Biological Wastes34 (1990) 21-38

Kinetic and Economic Considerations of Biogas Production Systems

B. K. Bala & M. A. Satter Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh (Received 20 September 1988, revised version received 25 February 1990; accepted 15 April 1990)

ABSTRACT In this paper, the kinetics and economics of substrate degradation and biogas production are discussed. Mass balance on substrate, with either the Contois or Adams-Eckenfelder models, is used to design the mathematical models of volatile solids reduction and biogas fermentation. The predictions of both the models arefound to be in close agreement with the observed values reported. A computer model based on a system clynamics approach is used to model the economics of biogas production by anaerobic digestion .from cattle slurO' available.from O'pical rural familes in Bangladesh. This model incorporates the Adams--Eckenfelder model to determine the amount of gas production and the technique described by Audsley and Wheeler (J. Agric. Engng Res., 23, 189-201) to take into account the effects o.fprice, interest, and inflation. The effects of changes of these parameters on the net profit or loss from the process are also considered.

NOTATION Biogas production (litres/g VS) Ultimate biogas production (litres/g VS) Yield coefficient (g/g) Q Waste flow rate (litres/day) S Substrate concentration (g VS/litre) 21 Biological Wastes 0269-7483/90/$03.50 1990 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain B Bo c

22 So t

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

V X

Xo

lnfluent substrate concentration (g VS/litre) Time (days) Digester volume (m 3) Microbial concentration in the digester (g/litre) Microbial concentration in the influent waste (g/litre)
K 2, K 3

A, b, K, K~,
fl

and K4 are constants.

#o 0 0 m~x
Yt~

Ymax

Specific growth rate (per day) Maximum specific growth rate (per day) Specific growth rate at S = So (per day) Hydraulic retention time (days) Hydraulic retention time for maximum specific gas production (days) Specific volumetric biogas production rate (litre/litre per day) Maximum specific volumetric biogas production rate (litre/litre per day)

INTRODUCTION Rural energy resources in many developing countries are mainly biomass such as wood, animal and human energy, and to a lesser extent natural gas and electricity. The biomass energy is being used at an extremely high rate and running out rapidly. This necessitates a search for renewable sources of energy. Animal waste in the form of cow dung is used as a fuel in the rural areas of many developing countries, being burnt directly. This results in inefficient burning (thermal efficiency below 10%), loss of fertility and pollution of the atmosphere. This inefficient use is linked to the depletion of fuel wood resources, which in turn creates an ecological imbalance. The production of biogas through anaerobic digestion promises to meet the demand of fertilizer and minimizes destruction of rural forests by offering an alternative to fuel wood, in this way helping to maintain an ecological balance. The proper utilization of agricultural wastes tbr biogas production with regard to pollution hazards and fertilizer value of the treated slurry depends upon an understanding of the biological processes involved, the factors affecting the kinetics and the economy of the system. An understanding of these factors is essential for digester design, operation and management. A survey on kinetic models indicates that usually the Monod model or the Contois model is used to describe the substrate degradation and methane fermentation from agricultural wastes and municipal refuse. The Contois model has been widely used (Chen& Hashimoto, 1978; Hill, 1982a, b, 1983a).

Kinetics and economics ~[ biogas production

23

The M o n o d model on the other hand was successfully used to describe the treatment of pig slurry and methane production from animal waste (Woods & O'Callaghan, 1974, 1975; Hill, 1983b). A limited number of studies have been reported on mathematical models to study the economics of anaerobic digestion. Oliver et al. (1986) developed a computer program to model the economics of energy production from anaerobic digestion of slurry on UK dairy farms and used the model to compare the effects of changing design, operational and financial parameters on the annual profit or loss from the process. Parsons (1986) also considered the economics of anaerobic digestion of dairy-cow slurry and evaluated the impacts of technical change and changes in price and component costs. This paper presents the kinetics of substrate degradation and biogas production based on Contois and Adams-Eckenfelder models; and the economics of biogas production from anaerobic digestion of animal waste based on a system model.

