GREEN Biogas Consulting

Company’s
AD Plant Design

Report Developed for EVG

5179 December 16, 2022

Submitted to: Niloofar Abdehagh, PhD, PEng,

PMP, MBA

Submitted By: Group 1

Emmad Uddin Cheema: 300277665

Naziza Rahman: 300204176
Sanjib Chakraborty: 300274690
Syed Ayzaz: 300185C072
Sajad Khan: 300264928
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Climate change is the major environmental concern now a days. Emission of greenhouse gas
constitutes a major part of that concern. Anaerobic digestion technique is a widely used
technique which contributes to the control of greenhouse gas emission through the production of
biogas. Thus, can contribute potentially to global climate concern. Biogas contributes to the
green energy pathway for a cleaner, greener, and sustainable environment by producing energy,
electricity, and green gas for transportation. Along with environmental benefits it offers
economic benefits, waste solutions, energy solutions thus promote circular economy. According
to a recent report, the county of Bruce consumed 1.2 thousand MWh of electricity in the year
2022. The cost to produce this amount of electricity was about three times more than the cost of
the natural gas used to generate electricity. It requires a lot of natural gas to produce an amount
of electricity, when compared to other methods of electricity production. Natural gas is a non-
renewable source of energy so excessive use can cause scarcity of natural gas. To deal with this
environmental issue, the provincial government of Ontario has engaged GREEN BIOGAS
Consulting Company to design an anaerobic digestion (AD) plant in Bruce County, which will
be capable of generating 3 MW of electricity. GREEN BIOGAS Consulting will be using three
different feedstocks from local sources: dairy cow manure, beef cow manure, and vegetable
wastes. The vegetable waste will come from different sources such as retail and wholesale
markets and restaurants. The proposed AD plant will generate 3MW of electricity from the
upgraded biogas produced by using organic waste. The plant will produce fertilizer in various
forms from the digestate, which will be available for farmers to purchase. A cost analysis was
completed by GREEN BIOGAS Consulting Company that indicates this plant will have a
payback period of 20 years.

Page | ii
 Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................vi
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1
1.1. BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................1
1.2. CSTR.......................................................................................................................................................2
1.3. AD PROCESS........................................................................................................................................3
2. DESIGN TARGETS...................................................................................................................................4
2.1. FEEDSTOCK MATERIAL....................................................................................................................4
2.2. BIOGAS YIELD.....................................................................................................................................5
2.3. BIOGAS AND ENERGY PRODUCTION............................................................................................6
3. UPSTREAM COMPONENTS...................................................................................................................7
3.1. RECEIVING AND STORAGE..............................................................................................................7
3.2. PRETREATMENT.................................................................................................................................8
3.3. HYDROLYZER.....................................................................................................................................8
4. DESIGN PARAMETERS........................................................................................................................10
4.1. FEEDSTOCK CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................10
4.1.1. BIOGAS AND ENERGY PRODUCTION.......................................................................................11
4.1.2. CSTR REACTOR MASS BALANCE..............................................................................................12
4.2. CSTR DIMENSIONS...........................................................................................................................14
5. BIOGAS STORAGE, CONDITIONING, UPGRADING, UTILIZATION............................................15
5.1. BIOGAS DESCRIPTION AND STORAGE........................................................................................15
5.2. BIOGAS DRYING AND CLEANING................................................................................................16
5.3. BIOGAS UPGRADING.......................................................................................................................17
5.4. BIOGAS UTILIZATION.....................................................................................................................18
5.5. BIOGAS ENGINE................................................................................................................................19
6. DIGESTATE STORAGE TANK............................................................................................................20
7. DIGESTATE TREATMENT AND UTILIZATION..............................................................................20
7.1. METHODOLOGY FOR DIGESTATE SEPERATION......................................................................21
7.2. VOLUME REDUCTION AND RECOVERY OF NUTRIENT..........................................................23
8. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM................................................................................................................26
9. MAINTENANCE PLAN.........................................................................................................................26

Page | iii
10. COST ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................................27
11. CONCLUSION OF DESIGN................................................................................................................28
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX B..............................................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX C..............................................................................................................................................35
APPENDIX E..............................................................................................................................................38
APPENDIX F...............................................................................................................................................39

Page | iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Typical CSTR for AD (Jog Waste to Energy, 2022).....................................................................2
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of anaerobic digestion steps (Sarkar et al 2019).............................................3
Figure 3: Flow diagram to hydrolyzer...........................................................................................................9
Figure 4: Flow diagram of thermal pretreatment for manure and vegetable waste.....................................10
Figure 5: Biogas storage tank (SRL, 2021).................................................................................................16
Figure 6: Pressure swing absorption apparatus (Angelidaki et al., 2018)...................................................18
Figure 7: Combustion engine used to convert biogas to electricity (Inoplex 2021)............................19
Figure 8: Digestate storage tank (H2flow, 2021).........................................................................................20
Figure 9: Treatment process flow diagram (Fuchs and Drosg, 2010).........................................................21
Figure 10: A typical Screw press separator (Hjorth, Maibritt, et al 2011)..................................................22
Figure 11: Nutrient Recovery from Digestate ( VanderZaag, 2022)...........................................................24
Figure 12: Process Flow Diagram of GREEN BIOGAS Consulting's AD plant design.....................26
Figure 13: Pie chart for operational and maintenance cost of a biogas plant (Biogas World 2021)...........27

Page | v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Availability, TS, and VS % values for each feedstock....................................................................5
Table 2: Literature biogas yield values for each feedstock (SATTLER 2011).............................................5
Table 3: Calculated biogas yield values for each feedstock (United States Department of Agriculture
2008)..............................................................................................................................................................6
Table 4: The total power production for the CSTR reactor...........................................................................6
Table 5: Feedstock flow rate to the AD plant in tons per day, and the TS percentage for each feedstock.. .7
Table 6: Storage tank volume for manure and vegetable waste....................................................................7
Table 7: Flowrate of vegetable waste to the hydrolyzer................................................................................9
Table 8: Hydrolyzer dimensions, calculations based on 10 days HRT, and a 4 m height.............................9
Table 9: Chute dimensions for hydrolyzer.....................................................................................................9
Table 10: Clean influent values for each feedstock.....................................................................................11
Table 11: The total power production for the CSTR reactor.......................................................................12
Table 12: Mass balance values around CSTR reactor...............................................................................12
Table 13: TS and VS values in the digestate...............................................................................................14
Table 14: Dimensions used for sizing reactor..............................................................................................15
Table 15: Percentage of each biogas component before and after cleaning and drying..............................17
Table 16: Bruce County 2019 Energy Consumption Data. (Energy consumption report, 2019, Townfolio,
n.d.)..............................................................................................................................................................19
Table 17: Digestate Input.............................................................................................................................20
Table 18: Values for solid-liquid separation using a screw press.............................................................22
Table 19: Design data for the bedding production.......................................................................................23
Table 20: Quantity and solid content of cake and tea-water after treatment using BAG system........24
Table 21: Design data for Cake Production.................................................................................................25
Table 22: Design data for Tea-Water Production........................................................................................25
Table 23: Nutrient Quantity at Different Stages of the Digestate Process..................................................25
Table 24: is the approximation of revenue and cost for the AD plant.........................................................28

Page | vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND

In the coming years, the biogas plant will be the center of the circular economy. Previously
considered waste streams from factories, farms, and other human activities can be routed through
biogas digesters and converted into usable energy carriers, nutrient-rich bio - fertilizers, and
innovative materials. (Fagerström et al., n.d.) Without employing energy crops, biogas sources
might supply around 3% of Canada's natural gas consumption (2,420 Mm3/year of RNG) or
1.3% of its electricity need (Canadian Biogas Study Executive Summary (n.d.)). The anaerobic
digestion process is a fermentation in which organic raw materials such as manure, food waste,
sewage sludge, and organic industrial waste are converted into biogas and digestate. (Fagerström
et al., n.d.) AD is recognized as an effective biomass conversion alternative, stabilizing usage of
biomass-derived wastes and providing the benefit of attaining the circular economy (Toop et al.,
2017)—preserving the concept: 'reduce, reuse and recycle (Sarkar et al 2019).

The Provincial Government of Ontario, Canada, commissioned GREEN Biogas Consulting

Company to design an AD plant for a city or region they deemed most suitable for it. If the
design and implementation is successful, the government will create more policies to promote
AD plants for biogas generation. Biogas production is highly dependent on the policies created
by the province (Green 2021). As a result, GREEN Biogas Consulting intends to create a top-
notch AD plant design in the aspirations that the Ontario government would adopt more
favorable regulations toward biogas production. Promoting a circular economy, in which the
value of products and resources is maintained via best efforts, is the driving force for Ontario's
efforts to develop an AD plant.(Strategy for a ONTARIO Building the CIRCULAR ECONOMY,
2017).

The second circular economy principle is to cycle materials and products at their maximum
value. There are several ways to maintain the circulation of products and materials; the
technological cycle and the biological cycle are two important cycles. In the biological cycle,
anaerobic digestion is a technique for recovering the components included in organic waste. The
byproducts of anaerobic digestion are biogas and a solid residue called digestate.

In the following report, GREEN BIOGAS Consulting proposes a new design for an AD facility
that uses a Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) to generate 3 MW of electricity. GREEN
BIOGAS Consulting was also tasked with locating an appropriate city or location for the AD
facility. Selecting the area of interest was the first stage in designing an AD plant. The feedstock
material has been selected based on its characteristics, and the AD plant's design specifications
are based on the feedstock and design standards.
GREEN BIOGAS Consulting repeated the same calculations using various feedstock
combinations of sludge from wastewater treatment plants, swine manure, dairy cow manure, beef
manure, and vegetable waste to achieve the target of 3 MW. GREEN BIOGAS Consulting
understood that the ideal combination of feedstock materials should limit transportation and
facility costs. Based on the iterative calculations, it was found that the ideal feedstock materials
include dairy cow manure, beef manure, and vegetable waste.

