methane e missions in biogas plants - measurement ... emissions.pdf · in biogas plants -...

Methane emissions in biogas plants - Measurement, calculation and evaluation

Bernd Linke Jan Liebetrau

Mathieu Dumont ? Tobias Persson ?

………….. Task 38?/JRC (IET)?

1

IEA BIOENERGY Task 37 – Energy from Biogas IEA Bioenergy aims to accelerate the use of environmentally sustainable and cost competitive bioenergy that will contribute to future low-carbon energy demands. This report is the result of the collaboration between IEA Bioenergy Task 37: Energy from Biogas and IEA Bioenergy Task 36: Integrating energy recovery into solid waste management systems. The following countries are members of Task 37, in the 2012-2015 Work Programme: Austria Brazil Denmark European Commission (Task Leader) Finland France Germany Ireland Netherlands Norway Sweden Switzerland South Korea UK

Bernhard DROSG [email protected] Günther BOCHMANN [email protected] Cícero JAYME BLEY [email protected] José Geraldo de MELO FURTADO [email protected] Jeferson Toyama [email protected] Teodorita AL SEADI [email protected] David BAXTER [email protected] Jukka RINTALA [email protected] Outi PAKARINEN [email protected] Olivier THÉOBALD [email protected] Guillaume BASTIDE [email protected] Bernd LINKE [email protected] Jerry MURPHY [email protected] Mathieu DUMONT [email protected] Roald SØRHEIM [email protected], Tobias PERSSON [email protected] Nathalie BACHMANN [email protected] Ho KANG [email protected] Clare LUKEHURST [email protected] Charles BANKS [email protected]

Written by

Edited by

Date of publication

2

mailto:[email protected]



















Table of contents 1. Introduction

1.1. Backgroud of the report

2. Biogas feedstock technologies 2.1 Sewage sludge 2.2 Industrial wastewater 2.3 Landfills 2.4 Municipal- and food wastes 2.5 Manure, crops and industrial waste

3. Methods for measuring and calculating of methane emissions

3.1. Portable GasCam 3.2. Closed chambers 3.3. Other…. 3.4. Model based calculation of emissions from storage tanks

4. Inventory of methane emissions

4.1. Storage of substrate and digester feeding Liquid substrates, Solid and stuckable substrates

4.2. Digester and processing Continuously fed operation, Batch-fed operation

4.3. Digestate upgrading Solid-liquid separation, Liquor processing, Drying

4.4. Digestate storage Open lagoons, Covered not gas tight tanks, Solid pile

4.5. Digestate application liquid digestate, solid digestate

4.6. Biogas utilisation Combined Heat an Power generation (CHP), Biogas cleaning and upgrading (Pressure Swing Adsorption, Water scrubbing, Chemical scrubbing, Membrane separation), Vehicle filling station

5. Evaluation of methane emissions

Reference systems boundaries and functional units,

3

………………

6. Current laws and regulations

7. References

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the report

Climate change is one of the great challenges of the 21st century. Its most severe impacts may still be avoided if efforts are made to transform current energy systems. Renewable energy sources have a large potential to displace emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels and thereby to mitigate climate change. Most bioenergy systems can contribute to climate change mitigation if they replace traditional fossil fuel use and if the bioenergy production emissions are kept low (IPCC. 2012). According to IEA estimates, this sustainable potential of biomass in 2050 ranges between 200 and 500 EJ/yr. A significant share of the resources will have to come from energy crop production on surplus agricultural land to unlock this potential (Van Foreest, 2012).

Within the bioenergy sector the increased use of biogas opens up new fields of applications where biomass has not played a major role so far (Anonymus, 2009). Biogas production has been steady growth in recent years and make its contribution to renewable energy generation and reducing negative impacts on the environment, both in the form of GHG emissions and the pollution of soil and water courses (Wellinger et al. 2013). The European Biogas Association estimates that by 2030 per year the overall potential for biogas is at least 50 billion m3. Thus, by 2030 and with the right policies in place, the industry could deliver 2-4% of the EU’s electricity needs and take a 15-30% share of the methane market.

Biogas has definite advantages, even if compared to other renewable energy alternatives. It can be produced when needed and can easily be stored. It can be distributed through the existing natural gas infrastructure and used in the same applications like the natural gas. Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion of organic feedstock, the most common being; animal waste and crop residues, dedicated energy crops, domestic food waste, and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Biogas production is recognised as an integrated processes including feedstock supply and pretreatment; gas treatment and utilization, and recovery, pretreatment and use of digestate (Fig. 1).

Although biogas production and use are regarded as a very sustainable practice that can guarantee GHG savings (Masse et al. 2011) special attantion should be give to methane emissions within the biogas production and utilisation chain. However, the mitigation of climate change is strongly dependent on many factors, such as the choice of feedstock and operational practices. Energy and materials are consumed for cultivation and transport of feedstocks and emissions arise from the biogas plant operation, biogas utilisation and demand for transportation and disposal of the process residues (Poeschel et al. 2012). All these factors have to be considered in the quest for environmental friendly and sustainable energy

4

production from biogas and should be properly evaluated when formulating policies regulating the sector or providing subsidies (Boulamanti et al., 2013).

