biomethane from pome felda-upm

7/25/2019 Biomethane From POME Felda-upm

1/21

JOINT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BETWEENJOINT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BETWEENUNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIAUNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

FELDA PALM INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.FELDA PALM INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD.

KYUSHU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYKYUSHU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Professor Dr. Mohd Ali HassanFaculty of Biotechnology& Biomolecular

SciencesUniversiti Putra Malaysia

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, MalaysiaTel: +603 89467591

[email protected]

Professor Dr. Yoshihito Shirai

Graduate School of Life Science &Systems Engineering

Kyushu Institute of Technology

2-4, Hibikino, Wakamtsu-ku,Kitakyushu,808-0196 Japan

Tel: +8193 6956070

[email protected]

Mr. Zainuri B. Busu

FELDA Palm Industries Sdn. Bhd.

4th Floor, Balai FELDA,

Jalan Gurney Satu

54000 Kuala Lumpur

Malaysia

Tel: +603 26916980

[email protected]

Project Leaders

BIOMETHANE PRODUCTION FROM PALM OIL MILL EFFLUENT (POME) IN

A SEMI-COMMERCIAL CLOSED ANAEROBIC DIGESTER

Presenters: Alawi Sulaiman, Zainuri Busu, Shahrakbah YacobEnvironmental Biotechnology Group, Department of Bioprocess Technology

Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)

Japan Society on Promotion of Science (JSPS)Seminar on Sustainable Palm Biomass Initiatives

29th November 2007


2/21

Biomass existing in nature represents a storehouse of solar energy and iscontinuously reprocessed in a biological cycle (renewable).

The majority of biological decomposition processes in nature takes placeinvolving the consumption of oxygen and, at the same time, the production

of CO2.

A smaller proportion undergoes anaerobic conversion which gives rise tobiogas containing a high percentage of methane representing a

significant energy source.

Preamble

Without human interruption therelease of methane could beeasily absorbed by the eco-systemBUT with industrialization andhuman activities, the emission ofmethane has increased whichpartly contributed to the global

warming phenomena

Global Methane Budget (TG Methane/Yr) -

(Ehhalt and Prather, 2001)

Naturalrelease

36%

Anthropogenic

sources64%


3/21

Global scenario :

Rising of oil price Depletion of reserves Political uncertainties oil producers

Malaysia scenario : Growing demand - developed nationby 2020

Limited fossil fuel reserves Net oil importer soon

Energy Requirement

Depletion of fossil fuels reservesEnergy Balance Report 2003

Rising of crude oil price
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gifhttp://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif


4/21

The climate change

The greenhouse effect and global warming are

two major factors contributed to the catastrophicimplications of the global climate change.

Uncontrolled industrialization/human activities hasincreased the GHG content which increase in heattrapped in the atmosphere (1.4-5.8oC in the 21st

century), resulted in increase of the sea level andchanging weather pattern and water supplies and

eventually affect the WORLD FOOD Supply andnatural ecosystem

Kyoto Protocol (1997) - objective is to achievesustainable development via quantification ofemission limitation and reduction of GHG

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

reduction of GHG emission by facilitating co-operative projects between developingcountries and developed countries with theopportunity for additional financial andtechnological investments in GHG reductionprojects.

h t tp :/ / e n .w i k ip e d i a . o rg / w i k i/ G l o b a l _w a rm i n g _p o t e n t ia l


5/21

Carbondioxide

GWP: 1

Carbon

dioxide

GWP: 1

Hydrofluorocarbon

s

GWP: 11,700

Hydrofluorocarbon

s

GWP: 11,700

Methane

GWP: 21

Methane

GWP: 21

Sulphur

hexafluoride

GWP: 23,900

Sulphur

hexafluoride

GWP: 23,900

Nitrousoxide

GWP: 310

Nitrous

oxide

GWP: 310

Perfluorocarbons

GWP: 9,200

Perfluorocarbons

GWP: 9,200

GHGs

GWP

Greenhouse Gases under Kyoto Protocol

The GWP is defined as the ratio of thetime-integrated radioactive forcing fromthe instantaneous release of 1 kg of a tracesubstance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas(IPCC, l990):

For example, the GWP for methane is 21 means thatemissions of 1 million metric tonnes of methane isequivalent to emissions of 21 million metric tonnes ofcarbon dioxide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential


6/21

Most abundant in Malaysia - (> 70 million tones annually)

Main contributor of biomass

palm oil industry

EFB (solid)

POME (liquid)

Fiber (solid)

Shells (solid)

Mainly ligno-cellulosic materialsStructure:

Biomass resources: Agricultural residues

94%

1% 1% 4%

Palm Oil Rice Sugarcane Wood Industry


7/21

Biomass output from the palm oil mill

60 t/hr Mill

FreshFruit

Bunch

Steam generation(192,000 t/yr) to generate

1.3 MW power

Excess shell(12,288 t/yr)47% shell

100% fiber

Incineration60% EFB

Soil mulching/Disposal 40% EFB

Treated &discharged

Maintenance CostRM 40,000/yr

Shell(19,200 t/yr)

Fiber(38,400 t/yr)

EFB(70,400 t/yr)

POME(160,000 m3/yr)

From estimation of 28m3 * 0.65 / m3 POME

For 47 million m3 POME would produce

855 million m3 of CH4.


