Landfill Gas to
Liquid Fuels
Ryan Kent
Kirk Jaunich
Tyler Stewart
Zachary Kerbo
University of South Florida
Chemical & Biomedical Engineering Department
Objective
Develop a competitive process for the conversion of
Landfill Gas (LFG) into liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

Converting waste gas into fuel

Storable
Key Understandings
energy density
Letting
nature start the process
High
Domestic
fuel sourceproduction from bacteria
 Feedstock
 Carbon offset by use of biomass derived fuels

 What you put into a landfill
 Closed Loop Business Model
 Every Landfill is different

Другой 2,02
is what you get out of a landfill.
Our customers are landfill operators

Lower
Greenhouse
gas
production
High cost
involved in fueling
their
equipment

Offset federal
fossil fuel
use regulations

Satisfying
emissions

Dealing
their waste
gas
Stop with
removal
of currently
Oxygen 0,41
Methane
52,49
sequestered carbon
Water 7,31
Nitrogen 1,54
Carbon
Dioxide 38,18
H2S 0,07
Siloxanes
8,91E-05
Motivation and Process
Hypothesis: Conversion of waste Landfill Gases into liquid hydrocarbons is
a more feasible system than other proposed technologies.

Flaring
Goals

Down scaling of Fischer Tropsch Synthesis Reactor (FTSR)

Removing contaminants from LFG

Siloxanes, Sulfides, Halides, etc.
Pretreatment
Tri-Reforming
Waste to Electricity
Fischer Tropsch
 Modeling a competitive large scale process
• Iron Solid Scavenger • Convert LFG to
• Convert Syngas to
 Lab scale: 0.1 ft3/min
(Kinetic data and reactor
modeling)
Syngas
Long
chain
• Activated
hydrocarbons
Carbon/Silica
Bed Scale: (Using
• CO2literature
Reforming
 Industrial
and industry data)
• Steam Reforming
 Process 2500 ft3/min
• POx of Methane
Separations
• High Quality Diesel
Compressed
• Low quality
gasolineNatural
sold forGas
upgrading
• Unused portions to
combustion
Liquid Hydrocarbon
Fuels
Diesel Properties
The Product
Diesel
Gasoline
Flash Point (C)
56.4
Freezing Point (C)
-36.2
Cetane Index
71.35
Product Composition
0,35
0,3
Mass %
0,25
Sale Price
($/gallon)
Diesel
4.00
Gasoline
1.50
Gallons Produced
Diesel
91%
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
Gasoline
9%
Conclusions
Discounted Cumulative Cash Flow
$20 000 000
ParameterDP=$5,GP=$1.5
DP=$4, GP=$1.5 Electricity

Flaring
$15Flaring
000 000Total Capital
Investment
DP=$4,GP=$0
CNG
Liquid Fuel
$ 12.3 Million
installations which could use LFG as a resource
FCI  No use for larger
DP=$3, GP=$1.5
9.4
11.4
year
$ 9.29.6
Million
$10 000
(MM
$) 000Revenue per 1.0

Electricity
DP=$3,GP=$0
Operating Cost per year
$ 5.2 Million
Operating
 Remains a formidable option due to widespread utilization
0.06
2
4
$5 000
000$/yr)
Cost
(MM

LFG toPlant
CNGLife
15 years
5.2
Revenue
 Shows
promise
for
modular installment
but350
incurs
a high operating
cost
$0Operating
Days/Year
4.2
6.2
9.4
(MM$/yr)
for the product delivered.
-1 0 1 2 3
Depreciation Method
4
5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
MACRS (9 years)
NPW

to Liquids has the highest rate of return
($5 LFG
000 000)
4.5
1.2
(MM $) Net Present -1.1
Worth (NPW) i=15%
$ 5.9 Million

However the technology also incurs a higher risk
($10
000 000)
DCFRR

5.9
Discounted
Rate
26 natural
%0.14 gas price falls
Return
will increase
diesel prices
- ofasReturn
0.2 rise and
.25
Discounted Payback Time
($15 000 000)
6.25 years
Years