Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Introduction
Appledore Island is located about six miles off the coast of Maine and New
Hampshire; the island is completely self-sufficient and is home to the Shoals Marine
Laboratory. Being self-sufficient, it produces its own power and freshwater and it
manages all of its wastewater.
To generate power, Shoals Marine Laboratory uses one of its three diesel
generators, arrays of solar panels, and a 7.5 kW Bergey Wind Turbine to provide
power in winter months when wind is more prevalent and the sun less intense. In
an effort to make the island more sustainable, the Alpha Team aims to move
Appledore Island away from diesel generators and towards cleaner sources of
energy.
Freshwater supply comes from a well that is twenty feet deep with a six-foot
diameter. The water from this well is treated by filtration and chlorination. If the
water level in this well gets too low, however, there will be mixing between this
fresh well and a saltwater watershed, making it unsuitable for consumption. To
prevent this during dry summers when the well is insufficient and cannot meet the
freshwater demand, a reverse osmosis unit desalinates salt water, a process that is
energy intensive. The Alpha Team aims to facilitate this process by producing the
requisite additional energy in a sustainable way, or determine a new process to
implement altogether.
Finally, the island treats wastewater through four septic systems, three leach
fields, four composting toilets, and a FRICKle filter that treats gray water. The
FRICKle filter contains foam media on which bacteria grow. These bacteria respire
3
anaerobically and purify the water. All systems are therefore quite sustainable, but
there is room for additional considerations as there are still inefficiencies with the
FRICKle Filter.
The mission of Shoals Laboratory is to provide education and research
programs that advance the 1) understanding of marine and coastal ecosystems and
2) development of sustainable solutions to environmental challenges (The Mission
of the Shoals Marine Laboratory). The Alpha Teams goal is to facilitate Shoals
Laboratorys second goal and help to continue the islands efforts of becoming
increasingly sustainable. This will be accomplished through the implementation of
sustainable designs to improve the islands energy systems by shifting away from
diesel, a freshwater supply independent of the existing well, and a better
wastewater treatment system.
Energy
While Appledore Island has made strides in its energy production via the
implementation of solar panel and a wind turbine, it still uses some diesel for fuel.
Several solar arrays are in place on top of dorms two and three, and a 7.5 kW wind
turbine was brought onto the island in 2007. Diesel fuel is still being used however
to supplement the energy provide via these sustainable methods. Based on the
average generator capacity utilization graph (Appendix A) it was determined that
the island uses diesel generators to obtain 652.5 kWh/day. At this rate the
Appledores greenhouse gas footprint is 163 kg CO2 / day. (Appendix A)
Technologies Considered
To provide the island with more sustainable sources of energy to meet the
demand of 652.5 kWh/day currently being met by diesel fuel engines, several
green energy systems were considered. Solar panels with storage were considered
to harness solar energy, a wind turbine with hydrogen storage, fuel cells, and
batteries were considered to harness wind energy. Hydroelectric, geothermal, and
biomass systems were also considered.
Wind with
Storage
Geothermal
Hydropower
Biomass (BFB)
5
Appledore, it is not reasonable to install another wind turbine. The annualized cost
of wind power was determined to be $13,030.17.
For a geothermal power plant, the Alpha Team recommends a flash steam
power plant because at 235C (Lecture Slides 2-25 Slide 5), the pressure of the
steam would be 100000 kPA (Appendix B Geothermal), and at this pressure steam
becomes a liquid. Flash steam must be 175-235 degrees, so the well needed to
extract this high temperature superheated liquid would be 2.5-3.5 km deep, making
geothermal an impractical endeavor. The cost of geothermal power was determined
to be $13,138.14 per year.
Hydroelectric Energy
Hydroelectric was another option explored, with an abundance of water
surrounding the island providing the requisite environment for this system.. All
calculations are available in Appendix B Hydroelectric. With the significantly low
annualized cost of $4,756.58 per year, hydroelectric was a very affordable choice for
Appledore. After calculation, however, is that it requires a massive area of 2,250,000
m2, or 617 acres. Considering the island spans only 95 acres, the proposal for such a
large basin is unreasonable. It would impede the marine activities that take place
around the island and seriously hinder research conducted by Shoals Laboratory.
Furthermore, the system would need to be located far enough from the island and
large enough (about 0.86 square miles) that it would not be worthwhile. The basin
would need to be 6 meters deep with a channel that is 30 m x 5 m, and would need
50 turbines each with a 0.108 m radius.
