2009 AgSTAR National Conference Preliminary Findings from Monitoring Seven Dairy Farm Digesters in New York State

Curt Gooch, P.E.

and

Jennifer Pronto
Cornell University www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu

U.S. Dairy Farm Demographics

AK- 1.3
247 18 117 390 4 66 25 1,680 91 98 105 134 208 114 145 120 63 84 150 310 88 31 33 311 49 147 19 85 20 37 480 94 1,265 301 260 15 118 80 590 680 23 1.4 13 9

Thousands of Cows per State

153

17 36 20

On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion in New York State

Operating (13) Under Construction (4) Planning/Design (5) Decommissioned (4) Existing Systems: 8 Eng-gen sets (1,300-kW) 7 Microturbines (250-kW) 2 H2S Scrubbing Systems

On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion in New York State

Operating (13) Under Construction (4) Planning/Design (5) Decommissioned (4) Existing Systems: Near Future: 8 Eng-gen sets (1,300-kW) 7 5 Microturbines (250-kW) Eng-gen sets (3.8+ MW) 2 H2S Scrubbing Systems

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol General Requirements

1. Prerequisites for Performance Evaluation 2. Process Performance Characterization 3. Biogas Production and Utilization 4. Economic Analysis

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Key Prerequisites

1. Evaluation for at least 12 months 2. Conducted after start-up is completed
(continuous operation for at least 5 HRTs)

3. Monthly influent/effluent & biogas sampling

Farm Data, Testing Start Dates

Patterson Farms (1,000 cows, Mixed, FW) Emerling Farms (1,100 cows, PF, FW) New Hope View (850 cows, PF) AA Dairy (550 cows, PF) Sunny Knoll Farms (1,400 cows, PF, FW) Ridge Line Dairy (525 cows, Mixed, FW) Noblehurst Farms (1,800 cows, PF, FW) 3/03/08 4/01/08 4/15/08 5/22/08 6/04/08 9/18/08 10/21/08

Tests and Test Methods Used: Solids, VA, and COD

Total Solids EPA 160.3

Total Volatile Solids EPA 160.4 Volatile Acids COD SM18 5560C SM18 5220B

Tests and Test Methods Used: Nutrients (food waste only)

TKN Ammonia-N Organic-N Total Phosphorus Ortho Phosphorus Potassium EPA 351.4 SM18 4500F Subtraction EPA 365.3 EPA 365.3 EPA SW 6010

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol

Process Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: TS, TVS, COD, and TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling).

Influent Effluent Percent Change in Constituent Concentration

% Change = [influent] [effluent] x 100 [influent]

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids

100 90 80 70

% Change

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SK 1 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids Total Volatile Solids

100 90 80 70

% Change

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SK 1 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids Fixed Solids

100 90 80 70

% Change

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SK 1 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids Total Volatile Solids Fixed Solids

100

pH

80

60

% Change

40

20

0 SK 1 -20 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids Total Volatile Solids Fixed Solids

100

pH Volatile Acids as Acetic Acid

80

60

% Change

40

20

0 SK 1 -20 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

Constituent % Change Due to Anaerobic Digestion - SKF

Total Solids Total Volatile Solids Fixed Solids pH Volatile Acids as Acetic Acid Chemical Oxygen Demand

100

80

60

% Change

40

20

0 SK 1 -20 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6 SK 7 Cumm. Avg.

Sampling Event

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol

Process Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: TS, TVS, COD, and TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling). 2. Ideally, TKN, ON, NH3-N, TP, and S = 0

Influent/Effluent Percent Change: Nutrients

30 20 10
TKN

Percent Change

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 AA DDI FA Fixed FA Vertical Film Plug Flow ML NH Digester NH Digester

NH3-N ON TP OP K

Source: Gooch and Inglis, 2006

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol

Process Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: TS, TVS, COD, and TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling). 2. Ideally, TKN, ON, NH3-N, TP, and S = 0 3. Recommend bench-scale trials to establish the readily biodegradable fraction of TVS

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol

Process Performance Characterization
1. Degree of waste stabilization: TS, TVS, COD, and TVA by anaerobic digestion (not by settling). 2. Ideally, TKN, ON, NH3-N, TP, and S = 0 3. Recommend bench-scale trials to establish the readily biodegradable fraction of TVS 4. Recommend Pathogen Analysis

Influent/Effluent Percent Change: Solids and Pathogens

100 90 80 70
TS TVS

Percent Change

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AA DDI FA Fixed Film FA Vertical Plug Flow ML NH Digester Cell 1 NH Digester Cell 2

Acetic A DCOD COD MAP F. Coli.

