A project of Volunteers in Asia

&port on the Desian and Operation of a Full-Scale

Anaerobic Dairv Manure Digester
by: Elizabeth Coppinger et al
Published by:
Ecotope Group
2328 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112 USA
Paper copies are $11, which includes postage.
Available from:
Ecotope Group
2328 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112 USA
Reproduced by permission of ECOTOPE, an energy
conservation and technology company performing
research, demonstration, education and consulting
services in energy conservation, solar
technologies, renewable energy, residential and
commercial building thermal analysis and energy-
efficient design. ECOTOPE's consultation services
are provided on an hourly basis to a wide range of
groups including architects, developers, builders,
homeowners, educational institutions and govern-
ment agencies. For more information, please write
ECOTOPE at the address given above or telephone
(206)322-3753 in the USA.

Reproduction of this microfiche document in any

form is subject to the same restrictions as those
of the original document.
 REPORTON THE DESIGN
AND OPERATIONOF A FULL-SCALE
ANAEROBICDAIRY MANUREDIGESTER

1 September 1979

Ecotope Group
2332 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112

principal authors:
Elizabeth Coppinger
Jack Brautigam
John Lenart
David Baylon
David Smith
graphics:
Carol Oberton

‘Ihis report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy,
Division of Solar Technology, Fuels from Biomass Systems Branch. The
content of this report, however. is solely the responsibility of Ecotope
Group and does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department
of Energy. U.S. OOE Contr%ct 8EG-77-C-06-1016
 REPORTON THE DESIGN
AND OPERATIONOF A FULL-SCALE
ANAEROBICDAIRY MANUREDIGESTER

1 September 1979

Ecotope Group
2332 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112

principal authors:
Elizabeth Coppinger
Jack Brautigam
John Lenart
David Baylon .
David Smith
graphics:
Carol Oberton

This report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Department oi’ Energy.
Division of Solar Technology, Fuels from Biomass Systems Branch. The
content of this report, however, is solely the responsibility of Ecotope
Group and does not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department
of Energy. U.S. DOE Contract #EC-77-C-06-1016

.-
 'TABLE GF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Abstract ii
List of.Figures iii
List of Tables iv
Summary 1
Conclusions 4
I. Introduction 5
II. System Description 7
A. Introduction 7
B. Design 8
C. Tanks 9
0. Manure Handling System 9
E. Digester Heating and Mixing System 10
F. Gas Handling System 12
III. Operational Experience 14
A. Tanks and Insulation 14
B. Manure Handling 18
C. Digester Heating and Mixing 24
D. Gas Handling and Utilization 39
P
d. Start-up and Shutdown 46
IV. Biological Performance 49
A. Laboratory Testing 49
B. System Start-up 49
CC Gas Production and Digestion Performance 51
D. System Shutdown 54
E. Biological Stability 56
V. Net Energy 57
A. Overview 57
B. Gas Production 57
C. Energy Inputs 57
D. Net Energy Evaluation 58
VI. Economics 63
Appendix 1 72
Appendix 2 74
 . .^-

ii

ABSTkCT

A full-scale anaerobic digester on the Monroe State Dairy Farm was operated
and monitored for 24 months with funding provided by the United States
Department of Energy, Fuels from Biomass Systems Branch. During the period
of operation, operating parameters were varied and the impact of those
changes is described.

Operational experiences and system component performance are discussed.

Internal digester mixing equipment was found to be unnecessary, and data
supporting this conclusion are given. An influent/effluent heat exchanger
was installed and tested, and results of the tests are included. Recommendations
for digester design and operation are presented.

Biological stability was monitored, and test results are given. Gas production
rates and system net energy are analyzed. The economics of anaerobic digestion
are evaluated based on various financing options, design scales, and expected
benefits. Under many circumstances digesters are feasible today, and a means
of analysis is given.
 iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

1 Schematic of Monroe Digester System 7

2 Site Plan for Methane Digester 8
3 Manure Handling System 10
4 Digester Mixing and Heating System 11
5 Cross-Section of Digester Heating and Mixing System 11
6 Gas Handling System 12
7 Gas Handling Equipment Schematic 13
8 Diagram of Test Apparatus 22
9 Relationship between Pressure Loss and %TS 23
10 Boiler Heating System 26
11 Waukesha Coolant used for Digester Heating 26
12 Digester Heating System , 27
13 Influent/Effluent Counterflow Heat Exchanger 28
14 Temperature Probe Readings 33
15 Temperature Probe Readings 34
16 Temperature Probe Readings 37
17 Temperature Probe Readings 37
18 Temperature Probe Readings 38
19 Gas Handling System Schematic 39
20 Conversion Efficiency for Electrical Generation 43
21 Start-Up 50
22 Operating Data for Methane Digester 53
23 Digester Performance During System Shutdown 55
24 Relationship of Gas Production and Loading Rate 60
25 Electricity Consumption 60
26 Net Energy 61
27 Cost Comparison of Various Fuels 70
28 Cost of Energy in $/Gigajoule 71
 LIST OF TABLES

Number Page
--

%TS of Digester Conterlts in Mixing Studies, 1978 31

Monroe.Digester Performance, October 19.77 to August 1979 52
Gas Production and Boiler Consumption 59
Life Cycle Assumptions
Energy Outputs, Capital, Operation, and Maintenance 66
Cost of Gas for Farm Scale Anaerobic Digestion 68
Cost of Electricity for Farm Scale Digestion Systems 69
in $ per Kilowatt Hour
 SUMMARY

Ecotope Group has been under contract to the United States Department of
Energy to operate a full-scale anaerobic digester for dairy cow manure at the
State Reformatory Honor Farm near Monroe, Washington. The system was designed
by Parametrix Engineering and Ecotope Group under contract with the Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the State Department
of Ecology (ECOLOGY).

The Monroe digester provided a reliable source of fuel gas over the 23 months of
operation. The plant evolved during the two years of work, and is much different
from the original plan. It is more simple, easier to operate, and also more
energy efficient. The improvements for the most part were made by eliminating
equipment and operations that were found to be unnecessary. These improvements
have contributed to making the technology a feasible alternative for energy
production.

The most difficult problem cf operating a full-scale digester is mixing and

moving the manure. Three types of pumps were tried: centrifugal, diaphragm, and
progressive cavity. The centrifugal pump proved to be the most reliable for our
substrate that.included bedding chips and an incredible assortment of debris. This
pump performed well with manure below 10% TS, was marginally effective with
lo-12% TS manure, and would not pump manure above 12% TS. The other pumps would
have worked better at high solids levels' if so much foreign material had not
been in the substrate. Digester operation was simplified significantly by using
gravity-flow rather than a pump to move effluent from the digester to the storage
lagoon. Clogging was a consistent problem in both influent and effluent pipes,
and methods to prevent clogging were developed.

The digester design included a gas recirculation mixer based on sewage treatment
plant experience. This mixer, a Rootes blower, was expensive, requirrd considerable
electrical energy, and required regular maintenance, Use of the mixer was
progressively reduced from continuous operation to no operation at all. Experiments
showed that sufficient mixing occurs naturally in the tank, due to natural
convection currents and gas bubbling. No reduction in gas production or operational
problems resulted from the elimination of gas recirculation mixing. The electrical
energy savings were about 60 GJ per month, which represents about 90% of the original
electricity demand of the system and a significant portion of the net energy yield.
Thus savings in capital cost;operating cost, and maintenance cost for dairy
manure digesters can be achieved by simply eliminating in-tank mixing from the
design.

The biological stability of digesting dairy manure was impressive. There was no
need to alter the naturally occurring biological conditions throughout the 23 months
of operation. The contents of the digester were stressed by subjection to periods
without substrate loading during equipment outages, and to a fourteen day period
without heating or loading during shutdown. In all cases, gas production
recovered quickly upon resumption of loading and heating.

The gas handling system functioned reliably after an initial period of trouble-
shooting. The majority of gas handling problems were due to the high moisture
content of the gas, and to freezing of water condensate in gas lines during
winter. The problems were overcome by installing an adequate number of drip .
traps and insulating outside gas lines to prevent freezing. With regular
maintenance, operation of the gas handling system was trouble-free.

The potential annual total energy production of the system is about 1800 GJ.
The potential annual net energy yield is about 950-1000 GJ. Further improvements
in net energy would be possible by improving component efficiencies. The
influent/effluent shell and tube heat exchanger failed to recover effluent heat
as expected. Lack of forced convective currents in the flowing manure,
and the tendency of the manure to flow in stratifications inhibited heat transfer
in the flowing streams. The prospects for a successful shell and tube influent/.
effluent heat exchanger design are not good, and other methods of effluent heat
recovery are probably more promising.

The economics of dairy manure digester systems similar to the Monroe facility have
been analyzed based on various financing options, design scales, energy outputs,
and expected benefits. These analyses show that owner-financed systems can
produce energy at less than the present cost of propane or fuel oil. If farm
labor costs are discounted by assuming no additional hired labor is required,
energy can be produced at costs less than the cost of natural gas in many areas
of the country. If electricity is the energy output, all farmer-financed
systems analyzed can produce electricity for less than $.OSS/KWH. The analyses
show that energy produced by anaerobic digestion is competitive with many
present energy costs.
Anaerobic digestion of manure has often been considered of minor importance
in light of the national energy need. Widespread application, however, could
make farms and feedlots significantly less dependent on fossil fuels and make
them net energy producer:. This step would make agriculture less vulnerable to the
uncertainties of energy ~xpply and rapidly inflating energy costs.
CONCLUSIONS

The following is concluded after two years of digester operation:

1. A full-scale dairy manure digester is capable of pro-

viding a consistent and reliable source of fuel.
.
2. Dairy manure digesters develop stable microbiological-
populations, and i.0 alteration of naturally occurring
biological p?ra:?e:ers is required.
3. In-tank mixing is not necessary for full-scale, rigid
tank, dairy manure digesters. Natural mixing from convec-
tion currents and gas bubbling is adequate, provided the
%TS in the tank remains above the point at which scum for- .
mation ceases to be a problem.
4. Influent/effluent shell and tube heat exchangers are
not a good prospect for efficient effluent heat recovery
with dairy manure digesters.
5. Enorgy produced by farmer-financed dairy manure digesters
is competitive in cost with other energy sources, especially
propane and fuel oil.
I. INTRODUCTION

The face of agriculture in the United States has altered dramatically since the
end of World War II. Technological advances, fueled by inexpensive energy, have
revolutionized agriculture in this country and made it the most technologically
advanced and productive in the world. Like other industries, agriculture has
moved toward centralization to improve productivity and profits. In livestock
operations, larger numbers of animals are being concentrated on smaller areas
of land. While confined herds have improved productivity and eased management
problems, they are completely dependent on mechanical systems to deliver food and
remove manure.

Although these developments have increased profits during the past two decades,
recent changes in water pollution legislation and the cost of energy have re-
sulted in increasing economic pressure on farmers. With the passage of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the subsequent regulations concerning
non-point source pollution, farmers are being required to deal with the wastes
they produce. Although regulations now seek voluntary compliance with the recom-
mended manure management practices, agencies will be given enforcement powers
in 1981 to insure that farms do have adequate manure handling systems.

The pressures concerning waste management are added to the rising costs of fuel
and fertilizer. The increasing cost of inorganic fertilizer is causing many
farmers to reconsider the use of animal manures to replace fertilizer now being
purchased. The rise in the cost of fuel is probably the.most dramatic and unanti-
cipated problem facing the farmer, Not only have inflation and fuel costs esca-
lated at a rate unforseen five years ago, but farmers are now beginning to fear
fuel shortages. In some areas, the diesel shortages of the summer of 1979 are
perceived as a precursor of serious future shortages. The idea of energy inde-
pendence is gaining wide appeal among farmers.

As a result of these economic and legislative changes, there is a great deal of

interest in anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion has moved from being a
generally unknown concept to one that is commonly recognized, even if not fully
understood. Many farmers are interested in building systems, and many more are
looking for information about them.

The economics of digestion for farm scale systems is improving, notably due to
rising fuel costs. Funds are becoming available for the construction of digester,s,
both as energy producers and as components of improved manure handling systems,
Federal and State programs to encourage the use of solar energy can also provide
valuable economic incentives for the use of anaerobic digestion.

All of these factors combined will very likely result in a tremendous growth in
the use of anaerobic digestion on farms. It is important that reliable and ef-
ficient systems be developed now that can operate on a farm scale. The research
conducted over the past two years at the anaerobic digester in Monroe has focused
on examining the problems encountered in operating a full scale system and on
improving the feasibility of these systems for farm use. Work has centered on
increasing system net energy, decreasing operator time, and improving system
reliability. The experience at Monroe has shown digestion to be feasible and
workable at farm scale. The information generated can be used to develop simple,
systems that can be integrated into farming operations. Operating demonstrations
of reliable, economical, and commercially available systems are essential for
anaerobic digestion to achieve its potential capacity to provide a significant
amount of energy to the agricultural sector.
 7

II. SYSTEMDESCRIPTION

A. Introduction
A full scale anaerobic digester was built on the Washington State Dairy Farm in
Monroe, Washington, in January of 1976 by Ecotope Group of Seattle (Figure 1).
Funds for the digester were provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology
as part of a program to upgrade the farm's manure handling system for the purpose
of water pollution control. The system was run until May, 1976 and then shut down.
In June of 1977 funds were granted by U.S.E.R.D.A. to restart the digester, docu-
ment operation and maintenance characteristics of the system, and to prepare an
operator's manual that would allow the State to resume operation of the project.
The system was run continuously from August 1977 through August 1979 by Ecotope
Group personnel. The operation of the digester was taken over by the prison
system in September 1979 and the gas produced will be used to fuel the boiler in
the farm's creamery.

Fig. 1 Schematic of Monroe Anaerobic Digestion System

=*Incoming manure
EZZ*Out going manure
zz .Cold water

I. [ - l Hot water
-s".m Bio-qas flow

.I
The Washington State Dairy Farm is located 56 km (35 miles) north of Seattle, and
is operated in conjunction with the State prison system as a minimum security penal
institution with 30 inmates and 10 civilian employees. The 250-acre farm has 400
head of Holstein cattle, with a milking herd that varies from 180 to 200 cows, and
a creamery to process milk, cottage cheese, and ice.cream for use in government
institutions (Figure 2).

Fig. 2 Site Plan for Methane Digester

SITE
for PLAN

1 METHANE DIGESTER
MONROE, WASHINGTON

n
key

TllhSFL”
P"IP
.. e - lab Irailer

The milking animals are housed in a covered loafing shed with a concrete floor
and individual sawdust-bedded stalls. Only the manure from those animals in the
loafing shed is used in the digester.

B. Design

The Monroe digester was designed on the model of a municipal sewage treatment plant
digester, and was a transfer of state-of-the-art treatment plant technology to an
agricultural application. During the design phase of the system, an emphasis was
placed on the use of off-the-shelf components that are easily obtainable. It was
felt that using equipment already proven and accepted in the agricultural sector
would speed the widespread use of digestion technology. The system consists of
four major subsystems: the digestion tanks, the manure handling system, the
digester heating and mixing system, and the gas handling and utilization system.
The components of each subsystem were chosen on the basis of commercial availa-
bility, cost, proven effectiveness, and energy consumption.