Solar Energy
The Alpha Team recommends solar energy with storage to as a possibility to
eliminate diesel use because solar power is already used on the island and
extending this infrastructure is very viable and simple. All calculations are available
in more detail in Appendix B - Solar. Also it is cost effective at $9,880.07 per year.
We recommend BP 3160 solar panels whose max power output is 160 W per panel,
this equates to 836.8 Wh produced per panel per day. Because Appledore only
averages 5.23 peak sun hours per day, additional energy must be stored (Lecture
Slides 2-9 Slide 19). Accounting for inefficiencies with the inverter and battery, solar
panels must collect 1028.26 kWh/day. This equates to 1229 panels that would cover
approximately 16668 ft2.
Because solar panels are most efficient when they are perpendicular to the
suns rays these panels should be placed at an angle. However, during the summer
months, the sun is higher in the sky, and thus the panels should have a tilt less than
45 degrees. It is recommended to place solar panels at the locations latitudinal
angle, + 15 degrees, and so for a summer bias we subtract 15 degrees and
recommend that these panels be placed at about a 28 degree angle (Lecture Slides
2-9 Slide 17). At this angle the panels would cover 14,722 square feet. The
advantages of solar energy remain the time of maximum energy usage; the summer
provides the maximum output. The other advantage remains that the infrastructure
already exists. The problem, however, is the large amount of space needed to
accommodate the panels. However, in comparison to other sources, area usage is
low, and cost is not severely high. Our recommendation is that these panels be
7
placed on top of buildings with appropriately slanted roofs before resorting to open
space on the north side of the island.
Biomass Energy
Biomass energy was the final option considered. Biomass energy very simply
utilizes different waste material for energy generation, with an efficiency of 90%
(What to Expect from Biomass Boiler Systems). There are many sources of fuel for
biomass systems, inclusive of wood pellets, wood chips, human and animal waste,
crop residue, and municipal solid waste (Types of Biomass Fuels). Furthermore,
there are two main types of biomass systems that the Alpha Team considered: the
combined cycle and the bubbling fluidized bed. In the first system, waste is burned
and the heat generated is used to boil water, which then turns into steam and turns
a turbine to produce electricity. The main fuel used is carbon based options, which
usually consists heavily of wood related waste and pellets. In the second system,
solid particles levitate above liquid moving at a low velocity, causing the particles to
act as a fluid. The bubble and fluid movement causes interactions with high heat
transfer, allowing for water to be boiled, which turns into steam and turns a turbine.
The main fuel used in this system is wood, plant remains, and solid waste. The Alpha
team recommends the utilization of the second system, simply because of the higher
number of feedstock options, and because the capital cost of a BFB is half as much as
a CC system ($4,114 vs $8,180) (Capital Cost for Electricity Plants). All calculations
are outlined in Appendix B Biomass. Because Biomass systems are generally used
for large scale energy production, it seems unfeasible for Appledore Island to
implement this system. If there was a larger energy need, biomass would be a viable
8
option. Furthermore, biomass systems require a large amount of space for the
boilers and fuel storage (Advantages and Disadvantages of Biomass). Currently,
biomass energy would have an annualized cost of $11,846.90, but this is not
considering the cost of resources. Biomass fuel is very expensive, and even with the
use of waste from the island, fuel would need to be imported.
Energy Conclusion
With the technologies looked into: solar power, hydropower, and biomass
considered, solar was determined to be the best solution. Hydropower is the
cheapest option, but it is very space intensive. Biomass is economically viable for
large energy production needs, but for the small scale of Appledore is not feasible as
biomass may need to be imported. Solar power was determined to be the best
option. It is relatively cheap, and reliable as sun input is reliable in summer months.
Additionally solar arrays are already in place in Appledore, so extending this
existing system makes most sense.
10
Technologies Considered
Because the well currently on the island is insufficient in dry years, other
freshwater sources are necessary. To meet the additional freshwater need options
considered included: digging another well, slow sand filter, rapid sand filter, and
solar distillation. Reverse Osmosis is currently in use on Appledore but uses a high
level of energy, making it necessary to consider other options. Solar distillation was
possibly the most environmentally friendly option as once it was built it would only
require upkeep to run and no further inputs. Comparatively, while the two types of
filtration would require upkeep and inputs to keep it running, they would still be
relatively minor complications for an operation this small. These two methods
would also take up very little space on the island and dont depend on
uncontrollable variables such as the sun.