Fig. 1: Stages of biogas production systems (Poeschl et al. 2010, modified)

2. Biogas feedstock technologies

2.1. Sewage sludge

Typical sewage sludge comprises of primary sludge separated from wastewater during pre-settling and biological excess sludge from the activated sludge system has a concentration of Total dry solids (TS) and Volatile solids of 5% and 65 % TS, respectively (Fytili and Zabaniotou (2008). Anaerobic digestion is used to stabilize the sewage sludge and convert part of the volatile solids into biogas. The biogas can be applied as an energy resource either at the wastewater treatment plant itself or elsewhere. Currently, anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge is mainly applied at large and medium-sized wastewater treatment plants (Fig. 2). However, also a growing interest is observed in the application of anaerobic treatment in small-sized plants (Rulkens, 2008). According a study of the German Umweltbundesamt (UBA, 2008) the daily digester gas production per population equivalent (EGW) amounts to

5

19.6 L based on 96 million people in 1,150 treatment plants with anaerobic digestion. According data from Gujer (2007) with a value of 60 g VS EGW-1 d-1 the specific gas and methane yield (65% CH4) results to 0.32 L gVS-1 and 0.21 L gVS-1 , respectively. After anaerobic digestion sludge is treated as follows: a) secondary thickening (gravity, flotation, drainage, belt, centrifuges); b) conditioning (elutriation, chemical, thermal); c) dewatering (plate press, belt press, centrifuge, drying bed); d) final treatment (composting, drying, line addition, incineration, wet oxidation, pyrolysis, disinfection); e) storage (liquid sludge, dry sludge, compost, ash); f) transportation (road, pipeline, sea); g) final destination (landfill, agriculture/horticulture, forest, reclaimed land, land building (Fytili and Zabaniotou (2008).

Figure 2: Digester (10,500 m3 each) of the waste-water treatment plant Dresden-Kaditz (Germany)

2.2 Industrial wastewater

Anaerobic digestion is the most suitable option for the treatment of high strength organic waste-water effluents from: Agro-food industry (Sugar, potato, starch, yeast, pectin, citric acid, cannery, confectionary, fruit, vegetables, dairy, bakery), Beverage (Beer,malting,soft drinks, winc, fruit juiccs, coffee), Alcohol distillery (Can juice, cane molasses, beet molasses, grape wine, grain fruit), Pulp and paper industry (Recycle paper, mechanical pulp, sulphitc pulp, straw bagasse) (Figure 3) and other (Chemical,pharmaccutical, sludge liquor, landfil leachate, acid mine watcr, municipal sewage). One of the major successes in the development of anaerobic wastewater treatment was the introduction of high-rate reactors in which biomass retention and liquid retention are uncoupled. High biomass concentrations enable the application of high COD loading rates, while maintaining long solid retention times (SRT) at relatively short hydraulic retention times (HRT). Different high-rate systems were developed over tbe last three decades including the anaerobic contact process (ACP),

6

anaerobic filters (AF), the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), fluidized bed (FB) and expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) and the baftled reactors. Analysing the reasons why the selection for anaerobic wastewater treatment was made, the following striking advantages over conventional aerobic treatment systems can be given: a) reduction of excess sludge production up to 90%, b) no use of fossil fuels for treatment c) high applicable COD loading rates reaching 20-35 kg COD per m3 of reactor per day, d) production of about 13.5 MJ CH4-energy per kg COD removed, giving 1.5 kWh electricity (assuming 40% conversion efficiency), e) anaerobic sludge can be stored unfed and reactors can be operated during agricultural campaigns only e.g. 4 months per year in the sugar industry, f) rapid start up < l week, using granular anaerobic sludge as seed material (van Lier et al., 2007). But, application of UASB reactors for treating domestic wastewater have shown considerably high losses of dissolved methane in the anaerobic effluents and implying the need of research on technologies aimed at recovering such energetic greenhouse gas (Souza et al. 2011).

Figure 3: BIOPAQ Wastewater treatment plant in paper industry ( Roermond, NL), sludge granules

2.3 Landfills

Significant interannual variations in the growth rate of atmospheric CH4 justify the development of an improved methodology for landfill emissions, the largest anthropogenic source in many developed countries (Bogner, 2003). Landfill gas (LFG) is a naturally occurring by-product of the decomposition of organic waste in sanitary landfills, and is produced during the microbially mediated degradation of the organic portion of waste. An example of the conversion of a biomass into usable energy can be seen in sanitary landfills that produce an amount of biogas of about 0.350 Nm3/kg of solid urban waste. Landfill gas is generated under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Aerobic conditions occur immediately after waste disposal due to entrapped atmospheric air. The initial aerobic phase is short-lived and produces a gas mostly composed of carbon dioxide. Since oxygen is rapidly depleted, a long-term degradation continues under anaerobic conditions, thus producing a gas with a

7

significant energy value that is typically 55% methane and 45% carbon dioxide with traces of a number of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Whenever economically feasible, gas collection systems are recommended for landfill gas emissions control, and liner designs have been configured to prevent lateral biogas migration. However, collection systems are not 100% efficient, however, and emissions may also escape preferentially from and around walls and along the routes of installed landfill equipment. Historical practice suggests that collection systems may operate less than half the time that landfill gas (LFG) is produced, because they are only economically feasible when methane concentrations are high. Once methane concentrations fall below 35–40% and total gas production rates are 30–50 m3 h–1, treatment in combined heat and power plants (CHP plants) becomes technically and economically infeasible (Huber-Humer et al. 2008). Most of the CH4 and CO2 is generated within 20 years of landfill completion, whereas emissions may continue for 50 years or more (Zamoranoa et al., 2007).

