Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-12-2007-2ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 12, 2007 Action Agend~~ Item No. SUBJECT: Landfill Gas Opportunities Update DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Wilson, 968-2885 April 2007 Landfill Gas Recovery Executive Summary PURPOSE: To receive information regarding the potential use of landfill gas as a supplemental energy source for public facilities in the vicinity of Eubanks Road and for the Carolina North project. BACKGROUND: Following discussion of the potential use of landfill gas at the March 2006 Assembly of Governments meeting, County staff undertook atwo-pronged analysis of the feasibility of tapping methane gas produced by decomposition at the Orange County Landfill as a supplementary energy source. The County's consulting engineer, Olver, Inc. produced an interim report that was presented to the Board at an October 24, 2006 work session. The report addressed issues related to 1) potential use of landfill gas to help power County and school facilities in the vicinity of Eubanks Road; and 2) potential use of landfill gas as a "bridge" energy source for future development at the Carolina North project by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Based on further review and discussion with the University, Olver has now completed a report on its findings, and a copy of the executive summary of this report is attached. The report's conclusions and recommendations are detailed on pages 6 and 7 of the executive summary (pages 8 and 9 of this agenda abstract package). FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the Board receiving information regarding the potential use of landfill gas as a supplemental energy source for public facilities in the vicinity of Eubanks Road and for the Carolina North project. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information regarding the potential use of landfill gas as a supplemental energy source for public facilities in the vicinity of Eubanks Road and for the Carolina North project and direct staff to proceed with additional analysis and continue discussions regarding the Carolina North Project. LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APRIL 2007 Prepared far: orange County, North Carolina ~~t 1 t' ~i ,,r"'~"..~,"~" ""~ ~~~~ '\,t J ~~ iEar°i Orange County PO Box 171'77 Chapel Hitl, NC 27516-7177 Prepared. by: ~' ~ Over Incorporated ~~~ )~~ 8720 Red Oak $outevard, Suite 505 '~J Charlotte, NC 28277 INCORPORATED Project Number 20iSY i~;~t~[~€~~i'~ L" i1~-~~~s~~;ti.r.~~~a~1~~~.~~1~~~~~~" ~:h~~~~i~«~.dt,~~ O~.a~cTly~ "I'he objective of this phase of work is t11e preparation of a feasibility analysis o'1' landfill gas recovery options associated tivith the County's L;tillank Road MSWLF disposal facilities. flnalyses include the evaluation of the Carolina North project altelzlative and evaluation of proposed cogeneration energy users in the immediate vicinity of the .Lubanks Road solid waste management facility, i.e., public elementary school, animal shelter, Solid Waste Operations Center, and Lubanks Road solid waste management facilities (possible construction of a transfer station and other on-site auxiliary facilities. The status of the evaluations for each altel~tlative is presented as follows: Eubanks Road Cogeneration Project Future cogeneration energy users in the immediate vicinity of the Eubalil:s Road solid waste management facility, including the proposed solid waste operations center, possible constl-uctioll of a transfer station, elementary school, and animal slleltcr were evaluated with respect to combined heat a11d power (Clip} energy demand. .Based. upo11 the information provided by the facility designers and County staff, Table 1 summarizes the anticipated implementation schedule