Taking Your Digester Gas on the Road: The Case to Upgrade Digester Gas for Vehicle Fuel Eron

Jacobson, Brown and Caldwell Jim Schettler, Brown and Caldwell Christopher Muller, Brown and Caldwell Jing Luo, Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Brown and Caldwell 701 Pike Street, Suite 1200 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 749-2883 KEY WORDS Digester gas, biogas, biomethane, natural gas, gas separation, CNG, vehicle fuel ABSTRACT Often digester gas generated by anaerobic digestion at WWTPs is used to produce heat and electricity through cogeneration, but under the right market conditions digester gas may provide better economic and environmental value as a vehicle fuel. Electricity is relatively inexpensive in some parts of the country and the payback for the installation of cogeneration is not economically attractive. While the use of digester gas for anaerobic digester process and space heating in a boiler is still often inexpensive, not all of the digester gas is used throughout the yearespecially during the spring and summer months. This leaves some or all of the digester gas available for an alternative end use. Two case studiesthe City of Tacoma, Washington, and Pima County (Tucson), Arizonaare presented where digester gas end-use alternatives were evaluated and resulted in vehicle fuel production being identified as the most cost-effective alternative, over other more traditional end uses. Both of these locations have relatively low electricity costs (less than about $0.06 per kilowatt-hour). A quantity of digester gas sufficient to make 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity can displace roughly 23 to 26 liters of diesel fuel or 26 to 30 liters of gasoline for vehicle fuel. This paper discusses the technologies, life-cycle costs, and carbon emissions reductions that demonstrate that for these utilities, converting their digester gas to vehicle fuel was the best economical and a good environmental use of their resource. As the role of wastewater utilities expands from treatment to resource recovery, understanding the best use of those recovered resources will serve only to improve the long-term sustainability of operations, fiscal and environmental. This paper discusses the technical aspects of vehicle fuel production and the likely impacts to long-term operating costs and capital budgets, along with the benefits to plant operators, design engineers, and utility managers. INTRODUCTION Digester gas from anaerobic digestion of municipal sewage sludge in its raw form is limited in its end uses because it has only medium heating or British thermal unit (Btu) value and because it

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 1 of 25

includes undesirable constituents such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), siloxanes, and water. Many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) utilize a portion of the digester gas in its raw form in boilers for process and space heating and rarely use all of the gas on an annual basis. Boilers are a relatively inexpensive technology for digester gas utilization. Cogeneration or combined heat and power applications are also common but are more expensive and often require removal of the majority of these impurities prior to combustion. When coupled with operating costs and where electricity rates are low, the economic payback period for a cogeneration system with gas treatment can be quite long. Digester gas end uses can often be broadened by removing the undesirable constituents and separating out the carbon dioxide (CO2) from the methane (CH4) to produce a high-Btu pipelinequality gas (i.e., renewable natural gas or biomethane). Gas separation processes have been used for decades in landfill gas recovery facilities and longer in the natural gas industry. Biomethane, like natural gas, can also be compressed and used as a fuel for buses, light trucks, refuse haulers, and other vehicles, which are all common fleet vehicles for many municipalities. Using compressed biomethane as a vehicle fuel in many locations can provide a positive economic payback by offsetting the cost of diesel fuel or gasoline, which continue to escalate and have shown significant volatility, making budgeting and cost control difficult for many utilities. Digester gas is a biogenic and renewable energy source, and the use of digester gas-derived biomethane as a vehicle fuel can reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that would otherwise be generated from combustion of gasoline or diesel fuel. The economic and environmental advantages of upgrading biogas to biomethane are further supported if grid electricity is inexpensive and is generated by renewable sources (e.g., hydropower), such as the majority of that supplied to the Pacific Northwest. Thus the importance of site location is critical. The WWTP should be in close proximity to vehicles that may use the fuel and to a natural gas pipeline. This paper discusses the different technologies for upgrading digester gas to vehicle fuel quality and compressed vehicle fueling technologies. It also presents two case studies in which utilities have found this to the best end use for their WWTP digester gas. Biogas Upgrading to Biomethane Conversion of biogas to compressed high-Btu pipeline-quality natural gas (biomethane) for pipeline or fuel vehicle use is not an entirely new concept. More than 30 plants in the United States are currently upgrading landfill gas to high-Btu compressed biomethane (LMOP 2009). Sweden has more than 40 biogas upgrading plants and Germany has about 25 operating on landfill gas or digester biogas (De Arespacochaga 2010). Digester gas is similar to landfill gas, but in many ways is easier to process because of much lower concentrations of nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A handful of WWTPs upgrade biogas to biomethane, and the number of plants is growing. Current plants include: King County South Plant, in Renton, Washington, operates two 33,650 cubic meter per day (m3/day) gas upgrading systems (Figure 1) that have been injecting biomethane into the Puget Sound Energy (PSE) natural gas pipeline for more than 20 years.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 2 of 25

San Antonio Water System, San Antonio, Texas, began selling biomethane to the natural gas pipeline with a biogas upgrading system in 2010. The system is designed to process 55,000 m3/day. Newark WWTP, Newark, Ohio, ran a pilot upgrading plant for a short period, proving its effectiveness and leading to the decision to install a new 2,850 m3/day plant. In January 2011, the plant was in the commissioning phase. The WWTP holds a contract with the natural gas utility for sale of the gas (Wise 2011). Hale Avenue WWTP, Escondido, California, has installed and commissioned a 10,200 m3/day biogas upgrading plant in 2011 for direct pipeline sale to the Southern California Gas Company.

