An Overview of Landfill Gas

Energy in the United States

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP)
File Last Updated: June 2008
 Why EPA is Concerned
about Landfill Gas
 Why is methane a greenhouse gas?
 Methane absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation (heat) that
would otherwise escape to space (GHG characteristic)
 Methane as GHG is over 20x more potent by
weight than CO2
 Methane is more abundant in the atmosphere
now than anytime in the past 400,000 years
and 150% higher than in the year 1750
 Landfills were the second largest human-made
source of methane in the United States in 2006,
accounting for 22.6% generated
 EPA’s Landfill Methane
Outreach Program
 Established in 1994
 Voluntary program that creates
alliances among states, energy
users/providers, the landfill gas
industry, and communities

Mission: To reduce methane emissions

by lowering barriers and promoting the
development of cost-effective and
environmentally beneficial landfill gas
energy (LFGE) projects.
 Landfill Gas 101
 Landfill gas (LFG) is a by-product of
the decomposition of municipal solid
waste (MSW):
 ~50% methane (CH4)
 ~50% carbon dioxide (CO2)
 <1% non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs)
 For every 1 million tons of MSW:
 ~0.8 megawatts (MW) of electricity
 ~432,000 cubic feet per day of LFG
 If uncontrolled, LFG contributes to
smog and global warming, and may
cause health and safety concerns
 Typical Methane Curves
Landfill Methane Generation Model
(250,000 Tons Per Year Disposal; Closure Year 30)
2000
Dry Site (k=0.02)

1500 Wet Site (k=0.06)

Methane (scfm)

Bioreactor LF (k=0.5)

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Year
 Landfill Regulations

NSPS and MACT

 Require gas collection and control
system (GCCS) if
 Design capacity > 2.5 million
megagrams or > 2.5 million cubic
meters, and
 Annual nonmethane organic
compound emission rate > 50
megagrams
 GCCS Requirements

 Collect landfill gas from

 Active areas that have held waste
for five years or longer
 Closed areas that have held
waste for two years or longer
 GCCS Requirements
(continued)

 Send gas to
 Flare that complies with
provisions in 40 CFR §60.18
 Control system that it at least 98
percent efficient
 Treatment system that prepares
gas for subsequent sale or use
 Benefits of using landfill
gas
 Environmental benefits
 Replaces non-renewable resources
 Revenue source for landfill owner or
operator
 Gas leaving treatment system is no
longer subject to control requirements
 Cost savings for end users
 LFG Has Been Used to
Help Produce…
 Aluminum  Fiberglass, nylon, and paper
 Alternative fuels (biodiesel,  Furthering space exploration
CNG, ethanol, and LNG)  Garden plants
 Aquaculture (e.g., tilapia)  Green power
 Arts & crafts (blacksmithing,  Ice cream, milk, and tea
ceramics, glass)
 Infrared heat
 Biosolids (drying)
 Juice (apple, cranberry,
 Bricks and concrete orange)
 Carpet  Pharmaceuticals
 Cars and trucks  Pierogies and snack food
 Chemicals  Soy-based products
 Chocolate  Steel
 Consumer goods and  Tomatoes (hydroponic)
containers
 Taxpayer savings and
 Denim
increased sustainability!
 Electronics
 Modern Sanitary Landfill
Gas Header Flare/
Intermediate/
Pipe LFGTE Plant
Final Cover
Leachate
Plant

Liner
System Waste
Gas Extraction Cells
Wells
Monitoring Probes
File Last Updated: June 2008
File Last Updated: June 2008
 Options for using gas

 Landfill gas to energy plant

 Direct thermal
 Diversity of Project Types
Electricity Generation

Internal
Combustion Engine Gas Turbine
(range from 100 kW to 3 MW) (range from 800 kW to 10.5 MW)

Microturbine
(range from 30 kW to 250 kW)
File Last Updated: June 2008
 Diversity of Project Types
Direct Use of LFG
 Direct-use projects are growing!
 Boiler applications – replace natural gas, coal, fuel oil
 Combined heat & power (CHP) Greenhouse Burlington, NJ

 Direct thermal (dryers, kilns)

 Natural gas pipeline injection
 Medium & high Btu
 Greenhouse
 Leachate evaporation
 Vehicle fuel (LNG, CNG)
 Artist studio
 Hydroponics Pottery Studio Sugar Grove, NC

