&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Radiation
(6202J)
EPA 68-W5-0004
January 1937
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
FOR GAS-TO-ENERGY AT
SELECTED LANDFILLS IN
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
-------
EPA REGION VII IRC
098009
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by SCS Engineers under Work Assignment 1-2 of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Contract #68-W6-0004. The principal authors were Eric
R. Peterson, P.E. and Charles D. Forbes. The authors wish to thank Tom Kerr of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for guidance and comment during the preparation of this
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is a working draft being used by Country Study Program participants to
develop landfill methane mitigation projects. Users of this document and those
implementing landfill methane mitigation projects are encouraged to provide comments.
Please direct comments to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Methane Branch
Mail Code 6292 J
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tel: (202) 233-9768
Fax: (202) 233-9569
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4 LANDFILL EVALUATIONS 4-1
INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 4-1
Landfill Gas Generation Estimates 4-3
Economic Feasibility Analysis 4-3
4.2 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR VILLA ALBERTINA 4-9
Project Summary 4-12
4.3 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SANTO AMARO 4-17
Project Summary 4-18
4.4 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SAO JOAO 4-23
Project Summary 4-24
4.5 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR BANDEIRANTES 4-30
Project Summary 4-31
4.6 EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SAPPOPEMBA AND SAN MATEUS 4-36
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
5.1 CONCLUSIONS 5-1
Analytical Limitations 5-1
Potential Contributions by Host 5-1
Potential Economic Benefits 5-2
Potential Environmental Benefits 5-2
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 5-3
Legislative 5-3
Environmental 5-3
Economic 5-3
Technical 5-4
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A Photographs A-1
APPENDIX B Compilation of Landfill Evaluation Results B-1
APPENDIX C Calculations C-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Eflflfi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 OVERVIEW OF LFGTE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 2-1
2.1 DIRECT USE 2-1
2.2 GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY 2-2
Internal Combustion Engines 2-2
Gas Turbines 2-3
2.3 PIPELINE INJECTION 2-3
2.4 OTHER USES 2-3
3 EVALUATION OF LEGISLATIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES . 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
Information Sources . . . 3-1
3.1 SUMMARY OF ENERGY SECTOR PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS
AND PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETS IN BRAZIL 3-2
Independent Power Producers 3-2
Institutional Players 3-3
3.2 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL ISSUES 3-5
Electricity Costs and Payment Practices 3-5
Leachate Collection/Treatment Practices and Costs 3-5
Vehicle Fuel Use 3-6
The Municipality's Experience With Previous Projects 3-7
Summary of Local Capabilities 3-7
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 3-8
Enforcement/Regulatory Priorities 3-8
Summary of Landfill Operational Practices 3-8
3.4 ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH
AN ENERGY RECOVERY OPTION 3-9
Competing Markets 3-10
Financing 3-11
3.5 REFERENCES 3-12
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
4-1 Estimate of Approximate Costs for a 3 Megawatt
Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project 4-4
4-2 Estimate of Approximate Costs for a 2000 Cubic Meter per Hour
Medium-Btu Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project 4-5
4-3 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Vila Albertina Landfill
Medium-Btu Direct Gas Use Project 4-13
4-4 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Vila Albertina Landfill
4.1 Megawatt Landfill Gas-to Electricity Project 4-15
4-5 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Santo Amaro Landfill
Medium-Btu Direct Gas Use Project 4-19
4-6 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Santo Amaro Landfill
6.5 Megawatt Landfill Gas-to Electricity Project 4-21
4-7 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Sao Joao Landfill
Medium-Btu Direct Gas Use Project 4-25
4-8 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Sao Joao Landfill
8.0 Megawatt Landfill Gas-to Electricity Project 4-27
4-9 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Bandeirantes Landfill
Medium-Btu Direct Gas Use Project 4-32
4-10 Economic Feasibility Analysis for Bandeirantes Landfill
8.0 Megawatt Landfill Gas-to Electricity Project 4-34
III
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and a large contributor to global warming, second
only to carbon dioxide. One of the largest global anthropogenic sources of methane is
waste management (i.e., landfilling) activities. There are many opportunities for reducing
landfill methane emissions through initiating cost-effective practices and technologies.
Because landfill methane is a source of energy as well as a greenhouse gas, many
emissions control options may have additional economic benefits that can be realized
through recovery of landfill methane for use as energy.
While technologies to recover energy from landfill gas (LFG) offer substantial emission
reductions, they have not been implemented on a wide scale in most parts of the world
due to financial, informational, institutional, and/or technical barriers. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to developing and performing
technical outreach on the benefits of landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) throughout the United
States and in developing nations.
This feasibility report is part of EPA's outreach activities and contains information on
technical, economic and institutional viability of LFGTE at the following six landfills
operated by the municipality of Sao Paulo, Brazil:
• Bandierantes;
• Santo Amaro;
• San Mateus;
• Sao Jaoa;
• Sapopemba; and
• Vila Albertina.
This report is directed at private and public sector organizations with an interest in
developing LFGTE projects at one or more of these sites (all near the City of Sao Paulo).
As such, it evaluates conditions at candidate landfills, assesses the potential for cost-
effective LFGTE recovery at each site, and concludes with a recommendation of the best
energy recovery option(s) at the most feasible site(s). The remainder of this report is
organized as follows:
• Section 2 presents an overview of LFGTE technology options,
as background to the assessment;
• Section 3 presents an evaluation of the relevant legislative,
environmental, and economic factors affecting project
feasibility;
• Section 4 presents technical and economic evaluations of the
six landfills being considered; and
• Section 5 presents conclusions and recommendations.
1-1
-------
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF LFGTE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
This section provides a brief background to the subsequent assessment of LFGTE
opportunities in Sao Paulo, Brazil, by providing an overview of the LFGTE technologies
which are widely used by the industry.
Recovery of LFG for energy purposes begin with the collection of the gas generated from
the landfilled waste. There are three cost-effective approaches to using the gas that is
recovered from these wells:
• Direct use of the gas locally (either on-site or nearby);
• Generation of electricity and distribution through the power grid; and
• Injection into a gas distribution grid.
2.1 DIRECT USE
Direct use of the gas locally is often the simplest and most cost-effective approach. The
medium quality gas can be used in a variety of ways, including:
• Residential use (cooking, hot water heating, space heating);
• Boiler fuel for district heating; and
• Various industrial uses requiring process heat or steam (such as in cement
manufacture, glass manufacture, and stone drying).
These options require that the gas be transported, typically by a dedicated pipeline, from
the point of collection to the point(s) of gas use. If possible, a single point of use is
preferred so that pipeline construction and operation costs can be minimized.
Prior to transporting the gas to the user, the gas must be cleaned to some extent.
Moisture and particulates are removed through a series of filters and/or driers. Following
this minimal level of gas cleaning, gas quality of 35 to 50 percent methane is typically
produced. This level of methane concentration generally is acceptable for use in a variety
of equipment, including boilers and engines. Although the gas use equipment usually is
designed to handle natural gas that is nearly 100 percent methane, the equipment usually
can be adjusted to handle gas with the lower methane content.
2-1
-------
2.2 GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY
If direct use is not practical, the gas can be used to generate electricity in a reciprocating
or turbine engine. If electricity is not required at the site it can be distributed through the
local power grid. This approach requires close coordination with the electric power utility.
There are several available technologies for generating electricity; however, internal
combustion (1C) engines and gas turbines are the most commonly used prime movers for
landfill gas energy recovery projects.
The anticipated landfill gas flow rate is particularly important in choosing an appropriate
prime mover to generate electricity. Gas turbines typically require higher gas flows than 1C
engines to make them economically attractive. Therefore, gas turbines are better suited
for large landfills. Additionally, gas turbines are expected to run relatively constantly, and
as a consequence are not turned on and off to match changing electricity loads during the
day. Consequently, turbines are commonly used to generate electricity that will be
distributed through the electric power grid on a continuous basis. 1C engines can more
easily be turned on and off, and are therefore suitable for supplying intermittent on-site
power needs as well as distribution through the grid.
Internal Combustion Engines
Internal combustion engines are the most commonly used conversion technology in landfill
gas applications. They are stationary engines, similar to conventional automobile engines,
that can use medium quality gas to generate electricity. While they can range from 30 to
2000 kilowatts (kW), 1C engines associated with landfills typically have capacities of
several hundred kW.
1C engines are a proven and cost-effective technology. Their flexibility, especially for small
generating capacities, makes them the only option for smaller landfills. At the start of a
recovery project, a number of 1C engines may be employed; others may be added as gas
production increases.
1C engines have proven to be reliable and effective generating devices. However, the use
of landfill gas in 1C engines can cause corrosion due to the impurities in landfill gas.
Impurities may include chlorinated hydrocarbons that can react chemically under the
extreme heat and pressure of an 1C engine. In addition, 1C engines are relatively inflexible
with regard to the airrfuel ratio, which fluctuates with landfill gas quality. Some 1C engines
also produce significant nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions, although designs exist to reduce
NOx emissions.
2-2
-------
Gas Turbines
Gas turbines can use medium-quality gas to generate power for sale to nearby users or
electricity supply companies, or for on-site use. Gas turbines typically require higher gas
flows than 1C engines to be economically attractive, and have therefore been used at larger
landfills. They are available in sizes from 500 kW to 10 MW, but are most useful for
landfills when they are 2 to 4 MW. Also, gas turbines have significant parasitic loads, i.e.,
when idle (not producing power), gas turbines consume approximately the same amount of
fuel as when generating power. Additionally, the gas must be compressed prior to use in
the turbine.
In addition to these two main options, there are other options for producing electricity.
Fuel cells, an emerging technology, are being tested with landfill gas. These units,
expected to be produced in the 1 to 2 MW capacity range, are highly efficient with
negligible NOx,emissions. They operate by converting chemical energy into usable electric
and heat energy. Additionally, in cases where large gas flows are available, steam
turbines can be used. The steam is utilized in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG),
which uses the steam to turn a turbine which supplies mechanical energy to a generator.
2.3 PIPELINE INJECTION
In some cases, the gas can be injected into a gas distribution grid. If a medium-quality gas
system exists, the gas can be injected with minimum processing. Natural gas pipeline
systems, however, typically transport high-quality gas that is over 95 percent methane.
Therefore, prior to injecting the recovered gas into such as system, it would need to be
processed to remove the carbon dioxide (C02) and other impurities. Processing the gas to
meet high-quality pipeline standards raises the cost of production. As a result, this option
is usually not economically viable. However, in an environment of high fuel (natural gas)
costs, upgrading landfill gas might be a profitable option.
2.4 OTHER USES
Other energy utilization options may present themselves on a case-by-case basis.
Emerging technologies which are showing initial promise (and thus receiving close
evaluation by the industry at large) include:
• Use as an alternative vehicular fuel, as either compressed natural gas (CNG) or as
liquified natural gas (LNG); and
• As a process raw material in the production of methanol.
2-3
-------
-------
SECTION 3
EVALUATION OF LEGISLATIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL
AND ECONOMIC ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
An integral element of conducting the LFGTE feasibility assessment for the Sao Paulo
landfills was an evaluation of pertinent non-technical issues that affect the potential for
cost-effective LFGTE. These issues are discussed below, under separate headings as
follows:
• Privatization efforts in the Brazilian energy sector (Section 2.1);
• Municipal issues, such as current costs for electricity, leachate
collection/treatment, and vehicle fuel use (Section 2.2);
• Environmental issues, such as enforcement priorities and current landfill
management practice (Section 2.3); and
• Economic issues, such as competing energy markets and available financial
support (Section 2.4).
Information Sources
This report was developed after extended interviews with senior representatives of
legislative, environmental, and economic agencies and institutions in Brazil.
These include:
• SVMA (Secretaria De Verde e Meio Ambiente): The municipal agency
responsible for environmental protection within the City.
• ETATEC: The consulting engineers enlisted by SVMA to interface with SCS
Engineers and EPA.
• ABIQUIM (Associacao Braziliara da Industrie Quimica): The principal Brazilian
chemical manufacturer's trade association.
• LIMPURB (Departamento de Limpeza Urbano): The municipal agency
responsible for oversight of sanitation (LIMPURB has overall responsibility for
Sao Paulo's landfills).
• AAE (Agencia para Aplicacao de Energia): The Brazilian state association of
gas and electric utility companies.
3-1
-------
• COMGAS: The gas utility that serves the municipality of Sao Paulo. Natural
gas is delivered to COMGAS by PETROBRAS (the State-owned national gas
company); thus, COMGAS is solely a gas distributor.
• ELETROPAULO (Electricidade De Sao Paulo): The electric utility which serves
the municipality of Sao Paulo.
• CETESB (Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental): The State
agency for environmental protection.
• ENTERPA: An engineering/construction company operates selected landfills
in Sao Paulo on behalf of LIMPURB.
• LOGOS: An engineering management company which manages all of Sao
Paulo's landfills on behalf of LIMPURB.
• H&F (Heieno and Fonseco Construtecnica): A civil engineering company
which also operates selected landfills on behalf of LIMPURB.
A list of the representatives who cooperated with the assessment effort is presented at
the conclusion of this section for reference purposes.
3.1 SUMMARY OF ENERGY SECTOR PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR
MARKETS IN BRAZIL
Independent Power Producers (IPPs)
Brazil is in the midst of privatizing much of its public service energy sector, including
utilities. Relevant to power production, Brazil recently enacted Law 9074, which has
become known as the "IPP Law". This legislation establishes the basis for generation and
sale of electricity by private companies, and guarantees such companies access to the
distribution grid, but does not require that public utilities purchase the power.
The IPP Law provides a number of provisions which greatly improve the feasibility and
sustainability of LFGTE projects. For example:
• Existing power consumers with a demand for greater than 10 MW at
voltages above 69 kV are free to buy power from wherever they wish;
• Power consumers that also buy steam (from cogeneration) are free to buy
power from wherever they wish (regardless of consumption level); and
• Newly-established consumers with a demand for greater than 3 MW (any
voltage) are free to buy power from wherever they wish.
3-2
-------
Other complimentary developments in Brazilian energy law that are worthy of note include:
• Law 8631, which allows a utility to establish its own tariff for power
(effectively abolishing the previously existing one-time national tariff rate);
• Decree 915, which allows companies to produce power for their own use
and to sell the excess capacity to public utilities. This Decree also provides
for access to public transmission lines by such producers;
• Decree 1009, which establishes the basis for distribution of power from a
generator to a consumer across one or more third party distribution grids. In
the U.S., this is a common practice (e.g., a utility in Virginia may sell power
to a utility in New Jersey, using the distribution grids of the Maryland utilities
that lie in between to deliver the power). The popular term for this practice
is "wheeling"; and
• Constitutional Amendment No. 6, which allows Brazilian-based companies
(including those controlled by non-Brazilian entities) to become
concessionaires for public utilities.
The basic legislative framework, then, for an independent power LFGTE project is in place.
However, IPP regulations are still being drafted at the Federal level. These regulations are
expected to answer the outstanding issues surrounding IPP, including:
• How tariffs will be calculated and regulated;
• The technical requirements and responsibilities that utilities may place on
IPPs;
• The method of fee calculation for power wheeling; and
• The availability of government or external funds to finance independent
power projects, including LFGTE.
The promulgation of the IPP regulations is currently scheduled for the Fall of 1996.
Institutional Players
There are several energy agencies that will likely need to get involved in prospective
LFGTE projects in Sao Paulo. Three of the most important are EletroPaulo, Petrobras, and
Comgas.
EletroPaulo-
Electrobras, the federally-controlled utility, operates four regional generation and
transmission subsidiaries which generate over 60 percent of all power generated in Brazil.
The State of Sao Paulo owns its own distribution and generation company, EletroPaulo,
3-3
-------
which both buys power from Electrobras and generates power on its own. EletroPaulo's
generating capacity is predominantly hydroelectric, and indications are that these
resources are approaching their maximum capacity for economically-viable exploitation.
Petrobras-
Petrobras is the federally controlled oil-based fuel supplier, and provides almost all of the
refined fuel oil and natural gas consumed within Brazil. As with most public sector
services in Brazil, Petrobras is currently being reorganized in order to be privatized in the
near future.
In the meantime, Petrobras has a significant influence on energy markets in Brazil. The
company receives subsidies from the Brazilian government for the production of diesel fuel
and natural gas. As discussed later in this Section, natural gas production is currently far
higher than demand - due in part to limited distribution networks - therefore, market value
for pipeline-quality gas is relatively low.
Comgas-
As in the electric utility sector, natural gas produced by the "national" utility (Petrobras) is
distributed by a local concessionaire (Comgas), which controls the distribution of natural
gas within the municipality of Sao Paulo. Therefore, LFGTE projects involving transmission
of LFG by pipeline will have to obtain approval from Comgas. Due to Brazil's warm climate
and limited pipeline distribution infrastructure, gas consumption within Sao Paulo is limited.
Potentially, LFGTE projects could be developed that do not require Comgas approval.
These include direct end use of gas by an adjacent user where the pipeline has not crossed
public property, or liquitlcation for tanker truck transport to fueling stations for use as an
alternate vehicle fuel. The only immediate potential prospect for industrial end-use
identified by this assessment was at the Santa Amaro landfill (see Santa Amaro profile
below).
Finally, provisional initiatives are being discussed at the Federal level which will develop a
legislative framework for the gas sector that resembles the electricity sector. However,
this process is behind the progress that has been made for IPPs.
