Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Design of an organic waste power plant coupling anaerobic digestion and

solid oxide fuel cell technologies
⁎
Addison J. Rayner , Johnathan Briggs1, Reed Tremback2, Ryan M.C. Clemmer
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G2W1

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The preliminary design of an organic waste power plant utilizing both anaerobic digestion and solid oxide fuel
Waste management cell (SOFC) technologies is presented along with a review of these technologies. Food waste and sewage sludge
Organic waste from a mid-sized Canadian municipality were modeled as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. The biogas quality
Anaerobic digestion and quantity produced from the digestion process were determined by modeling the municipal waste’s chemical
Biogas
composition and chemical oxygen demand (COD) content. Overall, between 480 kW and 1410 kW of electrical
Solid oxide fuel cell
power can be produced from the SOFC system fueled by the biogas. The compatibility of these two technologies
is evident and the major challenges and benefits associated with implementing this concept are discussed. This
work demonstrates that an organic waste power plant is a sustainable solution to waste management and power
production.

1. Introduction
Energy production and waste management are growing issues in
modern society [1,2]. Traditional energy production relies heavily on
non-renewable resources which are damaging to the environment
while the majority of waste management practices do not use the
potential energy stored in organic wastes. It is therefore desirable to
develop a sewage and municipal waste disposal process that can cleanly
harness the energy contained in organic wastes. Coupling existing
anaerobic digestion technology with solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) is a
unique approach to solving these problems. By creating an organic
waste fueled power plant using these two technologies, electricity, heat,
and compost can be produced from organic wastes while reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases and avoiding the release of harmful
pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxides, and sulphur oxides.
Organic wastes can create a number of environmental and health
hazards when contained in landfill. Leachate from organic materials
can cause problems such as ground water contamination while landfill
gasses created by organics decomposing contribute to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. In the literature [3,4], diversion of organic materials
from landfill sites is commonly proposed as a solution to these health
and environmental impacts. However, in 2012, over 65% of municipal
solid wastes in Canada and the United States were disposed of in a
landfill [5,6]. Diverting organic wastes from landfill sites will extend
landfill life and decrease health and environmental impact through
reduction of harmful leachate and emissions [3,4].
A number of cities, such as Guelph, Ontario, Canada, have adopted
source separation methods for diverting organic wastes from landfill
[3]. However, many of these municipalities do not take full advantage
of the biogas production that could be achieved through anaerobic
digestion of organic waste material. This is especially true of municipal
waste water treatment plants (WWTPs). In the United States, less than
10% of municipal WWTPs produce biogas for beneficial use, yet 6.5
million tonnes of energy dense sewage sludge are generated by the
country annually [7,8]. There are currently very few options for
disposal of sewage sludge and those methods are both costly and
strictly regulated due to the potential for contamination and pollution
[9]. One alternative method for disposal would be to use anaerobic
digestion, which converts the municipal waste to biogas. This disposal
method has the added benefit of destroying pathogens contained in the
waste material, leaving nutrient rich compost which can be safely used
as fertilizer.
Biogas produced through an anaerobic digestion process is primar-
ily methane. This hydrocarbon fuel, alongside coal and oil, is often
combusted to produce electricity or flared [10]. In 2008, the electrical
power generation sector was the largest GHG contributor in Canada,
producing 16% of all Canadian GHG emissions [11]. In the United
States, the electrical power requirements of waste water treatment