 Aquaculture (fish farming)

File Last Updated: June 2008 LFG-fired Boiler Ft. Wayne, IN
 Typical Electric Project
Components & Costs
3 MW, engine, 15-yr project:
 Total capital cost = ~$3.76 million
 Gas compression & treatment, engine,
& generator = ~$3.5 million
 Interconnect equipment = ~$260,000*
 Annual operation & maintenance cost
= ~$570,000/year
*interconnect costs can vary widely
Typical Direct-Use Project
Components & Costs
800 scfm, 5-mi pipeline, 15-yr project:
 Total capital cost = ~$1.63 million
 Gas compression & treatment =
~$230,000
 Pipeline = ~$280,000/mile
 (Plus end-of-pipe combustion
equipment retrofits, if needed)
 Annual operation & maintenance cost
= ~$140,000/year
 Technology Trends
Electricity Projects

Reciprocating Engine

Gas Turbine

Cogeneration

Microturbine

Steam Turbine

Combined Cycle
Operational Projects

Organic Rankine Cycle Under Construction and

Planned Projects

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Projects
 Technology Trends
Direct-Use Projects

Boiler

Direct Thermal

Leachate Evaporation

High Btu

Greenhouse

Alternative Fuel

Medium Btu
Operational Projects

Liquefied Natural Gas

Under Construction and
Planned Projects
Methanol Synthesis

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Projects
 CHP and Direct-Use Case Study LMOP 2003
BMW Manufacturing Project of
Greer, SC the Year