Page | 1
Canadian dairy farms have an average of 96 milking cows per farm (DFC - PLC 2021). Using
Ontario’s Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs statistics regarding the number of
dairy farms per county in 2017, Bruce County was found to have the most suitable number of
dairy farms to achieve the 3 MW target. Bruce County has 158 dairy farms that would provide
sufficient cow manure for the feedstock of the AD plant (Nicholas 2017). Vegetable waste was
chosen as one of the three feedstocks as it had a high biogas yield when compared to the studied
feedstock materials mentioned previously.

1.2. CSTR

GREEN BIOGAS’s AD plant design uses a CSTR as the reactor for the AD process. Four
types of anaerobic digesters are avialable to treat animal manure: Continuously Stirred Tank
Reactors (CSTR); Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors; Upflow Anaerobic Filter
(UAF) digesters; and Baffled digesters. (Mathias 2014). Feedstocks with high TS concentrations
and slurry are mainly treated in CSTRs. Co-digestion is often carried out in wet single-step
processes (e.g., CSTR). Substrates are diluted until dry solid content is between 8 and 15%.
A continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is one of the configurations in the AD process that
could provide greater uniformity of system parameters, such as temperature, mixing, chemical
concentration, substrate concentration, and could also produce more biogas than a plug flow
reactor (PFR) could. (Li et al. 2007; Usack et al. 2012).

CSTR was the chosen reactor by GREEN BIOGAS as it is a widely used reactor to produce
biogas, it has a simple design, a low cost, it is easy to operate (Evoqua Water technologies,
2022). Complete mix digesters are suitable with a variety of livestock manure combinations and
perform well with most co-digestion feedstocks. (Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).CSTR
digesters are typically cylindrical containers made of fibre glass, steel, or reinforced concrete that
can be constructed above ground or partially submerged. (Kramer et al 2009, De Baere et al.
2008) CSTRs are constantly stirred by pumps, electric propellers, or pressurized biogas agitators
to maintain the waste's solids in suspension and prevent it from settling. (Kramer et al 2009,
Scott, et al.2010). The figure below represents a typicalCSTR used for AD.

Figure 1: Typical CSTR for AD (Jog Waste to Energy, 2022)

Page | 2
A CSTR is a single stage AD process (Varol 2016). A CSTR can be applied for AD of solid,
pasty, or liquid feedstocks (Sebigas 2021). CSTR continuously mixes the feedstock at a
controlled temperature and optimal amount of mixing to generate biogas and digestate (Sebigas
2021).

1.3. AD PROCESS

The general process of the AD process is that the bacteria in the CSTR breaks down organic
matter such as dairy manure, beef manure, and vegetable waste in anaerobic environment (EPA
2021). In general, the organic portion of biomass is utilized by microbial consortiums and
metabolized to methane and carbon dioxide, while the remainder is converted into other elements
(Kim et al.2010). The entire digestion process is divided into four stages: hydrolysis,
acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanogenesis (Schnurer et al 2010), which are dimly
summarized in Figure
2. The figure below demonstrates the four AD stages that take place in the CSTR reactor to
generate biogas.

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of anaerobic digestion steps (Sarkar et al 2019)

Hydrolysis
The principal substrate compounds (carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins) are broken down into
corresponding low molecular weight monosaccharides, long chain fatty acids, and amino acids
that are favorable for bacterial degradation during the depolymerization of insoluble complex
organic hydrocarbons into soluble monomers. Extracellular enzymes mediate the intricate
multistep process of hydrolysis. (Angelidaki et al.2011)

Page | 3
Acidogenesis
Acidogenic microorganisms such as Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, and Clostridium are present
during the acidogenesis stage (Nayono et al.2010). hydrolysis products (amino acids and sugars)
are converted into volatile fatty acids (VFAs) (acetic, butyric, and propionic acid), organic acids
(succinic acid and lactic acid), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen gas (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2),
hydrogen sulphide (H2S), and low alcohols (EInstruments 2013)

Acetogenesis
Acetogenesis, the third stage, transforms VFAs, particularly acetic and butyric acids, into
acetate, H2 and CO2. Among the VFAs, acetic acid produces 65-95% of methane immediately,
but propionic acid stays primarily unconverted since its degradation is thermodynamically less
advantageous (based on the link between hydrogen partial pressure and VFA degradation) than
butyric acid (Felchner 2014)

Methanogenesis
In the final stage, methane is generated by the function of three groups of methanogens, namely
acetotrophic, hydrogenotrophic, and methylotrophic (Gerardi 2003) The majority of the methane is
produced by acetotrophic methanogens, which transform acetate (resulting from acetogenesis) into CH4
and CO2 (André et al. 2016).

In this process, the principal reaction can be interpreted as shown by the following equation:

CH3COOH CH4+ CO2

Since CSTR is a single stage reactor, the waste is loaded simultaneously, and all four stages will
occur in the same reactor (Meegoda 2018).

2. DESIGN TARGETS

2.1. FEEDSTOCK MATERIAL

The feedstock for the CSTR reactor will be a combination of three different feedstocks: dairy
cow manure, beef cow manure, and vegetable wastes. As previously outlined, the dairy and cow
manure come from farms in Bruce County, Ontario. According to (Nicholas 2017), there are 158
farms in this area, and (DFC - PLC 2021) there are an average of 96 dairy cows each farm.
The same average number of cows per farm is used for beef cows in this report. The GREEN
BIOGAS team divided the entire number of cows in the area to obtain an equal number of dairy
and beef cows. Using this information and data from (Statistics Canada 2006) on how much
manure a cow produces in a day, will give the amount of manure within the feedstock.
(Statistics Canada 2006) outlined that 62 kg/d and 37 kg/d of manure was produced for a single
cow for dairy and beef cows respectively. The availability for each is shown in Table 1,
considering the number of cows with the calculations shown in APPENDIX A.

Page | 4
The vegetable waste consists of peas, beans, and potatoes from nearby grocery stores and
restaurants. There are around 100 locations in Bruce County that carry their vegetable waste to
the plant for digestion. Table 1 contains total solids (TS)%, volatile solids (VS)%, and VS% data
derived from previous literature study (United States Department of Agriculture 2008).
According to the findings, each location might produce up to 1000 lb/d of vegetable waste. This
is the value chosen by the GREEN BIOGAS team. Table 1 summarises the overall amount of
vegetable waste used in the feedstock based on this information, with the calculations presented
in APPENDIX A.

Table 1: Availability, TS, and VS % values for each feedstock.

AVAILABILITY
FEEDSTOCK (TONNE/DAY) TS % VS OF TS % VS %
DAIRY 470.208 12.80 85.71 10.98
COW MANURE
BEEF COW MANURE 280.608 7.96 82.05 6.53

VEGETABLE WASTE 45.36 15.00 72.00 10.80

(BEANS, PEAS &
POTATOES)

2.2. BIOGAS YIELD

The biogas yields were determined by using the TS% and VS% values from Table 1 and the
literature biogas yield values that were found for each feedstock are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Literature biogas yield values for each feedstock (SATTLER 2011)

FEEDSTOCK LITERATURE BIOGAS YIELD (L/KG VS)

DAIRY COW MANURE 500
BEEF COW MANURE 500
VEGETABLE WASTE (BEANS, PEAS & POTATOES) 400

To determine the biogas yield values, A sample calculation for the biogas yield for dairy cow
manure follows Equation 1. The calculation for two remaining feedstocks can be found in
APPENDIX B, and the values for the biogas yields are outlined in Table 3.

Biogas yield = TS% × (VS of TS%)× Literature biogas yield

Biogas yield dairy manure= (12.8%)×(85.71%)× 500
[1]
𝐿
𝑘𝑔 𝑉𝑆

Biogas yield dairy manure = 𝑚 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠

3

54.88 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑉𝑆

Page | 5
Table 3: Calculated biogas yield values for each feedstock (United States Department of
Agriculture 2008)

FEEDSTOCK BIOGAS YIELD (m3 BIOGAS/TONNE VS)

DAIRY COW MANURE 54.88

BEEF COW MANURE 32.65

VEGETABLE WASTE (BEANS, PEAS & 43.2

POTATOES)

2.3. BIOGAS AND ENERGY PRODUCTION

To determine the total biogas production from the feedstock, Equation 2 was used.

Total Biogas Production =∑(Availability × Biogas yield

tonne m3 biogas

day tonne
) [2]
Total Biogas Production = ∑(470.208 × 54.88 ) + (280.608tonne ×32.65
tonne m3 biogas

day tonn day

m3 biogas e
tonne
×43.20
m3
biogas
)+ (45.36

tonn da tonne
)
e y m3 biogas
da
Total Biogas Production =36926.42
y

𝑚3𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠/ ℎ𝑟 to calculate the power production in 𝑘𝑊ℎ since 1 𝑚3 is equivalent to 2

For the total power production, the total biogas production value was converted into

𝑘𝑊ℎ. This conversion results in a total biogas production of 1538.6008 𝑚3 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠/ℎ𝑟 and
multiplying this by 2 gives a total power production of 3077.202 𝑘𝑊. A summary of the
determined values is outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: The total power production for the CSTR reactor.

