What is the Technical Oversight Panel? Is it a committee or a panel? This matters to everyone.
A committee is a group that works by consensus. They vote on motions and the majority wins. The voice of the minority is not heard outside of the committee. A panel works as a team and their work includes all voices.
The Technical Oversight Panel, or TOP for short, has six experts in different fields. The Technical Oversight Panel is operating as a committee. When they vote as a committee the non-experts always out number the expert in any given field. Why? The name "Technical Oversight Panel" indicates it should be a panel of peers so that the public and the decision makers hear from each relevant expert.
Here is a story that demonstrates the problem. Only one expert on the panel knows about integrating different technologies to get innovation. The vote was 5 against this 1.
"New wastewater bid doesn’t trigger an ‘option 6’" Oak Bay News
Oak Bay Mayor Nils Jensen. “The purpose of putting a wide range of people on a committee is to have that wholesome discussion … it undermines the whole idea of committee work.”
“We assembled this group of expert advice to give us expert advice,” agreed Director David Screech, View Royal mayor, adding it’s “completely out of line and insulting to our Technical Oversight Panel. Are we going to hear that every time someone doesn’t like a recommendation?”
Is is OK to allow this? The public is paying for a Panel of Experts. Why can't we hear what the expert on integration had to say about this rejected solution? Why did the experts in the traditional, non-innovative, solutions get to out vote this expert's information from reaching us?
We may get to know the answer thanks to Director Atwell who got that request approved by CALWMC. But the answer will be too late for the public engagement and the answer will be a special case instead of the status quo.
There are many other similar times TOP member's expert opinion as been suppressed by the committee structure. You just had to attend any TOP meeting to see this happen. Other examples include topics such as integration of other waste stream, leading standards from Europe on calculating sewage flows, gasification, just to name a few.
The public is paying for a Panel of Experts but we got a committee to suppress the individual experts.
For reference here is the link to the terms of reference for the TOP link
Showing posts with label IRM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IRM. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 January 2016
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
Tertiary Distributed with Gasification - Pivotal IRM & Biowater Technology
These are my notes, reworked a little, to capture the amazing information that came forward from a vendor at the Westside Innovation Days. Thursday April 30th.
Presenters: Chris Corps, Graeme Bethell, Laura Marcolini, Jack Gardner
Representing: Biowater Technology and Pivotal's Advanced Gasification
Laura is President of Biowater USA. And Jack is a wastewater advisor to Pivotal
Biowater is Norwegian based technology company that has offices in the US and manufactures their technology in Norway, US and Canada.
The presentation started with Pivotal explaining that their mission is to build waste management systems that recycle everything. For example, in the same way that Dockside Green recycles 100% of the treated water.
Pivotal presented a complete sewage treatment and sludge management system for the Region. The treatment process included:
Raw sewage being treated by Salsnes Filters as primary treatment which removes primary sludge, dewaters it and the water is then passed on to a secondary treatment process called Continuous Flow Intermediate Cleaning treatment (CFIC where nitrogen and organics are removed). The secondary treated sewage is then passed through ultra fine Ceramic Membranes (tertiary treatment) to remove all the solids and other contaminants such as drug resistant bacteria, microfibers and micro plastics, etc. The water from the membranes can be fully recycled and reused just like it is at Dockside Green. The secondary sludge is also passed through the Salsnes Filter and dewatered. Both the primary and secondary dewatered sludge is then processed and fed into a gasifier to produce heat and power. All of the components for this treatment system are modular in design and can be implemented just-in-time when needed.
The design for this treatment system was for the primary treatment to be based on 4x ADWF, and the secondary treatment to be based on 2x ADWF. Prior to primary treatment which removes about 50% of the solids from the sewage, grit and trash is removed by coarse screening. The first stage of CFIC removes nitrogen, the second and third stages remove organic material. This CFIC process is the next generation advancement of MBBR (Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor) technology. The tertiary membrane treatment operates similar to the hollow fibre membranes (Zee Weed brand). However there are some advantages including longer lasting and easier to clean, thus lower operating costs.
Very clean effluent that can be reused to flush toilets, irrigate landscaping and discharged to the inner harbour waters as is done by Dockside Green’s sewage treatment plant.