Figure 1. King County Renton South Plant biogas upgrading facility Treatment Levels Required for Biomethane Natural gas is a naturally occurring gaseous hydrocarbon fuel largely comprising methane and other hydrocarbons. It is a fossil fuel sometimes found with crude oil and typically comprises 70 percent methane or more. Raw natural gas varies significantly in composition and usually contains small amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and other heavier alkanes as well as impurities such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, and water. Impurities are removed with different processing techniques, but the processed natural gas can still have large variability in composition of hydrocarbons. There are no industry-wide specifications for natural gas in the United States, and quality specifications are typically developed by the natural gas provider.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 3 of 25

Similarly, to create pipeline-quality biomethane, a number of undesirable constituents must be removed from biogas. The unwanted constituents of biogas can include hydrogen sulfide, water, siloxanes, VOCs, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and particulate. The quality requirements for biomethane and the processes for upgrading biogas are very similar for vehicle fuel and for direct injection into the natural gas pipeline. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) published a recommended practice or fuel quality specification for compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle fuel SAE J1616. The contractual specifications for injecting compressed biomethane into a natural gas pipeline vary to a small degree among pipeline owners (GTN 2005). The SAE recommendation and typical pipeline requirements for heating value and Wobbe Index (a measure of fuel energy flow through a fixed orifice) generally dictate 97 percent methane or higher in the biomethane. The biogas upgrading system needs to consistently meet the methane content and other gas requirements set forth by the vehicle engine specification and/or negotiated by the natural gas utility. A comparison of typical natural gas quality requirements for natural gas pipelines, vehicle fuel, and biomethane is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Compressed Biomethane Gas Constituents Comparison of Natural Gas with Compressed Natural Gas and Biomethane Composition
Commercial natural gas variability f 70100 016 010 04 <1 02 014 <1 <1 Per specification Per specification Per specification 35.443.6 Varies Typical natural gas pipeline requirements e No limit given Varies d Varies d Varies d Varies d < 23 < 34 g < 0.20.4 No limit given < 65110 < 5.723 < 46460 > 35.437.1 47.752.9 CNG vehicle fuel (SAE J1616) No limit given Varies d Varies d Varies d Varies d <3 No limit given -a No limit given -b < 23 No limit given No limit given 48.552.9 c Example biomethane requirements > 9798 0 0 0 0 < 23 <3g < 0.20.4 < 0.2 <110 < 23 < 460 > 35.436.7 47.751.6

Constituent Methane, CH4, % by volume Ethane, C2H6,% by volume Propane, C3H8 , % by volume Butane, C4H10, % by volume Heavier hydrocarbons, C5 +, % by volume Carbon dioxide, CO2, % by volume Nitrogen, N2, % by volume Oxygen, O2, % by volume Hydrogen, H2 % by volume Water, H2O, mg/m3 Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, mg/m3 Total sulfur, mg/m3 Higher heating value (HHV), MJ/m3 Wobbe Index, MJ/m3 (per HHV) Other common objectionable substances (e.g., siloxanes, dust)

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 4 of 25

Oxygen must be kept below the flammability limit per SAE J1616, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 87, and other codes. b Dew point of 5.6C below the monthly lowest dry-bulb temperature at maximum container pressure. c An acceptable Wobbe Index range may be 44.7 to 46.6 MJ/m3 at high altitude per SAE J1616. d Hydrocarbon dew point temperature may restrict content and dew point may vary with the delivery pressure. e ref. GTN 2006, NWP 2010. f ref. Baukal and Schwartz 2001. g Including O2 and CO2.

The major difference between biomethane for vehicle fuel and pipeline injection is the required final gas pressure. Vehicle fuel requires a final pressure of 210 to 250 bar. Natural gas pipeline pressures are typically much lower, usually 10 to 40 bar. The high pressure requirement for vehicle fuel is due to lower volumetric energy density of natural gas compared to gasoline or diesel fuel. Biogas CO2 Separation Technologies The biogas treatment process for pipeline injection or for vehicle use depends largely on the technology chosen for removal of CO2, or CO2 separation and the needs of the buyer or user. The following three major categories of gas separation technologies are commonly used to remove CO2 for biogas: physical and chemical solvents pressure swing adsorption (PSA) membranes

Often these technologies are used in concert in sequential unit operations. The choice of CO2 removal technologies during detailed design should take many factors into account, including CH4 recovery efficiency, reliability, power and heat requirements, maintainability, final pressure, gas quality, size, and cost. A brief description of the technologies follows. Solvents (Absorption) Solvent systems for CO2 removal work by selectively absorbing CO2 from the biogas while allowing methane to pass. Absorption is the transfer process of a gas constituent into a liquid in which it is soluble. The removal process of CO2 from biogas usually occurs at pressures greater than 7 bar to increase methane recovery rates. The compressed biogas flows upward through a packed tower while the solvent flows downward in a counter-current fashion. The compressed biogas leaves the tower with CO2 levels reduced to the required end-product quality. The selective absorption of CO2 over methane allows the methane to pass through while removing CO2. Regeneration of the solvent is required for the closed-loop system and is accomplished by reducing the pressure of the solvent and/or by heating. This process releases the CO2, H2S, and other residual gases, which are then burned in a flare, or scrubbed and vented. Solvents that are used for biogas scrubbing include water, amines, and glycols. Water The absorption of CO2 into water is a physical process. Physical absorption has the advantage over chemical absorption in that regeneration of the solvent does not require heating, only

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 5 of 25

pressure reduction. The use of water has the advantage that the solvent makeup for a closed-loop system is readily available and requires no chemical handling. The King County South Plant has been using water absorption technology for more than 25 years to produce biomethane for the natural gas pipeline. Flotech is a New Zealand-based company that has manufactured packaged water solvent systems for 25 years. Flotech makes water absorption systems called Greenlane (Figure 2) for gas flows from 2,040 m3/day to more than 73,400 m3/day. This technology has been installed in at least 29 facilities in Canada, Europe, Japan, New Zealand, and other countries.

Figure 2. Greenlane Flotech Manuka system for 2,040 m3/day flow rate Amines Amines are a chemical solvent used in absorption processes to remove CO2 and H2S from biogas and natural gas. The chemical absorption process is reversible and the solvents are typically very selective for acid gas removal (i.e., CO2 and H2S). The acid gas constituents chemically react with components of the liquid to form a loosely bound reaction product. The chemical reaction is reversible by reducing the pressure of the solvent and heating. The heating process adds a degree of complexity compared to physical solvents, but the heat can be recoverable. The heat required to regenerate the solvent and the general complexity of the system can be drawbacks to this technology for WWTP applications of small size. Chemical solvents are used quite often at larger scales for natural gas processing and in some medium-scale biogas projects in Europe and landfills in the United States. Lckeby Water of Sweden reportedly has installed at least 10 Purac CApure systems utilizing amine solutions at WWTPs, landfills, and farm digesters in Sweden, Norway, and Germany. The system capacities range from 5,000 m3/day to 82,800 m3/day. Glycols (e.g., Selexol) and Other Physical Solvents Glycols are physical solvents that dissolve or absorb CO2 and H2S in a manner similar to the water absorption process. Because the process is physical, heating is not often required to regenerate the solvent. Only a reduction in pressure is typically required for regeneration (unless H2S concentrations are very high [Kidnay and Parish 2006]). Physical solvents such as glycols and methanol are far more selective of CO2 and H2S than is water, thus reducing the gas