Figure 3: Landfill gas utilisation, Haase Energietechnik AG, Germany

2.4 Municipal- and food wastes

Due to the large environmental impact of landfills separate collection of fractions of MSW has increased signifcantly. Since Mata Alvaresz (2000) has published the review paper regarding anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes many examples exist on the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) to treat the mechanically separated biodegradable fraction of municipal waste (Al Seadi et al., 2013). When AD is used to process source segregated waste it not only produces biogas, but also presents an opportunity to recover additional value from the waste material, in the form of a quality assured nutrient-rich fertiliser product that can applied to agricultural land used in food production (Banks et al., 2011, Lukehurst et al., 2010). Lissens et al. (2001) have been compared the most common types of anaerobic digesters for solid wastes. Batch systems have the most simple designs and are the least expensive solid waste digesters. They have high potential for application in developing

8

countries. Two-stage systems are the most complex and most expensive systems. Their greatest advantage lies in the equalisation of the organic loading rate in the first stage, allowing a more constant feeding rate of the methanogenic second stage. However, the large majority of industrial applications use one-stage systems and these are evenly split between 'dry' (Fig. 4) systems (wastes are digested as received) and 'wet' systems (wastes are slurried to about 12% total solids). As a whole, 'dry' designs have proven reliable due to their higher biomass concentration, controlled feeding and spatial niches. Moreover, from a technical viewpoint the 'dry' systems are more robust and flexible than 'wet' systems.

Figure 4: OFMS treatment plants, DRANCO (left) and COMPOGAS (right)

2.5 Manure, crops and industrial waste (Co-digestion)

The vast majority of biogas plants digest simultaneous a homogenous mixture of two or more substrates and this is called co-digestion and offers several ecological, technological and economical advantages e.g. improved nutrient balance, optimisation of rheological qualities gate fees and biogas recovery (Braun and Wellinger, 2003). Historically, anaerobic digestion has mainly been associated with the treatment of animal manure and sewage sludge from aerobic wastewater treatment. Nowadays, most of the agricultural biogas plants digest manure

9

from pigs, cows, and chicken with the addition cosubstrates to increase the content of organic material for achieving a higher gas yield. Typical cosubstrates are harvest residues, organic wastes from agriculture-related industries, and food waste, collected municipal biowaste from households and energy crops (Weiland, 2010). A major driver for co-digestion were large scale centralized biogas plants in Denmark codigesting mainly manure, together with other organic waste such as industrial organic waste, source sorted household waste, and sewage sludge (Angelidaki and Ellegard, 2003). This concept have been tested and well applied for different industrial organic wastes (Kaparaju and Rintala, 2005; Al Seadi et al. 2013; Allen et al. 2013). The biogas production cycle represents an integrated system of renewable energy production, resources utilization, organic wastes treatment and nutrient recycling and redistribution, generating intertwined agricultural and environmental benefits, as follows a) Renewable energy production, b) Cheap and environmentally healthy organic waste recycling, c) Less greenhouse gas emission, d) Pathogen reduction through sanitation e) Improved fertilization efficiency, f) Less nuisance from odors and flies and g) Economical advantages for the farmers (Holm-Nielsen et al. 2009).

Figure 5: Co-digestion plants, Denmark (left) and Germany (right)

3. Methods for measuring and calculating of methane emissions

3.1. Portable GasCam

Function

The GasCam is an innovative development in the field of passive remote gas detection by infrared spectro-radiometry. Based on the spectral analysis of radiation in the infrared spectral range which is absorbed by the molecules of a gas cloud, and / or emitted, the GasCam enables the visualization of gas clouds. The limit of detection of the GasCam amounts to about 80 ppm*m. It depends on the background and the temperature difference between the gas and the background. By passive infrared method, it is possible to visualise gas spreads in front of a unreferenced background such as the sky.

Application ind biogas plants

10

Gas clouds moving in free space can be visualized in real time and locate emission sources along the entire biogas process chain accurately and efficiently. Typically leaks at a distance of 0 to at least 100 meters and longer can be detected.With the GasCam even small leaks can eg 5 l / h are detectable. The big advantage here is that large plant sections can be tested in a short time. Exit points of the gas can be visually recognized quickly with the GasCam. However, with a conventional gas detector exact localization can take a long time because even in light winds only occasionally gas is detected. Also difficult to access areas of the plant (example: gas pipe in 8m height) can be checked with the GasCam since this is a passive detection system which also can be measured against the sky.

Figure 6: GasCam application in biogas plants (Esders GmbH, Germany) and Methane laser

3.2. Closed chambers

Closed floating chamber methods have been used extensively to quantify GHG fluxes from liquid manure storage facilities. Experimental approaches using floating chambers typically have relied on four to six chambers with area ranging between 0.1 and 0.7 m2. Although the method is relatively easy to deploy under field conditions, disadvantages associated with chamber use include perturbations of the natural conditions and inhibiting effects of concentration build-up in closed chambers (Park et al. 2010). The chamber has an input and output pipe and a connected blower to produce a constant air flow through the chamber. The gas from the emission source (leakage) and the fresh air are mixed in the space of the chamber and the concentration of the target gas is analysed by sampling the gas in the in- and output stream of the chamber. Methane is detected by gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector (FID). The flow rate is measured by a vane anemometer or a Pitot tube. Then the quantity of the emission source is calculated from the concentration difference and the flow rate of the blower by using the following equation (Liebetrau et al. 2013),

11

)( inout ccQF −⋅= ρ (1)

with F , emission flow rate (mg h-1), Q , air flow rate (m3 h-1) ρ , density of the target gas

(kg m-3), outc , exhaust gas concentration (mg kg-1), and inc , background of the gas concentration (mg kg-1). The emission rate can be calculated from the slope of the gas concentration, the chamber volume and the encapsulated surface area (0.25 m2) according Equation (2).

