Biogas Project Screening Report

Transcription

Project Screening Report
Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility
Biogas Utilization Upgrades
Prepared for
The City of Barrie
Prepared by
CH2M HILL Canada Limited
126 Wellington Street West
Suite 303
Barrie, ON L4N 1K9
July 2012
Revised September 2012
WB422564BAR
Contents
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction and Background ................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act ........................................................ 1-3
1.3 Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01.................................................. 1-3
1.4 Project Team .......................................................................................................... 1-5
1.5 Report Organization ............................................................................................ 1-5
Problem Definition ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Rationale for the Study ........................................................................................ 2-1
Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 The Cogeneration Process ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Biogas Production ..................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Potential Biogas Storage Function .......................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Plant Power Consumption ...................................................................... 3-3
3.2 Social Environment .............................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.1 Location and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................... 3-4
3.2.2 Official Plan ............................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.3 Other Applicable Policies and Legislation ............................................ 3-6
3.3 Natural and Physical Environment ................................................................... 3-6
3.3.1 Physiography............................................................................................. 3-6
3.3.2 Aquatic Features and Watercourses....................................................... 3-7
3.3.3 Aquatic Habitat and Communities ........................................................ 3-8
3.3.4 Vegetation and Vegetation Communities ............................................. 3-8
3.3.5 Wildlife Habitat and Communities ........................................................ 3-8
3.4 Archaeological Review ........................................................................................ 3-9
Identification of Alternatives .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Components of Alternatives ............................................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Biogas Usage Options............................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2 Biogas Storage Technologies ................................................................... 4-4
Evaluation of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 5-7
5.1 Evaluation Methodology and Results ............................................................... 5-7
5.1.2 Selection of the Preferred Biogas Storage Technology ........................ 5-1
Recommended Solution ............................................................................................. 6-4
6.1 Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power to the Grid and/or for Plant Load
Displacement................................................................................................................. 6-4
6.2 Option A: Medium Pressure Gas Vessel ........................................................... 6-4
Recommended Solution Design ............................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Biogas Handling and Storage ............................................................................. 7-1
7.2 System Control Modifications ............................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Upgraded Cogeneration Site Layout ................................................................. 7-2
Effects and Mitigation ................................................................................................ 8-1
9.
10.
11.
8.1 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Construction .................. 8-1
8.1.1 Construction Effects.................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.2 Trucks and Traffic Effects ........................................................................ 8-1
8.1.3 Noise ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................. 8-2
8.2 Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during Operation ....................... 8-2
8.2.1 Human Health and Safety ....................................................................... 8-2
8.2.2 Noise ........................................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.3 Visual Aesthetics ....................................................................................... 8-2
Public and Agency Consultation .............................................................................. 9-1
9.1 Public Consultation .............................................................................................. 9-1
9.2 Agency Consultation ........................................................................................... 9-1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 10-3
10.1 Project Summary ................................................................................................ 10-3
10.2 Project Implementation Strategy ...................................................................... 10-3
10.3 Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................... 10-4
Works Cited ................................................................................................................ 11-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Agency Consultation
Appendix B
Public Consultation
Appendix C
Technical Memoranda
Appendix D
Noise Study
3
1.
Introduction and Background
The City of Barrie has been investing in renewable energy over the past twenty years. One such
investment is the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility (WwTF) which has been using the gas
produced from its digesters to generate electricity and heat since 1996. Biogas, also known as
digester gas, is a by-product of sludge treated by anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion is the
biological process in which biodegradable organic matter is broken-down by bacteria into
biogas, which consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases.
The WwTF has gone through a number of enhancements and capacity increases which allow the
digesters to produce enough biogas to generate electricity to offset a portion of the WwTF energy
demands. The WwTF’s normal practice is to continuously fire one 250 kW cogen engine to offset
plant power consumption. Currently, the electricity produced from biogas can offset plant
power purchase from the local power grid by thirty to forty percent. This translates to nearly
$220,000 per year in electricity cost savings. As the plant continues to expand to serve the
growing population, the production of biogas will continue to increase offering more energy and
cost saving potential.
1.1
Background
The Barrie WwTF is located at 249 Bradford St., Barrie, Ontario (Figure 1). It is owned and
operated by the City of Barrie. The plant was originally constructed in 1940, with many
expansions and additions throughout from the 1950s to present-day. In 1996 the digestion
facilities were upgraded with new digesters, gas mixing systems, and aerobic reactors for the
recovery of heat and the production of electricity from biogas (The City of Barrie, 2004). In 2004,
two carbon tower units were added to improve biogas quality by removing engine corrosive
compounds in the biogas stream. The biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is
burned to generate electrical power to offset operational requirements of the WwTF and heat, to
warm treatment processes as well as facility buildings during winter. This process is known as
cogeneration.
1-1
FIGURE 1 Location of the Barrie WwTF
The Barrie WwTF has two cogeneration engines in a duty/standby configuration and two hot
water boilers. The amount of biogas currently generated is sufficient to fuel one cogeneration
(cogen) engine at close to full capacity all year round, reducing the plant power load by thirty to
forty percent. The current challenge is that only one engine is being fully utilized and the surplus
gas is insufficient to start the second engine. In addition, there is limited headspace within the
digesters to store peak diurnal gas production. As a result, surplus biogas would either be flared
through a waste gas burner or combusted in a waste heat boiler.
In the summer of 2011, the City of Barrie initiated a Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment (EA) in order to determine all potential uses of the surplus biogas and the associated
system modifications needed, which included an evaluation of enrolling in Ontario’s Feed-inTariff (FIT) program. A Schedule B Municipal Class EA was commenced in accordance with the
requirements for Schedule B projects as described in the Municipal Engineers Association
document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended in 2007 and
2011), as opposed to the requirements for a Renewable Energy Approval (O. Reg. 359/09) under
Green Energy Act typically required for FIT projects. The project is exempt from the Renewable
Energy Approval (REA) process according to Section 9 (1) 4 of O.Reg. 359/09 (Ontario Ministry
of the Environment, 2011) since the Barrie WwTF is an energy-producing facility with an existing
Certificate of Approval. This exemption was confirmed during a pre-consultation meeting with
the MOE and is documented in the meeting minutes provided in Appendix A.
As the Schedule B screening study progressed, no significant environmental effects were
identified and it was determined, in consultation with the MOE, that the project can be classified
as a “Category A” project as defined in the Electricity Projects Regulation (O.Reg. 116/01). A
“Category A” project does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act
as per section 2(1) (b) of O.Reg. 116/01.
1-2
1.2
Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act
Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) was enacted in 1975 and came into force in 1976.
The EAA requires the study, documentation, and examination of the environmental effects that
could result from major water projects or activities. The objective of the EAA is to consider the
possible effects of these projects early in the planning process, when concerns may be most easily
resolved, and to select a preferred alternative with the fewest environmental impacts. The EAA
defines environment very broadly as:
a. Air, land or water,
b. Plant and animal life, including humans.
c. The social, economic, and cultural conditions that influence the life of humans or a
community.
d. Any building, structure, machine or other device or thing made by humans.
e. Any solid, liquid, gas, odor, heat, sound, vibration or radiation resulting directly or indirectly
form human activities.
f.
Any part or combination of the foregoing and the interrelationships between any two or
more of the above, in or of Ontario.
Various regulations fall under the EAA and it also establishes a "Class Environmental
Assessment" process to streamline the planning of municipal projects for road, water, and
sewage and stormwater projects. A similar proponent-led self assessment process similar to the
Class EA process is the Electricity Projects Environmental Assessment defined in the Electricity
Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01.
1.3
Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01
Ontario Regulation 116/01 sets out the environmental assessment planning process for some
electricity projects and determines the categories of assessment based on capacity, fuel type and
potential for significant environmental effects.
Electricity projects that may have relatively benign environmental effects are not subject to any
EA requirements. Electricity projects that may have some environmental effects that can be
easily mitigated or managed are required to complete the Environmental Screening Process.
Electricity projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects are required to
complete the EA process as outlined in Part II of the EAA.
The Barrie Biogas Utilization project is classified as a “Category A” project as defined in the
Electricity Projects Regulation O.Reg. 116/01. It is a biomass cogeneration facility of less than 25
MW with an efficiency of greater than 60% and therefore does not require approval under the
Environmental Assessment (EA) Act based on the section 2(1) (b) of O.Reg. 116/01. However,
even with this exemption, the EA Act may have still applied if there were to be significant
environmental effects associated with the project. Since the recommended solution was not
known at the time of project initiation and several of the alternatives could have had a major
1-3
impact on the way the City does business with its residents (e.g. sell biogas to public), it was
believed that the best approach to effectively communicate to the public was through the
Municipal Class EA process.
Phases 1 and 2 of a Schedule B Class EA, were completed which involved assessing alternative
design solutions, determining the impacts of each solution, and selecting a preferred solution.
The activities undertaken during each phase are documented in this Project Screening Report.
1-4
1.4
Project Team
CH2M HILL Canada Limited was been retained by the City of Barrie to fulfill the EA
requirements for this project.
1.5
Report Organization
This report is organized into nine sections. Section 1 introduces the project and EA
processes. Section 2 outlines the problem definition and Section 3 examines the existing
conditions in the study area including the cogeneration process and existing natural, social
and cultural conditions. Sections 4 and 5 outline design alternatives and evaluate them.
Section 6 identifies a preferred solution based on the evaluation and Section 7 provides a
preliminary design overview for the preferred solution. Section 8 identifies the potential
impacts of the solution and offers mitigation measures for those impacts. Section 9 outlines
public and agency consultation activities including documentation from the Public
Information Centre (PIC) as well as correspondence with review agencies. Section 10
provides a project summary and conclusions.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
1-5
2.
Problem Definition
2.1
Purpose of Study
A Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment study was undertaken in order to determine
the preferred biogas use option to optimize energy recovery and usage from biogas with the
existing cogeneration system or by other means at the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility
(WwTF).
2.2
Rationale for the Study
Surplus biogas is currently flared through a waste gas burner or combusted in a boiler. To
harness the full energy potential of the biogas, this Class EA study explored existing and
potential on-site and offsite gas usage options, the feasibility of enrolling in the provincial
FIT program, gas storage technologies, cogeneration engine control system modifications, as
well as assessed the relative impacts of each developed alternative solution on all aspects of
the existing environment - technical, natural, socio-cultural and financial.
2-1
3.
Existing Conditions
3.1
The Cogeneration Process
Biogas (primarily methane gas) is a by-product of wastewater sludge treatment in anaerobic
digesters. Treated or stabilized sludge, known as biosolids are then transported off-site. The
biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is burned to generate electrical power
to offset operational requirements of the WwTF, as well as heat to warm treatment
processes and facility buildings during winter. This process is known as cogeneration
(cogen).
3.1.1
Biogas Production
The Barrie WwTF has two 250kW cogen engines. The engines operate in rotation
(duty/standby) and can be fired by both biogas and natural gas. They produce power that
feeds back to the WwTF switchgear to supplement power consumption in the plant. Surplus
gas that exceeds the capacity of a single engine is flared or sent to a small boiler in the plant
(Figure 3).
FIGURE 3 The Existing Cogeneration System
The plant currently generates approximately 4300m3/day of biogas, which is sufficient to
meet the full operating capacity of one cogen engine, but is insufficient to start the second
engine simultaneously. Limited gas storage within the digesters also restricts the plant from
fully utilizing the available biogas to maximize power generation. An assessment of the
existing biogas facility was carried out during the preliminary design stage for the
expansion of the WwTF to 76 MLD (million litres per day) capacity. The conclusion is that
the facility will need to operate two cogen engines by 2023 in order to fully utilize the
3-1
biogas. Table 1 presents the historical and projected annual average biogas production until
2023 at the Barrie WwTF.
TABLE 1 Historical and Projected Annual Average Biogas Production in Barrie WwTF
Annual Average Biogas Production,
2006
3574
2007
3630
2008
3802
2009
No data available
2010
4177
2011
3141 1
Daily Diurnal Peak Factor 2
Projected Average Biogas Production 3,
3.1.2
3
m /day
1.10
3
m /day
2012
4507
2013
4649
2014
4791
2015
4934
2016
5076
2017
5218
2018
5360
2019
5502
2020
5645
2021
5787
2022
5929
2023
6071
Potential Biogas Storage Function
Generally, only one cogen engine will be fired continuously until biogas availability and
storage reaches a point that allows the continuous firing of two cogen engines.
Biogas storage could be employed to serve as a buffer tank that continuously accumulates
unused excess gas until there is sufficient volume (i.e. gas pressure achieves a given high
level set point) for the second engine to come online. The second engine will stop when the
gas pressure in the storage drops to below a set level. With this storage facility as a buffer,
the plant could choose to operate one engine during the non-peak electricity rate period,
divert excess gas to storage, and then fire two engines to maximize power production
during peak electricity rate periods to minimize energy costs.
1 A lower value was recorded due to interruptions during the construction of the WwTF upgrades.
2 Established based on September 2008 one-month data.
3 Future biogas production is estimated by using the biogas generated to plant flow ratio established from historical data
between 2008 to 2010. Forecasts will be revised during detailed design based on historical data plus additional monitoring
information from the new Primary Digester 3 (PD-3) when it comes online.
3-2
The potential location to place a biogas storage structure is over a dismantled primary
clarifier adjacent to Lakeshore Drive. Figure 4 shows the proposed biogas storage area. The
existing foundations from the old structure are still in place.
FIGURE 4 Proposed Biogas Storage Area
3.1.3
Plant Power Consumption
The City of Barrie purchases electricity for its various utility operations from PowerStream.
Electricity rates are determined by the Spot Market. The Spot Market is an open market
where the electricity price in the market fluctuates based on supply and demand. The
market price is set hourly by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) based on
power supply and demand forecasts in Ontario.
In late 2009, PowerStream installed power meters for various facilities in the City of Barrie.
The power meter features allows consumers to obtain hourly power consumption data of
their facility from a website called the “e-MeterData. Data between November 2009 and
January 2011 for the Barrie WwTF was extracted from the database to generate the diurnal
power consumption pattern in the plant. Figure 5 illustrates the energy differential from
operating just one cogen engine. Additional energy and costs savings are possible if two
cogen engines operate continuously during peak electricity rate periods.
3-3
FIGURE 5 Average Diurnal Power Consumption in Barrie WwTF between November 2009 to January 2011
Diurnal Power Consumption
1200
Metered Power (kWh)
1000
Energy
Differential
800
600
With 1 Cogen Operating - Mar'10 to Jan'11
400
Without Cogen - Nov'09 to Feb'10
200
0
0:00
3:00
6:00
9:00
12:00
15:00
18:00
21:00
0:00
Daily Hours
3.2
Social Environment
3.2.1
Location and Surrounding Land Uses
The City of Barrie is built around Kempenfelt Bay on Lake Simcoe. The Barrie WwTF is
located near the shores of the southwest end of Kempenfelt Bay at 249 Bradford Street.
Bradford Street borders the WwTF to the west, with Lakeshore Drive to the east, and Tiffin
Street to the south.
The Barrie WwTF is located in a mixed-use are near the centre of the City of Barrie. The site
is bordered by residential and commercial buildings to the north, west, and south. The
eastern end of the site is Centennial Park bordering Kempenfelt Bay which contains a trail
system and parking lots. Lakeshore Drive separates the plant from parklands along the
Kempenfelt Bay waterfront. Dyments Creek delineates the north end of the WwTF property
and features a pond that is used as a recreational area for the residents of the nearby
apartment building. Commercial buildings are situated directly south of the WwTF
property. Figure 6 is an aerial photo of the Barrie WwTF taken in 2010 showing the plant
and its surroundings.
3-4
FIGURE 6 Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility and Environs
3.2.2
Official Plan
The Barrie WwTF is located in the City Centre planning area, in a special zone designated as
Municipal Services and Utilities (MSU). The rest of the Barrie City Centre is zoned
Commercial (shaded red in Figure 7). Adjacent to the WwTF to the west along Tiffin Street
is mainly Residential (in yellow) and Parklands are located to the east (in green). Purple
shading indicates Industrial zoning. New structures on the Barrie WwTF property will
consider visual aesthetics due to these surrounding land uses.
Lakeshore Drive is planned for road realignment according to the Road Widening Plan
(City of Barrie, 2011). The City of Barrie Official Plan also outlines the City’s goals to
“promote the use of alternative energy systems where appropriate” and “to facilitate
development of renewable energy systems and to support the establishment of a green
economy in accordance with the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009)”. The Barrie
WwTF Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project supports these goals.
3-5
FIGURE 7 Planning Areas (From Schedule B of the City of Barrie Official Plan 2010)
3.2.3
Other Applicable Policies and Legislation
The Barrie WwTF is located within the Lake Simcoe watershed, where the Lake Simcoe
Protection Plan applies to all developmental activities. In addition, the area is within the
Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) regulation limits (Ontario Regulation
179/06). Water quality, hydrology and natural heritage features will be protected during the
construction and operation of the biogas storage facility.
3.3
Natural and Physical Environment
3.3.1
Physiography
The Lake Simcoe watershed and the City of Barrie’s natural and physical environment were
shaped by glaciation. In most areas, thick glacial till, gravels, sands, and clays cover the
bedrock. The majority of soils is well drained and occurs on smooth, and marginally to
steeply sloping topography (CH2M HILL, 2004)
The Barrie WwTF is located within a former marsh area. Historically (in the late 1940s and
1950s) the marshland was filled and landscaped to provide aesthetic parkland, wildlife
habitat, and urban buildings. Due to its underlying wetland origin, the soils are relatively
unstable, thus requiring all buildings on site to have a pile foundation (CH2M HILL, 2004).
The proposed storage facility may be built overtop a dismantled primary clarifier, and the
need for additional pile foundations will be evaluated during the detailed design phase.
3-6
3.3.2
Aquatic Features and Watercourses
Lake Simcoe is a highly significant water body due to its size, recreational uses, fisheries and
aesthetic value. Storm drainage from the WwTF property generally flows eastward towards
Kempenfelt Bay via stream channels and other stormwater conduits.
The proposed biogas storage at the south end of the WwTF property is in close proximity to
Hotchkiss Creek. The creek flows southwest to northeast from the Essa Road/Ardagh area
(west of Highway 400) for approximately 2.2 km to Kempenfelt Bay (C.C. Tatham and
Associates, 2011).
A Master Drainage Plan subject to the Municipal Class EA process for Hotchkiss Creek was
completed in October 2000 and updated in January 2011. The Master Drainage Plan
provided an investigation, evaluation and recommendation of a preferred solution to
address property flooding issues and other watershed objectives. Physical changes to the
watershed have occurred since the initial plan, such as upgrades to culverts and channels in
the downstream reaches of the Hotchkiss Creek system in the Bradford Street area that have
historically subjected residential properties and the Barrie WwTF to potential flooding.
Recent improvements, including a new crossing at Lakeshore Drive with a Regional Storm
Conveyance system designed for a 100 year return period has removed the WwTF entirely
from Hotchkiss Creek’s Regional Storm Floodplain (C.C. Tatham and Associates, 2011).
Dyments Creek, a cold water tributary of Lake Simcoe, borders the north end of the WwTF
property. The Dyments Creek Master Drainage Plan prepared in 2004, indicates that the
northern entrance to the WwTF is at risk of flooding during a 100-year flood but future
drainage improvements will eliminate this risk. This is not a concern for the proposed
biogas storage facility which will be situated at the southern end of the WwTF property.
Both Dyments and Hotchkiss Creeks are regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation
Authority (LSRCA).
FIGURE 8 Hotchkiss and Dyments Creeks (From Schedue H of the City of Barrie Official Plan 2010)
Barrie WwTF
3-7
3.3.3
Aquatic Habitat and Communities
Lake Simcoe provides habitat for both cold and warm water fish species including: large
and small mouth bass, northern pike, yellow perch, lake trout, whitefish, and black crappie.
Kempenfelt Bay is the deepest portion of Lake Simcoe and supports many of these fish
species. Lake Simcoe whitefish is a genetically distinct type of whitefish and is considered a
provincially threatened species. Accelerated eutrophication of Lake Simcoe has caused an
overall shift from predominantly coldwater species such as lake trout, whitefish and herring
species in the lake to those that prefer warmer water such as perch, bass and sunfish. The
Ministry of Natural Resources’ Lake Simcoe’s Coldwater Fish Stocking Program aims to
restore these coldwater fish species populations in Lake Simcoe (CH2M HILL, 2004).
Hotchkiss Creek is highly altered by channelization but fishery potential can exist within the
creek during certain times of the year. Fish passage can be accommodated during all
seasons. Baitfish have been reported in the creek system which confirms this fishery
potential; however additional studies are needed for confirmation (C.C. Tatham and
Associates, 2011). Water quality improvement and aquatic habitat enhancements have been
completed as part of the channel improvements outlined in the Master Drainage Plan.
3.3.4
Vegetation and Vegetation Communities
The Barrie WwTF is bordered by a perimeter chain link fence. The vegetation within the
WwTF property consists of ornamental hardwoods, planted groves of conifers, and
manicured turf grasses that form part of the landscaping at the WwTF. Deciduous tree
plantings include Norway Maple, Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Silver Maple, and White Ash.