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 6 of 25

separation column size and flow rate of solvent circulation. While this is advantageous from an equipment capital cost perspective, the use of glycols or other physical solvents makes them less attractive from an operations perspective because of the chemical handling. The maintenance cost for the solvent makeup can be expensive, especially if pretreatment to remove H2S is not done first. Several glycol plants in the United States are used for landfill gas treatment, but these are designed for much larger gas flow rates than the biogas flow rates typical to WWTPs. Pressure Swing Adsorption Most PSA systems take advantage of the difference in equilibrium capacities of adsorbents for CO2 at high and low pressures. Adsorbents are porous materials that naturally or through manufacturing have high surface areas per volume and are chosen for their selectivity for CO2. The adsorption of CO2 onto the surface of the adsorbent is a weak physical attraction by van der Waals forces. The capacity of an adsorbent for CO2 is the amount of CO2 that can be adsorbed at an equilibrium condition. The capacities at high pressure are greater than those at low pressure. PSA systems are systems of multiple packed beds, which operate continuously by having one vessel online and the other(s) in a state of regeneration. In this process, the biogas typically is compressed to7 to 14 bar and flows through the packed bed where the CO2 is removed by the adsorbent. When the online bed reaches its capacity it is isolated from the process, and the biogas flows through a newly regenerated bed. The spent bed is regenerated by depressurizing the vessel and may use a dry regeneration gas free of CO2 to further decrease the partial pressure of CO2 (the driving force). Adsorbents used for CO2 PSA systems include molecular sieves (zeolites) and carbon molecular sieves. At least two North American companies currently offer standardized PSA system designs for biogas purification: Xebec and Guild Associates. Both companies have more than 10 biogas and landfill gas plants currently in operation. Guild Associates has at least two operating systems at WWTPs in Ohio and Texas. Both offer packaged systems with compression at sizes of 2,850 m3/day up to many tens of thousands of m3/day. The Xebec systems (Figure 3) require H2S removal upstream of the system to maintain the capacity of the adsorbent for CO2.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 7 of 25

Figure 3. Small Xebec PSA system Membranes Membranes are thin semi-permeable barriers that selectively separate CO2 (also H2S and water vapor) from biogas. The driving force for the process is the differential partial pressures with a high pressure on the process side and low pressure on the waste side. The CO2 dissolves and diffuses through the thin non-porous membranes faster than methane does. In this process, the biogas is compressed to pressures of 14 bar or greater and sent into the membrane separation chamber, where CO2 is selectively removed. The selectivity for CO2, or the ability to remove just CO2 and not also CH4, is not as high as that of adsorbents or solvents and usually a two-stage process is required to have acceptable methane recovery efficiency. The waste gas from the first stage is often re-compressed, sent through another membrane separation chamber, and then reinjected into the first-stage membrane separation chamber. The largest supplier of membranes for biogas separation is Air Liquides MEDAL (MEmbrane Systems DuPont Air Liquide), which was originally a joint venture of DuPont and Air Liquide. The technology uses polymeric fibers for the membranes, which can remove CO2, H2S, water, and about half of the oxygen if present. At least 13 landfill gas plants reported using membrane separation to remove CO2. A picture of a membrane separation system is shown in Figure 4.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 8 of 25

Figure 4. Air Liquide MEDAL membrane system Biogas Pre-Separation and Post-Separation Treatment and Monitoring Treatment prior to and/or after CO2 separation from the biogas is often required. The removal of H2S may be necessary to protect the integrity of the adsorbent used in the PSA system and the membranes. H2S will typically need to be removed to a low concentration as pre-separation treatment, but may be removed as post-separation treatment on the waste gas or may be combusted with the waste gas. An activated carbon bed as post-separation treatment may be required as a guard bed, depending on the types and quantities of impurities in the biogas. Some of the technologies also require a post-separation water removal step. Each of the separation technologies will have a waste or off-gas stream consisting largely of the CO2 removed from the biogas, but also some CH4 and other constituents. The waste gas (or tail gas) typically has CH4 content from less than 0.1 percent up to 30 percent, depending on the separation technology. The tail gas may be vented if methane and other VOC concentrations are very low or combusted in a gas-assisted flare or thermal oxidizer depending on the methane content. The lower limit for CH4 content for adequate combustion in a typical enclosed flare is about 2230 percent. When the waste gas has a low CH4 content, a slip stream of biogas or support gas (e.g., natural gas or biomethane) is required to sustain combustion in a flare or thermal oxidizer. Thermal oxidizers can reduce the amount of gas required compared to an enclosed flare. The biomethane must be odorized and the quality monitored prior to entering the natural gas pipeline or vehicle fueling station. Odorization is required for safety so that it can be detected if a leak develops downstream of the system. This involves small amounts of mercaptan being injected into the gas. Gas quality is typically assured through the continuous monitoring of methane, carbon dioxide, water, and hydrogen sulfide. This is typically accomplished with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and/or with individual gas analyzers. Periodic sampling for other constituents such as siloxanes and other VOCs may also be required. Operations and Maintenance Considerations Biogas upgrading systems generally have a more complex process than the typical cogeneration technologies, but not necessarily higher operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. While the processes may be more complex, many of the components in a biogas upgrading system are common to a WWTP such as gas compressors, pumps, media beds, instruments, and automated