8/21

POME

sources

POME Sources and characteristics

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91

Operation days

C

O

D

Feed

(m

gL-1)

Sludge recycling per iod COD Feed Non sludge recycling period COD Feed Start -up period COD FeedCommon COD Strength fluctuations for 100 days

of study


9/21

POME treatment facility anaerobic, facultative and aerobic

Open tanks system

Discharge limit 100 mg/L

> 70% of total mill area i.e 20 hectares for 60t/hr mill

Palm Oil Industry - POME

Facultative ponds

Algae ponds

Open tanks systemBiogas emission - 28m3/m3

POME,with 65% methanecontentUntapped renewable energy

Biogas

Polishingstage

Biogas

Engine

Mill usage OR

gridconnection

Open digester system

Closed digester system


10/21

Research Project Motivation

Better management of palm oil mill effluent(POME)

Replacement for open lagoon system(improvement)

Reduction of land use for treatment

Prevention of bad odor emission (H2S gas)

Reduction of greenhouse gas emission (i.e CH4)

Recovery of methane gas for renewable energy

Carbon credit through Certified EmissionReduction (CER) for CDM programs

Technology transfer for closed anaerobicdigester

Technology

transfer

Sustainable palm oil industry


11/21

The biogas plant location

Malaysia

Distribution of palm oil plantations in Malaysia.

Plantation areas are shown in red

Source: MPOB homepage on

www.mpob.gov.my


12/21

The biochemistry

Hydrolysis: complex organic matter is decomposed into

simple soluble organic molecules using water to split the

chemical bonds between the substances.

Acidogenesis: the chemical decompositionof carbohydrates by enzymes, bacteria, yeasts, or molds

in the absence of oxygen.

Acetogenesis: the fermentation products are converted

into acetate, hydrogen and carbon dioxide by so-calledacetogenic bacteria.

Methanogenesis: methane (CH4) is formed from acetate

and hydrogen/carbon dioxide by methanogenic bacteria...

Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that produces a gas principally composed of methane(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2.

Anaerobic processes could either occur naturally or in a controlled environment such as a biogasplant. Organic waste such as livestock manure and various types of bacteria are put in a digester sothe process could occur. Depending on the waste feedstock and the system design, biogas istypically 55 to 75 percent pure methane.

Anaerobic digestion is a biological process that produces a gas principally composed of methane(CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2.

Anaerobic processes could either occur naturally or in a controlled environment such as a biogasplant. Organic waste such as livestock manure and various types of bacteria are put in a digester sothe process could occur. Depending on the waste feedstock and the system design, biogas istypically 55 to 75 percent pure methane.


13/21

500 m3

Closed AnaerobicDigester

1

Palm Oil MillEffluent (POME)

Holding Tank

2

3

4

5

6

7

GasScrubberSystem

TreatedEffluent

PurifiedMethane

To storage

89

10

Recycling line toholding tank

Process flow diagram of the semi-commercial 500m3 single stage closed anaerobic digester;1-Fresh Raw POME from the mill; 2-Centrifugal pump; 3-Sampling ports; 4-Gas collection chamber;

5-Biogas safety relief system; 6-Settling tank; 7- Sludge recycling pump; 8- pH probe;9- Temperature probe; 10- pH probe for scrubbing liquid (NaOH Solution).

Process Flow Scheme


14/21

HOLDING TANKContinuous feeding

DIGESTERMethane fermentation

GAS STORAGEMethane storage

GAS SCRUBBERBiogas polishing

GAS UTILIZATIONSETTLING TANK

Sludge separation

Sludge recycle

Process Flow Scheme


15/21

Parameters Open digester

system

Closed anaerobic

digester

COD removal

efficiency (%)

81% 97%

HRT (days) 20 10

Methane utilization Released to

atmosphere

Recoverable

Methane yield

(kgCH4/kgCODrem

oved)

0.11 0.20 (target)

Methane content

(%)

36 55

Biogas production

(m3/tone POME)

28 20

Solid discharge

(g/L)

20 8

Performance Comparison

Biogas flare (night and day)


16/21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33

Operation days

H

R

T,

V

Feed

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

O

r

anic

loadin

rate

O

LR

HRT (days) V Feed OLR

The relationship between HRT, V.Feed and

organic loading rate (OLR) during start-up operation.

Start-up of the digester

Seeding used sludge from theSimilar waste (open digester)and diluted to 5% TS.

The start-up was completedwithin a month afteracclimatization phase.

