UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB KEY ISSUES

UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
6-7 JULY 2016
NEC BIRMINGHAM

Can research and innovation rescue on-farm AD?
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
ANGELA BYWATER & DR CLARE LUKEHURST OBE
AD NET IEA TASK 37 UK

Potential viability of small scale
AD
Clare T. Lukehurst OBE
International Energy Agency
Bioenergy Task 37/Task 37 (UK)
Anaerobic Digestion & Biogas Association
July 7th 2016

Origin & purpose of the
brochure
Request of the UK REA Biogas Group ,
farmers, landowners and RICS to
establish:
• Types and designs of plant available
• Establish factors affecting capital and
operating costs
• Benefits of the plants

Role of the IEA Bioenergy Task 37
• Collate scientific and technical
• experience worldwide
• Review of findings of both financial and
environmental performance as reported in
nearly 200 papers of which 120 key cited in
the brochure
• Assess implications of the process at small
scale for farmer AND policy maker

Small scale: Perceptions
‘We know it cannot pay’
‘Look at the costs’
£ 8,000 – £15,000 per kWe
Common knowledge- source of information?
Who says so?
Consultants reports
Bank managers?
Media accepts
End of discussion – small farm scale manure AD not an
option

Too expensive: capital costs < £250kWe?
(Source: IEA (2015) Small scale technical brochure))

SMALL SCALE?
Digester (left) 20m3
33 family farms in
Brazil?
Supports 10 kWe CHP/
5m3 /hr
biogas upgrading
BrazilPart of 33 - farm cooperative
22 km Gas Pipeline links farms

Norway 20 m3 slurry management
System 3,000 t/year Finland farmer built
with recycled parts
See case study
Switzerland co-digestion manure &crop
CHP
1998 Finland 150 m3 digester CHP
Built from recycled materials
See Case study)
Switzerland manure +crop CHP
Grid control to virtual
power station
www.iea-biogas.net
The Indian scale
Manure AD
makes money-
Surplus gas goes
to market- a cash
commodity
See Mutzner (2013) Workshop

Farmers thinking-structure for
analysis
• Costs per kWel ??? No?
Is AD for slurry a new money maker - GBP in
the bank?
• Money wise I am no worse off -easier budget
forecasts & non monetary benefits
• AD a loss maker – no financial benefit
• Policy makers - no takers - no GHG reduction

The KEY Issues
Capital cost of the whole plant
Source and cost of purchase money
Operating cost
Quality of feedstock –amount of dirty water
Then
Sources of income- energy sales. incentives
BUT
Cash flow – avoided costs as important but
but ? taken into account by bank

After 2 yrs operation 7 years later
Avoided expense 29-39k 35-38k
New income 130k-141k
Digester converted from former
Heavy duty oil tanker

A key factor
Cash flow – avoided costs as important
but ? taken into account by
the bank , finance company, policy
advisers
Need to maximise non fiscal benefits
bank

The Way Ahead
Dual Policy approach
Government GHG reduction policy
Energy industry for reinforcement of
heat, gas and power distribution
REWARD TOTAL GHG reduction
Markets - produce what the farmer
wants and can afford to buy

Sponsors
The following sponsors through generous donations pay for UK to
attend meeting and now bear the full cost of the IEA Bioenergy Task
37 (Energy from Biogas) UK membership subscription
An En, AFBI, AnDigestion, ADBA, Biogas Nord, Bioplex
Technologies, Chesterfield Biogas, CNG Services, CLA,
Clarke Energy, Edina Group, Envitech, EVH Engineering,
Farm Energy, FM Bioenergy, Future Biogas, GOALS,
GWE Biogas, J.H.Walter Sustainable Resource
Management, Rural Planning Services, Malaby Biogas,
Marches Biogas, Methanogen, Lutra, NETZSCH Pumps,
Omex Environmental, Red Kite, Rob Heap Consultants,
RH & RW Clutton, RICS, Sustraco, University of
Southampton, UTS Biogas, Xergi

Avoided costs and self
sufficiency
A key for the farmer?
Thank you!

