Band 41 _ PRODUKTION UND ENERGIE

David Balussou

AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT AND

FUTURE ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
FROM BIOGAS IN GERMANY
David Balussou

An analysis of current and future electricity production

from biogas in Germany
PRODUKTION UND ENERGIE

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)

Institut für Industriebetriebslehre und Industrielle Produktion
Deutsch-Französisches Institut für Umweltforschung

Band 41

Eine Übersicht aller bisher in dieser Schriftenreihe

erschienenen Bände finden Sie am Ende des Buches.
An analysis of current and
future electricity production
from biogas in Germany

by
David Balussou
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie
Institut für Industriebetriebslehre und industrielle Produktion
u. Deutsch-Französisches Institut für Umweltforschung

An analysis of current and future electricity production

from biogas in Germany

Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Ingenieur­

wissenschaften von der KIT-Fakultät für Wirtschafts­wissen­schaften des
Karlsruher Instituts für Technologie (KIT) genehmigte Dissertation

von David Balussou

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 9. Februar 2018

Erster Gutachter: Prof. W. Fichtner
Zweiter Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Dominik Möst

Impressum

Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)

KIT Scientific Publishing
Straße am Forum 2
D-76131 Karlsruhe
KIT Scientific Publishing is a registered trademark
of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
Reprint using the book cover is not allowed.
www.ksp.kit.edu

This document – excluding parts marked otherwise, the cover, pictures and graphs –
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License
(CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
The cover page is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-ND 4.0):
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.en

Print on Demand 2023 – Gedruckt auf FSC-zertifiziertem Papier

ISSN 2194-2404
ISBN 978-3-7315-1035-2
DOI 10.5445/KSP/1000122103
Abstract
With the development of renewable energy sources in Germany the use of
biogas for electricity and heat production has rapidly expanded since the year
2000. This expansion has been encouraged by several Federal governmental
incentives and in particular by the electricity Feed-In-Tariffs introduced in the
Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). Agricultural plants valorizing energy
crops now constitute almost 80% of total biogas installations. However
volatile energy crops and electricity prices, combined with continuously
evolving framework conditions, are a source of uncertainty for German plant
operators. In this context, investment decision making for biogas plant
projects is a difficult task that requires the development of decision support
tools.

In order to provide an assistance to plant operators two models are

developed in this work. The first one deals with the analysis of the current
electricity production from biogas in Germany (simulation model) and the
second one with mid-term developments up to the year 2030 (optimization
model).

The simulation model is based on a process modelling approach which

calibrates and simulates reference biogas plant types by considering a
variable and differentiated biomass input. The analysis concerns the three
major installation types in Germany valorizing energy crops, biowaste and
manure. An integrated economic evaluation tool leads to the identification of
the most profitable biogas plant sizes taking into account various subsidy
schemes. Under EEG 2014 a paradigm shift is observed. Small-scale manure
and large-scale biowaste plants appear as the most profitable installations
whereas agricultural plants are no longer profitable mainly due to the cut in
the subsidy for energy crops implemented in 2014.

i
Abstract

The optimization model based on a plant operator perspective aims to

determine the economically optimal capacity development for the three main
installation types at the Federal State level and under various scenarios. The
results highlight the influence of regional biomass potentials, revenues and
electricity production costs as well as plant flexibilization and
decommissioning. Future capacity expansion should mainly concern small-
scale manure plants and biowaste installations rather than agricultural plants
which, on the contrary, should undergo only modest development.

Based on the model results recommendations for plant operators and policy-
makers are formulated. Maintaining current subsidy levels for biowaste and
small-scale manure installations appears necessary in order to ensure the
profitable and sustainable development of German biogas plants. Strategy
planning and flexible plant operation as well as the increased valorization of
residues in agricultural plants represent key challenges. An improved
mobilization of biowaste potentials combined with better heat valorization
would contribute to the creation of local and circular bio-economies in line
with the planned national energy transition. The transferability of the
methodological framework used in this work to other countries and
bioenergy pathways is further analysed. A model implementation is possible
especially in countries showing stable legal framework conditions for
bioenergy (e.g., Feed-In-Tariffs) and benefiting from lessons learned and best
practices from past projects.

ii
Table of contents
Abstract....................................................................................................... i

Table of contents........................................................................................iii

List of Figures ............................................................................................. ix

List of Tables ............................................................................................. xv

Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xix

Acknowledgment ................................................................................... xxiii

1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Objectives and overview................................................................... 4

2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas ...........................11

2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways ............................ 11
2.1.1 Thermochemical conversion ............................................... 13
2.1.2 Physical-chemical conversion .............................................. 19
2.1.3 Biochemical conversion ....................................................... 20
2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain .............................. 22
2.2.1 Biomass feedstock management......................................... 23
2.2.2 Biogas production process .................................................. 29
2.2.3 Digestate treatment ............................................................ 34
2.2.4 Biogas valorization............................................................... 36
2.3 Summary ......................................................................................... 38

3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany .....................................41

3.1 Biogas situation in Europe .............................................................. 41
3.2 Past developments and current situation for biogas in
Germany ......................................................................................... 45

iii
Table of contents

3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in

Germany ......................................................................................... 50
3.3.1 Energy Economics Law (EnWG) ........................................... 50
3.3.2 Renewable Energy Heat Act (EEWärmeG) .......................... 51
3.3.3 Renewable Heat Law (EWärmeG) ....................................... 52
3.3.4 Cogeneration Act (KWKG) ................................................... 52
3.3.5 Biomass Electricity Sustainability Regulation (BioSt-
NachV) ................................................................................. 53
3.3.6 Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG).................................. 53
3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects ............................. 64
3.4.1 Economic assessment of existing biogas plants .................. 64
3.4.2 Biomass potentials assessment ........................................... 73
3.4.3 Model-based analysis of future electricity
production from biogas in Germany ................................... 76
3.5 Summary ......................................................................................... 82

4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity

production from biogas in Germany .................................................... 83
4.1 General introduction to simulation models ................................... 84
4.2 Objectives and general methodology ............................................. 86
4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer ................ 88
4.3.1 Description of the simulation software SuperPro
Designer............................................................................... 88
4.3.2 Biogas plant calibration ....................................................... 89
4.3.3 Process simulation ............................................................... 95
4.4 Summary ......................................................................................... 98

5 An optimization model of future German electricity

production from biogas ..................................................................... 101
5.1 A general introduction to optimization models ........................... 102
5.2 General objective and methodology ............................................ 103
5.3 Objective and structure of the optimization model ..................... 106
5.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 108

iv
 Table of contents

6 Model input data determination........................................................109

6.1 System boundaries ....................................................................... 109
6.2 Overview of the required input data for the simulation
and the optimization models ........................................................ 111
6.2.1 Substrate and process definition ....................................... 111
6.2.2 Operator models, plant operating hours and
flexibility ............................................................................ 113
6.2.3 Techno-economic input data............................................. 115
6.2.4 General methodology for the model input data
determination .................................................................... 117
6.3 Estimation of existing biogas plant capacity ................................. 119
6.4 Estimation of current biomass potentials and evolution up
to 2030 .......................................................................................... 122
6.4.1 Estimation of current biomass potentials for
electricity generation ........................................................ 122
6.4.2 Evolution of biomass potentials for electricity
generation up to 2030 ....................................................... 125
6.5 Specific investment-related costs ................................................. 126
6.5.1 Total capital investment estimation .................................. 127
6.5.2 Additional investment ....................................................... 131
6.6 Specific operating costs ................................................................ 132
6.6.1 Energy crop costs estimation and forecast ....................... 132
6.6.2 Biomass feedstock transport costs .................................... 142
6.6.3 Other operating costs ........................................................ 152
6.7 Revenues estimation and forecast ............................................... 155
6.7.1 Revenues from electricity sale .......................................... 155
6.7.2 Flexibility premium and supplement ................................. 157
6.7.3 Revenues from heat sale ................................................... 157
6.7.4 Revenues from digestate sale ........................................... 158
6.7.5 Revenues from biowaste valorization ............................... 159
6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility ........................... 159
6.9 Summary ....................................................................................... 168

v
Table of contents

7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from

biogas in Germany ............................................................................. 171
7.1 Costs and revenues functions ....................................................... 172
7.2 Identification of most profitable plant sizes ................................. 176
7.2.1 Results under the EEG 2012 framework ............................ 177
7.2.2 Results under the EEG 2014 framework ............................ 177
7.3 Costs and revenues structure ....................................................... 179
7.3.1 Energy crops and manure plants ....................................... 180
7.3.2 Energy crops plants ........................................................... 181
7.3.3 Biowaste plants ................................................................. 182
7.4 Sensitivity analysis ........................................................................ 183
7.4.1 Sensitivity analysis for energy crops and manure
plants ................................................................................. 184
7.4.2 Sensitivity analysis for energy crops plants ....................... 184
7.4.3 Sensitivity analysis for biowaste plants ............................. 185
7.5 Technical assessment ................................................................... 186
7.6 Discussion of methodology and results ........................................ 191
7.6.1 Methodology ..................................................................... 191
7.6.2 Validation and critique of results ...................................... 195
7.7 Model outcomes evaluation ......................................................... 198
7.7.1 Policy recommendations ................................................... 198
7.7.2 Strategic outcomes ............................................................ 199
7.8 Summary ....................................................................................... 202

8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from

biogas in Germany ............................................................................. 205
8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario ........................................ 205
8.1.1 Results at the Federal State level ...................................... 206
8.1.2 Results for energy crops and manure plants ..................... 208
8.1.3 Results for biowaste plants ............................................... 212
8.1.4 Results for energy crops plants ......................................... 215
8.2 Results under other scenarios ...................................................... 217
8.3 Discussion of methodology and results ........................................ 221

vi
 Table of contents

8.3.1 Methodology ..................................................................... 221

8.3.2 Validation and critique of results ...................................... 224
8.4 Model outcomes evaluation ......................................................... 232
8.4.1 Policy recommendations ................................................... 232
8.4.2 Strategic outcomes ............................................................ 233
8.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 235

9 Transferability of the developed methodology ..................................237

9.1 Biomethane injection in France .................................................... 238
9.1.1 Current situation and lessons learned............................... 238
9.1.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges
for a future model implementation .................................. 241
9.2 Biomass combustion for district heating in Finland ..................... 243
9.2.1 Current situation and lessons learned............................... 243
9.2.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges
for a future model implementation .................................. 245
9.3 Bioethanol for transportation in Brazil ......................................... 246
9.3.1 Current situation and lessons learned............................... 246
9.3.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges
for a future model implementation .................................. 248
9.4 Biodiesel production from jatropha in Indonesia ......................... 250
9.4.1 Current situation and lessons learned............................... 250
9.4.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges
for a future model implementation .................................. 253
9.5 Summary ....................................................................................... 254

10 Summary, conclusions and outlook ....................................................257

10.1 Summary ....................................................................................... 257
10.2 Conclusions ................................................................................... 261
10.3 Outlook ......................................................................................... 263

Appendix .................................................................................................269

Bibliography ............................................................................................291

vii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Interactions between input data and the simulation
and optimization models (author’s own
representation) ........................................................................... 9
Figure 2.1: Main bioenergy conversion pathways (author’s own
representation according to [16]) ............................................. 12
Figure 2.2: Main process steps involved in the operation of a
biogas plant (author’s own representation according
to [27]) ...................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.3: Classification of available fermentation processes
(author’s own representation according to [47]) ..................... 33
Figure 3.1: Biogas plants number repartition in Europe at the end
of the year 2015 [10], [66] ........................................................ 42
Figure 3.2: Biomass feedstock mix used in 2015 for biogas
production in various European countries (in % mass)
[68] 43
Figure 3.3: Biomass feedstock potentials in all European countries
by 2020 [69] .............................................................................. 44
Figure 3.4: Historical development for German biogas plants [10] ............ 47
Figure 3.5: German electricity production from biomass in 2014
under the EEG framework [77] ................................................. 48
Figure 3.6: Main feedstocks employed in German biogas plants at
the end of 2014 [78] ................................................................. 49
Figure 3.7: Main energy crops employed in German biogas plants
at the end of 2014 [79] ............................................................. 49
Figure 3.8: Time schedule for the setting up of the different
subsidy mechanisms supporting biogas in Germany

ix
List of Figures

(author’s own representation according to [96], [11],

[35]) 55
Figure 3.9: Pros and cons characterizing energy crops-based
versus biowaste and small-scale manure plants
(author’s own representation) .................................................. 63
Figure 3.10: Literature values for specific electricity production
costs relative to biowaste and agricultural biogas
plants in Germany (own representation according to
[75], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123],
[124]) ......................................................................................... 67
Figure 3.11: Electricity production costs from the biogas
measurement program II [125] ................................................. 69
Figure 3.12: Technical biogas potentials for the main biomass
feedstock types valorized in German biogas plants at
the Federal State level [132] ..................................................... 76
Figure 3.13: Aggregation levels of main available energy conversion
technologies (author’s own representation) ............................ 77
Figure 4.1: Scope, system boundaries and level of detail [138] ................. 85
Figure 4.2: Main methodological steps employed for the analysis
of current electricity production from biogas in
Germany (own representation) ................................................ 88
Figure 4.3: Schematic representation of the mass and energy
flows in each simulation step i .................................................. 96
Figure 4.4: Correlation between the CHP-electric power and the
biomass input mass flow ........................................................... 98
Figure 5.1: Main methodological steps employed for the analysis
of future electricity production from biogas in
Germany (author’s own representation) ................................ 104
Figure 6.1: System boundaries (author’s own representation) ................ 110

x
 List of Figures

Figure 6.2: Considered operator models under EEG 2012 and EEG
2014 legal frameworks ............................................................ 113
Figure 6.3: Classification of the required model input data ..................... 117
Figure 6.4: Capacity repartition for the existing biogas plant types
at the end of the year 2012 .................................................... 121
Figure 6.5: Acquisition costs structure for typical E, EM and B
biogas plant sizes .................................................................... 128
Figure 6.6: Specific investment for agricultural and biowaste
plants (EM and B plants) as a function of the installed
electric power ......................................................................... 131
Figure 6.7: Usable surface area as a function of the transport
distance [205].......................................................................... 143
Figure 6.8: Usable mass amount for energy crops as a function of
the collection radius [79], [205] .............................................. 144
Figure 6.9: Specific biomass transport costs for energy crops as a
function of the collection radius [206], [207], [208] ............... 145
Figure 6.10: Specific biomass transport costs for energy crops as a
function of the transported energy crops mass amount ........ 146
Figure 6.11: Specific manure transport costs as a function of the
collection radius [214], [215] .................................................. 147
Figure 6.12: Specific manure transport costs as a function of the
feedstock mass amount .......................................................... 148
Figure 6.13: Biowaste collection zones (author’s own
representation) ....................................................................... 149
Figure 6.14: Biowaste collection radius as a function of the
biowaste mass amount ........................................................... 151
Figure 6.15: Biowaste transport costs as a function of the biowaste
mass amount ........................................................................... 152

xi
List of Figures

Figure 6.16: Specific investment for biowaste plants according to

model input data and to data from existing plants
[117], [118], [232] ................................................................... 163
Figure 6.17: Specific acquisition costs for agricultural EM plants
according to model input data and to data from
existing plants [125 ................................................................. 164
Figure 7.1: Specific annual costs for EM plants as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2015 and under EEG
2014 ........................................................................................ 173
Figure 7.2: Specific annual revenues for EM plants as a function of
the electric power for the base year 2015 and under
EEG 2014 ................................................................................. 175
Figure 7.3: Specific electricity production costs and revenues for
EM plants as a function of the electric power for the
base year 2015 and under EEG 2014 ...................................... 176
Figure 7.4: Plant specific operating profit as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2013 and under EEG
2012 ........................................................................................ 177
Figure 7.5: Plant specific operating profit as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2015 and under EEG
2014 ........................................................................................ 178
Figure 7.6: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable EM plant
size under EEG 2014 ................................................................ 181
Figure 7.7: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable E plant
size under EEG 2014 ................................................................ 182
Figure 7.8: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable B plant
size under EEG 2014 ................................................................ 183
Figure 7.9: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable EM plant
size under EEG 2014 ................................................................ 184

xii
 List of Figures

Figure 7.10: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable E plant size
under EEG 2014....................................................................... 185
Figure 7.11: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable B plant size
under EEG 2014....................................................................... 186
Figure 7.12: Pros and cons regarding the methodology employed
for the analysis of current electricity production from
biogas in Germany .................................................................. 194
Figure 7.13: Comparison of revenues from the electricity sale in
each plant type under EEG 2014 and EEG 2017 subsidy
schemes for installations smaller than 150 kWel .................... 197
Figure 8.1: Regional total capacity evolution up to 2030 under EEG
2012 and EEG 2014 ................................................................. 207
Figure 8.2: Regional total evolution of electricity production from
biogas up to 2030 under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 .................. 208
Figure 8.3: Regional cumulated new built capacities for EM plants
up to 2030 ............................................................................... 209
Figure 8.4: Regional electricity production linked to new built EM
plants up to 2030 .................................................................... 212
Figure 8.5: Regional cumulated new built capacities for B plants
up to 2030 ............................................................................... 213
Figure 8.6: Regional electricity production linked to the new built
B plants up to 2030 ................................................................. 214
Figure 8.7: Regional cumulated new built capacities for E plants
up to 2030 under EEG 2012 .................................................... 215
Figure 8.8: Regional electricity production linked to new built E
plants under EEG 2012 ............................................................ 216
Figure 8.9: Capacity evolution for new built EM plants in the base
scenario and under an energy crop costs shock ..................... 218
Figure 8.10: Assumed EPEX-Peak electricity price developments
according to several scenarios ................................................ 219

xiii
List of Figures

Figure 8.11: Capacity development of the main new built EM plants

under EEG 2014 with and without consideration of
electricity price shock ............................................................. 220
Figure 8.12: Capacity evolution for new built B plants in the base
scenario and under a biowaste valorization revenue
shock ....................................................................................... 221
Figure 8.13: Pros and cons regarding the methodology employed
for the analysis of future electricity production from
biogas in Germany (author’s own representation) ................. 224
Figure 8.14: Comparison of results from various studies regarding
future electricity production from biogas in Germany
(author’s own representation) ................................................ 230
Figure 8.15: Evolution of total new built capacity under EEG 2012,
EEG 2014 and EEG 2017 legal frameworks ............................. 231
Figure 9.1: Considered case studies and bioenergy conversion
pathways ................................................................................. 238
Figure 9.2: Biomethane project typology in France .................................. 239

xiv
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Process conditions and products composition according
to various pyrolysis processes [23] ............................................ 17
Table 2.2: Process conditions according to epidemiologic and
phytohygienic criteria for biowaste plants [42] ......................... 28
Table 2.3: Average biogas composition (author’s own
representation according to [44]) .............................................. 29
Table 2.4: Employed criteria for the characterization of different
biogas processes (author’s own representation
according to [47]) ....................................................................... 31
Table 3.1: Remuneration system for electricity generation from
biogas following EEG 2014 [102] ................................................ 58
Table 3.2: Results of an economic evaluation for three biowaste
plants located in the Federal State of Schleswig-
Holstein [121] ............................................................................. 66
Table 3.3: Decomposition of the specific electricity production
costs (in ct/kWhel ) for a biowaste and an agricultural
biogas plants [75] ....................................................................... 68
Table 3.4: Discrete versus continuous economic analysis of biogas
plants .......................................................................................... 73
Table 3.5: Modelling approaches for the analysis of future
electricity production from biogas in Germany ......................... 81
Table 4.1: Current simulation languages and software (author’s
own representation) .................................................................. 86
Table 4.2: Numerical values of the employed parameters for the
determination of the methane formation rates k ...................... 93

xv
List of Tables

Table 6.1: Assumed biomass feedstocks properties [145], [162],

[163] 112
Table 6.2: Literature sources and methodology employed for the
models input data determination ............................................ 118
Table 6.3: Estimated capacity repartition according to the three
defined plants EM, E and B ...................................................... 120
Table 6.4: Existing capacity concerned by flexibilization under EEG
2012 and EEG 2014 operator models ...................................... 122
Table 6.5: Employed assumptions for the determination of
current and future biomass potentials .................................... 126
Table 6.6: Employed multipliers values for the total capital
investment estimation ............................................................. 129
Table 6.7: Specific hectare yields and mass repartition of energy
crops for 1 ha surface area....................................................... 143
Table 6.8: Assumptions relative to cattle manure feedstock in
Germany ................................................................................... 147
Table 6.9: Collection radius, maximal amount per inhabitant and
specific transport costs for biowaste ....................................... 150
Table 6.10: Main assumptions related to electricity consumption,
process utilities, personnel, maintenance and digestate
treatment specific costs ........................................................... 153
Table 6.11: Assumed annual evolution rates for each costs position
up to the year 2030 .................................................................. 155
Table 6.12: Operator models for the calculation of electricity
revenues ................................................................................... 156
Table 6.13: Thermal own requirements rates for the years 2013
and 2015 [225], [226] ............................................................... 157
Table 6.14: Uncertainty levels for all models input data ............................ 167
Table 7.1: Most profitable plant types and sizes under EEG 2012
and EEG 2014 frameworks ....................................................... 179

xvi
 List of Tables

Table 7.2: Assumed electric and thermal efficiencies and external

heat use rates [150], [224], [226] ............................................. 189
Table 7.3: Results from the energetic assessment of agricultural
and biowaste plants ................................................................. 190
Table 8.1: Number of new built EM base-load plants according to
their unit size under EEG 2012 ................................................. 210
Table 8.2: Number of new built EM base-load plants according to
their unit size under EEG 2014 ................................................. 211
Table 8.3: Number of new built EM base-load plants according to
their unit size under EEG 2014 ................................................. 214
Table 8.4: Number of new built E base-load plants according to
their unit size under EEG 2012 ................................................. 216
Table 8.5: Considered comparison criteria for the model results
validation.................................................................................. 226
Table 8.6: Total new built capacity in 2015 and 2016: real data
versus model results ................................................................ 227
Table 8.7: Model results relative to past capacity expansion under
EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 ........................................................... 227
Table 8.8: Comparison of the most profitable plant sizes from the
simulation model with the most frequent new built
plant sizes from the optimization model ................................. 228
Table 9.1: Advantages and disadvantages of jatropha curcas [280],
[281], [282], [283] .................................................................... 251

xvii
Abbreviations
ADEME: French Environment and Energy Management Agency

BioSt-NachV: Biomass Electricity Sustainability Regulation

CC: capacity component

CDM: Clean Development Mechanism

CHP: Combined Heat and Power systems

CNG: Compressed Natural Gas

DM: Dry Matter

DVGW: German Technical and Scientific Association for

Gas and Water

EBase-Load: Energy amount in base-load operating mode

EFull-Load: Energy amount in full-load operating mode

EPart-Load: Energy amount in part-load operating mode

EEG: Renewable Energy Sources Act

EEWärmeG: Renewable Energy Heat Act

EEX: European Energy Exchange

EIFER: European Institute for Energy Research

EnWG: Energy Economics Law

xix
Abbreviations

EPEX: European Power Exchange

EWärmeG: Renewable Heat Law

EWI: Institute of Energy Economics

FAME: Fatty acid methyl ester

Fcor: correction factor

FIT: Feed-In-Tariffs

FLH: full-load hours

FM: fresh mass

FNR: Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V.

FP: flexibility premium

FTE: full-time equivalent

GAMS: General Algebraic Modeling System

GHG: greenhouse gas

ICT: information and communication technologies

IRR: Internal Rate of Return

IWES: Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology

KWKG: Cogeneration Act

MAEPEX: Monthly average value of the hourly contracts passed on

the EPEX Spot bourse

MATIF: Marché à Terme International de France

xx
 Abbreviations

MILP: Mixed-integer linear programming

MP: Market Premium

NPV: Net Present Value

oDM: organic Dry-Matter

OH: operating hours

OHFlex: operating hours for flexible plants

ORC: Organic Rankine Cycle

PEl,Base-load: electric power in base-load operating mode

PEl,Flexible: flexible electric power in part-load operating mode

Pinst: installed power

Prat: rated power

PLH: part-load hours for flexible capacity

RAL: German institute for Quality insurance and labelling

RPJMN: National Medium Term Development Plan

SNG: synthetic natural gas

TLL: Federal Office for Agriculture of Thuringia

TSO: Transmission System Operator

WACC: Weighted Average Cost of Capital

𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : electric CHP efficiency in base-load operating mode

xxi
Abbreviations

𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 : electric efficiency for flexible CHP in part-load operating

mode

xxii
Acknowledgment
Firstly, and above all, I wish to thank my advisor Professor Wolf Fichtner,
leader of the Chair of Energy Economics at the Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology (KIT). His continuous encouragement, scientific knowledge and
constructive feedback were a great help in improving the quality of this thesis.
Secondly I wish to thank my co-advisor, Professor Dominik Möst, leader of the
Chair of Energy Economics at the TU Dresden. His very valuable suggestions
assisted me in defining and developing this work. My deep thanks also go to
my supervisor Dr. Russell McKenna for his critical remarks and for all the
fruitful discussions we had throughout the thesis period.

Many thanks also to Dr. Anne Kleyböcker and to Professor Hilke Würdemann
from the German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam for their
positive collaboration during the Optgas project. I also want to acknowledge
Professor Frank Scholwin leader of the Institute of Biogas, Waste
Management and Energy for his support and valuable input.

Für die angenehme Arbeitsatmosphäre und Aktivitäten auch außerhalb der

Dienstzeiten möchte ich mich ganz herzlich bei meinen Kolleginnen und
Kollegen am Institut für Industriebetriebslehre und Industrielle Produktion
bedanken. Ich möchte mich insbesondere bei meinen Kollegen Dr. Dogan
Keles, Dr. Erik Merkel, Javier Parrilla, Dr. Dr. Marius Wunder, Kai Mainzer,
Christoph Nolden, Dr. Lutz Hillemacher, Dr. Christian Trinks sowie bei Alan
Cowderoy für die Überprüfung dieser Arbeit und für die Unterstützung
während meiner gesamten Promotion bedanken. Enfin je tiens à remercier
profondément mes parents Jean-Pierre et Françoise, mon frère Luc ainsi que
ma compagne Elvisa pour leur soutien total avant et pendant ma période de
thèse.

Blagnac, 23rd July 2018 David Balussou

xxiii
1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation
Climate protection, sustainable energy supply, natural resource preservation
as well as the satisfaction of a constantly increasing energy demand currently
represent key challenges worldwide. The substitution of limited fossil
resources combined with the improvement of energy efficiency and energy
savings appear vital. In this context, Germany has embarked upon an energy
transition (so called “Energiewende”) which has been described as “the most
important growth and modernization for the German society” [1]. Nature and
environmental protection as well as global climate change, the finite
character of fossil resources and the need for a secure and profitable energy
supply are the main drivers of this transition. In this context renewable
energies have an important role to play in the future energy system. Among
all renewable energy carriers bioenergy is often defined as a “multi-talent”
[2]. Bioenergy can deliver a significant share in the production of renewable
electricity, heat, cold and liquid biofuels. It greatly contributes to security of
supply, climate protection, and a demand-oriented electricity production.
Bioenergy leads further to the establishment of circular and sustainable bio-
economies with new job creation especially in remote areas [3].

Another advantage of bioenergy in comparison with other energy carriers lies

in its local character. The German energy supply is strongly dependent on
energy carriers mostly imported from countries where supply is unstable and
characterized by high energy price volatility. According to the German Energy
Balance Association (AGEB). Germany imports 100% of its uranium resources
used for nuclear energy, 96% of its natural gas, and 78% of its hard coal [4].
Only lignite and renewable energy sources stem from national energy
carriers. A possibility for Germany to increase its energy security is thus to use

1
1 Introduction

local and inland biomass potentials and to diversify its energy carrier mix. The
rational use of biomass potentials and especially residues can thus ensure a
long-term and sustainable security of supply. In the field of climate
protection, bioenergy strongly contributes to greenhouse gas reduction when
compared with fossil energy. In comparison to other renewable energies in
the heat sector, bioenergy shows the highest mitigation contribution with
about 31.2 million t of avoided greenhouse gases [5].

Among the portfolio of available bioenergy technologies in 2014, the

electricity and heat production from biogas with Combined Heat and Power
systems (CHPs) remains in a dominant position. It represents about 72.3% of
the German electricity production from biomass, which was estimated at
about 38.17 TWhel in the framework of the Renewable Energy Sources Act
[6]. A supplementary amount of 14.12 TWhel has to be added and
corresponds to the total electricity production from biogas by other
technologies than CHP (e.g., gas turbines or Stirling engines) [6]. The total
electricity production from biomass in Germany can thus be estimated at
about 52 TWhel at the end of 2014. In the electricity sector, biogas flexibility
of use and storability makes it a suitable complement to fluctuating energy
sources like wind or sun in the electricity sector. This is the case especially in
biogas plants using Otto or Diesel gas engines. In these plants the employed
gas engines can be easily started or shutdown in short time intervals in order
to control the power [7]. Flexibility can also be obtained by expanding the gas
engines capacity and the gas storage volume [8].

Since the year 2000, the German biogas sector expanded rapidly so that the
current installed capacity in this country accounts for around half of the
European total [9], [10]. This capacity development has been supported by
several Federal governmental incentives and in particular by the Renewable
Energy Sources Act (EEG) with the help of electricity Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT).
However, the German biogas sector had to cope with major structural
changes in 2014. The Renewable Energy Sources Act 2014, proposed by the
Federal Government and starting on the 1st of August 2014, represents a

2
 1.1 Motivation

paradigm shift for German biogas plants. Indeed, a major cut in subsidies
attributed to biogas plants was proposed by the legislator in particular for
agricultural plants valorizing energy crops. For this plant type the specific
subsidies dedicated to energy crops valorization have been removed [11].
This subsidies cut has been carried out for two main reasons. The first one is
linked to high end-user electricity prices, especially for residential customers.
In the residential sector the electricity price including taxes increased from 14
ct/kWhel in year 2000 up to 29 ct/kWhel in 2014 [12]. By giving priority to
the development of more economical renewable energy conversion
technologies, like wind energy or photovoltaic, the Federal Government
intends to lower electricity bills for end customers. With average electricity
production costs at about 18 ct/kWhel for agricultural plants, biogas belongs
to the most expansive renewable energy conversion technologies [13], [14].

Another reason for this cut concerns the competition in the past between the
energy and food value chains regarding biomass resources and surface area.
In the past fifteen years priority was given to the valorization of energy crops
due to their high energy content and their high hectare yields in comparison
with other feedstocks. This led to the exclusive cultivation of certain
agricultural plants, so called monocultures, like maize silage or rape. In
addition, fertilizers and pesticides were intensively used for yield
improvements. These aspects negatively impacted the agricultural sector and
generated ecological risks (degradation of humus balance and biodiversity,
risks of soil erosion, reduction of the ground-water formation, landscape
modifications, loss of ecologically valuable surface areas). The subsidies for
biogas plants valorizing energy crops created tensions on maize and wheat
markets and have led to a “food versus fuel” debate. A consequence of this
induced competition was a generally poor public acceptance of biogas in
Germany [15].

In addition to frequently evolving subsidy mechanisms, plant operators have

to cope with major uncertainties concerning mid-term electricity prices,
energy crop costs development and biowaste valorization revenues. Decision

3
1 Introduction

support tools based on modelling approaches represent a valuable assistance

in order to minimize these uncertainties and to maximize profitability. A first
issue for plant operators concerns the identification of the most profitable
installation sizes and types under current framework conditions. Another
problem is related to the forecast of future plant capacity development and
electricity production from biogas. The objective of German biogas plant
operators is to run and maintain reliable and profitable installations over their
whole lifetime, which generally corresponds to 20 years (EEG subsidy time
period). For this a model-based forecast of future costs and revenue
development is required so that the operators can minimize the risks in
particular linked to the previously mentioned uncertainties. On this basis an
economically optimal development plan of future biogas plant capacity could
be foreseen on a mid-term horizon (up to 2030). The model-based
assessment of current and future electricity production from biogas would
then provide an economic foresight to German plant operators and
contribute to substantial profitability improvements.

1.2 Objectives and overview

This work has the objective to provide an economic analysis of the current
and future electricity production from biogas in Germany. It focuses on the
analysis of onsite electricity and heat production with Combined Heat and
Power systems (CHPs). It was realized between the years 2010 and 2016 and
takes into account the legal frameworks of the 2012 and 2014 versions of the
Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2012 and EEG 2014). The recent EEG
2017 framework enacted in January 2017 is therefore only marginally
considered. The outcomes of the economic analysis should provide insights
for German plant operators into economically optimal electricity production
from biogas both on short-term and mid-term horizons. For this purpose, two
main research questions have to be answered. The first one concerns the

4
 1.2 Objectives and overview

identification of the most profitable biogas plant sizes1 and types2 under the
economic frameworks of EEG 2012 and EEG 2014. Which installation types
and sizes should be built under these framework conditions in order to lead
to the highest profitability for German biogas plant operators?

The second research question concerns future developments regarding new

built biogas plant capacity on a mid-term time horizon, i.e. up to the year
2030. Which future capacity developments can be foreseen up to the year
2030 at the Federal State level in order to ensure maximal operating profits
for German biogas plant operators? In order to provide answers to these two
fundamental research questions the present thesis is structured as follows.

Chapter 2 aims to provide background aspects regarding the main bioenergy

and biogas conversion pathways. In particular a complete biogas supply chain
is assessed, from the biomass feedstock management up to biogas
valorization.

Chapter 3 has the objective to analyse the current situation of biogas in

Europe and in Germany regarding the valorized biomass feedstocks and
potentials, the installed capacity, the legal framework conditions and subsidy
schemes. A literature review aims to provide an overview of existing studies
related to the economic analysis of current and future electricity production
from biogas in Germany. Based on this assessment, the scientific contribution
of the present work is further highlighted.

Chapter 4 deals with the elaboration of a simulation model which aims to

calibrate and simulate reference biogas plant types by considering a variable
and differentiated biomass input. The results of the simulation enable an

1
The biogas plant size is defined by the installed electric power of the Combined Heat and Power
engines (CHP engines) transforming the biogas produced into heat and electricity.
2
The biogas plant type is linked to the feedstock valorized, e.g., energy and/or manure employed
in mono- or co-digestion plants or communal and/or household biowaste used in biowaste plants.

5
1 Introduction

economic analysis of current electricity production from biogas which is

further described in chapter 7.

In chapter 5 a regional linear optimization model is developed. It aims to

forecast the optimal economic development of future installed biogas plant
capacities by considering various scenarios and frameworks at the level of
each German Federal State and up to the year 2030.

Chapter 6 has for objective to define the system boundaries related to both
of the simulation and optimization models and to describe the methodology
for determining all required model input data. Three biogas plant types are
considered and valorize energy crops with manure (EM plant3), as well as
energy crops (E plant) and biowaste (B plant). For each plant type the main
model input data refers to the existing capacity, to current and future
available biomass potentials as well as to current and future costs and
revenues. Chapter 6 ends with an analysis of the main input data
uncertainties that impact the model results.

Chapter 7 presents and analyses the results of the simulation model. The
model outcomes provide an answer to the first research question dealing
with the identification of the most economically attractive plant types and
sizes under current legal framework conditions. The profitability criterion
refers to the determined specific operating profits 4. The most profitable plant
sizes can be identified for each plant type and the corresponding costs and
revenue structures are then analysed. In a further step sensitivity analyses of
the specific operating profits are performed for each of the most profitable
plant sizes. These analyses aim to identify and quantify the main profitability
drivers in each case. In addition to the economic analysis, a technical
assessment of the most profitable plant sizes is carried out by determining

3
This plant type is divided into two sub-categories: plant sizes from 0 to 75 kWel using mono-
digestion of manure and larger plant sizes employing co-digestion of energy crops with manure.
4
For a given plant the specific operating profit (in ct/kWh el) is defined as the difference between
specific revenues and specific electricity production costs. Taxes (e.g., value added, property,
income, corporate and trade taxes) and levies are not considered in the present work.

6
 1.2 Objectives and overview

biological and global energetic efficiencies. The methodology employed is

further discussed, the results are validated and a comparison with the EEG
2017 framework for plants smaller than 150 kWel is carried out. The model
outcomes lead further to the formulation of strategy and policy
recommendations concerning current electricity production from biogas in
Germany.

In chapter 8 the results of the optimization model are presented and analysed
in the framework of a base scenario. The model outcomes provide an answer
to the second research question dealing with the forecast of future capacity
for electricity production from biogas up to 2030, at the Federal States level
and under various legal frameworks. A further scenario aims to quantify the
impact of fundamental drivers on future capacity development. A comparison
with a capacity development forecast done under the new EEG 2017
framework is further carried out. The model results analysis enables the
formulation of strategy and policy recommendations concerning future
electricity production from biogas in Germany.

The main interactions between the model input data, the simulation and the
optimization models are represented in Figure 1-1. Three main plant types
are defined corresponding to the valorization of energy crops in mono-
digestion plants, to the co-digestion of energy crops and manure as well as to
biowaste fermentation. In a given plant type, the simulation model aims to
determine the most profitable plant sizes showing the highest specific
operating profit. For this a variable biomass input mass flow mi (in t/a) is
considered and leads in each simulation step to the determination of the
installed electric power pi (in kWel ). In section 4.3.3 a technical correlation
involving 49 biomass input mass flow steps and 49 electric power outputs is
obtained over the whole electric capacity bandwidth [0:20,000 kWel ].

Based on these correlations an economic evaluation follows involving specific

costs and revenue data from plant operators, from the literature and from
EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 subsidy schemes (chapter 7). The combination of
these costs and revenue data (in ct/kWhel or in €/t) with the previous

7
1 Introduction

technical correlations leads to the determination of economic correlations

(section 7.1). These correlations represent the evolution of specific costs and
revenues (in ct/kWhel ) as a function of the electric power. Based on these
results the evolution of specific operating profit as a function of the electric
power can be determined and the most profitable plant sizes can then be
identified in each installation type (section 7.2). For these most profitable
plant sizes, sensitivity analyses and technical assessments are further carried
out (sections 7.4 and 7.5).

In the framework of the optimization model, the previous costs and revenues
correlations are firstly regionalized with the help of energy crop costs
determined in each Federal State for the base years 2013 and 2015 (section
6.6.1). These regional costs as well as other costs and revenues positions are
then forecasted up to the year 2030 (section 6.7). In addition, biomass
potentials for electricity production are annually calculated and forecasted up
to the year 2030 in each Federal State (section 6.4). Existing capacity for the
base years 2012 and 2014 is then determined with the help of a dedicated
biogas plant database (section 6.3).

With the help of these input data the optimization model aims to maximize
the total operating profit year on year up to 2030, over the 49 plant sizes 𝑝i
and in all Federal States r𝑖 (section 5.3). Two main constraints apply and
correspond to capacity development limitations by regional biomass
potentials as well as to annual capacity expansion caps set in the framework
of EEG 2012 and EEG 2014. In each Federal State and year on year a
development plan for plant capacity and electricity production from biogas is
obtained up to 2030 (section 8.1). Further scenarios quantify then the impact
of shocks related to energy crop costs, EPEX electricity price and biowaste fee
revenues on future developments (section 8.2).

8
 1.2 Objectives and overview

Figure 1.1: Interactions between input data and the simulation and optimization models
(author’s own representation)

9
1 Introduction

Chapter 9 evaluates the transferability of the developed modelling

approaches in Germany to other countries and other bioenergy pathways.
Biomethane injection in France, biomass district heating in Finland as well as
bioethanol production for transport in Brazil and the valorization of jatropha
into biodiesel in Indonesia are analysed. For each conversion route and in
each country the current situation and lessons learned are described. In a
further step the main barriers and challenges for a future model
implementation are identified.

The thesis ends with summary, conclusions and outlook in chapter 10.
Recommendations and further challenges concerning current and future
German electricity production from biogas are outlined.

10
2 Background aspects regarding
bioenergy and biogas
In this chapter the main bioenergy conversion pathways valorizing biomass
for energetic purpose are firstly described based on literature data in section
2.1. A focus is then set in section 2.2 on the biochemical conversion of
biomass feedstock into biogas. A complete biogas supply chain is described
starting from the biomass feedstock management up to the biogas
production process and further valorization into electricity, heat or gaseous
biofuels (sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.4). The technological options available
for the digestate treatment and valorization as fertilizer are also described in
section 2.2.3.

2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion

pathways
The term “biomass” refers to energy crops (e.g., miscanthus or maize silage),
residues (e.g., straw or agricultural residues), by-products (e.g., manure or
industry residual wood) and waste (e.g., sewage sludge or household
biowaste). Bioenergy is defined as the conversion of these resources into
renewable electricity, heat or fuel [16].

The conversion of biomass into solid, gaseous and liquid fuels and into heat
and/or electricity can be realized through various processes (see Figure 2-1).
Basically, one should distinguish between the thermochemical, physical-
chemical and biochemical conversion processes which will be further
described in detail.

11
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

Figure 2.1: Main bioenergy conversion pathways (author’s own representation according to
[16])

12
 2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways

2.1.1 Thermochemical conversion

2.1.1.1 Biomass combustion

The direct valorization of biomass feedstock in combustion plants represents

the major technological pathway for bioenergy worldwide. This valorization
can be realized in domestic small plants (e.g., wood stoves, tiled stoves, wood
pellets and wood chips plants) but also in cogeneration plants. A quasi-
complete oxidation of the solid biofuels occurs during the combustion
process. Biomass is converted into thermal energy as well as into ash
contained in combustion by-products. The main solid biomasses employed
correspond to woody biomass, e.g., residual forest wood, straw or to energy
crops. The heat generated by the combustion reaction can be used for water
heating in local or district heat networks or in ORC-plants (Organic Rankine
Cycle plants) for electricity production [17]. It can also be valorized in steam
production processes, e.g., in steam boilers for the supply of an industrial
area. A last possibility consists in producing electricity with the help of steam
turbines. The hot exhaust gas issued from the combustion can be further used
by gas turbines or Stirling processes. The main existing combustion
technologies can be classified according to the type of contact between the
solid fuel and the combustion air. One should distinguish between fixed beds,
fluidized and dust combustion processes.

In the fixed bed combustion process the solid biofuel slowly moves following
combustion air and without leaving the fixed bed. Fixed beds are used in
underfeed or in grate combustion processes. Solid biomasses characterized
by fine-grains and low-ash-content are employed in the case of an underfeed
combustion. Possible fuels are pellets, cereal grains, barks or wood chips.
Usually, this combustion process concerns a rated thermal input lower than
6 MWth . Grate combustion processes are more suited to woody combustion
plants with larger rated thermal input. Grate combustion plants can be
divided according to their forms into push, reciprocating, travelling, vibration
and roller grates. All these grate types use fuels with different particle sizes,

13
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

water contents and mixtures and can easily resist to slaggings. The flue gases
produced are characterized by a low dust content.

In fluidized bed combustion processes the inflow velocity and the flow force
impacting the fuel particles increase strongly. During this combustion process
the fuel particles are suspended in a bed of ash, sand or limestone. Jets of air
provide the necessary oxygen for the combustion process. One should
distinguish between stationary and circulating fluidized bed combustion
processes. The relatively low combustion temperatures (800 to 900 °C) avoid
the presence of slaggings and of nitrogen oxides. Stationary bed combustion
processes are mainly characterized by a rated thermal input between 10 and
20 MWth . Circulating bed combustion processes are operated starting from
30 MWth and are subjected to a higher flow velocity than in the case of
stationary processes. This leads to a better control of the solid fuel
combustion process with high ash-content. A large range of biomasses
including finely chipped wood or barks can be employed in fluidized bed
combustion processes.

A dust combustion occurs if all fuel particles are conveyed together with the
gas flow. These combustion systems are suited for the valorization of very fine
and dry fuels with 15 to 20% water content (e.g., chips, sawdust and other
fine-grained wood residues). Dust combustion processes are employed
starting from a rated thermal input of 200 kWth . However, they appear to be
unprofitable in most cases due to a high level of specific investment-related
and operating costs [18].

2.1.1.2 Biomass gasification

Similarly, to combustion, gasification belongs to thermochemical conversion

processes and leads to the production of a synthetic gas (so called “syngas”),
ashes and tar. Syngas mainly contains hydrogen, carbon monoxide and
carbon dioxide. Gasification processes can be autothermal or allothermal
according to the heat production process. In an autothermal process the
required thermal energy is produced by a partial oxidation of the employed

14
 2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways

biofuel. In an allothermal process an external heat source is employed e.g.,

from heat carrier materials such as water vapor or heat exchangers. The
syngas issued from autothermal gasification processes shows a gross calorific
value between 3 and 6 MJ/Nm3 whereas syngas from allothermal processes
are characterized by higher gross calorific values between 10 and 15
MJ/Nm3 [19]. The produced syngas can be further transformed into heat
and/or electricity e.g., in cogeneration processes. It can also lead to the
production of liquid or gaseous biofuels (e.g., Synthetic Natural Gas bio-SNG,
methanol or Fischer-Tropsch-Diesel). The syngas quality depends on the gas
composition, on the share of organic components and on the particle content.
In the case of bio-SNG production a gas cleaning process is necessary in order
to meet the required technical specifications for an injection into the grid.
Gasification processes display some advantages in comparison to combustion
technologies. Firstly, higher electric efficiencies can be reached especially in
the case of small to mid-scale installations. Secondly the possible storage and
transport of bio-SNG issued from syngas cleaning processes offers more
valorization pathways than with a direct combustion [20]. However, the
production and use of bio-SNG currently remains at the research and
development stages and the industrial scale is not yet reached.