⁎
Correspondence to: Dalhousie University, 1360 Barrington Street, Box 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H4R2.
E-mail address: Addison.rayner@dal.ca (A.J. Rayner).
1
Present affiliation: Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
2
Present address: Engineering Services Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.084
Received 31 March 2016; Received in revised form 7 December 2016; Accepted 12 December 2016
1364-0321/ Crown Copyright © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Rayner, A., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.084
A.J. Rayner et al.
alone contribute 21 million tonnes of GHG emissions annually [10].
Instead of combusting the obtained biogas from digestion of organic
wastes, the raw biogas can be refined into fuel for an SOFC system.
SOFCs can efficiently produce electricity and heat from the electro-
chemical combination of biogas and oxidant, effectively offsetting the
GHG emissions associated with WWTPs [12].
Provided any contaminants in the biogas, such as hydrogen
sulphide, are removed, an SOFC system could continuously provide
clean electricity from anaerobic digestion of municipal wastes. Other
systems that couple anaerobic digestion with hydrogen fuel cells, such
as the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, require hydrogen
fuel to be derived from the produced biogas through a complex process
[13]. It is also necessary to remove carbon monoxide from the biogas to
prevent poisoning of PEM fuel cell systems [14]. These fuel processing
steps require additional infrastructure and energy, making the SOFC a
more efficient and cost effective option for pairing anaerobic digestion
and fuel cell technology. SOFCs can also operate using the variable
composition of the biogas, whereas internal combustion engines
require a significantly higher amount of tuning to run effectively with
varying fuels.
An anaerobic digestion/fuel cell (ADFC) system fueled by municipal
sewage and organic wastes provides both waste management and
energy solutions simultaneously while remaining environmentally
friendly. An ADFC can be considered a carbon neutral power source
because the biogas produced from waste streams is naturally occurring;
anaerobic digesters in this context are simply used to speed up the
digestion process of the bacteria. For this reason it can be assumed the
energy produced by an ADFC system would directly offset any green-
house emissions incurred on a traditional power plant in its place.
The concept of an anaerobic digestion-solid oxide fuel cell (ADFC)
system has only been evaluated a few times in literature [12,15–17].
Previous work by Van Herle et al. [17] present data on multiple biogas
sources, such as landfills, and provide a case study of a small scale
SOFC co-generation system running on biogas. In their study, model-
ing software (BELSIM) is used to model the fuel reforming reactions
and SOFC thermodynamics involved in utilizing different biogas
sources. The results demonstrate that the concept is applicable on
scales from individual farms with 10 kW systems to landfill sites with
1 MW systems. But despite providing a lengthy discussion on design
and performance parameters of the model SOFC system, Van Herle
et al. do not discuss the equally important design aspects of anaerobic
digestion. This theme continues in the literature [12,15] where
anaerobic digestion is not manipulated or controlled to produce an
optimal biogas for use in SOFC applications. Instead, the more
common approach to researching ADFC technologies is to start with
an approximate biogas composition and then model or test biogas
reforming and model SOFC thermodynamics from there [15,18–21].
In contrast, Papurello et al. [16] recently completed a pilot scale
study of a waste-to-energy system which successfully couples anaerobic
digestion of organic wastes from municipal sources and SOFC tech-
nologies. In their work, they cite three years of anaerobic digestion
development to obtain a high methane concentration in the biogas.
However, their system achieved a digester efficiency of 20% and had a
retention time of 40 days. In addition, their system achieved an overall
electrical efficiency of 17%. Their experimental research suggests that
coupling AD and SOFC technologies is feasible, but points to the need
for optimization of the fuel cell system [16].
More recent work on coupling these two technologies by Lackey
et al. [15] focuses on UniSIM modeling and experimental operation of
an SOFC operating with biogas from waste water treatment plants but
does not include a discussion of waste processing or anaerobic
digestion technologies as developed in Papurello et al’s pilot scale
system. The contribution by Lackey et al. helps optimize the SOFC
performance side of ADFC technologies which is also intensively
studied in the literature [12,15,17–25]. To fully develop the combined
ADFC system, unification of both anaerobic digestion and SOFC fields
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
is needed to optimally couple these two technologies together in a
system such as the one investigated by Papurello et al. [16].
Having reviewed the literature, the authors believe this is the first
known presentation of a simplified ADFC system model which cumu-
latively explains the diverse breadth of the technology (organic waste
processing, anaerobic digestion, biogas production, and SOFC perfor-
mance) to demonstrate the benefits and feasibility of the entire ADFC
process. Literature review of these topics is used to provide a mean-
ingful commentary on the design and implications of ADFC systems.
1.1. Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion is the process of microorganisms decomposing
organic compounds in the absence of oxygen [9]. The products of
anaerobic digestion are biogas, which primarily consists of methane,
carbon dioxide, and digestate [26]. The digestate from the anaerobic
digestion process can be used as fertilizer for the agriculture industry
[26]. The quality of the biogas and digestate depend on the type of
material being digested, the pre-processing of that material, and the
conditions in which the digestion is taking place. Inorganic material
remains effectively undigested if included in the process [27].
The anaerobic digestion process consists of three main stages:
hydrolysis; fermentation; and methanogenesis. During hydrolysis,
insoluble organic matter is broken down to make soluble organic
substances such as amino acids, fatty acids, and sugars [28,29].
Fermentation consists of two sub-processes, acidogenesis and aceto-
genesis, which break down the products of hydrolosis into alcohols,
acetic acid, and gas containing H2 and CO2 [29–31]. Two main
methanogenic bacteria groups produce methane during methanogen-
esis. One group of bacteria splits two acetate molecules to form
methane and carbon dioxide [29–31] while the remaining group uses
hydrogen as an electron donor and carbon dioxide as an electron
acceptor to produce methane [29]. The acetate reaction is the primary
reaction that produces methane due to the low hydrogen production
rate in the fermentation process [27].
1.2. Solid oxide fuel cells
Fuels cells are energy conversion devices that convert the chemical
potential energy of a fuel into electricity without the need for combus-
tion. They can achieve overall efficiencies exceeding 60% in combined
heat and power systems and they do not emit the harmful GHGs, such
as nitrous and sulphur oxides, that combustion does [14,32]. There are
multiple types of fuel cells, most of which rely on pure hydrogen for
fuel. SOFCs are superior to other designs in the way that they can
handle a wide range of hydrocarbon fuels, such as methane and carbon
monoxide without the use of expensive catalysts such as platinum.
The electrochemical combination of the fuel with an oxidant
produces electrical current (We), waste heat (Q), and water. There
are significantly less pollutants released in the process compared to
traditional combustion reactions used to drive electrical generators
[33]. By connecting multiple cells in series, the overall voltage can be
increased and SOFC stacks can be built for different scale applications.
The heat rejection from the fuel cell yields opportunity for co-
generation which would further increase the overall efficiency of the
system.
1.3. Coupling anaerobic digestion and SOFC technology
The process of converting organic waste into biogas can be
controlled through the use of an anaerobic digester under specific
operating conditions. The inputs to the digester are heat, water, and
pre-processed organic waste. During the digestion process appreciable
quantities of biogas are produced. The process provides an effective
solution for organic waste management while the biogas can be
captured and used as fuel and the digestate can be used as a nutrient
A.J. Rayner et al.
rich fertilizer [8,27]. The intense use of biogas from multiple sources
such as landfills and sewage wastes can also help suppress methane
emissions, which is a potent greenhouse gas [17].
Biogas produced in WWTPs is either flared or utilized in an
electrical generation process such as a gas turbine or a combined heat
and power unit (CHP). The achievable electrical efficiency of these
processes typically falls within 20–40% [17,34,35] for large scale
systems. Fuel cells can achieve much higher efficiencies in the range
of 50–60% without the need for combustion [14]. Since SOFCs have
high efficiency, a solid state design, and the ability to process a wide
variety of carbon-based fuels, they are a suitable candidate for many
applications, such as integration with an anaerobic digester [17,32,36].
Coupling an anaerobic digester with an SOFC system is an efficient
alternative to traditional energy production and waste management
methods.
1.4. ADFC system overview
An anaerobic digestion/fuel cell system to process municipal
sewage sludge and source separated organic wastes to form methane
that is fed into an SOFC to generate electricity is presented. This simple
model highlights the feasibility of this concept and helps link the
various processes together in a refined manner. A schematic of the
process flow diagram for the ADFC system is presented in Fig. 1.
Once on site, waste feed stocks are mixed into a slurry with 60–80%
moisture content. The slurry is then pumped through a pre-heating
stage to raise its temperature to approximately 55 °C prior to entering
the anaerobic digester. The digestion process is designed to operate
using thermophilic bacteria at 50–55 °C to achieve a lower retention
time and more continuous flow of biogas production [29,31]. A
continuous plug flow reactor is used to digest the high solids slurry
over a 15 day retention time. An effluent loop is utilized to ensure equal
spread of bacteria to the input slurry feed and maintain adequate
retention time, increasing digester efficiency [36]. Biogas is continu-
ously drawn off of the digester vessel and is subject to a bio-trickling
filter, primarily targeting H2S gas [37]. The refined biogas is then sent
to the SOFC or to storage.
The solid digestate exiting the reactor is controlled by a screw
conveyor. This conveyor moves the digestate material through the de-
watering process. The excess water enters the effluent loop and the
solids are dried to be sent for further composting. The effluent drawn
off must be scrubbed of contaminants such as absorbed H2S without
Fig. 1. Schematic process flow diagram of the ADFC system with gas turbine co-generation.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
destroying the necessary bacteria for sustained digester operation.
The refined biogas is utilized as fuel for a 774 kW SOFC system. The
primary reactions occurring within the cell are the overall oxidation of
methane, fuel reforming reactions, and oxidation of hydrogen shown in
Eqs. (1)–(4) [22,33]:
CH4 + 2O2 → 2H2 O + CO2 + We + Q (Overall) (1)
CH4 + H2 O → 3H2 + CO (Steam reforming) (2)
CO + H2 O → H2 + CO2 (Water gas shift) (3)
H2 + O 2 − → H2 O + 2e− (Oxidation of hydrogen) (4)
Here, carbon dioxide, water, waste heat (Q), and electrical work
(We) are the products of the process. In PEM fuel cell systems, the
production of carbon monoxide via the water gas shift reaction can
cause cell poisoning which requires further hydrogen gas purification
[14,33]. Conversely, methane, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen can be
used directly as fuels in an SOFC. The fuel and oxidant streams must
pass through a pre-heating stage before entering the SOFC in order to
prevent thermal shock of the stack. The electricity produced from the
SOFC can be sold back to the electrical grid. The excess heat generated
by the SOFC (107 kW) is used to pre-heat the digester slurry feed, fuel,
and oxidant. The excess heat can also be used to provide temperature
control over the digester or be passed to a combined heat and power
(CHP) unit to produce additional electrical power.
2. Modeling and results
2.1. Anaerobic digestion and methane production modeling
To model the anaerobic digester, a system that will predict the
composition and quantity of the biogas produced given known
characteristics of the input waste is needed. Two methods were used
to model the digestion process. The Buswell and Boruff Method
enabled the determination of the quality of the biogas produced while
the chemical oxygen demand (COD) model was used to determine the
quantity of biogas produced from the given feedstock [31].
2.1.1. Buswell and Boruff method
The Buswell and Boruff Method [31], presented in Eq. (5), requires
the ultimate analysis of the carbon (v), hydrogen (w), oxygen (x),
nitrogen (y), and sulphur content (z), of the specific organic waste
A.J. Rayner et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