3-4
-------
3.2 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL ISSUES
A number of issues affecting the success of LFGTE projects are somewhat unique to the
municipality of Sao Paulo (i.e., the City) and/or the region. These issues are summarized
below.
Electricity Costs and Paymant Practices
Sao Paulo's electricity rates are driven by the voltage at which power is provided to the
consumer (in general, as the supply voltage declines, the rate per kilowatt hour increases).
The City's power supply (i.e., to municipal office buildings) is typically provided in a low
voltage format (i.e., less than 2.3 kV). Therefore the higher user rate is applied to the
City's power supply.
At this time, the applicable rate is approximately US$0.12 per kWh (in contrast, supply at
2.3 kV and above is provided at US$0.045 per kWh). This high cost for electricity supply
was one of the initial factors spurring a LFGTE feasibility assessment for the City, as the
City wanted to take advantage of the potential for lower electricity costs afforded by an
LFGTE project (in general, LFGTE projects can economically generate electricity at around
US$0.05 per kilowatt hour).
The City has explored the potential of generating power through LFGTE projects and
wheeling this power to its own facilities. Discussions with EletroPaulo raised two key
issues that still need to be addressed:
• Given the high electricity rate, approximately 10 percent of EletroPaulo's
revenues come from municipal customers. There is therefore little or no
incentive for the utility to assist the City in generating its own power, as
ElectroPaulo will lose a significant amount of its business, and
• EletroPaulo has indicated that it will consider the City's record in paying its
power bills. A bad payment history would not bode well for an IPP, who
may not have the capital reserves to withstand long term delays in payment
for service.
Laaehate Collection/Traatmant Practices and Costs
The municipality reports leachate production rates from the subject landfills ranging from
1.2 to 6.8 liters per second (l/s) [approximately 27,000 to 155,000 gallons per day (gpd)l.
The present method of handling collected leachate is to transport it to the sewage
treatment plant in exchange for landfilling sludge. According to SVMA, this arrangement is
temporary and finding an alternate means of leachate treatment is a top priority. Only 30
percent of Sao Paulo's sewage is treated. Hence, the municipality would like to include
leachate management as the responsibility of any future LFG developer(s). However, this
leachate management requirement may be a strong disincentive for an outside investor, as
it will add a significant capital cost to the project.
3-5
-------
Because of the above issues, the municipality has a high interest in utilizing LFG to
evaporate leachate. However, for three of the four landfills where data were available, the
leachate quantities being reported exceed the quantity of LFG necessary to evaporate the
same. For example, using a vendor-provided value of 75 cf of LFG/gal, the necessary LFG
collection rate for 5 l/s (a typical rate for the sites being evaluated) would be approximately
250,000 cubic meters per day (m3 /day). As will be presented in Section 4 of this report,
it is estimated that most of the landfills evaluated can generate enough LFG to meet this
need. Specifically:
• Bandierantes (the clear exception) is estimated to generate approximately
370,000 m3 /day;
• Santo Amaro may generate enough LFG (approximately 290,000 m9 /day);
and
• Vila Albertina and Sao Joao will not generate enough LFG (180,000 and
150,000 m3 /day, respectively).
The remaining sites are also inappropriate for economic LFGTE development, as they are
either too old or too small to generate enough LFG for this purpose.
Vehicle Fuel Use
Utilization projects converting LFG to vehicle fuel in Sao Paulo have been tried
unsuccessfully on a pilot scale (see "Experiences With Previous Projects", below). This is
contrary to U.S. experience with this technology, which has been demonstrated
successfully (albeit with a limited number of projects). The best U.S. example is the
Puente Hills LFG-to-compressed natural gas (CNG) project in Los Angeles County,
California. This project, which has been active for over two years, has a design capacity
equivalent to approximately 3,800 liters of gasoline per day, and supports a fleet of 13
municipal vehicles.
However, a recent initiative passed by Sao Paulo offers some future promise for this
approach. In June 1996, the City entered a cooperative agreement with a compressed
natural gas (CNG) supplier, Silex Converges, and Volkswagen to gradually phase out the
use of gasoline vehicles for municipal operations in favor of cars powered by CNG.
Therefore, all new cars purchased by the City will be powered by CNG. Eventually, then,
an estimated 2,000 municipal vehicles will be in service that could be powered by LFG.
It should be noted that national fuel subsidies, although lower than Europe, do not have a
marked influence on gasoline prices; relative to the U.S., the price of gasoline in Brazil is
high.
3-6
-------
Muniripalitv'fi Experience Witfr Previous Projects
At least four pilot-scale LFG utilization projects have started and failed in the region. To
some extent, these failures have colored the local perception of project feasibility. A brief
summary of previous LFGTE projects is presented below.
Kilometer 14.5 Landfill-
A project was started at this facility to pump unfiltered LFG to nearby public housing for
heating/cooking uses. A 2.2-mile dedicated distribution system was built, with pre-
treatment limited to a rudimentary moisture knock out system. While specific engineering
details on the project were unavailable, anecdotal information indicated that moisture
control was ineffective (creating pressure surge problems), no pressurization or reserve
capacity was built into the system (i.e., when the system blower was down, no gas was
supplied to end-users), and corrosive qualities in vapor-phase LFG constituents shortened
the service life on end-use burners.
After the failure of the housing project, a second attempt was made using an industrial end
user. This project failed for the same reasons outlined above.
Sapopemba-
A project was started at this facility which resembled the concept summarized for
Kilometer 14.5 above. Extraction testing and feasibility analysis were initiated at the site,
but the project was canceled due to public complaints (driven, in part, by the Kilometer
14.5 experience).
Santa Amaro-
A pilot-scale project was started at this facility to convert LFG to CNG for use by a small
fleet of municipal vehicles. While specific engineering details on the project were
unavailable, anecdotal information indicated that poor training of drivers (for refueling) and
unacceptable engine performance (mainly lack of power) caused the project to be canceled
after approximately nine months of operation.
Summary of Local Capabilities
Given that a number of LFG utilization projects have been started previously in the region
(as summarized above), it is clear that some local expertise is available. Fundamental
engineering support to the common LFGTE approaches is readily available, as the Sao
Paulo region is heavily industrialized with much commercial and industrial activity.
Engineers and technicians with the appropriate background and training were apparent
among the many individuals that cooperated with the EPA project.
However, it should be noted that experience with state-of-the-art technology is lacking
(e.g., the review of construction details for the extraction pumping test system installed at
Vila Albertina identified deficiencies in the design of LFG extraction wells being used).
3-7
-------
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Pertinent environmental issues were discussed in detail with SVMA and CETESB (the
principal environmental regulating agency in Sao Paulo). Environmental issues raised in
these discussions are summarized below.
Enforcflmant/Ragulfltory PrioiftiM
Sao Paulo is reported to have a metropolitan area population greater than 16 million
inhabitants. The City is also projected to experience accelerated growth in the later part of
the decade. Therefore, because of significant immediate problems in air and water quality,
solid waste-related problems have been assigned a lower priority by the Agency. Under
current policy, LFG control is encouraged by CETESB but is not required by law. However,
CETESB has expressed significant support for LFGTE project development in the region,
and may be interested in getting directly involved in a demonstration project. CETESB
agreed in principle to work more directly with SVMA, if the project proceeds, to provide
technical assistance and support. The Agency has also indicated that it would consider
requiring a less time-consuming preliminary environmental impact assessment in order to
get a permit for a LFGTE project, rather than the more lengthy analysis that would usually
be required.
Summary of Landfill Operational Practices
Many of the landfills visited have residential housing immediately adjacent to the facility,
because people have built houses close to the landfill in order to scavenge reusable waste.
Consequently, LFG migration represents a more immediate potential threat to public health
and safety than the more long-term effects of air pollution from uncontrolled LFG
emissions. Explosions caused by LFG migration were reported in the neighborhood next to
the Jacui Landfill.
Odor and LFG emissions at the candidate landfills have been partially controlled by passive
venting or flaring (where gas flow is sufficient to support combustion). These vents/flares
were abundant (approximately 1 per acre) at all of the landfills visited. The older sites
(Sapopemba and Sao Mateus) however, were no longer flaring their LFG.
The two active landfills (Bandeirantes and Sao Joao) are operated as sanitary landfills. The
new cells at Bandeirantes (i.e.. Cell 4 and continuing) and the entire Sao Joao landfill are
lined with a flexible membrane liner (FML) and incorporate leachate collection systems.
Completed sections of the landfill are not capped, but storm water control is given a high
priority with sufficient number of benches in the side slopes, gabion-type down chutes,
and various draining structures to remove runoff from the landfill surface.
3-8
-------
Other significant landfill practices (at both the active and closed sites) were observed,
including:
• Daily cover was not applied; rather soil cover was placed on completed lifts.
The quantity of cover placed atop each lift varied, but was as great as 1
meter in thickness.
• Leachate drains are periodically installed in the refuse as the landfill gains in
elevation. The purpose of these horizontal collection drains is to intercept
leachate and direct it to a central drain point to prevent seeps on the side
slopes.
• The leachate drains are interconnected with vertical gas vents that are
constructed with a perforated 1 meter diameter concrete pipe surrounded by
rip-rap contained in a wire basket as refuse is filled. As refuse is filled, these
vents are ignited within a few months after placement to burn off venting
LFG. The resulting network of leachate drains and gas vents creates a
challenge for future gas recovery because of the high likelihood of air
infiltration through the interconnected gravel collectors.
• Landfill equipment did not include refuse compactors, but rather relied on
bulldozers and front-end loaders to compact the refuse with their tracks.
• No provisions are made for monitoring LFG migration around the landfill
perimeter.
3.4 ECONOMIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH AN ENERGY RECOVERY OPTION
The Brazilian government projects that national power demand will increase by at least
3,000 MW per year over the next 10 years. The promulgation of legislation such as the
IPP Law is a good indicator that private sector participation in the Brazilian energy sector
will therefore grow in the near future. The need for priority investment in other
infrastructure projects, burdensome regulations (historically), and a shortage of short-term
financing has resulted in an estimated 90,000 MW or more of project opportunities which
cannot be implemented. These factors, combined with a growing population and economy
that constitutes more than half of the South American continent, indicate that Brazil is
likely to become one of the largest private power markets in the world.
Consistent with these economic forces, SVMA is seeking to encourage 100 percent
private sector investment in Sao Paulo's LFGTE projects. Outside investment by both
Brazilian and foreign private parties will be a necessity for this type of project to proceed.
3-9
-------
Competing Markets
Interviews and other research was conducted in Brazil to establish the estimated price of
competing energy sources. This summary of market conditions is provided below.
Electricity-- EletroPaulo is the largest electricity distributor in Brazil, accounting for
approximately 22 percent of all electricity distributed within the nation. The company
distributes approximately 50 gigawatt hours (GWh) annually.
EletroPaulo's user rates are as follows:
• Supply at greater than 2.3 kV (typically, consumed by heavy industrial users)
is $0.045/kW-hr; and
• Supply at less than 2.3 kV (commercial and lighter industrial applications) is
$0.12/kW-hr.
EletroPaulo's costs are as follows:
• Current actual generation costs are approximately $0.039/kW-hr;
• Wholesale price paid to Electrobras is $0.035/kW-hr; and
• Long-run marginal costs are approximately $0.068/kW-hr..
Limited information was available regarding the few formalized wheeling arrangements that
exist. EletroPaulo has an agreement with a local sugar mill which allows it to produce
power at one site and wheel the power to another facility. Transmission charges levied by
the utility are currently about $17 per MW-hr. Furthermore, EletroPaulo has purchased
power from Electrobras' regional subsidiaries outside of Sao Paulo. In these cases,
wheeling charges between the two affected utilities were set at approximately $10 per
MW-hr. EletroPaulo also envisages a purchase rate for IPP power in the range of $30 to
$35 per MW-hr.
Natural Gas- Natural gas is cheap and plentiful in Brazilian; however a lack of
infrastructure development has resulted in a relatively sparse distribution network, with
many residential and commercial consumers unable to access pipeline gas. In addition to
Petrobras1 essential monopoly control of the price, reports from U.S. sources indicate that
the utility has a significant excess of methane from oil exploration projects alone (i.e., large
quantities of methane are currently flared by Petrobras for the want of markets and
distribution). As a result, natural gas will likely provide low-cost competition to a potential
LFG-to-pipeline quality gas project.
Comgas reported the wholesale price paid to Petrobras as $2.80 per MMBtu. Also, a new
pipeline is being built to bring natural gas from Bolivia. The price for this gas will be $3.40
per MMBtu.
3-10
-------
Direct Gas Use- Direct end use approaches also face significant administrative challenges.
As discussed above, Comgas' approval will be required for all projects that produce gas
and transmit it to an off-site facility (unless the facility is directly adjacent to the candidate
landfill). Furthermore, the gas producer must pay a user fee to Comgas for access to the
pipeline. Approximate rates for local construction costs and the likely access fee were
unavailable.
Alternative Vehicle Fuel Use- Alternative vehicle fuel approaches also face significant
challenges. As discussed in Section 3.2, conversion of the City's bus fleet to CNG would
create a potentially huge and beneficial demand for LFG-derived CNG. However, the bus
fleet is privately owned, and vehicle resale represents a significant source of cost savings
to the bus companies.
Markets for used public vehicles are centered around smaller jurisdictions outside of Sao
Paulo. These jurisdictions do not maintain the necessary infrastructure and technology to
support buses fueled by CNG, thus depressing the market price for such vehicles. As a
result, the bus companies have expressed little or no desire to explore alternative fuels for
their vehicles.
In an effort to promote the use of CNG as an alternative fuel by buses, on July 5, 1996,
Sao Paulo amended Municipal Law No. 10.950, to require all urban buses to convert from
diesel to CNG. This law is to be implemented at the rate of 5 percent of the fleet
converting each of the first two years, with 10 percent of the fleet converting each year
thereafter.
Financing
SVMA's preference is to form a Brazilian-U.S. private sector joint venture to develop
LFGTE projects. Financing for such projects, however, could be limited due to the
following factors:
• Lending institutions often won't consider project financing for less than 5
million dollars, which is the high end for larger LFG recovery projects.
• Transactions costs for such loans are high (i.e., legal fees, permitting, third
party due diligence, etc.).
• The track record for LFG recovery in Brazil is very limited and therefore could
be perceived as high risk.
A brief discussion of local financial assistance possibilities was held with Banco Nacional
de Desenvolvimento Economico e Social, a Brazilian national development bank. It is
possible that further discussions with this bank may identify project financing
opportunities. Similarly, opportunities through the World Bank and U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) programs may be identified, given more technical
information regarding project feasibility and the promulgation of IPP regulations.
3-11
-------
3.5 REFERENCES
Much of the information presented in this report was developed from extended interviews
with representatives of the relevant Brazilian legislative, environmental, and economic
agencies and institutions that will play a role in LFGTE project development. These
interviews were held concurrent with the landfill visits to Sao Paulo in June 1996.
Specifically, the following individuals provided significant background materials and
information that has been incorporated into this report:
• Secretary Werner Zulauf and Michele Consolmagno (SVMA).
• Tiber Kessler (ETATEC).
• Elaine Richart (ABIQUIM).
• Nelson Garcez and Vito Mandilovich (AAE).
• Fernando Raimundo and Nadia Patemo (Comgas).
• Paulo Batista de Morais and Cesar Augusto de Lima Tomazelli (EletroPaulo).
• Pedro Penteado de Castro Neto and Airton Chiurato (CETESB).
• Arnold Jaap Van Lonkhuijzen (Enterpa).
• Renato Franzini and Joao Araujo Souza (Logos Engenharia).
• Tiber Grief (Banco Nacional de Desenvdvimento Econamico e Social).
• Eduardo Jose De Oiiveira (Heleno and Fonseco Construtecnica).
Furthermore, while not currently involved with any of the sites being evaluated, valuable
background information and historical context was provided by Roberto Lindenberg of
Guaxatuba (a technical consulting company based in Sao Paulo) and Bertram Shayer of
Logos Energia (a utility-oriented consulting subsidiary of Logos Engenharia based in
Brasilia).
3-12
-------
SECTION 4
LANDFILL EVALUATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the summary evaluation of the LFG generation and recovery potential
for six Sao Paulo landfills:
• Vila Albertina;
• Santa Amaro;
• Sao Joao;
• Bandeirantes;
• Sapopemba; and
• San Mateus.
The evaluation results are summarized below as a separate profile for each site. An
economic feasibility analysis has been included in the profiles for the four most promising
landfills. Each profile is presented at the beginning of a new page, to allow for easy
reproduction and distribution.
Photographs of selected site features are provided in Appendix A.
4.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes landfill gas data for six landfills, and includes active pump test
data for the Vila Albertina and Bandeirantes Landfills. The gas generation rate analysis
was conducted using data from Bandeirantes. This is because the Bandeirantes extraction
wells were designed for active extraction (as opposed to the highly perforated gas
monitoring probes at Vila Albertina), which allowed for greater vacuum and extraction
rates to be applied without causing air to be drawn into the system.
Analysis of active pump test data consists of the following steps:
• Extracting landfill gas from extraction well(s) over a period of
time.
• Monitoring pressures at subsurface probes around the
extraction wells to estimate the radius of influence.
• Dividing the measured flow rate (where methane
concentrations have been sustained at greater than 50
percent) by the estimated volume of influence to calculate a
unit generation rate.
• Comparing results to known generation rates (either from
actual experience elsewhere, or through modeling).
