8 DStephen - Final - Report

Extraction of
desirable products
from recycled
biomass waste
This report will investigate the viability of potential
investment in a biomass recycling process for the
extraction of desirable materials through anaerobic
digestion.
Group 8
Basama Al Sinani,
Darrell Stephen,
James Forsyth,
James McClelland,
Shuo Li
Final Report
4/3/2015
0
Contents
Introduction (James Forsyth) .................................................................................................................. 2
Process Description (Darrell Stephen) .................................................................................................... 3
Mass Balance (Darrell Stephen) .............................................................................................................. 7
Feedstock (James Forsyth) ...................................................................................................................... 8
Location (Basama Al Sinani) .................................................................................................................. 12
Environmental (James Forsyth) ............................................................................................................ 13
Health & Safety (Basama Al Sinani) ...................................................................................................... 16
Economics (James McClelland) ............................................................................................................. 23
Sustainability (Shuo Li) .......................................................................................................................... 29
Legislation (James McClelland) ............................................................................................................. 31
Conclusion (Shuo Li)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34
Appendix I - Economics……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………35
Appendix II - Health & Safety…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
Appendix III - Physical Properties……………………………………………………………………………………………………..39
Appendix IV - Operating Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………40
References ............................................................................................................................................ 41
Meeting Minutes……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44
1
Introduction
Remit: This report will investigate the viability of potential investment in a biomass recycling
process for the extraction of desirable materials through anaerobic digestion.
Anaerobic Digestion is a sequence of biological processes by which biodegradable waste

material is broken down by microorganisms to produce biogas. This biodegradable waste is
known as the ‘Feedstock’ and can come from a variety of sources including agricultural
waste, industrial waste and even specially grown ‘energy crops’. We plan to buy in
agricultural waste from local farms. The waste is processed into slurry and fed into a
digester where it is left to ‘digest’ at a specific temperature for a set period of time. A
specific ‘Biogas’ is released during this time and collected to be processed. The remaining
slurry can be dried off and sold on as organic compost [1].
There are a number of uses for the biogas released. Initially our design plan is to use the gas
as a fuel to generate electricity to sell on. However due to its content, methane (50–80%)
and carbon dioxide (20–50%) as well as trace levels of some other gases, the gas can be
further refined to produce biomethane and pure CO2 which can be sold on [2]. The volume
of gas produced can also be affected by a number of different factors including the
purity/type of feedstock, the length of time it’s left in the digester and the conditions in the
digester. Initially we plan to operate with manure as the feedstock however due the
simplicity of the process and lay out of the plant we have allowed for a number of possible
future developments and alternative methods for using a variety of feedstock’s and
methods of pre-treatment. There are two types of anaerobic digestion, mesophilic and
thermophillic. Our process is a mesophilic process with digestion taking place 36oC as
opposed to the higher temperatures of thermophillic. The plant consists of three digesters
which work in series to constantly produce biogas in rotation, the total digesting time takes
about 14 days.
We see this as an excellent opportunity given the increasing demand for renewable,
environmentally friendly sources of energy. The vast areas of farmland, along with plenty of
other sources, the United Kingdom provides the ideal location to set up this plant, with
plenty of opportunity for expansion and future developments.
2
Process Description
This project focuses on processing recycled biomass in order to extract desirable products
from the material. The process is highly versatile in that it can be used for many different
types of bio-waste feed; agricultural, industrial and municipal waste by simply changing the
enzymes used, and in some cases where the feedstock used is more solid, rerouting flow
from the mixing tank through a positive-displacement pump. For this viability study the
feedstock used was cattle manure as this gives a lower yield of products than other
feedstock’s and can be used to measure the viability of the process at the lower end of the
spectrum. The process produces usable compost, fertiliser and biomethane which is then
burned off in a generator to produce electricity for the national grid.
In order to process the biomass into useful components enzymes may be added to the
treatment water, through L2 on the PFD, before mixing with the biomass in the CSTR. In the
jacketed mixing tank the water is then mixed with the biomass from the clarifier before
being heated to a temperature of 36°C. This temperature is maintained for the resulting
slurry as it is the optimum temperature for mesophilic anaerobic digestion to take place.
The resulting slurry from the mixing tank is then pumped through a centrifugal pump (P2)
and onto the Anaerobic Digestion chambers.
Anaerobic digestion then takes place in these chambers over a 14 day period [3], while heat
is maintained by continually tapping off some of the biogas, passing it through a heat
exchanger and then reinserting the heated biogas flow into the bottom of the slurry
allowing the heated gas to bubble through and maintain the temperature of the slurry for
digestion. Due to time taken and the nature of this batch process the anaerobic digesters
will be staggered in order to maintain as constant a composition of biogas as possible. After
this two week incubation period for each of the digesters the bottom valves are opened and
the digested mass pumped to a centrifugal separator, where it is split into a fibre and liquid
fraction. These fractions are then sent to storage before being sold off as compost and
fertiliser respectively.
Biogas from the digestion chambers is tapped off throughout and is sent through a
compressor to the biogas tank. From here the process is run as a continuous process and
not a batch process. A reserve of biogas will be maintained inside this biogas tank in order
3
to maintain an amount of gas to keep the process running. The composition of the biogas is
shown in the table below.
Component Fraction
Methane 67.9
Carbon Dioxide 27.2
Carbon Monoxide 4.7
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.1
Table1 – Biogas Composition [4]
From this table it can be seen that while the majority of the gas present is Methane which is
suitable for burning there are several other components present which should not be
burned. Burning of Hydrogen Sulphide on an industrial scale would produce a significantly
large amount of sulphuric acid and water, which when released to the atmosphere would
cause acid rain. This would be detrimental to the sustainability and environmental impact of
the process and must be avoided. In order to separate the Methane in this gas mixture and
isolate the hydrogen sulphide a separation process known as “gas sweetening” or “the
amine process” will be used. This will produce an acid gas as well as a “sweet gas” with a
much higher composition of methane than the biogas.
The biogas is compressed from the tank and into the bottom of an “Absorber” column. The
biogas passes up through the absorber while lean liquid alkyl amines are passed down
through the absorber. The vast majority of the Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and
Hydrogen Sulphide as well as some of the Methane is absorbed into the liquid and passed
out through the bottom of the column. This rich amine flow is then passed up through a
heat exchanger with the lean amines heated. It is then passed onto the top of a
“regenerator” stripper column with a reboiler where the solution is stripped to produce a
lean amine solution and an acid gas flow out of the top of the column. The lean amine
solution is then passed back through the heat exchanger, HE-1, and into the absorber
column to continue the cyclic process. The sweet gas produced from the top of the absorber
column is sent onto a gas burner generator for electricity and heat generation and the acid
gas stream, after reflux, is passed into a storage tank. This acid gas could go on for further
treatment, with the potential to form sulphuric and carboxylic acids further downstream,
however this is out-with the scope of this viability study and would require further research.
The lean alkyl amine used for the sweetening process was Monoethanolamine (MEA) at 20%
weight concentration [5]. This was chosen as it was proven to remove H2S as well as CO and
CO2 successfully. The Absorber column was run at 36°C and 100 atm while the Regenerator
was run at 120°C and 1.5 atm at the tower bottom. The moles of acid gas absorbed per mol
of MEA is at least 0.2 mol per mol[6], thus only a small amount of MEA is required to
4
circulate in the sweetening process as the gas does not have a high residence time in the
absorber. The MEA will be extracted and topped up every maintenance period.
There will be two maintenance periods of down-time per annum for this process. These will
take place after every 25 weeks uptime and last a period of 1 week. This time will be used
for cleaning and replacing corroded equipment in order to maintain desirable conditions
and residence times in the process. As the acid gas is corrosive replacement of parts of the
lean-rich amine exchanger may need to take place as well as replacement of some of the
amine solution, if any amount has been lost by the process over time. As well as this there
will be one extra day per year of downtime which will be used to take measurements of
equipment to ensure the process is behaving as required.
To generate electricity for the national grid, this “sweet gas” consisting of mostly methane
can now be burned in a boiler generator. The methane feed is burned off in a boiler in order
to heat water carrying pipes, prod
The overall process flow diagram is illustrated below.
5
Overall Process Flow Diagram
Biomass Clarifier
L18 L19
L2 L5 L16 L17
V-8 V-9 V-10 C1 C2
Biogas Tank
L6
L4
L3
L1 P2
L27
L7 L8 L9 L20 Sweet Gas L29
P1
Electricity Generation
Water Tank Mixing Tank HE-2
V-12 Acid Gas Tank
V-1 V-3 V-4
L25 Reflux Drum
L22
L28
Absorber Regenerator
P7
D1 D2 D3 HE-1
L10 L11 L12
L26
V-5 V-6 V-7
L30
L21
Cyclone Seperator P3 P4 P5 V-11