Source: Gooch and Inglis, 2006

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Production

1. Temperature and pressure compensated meters (0C and 1 Atm) 2. Biogas meter calibration

Ave. Daily Biogas Production and Ave. FW:Manure Ratio (VS basis)
250,000 0.45 0.40 200,000
Biogas volume (ft /day)

150,000

Average daily biogas production (ft3/d) FW:Manure ratio

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15

100,000

50,000

0.10 0.05

0 PAT NHV AA EM Farm SK NH RL

0.00

NH

Biogas Vol. (ft 3) / LCE

100

120

140

20

40

60

80

Biogas (ft3) per Lactating Cow Equivalent (VS basis) NHV Farm

Sampling Period

V1 NH -NH V2 V2 NH -NH V3 V3 NH -NH V4 V4 NH -NH V5 V5 NH -NH V6 V6 NH -NH V7 V7 NH -NH V8 V8 NH -N V9 HV NH -N 9 V1 HV 1 NH 0-N 0 V1 HV 1 NH 1-N 1 V1 HV 1 NH 2-N 2 V1 HV 1 NH 3-N 3 V1 HV 1 NH 4-N 4 V1 HV 1 NH 5-N 5 V1 HV 1 NH 6-N 6 V1 HV 1 NH 7-N 7 V1 HV 1 NH 8-N 8 V1 HV 1 NH 9-N 9 V2 HV 0- 20 N HV 21

Ave. Biogas (ft3) per LCE (VS basis) All Farms

160 140

Biogas Vol. (ft3) / LCE

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 PAT NHV AA Farm EM SK NH

Average Biogas Volume per VS Mass (ft3/lb) All Farms

45
ft3 biogas/lbs VS consumed

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 PAT NHV EM Farm SK NH #1 NH #2

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Production

1. Temperature and pressure compensated meters (0C and 1 Atm) 2. Biogas meter calibration 3. Composition: CO2, CH4 & H2S bi-weekly 4. CO2 , H2S, CH4, and NH3 quarterly

Biogas Average CO2 and CH4 Concentration (%) - SKF

Average CO2 and CH4 Conc. (%)
80

CO2
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
SK 7 SK 8 SK 9 SK 10 SK 11 SK 12 SK 13 SK 14 SK 15 SK 16 SK 1 SK 2 SK 3 SK 4 SK 5 SK 6

CH4

Sample Event

Ave. CO2 and CH4 Concentration (%) in Biogas All Farms

80

Average CO2 and CH4 Conc. (%)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

average CO2 average CH4

PAT

NHV

AA

EM Farm

SK

NH #1

NH #2

RL

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Utilization

Greenhouse gas reduction do to AD: Estimate reduced ghg emissions by comparing predicted differences in long-term storage emissions with and without pretreatment by AD

Total CH4 Mass (tons) Production by Farm to Date

800

Mass CH4 (tons)

600

400

200

0 PAT NHV AA EM SK NH #1 NH #2 RL

Farm

H2S Concentration (ppm)

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0

Biogas Average H2S Concentration (ppm) - NHV

Sample Event

NH V NH 1 V NH 2 V3 NH V NH 4 V NH 5 V NH 6 V NH 7 V8 NH NH V9 V NH 10 V1 NH 1 V NH 12 V NH 13 V NH 14 V NH 15 V NH 16 V1 NH 7 V NH 18 V NH 19 V NH 20 V2 1

Biogas Average H2S Concentration (ppm) All Farms

6,000
H2S Concentration (ppm)

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 PAT NHV AA EM Farm SK NH #1 NH #2 RL

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Utilization

1. Thermal (LHV) to electrical conversion

Efficiency (%)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Thermal Conversion - SKF

Sample Period

0SK 1 SK 1SK 2 SK 2SK SK 3 3Sk 4 Sk 4SK Sk 5 5Sk 6 SK 6SK 7 SK 7SK 8 SK 8SK SK 9 9SK SK 10 10 -S K1 SK 1 11 -S K1 SK 2 12 -S K1 SK 3 13 -S K1 SK 4 14 -S K1 SK 5 16 -S K1 6

Thermal Conversion All Farms

50 45 40

Efficiency (%)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 PAT NHV EM SK NH RL

Farm

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Utilization

1. Thermal (LHV) to electrical conversion 2. Eng.-gen. set operating hours 3. Capacity factor

Online Efficiency (%)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Capacity Factor - PF

Sampling Period

Capacity factor

PF 1PF PF2 2PF PF3 3PF PF4 4PF PF5 5PF PF6 6PF PF7 7PF PF8 8 PF -PF 9 9 PF -PF 10 10 PF -PF 11 11 PF -PF 12 12 PF -PF 13 13 PF -PF 14 14 PF -PF 15 15 PF -PF 16 16 PF -PF 17 17 Pf -PF 18 18 PF -PF 19 19 PF -PF 20 20 PF -PF 21 21 PF -PF 22 22 PF -PF 23 23 -P F2 4

