0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views23 pagesBook Chapter Published
journal paper on renewable energy
Uploaded by
rashamaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views23 pagesBook Chapter Published
journal paper on renewable energy
Uploaded by
rashamaCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
Microbial Biotechnology: Energy ®
Generation Approach =
from the Environmental Waste
Charles Rashama @, Grace N. Ijoma ©, and Tonderayi S. Matambo ©
1 Introduction
Landiills that form part of the sanitation supply chain in the terminal stages of han-
dling municipal solid wastes (MSW) are a commonplace infrastructure across the
globe, While providing this crucial service, landfills unfortunately generate signifi-
cant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mainly in the form of methane and carbon
dioxide, arising from the biological degradation of organic components of the land-
filled waste. Landiills are ranked the third largest source of anthropogenic methane
(CH) contributing about 11% of the global CH, generation (Singh et al., 2018).
Landiill gas (LFG) can fortunately be recovered and used as a fuel. In a time when
Oil Importing Developing Countries (OIDCs) continue struggling to meet their
energy demands with many of them still strongly relying on the polluting and fast
depleting fossil derived fuels, Landiill gas recovery and its utilization provides an
‘opportunity to abate pollution while addressing energy deficiency. Overreliance on
fossil fuels is counterproductive toward reaching the sustainable development goals
(SDGs) such as climate change, clean energy, sanitation, health, etc. As such, piv-
otal toward sustainability is a consideration that provides for appropriate design and
‘management of LFG recovery systems, which will ensure a holistic approach in
addressing several SDGs. The sustainability concept is premised on three pillars
namely the environment, economics, and social aspects (Purvis et al, 2019). This
chapter reviews key considerations in sustainably developing LFG-to-energy proj
ects. The considerations to be discussed will cover project stages and plant areas
such as gas generation predictions, gas extraction and collection systems, gas
‘upgrading and utilization technologies, and project decommissioning decisions.
©. Reshams (29): G.N. Homa TS. Matambo
Institue forthe Development of Energy for African Sustainability (DEAS),
Florida, South Africa
(© The Authors), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 bi
R.A Bhatet al. (eds), Microbial Bioremediation,
hups:doi. org/10-1007/978-2-081-18017-0_11 192 .Rashama etl
2 Landfill Gas: Production, Properties, and Sustainability
2.1 Microbial Production of Biogas
The approach that uilizes landiill for waste management encourages the prolifera
tion and abundance of anaerobic microorganisms and their favored metabolic path-
ways. Landfills are designed to hold MSW and in most cases the waste is covered
‘with soil (sanitary landfill) as the waste accumulate. Surface waste partially covered
by soil may harbor microorganisms that can thrive on oxygen, thereby allowing
some aspects of aerobic decomposition. However, as more soil is piled on the MSW,
lover time during the active lifecycle of the landfill for waste dumping, its often the
ccase that anaerobic conditions overtake with the creation of anoxic conditions. This
arises as a consequence of the complete sealing through the burial of the MSW. The
autochthonous soil microorganisms that have adapted to anoxic conditions (micro-
aerophilic bacteria and obligate anaerobes) proliferate and dominate the degrada-
tion process. In the soil, microorganisms degrade organic compounds through
consortia activities, These consortia-based interspecific activities encourage the
production of an array of enzymes. It is beneficial to microorganisms in the degra-
dation process as one species may not necessarily possess all enzymes for the deg:
radation of certain compounds but in the community, concerted decomposition is
more efficiently achieved with the collective effort by several species of microor-
ganisms mostly comprising of bacteria, rhizospheric organisms including strepto-
‘myces and fungi, Some of the commonly existing soil microroorganisms are (then
list the microorganisms given in the text) Serratia marcescens, Bacillus subtilis,
B. cereus, B. thuringiensis, B. anthracis, Glutamicibacter arilaitensis, Xanthomonas,
Erwinia, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Ralstonia, Escherichia, Staphylococcus,
Caulobacter, Neisseria Nocardia, Actinobiospora, Nocardiopsis, Streptomyces,
Streptoverticillium, Streptosporangium, and Microbiospora as well as Rhizoctonia
solani, Fusarium oxysporum, Sclerotium rolfsii, Pythium ultimum (Budi etal, 2000;
Felse & Panda, 2000; Someya et al,, 2000; Aarti et al, 2020). In this process of
anaerobic digestion (AD), the first set of metabolic activities is hydrolytic involving
the production of enzymes that primarily function for organic matter decomposition
and nutrient cycling (Rehman et al., 2019). Examples of such enzymes include beta-
glucosidase which degrades carbon compounds to glucose that is used as an energy
source by microorganisms. Similarly, different enzymes including lipases, prote-
ses, and esterases collectively involved in fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis and deg-
radation of all organic matter to achieve nutrient recycling also function in hydrolysis
(Prosser et al, 2011).
