Showing posts with label biosolids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biosolids. Show all posts

Monday, 11 May 2015

RITE Planners Update #6 - Monday May 11, 2015


Introduction

Previous updates can be found here http://theriteplan.blogspot.com/

A lot is happening on the sewage issue:  … a vendor says the whole region can be serviced for $250 million; the upcoming CALWMC meeting has a packed agenda;  business owners are calling for change;  RITE planners are asking for consideration of distributed tertiary treatment with gasification; public events held in Saanich and Oak Bay;  roundtable on siting sewage treatment was held in Esquimalt; TCAC is being recalled; Mayor of Langford wants Seaterra to stop.   Wow.  We hope you enjoy getting all this wrapped up in our weekly update!

Next update we’ll talk about language.  The choice of words people use determines the outcomes.  For example, the word “biosolids” implies anaerobic digestion.  Disposal of “treated effluent” implies polluted secondary treatment.  We need (a) neutral words for the times no system is preferred and (b) a chart showing the “words” and how they relate to treatment solution.  For the time being, stay away from the the word “biosolids” unless you mean it. Use “residuals”.  Also avoid “treated effluent” unless you also include “reclaimed water”.

Tertiary Distributed with Gasification


This is the new way to describe the RITE plan in three simple words. It sums up all the other objectives into a nice package.  Our current goals include: seeing a space for true experts in gasification to come and educate us.

Pivotal IRM & Biowater Technology

On the last Westside Innovation Day, Pivotal IRM and Biowater Technology presented a complete sewage treatment and sludge management system for the Region.

For the whole region Pivotal/Biowater says it 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. The plants 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.   For more details  see our blog posting


Interview on Ian Jessop show

See our blog posting and listen to the interview on CFAX to see how it is possible the total project cost could be just $250 to $450 million


CALWMC - May 13th - Agenda

The agenda is packed with items that are going to change everything.  There is a letter from business owners calling for Seaterra to be disbanded.  Plus there is a second letter from a business owner:

Also presented are the Terms of Reference (TOR) for technical help.  But they are just repeating the same call for biosolids expertise and there is no mention of gasification expertise.  This is could be $ 300 million mistake but we may see some changes before the TOR are adopted

There is a call from Mayor of Langford to stop collecting the sewage taxes.

An update on the leaking sewage pipes which creates additional up front costs that can be avoided if the leaks are fixed.

A notice of motion from Ben Isitt calling for a review of the actual flows; basically seeking clarity on who will pay what but RITE also hopes this will bring clarity to actual flows.   We think the actual flows are decreasing over time and will be decreased even further by fixing the leaky pipes.

A notice of motion from Carol Hamilton which has been on each meeting’s agenda for a while now. Each time the motion is deferred.  Is this because of past experiences of trying to get a motion onto the agenda and the idea is to keep it on the agenda for the time it is needed?

RITE planners observe that the agenda makes no mention of the significant cost savings and revenue / environmental potential with gasification.  This has to change and this technology needs due consideration and some input from actual gasification experts.

Westside Roundtable Events


Two events last week.   One on Siting and the other on Resource Recovery.   The first event was full and the second nearly full (beautiful Saturday).  Both events collected some amazing input from residents.  At both events the public’s message was clear that the old plan is not sufficient.  People want a better solution and they are willing to help.  They seek more technical information.

We will report more on this event later when the notes become available.

Eastside Dialog Events


Two events. One at Cedar Hill Rec Center (Saanich)  and the other at Windsor Pavilion (Oak Bay).  Both events happened on a beautiful Saturday and had small attendance. Good considering the limited amount of promotion that was feasible given the rush timeline allows.    If Saanich and Oak Bay don’t get some strong leadership they are going to lose out on the opportunities that will come to the host community.

We will report more on this event later when the notes become available.

Technical and Community Advisory Committee (TCAC)


The TCAC is meeting was today at noon (May 11, 2015).   In the past, this committee did little because they met after the decisions were made just to approve the decisions.  This time the meeting was progressive because they  are all working towards sewage treatment. Except now it is a debate between the old guard who think secondary treatment / biosolids is good enough and …. a better plan.



General

Household Costs For Sewage Treatment Vs. Typical Household Expenditures

Some thoughts on how the cost of sewage treatment fits into an average householder's finances and perhaps why the public has bought into the Seaterra plan without protest. The plan that is $2.2 billion.

http://theriteplan.blogspot.ca/2015/05/household-costs-for-sewage-treatment-vs.html

The tertiary treatment with solids gasification proposal by Pivotal IRM and Biowater Technology discussed above would result in much lower project costs and far less impact on household expenditures!

Victoria Salon - Straight Talk About Sewage

Debate topic:
“Be it resolved that whereas the marine waters off the coast are an ecosystem that naturally absorbs and treats the present deep ocean sewage discharge, there is no need to build additional land-based sewage treatment plants for Greater Victoria”.