FEEDSTOCK BIOGAS YIELD UNITS

(m3 BIOGAS/TONNE VS)
36926.42 m3biogas/day
TOTAL BIOGAS PRODUCTION 42.46 tonne biogas/day
1538.6008 m3 biogas/hr
13478143.3 m3 biogas/yr
TOTAL POWER PRODUCTION 3077.202 kWh
3.077202 MWh

Page | 6
3. UPSTREAM COMPONENTS
3.1. RECEIVING AND STORAGE
Receiving tanks were created to hold feedstock before it was injected into the CSTR for
breakdown. The size of each storage tank was decided by the amount of feedstock received and
the level of contamination. It was discovered that manure and vegetable waste were kept in
separate tanks. Table 5 summarizes the previously described feedstock flowrate.

Table 5: Feedstock flow rate to the AD plant in tons per day, and the TS percentage for
each feedstock.

FEEDSTOCK AVAILABILITY TS% VS OF TS% VS% STATE

(TONNE/DAY)
DAIRY COW 470.208 12.80 85.71 10.98 Liquid
MANURE

BEEF COW 280.608 7.96 82.05 6.53 Liquid

MANURE

VEGETABLE 45.36 15.00 72.00 10.80 Solid-

WASTE Liquid

Rearranging Equation 3 yielded the storage tank volumes. Both types of manure will be housed
in the same tank. Both manure and vegetable waste have a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 5
days. The volumes for each storage tank are shown in Table 6, and the computations can be
found in APPENDIX C.

Tank Volume
HRT=Volumetric Flow Rate

Table 6: Storage tank volume for manure and vegetable waste.

VALUE UNITS
COW MANURE STORAGE 5 Days
CAPACITY
MANURE TANK VOLUME 3754.08 m3
VEGETABLE WASTE 5 Days
STORAGE CAPACITY
VEGETABLE WASTE 227 m3
STORAGE TANK VOLUME

Page | 7
3.2. PRETREATMENT
In this article, dairy cow dung, beef cow manure, and vegetable wastes were chosen as
feedstocks for the AD plant's 3 MW power generation capability. The goal of feedstock
pretreatment is to remove undesirable chemicals while boosting biogas output.

In general, these feedstocks can contain components such as TS, VS, cellulose, lignin,
hemicellulose, nitrogen, and so on. The fibre content of animal manure and vegetable waste can
be significant. 2020 (Quelal and Mart) Cow dung, for example, may include 20% cellulose and
10% lignin. 2020 (Quelal and Mart) Fiber content, particularly lignin, has significantly
influenced biomass decomposition and biogas production during the AD process. Because of the
hydroxyl group's intra and intercellular hydrogen bonding, fibre content conversion is quite
minimal. As a result, the feedstock with higher lignin concentration decreased CH 4 generation
rate. (Quelal and Mart 2020)
Pretreatment is used to break down refractory compounds in feedstock and make it more
biodegradable for the AD process. Physical, chemical, or biological pretreatment procedures are
available. Thermal pretreatment was chosen for this design to degrade and boost biogas output.
This technique breaks down fibre compounds at high temperatures, saving time and avoiding the
need for extra chemicals. Feedstocks were steadily heated up for the thermal pretreatment
process, and as the temperature climbed, the chemical and physical characteristics of biomass
altered. The moisture content of the biomass was reduced throughout the procedure, and some
chemical changes happened within the polymer elements of the cell walls to lessen the strength
of the bonds inside the biomass (Nhuchhen, Basu and Acharya 2014). These structural
modifications can improve manure digestion. According to one study, heat pretreatment from
70oC to 90oC can boost CH4 generation by up to 48%. (Ismail and Tinia 2015). Another study
found that thermal pretreatment of cow dung at 125oC produced 450 mL CH 4/g VS, which was
35% higher than the control group (Quelal and Mart 2020). Furthermore, the heat pretreatment
procedure was also known as torrefaction, which is further subdivided into wet and dry
torrefaction. Wet torrefaction often employs hot compressed water as the heating medium,
whereas dry torrefaction typically uses nitrogen. Wet torrefaction may function at pressures of
up to 700 PSI, whereas dry torrefaction operates at air pressure (Nhuchhen, Basu and Acharya
2014). Thermal pretreatment may be more expensive than other pretreatment procedures due to
requirements such as temperature, pressure, and oxygen demand.

3.3. HYDROLYZER

The hydrolyzer is the tank in which the hydrolysis process takes place. Lipids, carbs, and
proteins were transformed into long chain fatty acids, sugars, and amino acids. Since of the
reduced TS %, the manure will not enter the hydrolyzer because it has no substantial influence
on biogas generation. The total volume of the hydrolyzer was determined using the HRT and
flow rate formulae in APPENDIX C. Based on the flow rate of the vegetable waste to the
hydrolyzer specified in Table 7, the dimensions of the hydrolyzer and chute are presented in
Tables 8 and 9. The working space for the hydrolyzer was considered to be 90% of the total
space, and the total volume of the chute was assumed to be 20% more than the volumetric flow
rate.

Page | 8
Table 7: Flowrate of vegetable waste to the hydrolyzer.

FEEDSTOCK AVAILABILITY CONTAMINATION TO LANDFILL TO HYDROLYZER

(TONNES/DAY) (%) (TONNE/DAY) (TONNE/DAY)

VEGETABLE 45.36 10 4.54 40.82

WASTE

Table 8: Hydrolyzer dimensions, calculations based on 10 days HRT, and a 4 m height.

PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

HRT 10 Days
WORKSPACE PERCENTAGE 90 %
FLOW RATE TO HYDROLYZER 40.82 m3/day
WORKING VOLUME REQUIRED 408 m3
TANK HEIGHT 4 M
TANK RADIUS 6 M
TANK CIRCUMFERENCE 37.7 m2
WALL AREA 151 m2
FLOOR AREA 113.4 m2
ROOF AREA 113.4 m2

Table 9: Chute dimensions for hydrolyzer

PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

CHUTE VOLUME 48.99 m3
CHUTE LENGTH 4 M
CHUTE WIDTH 3 M
CHUTE HEIGHT 4 M
The flow diagram to the hydrolyzer is outlined in Figure 3.

3
Figure Working volume 408 m
3: Flow diagram to hydrolyzer.
40.82 (m3/d) 40.82 (m3/d)

Page | 9
The flow diagram of the feedstock to the CSTR is outlined in Figure 4.

791.640 m3/d to
750.81
750.81 m3/d to CSRT CSTR
m3/d

treatment

40.82
m3/d
Vegetable
treatment

Figure 4: Flow diagram of thermal pretreatment for manure and vegetable waste.

4. DESIGN PARAMETERS
4.1. FEEDSTOCK CHARACTERISTICS

There are no contaminants that are of concern for a CSTR's procedure based on previous
research on each manure feedstock. This implies that the availability of manure available from
dairy and beef animals will be the amount of clean influent into the CSTR. The delivery of
vegetable waste to the plant would contain more contaminants in its feedstock. The clean
influent amount for vegetable waste is determined using a contamination value of 10% wt of the
availability. The clean influent values for each feedstock are shown in Table 10. The sum of the
clean influent values for each feedstock gives the total flowrate into the CSTR reactor, which is
791.64 tonne/day.

Page |
Table 10: Clean influent values for each feedstock.

Feedstock Availability Contamination Clean Influent

(tonne/day) (% wt) (tonne/day)
Dairy cow manure 470.208 0 470.208

Beef cow manure 280.608 0 280.608

Vegetable 45.36 10 40.824

waste (beans, peas&
potatoes)
Total 796.176 - 791.640

4.1.1. BIOGAS AND ENERGY PRODUCTION

Considering the clean influence amount being slightly less than the total availability, the total
power production was recalculated. Although it is an insignificant amount, the same process for
calculation of the total biogas production and total power production were followed to determine
the actual total power production of 3.06 MW, which is outlined in Table 11.

To determine the total biogas production from the feedstock, Equation 3 was used.

Total Biogas Production =∑(𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 × 𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑

𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑚3 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠

𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
) [3]

Total Biogas Production = ∑(470.208 × 54.88 ) + (280.608𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 ×32.65

𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑚3 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠

𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦

×43.20
𝑚3 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑚3
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 )+ (40.36 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
)

𝑚3 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝑑𝑎𝑦
Total Biogas Production =36730.46

Page |
 Table 11: The total power production for the CSTR reactor.

FEEDSTOCK BIOGAS YIELD UNITS

(M3 BIOGAS/TONNE VS)
36730.46 m3 biogas/ day

TOTAL BIOGAS PRODUCTION 42.24 tonne biogas/ day

1,530.43 m3 biogas/ hr
13406617.9 m3 biogas/ yr
3060.86 kW eq
TOTAL POWER PRODUCTION
3.06 MW eq

4.1.2. CSTR REACTOR MASS BALANCE

To determine the amount of TS and VS in the digestate, the amount in the influent must first be
calculated. This was completed using the TS% and VS% from Table 1 and the clean influent
values for each feedstock. Table 12 outlines the influent TS and VS amounts in tonne/day. The
amount converted to biogas shown in Table 12 was calculated by multiplying the influent VS
by apercentage being removed. This percentage was adjusted until the total amount of converted
biogas was roughly equal to the total biogas production outlined in Table 11. This percentage
equated to 56% of the influent VS being converted to biogas. The total amount of digestate was
also determined by subtracting the amount converted to biogas from the clean influent amount.