Solar Distillation
11
cost of the system installation, sand, chlorine, and contact tank. The solar distillation
cost only includes the cost of system install, per nature of the technology. All
calculations are outlined in Appendix C.
With slow sand and rapid sand filtration systems already partially or
completely in place on Appledore, the Alpha Team believes it is in the best interest
of the island to continue working with sand filters. However, because solar
distillation is so cheap, the Alpha team performed an analysis on all 3 systems.
Solar Distillation
Solar distillation utilizes solar energy in order to evaporate and purify salt
water. Because this process utilizes salt water versus fresh water which the other
two require it would put much less of a strain on the island. The fresh water source
has steadily grown smaller which poses a potential problem. This method uses solar
heat to evaporate salt water. A black heat-absorbent surface is placed at the bottom
of the container to help capture heat inside the container more quickly. The
evaporated water then condenses on the cool plastic of the top part of the container.
During the condensation part of the process much of the heat energy is reabsorbed.
This evaporated water is now pure of salt and bacteria and will drip down the side
to a collection basin where it can now be used to drink safely. This process isnt very
time efficient and does require a comparatively large area to hold all of the housings.
The upside to this process though is that it doesnt require any further treatment to
the water and the solar distillation housings only require the water to work. It is
also environmentally friendly in this regard. The annualized cost of the system is
12
$617.51, which is outlined in Appendix C Solar Distillation. However, the size
required is 2592.5 m2, a very large section of space.
13
least 275 gal, and 3.5 kw/day to backwash. With these factors in mind the
annualized cost of a rapid sand filter would come out to $1,730.99. All calculations
are outlined in Appendix C Rapid Sand Filtration.
14
Wastewater Treatment
Technologies Considered
The islands wastewater systems at the time being are relatively sustainable,
however the FRICKle filter has been having issues due to its design, so the Alpha
Team proposes wastewater treatment options for effluent from primary settling.
Two general methods were considered: combined blackwater and greywater
treatment and separate blackwater and greywater treatment. In combined
treatment systems, septic tanks are proposed for primary treatment, where solids in
the wastewater will settle and be anaerobically digested, with remaining liquid
waste being passed to a secondary treatment system. These secondary treatment
systems include constructed wetlands, leach fields, rotating biological filters, and
trickle filters. This provides 4 options in combined treatment, with the septic tank
paired with each secondary option. For separated systems, a composting toilet
would be used to separate and collect blackwater, with the remaining greywater
being treated in a secondary system, either constructed wetlands or leach fields.
This provides 2 separated treatment options, with the composting toilets paired
with the two secondary options. The Alpha Team compared the annualized costs of
the 6 options presented, and proceeded to conduct a more thorough review of the
top 2 options. All calculations are outlined in Appendix D.
15
Septic +
Leach
Septic +
RBC
Septic +
Trickling
Compost + Compost +
CW
Leach
Septic Tank
Septic Tanks are necessary for primary treatment of wastewater. In the
septic tank, solids settle and are anaerobically digested. The purpose of the septic
tank is to collect the solids and remove large pieces of material such that the
secondary treatment option can consume the remaining waste and cleanse it such
that consumption or environmental discharge is acceptable. The Alpha team
calculates that the annualized cost of this system is $1,193.30, compared to the
other primary treatment option of composting toilets which cost $6,708.59, nearly 3
times as much as septic tanks. Comparing size, the septic tank was 2400 gal, while
22 composting toilets would be needed, or about 2200 liters (581 gal). All
16
calculations are outlined in Appendix D, under the septic tank and composting toilet
sections.
Constructed Wetlands
The constructed wetlands receive wastewater from a pipe connected to the
septic tank. Wastewater can either flow above the existing soil, or it can flow
through the soil, such as gravel, clay, or sand. The flow of the wastewater is
relatively even, flowing across the width of the wetland. The Constructed Wetland
contains microorganisms known as periphyton that break down the pollutant in
wastewater, and much of the waste and excess concentration of nutrients are
consumed by the many plants that exist in the wetland. The purpose of the
constructed wetland is to mimic natural wetlands, and thus it is necessary to place
plants into the system. As saltwater is used from the ocean, it is necessary to use
saltwater plants such as saltmeadow hay, salt grass, sea lavender, and salt marsh
aster. The cost of just the wetlands is $435.36, while the cost of the combined septic
tank and constructed wetlands system is $1628.66. The size of the wetland is
3208.33 ft3. All calculations are listed under Appendix D Combined System
Constructed Wetland.