Conifer stands consist of Austrian Pine, White Pine, Red Pine, White Spruce and Norway
Spruce. Most trees are mature with a trunk diameter greater than 15cm. The same varieties
of deciduous and coniferous trees are planted around the Dyments Creek pond north of the
WwTF. There are no Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs), Environmentally
Significant/Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) located
within or adjacent to the WwTF site (CH2M HILL, 2004).
3.3.5
Wildlife Habitat and Communities
The species found at the Dyments Creek pond are typical of urban environments: pigeons,
mallard ducks, domestic ducks, Canada Geese, muskrats, and squirrels with occasional
sightings of skunks. Based on ongoing human activities such as park maintenance and
landscaping, the species present are tolerant to human disturbances and edge habitats
(CH2M HILL, 2004). A search of the Natural Heritage Information Database for Species At
Risk in the study area did not reveal any species that are endangered, threatened or of
special concern.
Based on the highly disturbed nature of the site, the construction of the biogas storage
facility within a paved parking lot at the south end of the wastewater plant existing would
not result in the clearing of additional natural vegetation. Disturbances associated with
construction activities would be minimal and short in duration. Impacts to wildlife are
expected to be minimal.
3-8
3.4
Archaeological Review
An Archeological Assessment of the Barrie Wastewater Treatment Facility was undertaken
in September 1992. No in-situ archeological deposits were found and the assessment was
accepted by the Ministry of Culture. Since the Ministry of Culture deemed the 1992
sufficient, no further archeological assessments are necessary for this study (CH2M HILL,
2004).
3-9
4.
Identification of Alternatives
4.1
Components of Alternatives
The biogas utilization upgrade alternatives consist of two parts: (1) biogas usage and (2)
biogas storage. It was recognized early in the process that for several of the biogas usage
alternatives that on-site storage of biogas would be necessary. As such, a component of this
overall study was to investigate what could be done to temporarily store biogas until it is
needed. Various options for these two components are discussed in this section.
4.1.1
Biogas Usage Options
Seven (7) future biogas usage options were evaluated. Common to all options, including the
‘Do Nothing’ option, is the ongoing use of biogas as a fuel for WwTF boilers and
cogeneration engines. The future biogas usage options were based on the three main
purposes: 1) displace additional plant power load; 2) feed electricity to the local power grid;
and, 3) convey biogas or hot water for off-site use. Below is a description of the biogas
options in addition to the “Do Nothing” option.
Option 1 - Offset additional plant power use with the electricity produced with biogas
(plant load displacement)
The WwTF could generate additional electricity (up to 500 kW) for a few hours during peak
electricity rate hours (9:00AM to 9:00PM) to offset electricity costs. The WwTF would fire
two engines at full capacity, and fire one engine to generate 250 kW hour during off-peak
rates. This option would lead to additional cost savings.
System modifications would be made to allow power generated from the two cogens to be
fed to the plant switch gear for additional plant load displacement. The control strategy will
be to allow the engines to operate in a lead-lag fashion based on biogas availability.
Option 2 - Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program to feed power to the
local grid
In 2009, the provincial government introduced the Green Energy and Economy Act. A
component of the Green Energy Act is the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program, which was
implemented by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in September 2009. The program
encourages independent generators to produce electricity using renewable energies (wind,
solar, hydro, and biomass) by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable
energy production over a contract term of twenty years. The City of Barrie would like to
take advantage of this program as it is in line with the City of Barrie’s objectives to facilitate
the development of renewable energy systems and to support the establishment of a green
economy.
340720A101_ WB062007001TOR
4-1
In November 2009, the OPA amended the FIT program rules by adding a “Transition
Option” category, with the objective of encouraging enrollment from small existing
generator facilities to take part in the renewable energy movement. The amendment allows
existing small renewable energy projects (of less than 500 kW) to be eligible for FIT even
without carrying out any upgrade or expansion work. The existing 250kW cogeneration
facility in Barrie WwTF is eligible as a Transition Project. The City of Barrie submitted an
application for the Transition Option FIT Program in December 2010 and is awaiting
approval from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA).
This option considers selling all power generated from the cogen engines to the local utility
at premium pricing under the FIT Program. The City would purchase energy from
PowerStream at standard pricing to operate the WwTF. If a FIT contract is awarded, the
plant could sell the electricity generated through the cogen engines. Cables would be
installed from the cogen system switchgear to the to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford/Brock
Street. This option is not feasible if a FIT contract is not granted by the OPA.
Option 3 - A combination of both (1) and (2)
This option is flexible and would allow the WwTF to produce power to offset electricity
costs during peak rate hours or sell power generated from one or both of the cogen engines
under the FIT Program. There are two ways that cogeneration system controls can be
modified:
a) Two cogen engines feed power back to the grid and/or for plant load displacement
Some electrical interlocking with the operator interface will allow the operator to select one
of the two modes of operation: feed power back to the grid, or feed power to plant
switchgear for plant load displacement both at 500kW.
b) One cogen engine feeds power back to the grid, and one engine is used for plant
load displacement
This configuration considers the possibility of allowing the plant to use cogen power to sell
back to the grid and for plant load displacement at the same time. This requires one cogen
engine dedicated to feeding power to the grid, and the other dedicated to feeding to the
plant switch gear. At any given time, the plant and the grid will receive a maximum of 250
kW instead of the combined 500 kW like the other configurations. Under this scenario, plant
operators will select either one of the engines as the primary and the other one as secondary
power generators. The primary power generator will receive biogas fuel continuously, and
the secondary generator will come online when additional biogas is available. This allows
the plant operator to decide when power is most suited for plant load displacement and
when to sell back to the grid on a daily basis.
Option 4 - Transport biogas for off-site use at the historic Allandale Train Station
The City has already considered conveying biogas for use at the refurbished Allendale Train
Station. This scenario is not feasible due to space limitations for a dual fire boiler at the train
station. Also, the complexity involved in conveying the gas would make it a challenge to
meet the requirements under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and would require
specialized training and licensing to operate.
4-2
Option 5 - Sell biogas or heated water to nearby apartment buildings
The City has also considered the possibility of conveying biogas to heat nearby apartment
buildings as an alternative to natural gas. However this option is also not feasible for similar
reasons compared to Option 4, including the potential environmental impacts of
constructing a pipeline crossing at Dyments Creek. The consistency of fuel supply would
also be an issue. The transport of heated water over long distances may not be practical due
to heat loss, and the construction of infrastructure to convey hot water could also adversely
impact the natural environment.
Option 6 -Produce hot water for internal WwTF heating
A greater percentage of the excess biogas could be sent to the 980 kWh boiler for heat
recovery to heat the WwTF. However the necessity for internal WwTF heating is higher in
the winter than the summer, which would not eliminate the need to for waste gas flaring in
the summer.
Option 7 - Clean biogas and sell to natural gas supplier (ie: Enbridge)
Biogas from the digesters can be treated and sold to a local natural gas supplier. A treated
gas storage facility would be required as well as piping infrastructure to supply the biogas.
This option would have similar environmental impacts as Option 5. The City would have to
take on the added responsibility of cleaning the biogas to meet natural gas quality and
would have to enter into commitments to ensure consistency in flow.
Option 8- Do Nothing
The “Do Nothing” option is to not use the excess biogas to generate electricity for additional
plant energy load displacement, feed the local power grid, or transport it for off-site use.
Excess biogas would be continued to be flared via a waste gas burner or sent to a boiler for
combustion.
4-3
4.1.2
Biogas Storage Technologies
Most of the biogas usage alternative options require on-site storage of biogas. The purpose
of biogas storage for Options 1, 2 and 3 is to serve as a buffer tank that continuously
accumulates excess gas that is not used. During off-peak hours, one cogen engine would
operate and gas could accumulate in the gas storage vessel. During peak hours, two engines
could operate in parallel and deplete the stored gas.
Two types of on-site gas storage are commonly used in municipal sewage treatment plants:
(1) constant volume, variable pressure storage; and (2) constant pressure, variable volume
storage. The constant volume, variable pressure storage is essentially a medium to high
pressure vessel that stores compressed gas, whereas the variable volume, constant pressure
storage employs a mechanism that allows the expansion and contraction of storage volume.
Within these two categories, three alternative technologies were chosen for evaluation based
on their prevalence in North America and the available number of established
manufacturers. The three technologies and the “No Storage” option are described below.
Option A - Medium Pressure Gas Vessel
A gas pressure vessel is a constant volume, variable pressure storage technology. Gas is
typically compressed to between 10 to 50 psig (pound-force per square inch gauge) within
the vessel. A pressure regulating valve is installed downstream of the gas pipe that slowly
releases gas at the desirable operating pressure and flow to the cogeneration system. As
stored gas in the tank becomes depleted, the pressure in the storage vessel decreases and
eventually stops gas release when the pressure drops to below a given set point. Pressure
vessels are made of steel or stainless steel and can be shaped as spheres, cylinders, or cones.
Option A considers storing biogas at 30-40psi (200kPa to 276kPa) in a steel cylindrical
pressure vessel. This system would require a compressor to compress biogas to the desired
pressure level within the vessel. A cylindrical pressure vessel is being considered since it is
more conventional and less conspicuous to passersby.
FIGURE 9 A Spherical and Cylindrical Pressure Gas Vessel
4-4
Option B – Steel Gas Cover on a Concrete Tank
A steel gas cover on a concrete tank is a constant pressure, variable volume storage
technology. It stores gas in a concrete tank roofed with a floating steel gas cover. This is an
established technology and is commonly seen in North America at municipal sewage
treatment plants. This technology is typically used to retrofit existing digester roofs. This
floating cover can have a shell-theory dome or radial beam structure. The roof moves up
and down vertically along guide rails within the tank based on gas volume.
Option B considers using a concrete tank with a steel gas cover that is designed specifically
for gas storage through the application of a gas and water proofing layer. Biogas from the
digester will be routed to the tank and the storage vessel will have the same internal gas
pressure as the digesters. The biogas from the tank will then be fed to existing gas boosters
and the gas treatment system and before reaching the cogeneration system.
FIGURE 10 Examples of Concrete Tanks with Steel Gas Covers
Source(s): Westech Engineering and Ovivo
Option C - Double Membrane Storage
The double membrane gas storage is a constant pressure, variable volume storage
technology that has been available in the market for approximately fifteen years. The
technology was originally developed in Europe for the farming industry where low cost
biogas harvesting is a common practice. Due to its low cost, easy installation and low
maintenance features, this technology has grown popular over the last decade and there are
more than a hundred units installed worldwide. Its application in municipal sewage
treatment plants for digester gas storage has also become more popular especially in the
United States. However, there are no municipal installations in Canada.
The storage consists of an external membrane which forms the outer shape of the vessel, and
an internal membrane which stores the biogas. A permanently running air blower provides
air to the space between inner and outer membrane to support the structure. The inner
membrane gas holder inflates and deflates according to gas volume. This type of storage is
available in two types of configuration: (1) a standalone unit mounted on a concrete slab;
and (2) a semi-spherical dome that is mounted on a concrete tank which are shown in Figure
11.
4-5
FIGURE 11 Double Membrane Gas Storage
Source: Westech Engineering
Option D - “No Storage” Option
This option is to “Do Nothing” and to not construct a biogas storage facility. This option
would not allow the Barrie WwTF to maximize the usage of biogas.
4-6
5.
Evaluation of Alternatives
5.1
Evaluation Methodology and Results
To determine the preferred solution, the options for biogas usage and storage technologies
were evaluated individually based on a series of quantitative and qualitative factors that
reflect the technical, social/cultural, natural, and financial aspects of the environment. The
factors considered are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Factors Considered for the Selection of Biogas Storage Technologies and Biogas Usage Options
Aspect
Question
Factors to Consider
1
Technical
Is the option technically feasible?
2
Social/Cultural
What are the possible effects of
the option on social and cultural
factors in the area of the Barrie
WwTF, and the surrounding
community?
3
Natural
What are the possible effects of
the option on the natural
environment?
The likely environmental impacts of
each alternative based on both the
impacts of construction, as well as
the impacts of continued operations
and maintenance. The main
environmental factors considered are
impacts to aquatic and terrestrial
systems, and air quality.
4
Financial
What is the cost?
The types of costs considered are
capital costs, and operation and
maintenance costs 4.Also financial
risk and potential for cost
savings/revenue are considered for
biogas use options.
5.1.1
Factors considered are: the ease of
implementation (on a technical,
regulatory, and practical basis), the
ease of maintenance, energy use,
and system reliability
The main factors considered are
visual aesthetics, noise, impacts to
uses around the plant; and human
health and safety
Selection of the Preferred Biogas Usage Option
An evaluation of biogas usage options and operation strategies for the years of 2012 to 2023
to ensure optimum biogas usage of are provided in the “Biogas Utilization Facility Upgrade
Strategy” Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix C.
4 Capital cost estimates for each biogas storage technology are based on budgetary proposals submitted by manufacturers.
Maintenance costs were estimated based on electricity cost, and 5% of equipment capital cost. For detailed cost estimates
please see Technical Memorandum the “Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives” in Appendix C.
5-7
Based on the conclusions of the Technical Memorandum, Biogas Usage Option 3, which is a
combination of both Options 1 and 2, is the most versatile option from a technical and
financial standpoint. All biogas usage options with the exceptions of Options 4, 5 and 7,
have similar social/cultural and environmental impacts because they involve the
modification of cogen system controls and no major infrastructure undertakings (e.g.
pipeline construction). Option 3 allows the WwTF to produce power to offset electricity
costs during peak rate hours or sell power generated from one or both of the cogen engines
under the FIT Program. Feedback from the Public Information Centre held on April 3, 2012
also confirmed that this option is most favourable with local residents. Option 3A which
dedicates two cogen engines for either plant load displacement or for feeding power to the
grid is preferred by the project team because electrical modifications are easier to
implement.
Each biogas usage option was further evaluated based on the factors listed in Table 2. Table
3 compares each option in regards to technical, social/cultural, natural and financial
aspects. Diamonds (“♦”) were assigned to each option. The higher the number of “♦”s
corresponds to the more favourable option. Each evaluation factor for each option can only
receive a maximum of five “♦”s. Option 3 had the highest overall number of “♦”s and is
thus the preferred biogas usage option.
5-8
4BEVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
TABLE 3
Comparison of Alternative Biogas Use Options
Alternative
1
2
3
4
Description
Offset additional plant power
use with the electricity
produced with biogas
Participate in the Transition
Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program
to feed power to the local grid
A combination of both (1) and
(2)
Transport gas off-site for use
at the historic Allandale Train
Station
5
Sell biogas or heated water to
nearby apartment buildings
6
7
8
Produce hot water for internal
WwTF heating
Clean biogas and sell to
natural gas supplier (i.e:
Enbridge)
Do Nothing
Technical
♦♦♦♦
Social/Cultural
♦♦♦♦♦
Natural
♦♦♦♦
Financial
♦♦♦
Total “♦”s
16
(allows for additional cost
savings)
♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦
(site works needed)
♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦
16
(dependent on signing a FIT
contract which presents some
financial risk)
♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
17
(offers greatest flexibility and
opportunity for cost savings)
♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
(piping infrastructure
needed, reliability of supply
is an issue)
(aesthetic impacts and
potential traffic impacts
during construction)
(impacts extend off-site)
(has revenue generating potential
but high capital costs)
♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
is an issue)
♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦
(no change from existing
conditions)
(little opportunity for additional
cost savings)
(similar to existing system to
implement and maintain)
♦
♦♦♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
is an issue)
♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦
9
9
16
10
14
(more gas flaring)
5-9
5.1.2
Selection of the Preferred Biogas Storage Technology
Each biogas storage technology was evaluated based on the factors listed in Table 2.
Summary tables below compare each option in regards to the technical, social/cultural,
natural and financial aspects. Diamonds (“♦”) were assigned to each option. The higher the
number of “♦”s corresponds to the more favourable technology. Each evaluation factor for
each technology option can only get a maximum of three “♦”s. Table 5 illustrates the overall
number of “♦”s assigned to each biogas storage technology.
TABLE 4A
Technical Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies
Option B - Steel Gas
Cover on a Concrete
Tank
Option A - Medium
Pressure Gas Vessel
Evaluation Factor
Option C - Double
Membrane Storage
Technology
Maturity
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
Code Compliance
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦
System Reliability
♦♦♦
♦♦
♦
Frequency of
Maintenance
♦
♦
(high)
♦♦
(medium)
Footprint (Land
Area
Requirement)
♦♦♦
(smallest footprint)
♦
♦♦
Total number of
“♦”
13
10
8
Additional details for this technical evaluation are described in detail the “Barrie WPCC
Biogas Storage Alternatives” Technical Memorandum provided in Appendix C.
5-1
TABLE 4B
Social/Cultural Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies
Cover on a Concrete
Tank
Option A - Medium
Pressure Gas Vessel
Evaluation Factor
Option C - Double
Membrane Storage
Local Noise
Impacts
(Construction and
Operation)
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
Visual Impacts
♦♦♦
♦♦
♦
(greatest visual impact)
Public Safety
♦♦♦
(greatest public safety)
♦♦
♦
Impacts to Uses
around the WwTF
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
Total number of
“♦”
11
9
7
TABLE 4C
Environmental Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies
Cover on a Concrete
Tank
Option A - Medium
Pressure Gas Vessel
Evaluation Factor
Option C - Double
Membrane Storage
Air Quality
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦
Aquatic Systems
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
Terrestrial
Systems (Land
footprint)
♦♦♦
(smallest footprint)
♦
♦♦
Total number of
“♦”
8
6
7
TABLE 4D
Environmental Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies
Cover on a Concrete
Tank
Option A - Medium
Pressure Gas Vessel
Evaluation Factor
Option C - Double
Membrane Storage
Construction Cost
♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
(lowest cost)
O&M Cost
♦
♦♦♦
(lowest cost)
♦♦
Total number of
“♦”
2
5
5
5-2
TABLE 5
Overall Evaluation of Biogas Storage Technologies
Cover on a Concrete
Tank
Option A - Medium
Pressure Gas Vessel
Evaluation Aspects
Option C - Double
Membrane Storage
Technical
13
10
8
Social/Cultural
11
9
7
Natural
Environment
8
6
7
Economic
2
5
5
Total number of
“♦”
34
30
27
Option A – Medium Pressure Gas Vessel has the highest number of “♦”overall; therefore it
is the preferred biogas storage technology.
5-3
6.
Recommended Solution
After considering the technical, social/cultural, natural and financial aspects of biogas usage
and storage options, the preferred alternative is Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power
to the Grid and/or for Plant Load Displacement. This usage option would be accompanied
by a medium pressure gas vessel. The following sub-sections discuss the recommended
solution in greater detail and Figure 5 is a schematic representation of the proposed
solution.
6.1
Option 3A: Two Cogen Engines Feed Power to the Grid
and/or for Plant Load Displacement
Option 3A dedicates two cogen engines to offset additional plant power consumption with
the electricity generated by the biogas, and can allow electricity to be fed to the local power
grid as part of the FIT Program. This option would allow the operator to choose cogen
power for use in plant load displacement, or feed to the grid at any given time. Since there is
uncertainty as to when a FIT contract with the Ontario Power Authority will be signed, this
choice would allow the City of Barrie use the electricity generated from the biogas for
additional plant load displacement until FIT pricing is determined and contract is obtained.
The existing uses of biogas such as the boilers and waste gas flare (which is a required safety
device) will be maintained as necessary components of the recommended solution. The City
of Barrie will continue to explore ways to optimize the collection and use of biogas through
strategic operations as well as use the biogas for WwTF hydronic heating.
6.2
Option A: Medium Pressure Gas Vessel
As part of this biogas usage option, horizontal medium pressurized steel vessel(s) and
auxiliary buildings with enhanced security will be constructed for use as a gas buffer.
From a technical perspective, a medium pressure gas vessel is a conventional gas storage
structure commonly used for propane gas or liquefied gas storage. The technology is
reliable and complies with all relevant codes and standards. It has low social impacts in
regards to human health and safety, visual aesthetics, noise and footprint. The construction
of a medium pressure gas vessel and the associated gas building (required to house
equipment) at the proposed location on the parking lot at the southeast corner of the plant
site, will be situated away from residential areas. There will also be minimal impacts on the
natural environment since the site is already urbanized.
It is noted that this technology has somewhat higher capital and O&M costs. Capital costs
include the procurement of the gas vessel as well as the construction of the gas building and
on-site gas piping to and from the storage. The high annual operating cost consists of gas
compression which requires electricity and the replacement of compressor parts. However,
operating cost reductions are possible by optimizing gas compression.
6-4
Figure 5
Schematic for the Recommended Solution
6-5
7.
Recommended Solution Design
7.1
Biogas Handling and Storage
Gas from the digesters will first be treated to remove hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and moisture
to prevent corrosion of the biogas storage vessel walls. The storage vessel will be located
downstream of the gas treatment, where treated gas will be compressed to 30 to 40psi
(200kPa to 276kPa) with a rotary vane type of compressor. A pressure regulating valve will
be installed at the discharge end of the storage, which regulates the gas pressure and
controls the flow of gas entering the cogen system. A gas building will be required to house
the compressors, gas protection equipment and the control panel.