Can research and innovation rescue on-farm AD?
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
PAUL ADAMS
DIRECTOR, SYNERTREE

Dr Hafez Abdo and Professor RobertAckrill
Nottingham Business School – Nottingham Trent University
Hafez.abdo@ntu.ac.uk
Robert.ackrill@ntu.ac.uk
Project funded by the British Academy/Leverhulme small research funds
Green energy, fiscal incentive and conflicting signals:
analysing the challenges faced in promoting on-farm waste-
to-energy projects

• Research Aims and Objectives.
• Research Questions.
• Methodological Approach.
• Previous Similar Studies.
• Analysis
• Concluding Remarks
Outlines

UK Renewable Energy policy is nested within EU policy in a multilevel
governance (MLG) setting. To gain analytical traction on such
complexity, this study analyzes policies promoting the on-farm
generation of energy for heat and power, from farm and food waste,
via Anaerobic Digestion.
• To illustrate the impact of UK policies on waste-to-energy AD on-farm
projects in the East Midlands;
• To investigate the effects of UK energy policy and its instruments on
promoting on-farm generation of energy for heat and power; and
• To explore and explain the impact of AD on energy, environmental and
social elements in the East Midlands region of England.
Research Aims and Objectives

The first phase of our study will try to answer the following questions:
1. What challenges faces the on-farm waste to energy AD uptake in the
East Midlands?
2. Which policy instruments influence the establishment of on-farm
waste to energy AD projects on farms in the East Midlands, and how?
3. What incentives and support mechanisms are required to enhance the
on-farm waste to energy AD projects on farms in the EastMidlands?
Research Questions – Phase One

The next phase of this study will try to answer the following questions:
1. How does the MLG setting of UK RE policy affect policy delivery?
2. What theoretical insights does MLG offer when seeking to reform UK
RE policy in order to promote more effective take-up of waste to
energy technologies?
3. How does our case study inform the theoretical formulation of
coherent multilevel governance in areas characterised by considerable
policy complexity?
4. How does our case study, in a policy area that is relatively new, inform
the longstanding literature on path dependency and the challenges of
switching to new technologies?
Research Questions – Phase Two

• Our research is of an exploratory explanatory nature and our research
questions have both qualitative and quantitative aspects; therefore
answering these questions requires collecting and analysing qualitative and
quantitative data.
• Our data will be collected via three main instruments:
• Phase one: document analysis and questionnaire survey
• Phase Two: document analysis and interviews.
• Whilst document analysis and questionnaire methods will aid the
exploratory side of the project, interviews would aid the explanatory aspect.
• Government, energy-related, documents will be searched and analysed
• Questionnaires were sent to 1,589 farmers in the East Midlands region of England
(Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire). 158 questionnaires were received back.
• 25 interviews are planned with different personals connected to the AD business:
Farmers, Policy Makers, AD Consultants and Academics.
Methodological Approach

Results of Questionnaire Survey - Phase
One DescriptiveStatistics # %
Farm Location Nottinghamshire 78 51
Derbyshire 75 49
Farmer Gender Male 141 92
Female 12 8
Type ofFarm
Arable 56 37
Livestock 51 33
Mixed 46 30
FarmOwnership
Owned by you 88 57
Sharedownership 29 19
Rented 16 10
Other 20 13
Annual Farm Income
Less than £10,000 8 5
£10,000 - £19,999 6 4
£20,000 - £29,999 4 3
£30,000 - 49,999 8 5
£50,000 - £74,999 9 6
£75,000 - 99,999 10 7
£100,000 - £149,999 14 9
£150,000 - £199,999 11 7
£200,000 and over 61 40
Prefer not to answer 22 14
ADPlant Yes 1 1%
No 152 99%
Production of Renewable Energy
Total*
# %
85 55.5
Biomass 15 14
Wind 16 15
SolarPV 60 57
OtherRE 15 14