(CvHwOxNySz). The model outputs the estimated molar quantity of Table 2

methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen Ultimate analysis of food waste.
sulphide (H2S) that will be produced under anaerobic conditions.
Source Ash (%wt) Ultimate analysis (%wt) COD (g/L)
⎛ w x 3y z⎞
Cv Hw Ox Ny Sz + ⎜v − + + + ⎟ H2 O C H O N S
⎝ 4 2 4 2⎠
⎛ v w x 3y z ⎞ [35,52,64,65] 5 48 6.4 37.6 2.6 0.4 277–360
→ ⎜ + + + + ⎟ CH4 + yNH3 + zH2 S
⎝2 8 4 8 4⎠ (5)
The expected mass of each gas can be approximated by multiplying
there is 30,700 kg COD/day, 9600 kg COD/day, and 16,500 kg COD/
the mole fraction by the given number of moles of the input fuel and
day in the sewage sludge derived from waste water in the high, low, and
the molar weight of the associated gas.
average cases respectively.

2.1.2. COD of methane

The COD of methane is the amount of oxygen required to oxidize 2.2.2. COD from solid waste
methane into carbon dioxide as given in Eq. (6): The City of Guelph’s composting facility received 17,300 tonnes of
organic waste in 2012 [42]. Of this waste, approximately 15,000 tonnes
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + H2 O (6) were mixed organic materials consisting primarily of food waste, which
The COD per mole of methane then becomes Eq. (7): is well suited for anaerobic digestion. Therefore, 15 million kg/year, or
just over 41,000 kg/day, of organic food waste is available for feed-
2 mol O2 33 g O2 64 g COD
× = . stock. High, low, and average cases for the COD contained in this waste
1 mol CH 4 1 mol O2 1 mol CH 4 (7) stream are taken from literature as 360 g/L, 277 g/L, and 318.5 g/L,
Using the ideal gas law, the volume of methane produced from respectively. This translates into 14,800 kg COD/day, 11,400 kg COD/
anaerobic digestion at 55 °C (328 K) and 1 atm becomes 0.421 m3 of day, 13,100 kg COD/day in the high, low, and average cases, respec-
CH4 per kilogram of COD. From literature it is generally accepted that tively, when the density of the food waste is taken as that of water.
0.35 m3 of methane can be produced per kilogram of COD [31]. Ultimate analysis results for food waste are also presented in Table 2.

2.2. Waste water and solid waste feedstock
The anaerobic digester feedstock is a combination of sewage sludge
derived from municipal waste water and organic food waste from
source separated municipal solid waste. To determine the potential
biogas production through anaerobic digestion, data on the quantity
and composition of municipal organic waste and sewage sludge in
terms of the ultimate analysis and COD is required. The City of Guelph,
in Ontario, Canada, having a population of over 120,000 [38], was
selected to estimate the volume of organic waste available as it is a mid-
sized Canadian municipality with the required data [39]. From the
literature, the expected quality, including the ultimate analysis and
expected COD of sewage sludge waste from municipal waste water and
food waste is presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
2.2.1. COD from waste water
The City of Guelph produces approximately 64,000 m3 of waste-
water per day [40]. High, low, and average cases for the COD contained
in this waste stream are taken from literature as 800 mg/L, 250 mg/L,
and 430 mg/L, respectively [31] however, only 60% of the COD present
in wastewater is expected to be retained in the sewage sludge being fed
into the anaerobic digester [41]. Converting these units into kg COD/
day, and accounting for the 60% remaining COD in the sewage sludge,
2.2.3. Total COD input
The total COD in the feedstock for the ADFC system is the
summation of both the waste water sewage sludge and solid organic
waste CODs. The feedstock characteristics in each of the three model
cases are summarized in Table 3.
The Buswell and Boruff Method was evaluated using the average of
the ultimate analysis data taken from a variety of sources and
presented in Tables 1 and 2 for sewage sludge and solid organic waste
[9,34,52,59–65]. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4
and show that the biogas stream will consist of approximately 62%
methane. This is in agreement with the measured biogas compositions
presented in literature [12]. The H2S content of the biogas is 4000 ppm
which is too high for SOFC operation and will need to be removed from
the biogas stream along with other fuel contaminants such as siloxanes
[12,20].
The ideal daily methane production volumes were determined from
the Buswell and Boruff Method for high, low, and average cases as
presented in Table 5. Digester efficiency and biogas compositional
fluctuations were taken into account by applying a 70%, 80%, and 90%
generation efficiency to determine a range of potential methane
production outputs which is typical for anaerobic digesters [43–45].
The relation between COD in the daily input stream (kg) and modeled
methane output (m3) is presented in Fig. 2. From Table 5, the expected

Table 1
Characteristics of waste water sludge samples.

