LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF AN AIRLIFTED RECIRCULATION AQUACULTURE FACILITY A Thesis ...

136 Pages·2015·1.81 MB·English

by  Marlon A Greensword

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF AN AIRLIFTED RECIRCULATION AQUACULTURE
FACILITY
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and
Agricultural Mechanical College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
in
The Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
by
Marlon Alberetos Greensword
M.S., Louisiana State University, 2010
B.S., Louisiana State University, 2007
B.A., Louisiana State University, 2005
December 2015
Acknowledgment
I want to first thank God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. He not only
made this achievement possible, but also created the world’s greatest institution: marriage, which
I have partaken and celebrated for 8 years with my wife, Sylviane Ngandu-Kalenga Greensword,
to whom I dedicate this thesis.
I express my sincere gratitude to my major professor and friend Dr. Ronald F Malone for
his guidance, support, and infinite patience. I am also grateful for his critique and structural
discipline that are still to this day molding me into a better engineer and person.
I thank Dr. Donald Dean Adrian for serving on my committee and assisting me with
suggestions, editing, and insight. I am grateful for Dr. Warren Liao’s accepting to serve on my
committee. His expertise was a major contribution and is deeply appreciated. I also thank Dr.
Chandra Theegala for serving on my committee and for is well-needed assistance. I thank Dr.
María Teresa Gutierrez-Wing for serving on my committee as well. Her critique and assistance in
organizing my lab design have provided me with hands-on experience to make this research project
whole.
This thesis could not be possible without the help of Dr. Fereydoun Aghazadeh, Dr. Steven
Hall, and Dr. Chester Wilmot who helped fund my studies. I would like to thank Dr. Pius Egbelu,
Millie Williams, Daniel Alt, Milton Saidu, Aniruddha Joshi, Yetiv Knight, Precious Edwards,
Laurence Butcher, Tim Pfeiffer, Juilian M. Thomas, Steve Abernathy, Fatemehsadat
Fahandezhsadi, Craig Watson, and Ed Chesney as well. I would also like to thank Mrs. Sandy
Malone for bringing me into her family and for her spiritual and emotional support throughout this
journey. I must also acknowledge the support of the Ngandu family – particularly Angélique N.
ii
Lagat and Farida N. Ilunga – who supported and encouraged me in this endeavor. Finally, I salute
my friends, colleagues, and family members at home and abroad.

iii
Table of contents
Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... x
1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1
2 . Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Ornamental Fish Culture .................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Biofouling and Egg Loading ............................................................................................ 4
2.3. Contemporary Treatment Options .................................................................................... 7
2.3.1. PolyGeyser® Description ........................................................................................ 10
2.4. Airlifts ............................................................................................................................ 11
2.5. Airlifted PolyGeyser® RAS ............................................................................................ 13
2.5.1. “Enhanced Nitrification” (EN) Media .................................................................... 13
2.6. Cost Analysis.................................................................................................................. 14
3. Estimating BOD₅ and Nitrogen Loading from Decaying Egg Mass .................................... 16
3.1. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 16
3.2. Background .................................................................................................................... 16
3.3. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.1. Overview ................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.2. Egg Collection ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3.3. Solidifying the Samples .......................................................................................... 22
3.3.4. Loading Measurements ........................................................................................... 23
3.3.5. Statistical analysis ................................................................................................... 24
3.4. Results ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.5. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................ 27
4. Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 29
4.1. Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 29
iv
4.2. Background .................................................................................................................... 29
4.3. Proposed Facility ............................................................................................................ 34
4.3.1. Growout Building Layout ....................................................................................... 36
4.3.2. Tanks: Characteristics and Sizing ........................................................................... 38
4.3.3. Management and Production Schedule Leading to Harvest ................................... 44
4.4. Cost Analysis: Results .................................................................................................... 46
4.4.1. Overview ................................................................................................................. 46
4.4.2. Fingerling RAS costs .............................................................................................. 47
4.4.3. Growout .................................................................................................................. 50
4.4.4. Purge Tanks ............................................................................................................ 55
4.4.5. Break-Even cost ...................................................................................................... 56
4.4.6. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................ 60
4.4.7. Life Cycle Cost Analysis ........................................................................................ 64
4.5. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................ 66
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 70
References ..................................................................................................................................... 75
Appendix A: ANOVA BOD, Protein, and nitrogen distribution .................................................. 90
Appendix B: Mean plots of BOD, protein, and nitrogen loading ............................................... 104
Appendix C: Fingerling and Growout Assumptions .................................................................. 107
C.1. Fingerling Assumptions .................................................................................................. 107
C.2. Growout Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 109
Appendix D: Cost analysis equations ......................................................................................... 113
Appendix E: Optional cohort design criteria .............................................................................. 116
E.1. Chemicals ........................................................................................................................ 116
E.2. Feeding ............................................................................................................................ 117
Appendix F: Annual Breakdown of Life Cycle Cost.................................................................. 120
Appendix G: Greenhouse Heating Requirements ....................................................................... 121
v
Appendix H: Sensitivity Analysis Formulae .............................................................................. 125
Vita .............................................................................................................................................. 126
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Nine marine and freshwater fish species of eggs were sampled for the study. .............. 22
Table 2: Levels from BOD5, nitrogen, and protein for the eggs of all 8 species tested................ 24
Table 3: Mean BOD Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) test for 8 species tested shows 4 different
groups (A-D). ................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 4: Nitrogen Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) test for 8 species tested shows 4 different
groups (A-D). ................................................................................................................................ 26
Table 5: Protein Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) test for 8 species tested shows 3 different
groups (A-C) ................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 6: Catfish and cobia displayed no significant differences from bala shark eggs for each test
....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 7: Measurements from Sumner (2000) were set to accommodate the RAS configuration for
growout buildings. ........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 8: Growout air flow requirements define the blower’s sizing. ........................................... 41
Table 9: Growout airlifted PolyGeyser® design criteria adapted from Malone (2013b) .............. 41
Table 10: Physical description of RAS growout........................................................................... 42
Table 11: Physical description of a fingerling tank ...................................................................... 43
Table 12: The startup of tanks is staggered to ensure a steady output of harvest fish. ................. 45
Table 13: Miscellaneous building and equipment costs other than growout capital costs ........... 46
Table 14: Capital cost for two fingerling facility.......................................................................... 48
Table 15: Annual operating cost for fingerling............................................................................. 50
Table 16: Growout capital cost per facility ................................................................................... 52
Table 17: Annual growout production cost .................................................................................. 53
Table 18: Annual operation costs for purge tanks ........................................................................ 55
Table 19: Capital costs for purge tanks......................................................................................... 56
Table 20: Unit cost per building obtained from NVP ................................................................... 57
Table 21: Life-cycle cost for the facility ....................................................................................... 58
vii
Table 22: Facility Equivalent Equipment costs over 30 year period ............................................ 59
Table 23: Fingerling sizing constants per tank ........................................................................... 108
Table 24: Equations used to determine sizing (determined values) for fingerling tanks ............ 109
Table 25: Growout tank sizing constants .................................................................................... 111
Table 26: Equations used to determine sizing (determined values) for growout tanks .............. 112
Table 27: Life-cycle cost for one tank ........................................................................................ 120