Our respondents purchase different
sources of non-renewable energy.
Electricity and diesel are the most
popular forms of energy being used in
farms.
Other forms of energy sources being
purchased by farmers in our sample
include logs and wood, however this
is the least non-renewable sources of
energy purchased.
Purchase of off-farm
sources of non-renewable
energy
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Coal
Gas
Electricity
Diesel
Petrol
Other

In terms of renewable energy, our
respondents purchase energy
generated by solar PV the most,
followed by energy generated by
biomass.
Biomass sources include wood and
logs
Purchase of off-farm
sources of renewable
energy
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
PV Solar Wind Biomass Other

Apart from using AD, the majority of
our respondent farmers generate
energy using PV solar.
They generate renewable energy using
other means such as wind and
biomass.
Feedstock used for biomass includes
oil seed, slurry, wood, maize and
woodchip.
Other forms of on-farm generation of
renewable energy includes ground
heat source pumps, air source heat
pump and timber.
On-Farm generation of
Renewable Energy
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Biomass PVSolar Wind Other

Of our sample respondents, 100
farmers produce renewable energy. Of
those, 34 make off-farm sale of part of
the renewable energy they produce
on-farm
Off-Farm Sale of
Energy Generated
35%
11%
54% Regularly
Occasionally
No

Awareness of UK
Renewable Energy
Policy

• The majority of our respondents (127)
believe that renewable energy
promotion is the most important
rational.
• Respondentssuggestedthatsomeoftheotherunderpinning
reasonsofthegovernmentpolicytopromoteADare:
complyingwithEUDirectives,controllingemissions,
diversifyingenergysourcesandtoshowthattheUK
governmentis‘doingsomething’,topleasetheirEU
cronies,lackofinvestmentbygovernmentinpower
generationforoveradecade,totickthe‘wearedoing
somethingaboutglobalwarming’box,andtomeetUK
renewableenergytargets.
Rationales underpin governmental policy to promote AD
127
53
20
19
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Renewable energy promotion
Waste-disposal
Income-generation
Other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Not suitable for farming activities
Lack of information about AD technologies
Inadequate financial incentives
Overly-burdensome regulations
Unstable policy or uncertain future policy
Problem with connectivity to the National Grid
Taxation Policy
Access to Finance
Controls over the use of waste products
The off-farm movement of food waste and digestate
Other
Reasons for not adopting on-farm AD Technology

• concerns over increasing labour force in the farm
and possible need for dependence on contractors to
run the AD business.
• lack of trust in the stability of FiT.
• lack of governmental involvement in
connecting AD energy products to the grid.
• planning complication.
• smell of the process in a residential area. • AD is too expensive to be invested in by farmers.
• location of farm near built area. • availability of finance to start-up AD projects.
• local objection to planning permission. • unclear and insecure income from AD.
• lack of sufficient feedstock.
• age of farmers that do not allow the adoption of
AD.
• size of farm does not justify the significant
investment in AD.
• type of ownership of farm as being rented does not
justify investing in AD.
• focusing on building and enhancing farming
business rather than shifting focus to a new
investment in AD.
• AD power and heat products are not of usefulness
to farm.
Other Reasons for non-adoption of AD

• Government policy is fragmented
on energy/ transport/food
• I would say grant aid to help
smaller farmers work together
• We need cooperation between
farmers and bigger incentives, as
in Germany
• smaller models of AD units to
suit smaller farms
• Grants, interest-free loans
• More security of support to allow
banks to fundAD
• tax advantages
• Perhaps if somehow the
feedstock production could be
subsidised this would take some
risk out
• Higher and more long term
stable FITs
• kick-starting is good but must
not be subsidy dependant
Required Incentives for AD Uptake

• “does anyone know the cost
effectiveness of maize fed AD
without subsidy. The amount of
diesel burnt/energy spent on maize
growing and supply surely cannot
equate to the small amount of gas
produced?”
• “Costs for start-up seem too high.
Is this because of new
technology?”
• “If we had a unit it would have to
be very small scale. There is very
little information about this”
• “The public have no idea about
AD. When they learn anything
they are invariably suspicious”
• Information about the cost of
having an AD unit installed,
payback period, cost of feedstock,
taxes and subsidies and the
required fuel to run the AD unit
are some of the information
required by farmers to make
decisions on ADuptake
Awareness of AD