Source Sample Proximate Analysis (%wt) Ultimate analysis (%wt)

Moisture Volatile matter Ash Fixed carbon C H N S O

[9] 1 5.2 60.7 29.5 9.8 35.7 5.2 3.5 0.7 25.4
[59] 2 5.0 72.5 16.0 11.5 45.9 6.3 5.1 0.6 26.9
[60] 3 11.8 60.6 26.6 12.8 39.5 6.2 3.9 1.5 25.5
[61] 4 4.3 59.3 31.0 9.7 38.1 5.2 4.5 0.9 20.3
5 3.9 58.5 30.8 10.7 38.3 5.1 3.7 0.7 21.4
6 8.5 50.8 43.3 5.9 30.1 4.1 3.8 0.9 17.8
[62] 7 78.1 60.7 36.9 2.4 37.3 5.8 5.5 0.8 13.7
[63] 8 – 55.9 40.3 3.8 29.0 4.4 3.2 0.5 22.6
9 – 49.6 44.0 6.4 25.5 3.7 2.4 0.6 23.8
10 – 71.0 21.2 7.8 40.0 6.0 7.0 0.7 25.1
Average 16.7 60 32 8.08 35.94 5.2 4.26 0.72 22.25

4
A.J. Rayner et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 3 1
H2 (g) + O2 (g) → H2 O(g)
COD input to ADFC in the mixed feedstock. 2 (11)

Case Sewage Sludge (kg Organic Food Waste Total in Feedstock (kg Water, as a product of this reaction, will react with the supplied
COD/day) (kg COD/day) COD/day) methane to continue this reforming process while the electrons can
conduct through an external electric circuit from the anode to the
High 30,700 14,800 45,500
Low 9600 11,400 21,000 cathode. Once in steady state operating conditions, each mole of
Average 16,500 13,100 29,600 methane produces 4 moles of H2 fuel within the anode of the cell.
Dry reforming reactions can also occur within the anode due to the
large concentration of CO2. Although often referred to as an effective
Table 4 alternative to steam reforming, dry reforming is generally less desirable
Predicted chemical composition of biogas.
as it produces less hydrogen per mole of methane fuel. In addition, the
Gas Species Molar Fraction reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction (Eq. (12)), which consumes
hydrogen, is highly endothermic and can lead to thermal shock of the
CH4 0.621 anode material [46]:
CO2 0.324
NH3 0.052 H2 (g) + CO2 (g) → CO(g) + H2 O(g) (12)
H2S 0.004
The RWGS reaction also gives rise to the Bouduard reaction (BD),
which can lead to catalyst damage due to carbon deposition as shown in
Table 5 Eq. (13):
Calculated methane production volumes for each model case.
2CO(g) → C(g) + CO2 (g) (13)
Case Ideal Volume CH4 (m3/day) Actual CH4 Yield (m3/day)
Steam reforming then, becomes the desired reaction as it provides
High 15,900 14,300 more hydrogen fuel without compromising cell reliability [18,47,48].
Low 7300 5100
The quality of the biogas will have a significant impact on cell
Average 10,400 8300
performance. From the Buswell Boruff model, the biogas composition
becomes 66% CH4 and 34% CO2 once other gas species (i.e., NH3 and
H2S) are removed through fuel refinement. The presence of CO2 dilutes
the concentration of methane, and ultimately hydrogen within the fuel
stream, hindering performance. SOFCs are commonly naturally aspi-
rated, meaning that the cathode reaction will only contain 0.21 molar
fraction of oxygen to represent atmospheric air.

2.4. Fuel cell efficiency

Thermodynamic irreversibilities, known as polarization losses,

Fig. 2. Methane production per day based on COD flow rate for different digester
efficiencies.
case will produce about 8300 m3 of methane based on the COD of the
waste water and solid waste and an 80% digester efficiency (29,600 kg
COD/day from Table 3).
2.3. Fuel reforming and SOFC reactions
result in a reduced cell performance compared with the theoretical
power output. The polarization losses for an SOFC are difficult to
model and are commonly determined experimentally. For this paper,
literature values for the actual cell potential for nickel based, anode-
supported, SOFCs operating on biogas were substituted to evaluate
system performance. Table 6 presents the most common values of
actual cell potential for SOFCs operating using methane and biogas
while Table 7 presents the values used to characterize the SOFC output
in the ADFC system.
From the experimental operation of SOFCs in the literature, an
actual cell potential, E*, of 0.8 V, at a current density of approximately
0.2 A/cm2, was selected as an average case. The reversible cell
efficiency was determined to be 76% when operating on pure hydrogen
fuel at 800 °C. The reversible cell potential, Er, for a fuel cell operating
at a given temperature and pressure can be determined from the

During continuous operation, methane gas will not be directly Table 6

oxidized in the SOFC anode due to a number of internal reforming Literature values for cell potential of nickel based, anode-supported, SOFCs operating at
reactions (Eqs. (9)–(11)) which are more thermodynamically favour- 800 °C with different current densities and methane contents.
able. However, during initial start-up, methane may oxidize to produce
E (V) J (A/ Operating Temp. (° Fuel Composition Source
carbon dioxide and water as given in Eq. (8): cm2) C)
CH4 (g) + 2O2 (g) = CO2 (g) + 2H2 O(g) (8) 1.10 0.20 800 75% CH4, CH4:CO2=3 [46]
1.00 0.20 800 97% CH4, 3% H2O [46]
Once water is present within the anode, methane will preferentially 0.65 0.05 800 Raw Biogas, CH4:CO2=1.5 [21]
cause fuel reforming reactions to occur: 0.81 0.20 800 Desulfurized Biogas, [21]
CH4:CO2=1.5
CH4 (g) + H2 O(g) → 3H2 (g) + CO(g) (9) 0.80 0.20 800 Desulfurized Biogas, [20]
CH4:CO2=1
CO(g) + H2 O(g) → H2 (g) + CO2 (g) (10) 0.63 0.50 800 Desulfurized Biogas, [20]
CH4:CO2=1
Hydrogen then becomes the fuel for the electrochemical reaction:

5
A.J. Rayner et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx

Table 7 Table 8
Actual cell performance characteristics applied to ADFC system models. Fuel volume, molar amount, and energy potential for each model case.

