http://rcmdigester.com , projects throughout US including deli waste, some including offal Entec, http://www.entec.at project in Dufferin, Ontario, treats deli waste GenSolutions - http://www.gensolutions.ab.ca , large mixed waste project planned in Southern Alberta - will include slaughterhouse off

4. Economics
A detailed economic analysis of each of the possible technology combination is impossible within the scope of this study but is being completed for the developers and will be available on request. For the purposes of this study we have looked only at the economic viability of combining AD with basic pre and post treatment options as would be required to meet the minimum requirements for the disposal of animal by-products with and without the inclusion of SRMs.

60

After analysing and pricing the pre-treatment and post treatment technologies that would be required within an integrated waste to energy facility to ensure disposal met with the CFIAs strict regulations it can be concluded that this is not a viable option for small slaughterhouse operators. It would however be an economically viable option if the facility was centralized and included multiple waste sources including, MSW, energy crops, agricultural manure, used cooking oil and food processing waste.

There are many variables that further affect financial viability including gas and oil prices, electricity prices, the ability to market the recovered thermal energy, tipping fees, etc. Assuming electricity prices over 7 cents per kWh, the ability to use or sell 50% of the heat and an average tipping fee in the range of $40/t on all feedstock other than livestock manure, facilities can be economically viable with as little as 100 t/d. Again, it is critical that at least 25% and preferably 50% of the feedstock is high biogas yielding material such as offal, cooking oil or energy crops. The biogas yield charts presented earlier in the report clearly show that higher biogas yields are obtained from high lipid and high protein substrates.

See Appendix # 3

The following charts show the difference in revenue from 2 plants in Sweden and Denmark, each producing almost identical amounts of biogas from combinations of manure, MSW and slaughterhouse waste. The Studsgard plant in Denmark converts the biogas to electricity

receiving I,100,00 Euros per year in revenue while the Linkoping plant receives 2,764,000 Euros selling the biogas as fuel for vehicles and their train. Prices vary considerably between Canada and Europe but a more detailed study should be completed to review this option, particularly in light of the BC governments interest in the Hydrogen Highway and alternative vehicle fuel.

61

Figure #38 - Danish Biogas Association

Figure #38 - Danish Biogas Association

With the exception of a possible hydrolysis phase, the pre-treatment options that will required to handle offal and deadstock (SRMs) are similar to those required to treat MSW, energy crops and food processing waste and therefore have little affect on the overall cost of a system. However, the CFIA particle size reduction regulation requires the addition of separation equipment that is far more costly than would be required if SRMs were not included. A membrane separation system can add from $500K to $1M to the overall cost of the project and can not be justified unless large volumes of SRMs are being treated. This approach also removes the possibility of selling any of the remaining solids for fertilizer or bedding and requires that the solids be land filled or combusted at an additional cost. An on-site gasification system would not be viable unless the facility was treating very large volumes of material.

**** Given the recent decision that requires that all SRM material be separated and weighed prior to any treatment it becomes questionable if inclusion of SRMs in the digester is a rational option. This does not however, preclude the inclusion of SRMs including deadstock in a Biorefinery that would include both AD and a thermal technology.

5. Bio-refinery Concept
A Biorefinery is a centralized waste to energy facility that integrates several biomass conversion technologies to produce a combination of liquid fuels, electricity, heat, chemicals and other byproducts from biomass. Although generally associated with the gasification and/or pyrolysis of

62

wood waste the Biorefinery concept can be applied to many combinations of conversion technologies and multiple feedstocks.

Another name for a Bio-refinery is Eco-park. An agricultural/ industrial or industrial eco park is technically a cluster of agricultural producers and industries that are located in close proximity to one another that come together to and develop synergies that will make use of each others waste outputs as feedstock for a variety of purposes including the production of renewable energy. An eco-park has the capacity to convert multiple feedstocks with different characteristics e.g. wet and dry, high cellulose, organic and inorganic and maximize the value derived from the feedstock with little of no waste.

Synergies created within the system will result in increased environmental sustainability, end-use efficiency and economic profitability. By incorporating a number of technologies within integrated closed- loop system a Biorefinery is capable of converting large volumes of high quality mixed waste. A Biorefinery is able to overcome the high capital cost barrier encountered with single technology/feedstock systems. Denmark is a leader in the development of the Biorefinery concept and several variations exist within the country. The large Danish plants focus on either biodeisel or ethanol but they are starting to incorporate technologies such as biohydrogen and biogas. The following link provides access to the report http://www.aauedk/diverse/BBS_pro.pdf The following model was

presented by Niels Bahnse from Niras a Danish biogas company at a Co-digestion symposium held was held in Washington DC in November 2006 and clearly outlines the Danish approach to waste to energy clusters.