Although hydrolysis is an important step of AD, itis a rather rate-limiting step in
the overall process as the complex compounds that are being degraded usually pro-
duce toxic by-products in the form of heterocyclic compounds and some non-
desirable volatile fatty acids (VFAs) which require further degradation steps Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 193
(Boliere etal, 2018; Wang et al, 2018; Yap et al, 2018). As a result, these mono
meric compounds and volatile fatty acids including lactic acid, pyruvie acid, formic
acid, and acetic acid undergo the second step of acidogenesis in which organisms
such as Clostridium sp., B. subtilis, Pseudomonas stutzeri, Streptococcus sp.,
Lysinibacillus fusiformis, and Buryribacterium sp. (Wainana et al., 2019; Steven
etal, 2020) achieve acidogenesis via oxidation; metabolites are then taken through
to acetogenesis where microorganisms such as Acetobacterium, Acetoanaerobium,
Acetogenium, Butyribacterium, Clostridium, Eubacteriun, and Pelobacter partci-
pate inthis third step. However, in situations where varied metabolites have to be
degraded to acetates, then organisms such as Syntrophobacter wolinii degrades pro-
pionate, Synmrophomonas wolfei degrades butyrate, and Synirophus buswelii
degrades benzoate, depending on the type of organic acids that are present (Borja,
2011; Swiatek etal, 2019). This process converts the avids to acetate and Hs, which
ae the necessary substrates fr the last step, methanogenesis, where organisms such
as Methanoculleus sp., Methanobacterium sp., Methanobrevibacter sp., and
Methanosarcina sp. are responsible forthe production of methane and COs (Serrano
Silva et al, 2014; Laiq Ur Rehman et al, 2019). As time progresses, landfill gas
production subsides due to substrate depletion, without new MSW inputs on the
site. But with most buried organic wastes, biogas production can span slightly over
atime period averaging 40 years from landfill closure date. A typical landfill facility
layout demonstrating the involvement of microorganisms in biomass degradation to
produce landfill gas is shown in Fig. 1,
‘Methane
‘Greenhouse gas
Compactor
removal of air-creates
anaerobic environment
‘Anaerobe microbial
le
Fig. 1 Organic waste landil with microbes degrading biomass to gas 194 .Rashama etl
2.2. Biogas and Landfill Gas Energy Properties
Biogas is an energy cartier due to its methane component which is combustible to
produce heat or light. The carbon dioxide which makes the other fraction in biogas
is a nuisance in biogas energy applications asi is principally a suppressant for fuel
combustion, Pure methane has an energy density of 37.78 Mim’ (Jingura &
Kamusoko, 2017). Biogas can also be combusted in an internal engine to provide
motive power for vehicles or electrical generator ses. In the case of electrical gen-
crator sets, the biogas can be combusted to enable the conversion of the engine
‘mechanical power to electricity. The higher the proportion of methane versus the
carbon dioxide inthe gas, the higher will be the energy density of the biogas. Carbon
dioxide and other gases in the biogas dilute the methane fraction and this is thero-
fore undesirable. Landfill gas as an energy carrer is considered inferior to biogas,
due to low methane content and higher impurity levels. Other impurities, although
normally in small quantities, that can be detected in these gases include hydrogen
sulfide, siloxanes, nitrogen, hydrogen, and water vapor. Commercial technologies
are available on the market for biogas upgrading to remove contaminants and
increase the methane content though this comes at @ cost to biogas end users (Sun
et al, 2015; Singhal, 2017). Table | outlines a few property variations between