E (V) J (A/ Operating Temp. (° Fuel Composition Source Case Utilized CH4 (m3/ Moles of H2 (mol/ Chemical Potential Energy
cm2) C) day) day) (kW)

0.80 0.20 800 Desulfurized Biogas, [20,21] High 11,500 7.23×105 2400
CH4:CO2=1.5 Low 4100 2.59×105 860
Average 6600 4.18×105 1380

change in Gibbs free energy, Δg, the number of moles of electrons

transferred in the reaction, n, and Faraday’s constant, F using Eq. (14): the SOFC. The utilized volumes of methane are shown in Table 8, based
−∆g (T , P ) on 80% of the methane produced in Table 5.
Er (T , P ) = . The fuel is pre-heated to 500 °C (773 K) to prevent thermal shock of
nF (14)
the SOFC from introduction of cold fuel. The number of moles of
The reversible cell potential for an SOFC operating with pure methane is determined from the ideal gas law. Four moles of hydrogen
hydrogen fuel at 800 °C and 1 atm was determined to be 0.976 V. are derived from each mole of methane through the internal reforming
The concentration losses associated with the modeled biogas fuel reactions (Eqs. (9) and (10)). The molar amounts of hydrogen are
stream at a particular temperature, T, can be taken into account using presented in Table 8.
the Nernst equation (Eq. (15)): The energy potential of the utilized amount of fuel is calculated by
RT multiplying the number of moles of hydrogen by the higher heating
E (T , Pi ) = Er (T , P ) − lnK
nF (15) value of hydrogen gas (HHV of H2=286 kJ/mol fuel). Since the utilized
quantity of fuel is produced on a daily scale, the energy potential was
where K is written as Eq. (16):
then converted into kilowatts by dividing by the number of seconds in a
⎡ Pc ⎤ twenty-four hour period. The chemical potential energy of each volume
K = ⎢ aC b ⎥
⎣ PA PB ⎦ (16) of fuel is shown in Table 8.

and Pxy
in Eq. (16) is the partial pressure of each gas species. The terms
a, b, and c are the stoichiometric coefficients of the reactants A (H2)
and B (O2) and products C (H2O) respectively in the electrochemical
reaction. The reversible cell potential for the modeled biogas, deter-
mined via the Nernst equation is 0.925 V based on a hydrogen molar
fraction of 0.725 and oxygen molar fraction of 0.21. Leveraging this
information, the cell efficiency can be calculated from the operating
potential, E*, and the reversible potential, Er via Eq. (17):
E*
ηE = . potential from the Nernst equation is 0.925 V. Considering the
Er
The overall energy conversion efficiency of the cell, ηFC, can be
determined via the product of the cell and reversible cell efficiencies.
Applying an approximate efficiency of 85% to account for auxiliary
equipment, the overall SOFC system efficiency is 56%.
2.5. Heat generation
At the operating temperature, T, heat, q, is generated as a result of
the change in entropy, Δs, and the entropy production, Ps, associated
with polarization losses (ηpol) and can be calculated from Eqs. (18)–
(20):
q = T ∆s − TPs
where
TPs = nFηpol
and
Er = E* + ηpol .
The sum of the cell’s irreversible losses, ηpol, can be determined by
rearranging Eq. (20). The total losses can then be substituted into Eqs.
(18) and (19) to solve for the heat generated by the system which is
84.3 kJ/mol of hydrogen fuel for the ADFC system.
2.7. SOFC performance
The calculated molar fraction of methane gas species within the fuel
stream was 0.621 mol CH4 per mole of fuel. The molar fraction of CO2
was 0.324 mol CO2 per mole fuel while a molar fraction of 0.21 was
used for oxygen to represent standard atmospheric air as the oxidant.
Once reformed, the fuel contains 2.64 mol H2 and 1 mol CO2. The fuel
is reacted with 0.21 mol of O2 present in the cathode. The resulting cell
(17)
inefficiencies of the fuel cell and auxiliary equipment, the overall
SOFC energy conversion efficiency becomes 56%.
From the literature, operating nickel based, anode-supported,
SOFCs at a current density of 0.2 A/cm2 and 800 °C produced a cell
voltage of 0.8 V. A state-of-the-art Ni-YSZ anode supported SOFC
could be utilized to produce the modeled power requirements.
Assuming each cell is a 10 cm by 10 cm planar design, the power per
cell is 16 W and the power density is 0.16 W/cm2. This is well below
the maximum accepted operating power density for planar SOFCs
which is 0.48 W/cm2 [14].
Using the calculated cell efficiency of 56%, the SOFC system will be
able to produce 774 kW of electrical power based on the available
(18) potential energy in the average case. Overall, the electrical power
output ranges from 480 to 1340 kW. The heat generated by the system
was calculated to be 84.3 kJ/mol of hydrogen fuel. Utilizing the ideal
(19) gas law, the heat power generated was calculated for each biogas
production case. The energy required to drive the endothermic internal
fuel reforming reactions is 247.3 kJ/mol of CH4 [33]. The heat power
released by the SOFC is the difference between the generated heat
(20)
power and the heat consumed in the reforming reactions. The results
are outlined in Table 9.
Table 9
Energy performance of the overall system based on different biogas production scenarios
using the potential energy stored in the reformed fuel (H2 at 773 K and 1 atm).

2.6. Fuel utilization Case Power Output (kW) Electrical Power (kW) Power in Heat (kW)

To ensure reactions within the SOFC do not starve, excess fuel High 2400 1340 190
Low 860 480 67
should be supplied. Therefore, the expectation is that 80% of the fuel
Average 1380 770 110
will be consumed (utilized) and the 20% excess will be exhausted from

