Fuel gas production from animal residue. Dynatech report No. 1551

Ashare, E.; Wise, Donald L.; Wentworth, R. L.

doi:10.2172/5445541

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5.2.1 Capital Cost Figure 5.1 shows the capital cost for various anaerobic fermentation systems plotted against the fermentor volume (Ashare et al, 1977;Burford et al, 1977;Coppinger et al, 1979;Fischer 'et al, 1978;Hashimoto and Chen, 1979;and Hayes et al, 1979). The capital cost included all equipment and facil,ity costs for the fermentation system (including installation labor), except costs for effluent treatment or storage (e.g., centrifugation, filtration, lagooning) and biogas handling or use (e.g., C02 scrubbing and electrical generation).…”

Section: Optimized Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic fermentation of beef cattle manure. Final report

Hashimoto¹,

Chen²,

Varel³

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report summarizes the research being conducted at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center to convert livestock manure and crop residues into methane and a high protein feed ingredient by thermophilic anaerobic fermentation. The major biological and operational factors involved in methanogenesis were discussed, and a kinetic model that describes the fermentation process was presented. Substrate biodegradability, fermentation temperature, and influent substrate concentration were shown to have significant effects on CH4 production rate. The kinetic model predicted methane production rates of existing pilot and full-scale fermentation systems to within 15%. The 5.7 m 3 fermentor was operated at: temperatures of 45, 50 and 55°C; hydraulic retention times ranging from 12 to 4 days; mixed continuously or 2 hr/day; and fed once/day or 22 times/day. No difference in methane production rate was observed when the fermentor was mixed 2 hr/day versus continuously. The methane production rate was about 10% higher when the fermentor was fed 22 times/day compared with once/day. The highest methane production rate achieved by the fermentor was 4.7 L CH4/L fermentor•day. This is the highest rate reported in the literature and about 4 times higher than other pilot or full-scale systems fermenting livestock manures. Assessment of the energy requirements for anaerobic fermentation systems showed that the major energy requi rement for a thermophi 1 i c system was for maintaining the fermentor temperature. Of the total heating energy required, about 89 to 94% was for heating the influent slurry at an ambient temperature of 10°C. The next major energy consumption was due to the mixing of the influent slurry and fermentor liquor. Mixing amounted to 7.3% of the gross methane energy production, assuming continuous mixing. The least energy was consumed in pumping. The total energy required for mixing and pumping accounted for 10.8 to 11.3% of the gross thermal energy production. An approach to optimizing anaerobic fermentor designs by selecting design criteria that maximize the net energy production per unit cost was presented. Using this optimization technique, we estimated that a farmer-constructed and operated system would be economically feasible for beef feedlots between 1,000 to 2,000 head without a feed credit assumed for the effluent, and about 300 head with a feed credit of $60/~1g effluent total solids. Commercial "turn-key" systems are only feasible for feedlots larger than 8,000 head with no effluent credit, and feedlots between 1,000 to 2,000 head with an effluent credit of $60/t~g. Based on these results, we bel i eve that the economi cs of anaerobic fermentation is sufficiently favorable for farm-scale demonstration of this technology.

show abstract

Section: Optimized Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anaerobic fermentation of beef cattle manure. Final report

Hashimoto¹,

Chen²,

Varel³

1981

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The product of conversion is an MBG, a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, which can be further upgraded to SNG by removing the carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other impurities. An economic analysis has been carried out on fuel gas production from animal manure (Ashare et al, 1977;Wentworth et al, accepted for publication; Ashare et al, accepted for publication).…”

Section: Anaerobic Digestionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methane Production from Biomass and Agricultural Residues

Wise¹,

Wentworth²,

Ashare³

1979

Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The status is presented of the Fuels from Biomass program of the U.S. Department of Energy, especially with respect to fuel gas production from biomass and residues. The entire scope of this Fuels from Biomass program is given, followed by a perspective on fuel gas production. Anaerobic fermentation has been the primary processing system under investigation for methane production. Cattle manure, both beef and dairy, has been the primary substrate evaluated in this bioconversion process although agricultural residues, such as straw, and selected crops grown specifically for energy utilization are also being evaluated. Projects range from laboratory programs through large-scale experiments to full-scale facilities. Description is provided of current programs. In every respect, the Fuels from Biomass program is oriented towards obtaining meaningful supplies of fuel gas.

show abstract

Design of Small-Scale Biogas Plants

Brule

1981

Biomass Conversion Processes for Energy and Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fuel gas production from animal residue. Dynatech report No. 1551

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Anaerobic fermentation of beef cattle manure. Final report

Anaerobic fermentation of beef cattle manure. Final report

Methane Production from Biomass and Agricultural Residues

Design of Small-Scale Biogas Plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About