7.2
System Control Modifications
Some electrical interlocking with the operator interface will be required to allow the
operator to select one of the two modes of operation: feed power to the grid or feed power
to the plant switchgear through MCC (motor control centre) #6 for plant load displacement.
This configuration requires a transfer switch to be installed in the existing breaker panel.
Electrical work to be done would include installing: a step-up transformer from 600V to
4.16kV; a secondary metering unit rated at 600V; and installing cables from the cogen
switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on Bradford/Brock Street. Figure 6 presents an overview of
the preferred biogas storage and cogeneration system modifications.
FIGURE 6
Preferred Biogas Storage and System Control Modifications
7-1
7.3
Upgraded Cogeneration Site Layout
The medium pressure gas vessel and gas building will be constructed within the Barrie
WwTF property boundaries (Figure 7). The facility will be situated on the asphalt parking
lot at the southern end of the property near Lakeshore Drive.
FIGURE 7
Proposed Location of the Biogas Storage Facility
*Figure not drawn to scale
7-2
8.
Effects and Mitigation
8.1
Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during
Construction
The effects of implementing the recommended solution along with proposed mitigation
measures are discussed in the sub-sections below. Mitigation measures will be incorporated
into design and contract requirements.
8.1.1
Construction Effects
Construction will be on the south-east side of the WwTF property, away from residential
areas, as well as Dyments and Hotchkiss Creeks. The installation of the biogas storage
vessel, gas piping, and construction of the gas building will require minimal excavation. The
location of the biogas storage facility will be constructed overtop a dismantled primary.
Construction works and equipment laydown areas will be limited to paved areas within the
WwTF property.
Geotechnical aspects will be examined during detailed design to determine soil stability and
whether local dewatering will be needed. Minimal dewatering is expected and any
dewatering discharge is to comply with the City’s Site Alteration Permit and Sewer Use
Bylaw.
8.1.2
Trucks and Traffic Effects
Traffic impacts to Lakeshore Drive and Bradford Street are expected to be minimal.
Construction activities will be located within WwTF property and large construction
vehicles will be directed to established truck routes. The biogas storage structure will have
sufficient clearance from the road in consideration of public safety and will adhere to
Ontario Regulation 214/01 for compressed natural gas under the Technical Standards and
Safety Act, 2000.
8.1.3
Noise
Construction activities are expected to be completed in a timely manner. It is unlikely for
construction noise to cause undue disturbance for local businesses and residents because of
separation distances greater than 100 metres. Friction pile driving for deep foundations will
not likely not be required, or avoided to minimize noise.
Construction work will be limited to normal business hours and will comply with the City
of Barrie’s Noise By-law. Normal working hours are restricted to 7am to 7pm and no work
is permitted on Sundays unless otherwise approved by the City. If needed, other options
will be considered to minimize noise.
WB422564TOR
8-1
8.1.4
Air Quality
The nature of the construction activity is expected to have minimal impacts on existing air
quality and is not expected to generate odour events. Construction vehicles will be properly
maintained to reduce impacts to local air quality.
8.2
Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation during
Operation
8.2.1
Human Health and Safety
Human health and safety near the biogas storage area is imperative. The biogas storage
vessel will be installed on a firm foundation and protected by a strong enclosure. This is
especially important due to the planned location of the facility near a main traffic
intersection at Tiffin Street and Lakeshore Drive. Any safety devices or procedures required
by the TSSA and other regulatory agencies at time of design, construction or commissioning
will be incorporated into contract documents.
8.2.2
Noise
Noise from the biogas compression and system will be minimal since a rotary vane
compressor causes little to no noise or vibration. Also the compressor system will be
enclosed in a building.
The operation of an additional cogeneration engine will increase noise; however, the walls
in the engine room are treated with sound insulation. Also the louvers in the room for
HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) will be be acoustically treated so that
noise will not be an issue for the nearby residences. A noise study was conducted and the
results are provided in Appendix D. The Noise Study will be updated once construction has
been completed.
8.2.3
Visual Aesthetics
Compared to other dome-shaped gas storage structures, a cylindrical pressurized gas vessel
is less visually conspicuous and easily concealable by planting trees around the perimeter of
the WwTF. Landscaping will be part of detailed design. Reduced gas flaring would be an
added improvement to visual aesthetics.
If a FIT contract is obtained, additional wires will be added to the existing overhead power
lines. Likely no additional hydropoles will be needed.
8-2
9.
Public and Agency Consultation
9.1
Public Consultation
The City of Barrie considered the Municipal Class EA process as the best approach to
effectively communicate the project to the public and agencies. According to the
requirements of a Schedule B municipal Class EA, proponents would contact relevant
agencies and affected members of the public, who are given an opportunity to comment on
or ask questions about the study, solution alternatives, and the preferred solution.
A Notice of Commencement was published on March 24 and 29, 2012 in the Barrie
Examiner. An information bulletin was hand delivered to approximately 100 nearby
residents and businesses along Bradford Street and Tiffin Street, as well as the closest block
of condominiums at 75 Ellen Street. The bulletin was also available at two public libraries in
and at City Hall. The Notice of Commencement and information bulletin also served as an
invitation to a Public Information Centre (PIC) at City Hall on April 3, 2012. A copy of the
Notice of Commencement and information bulletin are provided in Appendix B.
The PIC was attended by eight members of the public in addition to City of Barrie staff and
consultants. Attendees were invited to complete a comment sheet or an online survey after
the PIC session. PIC panels, the sign-in sheet and all comments received in hardcopy, online
and by email before the May 1st deadline, are documented in Appendix B. Table 8 is a
summary of all comments received and the corresponding project team responses. A letter
providing a project update and the summary table of comments and responses was
delivered to members of the public who attended the PIC. A copy of this letter is also
provided in Appendix B.
WB422564TOR
9-1
Table 8
Comments and Responses Received from the PIC
Name
1
2
Peter Bursztyn
Anonymous (Member of
the Public)
Date
April 3
April 3
Method of
Communication
Comment Sheet
Comment Sheet
Comment
Response
Displace additional plant power load & participate in the
Provincial Feed-In-Tariff program are good ideas. FIT
program is more profitable.
Would like the project team to consider adding more
organic material to increase the amount of biogas
produced. Details emailed to Martin Shaw of the City of
Barrie.
Do something. Do not waste any more biogas plus build
a windmill at the site. Sell gas for mixing will natural gas
at 75 Ellen St (33-40%) to eliminate supply problems.
The Public Information Centre did not help the member
of the public better understand the need for the project.
However the project makes sense and should go ahead
to stop wasting biogas.
Start a solar or wind project. Cool buildings using lake
water. If the hydro grid goes down in Ontario or North
America it would be good to have a local independent
power generating plant.
Noted. See response for comment #7
The City of Barrie is exploring alternative
renewable energy systems where appropriate
to support the establishment of a green
economy as outlined in the Official Plan.
Although the sale of gas this has been done
elsewhere, the City would prefer to utilize the
biogas internal to the WwTF.
Solar and wind power are beyond the scope
of this project however the City has entered
into an agreement with Powerstream to place
solar panels on various City facilities.
The WwTF will be the first priority if the hydro
grid goes down, however any extra power will
likely be supplied to the grid.
3
L. Matheson (Resident
near the WwTF)
WB422564TOR
April 3,
2012
Comment Sheet
Feels that Option #3 is the best – use power to feed the
power plant & feed the local grid. Does not want to store
any biogas on the site close to his/her residence.
9-1
The biogas storage vessel will be relatively
small in size and situated away from
residences. The proposed medium gas
pressure vessel is a conventional technology
that complies with Technical Standards and
4
Donna & Ryan Day
(Resident near the WwTF)
April 23
Comment Sheet
A combination of both options (Displace additional plant
power load & participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff
program) is the best suggestion as long as the Barrie
WwTF is producing enough biogas to make both options
viable.
Agree that the preliminary preferred solution is the best
option. It gives flexibility where needed yet still
addresses all concerns. This combination of options
seems feasible with little if any negative side effects.
5
6
Scott Tate
Peter Lowry (Resident
near the WwTF)
April 3,
2012
April 4,
2012
Online Survey
Online Survey
If the City goes with the FIT Program, how will they get
the excess electricity to the grid? Will extra power
poles/lines have to be added to the area?
The storage of the gas is the key concern. Maximum
safety standards should be used especially recalling the
major gas explosion a few years ago in Toronto. Such an
explosion could wipe out blocks of homes. The burn-off
must be scent free. Mr. Tate used to live next to the plant
and states that on some days the smell was horrid.
Pressure gas vessel can be considered as an
alternative. Concrete tank with steel gas cover would be
expensive and ugly (not a good option). Double
membrane storage would be ideal if cost and approvals
are acceptable.
Displacing additional plant power load is ideal as
Safety Authority requirements.
To enable electricity to be fed to the power
grid, electrical work to be done would include
installing: a step-up transformer from 600V to
4.16kV; a secondary metering unit rated at
600V; and installing cables from the cogen
switchgear to the 4.16kV feeder on
Bradford/Brock Street.
The biogas storage vessel will be relatively
small in size and situated away from
residences. The proposed medium gas
pressure vessel is a conventional technology
that complies with Technical Standards and
Safety Authority requirements. From our
research, the referenced accident was a
result of a historic trend of unsafe practices
by the firm with a much higher fuel content.
Odours are related to different process areas
in the plant. The cogeneration of biogas itself
does not generate odour.
All comments noted.
The WwTF Operators will be given the
opportunity to supply to the WwTF as first
priority thus reducing the need to buy the
higher priced electricity. Costs will be
minimized and revenues will be maximized.
9-2
eventually the FIT funds would be less than the cost of
energy. The FIT program does not make sense as a
long-term solution. There is also an option where you
can provide excess energy to the OPA grid in exchange
for credits for electricity purchased at a later date.
The WwTF is better off to maximize electrical production
on the site to fill its own requirements while offering to
pipe heated (and chilled) water, not required by the
WwTF, to nearby private and public facilities. Pricing
established for this service in the community is
sustainable and can be locked in for extended periods to
ensure full recovery of the investment involved. In some
cases, the recipient of the water from the WwTF would
be willing to pay for the piping requirements.
The City is investigating the feasibility of
piping hot water from the Barrie WwTF to the
Allandale Train Station which will remain in
public domain. Central heating and energy is
under preliminary investigation by the City of
Barrie.
CHP operations are beyond the scope of this
project.
The study team needs to look at Community Heat and
Power (CHP) operations such as in Markham, Ontario to
see how the facilities can be useful in the community.
The system in place does not seem to be taking the
opportunity to produce hot or chilled water that can be of
use on site as well as throughout the community. To
offer the piped water from the facility is not only excellent
public relations but it justifies the vital location of the
WwTF.
7
Peter Bursztyn
(Professor)
April 4,
2012
Email
Mr. Lowry offered his consulting services to help explain
the value of what the WwTF offers the community.
If the Barrie sewage processing facility can adjust the
carbon/nitrogen ratio (by adding small quantities of
shredded paper, straw or similarly low protein organic
waste to the digester to optimize CH4 production), it
could result in a 1% increase in methane, which could
translate to a large amount of electricity and heat over a
year’s operation.
The methane to carbon dioxide ratio of the
biogas can be tweaked by changing the
feedstock in theory; however, in practice,
even with high quantities of external sources,
it only changes marginally, to the point where
the real benefit is not the change in CH4:CO2
ratio, but the overall volume of biogas
9-3
If the incoming waste can be (cost effectively) warmed
through indirect contact with finished digestate, this
would leave more heat available for sale to nearby
facilities like the Allandale Station or the neighbouring
condo towers.
The amount of CH4 produced by the sewage treatment
plant can be substantially increased by increasing the
organic load the plant receives with organics that would
otherwise be shipped to Arthur for composting. A Citywide programme to encourage people to install
garburators for kitchen waste could increase income
from energy generation and reduce expenditures on
curbside reduction and transportation.
Does the Waukesha Gas Engines used to spin the
generators incorporate heat recovery from the exhaust?
It is hoped that this is incorporated into the sewage plant
installation.
produced.
Future studies are being considered as to the
viability of utilizing the warmer wastewater
and finished digestate
Adding external carbon (fats, oils, greases,
etc.) directly to a digester is indeed an area of
growing interest globally. While the addition
of such material is not in the current project
(and the digesters are not currently
configured to allow such an input), it could be
considered in the future but not necessarily at
the WWTF.
Regarding heat recovery from digestate, it
was considered during the pre-design of the
76 ML/d expansion. However, not enough
heat could be cost effectively recovered to
make it viable. The Waukesha engines
already incorporate heat recovery from
exhaust.
Regarding garburators, this could indeed
increase the organic content of the raw
sewage, meaning greater quantities of
carbon ultimately going to the digester (with
concomitant greater quantities of biogas
produced. However, the major negative of
increasing the raw sewage organic content is
its impact on the liquid treatment process. At
the Barrie WwTF, the liquid treatment train
has been specifically designed to remove a
number of contaminants, but arguably the
most challenging is ammonia. The nitrifying
9-4
microorganisms that remove ammonia are
slow growing compared to the organisms that
remove organics from the liquid stream, and
it is this lower growth rate of the nitrifiers that
is critical to the design of liquid side tankage.
If one was to increase the organic loading
(e.g. via garburators), this would mean that
an expansion to the liquid side tankage would
be needed to maintain sufficient biomass
retention time for ammonia removal. It is for
this reason that most facilities that are
attempting to increase biogas production are
looking at ways to inject these supplemental
organics directly into the digester (as
described above).
8
Peter Bursztyn
(Professor)
April 24,
2012
Email
Sent a report suggesting the City to consider incenting
garburators to reduce green bin costs and increase gas
production at the sewage treatment plant.
The treatment process at the Barrie WwTF
would have to be designed to be able to treat
more organic material and there would be
costs for increasing the WwTF’s ability to
handle more gas. A cost evaluation has not
yet been done to estimate the benefit of
garburators in gas production at the plant per
household per year to be able to provide
incentives for their installation. If a $400 per
household incentive were implemented it the
cost for this program would be approximately
$16,800,000 if every household participated.
9-5
9.2
Agency Consultation
The Ministry of the Environment’s Renewable Energy Facilitation Office and Environmental
Assessment and Approvals Branch was contacted in August 2011, to clarify the approval
requirements for the proposed biogas storage facility. It was determined that the biogas
storage facility can be approved under an amended Certificate of Approval. The meeting
minutes are attached in Appendix A as well as a follow-up email stating that project is
classified as “Category A” under O. Reg. 116/01.
The Technical Safety and Standards Authority (TSSA) was contacted in 2010 to confirm
which digester systems conform to code CGA-B105-M93. During detailed design the project
team will conduct preliminary consultation with TSSA to ensure that designs meet this
code. A meeting with PowerStream was also held to discuss transmission line availability,
connections, and metering options.
The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority recommended that the project team ensure
that electrical systems for the biogas storage facility be installed above the regulatory flood
elevation. All agency comments are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9
Comments and Responses
Proponent
Method of Communication
Comment
Response
Technical
Safety and
Standards
Authority
Email in 2010
Preliminary consultation with the
TSSA is recommended during
detailed design.
Acknowledged
Meeting in Winter 2010
Recommended that the City
connects the cogeneration
power to the 4.16kV
transmission grid.
Acknowledged
PowerStream
Ministry of the
Environment
Email and meeting at MOE
offices in Fall 2011, and
email in Fall 2012
Since the facility (Barrie WwTF)
is already operational producing
electricity and has an existing
Certificate of Approval it meets
the REA (Renewable Energy
Approval) exemption
requirements in O.Reg. 359/09
section 9 (1) 4 and continues to
be subject to C of A
requirements. The existing C of
A should be amended to reflect
the proposed changes including
the storage facility.
Acknowledged
The Barrie Biogas Utilization
Upgrades Project as a
“Category A” project defined in
O. Reg. 116/01 does not require
approval under the
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Act based on the section 2(1)
(b) of O. Reg. 116/01.
WB422564TOR
9-1
TABLE 9
Comments and Responses
Proponent
Lake Simcoe
Region
Conservation
Authority
Method of Communication
Comment
Response
Email Spring 2012 and
phone call
Electrical systems in accessory
structures shall be installed so
that the main electrical panel is
located above the regulatory
flood elevation. All other
electrical equipment not located
above the regulatory flood
elevation shall be flood-proofed
where possible.
Acknowledged
9-2
10.
Conclusions
10.1
Project Summary
The City of Barrie would like to continue minimizing its environmental footprint by fully
utilizing the energy potential of the biogas produced from the Barrie WwTF. The Barrie
Biogas Utilization project is a “Category A” project defined in O.Reg. 116/01 and therefore
does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act. However, a
Schedule B Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study was undertaken to evaluate
whether the project would have a significant environmental effect, and to communicate the
project to the public.
The preferred solution is to enable the WwTF to offset additional plant power consumption
with the electricity generated by the biogas as well as feed electricity to the local power grid
as part of the FIT Program. This would involve the construction of medium pressure gas
vessels and the associated gas building at the southeast corner of the plant site, along with
the modification of cogen engine controls. Key effects to the technical, social/cultural,
natural and financial aspects of the environment, in addition to mitigation measures during
construction and operation, have been identified. Public and agency feedback has also been
considered in the selection of the recommended solution. The estimated cost for the biogas
utilization upgrades is approximately $2 million dollars.
10.2
Project Implementation Strategy
The recommended solution involves installing on-site gas storage vessels and tie-in of two
cogen engines to run in parallel. It is proposed that the upgrade work be conducted in two
stages. Stage 1 would consist of control system modifications so that the engines can
operate in parallel when there is a peak production of biogas. Stage 2 would involve the
completion of technical feasibility studies as part of the detailed design of the recommended
storage technology. Detailed biogas facility upgrade designs will incorporate mitigation
measures outlined in this Project Screening Report. All permits and approvals identified
during pre-consultation activities with agencies will be obtained prior to tendering and
construction.
10-3
10.3
Concluding Remarks
The City of Barrie would like to maintain maximum design and operational flexibility to
ensure optimal use of biogas in accordance with the project’s problem statement and the
alternative scenarios identified in the report. Although the preferred solution has been
identified, alternative designs, equipment layouts and operational scenarios which are
outlined in the report may be preferred or modified, as the case may be, depending on
changing factors or unforeseens such as premature or unexpected failure of existing
equipment, whether a FIT contract is granted by the OPA, the price paid under the FIT
contract, soil or foundation conditions, future gas quality and actual volumes of gas
generated in the future etc. The City also reserves the right to enter into or withdraw from
the FIT program in the future depending on whether there is a net benefit to the city.
10-4
11.
Works Cited
C.C. Tatham and Associates. (2011). Hotchkiss Creek Watershed Master Drainage Plan EA
Update. City of Barrie.
CH2M HILL. (2004). City of Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre: Long Term Wastewater
Treatment Strategy. City of Barrie.
City of Barrie. (2011). City of Barrie Official Plan 2010 . City of Barrie.
Santos, N., & Keyvani, M. (2011, August 9). Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (CH2M
HILL, Interviewer)
The City of Barrie. (2004). Water Pollution Control Centre Pamphlet. Retrieved from The City of
Barrie:
http://www.barrie.ca/Living/Environment/WastewaterTreatment/Documents/WaterPol
lutionControlCentrePamphlet.pdf
WB422564TOR
11-1
Appendix A
Agency Consultation
MEETING AGENDA
Barrie WPCC Biogas Utilization Upgrades
MOE Consultation Meeting Minutes
ATTENDEES:
Narren Santos, MOE
Mohsen Keyvani, MOE
Carolyn Lee, CH2M HILL
BY TELECONFERENCE:
Jennifer Heneberry, REFO
Sinclair Garner, CH2M HILL
Jessica Peters-Palfi, CH2M HILL
Martin Shaw, City of Barrie
MEETING DATE:
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
MEETING TIME:
10:00am - 11:00am
DIAL-IN INFORMATION:
1-866-602-5461 (Passcode 9312694 #)
2 St. Clair Avenue West
12th Floor Boardroom
VENUE:
Agenda Item
Discussion
1. Introductions
2. Project Overview
3. Approval Process
•
Sinclair Garner of CH2M HILL provided background
information about the Barrie WPCC and the need for
the current biogas storage project. A FIT application
was submitted in December 2011.
•
Jennifer Heneberry of REFO indicated that the next
round of OPA contract applications will start
December 7 2011 (cut-off date not known yet). An
OPA contract could take 6 months to obtain.
•
CH2M Hill confirmed that there is a MOE C of A for
the Barrie WPCC which includes the cogeneration
engines in a duty/standby configuration and that the
plant is already producing electricity.
•
Mohsen Keyvani of the MOE stated that as the facility
is already operational producing electricity and has
an existing Certificate of Approval it meets the REA
exemption requirements in O.Reg. 359/09 section 9
(1) 4 and continues to be subject to C of A
requirements. The existing C of A should be amended
to reflect the proposed changes including the storage
facility.
•
Off-site transport of boiler hot water to the Allandale
train station would not be covered in an REA.
•
Narren Santos of the MOE suggested speaking to a
Project Evaluator duty officer for the Class
Environmental Assessment requirements and a
wastewater environmental approvals duty officer for
C of A amendment requirements.