for each facility. Ta~ile 1 FACILITY IIvIPLENIENTATION SC1.1E17UL.E Sotid Waste Operations Center .December 2007 Possible Transfer Station Juty 2010 Elementary Schoot August 2008 Anmat Shelter September 2009 Lstilnated Annual heating, cooling, lighting,. and laower loads for each of the proposed facilities are presented in the follo~vilag table. The elementary sc11oo1 is the largest potential energy usel• and is a ke}J compolYent of an3° combined heat and power project 1rt111z1ng 1a11dii11 gas recovered 1a•om the Coinlty's existing Isubanks Road 1v1SWLl t~lcilities. Based upotl the projected facility energy demands presented in Table 2, only collection and recovery of gas fl'o111 the SOUtII. LUlJa11.kS ltt)ad Slte ~vlll lie reClllll'ed tc1 illeet the projected 30 year energy 1leeds of this alternative. . Oran~~c C'cninty~_ ;Uarth C:'~rr~~lina 1 LI~C:i Status Exr;cutivc suntnmrl• . :lpril2{it:l7 __ - - _ _ _._~1 _ _. _ il!t~BS~'~!';L,t:~x`:~®~{wni!~t~~~°-~.~k~''j~ts~,.,~~~d`~.';*,I ~p3~ath~~~~~~~~d ~_ Table 2 ENERGY Sta~MAltY a Energy Demand Solid Waste Operations Center 195,600 670 AnimalShetter b17,600 2,110 Elementary School 1,070,100 3,650 Transfer Station 112,500 380 Misc. 35,000 120 Subtotal 2,030,800 b,390 Available Energy LFG - 30 Year Minimum 13,475,000 24,600 Combined Heating and Power Electric Energy Generation 2,360,800 8,060 Waste Heat Recovery 3,004,700 10,255 Cogeneration combined heat gild power) is an integrated system located at or near a building, or facility, satisfying at least a portion Of the facility's electrical demand and utilizing the heat generated by the electric {shaft) power generation equipment to pro~ride heating, cooling, and/or deliumidificatian to a building nr i.ndustrial process. The microturbi.ne technology tiaras selected as the cogeneratio~l energy producing system. Refer to the following figure. ~~Iternatar- Compressor Inlet Air ~' i? ! ;ri i'l~.'~t RecoVOry ~-` Unit 1t~rzUj ~;. ., Turbine ~licroturbint; Figure 1 Hot 1Nater Supply F ~.,.~ bAtarrft Water Return C7ran~~c County, Nardi C;irt~lina 2 C.FCi St~~tus Cxecuti~~~ Suz~nn~uy ~~hri 121)07 . _ _. vF ~i~l~~~ ` ~4~' ~~~t.wl~~9.itr»~"nd~ i~; 4~i~1~~~~~~~' ~~tl¢r9~~~~.~~ \,,, Under the proposed lubanlcs Rnad cogeneration scenario, landfill gas 4vnuld be collected frnm the South Eubarll:s Rnad NISWI_,F iulit. The bas would be compressed at1t1 l~uml~ed to the proposed elementary schnol site ~1tid used as the pt•im~lry fuel source far a X75 k'Ua' microturbine system 4vit11 inter~ra~ted exhaust heat recover}r. The elec~tric~ity generated by the nlicroturbine would be used :tor Beating, cooling, power, anal lighting at the proposed animal shelter, solid ~~~aste operations center, possible construction of a transfer station. and ntller on-site auxiliary facilities, and for cooling, .power, and lighting at the elementary school. Thermal energy frnm the r~vaste heat recovery cycle ~vauld be used for school heating purposes. Excess power (electricity) would be sold to Duke E;nerg}~ under a parallel generation agreement. Major components of the system include: gas extraction. wells and collection system (South Eubanks MSWLF), blo«rer and flare statioxl (South Eubanks MSWLE), moisture removal and gas compression station. (South Eubanks MSWLF site), gas transmission line to elementary schnol, fuel conditioning and rnicroturbine system (elementary school) and power grid intertie and protective relay module (elernentar}J school). The results of a 3U-year, life-cycle .cost analysis for this option are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 ECONOMIC 1~VA1..llAT1{~`J (Annual Average Cost) Energy Sales & Avoided Costs $1b8,100 Energy Production Costs $27'b,700 Net Energy Vattae {$t08b00) Net Present Worth {$t,5b5295) PasEd LipUil the preliminary energy demands of the primary users, the Eubattl:s Rnaci Cogeneration Project does not appear to be econnmicaliy acivantagenus at tills time (i.e., tl~e estimated energy costs are projected to exceed the total energy sales secs avoiclerl casts.