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 9 of 25

valves. Maintenance on these items is typical to that of the equipment. Many of the biogas upgrading system vendors offer various types of O&M service plans from remote monitoring and scheduled maintenance to operational responsibility. For most biogas upgrading technologies, the majority of the operating costs are in the form of electricity for compression and for the hydrogen sulfide removal media. Thus low electricity costs help to keep overall operational costs in check. For the most part, the CO2 separation processes do not require much in the way of consumables. As a comparison, most cogeneration technologies require pressure boosting and removal of hydrogen sulfide, siloxanes, and water. Many of the same operating costs are incurred with cogeneration applications in addition to the cogeneration equipment maintenance itself. Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles Conversion of vehicles to run on CNG is relatively common, and many dedicated engines and vehicles are readily available direct from manufacturers (NGVA 2011, CARB 2007, US EPA 2010). Fleet vehicles such as buses, taxis, or refuse haulers in close proximity to a WWTP offer a great opportunity for conversion to CNG or expansion with CNG-ready vehicles. The diesel fuel or gasoline that would otherwise be consumed by the fleet vehicles can be displaced by compressed biomethane at a very competitive and stable price. A CNG vehicle fleet in close proximity to the plant or fueling station is especially advantageous because the vehicles could utilize the biomethane without significant increases in mileage traveled for re-fueling. Operation of vehicles on natural gas or biomethane has advantages and disadvantages over diesel fuel or gasoline. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (US EPA 2002), natural gas vehicle emissions when compared to gasoline emissions release: 90 to 97 percent less carbon monoxide 25 percent less carbon dioxide 35 to 60 percent less nitrogen oxides 50 to 75 percent less non-methane hydrocarbons little to no particulate matter

Some experience has shown that CNG vehicles have less maintenance and longer engine life because natural gas burns cleaner than diesel fuel or gasoline (Puget Sound Clean Cities 2010, US EPA 2002, Chandler et al. 2006). However, the replacement costs for spark plugs and other fuel delivery system-related issues have been known to cause the CNG vehicles to have marginally higher maintenance costs (Chandler et al. 2002, Chandler et al. 2006, Bell 2011). The efficiency of CNG vehicles can also be lower than diesels because of the lower compression ratios of spark-ignition when compared to compression ignition engines. Additional disadvantages include requirements for specialized maintenance training for CNG vehicles, limited vehicle range because CNG has 20 to 25 percent of the energy density of gasoline and diesel fuel, and slower fuel filling times for CNG vehicles. A number of traits make natural gas or biomethane a relatively safe vehicle fuel even though it is flammable (US EPA 2002). With a specific gravity of about 0.55, methane gas is lighter than air and has a tendency to rise and disperse rather than pooling on the ground. It also has a relatively narrow flammability range of about 5 to 15 percent in air and a higher ignition temperature than

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 10 of 25

gasoline. Proper safety precautions must be taken as flammable mixtures can occur in closed spaces. Biomethane Compression, Drying, Storage, and Fueling Stations The use of biomethane as a vehicle fuel requires additional equipment for compression, storage, and fueling. CNG vehicles require pressures of about 250 bar. Because pressures leaving the biogas upgrading system are typically between 7 and 14 bar, an additional compression stage is required. High-pressure compression skids are common to the CNG market. Most conventional CNG fueling facilities compress natural gas from pipeline pressures to greater than 250 bar. CNG compression skids with and without acoustical enclosures are shown in Figure 5. Additional gas dryers are likely to be required to prevent liquid water in the vehicle fuel. As gas pressure is increased to vehicle fuel pressures, the ability of the gas to retain water vapor decreases.

Figure 5. Gardner Denver packaged CNG compression skid and GreenField compressor with acoustical enclosure CNG fueling stations are required to fill the CNG vehicles and can be one of two types. Time-fill stations slowly fill a number of vehicles over an extended period of time. The vehicles are connected to a filling hose and left unattended to fill for typically 8 to 12 hours. The filling automatically starts when a vehicle storage tank is connected and empty, and stops when it is full. This type of fueling station is often appropriate for fleet vehicles such as buses, trucks, or refuses haulers, which are parked at their fueling station overnight. A fast-fill station acts to compress the gas as required to fill a vehicle in a short time, often as little as 10 to 30 minutes depending on the storage vessel size and compressor capacities. A picture of a time-fill fueling station is shown in Figure 6 and a fast-fill fuel station in Figure 7.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 11 of 25

Figure 6. Time-fill fueling posts from Gas Equipment Systems Inc. (GESI)

Figure 7. Fast-fill fueling station from GreenField

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 12 of 25

Regardless of its end use, digester gas is produced continuously, and some form of production equalization or storage system is often required. Vehicle fueling demand is not constant, but digester gas production isalbeit at an uneven rate. To utilize all of the digester gas produced at a WWTP not required for plant heating needs, storage vessels can be sized to store the biomethane during the day when the fleet vehicles are in use and on the weekends. However, system costs to provide multi-day storage can be cost-prohibitive. An alternative to storage is to inject excess biomethane to the natural gas pipeline system for storage or transport. Biomethane can be injected into the pipeline when CNG fleet vehicles are not filling, and biomethane with supplemental natural gas could fill vehicles at a later time. In this way, the natural gas pipeline acts as a de facto storage system for the biomethane production. The natural gas pipeline system may also be used as a transport mechanism to move biomethane from a WWTP to a vehicle fueling station at a different location. This type of flexibility requires the cooperation of the local natural gas provider and existing compatible infrastructure of the natural gas critical components. If all of the biomethane is not used, a longterm favorable contract price for the remaining biomethane is beneficial. Figure 8 shows one possible configuration for a complete CNG fast-fill fueling station.

Figure 8. Complete fueling system with fast-fill station from GreenField CNG Vehicle Purchase CNG vehicles are available directly from original equipment manufacturers from passenger vehicles to heavy duty vehicles. The Honda Civic GX, Chevy Express, Ford Transit, and GMC Savana are original equipment manufacturer offerings for dedicated CNG light and medium duty vehicles. A number of industrial vehicle manufacturers sell refuse haulers, tractor-trailers, buses, and other heavy duty vehicles that can be built around CNG engines. The U.S. Department of Energys Alternative Fuels and Advanced Data Center maintains a list of CNG vehicle manufacturers and models.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 13 of 25

