An economic analysis of fuel gas production from solid waste

Kispert, R.G.; Sadek, S.E.; Wise, Donald L.

doi:10.1016/0304-3967(75)90017-7

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anaerobic bacterial conversion of this waste with methane production may offer a partial solution to these problems and also serve to supplement the supply of natural gas. In an economic analysis of methane production from municipal solid waste involving mesophilic anaerobic microbial digestion, Kispert et al (12) found that the cost of producing methane is economically acceptable when compared with projected costs of natural gas. Studies of Pfeffer (17) showed that methane production from municipal organic refuse may be economical if carried out at 600C.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermophilic methane production from cattle waste

Varel¹,

Isaacson²,

Bryant³

1977

Appl Environ Microbiol

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methane production from waste of cattle fed a finishing diet was investigated, using four 3-liter-working volume anaerobic digestors at 60°C. At 550C a start-up culture, in which waste was the only source of bacteria, was generated within 8 days and readily adapted to 600C, where efficiency of methanogenesis was greater. Increasing the temperature from 60 to 65°C tended to drastically lower efficiency. When feed concentrations of volatile solids (VS, organic matter) were increased in steps of 2% after holding for 1 month at a given concentration, the maximum concentrations for efficient fermentation were 8.2, 10.0, 11.6, and 11.6% for the retention times (RT) of 3, 6, 9, and 12 days, respectively. The VS destructions for these and lower feed concentrations were 31 to 37, 36 to 40, 47 to 49, and 51 to 53% for the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-day RT digestors, respectively, and the corresponding methane production rates were about 0.16, 0.18, 0.20, and 0.22 liters/day per g of VS in the feed. Gas contained 52 to 57% methane. At the above RT and feed concentrations, alkalinity rose to 5,000 to 7,700 mg of CaCO3 per liter (pH to 7.5 to 7.8), NH3 plus NH4+ to 64 to 90 mM, and total volatile acids to 850 to 2,050 mg/liter as acetate. The 3-day RT digestor was quite stable up to 8.2% feed VS and at this feed concentration produced methane at the very high rate of 4.5 liters/day per liter of digestor. Increasing the percentage of feed VS beyond those values indicated above resulted in greatly decreased organic matter destruction and methane production, variable decrease in pH, and increased alkalinity, ammonia, and total volatile acid concentrations, with propionate being the first to accumulate in large amounts. In a second experiment with another lot of waste, the results were similar. These studies indicate that loading rates can be much higher than those previously thought useful for maximizing methanogenesis from cattle waste.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermophilic methane production from cattle waste

Varel¹,

Isaacson²,

Bryant³

1977

Appl Environ Microbiol

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The concentration of methane in the gas produced from the ozonated liquor averaged approximately 80$. This is greater than the 50 -65$ values reported in the literature from anaerobic digestion of agricultural and domestic refuse (15,29). The explanation is found by examining the probable difference in stoichemetry for carbohydrates and alcohols as shown in equations 1and (2):(1)…”

Section: Dssl Concentrationmentioning

confidence: 84%

Energy and protein production from pulp mill wastes. Final report, 15 Jun 1976-14 Jun 1979

Jürgensen¹,

Patton²

1979

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Gas Scrubber C02 Kispert et al, 1975 The gaseous output of the digestion process contains both C02 and CH4. Acid gases are also represented, and require removal in order to prepare "pipeline quality" methane.…”

Section: Ch4mentioning

confidence: 99%

User's guide to SERICPAC: A computer program for calculating electric-utility avoided costs rates

Wirtshafter¹,

Abrash²,

Koved³

et al. 1982

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To develop computer models that can be used to estimate technology-specific avoided cost rates for electric utility purchases from qualifying distributed power producers, as required by Section 210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Discussion This report is Volume I of a two-volume report, and is the User's Guide to SERICPAC, the companion model to SERICOST. Used in combination, the two models calculate average annual avoided cost rates for wind turbines, low-head hydro facilities, and several biomass systems. Volume n is the User's Guide to SERICOST. SERICOST is a modified version of MARGINALCOST, the marginal cost estimation model developed by Charles Cicchetti, William Gillen, and Paul Smolensky. SERICOST calculates the electric utility's avoided cost by time period, independent of the type of technology used by the qualifying facility. Conclusions The primary advantage of SERICOST and SERICPAC over other available models is that they can be used to estimate technology-specific avoided cost rates without having to rerun mor~ complex utility planning models for every qualifying facility or technology type. If the qualifying facility is large enough to justify time-of-production (TOP) metering, then SERICOST alone can calculate appropriate rates. If TOP metering is infeasible, then the use of both models is recommended for calculating average annual rates.

show abstract

An economic analysis of fuel gas production from solid waste

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Thermophilic methane production from cattle waste

Thermophilic methane production from cattle waste

Energy and protein production from pulp mill wastes. Final report, 15 Jun 1976-14 Jun 1979

User's guide to SERICPAC: A computer program for calculating electric-utility avoided costs rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About