63

Figure # 39 - - Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden - Ake Nordberg - JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering http://www.fdta.qc.ca/docs/abattage_2005.pdf

Examples of Existing or Proposed Biorefineries of Eco-parks

Lafleche Environmental - Ottawa Ontario

Lafleche Environmental Inc. is a Canadian company based out of Moose Creek, Ontario who in partnership with the University of Ottawa and the National Research Council in the development of an eco-industrial plant near Ottawa. The park will be an expansion of their current landfill and biosolids processing business and will incorporate a hydrolysis / anaerobic digestion / a cogeneration process, a biodeisel plant and greenhouses. Feedstock for the digester will include deadstock and manure from agricultural producers, SSMSW from the City of Ottawa and glycerine as a by-product from the bio-diesel plant. By adding the glycerine to the digester they claim that it will increase efficiency by 100%. The biodeisel plant would use both heat and some of the electricity created by the cogeneration system and the greenhouses would use both heat and another by-product CO2. Excess electricity would be sold into the grid and the liquid fertilizer

64

and the fibre created by the digester would be used by the farmers. They are also looking at adding a pyrolysis partner who would utilize carbon based feedstock from the MSW that can not be digested. Lafleche is still at a developmental stage. The following chart shows the Lafleche System http://www.laflecheenvironmental.com

City of Ottawa MSW, Biosolids

Lafleche Fermentation

Biodeisel Producer Glycerine

Farmers Manure

Heat to Local heat Users Greenhouses, etc.

Pre-Processing Hydrolysis Slurry

Electricity to Energy Grid

Farmers Deadstock

Fertilizer to Farmers

Figure # 40 - Lafleche System http://www.laflecheenvironmental.com

ECB North America Inc.

ECB North America in partnership with Lafleche is attempting to develop a similar project near Lethbridge, Alberta. The ECB project will utilize both anaerobic digestion and hydrolysis and will also incorporate a biodeisel plant but there is much more emphasis on the inclusion of deadstock and slaughterhouse offal. The project is still in developmental stages but should be going forward in 2007. http://www.ecbna.com

Mead Cattle Company

The Mead Cattle Company is an operating plant in Mead, Nebraska. The system incorporates a feedlot (could use dairy), an ethanol plant and an anaerobic digester in a self-sustaining, closedloop system. The manure from the cattle is fed into an anaerobic digester and converted to biogas. This biogas is burned in boilers to power the ethanol production process, eliminating the need for natural gas. The wet distillers grains which are a by-product of the ethanol process are fed to the cattle completing the loop.

65

Mead Cattle Company has a capacity of 30,000 head and can produce up to 24 million gallons of fuel-grade ethanol per year. The ethanol processes approximately 8 million bushels of corn per year and produces 100,000 tons of wet distillers grain. The following link takes you to a video of the project. www.e3biofuels.com.

Figure # 41 - Mead Cattle Company

BRI / Gasification / Biocatalytic Process BRI was dicussed briefly earlier in the report as a gasification option but the BRI system is much more. The BRI technology has the capacity to form the nucleus of a highly profitable Biorefinery. BRI offers the option of converting the sygas created in its gasification process to electricity and heat using cogeneration or it can take the process a step further and convert to a liquid fuel. In the emerging synthesis gas fermentation field, BRI has developed a patented process using a bacterial bioreactor to convert gasified biomass into ethanol. This process can also be used to convert biogas from AD into ethanol by adding an additional step. BRI combines thermochemical and biochemical tchnologies, allowing it convert virtually any carbon based material. include: Municpal solid Waste Biosolids and Animal Wastes Green waste Agricultural Residues These

66

Used Tires and Plastics Timber and Wood wastes Coal, natural gas and hydrocarbons Refinery Tars and waste Oils

BRI uses an enzyme from a patented bacterial culture that ingests syngas (thermallydecomposed wastes) to produce fuel grade ethanol, yeilding up to 90 US gallons or 340 litres per dry tonne of biomass. From higher BTU content materials like plastics, used tires and hydrocarbons, it can yeild 165 US gallons or 600 litres or more per tonne. Unlike combustion, the technology uses an enclosed two-stage thermal process (either gasification of plasma arc) to decompose organic materials into their basic gaseous elements at temperatures of up to 2,350F. Before being introduced to the patented bacterial culture in the bioreactor, the synthesis gases (CO, H2 and CO2) are scrubbed, put through active carbon filtration and cooled to approximately 98Fa process that generates an enormous amount of waste heat that can be used to create high temperature steam to drive electric turbines.

