27
Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers

Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers

Page 2: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Why ET-LBC Biocovers?

• Alternative landfill closure system

• Addresses both infiltration and GHG emissions

• Active LFG systems can be costly to build and maintain, and may not be appropriate for some landfill sites.

Page 3: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

CO e Reduction Opportunity

• CH₄ has 25 times Global Warming Potential of CO₂• ~25% of Canadian anthropogenic CH₄ emissions comes

from landfills

Page 4: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Evapotranspiration

Page 5: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Evapotranspiration Cover Systems

• Store moisture in soil - evaporation and transpiration

• Effective at limiting infiltration and leachate generation

Precipitation Occurs

ET Cover Stores

Infiltrated Water

Evaporation and

TranspirationRepeat

Page 6: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Methane Oxidation

• Naturally occurring, aerobic organisms

• Methanotrophs convert CH₄ to C0₂

WE LOVE METHANE!

Page 7: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Evapo-Transporation

What is an Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocover

MethaneOxidation

EvapotranspirationLandfill Biocover

Page 8: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Methane Emission Mitigation

Active System Passive ET-LBC

• ET-LBC technology can be an alternative or complementary to active LFG collection.

• Applicable to small landfill site where active collection either impractical or not feasible

Page 9: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Methane Emission Mitigation

Oxidation in Biocover(Methanotrophs)

CH4 & CO2 emission

CH4 & CO2 migrationCH4 & CO2 Generation

CO2 emissionFlaring/Utilization

Page 10: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

How do We Apply this to Landfill Covers?

Subsoil

Barrier Clay

Solid Waste

TopsoilET-LBC

Gas Distribution Layer

Solid Waste

Clay Barrier Cover ET Cover/Biocover

Gas Distribution

Layer

O₂

CH₄

CH₄ CO₂

Methane Oxidation

Zone

Methane Oxidation

CO₂CH₄

Page 11: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Where is it Applicable?

• Where potential evapotranspiration > precipitation

• Evapotranspiration = evaporation + transpiration

PET rates in North America

Page 12: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

U of C Material Study

• Focus on materials that were:

Locally available

Low cost

Fulfill ET functions

Yield high methane oxidation

Methane Oxidation Column

Page 13: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Material Properties

• Main physical considerations:

Organic content

pH

C/N ratio

Field capacity

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

FC (%

of t

w)

Page 14: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Results

• The most promising materials proved to be topsoil and soil amendments (compost)

• The chosen amendment was compost screenings

Compost Screenings Topsoil

Page 15: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Hat-Trick!

1. Organics diversion

2. Use for previously landfilled byproduct

3. Reduces emissions

Page 16: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

1. Organics Diversion

• Composting programs

• Reduce LFG emissions

• Reduce settlement, increase airspace opportunity

Page 17: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

2. Previously Landfilled Byproduct

• Screenings from compost are usually landfilled

• Opportunity to use as soil amendment

• Nutrient supplement for methanotrophs

Page 18: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

3. Reduced GHG Emissions

• Methanotrophic oxidation of methane

• Reduced GHG fugitive emissions

• Possible GHG credits?

Page 19: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Leduc Landfill ET-LBC Project

• Phase II of the landfill - surface area: 10.6 ha

• Estimated Waste Volume: 1.0M m3

Page 20: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Test Plot Demonstration

• Two test plots installed in closed area of landfill

• Measured performance of methane oxidation, vegetation growth, soil moisture, and temperature

• Sensors installed to measure soil moisture and temperature

Each ~30m x 30m

Page 21: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Test Plot Construction

Material Placement Material Mixing

Page 22: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Test Plot Observations – MoistureJuly 1, 2017 – February 1, 2018

Clay Cover

ET-LBC Cover

Page 23: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Clay Cover

ET-LBC Cover

Test Plot Observations – TemperatureJuly 1, 2017 – February 1, 2018

Page 24: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

CO e Reduction Opportunity

• In situ observations of methane oxidation of 71-97%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049

CH4Re

mov

al Efficiency (%

)

CO2‐e Metha

ne Emission

Baseline Emission

Project Emission

Removal Efficiency

Page 25: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Test Plot Observations - Issues

Page 26: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

Conclusions

• ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective

• Can be applied at small landfill sites

• Performance meets requirements for clay covers (in certain environments)

• Low operations and maintenance costs

• Biological oxidation of methane reduce GHG emissions

• Constructed using composting byproducts

• Potential for offset emissions credits

Page 27: Evapotranspiration Landfill Biocovers...Conclusions •ET-LBC are low tech, and cost effective •Can be applied at small landfill sites •Performance meets requirements for clay

To Be Continued!!

Thank you to our project partners.