Awareness of UK Governmental RE Incentives and Measures
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
UK Renewable
EnergyRoadmap
Renewable
Obligation (RO)
Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) Renewable Heat
Incentive (RHI)
Renewable Transport
Fuel Obligation
(RTFO)
Electricity Market
Reform (EMR)
'Connect and
Manage'
Transmission Access
Regime
VeryAware SomewhatAware Know the nameonly Not at allaware

• FiTs is a key incentive measure for AD uptake in the UK.
• Stability of FiTs rates is a key for easing investment uncertainty in AD
technologies.
• Financial support and access to finance is essential to promote AD
uptake and hence renewable energy generation.
• Planning permission and complexity of regulations are still main barriers
for AD uptake and the government is required to review these in order
to boost generation of renewable energy from AD technologies.
• Spreading awareness of AD technology and governmental renewable
energy policy’s objectives and tools is key for on-farm AD uptake.
Concluding Remarks

The next phase of our research is focused on in-depth analysing incentives
and disincentives of AD uptake, and on the impact government renewable
policy and taxation measures on the uptake of on-farm AD.
We would like invite you to take part in this phase of the research by
means of an interview. If you would like to participate in this study please
contact us.
Professor Rob Ackrill
Email: Robert.ackrill@ntu.ac.uk
Dr HafezAbdo
618, Newton Building
Nottingham Business School
Burton Street
Nottingham, NG1 4BU
Email: hafez.abdo@ntu.ac.uk
Tel: 0115 848 6098
Mobile: 07872113763
A Call for Participation

Towards digestible plastics: The impact of
plastic bin liners on Anaerobic Digestion
Dr Tanja Radu, Dr Richard Blanchard,
Prof Andrew Wheatley

Introduction
 Plastics
 Food waste
 Plastic separation
 Biodegradable plastics experiments
 Conclusions

Plastic Problems
www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org
awesomeoceans.com

Food Waste
 Losses in supply chain fields, processing,
transport, shops, catering, home.

Food waste
UK around 14M tonnes per year Lovefoodhatewaste.com
How to deal with food waste and plastic packaging?

Plastic waste/food waste collection
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
• Every year, over 10 Mt of packaging is placed on the UK market. About half that
amount (5 Mt) goes to households, where it accounts for about 20% of the waste
stream. The other half is used in the Commercial and Industrial sectors, where it
accounts for about 10% of the waste stream.
(Source: Defra http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2010/10/26/uk-packaging-recycling-
targets/)
• Plastic waste (packaging, containers, bags, lids, cups) accounts for 10-15% of total
waste
• Food waste collection using plastic bin liners is becoming increasingly popular

Plastic bags in AD industry
Wednesday, 13 July 2016
The bags or fragments of them can entirely or partially follow three different paths in an AD plant:
Route 1: Bioplastic fragments fed into the digester along with the food waste. After digestion, the
digestate with possible remains of the plastics are composted for aerobic stabilization and mature
compost production.
Route 2: Bioplastic fragments sorted out during the pretreatment stage, skipping the digestion
stage and re-joining the aerobic composting stage of the digestate.
Route 3: Bioplastic fragments sorted out during the pretreatment stage and sent to disposal
because of high contamination of the pretreatment residues by non-compostable materials (e.g.
conventional plastics) or because of the lack of a final aerobic stage for compost production.
Source: Christian Garaffa and Rhodes Yepsen, BioCycle September 2012, Vol. 53, No.
9, p. 37
Regardless of separation method, some of the plastic
will inevitably end up in AD digester

