LANDFILL CLOSED SITES AS
ENERGY PARKS
SWANA Florida Summer Conference
July 28-29, 2014
Debra R. Reinhart
Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering
Mike Toth, Geosyntec
Nicoleta Sorloaica-Hickman
Florida Solar Energy Center
University of Central Florida
Presentation Overview
• Landfill as Energy Parks
• Methodology
• Results
– Preliminary Screening
– Case Study
• Conclusions
Introduction
• Utilizing closed landfills as energy parks
converts what would otherwise be a liability
into an asset while also contributing to a
solution for meeting growing energy
demands.
• UCF conducted a comprehensive and
systematic analyses to evaluate the suitability
of closed landfill sites as power parks.
Possible Technologies
•
•
•
•
•
Landfill gas to energy
Wind energy
Photovoltaics
Heat or thermal energy recovery
Energy crops
Possible Technologies
•
•
•
•
•
Landfill gas to energy
Wind energy
Photovoltaics
Heat or thermal energy recovery
Energy crops
Landfills as Energy Parks – Potential
Advantages
• Land, utilities, roads and other infrastructure are
readily available and the site is already an undesirable
land use.
• located near critical infrastructure, including electric
transmission lines and roads, near areas with high
energy demand,
• Constructed with large areas of minimal grade
• Lower land costs compared to open space.
• Coupling renewable energy technologies with landfill
gas projects may be particularly advantageous because
of shared infrastructure upgrade costs
Landfills as Energy Parks – Potential
Challenges
• Interference with closure systems such as
stormwater management, geomembrane 30-yr
warranty
• Construction on top of a landfill (deep
foundations may be necessary)
• Additional loading on roadways
• Climate changes impact on cloud cover
• Cover depth
• Side slope issues
• Compatibility with post-closure care
Wind Projects at Landfills in USA
Frey Farm Landfill, Lancaster County, Southwest PA
2, 1.6 MW turbines erected in 2011 adjacent to landfill; $9.5 million project
Avg. annual wind speed at 80 m1: 5 m/s; 4.632
Hub Height: 80m; Co-location to Dairy Farm
1Source:
2TMY
NREL 80 m wind maps (http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_resource_maps.asp?stateab=pa)
3 data using power law conversion
Wind Projects at Landfills in USA
Town of Hull Wind II Project (2006)
Wind speed: 6.5 – 7.0 m/s at 70 m; confirmed
empirically at 7.0 m/s at 60m
Needed to build the turbine atop a landfill
Allowed rotor to be sufficiently high
above surroundings while still using a
tower of moderate height
Vestas 1.8 MW turbine
Foundation
Design:
Concrete pad supported by pilings and rock
anchor bolts
Piles driven through landfill to solid rock
No landfill liner existed.
Cost
Cost (2006 dollars/2012 dollars):
850,000/975,000;
Approx. 25% of installed capital costs compared
to normally estimated 2.5 - 5% (NREL, 2010) for
utility scale turbines.