4-1
-------
The Bandeirantes pump test did not include the pressure monitoring step to estimate the
volume of influence. However, given the known depth of the extraction wells and
pressure measurements at Vila Afbertina, some reasonable estimates can be made to
arrive at a volume of influence and predict a conservative generation rate. The generation
rate calculations using the Bandeirantes data are included in Appendix B.
Based on the analysis of the data collected during the pump test, the apparent methane
generation rate (k) is as high as 0.125, which is high compared to most US landfills.
Several factors were identified that would contribute to a high generation rate, including:
• The waste deposited in the landfill has a high organic content
(particularly food waste) as observed visually at the working
face at both Bandeirantes and Sao Joao Landfills, as well as
their transfer operation at Santa Amaro. Waste composition
data provided by the Municipality also support these
observations.
• The rainfall in this area is greater than 80 inches per year,
thereby raising the moisture content and increasing the
generation rate accordingly. High liquid levels measured in the
landfill along with high leachate flows reported by the
Municipality support this observation.
• Passive vent flares installed during waste filling operations are
ignitable within two to three months after waste placement,
indicating a rapid anaerobic decomposition of the waste.
These same vents at the older sites (i.e., landfills which were
closed several years ago) were no longer able to support
combustion, which is due at least in part to the depletion of
the organic waste mass through rapid decomposition.
A higher methane generation rate results in a higher predicted peak flow of LFG using
EPA's Landfill Air Emissions Model. Conversely, the duration of LFG generation is shorter
at sites where a higher generation rate is used. Simply put, the Sao Paulo sites produce
more LFG, more rapidly, but over a shorter period of time.
LFG generation estimates were prepared for each site using the higher generation rate.
The net result of this approach is that utilization equipment sizing (based on model results)
will be correspondingly smaller (in order to ensure that the project will enjoy sufficient,
sustainable gas flow over the expected life time of the equipment). This degree of
conservatism (i.e., modeling with a higher generation rate) can result in a smaller utilization
project than would be typical in the U.S.
4-2
-------
The results of the Bandeirantes analysis have been applied to the other three viable sites:
Vila Albertina, Santa Amaro, and Sao Joao. The application of this generation rate to the
other sites is based on similarities in filling dates, climate, waste composition, and landfill
construction. A summary of landfill characteristics for each site is presented as part of
each facility profile.
In addition to the pump test data, pressure and gas flow readings were collected at
peizometers and monitoring wells from the four largest landfills (i.e., static data rather than
active pump test results). These data also are presented as part of the evaluation
summary. The gas quality, pressure, temperature, and liquid levels were compared to U.S.
generation rate data that cover these parameters.
Hydrogen sulfide concentrations also were measured at these sites. The minimum and
maximum concentrations for each site are presented later in this section. The maximum
concentrations observed at each site are well within the tolerance limits for most gas
utilization methods, including use as a fuel in engine generators and processing for high Btu
gas applications after appropriate treatment.
Landfill Gag Generation Estimates
As described above, the generation rates calculated from the Bandeirantes Landfill pump
test were used to run the EPA Landfill Air Emissions Model for each of the four promising
sites. In each case, the value used for lifetime gas generation (Lo) was 124.91 m3/Mg.
The output produced a range of LFG flows over time, which is presented both in tabular
and graphical formats in Appendix C.
Economic Feasibility Analysis
An economic analysis was performed over a 15-year life. All projects were assumed to
commence engineering and construction during 1996 and be operational by 1997.
Two types of economic feasibility analysis was conducted for each landfill: 1) direct use as
a medium Btu fuel and 2) gas to electricity. These two alternatives were selected because
they represent the most common technologies. The preferred technology for each site will
be dependent on a number of factors, including the supply and demand for gas and
electricity and impacts of government regulation. A more critical analysis must be
performed to identify energy demand within the proximity of each landfill.
Capital Cost Estimates- In order to give a sense of proportion to the project size,
preliminary capital cost estimates were prepared for potential approaches as follows:
• A3 MW gas-to-electricity project; and
• A 2,000 m3/hr (36 MMBtu/hr) medium-Btu direct gas use
project.
The baseline estimates are discussed below.
4-3
-------
3 MW Gas To Electricity Project- As shown in Exhibit 4-1, the total capital cost for this
sample project is estimated to be approximately $5.0 million. In subsequent economic
analyses, the revenues from such a project were based on 85 percent plant availability and
energy payments of $0.06/kW-hr (1996 $). This energy payment assumes the availability
of a customer willing to buy at a discounted retail rate. If retail customers are not
available, electricity could be sold to EletroPaulo at the wholesale rate $0.035/kW-hr, per a
letter from the utility's president to SVMA, dated July 29, 1996. The project would not be
economical at this rate to EletroPaulo.
EXHIBIT 4-1
ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE COSTS FOR A
3 MEGAWATT LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENERGY PROJECT
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
1.
LFG Extraction Wells
915
m
$328
$300,120
LFG Well Heads
40
EA
$500
$20.000
Header Piping
2,440
m
$115
$280.600
Header Valves
8
EA
$5,000
$40.000
Compressor Equipment
LS
$23.547
$23.547
Condensate Drains
10
EA
$8.000
$80,000
Condensate Pump Station
LS
$10,000
$10,000
3 MW Power Plant
LS
$3,000,000
$3,000.000
Vent Flare Modifications
40
EA
$2.800
$112.000
Candlestick Flare
EA
$75,000
SUBTOTAL
$75,000
$3,941,267
LEGEND:
m = Meters
EA = Each
LS = Lump Sum
ENGINEERING (10%)
CONTINGENCY (15%
$650,309
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$4.985,703
4-4
-------
2,000 m3/hr Direct Use Project- As shown in Exhibit 4-2, the total capital cost for this
sample project is estimated to be just over $1.9 million. The revenues from such a project
were based on 90 percent plant availability and energy payments of $2.25 per MMBtu.
EXHIBIT 4-2
ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATE COSTS FOR A 2000 CUBIC METER PER HOUR
MEDIUM-BTU LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENERGY PROJECT
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
1.
LFG Extraction Wells
915
m
$328
$300,120
LFG Well Heads
40
EA
$500
$20.000
Header Piping
2.440
m
$115
$280,600
Transmission Pipeline (30cm dia.)
1000
m
$150
$150,000
Header Valves
8
EA
$5,000
$40,000
Compressor Equipment
LS
$23,547
$23,547
Condensate Drains
10
EA
$6.000
$60.000
Condensate Pump Station
LS
$10,000
$10,000
New Boiler
LS
$450,000
$450.000
Vent Flare Modifications
40
EA
$2.800
$112.000
Candlestick Flare
LEGEND:
m = Meters
EA=Each
LS = Lump Sum
$75,000
$75,000
mRB|nR[|HR
$1.521.267
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING
IB8Sj|B!R^B888WjSB^8^BS!
SUBTOTAL
$1,673,394
CONTINGENCY M 5%
FOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$1,924,403
4-5
-------
Economic Assumptions- The following assumptions were used during the analysis for each
site:
Assumptions
ECOQOnUP
Inflation Rate
Financial
Interest Rate
Discount Rate
Loan Pay-Off Period
Down Payment
Tax Rate
Revenues
Direct Gas Usage
Gas to Electricity
Escalation Rate
Landfill Gas
Methane Composition
Btu Content
Facility Smnd
Gas to Electricity
Direct Gas Usage
LFG Collection .Efficiency
Availability - Direct Gas Usage
Availability - Gas to Electricity
Production Sold
Direct Gas Usage
Gas to Electricity
CsDitsl Costs
LFG Collection System
3 MW LFG to Energy Project
2,000 rrfVhr. Medium Btu LFG
to Energy Project
O&M Costs
LFG Collection System
Direct Gas Usage
Plant
Value
3.5
10
14
15
20
25
2.25
0.060
3.5
50
1,000
50"'
50
751*
90
85
90
80
1,191,000
4,985,000
1,924,000
1021
10™
0.01 8141
Units
percent per year
percent
percent
years
percent of capital costs
percent of profit
U.S. $ per MMBtu (1996 $)
U.S. $ per kWh (1996$)
percent per year
percent by volume of LFG
per cubic foot of methane
percent of the average of LFG generation during
1 997-2006, see Exhibit 4-1
percent of the average of LFG generation during
1997-2006
percent of LFG generated
percent of year operational
percent of year operational
percent of energy production sold
percent of energy production sold
U.S. $ (1996 $)
U.S. $ (1996 $) (includes LFG collection system)
U.S. $ (1996 $) (includes LFG collection system)
% of capital cost
% of direct gas usage energy sales rate
U.S. $/kWh, escalated at inflation
Notes:
1. Except where otherwise noted.
2. Applied to both gas-to-electricity and direct gas use projects.
3. Applied to direct gas use only.
4. Applied to gas-to-electricity only.
The majority of these assumptions used in the financial analysis, including costs, inflation
and revenue escalation rates, and discount and interest rates, are representative of typical
U.S. conditions. Similarly, it was assumed that the relative differentials between inflation,
interest, discount rate, costs and revenues would be the same in Brazil, and therefore the
outcome of the financial analysis would be substantially the same. Note that this
approach is appropriate for comparison of these options and does not reflect expected
conditions in Brazil.
4-6
-------
It was assumed that gas to electricity and direct gas use projects utilized gas at different
efficiencies. Both project types are assumed to collect gas at approximately equal
efficiencies, 75 percent. Electricity can be transported relatively easily via the electric
grid, whereas direct gas use requires a local user or transport to a remote user by a
pipeline. Therefore, electricity is assumed to be more marketable than gas and is used and
has a higher percentage of production sold than direct gas use (90 versus 80 percent,
respectively).
Each spreadsheet which contains the pro-forma analysis is separated into four major
categories: LFG quantities, revenues, costs and project summary. Sub-components of the
major categories vary depending on the type of utilization technology being evaluated.
LFG Quantities- Project sizing was based on the lower of the two LFG generation
estimates (in cubic meters per day) calculated by the emissions model as presented in LFG
generation estimates in Appendix B.
Revenues- Revenues are generated from the sale of either gas or electricity. For this
analysis, all revenue estimates were developed in 1996 U.S. dollars.
As discussed in Section 2, natural gas is relatively inexpensive in Brazil (in fact, supply
exceeds demand in many areas of the country). As is typical in the U.S., it was assumed
that a LFG project will have to offer gas to consumers at a competitive price (given the
less stable nature of the supply and lower energy value of the gas). Based on U.S.
experience, it was therefore assumed that LFG developers for the Sao Paulo projects could
market the gas at $2.25 per MMBtu, approximately 80 percent of the prevalent rate paid
by Comgas to Petrobras.
For electricity, EletroPaulo's user rates range from $0.045 to $0.12 per kW-hr, depending
on supply voltage. It was assumed that electricity would be sold at a rate of $0.060 per
kW-hr (the lower end of this range).
As discussed previously, it must be recognized that prices paid for energy are speculative.
If one of the projects discussed in this report are to move forward in the development
process, it will be critical to ascertain the local demand for direct gas use and electricity at
each of the landfills: the economic analysis presented herein assumes that most of the
energy product (80 percent of the gas or 90 percent of the electricity) generated by each
project will be sold.
Costs- Costs are shown for capital, and operations and maintenance (O&M) items. All
costs are in U.S. dollars and escalated by the inflation rate.
Capital expenses include the cost for implementing either a direct gas use or gas-to-
electricity facility. The cost presented for each site is based on the facility size (in MW or
m3/hr.), pro-rated to the baseline capital cost estimates presented in Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2.
Capital costs were not reduced to account for economies of scale associated with plant
size.
For the pro-forma analysis, loans on capital expenses were assumed to have a 15-year
4-7
-------
payback period, with annual payments being made at the end of each period. It was
assumed that 80 percent of the project capital costs would be financed (i.e., 20 percent of
these costs would be met up front).
The interest rate was assumed to be 10 percent. This estimate is based on the project
being implemented by a large, established company. If the project were implemented by a
public entity or smaller private firm, the interest rate for financing may range from 7 to 12
percent.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were estimated as follows and escalated
at the inflation rate:
• LFG Collection System -10 percent of the system capital cost.
• Direct Gas Usage Equipment -10 percent of the energy sales
revenues. This estimate is for boiler and pipeline O&M.
• Gas-to-Electricity Generating Plant - $0.018 per kWh of
electricity sales.
Project Summary- The project summaries present estimates of the following key financial
indicators:
• Annual gross and net income;
• Annual tax payments;
• Internal rate of return (IRR);
• Net present value (NPV); and
• The debt coverage ratio for the 15-year period (equal to the
operating income [total annual revenues minus the annual
O&M costs] divided by the annual debt service payment).
The analysis assumed that taxes were paid during each year where a profit was earned
(the Brazilian income tax rate of 25 percent was used). During loss years, taxes were not
paid, nor were losses carried over.
Net Present Value- The NPV is calculated by returning a series of annual cash flows over
time (revenues minus costs) to their present value (1996 $) using a discount rate. A
discount rate of 14 percent was selected. This value is higher than the cost of financing
by 4 percent. A positive NPV indicates a financially viable project.
Internal Rate of Return- IRR is the discount rate which makes the NPV of an income
stream equal to zero. Project IRR can be compared to select the more financially attractive
project. Project developers and investors often require a project to have a minimum IRR
for them to invest in, such as 20 percent IRR.
4-8
-------
4.2 SITE PROFILE #1: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR VILA ALBERTINA
Vila Albertina opened in 1977 and was closed in 1993. A total of 9.25 x 10* Mg of waste
is estimated to be in place at the site.
Both active and static data were collected from the Vila Albertina Landfill. The pump test
yielded limited but valuable information. The test was limited because the construction of
extraction points (Drenos de Gas) caused air infiltration when small vacuums were applied
to the system. Information relevant to LFG collection included the following:
• Liquid levels in the five extraction points varied from 2.5
meters to 20 meters below the landfill surface.
• The gas quality under low vacuum and static conditions was
good, with methane greater than 50 percent and oxygen less
than 1 percent.
• Pressures in some locations were relatively high (greater than
125 mm of water column) under static conditions.
• By running the system with the blower extracting from one
extraction point only (with the valve full open), a change in
pressure was measured at an adjacent extraction point
approximately 40 meters away. Despite the high air
infiltration, this change in pressure indicated a potential radius
of influence of at least 40 meters.
• The landfill has been closed for 3 years and, therefore, LFG
generation is declining.
• Wet conditions at the landfill will make LFG collection more
difficult.
• The existing network of leachate drains and gas vents would
require substantial modification to enable effective gas
collection from a new system. A significant investment may
also be required to make the cover more impermeable and to
re-grade the flat surface on top.
Gas monitoring data taken during the site visits are presented below.
4-9
-------
SUMMARY OF VILA ALBERTINA MONITORING DATA
Location/Device
VILA0001
VILADG03
VILADG02
VILADG04
VILABLOW
VILABLOW
VILADG01
VILADG02
VILADG03
VILADG04
VILADG12
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG02
VILADG02
VILADG02
VILADG03
VILADG04
VILADG04
VILADG04
VILADG12
VILADG02
VILADG01
VILADG04
VILABLOW
VILADG22
VILADG13
VILADG15
VILADG15
VILADG10
VILABLOW
Time
19:26
07:26
07:53
08:05
08:55
09:17
07:01
07:10
07:16
07:25
07:38
08:07
08:16
08:16
08:23
08:29
08:35
08:48
08:53
08:58
09:15
09:27
09:35
09:38
09:49
11:58
12:10
12:19
12:26
12:41
12:44
12:52
13:00
13:07
13:20
Date
06/03/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
LFG Composition (%)
CH4
0.0
60.3
65.2
60.1
58.9
43.2
61.1
60.9
60.7
58.6
60.5
61.1
61.7
61.7
43.8
48.8
56.5
58.0
51.4
45.3
25.7
57.0
40.3
48.6
20.9
57.7
58.4
59.8
55.0
60.0
58.1
57.2
59.1
62.4
56.9
C02
0.1
39.6
34.7
39.9
40.2
30.1
38.9
39.1
39.3
41.3
39.5
38.8
38.3
38.3
30.0
32.9
37.5
39.7
36.7
32.1
18.6
40.2
30.7
35.5
16.0
41.3
41.6
40.2
39.9
40.0
41.9
40.4
40.8
37.6
40.7
O2
19.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.9
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
5.5
3.9
1.5
1.0
2.7
4.6
11.3
1.0
5.9
3.5
12.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.2
Balance
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.7
14.4
4.5
1.3
9.2
18.0
44.4
1.8
23.1
12.4
50.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
Static Pressure
(in. H20)
0.9
0.8
9.2
0.1
-38.4
-37.0
-0.3
12.4
-0.3
-0.2
0.2
-1.3
10.2
10.6
-8.6
-5.3
-2.7
-4.1
-6.2
-10.8
-2.4
-3.0
-7.0
-4.9
-3.4
-6.3
-4.8
-2.6
-35.6
-0.2
-0.9
-0.2
-0.3
-0.7
-34.5
Hydrogen sulfide concentrations at the site ranged from 18 to 39 parts per million.
4-10
-------
As described earlier, LFG generation estimates were developed using model runs with two
selected k values. These results are summarized below.
Vila Albertina LFG Generation (m3/day)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
k= 0.040
171,507
164,767
158,301
152,110
146,137
140,438
134,904
129,644
124,548
119,671
114,959
k=0.125
258,41 1
228,055
201 ,260
177,589
156.712
138,301
122.082
107.726
95,068
83.890
74,027
Based on 50 percent mean LFG generation over 10 years, it is estimated that Vila
Albertina will generate approximately 179,000 cubic meters of LFG per day (m3/day). This
will support a LFGTE project of approximately 4 MW.
