Amaraibi Rarosue J, Joseph Babu, Kuhn John N
Heterogenous Catalysis & Materials Chemistry Group, Department of Chemical, Biological and Materials Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA.
Heterogenous Catalysis & Materials Chemistry Group, Department of Chemical, Biological and Materials Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA.
J Environ Manage. 2022 Jul 15;314:115070. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115070. Epub 2022 Apr 19.
A technoeconomic analysis (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted on the use of landfill gas (LFG) for electricity generation using an internal combustion engine. This study provides insights that can guide LFG waste to energy (WTE) operators on decisions concerning installation of contaminant removal from LFG for electricity generation. Four scenarios were analyzed; the first (Scenario 1) was a facility with a single siloxane removal unit (SREU) sized for 6 months of continuous use, the second (Scenario 2) was a facility with parallel SREUs sized for one month of use, the third (Scenario 3) was a facility with no SREU, and the fourth was a facility that flared all LFG captured. The TEA revealed that the chiller cost was over 50% the total purchase cost of the LFG pre-treatment system. When the complete LFG to electricity process was analyzed, the internal combustion engine had the highest percentage of total capital investment and the total annual cost. For the base case, it became economically beneficial to install a SREU at facilities with LFG flowrates greater than ∼2000 m/h. Sensitivity analysis showed that at a base case of 1700 m/h, LFG (50% CH), and 50 mg/m D4, the net income of facilities in Scenarios 1 to 3 became positive at an electricity sales price greater than 5.5 cents/kWh. LCA revealed that Scenario 2 had the greatest CO emission reduction. Scenario 3 is observed to save less CO emissions as biogas flowrate increases due to frequent engine shutdowns. Although there are differences in the global warming potential (GWP 100) for Scenarios 1 to 3, with Scenario 2 being the best and Scenario 3 being the worst, the differences are very small. For this reason, economics alone are sufficient in decision making.
对使用内燃机将垃圾填埋气（LFG）用于发电进行了技术经济分析（TEA）和生命周期评估（LCA）。本研究提供了一些见解，可指导垃圾填埋气废物转化能源（WTE）运营商就安装用于发电的LFG污染物去除装置做出决策。分析了四种情景；第一种情景（情景1）是一个配备单个硅氧烷去除装置（SREU）的设施，其规模可供连续使用6个月，第二种情景（情景2）是一个配备并联SREU的设施，其规模可供使用1个月，第三种情景（情景3）是一个没有SREU的设施，第四种情景是一个将捕获的所有LFG进行燃烧的设施。TEA显示，冷却器成本超过了LFG预处理系统总购置成本的50%。在分析从LFG到电力的完整过程时，内燃机在总资本投资和年度总成本中所占百分比最高。对于基准案例，在LFG流量大于约2000 m/h的设施中安装SREU在经济上变得有利可图。敏感性分析表明，在1700 m/h、LFG（50% CH）和50 mg/m D4的基准案例下，情景1至3中设施的净收入在电力销售价格高于5.5美分/千瓦时的情况下变为正值。LCA显示情景2的二氧化碳减排量最大。由于发动机频繁停机，随着生物气流量增加，情景3的二氧化碳减排量减少。尽管情景1至3的全球变暖潜能值（GWP 100）存在差异，情景2最佳，情景3最差，但差异非常小。因此，仅经济因素就足以用于决策。