•
Jennifer Heneberry of REFO confirmed that even
though the FIT application has not yet been reviewed,
a time stamp verifying that the application was
submitted before December 31, 2010 determines
project eligibility under the Transition Option. The
FIT program only requires an environmental
approval between the time of securing an electricity
purchase contract and construction.
4. Next Steps and
Recommendations
5. Other Items
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30am.
2
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Liu, Chunmei (ENE)
Lee, Carolyn/TOR
Panko, Dan (ENE); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE)
RE: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements
Tuesday, September 04, 2012 11:11:54 AM
Dear Ms. Carolyn,
Further to our phone conversation, we have reviewed your inquiry based on the
information provided on the City of Barrie’s website. The following comments are provided
for consideration.
The Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project as a “Category A” project defined in O.
Reg. 116/01 does not require approval under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act
based on the section 2(1) (b) of O. Reg. 116/01.
The Municipal Class EA does not apply to the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project
as the proposed facility is not functioning as standby power equipment.
The proposed activities will be subject to the Environmental Compliance Approvals under
the Environmental Protection Act.
We would also like to remind you that the EA Act may apply to the project even through
the project is exempted from O. Reg. 116/01. If there are significant environmental effects
associated with the project, the Minister could designate it as being subject to an individual
EA under the EA Act and the public has also a right to submit their requests to the Minister
for elevation of the project.
If you have any question regarding these comments, please feel free to contact
undersigned.
Chunmei Liu | Environmental Resource Planner | Environmental Assessment Coordinator
Central Region, Ontario Ministry of the Environment | 5775 Yonge Street, 8th Flr | Toronto, Ontario M2M
4J1
Tel: 416-326-4886 | Fax: 416-325-6347 | Email: [email protected] | Website: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: August 27, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Liu, Chunmei (ENE)
Cc: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE)
Subject: FW: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements
Hello Ms. Liu,
Here is some information regarding the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades Project
http://www.barrie.ca/living/environment/pages/environmentalassessmentstudies.aspx
The City has been following a Schedule B wastewater project Class EA and would like to know if the
project qualifies as a Schedule A municipal Class EA for electricity projects (O.Reg 116/01).
The minutes from the meeting last year with Narren Santos and Mohsen Keyvani are attached.
Thank you very much.
Carolyn Lee, M.Sc.
Water Business Group
245 Consumers Road
Toronto, ON, M2J 1R3
Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664
Fax: 416.499.4687
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 12:11 PM
To: Lee, Carolyn/TOR
Cc: Liu, Chunmei (ENE); Santos, Narren (ENE)
Subject: RE: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements
Hi Carolyn,
To answer your question, please contact Ms. Chunmei Liu at 416-326-4886 or by e-mail:
[email protected]. Ms. Chunmei is the Environmental Resource Planner & EA Coordinator at the
MOE Central Region Office and I have copied her on this e-mail.
Regards…Mohsen
Mohsen Keyvani, P. Eng.
Senior Waste Engineer
Approval Services Environmental Approvals Branch
Ministry of the Environment
2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12th Floor
Toronto, ON, M4V 1L5
Phone: 416-326-6095
Fax: 416-314-8452
E-mail: [email protected]
Sent: August 23, 2012 9:40 AM
To: Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE)
Subject: Barrie Biogas Storage Project - Class EA requirements
Hello Mr. Keyvani,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. I would like to know if the Class EA
requirements for the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades project should follow a Schedule B
Municipal Class EA process for wastewater projects or a Schedule A Municipal Class Assessment for
electricity projects (O.Reg 116/01).
Thanks again for your help.
Best regards,
Carolyn Lee, M.Sc.
245 Consumers Road
Toronto, ON, M2J 1R3
Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664
Fax: 416.499.4687
www.ch2mhill.com
From: Santos, Narren (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 10:01 AM
To: Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Lee, Carolyn/TOR; Garner, Sinclair/BAR; Peters-Palfi, Jessica/TOR;
[email protected]
Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); [email protected]; Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE)
Subject: RE: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project
Good morning:
Thanks for forwarding us the meeting minutes. Please see below for MOE’s comments.
Mohsen Keyvani of the MOE stated that as the facility is already operational producing
electricity and has an existing Certificate of Approval it meets the REA exemption
requirements in O.Reg. 359/09 section 9 (1) 4 and continues to be subject to C of A
requirements. The existing C of A should be amended to reflect the proposed changes
including the storage facility.
Off-site transport of boiler hot water to the Allandale train station would not be
covered in an REA.
Narren Santos of the MOE suggested speaking to a Project Evaluator duty officer for
the Class Environmental Assessment requirements and a wastewater environmental
approvals duty officer for C of A amendment requirements.
Thanks!
Narren Santos│Senior Program Support Coordinator │Renewable Energy Team│ Environmental
Assessment & Approvals Branch│Ministry of the Environment│2 St. Clair Avenue West, 12a Floor Toronto, ON M4V 1L5│Phone: 416.314.8442 │Fax: 416.314.6810 │Email: [email protected]│
P Please consider the environment before printing this email note.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The information contained in this correspondence is confidential and intended for the use of the
individual(s) named above. Unauthorized reproduction and/or distribution is prohibited.
From: Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY)
To: '[email protected]'; Santos, Narren (ENE); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE);
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); [email protected]
Subject: RE: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project
Hi there:
Thanks for sending these out, Carolyn. Just two quick clarifications for your notes:
1. A contract from the OPA could take 6 months as indicated in your notes, since this was the
time period needed to prepare the last round of applications for contracts. It could also take
more or less time.
2. With regard to the information in the next steps section, the FIT contract process is divided into
phases. The successful completion of the required environmental approvals is one of the
milestones that a project developer will need to complete before they apply for and receive
Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the OPA – obtaining NTP will give the ok for construction to
begin. Although a project developer cannot apply for NTP until after they have received and
executed a contract, they do have the option of beginning work on the environmental approval
work even without a FIT contract in place. However, proceeding with this work without a
contract can pose more risk to the developer. Waiting for a contract to be offered before
beginning the environmental work will provide more certainty that the project is going forward
and on what timeline.
Please let me know if you have further questions I can assist with.
Jennifer Heneberry
Senior Project Advisor
Renewable Energy Facilitation Office
Ministry of Energy
880 Bay St., 2nd Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2C1
416.212.7717 | [email protected]
NOTICE: Confidentiality obligations relating to records or information in this communication are governed by the Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Green Energy Act, 2009 (GEA). According to section 12 of
the GEA, records or information in this communication are deemed, for the purposes of section 17 of FIPPA, to have been
supplied by the proponent in confidence to you or your institution. In the interests of maintaining confidentiality, consult your
Freedom of Information Coordinator or Legal Services Branch before disclosing this information to other parties.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
To: Santos, Narren (ENE); Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE);
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY); [email protected]
Subject: MOE Meeting Minutes - Barrie Biogas Storage Project
Hello Everyone,
Thank you for participating in yesterday’s meeting. I have attached the meeting minutes to this message. Please
review the minutes and notify me of any errors or omissions.
Best regards,
Carolyn Lee
Carolyn Lee, M.Sc.
255 Consumers Road
Toronto, ON, M2J 5B6
Direct: 416.499.0090 ext.73664
Fax: 416.499.4687
www.ch2mhill.com
-----Original Appointment----From: Santos, Narren (ENE) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Santos, Narren (ENE); Lee, Carolyn/TOR; Heneberry, Jennifer (ENERGY); Keyvani, Mohsen (ENE)
Cc: Peters-Palfi, Jessica/TOR; Garner, Sinclair/BAR; Fahey, Nathan (ENERGY)
Subject: Updated: New Time Proposed: Meeting with Carolyn, Mohsen & Mirrun Re: CH2M Hill Canada
When: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 12th floor boardroom - 2 St. Clair Avenue West
Update: Teleconference information for those who are calling in.
Teleconference Number (local): 416-212-8011
Teleconference Number (long distance): 1-866-602-5461
Participant Passcode: 9312694 #
Hi Carolyn:
Thank you for your schedule update. As requested, we can reschedule the preconsultaiton meeting,
however our earliest availablity is on Tuesday Aug.9. Please advise of your availabity.
Regards,
Narren
Teleconference Number (local): 416-212-8011
Teleconference Number (long distance): 1-866-602-5461
Participant Passcode: 9312694 #
<<REA Preconsultation Meeting Form July 18.docx>> << File: REA Preconsultation Meeting Form July
18.docx >>
Appendix B
Public Consultation
70 Collier Street
P.O. Box 400
Barrie, Ontario
L4M 4T5
Barrie.ca
Class Environmental Assessment - Barrie Water Pollution Control
Centre Biogas Utilization Upgrades
NOTICE OF STUDY OF COMMENCEMENT AND
INVITATION TO A PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE
The City of Barrie has been utilizing biogas (methane) produced from the Barrie Water Pollution
Control Centre (WPCC) anaerobic wastewater sludge digesters to generate electricity and capture
heat through cogeneration since 1996. The City is interested in exploring options available for
utilizing all biogas produced at the WPCC to p ower the cogeneration system in order to gain
optimum financial and environmental benefits. As part of this study, the City of Barrie would like to
utilize more of the available biogas by constructing a new biogas storage facility.
WPCC
249 Bradford Street
The Study
The City of Barrie is initiating a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) to explore
different methods of gas storage and cogeneration power utilization. The study will follow Schedule
B of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process (as amended October 2007), and
will satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Class EA will define
the issues to be addressed, identify feasible alternatives, evaluate the technical, natural, social/
cultural, and economic impacts of the alternatives, and recommend a p referred solution. The
Class EA process provides members of the public and agencies with opportunities to comment
on the project and requires that all comments are appropriately addressed and documented for
the public record.
To provide further information on the Class EA process, background information on the study,
and to receive input from interested persons, the City of Barrie will be holding Public Information
Centre as follows:
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Rotunda, 70 Collier Street
City Hall
70 Collier Street
If you require accommodations to fully participate in this meeting, please contact The City of
Barrie at 705-739-4220 ext: 5237 with your specific requirements.
Public and agency consultation is a key component of the Class EA process. All those with an
interest in the project are encouraged to attend the public information forum and submit comments
during the study. Comments may be submitted by contacting either the City’s Project Manager or
Project Coordinator at the addresses listed below.
Graeme King, P.Eng.
Project Manager
The City of Barrie
70 Collier Street, Box 400
Barrie, ON L4M 4T5
Phone: 705-739-4220, Ext. 4532
Fax: 705-739-4243
Martin Shaw, P.Eng.
Project Coordinator
The City of Barrie
Barrie, ON L4M 4T5
Phone: 705-739-4220, Ext. 5242
Fax: 705-739-4243
Please note that comments will be maintained for reference throughout the project and will
become part of the public record. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) and the Environmental Assessment Act, any personal information such
as name, address and telephone number included in a submission will become part of the public
record unless the commenter specifically requests that such personal details not be included in
the public record.
This notice was issued on March 24 (as a correction to March 22) and 29, 2012.
Barrie WPCC Biogas
Utilization Upgrades
March 21, 2012
Info Bulletin
Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment
Introduction
The City of Barrie has initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to explore options for storing surplus biogas
currently being produced at the Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre (WPCC) for use in generating additional electricity.
Alternative solutions are now being developed. This information bulletin provides a summary of the key project activities and
recommendations to date.
Background
The Cogeneration Process
Biogas (primarily methane gas) is a by-product of wastewater sludge treatment in anaerobic digesters. Treated or stabilized
sludge, known as biosolids are then transported off-site. The biogas produced by microorganisms in the digesters is currently
burned at the WPCC to generate electrical power to operate the plant, and heat to warm the WPCC in the winter. This process
is known as cogeneration. Currently, the electricity produced from biogas can offset plant power purchase from the local
power grid by 30 to 40%. As the plant continues to expand to serve the growing population, the production of biogas will
continue to increase offering more energy and cost saving potential.
The Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas from its anaerobic digesters through cogeneration since 1996. The WPCC has
gone through a number of enhancements and capacity increases which allow the digesters to produce enough biogas to
generate electricity to offset a portion of the WPCC energy demands.
The surplus biogas produced is currently flared through a waste gas burner. In order to harness the full energy potential
of the surplus biogas, the City of Barrie is exploring options to construct a new biogas storage facility at the WPCC, and
operational adjustments to the existing control system of the two existing cogeneration (cogen) engines based on how the
electricity generated will be used.
Reason for Class EA
A Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment study is being undertaken in order to determine the preferred biogas storage
technology and usage options to optimize energy recovery from biogas with the existing cogeneration system at the WPCC.
Class Environmental Assessment Process
This study is being conducted in accordance with the requirements for Schedule B projects as described in the Municipal
Engineers Association document titled Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (October 2000, as amended 2007).
A Schedule B project requires that the following phases of the Class EA process be completed prior to detailed design
and construction:
• Phase 1: Definition of the problem or need; and
• Phase 2: Identification and assessment of alternative solutions and selection of a preferred solution
Phase 1 has been completed. The need for the study is defined above as being the goal to optimize energy recovery
from biogas and thereby reduce energy costs. The project team is currently undertaking Phase 2 of this study, including
consultation with the public and government review agencies. Consultation with the public, government review agencies
and other relevant stakeholders is an important part of the Class EA process. A notice of study commencement is being
published in the local Barrie newspaper on March 22 and 29, 2012.
The assessment of alternatives and results will be documented in a Schedule B Screening Report at the end of Phase 2.
Existing Conditions
Surrounding Land Uses
The WPCC is located near the shores of the southwest end of Kempenfelt Bay at 249 Bradford Street. Bradford Street borders
the WPCC to the west, with Lakeshore Drive to the east, and Hotchkiss Creek to the south. Dyment’s Creek delineates the north
end of the property. The site is bordered by residential and commercial buildings to the north, west and south. Bordering the
eastern end is Centennial Park which contains a trail system and parking lots.
Natural Environment
The vegetation at the Barrie WPCC consists of mature trees and manicured grasses. The landscaping within the property
of the WPCC contains hills and berms with drainage swales along the outer perimeter. Dyment’s Creek and a swale in the
northern portion of the property leads to an online man-made pond surrounded by a grassy area. The area around the pond
is considered open space within the City Centre. Wildlife at the site consists of species that are typical of urban environments.
The online, man-made pond is part of Dyment’s Creek. Dyment’s Creek waters enters the WPCC site from the west and flows
easterly towards Kempenfelt Bay. Hotchkiss Creek flows easterly to Kempenfelt Bay and was recently naturalized by the City.
Drainage from the WPCC property generally flows towards Kempenfelt Bay.
Alternative Solutions
The biogas utilization upgrade alternatives consist of two parts: (1) biogas usage options and (2) biogas storage options.
Biogas Usage Options
Biogas usage options include consideration of a variety of cogeneration engine operation configurations to allow the
cogeneration system to displace additional plant power load, feed electricity to the local power grid, or accomplish both.
Seven biogas usage options are being considered:
1 Offset additional plant power use with the electricity produced with biogas;
2 Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program to feed power to the local grid;
3 A combination of both (1) and (2);
4 Transport gas off-site for use at the Allandale Train Station;
5 Selling biogas or heated water to nearby highrises;
6 Producing hot water for internal WPCC heating; or
7 Cleaning of biogas and selling to natural gas supplier (ie: Enbridge)
8 Do nothing.
Biogas Usage Options (continued)
Option 1: The plant’s current practice is to continuously run one 250 kW cogeneration engine to offset plant power
consumption during off-peak (electrical price) hours. Under Option 1, one cogen engine would operate and excess biogas
gas would accumulate in the biogas storage vessel. During peak hours, two engines would operate in parallel and utilize the
stored biogas to generate electricity.
Option 2: The Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program is a highlight of the Green Energy Act, 2009 implemented by Ontario Power
Authority (OPA) in September 2009. The program encourages independent power generators to produce electricity using
renewable energy sources by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production over a contract
term of 20 years. If the application is approved, the City could elect to sell electricity from the cogen engine(s) to the grid and
then receive remuneration in accordance with the FIT program. The City could potentially sell electricity at a higher cost than
it purchases electricity. The City has applied for a FIT contract and is awaiting further information as to approvals and pricing.
Option 3: With improved flexibility to the cogen controls and biogas storage, a combination of Options 1 and 2 could be
made available to the WPCC. This will allow the City to optimize the value of the biogas for various times of the day by either;
(1) offsetting additional plant power consumption (load displacement) and/or (2) participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff
Program to feed power to the local grid.
Option 4: The City has investigated the conveyance of biogas for use at the Historic Allandale Train Station. This scenario was
not feasible due to space limitations for a dual fire boiler in the three buildings. Also, the complexity involved in conveying
the gas would provide challenges to meeting the requirements under the Technical Standards and Safety Act and require
specialized training and licensing. However, provisions have been made at the Historic Allandale Train Station to incorporate
hot water heating.
Option 5: The City considered the possibility of conveying biogas to heat nearby private apartment buildings as an alternative
to natural gas. The City would have to take on the added responsibility of cleaning the biogas to meet natural gas quality and
would have to enter into commitments to ensure consistency in flow.
Option 6: The WPCC currently utilizes hot water heated by biogas or natural gas. The anticipated future biogas volumes will
be considered during the design phases of any future process and/or building expansions.
Option 7: The do-nothing option, would imply that increasing amounts of biogas will be wasted with an associated energy
value of approximately $100,000 per year without a FIT contract in place and substantially more with a FIT contract in place.
Biogas Storage Options
The purpose of biogas storage is to store surplus biogas for later use instead of flaring or utilizing boilers and wasting the heat
generated. Biogas storage options being considered are:
• A pressurized steel vessel(s);
• A concrete tank with a steel gas cover;
• Double Membrane Storage and
• No storage
Preliminary Preferred Solution
Taking into account technical, social/cultural, environmental, and cost considerations, the preliminary preferred solution
is to construct a pressurized gas vessel and modify the cogeneration system controls to allow the system to either offset
additional plant power load or to participate in the provincial FIT program based on future energy prices.
For More Information
The City of Barrie wishes to obtain input from the community on the Preliminary Preferred Solution and is hosting a Public
Information Centre on: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Barrie City Hall Rotunda, 70 Collier Street.
Find out more about the project and the EA process during the noted times to talk to City of Barrie project staff. All input will
be carefully considered before the preferred solution for the Barrie Biogas Utilization Upgrades project is recommended to
City Council.
You can read all available documents with regard to this project at the City of Barrie website :
Barrie.ca and search “Environmental Assessment Studies”.
You can provide comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the identified preliminary preferred solution, by
filling out the Response Survey attached to this bulletin and sending it to the project contacts listed at the bottom of this
page, or by submitting your response online from the project web page: www.surveymonkey.com/s/barriewpcc.
Next Steps
Once the Preferred Solution is selected, the study process will be documented in a Schedule B Screening Report and
presented to Council for ratification. Pending acceptance of the Preferred Solution by Council, the Schedule “B” Screening
Report will be available for public comment for a period of 30 days at the following locations:
• City Hall, 70 Collier Street, 4th and 6th floors
• Barrie Public Library
Downtown Branch, 60 Worsley Street
Painswick Branch, 48 Dean Avenue
The public will be notified of the start of this review period with the publishing of a Notice of Completion in the local paper
and the City of Barrie website.
Project Contacts
Martin Shaw
Project Coordinator
The City of Barrie
Phone: (705) 739-4220 x5242
Fax: (705) 739-4243
Email: [email protected]
Graeme King
Project Manager
The City of Barrie
Phone: (705) 739-4220 x4532
Fax: (705) 739-4243
3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ&HQWUH
%DUULH:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ&RQWURO&HQWUH
%LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQ8SJUDGHV
%DUULH&LW\+DOO5RWXQGD
7XHVGD\$SULOUG
3UHSDUHGIRU
3UHSDUHGE\
:HOFRPH
:HOFRPHWRWKH%DUULH:3&&%LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQ
8SJUDGHV3XEOLF,QIRUPDWLRQ&HQWUH
3OHDVHVLJQLQUHYLHZWKHGLVSOD\PDWHULDOVDQGILOORXWD
FRPPHQWIRUP
7KH&LW\RI%DUULH6WDIIDQGVWXG\FRQVXOWDQWVDUHDYDLODEOHWR
GLVFXVVWKHVWXG\DQVZHUTXHVWLRQVDQGUHFHLYH\RXU
FRPPHQWV
<RXULQSXWLVDSSUHFLDWHG
3URMHFW%DFNJURXQG
7KH&LW\RI%DUULHDLPVWRPLQLPL]HLWVHQYLURQPHQWDO
N
The Location of the Barrie WPCC
The Barrie WPCC in 1978.