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: McDonald Jars mechanically remove dead eggs (Source: Mather, 1884) ...................... 6
Figure 2: A dead egg removing apparatus (Source: McLeary, 1949) ............................................. 7
Figure 3: RAS floating bead filters by classification (modified from Malone and Pfeiffer, 2006) 9
Figure 4: The PolyGeyser® is a pneumatically washed unit that recycles its own backwash waters
(Source: Aquaculture Systems Technologies, 2006) .................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Freeze-dried egg samples were placed in sterile jars, then added to distilled water in the
BOD bottles. ................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 6: The facility buildings are single gable greenhouses. Dimensions (A-G) vary based on
building type (acclimation, fingerling, growout, or purging building). ........................................ 34
Figure 7: Layout of the proposed facility ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 8: Layout of a growout building ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 9: Each tank is connected to airlifts and 2 PolyGeyser® filters. ........................................ 38
Figure 10: Schemated airlifted/PolyGeyser® combination ........................................................... 39
Figure 11: The production cost is calculated to be $1.12/lb. before processing. This figure breaks
down the cost into 7 different categories. ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 12: Distribution of costs associated with growout production .......................................... 53
Figure 13: The present worth decreases as the interest rate increases. ......................................... 60
Figure 14: The annual worth increases as interest rate increases. ................................................ 61
Figure 15: The future worth increases as the interest rate increases. ............................................ 63
Figure 16: Distribution of operation costs for the proposed facility ............................................. 73
Figure 17: Distribution of capital costs for the proposed facility ................................................. 74
ix
Abstract
Airlift-equipped recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) provide water-circulation,
aeration, and degassing efficiently and reliably. This project investigated the need for biofilters in
a fish hatchery environment to address biofouling of tank water from hatching eggs. Eggs of
various fish species were selected and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), and protein loading and content were measured and compared. Means for all samples were:
0.67±0.05g BOD₅/g, 10.89 nitrogen±0.84% and the mean protein content 69.22±3.82%. A
statistical analysis indicates that Rachycentron canadum (cobia) and Ictalurus punctatus (channel
catfish) is the most representative of the multi-species lot when compared to Balantiocheilus
melanopterus (bala shark), the targeted species for this study. Secondly, this project sought to
quantify the costs associated with domestic tilapia growout production using Airlifted
PolyGeyser® RAS technology. A cost analysis was applied to a given facility, based on feeding
rate and annual production requirements. Results indicated a capital cost of $4,887,000 for the
entire facility including $4,671,000 for RAS equipment. The annual production cost of the growout
was determined to be $953,140 for the facility. The production cost of growout is $0.93 per pound
of fish. The calculated facility equivalent equipment cost was $0.26 and the purge facility $0.1 per
pound of fish. The total production cost of the facility per pound of tilapia produced was $1.19.
The life cycle costs of the facility over period of 30 years was $25,572,000, of which feeding
represents 43% with a cost of $11,056,000. Operation cost has the second highest cost of
$5,053,000then stocking cost, of $2,373,000. The thesis presents a tabular template of costs
applicable to airlifted PolyGeyser®-equipped facilities.
x