Biomass 

# Capture and Utilisation of Landfill Gas What is the potential for additional utilisation of landfill gas in the USA and around the world? By Nickolas Themelis and Priscilla Ulloa, Columbia University.

In his 2003 review of energy recovery from landfill gas, Willumsen 1 reported that as of 2001, there were about 955 landfills that recovered biogas. The largest number of such landfills were in the USA, followed by Germany and the UK (see Table 1). Willumsen also provided 2 detailed information on 21 landfills in Denmark that in total captured 5,800Nm 3 of biogas per hour, equivalent to 276.4MW of contained thermal energy, or 20,000 tonnes of methane (CH 4) per year.

LANDFILLING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE IN THE USA

The USA is the biggest operator of regulated landfills in the world. There are about 2000 operating in the USA. In 2003, the Earth Engineering Center (EEC) ofColumbia University conducted a nationwide survey of waste management in the USA in collaboration with BioCycle Journal. The landfill data in this survey were supplied by the waste management department of each state, and the results are shown in Table 2 3 . An interesting finding of the survey was that the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilled annually was 211 million tonnes, nearly 100 million tonnes higher than thatreported by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

PRODUCTS OF BIOCHEMICAL REACTION OF BIOMASS IN MSW

It has been estimated 6 that biomass materials such as paper, food and wood, constitute about 70% of the MSW, and petrochemicals constitute another 15%. The rest is made up of inorganic materials such as metals, glass, gypsum and other minerals. The biomass fraction of MSW can be approximated 8 by the molecular formula C 6 H 10 O 4 . The gaseous product of the predominant anaerobic bioreaction of MSW in landfills consists of about 54% methane and 46% CO 2 . Theoretically, complete bioreaction of one tonne of dry biomass will generate nearly 210 standard cubic metres (Nm 3) of methane 7 . Experimental tests by Barlaz et

al 10 on the complete bioreaction of biomass contained in MSW are in good agreement with this projection.

The dry biomass concentration in MSWmay be only 40-60% of its weight. Therefore, the corresponding generation of methane would range from 80-120Nm 3 per tonne of MSW. Also, some of the biomass within the landfill may not be subjected to biodegradation for lack ofmoisture that is required to sustain bacterial growth; this would reduce the amount of methane generated per ton of MSW. USA 325 Canada 25 Germany 150 France 10 Holland 60 UK 135 Spain 10 Italy 40 Austria 15 Switzerland 10 Norway 20 Denmark 21 Sweden 70 Finland 10 Poland 10 Czech Republic 5 Hungary 5 China 3 Australia 25 Brazil 6 Total 955 Country Approx. number of Plants

Table 1: Energy recovering landfills (Willumsen 2)

14th SOG survey4 USEPA 2001 survey6

million % Million % tonnes/year tonnes/year Amount generated 336 100 211 100 Amount recycled and 90 26.7 65 30.8 composted Amount to waste-to-energy 26 7.7 27 12.8 Amount landfilled 220 65.6 119 56.4
Table 2: Generation and fate of MSW in the USA3Biomass

US DATA ON GENERATION OF BIOGAS AT LANDFILLS

Eileen Berenyi, a Research Associate of EEC, compiles the Methane Recovery from Landfills Yearbook 9 . The data presented in Table 3 is from the 1999 Yearbook. This data included tonnages of MSW landfilled since the opening of each landfill, but not the annual rate of landfilling. This last is important because it has been shown experimentally 7 (Figure 1) that most of the bioreaction of the biomass in MSW may occur in the first year of landfilling.

The 42 states reported in Table 3 captured a total of 6.8 billion Nm 3 of biogas and represent 89% of the US population. However, it should be notedthat the MSW tonnages in this table represent the total amount landfilled in each state while the biogas generation is for the 327 landfills that collect biogas. Therefore, it is not possible to correlate the gas generation to MSW landfilled from the above data.

As an alternative, 25 California landfills were examined where the amounts landfilled annually were reported by the California Integrated Waste Management Board 12 and the captured gas by Berenyi 9

. Their combined annual deposition rate was 16.6 million tonnes of MSW. On a yearly basis, the total methane captured in these 25 landfills corresponded to an average of 32Nm 3 of methane per tonne of MSW landfilled.