An example of a light duty vehicle for pricing comparison of the CNG version versus the gasoline version is the Honda Civic. The list cost for the Honda Civic CNG is about $25,500. This can be compared to the gasoline version at $15,600$24,400. Conversations with Peterbilt indicate that a new refuse hauler complete with CNG storage and fuel delivery system would be about $250,000 compared to about $220,000 for a diesel version. The total cost is approximate and depends on the configuration selected, but the difference would remain at about $30,000 (Bell 2011). Vehicle Conversion The conversion of diesel-engine vehicles to operate on CNG or biomethane involves modifications to the vehicle. The storage of CNG on the vehicle requires high-pressure storage vessels, which typically take up more space than diesel fuel tanks. The ignition of biomethane in the engine requires the addition of spark plugs, ignition systems, and associated wiring. A new fuel delivery system to the engine cylinders is required for the gaseous fuel instead of a liquid fuel. Finally, the engine timing and fuel-air mixture control need to be adjusted to efficiently burn the biomethane. All of these conversions are commonly done. Conversion for a vehicle to run on compressed biomethane is the same as for CNG. Diesel and gasoline vehicles converted to operate on natural gas must be certified to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the vehicles must comply with Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum 1A, including addendum and addendum revision. Certificates of conformance for conversion of a vehicle or engine are issued by the US EPA. More than 30 small-volume manufacturers can perform this service on more than 100 models of light, medium, and heavy duty vehicles (DOE 2011). Table 2 shows the conversion costs for a range of cars, vans, and trucks. Table 2. Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Conversion Cost for Different Vehicles
Vehicle Ford Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Marquis Ford E350 cargo passenger van Ford F150, F250, F350 pickup truck Ford E450 cutaway shuttle van GMC Sierra 1500HD/2500HD, Chevrolet Silverado 1500HD/2500HD pickup truck GMC Savana G1500/2500, Chevrolet Express G1500/2500 cargo/passenger van a ref NGVA, 2009. Reported conversion cost in 2009 a $13,500 $15,500 $16,500$18,500 $18,500$22,500 $12,500$15,200 $12,500$16,000

The conversion of vehicles that are close to the end of their lives is not advisable. Generally, the useful life of a vehicle is considered to be 10 years or 193,000 kilometers (NGVA 2009).

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 14 of 25

Grants and Funding A number of potential tax credits, grants, and loan guarantees are available from the federal government for CNG vehicles and fueling equipment. In addition to the following programs, state and local programs may also provide incentives: Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) program: This program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It is a grant and loan authority run through the US EPA as a competitive process. Although the original act was for fiscal years 2007 through 2011, it was recently extended for 5 more years. (http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/grantfund.htm) Clean Cities: Clean Cities is a government-industry partnership sponsored by the Department of Energy. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/projects.html) State Energy Program (SEP) Special Projects program: This is a program through the US EPA that may provide a federal grant for natural gas stations. (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/sep.html) Clean Fuels Grant Program: This program provides grant funding for designated areas of ozone and carbon monoxide air quality nonattainment including low-emission buses, alternative fuel stations, and some associated facilities. (http://fta.dot.gov/grants/13094_3560.html)

Case Study: City of Tacoma The City of Tacoma has been investigating means of increasing sustainable operations City-wide for several years. As part of these efforts, the Wastewater Division investigated the installation of cogeneration at the Central Treatment Plant (CTP) to reduce the electrical demand from the grid and utilize excess biogas, which is currently either used for heating or flared. As part of this prior analysis, the project cost for installation of two 633-kilowatt (kW) internal combustion (IC) engine-generator cogeneration units in an existing facility at CTP with gas treatment was estimated at approximately $9.2 million. The electricity rates at CTP are quite low at $0.033 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This low electricity rate made the economic payback for the cogeneration project unattractive, even when high-strength liquid wastes were co-digested to increase gas production. In a study commissioned by the City, Brown and Caldwell (BC) looked at adding a14,225 metric tons per year of food waste to the Citys digestion system to increase biogas production to improve the economic viability of cogeneration and to make beneficial use of a product that it currently hauls to landfills. The City is in a relatively unique situation; it owns and operates the wastewater, solid waste, and power utilities. The addition of pulped food waste to the digestion process would add 5,100 m3/day of excess digester gas not being used by the boilers for process and space heating. It would also provide a tipping fee for disposing of the organic material, an added revenue to offset capital and operating costs. Several digester gas utilization alternatives were investigated to determine the highest and best use for the generated gas. These alternatives included the following: A1,266 kW cogeneration system with gas treatment (earlier design)

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 15 of 25

An expanded cogeneration system with an additional 633 kW engine-generator for a 1,900 kW total capacity An 8,150 m3/day biogas upgrading system for injection to the natural gas grid with plant heat provided by digester gas to the boilers An 8,150 m3/day biogas upgrading system with a vehicle fueling station with plant heat provided by digester gas to the boilers

BC developed system layouts and net present values (NPVs) (capital and O&M costs) for the food waste receiving and process facility and digester gas utilization alternatives. A number of conditions were favorable to the biogas upgrading and vehicle fuel alternative for the City: The Citys Solid Waste Division operates a large fleet of refuse haulers for garbage and recycling collection, and would likely add additional haulers for collecting food waste separately. The natural gas utility that serves Tacoma, PSE, already contracts with two entities to purchase biomethane. PSE has purchased biomethane from the King County Renton South Treatment Plant since 1987. Bioenergy Washington has been upgrading landfill gas at the King County Cedar Hills Landfill to pipeline quality for sale to PSE since 2008. The Tacoma CTP has sludge heat recovery for its dual-phased digestion process, which reduces some of the heat load at the plant and makes more digester gas available for upgrading. However, a significant portion of the digester gas would still need to be sent to CTPs existing boilers to provide plant heating. Tacoma is located in Pierce County in the Puget Sound region. Pierce County already operates a fleet of CNG transit buses and has a CNG filling station. Many other CNG vehicle fleets and filling stations exist around the Puget Sound, making it a familiar technology.