AV

tcF ⋅∂∂

= (2)

with F , specific emission flow rate (mg m2 h-1), tc ∂∂ / , slope of the gas concentration (mg

m-3 h-1), V , chamber volume (m3), A , encapsulated surface area (m2).

Figure 7: Methane emissions from digesate (left) and digester (right) (Germany)

Figure 8: Sketch of a closed container with a lid and outlet for gas sampling (Sweden)

3.3 Other… from 12

EU project “Comparison and evaluation of measurement methods to determine methane emissions from biogas plants” (Sweden, Denmark, France Germany)

3.4 Model based calculation of emissions from storage tanks

Based on volatie solids (VS) of the input feed the maximal methane yield from the storage

tank InpVSSCHy ,

max 4 (emissions) can defined as the difference between the maximal methane yield of

the input feed InpVSCHy

4max and the methane yield produced in the digester InpVSDCHy ,

4 (3), (Fig. 9).

InpInpInp VSDCH

VSCH

VSSCH yyy ,

4max,

4max 4−= (3)

Figure 9: Schematic view of model calculation

Different feedstocks e.g. organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW), food waste, sludge, animal manure or biogas crops are characterised in different biomethane potential. This value determines both the methane yield of the digester and the mehane emissions from the storage tank. While the methane yield of the digester depends mainly from the hydraulic retention time and the temperature in the digester the methane emissions from the storag tank are influenced from the temperature in the storage tank and the storage time. Below the calculation of the relevant parameter will be documented using the example of a certain cow slurry.

Detection of biomethane potential (BMP)

The biomethane potential (BMP) can determined according to the VDI guideline 4630 at standard conditions (1013 bar, 0°C) e.g. using a Bioprocess control device. Based on the cumulative methane yield in course of time and curve fitting by means of a HILL (1) or

CHPMAN (2) function the maximum methane yields InpVSCHy

4max was calculated to 282 L kg-1

(Fig. 10).

13

Figure 10: Plot of BMP detection with HILL (1) curve fitting

Methane yield produced in the digester

Methane yield produced in and CSTR digester InpVSDCHy ,

4 can be calculated from a simple

equation (4) as a function of hydraulic retention time HRT maximal methane yield of the

input feed InpVSCHy

4max and a first order reaction rate constant Dk (Linke, 2006).

(4)

By solving (3) to HRTk D ⋅ we get

(5)

and can make a linear plot of InpVSDCHy ,

4/ ( InpVS

CHy4max − InpVSD

CHy ,

4) against HRTk D ⋅ (Fig. 11). Values

for InpVSDCHy ,

4 are obtained from long term experiments by daily fill and draw mode and

stepwise decrease of HRT and considering the steady state in the CSTR (Fig. 11).

14

4

max,

+⋅

⋅⋅= D

VSCH

DVSD

CH kHRTykHRT

yInp

Inp

InpInp

Inp

VSDCH

VSCH

VSDCHD

yyy

HRTk ,max

,

44

4

−=⋅

14

Figure 11: Plot of InpVSDCHy ,

4/ ( InpVS

CHy4max − InpVSD

CHy ,

4) against HRTk D ⋅ and experimental design

The slope of the line is equivalent of the reaction rate constant and results to 10976.0 −= dk D . Considering the maximum methane yields InpVS

CHy4max of 282 L kg-1 the

methane yield InpVSDCHy ,

4 for dHRT 30= is obtained to 211 L kg-1 . According to this the

maximal methane yield from the storage tank (emissions) results to

.71211282 1,max 4

−=−= KgLy InpVSSCH

Methane yield from the storage tank

By combining (3) and (4) the maximal methane yield from the storage tank InpVSSCHy ,

max 4

(emissions) can be calculatet from (6)

+⋅

⋅−⋅=

114max

,4max eff

effVS

CHVSS

CH kHRTkHRTyy InpInp

(6)

With increasing of HRT the methane yield in the digester increases. Consequently, the

maximal methane yield from the storage tank InpVSSCHy ,

max 4 (emissions) decrease (Fig. 12).

15

Figure 12: Correlation between HRT , InpVSDCHy ,

4 and InpVSS

CHy ,max 4

By assuming a linear reaction rate the actually methane yield in the storage tank InpVSSCHy ,

4is

given by (7).

