Biogas Resources Characterization

Ali Jalalzadeh-Azar
Genevieve Saur
Anthony Lopez

National Renewable
Energy Laboratory

2010 Hydrogen
Program Annual
Merit Review

June 8, 2010
Project ID: AN005
NREL/PR-560-48057
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
 Overview

Timeline Barriers
 Project start: August 2009  Stove-piped/Siloed Analytical
 Project finish: September 2010 Capability (4.5.B)
 Percent complete: ~ 80%  Inconsistent Data, Assumptions
and Guidelines (4.5.C)
 Suite of Models and Tools (4.5.D)

Budget Partners
 Total project funding: $326K  None
(100% DOE-funded)
 Funding in FY2009: $326K
 Funding in FY2010: None

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Relevance
Objectives
 Develop a cost-analysis tool for bio-methane production from biogas based on the
H2A Production model.
 Gather GIS data on biogas resources in California and cost data on biogas
purification systems.
 Perform techno-economic analyses for various scenarios involving production and
utilization of bio-methane.

Drivers / Benefits
 Fuel cells operating on bio-methane or on hydrogen derived from bio-methane can
mitigate energy and environmental issues and provide an opportunity for their
commercialization.
 The availability of incentives and requirements for renewables such as:
 California RPS requirements: 20% by 2010 and 33% by 2020
 SB1505 renewable content requirement: 33% by 2020 (under review).
 SGIP (self-generation incentive program.)
 The project can provide valuable insights and information to the stakeholders—
utilities, municipalities, and policy makers (at a macro-level) and producers of
biogas (at a micro-level).

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 3 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Approach
 Develop a cost-analysis tool based on the H2A Production model that is
transparent and vetted. The model focuses on biogas upgrading process with
optional post compression.

 Collect, qualify, and analyze GIS and cost data:

 Selected sources of biogas—landfills, dairy farms, and sewage treatment
plants.
 GIS data—biogas potential in California, energy consumption, distances of
biogas sites from the load centers and utility grids.
 Cost data—purification systems, pipeline extension, and fuel cells.

 Perform techno-economic analyses focusing on:

 Bio-methane production via biogas purification / upgrading.
 Bio-methane utilization via on-site fuel cell technologies and/or injection into
natural gas pipeline for expanded market.

 Evaluate impact of federal and state incentives on the cost of bio-methane.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 4 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Approach: Project Concept
Source Production & Cleanup Distribution & Utilization
Power Grid
Anaerobic Digester Reformation / Fuel
Cell Systems

Animal Waste

Electricity

Biogas
Landfills
Heat Stationary
End-Use
Biomethane
Hydrogen
Dairy Waste

Clean-Up System Injection in NG

Pipelines Vehicle Fueling Station
Water Treat. Plant

Shaded areas represent the boundaries of the current project.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Approach: Milestones

Milestone Title Date Status

Provide update on the
collection of GIS, cost and
2.11.1 2/26/2010 Complete
technical biogas data and
information.

Complete Upstream H2A

2.11.2 May 2010 Complete
biogas model.

Hold Stakeholder workshop on

2.11.3 Sept 2010 In Progress
biogas systems.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 6 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: Cost Analysis Model (H2A)
New feature: Input data tab characterizing biogas purification system.
Input Biogas Composition Notes Output Biomethane Requirement
Rate (Nm3/h) 1400 Rate (Nm3/hr) 857 634 kg/hr
Methane (CH4) (%) 60% by volume CH4 Recovery Factor 99%
CO2 (%) 38% by volume Methane (CH4) (%) 97% 595 kg/hr
Nitrogen (%) 2% by volume CO2 (%) 1% 17 kg/hr
H2S (ppm) 600-800 Nitrogen (%) 2% 21 kg/hr
Siloxane (mg/m3) 60-80 H2S (ppm) <4
Siloxane (ppb) <30
Biogas Density 1.201 kg/Nm3 Biomethane Density 0.739 kg/Nm3

