THE DESIGN OF A PILOT PLANT THAT WILL PRODUCE

5000m3 PER YEAR OF BIOGAS FROM BIOMASS

A FINAL YEAR DESIGN PROJECT

PRESENTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

BY

TINUOYE DAMILARE OLAWALE

U05CE1053

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

AWARD OF DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA.

NOVEMBER, 2010
 DESIGN PROJECT TOPIC 2009/2010

Environmental waste management has been a serious challenge contending governments in

developing nations of the world. Nigeria, as one of the countries seeking to be among the most

developed economy by the year 2020, is also seriously faced with this problem of environmental

management.

In order to realize one of the objectives of vision 20:2020, the federal government of Nigeria, in

pursuing a waste-to-wealth option, had released grant to research organizations including the

Department of Chemical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, to design a pilot plant

that will convert environmental waste (biomass) to biogas, which has the potential uses, and are

environmental friendly. You are expected to therefore, design a pilot pant that can produce

5000m3 per annum biogas from biomass.

 DECLARATION

I, Tinuoye Damilare Olawale hereby solemnly declare that this research project is a result of my

original work and to the best of knowledge has not been presented nor submitted elsewhere. All

literature and references consulted are duly acknowledged in the bibliography.

__________________________ ________________________

SIGNATURE DATE
 APPROVAL PAGE
This design thesis titled “DESIGN OF A PILOT PLANT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF

5000m3 OF BIOGAS PER ANNUM FROM BIOMASS”, has been read and certified as

meeting the requirement for the award of the degree of B. Eng (Chemical Engineering),

Department of Chemical Engineering, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, and have been approved

for its contribution to scientific and literary presentation.

_____________________ ___________________

Mr. M.S. Olakunle Date

Coordinator, Design Supervisory Team

_____________________ ___________________
Dr. I.A. Mohammed-Dabo Date
Member, Design Supervisory Team

_____________________ ___________________
Engr. N.S. Maina Date
Member, Design Supervisory Team

____________________________ ___________________
Dr. P.C. Okonkwo Date
Member, Design Supervisory Team

____________________________ ______________________
Dr Waziri Date
Member, Design Supervisory Team

_____________________ ___________________
Dr. I.A. Mohammed-Dabo Date
Head of Department
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to the almighty God, my late Uncle Mr S. O. Ogunremi, also to my late

parents Mr & Mrs J. T. Ogunremi.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My gratitude to the Almighty God who has granted me the grace to begin and complete this work.

My gratitude to my supervisor, Engr. A.A. Ameh, for his relentless support throughout my project
work.

My heartfelt gratitude to my “mummy two” Mrs. Peju Ogunremi, my brothers and sister; Bisi
Tinuoye, Muyiwa Tinuoye, Ronke Tinuoye. Also to my lovely kids, Dolapo, Toyosi and Iyanu
Ogunremi. To all my family members for your supports and prayers.

I also want to acknowledge the effort of my lecturers in the department of chemical engineering

for the knowledge I have acquired thus far and for making me the chemical Engineer I am today

Finally, thanks to all students in 500 level Chemical Engineering (U05CE), you have all been

supportive to my academic success, may the light of God shine upon you all and help you to live

fulfilling lives, I will miss you all and God bless you.
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project is aimed at designing a pilot plant for the production of 5000m 3 per annum of biogas

from biomass. Biomass is the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste. The biomass

selected for this process are; food waste, papper, leaves and vegetables, animal waste. Digestion

process is the major process of converting biomass to biogas. 16.5kg/day of biogas is produced

and the components are CH4 (72%), H2S (1.67%), NH3 (1.67%) and CO2 (25%) by weight, the

required biomass is 110kg/ day. Anaerobic Digestion process was selected as the best means of

converting biomass to biogas. The process started with the pre-treatment process of the biomass

which include manual sorting of municipal solid waste into biodegradable and non-biodegradable,

shredding, mixing/inoculation with water. Secondly, the digestion process which was in two

stages of hydrolysis and methanization. Lastly, the post treatment process of the biogas produced

which was done by water scrubbing to have about 90% biomethane (CH 4) for storage and utility.

The BTA and Valorga technologies were modified to achieve better and more economical biogas

plant. The major unit operations are shredder, hydrolysis vessel, methanization vessel and biogas

scrubber. The digester design was based on the residence time of the digestion process which was

calculated to be about 13 days. The net energy required to run this plant is 368 MJ. The digester

has a capacity of 14m3, operates by continuous feeding rate and mesophilic process. The

economic analysis of the biogas plant is relatively viable; the investment cost is ₦3,648,000., the

sale of biogas is ₦1,748,000 the pay back period is 3.4 years, and the return on investment is

31.0% per annum.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESIGN PROJECT TOPIC 2009/2010..............................................................................................................ii

DECLARATION...............................................................................................................................................iii
APPROVAL PAGE...........................................................................................................................................iv
DEDICATION..................................................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................................................vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER ONE...............................................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT......................................................................................................................4
1.2 AIM.....................................................................................................................................................4
1.3 OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................................................4
1.4 JUSTIFICATIONS..................................................................................................................................5
1.5 SCOPE..................................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO..............................................................................................................................................6
2.0 LITERATURE SURVEY............................................................................................................................6
2.1 ENVIRONMENT....................................................................................................................................6
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE...................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Solid Waste...................................................................................................................................7
2.2.2 Types of Solid Waste....................................................................................................................7
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................9
2.3.1 Industrial Solid Wastes.................................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Hazardous Wastes......................................................................................................................10
2.3.4 Generation of environmental waste in Nigeria..........................................................................12
2.4 The Effects of Environmental Waste.................................................................................................14
2.4.1 Effects on Man............................................................................................................................14
2.4.2 Effects on Plants.........................................................................................................................14
2.4.3 Effects on Animals......................................................................................................................14
2.4.4 Effects on Buildings....................................................................................................................14
 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................15
2.5.1 Solid Waste Collection................................................................................................................18
2.5.2 Strategies for Management of Solid Waste in Nigeria................................................................20
2.6 BIOMASS..........................................................................................................................................25
2.6.1 Uses of Biomass..........................................................................................................................26
2.7 RENEWABLE ENERGY IN NIGERIA....................................................................................................29
2.7.1 PROCESSES OF BIOGAS PRODUCTION........................................................................................31
2.7.1 BIOGAS.....................................................................................................................................34
2.7.2 Biogas and the Global Carbon Cycle...........................................................................................35
2.7.3 Biology of Methanogenesis........................................................................................................36
2.7.4 Substrate and Material Balance of Biogas Production...............................................................36
2.7.5 Utilization of Biogas....................................................................................................................37
2.7.6 The Benefits of Biogas Technology.............................................................................................38
2.7.8 The Costs of Biogas Technology.................................................................................................39
2.7.9 Fuel and Fertilizer.......................................................................................................................39
2.7.10 Public and Political Awareness.................................................................................................40
2.8 THE PRODUCTION OF BIOGAS...........................................................................................................41
2.8.1 The three steps of biogas production.........................................................................................41
2.8.2 Hydrolysis...................................................................................................................................42
2.8.3 Acidification................................................................................................................................42
2.8.4 Methane formation....................................................................................................................43
2.8.5 Symbiosis of bacteria..................................................................................................................43
2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................46
CHAPTER THREE..........................................................................................................................................48
3.0 PROCESS SELECTION..........................................................................................................................48
3.1 WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT (OR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP IN NIGERIA).....................49
3.1.1 Collection of Solid Waste............................................................................................................49
3.1.2 Collection Method Selection......................................................................................................49
3.2 Treatment of Biodegradable Waste..................................................................................................50
3.2.1 Treatment Method Selection.....................................................................................................52
3.2.2 Pretreatment Process Selection.................................................................................................52
Paper pre-treatment...........................................................................................................................53
3.3 Substrate Selection based on the Quantity of Environmental Biomass.............................................54
 3.3.1 Availability of Selected Biomass in Nigeria.................................................................................56
3.4 Raw Material Selection......................................................................................................................56
3.4.1 Chemical Composition................................................................................................................56
3.4.4 The Biogas Yield..........................................................................................................................58
3.5 SELECTION OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SYSTEMS..............................................................................59
3.6 SELECTION OF PROCESS TECHNOLOGY.............................................................................................60
3.6.1 Linde-KCA/BRV...........................................................................................................................60
3.6.2 ARTI Compact Biogas Plant.........................................................................................................61
3.6.3 The Valorga plant at Tilburg, Netherlands..................................................................................62
3.6.4 KOMPOGAS PROCESS TECHNOLOGY..........................................................................................63
3.6.7 Criteria for process and technology selection............................................................................64
3.6.8 The BTA TECHNOLOGY...............................................................................................................66
3.7 PROPOSED PROCESS SELECTION.......................................................................................................67
3.7.1 Feed Stock..................................................................................................................................67
3.8 Description of Proposed process.......................................................................................................71
CHAPTER FOUR...........................................................................................................................................73
4.0 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE....................................................................................................73
4.1.1 Design Considerations................................................................................................................73
4.1.2 Design basis................................................................................................................................73
4.2 MATERIAL BALANCE OF THE SECTIONED UNITS IN THE PLANT.........................................................77
4.2.1 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL BALANCE............................................................................................78
4.3 THE ENERGY BALANCE......................................................................................................................82
4.2.1 Mechanical energy requirements........................................................................................83
4.2.2 Energy production......................................................................................................................83
4.2.4 Net energy production..............................................................................................................83
4.2.5 Net energy production...............................................................................................................87
CHAPTER FIVE.............................................................................................................................................88
5.0 DETAILED EQUIPMENT DESIGN.........................................................................................................89
5.1 Design of the water storage tank......................................................................................................89
5.2 Design of the mixer:..........................................................................................................................91
5.3 DESIGN OF THE HYDROLYSIS VESSEL.................................................................................................95
5.4 DESIGN OF THE METHANIZER...........................................................................................................97
5.4.1 MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE METHANIZER............................................................................101
 5.5 DESIGN OF GAS CLEANER................................................................................................................105
5.6 SIZING OF COMPRESSOR FOR BIOGAS............................................................................................107
5.7 DESIGN OF STORAGE TANK FOR BIOMETHANE...............................................................................110
5.7.1 MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE BIOMETHANE STORAGE TANK..................................................112
5.8 SLUDGE PUMP DESIGN....................................................................................................................116
5.10 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN.....................................................................................117
CHAPTER SIX..............................................................................................................................................122
6.0 SITE SELECTION AND PLANT LAYOUT..............................................................................................122
6.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY..........................................................................................................................122
The Proposed Plant Layout (Flow-through)...........................................................................................122
CHAPTER SEVEN........................................................................................................................................126
7.0 PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION.................................................................................126
7.1 PROPOSED CONTROL FOR THE BIOGAS PLANT...............................................................................126
7.1.1 Mixer Control...........................................................................................................................127
7.1.2 Hydrolyser Control...................................................................................................................130
7.1.3 Sludge Pump Control................................................................................................................132
7.1.4 METHANIZER CONTROL............................................................................................................133
7.1.5 Gas Cleaner Control...........................................................................................................135
7.1.6 Compressor Controller......................................................................................................137
7.1.7 Biomethane storage tank.........................................................................................................138
7.2 INSTRUMENTATION........................................................................................................................139
CHAPTER EIGHT.........................................................................................................................................140
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT /SAFETY....................................................................................140
8.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE BIOGAS PLANT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.........................................140
8.3 HAZOP analysis around the Methanizer..........................................................................................143
CHAPTER NINE..........................................................................................................................................145
9.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND PROJECT EVALUATION.........................................................................145
9.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................145
9.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................145
9.3 Accuracy and Purpose of Capital cost Estimate...............................................................................147
9.4 Fixed Capital and Operating Capital;...............................................................................................148
9.5 Operating Costs...............................................................................................................................149
9.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BIOMETHANE PRODUCTION...................................................................152
 9.6.1 Cost of Biogas Production........................................................................................................153
9.6.2 COST ESTIMATION....................................................................................................................155
9.7 COSTING..........................................................................................................................................156
9.7.1 Equipment Costing...........................................................................................................156
9.7.2 Cost Index...............................................................................................................................158
9.8 CALCULATION OF EQUIPMENT COST..............................................................................................160
9.8.1 COST OF THE SHREDDER..........................................................................................................161
9.8.2 COST OF WATER STORAGE TANK.............................................................................................161
9.8.3 COST OF MIXING VESSEL..........................................................................................................162
9.8.4 COST OF AGITATOR IN THE METHANIZER................................................................................163
9.8.5 COST OF THE HYDROLYSIS VESSEL............................................................................................163
9.8.6 COST OF THE METHANIZATION VESSEL....................................................................................164
9.8.7 COST OF FLUID MOTIVE DEVICE (COMPRESSOR AND PUMP)..................................................164
9.8.8 Cost of biogas cleaner (water scrubber)...................................................................................165
9.8.2 COST OF BIOMETHANE STORAGE TANK...................................................................................166
9.8.9 Working Capital........................................................................................................................168
9.8.10 Fixed Cost...............................................................................................................................168
9.8.11 Direct Labour Cost..................................................................................................................169
9.9 PROCESS EVALUATION....................................................................................................................170
9.9.1 Profitability Analysis.........................................................................................................170
9.9.2 SALE OF BIOGAS.......................................................................................................................171
9.9.3 RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)...............................................................................................171
CHAPTER TEN............................................................................................................................................172
10.0 START-UP AND SHUT-DOWN PROCEDURE....................................................................................172
10.1 START UP.......................................................................................................................................172
10.2 SHUT DOWN..................................................................................................................................173
CHAPTER ELEVEN......................................................................................................................................174
11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................174
11.1 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................174
11.2 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................174
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................175
APPENDIX..................................................................................................................................................179
APPENDIX C...............................................................................................................................................191
C.0 COST INDEX EXTRAPOLATION.........................................................................................................191
Figure C.1 Chemical Engineering Cost Index (Source: Chemical Engineering Plant Cost, 2010)............191

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Classification of materials comprising municipal solid waste.......................................................8
Table 2.2 General sources of municipal wastes.............................................................................................9
Table 2.3 Composition of environmental solid waste in some selected states of Nigeria............................11
Table 2.4 The waste generation in Nigeria..................................................................................................13
Table 2.5 Some Basic Data on biomass worldwide..................................................................................26
Table 2.5 The unit processes involved in the production of biogas from biomass.......................................33
Table 2.6 The material composition of biomass..........................................................................................33
Table 3.1 Means of waste collection in Nigeria..........................................................................................49
Table 3.2. Treatment methods of solid waste..............................................................................................51
Table 3.6 The pre-treatment processes of biomass......................................................................................52
Table 3.3 Proximate and Ultimate Chemical analysis of Municipal Solid Waste........................................57
Table 3.4 The Chemical Content of Solid Wastes (percent by mass dry basis)...........................................58
Table 3.4 Biogas Production characteristics of solid wastes.......................................................................58
Figure 3.1. Anaerobic digestion processes (Binod, 2008)...........................................................................59
Table 3.5 Summary of existing Biogas Technologies.................................................................................65
Table 4.1 Composition by mass of the components of the organic waste....................................................73
Table 4.2 The typical data on the ultimate analysis of the biomass is represented below............................74
Table 4.4 Material Balance Around The Mixer...........................................................................................78
Table 4.5 Material Balance Around The Hydrolyser...................................................................................79
Table 4.6 Material Balance Around The Sludge Pump...............................................................................79
Table 4.7 Material Balance Around The Methanizer..................................................................................80
Table 4.8 Material Balance Around The Biogas Compressor.....................................................................80
Table 4.9 Material Balance Around The Digestate Dewatering Unit..........................................................81
Table 4.10 Material Balance Around The Digestate Dewatering Pump......................................................81
Table 4.11 Material Balance Around The Biogas Cleaner (Scrubber)........................................................82
Table 4.1 Energy Balance in the system......................................................................................................88
Table 5.1. Summary of Plant Design.........................................................................................................121
The Table 7.1 below summarizes the instrument used for the biogas plant design....................................139
Table 8.1 The effects of hydrogen sulphide..............................................................................................140
Table 8.2 The guide words........................................................................................................................141
Table 9.1 Summary of the Economic Analysis (production cost).............................................................152
Table 9.2 Digester biogas production data and cost.............................................................................154
Table 9.6 Equipment cost, size and index.................................................................................................157
Table 9.6 Summary of equipment cost......................................................................................................166
Table 9.8 Factors of Items.....................................................................................................................167
Table 9.9 Fixed capital cost.......................................................................................................................168
Table .3 Computation of the chemical composition of the biomass sample using the above.....................180
LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1.1 Typical composition of environmental waste (Peavy, 2006)........................................................2

Figure 2.1 Total external conditions..............................................................................................................6
Figure 2.2 Elements of a solid waste management systems........................................................................17
Figure 2.3: A solid waste collection site.....................................................................................................20
Table 2.10 Economic comparism of renewable energy sources with biomass............................................30
Figure 2.7 The world energy consumption..................................................................................................31
Figure 2.9 A typical biogas system configuration.......................................................................................38
Figure 2.10: The three-stage anaerobic fermentation of biomass................................................................41
Figure 2.11 The process flow diagram for biogas production.....................................................................45
Figure 2.12 The block diagram of biomass process of forming biogas......................................................45
Figure 3.1Linde wet digestion (ostrem, 2004).............................................................................................61
Figure 3.9. The kompogas process diagram................................................................................................63
Figure 3.8 Basic BTA process diagram.......................................................................................................67
Figure 3.1 The proposed biogas plant.........................................................................................................70
Figure 4.1 The Process Block Diagram of the major units in the plant.......................................................77
Figure 5.1 The water storage tank design....................................................................................................89
Figure 5.2 The mixer design........................................................................................................................91
Figure 5.3 The Hydrolysis vessel design.....................................................................................................95
Figure 5.5 The water scrubber design........................................................................................................105
Figure 5.6 The biogas compressor.............................................................................................................107
Figure 5.7 The biomethane storage tank design........................................................................................110
Figure 7.1 The mixing vessel control........................................................................................................129
Figure 7.2 The hydrolysis vessel control...................................................................................................131
Figure 7.4 The methanization vessel control.............................................................................................133
Figure 7.5 The biogas scrubber control.....................................................................................................135
Figure 7.6 The biogas compressor control................................................................................................137
Figure 9.1 Marshall and Swift Equipment cost index................................................................................160
Figure 9.2. The Chemical Engineering equipment cost index...................................................................160
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Solid waste constitutes a major problem to countries world over. The United States, with about

4% of the world's population produces about 1 billion tonnes of the world's solid waste (Miller,

2000). On the other hand, Nigeria with about 2% of the world's population (120 million)

generates about 12 million tonnes of world's wastes (Ahove, 2008).

The emerging concern on large quantity of the waste being produced both in the form of solid

(Biomass) and liquid waste, the concept of waste management becomes one of the key focus of

sustainable development (Santha, 2007). The drastic depletion of the world petroleum reserves

and the increased emission of combustion products have stimulated the search for alternative

sources for petroleum-based-fuel, which are referred to as biofuels including biogas (Biodiesel,

2006).

In many Nigerian cities, the volumes of solid wastes have overwhelmed urban administrators'

capacity to plan for their collection and disposal. Thus it is not uncommon to find urban streets

and roads practically blocked by solid wastes. This has been observed to contribute to the

problem of flood disasters in cities such as Ibadan and Lagos. In several urban and rural centers

throughout Nigeria, the arrangements for waste disposal have been ineffective or insufficient.

Thus these wastes are often indiscriminately dumped on open plots of land and, particularly,

along and streets. Consequently some of the affected streets may be rendered impassable for

several weeks or months. Every Nigerian city is marked by this malaise, and its end appears not to

be in sight (Ahove, 2007).

This is more reason why firms are being setup for waste management in Nigeria, especially in

urban areas for example Lagos-state Waste Management (LAWMA) which regulates the disposal

of municipal wastes in Lagos state in terms of collection from every areas and disposal, also

penalizes any wrong or poor disposal of the wastes.

The organic composition of the environmental waste is about 83%. (Mackenzie, 2007). Figure 1.1

shows the chart for environmental waste composition which are convertible to biogas through

anaerobic digestion.

Rubber,leather,and Other
textiles 3%
7%

Yard trimming
13% Paper and
paperboard
34%
Food
12%

Wood
6%
Metals
Plastics 8%
12% Glass
5%

Figure 1.1 Typical composition of environmental waste (Peavy, 2006).

Biofuels are a wide range of fuels which are in some way derived from biomass (waste). The

gases produced by the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter from biomass are called biogas

(anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes) (James, 2006).

The concept of biotechnology has brought about a great turn around in the Energy sector.

Biofuels are some of the alternative/renewable energy resources. They provide another platform

for the production of “green” fuels that could substitute for the conventional fossil fuels (Bugaje

and Mohammed, 2007).

With the increasing price of petroleum fuels increasing globally in the last years, the economic

viability of biofuels continues to increase. Currently, both bio-ethanol and biodiesel sell almost at

the same price as Petroleum Motor Spirit (PMS) and AGO respectively due to a favorable tax

regime for the environmentally friendly biofuels (Bugaje and Mohammed, 2007).

Despite the earnest need for the biofuels, the design of bio-reactors required to produce these

biogas from biomass has been a little challenge for the reactor engineers due to two factors;

Environmental Impact of the Technology adapted and the economics (Ayhan, 2006). The major

processes involved in biogas production are the biomass conditioning and transport, gasification,

gas purification, gas utilization (Dahlman, 2009). The reduction of greenhouse gases pollution is

the main advantage of utilizing biomass energy (Ayhan, 2006).

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

 Environmental pollution (waste) has been a bone of contention in the sense that on a

worldwide scale, rapid population growth and urbanization have led to an enormous

increase of solid waste generation per unit area.

 World energy demand is rapidly increasing of which the concept of renewable energy

is most essential.

 The petroleum reserves are drastically depleting.

1.2 AIM

The aim of this project is to design a pilot plant that will convert environmental waste (biomass)

to 5000m3 per year of biogas, which has potential uses, and are environmentally friendly.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

 To compare and contrast between various existing technologies of converting biomass to

biogas.

 To select and design an economical and environmentally friendly pilot plant capable of

producing 5000m3 per year of biogas from biomass.

 To carry out material and energy balance of biomass conversion processes

 To analyze the material (organic) components of biomass (environmental waste).

 Design of the equipment.

 The economic evaluation of the plant.

 To create a means for reuse of environmental waste.

1.4 JUSTIFICATIONS

 There is a pressing need to minimize the solid environmental waste.

 Biomass is readily available in increasingly large quantity in Nigeria and the world at

large.

 Such civilization adapted could make Nigeria participate in the Vision 20:2020.

 Biogas has fuel properties similar to the conventional fuel.

 Biogas is non toxic, biodegradable and safe to handle.

 Biogas is a source of huge income to the government.

 Biogas is economically friendly.

 Provides additional revenues for the agricultural and forestry sectors.

 Enhancing energy security by diversifying energy sources and utilizing local sources.

 Reduces carbon emission.

1.5 SCOPE

 To design a pilot plant for biogas production whose plant capacity is 5000 liters of biogas

per year and the feedstock to the plant is biomass (waste).

 To design a pilot plant for biogas production in which the units involved from separation

to the anaerobic digestion, gasification, purification, storage and utility.

 CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE SURVEY

2.1 ENVIRONMENT

Environment is the sum total of the condition within which organisms live; it is the result of

interaction between non-living and living parameters. The non-living parameter can be referred to

as -abiotic and the living parameter can also be referred to as biotic. Thus the environment may

be said to be all external conditions that affect an organism or other specific system during its life

time (Ahove, 2008). Environment has to do with water, air, and land and the interrelationship that

exists among and between water, air, and land and all living things (James, 2006). The Figure 2.1

shows the total external conditions of an environment.

Figure 2.1 Total external conditions.

