Potential for the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Curitiba, Brazil Florian Remy TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:10 Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:10 Potential for the anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the city of Curitiba, Brazil Florian Remy Approved Examiner Supervisor Date Pr Semida Silveira Pr Semida Silveira Commissioner Local Supervisor Pr Rafaela da Silmon, PUCPR Abstract Curitiba is a city of two million inhabitants located in the South of Brazil. It is a pioneer in waste management in the country, and is famous for its programs promoting recycling and organic waste collection. The city is now willing to take waste management one step further by investigating new solutions to treat and recover energy from organic municipal solid waste. This report is the fruit of a collaboration between two departments of the municipality of Curitiba, four local universities, the Swedish environment protection agency and the Royal Institute of Technology – KTH. The purpose of this report is to assess the potential for the development of anaerobic digestion as a solution to treat the organic municipal solid waste generated in Curitiba. The report offers an overview of the current waste treatment and of the main sources of organic waste in Curitiba. The annual amount of organic waste generated in the city is estimated to 144,350 tons, of which 913 tons come from food markets supervised by SMAB, the secretary of food supply. Three different scenarios, corresponding to three ranges of waste sources, have been considered. In the first one, the organic wastes generated by one of the two public markets of Curitiba are treated on-site. In the second one, all the organic wastes from food markets, street markets and popular restaurants are treated together in a medium-scale anaerobic digester. In the third one, all the sources of organic municipal solid waste identified in Curitiba are considered, including residential, institutional and small commercial waste. The annual methane production is estimated to 5,400 m3, 86,000 m3 and 12,600,000 m3 respectively for the three scenarios. In the last two scenarios, the methane could be converted into electricity, resulting in an annual electricity production of 257 MWh and 37,600 MWh. The first scenario does not consider a post- treatment of the digestate remaining at the end of the digestion. Between 46 and 50 tons of digestate could be used as a liquid fertilizer on-site and the surplus could be sold. For the two other scenarios, the digestate would be dewatered and composted to be sold as a dry fertilizer. The dry fertilizer production is estimated to 386 tons and 63,000 tons respectively every year. Each of the scenario considered would be financially viable, with a discounted payback period varying from 8 months for the small-scale scenario, to over 15 years for the second scenario. The third scenario would be the most lucrative, with a net present value of about 150 million reals. Keywords: Anaerobic Digestion (AD), Waste-to-Energy (WTE), Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Organic Solid Waste (OSW), Food Waste, Energy Recovery, Biogas, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil -2- Abstrakt Curitiba i Södra Brasilien är en stad med två miljoner invånare som har positionerat sig som pionjär inom avfallshantering. Staden är känd i landet med sin främjande strategi för återvinning och organisk avfallshantering. Curitiba planerar att undersöka och experimentera med nya metoder för behandling av avfall kombinerad med energiåtervinning från kommunalt organiskt avfall. Denna rapport är resultat av ett samarbete mellan två avdelningar inom Curitibas kommun, fyra lokala universitet, Sveriges miljöskyddsmyndighet och den Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan. Syftet med denna rapport är att utvärdera den potentialen som den anaeroba nedbrytningen har som medel för behandling av det kommunala fasta avfallet som genereras i Curitiba. Rapporten går även igenom hur avfallshanteringen ser ut i staden i dagsläget samt sammanfattar de största källorna för organiskt avfall i Curitiba. Den årliga mängden organiskt avfall som produceras i staden uppskattas till 144 350 ton, varav 913 ton kommer från livsmedelsaktiviteter som övervakas av det brasilianska livsmedelsverket SMAB. Tre olika scenarier representeras i denna rapport och omfattar tre områden av avfallskällor. I det första scenariot behandlas det organiska avfallet som genereras av en av de två köpmarknaderna i Staden direkt på plats. I det andra behandlas allt organiskt avfall från livsmedelsmarknader, gatumarknader och populära restauranger tillsammans i en medelstor anaerob kokare. I det tredje beaktas alla källor till organiskt kommunalt avfall som identifierats i Curitiba, inklusive bostads-, institutionellt och litet kommersiellt avfall. Den årliga metanproduktionen uppskattas till 5 400 m3, 86 000 m3 respektive 12 600 000 m3 för de tre scenarierna. I det andra och tredje scenariot kunde metan omvandlas till el, vilket resulterade i en årlig elproduktion på 257 MWh respektive 37 600 MWh. I det första scenariot anses inte en efterbehandling av digestatet kvar vid slutet av matsmältningen. Mellan 46 och 50 ton digestat kan användas som flytande gödselmedel på plats och överskottet kan säljas. För de två andra scenarierna skulle digestatet avvattnas och komposteras för att senare säljas som torr gödsel vars produktion beräknas uppgå till 386 ton respektive 63 000 ton varje år. Alla tre scenario som presenteras i denna rapport anses vara ekonomiskt genomförbara med en diskonterad återbetalningstid som varierar mellan 8 månader för det första scenariot till över 15 år för det andra scenariot. Det tredje scenariot anses vara det mest lukrativa med ett nuvärde på ca 150 miljoner realer. -3- Acknowledgements This project is financially supported by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Naturvårdsverket. Thank you very much for making this project possible and allowing me to stay in Curitiba, to meet local partners and to gather the information necessary to this report. In particular I would like to thank Nina Avdagic-Lam and Elisabet Kock for their support and for sharing their methodology for the assessment of waste composition. I would also like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Semida Silveira, for offering me this opportunity and for her advices through the redaction of this paper, and my local supervisor, Prof. Rafaela da Silmon from Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), for her assistance during my stay in Brazil and for organizing the visits and meetings for me. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the different universities which helped me and shared valuable information with me, and more specifically to Prof. Fabiana De Nadai Andreoli, Prof. Edilberto Nunes de Moura, Prof. Nice Mika Sakamoto Kaminari and Prof. Rafael Kuster De Oliveira from PUCPR, to Prof. Selma Aparecida Cubas from Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), and to Prof. Tamara Van Kaick and Prof. Cassia Maria Lie Ugaya from the Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR). My recognition goes to the municipal secretary of food supply and food quality in Curitiba (SMAB1) and the municipal secretary of environment (SMMA2), and more particularly to Marcelo Franco Munaretto, Rodolfo Brasil Queiroz, Cícero Siqueira de Souza. Special thanks to Rosane Kupka from the secretary of municipal government (SGM3), who helped me a lot to settle in and made my stay in Curitiba easier. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Daniel Tha from Kralingen Consultoria, to Gian Ferreira from Pluriambiental and to Gabriel Thiesen Barros from Ambiensys, who accompanied me during some of the field visits and helped me understand the current waste treatment in Curitiba. 1 SMAB: Secretaria Municipal de Abastecimento 2 SMMA: Secretaria Municipal do Meio Ambiente 3 SGM : Secretaria do Governo Municipal -4- Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstrakt ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................................. 8 List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................. 13 Foreword: structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 14 1 Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 15 1.1 Solid waste management in Brazil ..........................................................................................................15 1.2 Curitiba: location, economy and waste management ..........................................................................16 1.3 Objectives of Curitiba regarding waste management ..........................................................................17 2 Waste-to-energy technologies .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.1 Landfilling ..................................................................................................................................................18 2.2 Incineration ................................................................................................................................................18 2.3 Pyrolysis and gasification .........................................................................................................................19 2.4 Composting (Aerobic Digestion) ...........................................................................................................19 2.5 Anaerobic digestion ..................................................................................................................................19 2.6 Comparison of Waste-to-energy technologies .....................................................................................20 3 Research question and objectives .................................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Research question .....................................................................................................................................23 3.2 Research objectives ...................................................................................................................................23 4 Scope of the study .............................................................................................................................................. 24 4.1 Classification of waste sources ................................................................................................................24 4.2 Scenarios regarding sources of waste .....................................................................................................26 4.3 Project scope and limitations ..................................................................................................................28 5 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 5.1 Current waste treatment and recovery ...................................................................................................30 5.2 Organic solid waste generation ...............................................................................................................30 5.3 Anaerobic digester design ........................................................................................................................30 5.4 Digestion outputs, GHG reduction and financial overview ..............................................................30 6 Waste collection and treatment facilities ........................................................................................................ 31 6.1 Waste collection ........................................................................................................................................32 6.2 CGR – Iguaçu landfill with gas and leachate capture ..........................................................................33 6.3 ETE Belem anaerobic digester ...............................................................................................................35 6.4 K2 Agro composting facility ...................................................................................................................37 -5- 7 Sources of organic municipal solid waste (OMSW) ..................................................................................... 39 7.1 Household organic solid waste (OSW) ..................................................................................................40 7.2 CEASA wholesale food market ..............................................................................................................42 7.3 Public markets: Mercado Municipal and Mercado Regional ..............................................................44 7.4 Street markets: Feiras livres, organicas and nossas feiras ...................................................................46 7.5 Fruits and vegetables markets: Sacalaos da familia ..............................................................................50 7.6 Popular restaurants ...................................................................................................................................51 8 Anaerobic digestion ........................................................................................................................................... 