Source: http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/published/2006/AWEA%202006%20Hull%20II.pdf
Photovoltaic Technology
Thin-Film PV at Tessman Road Landfill, TX
Power Generation Depends on Many Factors
Rigid Panel PV at Pennsauken Sanitary Landfill,
NJ
Energy Park Projects Worldwide
“Energy Hill” (Georgswerder Landfill, Hamburg, Germany)
Source: http://www.iba-hamburg.de/en/themes-projects/energieberg-georgswerder/projekt/energy-hill-georgswerder.html
Comparison to Other Energy Sources
(Adapted from V. Smil,
2010)
Proposed Technologies
Technology
Description
Collected landfill gas as fuel for internal combustion engine (ICE)
powering an electrical generator, gas turbines, microturbines, direct
applications such as for use in boilers, dryers, and kilns collocated
Landfill Gas to with the landfill, and direct use in natural gas pipelines
Energy (LFGTE)
Wind
Generators
Photovoltaic
Technologies
Traditional geared systems and newer direct-drive systems
Multiple rigid and flexible photovoltaic (PV) technologies including
monocrystalline, polycrastalline, amorphous silicon (a-Si), tandem
amorphous/Si crystalline, thin-film Si crystalline, and others based on
compound II-VI and III-V materials
Methodology
Phase 1
Phase 2
- Prescreening - Site
Screening
Phase 3
- Financial
- Environmental
Impact Assessment
- Final Selection
Among Viable
Alternatives
Pre-Screening Technology Thresholds
Threshold
Technology
Landfill Gas Collection
(Direct Use)
Distance from co-located operation
or natural gas
a
pipeline should be under 8 km
Landfill Gas Collection
(Electricity Production)
Landfill must produce at
least 5.6 m3/min of gas at
a
50% methane (for ICE)
Electricity Production from
Wind Generators
Cut-in wind speed greater than 4 m/sb
Electricity Production
using Solar energy
Low shading, tilt angle between 26-31degrees and
2average
solar
insolation
greater
than
3.5
kWh/m
dayc
aUSEPA,
2011;
cNREL, 2013
b
Iowa Center, 2012;
Site
Locations
for PreScreening
Candidate Sites – Summary of 27
Landfills
6 sites
All three
Two or more
18 sites
Landfill gas
extraction
PV
10 sites
19 sites
23 sites
Wind
0
20
40
60
Percentage (%)
80
100
Phase 3: Case Studies: Financial and
Environmental Impact Evaluation
• Life Cycle Analysis: Process Analysis and
Economic Input-Output
– energy input,
– energy output capabilities,
– material flows,
– global warming potential, and
– costs associated with each technology
(engineering and design, manufacturing,
constuction, O&M, decommisioning)
(Crawford, 2007; Sharrard, et al. 2008;
Changbo et al., 2012)
Global Warming 100 Potential Results from BestCase Technologies, g CO2e/
kWh Out
Martin
County
Palm City
Saint
Cloud
West
Nassau
74
82
79
79
69
63
52
68
--
1138
1152
1138
Technology\ Buckingh
Case Study am Road
Solar
Wind
Turbine
LFGTE
Comparison To Fossil Fuels, g CO2e/
kWh AC Out
Fuel Cell
Natural Gas
Various
Combined
Cycle
Turbinesa
Various
Combined
Cycle
Turbinesb
443
499
Diesel
Heavy Oil
Coal
Hydrogen
Gas
Reforminga
Various
Generator
and Turbine
Typesa
Various
Generator
and Turbine
Typesa
Various
Generator
Types with
Scrubbinga
Various
Generator
Types
without
Scrubbinga
664
778
778
960
1,050
Solar:
74 – 82
Wind Turbine: 52-69
LFGTE:
1140
Payback Periods for Best-Case
Technologies, Years
Bucking Martin
Technology
ham
County
\ Case
Road Palm City
Study
Solar
22
24
Wind
Turbine
LFGTE
Saint
West
Cloud Nassau
23
23
80
54
29
75
--
2
5
2.5
Levelized Cost of Energy for Best-Case
Technologies, $/kWh
Technology
Bucking Martin
\Case
ham
County
Study
Road Palm City
Saint
Cloud
West
Nassau
Solar
0.100
0.100
0.107
0.108
Wind
Turbine
0.090
0.079
0.066
0.085
--
0.017
0.063
0.017
LFGTE
Conclusions – Needed For Technology
Viability
• A substantial increase in energy prices
• The implementation of new policies that promote
renewables
• The implementation of new/renewed incentives
• Technological cost reductions (e.g., lower cut in
wind speeds, better capacity factors, lower cost
materials)
• Longer-term warranties on renewable energy
equipment allowing for an increase in project life
during analysis.
Funding Acknowledgements
 Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management
 National Science Foundation
Questions?