1. Biotic factors; this includes all living-organisms i.e plants and animals (in a general sense).

2. Abiotic factors: this includes all non-living organisms such as mountains, rain, soil, (these are

the physical parameters). Others include pH - acidity or alkalinity and other chemical factors.

3 The interaction between these biotic factors and how they (i.e biotic and abiotic interact in

combination with the organism (Ahove, 2008).

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE

2.2.1 Solid Waste

Solid wastes are Garbage, refuse, sludge, and other discarded material resulting from community

activities or commercial or industrial operations (James, 2006).

Solid waste is a generic term used to describe the things we throw away. It includes objects the

lay audience commonly calls garbage, refuse, and trash. The U.S. EPA regulatory definition is

broader in scope. It includes any discarded items; things destined for reuse, recycle, or

reclamation; sludges; and hazardous wastes. The regulatory definition specifically excludes

radioactive wastes and in situ mining waste (Mackenzie, 2007).

2.2.2 Types of Solid Waste

The types and source of solid wastes and the physical and chemical composition of solid

wastes are considered in this section. The term solid wastes is all-inclusive and encompasses

all sources, types of classification, and properties. As basis for subsequent discussions, it will

be helpful to define the various types of solid wastes that are generated. Three general

categories are considered: (Howard, 2006).

 - Municipal wastes

- Industrial wastes

- Hazardous wastes.

Table 2.1 Classification of materials comprising municipal solid waste

Components Description

Food wastes The animal, fruit, or vegetable residues (also called garbage)
resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and eating of
foods. Because food wastes are putrescible, they will decompose
rapidly especially in warm weather.

Rubbish Combustible and noncombustible solid wastes excluding food

wastes or other putrescible materials. Typically, combustible
rubbish consists of materials such as paper , cardboard, plastics
textiles, rubber, leather, wood, furniture, and garden trimmings.
Noncombustible rubbish consists of items such as glass, crockery,
tin cans, ferrous and nonferrous metals, dirt, and construction
wastes.

Ashes and residues Materials remaining from the burning of wood, coal, coke, and
other combustible wastes. Residues from power plants normally
are not included in this category. Ashes and residues are normally
composed of fine, powdery materials, cinders, clinkers, and small
amounts of burned and partially burned materials.

Demolition and Waste from razed buildings and other structures are classified as
construction wastes demolition wastes. Wastes from the construction, remodeling, and
repairing of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and
similar structures are classified as plaster, lumber, shingles, and
plumbing, heating, and electrical parts. wastes. These wastes may
include dirt, stones, concrete, bricks, paster, lumber, shingles, and
plumbing, heating, and electrical parts.

Special wastes Wastes such as street sweepings, roadside litter, dead animals and
abandoned vehicles.

Treatment plant wastes Semi solid waste from water, waste water, and industrial wasteb
treatment facilities are included in this classification.

Source: (Howard, 2006).

2.2.3 Source of Municipal Solid Waste

Sources and types of municipal solid wastes are reported in table 2.2. In evaluation the sources of

solid waste as reported in table 2.2 it can be concluded that they are, for the most part, related to

land use and zoning. The most difficult source to deal with is open areas because in these

locations the generation of waste is a diffuse process.

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

Table 2.2 General sources of municipal wastes

Source Typical facilities, or activities, or Types of wastes

locations

Residential Single-family and multifamily dwellings, Food waste, rubbish, ashes,

low, medium, and high-rise apartments, special wastes, e.t.c.
etc.

Commercial Stores, restaurants, markets, office, Food wastes, rubbish, ashes,

buildings, hotels, motels; medical demolition and construction
facilities, institutions, print shops and auto waste, special wastes,
repair shops. occasionally hazardous wastes

Open areas Streets, alleys, parks, vacant lots, play Special wastes, rubbish
ground, beaches, highways, recreational
areas, etc.

Treatment Water, wastewater, and industrial Treatment-plant wastes,

plant sites treatment processes, etc principally composed of residual
sludge

Source: (Howard, 2006)

2.3.1 Industrial Solid Wastes

Industrial wastes are those wastes arising from industrial activities and typically include rubbish,

ashes, demolition and construction wastes, special wastes, and hazardous wastes.

2.3.2 Hazardous Wastes

Wastes that pose a substantial danger immediately or over a period of time to human, plant, or

animal life are classified as hazardous wastes. A waste is classified as hazardous if it exhibits any

of the following characteristics:

- Ignitability

- Corrosivity

- Reactivity

- Toxicity

In the past,hazardous wastes were often grouped into the following categories :

- Radioactive substances

- Chemicals

- Biological wastes

- Flammable wastes

- Explosives.

The chemical category includes wastes that are corrosive, reactive, or toxic. The principal sources

of hazardous biological wastes are hospitals and biological research facilities.

Hazardous wastes are generated in limited amounts throughout most industrial activities. In terms

of generation, the concern is with the identification of the amounts and types of hazardous wastes

developed at each source, with emphasis on those sources where significant waste quantities are
generated. Unfortunately, very little information is available on the quantities of hazardous wastes

generated in various industries.

The spreading of hazardous wastes by spillage must also be considered. The quantities of

hazardous wastes that are involved in spillage usually are not known. After a spill, the wastes

requiring collection and disposal are often significantly greater than the amount of spilled wastes,

especially where an absorbing material, such as straw, is used to soak up liquid hazardous wastes

or where the soil into which a hazardous liquid waste has percolated must be excavated. Both the

straw and the liquid and the liquid are classified as hazardous wastes. Figure 1.1 shows the typical

percentage composition of environmental waste. Also Table 2.3 shows the composition of waste

in Nigeria.

Table 2.3 Composition of environmental solid waste in some selected states of Nigeria.

COMPOSITION Nsukka Lagos Makurdi Kano Onitsha Ibadan Maiduguri

Putrescible (e.g. 56
vegetables, food, wood, 56 52.2 43.0 30.7 76 25.8
e.t.c.)
Plastics 8.4 4 8.2 4.0 9.2 4.0 18.1
Paper and paperboard 13.8 14.0 12.3 17.0 23.1 6.6 7.5
Textile 3.1 - 2.5 7.0 6.2 1.4 3.9
Metals 6.8 4.0 7.1 5.0 6.2 2.5 9.1
Glass 2.5 3.0 3.6 2.0 9.2 0.6 4.3
Others 9.4 19.0 14.0 22.0 15.4 8.9 31.3
Source: FROM OGWUELEKA, 2009.
2.3.4 Generation of environmental waste in Nigeria.

Solid waste constitutes a major problem to countries world over. The United States, with about

4% of the world's population produces about I1 billion tonnes of the world's solid waste (Miller,

2000). On the other hand, Nigeria with about 2% of the world's population (120 million)

generates about 12 million tonnes of world's wastes. This prediction is based on the estimate of

Ekwo (1997) that the average solid waste generated by Nigeria with a population of 100 million

was found to be 10 million. This implies that on the average each individual will generate 10

tonnes of solid waste per year. The population of solid waste collection and disposal has become

one of the most intractable environmental problems facing us today especially in many of our

urban areas.

The unsanitary conditions in which the solid wastes are collected, processed, and disposed of

contribute greatly to urban environmental degradation. Few Local Governments have regulations

or bylaws, which specify the type of containers to be used for storing refuse and, as a result of this

lapse, many households use various inappropriate containers as dustbins. Perhaps more important

is the fact that there is a need for central depots or dumps where each household can deposit its

wastes for collection later by garbage trucks. Unfortunately, most households (71%) throw their

refuse in any available open space, to be collected later, if at all, by the garbage trucks. Only

about 22% of the sampled households disposed of their refuse in proper depots for which there

were containers either of metal, plastic, concrete blocks, or mud walls. About 5% of the

households threw their solid wastes in its exist in their areas of the cities. However, more

important is the variability among the states. While about 83% of the sampled urban households

in Niger and Bauchi States reported the non-collection of their refuse, only about 4% of Sokoto

and Ogun States reported likewise (Ahove, 2007).

However, it must be realized that even within individual cities, there is a degree of variability in

the frequency of collection of refuse by the authorities. Some areas in

the cities, such as the Victoria Island and Ikoyi in Lagos, Bodija in Ibadan, and the various

G.R.As in other cities, receive more attention by having their refuse collected more regularly than

other areas, especially those inhabited by the low-income group. The waste generation in Nigeria

is as shown in table 2.4 below (Ahove, 2007).

Table 2.4 The waste generation in Nigeria.

URBAN CITIES 1982 1985 1990 2000 2003 2005 2006

LAGOS 625,399 681,394 786,079 998,081 1,098,291 1,280,256 1,501,121
IBADAN 350,823 382,224 440,956 449,882 460,284 501,291 520,385
KANO 319,935 348,580 402,133 535,186 602,187 699,284 783,364
KADUNA 257,837 280,925 324,08 431,314 542,274 648,098 708,364
ONITSHA 242,240 263,929 304,477 386,593 501,231 608,149 808,291
PORT-HARCOURT 210,934 229,821 265,129 352,853 419,228 623,212 892,132
OSHOGBO 131,903 143,712 173,720 253,842 321,154 432,432 657,123
ABA 131,903 143,712 169,719 236,703 309,124 398,231 598,543
WARRI 67,477 75,607 91,396 133,531 207,204 278,192 347,123
JOS 99,871 111,905 135,272 197,660 243,123 307,576 349,123
POTISKUM 15,434 16,816 19,399 28,347 48,234 73,125 103,765
GUSAU 44,488 48,471 57,243 79,835 98,298 109,376 149,963
UYO 12,508 13,628 15,721 20,336 38,567 47,674 66,190
SULEJA 9,383 10,514 13,311 21,336 28,973 38,978 48,937
NEW BUSSA 5,690 6,200 7,152 9,518 12,237 18,839 31,938
Source: Federal Ministry Of Housing And Environment, The State Of The Environment In
Nigeria, Monograph Series, No. , Lagos, (No Date)
2.4 The Effects of Environmental Waste.

2.4.1 Effects on Man

Air pollution can cause breathing problems and eye, throat and skin irritation. When solid waste is

not properly treated and disposed of, it can become a breeding for pests and disease can spread

(Think quest, 2010).

2.4.2 Effects on Plants

Leaves find it difficult to manufacture food in polluted air. When trees begin to lose their leaves,

they may eventually die. When there is too much chemical content in the water absorbed by the

roots, it can also affect plant life (Think quest, 2010).

2.4.3 Effects on Animals

Oil spills in the seas and oceans result in birds and animals (e.g. penguins and seals) being coated

in oil. This makes it difficult for them to float and keep warm and they may eventually die. Solid

waste in the water encourages the growth of algae which depletes water of oxygen and kills

marine life (Think quest, 2010).

2.4.4 Effects on Buildings

Air pollution discolours and corrodes buildings and statues, e.g. the Louvre Museum in France,

historical buildings in London and the Taj Mahal in India are all covered with a layer of pollutants

(Think quest, 2010).

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

- Recognizing that our world is finite and that the continued pollution of our environment

will, if uncontrolled, be difficult to rectify in the future, the subject of solid waste

management is both timely and important. The overall objective of solid-waste

management is to minimize the adverse environmental effects caused by the

indiscriminate disposal of solid wastes, especially of hazardous waste. To assess the

management possibilities it is important to consider (Peavy, 2006):

- Material flow in society

- Reduction in raw materials usage

- Reduction in solid-waste quantities

- Reuse of materials

- Materials recovery

- Energy recovery

- Day to day solid-waste management.

In solid management, we must consider the waste from the point of generation to the point of

final disposal. As shown in Figure 2.1, solid waste management is a complex process,

involving multiple steps.

As indicated in Figure 2.1, the first step in solid waste management is the generation of the

waste. Once a material no longer has value to its owner, it is considered waste. The generation

of waste varies by country, socioeconomic status, and as a result of many other practices.

Once the waste is generated on site, it must be processed in some way. The processing may

include washing, separation, and storage so as to recycle some portion of the waste. Public
law and education significantly affect this step. For example, in some communities it is illegal

to discard lawn clippings and other similar biomass in the regular trash collections. Educating

the public as to the importance of recycling will affect this step also.

Waste collection is the next step in waste management process. Collection includes picking up

solid wastes and emptying containers into suitable vehicles for transport. This step also

includes the collection of recyclable materials. As will be discussed in the next section,

collection and transport of waste represents a significant fraction of the total cost of

management. The collected waste can be transferred to a central storage facility or to a

processing facility. If processing occurs, it usually includes mass and volume reduction, along

with separation into the various components that can be reused. The separated waste may at

this point become a valuable commodity. In effect, it is no longer a waste. The organic portion

of the waste can be transformed into heat by chemical means (usually incineration) or into

fuel gas or compost (by biologically mediated reactions). The final step include transport and

disposal. The most common means of final disposal is landfilling. Figure 2.2 below shows the

elements of a solid waste management systems (Peavy, 2006).

 SOLID WASTE GENERATION

SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND

STORAGE ON SITE

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION

TRANSFER TO CENTRAL
STORAGE FACILITY

PROCESSING FACILITY

PRODUCT UTILIZATION

DISPOSAL

Figure 2.2 Elements of a solid waste management systems

2.5.1 Solid Waste Collection

The solid waste collection policies of a city begin with decisions made by elected

representatives about whether is to be made by

(1) City employees (municipal collection)

(2) Private firms that contact with city government (contract collection)

(3) private firms that contract with private residents (private collection)

Elected officials may also determine what type of solid waste s are to be collected and from

whom. In some municipalities broad classes of solid wastes (e.g. yard waste) are not accepted

for general collection. In others, certain materials (e.g., tires, furniture, or dead animals) may

be excluded. Hazardous wastes are excluded from regular collections. The nature of the

service may be governed by limitations of disposal facilities or by the opinion of the

legislative body as to what service should be performed. Almost all municipal systems collect

residential waste, but only about one-third collect industrial waste (Cal, 2001).

The final decision concerning collection, which is made by the elected officials, is the

frequency of collection. The proper frequency for the most satisfactory and economical

service is governed by the amount of solid waste that must be collected and by climate, cost,

and public requests. For the collection of solid waste that contains putrescible waste, the

maximum period should not be greater than (Cal, 2001)

1. The normal time for the accumulation of the amount that can be placed in containers of

reasonable size
 2. The time it takes for fresh putrescible waste to decay and emit foul odors under average

storage conditions

3. The length of the fly-breeding cycle, which, during the hot summer month, is less than 7

days.

In the last three decades the prevailing frequency of collection has changed from twice a week

pickup to once a week. The increased use of once per week service is due to two factors. First,

unit costs are reduced when frequency is cut from twice to once per week. Second, the increased

percentage of paper and decreased volume of putrescible wastes permit longer periods of

acceptable storage.

Once policy has been set, the actual method of collection is determined by engineers or managers.

Major considerations include how the solid waste will be collected, how the crews will be

managed, and how the trucks will be routed (Cal, 2001).

Figure 2.3: A solid waste collection site

2.5.2 Strategies for Management of Solid Waste in Nigeria

Ahove, (2007) mentioned that there are several strategies used for managing solid wastes, which

include;

(1) Open dumping Open dumping is deposition of solid waste in a land disposal site, left

uncovered, with little or no regard for control of scavengers, diseases, air pollution,

aesthetics and water/and pollution problems.

Advantages:

(1) Very easy to operate within a short period

(2) It is not expensive

Disadvantages:

(l) It is a disease-breeding strategy

(2) It results in air-pollution when burnt

(3) Leaching results in contamination of groundwater, and surface water

(4) The bad odour and contaminated water can affect man, animals, and plants. (quite unsightly)

(5) Putting the land into use becomes a big problem.

2. Sanitary Land filling: It is an upgraded version of open dumping strategy. Here, the site is

located where water pollution from run-off and leaching is minimised. The wastes are spread in

thin layers, compacted, and covered with a fresh layer of soil each day.

Advantages:

(1) It minimizes pets and aesthetic loss„ diseases, air-pollution and water pollution problems

(2) It is good for land reclamation or it enhances the land value.

Disadvantages:

(1) If not well managed, it can degenerate into an open-dump.

(2) There might not be space for landfill site because of human activities (house construction,

farming, etc.) However, it requires a high level of commitment, changed attitude and sincerity of

purpose.

3. Secured Landfilling: The use of a land to store hazardous solid and liquid wastes, usually

stored in containers and buried. Such sites are restricted and monitored
Disadvantages:

Not safe for neighbouring inhabitants.

4. Incineration: a strategy in which solid, liquid or gaseous combustible

material is burnt on a piece of land (in a pit) or in a conthiner.

Advantages:

(1) It reduces the volume of waste by 80%

(2) It removes odours and disease carrying organic matter

(3) It needs little land space.

Disadvantages:

(1) It is expensive and needs skilled labour

(2) If not well managed, it results in air-pollution and respiratory diseases because of discharge of

carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, poisonous gas and harmful particles.

5. Composting: Dumping of bio-degradable solid waste into prepared pits, later covered with top

solid, allowed to breakdown (through bacteria) to produce a humus-like end product referred to as

compost such biological decomposition of organic wastes under-controlled conditions requires

that wastes be sorted to garbage pack

Advantages:

(l) It converts organic wastes to solid conditioner, or for fertilization

(2) It improves crop yields

Disadvantage:

Where the wastes are not properly sorted out before dumping, some undercomposed metallic

objects and nylon can obstruct plant growth.

6. Resource Recovery Plant Usage

This strategy turns waste to useful resource health in 2 ways:

(a) Low Technology Approach: This requires homes and business houses to deposit recyclable

wastes paper, glass, metals and food scraps into separate containers for onward transportation to

crap dealers, compost plants, manufacturing plants for

recycling.

(b) High Technology Approach: This requires collection trucks to transport mixed urban wastes to

plant sites where they are spread and sorted out to recover gla s, iron, aluminium and other

valuable items which are later recycled to produce new

products for market. Other combustible wastes .are later burnt to produce steam, hot water,

electricity, etc.

Advantage:

It turns household, agricultural and industrial wastes to useful materials.

Disadvantages:

It can cause air-pollution if not properly managed.

Nuclear and Toxic Waste Disposal:

Nuclear wastes are radioactive materials which are dangerous to most forms of life. Nuclear

industries and uranium mills generate them. Toxic wastes are generated from toxic chemicals and
metals, which are poisonous to human beings and wildlife. Examples of metal wastes, which

could be toxic, are lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Toxic pesticides include DDT, aldrin,

lindane, endosulfan, potassium and phosphine.

Disposal Methods:

Since majority of highly radioactive waste takes a number of years to decay, disposal takes

different forms:

1. Dumping (wastes in Poor countries) e.g the koko waste dump of 1988. A German ship, THE

LINE, dumped toxic wastes at Kokofort in Delta State of Nigeria, before it was removed back to

EURIPE in same ship.

2. Storage in stainless steel tanks: The ultimate goal is soliciting the waste in glass through

nitrification. Such tanks are constantly cooled and monitored for a length of time.

3. Exporting nuclear wastes to deserts in exchange for nuclear technological know-how e.g

Germany exports (waste China for burial in Gobi Desert

(i) Effects of Nuclear &Toxic Waste Disposal: the effects are numerous on man, the flora and

fauna of our environment, health problems such as convulsion, dermatitis, irritation of

nose/throat, anemia, skin burns, chest pains, blood disorders.

(ii) Compulsion of manufacturers to label their productswith adequate disposal instructions (e.g

cans, yogurts, pure water, etc.

Anaerobic Bacterial Digestion: This is another method of converting solid waste into beneficial

products the waste is subject to anaerobic bacterial digestion to produce combustible biogas and

organic fertilizer. Under strict anaerobic conditions microorganisms generate combustible gas,

with manure or organic fertilizer being produced as a by-product can digest solid wastes. Bio-gas
provides energy for cooking, lighting, and drying farm produce and electricity generation. Bio-gas

is a mixture of gases comprising 70% o methane, 30-49% dioxide and traces of the gases such as

hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide (Ahove, 2007).

2.6 BIOMASS

Biomass is a renewable energy source because the energy it contains comes from the sun.

Through the process of photosynthesis, chlorophyll in plants captures the sun's energy by

converting carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground into carbohydrates, complex

compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. When these carbohydrates are burned,

they turn back into carbon dioxide and water and release the sun's energy they contain. In this

way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing solar energy. As long as biomass is

produced sustainably—with only as much used as is grown—the battery will last indefinitely

(Green fuel, 2010).

Biomass being the oldest form of renewable energy, has been used for thousands of years.

However, its relative share of use has declined with the emergence of fossil fuels. Currently some

13% of the world’s primary energy supply is covered by biomass, but there are strong regional

differences: developed countries source around 3% of their energy needs from biomass, while

Africa’s share ranges from 70-90%. With environmental effects such as climate change coming to

the forefront, people everywhere are rediscovering the advantages of biomass. Potential benefits

include:

 Reducing carbon emissions if managed (produced, transported, used) in a sustainable

manner.
  Enhancing energy security by diversifying energy sources and utilizing local sources.

 Providing additional revenues for the agricultural and forestry sectors

 Reducing waste.

(World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2006)

Table 2.5 Some Basic Data on biomass worldwide.

ENTITIES QUANTITY/UNITS
Total mass of living matter (including 2000 billion tonnes
moisture)
Total mass in land plants 1800 billion tonnes
Total mass in forests 1600 billion tonnes
Per capita terrestrial biomass 400 tonnes
Energy stored in terrestrial biomass 25 000 EJ
Net annual production of terrestrial biomass 400 000 million tonnes
Rate of energy storage by land biomass 3000 EJ/y  (95 TW)
Total consumption of all forms of energy 400 EJ/y (12 TW)
Biomass energy consumption 55 EJ/y ( 1. 7 TW)
Source: Renewable Energy Report; Financial Times Energy, 2009

2.6.1 Uses of Biomass

Source of Food to the Plants

Plants and trees remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it while they grow.

Burning biomass in homes, industrial processes, energy generation activities, or for transport

returns this sequestered CO2 to the atmosphere. New plant or tree growth keeps the atmosphere’s

carbon cycle in balance by recapturing CO2. This net-zero or neutral carbon cycle can be repeated

indefinitely, as long as biomass is re-grown in the next management cycle and harvested for use.3

The sustainable management of the biomass source is critical to ensuring that the carbon cycle is

not interrupted (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2006).

Source: WBCSD, 2008

Figure 2.4 Biomass as a source of food for plants

For Heat and Power Generation

In 2000, biomass was the largest renewable energy source for electricity generation outside of

hydro, generating around 1% of the world’s electricity or 167 TWh. Its share is and will remain

small in comparison to fossil-based sources shows that the share of biomass relative to the other

renewable sources is expected to decrease due to the high growth rates of wind and solar power.

Biomass use for power generation is projected to more than triple until 2030, while wind will

increase 17-fold, reaching nearly similar generation capacity levels as biomass. However, wind

power is less predictable, due to its very nature, than sustainably supplied biomass generation

plants (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2006).

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook. 2002.

Figure 2.5: Electricity generation (TWH) by source.

Other uses are as shown in the figure below.

Series 1

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%

Figure 2.6 Biomass usage rate in other sectors (World Business Council for Sustainable

Development, 2006).
2.7 RENEWABLE ENERGY IN NIGERIA.

The term renewable implies alternative. Nigeria’s energy sectors heavily dependent on petroleum

fuels. This is more pronounced in the transportation and electricity generation sub-sectors. Energy

is a prime mover of economic development. Finding sustainable augmentation to these sub-

sectors from new and renewable energy resources is necessary for the economic development in

Nigeria (Bugaje and Mohammed, 2007).

Biofuels are some of the alternative/renewable energy resources that are derived from agricultural

resources. They provide another platform for the production of “green” fuels that could substitute

for the conventional fossil fuels (Bugaje and Mohammed, 2007).