IRRWSULQWE\LQYHVWLQJLQUHQHZDEOHSRZHU7KH&LW\KDV
EHHQXVLQJELRJDVIURPWKH%DUULH:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ
&RQWURO&HQWUH:3&&WRJHQHUDWHHOHFWULFLW\DQGKHDW
VLQFH7KLVFRPELQHGSURFHVVRISURGXFLQJ
HQHUJ\DQGKHDWLVFDOOHGFRJHQHUDWLRQ7KHDPRXQWRI
ELRJDVFXUUHQWO\JHQHUDWHGLVVXIILFLHQWWRUHGXFHSODQW
SRZHUORDGE\ZKLFKHTXDWHVWRQHDUO\
LQDQQXDOHOHFWULFLW\FRVWVDYLQJV
%LRJDVDOVRNQRZQDVGLJHVWHUJDVLVDKLJKHQHUJ\
E\SURGXFWRIZDVWHZDWHUVOXGJHWUHDWHGLQDQ
DQDHURELFGLJHVWHU0LFURRUJDQLVPVLQDQR[\JHQIUHH
HQYLURQPHQWSURGXFHWKLVJDVPDLQO\PHWKDQHZKHQ
WKH\EUHDNGRZQWKHVOXGJH
+LVWRU\RIWKH%DUULH:3&&
City of Barrie
Population
1981
1991
2001
2006
2023
43,452
62,728
110,000
128,430
210,000
([LVWLQJ(QYLURQPHQWDO)HDWXUHV
Bradford Street
%DUULH:3&&([LVWLQJ6LWH/D\RXW
%DUULH:3&&3URSRVHG6LWH3ODQ
:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQW3URFHVV
,QWHUPHGLDWHSXPSLQJDQGUHF\FOLQJVWUHDPVDUHQRWVKRZQLQWKLVIORZGLDJUDP
([LVWLQJ%LRJDV8WLOL]DWLRQDQG&KDOOHQJHV
7KH&RJHQHUDWLRQ6\VWHPDWWKH%DUULH:3&&
Waste Heat
(Effluent Water)
N:
%RLOHU
PRIELRJDVLVSURGXFHGHDFKGD\
7KHELRJDVFDQEHVHQWWRWKHERLOHUVWR
SURGXFHKHDWRUWRWKHFRJHQHUDWLRQ
HQJLQHVIRUHOHFWULFLW\JHQHUDWLRQ7ZR
N:HQJLQHVUXQLQDGXW\VWDQGE\
PRGH7KHFRVWRISURGXFLQJHOHFWULFLW\
LVN:K
Engine 2
N:
%RLOHU
Engine 1
7KHH[LVWLQJGLJHVWHUVKDYHOLPLWHGFDSDFLW\WRVWRUH
ELRJDV([FHVVELRJDVLVIODUHGWKURXJKDZDVWHJDV
EXUQHURUFRPEXVWHGLQDERLOHU7KHUHLVFXUUHQWO\
LQVXIILFLHQWELRJDVWRRSHUDWHWZRHQJLQHV
VLPXOWDQHRXVO\
6FKHGXOH%0XQLFLSDO&ODVV(QYLURQPHQWDO
$VVHVVPHQW3ODQQLQJDQG'HVLJQ3URFHVV
3+$6(
$OWHUQDWLYH6ROXWLRQV
3+$6(
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ
,GHQWLI\3UREOHPRU
2SSRUWXQLW\
,GHQWLI\$OWHUQDWLYH6ROXWLRQVWR
3UREOHPRU2SSRUWXQLW\
'HVLJQ&RQVWUXFWDQG0RQLWRU
3URMHFW
$6FKHGXOH%&ODVV($LVEHLQJ
XQGHUWDNHQLQRUGHUWR
GHWHUPLQHWKHSUHIHUUHGVROXWLRQ
WRRSWLPL]HHQHUJ\UHFRYHU\
IURPELRJDVZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJ
FRJHQHUDWLRQV\VWHPDWWKH
%DUULH:3&&
,QYHQWRU\1DWXUDO6RFLDODQG
(FRQRPLF(QYLURQPHQWV
,GHQWLI\,PSDFWVRI$OWHUQDWLYH
6ROXWLRQVRQWKH(QYLURQPHQW
(YDOXDWH$OWHUQDWLYH6ROXWLRQV
,GHQWLI\5HFRPPHQGHG6ROXWLRQ
&RQVXOW5HYLHZ$JHQFLHV3XEOLF
DQG2WKHU6WDNHKROGHUV
6HOHFWWKH3UHIHUUHG6ROXWLRQDQG
3UHVFULEH0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUHV
'D\3XEOLF5HYLHZ
3+$6(
3UREOHPRU2SSRUWXQLW\
3OHDVHQRWHWKDW3KDVHVDUHFRPSOHWHGRQO\
IRU6FKHGXOH&3URMHFWV
3KDVH2SSRUWXQLW\6WDWHPHQW
3KDVHLVWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDQ2SSRUWXQLW\6WDWHPHQW
2SSRUWXQLW\6WDWHPHQW
7KH&LW\RI%DUULHLVXQGHUWDNLQJD6FKHGXOH%0XQLFLSDO&ODVV
(QYLURQPHQWDO$VVHVVPHQW($WRLGHQWLI\WKHSUHIHUUHGVROXWLRQWR
RSWLPL]HHQHUJ\UHFRYHU\IURPELRJDV
7KHSUHIHUUHGVROXWLRQZLOOFRQVLVWRIWZRFRPSRQHQWV
%LRJDV6WRUDJH
%LRJDV8VDJH
3KDVH$OWHUQDWLYH6ROXWLRQV
3KDVHLQYROYHVLGHQWLI\LQJDQGHYDOXDWLQJDOWHUQDWLYHVROXWLRQV7KH\DUH
,'R1RWKLQJDVDEDVHOLQHIRUFRPSDULVRQ
,,8SJUDGHWKH%LRJDV)DFLOLW\E\
&RQVWUXFWDELRJDVVWRUDJHIDFLOLW\ZLWKD
D 3UHVVXUHJDVYHVVHO
E $FRQFUHWHWDQNZLWKDVWHHOJDVFRYHURU
F 'RXEOHPHPEUDQHVWRUDJH
0RGLI\FRJHQHUDWLRQV\VWHPFRQWUROVEDVHGRQELRJDVXVDJHWR
D 'LVSODFH3ODQW(QHUJ\/RDG
E (QUROLQ3URYLQFLDO7UDQVLWLRQ)HHG,Q7DULII),73URJUDP
F 'LVSODFHSODQWHQHUJ\ORDGDQGHQUROLQ),7RU
G 7UDQVSRUWJDVRIIVLWHIRUXVHDWWKH+LVWRULF$OODQGDOH7UDLQ6WDWLRQ
%LRJDV6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJLHV
7KHSURMHFWWHDPFRQVLGHUHGWKHPRVWFRPPRQO\
XVHGVWRUDJHWHFKQRORJLHVLQ1RUWK$PHULFD
D 3UHVVXUH*DV9HVVHO
$PHGLXPWRKLJKSUHVVXUHYHVVHOWKDWVWRUHV
FRPSUHVVHGJDVDWSVLSRXQGVSHU
VTXDUHLQFK3UHVVXUHYHVVHOVDUHPDGHRI
VWHHORUVWDLQOHVVVWHHODQGDUHFRPPRQO\
F\OLQGULFDORUVSKHULFDOLQVKDSH7KLVV\VWHP
UHTXLUHVDFRPSUHVVRUWRFRPSUHVVJDVWRWKH
GHVLUHGSUHVVXUHOHYHOZLWKLQWKHYHVVHO
%LRJDV6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJLHV&RQWLQXHG
E *DV+ROGLQJ6WHHO&RYHURQD&RQFUHWH7DQN
$FRQFUHWHWDQNZLWKDIORDWLQJVWHHOFRYHUWKDWPRYHVXSDQGGRZQ
YHUWLFDOO\GHSHQGLQJRQJDVYROXPHDORQJUDLOJXLGHV7KLVLVDQ
HVWDEOLVKHGWHFKQRORJ\DQGLVFRPPRQO\VHHQLQ1RUWK$PHULFDQ
PXQLFLSDOVHZDJHWUHDWPHQWSODQWV
Source: Ovivo
Source: WesTech Engineering
%LRJDV6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJLHV&RQWLQXHG
F 'RXEOH0HPEUDQH*DV6WRUDJH
$GRPHVKDSHGVWUXFWXUHPDGHRI39&FRDWHGSRO\HVWHUIDEULF$Q
H[WHUQDOGRPHFRYHUVDQLQQHUGRPHWKDWH[SDQGVRUFRQWUDFWVEDVHG
RQJDVYROXPH$QDLUEORZHUSURYLGHVDLUWRWKHVSDFHEHWZHHQLQQHU
DQGRXWHUPHPEUDQH,WFDQEHDVWDQGDORQHXQLWPRXQWHGRQD
FRQFUHWHRUVHPLVSKHULFDOGRPHWKDWLVPRXQWHGRQDFRQFUHWHWDQN
Source: WesTech Engineering
6WRUDJH7HFKQRORJ\(YDOXDWLRQ
7KHWKUHHWHFKQRORJLHVZHUHHYDOXDWHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHFULWHULDOLVWHGEHORZ7KH
KLJKHUWKHQXPEHURI³i
i´WKHPRUHIDYRUDEOHWKHWHFKQRORJ\
D 0HGLXP3UHVVXUH 6WHHO*DV
9HVVHO
E6WHHO*DV&RYHU
&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVW
i
ii
20&RVW
i
iii
iii
ORZHVWFRVW
ii
iii
iii
ii
(YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULD
7HFKQRORJ\0DWXULW\
F'RXEOH0HPEUDQH6WRUDJH
iii
JUHDWHVWSXEOLFVDIHW\
iii
ii
i
iii
i
iii
i
ii
i
KLJK
i
ii
PHGLXP
)RRWSULQW/DQG$UHD
5HTXLUHPHQW
iii
VPDOOHVWIRRWSULQW
i
ii
7RWDOQXPEHURI³i´
+LJK&DSLWDODQG20&RVW
/DUJHVW)RRWSULQW5HTXLUHG
+LJKULVNRI&RGHLQFRPSOLDQFH
DQGSXEOLFVDIHW\
3XEOLF6DIHW\
&RGH&RPSOLDQFH
6\VWHP5HOLDELOLW\
)UHTXHQF\RI0DLQWHQDQFH
0RVW8QGHVLUDEOH)DFWRUV
3UHIHUUHG7HFKQRORJ\
&RPSUHVVDQGVWRUHELRJDVLQDPHGLXPSUHVVXUHVWHHOJDVYHVVHO
%LRJDV8VDJH
7KHELRJDVFDQEHXVHGIRUWKUHHPDLQSXUSRVHV
6WUDWHJLF3ODQW/RDG'LVSODFHPHQW
7KH:3&&FRXOGJHQHUDWHDGGLWLRQDOHOHFWULFLW\XSWRN:IRUDIHZ
KRXUVGXULQJSHDNHOHFWULFLW\UDWHVWRRIIVHWHOHFWULFLW\FRVWV
7UDQVLWLRQ)HHG,Q7DULII),73URJUDP
7KH&LW\FRXOGHQUROLQWKH7UDQVLWLRQ),73URJUDPDQGVHOOHOHFWULFLW\EDFNWR
WKHJULGDWSUHPLXPHOHFWULFLW\SULFLQJ7KH&LW\RI%DUULHVXEPLWWHGDQ
DSSOLFDWLRQIRUWKH7UDQVLWLRQ),7SURJUDPLQ'HFHPEHUDQGLVDZDLWLQJ
DSSURYDOIURPWKH2QWDULR3RZHU$XWKRULW\
7UDQVSRUWJDVRIIVLWHIRUXVHDWWKH+LVWRULF$OODQGDOH7UDLQ6WDWLRQ
7KHELRJDVFDQEHFRQYH\HGIRUXVHDWWKHUHIXUELVKHG+LVWRULF$OODQGDOH
7UDLQ6WDWLRQ
7KH3URYLQFLDO)HHG,Q7DULII3URJUDP
,QWKHSURYLQFLDOJRYHUQPHQWLQWURGXFHGWKHGreen Energy and Economy Act$FRPSRQHQWRIWKH
*UHHQ(QHUJ\$FWLVWKH)HHG,Q7DULII),73URJUDPZKLFKZDVLPSOHPHQWHGE\WKH2QWDULR3RZHU
$XWKRULW\23$LQ6HSWHPEHU7KHSURJUDPHQFRXUDJHVLQGHSHQGHQWJHQHUDWRUVWRSURGXFH
HOHFWULFLW\XVLQJUHQHZDEOHHQHUJLHVZLQGVRODUK\GURDQGELRPDVVE\SURYLGLQJDJXDUDQWHHGSULFLQJ
VWUXFWXUHIRUUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\SURGXFWLRQRYHUDFRQWUDFWWHUPRI\HDUV7KH&LW\RI%DUULHZRXOGOLNH
WRWDNHDGYDQWDJHRIWKLVSURJUDPDVLWLVLQOLQHZLWKWKH&LW\RI%DUULH¶VREMHFWLYHVWRIDFLOLWDWHWKH
GHYHORSPHQWRIUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\V\VWHPVDQGWRVXSSRUWWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIDJUHHQHFRQRP\
5HQHZDEOH
(QHUJ\6RXUFHV
%LRJDV8VDJH2SWLRQV(YDOXDWLRQ
%DVHGRQWKUHHPDLQSXUSRVHVRIXVLQJELRJDVWKHUHDUHIRXURSWLRQVRIPRGLI\LQJ
WKHFRJHQHUDWLRQV\VWHP7KHVHRSWLRQVZHUHHYDOXDWHG
D3ODQWORDG
GLVSODFHPHQW
E)HHGWRSRZHU
JULG),7
0RGLI\WRPDNHFRJHQ 0RGLI\WRPDNHFRJHQ
HQJLQHVDYDLODEOHIRU
HQJLQHVDYDLODEOHIRU
SODQWORDGGLVSODFHPHQW IHHGLQJSRZHUEDFNWR
7KLVZRXOGDOORZ
WKHXWLOLW\JULGRQO\:LOO
DGGLWLRQDOFRVWVDYLQJV QRWEHIHDVLEOHLI),7
EXWQRUHYHQXH
FRQWUDFWLVQRWDYDLODEOH
JHQHUDWLRQWKURXJKWKH
),73URJUDP
G 7UDQVSRUWJDV
F'LVSODFHSODQW
HQHUJ\ORDGDQGHQURO RIIVLWHIRUXVHDWWKH
LQ),7
+LVWRULF$OODQGDOH
7UDLQ6WDWLRQ
0RGLI\WRPDNHRU &RQVWUXFWJDVSLSHOLQH
FRJHQHQJLQHVDYDLODEOH DQGFRQYH\JDVWRWKH
WRHLWKHUIHHGSRZHU
+LVWRULF$OODQGDOH7UDLQ
EDFNWRWKHJULGRUIRU 6WDWLRQ6FHQDULRQRW
SODQWORDGGLVSODFHPHQW IHDVLEOHGXHWRVSDFH
7KLVLVWKHPRVWIOH[LEOH OLPLWDWLRQVIRUDGXDOILUH
RSWLRQ
ERLOHUDWWKHWUDLQ
VWDWLRQ
3UHIHUUHG2SWLRQ&0RGLI\H[LVWLQJV\VWHPWRDOORZWKHRSHUDWRUWRFKRRVHWRXVH
FRJHQHUDWLRQSRZHUIRUSODQWORDGGLVSODFHPHQWRUIHHGWRWKHJULGDWDQ\JLYHQ
WLPH
3UHOLPLQDU\3UHIHUUHG6ROXWLRQ
%LRJDV6WRUDJH
$PHGLXPSUHVVXUHYHVVHOWKDW
VWRUHVFRPSUHVVHGJDVDWSVL
%LRJDV8VH$OORZWZRFRJHQVWRHLWKHU
IHHGSRZHUEDFNWRWKHJULGRUIRUSODQW
ORDGGLVSODFHPHQWWKURXJKDVZLWFKJHDU
Displace Plant Power Load
Switchgear
Feed to Power Grid
6FKHPDWLFIRUWKH
3UHOLPLQDU\3UHIHUUHG6ROXWLRQ
&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
&RQVXOWDWLRQZLWKLQWHUHVWHGVWDNHKROGHUVLVDQLPSRUWDQWDQGQHFHVVDU\
FRPSRQHQWRIWKH&ODVV($SURFHVV
$OOFRPPHQWVUHFHLYHGZLOOEHFRQVLGHUHGDQGLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH&ODVV($
GRFXPHQWDWLRQ3OHDVHSURYLGHFRPPHQWVRQWKHVWXG\E\7XHVGD\0D\VW
$Q\DGGLWLRQDOFRPPHQWVRUTXHVWLRQVFDQEHIRUZDUGHGWR
Martin Shaw
Project Coordinator
Graeme King
Project Manager
The City of Barrie
Phone: (705) 739-4220 x5242
Fax: (705) 739-4243
The City of Barrie
Phone: (705) 739-4220 x4532
Fax: (705) 739-4243
7KDQN\RXIRUDWWHQGLQJDQGSURYLGLQJ\RXUYDOXDEOHLQSXW
BWPCC Biogas Utilization Upgrades
Questionnaire - April 2012
1. Do you agree with the City of Barrie’s problem statement expressing interest in
“exploring options available for utilizing power generated from the cogen system to gain
optimum financial and green benefits”?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
1
No
0.0%
0
answered question
1
skipped question
0
2. The WPCC currently utilizes a waste biogas flare as a safety device to destroy excess
biogas that it cannot use. Although we must keep the flare, the City can make less use of
the flare by having more biogas storage (i.e. to temporarily store the excess) and then
combust the gas in boilers or cogeneration engines.
Are you in favour of minimizing the
flaring of biogas on-site?
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
Are you in favour of green energy
options associated with using
biogas on-site?
1 of 10
answered question
0
skipped question
1
3. The WPCC already uses biogas to offset the need for natural gas and/or electricity.
Are you in favour of using biogas
for plant boilers (hot water heating)?
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
for electricity generation and usage
on-site?
for electricity generation on-site
and selling back to the grid?
answered question
0
skipped question
1
4. The intent of this project is to increase biogas recovery and reduce waste flaring of
biogas.
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
Are you in favour of increasing the
amount of biogas recovered and
used in plant boilers?
amount of biogas recovered and
used in generating electricity onsite?
amount of biogas recovered, using
biogas for electricity generation onsite and, in future, selling back to
the grid?
2 of 10
answered question
0
skipped question
1
5. The Schedule B Class Environmental Process is being undertaken since the
environmental effects are known and the project will have minimal effects on the
environment: As such...
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
Do you agree that the project
should minimize the effects on
vegetation and the adjacent
watercourses?
Have the Surrounding Land Uses
(ie, residential, etc) been identified?
Have the Natural Environment
features (ie, creeks, trees, etc)
been identified?
answered question
0
skipped question
1
6. After review of the seven potential alternatives for biogas usage, do you believe that an
adequate number of options are being considered?
Yes
Response
Response
Percent
Count
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
No (what are the other alternatives
that you think should be
considered?)
3 of 10
7. In regards to the Potential alternatives identified for the best use of the biogas, please let
us know:
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
OPTION 1: Do you think that the
City should better utilize the biogas
to generate power and heat for the
internal demands of the WPCC?
OPTION 2: The City has previously
applied to the provincial
government’s Feed-In-Tariff (FIT)
program that would pay the City at
a constant rate to feed the
generated power back to the local
hydro grid. The City is waiting to
see if it has been accepted to the
program. The current Co-generation
system will require upgrades. Do
you agree that the City should take
advantage of this opportunity if
there is a payback period of
approximately 5 years?
OPTION 3: A combination of
Options 1 and 2 could be
implemented so that the City could
use the biogas internally during the
periods when the hydro rates are
high and then sell to the local hydro
grid during periods when rates are
low. Do you agree that the City
should further develop this strategy
to provide the flexibility to take
advantage of time-of-use rates and
maximize cost saving?
OPTION 4: It was originally
proposed to convey the biogas to
the Historic Allandale Train Station
to be used for building heating. It
was determined that the while
technically feasible, the operational
implications would be challenging
(ex. Equipment space, special
permits, specialized training for
City staff, etc). It was therefore
decided that if the biogas was to be
4 of 10
used that hot water from a new
biogas boiler system (much like the
current WPCC heating system)
would be conveyed to the Historic
Allandale Train Station for hot
supplemental boiler circulation
water. Should the City further
investigate this option if it is
financially feasible?
OPTION 5: For the City to sell the
biogas or hot water, it would have
to accept the added risk and
liability of providing a continuous
supply of fuel to private citizens
and/or Corporations. To ensure
fairness, the City would have to
develop a public process to find the
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
highest bidder for the fuel supply.
The City would also have to factor
in the costs of constructing the
piping to the highest bidder’s
property. Should the City get into
the business of selling fuel to the
private citizens/Corporations?
OPTION 6: Should the City
continue with its practice of utilizing
biogas instead of natural gas for
hot water heating when it is cheaper
to use biogas?
OPTION 7: Should the City “Do
Nothing”?
5 of 10
answered question
0
skipped question
1
8. If you have any other comments in regards to the potential alternatives identified for the
best use of the biogas, please let us know:
Response
Count
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
9. After review of the four potential alternatives for biogas storage, do you believe that an
adequate number of options are being considered?
Yes
Response
Response
Percent
Count
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
No (what are the other alternatives
that you think should be
considered?)