C. Tanks

The digester tanks are an example of the integration of agricultural sector products
with sewage treatment technology. The reactors are two 189 m3 A.O. Smith Slurry-
store tm tanks fitted with Harvestoretm silo roofs. These fixed cover tanks are
7.82meters in diameter and 4.57meters in height. The tanks are glass-lined
steel tanks that are built to be corrosion resistant. Certain modifications are
made to the tanks for use as experimental anaerobic digesters. In addition to the
Harvestore manhole covers added to the roof and sides of the tanks, two thief holes
were installed on the digester roof for sampling digester contents from the tank
interior. Eight side-mounted sampling ports were installed at three levels around the
perimeter of the tank to provide a variety of sampling locations.

The most significant tank modification was the insulation of all exposed tank
surfaces. The interior roof of the tank was sprayed with 8.8 cm of polyurethane
foam (R-12). Exterior walls were covered with 10 cm of Dow Styrofoam SMtm (R-22),
and covered over with corrugated galvanized iron roofing sheets.

D. Manure Handling System

The digester was designed to integrate into the farm's existing manure handling
practices. The concrete cznter aisle of the loafing shed was extended out the
south side of the shed, and a concrete tank with an iron grate-covering was built
at the end of the aisle (Figure 3). Each morning manure is removed from the
loafing shed by a tractor with a rear-mounted scraper. Since manure is scraped
only once a day and includes sawdust and woodchips used for bedding, it often
contains thick clods of manure and is drier than a pure, continuously scraped
substrate. Water is added to the manure in the influent tank, and the contents
are mixed with a 7.46 kw centrifugal chopper pump with a 5 cm iron pipe by-pass on
the discharge line. To provide mixing of the slurry, manure is pumped from the
bottom of the influent tank and discharged through the by-pass pipe that is aimed
at the surface of the manure. The pipe is moveable and can be directed to areas of
the tank that require mixing. Either the chopper pump or a variable speed pro-
gressive cavity pump is used to load the slurry into the bottom of the digester.
As manure is loaded into the bottom of the digester, the liquid level in the digester
rises and manure is displaced through an overflow pipe at the top. From there it

Fig. 3 Manure Handling System

flows into a storage lagoon, and is eventually applied to the field with spray guns.
The manure is used to fertilize crops grown for cattle food.

E. Digester Heating and Mixing Systems

Because of the emphasis placed on the use of commercially available equipment, only
two pieces of equipment were specially fabricated for the project. One was an
influent/effluent heat exchanger, and the other was a draft tube heat exchanger
that constitutes the core of the digester’s mixing and heating system (Figure 4).
The draft tube heat exchanger consists of two connected concentric cylinders of
galvanized metal through which hot water flows. The digester operates at 35’C.
Hot water is circulated through the internal heat exchanger from either the boiler
or from the coolant system of an internal combustion engine that burns biogas to
produce electricity. The heat exchanger doubles as a draft tube for use in
conjunction with the digester mixing system.
Because of scum formation problems experienced in municipai sewage treatment plants,
the Monroe digester was designed to be continuously mixed by gas recirculation.

Digester Mixing and Heating System

.I,1.
Experience with operating the digester while loading a high %TShas demonstrated
that mixing is unnecessary. In the gas recirculation mixing system as installed,

GAS -,
WATER z

_I-.-.

'Fig. 5 Cross section of DigestG &&ing~andO'

Mixing System . . --
S-C''.- * -
gas is pulled from the top of the digester and recirculated with a blower that operates
at 3SkPa. The gas is pumped back into the digester and dolwn four 5 cm galvanized
iron pipes that are supported by a deflector plate at the top of the draft tube.
When gas is released, rising bubbles mix with manure and carry it to the top of the
draft tube providing a circulatory action (Figure 5).

F. Gas Handling System

The gas handling components of the Monroe system were modified little from those
used in standard sewage treatment gas handling. Consequently, this proved to be
one of the most expensive aspects of the system (Figure 6). The gas handling system
was automated using pressure switches (Figure 7). Emptying water traps at low points
in the gas lines is all that is done manually.

According to the original design, gas was to be either burned directly in the boiler
for heating the digester, or scrubbed and stored for later use. The primary use for
the gas was burning in order to produce process steam in the farm% creamery. It
can also be used in an internal combustion engine to produce electricity in emergency
situations.

_
Fig. 6 Gas Handling System
l’he low pressure system was designed to meet the ccnstraints of the upper and lower
pressure limits of the digester tank. The tank was pressure tested to 4.9 kPa.
Pressure relief valves were set at 0.S kPa vacuum and at 2.7 kPa positive pressure.
As gas is produced, it will first be available to the boiler. If the digester
thermostat indicates heat is needed, the boiler will turn on and burn raw biogas.
Once the digester is brpught yp to temperature, the boiler will shut off and the gas
pressure in the system will rise. When it reaches 2.4 kPa, a compressor is activated
if storage tanks are below maximum pressure 1.65 MPa. a

If system pressure falls below 1.7 kPa, the compressor will shut off to prevent re-
ducing the system pressure to below satisfactory limits. When the gas storage tanks
are up to pressure, the compressor will shut off and system pressure will again rise.
When it reaches 2.7 kPa, a flare is activated and will run until system
pressure is reduced to 2.4 kPa; If the pressure goes above 2.7 kPa, a relief
valve on top of the digester will release gas. There is also a back-up
pressure relief valve set at 4.0 kPa. When both of these relief valves fail,
tank contents are forced out through a 1S cm diameter PVC overflow pipe on the
effluent line.

Fig. 7 Gas Handling Equipment Schematic

 14

Three 3.79 m3 propane tanks are used for storing biogas. . These tanks have a working
pressure of 1.65 MFa and are capable of storing 62 m3 of gas each. A Corken two-stage
compressor with a 1.5 kw motor is part of the storage system. Gas that is com-
pressed first passes through a hydrbgen sulfide scrubber to extend compressor life.
.-. -
An internal combustion engine with a 40 KVAS_(peak)-generator was installed.
.
as a part of the original demonstration project. The purpose of this installa-
tion was to provide emergency back-up electricity for the creamery and milking
operations. Because it was sized to meet peak electrical needs and not to be
compatible with daily gas production rates, it required a gas storage system.
The engine is a Waukesha VRG 310 natural gas engine with a dual fuel Impco Model
200 carburetor. The engine is directly coupled to a Kato generator. When the
,I.C. engine is operated, waste heat from the coolant system car. be circulated
through the upper portion of the heat exchanger.

G. Monitoring Equipment

The digester was outfitted with monitoring equipment to assess system performance
and energy production. Gas meters were installed to measure gas production and
consumption of the boiler, the T.C. engine, and the flare. Electric meters were
installed on pumps, the mixer, and the I.C. engine. Temperature probes were
installed at a variety of locations in the tank to monitor material and heat
movement within the tank. A laboratory was also installed at the site to monitor
the biological health of the system. I

The system has been operated and maintained for two years. The biological
stability and handling characteristics of dairy manure differ so significantly
from municipal sewage that many of the original design assumptions were incorrect.
Anaerobic digestion of dairy wastes is simpler and more Reliable. Systems designed
on a smage treatment model will be oversized, inefficient and prohibitively expensive.
The information gained at Monroe can be used to simplify and correctly design
anaerobic digestion systems for dairy farm operations.
 15

III. OPERATIONAL
EXPERIENCE

The digester at Monroe ccnsists of four subsystems: the digestion tanks and
insulation, the digester heating and mixing system, manure handling, and gas
handling and utilization. Operational experience with each of these subsystems
has provided information on how to reduce the capital cost of a digester by
.
eliminating unneccessary equipment, decrease operator time and maintenance cost,
and improve the net energy of the system.

A. Tanks and Insulation

In designing the digestion system at Monroe, the necessary-volume was calculated

by assuming a maximum loading consistency of 8% TS and an optimum retention time
of 20 days. Based on sewage treatment experience, it was felt that these limits
were necessary fcr the health of the digester. The calculated digester volume
needed was 441 m3, and two 4.57 m x 7.62 m tanks were chosen. Once loading began,
the impressive stability of the biological parameters led us to increase the loading
rate, decrease retention time, and eventually to increase the %TS of the manure
loaded. As a result of these changes, we have been able to load all the
manure received from two hundred cows into one digester tank. In rigid tank
digester systems, the reactor tank represents a significant capital ,cost. Such
systems should be designed to load a thick manure slurry of approximately 10%
total solids with retention time of approximately 15 .days in order to avoid
paying for unneeded digester volume.

1. Corrosion
The A-0. Smith Slurrystone tanks are constructed from glass lined steel sections.
One of the tanks had been in continuous operation for two years, and was recently
emptied and examined for corrosion. No corrosion was evidenced on the interior
walls, or on any of the plastic coated bolts used to fasten sections of the wall
together. 'There was corrosion on one of the untreated bolts used to install
sample ports. Significant corrosion was occuring on the fastening bolts on the
exterior of the tank. A number of bolts on the roof were rusted. The most consis-
tant occurrence of corroding bolts was near areas with known small gas leaks such
as thik:f holes and the pressure relief valve. The mixture of biogas and oxygen
appears to be much more corrosive than just oxygen. The limiting factor in the life
Of the tanks seems to be the lifetime of the nuts and bolts. During construction,
nuts and bolts should be protected from corrosion by covering them with a tar-plastic
compound.
2. Cleanout
When designing a rigid tank system, provisions should be made for periodic removal
of grit accumulation. Frequency of cleaning can be reduced by removing as much
grit as possible from the manure before it is pumped into the digester. Agitation
inside the tank can help keep the grit in suspension, but there is a high energy
cost for such mixing. There will still be some grit accumulation, however, even
with attempts to reduce it. Options that will allow grit to be removed without
shutting down the digester are preferable because of the difficulty and danger
associated with shutting down a digester. A sloping floor that consolidates the
grit and an auger system to remove it is one possible solution for periodic clean-
outs of grit.

The Monroe tank had no such provision, but was equipped with a 30 cm drainwhich
allowed the digester to be emptied into the effluent tank. There is also a man-
hole in the sideof the digester that allows access to the tank. The30 cm drain
allowed flushing out the solid organic material remaining in the tank after
the fluid was removed. Some of the sand was also removed this way, but it re-
peatedly clogged the lines and was more difficult to remove from the effluent tank
than from the digester.

Ultimately, the grit had to be shoveled out of the digester through themanhole
opening. This was a verylaboriousand time consuming job, and is one of the
least preferabl e options for grit removal. If a digester is designed for manual
grit removal , .tank openings should be located in an area that has easy access for
a wheel barrow and be of sufficient size to allow for easy entry and exit of the
digester.

3. Insulation
Three types of insulation were used on the digester :polyurethane foam, beadboard,
and blue Styrofoam. The polyurethane foam was applied to the interior of the tank
roof to allok easy access to exterior roof bolts, in case of a gas leak. It was
the most expensive type of insulation used. Polyurethane was chosen because only
a spray of insulation could be applied to the interior of the roof. After two
years of contact with manure and biogas, there was no evidence of significant
degradation of the insulation.

The exterior walls of thetank were originally covered with headboard insulation.
The beadboard was then covered with tar. Although the insulation was relatively
ipexpensive, it was not adequate. The rainy climate of the Pacific Northwest
 17

resulted in the beadboard absorbing water and losing its insulation value. The
beadboard was then removed and replaced with blue Styrofoam. Four inches of
T. & G. blue Styrofoam were applied to the tank in &gust of 1977. It was covered
with corrugated sheet metal. This insulation was approximately 50% more expensive
than the beadboard but has worked much better. No problems with water absorption
have been found.
 B. Manure Handling

1. Introduction
Probably the most difficult aspect of operating the digester at the Monroe facility
is manure handling. Traditionally, this has been one of the greatest problems
facing dairy farmers. Commonmanure handling problems, such as pump perforriYlnce
and maintenance, and clogging of pipelines, are compounded in a digester systei;b
owing to the thicker manure slurries handled. Thicker slurries are desireable
because they result in reduced digester heating demand. Obviously, there is a
I trade-off in gas heat energy, and pumping and mixing operating and maintenance
costs.

Manure handling is a critical component governing the success of an anaerobic

digester. The amount of-work required to mix and load manure to a digester need not
be greater than that required for typical handling practices, in fact, it could
be less. For optimum gas production, a continuous scrape system, with no foreign
matter, water, or bedding added, is ideal, although this system would be most
costly to install and operate. In practice at Monroe, daily scraping with some
bedding, a minimum of water and, unfortunately, a great variety of foreign matter,
is a more typical system. Several examples will serve to show how these principles
affect digester operations.

A dirt feedlot scraped out only occasionally demonstrates two points. First,
the manure will have undergone partial degradation and will not produce as much
gas as fresh manure. Second, the dirt and other debris scraped with the manure,
if not removed, will gradually fill in the digester, reducing its effective volume
and possibly causing clogs.

A manure washdown system illustrates a third point. This manure is usually too
watery for efficient digestion. Water with the manure must be heated to the
digester temperature, thus consuming gas, but not lending to increased gas pro-
duction. A more dilute digester slurry also requires a larger digester volume
adding extra capital cost co the system.

Finally, bedding, such as woodchips or straw, can both clog in certain pumps and
pipes and contribute to a rapid scum layer build-up if it floats. To minimize
this build-up, which can retard gas production and cause effluent clogs, mechanical
or hydraulic mixing can be used, but at added capital and energy expense. Another
possibility is to maintain a thicker digester slurry so that material that nor-
.
mally floats in a thinner liquid will remain in suspension.

I
a. Pipe Clogs
Pipe clogs have demanded an excessive amount of attention at the Monroe facility.
To minimize clogs, it is best to understand the different ways that they occur,
so that potential clogging conditions are eliminated by design. The most obvious
clogs are those caused by a large particle or object either partially or completely
blocking flow. Smaller particles will catch and build on the immovable ones, worsen-
ing an alre&y restricted flow situation or halting flow completely. This type
of clog is most commonon raw manure influent lines containing foreign materials.
Rocks, knots of wood, cow tags, bailing wire and aluminum cans have been found to
block a 5 cm diameter line used for influent mixing. The problem is much more
acute at the point where material enters this pipe from a 10 cm diameter line and
at a 5 cm diameter elbow. In an otherwise "cleanl' raw manure stream, bedding,
feed pellets, and dried clumps-of manure have also clogged 5 cm diameter pipe.

Small pipe diameters and large reductions in pipe diameter on hydraulic mixinga&
loading lines should be avoided. Up to % hour or more may be spent freeing just
one clog, if manual removal and freeing of pipes is required. This sometimes
involves climbing down into the influent mixing tank. Ordinarily, flushing with
a stream of high pressure water:will dislodge a clogged line, although if back-
flushed, there is no assurance that, the line will not become clogged with the same
material again.