Reboiler
L23
L31
L24
P6
L13 L14
Fertiliser Tank Compost Tank
6
Mass Balance
The overall consumption and production of the process can be seen in the table below.
Input kiloton/Annum
Cattle 18.27
Manure
Water 42.64
Table 2 – Process Inputs
Output kiloton/Annum
Compost 4.76
Fertiliser 54.75
Sweet Gas 0.91
Acid Gas 0.49
Table 3 – Process Outputs
As the sweet gas is going to be burned by the process the electricity generated by the gas
can be estimated. Typical efficiencies for natural gas turbine systems have shown to be
29.4–44.8% [7], thus an efficiency of 35% can be estimated for the electricity generation
process. The calorific value of the sweet gas can assumed to be the same as natural gas,
which has a net calorific value of 50,000kJ/kg [8]. A conversion can be made from kJ to kWh
as 1kJ is equal to 2.78 x 10-4 kWh. Multiplying these numbers together gives us an electricity
generation of 4.86kWh/kg methane. Thus the electrical output can be calculated to be 4.44
x 1011 kWh for the process after burning all of the sweet gas.
The mass balance across the digesters can be shown as follows.
Input kiloton/Annum
Manure 60.91
Slurry
Table 4 – AD inputs
Input kiloton/Annum
Digested 59.51
Mass
Biogas 1.40
Table 5 – AD inputs
The digested mass is then separated in the cyclic separator into a liquid fraction and fibre
fraction, or fertiliser and compost fraction. [9] The percentage breakdown of each
component in each fraction is outlined below.
Digested Biomass
Composition Fibre Fraction Breakdown Liquid Fraction Breakdown
Component (%) Component (%) Component (%)
Dry Matter 2.8 Dry Matter 30.0 Dry Matter 0.4
Water 97.2 Water 70.0 Water 99.6
Total-N 0.5 Total-N 1.6 Total-N 0.4
NH4-N 0.4 NH4-N 0.4 NH4-N 0.4
Phosphorus, P 0.1 Phosphorus, P 0.9 Phosphorus, P 0.02
Potassium, K 0.3 Potassium, K 0.3 Potassium, K 0.3
[9]
Table 6 – Fraction Compositions
An initial amount of Monoethanolamine was added in a 20% wt. solution to the sweetening
process. A molar ratio of 4:1 is needed for the amine to successfully absorb the acid gasses.
To determine the amount of amine used a mean residence time of five minutes was
assumed for the processed biogas to pass through the absorber column. Thus, the molar
flowrate of sour gas over five minutes determines the required molar flow of MEA. A cycle
time of two minutes was assumed for the MEA solution. From this it was determined that
341.8 kg of MEA was required in a solution of 1367kg of water in the sweetening process.
This is a cyclic process and unless due to malfunction, neither MEA or water should be lost.
A further assumption made in the mass balance around the sweetening process is that 96%
of the methane is recovered in the sweet gas stream [10].
Feedstock
The feedstock is the material digested during the process and from which the desirable
products are extracted. The type of feedstock used will ultimately determine what comes
out at the end, what products you will get, so choosing the best option is vital to the overall
process. There are 4 main sources of biodegradable waste that are most commonly used in
the United Kingdom, these are:
• Agricultural Waste (manure and slurry)

• Domestic/Commercial Food waste
• Industrial Waste (e.g. slaughterhouse waste)
• Specific ‘Energy Crops’ [11]
These are the most commonly used as they are the most readily available and cheapest,
whilst still providing a decent yield of biogas. The first three options listed above are the
cheapest options and most easily available but do not produce as good a yield as the energy
8
crops. Initially we plan to use agricultural waste, cattle slurry, as the feedstock for the
process. However any feedstock mentioned can ultimately be used due to the simplicity of
the process, the digesters can take any organic waste. The following table shows how the
biogas yield of agricultural waste varies:
Biogas Yield from Selected Animal Waste
Feedstock Dry Matter % Biogas Yield

(m3/tonne)
Cattle Slurry 10 15-25
Pig Waste 8 15-25
Poultry Waste 20 30-100
Table 7 [12]
Although cattle slurry gives a lower yield than poultry waste, it is more readily available in
the UK and in particular within a close proximity to our plant. This is important since we aim
to reduce travel costs and travel emissions as much as possible. Manure from both cattle
and dairy cows can be used.
Domestic waste varies depending on the content of the waste itself, either sewage or food
waste can be used.
The process as a whole is the same for any type of feedstock used, the only difference being
how it is pre-treated. The digesters we are using are capable of taking all kinds of
biodegradable waste and the gas collection is identical. The remaining waste is removed and
separated in the same manner.
Based on our location, there are plenty of farms in the surrounding area, with an estimated
100,000 dairy and beef cattle within a 40km radius [13]. Averaging at 7.6-11.6 tonnes of
waste per year [14], this results in ample supplies of manure available for digestion. Due to
the design of the digesters used the space in the digesters is maximised so as much as
possible can be digested at one time. A selling point that the process possess as an incentive
to farmers to sell us the manure is the high quality fertiliser produced in the process which
can be sold back to the farmer.
A detailed breakdown of the composition of the feedstock can be found in the mass
balance.
9
Alternative Methods/Future Developments:
An alternative to using agricultural waste is the use of energy crops to increase biogas yield.
Some of these can be grown exclusively for anaerobic digestion on their own however most
are used along with another resource.
Although the use of energy crops as a feedstock produces much higher yields they are more
expensive to obtain. Also the more crops used means that less waste material is being
recycled so from an eco-friendly, ethical point of view this will also limit the volume of crops
that would be used. The crops can be used alongside another feedstock at the same time in
order to increase yield. Some example of energy crops and their individual yields can be
found in the following table:
Biogas Yield from Selected Crops and Fat
Feedstock Dry Matter % Biogas Yield

(m3/tonne)
Grass Silage 28 160-200
Whole Wheat 33 185
Maize Silage 33 200-220
Maize Grain 80 560
Crude Glycerin 80 580-1000
Wheat Grain 85 610
Rape Meal 90 620
Fats Up to 100 Up to 1200
Table 8 [15]
How these crops affect the yield if mixed with another varies depending on the mixture.
The yield of biogas produced can also be increased by the addition of enzymes into the pre-
treatment of feedstock. The hydrolysis of ligno-cellulose is the rate limiting step in
anaerobic digestion, so pre-treating the feedstock with an enzyme can promote this process
and therefore making it easier for the bacteria to ‘digest’. These enzymes can potentially
produce a yield of 15-20% more, however this comes at a cost as depending on what is used
these can be expensive. Cow manure has proved to be resistant to enzymatic pre-treatment
due to the enzymes used being degraded by the native microorganisms [16] and therefore
would only be applicable for use with the energy crops. Studies have shown that although
the enzymes definitely increase the yield for most other feedstock’s, especially crops, the
dosage required to gain such an increase most of the time will not prove economically
feasible and therefore would require further research [17].
10
Other forms of pre-treatment for all varieties of feedstock’s can be used, however not many
are applicable for manure. Virtually any method of pre-treatment could be developed into
the process due to the plant layout and the fact that the rest of the process stays exactly the
same. If the decision was made to start using alternative feedstock’s as mentioned above
then a number of methods of pre-treatment could be used in order to increase the biogas
yield. Finding the right pre-treatment method for the right feedstock is vital to ensure the
process remains economically viable. For example if grass silage were to be used a future
feedstock then two options for pre-treating could be enzymatic or steam explosion.
Enzymatic is simple and requires no energy input however the enzymes are expensive and
have to be constantly added [18]. Steam explosion is an effective method but requires large
amount of energy input. Given that we are producing energy on site steam explosion would
be the best form of pre-treatment should the plant develop and move onto other
feedstock’s, which the lay-out of the plant allows for.
Another possible future development regarding manure as the primary feedstock would be
to dry the manure before transportation [19]. This would cut down on travel expenses since
more could be transported in one trip. Again the process itself would remain the same, the
only difference being more water would have to be added in the pre-mixing tank.
11
Location
With the UK producing over 100 million tonnes of organic material per year which has the
possible to generate biogas and renewable energy, much of this material from the local
authorities’ waste collection is being directed to landfill sites across the UK as waste.
The UK is fairly rich in farms and therefore farm waste and so it would be totally feasible to
set up almost anywhere. The best location to our business is North Yorkshire, England
because it is close to the feedstock materials (Sheep farming is common) [20] and it applies
all the specifications required for success of our work. North Yorkshire has prosperous high
technology, service and tourism sectors.
- The area of North Yorkshire is about 8,608 km2 (3,324 sq. mi).
- The population of North Yorkshire (2011 est.) is 1,072,600. (21)
Figure 1 – Yorkshire, England Figure 2 – Anaerobic Digester
12
Environmental
Anaerobic digestion involves taking waste material and turning it into useful bi products in
gas for electricity generation and compost, so the process as a whole is recycling and
therefore environmentally friendly. Initially we plan to use cattle manure as the primary
feedstock since it is readily available and cheaper, however due to the simplicity of the
digestion process and the equipment required moving onto other resources like energy
crops and even domestic waste would be feasible and would be a massive help in cutting
down on the release of methane into the atmosphere by preventing waste going to landfill.
These sources are discussed in more detail in the feedstock section. By limiting the amount
of higher yield crops we use we can maximise the volume of waste that is recycled that
might otherwise have had to go to landfill. There are 3 main methods of disposing of organic
waste, burning, burying, or bio-digestion. Bio digestion is the only method which recovers
energy, in the gas released, and leaves a renewable resource in fertilisers [22]. Every day
tonnes of domestic waste are sent to landfill and agricultural waste is left untreated, this
waste will undergo anaerobic respiration and release harmful methane into the
atmosphere. However if we take in this waste we can capture the gas and turn it into more
useful products. This could have a large impact of the environment since producing clean
electricity per means it doesn’t have to be produced elsewhere.
During the process biogas is given off. This biogas contains mainly methane and carbon
dioxide however there will be some small traces of other gases:
Components of Biogas
Component Percentage content of gas

