Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use

Table 2.8. Ethanol Plant Capacity and Water Use
Section 2: Recycled Wastewater Demand & Supply
Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater for Industrial Water Use
Ethanol Corn Production Start-up 2004 Water Use
Capacity Required
Year (MDNR Permit Only)
City (plant name) mgy million bushels/yr mgd 1
Marshall (ADM) 40 14.8 2
Morris (DENCO) 24 9 1991 0.368
Winnebago (Corn Plus) 47 17.4 1994 0.272
Winthrop (Heartland) 37 13.7 1995 0.278
Benson (CVEC) 45 16.7 1996 0.401
Claremont (Al-Corn) 34 12.6 1996 0.387
Bingham Lake (Ethanol2000) 31 11.5 1997 --
Buffalo Lake (MN Energy) 19 7 1997 0.239
Melrose (Dairy Proteins) 3 Cheese whey 1986 --
Preston (Pro-Corn) 42 15.6 1998 --
Luverne (Corn-er Stone) 21 7.8 1998 --
Little Falls (CMEC) 22 8.1 1999 --
Albert Lea (Exol/Agra Resources) 41 15.2 1999 0.563
Lake Crystal 50 18 2005 --
Granite Falls Energy 50 18 2005 --
Atwater (Bushmills Ethanol) 45 16.6 2005 --
TOTAL 551 200
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 31
1988
Sources: MDA, 2006 (www.mda.state.mn.us/Ethanol) and MDNR Water Appropriations Permit Program, 2004.
1 Water use data only available for those with MDNR permits in 2004.
2 Refer to source: portion of plant processing used for ethanol.
Table 2.9. Select Ethanol Plants in Relation to Recycled Wastewater Supply
Ethanol Plant 1
2
Closest WWTPP
Distance
to the
WWTP
(miles)
WWTP
Permitted
Capacity
(mgd)
WWTP
2005
Flow
(mgd)
2004
Water
Use
(mgd)
Assumed
Cooling
Water
Demand
(mgd) 3
Diversified Energy Co LLC Morris 1.7 0.964 0.60 0.37 0.22
Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co Benson 1.7 0.985 0.43 0.40 0.24
Minnesota Energy Hector 3.4 0.66 0.21 0.24 0.14
Heartland Corn Products Gaylord 3.2 0.55 0.36 0.28 0.17
Al-Corn Clean Fuel Blooming Prairie 8 0.899 0.51 0.39 0.23
Corn Plus Winnebago 2 1.7 0.59 0.27 0.16
Agra Resources Corp Albert Lea 10 18.38 4.23 0.56 0.34
1 Ethanol plants with MDNR water appropriations permits in 2004; 2004 water use is the reported use to the MDNR Water
Appropriations Permit program – it is possible that some facilities used other sources of water and total water use is more than
listed in this table.
2 Selection criteria: closest WWTP with sufficient flow (based on 2005 flow data) for water use at the ethanol plants.
3 Assumed 60% of total water use is for cooling water requirements.
The proximity of several ethanol plants to a WWTP was investigated. As shown in Table 2.9 there are
several ethanol plants a reasonable distance from a WWTP that may have an adequate supply to meet at
least the cooling water demands for the facility, estimated at 60% of the total facility water use.
Additional information is needed on the diurnal variation of the WWTP flow and water quality to
determine if these WWTPs could feasibly provide the water supply for these ethanol plants.