In the biocatalytic step, the bacteria ingest the syngas and emit ethanol and water, which is then distilled away to produce 99.5% pure industrial or fuel-grade ethanol. As the process uses waste products that otherwise would have been placed in landfills and BRIs plants will generate an excess of electricity beyond their parasitic needs, they can produce liquid and electric energy while consuming zero new BTUs in the process. This makes the current discourse about the energy efficiency of ethanol obsolete. The bacterial culture is anaerobic and dies when exposed to air. The process creates no environmental or health hazards, ground or water contamination, and minimal air emissions. When biomass is used to co-produce ethanol and electricity,

significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved.

The BRI process will gasify any carbon-based material whose moisture content is less than 40% (by weight). Its feedstocks need not be chipped, shredded or sorted to remove metal and glass, and they can be blended. Any mixture of MSW, plastics, tires, animal wastes, paper or yard wastes, construction debris, hazardous wastes, crop residues, timber slash, etc., can be converted into synthesis gas, and then to ethanol. BRIs plants will also operate on natural gas, petroleum and coal--and these hydrocarbons can be blended with biomass to increase by up to 100% the overall gallon-per-ton output of a plant. Gasification eliminates the need to combust The

coal in the generation of electricity, removing a major source of industrial pollution. technology can reform landfill and digester methane into ethanol.

67

The process will normally convert more than 90% of the waste it receives. The residue, a nonhazardous ash, is discharged from the gasifier and can be recycled in products like cement blocks or paving. The net effect is that the BRI process can extend by up to 80% the effective life of a landfill (and it can reclaim and convert into productive energy materials already residing in landfills). The entire process, from the time the waste material enters the gasifier to the creation of ethanol, takes approximately seven minutes. Current biomass ethanol technologies that use corn kernels or sugar cane as their feedstocks require 36-48 hours for sugar fermentation alone. This is one of the great strengths of the BRI technology, because this rapid biochemical conversion, plus the fact that the process creates up to five revenue sources, makes the technology profitable and competitive with gasoline, even if ethanol subsidies were to be phased out.

If and when fuel cells become available to power automobiles, the BRI process can also be used to create hydrogen. Hydrogen is a multi-billion dollar business. 50 million metric tons of hydrogen is sold annually. World hydrogen production is doubling every decade. The biggest growth driver is oil refineries need to make lower-sulfur fuels. Other growth drivers are the use of hydrogen in making fertilizer, food processing, semiconductor manufacturing, and by other growth industries. BRI has been operating a full functioning gasification to ethanol pilot plant in Fayetteville, Arkansas for 4 years and have announced plans to deploy 2 large commercial-scale facilities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The first will convert coal to ethanol and the second will convert approx. 1 million tonne of MSW. A typical BRI system would function as follows:

68

6. Summary
The success of the proposed AD projects and future Biorefineries will be dependent on their ability to access adequate volumes of high quality feedstock and on ensuring both technical and economic viability. Several viable technical options and/or technological combinations have been identified that would enhance the AD process and allow animal by-products to be disposed of safely and efficiently. These include:

Option 1 - A combination of extensive pre-treatment including size reduction, thermal hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion with minimal post-treatment Option 2 - A combination of some pre-treatment including size reduction, pasteurization, AD and extensive post -treatment including membrane separation and the disposal of solids through combustion or containment in a landfill.

Option 3 - The up front separation of all SRMs, some pre-treatment, AD and minimal post-treatment. SRM material would be disposed of using alternative technologies such as combustion.

Options 1 and 2 are very costly approaches and could only be justified if large volumes of animal by-products were available and high tipping fees were charged. There appears to be

69

adequate volume but accessibility is an issue. Option 3 is the model most commonly found in European facilities. Although the add-on technologies would allow high risk material to be included no existing European or North American facilities were identified where this is being done. Prior to the introduction of stricter regulation facilities digested all of the material. With mandatory separation the volume of feedstock declined by less than 15%. As current

Canadian regulations requires that all SRMs be separated from the rest of the offal and weighed it would not be practical to separate it and then throw it all back together and digest it. Front end separation offsets the need for costly back-end solids separation. A group in Southern Alberta, ECB North America is in the process of developing a process incorporating the thermal hydrolysis technology of Biorefinex as a pre-treatment. ECB plans on including offal from a horse slaughter facility and deadstock from the many feedlots in the area. They are still at a developmental stage, trying to lock in feedstock and financing.