Table 12: Mass balance values around CSTR reactor

AMOUNT
FEEDSTOCK CLEAN INFLUENT INFLUENT CONVERTED TO DIGESTATE
INFLUENT TS VS BIOGAS (TONNE/D)
(TONNE/D) (TONNE/D) (TONNE/D) (TONNE/D)
DAIRY COW
MANURE 470.208 60.18 51.63 28.9 441.3
BEEF COW
MANURE 280.608 22.33 18.32 10.26 270.34
VEGETABLE
WASTE (BEANS, 40.82 6.12 4.41 2.47 38.35
PEAS&
POTATOES)
TOTAL 791.636 88.63 74.36 41.63 750

Page |
The percentages in the influent and digestate are necessary to calculate the mass of TS and VS in
the digestate. The influent TS% and VS% were estimated using Equations 4 and 5.

initial TS
× 100
Clean inf luent
TS% in influent = [4]

× 100
tonne
88.63day
tonne
791.636
TS% in influent =
day

VS% in influent = initial VS × 100

TS% in influent = 11.2%
Clean inf luent
[5]

tonne× 100
tonne
74.36
day
791.636
VS% in influent =
day

VS% in influent = 9.39%

Using the computed influent TS% and VS% values, the digestate percentages may be estimated
using a mass balance equation. Because there are no TS in the biogas and the amount of
digestate is known, the TS% in digestate may be estimated as shown in Equation 6 below.

Mclean inf luent × TS %clean inf luent = Mdigestate × TS%digestate [6]

Mclean × TS%inf luent

TS%digestate inf luent
M
=
digestate
791.636 ×
tons

TS%digestate 11.2%
= da
y

750 day
tons

TS%digestate = 11.82 %

A similar mass balance may be used to calculate the VS% in the digestate, considering the
proportion of VS converted to biogas. Equation 7 was used to compute this mass balance.

𝑀𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 inf 𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 × 𝑉𝑆%𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 inf 𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝑀𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 × 𝑉𝑆%𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 + 𝑀𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 × 𝑉𝑆

%𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 [7]

𝑀𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 × 𝑉𝑆%𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 inf 𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 − 𝑀𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 ×

𝑉𝑆
inf 𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑉𝑆%𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠
%𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝑀𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡
𝑎𝑡𝑒

Page |
 (791.636 × 9.39 %) − × 56 %)
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑉𝑆%𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 (41.63
= 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠
750 𝑑𝑎
𝑦

𝑉𝑆%𝑑𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 6.8 %

Page |
By multiplying the TS% and VS% by the amount of digestate, the total mass for each TS and VS
in the digestate was determined. Table 13 summarizes the outcomes of this.

Table 13: TS and VS values in the digestate.

PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

TS% in digestate 11.82 %
Mass of TS in digestate 88.6 tonne/day
VS% in digestate 6.80 %
VS of TS% in digestate 57.5 %
Mass of VS in digestate 51 tonne/day

4.2. CSTR DIMENSIONS

For determining the size of CSTR some conditions yet needs to be calculated. Since the facility
is located in Bruce County, where winter temperatures can drop below freezing, maintaining the
operational conditions in order to avoid shocking the system is a challenge. A system shock is
detrimental to the microbes that are essential for the AD process. The CSTR will work at a
temperature of 35 ° C in mesophilic conditions. The pH shall be kept at 7. Table 14 summarizes
the remaining conditions for sizing the CSTR reactor. The HRT was selected from the
operational range of 35 days. Because the maximum volume of a single CSTR is 8658.56 m 3 the
number of digesters was established. APPENDIX D contains the equations for calculating the
dimensions of the CSTR.
OLR is a critical control parameter in continuous systems because overloading causes a
considerable increase in volatile fatty acids, which can cause acidification and system failure.
Organic loading rates of 4 - 8 kg VS/m3 reactor and day have been reported in studies of
anaerobic treatment of biowaste in industrialised countries, resulting in VS removal rates of 50 -
70%. (Vandevivere et al., 2003) which is ideal for continuously stirred reactors. (Vögeli, Y,
2014). The organic loading rate (OLR) of the design was discovered to be outside of CSTR’s
regular operational range. It was calculated to be 8.6 kg VS/m 3 d. This high value is attributable
to the feedstock values specified for this system. GREEN BIOGAS Consulting Company will do
additional analysis to make system improvements to lower the OLR, such as increasing the
volume of the hydrolyzer to reduce the HRT of the CSTR or increasing the temperature.

Page |
Table 14: Dimensions used for sizing reactor.

PARAMETER VALUE UNITS

VOLUME IN REACTOR 27,707.4 m3

NUMBER OF DIGESTORS 4 -
VOLUME FOR SINGLE TANK 6,926.85 m3
TOTAL COLUMN WITH 20% HEADSPACE 8,658.5 m3
OLR 8.6 kg VS/m3*day
REACTOR HEIGHT 6 M
REACTOR RADIUS 21.43 M
REACTOR CIRCUMFERENCE 134.63 M
REACTOR WALL AREA 807.8 m2
REACTOR ROOF AREA 1,442 m2

5. BIOGAS STORAGE, CONDITIONING,

UPGRADING, UTILIZATION
5.1. BIOGAS DESCRIPTION AND STORAGE
Anaerobic digestor plant produces two products, biogas and digestate. For the produced biogas, a
special storage tank is necessary. Biogas typically consists of 50-75% CH4, 25-50% CO 2, 0-10%
nitrogen, 1-5% H2, 0.1-2% oxygen, 0-10% water vapour, 10-30,000 ppm hydrogen sulphide
(H2S), and 0.01-2.5 mg/m3 ammonia (Goswami et al., 2016). For the GREEN Biogas company,
the biogas consists of 55% CH4, 30% CO2, 0% nitrogen, 1% hydrogen, 0.1% oxygen, 5% water
vapour, and the remaining 8.9% is H2S and ammonia. The components of biogas are not solely
CH4 therefore some treatment and upgrading are necessary before usage. The image shows a
biogas storage tank, our company will utilize a similar tank to store the biogas after cleaning and
upgrading.

Page |
 Figure 5: Biogas storage tank (SRL, 2021)

The GREEN Biogas company’s main objective in addition to storing the biogas is also to
increase the overall main digestors capacity, hence it will use a Pressostatic Gasometer. This will
allow the digestor to be directly connected to the generator. Pumping the biogas contained in the
gas holder to the generators: the ballast and tie rod system produce the pressure required for the
biogas to reach the generator (S.R.L. 2021).

5.2. BIOGAS DRYING AND CLEANING

Water vapour significantly lowers the net calorific value (NCV) of biogas, lowering the energy
performance of elements in which it is utilised as a biofuel (engines, turbines, boilers, burners,
etc.). As a result, before using biogas as energy, it is best to minimise its moisture content as
much as possible using any accessible means. (Envitech, 2022). The biogas generated for the
GREEN Biogas company still contains water vapor at this stage. Therefore, it cannot be used or
otherwise it will severely damage the generator. Hence, a drying and cleaning step is necessary
to remove 95% of the water from the biogas along with an additional 25% of various impurities
such as H2S, and ammonia. (N. Abdehagh 2022). The GREEN Biogas company adopts a drying
facility consisting of shell and tube method of heat exchangers along with several condensers,
chillers and pipes connecting them altogether. ( Petersson, A. 2013) The estimated drying
process will reduce the water in the GREEN biogas plant from 5% to approximately 0.25%. The
GREEN biogas company source of generation is based on cow manure, dairy manure, and
vegetable waste; hence each product has to go through cleaning procedure. For vegetable waste,
additional H2S is generated which must be removed by desulphurization inside the main
digestors tank. This is done by injecting small amounts of air in the biogas chamber. The air
reacts with H2S converting it to

Page |
acid. (Petersson, A. 2013). The cleaning, drying, and upgrading stage for the GREEN Biogas
summarizes the results in the table below. The calculations associated with these values can be
found in APPENDIX E.

Table 15: Percentage of each biogas component before and after cleaning and drying.

BIOGAS THEORETICAL BEFORE CLEANING AFTER CLEANING AFTER

COMPONENT RANGE (%) AND DRYING (%) AND DRYING (%) BIOGAS
UPGRADING
(%)

Methane (CH4) 50 - 75 55 65 >97%

Carbon 25 - 50 30 32 >97%
Dioxide (CO2)
Water Vapor 0 - 10 5 0.25 0.25
Other 0.1 - 17 10 2.5 2.5

5.3. BIOGAS UPGRADING

For the Biogas upgrading, GREEN biogas uses a pressure swing absorption (PSA) method due to
its low operating cost and high purity outcome. (Augelletti et al., 2017, Bauer et al., 2013a,
Ryckebosch et al., 2011).
The PSA technology isolates various gases from biogas based on their molecular properties and
the affinity of the adsorbent material. Carbon molecular sieve, activated carbon, zeolites (Zeolite
13, Zeolite 5A), and other materials with a high surface area can be used as adsorbents
(Augelletti et al., 2017). The principle of PSA technology is based on the ability of pressurised
gases to attract solid surfaces. As a result, under high pressure, significant amounts of gas are
adsorbed, whereas decrease of pressure will result in gas release. The PSA process consists of
four steps of varying lengths: adsorption, blow-down, purge, and pressurisation (Augelletti et al.,
2017). Initially, compressed biogas (4-10 bars) is fed into an adsorption tank (column), where the
adsorbent material selectively retains CO2, N2, O2, H2O, and H2S while allowing methane to flow
through and be collected from the top of the column by reducing the pressure.
Multiple adsorption columns (typically four) are fitted to maintain continuous operation (Bauer
et al., 2013b). The gas stream will continue to the next column after the adsorbent is saturated.
The adsorbent material in the saturated column will be regenerated via a desorption process in
which the pressure is reduced, and the entrapped gases are released. Since the gas mixture
generated from the columns contains substantial volumes of methane, it must be recycled by
directing it to the PSA inlet (Awe et al., 2017). H2S adsorption is typically irreversible, thus it
must be eliminated prior to injecting the biogas into the PSA column (Zhao et al., 2010).