Methane 40-70
Carbon Dioxide 30-60
Hydrogen 1
Nitrogen 0.5
Carbon Monoxide 0.1
Oxygen 0.1
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.1
Table 9 [23]
The methane and carbon dioxide can be used in the electricity generation. However if we
want to further refine this biogas then some of the gases released can be harmful to the
environment. Hydrogen sulphide can cause acid rain which would have devastating effects
on the surrounding environment so it must be treated and cannot be released. This
hydrogen sulphide is collected and sent away for processing.
13
The following table shows how our plant is the most environmentally friendly method of
dealing with organic waste:
Methods of Dealing with Organic Waste
Technology Sustainable Impact on the Energy Fertiliser Water Heavy metal

environment recovery output recovery recovery
Landfill
Unsustainable Some CH4 to Partial if No fertiliser Lost in Not possible
waste of atmosphere, landfill gas outputs leachate
resources leachate extracted
problems
Composting
Energy required Damage to ozone None Incomplete Lost to Not possible
layer, also pathogen kill atmosphere
leachate
problems
Incineration
Fertiliser loss Toxic ash Some but Some P&K Burnt off Secondary
negates any Energy output, but N waste
energy gain wasted destroyed
Pyrolysis
Fertiliser loss Toxic ash, Some but Some P&K Burnt off Secondary
negates any emissions Energy output, but N waste
energy gain regulated wasted destroyed
Gasification
Fertiliser loss Pollutants locked Some but Some P&K Burnt off Controlled not
reduces energy in slag Energy output, but N recovered
gain wasted destroyed
Anaerobic
digestion Carbon neutral Total recovery of Maximum Clean NPK 100% Heavy metals
energy as overall fertiliser and can be
CH4 CO2& energy trace elements recovered from
fertiliser digestate
Table 10 [24]
As shown by the table anaerobic digestion in terms of the impact it has on the environment
taking everything into account is the most effective way of treating organic waste. It
provides a clean renewable source of energy and useful bi products that can also be sold on,
whilst releasing no harmful gases into the atmosphere. Therefore the impact the plant as a
whole has on the environment will be a positive one. Less harmful methane is released into
the atmosphere and clean energy is produced.
The amines used to refine the gas are completely recovered and recycled with only very
small trace losses meaning they will only need to be replaced twice a year.
14
Of the two main types of anaerobic digestion, mesophilic and thermophillic, we are using a
mesophilic method meaning the temperature of the reactor vessel has to be kept at 40oC as
opposed to 60oC. The small amount of energy needed to maintain this temperature will
come from the electricity generated on site meaning that no outside electricity is needed.
In terms of the plant it the choice of location means it’s within close proximity to the main
resource, manure. There are an estimated 50,000 cows within a 40km radius [25] meaning
that transport emissions will be minimised, however still substantial as a lot has to be
transported. Another future development the plant offers is that the manure can be dried
before being transported which means more can be transported in one trip, reducing
transport costs and CO2 emissions.
The process as a whole is not a noisy one with the main source of noise pollution coming
from the cyclone separator. However this in not on all the time and so will not be a
significant factor. There are no big housing estates or businesses nearby that would be
affected by any noise.
To summarise, the overall impact the plant will have on the environment is a positive one in
that waste that a clean renewable source of energy is created, reducing the need to produce
energy by other, environmentally unfriendly, methods. Any energy consumed on site is
produced on site, and then only small amount is required since the temperature for a
mesophilic process is only 40oC as opposed to higher temperatures. The only ‘toxic’ product
produced is a small amount of hydrogen sulphide, which if released would cause acid rain.
This hydrogen sulphide is all collected and sent away for further refining so no harm is done
on the immediate environment. The amines used are recycled so only need to be replaced
twice a year resulting in very little waste products. Due to the site location and feedstock
used the travel emissions will be lower compared to other feedstock’s, however due to the
large quantity of feedstock needed the total distance travelled transporting will be quite
high and therefore will still be substantial. However there are possible future developments
to cut down on these emissions but drying the manure to reduce volume.
15
Health & Safety
Some safety hazards occur when converting manure and organic residuals into energy using
anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. These hazards can cause serious bodily harm and in
some circumstances, can be fatal.
Anaerobic digestion can be regarded as a chemical process with all the associated risks:
flammable atmospheres, fire and explosion, toxic gases, confined spaces, asphyxiation,
pressure systems. So we should look at the risks that cause defects at workplace to avoid
any harms and losses in our business. [26]
1- CHEMICAL HAZARD FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION:
All tanks above and below ground, sumps; reception pits and spaces under slatted floors
present a high risk. The main hazards are:
- Carbon dioxide, Ammonia, Methane and Hydrogen Sulphide produced by bacterial

decomposition of the slurry:
Sour gases hazards for the human:
Hydrogen sulphide is highly toxic and can cause unconsciousness after taking a single
breath at high concentration. Some of these slurry gases are flammable and
potentially explosive. [27]
Sour gases Inhalation Skin Contact Eye Contact

Carbon dioxide [28] Nausea- vomiting- Direct contact with Direct contact with
collapse-convulsions, the liquefied gas can the liquefied gas can
coma-death. Lack of chill or freeze the skin freeze the eye.
oxygen can cause (frostbite). Symptoms Permanent eye
permanent damage to of mild frostbite damage or blindness
organs including the include numbness, can result.
brain and heart. prickling and itching.
Ammonia [29] Immediate burning of Severe injury and Permanent eye
the nose, throat and burns. damage or blindness
respiratory tract. This
can cause bronchiolar
and airway
destruction resulting
in respiratory distress
or failure.
Hydrogen sulphide [30] Dizziness-headache- Frostbite includes Exposure over
nausea change in skin colour several hours may
to white or greyish- result in “gas eyes”
yellow. The pain after or “sore eyes” with
contact with liquid symptoms of
can quickly subside. scratchiness,
irritation, tearing
and burning
16
Low concentrations Direct contact with Direct contact with
are not harmful. A the liquefied gas can the liquefied gas can
Methane [31] high concentration chill or freeze the skin freeze the eye.
can displace oxygen in (frostbite). Permanent eye
the air. If less oxygen damage or blindness
is available to can result.
breathe, symptoms
such as rapid
breathing, rapid heart
rate, clumsiness,
emotional upsets and
fatigue can result.
Table 11
-
Storage of sour gases: (32)
Hazards associated with storage and handling of biomass fuel include:

Explosion, fire, mechanical failure of store walls and slips and falls. To minimize this
risk:
• Storage should be in protected area.

• Storage should be stored up right with valve outlet seals and valve protection
tops in place.
• Storage should be away from heavily travelled areas and emergency exits.
• All electrical equipment should be explosion-proof in the storage areas. Also
the boiler must be isolated and the isolating switch ‘locked off’ before entering a
fuel store.
• Flammable storage areas should be unglued from oxygen and other oxidizers
by a minimum distance of 20 ft. or by a fence of non-combustible material at
least 5 ft.
• Storage temperature should be not to exceed 125 °F (52 °C).
- Feedstock and digestate spills:

In spills case, Specialist team makes sure there is no one in the workplace to
avoid any injuries. Also, we provide a continuous supply of fresh, ventilated air
and an
Explosion-proof blower. Also Maintenance of Storage daily [7]
2- RISK AND SAFETY FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION:
Other safety concerns associated with anaerobic digesters incorporate the potential for
blast, flame, smoulders, electrical stun, suffocating, tumbles from raised stages and
introduction to uproarious clamour. Because digesters utilize “waste” materials as
feedstock, there is a potential for exposure to pathogens as well. Proper use of safety signs
will alert employees and visitors to potential hazards, significantly reducing the risk of injury.
17
All areas that in our business will come under the HSE guidelines. This will include:
1. Oxygen deficiency: [38]
Confined spaces are usually recognized as a common hazard. Confined spaces include;
tanks, pits, silos, underground vaults, storage bins, and manholes.
This problem is very dangerous on the life of workers. We put instruction and plans to avoid
or minimize it, such as:
• Training workers who enters into digester (necessary time only)

• Provide harness, lifeline and breathing apparatus, which is matched to the job and
the wearer.
• Testing the atmosphere: confined spaces on farms may contain hazardous gases or
insufficient oxygen to support life. The concentration of oxygen in the air should not
be less than 19%. Lower concentrations may impair awareness of any danger, cause
rapid unconsciousness or lead to death. The level of carbon dioxide should be less
than 0.5%. Retesting during the work may be necessary, for example when
ventilation with an air blower is needed to maintain a safe atmosphere.
• Ventilation - whenever possible confined spaces should be ventilated to maintain a

safe atmosphere while people are working in them.
2. Transport:
Employers have a duty under health and safety law to ensure, as far as is reasonably
practicable, the health, safety and welfare of their employees. The main sets of regulations
covering workplace transport safety are the Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare
Regulations and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER ’98).
These regulations apply to most workplaces in the UK and include legal requirements for the
management and use of workplace vehicles and other items of mobile work equipment. [2]
The main physical hazards and risks that could be presented:

1. Exposure to noise – when loading and unloading.
2. Breathe of vapours and fumes. Also, Inhalation the organic waste
All drivers should take safety by wearing safety jackets and mask for nose. The most
important thing is checking the trucks daily. [33]
18
3. Machinery:
Noise at work can effect in hearing loss that can be brief or lasting and to control that we
choice of appropriate work equipment emitting the least possible noise. As a safety for
workers we provide safety staffs such as helmets, this will reduce the percentage of risk [34]
The machines work at high pressure and high temperature, which are very hazardous issues.
Quick to keep up the security of specialists:
1. Training employees to use the machines.
2. Maintenance of machines every day.
4. Drowning: [35]
Liquid tanks and ponds for storage pose a drowning risk. To reduce this risk:
1- Providing drowning potential exists, ring buoys and ropes at workplace.
2- Erecting fences around manure storage structures.
3- Posting signs to warning the workers.
5. Burns: [36]
Pipes containing hot fluids or exhaust gas can pose potential burn hazards.
Other potential sources of burns are heat exchangers; boilers, pumps, or engine generators.
For safety, we used Insulate to caver the pipe and reduce the potential for accidental burns.
6. Fire and safety: [37]
Methane can easily burn. Can readily form explosive mixture with air at room temperature.
Can be ignited by static discharge. We use flammable gases at the workplace, so we use
equipment suitable for use in a flammable atmosphere.
- To avoid any fire risks:
We Keep sources of ignition and flammable substances apart and avoid build-up of rubbish
that could burn. Put smoke alarms and fire alarms or bells, which help to caution people
quickly. The most important is to inspect Fire alarm on the whole building every week. Also,
put fire-fighting equipment and Check the expiration dates for all fire extinguishers
regularly.
19
Fire alarm tests will be carried out at random to ensure that all workers know the
procedures.
- To avoid any Electrical fires:
1- Training the worker about the different between the electrical fires and ordinary
combustible fires.
2- in case if Electrical fires:
1st, shut off the electricity.
2nd, use an ABC classified multi- purpose fire extinguisher rather than a water-based fire
extinguisher.
- Boiler and combustion:
The biomass boiler cannot be dowsed directly. It has large thermal inertia
produced by fuel burning on the grate and potentially also residual heat stored in
the refractory. A buffer vessel, an emergency heat dump or cooling loops in the
design can be reduce this risk. [40]
20
3- RISK ASSESSMENT:
- 5 x 5 Risk Assessments:
Figure 1: 5 x 5 Risk Assessments: [39]
Hazard Risk Control Overall Rating
Before After
Control
Chemical hazard for -Sour gases hazards - Erecting fences

anaerobic digestion (Carbon dioxide, around manure
Ammonia, Methane storage structures.
and Hydrogen
Sulphide). - Use an insulator to
protect the tanks and
- Feedstock and the workers.
digestate spills.
- Check up the
digestate every day
to make sure there
are no spills from it.
- Provide emergency
staffs at work place.
Rating: 3 Rating: 3 Rating: 2 9 6

- Methane can easily
Fire protection burn because it used -Training workers to
use the machines.
at high pressure and
high temperature. -Maintenance of
machines every day.
- Use flammable
gases at the - Put smoke alarms
and fire alarms or
21
workplace. bells, which help to
caution employees
quickly.
-Make sure that all

employees have
knowledge about the
Fire’s plane.

Oxygen deficiency Working in
dangerous place, - Training workers
which is digester. The who enters into
small rate of Oxygen digester unloading.
in it.
- Testing the
atmosphere.
- Provide harness,
lifeline and breathing
apparatus.

Drowning -Working at high -Providing drowning
place. potential exists, ring
(Manure storage). buoys and ropes at
workplace.
-Erecting fences
around manure
storage structures.
- Posting signs to
warning the workers.
Burns -Pipes containing hot - Insulation to caver

fluids. the pipe and reduce
-Exhaust gas. the potential for
-Heat exchangers. accidental burns.
-Boilers.
-Pumps.
Table 12
22
Economics
The economic aspect of any process is vital to the viability of running the process and so an
economic appraisal of the process is one of the first things that must be done for any
process design. The AD industry in the UK is rapidly increasing [41] and so competition is ever
increasing, with this in mind it is prudent to develop a process and a business which is as
cost efficient as possible.
Price and production
The first desirable product, methane, can be sold on its own as biogas or burned to produce
electricity which can also be sold. Since electricity is more expensive per kWh [42], less
vulnerable to fluctuations in price [43] and electricity prices have risen steadily by a third over
the past 4 years [44] it was the logical decision to decide to produce electricity from the
methane product instead of selling the methane. The electricity generated will be exported
to energy companies at an initial rate of £0.06 per kWh (subject to negotiations), however
with electricity prices on the rise the future export price will rise at a rate of 6% per year,
slightly lower than the increase in consumer prices which will hopefully keep the business
competitive. Predictions over the next 20 years are that wholesale electricity prices will
reach £0.1 per kWh [45] so with that in mind the business will increase its prices yearly until it
gets to a value close to £0.1 and then the price will be fixed at that point. The prices of
electricity from year 2-10 can be seen in table 13.
The next, and most expensive product that can be sold from the process is the liquid
fertiliser. The price of fertiliser is particularly prone to fluctuations however it generally
stays around 300 £/tonne [46]. The prices that have been set for the fertiliser to be sold from
the process are displayed in table 13 and show the gradual increase in price.
The last desirable product from the process is the solid compost, while it is not as expensive
as the fertiliser it is still worth enough that it would be in the interests of someone running
this process to sell it. The price of compost is much less subject to fluctuation than the
fertiliser and that has been reflected in the pricing shown in table 13. It is also important to
note that all the prices in table 13 are simply predictions and are subject to change as the
markets and demand changes, they can be changed to fit what is in the best interests of the
sustainability of the process.
Table 13
23
year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7 year 8 year 9 year 10
electricity production kwh 88452 176904 265356 265356 265356 265356 265356 265356 265356
price of electricity £/kWh 0.06 0.0606 0.064236 0.06809016 0.07217557 0.0765061 0.08109647 0.08596226 0.09111999
fertilizer cost £/tonne 300 307 315 325 335 342 349 353 355
fertiliser production tonnes 18250 36500 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750 54750
Compost production tonnes 1586.6 3173.3 4760 4760 4760 4760 4760 4760 4760
compost cost per tonne 98.5 98.5 99 99.5 100 101 103 104.5 105
total cash in 5636587 11528790.4 17734535.4 18285438.1 18836402.2 19225561.4 19619549.4 19846980.6 19960229.2
Table 13 shows the total production and cash flow into the process, it is evident from the
table that the process doesn’t hit its peak output until year 4, this is when all the digesters
are fully operational. There is also no production in year 1 of the process as the installation
and building of the plant will take a year to finish.
Equipment and cost
The following table shows the equipment needed for the process, their representation on
the flowsheet and their cost to buy:
Equipment label on cost/£

flowsheet
water tank 19611
mixer 33674
biomass 202926
clarifier
digester X3 D1, D2, D3 673929
compressor X2 40408
biomass tank 7424
absorber 507317
regenerator 40000
reboiler 33674
cyclone 59846
separator
fertilizer tank 7424
compost tank 7424
acid gas tank 20267
pump1 P1 2028
pump2 P2 2028
pump3 P3 101437
pump4 P4 101437
pump5 P5 101437
pump6 P6 2028
pump7 P7 2028
heat HE-1 135250
exchanger 1
heat HE-2 135250
exchanger 2
valve 1 V-1 1346
valve 2 V-3 1346
valve 3 V-4 1346
24
valve 4 V-5 1346
valve 5 V-6 1346
valve 6 V-7 1346
valve 7 V-8 1346
valve 8 V-9 1346
valve 9 V-10 1346
control valve 1 V-11 1346
control valve 2 V-12 1346
Table 14
*Note: a full table of the equipment complete with references is displayed in the appendix
Fixed and working capital
Due to the scope of the project the fixed capital costs specifically refer to the cost of the
equipment, the installation cost, the contractor’s fee for the labour and contingency. The
installation costs were simply set at 20% of the investment price for the equipment, and
given the scale of the investment the contingency was set at £750,000 in order to cover any
unforeseen costs with purchasing and installation. The labour cost of installation was
estimated at £1.2 million which is not unreasonable given the scale and amount of
equipment involved in the process. The total fixed capital costs are £4651884, the full
breakdown of these costs can be found in the appendix.
In the case of this economic appraisal the working capital costs only refer to the operational
costs of the plant, maintenance cost of the plant, employee wages and the cost of importing
and exporting the product from the plant. The import-export price was incorporated
because it is a significant cost in the operation of the process and the import cost almost
entirely makes up the cost to buy the feedstock. The full breakdown of the working capital
costs are displayed in the appendix.
Cash return Profile

The following graph shows the cumulative cash return of the project:
cumulative cash return

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
total cash £
4000000
2000000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2000000
-4000000
-6000000
Year
25
Figure 3
This graph shows clearly the initial negative cash flow as the fixed capital investment is used,
the cash flow quickly turns positive as the production starts and then peaks when the
production is at its full capacity. From this graph there is 2 important values that can give
vital information on the viability of the process or not, the first is the payback time for the
initial investment of the process. This is the point on the graph were the trend line reaches
the x-axis, as can be seen in the above graph this point comes just after year 2. This value is
extremely reasonable for a process of this nature and provides confidence in what is
potentially a very lucrative process. Another important value regarding the viability of the
process that can be calculated from this graph is the return on investment, from the graph it
is found to be 35%. Again this is very reasonable statistic and along with the value for
payback time points in the direction that the process is viable.
Net Present Value