landfill and anaerobic digester gas (biogas). This information illustrates that LFG
‘may be used in similar energy applications as biogas though the upgrading require-
‘ments in cases where this is required for the two bioenergy carriers may slightly
vary depending on source, substrate, and pollutant limits acceptable for each spe-
cific application
‘Table 1 Comparison of biogas and landil gas characteristics
Biogas Tmmplication on Tend
Characteristic operations _|LPG operations | project sustuinability | References
Feedstock | Nearly ‘Composition | Unreliable gas output | Levis and
vanability constant and | changes more | prediction in landills | Barlaz 2011)
ean be often and results in gas wastage
manipulated | difficult to | (aring) or costs elated
‘control to equipment oversizing
Methane (55-70 40-70 Higher concentrations | Rajaram al.
composition infer high calorie value
® which improves project
‘Carbon dioxide | 30-85 30-60 Reduces caloric value | Rajaram etl
component (%) ofthe gis. High eoatent_| (2012); Sitorus
increases puiication | and Panjsitan
costs 2013)
Hydrogen | 200-4000 | 800 Cordes heat exchange | Rajaram eal.
sulfide (ppm) ‘equipment or engines. | 2012); Sitorus
Generates GHGs on | and Panjsitan
‘combustion (2013)
Metal ad Vay across | Toxicity to human beings | Cullen and
‘components lands and clogging engine | Feldmann
wen) nozzles 1997) Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 195
2.3 The Sustainability Aspects of Recovering Landfill Gas
for Energy Use
While developing LFG recovery systems, it is important to address sustainability
aspects. The concept of sustainability emanated feom the desire to protect the envi-
ronment inthe wake of rapid economic developments that took place in many coun-
teies during the first and second industrial revolutions peaking in the late nineteenth
century. Generally, sustainability evaluates any development on the economie met-
its, environmental harm that may affect future generations’ potential to benefit from
current resources as well as the current ethical and social acceptability of the pro-
cess oF project (United Nations, 2020). This concept gained widespread attention
around 1900 prompting the United Nations (UN) to develop a set of seventeen (17)
time-bound goals referred to a the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These
goals commenced in 2015 and are targeted to reach maturity by 2030. These SDGs
are aimed at fostering a focused approach among countries for addressing the Sub-
ject of sustainability. Moreover, SDGs involve all economies and encompass a
broader scope of development covering poverty, economy, environment,and social
dimensions as opposed tothe narrower predecessor goals (Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs)). The MDGs focused more on ending poverty in developing nations
with very limited scope to involve developed economies. The eight (8) MDGs were
formulated in 2000 and expired in 2015 when SDGs came into effect. The use of
LLFG as fuel contributes both directly or indirectly, in addressing some of the SDGs
as depicted by the connecting lines between LFG activities and the SDGs affected
by each activity in a hierarchy form of Fig. 2
Objective sbGs Landfill gas Activities
Gas use in cooking
Gas use in CHP engines
Gas use in vehicles
Gas use in central heating
<—~(=- (cossionstaenen ‘emission abatement
Digestate recycling
Fig. 2 Contribution of land gas recovery activities int the sustainability space. WASIT stands
for water, sanitation, nd health, CHP stands fr combined heat and power. Te number in brackets
denotes the SDG number allocated by the United Nations 196 Rash etal.