Plastic Separation
Stage 1 hammer mill Stage 2 hammer mill
Food slurry
To AD

Biodegradable plastics
 Alternative, based on biological materials such as
corn or potato starch and polymer-alcohols
 But do they biodegrade?
 Plastics, in general, often degrade and weather
when exposed to UV light. Some biodegradable
plastics need prolonged exposure of
temperatures above 50oC to fully break down.
 Complete biodegradation of plastic occurs when
none of the original polymer remains, a process
involving microbial action; i.e. it has been broken
down to carbon dioxide, methane and water.
 http://www.unep.org/gpa/documents/publications/
BiodegradablePlastics.pdf
PLA

Motivations
 Plastic bags are an ideal material for the collection of wet wastes,
but poor biodegradability.
 Accumulations of plastic residues in the environment are an urgent
and serious concern.
 AD is the most common process for the treatment and conversion
of wet organic waste to energy.
 Biodegradable plastic would encourage the hygienic collection of
household food waste for AD.
 Current practice: separation of bags from the food waste prior to
digestion, a difficult operation causing loss of organic material and
increased costs.
 Some of the plastic material inevitably ends up in the digesters
and potentially on land.

Experimental Set-up
 Standard 10 litre vertically stirred bioreactors at 37oC.
 Plastic bags were used as a sole substrate and digesters
performance was compared with the control digester fed by
sewage sludge only.
 pre-treated at 70oC for 1hr, according to the Animal By-
product Regulations.
 feeding 5 days per week, no feeding at weekends.
 The organic loading rate was 2.65 g VS/l/day.
 Monitoring: Cumulative gas production (on line), gas quality
(manually by infra-red). Stability indicators (Ripley’s Ratio,
volatile fatty acids, pH and ammonia).
 Materials: Alcohol and starch-based bag samples used for
the production of biodegradable bags.

Conclusions
 CONCLUSIONS:
• Poor biodegradability for both types of bags at both temperatures of
pre-treatment
• Using bags as sole substrate, biogas production stalls and methane
percentage in biogas decreases
• Stability indicators remain stable, indicating that material is inert rather
than toxic to digestion.
• Alcohol polymer-based bags completely dissolved when treated at
70oC whereas the starch ones did not, and in this case only digester
viscosity rapidly increased (CST)
• An increase in total solids in all test reactors was observed as the
plastic accumulated. This may have implications for the mixing of the
digesters, with an increase in torque on the stirrer blades, resulting in
greater energy consumption.

Thank you
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: This research is funded by Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant
EP/J000361
 For further details please contact Tanja Radu at
T.Radu@lboro.ac.uk or +44 (0)1509 223808

Digesting the indigestible: plastic and indigestible
bags in food waste and how to manage them
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
TONY CLUTTEN
PROCESS SALES MANAGER, HUBER
TECHNOLOGY

DIGESTING THE INDIGESTIBLE
ORGANIC RECOVERY AND LANDFILL REDUCTION
Grit ,glass. Bone, eggshell heavy and light plastics are not
Digestible. But why throw the baby out with the bath water.
Digesting the indigestible-
organic recovery and landfill
reduction July 2016
Household and supermarket waste Ball Milled MSW

HUBER’S EXPERTISE
• Huber are Liquid / Solid Separation Engineers and have a wealth of
experience gained in Municipal and Industrial applications throughout
the world.
• However many of the problems created in Anaerobic Digestion have
required different solutions based on Huber’s expertise but adapted to
suit.
 In this paper we look at:-
 Removal of oversize
 Washing oversize to reduce volume and recover organics
 Removal of Grit and glass
 Washing Grit and Glass to recover organics
 Starch Bags
 Removal of floating debris
 Removal of Plastics both Pre and Post Digestion
reduction July 2016

HUBER TECHNOLOGY . www.huber.UK
Digesting the indigestible-organic recovery and landfill reduction July 2016
SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM
Screen Grit
Removal
Sludge
Handling
Digestate
Cleaning
Fibre and
plastics
removal
Grit
washing
Screenings
washing