The following graph (figure 4) shows the net present value of the process for the following
10 years, this means that it shows what the process will be worth in the future. The interest
rate for the process was set at 5% and the following equation was used to calculate the NPV
for each year:
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 =
(1 + 𝑖𝑖)𝑥𝑥
Where I is the interest rate set at 5% and x is the year.
The graph below is very important in showing the viability of the process in terms of making
money. From the below graph it is definitely evident that the profit margins for the process
are more than enough to keep the process viable.
Net present value

8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
NPV £
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-2000000
-4000000
-6000000
Year
Figure 4 – Net Present Value
26
Internal Rate of Return
The following graph (figure 5) shows the internal rate of return for the process which is the
percentage that the interest rate in the NP equation would have to be increased to for the
NPV to become equal to zero.
IRR
45000000
40000000
35000000
30000000
25000000
NPV
20000000
15000000
10000000
5000000
0
-5000000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
discount rate
Figure 5 – Internal Rate of Return
The IRR graph is another important way to assess the viability and sustainability of a
process. In this case figure 5, like figure 4, shows that the processes profit margins are more
than enough to make it a viable investment option, it shows that the interest rate would
have to be over 70% for the NPV of the business to slip below zero.
It is important to not with all these graphs and statistics that they are only taking into
account the creation and operating costs of the process and do not include any business
expenses like advertising overheads etc. With that in mind however the amount of profit
that these graphs are showing that the process has the potential to make suggest that there
definitely is a lot of room for these business expenses and show that the process is a viable
and sustainable investment.
Economic evaluation of alternative processes
27
There are various alternative routes the anaerobic digestion process can take, the
generation of the biogas from organic material remains the same however it is how the
biogas is processed and used that can sometimes differ. There are generally 3 main ways in
which the biogas can be used after, the first and the most popular is the way that is focused
on in this report, simply using the biogas to generate electricity. Another popular method is
to purify the biogas until it is of a suitable standard to be sold of biomethane, the
biomethane can then be injected directly into the national grid or can be used fuel for
certain vehicles. The last widely used option is to use a combined heat and power engine
(CHP) to generate both heat and electricity in one single process which would dramatically
increase the efficiency of the operation. Economically speaking all of these processes have
their own merits however the simple generation of electricity is generally the most popular
due to it being the cheapest and easiest method.
Purifying biogas to make biomethane: The difference with this method is that it involves
and extra purification step in order to create biomethane that is of a standard so that it can
be used in the national grid, this means the product gas must have a methane content of
82-97% vol/vol [47]. Once the gas is purified to a suitable level it can then be injected directly
into the national grid and used by consumers in their homes. The purification can be done
via a variety of methods, molecular sieves and water scrubbers are amongst the most
common ways to purify the biogas. The average operational cost of these purifiers is
0.26£/m³ [48] of input gas, the investment cost of these type of machines is on average
£750,000[49] which is a considerable investment. As discussed earlier the cost of methane
can fluctuate immensely with the wholesale price in January 2015 dropping considerably to
just under 46£/MWh from over 52£/MWh the month before [50]. This unpredictability means
that it is understandable from a business perspective to avoid this process route. I may be
an option however to start with the electricity generation option and possibly invest in the
biomethane process once the business becomes more established and has a certain degree
of stability. This would mean good diversification for the business making it more stable in
the long run as the fluctuations in the price of methane could mean that the price of
methane increases dramatically resulting in huge profits. Initially this tactic would mean
paying it relatively safe with electricity generation and then when the business is robust
enough, the risk can be taken to generate biomethane as well, when the price of methane
goes up the plant can focus on biomethane production and when it drops down it can revert
back to electricity production.
Combined heat and power generator: This method involves using a generator that can
recycle the heat created from electricity generation and make it available to be used
elsewhere in the process. This is widely recognised as a very efficient way to use the energy
created with most generators having an efficiency of around 80% [51]. While the efficiency of
these generators is particularly impressive, the generators are particularly capital intensive,
one large enough to cope with the amount of biogas being produced from this operation
would cost approx. £I million. Since there is no real need in this project to recycle the heat
back into the process, investment in a generator of this type would be unjustifiable.
28
On a broader scale, the AD process generates energy from a renewable source.
Economically speaking this process has a lot of merits as it generates energy from waste, the
feedstock costs are rather low and most of the costs are involved in the delivery of the
feedstock. Likewise if the plant is producing electricity there is very little costs to export the
product, most of the costs involved are in the build of the plant and even then it hasn’t got a
particularly large operational cost. This source of renewable energy can then be compared
with other sources such as wind a solar.
Sustainability
Social sustainability
Anaerobic digestion is a natural process which occurs in river and lake sediments, soils and
the gastrointestinal tract of animals, which degradation of organic material by bacteria in
the absence of oxygen. Hence as a very safe energy recourse, it has no threatening or social
disruption to the well-being of people and environment. Further advantage of anaerobic
digestion over other renewable energy technologies is that the energy is generated
constantly, unlike wins, solar power and hydrogen power, and can be stored in the grid
(methane). Also, the inputs and outputs of the technology are very flexible, which means
that the plants can be designed to meet local requirements for feed stock or outputs. As
anaerobic digestion helps people get more energy in the environmental friendly way and
the industries will provide dozens of job opportunities, these all give social benefits in the
long run.
Environmental sustainability
Today's issues arise from the spread of deserts, the loss of forests, the erosion of soils, the
growth of human populations and industrialized animal husbandry, the destruction of
ecological balances, and the accumulation of wastes. Anaerobic digestion provides some
exciting possibilities and solutions to such global concerns. Anaerobic digestion can be used
as an alternative energy production; handling human, animal, municipal and industrial
wastes safely and also controlling environmental pollution. For agriculture, anaerobic
digestion helps deliver a sustainable farming sector, where resources are reused on farm to
reduce greenhouse gases and provide secure and sustainable inputs, also, the nutrient rich
solids left after digestion can be use as fertilizer. For the concern of production, hydrogen
sulphide and carbon dioxide will be produced as side products during the anaerobic process.
The hydrogen sulphide can be corrosive, toxic and acidic when mixed with water. Hence the
amine unit removes hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from the sour gas generated in the
29
absorber column. Also, bio-gas does not contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations because the gas is not released directly into the atmosphere and the
carbon dioxide comes from the organic and manure residues with a short carbon cycle.
After the acid gas stream (H2S and CO2) removed from the amine, it will be heated in a
reboiler to achieve a recycle process.
Economic sustainability
Anaerobic digestion is a renewable energy source because the process produces a methane
and carbon dioxide rich bio-gas, which suitable for energy production helping replace fossil
fuels. Also, the wastes after digestion are nutrient rich solids which can be used as fertilizer.
Hence, the production of feed stock for bio-gas production facilities can translate into
additional market opportunities for the local agricultural sector. The methane in bio-gas can
be burned to produce both heat and electricity; excess electricity can be sold to suppliers or
put into the local grid. Electricity produced by anaerobic digestion could cover internal
demands and thereby reduce the energy and farm input expenses of the household.
30
Legislation
As for any proposed plant of this scale there is a lot of legislation that must be taken into
consideration before the plant is built and a lot that must be abided by when the plant is in
operation. However the UK government does look favourably at plants of this type due to its
renewable and sustainable nature and so there is specific legislation in place to make the
development of such a plant easier. The reason for this is that, being part of the EU, the UK
government has certain European targets to meet and also targets that the government has
set itself with regards to renewable energy, this means that any operations that help the
government meet its targets are encouraged.
Planning
The main legislative sanctions surrounding the anaerobic digestion process specifically are
to do with planning. The plant’s proposed output is over 50MW per year and so it falls
under a special bracket whereby the local government planning legislation is superseded by
the Planning Act 2008 meaning that the plans would have to be considered by the secretary
of state for energy and the Department of Energy and Climate Change [52]. Since the
feedstock of the plant is comprised solely of animal waste, the proposal put to the
department will have a good case as it will reduce waste in the area, increase employment
and increase supply of energy which in turn will drive down prices, so there are many
potential benefits that the government will look favourably upon. When it comes to
planning there are a few legislative hoops that must be jumped through in order to get the
plans approved. Local government and the local community must be informed of the plans.
Along with this there are two pieces of legislation that are specific to AD plants which must
be followed, they are the Planning Policy statement 22: Renewable Energy[53] and Planning
Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural areas[54]. According to these policies
any planning application for an AD plant must contain [55]:
• Site plan and photos of any structures and equipment
• Details of emissions and their potential impact
• Details of road access
• Site management during construction and landscaping provisions
• Community consultation plans
• Model of emissions dispersion
31
• Details of national grid connection
It is procedure for any plant of this scale to submit to an Environmental Impact assessment
(EIA) from the local government. This is protocol when a plant is accepting of 50,000 tonnes
of waste per year and is crucial to the planning stage of any proposed plant.
Environmental Permitting
The proposed plant falls into a specific category whereby it needs a Standard Environmental
Permit to operate. This is to make sure that the plant is set up so that it will meet certain
government standards when it is in operation. It also allows for a certain amount of waste
to be processed at the site and ensures that all rules are followed when upgrading waste
into a useable material. Among the regulations within the permit it states that the waste
store on the site must be at least 200m away from any “sensitive receptor” (most likely a
dwelling or workplace). Specifically with this proposed project the waste is only animal
slurry and so is classified by government standards as being in waste category 2 ABP [56]. This
categorisation by the government means that it can be used as a raw material on the site
and does not need any pre-treatment. This makes the running of the plant a lot easier and
saves a lot of money that would otherwise have been used on the pre-treatment of the
slurry. However before any animal-by-product is used on the site an application must be
submitted to the animal and plant health agency [57].
Waste handling protocol