6
A.J. Rayner et al.
3. Discussion
3.1. System performance
Under the average case conditions it is predicted that the SOFC
system will produce 774 kW of DC electricity and 107 kW of excess
heat. The SOFC system model obtained an energy conversion efficiency
of 56%. The performance of the system agrees with the literature where
SOFCs have been shown to exceed 60% efficiency [12,14,33]. Papurello
et al. recently verified the feasibility of a similar pilot scale system,
although with reduced efficiency due the method of fuel reforming and
limitations of scale [16].
System performance in the presented model can be improved
further by reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the fuel
stream. To accomplish this, a CO2 absorption process [49] may be used
to refine the fuel before entering the SOFC system. Although incurring
larger capital and operational costs, this method will provide fuel with
minimal levels of CO2 and in turn, better performance.
3.2. Fuel processing of biogas for SOFCs
The biogas produced through anaerobic digestion will have fluctu-
ating concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, and contaminants.
From the literature it has been observed that SOFCs can be operated
stably with CH4 as a fuel source [20,21,46]. The modeled biogas
composition was 62% CH4 and 32% CO2 [23,31,46]. CO2 concentra-
tions of greater than 25% in the fuel stream are tolerable [46],
indicating that the modeled ratio of methane to carbon dioxide in
biogas is acceptable for SOFC operation. However, lower concentra-
tions of CO2 are desired to minimize the impact on system perfor-
mance.
The concentration of CO2 within the produced biogas will dilute the
fuel, decreasing performance. The addition of carbon dioxide to
methane fuels has been observed to increase the stable operating
range of SOFCs while suppressing coking. Additions of air into the fuel
stream have also been shown to increase the stability of cell operation
while suppressing coking but increase the risk of oxidation of the anode
structure [23,46].
At higher concentrations of CO2, dry internal reforming reactions
can occur alongside steam reforming. These reactions are more
endothermic and can result in thermal shock of the anode layer when
uncontrolled. This can cause the cell to crack, sacrificing gas sealing,
electrical conductivity, mechanical strength, and overall functionality
[14,33,46]. For this reason, there must be an upper limit for the
allowable CO2 content within the fuel stream unless the internal
reforming reactions are properly controlled. It should be highlighted
that lower concentrations of CO2 will result in better, more reliable, cell
performance and additions of steam can help promote the more
desirable steam reforming reactions [47,48].
There are a number of contaminants within the biogas drawn off of
anaerobic digestion processes. These contaminants include ammonia
(NH3) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) gases. The decomposition of
ammonia makes it a potential fuel source on its own and may enhance
the performance of SOFCs running on biogas [33].
Hydrogen sulphide is a poisonous gas that poses a threat to the
functionality of SOFCs. The H2S content in biogas is typically in the
200 ppm range however SOFCs can only tolerate H2S concentrations
within the ppb range. The results of an SOFC exposure to 1 ppm of H2S
vary in the literature [14,20,33]. For this reason, it is recommended
that H2S levels be constrained to 100 ppb within the processed biogas
fuel stream.
H2S is readily absorbed into water. Since there is 60–80% moisture
content within the digester, a large portion of the H2S gas will be
absorbed into the slurry. The effluent stream will then carry this
absorbed portion of the produced H2S. The average H2S content in
biogas produced by Ontario, Canada, WWTPs is 78 ppm [12], which is
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
far less than the modeled result of 4000 ppm. This suggests that a large
portion of H2S gas will be removed from the biogas through absorption
into the effluent stream, however, an H2S stripping process is required
before the biogas can be used by an SOFC. A bio-trickling filter is one
effective method of achieving this because of its minimal waste and
high H2S removal efficiency of up to 99% [37]. For industrial scale
applications, sulphur compounds can be eliminated from the fuel
stream via hydrogenation to H2S and subsequent absorption using
zinc oxide [33].
Other contaminants such as siloxanes and halocarbons can also be
produced by the digestion process. Previous research has shown that
such contaminants, in particular siloxanes, can be detrimental to SOFC
performance in small concentrations [50]. Although outside of the
scope of the presented model, the sensitivity of SOFCs to fuel
contaminants highlights the need to consider effective biogas cleaning
steps when coupling these two technologies.
It has recently been demonstrated that an activated carbon bed
could effectively clean biogas produced from a dry digestion process to
sustain operation of a pilot scale SOFC system. The biogas utilized in
those studies contained 52 ppm of H2S gas, of which 98% was removed
in the worst case, while other contaminants were removed to accep-
table levels for SOFC operation [16].
3.3. Cogeneration opportunities
The exhaust of the SOFC stacks will contain 20% of the fuel that was
not utilized in the SOFC. In addition, high quality heat is generated by
the SOFC stacks. These two sources of energy can be utilized in a co-
generation system to increase the overall efficiency of the ADFC. There
a number of different methods for recovering the heat and chemical
energy exhausted by the SOFC. These include technologies such as
steam or gas turbines and combined heat and power units. The
electrical efficiencies and power generation potential of different power
generation technologies are presented in Table 10.
The 20% of fuel exhausted by the SOFC has 248 kW of chemical
potential power. If a CHP system with an electrical efficiency of 30% is
implemented [51], about 74 kW of additional electrical power can be
obtained. Based on these results, 850 kW of total electrical power can
be produced by the SOFC using the anaerobic digester biogas and a
CHP co-generation system in the average case. The overall efficiency of
the SOFC system with a CHP co-gen is 61%, which agrees with the
literature [14,32,33,51].
3.4. Optimization and modeling
The presented model demonstrates that although AD and SOFC
technologies can be feasibly coupled, they both involve numerous
design variables which must be optimized. Papurello et al’s pilot scale
system [16] echoes the need to optimize ADFC technologies. Computer
modeling and simulation methods for both anaerobic digestion [52],
and fuel reforming for SOFC performance [24,25,53–56] have been
presented in the literature, but simulations of the entire ADFC process
incorporating these models should be carried out in future optimiza-
tion work. Further evaluation of economics [57], scalability, and
inclusion of better waste data and digestion models could all improve
the presented model further.
Table 10
Comparison of different power generation technologies in the context of ADFC system
co-generation.
Technology Electrical Efficiency (%) Power Gen. in ADFC (kW) Source
Steam Turbine 7 17 [51,66]
Gas Turbine 25 62 [51,67]
CHP 30 74 [51]
Sterling Cycle 40 99 [51]
A.J. Rayner et al.
3.5. ADFC system implications
Anaerobic digestion reduces the total amount of organic material
sent to landfill. Diverting municipal organics from landfill sites not only
extends landfill life, but also aids human and environmental health.
Reducing the volume of land being dedicated to landfill allows for
increased land preservation. The absence of organics in landfills
decreases the amount of methane gas that can migrate underground
or vent to atmosphere, leading to a safer landfill site and cleaner air for
neighbors and the environment [58].