52 8.1 Chemical process details ..........................................................................................................................52 8.2 Feedstock characterization ......................................................................................................................52 8.3 Biogas and digestate production .............................................................................................................56 8.4 Anaerobic digesters layout .......................................................................................................................58 9 Anaerobic digestion parameters ....................................................................................................................... 59 9.1 Temperature level .....................................................................................................................................60 9.2 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) ..........................................................................................................61 9.3 Organic Loading Rate (OLR) ..................................................................................................................61 9.4 Single-stage or multi-stage .......................................................................................................................62 9.5 Dry digestion or wet digestion ................................................................................................................62 9.6 Feeding process: batch or continuous ...................................................................................................63 9.7 Mixing process: plug-flow or continuously stirred ..............................................................................63 10 State of the art of anaerobic digesters ............................................................................................................. 64 10.1 Anaerobic digesters in Brazil ...................................................................................................................64 10.2 Pre-treatment and post-treatment ..........................................................................................................65 10.3 Small-scale biodigesters ............................................................................................................................67 10.4 Large-scale biodigesters............................................................................................................................71 10.5 Case study ...................................................................................................................................................76 11 Selection of the digestion parameters and AD design ................................................................................. 77 11.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................77 11.2 Scenario 1 ...................................................................................................................................................79 11.3 Scenario 2 ...................................................................................................................................................82 11.4 Scenario 3 ...................................................................................................................................................86 11.5 Sensitivity analysis .....................................................................................................................................89 12 Assessment of the biogas and fertilizer production ..................................................................................... 93 12.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................................................................93 12.2 Scenario 1 ...................................................................................................................................................96 12.3 Scenario 2 ...................................................................................................................................................98 12.4 Scenario 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 100 -6- 12.5 Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................................................. 102 13 Assessment of the financial viability ............................................................................................................ 106 13.1 Biogas, electricity and fertilizer markets in Parana ........................................................................... 106 13.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 108 13.3 Scenario 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 111 13.4 Scenario 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 113 13.5 Scenario 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 115 13.6 Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................................................. 117 14 Assessment of the environmental benefits ................................................................................................. 120 14.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 120 14.2 Scenario 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 124 14.3 Scenario 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 125 14.4 Scenario 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 125 14.5 Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................................................. 126 15 Conclusion and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 128 15.1 Summary of the results .......................................................................................................................... 128 15.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 134 15.3 Discussion of the methodology ........................................................................................................... 