The sludge is then passed onto an Advanced Circle Draft gasification plant which is based on proven technology used in Austria and Italy.. The Advanced Circle Draft Gasifier has some features that make it more suitable for this application compared to Pivotal’s Fluidized Bed Gasifier. The Circle Draft is better suited to the volume of sludge produced, can be installed in modules and produces a cleaner syngas. There are three plants in operation in Europe and California and a new plant can easily be delivered inside of 12 months. The Advanced Gasification plants can be manufactured locally in Sidney BC.
In the proposal the total amount of daily sludge produced could be transported from the treatment plants to the gasifier in 7 trips per day for whole region.
The gasifier has no air emissions. It produces only syngas, heat and biochar and ash. When you use the syngas in a power generator the emissions are comparable to burning natural gas. Commercial plants have been in operation since 2002 in Gussing. In Cherasco Italy since 2007. In last few years five new plants have been built using this technology.
The Circle Draft gasifier has been tested using 50/50 mixtures of sludge and biomass in Cherasco Italy. Each gasifier has a small 3m (10 feet) square footprint and are very inexpensive compared to traditional sewage sludge treatment like anaerobic digesters.
One gasifier would suit a small community of 10,000 people based on the estimated amount of waste generated and due to the low cost of implementation while providing the benefits outlined for resource recovery.
The only moving part of the gasifier is the bucket conveyor to feed the system. Otherwise nothing moves. It operates at atmospheric pressure. The gasification temperature is 1000 degrees Celsius. This technology meets the BC Clean Energy Act so it can participate in the BC Hydro Standing Offer Program for clean renewable energy.
The concept presented can handle all the sludge for the CRD plus 60% of solid waste. Have tested and proven a lot of waste streams. Destroys drug resistant bacteria, micro plastics, etc.
The energy output based on 108 ML/d sewage volume and 29 tonne/day sludge volumes produces 120 M wHrs/day electricity and 190 M wHrs of heat, every day. The process also produces carbon biochar, that is almost pure carbon in nature, that has many uses in industrial filters. The process also produces 45 ML/year distilled water.
The presenters showed a case study listing with about 34 facilities. Many are retro-fit. Some are new. A 25 MLD sized facility needs a 25m x 50m footprint which was roughly the size of the presentation room where we heard the presentation. No need for 2km outfalls. It would not need to be sited on the waterfront. It can be better integrated throughout the region.
One of the outcomes from implementing similar renewable energy systems in Europe has been that they stimulate the local economy: through creation of many new local jobs, the green thermal energy attracts manufacturing and high tech, R&D, training and tourism! People want to see this technology.
The presentation showed that the annual revenues make this proposal $45M better than the CRD/Seaterra Plan for each year of operation.
Biowater/Pivotal can handle all the Westshore sewage flows in one site that is approximately the size of a city lot.
For the whole region Pivotal/Biowater capital costs are about $250M vs CRD Plan costing $782M. This $250M includes land acquisition, trucks, buildings, redundant systems, training, uniforms, etc, etc, etc,. A very detailed analysis.
The proposal uses the existing pipe infrastructure and includes costs for local connections to the new facilities.
In summary, it can be structured to be a profitable business rather than a drain on taxpayers. It can save taxpayers $ billions in operating costs and debt charges over the life of the facilities. The technology is proven and stable in several countries. New plants are coming on-line all the time. They are very small in size and can be put where you want them to maximize use of existing infrastructure and resource recovery. The systems would be future proof because it exceeds all the performance requirements and standards and can be easily expanded when needed.
The I&I in the region is significant problem. Esquimalt has done a lot to solve leaking sewer pipes. Because it uses less budget the region can reallocate money into fixing the pipes first and then you don't need to build a big plant. Pipes are a 100yr investment. This proposal does not need new pipes.
Question from audience: are there any odours in the bucket feed system? Answer: no because there is no moisture left in the sludge which has been pelletized and sterilized so very low odour.
Can the gasifiers be distributed throughout the community? The presenters suggest that the minimal cluster might be 3-4 gasifiers at one site. There would be a one or two processing centres but the gasifiers should be distributed. For siting the processing facility and gasifiers would need about 1.5 acre but distributed gasifiers could be located on a city residential lot.