Gasification processes concern fixed bed, fluidized and entrained flow

gasifiers. The gasifier types are defined according to the type of contact
occurring between the gasification medium and the valorized biomass. Other
criteria relate to the heat supply type (autothermal or allothermal), the
employed gasification medium (air, oxygen, water vapor) and the pressure
ratio in the gasification reactor [21].

Fixed bed gasifiers can be divided into co-current and counter-current

gasifiers. The first one is the most frequently used technology due to the fact
that tars can be easily cleft by the hot gases. Co-current gasifiers refer to
plants with about 2 MWth rated thermal input whereas counter-current
gasifiers are used in larger plants (about 10 MWth ). Both of these gasifier
types can be further combined e.g., in a double combustion gasifier.

15
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

Fluidized gasifiers can be split into circulating and stationary gasifiers,

depending on the gas velocity. The fuel particles move at high velocity flow
rates under high temperatures between 700 and 900 °C, which leads to a low
tar-content in the gasifier. Fluidized gasifiers are mainly employed for rated
power thermal input between 10 and 100 MWth . The combination of several
fluidized gasifiers is also possible, e.g., in two-bed circulating technologies,
and increases the syngas quality.

Finally, entrained-flow gasifiers valorize solid biomasses in the form of dry

pulverized solids, atomized liquid fuel or fuel slurry in the presence of oxygen
(much less frequent: air) mostly in co-current flow. The gasification reactions
take place in a dense cloud of very fine particles under temperatures between
1,200 and 2,000 °C. This type of gasifier is used for high rated thermal output,
superior to 100 MWth , mainly for coal gasification and more rarely for
biomass [22].

2.1.1.3 Biomass pyrolysis

The pyrolysis of biomass feedstock consists of the thermal deconstruction of

chemical components under an absence of oxygen. This process is defined as
allothermal as the required thermal energy for the components
deconstruction is exogenous to the system. An overview of all available
pyrolysis processes is given by [23]. The products of the pyrolysis process
consist of a solid char, liquids like bio-oils, tar or pyroligneous liquors and a
biogenic gas (syngas). Table 2-1 provides the products composition according
to different pyrolysis processes.

16
 2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways

Table 2.1: Process conditions and products composition according to various pyrolysis
processes [23]

Pyrolysis mode Process Mass share Mass Mass

Conditions of liquid (%) share share of
of char gas
(%) (%)
Temperature at
about 500 °C
Fast
Very short hot 75 12 13
vapour residence
time at about 1 s

Short solids
retention time
Temperature at
about 500 °C
Intermediate 50 in two 25 25
Short hot vapour phases
residence time
between 10 and
30 s

Moderate solids
residence time
Temperature at
about 400 °C
Slow
Long hydraulic 35 35 30
residence time

Very long solids

residence time

The objective of a fast pyrolysis is to maximize the share of liquids in the

reaction products. For this, very high heating rates are employed. The highest
yields are provided by clean wood which delivers about 75% of the dry
biomass mass input. Charcoal represents about 10 to 15% of the mass
products and retains in particular all the alkali metals. The main commercially

17
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

employed reactors for the fast pyrolysis process are linked to fluid beds,
spouted fluid beds, transported beds, rotating cones and ablative reactors.
Fast pyrolysis processes are mainly used for materials pre-treatment and
densification and as a source of biofuels or chemicals. They are also used in
the processing of by-products or residues in lignocellulosic bio-refineries. The
use of fast pyrolysis for biomass pre-treatment aims to substantially increase
biomass density through the production of bio-oils (density at about 1,200
kg/m3 ). Bio-oils produced by fast pyrolysis processes can be valorized into
heat and/or electricity with the help of boilers, engines or turbines. Another
possibility consists of substituting phenolics in wood resin with bio-oils. The
use of bio-oils as liquid biofuels represents a sustainable alternative to fossil
liquid fuels. Biofuels can be directly produced from bio-oils with the help of
catalytic upgrading of liquid or vapour. An indirect pathway consists of
gasifying bio-oils and processing them using a hydrocarbon or an alcohol
synthesis [23]. The intermediate pyrolysis can process more difficult biomass
feedstock than the fast one. This especially concerns materials subject to
handling, feeding and/or transport problems. Charcoal represents in this case
about 25% of the mass products and is made of small size particles. The liquid
products can be divided into the organic phase which can be used in engines
and the aqueous phase. The gas products can for their part be valorized in
engines.

Slow pyrolysis can occur under indirect or direct heating with air addition. It
mainly applies to pre-sorted and processed organic waste with an optimal
particle size of 1 to 2 mm and having a moisture content lower than 10% 5.
Slow pyrolysis processes are traditionally used in order to obtain solid fuels
for cooking and also for the metallurgy and silicon industries in Brazil and
Australia [23]. A recent application concerns the production of biochar as a
fertilizer in order to increase soil fertility and agricultural productivity. A

5
A low feedstock moisture content ensures a high heat transfer rate.

18
 2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways

further advantage of biochar is that it contributes to climate change

mitigation through carbon sequestration [24].

2.1.2 Physical-chemical conversion

2.1.2.1 Pressing / Extraction

Pressing and extraction process is used to produce fuel oils from biomass. The
biomasses employed are rape and sunflower seeds, peanuts and corn which
contain fatty or oily components. These crops are only cultivated in certain
regions and are difficult to grow so that their potentials are very limited. The
production of vegetable oils from biomass can be realized by pressing, simple
extraction or a combination of both processes. A one- or two-stage pressing
operation aims at separating the oil from the oil seeds. An oil cake containing
4 to 10% oil is produced and can be used e.g., as a cattle feed material [25].
The extraction process is realized by using a solvent applied to large-scale
units. The extraction products correspond to a saturated solvent containing
oil and an oil-free extraction residue also saturated with the solvent. In a
further step the solvent is removed from the two product streams by heating
and then reused in a recycling loop. The use of a solvent enables the
extraction of a much higher share of oil than in the case of the simple pressing
process.

The combination of pressing with extraction leads to a maximization of

vegetable oil production and profitability. The oils produced generally contain
between 0.5 and 6% of oil-free solid residues which have to be removed. For
this, filtration and sedimentation processes are used and are followed by a
refining step. This refining step is performed through de-acidification, de-
colouring and steaming. It aims to remove unwanted substances like fatty
acids, wax, heavy metals or pesticides. The vegetable oil produced can be
directly used as a liquid biofuel especially in rural areas for decentralized
electrification [25]. However, the combustion of vegetable oils lowers engine
lifetime and generates supplementary maintenance requirements and costs.

19
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

2.1.2.2 Esterification

Another valorization possibility consists of converting the vegetable oils into

a fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) which can be used in conventional diesel
engines as an environmentally-friendly substitute for diesel. For this purpose,
an esterification process is required. The vegetable oil reacts with methanol
under the presence of a catalyst, generally NaOH. This mixture is pumped
through a vertical pipe at a low velocity which removes the glycerine. After
the removal of the remaining methanol, the liquid is cleaned by a multi-stage
washing process [25]. The FAME produced can be also used as a liquid biofuel
(biodiesel).

2.1.3 Biochemical conversion

2.1.3.1 Alcoholic fermentation

Alcoholic fermentation is defined as the conversion of sugar C6 H12 O6 by yeast

into ethanol C2 H5 OH, carbon dioxide CO2 and low temperature heat used for
micro-organism growth. The fermentation reaction occurs under anaerobic
conditions. After the fermentation the yeast is removed from the slurry and
then recycled. The main sources of sugar are starch, celluloses as well as sugar
cane and sugar beet. The ethanol produced has to be further refined in order
to obtain a pure liquid biofuel [25]. The slurry issued from the fermentation
process contains between 8 and 10% alcohol, water and residues derived
from the sugar-containing or starch material. In order to purify the slurry a
crude alcohol column is used for distillation or rectification. The products
obtained are an alcohol-water-mixture containing more than 80% alcohol and
a secondary slurry with no alcohol content.

This slurry can be further used as a feedstock for biogas production or as a

fertilizer. Several distillation and rectification steps are necessary in order to
reach an alcohol-water-mixture with a maximal ethanol content of 96%. For
a use in an engine an ethanol content of 99.9% has to be achieved. For this an
absolution step is necessary. An expedient is added to the alcohol-water

20
 2.1 An overview of bioenergy conversion pathways

mixture in order to produce an alcohol-chemical mixture as well as a water-

chemical. The chemical is then removed and can be further reused. The final
product has an ethanol content satisfying the specifications for use as fuel in
a combustion engine. The engines employed must be adapted to ethanol as
its combustion behaviour is different from gasoline. Ethanol is generally
mixed with compressed natural gas (CNG) to a maximum rate of 10% in order
to meet engine and distribution net-works specifications [25].

2.1.3.2 Aerobic decomposition

The aerobic biomass decomposition process corresponds to the

transformation of organic waste into compost in the presence of oxygen.
More precisely compost represents a humus-like product obtained under
controlled conditions. Composting operators firstly break down large waste
particles e.g., through grinding or chopping. After this physical pre-treatment
a colonization phase of the organic material by microbes occurs in the
presence of oxygen. The composting process then starts and is initiated by
mesophilic microorganisms at temperatures between 30°C and 40 °C [26]. In
a further step and for higher temperatures thermophilic microorganisms are
active. Most of the microbes involved in the composting process are already
located in the organic waste. Additional soil microbes such as bacteria, fungi
or protozoa are introduced when the waste is mixed. Carbon compounds are
used by the bacteria then transformed into CO2 and released.

The reaming oxygen in the compost is continuously consumed by

microorganisms. A strong temperature increase takes place in the compost
material from 55 °C to 65 °C within 24 to 72 hours [26]. The compost
temperature then remains constant at 65 °C for several weeks which
characterizes the active phase. The active phase represents the most
intensive decomposition phase and continues up to full transformation of the
nutrient- and energy-containing materials. Then during the curing phase, the
microbial activity decreases and the temperature falls. The length of this

21
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

phase6 can increase if the compost remains in an unfinished state. This can
happen e.g., if the compost contains too little oxygen, an inadequate
moisture content, a high level of organic acids or has extreme pH values. Ideal
conditions for an optimal composting process correspond to temperatures in
the range of 55°C to 65°C, pH values going from 6.5 to 8 and moisture mass
contents of 50 to 60% [26]. The optimal C:N ratio 7 should vary between 25:1
and 35:1 and the available O2 concentration remains higher than 10% [26].
Finally, feedstock particle sizes smaller than 25 mm also contribute to an
optimal composting process [26].

2.1.3.3 Anaerobic digestion

The anaerobic digestion process can be defined as the microbial degradation

of organic substances in an oxygen-free environment (anaerobic). It occurs
naturally e.g., in moors or in the bellies of ruminants and also in controlled
reactors (fermenters). The products of the anaerobic digestion process are a
methane-rich gas and a digestate further valorizable as a fertilizer. A detailed
process overview is given in section 2.2 which deals with the complete
description of a biogas supply chain.

2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

The biological production and conversion of biogas into electric and thermal
energy can be divided into four main steps as described in Figure 2-2: biomass
feedstock management (biomass harvesting, transport, delivery and storage,
biomass pre-treatment, on-site conveying and loading), biogas and digestate
production, biogas management (storage, treatment and valorization) and
finally digestate management (storage, treatment and valorization).

6
The curing phase length can vary widely between one to four months in most of the commercial
processes [26].
7
Among the many elements required for microbial decomposition, C and N appear as the most
critical [26].

22
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

Figure 2.2: Main process steps involved in the operation of a biogas plant (author’s own
representation according to [27])

2.2.1 Biomass feedstock management

2.2.1.1 Biomass harvesting, transport, delivery and storage

Logistic aspects can considerably impact the profitability of a biogas plant

especially in the case of the valorization of large biomass feedstock amounts.
The logistic chain of a biogas plant can be basically divided into four
sequential steps.

The harvesting of energy crops or the collection of biowaste represents the

starting point of a biomass logistic chain for biogas applications. The energy
crops mainly harvested are maize silage, grass silage, cereal silage and cereal
grains. The harvesting yields for maize silage are strongly dependent on the
cultivation location and the environmental conditions and can vary in
Germany between 35 t Dry−Matter /ha up to 65 t Dry−Matter /ha [28].

23
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

The entire maize plant is chopped during the harvesting step and loaded in
bunker silos. The Dry-Matter content (DM-content) must remain between
28% and 36% in order to avoid leachates and energy losses and to limit the
lignin share in the feedstock [28]. After the storage in bunker silos the reduced
maize plant components are compressed with the help of wheel loaders and
covered with a hermetic film for approximately 12 weeks (ensilage phase).
They are then transported to the biogas plant. Chaff is the most widespread
harvesting technique for grass silage. The DM-content of grass silage can
theoretically vary between 25 and 50%. In the case of further valorization in
biogas plants the value of 35% should not be overrun [29]. For higher DM-
contents the high lignin- and fibre-contents can affect the feedstock
degradability and thereby lower the methane yield. Most of the cereal
categories are suited for the production of cereal silage but rye and triticale
are generally used. The harvesting process is similar to that for maize silage
with a chopping and ensilage step. The harvesting phase should ideally take
place at the beginning of the dough stage. At this time point the harvesting
yields reach their highest values. The harvesting yields of cereal silage can
vary between 7.5 and 15 t DM /ha and the DM-content remains between 30
and 35% [29]. Cereal grains display high methane yields due to their high level
of degradability. The methane yields can be further maximized by a
preliminary shredding step. Cereal grains can be also used in the food
industry, as livestock feed or for alcohol production. Seven classes of cereal
grains exist: wheat, barley, rye, oat, corn, sorghum and rice.

Household biowaste is collected by citizens in household bins separately from

green waste. Important optimization potentials remain in the separate
sorting of biowaste and green waste in spite of a good level of interest and
acceptability by the German population. According to [30] about 44 million of
citizens in Germany were not using bins for biowaste sorting at the end of the
year 2012, which represents about 65% of the population. The European
Union’s waste framework directive and the §11 of the Waste Management
Act 2012 defined an obligation for all waste producers and for waste
management authorities in Germany to collect biowaste separately starting

24
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

from the 1st of January 2015 [31], [32]. This measure aims to enable a more
sustainable biowaste valorization especially in biogas plants. At the end of the
year 2012 a global potential of about 4.2 million t kitchen biowaste and 4.7
million t green waste in households was estimated [33]. In [33] it is further
assumed that 60% of kitchen biowaste and 25% of green waste potentials
could be valorized into biogas. Thereby a total potential of 3.7 million t for
biowaste plus green waste feedstock was estimated to be available for biogas
applications.

Beside the improvement of biowaste and green waste collection, the

substrate composition also plays an important role for the optimization of the
feedstock logistic chain. The biowaste composition fluctuates during the year
and depends on the consumption habits of each citizen. An information and
sensitization campaign to encourage sorting of the waste produced is
extremely important. Another key-aspect concerns the detection of
impurities in the collected biowaste. These impurities if not adequately
removed could inhibit biogas production e.g., by generating over-acidification
or scum build-up in the fermenters.

The harvested energy crops and manure are transported to the biogas plant
location by using agricultural vehicles. Agricultural vehicles are generally
tractors with two tipping trailers or with a tank trailer. In the case of biowaste
transport closed collection trucks are mainly employed. The transport
distance and the amount of transported biomass feedstock logically increase
with the plant size. After the transport step the feedstock mass is quantified
during the feedstock delivery process which takes on the site location of the
biogas plant. This step also applies to co-substrates that do not belong to the
agricultural farm and whose quality and quantity should be drastically
controlled. After the biomass feedstock delivery, the storage step follows. The
biomass feedstocks should be stored in a closed building equipped with an
exhaust air purification system. Finally, some legal requirements apply to the
storage of feedstocks that are submitted to hygienisation criteria like
biowaste. For example, critical feedstocks must be stored separately from the

25
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

harmless ones and legal immission control requirements must be respected

[34].

2.2.1.2 Biomass pre-treatment, on-site conveying and loading

The biomass feedstock pre-treatment step aims to reduce process

perturbations and to improve the fermentability so as to meet feedstock
hygienisation criteria. The pre-treatment of liquid substrates is limited to a
solid phase separation where the non-degradable solid materials like sand or
solid biomass are removed. Liquid substrates containing fine or dissolved
components can be directly valorized in the fermenter without any
supplementary pre-treatment.

The pre-treatment of solid substrates can be very complex depending on the

feedstock type and on the biogas production process employed. The steps
involved can be sorting, impurities removal, shredding, mashing or
hygienisation. Sorting and impurities removal processes are mainly used for
heterogenic materials like biowaste. The separation of non-organic materials
such as stones, glass or eggshells improves the quality of solid substrates and
protects plant equipment from premature deterioration. Impurities removal
consists of several sequential steps. First rough impurities are removed using
visual controls. Automated devices like metal separators and star-screens are
then employed and remove ferrous particles as well as other impurities.
Sorting and impurities removal phases improve the digestate quality and lead
to humus-rich fertilizers and composts8. The shredding step increases the
feedstock surface and improves feedstock degradability and methane
production. Shredders, mills or screws with cutting systems can be to this end
employed. During the mashing step, solid substrates are transformed into a
pumpable feedstock due to a water-content increase. The mashing process
generally takes place in a preliminary tank directly located before the

8
Since EEG 2012 a post-composting unit for the raw digestate combined with a valorization as
compost is compulsory in the case of biowaste plants [35].

26
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

fermenter loading unit. In this process, manure, pressed liquid digestate or

even fresh water can be employed as possible liquids.

A feedstock hygienization step is only legally required for certain epidemic or

phytologic critical substrates like biowaste. Hygienisation can be carried out
before or after the fermentation process. Plant operators must fulfil several
legal requirements regarding the valorized feedstock and the digestate.
Firstly, the requirements of the EU-Hygiene Ordinance (Nr. 1774) or the
Biowaste Ordinance must be respected [36], [37]. The EU-Hygiene Ordinance
mainly concerns the valorization of animal effluents (e.g., manure) whereas
the Biowaste Ordinance applies to kitchen and household biowaste and to
organic waste [38]. The EU-Hygiene Ordinance classifies the feedstock into
three classes of risks and simultaneously defines the conditions for their
valorization into biogas. Several conditions are defined and concern
hygienization, installation security and control as well as cleaning and
disinfection processes. The valorization of feedstocks belonging to the risk
class I (highest risk class) is not allowed as these feedstocks can contain BSE 9-
suspicious materials [39], [40]. Biogas plants valorizing biowaste should meet
the requirements of the Biowaste Ordinance. In principle, all listed biowaste
plants in Appendix 1 of the Biowaste Ordinance can be transformed into
biogas if epidemiologic and phytohygienic treatment conditions are
respected [41]. These conditions are limited to the feedstock pre-treatment
phase and to the digestate treatment. They are set up according to Nr. 2.1 of
Annex 2 of the Biowaste Ordinance and concern both mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic digestion processes (see Table 2-2) [42].

9
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy is commonly referred to as “mad cow disease”.

27
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

Table 2.2: Process conditions according to epidemiologic and phytohygienic criteria for
biowaste plants [42]

Process type Mass Treatment Treatment Treatment

flow Process process period
category temperature
Mesophilic Raw Pasteurization At least 70°C At least 1
fermentation input plant hour
feedstock
Digestate
Thermophilic Raw Heating plant At least 50°C At least 24
fermentation input hours
(with 20 days feedstock
minimal
residence time)

The onsite supply of biomass to fermenters consists of the conveying and the
loading steps. Several conveying and loading technologies can be used
according to biomass feedstock quality (pumpable or stackable). Electric
pumps are used to transport pumpable feedstock like manure to the
fermenters. Various technologies are available, e.g., centrifugal pumps or
positive displacement pumps depending on the valorized feedstock type [43].
The pumpable feedstock conveyed is stored and homogenized in a closed
dump. The dump can be further used to mix, shred and liquefy stackable co-
substrates that cannot be directly loaded into the fermenter [40]. The
conveying step for stackable feedstock is carried out automatically. For this,
scrapers, pusher plates, connecting rods and screw conveyors are mainly used
and can horizontally convey most of the stackable feedstock. These devices
are however not suited to loading processes. Screw conveyors can transport
stackable, cleaned and shredded feedstock in all directions [43]. The loading
processes can be divided into direct and indirect loading. In the case of an
indirect loading the stackable feedstocks are firstly brought to the dump and
mixed with pumpable substrates. Direct loading offers the possibility to treat
the stackable feedstock independently from pumpable substrates. The DM-
content and consequently the biogas productivity are generally increased if
stackable and pumpable feedstocks are loaded separately.

28
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

2.2.2 Biogas production process

2.2.2.1 Biogas formation

In biogas plants the anaerobic digestion process occurs in fermenters under

controlled biological, thermal and physicochemical conditions. The gas
mixture released (biogas) consists of methane, carbon dioxide and a variety
of trace gases. Gas composition is variable and depends on the valorized
feedstock as well as on the fermentation processes employed. Table 2-3
shows an average composition of biogas.

Table 2.3: Average biogas composition (author’s own representation according to [44])

Component Percentage concentration

Methane (CH4) 45 to 75 Vol.-%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 25 to 55 Vol.-%
Water (H2O) 2 to 7 Vol.-% (20-40 °C)
Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) 20 to 20,000 ppm (2 Vol.-%)
Nitrogen (N2) < 5 Vol.-%
Oxygen (O2) < 3 Vol.-%
Hydrogen (H2) < 1 Vol.-%

The biogas formation step can be divided into four phases, as described
below. The organic matter is degraded by various interdependent groups of
bacteria. The organic raw material has a complex structure of proteins,
carbohydrates and fats. This structure is decomposed during the first phase
of the degradation process, i.e., the hydrolysis phase, into simple organic
components like amino acids, fatty acids and sugars. The hydrolytic bacteria
involved in this process use a variety of enzymes, e.g., cellulases, amylases
and proteases, in order to build monomers. These intermediary products are
then transformed into short-chain organic acids like propionic and butyric
acids and into carbon dioxide, alcohols, and hydrogen. For this, acid-forming
bacteria are employed during the acidogenesis phase. The anaerobic bacteria
require oxygen and are the basis for further anaerobic methane formation.

29
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

The acetic acid formation, i.e., acetogenesis phase, represents the third phase
of the biogas formation process. The organic acids and alcohols built are
further transformed into acetic acids and hydrogen under the action of
bacteria. Another possible reaction corresponds to the conversion of
hydrogen and carbon dioxide into acetic acid [45]. The methane formation,
i.e., methanogenesis phase, can be carried out following two pathways.
Methane can be built through the separation of acetic acid according to
following equation (Eq. 2.1).

𝐶𝐻3 𝐶𝑂𝑂 + 𝐻 + → 𝐶𝐻4 + 𝐶𝑂2 (2.1)

The second possibility is the transformation of hydrogen and carbon dioxide

into methane and water (Eq. 2.2).

𝐶𝑂2 + 4𝐻2 → 𝐶𝐻4 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 (2.2)

Kaltschmitt identified that about 70% of the biogas production is derived from
the separation of acetic acid (Eq. 2.1) and only about 30% from the reaction
between carbon dioxide and hydrogen (Eq. 2.2) [43]. On the other hand, in
[40] and [46] biogas produced by agricultural plants mostly results from the
oxidation of carbon through the reaction between carbon dioxide and
hydrogen. The four phases of the biogas formation process take place
simultaneously and without physical separation. The term “single-phase
process” is employed e.g., for agricultural plants. The term “two-phase
processes” characterizes a separation of the hydrolysis and the acidogenesis
from the acidogenesis and methane formation. This last process is never
employed in practice mainly due to its unprofitability. The living conditions of
methane bacteria10 are clearly improved by the phase separation into two
reactors. This increases the biogas yields but generates higher costs due to

10
The microorganisms involved have different and specific requirements regarding their living
environment (e.g., pH-values, temperature, nutrient supply).

30
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

the construction, operation and maintenance of a supplementary reactor

dedicated to acidogenesis and methane formation [40].

2.2.2.2 Characterization of biogas fermentation process

In Table 2-4 the main criteria used to characterize biogas formation processes
are detailed. They concern the feedstock DM-content, the loading method
and the process temperature and enable a differentiation of all available
fermentation processes [47].

Table 2.4: Employed criteria for the characterization of different biogas processes (author’s
own representation according to [47])

Criteria Differentiation factors

Feedstock DM-content - Wet fermentation

- Dry fermentation

Feedstock loading method - Discontinuous (batch process)

- Quasi-continuous
- Continuous

Process temperature - Psychrophilic

- Mesophilic
- Thermophilic

The feedstock DM-content has a decisive influence on the choice of wet or

dry fermentation processes. A wet fermentation process is generally
characterized by an organic pumpable material and by a DM-content lower
than 12%. A dry fermentation concerns feedstock with a DM-content
generally higher than 20% and containing a watertight and stackable organic
matter. Nevertheless, an exact delimitation between the two above
mentioned processes does not exist in practice [48], [49]. The loading step
corresponds to the fermenter supply with the microorganisms contained in
the raw biomass feedstock. In principle one can distinguish between
continuous, quasi-continuous and discontinuous loading concepts.

31
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

Continuous and quasi-continuous loadings characterize a fermenter supply

with at least one charge of raw feedstock. In practice the repeated loading of
the fermenter with small charges is the best concept. A permanent
fermentation process takes place and leads to relatively homogenous biogas
production. Most of the biogas plants are operated according to this principle
which is continuous flow process. The term “continuous flow” refers to a
loading situation where the same feedstock amount is present in the
fermenter input as in the fermenter output [40]. The discontinuous process,
also named as batch process, relates to a single feedstock loading during
which the fermenter is entirely filled. The anaerobic digestion process takes
then place during a determined residence time. The digester is subsequently
emptied and filled again with new raw material feedstock.

A further criterion concerns the fermenter temperature which remains in

psychrophilic, mesophilic or thermophilic domains. The psychrophilic domain
is defined by a fermentation temperature lower than 30°C and is
characterized by very slow organic substance degradation and by low biogas
production. Currently no practical applications exist in this temperature
domain for biogas plants. Most of the existing biogas plants are operated in
the mesophilic temperature domain between 37°C and 42°C which
represents a suitable temperature bandwidth for a stable process and an
optimal biogas production. A thermophilic process temperature mainly
concerns biomass feedstock hygienization processes that remain between 50
and 60 °C. If the temperature level is maintained during more than 24 hours,
then the epidemic and phytosanitary requirements for biowaste are fulfilled
[50]. A high degradation rate and a low viscosity are reached at this
temperature level which favours biogas production. However, the
requirements in terms of process control are higher [50]. Figure 2-3 describes
the currently existing fermentation processes classified according to the
loading method and feedstock consistency (dry or wet). The dry fermenter
technologies most employed, i.e., the horizontal plug-flow fermenters, are
operated under a continuous dry fermentation process (grey-marked in
Figure 2-3). Most of the wet fermenter technologies are also operated under

32
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

quasi-continuous processes and generally employ single-phase continuous

flow fermenters (grey-marked in Figure 2-3).

Figure 2.3: Classification of available fermentation processes (author’s own representation

according to [47])

33
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

Wet fermentation is the most widespread process worldwide. In Germany,

about 89% of existing biogas plants are operated according to this principle
[51]. In practice wet fermentation generally uses single-phase continuous
flow processes. These processes are mainly characterized by a continuous
fermenter loading. More precisely the fermenter is supplied daily with raw
biomass feedstock in small charges. Simultaneously, the same feedstock
amount is drained from the fermenter into the digestate container. During
the design phase of a continuous single phase and fully mixed fermenter it is
however not possible to estimate an exact residence time as a part of the raw
feedstock can immediately leave the reactor [40]. Horizontal plug-flow
fermentation technologies are used for dry fermentation processes and
initially come from communal biowaste treatment. Nowadays they can also
be applied to the valorization of energy crops. This technology uses horizontal
fermenters which can contain several cross-mixers equipped with paddles or
slowly moving axial agitators. The biomass substrates circulate along the
length of the quasi-continuous plug-flow fermenters. A part of the digestate
can be recycled into the fermenter in order to be used as inoculating material
for the raw biomass feedstock input. A plug-flow fermenter is generally
characterized by a thermophilic fermentation temperature at about 55 °C and
a residence time of 20 to 28 days [52], [53].

2.2.3 Digestate treatment

During the fermentation process a digestate of biologically degraded material

is formed. The digestate properties can be estimated by biomass input
feedstock analysis and by the fermentation process. The digestate issued
from the fermentation process is then conveyed to a storage tank. Since the
year 2012 this storage tank, defined as a post-fermenter, has to be covered
in order to avoid gas releases. The tank volume must be calculated in order
to enable a minimal storage period of 180 days. The digestate displays a high
fertilizing value due to high nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents. It
can be valorized directly on soils or further treated e.g., through a solid-liquid
phase separation. Digestate storage tanks are mostly designed for the storage

34
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

of fermented manure. The digestate treatment consists in solid/liquid phase

separation which offers the best valorization possibilities. The separated
liquids can be reused in mashing processes applied to the raw biomass
feedstock or valorized as liquid fertilizer. The solid digestate can be further
treated using composting units in order to obtain a valuable compost. Screw
separators are the main technology employed and apply to feedstock with a
DM-content between 10 and 30%. Screening belts and centrifuges can also
be employed [54]. The composting process involves the biological treatment
of light valorizable organic materials which can be degraded by bacteria and
fungi. Fertilizers and humus are then produced in the presence of air (aerobic
treatment). This process is generally employed as a down-stream step
following the biowaste fermentation. Several composting processes exist in
Germany and can be divided into windrow composting, box composting, line
composting or “brikollare composting”. These various composting processes
are characterized by different designs, ventilation systems and by different
intensive decomposition periods. Digestate mass flows greater than 10,000
t/a must only be exclusively treated by encapsulated composting processes
in order to respect legal immissions control requirements applied to biowaste
installations. In this case box composting and windrow composting processes
appear to be the most suited technologies for the digestate treatment. Both
of these processes minimize odours and are equipped with a closed intensive
decomposition unit and a full exhaust and forced-ventilation system. Box
composting processes produce a fresh compost11 with a rotting degree of II
to III and can be further treated into a finished compost by a post-rotting
process [56]. Windrow composting systems are fully encapsulated with
principal and post-rotting processes and directly produce a finished compost
with a rotting degree of IV to V.

11
Fresh and finished composts are defined according to the RAL quality insurance (German
institute for quality insurance and labelling). A fresh compost is hygienized and has a rotting
degree of II or III. This corresponds to an intensive decomposition process. A finished compost
refers to a hygienized and biologically stabilized compost with a rotting degree of IV or V [55].

35
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

2.2.4 Biogas valorization

Biogas can be transformed into power and heat through a combustion

process in Combined Heat and Power systems (CHPs). Another possibility is
to upgrade biogas to biomethane which can then be fed into the natural gas
grid. Independently of these two valorization routes, biogas must be first
cleaned and buffered.

2.2.4.1 Biogas buffering and cleaning

A buffer storage corresponding to at least 25% of the daily biogas production

must be installed in order to avoid strong variations in the production levels.
These gas storage units can be divided into low-, medium- or high-pressure
storage units. In practice low pressure storage unit is the most common
technology used. A gas storage unit is made of foils and can be directly
installed at the gas hood on the fermenter (integrated storage), as a foil
cushion in buildings or stored in the open air (external storage). The buffered
biogas must be cleaned using desulphurization processes. Biogas drying is
realized by a cooling process and the desulphurization is carried out e.g., with
the help of active coal filters containing potassium carbonate. The
combination of these two processes aims at protecting for instance CHP gas
engines, from a high wear rate as well as from corrosion [57].

2.2.4.2 Biogas valorization in Combined Heat and Power Systems

The cleaned biogas can be further valorized (e.g., in CHP gas engines) for
simultaneous electricity and heat production. According to [58] about 77% of
the engines employed for biogas combustion are gas-Otto-engines. The
electricity produced is then fed into the grid and directly sold on the electricity
market and/or subsided in the framework of Feed-In-Tariffs (FITs) defined by
the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). The heat produced can be recycled
to the biogas plant for fermenter heating among other uses. Supplementary
external heat sinks have to be found in order to improve plant efficiency and
its profitability. External heat sinks are generally social buildings, stalls, drying
processes or district heating networks [59].

36
 2.2 Description of a complete biogas supply chain

2.2.4.3 Biogas valorization through biomethane injection

Biogas upgrading processes represent a suitable alternative to onsite

electricity production especially if not enough heat sinks are located near the
plant. The upgraded biogas, biomethane, can be fed into the natural gas grid
and decentrally valorized in cogeneration plants or used as a gaseous biofuel.
The biogas upgrading process must be carried out according to DVGW
worksheets G260 and G262 [60], [61]. The first step of the biogas upgrading
process is water removal. The biogas output volume flow contains saturated
water vapour which can potentially generate condensation in the gas
pipelines and lead to corrosion. Water removal can be carried out by
compression, cooling or absorption using glycol solutions. Adsorption pro-
cesses employing SiO2 or activated carbons represent another possibility.
Hydrogen sulphide (H2 S) is formed during the microbiological reduction of
sulphur and must also be removed. The objective is to decrease H2 S
concentration in the biogas produced. For this purpose, a precipitation
reaction can be directly created in the digester by adding Fe2+ or Fe3+ . This
eliminates the iron sulphide from the produced biogas. Another possibility is
adsorbing H2 S using activated carbon in the presence of oxygen and water
which leads to sulphur production. The H2 S removal process can also be
achieved by a chemical absorption employing sodium hydroxide (NaOH), by
washing or by treating biogas by an iron oxide-coated support material. H2 S
can be removed from biogas by employing biological treatments involving
microorganisms such as Thiobacillus and Sulfolobus. These treatments are
carried out in the presence of oxygen and inside the digester [62].

In the second step of biogas upgrading oxygen and nitrogen must be

separated from the biogas stream. This removal is carried out by adsorption
processes involving activated carbons, molecular sieves or membranes. In a
subsequent step ammonia, siloxanes and particulates are removed. Ammonia
is eliminated by using drying processes. In the case of siloxanes cooling,
absorption, adsorption or activated carbon processes are used. Finally,
particulates, which can cause mechanical wear in gas engines, are removed
using mechanical filters [63]. The central step of biogas upgrading processes

37
2 Background aspects regarding bioenergy and biogas

is the removal of CO2 from the crude biogas. This can be carried out by means
of various technologies (e.g., Pressure Swing Adsorption, water scrubbing,
organic physical or chemical scrubbing, membranes, cryogenic upgrading). A
detailed description and comparison of all CO2 -removal processes employed
can be found in [64]. Before injection into the grid the cleaned biogas has to
be conditioned in order to meet the combustion characteristics of natural gas
(e.g., gross calorific value and Wobbe index). This conditioning step is
generally realized using liquid gases and potentially by adding air (in L-gas grid
areas). Odorization according to the DVGW G280-1 worksheet and a pressure
in-crease up to 16 bar12 are then carried out before the final injection.
Biomethane injection stations are equipped with measurement technologies
in order to monitor limit values for different parameters according to DVGW
worksheets G260 and G262. For example, biomethane volume, composition
and gross calorific values must be estimated using process gas chromato-
graphs and combustion calorimeters [65].

2.3 Summary
In this chapter an overview of all available bioenergy conversion pathways
has been given with a focus on the biochemical conversion of biomass into
biogas. Due to the variety of resources and valorization pathways bioenergy
can be considered as the most versatile energy conversion technology. The
anaerobic digestion of biomass feedstock can further lead to a flexible and
demand-oriented electricity from biogas. It enables the production of
renewable heat and digestate which can be further valorized as a fertilizer.
These two products generate local markets and facilitate the implementation
of circular economy with sustainable job creation. This added value
contributes to a decentralization of the German electricity system in line with
the objective of the German energy transition. In the next chapter the past
and current situation of biogas in Europe and more particularly in Germany is

12
Corresponds to the natural gas grid pressure level.

38
 2.3 Summary

analysed with a focus on legal aspects. A literature review provides then an

assessment of studies dealing with current and future electricity production
from biogas in Germany.

39
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in
Germany
In this chapter the situation of biogas in Europe and Germany is described
regarding past developments and current situation (sections 3.1 and 3.2). In
section 3.3 the legal framework for bioenergy and biogas in Germany is
assessed. In particular the Renewable Energy Sources Act is presented as an
important subsidy scheme for the electricity production from biogas. A
literature review follows in section 3.4. Its objective is to describe all main
existing studies related to the analysis of current and future electricity
production from biogas in Germany. In addition, a review of existing biomass
potentials studies for biogas applications is realized. Based on these
assessments the scientific contribution and added value of this thesis is
emphasized by pointing out the knowledge gap filled by the present work.
This chapter ends with a summary in section 3.5.

3.1 Biogas situation in Europe

By the end of 2015 about 15,391 biogas plants were installed in Europe and
represented a total installed capacity of about 8.73 GWel [10], [66], [67].
Germany is the undisputed leader of the European biogas market with about
8,861 existing plants for a total installed electric capacity of approximatively
4 GWel [10], [66] (Figure 3-1).

41
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

8.861
10.000

1.555

1.000 717 638

523
554 444
282
277 268
204
152 140 139 123
84
100 71 64
59
36
30 29 28
26 23
18
13
11 11

10 7

1
Sweden

Slovakia
Spain

Finnland
Hungary

Ireland
Italy
France
Switzerland

Poland
Czech Republic

Latvia

Greece

Croatia
Estonia
Belgium
Denmark

Norway

Slovenia

Serbia
Germany

United Kingdom

Cyprus

Romania
Netherlands

Luxembourg

Iceland
Portugal
Austria

Lithuania

Bulgaria
Figure 3.1: Biogas plants number repartition in Europe at the end of the year 2015 [10], [66]

There are strong discrepancies in biomass feedstock use between countries

[68] (Figure 3-2). For example, in Germany and in Italy energy crops and
agricultural residues represent the majority of the valorized biomass types,
whereas in the United Kingdom (UK) and in Sweden mostly sewage sludge
and industrial waste are employed. In France biomass feedstocks are equally
divided between agricultural residues, industrial waste, waste from agro-food
industry and households (category “other”). These substrates together
represent more than 90% of the total mix. With less than 3% mass share,
energy crops (catch crops) play only a minor role in the French biogas
industry.

42
 3.1 Biogas situation in Europe

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Energy crops Agricultural residues Biowaste

Industrial waste Sewage Other

Figure 3.2: Biomass feedstock mix used in 2015 for biogas production in various European
countries (in % mass) [68]

An assessment of future biomass feedstock potentials is carried out with the

help of the Biomass Policies toolkit [69]. The total European biomass potential
dedicated to biogas production is estimated at more than 400 million t by
2020. The main potentials would still be in Germany, France, Italy, Spain and
UK amounting to more than 265 million t. Future potentials would be mainly
dominated by manure (about 279 million t) and by organic waste (about 100
million t). Potentials for energy crops and agricultural residues would appear
to be limited at only 21.75 million t (Figure 3-3).

43
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

kt
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0

Manure Energy crops Agricultural residues Organic waste Sludge

Figure 3.3: Biomass feedstock potentials in all European countries by 2020 [69]

The support schemes currently involved in each European country are shown
in Table A-1 of the Appendix [70]. The most common support schemes are
Feed-In-Tariffs and national subsidies (existing in 14 countries). Premium
mechanisms like the market premium model in Germany have been
developing strongly in the past five years and are currently employed in 9
European countries. Incentives for research and development programs are
only existing in 3 countries.

The environmental benefits of biogas in Europe are further pointed out.

According to the European Biogas Association, biogas plants achieved in 2015
about 33.5 million t of greenhouse gas (GHG) savings in Europe. These savings
relate to the heat, power and transport sectors (12.5 million t), to the avoided
emissions from manure digestion in the case of agricultural plants (10.5

44
 3.2 Past developments and current situation for biogas in Germany

million t) and to carbon sequestration13 (10.5 million t) [71]. The total

European GHG savings should increase to 230 million t GHG by 2030, which
shows the mid-term environmental benefits potentially generated by the
European biogas sector [71]. The European Commission (DG of Energy)
mentioned that biogas production in Europe could be doubled by 2020 and
highlighted in particular the relevance of biogas in circular economies and
sustainable farming systems [72]. The necessary development of “the best
regulation” frameworks was pointed out by Mr. Katainen, Vice-President of
the European Commission. This would thereby “enable the creation of better
business models and business opportunities” [72].

3.2 Past developments and current situation for

biogas in Germany
Since the year 2000 the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) has encouraged
the development of German biogas plants. The corresponding subsidy
schemes based on FIT have given a major impetus to the biogas plants
expansion. As shown in Figure 3-4 the different versions of the EEG for the
years 2000, 2004, 2009, 2012 and 2014 have led to a continuous development
of the biogas sector over the past fifteen years [10]. The first version of the
EEG in 2000 was characterized by the introduction of plant type and capacity
dependent Feed-In-Tariffs. In the 2004 version of the EEG a specific bonus
dedicated to the valorization of energy crops into biogas was introduced in
order to enable the development of agricultural biogas plants. In 2009 a
supplementary bonus linked to manure valorization was set which has
accelerated the expansion of agricultural co-digestion plants. The EEG 2012
introduced the possibility for plant operators to directly market the electricity
produced according to demand and price. For this a market and a flexibility
premium were defined [73]. The following version of the EEG, which came
into force in August 2014, reinforced the market integration objective for

13
Carbon sequestration occurs in soils through organic carbon building-up.

45
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

biogas. The main objective of the EEG 2014 is to continuously and cost-
efficiently increase the share of renewable energy sources in the gross
electricity demand [74]. The target to be reached is for about 40% of German
gross electricity demand to be met for renewable energy sources by 2025 and
about 55% by 2035 [74]. As mentioned in the EEG 2014 the support schemes
for German renewable electricity should focus on the least cost intensive
technologies [74]. With an electricity production cost of about 18 𝑐𝑡/𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 ,
biogas belongs to the most expensive renewable electricity sources [13], [14].
This is mainly due to high energy crop costs, which represent more than half
of total electricity production costs [75]. By removing the subsidies for energy
crops valorization, the EEG 2014 clearly intends to slow down the
development of agricultural plants. This also aims to avoid competition with
the food value chain in terms of surface area and resources.

46
 3.2 Past developments and current situation for biogas in Germany

Installed
Biogas plants electric
number power
(MWel)

10.000 4.500

9.000 4.000
EEG 2014
8.000 EEG 2012
3.500

7.000
3.000
6.000
2.500
5.000
EEG 2009
2.000
4.000
1.500
3.000

EEG 2004 1.000

2.000

1.000 EEG 2000 500

0 0
1994

2002
1992
1993

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Biogas plants number Installed electric power including flexible capacities

Figure 3.4: Historical development for German biogas plants [10]

About 614 TWhel electricity have been produced annually in Germany by the
end of 2014 [76]. Renewable energy sources have, with 26.2%, the main share
in the total German electricity generation before brown coal and hard coal.
Nuclear energy has a share of about 15.8%. This share will continue to
decrease following the decommissioning plan for nuclear reactors which was
decided in Germany after the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Natural gas and
fuel oil currently play a secondary role in the electricity mix with production
shares lower than 10% [76]. German renewable electricity production - about
160.9 TWhel by 2014 - is mainly driven by wind energy and bioenergy with
respective shares at about 34.8% and 30.6%. Photovoltaics follows with a
share of approximatively 21.7% whereas hydropower supplies 12.8% of the

47
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

total renewable electricity production. With a share of 0.1% geothermal

energy plays only a marginal role [76].

Electricity generation from biomass, considered under the EEG legal

framework, can be estimated at about 38.16 TWhel 14 (Figure 3-5). It is mainly
driven by biogas with about 72.3% of the total production mix [77].

0,9% 4%
22,8%

Total
38.16 TWhel

72,3%

Liquid biomass Biomethane

Biogas Solid biomass

Figure 3.5: German electricity production from biomass in 2014 under the EEG framework [77]

Finally Figures 3-6 and 3-7 provide information regarding the main feedstocks
employed in German biogas plants. With about 52% and 43% respectively
energy crops and manure represent the main biomass types used in Germany
for biogas production. Biowaste and agro-industrial residues play a minor role
with shares lower than 4% [78]. The valorization of energy crops into biogas
is principally driven by maize silage with a share of 73% in the total energy
crops feedstock mix. The remaining 27% are made up of grass silage (12%),
cereal silage (7%) and miscellaneous energy crops (cereal grains, sugar beet,
catch crop, miscellaneous crops) [79].