THEORY Kinetics of biogas production For symbols in the following equations, see Notation. Contois (1959) proposed that under limiting nutrient conditions the specific growth rate of bacteria in both batch and continuous culture is - - and
A = bS o

A+S

(1)

(2)

At S = S 0, the maximum biomass utilization rate, Po, is /% - (1 + b) (3)

Substituting for/~ from eqn (3) into eqn (1), eqn (1) can be expressed as:
I~oS/So t~ = K + (1 -- K ) S / S o

(4)

where
K - - -

(1 +b)

24

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

Contois (1959) further proposed that the uptake of nutrient was a linear function of the increase in population: e(So - S) = ( S - Xo) (5)

where c is the yield coefficient. Therefore, substrate removal rate can be written
rc bS + -~

(6)

The mass balance on substrate is

V ds = QSo dt

)
QS-

\cJ\~oo

S)

(7)

(Change in substrate in the s y s t e m ) = ( I n p u t ) - ( O u t p u t ) - ( S u b s t r a t e removed by cells). At steady state, d S / d t = 0, so eqn (7) can be written as

s)
Substitution of X/c = (S O- S) in eqn (8) yields
1

(8)

where 0 = V/Q. Again, at steady state X - X 0 ~-X and eqn (5) can be expressed as c(So - S) = X (9)

SiS o - K1 + K2S/So

(10)

where K 1 = b/ft and K 2 = 1//7. Similarly, using eqn (4) instead of eqn (1), we have
1 0 I~oS/S o K+(1-K)S/So

(11)

This equation was proposed by Chen and H a s h i m o t o (1978). A d a m s et al. (1975) proposed the following treatment rate equation for designing complete-mixing reactors:
/~-

/ 2 ( S - S,) So

(12)

where S~ is a correction to account for unoxidized substances. Again, using eqn (12) instead of eqn (1), we can write

1 _/~(S -- S~) 0 So

(13)

Kinetics and economics of biogas production

25

Equation (10) can be rearranged to give the substrate degradation in the form S K1 So - (0 - K 2) and the Adams-Eckenfelder model for substrate degradation is S (1 + g30 ) (14)

So
where /3S, K3 = ~ o

tK40)
/3 K4 - So

(15)

and

(S o - S) indicates the amount of substrate degradation, and the gas production can be represented by an almost identical equation. Assuming that the ultimate gas production Bo is proportional to So, the biogas production for the Contois model, therefore, is

._-.o(1
and that for the Adams-Eckenfelder model is

(16)

B = B0(1

1 + K~O~ ~ j

(17)

Employing the method of Woods and O'Callaghan (1975), who analysed the substrate removal per unit digester volume, the specific volumetric gas production rate for the Contois model is

Yv--BS (1 0

0~k2 )

K1

(18)

and that for the Adams-Eckenfelder model is v,,-

BoSo ( 1 1 +-K30" ] 0 ~ }

(19)

The maximum value of vv is obtained by taking the first derivative of v~,with respect to 0 and then equating to zero. The maximum value of vv for the Contois model is

Ymax- 0max

BoSO(KIX/Kt(KI + K2) ~
+~Kll +g2)-]

(20)

26

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

where
0max =

(KI + K2) +

x/KI(KI + K2)

and that of the Adams-Eckenfelder model is

BoSo ( K , - K3~
Ymax-- Omax k

2K4 /

(21)

where 2
Omax
( K 4 -- K3)

Economics of biogas production

System dynamics provides a foundation for constructing computer models to aid our mental processes in dealing with complex systems. There are two basic components of the system, levels and rates. Levels represent the condition of the system at any time, and could be energy production level and profit or loss in biogas production. Rates of flow represent the activities and decision functions in the system, such as energy production rate, annual cost and annual return. In Fig. 2 the rates are represented by the traditional control-valve symbol of the engineers and the levels are simply shown as a block with the contents indicated inside. Tabular functions are provided for interpolation. For example, the non-linear relationship between the volume and cost of the digester is shown in Fig. 1. The flow diagram of the system dynamics model of the biogas production system is shown in Fig. 2.
30,000

r?,.
< 20,000
< F-,,.@ j-u~

0 I0,000
U

10

20

DIGESTER VOLUME(m 3) Fig. I. The nonlinear relationship between the cost and volume of the digester (Indian type). (Taka = unit of Bangladesh currency. I Taka =0.03165 US dollar.)

Kinetics and economics qf biogas production

27

The digester volume is computed from the daily slurry volume and retention time. Annual energy production is calculated from specific gas productivity (eqn (19)), time of the year, digester volume and a conversion factor. The cost of the digester for different volumes of the digester is determined from Fig. 1. The non-linear relationship in Fig. 1 was developed from the three different sizes of Indian type digesters illustrated in Biogas

Ne
/

t,

,/"

f ,,,,

..

Fig. 2. System dynamicsflow diagram of the biogas production system.