Regards
Bryan Gilbert
Innovation Days:
Presentation slides:
Monday, 13 April 2015
RITE Planners Update - Monday April 13, 2015
Introduction
The “R.I.T.E. plan” is more of a concept then a "plan" but it stands for Respectful discussion and process leading to an Innovative and Taxpayer friendly sewage treatment that is Environmentally beneficial. To learn more visit our blog http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/p/about-rite-plan.html
or contact us at theriteplan@gmail.com or join our open Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/theriteplan/
This second update follows the first which can be read here
New Leadership
The change in leadership at the CALWMC is huge. We trust Lisa Helps and see this as a major shift towards our objectives that start with “respectful” discussion.
We only mention the following because the CRD has used the excuse “We don’t have time” in the past. When Nils was Chair he, frankly, wasted a lot of time in the way he set the agenda. Two meetings were taken up with attempts to discredit a technology that can save a lot of money. These meetings tried to bypass that discussion and they both failed in that attempt. Two meetings is two months; wasted. If the CRD ever says “We don’t have time and need to rush this”. Don’t believe them. The process from the start has been flawed and that is not the public’s fault.
Cost comparison Seaterra bio-digestion vs gasification
At last week’s meeting we crushed any further point in avoiding a discussion around advanced gasification. The savings are compelling. $330 M compared with under $100M. Possibly under $40 M and even possibly under $20 M (15 USD). Here are the project numbers:
$ 2,200 M Seaterra project 50 yr life cycle costs
$ 782 M Seaterra project capital cost (estimate)
$ 330 M Seaterra project Hartland capital costs
$ 300 M Seaterra staff report (rejected) cost estimate for gasification: just sewage sludge; just core area
$ 332 M Tri-regional study cost estimate for gasification of all waste for three regions: Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 100 M Local gasification experts gave conservative estimate to gasify sewage sludge.
$ 60 M Seaterra project costs to date
$ 40 M per yr Seaterra project debt and operating costs
$ 37 M Hamilton, gasification all waste, Quantity ~= Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 19 M “Bribe” offered to Esquimalt
$ 17 M Viewfield purchase
$ 16 M per yr Seaterra project operating costs
$ <20 M (15 M USD) Independent gasification expert is working on similar project, but twice our needs,
References:
The only numbers we don't provide links to are the cost estimates of under 100M and under 15M. See below .... failure to do any due diligence.
That price of under $20 M (15 M USD) seems reasonable when you look at the Hamilton Ontario $37 M facility. That one will handle 170,000 tonnes of material a year. To gasify just our sewage would be about 10,000 tonnes per year (very rough because the weight varies by moisture content).
The point is the cost is a gigantic step smaller than digestion. So even if it cost $40 M or even a $100M the cost savings are incredible.
Failure to do due diligence
The fact is, if Seaterra / CRD staff had done ANY due diligence in his whole sorry performance on this project, they would know about all the gasifier experts in the world by now. If they can't guess which expert we are quoting, they haven't been paying attention.
Do you know how hard it was to find out the name of a real gasifier expert? NOT HARD AT ALL. Here's how hard it was: March 13, we wanted to know if what Mr Sweetnam said to Director Atwell about gasifiers at the Feb 18 meeting was true or false. (It was false.) We did an internet search, found a company, sent them an email, had a phone call, learned that no one from CRD/Stantec/CRD has ever contacted them, asked if they'd come talk to us, the answer was no so they could bid, they recommended an independent expert, we are introduced and got to see that this expert has a very impressive CV.
Elapsed time: 5 days.
Why couldn't any of the highly paid individuals working on this plan for the last decade have done this little bit of work, and got us some decent advice on gasifiers?
Skill Testing Questions
The challenge the directors have is where do we get technical information that we can trust? In a hurry! We offer the following set of skill testing questions. Each question is from one or more events where a CRD / Seaterra / staff member failed to provide the full picture or misled the directors.
If a technical “expert” can get the right answer then trust them. The right answers are easily verified and we’ll show you how.
What is the 50 year life cycle cost of the Seaterra plan?
$2.2 billion
What net profit potentials are available with integrated resource recovery?
Pessimistic $5 million per year. Optimistic $61 million per year.
Source: Provincial study from 2008 Table 2 page ix
What is the moisture content of sewage sludge?