Energy Content
Methane (CH4) LHV 0.052 GJ/kg methane Electricity Consumption 0.230
LHV Biogas 0.0223 GJ/Nm3 biogas
LHV Biomethane 0.0361 GJ/Nm3 biomethane

Energy Usage Units  Can facilitate quantification of capital cost as a

Notes
Total Electricity Usage 0.508 kWh/kg biomethane function of purification requirements.
Compression 0 kWh/kg biomethane
Process 0.508 kWh/kg biomethane  Allows use of scaling factor.
Biogas Usage 2.209 Nm3 biogas/kg biomethane

Upgrading Techniques

Biogas Upgrading Bio-Methane Pressure swing adsorption

Process* High-pressure water scrubbing
Low HV High HV (High Wobbe Index)
Purity: 50% – 65% CH4 Purity: 90% – 98% CH4 Cryogenic separation
Waste Stream(s)
Chemical absorption
Schematic of biogas upgrading process Membrane separation

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 7 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: Sample Results of Model
Specific Item Cost
Key Results $0.53/kg $10.86/GJ
Calculation
Biomethane Biomethane
Cost components and Cost Component Production Cost Percentage of Cost Production Cost
relative values Contribution ($/kg) Contribution ($/GJ)
Costs Capital Costs $0.11 21.22% $2.30
Total unit cost of bio- Decommissioning Costs $0.00 0.24% $0.03
Fixed O&M $0.05 9.13% $0.99
methane Feedstock Costs $0.34 64.03% $6.95
Other Raw Material
$0.00 0.00% $0.00
Process energy usage Costs
Byproduct Credits $0.00 0.00% $0.00
Other Variable Costs
Energy Upstream energy usage (including utilities)
$0.03 5.37% $0.58
Total $0.53 $10.86
Process energy efficiency
Biomethane Cost Sensitivity
Process emissions Biogas Price ($2.9/GJ,$7.6/GJ,$11/GJ)
Emissions
Upstream emissions Biogas Usage (-/+ 5%)

Tornado chart depicting Total Direct Capital Cost (-/+ 10%)

Sensitivity sensitivity of bio-methane
cost to key variables. Operating Capacity Factor (95%,90%,85%)

Electricity Price (-/+ 10%)

Total GHG
CO2 CH4 N2O Electricity Usage (-/+ 5%)
Emissions Summary (CO2 eq)
Total upstream emissions
-1.96 2.27E-03 2.47E-05 -1.898
(kg/kg biomethane) $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 $11.00 $12.00 $13.00 $14.00 $15.00
Total process emissions
1.62 0.01 0.00 1.84 Biomethane Cost ($/GJ)
(kg/kg biomethane)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 8 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: Qualification of Cost Data
12 6
Bio-Methane Cost, Assumptions:
“Biomethane from Dairy Waste,” Vender A, Total Capital
Krich et al, July 2005 Project I, Total Capital Effective CF = 90%
10 5

Relative Cost of Biomethane Production

Vender A, Biomethane Cost (calc.) Inflation rate = 1.9%
Project I, Biomethane Cost (calc.) ROR = 10%
Life span = 20 yrs. Salvage
8 4 value = 0.
Relative Capital Cost

Feed CH4 = 50% - 60%

6 3 Input pressure= 1 bar (abs.)
Output pressure = ~ 7 - 8 bar

4 2

2 1

0 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feed Biogas Capacity, Nm3/h
Note: Project “I” represents an actual installation in California.

The differences are in part due to the uncertainty in the estimated

biogas capacity and in underlying assumptions of other sources of data.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 9 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Progress: Preliminary / Exploratory Analysis
120% 6
Vender A
Elec. Cost O&M Cost Total Capital Cost
100% 5

Relative Cost of Biomethane Production

Life Span Assumptions:
Relative Contribution to Biomethane Cost

20 years Effective CF = 90%

Inflation rate = 1.9%
80% 4 15 years ROR = 10%
Life span = varies
10 years Salvage value = 0.
Feed CH4 = 60%
Input pressure: ~ 1 atm (abs.)
60% 3 Output pressure = 7 - 8 atm (abs.)