To many people, the most familiar forms of renewable energy are the wind and the sun. But

biomass (plant material and animal waste) supplies almost 15 times as much energy in the United

States as wind and solar power combined—and has the potential to supply much more. There are

a wide variety of biomass energy resources, including tree and grass crops and forestry,

agricultural, and urban wastes. It is the oldest source of renewable energy known to humans, used

since our ancestors learned the secret of fire. Biomass is a renewable energy source because the

energy it contains comes from the sun. Through the process of photosynthesis, chlorophyll in

plants captures the sun's energy by converting carbon dioxide from the air and water from the

ground into carbohydrates, complex compounds composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

When these carbohydrates are burned, they turn back into carbon dioxide and water and release

the sun's energy they contain. In this way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing

solar energy. As long as biomass is produced sustainably—with only as much used as is grown—

the battery will last indefinitely. From the time of Prometheus to the present, the most common
way to capture the energy from biomass was to burn it, to make heat, steam, and electricity. But

advances in recent years have shown that there are more efficient and cleaner ways to use

biomass. It can be converted into liquid fuels, for example, or cooked in a process called

"gasification" to produce combustible gases. And certain crops such as switch grass and willow

trees are especially suited as "energy crops," plants grown specifically for energy generation

(Union of Concerned Scientist, 2007). Tables 2.6 and 2.7 shows the evaluation of energy

consumption compared to renewable energy.

Biomass Advantage Compared

Renewable Energy by EU
Evaluation

“21 Century by Biomass Energy”, Sakai Masayasu

Table 2.10 Economic comparism of renewable energy sources with biomass.

 World Energy
Consumption by Region
Middle East
Coal and Coal Products
Non-OE CD E urope Crude, NGL and Feedstocks
Petroleum Products
Form er USSR
Natural Gas
China Nuclear
Hydro
Asia E xcluding China
Geothermal
Latin Am erica Solar/Wind/Other
Combustible Renewables and Waste
Africa
Non-OE CD Total
EU-25
Total OE CD
World

0 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000,

000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Billion Ton of Oil Equivalent
International Energy Agency (IEA) Non-OECD Countries
Energy Balance 2003

Figure 2.7 The world energy consumption.

2.7.1 PROCESSES OF BIOGAS PRODUCTION

The major process of converting biomass to biogas is through anaerobic digestion.

Anaerobic digestion consists in the decomposition of organic matter by micro-organisms in an

oxygen free environment. During the past decades, anaerobic digestion for the treatment of the

organic fraction of municipal solid waste has been the major development in the field of waste

treatment facilities in Europe. Consequently, it has captured a significant share of the market for

the biological treatment of solid waste. A digestion capacity of almost 4 million tons per year has

been installed through the construction of more than 120 full-scale plants. Nevertheless, not all

experiences using this system have been equally successful, mainly due to poor planning, design
 or operation. These issues, along with elevated investment and operating costs, may have slowed

down the growth of anaerobic digestion below expectations. The flow diagram for biogas

production is as shown in Figure 2.11. The unit processes involved in the production of biogas

and the material composition of biomass are as shown in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6 respectively.

Biomass Transformation As Energy

Heat, Power
Direct Combustion
Generation
(Fuel) Gas
Gasification
Synthetic Gas
Thermal
Thermo Cracking Liquid Fuel
Direct
chemical Liquefaction
Transformatio
Biomass Low Hydrogen,
n
Temperature Methane
Gasification
Anaerobic Methane
Digestion
Biochemical
Aerobic (Compost)
Transformatio
n Pyrolysis Ethanol
Fermentation

Others RDF, Carbonization, Bio-Diesel

Figure 2.11 The flow diagram for biogas production (Yoshio, 2009).
 Table 2.5 The unit processes involved in the production of biogas from biomass.

UNIT PROCESSES REUSABLE PRODUCTS STANDARDS OR

CRITERIA
PRE-TREATMENT
Magnetic separation Ferrous metals Organic impurities
Size reduction (drum shredder) Communition of paper,
cardboards and bags
Pulping with gravity separation Heavy inerts reused as Organic impurities
construction material
Drum screening Coarse fraction, plastics Calorific value
Pasteurization Germs kill off

DIGESTION
Hydrolysis
Methanogenesis Biogas Norms nitrogen, sulphur
Biogas valorization Electricity 150-300kWh/ton
heat (steam) 250-500kWh/ton

POST-TREATMENT
Mechanical dewatering Load on water treatment
Aerobic stabilization or Compost Norms soil amendments
biological dewatering
Water treatment Water Disposal norms
Wet separation Sand Organic impurities
Fibres Norms potting media
Sludge Calorific value

Table 2.6 The material composition of biomass

Feed Total Volatil C:N Biogas Retentio CH4 Unwanted Inhibiting Frequent Ref.
stock solids e rati yield n Time Content Substance substances problems
(% of Solids o (m3, (d) (%) s
-1
TS) (% of Kg
TS) VS)
Pig 3-8 0-80 3- 0.25- 20-40 70-80 Wood Antibiotic Scum 3, 4
slurry 10 0.50 shavings, s, layers,
bristles,H disinfecta sediments
2 nts
O,
sand,cords
,straw
Cow 5-12 75-85 6- 0.20- 20-30 55-75 Bristles,so Antibiotic Scum 3, 4
slurry 20 0.30 i s, layers,poo
l,H2O, disinfecta r biogas
 NH4,stra nts yield
w,
wood
Chick 10-30 70-80 3- 0.35- >30 60-80 NH4,grit,s Antibiotic NH4- 3
en 10 0.60 a s, inhibition,
slurry nd,feather disinfecta scum
s nts layers
Whey 1-5 80-95 n.a 0.85- 3-10 60-80 Transport pH- 3, 4
0.95 at reduction
ion
impurities
Leave 80 90 30- 0.10- 8-20 n.a. Soil pesticides 2, 3
s 80 0.30
Wood 60-70 99.6 723 n.a. Long n.a. Unwanted Poor 3
waste time material anaerobic
s biodegrad
ation
Garde 60-70 90 100 0.20- 8-30 n.a. Soil, pesticides Poor 3
n - 0.50 cellulosic degradatio
waste 150 component n of
s cellulosic
componen
ts
Fruit 15-20 75 35 0.25- 8-20 n.a. Undegrada pesticides pH- 3
waste 0.50 ble fruit reduction
s remains,
grit
Food 10 80 n.a. 0.50- 10-20 70-80 Bones,plast disinfecta Sediments 1,2
waste 0.60 ic material nts ,mechanic
s al
problems
1-depending on straw addition, 2-depending on drying rate, 3-depending on retention time, 4-
depending on dilution.
SOURCE: VERMA, 2007.

2.7.1 BIOGAS

Biogas originates from bacteria in the process of bio-degradation of organic material under

anaerobic (without air) conditions. The natural generation of biogas is an important part of the

biogeochemical carbon cycle. Methanogens (methane producing bacteria) are the last link in a

chain of micro-organisms which degrade organic material and return the decomposition products
to the environment. In this process biogas is generated, a source of renewable energy (ISAT,

2009).

Biogas is produced by the process of anaerobic digestion of organic material by anaerobes. It can

be produced either from biodegradable waste materials or by the use of energy crops fed into

anaerobic digesters to supplement gas yields. The solid byproduct, digestate, can be used as a

biofuel or a fertilizer. In the UK, the National Coal Board experimented with microorganisms that

digested coal in situ converting it directly to gases such as methane.

Biogas contains methane and can be recovered from industrial anaerobic digesters and mechanical

biological treatment systems. Landfill gas is a less clean form of biogas which is produced in

landfills through naturally occurring anaerobic digestion. If it escapes into the atmosphere it is a

potent greenhouse gas.

Oils and gases can be produced from various biological wastes:

 Thermal depolymerization of waste can extract methane and other oils similar to

petroleum.

 GreenFuel Technologies Corporation developed a patented bioreactor system that uses

nontoxic photosynthetic algae to take in smokestacks flue gases and produce biofuels such

as biodiesel, biogas and a dry fuel comparable to coal.

2.7.2 Biogas and the Global Carbon Cycle

Each year some 590-880 million tons of methane are released worldwide into the atmosphere

through microbial activity. About 90% of the emitted methane derives from biogenic sources, i.e.
from the decomposition of biomass. The remainder is of fossil origin (e.g. petrochemical

processes). In the northern hemisphere, the present tropospheric methane concentration amounts

to about 1.65 ppm (ISAT, 2009).

2.7.3 Biology of Methanogenesis

Knowledge of the fundamental processes involved in methane fermentation is necessary for

planning, building and operating biogas plants. Anaerobic fermentation involves the activities of

three different bacterial communities. The process of biogas-production depends on various

parameters. For example, changes in ambient temperature can have a negative effect on bacterial

activity (ISAT,2009).

2.7.4 Substrate and Material Balance of Biogas Production

In principle, all organic materials can ferment or be digested. However, only homogenous and

liquid substrates can be considered for simple biogas plants: faeces and urine from cattle, pigs and

possibly from poultry and the wastewater from toilets. When the plant is filled, the excrement has

to be diluted with about the same quantity of liquid, if possible, the urine should be used. Waste

and wastewater from food-processing industries are only suitable for simple plants if they are

homogenous and in liquid form. The maximum of gas-production from a given amount of raw

material depends on the type of substrate (ISAT,2009).

Properties of biogas are pressure and temperature-dependent. They are also affected

by the moisture content. The factors of main interest are:

· change in volume as a function of temperature and pressure,

· change in calorific value as a function of temperature, pressure and water-vapor

content, and· change in water-vapor content as a function of temperature and pressure.

The calorific value of biogas is about 6 kWh/m3 - which corresponds to about half a litre of

diesel oil. The net calorific value depends on the efficiency of the burners or appliances.

Methane is the valuable component under the aspect of using biogas as a fuel.

2.7.5 Utilization of Biogas

The history of biogas utilization shows independent developments in various developing and

industrialized countries. The European biogas-history and that of Germany in particular, as well

as developments in Asian countries form the background of German efforts and programmes to

promote biogas technology worldwide (ISAT,2009).

Normally, the biogas produced by a digester can be used as it is, just in the same way as any other

combustible gas. But it is possible that a further treatment or conditioning is necessary, for

example, to reduce the hydrogen-sulfide content in the gas. When biogas is mixed with air at a

ratio of 1:20, a highly explosive gas forms. Leaking gas pipes in enclosed spaces constitute,

therefore, a hazard. However, there have been no reports of dangerous explosions caused by

biogas so far.

A first overview of the physical appearance of different types of biogas plants describes the three

main types of simple biogas plants, namely balloon plants, fixed-dome plants and floating-drum

plants (ISAT,2009)..
Source: Information And Advisory Service On Appropriate Technology

Figure 2.9 A typical biogas system configuration.

2.7.6 The Benefits of Biogas Technology

Well-functioning biogas systems can yield a whole range of benefits for their users, the society

and the environment in general:

.production of energy (heat, light, electricity) ;

· transformation of organic waste into high quality fertilizer;

· improvement of hygienic conditions through reduction of pathogens, worm eggs and flies;

· reduction of workload, mainly for women, in firewood collection and cooking.

· environmental advantages through protection of soil, water, air and woody vegetation;

· micro-economical benefits through energy and fertilizer substitution, additional

income sources and increasing yields of animal husbandry and agriculture;

· macro-economical benefits through decentralized energy generation, import substitution and

environmental protection.

Thus, biogas technology can substancially contribute to conservation and development, if the

concrete conditions are favorable. However, the required high investment capital and other

limitations of biogas technology should be thoroughly considered.

2.7.8 The Costs of Biogas Technology

An obvious obstacle to the large-scale introduction of biogas technology is the fact that the poorer

strata of rural populations often cannot afford the investment cost for a biogas plant.

This is despite the fact that biogas systems have proven economically viable investments in many

cases.

Efforts have to be made to reduce construction cost but also to develop credit and other financing

systems. A larger numbers of biogas operators ensures that, apart from the private user, the

society as a whole can benefit from biogas. Financial support from the government can be seen as

an investment to reduce future costs, incurred through the importation of petrol products and

inorganic fertilizers, through increasing costs for health and hygiene and through natural resource

degradation (ISAT, 2009).

2.7.9 Fuel and Fertilizer

In developing countries, there is a direct link between the problem of fertilization and progressive

deforestation due to high demand for firewood. In many rural areas, most of the inhabitants are

dependent on dung and organic residue as fuel for cooking and heating.

Such is the case, for example, in the treeless regions of India (Ganges plains, central
highlands), Nepal and other countries of Asia, as well as in the Andes Mountains of South

America and wide expanses of the African Continent. According to data published by the FAO,

some 78 million tons of cow dung and 39 million tons of phytogenic waste were burned in India

alone in 1970. That amounts to approximately 35% of India’s total

noncommercial/nonconventional energy consumption.

The burning of dung and plant residue is a considerable waste of plant nutrients. Farmers in

developing countries are in dire need of fertilizer for maintaining cropland productivity.

Nonetheless, many small farmers continue to burn potentially valuable fertilizers, even though

they cannot afford to buy chemical fertilizers. At the same time, the amount of technically

available nitrogen, pottasium and phosphorous in the form of organic materials is around eight

times as high as the quantity of chemical fertilizers actually consumed in developing countries.

Especially for small farmers, biogas technology is a suitable tool for making maximum use of

scarce resources: After extraction of the energy content of dung and other organic waste material,

the resulting sludge is still a good fertilizer, supportinggeneral soil quality as well as higher crop

yields (ISAT,2009).

2.7.10 Public and Political Awareness

Popularization of biogas technology has to go hand in hand with the actual construction of plants

in the field. Without the public awareness of biogas technology, its benefits and pitfalls, there will

be no sufficient basis to disseminate biogas technology at grassroots level.

At the same time, awareness within the government is essential. Since impacts and aspects of

biogas technology concern so many different governmental institutions (e.g. agriculture,

environment, energy, economics), it is necessary to identify and include all responsible

government departments in the dissemination and awareness-raising process(ISAT, 2009).

2.8 THE PRODUCTION OF BIOGAS

2.8.1 The three steps of biogas production

Biogas microbes consist of a large group of complex and differently acting microbe species,

notable the methane-producing bacteria. The whole biogas-process can be devided into three

steps: hydrolysis, acidification, and methane formation . Three types of bacteria are involved

(ISAT, 2009).

SOURCE: 1SAT, 2009.

Figure 2.10: The three-stage anaerobic fermentation of biomass

2.8.2 Hydrolysis

In the first step (hydrolisis), the organic matter is enzymolyzed externally by extracellular

enzymes (cellulase, amylase, protease and lipase) of microorganisms. Bacteria decompose the

long chains of the complex carbohydrates, proteins and lipids into shorter parts. For example,

polysaccharides are converted into monosaccharides. Proteins are split into peptides and amino

acids (Yoshio, 2009).

2.8.3 Acidification

Acid-producing bacteria, involved in the second step, convert the intermediates of fermenting

bacteria into acetic acid (CH3COOH), hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). These bacteria

are facultatively anaerobic and can grow under acid conditions. To produce acetic acid, they need

oxygen and carbon. For this, they use the oxygen solved in the solution or bounded-oxygen.

Hereby, the acid-producing bacteria create an anaerobic condition which is essential for the

methane producing microorganisms. Moreover, they reduce the compounds with a low molecular

weight into alcohols, organic acids, amino acids, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and traces of

methane. From a chemical standpoint, this process is partially endergonic (i.e. only possible with

energy input), since bacteria alone are not capable of sustaining that type of reaction.

Acid-producing bacteria, involved in the second step, convert the intermediates of fermenting

bacteria into acetic acid (CH3COOH), hydrogen (H2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). These bacteria

are facultatively anaerobic and can grow under acid conditions. To produce acetic acid, they need

oxygen and carbon. For this, they use the oxygen solved in the solution or bound oxygen. Hereby,

the acid-producing bacteria create an anaerobic condition which is essential for the methane

producing microorganisms. Moreover, they reduce the compounds with a low molecular weight
into alcohols, organic acids, amino acids, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and traces of

methane (Yoshio, 2009).

2.8.4 Methane formation

Methane-producing bacteria, involved in the third step, decompose compounds with a low

molecular weight. For example, they utilize hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid to form

methane and carbon dioxide. Under natural conditions, methane producing microorganisms occur

to the extent that anaerobic conditions are provided, e.g. under water (for exemple in marine

sediments), in ruminant stomaches and in marshes. They are obligatory anaerobic and very

sensitive to environmental changes. In contrast to the acidogenic and acetogenic bacteria, the

methanogenic bacteria belong to the archaebacter genus, i.e. to a group of bacteria with a very

heterogeneous morphology and a number of common biochemical and molecular-biological

properties that distinguish them from all other bacterial general. The main difference lies in the

makeup of the bacteria’s cell walls(Yoshio, 2009).

2.8.5 Symbiosis of bacteria

Methane- and acid-producing bacteria act in a symbiotical way. On the one hand, acidproducing

bacteria create an atmosphere with ideal parameters for methane-producing bacteria (anaerobic

conditions, compounds with a low molecular weight). On the other hand, methane-producing

microorganisms use the intermediates of the acid-producing bacteria.

Without consuming them, toxic conditions for the acid-producing microorganisms would

develop. In practical fermentation processes the metabolic actions of various bacteria all act in

concert. No single bacteria is able to produce fermentation products alone (Yoshio, 2009)..
SOURCE: Dahlman, 2009.
 Figure 2.11 The process flow diagram for biogas production.

Figure 2.12 The block diagram of biomass process of forming biogas.

SOURCE: HILKIAH, 2009.

2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

On January 1st, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed NEPA into law, setting a national policy to

encourage “productive and enjoyable harmony” between people and their environment. This law

established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which monitors the environmental

effects of all federal activities, assists the President in evaluating environmental problems, and

determines solutions to these problems (CEQ, 2004).

However, few people realized in 1970 that NEPA contained a “sleeper,” , that requires federal

agencies to evaluate with public input the consequences of any proposed action on the

environment: Congress authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) the policies,

regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in

accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies of the Federal

Government shall include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and

other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a

detailed statement by the responsible official on-

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action,

(ii) any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the mainte

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in

implemented, nance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and the proposed action should

it be implemented.
In other words each project funded by the federal government or requiring a federal permit must

be accompanied by an environmental assessment. This assessment results in issuance of one of

three documents (CEQ, 2004):

(1) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSZ). Such a stand-alone finding results when

potential environmental impacts are compared to a checklist of significant impacts, with the result

that no significant impact can be identified.

(2) EnvironmentalAssessment (EA). Adetailed assessment of potential environmental impact

resulting in one of two conclusions: either the EA must be expanded to a full-scale environmental

impact statement or a FONSI results from the EA.

(3) Environmental Impact Statement (EZS). An EIS must assess in detail the potential

environmental impacts of a proposed action and alternative actions. Additionally, the agencies

must generally follow a detailed public review of each EIS before proceeding with the project or

permit. It should be noted that both positive and negative impacts are included; i.e., “impact” does

not imply “adverse impact.”These impact statements are assessments and contain no judgments

about the positive or negative value of the project in question. An EIS publication sequence is

prescribed by law. First, a draft EIS (DEIS) is issued by the appropriate federal agency. After

mandated public hearings and incorporation of comments, the federal agency issues a final EIS

(FEIS). A Record of Decision (ROD), which includes the final decision about the project, the

alternative chosen, and any value judgments, is also issued. The purpose of environmental

assessments was not to justify or fault projects, but to introduce environmental factors into the

decision-making machinery and have them discussed in public before decisions about a project

are made (CEQ, 2004).

 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 PROCESS SELECTION

The concept of process selection is a very crucial aspect of plant design to a Chemical Engineer.

The overall plant objectives in terms of the profitability, maintainability, safety, e.t.c. will be

highly maximized if the process is well selected. Manufacturing Process Selection is the task of

choosing a method for transforming a set of materials into a given shape or product. It is the

definite practical guide to choosing the optimum manufacturing process.

Biogas can effectively be produced from anaerobic digestion of solid waste (biomass) due to

numerous advantages as discussed in Section 2. Therefore, this section will discuss in detail the

stages of cleaning up the environment and how the biomass (solid waste) can be converted to

biogas that is environmentally friendly (Maria, 2003). The criteria for this process selection are;

 Waste collection and treatment (or environmental cleanup in Nigeria).

 Quantity of environmental biomass that can be cleaned up by the process in Nigeria.

 Availability (quantity) of the selected biomass in Nigeria.

 Raw material (feedstock or substrate) selection.

 Pretreatment process.

 Residence time of biogas production.

 Product quantity.

 Selection of process and technology.

 Safety (Environmental impact assessment of selected process).

 Economics and cost consideration of selected process.

 Hazards and risk in selection of the process.

 Yield and purity (quality) of product.

3.1 WASTE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT (OR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP IN

NIGERIA)

3.1.1 Collection of Solid Waste

Thus even where garbage truck are available, they may not be able to pass through for the

evacuation of refuse (Ahove, 2007). The table 3.1 below compares the collection means in

Nigeria.

Table 3.1 Means of waste collection in Nigeria.

COLLECTION ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

METHODS
AUTOMOBILE i. can evacuate large i. most of the roads and pathways are too
GARBAGE TRUCK quantity of waste to narrow to be motorable and are generally
collection sites. impassable during rainy season.

ii. faster means of ii. Cost of maintenance is high.

collection.
iii. too expensive for Local Government
Areas.
MANUALLY i. can easily move to i. can evacuate only little quantity of waste
DRIVEN TRUCK various households. per time.

ii. easily maintained

iii. affordable by districts

or Local Government
Areas.
SOURCE: Federal Ministry of Housing and Environment, The State Of The Environment In
Nigeria, Monograph Series, Lagos.

3.1.2 Collection Method Selection.

In view of the table 3.1 above, the automobile garbage truck over the manually driven truck

because high efficiency is required for collection of wastes. The cost of the automobile trucks can

be taken care of since its a Federal Government Project.

3.2 Treatment of Biodegradable Waste

Once the segregated waste is collected at the community level, the biodegradable waste are

treated by adopting any of the following technology options:

(a) Composting: Composting is one of the options for treatment of solid waste. In composting

process the organic matter breaks down under bacterial action resulting in the formation of

humus like material called compost. The value of compost as manure depends on the quantity

and quality of feed materials poured into the compost pit.

(b) Biogas plant: When biodegradable organic solid waste is subjected to anaerobic

decomposition, a gaseous mixture of Methene (CH4) and Carbon di-oxide (C02) known as

Biogas could be produced under favourable conditions (Santha, 2007)..

The details of the all the above technology options have been discussed separately. The non bio

degradable waste may be further sorted into various categories (e.g. plastic, paper, metals, cloth

etc) (Santha, 2007).

Nigeria is still faced with the problem of solid waste collection and disposal. This is traceable to

her population growth, inadequacies, of government agencies in charge of waste and citizenry's

negative attitude to waste disposal (Ahove, 2007). The Table 3.2 below shows the comparism

between the three methods of biomass treatment.

Table 3.2. Treatment methods of solid waste.

TREATMENT ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

COMPOSTING 1. By proper decomposition, biodegradable Requires digging of the
waste gets converted into good quality organic ground which result to land
manure whereby waste is turned into wealth. slide.
2. Prevents vector breeding and breeding of
rodents
3. In aerobic composting process considerable
heat is generated, resulting in destruction of
pathogens and weed seeds.
4. Insanitary conditions arising out of solid
waste are removed and aesthetically,
environment looks neat and clean.
BIOGAS Biogas plants help in not only decomposing the 1.High cost for the lower
solid waste but also produce good amount of middle and low income
PLANT clean fuel and environment friendly organic group in rural areas;
manure. Bio gas is a clean fuel which does not 2.Lack of availability of
make cooking vessels dirty and does not required technical
produce smoke to irritate eyes or lungs, infrastructure in rural
areas.
VERMI 1. Conversion of cattle dung and cattle dung Not suitable for heavy
based bio gas slurry, kitchen/food waste, leaves rainfall areas.
COMPOSTING etc (organic solid waste) into high quality
organic manure which are otherwise wasted.
2. It is a fast process which requires only 40-45
days as compared to the conventional process
3. The process is free from foul odour
4. Complete destruction of weed seeds
5. Vermi compost contains plant growth
hormones and anti fungula elements which leads
to high value addition and profitability.
6. Prevents vector breeding.
7. Prevents insanitary conditions.
8. The technology is simple and it is easy to
adopt and replicate.
9. .Requires very little land area.
Source: Federal Ministry Of Housing And Environment, The State Of The Environment In
Nigeria, Monograph Series, No. , Lagos, (No Date).
3.2.1 Treatment Method Selection.