‘There are many approaches and tools used to evaluate a development project’s
sustainability. These approaches were reviewed by Ness et al. (2007) who pointed
out thtee broad classifications of these methods as the indicators, product assess-
‘ment, and the integrated assessment (Ness et al., 2007). The integrated assessment
which covers both qualitative and quantitative attributes of a project appears to be
‘more suitable for the LFG biogas development context and will therefore be adopted
in discussing sustainability issues in this chapter, Coneisely, the social, economic,
and cnvironmental dimensions of the key activities in LFG development for energy
tse will be the central theme of discussion in this chapter.
3 Landfill Gas Capturing and Usage: General
Process Description
Although there are a few variants to the process flow diagrams (PED) for LFG
extraction and processing, the basic one is described by Liu etal. (2017) as depicted
in Fig. 3, Briefly explained, gas extraction involves sucking out the gas from a land-
fill, by creating a vacuum using a blower that will be connected to perforated pipes.
Along the gas conveyance pipes, water vapor condenses and is knocked out. The gas
is then directed to the processing units where pollutants like hydrogen sulfide, car-
bbon dioxide, and sometimes siloxanes as well as volatile metals are removed. The
Fig.3. Schematic diagram depicting landfill gas recovery for energy use Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 197
extent of gas processing depends on the intended final gas utilization, Processed gas
is directed to various end uses. I there is excess gas supply than consumption, flar-
ing facilities are incorporated on the gas delivery piping to cater for system over-
pressure (Liu et al, 2017).
4 Landfill Gas Quantification Models
To design and operate a sustainable LFG recovery system the potential amount of
LRG that is likely to be generated and collected from a landfill must be estimated
carefully since this is an important input for the Feasibility study (Majdinasab et al
2017), Test wells can be drilled on a land6fll to gather and estimate LFG production
potential as well as collection efficiency data but this process is expensive and time-
consuming. Gas output predictions are therefore achieved through empirical, math-
ematical, and numerical modeling approaches, There are more than twenty (20)
LFG generation projection models and modeling approaches in existence that have
been developed and applied across the globe with additional eight (8) models that
are country-specific (Rajaram et al, 2012)
‘The abundance of LFG generation prediction models is dictated by variability
in the composition of wastes landiilled, climate conditions, differences in landfill
‘management practices such as leachate recirculation ratios, cover designs, etc. The
‘most popular models however are the LandGEM, IPCC, and the country-specific
models (Gollapalli & Kota, 2018). The LandGEM model was developed for
American conditions though it can be modified and adapted for use in other coun-
tries across the globe, most likely with limited adjustments, The model is therefore
‘widely accepted in America and the Latin American region. The IPCC model
which is more flexible in terms of accommodating variable conditions is currently
the most preferred model by international development agents for clean develop-
‘ment mechanism (CDM) funding requirements under the Kyoto Protocol arrange-
ments. The eight country-specific models that were developed by the Global
Methane Initiative (GMI) have the combined attributes of the LandGEM and the
IPCC. These country-specific LFG output prediction models factored regional
local conditions and are therefore popular in the regions or countries for which
they were specifically designed for. Table 2 highlights common aspects which
affect accuracies in most LFG models. Aspects of sustainability in LEG develop-
ment project for energy recovery are also highlighted in the same table. It isnot the
intention of this chapter to discuss detailed technical differences, assumptions
held, and application suitability of the various LFG projection models. Majdinasab
ct al. (2017) and Rajaram et al, (2012) reviewed the development of the various
LFG models, comparing their relative differences, advantages, and disadvantages
so these sources can he consulted to better understand this subject (Rajaram et al,
2012; Majdinasab et al., 2017). 198
Rash et
‘Table 2 Landi! gas modeling variables and considerations that affect sustainability
‘Modeling [Tafuence on modeling and key
variable | considerations Sustainability aspoctafected | Reference
"Amount of | Available waste quantities | Cost -Overestimating gas___|Scarlat ea.
waste change with lifestyle and output affects plant sizing with | (2015)
changing demographics. possibilities ofa big
Securing accurate data on waste underutilized plant
‘quantities i a problem ‘Underestimations of gs outputs
Particularly in developing | will also imply inedequate
‘countries. Consider these | exploitation ofthe resources
challenges to make reasonable_| with possible excess methane
adjustments on LEG model | escaping into the atmosphere as
forecass [GHG or fared.
