Ecobiogaz Projet - Biogas as a prerequisite to reduce both greenhouse gas and agriculture’s energy dependence: is it a profitable alternative ?

1 1

Ecobiogaz

Ecobiogaz

Biogas as a prerequisite to reduce both greenhouse gas and

Biogas as a prerequisite to reduce both greenhouse gas and

agriculture’s energy dependence: is it a profitable alternative ?

agriculture’s energy dependence: is it a profitable alternative ?

G. Adam1_{, A-C Romain}1_{, S. Lemaigre}2_{, P. Delfosse}2_{, J. Gennen}3_{, B. Toussaint}4_,

1_{University of Liège, Arlon Campus Environnement, Avenue de Longwy 185, 6700 ARLON, Belgium ;}

2 _{EVA Environment and Agro-biotechnologies Department, Centre de Recherche Public-Gabriel Lippmann, Rue du Brill 41, L-4422 Belvaux, Luxembourg} 3_{Agra-Ost, Klosterstrasse 38, 4780 SaintVith, Belgium}

4_{Au pays de l’Attert asbl Voie de la Liberte 107, 6717 Attert, Belgium}

Ecobiogaz is a European Interreg IVa Great Region Project (2012-2014). It aims at contributing and evaluating agricultural anaerobic digestion as a more sustainable and profitable alternative in the Great Region for greenhouse gas and agriculture energy dependence. Four actions are in operation:

Action 1. An innovative and economic management of biogas plants in the Great Region. Analysis of the working biogas plant in partnership with the project. Biogas storage. Process monitoring by e-nose technology.

Action 2. New researches for biogas products. Digestate effect on the land and energy crops, CO₂ and heat use, limitation of ammonia volatilization, etc. Action 3. Promotion of agricultural anaerobic digestion by-products: digestate, ammonia, heat and CO₂.

Action 4. Training and diffusion of agricultural anaerobic digestion technologies.

Action 1c. Process monitoring by the use of e-nose technology

Action 2e. Ammonia volatilization and odor emissions evaluation

This pos ter re fle cts only the au thor ’s vi ew s. The Eur opean Union is not l iable for an y use tha t ma y be made of the in form ation con tained her ei n .

Contact

Mr Benoit TOUSSAINT, Project Coordinator Au pays de l’Attert asbl Voie de la Liberte 107,

6717 Attert, Belgium

 benoit.toussaint@attert.be

First results demonstrate:

• The use of gas phase is suitable for the detection of process disorders

• The e-nose is able to detect troubles in anaerobic reactors both at the pilot and real-scale level

• Land spreading of digestate must be carefully evaluated to avoid high ammonia emissions.

• Lower odor emissions for digestate than for cow slurry

It smell like roses… Would it be my

marvellous digestate ?

One e-nose (6 MOX sensors) and a dilution system (25x)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 T² Time (days) T² UCL 99 % UCL 95 % 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 SP E/ SP E99 Time (days) SPE/SPE99 UCL 99 % Stable process

Slow ammonia inhibtion pH> 7.8 foaming VFA inhibtion pH< 7.0 Process recovery Process recovery Wind tunnels Sampling barrels Ammonia trapping 1.00E+06 2.10E+07 4.10E+07 6.10E+07 8.10E+07 1.01E+08 1.21E+08 26/06 14/08 26/06 14/08 26/06 14/08 raw digestate liquid phase of digestate cow slurry

Sp ec if ic O d o r Emi ss io n Ra te (S O ER) [u o h a -1 h -1 kg N -1 ]

Specific Odor Emission Rate (SOER) per Nitrogen Unit/ha

E-nose advantages:

• Real-time monitoring

• Ease of sampling (gas phase)

Example of pilot-scale test results

Use of multivariate process

control techniques on e-nose

data + recursive PCA for drift

management

Test at pilot-scale level

Test at real-scale level

Use of wind tunnels for the evaluation of

ammonia and odor emissions from digestate

and manure