Raw manure, and less frequently, digested manure, when left remaining in pipes
long enough, begin, to thicken and "cake". If lines are not used daily, they may
require flushing out with water to prevent this type of clog. This effect was
much more evident in flexible hose and occurred even in 10 cm diameter sections.
The evaporation or leaking of water from the slurry contributes to this effect,
leaving a drier material behind to cake. This type of clogging is usually dispersed
by an increase in gravity or pump head. A water flush can also sometimes be useful.

Heavier solids such as sand or gravel settle out of watery manure slurries. The
digester has illustrated this process; after two years of operation, almost 30 cm
of sediment was found on the digester floor. Practically all pipe clogs of this
nature were in the effluent lines, since digestion reduces solids levels approxi-
mately 30%. The percent total so1ids level of raw manure loadedis normally 10% TS;
that in the digester and effluent is about 7.5-8% TS. Most settling clogs in
effluent lines have been noted at solids levels below 7.5% TS, the lower level due
to boiler or fresh water leakage, or dilute slurry loading to the digester.
Settling clogs only form in horizontal pipes and at low velocities. In an effluent
section where the pipe diameter reduces to 7.5 cm from 10 cm, sand deposited in and
blocked only the 10 cm section. In the 7.5 cm line there was sufficient velocity
to keep the sand moving in suspension. Large pipe diameters and pipe reductions
on horizontal effluent lines, therefore, should be.avoided. Settling clogs are
best removed by high pressure water or air.

3. Pumps
Successful pump selection is a major component of the efficient manure handling
system. A pump should not only be properly sized but suited to handle the nature
of the substrate at hand. Along with a manure slurry, there may be bedding, gra-
vel, or other foreign matter that must be accounted for.

Before selecting the best pump for a job, the decision should be made whether a
pump is needed at all. In the case of transporting digested effluent, at the
Monroe digester, this stream is now moved over 50 meters from the digester to the
holding lagoon by gravity. About 4.5 cm of static head is available for this
purpose using 10 cm diameter vertical PVC pipe and 7.5 cm diameter horizontal
PVC pipe. Digested manure is a :far more homogenous fluid than raw manure, and
for this reason, causes far fewer clogging problems in smaller diameter pipe.

Loading raw influent to a digester by gravity is not a simple matter. Raw manure
does not flow well if very thick or not well mixed. This is an area that needs
further investigation. At the Monroe facility, three pumps have been tested
for loading in various ways. Of these, one pump also mixes the influent. An
independent mechanical mixer has also been tested as a possible improvement.

A centrifugal chopper pump (Vaughan Co., Inc.) was intended to mix the influent
by chopping and recirculation, but it is also able to load. Manure is mixed by
two separate means operating simultaneously. The centrifugal impeller chops up
any manure clumps that it draws in from the tank bottom. Also, a movable recycle
pipe on the discharge line of the pump is aimed at the slurry surface, and a high
pressure slurry stream provides overall circulation of the tank contents. Since
the tank is square, large clumps may sometimes get stuck in the corners which
requires manual directing by an operator with a pole. Most large clumps float,
due to encapsulated air and are broken up by the surface recycle stream.

Centrifugal pumps are designed for high volume, low pressure service. Smaller
sized pumps may possibly develop too little pressure for handling thick slurry.
A large*pump may load manure too rapidly. At Monroe, a rapid loading rate caused
 21

gas to be forced out through the press&e rel ief valve. Valving down flow is
limited because reducing the diameter of the valve caused clogging. The centri-
fugal pump at Monroe is driven by a 7.5 kw motor. The mixing tank is approx-
imately 3.7 meters square and 2.4 meters deep. At these specifications, and with
the existing mixing capability, lO%TS has been the practical limit for easy
mixing and pumping. At 12% TS, mixing becomes labor intensive and pumping is -
severely limited.

A diaphragmpump (ITT Marlow) works by positive displacement, and was originally

intended for loading at low volume to take advantage of an influent/effluent heat
exchanger. The pump is designed to handle thick slurries at low volume and high
pressure, and employs suction and discharge ball check valves to maintain an air-
tight volume. However, the diaphragm pump has never been able to load the sub-
strate due to bedding and other foreign material that clog the check valves, and
prevent adequate seating, causing a loss of prime.

A--.progressive cavity pump (Moyno Pump Div., Robbins and Myers, Inc.) was obtained
to replace the diaphragm pump. It also works on the positive displacement prin-
ciple, but does not use check valves. Instead, a single. helix rotor revolves
within a double helix stator forming cavities that progress toward the discharge
end carrying the substrate w;th them. The pump cavities were sized to handle
particles up to 2.8 cm, and a variable speed drive with an 11.3 kw motor was
selected for delivery of from 2-5 m3/hour at up to 700 kPa. High pressure capa-
bility was desirable to insure loading thick slurries through an influent/effluent
heat exchanger of unknown pressure loss. Variable speed was desirable to optimize
heat exchanger performance.

The Qne significant operational problem related to this pump was finding an ef-
fective means of removing large foreign objects from entering the pump. A clog
at the volume reduction from suction housing to cavity may cause the pump to run
dry, which leads to burnout of the stator if not quickly detected. A most crude
filter on the suction pipe (5 cm square openings on a 15 cm diameter line), and
an automatic shutoff switch sensing low flow conditions, were installed to safe-
guard the pump. The in-line filter invariably clogs due to thick slurry or foreign
matter, and requires cleaning. The shut off switch has several times proved un-
reliable. This pump was able to load a thick slurry, but the performance of this
pump exceeded mixing limitations. Up to 13% TS were pumped, but at this solids
level, mixing was practically impossible with the existing chopper pump and re-
cycle stream. This pump has not been run since the removal of the influent/effll:. ,t
 22

heat exchanger and return to 10% TS loading, which the centrifugal pump handles at a
much faster rate.

Amechanical mixer was designed to stir the contents of the influent tank that
incorporated mixing blade, shaft, support structure, and 5.6 kw motor. This
device has definite potential if prooerly sized. There are no clognine problems
to soeak of. The unit that was tested appears slightly undersized for thick slurries
of over 10%TS. Mixing of the raw influent would also be easier in a circular,
rather than square, mixing tank.

There are trade-offs between the energy gains that result from increasing the
percent solids loaded, and the electrical and labor demands of an influent
handling system. The characteristics of manure slurry differ so significantly
as the percent solids are rais.ed, that an influent handling system should be de-
signed for the specific requirements of that solids level that provides the most
cost effective and energy efficient system possible.

4. Pressure loss in pipes

It has beenconcluded that larger pipe diameters on influent lines, rather than
on effluent lines, is advantageous to minimize the kinds of clogs particular to
each stream. To be able to size pipes accurately requires further knowledge of
approximate pressure loss (API. Since not much data has been reported on G's
for the transportation of thick manure slurries, it was decided to document typi-
cal AP's at the Monroe facility. Pressures were measured with a manometer connected
to the 10 cm line with large 2.5 cm taps. (Fig. 8) . Flow rates were determined by measur-
ing and timing the-drop in slurry level 'in the m&xing tank. A-sample of the slurry
was collected and analyzed for %TS.

Figure 8 Diagram of Test Apparatus

NOTES: 1) 2.5cm diameter conduit is used to prevent clogging
of the manometer tubing (which occurred repeatedly
with 1.2Scm diameter conduit or no conduit at all).

2) Care mst be taken to mix the slurry well to in-

sure P constant level of VI’S during test rims.

3) Improvements: It is suggested that a longer straight

section of pipe be used in future tests and test
times be standardized.

I J
IUFLUZNT TANK
 23

The results of the tests, conducted during June 1979, were AP's ranging from
0.048 to 0.176 kPa/m over velocities between 0.085 and 0.76 m/s and TS between
9.2 and 12.5%. The AP'.s determined are comparable to those calculated using
formulas devised by Hashimoto and Chen (published by ASAE, 1976), from 0.055
to 0.143 kPa/m for TS between 8.6 and 11.4%. The results indicate there is no
corre;lation between AP and velocity over the range tested. There is a gradual
but significant increase in AP with %TS. This relationship is shown in figure 9.

When designing manure handling systems for slurries of 12% TS, for example, AP's
may increase 13-3 time s over 10% TS or 3-6 times over 8% TS. This effect is
more pronounced with long pumping distances and increased numbers of bends and
valves. ~ With thicker slurries, shorter pipes and fewer fittings should be used
.
to limit the size of pump necessary.
_ - -.-.

0 . I I I I

8 3 la ii IZ I3
‘.TS
/
Figure 9 - Pelationship between pressure loss
and %TS
C. Digester Heating and Mixing

1. !ikating
The contents of the digester must be maintained at about 35°C to produce gas at
the optimum rate. This requires a daily heat input to counter digester heat
losses from two sources: 1) conduction skin losses and, 2) displacement of warm
digested manure by cold influent. A significant portion of the daily gross gas
production is needed to maintain digester temperature. Heat transfer in the tank
is accomplished by the draft tube heat exshanger.

Heat loss through the skin is determined by the heat transfer coefficient of the
digester surface, the surface area available for heat transfer, and the temperature
difference between the digester contents and the outside air. All exposed surfaces
af the Monroe digester were insulated. Ten centimeters of Dow Styrofoam SMtm
dere installed on the exterior walls, and about 8 cm of polyurethane foam was
sprayed on the inside of the roof. The observed heat loss rate from the insulated
tank was about348 W/hrOC at an ambient temperature of 0.7'C.

[nfluent heating is by far the dominant factor in digester heat demand and accounts
For 75-90% of the total heat demand depending on the season. The amount of heat
necessary to raise the influent to 35'C depends on the volume loaded, the percent solids
WSI , and the influent temperature. The influent heat demand can be significantly
reduced by increasing the percent solids of the slurry loaded. This reduces the
unount of water added to the manure that must be heated to 35'C in the digester.
hoer the two years of piant operation, the percent soiids of the influent has been
increased from 4% to 10%. The reduction in the amount of water also improves gas
rroduction because it effectively increases the retention time of the organic material
.n the tank.

2. Boiler
rhe heating system boiler is a National 209 Series boiler with a rated output of
39(jMJ-'lhr; Dnsc-rubbed biogas is burned directly to produce-49'C water that is Pumped
into the bottom section of the draft tube heat exchanger. Operation of the boiler
is controlled by thermostats. A schematic of the boiler heating system is given
in figure 10.

%e efficiency if heat delivery from the boiler determines the gas consumption of
:he system. Calculations indicate that our boiler heat delivery efficiency is in the
 25

50-60% range. During freezing temperatures in the second wint.:r of operation,

the boiler consumed 25.7 m3/day of gas just to stay up to temperature. This -.
was not a time of normal boiler operation because no hot water was circulated to
-"u
the digester during this time. The magnitude of this number, roughly 10% of our
normal daily gross gas production, however, suggests reducing boiler heat losses
would noticeably improve the efficiency of the system.

An alternative to using a boiler is installation of a large commercial hot water

heater. Although a hot water heater would be no more inherently efficient than
a boiler, it would probably cost about half as much. In either case, insulatian
of the equipment and a thermostatically controlled stack damper valve deserve
consideration in attempting to maximize heat delivery efficiency.

The original temperature measuring and controlling devises for the heat delivery
system were all of mechanical design with capillary tubes from the sensor to the
switch. One probe was connected to a misroswitsh that controlled the digester
temperature by turning the boiler water pump on and off. The other was connected
to a meter calibrated in l.l°C increments. The sensors were mounted in two sep-
arate wells in the side of the digester.

The temperature control had a l.l°C bandwidth for turning the pump on and off.
The gas consumption of the boiler was very erratic on a day-to-day basis, and the
hot water pump often stayed on for many hours longer than necessary. The reading
of the temperature indicator also varied several degrees on sunny days. From this
information it was decided that a more sensitive and accurate temperature control
.-
would be needed. A combination temperature control and measuring unit was designed
and instalied. Its on/off bandwidth could be varied from 0.1 to 1.5'C; it was
set to 'O.lOC. This stabilized the temperature of the digester and resulted in
the ability to predict gas consumption on a daily basis given loading volume and
temperature.

3. Internal combustion engine

The internal combustion engine provides an alternate method of supplying heat
to the digester. Engine cooling water can be circulated through the top section
of the draft tube heat exchangerto use waste heat from the engine. A schematic
of the system is given in Figure 11. Engine coolant provides enough heat to
maintain digester temperature even under severe weather conditions as was son-
firmed during an operational period in December 1977 and January 197s. The
engine was opirated about 7.5 hours per day. Heating with engine coolant improves
 26

_-

;..*
5. -‘t.

‘* i.,
-- ,’
-, i-’
- ‘.
.’ -_ ‘..
. . r ----- - ,-, *cI. --.-.& --.-+‘,;. ---

Fig&Z ii - Boil& Heating System

-.---

Figure 11 - Waukesha Coolant used for Digester Heating

 27

efficiency for electricity generation, since it replaces the need for boiler
heating. Efficiency would not be as good if the engine were run for 24 hours
because not all the waste heat would be needed for digester heating.

The problem with heating a digester with engine coolant is the prospect of over-
heating the contents with adverse effects, on the microbial population. If this
method of heating is used, a reliable thermostatic control of the flow of cooling
water to the digester is essential.

.
Figure 12 - Digester Heating System
.. . _-

4. Draft tube heat exchanger

The central component of the digester heating system is the draft tube heat
exchanger. The heat exchanger consists of a concentric arrangement of an 86 cm
OD 12-gauge galvaniq-&cd Pipe and 76 cm OD 12-gauge galvanized pipe with end plates
sealing the ends providing an annular region for the flow of hot water. The
draft tube is oriented vertically in the center of the digester and divided into
equal top and bottom sections that are sealed from each other by a divider in the
annulus. The bottom section of the heat exchanger circulates hot water from the
boiler; the top section of the heat exchanger circulates coolant water from the
internal combustion engine (Figure 12).
An overall heat transfer coefficient was calculated for the heat exchanger using
appropriate empirical data and the equation,

u= Q/MT where: U = heat transfer coefficient (J/hr-m 2-oc)

A= heat transfer area (m*)
AT = overall temperature ('C) driving force
Q= rate of heat transfer (J/hr)

The value of the coefficient as determined was:

20
u= 2.33 MJ/hr-m - C

It is of interest to determine the film coefficient orb the slurry side of the heat
exchaneer. To accomplish this, the water side coefficient was first estimated
using a well known Nusse IF-type equation. The equation for the overall heat
transfer coefficient could then be solved for the slurry side film coefficient
,2 0
yeilding a value of 3.78 MJ/hr-m - C. A comparison of the water side and slurry
side film coefficient shows that about 2/3 of the resistance to heat transfer is
on the slurry side (See appendixtfl).

The galvanized draft tube heat exchanger corroded in areas in contact with hot
water from the boiler or I.C. engine. The zinc coating was black, brittle, and
flaking in the worst areas. Areas not contacted by the hot water, such as supports
were not affected. It is clear that corrosion of galvanized metals immersed in
digesting manure is accelerated at temperatures above 35'C.