‘Composition | Waste compositions change | Cost - Incomplete wage of ga | Mou etal
cof waste | inconsistently in mosteases. | generated because of undersized | (2015);
Foodstuff waste degrades fast | unis or vice versa CChakima and
shortening the lanl lifespan, | Environmenta/social — Mathur
Lignocellulosic behave ‘Compliance relies on 2016)
otherwise while organics do | understanding the complete
not degrade, Make informed | degradation of waste
estimates of these ste-speciic | components
‘compositional issues in
‘modeling and it would be beter
to be conservative on high
methane-yielding components
‘Moisture | Moisture atfcts LEG Degradation rates affect project | Chakma and
content” | generation rates, Local rainfall lifespan hence costing. Mathur
pattern, runoff seepage contol | Leachates come with 2016);
{nto the landill and leachates | environmental tigation costs | Gupta and
recirculation rates mast be and socal unrest from affected | Para
considered during LFG communities. 016)
modeling
“Temperature | Anaerobic digestion proveeds Inaccurate projections due to | Chaka and
reasonably well at temperatures | non-consieraton of Mathur
herween 30 and 40°C-1F | temperature will affect the | 2016); Vu
factions im local project economics and etal. 2017)
temperatures are anticipated, | potentially if outputs
then this should be Tactred in underestimated the excess
‘modeling LFG mode! output, | generation will be released 3s
Site-specific rather than default | GHG into atmosphere
values in the model are always
recommended
‘Age of te | Landil gas production rates | Poorly tined record inputs will | Rada etal
Tsai! | and eumaative amount is time | affect anticipated gas volumes | 2015)
dependent soit is important to
factor in landfill agezlated
considerations in the
interpretation ofthe model
outputs.
leading to mismatched and
‘unnecessarily costly designs.
(continued) Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 199
Table 2 (continued)
‘Modeling | Tofuence on modeling and key
variable | considerations Sustainability aspoct affected | Reference
‘Oxygen | Consider airinfiraton caused | If oxygen effects are not Rachor and
ingress into | by aggressive operation of | accounted forespecially in| Gebert
landill | eolletion (vacuum) systems | shallow depth andl, the isk. | 2013)
and uncovered landills. Aix | of overestimating methane gas
Feduces methanogenesis hence | generation is high and will affect
the projected methane ges | project financials negauvely
outputs. Some ofthe organics
will also be degraded
scrobically without methane
generation if er ititration is
high while some methane is
oxidized by methanotzophs
5 Landfill Gas Extraction and Collection
Major components of a gas extraction system include the extraction wells, header
and distribution piping, moisture removal equipment, and blowers for vacuum cre-
ation, Different options for each piece or components of equipment and the ultimate
plant design exist on the market. The selection criteria for these units ought to con-
sider the fitness for purpose, cost-effectiveness, and improvement of the energy
project sustainability attributes. Some of the recommended key considerations are
briefly discussed in Table 3 with emphasis placed on the sustainability impact of
each consideration
6 Landfill Gas Purification Technologies
‘The gas processing section objectives include removal of pollutants such as hydro-
gen sulfide, siloxanes, and other non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) which
are detrimental to the end-user equipment or the health of gas users (Kaparaju &