LANDFILL METHANE OUTREACH PROGRAMME

The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) operates a Landfill Methane Outreach Programme that encourages landfill owners to develop gas recovery projects wherever it is feasible to do so 13 . Through this programme, USEPA works with MSWlandfill owners and operators, states, utilities, industry and other federal agencies to lower the barriers to economic landfill gas energy recovery. Table 4 compares the electricity generated by landfill gas to energy plants in each state, as reported by Berenyi in 1999 9 and by USEPA in 2005 13 . The difference represents the growth in landfill gas collection projects from 231 in 1999. Electricity generation from biogas has increased by 18% since 1999 to 1.07MWe. Figure 1. Generation methane in experimental apparatus simulating landfill bioreactions (M1 and M2denote two different tests; reference 9) State MSW Landfilled Landfill Gas Landfill Gas LFGHeating Value (Solid Wastes generated used Processed Untreated Digest) (Berenyi) (Berenyi) Gas tonnes/y Nm 3/y Nm 3/y % KJ Alabama 5,110,224 446,559 446,559 100% 580 Arizona 6,460,129 8,186,916 531 California 35,188,243 1,952,168,440 1,408,295,409 72% 500 Colorado 6,269,618 3,096,143 3,096,143 100% 514 Connecticut 257,643 55,819,881 20,497,060 37% 543 Delaware 1,587,590 38,538,046 20,675,684 54% 501 Florida 16,248,753 245,796,024 189,780,153 77% 550 Georgia 10,827,361 33,581,240 33,581,240 100% 563 Hawaii 595,119 21,702,770 21,702,770 100% 528 Illinois 17,972,421 635,117,780 486,899,870 77% 547 Indiana 6,097,251 66,983,857 21,137,128 32% 522 Iowa 1,835,254 20,675,684 20,675,684 100% 554 Kansas 2,835,889 36,179,553 36,179,553 100% 528 Kentucky 4,486,075 21,434,834 Maryland 2,849,497 53,333,829 31,005,877 58% 543 Massachusetts 1,406,151 203,407,647 111,848,156 55% 535 Michigan 16,686,020 455,795,378 417,920,820 92% 559 Minnesota 1,978,590 135,977,230 131,065,081 96% 513 Missouri 4,066,951 56,564,146 37,213,254 66% 580 New Hampshire 1,629,321 72,238,369 72,238,369 100% 574 New Jersey 3,594,303 350,548,853 223,279,524 64% 534 New York 6,647,011 445,472,421 336,958,573 76% 543 North Carolina 6,630,681 113,296,992 85,221,081 75% 552 Ohio 12,572,802 182,970,127 124,566,158 68% 563 Oregon 4,870,725 16,954,359 16,954,359 100% 520 Pennsylvania 22,458,496 556,625,930 363,379,983 65% 545 Rhode Island 1,375,306 86,334,749 86,334,749 100% 570 South Carolina 5,271,705 14,260,119 11,163,976 78% 563 Tennessee 5,877,710 79,963,840 35,665,183 45% 591 Texas 21,501,406 312,839,422 278,768,621 89% 547 Vermont 410,052 6,981,206 6,981,206 100% 475 Virginia 12,157,307 104,078,029 77,403,568 74% 563 Washington 4,692,008 253,050,127 13,099,065 5% 464 Wisconsin 6,263,268 199,492,812 184,160,952 92% 540 Total reporting 253,814,753 6,811,497,272 4,901,214,602

Table 3: Landfill gas capture by state (based on references 9, 11)Biomass

State Electricity Produced Electricity Produced kW State kW Berenyi USEPA Berenyi USEPA 1999 2005 1999 2005 Alabama 4,000 n/a Missouri 800 n/a Arizona 18,425 10,350 Nebraska n/a 3,200 California 237,570 255,935 New Hampshire 15,700 13,800 Colorado 800 n/a New Jersey 48,900 45,700 Connecticut 9,840 5,000 New York 46,047 48,300 Delaware 1,500 n/a North Carolina 10,350 11,600 Florida 19,800 39,830 Ohio 8,500 36,200 Georgia 5,400 7,400 Oregon 5,660 5,600 Hawaii 3,000 n/a Pennsylvania 46,350 68,400 Illinois 177,766 153,934 Rhode Island 12,000 17,000 Indiana 7,525 21,585 South Carolina n/a 8,400 Iowa 8,500 6,400 Tennessee 7,000 7,200 Kansas 3,000 n/a Texas 15,600 57,656 Kentucky n/a 10,400 Vermont 1,500 1,200 Maryland 7,250 8,050 Virginia 14,600 31,800 Massachusetts 27,650 37,744 Washington 15,700 15,200 Michigan 79,900 72,300 Wisconsin 29,000 47,375 Minnesota 25,800 24,200 Total 911,433 1,071,759 Table 4: Electricity Generation by using LFG