INDIGESTIBLE DRIVERS
• Waste operators wishing to dispose of waste at landfill sites in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland will need to pay £84.40 per tonne from 1 April
2016
• With gate fees dropping and disposal costs rising the rejects need to be
reduced.
• Wear is high due to grit and glass
• The bugs can’t digest inorganics.
• Downtime is high due to inorganics settling in the system
• Gas yield is down if the digester is partly full of inorganics
• Greenhouse gas reduction
• Vermin control
• Legislation
• Landfill shortage
• NPK recovery
• Plastics recovery (tomorrow)
reduction July 2016

DE-PACKAGING
De-Packaging can be done in numerous ways and each handles the plastic ,
grit and oversize content differently:-
• Hammer mills- reject oversize. Rejects often containing organic biosolids.
• Pulverisers- May just send all parts forward in the soup cut up or
segregate light and heavy Fraction from soup
• Turbo Separators such as Tiger and Attritor spin out oversize.
• Slitters –slit all contents and wind sift off plastics.
• Squeezers- Squeeze the food from the packaging
• Autoclaves- pressure cook total feed.
• High pressure water to wash out organics
Every type provides a different soup
including different contaminants
reduction July 2016

THE QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF PLASTICS REJECTS
DEPENDS ON THE DE-PACKAGING PROCESS AND
FEEDSTOCK. WE HAVE FIGURES VARYING FROM 7 TO 22%
FROM SOURCE SEGREGATED AND SUPERMARKET WASTE.
LETS GET THE ORGANICS BACK IN THE SOUP
RECOVER ORGANICS FROM REJECTS
TIGER DEPACKAGING-
TRIAL WASHPRESS
UNDER DISCHARGE
TIGER REJECT 7.5% WASHED AND DEWATERED ORGANICS RETURNED OF FEED
SCREENINGS TO SOUP 40-60% REDUCTION

GERMAN TRIALS –Behind a MEWA Depackaging unit
Pulped food
waste feed
Washpress size 6
under MEWA
rake discharge
Washed screenings

Having undertaken several Lab and full scale trials we have
concluded that each de-packaging machine type and feedstock
gives us varying results so more trials are necessary.
However simple wash trials indicate potential to:-
1. Reduce tonnage to landfill and costs.
2. Give cleaner solids
3. Recover volatile solids and COD
Screenings Wash trials
Unwashed screenings
from Press
Hand Washed screenings
No Pressing.
Settled washwater. Left
30minutes settling right 2
minutes

Combination unit of screen and Longitudinal Grit Trap
Huber have a range of combination units handling 6 to
120TPH of Digester feed at 6 to 14% Dry solids.
SCREEN AND GRIT TRAP
Screen
Dewatering
unit
Longtitudinal
Grit Trap

An Inlet Screen (Ro 1 BIO) is included in the design incorporating
extra rakes, reinforced 10 or 15mm screens
Larger drives and higher solids removal rates to cater for the
higher solids loading
This screen incorporates screening washing, dewatering, and elevating oversize
utilising 1 drive.
Oversize screen
If the de-Packaging unit incorporates its own screen this is not required.
However oversize is often contaminated.

SCREENINGS WASHING-Swedish Plant
• Loss of digestible material (Biomass) is to be avoided and Huber
have incorporated screenings washing within the auger of the Ro1
Bio with some success, however the plastic content and the size of
the pulped solids make washing in the auger more difficult so we
would advocate using a wash press. Retrofitting is possible.
Wash Press in Sweden
working on screenings
from screen
Screenings before
washing
Screenings after washing
The weight deduction to Landfill is 10-14% but this depends on the upstream
process. Digesting the indigestible-
reduction July 2016

German sewage trials
Trials in Germany on sewage screenings gave up to 20% increase in gas yield by
washing the screenings of Faeces and returning the organic carbon to the
Anaerobic digester
The photo shows a
UK site where 2
washpresses are
installed to give
clean screenings but
return the organics
back to feed the
bugs downstream
Powerful agitation
drive
Clean Dry screenings
PLC
controlled
valve

