 |
Integrated Bio-Systems
in Zero Emissions Applications
Proceedings of the Internet
Conference on Integrated Bio-Systems
Editors: Eng-Leong Foo
& Tarcisio Della Senta. 1998
http://www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs
|
 |
Integrated bio-systems for biogas
recovery from pig slurry: Two examples of simplidfied plants in Italy
S. Piccinini, C. Fabbri, F.Verzellesi. Centro Ricerche Produzioni
Animali CRPA
(Research Center for Animal Production),
C.so Garibaldi, 42 - 42100 Reggio Emilia - ITALY
Tel. +39/522/436999 - Fax +39/522/435142 E-mail:
S.Piccinini@crpa.it
|
ABSTRACT
In Italy, recently, at the end of the eighties, a new
generation of biogas systems for animal (mainly pig) slurry were developed
which are extremely simplified and low-cost, involving the use of plastic
cover over a slurry storage tank. These systems have been developed not
only for the purpose of energy recovery but also for controlling odours
and stabilizing the wastes. Though no official census has been made, information
gathered from the firms that produce this type of system indicates that
approximately fifty of these plants have been installed in Italy up to
now. The systems operate at low temperature or at a controlled temperature.
Also part of this scenario is a provision of the Italian government of
1992 that offers incentives for self-production of electric energy from
biomasses; this could translate into renewed interest in biogas systems
for pig breeding. However, this rule is today under revision due to public
budget restriction. CRPA had monitored some of these biogas plants, in
particular a plant installed in a large pig farm located in the province
of Parma. Here the biogas system was created by adapting two tanks, of
the same size, used for slurry storage. The total useful volume is about
600 m3. The biogas is used for a co-generator that can supply
about 50 kW of electric power and 120 kW of thermal power. The productive
parameters, energetic balance and economical analysis of the biogas plant
are presented in the paper: the biogas production is about 118,000 m3/year,
about 357 m3/t lw · year; the production of electric
energy is about 191,000 kWh/year and the pay back time is 4.5 years. Moreover
CRPA and Agricultural Engineering Istitute of Milano University carried
out a market analysis about cogenerators interesting for pig breeding.
The results of this study are reported in the paper.
1. INTRODUCTION
In Italy the diffusion of Anaerobic
Digestion plants for farm and agro-industrial wastes started at the beginning
of the eighties and lasted about ten years. During that period, more than
hundred farm biogas plants and about twenty five large agro-industrial
plants were built. A survey carried out by ENEA in 1983 showed that over
60 farm manure anaerobic digesters were in operation and more than 20 were
under construction at that date (Tilche et al., 1983). The growth lasted
only few more years, during which some public funds for anaerobic digestion
were still available. Most of farm plants were treating pig wastes, that
in Italy represents an "industrialised" animal farming, carried out in
large and very large units without land, while most of agro-industrial
plants were treating distillery effluents. Also some centralised projects
for digesters treating wastes of many different farms started during these
years.
Since then the situation has changed
substantially, particularly because many of the systems constructed at
that time are no longer in operation. The causes can be found in the motivations
that led to the installation of the initial systems. In reality, energy
saving was only one reason, and not the main one, for farmers to build
a digester. The "hypothetical" treatment benefit offered by the technology
was often the most important reason, because "industrial" farms had to
treat their waste in order to reduce the amount of land needed for its
spreading or to reach discharge standards. Though anaerobic digestion may
ensure substantial removal of carbon (expressed as COD and BOD5),
it leaves very high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, and this makes attempts
to complete the treatment technically and economically unfeasible. The
understanding of this "bitter" truth certainly led to a decrease in the
use of anaerobic digestion in animal wastes applications.
In Italy at the end of the eighties, a new generation
of biogas simplified systems for animal (mainly pig) slurry has come into
use, involving a simple cover made of plastic material placed over the
lagoons or storage tanks (Figures 1-2).
Since the majority of the Italian regional legislation prescribes the use
of storage tanks - though with different retention times - the tanks were
usually pre-existent to the covering. The function of the floating cover
is to collect the biogas which is naturally produced under the almost totally
anaerobic conditions of the tanks or lagoons and released into the atmosphere.
The resulting reduction of emissions also eliminates odours.
Though no official census has been made, information
gathered from the firms that produce this type of system indicates that
approximately fifty of these plants have been installed in Italy up to
now.