Direct Heating Applications • Use for industrial boilers • Space heating and cooling

(e.g.greenhouses) • Industrial heating/cofiring
Electricity Generation Applications • Processing and use in reciprocating internal combustion (RIC) engines (stoichoimetric or lean combustion) • Processing and use in microturbines,

gas, and steam turbines • Processing and use in fuel cells
Feedstock in Chemical • Conversion to methanol (industrial Manufacturing Processes or vehicular use) • Conversion to diesel fuel

(vehicular fuel)
Purification to Pipeline Quality Gas • Utilization as vehicular fuel • Incorporation into local natural

gas network
Soil remediation • Leachate evaporation system. Heat Recovery from Landfill Flares • Using organic Rankine cycle • Using Stirling cycle engines

Table 5: Utilisation of Landfill Gas 

### Electricity 72% Snyfuel/Other 3% Pipeline Quality 4% Direct Heating 21% Uses of LFG-to-Energy Plants in US

Figure 2: Distribution of uses of landfill gas in the USABiomass

Table 5 shows how landfill gas is utilised in the USA, and Figure 2 shows the distribution of uses in graphical form.

California, with 65 plants, has the largest number of landfill gas facilities, because of state and local requirements that require collection and control of biogas 8 . Other states with a significant number of landfill gas plants include Illinois (43), Michigan (22), New York (20) and Pennsylvania (19).

Table 6 lists some of the characteristics of landfill gas projects in each state. The total active area of landfills collecting gas is about 21,000 hectares; about 57% of the active area is equipped for methane recovery. The states of California, Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania represent approximately 50% of the total landfill area devoted to methane recovery. On the other hand, 60% of the total MSWburied in landfills equipped for gas collection is located in the states of California, New York, Illinois, Texas and Michigan.

The average landfill depth in the gascollecting landfills range from 14 to 53m; the national US average depth is 28m. The density of the MSW buried in these landfills ranges from 594-832kg/m 3 , while the national average is estimated at 732kg/m 3

.
CAPITAL COSTS FOR UTILISING LANDFILL GAS

The California Energy Commission 13 has studied the capital costs for installing facilities for electricity generation fromlandfill gas, as shown in Figure 3. Reciprocating engines appear to be the best option for facilities up to 10MWe in size. For facilities in the range 10-18MWe, the use of gas turbines is more practical. Above 18MWe, steam cycles are mostly used, although combined cycles offer lower investment per kW generated.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the theoretical and experimental evidence presented above, it can be assumed that under the right conditions, at least 50% of the ‘latent’ methane in MSW can be generated within one year of residence time in a landfill. This would correspond to about 50Nm 3 of methane per tonne of a typical MSW. However, on average, the 25 California landfills that were examined in detail captured only 32Nm 3 of methane per State Number of Active Devoted Refuse Average Average LFG Area Area Buried Depth Density Projects CH 4 Refuse Recovery hectares hectares tonnes m kg/m 3 Alabama 2 236 16 1,306,359 14 653 Arizona 5 285 254 17,418,126 29 693 Arkansas 1 57 57 4,717,409 18 772 California 65 5,746 3,570 546,179,234 36 730 Colorado 1 36 36 27,215,821 26 Connecticut 5 147 109 12,655,357 32 733 Delaware 2 146 53 8,527,624 23 653 Florida 12 697 530 69,971,877 25 731 Georgia 4 160 68 15,694,457 24 698 Hawaii 1 17 17 1,195,500 23 594 Illinois 43 1,743 1,087 117,968,430 26 814 Indiana 4 163 93 10,886,329 22 832 Iowa 3 210 62 11,974,961 23 761 Kansas 3 482 77 19,958,269 18 713 Kentucky 1 304 122 n/a 46 891 Louisiana 2 209 122 n/a 53 Maryland 4 233 128 14,424,385 21 624 Massachusetts 16 345 267 20,638,665 25 752 Michigan 22 1,038 697 67,676,676 24 744 Minnesota 5 190 158 20,303,003 25 743 Missouri 2 100 37 12,185,430 46 594 New Hampshire 6 158 151 10,646,829 28 713 New Jersey 11 770 492 62,367,776 23 790 New York 20 1,050 619 152,041,187 38 812 North Carolina 15 723 435 31,942,937 24 695 Ohio 6 383 245 47,718,407 23 792 Oregon 5 531 139 14,116,847 29 812 Pennsylvania 19 1,496 572 64,773,655 32 736 Rhode Island 1 62 47 10,886,329 46 653 South Carolina 4 84 37 5,663,612 18 653 Tennessee 3 181 116 12,428,558 35 793 Texas 8 865 475 117,730,352 22 730 Vermont 2 24 13 1,327,225 25 653 Virginia 7 347 190 29,393,087 26 754 Washington 5 663 364 35,017,690 34 817 Wisconsin 12 546 289 39,335,934 25 759