10. In regards to the potential alternatives identified for biogas storage, do you prefer a lowprofile biogas storage facility to minimize visibilty?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
0.0%
0
No
0.0%
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
6 of 10
11. Which is the above configurations do you prefer?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Dome
0.0%
0
Floating Roof
0.0%
0
Membrane Technology
100.0%
1
Low Profile Cylinders
0.0%
0
Steel or Concrete Tank with Bladder
0.0%
0
Comments?
0
answered question
1
skipped question
0
7 of 10
12. Additional questions
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
With some biogas domes there is
potential for decorative artistic
finishes (ex golf ball). Is this
something that you would be
receptive to on the waterfront?
With some biogas domes there is
potential for selling advertising. Is
this something that you would be
receptive to on the waterfront?
Do you generally concur with the
selection / evaluation criteria that
have been used in the Presentation
Boards (For example, Construction
Cost, O&M Costs, Technology
Maturity, Public Safety, etc. )
Do you concur with the outcome of
the evaluation, that the Preferred
Technology is the “Compress and
store biogas in a medium pressure
steel gas vessel”?
Do the anticipated savings in
electricity (estimated in the order of
$100,000 - $300,000 per year
depending on whether a FIT
contract is awarded) and minimal
payback periods justify this
undertaking?
For the preliminary preferred
alternative, did the material
presented and provided at the
presentation make it clear that
capital cost and Operating&
Maintenance costs are higher than
several of the alternatives however
the preliminary Preferred
Technology is rated greater in
Technology Maturity, Public
Safety, Code Compliance, System
Reliability, minimized footprint, and
ease of expandability.
8 of 10
answered question
0
skipped question
1
13. Additional questions
Response
Yes
No
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
0
Count
A Notice of Study Commencement
was published in the Barrie
Examiner on March 24 and 29. Did
you see it?
Was the date and time of the
Public Information Centre (PIC)
convenient for you?
Was the location of the PIC
convenient for you?
Did the PIC help you understand
the need for the project?
Did the web resources help you
understand the need for the
project?
Did you have enough opportunity
to ask questions, make comments
or express concerns?
Were the questions answered to
your satisfaction?
Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA decision making
process of this project?
9 of 10
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
14. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Member of the General Public
0.0%
0
Member of an Interest Group
0.0%
0
Consultant
0.0%
0
Agency Representative
0.0%
0
Other
0.0%
0
Please specify your company/organization name if applicable
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
Response
Response
Percent
Count
15. Please provide your contact information (optional)
Name:
0.0%
0
Address:
0.0%
0
City:
0.0%
0
Phone Number:
0.0%
0
answered question
0
skipped question
1
10 of 10
Barrie Water Pollution Control Centre Biogas
Utilization Upgrades
1. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the biogas
storage technologies being evaluated?
Pressure Gas Vessel
Response
Response
Percent
Count
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
answered question
1
skipped question
1
Concrete Tank with Steel Gas
Cover
Double Membrane Storage
2. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the
cogeneration power use options being evaluated?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Displace Additional Plant Power
Load
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
100.0%
1
answered question
1
skipped question
1
Participate in the Provincial
Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program
(Feed to local Power Grid)
A Combination of Both Options
1 of 8
3. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the
preliminary preferred alternative for providing for storing biogas and using the power
generated by the biogas which will include:
The construction of a medium pressure gas vessel and modifying cogeneration system
controls to allow the system to either displace additional plant power load or to participate in the
provincial FIT program at any given time.
Response
Count
1
answered question
1
skipped question
1
4. Are there any other important factors that the study team should consider for this
project?
Response
Count
2
answered question
2
skipped question
0
5. Was the time and location of the Public Information Centre convenient for you?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
50.0%
1
No
50.0%
1
answered question
2
skipped question
0
2 of 8
6. Did the Public Information Centre help you to better understand the need for the project?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
2
No
0.0%
0
Uncertain
0.0%
0
answered question
2
skipped question
0
7. Did you have enough opportunity to ask questions, make comments or express
concerns?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Yes
50.0%
1
No
50.0%
1
answered question
2
skipped question
0
Response
Response
Percent
Count
8. Were those questions answered to your satisfaction?
Yes
No (please comment)
3 of 8
50.0%
1
50.0%
1
answered question
2
skipped question
0
9. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA
decision making process of this project?
Response
Count
1
answered question
1
skipped question
1
10. On a scale of 1 to 5, how useful did you find the Public Information Centre? (1 being not
useful, 5 being very useful)
How useful did you find the Public
Information Centre?
1
2
3
4
5
0.0% (0)
50.0% (1)
50.0% (1)
0.0% (0)
0.0% (0)
Rating
Response
Average
Count
2.50
2
answered question
2
skipped question
0
11. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study?
Response
Response
Percent
Count
Member of the General Public
50.0%
1
Member of an Interest Group
0.0%
0
Consultant
0.0%
0
Agency Representative
0.0%
0
50.0%
1
answered question
2
skipped question
0
Other (please specify)
4 of 8
12. Please provide your contact information
Name:
Address:
City:
Postal Code:
Phone Number:
Response
Response
Percent
Count
100.0%
2
100.0%
2
100.0%
2
100.0%
2
50.0%
1
answered question
2
skipped question
0
13. Any additional comments?
Response
Count
1
5 of 8
answered question
1
skipped question
1
Q1. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the biogas storage technologies
being evaluated?
Pressure Gas Vessel
1
This is considered as an alternative.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Concrete Tank with Steel Gas Cover
1
This would be expensive and ugly. Not a good option.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
1
This would be ideal if cost and approvals are acceptable.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Q2. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the cogeneration power use
options being evaluated?
Displace Additional Plant Power Load
1
This is the ideal as eventually the FIT funds would be less than the cost of
energy.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Participate in the Provincial Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program (Feed to local Power Grid)
1
This does not make sense as a long-term solution.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
A Combination of Both Options
1
There is an option where you can provide excess energy to the OPA grid in
exchange for credits for electricity purchased at a later date.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Q3. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the preliminary preferred
alternative for providing for storing biogas and using the power generated by the biogas which will include: <br
/><br /><div style="font-weight:normal; font-style: italic;">The construction of a medi...
1
The WPCC is better off to maximize electrical production on the site to fill its own
requirements while offering to pipe heated (and chilled) water, not required by
the WPCC, to nearby private and public facilities. Pricing established for this
service in the community is sustainable and can be locked in for extended
periods to ensure full recovery of the investments involved. In some cases, the
recipient of the water from the WPCC would be willing to pay for the piping
requirements.
6 of 8
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Q4. Are there any other important factors that the study team should consider for this project?
1
The study team needs to look at Community Heat and Power (CHP) operations
such as in Markham, Ontario to see how the faciilities can be useful in the
community.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
2
The storage of the gas is my key concern. Maximum safety standard should be
used especially recalling the major gas explosion a few years ago in Toronto.
Such and explosion could wipe out blocks of homes. The burn off must be scent
free and is not currently. I used to live next to the plant and on some days the
smell was horrid.
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
Q8. Were those questions answered to your satisfaction?
1
.
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
Q9. Do you have any comments, concerns, questions or suggestions regarding the Class EA decision making
process of this project?
1
The system in place does not seem to be taking anywhere need the opportunity
to produce hot or chilled water that can be of use on site as well as throughout
the community. To offer the piped water from the facility is not only excellent
public relations but it justifies the vital location of the WPCC.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Q11. How would you describe the nature of your interest in this study?
1
I am a writer. I have spent 30 years in high technology public relations. I happen
to live next door to the WPCC.
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Q12. Please provide your contact information
1
Name:
Peter Lowry
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Address:
1510 - 75 Ellen St
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
City:
Barrie
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Postal Code:
L4N 7R6
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
7 of 8
Q12. Please provide your contact information
Phone Number:
705-719-9308
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
2
Name:
Scott Tate
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
Address:
78 Bayview Dr
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
City:
Barrie
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
Postal Code:
L4N 3P1
Apr 3, 2012 6:49 AM
Q13. Any additional comments?
1
If there is any way I can help explain the value of what the WPCC offers the
community, I am available on a consulting basis.
8 of 8
Apr 4, 2012 1:16 PM
Appendix C
Technical Memoranda
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Barrie WPCC Cogeneration Power Utilization Alternatives
PREPARED FOR:
City of Barrie
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
October 27, 2011
1. Background
Since 1995, Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas harvested from the onsite anaerobic
digesters for electricity and heat generation. The Biogas Utilization Facility at Barrie WPCC
consists of the biogas pretreatment system, the boilers system and the cogeneration (cogen)
system. Upon completion of the 76 MLD Expansion, the City is interested in exploring options
available for utilizing power generated from the cogen system to gain optimum financial and
green benefits. This technical memorandum aims to explore the various options available for
cogeneration power utilization. It considers the electrical and control modifications required
around the Cogeneration System and the investment returns based on the projected electrical
pricing in the Ontario Energy Market over the next 12 years.*.
1.1
Cogeneration and Plant Switchgears Tie-in
The cogen system at the Barrie WPCC consists of two 250 kWe Waukesha Reciprocating Cogen
engines, located in the Engine Room. The two engines are dual fuel type (could be fired by
natural gas or biogas) that generates 600 volts (V), 3 phase power that feeds back to the Plant’s
switchgear to supplement power consumption in the plant.
The cogen system is controlled by a local control system consisting of engine controls,
protective relaying as well as electrically operated power circuit breakers that controls,
synchronizes, and connects each of the two gas-fired generator sets to the plant power grid. The
generator sets feed power to the Plant via Motor Control Center (MCC) No. 6. MCC6 receives
its normal power from the Outdoor 600 V Switchgear located immediately south of the standby
power generator building. Breaker No. 6, located on Bus No. 2, is powered from the Substation
Transformer T2 (1,500 kVA). To-date, power generated by the cogen system directly feeds to
Bus No. 2 only. The cogen power, even though available, will not be able to feed to the MCCs
connected to Bus No. 1. Therefore, during occasional nights when power generated by the
engine is higher than power demand at Bus No. 2, the engine will trip off linetrips. Safety
features embedded in the Control of the engines requires the engines to be started manually
whenever a trip occurs. Due to the limited plant operator availability during night shifts, biogas
is wasted either by feeding to a boiler, or to the waste gas burner to avoid pressure build up in
* 12 years is the estimated end life of the existing cogen engines. The 12th years (2013) is also the approximate year where biogas
production exceeds total fuel capacity of the existing two engines in which beyond that, the City will need to invest to replace
existing two engines with larger and hopefully more efficient engines.
BARRIE WPCC COGENERATION POWER UTILIZATION ALTERNATIVES
the digesters. This mode of operation is deemed undesirable due to the inefficient usage of
biogas energy.
To optimize cogen usage, Bus No. 1 and No. 2 need to be connected. As part of the 76MLD
Expansion, the new Switchgear incorporates a soft wired selector switch that allows three (3)
operating modes, i.e. both transformers operating (with the tie breaker between Bus No. 1 and
No. 2 open) and either one of the transformers in operation (with the tie breaker closed).
With this feature, the plant could utilize the cogen system to reduce utility load in two ways:
1. Feeding cogen power to Bus No. 2 only. Bus No. 2 powers the following MCCs: MCC No. 1,
4, 5, 7, and 11. This happens when both transformers are in use and the tie breaker that
connects Bus No. 1/No. 2 is open.
2. Feeding cogen power to both Bus No. 1 and Bus No. 2. In this case, cogen power will feed
load to all MCCs. This could only happen when the tie breaker that connects Bus No. 1/No.
2 is closed, and the plant power is supplied from only one of the two transformers, i.e. one
of the breakers on T1 or T2 has to be open.
Detailed switchgear operational options and breakers interlock are provided in the appended
Switchgear Operational Options and Alternatives TM.
Control Features of the Existing Waukesha Engines and Its Limitations
The existing cogen controller has the following features embedded that allow the engines to
operate in automatic mode:
•
Synchronizer that provides control of certain circuit breakers to allow closure for an off-theline generator to the bus when phase and frequency are matched within preset limits.
•
Load sharing and speed control governor that automatically controls engine speed and
allows load sharing via cross current compensation paralleling control circuits.
The voltage regulator senses generator voltage and initiates a change in generator excitation
current to maintain voltage limits.
Historically, the biogas production in the plant is only sufficient to fuel one engine. Therefore,
the engines were designed to operate as one running and one standby. With increases in biogas
production over the years due to expanded plant capacity, there is sufficient biogas to fuel two
engines occasionally. Even though the individual engines could synchronize to the utility grid
automatically, there is limited synchronizing and load sharing features in the Cogen system to
ensure smooth operation. The existing control system does not have a load sharing feature for
parallel operated engines. Management determined synchronization and load sharing might
require additional interface controls.
To allow the engines to operate in lead/lag mode based on biogas availability, the new control
system will require the following features:
•
Generator load sensor for proportional load sharing between paralleled generators.
•
Generator load controller to provide soft loading or unloading of a generator to a load
sharing system.
TM2_COGENERATIONPOWERUTILIZATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT26.DOC
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY CH2M HILL CANADA LIMITED
2
•
Var/power factor (PF) controller that allows the generator to maintain a constant PF for
reliable operation.
1.2
Plant Power Consumption Pattern
The City of Barrie purchases electricity for its various utility operations from Power Stream, a
Local Power Distribution Company that services North of Toronto and Central Ontario. The
City purchases electricity at rates determined by the Spot Market. In late 2009, Power Stream
had installed power meters for the various facilities in City of Barrie. The power meter features
allows consumers to obtain the hourly power consumption of their facility from a website
called the “e-MeterData”. Data between November 2009 to January 2011 for Barrie WPCC was
extracted from the database to generate the diurnal power consumption pattern in the plant
(Figure 1-1).
In 2009, the cogen engines were shut off for a year due to construction of 76 MLD Expansion.
Therefore, from November 2009 to March 2010, the plant did not offset its consumption with
cogen power. This pattern reflects the actual power load consumed in the plant. After March
2010, the cogen engines were back online again and the plant was able to off-load part of its
load with one of the engines operating. The graph below shows the diurnal power consumption
in the plant during these two periods. As illustrated in Figure 1-1, power demand drops by
approximately 10 to 20% throughout the night. Even then, the minimum power demand is
approximately 800 kWh, which is far greater than the maximum power generation capacity of
the two cogen engines combined.
Diurnal Power Consumption
1200
Metered Power (kWh)
1000
800
600
With 1 Cogen Operating - Mar'10 to Jan'11
400
Without Cogen - Nov'09 to Feb'10
200
0
0:00
3:00
6:00
9:00
12:00
15:00
18:00
21:00
0:00
Daily Hours
Figure 1-1- Average Diurnal Power Consumption in Barrie WPCC between Nov 2009 to January 2011
3
1.3
Electricity prices for Barrie WPCC
Municipalities in Ontario can purchase electricity through the following two ways:
(1) Purchase power directly from the open market, commonly known as the SPOT market
where the electricity price in the market fluctuates based on supply and demand.
Market price is set hourly by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) based
on the forecast of power supply and demand in Ontario;
(2) Sign a contract with licensed retailer that guarantees price stability. Depending on the
terms in the contract, consumers could opt to either purchase a block of kilowatt hours
at a fixed price or market-indexed price.
Hourly Electricity Price
Daily Average Electricity Price
Billed Electricity Price
Peak Factor
16.00
1.60
12.00
1.20
8.00
0.80
4.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0:00
4:48
9:36
14:24
19:12
Peak Factor
Cents/kWhr
The City of Barrie purchases its power through Power Stream, its local power distribution
company at a market-indexed price based on the Hourly Ontario Energy Price, set by IESO.
Figure 1-2 illustrates the electricity price fluctuation hourly within a given day.
0:00
Hour of a day
Figure 1-2- Hourly Ontario Energy Price (Monthly Average for July 2011) *
* Hourly price shown depicts average price at that given hour over the month of July. Data obtained from E-meter Data, Barrie
WPCC account.
4
1.4
Ontario Energy Market
1.4.1 Electricity Pricing Projection
According to Ontario’s Long Term Energy Plan*, the government projects that electricity rates
for industry and business will increase by about 2.7 per cent annually over the next 20 years
due to investments to produce cleaner and more reliable electricity. For residential pricing,
electricity rates will increase by about 7.9 per cent annually (or 46 per cent over five years) but is
expected to level off after five years when the investments have been cleared off.
1.4.2 Energy Cost Saving Programs
With this projection, the government has launched a series of initiatives to help Ontarians to
better manage their energy consumption that could optimize cost savings. These initiatives
were communicated through OPA under their saveONenergy program.
One of the energy cost savings programs applicable to municipalities is the Demand Response.
It compensates participating industrial and commercial businesses for reducing their energy
demand at specific times of power system need. Participants are being requested to reduce their
power load during peak power demand within a predefined schedule. To be eligible
participants must be operating and available during a predefined schedule of about 1,600 hours
per calendar year. Within that 1,600-hour period, participants can select to activate its Demand
Response measure to either 100 hours or 200 hours per year. Since the compensation is based on
load reduced during the activation period, compensation received is determined by comparing
the plant’s actual metered load during an activation period with a calculated baseline
representing what the normal load would have otherwise been during the activation period.
For the case of the Barrie WPCC, using cogen to participate in Demand Response is not
recommended as the plant could generate more savings by continuously offseting power
consumption with the cogen engines.
1.4.3 Renewable Energy Program: Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) Program
In 2009, the provincial government introduced the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009
(GEA) to spark growth in clean and renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, hydro,
and bioenergy. Spinning out of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act is the Feed-In-Tariff
(FIT) Program, implemented by OPA in September 2009.
The program encourages independent generators to produce electricity using renewable
energies by providing a guaranteed pricing structure for renewable energy production over a
contract term of 20 years. It replaces the previous Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program
(RESOP), aiming to include a broader range of renewable energy generation projects.
Benefits of FIT include:
•
The contract facility will get paid a premium price for generating electricity. For facilities
utilizing biogas that generates less than 500 kW, the price is 0.22¢/kWh during peak hours,
and 0.14¢/kWh during off-peak hours
* Published by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) in 2010
5
•
•
Guaranteed pricing for the next 20 years (contract term) with an escalation percentage* of
20%. Appendix A shows how escalation percentage is adjusted for contract price.
Not required to generate the contracted electricity 24 hours a day. Contract specifies that
OPA pays for the amount of electricity that is produced when the generator is put on-line
In Nov 2009, the OPA amended the FIT program rules by adding a “Transition Option”
category, with the objective of encouraging enrollment from small existing generator facilities to
take part in the renewable energy movement. The amendment allows existing small renewable
energy projects (of less than 500 kW) to be eligible for FIT even without carrying out any
upgrade or expansion work. Based on this understanding, it is very likely that the existing 250
kW generated by the Cogen Facility in Barrie WPCC could fully benefit the new FIT premium
price as well.
2.
Cogeneration Power Options
The plant’s normal practice is to continuously fire one 250 kW cogen engine to offset plant
power consumption. With proper biogas management and improved cogen engines controls,
the following operation options are now available to the plant:
1.
Strategic Plant Load Displacement
The plant could strategically off-set power up to 500 kW for a few hours during peak rates
(9:00AM to 9:00PM) by firing two engines at full capacity, and fire one engine to generate
250 kW hour during off-peak rates.
2.
Participate in the Transition Feed-In-Tariff Program
The City could enroll in the Transition FIT Program and sell electricity back to the grid at
premium electricity pricing. Once the contract is signed, the plant could strategically feed
power back to the grid up to 500 kW during the peak performance period (11:00AM to
7:00PM) at 21.6 cents/kWh-hour and 250 kW during the off peak period (7:01PM to
10:59am) at 14.4 cents/kWh-hour.the There is no minimum power or hours commitment
to feed power back to the grid. The City of Barrie submitted an application for the
Transition FIT program in December 2010 and is now waiting for OPA’s approval to sign
the contract.
Either option requires some degree of modification around the electrical switchgear and cogen
control system. The remaining sections considers the various modification work required to
implement these options.
2.1
Option 1
Available for Plant Load Displacement Only
This option allows power generated from the two cogens to be fed to the plant switch gear for
plant load displacement only. At this stage, the gas production in the plant has not reached the
level of feeding two engines at full capacity; the control strategy will allow the engines to
operate in a lead-lag fashion based on biogas availability. As mentioned in Section 1.1, the
* Escalation percentage means the percentage of the contract price that escalates on the basis of increases in Consumer Price
Index (CPI)
6
existing cogen engines each have their own controller with synchronizing and load sharing
capability. However, a central load sensor and generator controller will be needed should the
engines be operated in lead-lag mode.
2.2
Option 2
Available for Feeding Power back to the Utility Grid Only
This option considers selling power generated from the cogen engines back to the utility at
premium pricing under the FIT pricing and to purchase power for the plant use at current
market price from Power Stream. If the FIT contract is offered, the plant could sell the electricity
generated through the cogen engines back to OPA at an average price of $0.16/kWh*. The price
structure will be guaranteed for a period of 20 years, accounting for inflation. According to the
FIT rules, the generator could choose to feed into the grid at any given time. However, the
contract requires the generator facility to have a separate metering system that monitors power
fed back to the grid. Net metering (or behind the facility metering) is not permitted. As such,
electrical modification around the cogen switchgear will be required to feed power directly
back to the grid.