14
A supplementary amount of 14.12 TWhel has to be added and corresponds to the total electricity
production from biogas by other technologies than CHP (e.g., gas turbines or Stirling engines) [6].

48
 3.2 Past developments and current situation for biogas in Germany

2% 3%

Total
43% 112.6 million t 52%

Energy crops
Manure
Industrial and agricultural residues
Communal biowaste

Figure 3.6: Main feedstocks employed in German biogas plants at the end of 2014 [78]

2%
2%
2%
2%
7%

12%
Total
58.6 million t

73%

Maize silage Grass silage

Cereal silage Cereal grains
Sugar beet Catch crop

Figure 3.7: Main energy crops employed in German biogas plants at the end of 2014 [79]

49
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and

biogas in Germany
Continuous investments in renewable technologies and infrastructure are
necessary in order to achieve a more sustainable energy supply. This requires
a stable political and legal framework in order to facilitate the development
of new markets from the local up to the national levels. Up to now the
financial support schemes for renewable energies have successfully
contributed to the emergence of new technologies and new markets in the
past fifteen years. A further integration of renewable energies in national and
international energy markets remains however necessary in order to
simultaneously reach the environmental objectives set for Germany and slow
down the energy price increases for end-customers. In the following, the main
laws and regulations concerning renewable energies and biogas in Germany
are described.

3.3.1 Energy Economics Law (EnWG)

The Energy Economics Law concerns the heat, electricity and gas supply in
Germany. It came into force on July 13th 2005 and was updated on August
29th 2016. The objective of the EnWG is based on the so called “target
triangle”. The EnWG defines targets for economic efficiency, security of
supply and environmental compatibility regarding the supply of heat,
electricity and gas in Germany [80], [81].

The Energy Economics Law defines in particular the rights and duties between
energy suppliers and consumers and encourages the liberalization of the
German electricity market. One of the key tasks of this law is the unbundling
of discrimination, cross-subsidization and other distortions of competition in
the field of network operation. To achieve this, the energy economic
functions like production, sale and storage should be separated from network
operation, i.e. transmission and distribution. Another important task of the

50
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

EnWG is to regulate network operation. This is done by defining network

operator missions and the conditions for network connection and access.
Under this framework, all gas and electricity consumers can benefit from
standardized access to energy supply networks and the collected network
charges must be approved by the regulatory authority [82].

3.3.2 Renewable Energy Heat Act (EEWärmeG)

The Renewable Energies Heat Act (EEWärmeG) came into force on January
1st 2009 and deals with the use of renewable energies in new residential and
non-residential buildings. According to the EEWärmeG, a certain share of the
end energy heat consumption has to be covered by renewable energies. A
share of 14% by 2020 is set as an objective [83]. The heat energy consumption
relates to heating, hot water production and cooling. Further objectives
concern the limited use of fossil resources, an independence from energy
imports as well as the continuous development of innovative heating
technologies. The share of energy consumption that should be covered by the
building owners is specifically defined for different technologies. For example,
solar collectors must cover at least 15% of the heat/cold energy consumption.
If solid biofuels, geothermal or environmental heat are used then 50% of the
demand must be satisfied. Finally, if biomethane is used for heating then it
must represent at least 30% of heat energy consumption [84].

Numerous renewable energy technologies can be used in order to meet these

objectives: solar energy, solid biomass combustion (e.g., wood pellets, wood
chips, biogas in micro-CHPs, biogenic oils in boilers), geothermal energy or
environmental heat combined with efficient heat pumps [85]. No obligations
linked to the EEWärmeG are foreseen for existing buildings. Nevertheless,
alternative measures can be applied but are not compulsory. For example,
the use of cogeneration, insulation measures or heat from local heating
network can be considered as substitution measures or combined with the
above-mentioned technologies [86].

51
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

3.3.3 Renewable Heat Law (EWärmeG)

The Renewable Heat Law is a Federal law applied in the state of Baden-
Württemberg. It came into force in 2008 and was updated in July 2015 [87].
In the framework of the EWärmeG the owners of existing buildings 15 are
obliged to use renewable energies if they modify their heating systems [88].
A difference is further made between residential and non-residential
buildings. According to the EWärmeG, 15% of the heating energy demand has
to be covered by renewable energies. Possible renewable heating
technologies are solar thermal energy, wood based central heating, heat
pumps, biogenic oils and biogas. Similarly, to the EEWärmeG alternative
measures, such as thermal insulation, cogeneration, connection to heating
networks or photovoltaic plants can be applied.

3.3.4 Cogeneration Act (KWKG)

The new version of the Cogeneration Act came into force by the end of 2015
and aims to increase the net electricity production of cogeneration plants
(CHP-plants) up to 110 TWhel by 2020 and 120 TWhel by 2025 [89]. By the
end of the year 2014, CHP-plants have produced electricity at a level of 97.6
TWhel which is already close to the objective set for the year 2020 [90]. The
new version of the Cogeneration Act is then characterized by a very moderate
expansion strategy. The new Cogeneration Act regulates the use and
subsidies linked to the electricity produced by existing, new modernised and
repowered cogeneration plants employing lignite, hard coal, solid waste,
waste heat, biomass, gaseous or liquid fuels. It further defines the modalities
of the supplements payments by the Transmission System Operators (TSO)
for the expansion of heat and cold networks and storage. The level of these
supplements as well as the associated modalities are further described in
[91]. Bioenergy conversion plants including biogas installations can be
financially supported under the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) or the

15
Buildings constructed before the 1st of January 2009.

52
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

KWKG subsidy scheme. A double subsidy combining both of these incentives

is therefore not allowed.

3.3.5 Biomass Electricity Sustainability Regulation

(BioSt-NachV)

The biomass electricity sustainability regulation (BioSt-NachV) was enacted

on July 23rd 2009 and applies to liquid biofuels used to produce electricity
according to the Renew-able Energy Sources Act [92]. The BioSt-NachV
defines sustainability criteria linked to biomass cultivation and treatment
mainly for rapeseed oil, soya oil and palm oil. The main criteria concern the
protection of natural living spaces, sustainable cultivation of agricultural
surface areas and the protection of surface areas of high natural value (e.g.,
forests, nature reserve or surface areas with high biological diversity). The
liquid biofuels valorized should show a GHG-mitigation potential superior to
35% (60% by 2018). These sustainability criteria are a prerequisite that must
be displayed by plant operators before they can obtain the EEG subsidies and
the sustainability certificates for the used biofuels [92].

3.3.6 Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG)

3.3.6.1 Past developments and time schedule

In the last fifteen years the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) has mainly
contributed to the expansion of renewable energies in Germany in the
electricity sector. Targets of at least 35% renewable energies in the German
gross electricity demand up to the years 2020 and at least 50% up to the year
2030 are defined by the German Federal Government [93]. These objectives
should contribute to reach the renewable energies share set by the European
Union for the year 2020 in the national end-energy demand16. In 1991 and

16
In [94] a 18% share of national end-energy demand must be met by renewable energies in
Germany by the year 2020.

53
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

under the “Electricity Feed-In Law”, which was the precursor of the EEG, the
share of renewable energies in German gross electricity demand was only
3.1% [95]. On April 1st 2000, the first version of EEG came into effect. Since
this date, the share of wind and solar energy, hydropower, biomass and
geothermal energy has increased from 6.2% to about 31.6% in year 2015 [95].
The EEG contains some basic principles, which were defined in the first
version of the year 2000 and which ensure a certain investment security for
investors and plants operators. The grid operators must connect new plants
to their electricity transport network. Simultaneously to the grid connection,
the plants receive a feed-in priority as well as fixed Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT) for
the electricity produced with a horizon of the next twenty years from the year
of commissioning. In addition to these basic principles the EEG is regularly
amended in order to follow current market conditions. Since the year 2009,
numerous evolutions have been proposed by the German Federal
Government in order to financially support the development of biogas. Figure
3-8 shows the time schedule used for the setting up of the different subsidy
mechanisms. These mechanisms are further analysed from sections 3.3.6.4 to
3.3.6.7.

54
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

Figure 3.8: Time schedule for the setting up of the different subsidy mechanisms supporting
biogas in Germany (author’s own representation according to [96], [11], [35])

3.3.6.2 Main objective of the Renewable Energy Sources Act

The main objective of the EEG is to continuously and cost-efficiently increase

the share of renewable energy sources in the gross electricity demand [74].
This development should focus on the support of the most cost-efficient
technologies, in order to cope with the problem of renewable energy levy.
The renewable energy levy corresponds to the difference between the costs
generated by the subsidy support for renewable electricity production and
the revenues generated by the electricity produced [97]. The level of this levy
is set by the four main German power transmission network operators, which
have a mission to administer and manage the account in which the subsidies
are registered. The transmission network operators must publish each year
on the 15th of October the amount of the renewable energy levy. This levy is

55
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

paid by the industrial and private final consumers and appears on their
electricity bill. For the year 2017 the highest historical value was reached at
about 6.88 ct/kWhel for household consumers [98]. The EEG aims to inhibit
the strong cost progression of the renewable energy levy by limiting the
development of the most expensive renewable energy conversion
technologies. In particular in the field of electricity production from biomass
a maximal increase of installed capacity of about 100 MWel per year is
defined in the framework of the EEG 2014 [99].

3.3.6.3 Definitions related to biogas plants under the EEG framework

3.3.6.3.1 Technical requirements

Existing biogas plants which were built before the 1st of August 2014 must
respect following technical measures. The plant operators are obliged to
install a supplementary gas valorization infrastructure (e.g., gas flare) in order
to avoid free emissions due to biogas production. In the case of biogas
upgrading to natural gas quality, the plant operators must respect a maximal
threshold value of 0.2% methane emissions in the atmosphere.

According to the EEG 2014 framework biogas plants with an installed electric
power greater than 100 kWel must be equipped with technical remote-
control devices that enable plants operators to reduce the electrical output
and avoid network overloads. At least one of the post-digesters has to be gas-
proofed and must show a minimal hydraulic residence time of 150 days. A
supplementary gas valorization infrastructure also has to be installed in order
to prevent a high release of biogas into the atmosphere [100]. Biogas plants
valorizing exclusively manure are free from the obligation of covering the
post-digester and of respecting the minimal residence time [100].

3.3.6.3.2 Installation terminology

In § 3 Nr. 1 of the EEG 2009 the definition of a biogas plant is given and refers
to the totality of all functional and technical components dedicated to
electricity production from biogas (e.g., CHP, fermenter, gas storage,
digestate storage tank, biomass feedstock pre-treatment unit) [101]. This

56
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

broad definition is further considered in this work and it is also assumed that
several CHP units connected to the same biogas production plant (anaerobic
digester) are seen as a single plant.

3.3.6.4 Feed-In-Tariffs for biogas plants

3.3.6.4.1 Example of a remuneration system according to EEG 2014

The main changes regarding subsidy levels in the framework of EEG 2014
concern agricultural plants. For these plants the subsidies related to the
valorization of energy crops have been suppressed and only the electric
power dependent base subsidies have been kept, which leads to major
simplifications. The subsidies for biowaste plants and small-scale manure
plants remain approximatively at the same level as for EEG 2012.

The subsidy structure represented in Table 3-1 is applicable to plants which

were commissioned before the 31st of July 2015. Starting from the 1st of
August 2015 EEG-subsidies are decreasing by 0.5% per quarter of each year
[102].

57
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

Table 3.1: Remuneration system for electricity generation from biogas following EEG 2014
[102]

Remuneration for plants valorizing Remuneration

energy crops according to the for biowaste
definition of the Biomass Ordinance plants17
Average annual capacity (kWel) (ct/kWhel) (ct/kWhel)

≤ 75: with only use of manure 23.7318

≤ 150 13.66 15.26

≤ 500 11.78

≤ 5,000 10.55

≤ 20,000 5.85 13.38

3.3.6.4.2 Miscellaneous categories for small-scale manure and biowaste

plants
In the new subsidies structure manure plants up to 75 kWel installed electric
power fall into a miscellaneous category. In this category a subsidy of 23.73
ct/kWhel is attributed (see Table 3-1). This subsidy cannot be combined with
other revenues and is only attributed if at least 80% of manure per year is
valorized in the biogas plants. According to the Annex 3 Nr.9, 11-15 of the
Biomass Act manure consists of the following feedstock: horse, cow, sheep,
pig and goat manure [105].

In order to receive subsidies biowaste plants should use at least 90% of the
following three biowaste types coming from [105]:

• Biologic degradable biowaste like garden or landscape conservation

waste

17
With at least 90% biowaste mass amount according to the Annex 1 of the Biowaste Ordinance
[103]
18
For small manure plants: at least 80% of the manure must be valorized in the digester [104].

58
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

• Mixed municipal solid waste like separated biowaste from private

households (in particular biowaste container)
• Vegetal market biowaste

In the case of biowaste plants rotting process equipment must be installed

after the fermenters in order to treat the solid digestate [102]. Finally, the
technical requirements for post-digesters described in section 3.3.6.3.1 must
be satisfied.

3.3.6.5 Electricity direct marketing

Since EEG 2012 every biogas plant operator in Germany has the possibility to
directly self-market the electricity produced in the framework of the so called
“market premium” [73]. In addition to the revenues from the sale of the
electricity German biogas plant operators receive a supplement i.e., the
“market premium”. The market premium corresponds to the difference
between the plant specific EEG-subsidies and the revenues from electricity
sales on the Exchange market (average EPEX values of the hourly contracts
passed on the EPEX Spot EEX bourse). The market premium is determined for
each past calendar-month as follows [106] (Eq. 3.1):

𝑀𝑃 = 𝐹𝐼𝑇 − 𝑀𝐴𝐸𝑃𝐸𝑋 (3.1)

With:

MP: Market premium; FIT: plant specific EEG-subsidies; MAEPEX: monthly

average values of the hourly contracts passed on the EPEX Spot EX bourse

In the middle of the year 2015, the direct electricity marketing model
concerned a total biogas plant capacity of about 2,650 MWel which
corresponds to about 66% of the total installed capacity at this time point
(4,018 MWel ) [107].

In addition to the market premium and in the context of EEG 2012 a

“premium for the delivery of supplementary installed capacity for a demand-

59
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

oriented electricity production”, the so called “flexibility premium”, has been

defined [108]. This premium was intended to facilitate investments in larger
gas storage units and supplementary CHP capacity. The objective is to reach
a more demand-oriented and flexible electricity production from biogas.
Contrary to the classical period of 20 years, under which EEG-subsidies are
guaranteed, the flexibility premium is valid for a period of 10 years. In order
to benefit from this premium, the biogas plant operators must firstly directly
market the electricity produced in the context of the market premium model
and secondly prove that a supplementary and permanently available biogas
reserve is installed.

The supplementary CHP capacity can be defined as the difference between

the installed power Pinst and the rated power PRat for the corresponding year.
The value of the flexibility premium (FP) is defined according to Eq. 3.2 and
expressed in ct/kWhel for the electricity fed into the grid [109].

(𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 −(𝑓𝐶𝑜𝑟 × 𝑃𝑅𝑎𝑡 ))× 𝐶𝐶 × 100

𝐹𝑃 = 𝑃𝑅𝑎𝑡 × 8,760
(3.2)

The rated power PRat is multiplied by a correction factor fCor of 1.1 for biogas
and 1.6 for biomethane representing the real load. The Capacity Component
CC is set at 130 €/kWel of supplementary electric power, according to [110].
In the new framework of EEG 2014 the flexibility premium has been replaced
by a flexibility supplement of 40 €/kWel for new built plants larger than 100
kWel and commissioned after the 1st of August 2014 [111]. In July 2015 the
flexibility regime concerned about 2,692 plants with a total cumulated
capacity of 1,519 MWel [107].

3.3.6.6 Tendering procedure

In the context of the Renewable Energy Sources Act 2017, which came into
force on January 1st 2017, tendering procedure mechanisms include an

60
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

auction system19 [112]. This mechanism aims to provide an impetus for the
future development of bioenergy plants in Germany especially in line with the
grid expansion. Another objective is to improve the economic
competitiveness of bioenergy in order to facilitate in particular its integration
into the German electricity system. In the planned auction process the best
placed bioenergy plants thus receive a payment linked to the power that they
can deliver. New built bioenergy installations smaller than 150 kWel are
excluded from the tendering procedure and will thus receive the Feed-In-
Tariffs [112]. All existing plants including plants smaller than 150 kWel can
take part in the tendering procedure and be financially supported for 10 years
if the electricity is produced under a flexibility regime [112]. The German
Federal Ministry aims to support the most cost-efficient bioenergy
technologies and the auction mechanism is consequently designed to sup-
port plants showing the lowest annual electricity bid price. New plants
offering electricity bid prices higher than a value of 14.88 ct/kWhel are
automatically excluded from the auction system [112]. In this new mechanism
installations showing the lowest electricity bid price receive an EEG subsidies
level relative to their plant size. From 2017 to 2019, a total installed capacity
of 150 MWel per year is thus involved in this tendering procedure. This
maximal allocable capacity will further increase to 200 MWel per year from
2020 to 2022 [112].

3.3.6.7 Critical analysis of the past and current subsidy mechanisms for
biogas in Germany

Since the year 2000 the Feed-In-Tariffs defined in the framework of the
Renewable Energy Sources Act have provided a major impetus for the
development of biogas plants in Germany. In particular the energy crops and
manure bonuses, defined in EEG 2004 and EEG 2009, have contributed to a
strong development of agricultural biogas installations and especially co-
digestion plants. In the context of EEG 2014 the Federal Government has

19
This price amounts to 16.9 ct/kWhel for existing plants which can also participate in the tendering
procedure.

61
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

enacted a cut for the subsidies related to an energy crops valorization into
biogas. This has for effect to threaten the profitability of agricultural
installations and to limit future developments to biowaste and small-scale
manure plants. Pros and cons concerning this decision are pointed out in
Figure 3-9. The shift towards a subsidy support scheme mainly dedicated to
plants based on waste and residues will lead to a more ecological electricity
production from biogas in the forthcoming years. Manure and biowaste
installations generally show a lower green-house gas potential than the
agricultural plants as well as lower GHG-mitigation costs [113]. The energetic
use of biowaste and manure does not impact the food value chain and thus
contributes to a better acceptance for biogas in Germany. On the contrary
the past valorization of energy crops in order to produce biogas has led to a
“food versus fuel” debate and to public criticisms [114]. Small-scale manure
and biowaste plants often show higher specific investments and higher
electricity production costs than energy crops installations [115], [116].
Consequently, trade-offs had to be found between the environmental
benefits induced by biowaste and small-scale manure plants and the
economic performance related to energy crops-based installations. By
operating a cut on the energy crops subsidies, the Federal Government clearly
intends to slow-down future capacity development and to move towards a
more environmentally friendly electricity production from biogas.

62
 3.3 Legal framework for renewable energies and biogas in Germany

Biowaste and small-scale

Energy crops-based plants
manure plants

PROS PROS
- Show the lowest specific
investment - Show the lowest greenhouse gas
mitigation costs
- Show the lowest electricity
production costs - Avoid "food versus fuel" debate

CONS CONS
-Show the highest greenhouse gas - Show the highest specific
mitigation costs investment
- Lead to "food versus fuel" - Show the highest electricity
debate production costs

Figure 3.9: Pros and cons characterizing energy crops-based versus biowaste and small-scale
manure plants (author’s own representation)

Economic optimization possibilities remain however for biogas plant

operators and represent new challenges. By enabling the electricity direct
marketing, the EEG 2012 generates financial uncertainties for plant operators
regarding the EPEX price level reached for the sold electricity. The new
auction mechanism enacted by the EEG 2017 encourages plant operators to
improve the techno-economic efficiency of their installation and strengthens
the relevance of plant flexibility. However, the selection process defined in
the tendering procedure could tends to favour systematically the same
bioenergy conversion pathway, i.e., the one offering the lowest electricity bid
price. Biogas plants have then to be competitive enough in comparison to
other bioenergy technologies in order to continue to benefit from the EEG
subsidy framework. Therefore, the new EEG 2017 mechanism is a source of
opportunities but also of risks for the future German biogas market.

63
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

In this section a review of existing studies dealing with the economic analysis
of current and future electricity production from biogas in Germany is carried
out. Three main assessment categories can be distinguished. The first one
concerns the economic evaluation of existing biogas plants. The evaluation is
often carried out by comparing specific electricity production costs
(in ct/kWhel ) from various biogas supply chains. The second category deals
with the estimation and forecast of technical biomass potentials for biogas
applications. A last assessment category refers to the economic analysis of
future mid-term developments for biogas plants up to the year 2030. Based
on this review the added value of the present thesis is emphasized from a
methodological point of view as well as regarding the scientific content.

3.4.1 Economic assessment of existing biogas plants

The economic assessment of existing biogas plants in Germany has been

pursued in many recent studies. Most of these studies lead to the estimation
of specific electricity production costs from biogas in ct/kWhel . The specific
electricity production costs correspond to the total annual costs divided by
the electricity amount annually fed into the power grid. Total annual costs can
be split into annual operating costs and investment-related costs. Annual
operating costs correspond to expenses related to the operation of a
business, a device, a component, a piece of equipment or a facility. They
include personnel costs, biomass feedstock, process utilities, maintenance,
biomass transport, electricity consumption and digestate treatment costs.
Investment-related costs consist of depreciation, interests and insurance
costs. Numerous evaluations of specific electricity productions costs for both
biowaste and agricultural biogas supply chains have been carried out in the
past ten years. In [117] the case of a mesophilic wet fermentation plant
valorizing 7,500 t/a biowaste with an installed power of about 312 kWel is
analysed. Total capital investment and specific electricity production costs are

64
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

estimated at about 5.84 € million and 48 ct/kWhel respectively. In [118] a

systematic analysis of a 500 kWel biowaste plant employing 15,000 t/a
biowaste is carried out. Total capital investment amounts there 6.34 € million
and specific electricity production costs are estimated at about 47.24
ct/kWhel . The economic situation of a 1 MWel biowaste plant is also assessed
and leads to total capital investment of about 12.28 € million and to specific
electricity production costs of 42.71 ct/kWhel [118].

In [119] the economic assessment focuses on co-digestion plants employing

biowaste with manure. The co-digestion of 11,000 t/a biowaste with 11,000
t/a manure is thus characterized by an installed electric power of 600 kWel .
Total capital investment is determined to be about 5.7 € million and specific
electricity production costs about 39 ct/kWhel . In [120] continuous and
discontinuous dry fermentation processes are economically assessed for the
valorization of 18,000 of t/a biowaste. In the case of a continuous process
total specific annual costs including digestate composting amount to 82 €/t,
which corresponds to specific electricity production costs of about 32.8
ct/kWhel 20 [120]. In the case of discontinuous dry fermentation processes
and for the same amount of valorized biowaste, total specific annual costs
including digestate composting amount to 71 €/t, which leads to specific
electricity production costs of about 31.6 ct/kWhel 21. In [75] a 760 kWel
biogas plant is considered which employs 15,000 t/a biowaste in co-digestion
with 41,000 t/a sewage sludge to produce heat and electricity in two CHP gas
engines of 380 kWel . For this plant, specific electricity production costs have
been determined to be about 34.6 ct/kWhel . Finally, the u.e.c Berlin carried
out an economic evaluation of three biogas plants located in the Federal State
of Schleswig-Holstein [121]. The results of this last economic assessment are
set out in Table 3-2.

20
It is further assumed that one t of biowaste corresponds here to 250 kWhel in the case of
continuous dry fermentation processes [120].
21
Under the assumption that 1 ton of biowaste corresponds to 225 kWh el for discontinuous dry
fermentation processes according to [120].

65
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

Table 3.2: Results of an economic evaluation for three biowaste plants located in the Federal
State of Schleswig-Holstein [121]

Valorized Process Installed Specific Specific Electricity

biowaste electric operating investment production
amount power costs related costs
(t/a) (kWel) including costs (€/t) (ct/kWhel)
digestate
composting
(€/t)
Biogas 20,000 Dry 625 63 32 38
plant continuous
1 fermentation
Biogas 30,000 1000 61.6 30 34.4
plant
2
Biogas 50,000 1800 61 29 31.25
plant
3

An evaluation of specific electricity production costs for biogas from

agricultural plants is also realized. In [75] the profitability of a 500 kWel
agricultural plant employing 9,160 t/a energy crops is assessed and provides
specific electricity production costs of about 18.8 ct/kWhel . In [119] a first
agricultural co-digestion plant with an installed electric power of 150 kW el and
valorizing 2,000 t/a maize silage and 8,000 t/a manure had specific electricity
production costs of about 22 ct/kWhel . A second agricultural installation with
an installed electric power of 300 kWel transforming 8,000 t/a maize silage
and 2,000 t/a manure into biogas has specific electricity production costs of
about 20 ct/kWhel . In [122] a 250 kWel agricultural biogas plant mainly based
on maize silage shows specific electricity production costs of about 18.5
ct/kWhel .

In [123] two biogas plants respectively with 500 kWel and 1,000 kWel installed
power are economically assessed. Both of the two plants valorize 60% maize
silage, 30% silage grains and 10% manure in co-digestion processes. The 500
kWel plant size has specific electricity production costs at about 18.7

66
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

ct/kWhel compared with 16.5 ct/kWhel for the 1,000 kWel plant size. In [124]
the profitability of five agricultural biogas installations is assessed. A small-
scale manure plant with 75 kWel valorizing about 11,100 t/a manure shows
specific electricity production costs of about 21.4 ct/kWhel . The profitability
analysis of a 150 kWel plant valorizing exclusively maize silage gives specific
electricity production costs of about 26.23 ct/kWhel . A third plant with the
same installed capacity employing 70% maize silage and 30% manure in co-
digestion has specific electricity production costs of about 24.98 ct/kWhel .
Finally, the two last plants have an electric capacity of 500 kWel and valorize
maize silage in mono- and in co-digestion with manure. In this case specific
electricity production costs amount to about 20.6 ct/kWhel and 23.3
ct/kWhel . Figure 3-10 sums up and compares all the previously mentioned
electricity production costs both for biowaste and agricultural plants.

ct/kWhel
50

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1.000 kWel
Biowaste plants Agricultural plants

Figure 3.10: Literature values for specific electricity production costs relative to biowaste and
agricultural biogas plants in Germany (own representation according to [75], [117],
[118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124])

The results in Figure 3-10 show that the specific electricity production costs
for agricultural plants are systematically lower than those for biowaste plants.
Table 3-3 shows the positions involved in the electricity production costs of a
biowaste and an agricultural plant of comparable size [75]. It appears that the

67
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

investment-related costs are higher in the case of biowaste plants than for
agricultural installations. This is mainly due to cost-intensive biowaste pre-
treatments like hydrolysis, pasteurization or hygienization. These process
steps are not required for agricultural plants where the substrates can be
directly fed into the digesters. The biowaste pre-treatment operations also
require supplementary manpower which impacts the personnel costs level.
The digestate issued from the biowaste valorization has to be treated
whereas no treatment is necessary for agricultural plants (direct valorization
on the soils of the farmer’s exploitation). All these factors explain then the
visible gap in Figure 3-10 concerning the specific electricity production cost
levels for these two plant types.

Table 3.3: Decomposition of the specific electricity production costs (in ct/kWhel) for a
biowaste and an agricultural biogas plants [75]

760 kWel 500 kWel

biowaste plant agricultural plant
Investment-related costs 14.3 6.1
Electricity consumption 0.7 0.7
costs
Maintenance costs 2.8 0.2
Personnel costs 5 0.5
Biomass transport costs 2.8 3.2
Biomass feedstock costs 0 7.8
Digestate 5.5 0
treatment costs
Process utilities costs 3.5 0.3

A further assessment concerns the economic analysis of real biogas plants

based on data provided by plant operators. In the framework of its biogas
measurement program II in 2010 the FNR (Fachagentur Nachwachsende
Rohstoffe e.V.) compared 55 existing biogas plants [125]. The economic
analysis has been made using the electricity production costs as the main
evaluation criterion. The results show that about 90% of the installations

68
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

show electricity production costs located between 10 and 20 ct/kWhel

(Figure 3-11). These values are in line with the results of the previous
economic evaluation realized for agricultural plants in Figure 3-10.

ct/kWhel
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 kWel

Figure 3.11: Electricity production costs from the biogas measurement program II [125]

In [126] an investment decision tool for agricultural biogas plants in Greece is

described and employs other economic evaluation criteria than the specific
electricity production costs. Based on mass and energy balances the electric
and thermal outputs are determined for a fixed biomass input mix
corresponding to 20,000 t/a manure, 10,000 t/a wheat straw and 20,000 t/a
glycerol. The corresponding installed electric power amounts 5,324 kWel .
Plant operator data and author’s own assumptions lead to the estimation of
the total capital investment and the total operating costs. Revenues are
derived from the electricity, heat and compost sales as well as from the waste
valorization fees. An annuity method leads to key economic indicators
regarding the economic performance of the plant. An Internal Rate of Return
of about 13.4%, a Net Present Value of about 2.3 € million and a Pay-Back
Period of 8.76 years are determined.

69
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

Regarding methodological aspects one should distinguish between discrete

and continuous economic assessments. Discrete assessments refer to single
economic evaluations of given plant sizes whereas continuous assessments
deal with an economic analysis over the whole plant capacity bandwidth e.g.
[0:10,000 kWel ]. In [75], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124],
[125], [126] a business full-cost accounting method is employed for assessing
the profitability of single biogas plants. All operating and investment-related
cost positions involved are determined individually and their sum gives an
estimation of specific electricity productions costs (in ct/kWhel ) or leads to
the calculation of Internal Rate of Return and Net Present Value in [126]. In
each case a single plant type with a given installed electric power is
economically analysed so that only discrete assessments are carried out.
Currently no continuous profitability assessments of German biogas plants
exist.

Three research works deal with the determination of most profitable biogas
plant sizes in other European countries under a continuous assessment. In
[127] the most cost-effective size of agricultural biogas plants in Austria is
identified. The term “cost-effective” relates to the plant sizes showing the
lowest costs of electricity production from biogas in ct/kWhel . The plant type
assessed valorizes maize silage in a mono-digestion process. The electricity
production costs are determined based on the annual costs and on the
amount of electricity produced annually. Annual costs are divided into
investment-related, maize silage, personnel, maintenance, transport and
insurance costs. Electricity production costs are continuously calculated for
plant sizes varying from 25 to 2,000 kWel in increments of 25 kWel . For this,
specific correlations linking each cost position to the installed power are
obtained from surveys and literature data. The most cost-effective plant size
is estimated at about 875 kWel assuming a maize silage availability rate of
10%. For an availability rate of 20% the most cost-effective size would remain
at about 1,150 kWel . The effect of several key-parameters like maize silage
costs and availability, investment-related costs and feedstock transport costs
is quantified with the help of a sensitivity analysis. The calculations also

70
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

demonstrate the influence of political regulations and subsidy schemes on the

plant profitability. For this purpose, revenues from the sales of electricity are
integrated into the calculations and remain between 10.3 ct/kWhel for large-
scale plants22 and 16.5 ct/kWhel for small-scale plants23. According to the
author only small plants with a size of 100 kWel or 250 kWel can cover their
electricity production costs through the sales of electricity.

In [128] an analysis of the most profitable size for manure co-digestion plants
in the South of Italy is performed with the help of an investment decision tool.
Based on mass and energy balances the plant electric power is expressed as
a function of the biomass input mass flow. In a second step electricity
production costs and revenues24 as well as the projects Net Present Value and
Internal Rate of Return are determined for five plant sizes all along the
capacity bandwidth [50:1,000 kWel ]. Sensitivity analysis on the electricity
production costs and on the Internal Rate of Return are also realized. The
main profitability drivers are the plant location, the manure transport costs,
the operating costs and finally the effect of co-digestion with other feedstock
(energy crops, biowaste). The highest Internal Rate of Return is reached at
about 22.9% for a 250 kWel plant size.

The analysis carried out in [127] focuses exclusively on agricultural

installations and does not cover the whole Austrian biogas plant park. It also
considers electricity sale as the unique source of revenues and therefore does
not take into account the heat and digestate sale. The work mentioned in
[128] focuses only on the economic analysis of small-scale manure plants in
the Italian province of Bari and does not integrate other plant types such as
biowaste plants or plants valorizing agricultural residues. The present thesis
aims to estimate the most profitable plant sizes with the help of a simulation
model. Similarly, to [128] the mass and energy balances realized in the

22
In the case of biogas plant sizes greater than 1,000 kWel.
23
In the case of biogas plant sizes up to 100 kWel.
24
Revenues from the electricity sale are notably derived from the Italian Feed-In-Tariffs for biogas
plants.

71
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

process simulation lead to the determination of correlations between electric

power and the biomass input mass flow. The combination of these
correlations with economic input data enables the identification of the most
profitable plant sizes. In comparison to other existing studies in Europe, the
simulation model developed represents the most exhaustive analysis leading
to the identification of the most profitable biogas plant sizes under various
subsidy schemes. It not only focuses on a single plant type but also considers
the whole biogas plant park portfolio. It further integrates all potential
revenue sources and is not limited to revenues from electricity sale. At the
scale of Germany this model delivers a unique contribution in comparison to
other existing discrete economic evaluations. It provides a continuous
economic assessment of the main existing plant types over the whole capacity
bandwidth [0:10,000 kWel ]. The simulation model developed in this thesis
thus gives valuable assistance to biogas plant operators especially during the
feasibility analysis of a new project. It helps them to identify which plant sizes
and types appear as the most economically attractive under various legal
frameworks.

The added value of the developed simulation model, further described in

section 4, is to provide a systematized and continuous economic assessment
of German biogas plants. The profitability of different biogas type plants is
assessed by considering a variable and differentiated biomass input. This
leads, for a given plant type, to the identification of the most profitable plant
sizes over the full capacity bandwidth [0:10,000 kWel ]. The specific operating
profit is selected as the profitability criterion. Table 3-4 classifies the previous
economic analyses according to their discrete or continuous character.

72
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

Table 3.4: Discrete versus continuous economic analysis of biogas plants

Discrete economic evaluation Continuous evaluation

Specific
Electricity Specific Electricity operating
production operating production profit, NPV or
costs profit NPV, IRR costs IRR
Calculations calculations calculations calculations calculations
[75], [117], [118],
[120], [121],
[122], [123],
[124], [125]:
German plants
[119]:
German plants
[126]:
Greek plants
[127]:
Austrian plants
[128]:
Italian plants
This work:
German plants

3.4.2 Biomass potentials assessment

The estimation of biomass potentials for the future valorizable surface areas
into electricity from biogas appears as a key-issue. It represents the basis for
an estimation of future biogas plant capacity developments. This section aims
to describe reference studies assessing current and future biomass potentials
for biogas production in Germany. The study “Global analysis and estimation
of the biomass area utilization potential” from the university of Hohenheim
[129] is first analysed. This publication delivers a systematic analysis of
surface area use, agricultural production, population and food demand. The
objective is to estimate current and future potentials for bioenergy and food
under different sustainability scenarios. A competition in surface use for food,
animal feed, nature protection, settlement area and transport is taken into
account. The methodology for the potential estimation concerning “non-food

73
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

applications” is based on the simulation model GAPP (“Global Agrar

Production-Potential”), which is applied to 148 countries. In order to estimate
further developments, time series for the 20 last years are created and used
for regression calculations.

In a further step the study estimates the surface area which is not dedicated
to energetic applications. Technical potentials can thereby be determined.
The global potential for Germany is calculated under the assumptions that
the country first meets its food self-sufficiency rate and that supplementary
potentials can be used for bioenergy applications. The global potential is
corrected for agricultural export quantities in order to take into account the
contribution to worldwide food security. Additional potentials come from
agricultural over-production and from potentials for fallow land. In addition
to the reference scenario, three scenarios consider alimentary behavior,
productivity, expansion of bioenergy surface areas and the degree of surface
utilization. In the reference scenario Germany shows a supplementary
national area potential of about 2.26 million ha dedicated to “Non-Food-
Production”. This supplementary potential can be divided into fallow land (0.5
million ha) and about 1.8 million ha of arable land. The potential for energy
crops is estimated at about 1.97 million ha which leads to a total potential
area of about 4.23 million ha by 2012. For the year 2020 a global potential
area of 6.15 million ha is calculated. By 2030 and by 2050, 7.46 million ha and
9.87 million ha are estimated.

The German biomass research center carried out a potential analysis relative
to energy crops, forestry and organic waste residue at the Federal State level
for the years 2008 and 2020 [130]. In this study technical potentials for
several organic biomass fractions dedicated to energetic utilization are
calculated. The potentials for energy crops are determined based on
statistical data relative to cultivable areas, field crops, hectare yields and
nature protection areas. The potentials are allocated according to the
different utilization pathways for energy crops. Assumptions are made
concerning the individual share of field crops involved in an energetic

74
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

utilization. The technical biomass potential for energy crops in Germany

amounts thus to 169 PJ for the year 2008. The calculations for the year 2020
are based on assumptions from [129]. The energetic potentials for animal
effluents are determined for pigs, cattle and poultry. The input data is relative
to the specific energy amount per animal category given several assumptions
concerning livestock breeding. A technical potential of about 69.3 PJ is
estimated for animal effluents by the year 2020. The quantification of the
biowaste potentials is realized according to [131]. An average annual
biowaste amount of about 100 kg per habitant is first taken into account. It is
further assumed that the biowaste amounts are fully valorized into anaerobic
digesters. A global potential for biowaste of about 24.1 PJ is calculated for the
year 2020. A regional analysis shows that the potentials are mainly located in
the Federal States of Bayern, Baden-Württemberg and Lower-Saxony.

In [132] an assessment of technical potentials for biogas is carried out for the
year 2013. The biomass feedstocks are divided into four categories: energy
crops (e.g., maize silage and wheat), animal effluents (e.g., pig and cattle
manure), industrial and agricultural residues (e.g., material for landscape
conservation, marsh) and finally municipal residues (e.g., biowaste). The
potential calculations were realized at the level of each Federal State and the
results are shown in Figure 3-12.

75
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

Bremen
Hamburg
Berlin
Saarland
Rhineland-Palatinate
Thuringia
Hesse
Saxony
Saxony-Anhalt
Brandenburg
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
Schelsiwg-Holstein
Baden Württemberg
North Rhine-Westphalia
Lower Saxony
Bavaria

0 20 40 60 80 PJ
Energy crops Animal rejections Industrial residues Municipal residues

Figure 3.12: Technical biogas potentials for the main biomass feedstock types valorized in
German biogas plants at the Federal State level [132]

In light of the results in Figure 3-12, it can be mentioned that the biogas
potentials are dominated by energy crops which represent 70% of the total.
The 30% remaining are mainly made of animal effluents. Three Federal States,
Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia, represent more than
50% of the technical total biogas potentials. The study mentioned in [132]
represents the only existing analysis dedicated to regional potentials for
biogas substrates. It has been further used for the determination of biomass
potentials input data for the optimization model (section 6.4.1).

3.4.3 Model-based analysis of future electricity production

from biogas in Germany

The economic analysis of future electricity production from biogas in

Germany can be carried out following different technology aggregation levels
(Figure 3-13).

76
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

Figure 3.13: Aggregation levels of main available energy conversion technologies (author’s own
representation)

Future developments for biogas plants can be assessed by considering

interactions with all available technologies of the German electricity system
including conventional and renewable energy conversion plants. In [133] a
model-based analysis of the future role of renewable energy sources in
European electricity supply is realized. The development of both renewable

77
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

and conventional electricity production technologies is analysed up to the

year 2030. The assessment is realized under several scenarios and is based on
a linear regional optimization model. The model objective function minimizes
all system expenditures necessary to fulfil exogenously given electricity
demand profiles. The approach considered is then systemic and involves the
whole European electricity system. Technical, economic and environmental
constraints are also taken into account and refers e.g., to capacity restrictions,
plant availability limitations, load variation and CO2 trading equations. The
model results deliver insights regarding future renewable electricity
production and installed capacity in each European country and for each
energy carrier. In the case of biogas in Germany the results are aggregated so
that no distinction is made between plants valorizing energy crops, biowaste
and/or manure. The results are moreover not visible at the level of the
German Federal States.

The research work in [134] aims to determine how a flexible biogas plants
park should behave from the perspective of the whole German electricity
system in 2030. This work provides answers regarding the potential changes
to be operated in the baseload electricity production in order to lower the
overall system costs. Interactions with conventional energy sources are
considered and a flexible biogas plants park leads by 2030 to a reduction of
the electric power from fossil plants dedicated to residual load coverage. This
model focuses on the interactions of the future electricity production from
biogas with other renewable and conventional electricity sources by
considering a demand-oriented and systemic approach. It does not however
highlight regional developments for differentiated biogas plant types,
technologies and sizes. It considers further the flexibilization option more
from a system perspective than from the plant operator point of view.

Another aggregation level concerns analysis carried out within the bioenergy
system. In the framework of this assessment future developments for biogas
plants are impacted by interactions with other bioenergy technologies.

78
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

In [122] a systemic analysis of all available bioenergy conversion routes is

carried out. All bioenergy conversion options are put into competition under
the perspective of an energy supply cost minimization. The linear
optimization model TIMES (The Integrated Markal-Efom System) is employed.
The model analysis aims to determine technology options leading to a
sustainable development of bioenergy up to the year 2030 under economic,
technical and environmental criteria.

In its “Milestone 2030” report, the German biomass research center delivers
a comprehensive model-based analysis of the future bioenergy mix up to the
year 2030 [135]. The employed Bioenergy Simulation Model (BENSIM) aims
to model future competition between the main available bioenergy
technologies. The assessment takes into account in particular the satisfaction
of a certain demand level in the heat, electricity and transport sectors [135].
The model input data refers to investment-related and operating costs, to
revenues for heat, electricity and to co-products including GHG-emissions and
digestate. The starting point of the BENSIM model is the determination of
existing bioenergy plant capacity. In a second step current and future
available biomass potentials are estimated. The costs of production for the
end products - heat, electricity and biofuels - are then determined. In the case
of biogas, the production costs are linked to the bioelectricity produced
through Combined Heat and Power systems (CHPs). The potentially new built
biogas plants are then sorted by the solver according to their electricity costs
of production level. Plants showing the lowest electricity production costs are
built until enough biomass potentials remain. The BENSIM model offers then
the possibility to carry out a complete simulation of the future German
bioenergy system by considering interactions between the different available
technologies. However, in the case of the BENSIM model, the evolution of the
German biogas plant capacity is currently not regionalized and no
differentiation between agricultural, biowaste and manure-based
installations is done. The model results related to biogas show that an

79
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

electricity production of about 11.8 TWhel would be reached by 203025. In

particular the legal restrictions of the Renewable Energy Sources Act and a
decommissioning plan starting from 2020 for plants older than 20 years
strongly impact future developments [135].

A last possible aggregation level relates to assessments done within the

biogas system. In this case future developments are analysed by considering
interactions between several biogas plant types and sizes but without
integrating other energy conversion technologies. The perspective is the one
of a biogas plant operator having the objective of maximizing installations
profit over their whole life time. The model approach is resource oriented and
driven by the development of future biomass potentials as well as by the
evolution of future costs and revenues for biogas plant operators. Currently
no models related to the analysis of future electricity production from biogas
based on this approach exist.

The German biomass research center published in 2016 a background paper

dealing with the evolution of biogas plants up to the year 2030 in each
German Federal State [136]. The capacity forecasts have been carried out by
solely considering the effects on a plant decommissioning phase starting from
2020. From this time point biogas plants older than 20 years will not receive
subsidies from the Renewable Energy Sources Act anymore which leads to
massive unprofitability and then to capacity decommissioning. Thereby about
1.8 GWel installed electric power could remain by 2030. This paper highlights
the need for further subsidies for existing biogas plants. However, it does not
integrate the development of supplementary capacity and does not consider
the future flexibilization of existing and new built installations.

In [137] a forecast for the development of the future electricity production

from biogas under continuation of the EEG 2014 framework is carried out. In
this assessment a biogas plant decommissioning is also taken into account
starting from 2020. A capacity increase of 100 MWel per year is systematically

25
Assuming a CHP-electric efficiency of 38%

80
 3.4 Literature review on techno-economic aspects

assumed according to the expansion cap defined in the EEG 2014. By the end
of 2030 a total cumulated installed capacity of 1,700 MWel is foreseen [137].
The forecasts published in [136] and [137] solely integrate already planned
events, namely capacity expansion caps under the EEG 2014 framework and
plants decommissioning starting from 2020. They cannot thus be seen as
complex model-based assessments.

Table 3-5 proposes a classification of the different approaches employed up

to now for the analysis of future electricity production from biogas in
Germany. By considering future regional developments from the plant
operator perspective this thesis delivers a unique contribution. It provides
new insights regarding future developments in each Federal state for
different biogas plant types, sizes and under various framework conditions. It
complements all past analysis which were relying on a (bio)-energy systemic
approach.