Gibson Auditorium Young Building,
Room 216 Camosun College,
Lansdowne Campus
Tuesday, May 12th, 2015
7pm-8:30pm

About RITE

The “R.I.T.E. plan” is more of a concept then a "plan" and it stands for Respectful discussion and process leading to an Innovative and Taxpayer friendly sewage treatment that is Environmentally beneficial.
This update was written jointly by volunteers and may not reflect the opinion of all members of the RITE plan FB group.   
or contact us at theriteplan@gmail.com  or join our open Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/theriteplan/

Saturday, 9 May 2015

Independent Technical Oversight Panel - Draft - Terms of Reference and Selection Criteria

Part of May13th agenda ... same old biosolids again ...
Independent Technical Oversight Panel – Terms of Reference and
Selection Criteria – DRAFT
The Technical Oversight Panel:
1. Will be comprised of three to five members.
2. Will be given a $12,000/year honorarium + $750/meeting (up to 4hours, additional $750 over 4 hours) + travel disbursements. Chair will receive $30,000/year + same meeting and travel expenses.*
3. Will commence work in June 2015 and end in March 2016.
4. Will provide independent oversight to the work of the engineering, business case, lifecycle costing and other project analysis done post-June 2015.
5. Will report monthly to the Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee directly. The Chair of the Panel will have the primary responsibility for presenting updates and answering questions of the committee and speaking on behalf of the Panel at public sessions.
*Based on Seaterra Commission.
Selection Criteria / Skill sets sought:
1. Significant private sector business, finance and large-scale project-management experience.
2. Wastewater/biosolids treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, biogas, biofuels.
4. Financial costing including capital/operating/life cycle, comparative evaluations, business case analysis, risk, financing.
5. Proven ability to pull conceptual ideas into overarching plan.
6. Chair, proven ability to deliver, able to present detailed concepts in political arena and to broad public, comfortable with public speaking, media, video taped proceedings and large venues.

Items 2 and 3 are saying BIOSOLIDS again. WHY?   What happened to a balanced and open approach? Where is any reference to expertise in gasification, syngas, biochar, etc.?

These words need to be changed:
Biosolids. The EPA describes it as  "the treated residuals from wastewater treatment (biosolids) can be safely recycled. Local governments make the decision whether to recycle the biosolids as a fertilizer, incinerate it or bury it in a landfill."

A biofuel is a fuel that is derived from biological materials, such as plants and animals. Also biofuel can still be seen as fuel derived from organic matter (obtained directly from plants, or indirectly from agricultural, commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes).

Biogas typically refers to a mixture of different gases produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. Biogas can be produced from raw materials such as agricultural waste, manure, municipal waste, plant material, sewage, green waste or food waste.


Update: May 11, 2015 13:00
Offering the following approaches:

Option A which is inclusive of multiple technologies and outcomes:
 
2. Wastewater, biosolid, and gasification treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater and reclaimed water regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, syngas, biochar, biogas, biofuels, gasification as source of electricity, heat, and distilled water and how these can be used to improve food security or other community benefits.

Option B which is exclusive and seeks neutral wording that does not exclude or prescribe a technology.  Obviously this is weaker because it is less informative but it may be needed at the political level.
 
2. Wastewater, residuals treatment technology – up-to-date understanding of innovative/emerging/best practices including wastewater and reclaimed water regulatory context.
3. Resource recovery – wastewater reuse (irrigation, purple pipe), district energy systems, energy conversion systems and other community benefits.

Frankly, the opportunity to work on this project, for someone in this field, should be a fantastic chance to start with a clean slate (no existing secondary infrastructure) and help design la world renowned leading edge (not bleeding edge) solution.
 

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



Electrical Energy from gasification 190% higher than from AD



Environ Technol. 2014 Sep-Oct;35(17-20):2140-6.
Electrical energy production from biosolids: a comparative study between anaerobic digestion and ultra-high-temperature gasification. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25145165
Abstract
Biosolids management is one of the most expensive and complicated processes in sanitation engineering. Anaerobic digestion (AD) is often employed for the stabilization of biomass and for energy production, as approximately 50% of the carbon entering the anaerobic digester is recovered as methane (CH4). Gasification has been used recently for the thermal reformation of biosolids to synthesis gas (syngas), which primarily consists of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2). In the present work, the net electrical energy production from biosolids has been calculated, for a typical activated sludge wastewater treatment plant, with an inlet flow rate of 75,708 m3/d (equal to 20 Mgd). The calculations suggest that the ultra-high-temperature gasification (UHTG) system can achieve a net electrical energy output of about 15.40 MJ/kg (dry biosolids), whereas the AD system can achieve values between 8.45 MJ/kg(dry biosolids). The latter values correspond to approximate net electrical energy power of 18.8 kW for UHTG, versus 9.9 kW for AD, for a wastewater treatment plant with capacity of 1000 m3/d; thus, the UHTG process yields approximately 190% of the energy that may be produced by the AD process.