} 1-lowever, it should be noted that the design consultants for the. elementary school and animal shelter slave been requested to review aid ctpciate energy denla~ld assurnptians based upon more del`ined building program requirements. "1'he economics nf'the project are negatively impacted by the fact that estinlat~d thermal energy demands for the primary Eubanlts Road users are not sufficient to maximize the waste heat recovery t)ranae C'o!utn-. \it~rth C:arolin~t ~ i,PG Status l:iscc!uive Sumnrtr~~ y April2C)Oi (~ '-:alc~l~~~~. ti_.~~`~"~~~'~v,+.,j?.. {s,~~„j~~~§q~a.{ 5~}}~+~OiB~i~~"~i.{ potential of the proposec9 nlicrotLU•bine ezlergy system. Increases in future heating or process demand use by users along the Eubanks Road corridor could beneficially impact file eco11on1ics oL this proposed CNP project. The economic proforma f:or the Eubanks Road Cogeneration project will be updatedupoll receipt of final energy demands for file primary users. Possible public/private partnership options nlaxinlizing green. paver and energy tax credit benefits will also be illvestigateci and factored into the final economic proforma for this LFG recovery system. Carolina North Prole+ct A meeting with University of North Carolina's Energy Services Department was held to determine the potential for LFG utilization at the proposed. Carolina North campus. $ased upon this meeting it is understood that UNC is interested in using alternate energy sources such as 1a11dfill gas to meet at least a portion of the energy demand at the proposed facilities. It is anticipated that the earliest completion date for any building construction given an aggressive implementation is late 2008. I~or file purposes of this preliminary economic; keasibility analysis it was assumed that the first phase of Carolina North building program would be completed in 2008 and that the energy neecis of file complex rvould grow from approximately ~0% of the cogeneration potential. from LFG recovery at both. the Nolth and South Eubanks Road MSWLI! sites to 100% of file total. COgellel'atlol] potential by 2011. ~fl1e llllcroturbine technology vas selected. as file cogeneration. system for evaluation of this alternative. I"he following table ("fable 4) summarizes available enemy and the combined heating and power generation. potential of a 750 k~4V system. I"11ese assumptions and the proposed. infra-structure requireiuents of the project are being cooldlnated with the Unl~'ersrty .Energy Services Department and their consultant. oran;~c Count~~,';~orth Carolina ~{ L,I?Ci status [:;xccuti~re Summar~~ rinril 207 _ . , , _.. y I-v:a_i"~~B~R~;~ IG. (~~e(C(~~~Y~ j 1 ?~i.~"`Cd~EI~E~~~4 ~_~61;!+I~;n~~~~~'~ '~ able zt ENERGY StJIVt~r1~RY r, -''a~ ~-n iE"ik t d t~ {•:.i tr I J~"t 1 1 1 F '~.: Available Energy lFG - 30 Year Average 20,200 b9,000 LFG - 30 Year Minimum 10,300 35,200 Natural Gas Matte•Up - 30 Year Maximum 11,200 38,300 Cambined Heating and Power LFG Required 21,500 73,500 Electric Energy Generation 6,400 21,800 Waste Heat Recovery 9,600 32,800 Under the proposed Carolina North alternative, landfill gas tivould be collected from both the Nortli Eubanks Road and South Eubanks .Road MSWI.F units. The gas would be compressed and pumped to the proposed Carolina -North site and used as the primary fuel source for direct Erring of ~ 7~0 kW micTaturbule system with integrated exhaust .heat recovery. The electricity generated by the nlicraturbine would be used far cooling, power,. end ..lighting of proposed North campus buildings. Thermal energy fram the waste heat recovery cycle would be used far heating