( )( )tTkytTy SVSSCH

VSSCH

InpInp ⋅−−⋅= )(exp1),( ,4max

,

4 (7)

where )(Tk S is the first order linear reaction rate. By solving (7) to tTk S ⋅)( we get

(8)

In order to calculate the first order linear reaction rate )(Tk S the methane production of the

digester effluent which is operated at the given HRT must be determined over about 60 days at two different temperatures. From the slope of the lines reaction rate constants can be calculated to 10086.0)22( −=° dCk S and 10238.0)37( −=° dCk S (Fig. 13)

−−=⋅

Ino

InpIno

VSSCH

VSSCH

VSSCHS

yyy

LNtTk ,max

,,max

4

44)(

16

Figure 13: Plot of the slope for )3722( CandCk S °°

To illustrate the effect of different temperatures on methane emissions in course of time a modified Arrhenius Equation (Randall et al., 1982) with a temperature term Tf can be used and calculated on base of the reaction rate constants )(Tk S at 22°C and 37°C from (9) and

(10) with 12 TT ≥ .

(9)

0699.10086.00238.0

)()( 2237

11

1

212

=

=

=

−−TT

S

S

T TkTkf

(10)

Furthermore, Eq. 9 can be rewritten to compute )(Tk S for an arbitrary temperature T with

7°C < T < 37°C from (11).

(11)

TT

T

SS

fkTk

−− == 3737 06995.10238.0)37()(

12

)()(

1

2 TTTS

S

fTkTk −=

17

Therefore all the conditions for the application of (7) are fulfilled to make a plot for the formation of methane in the storage tank in course of time (Fig. 14).

Figure 14: Methane yield from digestate in the storage tank in course of time at different Tempeatures

Conversion method for other units

In the measurement of methane emissions from storage tanks methane emission values based mostly to mass of digestate. For conversion of methane yield based on VS in the input feed

InpVSSCHy ,

4 into methane yield based on fresh mass of digestate Sm

CHy ,

4 the following method can be

applied. A portion of the substrate mass Inpm which passes into the digester is formed into biogas from both the digester D

BGm and the storage tank SBGm . Considering the remaining mass

of the substrate mass Sm of digestate in the storage tank Inpm we get Eq.1:

SBG

DBGSInp mmmm ++= (12)

The biogas yield related to fresh mass in the storage tank is:

.,S

SBGSm

BG mmy =

(13)

Combining (Eq.12) and (Eq.13), the mass of digestate in the storage tank yields to:

.1 ,Sm

BG

DBG

InpS

ymm

m+−

= (14)

18

For calculation of Sm the value of SmBGy , is essential, which we get from Eq. 15 considering the

biogas density SBGρ and the methane content of the biogas S

CH 4α from the storage tank.

10004

,4,

⋅⋅

= SCH

SBG

SmCHSm

BGyyα

ρ

(15)

Knowing the value of Sm , the methane yield from the storage tank related to the input VS concentration for a given storage temperature T results in Eq. 16. Alternatively, the methane yield based on the mass of digestate can be calculated from Eq. 17.

InpVS

Inp

SSmCHSVS

TCH cmmy

y Inp

⋅⋅

=,

4,,4

(16)

S

InpVS

InpSVSTCHSm

CH mcmy

yInp ⋅⋅

=,

,,4

4

(17)

4. Inventory of methane emissions

4.1. Storage of substrate and digester feeding

Liquid substrates, Solid and stuckable substate

− Liebetrau, J., Weiland, P., Clemens, J., 2011. Emission analysis and quantification of fluxes in biogas plants in in view of the ecological assessment of agricultural biogas production and inventory of the German agriculture. report 22023606 commisioned by the Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV) / Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe

− Liebetrau, J., Krebs, C., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Stinner, W., Nebel, E., Cuhls, C., Mähl, B., Reinhold, J., 2013. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from biogas plants in view of the ecological assessment of biogas production from waste. Report 03KB027. commisioned by the Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.

− Sax, M., Schick, M., Bolli, S., Soltermann-Pasca, A., Van Caenegem, L., 2013. Methane losses in agricultural biogas plants. Report commisioned by Bundesamt für Energie BFE. Switzerland

− Holmgren, M.A., 2011. Handbok metanmätningar. Rapport SGC 227, Svenskt Gastekniskt Center, Sweden

− Liebetrau, J., Reinelt, T., Clemens, J., Hafermann, C., Friehe, J., Weiland, P., 2013. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from 10 biogas plants within the agricultural sector. Water Science & Technology. 67 (6) 1370-1379

19

− Dumont, M., Luning, L., Yildiz, I., Koop, K., 2013. Methane emissions in biogas production. 248-266. Biogas handbook: Science, production and application, edited by Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 52, Oxford, Cambridge, Philadelphia, New Dehli. 512 pages

4.2. Digester and processing

Continuously fed operation, Batch-fed operation



− Büeler, E., Hermle, S., 2011. CH4 emissions from EPDM gas storage and their economic and environmental consequences. Report commisioned by Bundesamt für Energie BFE Switzerland





4.3. Digestate upgrading

Solid-liquid separation, Liquor processing, Drying

− Liebetrau, J., Weiland, P., Clemens, J., 2011. Emission analysis and quantification of fluxes in biogas plants in in view of the ecological assessment of agricultural biogas production and inventory of the German agriculture. report 22023606 commisioned

20

by the Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV) / Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe





4.4. Digestate storage

Open lagoons, Covered not gas tight tanks, Solid pile




− Büeler, E., Hermle, S., 2011. CH4 emissions from EPDM gas storage and their economic and environmental consequences. Report commisioned by Bundesamt für Energie BFE Switzerland