To utilize the compressed biomethane, the study looked at alternatives to phase in 15 new CNG refuse haulers over 2 years and 50 new CNG refuse haulers over 5 years. The 50 CNG refuse haulers would be able to utilize all of the biomethane produced with the food waste addition to the digesters. The cost to convert existing refuse haulers or the cost difference to buy new refuse haulers as CNG-capable were estimated at $30,000 per vehicle. There is adequate space across the street from CTP for a food waste receiving station and CNG fleet slow and fast-fill fueling station. The study assumed that PSE would be amenable to allowing injection of biomethane into its natural gas grid for use in a different location or at a different time. PSE may charge a fee for the service of wheeling or effectively storing the gas. Based on the 20-year NPV conducted for each of the alternatives, matching co-digestion with compressed vehicle fuel would be the most cost-effective approach for the City. The range of electricity rates that cogeneration would offset included the average rate at the plant, $0.033 per kWh, and an assumed higher rate of $0.06 per kWh that might be possible to negotiate with implementation of Washington states renewable portfolio legislation. The biomethane sale rates were assumed to be $3.40 to $6.80 per gigajoule (GJ), which represents 50 and 100 percent of

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 16 of 25

the natural gas rate paid by City at the time of the study, respectively. The cost of diesel fuel was assumed to be $0.89 per liter. Table 3 summarizes the capital cost and NPV developed for each alternative. The majority portion of the capital cost is for the food waste receiving and processing system, which was estimated at about $10.2 million and which is included in the capital cost reported in the table. While none of the options for food waste co-digestion with biogas utilization provide a net economic benefit, the vehicle fuel alternatives come closest to breaking even. Grants, subsidies, and further design refinements and efficiencies may provide a positive NPV for these alternatives. Table 3. Summary of Capital Costs, Net Present Value Biogas Utilization Alternatives at Tacoma CTP
Alternative comparison Food waste co-digestion with cogeneration a Capital cost $19,400,000 20 year NPV e ($17,900,000) to ($13,300,000) ($18,800,000) to ($12,600,000) ($13,300,000) to ($11,100,000)

Food waste co-digestion with expanded $21,500,000 cogeneration b Food waste co-digestion with biomethane $15,000,000 production for natural gas pipeline injection (boiler heating with digester gas) c, f Food waste co-digestion with biomethane $17,000,000 ($11,600,000) to production for CNG vehicle use including time($9,900,000) fill station for 15 vehicles (boiler heating with digester gas) d, f Food waste co-digestion with biomethane $18,900,000 ($5,700,000) production for CNG vehicle use including both time-fill and fast-fill stations for 50 vehicles (boiler heating with digester gas) d, f a 1.266 MW cogeneration system (two 633 kW engine-generators), power avoided at $0.033/kWh to $0.060/kWh. b 1.9 MW cogeneration system (three 633 kW engine-generators), power avoided at $0.033/kWh to $0.060/kWh. c 8,150 m3/day water solvent type biogas upgrading system, natural gas sale price of $3.40/GJ to $6.80/GJ (HHV). d 8,150 m3/day water solvent type biogas upgrading system, natural gas sale price of $3.40/GJ to $6.80/GJ (HHV), diesel fuel cost of $0.89/liter. e NPV assumes a net discount rate of 2.6%. f Electricity rate at $0.033/kWh.

The compressed biomethane vehicle fuel alternatives would also provide the highest total gross GHG reductions. The primary energy sources offset are electrical power from Tacoma Power Utility (TPU), natural gas, and diesel fuel as part of a new CNG fleet. Figure 9 shows the different gross fuel/energy GHG offsets for each alternative. What is apparent is that the direct fuel offsets generate up to 10 times the emissions reductions that cogeneration will produce because of the high proportion of hydropower of TPUs electricity production. In addition, the CTP emissions of criteria pollutants (including NOx, CO, non-methane hydrocarbons, and particulate) would be significantly lower for the biogas upgrading alternatives compared to the

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 17 of 25

onsite combustion of biogas through cogeneration. As air regulations grow stricter, permitting of stationary combustion sources for cogeneration such as IC engine-generators also become more difficult and is a consideration for any project.
3500 3000

Gross Carbon Emissions Reductions (tonne-CO2e/year)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Cogeneration 1.27 MW Cogeneration 1.9 MW Natural Gas Production Compressed Compressed Biomethane Biomethane Diesel- 15 trucks Diesel- All Use

Figure 9. Comparative gross greenhouse gas reductions from energy offset scenarios at Tacoma Central Treatment Plant The City of Tacoma is currently investigating the alternative of biogas upgrading for fleet vehicle use further. Case Study: Pima County As part of a County-wide comprehensive biosolids and biogas master plan, Pima County has been investigating a number of beneficial use options for biogas utilization including use for vehicle fuel. Pima County is consolidating solids treatment from the existing Roger Road plant into an expanded anaerobic digestion facility at the Ina Road Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). Solids loading rate to digestion at the Ina Road plant is estimated to increase to 73 metric tons per day (dry) in 2014 and to 108 metric tons per day in 2030. The quantity of digester gas produced at the plant will also increase significantly from about 28,300 m3/day in 2014 to 42,500 m3/day in 2030. Pima County currently has very old IC engine-generators at the Ina Road WRF utilizing the biogas for cogeneration, but these units are past their useful lives. As part of the biogas master plan, consideration was given to the Countys goals and objectives. One of the County goals included a requirement to beneficially utilize 100 percent of biogas produced (i.e., no flaring), dictating more utilization system redundancy than may be otherwise. BC initially identified 17 candidate technologies for biogas utilization, including several cogeneration technologies, biosolids drying, and biogas upgrading technologies to produce pipeline-quality biomethane for natural gas pipeline injection and vehicle fueling. After an initial screening of alternatives, BC developed system layouts, capital costs, and NPVs (capital and O&M costs) for the remaining utilization alternatives. These alternatives included:

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 18 of 25

A 4.4-megawatt (MW) capacity cogeneration alternative with lean-burn enginegenerators and gas conditioning with an average output of about 3 MW. Two alternatives with a 55,200 m3/day biogas upgrading system with digester gas-fired boilers providing plant heat demands, one alternative with a 11,300 m3/day compressed biomethane fast-fill type vehicle fueling station and the other with biomethane injection into the natural gas grid. Two alternatives with a 55,200 m3/day biogas upgrading system with effluent source electric-driven heat pumps providing plant heat demands, one alternative with 11,300 m3/day compressed biomethane fast-fill type vehicle fueling station. The heat pump alternatives ultimately proved not to provide an economic advantage and are not presented here.