Leach Field
Leach fields are a secondary treatment option for wastewater, cleaning the
water after it has gone through a primary treatment option. The system generally
contains a large number of perforated pipes that leach wastewater from them into
the soil such that the microorganisms can cleanse it, but animals in the ecosystem
wont be able to reach it. The leach fields contain bacteria in the soil that remove
17
dissolved organic material in the effluent. The annualized cost of the system is
$623.71, with a size of 4800 ft2. All calculations are listed under Appendix D
Combined System Leach Field.
Conclusion
After comparison of the constructed wetlands and leach field, the Alpha team
chose the constructed wetlands as the secondary treatment option for wastewater,
allowing for the entire system to be composed of a septic tank and a constructed
wetland. There were many considerations that led to this decision. As the
calculations show, the constructed wetlands is cheaper than the leach field by a cost
of $1628.66 to $1817.01, which is another good reason to use the constructed
wetlands over the leach field. The constructed wetlands also provides Appledores
inhabitants with an aesthetically pleasing piece of land and wildlife a habitat to live
in. Taking all of these considerations into account, it is clear why the septic tank and
constructed wetlands combination is better than the septic tank and leach field
system.
18
System Placement
Constructed
Wetlands
Slow Sand
Filtration
19
dormitories will provide fast access to drinking water for the population on the
island. Constructed Wetlands were placed very close to water in a marshy area,
necessary for water flow into the system. Placement also considered the location of
the restrooms, as it is necessary to treat the water in a timely manner without
allowing the harsh smell of the wastewater to reach the people of Appledore.
Conclusion
The most sustainable design for Appledore Island includes Solar Power for
Energy, Slow Sand Filter with Chlorination for Drinking Water, and Constructed
Wetlands with a Septic Tank for Wastewater. The Alpha Team finds solar power the
best option for energy because of its inexpensiveness and space efficiency.
Appledore currently uses solar power, making it viable to extend the infrastructure
onto more buildings or further onto the island. The next step is to increase the
production and application of the solar energy so Appledore no longer needs to use
Diesel Fuels. The Slow Sand Filter was chosen because it was the less expensive
compared to rapid sand. However, it does require a high usage of sand but it does
not backwash the water, which is important as energy demand does not increase.
Appledore must watch its water consumption as the slow sand filter cleans slowly,
and there will be less water available in comparison to other systems. As for
wastewater, Constructed Wetlands are the lease least expensive overall and
extendable. Because of their characteristics, it will provide a good habitat for
wildlife and blend in with the environment. The Constructed Wetlands are also
much smaller than the Leach fields, making it the best option for wastewater. The
20
Alpha Team finds these to be the most sustainable options for Appledore moving
forward.
WORKS CITED
About Celia Thaxter's Island Garden.. (n.d). Retrieved May 5, 2015, from
http://www.sml.cornell.edu/sml_publiced_aboutthegarden.html
Advantages and Disadvantages of Biomass. Eco Home Essentials, 2015. Web. 11
May 2015.
Bach, Alan, Michelle Bowen, Paroma Chakravarty, and Sean Snow. 2014 Sustainable
Engineering Report. Shoals Marine Laboratory, 2015.
Capital Cost for Electricity Plants. U.S. Energy Information Administration, April 12,
2013. Web. 11 May 2015.
Jones, Ben. What to Expect from Biomass Boiler Systems. The Green Home:
Construction and Lifestyle. Web. 11 May 2015.
The Mission of the Shoals Marine Laboratory. (n.d). Retrieved May 5, 2015, from
http://www.sml.cornell.edu/sml_welcome_mission.html
Types of Biomass Fuels. Types of Biomass Fuels. Hurst Boiler and Welding
Company, Inc., 2015. Web. 11 May 2015.
21
Appendix A
Appledore Island information
60
88%
50
74%
40
59%
30
44%
20
29%
10
15%
0%
10:15 AM
4:15 PM
10:15 PM
4:15 AM
Capacity Utilized
10:15 AM
The above graph (Lecture Notes 1-30 Slide 20) outlines the average generator
capacity utilization on Appledore over the course of 1 day. For a baseline, it is
assumed that the power used is 30 kW, and therefore the overall energy used per
day is 720 kWh. However, the Alpha Team aims to attain a more accurate measure
of energy used. Therefore, the graph was broken as follows:
30 kW * 12 hr + 26.25 kW * 3 hr + 21.25 kW * 6 hr = 652.5 kWh/day
Knowing the energy used per day, the amount of CO2 produced can be calculated.
652.5
1
3.6106
69.22 2
106
22
652.5
24
= 27.1875 kW
Because Appledore only functions for 3 months of the year, costs, energy usage, and
other factors relying on time must keep this in consideration.
365
1
Appendix B
Energy Systems
Solar Energy
The annualized costs were calculated as follows. First, the uniformed costs:
Capital Cost = $4183/kW, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 20 years
0.05
5.23
652.5
24
0.8
(18.77 )
652.5
24
0.80.75
= 1028.26 kWh
23
1028260
1
vfluid = =
2250000
150
Assuming the Alpha Team uses 50 turbines, each turbine will have a radius of :
24
Etotal = Ptotal*
652500 Wh = Ptotal *
Ptotal = 27,187.5 W
Ptotal = nturbines * pturbines
27,187.5 W = 50 turbine * pturbines
pturbines = 543.75 W
1
25
Geothermal Energy
The annualized costs were calculated as follows. First, the uniformed costs:
Capital Cost = $6243/kW, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 45 years
0.05
1000
1
1106
1
Appendix C
Drinking Water Treatment Systems
Chlorination
The annualized cost for chlorine were calculated.
Present cost * Chlorine (kg) = Annualized Cost
$10/kg * 3.747 kg = $37.47
Sizing for the contact tank was completed as follows:
Residual Chlorine = 1.2 mg/L
Concentration of E.Coli = 0.034 0.05 mg min/L
Concentration of Girardia = 47 150 mg min/L
Concentration = 150 mg/L = ConcC2 * time = ConcC2 * V/Q
150 = 1.2 *
2.2
26
Slow Sand Filtration
The annualized costs were calculated. First, the annualized costs for the system:
Capital Cost = $100/m2, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 15 years
0.05
27
Assuming V = 0.05 gpm/ft2 as average loading rate such peak loading rate does not
exceed 0.1 gpm/ft2
A==
0.05 2
1.168
28,316.85 3
1 3
28
Capital Cost = $4183/kW*70 GPD*0.05 kW/GPD = $14,640.5
Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 20 years
0.05
($14640.5)[1(1+0.05)20 ]= $1174.79
Uniformized Cost + O&M Cost = Annualized Cost
$1174.79 + $0.00 = $1174.79
Then the annualized cost for the contact tank:
Capital Cost = $1/gal, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 20 years
0.05
A==
0.05 2
1.168
Solar Distillation
29
The annualized costs were calculated. First, the annualized costs for the system:
Capital Cost = $0.35/m2, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 10 years
0.05
1.168
1440
2.3
3.7854
= 6366.74 L/day
E = 0.3
G=
A=
5.23
3600
2.3
6366.74
0.318.828/
18828
2
= 2592.5 m2
Appendix D
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Septic Tank
The annualized cost of the septic tank was determined as follows:
Capital Cost = $3.60/gal, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 20 years
0.05
30
V=
2400
= 2400 gallons
Composting Toilet
The annualized cost of the composting toilet was determined as follows:
Capital Cost = $3000/unit, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 15 years
0.05
31
$185.36 + $250 = $435.36
The cost of the entire system is:
$435.36 + $1193.30 = $1628.66
Sizing for the wetlands were as follows:
Hydraulic Retention Time = 10 days
Flow rate from septic tank is 2400 gal
0.13368 3
= 3208.33 3
0.13368 3
= 2180 3
32
Combined System Leach Field
The annualized cost of the combined leach field was determined as follows:
Capital Cost = $0.70/ft2, Discount Rate = 0.05, Lifetime = 15 years
0.05
2400
= 4800 2
33
Treatment Area = 2.00 ft2/gal/day
Using Greywater Flow Rate of 1677 gal/day
2.00 2
1677
= 3554 2
* 0.5 = 220.5
30
= 190.5
34
3.8 * 0.6
1000 2
1
= 7360 media
= 0.25 ratio
= 3.532
= 7.078 ft
35
The sizing for the trickling filter is as follows:
2400 gal/day = 9.085 m3/day
9.085