Once again, long-term access to large volumes of high quality feedstock is the most critical factor in determining the economic viability of an AD project. As clearly demonstrated in the several charts included in the study feedstocks such as manure yield very small amounts of biogas per tonne of waste, usually < 35m3/t whereas feedstocks such as slaughterhouse offal yield as high as 300 m3 /t. Used cooking oil can produce as high as 600 m3 /t. For this reason it is advantageous to include either or both of these feedstocks in the process if available. There appears to be enough mixed feedstock in both regions to justify the

development of AD projects but as in the European situations there does not appear to be enough volume of animal by-products with SRM fractions to justify the addition of the high cost add-ons required to process them. Future Biorefineries would be able to accommodate these materials. Deadstock is becoming an issue in many areas, including BC and could easily be accommodated within the Biorefinery concept where it would be disposed of along with dry materials using thermal combustion

In a Biorefinery high moisture substrates such as liquid manure, offal, cooking oil and SSMSW could be converted to energy utilizing AD and low moisture materials converted using alternative thermal combustion technologies. In both of the regions where the projects are proposed there are large volumes of waste that could not be digested but that could be disposed of using alternative technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis. These feedstocks include non separated MSW, wood waste and chicken litter and animal bedding mixed with sawdust and/or woodchips. The Biorefinery concept should be reviewed further.

To achieve economic viability an AD facility must generate income from as many sources as possible. Sources include the sale of energy in the form of heat and electricity through co-

70

generation or the sale of the biogas as a vehicle fuel, income from tipping fees, the sale of nutrients and fibre and possibly the sale of GHG credits. Another source of income may or may not be available from government programs in the form of subsidies and capital assistance. Although these have been the primary drivers in the European experience they do not exist in Canada to the same degree and should not be the primary reason to develop an AD project. There are few areas in Canada where farmers would be willing to pay tipping fees beyond the cost of the transportation of manure but current disposal costs for deadstock and offal would warrant their inclusion in a project. Additional study will be required to

determine the marketability of each of the by-products options in BC.

Based on the findings of the study it is recommended that animal by-products be included in both of the proposed projects but that the SRM fraction should be separated prior to digestion and disposed of separately and preferably using some form of thermal combustion technology. Both projects will be required to include adequate pre-processing including a pasteurization stage.

Developers should continue to review the feasibility of adding a gasification technology in phase 2 of their respective projects, allowing them to expand their AD facilities and/or partner with other industries and develop centralized Biorefineries. They would then be capable of converting multiple carbon based feedstocks such as wood waste, poultry litter, unseperated MSW and solid residuals from the digester waste into syngas and high nutrient ash. The gases from both processes could be converted to marketable energy (heat and electricity) utilizing cogeneration, sold as pressurized vehicle fuel or converted to liquid fuels such as ethanol. By integrating a number of technologies and treating large volumes of mixed waste, a number of synergies would be created, allowing for the development of economies of scale and improving overall profitability.

The ethanol option shows promise. Several proven processes such as the BRI system that utilize chemical and biological catalysts to convert biogas and syngas to ethanol are now reaching commercial scale. Federal and Provincial mandatory content legislation has

increased the market for ethanol dramatically and with higher oil prices ethanol has become competitive even without government subsides. Again additional research and an extensive market review and financial assessment should be completed prior to expansion into a Biorefinery.

71

9.0 List of References

AD, Good Practise Guidelines, British Biogen, http://www.britishbiogen.co.uk AD-NETT, http://www.ad-nett.org AgSTAR Program, Guide to Technology Providers , http://www.epa.gov/agstar Alberto Cohen, Michael Broughton, Graeme Jarvis, Jurgen Theile, (2000), Anaerobic Treatment of High Lipid Waste. http://www.wastetechnz.com An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste, Final Report, Fabien Monnet, Remade Scotland, November 2003 Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Wastes, http://www.soton.ac.uk/envi/research/wastemanage/anaerobic.htm Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas, dr. jerry D. Murphy, cork Institute of Technology, Composting Conference, Portlaoise, May 5, 2005 Anaerobic Digestion: Retooling an old process to meet Class A objective, Water Environment & Technology Magazine, May, 2003, http://www.bv.com/news/articles/may03/anaerobic_digestion.htm

Anaerobic Digesters, Biocycle, (2001) Animal By-products and Anaerobic Digestion, Requirements of the European Union (EC) no 1774/2002, Roland Kichmayer, Rudolph Schenzer, Dorte Baggesen, Rudolf Braun, Arthur Wellinger, task 37, IEA Bioenergy, Set. 2003

Article CFR 503, CLASS A pathogen Reduction, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bioconversion Primers, http://www.bioconverter.com/technology/primer.htm Bio-energy Opportunities for Alberta, Strategic Feasibility Study, Levelton Engineering for the Government of Alberta, June, 2004 Biogas - Biofuels, Linkoping, http://www.energie=cities.org/db/linkoping_113_en.pdfn Biogas Yields of Different Substrates, Lipp GmbH, www.lipp-system.de Biogas and More, System and markets Overview of Anaerobic Digestion, IEA Bio-energy, July 2001 Biogas Resources, ECB Enviro Berlin AG, www.ecbag.de Biogas in Denmark, Country Update, 2006, Jens BoHolm-Nielsen and Teodorita A Seadi, University of Southern Denmark Biogasification and Other Combustion Technologies, roger Sieger, Peter Brady, CH2M Hill, April 28, 2003 Biomass Answer to Global Warming, Renewable Energy News, Gland, Switzerland, June 2004, Http://www.solaraccess.com Biomass Resources in China and its Current Status of Utilization, 2004, http://www.creia.net