Rinlala, 2013), Processing also improves the calorific value of the LFG gas by
removing the non-combustible components such as carbon dioxide. The choice of
equipment and technologies applicable to LEG gas upgrading depends on the
intended final wilization of the gas. It may nat be economically sustainable to incur
high purification costs for low Btu applications (boilers, furnaces, micro-turbines)
where energy efficiency may be poor or minimal equipment damage is expected
from gas contaminants (Kaparaju & Rintala, 2013), Some of the gas purification
technologies and considerations to make as well as their implications on project
sustainability are briefly discussed below. Rash et
200
usuruona pue xodo YBIH
ado,
‘uo aus nq ode 2sras5u7
augur dns $83 pur 03
aa]
‘pon 201
“Microbial Biotechnology: Bnerey Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste
(ponunuo>)
‘pus um
suoreiedo aes pur oom |
30) Aressatr ng p09 24 |
‘ue uonrpuos Sunjom poo
uy suoumnsu yo sours
-aroudsoune|
‘901 atau posonooarun |
qemu senuoiod
ary sournemop at
sours a4 809 Ket yogi |
By st uapanqraxo wy
ssor2qo9 0 euro
ar aod a 90H
‘woneesin 1 Kps09
am sojaurppojog3309 28807 |
Tibi ove Jo foiuo9 S503 pT
Popuouuioso1
L101 enbo.o 559) sas Hutsey
rrusiew Zee Pareoduoout ag ose deus
soi Jo osneog ruotew Suse an suns
sq dugg pa 809 vo uspuedap |
spjse2 20] popuotato:
sgaoq sour] ‘son Bnseo!o0,
3ng BuOF00 st ywamady|d asa
aint aq we HNO addons
sey usta ase x04 Sq 30) TOP
pov Suyon
suunsnipe
ound st20044
101291109 DAT Rash et
2m
ue souruoyrew yon) |
Dep
ovo] 8 anrs Keur uontodo pus woneyesut
"ets “uonsojs fan sumesneew
(6102)| ons ansuado fqpuou ame) oxy ys Baryon pu wpUadap sondns
wre pusvamey | auauidin pausisap-mosnd saamuynurm mus WoRIOgEIOD | sono
(102) suors4s Saypuey
Trp pussuaoy.| aesuopuos paureureu ood ‘syesuapeos|
102)| Ka pastoxduios 2g we pr our
(ew auor7eq| uonezT Argedeo pus Kayes | stTURYDOUT WBHUTE qpIM SUEIP s¥esuapHOD| _Aajgedeo pus ssouUTE WeNsAS | eeHNs SuPUEHE
(1102) vues,
Dae Suz
pose
aid ayn Jo suorsuounp|
sod ur apesupu03|
{0 moy 293 motte 0 yesw3puen pu #8330
hangar 1 Kydnaodo yo afeuceape ae),
soy oresuapuos
ue “roo sores wornpaud =
suo
note poe ado a
nid
ud 9p
ee eT
‘soon
‘worn SgeUSNS
‘Bua wisoq,
‘suormapIsues Kay
‘war uORSEN
(ponuno>) ¢ qa, Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 203
6.1 Moisture and Particulates Removal
Moisture cause rusting and reduce LFG calorific value. Adverse effects also arise
from particulates that may block gas nozzles in end-use equipment. Knockout pots,
moisture separators, mist eliminators, direct cooling as well as compression fol-
lowed by cooling are equipment and techniques that have been traditionally used to
remove moisture and at times concurrently entrapping the particulates as well, More
advanced and efficient but possibly expensive absorption and adsorption technolo-
gies for moisture removal also exist with filters also employed for particulates
removal where high particulate loads cannot be adequately addressed by basic
entrapment in condensate,
6.2 Hydrogen Sulfide Removal
(Combustion of H,S in intemal engines impacts on engine components’ corrosion as
well as the safety of people when acidic sulfur oxides are produced. Arising from
this are engine repair costs, environmental litigation claims from acid rain-related
damages, and social issues such as workers’ moral, health, and safety which are all
project sustainability components to consider when developing LEG projects. Iron
sponge and use of microorganisms that consume H,S have been employed in man-
aging its removal from LFG (Sun et al, 2015).
