Sludge incineration vs anaerobic digestion − the simple truth
Professor Simon Judd has over 30 years’ post-doctorate experience in all aspects of water and wastewater treatment technology, both in academic and industrial R&D. He has (co-)authored six book titles and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in water and wastewater treatment.
In his capacity as director of Judd Water & Wastewater Consultants, Simon is co-owner of SludgeProcessing.com, as well as of our sister website The MBR Site. He is Professor in Membrane Technology at the Cranfield Water Science Institute at Cranfield University in the UK where he has been a staff member since 1992. Simon was also a Research Chair at Qatar University in the Middle East for six years until September 2018.
There remain, it seems, two enduring conceptions concerning sludge or biomass incineration which go like this:
- incineration is less sustainable than anaerobic digestion (AD) or non-oxidative thermal methods (such as pyrolysis, gasification or hydrothermal processes) because they generate CO2 instead of methane as the main product
- it's also more highly polluting than the alternatives.
Let's start with the first of these, and compare incineration with AD. Both are established technologies. The recovery of biogas from AD dates back to the end of the 20th century: biogas from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge was being used to power the street lamps of Exeter in the UK as long ago as the 1890s.
The first sludge incinerator plant was a Nichols-Herreshoff incinerator installed at Dearborn, Michigan in 1935. This was actually an excellent example of technology transfer. The Herreshoff multiple hearth furnace (the patent for which was perspicaciously acquired by Nichols Engineering) was first employed in the chemical industry in the 1880s − around the same time as the gas lamps of Exeter were being hooked up with a biogas supply. Also within this time period, the technology was being implemented for mineral ore roasting in the mining industry. But it took a little longer for the same technology to be applied to combusting sewage sludge.
So, AD and incineration have co-existed as sludge processing technologies for 85 years. Both are growing in terms of implementation. So, is incineration really the bad boy of sludge processing?
The answer, of course, is no.
Sure, AD produces lovely, natural biogas, whose principal constituent is methane, instead of nasty, ozone layer-destroying CO2. The methane can therefore be reused.
The fact is, though, the methane has to be effectively captured and prevented from being released to the atmosphere because it is roughly 20 times more greenhouse gas active − i.e. more deadly to the ozone layer − than CO2. Once captured the methane is, more often than not, fed directly into combined heat and power (CHP) engines on site which convert the methane into heat and power (the clue's in the name). And in doing so they also generate − yep, you guessed it − CO2.
An incinerator burns the sludge directly, without it being converted to methane (which, in effect, is merely an intermediate) and converts it to useful energy in the form of heat. Part of that heat is used to power the incinerator in the same way that part of the heat from the CHP engine downstream of the AD is used to heat the AD. The key advantage of the AD is that it can be fed with thickened sludge − which has a moisture content of >90% − whereas an incinerator has to be fed with dried sludge: it becomes autothermal only at moisture contents below ~30%.
So, ultimately, the sustainability box is ticked for both these technologies − so long as the starting material is from a sustainable source. And the one thing this world is unlikely to run out of anytime soon is sewage sludge.
But what about the pollution argument? To delve into this particular perception one needs to consider the history of incineration technology development.
The Herreshoff MHF design for sewage sludge incineration ruled over all others for three decades from the mid 1930s. Well, actually, there were no others, since the classical MHF design was, and continues to be, very efficient in terms of sludge processed per unit land area. It is also energetically efficient in terms of converting the sludge to an ash product.
However, because the MHF operates at a relatively low temperature, it generates harmful gaseous byproducts. These can only be reduced by increasing the exhaust temperatures, demanding more energy.
Against this, the fluidised bed incinerator (FBI) has a high afterburner temperature and also provides greater combustion efficiency, with reference to the oxygen demand, than the MHF. Which is partly why a Dorr-Oliver FBI was implemented at Lynnwood, WA in 1962. This is another good example of technology transfer from the mineral mining industry. The application of the FBI configuration to the coal industry dates back to 1920s Germany, where Fritz Winkler (at BASF) and Lurgi were both working on the gasification of lignite.
The challenge to the MHF design by the FBI technology is also a classic example of the industry response to legislative drivers. Environmental legislation in the US introduced from 1963 onwards (the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) meant that the existing MHFs could not meet the required flue gas discharge quality standard without modification, which increased both the capital and operating costs. Consequently, 93 FBI units were installed between 1962 and 1976, and the trend has continued to this day. Crucially, modern sludge incinerators based on the FBI technology can meet the tight atmospheric discharge limits while still being energy neutral or better.
So, arguing that incineration is more highly polluting than AD is, at the very least, debatable and ultimately likely to be untrue if considering the most modern technologies. Both effectively recover the latent energy from the sludge, both produce a solid residue (from which nutrients can be recovered) and neither rely heavily on a fossil fuel energy source.
And both ultimately generate CO2. Some things never change.
Simon, what about use pyrolisis to transform sludge in a biochar and capture CO2? Also is recovered a fraction of the latent energy of the sludge, and the nutrients, but CO2 can be captured and stored. I am interested to know deep about this way
Certainly an option. I don’t know how practical it is. Obviously. the sludge has to be dried first and the biochar usable. There has been an article on biochar posted on the web site, so there may be more information there.
All thermal processes are unsustainable. We must see the whole.
Renewable organic material, ie. Everything that originates in plants, animals and microorganisms contains at least 16 chemical elements that should be returned to cultivated soils to prevent further soil degradation.
Talking only about the element carbon is a dangerous simplification. There is a difference between life and death when organically bound carbon with a thermal process becomes biochar. What are the other elements essential to life?
Do you have any info on the use of smokestack scrubbers in modifying the CO2/other gasses/solids release percentages? Because I have a concept idea (Link) for wet mesh filter capture systems that capture gasses/liquids/solids for smokestacks. They can also be used as stand-alone systems for air handling (Intake/Exhaust) systems for buildings, tunnels, highways, and railways. Link (safe MSN SWAY) :
Sorry, we only deal with sludge processing. I’ve really no clue about offgas treatment.
One correction. CO2 and methane are not ozone destroyers but greenhouse gases. It doesn't fit to valuable publication.
Yes, my bad.
Hi Simon, thanks for your insight on AD vs incineration! Always good to keep on learning :-). And what is your position about the ability of AD to recover organic matter (or at least allow it) vs no OM recovery through incineration? As you know there are many countries worldwide where the soils could use a lot more OM...
"Horses for courses", Maria. If AD sludge could always be spread to land, then that's almost certainly the best option: more than half of it is disposed by this route in the US. However, if the toxic metal content is too high, then this disposal route isn't an option (well, not legally in any event).
Great facts which are noteworthy..
Great contribuiriam. Just some observations:
Incineration and sludge disposal are greatly impacted by the amount of water in the processed material, which affects the thermal balance of one and the cost of transport for the other. This is one of the keys to analysis.
Another point is the recovery of nutrients, which can bring value to this process. In the future, I think this will be more important than energy.
All good points, Joelcio.