|
 |
|
H. Lanier
Hickman Jr.
|
Part
7b: Landfill Gas–An Asset, Not a Liability.
In Part 7a, controlling landfill gas (LFG) at sanitary
landfills was discussed. Odors and explosions resulted
in the acceptance of the need to control LFG to protect
the horizontal movement of gas. Initially, controlling
LFG resulted in either venting or flaring of the collected
gas. When the energy crisis in the early 1970s occurred,
a few forwarding-looking LFG pioneers saw an opportunity
to use the collected gas as an asset–energy–not
a liability. This part will provide a brief review of
the development of the emergence of landfill gas-to-energy
(LFGTE) as a part of solid waste management. Special
thanks to Fred Rice for his help with this part.
Links
to other parts of our series may be found at the end
of this article.
Santa’s
Coming to Town
Charley Brisley
was an early pioneer in the management of LFG (see Part
7a in the January/February 2001 issue). The gas problems
at the Palos Verdes (PV) Landfill in California resulted
in the installation of an LFG control system. The captured
LFG was quickly viewed as an energy source. When we
turned off the lights in the White House during the
1970s energy crisis, the Los Angeles area made its contribution
by turning off Christmas lights. Brisley and his troops
caught national attention with the lighting of a Christmas
tree on a high point on the PV Landfill with electricity
generated by an LFG-powered electric generator. This
small incident did much to engender interest in LFG
as an energy source.
Shaking
and Baking
Fred Rice,
an internationally recognized expert in LFG management,
notes that another event also helped spark interest
in LFG as an energy source: the Sylmar earthquake in
1971. This natural disaster fractured an underground
oil seam beneath the Fairfax district in Los Angeles,
preventing oil from being recovered without also bringing
up casing head gas. Local agencies would not allow the
flaring of this gas, and other alternatives were sought–initially
cleaning up the gas to pipeline quality for sale to
a local gas utility distribution company.
Initial efforts
drew technology from the oil industry, old hands at
cleaning up gas. The early attempts to use simple pressure
swing adsorption failed. Eventually a natural molecular
sieve made from zeolite was used, and the purified gas
was sold to the Southern California Gas Company.
With the
energy crisis in full cry, the company that owned the
zeolite, Systems Capital Technology Corporation (SCTC),
saw an opportunity in LFGTE, similar to what was being
done with the casing head gas. SCTC began negotiations
with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
for the PV gas rights. While this was occurring, Jack
Peck of the Los Angeles City Department of Water and
Power also demonstrated the use of LFG to power a Volkswagen
engine. The agreement between SCTC and LACSD was signed
in late 1973.
SCTC changed
its name in 1974 to NRG Inc. and established a subsidiary,
NRG NuFuel Company, to develop LFGTE projects nationwide.
One of the first landfills that signed with NRG was
Industry Hills, a well-known site on the LFG history
map.
Expansion
of an Opportunity
Many names
now well known in solid waste, and particularly in LFG,
began to enter the game of LFG management. John Pacey
did his first work in LFG for Los Angeles County in
1968-1969 while with Engineering Science, working with
Mike Nosonov and Charley Brisley. Bob Stearns earned
his spurs first with the City of Los Angeles, then with
Ralph Stone (a pioneer who has gone essentially unrecognized
for his contributions), and he eventually partnered
with two colleagues to form SCS Engineers. Stearns broke
into LFG in 1970 working with LFG migration at PV.
It was fortunate
that as the first tentative steps were being made in
LFG management, the federal government (US Public Health
Service [USPHS] and US Department of Energy [DOE]) began
to invest money in solid waste management, including
LFG management. A variety of studies primarily in the
LA area, and funded by the USPHS, helped build the base
of knowledge about LFG generation and its capture and
control (see Part 7a).
NRG efforts
to secure a major market share of landfills in the United
States led to the development of many of the first field
testing methods, gas prediction techniques, and field
installation of LFG recovery equipment. While NRG was
focused on high Btu production of LFG, other developers
focused on medium Btu direct use and the generation
of electricity.
Getting
to Know You
The DOE,
while limited in funding, played a significant early
role in LFG management. A grant to Johns Hopkins University’s
Applied Research Laboratory (JHARL) in Laurel, MD, was
directed at analyzing the long-term potential of LFG
as an alternative energy source. Russ Eberhard, the
project manager for Johns Hopkins, invited a few key
early pioneers to Laurel in 1978 to discuss LFG as part
of his analysis.
The value
of this first meeting of the pioneers and leaders resulted
in future meetings sponsored by DOE/JHARL. The next
three meetings in 1979, 1980, and 1981 were held in
Asilomar, CA; Denver, CO; and Easton, MD. In Easton,
serious discussions were held regarding the formation
of an LFG association. At the insistence of Fred Rice,
GRCDA (now SWANA) was invited to discuss establishing
an organization for LFG within GRCDA. Lanny Hickman,
then executive director of GRCDA, proposed the formation
of an LFG committee. In time, a committee was formed,
and from that early marriage between the leaders in
LFG and GRCDA/SWANA, the current SWANA LFG Management
Technical Division and the SWANA Annual Landfill Gas
Symposium emerged. With the loss of DOE funding in 1983,
GRCDA/SWANA took over the management of the meeting
that is now the symposium. The first symposium managed
by GRCDA/SWANA was in Industry Hills, CA, in 1984.
