Brenda Pike
Intro to GIS
9/13/13
Assignment 1
Summary
My thesis topic is currently “Regional Approaches to Anaerobic Digestion
Development.” A component of that will be a GIS project analyzing the optimal size
and locations for anaerobic digestion/combined heat and power facilities in
Massachusetts. With a commercial food waste ban going into effect in 2014, the
environment seems ideal for expanding the capacity of not only anaerobic digestion
of organic waste, but using the resulting biogas as a source of energy. Biogas is a
highly efficient alternative energy that stores well.
I am currently interning in the Clean Energy Division of the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council, and I am proposing that MAPC offer municipalities technical
assistance in either developing anaerobic digestion/combined heat and power
facilities or adopting bylaws and zoning that encourage their development.
Spatial/Geographic Questions
My primary research question is: What are the optimal size and locations for
anaerobic digestion/combined heat and power facilities in Massachusetts? To figure
this out, I’ll have to consider many factors. These are my secondary research
questions.
1. Where are anaerobic digesters currently located in Massachusetts? Where are
anaerobic digesters paired with combined heat and power?
2. Where are wastewater treatment plants located in Massachusetts? What is their
output?
3. Where are solid waste facilities located in Massachusetts?
4. What are the residential densities of population centers in Massachusetts? What
is their output of solid waste and food waste?
5. Where are cattle farms located in Massachusetts? What is their output of
manure?
6. What is the ideal transportation distance for the energy capacity of various
feedstocks, including wastewater sludge, food waste, municipal solid waste,
cattle manure, urban wood residues, secondary mill residues, and agricultural
waste?
7. What is the minimum size for an anearobic digestion/combined heat and power
facility to be cost-effective?
8. What is the minimum distance from residential areas that anaerobic digestion
facilities can be located?
References
1. Wong, S. C. (2011). Tapping the energy potential of municipal wastewater
treatment: Anaerobic digestion and combined heat and power in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/priorities/chp-11.pdf
This report, commissioned by the Massachusetts DEP, emphasizes the energy
savings that could result from wastewater treatment plants pairing anaerobic
digestion with combined heat and power. It features detailed case studies on a
number of anaerobic digestion facilities in the New England area. It shows that
wastewater treatment plants already processing their sludge through anaerobic
digestion can generate more biogas by adding higher-energy-content waste
streams, such as food waste, and that while combined heat and power is not as
cost effective in smaller facilities in colder climates, such facilities can reap nonenergy benefits from anaerobic digestion by itself.
2. Höhn, J., Lehtonen, E., Rasi, S., & Rintala, J. (2014). A geographical information
system (GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and
sites for biogas plants in southern Finland. Applied Energy, 113(0), 1-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.005
This article takes into account transportation of a wide variety of feedstocks
from areas of high biomass concentration. It estimates maximum transportation
radius of 10-40 kilometers, or roughly 6 to 25 miles.
3. Milbrandt, A. (2005). A geographic perspective on the current biomass resource
availability in the united states. (Technical Report No. NREL/TP-560-39181).
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39181.pdf
This report indicates that Massachusetts lacks a significant amount of
agricultural, wood, and primary mill residues, which represent 70% of the total
biomass resources in the United States. However, it has a large amount of
secondary mill residues, urban wood residues, municipal discards, and
wastewater treatment methane emissions, bringing it to the mid-range of
biomass potential.
4. Pöschl, M., Ward, S., & Owende, P. (2010). Evaluation of energy efficiency of
various biogas production and utilization pathways. Applied Energy, 87(11),
3305-3321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.05.011
This article considers energy input as well as energy output for various
feedstocks. For municipal solid waste, transportation and pre-treatment are
both high-energy inputs. Their high input/output ratios mean that their relative
yield decreases the farther they are transported. For cattle manure,
transportation of even 10-20 kilometers decreases its relative energy output
tremendously. For food residues, relative output decreases abruptly after 50
kilometers (and is still quite low after 30 kilometers). For municipal solid waste,
relative output drops more quickly after 100 kilometers (and is still quite low
after 50 kilometers).
5. Khalid, A., Arshad, M., Anjum, M., Mahmood, T., & Dawson, L. (2011). The
anaerobic digestion of solid organic waste. Waste Management,31(8), 17371744. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.021
This article reviews the benefit of co-digestion, or combining various feedstocks
together in anaerobic digesters, to gain a higher biogas yield.
6. Sultana, A., & Kumar, A. (2012). Optimal siting and size of bioenergy facilities
using geographic information system. Applied Energy, 94(0), 192-201.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.052
This article uses Analytic Hierarchy Process and transport cost optimization
techniques to determine optimal size and siting of biomass facilities in Alberta.