72

Bioscan / BIOREK, http://www.bioscan.dk/BIOREK Bromma Biogas Plant, Stockholm Sweden, http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/archi/programmes/cost8/case/wat BTA , Waste Solutions, , http://www.wastetechnz.com BTA company web site, http://bta-technologie.de Bowman, B., Changing the Paradigm of Manure Management, http://res2.agr.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/carc/manure_paradigm.html CADDET, GREENTIE, http://www.caddet.com Canada Composting Inc., www.canadacomposting.com/bta , Newmarket, Ontario Canadian Food Inspection Agencys BSE Investigation http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/ bseesb/bseesbindexe.shtml Carcass Disposal: A comprehensive Review, Kansas State University, Purdue University and Texas A & M University, National Agricultural Biosecurity Center Consortium, Carcass Disposal Working Group for the USDA, 2004, http://fss.k-

state.edu/research/books/carcassdispfiles/carcass%20Disposal.html Characteristics of Some Digestible Feedstock Types, IEA Report, www.novaenergie.ch/ieabioenergy-task24 Collmoore Automatic Paddock, http://www.automaticpaddock.com.au/systems.htm Cows Make fuel for Biogas Train, Tim Franks, BBC Newsnight,

http://www.newsvote.bbc.co.uk/napps/pagetools/print/news/bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/437 3440.stm Danish Biogas, co-digestion for Energy and Environment, Niras, Niels Bahnsen, Washington DC, November 2006 De Baere, L., (1999) Anaerobic Digestion of Solid Waste: State of the Art Water, Science Technology, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp283-290 Defra, Animal By-Products regulation No. (EC) 1774/2002 Denmark to Build the Worlds largest Biogas Plant, 80/02/06 Feasibility Study for the Digestion of Residential Source Separated Organic Waste, prepared for the Region of Halton comprised of the municipalities of Burlington, Oakville, Halton Hills and Milton, Ontario, 2002 Evaluation of the newest biogas plants in Germany, P. Weilund, C Rieger, T ehrman, Institute of Technology and Biosystems, Engineering Federal Agricultural Research Institute, Oct. 2003 Feasibility Study for Centralized Anaerobic Digestion for the Treatment of Agricultural and Municipal Solid Waste, Mayo Energy Agency, County Mayo, Ireland, 1999 Gabriele Schober and Arthur Wellinger, (2001), Comparative Digestion of Kitchen Waste in Three Different Lab-Scale Systems, http://www.biogs.ch/fte/msw.htm

73

Gabriella, Uhlar-Heffner, Seattle Studies Anaerobic Digestion Solution for Source Separated, Biocycle, December 2003, Volume 44, No. 12, p. 39 Higham, I., 1998, Economics of Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Waste, http://res2.agr.gc/initiatives/manurenet/download/adeconuk.pdf Hjort-Gergersen, K., Centralized Biogas Plants, Danish Institute of Agricultural and fisheries Economics, October, 1999 HTU-DIESEL from Biomass, Washington DC, August, 2005 IEA Bio-energy Anaerobic Digestion Activity 1997 Report, Systems and market Overview of Digesters Incinerators in Disguise, Case Studies of Gasification, Pyrolysis and Plasma Gasification in Europe and Asia and the US, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, April 2006, www.noburn.org

Integrated Manure Utilization System (IMUS), www.arc.ab.ca 250 Karl Clark Road, Edmonton, Ab, T6N 1E4, Contact Dr. Xiaomei Li, Alberta Research Council Inc., Tel: 780450-5290; e-mail: xiaomei@arc.ab.ca (feedlot manure)

James and James, http://www.jxj.com Jurgen Theile, High Performance Resource Recovery from Putrescible Solid and Liquid Waste, http://www.wastesolutions.com Kottner, M., Biogas in agriculture and Industry, Potentials, Present Use and Perspectives, international Biogas and Bio energy Centre for Competence, Germany, 2002 Kraft der Nawaros, Der Spiegel, 32 / 2004-10-03 Kranet, M. (Prof. Dr.-Ing), Hillebrecht, K., Dipl.-Biol, Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes Process Parameters and Balances in Practice, Institute of Waste Management and Environmental Monitoring, University of Applied Sciences Braunschweig / Wofenbuttel, Wolfenbettel, Germany, http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/icmfa/hillebrecht/paper.html