GRIT AND GLASS
Grit and Glass are a major problem to the Operations and Maintenance
department causing wear, blockages and mixing power increases. But the other
hidden enemy is sedimentation in the digester. If your Digester is say 30% full of
grit then that’s 30% less retention time with subsequent gas losses, heating
costs etc.
Grit and glass and heavy plastic can be settled out on a Huber
longitudinal grit trap
Grit
Glass

LONGTITUDINAL GRIT TRAP TO REMOVE HEAVY
FRACTION
12.5% DS Food Waste Soup Ro5 Bio 50 in UK
Trapezoidal channel Grit and glass removed

GRIT WASHING
• Simarly biodegradeable material around the grit can be
washed out using a grit washer to increase gas yield
organic recoveryand landfill
reduction July 2016

RETROFITTING A GRIT TRAP AND WASHER
reduction July 2016
An existing Anaerobic Digestion plant
in Northern Ireland takes in a mixture
of Food waste and green waste. In
order to reduce the volume of grit in
the system which causes a lot of
blockages, sedimentation and wear
issues, Huber were asked to look at the
installing a Grit removal plant between
the Hammer mill’s and the soup stock
tank.
No pumps
between grit trap
and washer

reduction July 2016
RESULTS
Clean grit, glass eggshell
bone and sea shells
Removed from soup
(Indigestables)
Organics back in
the soup
1. Reduced Landfill
2. Recovered organics

Strainpress Plastics removal
For plastics and packaging removal
we have fitted a Strainpress prior to digestion to remove as much fibre and plastics as
possible or after digestion to separate liquid and solids and protect down stream
product.
Strain press
opened for
inspection
STAND J502

PLASTICS REMOVALStrainpress – where is it applied
Delivery by Truck
Sludge / Scum
Sand trap
Primary tank
Secondary tank
Secondary sludge
Primary sludge
Scum / Grease
Course
Strainpress ®
Dewatered
Screenings
Drying
Dewatering
Alternative application
Strainpress ®
Heat exchanger
Disposal
Digester
Dewatered
Screenings

The Press works under 1 bar pressure and the slurry is pumped or gravity fed into the
inlet drum. The free liquor drains through the mesh and the solids are squeezed and
turned by the auger towards the discharge cone.
The discharge cone and auger is tapered to compact the screenings against a
pneumatically controlled plug which releases the screenings when the pressure is
reached
CakeSlurry Inlet Filtrate out
Compaction zoneDewatering Pneumatic cone
Strainpress

PRE-DIGESTION
Removal of plastics pre-digestion needs careful thought to avoid
heavy disposal charges of oversize and loss of gas production.
Throughput can be low due to rheology.
Gas yield can be reduced. We can remove all + say 10mm wash
and return Organics

6 off Strainpresses fitted with 5 and 6mm
baskets handling 20M3/h at 8-10%DS
producing 50% DS cake.
Fibres glass and plastics are removed
from MSW before Digestion
BIFFA WANLIP RDF REMOVAL

POST DIGESTION SHANKS-WESTCOTT PARK STRAINPRESS
At Westcott Park we have a Strainpress
fitted with a 3mm mesh screening
digestate between the digester and the 3
Pastuerisers
Screenings removed which otherwise
would be on the fields

Thermally treated food waste trials

BEFORE AND AFTER
reduction July 2016
Without Strainpress With Strainpress
Results of trials in Italy

Tel.: 01249 765050
eMail: tc@huber.co.uk
reduction July 2016

Networking Lunch
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
12:30 – 13:30

The digestate challenge: research to maximise
nutrient use efficiency
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
ANDREW MCLEOD
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

Digestate processing Using membranes:
breaking the barriers to valorisation
Dr Robert W Lovitt
Membranology Ltd / Swansea University

The challenges
The problems of digestate:
– Environmental Hazardous
– Difficult to handle
– Dilute
• Storage
• Transport
– Variable composition
– Seasonal use

Slurry
Energy
crops
Food
waste
Anearobic
Digester
Digestate
storage
Biogas CHP
Unit
Electricity
Heat
Digestate to
land
Slurry
Energy
crops
Food
waste
Anearobic
Digester
Digestate
storage
Biogas CHP
Unit
Electricity
Heat
Digestate
to land
Concentration
Water
Nutrient
Formulation
Fertiliser
Growth media
PHB
Protein
Fats/oil
Chemicals
Current situation
Added value possibilities
Reduced storage
Reduced transport and distribution costs