Handling of waste of obviously a large part of this operation and so there are various
government standards that must be met when the site is in operation in order to preserve
the safety of both the employees and the environment. As discussed previously the slurry
accepted by the site can be used without treatment, however any waste products produced
by the site, most significantly the hydrogen sulphide, must be handled with care and safely
removed to be neutralised or used somewhere else.
Health and safety

In line with government policy there must be risk assessments carried out at every stage of
the process, specifically to the process there is a risk of explosion due to the large amounts
of flammable gasses being processed. There will be more details on health and safety
protocols in the health and safety section of the report. One important aspect of health and
safety on the site is to make sure that all the operators working on-site are completely
competent so the potential for risks due to human error are as low as possible. Specifically
for England there are 2 commonly used schemes to demonstrate an operator’s technical
competence, these are the CIWM scheme [60] and ESA sector skills scheme both of which are
approved by the environmental planning act 2008.
UK and EU policy
32
Policies implemented by both the EU and the UK governments in recent years with regard to
renewable energy will work to benefit the planning and operation of the project. Under EU
directive the UK must get 30% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020[58] and the UK
government itself has set a target to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by the year 2050[59].
With this in mind it is reasonable to assume that the government will do anything in its
power to catalyse and further the renewable energies industry as this will help it reach its
goals. The UK government has also set a target to aim for a zero waste economy [61], with
this in mind the government will only look favourably on a waste reducing process like the
one presented in this project.
Political Stability
Since the plant is a renewable source of energy there is very little chance that an incoming
government will come in and legislate to impede the operation. If anything any government
coming in will catalyse the renewable energy industry even more and make it easier and
provide more financial incentives for those in the industry.
33
Conclusion
The feed-stock we have chosen to use is organic and manure residues due the ample
supplies available based on our location and the fact that very little pre-treatment is
required. It also gives the minimum greenhouse gases emission compare to other input
mixtures. Through the process, the wastes formed during reaction are going to use as
agricultural fertilizer and the side products carbon hydroxide and hydrogen sulphide are also
been absorbed and collected safely which achieved a very sustainability process. Overall the
plant will have a positive influence on the environment given that a 'clean' source of energy
is created and used. Exhaust emissions will be the main negative impact on the environment
due to the large quantities of feed-stock required. Also, to minimise the health and safety
problem, emergency services are taken in to consideration to make sure that all workers are
working under a safety environment.
Due to the renewable, waste reducing properties of the project the government looks
favourably on this kind of operation and this is reflected in their policy making, the
legislation surrounding AD is there to make things easier and is therefore a benefit to the
viability of the project. The values given for net present value and return on investment
clearly show the viability of the project as an industrial process, obviously the cost of
marketing and business overheads haven't been taken into account in this situation
however the level of profit shown is obviously robust enough to deal with the business
expenses and therefore make this a viable business.
Hence, in conclusion, after taking environmental, sustainable, health and safety and
economics in to consideration, we can conclude that it is viable to start up this biomass
recycling plant.
34
35
Appendix I - Economics
Yearly cash flow and IRR

cash flow 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 total
year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 year 7 year 8 year 9 year 10
cash out 4651983.6 5757619.52 7828066.18 10224583.9 10224583.9 10224583.9 10224583.9 10224583.9 10224583.9 10224583.9
cash in 0 5636587.22 11528790.4 17734535.4 18285438.1 18836402.2 19225561.4 19619549.4 19846980.6 19960229.2
total -4651983.6 -121032.3 3700724.25 7509951.56 8060854.28 8611818.37 9000977.5 9394965.58 9622396.75 9735645.39
npv 5% -4651983.6 -109779.86 3196824.75 6178455.73 6315890.25 6426271.46 6396826.66 6358882.51 6202682.74 5976841.73 42290912.4
npv 10 -4651983.6 -110029.36 3058449.79 5642337.76 5505671.94 5347261.66 5080817.15 4821102.86 4488919.1 4128864.02 33311411.3
npv 30% -4651983.6 -93101.767 2189777.66 3418275.63 2822329.15 2319413.07 1864788.41 1497241.06 1179604.56 918067.421 11464411.6
npv 40% -4651983.6 -86451.64 1888124.62 2736862.81 2098306.51 1601233.56 1195422.6 891248.771 652017.083 471207.751 6795988.46
npv 50% -4651983.6 -80688.198 1644766.33 2225170.83 1592267.51 1134066.62 790209.273 549865.384 375450.933 253246.479 3832371.56
npv 60% -4651983.6 -75645.185 1445595.41 1833484.27 1229988.75 821287 536500.067 349989.741 224038.883 141672.286 1854927.62
npv 70% -4651983.6 -71195.469 1280527.42 1528587.74 965129.043 606527.162 372903.232 228956.377 137940.53 82096.4645 479488.9
npv 80% -4651983.6 -67240.165 1142198.84 1287714.6 767875.922 455755.938 264639.487 153457.337 87317.8873 49080.8642 -511182.88
Table 15
Appendix II – Health & Safety
Planning for an emergency helps to:
• Reduce the time taken for the emergency services.

• Reduce the risk to workers if there is an emergency.
•
To minimize the risk at workplace:
1- Provides enough trained first aiders and facilities to help victims of illness or injury
immediately.
2- Identifies which items need to be in the worksite first aid equipment.
- First aid measures for Sour gases:

Sour gases Inhalation Skin Contact Eye Contact
Carbon dioxide [3] If breathing is difficult, Quickly remove victim Directly and briefly flush
trained staffs should from source of with warm, gently flowing
administer emergency contamination. water.
oxygen.
DO NOT attempt to Cover both eyes with a
If the heart has stopped, rewarm the affected sterile dressing.
trained staffs should area on site.
start cardiopulmonary DO NOT allow victim to
resuscitation (CPR) or Gently remove clothing
drink alcohol or smoke.
automated external or jewelry that may
defibrillation (AED). restrict circulation.
Directly call a Poison
DO NOT allow victim to Centre or doctor.
Immediately call a Treatment is urgently
drink alcohol or smoke.
Poison Centre or doctor. required. Transport to a
Treatment is urgently hospital.
Directly call a Poison
required. Transport to a
Centre or doctor.
hospital.
Treatment is urgently
hospital.
Ammonia [4] Fresh air rest. Half- Rinses with plenty of First rinse with plenty of
upright position. Refer water and do NOT water for several minutes
for medical attention. remove clothes. Refer
for medical attention. Remove contact lenses if
easily possible
Refer for medical

attention.
Hydrogen sulphide [5] Remove victim(s) to Directly begin cleansing Open victim's eyes while
fresh air, as quickly as with running water. under gentle, lukewarm,
possible. Minimum flushing is for running water.
15 minutes.
Trained staffs should Use sufficient force to
administer Remove exposed or open eyelids. Have victim
supplemental oxygen contaminated clothing, "roll" eyes. Minimum
and/or cardio- taking care not to flushing is for 15 minutes.
pulmonary resuscitation, contaminate eyes. Refer for medical
if necessary. Victim must seek attention.
immediate medical
attention.
Move victim to fresh air. Quickly remove victim Immediately and briefly
from source of flush with lukewarm,
Methane [6] Keep at rest in a position contamination. gently flowing water.
comfortable for
breathing. If breathing is Gently remove clothing DO NOT attempt to
difficult, trained or jewelry that may rewarm. Cover both eyes
personnel should restrict circulation. with a sterile dressing.
administer emergency
oxygen. DO NOT allow victim to DO NOT allow victim to
drink alcohol or smoke. drink alcohol or smoke.
If the heart has stopped, Immediately call a Poison
trained personnel Immediately call a Centre or doctor.
should start Poison Centre or doctor.
cardiopulmonary Treatment is urgently Treatment is urgently
resuscitation (CPR) or required. Transport to a required. Transport to a
automated external hospital. hospital.
defibrillation (AED).
Immediately call a
Poison Centre or doctor.
Treatment is urgently
hospital.
Table 16
38
Risk Matrix
5 10 15 20 25
4 8 12 16 20
3 6 9 12 15
2 4 6 8 10
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 6
Figure 1: 5 x 5 Risk Assessments: (14)
Probability:
1. Rare, no record of it ever happening in most organizations.
2. Unlikely but can and has happened. Most people will never experience this event.
3. Possible may happen around once every 10 years at a particular site.
4. Probable, may happen around once per year at a particular site.
5. Almost certain may happen around once per month or more frequently at a particular
site.
Consequence:
1. No impact beyond very minor cost or inconvenience.
2. First aid injury, minor cost, minor effect on environment, small amount of adverse
publicity such as incident reported in local newspaper.
3. Significant injury, requiring time off work (RIDDOR reportable), moderate cost, moderate
effect on environment, moderate amount of adverse publicity such as national news story,
or extended period of local coverage. Some disruption to business.
4. Serious injuries, single fatality, substantial cost, potential prosecution for environmental
damage, significant adverse publicity, serious disruption to business.
5. Catastrophic event with multiple fatalities, substantial environmental damage, substantial
adverse publicity, severe disruption to business.
39
Appendix III – Physical Properties
Densities
All densities used are tabulated below.
Component Density (kg/m3)