The digestate produced through anaerobic digestion can be com-
posted and used as a fertilizer. This helps to improve the nutrient cycle
that is essential to sustainable agriculture and food production [58].
The compost can also be used for reforestation, wetlands restoration
and reversing other human environmental impacts. Digesting munici-
pal organic wastes also allows for the capture of biogas that would
otherwise be trapped in landfill or hazardous sewage sludge. Electricity
can then be generated from the captured biogas, decreasing the societal
reliance on fossil fuels to satisfy energy demand.
Generating power with SOFCs allows for efficient utilization of
biogas with fewer emissions [12]. This is a benefit because it increases
the amount of useful power produced per unit of biogas while
remaining environmentally clean. Since there is no combustion in-
volved in SOFC operation, harmful GHGs such as nitrous and sulphur
oxides are not created.
The ADFC system itself sets a great example of sustainability and
recycling. It treats municipal sewage sludge and organic materials
through anaerobic digestion, killing pathogens, reducing the risk of
contaminant runoff in the environment, and providing a nutrient rich
fertilizer. Simultaneously, half of the initial energy content in the waste
stream is recovered in the form of biogas [10], which can then be
harnessed in SOFCs to produce electricity. With ever growing quan-
tities of waste water and organic waste, the ADFC system serves as an
effective energy recovery method to reduce the environmental impact
of waste management practices.
4. Conclusions
An organic waste power plant was designed utilizing anaerobic
digestion and solid oxide fuel cell technologies. It was found that
integrating anaerobic digestion and SOFC technologies on a municipal
scale could be environmentally beneficial. SOFCs are able to efficiently
convert chemical potential energy stored within municipal wastes into
useful electrical and heat power. Overall, the ADFC system can produce
between 480 kW and 1410 kW of clean, carbon neutral electrical
power. The use of SOFC technology to complete this energy conversion
also avoids releasing pollutants into the atmosphere as combustion of
the biogas does not occur. The integration of these two technologies is
an environmentally sustainable and cost effective solution for waste
management and energy production for North American municipali-
ties.
References
[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. 2014. Doi: 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415416〉.
[2] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mitigation of Climate
Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
[3] Otten L. Wet-dry composting of organic municipal solid waste: current status in
Canada. Can J Civ Eng 2001;28:124–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjce-28-S1-
124.
[4] El-Fadel M, Findikakis AN, Leckie JO. Environmental impacts of solid waste
landfilling. J Environ Manag 1997;50:1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jema.1995.0131.
[5] Statistics Canada. Summary tables, disposal and diversion of waste by province and
territory. Gov Canada 2015. 〈http://statscan.gc.ca〉 [accessed 13.09.15].
[6] USEPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
2015. p. 1–16. Doi: 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2〉.
[7] Shen Y, Linville JL, Urgun-Demirtas M, Mintz MM, Snyder SW. An overview of
biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) in the United States: challenges and opportunities towards energy-
neutral WWTPs. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:346–62. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.129.
[8] Natural Resources Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada . Discover the
production and use of biogas. Bioenergy Ser 2002.
[9] Inguanzo M, Dominguez A, Menedez JA, Blanco CG, Pis JJ. On the pyrolysis of
sewage sludge: the influence of pyrolysis conditions on solid, liquid, and gas
fractions. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 2002;63:209–22.
[10] Silvestre G, Fernández B, Bonmatí A. Significance of anaerobic digestion as a source
of clean energy in wastewater treatment plants. Energy Convers Manag
2015;101:255–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.05.033.
[11] Environment Canada. Canada’s 2008 Greenhouse Gas Inventory a Summary of
Trends : 1990–2008. 2010.
[12] Wheeldon I, Caners C, Karan K, Peppley B. Utilization of biogas generated from
Ontario wastewater treatment plants in solid oxide fuel cell systems: a process
modeling study. Int J Green Energy 2007;4:221–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15435070601015585.
[13] Iulianelli A, Liguori S, Huang Y, Basile A. Model biogas steam reforming in a thin
Pd-supported membrane reactor to generate clean hydrogen for fuel cells. J Power
Sources 2015;273:25–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.058.
[14] Li X. Principles of fuel cells. New York: Taylor & Francis Group; 2006.
[15] Lackey J, Champagne P, Peppley B. Use of wastewater treatment plant biogas for
the operation of solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). J Environ Manag 2016:1–7. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.006.
[16] Papurello D, Lanzini A, Tognana L, Silvestri S, Santarelli M. Waste to energy:
exploitation of biogas from organic waste in a 500 Wel solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)
stack. Energy 2015;85:145–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.093.
[17] Van Herle J, Membrez Y, Bucheli O. Biogas as a fuel source for SOFC co-generators.
J Power Sources 2004;127:300–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2003.09.027.
[18] Chiodo V, Galvagno A, Lanzini A, Papurello D, Urbani F, Santarelli M, et al. Biogas
reforming process investigation for SOFC application. Energy Convers Manag
2015;98:252–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.113.
[19] Lanzini A, Leone P. Experimental investigation of direct internal reforming of
biogas in solid oxide fuel cells. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35:2463–76. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.146.
[20] Xu C, Zondlo JW, Gong M, Elizalde-Blancas F, Liu X, Celik IB. Tolerance tests of
H2S-laden biogas fuel on solid oxide fuel cells. J Power Sources
2010;195:4583–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.02.078.
[21] Shiratori Y, Ijichi T, Oshima T, Sasaki K. Internal reforming SOFC running on
biogas. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35:7905–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhy-
dene.2010.05.064.
[22] Gorte RJ, Park S, Vohs JM. Direct oxidation of hydrocarbons in a solid-oxide fuel
cell. Nature 2000;404:265–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35005040.
[23] Lin Y, Zhan Z, Liu J, Barnett SA. Direct operation of solid oxide fuel cells with
methane fuel. Solid State Ion 2005;176:1827–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssi.2005.05.008.
[24] Vakouftsi E, Marnellos GE, Athanasiou C, Coutelieris F. CFD modeling of a biogas
fuelled SOFC. Solid State Ion 2011;192:458–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ssi.2010.05.051.
[25] Vakouftsi E, Marnellos G, Athanasiou C, Coutelieris FA. A detailed model for
transport processes in a methane fed planar SOFC. Chem Eng Res Des
2011;89:224–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2010.05.003.
[26] Greben H a, Oelofse SHH. Unlocking the resource potential of organic waste: a
South African perspective. Waste Manag Res 2009;27:676–84. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0734242X09103817.
[27] Vanek FM, L. D. Albright LTA. Energy systems engineering: evaluation and
implementation, 2nd ed.. McGraw-Hill; 2012.
[28] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production from
organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–6. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2010.07.042.