Direct medium-Btu use of LFG for Vila Albertina may be the most attractive option because
of the relatively low capital cost of this technology. The Vila Albertina Landfill does not
appear to have potential direct users of LFG in the vicinity. However, two industrial sites
at the foot of the landfill had unknown operational status and fuel consumption needs, and
warrant further investigation.
A LFG utilization project at Vila Albertina should evaluate the feasibility of utilizing
transportable technology to mitigate losses in case operational difficulties are encountered.
For example, modular engine generators installed at the site could be relocated to another
landfill if the gas collection rates do not match long- or short-term demands.
It should be noted that the site is connected to the electrical grid, but it is unknown
whether nearby lines are single- or three-phase supply (access to a three-phase grid is
required for power production). However, the presence of industrial and commercial
establishments adjacent to the site suggests that three-phase supply is available nearby.
4-11
-------
Project Summary—Exhibit 4-3 presents the pro-forma analysis for a direct use project.
Exhibit 4-4 presents the analysis for a gas-to-electricity project. A summary of the
economic analysis indicators are shown below. Negative values are indicated by
parentheses. These indicators are estimates of LFG quantity, capital cost, project life,
internal rate of return (IRR), and net present value.
PROJECT SUMMARY FOR VILA ALBERTINA LANDFILL
Analysis
Indicator
Project Size
Capital Costs
Project Life
Internal Rate of
Return
Net Present Value
Gas to
Electricity
4.1 MW
$6.8 million
1 5 years
1 8 percent
$278,000
Direct Use as
Medium Btu Fuel
2,800(m3/hr)
$2.7 million
1 5 years
33 percent
$504,000
4-12
-------
EXHIBIT 4-3
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR VLAALBERTMALANDFU.
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
J
to
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFG Generation Run* (m»3/day)
Run 1 - k : 0.040
Run 2 - te 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m»3/day)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFG ColtecUon (MMBtu/yr)
Plant
Capacity (m*3LFG/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess Enerov (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
energy noaucuMi poienuai (mmixu/yr)
Percent Production SoM (%)
Energy Sales (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Sales Rate ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual Revenues
COSTS
Capital Costs
Debt Service
O&M Costs
LFG Collection System ($/yr)
Energy Facility ($/MMBtu)
Energy Facility ($/yr)
ToM Annual Costa
PROJECT SUMMARY
Grose Income (Pre-tax)
Tax Payments
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
0
1996
($2,694,000)
($538,800)
($538.800)
($538,800)
$0
($538,800)
33%
$504,304
1
1997
171,507
258,411
171,507
75%
828,997
2.800
433,091
90%
389,782
439.215
389,782
80%
311,825
$2.33
$726.553
($283.352)
($168,867)
($0.233)
($72.655)
($524.875)
$201,679
($50.420)
$151.259
1.71
2
1998
164,767
228,055
164.767
75%
796,418
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
406.637
389,782
60%
311,825
$2.41
$751.499
($283.352)
($174.777)
($0.241)
($75.196)
($533.328)
$218,172
($54.543)
$163,629
1.77
3
1999
158,301
201,280
158,301
75%
765.164
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
375.383
389.782
80%
311,825
$2.49
$776.445
($283.352)
($180,894)
($0.250)
($77,830)
($542.077)
$234,368
($58.592)
$175.776
1.83
4
2000
152,110
177.589
152.110
75%
735,239
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
345.458
389,782
60%
311,825
$2.58
$804.510
($283,352)
($187,226)
($0.258)
($80,554)
($551.132)
$253,377
($63.344)
$190,033
1.89
5
2001
148.137
156,712
146,137
75%
706,368
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
316.567
389,782
80%
311,825
$2.67
$832.574
($283,352)
($193,779)
($0.267)
($83.374)
($560.505)
$272,069
($68,017)
$204,052
1.96
6
2002
140,438
138,301
138,301
75%
668,492
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
278.710
389,782
80%
311,825
$2.76
$860.638
($283,352)
($200.561)
($0.277)
($88,292)
($570.205)
$290.433
($72,608)
$217,825
2.02
7
2003
134,904
122,082
122,082
75%
590,096
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
200.314
389,782
80%
311,825
$2.86
$891.821
($283,352)
($207.581)
($0.288)
($89.312)
($580.245)
$311,576
($77,894)
$233,682
2.10
-------
EXHIBIT «(ContlniMd)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR VILA ALBERTINA LANOFLL
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Rune (m*3AJay)
Run 1»k: 0.040
Run2*fc 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m*3/d«y)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFG Collection (MMBhVyr)
Plant
Capacity (m*3LFG/hr)
CapecKy(MMBtu/yr)
AvaHablHty(«)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtuSyr)
Exceea Enemy (MMBtuM)
REVENUES
Enemy Production Potential (MMBhVyr)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Enemy Satee (MMBHVyr)
Enemy Salea Rate ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual Revenues
8
2004
129,644
107,728
107,728
75%
520,705
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
130.923
389,782
80%
311,825
$2.96
$923.003
9
2005
124,548
95,088
95,088
75%
459,521
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
69.739
389,782
80%
311,825
$3.06
$954.186
10
2006
119,671
83,890
83,890
75%
405,491
2,800
433,091
90%
389,782
15.709
389,782
80%
311,825
$3.17
$988.487
11
2007
114,959
74,027
74,027
75%
357,817
2,800
433,091
90%
322,035
35.782
322,035
80%
257,628
$3.28
S845.021
12
2008
110,466
65,315
65,315
75%
315,707
2,800
433,091
90%
284,136
31.571
284,136
80%
227,309
$3.39
$770.577
13
2009
106,137
57,644
57,644
75%
278,628
2,800
433,091
90%
250,765
27.863
250,765
80%
200,612
$3.51
$704.149
14
2010
101,973
50,882
50,882
75%
245,943
2,800
433,091
90%
221,349
24.594
221,349
80%
177,079
$3.63
$642.798
15
2011
97,973
44,904
44,904
75%
217,048
2,800
433,091
90%
195,343
21.705
195,343
60%
156,275
$3.76
$587.593
Capital Ccete
Down Payment
Debt Service
O&MCoete
LFO Collection Syitem ($/yr)
Enemy FacMry($/MMBtu)
Enemy Facfflty ($/yr)
Total Annual Coat*
(OWS, (MWB)
,,»,.», ,„„.«,
"383 "gS * " " " "»«• •»*"•
PROJECT SUMMARY
GroM Income (Pre-T«x)
Not Inoom6
Infernal Rite of Return
Net Pretent Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratte
S « S S
*30.817 ($28,043)
($7,704) $o
*23,t13 ($28,043)
2.17
2.25
2.33
1.84
1.58
1.34
1.11
0.90
-------
O1
EXHIBIT 4-4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR VLA ALBERTMA LANDFLL
4.1 MEOAWAn LANDFILL OAS-TO-ENEROY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Rum (m*3/day)
Run 1 « k : 0.040
Run 2 - te 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rate (m»3/day)
LFO CoflecUon Efficiency (*)
LFQ Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Gtt-to-Etoctrlctty Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/KWh)
Capacity (KW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBIu/yr)
ExceM Enemy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
!••. • nmi rVinlfr- " — fl 1 I 1 rflfll t IIIIIMl 1 ft • 1
energy Production potential (MMBturyr)
Energy Production (1000 kWh/yr)
Energy Salea Rate ($/KWh)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Total Annual Revenue*
COSTS
Capital Coata
Down Payment
Debt Service
0AM Coata
Plant ($/WVh)
Plant ($/yr)
WeMleld($/yr)
Total Annual Coata
PROJECT SUMMARY
Oroaa Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payuienta
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996$)
Debt Coverage Ratio
0
1996
($6,814,000)
($1,362,800)
($1.362.800)
($1.362.800)
$0
($1,362.800)
18%
$277,982
1
1997
171.507
258,411
171,507
75%
828,997
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351.079
477.918
MK4 ATA
391,U/8
30.529
$0.062
90%
$1.706.243
($716,690)
($0.019)
($568,748)
($168,425)
($1.453.863)
$252.381
($63.095)
$189,286
1.35
2
1996
164,767
228,055
164,767
75%
798.418
11.500
4.100
413,034
85%
351,079
445.339
•MC4 fflTQ
m,Ufv
30.529
$0.064
90%
$1.766.962
($716.690)
($0.019)
($588.654)
($174,320)
($1.479.664)
$286,298
($71,575)
$214,724
1.40
3
1999
158,301
201,260
158,301
75%
765,164
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
414.085
^C4 nTA
3Ql,urv
30,529
$0.067
90%
$1.827.771
($716,690)
($0.020)
($609,257)
($180,421)
($1.506.368)
$321,403
($80,351)
$241,052
1.45
4
2000
152,110
177,589
152,110
75%
735,239
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
384.161
-------
O>
EXHIBIT 4-4 (Continued)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR VILA ALBERTINA LANDFILL
4.1 MEGAWATT LANDFILL GAS-TO-ENEROY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Rune (m*3/day)
Run1-K:0.040
Run2"fc 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rate (m*3/dev)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Oae-to-ElectrlcKy Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/KWn)
Capadty(KW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
AvaRaMIHy(%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Exceei Energy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
rinMiiu Pnvfcvthvi ftrfMrflal f UMRtuAir)
Energy Production (1000 kWh/yr)
Energy Sale* Rate ($/VWh)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Total Annual Revenues
COSTS
Capital Coeta
Down Payment
Debt Service
OS.M Coats
Plant ($/KWh)
Plant ($/yr)
WeWWd($/yr)
Total Annual Coats
PROJECT SUMMARY
Groea Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payroonte
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996$)
Debt Coverage Ratio
8
2004
129,644
107,728
107,726
75%
520,705
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
169.626
351 079
vw l(Wf V
30,529
$0.079
90%
$2.170.818
($718.690)
($0.024)
($723,606)
($214,284)
($1.654.579)
$516,239
($129,060)
$387,179
1.72
9
2005
124,548
95,068
95,068
75%
459,521
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
108.442
351 079
*Xf 1 |W» 9
30,529
$0.082
90%
$2.246.797
($716.690)
($0.025)
($748,932)
($221,783)
($1.687.406)
$559.391
($139,848)
$419,543
1.78
10
2006
119,671
83,890
83,890
75%
405,491
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
54.412
351 079
*^f 1 1 V 1 9
30,529
$0.085
90%
$2.325.435
($716,690)
($0.025)
($775.145)
($229,546)
($1.721.381)
$804,054
($151.014)
$453,041
1.84
11
2007
114,959
74.027
74.027
75%
357,617
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
351,079
6.738
351 079
*Jw 1 (Wf V
30,529
$0.088
90%
$2.406.825
($716.690)
($0.026)
($802,275)
($237,580)
($1.756.545)
$650,280
($162,570)
$487,710
1.91
12
2008
110,466
65,315
65,315
75%
315,707
11,500
4,100
413.034
85%
268,351
47.358
268351
**^O|VW I
23,335
$0.091
90%
$1.904.070
($718,690)
($0.027)
($634.690)
($245,895)
($1.597.275)
$306,795
($76,699)
$230,098
1.43
13
2009
106,137
57,644
57,644
75%
278,628
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
236,834
41.794
yvmti
<£wv,Od^
20,594
$0.094
90%
$1.739.260
($716.690)
($0.028)
($579,753)
($254,502)
($1.550.945)
$188,315
($47,079)
$141,236
1.26
14
2010
101,973
50,882
50,882
75%
245,943
11,500
4,100
413,034
85%
209,052
36.692
"yt&rtvy
4.^7,^9*
18,178
$0.097
90%
$1.588.967
($716.690)
($0.029)
($529.656)
($263.409)
($1.509.755)
$79,212
($19.803)
$59,409
1.11
15
2011
97,973
44,904
44,904
75%
217,048
11.500
4,100
413,034
85%
184,491
32.557
4OA AQ4
lO4,4vl
16,043
$0.101
90%
$1.451.363
($716,690)
($0.030)
($483.788)
($272,629)
($1.473.106)
($21.743)
$0
($21.743)
0.97
-------
4.3 SITE PROFILE #2: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SANTO AMARO
Santa Amaro opened in 1976. A total of 15.29 x 106 Mg of waste is estimated to be in
place at the site.
Santo Amaro stopped receiving waste in 1993, and is currently undergoing capping and
other activities associated with the latter phases of closure. Because the landfill is closed,
a LFG collection system could be installed without interference from landfilling operations.
Static test data collected at this site revealed the highest pressures (up to 1460 mm of
water column) measured at any of the landfills. This gas pressure indicates a high gas
generation rate, coupled with a relatively impermeable cover and/or deep waste placement.
The depth to liquids was also the greatest at this site. Both of these factors indicate a
good potential for collecting a large volume of gas from the landfill.
LFG monitoring data from the site is presented below:
SUMMARY OF SANTO AMARO MONITORING DATA
Location/Device
SANTDG28
SANTPZ1 6
SANTP16A
SANTPZ1A
SANTPZ1B
Time
06:52
07:06
07:12
07:39
07:45
Date
06/13/96
06/13/96
06/13/96
06/13/96
06/13/96
.LFG Composition (%)
CH4
50.0
2.2
64.0
59.9
64.3
CO2
30.6
3.0
36.0
40.1
35.7
02
3.9
18.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Balance
15.5
76.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Static Pressure
(in. H20)
0.0
-0.3
1.0
40.0
57.5
Hydrogen sulfide concentrations ranged from 1 to 29 ppm.
As described earlier, LFG generation estimates were developed using model runs with two
selected k values. These results are summarized below.
Santo Amaro LFG Generation (m3/day)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
k= 0.040
276,164
265,315
254,904
244,932
235,288
226,082
217,205
208,712
200,548
192,658
185,096
k=0.125
397,041
350,41 1
309,205
272,877
240,822
212,548
187,562
165,534
146,082
128,877
113.753
4-17
-------
Using the same basis described for Vila Albertina above, LFG generation is estimated at
approximately 287,000 m3/day, which can support a project at 6.5 MW.
A potential direct user is located near the Santo Amaro Landfill: the Piratininga Power
Plant. This plant is a thermal plant, and currently operates on fuel oil. LFG could be piped
to this facility for use in one of two ways: (1) in new boiler equipment for maintaining
temperature and standby conditions; or (2) to run engine generators to provide electricity
for parasitic loads at the plant. Based on field observations, the site is within 0.5 miles of
the landfill (see photographs presented in Appendix A). An advantage to the direct gas use
project structure is that, because the power plant is located on property adjacent to the
landfill, Comgas would not be involved as a gas distributor.
Project Summary-Exhibit 4-5 presents the pro-forma analysis for a direct use project.
Exhibit 4-6 presents the analysis for a gas-to-electricity project.
A summary of each of the economic analysis indicators are shown below. Negative values
are indicated by parentheses. These indicators are estimates of LFG quantity, capital cost,
project life, internal rate of return (IRR), and net present value (NPV).