Figure 13
Influent/Effluent
Counterflow
Heat Exchanger

_ _.-.-.. _^. - *’ , c
5. Influent/effluent heat exchange

Influent heating represents 75-90 % of the insulated digester's heat demand. To

recover heat from the effluent stream and use it to preheat the influent, an
influent/effluent vertical shell and tube counterflow heat exchanger was designed
and installed at. Monroe (Fig. 13). The original.design consisted of 25 segmented
7.5 cm diameter aluminum tubes joined by rubber connectors inside a metal shell.

The unit was operated in February 1976, using a 3% TS slurry, but severe
clogging of the tubes occurred. Failure of a number of the tube connectors
resulted in short circuiting between influent and effluent, The segmented
aluminum tubes were replaced by single length thin wall PVC pipe in Oct. 1977.
This reduced the expected overall heat transfer from 58 to 50% (with 35' C
effluent and 10' C influent) at 1.0 m3/hr flow rates, but eliminated the
connectors. At 8% TS, the diaphragm loading pump continuously lost prime
due to improper check valve seating, and was not able to move slurry through the
heat exchanger. The centrifugal chopper pump was sometimes able to do so but
with inconsistent flow rates, therefore heat exchanger performance testing
under these conditions was unsatisfactory.

Beginning in March 1979, a progressive cavity pump was available that could
dependably load high solids through the heat exchanger at low flow rates.
Experiments indicated that practically no heat was exchanged in the heat
exchanger. Flow was varied between 4 and 6 m3ihr. influent TS ranged from
10 % - 13%, and effluent from 7 4 - 8 $%. Two basic problems were isolated
that account for the failure of the heat exchanger.

The first problem was stratified flow. Even after several hours of effluent flow
in the shell, about 50% of the heat exchanger shell surface area remained cold.
Assuming that thermal stratification is a sign of flow stratification, it is
obvious that only a limited surface area was available for heat exchange.

Due to the rheological characteristics of manure slurries, friction is greater

at lower flow rates than higher. This suggests how velocity distribution
within the exchanger may have been affected by pressure loss gradients and
geometric asymmetry. The result is that slurry will flow along a small path
of least resistance rather than moving uniformly past the entire cross-sectional
area.
 30
A second problem is the almost complete lack of con-rective mixing. Because of
minimal convective heat transfer, only influent slurry in contact with tube
surfaces became warmed. Improved agitation to increase-the amount of heat
exchanged could be provided by passive means such as baffles along the heat
exchanger surfaces. This was veri‘fied by tests conducted with small heat
exchanger sections constructed for bench-scale experiments. Nhen convective
mixing was enhanced by baffles placed in the flow region, heat transer was
improved. Stratified flow was not a problem in the test set-up due to the small
cross-sectional area of the flow regions. _ _. , -_,. A-C-L -- -

Influent/effluent heat exchange in a heat exchanger is hampered by the flow

characteristics of the material. Since effluent is more homogeneous and free-
flowing than influent and virtually devoid of foreign debris, the best
prospect for heat recovery appears to be running effluent against water in a single
path counter-flow design.

- -- . _. __ ___ _, _ -. . .. _ _- ..-- -. _ _ ._ ._. .,_A.._ _ _._ - .~-- -

.
 31
6. Digester mixing

Based on municipal sewage treatment problems with scum formation, the Monroe
digester was designed to be continuously mixed. A Rootes-type recirculation
blower was used in conjunction with an internal draft tube that doubled as the
system's heat exchanger. During the first five months of operation in 1977,
the blower ran continuously. The electrical demand of the blower was 180 klVh
per day, representing 90% of the total electric demand of the system. The
blower also required costly repairs during the time of its operation, as well
as routine oil changes each week.

Table 1. %TSof Digester Contents in Mixing Studies, 1978.

Constant Mixing 50% Mixing 33% Mixin: 17% Mixing

sample date: Jan 21 Feb 18 - Mar 4 Apr 4 Apr 29 June 1 J-uly 10
PERIMETER
top 7.4 8.2 8.2 8.0 8.1 7.3 7.9
7.5 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 7.6 7.8
.-------------------- .---^-------------- .----------, ------------------
middle 7.2 8.4 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.5 7.9
7.2 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.1 7.3 8.1
7.1 8.3 --- 7.9 8.2 7.3 8.. 2
------------- .-------------------- .---------^-------- ._-_-_-----, ------------------
bottom 7.4 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.7 7.5 7.9
7.5 8.3 8.5 7.9 8.0 7.5 7.9
.-------------------- .------------------ .---m--e--- ------------------

Intermittent mixing was investigated in order to reduce electrical cons-umption

and equipment wear. Baseline mixing studies were performed to determine if
solids stratification occurred in the tanks. No samples differed more than
0.7% TS (Table 1). Mixing was decreased to 15 minutes on and 15 minutes off.
No increase in solids separation resulted. Mixing was decreased to 10 minutes on
and 20 minutes off, then to 10 minutes on and 50 minutes off, with no significant
stratification and no negative impact on gas production. Stratification tests
and operational experience have shown that solids separation is dependent
primarily on the % TS of the slurry, If the % TS in the tank dropped below 7.5
% TS, scum formation became a'problem in the effluent holding tank.
 32

Temperature probes were then installed in a variety of locations throughout

the tank to provide a more instantaneous monitor of the movement of manure in
the tank. Blower use was again reduced to loading periods only. Under these
conditions, a uniform temperature hrop was seen throughout the tank, indicating
that the blower effectively disperses the influent during loading. Use of the
bloyer only during loading was continued from May 1978 through early March 1979,
with no negative impact on gas production or operational problems.

Mixing was discontinued on March 6, 1979. Temperature probes in the digester

showed that mixing still occured in the tank without mechanical agitation due to
convection currents and gas movement. A number of heating and loading configurations
were investigated to examine the impact of these changes on digester mixing. Cold
manure can be loaded to either the top or the bottom of the digester. Heating 'can
be provided from the boiler, the internal combustion engine, or both. Hot water
from the boiler circulates through the bottom of the heat exchanger; hot engine
cooling water circulates through the top. If both the boiler and I.C. engine are
used, heat exchange area is doubled and the hot water flow rate is substantially
increased.

The natural mixing that occurs is due to gas movement and thermal convection
currents from the heating system. Figure 14 shows movement from convection
currents established when the boiler is running. At.2 a.m., the temperature
throughout the digester was uniform. It had stabili,zed after the previous
day's loading, and the boiler had remained off for most of,the night. When the
boiler turned on, agitation could be seen at the three probe points. The spikes
on the chart represent manure that heated above the temperature of the rest of
the tank moving past the stationary probes. The decrease in the number of the
spikes from the middle to the upper probe indicates that the manure is losing
heat as it rises. The small temperature difference noted by the lower probe
may indicate that the manure passing it is replacing the manure that has been
warmed by the internal heat exchanger. This movement continued while the boiler
was on and decreased after the boiler shut off. Because we have not yet been
able to perfect a flow probe that can be inserted into our sampling ports, we are
unable to detect any mixing that occurs isothermally.

The impact of natural mixing with the boiler on during loading can be seen in
Fig. 15. The temperature of the digester contents was relatively uniform before
cold manure was loaded on the bottom. The drop in temperature at the bottom
probe shows the buildup of cold manure, Sharp spikes of low temperature at the
 TOP PROBE MIDDLE PROBE BOl’TOMPROBE
3. lm above 2.lm above l.lm above
TIME digester floor digester floor digester floor
g:oo

baL=
OFF
2--
7:OO ___-_ i ..-_.

&xx I

50~

4:m

3XlO

z:oc

Figure 14
Temperature Probe Readings
 34

BOTTOMPROBE MIDDLE PROBE TO? PROBE

l.lm above 2.lm above 3.lm above
digester floor digester floor digester floor

IZ I=

8:oc

4:oo
-&s
-zL-

STef- LbAD-7
-_---- / -

59;” 3cJ” 32” 34’ 383’

=I-fZMfEk3J-U~ - C-
Figure 15
Temperature Probe Readings
 ,I
.,~
p /
I”
--

35
upper probes indicate cold manure was passing by. These probes are located
at 2.1 m and 3.1 m above the bottom of the tank. .Mixing could be seen for
about 10 hours after loading. Warm spikes predominate after the cold manure
d SM.
was heated and intermixmA

Figure 16 shows the impact of doub!.ing the heat exchanger area. In this case,
heat was provided from both the boiler and the I.C. engine. The effect of this
heating configuration is an increase in the speed of mixing. Even though the
size of the load is slightly larger than the previous example, the accumulation
at the bottom probe is less and the raw manure is mixed in rapidly. Hot spikes
predominate throughout, indicating that raw manure was warmed as it was mixed.

Mixing of freshly loaded manure, when the effects of convection currents and
gas bubbling are minimized, can be seen in Fig. 17. Convective mixing was
minimized by not heating with the boiler or I.C. engine, and by loading the
cold manure influent into the bottom of the digester tank. The mixing effect
of gas bubbling was most likely minimized, since it is expected that most of the
gas bubbling occurred above the accumulation of manure on the tank bottom. The
cold manure was distributed slowly throughout the tank, drawing the overall tempera-
ture down as it mixed.

In contrast to Figure 17, the effect of loading the digester to the top is shown
in Figure 18. In this case, mixing that resulted from convenction currents and
gas bubbling was optimized. The cold manure was mixed
. by convection as it tended
to settle toward the tank bottom, and was also mixed by gas bubbling during its
downward motion. Once again, the boiler remained off, however, the cold manure
almost completely mixed into the warm manure in only about six hours.

The indications from the studies and gas production data are that in-tank mixing
equipment can be eliminated from dairy manure digester designs. Natural
mixing from convection currents and gas bubbling can sufficiently mix the digester
contents. More rapid and thorough mixing can be achieved if manure is loaded
to the top of the digester, because the effects of convective mixing and gas
bubbling are optimized. Problems of scum formation can be eliminated simply by
keeping the % TS of the digester contents above the point at which scum layer
formation ceases to be a problem.
 36

BOlTONPROBE MIDDLE PROBE TOP PROBE

l.lm above 2.lm above 3. lm above
IME digester floor digester floor digester floor
bAM

3:oo

ZAM

9:oo

b:oo

3:oo

5TAkZ-
U’AW
---_- !L --

32’
T~PE~ATUR~ - c”
Figure 16

Temperature Probe Readings

 37

BOTTOMPROBE lzlIDDLE PROBE TOP PROBE

l.lm above 2. lm above 3. lm above
digester floor digester floor digester floor

-.-.-.-

-_---_

Do 32” 34* 36”

T&MPUrATU~- Co
Figure 17
Temperature Probe Readings
 38

The elimination of in-tank mixing systems has a great impact on the economic
feasibility of digestion. It reduces capita;, energy, and maintenance costs.
It also reduces the vulnerability inherent in having equipment inside the digester
tank.

BOTTOMPROBE MIDDLE PROBE TOP PROBE

TIME l.lm above 2.lm above 3.lm above
digester floor digester floor digester floor
-lzM

93x3

t -mPulu7

3:oo <
-e-v-.- --- .-*-. --_

, ST- WQ
12ffi %
-e-m-_- ---_ ---e-m----

I I I I . l 1 I
L

I
30” 32’ 3z” 3p

Figure 18

Temperature Probe Readings

 39

D. Gas Handling and Utilization

1. Introduction
Biogas has approximately 600 9 of the heating value of natural gas. It has
various potential household and farm uses such as cooking, water heating, space
heating, refrigeration, grain drying, irrigation pumping, food processing, and
electricity generation. Its use as a vehicle fuel is limited by the difficulties
of gas storage. Storage as a liquid requires expensive equipment, and storage
as a gas requires large volume even at high pressure (1.65 M?a). At present,
farm-generated biogas utilization experience is meager, although biogas utilization
at sewage treatment plants is relatively common.

?. . Gas handling performance

l'he gas handling system at the Monroe digester differs little from the gas handling
systems of municipal sewage treatment plants. The system is automated with
pressure switches that control the flow of gas to the boiler, compressor, or flare
as required. Gas is allowed to flow to the internal combustion engine as necessary
by means-.of - manual valves (Figure 19). - -_. - -

Figure 19 - Gas Handling System

6 I
 40

A number of unanticipated problems were encountered with the gas handling system
during the start-up phase. The majority were due to the high moisture content of
the gas. Upon correction of the problems, the gas handling system functioned
reliably and, with proper maintenance, presented no problems.

3. Low pressure systems

The iow pressure system includes all gas handling equipment except the compressor,
storage tanks, high pressure piping, and pressure regulators. A low pressure
handling system will be required on all digestion systems. The problems encountered
in this system should be taken into consideration when designing a gas handling
system.

Water condensate accumulation in the gas lines and meters caused numerous gas .
flow stoppages during the start-up phase of operation. The problem was solved
by installing manually operated drip traps at low points in the lines and at the
bottoms of meters. The drip traps are emptied daily, draining about 2 liters of
water from the system each day. Installation of an adequate number and regular
use of drip traps is essential to eliminate condensate blockages in a low pressure
system.

During the first winter of operation, water condensate froze in the gas lines and
meters, stopping gas flow. ,Freezing was a particular problem at the first v&lve
downstream of the digester in the low pressure piping. This ball valve is a line
restriction and causes the gas to drop in temperature-and pressure asit flows
through. The gas at this point has its highest water vapor concentration, and
the drop in temperature and pressure causes rapid condensation and enhances *
freezing in cold weather. Freezing problems were solved by moving the gas meters
into the warm boiler room and insulating the gas lines outside. Particularly
heavy insulation was placed around the ball valve that was usually open and did.
not need to be operated under normal conditions. These measures were sufficient
to prevent further freezing problems. It should be noted that freezing of gas
handling equipment can be a very serious problem. Twice during the first winter,
both the gas lines and the pressure relief valve at the digester top froze,
causing pressure to build up in the tank. The overflow design of the effluent
system provided back-up pressure relief since manure, and finally gas, was forced
out the overflow as pressure in the tank increased. Had this back-up pressure
relief not been'available, rupture of the tank might have occurred. Back-up
pressure reiief is an important advantage of an overflow system.
 41

Three automatic pressure switches had to be replaced during two years

of operation. The moisture content of the gas may have contributed to this rela-
tively high failure rate. Another factor that may have contributed to rapid
failure was that the pressure switches sensed the pressure by means of a narrow
tube directly connected to the gas lines. When a switch opened, pressure in the
lines would drop momentarily due to gas surging, and the pressure in the narrow
tube would drop low enough to close the switch. The pressure in the tube would
then build up quickly, and the switch would again open only to be closed again
quickly as pressure dropped due to surging. This phenomena caused rapid opening
and closing of the switch several times before the switch finally stayed open.
The result was increased wear on the switch.