6.3 Siloxanes Removal
Siloxanes in LFG emanate from household and industrial wastes and they endanger
the combustion engine components by forming silicon dioxide (SiO,). This SiO:
reduces equipment efficiencies and is difficult to reverse once formed. The SiO;
formation is more detrimental when LFG is used in engines and turbines than in
thermal applications such as boiler furnaces. Therefore, the decision to undertake
the expensive adsorptive, absorptive, or eryogenie condensation to mention a few
treatments (Ruiling ct al., 2017) for siloxane removal must be based on a cost-
benefit analysis to be performed before project implementation,
6.4 Carbon Dioxide Removal
High-grade fuel applications like compressed natural gas and microbial cells require
high methane content and ultrapure gases so CO; removal becomes paramount.
Most gas cleaning technologies however remove a number of contaminants 208 Rash etal.
simultaneously, using principles such as surface adsorption (molecular sieves),
‘membrane separation, or a solvent treatment system (Sun et al., 2015). Technology
choice for solvents used to depend on solvent's selective affinity for either CO;,
HO, oF HS matched with considerations forthe level of contaminants in the gas as
well as the end user contaminant acceptable limits, Solvents commonly employed
fare organic amine-based, such as methyl diethanolamine (MDEA), methyl
ethanolamine-diethanolamine adsorption (MEA-DEA), and diglycolamine (DGA),
Alternatively, hot potassium carbonate, propylene carbonate, and sclexol have also
been used. These technologies are generally expensive and must be used for high
‘market value product applications,
7 Potential Landfill Gas Utilization
Landfill gas utilization depends on a number of factors including the quality of the
LFG, the amounts of LFG generated, cost of the utilization technology as well as
competition from other resources used for similar application. However, the most
dominant factor is the quality or purity of LFG with the broad LFG quality grades
being low, medium, and high. The LEG applications compatible with each specific
LEG grade are depicted in Fig. 4
Low-grade LFG is used after moisture removal only from the raw landfill gas and
no extra processing steps. However medium-gradc LFG is produced by removing
sulfur, siloxanes, volatile organic compounds as well as mercaptines and moisture
Fig. 4 Different andl gas utilizations based on quality ofthe gas Microbial Biotechnology: Enerey Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 205
from the raw landfill gas, Common low-grade LFG applications involve thermal
units such as boilers, furnaces, driers, and kilns where the damaging LFG is not in
direct contact with the major equipment. Infrared heating, leachate evaporation, and
microturbines have also been reported to employ low-grade LFG, Medium-grade
LEG finds applications in thermal equipment just like the low-grade LFG, and can
also be used for electricity generation in gas turbines, reciprocating engine, and
combined heat as well as power (CHP) units, High-grade LFG is distinguished from
ow and medium grades LFG by less pollutant load and a higher calorific value.
High-grade LEG is produced by removing carbon dioxide from the medium-grade
LFG. Key considerations in LFG utilizations that may impact on sustainability are
depicted in Fig. 5 (bulleted points in textbox). One major consideration for any LFG
‘grade utilization is proximity to the gas generation site since pipeline transportation
and the subsequent pressures required are a costly that increases with distance (Hoo
ctal., 2018).
+ High equipment
compromise safety
sand increase
‘maintenance bills,
4 End user proximity
iskey asitis
costly trangport
ow quality ga for
Fig. Sustainability considerations for different landil gas uilizaion options 206 .Rashama etl
8 Costing and Financing of Landfill Gas Recovery Projects
The economic evaluation of a landiill project follows a S-step process involving
costing (capital and operating), revenue calculations, economic feasibility caleula-
tions, selection of best design and finally choosing a suitable financing option. The
Landiill Gas Energy Cost Model (LEGcost-Web) is a web-based tool useful in per-
forming LFG economic feasibility studies which was developed by the Landfill
Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
At each stage of the economic evaluation process, some key considerations with a
{ew of them highlighted below affect the overall project sustainability
8.1 Capital and Operating Costs
Capex and Opex values for the project are collected at this stage. Various equipment
and end-use technologies must be considered with actual suppliers’ quotations to
censure that the most advantageous option is finally selected. Preliminary evaluation
ccan be based on typical costs while the detailed feasibility study must apply project-
specific values. Each technology must be evaluated considering also its non-
‘monetary merits and demerits with possibilities of economies of scale also explored.