28

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

Plants Building Instructions (Enssle, 1980) and from the existing rates of materials, labour and masonry cost in Bangladesh. The annual repair and maintenance cost is assumed to be 2% of capital cost. Annual cost is calculated using the technique developed by Audsley and Wheeler (1978). Annual return from the gas is computed from gas productivity, digester volume, time of operation and price of gas. The price of gas is determined from the price of the equivalent amount of energy from fuel wood. The annual cost and return are transformed into present worth of cost and return. The difference between the return and cost determines the profit or loss. The stream of events depicted in the flow diagram of Fig. 2 is described by a set of simultaneous difference equations which form the simulation program that can be solved using a digital computer. The computer program was written in BASIC on a microcomputer. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare the effects of changing retention time, time of annual operation, plant life and digester cost, plant life and fuel cost and plant life and fuel inflation rate.

RESULTS

Comparison of models with experiment

A biogas digester in practice operates as a semi-continuous biological system. The experimental data of Singh et al. (1982) on anaerobic digestion of cattle waste was used to validate the models. The kinetic constants and maximum gas productivity of the Contois, Chen-Hashimoto, and AdamsEckenfelder models are presented in Table 1. The predicted and observed values of effluent concentration, gas production and specific gas productivity in Fig. 3 show a close fit which indicates a satisfactory representation of the biological system prevailing in the digester. The predictions of the Contois and Chen-Hashimoto models were found to be exactly the same. The prediction of the Adams-Eckenfelder model was also close to the prediction of the Contois model. The predicted maximum specific gas productivity of the Contois model occurs for a detention time of 15 days and this maximum value of 1.178 litres/litre day is comparable with the observed value of 1.155 litres/litre day recorded on the same day at a loading rate of 5.15 g VS/litre day. The maximum predicted specific gas productivity of the Adams-Eckenfelder model occurs for a detention time of 13 days and this maximum value is 1.14151itres/litre day. Figure4 shows specific gas productivity and retention time as a function of loading rate for constant influent concentration, S o = 72.2gVS/litre. The predicted and observed

TABLE 1
Kinetic Parameters

Type o f application K2 K3

Type q[" model

Kl

K,

Maximum specific Retention time Ultimate gas gas productivio' ./or maximum production B o (litre(g VS) l) (litre litre - 1 day - 1)a gas productieity 0max (day)

Substrate utilization 86"57 0.249 2 - 109.75

Contois

--

e~ e%

AdamsEckenfelder

0.006

Chen Hashimoto

- 3.73

Biogas
5-83 2-25 0'42 1"178 (1'155)t 0"42 1'141 (1.155)t 0'42 1"178 14.94 (15)t 13"38 (15)t 14'94

production

Contois

--

AdamsEckenfelder -0"00038 0"149

Chen Hashimoto

0-72

(1-155)t

(15)t

t The values within parentheses indicate the observed values.

lxa

30

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter
60

1.2

1.0

50-

TT

,~

nl:o.
O U

8o g/ "
~o.2
t~ (~. m

o r_ o . 6 I-- U U D DO

I /i

_ 3o

'//;

IJ "

"~ 2 0 Z

io

OI
I0

20

30

40

I0

HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME (.DAYS) Fig. 3. Predicted(lines) and observed (symbols) values of effluent concentration ( x ) biogas production (O) and specific gas productivity (O). Contois model, Chen-Hashimoto model ( ); Adams-Eckenfelder model ( . . . . ).

values are in good agreement. Figure 4 provides an overall picture of specific gas productivity for different combinations of retention time and loading rate for a constant influent concentration. Economic performance Four sizes of digester suitable for daily loading of slurry from 2, 4, 6, 8 cows typical in Bangladesh are considered. A cow on the average was assumed to produce 20 litres of slurry. The daily volume of slurry is the volume fed to the digester each day. This would normally be related to the number of cows. Although 15 days of retention time gives maximum specific gas productivity and 20 days is the one most often recommended for cattle slurry, the retention times of 10 and 25 days have also been considered. Although 350 days per year operation of digester was assumed normal, 150 and 250 days

Kinetics and economics o/ hiogas production

1.2
/ //
<

31

60
/
,

r
t.0
/ /

\
\

\ \
\ \

50

T
o >
_J

0.8
Ft.~ i.i.i /

\
\

40

r-..
to >.< ,m

\
\

8
0.6
>I..-

///

t.d

30
I,Z

I,--

~0.4 o

2O

z
rr

I0

u_
u._ u
O.

i 20
LOADING

e 40

J 60

_, BO

l i0 lO0

RATE, C~vs (I)-ICDAY)-I#

Fig. 4. Specific gas productivity and retention time as a function of loading ratc for constant influent substrate concentration. (3, Specific gas productivity; + , retention time. Contois model, Chen Hashimoto model ( -): Adams-Eckenfelder modcl (- - ).