4 High pressure system

l

A high pressure system is.not a necessary component of a farm digester system,

however, a high pressure storage system.does present several advantages. Our
system was designed to automatically repressurize the low pressure system to
1.2 kPa should pressure fall below that point. This protects the digester tank
from infiltration of air in case of a gas leak by maintaining positive gas pressure
until the storage is depleted. It also protects the tank from implosion should
the tank develop a leak below the slurry level and lose fluid. Gas storage
capacity also proved to be an advantage during the digester shutdown. Biogas
in storage allowed us to restar t the digester with biogas to fuel the boiler.
The trouble of converting the boiler to propane and then back to biogas, when
biogas production became adequate to fuel the system,\.was:thus avoided.

Problems were encountered in the high pressure (1650 kPa) system due to grit,
water, and oil in the gas lines. No drip traps were originally installed on the
high pressure lines, and water and grit accumulated for over a year eventually
causing the pressure reducers to malfunction. This problem was solved by taking
apart and cleaning the pressure reducers, and regular draining, of the water by
inserting a pressure gauge needle adaptor into a Pete's Plug. This removed water
without depressurizing the lines. An oil leak in the compressor caused oil to be
sprayed into the high pressure lines where it formed an emulsion with water in
the orifices and diaphragms of the pressure reducers. The reducers malfunctioned
causing the downstream low-pressure line to increase in pressure from 14 kPa to
172 kPa, and gas was vented through a pressure relief valve. This resulted in
a significant gas loss for about a week. Cleaning the emulsion from the lines
and reducers returned the system to normal functioning.
 42

These experiences indicate the need for regular water removal from gas lines and
a bi-yearly cleaningof the high pressure lines to remove grit and oil-water
emulsion. The bi-yearly cleaning takes approximately four hours in a regular
maintenance schedule. Our experience with moisture condensation in the gas lines
led us to believe that a large amount of water had probably condensed in the
storage tanks, however, only 0.6 cm of water was found at the low points of the
tanks.

5. Utilization
Biogas was used at the Monroe digester to provide fuel for the heating system
boiler, lab-trailer, and internal combustion engine. The original plan was to
size the gas to fuel a boiler in the farm creamery, however, funds for pipeline
construction were not available until the fall of 1979. Gas production in excess
of needs at the digester site was flared. The digester boiler burned unscrubbed
biogas..The only noticeable difference from burning natural gas was the need to
clean sulfur deposits from the burner jets every six months.

The internal combustion engine and generator were installed as part of the original
demonstration project. The purpose of the installation was to provide emergency
back-up electricity for the creamery and milking operations. The engine is a
Waukesha VRG310 natural gas engine with a dual fuel Impco Model 200 carburetor.
The engine is directly coupLed to a Kate 40 kVA (peak) generator. Engine cooling
water can be circulated to the internal draft tube heat exchanger to provide
digester heating. A Westinghouse D4S-7 kilowatt-hour'meter ,was used to monitor
the power generated.

The engine/generator was tested by wiring the generator to a 40 kW, 3-phase

(3-13, 3 kW) resistive load. Resistive loading allowed the data to be read
directly without correction for power factor; data taken with inductive loads !
must be corrected for power factors less than unity. The loading Wasvariable
from 6.37 to 41.7 kW in two steps. The engine/generator is rated at 40 kW and
23% efficiency based on its perfonance at full load running on propane; output
is less for lower Btu fuels. As a consequence, the engine/generator produced only
a little more than 25 kW before loading down below 60 cycles per second. This
represents a capacity loss of about 37%. Figure 20 shows the electrical conversion
efficiency under various load conditions. The efficiency varied linearly over the
6 kW to 25 kW range tested.
 0
0 5 20 25 .
LOAD kw
Figure 20 - Conversion Efficiency for Electrical Generation

Little information is available on piping farm generated biogas to a utilization

site some distance from the digester as intended in the original plan. Experience
at Monroe has shown that a pipeline should have drip traps to remove water conden-
sate from the line to prevent blockages and freezing, shut-off valves to allow
convenient maintenance and removal of equipment/ as necessary, and a flame trap
to protect the digester and gas storage for back-flow of flame through the line.
The pipeline should be freeze protected either by burial or thermal in,sulation
on above-ground sections. Burial of pipeline sections may make drip trap instac-
lation at all low points impossible, and sufficent pressure to move water through
the line must be maintained in that case. Pressure taps should also be provided
to allow troubleshooting of problems that might occur. Black iron pipe has tradi-
tionally been used for gas handling at sewage treatment plants. Internal corrosion
is not generally a problem, however, black iron piping must be protected form ex-
ternal corrosion. Painting with rust-inhibiting paint suffices for above-ground
piping. Buried sections of pipelines should be:
 1) coated with an appropriate bituminous coating or tape,
2) given cathodic protection, and
3) electrically insulated from above-ground sections.

Bituminous coatings are available from pipe vendors and protect the pipe from con-
tact with corrosive chemicals. Cathodic protection can se provided by the
sacrificial-anode method. The more cathodic of two metals contacting an electrolyte
causes electrochemical attack of the more anodic metal. Magnesium anodes in
contact with a buried pipeline will be selectively corroded, thus protecting the
pipe. Usually, a small number of anodes, perhaps l-3, are required, and the exact
number depends on soil resistivity. The anodes should be inspected periodically,
as they will completely corrode, leaving the pipeline unprotected after a period
of years. Buried sections of black iron lines should also be electrically insu-
lated from above-ground sections. Inadvertent grounding of the above-ground section
might otherwise override the cathodic protection and accelerate corrosion of the
buried section.

Galvanized pipe is not recommended for gas service because the galvanizing can
flake off inside the pipe and plug the small orifices of crucial gas handling
equipment, such as pressure regulators.

High density polyethylene pipe is often used for underground pipelines by gas
utilities. This pipe has some excellent characteristics, including low frictional
reisstance to flow and good resistance to chemicals. It is usually cheaper both
in material and installation costs, but is somewhat'more susceptible to damage by
careless digging. The pipe is available in a range of pressure ratings up to 1.1
MPa, and is a good substitute for black iron pipe.

The gas recirculation mixer at Monroe was plumbed with CPVCniue which exhibits
favorable high temperature-pressure characteristics. The pipe remains in excel-
lent condition after two years of gas exposure. We exnerienced two gas leaks at
welded fittings in these lines within 9-12 months after installation. This
indicates the need for careful welding technique, if CPVCpipe is used for gas
service.

A gas pipeline will be constructed at Monroe in the fall of 1979 to pipe gas
approximately 1200 feet to the farm creamery where it will fuel a gas-fired boiler.
:”,,I
,‘&l

I '.
The pipeline will consist of nominal 3.18 cm black iron pipe buried approximately
75 cm below ground. Corrosion protection will be provided by bituminous paint,
magnesium anodes, and electrical insulation of above- and below-ground sections.
The pipeline will be equipped with the necessary accessories, and working
pressure will be apnroximatelv 345 kPa. Oneration of this pipeline will provide
useful experience in piping farm-generated biogas.

I
6. Safety
Biogas is no more dangerous than natural gas or propane; however, as with these
other fuels, it should be used with the care due a material that can attain
explosive concentrations in air. The two most important safety precautions are
the avoidance of explosive mixtures of biogas with air and the prevention of sparks.
Since biogas can only explode at concentrations from 9-23% by volume in air, en-
closed areas where gas can accumulate are the most dangerous. Small leaks are
almost impossible to prevent, therefore, good ventilation of enclosed areas is
important. The pungent odor of biogas due to trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide
is an advantage since it makes the nose a good leak detector. The Monroe digester
is equiDped with standard sewage treatment safetv equipment, including flame traps,
pressure relief valves, andan electronic gas detector. The safety equipment has
functioned reliably for two years. The only problem has been occasional freezing
of the pressure relief valve in winter, as mentioned earlier.

Inclusion of numerous shut-off valves in the gas handlingI system provided a con-
venient way to isolate meters, the boiler, and other equipment for removal and
maintenance when required. Isolating with nearby valves allowed removal of equip-
ment without introducing dangerous quantities of air into the gas lines.

In general, the human nose adequately detected a number of small gas leaks that
occurred in the boiler house over the two-year operation of the plant. Soapy
water, which bubbles when applied to a leaky fitting, provided a way to find the
exact location of leaks. Hissing from large leaks could be heard immediately when
the gas was turned on, if fittings did not seal properly during installations.
E. Start-up and Shutdown

1. Overview
Start-up and shutdown of anaerobic digesters can be difficult, time consuming,
costly, and dangerous. Certain wastes do not digest without great care. Severe
weather
. conditions intensify labor requirements, and production outages can re-
quire expensive energy substitutes. Start-ups can be stalled by drugs or other
chemicals in the substrate that may inhibit bacterial growth. Shutdowns are po-
tentially dangerous if care is not taken to prevent explosive mixtures of methane
and oxygen.

DesDite these complications, start-up of most dairy manure.digesters is relatively

easy due to the benign nature and outstanding acclimation characteristics of the.
substrate. The usual start-up procedure is to fill the digester almost completely
with water, heat it to required temperature, and then begin loading, but at a lower
rate than normal. After the period of approximately one retention time,2-4 weeks,
the digester should be biologically stable, normal sized loadings can begin, and
the start-up is over. Filling the tank with water initially eliminates the pos-
sibility of an explosive mixture of methane and oxygen that may result from pos-
sible biogas production contacting air not yet displaced in the tank. Reduced
loading rates are preferred to minimize the risk of acids build-up in the tank that
may inhibit.methane formation.

Biological stability is reached when gas production begins to rise, and the digester
acids level begins to fall. Either gas flow is monitored or the pH or Total
Volatile Acids (TVA), are measured. If gas production does not rise after a
typical start-up period, the acids level should be monitored daily. The pH
should be rising, the TVA, after peaking, 'should be falling. If this is not hap-
pening, the digester has gone "acid" or tlsourll, meaning the digester must be shut-
dcwn and start-up procedures :,llowed again, but more carefully.

Start-up failures are rare among dairy manure digesters. Normally, either too
rapid loading and acids formation, or harmful chemicals are the cause. Failures
of digesters in general may be due to a lack of seed material or buffering capa-
bility. Seed material containing a rich bacteria culture is used to initiate
digestion in otherwise difficult to digest wastes. Buffering of a digester is
used to minimize the harmful effect of acid formation before methane bacteria are
able to reproduce and consume the acids.

Shutdown is typically required to remove sediment or scum iayers that reduce

 47

digester efficiency, or to repair the heat exchanger or other tank interiors.

Digester designs should leave provisions for easy entering of an emptied tank,
especially for the removal of large quantities of sediment. Ample access to
digester openings must be maintained.

To shutdown a digester, an inert gas such as nitrogen (NJ or carbon dioxide (CO*),
is required to maintain positive pressure and prevent oxygen (02) from entering
the tank while its contents are emptied by gravity or pump. A possible source of
CO2 rich gas is internal combustion engine exhaust. Positive pressure prevents
the tank from possibly imploding by pressure drop as the liquid is removed.
Purging with an inert gas prevents 02 from entering the digester and forming an
explosive mixture with methane.

2. The Monroe Digester

The Monroe digester was started up in September of 1977. One of the two 189 m3
digester tanks were filled with 4% TS slurry over a five day period and then
heated to 35'C. Stabilization took 25 days, although digester heating began only
halfway through this period. If the digester was at normal operating temperature
from the stqrt, this period would probably have been much shorter. The tank was
not filled with water initially, since it was filled with slurry in just five
days, and any methane production was considered insignificant. For dairy manure,
both seeding and buffering are unnecessary, based on Monroe digester start-up
experience.

The Monroe digester was shutdown in August 1979. The shutdown procedure was
unique, in that a second unused digester tank was available to receive the digest-
ing contents of the tank in use. This procedure eliminated the need for another
start-up, since the exceptional biological stability of the substrate allows ef-
fective acclimation to either high or low loading conditions. Ordinarily, with
a single digester, the contents would be removed to fields or a holding lagoon.

The contents were transferred, not because the digester exhibited a loss in
performance or signs of needing repair, but for other reasons. Since the facility
is used to conduct research, the second digester tank was provided with improved
sampling capability. Carefully placed temperature probes were installed to more
accurately determine boiler heating efficiency. Transfer also made it possible
to simplify the loading and effluent piping arrangements for minimal pressure
losses and clogging. Finally, it was also desireable to inspect the digester
after two years of service for.wear and to possibly upgrade its heating system
design.
 48

The Monroe shutdown was actually more complicated, due to the transfer circum-
stances. The empty digester was initially purged with N2 to remove the 02. If
enough N2 was available, the tank being emptied could be purged, while gas from
the tank being filled would be vented. To conserve N2, however, the gas lines of
the digesters were connected, and a slightly higher pressure iias maintained in the
digester being filled to prevent backflow of methane into it. Pressure in both
tanks was monitored by manometer connections to independent gas lines. The con-
tent levels in the tanks were first allowed to equalize by gravity after opening
a valve on a pipe that connected them. At this point, the contents of the first
digester were drained to the effluent holding tank and then pumped into the second.
 49

IV. BIOLOGICALPERFORMANCE

A. Laboratory Testing

A laboratory was established at the Monroe facility to monitor the health of

the digester, and to note the impact of various loading and mixing regimes on
biologic.al activity. The substrate has proven to be remarkably stable. There
have been no serious signs of stress, even with decreased mixing, temperature
fluctuations, high loading rates, periods of no loading, and during a planned
shutdown.

At the beginning of the project, digester contents were tested daily for pH,
acidity, alkalinity, total volatile acids (TVA), percent total solids (%TS),
and percent volatile solids (%VS). Once the system stabilized, the results of
these tests became quite constant, and testing frequency was reduced to twice
a week. Later in the project, acidity tests were discontinued and alkalinity
and TVA were performed only once a week as pH remained relatively unchanged at
7.4. Raw manure influent from the start of the project has been tested daily
for %TSand %VSfor mass balance considerations. Recently, both raw and digested
manure have been tested for chemical oxygen demand (COD) on a bi-weekly basis
to establish typical reduction ratios. All tests were run according to th,s
procedures of standard methods, with a slight modification in testing for total
volatile acids. _

B. System Start-up

Loading of a single digester at Monroe began on August 30, 1977. The digester
was completely loaded over a 5-day period. Manure was scraped into the influent
tank, diluted to 4% TS, and pumped into the digester. The boiler was not in
service until September 15, and the contents remained at ambient temperature
until that time. On September 19, the digester reached 35'C.

Biological monitoring was begun on September 9, 1977 (Figure 21). Total volatile
acids (TVA) was 2000 mg/L, alkalinity was 3300 mg/L, and pH was 6.5. The TVA
peaked at 4000 mg/L on September 26 (alkalinity at 3000 mg/L, and pll still at 6.5).
Since the TVA dropped the next day, daily loading of the digester began on
September 28. The TVA continued to drop to below 1000 mg/L byoctober 2.
 50

STAKT UP
b

150

IO0

50

0
230

TO
b-0

Figure 21
Alkalinity and pE also rose to 3600 mg/L and 7.2 respectively by this date.
Carbon dioxide (C02) in the.biogas, consistently above 55% until September 23,
was down to 38% on October 4. Through the month of October, the expected re-
covery pattern continued with a further decrease in TVA and increase in alka-
linity and pH. By November, these parameters had stabilized to those maintained
throughout most of the digester's operation, The TVA stayed below 1000 mg/L,
alkalinity around 10,000 mg/L, and pH near 7.4.