Table 3.5: Modelling approaches for the analysis of future electricity production from biogas
in Germany

Evaluation at the Evaluation

German national level at the
regional
Federal
Total costs Total profit
states level
minimization maximization
From the From the From the From the
energy bioenergy plant plant
system system operators operators
perspective perspective perspective perspective
[133]
[134]
[122]
[135]
[136]
[137]
This
work

81
3 Situation of biogas in Europe and in Germany

3.5 Summary
In this chapter the current situation and legal framework conditions for biogas
in Germany have been described highlighting the central role of the EEG
subsidy schemes for the electricity produced. In the framework of a literature
review existing studies regarding the analysis of current and future electricity
production from biogas have been assessed. Especially the content and
methodology applied in these studies have been described in detail and the
scientific contribution of the present work has been emphasized. The two
models proposed in this thesis intend thus to bridge a knowledge gap
between existing studies. The simulation model aims to provide a continuous
economic evaluation of biogas plant sizes in Germany under variable and
differentiated biomass input. This continuous profitability analysis currently
does not exist and complements all existing discrete evaluations already
carried out for German biogas plants. The optimization model characterizes
the evolution of German biogas plant capacity at the Federal State level and
from a plant operator’s perspective up to the year 2030. It further takes into
account different plant types and subsidy frameworks. This modelling
perspective aims to deliver new insights for future electricity production from
biogas in comparison to past assessments which are based on a systemic
approach.

82
4 A simulation model for the analysis
of current electricity production
from biogas in Germany
Increasing energy crop costs and frequently changing subsidy schemes
strongly impact the development of German biogas plants. These evolving
framework conditions are the source of complexity and the economic analysis
of biogas installations thus appears to be a difficult task for plant operators.
In this context simulation models are a suitable tool for optimal plant design
and operation. In particular one of the key-problem that can arise when
planning a biogas plant concerns the determination of the most profitable
plant size to be built. Biogas plant operators aim to build, operate and
maintain plant sizes giving a maximal operating profit. Biogas plant sizes are
defined by the installed electric capacity in kWel and intuitively increase with
the valorized biomass input mass flow. The plant revenues in ct/kWhel are
generally lower for large-scale installations than for small ones mainly due to
size effects. The electricity production costs (in ct/kWhel ) also remain
generally lower for large-scale plants than for small-scale installations.
Consequently, the determination of the most profitable plant sizes is com-
plex and requires the use of decision support tools. This chapter has thus the
objective to describe the simulation model developed for the economic
analysis of currently existing biogas plants.

In section 4.1 a general introduction to simulation models is presented

highlighting their scope, the system boundaries and level of detail. Currently
existing simulation software and programs applied to process engineering are
briefly described and categorized according to the type of problem that they
intend to solve. The objectives and general methodology related to the
simulation model developed are then presented in section 4.2. In section 4.3
the simulation model built with the help of the software SuperPro Designer

83
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

and the different methodological steps are described. A first step consists of
calibrating the biogas plant and is then followed by a process simulation
under a variable and differentiated biomass input mass flow. This simulation
step delivers correlations between the installed electric power and the
valorized biomass mass flow. These correlations provide the basis for a
further economic analysis presented in chapter 7.

4.1 General introduction to simulation models

Models should assist the decision process of various stakeholders using
knowledge-based and systematic methods [138]. The general objective of the
models has to be defined in an initial step. Especially the level of detail, the
scope and system boundaries are of crucial importance. Possible assessments
can be covered by highly aggregated models on the global economy up to
models of single plants or processes. The models linked to the global economy
are set up to answer completely different research questions than the more
technical models on the process level. The simulation models correspond to
the highlighted model classes in Figure 4-1. Input data from higher
aggregation levels, such as feedstock costs characterizing bioenergy carriers,
are taken into account. Similarly, data from more disaggregated levels such
as process parameters are also considered.

84
 4.1 General introduction to simulation models

Figure 4.1: Scope, system boundaries and level of detail [138]

Due to the scope and diversity of questions it is clear that one single method
or one model cannot answer all research questions. There is no “single”
model of a biomass supply chain, and thus there is no “best” methodological
approach. Modelling tools are generally developed for quite specific types of
systems (e.g., static/dynamic). These modelling platforms consider the
requirements of specific users, e.g., from a mechanical engineering, chemical
engineering or economic point of view. A brief description of current
simulation software and programs is shown in Table 4-1.

85
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

Table 4.1: Current simulation languages and software (author’s own representation)

Type of model Description Examples

Problem-oriented- Suited to solve simulation problems PASCAL, C++, JAVA

language but with a high complexity

Simulation Similar to high level languages SIMULA

language

Specific simulation Databases are available for specific ASPEN PLUS, ASPEN
systems language models with specific field DYNAMICS, ASPEN CUSTOM
applications. The problem is MODELLER (ACM), IPSEPro,
described through an interactive PROSIM, SuperPro Designer, …
graphic interface or through a script
language.

Parameterized The simulation tool is only suited for All the above-mentioned tools
simulation system a restricted type of structures. Some coupled with additional
model parameters can be modified applications
and parameterized.

4.2 Objectives and general methodology

This section aims to describe the main objectives and methodology relative
to the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany. For
this purpose, a simulation model, developed with the help of the software
Super Pro Designer, is described and applies to three reference biogas plant
types. These plant types correspond to the valorization of energy crops and
manure in co-digestion process (EM plants26), of energy crops (E plants) and
biowaste (B plants) in mono-digestion. The main objective of this simulation
model is to identify most profitable plant sizes under a variable and

26
EM plant sizes between 0 and 75 kWel correspond to installations valorizing exclusively manure
in mono-digestion processes. For larger sizes the co-digestion of manure with various energy crops
is assessed (see section 6.2.1).

86
 4.2 Objectives and general methodology

differentiated biomass feedstock input mass flow. The preliminary task is to

model all the involved conversion processes (biomass pre-treatment, biogas
production, digestate treatment as well as heat and electricity production)
under a fixed biomass input mass flow. The anaerobic digester is modelled
and calibrated by specifying a digester volume, a residence time as well as by
defining the biochemical reactions occurring in the reactor. Stoichiometry
and methane formation rates are further determined and described in section
4.3.2.4.

Once the whole biogas plant is calibrated a simulation of the plant’s energetic
behaviour is carried out assuming a variable biomass input mass flow mi . For
each variation step i the corresponding biogas output volumetric flow Yi and
further the electric power Pel,i are determined. These technical correlations
represent the basis for a further economic evaluation integrating costs and
revenues input data and leading to the determination of specific operating
profits in each simulation step. The results are further represented in the form
of characteristic “specific operating profit versus installed electric power”
diagrams (see section 7.2) which leads to the identification of the most
profitable plant sizes. The economic analysis is carried out in chapter 7 by
considering for each plant type two different electricity subsidy schemes
namely EEG 2012 and EEG 2014. A costs versus revenues assessment for the
most profitable plant sizes combined with a sensitivity analysis aims to
identify the main profitability drivers for each plant type. The most profitable
plant sizes are technically assessed by determining global plant energetic
efficiencies. Based on the model results strategic recommendations for policy
makers and plant operators are finally formulated.

Figure 4-2 sets out the main methodological steps employed in the
framework of the simulation model.

87
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

Figure 4.2: Main methodological steps employed for the analysis of current electricity
production from biogas in Germany (own representation)

4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro

Designer

4.3.1 Description of the simulation software

SuperPro Designer

The software chosen for the process simulation is SuperPro Designer, which
is a modular type computer program and allows steady state calculations.
This software offers the possibility to design biogas plants in particular by
modelling anaerobic digesters. An integrated solver controls all parts of the
simulation such as input and output data, flow chart analysis and model

88
 4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer

iterations. Databases store the main physical and chemical properties of

approximately 370 chemical species. To achieve a flowsheet simulation with
SuperPro Designer several steps are required. It is firstly necessary to specify
the type of operation involved in the process (batch or continuous). Then the
process flow chart can be modelled by choosing the equipment parts involved
(process icons). In order to initialize the process, the operating conditions and
design parameters27 have to be specified for each equipment and for each
input flow (plant calibration). In the following the modelling assumptions
concerning each process step of the biogas installations are described.

4.3.2 Biogas plant calibration

4.3.2.1 Biomass feedstock characterization

In the present simulation model, the biomass elementary composition is

defined according to [139]. The substrate to be valorized is thus defined as
“biomass” and represented by a generic chemical formula CH1.8 O0.5 N0.2 .

4.3.2.2 Biomass transport, delivery and storage

The energy crops management step starts with the transport from the
cultivation area to the biogas plant location. The transport of energy crops
and/or manure is carried out with the help of agricultural trucks. The
transported energy crops are then stored in bunker silos where the ensilage
process takes place. During this process, the energy crops are subject to a
mass loss specified at about 12% according to [140]. Manure is mixed with
energy crops in order to obtain a mash. In the case of biowaste, the transport
takes place from the biowaste collection point to the biogas plant location
and is carried out with the help of trucks. The biowaste is further loaded in a
storage tank before the pre-treatment step.

27
Design parameters concern e.g., the equipment size, temperature, pressure, input mass flow,
volume, power or recycling loops.

89
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

4.3.2.3 Biomass pre-treatment and loading

In the case of energy crops and/or manure valorization, the mixed biomass
feedstock (mash) is pre-heated before entering into the digester. The process
temperature has a decisive influence on the degradation efficiency and on the
biogas quality. In the case of agricultural plants, the mixed solid is heated at
a temperature of 38°C specified in SuperPro Designer interface and
corresponding to a mesophilic process temperature. A screw conveyer is used
to bring the solid biomass to the blending storage tank. The blending tank is
modelled as a vessel with an agitator to simulate the biomass storage for a
certain period here assumed as 10 h. Some heat transfer operation units (heat
exchangers) are then necessary to warm up the substrate to the mesophilic
digestion temperature. The biowaste pre-treatment starts with the shredding
step and is followed by the separation of metal and impurities. These pre-
treatment steps generate a global biowaste mass loss specified at 8% of the
transported biowaste mass [141].

After this operation the biowaste mass flow is mixed with water during a
hydrolysis reaction. The hydrolysed biowaste mash is further pre-heated to a
specified temperature of at least 70°C. This aims in particular to satisfy the
epidemiologic and phytohygienic criteria related to biowaste installations
(see Table 2-2). The pre-heated biowaste feedstock is finally loaded into the
fermenter where the anaerobic digestion process can start.

4.3.2.4 Biogas production process modelling

The objective of this section is to describe the model that has been developed
with the help of SuperPro Designer in relation to the biogas production
process. Biogas is produced by the fermentation of biomass feedstock under
the action of bacteria. The biomass residence time in the fermenters is given
by Eq. 4.1.

𝑉𝑊
𝜏= 𝑉̇𝑜
(4.1)

90
 4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer

With:

𝑉𝑊 : fermenter working volume in 𝑚3

𝑉𝑜̇ : input material volumetric flow entering the digester (in 𝑚3 /ℎ)

The anaerobic digester is modelled as a well-mixed reactor [142]. Several

models in the literature exist and aim to mathematically describe anaerobic
digestion processes. A general and extensive review of these models can be
found in [143]. In the case of this work a simplified model, the Buswell model,
characterizing the biogas formation from anaerobic digestion pro-cesses has
been used (Eqs. 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4) [144].

𝐶𝑐 𝐻ℎ 𝑂𝑜 𝑁𝑛 𝑆𝑠 + 𝑦𝐻2 𝑂 → 𝑥𝐶𝐻4 + 𝑛𝑁𝐻3 + 𝑠𝐻2 𝑆 + (𝑐 − 𝑥)𝐶𝑂2 (4.2)

with x = 1/8 × (4c + h - 2o - 3n - 2s) (4.3)

and y = 1/4 × (4 c- h - 2o + 3n + 3s) (4.4)

In the present work, the substrate is CH1.8 O0.5 N0.2 and is further transformed
into methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia through Eq. 4.5 which represents
the simplified biogas formation equation.

𝐶𝐻1.8 𝑂0.5 𝑁0.2 + 0.45𝐻2 𝑂 → 0.53𝐶𝐻4 + 0.47𝐶𝑂2 + 0.2𝑁𝐻3 (4.5)

It is further assumed that the biomass fermentation reaction follows a first

order kinetic reaction. According to this kinetic reaction the volumetric
methane flow rate YCH4 (in m3 /h) can be expressed through Eq. 4.6.

𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝜌𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
𝑌𝐶𝐻4 = 𝑣𝐶𝐻4
∙𝑘 ∙ 𝜌𝐶𝐻4
∙ 𝑉𝑊 (4.6)

With:

k: methane formation rate to be determined (in ℎ−1 )

91
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

𝜌𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 : biomass density in input of fermenter (in 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 )

𝜌𝐶𝐻4 : methane density (in 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 )

𝑉𝑊 : working volume (in 𝑚3 )

𝑣𝐶𝐻4 : stoichiometric coefficient for 𝐶𝐻4 in Eq. 4.5

𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 : stoichiometric coefficient for the biomass in Eq. 4.5

Furthermore YCH4 can be expressed as a function of the biomass feedstock

specific methane yields mentioned in the German Biomass Ordinance (Eq.
4.7) [145]:

𝑌𝐶𝐻4 = ß ∙ 𝑚̇𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (4.7)

With:

𝑚̇𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 : feedstock input mass flow (in kg/h)

β: feedstock specific methane yield mentioned in the German Biomass

Ordinance (in 𝑚3 𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 / 𝑘𝑔𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 )

By combining Eq. 4.6 and Eq. 4.7, the methane formation rate k can be
expressed as a function of the biomass input mass flow (Eq. 4.8).

𝑣𝐶𝐻4 × 𝜌𝐶𝐻4 × ß
𝑘= 𝑉𝑊 × 𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 × 𝜌𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
∙ 𝑚̇𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (4.8)

Eq. 4.8 can be further simplified by introducing the residence time defined in
Eq. 4.1 (Eq. 4.9):

𝑣𝐶𝐻4 ∙ 𝜌𝐶𝐻4 ∙ ß
𝑘= 𝜏 ∙ 𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠
(4.9)

92
 4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer

The methane formation rate can be finally determined for each plant type by
using following numerical values (Table 4-2)

Table 4.2: Numerical values of the employed parameters for the determination of the
methane formation rates k

Constant Definition Numeric values

𝜈𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 Stoichiometric coefficient for 1.0
the biomass in Eq. 4.5 (-)
𝜈𝐶𝐻4 Stoichiometric coefficient for 0.53
CH4 in Eq. 4.5 (-)
𝜌𝐶𝐻4 Methane density (kg.m-3) 0.72 [146]
Biomass feedstock input specific EM plant: 0.0916
𝛽 methane yield (m3/kg)28 E plant: 0.1085
B plant: 0.0738
𝜏 Residence time in anaerobic Agricultural plants:
digester (h) 1,920 (i.e. 80 days)
[147]
Biowaste plants: 600
(i.e. 25 days) [148]

In each plant type, the numerical values of the methane formation rates are
mentioned in Table A-2 of the Appendix and are specified in SuperPro
Designer interface. This aims to calibrate the fermenters according to the
specific methane yields mentioned in Table 6-1.

The annual biogas production Yi can finally be estimated, assuming a fixed

methane content µ in the biogas produced (Eq. 4.10). For each feedstock, the
µ value is specified according to the methane contents mentioned in Table 6-
1.

𝑌𝐶𝐻4
𝑌𝑖 = (4.10)
𝜇

28
The values for each plant type have been determined based on the specific methane yields
mentioned in Table 6-1.

93
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

4.3.2.5 Modelling of the heat and electricity production from biogas

After the anaerobic digestion process, the biogas mass flow amount 𝑌𝑖 is
burned in a Combined Heat and Power system (CHPs). The CHPs is
represented here by a single stage gas turbine because SuperPro Designer
offers no straightforward possibility to model a gas engine. The gas turbine
system is made of a centrifugal gas compressor coupled to a gas expansion
unit and in between a combustion chamber. Biogas is mixed and burnt in the
combustion chamber simultaneously with air. The air volume flow stream
enters the combustion chamber at a temperature of 90 °C and under a
pressure of 50 bar. The temperature inside the combustion chamber is 1,200
°C [149]. The methane combustion reaction with oxygen is defined by Eq.
4.11:

𝐶𝐻4 + 2𝑂2 → 𝐶𝑂2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 (4.11)

The reaction enthalpy for methane equals to -55,643 kJ/kg and corresponds
to an exothermal reaction. Finally, the model of the gas turbine has been
adapted to that of a CHP gas engine by considering the electric and thermal
efficiencies mentioned in [150].

4.3.2.6 Modelling of the digestate treatment unit

In the case of agricultural plants, the digestate issued from the fermentation
is assumed to be directly used on soil as fertilizer so that no treatment process
is required. The digestate produced by the biowaste fermentation is treated
by a decanter centrifuge in order to obtain a solid digestate mass representing
50% of the raw digestate according to [141]. The solid digestate is further
valorized in a post-rotting process in order to obtain a solid compost mass
flow which represents 30% of the biowaste input mass flow [141].

94
 4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer

4.3.3 Process simulation

After the biogas plant calibration the next step consists of determining the
evolution of the electric power 𝑃𝑒𝑙,𝑖 (output variable) as a function of the
biomass feedstock mass flow 𝑚̇𝑜,𝑖 (input variable). Figure 4-3 represents the
different mass and energy flows that characterize each simulation step i.
Detailed flowsheet examples issued from SuperPro Designer interface and
related to the modelling each of the plant type are further mentioned in
Figures A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 of the Appendix.

95
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

Figure 4.3: Schematic representation of the mass and energy flows in each simulation step i

In each simulation step i, the installed electric power Pel,i can be expressed as
a function of the biomass feedstock mass flow ṁ0,i according to Eq. 4.12:

ß ∙ 𝐻𝑔,𝐶𝐻4 ∙ 𝜂𝐸𝑙,𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝑖
𝑃𝑒𝑙,𝑖 = 𝑂𝐻
∙ 𝑚̇0,𝑖 (4.12)

96
 4.3 Process simulation with the help of SuperPro Designer

With:

- β: feedstock specific methane yield mentioned in the German Biomass

Ordinance (𝑚3 /𝑡)

- 𝐻𝑔,𝐶𝐻4 : Methane gross calorific value set at 9.97 𝑘𝑊ℎ/𝑚3 according to [151]

- 𝜂𝐸𝑙,𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝑖 : CHP electric efficiency set as a function of the installed electric

power 𝑃𝑒𝑙,𝑖 according to a correlation derived from [150]

- 𝑚̇0,𝑖 : biomass feedstock mass flow (t/a)

- OH: plant operating hours (h)

By combining Eq. 4.9 and 4.12 a more detailed correlation between Pel and
ṁ0,i is obtained and involves all specified parameters under Super Pro
Designer interface (Eq. 4.13):

𝑘 ∙ 𝜏 ∙ 𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 ∙ 𝐻𝑔,𝐶𝐻4 ∙ 𝜂𝐸𝑙,𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝑖

𝑃𝑒𝑙,𝑖 = ∙ 𝑚̇0,𝑖 (4.13)
𝑣𝐶𝐻4 ∙ 𝜌𝐶𝐻4 ∙ 𝑂𝐻

The linear relation obtained between Pel,i and ṁ0,i according to Eq. 4.13 is
represented in Figure 4-4 in the case of the co-digestion of energy crops with
manure (EM plant29).

29
The two further correlations characterizing E and B type plants can be found in Figures A.5 and
A.6 of the Appendix.

97
4 A simulation model for the analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

kWel
10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0
0 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000 160.000 180.000 200.000 220.000 t/a

Figure 4.4: Correlation between the CHP-electric power and the biomass input mass flow

4.4 Summary
Due to the frequently evolving legal framework conditions as well as to
volatile energy crops and electricity prices, the economic assessment of
biogas plants represents a difficult task for biogas companies and plant
operators. In particular challenges remain in the identification of the most
economically attractive plant sizes. Simulation models offer a suitable tool for
estimating the profitability for various plant sizes and types. For a given plant
type, the objective is to identify the most profitable plant sizes by assuming a
variable and differentiated annual biomass input mass flow. In this chapter a
model aiming at the operative simulation of the three main biogas plant types
valorizing energy crops, biowaste and manure is presented. For this the
process simulation software SuperPro Designer is employed. The simulation
variable corresponds to the annual biomass input mass flow. All main steps
of the biogas supply chain going from the biomass feedstock transport up to
heat, electricity and digestate production are modelled. The anaerobic

98
 4.4 Summary

digesters are calibrated according to specific biogas yields defined by the

German Biomass Ordinance. As a result of the simulation, correlations
between the installed electric power (output variable) and the annual
biomass input mass flow are thereby derived for each of the three plant types.
These correlations represent the basis for a further economic analysis realized
in chapter 7.

99
5 An optimization model of future
German electricity production from
biogas
An unstable economic context characterizes the German biogas industry with
in particular volatile energy crops and electricity prices as well as frequently
evolving framework conditions. For this reason, the analysis of future
electricity production from biogas as well as the forecasting of mid-term
capacity developments are of considerable assistance to biogas plant
operators. Due to their recurrent use in the framework of the energy system
analysis, optimization models represent a well-adapted solution for assessing
the evolution of the future German biogas system. The objective of these
models is to provide plant operators and decision-makers with valuable
insights regarding future developments for biogas in Germany. Optimization
models should further contribute to identifying and quantifying the main
economic drivers. In this chapter an optimization model developed in the
programming language GAMS (General Algebraic Modeling System) is
presented and has the objective to analyse the evolution of future capacity
and electricity production from biogas in Germany. A general introduction to
optimization models applied in particular to energy system analysis is first
carried out in section 5.1. In section 5.2 the general methodology employed
for the analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany is
detailed. This analysis is based on a regional linear mixed-integer optimization
model which is described in section 5.3. This model aims at maximizing the
total profit over all plant sizes, the whole time period and all Federal States
combined. It further provides a forecast of regional capacity and electricity
production at the Federal State level analysed in chapter 8.

101
5 An optimization model of future German electricity production from biogas

5.1 A general introduction to optimization models

Decision- and policymakers have to cope more and more with complex issues
regarding the design of current and future energy policy at different levels
(municipality, regional, national or international). Optimization models can
assist them in shaping future energy systems in an optimal way that
corresponds to the best alternatives given technical, economic and
environmental constraints. Optimization models are used in almost all areas
of decision-making, notably engineering design, and financial portfolio
selection. In the formulation of the optimization problem, an objective
function should be specified as a mathematical function involving certain
variables and potentially involving several constraints. In the context of an
energy system analysis four main categories of optimization models can be
distinguished according to [152]: linear, non-linear, mixed integer linear or
stochastic.

Linear optimization models correspond to the case where the objective

function and all the constraints are linear functions of independent variables.
If one of these functions is non-linear, then the optimization is considered as
non-linear. If at least one of the independent variables of the linear
optimization problem is linked to integer values, then the optimization
problem is considered as a mixed integer linear problem (MILP). Stochastic
programming represents a valuable approach for modelling optimization
problems that involve uncertainties. More precisely stochastic optimization
models try to find robust solutions able to cope with a group of uncertain
parameter values [153]. Most of the energy system models are linked to
linear optimization models involving an objective function for cost
minimization or profit maximization [154]. The main objective of energy
system models is to establish an optimal energy supply structure given certain
framework conditions. The energy system analysis should provide support to
decision-makers in the field of energy policy and research. The scale of the
system being considered can be global, national, regional or even a single
household [155]. It can concern the development of a single technology (e.g.,

102
 5.2 General objective and methodology

a biogas plant) or a portfolio of all available technologies (e.g., all existing

renewable energy conversion technologies) in the context of technical,
environmental and/or economic framework conditions. In the next section
the objective and general methodology for the analysis of future German
biogas plants development based on an optimization model is described.

5.2 General objective and methodology

The main objective of German biogas plant operators is to run and maintain
reliable and profitable installations over their whole lifetime, which generally
corresponds to 20 years (EEG subsidy time period). For this a robust forecast
of future costs and revenue development is required so that the operators
can maximize their plant operating profit. The general model objective is
thereby to identify which biogas plant types and sizes appear to be the most
economically attractive for plant operators on a mid-term horizon (i.e., up to
2030).

In addition, the regionalized model results should show in which Federal

States future capacity developments occur considering different EEG subsidy
schemes. For this a resource-oriented approach is required that takes into
account the current and future technical biomass total potentials. A regional
model is thereby developed up to the year 2030 at the German Federal State
level. Three reference plant types representing the large majority of installed
German plants are analysed. The anaerobic digestion of either energy crops
or biowaste, or the co-digestion of energy crops and manure characterize
these plant types. Both of the subsidy schemes related to EEG 2012 and EEG
2014 are taken into account in the calculations in the framework of
explorative scenarios. These scenarios assess the future development of
German biogas plants assuming that the legal frameworks EEG 2012 or EEG
2014 remain unchanged over the whole time period i.e., up to 2030. Finally,
the model results are analysed and evaluated in terms of policy
recommendations and strategic outcomes. Figure 5-1 summarizes the

103
5 An optimization model of future German electricity production from biogas

general methodology employed for the analysis of future electricity

production from biogas in Germany.

Figure 5.1: Main methodological steps employed for the analysis of future electricity
production from biogas in Germany (author’s own representation)

In the model input data determination phase the currently existing biogas
plant30 capacity is first estimated for each Federal State and installation type.

30
In § 3 Nr. 1 of the EEG 2009, the definition of a biogas plant is given and refers to the totality
of all functional and technical components dedicated to the electricity production from biogas (e.g.,
CHP, fermenter, gas storage, digestate storage tank, biomass feedstock pre-treatment unit) [101].
This broad definition is further taken into account in this work and it is also assumed that several

104
 5.2 General objective and methodology

For this purpose, a biogas plant database is built. In addition, literature data
concerning existing biomass potentials at the Federal State level is used. In a
second step investment-related costs, operating costs including in particular
regional energy crop costs and revenues are calculated based on literature
and plant operator’s data. This techno-economic data, described in chapter
6, feeds the model core structure developed in the programming language
GAMS, which contains an objective function and model constraints. The
objective function aims to maximize the total operating profit by plant type,
for all Federal States aggregated, over the whole time period and all plant
sizes. A first constraint corresponds to the limitation of future capacity
expansion by regional biomass potentials dedicated to electricity production
from biogas. A second constraint concerns the limitation of the electric
capacity that could be built for each plant type, in a given year for all Federal
States combined (capacity expansion cap defined by the EEG legal
frameworks). The model results thereby provide an economically optimal
development plan of new built biogas capacity up to the year 2030, seen from
the plant operator point of view. In addition to this analysis the sensitivity of
future capacity developments to a strong variation of three main market
drivers for biogas plants in Germany is assessed. The main profitability drivers
firstly correspond to energy crop costs, and to revenues derived from the
EPEX-Peak electricity sale received by plant operators in the framework of the
electricity direct marketing. The third driver concerns the biowaste fee
revenues which are linked to the valorization of biowaste into biogas and
further into renewable energy.

CHP units connected to the same biogas production plant (anaerobic digester) have to be seen as
a single plant.

105
5 An optimization model of future German electricity production from biogas

5.3 Objective and structure of the optimization

model
In order to realize a forecast of new built biogas plants for electricity
production up to the year 2030 at the German Federal State level a mixed-
integer linear optimization model is developed. The objective is to determine
in each Federal State and for three separated biogas plant types (EM, E and
B) a development plan of new built electric capacities (in MWel ). An objective
function is firstly defined in Eq. 5.1 and represents the core of the
optimization model. This objective function corresponds to the maximization
of the total operating profit (in €) over the whole period, for all plant sizes and
all Federal States combined. This aims to ensure an eco-nomically optimal
development for German biogas plants up to the year 2030. The objective
function contains the annual specific revenues and electricity production
costs (in ct/kWhel ) that are determined year on year up to 2030 for each
plant size and in each Federal State (see sections 6.6 and 6.7). Plant annual
operating hours OH are set as a constant and corresponding to 8,000 h/a in
base-load operation (see Section 6.2.2.). A variable Xi,t,r is defined and
corresponds to existing capacities (kWel ) for a given plant size i, in year t and
in the Federal State r. A discount rate αt of 6% per year is applied to all specific
cost and revenue flows up to 2030, for each plant size and in each Federal
State.

49
𝑀𝑎𝑥(𝑍) = 𝑀𝑎𝑥[∑16 16
𝑟=1 ∑𝑡=1 ∑𝑖=1 𝛼𝑡 ∙ 𝑂𝐻 ∙ 𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 ∙ (𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 − 𝑒𝑝𝑐𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 )]
(5.1)

In addition to the objective function Eq. 5.2 models the recursive capacity
evolution from year t-1 to year t and integrates a capacity expansion variable
Exp Decom
Xi,t,r as well as a decommissioning parameter Xi,t,r for plants older than 20
years. This equation allows the solver to build new capacities year on year in
selected Federal States.

𝐸𝑥𝑝𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚
𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 = 𝑋𝑖,𝑡−1,𝑟 + 𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 + 𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 ꓯ i,t,r (5.2)

106
 5.3 Objective and structure of the optimization model

Additional constraint equations concern the annual limitation for each plant
type and in each Federal State of future capacity expansion by biomass
potentials dedicated to electricity production from biogas At,r (Eq. 5.3). This
ensures that no capacity can be further built if the corresponding biomass
potentials are not sufficient.

∑49
𝑖=1 𝑂𝐻 ∙ 𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 ≤ 𝐴𝑡,𝑟 ꓯ t,r (5.3)

A second constraint models the annual capacity expansion cap defined in the
framework of the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 (Eq. 5.4). This capacity expansion
limitation ensures that not all the plant sizes are built in the first year of the
time period due to a full valorization of biomass potentials.

49 𝐸𝑥𝑝
∑16
𝑟=1 ∑𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 ≤ 𝑊𝑡 ꓯ t,r (5.4)

Under the EEG 2012 framework the annual capacity expansion cap has been
set for each plant type following an historical growth rate of 6% for the years
2012 to 201431 according to [156], [157] and [158]. In the context of the EEG
2014, the Federal Government defined an annual capacity expansion cap of
100 MWel in order to better drive and control future capacity developments
[159]. In the present work this annual capacity expansion limit has been
equally distributed between biowaste plants and agricultural plants. Finally,
Eq. 5.5 ensures a mixed-integer capacity expansion for all the buildable
capacity unit sizes P in each year and region r. In each plant size i, year t and

31
Years prior to 2012 have not been taken into account because there was a strong increase in
German biogas plants development over that period. This strong expansion was mainly due to the
very favourable legal framework for agricultural plants employing energy crops and manure in the
context of EEG 2006 and 2009. Since the year 2012, the Federal Government considers that the
biogas sector is mature enough to be integrated into the German electricity market. This integration
should be achieved with fewer subsidies and using new mechanisms like the market and the
flexibility premium defined by the electricity direct marketing model. The EEG 2012 thus caused
a slowdown in German biogas plant development due to the introduction of these new
mechanisms. It appears then more realistic to set an annual maximum capacity rate up to 2030,
taking into account this paradigm shift and without considering the effect of the years before 2012.

107
5 An optimization model of future German electricity production from biogas

region r, a mixed-integer variable y is employed and represents the number

of new built plants.

𝑋𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 = 𝑦𝑖,𝑡,𝑟 ∙ 𝑃𝑖 ꓯ i,t,r (5.5)

5.4 Summary
The use of optimization models appears as well adapted to the analysis of
various energy systems of different aggregation levels and scopes. In the
framework of this thesis the energy system considered concerns the whole
German biogas plant park. The objective of the regional optimization model
developed is to provide a forecast for the evolution of future plant capacity
as well as for future electricity production from biogas up to the year 2030.
For this an objective function is defined aiming at maximizing the total profit
over all plant sizes, the whole time period and all Federal States combined.
Several constraints such as the limitation of future capacity expansion by
biomass potentials and by caps defined under the EEG legal framework are
also specified. The modelling approach is then resource-based meaning that
the evolution - and the limitations - of future biomass potentials impacts the
development of biogas plant capacities. Furthermore, the model assumes
that the biogas plant operator’s objective is to maximise profit over the
installation’s lifetime

108
6 Model input data determination
This chapter aims to describe the input data that has been employed for both
the simulation and the optimization models. In each model two separate
assessments, under the EEG 2012 and the EEG 2014 legal frameworks, have
been carried out. The model input data refers then to the base year 2013 for
the assessment done under the EEG 2012 framework. In the case of an
analysis under the EEG 2014 framework, the base year 2015 has been
selected. In section 6.1 the system boundaries characterizing the analysed
biogas plants are set. In section 6.2 an overview of all required input data
including a general description of methodology is given. The underlying
assumptions and methodology for the determination of each data set are de-
scribed in detail in sections 6.3 to 6.7. Technical input data consists of biomass
properties, plant operation mode, existing biogas plant capacity as well as
current and future biomass potentials for electricity production (sections 6.2,
6.3 and 6.4). Economic input data corresponds to the cost and revenue
positions of a biogas plant project and is described in sections 6.5, 6.6, and
6.7. In section 6.8 an assessment of uncertainties and a plausibility check of
the specified input data is carried out. This chapter ends with a summary
(section 6.9).

6.1 System boundaries

Before performing an economic assessment of a biogas plant, it is necessary
to firstly define the system that has to be analysed. The system considered is
represented in Figure 6-1 and corresponds to the whole biogas supply chain
from resource harvesting and transport up to electricity and heat production
including digestate valorization.

109
6 Model input data determination

Figure 6.1: System boundaries (author’s own representation)

The substrates are firstly harvested and cultivated in the case of energy crops
or collected and stored in the case of bio-waste and manure. The
transportation stage of cultivated or collected biomass feedstocks to the
biogas plant follows. On the plant site the biomass feedstocks can be
mechanically or thermally pre-treated before the fermentation. After the
anaerobic digestion process the output streams (heat, electricity and
digestate) leave the biogas plant. In the case of electricity, the system
boundaries are set at the transmission station so that the costs for trans-
formers and cables are included in the economic evaluation. The heat
produced does not all leave the biogas plant and can be reused for heating
the anaerobic digesters or be valorized through external heat sinks.

For agricultural plants it is assumed the raw digestate is used for free by
farmers. For biowaste plants the solid digestate, treated by a compost

110
 6.2 Overview of the required input data for the simulation and the optimization models

operation unit, is systematically sold as compost. The transport of solid

digestate to potential digestate sinks is not integrated into the system
boundaries. Finally, the acquisition step of the plant site location is also
considered in the economic calculations and included in the investment for
civil engineering. One should differentiate between an already existing
property, a partially referenced property and a not yet reference property.
For the economic evaluation existing properties will be assumed and are
supposed to be already equipped with connection to water, electricity, gas,
district heating and be easily accessible (road access). In the next section the
methodology for deter-mining the techno-economic input data for both the
simulation and optimization models is presented.

6.2 Overview of the required input data for the

simulation and the optimization models

6.2.1 Substrate and process definition

As mentioned in section 3.2 energy crops, manure and biowaste represent

the main substrates employed in biogas plants by mono- or co-digestion
plants. In particular the number of co-digestion plants using energy crops and
manure rapidly increased between the years 2000 and 2008 [160]. Therefore,
three reference biogas plants valorizing these feedstock types are assessed in
the present work.

The first plant type (EM plant) corresponds to the valorization of energy crops
with manure in co-digestion process as well as to the mono-digestion of
manure. EM plants with an installed power smaller or equal to 75 kWel are
assumed to exclusively valorize manure in mono-digestion processes. For an
installed power greater than 75 kWel EM plants are assumed to use a biomass
feedstock input mix containing 58% maize silage, 20% manure, 10% grass
silage, 10% cereal silage and 2% cereal grains. E plants are characterized by
an input mix of 58% maize silage, 20% grass silage, 20% cereal silage and 2%

111
6 Model input data determination

cereal grains. The valorized maize silage and cereal grains mass share are thus
in line with the specific cap of 60% set for these feedstocks under EEG 2012
[161]. Finally, B plants exclusively valorize biowaste in mono-digestion
processes. The energetic properties of all employed feedstocks are given in
the Table 6-1.

Table 6.1: Assumed biomass feedstocks properties [145], [162], [163]

Employed Methane yield Methane Biogas yield

feedstocks (m3methane / t content in (m3Biogas / t
Feedstock) biogas (in %) Feedstock)

Maize silage 106 52 204

Grass silage 100 53 189

Cereal silage 103 53 194

Cereal grains 320 54 593

Manure 17 55 31

Biowaste 73.8 60 123

In the case of agricultural plant types, maize silage, grass silage, cereal silage
and cereal grains are selected due to their high biogas yield and also due to
their high degradability. As mentioned in [79], these biomass types also
represent by the end of the year 2014 the most common energy crop
feedstocks in German biogas plants. Animal effluents like pig manure are
often located in the proximity of agricultural biogas plants and are assumed
to be available for free. The valorization of manure into biogas aims at
reducing methane emissions and thus shows environmental benefits as
described in [164]. In the present work biowaste feedstocks are assumed to
come from German household kitchens and gardens and can be easily
transformed into biogas by micro-organisms through anaerobic digestion
processes. Finally, the digestate issued from the fermentation is assumed to

112
 6.2 Overview of the required input data for the simulation and the optimization models

be directly used on soil as fertilizer in the case of agricultural plants and

treated to be further sold as a compost in the case of biowaste plants.

6.2.2 Operator models, plant operating hours and flexibility

In the present work the following operator models are considered

respectively under the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 frameworks (Figure 6-2).

Figure 6.2: Considered operator models under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 legal frameworks

According to a study from the German biomass research centre the average
operating hours for biogas plants running in baseload in Germany has been
estimated in 2014 at about 7,886 h/a [165]. This figure is derived from a
questionnaire involving 567 biogas plants from which 284 were in the power
range 151-500 kWel and were operated for 8,033 h/a in baseload. In the
present work the operating hours for baseload capacity have been
systematically set at 8,000 h/a for all concerned plant sizes.

113
6 Model input data determination

The operating hours OHFlex for flexible capacity have been determined
according to Eq. 6.1:

𝐸𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 𝐸𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 + 𝐸𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 (6.1)

With:

𝐸𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : Energy amount in full-load operating mode

𝐸𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : Energy amount in baseload operating mode

𝐸𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : Energy amount in part-load operating mode

Eq. 6.1 can be further expressed as follows (Eq. 6.2):

𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒

∙ 𝐹𝐿𝐻 = ( + ) ∙ 𝑃𝐿𝐻 (6.2)
𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒

With:

𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : Electric power in baseload operating mode

𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 : Flexible electric power in part-load operating mode

𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 : Electric CHP efficiency in baseload operating mode

𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 : Electric efficiency for flexible CHP in part-load operating

mode

FLH: full-load hours (8,760 h/a)

PLH: part-load hours for flexible capacity

The part-load hours for flexible capacity PLH are derived from Eq. 6.2 (Eq. 6.3):

𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑃𝐿𝐻 = 𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑃𝐸𝑙,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 ∙ 𝐹𝐿𝐻 (6.3)
+
𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒

114
 6.2 Overview of the required input data for the simulation and the optimization models

For a given plant size, the flexible CHP capacity has been set at 80% of
baseload capacity which leads to simplifications in Eq. 6.4. In the analysis
mentioned in [166] a doubling of the baseload CHPs is taken into account in
order to obtain flexible capacity. The conservative assumption of the present
work should however be balanced against the fact that all considered existing
and future new built plant involved in the electricity direct marketing are
supposed to be systematically transformed into flexible capacities.

𝐹𝐿𝐻
𝑃𝐿𝐻 = 𝜂 ∙ 𝐹𝐿𝐻 (6.4)
1 + 0.8 ∙ 𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝜂𝐶𝐻𝑃,𝐹𝑙𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒

As mentioned in Figure A-15 of the Appendix baseload and flexible CHP

electric efficiencies are correlated to the CHP electric power [150]. More
ηCHP,Base−Load
precisely the ratio remains constant at a value of 1.073 for all
ηCHP,Flexible

baseload and corresponding flexible electric CHP capacities. The annual full-
load hours FLH are equal to 8,760 hours. Thereby constant annual operating
hours for all new built flexible capacity have been estimated at about 4,713
h/a. The flexibilization of existing baseload CHPs requires supplementary
flexible CHP gas engines but also new gas storage. The supplementary gas
storage volume due to the flexibilization of existing CHP is systematically
determined for each plant size by using the calculator of the Federal Office
for Agriculture of Thuringia (TLL) [167]. An example calculation can be found
in Table A-3 of the Appendix for a plant equipped with an existing CHP of
1,000 kWel and a gas storage with a volume of 4,000 m3.

6.2.3 Techno-economic input data

Beside data characterizing the biomass feedstocks and the plant operation
mode, information regarding the estimation of existing plants, the
determination of current and future biomass potentials, annual costs and
revenues for the biogas plants operation is necessary. For the simulation
model all positions concerning revenues, operating and investment-related
costs are estimated in each simulation step and lead to the calculation of

115
6 Model input data determination

specific operating profits. The simulations are performed in the framework of

EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 respectively for the base years 2013 and 2015.

In the case of the simulation model the results are assessed nationally by
considering an average value of the regional energy crop costs that has been
determined in section 6.6.1.7. The revenues and costs that have been
estimated in the simulation model also feed the optimization model for the
base years 2013 and 2015. They are further forecasted up to the year 2030
with the help of annual evolution rates. Regional energy crop cost
contributions (in ct/kWhel ) are determined in each Federal State in section
6.6.1.9 and are further integrated in the optimization model. Thereby specific
operating profits can be derived year on year for each plant type, size and
region.

The specification of the existing biogas plant capacity for the base years 2013
and 2015 also represents an important information that has to be fed into the
optimization model. The determination of existing plants in each Federal
State is a starting point for the estimation of future capacity development
concerning the whole German biogas plant park. These developments are
driven by the evolution of regional biomass electrical potentials up to the year
2030 specified for each of the three reference plant types (EM, E and B).
Figure 6-3 sums up the necessary input data for both the simulation and
optimization models.

116
 6.2 Overview of the required input data for the simulation and the optimization models

Figure 6.3: Classification of the required model input data

6.2.4 General methodology for the model input data

determination

The methodology and the literature sources that have been employed for the
determination of all technical and economic input data are summed up in
Table 6-2. The model input data is determined on the basis of questionnaires
sent to plant operators, according to published information or derived from
methodological assumptions. In particular total capital investment has been
estimated by using the Multiplier Value Method (section 6.5.1) and energy
crop costs have been quantified in each Federal State on the basis of regional
biomass hectare yields (section 6.6.1).

117
6 Model input data determination

Table 6.2: Literature sources and methodology employed for the models input data
determination

Description Methodology employed / Data source

Technical Biomass feedstock properties Literature data from [145], [161], [162], [163]
input data
Operating hours for flexible CHP Based on:
Supplementary gas storage Specific plant operator models (section 6.2.2)
volume Calculation tool from the Federal Office for
Agriculture of Thuringia (TLL) [167]
Existing biogas plant capacity Biogas plant database (web-based research)
Biomass potentials for electricity Potentials estimation and forecast based on
production literature data (section 6.4)
Economic Total capital investment Estimation based on literature data and
input data according to the Multiplier Value Method
(section 6.5)
Additional investment Based on:
(flexibilization) Specific plant operator models (section 6.2.2)
Calculation tool from Federal Office for
Agriculture of Thuringia (TLL) [167]
Energy crop costs Calculations are carried out at the Federal
State level according to literature data and
based on regional hectare yields (section
6.6.1).
Biomass feedstock transport costs Based on literature data (section 6.6.2)
Specific transport costs models are defined for
biowaste according to various collections
zones (section 6.6.2.3)
Electricity consumption costs
Process utilities costs
Digestate treatment costs
Revenues from heat sale Based on literature data (sections 6.6.3,
Revenues from digestate sale 6.7.3., 6.7.4 and 6.7.5)
Revenues from biowaste
valorization
Personnel costs Derived from questionnaires sent to plant
operators
Maintenance costs
Revenues from electricity sale Based on literature data (sections 6.6.3, 6.7.1
Flexibility premium and and 6.7.2) and on the defined plant operator
supplement models (sections 6.2.2)

118
 6.3 Estimation of existing biogas plant capacity

In the next section, the methodology used to determine each input data set
is described in detail. Firstly, existing biogas plant capacity is estimated
(section 6.3). In a second step current and future technical biomass potentials
are evaluated and forecasted at the Federal State scale up to the year 2030
(section 6.4). A final step focuses on the estimation and forecast of current
and future revenues and costs for each of the three plant types (sections 6.5,
6.6. and 6.7).

6.3 Estimation of existing biogas plant capacity

In order to evaluate future biogas capacity development up to the year 2030
a starting point is the estimation of the existing plants park at the Federal
State scale and according to the three reference installation types. In a first
step a database gathering 1,323 installations in Germany is built using a web-
based research of German companies operating biogas plants. The database
contains for each plant the feedstock type employed, namely energy crops,
manure or biowaste in mono- or in co-digestion plants and the installed
electric power. In a second step this database is statistically evaluated
according to the three plant types: the energy crops and manure plants (type
“EM”32), the energy crops plants (type “E”32) and the biowaste plants (type
“B”). The apportionment rates of existing capacities according to these three
plant types are given in Table 6-3.