8.2 Revenue Calculations
Alll revenue streams including sales of gas, electricity, and utilities (in the case of
steam and hot water from CHP) engines must be considered. Other revenues from
various schemes like premium pricing, tax credits, GHG credit trading, incentive
payments, or Kyoto protocol mechanisms (Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
and Joint Implementation (JD) can also be incorporated in the evaluations where
applicable.
83 Economic Feasibility Study
This phase of the project must consider the cost of capital, economic inflation, risk
sensitivities, and price uncertainties. These including the revenue and capital cost
components collected above are used to deduce internal rates of return (IRR), net
present values (NPV), payback periods (PBP), and annual cash flows thet form the
basis of economic feasibility of the project. Microbial Biotechnology: Energy Generation Approach from the Environmental Waste 207
8.4 Selecting the Best Design
At this stage, the successful projects based on economic feasibility are further sub-
jected to sensitivity analysis and non-price factors to test their robustness against
these factors. Risk factors are weighed at this stage and the most advantageous
option is chosen. The use of experienced developers in factoring these non-price
factors especially around the risk of poor gas prediction modeling may be helpful at
this stage. Other factors to consider include political risk, equipment reliabilities,
availability of electricity or utilities off-takers and construction materials availabil-
ity, The United Nations Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides
{guidelines and tools for investment analysis and economic feasibility studies respec-
Lively for projects targeting CDM certification
85 Choosing the Financing Option
There are many financing mechanisms and instruments for LEG projects around the
globe and a choice of the best available one or mix of them must be chosen for each
specific project. The various funding options have conditions and requirements to
bbe met therefore expert advice and thorough searches for the best option may be
requited. Some of the funding options to consider are the Kyoto protocol mecha-
nisms, Bank finance (Multilateral, sub-regional, national and local) then private
investors, and leasing arrangements (Sell and lease back, lease pass-through). Grant
‘opportunities and internal resources can also be used to fund LFG development
projects, The detailed advantages and disadvantages of each of these funding oppor-
tunities should be explored with the help of experienced Finance practitioners to
make the best selection,
9 Decisions on Decommissioning
When LFG generation dwindles with the lifespan of a landfill, a period is reached
when it would not be best economic practice to extract the gas for energy uses.
Issues of reliability and quality of gas arise, and the project must be decommis-
sioned. Hsieh etal. (2008) described what they called a sustainable landfill whereby
‘on decommissioning the landiil is fist subjected to aerobic conditions by pumping
air into the wells to facilitate rapid composting of residual organies prior to mining
the landfill (Hsieh et al., 2008). The mining is done to recover resources (compost
is used for soil conditioning and undecomposed materials are recycled) and also to
rouse the land space. Ifthe landfill is not composted and mined, then landfill after-
care strategies must be put in place until the landfill is deemed safe for human health
and the environment (Laner et al., 2012). The different landfill aftercare options and
considerations that may affect sustainability are reported in Table 4, 208
‘Table 4 Landi aftercare options and thei sustana
c.
ity. Laner ea, 2012)
Rashama etl
“Afiereare ‘Sustainability srengs oF
lltemative | Specific description __| shortcomings References
‘Timeframe | Regulations will stipulate |The developervowner knows what | Laner eta
based When a developeriowner | is expected of them so can budget | (2012): Chu
‘can abandon the landil | beforchand but society is @a16
‘vulnerable to any chemical,
biological, or physical land
status that my thresten human
health andthe environment ater
the developer abandons project.
Landi pos-