Biomass Solid[62] 800
Water 1000
[63]
Biogas 1.15
Table 17
Digester
The digesters used in this design were based on one installed in a plant in Helsinborg,
Sweden in 2008.[64] The digester has an internal volume of 1080m3. From this it was
assumed that the digester should be filled to 80% capacity, and thus using the densities of
the slurry components and the ratio of the components the mass per batch was able to be
determined.
40
Appendix IV – Operating Conditions
Anaerobic Digesters
The anaerobic digesters are run at a constant temperature of 36°C as this is the optimum
temperature for mesophilic digestion to take place.[65]
Absorber Column
The absorber column will be set to operate at a temperature of around 36°C and 100atm.
This is within the optimum conditions for extraction of the acid gas and allows for no pre-
heating or cooling of the biogas before entry into the absorber column. The Pressure will be
reached from the gas compressors compressing into and out of the biogas tank.
Regenerator column
The regenerator column will be run at slightly above atmospheric pressure, achievable
simply from the extraction of the acid gas from the amine solution. The column will be run
at a heated temperature of 116°C, which allows for evaporation of the acid gas components
from the amine solution. Any water evaporated off will be recycled into the system after
passing through the condenser and reflux drum at the top of the column.
41
References
1. Hopwood, L. (2015). Quick Access - What is AD?. [online] Biogas-info.co.uk. Available at:
http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/what-is-anaerobic-digestion.html
2. Anon, (2015). [online] Available at:
http://www.faceonline.org.uk/resources/factsheets/discovering/anerobic%20digestion%20a
nd%20biogas.pdf
3. Nasir, Ismail M., Tinia I. Mohd Ghazi, and Rozita Omar. 'Anaerobic Digestion Technology In
Livestock Manure Treatment For Biogas Production: A Review'. Academia.edu. N.p., 2015.
Web. 2 Apr. 2015.
4. Ukpai, P. A., and M. N. Nnabuchi. 'Comparative Study Of Biogas Production From Cow Dung,
Cow Pea And Cassava Peeling Using 45 Litres Biogas Digester'. Pelagia Research Library. N.p.,
2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
5. Arthur Kohl and Richard Nielson (1997). Gas Purification (5th ed.). Gulf Publishing.
6. Fitzgerald, K.J. and Richardson, J.A. 1966. New Correlations Enhance Value of
Monoethanolamine Process. Oil & Gas J 64 (43): 110-118.
7. Michaelbluejay.com,. 'How Much Fuel Is Required To Produce Electricity'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3
Apr. 2015.
8. Engineeringtoolbox.com,. 'Fuels - Higher Calorific Values'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
9. lemvigbiogas,. 'Biogas - Green Energy'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
10. Naturalgas.org,. '» Processing Natural Gas Naturalgas.Org'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
11. Hopwood, L. (2015). Feedstocks. [online] Biogas-info.co.uk. Available at: http://www.biogas-
info.co.uk/feedstocks.html
12. Aylott, M. (2015). Biogas Yields. [online] Biogas-info.co.uk. Available at: http://www.biogas-
info.co.uk/biogas-biogas-yields.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183109/d
efra-stats-foodfarm-landuselivestock-june-detailedresults-livestockmaps111125.pdf
14. Biomassenergycentre.org.uk, (2015). Animal slurry and farmyard manure. [online] Available
at:
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,17978&_dad=portal&_sc
hema=PORTAL
15. Aylott, M. (2015). Biogas Yields. [online] Biogas-info.co.uk. Available at: http://www.biogas-
info.co.uk/biogas-biogas-yields.html
16. Anon, (2015). [online] Available at: http://www.iea-biogas.net/files/daten-
redaktion/download/Technical%20Brochures/pretreatment_web.pdf
19. Vdlagrotech.com, (2015). Manure treatment | VDL Agrotech. [online] Available at:
http://www.vdlagrotech.com/en/poultry/manure-treatment/
20. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rock_landscapes/rock_types_rev2.s
html
21. http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/23704
42
22. Organic-power.co.uk, (2015). Why Anaerobic Digestion? - Organic Power. [online] Available
at: http://www.organic-power.co.uk/why_anaerobic_digestion.aspx
23. Anon, (2015). [online] Available at: http://www.face-
online.org.uk/resources/factsheets/discovering/anerobic%20digestion%20and%20biogas.pd
f
24. Organic-power.co.uk, (2015). Why Anaerobic Digestion? - Organic Power. [online] Available
at: http://www.organic-power.co.uk/why_anaerobic_digestion.aspx
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183109/d
efra-stats-foodfarm-landuselivestock-june-detailedresults-livestockmaps111125.pdf
26. http://www.fao.org/docrep/T1804E/t1804e07.htm#TopOfPage
27. http://www.hse.gov.uk/waste/disposal.htm
28. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide.html
29. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/emergency/chemical_terrorism/ammoni
a_tech.htm
30. http://www.ccohs.ca/products/databases/samples/CHEMINFO.html
31. http://www.need.org/files/curriculum/infobook/BiomassS.pdf
32. http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.php/regulations-qa#health
33. http://www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/vehicles/index.htm
34. http://www.hse.gov.uk/NOISE/index.htm
35. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/e07026.htm
36. http://www.hse.gov.uk/healthservices/scalding-burning.htm
37. http://www.hse.gov.uk/toolbox/fire.htm
38. http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/safety_practices.pdf
39. http://www.risk-assessments.org/risk-assessment-matrix-5x5.html#.VRa_I0tMKL8
40. http://www.cea.org.uk/files/4313/7502/0795/Biomass_HS_final_071211.pdf
41. Businessgreen.com,. 'UK's 'Largest' On-Site Anaerobic Digestion Plant Comes Online'. N.p.,
2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
42. Aylott, Matthew. 'Quick Access - Incentives'. Biogas-info.co.uk. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
43. Tverberg, Gail, and View →. 'Why US Natural Gas Prices Are So Low - Are Changes
Needed?'. Our Finite World. N.p., 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
44. Blog.comparemysolar.co.uk,. 'Electricity Price Per Kwh (2013) – Comparison Of E.ON, EDF,
Npower, British Gas, Scottish And SSE | Comparemysolar.Co.Uk Blog'. N.p., 2013. Web. 3
Apr. 2015.
45. Macalister, Terry. 'Price Of Electricity Could Double Over Next 20 Years, Says National Grid'.
the Guardian. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
46. Dairyco.org.uk,. 'UK Fertiliser Prices'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
47. http://www.co-
gassafety.co.uk/downloads/March%202010/National_Grid_Natural_Gas_Pre_Combustion.p
df last accessed 28/03/2015
48. http://www.dirkse-
milieutechniek.com/dmt/do/download/_/true/210365/Making_pressurized_water_scrubbi
ng_2009.pdf last accessed 22/03/2015
43
49. http://www.dirkse-
milieutechniek.com/dmt/do/download/_/true/210365/Making_pressurized_water_scrubbi
ng_2009.pdf last accessed 22/03/2015
50. Palmer, Kate. 'Energy Prices Tumble - So How Far Will Gas And Electricity Bills Fall?'.
Telegraph.co.uk. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
51. Siegel, RP. 'Combined Heat And Power: Pros And Cons'. Triple Pundit: People, Planet, Profit.
N.p., 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
52. Legislation.gov.uk,. 'Planning Act 2008'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
53. Gov.uk,. '[Archived] Planning Practice Guidance For Renewable Energy - Publications -
GOV.UK'. N.p., 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
54. Planningportal.gov.uk,. 'Planning Portal - Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable
Development In Rural Areas'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
55. Aylott, Matthew. 'Quick Access - AD Project Planning'. Biogas-info.co.uk. N.p., 2015. Web. 3
Apr. 2015.
56. Gov.uk,. 'Animal Health And Veterinary Laboratories Agency - GOV.UK'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3
Apr. 2015.
57. Gov.uk,. 'Animal Health And Veterinary Laboratories Agency - GOV.UK'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3
Apr. 2015.
58. Harvey, Fiona. 'UK On Track To Meet Its Renewable Energy Targets'. the Guardian. N.p.,
2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
59. Gov.uk,. 'Low Carbon Technologies - Policy - GOV.UK'. N.p., 2012. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
60. Ciwm.co.uk,. 'CIWM Operator Competence'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
61. Gov.uk,. 'Waste And Recycling - Policy - GOV.UK'. N.p., 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
62. Thirion, F, F Chabot, and D Andeler. '457 Physical Characterisation Of Animal Manure.'.
www.ramiran.net. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
63. Joergensen, Peter J. 'Biogas - Green Energy'. lemvigbiogas.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr.
2015.
64. Permastore,. 'Helsingborg - Case Study'. N.p., 2015. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
65. Song, Y.C., Kwon, S.J., Woo, J.H. (2004) Mesophilic and thermophilic temperature co-phase
anaerobic digestion compared with single-stage mesophilic- and thermophilic digestion of
sewage sludge, Water Res. 2004 Apr;38(7):1653–62
44
Group 8 Meeting Minutes – Meeting 1
Location: Crush Area
Date: 20/01/15
Time: 16:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Li Shuo, Darrell Stephen, Basama Alsinani, James McClelland
Agenda Items:
1. Discussion on potential projects to be followed, top project ideas raised were; Water
purification, Anaerobic Digestion, Paper from Banana waste and recycling of crop waste
to form useful products.
2. Appointment booking was discussed and arranged for 14:15 - 13:15 on the 4th February,
booking made by James Forsythe during meeting. James McClelland cannot attend due
to sporting commitments, rest of the group to take notes.
3. As requested by the lecturer, using past experiences we have chosen our specific "areas
of expertise" within the project. Li Shuo - Sustainability, James Forsythe - Process Design,
Basama Alsinani - Health & Safety, James McClelland - Economics, Darrell Stephen -
Marketing.
4. Further research on our design plans was arranged to be done by the following day.
Action Items Owner(s)
Preliminary research on all All