In a third step the database is further discretized into 49 power ranges along
the electric capacity bandwidth [0:20,000 kWel ] as described in Figure 6-4. It
appears that most of existing biogas plants in the database are located in the
power range [100:500 kWel ] followed by the range [500:1,000 kWel ]. Plants
smaller than 75 kWel and larger than 5,000 kWel currently play a marginal

32
Agricultural EM and E plant types also include the valorization of agricultural residues such as
cereals straw, grain maize straw and harvest residues.

119
6 Model input data determination

role in the capacity mix. This repartition is in line with the observed situation
by the end of 2012 [168].

In a fourth step the plant typology and capacity repartition obtained for the
1,323 installations in the database are scaled-up to the whole German biogas
plant park, which amounts to about 7,366 installations for a total installed
capacity of 3,091 MWel at the end of 2012 [156]. Finally, a regionalization of
the installed capacity is carried out for each of the three plant types at the
level of the German Federal States according to repartition keys derived from
[156] and [157]. The regional plant repartition shows that more than half of
German biogas plants are located in Lower-Saxony, Bavaria and Baden-
Württemberg. No plants dedicated to electricity production from biogas exist
in the Federal States of Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen.

Table 6.3: Estimated capacity repartition according to the three defined plants EM, E and B

Plant type Employed feedstocks Plant capacity

apportionment
rates (%)
Energy crops and Valorization of energy crops 60.39
manure plant and manure in co-digestion
(type “EM”)
Energy crops plant Valorization of energy crops 33.14
(type “E”) in mono-digestion
Biowaste plant Valorization of biowaste in 6.47
(type “B”) mono-digestion

120
 6.3 Estimation of existing biogas plant capacity

Total: 200 MWel Total: 1,024 MWel Total: 1,866 MWel

6.47% of the existing 33.14% of the existing 60.39% of the existing
capacities mentioned capacities mentioned capacities mentioned in
in the database in the database the database
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
Plant B Plant E Plant EM
5,000 to 20,000 kWel with a capacity subrange unit interval of 1,000 kWel
3,000 to 5,000 kWel with a capacity subrange unit interval of 400 kWel
1,000 to 3,000 kWel with a capacity subrange unit interval of 200 kWel
500 to 1,000 kWel with a capacity subrange unit interval of 100 kWel
100 to 500 kWel with a capacity subrange unit interval of 50 kWel
75 to 100 kWel
70 to 75 kWel
50 to 70 kWel
30 to 50 kWel
10 to 30 kWel

Figure 6.4: Capacity repartition for the existing biogas plant types at the end of the year 2012

In the framework of the optimization model, it is systematically assumed that

all existing plants impacted by electricity direct marketing are concerned by
flexibilization. This applies to plants with a capacity larger than 750 kWel
under EEG 2012 (year 2013) and superior to 100 kWel under EEG 2014 (year
2015). According to the biogas plant database about 733 MWel and 2,743
MWel existing capacities are then subject to flexibilization respectively under
the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 operator models. Each of these capacities are
then further split into baseload installations and plants that are already
flexible, by using repartition rates derived from [169] and [170] 33. Table 6-4
sums up the capacity repartition obtained under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014.

33
Under EEG 2012 the total capacity subject to flexibilization can be divided into 96.7% baseload
installations and 3.3% flexible plants. Under EEG 2014 base-load capacity represents 64.15% of
the total capacity whereas 35.85% are linked to already existing flexible plants.

121
6 Model input data determination

In the next section annual biomass potentials for energy crops, manure and
biowaste dedicated to electricity production from biogas are determined for
each Federal State up to the year 2030.

Table 6.4: Existing capacity concerned by flexibilization under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014
operator models

EEG 2012 EEG 2014

operator model operator model
(year 2013) (year 2015)
Total existing capacity 733 2,743
concerned by
flexibilization (MWel)
Existing base-load 709 1,759
capacity subject to
further flexibilization
(MWel)
Already existing flexible 24 984
capacity (MWel)

6.4 Estimation of current biomass potentials and

evolution up to 2030

6.4.1 Estimation of current biomass potentials for

electricity generation

The use of renewable energy carriers in order to deliver electric, thermal and
chemical energy can be estimated with the help of potentials. In the literature
the potentials are split into the theoretical, technical, economic and
deducible one [48], [171]. The theoretical potential corresponds to the upper
boundary of energy delivery and describes the theoretical, physical usable
energy supply which is available in a certain region and at a certain time point.
It can be for example the global current energy contained in energy crops
mass in Germany if the country is set as a physical boundary. Due to certain

122
 6.4 Estimation of current biomass potentials and evolution up to 2030

technical, structural, ecological, economic and administrative constraints, this

theoretical potential can only be partially used. The technical potential
represents the share of the theoretical potential which can be used given
technical restrictions. The technical potential is often used as a key indicator
for investment or political decisions in the field of renewable energies. The
boundaries are set by the limitations of the employed technologies. Further
potential limits are defined by geographical, ecological and legal framework
conditions. Therefore, technical potentials can be defined depending on time
and space. For example, the efficiency of a conversion technology generally
increases with time and the potentials depends on the existence, for instance,
of natural protection zones. In the case of bioenergy, the technical potential
represents the possible contribution of a certain area at a certain time point
to cover an energy requirement. As various biomass conversion technologies
and various framework conditions can be applied to a certain area it is
possible to obtain different potential value levels for the same area.

The economic potential describes the part of the technical potential that can
be used given economic restrictions. A variety of parameters have an
influence on this potential (e.g., depreciation, interest) which is then more
time and space dependent than the technical potential. As there are
numerous possibilities to ensure the profitability of a plant, several economic
potentials exist. As economic restrictions are permanently evolving (e.g.,
costs of renewable electricity production, changes in tax system,
CO2 certificate trading) it is not possible to determine the economic potential
exactly and precisely. Finally, the deducible potential is a limitation of the
economic potential and is set by considering additional restrictions like
production capacities, administrative limitations or pre-existing plants. The
study published in [132] and described in section 3.4.2 provides an analysis of
technical biomass potentials for the main feedstock employed i.e., energy
crops, biowaste and manure. This study has been used in the present work
for the determination of potentials dedicated to electricity production from
biogas. Technical biomass potentials are converted into potentials for
electricity generation assuming an average CHP electric efficiency of 38%

123
6 Model input data determination

[132]. These potentials represent the maximal electricity amount produced

by the valorization of technical biomass potentials dedicated to biogas
production. The potentials are expressed in TWhel and are used in a
constraint equation in the optimization model (see Eq. 5.3). They ensure that
no electric capacity can be further built if the corresponding biomass
potentials are not sufficient.

In Germany and at the end of 2012 a total biomass potential of about 36.7
TWhel linked to onsite electricity generation from biogas was estimated
according to [132]34. This potential is mainly located in the Federal States of
Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia which contain more than
20 TWhel . An allocation of this total potential to the three analysed plant
types is carried out for the base year 2013 by using the repartition rates
mentioned in Table 6-3 (see Figure A-7 in the Appendix).

This gives a repartition of about 22.2 TWhel for the EM plants, about 12
TWhel for E plants and about 2.4 TWhel for B plants. The level of the
currently used biomass potentials dedicated to electricity from biogas is also
relevant. As mentioned in [172] about 90% of the available biomass potential
linked to energy crops for biogas is already used. This figure amounts to 50%
in the case of manure or biowaste valorization [172] which indicates that
development perspectives for the energetic use of biogenic waste and
agricultural effluents are remaining. On the opposite the valorization pathway
related to energy crops conversion into bioelectricity is almost saturated
which could lead to very limited developments in some Federal States.

34
In [132] a total potential of 99.4 TWh both relative to biogas and biomethane is mentioned. The
assumption of a global electric CHP-efficiency of 38% in all Federal States leads to a total
electrical potential of 37.8 TWhel. From this value 1.1 TWhel are linked to the decentralized
electricity production from bio-methane and must be subtracted in order to obtain the total
electrical potential dedicated to biogas.

124
 6.4 Estimation of current biomass potentials and evolution up to 2030

6.4.2 Evolution of biomass potentials for electricity

generation up to 2030

As the model intends to assess German electricity production from biogas up

to the year 2030, an evaluation of future biomass potentials for the three
plant types “Energy crops” (E), “Energy crops and manure” (EM) and
“Biowaste” (B) is necessary. In the case of agricultural plants employing
energy crops but also manure it is supposed that the future evolution of the
biomass potentials is mainly driven by the evolution of agricultural surface
areas [173], [174]. More precisely the historical evolution of agricultural areas
be-tween 1992 and 2014 at the scale of the German Federal States stands for
the basis of a forecast carried out up to the year 2030. A general decreasing
trend in the surface area evolution is observed, especially in the Federal
States of Bavaria, Low-Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the
potentials are mainly located. For biowaste plants it is assumed that future
potential developments are correlated to the evolution of household
biowaste amounts [175]. According to the German Witzenhausen Institute for
Waste, Environment and Energy, a saturation of the use of waste from
industry and commerce is already observed. Thereby future developments
concerning this biowaste category may be limited. On the contrary, potentials
for household biowaste should expand strongly up to the year 2030 [175].
Table 6-5 provides an overview of the assumptions that have led to the
determination of future biomass potentials for the years 2013, 2020 and
2030. The results of the potentials estimation and forecast at the Federal
State level and for each of the three installation types are mentioned in
Figures A-8 and A-9 in the Appendix.

125
6 Model input data determination

Table 6.5: Employed assumptions for the determination of current and future biomass
potentials

2013 (base 2020 2030

year)

Evolution of total agricultural 18.48 17.8 16.78

areas in Germany (million ha)
[173]

Evolution of cattle and pig 36 36 36

numbers (million) in Germany
[174]

Evolution of household biowaste 4.5 7 8.3

amount (million t) [175]

6.5 Specific investment-related costs

The required economic data for both the simulation and optimization models
are the specific revenues and specific costs of electricity production for each
plant type (in ct/kWhel ). They are determined year on year and all Federal
States combined. Specific annual costs of electricity production epc can be
split into specific investment-related costs cinv and the specific operating
costs cop (Eq. 6.5) [176].

𝑒𝑝𝑐 = 𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑣 + 𝑐𝑜𝑝 (6.5)

In the following, the methodology and assumptions used to estimate the

different cost positions for cinv and cop is described.

The specific investment-related costs are fixed costs derived from the total
capital investment TCI in the biogas plant. Investment-related costs consist of
depreciation, imputed interest and insurance costs. They are proportionally

126
 6.5 Specific investment-related costs

linked to the total capital investment [177]. Depreciations D are assumed to

be linear over the lifetime t of the investment - 20 years for buildings and 10
years for technical components - and are determined according to Eq. 6.6.

𝑇𝐶𝐼
𝐷= (6.6)
𝑡

Imputed interest is derived from the total capital investment TCI and from the
rate of interest j35 according to Eq. 6.7 and assuming a residual value equal to
zero.

𝑇𝐶𝐼
𝐼𝑛𝑡 = 2
∙𝑗 (6.7)

Finally, insurance costs are estimated at 0.5% from the total capital
investment according to [178], [179]. In the next section the methodology
employed for the estimation of the total capital investment is described in
detail.

6.5.1 Total capital investment estimation

The starting point for the total capital investment estimation is to collect
equipment acquisition costs from questionnaires sent to German biogas plant
operators. Acquisition costs can be divided into expenditure for plants and
machines and also include indirect expenditure for construction and
engineering. More precisely acquisition costs for plants are incurred by
fermenters36, feedstock and digestate storage tanks. Acquisition costs for
machines apply to CHP, feedstock delivery technology and process
equipment for digestate treatment. Figure 6-5 mentions the acquisition costs
that have been considered for typical sizes of each plant type E, EM and B.

35
A rate of interest of 6% is assumed according to [75].
36
The correlations linking fermenters acquisition costs as a function of the fermenter’s volume
and also as a function of the installed electric power are given in Figures A.10 and A.11 in the
Appendix [105], [167], [180], [181].

127
6 Model input data determination

€
8.000.000
7.000.000
6.000.000
5.000.000
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0
E EM E EM B E EM E EM B E EM E EM B E EM
plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant plant
type type type type type type type type type type type type type type type type type
250 kWel 500 kWel 750 kWel 1,000 kWel 1,500 kWel 2,000 kWel 2,500 kWel
Feedstock delivery Feedstock tank storage Anaerobic digester
Digestate storage CHP gas engines Digestate treatment

Figure 6.5: Acquisition costs structure for typical E, EM and B biogas plant sizes

The total capital investment corresponds to the fixed employed capital

covering all equipment and auxiliaries related to the biogas plant. In the
literature numerous methodologies lead to the estimation of the total capital
investment. These methods include the Chilton method, the Holland method,
and the Miller method [182], [183]. In this work the Peters and Timmerhaus
method, also known as the Multiplier Values Method, has been selected
[184]. The Multiplier Values Method is being more and more employed in
scientific contributions, e.g., regarding the evaluation of bio-refineries or
Biomass-to-Liquid processes [185], [186]. This method has been selected as it
relies on the previously determined acquisition costs. In the Multiplier Values
Method, the total capital investment TCI is assumed to be proportional to the
sum of previously estimated acquisition costs ACi according to Eq. 6.8. The
proportionality coefficient M is equal to the sum of multipliers values relative
to all investment positions: investments for equipment, installation, piping,
instrumentation, insulation, electrical facilities, buildings, infrastructures and
technical utilities.

128
 6.5 Specific investment-related costs

𝑇𝐶𝐼 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑀 ∙ 𝐴𝐶𝑖 (6.8)

In order to characterize anaerobic digestion processes the selected

multipliers are set out in Table 6-6 and are based on the values bandwidth for
microbial systems according to [187].

By applying the above multipliers to the acquisition costs mentioned in Figure

6-5 correlations linking the specific investments (in €/kWel ) to the installed
electric power (in kWel ) can be derived and are represented in Figure 6-6
exemplary for EM and B type plants. For small-scale manure plants with an
installed capacity lower than 75 kWel the following correlation between the
specific investment SIManurePlants and the installed electric power Pel has
been applied based on the values of [116]37 (Eq. 6.9):

−0.392
𝑆𝐼𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠 = 3,0334 ∙ 𝑃𝑒𝑙 (6.9)

Table 6.6: Employed multipliers values for the total capital investment estimation

Investment Description of the investment E and EM B plants

position position plants

Total equipment Selling price from commercial

acquisition costs tenders including indirect costs
(construction overhead and 1 1
engineering)

Installation Costs for the physical installation of 0.2 0.2

an equipment at the biogas plant
location

Piping Pipes for steam, cooling and 0.3 0.3

digestate

37
In [116], a 30 kWel small scale manure plant shows a specific investment of 8,000 €/kW el,
whereas 6,560 €/kWel are related to a 50 kWel plant and 5,587 €/kWel correspond to a 75 kWel one.

129
6 Model input data determination

Instrumentation Measurement, process control, 0.1 0.1

automation and metrology

Insulation Costs for building insulation and 0.01 0.01

painting

Electrical facilities Electric systems, lighting, grid 0.1 0.1

connection

Building Buildings associated with the biogas 0.15 0.25

plant. Incorporates non-electrical
building services as well as safety
items.

Infrastructure Roads, parking, pathways 0.05 0.15

Technical utilities External, process-oriented facilities 0.01 0.4

required for the proper operation of
a process facility (steam, water and
electricity)

Total multiplier value Sum of the multipliers values for the 1.92 2.51
M above-mentioned positions

A gap in the specific investment is observed in Figure 6-6 when moving from
75 kWel to 100 kWel , due to a technological change for plants larger than 75
kWel . Starting from 100 kWel , manure is valorized with energy crops in co-
digestion plants which requires another fermenter type (dry fermentation)
and generates higher specific investment than in the case of small-scale
manure plants (wet fermentation).

130
 6.5 Specific investment-related costs

€/kWel
90.000
85.000
80.000
75.000
70.000
65.000
60.000
55.000
50.000
45.000
40.000
35.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
EM plant B plant

Figure 6.6: Specific investment for agricultural and biowaste plants (EM and B plants) as a
function of the installed electric power

For comparison [147] mentions similar specific investment values for both
biowaste and agricultural plants. Agricultural plants remain clearly less capital
intensive than biowaste plants mainly due to the high level of investment in
the biowaste pre-treatment process38 and in the anaerobic digester
technology39.

6.5.2 Additional investment

Additional investment applies to flexible electricity production from biogas. It

principally concerns the employed supplementary flexible CHPs and the new

38
Biowaste pre-treatment processes generally correspond to hygienization, hydrolysis or
pasteurization.
39
The anaerobic digesters for biowaste plants often employ a dry fermentation process which is
more expensive than the wet technology used in agricultural plants.

131
6 Model input data determination

gas storage equipment. The specific investment in new CHPs can be

expressed as a function of the installed electric power according to the
correlation mentioned in [150]. Figure A-12 of the Appendix provides a
correlation linking the investment in new gas storages to the storage working
volume according to [188]. The total investment-related costs linked to the
flexibilization of a 1,000 kWel plant are exemplarily estimated in Tables A-3
and A-4 of the Appendix.

6.6 Specific operating costs

The annual specific operating costs apply to energy crop costs, transport
costs, personnel, energy and process utilities costs, maintenance and
digestate treatment costs. In the following sections the methodology and
assumptions employed for each of these specific cost positions are described
in detail. In particular the methodology employed for the determination and
the forecast of regional energy crop costs in each Federal State is presented
in detail in section 6.6.1.

6.6.1 Energy crop costs estimation and forecast

6.6.1.1 General employed methodology

As mentioned in [189] the energy crop price paid by the biogas plant
operators at the gate of their installation is set in the framework of supply
contracts with local farmers. The first aspect to define in a supply contract is
the biomass amount delivered. For each variety of energy crops the form of
the delivered biomass as cultivable areas (ha), fresh mass (t FM) or silage
should be specified. The margin between minimum and maximum Dry-Matter
contents should be as small as possible in order to avoid fluctuations in
feedstock quality. The second point concerns the place where the biomass
should be delivered. Logistical aspects are thereby defined. For example, it
has to be clearly mentioned if the biomass should be harvested and

132
 6.6 Specific operating costs

transported to the plant or if the biomass is delivered under the form of

silage. In the case of a silage delivery the farmer has to financially bear silage
losses (minimum 10%). Another point concerns the biomass quality. The main
parameters are here linked to biomass yields (in t/ha), methane yields (in
m3 /t) and to fertilizer values (N- P- K- fractions).

A central information in biomass supply contracts concerns the contracting

period. From the farmers perspective a short-term contract of five years has
to be preferred in order to protect them from short-term high energy crop
price volatility [190]. Biogas plant operators try to realize long-term contracts
of about 10 years in order to maximize the financial security level of the
project. The defined substrate prices are in most cases correlated to the
development of other resource prices like for instance oil prices. On the
farmer’s side, the costs of production of energy crops can be divided into
various positions like seed costs, costs for crop protection, costs for fertilizer,
variable and fixed machine costs, harvesting costs, fixed and variable storage
costs, hail insurance costs, personnel costs, buildings and land rent costs.

Regarding the biogas plant profitability analysis, the cost contribution of

energy crops represents more than the half of the electricity production costs
from biogas and is a key parameter in the implementation of a biogas plant
project [147]. Four types of agricultural feedstocks are considered in the
present work and represent more than 90% of the energy crops valorized into
biogas in Germany: maize silage, grass silage, cereal grains and cereal silage
[79]. As the energy crop costs are set locally in the framework of the above-
mentioned supply contracts a regionalization of national energy crop costs is
necessary. This aspect is strengthened by the fact that regional technical
parameters (e.g., specific hectare yields) are also involved in energy crop costs
calculations. In the following the methodology used to estimate regional
energy crop costs at the Federal State level is presented. The objective is to
determine the contribution of regional energy crop feedstock costs
CFeedstockCosts,2013,i,r in the total electricity production costs for the base year

133
6 Model input data determination

2013. For this purpose, the following sequential steps have been followed and
are described in detail:

• Estimation of regional mass flows for each feedstock type and in each
Federal State
• Regional maize silage costs calculations by using regional mass flows
and hectare yields derived from national costs data
• Regional grass silage costs calculations based on national hay costs, on
reference values for nutrient and dry matter contents and on regional
mass flows and hectare yields
• Regional cereals grain costs estimation derived from national costs for
wheat, triticale and rye and from regional mass flows and hectare
yields
• Regional cereals silage costs calculation derived from national cereals
grain costs, from specific methane yields and from regional mass flows
and hectare yields
• Estimation of the regional energy crop costs for the base year 2013
• Estimation of the electrical yields μi linked to feedstock organic dry
matter and methane content in biogas, to reference methane yields
and to average CHP efficiencies
• Estimation of the energy crop costs contribution into the electricity
production costs from biogas in each Federal State and for each plant
type in the base year 2013

6.6.1.2 Estimation of regional mass flows for each feedstock type and in
each region

In a first step the calculation of each regional energy crops mass flow Mi,r is
carried out by multiplying in each Federal State the regional surface area Si,r
dedicated to each energy crops feedstock for biogas production (in ha) by
regional hectare yields ηi,r (in t/ha) following Eq. 6.10

𝑀𝑖,𝑟 = 𝜂𝑖,𝑟 ∙ 𝑆𝑖,𝑟 (6.10)

134
 6.6 Specific operating costs

The regional hectare yields for maize silage and rapeseed are derived from
average historical values covering the year 2006 to 2010 [191] and are
mentioned in Tables A-5 and A-6 of the Appendix. The regional hectare yields
for grass silage correspond to average values for roughage in the years 2010
and 2011 [192] and can be found in the Table A-7 of Appendix. The term
roughage covers meadows and pastures, legumes for whole plant harvest
(e.g., clovers) and grass cultivation on arable land. The regional hectare yields
for cereal grains mentioned in the Table A-8 of the Appendix are linked to
average values for rye, winter cereals, winter wheat and triticale 40 between
the years 2006 and 2010 [191]. The regional hectare yields for cereal silage
are derived from the values for cereal grains (Table A-9 of the Appendix). An
average corn-straw ratio of 1:1.2 and a DM-content of 87% for cereal grains
and 33% for cereal silage are assumed [193]. The regional surface area Si,r is
then determined for each energy crops feedstock type. The estimation (e.g.,
for maize silage) is based on the regional agricultural surface area for energy
crops41 SEC,r on the previously determined regional hectare yields ηi,r and on
the share α of each feedstock in the total national energy crops mass issued
from [194] (Eq. 6.11).
𝛼𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑆𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑟 = ∙ 𝑆𝐸𝐶,𝑟
𝜂 𝛼𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝛼𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝛼𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝛼𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠
𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑟 ∙ ( + + + )
𝜂𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑟 𝜂𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑟 𝜂𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑟 𝜂𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒−𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠,𝑟

(6.11)

The calculated regional surface area 𝑆𝑖,𝑟 for each energy crops feedstock type
is set out in Table A-10 of the Appendix.

Regional manure mass flows MManure,r employed in the EM plant type are
further determined. In the present case it is assumed that the valorized
manure is exclusively produced by cattles. According to German Federal
Statistical Office about 12.7 million cattles are identified at the end of the year

40
Triticale is a hybrid with wheat as the female partner and rye as the male partner.
41
The regional agricultural surface area for energy crops is based on values from the biogas plant
database described in Section 6.3.

135
6 Model input data determination

2013 and can be split into milk cows (4.3 million) and remaining cattle (8.4
million). According to [195], [196], [162] an average specific manure
production rate Q Milk−cows is estimated at about 19.8 m3 of manure per milk
cow which leads to a milk cow manure mass at about 85.4 million t. A single
remaining cattle produces about 8.3 m3 manure (Q Remaining−cattles ) which
implies a manure mass dedicated to the remaining cattle of about 69.5 million
t [197], [198], [162].

The total manure mass produced by German cattle amounts thus to about
154.9 million t. According to [199] about 33.2 million t cattle manure are
dedicated to biogas plants which leads to a valorization factor w of 21.4%
applied to each Federal State. In each Federal State r the existing milk cows
and remaining cattles amount, NMilk−cows,r and NRemaining−cattles,r , is
estimated based on historical data for the year 2010 from [197], [198]. The
results are mentioned in Table A-11 of the Appendix. The total manure mass
flow MManure,r in each Federal State can be therefore estimated according to
Eq. 6.12 and the regional values are mentioned in Table A-12 in the Appendix.

𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑟 = (𝑁𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑘−𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠,𝑟 ∙ 𝑄𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑘−𝑐𝑜𝑤𝑠,𝑟 + 𝑁𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠,𝑟 ∙ 𝑄𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔−𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠,𝑟 ) ∙ 𝑤

(6.12)

6.6.1.3 Maize silage costs calculation

Regional maize silage costs have been determined following an equilibrium

price method. The farmer’s objective is to sell a certain amount of maize
silage to biogas plant operators at an equilibrium price covering at least the
variable maize silage costs of production and the profit loss due alternative
non-cultivated crops. According to [200] the non-cultivated crops, which have
been replaced by maize silage cultivation for biogas production mainly
correspond to rapeseed. The maize silage costs for plant operators are thus
determined according to Eq. 6.13.

136
 6.6 Specific operating costs

𝑐(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒)€ ∙ 𝜂(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒) 𝑡 = 𝑐(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑)€/𝑡 ∙ 𝜂(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑)𝑡/ℎ𝑎 − 𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑) € + 𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒)€/ℎ𝑎

𝑡 ℎ𝑎 ℎ𝑎

Maize silage costs Net profit loss due to the rapeseed non-cultivation Variable maize silage costs
(6.13)

With:

𝑐(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒): Maize silage costs in €/t

𝑐(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑): Winter rapeseed costs in €/t

𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑) : Winter rapeseed variable costs in €/ha

𝑐 𝑣𝑎𝑟(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒) : Maize silage cultivation costs in €/ha

𝜂(𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑧𝑒): Maize silage hectare yields in t/ha

𝜂(𝑅𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑑): Winter rapeseed hectares yield in t/ha

The variable costs for maize silage and winter rapeseed in €/ha have been
determined based on data from [201]. According to [201] the average costs
for winter rapeseed per Dry-Matter feedstock mass amounts 297 €/t DM . The
hectare yields (in t/ha) for maize silage are estimated in each Federal State
based on the historical values observed from the year 2006 to 2010 [191].

6.6.1.4 Grass silage costs calculation

The costs for grass silage are derived from the ones for hay (average values
for 2010, 2011 and 2012, according to [202]) and from reference values for
nutrients and Dry-Matter contents issued from [193] (Eq. 6.14).

𝐷𝑀𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 × 𝑁𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠
(𝑐𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 )€/𝑡 = (𝐶𝐻𝑎𝑦 )€/𝑡 ∙ (6.14)
𝐷𝑀𝐻𝑎𝑦 × 𝑁𝐻𝑎𝑦

137
6 Model input data determination

With:

- (𝑐𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 )€/𝑡 : Grass silage costs in €/t

- (𝐶𝐻𝑎𝑦 )€/𝑡 : Hay producer costs in €/t

- 𝐷𝑀𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 : Grass silage dry matter content in %

- 𝐷𝑀𝐻𝑎𝑦 : Hay dry matter content in %

- 𝑁𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑠𝑠 : Nutrients content in grass silage in MJ/𝑘𝑔𝐷𝑀

- 𝑁𝐻𝑎𝑦 : Nutrients content in hay in MJ/𝑘𝑔𝐷𝑀

6.6.1.5 Cereal grains costs calculation

Regional costs for cereal grains correspond to average costs of wheat, triticale
and rye. They have been provided by the Agricultural Market Information
society (AMI) and concern the years 2009/2010, 2010/2011 and 2011/2012
[202].

6.6.1.6 Cereal silage costs calculation

Regional costs for cereal silage are derived from cereal grains costs and from
average feedstock methane specific yields [162], [203] (Eq. 6.15).

𝑉̇𝐶𝐻4 (𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒)
𝑐𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 𝑉̇𝐶𝐻4 (𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠)
∙ 𝑐𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 (6.15)

With:

- 𝑐𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 : Cereal silage costs in €/t

- 𝑐𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠 : Cereal grains costs in €/t

̇
- 𝑉𝐶𝐻 (𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 − 𝑆𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒): specific methane yield for cereal silage in
4
3
𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 / 𝑡𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒,𝑜𝐷𝑀

138
 6.6 Specific operating costs

̇
- 𝑉𝐶𝐻 (𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 − 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠): specific methane yield for cereal grains in
4
3
𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 / 𝑡𝐶𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙−𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠,𝑜𝐷𝑀

6.6.1.7 Estimation of the energy crop costs for the base year 2013

The previous energy crop costs have been determined at the Federal State
level for the year 2012. As the economic evaluation starts in 2013, an
estimation of these costs has to also be realized for the base year 2013. The
regional energy crop costs have thus been calculated according to Eq. 6.16
and the results are mentioned in Table A-13 of the Appendix

𝑐2012,𝑖,𝑟
𝑐2013,𝑖,𝑟 = 𝑐2013,𝑖,𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 ∙ (6.16)
𝑐2012,𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑦

With:

- 𝑐2013,𝑖,𝑟 : regional specific costs for each feedstock i to be determined for

the base year 2013 in each Federal State r (€/t)

- 𝑐2013,𝑖,𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 : national specific costs for each feedstock i determined for

the base year 2013 according to [204] (€/t)

- 𝑐2012,𝑖,𝑟 : regional specific costs for each feedstock i determined for the
base year 2012 in each Federal State r (€/t)42

- 𝑐2012,𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑦 : for each feedstock type, average value over all Federal State of
the previously determined regional feedstock costs for the base year 2012
(€/t)

6.6.1.8 Estimation of electrical yields

In a further step the contribution of energy crop costs to the total electricity
production costs should be determined. Therefore, the above-mentioned
energy crop costs expressed in €/t should be converted into ct/kWhel with

42
Determined in sections 6.6.1.3 to 6.6.1.6.

139
6 Model input data determination

the help of feedstock specific electrical yields in kWhel /t. For each of the
energy crops feedstock the electrical yield in kWhel /t is defined according to
Eq. 6.17:

𝜇𝑖 = 𝐷𝑀𝑖 × 𝑜𝐷𝑀𝑖 ∙ (1 − 𝐿𝑖 ) ∙ 𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠,𝑖 ∙ 𝜏𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 ∙ 𝐻𝑔,𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 ∙ 𝑒𝐶𝐻𝑃

(6.17)

With:

𝐷𝑀𝑖 : Dry-Matter content in feedstock i (%)43

𝑜𝐷𝑀𝑖 : Organic Dry-Matter content in feedstock i (%)43

𝐿𝑖 : storage losses for feedstock i (%) [196]

3
𝑣𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠,𝑖 : biogas yield for feedstock i (𝑚𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 /𝑡𝐹𝑀,𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘,𝑖 )43

𝜏𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 : 𝐶𝐻4 content in the biogas produced from the valorization

of feedstock i (%)43

𝐻𝑔,𝑀𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 : methane gross calorific value (kWh/m3)44

𝑒𝐶𝐻𝑃 : average CHP electric efficiency (%)45

The corresponding values of feedstock electrical yields are thus mentioned in

Table A-14 of the Appendix.

6.6.1.9 Estimation of the energy crop costs contribution in the total

electricity production costs from biogas

Following the general methodology and the assumptions made in the

previous sections the contribution of the different energy crop costs to the
total electricity production costs from biogas is estimated for the base year

43
The corresponding numerical values for each feedstock are given in [162].
44
The methane gross calorific heating value is to 9.97 kWh/m3 according to [151].
45
An average CHP electric efficiency of 38% is assumed for the electrical yields determination.

140
 6.6 Specific operating costs

2013. This contribution CFeedstockCosts,2013,i,r can be expressed in each

Federal State r as following (Eq. 6.18):

𝜀2013,𝑖,𝑟 ∙ 𝑝2013,𝑖,𝑟
𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,2013,𝑖,𝑟 = ∑4𝑖=1 ∑16
𝑟=1 𝜇𝑖
(6.18)

With:

𝐶𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠,2013,𝑖,𝑟 : contribution of the feedstock costs in the

electricity production costs from biogas in the Federal State r (in
𝑐𝑡/𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 )

i: feedstock type

𝜀2013,𝑖,𝑟 : regional electric share of feedstock i (%)46

𝑝2013,𝑖,𝑟 : regional specific costs for each feedstock i the base year
2013 in each Federal State r (€/t)

𝜇𝑖 : electrical yields for feedstock i (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 /t)

For each of the two agricultural biogas plants E an EM and in each Federal
State r the numerical values of the energy crop costs contribution in the
electricity production costs are set out in Figures A-13 and A-14 of the
Appendix. In the case of E plant type, the energy crop costs contribution
varies from 7.03 ct/kWhel in the Federal State of Bavaria up to 10.88
ct/kWhel in Brandenburg. The average energy crop costs contribution is
estimated at about 9.01 ct/kWhel for the base year 2013. The co-digestion of
energy crops with manure in EM plants has the effect of lowering the costs
contribution of energy crops in the electricity production costs as manure is
available for free. In this case the average energy crop costs contribution for
the year 2013 amounts about 7.94 ct/kWhel . The lowest costs contribution

46
The regional electric share 𝜀2013,𝑖,𝑟 for energy crops feedstock i is defined as the ratio between
the electricity flow amount Ei,r linked to a feedstock i in a region r and the total electricity amount
for all energy crops in a region r.

141
6 Model input data determination

is observed in Bavaria with 6.35 ct/kWhel and reaches its maximum in the
Federal State of Brandenburg with 9.79 ct/kWhel .

6.6.1.10 Energy crop costs forecast up to the year 2030

Forecasts for the previously determined energy crop costs contribution (in
ct/kWhel ) up to the year 2030 are then established for each Federal State.
The high volatility relative to seed price leads to unpredictability in the energy
crop costs forecasts [190]. In the forthcoming years a progressive
introduction of agricultural residues in German biogas plants should occur.
Simultaneously the future energy crops demand for biogas should slow-down
mainly due to the subsidy cut related to energy crops valorization decided in
the framework of EEG 2014. Agricultural residues are available for free on the
site of the biogas plant and do not require transport costs. Their future
increased use should reduce the volatility of energy crop costs. Considering
all these aspects an energy crop costs stability47 up to the year 2030 is
assumed in the framework of a base scenario and in all Federal States. In
addition to the analysis in the base scenario, energy crop costs shocks are
carried out in the framework of a further scenario. More precisely an energy
crop costs in-crease of +10% per year between 2020 and 2025 is considered
(section 8.2).

6.6.2 Biomass feedstock transport costs

6.6.2.1 Energy crops transport costs

Biomass feedstock transport costs are influenced by three main parameters:

the biomass type and feedstock physicochemical properties, the transport
distance and the biomass collection radius. In a first step the biomass
collection radius in km is defined for each of the feedstock types. In [205] a
correlation between the total usable surface area for energy crops (ha) and

47
This cost stability does not integrate the annual discount rate of 6% applied to all cost flows up
to the year 2030.

142
 6.6 Specific operating costs

the collection radius (km) from the biogas plant is provided and represented
in Figure 6-7.

ha
5.000
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 km

Figure 6.7: Usable surface area as a function of the transport distance [205]

Table 6-7 provides specific feedstock hectare yields and a typical feedstock
mass repartition for 1 ha agricultural surface area. By combining this
information with the results of Figure 6-7 a correlation between the usable
feedstock mass and the transport distance can be established for each energy
crops type (Figure 6-8).

Table 6.7: Specific hectare yields and mass repartition of energy crops for 1 ha surface area

Hectare yields Mass repartition

(tFeedstock FM / ha) [79] according to [79]
Maize silage 50 73%
Grass silage 33 12%
Cereal silage 40 7%
Cereal grains 5.5 2%
Sugar beet, catch 65 (not taken into 7% (not taken into
crop and account in the account in the
miscellaneous calculations) calculations)
agricultural
feedstocks

143
6 Model input data determination

Usable mass for maize, Usable mass for

grass and cereal silage (t) cereal grains (t)

500.000 1.600
450.000 1.400
400.000
1.200
350.000
300.000 1.000

250.000 800
200.000 600
150.000
400
100.000
50.000 200

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Collection
radius
(km)
Usable mass maize silage (t) Usable mass cereal silage (t)
Usable mass grass silage (t) Usable mass cereal grains (t)

Figure 6.8: Usable mass amount for energy crops as a function of the collection radius [79],
[205]

In a second step and according to [206], [207], [208] specific transport costs
in €/t can be estimated as a function of the energy crops collection radius in
km (Figure 6-9).

144
 6.6 Specific operating costs

€/t
25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 km
Maize and cereal silage Cereal grains Grass silage

Figure 6.9: Specific biomass transport costs for energy crops as a function of the collection
radius [206], [207], [208]

Only a single public study deals with the estimation of transport costs
functions applied to grass silage for biogas in Germany [208]. In this study
transport costs for maize silage have also been analysed and remain clearly
lower than the transport costs for grass silage. This thus confirms the gap
observed in Figure 6-9. For a given farm this study provides, assuming a
transport distance of 5 km, grass silage costs of about 1.72 €/t and maize
silage costs of about 1.02 €/t. The main driver explaining this difference seems
to be linked to fixed costs. Biomass transport costs are made of variable
machine costs, fixed costs and personnel costs. Total fixed costs can be split
into fixed costs for machines and equipment and fixed costs for storage
buildings. Fixed costs for storage buildings are similar for maize silage and for
grass silage due to them having approximately the same feedstock density.
The costs discrepancy can therefore be explained by the high investment in
machines and equipment linked to grass silage. For grass silage specific annual
depreciations of about 87.29 €/ha are already mentioned for the machines
and equipment with 79.66 €/ha for tractors and 7.63 €/ha for rotary mowers
[209]. In the case of maize silage, the total fixed costs amount to 82.45 €/ha

145
6 Model input data determination

[210] which is lower than depreciations for machines and equipment relative
to grass silage. The combination of the two correlations set out in Figures 6-8
and 6-9 finally provides for each feedstock type specific biomass transport
costs (in €/t) as a function of the transported mass amount in t (Figure 6-10).

€/t
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 10 100 1.000 10.000 100.000 t
Maize silage Cereal silage
Cereal grains Grass silage

Figure 6.10: Specific biomass transport costs for energy crops as a function of the transported
energy crops mass amount

6.6.2.2 Manure transport costs

As stated in section 6.6.1.2, about 12.7 million cattle and about 158,000 cattle
farms were identified in Germany at the end of 2013 [211]. This corresponds
to about 80 cattle per farm. Furthermore, the total manure mass produced
by German cattle was estimated at about 154.9 million t in section 6.6.1.2.
The cattle manure mass amount per km48 is further determined in Table 6-8.
The calculations are based on the total surface area of Germany, which is
357,000 km2 , and take into account a manure valorization factor of about
68% [212], [213].

48
The collection radius r (in km) is linked to the surface area S (in km2) by Eq. 6.19: S = π.r2 (6.19)

146
 6.6 Specific operating costs

Table 6.8: Assumptions relative to cattle manure feedstock in Germany

Number of cattle farms in Germany at the end of 2013 158,000

[211]
Germany’s surface area (km2) [212] 357,000
Number of cattle farms per km2 in Germany 0.442
Total manure mass produced by German cattle at the 154.9
end of 2013 (million t)
Manure valorization factor (%) [213] 68
Cattle manure mass amount per km in Germany 522.9
(t/km)

Furthermore Figure 6-11 represents the manure transport costs as a function

of the collection radius assuming a manure density of 1 kg/m3 [214], [215].

€/t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 km

Figure 6.11: Specific manure transport costs as a function of the collection radius [214], [215]

As shown in Table 6-8, about 522.9 t of manure per km are assumed as

specific manure mass amount in Germany. This value is further combined
with the results of Figure 6-11. This leads to the determination of specific
manure transport costs as a function of the manure amount transported
(Figure 6-12).

147
6 Model input data determination

€/t
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000 t

Figure 6.12: Specific manure transport costs as a function of the feedstock mass amount

6.6.2.3 Biowaste transport costs

In the case of biowaste four concentric zones are firstly defined according to
various collection radiuses in km (Figure 6-13 and Table 6-9). In each zone
population density (a1 to a4), biowaste per habitant amount (b1 to b4) and
the maximal biowaste amount per zone (m1,max to m4,max ) are determined
(Figure 6-13 and Table 6-9).

The population density in each zone is determined based on literature data in

[216]. For each zone the biowaste per habitant amount is issued from a study
published by the State Office for the Environment, Measurements and Nature
Conservation of the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg (LUBW) [217].

The maximal biowaste amount contained in each zone is determined

according to following equations system S1:

148
 6.6 Specific operating costs

m1,max =   a1  b1  10 2

m2,max =   a2  b2  (30 − 10 )
2 2
(S1)

m3,max =   a3  b3  (60 − 30 )
2 2


m4,max =   a4  b4  (120 − 60 )
2 2

Figure 6.13: Biowaste collection zones (author’s own representation)

In order to estimate the biowaste transport costs two functions are defined
in Table 6-9 according to [218]. A first cost function covers the zone 1 (from 0
km to 10 km) and refers to the biowaste collection in close range and in the
urban area. A second function is applied for zones 2, 3 and 4 and corresponds
to a transport distance greater than 10 km in peri-urban and rural areas. Table
6-9 sums up the input data that have been assumed in order to estimate the
biowaste transport costs.

149
6 Model input data determination

Table 6.9: Collection radius, maximal amount per inhabitant and specific transport costs for
biowaste

Biowaste Population Annually Calculated Specific biowaste

collection density produced maximal transport costs C
radius (a1 to a4) in biowaste mass biowaste (€/t) as a function
(km) hab/km2 per inhabitant amount per of the collection
[216] (b1 to b4) in zone49 (m1,max to radius r (km)
kg/hab [217] m4,max) in t

Zone 0 to 10 1500 167 78,697 𝐶 = 0.4 ⋅ 𝑟 + 1.5

1 (6.20) [218]
Zone 10 to 30 300 107 80,676
2 𝐶 = 0.8 ⋅ 𝑟 + 1.5
Zone 30 to 60 150 92.5 117,692 (6.21) [218]
3

In a zone i and based on the collection zones represented in Figure 6-12 the
biowaste collection radius ri can be expressed as a function of the
transported biowaste amounts mi,k according to the following equations
system (S2):

 m1, k
r1 =
(S2)    a1  b1

r m2 , k − m1, max
= 10 2 +


2
  a 2  b2

 m3, k − m2 , max − m1, max
r3 = 30 2 +

  a3  b3
 m4 , k − m3, max − m2 , max − m1, max
r4 = 60 2 +

   a4  b4

49
In a zone i the maximal biowaste amount mi,max is determined based on the maximal biowaste
collection radius ri,max, on the population density ai and on the annually produced biowaste
amount per inhabitant bi according to Eq. 6.22: mi , max =  r i , max2 ai  bi (6.22)

150
 6.6 Specific operating costs

By using the numerical values of Table 6-9 in each equation of (S2), correlation
functions between the collection radius ri in each zone i and the collected
biowaste amount mi,k are obtained and represented in Figure 6-14.

km

120

110

100

90 Zone 4
80

70

60

50 Zone 3
40

30

20 Zone 2
10
Zone 1
0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000 400.000 450.000 500.000 t

Figure 6.14: Biowaste collection radius as a function of the biowaste mass amount

Finally, by combining the results of Figure 6-14 with the costs functions of Eqs.
6.20 and 6.21 specific biowaste transport costs (in €/t) can be expressed as a
function of the collected biowaste amount (in t) (Figure 6-15).

151
6 Model input data determination

€/t
120

110

100

90

80
Zone 4
70

60

50

40 Zone 3
30

20

10
Zone 2
0 Zone 1
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 350.000 400.000 450.000 500.000 t

Figure 6.15: Biowaste transport costs as a function of the biowaste mass amount

6.6.3 Other operating costs

Other annual operating costs concern electricity consumption, process

utilities, personnel, maintenance and digestate treatment costs. In order to
estimate these costs positions the following assumptions have been made
and are derived from literature sources and from biogas plant operator data
(Table 6-10).

152
 6.6 Specific operating costs

Table 6.10: Main assumptions related to electricity consumption, process utilities, personnel,
maintenance and digestate treatment specific costs

E Plant type EM Plant type B Plant type

Specific Electricity price: 15.11 ct/kWhel in year 2013 and

electricity 15.23 ct/kWhel in year 2015 [12]
consumption
costs Electricity own requirement rates in 2013: [219]
- 0 to 75 kWel: 10%
- 75 to 150 kWel: 6.9%
- 150 to 500 kWel: 7.2%
- 500 to 1,000 kWel: 7.9%
- More than 1,000 kWel: 8.7%

Specific process 10,000 €/a [75] 1.2 €/t for impurities elimination.
utilities costs Impurities correspond to 2% of the
biowaste mass input which is valorized at
60 €/t [220]

Specific Data from biogas plant operators:

personnel costs Cost of 1 Full Time Employee (FTE): 30,000 €/a.