If your expert says “2%” then they fail. Although this is true it is misleading. The rejected staff report (Feb 18th, 2015) used the 2% figure in many places; including the discussion around 62 trucks needed to transport the sludge. It also appeared in emails from consultants in an attempt to discount the viability of gasification. Sludge from secondary treatment may be 2% but from tertiary systems like Dockside Green it is 15%.
Verification: simple phone call to Dockside Green operators. Ask them what the solids content is of the weekly blue barrels.
We’ve heard that much higher levels (25% solids?) can be attained with newer technology. Verification: find the vendors and call them.
Has Dockside ever failed?
If your expert says “Dockside has failed” then they fail. Many CRD/Seaterra staff have made this mistake and they’ve been told to stop. Yet they persist.
Engineers are supposed to know the difference between “a planned outage”, a “Provincial administrative oversight” and a “system failure”. Dockside was forced to use the CRD backup system, once, to verify it worked. This was the “planned outage”.
For a while, the province mandated that Dockside submit samples for compliance testing 7 days a week. But the province didn’t keep the labs open on the weekend so a few tests were not completed on schedule. This was the “administrative oversight”.
CRD/ Seaterra staff have made these two situations into failures. There have been NO system failures.
Does Dockside have an outfall?
Yes. Reclaimed water is discharged to the water ponds in Dockside Green and then unused water overflows into the inner harbour via a shoreline dispersion outlet (outfall). Mr Sweetnam, Feb 18th 2015 said Dockside had no outfall. Perhaps he reserves the word “outfall” for a 2 km pipe that runs out into the ocean to discharge polluted water (effluent from secondary treatment).
How many Docksides would it take to service the core area?
If your expert says 567, then run. See our blog for details
Compare the energy output from biodigestion and from gasification.
Gasification produces nearly twice the energy output compared to digestion.
Would you use a biodigester prior to using a gasifier?
Absolutely not. The whole point is to convert the mass into energy. It’s silly to suggest we’d run the mass through the less efficient bio-digestion process and then feed the depleted residue into the highly efficient advanced gasification process.
We can offer many more such skill testing questions if needed.
Upcoming Events
Eastside Public Events
April 15, 2015 2:30 PM Eastside Wastewater Treatment And Resource Recovery Select Committee 625 Fisgard St., 6th Floor Boardroom
April 15, 2015 4:00 PM Eastside Public Advisory Committee
April 29th evening. Public event in the evening
May 11-13 two day workshop
May 28 Options workshop
June Report back to public
Westside Public Events
Innovation Days where technology proponents present their solutions in three half-day workshops April 28,29,30; at Royal Roads.
Three roundtable events in May. Participants of this self-identified during the survey.
Eastside Select Committee April 15 2:30 PM
Eastside Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Select Committee
In the boardroom
The public part of the agenda will be updated on the public consultation and the receipt of the information from the vendors who gave information to the CRD. They then will go in camera to talk about sites.
RITE planners repeatedly warn the decision makers to not pick sites before specifying what outcomes you want. For example, do you want the type of facility out on the Saanich peninsula or the type of facility at Dockside. Major differences and these impact the public’s acceptance or rejection.
Eastside Public Advisory Committee April 15 4:00 PM
Prepare for the first public event April 29th.
Prepare to engage key stakeholders include informed members of the public.
Recent Meetings
CALWMC April 8th - morning
The big news was that Lisa Helps will now lead the committee. We’ll talk more about that next week. This is really encouraging news.
Seaterra retained for the duration - slipped into report
The report that included using Seaterra for the implementation phase was accepted.
Bid extension comes and goes and what happened?
Yes, the proponents of the Seaterra plan quietly extended their bid to June (or was it July). Albert Sweetnam says this does not increase our liability, yet we don’t trust him now do we? See trust section in previous update and more below.
The Commission has been holding conference call meetings and, according to Mr Sweetnam they have only been to share information. Director Atwell raised the concern that these meetings need to be held in public and there need to be minutes from the meetings as well; according to bylaw 3851 that established the commission.
In essence, the commission is holding meetings in secret.
Independent Oversight Options
The staff will bring forward a short list of candidate experts who will provide guidance on this new phase of the project. The staff will discuss the selection criteria with Lisa, Barb, Carol and Vic (the chairs and vice-chairs). These new experts are to help after June with the technical design prior to implementation.