Page |
 Figure 6: Pressure swing absorption apparatus (Angelidaki et al., 2018)

This technology is generally beneficial because of the compactness of the equipment, the cheap
energy and capital investment costs, safety and simplicity of operation (Augelletti et al., 2017).
The raw biogas can be upgraded to a methane concentration of 96-98%; however, up to 4% of
the methane can be lost in the off-gas stream. (Bauer et al., 2013a; Ryckebosch et al., 2011). This
upgraded methane will further be utilized for the generation of 3 MW of energy by Green Biogas
Cosutancy’s AD plant.

5.4. BIOGAS UTILIZATION

Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec continued to utilise the majority of Canada's energy. (Statistics
Canada 2019) Wind, solar, hydro (waterpower), natural gas, and nuclear power all contribute to
Ontario's electricity supply (The ONTARIO ENERGY REPORT). Biogas is commonly utilised to
either replace natural gas or create energy (Grid 2021). Once treated to eliminate CO2 and trace
gases, biogas can be used to substitute natural gas (Grid 2021). Biogas that has been treated is
also known as renewable natural gas (RNG) or biomethane (Grid 2021).
GREEN biogas company studied a report of the energy consumption in Bruce County in 2019
showing the trend of electricity consumed, the cost of electricity, the volume of natural gas, and
the cost of natural gas (Bruce, 2019). The purpose of assaying this report was to determine what
the biogas generated for the announcement factory should be used for, either for electricity or
renewable natural gas.). County of Bruce’s facilities such as offices, museums, medical services,
long-term care services, public services, and others were considered when calculating parameters
related to the county’s energy consumption (Bruce 2019). The total amount of electricity
consumed by all facilities in 2019 was about 1.2x𝟏𝟎𝟔 kWh, the total electricity cost was
$135600, the total natural gas quantity was 166146 m 3, and the total natural gas cost was $52120
(Bruce 2019). Providing the county with sufficient electricity costs about 3 times more than the
total cost of natural gas. Therefore, Green Biogas Consulting recommends that it would be most
beneficial to implement a solution, such as an AD plant, to reduce the county’s high electricity
costs rather

Page |
than natural gas costs. Green Biogas Consulting’s AD plant generates 3 MW of energy, which is
equivalent to 3 MJ/s constantly being generated. This biogas production is not enough to supply
the electricity needs of the County. The electricity produced from the biogas will be used by the
County in addition to some electricity provided by Hydro One to ensure the inhabitants have
sufficient power.

Table 16: Bruce County 2019 Energy Consumption Data. (Bruce,2019, Townfolio, n.d.)

TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL NATURAL TOTAL NATURAL

ELECTRICITY ELECTRICITY COST GAS CONSUMED GAS COST
CONSUMED

1.2x𝟏𝟎𝟔 kWh $135600 166146 m3 $52120

5.5. BIOGAS ENGINE

Generally, biogas can be converted to electricity using a energy cell, gas turbine, or combustion
machine. The electricity produced can be vended to the electrical grid or consumed at the sight to
power the plants. GREEN Biogas company will apply a combustion machine to generate
electricity that will be supplied to the electrical grid in Bruce-County. The electricity will be
available at a lower price than that of the electricity handed by Hydro One as the source of
energy is much nearer. Biogas is converted to mechanical energy using an internal biogas
combustion machine. Biogas is mixed with a specific amount of air and also enters the biogas
machine due to the force of the machine pistons that move down, therefore creating a vacuum
(Inoplex 2021). The biogas and air admixture experience contraction as the piston moves
overhead. Also, a spark ignites the admixture that heats it up, and results in expansion of the
admixture, therefore forcing the piston to rotate the machine. The mechanical energy produced is
also used in a creator to produce a 3 MW electrical output (Inoplex 2021).

Figure 7: Combustion engine used to convert biogas to electricity (Inoplex 2021).

Page |
6. DIGESTATE STORAGE TANK

According to the design of the Green Biogas Consulting Company the production of biogas from
the digestate consisting of cow manure, dairy manure as vegetable waste is transported to a
storage facility tank for further treatment and usage. The left over digestate can be transported
directly from the digestor by means of pipes connecting to the storage tank. The storage facility
can either be a tank, pond, or a lagoon. The use of each depends upon the availability of land
area and cost. For the Green Biogas production company, a steel tank was selected mainly due to
its small size. Ultimately, this will occupy less space making more room for the actual digestor.
The steel tank utilizes a top membrane cover while the digestate is pumped from the bottom of
the tank. (N. Abdehagh, 03 - Class 03 2022)

Figure 8: Digestate storage tank (H2flow, 2021)

Table 17: Digestate Input

Raw Digestate 273750 tonne/year

750 tonne/day

The table above shows the amount of digestate left over from the digestor, this is then
transported to the steel digestate tank where it will be stored and further treated.

7. DIGESTATE TREATMENT AND UTILIZATION

For treatment and utilization, the GREEN biogas company will characterize the digestate by
passing it through the solid liquid Separator. In this step, the effluent after passing the separator
will be divided into three main components. The solid fraction, effluent, and the liquid fraction.

Page |
The diagram below shows the separation process (Fuchs and Drosg, 2010).

Figure 9: Treatment process flow diagram (Fuchs and Drosg, 2010)

7.1. METHODOLOGY FOR DIGESTATE SEPERATION

The initial step in digestate treatment is to separate the solid and liquid portions (Drosg, et al.
2015). Hence, GREEN biogas company decided to use a typical equipment for filtration with
applied pressure is a screw press. In a screw press separator, the effluent is transported into a
cylindrical screen with a screw (Figure 10). The liquid will pass through the screen and collect in
a container that surrounds it. The DM-rich fraction will be pushed against the plate at the axle's
end, and additional liquid will be pressed out of the solid fraction. The solid phase will fall from
the aperture between the plate and the cylindrical mesh opening ( Hjorth, Maibritt, et al
2011).The collected solid fraction can be used as a fertilizer for soil and agricultural purposes.
(Suresh et al., 2017)

Page |
 Figure 10: A typical Screw press separator (Hjorth, Maibritt, et al 2011)

The benefit of pressured filtering is that it produces a solid fraction with a high DM content.
This technique may retain up to one-quarter of the N and P in the slurry. This may be adequate
in some circumstances to achieve a harmonious balance between the amount of plant nutrient
applied to the field and the plant requirement on the animal farm. ( Hjorth, Maibritt, et al 2011).

Table 18: Values for solid-liquid separation using a screw press. Values correspond to
calculationsfound in APPENDIX F

SOLID-LIQUID SEPARATION - SCREW

PRESS
BEDDING 36759 tonne/year 75% of undigested solids will be
separated byfinal TS of 35%
100.71 tonne/day
35 %TS
LIQUID DIGESTATE 236976.2 t/y
649.25 t/d
SOLIDS CONTENT IN 4380 t/y 25% of undigested solids will be in
LIQUID DIGESTATE liquiddigestate

12 t/d
1.8 %TS

Page |
Table 19: Design data for the bedding production

BEDDING
PRODUCTION 100.71 tonne/day
PRODUCTION 36759 tonne/year
STORAGE CAPACITY 30 Day
STORAGE VOLUME 3021.3 m3
TYPE OF STORAGE Bunker

Table above shows the calculations for the bedding of the digestate tank required. From the
calculations, it was concluded that for a production rate of 100.71 tonne/day, storage volume of
3021.3 m3 was required. Approximately 75% of the digestate will go to the bedding while the
remaining 25% is liquid effluent. The storage capacity of the tank is set at 30 days for proper
development.

7.2. VOLUME REDUCTION AND RECOVERY OF NUTRIENT

For nutrient recovery “Trident Nutrient Recovery System” used. The method separates digestate
into three segments, including coarse fibrous fibers used for animal bedding, and the liquid
digestate is converted into a nutrient-rich solid "cake" and a liquid "tea". To process the liquid
fraction for nutrient recovery and volume reduction Green Biogas Consulting has opted for the
BAG system. These are large bags made of polyethylene with a two-layer membrane inside
(Enviroseal 2021). The inner membrane is permeable to water (N. Abdehagh, 09 - Class 09
2021). When the liquid fraction is pumped inside the bag, around 90% of the solid from the
liquid fraction gets collected in the inner membrane, referred to as cake (N. Abdehagh, 09 - Class
09 2021). After the screening, the liquid with a lesser number of solids accumulates between the
two layers of membrane and can be stored in an external tank or lagoon (N. Abdehagh, 09 -
Class 09 2021). The cake with a TS of 35%, formed from the solids is collected and used as
fertilizer (N. Abdehagh, 09 - Class 09 2021). The liquid fraction with fewer solids that exits the
BAG system is now known as tea-water, stored in a lagoon, and can be used for land applications
(N. Abdehagh, 09 - Class 09 2021). The "cake" can be transported to a remote land base, while
the "tea" is utilized to fertigate crops on or near the farm site. (VanderZaag, 2022). From the
nutrient recovery system, we get clarified effluent water and concentrated NPK nutrients. The
concentrated nutrients are delivered to dry storage and used as agricultural fertilizer. (Engel,
2021).

Page |
 Figure 11: Nutrient Recovery from Digestate (VanderZaag, 2022)

After analyzing the input flow volume of the digestate extracted from the screw press separator,
production for cake and tea water was calculated shown in the table below.