Kruger / Fuchs / ATAD, http://www.fuchs-germany.com Lissens, G., Vandervivere, P., De Baere, L., Verstraete, W., Solid Waste Digester: Process Performance and Practice for Municipal Solid Waste Digestion, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 44 no. 8, pp. 91-102, WA Publishing 2001

Lusk, P., AD System Providers List, http://www.biogasworks.com/Goodies/VEND97Ca.htm Lusk, P., A Short History of Anaerobic Digestion, www.biogasorks.com Lusk, P,, Deploying AD: Current Status and Future Possibilities, 1999, http://www.biogasworks,com/reports/weec96.htm Manure-Net, http://res2.agr.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/man_digesters.html Mattocks, R., Manure Biogas Digestion Systems, Environomics, http://www.waste2profits.com

74

Methane Fuel from livestock Wastes, A Summary, http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ebae071_80.html Meynell, P.J., Methane: Planning a Digester, New York, Schocken Books, 1976 Overview of Anaerobic Digestion Technologies in Europe, Biocycle, January, 2004 Opinions on Six Alternative Methods fro the safe Disposal of Animal By-Products, European Commission, April, 2003 Pillars, R., Farm-based Anaerobic Digester, Michigan State University Fact Sheet Plant List, IEA Report #37, http://www.novaenergie.ch/iea-bioenergy-task37/plantlist.htm Plant List, Biogas Forum, http://gymplus.ch/overview.htm Policy on Specified Risk Materials of Bovine Origin in the Food Supply http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2003/bse-esb_bk1_e.html Pyrolysis and Gasification Fact Sheet, http://juniper.co.uk/services/Our services/P&GFactsheet.html Pyrolysis and Gasification, Trends of the Earth, October, 2002 RCM Digesters company website, http://www.rcmdigesters.com Removal of Specified Risk Materials from Cattle Slaughtered in Establishments Inspected Under the Meat Inspection Regulations http://inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/meavia/mmopmmhv/chap4/annexne.shtml RENTEC / GBU, Phased Continuous Anaerobic Digestion fro Complex Organic Waste Streams, (2003), www.rentec.ca www.gbunet.de Resource Conservation Management, Inc (RCM), http://www.rcmdigesters.com Review of Current Status of Anaerobic Digestion Technology for Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste, Regional Information Service Center for South East Asia on Appropriate Technology, Institute of Science and technology Research and Development, Chiang Mai University, November, 1998

Seattle Studies Anaerobic Solution for Source-Separated, Biocycle, December 2003, Vol. 44, No. 12, p.39 Sheffali Verma, Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Organics in Municipal Solid Wastes, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, May 2002 Shih Wu Sung, PhD, PE, Temperature Phased Anaerobic Digestion, System Evaluation for Different Feedstock, Iowa State University, 1999 Stand und Entwicklung von Biogsasanlagen in Bayern, Stand, May 2000 Swedish Biogas Tour, www.westernuniteddairymen.com/Biogas%20Fuel%20Report/Chapter%202.pdf The Road to Swedens oil free future, David Wiles, editor, Sweden Today, http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/print_Article_1436.3aspx The Worlds First Biogas Train, Peoples daily, http://english.people.com.cn/200606/12/eng20060612_273222.html

75

Treatment of animal waste in co-digestion biogas plants in Sweden, Ake Nordberg, JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural environment and engineering

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cjd-mcj/index.html Waste based Energy Feasibility Study, prepared for the Municipality of Chatham- Kent, Ontario, by Earth Tech Engineering and Kinectrics Inc, November, 2002 Wastetech company website, http://www.wastetechnz.com Waste Management in Northern Europe, Experiences from Linkoping, Ake Nordberg, http://www.agri.ee/link.php?id=12580&filname=Nordberg.ppt

Appendices: Appendix # 1(a)

