Resource Recovery and Conservation最新文献_第9页

Secondary materials in domestic refuse as energy sources 生活垃圾中的二次材料作为能源来源

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90025-8

引用次数: 1

Translations available 翻译可用

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90028-3

引用次数: 0

Meeting announcements 会议公告

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90029-5

引用次数: 0

Fuel gas production from animal residue part II. an economic assessment 从动物残渣中生产燃料气体。第二部分。经济评估

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90022-2

E. Ashare, R.L. Wentworth, D.L. Wise

{"title":"Fuel gas production from animal residue part II. an economic assessment","authors":"E. Ashare, R.L. Wentworth, D.L. Wise","doi":"10.1016/0304-3967(79)90022-2","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0304-3967(79)90022-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A mathematical model description of anaerobic digestion of animal residues was developed, taking into account material and energy balances, kinetics, and economics of the process. The model had the flexibility to be applicable to residues from any size or type of animal husbandry operation. A computer program was written for this model incorporating a procedure for process optimization, based on minimum unit gas cost, with the optimization variables being digester temperature, retention time, and influent volatile solids concentration. The computer program was used to determine the optimum baseline process conditions and economics for the fuel gas production via anaerobic digestion of residues from a 10,000 head environmental beef feedlot. This feedlot - at the conditions for minimum unit gas cost - was calculated to produce 8500 m<sup>3</sup> (300 MCF)/day of methane at a cost of $4.90/GJ or $0.183/m' ($5.17/MCF [CH<sub>4</sub>]), with a total capital requirement of $1,165,000, a total capital investment of $694,000, and an annual average net operating cost of $370,000. No credit for possible refeed of digester effluent was included but a cost of $2.78/Mg ($2.50/ton) for the raw manure was incorporated. The major contributions to this unit gas cost were due to labor (37%), raw manure (11%), power for gas compression (10%), and digester cost (13%). A sensitivity analysis of the unit gas cost to changes in the major contributions to unit gas cost was performed, and the results of this analysis indicated areas in the anaerobic digestion system design where reasonable improvements may be expected so as to produce gas at a more economically feasible cost. This sensitivity analysis included the effects on unit gas cost of feedlot size and type, digester type, digester operating conditions, and economic input data. For example, a 40,000 head environmental feedlot was computed to produce methane for $1.42/GJ or $0.050/m<sup>3</sup> ($1.50/MCF), using a continuously stirred tank reactor digester and taking a credit for the digester effluent as refeed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101078,"journal":{"name":"Resource Recovery and Conservation","volume":"3 4","pages":"Pages 359-386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1979-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0304-3967(79)90022-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83343916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Survey of sewage treatment and utilization for agricultural purposes in Israel 以色列农业污水处理和利用情况调查

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90023-4

A. Feinmesser, M. Wikinski

引用次数: 1

The economic and energy costs of dust handling in the cement industry 水泥行业粉尘处理的经济和能源成本

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90020-9

Nancy J. Sell, Fritz A. Fischbach

引用次数: 1

Materials flows in the post consumer waste stream of the EEC 材料在欧共体的消费后废物流中流动

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1979-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(79)90026-X

Donald L. Mihelich

引用次数: 0

World food resources: Actual and potential 世界粮食资源:实际与潜力

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1978-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(78)90013-6

K.L. Robinson

引用次数: 0

The economic impact of methane generation on dairy farms. A micro-analytic model 甲烷产生对奶牛场的经济影响。微观分析模型

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1978-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(78)90010-0

Stephen L. Feldman, John Breese

{"title":"The economic impact of methane generation on dairy farms. A micro-analytic model","authors":"Stephen L. Feldman, John Breese","doi":"10.1016/0304-3967(78)90010-0","DOIUrl":"10.1016/0304-3967(78)90010-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The object of this paper is to perform an analysis of the economic efficiency of methane generation on a typical 65-cow dairy farm, juxtaposed against prices and costs of auxiliary energy supplied by rural electrification. The most efficiently sized methane generation option examined is the use of methane to fuel a 30 kW generator with sales of surplus energy fed back to the utility. Whereas this option is still more expensive than present prices for electricity, this would not be the case under assumptions of escalations in relative fuel prices. On an individual farm basis, the economy is made better off by methane generation under this option by $195 per year, assuming electricity is priced at its marginal opportunity costs. The utility would incur $734 in revenue losses, but this figure represents the commensurate decrease in utility capacity and fuel. The merits of setting electricity tariffs equal to marginal costs are evidently part of the incentive for farmers to install this option. Given several scenarios of differently sized methane generators, the utility would promote the smallest facility for the farm, which in turn may be the least efficacious for the economy as a whole. This may conflict with national efficiency criteria so, therefore, regulation at the interface between the farmer and utility would have to be exercised.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101078,"journal":{"name":"Resource Recovery and Conservation","volume":"3 3","pages":"Pages 261-273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1978-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0304-3967(78)90010-0","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85383438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Consistent energy accounting in production of wood products and competing materials 在木制品和竞争材料生产中一致的能源核算

Resource Recovery and Conservation Pub Date : 1978-10-01 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3967(78)90009-4

Antoni Tenwolde, Robert N. Stone

引用次数: 1