The original digester loading schedule was developed by an experienced sewage

treatment plant operator. The increased gas production that followed each
increase in loading rate, and the absence of any biological stress led to
increasing the loading rate more rapidly than originally planned, however.
The planned final rate of 4 kg VS/m3 reactor at 8% TS was reached in seven
weeks instead of the planned twelve weeks.

Increases in the loading rate would have continued, but numerous operational
problems associated with winter freezing and flooding were encountered. A
decision was made to hold the loading rate steady until those problems were
resolved. Beginning in 1978, the loading rate was increased to loading all
available manure at 10% TS (averaging 5-6.5 kg VS/m3 a day). Consequently,
retention time has been as low as 12 days, although, it is normally 16 days.
The change in the percent solids loaded required certain influent mixing
modifications, but neither the higher rate or solids level had an adverse
biological impact (Figure 22).

C. Gas Production and Digestion Performance

Gas production has gradually improved over the life of the digester primarily
due to increases in production efficiency (Table2 ). Although the digester
stabilized biologically within a 3-month period following start-up, it appears
that in the long term, there developed a more fully acclimated and efficient
bacteria population, independent of operating parameters. Gas production
averaged 178m3 per day over the 23 months of the project including start-up,
freezing and flooding, loading pump overhaul, and shutdown/transfer operations.
Excluding the 5 months when thesecperations occurred, average gas production
was 197 m3/day. During the periodof February through July 1979, it was 226 m3
a day.
 ,_ _.._
,: -14