The biogas technology for waste treatment is selected for its numerous advantages. More so, its
the aim of this project.

3.2.2 Pretreatment Process Selection

The pre-treatment of feedstock consists in separating the recyclable or non-digestible wastes from

the municipal solid wastes. Source separation has a significant effect upon the nquality of the

digestate. Mechanical pre-treatment leads to a lower quality digestate (Binod, 2008).

Pretreatment by physical, chemical or biological means is a well-investigated process for biogas

production from lingo-cellulosic materials. There have been some efforts to pretreat waste

materials for biogas production. The pretreatment can enhance the bio-digestibility of the wastes

for biogas production and increase accessibility of the enzymes to the materials. It results in

enrichment of the difficult biodegradable materials, and improves the yield of biogas from the

wastes (Mohammed and Keikhosro, 2008).

The pretreatment processes are shown in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 The pre-treatment processes of biomass.

UNIT PROCESSES REUSABLE PRODUCTS STANDARDS OR CRITERIA

Magnetic separation Ferrous metals Organic impurities
Size reduction (drum Communition of paper,
shredder) cardboards and bags
Pulping with gravity Heavy inerts reused as Organic impurities
separation construction material
Drum screening Coarse fraction, plastics Calorific value
pasteurization Germs kill off
SOURCE: BINOD, 2008.
Paper pre-treatment

In the case of co-digestation of paper, food, leaves and animal waste, the pretreatment process

will be more necessary for paper because paper is a lingo-cellulosic material which requires the

pre-treatment processes (Mohammed and Keikhosoro, 2008).

Alkaline hydrolysis

Alkali pretreatment refers to the application of alkaline solutions such as NaOH, Ca(OH) 2 (lime)

or ammonia to remove lignin and a part of the hemicellulose, and efficiently increase the

accessibility of enzyme to the cellulose. The alkali pretreatment can result in a sharp increase in

saccharification, with manifold yields. Pretreatment can be performed at low temperatures but

with a relatively long time and high concentration of the base (Mohammed and Keikhosoro,

2008).

The conditions necessary for effective paper pre-treatment using NaOH include; pH range of 6.5-

6.8, temperature range of 23-29 0C for a period of 24 hours (Momoh and Nwaogazie, 2008).

Organosolv process

Organosolv can be used to provide treated cellulose suitable for enzymatic hydrolysis, using an

organic or aqueous organic solvent to remove or decompose the network of lignin and possibly a

part of the hemicellulose. In this process, lignocellulose is mixed with organic liquid and water

and heated to dissolve the lignin and part of the hemicellulose, leaving reactive cellulose in the
solid phase (Mohammed and Keikhosoro, 2008).
Figure 3.1 Pre-treatment and Post-treatment processes.

3.3 Substrate Selection based on the Quantity of Environmental Biomass.

The wastes treated by AD may comprise a biodegradable organic fraction, a combustible and an

inert fraction. The biodegradable organic fraction includes kitchen scraps, food residue, and grass

and tree cuttings. The combustible fraction includes slowly degrading lignocellulosic organic

matter containing coarser wood, paper, and cardboard. Finally, the inert fraction contains stones,

glass, sand, metal, etc. This fraction ideally should be removed, recycled or used as land fill. The

removal of inert fraction prior to digestion is important as otherwise it increases digester volume

and wear of equipment. In waste streams high in sewage and manure, the microbes thrive and

hydrolyse the substrate rapidly whereas for the more resistant waste materials, such as wood,

digestion is limited (Verma, 2004).

The volatile solids (VS) in organic wastes are measured as total solids minus the ash content, as

obtained by complete combustion of the feed wastes. The volatile solids comprise the

biodegradable volatile solids (BVS) fraction and the refractory volatile solids (RVS). MSW helps

in better estimation of the biodegradability of waste, of biogas generation, organic loading rate

and C/N ratio. Lignin is a complex organic material that is not easily degraded by anaerobic

bacteria and constitutes the refractory volatile solids (RVS) in organic MSW. Waste characterized

by high VS and low non-biodegradable matter, or RVS, is best suited to AD treatment. The

composition of wastes affects the yield and biogas quality as well as the compost quality (Verma,

2004).

Detailed illustration of the quantity of biomass generated in Nigeria has been given in Section 2.
Table 3.3 shows the typical biomass composition in Nigeria. This design only covers for the

biodegradable waste which are;

Waste % by mass

Paper 34.2

Food and market waste 11.9

Leaves(yard trimmings) 13.1

Animal waste 3.4

Total 63.0

3.3.1 Availability of Selected Biomass in Nigeria.

On the average, about 12 million tones of solid wastes are generated in Nigeria (Ahove, 2007).

These biodegradable wastes would amount to about 7.5 million tonnes of solid waste generated in
Nigeria as stated in Section 1.0.

Therefore, one or more of these can be selected.

3.4 Raw Material Selection

The raw material selection matters a lot in any process because the yield and the environmental

effect of the product solely depend on the nature of raw material. This section discuss the
important criteria for selecting the desired biomass for the production of biogas namely; chemical

composition and quantity of biogas yield.

3.4.1 Chemical Composition

Information on the chemical composition of solid wastes is important in evaluating alternative

processing and energy recovery options. If solid wastes are to be used as fuel, the four most

important properties to be known are (Peavy, 2006):

1. Proximate analysis

a. Moisture (loss at 1050C for 1 hr)

b. Volatile matter ( addition loss on ignition at 9500C)

c. Ash (residue after burning)

d. Fixed carbon (remainder)

2. Fusing point of ash

3. Ultimate analysis, percent of C (carbon), H (hydrogen), O (oxygen), N (nitrogen), S

(sulphur), and ash

4. Heating value (energy content)

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below show the detailed analysis of the above properties.

Table 3.3 Proximate and Ultimate Chemical analysis of Municipal Solid Waste.

PERCENT RANGE TYPICAL %

Proximate analysis
Moisture 15-40 20
Volatile matter 40-60 53
Fixed carbon 5-12 7
Non combustibles 15-30 20
Ultimate analsis
Carbon 40-60 47.0
Hydrogen 4-8 6.0
Oxygen 30-50 40.0
 Nitrogen 0.2-1.0 0.8
Sulphur 0.05-0.3 0.2
Ash 1-10 6.0
Heating value
Organic fraction, 12,000-16,000 14,000
KJ/Kg 8,000-12,000 10,500
Total, KJ/Kg
Source: From Peavy, 2006

Table 3.4 The Chemical Content of Solid Wastes (percent by mass dry basis)

COMPONENT Carbo Hydrogen Oxyge Nitrogen Sulphur Ash

n n
Food waste 48 6.4 37.6 2.6 0.4 5.0
Paper 43.5 6.0 44.0 0.3 0.2 6.0
Cardboard 44.0 5.9 44.6 0.3 0.2 5.0
Plastic 60.0 7.2 22.8 - - 10.0
Textiles 55.0 6.6 31.2 4.6 0.15 2.5
Rubber 78.0 10.0 - 2.0 - 10.0
Leather 60.0 8.0 11.6 10.0 0.4 10.0
Garden trimmings 47.8 6.0 38.0 3.4 0.3 4.5
Wood 49.5 6.0 42.7 0.2 0.1 1.5
Miscellaneous organics 48.5 6.5 37.5 2.2 0.3 5.0
Dirts, ashes,
Brick, e.t.c. 26.3 3.0 2.0 0.5 0.2 68
Source: From Peavy, 2006.

3.4.4 The Biogas Yield

The Gas production varies from 0.29m3 per kg of volatile solids added per day to 0.19m 3 0.16 m3

per kg added per day in different seasons. The volatile solids destruction ranges from 40 to 55%.

The sludge has good manurial value of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium (NPK ratio is 1.6 : 0.85

: 0.93). The process gives a good performance at a retention time of 30 to 55 days varies as per

season as shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Biogas Production characteristics of solid wastes.

Physical characteristics Food and market leave Animal waste Paper

waste s
 Biogas production
Litres/Kg 122.0 100.0 32.0 130.0
Litres/Kg (TS/day) 580.0 154.0
Litres/Kg (volatile solid/day) 614.0 253.0
Methane % in biogas 58.0 68.0 55.0 61.0
Fertilizer value of digested slurry
Nitrogen % of dry weight 2.58 2.00 1.40 3.25
Phosphorous (P2O5) % of dry weight 1.24 1.0 0.72 1.0
Potassium (K2O) % of dry weight 0.83
Source: Santha, 2007.

3.5 SELECTION OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTION SYSTEMS

The figure below illustrates the various processes under anaerobic digestion for the production of

biogas.

Figure 3.1. Anaerobic digestion processes (Binod, 2008)

The detail of the anaerobic digestion systems have been treated in Section 2. The systems are;
  Continuous versus batch process

 Mesophilic versus thermophilic digestion

 Single stage versus multi-stage digestion

Therefore, a continuous multi-stage process is the most suitable process for the co-digestion of the

selected biomass. More so, in other to deal effectively with the cellulosic material, the

thermophilic process is suitable (Binod, 2008).

3.6 SELECTION OF PROCESS TECHNOLOGY.

Selection of process technology has being a serious challenge to many design engineers because

most of the available have one or two lapses. The design of co-digesters has been rarely done due

to the complexity technologies of the unit operations involved.

3.6.1 Linde-KCA/BRV

Linde-KCA-Dresden GmbH is a subsidiary of Linde AG Wies-baden, a 9 billion Euro

engineering group based in Germany. One concentration of the Linde-KCA-Dresden Gmbh is the

biological and mechanical treatment of waste. Linde began processing MSW using AD in 1980

and operates over 70 mechanical-biological waste treatment plants worldwide. Linde offers two

types of digestion, wet and dry. The Linde wet digestion systems are either one or two stages and

can be mesophilic or thermophilic.

These plants include pulping waste with water and contaminant removal using a drum screen. The

defining characteristic of the Linde system is the gas recirculation in the digester using a centrally

located drought tube that also supplies heat. Many wet digestion plants employ codigestion with

sewage sludge or manure. Upstream of the digester, the feedstock is treated aerobically allowing

hydrolysis and acid formation to occur (Ostrem, 2004).

Figure 3.1Linde wet digestion (ostrem, 2004)

3.6.2 ARTI Compact Biogas Plant

The compact plants are made from cut-down high-density polythene (HDPE) water tanks, which

are adapted using a heat gun and standard HDPE piping. The standard plant uses two tanks, with

volumes of typically 0.75 m3 and 1 m3. The smaller tank is the gas holder and is inverted over the

larger one which holds the mixture of decomposing feedstock and water (slurry). An inlet is

provided for adding feedstock, and an overflow for removing the digested residue. This contains a

much smaller amount of solid matter than the residue from a manure-based plant, and ARTI

recommend that the liquid is mixed with the feedstock and recycled into the plant. A pipe takes

the biogas to the kitchen, where it is used with a biogas stove. Such stoves are widely available in

India which has a long tradition of using manure-based biogas plants. The gas holder gradually

rises as gas is produced, and sinks down again as the gas is used for cooking. Weights can be

placed on the top of the gas holder to increase the gas pressure (Christian, 2007).
3.6.3 The Valorga plant at Tilburg, Netherlands

The Tilburg plant began its operation in 1994 and treats primarily vegetable, garden and fruit

waste (VGF). The plant capacity is rated at 52000 tons/year of VGF, or 40000 tons VGF plus

6000 tons of non-reusable paper and cardboard. A central refuse treatment company collects and

separates municipal waste from the participating 20 municipalities. The feed consists of 75%

kitchen and garden waste and 25% paper, cardboard. The annual rate of MSW generation in the

Netherlands is nearly 450 kg per capita. Thus, the estimated amount of VGF generated by the

Tiburg population of 380,000 is 64,000 tons of VGF per year (Verma, 2002).

The plant consists of two digesters, each of 3300m3 capacity, and produces 2.8 million m3 of

methane per year (70m3/ton). The waste is sheared to less than 10cm particles before being fed to

digestion unit. The retention time in this plant is 20 days at a mesophilic temperature of 38° C.

The biogas production can be up to 106 m3 per ton of waste, some of which is pressurized and

pumped back into the reactor to improve mixing. The biogas product is piped to an upgrading

plant, where it is refined to natural gas quality and then supplied to the municipal network. The

biogas contains 56% CH4 and has a calorific value of about 20 MJ/ m 3 while the refined gas

contains 31.7 MJ/ m3 Gas refining consists of compressing, cooling, scrubbing, and drying. The

methane gas after undergoing refining is fed to the municipal grid. The Tilburg facility highlights

the technical and economic feasibility of using energy from waste in the form of biogas to

generate electricity (Verma, 2002).

The compost product amounts to 28000 tons/year and is reported to be of high quality for

agricultural use (Verma, 2002).

3.6.4 KOMPOGAS PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

This process is a single stage thermophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal waste, the digester is
a plug flow type with a retention time of 15-20 days. The solid content of the system is between
23 and 28%. The process is represented below.

Figure 3.9. The kompogas process diagram.

3.6.7 Criteria for process and technology selection

The following factors are important in selecting a process in the production of biogas from
biomass.

(i) Retention time

(ii) Reaction condition (Temperature)

(iii) Cost of production

(iv) Safety of operation

(v) Quality of product

(vi) Hazard and Risk

(vii) Conversion, yield and purity of product.

(viii) Environmental impact

Other biogas technologies are as shown in table 3.5 below with less details
 Table 3.5 Summary of existing Biogas Technologies

Biogas Feed stock Pre- Process Post Digester Capacity Advantages Refere
Technology treatment treatment volume (tones/yr) /disadvantages nces
(m3)
BTA Food waste -Pulped Multi stage Highly
Helsinger, -Plastic Temperature complicated
Denmark. removed at 380C technology.
-Sanitized 2.4 20,000 Expensive Binod,
for 1 h at 2008
700C
-NaOH
added
TBW Biocomp Putrescible -fine -two stage -solid part -can use a large
processes, waste e.g. organic reactors of sludge portion of the
Thronhofen, food, fraction -stage 1 mixed waste
Germany animal separated (350C) with generation as
waste, from mesophilic matured 100 13,000 feedstock VER
vegetables coarse -stage 2 compost MA,
and leaves. organic (550C) 2004
fraction thermophilic
-coarse -retention
material to time two
aerobic weeks in
each reactor

VANASPATI -waste Continuous 8.25 200 and Very cheap to BINO

KACHARA chopped above setup. D,
BIOGAS PKW into small The production 2008
PLANT pieces capacity is low.
-few
buckets of
slurry

ANYANG FW -sortin -multi stage 60 1000 Costly OSTR

CITY -shredding EM,
2008
VALORGA MSMSW Sorting, Two-stage 60-80 700 affordable Verma
shredding , 2007

KOMPO GAS SSMSW Sorting Single stage 70 1000 Cheap Ostre

m,
2008.
The BRECHT OSMSW Sorting, Single stage, 70 1100 Cheap Verma
Technology shreddng mesophilic , 2007
3.6.8 The BTA TECHNOLOGY

In the BTA process the solid content is maintained at 10% and the reactors are operated at

mesophilic temperatures. This process is described in detail in the case study section. It is very

similar to the Pacques process except that the methanogenic reactor is designed with attached

growth (“fixed film reaction”) to ensure biomass retention. The effluent from the hydrolysis

reactor is de-watered and the liquor is fed to the methanogenic reactor. This reactor receives only

the liquid fraction from hydrolysis reactor to avoid clogging of the attached growth. At times, in

order to maintain the pH within the hydrolysis reactor in the range of 6-7, the process water from

the methanogenic reactor is pumped to the hydrolysis reactor. The multi-stage low solids

processes are plagued with similar problems to those of the SSLS reactors, such as short-

circuiting, foaming, formation of layers of different densities, expensive pre-treatment. In

addition, the MSLS processes are technically more complex and thus require a higher capital

investment (Verma, 2004).

Figure 3.8 Basic BTA process diagram

3.7 PROPOSED PROCESS SELECTION

3.7.1 Feed Stock

- Food wastes

- Leaves and vegetables

- Animal wastes

- Paper wastes

The above feed stock was selected due to the reasons given in section 3.2.
Limitation of selected feed stock

Paper and leave needs to be pre-treated removal of lignin therefore, requires more unit operations.

3.7.2 Anaerobic Digestion

The literature (section 2) discussed in detail that biogas can only be produced from anaerobic

digestion of bio-degradable waste.

Continuous process

- Since fresh substrate is added continuously, all reactions involved in biogas

generation will occur at a fairly constant rate.

- The desired biogas quantity can be determined.

- There is a high yield of biogas in the sense that the digestate can be recycled.

Limitation of continuous process

- Continuous process can not accurately define retention time.

- Require two digesters which could be relatively uneconomical.

Mesophilic process

- Residence time is relatively high

- High biogas yield

- Fast rate of production

- More sensitive to environmental variables

Limitations

- Requires small particle sizes

- The yield is relatively low

Two-Stage system

- Allows a certain degree of control of hydrolysis rate

- Greater biological stability

- Allows a faster degradation of wastes

Limitations

- Requires mechanical devices to be installed

- Design is relatively complex

 1

P-13

P-13

E-18

P-14

E-15

E-2
E-3 C-1

P-2
P-1

E-4

E-5
E-14

E-16

E-8

E-9
E-17

Figure 3.1 The proposed biogas plant.

 LEGEND:

1- Manual separating unit

C-1 Biogas compressor

E-2 Feed Water tank

E-3 Waste shredder

E-4 Mixing tank or feed tank

E-5 Hydrolysis

E-6 Digestate

E-7 Biogas cleaner

E-8 Biogas storage tank

E-9 Dewatering unit

P-1 and P-2 sludge pumps

3.8 Description of Proposed process

The process begins with manual sorting of the waste , then conveyed to the shredding unit where the size

would be reduced for an effective digestion then conveyed to the mixer where the recycled digestate is

introduced, and water is supplied (by gravity) at 60% by mass of biomass to enhance easy flow and faster

breakdown by microbes. The result is a thick suspension (sludge) that can be pumped into the digester. A

two-stage facility for medium capacity plants namely, the hydrolyser, and the methanizer was adopted the

reaction is as shown in equation 4.1 below. The biogas produced is sent into the gas cleaner by the

compressor (about 72% CH4) after the first 13 days (Verma, 2004). The inoculum from methanizer is

recycled back to the hydrolysis tank for constant supply of food for microbes. Solid digestate is aerobically

cured for 1-3 weeks (Verma, 2004).

(4.1)
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE

4.1.1 Design Considerations

- The organic portion of the biomass is to be considered; there the components assumed to be

present in the biomass are food waste, paper, animal waste, leaves and vegetables. Table 4.1

below is the compositions by mass of the components of the organic waste.

4.1.2 Design basis

- Plant attainment:

From literature, (Binod, 2005), the plant attainment under standard working operation should be
between 90-95%;

Table 4.1 Composition by mass of the components of the organic waste.

Component of waste % by mass Typical moisture Dry mass

content, % %
Food waste 12 50 20.0
Paper 35 6 50.0
Animal waste 3 50 20.0
Leaves 13 60 40.0
Total 63
Source (Peavy, 2006)

Table 4.2 The typical data on the ultimate analysis of the biomass is represented below
% by mass ( Based on dry basis)
 Component Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Ash
Food waste 48 6.4 37.6 2.6 0.4 5.0
Paper 43.5 6.0 44.0 0.3 0.2 6.0
Animal 48.5 6.5 37.5 2.2 0.3 5.0
waste
Leaves 47.8 6.0 38.0 3.4 0.3 4.5
Source (Peavey, 2006)

The calculated chemical formulae of the biomass is C39H63O27NS2

Therefore the overall equation for the production of biogas from biomass can be written below

CcHhOoNnSs + yH2O → xCH4 + nNH3 + sH2S + (c-x) CO2 (1)

From literature, it was calculated that

X = 1/8[4C +H-2O-3N-2S] (2)

Y = 1/4[4C-H-2O+3N+3S] (3)

For C39H63O27NS2

We have, C=39, H=63, O=27, N=1, S=2, so that

X = 1/8[4(39) +63-2(27)-3(1)-2(2)] = 19.75=20

Y = 1/4[4(39)-63-2(27) +3(1) +3(2)] =12

The overall equation of reaction can be represented below:

C39H63O27NS2 + 12H2O→20CH4 + NH3 +2H2S + 20CO2 (4)

From the equation of reaction of reaction, the molecular weight of the waste is thus calculated
thus;

C39H63O27NS2 = [(12×39) + (1×63) + (16×27) + (14×1) +32x2]

 = 1041kgmole of biomass.
CH4 = 12+4 = 16 kgmole
NH3= 14+3 = 17 kgmole
H2S=2+32 = 34 kgmole
CO2=12+32=44 kgmole
H2O=2+16=18 kgmole

From the reaction equation ,

Moisture content = 17%
Total solid = 83%

The total feedstock is called the dried content, which is equal to 110kg/day.

Therefore from the equation of reaction, 1041kg of biomass produces (20×16) kg of biogas; it
means that the mass of CH4 produced on feeding 110kg/day of biomass is;
= (20×16)x110 / 1041 = 33.80 kg of CH4 is produced per day.
Also the mass of NH3 produced is =1×17×110/ 1041= 1.79kg/day
mass of H2S produced is= 2×34×110/1041= 7.19kg/day
mass of CO2 produced= 20×44×110/1041=93kg/day

However, in real life situation some of the biomass forms the digestate and the leachate which
consequently affects the calculated values. The actual production of biomass is as analyzed in the
Appendix A.

From literature the solid content of the input stream is 40% for the BTA process. Also the
production capacity of biogas reported in literature is 98-196kg per 1000kg (i.e. average of 15%)
of dried solid content (biomass) (Binod, 2006).

According to Binod (2006), about 15% by weight of biomass is converted to biogas:

Expected value of biogas = 5000m3/yr

Density of biogas = 1.2 kg/m3 (Dieter, 2008)

Therefore, mass of biogas per year = 5000×1.2

= 6000kg/yr of biogas.

If 15% of biomass gives 6000kg/m3,

The required mass of biomass = 6000/0.15 = 40,000kg/yr of biomass

Assuming 18 (75% of a day) working hours per day;

Therefore, the required working hours per year = 0.75×24×365 = 6570hours

i.e. the number of working days = 6570/24 = 274 days.

The required biomass per day = (40,000/274) = 104.5Kg/day

For 95% plant attainment (Sinnot, 2006) = 104.5/.95 = 110kg/day

The expected (calculated) value of biogas production = (6000/274) kg/d = 16.44kg/d

4.2 MATERIAL BALANCE OF THE SECTIONED UNITS IN THE PLANT

The Tables (4.1-4.6) below give the summary of the material balance of the sectioned units in the

pilot plant and the detailed calculations are shown in Appendix A. The process block diagram for

analysis is as shown in Figure 4.1.

 1
BIOMASS FEED

8 BIO
3 HYDROLYSIS 4 5 BIOGAS 7
MIXING SLUDGE METHANI 6 BIOGAS METHANE
COMPRES
VESSEL VESSEL PUMP ZER CLEANER STORAGE
SOR
TANK

WATER STORAGE P-2

TANK 2
15 9 14
10
INOCULUM PUMP

11
DIGESTATE WASTE WATER
13 DIGESTATE WATER PUMP DEWATERING UNIT
12 TRERATMENT UNIT

Figure 4.1 The Process Block Diagram of the major units in the plant.