Membrane technology
• Membrane technology now a mature process with many large
scale applications
– Low cost simple processes easily intgerated with digestate processing
• We have applied this to digestate sludge processing
– Solid liquid separations
– MF/UF/NF/RO

Concentrating Nutrient
• Reverse Osmosis

Recovery of nutreints
• Phosphate
– Critical resource
• Ammonia
– Large carbon footprint
• Metals
– Essential and important
micronutrients
• Water
– Clean decontaminated
water

Reformulation of nutrients
• Fertilizers
– Precise formulation, solid or concentrated form
• Algae growth media
– Protein, Oils
• Microbial growth media
– PHB, Oils, Protein, Platform chemicals
• Plant growth media
– Hydroponics

The digestate challenge: research to maximise
nutrient use efficiency
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB
DAVID STYLES
LECTURER, UNIVERSITY OF BANGOR

98
Dr David Styles (Bangor University)
Dr Paul Adams (Bath University)
Environmental balance of digestate upgrade
© Tim Scrivener

CONCLUSIONS
Climate change
Water quality
Air quality
Nutrient cycling
Energy balance
Economics…

Thanks for your
attention!
Email: d.styles@bangor.ac.uk
13/07/2016 104LCAD EcoBalance: ADBA Forum 2015

Dr Richard Wadsworth; Dr Ruben Sakrabani; Dr Stephen Hallett
Phosphate acceptance map: A tool to
determine suitable land for the application
of biosolids – potential for AD

Many modern agricultural soils are significantly degraded
Increase in
Inorganic
Fertilisers
Higher Crop
ProductivityPopulation2
Increases
Increased
requirements for
food
Reduction in
SOM
Reduction in
Nutrient
Retention
Introduction
Rickson RJ, Deeks LK, Graves A, Harris JA, Kibblewhite MG, Sakrabani R (2015). Input constraints to food
production: the impact of soil degradation. Food Security (accepted). DOI 10.1007/s12571-015-0437-x
Biosolids/
Anaerobic
digestates

Research Question ?
• Where can we target application of biosolids
to meet crop nutrient demand using national
geo-temporal environmental ‘Big Data’ ?

Project Overview
Three test locations : Silsoe, Shropshire and North Wales
NUE
CU : LandIS – Data on
soil and crop
Water Utilities : Data
on biosolids
UKCP09 : Data on climate –
past and future projections
Digital Map + protocol and user guide
Crop uptake for at least 3 years
after application of biosolids

Stakeholder groups and physical
constraints
Constraint Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Protected Area -
pollution * *
Protected Area -
biodiversity * *
Protected Area -
landscape * *
Heavy metal
accumulation * *
Erosion > soil
formation * *
Distance
transported * *

PAM data and maps organised in ESRI ArcGIS Online

Lessons from biosolids to AD
• Data availability is challenging – sensitive matter
• Validation to other locations
• Industry engagement
• Locations of AD plants
• Volume of AD generated
• Nutrient (P) content of AD and its variation depending on feedstock
used
• Land bank applied with AD currently and future projections
• Yield response of crops applied with AD – Nutrient Use Efficiency
• Data is required for the above
• PAM for biosolids can be adapted for AD

Summary
• PAM offers new tool to manage biosolids use in
sustainable agriculture
• A water treatment works is a P ‘mine’ – can utilise
PAM to target suitable crop / landbank
• PAM utilises stakeholders interests and constraints
• PAM – needs to be further exploited with additional
dataset and other application such as AD sector

Thank you, any questions?
UK AD & BIOGAS
TRADESHOW
R&I HUB

UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB KEY ISSUES

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB KEY ISSUES

Similar to UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB KEY ISSUES (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

UK AD & BIOGAS TRADESHOW R&I HUB KEY ISSUES