Table 20: Quantity and solid content of cake and tea-water after treatment using BAG
system.

BAG SYSTEM
Solids content in 3942 t/y Contains 90% of remaining solids
the cake BAG
system
10.80 t/d
Cake after BAG system 22064.25 t/y Cake after BAG has 18% TS
60.45 t/d
18.0 %TS
Tea-water after BAG 214985 t/y
589 t/d
Solid content of Tea- 438 t/y
water
1.2 t/d 10% of remaining solids
0.20 %TS

Page |
Table 21: Design data for Cake Production.

CAKE
Production 60.45 tonne/day
Production 22,064.25 tonne/year
Storage Capacity 365 Day
Required Storage Volume 22,064.25 m3
Type of Storage BAG
Each BAG capacity 2000 m3
Number of BAG required 12

Table 22: Design data for Tea-Water Production.

TEA-WATER
Production 589 tonne/day
Production 214985 tonne/day
Storage Capacity 240 Day
Required Storage Volume 141359 m3
Type of Storage Lagoon

Table 23: Nutrient Quantity at Different Stages of the Digestate Process.

TO BAG TEA-WATER
ENTERING CONTRIBUTION MATERIAL BEDDING FOR CAKE LEAVING
NUTRIENT DIGESTER FROM MANURE HANDLING CREATION RECOVERY MATERIAL BAG

(ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr) (ton/yr)

VOLUME 273,750 171,626 36759 221,573 22,064 214,985

N 1,249.2 617.9 124.9 224.9 899.4 584.6 314.8
P2O5 1,182.1 275.3 236.4 945.7 803.8 141.9
K2O 938.2 496.2 140.7 797.4 79.7 717.7
TOTAL P 515.9 120.1 103.2 412.7 350.8 61.9
TOTAL K 778.8 412.3 116.9 662.0 66.2 595.8

For the design, GREEN biogas company estimated that roughly 10% of the total nitrogen is lost
in the collection and handling process. Therefore, a 10% reduction in the total volume of
nitrogen was set. From the design of various nutrients, we can see that approximately 20% of
phosphorus oxide and nitrogen goes to the bedding while 15% of potassium oxide goes to the
total bedding. Similarly, 65% of Nitrogen along with 85% of phosphorus and 10% of potassium
goes towards the cake recovery where it be used as a fertilizer in the bag process. (N. Abdehagh,
09 - Class 09 2021).

Page |
8. PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Figure 12 depicts a comprehensive process flow diagram for the proposed AD plant design by
GREEN Biogas Consulting. Starting the procedure are two receiving and storage tanks, one for
manure and one for vegetable waste. Each feedstock is then undergoing thermal pretreatment.
After pretreatment, vegetable waste is directed to a hydrolyzer, while manure is transferred to the
CSTR for AD. The vegetable waste stream is routed to the CSTR following the hydrolyzer. The
biogas produced by the CSTR is held in a pressurized gasometer, then directed to biogas drying
and biogas cleaning, upgrading and finally to a combustion engine that generates 3 MWh of
power for Bruce County. The CSTR digestate product is stored in a steel tank, directed to solid-
liquid separation for digestate treatment, then to nutrient recovery and volume reduction, then
finally to land application.

Figure 12: Process Flow Diagram of GREEN BIOGAS Consulting's AD plant design.

9. MAINTENANCE PLAN

The upkeep of a biogas plant is a necessary stage in its operation and a considerable expenditure
that must be factored into the operational costs (Biogas World 2021). Maintaining a biogas plant
include doing minor repairs on the machinery, changing the oil as needed, cleaning sediment
from organic waste that settles at the bottom of the tank, resolving process difficulties, and a
variety of

Page |
other tasks (Biogas World 2021). These activities may avoid technical faults or issues in the
process, extend the life of the equipment, prevent accidents, and optimize the operation of a
biogas producing facility (Biogas World 2021).
Maintenance expenditures can account for around one-third of the annual costs of running a
biogas plant (Biogas World 2021).

Figure 13: Pie chart for operational and maintenance cost of a biogas plant (Biogas World 2021).

Some other general steps for the maintenance of the biogas plant are to:
1. Respect maintenance intervals for parts warranty.
2. Install measuring equipment to identify problems.
3. Keep several spare parts, especially for equipment vital to the operation of the plant or
4. with an extended delivery time.
5. Find a supplier or repairer available in the area for more complex or emergency repairs.
(Biogas World 2021).

10. COST ANALYSIS

This section estimates the cost and benefit of the AD plant. The expenditure includes operation
and maintenance (O&M) as well as the original installation. The entire expenditures were
estimated based on the waste volume of 290,604.24 tonnes per year, as indicated in the table
below (Moriarty 2013) The income for the AD plant was also computed using tipping fees and
power savings from biogas. The calculated values are detailed in the attached excel file. To attain
a break- even threshold in a reasonable amount of time, the tipping price was established at
$70/tonne. In addition, to account for environmental costs and inflation, an adjustment value of
0.72% per year (The World Bank 2021) was established to account for how tipping fees will
vary over time.

Page |
Table 24: is the approximation of revenue and cost for the AD plant.

REVENUE EXPENSES
TIPPING FEE $70/tonne Installation fee $561/tonne
ANNUAL TIPPING FEE $20,342,296.8 Initial installationfee $163,028,979
3
BIOGAS PRODUCTION 1530.43 m /h O&M $48/tonne
ELECTRICITY Annual O&M costs $13,949,003.5
PRODUCTION KWH 3068.86 kWh
ELECTRICITY RATE $0.079 /kWh
ANNUAL
ELECTRICITY SAVING $2,129,546.87
FOR EXPORTING INTO
GRID
TOTAL IN 20 YEARS $449,436,874 $442,009,049
YEAR TO BREAK- 20 years
EVEN

11. CONCLUSION OF DESIGN

GREEN BIOGAS Consulting Company’s AD plant uses a CSTR as the reactor for the AD
process. The system uses three feedstocks: dairy cow manure, beef cow manure, and vegetable
waste. This provides Bruce County with 3 MW of energy. Thermal pre-treatment has been used
for both feedstock hydrolyzer was used to break down components within the vegetable waste
before being sent to the CSTR combined with the manure. Based on the volume of feedstock
used, the plant will need 4 CSTRs. The team has outlined that the plant will collect, clean,
upgrade and use RNG being produced for electricity that will be sold to Bruce County at a lower
price than Hydro One. The efficiency of the engine improved because of the upgraded gas
having less carbon dioxide percentage. The digestate will be treated using a screw press and bag
system to be used for land applications. Using the total volume of waste needed in the system
and an inflation adjustment, the revenues from tipping fees were determined and combined with
the revenue for electricity and heating costs. Comparing this to total expenses, such as initial
capital costs and O&M costs each year, the break-even period for this system will be 20 years.
The next steps for the GREEN Biogas Consulting company for this project would be to complete
a carbon intensity (CI) score as well as a Lifecycle Analysis (LCA) to outline the environmental
impacts on this facility’s process to determine whether this process will be sustainable, also
improving the efficiency of combustion engine. In future the plant will also increase production
and supply RNG to the natural gas pipeline in the county of Bruce. This facility can be beneficial
to contribute to the DFC’s net zero emission commitment by 2050 through circular economy.

Page |
REFERENCES
.
Ahmed, S. F., Mofijur, M., Tarannum, K., Chowdhury, A. T., Rafa, N., Nuzhat, S., ... & Mahlia,
T. M. I. (2021). Biogas upgrading, economy and utilization: a review. Environmental
Chemistry Letters, 19(6), 4137-4164.
Abdehagh, N. "03 - Class 03." UOttawa, 2022.
Abdehagh, N. "09 - Class 09." UOttawa, 2022.
André, L.; Ndiaye, M.; Pernier, M.; Lespinard, O.; Pauss, A.; Lamy, E.; Ribeiro, T. Methane
production improvement by modulation of solid phase immersion in dry batch anaerobic
digestion process: Dynamic of methanogen populations. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 207,
353– 360.
Angelidaki, I., Treu, L., Tsapekos, P., Luo, G., Campanaro, S., Wenzel, H., & Kougias, P. G.
(2018). Biogas upgrading and utilization: Current status and perspectives. In Biotechnology
Advances (Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 452–466). Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2018.01.011.
Angelidaki, I.; Karakashev, D.; Batstone, D.J.; Plugge, C.M.; Stams, A.J. Biomethanation and its
potential. Methods Enzym. 2011, 494, 327–351Canadian_Biogas_Study_Summary. (n.d.).
Augelletti, R., Conti, M., Annesini, M.C., 2017. Pressure swing adsorption for biogas upgrading.
A new process configuration for the separation of biomethane and carbon dioxide. J. Clean.
Prod. 140, 1390–1398.
Awe, O.W., Zhao, Y., Nzihou, A., Minh, D.P., Lyczko, N., 2017. A review of biogas utilisation,
purification and upgrading technologies. In: Waste and Biomass Valorization. vol. 8. pp.
267– 283.
Bauer, F., Hulteberg, C., Persson, T., Tamm, D., 2013a. Biogas upgrading - review of
commercial technologies. SGC Rapp. 270.
Bauer, F., Persson, T., Hulteberg, C., Tamm, D., 2013b. Biogas upgrading - technology
overview, comparison and perspectives for the future. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 7, 499–
511.
Biogas World. How to efficiently maintain a biogas plant without losing your mind! 2021.
https://www.biogasworld.com/news/maintenance-biogas-plant/.
Biogas Drying. Condorchem Envitech. https://condorchem.com/en/biogas-drying/

County of Bruce (2019)Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission reporting - for 2019.
(n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.brucecounty.on.ca/sites/default/files/2019%20Bruce%20County%20Final%20GHG
%20Emissions%20Report3-AODA.pdf.