1 FTE employed from 0 to 750 kWel and 2 FTEs from 750 to 1,000 kWel
From 1,000 to 6,000 kWel: 1 supplementary FTE every 500 kWel
From 6,000 to 10,000 kWel: 1 supplementary FTE every 1,000 kWel
From 10,000 to 20,000 kWel: 2 supplementary FTEs every 1,000 kWel

Specific Maintenance costs for existing and new CHPs in ct/kWhel as a function of
maintenance electric power (Eq. 6.23) [150]: C= 17.053.P-0.4782 (6.23) The maximal unit size
costs of one CHP equals to 2,000 kWel (see Figure A-16 in the Appendix).

Specific 0 €/t: digestate directly 44,6 €/t biowaste input [121]

digestate valorized on soils as a fertilizer
treatment by the farmer for its own
costs exploitation.

153
6 Model input data determination

In a further step Table 6-11 sums up the assumed annual evolution rate for
each costs position up to the year 2030. The annual evolution for electricity
consumption, process utilities, maintenance and digestate treatment costs is
assumed to follow an average inflation rate set at 1% per year. According to
[221] an average evolution rate of +3.6% concerning German salaries has
been observed between the years 2015 and 2016. Technicians and workers
are the most employed personnel category in biogas plants companies. For
this reason, a lower evolution rate at about 2% has been assumed in the
model as a conservative assumption for personnel costs. Investment-related
costs are assumed to remain constant from a year to another. Biogas plants
are supposed to represent a mature and established technology in Germany
which is not subject to disruptive innovations. Finally, all biomass feedstock
related costs, i.e., energy crop purchase and transport costs have been
assumed as constant from a year to another. This costs stability is firstly
explained by the progressive introduction of agricultural residues – available
for free – in German biogas plants. Another aspect concerns the slow-down
of the energy crops demand in the biogas sector due to the subsidy cut for
energy crops valorization in the framework of the EEG 2014. Both of these
aspects should thereby tend to stabilize future energy crop costs for biogas
plants in Germany.

154
 6.7 Revenues estimation and forecast

Table 6.11: Assumed annual evolution rates for each costs position up to the year 2030

Costs positions Annual evolution of to the year 2030

Electricity consumption costs +1% per year

Utilities process costs +1% per year

Personnel costs +2% per year

Maintenance costs +1% per year

Digestate treatment costs +1% per year

Investment-related costs Assumed as constant up to 2030

Energy crop costs Assumed as constant up to 2030 (base scenario)

Biomass transport costs Assumed as constant up to 2030

6.7 Revenues estimation and forecast

Revenues for the operation of German biogas plants are issued from the sale
of the electricity fed into the grid, from the valorizable heat sale issued from
biogas combustion in CHPs, from the sale of the digestate as a fertilizer or
compost and from the biowaste valorization into biogas.

6.7.1 Revenues from electricity sale

Based on the two operator models described in Figure 6-2 in section 6.2.2
following revenues are defined for the electricity sale (Table 6-12).

Furthermore, a flexibility supplement at 40 €/kWel aims to cover the

investments in supplementary CHPs and gas storages.

155
6 Model input data determination

Revenues from the FIT are assumed to decrease by 2% per year. In the case
of the direct marketing model, it is assumed that plant operators sell the
electricity produced at a price corresponding to the yearly average of monthly
EPEX electricity prices in Peak time. According to [12] the average EPEX-Peak
electricity price was 43.13 €/MWhel for the year 2013 and 35.09 €/MWhel
for 2015. The evolution of these annual prices up to 2030 is based on a
forecast from EWI Prognos and GWS published in 2014 [222]. The monthly
average EPEX-Base electricity prices used for the calculation of the market
premium are derived from the BDEW50 annual report [12]. Average prices
have been considered for the years 2013 and 2015 and amounted to 37.78
and 31.68 €/MWhel respectively.

Table 6.12: Operator models for the calculation of electricity revenues

Model type Model description

FIT without electricity direct marketing up to an

installed power of 750 kWel
Model A according to
EEG 2012 Electricity direct marketing with market AND flexibility
premium for an installed power larger than 750 kWel

FIT without electricity direct marketing up to an

installed power of 100 kWel

For installations with an installed capacity larger than

Model B according to 100 kWel, the electricity sale revenues can be split into:
EEG 2014 - A subsided part linked to 50% of the installed
capacity
- The 50% remaining capacity obtain revenues
corresponding to the electricity sales price at the
monthly average EPEX SPOT electricity price

50
German Association of Energy and Water Industries

156
 6.7 Revenues estimation and forecast

Furthermore, a flexibility supplement at 40 €/kWel

aims to cover the investments in supplementary CHPs
and gas storages.

6.7.2 Flexibility premium and supplement

The assumptions employed for the calculation of the flexibility premium in

the context of EEG 2012 are mentioned in Table A-3 and A-4 of the Appendix.
As a result, a constant value of 1.13 ct/kWhel for each plant size over the
electric capacity bandwidth [0:20,000 kWel ] is obtained. Under EEG 2014
framework the flexibility supplement amounts 40 €/kWel which corresponds
to about 0.85 ct/kWhel .

6.7.3 Revenues from heat sale

Beside electricity, heat represents another useful product of biogas

combustion. It can be valorized in local heat sinks and in order to cover the
plant’s own thermal requirements. Taking into account monitoring reports
published by the German biomass research center, external heat utilization
rates to external heat sinks at levels of 56% and 57% are assumed respectively
for the years 2012 and 2014 [223], [224]. The thermal own requirements rates
set out in Table 6-13 are also taken into account [225], [226].

Table 6.13: Thermal own requirements rates for the years 2013 and 2015 [225], [226]

Year 2013 Year 2015

0 to 70 kWel 57% 52.1%

71 to 150 kWel 36.4% 42.3%

151 to 500 kWel 25% 27.3%

157
6 Model input data determination

501 to 1,000 kWel 23.9% 24%

More than 1,000 kWel 16.9% 18.4%

Regarding economic aspects, the Working Group for Heat and Heating
Economics published a price comparison for district heating in Germany. In
2011, the average district heating price in Germany was estimated at about
7.6 ct/kWhth [227]. In [119] revenues for external heat sale and use of 5
ct/kWhth were assumed. In the present work and for all biogas plants
analysed, a value of 4 ct/kWhth 51 is taken into account as conservative
assumption. Assuming a future development of the market for renewable
heat in Germany an annual increase of 2% per year up to 2030 has been
further considered for the revenue from the external heat sale.

6.7.4 Revenues from digestate sale

Digestates can represent another source of revenues for biogas plant

operators through the sale as fertilizer in the case of agricultural plants or as
a compost for a biowaste plant. In the case of agricultural plants, no revenues
related to the digestate sale are taken into account, as the digestate is
supposed to be directly valorized by the farmer on his own land. For biowaste
plants, revenues linked to the compost sold mainly depend on N-, P- and K-
contents and prices and can vary strongly from one Federal State to another.
In [228], an average compost price of 6 €/t for N- P- and K- is given for the
area of Westfalen-Lippe, located in the Federal State of North Rhine-
Westphalia. As no study mentioning regional compost prices currently exists,
this value of 6 €/t is applied to all the Federal States. Finally, an annual

51
The average revenue from heat sale is mentioned in ct/kWh th and must be converted into the
specific electric functional unit in ct/kWhel. For this, mathematical functions linking thermal and
electric yields to the electric capacities are determined according to values mentioned in Figure
A.15 of the Appendix [150].

158
 6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility

increase of 1% per year for the revenues from the digestate sale has been
assumed up to 2030.

6.7.5 Revenues from biowaste valorization

Plant operators can receive, in addition to the electricity, heat and digestate
revenues, municipal fee revenues for the valorization of biowaste into biogas.
These fee revenues should in principle cover the costs associated with the
digestate composting process, which follows the anaerobic digestion. The
level of these revenues is very heterogeneous and can vary between 20 and
100 €/t [229]. It often remains confidential information, which is rarely
published by plant operators. These specific revenues are moreover not
directly linked to the plant location so that a regionalization at the Federal
State level is currently not possible. Considering all these uncertainties factors
an average fee revenue level of 60 €/t for the valorization of biowaste is
assumed for all Federal States. Revenues for biowaste valorization are also
assumed to increase by 2% per year up to 2030. This can be justified by a
supposed increasing valorization of biowaste in biogas plants in the future.

6.8 Model input data uncertainties and

plausibility
The main objective of model assumptions is to approximate as accurately as
possible the economic and physical reality of the planning, construction,
operation and maintenance of a biogas plant. Therefore, potential
uncertainties concerning the employed numerical assumptions should be
pointed out. A strong input data uncertainty can considerably impact the
profitability calculations as well as further strategic decisions on a mid-term
horizon. In this section a review of all the technical and economic
uncertainties affecting biogas plants in Germany is carried out. Plausibility
checks further ensure that the specified model input data is in line with
reality.

159
6 Model input data determination

Technical uncertainties apply to biomass feedstock parameters, operating

hours for baseload and flexible CHPs, to the supplementary gas storage
volume as well as to the existing biogas plant capacity and to biomass
potentials for electricity production. Biomass feedstock parameters such as
the methane yields and the methane content in the biogas produced are
derived from standard literature data which limits data uncertainties. In the
case of agricultural plants (E and EM) the feedstock shares in the biomass
input mix have been set taking into account the maize silage and cereal grains
cap introduced under EEG 2012 framework (60% maximal mass share in the
total input mix). The defined apportionment of feedstock mass is considered
as representative enough of standard agricultural biogas projects.
Nevertheless, in practice the feedstock mass share can vary from one type of
plant to another. In particular feedstock availability plays a major role in the
input mix.

The assumed base-load hours, i.e., 8,000 h/a, appear to be quite

representative of real plants [165]. The calculated operating hours for flexible
capacity are however subject to uncertainty. In the present work the
systematic approach of flexibility leads to a bias in the economic evaluation.
In practice every single plant has its own operation and flexibility strategy. In
this work most profitable plant sizes are thus determined under ceteris
paribus conditions applied to flexibility. This enables a systemic assessment
of all plant sizes and types.

Technical uncertainties linked to the estimation of current and future biomass

potentials for electricity production at a regional scale are pointed out. These
potentials are derived from a single literature source according to [132]. This
source represents the only study quantifying, for each feedstock, regional
technical biomass potentials dedicated to electricity production from biogas
in Germany. Ideally a comparison with other assessments – if available – could
have reduced the uncertainty level for this parameter.

A plant and size typology for existing biogas capacities has been determined
on the basis of a data base containing 1,323 plants which is a representative

160
 6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility

sample of the whole plant park (about 8,900 plants by 2015). In this sample
the capacity and plant distribution obtained has then been scaled up to the
level of the whole biogas plant park, which appears as a suitable approach.
The uncertainty level concerning the existing biogas plant portfolio remains
then relatively low.

Economic uncertainties are linked to the estimation of electricity production

costs and revenues in each biogas plant type and size. From the costs side,
the first uncertainty concerns the calculation of regional energy crop costs. In
the calculations, national average biomass feedstock costs have been first
determined according to [204], [230] and further regionalized with the help
of regional hectare yields and regional mass flows. These two last parameters
have been established by a literature review and should thus only be seen as
standardized values. Further parameters such as local soil quality, weather
conditions, nutrient cycles, intensity of use of pesticides and cultivation
techniques employed also have an impact on the hectare yields level. They
could not however be assessed in the present work due to a lack of available
regional data.

Furthermore, no study currently exists dealing with the systematic estimation

of regional feedstock costs for maize silage, grass silage, cereal silage and
cereal grains involved in German biogas plants. Methodological own
assumptions have thus been made in order to determine each feedstock cost
at a regional level (e.g., assumptions concerning the maize silage costs as a
function of rapeseed costs or the relation between costs for cereal grains and
cereal silage).

Moreover, effects of the international agricultural commodities markets are

not taken into account which can lead to uncertainties. Indeed, the seed
prices, for instance for corn and wheat, are set at the MATIF Commodities
Exchange in Paris and represent a major driver for the energy crop costs paid
by the biogas plant operator at the gate of anaerobic digesters. The high
volatility of these prices leads to unpredictability in the energy crop costs
forecasts. Regional energy crop costs have been assumed to remain stable up

161
6 Model input data determination

to the year 2030. This costs stability is firstly explained by the progressive
introduction of agricultural residues – available for free – in German biogas
plants. Another aspect concerns the assumed slow-down of energy crops
demand in the biogas sector due to the subsidy cut for energy crops
valorization in the framework of EEG 2014. Both of these aspects should
therefore tend to stabilize future energy crop costs for biogas plants in
Germany. The determined regional energy crop costs contribution for EM and
E plant type remain in a cost bandwidth going from 6.35 to 10.87 ct/kWhel
(see section 6.6.1.9). Real data from the biogas measurement program II
shows in Figure 3-11 that most of the electricity productions costs for
agricultural plants vary between 15 and 20 ct/kWhel . The cost bandwidth for
energy crops is then in line with real data as the energy crops cost generally
represent between 40 and 60% of the total electricity production costs [231].
This validates the plausibility of the determined values for the regional energy
crop costs contribution.

The second uncertainty concerns the estimation of plant specific investment

and especially the assumed Multiplier Values. These values are derived from
[187] and apply to microbial systems which represent a suitable modelling for
biogas plants. Nevertheless, the multipliers determined correspond to an
average of bandwidth values and can only be seen as approximations. A
validation of the specific investment calculated is however possible based on
a discrete evaluation of single biogas plants. In [232] several specific
investments for biowaste and agricultural plants are mentioned. A biowaste
plant located in Wicker and with an installed electric power of 1,300 kWel is
characterized by a total capital investment of about 16.4 € million which
corresponds to a specific investment at about 12,600 €/kWel . Similarly, the
biowaste plant in Alzey-Worms valorizes household kitchen biowaste and
shows specific total investment of about 13,900 €/kWel for a 900 kWel
installed capacity. In [117] specific investment of about 18,700 €/kWel is
found for a 312 kWel installation and in [118] a 1 MWel plant shows specific
investment at about 12,280 €/kWel . These specific investment values are in
line with the correlation specified for biowaste plants in the simulation and

162
 6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility

optimization models (Figure 6-16). However, a larger data sample would be

necessary in order to fully validate the estimated investment for biowaste
plants. Only a few studies concerning the economic assessment of biowaste
installations are available in the literature and data from plant operators is
rarely published.

€/kWel
100.000
90.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
0
10 100 1.000 10.000
kWel
Data from existing plants Model input data

Figure 6.16: Specific investment for biowaste plants according to model input data and to data
from existing plants [117], [118], [232]

The specific acquisition costs for agricultural plants can be compared to real
values provided by German plant operators for 55 installations in the
framework of the “Biogas Measurement Program II” [125]. The specific
acquisition costs involved in the model data for agricultural biogas plants are
in line with the values derived from the “Biogas Measurement Program II”
(Figure 6-17).

163
6 Model input data determination

Figure 6.17: Specific acquisition costs for agricultural EM plants52 according to model input data
and to data from existing plants [125]

Additional investment-related costs result from investment in supplementary

CHPs and gas storages. These costs are determined using correlations issued
from [150] and [188]. Another uncertainty on the costs side concerns those
for digestate treatment in biowaste plants. An average value of 44.6 €/t has
been used according to [121] but in reality, this cost position can vary
between 20 and 80 €/t. In order to quantify the impact of this volatility on
plant profitability a sensitivity analysis has been realized in section 7.4.3 and
includes the digestate treatment costs as one of the main profitability drivers.
The correlations relative to biomass transport costs as a function of transport
distance are drawn from literature data and can be found in [206], [207],
[208], [215] and [218], which validates their plausibility and reduces the level
of data uncertainty.

Costs for process utilities (use of water or anti-foam) are drawn from plant
operator data and estimated as constant at about 10,000 €/a for all plant sizes
and all plant types [75]. This simplification generates data uncertainty but has
a low impact on plant profitability as the share of process utilities costs in

52
Explanations justifying the visible gap observed in the acquisition costs when moving from 75
kWel to 100 kWel are available in section 6.5.1.

164
 6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility

total electricity production costs is not significant. Personnel costs have been
set according to plant operator data at a unitary FTE cost of 30,000 €/a. The
number of FTE employed is further directly correlated to the plant capacity
range. In practice it also depends on the fermentation and digestate
treatment process complexity and is difficult to generalise. For this reason,
the correlation between personnel costs and plant size involves uncertainties.

Maintenance costs for CHP are estimated as a function of the total installed
electric power according to the correlation of ASUE mentioned in [150]. The
number of maintained CHP units as a function of installed power is specified
in Figure A-16 of the Appendix (own assumptions). A CHP unit size of 2,000
kWel is assumed over the whole plant capacity bandwidth [0:20,000 kWel ]. In
practice a systematization and generalization of maintained CHP unit
numbers as a function of total installed power appears to be difficult as it
varies between plant operators. Thereby the correlation linking maintenance
costs to installed electric power is subject to uncertainty. Finally, electricity
consumption costs are determined on the basis of electricity own
requirement rates [219]. The values assumed for electricity prices are
15.11 ct/kWhel for 2013 and 15.23 ct/kWhel for year 2015 according to [12].
Therefore, the specified input data regarding this cost position appears
plausible and is subject to a low level of uncertainty.

In the present work it has been assumed that plant operators involved in the
direct marketing model sell the produced electricity at a price corresponding
to the yearly average of monthly EPEX electricity prices in Peak time. For the
base year 2013, a price of 43.13 €/MWhel has been taken into account and
corresponds to the yearly average of all monthly EPEX electricity prices
observed in peak time [12]. Similarly for the year 2015 the average EPEX price
for the electricity sold is about 35.09 €/MWhel in Peak time [12]. For
comparison in [233], the revenue structure of 500 kWel agricultural plant is
detailed under the EEG 2014 framework. The electricity direct marketing
model is considered there and three levels for the EPEX electricity price are
assumed: 40, 50 and 60 €/MWhel . The EPEX price for the electricity sold thus

165
6 Model input data determination

represents a major uncertainty. The impact of this uncertainty is however

quantified with the help of a sensitivity analysis in section 7.4. The calculation
of the flexibility premium and supplement has been done according to the
legal definitions of EEG 2012 and EEG 2014, which minimizes the uncertainty
level for this revenue position. Eq. 3.2 has been used for the plants evaluated
under EEG 2012 whereas 40 €/kWel is assumed according to EEG 2014
framework.

Another uncertainty concerns the level of municipal fee revenues for

biowaste valorization into biogas. Only few assessments are available in the
literature for this revenue position, which can vary between 0 and 120 €/t. An
average value of 60 €/t has been assumed for all the calculations. The
influence of this uncertainty has been further quantified using a sensitivity
analysis realized for biowaste plants in section 7.4.3. Revenues from digestate
sale are subject to a low uncertainty level as they have been derived from
literature data in [228]. A last economic uncertainty concerns the valorization
of the heat produced by the CHPs on the biogas plant location site. The
revenues for heat sale considerably influence plant profitability and depend
on the presence of local heat network infrastructures as well as on potential
sinks (e.g., buildings located in the proximity of the plant). The revenues
specified for heat sale are however in line with values from literature study
according to [119]. In sections 7.4.2 and 7.4.3 a sensitivity analysis realized
for E and B plants integrates the impact of a strong variation of heat sale
revenues on the specific operating profit. This quantifies the degree of
uncertainty for this revenue position. All required techno-economic data is
summed up in Table 6-14 according to its uncertainty level53. The sensitivity
analysis realized in section 7-4 quantifies the major uncertainties impacting
plant profitability.

53
In Table 6.14 the green colour corresponds to data with very low uncertainty level, whereas data
with a more important uncertainty level are marked in orange. This classification aims to
characterize the degree of uncertainty for all techno-economic input data.

166
 6.8 Model input data uncertainties and plausibility

Table 6.14: Uncertainty levels for all models input data

Uncertainty Comment
level
Technical Biomass feedstock properties The uncertainty level results
Uncertainties Operating hours for flexible CHP here from the systematic
Supplementary CHP size and gas approach followed in this work.
storage volume In practice plant specific
operation strategies involving
specific technical parameters
should be considered.

Existing biogas plant capacity

Biomass potentials for electricity The potentials have been derived
production from [132]. This source
represents the only study
quantifying, for each feedstock,
regional technical biomass
potentials dedicated to electricity
production from biogas in
Germany. Ideally a comparison
with other assessments - if
available - could have reduced
the uncertainty level for this
parameter.
Economic Total capital investment The impact of this uncertainty on
Uncertainties profitability is quantified by a
sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.
Additional investment
(flexibilization)
Energy crop costs The impact of this uncertainty on
profitability is quantified by a
sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.
Biomass feedstock transport costs
Electricity consumption costs
Process utilities costs
Personnel costs
Maintenance costs The impact of these uncertainties
Digestate treatment costs on profitability is quantified by a
Revenues from electricity sale sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.
Flexibility premium and
flexibility supplement
Revenues from heat sale The impact of these uncertainties
Revenues from biowaste on profitability is quantified by a
valorization sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.
Revenues from digestate sale

167
6 Model input data determination

Further uncertainties which are not involved in the input data perimeter
should be pointed out. The first one relates to the legal frameworks that have
been analysed. A continuation of the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 legal
frameworks up to the year 2030 has been taken into account in the
optimization model in order to carry out the forecasts. In practice new legal
frameworks will be enacted in the next ten years and then impact the
development of biogas in Germany. Another uncertainty concerns the effects
of potential disruptive innovations notably related to fermenters and to CHPs.
Disruptive innovations could lead to an increase of plant efficiencies and to
major electricity production costs decrease. These effects have not been
integrated in the present work. It has been assumed that existing
technologies for biogas production and valorization are well-established and
mature so that they will not be displaced by new technologies.

6.9 Summary
This chapter describes the methodology and assumptions used for
determining the input data for both the simulation and optimization models.
In a first step the existing German biogas plant park has been estimated by
the end of the year 2012. A discretization of the existing capacities into three
plant types (EM, E and B) and 49 plant sizes has been realized. The second
step of the model input data determination concerns the estimation of
current and future potentials for electricity generation relative to each of the
three above mentioned plant types. Existing potentials have been evaluated
at the Federal State level and for each plant type on the basis of literature
data. Future potentials for agricultural plants are directly correlated to the
evolution of agricultural surface areas whereas future biowaste potentials are
closely linked to the evolution of household biowaste mass amounts. Data
related to existing biogas plant capacity is used by the optimization model
which is described in chapter 5. In a further step costs and revenues input
data is determined. Costs data is divided into investment-related costs and
operating costs. The determined investment-related costs in ct/kWhel

168
 6.9 Summary

consist of depreciations54, imputed interests and insurance costs. Operating

costs can be split into various positions and are expressed in €/t or in
ct/kWhel depending on if the cost position is linked to a mass or to an energy
flow. Operating costs positions concern regional energy crop costs55, biomass
feedstock transport costs, as well as energy, process utilities, personnel,
maintenance and digestate treatment costs. Revenues accrue from
electricity, heat and digestate sales as well as from biowaste valorization. In
the case of electricity sales two plant operator models are taken into account
according to FIT subsidies from the EEG or following the electricity direct
marketing model. Revenue assumptions for heat and digestate sales and for
biowaste valorization are taken from literature data. In section 6.8 all
uncertainties regarding model input data are pointed out. The main technical
uncertainties concern the biomass feedstock properties, operating hours for
flexible CHP, as well as supplementary CHP size and gas storage volume. Cost
uncertainties mainly apply to investment-related, energy crop and digestate
treatment costs. Revenue uncertainties mainly concern the EPEX price level
for the electricity sold in the framework of the direct marketing model. Other
revenue uncertainties are related to income from heat sales and biowaste
valorization. The impact of the main cost and revenue uncertainties on plant
profitability is further quantified using a sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.

54
Depreciations have been linearly derived from the total capital investment over the whole
investment lifetime. The total capital investment was estimated with the help of the Multiplier
Values Method and relates to all main equipment acquisition costs.
55
A dedicated methodology for estimating regional energy crop costs in each Federal State was
developed and is presented in section 6.6.1.

169
7 Model-based analysis of current
electricity production from biogas
in Germany
The objective of this chapter is to present and analyse the results of the
simulation model concerning current electricity production from biogas in
Germany. The simulation model aims to identify the most profitable biogas
plant sizes under various legal frameworks. These installations correspond to
the plants showing the highest specific operating profit determined under a
variable and differentiated biomass input mass flow. In section 7.1
correlations linking the electricity production costs and revenues to the
installed electric power are established. They result from the combination of
technical correlations obtained by the process simulation model in chapter 4
with the economic input data specified in chapter 6. In a further step
correlation involving specific operating profits as a function of the installed
electric power are then derived in section 7.2 under the legal frameworks of
the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014. In each case the most profitable plant sizes are
identified. The costs and revenues structure of these plant sizes is then
assessed in section 7.3. A further sensitivity analysis realized in section 7.4
aims to identify and quantify the main profitability drivers. In section 7.5 a
technical assessment of the most profitable plant sizes is carried out and has
for objective to determine for each installation biological and global energetic
efficiencies all along the biogas supply chain. A discussion of the methodology
and results follows in section 7.6 emphasizing pros and cons of the simulation
model employed. Based on the model results policy recommendations and
strategic outcomes are then formulated for biogas plant operators and
decision-makers in section 7.7. Chapter 7 ends with a summary in section 7.8.

171
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

7.1 Costs and revenues functions

The economic model input data described in chapter 6 is combined with the
correlations derived from the process simulation in chapter 4. This provides
costs and revenues functions linking each specific cost and revenues position,
expressed in ct/kWhel , to the electric installed power in kWel (Figures 7-1
and 7-2). The results are shown for EM plants and analysed in the following.
The results for E and B plants are mentioned in Figures A-17, A-18, A-19, A-
20, A-21 and A-22 of the Appendix. Regarding the investment-related costs a
first domain going from 0 to 75 kWel can be defined and corresponds to small
installations valorizing manure in mono-digestion processes. A gap in the
specific investment-related costs is observed when moving from 75 kWel to
100 kWel, due to a technological change for plants larger than 75 kWel .
Starting from 100 kWel, manure is therefore valorized with energy crops in co-
digestion plants which requires another fermenter type and generates higher
specific investment56. Due to scale effect, a strong decrease of the specific
investment-related costs occurs from 100 to 1,000 kWel . Starting from about
2,000 kWel , a stabilization is observed mainly due to the fact that
supplementary fermenters and CHPs are required57. Specific maintenance
costs for both baseload and flexible CHPs decrease for plant sizes up to 2,000
kWel . For larger sizes costs stabilize as supplementary CHP gas engines are
employed.

The evolution of specific personnel costs is characterized by size effects in

each of the power ranges [0:75 kWel ] and [100:20,000 kWel ]. In the power
range [0:75 kWel ] personnel costs correspond to 4% of the total capital
investment according to [234]. Additional costs for laboratory analyses at
1,000 €/a are further considered [234].

In the case of EEG 2014 flexibilization costs of 40 €/kWel apply starting from
an installed capacity of 150 kWel . These costs remain constant up to 20,000

56
For more information see the evolution of the specific investment in Figure 6.6.
57
The maximal unit size for one CHP is set in the present work at 2,000 kWel.

172
 7.1 Costs and revenues functions

kWel at a value of about 1.13 ct/kWhel . No biomass feedstock costs are

related to small-scale manure plants inferior to 75 kWel as no energy crops
and only manure is valorized into biogas. Average energy crop costs of about
7.07 ct/kWhel are taken into account starting from 100 kWel 58 and remain
stable all along the capacity bandwidth. Energy crop costs are then supposed
to not be linked to the plant size but rather to the plant location, i.e., to the
Federal States. This regionalization is further integrated in the optimization
model developed at the Federal State level.

ct/kWhel
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Investment related costs Process utilities costs
Electricity consumption costs Flexibilization costs
CHP maintenance costs Biomass feedstock costs
Personnel costs Transport costs

Figure 7.1: Specific annual costs for EM plants as a function of the electric power for the base
year 2015 and under EEG 2014

The specific revenues for electricity sale can be divided into the EEG-
subsidies, the EPEX monthly average and the EPEX-Peak electricity sale price
accrued from electricity direct marketing. Their evolution is represented in
Figure 7-2. For small-scale manure plants with an installed power between 0

58
This energy crop costs value represents the average of all regional energy crop costs determined
for the base year 2015 for EM plants (see section 6.6.1.9).

173
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

and 75 kWel no direct electricity marketing model is considered. Plant

operators thus receive a constant revenue level of 23.53 ct/kWhel for the
produced electricity according to [106]. For plants larger than 75 kWel the
subsidy cut for energy crops and manure applies. This explains the strong
variation for the specific electricity sale revenues visible on Figure 7-2. The
electricity direct marketing model applies starting from 100 kWel with an
EPEX-Peak electricity price at about 43.13 €/MWhel and a monthly average
EPEX-Base electricity price at about 31.68 €/MWhel [12]. Specific revenues
from heat sale slightly increase with the plant size. Thermal own
requirements decrease with the plant size which implies an increase of the
valorization rate for the produced heat and consequently of the specific heat
sale revenues. Specific revenues for digestate sale are assumed to remain
stable at 6 €/t according to [228]. The conversion of this value in ct/kWhel
implies a slight revenue decrease as the plant size increases. This is justified
by an increase in plant electric efficiency with plant size [150]. Finally, the
flexibility supplement amounts to 40 €/kWel for plants larger than 150 kWel
and remains stable as the operating hours of flexible installations stays
constant at about 4,713 h/a.

174
 7.1 Costs and revenues functions

ct/kWhel
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Revenues for electricity sale Heat sale revenues
Revenues for digestate sale Flexibility supplement

Figure 7.2: Specific annual revenues for EM plants as a function of the electric power for the
base year 2015 and under EEG 2014

The evolution of total specific revenues and total specific electricity

production costs is represented in Figure 7-3. This leads to the identification
of profitability and unprofitability domains59. “Breakeven points” are
determined in cases where specific revenues are equal to the electricity
production costs. The results of Figure 7-3 show that for EM plants specific
electricity production costs remain higher than the specific revenues starting
from 75 kWel . No profitable operation for the EM plants is possible above
this capacity size.

59
A profitability domain corresponds to the case where specific revenues are higher than specific
electricity production costs. An unprofitability domain refers to the case where specific electricity
production costs are higher than revenues.

175
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

ct/kWhel
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Electricity production costs Revenues

Figure 7.3: Specific electricity production costs and revenues for EM plants as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2015 and under EEG 2014

7.2 Identification of most profitable plant sizes

Based on the previously described input data and methodology, the model
results are presented under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 frameworks. In each case
the evolution of the specific operating profit as a function of the installed
electric power is shown. Most profitable plant sizes can be identified and
correspond to the highest specific operating profit values. The costs and
revenues structure for the most profitable plant sizes is then assessed. In
addition, sensitivity analyses quantify in each case the impact of the main
fundamental drivers on biogas plants profitability.

176
 7.2 Identification of most profitable plant sizes

7.2.1 Results under the EEG 2012 framework

The results under the EEG 2012 framework are illustrated in Figure 7-4. Small-
scale manure plants, with an installed electric power lower than 75 kWel ,
appear there as the most profitable option. This plant type shows the highest
specific operating profit at about 10.85 ct/kWhel . For plant sizes up to 900
kWel the co-digestion of energy crops with manure systematically leads to the
highest profitability. Starting from 900 kWel biowaste plants turn out to be
the most economically attractive option. A maximal specific operating profit
at about 9.29 ct/kWhel for a 3,000 kWel installation is thereby reached.
Finally, the valorization of energy crops in mono-digestion plants remains the
least profitable alternative. The operating profits are in that case less than 4
ct/kWhel and become negative above 7 MWel of installed electric power.

ct/kWhel
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2 10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
EM plant E plant B plant

Figure 7.4: Plant specific operating profit as a function of the electric power for the base year
2013 and under EEG 2012

7.2.2 Results under the EEG 2014 framework

Under EEG 2014 energy crops and manure co-digestion plants display the
highest specific operating profits up to an installed power of 550 kWel (Figure

177
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

7-5). For larger capacities biowaste plants become the most profitable
installation type. A maximal specific operating profit at about 6.54 ct/kWhel
for a 3,000 kWel plant is reached in this case. Manure plants, smaller than 75
kWel , do remain the most economically attractive installation type with a
corresponding maximal operating profit of about 8.95 ct/kWhel . Agricultural
plants larger than 75 kWel using energy crops with manure in co-digestion or
employing energy crops in mono-digestion processes are then analysed.
These plants appear as unprofitable over the whole capacity bandwidth, i.e.,
from 0 to 20,000 kWel . This unprofitability mainly results from the energy
crops subsidy cut which was defined in the framework of EEG 2014.

ct/kWhel
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2 10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
EM plant E plant B plant

Figure 7.5: Plant specific operating profit as a function of the electric power for the base year
2015 and under EEG 2014

As a result of the simulation model following most profitable plant types and
sizes can be identified (see Table 7-1).

178
 7.3 Costs and revenues structure

Table 7.1: Most profitable plant types and sizes under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 frameworks

Plant Most profitable size (kWel) Corresponding specific

type operating profit
(ct/kWhel)
Plant B 3,000 9.29
EEG 2012 Plant EM 75 (small manure plants) 10.85

Plant E 900 4.01

Plant B 3,000 6.54
EEG 2014 Plant EM 75 (small manure plants) 8.95
Plant E 2,000 -0.97

From EEG 2012 to EEG 2014 a profit loss of -2.75 ct/kWhel is observed for the
most profitable B plant size. This is mainly due to lower electricity sale
revenues observed in the year 2015 than in 2013. A drastic profitability loss
of -4.98 ct/kWhel is observed from the EEG 2012 to EEG 2014 for E plants due
to the energy crops subsidy cut enacted by the German Federal Government.
Finally, a slight profitability loss of -1.9 ct/kWhel between the two EEG
versions applies to small manure plants characterized by a size of 75 kWel .
This installation type remains however profitable with a specific operating
profit close to 9 ct/kWhel under EEG 2014. The results show that the EEG
2014 framework is generally less economically favourable than the version of
2012.

7.3 Costs and revenues structure

The most profitable plant sizes for each installation type are economically
assessed in the framework of a costs versus revenues analysis. For a given
plant type and size all specific costs and revenues positions involved are
detailed and compared with each other. This enables the identification of
major costs and revenues drivers impacting the plant profitability. The results

179
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

are shown below for each plant type exemplarily under the EEG 2014 legal
framework.

7.3.1 Energy crops and manure plants

Under EEG 2014, the most profitable capacity size for EM plants is 75 kWel .
Investment-related costs are in that case the main driver in the total
electricity production costs with a contribution at about 7.2 ct/kWhel (Figure
7-6). The other main costs positions are personnel, electricity consumption
and CHP maintenance costs. These costs positions have been estimated at
about 3 ct/kWhel , 2.67 ct/kWhel and 1.96 ct/kWhel respectively on the basis
of the correlations in Figure 7-1. Costs for utilities only play a minor role with
a contribution lower than 1 ct/kWhel . About 96% of the total revenues comes
from electricity sale and is estimated at about 23.53 ct/kWhel The other
revenue position corresponds to heat sale estimated at about 0.88 ct/kWhel .
Total electricity production costs for the most profitable EM plant size
amount to 15.47 ct/kWhel and the corresponding specific operating profit is
determined at a value of 8.95 ct/kWhel .

180
 7.3 Costs and revenues structure

Most profitable EM plant size: 75 kWel

ct/kWhel
30

25
Specific operating
20 profit: 8.95 ct/kWhel

15

10

0
Specific costs Specific revenues
Revenues for electricity sale Heat sale revenues
Investment-related costs Process utilities costs
Personnel costs CHP maintenance costs
Electricity consumption costs

Figure 7.6: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable EM plant size under EEG 2014

7.3.2 Energy crops plants

In the case of energy crops mono-digestion the main costs positions are
represented by the biomass feedstock costs (8.05 ct/kWhel ) and by the
investment-related costs (3.93 ct/kWhel ) (Figure 7-7). The costs for utilities,
personnel, maintenance, biomass transport and the costs for flexible
electricity production only play a minor role in the economic balance. From
the revenues side the main contributors are the electricity sale with about
10.62 ct/kWhel and the heat sale generating a specific revenue of 2.25
ct/kWhel . Revenues for digestate sale and from the flexibility supplement
have a low influence on the plant profitability. The electricity production costs
for the most profitable plant size are estimated at about 16.19 ct/kWhel . A
corresponding negative specific operating profit is therefore observed at a
level of -0.97 ct/kWhel .

181
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

ct/kWhel Most profitable E plant size: 2,000 kWel

18

16 Specific operating
profit: -0.97 ct/kWhel
14

12

10

0
Specific costs Specific revenues

Revenues for electricity sale Revenues for digestate sale Heat sale revenues
Flexibility premium Investment-related costs Biomass feedstock costs
Process utilities costs Flexibilization costs Personnel costs
CHP maintenance costs Electricity consumption costs Transport costs

Figure 7.7: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable E plant size under EEG 2014

7.3.3 Biowaste plants

As shown in Figure 7-8, the electricity production costs for the most profitable
biowaste plant size are mainly driven by the digestate treatment costs (11.89
ct/kWhel ) and by the investment-related costs (8.54 ct/kWhel ). The costs
positions for maintenance, process utilities, electricity consumption,
personnel, biomass transport and for flexible electricity production only play
a minor role. The main revenues positions concern the fee revenue for
biowaste valorization into biogas (17.62 ct/kWhel ) and electricity sale (10.6
ct/kWhel ). Revenues from compost and heat sale and from the flexibility
premium only have a small influence on the plant profitability. The electricity
production costs for the most profitable biowaste plant size amount

182
 7.4 Sensitivity analysis

approximatively to 25.64 ct/kWhel . A corresponding specific operating profit

of about 6.54 ct/kWhel is determined.

ct/kWhel Most profitable plant size: 3,000 kWel

35
30 Specific operating
profit: 6.54 ct/kWhel
25
20
15
10
5
0
Specific costs Specific revenues
Revenues for electricity sale Revenues for compost sale
Heat sale revenues Flexibility premium
Investment-related costs Revenues for biowaste valorization
Costs for utilities Costs for flexible electricity production
Personnel costs Maintenance costs
Electricity consumption costs Biowaste transport costs
Digestate treatment costs

Figure 7.8: Costs versus revenues for the most profitable B plant size under EEG 2014

7.4 Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis aims to quantify the impact of a variation of the main
cost and revenue drivers on biogas plant profitability. The results are
represented for each plant type in Figures 7-9, 7-10 and 7-11. The specific
operating profit values are represented on the ordinate-axis as a function of
the variation rate of main profitability drivers on the abscissa-axis (in %).

183
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

7.4.1 Sensitivity analysis for energy crops and manure

plants

The impacts of a variation of main profitability drivers on EM plant

profitability are visible in Figure 7-9. The revenues from the electricity sale
and the investment-related costs have the highest influence. For example, a
decrease of about -20% of the revenues for the electricity sale leads to a
profit-ability loss of about 4.8 ct/kWhel . An increase of 40% of the
investment-related costs leads to a profitability loss of almost 3 ct/kWhel .

ct/kWhel

25
20
15
10
5
0
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
-5
Domain of variation
-10
Electricity consumption costs Investment-related costs
Maintenance costs Personnel costs
Revenues for electricity sale

Figure 7.9: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable EM plant size under EEG 2014

7.4.2 Sensitivity analysis for energy crops plants

For the most profitable E plant size an increase of about 30% of the EPEX-Peak
electricity price leads to a profitable situation. Similarly, a decrease of -13%
of the energy crop costs generates a positive specific operating profit. Finally,
if the investment-related costs decrease by about -20%, then the E plant
becomes profitable (Figure 7-10).

184
 7.4 Sensitivity analysis

ct/kWhel
4
3
2
1
0
-1-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
-2
-3 Domain of variation
-4
-5
-6

Yearly average EPEX Peak electricity price Revenues for digestate sale

Heat sale revenues Investment-related costs

Biomass feedstock costs Yearly average EPEX Base electricity price

Figure 7.10: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable E plant size under EEG 2014

7.4.3 Sensitivity analysis for biowaste plants

The profitability of biowaste plants is mainly driven by revenues for biowaste

valorization, by the investment-related costs and by digestate treatment
costs. A decrease of about 38% in the revenues for biowaste valorization
would lead to unprofitability. If the investment-related costs are lowered by
about -40% then the biowaste plant benefits from a specific operating profit
increase of about 3.4 ct/kWhel . Finally, an increase of about 55% of the
digestate treatment costs would create an unprofitable situation (Figure 7-
11).

185
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

ct/kWhel
20

15

10

0
-60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60%
-5
Domain of variation

-10
Yearly average EPEX Peak electricity price
Heat sale revenues
Investment-related costs
Revenues for biowaste valorization
Digestate treatment costs
Yearly average EPEX Base electricity price

Figure 7.11: Sensitivity analysis for the most profitable B plant size under EEG 2014

7.5 Technical assessment

The aim of this section is to assess the energetic efficiency of the most
profitable biogas plant sizes that have been previously analysed. In the
planning and design phases of a biogas installation project the plant energetic
efficiency calculation appears to be an important step. It enables the
identification of energetically optimal plant concepts. For this the biological
efficiency, related to the anaerobic digesters, and the fuel efficiency have to
be determined. The chemical energy amounts contained in the biomass
feedstock and in biogas are first estimated. This estimation is based on
feedstock lower heating values drawn from literature data and on the input
and output mass and volume flows from the simulation model. The biological

186
 7.5 Technical assessment

efficiency, characterizing the energetic efficiency of the anaerobic digestion

process, is then determined following Eq. 7.1.

𝐸𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑉̇𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 ∙ 𝐻𝑔,𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠

𝜂𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑙 = 𝐸𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘
= 𝑚̇𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘 ∙ 𝐻𝑙,𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘
(7.1)

With:

𝐸𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 : chemical energy contained in the produced biogas

(kWh)

𝐸𝐶ℎ𝑒𝑚𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘 : chemical energy contained in the biomass

feedstock (kWh)

̇
𝑉𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 : annual biogas output volume flow (𝑚3 /a)

𝐻𝑔,𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 : biogas gross calorific value (kWh/𝑚3 )

𝑚̇𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘 : annual biomass feedstock input (t/a)

𝐻𝑙,𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑐𝑘 : biomass feedstock lower heating value (kWh/t)

In the case of the most profitable EM plant size employing about 10,270 t/a
of manure in mono-digestion the biogas produced amounts about 0.32
million m3 /a and a biogas gross calorific value of 5.48 kWh/m3 60 is assumed.
The lower heating value for manure is estimated at about 0.72 MJ/kg
according to [235] on the basis of 70.3% moisture content. For the most
profitable biowaste plant size, about 9.19 million m3 biogas is produced
annually from the fermentation of 74,750 t/a of biowaste and the biogas
gross calorific value amounts in that case to 5.98 kWh/m3 biogas. The
biowaste lower heating value is estimated at about 5 MJ/kg i.e., 1,389 kWh/t
[236]. At the gate of the fermenter about 35,421 t agricultural feedstock are

60
The biogas gross calorific value is derived from the one of natural gas (9.97 kWh/m3 ) and from
the methane content in biogas. The methane content assumed for each feedstock can be found in
Table 6.1.

187
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

transformed annually into 7.78 million m3 biogas in the most profitable E

plant size. The biogas gross calorific value amounts there to 5.28 kWh/m3
and the energy crops lower heating has been estimated at about 6.61 MJ/kg 61
i.e. 1,836 kWh/t.

The fuel efficiency in then given by Eq. 7.2:

𝐸𝐿𝐵𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑜 − 𝑅𝑒𝑙,𝑜𝑤𝑛 + 𝑄𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙

𝜂𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 = 𝐸𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑚,𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠
(7.2)

With:

- 𝐸𝐿𝐵𝑟𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑜 : Gross electricity amount (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 )

- 𝑅𝑒𝑙,𝑜𝑤𝑛 : electrical own-requirements (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 )

- 𝑄𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 : useful CHP-heat (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑡ℎ )

- 𝐸𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑚,𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑔𝑎𝑠 : chemical energy contained in the burned biogas (kWh)

The following electric and thermal efficiencies, and external heat use rates
are further assumed for the most profitable sizes according to [150], [224],
[226] (Table 7-2).

61
The fermenter input mix of the most profitable E plant size is made up of 20,544 t/a maize
silage, 7,084 t/a grass silage, 7,084 t/a cereal silage and 708 t/a cereal grains. The energy crops
lower heating values correspond to 6.7 MJ/kg for maize silage [237], 6.1 MJ/kg for grass silage
[238], 6.2 MJ/kg for cereal silage [239] and 13.1 MJ/kg for cereal grains [240].