Feedstock Suitability / Quality Manure from the intensive livestock industry is not high biogas yielding but provides a good base and balances the C/N ratio of the process. When waste streams rich in fat, proteins and carbohydrates are be blended with the manure a higher average biogas yield is attained. Different wastes produce different quantities and qualities of biogas. Slaughterhouse waste will yield as much as 300 m3 of biogas per tonne of waste where cattle manure will yield a mere 20 m3 per tonne. Used cooking oil will yield as high as 650 m3 per tonne. (See - APPENDIX 2 - additional charts derived from results of tests conducted by Lipp GmbH, Tannhausen, Germany, and ECB Berlin) As various waste combinations will prove far more economical than others it is critical that these combinations (recipes) be identified if maximum benefit is to be acheived. The following values are guidelines for biogas production from a variety of organic substrates.
Feedstock Cow Manure Pig Manure Chicken Droppings Sewage Sludge Bio-refuse Used Fats Vegetable Refuse Molasses Swill Grass M3 Biogas /t TS 200m3 Biogas /t TS 300m3 Biogas /t TS 250m3 Biogas /t TS 300m3 Biogas /t TS 250m3 Biogas /t TS 720m3 Biogas /t TS 400m3 Biogas /t TS 300m3 Biogas /t TS 500m3 Biogas /t TS 480m3 Biogas /t TS M3 Biogas / m3 feedstock 20 m3 Biogas / m3 Manure 30 m3 Biogas / m3 Manure 40 m3 Biogas / m3 Manure 5 m3 Biogas / m3 Sludge 100 m3 Biogas / m3 Bio-refuse 650 m3 Biogas / m3 Used Fat 60 m3 Biogas / m3 Vegetable refuse 230 m3 Biogas / m3 Molasses 70 - 100 m3 Biogas / m3 Swill 125 m3 Biogas / m3 Grass

Figure # 17 - Waste chart Stand und Entwicklung von Biogsasanlagen in Bayern, Stand

Appendix #1(b)

Cubic Meters of Biogas per Tonne of Feedstock

Feedstock M3 per Tonne

76

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Bakery Fat / cooking oils Canola Cake 15% Old Bread Molasses Used grease Food leftovers Corn kernels & silage Grass (1st cut) silage Corn Silage Green corn Brewery waste Green Grass Sugar beets Sugar beet greens Feed beets Potato peels Whey Potato processing water Hog manure Cattle manure

657 600 552 486 465 400 220 202 195 171 156 129 103 93 90 70 68 39 35 36 25

Biogas consists of about 2/3 of the main components methane (CH4) and 1/3 Carbon Dioxide as well as trace elements of other gases, Nitrous Oxide (N2), Oxygen and Hydrogen Sulfide. The energetic value of biogas with 65% CH4 is approximately 6.5 kWh. The density is about 1.2 kg per meter. To determine the main components, N2, H2S and other trace gases the Bavarian Office of the Environment conducted an investigation of 10 biogas plants. The H2S concentration was based on existing equipment (addition of air) below 100 mg/m3. The evaluation of the results shows that there are only minor pollutants relevant to emissions. In all cases manure is combined with other substances and the relative size of gas production per GV (500 kg of live animal weight) is used. The result is a large span of difference between the amounts of gas produced. A base yield is 1.5 M3 per GV for manure with little or no additional substances other than bedding, yard clippings, etc. Much higher yields can be obtained from energy enriched chicken manure. Up to 10 m3 per GV per day can be obtained from manure with fats, offal and bio-waste. After that level the addition of additional substances does not seem to increase production. The preceding chart shows biogas production per cubic meter of fermentation tank area. Here it shows that manure with little additional substances produces approximately 0.46 m3 of biogas per m3 of fermentation tank area. If other substances are added, the gas produced per fermentation tank area can be doubled

77

Appendix # 2 - Case Studies Case Study #1

78

Biogas Mission to Germany and Austria Nov 6-11, 2005 steffan.presser@international.gc.ca

79

Case Study # 2

80

Biogas Mission to Germany and Austria Nov 6-11, 2005 steffan.presser@international.gc.ca

81

Case Study # 3

82

Biogas Mission to Germany and Austria Nov 6-11, 2005 steffan.presser@international.gc.ca

Appendix # 3 - Economic Review

Financial Assessment
The following analysis includes initial planning level cost estimates, including capital, operating and maintenance expenses and provides a cost-benefit analysis including preliminary cash-flows. Value-added benefits have been calculated along with IRR and ROI analyses, projected cash flows, payback calculations and financial justification. Other potential income sources are evaluated including government subsidies and tax incentives such as SR & ED credits. That income along with a more detailed financial summary will be made available to investors. Capital Costs The following analysis is based on an AD plant with a capacity of 125 tonne of mixed waste per day and gasification facility with a capacity of 100 tonne of mixed dry waste per day and an associated co-generation capacity of 2.5 MWe, as outlined in previous feedstock and by-products analyses. The estimates presented here are summarized in block categories. A detailed breakdown is available. Project Cost Breakdown 1. Early Stage Development - feasibility, waste audit, pre-design, financing - $600,000 2. Project Development and Management - PPA negotiations, project financing, legal, accounting, project management, and expenses - $1,000,000 3. Engineering - site design, civil design, mechanical design, electrical design, and expenses -$1,000,000