As demonstrated in experimental activity and system monitoring,
the production of biogas follows the temperature curve of the slurry in
the tank or lagoon.
|
|
Figure 1 - Scheme of a low temperature lagoon
digester.
|
| |
|
|
Figure 2 - A view of a biogas simplified plant
for animal slurry.
|
However, there is still no standardized procedure for system
design and prediction of the quantity of gas produced. The firms that produce
this type of system use an empirical approach, recommending the covering
of surfaces corresponding to 60 or 90 days of theoretical retention time.
Under good conditions, the production of methane gas
that can be obtained is about 15 m3/year for each 100 kg of
pig live weight (about 25 m3/year of biogas).
The concentration of methane in the biogas varies between
65% in summer to 80% in winter. Despite this seasonal
variability in production, all the gas produced is available for use, as
there is no energy consumption for maintaining the process temperature.
The best application for this type of system is in swine
breeding activity, generally fattening, associated with dairies. As large
quantities of combustible fuel are consumed in dairies for producing the
thermal energy (steam) necessary for cheese-making, these facilities are
usually able to burn all the biogas produced both in winter and summer,
thus providing significant energy savings.
When the user wants to maximize biogas production and
obtain stable production levels during the year, the raw waste is digested
at controlled temperature, where possible at 35-37°C (mesophilic digestion).
The types of systems that can be used involve simplified
reactors similar to those described above, added to which is a system for
heating the wastes by means of a hot water pipe coil submerged in the tank
(Figure 3).
|
|
Figure 3 - Scheme of a covered tank digester with
heating system.
|
Because this is a simplified system, it is not always possible
to ensure that the reactor temperature is maintained constant. For example,
there are often cases in which the pipe coil inside the tank acts as a
discharger of the heat produced by cogeneration, and therefore the temperature
ranges from a minimum of 20-25°C in winter to a maximum in summer that
may exceed 35°C.
Under good conditions, the potential production of pure
methane gas is approximately 21 m3/year for each 100 kg of pig
live weight (about 35 m3/year of biogas).
In mesophilic digestion, the average concentration of
methane in the biogas is about 65%.
This type of digestion is usually associated with the
combined production of heat and electrical energy for cogeneration,
with a maximum yield of 30% in electrical energy and 60% in thermal energy.
2. EXAMPLES OF FARM SYSTEMS USED IN ITALY
2.1 The biogas plant of a pig farm
|
|
Figure 4 - Pig farm: plan and flow-sheet of the
biogas plant.
|
The pig farm, located in the province of Parma in the Emilia-Romagna
Region, is a large facility that offers a classic example of the organization
of heavy swine production for Parma ham. The farm also incorporates a feed
production plant.
The farm sheds have a capacity for 330 sows and 3205 growing
and fattening pigs. The average live weight present amounts to about 330
tons.
|
|
Figure 5 - Pig farm: a view of the biogas plant.
|
The biogas system (Figures 4,
5, 6, 7)
was created by adapting the tanks used for slurry storage. The slurry reaches
a shaft from which a pump sends it to a rotating screen. The separated
solids are collected in the underlying concrete platform.
The liquid part is divided into two identical flows by
a hydraulic separator, and then conveyed to two parallel digestor tanks
of the same size. Each digestion line is thus independent, and is composed
of a tank built on-site with dimensions of 25 x 6 m in plan, an average
depth of 4.5 m, and total useful volume of about 600 m3. The
side walls of the digestion tank are insulated, partly with polyurethane
foam (about 5 cm thick) and partly by earth embankments.
|
 |
|
Figure 6 - Pig farm: a view of the biogas plant
with, in the foreground, a slurry storage tank and, on the right side,
the covered platform for the rotating screen.
|
Figure 7 - Pig farm: the cogenerator for biogas
use.
|
One tank was covered using a pneumatic gas-collection dome
(a semi-cylindrical dome composed of three membranes in fabric with polyester
fibres in the weft coated with PVC, ENEA-Agrisilos patented). The innermost
membrane collects the biogas. The maximum gasometric capacity of this dome
is about 325 m3. The covering of the second tank was made using
a semi-cylindrical dome composed of only one membrane.
The biogas is maintained at a pressure of 0.02 bar by
a special valve in connection with the biogas chamber located in the first
dome. This valve permits the passage of the biogas from the second dome
to the first when the pressure in the second dome approaches more than
0.02 bar, while preventing the withdrawal of gas from the first dome from
emptying the second. In this way, the second dome is always full of gas
at 0.02 pressure. The geometric volume of the second dome is approximately
225 m3.
Both digestion tanks are heated by means of a steel pipe
coil installed near the bottom, in which hot water from the cogeneration
plant circulates.