188
 7.5 Technical assessment

Table 7.2: Assumed electric and thermal efficiencies and external heat use rates [150], [224],
[226]

Plant Most Electric Thermal Electric own Thermal own Rate for
Type profitable CHP CHP requirements requirements external
plant size efficiencies62 efficiencies heat use
EM 75 kWel 34.47% 51.76% 6.1% 42.3% 57%
B 3,000 Existing: 41% 7.1% 18.4% 57%
kWel 42.4%
New flexible:
39.47%
E 2,000 Existing: 40.65% 7.1% 18.4% 57%
kWel 42.69%
New flexible:
39.75%

The gross electricity amount is determined for base-load existing CHPs with
8,000 full-load hours per year and for the new flexible CHPs running about
4,713 h/a63. The useful heat corresponds to the share of the produced heat
which is finally used by external heat sinks (and not for plant own
requirements).

The global efficiency of each plant can be thus derived from Eq. 7.3:

𝜂𝐺𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 = 𝜂𝐵𝑖𝑜𝑙 ∙ 𝜂𝐹𝑢𝑒𝑙 (7.3)

Table 7-3 sums up the results from the energetic assessment for the most
profitable plant sizes.

62
Electric CHP-efficiencies for most profitable plant sizes have been determined based on the
values set out in Figure A-15 in the Appendix for both existing base-load and new flexible
capacities.
63
Flexible CHP are assumed to run at 4,713 h/a according to the value given in Table A.3 in the
Appendix.

189
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

Table 7.3: Results from the energetic assessment of agricultural and biowaste plants

Plant Input Biogas Electricity Plant Biological Fuel Global

type feedstock volume and size efficiency efficiency plant
mass (t/a) flow useful (kWel) (%) (%) energetic
(million heat efficiency
m3/a) amount (%)
EM 10,270 0.32 Gross
electricity 75 85.4 49.4 42.2
production
0.6 GWhel

Useful
heat
amount
0.29
GWhth
B 74,750 9.19 Gross
electricity 3,000 52.9 58.7 31
production
23.34
GWhel

Useful
heat
amount
10.59
GWhth
E 35,421 7.78 Gross
electricity 2,000 63.2 52.2 32.9
production
15.56
GWhel

Useful
heat
amount
7 GWhth

The results of Table 7-3 related to the technical assessment of most profitable
plant sizes indicates that small-scale manure installations are the most
energetically efficient plants. These outcomes should be however considered
with caution as the energetic plant concept can strongly vary from an

190
 7.6 Discussion of methodology and results

installation to another (e.g., regarding heat valorization strategies or energy

own requirements). For comparison in [241] a 500 kWel biogas plant
valorizing maize silage and wheat shows a global energetic efficiency of about
39%. In [242] a 760 kWel plant using biowaste with sewage sludge has a
global energetic efficiency of about 32%. Finally, in [243] a 250 kWel
agricultural plant employing maize in mono-digestion has a global energetic
efficiency estimated at about 20%.

7.6 Discussion of methodology and results

7.6.1 Methodology

The objective of the simulation model is to identify the most profitable biogas
plant sizes under a variable and differentiated biomass feedstock input. In
order to achieve this an economic assessment coupled to a process simulation
is carried out. After a calibration step of all components of the biogas plant a
simulation of plant profitability is realized under a variation of the biomass
input mass flow. This enables the identification of plant sizes showing the
highest specific operating profit values (defined as the most profitable plant
sizes). This simulative approach has pros and cons which are analysed in detail
in the following.

Positive aspects concerning the methodology employed are firstly linked to

fermenter calibration. Before launching the simulations, fermenters were
calibrated by specifying methane formation rates for each plant type in the
SuperPro Designer interface. These rates lead to specific biogas yields in line
with the values defined in the German Biomass Ordinance and used in order
to determine the EEG subsidies. Consequently, the underlying model for
biogas production corresponds to the economic reality defined by the
German Biomass Ordinance. A second aspect concerns the choice of the
simulation variable represented by the biomass input mass flow. Biomass
input mass flows are generally the main entry parameter for a basic biogas

191
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

plant design. They have a direct influence on the biogas plant size and
consequently on the installation profitability. They represent thus an
adequate simulation variable in order to identify most profitable biogas plant
sizes. The economic assessment was carried out by considering specific
operating profits as a profitability indicator. Specific operating profits
represent a valuable economic indicator for analysing the profitability of a
biogas plant on a given year. They can then easily lead to the identification of
the most economically attractive installations. Complementarily to the
economic assessment a sensitivity analysis was carried out and clearly
identifies and quantifies the main profitability drivers in each plant type. The
performed sensitivity analysis assesses the robustness of the plant
profitability and represents then a valuable approach for integrating input
data uncertainties in the economic evaluation.

Disadvantages linked to the employed simulation model should however be

pointed out. A first aspect refers to the biogas production modelling which is
in reality not only dependent on biochemical reactions and kinetics occurring
in the anaerobic digester. The impact of process inhibitions, such as over-
acidification or scum build-up, should also be taken into account. These
aspects are however specific to each digester and cannot be systematized in
the present work. The process simulation is further done under steady state,
i.e., not time dependent. A subsequent work could consist of modelling the
anaerobic digestion process under dynamic and time-dependent conditions.
Process regulation systems and the temporal evolution of the bacteria
community inside the fermenter could thus be integrated into the simulation
model. Existing models of anaerobic digestion processes, such as the
Anaerobic Digester Model 1, could be further implemented into the present
process simulation [244]. This would enable the estimation of the biogas yield
as a function of substrate elementary composition and milieu conditions. For
this purpose, the specified reaction kinetic constants should however be
validated by biological experiments for instance.

192
 7.6 Discussion of methodology and results

The results of the simulation model enable a systemic economic assessment

of three different biogas plant types under a variable biomass input mass
flow. However, this systematization must be carried out with caution as each
single plant is defined in practice by a specific operation plan. Strictly speaking
each single existing plant in Germany should be economically evaluated. This
would confirm or invalidate the correlations determined here between the
specific operating profit and plant sizes. Nevertheless, access to information
regarding the specific operating profit of existing German biogas plants
remains very difficult. A high level of confidentiality is observed among
German biogas plant operators who generally will not deliver economic
information. The calculations have been further realized under ceteris paribus
conditions. From a simulation step to another certain specific costs and
revenues have been assumed as constant. These positions concern the
specific energy crop costs and the specific fee revenues for biowaste
valorization (expressed in €/t). Specific energy crop costs vary from one
Federal State to another but are not correlated to biogas plant size or to
valorized biomass amount in the present model. Specific biowaste fee
revenues are fixed at a constant level of 60 €/t for each plant size and in all
Federal States. In practice, these ceteris paribus conditions do not apply as
each single biogas plant is characterized by own specific energy crop costs
and by own biowaste fee revenues dependent on local market conditions.
Another aspect concerns the EPEX-Peak electricity price level that has been
used in the case of electricity direct marketing. For the year 2013 it is assumed
that the plant operators sell the electricity produced for 43.13 €/MWhel [12].
A sales price of about 35.09 €/MWhel is further assumed for the year 2015
[12]. In practice the EPEX prices level for the sold electricity is depending on
plant operator’s strategy and cannot be systematized. This is the source of a
data uncertainty which is taken into account in a sensitivity analysis realized
in section 7.4. Figure 7-12 sums up the pros and cons regarding the
methodology employed for the analysis of current electricity production from
biogas in Germany.

193
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

Figure 7.12: Pros and cons regarding the methodology employed for the analysis of current
electricity production from biogas in Germany

194
 7.6 Discussion of methodology and results

7.6.2 Validation and critique of results

A validation of the model results can be carried out by comparing the

observed specific operating values with literature data. From 0 to 75 kWel
small-scale manure plants appear as the most profitable installation type
both under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 framework. According to model results a
75 kWel manure plant displays a specific operating profit of about 8.89
ct/kWhel under EEG 2014 framework. This high profitability level is in line
with literature data. A specific operating profit of about 9.5 ct/kWhel is
estimated in [116] which is close to the model results. For small-scale to mid-
scale plant sizes going from 75 to 800 kWel , agricultural plants appear as the
most profitable option. In particular EM plants employing energy crops and
manure are the most economically attractive which highlights the economic
benefits of co-digestion. These results are in accordance with the observed
past development of biogas in Germany.

The political willingness has been to strongly develop agricultural co-digestion

plants through the energy crops and manure bonuses included in the
subsidies up to EEG 2012. For plant sizes up to 800 kWel the specific operating
profits observed are coherent with the literature data. In [245] specific
operating profits for agricultural and biowaste plant types are determined
under EEG 2009 and for the year 2010. The specific operating profit of a 300
kWel agricultural co-digestion plant valorizing energy crops and manure
amounts there to about 4 ct/kWhel . In the present work EM plants with a
size of 300 kWel show a specific operating profit of about 1.5 ct/kWhel under
the EEG 2012 framework. The difference observed between the two values
can be explained by an important energy crop costs increase between the
year 2010 and the year 2013. In [246] a maize silage cost of 25 €/t is assumed
whereas a much higher cost at 35.9 €/t is considered in the present work for
the year 2013.

For plant sizes larger than 550 kWel biowaste valorization appears to be the
most profitable option. No literature study mentioning specific operating

195
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

profits for mid-scale to large-scale biowaste plants currently exists. In

particular a difficulty remains concerning the estimation of total revenues for
large-scale biowaste plants which are mainly driven by revenues from the
biowaste valorization into biogas. This last information is often kept
confidential by biowaste plant operators. Nevertheless, the observed
profitability can be justified by analysing the main costs and revenues
positions given the valorized biowaste amount. Contrary to agricultural plants
biowaste installations benefit from a fee revenue for the feedstock
valorization into biogas.

The biowaste mass amount also generates costs for the treatment of the
produced digestate. As shown by the sensitivity analysis in section 7.4.3 the
revenues from the biowaste valorization and the digestate treatment costs
represent the main plant profitability drivers. In the model calculations 60 €/t
was assumed for the biowaste valorization revenues whereas 44.6 €/t should
be taken into account for the digestate treatment costs. Revenues for
biowaste valorization are then higher than digestate treatment costs which
implies that profitability increases with the plant size. The results reveal
however a profitability decrease starting from 3,000 kWel plant sizes. This can
be explained by major biowaste transport costs increase as mentioned in
Figure A-20 of the Appendix. In the case of large-scale biowaste plants the
effects of the costs for biowaste transport and for the digestate treatment are
then stronger than the effect of the bio-waste valorization revenues.

The economic analysis of EEG 2014 plants smaller than 150 kWel can be
compared to that done for EEG 2017. Indeed, under EEG 2017, biogas plants
with capacity smaller than 150 kWel are not involved in the tendering
procedure [112]. These plant sizes benefit from Feed-In-Tariffs up to 100
kWel and then from the electricity direct marketing model up to 150 kWel .
Figure 7-13 compares the revenue levels from electricity sales for each of the
three plant types under both EEG 2014 and EEG 2017. In all plant types a very
slight decrease is observed between EEG 2014 and EEG 2017. Just as under
EEG 2014, the EEG 2017 framework offers economically attractive framework

196
 7.6 Discussion of methodology and results

conditions for plant sizes smaller than 75 kWel valorizing manure in mono-
digestion. On the other hand, the economic situation still remains
unprofitable for plants smaller than 150 kWel using energy crops and/or
biowaste.

ct/kWhel
30

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 kWel
EM plant EEG 2014 EM plant EEG 2017 B plant EEG 2014
B plant EEG 2017 E plant EEG 2014 E plant EEG 2017

Figure 7.13: Comparison of revenues from the electricity sale in each plant type under EEG 2014
and EEG 2017 subsidy schemes for installations smaller than 150 𝐤𝐖𝐞𝐥

In summary the model results for agricultural biogas plants in Germany

appear to be plausible under both past and present legal framework
conditions. In the case of biowaste plants the trend observed corresponds to
economic reality. The profitability of biowaste plants is favorably influenced
by biowaste mass flow increases up to a certain critical point64. For biowaste
mass flows larger than this amount profitability decreases due to strongly
increasing transport costs. For plants smaller than 150 kWel the new EEG
2017 legal framework has only a very slight negative impact on profitability
compared with the results observed under EEG 2014.

64
This critical biowaste mass flow is estimated at about 81,250 t/a for a 3,000 kWel plant size.

197
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

The model results should of course not be used as a substitute for detailed
profitability assessment considering in particular real data and taking into
account plant specific operation concepts.

7.7 Model outcomes evaluation

7.7.1 Policy recommendations

In light of the model results policy recommendations can be formulated for

decision-makers as well as for local and national authorities. A first
recommendation concerns revenue for biowaste plants. The results of the
present work show that biowaste plants with installed power inferior to 550
𝑘𝑊𝑒𝑙 are still unprofitable. In order to contribute to the development of small
decentralized biowaste installations, revenue for biowaste plants should be
increased. The construction and operation of small decentralized biowaste
plants can improve the sustainability and acceptability of biogas in
Germany65. A possibility for a revenue augmentation would consist in
increasing the revenues related to biowaste valorization at the gate of the
biowaste plants. These specific fee revenues, expressed in €/t, are paid by
municipalities to biogas plant operators. The fee revenues level should at
least cover the costs for the digestate treatment in composting units. In the
present work fee revenues at about 60 €/t have been used in all calculations.
An increase of this value would generate a profitable situation for small to
mid-scale biowaste plants. For this a better implication of municipal
stakeholders involved in biowaste plants projects is necessary. Local and
decentralized biowaste valorization strategies should thereby be developed
in order to contribute to the creation of a circular bioeconomy.

65
The valorization of biowaste into biogas does not compete with critical pathways such as the
food value chain. A “food versus fuel” debate can therefore be avoided which is not the case for
agricultural plants. Moreover biowaste installations generally show a lower greenhouse gas
potential than the agricultural plants [164].

198
 7.7 Model outcomes evaluation

The subsidies cut applied to energy crops in the framework of EEG 2014 slows
down the development of agricultural plants. More precisely all agricultural
plants larger than 75 kWel appear to be unprofitable under the EEG 2014
framework. The profitability of agricultural plants could be further improved
if agricultural residues were valorized (e.g., from wheat straw or corn). These
residues are available for free and are directly located on the site of the biogas
plant so that no or limited transport costs would appear in the economic
balance. A recommendation would be thus to develop agricultural plants
based on residues. This would also avoid “food versus fuel” competition.

The last policy recommendation concerns small-scale manure plants with

installed electric power lower than 75 kWel . The conservation in the
framework of EEG 2017 of the subsidy level for these plants appears as a
positive aspect and must be maintained in the future. According to the results
of the simulation model the most profitable biogas plants are of this
installation type with a size of 75 kWel . This plant category only valorizes
manure in mono-digestion processes so that no competition with the food
supply chain occurs. Environmental benefits are further generated due to
manure anaerobic digestion [164]. Therefore, the future development of
small-scale manure plants should continue to be politically fostered and
encouraged.

7.7.2 Strategic outcomes

Some other considerations apart from the effectiveness of German energy

policy measures can be formulated. They concern the strategical planning,
operation and maintenance of biogas plants. The planning phase of a biogas
plant must take into account the presence of heat sinks in the proximity of
the construction site. The heat produced by CHP-units is not systematically
valorized which leads to process inefficiency and to an unprofitable economic
balance. In particular biowaste plants should be preferentially built in semi-
urban or urban areas in the proximity of important heat sinks like municipal
buildings, schools or swimming pools. Agricultural plants, generally located in

199
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

rural area, should be connected if possible, to heat networks in order to

distribute the heat produced to remote heat sinks.

The identification of optimal marketing channels for the digestate produced,

e.g., through sale as fertilizer or compost, generates supplementary
revenues. For this, sustainable and robust local value chains should be
established in particular in the context of circular bio-economies. A third
aspect concerns the flexible and strategic operation of biogas plants.
Adequate feedstock and gas storage management could lead to the operation
of “smart” biogas plants. In these plants a storage tank for the biomass input
feedstock would allow the production of biogas according to heat and
electricity demand and price. Similarly, the storage of the biogas produced
enables the operation of flexible and demand-oriented CHP units. This would
allow plant operators to burn the biogas produced in the CHP-unit in order to
produce electricity in times of high prices. The implementation of adequate
flexibilization strategies would then lead to a maximization of the revenues
from electricity sale.

On the costs side a major aspect concerns the definition of successful biomass
feedstock purchase strategies especially for agricultural plants employing
energy crops. As mentioned in [75] energy crop costs contribute to more than
half of the electricity production costs and represent a major profitability
driver for agricultural biogas plants. The high volatility characterizing, among
others, wheat and maize silage prices is a source of uncertainty for biogas
plant operators. Hedging strategies have to be applied in order to minimize
the risks level. The negotiation of feedstock delivery contracts between
farmers and plant operators should therefore integrate this price volatility
[189].

Maintenance and personnel costs could be minimized through mutualization

effects. For example, in the case of agricultural plants personnel and
maintenance costs can be drastically reduced if the farmer operates and
maintains his biogas plant himself. This can be the case for small-scale manure
plants but more rarely for larger installations. Due to the complexity of

200
 7.7 Model outcomes evaluation

operating of a biogas plant these synergy effects are however not systematic
and farmers must often rely on external companies. Therefore, training
courses and continuing education programs should be offered to farmers for
instance in the field of process engineering, microbiology or energy
economics. This would increase their autonomy and further reduce the
operating costs of their biogas installations. In the case of biowaste plants
mutualization effects can also occur if a fermenter is added on the site of an
existing composting unit. The personnel employed on the composting plant
site could then be used for the operation and the maintenance of the
supplementary biogas plant. This would contribute to reduce personnel costs.
Optimization of the plant energy consumption coupled with strategic
purchase of the required electricity could further significantly lower the
energy costs and thus improve the plant’s economic balance.

Optimization of the biomass logistic supply chain especially regarding

transport costs minimization further reduces variable costs. In order to
minimize transport costs, the numbers of tractors employed e.g., in
agricultural plants, and the maximal collection radius should be carefully
defined. In agricultural plants a maximum collection radius of 20 km is
generally assumed. Larger distances lead to a strong increase of specific
transport costs which impacts plant profitability. Similarly, biowaste plant
operators should properly define the maximal collection radius of the
feedstock employed. Usually, biowaste collection and transport only occurs
in urban or peri-urban areas with distances up to 120 km from the plant
location site.

A last aspect concerns process microbiological inhibitions like scum formation

or over-acidification which can occur in anaerobic digesters. They have a
negative impact on the biogas production and also on the plant’s economic
balance. In [247] these inhibitions have generated a loss of about 3 ct/kWhel
on the specific operating profit for a 760 kWel biowaste plant. The use of anti-
foam and a good understanding of microbiological processes can limit
inhibitions and thus maximize biogas production.

201
7 Model-based analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany

7.8 Summary
The economic model input data detailed in section 6 leads to correlations
between the cost/revenues and the installed electric power for each of the
three assessed plant types (section 7.1). The results analysed in section 7.2
reveal a paradigm shift concerning the profitability of agricultural biogas
plants type. These installations are assessed as profitable under EEG 2012 and
show positive specific operating profits on the capacity bandwidth [250:7,500
kWel ]. Under the EEG 2014 framework all agricultural plant sizes larger than
75 kWel show negative operative profits and are thus identified as non-
profitable. This can be explained by the subsidy cut applied to energy crops
valorization under this legal framework.

Biowaste plants are the most profitable option under EEG 2014 for plant sizes
starting from 550 kWel . Small-scale manure plants with an installed power of
75 kWel represent the most attractive option with specific operating profits
higher than 8 ct/kWhel in both EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 legal frameworks.
Most profitable plant sizes are further identified in each plant type. For
example, under the EEG 2014 framework the most profitable biowaste plant
size relates to installations with an electric power of 3,000 kWel . The costs
and revenues structure of the most profitable sizes is analysed in section 7.3
and completed by a sensitivity analysis in section 7.4. In the case of the
agricultural EM type plants, the main profitability drivers are the EPEX-Peak
electricity price and the energy crop and investment-related costs. The
profitability of biowaste plants is mainly influenced by revenues from
biowaste valorization, by investment-related costs and by digestate
treatment costs. A technical assessment of the most profitable biogas plant
sizes is realized in section 7.5 in addition to the economic analysis. Biological
and global energetic efficiencies are determined all along the biogas supply
chain. The results show that small-scale manure plants display the highest
global energetic efficiency due to a high biological efficiency superior to 85%.
On the contrary the low biological efficiencies characterizing energy crops and
biowaste mono-digestion plants lead to lower global energetic efficiencies.

202
 7.8 Summary

The methodology and results of the simulation model are then discussed in
section 7.6. Pros and cons are highlighted concerning the modelling approach
and a plausibility control validates the obtained results which are in line with
current policy for biogas in Germany. The model results lead then to the
formulation of policy recommendations and strategic outcomes in section
7.7. Increasing valorization fee revenues for small to mid-scale biowaste
installations would facilitate the development of decentralized biowaste
plants and further generate local circular bio-economies. A fostered
development of manure-based installations would contribute to more
sustainable electricity production from biogas as these plant types offer
economic but also environmental benefits. Operating costs minimization and
revenue maximization measures are further presented as strategic outcomes
for plant operators.

203
8 Model-based analysis of future
electricity production from biogas
in Germany
The objective of this chapter is to analyse the results of the optimization
model relative to the evolution of future biogas capacity and electricity
production from biogas up to the year 2030 in Germany. In section 8.1 the
results are presented in the framework of a base scenario characterized by
the model input data described in chapter 6. The mid-term evolution of
electric capacity and electricity production are first shown at the Federal State
level for all plant types aggregated. In a second step the new built capacity
and the number of new built plants for each installation type are presented.
Further scenarios are assessed in section 8.2. They quantify the impact of a
strong variation of three main profitability drivers, i.e., the EPEX-Peak
electricity price, energy crop costs and biowaste valorization revenues on
future capacity developments. The methodology employed and results are
then discussed in section 8.3. Finally, the model results are used to formulate
policy recommendations and strategy outcomes for plant operators and
policymakers in section 8.4. Chapter 8 ends with a summary in section 8.5.

8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

In the results presentation, the biogas plant capacities are divided into new
built and existing base-load capacities distributed over the Federal States
(coloured bars), as well as into existing and new built flexible capacities (black
dotted bars). Base-load existing and new built capacities correspond to biogas
plants running 8,000 hours per year with a constant and non-flexible
electricity production. Flexible existing and new built capacities aim at a
demand-oriented electricity production from biogas and are running about

205
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

4,713 hours per year in part-load (see Table A-3 in the Appendix). According
to the operator models defined in Figure 6-2 flexibility applies to capacity
larger than 750 kWel under EEG 2012. In the case of the EEG 2014 framework
flexibility concerns plants having a capacity larger than 100 kWel .

8.1.1 Results at the Federal State level

As shown in Figure 8-1 and under the EEG 2012 framework, baseload capacity
should continuously increase, starting from about 3,832 MWel at the end of
2016 up to about 4,211 MWel in 2020 (see the coloured bars). The main
capacity developments should take place in the Federal States of Lower-
Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia. Starting from 2020 a general decrease
for base-load capacity is observed mainly due to the decommissioning plan
for biogas plants older than 20 years. These plants are thereby not subsidized
by the EEG framework anymore, which leads to unprofitability. The global
decommissioning plan would concern a total capacity of about 2,319 MWel at
the end of 2030. Finally, a global capacity of about 3,771 MWel is observed by
2030 of which 2,015 MWel concerns baseload installed capacity, 708 MWel
arise from the flexibilization of existing capacities in the year 2012 and 1,047
MWel relate to the flexibilization of new built capacity (see the black dotted
bars in Figure 8-1). At the end of the year 2030 the installations should mainly
be located in Lower-Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia with respective
capacity of about 486 MWel and 369 MWel .

Under EEG 2014 and as shown in Figure 8-1, base-load capacity should slightly
increase from about 3,664 MWel at the end of 2016 up to about 3,830 MWel
in 2020, especially in the Federal States of Lower-Saxony and North Rhine-
Westphalia (see the coloured bars). Starting from the year 2020 a generalized
base-load capacity decrease is observed in all Federal States mainly due to
the decommissioning process of biogas plants older than 20 years. At the end
of 2030 a total electric capacity of about 3,966 MWel is observed. From this
amount 1,905 MWel come from baseload installed capacity, 1,759 MWel are
derived from the flexibilization of existing capacity in the year 2014 and finally

206
 8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

302 MWel are issued the development of new built flexible capacity (black
dotted bars in Figure 8-1).

MWel
6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
BW BY

BB HE

MV NI

NRW RP

SL SN

ST SH

TH Supplementary capacities for existing plants

(flexible electricity production)
Supplementary capacities for new built plants
(flexible electricity production)

Figure 8.1: Regional total capacity evolution up to 2030 under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014

The evolution of electricity production from biogas in each Federal State is

represented in Figure 8-2. By 2030, about 16.55 TWhel should be produced
under EEG 2012 and about 18.13 TWhel under EEG 2014.

207
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

TWhel
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure 8.2: Regional total evolution of electricity production from biogas up to 2030 under EEG
2012 and EEG 2014

8.1.2 Results for energy crops and manure plants

Under the EEG 2012 framework, base-load installations with 8,000 full-load
hours per year and valorizing energy crops and manure are expected to
develop continuously up to the year 2020 (Figure 8-3). The main capacity
expansion occurs in North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower-Saxony and Bavaria. A
capacity expansion is viable in these Federal States as sufficient biomass
potentials remain available and the specific operating profits observed are
among the highest. At the end of 2020, the cumulated base-load capacity
expansion reaches about 705 MWel (coloured bars). After this time, there is
no further capacity expansion because the total biomass potentials of all the
Federal States are fully utilised. By 2030 a total new built capacity of about
1,271 MWel including supplementary flexible capacity (black dotted bar) is

208
 8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

observed. In addition to regional capacity expansion, Table 8-1 shows the

number of the main new built base-load plants by plant unit size.

MWel
1.400

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
BW BY
BB HE
MV NI
NRW RP
SL SN
ST SH
TH Cumulated supplementary flexible capacities

Figure 8.3: Regional cumulated new built capacities for EM plants up to 2030

New built capacity mainly concerns 900 kWel plants as they show the highest
specific operating profit values. As they are larger than 750 kWel these plants
can be operated under the electricity direct marketing model which appears
to be economically more attractive to plant operators than the Feed-In-Tariff
model relating to plants smaller than 750 kWel .

209
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

Table 8.1: Number of new built EM base-load plants according to their unit size under EEG
2012

Plant unit size Number of new built plants up to 2030

< 75 kWel 13

900 kWel 706

1,000 kWel 69

Under the EEG 2014 legal framework a total cumulated new built capacity for
EM plants of about 611 MWel , including new built baseload and new flexible
CHPs, is reached by 2030 (Figure 8-3). About 1,271 MWel are reached under
the EEG 2012 subsidy scheme. The much lower value observed under EEG
2014 is mainly explained by the cuts in the energy crops subsidies, which
came into effect on the 1st of August 2014, and drastically reduced agricultural
plant specific operating profits. Another explanation is related to the new
built flexible capacity which is clearly higher under the EEG 2012 than under
the EEG 2014 framework. Table 8-1 shows that under EEG 2012 most of the
new built plants are larger than 750 kWel and can thus benefit from
flexibilization according to the operator model defined in section 6.2.2. As
mentioned in Table 8-2 most of the new built installations under EEG 2014
are base-load manure plants with a size of 75 kWel . Following the operator
model defined under EEG 2014 these base-load capacities do not benefit from
flexibilization. This explains then the much lower new built flexible capacity
observed under EEG 2014 than under EEG 2012. A further analysis of the
observed results shows that the main capacity developments under EEG 2014
should take place in the Federal States of North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse and
Mecklenburg-West-Pomerania which display the highest specific operating
profit values for EM plants. A slow-down in capacity development occurs
starting from 2024, mainly due to biomass potentials depletion but also due
to plant unprofitability in several regions. A clear paradigm shift is also

210
 8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

observed in terms of unit sizes for the newly built plants. The cut of the energy
crops subsidy, applied in 2014, strongly lowers the number of new built plants
using energy crops. In contrast to the EEG 2012 framework, a major increase
of the number of new built small manure plants – not affected by the subsidy
cut – is foreseen (Table 8-2).

Table 8.2: Number of new built EM base-load plants according to their unit size under EEG
2014

Plant size Number of new built plants up to 2030

50 kWel 2

70 kWel 2

75 kWel 5,065

2,000 kWel 45

3,800 kWel 10

At the end of the year 2030 electricity production from new built EM plants
is estimated at about 5.65 𝑇𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 under the EEG 2012 framework and at
about 4.06 𝑇𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑙 under EEG 2014 (Figure 8-4).

211
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

TWhel
6

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure 8.4: Regional electricity production linked to new built EM plants up to 2030

8.1.3 Results for biowaste plants

The results are firstly analysed under the EEG 2012 framework. By the end of
2030, the total cumulated new built capacities for biowaste plants amount to
about 389 MWel of which 216 MWel are base-load CHPs (coloured bars) and
173 MWel flexible capacities (black dotted bar). The major capacity
expansions occur in Bavaria, North Rhine-Westphalia and Low-Saxony. Only
large-scale 3,000 kWel biowaste plants are newly built and the commissioning
of 72 new plants is predicted over the whole period.

212
 8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

MWel
500

400

300

200

100

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
BW BY
BB HE
MV NI
NRW RP
SL SN
ST SH
TH Cumulated supplementary flexible capacities

Figure 8.5: Regional cumulated new built capacities for B plants up to 2030

The results of Figure 8-5 reveal a stronger global capacity development under
the EEG 2014 framework than under the EEG 2012 version, with cumulated
new built capacity of about 448 MWel being reached by 2030. This stronger
evolution is mainly explained by a larger annual capacity expansion limit,
increased to 50 MWel in 2014 from 12 MWel in the year 2012. Table 8-3 shows
the new built B plant numbers observed at the end of 2030 under EEG 2014.
New built biowaste capacity should therefore focus on the development of
mid to large-scale installations and especially 3,000 kWel unit sizes.

Finally, the total electricity production related to new built B plants amounts
to about 1.54 TWhel in the case of the EEG 2012 framework and 1.99 TWhel
by 2030 under the EEG 2014 framework (Figure 8-6).

213
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

Table 8.3: Number of new built B base-load plants according to their unit size under EEG
2014

Plant unit size Number of new built plants up to

2030

400 to 700 kWel 19

800 to 1,800 kWel 20

2,000 kWel to 2,800 kWel 29 of which 23 corresponding to

the 2,000 kWel-size

3,000 to 3,400 kWel 50 of which 46 corresponding to

the 3,000 kWel-size

TWhel
2

1,5

0,5

0
EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG EEG
2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure 8.6: Regional electricity production linked to the new built B plants up to 2030

214
 8.1 Model results analysis in base scenario

8.1.4 Results for energy crops plants

As mentioned in Figure 8-7, the evolution of new built mono-digestion plants

employing energy crops (E plants) under the EEG 2012 framework stops after
2020 as the biomass potential limits are already reached. Cumulated new
built capacity of about 696 MWel are reached by 2030 split into about 387
MWel for base-load capacities and 309 MWel for flexible plants.

MWel
700

500

300

100

2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

-100

BW BY
BB HE
MV NI
NRW RP
SL SN
ST SH
TH Cumulated supplementary flexible capacities

Figure 8.7: Regional cumulated new built capacities for E plants up to 2030 under EEG 2012

The new built base-load capacities result from the commissioning of 424 new
plants mainly with 900 kWel unit sizes (Table 8-4).

215
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

Table 8.4: Number of new built E base-load plants according to their unit size under EEG
2012

Plant size Number of new built plants up to 2030

700 kWel 3

900 kWel 366

1,000 kWel 55

Concerning the electricity production, a total cumulated amount of about 3.1

TWhel would be reached by the end of 2030, as shown in Figure 8-8.

TWhel

0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure 8.8: Regional electricity production linked to new built E plants under EEG 2012

216
 8.2 Results under other scenarios

Finally, no capacity expansion occurs under the EEG 2014 framework for E
plants, due to unprofitability. In each Federal State, a negative specific
operating profit is observed for all years and all plant sizes, mainly due to the
energy crops subsidies cut enacted in August 2014.

8.2 Results under other scenarios

A sensitivity analysis realized in [147] shows that the energy crop costs, the
revenues from the sales of electricity and from biowaste valorization are the
main drivers of German biogas plant’s profitability. The temporal evolution of
these three key-drivers is characterized by major uncertainties, in particular
due to price volatility66. It is therefore the aim of this section to take into
account these uncertainty levels in the framework of a scenario analysis. In
addition to the base scenario, further scenarios are assessed, firstly
considering energy crop costs shocks. The high volatility observed in the
biomass commodities markets can strongly impact regional biogas plant
developments. A simulation of an energy crop costs increase of +10% per year
over the period 2020-2025 and in all Federal States generates a substantial
decrease of the cumulated new built base-load EM plant capacity over the
same period (Figure 8-9). After the end of the shock, i.e., by the year 2025,
the cumulated new built capacity progressively recovers to the values
observed in the base scenario.

66
In the case of the electricity sold volatility applies in particular to the EPEX-Peak spot prices
which are set hourly on the European Power Exchange in Paris. In the case of energy crops
volatility concerns feedstock prices which are set on the MATIF Commodity Stock Exchange in
Paris. Revenues from biowaste valorization can vary strongly from a plant to another between 20
and 100 €/t [229].

217
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

MWel
700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario "Energy crop costs shock" Base scenario

Figure 8.9: Capacity evolution for new built EM plants in the base scenario and under an energy
crop costs shock

Under the electricity direct marketing model, German biogas plant operators
receive, in addition to the market premium, revenues for electricity sold on
the European Power Exchange (EPEX-wholesale price). It is assumed that the
operators sell the electricity produced in Peak time characterized by a high
electricity demand. In the base scenario represented by the green line in
Figure 8-10, the EPEX-Peak wholesale electricity price follows a forecast up to
the year 2030 made in 2014 by EWI Prognos and GWS [222]. A wholesale
electricity price of 6.7 ct/kWhel is thus reached by 2030. The red line in Figure
8-10 corresponds then to the price forecast in a “high scenario” with an EPEX-
Peak electricity price increase of +30% per year applied during the period
2020-2025. This increase can be justified by future necessary investment in
the replacement of existing production plants especially for conventional
energy conversion technologies [248].

218
 8.2 Results under other scenarios

ct/kWhel

12

10

0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Yearly average EPEX-Peak electricity price shock: +30%/a from 2020 to 2025
Base scenario

Figure 8.10: Assumed EPEX-Peak electricity price developments according to several scenarios

In reaction to the applied electricity price shock, it appears in the “high

scenario” e.g., for EM installations that expansion is globally shifted in the
direction of larger capacity unit sizes (blue bars). The electricity direct
marketing model also tends to be more favourable to large-scale plants
characterized by a high electricity output (size effect). Figure 8-11 compares
the results for the main newly built capacities, 75 kWel and 2,000 kWel , for
EM installations under the “high scenario” with the results in the “base
scenario” in the context of EEG 2014. A strong electricity price increase thus
encourages the development of 2,000 kWel plants in comparison to the base
scenario.

219
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

MWel
700

600

500

400

300

200

100

Base scenario
Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario

Base scenario
High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario

High scenario
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

75 kWel 2,000 kWel

Figure 8.11: Capacity development of the main new built EM plants under EEG 2014 with and
without consideration of electricity price shock

The last modelled shock concerns biowaste valorization fee revenues. A

biowaste valorization revenue decrease of -20% per year is applied from 2020
to 2025 in comparison with the base scenario. It models a potential market
breakdown for biowaste dedicated to biogas production in Germany. In
reaction to the applied shock a capacity expansion freeze is observed from
2020 to 2025. After that the new built capacity increases again and reaches
the value observed by 2030 in the base scenario (Figure 8-12). Future
development of biowaste plants is then highly sensitive to the evolution of
biowaste valorization fee revenues.

220
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

MWel
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Base scenario Biowaste valorization revenue shock: -20%/a from 2020 to 2025

Figure 8.12: Capacity evolution for new built B plants in the base scenario and under a biowaste
valorization revenue shock

8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

8.3.1 Methodology

The optimization model developed enables a forecast of future capacity

expansion and electricity production from biogas in Germany up to the year
2030. For this an objective function aims at maximizing the total operating
profit over all plant sizes, the whole time period and all Federal States
combined. The developments are limited by constraints applied to biomass
potentials and also concerning the annual capacity expansion caps defined in
the EEG legal framework. As with the simulation model pros and cons linked
to the employed methodology are highlighted in the following.

Positive aspects firstly concern the type of model approach that has been
selected. The objective of biogas companies is to maximize the total operating
profit related to the installations that they operate over their whole lifetime

221
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

i.e., generally 20 years. Therefore, the use of an optimization model appears

to be suitable for forecasting the development of future German biogas
plants. In the framework of this model the total German biogas plant park is
analysed and the objective function aims at maximizing the total operating
profit linked to this plant portfolio. Another positive aspect concerns the
integration of physical and legal constraints in the developed model. For each
plant type EM, E and B, regional biomass potentials limitations have been
defined as constraints. This ensures that no further capacity can be built if the
corresponding biomass potentials are insufficient. If all biomass potentials are
fully employed in a given year and region no further capacity expansion
occurs in the following years. Another constraint concerns the capacity
expansion caps defined in the EEG legal framework. This capacity expansion
limitation ensures that not all the plant sizes are built in the first year of the
time period due to a full valorization of biomass potentials. Both of these two
constraints aim thus at better representing the physical and legal reality for
the future development of German biogas plants. Complementary
assessments are carried out in the framework of “shock scenarios”. These
scenarios provide valuable information for plant operators as they quantify
the impact of major profitability drivers on future capacity developments.
Potential opportunities and threats for the German market can thus be
identified. These mainly concern the development of energy crop and
electricity prices as well as the evolution of biowaste valorization revenues.

Disadvantages of the modelling approach should also be pointed out. For a

given plant type (E, EM or B), the solver selects every year, and for each region
the plant sizes that could be built in order to maximize total operating profit
by the end of 2030 over all Federal States. The annual specific operating profit
represents the main driver for the selection or non-selection of a plant size to
be built in a given region and year and of a given plant type. Plants showing a
negative specific operating profit are systematically not built. This approach
corresponds to that of a plant operator whose objective is to maximize the
total operating profit of their installations. However, it does not take into
account the investor perspective. By calculating internal rates of return (IRR),

222
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

the profitability of the investment in the different biogas plant types could
have been estimated. Especially if the IRR remains over a defined Weighted
Average Capital Cost (WACC) then the investment is profitable. An example
of a WACC value has been published concerning KTG Agrar which is one of
the leading biogas production companies in Germany. In [249] a WACC value
of 4.5% is given by the end of the year 2015. Further analysis would then
estimate the IRR level for each plant type, over all plant sizes and all Federal
States combined. Comparing the resultant IRR level with the WACC value of
4.5% previously mentioned would indicate if the investment was profitable
or not. However, this requires long-term cash flow forecasts. For example, the
decision to commission a plant or not e.g., in 2028 would imply having a cash-
flow forecast for the next 20 years. This means that the specific revenues and
electricity production costs would have to be estimated up to the year 2048
which leads to data uncertainty. Another disadvantage concerns the
modelling approach which focuses solely on the biogas sector and does not
integrate other electricity production options (renewable or conventional).
The interactions of biogas with other electricity sources impacts the
electricity wholesale price and thus the revenues from the plant opera-tor
side. In the framework of this thesis a simplified assumption has been made
concerning the EPEX-Peak electricity price. This price level has been initially
set according to the average of monthly values observed in 2013 for the
assessment under the EEG 2012 framework. Under the EEG 2014 framework
the average of monthly values for the year 2015 has been assumed. In a
further step a forecast of these two prices has been carried out according to
the study of [222]. Two reference studies, mentioned in section 3.4.3, deal
with the integration of biogas into the electricity system and consider an
interaction with other electricity sources [133], [134]. However, they do not
highlight regional developments for biogas in Germany and make no
differentiation between agricultural, biowaste and manure-based plants. The
present resource-oriented model follows a different approach based on the
plant operator perspective. It provides insights concerning the evolution of
the future whole biogas plant park portfolio according to various plant types
and plant sizes. Therefore, the optimization model developed represents an

223
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

adequate complement to other existing studies based on a (bio)-energy

system approach. Figure 8-13 sums up the “Pros” and “Cons” regarding the
methodology employed for the analysis of future electricity production from
biogas in Germany.

Pros Cons

MODELLING APPROACH
MODELLING APPROACH

- Optimizing approach in line with

- The optimization model does not take
plant operators objective (profit
into account the investors perspective.
maximization)
- The modelling approach solely focuses
- Integration of realistic physical as
on the biogas sector and does not
well as legal constraints in the
integrate other electricity sources.
developed model

SHOCK SCENARIOS
- Quantify the impact of main SHOCKS SCENARIO
profitability drivers on future capacity - Scenarios quantifying the impact of
developments. specific strategies for the electricity sale,
- Provide plausible assessments flexibility and feedstock purchase have
complementarily to the base not been considered.
scenario.

Figure 8.13: Pros and cons regarding the methodology employed for the analysis of future
electricity production from biogas in Germany (author’s own representation)

8.3.2 Validation and critique of results

A synthesis of the previous results shows that the future development of

German biogas plants is dependent on five fundamental drivers. The first is
that maximal biomass potentials are reached in some Federal States before
2030 and thus prevent further capacity evolution. In particular, agricultural
plants valorizing energy crops in mono-digestion processes are subjected to a
capacity expansion freeze starting from 2020 under the EEG 2012 framework.

224
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

Biowaste plants are not concerned by this phenomenon as 50% of the existing
biowaste potentials are still unused.

The second key driver is plant economics. Revenues derived from the two EEG
subsidy schemes and from biowaste valorization as well regionalized energy
crop costs play an important role in plant profitability analysis. Furthermore,
the price level of the electricity sold directly (EPEX-Peak wholesale electricity
price) also has a major influence on capacity development. Plants selling the
electricity produced at a very high price tend to be the best positioned for
capacity expansion. From the costs side plant capacity expansions most likely
occur in Federal States with the lowest energy crop costs.

The third driving force of capacity development is the annual capacity

expansion limit defined by the two legal frameworks. As no capacity
expansion cap was legally introduced in the framework of EEG 2012 a limit
has been set for each of the three plant types derived from historical data.
The capacity developments occurring under EEG 2014 are controlled by the
legislator through an annual fixed cap of 100 MWel for all biogas plant types.
This discrepancy in the expansion cap values between the two EEG versions
can partially explain the observed differences in the capacity evolution for
each plant type.

Flexibilization conditions represent another key driver. The flexibilization

conditions for new built capacity have been defined according to the two
operator models described in section 6.2.2. Most of the new built capacity is
larger than 750 kWel under EEG 2012, which leads to a high level of
flexibilization. On the contrary the observed evolution of new built capacity
under the EEG 2014 framework is characterized by a low level of
flexibilization. Indeed, the major capacity expansion concerns there small-
scale manure plants operated in base-load.

The last driver, namely the decommissioning of German biogas plants older
than 20 years, has been taken into account starting from 2020. This plant
decommissioning dramatically impacts mid-term capacity development as

225
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

most of the currently existing German biogas plants were built between the
years 2000 and 2010. However, the possibility for existing plants to benefit
from a subsidy scheme extension will be taken into account in the EEG 2017
legal framework. It would thus be prudent to consider that existing plants
older than 20 years might not be systematically decommissioned.

A validation of results is possible by taking into account the four comparison

criteria shown in Table 8-5.

Table 8.5: Considered comparison criteria for the model results validation

Comparison criteria Questions to be answered

Ex-post comparison for the years 2015 and Are the model results plausible when
2016 regarding new build capacity under compared with real data and current trends
EEG 2014: model results versus real data for biogas in Germany?
Comparison of the optimization model Are the most frequent new built plant sizes
results with the simulation model outcomes plausible in regard with the most profitable
sizes as determined in the simulation model?
Comparison with other studies analysing Are the optimization model results plausible
the future electricity production from when compared with existing studies?
biogas in Germany
Comparison with future capacity What are the changes for future capacity
developments under the new EEG 2017 development induced by the new EEG 2017
framework framework and considering various
scenarios?

The first comparison criterion concerns the total new built capacity in the
years 2015 and 2016 under the EEG 2014 framework. The model results are
compared ex-post with real data derived from annual statistics published by
the German Biogas Association [250] (Table 8-6).

The total new-built capacity from the model results has thus been very slightly
under-estimated in comparison to real data (-1.4%). Table 8-7 shows the
capacity expansion provided by the model results for each plant type and
during the first two years under each legal framework.