− Balsari, P., Dinuccio, E., Gioelli, F., 2013 A floating coverage system for digestate liquid fraction storage. Bioresource Technology 134 (2013) 285–289

21

− Reinhold, G.,2009. Effect of biogas production on the residual gas potential and quality of the digestate and the requirements for digestate. Internationale Bio- und Deponiegas Fachtagung „Synergien nutzen und voneinander lernen III“ 28. / 29. April 2009 Weimar

− Gioelli, F., Dinuccio, E., Balsari, P.,2011. Residual biogas potential from the storage tanks of non-separated digestate and digested liquid fraction. Bioresource Technology 102. 10248–10251

− Linke, B., Muha, I., Wittum, G., Plogsties, V., 2013. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and biogas crops in full scale German biogas plants: A model for calculating the effect of hydraulic retention time and VS crop proportion in the mixture on methane yield from digester and from digestate storage at different temperatures. Bioresource Technology 130 (2013) 689–695.


4.5. Digestate application

liquid digestate, solid digestate




− Amon, B., Kryvoruchko V., Amon, T., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., 2006. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112 (2006) 153–162

− Dieterich, B., Finnan J., Frost P., Gilkinson S., Müller C., 2012. The extent of methane (CH4) emissions after fertilisation of grassland with digestate. Biol Fertil Soils. 48. 981–985

− Odlare, M., Abubaker, J., Lindmark, J., Pell, M., Thorin, E., Nehrenheim, E., 2012. Emissions of N2O and CH4 from agricultural soils amended with two types of biogas residues. Biomass & Bioenergy. 44. 112-116

22

− Pezzolla, D., Bol, R., Gigliotti1, G., Sawamoto, T., López, A. L., Cardenas, Laura., Chadwick, D., 2012. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soils amended with digestate derived from anaerobic treatment of food waste. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 26, 2422–2430

4.6. Biogas utilisation

Combined Heat an Power generation (CHP), Biogas cleaning and upgrading (Pressure Swing Adsorption, Water scrubbing, Chemical scrubbing, Membrane separation), Vehicle filling station





− Göthe, L., 2013. Methane emissions in the Swedish CNG/CBG chain – A current situation analysis. SGC Rapport 2013:282. Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB, Sweden



5. Evaluation of methane emissions

Reference systems boundaries and functional units,

23

− Boulamanti, A. K., Maglio, S.D., Giuntoli., J., 2013. Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass & Bioenergy. 53. 149-16

− Battini, F., Agostini, A., Boulamanti, A.K., Giuntoli, J., Amaducci, S. 2014. Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: Case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Science of the Total Environment 481. 196–208

− Bachmaier, J., Effenberger, M., Gronauer, A., 2010. Greenhouse gas balance and resource demand of biogas plants in agriculture. Eng. Life Sci., 10, No. 6, 560–569

− Bachmaier, J. 2012. Treibhausgasemissionen und fossiler Energieverbrauch landwirtschaftlicher Biogasanlagen Eine Bewertung auf Basis von Messdaten mit Evaluierung der Ergebnisunsicherheit mittels Monte-Carlo-Simulation. Dissertation, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien

− De Meester, S., Demeyer, J., Velghe, F., Peene, A., Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., 2012. The environmental sustainability of anaerobic digestion as a biomass valorization technology. Bioresource Technology 121. 396–403

− Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2011. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting anaerobic digestion technology on dairy, sow and pig farms in Finland. Renewable Energy 36. 31-41

− Lansche, J., Müller, J., 2012. Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates. Eng. Life Sci., 12, No. 3, 313–320

− Meyer-Aurich, A., Schattauer, A., Hellebrand, H.J., Klauss, H., Plöchl, M., Berg, W., 2012. Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources. Renewable Energy 37. 277-284

− Woess-Gallasch, S., Bird, N., Enzinger, P., Jungmeier, G., Padinger, R., Pena, N., Zanchi, G., 2011. Greenhouse Gas Benefits of a Biogas Plant in Austria. JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH. RESOURCES - Institute of Water, Energy and Sustainability. Graz, IEA Bioenergy Task 38 Case Study Report

− Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production 24. 184-201

− Wulf, S., Jäger, P., Döhler, H., 2006. Balancing of greenhouse gas emissions and economic efficiency for biogas-production through anaerobic co-fermentation of slurry with organic waste. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112. 178–185

References

IPCC, 2012. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

24

Anonymus, 2009. A Biogas Road Map for Europe. European Biomass Association. www.aebiom.org

Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D.,2013. Biogas handbook: Science, production and application, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 52, Oxford, Cambridge, Philadelphia, New Dehli. 512 pages

Van Foreest, F., 2012. Perspectives for Biogas in Europe. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Registered Charity, No. 286084. http://www.oxfordenergy.org/2012/12/perspectives-for-biogas-in-europe/

Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P.,2010. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14. 1782–1797

Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e part I: life cycle inventory for evaluation of production process emissions to air. J Clean Prod 24:168-183

Masse, D.I, Talbot, G., Gilbert, Y. 2011. On farm biogas production: a method to reduce GHG emissions and develop more sustainable livestock operations. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 166-67. 436-445

Boulamanti, A.K., Maglio, S.D., Giuntoli, J., Agostini, A., 2013. Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass & Bioenergy. 53. 149-161

Fytili, D., Zabaniotou, A., 2008. Utilization of sewage sludge in EU application of old and new methods—A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 12. 116–140

UBA,2008. Steigerung der Energieeffizienz auf kommunalen Kläranlagen http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/search/content/Forschungsbericht%2520205%252026%2520307

Rulkens, W., 2008. Sewage Sludge as a Biomass Resource for the Production of Energy: Overview and Assessment of the Various Options. Energy & Fuels 2008, 22, 9–15

Gujer, W.,2007. Siedlungswasserwirtschaft. 3. bearbeitete Auflage. Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, 425 S.