4.2.1 SUMMARY OF MATERIAL BALANCE

TABLE 4.4 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE MIXER

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 1 STREAM 2 STREAM 10 STREAM 3
Compositio Mass, Compositi Mass, Compositio Mass, Compositio Mass
n kg/day on kg/day n kg/day n ,kg/day
Paper 0.5238 57.62 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.1639 0.00
Food 0.1905 20.95 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0571 0.00
Animal 0.0794 8.73 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0163 0.00
waste
Leaves/veg 0.2064 22.70 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0628 0.00
.
H2O 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 165.00 0.0000 0.00 0.7000 0.00
Sludge 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 302.50
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 27.5 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Biogas 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 110.00 1.0000 165.00 1.0000 27.50 1.0000 302.5

TABLE 4.5 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE HYDROLYSER

INPUT OUTPUT
Components STREAM 3 STREAM 4
Composition Mass (kg/day) Composition Mass(kg/day)
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Sludge 1.0000 302.50 1.0000 302.50
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Biogas 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 302.50 1.0000 302.50

TABLE 4.6 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE SLUDGE PUMP

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 4 STREAM 5
Composition Mass(kg/day) Composition Mass (kg/day)
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Sludge 1.0000 302.50 1.0000 302.50
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Biogas 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 302.50 1.0000 302.50

TABLE 4.7 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE METHANIZER

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 5 STREAM 9 STREAM 6 STREAM 10
Composi Mass Composit Mass Compositi Mass Composit Mass
tion kg/day ion kg/day on kg/day ion kg/day
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
waste
Leaves/veg 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Sludge 1.0000 302.50 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 27.50
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 258.50 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Biogas 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 16.50 1.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 302.5 1.0000 258.50 1.0000 16.50 1.0000 27.50

TABLE 4.8 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE BIOGAS COMPRESSOR

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 6 STREAM 7
Composition Mass(kg/day) Composition Mass(kg/day)
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Sludge 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Biogas 1.0000 16.50 1.0000 16.50
Total 1.0000 16.50 1.0000 16.50

TABLE 4.9 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE DIGESTATE DEWATERING UNIT

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 9 STREAM 11 STREAM 12
Composition Mass Composition Mass(kg/day) Composi Mass
(kg/day) tion (kg/day)
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 155.10 0.0000 0.00
Sludge 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 1.0000 258.50 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 103.40
Biogas 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 258.50 1.0000 155.10 1.0000 103.40

TABLE 4.10 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE DIGESTATE DEWATERING

PUMP

INPUT OUTPUT
Component STREAM 10 STREAM 16
Composition Mass Composition Mass
kg/day kg/day
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 1.0000 155.10 1.0000 155.10
Sludge 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 155.10 1.0000 155.10

TABLE 4.11 MATERIAL BALANCE AROUND THE BIOGAS CLEANER (SCRUBBER)

INPUT OUTPUT
components STREAM 7 STREAM 14 STREAM 8
Composition Mass Composition Mass Composition Mass
(kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)
Paper 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Food 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Animal waste 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Leaves/veg. 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
H2O 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
 Sludge 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Inoculum 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
CH4 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00 1.0000 11.55
CO2 0.0000 0.00 0.8992 4.46 0.0000 0.00
H2S 0.0000 0.00 0.0504 0.25 0.0000 0.00
NH3 0.0000 0.00 0.0504 0.25 0.0000 0.00
Digestate 1.0000 16.50 0.0000 0.00 0.0000 0.00
Total 1.0000 258.50 1.0000 4.96 1.0000 11.55

4.3 THE ENERGY BALANCE

The energy balance for biogas plant was adopted from Binod (Binod, 2008) which estimates the

overall energy of a typical biogas plant.

The energy consumption in the overall AD system was on shredding solid wastes, pumping the

digestate to the front end of the reactor and maintaining the constant temperature inside the

reactor. Whereas the energy production was from the biogas produced especially methane

content. This section describes the economic feasibility of the AD system. The following Eq. 4.1,

4.2 and 4.3 give the energy required for feeding, heating and net energy produced from the AD

system respectively. The calorific values of the substrate as well as that of digestate were also

considered for balancing the energy during anaerobic digestion process (Binod, 2008).

4.2.1 Mechanical energy requirements

Energy required for shredding (ES) = 0.5 L (gasoline) * W

100 kg (feedstock) (5)

Where W = weight of feedstock (kg)

Since, 1 gallon of gasoline = 110,250 BTU

= 110,250 BTU * 1.0551 [1.0551: conversion factor]

 = 116,324.8 KJ/gal

Energy required for feeding (EF) = P * T (6)

Where P = the engine power (kW)

T = Duration of operation (h)

4.2.2 Energy production

The daily energy production in an anaerobic digester E A (KJ/d) corresponding to that of methane

contained in the produced biogas is given by Eq. ;

EA = (MP) * (L.H.V. of methane) (7)

Where MP = daily methane production rate (L CH4/d)

L.H.V. = 35.8 KJ/L CH4 (Binod, 2008)

4.2.4 Net energy production

The net energy production EP (kJ/d) is the difference between the produced energy and the energy

consumed by the process:

EP = EA - ES – EF – EH - Ec (8)

EP= Net energy production.

EA= Energy production.

ES=Energy for Shredding

EF= Energy for feeding.

Ec= Energy for compression

- Mechnical Energy Requirements

 total amount of waste fed (m) = 110Kg/d

0. 5 L(gasoline )
x
energy required for shredding Es = 100 Kg( feedstock ) m(Binod, 2006)

(9)

0.5 x110
=0.55 L
100

Since, I gallon of gasoline = 110, 250 BTU {binod, 2006)

= 110250 BTU X 1.0551 [1.0551:conversion factor]

= 116,324.8Kg/gel X (1gal/3.785L) X 0.55L

= 16,903.21KJ = 16.90MJ

- Energy Content of Feed Shredded.

In peavey (2006), the equation is given thus;

0
)+95
Ec (KJ/kg) = 337C + 1428 (H - 8
(10)
 Components Typical energy value Mass Total energy content Ec (KJ)
(KJ/Kg)
Food 4,650 20.95 97,418
Paper 16,750 57.62 965,135
Animal waste 18,000 8.73 157,140
Leaves/veg 6,500 22.70 147,550
Total 110 1,367,243
Municipal soilid 10,500 110 1,155,000
waste
Source: peavey, 2006

Therefore the net energy balance around the shredder

E = Ec – Es = 1,367,243 – 16,900

= 1,350,343 Kg = 1,350 MJ

Energy bal around the mixer

Net energy of shredded waste = 1,350 MJ

Energy content of H2O

Using the modified dulong’s formular from peavey (2006);

0
)
KJ/Kg = 1428 (H - 8

Where H hydrogen percent of H2O

O Oxygen Percent of H2O

M (H2O)= 2 + 16 = 18 gmol
 2
x 100=11%
H% 18

16
x 100=89 %
0% 18

i.e E (H2O) = o

Energy content of inoculum;

E(inoculum) can be approximately 10% of the energy content of components mixer, i.e.

10
x1 , 350 ,000 KJ =136724 .3 KJ =135.00 MJ
100

Energy required for mixing;

Mixing power = Np e N3 D5

= 1.7 X 3 X250.83 X2.0953 X 015

= 3,920.85W

= 3.92KW

(mixing would be for 5 minutes every day)

i.e energy required for mixing = 5 X 3.92 kW X 60

= 1.176 MJ

Energy balance around the mixer i.e

 Em = 1350 + 135 – 1.176 = 1,473 MJ

Energy required for feeding (pumping) Ef

power requirement for pumping sludge is 1.5 kW (Pump specification: Binod, 2007.)

for 5minute (300s) pumping per day,

Ef = 1.5 x 300 = 450kJ

For two pumps

Ef = 900kJ

From the calculations shown on the Appendix A, the following results were gotten:

EA = 413.49MJ

ES = 16.9MJ

EF = 1MJ

EM = 1.176MJ

Ec = 7.2MJ

4.2.5 Net energy production.

EP = EA - ES – EF – EM - Ec

= (413.49 – 16.9 – 1.0 – 1.176 – 7.2) MJ

= 385.2 MJ/kg fresh waste.

Table 4.1 Energy Balance in the system.

COMPONENTS INPUT OUTPUT
ENERGY ENERGY NET
CONSUMED(MJ/d) PRODUCE ENERGY
D
MASS (MJ/d) PRODUCED
Kg EM ES EF EA (MJ/d)
LOADED 110 1.176 16.9 1.0 413 394.4
WASTE
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DETAILED EQUIPMENT DESIGN

5.1 Design of the water storage tank

Figure 5.1 The water storage tank design

The density of water at 20oC is 1000kg/m3, also the mass flow rate of water to the tank is
=10kg/day

The volumetric flow rate of water in the tank is therefore

Flow rate = 165(kg/day )×(1/1000)m3 / kg=0.165 m3 /day

Considering a storage time of 18hrs, the volume of the vessel can thus be calculated:

0.165 m3 1 day
Volume of vessel¿ × 18 hrs×
day 24 hrs

Volume of vessel = 0.123m3

Allowing 30% allowance for safety

We have volume of tank = V/0.7 = 0.123.75/0.7 = 0.18m3

The optimum proportions for a cylindrical container. A classical example of the

optimization of a simple function.

 The surface area, A of a closed cylinder is:

 2
A   D L 2 D
4 (Sinnott, 2005)

Where D = vessel diameter

L = vessel length (or height)

This will be the objective function which is to be minimized; simplified:

2
D
f ( D  L) D L
2

For a given volume, V, the diameter and length are related by:

 2
V D L
4

And

V
L 4
2
D

And the objective function becomes

2
v D
f ( D) 4 
D 2

Setting the differential of this function zero will give the optimum value for D

So that
4V
D=
√3

4 × 0.18
D=
√
3

3.142

D=0.608 m

Since the volume = 0.18m3

The height of the water storage tank, H = (4*V)/(3.142*D2)

, H = (4*0.18)/(3.142*0.6082)

= 0.62m
5.2 Design of the mixer:

Figure 5.2 The mixer design

- Vessel design

The volumetric flow rate of water, inoculum and biomass into the mixing tank are

0.165m3/day, 0.011m3/day and 0.856m3 respectively from Appendix A.

The total volume of the resulting mixture to the mixer is given by

V =0.165+0.856+0.11

V =1.2

Using 30% allowance for safety

We have volume of tank = V/0.7 = 1.2/0.7 = 1.71m3

The optimum proportions for a cylindrical container. A classical example of the

optimization of a simple function
 The surface area, A of a closed cylinder is:

 2
A   D L 2 D
4 (Sinnott, 2005)

Where D = vessel diameter

L = vessel length ( or height)

This will be the objective function which is to be minimized; simplified:

2
D
f ( D  L) D L
2

For a given volume, V, the diameter and length are related by:

 2
V D L
4

And

V
L 4
2
D

And the objective function becomes

2
v D
f ( D) 4 
D 2

Setting the differential of this function zero will give the optimum value for D

So that

4V
D=
√3

4 × 1.71
D=
√3

3.142

D = 1.48m

Since the volume = 1.48m3

The height of the tank, H = (4*V)/(3.142*D2)

, H = (4*1.71)/(3.142*1.482)
 = 0.99m

Other geometries of vessel relative to the tank diameter.

*Diameter of tank d t =1.48 m

*Height of tank H=0.99m

H 0.99
*Impeller clearance from the bottomequals = =0.17 m
6 6

d t 1.48
*Impeller diameter (d i ¿ equals = =0.49 m
3 3

dt 1.48
*Baffle widthequals = =0.148m
10 10

d t 1.48
*Blade width equals = =0.1m
15 15

Power requirement:

The power requirement for mixing is calculated from

P = (NpN3D5ρ) ………………………… (Nicholas P. Chopey, 2003) (11)

Where:

P=Agitator power, Watts

Np = Impeller power number, dimensionless

N= Shaft speed, rev/s

D = Impeller diameter, m

ρ = Feed density to the mixer, kg/m3 

Np = 0.6 for a standard hydrofoil impeller with in a fully baffled tank. (Chopey, 2006)

ρ=340 kg/m 3

N=100RPM = 10.47m/s

d i=0.49m

3.142 x 100 x 2 3 (
So that,P=0.6× 340 × ( 60 ) × 0.49 )
5

P=425 W

Considering an efficiency of 85%,

Power (P)=6614/0.85

= 7.78kW

Torque transmitted by shaft

The hydraulic loads on the shaft result in a torque and bending moment that the shaft must be

strong enough to handle. The torque transmitted by the shaft T can be express as:

P
T=
N

7780
T=
10.47

T =743 Nm

Bending moment:

The bending moment for a single impeller mixer is defined by:

M = 2.88 P.L.f / NDI …………………… (Cullen, P.J, 2009). (12)

Where:
 M = Bending moment (Nm)

P = Motor power (W)

L = Length of the shaft (m)

N = rotational speed (rpm)

DI = Impeller diameter (m)

f = hydraulic factor

For a hydrofoil impeller with three blades, the typical hydraulic factor ranges from 2.5 – 3.5 for

operation at the liquid level. The length of the shaft is taken to be the same as the depth of the

tank (1.416m) and allowing a bottom clearance of 0.472m (DT/3). (Haslego, C., 2000).

5.3 DESIGN OF THE HYDROLYSIS VESSEL

Figure 5.3 The Hydrolysis vessel design.

The digester volume Vd, is determined on the basis of the chosen retention time RT and the daily

sludge input quantity Sd. The retention time of the digestion was chosen to be 3 days prior to the

reasons as discussed earlier i.e. the hydrolysis process takes three days (Mohammed, 2008).

Vd = Sd × RT [ m3 = m3/day × number of days ] (13)

Sd = 1.2 m3/day

RT = 3 days

Thus Vd = 3.6 m3

Basis: A cylindrical Hydrolysis tank with a cone base and hemispherical top with volumetric

ratios of VCONE : VCYLINDER : VHEMISPHERE to be 1:2:1 respectively.

Therefore,

VCYLINDER := 3.6/2 = 1.8 m3

Taking height to diameter ratio of 1:1

i.e. H = D

V= (1/3)*Л*D3

D = ((3*V)/Л)^(1/3)

D = 1.2m

H = 1.2m

VCONE : = 3.6/4 = 0.9 m3

DCYL = DCONE = 1.2m

VHEMISPHERE := 3.6/4 = 0.9m3

DHEMISPHERE = DCYL = DCONE = 1.2m

Safety Allowance of 30% of the total volume of the hydrolysis tank gives;
V = 3.6/0.7 = 5.1m3

5.4 DESIGN OF THE METHANIZER

 Agitator

0.6m

0.0046m
1.9m

0.6m

E-2

1.9m P-16
P-15

1.9046m P-22
P-21

P-21

Figure 5.4 The Methanizer design.

 Mixed flow digester

τ = Cs ∆Xs (13)
Rs
Where τ = V/Vo and V, Vo are digester volume, volumetric

loading rate respectively.

 For cattle substrate with biomass,

Rs = KCs/(1 + Cm) K = 0.8/day (Borja et al, 1993) (14)

Generally,

Rs = KCsCc/(Cs + Cm) (Monod Kinetic) (Levenspiel, 1999) (15)

Cs, Cc and Cm are concentration of substrate, catalyst and micro organisms.

Cs = 250.8kg/m3

Cc= 25 kg/m3

Cm= 39 kg/m3 (Borja, 1993).

∆Xs = 1-0.15 = 0.85

Therefore,

Rs = (0.8*250*25)/(250 + 39)

Rs = 17.3 kg/m3.day

The retention time is;

Rt = 250*0.85/17.5

= 12.28 days.

The digester volume Vd, is determined on the basis of the chosen retention time RT and the daily

sludge input quantity Sd. The retention time of the digestion was chosen to be 12 days prior to the

reasons as discussed earlier i.e. the hydrolysis process takes three days (Mohammed, 2008).

Vd = Sd × RT [ m3 = m3/day × number of days ] (16)

Sd = 1.2 m3/day

RT = 12 days

Thus Vd = 14.4 m3

Basis: A cylindrical Hydrolysis tank with a cone base and hemispherical top with volumetric

ratios of VCONE : VCYLINDER : VHEMISPHERE to be 1:2:1 respectively.

Therefore,

VCYLINDER := 14.4/2 = 7.2 m3

Taking height to diameter ratio of 1:1

i.e. H = D

V= (1/3)*Л*D3

D = ((3*V)/Л)^(1/3)

D = ((3*7.2)/Л)^(1/3)

D = 1.9m

i.e. H = 1.9m

VCONE : = 14.4/4 = 3.6 m3

DCYL = DCONE = 1.9m

VHEMISPHERE := 14.4/4 = 1.9m3

DHEMISPHERE = DCYL = DCONE = 1.9m

Safety Allowance of 30% of the total volume of the hydrolysis tank gives;
V = 14.4/0.7 = 20.6m3

5.4.1 MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE METHANIZER

- Material of construction: carbon steel

- operating temperature: 27oC

- operating pressure: 200kPa

Design pressure = maximum operating +1.7bar (Maduka, 2007)

Design pressure = 4+1.7 =5.7bar = 0.37N/mm2

Taking the design temperature as 40C above the operating temperature (Sinnot, 2005),

Therefore the design temperature = 27 + 4 = 31oC

For an operating temperature of 0 - 500C and using carbon steel as material of construction,

table13.2 (Sinnot, 2005) gives a typical design stress as;

Design stress = f = 135N/m2

-cylindrical section thickness

For a cylindrical shell, the minimum thickness required to resist internal pressure is given by

equation 13.39 (Sinnot, 2005).

Pi D i
t= (17)
2 f −Pi

Where Di=diameter of the vessel

 Pi=design pressure

f =design stress

1.9× 1000× 0.37

t= =2.61 mm
2 ×135−0.37

Therefore the thickness of the digester is 2.61mm.

Adding corrosion allowance of 2mm (Sinnot, 2005)

The thickness t = 4.61mm

-Calculating the stress concentration factor to aid the determination of the thickness at the base of

the digester.

Rc
C s=1/ 4(3+ √( )) (18)
Rk

But crown radius Rc =Di =1.009 m

Knuckle radius=6 % of R k =0.6054

Cs=1/4 ¿ (19)

The thickness of the head is given as;

Pi RC C s
t= (20)
2 fj−P i( C S−0.2)

But j=1 (Sinnot, 2005)

0.37 × 1.9× 1.77 ×1000

t= =4.60 mm
2× 1× 135+ 0.37(1.77−0.2)
The dead weight of steel vessel is given as

W v =240 C v D m ( H v +0.8 D m ) t (21)

Cv= a factor to account for the weight of nozzles, manways, internal support e.t.c which can be

taken as Cv=1.08 for vessels with few internal fittings

Dm= mean diameter of vessel= Di + t = 1.9 + 0.0046 = 1.9046m

Hv= height of digester= 1.9m

W v =240 ×1.08 ×1.9046 ( 1.9+0.8 ×1.9046 ) × 0.0046=7.8 N

Analysis of stresses in the digester

Wv
Dead weight stress=
( Di+t ) t

7.8 630 N
σ w= = (Compressive)
(1.9+ 0.0065 ) × 0.0065 m2

P Di
Longitudinal stress= σ L =
4t

0.37× 1.9 ×1000

σ L= =27,038 N /m 2
4 ×0.0065

P Di
Circumferential stress=σ C =
2t

0.37× 1.9 ×1000

σC = =54,077 N /m 2
2× 0.0065
For proper design, the material should be able to withstand the above stresses.

Safe working pressure Ps = 2 S . t (22)

Dm

For carbon steel, the design stress at working temperature, S = 12000 psi (Sinnot, 2004)

= (2 x 12000 x 0.007)/1.9 psi

= 88.4 psi
5.5 DESIGN OF GAS CLEANER.

P-4 P-3

Clean gas
outlet

Wetted fan
P-1
wheel
Water in

P-2
Spray

Dirty biogas Scrubbing

inlet vanes

P-5

Sludge outlet

water scrubber

Figure 5.5 The water scrubber design.

In the gas cleaner, the methane gas is collected over water and some other biogas scrubbing

chemicals. The plant is designed such that the compressor transports the biogas (due to pressure

buildup) to the scrubber at the 18th hour of every day. Water completely removes the H 2S but

partly reduces NH3, CO2. The table below shows the values of the inflow and outflow of the gas

scrubber.
Table 5.4 Properties of feed into the scrubber (gas cleaner).

Feed Input Output

F Ρ Q F Ρ Q
(kg/d) (kg/m3 (m3/d) (kg/d) (kg/m3) (kg/d)
Biogas 16.5 1.2 13.75
Water (+ other biogas 20 1000 0.02 ---------
scrubbing chemicals)
CH4 11.55 0.72 16.04
H2S
NH3 0.11 0.68 0.16
CO2 1.05 1.98 0.78
Total 13.77

From the table above, the gas volume (Vgc) is given as;

Vgc = 13.77m3/d

Since the scrubber works for 18hr/d,

Vgc = 13.77/18m3/d

= 0.765 m3/hr

Safety allowance = 40%

= 0.765/0.6

= 1.275m3.
 5.6 SIZING OF COMPRESSOR FOR BIOGAS

Cooling
water in

Biogas
Biogas
out
in

Water
out
.

Figure 5.6 The biogas compressor.

Theoretical power of consumption = P1Q1ln (P2/P1) (23)

P1 = Initial pressure

P2= Final pressure

Q = Volumetric Flowrate per hour of Biomethane.

The work produced (or required)

n RT 1 n
= P1Q1( )[(P2/P1)(n-1)/n - 1] = Z ( )[(P2/P1)(n-1)/n - 1] (24)
n−1 M n−1

where Z = compressibility factor (1 for an ideal gas),

R = universal gas constant, 8.314 JK-1 mol-1,
T1 = inlet temperature, K,
M = molecular mass (weight) of gas,
W = work done, J/kg.

The value of n will depend on the design and operation of the machine

For reciprocating compressors the isentropic work is normally used (n = y = 1.4)

n= (mass/molar mass) = (11.25x1000)/16

 = 703mol

T = 270C = 300K

R = 8.314JK-1mol-1

Volumetric flowrate of biomethane is given as;

V = M/ ρ = (16.5kg/day)/(1.2kg/m3)

=13.75m3/day

V = 13.8m3

P = nRT/V = (703x8.314x300)/13.8

= 126,510N/m2

= 128.2kPa

Choosing a compression ratio of 1:10 (Sinnot, 2004)

i.e. P2/P1 = 10

therefore, P2 = 1282kPa

1.4
The work produced (or required) = 128 x 13.8( )[(10)(1.4-1)/1.4 - 1]
1.4−1

= 1194J = 1.2kJ/kg

P=WxQ

Assuming 1 minutes (60s) of gas compression per day.

= 1194 x 11.25/60 = 224W

Assuming efficiency of 65%;

Actual shaft power = 225/0.65

= 344W
Thus new volumetric flow rate of biomethane Q2 is:

P1V1 = P2V2 (25)

Therefore, the compressed volume of biomethane V2 is;

V2 = P1V1/P2

V2 = (128.2kPa *13.8m3)/1282kPa

= 1.38m3

Thus, Q2 = 1.38 m3/day

Cooler Heat duty = ( F CP (Tin - Tout ) ) CH4(g)

Where CP of biomethane at 3600 C = 4180J/0Ckg (Perry, 2006)

F = mass flow rate of biomethane = 11.25 kg/hr

Tin = T1 (P2/P1 )m (25)

E=efficiency (65%), y= Cp/Cv = 1.44

m = (y-1)/ yE = 0.44

thus, Tin = 830C

Cooler Heat duty = 11.25 kg/hr × 4180J/0Ckg × (83-30)0C

= 2,200J
Cooling water flow rate = Heat duty (26)
(CP (Tout - Tin ))water

Cooling water flow rate = 2200J

4.2 (83- 30 )
= 11,200kg/hr
Volumetric flowrate of water =11.2 m3/hr

However, the standard power for compressor is about 1-2.5kW (Sinnot, 2004).