135 16 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 137 17 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................................... 146 17.1 Waste generation in the metropolitan region of CWB .................................................................... 146 17.2 Feedstock characteristics review .......................................................................................................... 146 17.3 CGR – Iguaçu visit ................................................................................................................................ 147 17.4 Curitiba neighbourhoods (bairros) data ............................................................................................. 148 17.5 Map of waste generation ....................................................................................................................... 150 17.6 Data collection at a popular restaurant ............................................................................................... 151 17.7 Waste generation of one of PUCPR restaurants ............................................................................... 152 17.8 Summary of organic waste sources ..................................................................................................... 152 17.9 Chinese digester construction cost ...................................................................................................... 153 17.10 Tubular digester specifications ........................................................................................................ 153 17.11 Case studies full details ..................................................................................................................... 154 -7- List of Tables Table 1: Curitiba key figures ......................................................................................................................................16 Table 2: Comparison of GHG, waste reduction and energy recovery for WTE technologies ......................20 Table 3: Nutrients content in compost obtained from food and yard waste ....................................................20 Table 4: Qualitative comparison (feedstock, energy recovery, environment) of WTE technology ...............21 Table 5: Comparison of the investment and O&M cost of different WTE technologies ..............................21 Table 6: Topics included and excluded of the scope of the project ...................................................................28 Table 7: Waste collection in 2012 and 2015 in the Metropolitan Region of Curitiba (RMC) ........................32 Table 8: CGR - Iguaçu landfill key figures ..............................................................................................................33 Table 9: CS Bioenergia anaerobic digester key figures ..........................................................................................36 Table 10: K2 Agro composting facility key figures ................................................................................................38 Table 11: Part of Curitiba in the waste generation of its metropolitan region (RMC).....................................40 Table 12: Assessment of Curitiba organic household waste generation ............................................................41 Table 13: CEASA wholesale food market sales and waste generation, 2010 ....................................................42 Table 14: Estimation of the current organic waste generation at CEASA ........................................................43 Table 15: CEASA key figures ....................................................................................................................................43 Table 16: Monthly waste production in Mercado Municipal and Regional [24] ...............................................44 Table 17: OSW generation from Mercado Municipal and Regional, 2016 ........................................................45 Table 18: Feiras livres key figures .............................................................................................................................47 Table 19: Feiras organicas key figures ......................................................................................................................48 Table 20: Estimation of the amount of products sold during nossas feiras ......................................................49 Table 21: Nossas feiras key figures ...........................................................................................................................49 Table 22: Amount of OSW generated in 4 of the 15 sacalaos da familia ...........................................................50 Table 23: Sacalao da familia key figures ...................................................................................................................50 Table 24: List of the popular restaurants in Curitiba .............................................................................................51 Table 25: Waste generated by Pinheirinho popular restaurant ............................................................................51 Table 26: Assessment of the amount of OSW generated in each of the popular restaurants ........................51 Table 27: Solid/moisture content classification .....................................................................................................53 Table 28: Total solids (TS) and moisture content (MC) for typical feedstocks ................................................53 Table 29: Volatile solids (VS) for typical feedstocks .............................................................................................54 Table 30: Carbon and Nitrogen content for typical feedstocks ...........................................................................55 Table 31: Density for typical feedstocks ..................................................................................................................55 Table 32: Biogas typical composition (by volume) ................................................................................................56 Table 33: Nutrients content of digestate from food waster .................................................................................57 Table 34: Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic ranges ...........................................................................60 Table 35: Examples of HRT and OLR for