52
.-
TABLE 2 Monroe Digester Performance, October 1977 to August 1979

Month Gas ProductSon - Daily Load Digester JVS

(iZ/day) (&/kg VS) B”“~~3~~~~7t ‘On (m3) (kg VS/m3) %TS Reduced

I
l Oct 77. 93 0.170 62 9.4 3.09 3.5
l Nov 107 0,165 75 - 9.1 3.68 5.7 26 0
Dee 147 0,177
____________--------____________^_______-------------- __ 64 10.4 4-72 6.4
__---_--____-------------------
Jan 78 146 0,172 52 9.5 4.85 7.3
Feb 198 0,171 79 12.8 6.63 8.2
Mar 193 0,185 88 11.9 5.99 8.1 24
216
~~~____________,__o~z~s~~~~~~_~~~91,__-,,__-12:1,-_-~:l_l_______ __________------------
8-o
MY 221 0.196 88 12.5 6.51 7.8
Jun 241 0,216 73 12.1 6.45 7.9 25
JOY 201 0.241 58 9.3 4.84 8-2
l Aug 108 0.236 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.4 2.66 7.7
Sep 183 0.208 74 10.0 5.13 7.7
.Oct 144 0.252 68 615 3.35 7.8
28
Nov 145 0,242 92 7-3 3.53 7.2
Dee 154 0,233 90
----------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------- 7.7 3.90 7-3
*Jan 79 108 0.220 85 6, 1 2.90 6.6
Feb 0.220 -. 98 .
206 10.2 5.54 6.7
Mar 0.217 34
234 104 12.2 6.42 6.9
Apr 0 237
_________210-_-_____:-----~---~---~~----------~~~----~:~~--------~:~-----------------
fiY 245 0.233 77 11.1 6.28 7.8
Jun 218 * 0.245 68 911 5.33 8.1
Jly 224 0,193 ' 11.1 9.0 30
70 6.97.
I
l Aug 132 0,238 44 -6-2 3.23 . 7.9

.
‘LOW production during these months was due to:

a) Ott, Nov 77 --the start-up procedure of loading low solids of 4-88 TS.
b] Aug 78;an llday outage of the loading pump for major repairs. r
c). Jan 79--a 15 day period of freezing temperatures and no scraping.
d) Aug 79--a 14 day digester transfer period of no loading.

.
 53

.’.:::-‘.-/*.‘z
DIOESl-ER

. .
....:... -..:-. .
....‘r-
- .. .* *.-
.. - -* -.
-. . ‘..,‘.:=.?
.

. .
. - .T
I .

.II .*
I
c
I
. . -.
.
, .

III .

P
‘; ~
-5--zjI?Ix
DEG JAN. FEB.
CJ,v--L
MAR
\ APR. MAY
I
JUNE JULY AU’5

Ph

TOT/L XnATI I ACKD

3efT QGI: iJOV DEG JAM - FEB. MAR

I Figure 22
 54

Gas production efficiency for the first 11 months of operation averaged 0.194 m3
per kg VS added, for the last 12 months, it was 0.228 m3/kg VS added, an 18%
improvement. From April 1979 to the present, excluding July, this figure has
averaged 0.238 m3/kg VS added. In July 19i9, higher solids were loaded up to
12.5% TS, as an experiment to further reduce the digester heat demand and to
document mixing and pumping requirements at higher solids levels. The solids
in the digester rose to 9.0% TS, usually maintained at 8.0% TS. As a result,
the gas production efficiency fell from 0.245 in June to 0.193 in July (m3/kg
VS added). It is not known whether the high solids level in the digester or the
high loading rate of 7.0 kg W/m3 digester volume inhibited gas production
during this month.

The %VSreduced for the first 11 months of operation averaged 25%, while for
the last 12 months it was over 30%. This improvement closely correlates with
the gas production efficiency increase noted above, and is attributed to greater
acclimated bacteria with time.

Influent and effluent samples were analyzed for CODover the period from April
to July 1979. They averaged 82,000 mg/L and 49,000 mg/L, respectively. Average
CODreduction in the digested effiuent was 40% on a voiume basis and 30% on
a weight 'basis.

D. System Shotdown

Transfer of the contents from one digester to the other was made on August 13,
1979. This was done primarily to utilize new and improved monitoring devices
_^__ - 32 --A-.. ,-1--- a-2 “&Gw.,-. r-r2g,
2;; rArdcr.rb n-in; _...I! tn inspect
an
Vii thi, ~cxvu=L u IL;G3 LF;I , t; iiiI,k EGG;:iGac*“r,J
the first digester after two years of operation. Loading of the first digester
ended on August 1, and began again with the second digester on August 16, Heating
of the digester was also discontinued on August 1 to conserve gas for start-up,
and to help keep gas production low.

On August 16, the digester temperature was down to 27'C, and gas production
was approximately 17 m3/day, about 7.5% of normal. TVA remained unchanged,
alkalinity, and pH each dipped slightly, but hardly significantly, throughout
the cool down and transfer procedure (Figure 23). On August 14, they measured
360, 7100, and 7.2, respectively. In addition, recovery of gas production
T
was exceptionally fast. By August 24, it was 212 m3/day, at which point the
biological parameters had already stabilized.

.___~.__..._ ..__
 55

.........................
.........................
.........................
........................... l
..........................
.........................
. .
- l
.............................
. l 0 ...........................
l . . . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::::
.........................
.........................
........................... .........................
. ...........................
.........................
... - ..........................
.........................
l ’ .........................
........................... .. - l ...
l . .........................
l . m ......................... -. .’
..........................
..........................
..........................
........................... ..........................
l - .........................
............................ .........................
.......................... ..................... ...
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
..........................
.........................
LOAPIM~ RG3-E .........................
.........................
..........................
.........................
.........................
....................
......................... ..a.
.......................... .........................
l ::::.: .... i’. ... ;“;l::
..
1 I

I ,
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
.........................
... . . . . . . . . . . ............

........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
TVA ........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
I
I I I........................
........................
.........................
........................
......................
.........................

..... ...................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
ALKALIbJlTY ........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
....................
I I
JUNE. ’ JULY AUGKH-

Figure 23
Digester Performance during System Shutdown
The transfer procedure was similar to two other periods of non-loading and minor
biological stress. The first was for 11 days when the loading pump was out of
service for repairs in late July and early August of 1978. The other was for
15 days during an extreme freeze in-late December and early January of i978/79.
In each case, the bacteria population of the digester exhibited exceptional bio-
logical stability, noted by a rapid recovery upon resumed feeding.

E. Biological Stability

Digestion of dairy manure has presented none of the chronic biological stress
that has plagued municipal digesters. In municipal plants,, the material fed
may differ significantly from day to day, and may contain chemicals which
either inhibit or are lethal to the bacteria required for methane production.
With a farm digester the manure fed does not change dramatically and the addition
of harmful chemicals can be prevented.

This stability makes digestion of farm manures more feasible, since a farmer
need not be concerned with :nonitoring the biological health of the system.
Furthermore, the bacteria demonstrate extreme resistance to stress, especially
in the recovery from periods of non-feeding which is of great benefit should
major repairs and temporary shut-down become necessary. As a result, the lengthy
and involved process of a fresh start-up can be avoided.
 57

V. NET ENERGY

A. Overview

The Monroe digester produced a steady supply of fuel gas with 60-65% of the
: heating value of natural gas during 24 months of operation. The gas production
process required energy inputs in the forms of heat and electricity. Gas and
: electric meters measured energy production and inputs to provide data for an
energy evaluation of the system. The net energy is the total gas energy output
minus the energy inputs required to operate the system.

B. Gas Production and Utilization

Monthly gas production varied over a wide range during the 24 months of
operation (Table 3). Gas production varied approximately linearly with the
manure loading rate from month to month (Fig. 24).. Thus, variation in loading
rates had a greater effect on gas production than variation in microbiological
efficiency.

During several months when the digester did not receive all the manure from the
180-head herd, and during periods of nonloading, the full potential for gas
producti_on was not realized. The overall gas production rate average was
I
about 178 m3/day given the loading rate reductions. There were two long periods
during which the loading rate was consistent and included all the manure from the
herd, February-June 1978, and February-July 1979. During these periods gas production
averaged 214m3/day and 226m3/day respectively. These figures more accurately
.
represent the gas production potential of the Monroe digester than the overall average.

The gas output of the digester was used to fuel the boiler for digester heating,
run the internal combustion engine for electricity generation, and supply fuel for
heating and cooking in the lab.. These.uses consumed about 47% of the gas;
the remainder was flared. The original plan was to use the net gas output to
fuel a boiler in the farm creamery, however, funds to construct a gas pipeline
to the creamery were not available until the fall of 1979. At this writing,
construction of the pipeline is not yet complete.

C. Energy Inputs

The largest digester energy input was the energy needed to heat and maintain
the digester contents at 35OC. This requirement consumed about 44% of the total
gas production over 23 months. A monthly tabulation of boiler gas consumption is
given in Table 3.

Other energy requirements include electrical energy for digester mixing, and
mixing and pumping the influent. The Monroe digester was designed to be continuously
mixed by a recirculation blower based on experience at sewage treatment plants.
During the first three months of operation, the blower was run continuously,
consuming about 180 KWH/day, which represented 90% of the total electrical demand
of the system. Intermittent mixing was investigated in order to reduce electrical
consumption and equipment wear. Mixing was gradually reduced with no resulting
decrease in gas pr,oduction. From May 1978 through early March 1979, the blower
was operated only during digester loading. Mixing was completely stopped on
March 6, 1979; gas production was not affected over the following six
months. From March through August, the only electrical energy requirement was
the energy needed to mix and load the influent slurry. This requirement averaged
about 20 KWH/day. Electricity consumption is shown graphically in Fig. 25.

D. Net Energy Evaluation

The most dramatic improvement in net energy was the elimination of blower use
resulting in.a 90% electricity demand reduction. During the first five months
of digester operation, net energy was also improved by increasing the solids
in the influent loaded from 4% to 10% TS. Since the volume loaded remained
roughly the same, in effect this change represents an increase in the quantity
of solid material loaded. With heat demand held constant, this improved the
net energy by enhancing gas production.

Later in the project, an increase from 10% to 12% TS was made with no increase
in the quantity of solids loaded but with a reduction in the amount of water
added. This procedure resulted in a reduced digester heat demand and a small
increase in retention time. The improvement in net energy, however, was unable
to be quantified due to constantly changing ambient and operating conditions.

Net energy for the 23 months of digester operation is shown in Fig. 26. Low
loading rates from August 1978 through January 1979 with resulting low gas
production affected net energy results for those months. Net energy yield
was about 56% for the best digester performance period, February 1979-July 1979.
For the twelve months including the best performance period, August 1978-July
 JY
TABLE 3 GASPRODUCTION
AND BOILER CONSUMPTION

Month Gas Daily Load Boiler . % Total Gas

Production KgVS/m3 CQnsumption . Production Consumed
m3/day m /day'. By Boiler

*act 77 93 3.09 62 '67

*Nov . 107 3.68 75 70
Dee 147 4.72 64 44

Jan 78 146 4.85 52 36

Feb 198 6.63 79 40
Mar 193 5.99 88 46
APr 216 6.11 91 . 42
--------------------------------------------~------------------------------------- ..
May - 221 6.51 88 40
June 241 6.45 .73 30
July 201 4.84 58' 29 -

T""_________----_~~~------------~~~~------------~~------~.------------~~~---------
Sept . 183 5.13 74 40
*act 144 3.35 68 47
*Nov 145 3.53 92 63
*Dee 154 3.90 90 . 58
-------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------- .
*Jan 79 108 2.90 85 79
Feb 206 5.54 98 48
Mar LJ
, .4' 6.42 104. 94
APr 230 5.79 80 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 245 6.28 77 31
June 218 5.33 68 31
July 224 6.97 70 31
*Aug 132 3.23 44 33

*Low production during these months was due to:

a) Ott, Nov,.77--the start-up procedure of loading low solids of 4-8% TS.
b) Aug 78--an 11-day outage of the loading pump for major repairs.
c) Ott-Dee 78--low loading rates resulting from incomplete scraping.
d) Jan 79--a 15-day period of freezing temperatures and no scraping.
e) Aug 79--a 14-day digester transfer period of no loading.

--pcI-... -.. -
F
 --__
3Y' --
GAS PRODUCTION
AND BOILER CONSUMPTION

Month Gas Daily Load Boiler m % Total Gas

m3/day
Production KgVS/m' C8nsumption . Production Consumed
m /day'. By Boiler
1
-
*act 77 93 3.09 62 '67
*Nov . 107 3.68 75 70
Dee 147 4.72 64 44

Jan 78 146 4.85 52 36

Feb 198 6.63 79 40
Mar 193 5.99 88 46
APr 216 6.11 91 . . 42
---------------------------------------,----~------------------------------------- ..
May - 221 6.51 88 40
June 241 6.45 .73 30
July 201 4.84 58' 29 .

I""----__---____-~"I------------~~~~------------~~------.-------------~~---------
Sept . 183 5.13 74 40
*act 144 3.35 68 47
l Nov 145 3.53 92 63

19sf_--_-----_____f'~--------.----~~~~------------~~----.-------~-------~~----------.
*Jan 79 108 2.90 85 79
Feb 206 5.54 98 48
Mar I4.3.4' 6.42 104. 94
APT 230 5.79 80 35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 245 6.28 77 31
June 218 5.33 68 31
July 224 6.97 70 31

t"4_______-----__'ff------------~:~~------------~~-------------------~~-----------
*Low production during these months was due to:
a) Ott, Nov..77--the start-up procedure of loading low solids of 4-8% TS.
b) Aug 78--an ll-day outage of the loading pump for major repairs.
c) Ott-Dee 78--low loading rates resulting from incomplete scraping.
d) Jan 79--a 15-day period of freezing temperatures and no scraping.
e) Aug 79--a 14-day digester transfer period of no loading.
 “.’ --‘P -

Y= atc+b

3 4 5 6 i
uwAN6 RATE
. ( Kg~+y~ay)
Figure 24 - Relationship,of Gas Production Fr Loading Rate

rdJMMJ5NJAMJ
1977 ‘76 ‘73
/4K’N-I-H 5

Figure ,25 - Electricity Consumption

---- ..-
........................................................... ...........~....~~.~.........~..~.~~......~...............
..~~..................................... ...........................
................................................
................ .........................................................
........................................... ................ ...........................
..........................................................................
........................................................ .............................................................
................................................................................. :
..............................
................................ ..--....................:::::::~:~:::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::!~:.:.!:::::::::::
.......................................
............... ........................I.............~~~:::
:,~~~~.~~~~~~r”~~:~~
.......................... ............................................ ..,....: ...................
................................................. ..~-.
.‘. ‘,
62
1979, net energy yielded about 51%. Since these months included the six months
of low loading rates, an estimate of the annual potential net energy of the
Monroe system is probably close’to the best six months performance, 56% of the
gross gas production.

The Monroe system is not yet at optimum net energy as opportunities for energy
savings still exist. The most promising is improving the efficiency of the
heat delivery system. It was observed during the winter of 1978-1979 that the
boiler consumes excessive quantities of gas, up to 10% of daily gas production,
just to keep itself up to temperature in cold weather. Installation of a flue
damper valve has potential to save a significant portion of this gas.

-- -
 VI. ECONOMICS

An economic analysis provides a valuable decision making tool for examining an

energy producing technology. In general, it is the task of an economic analysis
to assess the costs associated with a given output and to allow a comparison to
other means of achieving similar ends. A secondary task of this analysis should
be to provide insight that allows trade-offs between various design options. A
final goal of an analysis of this type is to provide aid in designing policies
and incentives that would encourage the use of a socially desirable technology.

While assessing the economics of anaerobic digestion technolD.gy sized for farm
scale operations and resources, the economic analysis has some special require-
ments and problems. The methodologies used for evaluating energy producing
technologies are often adapted from traditional analysis conducted by utilities.
or private energy conglomerates to evaluate alternatives for central energy pro-
. duction. -This Style Of analysis is not as applicable to small-scale decentralized
-technologies such as a?acrohic Jigesticn. There p-p’? $~=l.rpYq~??
_iVrnnrtaitt
.__._ ~.~~-ppJies:
.
1) The consumer of energy produced by anaerobic digestion is also
the producer. The financing methods and acceptable rates of return
are very different for a farmer or consumer than a utility.
2) The utility assumes that a single economies of scale curve
can be drawn for a given technology (e.g., a thermal power plant).
For anaerobic digestion, a series of.curves would be available
depending on the design trade-offs, farm size operation, and the
sophistication of the existing manure handling system.
3) The farmer will experience a rising cost of competitive
energy (electricity, natural gas, oil). Since these are rising
much faster than inflation, the investment decision and, indeed,
the long-term rate of return on the investment capital will be
strongly influenced by the rate of energy cost increase.
4) The farmer is faced with rapid inflation in all costs. The
value of any capital investment will increase over time. Even
if energy costs rise at the rate of inflation, a capital investment
that produces a benefit will ultimately be a good investment as
the value of money falls.
5) Anaerobic digestion has other non-quantifiable benefits such
as pollution control, odor control, increased ease in manure
 64

handling, and increased

. fertilizer vclluc of the manure effluent.
While it is difficult to assign economic value to these benefits,
they will be factors in a farmer's investment decision beyond
the value of the energy produced. Furthermore, the value of the
investments will vary from farm to .farm, making an a priori
analysis of them essentially impossible at this level of generality.

For-this report, an economic model has been developed and used that overcomes many
of the difficulties of present inappropriate economic methodologies for evaluating
farm scale anaerobic digestion. The economic model uses standard life cycle cost
formulas for computing the price of energy necessary to cover all associated
lcosts (See Appendix 2). The analysis balances the capital costs, the
operating and maintenance costs, tax benefits, interest rates, and fuel escalation
costs against the energy produced over the life of the facility. It also includes
options for both owner financing and utility financing.

This economic model provides the flexibility to examine the impact to varying _
parameters such as financing options, capital costs, inflation rates, interest
rates, and capital credits. Thiq flexibility allows an evaluation of how to
optimize the economic return from a system, as well as comparing the cost of
energy produced from this technology to the cost of energy from other technologies.

In the analysis, two financing options are examined. Cne system is financed by
_._. .. -
a farmer, and the other is financed by a utility. as part of its new electrical
generating capacity. .Within each of these financing options, both digestion
systems that include manure handling components and those that are an exaansion of
existing manure handling systems, are examined. Any system can be evaluated for
producing gas or producing electricity. This effects a system's capital cost,
maintenance costs and operating costs. Most options are examined at both two
hundred and four hundred head dairies. Because of the difficulty of assigning
a cost of labor to a farm operation that does not require hiring a full-time
operator, the economic information is presented for both a labor cost of $4.00
per hour, raised with the rate of inflation, and for no labor costs. One additional
system is evaluated for an owner-built system at the ZOO-head size. All options
are evaluated with no credits taken for other benefits, and assuming all the
energy produced is used. The other assumptions common to all options are presented
in Table -4.
 Table 4.: Life Cycle Assumptions

1. Inflation 10%
2. Fuel Escalation 13% f
3. Interest/Opportunities Cost 12% .

4. Life 20 years
5. Credits on Capital 20% Investment Tax Credit
$3,500 Clean Water Act Credit
(for farmer financed systems that
include manure handling)
6. Tax Rate (marginal) 0.2
7. Competitive Energy Costs $3.69/GigaJoule
$O.O4/kwH
8. Efficiency of electricity
Production 20%

For a farmer financed system, the interest rate on the capital investment is
assumed to be 12%. The annual payment is computed by standard mortgage interest
formulas. For the utility financed system, a different method is used. Utilities
allow two sorts of capital costs, the first being a rate of return or profit on
their invested capital (equity), and the second, cost of the capital borrowed (debt).

The output and cost assumptions that vary in different options are listed in
Table 2;' These include energy production, capital costs, and op.erating and-ma&
tenance costs. The capital costs vary for the following reasons. If a system
produces gas as the primary output, no engine generator is required. If electri-
city is the primary output, the need for a boiler is eliminated. If manure handl-
ing is not included, the costs of the manurehandling pump, the influent tank,
and the manure handling plumbing is eliminated, and the labor costs are reduced
to reflect only digester operating labor, as distinct from manure handling. For
the site-built system, the labor construction costs are reduced and the profit
for the company providing the packaged system is eliminated. Maintenance costs