5.7 DESIGN OF STORAGE TANK FOR BIOMETHANE

PRESSURE
RELIEF
VALVE

BIOMETHANE
INLET PIPE

Figure 5.7 The biomethane storage tank design

Flowrate of biomethane into the tank= 11.25kg/d

Density of biomethane = 0.72kg/m3

Therefore;

Volume of biomethane = 11.25/0.72

= 13.8m3/d

For the compression of biomethane,

P1V1 = P2V2

Therefore, the compressed volume of biomethane V2 is;

V2 = P1V1/P2

V2 = (128*13.8)/1282

= 1.38m3

For a year storage of the biomethane (i.e. 365 days);

V = 1.38*365

= 503m3

Assuming 20% safety allowance

V = 503/0.8

= 630m3

Vtotal= Vtank + Vsphere

= 1/4 ΠD2H + 1/6 ΠD3

Assuming H:D is 3:1

Also because the storage tank has hemispherical top and bottom with a cylindrical body, the

volume ratio of cylinder to sphere is 3:1 respectively.

Volume of Cylindrical part = (3/4)*630 = 472.5m3

V= (4/3)*Л*D3

D = ((3*V)/4Л)^(1/3)

D = ((3*472.5)/(4*Л))^(1/3)

D = 4.8m

i.e. H = 3* 4.8= 14.5m

DHEMISPHERE = DCYL = 4.8m

5.7.1 MECHANICAL DESIGN OF THE BIOMETHANE STORAGE TANK

- Material of construction: carbon steel

- operating temperature: 30oC (average ambient temperature in Nigeria)

- operating pressure: 1282kPa

-design pressure

Design pressure = maximum operating +1.7bar (Maduka, 2007)

Design pressure = 12.8+1.7 = 12.5bar = 1.45N/mm2

-design temperature

Taking the design temperature as 100C above the operating temperature (Sinnot, 2005),
Therefore the design temperature = 30 + 10 = 40oC

-design stress

For an operating temperature of 0 - 500C and using carbon steel as material of construction,

table13.2 (Sinnot, 2005) gives a typical design stress as;

Design stress = f = 135N/m2

-cylindrical section thickness

For a cylindrical shell, the minimum thickness required to resist internal pressure is given by

equation 13.39 (Sinnot, 2005).

Pi D i
t=
2 f −Pi

Where D i=diameter of the vessel

Pi=design pressure

f =design stress

4.76 ×1000 ×1.45

t= =25.7 mm
2 ×135−1.45

Therefore the thickness of the biomethane storage tank = 36.12mm.

Adding corrosion allowance of 2mm (Sinnot, 2005)

The thickness t = 27.7mm

-Calculating the stress concentration factor to aid the determination of the thickness at the base of

the digester.
 Rc
C s=1/ 4(3+ √( ))
Rk

But crown radius Rc =D i =4.76 m

Knuckle radius=6 % of R k =0.6054

Cs=1/4 ¿

The thickness of the head is given as;

Pi RC C s
t=
2 fj−P i(C S−0.2)

But j=1 (Sinnot, 2005)

1.45 ×4.76 × 3 ×1000

t= =75.6 mm
2× 1× 135+ 1.45(3−0.2)

The dead weight of steel vessel is given as

W v =240 C v D m ( H v +0.8 D m ) t

Cv= a factor to account for the weight of nozzles, manways, internal support e.t.c which can be

taken as Cv=1.08 for vessels with few internal fittings

Dm= mean diameter of vessel= Di + t = 4.76+ 75.6 = 80.3mm =0.08m

Hv= height of digester= 33.5m

W v =240 ×1.08 ×0.08 ( 24+ 0.8 ×0.08 ) ×0.076=37.9 N

Analysis of stresses in the digester

 Wv
Dead weight stress=
( Di+t ) t

37.9 98 N
σ w= = 2 (Compressive)
( 4.76+0.08 ) × 0.08 m

P Di
Longitudinal stress= σ L =
4t

1.45 × 4.76 ×1000

σ L= =21,570 N /m 2
4 ×0.08

P Di
Circumferential stress=σ C =
2t

1.45 × 4.76 ×1000

σC = =43,140 N /m2
2× 0.08

For proper design, the material should be able to withstand the above stresses.

Safe working pressure Ps = 2 S . t

Dm

For carbon steel, the design stress at working temperature, S = 12000 psi (Sinnot, 2004)

= (2 x 12000 x 0.08)/4.76 psi

= 400 psi
5.8 SLUDGE PUMP DESIGN

Discharge rate of the pump = Mass flowrate of feed into the Pump (27)
Operating time of the pump (3 minutes/day)

Table 5.1Material balance around the sludge pump.

Input Streams Mass (kg/d) Output stream 1
shredded solid 1 110
Water 2 165 Sludge
Inoculum 14 27.5
302.5

Total mass in mixing tank = 110 + 165 + 27.5 = 302.5Kg/d

component e (Kg/m3) Mass (kg/d) Volume m3/d
Food 290 20.95 0.072
Paper 85 57.62 0.678
Animal. Waste 240 8.73 0.036
Leaves/vegetables 160 22.70 0.142
inoculum 0.11
water 980 165.00 0.168
Total 275.00 1.206
Source: Peavy (2006)

Q = 1.096m3/day

Power of Pump = mass flowrate x head x g

Where g = 9.8ms-2

Head = (R/pu2)(l/d)(u2/2g) (28)

R = pvd/µ

V = 2.5m/s (Binod, 2006)

µ = 4 Ns/m for sludge (Sinnot, 2004)

p = 340kg/m3

R = 340x2.5x0.03/4 = 6.4

Head = (6.4/(340x2.52))(1.5/0.03)(2.52/(2x9.8))

= 0.048m

:. Power of pump = 9.8x0.048x302 = 142W

Assuming 50% efficiency;

Actual power = 142/0.5 = 284W

However, it was stated that power requirement for pumping sludge is 1.5 kW (Pump

specification: Binod, 2007.)

Pump type: centrifugal pump (Pump specification: Binod, 2007.)

Nozzle size: 15 mm.

5.10 PIPING AND INSTRUMENTATION DESIGN

The piping system parameters are similar throughout the plant; the only variation is the pipe

length, which is a function of the plant layout. The parameters are as analyzed below.

Nominal pipe size: 1.5

Outer diameter: 0.055m (5.5cm)

Inner diameter: 0.05m (5cm)

Wall thickness:

T = pd/(20αd + p)

Where; p-internal pressure, d-pipe diameter, α-design stress

T = 0.005m (0.5cm)

Surface area (cross section):

A = 3.142*0.052/4

= 0.002m3

Pipe schedule number:

SN = P*1000/αs

Where; P-working pressure, αs-safe working stress

SN = 40

Estimation of Pipe Diameters

For carbon steel pipe (Sinnot, 2004):

d, optimum = 293 G0.53ρ0.37 (29)

where G = mass flow rate

ρ = density

thus, using carbon steel pipe with schedule number 40:

 Optimum pipe diameter for the waste feed

Table 5.5: Estimation of pipe diameter for the waste feed

Feed F ρ ( kg/m3) (Peavy,2006.) d,

(kg/day) optimum(mm)
 Fresh waste: Food 20.95 290 11.97
Paper 57.65 85 12.99
Leaves 6.17 105 8.58
Animal 8.58 180 6.17
waste
Total ( ∑ ) 50.0
From table 5.5, the various mass flow rates and densities were obtained and the obtimum diameter
for the waste feed pipe using Equation 31 is 49.98mm ≈ 50mm = 5cm.

 Optimum pipe diameter for the biogas and Biomethane

Table 5.6: Estimation of pipe diameter for the biogas and biomethane

F (kg/min) ρ d,
(kg/m3) optimum(mm)
Biogas 0.015 1.200 55.5

Biomethane 0.011 0.720 35.2 Thus, for the

transportation of the
biogas d, optimum
(mm) = 55.5mm

For the transportation of the biomethane d, optimum(mm) = 35.2 mm

5.8.2 Estimation of Pipe Thickness and Safe Working Pressure

The British Standard 5500 gives the following formula for pipe thickness (Sinnot, 2004):

t= Pd

20 Sd + P

Where P = internal pressure, bar,

d = pipe diameter, mm,

Sd = design stress at working temperature, N/mm2.

Taking the internal pressure as the pressure of the material in the pipe using Equation 33

Pinternal = mass flow rate x volumetric flowrate

 (Cross sectional area of pipe (Πd/4)) 2

Pipes are often specified by a schedule number (based on the thin cylinder formula).

The schedule number is defined by:

Schedule number = Ps x 1000

Ss

Where,

Ps = safe working pressure, lb/in2 (or N/mm2),

Ss = safe working stress, lb/in2 (or N/mm2).

Schedule 40 pipe is commonly used for general purposes.

Generally for carbon steel, the safe working stress for butt welded steel pipe is 41.4 N/mm2

(Sinnot, 2004).

Table 5.7: Estimation of Pipe thickness and Safe Working Pressure

Feed -pipe doptimum (mm) Pinternal(N/m2) t (mm) douter (mm) Ps ( N/mm2)

Fresh waste-pipe 60 63921.55 59.23 60.59 1.656
Steam-pipe 25 2889.836 15.00 20.15 1.656
Biogas –pipe 30 963.0964 16.13 30.16 1.656
Biomethane – 30 577.7953 12.33 30.12 1.656
pipe
Table 5.1. Summary of Plant Design

EQUIPMENT DIMENSIONS SPECIFICATIONS/ CONSTRUCTION

CAPACITY MATERIALS/REMARKS
Water storage D=0.61m V=0.18m3 Polyvinyl chloride
tank(cylindrical) H=0.62m
The mixing D=1.48m V=1.71m3 Carbon steel
vessel (cone- H=0.99m Power=266W
based cylinder) Impeller Revolution=100rpm
clearance=0.16m Efficiency=85%
Impeller Shaft torque=25.4Nm
diameter=0.13m
Baffle
width=0.077m
Blade width=0.051m

Hydrolysis Cylinder:H=1.2m V=3.6m3 Carbon steel

vessel (dome D=1.2m
top with cone- H:D=1
based cylinder) cone : H=0.5m

Methanizer Cylinder:H=1.9m V=14.4m3 Carbon steel

(dome top with D=1.9m
cone-based H:D=1
cylinder) cone : H=1.2m
Sludge pump Pipe diameter = Power = 300kW
0.1m
Scrubber V = 1.275m3 Wet (water) scrubber Stainless steel
Biogas Pipe diameter = P = 1.5kw
compressor 0.05m
Pin = 112.89kPa
Pout = 600kPa
Pipings Inner Diameter = PVC
0.5m
Average length =
2m
Biomethane D = 6.7m V = 1750m3 at 600kPa Carbon steel
storage tank H = 33.5m
 CHAPTER SIX

6.0 SITE SELECTION AND PLANT LAYOUT

For the planning and construction phase of a biogas plant, there is need to consult other

disciplines that are specialized.

6.2 FEASIBILITY STUDY

The decision to build a biogas plant is made based on a feasibility study. The marketability,

availability of waste, the infrastructure, and the recruitment of qualified operators are taken into

consideration. The final result is a cost-benefit calculation based on assumed values (Maria,

2003).

The Proposed Plant Layout (Flow-through).

The site area required for the plant is 10m×15m, and a height of 20m. This includes all the major

equipment of the pilot plant and a control room where all the process monitoring and control are

carried out it should be noted that the plant layout is not drawn to scale but the corresponding

dimensions are stated. The various views of the proposed plant layout are as shown in Figures

6.1,6.2 and 6.3respectively.

Figure 6.1 The isometric view of the proposed plant layout.
Figure 6.2 The front view of the proposed plant layout.
Figure 6.3 The top view of the proposed plant layout.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

7.0 PROCESS CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION

The biogas plant was designed and controllers were set at the major units of the plant which may

require no manual control except during shut-down and start-up periods.

7.1 PROPOSED CONTROL FOR THE BIOGAS PLANT

The Biogas Plant Control will be analyzed based on the following;

- Control System Type

- Control Objective

- Control Model

- Controlled Variable

- Control Configuration

- Control Diagram

- Type of Control Valves

- Reasons

An ideal (steady state i.e. accumulation term is zero) process can be assumed for the mixing tank,

hydrolyser, but dynamic equations have been established for the methanization reactor. Also it

can be assumed that energy terms are negligible because the process is mesophilic which occurs

at ambient temperature.
7.1.1 Mixer Control

Control system: Ratio Control (RC) and Level Control (LC)

Control Objective: to proportionate the set flowrate of shredded solid waste, water, and the

inoculum

Total continuity equation

( Time rate of accumulation of mass∈the system )=( Inflow of mass into the system )−( Out flow of mas

Assuming varying density

dV
ρ =¿ FB +Fw+Fl) – FS (31)
dt

dh
ρA =¿ ¿ FB +Fw+Fl) – FS
dt

Fb=Mass flow rate of the biomass

Fl = Mass flow rate of the leachate

Fw = Mass flow rate of the water

Component of mass balance

dVYi
ρ =¿(FB Xi+FwWi+FlZI) - FsYi
dt

Number of variables :FB, Fw, Fl, h, FS, ρ, Xi, Yi , Wi, Zi

= (4N-4) + 6

=4N+ 2

Number of equations:

(N-1) + 1 = N

Equilibrium relation

=0

Consistency constraints

∑ Yi=1
Number of equations = N+ 1
Degree of Freedom :

F =V- E

F =( 4N + 2) – (N + 1)

F =3N +1

Number of Disturbance (D): Wi, Xi, Zi,Fw, FB, Fl

Total number of disturbance:

(3N -3) + 3 = 3N

Total number of control variables C =F-D

(3N+1) -3N =1

Thus the variable to be controlled is: h

The measured variable is : h

The manipulated variable : Fs

Control Model:

At Steady State;

dm
= wQw,i + sQs,i + iQi,i – (Qw,o + Qs,o + Qi,o) = 0
dt

After proper mixing; Qw,o + Qs,o + Qi,o = Q

That is,

Q = wQw,i + sQs,i + iQi,i

Where Q=mass flowrate,

w,s,i=water, shredded solid waste, and inoculums respectively.

w+s+i=1.
Controlled Variables: Qw, Qs, and Qi.

Diagram:

E-4

S-2
Shredded solid

FT
LC
F

I-1

FC F

I-3

water
V-7

V-8

sludge

Figure 7.1 The mixing vessel control

Type of instruments:

Valve; globe valve, mixer valve

Flow meters

Controllers; level controllers (LC), flow transmitter (FT), flow controller (FC)
7.1.2 Hydrolyser Control

Control System: cascade/reactor control

Total continuity equation

( Time rate of accumulation of mass∈the system )=( Inflow of mass into the system )−( Out flow of mass¿the system )

dV
ρ =Fs−Fs 1
dt

dh
ρA =Fs−Fs 1
dt

Number of Variables =ρ , Fs , Fs 1

Thus the number of variables (V) = 3

Number of equations (E) = 1

Degree of freedon(F) = Number of variables – Number of equations

F =V-E

F =3-1 = 2

Number of disturbance (D) = F0 = 1

Number of control variables (C) =F –D = 2-1 = 1

Thus the variable to be controlled is : h

The measured variable is: h

The manipulated variable: F

Control Model:

At steady state;

dm
= Qi - Qo = 0
dt

That is,
 Qi = Qo = Q

Control Objective: to maintain the accumulation of sludge in the vessel at the set point.

Controlled Variable: Q (mass flowrate)

Diagram:

LC

Figure 7.2 The hydrolysis vessel control.

Type of Control Valve: Gate valve

7.1.3 Sludge Pump Control

Control System: pressure control

Control Objective: to transmit the sludge at the set flowrate from the hydrolyser to the

methanizer.

Controlled Variable: Q (mass flowrate)

Control Model:

At steady state;

dm
= Qi - Qo = 0
dt

Control Diagram:

PC

Pump

Figure 7.3 Sludge pump control.

Type of control valve: diaphragm valve

Control instrument: pressure controller (PC)

7.1.4 METHANIZER CONTROL

Control System: Reactor/Pressure Control

Control Objective: to control the inflow of sludge and outflow of biogas.

Controlled Variables: Q (mass flowrate of sludge), Qb (mass flowrate of biogas)

Diagram:

PC V-4

V-3

Inoculum

FC
Digestate

V-5 LC
Figure 7.4 The methanization
vessel control.

Considering mass balance and

component of mass balance
E-2

Total continuity equation

dV
ρ =Fs1−¿ + Fg)
V-2 dt
E-1

dh
ρA =Fs 1−¿ Fg )
FFC dt

Component of mass balance

dVCg −E
ρ =¿ Fs2CS – (Fs2CD +FgCg) + VK0ε RT
dt

dhCg −E
ρA =¿Fs2CS – (Fs2CD +FgCg) + VK0ε RT
dt

Number of variables: h,Cg, Fs2, Cs, Fs2, CD, Fg.

=7

Number of equation: 2

Degree of freedom :

F = V –E = 7-2 = 5

Number of Disturbance (D) = 2

C = F-D = 5-2 = 3

Thus the number of controlled variables = 3

These are : Fg, Fs2, and h

Number of measured variables : : Fg, Fs2, and h

Number of manipulated variables: Fg, Fs2, and Fs3

Type of Control Valve: diaphragm valve

Instrument: level controller (LC), Pressure Controller (PC)

7.1.5 Gas Cleaner Control

 Control objectives: To control the reaction pressure, flow rate, and level of water in the

reactor and also to monitor temperature and pressure.

Therefore in designing the Gas Cleaner Controller the following are considered:

 Measurement: temperature, pressure, height and flow rate.

 Variable: temperature, pressure, height and flow rate.

 Control design: this is given in figure 7.3

 V-2

P-1
BIOMETHANE

PC

LC

WATER

V-1
E-1
BIOGAS

Figure 7.5 The biogas scrubber control

Considering both mass and component balance

Mass balance

dv
ρ =( Fgi +Fli)) –( Fg2 + Fl2)
dt

dh
ρA =( Fgi +Fli)) –( Fg2 + Fl2)
dt

Component of mass balance

dvXi 2
ρ =¿ (Fl1Y1 + Fg2Xi1) – (Fl2y1 + Fg3X12)
dt

dhXi 2
ρA =¿ (Fl1Y1 + Fg2Xi1) – (Fl2y1 + Fg3Xi2)
dt

Number of variables :Fl1, Fg2, Fl2, Fg3, h, Xi2, Xi1, Yi

=(3N – 3) +5 = 3N + 2
Number of equations:

C.P =(N -1) + 1 = N

Equillibrium relation:

Yi = K Xi2 =(N)

Assuming K =0

Yi = 0

Consistency constraints

∑ Xi 2=1 ,
Total number of equation:

N+1

Degree of freedom (F):

F=V–E

= (3N +2) – (N +1)

= 2N + 1

Number of disturbance: Xi1, Yi, Fg2, Fl2

(2N -2) + 2 = 2N

C = F-D

= (2N +1) + 2N = 1

The controlled variable could be: h or Fg3

The manipulated variables could be :Fl2 or Fg3

7.1.6 Compressor Controller

 Control objectives: To control the reaction temperature and flow rate and also to monitor

temperature and pressure.

Therefore in designing the compressor controller the following are considered:

  Measurement: temperature, pressure and flow rate.

 Variable: temperature, pressure and flow rate.

 Control design: this is given in figure 7.4

Water

biomethane

Biomethane
TC

Water

Figure 7.6 The biogas compressor control

7.1.7 Biomethane storage tank

 Control objectives: To control the tank pressure, flow rate and level of the biomethane in the

tank.

Therefore in designing the biomethane storage tank controller the following are considered:

 Measurement: pressure, height and flow rate.

 Variable: pressure, height and flow rate.

 Control design: this is given in figure 7.3

 V-4

P-5 biomethane

P-7
Figure 7.7
P-3

V-3 The

biomethane

LC storage tank

control.

E-3

7.2 INSTRUMENTATION

The Table 7.1 below summarizes the instrument used for the biogas plant design.

INSTRUMENT SPECIFICATION/SIZING REFERENCES

VALVES:
DIAPHRAGM Fully open(7cm internal diameter Sludge Pump
GLOBE pipe) Mixing tank, methanization
Fully open(7cm internal diameter vessel
pipe)
MEASURING
DEVICES:
PRESSURE Bourdon gauge/gauge pressure Biogas outlet
sensor
 CHAPTER EIGHT

8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT /SAFETY

This section deals with the impact of the biogas on plant the environment and operators involved

8.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE BIOGAS PLANT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Biotechnology has little or no environmental effect, it is also referred to as Green Technology.

The purpose of this section of the report is to provide an overview of the impact on the Bluestem

Integrated Solid Waste Management System (System) as a result of the addition of an AD facility

component. The impacts may be measured in terms of quantities diverted and overall system costs

(Bluestem, 2004).

The effluent from the proposes biogas plant is composed of hydrogen sulphide, ammonia,

carbondioxide, methane.

Table 8.1 The effects of hydrogen sulphide.

CONCENTRATIO REACTION

N
100ppm coughing, eye irritation, loss of smell after 2-5 minutes
200ppm Marked eye and respiratory tract irritation after one hour of exposure
500ppm Loss of consciousness and possibly death in 30 minutes to 1 hour
700ppm Rapid unconsciousness with early cessation breathing and death.
7000ppm unconsciousness with early cessation of breathing and death in after

minutes even if removed to fresh air at once.

Source; Mohammed, 2010.

Also, H2S has effect on the ozone layer.

Table 8.2 The guide words

Guide words Meanings Explanation

No or not The complete negation of No part of intention is achieved.
intention. But nothing else happened.
More Quantitative increase. This refer to quantities and
properties such as flow rate,
temperature as well as activities
like heat and reaction.
Less Quantitative decrease. This refer to quantities and
properties such as flow rate,
temperature as well as activities
like heat and reaction.
 As well as Qualitative increase. All design and operating
intentions are achieved together
with some additional activity.

Part of Qualitative decrease. Only some of the intentions

are achieved some are not
achieved.
Reversed Logical opposite of intention. Applies to activities like reverse
flow or chemical reaction or
substances like poison instead
of antidote.
Other than Complete substitution. No part of the intention is
achieved, but some thing quite
different happens.

The major guide words which I am going to use are No, More.And the streams which I am

considering are those streams around the digester. That is:

 Stream 5

 Stream 6

 Stream 7.

8.2 HAZOP analysis around stream 5 using the No guide word.

Vessel: Digester.

General intention: To produce 19.74 kg/d of biogas.

Selected Line: Stream 5.

Intention: To supply sludge at a flowrate to match biogas demand.

(a) Applying the guide word NO:

Possible deviation: No sludge flow.

Possible Cause: Blockage of valve or valve failure due to mechanical failure.

Consequences: Little or no production of biogas.

Hazard: Loss due to no biogas production.

(b) Applying the guide word MORE:

Possible deviation: More sludge flow.

Possible Causes: Valve failure.

Consequences: Flooding of the digester with sludge thus little or no space for biogas in the

digester.

Hazard: Excessive discharge of biogas through the pneumatic valve which could cause pollution

to the environment.

8.3 HAZOP analysis around the Methanizer

Vessel: Methanizer.

General intention; To produce 16.5Kg/d of biogas.

Selected line: Stream 6.

Intention: To supply biogas to the compressor.

(c) Applying the guide word NO:

Possible deviation: No gas flow.

Possible causes: Blockage of the valve or mechanical failure of the valve.

