FEATURE HAZARDOUS AREAS & SAFETY HOW TO DEAL WITH INVISIBLE DANGERS


Tim Elsome, general manager for AD specialists FM BioEnergy, outlines the real cost of unidentified biogas leaks – and the inexpensive steps you can take to reduce the risks on your plant…


T


he UK’s anaerobic digestion (AD) industry has come a long way in a


short space of time, growing by 350% in a decade to 648 operational facilities1


. Yet


while many efficiency and health & safety advances have been made across the industry in recent years, there remains room for improvement. In particular, the issue of biogas leakage


is one which many AD operators are still failing to address; often because the problem is invisible. However, the dangers associated with it – from diminished profits to environmental pollution and health & safety risks – should not be underestimated. While most responsible plant operators


will be monitoring key parameters such as temperature, digester biology and biogas production on a regular basis, the vast majority are not checking for gas leaks, believing it’s an issue which doesn’t affect their plant. The evidence proves otherwise. Over the


last eight years, 85% of the 964 plants we have surveyed in the UK and Germany were suffering from biogas leakage. A quarter of these were deemed ‘significant’ (>1,000l CH4/h), causing serious financial losses and safety concerns; half had only minor leakages (< 100l CH4/h); while the rest were deemed ‘medium’ (< 1,000l CH4/h). In most cases, more than one leakage type was present. Translating this to the UK as a whole


could mean that 550 plants are currently at risk; with 137 in danger of a serious financial or safety breach. Furthermore, if all the plants were to leak an average of just 0.5% of their capacity, it could equate to a potential loss of 37 GWhe-e a year, resulting in 6,000 tonnes of methane escaping into the atmosphere annually. The implications of this volume of


methane being released are significant. According to the latest IPCC Assessment Report, methane is 34 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100- year period. For any industry to be emitting this volume of methane would be


10 DECEMBER 2019/JANUARY 2020 | PROCESS & CONTROL


financial impact. Any volume of biogas leaking into the atmosphere will subsequently reduce a plant’s gas yield; and therefore, the owner’s profit margin. In fact, losing just 1m3


of methane per


hour will result in a financial loss in the region of £5,000 per year. There is also the issue of sustainability


criteria to consider. In order to receive payments through either the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) or Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) schemes, AD operators must demonstrate that their plant is operating sustainably. Regulators have considered clamping down on this area, as some industry reports mention very high levels of fugitive emissions. Site operators can therefore use gas leakage surveys as a way to protect against potential loss of incentives and demonstrate to the authorities that their plant is well- managed, with leaks kept to a minimum. While an AD operator may believe that


a concern; but for a renewable sector, whose entire premise is based on being green, this is catastrophic. Aside from the considerable


environmental impact, biogas leaks bring other risks. In the worst-case scenario, biogas in combination with air can form an explosive gas mixture which, in a confined space near an ignition source, can result in explosion. While explosions are thankfully extremely rare, they bring a high risk of serious injuries and fatalities, something no plant owner ever wants to experience on their site. Biogas also contains hydrogen sulphide


(H2S), a toxic gas which has been the cause of a number of deaths in the UK agricultural industry in relation to slurry tank management. As H2S is heavier than air, it will fall to the ground. In confined, poorly-ventilated spaces it can accumulate and remain unnoticed until someone enters, and could result in a fatality. Gas leaks on AD plants also have a


The best times to conduct a detection survey are at the start of full operation; after significant maintenance work; if your feed-to-gas conversion is lower than expected (and the biology remains stable); and of course, if you can smell biogas. After all, the cost of detecting a potential leak is minimal but the implications of leaving it to chance could be massive


1Anaerobic Digestion and


Bioresources Association (ADBA), summer 2019


Identifying a biogas leak can prevent a serious incident from occurring


their plant is operating at a high standard, all anaerobic digesters have inherent weak points which make them susceptible to biogas leakage. Potential hotspots include: • Gas membrane connections; • Cable grommets (where a submersible


stirrer cable passes through the digester wall); • Flange connections; • Viewing windows; • Carbon filters; • Areas where maintenance is carried out The risks of gas leakage are clearly


significant and often expensive. However, identifying a leak is a simple and affordable process which can help prevent a serious incident from occurring. A gas leakage detection service should therefore form part of any responsible plant operator’s ongoing maintenance programme. For example, the FM BioEnergy service


covers a full AD plant survey with a methane-sensitive monitor and laser, as well as infra-red devices, including: • Survey of all tanks, CHP, biogas


upgrading equipment, roof membranes, pipes and flanges; • Analysis of emissions from CHP and double-membrane covers; • Report with images, videos and repair


priority table. While the majority of our audits to date


have uncovered minor leaks, 25% were found to have serious failings; fixing these not only prevents a more serious and costly incident from occurring, it often results in a 12-month payback on the price of the survey.


FM BioEnergy www.forfarmers.co.uk/fm-bioenergy





Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52