2.3
Option 3
Allows two (2) engines to feed power back to the grid or for plant load displacement
This option is the combination of both option 1 and option 2. Some electrical interlocking with
the operator interface will be required to allow the operator to select one of the two modes of
operation: feed power back to the grid or feed power to plant switchgear through MCC 6 for
plant load displacement. This option allows the City to achieve maximum cost benefit from FIT
without sacrificing the capability for plant load displacement should energy prices in the
Ontario market soar higher than the FIT contract price.
2.4
Option 4
Allows one (1) engine to feed power back to the grid, and one (1) engine for plant load displacement
This option considers the possibility of allowing the plant to utilize cogen power to sell back to
the grid and for plant load displacement at the same time. This requires one cogen engine
dedicated to feeding power to the grid, and the other dedicated to feeding to the plant switch
gear. At any given time, the plant and the grid will receive a maximum of 250 kW instead of the
combined 500 kW like the other options. However, unlike Option 1, synchronization and load
management is not required for the two cogen engines as they each feed to a different
loadgrids. Under this scenario, plant operators will select either one of the engines as the
primary and the other one as secondary power generators. The primary power generator will
receive biogas fuel continuously, and the secondary generator will come online when
additional biogas is available. This allows plant operator to decide when power is most suited
for plant load displacement and when to sell back to the grid on a daily basis.
* For facilities utilizing biogas that generate less than 500 kW, the price is 0.22¢/kWh during peak hours, and 0.14¢/kWh during offpeak hours
7
3.
Evaluation of Alternatives
3.1
Summary of Alternatives
The following table summarizes the modification work required and construction costs
associated with each option. Both Cutler Hummer and Thompson Technology were contacted
to obtain realistic pricing associated with the modifications.
8
Table 1 – Summary of Modification Work and Capital Cost Required for all four options
Description
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Two (2) cogens available for plant load
displacement
Two (2) cogens available for feeding
power back to the utility grid only
Two (2) cogens available to either
feed power back to the grid, or for
plant load displacement
One (1) cogen available for feeding
power back to the grid and one (1)
available for plant load
displacement
Supply and install a new master
control PLC with HMI, a new backpan
and a front door in section 5 of the
existing cogen switchgear.
Supply and install a new master
control PLC with HMI, a new
backpan and a front door in section
5 of the existing cogen switchgear.
Estimated Cost : $80,000
No new electrical hardware required
Modification Work
TTI
Cutler-Hammer
Supply and install Basler BE1-11i
Utility intertie relay and new front
door in section 1, a new 800A
breaker, a new master control PLC
and HMI, a new backpan and front
door in section 5 of the existing
switchgear
Supply and install Basler BE1-11i
Utility intertie relay and new front
door in section 1, a new 800A
breaker, a new master control PLC
and HMI, a new backpan and front
door in section 5 of the existing
switchgear
- Supply step-up transformer from
600V to 4.16 kV
600V to 4.16 kV
600V to 4.16 kV
- Supply a secondary metering unit
rated at 600V
- Supply a secondary metering unit
rated at 600V
- Supply and install a secondary
metering unit rated at 600V
-Supply cables from the cogen
Bradford / Brock Street
-Supply cables from the cogen
Bradford / Brock Street
-Supply and install cables from the
cogen switchgear to the 4.16kV
feeder on Bradford / Brock Street
- Supply Automatic Transfer Switch
(ATS) – Optional - $50,000
General Contractor
City’s programming
Total Capital Cost
Estimated Cost : $50,000 (+$50,000
optional)
Integrate new system to existing
electrical system
Installation of equipment and device
from Cutler-Hammer
Installation of equipment and device
from Cutler-Hammer
Installation of equipment and
device from Cutler-Hammer
Integrate Plant SCADA programming
to Cogen control
to Cogen control
to Cogen control
Integrate Plant SCADA
programming to Cogen control
$ 200,000
$ 215,000 ($265,000 if ATS is
preferred)
$ 120,000
$ 220,000
3.2
Cost Analysis
A cost analysis is conducted to compare the two operation options: (1) Using cogen power for
plant load displacement; and (2) feed power back to the grid through transition FIT program.
Figure 3 – Cost Saving Scenarios for both Plant Load Displacement and FIT Enrollment (Base
Case)illustrates the cost saving scenarios for both utilization options.
A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to understand the analysis outcome based on Ontario
electricity price changes. Table 2 summarizes the cost analysis. The analysis is based on the
following assumptions:
Rate of Return is 5% and the investment period is 12 years*;
Base case scenario: Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 2.7% over the next 12
years;
• Sensitive Analysis A : Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 5% over the next 12
years;
• Sensitive Analysis B : Ontario electricity price increases at a rate of 8% over the next 12
years;
• Additional costs such as transmission, distribution charges and other additional charges
from Power Stream average to be approximately 7 cents/kWh and remain the same for
the next 12 years;
• Consider Option 1 for electrical modification for Plant Load Displacement scenario, and
Option 3 for electrical modification to allow for FIT Enrollment
• The Percentage Escalated Rate for FIT contract price is 20%;
• FIT contract price is 16 cents/kWh with peak factor being 1.35 and off-peak factor being
0.90;
The analysis is compared with the savings the City is currently having by having one cogen
engine operating at full capacity (250kW) all year long.
•
•
* 12 years is the estimated end life of the existing cogen engines. The 12th years (2013) is also the approximate year where biogas
production exceeds total fuel capacity of the existing two engines in which beyond that, the City will need to invest to replace
existing two engines with larger and hopefully more efficient engines.
Current Plant Load Displacement
Strategic Plant Load Displacement
FIT Contract
Ontario Electricity Price
FIT Contract Price
23.00
Cost Savings, CDN$
$1,000,000
$800,000
18.00
$600,000
$400,000
13.00
$200,000
$-
Electricity Price, cents/kWh
$1,200,000
8.00
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Year
Figure 3 – Cost Saving Scenarios for both Plant Load Displacement and FIT Enrollment (Base Case)
Table 2 – Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis
Current Plant Load
Displacement
Strategic Plant Load
Displacement
FIT Enrollment
$0
$120,000 (Option 1)
$215,000 (Option 3)
Base case ( Year 1 to 13 )
10 to 11.2 cents/kWh
Sensitivity Analysis A (Year
1 to 13)
Sensitivity Analysis B (Year
1 to 13)
Capital Cost
Electricity Prices, cents/kWh
NPV of average annual cost savings, CDN$
Base case
$185,740
$291,700
$491,000
Sensitivity Analysis A
$195,340
$308,700
$491,000
Sensitivity Analysis B
$200,500
$318,200
$491,000
Accumulated NPV Additional Savings, compared to Current Savings over the next 12 years
Base case
$0
$1.38 Million
$3.96 Million
Sensitivity Analysis A
$0
$1.47 Million
$3.84 Million
Sensitivity Analysis B
$0
$1.53 Million
$3.78 Million
11
4. Recommendation
It is recommended that the City sign the Transition FIT contract with OPA should the contract
be granted. The cost analysis shows that enrolling in the Transition FIT program provides the
highest cost savings even under the worst case scenario considered here, i.e. the electricity price
increases by 8% for the next 12 years. This is because very minimal investment (less than $200K)
is required to sign the contract and feed power back to the grid. The additional savings
generated from the high electricity price under FIT contract allows the initial investment to be
paid back in less than a year. Furthermore, the contract takes inflation into account by annually
adjusting the FIT pricing based on the Ontario Consumers Price Index. Therefore, even with the
possibility of high electricity pricing in the market for the next 12 years, the price will still be
lower than FIT pricing.
In terms of electrical and control modification, the capital cost difference between Option 2, 3
and 4 is fairly minimal. Therefore, it is recommended that City to proceed with Option 3, which
is to modify the electrical and control system to allow the operator to choose to use cogen
power for plant load displacement, or feed in back to the grid at any given time. This requires a
transfer switch to be installed in the existing breaker panel that was originally reserved for a
third cogen engine. By doing so, there will be no space available in the existing electrical room
for adding a third engine. This is acceptable, as in the future should additional cogeneration
capacity be required, the existing two engines could be replaced with larger capacity (350
kW),350kW) engines, therefore, a third engine will not be required.
Option 3 could be carried out in stages: Modify cogen engine control system and install the
automatic transfer switch. When FIT contract is granted and signed, City could then proceed to
electrical modification to connect power to the grid.
12
APPENDIX A
Feed In Tariff Contract Price Adjustment
FIT Contract Pricing Calculation
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
CPI
120
122
124
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
139
141
143
8%
Cpy, Cents/kWh
16.05
16.3
16.5
16.8
17.0
17.3
17.5
17.8
18.1
18.3
18.6
18.9
Excerpt from FIT Contract Version 1.5.1 (July 2011) - Exhibit B
PE
0.2
TCPBD
16
Facilities Less Than or Equal to 5MW Not Regiesstered in the IESO Administered Market
* Assume CPI increase by 1.5% every year. Rate Estimated based on 2005 to 2010 data
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Barrie WPCC Biogas Storage Alternatives
PREPARED FOR:
City of Barrie
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
October 27, 2011
1 Background
Barrie WPCC has been utilizing biogas harvested from its anaerobic digesters to generate power
and heat onsite through its cogeneration (cogen) engines since 1995. There are two 250kWe
Waukesha engines installed in the Engine Room. The Waukesha engines were designed to
operate as duty/standby rotation. Over the years, increases in plant flow capacity have led to
increases in biogas generation. The plant currently generates approximately 4300m3/day of
biogas, which volume is sufficient to meet full operating capacity of one cogen engine, but
insufficient to operate the second engine. In recent years, limited gas storage within the digesters
restricts the plant from fully utilizing biogas available to maximize power generation.
Assessment carried out during the Preliminary Design for Biogas Facility Upgrade concluded
that installing an onsite gas storage unit is the best value option to improve biogas utilization in
the plant. The study recommended that detailed evaluation of gas storage technologies be carried
out to identify the storage option that is most suitable for the plant. Detailed evaluation could be
found in the Preliminary Design Report - Barrie WPCC Biogas Facility Upgrade.
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to identify the design basis for the biogas storage.
By recognizing the site and process constraints, this study explores gas storage options available
in the market and provides a recommendation that best suits Barrie WPCC.
2 Design Basis
2.1 Gas Production Data
Historical biogas production data between 2006 and 2010 were collected and analyzed to
establish the design basis for the gas storage unit. The following limitations were being
considered when processing the raw data:
• Data collected in this period was recorded only by the gas flow meter installed on the gas
pipe that goes to the cogen building. Gas sent to the waste gas burner was not measured.
According to plant operators, the waste gas burner comes online occasionally to burn
excess gas that is not usable in the cogen system; this flow was not recorded due to the
location of the existing gas flow meter. Accurate flow data on total gas production was
only available after 2010, when a separate gas meter was installed on the waste gas
pipeline. Between 2006 to 2009, the only gas production data available is the gas flow
feeding the cogen engines/boiler.
• The cogen engines were shut down during the 76 MLD Expansion constructions to allow
for plant switchgear modification. As such, accurate gas flow production data between
March 2009 and February 2010 is not available.
1
BARRIE WPCC BIOGAS STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
While plant operations routinely operates one of the cogen engine 24 hours a day, the
engines are shutdown occasionally due to maintenance, engine control fault and SCADA
upgrade commissioning. Therefore, measured daily gas flows appear to be much lower
than average production and do not reflect the actual process performance of the
digesters. These data are considered outliers and were removed from the analysis.
Table 1 summarizes the historical annual average biogas production in the plant between 2006 to
2010 and provides projected biogas production to the year 2023.
•
Table 1 – Historical and Projected Annual Average Biogas Production in Barrie WPCC
Annual Average Biogas Production,
3
m /day
2006
3574
2007
3630
2008
3802
2009
Not Available
2010
4177
Daily Diurnal Peak Factor*
Projected Average Biogas Production†,
1.10
3
m /day
2012
4507
2013
4649
2014
4791
2015
4934
2016
5076
2017
5218
2018
5360
2019
5502
2020
5645
2021
5787
2022
5929
2023
6071
2.2 Operation Philosophy
Until the gas production reaches a flow rate that could continuously fire two engines, only one
cogen engine will be fired continuously. The storage therefore serves as the buffer tank that
continuously accumulates excess gas that is not used. When sufficient volume is accumulated in
the storage (i.e. gas pressure achieves a given high level set point), the second engine will come
online. The increase in gas consumption with two engines firing will deplete the gas volume
* Established based on September 2008 one-month data.
† Future biogas production is estimated by using the biogas generated to plant flow ratio established from historical data between
2008 to 2010
TM1_BIOGASSTORAGEEVALUATION_CITY2NDREVIEW_OCT27.DOC
2
accumulated in the storage unit and the second engine stops when the gas pressure drops to a
low level set point. With this buffer, the plant could choose to operate one engine during lower
electricity rate period, save the excess gas in storage, and fire two engines to maximize power
production during high electricity rate periods.
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed operation for the biogas storage unit. Figure 2 communicates
three types of information: a typical diurnal gas production pattern, gas volume stored and gas
volume consumed for cogeneration operation based on a 2011 gas production profile. Figure 3
displays a different gas production, storage and consumption profile in 2020. As gas production
increases yearly, the period of the day where two cogeneration engines could operate increases,
resulting in a decrease in storage demand. Figure 4 summarizes these two trends from 2010 to
2023. By 2023, for almost 100% of the time the facility will be firing two cogen engines to consume
the biogas available. By this time, it is recommended that a third engine be installed.
Based on this philosophy, the sizing of the biogas storage is optimized to hold sufficient gas to
operate two engines in full capacity for the high electricity rate period, which is 8 hours*. The
storage volume required is approximately 900m3. Detailed calculations of the storage sizing are
presented in Appendix A.
Engine 1
180m3/hr
2011 Average Flow
3
Accumulation
3
40m /hr
140m /hr
Engine 2
Gas Storage
3
900m storage at
Standard Conditions
(could store for 11
hours)
Digesters
(a) 1 engine operation during off-peak hours : Gas accumulation in gas storage
Engine 1
3
180m /hr
Depletion
3
-100m /hr
3
3
280m /h
140m /hr
r
( at
Engine 2
Gas Storage
Digesters
3
140m /hr
Operate two engines @
3
100% (140m /hr) at 10 hours or
3
85% (107m /hr) for 13 hours
(b) 2 engines in operation during peak hours: Gas depletion in gas storage
Figure 1 – Example of Gas Storage Used to Optimize Biogas Usage (Based on an average gas production in 2011)
* Based on the Feed In Tariff peak rate (11am to 7pm).
3
350
Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2011
Biogas flow, m 3/hr
300
250
200
Volume Stored
Volume Stored
150
1 Cogen
100
2 Cogens
operating at ~85%
for 13 hours
50
1 Cogen
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Hour of the Day
Figure 2 – Expected Diurnal Biogas Storage and Operation in 2011
350
Diurnal Biogas Production Flow in 2020
Biogas flow, m3 /hr
300
250
Volume
Stored
200
Volume
Stored
150
2 Cogens operating at
93% for 17 hours
100
1 Cogen
50
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Hour of the Day
Figure 3 – Expected Diurnal Biogas Storage and Operation in 2020
4
Storage Volume
Storage Volume Required, m3
1000
% of a day with 2 cogens
100%
750
75%
500
50%
250
25%
% of the day 2 Cogens are operating
0%
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
0
Figure 4 – Annual storage volume required and percentage of the day with two cogeneration engine in operation
2.3 Redundancies
Currently, the cogeneration facility has 100% engine redundancy as the plant only has one
duty engine operating at any given time. With the gas production increases over the years,
the two engines will be needed to consume gas available. When one of the engines is to be
shut down for maintenance, the proposed gas storage will be able to store the additional
gas for certain period of time (the duration shall depends on the gas production) to prevent
wasting through boilers or gas flares. However, shut down time without wasting gas
during maintenance will decrease over the years as gas flow increases. For example, in
2011, with 900m3 of storage available, one of the engines could be shut down for
maintenance for 24 hours without needing to waste the surplus gas. In 2016, the same
volume of storage could only provide 14 hours of shut down. Therefore, by 2016, a second
similar size storage unit might be needed to allow 24 hours shut down time for one of the
two cogeneration engines. However, redundancy could be optimized by scheduling annual
maintenance during winter. This allows biogas to be used for heating when one of the
engine is out for maintenance.
3 Gas Storage Technologies
There are two principle types of onsite gas storage commonly used in municipal sewage
treatment plant: (1) constant volume, variable pressure storage; and (2) constant pressure,
variable volume storage.
3.1 Constant Volume Variable Pressure Storage
The constant volume, variable pressure storage is essentially a medium to high pressure vessel
that stores compressed gas. A pressure regulating valve is installed downstream of the gas pipe
that slowly releases gas at desirable operating pressure and flow to the end user. As gas stored in
5
the tank depletes, the pressure in the storage vessel decreases and eventually stops gas releasing
when pressure drops to a given set point (usually close to the operating pressure of the end user).
Gas is typically compressed to between 10 to 50 psig in municipal sewage treatment plants.
Pressure vessels are made of steel or stainless steel and may theoretically be almost any shape,
but shapes made of sections of spheres, cylinders, and cones are usually employed. A sphere has
the strongest structural integrity due to its spherical shape that offers uniform stress resistance,
allowing the vessels to economically contain internal pressures. They require less land area yet
provide more capacity than other pressure storage vessels, resulting in lower associated costs for
piping, foundations, accessories and painting. However, design and fabrication of this type of
geometry is challenging and is still under patent by Horton CB&I. An alternate design is a
cylinder with end caps called heads. Head shapes are frequently either hemispherical or dished
(torispherical). Figure 5 (a) & (b) illustrate this type of gas storage in municipal plant.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5 (a) –Spherical Vessel (Horton Sphere) (b) Hemispherical Steel Pressure Vessel
3.2 Constant Pressure Variable Volume Storage
The variable volume, constant pressure storage employs mechanism that allows expansion of the
tank volume when storage is required and contraction when gas depletion occurs. They are low
pressure storage that has an operating pressure that matches the gas pressure in the digester 10 to
15” water column. The few storage solutions available in the market that applies this principle
are: (1) gas holding steel cover on a concrete tank, (2) double membrane gas holder, (3) gas
bladder in steel or concrete tank.
3.2.1
Gas Holding Steel Cover on a Concrete Tank
This is an established technology and is commonly seen in North America municipal sewage
treatment plants. It is typically used to retrofit existing digester to replace the digester roof. The
gas holder is a floating cover that could be of shell-theory dome or radial beam structure, with
added side sheet and ballast to maximize stability. The extended skirt moves up and down
6
vertically within the tank depending on gas volume. To increase stability during high winds
condition, guides are installed to the cover sidesheet, engaging guide devices in the digester wall.
The guides could be vertical or spiral guide. Figure 6 (a) &(b) illustrate this type of gas holding
cover on digesters.
Established manufacturers with extended North American installation list are: Ovivo, Wes Tech
Engineering, Claro and Olympus Technologies.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6 (a) –Schematic of a Radial Beam Structure (Courtesy of Ovivo) (b) Example of Gas Cover on Digesters (Courtesy of Wes
Tech Engineering)
3.2.2
Double Membrane Gas Storage
The double membrane gas storage is a relatively new storage technology that has been available
in the market for approximately 15 years. The technology was originally developed in Europe,
started in the farming industry where low cost biogas harvesting is a common practice. Due to its
low cost, easy installation and low maintenance features, this technology has grown popular over
the last decade and there are more than a hundred units installed worldwide. Its application in
municipal sewage treatment plants for digester gas storage has also become more popular.
However, the introduction of this technology to the North American market has only been fairly
recent. There are few municipal installations in United States but none to-date in Canada.
The storage consists of an external membrane which forms the outer shape of the tank, as well as
an internal membrane and a bottom membrane which make up the actual gas space. A
permanently running support air blower provides air to the space between inner and outer
membrane, and thus keeps the gas pressure up at a constant level – irrespective of gas production
and gas withdrawal. The pressurized air has two functions. First it keeps the outer membrane in
shape to withstand external wind- and snow loads. Second it exerts a constant pressure on the
inner membrane and thus pushes gas at constant volume and pressure into the outlet pipe. A
safety valve is mounted on the inlet gas header and serves to prevent the gas holder from over
pressure. There is a pressure regulator installed on the discharge header that serves as a pressure
control valve. Pressure in the holder is kept constant by allowing the gas holder to inflate or
deflate. The filling level is measured by an ultrasonic level transmitter.
7
The storage is available in two types of configuration: (1) standalone unit mounted on a concrete
slab; (2) semi-spherical dome that is mounted on a concrete tank (typically replaces the roof of a
digester). Figure 7 (a) and (b) illustrate the two configurations.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7 (a) –Concrete Base Mounted Membrane Holder (b) Tank Mounted Membrane Holder
3.2.3
Gas Bladder in a Steel or Concrete Tank
This storage essentially acts like a bladder tank, where the bladder itself is made of high-tensile
strength polyester or closely woven nylon fabric, specially designed to be chemically resistant
and flame resistant. The bladder is installed in a steel or concrete tank, mounted to an attachment
bar around the tank shell and to a floating ring. It also includes a stabilizing weight to secure
position. Gas withdrawal and gas filling of the pressureless gas bags is most often done via gas
connections in the rigid bottom or top surface areas. The filling levels are measured by means of
ultrasonic level transmitter. Figure 8 illustrates a typical configuration of the gas bladder tank.