DFC - PLC, Communications Team. Dairy Farmers of Canada. September 01, 2021.
https://dairyfarmersofcanada.ca/en/who-we-are/our-commitments/animal-care/how-many-
cows farms-sizes.
De Baere, L. & Mattheeuws, B. State-of-the-art 2008 - Anaerobic digestion of solid waste. Waste
Mangagement World (2008).
Drosg, B., Fuchs, W., al Seadi, T., Madsen, M., & Linke, B. (2015). Nutrient recovery by biogas
digestate processing (Vol. 2015). IEA Bioenergy Dublin.

Page |
(2022). BIOGAS CLEANING. Condorchem Envitech. https://condorchem.com/en/biogas-
cleaning/
Environmental Protection Agency, U. (n.d.). Project Development Handbook A Handbook for
Developing Anaerobic Digestion/Biogas Systems on Farms in the United States 3rd Edition
AgSTAR Project Development Handbook.
Canada, S. (n.d.). Report on Energy Supply and Demand in Canada 2019 Revision.
www.statcan.gc.ca
The ONTARIO ENERGY REPORT. (n.d.).

Enviroseal. Digestate / Slurry Bag. 2021. https://www.enviroseal.co.uk/digestate-slurry-bag/.

EInstruments. Biomass to Biogas—Anaerobic Digestion. Available online: http://www.e-

inst.com/biomassto-biogas/ (accessed on 13 March 2019).

Engel, F. (2021). Nutrient Recovery Seabreeze Farms. Trident Net Zero.

https://tridenttnz.com/nutrient-recovery-seabreeze-farms/

Fagerström, A., Murphy, J. D., IEA Bioenergy Task 37., & IEA Bioenergy Programme. (n.d.).
The role of anaerobic digestion and biogas in the circular economy.

Felchner-Zwirello, M. Propionic Acid Degradation by Syntrophic Bacteria during Anaerobic

Biowaste Digestion; KIT Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2014; Volume 49.

FUCHS, W. and DROSG, B. (2010). Technologiebewertung von Gärrestbehandlungs- und

Verwertungskonzepten, Eigenverlag der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien; ISBN: 978-3-
900962-86-9

Green, Jennifer. Canadian Bioags Association. Comp. Jennifer Green. 2021.

Gerardi, M.H. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2003.
Goswami R, Chattopadhyay P, Shome A, Banerjee SN, Chakraborty AK, Mathew AK, Chaudhury
S. An overview of physico-chemical mechanisms of biogas production by microbial
communities: a step towards sustainable waste management. 3 Biotech. 2016 Jun;6(1):72.
doi: 10.1007/s13205-016-0395-9. Epub 2016 Feb 16. PMID: 28330142; PMCID:
PMC4755961.
Grid, National. Energy Explained. 2021. https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-
explained/what is-biogas.
H2Flow. "Tanks Built to a Higher Quality Standard." 2021.
https://h2flowtanks.com/media/downloads/H2FLOW_Tanks_Brochure.pdf.
Hjorth, M., Christensen, K. V., Christensen, M. L., & Sommer, S. G. (2011). Solid–liquid
separation of animal slurry in theory and practice. In Sustainable Agriculture Volume 2 (pp.
953-986). Springer, Dordrecht.
Ismail, Nasir Muhammad, and Ghazi Idaty Mohd Tinia . "Pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass

Page |
 from animal manure as a mean of enhancing biogas production." Engineering in life
science, Feb 16, 2015.
Inoplex. How is biogas turned into electricity? 2021.
https://www.inoplex.com.au/information/how-is biogas-turned-into electricity.
Jog Waste to Energy (2022). JOG-CSTR Technology. JOG Waste to Energy.
https://www.jogwte.com/jog-digester-technology/
Kim, M.D.; Song, M.; Jo, M.; Shin, S.G.; Khim, J.H.; Hwang, S. Growth condition and bacterial
community for maximum hydrolysis of suspended organic materials in anaerobic digestion
of food waste-recycling wastewater. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 1611–1618
Kramer, J. Wisconsin Agricultural Biogas Casebook. (2009).

Li, R. P., Li, X. J., and Chen, S. (2007). “Performance evaluation of anaerobic digestion of dairy
manure in plug flow reactor and continuous stirred tank reactor,” Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 23(9), 186-190.
Mathias JFC (2014) Manure as a resource: livestock waste management from anaerobic
digestion, opportunities and challenges in Brazil. Intern Food Agribusiness Manage Rev
17:87–110.
Meegoda, Jay N. "A Review of the Processes, Parameters, and Optimization of Anaerobic
Digestion." International Journal of Environmental Research and Pubic Health 15, no. 10
(October 2018): 2224.
Moriarty, Kristi. "Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste in St. Bernard,
Louisiana." National Renewable Laboratory, Jan 2013: 41.
Nayono, S.E. Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Solid Waste for Energy Production; KIT
Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2010; Volume 46.
Nicholas, Joseline. Ontario. June 15, 2017.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/dairy/producers.htm.
Nhuchhen, Daya Ram, Prabir Basu, and Bishnu Acharya. "A Comprehensive Review on
Biomass." International Journal of Renewable Energy & Biofuels, Jan 9, 2014.
Paolini V, Torre M, Giacopini W, Pastori M, Segreto M, Tomassetti L, Carnevale M, Gallucci F,
Petracchini F, Guerriero E (2019) CO2/CH4 separation by hot potassium carbonate
absorption for biogas upgrading. Int J Greenh Gas Control 83:186–194. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.02.011
Pressostatic Gasometer to Guarantee Constant Pressure. Biogas
Engineering SRL. (n.d.). Retrieved December
1, 2022, from https://biogasengineering.it/wp content/uploads/2019/12/Gasometro_EN.pdf.
Petersson, A. (2013). Biogas cleaning. In The biogas handbook (pp. 329-341). Woodhead
Publishing.
Quelal, Meneses, Orlando, and Velázquez Borja Martí. "Pretreatment of Animal Manure
Biomass to Improve Biogas Production: A Review." MDPI, Jul 7, 2020.
Ryckebosch, E., Drouillon, M., Vervaeren, H., 2011. Techniques for transformation of biogas to
biomethane. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 1633–1645.
Sarker, S., Lamb, J. J., Hjelme, D. R., & Lien, K. M. (2019). A Review of the Role of Critical
Parameters in the Design and Operation of Biogas Production Plants. Applied Sciences, 9(9),
1915. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app9091915.

Page |
Sattler, M. "Anaerobic Processes for Waste Treatment and Energy Generation." In Integrated
Waste Management - Volume II. 2011.
Scott, N., Pronto, J. & Gooch, Curt. Biogas Casebook: NYS On-farm Anaerobic Digesters.
(2010). Schnurer, A.; Jarvis, A. Microbiological handbook for biogas plants. Swed. Waste
Manag. U 2010,
2009, 1–74
Sebigas. SEBIGAS COTICA. 2021.http://sebigascotica.com.br/technology/cstr?lang=en.

Strategy for a ONTARIO Building the CIRCULAR ECONOMY. (2017).

S.R.L, Biogas Engineeering. Pressostatic Gasometer To Gaurantee Constant Pressure. 2021.

https://biogasengineering.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Gasometro_EN.pdf.

Statistics Canada. A geographical profile of livestock manure production in Canada, 2006. 2006.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-002-x/2008004/article/10751-eng.htm .

Suresh, S., Kumar, A., Shukla, A., Singh, R., & Krishna, C. (Eds.). (2017). Biofuels and
Bioenergy (BICE2016). Springer Proceedings in Energy. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
47257-7.

The biological cycle of the butterfly diagram. Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/articles/the-biological-cycle-of-the-butterfly-diagram

Toop, T.A.; Ward, S.; Oldfield, T.; Hull, M.; Kirby, M.E.; Theodorou, M.K. AgroCycle–
developing a circular economy in agriculture. Energy Procedia 2017, 123, 76–80.
Townfolio. (n.d.). Townfolio. Retrieved December 19, 2022, from https://townfolio.co/on/bruce-
county/utilities.

The World Bank. Canada Inflation Rate 1960-2021. 2021.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CAN/canada/inflation- ratecpi#:~:text=Canada
%20inflation%20rate%20for%202019,a%200.3%25%20increase%2 0from%202015.
United States Department of Agriculture. "Part 651 of Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook." Chapter 4: Agricultural Waste Characteristics.
2008.https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=31475.wba.

Usack, J. G., Spirito, C. M., and Angenent, L. T. (2012). “Continuously-stirred anaerobic

digester to convert organic wastes into biogas: system setup and basic operation,” J.
Visualized Exp. 65, e3978. DOI: 10.3791/3978
Varol, Ayhan. "Comparative evaluation of biogas production from dairy manure and co-
digestion withmaize silage by CSTR and new anaerobic hybrid reactor." Engineering in
Life Sciences 17, no. 4 (September 2016): 402-412.
Vandevivere P., L. De Baere, W. Verstraete (2003). Types of anaerobic digesters for solid
wastes, in Biomethanization of the Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Wastes, J. Mata-
Alvarez, Editor. IWA Publishing: Barcelona. p. 111–140.