were also considered. Biogas is to be used mainly for cooking in rural areas of Bangladesh and is valued as equivalent to fuel wood at 1"0taka+/kg with a calorific value of 15 MJ/kg. The major annual cost is the repayment of capital and the 2% repair and maintenance charges. This is calculated using the technique of Audsley and Wheeler (1978) assuming an annual interest rate of 10% and an annual inflation rate of 13%. Finally, the model calculates the net profit or loss assuming a plant life of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years for fuel prices of 1, 2, 3 and 4 taka/kg; cost factor (assumed reduction in capital cost) of 0.5, 0"75, 1"0;and inflation rate of 13%, 19% and 25%. Data for reference conditions are given in Table 2. The digesters using slurry with 77-2 g VS/litre are evaluated at retention times of 10, 15, 20 and
t Taka (Tk) = unit of Bangladesh currency. 1 Tk = 0'03165 US dollar.

32

B. K, Bala, M. A. Satter

TABLE 2

Data on Economics of Biogas Production Parameter Plant life Interest rate Inflation rate Interest rate charged on loan Term of loan Calorific value of fuel wood (at average m.c.) Price (fuel wood) 1 taka = 0.031 65 US dollar. Parameter value 10 years 10% 13% 16% l0 years 15 MJ/kg I Tk/kg

25 days (Fig. 5). Fifteen days appeared to give minimum annual cost for 2 and 4 cows, but 20 days of retention time, which is most often recommended, was found to give minimum annual cost for 6 and 8 cows. Figure 5 indicates that 20 days retention time would give considerably lower annual cost for 6 and 8 cows. The model also simulated annual periods of operation of 150, 250 and 350 days. Increasing the period of operation gives a linear improvement (Fig. 6).

14

2 COWS

,t

4 COWS
v 0 x

~I0 0 u
IJJ

6 COWS

o
>

8 COWS

tO
RETENTION

iS
TIME.

20

25

(DAYS)

Fig. 5.

Effect of changing the retention time on cost of gas. Time of operation 350 days.

Kinetics and economics q]"biogas production

16

33

~
#-%

8 COWS

512 ,'p

.
bd

~
Ol I50

2 COWS

200

250

300

350

PERIOD OF DIGESTER OPERATION( A S DY)

Fig. 6. Effectofchangingtheperiodofoperationofthedigesterontheannualsavingof fuel

wood. Retentiontime 15days.

60

< 40 I--

~
~

PRICE

?
o
X

(TK/Kt) 3

u~
ffl

20

..J

0 ~ ff. 0 ee n O-

-20 0

IO

15

20

PLANT LIFE (YEAR',) Fig. 7a. Effect of wood fuel price on profit or loss from biogas production. Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number of cows 4. Profit positive and loss negative.

34

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

Figure 7 shows the effect of changing the price of fuels. At the present price level of I taka per kg of fuel wood (15 MJ/Tk), the owning of a biogas digester is not economic in terms of return. However, some improvement in economy is possible if the fertilizer value and pollution reduction effects are assigned values. The rise of fuel price to 2 taka per kilogram would make the system economic in terms of returns. The breakeven point of owning a biogas digester would be for plant life of 6.25 years and 5 years for 4 and 8 cows, respectively. Figure 8 shows the effects of reduction of digester cost. At the present price level, the breakeven would be at 50% reduction of cost of the digester and 6.25 years of plant life for 4 cows, and that for 8 cows at 50% reduction of cost would be for 5 years. The impacts of fuel inflation were
120 J4 I00

~" 8O
k.-

?
0
x u,3

3 PRICE
(TK/K~)

- 60

o .J
nO

gO

i.

o
c&

20

/
i S PLANT i IO i f5

-2,0

20

L I F F (YEARS)

Fig. 7b. Effect of wood fuel price on profit or loss from biogas production. Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number of cows 8. Profit positive and loss negative.

Kinetics and economics of biogas production

20

35

,t

I,t,) '0 x i,n

I0

DIGESTOR COST FACTOR

..,I

el"

o,~5
LOO

o
I-

0 -IO IZ I1

-20 0

~ 5

I I0

I 15

20

PLANT LIFE,YEARS.

Fig. 8a. Effect of reduction of biogas digester cost on the annual profit or loss from biogas production. Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number of cows 4. Profit positive and loss negative.