The biogas formed and recovered by the two dome covers
is sent to a building in which a cogenerator is installed that can supply
about 50 kW of electric power and 120 kW of thermal power.
|
Table 1 - Influent flow-rate,
biogas yield, digestion temperature of the plant (average monthly values)
in the period October '94 - September '96.
|
| |
Mean
|
St.dev
|
Range
|
| Influent flow rate |
|
|
|
|
|
60
|
13.5
|
46-86
|
|
|
3.2
|
1.7
|
0.6-6.4
|
| Digestion temperature [°C] |
25.9
|
5.6
|
17.5-33
|
| Biogas production |
|
|
|
|
|
352
|
132.5
|
127-536
|
-
per unit of covered area [m3/m2·d]
|
1.174
|
0.442
|
0.423-1.787
|
-
per unit of digester volume [m3/m3·d]
|
0.294
|
0.110
|
0.106-0.447
|
-
per unit of live weight [m3/t lw·d]
|
1.067
|
0.401
|
0.385-1.624 |
(a): input of whey began 23/02/95
- 11/11/95 and stopped 03/08/95 - 24/08/96.
(b): cogenerator stopped for 1 week in March 95 and for
2 weeks in September 96. |
The cogenerator is equipped with a parallel mains board
which enables it to work in parallel with other potential cogenerators
as well as with the ENEL (Italian national electrical agency).
The system began operation in the spring of 1993. Since
the first months of operation, the system has been monitored to verify
the biogas yield. Table 1 shows the main
operative parameters of the plant found in the period from October 1994
to September 1996.
High biogas production rates were also due to the addition
of a certain quantity of whey to the slurry that was in excess of the nutritional
requirements of the pigs.
|
Table
2 - Productive parameters, energy balance and economic analysis of the
biogas plant.
|
| Productive parameters |
|
|
(N) |
330 |
|
|
(t) |
330 |
|
|
(m3/year) |
21,900 |
|
|
(m3/year) |
117,800 |
|
|
(m3 biogas/t lw ·
year) |
357 |
| Energy balance |
|
|
(kW) |
50 |
-
Electric Energy production
|
(kWh/year) |
191,300 |
| Economic analysis |
|
|
(US$(5)/year) |
28,370 |
-
maintainance cost cogenerator (3)
|
(US$/year) |
6,460 |
|
|
(US$/year) |
21,910 |
|
|
(US$) |
98900 |
|
|
(years) |
4.5 |
(1) Electric power
(2) ENEL buys electric energy at 0.139 US$/kWh in 1994, at 0.144
US$/kWh in 1995 and at 0.152 US$/kWh in 1996.
(3) We consider 0.034 US$/kWh ; at September 1996 cogenerator
worked 9730 hours.
(4) The cost includes: the two covers for biogas recovery (300
m2), the gasometric dome for biogas storage, the heat exchanger, the cogenerator,
the housing for the cogenerator and the installation of all the above.
(5) 1 US$ = 1780 Italian Lire. |
In conclusion, Table 2 summarizes
the production parameters, the energy balance and the economic analysis
resulting from the period October 1994-September 1996.
All the electric energy production
was buyed by ENEL (Italian national electrical agency) under a provision
of the Italian government of 1992 that offered incentives for self- production
of electric energy from biomasses.
2.2 The biogas system of a dairy
The dairy is located in the province of Piacenza in the Emilia-Romagna
Region. The dairy produces approximately 8,000 t of milk annually for making
Grana Padano cheese.
The whey is used in pig feeding. The wastewater (about 60 m3/day,
with an organic content of approximately 78 kg/day of COD) undergoes a
purification treatment (an activated sludge aerobic system), and is emptied
into surface water. The excess sludge, mixed with the pig slurry, is used
for agronomic spreading.
|
|
Figure 8 - Dairy farm: scheme of the pig slurry
and dairy wastewater treatment plants.
|
| |
|
|
Figure 9 - Dairy farm: a view of the biogas plant,
in the foreground the rotating screen.
|
The pig farm connected to the dairy fattens pigs for the
production of animals weighing about 160 kg. The average total live weight
present is about 270 t.
The housing is on a solid concrete floor and the external
dung passage has a slotted floor. The slurry collected in the pits underlying
the slotted floor is removed by mechanical scrapers and conveyed by means
of an underground piping system to the shaft that lifts it to the screen.
The system used for handling the pig slurry (Figure
8 and 9) involves a
line of treatment for the purposes of agronomic spreading, consisting of
the following components:
- screening using a rotating screen for separating the
coarse solids;
- simplified biogas plant composed of a 1,700 m3
tank with floating cover in plastic material which ensures the anaerobic
conditions and acts as collector for the biogas produced.