Souza, C. L., Chernicharo, C. A. L., Aquino, S. F. 2011. Quantification of dissolved methane in UASB reactors treating domestic wastewater under different operating conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 64 (11). 2259-2264

Van Lier, J. B., Mahmoud, N., Zeeman, G. 2008. Anaerobic wastewater treatment. Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design. Edited by M.Henze, M.C.M van Loosdrecht, G.A. Ekema and D. Brdjanovic,. Published by IWA Publishing, London, UK

Zamoranoa, M., Perez, J.I., Paves I.A., Ridao, A.R. 2007. Study of the energy potential of the biogas produced by an urban waste landfill in Southern Spain. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 11. 909–922

25

Bogner, J., 2003. Global methane emissions from landfills: New methodology and annual estimates 1980–1996. GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES, VOL. 17,1-18

Huber-Humer, M., Gebert, J., Hilger, H., 2008. Biotic systems to mitigate landfill methane emissions. Waste Management & Research 26: 33–46

Mata-Alvarez, J., Mace, S., P. Llabres, P., 2000. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid wastes. An overview of research achievements and perspectives. Bioresource Technology 74. 3-16

Al Seadi, T., Owen, N., Hellström, H., Ho Kang. 2013. Source separation of MSW. http://www.iea-biogas.net

Banks, C.J., Chesshire, M., Heaven, S., Arnold, R., 2011. Anaerobic digestion of source-segregated domestic food waste: Performance assessment by mass and energy balance. Bioresource Technology 102. 612–620

Lukehurst, C.T., Frost, P., Al Seadi, T., 2011. Utilisation of digestate from biogas plants as biofertiliser. IEA Task 37. http://www.iea-biogas.net

Lissens, G., Vandevivere, P., De Baere, L., Biey, E.M., Verstraete, W., 2001. Solid waste digestors: process performance and practice for municipal solid waste digestion. Water Science & Technology Vol 44 No 8 pp 91–102

Braun, R. and Wellinger, R. 2003. Potential of Co-digestion. IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 - Energy from Biogas and Landfill Gas. http://www.iea-biogas.net/

Weiland, P., 2010. Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2010) 85:849–860

Kaparaju, P. and Rintala, J. 2005. Anaerobic co-digestion of potato tuber and its industrial by-products with pig manure. RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING. 43. (2). 175-18

Angelidaki, I., and Ellegard, L., 2003. Codigestion of Manure and Organic Wastes in Centralized Biogas Plants. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. Vol. 109. 95-105

Al Seadi, T., Rutz, D., Janssen, R., 2013. Biomass resources for biogas production . Edited by: Wellinger, A; Murphy, J; Baxter, D. BIOGAS HANDBOOK: SCIENCE, PRODUCTION AND APPLICATIONS. Book Series: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy Issue: 52 Pages: 19-51

Allen, E. Browne, J.D., Murphy, J.D. 2013. Evaluation of the biomethane yield from anaerobic co-digestion of nitrogenous substrates By: ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY Volume: 34 Issue: 13-14 Special Issue: SI Pages: 2059-2068

Holm-Nielsen, J.B., Al Seadi T., Oleskowicz-Popiel P., 2009. The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresource Technology. 100. 5478–5484

26

Park, K.H., Wagner-Riddle, C., Gordon, R.G.,2010. Comparing methane fluxes from stored liquid manure using micrometeorological mass balance and floating chamber methods. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150. 175–181

Anonymous, 2006. VDI-Richtlinie 4630,Vergärung organischer Stoffe, VDI-Gesellschaft Energietechnik, Düsseldorf.

Linke, B., 2006. Kinetic study of thermophilic anaerobic digestion of solid wastes from potato processing. Biomass Bioenerg. 30 (10), 892–896.

Liebetrau, J., Reinelt, T., Clemens, J., Hafermann, C., Friehe, J., Weiland, P., 2013. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from 10 biogas plants within the agricultural sector. Water Science & Technology. 67 (6) 1370-1379

Liebetrau, J., Weiland, P., Clemens, J., 2011. Emission analysis and quantification of fluxes in biogas plants in view of the ecological assessment of agricultural biogas production and inventory of the German agriculture. Report 22023606 commisioned by the Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (BMELV) / Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Germany

Liebetrau, J., Krebs, C., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Stinner, W., Nebel, E., Cuhls, C., Mähl, B., Reinhold, J., 2013. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from biogas plants in view of the ecological assessment of biogas production from waste. Report 03KB027. commisioned by the Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Germany

Büeler, E., Hermle, S., 2011. CH4 emissions from EPDM gas storage and their economic and environmental consequences. Report commisioned by Bundesamt für Energie BFE. Switzerland

Sax, M., Schick, M., Bolli, S., Soltermann-Pasca, A., Van Caenegem, L., 2013. Methane losses in agricultural biogas plants. Report commisioned by Bundesamt für Energie BFE. Switzerland