PROJECT SUMMARY FOR SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
Analysis
Indicator
Project Size
Capital Costs
Project Life
Internal Rate of
Return
Net Present Value
Gas to
Electricity
6.5 MW
$10.8 million
1 5 years
1 8 percent
$351,000
Direct Use as
Medium Btu Fuel
4,400 m'/hr
$4.2 million
1 5 years
33 percent
$778,000
4-18
-------
to
EXHIBIT 4-4
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Run* (m»3/day)
Run 1 • k : 0.040
Run2»fc 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rate (m*3/day)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Plant
Capacity (m»3 LFO/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Exceaa Energy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Percent Production SoW (%)
Energy Sales (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Salea Rate ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual Revenuea
COSTS
Capital Coata
Down Pflymont
Debt Service
O&MCoeta
LFO CoNecUon Syatem ($/yr)
Energy Faculty ($/MMBtu)
Energy FadtHy ($/yr)
Total Annual Coata
PROJECT SUMMARY
Oroaa Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax PayiiMiKa
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Preaent Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
0
1996
($4.234,000)
($846,800)
($846.800)
($846,800)
$0
($846,800)
33%
$777,751
1
1997
276,184
397,041
276,164
75%
1.334,867
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
722.353
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.33
$1.141.727
($445,328)
($265,362)
($0.233)
($114.173)
($824.863)
$316,864
($79.216)
$237.648
1.71
2
1998
265,315
350,411
265,315
75%
1,262,428
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
669.913
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.41
$1.180.928
($445,328)
($274,660)
($0.241)
($118,169)
($838.147)
$342,781
($85,695)
$257,086
1.77
3
1999
254,904
309.205
254,904
75%
1,232,105
4.400
680,571
90%
612,514
619.591
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.49
$1 220 128
($445.328)
($284,263)
($0.250)
($122.305)
($851.895)
$368,233
($92.058)
$276,175
1.83
4
2000
244.932
272,877
244,932
75%
1,183,904
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
571.390
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.58
$1.264.229
($445.328)
($294.212)
($0.258)
($126,585)
($866.125)
$398,104
($99,526)
$298,578
1.89
5
2001
235,288
240,822
235,288
75%
1,137,289
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
524.775
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.67
$1.308.330
($445,328)
($304,509)
($0.267)
($131,016)
($880.853)
$427.477
($106,869)
$320,608
1.96
6
2002
226,082
212,548
212,548
75%
1.027,373
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
414.859
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.76
$1.352.432
($445,328)
($315.167)
($0.277)
($135,601)
($896,096)
$456,335
($114,084)
$342,251
2.02
7
2003
217,205
187,562
187,562
75%
906,600
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
294.066
612,514
80%
490,011
$2.86
$1.401.433
($445,328)
($326.198)
($0.286)
($140,347)
($911.873)
$489,559
($122,390)
$367,170
2.10
-------
EXHIBIT 44 (Continued)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
MEDIUM • BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFG Generation Runs (m*3/day)
Run 1 • k : 0.040
Run2»te 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m*3/day)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFG Collection (MMWu/yr)
Ptant
Capacity (m*3LFG/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess Enemy (MMBtu/vr)
REVENUES
rimnn t>rr*tiifHnn ft'dimHal fUUHhi/Wt
ciRiiyy nmjui««n*i I wmu«n immmvyif
Percent Production Sold (%)
Energy Sato (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Sato Rate ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual Revenues
COSTS
Capital Costs
Down Payment
Debt Service
0AM Costs
LFG Collection System ($/yr)
Energy Facility ($/MMBtu)
Energy Facility ($/yr)
Total Annual Costa
PROJECT SUMMARY
Gross Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payments
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1998 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
8
2004
208,712
165,534
165,534
75%
800,126
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
187.811
612 514
W |4b|«J I ^
60%
490,011
$2.96
$1.450.434
($445,328)
($337,615)
($0.298)
($145,260)
($928.202)
$522,231
($130.558)
$391,674
2.17
9
2005
200,548
146,062
146,062
75%
706,103
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
93.588
612 S14
U 1 *|V 1^
80%
490,011
$3.06
$1.499.435
($445,328)
($349,431)
($0.307)
($150,344)
($945.103)
$554,332
($138,583)
$415,749
2.24
10
2006
192,658
128,877
128,877
75%
622,940
4,400
680,571
90%
612,514
10.426
612 514
W I4E|«J 1^
80%
490,011
$3.17
$1.553.336
($445.328)
($361,882)
($0.318)
($155,806)
($962.595)
$590,741
($147,885)
$443,058
2.33
11
2007
165,096
113,753
113,753
75%
549,837
4,400
680,571
90%
494,853
54.984
494853
^^^jW**i*
80%
395,883
$3.28
$1.298.495
($445,328)
($374,320)
($0.329)
($130.115)
($949.762)
$348,733
($87,183)
$261,550
1.78
12
2006
177,863
100,384
100,384
75%
485,216
4,400
680,571
90%
438,695
48.522
438895
^•^VfVt^f
80%
349,356
$3.39
$1.184.316
($445,328)
($387,421)
($0.340)
($118.841)
($951.590)
$232,726
($58,182)
$174,545
1.52
13
2009
170,849
88,603
88,603
75%
428,272
4,400
680,571
90%
385,445
42.827
385445
ox^t/ll^ij
80%
308,358
$3.51
$1.082.328
($445,328)
($400,981)
($0.352)
($108,586)
($954.874)
$127,454
($31,864)
$95,591
1.29
14
2010
164,164
78,192
78,192
75%
377,949
4,400
680,571
90%
340,154
37.795
14fl 144
«*4w, 194
80%
272,123
$3.63
$987.808
($445,328)
($415,015)
($0.384)
($99,182)
($959.505)
$28,303
($7,076)
$21,227
1.06
15
2011
157,753
68,986
68,988
75%
333,451
4,400
680,571
90%
300,106
33.345
-------
EXHIBIT 44
ECONOMIC FEASBUTY ANALYSIS FOR SANTO AMARO LANDFU.
6.6 MEOAWATT LANDFILL OAS-TO ENERGY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Gananrtton Runt (m*3/d«y)
Run 1 - k : 0.(MO
Run2-fc 0.125
MoctoM LFO Ganaratlon Rate (m*3/day)
LFO Cottoctfon Efflctoncy (%)
LFO Coflactton (MMBtuAyr)
GaMo-Etoetrtelty Plant
Haat Rat* (Btu/KWh)
Capacity (KW)
Capacity (MMBturyr)
AvallabffKy (%)
Enargy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
EXC*M Enwny (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
Enargy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Production (1000 kWWyr)
Energy Satoa Rate (VkWh)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Total Annual Revenue*
COSTS
Capital Coita
Down Payment
Debt Service
O&MCoita
Plant ($/WVh)
Plant ($/yr)
WaHftoM ($/yr)
Total Annual Corta
PROJECT SUMMARY
Oreaa Incoma (Pra-Tax)
Tax Paymanta
Nat Incvtna
Intamal Rate of Ratum
Nat PrasantValua (1896 S)
Dabt Covaraga Ratte
0
1996
($10.802.000)
($2,180.400)
($2.180.400)
($2.180.400)
$0
($2,180.400)
18%
$351.281
1
1997
276,184
397.041
276,164
75%
1.334,867
11,500
8.500
654,810
85%
556.589
778.279
556.589
48,399
$0.062
90%
$2.705.020
($1.136.144)
($0.019)
($901.873)
($267.015)
($2.304.632)
$400.188
($100,047)
$300,141
1.35
2
1998
265,315
350,411
265,315
75%
1,282,428
11,500
6,500
654,810
85%
556.589
725.839
556.589
48,399
$0.064
90%
$2.799.696
($1.136.144)
($0.019)
($933,232)
($276.361)
($2.345.736)
$453.959
($113.490)
$340.470
1.40
3
1999
254.904
309,205
254,904
75%
1,232,105
11,500
6,500
654.810
65%
556.589
675.516
556,589
48.399
$0.067
90%
$2.897.685
($1.136.144)
($0.020)
($865.695)
($286.033)
($2.388.072)
$509,613
($127.403)
$382.210
1.45
4
2000
244.932
272.877
244.932
75%
1,183.904
11.500
6.500
654,810
65%
556,589
827,316
558.589
48,399
$0.069
90%
$2.999.104
($1.136.144)
($0.021)
($999,701)
($296,044)
($2.431.890)
$567.215
($141,804)
$425,411
1.50
5
2001
235.288
240.622
235.288
75%
1.137,269
11,500
6.500
864,810
85%
960,589
580.700
558.589
48.399
$0.071
90%
$3.104.073
($1.138.144)
($0.021)
($1.034,691)
($306,406)
($2.477.241)
$626,632
($156,706)
$470.124
1.55
6
2002
226,082
212,548
212.548
75%
1.027.373
11,500
6.500
654,810
85%
556.589
470.784
556,569
48.399
$0.074
90%
$3.212.715
($1.138.144)
($0.022)
($1.070.905)
($317.130)
($2.524.179)
$888.536
($172.134)
$516.402
1.61
7
2003
217.205
187.562
187.562
75%
906,600
11,500
6.500
654.810
85%
556.569
350.012
556.589
48,399
$0.076
90%
$3.325.160
($1.136.144)
($0.023)
($1,108.387)
($328.230)
($2.572.760)
$752.400
($188.100)
$564,300
1.66
-------
EXHIBIT 44 (ContfniMd)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
6.6 MEGAWATT LANDFILL OAS-TO ENERGY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFG Generation Runs (m*3/dey)
Run 1 » k : 0.040
Run2-te 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m*3/day)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Gas-to-Eloctrlclty Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/KWh)
Capacity (KW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBhVyr)
Excess Enemy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Production (1000 KWh/yr)
Energy Sales Rate ($/VWh)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Total Annual Revenues
COSTS
Capital Costs
Down Payment
Debt Service
O*M Costs
Plant ($/WVh)
Plant ($/yr)
WemeM($/yr)
Total Annual Coats
8
2004
206,712
165,534
165.534
75%
600,126
11,500
6,500
654,810
85%
556.589
243.537
958,589
48.399
$0.079
90%
$3.441.541
($1,136,144)
($0.024)
($1.147.180)
($339.718)
($2,623.042)
9
2005
200.548
146.082
146.082
75%
708,103
11.500
6.500
654.810
85%
556.589
149.514
556.569
48,399
$0.082
90%
$3.561.995
($1,136.144)
($0.025)
($1.187.332)
($351.608)
($2.675.063)
10
2006
192.658
128.877
128.877
75%
622.940
11.500
6.500
654,810
85%
556,589
66.352
958,989
48.399
$0.085
90%
$3,666,665
($1.136.144)
($0.025)
($1,226.888)
($363,914)
($2.728.946)
11
2007
185,096
113,753
113.753
75%
549.637
11,500
6,500
654,810
85%
467.361
82.476
467.381
40.640
$0.068
90%
$3.204.001
($1.136.144)
($0.026)
($1,068,000)
($376,651)
($2.580.795)
12
2006
177.883
100,384
100,384
75%
485.216
11.500
6.500
654.610
65%
412.434
72.762
412,434
35.664
$0.091
90%
$2.926.406
($1.136.144)
($0.027)
($975,469)
($389.834)
($2.501.447)
13
2009
170.849
68,603
86,603
75%
428,272
11,500
6,500
054,610
85%
364,031
64.241
364.031
31.955
$0.094
90%
$2.673.369
($1,136.144)
($0.026)
($891,123)
($403.476)
($2.430.745)
14
2010
164.164
76.192
78.192
75%
377.949
11,500
6.500
654.810
85%
321.257
56,692
321,257
27.935
$0.097
90%
$2.441.817
($1.138.144)
($0.029)
($813,939)
($417,600)
($2,367.683)
15
2011
157.753
68.986
68.966
75%
333.451
11.500
6,500
654.810
85%
283.433
50.018
283,433
24.648
$0.101
90%
$2.229.729
($1,136.144)
($0.030)
(1743.243)
($432.216)
($2,311,603)
PROJECT SUMMARY
Gross Income (Pre-Tax)
Not Income
Internal Rate of Return
Nst Preterit Vilus (1996 $)
$818.499 $686.912 $957.718 $623,205 $424.960 $242.624 $74.134 ($81.674)
($204,625) ($221.728) ($239.430) ($155,801) ($106,240) ($60,656) ($18,534) $0
$613,874 $665.164 $718,289 $467,404 $318.720 $161.968 $55,601 ($81.874)
1.72
1.78
1.84
1.55
1.37
1.21
1.07
0.93
-------
4.4 SITE PROFILE #3: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SAO JOAO
The Sao Joao Landfill opened in 1992 and has an expected active life of approximately 20
years. An estimated 6.5 x 10° Mg of waste is buried at the site. Sao Joao is one of two
active landfills in the municipality. Like Vila Albertina, the primary part of the landfill is
carved out of a hillside, which enables future gas collection to draw the gas downhill with
a central location for condensate collection. This configuration simplifies the collection
system by minimizing the number of condensate traps and drains on the site. Static gas
monitoring data indicated consistently good methane quality with reasonable depths to
liquid levels (approximately eight meters), as shown below.
SUMMARY OF SAO JOAO MONITORING DATA
Location/Device
SAOJPZ14
SAOJPZ1 1
SAOJPZ15
SAOJPZ09
SAOJPZ08
SAOJPZ12
SAOJLEAC
Time
08:23
08:33
08:38
08:46
08:52
08:59
09:08
Date
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
LFG Composition (%)
CH4
62.6
61.7
60.9
60.0
54.8
8.4
60.9
C02
37.3
37.3
39.1
39.9
32.2
4.8
38.8
02
0.1
0.9
0.0
0.1
2.7
17.3
0.3
Balance
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
10.3
69.5
0.0
Static Pressure
(in. H20)
0.2
0.1
-0.6
-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
-0.3
Maximum hydrogen sulfide concentrations were 20 ppm.
LFG generation estimates are as follows:
Sao Joao LFG Generation (m3/day)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
k= 0.040
193,260
236,932
278,904
319,233
357,918
395,178
430,904
465,260
498,301
529,973
560,548
k=0.125
536,329
633,425
718,904
795.068
861,370
920,548
972,603
1,018.630
1,058,630
1 ,094,795
1,126.027
In summary, it is estimated that Sao Joao will generate approximately 148,000 m3/day
and is thus able to support an 8 MW LFGTE project.
4-23
-------
A large expansion is planned for the Sao Joao Landfill, which increases the opportunities
for a gas utilization project in that the "fuel supply" will be replenished as organic wastes
continue to be deposited. The present filling rate is approximately 6,000 metric tons of
waste per day. A natural gas pipeline runs adjacent to this site and provides a potential
opportunity for injection for processed LFG, although natural gas prices at this time would
make the economic feasibility of such a project questionable.
The site has electricity, but it is unknown whether nearby lines are single- or three-phase
supply (access to a three-phase grid is required for power production). However, the
presence of leachate pumping apparatus and other somewhat industrial activities at the
site suggests that three-phase supply is available or will be nearby.
Project Summary-Exhibit 4-7 presents the pro-forma analysis for a direct use project.
Exhibit 4-8 presents the analysis for a gas-to-electricity project.
A summary of each of the economic analysis indicators are shown below. These indicators
are estimates of LFG quantity, capital cost, project life, internal rate of return (IRR), and
net present value (NPV).
PROJECT SUMMARY FOR SAO JOAO LANDFILL
Analysis
Indicator
Project Size
Capital Costs
Project Life
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value
Gas to
Electricity
8.0 MW
$13.3 million
> 1 5 years
21 percent
$1,084,000
Direct Use as
Medium Btu Fuel
7,700 m'/hr
$7.4 million
> 1 5 years
30 percent
$1,707,000
For gas-to-electricity, the facility size for the Sao Joao landfill was reduced to account for
the uncertainty of receiving future waste quantities. Based on 675 m3/hr. of LFG
necessary to generate one MW, the facility should be sized at 11.4 MW. This estimate
was reduced to 8.0 MW to account for these uncertainties, while the estimate for a direct
use project was based on a gas flow of 7,700 ma/hr.
As shown, the Sao Joao Landfill is estimated to be economically viable for more than 15
years (or after 2011), regardless of the energy recovery method that is used. Since Sao
Joao will accept waste until 2012, LFG generation quantities will increase each year over
the active life of the facility. As a result of increasing gas quantities generated and the
facility sizing method, the project is undersized and does not accommodate the LFG that
will be generated in these future years. The LFG recovery system's under utilization of gas
quantities indicates a need tor resize the facility during the later years.