different feedstocks .........................................................................61 Table 36: Typical HRT and biogas yield for single-stage and multi-stage digesters .........................................62 Table 37: Summary of the main types of small-scale digester ..............................................................................67 Table 38: Floating-drum digester key figures ..........................................................................................................68 Table 39: Fixed-dome digester key figures ..............................................................................................................69 Table 40: Fixed-dome digester key figures ..............................................................................................................70 Table 41: Summary of the main technologies of large-scale digesters (2008) ...................................................71 Table 42: Waasa single-stage wet digester key figures ...........................................................................................72 Table 43: Dranco single-stage dry digester key figures .........................................................................................73 Table 44: Valorga single-stage dry digester key figures .........................................................................................74 Table 45: Kompogas single-stage dry digester key figures ...................................................................................75 Table 46: Digester designs – Similar projects specifications ................................................................................76 Table 47: Input parameters for the assessment of the digestion parameters ....................................................77 Table 48: Feedstock characteristics, scenario 1 ......................................................................................................79 Table 49: Assessment of the volume of dilution water, scenario 1 .....................................................................79 -8- Table 50: Assessment of the reactor and digester volumes, scenario 1 ..............................................................80 Table 51: Assessment of the organic loading rate, scenario 1 ..............................................................................80 Table 52: Comparison of assessed digestion parameters with digester specifications, scenario 1 .................80 Table 53: Plug-flow tubular digesters specifications, GTZ/Endev ....................................................................81 Table 54: Anaerobic digester suggested design, scenario 1 ..................................................................................81 Table 55: Feedstock characteristics, scenario 2 ......................................................................................................82 Table 56: Assessment of the volume of dilution water (only for wet digestion), scenario 2 ..........................83 Table 57: Assessment of the reactor and digester volumes, scenario 2 ..............................................................83 Table 58: Assessment of the organic loading rate, scenario 2 ..............................................................................84 Table 59: Selection of a biodigester design, scenario 2 .........................................................................................84 Table 60: Anaerobic digester suggested designs, scenario 2 .................................................................................85 Table 61: Feedstock characteristics, scenario 3 ......................................................................................................86 Table 62: Treatment capacity of the most common large-scale biodigesters ....................................................86 Table 63: Assessment of the reactor and digester volumes, scenario 3 ..............................................................87 Table 64: Assessment of the organic loading rate, scenario 3 ..............................................................................87 Table 65: Selection of a biodigester design, scenario 3 .........................................................................................87 Table 66: Anaerobic digester suggested design, scenario 3 ..................................................................................88 Table 67: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, digestion parameters, scenario 1 ...............................89 Table 68: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, digestion parameters, scenario 2 ...............................90 Table 69: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, digestion parameters, scenario 3 ...............................91 Table 70: Combined influence of input parameters on the reactor volume and OLR, scenario 1 ................92 Table 71: Combined influence of input parameters on the reactor volume and OLR, scenario 2 ................92 Table 72: Combined influence of input parameters on the reactor volume and OLR, scenario 3 ................92 Table 73: Methane content of biogas produced from typical feedstocks ..........................................................93 Table 74: Specific methane yield for typical feedstocks ........................................................................................93 Table 75: Influence of the retention time on the biogas yield .............................................................................94 Table 76: Assessment of the feedstock mass loss during anaerobic digestion ..................................................95 Table 77: Growth assessment of the biogas and methane production, scenario 1 ..........................................96 Table 78: Assessment of the methane production using the OLR, scenario 1 .................................................96 Table 79: Energy equivalent of the biogas production, scenario 1 .....................................................................96 Table 80: Assessment of the digestate and dry digestate production, scenario 1 .............................................97 Table 81: Growth assessment of the biogas and methane production, scenario 2 ..........................................98 Table 82: Assessment of the methane production using the OLR, scenario 2 .................................................98 Table 83: Energy equivalent of the biogas production, scenario 2 .....................................................................98 Table 84: Assessment of the digestate and dry digestate production, scenario 2 .............................................99 Table 85: Growth assessment of the biogas and methane production, scenario 3 ....................................... 