Page |
VanderZaag, A. (2022). NUTRIENT RECOVERY FROM ON-FARM BIOGAS SYSTEMS
Seabreeze Farms Case Study. Canadian Biogas Association.
https://biogasassociation.ca/images/uploads/documents/2021/reports/Seabreeze_Farms_Cas
e_Study.pdf
Vögeli, Y. (2014). Anaerobic digestion of biowaste in developing countries: practical
information and case studies. Eawag-Sandec.
Zhao, Q., Leonhardt, E., Macconnell, C., Frear, C., Chen, S., 2010. Purification technologies for
biogas generated by anaerobic digestion. In: Compress Biomethane, pp. 1–24.

Page |
APPENDIX A
The number of cows in Bruce County:

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑖𝑛 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 158 𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑠 × 96

𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑖𝑛 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 15168 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠 = 15168 cows

2

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠 = 7584 𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠

The dairy manure production:

𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

= 62 kg
day

𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 ×

1 tonne

𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 62 kg
1000 kg
day

𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.062 tonne

day

𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 0.062 tonne ×

day
7,584 cows

𝐷𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 470.208

tonne
day

The beef manure production:

𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 37 kg

day
𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒
𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 37 kg × 1000 kg
1 tonne
day

𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 0.037 tonne

day

Page |
𝐵𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 0.037 tonne × 7,584
𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠
day

𝐵𝑒𝑒𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Bruce 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 280.608 tonne

day

Page |
APPENDIX B

The biogas yield for beef manure:

Biogas yield beef manure= (7.96%)(82.05%) × 500
𝐿

𝑘𝑔𝑉𝑆

𝑚3𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑉𝑆
Biogas beef manure = 32.65
yield

The biogas yield for vegetable waste:

Biogas yield vegetable waste = (15%)× (72%) × 400

𝐿

𝑘𝑔𝑉𝑆

Biogas yield vegetable waste = 43.2 𝑚

3 𝑚3𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠

𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒 𝑉𝑆

APPENDIX C

The storage tank volume for cow manure is:

𝐶𝑜𝑤 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒𝟑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝟕𝟓𝟎.𝟖𝟏𝟔 ×

× 𝟓 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 = 𝟑𝟕𝟓𝟒. 𝟎𝟖 𝒎𝟑
𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒔

×
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒌𝒈 𝟏𝒎

𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝟏 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒌𝒈
𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒏𝒆

The storage tank volume for the vegetable waste is:

𝑉𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝟒𝟓.𝟑𝟔 ×

× 𝟓𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 = 𝟐𝟐𝟕 𝒎𝟑
𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒔

×
𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒌𝒈 𝟏 𝒎𝟑

𝒅𝒂𝒚 𝟏 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒌𝒈
𝒕𝒐𝒏

The total volume of the hydrolyzer assuming a 90% working space was calculated using the
equation below:
𝐻𝑅𝑇 = 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
(𝑚3) 𝑚3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 )
𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒(
𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 40.82

3
𝑚
× 10 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 = 408 𝑚3
𝑑𝑎𝑦

The radius was calculated as follows:

Page |
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = π × 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠2

Page |
 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = √
40.82 𝑚3
× 10 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ×
1
=6𝑚
×
1
×
1

𝑑𝑎𝑦 0. 𝜋 4𝑚
9

The area for the wall and floor was calculated as follows:

𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 2 × 𝜋 × 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 × h𝑒𝑖𝑔h𝑡

𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 2 × 𝜋 × 6 𝑚 × 4𝑚
= 151 𝑚2
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋 × 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠2
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 𝜋 × (6 𝑚)2
= 113.4 𝑚2

APPENDIX D
The volume within the reactor is based on the clean influent flowrate outlined at the beginning of
the FEEDSTOCK CHARACTERISTICS section, as well as the HRT. Rearranging the below
equation gives the volume within the reactor.
V
HRT =
Clean inf l
uent
V = HRT × Clean influent

tonn 1000 1 m3
V = (35 days) kg )( )
e ) ( 1000 kg
(791.64 1
day tonne
V = 27,707.4 m3

Due to the large volume, several reactors would be required. Using the maximum volume of a
single reactor assumption, the number of digesters can be calculated through the equation below.

V
No. of
digesters = 8500
m3
27,707.4
No. of digesters
m3
=
8500
m3

No. of digesters = 3.25 ≈ 4 nos.

Page |
To determine the total volume of a single tank, the equation below was used.

V
Volume of a single
reactor = No. of
digesters

Page |
 27,707.4
Volume of a single m3
reactor =
4
Volume of a single reactor = 6926.85 m3
Incorporating a 20% headspace gives the following total volume in a single reactor as shown in
the equation below.
Volume of single
Total volume of single
reactor 0.8
reactor =
6926.85
m3
Total volume of single
reactor = 0.8

Total volume of single reactor = 8658.56 m3

The reactor height (h) will be set at 6 m, to calculate the radius (r) of the reactor, which was found
using the equation below.

Total volume of single reactor = πr2h

𝑉
𝑟= √
𝜋×ℎ
8658.56 𝑚3
𝑟= √
𝜋×6𝑚
𝑟 = 21.43 𝑚

The reactor circumference was calculated using the equation below.

Reactor cicumference = 2πr

Reactor cicumference = 2π ×

21.43 m Reactor cicumference =

134.63 m

The reactor wall area was calculated using the equation below.

Reactor wall area = C × h

Reactor wall area = 134.63 m ×
6m
Reactor wall area = 807.8 m2

Page |
The reactor area was calculated using the equation below.

Reactor area = πr2

Page |
 Reactor area =
π(21.43m)2 Reactor
area = 1442.02 m2

The reactor roof area was determined, assuming that the same area of the reactor would be

area is 1442.02 𝑚2.

required for the area of the roof to collect the biogas being produced. Therefore, the reactor roof

The organic loading rate (𝑂𝐿𝑅) was calculated using the equation below. The influent VS
amount was taken from Table 12.

Influent VS
OLR =
Volume of sin g le
reactor
ton
(74.36 1000 kg

OLR = )( )
day 1 ton
8658.56 m 3

VS
OLR = 8.6 kg × day
m3

APPENDIX E

The percentage of biogas before and after cleaning, upgrading, and drying are calculated.
Biogas components excluding CH4 (methane), CO2 (Carbon Di oxide) and water, the percentage
before and after cleaning and drying is 10%. Hence,

% Of biogas component (other) = 0.25 ∗ 10

= 2.5%

For the water vapor, the percentage before drying was 5%. After cleaning/drying, the following
value was obtained.

% Water vapor = 0.05 ∗ 5

= 0.25%

For CO2, the percentage before drying was 30%. After cleaning/drying, the following value was
obtained.

% CO2 = [100−0.25−2.5] * (0.333)

= 32%

After biogas upgrading: % CO2 = 32% + 66%

Page |
= 98%

Page |
For the CH4, percentage before drying was 55%. After cleaning/drying, the following value was
obtained

% CH4 = [100−0.25−2.5] × (0.667)

= 65%

After biogas upgrading: % CH4 = 65% + 33%

= 98%

APPENDIX F
After the separation of solid liquid, bedding data was calculated shown below,

Bedding production = Total solid×75%

% TS of bedding
47×75%
= 35%

𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
= 100.71
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟
= 100.71 X 365
= 36759 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

Liquid digestate quantity is calculated below,

Liquid production = Raw Digestate – Bedding Production

= (750 – 100.75) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
= 649.25 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
= 236976.25 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

Solid content of liquid digestate is calculated below,

Solid Content in liquid digestate = 25% x Total solid in the digestate

= 25% x 47 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
= 12 𝑑𝑎𝑦

TS of liquid digestate was calculated from the equation below,

%TS of the liquid digestate = Solid of liquid effluent

× 100
liquid digestate

Page |
 =649.25 × 100
12

= 1.8
%

Solid content of cake was calculated:

Solid content of the cake = 90% × Solid content of the liquid digestate
= 90% × 12 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
= 10.88
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
= 3942 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟

Quantity of cake produced is calculated below,

solid cake content

Quantity of cake = %TS of cake

10.88
= 0.18

= 60.45 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦

Quantity of tea-water produced is calculated below,

Quantity of produced tea-water = Produced liquid digestate – produced cake

= (649.25 – 60.45) 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
= 589 𝑑𝑎𝑦

Solid content of tea-water is calculated below,

Solid content of tea-water = 10% × Solid of liquid effluent

= 10% × 12 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒
= 1.2 𝑑𝑎𝑦
%TS of tea-water is calculated below,

tea−water
Solid in × 100
Produced tea water
%TS of tea-water =

= 589 × 100
1.2

Page |
= 0.2037 %

Page |
Personal Ethics Agreement Concerning University AssignmentsGroup Assignment
We submit this assignment and attest that we have applied all the appropriate rules of quotation
and referencing in use at the University of Ottawa. We also confirm that we have taken
knowledge of and respected the Beware of Plagiarism! brochure found at
https://www.uottawa.ca/about/sites/www.uottawa.ca.about/files/plagiarism.pdf. We attest that
this work conforms to the rules on academic integrity of the University of Ottawa. We
understand that this assignment will not be accepted or graded if it is submitted without the
signatures of all group members.

EMMAD UDDIN CHEEMA 300277665

Name, Capital letters Student number

EMMAD (digitally signed on 2022-12-16)

Signature Date

NAZIZA RAHMAN 300204176

Name, Capital letters Student number

NAZIZA ((digitally signed on 2022-12-16)

Signature Date

SANJIB CHAKRABORTY 300274690

Name, Capital letters Student number

SANJIB (digitally signed on 2022-12-16)

Signature Date

SYED AYZAZ 300185072

Name, Capital letters Student number

SYED (digitally signed on 2022-12-16)

Signature Date

SAJAD KHAN 300264928

Name, Capital letters Student number

SAJAD (digitally signed on 2022-12-16)

Signature Date

Page |
Page |