The total storage capacity of the slurry is equal to
production of about six months, and enables the implementation of a programme
of fertilization-irrigation in compliance with agronomic criteria.
The biogas plant was constructed using a plastic sheet
(in Hypalon) to cover a portion of the waste storage tank which was separated
by a baffle made of prefabricated elements. This created 2 tanks which
are communicating by means of an overflow passage, the first of approximately
10 x 38 x 4.7 metres (about 1,700 m3), in which the biogas system
was installed, and the second of approximately 24 x 38 x 4.7 m (about 4,300
m3) used for storing the stabilized waste after anaerobic digestion.
The surface area of the cover is approximately 340 m2,
and it floats on the slurry by means of a series of "pockets" containing
polystyrene blocks secured underneath the cover. The biogas produced is
withdrawn by means of a perforated collection manifold in PVC that extends
along the long side of the sheet, and is sent by means of a compressor
and underground piping in PVC to the boiler of the dairy.
On this farm there is no heating utility, and the biogas
produced by the anaerobic digestion system is used in the two steam generators
operating on methane gas that serve the dairy, with power of 1,200 and
700 Mcal/h.
This biogas system was one of the first to be installed,
in 1988. Since it was initially activated and for about two years (July
1988 - May 1990), this anaerobic digestion system was monitored in order
to verify the biogas yield.
|
Table 3 - Operational parameters
and biogas yield of the dairy biogas plant.
|
| Operational parameters |
|
| Influent flow-rate (m3/d) |
53 |
| Organic load (kg VS/d) |
898 |
| Covered surface (m2) |
340 |
| Covered volume (m3) |
1,700 |
| Superficial loading rate (kg VS/m2
· d) |
2.64 |
| Volumetric loading rate (kg VS/m3
· d) |
0.53 |
| CH4 % (Average) |
60 |
| Biogas production |
|
| Summer |
|
| Biogas (m3/m2
· d) |
0.41 |
| Biogas (m3/m3
· d) |
0.082 |
| Autumn - Spring |
|
| Biogas (m3/m2
· d) |
0.29 |
| Biogas (m3/m3
· d) |
0.058 |
Table 3 provides the main
operative parameters of the system and the average values of biogas production
during the different seasonal periods. Biogas production was not measured
in the winter because of the breakdown of the measurement instrument.
In conclusion, Table 4 summarizes,
the energy balance and the economic analysis of the plant. The payback
time of the capital invested is thus 4 years. The dairy made use of government
funding equivalent to 60% of the investment.
|
Table 4 - Energy balance
and economic analysis of the dairy biogas plant.
|
| - Pig live weight |
270 |
(t) |
| - Digestion covered volume |
1,700 |
(m3) |
| - Covered surface |
340 |
(m2) |
| - Energy saving (i.e. methane) |
21,000 |
(m3/year) |
| - Economic value of energy saving |
5,340 |
(US$/year) |
| - Investment cost (1988) |
22,200 |
(US$) |
| - Pay back time |
4.2 |
(year) |
Note:
- 1 US$ = 1780 Italian Lire (ITL)
- We considered a methane cost of 474 ITL/m3
(0.266 US$/m3)
- The investment cost includes: the plastic cover, the
compressor for conveying the biogas to the boilers, the piping and valves
for hookup to the boilers and the installation; excluding the concrete
tanks, which had to be constructed in any case for slurry storage. |
3. COGENERATION-SETS WITH BIOGAS FROM PIG SLURRY
Typical electrical output of cogeneration sets in agricultural
field is less than 100 kW. This is due two main factors:
-
farm electrical power and energy consumption are limited;
-
biogas yield is limited.
It's important to take into account that biogas fuel is not
only mixture of methane and carbon dioxide but it also contains water vapour,
sulphurous compounds, particulate. These compounds and the variability
of methane content and pressure should be considered by engine manifactures
in order to produce reliable machines. Table 5
shows the characteristics of some cogeneration-sets based on internal
combustion engine.