40% 2

20% 1

0% 0
150 350 700 1,400 2,800 6,000 12,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Feed Biogas Capacity, Nm3/h
Feed Biogas Capacity (Nm3/h)

 Energy efficiency takes on greater  Impact of system life on product cost

importance at larger capacities. diminishes at higher biogas
 Clustering sources of biogas may capacities.
be imperative to achieving  Significant uncertainty in life span is
economy of scale. reflected in the literature and
vendors’ data.

Exploratory / “what-if” analyses can be instrumental in strategic planning for

the next steps in the analysis and provide valuable insights to stakeholders.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 10 Innovation for Our Energy Future
 Progress: Preliminary Cost Estimates
Upgrading biogas from dairy-farm anaerobic digesters.
Reported Approx. Remarks / Assumptions
elec. gen. Biometh. The reported values are compilation of data from
costs*, Estimated Cost = AD
Select number of AD case studies with a wide range of
biogas*, + Upgrad.
AD Type $ / GJ of biogas output capacities.
cost, $/GJ Cost, $/GJ
elec.
Covered Estimates are in 2010 USD. The reported cost
AD— $12.59 $2.9 $4.4 data were adjusted for inflation.
Dairy
Upgrading cost of ~$1.5 per GJ of bio-methane
Plug-
was used for relatively large biogas capacities.
flow— $34.82 $7.6 $9.1
Dairy
Estimates for total cost of bio-methane neglect
Mixed— cost of AD/upgrading system integration and other
Dairy $52.39 $11.0 $12.5 indirect costs.

* Source: “An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion Systems on U.S. Livestock Production
Facilities,” Technical Note No. 1, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, October 2007.

Price of natural gas (residential) is approx. $9.5/GJ for CA and $11.7 for U.S. based on EIA data:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 11 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: GIS Map for California
 Select categories of biogas resources:
Landfills, sewage treatment plants, and
dairy farms.

 Landfills offer greater biogas potential.

 Transmission lines are reasonably

accessible to most of biogas sources in
select categories.

 Majority of GIS data are for the central

valley due to systematic tracking.

 GIS data for a number of counties,

including Sacramento, San Joaquin,
and Solano, have been verified. Data
validation continues.

 Data may be unavailable for a number

of dairy farms in California.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 12 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: GIS Map for Select Counties
 Validated data for three counties:
Sacramento, San Joaquin, and
Solano.
 Select biogas resources: landfills,
dairy farms, and sewage treatment
plants.
 Aggregate potential of three biogas
resources: Less than 3% of the NG
consumption (~160 x 106 GJ/yr).

Of the select resources, landfills have the

dominant share of the biogas potential in these
counties.

Landfills
83.3% Dairy Farms
14.7%

Sewage T. Plants
1.9%

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 13 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: A Scenario Analysis / Clustering Dairy Farms

 Bio-methane potentials:
C1: 2,020,000 Nm3/yr (~ 80,200 GJ/yr.)
C2: 1,316,000 Nm3/yr (~ 52,200 GJ/yr.)
C2 C3: 1,860,000 Nm3/yr (~ 73,800 GJ/yr.)

NG Transmission Line  Achieving economy of scale for biogas

upgrading can be challenging for dairy farms.
5

Cost of Biogas Upgrading as a

C1 C2 function of input biogas capacity

Cost of Biogas Upgrading, $/GJ

4
C3
C3
3
C1
C1+C2+C3
2

0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feed Biogas Capacity, Nm3/h

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 14 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: A Scenario Analysis / Bio-Methane Export to NG Grid

Upgrading / Purification System Cost Evaluation

 A bio-methane production facility—anaerobic digester coupled with an upgrading

process.
 Biogas capacity= 2,000 Nm3/h (17.5 x 106 Nm3 /year).
 Overall capacity factor= 85%.
 Length of pipeline from production site to nearest NG transmission line = 10 miles.
 H2A assumptions: Rate of return = 10% ; Inflation rate = 1.9%; Life span = 20yrs.
 Bio-methane pressure at the output of purification system= ~ 8 bar (abs.)
 NG transmission line pressure= ~ 40 bar.
Mean Total Construction Costs
Pipeline Cost 1,400,000

