Value chain models
for effective biogas
production and
utilization
– case study from Østfold region
in Norway
Nordic Biogas Conference,
Reykjavik
Kari-Anne Lyng
kari-anne@ostfoldforskning.no
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
Research collaboration
between:
• Østfoldforskning
• NMBU
• Bioforsk
• Telemark University
College
• TelTek
• RebioKonsult
Contributors
• Norwegian Agricultural Authority
(SLF)
• Norwegian Research Council
• Avfall Norge
• The Norwegian Farmers Union
(Bondelaget)
• Cambi
• NHO Mat og Drikke
• DTU Management
engineering
• Agricultural department, Østfold and
• University of Southern
Vestfold County (Fylkesmannens
Denmark
landbruksavdeling)
Environmental impact model
Organic waste
Storage
Functional unit (reference flow):
Manure
Amount of substrate
(1 tonne of DM)
Sequestration of biogenic
+ Direct emissions
from biomass
+ Indirect emissions
Transport
carbon in soil
Avoided burdens from
substitution of mineral fertiliser or
soil improvement products
Pre-treatment
- Avoided burdens
= Net environmental
impact
Current
practice for
LCA of waste
management
systems
Anaerobic
digestion
Use and
application on
land
Transport and
storage
Avoided emissions from substitution of
fuels, heat or electricity
Use of
biogas
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
Farm
Pretratment plant
Investment costs
Manure storage, Infrastructure
digestate tank,
cover digestate
tank
Fixed operating costs
Maintenance
costs, digestate
Upgrading plant
Infrastructure,
Infrastructure
sedimentation
tank, digester,
storage digestate,
additional costs
Maintenance costs Personell,
Maintenance costs,
maintenance
costs, gas
motor, manure
pump, property
costs
Energy and heat, Energy and heat, Energy and heat,
pretreatment costs water costs
upgrading costs (/Nm3)
(/ton waste)
Variable operating costs
Income and avodided
costs
Biogas plant
Storage payment
from biogas plant
for digestate,
digestate
replaces mineral
fertiliser
Gate-fee waste,
energy sales,
digestate sales
Østfold: Analysed scenarios
Treatment of all organic household waste and 30 % of the manure in the
region
0
1
2
Reference scenario: current treatment of organic
waste (14% compost og 86% energy recovery) and
manure spread locally as fertiliser.
One central biogas plant + one local farm based
plant. One pre-treatment facility
Two biogas plants + one local farm based plant.
Stegen (Askim)
Bodal (Rakkestad)
Tomb (Råde)
a) One pre-treatment facility
b) Two pre-treatment facilities
3
Three biogas plants + one local farm based plant.
17.000 tonnes organic waste
Two pre-treatment facilities.
Frevar (Fredrikstad)
23.000 tonnes manure from cattle
42.000 tonnes manure from pig
All scenarios: upgraded and used as fuel in buses and
renovation trucks, liquid digestate used as fertilizer
tonnes CO2-eqiv./year
Results for Global Warming Potential
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
plant
2 biogas plants
3
biogas
plants
Results for annual costs
Gate fee
for waste
Income
upgraded
biogas
60 000 000
Årlige kostnader per verdikjedeledd,
scenario I
Two or three smaller biogas plants:
upgrading, investment and
maintenance costs increases, while
transport costs are reduced
50 000 000
Kostnader i NOK per år
40 000 000
Oppgraderingskostnader
Transportkostnader
30 000 000
Investeringskostnader
20 000 000
Costs for the
farmers are equal
for all scenarios
Driftskostnader
Two smaller pre-treatment
facilities:
investment and
maintenance costs
increases, while transport
costs are reduced
10 000 000
-
Gården
Forbehandlingsanlegg
Biogassanlegg
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