4-24
-------
EXHIBIT 4-7
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SAO JOAO LANDFILL
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
£
K>
in
Wl
PROJECT YEAR 0
CALENDAR YEAR 1 996
QUANTITIES
LFQ Generation Rum (m*3/day)
Run 1 • k : 0.040
Run 2 - te 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rale (m»3/day)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Plant
Capacity (m*3 LFO/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess Energy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Energy Sates (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Sales Rate ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual Revenues
COST$
Capital Costs (17,409.000)
Down Payment ($1 .481 ,800)
1
1997
193,260
536.329
193,260
75%
934,142
7,700
1,191,000
90%
840,728
93,414
840,728
80%
672.582
$2.33
$1.567.117
2
1998
236,932
633.425
236,932
75%
1.145.235
7.700
1,191,000
90%
1,071,900
73.335
1,071,900
80%
857,520
$2.41
$2.066.623
3
1999
278,904
718,904
278.904
75%
1,348.111
7.700
1,191,000
90%
1,071,900
276.211
1,071,900
80%
857,520
$2.49
$2.135.225
4
2000
319,233
795,068
319,233
75%
1,543,046
7.700
1.191,000
90%
1.071,900
471.146
1,071,900
80%
857,520
$2.58
$2.212.402
5
2001
357,918
861,370
357.918
75%
1,730,034
7,700
1,191,000
90%
1,071,900
658.134
1,071.900
80%
857,520
$2.67
$2.289.578
6
2002
395,178
920,548
395,178
75%
1.910,134
7.700
1,191,000
90%
1,071.900
838.234
1.071,900
80%
857,520
$2.78
$2.366.755
7
2003
430,904
972,603
430,904
75%
2,082,819
7.700
1,191,000
90%
1,071,900
1.010.919
1,071,900
80%
857,520
$2.86
$2.452,507
Debt Service
O&M Costs
LFO Collection System ($/yr)
Energy Facfflty ($/MMBtu)
Energy Facility ($/yr)
Total Annual Costs
PROJECT SUMMARY
Gross Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payinenta
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
($779,271) ($779,271) ($779.271) ($779.271) ($779.271) ($779.271) ($779.271)
($464.384) ($480,637) ($497.460) ($514.871) ($532,891) ($551,542) ($570,846)
($0.233) ($0.241) ($0.250) ($0.258) ($0.267) ($0.277) ($0.286)
($156.712) ($206,795) ($214,033) ($221,524) ($229,278) ($237,302) ($245.608)
($1.481.800) ($1.400.367) ($1.468.704) ($1.490.784) ($1.515.666) ($1.541.440) ($1.568.116) ($1.595.726)
($1,481,800) $166,750 $599,919 $644,461 $696.735 $748,138 $798,639 $856,781
$0 ($41.688) ($149.980) ($181.115) ($174.184) ($187,035) ($199,660) ($214.195)
($1,481,800) $125,063 $449,939 $483,345 $522,551 $561,104 $596,979 $642,586
30%
$1.708.571
1.21 1.77 1.83 1.89 1.96 2.02 2.10
-------
EXHIBIT 4-7 (Continued)
£
O)
MEDIUM • BTU DIRECT QAS USE PROJECT
DQfYlCf/^T VBA0
rnlMCw 1 TCMTf
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFG Generation Runs (m*3/oay)
Run1-k:0.040
Run2"lc 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m*3/day)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFG Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Plaint
Capacity (m*3LFG/nr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
AvallabHlty(%)
F^m^m^t f^m Jianflnn fTifa tMmt f* •*•***--«• — *
Excess Energy (MMBtu/vr)
REVENUES
Fnamu Pmriiirtlnn Pirf«Mi
-------
K>
EXHBTT44
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SAO JOAO LANDFILL
•.0 MEGAWATT LANDFUL GAS-TO ENERGY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFG Generation Runt (m*3/day)
Run1«k:0.040
Run2-te 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (m*3/day)
LFG Collection Efficiency (%)
LFG Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Gae-to-ElecWclty Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh)
Capacity (kW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
AvallaMKy (%)
Fnttnrj Pi«Mtirfh»i IMnntlal fMMRhiAirl
ExceM Enemy (MMBtufrr)
REVENUES
rimirm PI»M|IM^|MI ftd«Mi. -• I,,, _ _— ,_
Nei inconie
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996$)
Debt Coverage Ratio
0
1996
($13,295,000)
($2,659,000)
($2.659.000)
($2.659.000)
$0
($2.659.000)
21%
$1.083,740
1
1997
193,260
536,329
193,260
75%
934,142
11,500
8,000
805.920
85%
685,032
249.110
685,032
59,568
$0.062
90%
$3.329.256
($1.398.355)
($0.019)
($1.109,752)
($328,634)
($2.836.741)
$492,515
($123,129)
$369,386
1.35
2
1998
236,932
633,425
236,932
75%
1,145.235
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
460.203
685,032
59,568
$0.064
90%
$3.445.779
($1.398.355)
($0.019)
($1,148.593)
($340.136)
($2.887.084)
$558.695
($139,674)
$419.021
1.40
3
1999
278.904
718,904
278,904
75%
1.348,111
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
663.079
685,032
59,568
$0.067
90%
$3.566.382
($1,398.355)
($0.020)
($1,188,794)
($352,041)
($2.939.190)
$627.192
($156,798)
$470.394
1.45
4
2000
319,233
795,068
319,233
75%
1,543.048
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
858.014
685,032
59.588
$0.069
90%
$3.691.205
($1,398.355)
($0.021)
($1,230.402)
($364,362)
($2.993.119)
$698,086
($174,521)
$523,564
1.50
5
2001
357,918
861,370
357,918
75%
1,730,034
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.045.002
685,032
59,568
$0.071
90%
$3.820.397
($1,398.355)
($0.021)
($1,273.466)
($377,115)
($3.048.936)
$771,461
($192,865)
$578,596
1.55
6
2002
395.178
920,548
395,178
75%
1,910,134
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.225.102
685,032
59,568
$0.074
90%
$3.954.111
($1,398.355)
($0.022)
($1,318,037)
($390,314)
($3.108.706)
$847,405
($211.851)
$636,554
1.61
7
2003
430,904
972,603
430,904
75%
2,082,819
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.397.787
685,032
59,568
$0.076
90%
$4.092.505
($1,398.355)
($0.023)
($1,384,168)
($403,975)
($3.166.499)
$926,007
($231.502)
$694,505
1.66
-------
00
EXHIBIT 4-8 (Continued)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SAO JOAO LANDFILL
8.0 MEGAWATT LANDFILL OAS-TO ENERGY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Rune (m*3/day)
Run 1»k: 0.040
RunZ'fc 0.125
Modeled LFG Generation Rate (mWday)
LFG Collection Efficiency (*)
LFG Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Gaa-to-ElecMclty Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/KWh)
Capacity (KW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
rimum Onwfiicltot RJ^dlal (UURhiAirl
Exceee Enemy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
f — • .. n •• . nil •• **••*•*«--•.—»
Enemy Production (1000 KWh/yr)
Enemy SalM Rate ($/KWh)
Percent Production Sold (%)
Total Annual Revenues
COSTS
Capital Coett
Down Payment
Debt Service
OSMCoeta
Ptant ($/kWh)
Ptant (Vyr)
WeWteW ($/yr)
Total Annual Coeta
PROJECT SUMMARY
Groee Income (Pre-Tax)
Y«M n^K^BKAO^A
lax rvymeme
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Preeent Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
8
2004
465.260
1,018,630
465,260
75%
2,248,882
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.563.850
685,032
59,568
$0.079
90%
$4.235.743
($1.398.355)
($0.024)
($1,411.914)
($418.114)
($3.228.384)
$1,007,359
($251,840)
$755,519
1.72
9
2005
498,301
1,058,630
498.301
75%
2,408,590
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.723.558
685,032
59,568
$0.082
90%
$4.383.994
($1,398.355)
($0.025)
($1.481,331)
($432,748)
($3.292.435)
$1,091,559
($272,890)
$818,669
1.78
10
2006
529,973
1,094,795
529,973
75%
2,561,679
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
1.876.647
685,032
59.568
$0.065
90%
$4.537.434
($1.398.355)
($0.025)
($1,512,478)
($447,894)
($3.358.727)
$1,178,706
($294.877)
$884,030
1.64
11
2007
560,548
1,126,027
560,548
75%
2,709,467
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
2.024.435
685,032
59,568
$0.088
90%
$4.698.244
($1.398.355)
($0.028)
($1,565.415)
($463,571)
($3.427.340)
$1,268,903
($317.226)
$951,677
1.91
12
2008
589,589
1,153,973
589,589
75%
2,849,840
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
2.164.808
685,032
59,568
$0.091
90%
$4.860.612
($1.398.355)
($0.027)
($1,620,204)
($479,798)
($3.498.355)
$1,362,257
($340,564)
$1,021,693
1.97
13
2009
618,082
1.178,630
618,082
75%
2,987,563
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
2.302.531
685,032
59,568
$0.094
90%
$5.030.734
($1,398,355)
($0.028)
($1,876,911)
($498,589)
($3.571.855)
$1,458,879
($364,720)
$1,094,159
2.04
14
2010
644,932
1,200,000
644,932
75%
3,117,346
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685.032
2.432.314
685,032
59.568
$0.097
90%
$6.206.809
($1,398,355)
($0.029)
($1,735,603)
($513,969)
($3.647.927)
$1,558,882
($389,720)
$1,169,161
2.11
15
2011
670,685
1,219,178
670,685
75%
3,241.826
11,500
8,000
805,920
85%
685,032
2.556.794
685,032
59,568
$0.101
90%
$5.389.048
($1.398.355)
($0.030)
($1,798.349)
($531.958)
($3.726.662)
$1,662,385
($415,596)
$1,246,769
2.19
-------
More detailed and customized analysis of economic feasibility for this site is beyond the
scope of this assessment, however, it is intuitive to note that a modular approach to
project implementation (where generator capacity is brought on-line using a phased
approach) would significantly improve project economics. The phased approach should
provide as much system capacity as necessary to collect, process, and market the gas.
Also, the phased approach should minimize capital and operating costs.
4-29
-------
4.5 SITE PROFILE #4: EVALUATION RESULTS FOR BANDEIRANTES
Bandeirantes is an active landfill. The site was opened in 1979 and is scheduled to close
in 2001. An estimated 25.8 x 10* Mg of waste is in place at the site. SVMA reports
that, similar to Sao Joao, Bandeirantes receives approximately 6,000 metric tons of waste
per day. Gas quality, temperature, and liquid levels are comparable to the other sites.
Monitoring data are presented below.
SUMMARY OF BANDEIRANTES MONITORING DATA
Location/Device
BEND0001
BEND0001
BEND0107
BEND0209
BEND0203
BEND0203
BEND0309
BENDP403
BENDP302
BENDP302
Time
07:56
08:06
08:14
08:28
08:33
08:35
08:52
08:18
08:41
08:42
Date
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/12/96
06/12/96
06/12/96
LFG Composition (%)
CH4
15.0
59.2
53.5
64.7
24.6
39.7
60.2
59.9
26.3
59.5
C02
13.1
37.1
44.0
35.2
17.2
22.9
39.6
40.0
18.2
40.5
O2
12.6
2.4
2.5
0.1
12.1
8.2
0.2
0.1
11.4
0.0
Balance
59.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
46.1
29.2
0.0
0.0
44.1
0.0
Static Pressure
(in. H20)
-0.7
-1.3
-1.2
0.0
-0.5
-0.9
-0.6
-0.6
-0.5
-0.8
Hydrogen sulfide concentrations ranged from 21 to 30 ppm.
LFG generation estimates are as follows.
Bandeirantes LFG Generation (m3/day)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
k= 0.040
408,000
443,233
477,096
509,644
540,932
519,726
499,342
479,726
460,932
442,849
425,479
k=0.125
887,123
943,014
992,329
1,035,616
1 ,073,973
947,945
836,712
738,082
651,507
574,795
507,452
It is estimated that the site can generate 371,000 m3/day of gas and is capable of
supporting a 13.2 MW project.
4-30
-------
Again, the greatest asset of this site is that it is active and will continue to be active as
future areas of the landfill are filled, thereby maintaining a supply of gas-generating waste.
No potential medium BTU gas users were identified nearby, although a cement factory
and/or glassworks were reported to be in the vicinity. However, as with Vila Albertina,
opportunities for direct use of medium Btu LFG should be further explored.
The observations regarding access to a three-phase power grid made for Sao Joao (above)
also apply to the Bandeirantes site (i.e., three-phase supply is likely on-site or available
nearby).
Project Summary-Exhibit 4-9 presents the pro-forma analysis for a direct use project.
Exhibit 4-10 presents the analysis for a gas-to-electricity project.
A summary of each of the economic analysis indicators are shown below. Negative values
are indicated by parentheses. These indicators are estimates of LFG quantity, capital cost,
project life, internal rate of return (IRR), and net present value (NPV).
PROJECT SUMMARY FOR BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
Analysis
Indicator
Project Size
Capital Costs
Project Life
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value
Gas to
Electricity
13.2MW
$21.9 million
> 1 5 years
21 percent
$1,788,000
Direct Use as
Medium Btu Fuel
1 0,000 m3/hr
$9.6 million
> 1 5 years
35 percent
$2,507,000
For gas-to-electricity, the facility size for the Bandeirantes landfill was reduced to account
for the uncertainty of receiving future waste quantities. Based on 675 m3/hr. of LFG
necessary to generate one MW, the facility should be sized at 14.7 MW. This estimate
was reduced to 13.2 MW to account for these uncertainties, while the estimate for a
direct use project was based on a gas flow of 10,000 m3/hr.
As shown, the Bandeirantes Landfill is estimated to be economically viable for more than
15 years (or after 2011), regardless of the energy recovery method that is used.
Bandeirantes is scheduled to stop receiving waste in 2000. Like the Sao Joao Landfill, it is
likely that power generating equipment would have to be resized (e.g., phased approach)
to account for the quantity of gas being generated, as more waste is added to the facility's
biomass.
4-31
-------
EXHIBIT 44
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
t
N>
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Run* (m*3/day)
Run 1 - k : 0.040
Run2-te 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rat* (m*3/day)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
Plant
Capacity (m*3LFG/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess EtMrgy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
^•••n«i llMmAiii Jinn ffTitlaiJIal Altlflff lh.lt
energy Production Pwenuai (MMRUryr)
Percent Production 8oM (%)
Energy Sato* (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Sato* Rat* ($/MMBtu)
Total Annual R*v*nu**
COSTS
Capital Cott*
Down Payment
D*MS*rvlc*
(MM Cost*
LFO Collection System ($/yr)
Erwrgy Facility (VMMBtu)
Energy Facility ($/yr)
Total Annual Costs
PROJECT SUMMARY
Grots Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payments
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1908 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
0
1996
($9.622.000)
($1.924,400)
(11.924.400)
(11.924.400)
10
(11.924.400)
35%
$2,507.033
1
1997
406.000
887.123
408.000
75%
1,972,110
10,000
1.546.753
90%
1.392.078
580.032
It&t ATA
(JvZ.UfO
80%
1,113.662
$2.33
$2.594.833
($1,012,033)
($603,096)
($0.233)
($259,483)
($1.874.812)
$720.221
($180.055)
$540,168
1.71
2
1998
443.233
943.014
443.233
75%
2.142.413
10.000
1,546,753
90%
1,392,078
750.335
4 1O9 IYT*
1,9112,1/^0
80%
1,113.662
$2.41
$2.883.926
($1.012,033)
($624.204)
($0.241)
($268.565)
($1.904.802)
$779,124
($194.781)
$584,343
1.77
3
1999
477,096
992.329
477.096
75%
2,306.093
10,000
1.546.753
90%
1.392.078
914.015
1*M A7ft
«9ffZ|VrB
80%
1.113.662
$2.49
$2.773.019
($1.012,033)
($646,052)
($0.250)
($277,985)
($1.938.049)
$836,970
($209.243)
$627,728
1.83
4
2000
509.644
1.035.616
509.644
75%
2.463.417
10.000
1,546.753
90%
1,392,078
1.071.339
111V) f17A
tJoZtUrv
80%
1,113,662
$2.58
$2.873.249
($1,012,033)
($668.663)
($0.258)
($287.694)
($1.988.390)
$904,659
($226.215)
$678,644
1.89
5
2001
540.932
1,073.973
540.932
75%
2,614,651
10,000
1.546,753
90%
1,392,078
1,222.573
1HV) ftTA
,9w2tU(0
80%
1,113.662
$2.87
$2,973.476
($1.012.033)
($692.067)
($0.267)
($297,763)
($2.001,862)
$971,616
($242.904)
$728,712
1.98
6
2002
519.726
947,945
519.726
75%
2,512,150
10,000
1.546,753
90%
1,392.078
1.120.072
Iim ATA
1 092,0/0
80%
1,113,662
$2.76
$3,073,708
($1,012,033)
($716,289)
($0.277)
($308.185)
($2,036.508)
$1.037.202
($259,300)
$777.901
2.02
7
2003
499,342
836,712
499.342
75%
2.413,621
10.000
1.546.753
90%
1,392.076
1.021.543
1
-------
EXHIBIT 4-* (Continued)
CO
CO
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
MEDIUM - BTU DIRECT OAS USE PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
8
2004
9
2005
10
2006
11
2007
12
2008
13
2009
14
2010
15
2011
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Runt (m»3/day)
Run 1 « k: 0.040
Run2-te 0.125
Modeled LFO Generation Rite (m*3/day)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO CoHecUon (MMBtu/yr)
Plant
Capacity (m*3 LFQ/hr)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess Energy (MMBtu/yr)
479,726 460,932 442.849 425,479 406,822 392,767 377.370 362,575
738,082 651.507 574,795 507,452 447.781 395.178 348,767 307,781
479,726 460,932 442,849 425.479 408,822 392,767 348,767 307,781
75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
2,318,805 2,227.963 2,140,557 2,056,597 1,976,084 1.898,480 1,685,801 1,487,691
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
1,546,753 1,546,753 1,546,753 1,548,753 1,546,753 1.548,753 1,546,753 1,546,753
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
1,392,078 1,392,078 1,392,078 1.392,078 1,392,078 1,392.078 1,392,078 1,392,078
926.728 835.865 748.479 664.519 584.008 506.402 293.724 95.614
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr) 1,392,078 1,392,078 1,392,078 1,392,078 1,392,078 1.392,078 1,392,078 1,392,078
Percent Production SoM (*) 80%80%80%80%80%80%80%80%
Energy Sales (MMBtu/yr) 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662 1,113,662
Energy Sales Rate (VMMBtu) $2.96 $3.06 $3.17 $3.28 $3.39 $3.51 $3.63 $3.76
Total Annual Revenues $3.296.440 $3.407.807 $3.530.310 $3.652.812 $3.775.315 $3.906.955 $4.042.594 $4.187.370
COSTS
Capftal Costs
Down Payment
Debt Service
O*M Costs
LFO Collection System ($/yr)
Energy Facility ($/MMBtu)
Energy Faculty ($/yr)
Total Annual Costs
($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033) ($1,012,033)
($767,307) ($794.162) ($821,958) ($850,727) ($880,502) ($911,320) ($943,216) ($976,228)
($0.298) ($0.307) ($0.318) ($0.329) ($0.340) ($0.352) ($0.364) ($0.377)
($330,135) ($341,690) ($353,649) ($366,027) ($378.838) ($392,097) ($405,821) ($420,024)
($2.109.474) ($2.147.885) ($2.187.640) ($2.228.786) ($2.271.372) ($2.315.449) ($2.361.069) ($2.406.285)
PROJECT SUMMARY
Grow Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payments
Net Income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1996 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
$1,186,966 $1,259,922 $1,342,670 $1,424,026 $1,503,943 $1,593,505 $1,681,525 $1,779.085
($296,742) ($314,980) ($335,687) ($356,007) ($375,986) ($398,376) ($420,381) ($444,771)
$890,225 $944,941 $1,007,002 $1,068,020 $1,127,957 $1.195.129 $1,261,144 $1,334,314
2.17
2.24
2.33
2.41
2.49
2.57
2.66
2.76
-------
EXHIBIT 4-10
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
13.2 MEOAWATT LANDFU. OAS-TO-ENEROY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR 0
CALENDAR YEAR 1996
QUANTITIES
LFO Generation Rum (m*3/day)
Run 1-k: 0.040
Run 2 * Ic 0.12S
Modeled LFO Generation Rate (mWday)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LFO Collection (MMBtu/yr)
GM-to-EtoctrtcKyPtant
Heat Rate (BtuykWh)
Capacity (KW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
AvaHablllty(%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Exceaa Enemy (MMBtu/Vr)
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Production (1000 MMVyr)
Energy Satee Rate (S/KWh)
PMT*nt Production Sold <%l
Total Annual Revenuet
COSTS.
Capital Coats ($21,937.000)
Down Payment ($4,387.400)
Debt Service
O&MCoeto
Plant <$AWh)
Plant ($/yr)
WeKfMd($Vyr)
Total Annual Cotta ($4.387.400)
PROJECT SUMMARY
OroM Income (Pre-tax) ($4,387,400)
Tax Payment* $0
Net Income ($4,387,400)
Internal Rate of Return 21 %
Net Present Value (1996 $) $1.788,021
Debt Coverage Ratio
1
1997
408,000
887,123
408,000
75%
1,972,110
11,500
13,200
1,329,788
85%
1,130,303
841.808
1,130,303
98,287
$0.062
90%
$5.493.272
($2,307.312)
($0.019)
($1.831.091)
($542,246)
($4.680.649)
$812,623
($203,156)
$609,467
1.35
2
1998
443,233
943,014
443,233
75%
2,142,413
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1,012.110
1,130,303
98,287
$0.064
90%
$5.685.536
($2.307,312)
($0.019)
($1,895,179)
($561,225)
($4.763.716)
$921,820
($230.455)
$691,365
1.40
3
1999
477,096
992,329
477,096
75%
2,306,093
11.500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.175.790
1,130,303
96,287
$0.067
90%
$5.884.530
($2,307,312)
($0.020)
($1.961.510)
($580,868)
($4.849.690)
$1,034,840
($258.710)
$776,130
1.45
4
2000
509,644
1,035,616
509,644
75%
2,463,417
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.333.114
1,130,303
96,287
$0.069
90%
$6.090.488
($2.307,312)
($0.021)
($2.030.163)
($601,198)
($4.938.673)
$1,151,815
($287.954)
$863.862
1.50
5
2001
540,932
1,073,973
540,932
75%
2,614,651
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.484.348
1,130,303
98,287
$0.071
90%
$6.303.656
($2,307,312)
($0.021)
($2,101,219)
($622,240)
($5.030.771)
$1,272,885
($318,221)
$954,664
1.55
6
2002
519,726
947,945
519,726
75%
2.512,150
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.381.847
1,130,303
98,287
$0.074
90%
$6.524.283
($2.307.312)
($0.022)
($2,174,761)
($644,018)
($5.126.092)
$1,396,192
($349,548)
$1,046,644
1.81
7
2003
499,342
836,712
499.342
75%
2,413,621
11,500
13,200
1.329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.283.319
1,130.303
98,287
$0.076
90%
$6.752.633
($2,307.312)
($0.023)
($2,250,878)
($666,559)
($5.224,749)
$1,527,884
($381,971)
$1,145,913
1.66
-------
W
U1
EXHIBIT 4-10 (Continued)
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
13.2 MEGAWATT LANDFILL OAS-TO-ENEROY PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR
CALENDAR YEAR
QUANTITIES
LFO Genenrtlon Runs (m»3/day)
Run 1 • k : 0.040
Run 2 " te 0.129
Modeled LFO Generation Rate (m»3/dey)
LFO Collection Efficiency (%)
LTO Collection (MMBtu/Vr)
Oa^to-EtecWctty Plant
Heat Rate (Btu/KWh)
Capacity (kW)
Capacity (MMBtu/yr)
Availability (%)
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Excess Enemy (MMBtu/yr)
REVENUES
Energy Production Potential (MMBtu/yr)
Energy Production (1000 kWh/yr)
Energy Salea Rate ($/kvVh)
Percent Production SoM (%)
Total Annual Revenue*
COSTS
Capital Costa
Down Payment
Debt Service
04M Costs
Plant ($/KWh)
Plant ($/yr)
WeltneW(Vyr)
Total Annual Costs
PROJECT SUMMARY
Gross Income (Pre-Tax)
Tax Payn wnts
Net income
Internal Rate of Return
Net Present Value (1998 $)
Debt Coverage Ratio
8
2004
479,726
738.082
479.726
75%
2.318.805
11.500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1,188.503
1.130.303
98,287
$0.079
90%
$8.988,976
($2,307,312)
($0.024)
($2,329,659)
($689,889)
($5.326.859)
$1,692,116
($415,529)
$1,246,587
1.72
9
2005
460,932
651,507
460,932
75%
2,227,963
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.097.660
1,130,303
98,287
$0.082
90%
$7.233.590
($2.307.312)
($0.025)
($2,411,197)
($714,035)
($5.432.543)
$1,601,046
($450,262)
$1,350,785
1.78
10
2006
442,849
574,795
442,849
75%
2,140.557
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
1.010.254
1,130,303
98,287
$0.085
90%
$7.486.765
($2,307.312)
($0.025)
($2,495,586)
($739,026)
($5.541.926)
$1,944,839
($486.210)
$1,458,629
1.84
11
2007
425,479
507,452
425,479
75%
2,056.597
11,500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
926.294
1,130,303
98.287
$0.088
90%
$7.748.802
($2.307.312)
($0.026)
($2,582.934)
($764.892)
($5.655.138)
$2,093,664
($523,416)
$1,570,248
1.91
12
2008
408,822
447,781
408.822
75%
1,976,084
11.500
13,200
1,329,768
85%
1,130,303
845.781
1,130,303
98,287
$0.091
90%
$8.020.010
($2.307,312)
($0.027)
($2.673,337)
($791,663)
($5.772.312)
$2,247,698
($561,925)
$1,685,774
1.97
13
2009
392.767
395,178
392,767
75%
1,898,460
11,500
13,200
1.329,768
85%
1,130,303
768,177
1,130.303
98,287
$0.094
90%
$8.300.711
($2,307,312)
($0.028)
($2,766,904)
($819,371)
($5.893.587)
$2,407,124
($601.781)
$1,805,343
2.04
14
2010
377,370
348,767
348.767
75%
1,685,801
11,500
13.200
1.329,768
85%
1,130,303
555.499
1,130,303
98,287
$0.097
90%
$8.591.235
($2,307,312)
($0.029)
($2,863,745)
($848,049)
($6.019.106)
$2,572,129
($643,032)
$1,929,097
2.11
15
2011
362,575
307,781
307.781
75%
1.487.691
11,500
13,200
1.329,768
85%
1,130,303
357.389
1,130,303
98.287
$0.101
90%
$8.891.929
($2,307,312)
($0.030)
($2,963.976)
($877,731)
($8.149.019)
$2,742,909
($685,727)
$2,057,182
2.19
-------
4.6 SITE PROFILES #5 AND #6:
EVALUATION RESULTS FOR SAPPOPEMBA AND SAN MATEUS
LFG monitoring data and a summary of the site histories for these facilities are presented
in Appendix B. Less than five percent methane was detected from gas vents at both the
Sapopemba and San Mateus Landfills. Based on the apparent size and age of these
landfills (as reported by SVMA), they are not considered viable for LFG utilization. As a
result, detailed economic analysis was not performed.
4-36
-------
SECTION 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
This evaluation included a review of local financial and technical capabilities for sustaining
a LFGTE project and the quantitative evaluation of LFG generation estimates and potential
project economics. Conclusions and recommendations are presented below.
Analytical Limitations
The projected LFG generation rates and potential project sizes were intentionally made to
be conservative, as available data were limited to brief pump tests conducted at two
landfills and one round of static data from landfills. Specific limitations are enumerated
below:
1. The radius of influence test at Vila Albertina was limited to a single sub-
surface pressure measurement between two wells, due to the lack of
monitoring probe locations around the extraction well system.
2. The LFG extraction rate may not approximate the generation rate, as the
duration of the pump tests may not have been sufficient to remove excess
LFG stored in the landfill voids. However, the frequency of vent flares at
both Bandeirantes and Vila Albertina would reduce the likelihood of this
scenario by limiting the build up of excess LFG.
3. The LFG generation for Sao Joao was based on estimated waste receipts of
6,000 metric tons per day, 6 days per week (provided by LIMPURB). No
written fill history data were provided.
4. The capital cost, O&M, and financing cost estimates for a typical LFG-to-
energy recovery systems were based on US projects, not Brazilian prices.
5. Judgments and analysis in this report were based solely upon interviews
with and informal data summaries provided by others (see Section 2).
Therefore, key data, such as fill histories, leachate quantities, expansion
plans, and energy market conditions may not be accurate.
Potential Contributions By Host
To assist LFGTE projects in Brazil, some potential contributions of a administrative or
institutional nature are being considered, particularly at the State and municipal level.
Such contributions are:
5-1
-------
• The promulgation of further initiatives, regulations, and/or rules
favoring power or fuel producers using LFG as the source
energy. The new IPP regulation and CNG fuel use proposals
are examples of such initiatives.
• A streamlined permitting track for LFGTE projects by the
authorizing agency. For example, CETESB indicated a
willingness to relax pre-construction environmental assessment
requirements for the potential projects being assessed in this
report.
• Reduced royalty payments to the municipality for the gas
exploration rights. This approach could be contingent upon
other site management needs at a chosen site, such as
leachate volume reduction using waste heat, or enhanced final
cover, which could be provided by the chosen LFGTE vendor.
Potential Economic Benefits
A variety of utilization technologies could be applied to the landfills evaluated. The most
common technologies are electricity generation or direct use of LFG as medium-Btu fuel.
A third option is vehicle fuel production, as recently enacted and modified laws will require
municipal vehicles and city buses to operate on CNG. However, CNG production from LFG
has a limited history in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Potential Environmental Benefits
LFGTE projects at the four candidate landfills in Sao Paulo will produce significant local and
global environmental benefits. Using the most effective technology in each case, methane
emissions could be reduced by almost 4,000 mmfVyear. Similarly, annual VOC emissions
in the region would be reduced by almost 400 tons. Annual emissions reductions are
based on the facility operating at the design capacity. The following tables presents a
summary of these potential environmental benefits by site:
BENEFITS OF LANDFILL GAS-TO-ELECTRICITY PROJECTS
Benefits
Facility Sizing (MW)
CH4 Avoided (mmf3/yr)
Carbon Equivalent
(tons/year)
No. of Houses Powered
VOC Emissions Avoided
(tons/year)
Vila Albertina
4.1
539.0
0.07
3,525
53.8
Santo Amaro
6.5
854.6
0.10
5,588
85.2
Bandeirantes
13.2
1735.5
0.21
11,348
173.1
Sao Joao
8.0
1,051.8
0.13
6,878
104.9
5-2
-------
BENEFITS OF LANDFILL GAS DIRECT USE PROJECTS
Benefits
Facility Sizing (m'/hour)
CH, Avoided (mmf'Vvr)
Carbon Equivalent
(tons/year)
VOC Emissions Avoided
(tons/year)
Vila Albertina
2,800
389.8
0.05
38.9
Santo Amaro
4,400
612.5
0.07
61.1
Bandeirantes
10,000
1,392.1
0.17
138.8
Sao Joao
7,700
1,071.9
0.13
106.9
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations regarding utilization of LFG from landfills in Sao Paulo are presented
below, grouped according to the general topic area affected by each recommendation.
Legislative
One possible avenue to move LFG control to a higher priority at the Federal and State level
is to recognize the negative contribution that LFG emissions may be having on air quality in
the region. Coupled with the stated need to reduce air emissions from vehicles and
industry, the combined benefits of LFG control and LFG use as a clean-burning alternative
to fossil fuels could be an important element of an integrated regional air pollution control
planning effort.
Environmental
Perimeter LFG monitoring wells should be installed at all of the assessed sites to check for
subsurface migration, as this may pose a potential hazard to residents adjacent to the
landfills. Where applicable, a LFG collection system may be able to control such migration.
Economic
Given the economic findings (presented in Section 4) and the state of the Brazilian
electricity industry (i.e., energy regulations undergoing reform), direct gas use is the most
promising and should be investigated first at the Santo Amaro, Vila Albertina, Sao Joao,
and Bandeirantes landfills. The availability of energy markets should be investigated.
EletroPaulo's interest in purchasing LFG or electricity generated from the LFG at the Santo
Amaro site should be confirmed by the Municipality in order to demonstrate at least one
interested end user for the request for tenders.
With CETESB's focus on air and water pollution, it is possible that the Brazilian chemical
manufacturing industry may be entering a period of greater public scrutiny, regulation and
enforcement. As a result, some potential exists for recruiting energy users from this group
to a LFGTE project.
ABIQUIM indicated that they might be willing to participate/support a market study
examining potential direct end user sites in proximity to Sao Paulo landfills. While price
5-3
-------
would ultimately be a determining factor in taking a LFGTE project to the next phase, it is
possible that a large chemical manufacturer may assign a significant value to the public
relations benefits that could be gained from an alliance with a LFGTE project. To this end,
it is recommended that SVMA follow up with ABIQUIM to explore direct end users that
may be recruited to one of the projects from within the association's member companies.
Technical
Prioritize Project Development at Santo Amaro- The municipality may want to consider an
initial project at Santo Amaro due to the potential nearby end user and also because
construction and operation of the gas collection system would be simpler at this closed
site. This would provide a valuable demonstration of the technology, and the experience
could be transferred to the other sites.
Avoid LFGTE Development At Older Sites- Gas utilization from the smaller, older landfills
(Sapopemba, Jaqui, and San Mateus) is not likely to support a gas-to-energy project due to
limited remaining life (in terms of gas generation and recoverable quantities).
Revise Landfill Operational Practices- A number of current landfill operational practices are
potential barriers to LFG recovery, and can be overcome through the relatively simple
solutions shown below.
SUMMARY OF LANDFILL CONDITIONS AS POTENTIAL
BARRIERS TO LFG RECOVERY
POTENTIAL BARRIER
1.
2.
3.
4.
Gas vent construction
allows air infiltration.
Permeable cap material leads
to greater leachate and air
infiltration.
Interconnections of gas
vents with leachate drains
causing air infiltration.
High liquid levels interfering
with LFG collection.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Modify vent design to enable new vents to become extraction
wells in an active recovery system. Seal vents not used in active
collection and modify vents (excavate and install solid wall pipe
below grade) to be connected as extraction wells.
Place impermeable soil or flexible membrane liner (FML) on
completed sections of the landfill.
Install active well bore seals (FML) around future extraction points
to enable LFG collection without air infiltration.
Install flow control valves on extraction points to allow LFG
collection at a rate which minimizes air intrusion through leachate
drains.
Install horizontal LFG collectors in areas where liquid levels
preclude the use of vertical wells.
Regrade landfill surfaces to minimize ponding.
Pump leachate from critical extraction points.
Furthermore, landfill operators at the active landfills should be trained in working around an
active gas collection system.
5-4
-------
Adopt A Conservative Development Approach- The project size (i.e., the number of 1C
engine/generator sets, the size of a gas processing plant) should initially be undersized to
reduce the risk of insufficient gas flows. This last recommendation is an acknowledgment
that the gas generation estimates are based on data from limited tests and monitoring
results.
5-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
-------
• SCS ENGINEERS —
General view of Sao Joao Landfill showing sideslope membrane installation.
General view of Sao Joao Landfill showing storm water run-off features.
A-l
-------
• SCS ENGINEERS —
Active landfill face at base grade (Bandierantes).
Typical passive flare (Bandierantes)
A-2
-------
• SCS ENGINEERS —
Typical piezometer at Vila Albertina showing artesion
conditions due to landfill gas pressure.
Pump testing equipment installed at Vila Albertina.
A-3
-------
• SCS ENGINEERS —
Surface cover at Vila Albertina intrusion showing break down and soil erosion.
Excavation of completed cell showing one metre (approximately) of cover (Sao Joao).
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPILATION OF LANDFILL EVALUATION RESULTS
• Summary of site histories
• Summary of gas monitoring data
• Summary of observed hydrogen sulfide concentrations
-------
-------
EXHIBIT B-1
SUMMARY OF SITE HISTORIES FOR SELECTED SAO PAULO LANDFILLS
LANDFILL
Vila Albertina
Santo Amaro
Bandeirantes
Sao Joao
Sapopemba
Sao Mateus
Jacui
YEAR
OPEN
1977
1976
1979
1992
1979
1984
1980
YEAR
CLOSEDi
1993
1995
2001
2011
1986
1985
1988
WASTE IN
PLACE2 ( 10"
Mg)
9.25
15.29
25.83
6.55
2.73
1.05
2.49
LFG GENERATI-
ON3
(M3/DAY-1996)
178,521
287,397
371,288
147,781
—
—
—
PROJECT
SIZE4
(MW)
4.1
6.5
13.2
8.0
—
—
—
NOTES: 'Year of closure for Bandeirantes and Sdo Joao estimated based on proposed expansion plans. Santo
Amaro stopped receiving waste in 1993.
in place based on year of closure or projections through 1 996 for Bandeirantes and Sao Joao.
3LFG generation based on lower of two rates using two k values in EPA model.
I
"Project size is based on 50% of average LFG generation over 10-year period beginning in 1997
assuming 1 1 .27 nf/min of LFG needed for 1 MW.
B-1
-------
EXHIBIT B-2
SUMMARY OF GAS MONITORING DATA
Location/Device
Vila Albertlna
VILA0001
VILADG03
VILADG02
VILADG04
VILABLOW
VILABLOW
VILADG01
VILADG02
VILADG03
VILADG04
VILADG12
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG01
VILADG02
VILADG02
VILADG02
VILADG03
VILADG04
VILADG04
VILADG04
VILADG12
VILADG02
VILADG01
VILADG04
VILABLOW
VILADG22
VILADG13
VILADG15
VILADG15
Time
19:26
07:26
07:53
08:05
08:55
09:17
07:01
07:10
07:16
07:25
07:38
08:07
08:16
08:16
08:23
08:29
08:35
08:48
08:53
08:58
09:15
09:27
09:35
09:38
09:49
11:58
12:10
12:19
12:26
12:41
12:44
12:52
13:00
Date
06/03/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/04/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/10/96
LFG
CH4
0.0
60.3
65.2
60.1
58.9
43.2
61.1
60.9
60.7
58.6
60.5
61.1
61.7
61.7
43.8
48.8
56.5
58.0
51.4
45.3
25.7
57.0
40.3
48.6
20.9
57.7
58.4
59.8
55.0
60.0
58.1
57.2
59.1
Composition (%) Static Pressure
C02
0.1
39.6
34.7
39.9
40.2
30.1
38.9
39.1
39.3
41.3
39.5
38.8
38.3
38.3
30.0
32.9
37.5
39.7
36.7
32.1
18.6
40.2
30.7
35.5
16.0
41.3
41.6
40.2
39.9
40.0
41.9
40.4
40.8
02 Balance <'"• H20)
19.9
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.9
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
5.5
3.9
1.5
1.0
2.7
4.6
11.3
1.0
5.9
3.5
12.6
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
80.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.7
14.4
4.5
1.3
9.2
18.0
44.4
1.8
23.1
12.4
50.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.9
0.8
9.2
0.1
-38.4
-37.0
-0.3
12.4
-0.3
-0.2
0.2
-1.3
10.2
10.6
-8.6
-5.3
-2.7
-4.1
-6.2
-10.8
-2.4
-3.0
-7.0
-4.9
-3.4
-6.3
-4.8
-2.6
-35.6
-0.2
-0.9
-0.2
-0.3
B-2
-------
LFG Composition (%) Static Pressure
Location/Device
VILADG10
VILABLOW
Bandeirantes
BEND0001
BEND0001
BEND0107
BEND0209
BEN00203
BEND0203
BEND0309
BENDP403
BENDP302
BENDP302
Sao Joao
SAOJPZ14
SAOJPZ1 1
SAOJPZ1 5
SAOJPZ09
SAOJPZ08
SAOJPZ12
SAOJLEAC
Sapopemba
SAPOPEMB
Sao Mateus
SAOMATEU
Santo Amaro
SANTDG28
SANTPZ1 6
SANTP16A
SANTPZ1A
SANTPZ1B
Time
13:07
13:20
07:56
08:06
08:14
08:28
08:33
08:35
08:52
08:18
08:41
08:42
08:23
08:33
08:38
08:46
08:52
08:59
09:08
11:25
11:58
06:52
07:06
07:12
07:39
07:45
Date
06/10/96
06/10/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/06/96
06/12/96
06/12/96
06/1 2/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/11/96
06/13/96
06/13/96
06/13/96
06/1 3/96
06/13/96
CH4
62.4
56.9
15.0
59.2
53.5
64.7
24.6
39.7
60.2
59.9
26.3
59.5
62.6
61.7
60.9
60.0
54.8
8.4
60.9
4.7
0.7
50.0
2.2
64.0
59.9
64.3
C02
37.6
40.7
13.1
37.1
44.0
35.2
17.2
22.9
39.6
40.0
18.2
40.5
37.3
37.3
39.1
39.9
32.2
4.8
38.8
2.4
0.8
30.6
3.0
36.0
40.1
35.7
02 Balance
-------
EXHIBIT B-3
SUMMARY OF OBSERVED HYDROGEN SULFIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Landfill
Vila Albertina
Santo Amaro
Sao Joao
Bandeirantes
Minimum
(ppm)
18
1
ND
21
Maximum
(ppm)
39
29
20.00
30
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
SCS ENGINEERS
11260 Roger Bacon Drive 703471-6150
Reston, Virginia 22090 FAX 703471-6676
SHEET NO
CALCULATED BY.
CHECKED BY
SCALE
-OF_
.DATE.
DATE
Chicago Cincinnati KansasOty LasAngeies NewVbik Phoenbc
SanFrondsco Seattle Tampa Vancouver. B.C.
igton. D.C.
-------
SCS ENGINEERS
11260 Roger Bacon Drive
Reston, Virginia 22090
703471-6150
FAX 703471-6676
JOB
SHEET NO.
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
SCALE
. o
OF
DATE 7 . 2-4
DATE
Chicago Cindnnafl KansasOty Los Angeles NewVbrte Phoenix Richmond
Son Francisco Seattle Tampa Vancouver, B.C. Vlrglnto Beach Washington. D.C.
-------
IJOB Z^SSb-s*^
1 1260 Roger Bacon Drive 703471-6150
Reston. Virginia 22090 FAX 703471-6676
SHEET NO
CALCULATED BY.
CHECKED BY
SCALE
.OF
DATE "7.24
DATi
CNcago Cincinnati KantasOty LosAngeles NewYbric Phoenix Richmond
SanFrancisco Seattle Tampa Vancouver?£c ^^ «cnmona
-------
VILA ALBERTINA LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m~3/Mg
k: 0.040/yr (Run 1)
k:0.125/yr (Run 2)
Methane : 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Annual
Refuse
(Tons)
0
345,620
529,980
564,300
452,100
489.500
416,900
528,000
356,400
558,800
715,000
638,000
801,900
1,003,200
950,400
992,200
574,200
261,800
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In -Place
(Tons) (Mfl)
0
345,620
875,600
1,439,900
1,892,000
2,381,500
2,798,400
3,326,400
3,682,800
4,241,600
4,956,600
5,594,600
6,396.500
7,399,700
8,350,100
9,342,300
9,916,500
10,178,300
10.178.300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178.300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
10,178,300
0
314,200
796,000
1,309,000
1.720,000
2,165,000
2,544,000
3,024,000
3,348,000
3,856,000
4,506,000
5,086,000
5,815,000
6,727,000
7,591,000
8,493,000
9.015,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9.253,000
9,253,000
9.253,000
9.253,000
9,253.000
9,253,000
9,253,000
9.253,000
9,253,000
Run 1
(m~3/day)
0
8,603
21,458
34,652
44,553
54,959
63,233
73.863
79.836
90,630
104,877
116,603
132.000
151.836
169,534
187,562
194,521
193,370
185,808
178,521
171,507
164,767
158,301
152,110
146,137
140,438
134,904
129,644
124,548
119,671
114,959
110,466
106,137
101,973
Run 2
(m~3/day)
0
26,877
64,932
101,205
124,493
147,890
163,014
184,877
190,904
211,890
242,630
263,671
295,068
338,521
372,603
405,973
402,959
375,945
331,781
292,767
258,411
228,055
201,260
177,589
156,712
138,301
122,082
107,726
95,068
83,890
74,027
65,315
57,644
50,882
-------
VILA ALBERTINA LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91m
k: 0.040/yr
k: 0.125/yr
k3/Mg
(Run1)
(Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Annual
Refuse
Year (Tons)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In— Place
(Tons) (Mg)
10,178,300 9.253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10.178,300 9.253,000
10.178,300 9,253,000
10.178.300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10.178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10.178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253.000
10,178,300 9,253,000
10,178,300 9,253,000
Runt
(m~3/day)
97,973
94,137
90,466
86.904
83,507
80,219
77,041
74,027
71,123
68,329
65,699
63,123
60,603
58,247
55,945
53,770
51,660
49.633
47,688
45,819
44,022
42£96
40,636
39,041
37,512
36,044
34,630
33,271
31,967
30.712
29,507
28,351
274238
Run 2
(m~3/day)
44,904
39,627
34,970
30,860
27,233
24,033
21,211
18,718
16,521
14,575
12,866
11.353
10,016
8,844
7,803
6,888
6,077
5.363
4.733
4,176
3.686
3,253
2,871
2,533
2,236
1,973
1,741
1,536
1,356
1,197
1,056
932
822
-------
VILA ALBERTINA LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
YEAR
_^_ k: 0.040/yr _+_ k: 0.125/yr
-------
SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m~ 3 /Mg
k: 0.040/yr (Run 1)
k: 0.125/yr (Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Annual
Refuse
(Tons)
325.050
717,530
770.220
973,500
1,026,300
894,300
826.100
972,400
557,700
523.600
1,182,500
1,500,400
1,808.400
1,276,000
1.045.000
1,111,000
792,000
517,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In— Place
(Tons) (Mg)
325,050 295,500
1,042,580 947,800
1,812,800 1,648.000
2,786,300 2,533,000
3,812,600 3,466,000
4,706,900 4.279,000
5,533,000 5.030.000
6,505,400 5,914.000
7,063.100 6.421.000
7,586.700 6,897,000
8,769,200 7,972,000
10,269,600 9,336,000
12,078,000 10,980.000
13.354,000 12.140.000
14.399,000 13.090,000
15.510,000 14,100,000
16,302,000 14,820,000
16,819,000 15.290.000
16.819.000 15.290,000
16.819.000 15.290,000
16,819.000 15.290.000
16,819.000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819.000 15,290,000
16,819.000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290.000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15.290,000
16.819.000 15.290,000
16.819,000 15.290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
Runt
(m~3/day)
8,093
25,627
43.803
66,301
89,260
108,000
124,329
143.671
151.890
158,959
182,192
212,384
249,096
271,123
286,521
302,740
310,795
311,342
299,123
287,397
276,164
265,315
254,904
244,932
235,288
226,082
217,205
208,712
200,548
192,658
185,096
177,863
170,849
164,164
Run 2
(m~3/day)
25,282
78,137
128,877
189,425
247,014
287,507
317,973
356,274
357,808
356,438
406,575
475,507
560,548
593,973
605,479
620,274
609,315
577,534
509,808
449,918
397,041
350.411
309,205
272,877
240.822
212,548
187.562
165.534
146.082
128,877
113.753
100,384
88,603
78.192
-------
SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91m
k: 0.040/yr
k: 0.125/yr
•3/Mg
(Run1)
(Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Annual
Refuse
Year (Tons)
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In— Place
(Tons) (Mg)
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15.290.000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290.000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15.290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15.290.000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819.000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819.000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
16,819,000 15.290,000
16.819.000 15,290,000
16.819,000 15,290,000
Run 1
(m~3/day)
157,753
151,562
145.589
139,890
134,411
129,151
124,055
119,233
114,521
110,027
105,753
101,589
97,589
93,753
90,082
86,575
83,178
79,890
76,767
73,753
70,849
68,110
65,425
62,849
60,384
58,027
55,726
53,567
51,468
49,447
47,507
45,644
43,858
Run 2
(m~3/day)
68,986
60,877
53,732
47,419
41,847
36,932
32,592
28,762
25,381
22.400
19,770
17,447
15,397
13,584
11,989
10,581
9,337
8,241
7,271
6,416
5,666
4,998
4,411
3.893
3.435
3,031
2,675
2,361
2,083
1,839
1,622
1,432
1.264
-------
f
700
600
500
.a
*g P300
200
100
0
SANTO AMARO LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
YEAR
k:0.040/yr _^_ k: 0.125/yr
-------
SAO JOAO LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m~3/Mg
k: 0.040/yr (Run 1)
k: 0.125/yr (Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Annual
Refuse
(Tons)
2,059,200
2,059,200
2,059,200
2.059,200
•*t *^*^** f^i* ^r
2,059,200
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,068,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,068,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2,068,000
2,057,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In -Place
(Tons) (Mg)
2,059,200
4,118,400
6,177,600
8.236.800
Wf«BWf W IF
10,296.000
12,353,000
14,410,000
16,478,000
18,535,000
20,592,000
22,649,000
24,706,000
26,774,000
28,831,000
30,888,000
32,945,000
35,002,000
37,070,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127.000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39.127,000
39,127,000
39.127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
1,872,000
3,744,000
5,616,000
7,488,000
9,360,000
11.230,000
13,100.000
14.980,000
16,850,000
18,720,000
20,590.000
22.460.000
24.340,000
26.210,000
28,080,000
29,950,000
31,820,000
33,700,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35.570,000
35,570.000
35,570,000
35.570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570.000
35.570.000
35.570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
Runt
(m~3/day)
51.249
100,493 .
147,781
193.260
• WWffcW
236,932
278,904
319,233
357,918
395.178
430,904
465,260
498,301
529,973
560,548
589,589
618,082
644,932
670,685
695,890
668,493
642,192
616.986
592,877
569,863
547,342
525,863
505,260
485,425
466,411
448.110
430,521
413,644
397,425
381,863
Run 2
(m~3/day)
160,164
301,479
426,247
536329
V^«^VfWV*V
633,425
718,904
795,068
861,370
920,548
972,603
1,018,630
1,058,630
1,094,795
1,126,027
1,153,973
1,178,630
1,200,000
1,219,178
1,236,164
1,090,959
962,740
849,863
749,589
661,918
584,110
515,342
454,795
401,370
354,192
312,548
275,836
243,452
214,849
189,589
-------
SAO JOAO LANDRLL
LANDRLL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m •
k: 0.040/yr
k: 0.125/yr
'S/Mg
(Run1)
(Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameter*
Annual
Refuse
Year (Tons)
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In-Place
(Tons) (Mo)
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127.000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127.000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39.127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39.127.000
39.127.000
39.127,000
39.127.000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127,000
39,127.000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570.000
35,570.000
35,570,000
35.570,000
35,570,000
35.570,000
35,570,000
35,570.000
35,570,000
35,570.000
35.570.000
35,570.000
35.570.000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570.000
35,570,000
35.570.000
35.570.000
35.570.000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35,570,000
35.570,000
35,570.000
35,570,000
Runt
(m~3/day)
366,904
352,493
338,685
325,425
312.658
300,384
288,603
277,260
266,411
255,945
245,918
236,274
227,014
218,137
209,589
201,370
193,479
185,863
178,575
171,562
164,877
158,411
152,164
146,192
140,493
134,959
129.699
124,603
119,726
115,014
110,521
106,192
102,027
Run 2
-------
LFG (cubic meters/day)
Thousands
P
o
I
8
-------
BANDEJRANTES LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m~3/Mg
k: 0.040/yr (Run 1)
k: 0.125/yr (Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Annual
Refuse
(Tons)
0
0
0
48,466
296,384
299,530
405,900
417,120
421,300
529,100
1,036,200
1,317,800
1,661,000
1.266,100
1,562,000
1,632,400
1,954,700
1,144,000
2,068,000
2,057,000
2,057,000
2.057,000
2,057,000
2.068,000
2.057,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In— Place
(Tons) (Mg)
0 0
0 0
0 0
48,466 44,060
344,850 313,500
644,380 585,800
1,050,280 954,800
1,467,400 1,334,000
1,888,700 1,717,000
2,417,800 2.198,000
3,454,000 3,140,000
4,771,800 4.338,000
6,432,800 5,848,000
7,698.900 6,999,000
9,260.900 8.419,000
10,893,300 9.903.000
12,848,000 11,680,000
13,992,000 12,720,000
16,060.000 14.600.000
18,117,000 16,470.000
20,174,000 18,340,000
22,231,00020,210,000
24,288,000 22,080,000
26,356,000 23,960,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28.413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830.000
28,413.000 25.830.000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
Run1
(m~3/day)
0
0
0
1,206
8,537
15,655
25,145
34,526
43,660
55,123
78,795
108,438
145,589
171,342
203,507
236,164
275,507
293,315
333,096
371,288
408,000
443,233
477,096
509,644
540,932
519,726
499,342
479.726
460,932
442,849
425,479
408,822
392,767
377,370
Run 2
(m~S/day)
0
0
0
3,769
26,378
46,575
72,658
96,548
117,973
145,260
208,822
286,740
382,301
435,781
506,082
573,699
658,082
670,137
751,781
823,562
887,123
943,014
992,329
1,035,616
1,073,973
947,945
836.712
738,082
651,507
574,795
507,452
447,781
395,178
348,767
-------
BANDBRANTES LANDFILL
LANDRLL GAS GENERATION
Model Parameters
Lo: 124.91 m
k: 0.040/yr
k: 0.125/yr
>3/Mg
(Run1)
(Run 2)
Methane: 50 % volume
Carbon Dioxide: 50 % volume
Landfill Parameters
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
Annual
Refuse
(Tons)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LFG Generation Rate
Refuse In-Place
(Tons) (Mg)
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,00025,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830.000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413.000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413.000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25.830,000
28,413.000 25,830,000
28,413,000 25,830,000
Run1
(m~3/day)
362,575
348,384
334,685
321,589
308,986
296,877
285,205
274,027
263,288
252,986
243,068
233,534
224,384
215,562
207,123
199,014
191,178
183,671
176,493
169,589
162,904
156,548
150,411
144,493
138,849
133,370
128,164
123,123
118,301
113,644
109,205
104,932
100,822
Run 2
(m~3/day)
307,781
271,616
239,671
211,507
186,685
164,712
145,370
128,274
113,205
99,945
88,164
77,808
68,658
60,603
53,485
47,200
41,655
36,756
32,438
28,625
25,266
22,296
19,677
17,364
15.321
13,523
11,934
10,532
9,293
8,203
7,238
6,389
5,638
-------
1200
BANDEIRANTES LANDFILL
LANDFILL GAS GENERATION
1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
YEAR
_^k:0.040/yr _+_ k: 0.125/yr
-------
-------
-------
------- |