processes to be taken to
Wednesday’s class.
45
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 21/01/15
Time: 11:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Darrell Stephen, Basama Alsinani, James McClelland
Agenda Items:
1. Further discussion on every raised project with new research and information being
shared by every group member. The decision to move forward with the Adiabatic
Biomass Digestion design project was taken as it quickly became apparent that the
alternatives weren’t offering enough complexity in the design stages.
2. Need for a critical path in the project was outlined in the days lecture, this was then
written up in the meeting by all present.
3. Targets set for a weeks’ time have been outlined below.
Critical Path All
Market Research James M, James F
Process Flow Diagram Darrell S
Choice of location for Basama A

process
Darrell S, JamesF,
Scale of process decided James M
46
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 28/01/15
Time: 11:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Darrell Stephen, Basama Alsinani, Li Shuo
Agenda Items:
1. Decision to be taken as to which type of biomass waste to use. Further research needed
into the available types of biomass and cost of biomass.
Biomass Research and choice of biomass to be made J Forsyth
Competitor Research Li Shuo
Process Flow Diagram Darrell S
Choice of location for process Basama A
Scale of process decided Darrell S, James F, James M
47
2. C Cost of feed and products researched J McClelland
o
m Safety Research Basama A
p
etitors need to be identified using a map of all biomass plants in UK found by J. Forsythe.
3. Enzymes to add to the adiabatic digestion need to be researched and chosen.
4. The need to add a gas separation unit to separate extracted biogas was identified and
will be added to the process diagram.
5. Cost of products, mainly compost, CO2 and Methane to be determined.
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 04/02/15
Time: 11:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Darrell Stephen, Basama Alsinani, Li Shuo, James Mclelland
Agenda Items:
1. Biomass comparison table found by James Forsyth which shows the volume of biogas
produced as well as dry mass percentages of feed necessary to attain these volumes. Can be
used to determine slurry composition of the feed to the anaerobic digestion chambers.
2. Library meeting to attend today to assist in searching library resources.
3. Preliminary process flow diagram drawn up by Darrell.
4. James McClelland brought research on price of methane. Methane was shown to heavily
fluctuate in price, so in order to maintain stability the need for a methane electricity
generator unit was discussed.
5. Full Competitor analysis of all large-scale bio refining plants in the UK created by Li Shuo.
6. All elements ready for submission for interim report to be sent to Darrell for formatting.
48
Interim Report Completion All
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 11/02/15
Time: 11:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Darrell Stephen, Basama Alsinani, Li Shuo, James McClelland
Agenda Items:
1. Interim report formatted and submitted.
2. Process finalized and materials chosen
3. Economic analysis is started.
Legislation investigation James M
49
Feedstock Located James F
Process Diagram finished Darrel

and Scaled
Location Decided Li, Basama
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 18/02/15
Time: 11:15
Agenda Items:
1. Final location decided to be North Yorkshire due to large abundance of

feedstock
2. Final report sections designated, ensured equal workload for everyone
3. Mass balance looked at in more detail and scale of plant decided
4. Final choice of feedstock chosen to be manure, found that no pre-treatment
methods viable
50
Begin preparations for oral All
presentation on week 8
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 25/02/15
Time: 11:15
Agenda Items:
1. Logistics of plant discussed and rough plant layout drawn up.

2. More of mass balance completed in preparation for oral interview.
51
Continue preparations for All
oral presentation on week
8, learn process fully
Location: Crush Area
Date: 03/03/15
Time: 16:15
Attendees: James Forsyth, Darrell Stephen
Agenda Items:
1. Run through of process before interview.

2. Evidence of process compiled for week 8 submission with the interview.
52
Print off evidence compiled James F, Darrel
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 04/03/15
Time: 15:00
Agenda Items:
1. Interview reviewed and points for consideration discussed.

2. Interim report reviewed.
53
Think of changes to process All
based on Professor
Thomson’s feedback
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 11/03/15
Time: 11:15
Agenda Items:
1. Changes made to process based on feedback from interim report.
2. Full process decided upon, location, feedstock, process, products all confirmed.
3. Sections for final report decided.
54
Individual sections to be All
worked on
Mass balance to be
finished Darrel, James M
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 18/03/15
Time: 11:15
Agenda Items:
1. Mass balance completed therefore full process completed.
2. With mass balance completed economical calculations could be calculated and site
fully scaled.
55
3. Check up on everyone’s individual reports completed.

Economic calculations James
completed
Individual sections to be
completed and preparation All
for presentation
Location: JCNF 15
Date: 25/02/15
Time: 11:15
Agenda Items:
1. Final economic calculations completed.
2. Plan for presentation made, designating sections to each individual.
3. Plan for submission of report made up.
56
Make up slides for All
presentation
Finish off individual

sections for report All
Location: JWC
Date: 30/03/15
Time: 11:30
Agenda Items:
1. Order of presentation completed.
2. Slides formatted and timed to ensure presentation was appropriate length
3. Final report brought together for formatting
57
Practice individual All
presentation sections
Book a room to practice

presentation on James F
Wednesday morning
Location: Library
Date: 01/04/15
Time: 11:00
Agenda Items:
1. Full timed rehearsal of presentation completed.
2. Any adaptations and animations added.
58
Make sure report sections All
completed.
Location: JWC
Date: 02/04/15
Time: 11:30
Agenda Items:
1. Final report brought together and any last minute alterations changed.
2. Presentation performance reviewed and any changes based on feedback made.
3. Finished report formatted.
59
60

8 DStephen - Final - Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 DStephen - Final - Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extraction of

Appendix III - Physical Properties……………………………………………………………………………………………………..39

Appendix IV - Operating Conditions…………………………………………………………………………………………………40

Anaerobic Digestion is a sequence of biological processes by which biodegradable waste

V-8 V-9 V-10 C1 C2

Cyclone Seperator P3 P4 P5 V-11

Fertiliser Tank Compost Tank

• Agricultural Waste (manure and slurry)

Feedstock Dry Matter % Biogas Yield

Biogas Yield from Selected Crops and Fat

Feedstock Dry Matter % Biogas Yield

Figure 1 – Yorkshire, England Figure 2 – Anaerobic Digester

Component Percentage content of gas

Methods of Dealing with Organic Waste

Technology Sustainable Impact on the Energy Fertiliser Water Heavy metal

1- CHEMICAL HAZARD FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION:

- Carbon dioxide, Ammonia, Methane and Hydrogen Sulphide produced by bacterial

Sour gases Inhalation Skin Contact Eye Contact

Hazards associated with storage and handling of biomass fuel include:

• Storage should be in protected area.

- Feedstock and digestate spills:

2- RISK AND SAFETY FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTION:

1. Oxygen deficiency: [38]

• Training workers who enters into digester (necessary time only)

• Ventilation - whenever possible confined spaces should be ventilated to maintain a

The main physical hazards and risks that could be presented:

1. Training employees to use the machines.

2. Maintenance of machines every day.

1- Providing drowning potential exists, ring buoys and ropes at workplace.

2- Erecting fences around manure storage structures.

3- Posting signs to warning the workers.

6. Fire and safety: [37]

- To avoid any fire risks:

- To avoid any Electrical fires:

2- in case if Electrical fires:

1st, shut off the electricity.

- Boiler and combustion:

Figure 1: 5 x 5 Risk Assessments: [39]

Hazard Risk Control Overall Rating

Chemical hazard for -Sour gases hazards - Erecting fences

Rating: 3 Rating: 3 Rating: 2 9 6

-Make sure that all

Rating: 4 Rating: 4 Rating: 3 16 12

Rating: 3 Rating: 3 Rating: 2 9 6

Rating: 3 Rating: 2 Rating: 1 6 3

Burns -Pipes containing hot - Insulation to caver

Equipment label on cost/£

Cash return Profile

cumulative cash return

Net Present Value

Net present value

Figure 4 – Net Present Value

Figure 5 – Internal Rate of Return

Economic evaluation of alternative processes

Waste handling protocol

Health and safety

Yearly cash flow and IRR

Planning for an emergency helps to:

• Reduce the time taken for the emergency services.

2- Identifies which items need to be in the worksite first aid equipment.

- First aid measures for Sour gases:

Refer for medical

Figure 1: 5 x 5 Risk Assessments: (14)