Consequences: No biogas compression.

Hazard: Explosion of the digester or excessive discharge of the biogas into the atmosphere.

(c) Applying the guide word MORE:

Possible deviation; More biogas flow.

Possible causes: Valve mechanical failure.

Consequences: More biogas in the stream, thus more suction of biogas than required by the

compressor.

Hazard:Break down of biogas compressor.

8.4 HAZOP analysis around stream Methanizer.

Vessel: Digester.

General intention: To produce 16.5Kg/d of biogas.

Intention: To get rid of digestate and leachate from the digester.

Selected line: Stream 7

(d) Applying the guide word NO:

Possible deviation: No flow of digestate and leachate out of the digester.

Possible causes: Blockage of the valve.

Consequences; Flooding of the digester with sludge.

Hazard: Explosion of the digester or the excessive discharge of the biogas into the atmosphere.

(f) Applying the guide word MORE:

Possible deviation: More flow of sludge into the digestate tank.

Possible causes; It could be mechanical failure of the valve.

Consequences: Flooding of the digestate tank.

Hazard: Explosion of the digestate tank.

CHAPTER NINE

9.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND PROJECT EVALUATION

9.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

This design project is concerned with the production of biogas from the environmental

solid waste (biomass). The technology employed is not a limiting factor, and design of the

necessary equipments has been completed. However, in the final analysis, the proposed design

can only be acceptable if the process is profitable because “A Chemical Engineer Is An Economic
Engineer”. Hence an estimate of the investment required and the cost of production are needed

before the profitability of the project can be assessed. This involves the acquisition of capital and

operating cost data. Although published costs are used whenever possible, the lack of information

which will be provided by tenders from contractors, after compilation of final design details,

necessitated the use of estimating techniques.

In this chapter, the various components that make up the capital cost of a plant and the

components of the operating costs are discussed, and relevant economic indices evaluated. Fixed

capital cost and operating costs are the two major cost parameters that make up the plant capital

cost.

9.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

There are a number of different ways of estimating the cost of constructing a chemical plant.

Some require very little information and some require a complete listing of every item, from pipe

fittings to storage tanks and electrical sockets to generators. All assume a normal schedule and

normal conditions. A normal schedule implies that the contractor and engineers will be allowed to

operate in the most efficient way. Any attempt to complete the plant sooner will result in

increased investment costs.

Normal conditions mean that only minor amounts of overtime are involved, that an adequate

number of competent tradesmen can be found, and that scheduled delivery times for equipment
and supplies will be met. No provisions are made for work stoppages or slowdowns due to labor

unrest (William, 2008).

The aspects of cost evaluation are;

Cost and Asset Accounting; presents a survey of accounting procedures for the analyses of costs

and profits as used for industrial operations.

Cost Estimation; provides information regarding the estimation of fixed capital costs, and also

recurrent operating expenditure.

Interest and Investment Costs; discusses the concept and calculation of interest, i.e. payment as

compensation for the use of borrowed capital.

Taxes and lnsurance; taxes represent a significant payment from a company’s earnings and

although insurance rates are only a small fraction of annual expenditure, adequate insurance cover

for a plant is essential.

Depreciation; this is a measure of the decrease in value of an item with respect to time and can be

considered as a cost incurred for the use of the equipment.

Profitability, Alternative Investments, and Replacements: the profitability of an investment is a

measure of the amount of profit generated. It is important to assess the profitability accurately,

and also the profits that could be obtained from alternative investments.

9.3 Accuracy and Purpose of Capital cost Estimate

The accuracy of an estimate depends on the amount of design detail available: the accuracy of the

cost data available; and the time spent on preparing the estimate. In the early stages of a project

only an approximate estimate will be required, and justified, by the amount of information by then
developed. Capital cost estimates can be broadly classified into three types according to their

accuracy and purpose:

1. Preliminary (approximate) estimates, accuracy typically ±30 per cent, which are used in

initial feasibility studies and to make coarse choices between design alternatives. They are based

on limited cost data and design detail.

2. Authorisation (Budgeting) estimates, accuracy typically ±10-15 per cent. These are used for

the authorisation of funds to proceed with the design to the point where an accurate and more

detailed estimate can be made. Authorisation may also include funds to cover cancellation charges

on any long delivery equipment ordered at this stage of the design to avoid delay in the project. In

a contracting organisation this type of estimate could be used with a large contingency factor to

obtain a price for tendering. Normally, however, an accuracy of about ±5 per cent would be

needed and a more detailed estimate would be made, if time permitted. With experience, and

where a company has cost data available from similar projects, estimates of acceptable accuracy

can be made at the flow-sheet stage of the project. A rough P and I diagram and the approximate

sizes of the major items of equipment would also be needed.

3. Detailed (Quotation) estimates, accuracy ±5 10 per cent, which are used for project cost

control and estimates for fixed price contracts. These are based on the completed (or near

complete) process design, firm quotations for equipment, and a detailed breakdown and

estimation of the construction cost. The cost of preparing an estimate increases from about 0.1 per

cent of the total project cost for ±30 per cent accuracy, to about 2 per cent for a detailed estimate

with an accuracy of ±5 percent.

9.4 Fixed Capital and Operating Capital;

Fixed capital is the cost of the plant ready for start-up. It is the cost paid to the contractors

(Sinnott,2004). These include:

 Design and other engineering and construction supervision

 All items of equipments and their installation

 All piping, instrumentation and control systems

 Building and structures

 Auxiliary facilities, such as utilities, land and civil engineering work.

Working capital on the other hand is the extra investment needed, over and above the fixed capital

to start the plant up and operate it to the point when income is earned. Most of the working capital

is recovered at the end of the project. The total investment needed for a project is the sum of fixed

and working capital. The working capital includes the cost of;

 Start-up

 Raw materials and intermediate in the process

 Finished product inventories

 Funds to cover outstanding accounts from customers

9.5 Operating Costs

The plant capital cost represents a one-off expenditure, although the capital will usually have to

be repaid over several years. In order to assess the economic viability of a project it is also

necessary to estimate the operating costs which are incurred annually in the production of the

chemical. The operating costs should be considered when the alternative process routes are being
evaluated, and they can significantly influence the final choice that is made. Operating costs can

be divided into two groups (although in some cases the division is arbitrary), these are (Martin

and David, 1998):

(a) Fixed costs such as laboratory costs, operating labour, capital repayment charges, insurance,

etc. These costs do not depend upon the production rate, and they must be paid even if no

chemical is produced.

(b) Variable costs such as raw materials, utilities (services), shipping, etc. These costs are

dependent upon the amount of chemical produced. The plant supervisor/manager has no control

over fixed operating costs, whereas he/she is held accountable for the variable costs. In addition to

those costs incurred due to the construction of the plant and/or its operation, each plant, site or

product is usually required to contribute towards the general operating expenses of the company.

These expenses include general overheads, research and development costs, sales expenses, etc.

Each company decides how these costs are apportioned, however as a general indication they may

add 20-30% to the direct production costs at site. The following items represent the more

common operating costs, although the list should not be considered complete for any plant.

Operating costs are usually calculated on an annual basis, and subsequently calculated per tonne

of product (for example) when determining the profitability and selling price of the chemical.

(i) Raw materials are determined from the process flowsheet and from material balances.

(ii) Miscellaneous materials include items such as safety clothing, chart recorder paper, etc., that

are not included as raw materials or maintenance materials. These are usually calculated as 10%

of the total maintenance cost.

(iii) Utilities (services) include electricity, water, steam, compressed air, etc. Quantities are

determined from the flowsheet and from energy balances, current costs (and anticipated price

rises) should be obtained for these items.

(iv) Shipping and packaging costs depend on factors specific to the process, the location and the

type of product. In some cases these costs are negligible, but sometimes they can be significant.

(v) Maintenance includes materials and labour costs. This cost is typically between 5-15% of

installed capital cost and should be estimated from data for a similar plant.

(vi) Labour costs should be estimated from reasonably detailed manning estimates. The

operating labour costs may not decrease if production is reduced, however overtime payments

will be required for significant increases in production. Operating labour costs do not normally

exceed 15% of the total operating cost (most plants employ few personnel).

(vii) Supervision includes the management team directly responsible for the overall plant

operation and for directing the work of the plant operators (item (f) above). The personnel

requirements of the management team should be determined, although an approximate

figure of 20% of item (f) can be used to provide an initial estimate.

(viii) Laboratory costs for analysis associated with quality control and process monitoring. An

approximate estimate can be obtained as 20- 30% of the operating labour cost (item (f) above), or

2-4% of the total production cost.

(ix) Plant overheads include general operating costs such as security, canteen, medical,

administration, etc. This item is often estimated as 50- 100% of item (f).

(x) Capital charges are recovered from the project to repay the initial capital investment. The

procedure adopted depends upon the accounting practice of the company. Capital is often

recovered as a depreciation charge of 10% per annum (for example) based on a plant operating

life of IO years, although the plant is not necessarily replaced after that time! Interest must also be

paid on the capital borrowed to finance the plant. The capital may be obtained from company

reserves, but it should be repaid with interest-based upon a consideration of the alternative

investments and their return on capital, i.e. applicable market rates.

(xi) Rates are payable to the local authority or shire based upon the assessed rateable value of the

site. A typical figure is l-2% of the capital cost.

(xii) Insurance for the site, the plant and employees is usually about l-2% of the fixed capital.

(xiii) Royalties and licencefees are payable to the company or individual responsible for

developing the process. This payment may be a lump sum or an annual fee, and is typically either

l-5% of sales price of 1% of the fixed capital.The table below (Table 9.1) shows the summary of

the Economic Analysis of a plant by Sinnot, 2004.

Table 9.1 Summary of the Economic Analysis (production cost)

COST TYPICAL VALUES

 Variable cost
1. Raw materials from flow-sheets
2. Miscellaneous materials 10 per cent of item (5)
3. Utilities from flow-sheet
4. Shipping and packaging usually negligible
Sub-total A ......................
Fixed cost
5. Maintenance 5-10 per cent of fixed capital
6. Operating labour from manning estimates
7. Laboratory costs 20-23 per cent of 6
8. Supervision 20 per cent of item (6)
9. Plant overheads 50 per cent of item (6)
10. Capital charges 10 per cent of the fixed capital
11. Insurance 1 per cent of the fixed capital
12. Local taxes 2 per cent of the fixed capital
13. Royalties 1 per cent of the fixed capital
Sub-total B .....................
Direct production costs A + B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
13. Sales expense 20-30 per cent of the direct
14. General overheads production cost
15. Research and development
Sub-total C ......................
Annual production cost = A + B + C = ......................
Production cost £/kg D = Annual production cost/Annual production rate
Source: Sinnot, 2004.

9.6 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BIOMETHANE PRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to provide an economic reference point for the production of biogas and

biomethane from bio-waste materials. We specifically focus on the costs to establish production

of biogas and biomethane using dairy waste (or other animal waste) at a farm location. We

recognize that a high level of customization goes into developing the best digester for each farm’s

specific characteristics, including taking into account the farm’s size, location, manure

management, and climate. That being said, this section presents a general estimate of costs for

production of biomethane from bio- waste, or manure. There are two main steps in production of

biomethane (Patrick et.al, 2010):

1) Biogas production – anaerobic digester

2) Biogas upgrading to biomethane – removal of CO2, H2S and water

The capital and operating and maintenance costs of biogas production and upgrading systems

vary significantly due to the different types of technologies currently available as well as the scale

of production. Currently, upgrading biogas to biomethane for transportation use is only possible

for large biogas producers due to the high initial capital and operating and maintenance costs. As

discussed in this paper, the initial capital costs take into account the startup costs, planning

necessary, as well as the cost of the equipment and its installation (Patrick et.al, 2010).

Operations and maintenance costs take into account what it costs to run the equipment on a daily

basis, including its energy costs, small and large repairs, and various other aspects necessary for

the successful performance of the systems. While this information is still very sparse due to its

relatively new adoption in this country, meaningful data was collected from various sources

including reports from manufacturers of the technologies, government sponsored research

projects, and data from the literature (Patrick et.al, 2010).

9.6.1 Cost of Biogas Production

In this section we evaluate the cost of biogas production (not biomethane) using a digester system

on a farm. As the data is not readily available, we performed an extensive literature review to

obtain costs per cubic foot of biogas produced. Digester information was collected from literature

review of farms across the United States, information from digester manufacturers, individual

farm reports and interviews, and published reports and articles. Data from twenty farms

employing four different digester systems were analyzed (Patrick et.al, 2010).
Table 9.2 Digester biogas production data and cost
Source: Patrick et-al, 2010

The last column in Table 9.3 shows the calculated cost per 1000 ft3 of biogas produced based

on the capital costs and operation and maintenance costs. In order to relate the initial investment

to the annual costs attributed to operations and maintenance (O&M), a lifespan of 20 years was

chosen as a conservative estimate attributed to the digesters, allowing for the gradual aging of the

equipment. The assumptions do not include financing costs. Dividing the capital costs by the

equipment’s lifespan in years, this capital cost can be broken down to a $/yr value and the annual

O&M cost can be combined and divided by the annual biogas production to yield a cost per 1000

cubic feet value. The calculation is described by the following formula:

C = (I/20) + IO,M × 1000 (32)

365V

Where:
C - Cost of biogas produced per 1000 ft3, $/1000 ft3
I - Capital investment, $
IOM - Annual operations and management investment, $/yr
V - Biogas produced per day, ft3/day

For the purposes of the analysis, digester lifespan is estimated to be 20 years and facility

assumed to be running at full capacity during this period

9.6.2 COST ESTIMATION

The cost of materials, equipment and labour are subject to fluctuations due to inflations and

deflations, therefore, all costs estimating methods used, is of historical data. The methods usually

used to update historical data are the published cost indices. This relates the present cost to the

past cost according to the equation below:

 Present Cost = Previous Cost × Present index (34)

Previous index

(Martyn, 1998.)

9.7 COSTING

All the costs of the different plant equipments are obtained from the literature (). The price lists

were those of some years back, thus estimates of the present cost was made using plant cost

index. The cost of raw materials and products, were also estimated based on the economic factors

(Patrick, 2010).

9.7.1 Equipment Costing

Considerations:

 The table for the figures of this part are referenced accordingly.

 The equivalence of one dollar ($) to naria is taken as ₦148

The table below shows the equipment and their cost as at year 2004.
Table 9.6 Equipment cost, size and index.
Source: Sinnot, 2004.

9.7.2 Cost Index

As earlier mentioned, a realistic capital cost estimation has to be subjected to inflation. The

knowledge of the historical data is very vital to all cost estimation, which also, are forecast for

future cost. The old cost data are usually updated for use in estimating at the design state and to

forecast the future construction of the plant, updating, present cost will be related to part cost and

are based on data for labour, material and energy cost published in governmental statistics.

Cost indices are useful when basing the approximated cost on other than current prices. If the

known cost of a piece of equipment is based on, for instance 2004 prices, this cost must be

multiplied by the ratio of the present day index to the 2004 base index in order to proportion the

value to present day dollars. Incidentally, the inverse of this operation can be performed to

estimate what a given piece of equipment would have cost in some prior time. Mathematically, it

is represented as

n
C
 Q 
C0 
I

 
 QB   I0  (35)

Where,

C = Current cost, dollars

C0 = Base cost, dollars
Q = Current Capacity,
QB = Base Capacity,
I = Current Index, dimensionless
I0 = Base Index, dimensionless
n = Exponent number
(Sinnot, 2004).
The extrapolation of the chemical engineering cost index was estimated and the data were based

on the quarterly index already calculated and this data are used to extrapolate to the fourth quarter

of the present year, 2009; (Figure 9.1 below),

CE’s Online CEPCI provides an easy way around such hassles,

granting access to the entire CEPCI database, including all annual
archives (1947 to present) and monthly data archives (1970 to
present). And, instead of waiting more than two weeks for the print or
online version of Chemical Engineering to arrive, subscribers to the
Online CEPCI can access new data as soon as it is calculated. 

Figure 9.1 Marshall and Swift Equipment cost index

 .

Source: Chemical Engineering Plant Cost, 2010.

Figure 9.2. The Chemical Engineering equipment cost index

9.8 CALCULATION OF EQUIPMENT COST

Using the table 9.6 above, the equipment cost for the particular type of equipment can be

calculated by (Martyn, 2004):

Ce = (C.Sn)ER

where Ce = purchased equipment cost, £,

S = characteristic size parameter, in the units given in Table 9.6,
C = cost constant from Table 9.6,
n = index for that type of equipment.
ER = Exchange rate $1 is ₦148
The cost index are extrapolated from the Figure 9.2 above from year 2004 to year 2010 using

excel spreadsheet which gave the following exponential model for process machineries as in

Appendix C;

Where n is the serial number of reference year.

9.8.1 COST OF THE SHREDDER

Approximating to cone crushers

Size of shredder = 110kg/d = 4.6kg/h

Cost index in 2004, I0 = 508

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

Extrapolating the cost constants,

= (4.6*3800)/200 = 43.7

Therefore,

Ce =( 43.7*4.6^(0.85))*148

= ₦23,600

The cost of shredder in year 2010 is,

C = 23600*(627/508)

= ₦29,130.00

9.8.2 COST OF WATER STORAGE TANK

Using vertical tank parameters in the table,

Size of water tank = 0.18m3

Cost index in 2004, I0 = 508

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

n=0.6

Extrapolated cost constant = (0.18*2400)/10

= $432

Ce = 432*(0.1^0.6)*148

= ₦16,000.00

Cost of water storage tank = 16000*(627/508)

= ₦20,000.00

9.8.3 COST OF MIXING VESSEL

Size of mixing tank = 1.71m3

n=0.6

extrapolated cost constant = (1.71*2400)/10

= $410

Ce = 410*(1.71^0.6)*148

= ₦83,700.00

n=0.5

Size of agitator = 7.78kW

Extrapolated cost constant = (7.78*1900)/100

=$ 147.8

Ce = 190*(7.78^0.5)*148

= ₦78,400.00

Total Ce for the mixing vessel = ₦ (83,700+ 78400)

 = ₦162,000.00

Cost index in 2004, I0 = 508

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

Cost of the mixing vessel = 162000(627/508)

= ₦200,000.00

9.8.4 COST OF AGITATOR IN THE METHANIZER

Size of agitator = 2kW

n=0.5

Extrapolated cost constant = (2*1900)/5

=$ 760

Ce = 760*(2^0.5)*148

= ₦160,000.00

Cost index in 2004, I0 = 508

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

Cost of the mixing vessel = 160,000(627/508)

= ₦196,000.00

9.8.5 COST OF THE HYDROLYSIS VESSEL

Size = 3.6m3

Cost index in 2005, Io = 521.7

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

Cost of digester = Kr. 1000/m3 (or SEK, SWEDISH KRONOR) from Soledad, 2005
SEK 1 = $0.139

Therefore, SEK.1000 = $139

Ce = ₦(139*148)*3.6 = ₦75,000.00

Cost of hydrolysis tank =₦( 75,000*(627/521.7))

= ₦90,300.00

9.8.6 COST OF THE METHANIZATION VESSEL

Size = 14.4m3

Cost index in 2005, Io = 521.7

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

Cost of digester = Kr. 1000/m3 (or SEK, SWEDISH KRONOR) from Soledad, 2005

SEK 1 = $0.139

Therefore, SEK.1000 = $139

Ce = ₦(139*148)*14.4 = ₦297,000.00

Cost of methanization vessel = ₦ (297000*(627/521.7))

= ₦357,000.00

9.8.7 COST OF FLUID MOTIVE DEVICE (COMPRESSOR AND PUMP)

Compressor;

Size = 1.5kW

Cost index in 2004, Io = 737

Cost index in 2010, I = 882

Extrapolated cost constant = (1.5*1920)/20

 = $144

Ce = 144*(1.5^0.8) = ₦(200*148)

= ₦29,500.00

Cost of compressor = ₦(29500*(882/737))

= ₦35,200.00

Pump;

Size = 2.5kW

Cost index in 2004, Io = 737

Cost index in 2010, I = 882

Extrapolated cost constant = (2.5*1920)/20

= $240

Ce = 240*(2.5^0.8) = ₦(500*148)

= ₦74,000.00

Cost of pump = ₦(74000*(882/737))

= ₦88,500

9.8.8 Cost of biogas cleaner (water scrubber).

Volume = 1.3m3

Volume of biomethane = 11.25kg/d

= 8.44m3/d

Cost of scrubber = $2,130,000 per 807000ft3/d of biomethane produced (Patrick, 2010).

1ft3 = 0.0283m3

C = (2130000*8.44)/(807000*0.0283)
= $800

= ₦120,000.00

9.8.2 COST OF BIOMETHANE STORAGE TANK

Using vertical tank parameters in the table,

Size of water tank = 630m3

Cost index in 2004, I0 = 508

Cost index in 2010, I = 627

n=0.6

Extrapolated cost constant = (630*2400)/200

= $7500

Ce = 7500*(630^0.6)*148

= ₦53,000.00

Cost of biomethane storage tank = 53000*(627/508)

= ₦65,500.00

Table 9.6 Summary of equipment cost

Equipment Number of Cost,

units ₦
Shredder 1 29130
Water tank 1 20000
Mixing vessel 1 24500
Hydrolysis vessel 1 90300
Agitator in methanizer 2 196,000
Methanizer 1 357000
Compressor 1 88000
Pump 4 140000
Biogas scrubber 1 120000
Biogas storage tank 1 65000
Total 1,130,000
Table 9.7 Raw materials / Utilities

Raw materials/ Unit Unit Price Unit per year Total cost
Utility (₦) (₦)

Biomass Tones 1000 40 40,000

(collection cost)
Water Tones 100 500 50,000
Electricity Kw 100 1000 100,000
190,000.00

Table 9.8 Factors of Items

Items Factors
Purchase equipment cost PCE
F1 equipment erection 0.40
F2 Piping 0.70
F3 Instrumentation 0.20
F4 Electricity 0.10
F5 Building Process 0.15
F6 Utilities 0.50
F7 Storage 0.15
F8 Site development 0.05
F9 Auxiliary building 0.15

PPC = (1+F1+F2+F3--------+F9)PCE (36)

Where PPC = Total physical plant cost

PCE = Total purchased equipment cost

From the table PCE = ₦ 1,130,000.00

PPC = (3.4)×1,130,000

= ₦3,146,000.00
Table 9.9 Fixed capital cost

Item Factor
F10 Design and Engineering 0.30
F11 Contractor’s fee 0.05
F12 Contingency 0.10
Total 0.45

Fixed capital cost=PPC(1+F10+11+F12) (37)

= ₦3,146,000×(1.45)

= ₦ 4,562,000.00

9.8.9 Working Capital

Working capital ranges from 10% to20% of the fixed capital. A value of 15% is taken.

WC= 0.1×4,562,000 = ₦ 456,000.00

Total capital investment = Fixed capital cost + working capital

= ₦(4,562,000+456000)

= ₦5,020,000.00

9.8.10 Fixed Cost

Maintenance is taken as 5% of fixed capital cost

Maintenance= 0.05FC

= ₦ (0.05*4562000)

= ₦228,000.00

Total investment = PPC+ WC

 = ₦ (3,146,000 + 502,000)

= ₦3,648,000.00

9.8.11 Direct Labour Cost

In chemical industries, direct labour cost is found using given that only two units require direct
labour;

L = 274NQ0.13

N = 2 (number of functional unit)

Q = 5000m3/year = 6 tonnes/year (plant capacity)

Thus,

L = 2074 × 2 × (6)0.13

= € 692 = ₦ 180,000.00

Supervision cost (20% of DLC) = ₦ 35,800.00

Plant overhead cost (50% of DLC) = ₦ 90,000.00

Laboratory cost (23% of DLC) = ₦41,400

Capital charges (12.5% of fixed capital cost) = ₦267,000.00

Local charges (1% 0f FCC) = ₦ 21,360.00

Royalties (1% 0f FCC) = ₦ 21,360.00

Insurance (10% 0f FCC) = ₦ 213,600

Annual operating cost (AOC) = ₦(180000 + 35800 + 90000 + 41400 + 267000 + 21360 +
213600)
 = ₦870,000.00

Sales expenses (2% of AOC) = ₦17,400.00

Research and development (2% of AOC) = ₦17,400.00

9.9 PROCESS EVALUATION

The cash flow for the proposed design project has been evaluated and it is essential to ensure that

adequate return will be obtained from the capital used.

