value chain models for effective biogas production and utilization
TRANSCRIPT
Value chain models
for effective biogas
production and
utilization – case study from Østfold region
in Norway
Nordic Biogas Conference,
Reykjavik
Kari-Anne Lyng
Østfoldforskning
• Norwegian research institute
(private, non profit) located in
Fredrikstad
• 15 researchers with expertise in
sustainable innovation and life
cycle assessments
• 5 main markets:
– Building and construction
– Waste resources and energy
– Food and packaging
– Textiles and furniture
– Regional innovation
– Environmental impact tools
Case study: Østfold region in Norway
Environmental impacts and economy for the actors in the
value chain:
Questions
• What is the best use of the biogas produced in the region?
• What is the optimal number of pre-treatment plants?
• What is the optimal number of biogas plants?
Biogas production in Norway
• Main motivation: treatment of organic waste and sewage
sludge
• Climate mitigation measure
• Use of biogas: heat, electricity – newest biogas plants: fuel
for buses and renovation trucks
• There is a great potential for better utilization of organic
waste and manure in Norway as a resource for biogas
production.
Purpose of biogas model
• Documentation of net GWP and other environmental indicators
(benefits and emissions) and economy (costs and income)
– Through the value chain of biogas production
– In a region, for a specific biogas plant or for treatment of a certain amount of
waste/manure
• Simulate the effect of different solutions such as:
• Size on new plants (amount and type substrate)
• Analyze consequenses of localisation alternatives (transport distances)
• Different utilizations of biogas
Models developed in 3 phases
Contributors
• Norwegian Agricultural Authority
(SLF)
• Norwegian Research Council
• Avfall Norge
• The Norwegian Farmers Union
(Bondelaget)
• Cambi
• NHO Mat og Drikke
• Agricultural department, Østfold and
Vestfold County (Fylkesmannens
landbruksavdeling)
Research collaboration
between:
• Østfoldforskning
• NMBU
• Bioforsk
• Telemark University
College
• TelTek
• RebioKonsult
• DTU Management
engineering
• University of Southern
Denmark
Environmental impact model
+ Direct emissions
from biomass
+ Indirect emissions
- Avoided burdens
= Net environmental
impact
Functional unit (reference flow):
Amount of substrate
(1 tonne of DM)
Current
practice for
LCA of waste
management
systems
Storage
Transport
Pre-treatment
Anaerobicdigestion
Transport and storage
Use and application on
land
Avoided burdens from substitution of mineral fertiliser or
soil improvement products
Manure
Organic waste
Use of
biogas
Avoided emissions from substitution of
fuels, heat or electricity
Sequestration of biogenic
carbon in soil
Economic model
• Life Cycle Costing (LCC):
– All costs associated with the investment
throughout the service life.
– Investment costs (minus investment
support), plus operating costs adjusted
for interests every year.
• Annual costs:
– Yearly capital costs (investment costs
distributed per year)
– Annual operating costs
– Annual transport costs
– Includes annual depreciation and
interest costs
Income and avodided
costs
Storage payment
from biogas plant
for digestate,
digestate
replaces mineral
fertiliser
Gate-fee waste,
energy sales,
digestate sales
Variable operating costs
Energy and heat,
pretreatment costs
(/ton waste)
Energy and heat,
water costs
Energy and heat,
upgrading costs (/Nm3)
Investment costs Manure storage,
digestate tank,
cover digestate
tank
Infrastructure Infrastructure,
sedimentation
tank, digester,
storage digestate,
additional costs
Infrastructure
Farm Pretratment plant Biogas plant Upgrading plant
Maintenance costs Personell,
maintenance
costs, gas
motor, manure
pump, property
costs
Maintenance costs, Fixed operating costs Maintenance
costs, digestate
Østfold: Analysed scenariosTreatment of all organic household waste and 30 % of the manure in the
region
0 Reference scenario: current treatment of organic
waste (14% compost og 86% energy recovery) and
manure spread locally as fertiliser.
1 One central biogas plant + one local farm based
plant. One pre-treatment facility
2 Two biogas plants + one local farm based plant. a) One pre-treatment facility
b) Two pre-treatment facilities
3 Three biogas plants + one local farm based plant.
Two pre-treatment facilities.
All scenarios: upgraded and used as fuel in buses and
renovation trucks, liquid digestate used as fertilizer
17.000 tonnes organic waste
23.000 tonnes manure from cattle
42.000 tonnes manure from pig
Frevar (Fredrikstad)
Tomb (Råde)
Bodal (Rakkestad)
Stegen (Askim)
Results for Global Warming Potentialto
nnes
CO
2-e
qiv
./year
1 biogas
plant
2 biogas plants 3
biogas
plants
Results for global warming potential
• Use of biogas in the transport sector is more preferable
than producing heat, electricity or a combination.
• No large differences between the different options
• Larger scale result in more impact from transport and
increased production of biogas gives a benefit
• Other environmental impact categories
Resuls for LCC
1 biogas
plant2 biogas plants
3
biogas
plants
Results for annual costs
Gate fee
for waste
Income
upgraded
biogas
-
10 000 000
20 000 000
30 000 000
40 000 000
50 000 000
60 000 000
Gården Forbehandlingsanlegg Biogassanlegg
Ko
stn
ader
i N
OK
per
år
Oppgraderingskostnader
Transportkostnader
Investeringskostnader
Driftskostnader
Årlige kostnader per verdikjedeledd,
scenario I
Costs for the
farmers are equal
for all scenarios
Two smaller pre-treatment
facilities:
investment and
maintenance costs
increases, while transport
costs are reduced
Two or three smaller biogas plants:
upgrading, investment and
maintenance costs increases, while
transport costs are reduced
Conclusions for value chain economy
• Transport affect the annual costs and should be optimised
• It is more profitable to build one large scale biogas plant
rather than several medium sized plants.
• This may change if political measures are introduced
Developments in the
Østfold region
• A new biogas plant has been
established in accordance
with the results from the
study
• Østfold County has set as a
requirement in new tender
for bus transport in the
region that the buses should
use biogas as a fuel,
resulting in about 100 new
buses using biogas from the
local plant
Further work
Through the research projects BioValueChain and BioChain:
• Continue to improve models by verifying data, including
more environmental impact indicators, performing
sensitivity analysis, work on integration of the models
• Test the model through more Norwegian case studies for
existing biogas plants and planned plants
• Perform comparative analysis of biogas in Norway and
Denmark: framework conditions, political measures
• Assess how to optimise biogas value chains in Norway
and in Denmark