reflect need to completely replace each piece of equipment once during the ZO-year
life, and to account for the inflation that would occur in the costs over 20 years.
 Y..

Table 5 : Energy Outputs, Capital, Operation and Maintenance Costs for Various
Digestion Systems

200 Head System

With manure handling Without manure handling
- gas elec gas elec
Net Output ,110s GJ 93.1 Mwh 1108 GJ . 93.1 Mwh
Capital Cost 60,514 64,900 55,114 59,500
Dperator Cost
(labor) 1,460 1,460 876 876
Maintenance Cost 920 1,000 770 850

200 Head (Site-built) System

With manure handling Without manure handling
gas elec gas elec
Net Output 1108 GJ 93.1 MwH 1108 GJ 93.1 MwH
Capital Costs 45,114
Operator Cost 1,460 1,460 876 876
(labor)
Maintenance Cost 920 1,000 770 850

400 Head System

With manure handling Without manure handling
gas elec gas elec
Net Dutput 2216 GJ 186.2 MwH 2216 GJ 186.2 MwH
Capital Cost 106,810
Operator Cost
(labor) -2,190 2,190 1,314 1,314
Maintenance Costs 1,110 1,325 1,175

NOTE: output, operator cost, and maintenance cost are on an annual basis.

____. ..-- -,._ - -.

 67

The cost of energy produced by the various systems is presented in Tables 6 and L.
All owner financed systems produce energy that is less than the present cost of
propane or fuel oil. Systems that discount labor are less than or equal to the
cost of natural gas in many areas of the country. Figure 27 compares costs of various
fuels available to farmers with costs of bio-gas produced from anaerobic digesters
and-ffsynthetic fuels."

The cost of electricity produced is presented in Table 1. All farmer financed

systems produce electricity for less than $.OSS/kwH. These systems are already
cost comoetitive in some areas of the country. In the case of utility financed
systems, the costs are somewhat higher. Although the larger scale plants would
provide competitive electricity, when compared with the rising cost of energy
produced from new thermal plants ($.060/kwH), the rate of return allowed the
utility significantly increases the energy costs.

This suggests that perhaps a farmer-owned digester producing energy is the most
cost effective overall. Certainly, the farmer is given the opportunity to profit
over the utility. If the farmer insists on a rate of return similar to the
utility, then very likely the "cost" of the energy leaving the farm would be
similar. The energy costs in Table -7 do not include this profit, but rather
provide the "break even" cost for the farmer. Since the farmer also accrues
benefits other than energy, a "break even" selling price is Feasonable since that .-.. _
price pays for all costs, thus the remaining benefits are free.

The analysis takes into account current incentives available for this type of
investment. The impact of these incentives, however, is not great.
Recent federal legislation has been proposed that would provide low interest loans
to finance the purchase of solar technologies., Some versions of the legislations
provide interest subsidies of up to 6% less than the current interest rates. To
assess the impact of this financial incentive on the economics of digestion, a
200-head packaged system was evaluated at a range of interest rates from 6% to
12% [Figure 28). The impact of this sort or‘ incentive program over simple capital
or tax credits is considerable.

Anaerobic digestion has often been considered to be of minor importance as an

energy source because of the relatively small amount of manure that can be di-
gested to make energy as compared to the energy needs of this country. Quantity
able 6: Cost of Gas for Farm Scale Anaerobic Digestion Systems in $ per Giga Joule

.
200 Head Systems

Owner Financed Utility Financed

with labor without labor with labor
._-,
ackaged Systems with
anure handling $5.21 $3.75 $7.55
ackaged Systems without
anure handling 4.26 3.38 6.08
ite-built System with
anure handling 4.77 3.30
ite-built without
anure handling 3.55 2.67

400 Head Systems

Owner Financed Utility Financed

w:th labor without labor with labor
.
ackaged System with
anure handling $4.04 $2.94 $5.75
ackaged System without .
anure handling 3.23 2.56 4.90 a
 69

Table 7 : Cost of Electricity for Farm Scale Digestion Systems . in $ per Kilowatt Hour

200 Head Systems

Owner Financed Utility Financed
with labor without labor . with labor

Packaged Systems with

manure handling $.054 $.039 $.081
ackaged Systems without
anure handling .045 .036 .064
ite-built with
.050 .034
ite-built without
anure handling .042 .032

400 Head System

Owner Financing Utility Financing
with labor without labor with labor
ackaged Systems with
anure handling $.045 $.031 $.064
ackaged System without
anure handling .036 .028 .D55
5
E
3

c
\‘
:;\’
.. .
l3l-2

00
I
0 0

31nop v913- /+I

 4.00 . 4.50 * 55.00 X50

Coeq- OF EUWY IN f+~AJoL)=

Figure 28

is, however, not the only criteria by. which an energy source should be judged.
This analysis demonstrates that the energy produced by anaerobic digestion is
competitive with present energy costs and with the utility's marginal cost of
1 production. With any decentralized technology, this should be the primary cri-
teria for evaluation, not its overall impact, for there are many technologies
that produce only a small percentage of our national energy needs at competitive
costs. Individually, the technologies are of little consequence, but collectively
they form the basis for a national energy independence that is within our means.
Anaerobic digestion can make our dairies and feedlots'significantly less dependent
on fossil fuels and net energy producers. This would be an important step in the
development of an agriculture that is increasingly less vulnerable to the uncer-
tainties of our current energy supply and to the devastating inflation rate
associated with that supply.
 72

APPENDIXI

Calculation of the Slurry--. ride Film Coefficient of the Draft Tube Heat

Calculation of the overall heat transfer coefficient

Rate of heat transfer (Q)

Where M = 437 lbm/min

CP = 0.999 Btu/lbm-OF
&
H2° = 4.5'F
TH20 = 120'F
Q= 1965 Btu/min
B. Heat exchange area

A =nD2H +qDlH + 2nD; -qD; Where D2 = 34 in.

? k-14 4 Dl + 30 in.
A= 45.4 ft'
C. Overall heat transfer coefficient
U,= Q Where LIT = 22.8'F
AOm Q = 1965 Btu/min
A = 45.4 ft2
“0
= 114 Btu/hr-ft2-F = 2.33 x106 joules/hr-m O2- 0C

II. Calculation of the water side film coefficient

A. Calculate the Reynold's number
i
Re = 4m Where M = 437 lbm/min
riu
DH = 0.33 ft
u= 0.62 C
P
TH20 = 120'F
B. Calculate the Prandtl number
Pr = CDU Where Cp = 0.999 Btu/lbm-OF
k
u= 0.62 Cp
k = 0.372 Btu/hr-ft-OF
Pr = 4.03
 7zr---

_5
c. Calculate the water-s ide coefficient
= 0.023 (Re)0*8Pr0.33 Where Re = 66778
hiDH
k Pr = 4.05
= 0.33 ft
DH
k= 0.372 Btu/hr-ft-OF
h. = 296 Btu/hr-ft2-0 F = 6.05 x lo6 joules&r-m2 - 'C
1

III. 'Calculation of the slurry-side film - coefficient

u. = 1 Where hi = 296 Btu/hr-ft 20- F (water)
7 1 +-- 1
hl hn
ho = ? (slurry)
_- ._ - 20
= 114 Etu/hr-ft---F
9n % 3 -
= 185 Bt u/hr-ft'-'F = 3.78 x lo6 joules/hr-m"-"C
hO
APPENDIX II

COr(PAMTIVE SOL&R EtDNCWCS-

REAL COST c0wA!41soH

David Daylon Bruce O’Hallorm .

Ecotope Group C.P.A.
2352 E. Madison
Suttlc, WA 98112

might meet the need for fuel. This is flawd reasoning. for
e consumer investment decision is not bared on the rate of
return, paybSck period, or life cycle economics of that
The basis of solar economics is discussed in the context of particular investment. In fact, few if my consumer
four technologies. Passive/hybrid solar heating in new and investments arc based on such long-tern considerations. The
remodel Spplicrtioa. Solar hot ‘mter heating. active solar initiS1 cost has dominated consumer decisions, and at best
hating, and enaerobic digestion rre compared on payback a vague knowledge of the life-cycle performance is included.
priods. rate of return, and the cost of energy generated/
saved by these technologies. A life cycle Smlysis will Nevertheless. the use of this analysis is instructive in
foa the basis of the comparison, which includes operating dealing with design decisions for specific clients, and
dam as the basis for the life cycle ersumptions. The in providing a consumer-oriented picture of a systems
capital costs. operation costs. and maintenance costs will economics to rhc consumer. This should not be contrasted
be considered. Ss well as fuel escalation and inflation. with the value of the solar sysrca in its larger economic
and social context. The important concepts here center on
The output from this analysis will be compSrcd to the the interrelationship between capital costs rnnuallred over
present end future marginal cost of energy produced from the life of the investment. and annual fuel costs for the
‘conventionrl ’ energy sotwccs such as oil and electricity. energy Source being replaced. These cost strews arc
. and Sn evaluation of cost of the various energy production edified by three important factors: interest or discount
options including solar-bared renewable technologies will rates. inflation rates, and fuel cost escalation rates.
be included. Given that these are constant over the life of the
. investment, and thnt the fuel escalation rate is larger
tnan the inflation rate. ea curves can be dram (ICC Fig.
SIBFURY 11. In this cese capitS costs Sre l ssumrd to be
annurlized by S mortgage payment formulS:
The dcvclopment of solar energy es a viable energy
i
producing technology has progressed considerably in the AP-cc ( 1 (1)

1rsr 10 yerrs. The source of this progress has not, 1 - (1 l u-l

however, been essentially technological development. The
flat plate col1ecr.r YU developed 70 years Sgo, and its
SdSption to air heat collection is over 50 years old. This is then modified by correcting for inflation. to wit:
Passive systems were developed by the Greeks and Remans, and
while they were ignored until fairly recently, they hardly
qurlify l S the “legitimate
w
technical breakthrough that makes lee -i
Solar energy feasible.” In fact, m such breakthrough has IT-AP= I +q-)
occtied. i=l

Wl~y are IC then told after l decade of tinkering that solar

Integrating with respect to i where r is constant. ld not
rnrrgy is feasible when it was 25 years eway, only three equal to 0:
years ago? The mason, of course, is economics. Solar
cncrnis no longer a political stepchild, but rether the -N
1 - (l+r)
legitimate heir to the energy supplies of the future. The TP- AP -
*
(3)
battle over the legitimacy of solar was not rpn in the
leboretory. it was mnn by accountants and statisticians.
uhusc methods are the rcai story of the solar brenkthmugh. When equarion 3 is solved for the life of the investment.
TP is the total capital cost over chat life. andet:t:,the
It is the purpose of this pnper to describe tw l nalyticnl area under the capital cost curve in Fig. 1.
appmachcs to cnarg economics: cost curve is computed as:
I) Consumer economics- the prevailing wisdom in soler
ocnnomio based on soler energy as l consumer investment II
l+c ]i
2) Utility economicl- TP- AT - I
an analysis in which solar ( I*1
mergY is compared to other methods of pmducing and i-1
delivering the energy nrcessaty to perform the functions
of the society.
Integrating with respccr to i (where e i rl:

OolsWR ECONOWICS

The cssentisl assumption of this analysis is that the

cconodcr of solar energy on be sunanarired by the cost of
the technology to its ultimate consumer. In this case, the Equation S is the equation for the area under the ctfectiw
assumption is that the consumer investment will be based on fuel cost curve correcting for inflation and fuel cost
the lonptcrm cne,‘rr costs of the other energy sources that escalation in Fig. 1.
 ^__. _ --_ ._.___
-d

75

Fmm these two lines various situations can be computed; the

aost often used is the payback. This is defined as the year
in which the area under the fuel cost turve and the area
under the capital cost curve are equal. By solving for this
point the equation becomes:

-N
J l*c i I- (I**)
ln I.\;) ln tI,r’CC (I- [**iI-IV) ( ln 11.~) ) l II
K-

(6)

A second statistic is the rat- of return. This is defined

as the average economic returr, on invested capital over the
life of the investment:
1
w-c ‘ii
N- (‘fpl -1 (71

Simply: the total benefits minus operation costs over the

total capital invested. If the computatjons of TF G TP
are corrected for inflation then H is the real rate of
return above inflation, and I/h’ averages the rate of return
over the entire life. Properly then, the rate of return is Fig. I
computed as the average difference per year between the
areas under the tm curves.

UFlLIlY ECONOMICS to its owner, in addition to its energy pmduction

capabilities. ‘The consumer eust consider these benefits
The use of utility economics brings one additional in any design to maximize the benefits from the system.
dimension to the analysis. By this method the figures can This analysis conservatively ignores the benefits other
compute the average cost of the energy produced over the than direct economic benefits of alternative energy
life cycle of the technology. This computation is somewhat production. It evaluates the economic benefits of
simpler in that only the capital cost curve is relevant. conservation, passive solar, active solar, and anaerobic
Utilities allow two sorts of capital costs, the first a digesters.
rate of return or profit on their invested capital
(equity), and the. second, cost of the capital borrowed Canservatian provides unquantified benefits of more
(debt). These two rates are substantially different, and comfortable indoor temperatures fret of drafts, and the
indeed over the life of the investment the ratio of equity satisfaction of personal contribution to local and national
to debt will change. (Scigll, et al, 1972.) Of course, energy independence. Some of these benefits for passive
the utifity is constantly investing and borrowing. and for systems include: batter indoor lighting, a feeling of
the whole system this ratio remains relatively constant. spaciousness, potential for indoor food production. usually
So for simplicity’s sake only one rate will be used. The more comfortable indoor temperatures. the lack of drafts
integral of the annual capital cost would then be: csuscd by many forced-air systems, and the satisfaction of
obtaining greater energy independence. Anaerobic digesters
1- (lcr)-N ) pmvide benefits of odor reduction. water pollution control.
TP= cc I( i+1) integrated manure handling, fertilizer production. and
In (l+r)
pxitcr self-sufficiency. The value of these benefits
varies between individuals, site locations, and specific
where the annual rate of return is paid each year for the system designs. An individual considering investment in
life but devalued by inflation over time. If the curve these technologies must carefully evaluate these benefits
for the consumer investment is used then the cost of energy in addition to evaluating the economic beneflrs of the
is simply the total cost computed in equation 3. The cost system.
of energy is then the total cost divided by the energy
pmduccd over the life, or: The economic benefits of systems are also not easily
quantified because a pmpcr economic analysis of this
TC+C technology that produces or saves energy for an individual
mE= consumer must assass the future costs of the alternative
E
energy sources such as fossil fuels and electricity. One
expects these costs to rise by an undetermined amount.
The difference between calculating TC by equation I over which is affected by the relative impact of general
equation 3 is that equation 8 will tell you how much the inflationary cost escalations. This analysis provides
utility would charge if they could own the energy, and payback and present value analysis data based upon
equation 3 is the actual cost to the consumer. It is not projections into the future that may or may not match
surprising that the utility method mughly doubles the total future events.
capitml cost.
The application of this methodology is presented in Table 1.
l%a casas presented arc I) a solar house built in Edmnds.
CDWARATIVE SOUR ECONOMICS WA (Ecotope Cmup. 1977); 21 a proposed solar remodel in
Seattle, WA (Baylon. et al, 1978); and 3) the methane
The economics of all solar instailations contain digester built in bbnroc, WA (Coppinger, et al, 1976). The
uncertainties associated with any consumer technology assumptions for computing this table arc in Table 2.
that provides a number of tangible and intangibic bcnefi::

.
 76

table 1. COWARATlVX ECONOMICS FOR SELECTED SOUR TECWOLOCIES

CONSS4Hi IJTILln

Capital Energy Energy Energy Payback Fate Colt COSC

COSl Savings Savings Savings Year5 of Credits of Credits of
($1 (weTus) [I) (II Return Energy Energy
(avsr~pc) (marginal) (aVerape)

mum conscrva~ion 1300 91 4% 910 3.6 -11 130 .91 130 .ss
,ivc solar * 5200 73 365 730 11.4 .06 1240 3.02 520 5.28
Ye molar 11200 76 380 760 15.1 .OS 1840 4.60 820 7.95
,crvrtion/ 6500 107 53s 1070 10.4 .Ob 1370 2.77 650 4.61
msivc solar
,trvrtion/ 9500 110 550 1100 13.3 .OS 1970 3.79 950 b. 3ll
ire solar

mm conservation 1900 74 370 74” 5.5 .I0 190 1.55 190 2.33
due solar 3000 45 225 450 10.2 -06 750 3.76 300 6.52
IL solar 5900 45 225 480 lb.1 -02 1390 7.09 590 12.39
8rrvationf 4 900 92 400 920 9.1 -07 940 3.09 490 5.07
,sive solar
.errationf 7800 95 495 990 12.2 .M lS80 4.57 780 7.69
ire solar

a4300 2833 8499 28330 9.3 .06 14130 2.94 8430 3.26
69400 ii24 4272 14240 13.1 .w 12640 4.62 6940 6.20
60700 b07 2061 6870 18.7 -00 11770 1.01 6070 10.90

consumer invertmcncs analysis uses those credits fits accruing to the whole society char arc not necessarily
lablc to a consuacr such 81 she solar tar. credits, attractive to an individual. For this reason the utility
c the utility rnrlysis uses only the 10% invcstxcnt tax a.?d its economic benefits must be considered as a viable
‘its. The cost of energy to the consumer is based an a opt ion.
CJCJC cost. rich no residual value at the conplerion of
invesrmcnr’s economic life. This is probably nor true. In Care III the anaerobic digester comparisons illustrate
cially in the case of a new house with a passive system. the cconoaies of scale associated with this technology.
syrrs could be expected to last (and )avc energy) for Here when compared to current gas costs, economic scale
~ng as the house, which should be at lust twice as long might bc about 200 cors;~hcn conparcd to m.arg~nal costs
he 'economic life’ of the mortgage. men 8 very small digester of this type wuld be
economically feasible at the margin.
utility economics presented also assume no residual I
c; korcrcr. this is less severe in that the utility may
rked to turo its invcsrmcnt over to the borrower after it fable 7. MSIJWTIONS FOR LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
received its rate of return for the ‘economic life.’
c 3 provides the relevant cost comparison for utility Interest race 121
meing. Avsrngc rate of return (utility) 12\
Inflation 78
cncral. with addition of fax credits for solar and Fuel escalation costs 1u
crvation investments, the pryhck periods and rate of Credits (home owner)
m become quite attractive, euen for relatively expensive insolrtion credit .1a
HI,. The cost of a passive solar option for a new house rcncw=ble credit 5M first 52000,
-f $2.77/MElLls saved, ataut 60% of the current cost of 2m next $8000
I,’ to the consumer. This of course ignores other Credits (ctiliry)
Bmic benefits and the increase in the home’s long-term invcsmcnt credit 10%
CL v8lue. Tu r8tCs
homeowners 2a
re solar systems are somewhat lore expensive, but with utility 48%
its they remain an attractive investment when compared Life
mp-trm energy costs. Both active and passive systems new construction 30 yurs
combined in 4 toral energy package for a home yield remodel 20 yems
.cffccrire energy ravings, with payback periods methane digester 25 yews
untially below the life of chc mortgage. However * Residual value SO
c most homeowners mve within sir y~rs. the feasibility
ast of these options depends oo the increase on thm sale
I of the home or some further subsidy to make this
-effrzrirc invcsucnt also artractivc to the avorago
wtx.r. This suggests rhrc sine the cpcrgy saving bene-
 77

ENRGY FOR ENERGY PRODlXTlDN TF: total savings over the economic lift
It: payback year
n the life cycle costs of solar cncrgy are compared on an c: total cost of operatlon, the investment over the life
ividrvl basis. the economics are attractive. The issue. )I: rake of return to the consumer
ever, Is LDI solar energy ss @ consumer invesrment. but E: rota1 energy produced/savrd over tht ecor&ic life
economic standing when compared with the alternate (llnJs, Khli, etc.)
s to acquire the next units of energy. The cost of COE : average cost of the produced/saval energy over the
se units is known~urginal cost. economic lift of the investment

the case of electricity. for example, the marginal cost

the cost of electricity from the new thermal plants --References
rcntly estimated at $12/HBTU,and climbing). This cost
not seen by the consumer; in is seen by the utility. Bayloll, et al. 1978. Solar/Conservation Rcmdei Candidates
sc COILS l rC sunwrited in fable 3. When the future for Seattle City Lxght. Ecotope Group, Seattle, NA
t of conventional energy sources is compared with the
c cycle cost of energy produced with an investment in Coppinger. et al, 1978. Report on the Design and First
ar resources, it becomes apparent tlut at the margin the Year Operation rf a 50,000 Gallon Anacroblc Digester.
t cost-effective invcstmrnrs are in solar energy and in Ecoropc Group, Scartlc, WA
rcrration applied to the individual home.
Ecotope Group. 1977. “Solar Energy in the Pacific Northwest,**
BatrelIc Memorial Institute, Richland, KA
Table 3. UTILITI FINANCING ($/HBTUs)
Strrub, et ~1. 1976. Feasibility of Solar Retrofit for the
vcrqc) 1950 1960 1970 1980 margin Black Residence, Ecorcpc Group, Scattic, WA
(19791
cost Stigal. Ct al, 1972. Description of Gas Cost Calculation
1 1.50 1.50 1.50 10.00 12.00 Hethod Being Used by the Synthetic Gas-Coal Task
S 1.00 1.20 9.00 10.80 Force of the F.P.C. Natzonal Gas Survey, ES50
trirlty 4.50 4.00 2.50 5.00 lb.30 Research and Engincerxng, Yashrngton. D.C.

l-Z.50 2.50

S-7.50 7.50
8-12.00 12.00
s-10.50 10.50

gobic Di;estion
Do COYS 3.20
00 COYS 6.20
10.9a

irony here is that utilities have access to capital to

cst in new energy supplies. Indeed. utilities are
crally berrer able to .raise capital than even large
rations. kut that capital in the past has been
irmd to large plants with huge capital requirements.
arulysis dcsonszrates that, taking all choices into
deration. the utility’s best choice is not a coal
a nuclear plant. a coal gasification unit, or the
brt market, bt rather the energy fhat could be
ccd at their customers’ own homes. This is the
ral challenge of solar energy, and it will cause some
fonduentrl changes in the instlturions that have ’
cred energy in the past. The use of utilities as
niws to purchase solar energy independence for DKT
~st be considered the top priority.

voug? -3%~ rahanis a sufficient amount of energy wuld

: sare.Cp md the need for new purchases at the margin
LiNltc. This would bring about tht real ‘breakthrough’
1 iiier alergy.

,.. initial capital cost of the investment

inrerest ratchtt of return
inflation rate
furl cost escalation rate
economic life of tbc investment .
: 8-1 papent on the investment
: M of all uw.ul payments over the life, converted
for inflation
: cost of annul fuel uvad/pmduccd for competitive
fuels

,---.