POWERED UP:  Biogas projects that have freshly come online include (top left to right) Quantum Biopower's food waste-to-power project in Southington, Connecticut;  the Verwey-Hanford covered lagoon dairy digester in Hanford, California; (bottom left 

2017/01/BiogasAdvances2_14852043584552_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/BiogasAdvances2_14852043584552_thumb.jpg

2017/01/BiogasAdvances2_14852043584552.jpg

2017/01/BiogasAdvances1_14852043576477.jpg

2017/01/BiogasAdvances3_14852043593894.jpg

2017/01/BiogasAdvances4_14852043604158.jpg

2017/01/POWER-PLUS-MORE_14852043614664.jpg

Producing a range of end products from a seemingly endless list of resources, methane-based energy project development is picking up in the country. 

Biogas Advances in the US

The core task of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is to clean domestic waste water before reuse or disposal. Treatment is separated into primary treatment and secondary treatment.&nbsp; Primary treatment has wastewater continuously pass through a clarifier, or settling tank, to settle out solids, or primary sludge. In secondary treatment, wastewater is aerated in a basin to promote microbial growth. These microbes form flocs and settle out as activated or secondary sludge. The combined biosolids must be treated on-site or transported to another facility for treatment and disposal.&nbsp; Sludge treatment facilities have two to four main steps of treatment: thickening, digestion, dewatering and sterilization. Small-scale WWTPs do not have the digestion step, and usually thicken and dewater sludge before transporting to another facility. Sludge thickening is done by all WWTPs to increase solids content of the sludge. Sterilization is done only if this is legally mandatory for Class A land application. At larger facilities, thickened sludge is anaerobically digested to break down complex matter via bacteria and reduce the sludge volume, reducing volatile solids and pathogens in the sludge, along with eliminating foul odors. Depending on treated sludge quality, the final product can be land applied, landfilled, incinerated or composted. Sterilized sludge is higher-valued as Class A land application; nonsterilized sludge that is landfilled is typically Class B. Biogas obtained from the sludge digestion is either used on-site or flared. For WWTPs, biogas and biosolids pose three challenges&mdash;quantity, quality and finance. Biogas Handling Sludge digestion produces biogas, the amount of which depends on sludge composition (ratio of primary to secondary), digester residence time, bacteria metabolic rate and several other parameters that influence how it is managed. If biogas production is meager, it is usually flared or used in a small boiler for digester heat. If a substantial quantity of biogas can be produced, it can used as a cogeneration fuel source. Power can be used for internal purposes and sold to the electricity grid. Heat can be used to maintain digester temperature, but only a small part of the available heat is required. Excess heat is dissipated into the surrounding environment. Another option is upgrading to renewable natural gas (RNG), which increases the methane concentration by removing fouling components. Upgraded biogas can be injected into the gas grid or transported as compressed natural gas. RNG is currently valued at $15-25/MMBtu within the renewable fuel standard as a D5 RIN (renewable identification number). Challenges Biosolids are faced with three main challenges: volume (quantity), biosolids classification (quality) and cost (finance). Sludge volume is reduced through AD and dewatering, but the output biosolids are classified as Class B with biogas as a byproduct. Addressing the challenges of biosolids has led to the innovation of continuous thermal hydrolysis process (cTHP), which elevates the sludge treatment efficiency. This unique technology exploits life steam injection, breaking down cell structures, leading to higher availability of volatile organic compounds and lowering overall viscosity. As a result of this process, digesters can handle higher biosolids loads, final sludge volumes are reduced, and output biosolids are Class A. An additional benefit is increased biogas generation by 25&ndash;35 percent. How It Works Sustec, part of DMT Group, patented&nbsp; the trademarked TurboTec, the first continuous THP process. A simple cooking analogy can be used to explain the essence of thermal hydrolysis process. Pasta in its raw form is inedible, but after boiling in a high pressure cooker, it&rsquo;s softened and edible. Similarly, sludge waste is pressured and heat treated, breaking down cell structures, simplifying complex organic matter and lowering feedstock viscosity prior to digester feeding, accelerating microbial activity. This allows digester bacteria to spend less time decomposing the organic matter, and more time converting it into biogas and digestate. The TurboTec THP process operates at standard pressure of 4&ndash;6 bar (60-90 pounds per square inch) and temperature of 285-320 degrees Fahrenheit. Treatment