100 Table 86: Assessment of the methane production using the OLR, scenario 3 .............................................. 100 Table 87: Energy equivalent of the biogas production, scenario 3 .................................................................. 100 Table 88: Assessment of the digestate and dry digestate production, scenario 3 .......................................... 101 Table 89: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, methane production, scenario 1 ............................ 102 Table 90: Combined influence of input parameters on the methane production, scenario 1 ..................... 102 Table 91: Combined influence of input parameters on the methane production, scenario 2 ..................... 103 Table 92: Combined influence of input parameters on the methane production, scenario 3 ..................... 103 Table 93: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, fertilizer production, scenario 1 ............................. 104 Table 94: Combined influence of input parameters on the fertilizer production, scenario 1 ...................... 104 Table 95: Combined influence of input parameters on the fertilizer production, scenario 2 ...................... 105 Table 96: Combined influence of input parameters on the fertilizer production, scenario 3 ...................... 105 Table 97: Price of natural gas in Parana, according to Compagas .................................................................... 106 Table 98: Other prices for natural gas in Parana ................................................................................................. 106 Table 99: Price of electricity in Parana, according to Copel .............................................................................. 106 Table 100: Price of compost in Parana, according to Pluris Ambiental .......................................................... 107 -9- Table 101: Gate-fee and tariffs for the treatment of waste at CGR – Iguaçu landfill ................................... 107 Table 102: Overview of the sources of cost and revenue of the anaerobic digester ..................................... 108 Table 103: Cost of a small-scale anaerobic digester ............................................................................................ 108 Table 104: Model used to assess the investment cost of a large-scale AD ..................................................... 108 Table 105: Model used to assess the revenues from biogas: biomethane or electricity production ........... 109 Table 106: Model used to assess the revenues from digestate: fertilizer sales ................................................ 109 Table 107: Revenues, investment cost and O&M cost, scenario 1 .................................................................. 111 Table 108: Time periods (t) and discount rate (r), scenario 1 ........................................................................... 112 Table 109: Discounted payback period and net present value, scenario 1 ...................................................... 112 Table 110: Revenues, investment cost and O&M cost, scenario 2 .................................................................. 113 Table 111: Time periods (t) and discount rate (r), scenario 2 ........................................................................... 114 Table 112: Discounted payback period and net present value, scenario 2 ...................................................... 114 Table 113: Revenues, investment cost and O&M cost, scenario 3 .................................................................. 115 Table 114: Time periods (t) and discount rate (r), scenario 3 ........................................................................... 116 Table 115: Discounted payback period and net present value, scenario 3 ...................................................... 116 Table 116: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, DPP and NPV, scenario 1 ................................... 117 Table 117: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, DPP and NPV, scenario 2 ................................... 118 Table 118: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, DPP and NPV, scenario 3 ................................... 119 Table 119: Assessment of the specific land use of Caximba landfill ................................................................ 120 Table 120: Assessment of the specific mass of CH4 and CO2 released through landfilling ....................... 122 Table 121: Assessment of the specific mass of CO2 released for 1 m3 of biogas, life cycle ....................... 122 Table 122: Global warming potential (GWP) over 100 years ........................................................................... 123 Table 123: Specific GWP of the gas produced in CGR – Iguaçu and in anaerobic digesters ..................... 123 Table 124: Assessment of the surface area required for landfilling, scenario 1 .............................................. 124 Table 125: Assessment of the indirect GHG emissions, scenario 1 ................................................................ 124 Table 126: Assessment of the direct GHG emissions, scenario 1 ................................................................... 124 Table 127: Assessment of the direct GHG emissions, scenario 2 ................................................................... 125 Table 128: Assessment of the direct GHG emissions, scenario 3 ................................................................... 125 Table 129: Input parameters for the sensitivity analysis, GHG emissions ..................................................... 126 Table 130: Summary of the results, scenario 1 .................................................................................................... 129 Table 131: Summary of the results, scenario 2 .................................................................................................... 131 Table 132: Summary of the results, scenario 3 .................................................................................................... 133 -10-