A few key factors made the biogas upgrading alternatives attractive for the Ina Road WRF: The composite electricity rates at the Ina Road WRF including the demand charge are under $0.06/kWh and the potential to receive renewable energy credits from the local electrical utility, Tucson Electric Power, is uncertain and the benefits are complicated by other contractual factors. Pima County is located in Southern Arizona, where heating demands for the anaerobic digestion process and space heating are relatively low most of the year. Boiler fuel requirements would use only 3 to 35 percent of the digester gas produced. Therefore, a significant majority of the digester gas would be available year-round for upgrading. In addition, much of the heat available from cogeneration would not be utilized much of the year. A large-diameter, high-pressure (24 bar) natural gas pipeline that is connected to the El Paso Gas Company pipeline network runs less than a mile from the plant. The El Paso Gas Company pipeline network is one of the principal deliverers of natural gas to Southern California, improving the potential to wheel biomethane to a potentially more lucrative market. The local natural gas utility, Southwest Gas, indicated that it is actively looking for a demonstration project of this type and would consider purchasing and/or wheeling the biomethane for sale or vehicle fuel as long as its conditions are met, including a gas quality monitoring system. The City of Mesa already has some CNG fleet vehicles, making the technology familiar to a local municipality.

The 17-year NPV comparison for the final five alternatives indicates that the alternative to upgrade the biogas and use some of the biomethane as vehicle fuel would provide the best economic payback to the County. The cogeneration alternative would benefit from an avoided electricity cost of only $0.059/kWh (with no renewable energy credits). The displacement of diesel fuel at a representative diesel price of $1.03/liter equates to a natural gas price of about $26.50/GJ on an energy-equivalent basis. The NPV analysis did not include the cost to convert or purchase new CNG vehicles because exactly what type of vehicles would be used was not yet decided; however, the diesel fuel savings are quite substantial and could support conversion or purchase of new CNG vehicles. The analysis assumed that 25 percent of the biomethane

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 19 of 25

produced would be used to displace diesel fuel consumption by County vehicles, equaling about 1.1 million liters of diesel per year. The alternative to add biomethane into the natural gas grid compared favorably to cogeneration at a biomethane sale price of about $5.20 to $5.70/GJ (higher heating value [HHV]) or higher. A range of biomethane sale prices were used because sale price is uncertain until a contract is in place. Natural gas wholesale costs are currently at about $4.30/GJ (HHV) at natural gas hubs closest to Pima County. While the biomethane injection alternative is not favorable at a sale price of $4.30/GJ, the County could phase in new CNG vehicles by purchasing small numbers of vehicles each year and still provide a better economic return than the cogeneration alternative. The results of the NPV analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Summary of Capital Costs, Net Present Value Biogas Utilization Alternative at Ina Road WRF

Alternative comparison IC engine cogeneration with all digester gas Use digester gas in boilers for heat, separate and sell h, j remaining gas as natural gas Use digester gas in boilers for heat, separate remaining gas, use 1/4 for vehicle fuel, sell rest as h, j natural gas
a b i

Capital cost b, c 2011$ ($12,630,000) ($11,810,000) ($12,810,000)

17-year NPV a, d, e, f, g 2011$ ($1,280,000) ($6,320,000) to $2,860,000 $4,570,000 to $11,450,000

NPV assumes a discount rate of 3.25%. Capital cost for vehicle fuel alternatives do not include the costs of vehicles. c Includes additional capital cost for one additional unit in 2024. d Based on average overall electricity cost of $0.059/kWh per Tucson Electric. e Based on pipeline-quality biomethane at 36.9 MJ/Nm3 higher heating value (minimum 98% methane) and net sale price of $4.20 to $7.90/GJ (i.e., net after service fees for gas transport). f Based on diesel prices of $1.03 per liter and 38.5 MJ/liter lower heating value.
g h

Assumes no economic vehicle fuel rebates or grants, or renewable energy credits. About 10% of digester gas used in boiler to meet average heating needs for mesophilic operation. i Assumes biogas lower heating value of 20.8 MJ/Nm3, an electrical efficiency of 42% and that on average all heat is supplied by engines. j Assumes a methane recovery rate of 98.5%, which is typical to Greenlane water solvent system and 60% methane in inlet gas.

BC conducted a sensitivity analysis for a number of variables in the analysis including the amount of biomethane used for vehicle fuel. This sensitivity analysis verified that the more biomethane is used as vehicle fuel, the better the NPV. Even with only about 5 percent of the biomethane used as vehicle fuel, this alternative is better than cogeneration if the remainder of the biomethane can be sold for $5.20/ GJ or higher. Figure 10 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 20 of 25

Vehicle Fuel Percentage Use Effect on NPV

17-Year NPV, million

Use digester gas in boilers for heat, part as vehicle fuel, sell rest as NG - HIGH BIOMETHANE SALE PRICE Use digester gas in boilers for heat, part as vehicle fuel, sell rest as NG - LOW BIOMETHANE SALE PRICE

Percent of Biomethane as Vehicle Fuel, %

Figure 10. Vehicle fuel percentage use effect on net present value A high-level analysis of GHG impacts was conducted for the five biogas utilization alternatives. This analysis included the GHG emissions reductions associated with the energy that would otherwise be used in the absence of the biogas utilization alternative. Figure 11 shows the results of the analysis. The cogeneration alternative would provide the largest GHG reduction by about 30 to 40 percent over the next-best alternative. Arizonas GHG emission rate associated with electricity production is fairly high, making renewable electricity valuable for reducing GHG emissions. However, the cogeneration alternative would produce the highest levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and VOCx at the plant.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 21 of 25

14,000

Gross Carbon Emissions Reductions (tonne-CO2e/year)

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Cogeneration

Pipeline Gas, Boilers for Heat

Pipeline Gas, 25% Vehicle Fuel, Boilers for Heat

Figure 11. Comparative gross greenhouse gas reductions from energy offset scenarios at Ina Road WWTP
a. Includes GHG emissions for energy inputs or offsets only, including electricity, natural gas, and diesel fuel. b. Based on 2009 electricity emission for Arizona from (US EPA 2009). c. Based on natural gas and diesel fuel emissions rates (Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2006).