The SWANA
LFG symposium continues to be the single most important
meeting of LFG people in the North America and draws
participants from around the world.
Tax and
LFG
NRG, bought
by Reserve Oil & Gas (ROG) in 1977, changed its
name to Reserve Synthetic Fuels (RSF). This acquisition
proved significant with the strength of ROG to support
RSF, as well as for the LFG industry. Recognizing LFG
as a viable alternative, ROG provided leadership that
resulted in the first federal tax credit for LFGTE in
1980.
The tax credit
has provided significant economic support for LFGTE.
Since 1980, extensions of the 1980 tax credit have occurred
through aggressive leadership from the field of LFG
management, including members of the SWANA LFG Management
Technical Division. It has not been easy, however, and
the current tax credit is no longer available. Efforts
continue for the future to reinstate a tax credit.
Zapped
The first
operative LFGTE plant went live in 1982 with a small
facility built in Brattleboro, VT, by New England Alternative
Fuels. Other electric plants went on-line shortly after
Brattleboro, and the economics of the industry sharply
shifted to electricity rather than medium-Btu direct-use
and high-Btu utility-use plants. By the end of 1984
there were 41 LFG projects in the US (18 electric, 16
medium Btu, and 7 high Btu).
The future
looked bright for LFG in the mid-1980s, but the decline
in energy prices beginning in 1985 resulted in a measurable
slowdown in LFGTE projects. Tax credits were renewed
in 1985, which helped implement more projects, but the
facts were obvious: Cheap energy prices were making
LFGTE projects economically noncompetitive.
In addition
to lowering energy prices, air pollution regulatory
agencies for the first time began to regulate LFG emissions
from MSW landfills. As many solid waste issues first
arose in California, so did the regulation of LFG emissions
from landfills when the South Coast Air Quality Management
District issued regulations to control volatile organic
compounds from LFG.
Regulation
has continued with EPA issuing New Source Performance
Standards and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills (USEPA, 1996). SWANA was very active
in working with EPA to try to develop a regulation that
could be met with technology available and was enforceable.
LFG people who were key in this effort included Ray
Huitric (LACSD), Greg Vogt (SCS Engineers), Fred Rice
(F.C. Rice and Co.), and Mike Michels (The IT Group).
The EPA regulation, issued in 1996, captured 90% of
landfills emissions but regulated only 10% of the US
MSW landfills.
1980 to
the Present
By the mid-1980s
there were more than 15 companies actively in LFGTE
(Rice, 1985). By the time the 1990s began, there were
more than 100 plants in operation. Almost all of these
projects depended on the Section 29 tax credits for
economic survival. Those working in LFGTE were continually
having to make their case before US Congress to retain
the tax credit. In the absence of a national energy
policy that recognizes the importance of developing
alternative and renewable energy sources, however, the
future of economic incentives from the federal government
remains uncertain.
LFGTE leaders
have sought markets other than electric sales to utilities.
Onsite utilization for leachate treatment offers opportunities
in the future. Emission trading credits for greenhouse
gases offer opportunities, but not until US federal
legislation makes it so. Deregulation of the electric
utility industry with energy portfolios that include
renewable and green-power energy sources might also
in time offer new markets for LFGTE. All of these new
market opportunities will, to a great extent, depend
on a change in US national energy policies to encourage
alternative energy sources and lessen the dependence
on oil imports from very unstable parts of the world.
The circumstances of today continue to make it very
difficult to plan and implement new LFGTE projects,
but there are still growth opportunities. Those opportunities
will mostly be in states that have approached deregulation
intelligently.
Certainly
what has happened in California as 2001 began is a lesson
in that we face serious energy issue in the US. LFGTE
can be a valuable participant in a national effort to
use alternative energy sources and avoid the problems
that have occurred in California.
References
Rice, Fred
C. "The Landfill Gas Industry: Overview and Analysis."
Waste Age, pp 60-62. August 1985.
US Environmental
Protection Agency. "New Source Performance Standards
and Emission Guidelines for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills."
40 CFR Part 60. USEPA, Washington, DC. 1996.
H. Lanier
Hickman Jr., P.E., D.E.E., is a member of MSW Management’s
Editorial Advisory Board.
To
read the other parts in this feature please click on
the relevant links below:
Part
1: Introducing the Pioneers
Part
2: Of Mosquitoes, Flies, Rats, Swine, and Smoke
Part
3: The Sanitary Landfill
Part
4: Building a National Movement
Part
5a: Building an Infrastructure
Part
5b: Building an Infrastructure
Part
6: Collecting Solid Waste/No Longer Beasts of Burden
Part
7a: Landfill Gas Odors/Fires, Explosions, and Kilowatts
Part
7b: Landfill Gas - An Asset, Not a Liability
Part
8: Composting: Sometimes a Good Idea Does Not Sell
Part
9a: The
Awakening of Waste-to-Energy in the US
|