Total Construction Cost, $ / mile

1,200,000
 Pipeline costs are based on data
reported in “Using Natural Gas 1,000,000

Transmission Pipeline Costs to 800,000

Estimate Hydrogen Pipeline Costs” 600,000

(UCD-ITS-RR-04-35). 400,000

200,000 NG pipeline cost

 Large scatters were reported for labor
and right of way costs. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Pipe Diameter, in.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Progress: Bio-Methane Export to NG Grid (cont.)
Relative Bio-methane
Cost Items Cost
Capital Cost Cost, $/GJ
Biogas Feedstock 3 – 11 $/GJ of CH4 ------- 5.0

Upgrading System $4.0 M 40% 3.5

Pipeline—10 miles $5.8 M 58% -------

Compression $0.2 M 2% -------

Pipeline + Compression ------- ------- 4.6

Balance of Plant ------- ------- N/A

Total: ------- ------- ~ 13 $/GJ

Notes:
1) The new cost-analysis model (H2A) was used in the scenario analysis.
2) Storage for 2-day worth bio-methane production will increase the cost by about $2/GJ—
based on estimates from “Bio-methane from Dairy Waste,” Krich et al, July 2005.

 Cost of biogas can play a critical role in the economics of bio-methane.

 If permissible, injection of bio-methane into a distribution pipeline can reduce the
transport cost (due to likely shorter pipeline and lower pressure).
 Incentives and policies, such as SGIP, RPS and SB1505 can render renewable
biogas economically more attractive.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 16 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Collaboration

 As a strategy to acquire realistic data and to generate results that are

beneficial to the stakeholders, efforts in communicating with
equipment vendors, manufacturers, and municipalities are ongoing.

 Held a panel discussion, “Renewable Biogas: A Commercialization

Opportunity for Fuel Cells,” at the 2009 Fuel Cell Seminar and
Exposition. The event aimed to get feedbacks from the stakeholders
on the objectives and facets of this project and to facilitate data
collection for the analysis.

 A workshop for dissemination of the results and feedbacks from the

industry and stakeholders may also be arranged prior to the
conclusion of the current project.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 17 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Summary / Conclusions
 This project intends to develop a vetted cost-analysis tool based on the H2A Production
model, collect GIS / cost data, and perform techno-economic analyses of upgrading
biogas and utilizing the resulting bio-methane.

 To facilitate realistic analyses and improve the usefulness of the results, inputs from
industry and stakeholders are sought. The objectives and approach of this project lend
themselves to overcoming the identified barriers (4.5.B, 4.5.C, and 4.5.D).

 The preliminary analysis indicates that, by taking advantage of economy of scale, bio-
methane production via purification of biogas from dairy farms can be cost-effective .

 Focusing on large dairy farms and/or clustered farms to facilitate use of a central
AD/upgrading system is a key for realizing economy of scale, albeit it can be challenging.

 Landfills can offer a greater potential due to the potentially lower cost of biogas, favorable
economy of scale, and significance in emissions control. However, constant supply of
biogas from landfills may not be sustainable.

 The economics of producing and exporting bio-methane to natural gas grid is subject to
variations in the costs of biogas and transport of bio-methane.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 18 Innovation for Our Energy Future

 Future Work

Planned Work:

 Continue collection and validation of GIS and cost data.

 Perform additional techno-economic analyses to encompass on-site utilization

of bio-methane in conjunction with fuel cell technologies.

Recommended Work:

 Purging / sequestration of the waste stream(s) with high concentrations of

impurities should also be addressed from the economic and environmental
standpoints.

 An in-depth evaluation of the correlation between the cost of the biogas

upgrading system and the purification requirements is recommended. The
currently available cost data do not readily lend themselves to formulating
such relationship.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 19 Innovation for Our Energy Future