and passible coaling and/or dehumidifica- tion purposes. Excess power (electricity) during the initial. years of operation (2009 through 2011 time frame) would be sold to Duke Energy under a parallel getiexation agreement. Major components al' the system include: gas extraction wells and collection systeizi (North Eubanks MSWI..F' and South Eubanks MSWLF), blower and flare stations (North Eubanks IvISWLF and South Eubanks MSWLF), moisture removal and ,gas compression station {Eubanks Road Salicl Waste 1vlanagement Facilities site), bas transmission line to Carolina North complex, fuel conditioning and microtttrbine system (Carolrna North complex) anti power grid ntertic and relay stivitch gear (Carolina North. complex). "I`11e results of a 30-year, present wa>•tl1 analysis far this alternative are stunn~arizcd in Table 5. Change Count}~. \orth C'aralina 5 L.I'C:i Status I~xccuti~•e Summar}~ :1 pri 12t)t)7 .. _ ~. ~ ,;~ ic7~,z~; Ea~~:° ~i~Vw{a-~@a\tl.~.,,~r~v~ ~~-y'.4"„~€~t~~, ~ '~;i9S9°~~~~1~~ J' -~ ~~pp~``'C•abci,~3 5 E~~N~PYfI~ 1_Y~l,~f~•1 ~~N (Present tiVorth} Energy Sates tt Avoided Costs $7,79~,b18 Energy Production Costs $7,788,85$ Net Energy Vatue $10,760 Based upon this prelin~tinary analysis, the Carolina Nortll alternative has. the prospective to be economically advantageous to both the University and the CoutYty f~t•om a cost recovery standpoint (i.e., the total energy sales and avoided costs exceed the estimated energy production costs.) Additional environmental bene:lts also accrue troth the green power aspect of this alternative. Because: of the natural tinge dependent decline in LFG generation :rates, the actual development schedule of the Carolina North project is critical in terms of maximizing the available LFG use potential of the Comity's existing landfill facilities. The economics of the .project are driven vy maximizing cogeneration energy production and usage. any delay in the Carolina North development tin~teline beyond the year 2808 could adversely affect the economic feasibility of this option. C~N~LUSIUNS Eubanks l~aad Ca~eneratian Project Based upon the estimated energy demands of potential users, the 1/ubatiks Road project is neat econonuc;ally advantageous to the County at this time (i.e., the estimated costs of producing energy from landfill gas are projected to exceed total energy sales and avoided CUSt5~. Garalina North Protect Based iipot~t evaluations conducted to date, the Carolina North alternative has the potential to be economically advantageous to both the University and Che County. T17e l0-year average energy cost for collection, clean-up, and transmission of landfill gas to the Carolina North campus are presented in the follo~r~ing table: f)ranac ~.nunty, 1\orih ~'arc~linci G L,I"C.; Status l~xecutiv4 Sunnuar~~ ~~ • April2Ot)7 i~59 t~a~~~~; , rd~~ ~,±~~~aa~~s~?~(.~ y, i~~~~ :r~4~~~~i~4': ~x'~dla~3'~` ~~_~ ~'i` Tatale ~ AVEI~AGL ~ 0-YIwAR CAST Amortization Period 30 20 10 Project Cost {$/decatherm; $3.91 $4.48 $b.33 ____ UNC Baseline Cost $8.93 $8.93 $8.93 R~~C~MMENDATIONS It is recommended that the County continue discussions with the U~Ziversity regarding the use of landtiil gas as an alternative enemy sotitrcc far the Carolina North project. Table 7 provides a listing of action items to guide this process. Table 7 ACTIflN ITI=~15 ~ Carotins North Project __ -~- Submit revised economic proforma to the University for review. -~. Based upon the University's review finalize economic proforma and LFG Report. ~:~ Negotiate general energy contract frame work with the University. -~- Conduct LFG welt testing. program. -~: Finalize implementation Plan. -~. Review gas transmission tine routing. -:k Finalize energy contract terms and conditions. ()ranw~c Caunty.l\ortlt Carolina 7 1.1~G Status I?secuti~~c Summary ,~1i~ri 120(77