Compared to the double membrane storage, this is relatively uncommon and to-date, there is no
established North American manufacturer that provides a complete system supply. Design is
typically done by a third party engineering group with specified fabric supplied by the fabric
manufacturer. Mesa Rubber and Sattler AG are the two established fabric manufacturers that
have experience in supplying fabric suitable for biogas storage.
8
Figure 8 – Gas Bladder in a Steel Tank (Courtesy of Sattler)
4 Comparison of Alternatives
Further investigation was conducted to identify the storage option that best suits Barrie WPCC.
Of the four options describe above, only the following three options are considered:
• Double membrane storage,
• Spherical pressure vessel, and
• Steel gas cover.
The gas bladder storage option is excluded from the investigation because of its limited
installation examples in North America sewage treatment plant and has no established system
manufacturer specializing in this technology to-date.
Factors to consider in the evaluation includes: technology maturity, public safety, code
compliance, structural integrity, maintenance, capital cost and foot print.
4.1 Option 1 – Double Membrane Gas Storage
4.1.1 Description
This option considers installing the membrane gas storage downstream of the digesters. Gas
header from the digester will be connected to the inlet of the storage. In this case, the membranes
are designed to store gas at pressures matching the digester headspace gas pressures. The outlet
gas header will send gas to the existing gas booster system, through the gas treatment system and
eventually the cogen systems.
Both standalone unit (concrete slab mounted) and tank mounted are considered in this
evaluation. Four established manufacturers were contacted to obtain budgetary proposals for a
800m3 gas storage: Ovivo, Wes Tech Engineering, Claro and Siemens. The systems supplied are
overall similar and includes the three layer membranes (one inner, one outer and one as the base),
9
fans for continuously venting the membrane space, level measurement, pressure relief valve,
pressure control valve and control panel. Packaged equipment cost ranges between CAD$100 to
$300K for concrete slab mounted option and CAD$250 to $600K for the tank mounted option. The
reason tank mounted option is more expensive is because more membrane material is required to
cover a larger diameter foundation in order to achieve the same storage volume.
For the tank mounted option, a 1.5m high concrete tank is included to serve as a support. Due to
space limitation in the plant, a new small gas building will also be required to house the two
blowers and its power and control appurtenances. These costs are not included in suppliers
budgetary cost. Table 2 provides a summary of the budgetary proposals can construction cost
associated with the double membrane storage.
Table 2 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals from Double Membrane Storage Manufacturers
Manufacturers / Model
Footprint
Budgetary Cost ($CDN)
(A) Slab Mounted
12m (slab foundation)
$300,000
(B) Tank Mounted
16m (membrane diameter)
$600,000
(A) Slab Mounted
12.5m (slab foundation)
$225,000
(B) Tank Mounted
17m (membrane/tank diameter)
$368,000
12m
$62,000*
16m (membrane/tank diameter)
$242,000
Siemens / Dystor
Wes Tech Engineering / Dupsphere
Claro
Slab Mounted
Ovivo
Tank Mounted
Total Estimated Construction Cost †
$750,000 – Slab Mounted
$1,100,000 – Tank Mounted
4.1.2 Evaluation
Technology maturity – Technology was developed in Europe, originally popular in the farming
industry. Its popularity has grown in municipal applications and there are more than 200 units
installed worldwide. However, this technology is fairly new to the North American municipal
market. There have been a few municipality installations in United States over the last few years
but there is no installation to-date in Ontario or across Canada.
Public safety – Fabric material, although flame resistant, is not flame proof. Fabric material will
burn when fire is introduced to the fabric. Its fabric material nature could be set as target for
vandalism from public. For the slab mounted configuration, the storage is susceptible to damage
from vehicle collision due to its location in a busy street intersectionand will require barriers
around the storage.
* excludes freight from UK and installation)
† Includes equipment package, piping materials, installation of equipment and piping as well as construction cost for the new gas
building. Excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency.
10
Code compliance – Manufacturers have little experience in working with Technical Standards and
Safety Authority (TSSA) to comply with Digester Gas and Landfill Code CAN/CGA- B105. For
example, the code requires a pair of flash-back (flame) arresters and pressure relief valves to be
provided with the connection located on top of the container as close as is practicable to the
digester gas storage space. This type of arrangement is not possible for standard membrane gas
holder design, as there is no support structure around the gas storage space to mount the gas
protection equipments. Standard design of the gas holder only includes a gas relief valve which is
typically installed on the gas inlet header. Also, the Code requires the flame arresters and relief
valves to be piped in parallel, with a three-way manual change-over valve installed in the
common supply piping so that there shall be only one of the flash-back (flame) arresters and one
of the pressure relief valves in effective service at all times. The standard membrane holder
design does not include flamer arresters installation. Although TSSA will entertain variance from
the code to some extent, it requires manufacturers to work closely with TSSA and modify their
standard design to meet the Code.
System reliability - Inner layer membrane is PVC-coated polyester fabric supported by biogas.
Outer layer membrane, which is PVC-coated polyester fabric supported by air Membrane
material, is very resistant to minor puncturing and tearing and its physical characteristics (tensile
strength, tear strength, bending, flame resistance etc) are tested and certified by DIN standard
(German Institute for Standardization). Wind and Snow load is considered in sizing. However, it
is not as resilient nor bullet proof as steel or concrete, and is susceptible to sharp object piercing.
Maintenance - Low maintenance. It requires typical O&M effort for fan maintenance and belt
replacement. The membrane cover can be easily removed for repair or replacement.
Footprint- Both slab mounted and tank mounted membranes and the gas building could fit on
the proposed gas storage location, i.e. foundation of the old primary clarifier that was demolished
in the 90’s.
4.2 Option 2 – Medium Gas Pressure Vessel
4.2.1 Description
This option considers storing gas at 200kPa (30 psi) in a steel sphere pressure vessel. To reduce
corrosion on gas compressors and the steel vessel, gas from the digesters will first be treated to
remove H2S and moisture. In this case, the storage will be located downstream of the gas
treatment, where treated gas will first be compressed to 200kPa with a rotary vane type of
compressor prior to storage. A pressure regulating valve will be installed at the discharge end of
the storage, which regulates the gas pressure and controls the flow entering the cogen system.
Rotary vane type compressors are used in this option due to the medium pressure requirement.
Compared to other compressors such as reciprocating and centrifugal, rotary vane requires small
foot print, is quiet and has little to no vibration. The compressors are designed to allow for 100%
redundancy at both average and peak hour flow. To accommodate the wide range of flow, this
study assumed three compressors (each with average flow capacity) to be provided. A gas
building will be required to house the compressors, gas protection equipment and control panel.
Two type of geometry for the pressure vessel were considered: the spherical and the cylindrical
type.
11
The spherical steel structure is a patented technology by CB&I. The manufacturer has more than a
century of history and has installed more than 3500 spherical pressure vessels worldwide. The
two biogas storage sphere in Hamilton Woodward Avenue WWTP and Burlington Skyway
WWTP were both constructed by CB&I approximately 30 years ago. CB&I is an engineering,
procurement/fabrication and construction (EPC) contractor and typically delivers these spheres
in a turnkey basis.
The cylindrical type structure is a very common pressure vessel used for compressed gas storage.
Unlike the spherical vessel, fabrication is relatively simple without patent issue involve, and there
are many more fabricators available in the market. However, fabricators that are familiar with
TSSA certification requirement are less than a handful, as the certification requirement is strictly
enforced only within the Ontario province. Two local fabrication shops: Alps Welding Inc., and
Clemmer Steel Craft, both located in Ontario, were identified to be capable of building a vessel
that will meet TSSA’s requirement.
Annual operating cost is approximately $18,000 and entails electricity cost (gas compression) and
spare parts replacement for gas compressors.
Table 3 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals Medium Pressure Vessel
Manufacturers
CB&I Horton Sphere
Footprint
7.5m (D) – Pressure Vessel*
7m (L) x 7m (W) x 5 m (H)
- Gas Compressor Building
Cylindrical Pressure Vessel
1.9m (D) x 5.9 m (H)
- Pressure Vessel
$ 1,400,000 (includes design,
fabrication and onsite
installation)
$ 25,000
7m (L) x 7m (W) x 5 m (H)
- Gas Compressor Building
Total Construction Cost †
$ 2,140,000 – Horton Sphere pressure vessel
$ 1,131,000 – Horizontal cylindrical pressure vessel
4.2.2 Evaluation
Technology maturity – Conventional option for biogas storage. There are two established
municipal installations in Ontario: Burlington Skyway WWTP and Hamilton Woodward Avenue
WWTP. Both installations are more than 25 years old
Public safety – The Horton sphere is a common choice of storage used by industries such as oil,
gas, petrochemical, chemical and aerospace due to its resilient structure. Hence, its presence
poses very low risks to public safety. Its steel surfaces could be frequently painted for advertising
or landscaping purpose.
* This is the smaller pressure vessel the manufacturer had built to date.
† Includes compressor package, piping materials, pressure vessel, installation of equipment and piping, as well as construction cost
for the new gas compressor building. Excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency.
12
Code compliance – Fabricator of the medium pressure steel sphere and piping will need to follow
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and CSA B51Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Pressure Piping
Code. CB&I has sufficient construction experience to ensure the end product meet these Codes.
System reliability - Spherical shape structure offers uniform stress resistance, allowing the
vessels to economically contain internal pressures. Vessel may require inspection once every 10
years.
Maintenance - Compressors require frequent inspection and occasional maintenance such as oil
or filter change, seal, gasket replacement, coupling realignment etc.
Footprint- Both sphere structure and the gas building could fit on the proposed gas storage
location, i.e. foundation of the old primary clarifier that was demolished in the 90’s.
4.3 Option 3 – Steel Gas Cover
4.3.1 Description
This option considers storing gas in a concrete tank roofed with a floating steel gas cover. Ideally,
the floating gas cover could be retrofitted in one of the existing digesters by replacing its roof.
However, all of the digesters roof in Barrie WPCC were recently overhauled and replaced with
new ones during the 76 MLD Expansion Project. Therefore, a new concrete tank housing the
floating gas cover is considered for gas storage purpose. The concrete tank will serve as the
additional headspace for the digester, and hence will have the same gas pressure as the digesters.
A gas header from the digester will be routed to the storage tank. Outlet of the tank will feed gas
to the existing gas boosters, subsequently to the gas treatment system and finally to the cogen
system. During peak gas flow or when only one cogen engine is operating, the remaining gas not
consumed will remain in the storage tank. The gas cover will move up vertically along the guides
to compensate the volume change to maintain a given pressure. Storage volume is defined by the
diameter of the tank and the cover skirt. The diameter of the cover is optimized to allow for
storing 800m3 of gas.
The concrete tank will be coated with gas and water proofing layer. To provide double protection
from gas leakage, the tank will store minimum level of non-freezing and non-combustible liquid.
The tank, unlike typical digester, does not need to account for hydrostatic pressure of sludge, but
will be designed to account for gas storing pressure (12 to 15” water column).
There are many established manufacturers in North America specializing in this type of
technologies such as: Wes Tech Engineering, Ovivo, Olympus Technologies Inc, Siemens and
Claro. Two suppliers, Wes Tech Engineering and Ovivo were contacted to obtain budgetary cost
for this type of roof.
Table 4 – Summary of Budgetary Proposals from Digester Cover Manufacturers
Manufacturers / Model
Footprint
Ovivo / G1 Floating Gasholder Cover
21.3 diameter with 1.5m skirt height
$463,000
22.3 diameter with 3m skirt height
$338,700
Wes Tech Engineering / DCB34
Radial Beam Gasholder Cover
13
Total Construction Cost*
$900,000
4.3.2 Evaluation
Technology maturity – Popular technology for digester cover. There are many installations in
Ontario and across Canada.
Public safety – Gas protection equipment will be installed on the roof and safety level is similar
to a typical anaerobic digester.
Code compliance – Cover design meet CAN/CGA-B105 code. TSSA inspection team is familiar
with this type of storage technology.
System reliability - Both the concrete tank and the digester cover are structurally stable. Wind
and snow load is considered on the cover design. Steel guides, if not installed properly, could get
jammed and affect storage performance.
Maintenance – Guides on the walls require frequent maintenance.
Footprint - The concrete tank will take up the entire foundation of demolished primary clarifier.
* includes 4m tall concrete tank, gas piping and gas protection equipment; excludes HST, escalation and construction contingency.
14
4.4 Summary of Comparison
Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of the three storages. For systematic evaluation, each criteria is rated with “♦” symbol. Option
with most “♦” indicates the most desirable.
Table 5 – Summary of Storage Options Comparison
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Medium Pressure
Steel Gas Cover
Slab Mounted
Tank Mounted
Steel Sphere
Steel Cylinder
Construction Cost, $CDN
$750,000
$1,110,000
$2,140,000
$1,131,000
$900,000
Annual O&M Cost, $CDN
$3,000
$3,000
$19,000
$19,000
$0
Net Present Value, $CDN
($787,400)
($1,147,000)
($2,380,000)
($1,367,000)
($900,000)
♦♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
O&M Cost
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦♦♦
Technology Maturity
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
Public Safety
♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
Code Compliance
♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
System Reliability
♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦
Maintenance
♦♦
♦♦
♦
♦
♦
Footprint
♦♦
♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦♦♦
♦
14
14
18
20
17
High risk of Code
incompliance and
public safety
High risk of Code
incompliance and
public safety
High Capital and
O&M Cost
High O&M Cost
Largest Footprint
Required. Cannot increase
expansion for redundancy
Construction Cost
Expandability
Total number of “♦
♦”
Most Undesirable
15
5 Recommendation
Of the three technologies evaluated, it is recommended that the City adopt Option 2B: compress
and store biogas in a medium pressure gas cylindrical vessel. Although Option 2B has high O&M
cost, its advantages such as mature technology, small footprint and low risk of meeting code
compliance outweigh the cost. It’s net present value ranks 2nd highest and is approximately
$1.37M over the 20 years.
5.1 Expandability
The main purpose of the gas storage is to accumulate the surplus gas for a certain period and use
it to operate the second engine for extended hours during peak electricity rate. As gas flow
increases, the period to operate two engines increases, hence reducing the storage volume
required. As shown in Section 2.2, storage volume required will reduce over the years.
However, gas storage could also provide redundancies for cogen engines shut down. The storage
volume recommended will allow one of the engine shutdown for 24 hours based on gas flow in
2011 without needing to waste gas. The allowable shutdown time reduces as gas flow increases.
By 2016, the allowable shut down time is only 16 hours. For redundancies reason, it is
recommended that a second same size storage unit to be installed by 2018 to increase shut down
time to 24 hours. Option 2B allows addition of additional storage without the requirement for
additional auxiliary equipment. By 2023, the gas production will reach the capacity to operate
two cogen engines continuously. At this stage, expansion of the cogeneration system will be
required. Figure 9 in Appendix illustrate the expansion plan for the biogas storage facility.
5.2 Biogas Purification System (post evaluation item)
During one of the design review meeting, the City raised the question of the feasibility of
purifying biogas to natural gas as another biogas utilization alternative. The purified natural gas
could either be sold to the Gas Company for revenue or used as a fuel source for the plant’s
cogeneration facility. Both options carry financial benefits to the City. However, gas purification
is not recommended as an alternative at this stage of upgrade for the following reasons:
1. The gas prices at current Ontario market are relatively low compared to the electricity
price. Green electricity initiative such as the Feed-In-Tariff present a higher investment
return for the City if the energy recovered is to be sold back to utility as electricity instead
of gas. The plant currently has sufficient cogeneration capacity to fully utilize the gas
available for power generation. Improving the plant’s storage capacity and the
cogeneration engine control presents lower hanging fruit cost savings opportunities
compared to constructing a new gas purification facility on site. However, it is
recommended that this option be revisited in the future when gas production in the plant
exceeds the capacity of the two engines.
2. Although pure natural gas has a higher energy value in kWh/m3, the total energy
recovered per volume of biogas remains the same. The engine will require less volume of
gas to generate the same amount of energy, and perhaps its efficiency will improve by a
16
few percent. However, the additional savings from the improved efficiency will not
outweigh the capital cost invested in the gas purification system.
17
APPENDIX A
Biogas Storage Sizing Calculations
Gas Storage Sizing Estimation
Average
Biogas, m3/day
Year
2009
4080
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
4177
4365
4507
4649
4791
4934
5076
5218
5360
5502
5645
5787
5929
6071
Average
Biogas
Production,
m3/hr
Diurnal Peak
Biogas
Production,
m3/hr
174
182
188
194
200
206
211
217
223
229
235
241
247
253
191
200
207
213
220
226
233
239
246
252
259
265
272
278
Average
Biogas
Biogas
Storage
Storage
Volume,m
volume,m3/hr
3
36
44
50
55
61
67
73
79
85
91
97
103
109
115
642
771
769
854
817
823
817
800
770
729
676
611
534
331
Max
% turn down
when
running 2
2 engines (split)
engines
Hours of Operation *
1 engine
16
16
14
14
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
2
854 m3
30167 ft3
* Hours of operation for 1 or 2 engines are determined by maximizing power production during peak hour rate (11am to 7pm).
Hours are balanced such that two engines could operate at maximum capacity during the peak hour rate.
Diurnal Peak Factor for Biogas Production
1.1
Biogas required for 1 cogen engine
3317.4 m3/day
138 m3/hr
Max Power Generation
250 kWe
8
8
10
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
89%
97%
93%
98%
94%
95%
95%
96%
96%
96%
97%
97%
97%
95%
Annual Average Biogas Production, m3/day
8,000
One (1) 900m3 storage
Add one additional
900m 3 storage to
increase redundancy *
6,000
4,000
Explore two options:
1) replacing the two 250kW
engines with two 350kW
engines
2) Construct gas purification
system to purify biogas to
natural gas quality and sell
back to gas utility
2,000
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
Year
2025
Figure 9 – Biogas Storage Facility Expandability Plan
* NOTE: Additional storage could be avoided if redundancy is optimized by scheduling shut down for maintenance during winter (and feed additional biogas to boiler)
20
Appendix D
Noise Study
Barrie WWTP Co-gen Building Engine Room Noise Summary:
Assumptions:
1 Acoustic panels installed on wall/ ceiling will be reduced to 50%.
2 Due to a lack of site specific data, American Gas Association engine exhaust noise data were used for exhaust noise analysis.
3 The west and east bi-fold doors of the engine room are closed.
1 Residential Receptors
Existing - one engine operates
Existing measured Leq
(nighttime) - from Audit
Report (Aug-11-2004)
Receptor ID
(dBA)
51
R1
51
R2
51
R3
48
R4
Modeled Engine Noise
Impacts
(dBA)
50
48
46
46
Contribution from Other Noise
Sources
(dBA)
42
48
49
43
Performance Limit (nighttime)
(dBA)
49
49
49
48
Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of roof top exhaust fans
Contribution from Other Noise
Sources
(dBA)
42
48
49
43
(dBA)
49
49
49
48
Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of rooftop exhaust fans and plenum on upper louvers
Modeled Engine Noise Contribution from Other Noise
Impacts
Sources
Receptor ID Calculated Leq (nighttime)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
52.0
42
R1
52
51.7
48
R2
49
51.5
49
R3
48
48.9
43
R4
48
(dBA)
49
49
49
48
Proposed - Two Engine operate with addition of rooftop exhaust fans and 3 (1.8mx2.8m) acoustic louvers
Modeled Engine Noise Contribution from Other Noise
Impacts
Sources
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
49.5
42
R1
49
50.3
48
R2
46
50.5
49
R3
45
47.0
43
R4
45
(dBA)
49
49
49
48
(dBA)
53.6
R1
52.7
R2
52.2
R3
50.2
R4
Modeled Engine Noise
Impacts
(dBA)
53
51
49
49
2.Predicted Sound Pressure Level at Indoor Receptors (West of Engines) (dBA)
Receptor ID
Distance to Engine
One Engine operates Two Engines operate - no plenum Two Engines operate - plenum Two Engine operate - acoustic louver
(m)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
(dBA)
IR1
1
103
104
104
104
IR2
2
100
102
101
101
IR3
3
99
101
101
101
IR4
4
98
101
101
101
IR5
5
98
101
100
100
Ontario Occupational Exposure Limit
(dBA)
Duration (hr)
85
8
88
4
91
2
94
1
97
0.5
100
0.25

Biogas Project Screening Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Training on book-keeping for SHG members

Live Better - City of Barrie

EFSL School Sites - Simcoe County District School Board

Biomethane production and its use in captive fleets Lille

11th Annual Barrie Waterfront Festival press relase

Possibility of introduction biogas in Rzeszow Marek Rudkowski

Get Ready For Kempenfest!

Griffin News - Kempenfelt Bay School

Electronic Press Kit (EPK)

Barrie Brings the City to Youth Local Government Week Engages