We recommend that these experts be able to demonstrate sound understanding of the technical options and are selected to curate the technical information rather than be expected to provide all the expertise. No small group of people can know everything about these systems. It is better if we have people that can understand the material provided by specialists and translate that into information that can be used to design the system; get public acceptance (including the experts who help with the RITE plan); and create the RFP.
This search for technical expertise is for June or later. At the same time, the Eastside committee is going to obtain technical help for the public engagement. They need help crafting the material to present to the public. The RITE planners are going to watch this very carefully. Fortunately, Chair Helps is keen to have the Eastside include discussions with RITE planers and other stakeholders so that we go to the public with as much of a common voice as possible. More about this next week.
Technical Responses
The report with the response from vendors was accepted. Director Derman, once again, stressed the need to actually go out and canvas the market place and not just passively wait for them to come. There was no comment on the issue raised by RITE planners that some vendors did not submit material because they don’t trust the CRD’s process.
Westshore Select April 7th
The Technical committee's report
says ....
∗ Reviewed flows generated by each Westside participant against the Allocation Flows
∗ Assumptions have been made for the Saanich and Victoria flows entering the centre trunk main due to lack of information from the East Side
∗ Total flow expected (2030) is just under 50 ML/day
∗ Seven reasonable flow scenarios were determined that see the number of plants ranging from a maximum of four to a minimum of one
We are hoping to get the details of this. In particular, does that 50 ML/day include Saanich and Victoria flows? I think it does. But then what are the flows for just the Westshore?
How did they derive the flow and how does it compare with the “Allocated flows” which is what the Seaterra plan is based on. (RITE planners have concerns about those flows which is a topic for another day.)
The report also says ....
Site selection criteria:
∗ Size of potential plant locations
∗ Proximity to residential lots
∗ Proximity to trunks
∗ Potential district energy systems and resource recovery opportunities
∗ Disposal of treated effluent
∗ Emergency overflow treatment of untreated effluent
We’d like to see the detailed descriptions of the criteria. Especially around resource recovery. Are they making the same assumptions Seaterra plan had baked in?
CRD Board April 8th 1:30 PM
The board meeting was mainly the usual quick approval of the results of the morning meeting.
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Cost comparison Seaterra biodigestion vs gasification
At last week’s meeting we crushed any further point in avoiding a discussion around advanced gasification. The savings are compelling. $330 M compared with under $100M. Possibly under $40 M and even possibly under $20 M (15 USD). Here are the project numbers:
$ 2,200 M Seaterra project 50 yr life cycle costs
$ 782 M Seaterra project capital cost (estimate)
$ 330 M Seaterra project Hartland capital costs
$ 300 M Seaterra staff report (rejected) cost estimate for gasification: just sewage sludge; just core area
$ 332 M Tri-regional study cost estimate for gasification of all waste for three regions: Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 100 M Local gasification experts gave conservative estimate to gasify sewage sludge.
$ 60 M Seaterra project costs to date
$ 40 M per yr Seaterra project debt and operating costs
$ 37 M Hamilton, gasification all waste, Quantity ~= Nanaimo, Cowichan, Victoria
$ 19 M “Bribe” offered to Esquimalt
$ 17 M Viewfield purchase
$ 16 M per yr Seaterra project operating costs
$ <20 M (15 M USD) Independent gasification expert is working on similar project, but twice our needs,
References:
The only numbers we don't provide links to are the cost estimates of under 100M and under 15M. See below .... failure to do any due diligence.
That price of under $20 M (15 M USD) seems reasonable when you look at the Hamilton Ontario $37 M facility. That one will handle 170,000 tonnes of material a year. To gasify just our sewage would be about 10,000 tonnes per year (very rough because the weight varies by moisture content).
The point is the cost is a gigantic step smaller than digestion. So even if it cost $40 M or even a $100M the cost savings are incredible.
Extra numbers .... showing possible profit
$ 5 M / yr pessimistic profit as stated in 2008 integrated resource management study
$ 60 M / yr optimistic profit as stated in 2008 integrated resource management study
 |
| Capital Costs Anaerobic Digestion at Hartland |
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)