20

0.50
vjv I0

DIGESTER COST FACTOR

0.75

%
x

tn O ..J
rr

o
I.--

~0 t'r (i

-IO

io
O i 5 I IO i 15

-20

20

PLANT LIfE (YEARS)

Fig. 8b. Effect of reduction of biogas digester cost on the annual profit or loss from biogas production. Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number of cows 8. Profit positive and loss negative.

36 60

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

25%
X

o
nr

20

FUEL INFLATION

o
1.

19%

o
elf

0
13%
-2 0
0
I I I
15

I0

20

PLANT

LIFE

(YEARS)

Fig. 9a. Effect of wood fuel cost inflation on the annual profit or loss from biogas production (present cost 1 Taka). Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number of cows 4. Profit positive and loss negative.

considered for 13%, 19% and 25% (Fig. 9). The impact of fuel inflation shows a pattern similar to that of price, and savings are of course larger for large systems.

CONCLUSIONS (1) The model based on either Contois model or Adams-Eckenfelder model provides a satisfactory description of the volatile solids reduction and biogas production from anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry. The predictions of both the models are in good agreement. (2) The production of biogas from anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry for cooking is not economic in terms of return when compared with the cost of fuel wood. However, assigning values to the treated slurry as a fertilizer, and to pollution hazards, would improve the economics. (3) The annual cost is minimum for 15 days of retention time with daily loading of the slurry from 2 or 4 cows. However, the cost is minimum for 20 days of retention time for 6 or 8 cows and the cost is reduced considerably with the increase of number of cows above 4. (4) Fuel wood is collected mainly from rural forests in Bangladesh and is

Kinetics and economics o]"biogas production

I00

37

25%
80

6o
I--

o
40

ul ul

FUEL

0
J E

INFLATION

19%
20

0
I-i.

0 13% -20 0 I 5 I IO PLANT t 15 LIFE (YEARS) I 20

25

Fig. 9b. Effect of fuel inflation on the annual profit or loss from biogas production (present cost ! Taka). Retention time 15 days, time of operation 350 days and number cows 8. Profit positive and loss negative.

being used at an extremely high rate. The biogas shows a potential in saving fuel wood and reducing ecological imbalance. (5) Relatively large reductions in the digester cost factor or increases in price for fuel are required for biogas production to be economic in terms of returns.

REFERENCES
Adams, C. E., Eckenfelder, W. W. & Hovions, J. C. (1975). A kinetic model for design of completely-mixed activated sludge treating variable strength industrial waste water. Water Res., 9, 37-42. Audsley, E. & Wheeler, J. (1978). The annual cost of machinery calculated using actual cash flows. J. Agric. Engng Res., 23, 189-201. Chen, Y. R. & Hashimoto, A. G. (1978). Kinetics of methane fermentation. Biotechnology and Bio-engineering Symposium, No. 8. John Wiley, pp. 269-88.

38

B. K. Bala, M. A. Satter

Contois, D. E. (1959). Kinetics of bacterial growth: Relationship between population density and specific growth of continuous culture. General Microbiology, 20, 40-50. Enssle, G. (1980). Biogas Plants Building Instructions. German Agency for Technical Co-operation, Eschborn. Hill, D. T. (1982a). Design of digestion systems for maximum methane production. Trans. ASAE, 25, 226-30. Hill, D. T. (1982b). Optimum operation design criteria for anaerobic digestion of animal manure. Trans. ASAE, 25, 1029-32. Hill, D. T. (1983a). Design parameters and operating characteristics of animal waste anaerobic digestion systems. Agric. Wastes, 5, 219-30. Hill, D. T. (1983b). Simplified Monod kinetics of methane fermentation from animal waste. Agric. Wastes, 5, 1-16. Oliver, B., Pain, B. F. & Philips, V. R. (1986). Mesophilic anaerobic digestion of dairy cow slurry on a farm scale; economic considerations. J. Agrie. Engng Res., 34, 229~,3. Parsons, D. J. (1986). The economics of the treatment of dairy cows slurry by anaerobic digestion. J. Agrie. Engng Res., 35, 259-79. Singh, R., Jain, M. A. & Talro, P. (1982). Rate of anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Agrie. Wastes, 4, 267-72. Woods, J. L. & O'Callaghan, J. R, (1974). Mathematical modelling of animal waste treatment. J. Agric. Engng Res., 19, 254--8. Woods, J. L. & O'Callaghan, J. R. (1975). A theoretical description of aerobic treatment. Managing Livestock Wastes, Proc. 3rd Int. Syrup. Livestock Wastes. ASAE, Urbana Champaign, IL.