[29] Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R. Principles and potential of the anaerobic
digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:755–81.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2008.06.002.
[30] Cantrell KB, Ducey T, Ro KS, Hunt PG. Livestock waste-to-bioenergy generation
opportunities. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:7941–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.biortech.2008.02.061.
[31] Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel H. Wastewater engineering: treatment and
reuse. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[32] Choudhury A, Chandra H, Arora A. Application of solid oxide fuel cell technology
for power generation - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:430–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.031.
[33] Bagotsky V. Fuel cells: problems and solutions. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons;
2012.
[34] Sharif A. Modelling of a Natural ‐ Gas ‐ Based Clean Energy Hub. 2012.
[35] Ghanimeh S, El Fadel M, Saikaly P. Mixing effect on thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of source-sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste. Bioresour
Technol 2012;117:63–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.125.
[36] Zhang X, Chan SH, Li G, Ho HK, Li J, Feng Z. A review of integration strategies for
solid oxide fuel cells. J Power Sources 2010;195:685–702. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.07.045.
[37] Soreanu G, Falletta P, B??land M, Edmonson K, Ventresca B, Seto P. Empirical
modelling and dual-performance optimisation of a hydrogen sulphide removal
A.J. Rayner et al.
process for biogas treatment. Bioresour Technol 2010;101:9387–90. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.06.113.
[38] Statistics Canada. Focus on geography series, 2011 census. Statistics Canada 2011
catalogue no. 98-310-XWE2011004. Ottawa;2011.
[39] Canada G of. Pollution and Dwelling Counts, for Census Metropolitan Areas and
Census Agglomerations. 2011 2006 Censuses. 2015. 〈http://www.statscan.gc.ca〉
[accessed 13.09.15].
[40] City of Guelph. Guelph Wastewater Treatment Master Plan. 2009.
[41] Sötemann SW, Wentzel MC, Ekama GA. Mass balance-based plant-wide waste-
water treatment plant models – part 4: aerobic digestion of primary and waste
activated sludges. Water SA 2006;32:297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/wsa.-
v32i3.5274.
[42] AECOM. 2012 Annual Report – Solid Waste Transfer Station & Wet-Dry Recycling
Centre, C of A (Waste Disposal Site) No . A170128. Markham, ON; 2012.
[43] Gunaseelan VN. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: a review.
Biomass Bioenergy 1997;13:83–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)
00020-2.
[44] Rajeshwari K, Balakrishnan M, Kansal A, Lata K, Kishore VV. State-of-the-art of
anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2000;4:135–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(99)00014-3.
[45] Mata-Alvarez J, Macé S, Llabrés P. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An
overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresour Technol
2000;74:3–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00023-7.
[46] Pillai M, Lin Y, Zhu H, Kee RJ, Barnett SA. Stability and coking of direct-methane
solid oxide fuel cells: effect of CO2 and air additions. J Power Sources
2010;195:271–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.05.032.
[47] Oyama ST, Hacarlioglu P, Gu Y, Lee D. Dry reforming of methane has no future for
hydrogen production: comparison with steam reforming at high pressure in
standard and membrane reactors. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:10444–50. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.09.149.
[48] Tsai TI, Troskialina L, Majewski A, Steinberger-Wilckens R. Methane internal
reforming in solid oxide fuel cells with anode off-gas recirculation. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2015;44:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.025.
[49] Zhang W. Simulation of solid oxide fuel cell-based power generation processes with
CO2 capture. Fuel Cell 2006.
[50] Haga K, Adachi S, Shiratori Y, Itoh K, Sasaki K. Poisoning of SOFC anodes by
various fuel impurities. Solid State Ion 2008;179:1427–31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssi.2008.02.062.
[51] Wu DW, Wang RZ. Combined cooling, heating and power: a review. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 2006;32:459–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.02.001.
[52] Curry N, Pillay P. Biogas prediction and design of a food waste to energy system for
the urban environment. Renew Energy 2012;41:200–9. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2011.10.019.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (xxxx) xxxx–xxxx
[53] Klein JM, Bultel Y, Georges S, Pons M. Modeling of a SOFC fuelled by methane:
from direct internal reforming to gradual internal reforming. Chem Eng Sci
2007;62:1636–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2006.11.034.
[54] Nikooyeh K, Jeje AA, Hill JM. 3D modeling of anode-supported planar SOFC with
internal reforming of methane. J Power Sources 2007;171:601–9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.07.003.
[55] Van Herle J, Mar??chal F, Leuenberger S, Membrez Y, Bucheli O, Favrat D. Process
flow model of solid oxide fuel cell system supplied with sewage biogas. J Power
Sources 2004;131:127–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.01.013.
[56] Wen H, Ordonez JC, Vargas JVC. Single solid oxide fuel cell modeling and
optimization. J Power Sources 2011;196:7519–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2010.10.113.
[57] Siefert NS, Litster S. Energy & economic analysis of biogas fueled solid oxide fuel
cell systems. J Power Sources 2014;272:386–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2014.08.044.
[58] Environment Canada. Technical Document on Municipal Solid Waste Organics
Processing. 2013.
[59] Shen L, Zhang DK. Low-temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge and putrescible
garbage for fuel oil production. Fuel 2005;84:809–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.fuel.2004.11.024.
[60] Dogru M, Midilli A, Howarth CR. Gasification of sewage sludge using a throated
downdraft gasifier and uncertainty analysis. Fuel Process Technol 2002;75:55–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3820(01)00234-X.
[61] Otero M, Dı́ez C, Calvo LF, Garcı́a AI, Morán A. Analysis of the co-combustion of
sewage sludge and coal by TG-MS. Biomass Bioenergy 2002;22:319–29. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00012-0.
[62] Menéndez JA, Inguanzo M, Pis JJ. Microwave-induced pyrolysis of sewage sludge.
Water Res 2002;36:3261–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00017-9.
[63] Folgueras MB, Díaz RM, Xiberta J, Prieto I. Thermogravimetric analysis of the co-
combustion of coal and sewage sludge. Fuel 2003;82:2051–5. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00161-3.
[64] Abedini AR, Atwater JW, Fu GY. Effect of recycling activities on the heating value of
solid waste: case study of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (Metro
Vancouver). Waste Manag Res 2012;30:839–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0734242×12448516.
[65] Zupančič GD, Roš M. Determination of chemical oxygen demand in substrates from
anaerobic treatment of solid organic waste. Waste Biomass Valoriz 2012;3:89–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9087-1.
[66] EPA. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United
States: Facts and Figures for 2012. 2014. p. 1–13. [〈Doi:EPA-530-F-14-001〉].
[67] Li Y, Weng Y. Performance study of a solid oxide fuel cell and gas turbine hybrid
system designed for methane operating with non-designed fuels. J Power Sources
2011;196:3824–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.01.011.