at this temperature kills all microorganisms, pathogens and bacteria, and ensures waste stabilization. Moreover, due to lower viscosity, solids-loading of the digester can be increased by prethickening of the sludge up to 10&ndash;12 percent solids content. By coupling a mixing and separation technology with an efficient heat recovery, TurboTec THP can achieve this with only 800 kg/total dissolved solids (tDS) of steam being continuously injected into the hydrolysis reactor. Life steam injection serves to maintain the operating temperature and lower sludge viscosity by rupturing microorganisms into short-chained fragments, and the energy is reused to maintain digester temperature. Due to the continuous process design, the system works more efficiently than conventional batch processes, satisfying two of the three challenges. All that remains is whether this technology is economically feasible. A tool has been developed for analyzing the full potential of TurboTec THP process for a greenfield and existing-field situations in collaboration with DMT Clear Gas Solutions and Sustec. The tool considers operating parameters of the different sludge and biogas treatment steps, and evaluates the business case. For an existing-field, a digester was reviewed by adding a THP and gas upgrading system. But this is also compared to the situation where additional capacity is required.&nbsp; For a greenfield situation, digester size is reduced when using a THP, and the biosolids treated is kept equal. For either case, the tool can be used to determine the optimal strategy for biosolids disposal and biogas handling. Existing-field Scenario The project investment in an existing-field scenario represents the capital required for treatment facility improvements. This accounts of the equipment costs, building/civil, installation, piping, electrical/gas grid connection(s), contractor, contingency, engineering and legal administration.&nbsp; The economics of a business-as-usual case (i.e., combustion of biogas in a boiler) is used as reference to compare when biogas is upgraded and existing digester capacity is optimized as seen in Table 1.&nbsp; For the four different upgrading cases, biogas is converted to RNG and a CHP engine is operated using natural gas to explain the economics with respect to THP. As mentioned, implementing THP prior to AD allows the system to handle more sludge in the same digester capacity.&nbsp; The CHP-1 case has a project investment $7.3 million and treats about 27,500 metric tons of dry solids annually. In this case, all power produced from the CHP is utilized for operating sludge treatment process and revenue is from RNG grid injection. THP-1 case is the same as CHP-1 case, but the project cost includes a TurboTec unit. Because of the THP installed, the existing digester operates under capacity, but yields 25&ndash;30 percent more biogas, which reflects in the overall revenues. Additionally, operation costs are much lower for THP-1 than CHP-1, because of the sludge disposal cost difference. With implementing THP, the quality of the sludge changes from Class B to Class A, significantly reducing disposal costs, so immediate savings from THP are about $4 million, leading to a faster payback period. Cases CHP-2 and THP-2 treat about 45,800 metric of dry solids per year and have project investments of $17.5 million and $18 million, respectively. The case THP-2 is the maximized version of THP-1 where digester capacity was not optimized.&nbsp; Conversely, CHP-2 required extension of digester space to treat same amount of solids as digester in THP-2 case. Since the amount of solids treated increased, the operational costs, revenue and saving from THP all increased proportionally.&nbsp; Hence, the payback period for these two cases is nonexistent. The ROI for existing-field is nonexistent because the project investment difference is minimal, and the savings earned from investing in THP are significant in comparison. Simply from the sludge disposal difference, profit can be made when disposal cost per wet ton of Class B is much greater than Class A.&nbsp; The profits can be further increased, depending on the RNG price available. TurboTec is a viable solution to retrofitting existing digester plants, but also greenfield applications.&nbsp; Implementing THP offers the potential for reduction of sludge output and increase in biogas production. Furthermore, environmental regulations are becoming stricter regarding sludge disposal, emphasizing its earth-enriching benefits, as land application of biosolids helps the soil rejuvenate and promote plant grow. Moreover, with increased biogas output, the option of upgrading biogas to RNG is a viable source of revenue. With the energy paradigm shifting from fossil fuels to alternative carbon neutral sources, RNG pricing is expected to have high valorization, providing more incentive for investing in thermal hydrolysis to achieve Class A quality biosolids and to export or utilize biogas. Authors: Robert Lems and Karthik Yenduru DMT Clear Gas Solutions info@dmt-cgs.com&nbsp; 503-379-0147

BIOSOLID BOOST: Pictured at a wastewater treatment plant, the TurboTec THP reactor couples a mixing and separation technology with efficient heat recovery.

2017/01/Biosolid-Boost-FebBMM17_14852039929853_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/Biosolid-Boost-FebBMM17_14852039929853_thumb.jpg

2017/01/Biosolid-Boost-FebBMM17_14852039929853.jpg

2017/01/BiosolidChart-FebBMM17_14852039939013.jpg

Wastewater treatment plants face challenges treating their biosolids, but there are solutions to achieve maximum value in an evolving market. 

How to Value Biosolids

Up until January 2015, the Lebanon Regional Solid Waste Facility operated without an active landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS). Located in Lebanon, New Hampshire, the site has been operated by the city of Lebanon Department of Public Works since the 1960s. The site currently includes a recycling and transfer center, a closed construction and demolition landfill, a closed unlined landfill, and an active lined landfill. The site takes in over 50,000 tons of solid waste per year. For decades, the only form of landfill gas (LFG) control that existed at the site was a passive system that consisted of a series of vents that emitted LFG to the atmosphere, and to the surrounding city of Lebanon and its citizens. The site is located less than a mile away from a business area, and because of this passive venting system, odors have been an issue for the citizens of Lebanon and their visitors. In an effort to reduce odors and move the city closer to producing energy from the site, the city&rsquo;s engineering consultant, Sanborn, Head &amp; Associates Inc. helped the city develop an active GCCS system. The active GCCS consists of vertical gas extraction wells, gas collection trenches, condensate management features, gas conveyance pipe, connections to existing vents, and a blower/utility flare station. The active GCCS was developed in three distinct stages. Stage 1: Lined Landfill Stage 1 was the first step in the right direction for the city. As waste in a landfill ages, the LFG production rate declines. For this reason, the LFG produced by the newer waste in the active landfill was viewed as a higher priority than the LFG being emitted from the older unlined landfill. The major component of Stage 1 was the installation of 12 vertical gas extraction wells to a maximum depth of 80 feet into the waste mass of the lined landfill. The vertical gas extraction wells consist of 8-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe encased in crushed stone. The wells are fitted with a wellhead, consisting of a valve and monitoring points that can measure and regulate the applied vacuum as well as other LFG parameters (e.g., gas composition and temperature). Typically, the effective radius of influence of a vertical gas extraction well is about 100 feet. Vertical wells are an effective GCCS component for extracting LFG, and are typically installed in areas that are at or near final grade. In areas of the lined landfill that were not final grade, LFG collection trenches were installed. The collection trenches consist of 6-inch diameter perforated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that is encased in crushed stone. The difference between the vertical wells and LFG collection trenches is that the trenches are installed almost horizontally, a minimum slope is provided to manage liquids (condensate) generated when the collected LFG is cooled. Because the trenches are laid out in a horizontal manner, they are more likely to be subject to differential settlement as the surrounding waste settles. The LFG collection trenches have an elliptical zone of influence estimated to be 100 feet horizontally and 40 feet vertically. To increase the collection potential of the GCCS, the 24 existing passive LFG vents were connected to the gas conveyance pipe network. By connecting the vents to a vacuum source, the potential for fugitive LFG emissions, and hence odors, was reduced. Condensate management features were installed at low points throughout the system in order to capture the liquid and discharge it to the leachate collection system of the lined landfill. Stage 2: Unlined Landfill The second stage of the active GCCS focused on the site&rsquo;s unlined landfill and its 18 passive LFG vents. Similar to the passive vents located on the lined landfill, each of these passive gas vents were modified and connected to the primary gas conveyance pipe (GCCS header). A series of wellheads allow for the control of vacuum at each vent location. Wellheads can be adjusted to control the amount of vacuum applied to a GCCS component. Operators do not want to apply more vacuum than necessary; otherwise, too much air can be pulled into the system. Through a series of testing ports located on the wellheads, operators can adjust the vacuum, and optimize the performance of the GCCS. Stage 3: Looking Forward Stage 3 of the active GCCS has yet to be constructed. Stage 3 focuses on operations and odor reduction, and will consist of expanding the GCCS to collect LFG going forward as the site continues to accept waste. Stage 3 will consist of installing additional LFG collection trenches installed at succeeding levels in the active filling area. Once the site achieves its permitted final grades, Stage 3 also will include about 16 more vertical gas extraction wells. Results Following construction of Stages 1 and 2 of the GCCS and the receipt of an air permit to operate the LFG utility flare, the city activated the GCCS in January 2015. The startup phase faced some initial operational challenges, which were further hindered by bitter cold weather. The startup issues were resolved through excellent cooperation between the city, its contractors and Sanborn Head. At present, the city is extracting and flaring approximately 400 cubic feet of LFG per minute from the two landfills. The general public has been very supportive of this project, and local businesses and their customers have been pleased with the odor control measures and improved air quality. Future Plans The next step in the city&rsquo;s GCCS endeavors is to install a landfill-gas-to-energy (LFGTE) engine. LFGTE engines have the ability to take LFG and convert it into electricity. With the anticipated LFG flow, the city hopes to power the site&rsquo;s facilities independent from the electrical grid. As new waste is accepted at the active landfill, LFG flow is expected to continue to increase and generate additional electricity. The city intends to set up a LFGTE plant capable of producing approximately 1 MW of electricity. The physical &ldquo;brick and mortar&rdquo; component of a LFGTE plant is not difficult to design, and there are hundreds of similar facilities in the U.S. and abroad. The problems associated with LFGTE projects stem from the financial side of the operation. Appropriately structuring ownership and identifying positive revenues from a project of this size can be challenging. Currently, the city is looking into the alternatives including selling the LFG to a developer that would own and operate the LFGTE facility, or financing the project themselves and net metering the energy produced at the landfill to offset its own load. Other possible revenue sources include carbon credits associated with the methane destroyed in the flare or the LFGTE power plant. Takeaways In many ways, this project was a great success for the city of Lebanon. Not only does the city have an active GCCS that improves air quality and has the potential to serve as an additional source of revenue, but local businesses and the citizens of Lebanon are beginning to realize how important an asset this landfill is to the city. In times where public resistance against landfill projects is commonplace, it is a breath of fresh air to complete a landfill-related project with public backing. These types of facilities are not the &ldquo;dumps&rdquo; people think they are; they are highly-engineered facilities that are designed with considerations geared toward protecting human health and the environment. Contact: Edward A. Galvin Senior Project Engineer, Sanborn, Head &amp; Associates eglavin@sanbornhead.com 603-415-6132

A GRIP ON GAS: The city of Lebanon, New Hampshire, installed a landfill gas collection system that not only reduces problematic odors, but will enable energy production in the future.


2017/01/AGripOnGas-FebBMM17_14852044760166_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/AGripOnGas-FebBMM17_14852044760166_thumb.jpg

2017/01/AGripOnGas-FebBMM17_14852044760166.jpg

In an effort to reduce odors and move the city closer to producing energy from the its landfill, the city of Lebanon, new Hampshire, installed an active GCCS system.

Smell of Success: Implementing an Active Landfill Gas System

The past year has been a time of considerable progress for the biogas industry. Several climate change initiatives have been brought forward by the federal and provincial governments, and advances have been made in respect to several specific renewable energy initiatives for which the Canadian Biogas Association has been a major player.&nbsp;&nbsp; In Ontario, the government announced its Climate Change Action Plan in June, setting aside CA$ 100 million for the renewable natural gas (RNG) industry, $100 million for natural gas infrastructure, and $20 million for a pilot program using methane from agricultural materials or food wastes for transportation purposes. Ontario also implemented a cap-and-trade system, effective Jan. 1, that will support the CCAP initiatives. A number of decisions related to the CCAP have yet to be made by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, including specific renewable fuel content percentage, target timelines and how CCAP funds will be allocated. The Ontario government brought forward a number of other energy policies in 2016, which may create a more conducive atmosphere for further development of the Canadian biogas industry, such as changes to net-metering to encourage biogas developers to increase production for their own use. While the Large Renewable Procurement Program was suspended (projects&nbsp; greater than 500 kilowatts (kW), the Small Feed-in Tariff Program&rsquo;s (projects&nbsp; less than 500 kW) final procurement call saw 74 biogas applications totalling 16.5 MW, moving into the review process. There was movement advancing the Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario, and commitment to develop a food and organic waste framework. The Ontario government is also reviewing an environmental activity sector registry approach that may allow smaller biogas projects to undergo a more flexible approval process. Other provinces also implemented climate change policies that encourage further development of renewable energy, including biogas. In August, the British Columbia Utilities Commission allowed for a rate-base change for RNG, lowering the premium for RNG to voluntary customers. B.C. will also be amending the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Regulation to encourage emission reductions in transportation, allowing utilities to double the total pool of incentives available to convert commercial fleets to natural gas, when the new incentives go toward vehicles using 100 percent RNG. In Alberta, the Climate Leadership Plan, effective Jan. 1, encourages renewable energy development by establishing a target of 30 percent renewable energy by 2030. The CBA voiced the need to include small-scale biogas (less than 5 MW) in existing programs, to recognize the economic advantage of biogas and the delivery of greater GHG reductions, to assess the self-sustainability of all renewable energy forms on an equal footing, and to consider alternative means to valuing environmental attributes that are simple and effective. Quebec&rsquo;s Energy Policy 2030 has four objectives: to decarbonate Quebec, to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency, to make full use of Quebec&rsquo;s natural resources and to develop its green economy. The Quebec government wants renewable energy to meet 61 percent of Quebec&rsquo;s needs by 2030 (it currently stands at just over 47 percent). Quebec wants to reduce fossil fuel usage, particularly in transportation, by electrification of transportation, the use of natural gas in trucking and the expansion and increased use of public transit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; At the end of 2016, the federal government announced the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which sets forth actions such as making greater use of renewable power, reducing methane emissions from oil and gas, protecting forests, wetlands, agricultural areas and reducing emissions from government operations. The objective of this framework is to reduce GHG emissions and contribute to meeting or exceeding Canada&rsquo;s 2030 climate change target of a 30 percent reduction below 2005 greenhouse gas levels. The federal government also announced a commitment to develop a clean fuel standard to reduce the carbon footprint of the fuels supplied in Canada. Consultations will begin early 2017. During 2016, the federal government and several provincial governments committed to more actively opening up export markets to energy products. This is an objective of the federal Pan-Canadian Framework, as well as the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan. Several Ontario government Ministers recently met with the CBA, other renewable energy associations and private companies to discuss the barriers to and ways of encouraging the export of renewable energy products.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The CBA has also prepared detailed prebudget submissions for both the federal and Ontario governments in 2017, recommending more funding to develop infrastructure for the biogas industry.&nbsp;&nbsp; In summary, during the past year, the Canadian biogas industry has been pleased that federal and provincial governments are placing more emphasis on designing major initiatives to increase their supply of renewable energy, devising more effective energy export policies, moving toward streamlining environmental approval processes and providing more funding to encourage the development of RNG. &nbsp; Contact: Jennifer Green Executive Director, Canadian Biogas Association 613-822-1004 www.biogasassociation.ca

2017/01/Jennifer-Green_14852049225707_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/Jennifer-Green_14852049225707_thumb.jpg

2017/01/Jennifer-Green_14852049225707.jpg

The past year has been a time of considerable progress for the biogas industry.

Annual Review of Canadian  Biogas Industry 

By the time this issue hits your mailbox, Donald Trump will have been sworn into office as president of the U.S. With the incoming Trump administration naming appointees with strong ties to the petroleum industry, not surprisingly, there was much discussion at the RNG 2016 Conference in San Diego in early December, about how the next few years would play out for the renewable natural gas (RNG) industry. The RNG industry is positioned to continue thriving. Johannes Escudero and David Cox, executive officers of conference host RNG Coalition, kicked off the two-day event programming by depicting the positive state of the industry. &ldquo;The RNG industry has never been stronger,&rdquo; they affirmed, noting that the industry has built more projects in the past five years than in the previous 25 years. There are more than 53 RNG projects in the U.S., 43 of which inject into the natural gas pipeline system. These projects convert a portion of the more than 70 million tons of organic waste generated per year in the U.S. into ultra-clean compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas transportation fuel and renewable heat and power. A panel moderated by Evan Williams of Cambrian Energy assessed the factors that financiers and developers consider when evaluating the viability for prospective projects. Two other panels delved into fuel regulations that drive RNG development. During one panel, representatives from the California Air Resources Board, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and U.S. EPA discussed the futures of California&rsquo;s Low Carbon and Very Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Oregon&rsquo;s Clean Fuels Program, and the federal renewable fuel standard (RFS). The other addressed hot button issues under the RFS, including pipeline injection guidance, the Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule, and prospective RNG to electric vehicle fuel pathways. Production and use of RNG to displace gasoline and diesel in heavy-duty vehicles has rapidly grown since RNG transportation fuel became eligible to generate cellulosic biofuel RINs, the corresponding credits attached to gallons of RNG fuel under the RFS. Domestic production grew from the equivalent of 20 MMgy of petroleum fuel in 2013, to just under 90 MMgy in 2015. RNG is on pace to supplant more than 250 MMgy by 2018.&nbsp; In respective conference presentations, Paul Niznik of Argus Media and Michael McAdams of Holland &amp; Knight Law and the Advanced Biofuels Association discussed the future of credit markets and the implications of November&rsquo;s elections on RNG industry trajectory. Notably, the election had little influence on the price of cellulosic RINs; late in 2016, they were fetching higher prices than ever before.&nbsp; Significantly, Escudero and Cox also detailed how the development of RNG projects and expansion of the industry matches up with the narratives of economic growth, job creation, and domestic energy growth and security that have been pillars of the incoming Trump administration. The conference marked the release of a new white paper written by the RNG Coalition and Energy Vision that expounds on that message. &ldquo;Fueling Economic Growth with Renewable Natural Gas&rdquo; is designed to equip advocates of this ultra-clean, waste-derived fuel and energy source with data-supported talking points. It provides a timely introduction to RNG for policymakers and individuals who are not already familiar with the contribution of the RNG industry to the U.S. economy in recent years. &ldquo;RNG is already a billion-dollar industry,&rdquo; the report highlights, adding that RNG project investments in just the past five years have totaled more than $368 million. RNG projects have added significant jobs in recent years, as the U.S. economy has gotten back on track. &ldquo;Since 2014, RNG has been responsible for creating 4,000 direct and indirect jobs,&rdquo; the white paper explains. A panel moderated by Iogen&rsquo;s Gordon McLennan showed that growth prospects for RNG are not limited to the U.S. Sarah Van Der Paelt (Union Gas) shared that Canada&rsquo;s two largest gas utilities are advocating for a 2 percent RNG requirement for the nation&rsquo;s gas utilities.&nbsp; Following the conference, the U.S. DOE Biotechnologies Office published a new report that assesses that wet and gaseous organic waste stream feedstocks represent a substantial and underutilized resource for biofuels and byproducts. It indicates that wet and gaseous feedstocks (animal and food waste, wastewater residuals, biogas, and fats, oils and greases) in the U.S. offer more than 17.5 billion gallons (gasoline gallon equivalents) of annual resources, in addition to those wastes currently used in operational landfill digesters. RNG companies have disclosed that more than 25 new projects are set to come online by the end of 2017, and already another 15 planned RNG transportation projects slated to come online by 2020. With each new RNG project injecting an average of $16 million into jobs and construction, this growth equates to additional investment of $640 million and adds nearly another 7,000 direct and indirect jobs to the U.S. economy. &nbsp; Author: Marcus Gillette Director of Public &amp; Government Affairs, Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas www.rngcoalition.com 916-588-3033

2017/01/Marcus-Gillette_14852050026292_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/Marcus-Gillette_14852050026292_thumb.jpg

2017/01/Marcus-Gillette_14852050026292.jpg

RNG companies have disclosed that more than 25 new projects are set to come online by the end of 2017, and already another 15 planned RNG transportation projects slated to come online by 2020

RNG Poised for Growth in New Administration

In a sweeping overview of activity and construction currently underway in the biogas sector, the article that serves as the foundation for this issue&mdash;completely dedicated to biogas production and use&mdash;specifically mentions 26 different projects. That same article identifies 24 different service and technology providers making vital contributions to these projects. Setting aside only the installation of small-scale biomass thermal, I can say, without even looking, that the biogas segment can boast the largest roster of under-development and under-construction projects within the broader biomass-to-energy space. Still, it remains difficult to absorb the industry&rsquo;s measure. To go a step further, the frenzied excitement that has marked other biomass sectors when they have experienced similar project counts feels notably absent. A close read of this this page-14 feature, &ldquo;Biogas Advances in the US,&rdquo; written by Managing Editor Anna Simet and Associate Editor Katie Fletcher, may well reveal why that is. The article illustrates the incredible variety of biogas deployments currently underway, outlining digesters that have been built at hog farms, dairy operations, landfills, organic waste collection depots, breweries, supermarket chains and wastewater treatment plants. In nearly each case, the reactor design is unique, designed specifically for that project. This lies in stark contrast to other biomass segments, like wood pellet production, that rely on designs that share many common elements. In this way, one of the biogas segments biggest values&mdash;incredible flexibility&mdash;brings along with it a unique challenge. Investors and lenders crave certainty and predictability, and are looking for technologies that they are confident can deliver repeatable success. It should also be noted that, unlike many other biomass sectors, the biogas segment is devoid of a clear feedstock champion. Other biomass technologies are championed and propelled by the owners and producers of the feedstocks that end up at the plant gate. The ethanol industry was championed by corn growers. The forest products sector champions wood pellets. For now, biogas has no such clear champion. As a result, biogas is, and for the foreseeable future, will be responsible for its own advocacy and market development efforts. This underscores the importance of financially supporting the trade groups doing the hard work of advocating for this incredible technology. It is unlikely that anyone else will do so on our behalf. This issue clearly demonstrates the biogas sector has built itself a wide base. Now, it&rsquo;s time for the industry to build upon these successes, share them broadly with the investment community, find and win new industry champions, and go vertical. Author: Tim Portz Vice President of Content&nbsp; &amp; Executive Editor tportz@bbiinternational.com

2017/01/Tim-Portz_14852050824276_largethumb.jpg

2017/01/Tim-Portz_14852050824276_thumb.jpg

2017/01/Tim-Portz_14852050824276.jpg

The biogas sector has built itself a wide base. Now, it's time for the industry to build upon these successes, share them broadly with the investment community, find and win new industry champions, and go vertical.

February 2017

Columns

Annual Review of Canadian Biogas Industry

RNG Poised for Growth in New Administration

Going Vertical

Featured

Biogas Advances in the US

Contributions

How to Value Biosolids

Smell of Success: Implementing an Active Landfill Gas System

February 2017.css-7jxktu{position:absolute;bottom:0px;left:0px;right:0px;height:3px;border-radius:3px;background-color:var(--chakra-colors-brandBlack);}

Columns

Annual Review of Canadian Biogas Industry

RNG Poised for Growth in New Administration

Going Vertical

Featured

Biogas Advances in the US

Contributions

How to Value Biosolids

Smell of Success: Implementing an Active Landfill Gas System

February 2017