On-line efficiency (%)

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Capacity Factor

Capacity Factor All Farms

Online Efficiency Capacity Factor
100 90 80 1.00 0.90 0.80

On-line Eff. (%)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 PAT NHV AA EM SK NH RL

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Farm

Capacity Factor

70

0.70

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Biogas Utilization

1. Thermal (LHV) to electrical conversion 2. Eng.-gen. set operating hours 3. Capacity factor 4. Beneficial heat used and parasitic heat

kWh/day
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0

PF Ave Daily Energy (kWh): Generated

Sampling Period

PF 1P PF F2 2P PF F3 3P PF F4 4P PF F5 5P PF F6 6P PF F7 7P PF F8 8PF PF9 9PF PF1 0 10 -P PF F1 1 11 -P PF F1 2 12 -P PF F1 3 13 -P PF F1 4 14 -P PF F1 5 15 -P PF F1 6 16 -P PF F1 7 17 -P F Pf 18 18 PF PF1 9 19 -P PF F2 0 20 -P PF F2 1 21 -P PF F2 2 22 -P PF F2 3 23 -P F2 4

Generated

kWh/day
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0

PF Ave Daily Energy (kWh): Generated, Purchased

Sampling Period

PF 1P PF F2 2P PF F3 3P PF F4 4P PF F5 5P PF F6 6P PF F7 7P PF F8 8PF PF 9 9 PF -PF 10 10 PF PF 11 11 PF -PF 12 12 PF -PF 13 13 PF PF 14 14 PF -PF 15 15 PF PF 16 16 PF -PF 17 17 -P F Pf 18 18 PF -PF 19 19 PF PF 20 20 PF -PF 21 21 PF PF 22 22 PF -PF 23 23 -P F2 4

Purchased

Generated

kWh/day
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0

PF Ave Daily Energy (kWh): Generated, Purchased, Sold

Sampling Period

PF 1PF PF2 2PF PF3 3PF PF4 4PF PF5 5PF PF6 6PF PF7 7PF PF8 8 PF -PF 9 9 PF -PF 10 10 PF -PF 11 11 PF -PF 12 12 PF -PF 13 13 PF -PF 14 14 PF -PF 15 15 PF -PF 16 16 PF -PF 17 17 Pf -PF 18 18 PF -PF 19 19 PF -PF 20 20 PF -PF 21 21 PF -PF 22 22 PF -PF 23 23 -P F2 4

Sold

Purchased

Generated

kWh/day
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
PF

PF

1P

PF Ave Daily Energy (kWh): Generated, Purchased, Sold, Displaced

Sampling Period

F2 2P PF F3 3P PF F4 4P PF F5 5P PF F6 6P PF F 7 7P PF F8 8 PF -PF 9 9 PF -PF 10 10 PF -PF 11 11 PF -PF 12 12 PF -PF 13 13 PF -PF 14 14 PF -PF 15 15 PF -PF 16 16 PF -PF 17 17 Pf P F 1 18 8 PF -PF 19 19 PF -PF 20 20 PF -PF 21 21 PF -PF 22 22 PF -PF 23 23 -P F2 4

Generated Purchased Sold Displaced

PF Ave Daily Energy (kWh): Generated, Purchased, Sold, Displaced, and Used On-farm
Generated Purchased 8,000 7,000 6,000 Sold Displaced Farm use

kWh/day

5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0

PF 1PF 2 PF 3PF 4 PF 5PF 6 PF 7P PF F8 9PF PF 10 11 -P F1 PF 2 13 -P F1 PF 4 15 -P F1 PF 6 17 -P F1 PF 8 19 -P F2 PF 0 21 -P F2 PF 2 23 -P F2 4

Sampling Period

EPA / ASERTTI Protocol Economic Analysis

1. Cash flow approach 2. Annual capital cost (turn key approach) 3. Annual operating and maintenance costs 4. Revenue

Three Observations
1. Mass flow quantification is key 2. Implementation of the ASERTTI protocol is beyond almost all farms to do or pay for 3. Multiple factors have to be addressed for wide-span adoption of AD. Data shows one such factor is low capacity factors.

Why are you here:

9Networking opportunities 9Share knowledge 9Looking for new opportunities 9Representing products/services for sale 9Learn about anaerobic digestion 9Money

Information on Manure Treatment, Including Anaerobic Digestion, check out: The Cornell Manure Management Programs web site at: www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu