Apollo Solar, Electric Models Pump Through Iowa Winter

A solar-powered top-head drive pump in a grassy area under a blue sky with scattered clouds. The setup includes a solar panel mounted on a metal frame and connected via hoses and pipes to the pump system anchored in the ground.
Solar pump captured 20% more methane.

More methane, lower risks

Abstract

As the number of landfill gas-collection systems has grown, suboptimal methane production is a significant financial issue for many operators under contract to provide gas. Unrelated but noteworthy is the threat posed to nearby groundwater from fugitive leachate and subsurface gas migration. A third issue is the cost of providing electrical and/or pneumatic power to new or closed landfill cells, particularly at remote sites.

The Cedar Rapids/Linn County Solid Waste Agency (Agency), which serves Iowa’s second largest county, determined in 2011 that leachate was negatively impacting gas production. As an ameliorant, contracted engineers suggested reducing liquid levels in gas-collection wells using low-flow pumps and testing the viability of employing solar-powered pumping for efficiency and cost savings. The firm conducted a four-month test at a 30-acre cell at roughly 42º North latitude during the winter of 2011-2012.

The test compared pumping results from three power sources: 1) direct electrical power, 2) solar power with batteries and 3) solar power alone. Pressure transducers were installed to record levels every 15 minutes in each of three low-flow gas-collection wells, all exceeding depths of 50 feet. Methane and oxygen percentages were measured prior to and during operation.

The test showed that the low-flow pumps reduced average 24-hour liquid levels to satisfactorily address the migration issues, and the levels were consistently maintained by all power options, including solar-only.

Concomitantly, the lower liquid levels attained by all three options exposed an additional 15-18 feet of screen in each well, which resulted in an increased gas flows of at least 15% in all wells. The solar-only system demonstrated consistent recharge rates with a simple, low-maintenance linear-rod drive-motor design, at lower costs to purchase and operate.

Methods

The engineers initiated the test during December 2011. Linear-rod reciprocating-piston drive motors were identical, but each utilized a different power source: Direct electric power converting 220-volt AC to 24-volt DC in well GW-01, direct power from 12-volt DC batteries charged through a mounted solar panel in GW-02, and power from a solar panel alone in GW-05.

The pumping flow rates were a maximum of 2.25 gallons (8.5 liters) per minute. Pump intakes were set 1 to 3 feet above well bottom to avoid accumulated silt or debris. GW-02 began operating on Dec. 13, 2011, followed by the other two wells on Dec. 21.

Liquid levels were measured periodically through March 2012, and pressure transducers were installed March 6. The transducers recorded liquid elevations every 15 minutes. Percentages of methane and oxygen were measured periodically before and during pump operations.

Results

Average 24-hour groundwater levels were satisfactorily reduced and consistently maintained at pump intake by all three power options, including the solar-only system. Depending upon the well, between 15.6 and 18.4 feet of additional screen was exposed -- between 75% and 93.6% -- equating to methane-flow increases of at least 15% at GW-01 and GW-02 and approximately 20% at GW-05.

Solar-only power at GW-05 produced minor fluctuating liquid levels corresponding with the on/off cycle during daylight/nighttime hours. Approximately 3 to 4 feet of liquid accumulated while the pump was not running. The pump switched on during daylight hours, removing the liquid and maintaining liquid level at intake. The degree of daily fluctuation in GW-05 was relatively minor compared with length of additional screen exposed (17.0 feet).