 9.5-mile pipeline from

Palmetto Landfill to
BMW
 2003 – 4 KG2 gas
turbines retrofitted to
burn LFG
 4.8 MW of electricity
generated and 72 million
Btu/hr of heat recovered
 2006 – Converted paint
shop to utilize LFG in
oven burners and for
indirect heating
 LFG accounts for nearly
70% of BMW’s energy
needs LMOP 2006
 BMW saves at least $1 Energy End User
million/yr Partner of
the Year
 Regulations that Affect
LFGE
 LFGE projects may be affected by a
variety of federal, state, and local air
quality regulations. Applicable federal
Clean Air Act regulations include:
 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) /
Emission Guidelines (EG)
 Title V
 Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT)
 New Source Review (NSR)
 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
 State of the National LFG
Industry (April 2008)
 At least 450 operational projects in 43 states
supplying:
 11 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 77 billion
cubic feet of LFG to direct-use applications annually
 Estimated Annual Environmental Benefits
 Carbon sequestered annually by ~17,800,000 acres
of pine or fir forests, or
 CO2 emissions from ~182,000,000 barrels of oil
consumed, or
 Annual greenhouse gas emissions from
~14,300,000 passenger vehicles
 Estimated Annual Energy Benefit
 Powering more than 870,000 homes and
heating nearly 534,000 homes
 Many Untapped LFG
Resources
 Currently ~540 candidate landfills with a
total gas generation potential of 240
billion cubic feet per year (~14,000
MMBtu/hr) OR electric potential of 1,280
MW (~10 million MWh/yr)
 If projects were developed at all these
landfills, estimated
 Annual Environmental Benefit =
Carbon sequestered annually by ~12.4 million
acres of pine or fir forests OR annual greenhouse
gas emissions from ~9.9 million passenger
vehicles, AND
 Annual Energy Benefit =
Powering 808,000 homes OR heating 1.5 million
homes per year
 Many Untapped LFG
Resources (cont.)
 ~485 landfills have a gas collection
system but no energy project
 Potential of 285,000 MMBtu/day or 1,000
MW
 ~110 landfills have an energy project
and excess LFG available
 Potential of 70,000 MMBtu/day or 250 MW
 ~1,000 landfills do not have a gas
collection system
 Potential of 236,000 MMBtu/day or 840
MW
 Estimated Annual
Environmental Benefits for FL
 Currently 16 operational projects and 1 under
construction (60.9 MW and 3,800 scfm)
 Carbon sequestered annually by ~126,000 acres of
pine or fir forests, or
 CO2 emissions from ~1.29 million barrels of oil
consumed, or
 Annual greenhouse gas emissions from ~101,000
passenger vehicles
 Potential – 22,400 scfm from 19 candidate
landfills, if all developed direct-use projects:
 Carbon sequestered annually by ~151,000 acres of
pine or fir forests, or
 CO2 emissions from ~1.5 million barrels of oil
consumed, or
 Annual greenhouse gas emissions from ~122,000
passenger vehicles
 Current Operational & Under
Construction LFGE Projects in FL
 Baseline LF, Ocala – 3.2 MW Reciprocating Engines
 Berman Road LF, Okeechobee – Leachate Evap.
(40,000 gpd)
 Brevard Co. Central Disposal Facility, Cocoa – 6.2 MW
Recip. Engines
 Central Disposal SLF, Pompano Beach – 11.3 MW Gas
Turbines & Steam Turbine
 Girvin Road LF, Jacksonville – 430 kW Recip. Engine
 Highlands Co. Solid Waste Management Center,
Sebring – Direct Thermal (Asphalt plant)
 Lena Rd. Co. LF, Bradenton – Direct Thermal (WWTP)
 North Central LF, Winter Haven – Direct Thermal (WTE
plant)
 North LF, Jacksonville – 540 kW Boiler/Steam Turbine
 Current Operational & Under
Cons. LFGE Projects in FL (cont.)
 Orange County SLF, Orlando – 12.4 MW Steam Turbine
 Osceola Road Solid Waste, Geneva – 6.4 MW
Reciprocating Engines
 PBCSWA RRF Site #7 – Direct Thermal (under
construction)
 Saint Lucie County SLF, Fort Pierce – Boiler for steam
production
 Springhill Regional LF, Campbellton – 4.8 MW
Reciprocating Engines
 SW Alachua SLF, Archer – 2.4 MW Recip. Engines
 Tomoka Farms Road LF, Port Orange – 3.6 MW Recip.
Engines
 Trail Ridge LF, Baldwin – 9.6 MW Recip. Engines
 Candidate Landfills in LMOP
Database in FL
 Bee Ridge, Sarasota
 Bridgeway Acres, St. Pete
 Citrus Co., Lecanto
 Gulf Coast, Ft. Meyers
 Indian River Co., Vero
Beach
 Lee/Hendry Co., Labelle
 Leon Co., Tallahassee
 Martin Co., Palm City
 Medley
 Naples Collier Co.
 New River Regional,
Raiford
 North Dade, Opa-Locka
 Perdido, Cantonment
 Sarasota Central,
Nokomis
 South Dade, Homestead
 SE Hillsborough Co.,
Lithia
 Southport Rd., Kissimmee
 West Nassau, Callahan
 Zemel Rd., Punta Gorda
 LMOP Tools and
Services
 Network of 700+ Partners
(and growing)
 Newsletter and listserv
 Direct project assistance
 Technical and outreach
publications
 Project and candidate landfill
database
 Web site (epa.gov/lmop)
 Support for ribbon cuttings/
other PR
 Presentations at conferences
 State training workshops
 Annual conference
 LMOP Locator

 Database tool that geographically

matches landfill to end users or end
users to landfill
 Provides information about possible
end user or landfill
 Name
 Address
 Distance
 Technical landfill data
 LFGcost
 Excel-based tool that assists in
financial feasibility determination
 Works with gas curve information
 Landfill, unit price, and financial
inputs
 Cost models for various project
types
 Financial outputs – NPV, IRR,
payback
 For More Information
www.epa.gov/lmop
T4: Swarupa
WA ND
MT
MN
NH ME
SD WI VT
OR
ID
WY MI
NY MA
IA
NE
OH
PA
CT
RI T1:
NV IL IN NJ
T3: UT CO
KS MO WV DE
Rachel
MD
Tom CA KY VA

OK TN NC
AR
AZ NM
SC
MS AL
GA

AK
TX LA T2:
PR
Victoria
FL
VI

HI

Rachel Goldstein Swarupa Ganguli

goldstein.rachel@epa.gov, (202) 343-9391 ganguli.swarupa@epa.gov, (202) 343-9732
Victoria Ludwig Tom Frankiewicz
ludwig.victoria@epa.gov, (202) 343-9291 frankiewicz.thomas@epa.gov, (202) 343-9232
File Last Updated: June 2008