9.9.1 Profitability Analysis

Profit Before Task (PBT) = Annual Sales – Annual Production Cost

Profit After Tax (PAT) = PBT(1- Tax rate)

Pay Back Period (PBP) = Investment (38)

Net Cash Flow (NCF)

But NCF = PAT + Depreciation

Hence, Depreciation = FCC (39)

Service life
9.9.2 SALE OF BIOGAS

From table 9.1 above,

by JD Murphy - 2009 - Production cost of biomethane (2.75 million m3/a × €1.24/m3)= €3.400

million/a.Sale price of biomethane (€1.24 plus VAT@ 21%)= €1.50/m3 ...

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0961953408002055

Cost of biogas = €1.50/m3

Cost of 5000m3 of biogas = ₦(1.5*233*5000)

= ₦1,748,000.00 /year

9.9.3 RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)

ROI = (PAT/TOTAL INVESTMENT)*100

PBT = ₦ (1748000 – 492,000)

= ₦1,256,000.00

Profit After Tax (PAT) = 1256000(1- 0.1)

= ₦1,130,000.00

Depreciation = FCC / Service life

= 4562000/20

= ₦228,100.00
NCF = 1130000 + 228100

= ₦1,358,000.00
Pay Back Period (PBP) = 4562000/1358000
= 3.4 years
Therefore;

ROI = 1130000*100 /3648000

= 31.0% per year.

 CHAPTER TEN

10.0 START-UP AND SHUT-DOWN PROCEDURE

The plant for the production of biogas from biomass is a continuous process but in a batch form,

therefore, the start up and shut down procedures will not run co-currently.

10.1 START UP

To ensure a successful start up of the plant, the start up pressure begins with the utilities section of

the plant, this is where the cooling water is provided and the steam generation is ensured. The

following procedures are to be followed:

1. All valves are put in manual position.

2. It should be ensured that all the equipments in the various units of the plant are intact.

3. All control valves are tested to guarantee safety standard.

4. Before the start up operation, all units of the plant are notified.

5. Leakages are avoided by testing all lines.

6. Processes that involve heating like the boiler and the mixing section are started by increasing

the temperature gradually to avoid the occurrence of sudden shock.

7. All indicators should be read and ensure the process is in control.

8. Start cooling water to the heat exchangers and water to the boiler.

9. Charge water into the gas cooler (this should be done every day).

10. All valves should be turned to automatic position.

10.2 SHUT DOWN

The shut down procedure involves the systematic stopping of the production. The following

procedures are to be followed:

1. The control mechanism is set to shut down mode.

2. All valves should be turned to manual position.

3. All units of the plant are notified of the shut down.

4. All supply lines to the equipments are closed.

5. The pump should be drained and stopped before closing the valves.

6. Discharge all content of the reactor.

 CHAPTER ELEVEN

11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 CONCLUSION

The design of the biogas plant to produce 5000m3 per year from biomass (municipal solid waste)

was a success having a high quality product rich in 70% methane, with the consideration of high

dry solid as feedstock. The economic implications of setting up this plant based on the design are

highlighted below.

 Return On Investment (ROI) : 31% per year

 Pay Back Period (PBP) : 3.4 years

 Profit Before Tax (PBT) : ₦1,256,000.00

 Profit After Tax (PAT) : ₦1,130,000.00

 Total Capital Investment : ₦3,648,000.00

 Total Physical Plant Cost (PPC) : ₦3,146,000.00

 Annual Sales of Biogas : ₦1,748,000.00

Thus, it can be concluded that the project is economically viable and environmentally friendly

because the effluent contains a negligible amount of hazardous gases which when approved, can

improve the Nigeria economy and qualify Nigeria to per take in vision 20:2020.

11.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are recommendation based on this design project.

Experimental analysis should be carried out to determine the actual value rate constant in order to

determine the actual residence time for designing the size of the methanizer.
 REFERENCES

1. Abubakar M.B., Zakari B.Y., “Process Safety and Loss Prevention” Chemical
Engineering Department, Ahamadu Bellow University, Zaria, Nigeria. 2007.

2. Ahove M.A., “The Nigerian Environment”. National Open University, 2008.

3. Ayhan D., “Progress and Resent Trend in Biofeuls” Chemical Engineering Department,
Selcuk University, Turkey. Received 28 th March, 2008; accept 28th June, 2006, available
on line 22th August, 2006.

4. Basic mixing principles, http://www.Mixingsolutions.Com/Mixing/Mixing-

Principles.html, mixing solutions ltd. 2009

5. Biodiesel Production and Economics; Austrailia Biofeul groups, Department of

Agriculture and Food Government of Western Austrailia. May 2006, retrieved.

6. Binod, K.C., “Dry Continuous Anaerobic Digestion of Municipal Solid Waste in

Thermophilic Conditions.” M.Sc Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. May,
2008.

7. Blue Stem Solid Waste Agency, “Anaerobic Digestion Visibility Study”. June, 2004.

8. Borja R. et al., “Kinetics of anaerobic digestion of cow manure with biomass immobilized
on zeolite.” Institut for Technulogie, FAL, BundesaUee SO, 3300 Braunschweig (Germun
& de Depatiamento de In~enieda Qtdrnka, Facdtad de C&n&as, Avda S. Albert0 Magna
s/n, 14004 C&d&a (Spain). June 3, 1993.

9. Caddet, Thermal Hydrolysis of Sewage Sludge, Caddet Technical Brochure No. 111

10. Christian, M.D. “Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable solid Waste in Low-and Middle-
income countires.” EAWAG Aguatic Research. May, 2007.

11. Chopey N., “Hand book of Chemical Engineering Calculations” Chevron Luminus Global
Bloom Field, N.J. 2006.

12. Christian, M.D. “Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable solid Waste in Low-and Middle-
income countires.” EAWAG Aguatic Research. May, 2007.

13. Control Station “Practical Process Control”, 2005.

14. Cullen, P.J, 2009, “Mixing: Principles and Applications’, J. Wiley and sons, U.S.A.

15. Diaz, L., Savage, G., Eggerth, L. and Golueke, C., Composition and Recycling of
Municipal Solid Waste, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 1993.
16. Dahlman, “OIGA Tar Removal from Gasification Product Gas”. Revision Summer,
Maassluis, Netherland. 2009.

17. Dieter, D., Angelika, S. “Biogas from waste and renewable resources” WILEY-VCH
GmbH & Co. KGaA, Germany, 2008.

18. Fabian monnet: An introduction to anaerobic digestion of organic waste, A final year
research project Scotland university, November 2003.

19. Green Fuel Technologies Corporation. Online at http://www.greenfuelonline.com

24/04/10.

20. Green waste: anaerobic digestion for treating the organic fraction of municipal solid
wastes. Retrieved on
July21,2007.http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Ostrem_Thesis_final.pdf

21. Gossett, J. and McCarty, P., Heat Treatment of Refuse for Increasing Anaerobic
Degradability, 68th Annual Meeting America Institute of Chemical Engineers, November
1975.

22. Haslego, C., 2000 “Experience–Based rules of chemical Engineering, "The Chemical
Engineers' Resource Page", www.cheresources.com, Richmond, VA U.S.A

23. Hilkia A. I., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Batch and Continuos Anerobic Digester”
University of Porets in Biogas Production from Municipal Solid Waste, River State. 2009.

24. Howards S.P., Donald R.R., “Environmental Engineering”. McGraw – Hill Book
Company, New York. 2006.

25. http://bordenchem.com visited on 12/10/2010.

26. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm.....20/03/10.

27. http://en.wikipedia/biofeul/……….20/03/10.

28. http://www.financialtimesenergy.com……….20/03/10.

29. http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/vermathesis.pd.

30. http://www.ees.adelaide.edu.au/pharris/biogas/pvdv

31. Igoni A.H., M.F.N. Abowei, M.J. Ayotamuno and C.L. Eze. “Comparative Evaluation of
Batch and Continuous Anaerobic Digesters in Biogas Production from Municipal Solid
Waste ”. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript EE 07
011. Vol. X. September, 2008.

32. Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology (ISAT) “Biogas Digest”,
2009. http://isat.org
33. James R.P., Edward N.Z., “Encyclopedia of Environment Science and Engineering” Fifth
Edition, Taylor and Francis. 2006.

34. Karena Ostrem: Anaerobic digestion for treating the organic fraction of municipal , M.sc
thesis, department of earth and environmental, coulumbian university, 2004.

35. Luyben W.L., Luyben M.L., “Ëssentials of Process Control”. McGraw – Hill Chemical
Engineering Series. Singapore, 1997.

36. Machenzie, L.d., Susan, J.M., “Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science”.
Second Edition. Michigan State University, Boston Burrfidge, New York. 2007.

37. Maria R.V.D. “the Proposed Bulgarian Government strategy on Municipal Waste
separation.” Oxford university, 2003.

38. Mohammed, I.A., Bujaji I.M., “Biofuels as Petroleum Extender”, Renewable Energy
Research Group, Chemical Engineering Department, Ahamadu Bellow University, Zaria,
Nigeria. 2007.

39. Mohammed, J.T., Keikhosro, K. “pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Wastes to imp rove

Ethanol and Biogas Prodution.” International journal of molecular science, Boras,
Sweden, 2008.

40. Momoh O.L., Nwaogazie, L.I. “Effect of Waste paper on Biogas Production from Co-
digestion of con during ancd Water Hyaciath in Batch reactors.” University of Port
Harcourt. Nigeria December, 2008

41. Mortyn S.R., David W.J., “Chemical Engineering Design Project, A case study
Approach”. Volume 6. Gordon and Breech Science Publishers, New York. 1998.

42. Nicholas P. Chopey, 2003, “Handbook of Chemical Engineering Calculations”, Section

12, 3rd edition McGraw Hill.

43. Ogwueleka, T.C., “Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria.
University of Abuja, Nigeria. July, 2009.

44. Ostrem, K. “Greening waste: Anaerobic Digestion for treating the Organic fraction
Municipal solid waste.

45. Patrick C. et al. “Economic Assesment of Biogas and Biomethane Production from
Manure”. Carlstart Publishers. March, 2010.

46. Peavy: Solid waste management, 2006.

47. Perry, R.H., and Green, D.W. (Eds), Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 6th Edn,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (1984).

48. Renewable Energy Report, Financial Times Energy, April, 2009.

49. Santha S.N., “solid and liquid waste management”. Ministry of Rural Development,
Bhawan, New Dehill. 2007

50. Science for Environmental Policy (SEP). “ What is the Future for Anaerobic Digestion of
Solid Waste? ”. D. G. Environment News Alert Service, 19/10/10.

51. Sinnott R.K: Chemical Engineering Design: Volume 6, Fourth edition, Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, 2006.

52. Soledad G.G., “Farm Scale Anaerobic Digestion Integrated in an Organic Farming
System”. JTI – Institute for jordbruks-Och miljoteknik, Sweden, 2005.

53. Solid Waste, “A toz of Water”http:/www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waste/

solid wastes. Retrieved on June 30, 2007.

54. Steinmüller Valorga, www.steinmuller-valorga.fr

55. Stephanoponlar (2002) “Chemical Process Control”

56. UNEP (United Nation Environmental Programme) (2004). State of Waste Management
in- South East Asia (Volume III: Waste Processing - Current Waste
ManagementPractices). United Nations Publication. Retrieved on July 15, 2007.
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/spc/State_of_waste_Management/6.asp

57. Vandevivere, A., Baere, LD., & Verstraete, W. (1999). Types of anaerobic digesters for

58. Verma, S.A., “Anaerobic Digestion of Biodagradable Organics in Municipal solid Waste.”
MSc Thesis, Fu foundation school of Engineering and Applied Science Columbia
university, Columbia. May, 2004.

59. William D.B., “Preliminary Chemical Plant Design” Professor of Chemical Engineering,
Ohio University. Elsevier, New York/ Oxford/ Amsterdam.

60. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The Sustainable Forest
Product Industry, Carbon Climate Change, Key messages for policy makers. 2005.

61. www. chemical engineering plant cost index/ equipment cost/……12/09/2010.

62. www.caddet.co.uk/brochures/display.php?id=1939&adv=112-Themelis, N.J. (2004).

63. www. chemical engineering plant cost index/ equipment cost/……12/09/2010.

64. Yoshio H. “What is Biomas” Technosoft Co., LTD.

 APPENDIX
Appendix A

Food % by mass % dry mass mc. Dry mass C

Paper 12 20 50 1
An. Wat 35 50 6
Leaves 3 20 50
13 40 60

According to Binod (2006) about 15% by weight of biomass is converted to bioges

That is;

Expected volume of biogas= 5000m3/year while

Density of biogas = 1.2 Kg/m3 (Dieter, 2008)

Mass of biogas per year = 1.2 X 5000 = 6000kg/year

If 6000Kg = 15% OF Biomass

6000 Kg/ yr
Then; 15 = 40,000 Kg/yr of biomass

Now, assuming 18 working hours, 6 hours shut down period in a year,

18 X 365 = 6570 hours

4000
the biomass (Kg/day) = 365 = 110 Kg/day

the expected (calculated) biogas production is;’

6000 Kg
Kg/d = 365 16.5Kg
Taking the component ratios

Dry mass X component (C, H, O….) weight. To

Total mass (140)

Determine the structure formular

Component of biomass

C H O N S
Food 7.32 0.98 5.73 0.40 0.06
Paper 12.18 1.68 12.32 0.08 0.06
An. Wat 0.07 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.03
Leaves 3.92 0.49 3.04 0.27 0.02
23.49 3.14 21.44 0.76 2.8/=51.63

TableA .3 Computation of the chemical composition of the biomass sample using the above
literature value

Components Wet Dry Composition (kg) based on dry mass

Carbon Hydroge Oxygen nitrogen Sulfur Ash
mass,K mass,Kg
n
g
Food waste 44.5 22.25 7.32 0.98 5.73 0.40 0.06 0.76
Paper 43.5 40.56 12.18 1.68 12.32 0.08 0.06 1.68
Animal 3.5 1.39 0.07 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.03 0.00
waste
Leaves 30 12 3.92 0.49 3.04 0.27 0.02 0.36

Total 121.5 76.2 23.49 3.14 21.44 0.76 0.17 2.8

Therefore converting the moisture content of the biomass to hydrogen and oxygen and adding
value to the initial hydrogen and oxygen, the empirical formulae of the biomass can be determine,
this is summarize in the table below
Table A The mole ratio of each element present in the biomass.

Components Mass, kg % by mass Kg/moles Moles Mole

ratio
Carbon 23.49 46 12.01 1.96 39
Hydrogen 3.14 0.06 1.01 3.14 63
Oxygen 21.44 41.74 16.01 1.34 27
Nitrogen 0.76 0.01 14.01 0.05 1
Sulfur 2.8 0.05 32.06 0.09 2
Total 51.36 100

Calculate equation:

C39H63O27NS2

C40 H63O28NS2 + 12H2O 2OCH4+NH3+2H2S+2OCO2

1069g 216g 320g 17g 68g 880g

Mc = 20%

Total solid = 80% (=881Kg V.S of biomass)

From the equation

17
x 110=1. 60 Kg
Mass of NH3 produced/day = (1069+216 )

68
x 110=5 .8 Kg
Mass of H2S produced/day = (1069+216 )

880
x 110=82 .9 Kg
Mass of CO2 = (1069+216 )

320
x 110=27 . 3 Kg
Mass of CH4 = (1069+216 )
MANUAL SORTING UNIT

If 110Kg/d of biomass (biodegradable wastes is required for 16Kg/d of bioges;

From literature table 2.3 (2009), this 110Kg/d is equivalent to 63% of the solid waste generated in

Nigeria, i.e

63% 110Kg/d

The total generated mass per day is

110
x100=174 Kg/day
63
Total solid waste =

The total mass charged into the manual sorting unit is;

174Kg/day

MATERIAL BALANCE

Plant attainment of 95% (95% efficient)

110
=115. 79≈116 Kg/day
i.e 0. 95 of biomass required

Biodegredables % constituent of solid waste Mass (kg/d)

Food 12 20.95
Paper 33 57.62
 Animal. Waste 5 8.73
Leaves/vegetable 13 22.70

Mass of biodegradable components are;

12
x 110=20 . 95 Kg/ d
63
Food waste:

33
x110=57 . 62Kg/d
63
Paper waste:

5
x110=18 .73 Kg/d
63
Animal waste:

13
x110=22 .70 Kg/d
63
Leaves/vegetable:

Material Balance around the mixer/pasteurizer

If 40%x = 110Kg/d
 110
x100=275 Kg/d
40
Total mass = of mixture

60
x100=275 Kg /d=165 Kg /d
100
Mass of water =

Taking 10% of mixture to be inoculum (binod, 2007).

10
x2.75=27.5 Kg
100
i.e of inoculum

input Streams Mass (kg/d) Output stren 1

SHredded soilid 12 110
water 33 165 sludge
inoculum 5 27.5
302.5
Total mass in mixing tank = 110 + 165 + 27.5 = 302.5Kg/d

Material balance around the sludge pump

Sluge in = sludge out.

Its necessary to calculate the total volume of the sludge.

Component e (Kg/m3) Mass (kg/d) Volume m3/d

Food 290 20.95 0.072
Paper 85 57.62 0.678
Animal. Waste 240 8.73 0.036
Leaves/vegetables 160 22.70 0.142
Water 980 165.00 0.168
Total 275.00 1.096
Since: peavey (2006)

mass
Volume = e

220 .95
=0 .072 m3
Vol. of food = 290

57 .62
=0 .678 m3
Volume of paper waste = 85

8. 73
=0. 036 m3
Volume of animal waste = 240

220 .7
=0. 142m3
Volume of leaves/vg. Waste= 160

165
=0 .168 m3
Volume of water = 980

10
x1 .096=0 . 110m3
Since the inoculum is 10% of total mixture it implies that; 100

Assumption
 - the inoculum is composed of components as in the mixture at the same proportion.

i.e total voluje of sludge is;

1.096 + 0.110 = 1.206 m3

The overall density call be estimated thus,

Totalmass 302 .5
= =250 . 83 kg /m3
Sludge = Totalvolume 1. 206

Mass of digestate= 302.5 – 16.5 – 27.5 = 258.5kg/d

Mass of biogas = 16.5Kg/d

Mass of inoculum = 27.5 Kg/d

Mass of sludge = 302.5Kg/d

Biogas Composition % Density Kg/m3 Mass Kg/d Volume m3

CH4 70.0 0.72 11.55 16.04
CO2 27.0 1.80 4.46 2.48
NH3 1.5 0.70 0.25 0.36
H2S 1.5 1.40 0.25 0.18
Total 16.50 19.06
Sinc: perry density from (2004), composition from verma, (2004)

70
x 16 . 5=11. 55 Kg /d
Mass of CH4 = 100

27
x16 . 5=4 . 46 Kg/d
Mass of CO2 = 100

1. 5
x 16 . 5=0 . 25 Kg/d
Mass of NH3 = 100
 1. 5
x 16 . 5=0 . 25 Kg/d
Mass of H2S = 100

Volume of gases

mass
V= e

11.55
=16 . 04 m3 /d
V CH 4 = 0 . 72

4 . 46
=2 . 48 m3 /d
V CO2 = 1 .8

0. 25
=0 . 18 m3 /d
V NH3 = 1 . 40

Totalmass 16 .50
=0 . 18 m3 /d=0 . 87 Kg/m3
Overall density = Totalvolume = 19 .06

Mat bal around the digestele tank

Assumption: 60% water

40% solid

60
x258 .5=155 .1 Kg/d
i.e mass of digestate water = 100

40
x258 .5=103 . 4 Kg/d
mass of solid (fitilizer) = 100
ENERGY BALANCE

- Mechnical engineering requirements

total amount of waste fed (m) = 110Kg/d

0. 5 L(gasoline )
x
energy required for shredding Es = 100 Kg( feedstock ) m (Binod, 2006).

0.5 x110
=0.55 L
100

Since, I gallon of gasoline = 110, 250 BTU {binod, 2006)

= 110250 BTU X 1.0551 [1.0551:conversion factor]

= 116,324.8Kg/gel X (1gal/3.785L) X 0.55L

= 16,903.21KJ = 16.90MJ

- enrgy ontent of feed stredded.

In peavey (2006), the agn is given thus;

0
)+95
Ec (KJ/kg) = 337C + 1428 (H - 8

Components Typical energy value Mass Total energy content Ec (KJ)

(KJ/Kg)
Food 4,650 20.95 97,418
Paper 16,750 57.62 965,135
Animal waste 18,000 8.73 157,140
Leaves/veg 6,500 22.70 147,550
Total 110 1,367,243
 Municipal soilid 10,500 110 1,155,000
waste
Source: peavey, 2006

Therefore the net energy balance around the shredder

E = Ec – Es = 1,367,243 – 16,900

= 1,350,343 Kg = 1,350 MJ

Energy balance around the mixer

Net energy of shredded waste = 1,350 MJ

Energy content of H2O

Using the modified dulong’s formular from peavey (2006);

0
)
KJ/Kg = 1428 (H - 8

Where H hydrogen percent of H2O

O Oxygen Percent of H2O

M (H2O)= 2 + 16 = 18 gmol

2
x 100=11%
H% 18

16
x 100=89 %
0% 18

i.e E (H2O) = o
 energy content of inoculum;

E(inoculum) can be approximately 10% of the energy content of components mixer, i.e.

10
x1 , 350 ,000 KJ =136724 .3 KJ =135.00 MJ
100

Energy required for mixing;

Mixing power = Np e N3 D5

= 1.7 X 3 X250.83 X2.0953 X 015

= 3,920.85W

= 3.92KW

(mixing would be for 5 minutes every day)

i.e energy required for mixing = 5 X 3.92 KW X 60

= 1.176 MJ

Energy balance around the mixer i.e

Em = 1350 + 135 – 1.176 = 1,473 MJ

Energy required for feeding (pumping) Ef

power requirement for pumping sludge is 1.5 kW (Pump specification: Binod, 2007.)

for 5minute (300s) pumping per day,

 Ef = 1.5 x 300 = 450kJ

APPENDIX C

C.0 COST INDEX EXTRAPOLATION

Excel spread sheet was used to extrapolate the cost index from Figure C.1, using the index for

process machinery. The cost index is given for first (a) and second (b) quarters of 2005, and 2006.

Extrapolation was calculated up to 2004 and down to 2010 using the equation as shown in the plot

below. Table C.2 shows the extrapolated cost index, to give an approximate value.

Figure C.1 Chemical Engineering Cost Index (Source: Chemical Engineering Plant Cost,

2010).
Table C.1 Available Cost Index

YEAR (quarters) Available COST INDEX

2005 A 541

2005 B 560

2006 A 602

2006 B 606

620

600

580
cost index

560

540

520

500
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
serial number for first &second Quarters of the year.

Figure C.2 Cost Index.

Table C.2 The extrapolated cost index, to give an approximate value

S/N YEAR Extrapolated index

1 2004 A 498.8388
2 2004 B 519.7162
3 2005 A 541.4675
4 2005 B 564.129
5 2006 A 587.739
6 2006 B 612.3371
7 2007 A 637.9647
8 2007 B 664.6649
9 2008 A 692.4825
10 2008 B 721.4644
11 2009 A 751.6592
12 2009 B 783.1177
13 2010 A 815.8928
14 2010 B 850.0396