Total 327 20,426 11,742 1,636,288,340

Table 6: Characteristics of LFG projects in the USA by statetonne landfilled. Of course, conventional landfills are far from perfect bioreactors. In addition, there is no information regarding the effectiveness of the gas collection at the landfills.

There are nearly 330 landfills in the USA, capturing a total of 3.7 billion Nm 3 of methane, of which 70% is used to generate thermal or electric energy. The rest is flared, because it is not considered to be of economic use. There are nearly 1300 landfills that do not capture any biogas.

If it were possible to build and operate bioreactor landfills where water is added and nearly all the generated methane is captured, the methane collected in the USA, at an assumed average rate of 50Nm 3 of methane per tonne of MSW, would be 11 billion Nm 3 of methane, ie, three times the amount that is presently captured.

With regard to the global picture, on ongoing EEC study 7 has estimated the global disposition of MSW in landfills tobe 1.4 billion tons of MSW. The corresponding generation of methane is close to 50 million tons, of which only 5 milliontons are currently being captured. Therefore, methane emissions to the atmosphere are about 45 million tons. Since methane has 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, global landfill emissions correspond to about one billion tons of CO 2 .

If landfilling of organic materials is to be continued in some countries, futurelandfills must be fully controlled bioreactors where most of the methane generated is captured and used to produce energy. Landfill biogas is one of the very few sources of renewable methane. ■

REFERENCES

1. H.Willumsen (2003), Experience with landfill gas recovery plants , inRenewable Energy 2003, www.sovereign-publications.com/renewable-ene rgy2003-art.htm 2. H Willumsen., Energy recovery from landfill gas, www.lei.lt/ Opet/pdf/Willumsen.pdf 3. N.J. Themelis, N.J. and Scott M. Kaufman (2004), Waste in a land of plenty, Waste Management World, Sept-Oct 2004, p 23-28 4. S.M. Kaufman, N. Goldstein, K. Millrath, and N.J. Themelis (2004), The State of Garbage in America , BioCycle, January, p. 31-41. 5. N.J. Themelis, N.J. and S.M. Kaufman (2004), State of Garbage in America-Data and Methodology Assessment , BioCycle, April, p. 22-26. 6. USEPA (2003), Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures, Executive Summary , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA530-S-03-011 (http://www.epa.gov/) 7. Earth Engineering Center, Landfillgas generation, capture, and utilization , study in progress (2005) 8. N.J. Themelis and Shefali Verma (2004), Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Waste in MSW, Waste Management World, Jan.-Feb, p. 20- 24. (see also S. Verma, M.S. Thesis, Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University 2003, www.columbia.edu/cu/wtert , Publications). 9. Eileen Bernyi, Methane Recovery from Landfills Yearbook (1999), Methane Recovery from Landfill Yearbook, 5th Edition, Governmental Advisory Associates, Westport, CT . 10. M.A. Barlaz, S. Cowie, B. Staley and G. Hater, 2004, Production of NMOCs and Trace Organics During the Decomposition of Refuse and Waste Components under Anaerobic and Aerobic Conditions , 3rd Intercontinental Landfill Research Symposium Nov . 2004. 11. Solid Waste Digest (2004), “Special Report: Landfill Capacity” ,vol. 14 No. 9 (htttp://www.wasteinfo.com) 12. California Integrated Waste Managament Board (http://www.ciw mb.ca.gov/landfills/Tonnage/2003/La ndfill.htm) 13. USEPA (2005), Landfill Gas Outreach Program (http://www.epa .gov/lmop/proj/index.htm)

AUTHOR NOTE:

Nickolas Themelis and Priscilla Ulloa, Earth Engineering Center andDepartment of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. Biomass

Figure 3: Capital cost vs. facility size, for landfill gas utilisation