All cogenerators listed are sound proof and equipped
with all the necessary electrical interfaces and regulations. Required
electrical power output is obtained with a combination of a number of cogeneration
modules parallel connected. In some cases, moreover, contractors draw up
a maintenance agreement based on effective working time, typically 0,028-0,056
US$/kWh. These maintenance agreements allow farmers to work safely and
to spend a little time for control operations.
|
Table 5 - Most important
performances and dimensional characteristics
of some cogenerators about Italian market.
|
|
Company
|
Model
|
Power
|
Efficiency
|
| |
|
Total
|
Mechanic
|
Electric
|
Thermic
|
Mechanic
|
Electric
|
Thermic
|
Total
|
| |
|
(kW)
|
(kW)
|
[kW]
|
[kW]
|
[%]
|
[%]
|
[%]
|
[%]
|
| Continental |
Bibloc BB20A |
74
|
22
|
20
|
50
|
30
|
27
|
67
|
94
|
| energy system |
Bibloc BB30A |
111
|
33
|
30
|
75
|
30
|
27
|
67
|
94
|
| |
Bibloc BB60A |
201
|
64
|
60
|
130
|
32
|
30
|
65
|
95
|
| |
Bibloc BB90A |
293
|
95
|
90
|
170
|
32
|
31
|
58
|
89
|
| Tessari |
8031-8 |
59
|
n.d.
|
18
|
28,3
|
n.d.
|
30,5
|
48
|
78,5
|
| |
8041-8 |
78
|
n.d.
|
24
|
37,6
|
n.d.
|
30,7
|
48,2
|
78,9
|
| |
7450-8 |
97
|
n.d.
|
30
|
48
|
n.d.
|
30,9
|
49,5
|
80,4
|
| |
8061-8 |
123
|
n.d.
|
38
|
60
|
n.d.
|
30,7
|
48,6
|
79,3
|
| |
7450-S8.6 |
154
|
n.d.
|
48
|
75,8
|
n.d.
|
31,1
|
49,2
|
80,3
|
| |
8061-S8.6 |
176
|
n.d.
|
55
|
86,3
|
n.d.
|
31,2
|
49
|
80,2
|
| |
8061-SR8.5 |
217
|
n.d.
|
70
|
106,4
|
n.d.
|
32,2
|
49
|
81,2
|
| |
8061-SR8.6 |
275
|
n.d.
|
90
|
136,6
|
n.d.
|
32,6
|
49,6
|
82,2
|
| |
8210-8 |
298
|
n.d.
|
95
|
146
|
n.d.
|
31,8
|
49
|
80,8
|
| FIAT |
Totem stand |
56
|
15
|
14
|
39
|
27
|
25
|
69
|
94
|
| |
Totem indip. |
56
|
15
|
13
|
39
|
26
|
24
|
69
|
93
|
| |
Totem stand-by |
56
|
15
|
13
|
39
|
26
|
24
|
69
|
93
|
4 REFERENCES
[1] Tilche A., De Poli F., Ferrante E., Calzolari C.,
Bozza E., Massari A. (1983). A complete census of the anaerobic digester
operating in Italy on animal wastes. Edited by ENEA-RT/FARE-SIN (83), 3,
Rome, p.23.
[2] Sangiorgi F., Balsari P., Bozza E. (1985). Impianto
di biogas a basso costo inserito in una vasca di accumulo di liquami: risultati
di funzionamento. Ingegneria Agraria, 4, p. 211-218.
[3] Cullimore R.D., Maule A., Mansuy N. (1985). Ambient
temperature methanogenesis from pig manure waste lagoons: thermal gradient
incubator studies. Agricultural Wastes, 12, p. 147-157.
[4] Oleszkiewicz J.A., Koziarski S. (1986). Kinetics
of piggery wastes treatment in anaerobic lagoons. Agricultural Wastes,
14, p. 13-25.
[5] Safley M.L., Westerman P.W. (1988). Biogas production
from anaerobic lagoons. Biological Wastes, 23, p. 181-193.
[6] Safley M.L., Westerman P.W. (1988). Anaerobic lagoon
biogas recovery systems. Biological Wastes, 27, p. 43-62.
[7] Zeeman G., Vens T.J.M., Koster-Treffers M.E., Lettinga
G. (1988). Start-up of low temperature digestion of manure. 5th International
Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion. Ed. Hall & Hobson, Bologna.
[8] Bortone G., Piccinini S., Farina R., Forner G., Verzellesi
F., Tilche A. (1991). Recupero di biogas con impianti di copertura di vasche
di stoccaggio di reflui zootecnici. IA-Ingegneria Ambientale, vol. XX,
n. 11-12.
[9] Safley L.M., Westerman Jr & P.W. (1992). Performance
of a low temperature lagoon digester. Bioresource Technology, 41, p. 167-175.
[10] Piccinini S., Verzellesi F., Tilche A. (1996). Il
recupero di biogas dai liquami suini: gli impianti semplificati. L'Informatore
Agrario, n. 44.
[11] CRPA (1996). Biogas e cogenerazione nell'allevamento
suino. Manuale pratico. Edited by ENEL, p. 203.