The V Feed was increased from10m3/d, 20m3/d, 30m3/d, 40m3/dand 50m3/d.

The HRT was reduced from 50 daysdown to 10 days.

The OLR was automatically increasedfrom 1.0 kgCOD/m3/day to6.0 kgCOD/m3/day.


17/21

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33

Operation days

CO

D

Rem

Eff,

VFA:Alk

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

COD

Feed

VFA:Alk COD Rem. Eff. (%) COD Feed

The COD Rem. Eff. (%), VFA to alkalinity ratio andCOD Feed fluctuation during the start-up period.

The digester performanceduring the start-up period

High COD Feed fluctuation, yet

the system still stable

High COD removal efficiencyof higher than 90%

COD Rem. Eff. = COD Feed COD Treated X 100%COD Feed

VFA increased with OLRbut theVFA/Alkalinity ratiowas within the optimumrange (0.1-0.3)

COD measures the organic strength of the raw POME


18/21

The effect of increasingorganic loading rate

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 19 28 37 46

Operation days

O

LR

,V.

Feed,

VFA,

C

O

D

R

em

.Eff

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

M

ethane

ield

OLR V.Feed VFA COD Methane Yield

The effect of increasing OLR on VFA, COD removalefficiency and methane yield.

OLR was increased by increasingthe V Feed to the digester; thusHRT was reducedHRT=500m3

VFeedm3/day

VFA increased(steadily after OLR 1.5) but stillbelow 1000 mg/L (critical limit)

Alkalinity reduced as morealkaline needed in order tomaintain neutral pH condition(pH 6.8-7.2)

VFA/Alkalinity increased but stillwithin acceptable limit (0.1-0.3)

Methane yield reduced from 0.17to 0.10 kg CH4/kgCOD removed

Steady increasedVFAmaintained


19/21

The effect of sludge recyclingon the digester performance

Comparison of the digester performanceparameters for the sludge recycling and nonrecycling modes

Organic

loadingrate

(OLR)

Mean SD

VFA (mgL-1)

Mean SD

COD Rem.Eff. (%)

Mean SD

Methane yield

(kgCH4kgCODremoved-1)

Sludge

recycling

Non-sludge

recycling

Sludge

recycling

Non-sludge

recycling

Sludge

recycling

Non-sludge

recycling

1.0 - 23822 - 961.0 - 0.170.02

1.5 - 24320 - 961.7 - 0.140.14

2.0 284122 41277 971.6 940.9 0.170.0

4

0.160.15

2.5 26832 46742 960.7 950.2 0.170.0

1

0.120.12

3.0 29367 709138 952.1 941.0 0.140.0

1

0.120.12

3.5 25576 98794 960.8 911.9 0.150.0

1

0.100.09

4.0 22489 1300262 943.5 911.2 0.140.0

1

0.070.07

4.5 34388 - 962.8 - 0.140.0

1

-

5.0 33685 - 951.6 - 0.130.0

1

-

5.5 43283 - 941.2 - 0.120.0

1

-

6.0 500109 - 962.0 - 0.100.01

-

SD-Standard deviation

The effects of sludge recyclingare clear:The operating OLR was higher

(6.0 kgCOD/m3/day) thanwithout case (4.0 kgCOD/m3/day)

The VFA accumulation wasrestricted to below 500 mg/L as

compared to 1300 mg/L at OLR ofonly 4.0 kgCOD/m3/day

COD removal efficiency was

higher even at higher OLR

Methane yield was higheri.e at OLR 4.0 kgCOD/m3/dayyield was 0.14 kgCH4/kgCODremoved

as compared to0.07 kgCH4/kgCOD removed


20/21

The pilot plant design was appropriate for treatment and biomethanation of POME

The biomethanation of POME in a semi-commercial scale was successfully demonstrated.

The biogas plant was start-up and operated within a month after acclimatization period.

Despite high fluctuation of COD the plant was still able to be operated due to its simpleand effective design for POME.

The biogas plant was started-up without sludge recycling and received its peak load at 50

m3

/day indicating suitable seeding from the existing open digester tank.

The sludge recycling mode was found to be an effective technique to enhance methaneyield.

Moreover, the technique also ensured higher OLR (up to 6.0 kgCOD/m3/day) to be

operated while restricting VFA accumulation (only to 500 mgL-1) within the system.

The methane yield was improved to 0.14 kgCH4/kgCODremovedat OLR of 4.0 kgCOD/m3/day while maintaining good COD removal efficiency at higherthan 90%

Conclusion


21/21

Special acknowledgements

1. Environmental Biotechnology Group Universiti Putra Malaysia(Technical and research-MSc. And PhD)

2. Kyushu Institute of Technology (KIT) Japan andJapan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS)(Technical and funding)

3. FELDA Palm Industries (M) Sdn. Bhd.(Site and engineering works)

4. Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) (PhD scholarship)

biomethane from pome felda-upm

Documents