The Pima County biosolids master plan is still in draft form. BC continues to work with the County to help it select the alternative that will provide the most benefit for the Countys priorities. CONCLUSIONS Upgrading biogas produced from anaerobic digestion to pipeline quality for vehicle fuel use can provide the best economic alternative for a WWTP with mature technologies while providing GHG reductions. Traditional use of digester gas in boilers for heating usually does not make beneficial use of all the gas available and cogeneration may not provide a positive payback over the life of the equipment. Upgrading digester gas to pipeline quality broadens the potential use and sale of the biogas resource. Biogas upgrading technologies have been operating successfully for many decades and it are being adopted by an increasing number of WWTPs. Several biogas upgrading technologies are suitable for a large range of digester gas flows and there are several experienced system manufacturers. CNG fleet vehicles are available direct from several manufacturers and conversion of diesel or gasoline vehicles is commonplace. Two recent WWTP case studies identified biogas upgrading with some or all of the biomethane used as vehicle fuel as providing the best NPV for biogas utilization. The conditions that made biogas upgrading for vehicle fuel an economically favorable and logistically viable option included:

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 22 of 25

Low electricity prices Potential to sell biomethane not used by vehicles at favorable prices to a natural gas utility A municipality that is willing to convert a diesel or gasoline vehicle fleet, or expand an existing CNG vehicle fleet Low plant heating demands resulting in a relatively large amount of excess digester gas Possibility of consuming nearly all of the digester gas produced throughout the year

The alternative to upgrade digester gas at the Tacoma CTP and use all of the biomethane as vehicle fuel for its refuse hauler fleet provided the best economic alternative for the City. A large percentage of the Citys refuse hauler fleet would be phased in as CNG vehicles or converted for CNG operation. At Pima Countys Ina Road WRF, upgrading digester gas and using some of the biomethane for vehicle fuel and selling the remainder of the biomethane offered the best economic scenario for biogas utilization. Even a small fraction of the biomethane used as vehicle fuel offers a large payback and the remainder could be sold to the local utility or more lucrative markets through a nearby distribution pipeline. The offset of diesel fuel with biomethane offered a better opportunity to reduce GHG emissions for the City of Tacoma because of the large percentage of hydropower in the electricity source composition in the Pacific Northwest. Where the electrical grid has a larger fossil fuel component in Arizona, the use of digester gas for cogeneration had a larger GHG reduction from electricity offset. Under both scenarios, biogas upgrading would produce fewer criteria pollutants such as NOx and CO than would cogeneration with internal combustion engines. REFERENCES Baukal, Charles E., Schwartz, Robert E., The John Zink Combustion Handbook, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Fla., 2001. Bell, John, Peterbilt Representative, personal communication with Eron Jacobson regarding compressed natural gas refuse haulers, 1/2/2011. California Air Resources Board (CARB), Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems Certified by the Air Resources Board, updated 2/9/2007, accessed 1/10/2012, http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/altfuel/altfuelsys94_020907.pdf. Chandler, K., Ebert, E. and Melendez, M., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Compressed Natural Gas Transit Bus Evaluation, NREL/TP-540-37626, April 2006. Chandler, K., Ebert, E. and Melendez, M., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: Compressed Natural Gas Transit Bus Evaluation, NREL/TP-540-37626, April 2006. Chandler, Kevin, Walkowicz, Kevin, and Clark, Nigel, United Parcel Service (UPS) CNG Truck Fleet: Final Results, U.S. Department of Energy/National Renewable Energy Lab Truck Evaluation Project, August 2002. Chicago Climate Exchange Document: World Resources Institute GHG Calculation Tools for Stationary Emission Sources, http://www.ghgprotocol.org/templates/GHG5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=OTAx, accessed 10/1/2006.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 23 of 25

De Arespacochaga, Nicolas, Evaluation of Biogas Treatment Efficiency for the Elimination of Siloxanes: State-of-the art on biogas utilisation as a vehicle fuel, July 2010. OWSO10C10-SL1001 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles, 2009 Edition, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html, accessed 6/25/2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Updated Certification Guidance for Fuel Converters, 10/28/2010, http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=23319&flag=1, accessed 1/10/2012. Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN), Pipeline Specifications, 2005, http://www.gastransmissionnw.com/info_post/04100PipeSpecs_GTN_LR.pdf, accessed 2/21/2011. Gas Transmission Northwest (GTN), Pipeline Specifications, TransCanada and other pipeline gas quality tariff specifications, May 2005, http://www.gastransmissionnw.com/info_post/04100PipeSpecs_GTN_LR.pdf, accessed 2/16/2011. GreenField Compression, Introduction and Component Cost of CNG , http://www.zeitenergy.com/presos/Hightower.pdf, accessed 2/16/2011. Kidnay, Arthur and Parrish, William, Fundamentals of Natural Gas Processing, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., 2006. Lindeburg, Michael R., Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual, Professional Publications, Inc, Belmont, Calif., 12th Edition, 2006. NGV America (NGVA), Frequently Asked Questions About Converting Vehicles to Operate on Natural Gas, http://www.ngvc.org/pdfs/FAQs_Converting_to_NGVs.pdf, accessed 6/26/2009. NGV America (NGVA), Guide to Available Natural Gas Vehicles and Engines, updated 5/14/2011, http://www.ngvamerica.org/pdfs/marketplace/MP.Analyses.NGVs-a.pdf, accessed 1/10/2012. Northwest Pipeline (NWP) GP, FERC Gas Tariff, General Terms and Conditions, 5th Revision, 6/8/2010. Puget Sound Clean Cities, Compressed Natural Gas Fueling Stations in the Puget Sound, http://www.pugetsoundcleancities.org/FuelingNaturalGas2.htm, accessed 12/12/2010. SAE J1616 Recommended Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel, Recommended Practice, 2/1/1994. Turns, Stephen R., An Introduction to Combustion, The McGraw-Hill Company, 2nd Edition, 2000. U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [US EPA]), Clean Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas, Fact Sheet, EPA 420-F-00-33, March 2002. U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), Operational LFG Energy Projects Database, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/landfill/proj/index.htm. Accessed on 10/20/2009. United States Department of Energy Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center, Vehicle Conversions, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/conversions.html, accessed, 2/16/2011.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 24 of 25

Wise, Darin, Plant Superintendent, City of Newark WWTP, Newark, Ohio, personal communications with Eron Jacobson regarding Guild Associates biogas upgrading system, 1/7/2011.

Preprint, Residuals and Biosolids 2012, March 25-28, 2012, Raleigh, NC

Page 25 of 25