Göthe, L., 2013. Methane emissions in the Swedish CNG/CBG chain – A current situation analysis. SGC Rapport 2013:282. Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB, Sweden

Petersson, A., Magnus Andreas Holmgren, M.A., 2012. The swedish voluntary system for control of methane emissions. SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden, Task 37 – Energy from Biogas, Sweden

Holmgren, M.A., 2011. Handbok metanmätningar. Rapport SGC 227, Svenskt Gastekniskt Center, Sweden

Balsari, P., Dinuccio, E., Gioelli, F., 2013 A floating coverage system for digestate liquid fraction storage. Bioresource Technology 134 (2013) 285–289

27

Reinhold, G.,2009. Effect of biogas production on the residual gas potential and quality of the digestate and the requirements for digestate. Internationale Bio- und Deponiegas Fachtagung „Synergien nutzen und voneinander lernen III“ 28. / 29. April 2009 Weimar, Germany

Gioelli, F., Dinuccio, E., Balsari, P., 2011. Residual biogas potential from the storage tanks of non-separated digestate and digested liquid fraction. Bioresource Technology 102. 10248–10251

Linke, B., Muha, I., Wittum, G., Plogsties, V., 2013. Mesophilic anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure and biogas crops in full scale German biogas plants: A model for calculating the effect of hydraulic retention time and VS crop proportion in the mixture on methane yield from digester and from digestate storage at different temperatures. Bioresource Technology 130 (2013) 689–695.

Amon, B., Kryvoruchko V., Amon, T., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S., 2006. Methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions during storage and after application of dairy cattle slurry and influence of slurry treatment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112 (2006) 153–162

Dieterich, B., Finnan J., Frost P., Gilkinson S., Müller C., 2012. The extent of methane (CH4) emissions after fertilisation of grassland with digestate. Biol Fertil Soils. 48. 981–985

Odlare, M., Abubaker, J., Lindmark, J., Pell, M., Thorin, E., Nehrenheim, E., 2012. Emissions of N2O and CH4 from agricultural soils amended with two types of biogas residues. Biomass & Bioenergy. 44. 112-116

Pezzolla, D., Bol, R., Gigliotti1, G., Sawamoto, T., López, A. L., Cardenas, Laura., Chadwick, D., 2012. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soils amended with digestate derived from anaerobic treatment of food waste. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 26, 2422–2430

Dumont, M., Luning, L., Yildiz, I., Koop, K., 2013. Methane emissions in biogas production. 248-266. Biogas handbook: Science, production and application, edited by Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy No. 52, Oxford, Cambridge, Philadelphia, New Dehli. 512 pages

Boulamanti, A. K., Maglio, S.D., Giuntoli., J., 2013. Influence of different practices on biogas sustainability. Biomass & Bioenergy. 53. 149-161

Battini, F., Agostini, A., Boulamanti, A.K., Giuntoli, J., Amaducci, S. 2014. Mitigating the environmental impacts of milk production via anaerobic digestion of manure: Case study of a dairy farm in the Po Valley. Science of the Total Environment 481. 196–208

Bachmaier, J., Effenberger, M., Gronauer, A., 2010. Greenhouse gas balance and resource demand of biogas plants in agriculture. Eng. Life Sci., 10, No. 6, 560–569

Bachmaier, J. 2012. Treibhausgasemissionen und fossiler Energieverbrauch landwirtschaftlicher Biogasanlagen Eine Bewertung auf Basis von Messdaten mit Evaluierung

28

der Ergebnisunsicherheit mittels Monte-Carlo-Simulation. Dissertation, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien

De Meester, S., Demeyer, J., Velghe, F., Peene, A., Dewulf, J., Van Langenhove, H., 2012. The environmental sustainability of anaerobic digestion as a biomass valorization technology. Bioresource Technology 121. 396–403

Kaparaju, P., Rintala, J., 2011. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting anaerobic digestion technology on dairy, sow and pig farms in Finland. Renewable Energy 36. 31-41

Lansche, J., Müller, J., 2012. Life cycle assessment of energy generation of biogas fed combined heat and power plants: Environmental impact of different agricultural substrates. Eng. Life Sci., 12, No. 3, 313–320

Meyer-Aurich, A., Schattauer, A., Hellebrand, H.J., Klauss, H., Plöchl, M., Berg, W., 2012. Impact of uncertainties on greenhouse gas mitigation potential of biogas production from agricultural resources. Renewable Energy 37. 277-284

Woess-Gallasch, S., Bird, N., Enzinger, P., Jungmeier, G., Padinger, R., Pena, N., Zanchi, G., 2011. Greenhouse Gas Benefits of a Biogas Plant in Austria. JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH. RESOURCES - Institute of Water, Energy and Sustainability. Graz, IEA Bioenergy Task 38 Case Study Report

Poeschl, M., Ward, S., Owende, P., 2012. Environmental impacts of biogas deployment e Part II: life cycle assessment of multiple production and utilization pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production 24. 184-201

Wulf, S., Jäger, P., Döhler, H., 2006. Balancing of greenhouse gas emissions and economic efficiency for biogas-production through anaerobic co-fermentation of slurry with organic waste. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 112. 178–185

29

methane e missions in biogas plants - measurement ... emissions.pdf · in biogas plants -...

Documents