83

4. Procurement - tenders and contracts for waste handling equipment, pre and post treatment, digester, co-generation, bio-filter, buildings, and laboratory, warranty $6,000,000 5. Construction - site preparation, project management, transportation / delivery, foundations, road construction, piping, controls, grid connection - $3,000,000 6. Miscellaneous - commissioning, interest during construction, legal, insurance, bank fees, contingencies - $400,000 Total - $12,000,000 Operating Costs - The estimates include both fixed and variable expenses. Operating costs for the project are relatively low. Several estimates e.g. insurance, legal and accounting and miscellaneous expenses were calculated as 1-2% of gross profit. Maintenance costs have been estimated at 1.5% of gross profit and an additional 1.5 % of gross profit set aside for annual engineering and consulting and miscellaneous expenses. The highest expenses are management fees and labour. The projects will pay the groups royalties of 1.5% of gross profits for their support of the project. Fixed Costs: Insurance - 1% Management fee Salaries and wages Consulting & Engineering Legal & accounting - 1% Maintenance - 2% Office rent & utilities - 1% Miscellaneous - 1% Total Variable Costs: Royalties - 1.5% O & M - 1.5% Miscellaneous Total Total Operating Costs

31,069 100,000 100,000 31,069 31,069 62,138 31,069 31,069 $417,481

46,603 46,603 31,069 $124,275 $541,756

Projected Revenue As outlined in the review of system by-products there are several potential revenue streams. Profitability requires that all or most of these revenue streams be included in the project. The following figures are for year 2 (2007) or the first full year of operation and assumes a 5% escalator from base price. (See detailed spreadsheets) 1. Electricity energy - As per the by-product evaluation approx. 15,000 MWh would be available for use or re-sale annually. A price of $70 / MWh was assumed based on a potential BC Hydro Green Energy Purchase Program rates plus a $10 federal subsidy. Total Revenue / Savings @ $80.00/MWh - $1,200,000

84

2. Thermal energy - As per the by-product evaluation an excess 50,000 GJ of heat produced would be used and/or sold. Assume distribution cost of 25%. A net sale or savings price of $8 / GJ (+ a 5% escalator) was used in the calculations. Total Revenue/ Savings @ $8 /GJ - $400,000 Note*** estimate is extremely low. With available heat recovery thermal energy sales could equal electrical sales. 3. Tipping Fees - For the purpose of the economic analysis the assumption was made that approx. 75 tonne of the waste treated will be chargeable. Although a rate scale has been recommended an average rate of $45 per tonne (with a 5% escalator) delivered has been used in the calculations. Total Revenue/ Savings @ $45.00 /t - $1,231,000 4. Nutrients - As noted in the previous analysis, the exact breakdown of liquid and solid tonnage available is difficult to estimate at this time. A firm market is in place for a small portion of the liquid waste from the digester and for the ash from the gasifiers. An average value of $250 / tonne has been used and an estimated 200 tonne. Total Revenue/ Savings @ $ 250 / t - $50,000 * A revenue stream in excess of the amount projected can be attained through the addition of advanced nutrient recovery technology. In depth analysis is required. 5. GHG Emission Credits - Based on preliminary calculations developers have assumed a minimum of 150,000 tonnes of emissions per year. Given the uncertainty of the Kyoto Accord Developers would normally not attribute any value to them. However, current programs available through the Canadian government suggest that credits may be redeemable at a reasonable value to incent climate change technologies. Also credits have recently been trading around the world within the range of $6 per tonne to well over $25 per tonne. Developers have therefore given the credits a value of $15 per tonne. . Total Revenue / Savings 15,000 tonnes @ $15 /t $ - 225,000 6. Other Revenue Sources - Additional income will be derived from government capital assistance and operating grants, SR & ED tax credits and from income from valueadded products such as activated carbon and fractionated by-products from gasification. Other income sources are difficult to calculate at this time and have not been included in the evaluation. Total Revenue / Savings from all sources Less Operating Expenses: Income before Depreciation, Interest Less Interest and Depreciation Net Income BT (Average) $3,106,875 $ 541,756 $2,565,119 $ 872,160 $1,692,959

Estimated NPV - $198,934,196

IRR - 28.2%

85

For the purposes of the assessment it was assumed that 100% of the total capital cost would be invested as equity. Depreciation was calculated at 5% over 20 years. (These calculations are expressed in greater detail in series spreadsheets available to investors) NOTE: Developers can apply for SR & ED tax credits of up to 35% of eligible project costs. Provincial tax credits of 30% are also available. IRR, NPV and ROI change dramatically when tax incentives, capital assistance grants and low interest loans are taken into account. The preceding scenario indicates that a considerable profit would be made if all of the conditions were met. The project would more than break even from the sale of electricity or tipping fees alone (excluding debt repayment).

Appendix # 4
We have included this just for fun. Rather bizarre but shows that there are a lot of waste sources.

86

87