226
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

Table 8.6: Total new built capacity in 2015 and 2016: real data versus model results

EEG 2014: years 2015 and 2016

Real data Model Relative gap (%)
results
Total new-built 279 [250] 275 -1,4%
capacity (MWel)

Table 8.7: Model results relative to past capacity expansion under EEG 2012 and EEG 2014

Capacity expansion in 2013 and Capacity expansion in 2015 and

in 2014 (EEG 2012 framework) 2016 (EEG 2014 framework)
EM plant 403 100
E plant 220 0
B plant 43 175

Under the EEG 2012 framework the capacity expansion delivered by the
model results in the years 2013 and 2014 is in line with the observed national
policy at that time. The development of agricultural plants is strongly
encouraged especially through the manure and energy crops subsidies.
Biowaste plants are only subject to a moderate development. The model
results observed between 2015 and 2016 under the EEG 2014 framework
reveal a paradigm shift which is in accordance with the reality. Under this
subsidy scheme the development of bio-waste plants appears to be favored
in comparison to the agricultural plants. This is in line with current national
trend for biogas in the framework of EEG 2014. As mentioned in [251] the
future development of biogas plants should mainly focus on biowaste and
manure installations.

A comparison is then made between the results of the simulation and the
optimization models. More precisely Table 8-8 compares the most profitable
plant sizes determined in the simulation model for the base year 2013 and

227
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

2015 with the most frequent new built plants sizes under EEG 2012 and EEG
2014 prospective scenarios in the optimization model.

Table 8.8: Comparison of the most profitable plant sizes from the simulation model with the
most frequent new built plant sizes from the optimization model

EEG 2012 EEG 2014

Most profitable Most frequent Most Most
plant size new built profitable frequent
plant size plant size new built
plant size
EM 75 kWel 900 kWel 75 kWel 75 kWel
plant

E 900 kWel 900 kWel 2,000 kWel N/A

plant
B 3,000 kWel 3,000 kWel 3,000 kWel 3,000 kWel
plant

Under EEG 2012, the most profitable size for EM plants as determined by the
simulation model is 75 kWel (specific profit at about 10.85 ct/kWhel )
followed by 900 kWel (5.63 ct/kWhel specific operating profit). However, the
75 kWel plant size is not the most frequent new built capacity in the
optimization model. Over the period 2013 to 2030, installations with a
capacity of 900 kWel dominate. This can be explained by the fact that the
simulation model only considers one year for the economic evaluation (2013),
whereas 18 years are taken into account in the optimization model. Over this
18 years period the evolution of the operating profit is more favorable to 900
kWel plants than to 75 kWel installations. As the optimization model aims to
maximize the total plant operating profit (in €) over the whole period, the
number of new built 900 kWel plants is consequently higher than the 75 kWel
installations. In the case of E plants, 900 kWel capacity is the most profitable
size and also the most built capacity in both the simulation and optimization
models. Finally, 3,000 kWel B plants are the most profitable and the most
frequent new built installations in both models.

228
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

Under EEG 2014, 75 kWel represents the most profitable and the most
frequent new built size for EM plants. According to the simulation model, a
plant capacity of 2,000 kWel shows the highest specific operating profit
among all E installations. This specific operating profit however remains
negative (-0.97 ct/kWhel ) which explains why no E plant capacity is built over
the whole period. Similarly to EEG 2012, B plants with a capacity of 3,000 kWel
are the most profitable size as determined by the simulation model. They also
represent the most frequent new built capacity in the optimization model.
The results of the optimization model concerning the size of new built
capacity are then in line with the outcomes of the simulation model.

In a further step, the optimization model results are com-pared to other

existing studies, which have been presented in section 3.4.3. These studies
also assess the development of future electricity production from biogas up
to the year 2030 (Figure 8-14). As shown in Figure 8-14 the amount of
electricity produced by the end of 2030 is in line with the assessments drawn
from [135], [136]. The values mentioned in the “Min scenario” in [134] remain
clearly above the forecasts carried in this work67. This difference is explained
by the fact that this study does not take into account a plant capacity
decommissioning starting from 2020. The decom-missioning concerns plants
older than 20 years in 2020 and represent a global capacity of 2,319 MWel .
Assuming 8,000 h/a operating hours for these plants, a total electricity pro-
duction of 18.55 TWhel has to be removed from the previous “Min scenario”.
Thereby about 11.95 TWhel is determined given the capacity
decommissioning occurring by 2020. This value is in line with the forecasts
obtained from the present work under the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014
frameworks (Figure 8-14).

67
This scenario corresponds to an agricultural surface area dedicated to biogas of about 0.78
million ha by 2020 and 0.96 million ha by 2030. In this scenario it is further assumed that 75% of
the potentials dedicated to manure and biowaste are valorized into biogas.

229
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

TWhel
35

30

25

20

15

10

0
2016 2020 2030
DBFZ "Milestone 2030" report, 2015 [135]
DBFZ Background paper, 2016 [136]
OptiKoBi2 project, 2014 [134]: Min scenario without capacity decommissioning
OptiKoBi2 project, 2014 [134]: Min scenario with capacity decommissioning
This work under the prospective scenario "EEG 2012"
This work under the prospective scenario "EEG 2014"
German electricity production from biogas by 2016 [252]

Figure 8.14: Comparison of results from various studies regarding future electricity production
from biogas in Germany (author’s own representation)

The optimization model results appear as qualitatively and quantitatively

plausible both on short-term and long-term horizons. The results observed on
a short-term horizon for the years 2013 to 2016 are in accordance with ex-
post real data and with the outcomes from the simulation model. The model
results concerning electricity production by the end of 2030 are in line with
existing forecast studies.

In a last step, the base-load capacity forecasts produced by the optimization

model are compared to future developments under the EEG 2017 subsidy
scheme. In the framework of EEG 2017 maximal annual capacity expansion

230
 8.3 Discussion of methodology and results

caps of 150 MWel over the period 2017-2019 and of 200 MWel from 2020 to
2022 are defined [112]. It is also assumed that the 200 MWel yearly expansion
caps are maintained after the year 2022 and up to the year 2030. The capacity
expansion caps correspond to the maximal yearly allocable capacity for
bioenergy technologies during tendering procedures. Thereby three
scenarios are considered for the capacity forecasts under EEG 2017. In the
“Low scenario”, it is assumed that only 10% of the allocable capacity is won
by biogas technologies up to the year 2030. In the “Mid scenario”, it is
assumed that half of the maximal allocable capacity is attributed to biogas
technologies. Finally, in the “High scenario” the maximal allocable capacity is
assumed to be attributed to biogas technologies. The forecasts under the EEG
2017 framework are then compared to the model results under the EEG 2012
and EEG 2014 frameworks. The new built plants capacity is evaluated over the
period 2017-2030 in each of the three subsidy schemes. The results are shown
in Figure 8-15 for the years 2020, 2025 and 2030.

MWel
3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

0
2020 2025 2030

EEG 2012 EEG 2014 EEG 2017-High scenario

EEG 2017-Mid scenario EEG 2017-Low scenario

Figure 8.15: Evolution of total new built capacity under EEG 2012, EEG 2014 and EEG 2017 legal
frameworks

231
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

In the “High” and “Mid” scenarios the capacity expansion forecasts carried
out under EEG 2017 appear as more favorable than the optimization model
forecasts realized under EEG 2014. A breakeven point is also determined. It
represents the critical capacity share which has to be attributed to biogas
technologies under EEG 2017 tendering procedures in order to reach a plant
capacity at least equal to the capacity forecast under the EEG 2014 framework
by 2030. Therefore if 29.4% of the yearly allocable capacity is attributed to
biogas technologies, then the forecasted capacity by 2030 would remain at
the same level under EEG 2017 as under the EEG 2014 framework.

8.4 Model outcomes evaluation

8.4.1 Policy recommendations

The results of the optimization model emphasize the role and impact of
different subsidy schemes, namely EEG 2012 and EEG 2014, on future
capacity development. Under the EEG 2014 framework and according to the
optimization model results, the future capacity developments up to the year
2030 would mainly concern small-scale manure plants and large-scale
biowaste installations, which is in line with the objectives of the Federal
Government [251]. For these installations a future capacity expansion
contributes to a maximization of the total operating profit for German biogas
plant operators. The German biogas sector will thus face a paradigm shift with
the increase of biowaste and small-scale manure installations. On the other
hand, the results show that agricultural installations should not undergo any
major future developments. Contrary to agricultural plants, biowaste and
manure installations are not concerned by the “food versus fuel” debate. This
should lead to an increase in the public acceptance of biogas in the
forthcoming years. Considering all these aspects a first policy
recommendation consists in encouraging the valorization of manure and
biowaste in biogas plants by maintaining the current corresponding level of
subsidies on a mid-term horizon.

232
 8.4 Model outcomes evaluation

Furthermore, the development of flexible biogas plants valorizing biogas into

heat and electricity according to demand level has to be strengthened. The
possibility of producing flexible electricity provides a new function for the
biogas industry which can be seen as a system service in addition to
fluctuating photovoltaic and wind energy sources. According to EEG 2014
framework this flexibility is not applicable to small-scale plants with an
installed power lower than 100 kWel . The model results under the EEG 2014
framework show however that a major development of manure plant sizes
smaller than 75 kWel would lead to a maximal total profit by the year 2030. A
possible way to accelerate the development of flexible biogas plants would
be thus to enlarge the flexibilization conditions to all plant sizes including
small-scale manure plants.

8.4.2 Strategic outcomes

The future evolution of the German biogas market should be characterized

by the development of small-scale manure and biowaste installations. These
plants should therefore be given preference at the project planning stage by
German biogas companies especially if significant development possibilities
for new heat sinks or digestate sales are identified.

The results of the simulated shocks concerning the EPEX electricity price,
energy crop costs and biowaste valorization revenues show that the future
biogas capacity development is dependent on externalities linked to the
electricity, feedstock commodities and biowaste markets. These could be a
source of both threats and opportunities. Therefore, mastering the financial
risks related to these uncertainties remains a key challenge for biogas plant
operators. International agricultural commodity markets generate
uncertainties in profitability forecasts, due to high price volatility (see section
6.6.1.1). In the present work regional energy crop costs have been assumed
to remain stable up to the year 2030 due to a potential future increase of
agricultural residues use in German biogas plants. A future challenge for plant

233
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

operators will be the valorization of these residues which would stabilize

energy crop costs and further reduce electricity production costs.

Another aspect concerns the biomass potentials mobilization and

valorization. Biomass potentials represent an important driver for future
biogas plants, whose locations are usually determined by resource availability
and access. According to [172] the total potential dedicated to energy crops
is estimated at about 69 TWh (primary energy). About 90% of this potential is
currently used by the existing biogas plants which shows that further
development is possible but limited. An intensification of the cultivation of
the German agricultural surface area as well as the improvement of regional
hectare yields could slightly increase biomass potentials for energy crops. In
[172] an increase of 500,000 ha in the cultivable surface area could lead to
supplementary potentials of about 17 TWh (primary energy). In the case of
biowaste plants a potential of about 6 TWh is estimated of which 3 TWh are
currently used [172]. About half of existing potentials for biowaste are
currently not valorized. An increase of biowaste production in households
combined with an improvement in biowaste sorting habits and a redirection
of most of the sorted mass flows to anaerobic digestion would improve the
potentials mobilization and valorization. The existing potential for manure is
estimated at about 22 TWh of which 11 are currently used [172]. Thus about
50% of the existing potentials related to manure are currently not valorized
in biogas plants and are simply spread on the farmers land. According to the
European Biogas Association an improved integration of biogas plants in
agricultural farms could make them more sustainable and economically
competitive especially in the framework of local circular economies [72]. A
new type of farm management should emerge and be generalized in which
farmers fully integrate biogas solutions as an opportunity to valorize manure
and agricultural residues into an environmentally friendly digestate with a
high N-, P- and K-content. The systematization of agricultural residues and
manure valorization into biogas would thereby improve the humus balance
of the soil and create local digestate markets as well as cooperative networks
between neighbouring farms.

234
 8.5 Summary

Finally, alternatives for German biogas plant operators should be developed

in case plants turn out to be unprofitable. These alternatives could consist in
a shift towards more economically attractive markets than heat and
electricity. For example, the biomethane market for gaseous biofuel
applications could represent a possible post-EEG option especially if stronger
financial incentives for (bio)-CNG car stations and vehicles are developed by
the German Federal Government. A last option for German biogas plant
operators would be to export their expertise and technologies to other
European countries where biogas and biomethane are growing continuously
(e.g., Sweden, France and Italy).

8.5 Summary
This chapter analyses possible future developments for German biogas plant
capacities as well as for the electricity production from biogas up to 2030. For
this purpose, a regional optimization model is employed and future
developments are assessed under the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 legal
frameworks. The base scenario characterized by an energy crop costs stability
shows that the EEG 2012 framework - if maintained - would have fostered the
development of agricultural plants, especially co-digestion plants valorizing
energy crops and manure (see section 8.1). The EEG 2014 framework stops
the expansion of energy crops mono-digestion plants, which will no longer be
built as they are unprofitable. The German biogas market will thus face a
paradigm shift and move towards the increase of biowaste and small-scale
manure plants. Plant flexibilization options have further a major impact on
future capacity developments. Additional scenarios analyse the impact of
shocks concerning energy crop costs, the EPEX-Peak electricity price and the
biowaste revenues on future capacity development (see section 8.2). A strong
variation of these fundamental drivers impacts future developments. A
discussion in section 8.3 emphasizes pros and cons regarding the
methodology employed and confirms the plausibility of the results gained.
The observed evolutions for the new built capacities between the years 2013

235
8 Model-based analysis of future electricity production from biogas in Germany

and 2016 are in line with past and current national biogas policy. Based on
the model results policy recommendations and strategic outcomes linked to
future electricity production from biogas are derived (see section 8.4). The
development of biowaste and residues-based plants as well as small manure
installations should be politically fostered as they lead to a maximization of
the total profit up to the year 2030 and over all Federal States. The volatility
characterizing energy crop costs, EPEX-Peak electricity price and biowaste
valorization revenues is a source of opportunities but also of risks for the
future development of German biogas plants. Biogas plant operators then will
face new challenges and must be able to master the risks and opportunities
linked to the volatile evolution of these main profitability drivers.

236
9 Transferability of the developed
methodology
The objective of this chapter is to analyse the transferability of the developed
methodology to different contexts beyond Germany. This is done by analysing
four case studies in several countries. The considered countries involve other
pathways than the electricity production from biogas. The main available
bioenergy conversion routes, like e.g., bioethanol in the transport sector or
woody biomass combustion for renewable heat production, are then covered
(Figure 9-1). The first case study deals with biomethane injection in France,
the second with district heating from biomass combustion in Finland, the
third with bioethanol production in Brazil and the last one with biodiesel
production from jatropha in Indonesia. In each case study the current
situation as well as the lessons learned are assessed. In a further step the
transferability of the developed methodology for biogas in Germany to these
countries is discussed in order to identify future drivers and challenges.

237
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

Figure 9.1: Considered case studies and bioenergy conversion pathways

9.1 Biomethane injection in France

9.1.1 Current situation and lessons learned

The first injection of biomethane into French natural gas grids occurred in
August 2013. Since this time the French biomethane market has continuously
grown and by the end of the year 2016 about 26 biomethane plants were
running [253]. The French energy transition law enacted on August 17 th 2015
has defined a national target for biomethane which must cover 10% of total
gas consumption by 2030 [254]. A decree adopted on April 26th 2016 sets mid-
term objectives for biomethane injected into the gas grids of 1.7 TWh/a by
2018 and 6 to 8 TWh/a by 2023 [255]. Specific targets are also defined for
biomethane as a transport fuel for vehicles with 20% of Natural Gas Vehicles
consumption to be reached by 2030 [255].

238
 9.1 Biomethane injection in France

In France biomethane projects can be divided into five categories. The first
corresponds to autonomous agricultural projects with biomethane plants
valorizing agricultural materials from a group of farmers. Territorial
agricultural projects are generally linked to co-digestion plants using more
than 50% of input feedstock from agricultural farms and the rest from
territorial waste (e.g., biowaste or sewage sludge from wastewater treatment
plants). The third category valorizes household waste and biowaste. Fourthly
sewage sludge fermentation projects involve urban and industrial
wastewater treatment plants in which sludge is transformed into biomethane
through anaerobic digestion. The last category, i.e., the territorial industrial
projects, gathers partners from various sectors like agriculture, industry and
waste treatment. Figure 9-2 highlights the share of the different project
categories in total biomethane installed capacity (in TWh/a). By the end of
2016 about 0.41 TWh/a capacity was installed on the French territory [254].
Household waste and biowaste installations as well as autonomous and
territorial agricultural plants represent the major share in the total installed
capacity (about 25% each).

11%
25%
14%

0.41 TWh

26% 24%

Autonomous agricultural Territorial agricultural

Household waste and biowaste Sewage sludge
Territorial industrial

Figure 9.2: Biomethane project typology in France

The potentials for the different biomass feedstock valorization into

biomethane are far from being depleted. According to [256], a biomass
potential of about 56 TWh dedicated to biogas production could be reached

239
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

by 2030 and would be mainly dominated by crop residues and by livestock

effluents like slurry and manure. This corresponds to a total raw biomass
feedstock amount of about 130 million t. From this potential the French
Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) has estimated in its
“Biomethane 2030 roadmap” that about 30 TWh could be dedicated to
biomethane injection at about 1,400 sites [257].

Past development of biomethane injection projects have been supported

mainly by Feed-In-Tariffs which the French Government implemented in 2011
[258]. Biomethane producers benefit from a guaranteed Feed-In-Tariff for 15
years. The Feed-In-Tariffs level remains between 46 and 139 €/MWh
depending on maximum biomethane feed-in capacity (in Nm3 /h) and on the
valorized biomass feedstock type. A base tariff is complemented by a
feedstock premium for the valorization of sewage sludge, agri-food and
agricultural waste, municipal and household biowaste or landfill gas.
Complementarily to Feed-In-Tariffs, calls for tenders have been set in 2016 in
order to further support the development of biomethane injection projects
[259]. Other revenue sources are heat and digestate sale as well as subsidies
from the ADEME. For this last revenue category, a subsidy rate, expressed in
percentage of the total capital investment, is attributed to plant operators.
An analysis of the profitability for past biomethane injection projects was
published in 2015 [260]. For the sample of projects considered the subsidy
rates varied between 10 and 15% of the total capital investment, which is
much lower than for biogas projects for electricity production. The average
Internal Rate of Return of past biomethane injection projects was located
between 6 and 13%, which represents a satisfactory profitability level.

Beside the biomethane produced by anaerobic digestion, the production of

renewable gas using thermochemical processes has benefited from
significant research efforts in the past years. With the help of combined
pyrolysis and gasification processes a synthetic natural gas (syngas) is
obtained from the valorization of lignocellulosic biomass and/or solid
recovered fuels. The syngas can be further upgraded to natural gas quality

240
 9.1 Biomethane injection in France

and then injected into the gas grids. The injected gas, also called 2 nd
generation biomethane, is seen as a promising driver for the achievement of
the 2030 target which specifies that 10% of total demand should be met by
renewable gas by 2030 [254]. A first demonstration project named GAYA is
currently operating [261]. It aims to quantify production yields as well as to
evaluate the economic and environmental relevance of 2nd generation
biomethane production in France. Based on this analysis an industrialization
phase involving new pyro-gasification projects is expected by 2020. Adequate
financial support schemes appear crucial, however, in order to ensure the
profitable development of future projects.

9.1.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges

for a future model implementation

The French biomethane market has been growing strongly in the past five
years. These developments have been driven by specific Feed-In-Tariffs
dependent on project size and on the valorized biomass feedstock. Research
questions concerning the identification of the most profitable biomethane
plant sizes and types as well as forecasts of future French biomethane
injection appear as important but have currently not been answered. The
methodology used for the analysis of current and future electricity production
from biogas in Germany appears to be transferable to the case of biomethane
injection and electricity production from biogas in France. The model input
data regarding existing biomethane plants as well as biomass potentials for
biomethane production is available in [256]. Economic analyses from existing
projects are already published in [260]. Revenues from the biomethane Feed-
In-Tariffs can be estimated with the help of a calculation tool developed by
the French Club Biogas [262]. In addition, specific revenues from digestate
sale and/or biowaste valorization remain similar to those considered in
Germany for biogas. The results gained from the simulation model could
deliver strategic information for plant operators and policymakers regarding
the most economically attractive biomethane installations given current legal
framework conditions. The optimization model outcomes could provide

241
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

valuable indications regarding mid-term developments, e.g., up to the year

2030, for injected biomethane quantities. Future developments could then
be compared to the legally defined mid-terms objectives for French
biomethane injection. This could lead to strategic recommendations and
facilitate the national energy transition.

The transferability of the model results to other renewable gas valorization

routes than 1st generation biomethane is more difficult. Biomass gasification
and pyrolysis aiming to produce 2nd generation biomethane are still at the
research stage. The demonstration platform project GAYA will provide the
first techno-economic data concerning the production and valorization of
thermo-chemical biomethane. However technological and economic
optimizations still remain to be made. In particular a next objective consists
in minimizing the costs of biomethane production through the identification
of the most efficient gasification and syngas upgrading technologies.
Optimization of biomass logistics and supply is also needed especially for
large plants sizes. In this case an important amount of biomass (superior to
100,000 t/a) is required and has to be transported which significantly
increases biomethane production costs. Other challenges concern the
biomass feedstock quality. Biomass quality characterized by the low heating
value as well as by moisture content have an important impact on plant’s
profitability [263]. The valorization and sale of by-products such as charcoal,
oil or black carbon would further improve plant profitability [264]. Finally, the
future definition and implementation of adequate support schemes, e.g.,
Feed-In-Tariffs or call for tenders, appears as a fundamental driver for the
development of the 2nd generation biomethane pathway.

242
 9.2 Biomass combustion for district heating in Finland

9.2 Biomass combustion for district heating in

Finland

9.2.1 Current situation and lessons learned

Following the objective of the European Commission, a target of 38% in the

energy demand has been set for renewable energy sources in Finland by the
year 2020 [265]. This represents about 127 TWh (35 TWh for heating, 52 TWh
the industry sector, 35 TWh for electricity and 5 TWh in the transport sector).
Finland has already reached the objective set by the European Commission as
the national renewable energy production was estimated at more than 130
TWh by 2016 [266].

District heating represents the main driver of the total Finnish heating market
with a share of almost 50% [267]. More than half of house buildings and
offices are connected to district heating systems which meet 90% of building
heat demand [267]. More than 400 medium and large-scale plants – mainly
CHP – are valorizing biomass in combustion or co-combustion processes using
peat or coal [267].

Among all existing national initiatives for the promotion of biomass district
heating, the project of North Karelia68 provides best practices for future
project implementations in Finland or in other Baltic states [268]. The project
objective is to plan, build and operate a wood chip district heating plant in
order to create local jobs and to lower the dependence on external (fossil)
energy sources.

The total annual energy consumption in North Karelia is about 10 TWh

including electricity, heating and transport [268]. With a consumption share

68
The North Karelia region is located in the east of Finland at about 300 km from Russian boarder.
Forestry and forest-based bioenergy represent an important economic driver there. Woody biomass
represents about 50% of the local primary energy consumption and the local renewable energy
sector employs about 1,300 persons each year.

243
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

of 49.2% wood energy represents by far the main renewable energy source
in the region, followed by fossil fuels (24.1%), hydropower (9.3%) electricity
import (8.9%), peat (6.9%), heat pumps (1.3%) and other bioenergy feedstock
(0.4%) [268]. Renewable energy represents about two-thirds of the primary
energy consumption of North Karelia and is mainly drawn from woody
biomass (81%) [268].

The North Karelia region has been a forerunner in renewable energy in recent
years. In 2013 a new biorefinery simultaneously producing bio-oil, heat and
electricity was opened in Joensuu [268]. About 50,000 t of bio-oil is produced
yearly meeting the heating requirements of 10,000 households and this new
plant has led to the creation of 65 new local jobs [268].

A Climate and Energy Program has been developed for North Karelia with
defined targets to be reached by 2020 [268]. This program focuses on the
sectors of energy (supply and consumption), transport, infrastructure, land
use planning, construction, waste management, agriculture and forestry. As
North Karelia is the most advanced region in Finland for the use and
production of renewable heat, it has been selected as a demonstration region
in order to establish best practices and to benefit from lessons learned.

For this, two surveys of plant operators have been carried out. Workshops
have been organized in Joenssu, Koli and Valtimo. The results and experience
gained have been transferred and applied to the municipality of Masku and
to the counties of Pirkanmaa and Pohjois-Savo [268]. The main barriers for
the profitable development of district heating projects have been identified
and are the poor viability and low availability of funding as well as a lack of
knowledge of subsidies, legal framework conditions, accounting and taxes
[268]. The storage of wood and cooperation between manufacturers were
not considered as problematic. From the plant operator side, challenges
remain in the use of best available technologies needed to improve wood chip
quality [268]. Clarification of the legal processes related to heat and electricity
sale for small-scale CHP-plants is also needed. High level of investment
required at the beginning of the operation and the low price of energy in

244
 9.2 Biomass combustion for district heating in Finland

Finland could represent additional barriers for future project development

[268].

9.2.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges

for a future model implementation

The recent developments for biomass district heating plants in Finland are
very encouraging and will have to be fostered. In particular the identification
of the most profitable biomass heating plant sizes would facilitate the
implementation of new installations. A possible approach would be to assess
the profitability of CHP district heating plants according to variable biomass
feedstock mass flow and type (e.g., wood chips and fuel wood). The
simulation model developed for biogas in Germany could be then applied to
Finnish biomass district heating plants. Best practices transfer from existing
projects or local implementation approaches, such as those in the region of
North Karelia, is necessary in order to gather input data concerning the costs
of heat and/or electricity production. On the revenues side a main barrier to
future model implementation concerns the subsidy level for the heat and
electricity produced. The subsidy level has decreased over the last few years
so that the visibility and profitability of future projects remains uncertain. CHP
district heating plants currently benefit from Feed-In-Tariffs but only for a
period of 12 years which is shorter than is the case of Germany (20-years
period). Plant operators receive a fixed subsidy at 50 €/MWh for the heat
produced which has a major influence on plant profitability. Data
uncertainties for the biomass input feedstock also remain especially
concerning resource price and quality. The implementation of a regional
optimization model for the analysis of future district heat production from
biomass in Finland is currently not feasible. A regionalization of the required
techno-economic data does not exist which limits future model
developments at a regional scale. This also applies to currently available and
future regional biomass potentials which have not been evaluated. The land
use competition between bioenergy and wood industry should be taken into
account for future regional biomass mass flows and potentials estimation.

245
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

Future challenges consist in the valorization of small-scale wood in young

forests in order to reach the target of 25 TWh by 2020 for forest chip use. This
remains a difficult task because working in young forests is less profitable
than in clear cuttings. The main barriers to a profitable biomass harvesting in
young forests are the small tree sizes, logistic aspects and difficult forest
hauling. Furthermore, future development and policies for Finnish biomass
heating plants must not lead to a competition of use with the wood
processing industry. Priority has then to be given to the valorization of
residues like woodchip, barks or sawdust.

In conclusion the transferability of the model-based approach used for biogas

in Germany to district heating in Finland appears as difficult as regional data
are missing. An aggregated evaluation at the national level remains however
possible, especially by relying on past projects such as in the North Karelia
region and assuming future legal framework stability. Mid-term forecasts for
the development of future district heating plants based on woody biomass
combustion would assist plant operators and policy makers with further
project implementation. This would contribute to attaining national energy
and environmental targets and to the creation of local added value.

9.3 Bioethanol for transportation in Brazil

9.3.1 Current situation and lessons learned

With about 28 billion liters of ethanol produced in 2016 Brazil is the second
largest producing country behind the United States and also the largest
sugarcane ethanol producer worldwide [269]. Past governmental initiatives
such as PROALCOOL, the National Plan for Agroenergy and the Plan for
Supporting Innovation in the Sugar-Energy and Sugar-Chemistry sectors have
led to continuous development of the Brazilian bioethanol sector [270].
Research work has provided major impetuses for improvements in bioethanol
production both at the agricultural and industrial scales. Sugarcane

246
 9.3 Bioethanol for transportation in Brazil

productivity has doubled since the 1960s due to research efforts in genetic
breeding [270]. Technological innovations, e.g., in vinasse treatment or in the
field of process energy efficiency, have accelerated industrial developments
and were always supported by governmental incentives. Another main driver
for bioethanol growth in Brazil was the introduction of flex-fuel engines in the
early 2000s [271]. Due to different energy content, bioethanol and gasoline
cannot be perfectly substituted from each other and the price of bioethanol
has to remain under 70% that of gasoline in order to be competitive for
consumers [271].

In order to meet the strongly increasing demand for bioethanol at both

national and international levels in the forthcoming years, Brazil has to
expand the sugarcane area harvested for both bioethanol and sugar
production69. Bioethanol production should increase in a sustainable way in
order to minimize competition regarding land use. According to [272] land-
use change, and environmental problems could occur as a result of future
sugarcane production especially in Cerrado areas (e.g., Goias and Mato
Grosso). The increase of sugarcane production applies to area subject to
environmental restrictions like the Pantanal and Amazon regions of the
Paraguay River basin. Consequently, the Brazilian Government decided in
2009 to set up and to monitor a sugarcane agroecological zoning system so
as to regulate land adaptation for sugarcane in these regions [272].

The bioethanol production in Brazil raises a “food versus fuel” debate. The
conversion of sugar cane into bioethanol potentially impacts land-use and
food security as it valorizes an edible crop into fuel. These impacts - and their
significance - have been assessed in [273] based on a regional simulation
model. A multi-period computable general equilibrium model (CGE) of Brazil
has been developed. It follows a bottom-up regional representation of 15
aggregated Brazilian regions and involves 38 sectors, 10 household types and
labor grades. It is further combined to a land use change (LUC) model which

69
This area expansion would be caused by a stagnation of the sugarcane yields, as no new
feedstock variety are currently developed [272].

247
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

tracks land use evolution in each region. In particular land-use change results
from various parameters such as an increase of non-land inputs, a greater use
of dedicated crop land and a conversion of pasture and unused lands to crop
land. Model results show that the sugarcane production will be concentrated
in regions characterized by a productivity increase. In order to reach the 2022
bioethanol target only 0.07 million ha new land and only 0.02% additional
deforestation rates are necessary. An increase of bioethanol production
would further have a very limited impact on food security [273].

If the past development of bioethanol in Brazil can be considered as a success,

important technological bottlenecks still remain [272]. The innovation and
technology transfer from research institutes to companies is relatively low
and in particular the 2nd generation of bioethanol biofuels70 is still at an early
stage of development [272]. The future development of Brazilian bioethanol
as a global commodity is dependent on the implementation of dedicated
policies and regulations. This would encourage companies to invest in
innovation and research and development programs. Only then will
innovative biofuels have a chance to emerge.

9.3.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges

for a future model implementation

In order to analyse the conditions for a future emergence of 2 nd generation

bioethanol, robust evaluation and forecast of production costs are necessary.
In [275] an outlook for bioethanol production costs in Brazil up to 2030 is
given. It includes first and second generation of bioethanol, that last one
being produced from elephant grass or eucalyptus. In 2016 the production
costs for bioethanol from elephant grass and eucalyptus were estimated at
about 870 and 810 $/m3 respectively [275]. A production costs decrease of
up to 750 $/m3 for elephant grass and 710 $/m3 for eucalyptus is foreseen

70
The 2nd generation bioethanol results from the conversion of lignocellulosic and starchy
materials in fermentable sugars that are able to be further processed into a sustainable biofuel [274]

248
 9.3 Bioethanol for transportation in Brazil

by 2030 [275]. This major cost reduction would be achieved essentially by

improving the biomass yields and process efficiencies [275]. The current
situation for bioethanol in Brazil can be assessed with the help of a process
simulation model. The model would lead to the identification of the most
cost-effective bioethanol plant sizes and types assuming variable and
differentiated biomass input.

Optimized second-generation bioethanol from eucalyptus could lead to

competitive production costs compared with first generation biofuels. To this
aim cost minimization coupled with process simulation represent promising
and applicable modelling approaches. The profit maximization model
employed in Germany for biogas remains however not transferable to
Brazilian bioethanol. No subsidies directly linked to plant sizes and types are
employed for bioethanol in Brazil, which limits the optimization model to a
cost minimizing approach. A forecast of regional bioethanol production
costs71 and regional biomass potentials combined with the estimation of
existing bioethanol plants would provide the main input data for an
optimization model. The model objective would consist in minimizing the
total bioethanol production costs for all Brazilian regions and plant sizes up
to 2030. The model outcomes would provide valuable information for
research institutions, policy and decision-makers concerning the most
promising regions72 and strategies for the development of 2nd generation
bioethanol. In [275] future challenges to be overcome by the Brazilian
bioethanol industry are highlighted. Crop improvement, supply chain
optimization as well as the integration of socio-economic impacts - including
the “food versus fuel” debate - are pointed out. The future development of
bioethanol supply chains in Brazil has to integrate sustainability criteria and
thus requires integrated approaches.

71
A possible way to obtain regional bioethanol production costs in Brazil would be to evaluate
and to integrate regional biomass feedstock costs in the optimization model.
72
In [275] the adjoining regions of Sao Paulo are identified as economically attractive for a future
bioethanol production.

249
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

9.4 Biodiesel production from jatropha in

Indonesia

9.4.1 Current situation and lessons learned

By 2016, total Indonesian fuel consumption in the transport sector was

estimated at about 70 billion liters [276]. It was mainly dominated by gasoline
and diesel representing 47% and 46% of total national consumption
respectively [276]. Since 2005 continuous development of biodiesel 73 in
Indonesian fuel consumption has been observed. The biodiesel blend rate
increased from 0.2% in 2009 to 10.2% in 2016 [276]. First generation biofuels
produced from starch, sugar, animal fats or vegetable oil as well as crude palm
oil were initially developed in Indonesia in order to reduce oil imports and
carbon emissions. The National Medium-Term Development Plan RPJMN74
has the objective of producing between 4.3 and 10 million liters of biodiesel
and 0.34 and 0.93 million liters of bioethanol by 2019 [279]. A target share of
25% biodiesel in the global diesel fuels by 2019 has been set and a mandatory
biodiesel rate of 20% was imposed in 2016 [279]. The Indonesian biofuels
industry is principally dominated by palm oil. This development has been sup-
ported in the past by the imposition of export levies of at about 50$ a ton for
palm oil and 30$ for processed products [279]. The funds raised by these
levies were reused to subsidize biodiesel production and to launch new
research and development programs.

73
Biodiesel is a chemically modified alternative fuel which can be used in diesel engines. It can
be derived from vegetable oils and animal fats, soybean, cottonseed, groundnut, sunflower,
rapeseed, sesame, palm oil, coconut, linseed, castor, camelina, hemp, olive, jatropha, corn, tallow,
lard, poultry and rendered fats, used frying oil [277].
74
The RPJMN objective is to encourage “sustainable growth, increasing value added of natural
resources with the sustainable approach, increasing quality of the environment, disaster mitigation
and tackling climate change”. It concerns in particular the reduction of greenhouse gas emission
in the forestry and peat lands, agriculture, energy and transportation, industrial and waste sectors.
A specific target 26 % is set by 2019, in line with the National Action Plan for Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction (RAN – GRK) [278].

250
 9.4 Biodiesel production from jatropha in Indonesia

The growth of the Indonesian palm oil industry, however, incurred high
environmental and social costs [279]. Increasing local palm oil production
caused a massive land clearing of most of the carbon-dense forests and rising
greenhouse gas emissions. Further environmental problems were
biodiversity losses in forest areas as well as pollution due to combustion in
palm oil plantations [279]. Social conflicts over land use frequently arise
between local population and industrial palm oil corporations. An alternative
to palm oil valorization consists in producing biodiesel from jatropha curcas.
The use of jatropha curcas as a biodiesel source was first promoted in 2005
by the Indonesian government. The objective was to lower the effects of
increasing world crude oil prices by developing jatropha-based biodiesel.

The advantages and disadvantages of jatropha curcas are summed up in Table

9-1. In spite of its non-edible character and its low labour and nutrient
requirements, jatropha curcas also has disadvantages which jeopardize
profitable valorization into biodiesel.

Table 9.1: Advantages and disadvantages of jatropha curcas [280], [281], [282], [283]

Advantages Disadvantages
Non-edible plant which does not Jatropha generally takes four to five
compete with the food supply chain years to reach maturity
when used for biodiesel production.
The seed cakes cannot be used as
Can be used as a hedge against soil animal feed.
erosion and desertification.
There is a risk of land use
Can be grown on degraded poor soils in competition with food crops if the
semi-arid conditions. plantations are cultivated on arable
soils
Has low nutrient requirements and
requires limited labour input (perennial Only limited agronomic data
crop). concerning the plant are available
(yield and production costs
Seed cakes contain nitrogen and can thus uncertainty, unknown environmental
be used as organic fertilizer. impacts).

Jatropha has medicinal properties.

251
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

The toxicity of jatropha extracts from

fruit, seed, oil, roots, latex, bark, and
leaf is well-established.

In [284] an economic assessment of jatropha biodiesel projects has been

carried out and further highlights poor profitability levels. This is mainly
explained by low hectare yields, high production costs, limited seed
availability and decreasing fossil fuels price. According to [285], jatropha
yields vary from 0.1 to 1 t/ha which is very low in comparison to other biomass
feedstocks. High maintenance, labor and transport costs also generate high
production costs. According to [285] a possible way to reach profitability
could consist in using Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) in order to
finance the projects. Taking into account these revenue sources a profitable
situation can only be reached from a jatropha yield of about 2.5 t/ha [285].
This critical yield can currently not be achieved in Indonesia so that farmers
would tend to cultivate more productive crops. In addition, Indonesian
jatropha oil and seed sectors suffered from a lack of a consistent national
market strategy. Jatropha was mainly supported by governmental incentives
without stimulating biodiesel demand. Farmers were then unable to sell their
harvests and production [286].

Due to its non-competition with the food value chain the cultivation of
jatropha curcas on degraded soils at first sight represents a potentially
interesting option for biodiesel production especially in remote areas.
However, numerous research and development projects have been launched
in recent years and have produced, unfortunately, disappointing and negative
results. A lack of theoretical and scientific knowledge regarding the crop
cultivation, low commercial availability, poor profitability and insufficient
yields have induced major failures but also led to the identification of new
challenges described in the next section.

252
 9.4 Biodiesel production from jatropha in Indonesia

9.4.2 Methodology transferability: drivers and challenges

for a future model implementation

A lack of reliable techno-economic data combined with the unprofitability of

past jatropha projects in Indonesia renders the transfer of the methodology
applied to biogas in Germany very difficult. Nevertheless, a possible modelling
approach would consist, if data were available, in coupling agroeconomic
models with integrated economic evaluation tools. Such models have already
been developed for biogas in Germany [287]. A first step would be to
determine the conditions leading to maximal biodiesel production yields from
jatropha. An improvement of the oil extraction methods as well as the
implementation of suitable enzymes could improve productivity.
Transesterification and thermal cracking processes, mostly used for the
conversion of jatropha crude oil into biodiesel, have still to be optimized by
using environmentally friendly catalysts with high conversion efficiencies. The
crop properties could further be modified with the help of biotechnological
applications (plant breeding). The work on the jatropha genome is still at the
early stage and remains far behind that of other agricultural crops. An
optimized valorization of by-products such as seed cake and glycerin would
have positive impacts on the process economic balance and its sustainability.
The increase of the recovery rate for the glycerin derived from the
transesterification process as well as the detoxification of seed cake are in
particular key issues. All these optimization measures would contribute to
minimize the production costs of jatropha-based biodiesel. Given these
production costs an economic evaluation tool could be developed. This would
lead to the determination of the critical revenue level needed for project
profitability. The Clean Development Mechanism as well as incomes from
seed cake sale as an organic fertilizer represent possible revenues sources.
Recommendations for government and policy makers could then be
formulated highlighting in particular the local benefits created by jatropha
biodiesel.

253
9 Transferability of the developed methodology

9.5 Summary
The model transferability towards other valorization pathways than biogas in
Germany has been assessed in several case studies and leads to
heterogeneous conclusions. The biomethane injection in France is strongly
developing and is mainly driven by a stable legal framework corresponding to
Feed-In-Tariffs. First techno-economic assessments and data are already
published and current as well as future biomass potentials have been clearly
identified. This creates suited conditions for a model transfer from the
German biogas experience to French biomethane injection. A simulation
model would help plant operators to identify most profitable biomethane
plant capacity under a variable biomass feed-stock input. The optimization
model would lead to a forecast of future biomethane injection capacity.
Future developments could be then compared to the defined national
objective for biomethane under various scenarios.

Biomass district heating plays a major role in the Finnish renewable energy
system. Best practice exchanges already exist, e.g., in the North Karelia
region. However, an instability related to the employed Feed-In-Tariffs as well
as the lack of regional data for biomass feedstock prices and potentials render
the model transferability at the regional scale difficult. Future challenges
consist in developing new projects in young and small-scale forests. This
would contribute to reach defined national targets for wood chip energetic
valorization.

Bioethanol production in Brazil can be considered as a “success story” since

1960 so that currently biofuels represent about 20% of the national
transportation fuel demand. These developments have been supported by
governmental initiatives (e.g., the PROALCOOL program) and by continuous
research and development efforts. Future challenges for the Brazilian
bioethanol industry remain in the expansion of the sugarcane area harvested
for bioethanol. This expansion should respect sustainability criteria and
minimize the competition regarding land-use change. A further challenge

254
 9.5 Summary

concerns the future industrial development of 2nd generation bioethanol.

Brazilian lignocellulosic bioethanol still remains at the research stage. In order
to expand it up to an industrial scale a cost minimization approach is
necessary. To this aim optimization models minimizing the total bioethanol
production costs over all Brazilian regions could be employed. They would
provide insights about future bioethanol plant developments under optimal
economic conditions.

The conversion of jatropha curcas into biodiesel in Indonesia at first sight

represents a promising technological solution for the production of biodiesel
as a sustainable biofuel. Jatropha is a non-edible plant which can be cultivated
on degraded lands so that no competition with the food value chain occurs.
Nevertheless, low yield and profitability levels as well as a lack of scientific
and agroeconomic data render the model transferability from biogas in
Germany to jatropha in Indonesia very difficult.

In conclusion the transferability of the developed methodological framework

from Germany to other countries and bioenergy pathways is depending on
several key-factors. A stable subsidy framework, e.g., Feed-In-Tariffs, as well
as a robust production costs forecast are systematically required. The
evaluation of biomass potentials at the regional scale is further necessary for
the implementation of regional optimization models. This would contribute
to estimate mid-term development for each considered bioenergy pathway
under various scenarios. Furthermore, the implementation of the models and
methodology used in Germany to other countries has to take into account
sustainability criteria. This includes in particular the assessment of socio-
economic impacts as well as a reduced competition between food and fuel
and/or between energy and material use.

255
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

10.1 Summary
In this thesis, a model-based framework is developed for the assessment of
current and future electricity production from biogas in Germany. It provides
answers to two main research questions. The first one concerns the
identification of the most profitable biogas plant sizes and types under
different legal frameworks of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2012
and EEG 2014). Which installation types and sizes should be built under these
framework conditions in order to lead to the highest profitability for German
biogas plant operators? The second research question concerns future
developments regarding new built biogas plant capacity on a mid-term time
horizon, i.e., up to the year 2030. Which future capacity developments can be
foreseen up to the year 2030 at the Federal State level in order to ensure
maximal operating profits for German biogas plant operators?

The modelling concept corresponds to the perspective of biogas plant

operators with the objective of a profit maximization. The objective is to
provide an economic foresight for operators both on short and mid-terms.
Model input data concern biomass feedstock characteristics, plant operation
mode, existing biogas capacity, current and future biomass potentials as well
as all costs and revenues positions. The data is derived from literature
sources, from questionnaires sent to plant operators and also results from
own methodology. In particular, the total capital investment is estimated for
each plant size and type by using the Multiplier Values Method. A
methodology is also developed for the evaluation of energy crop costs at the
Federal State level based on regional hectare yields. A simulation model leads
to the identification of the most profitable plant sizes for the three major
installation types in Germany employing energy crops and manure in co-

257
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

digestion (EM plant) and biowaste and energy crops in mono-digestion

processes (B and E plants). The model developed is based on a process
simulation tool which enables the economic assessment of the three plant
types under a variable biomass input mass flow. The results are analysed
under the EEG 2012 and EEG 2014 legal frameworks dedicated to electricity
production from biogas in Germany. For small-scale plant sizes below to 75
kWel the results show that manure plant types appear as the most profitable
installation type due to high electricity sale revenues (e.g., 23.53 ct/kWhel in
2014). Starting from 550 kWel , biowaste plants represent the most
economically attractive option under EEG 2014. Furthermore, all agricultural
plant sizes turn out to be unprofitable under the EEG 2014 framework. This is
essentially due to the subsidies cut applied to energy crops. In addition to the
economic assessment, sensitivity analyses are realized for the most profitable
plant sizes. They quantify the impact of the main drivers on plants
profitability. Energy crop and investment-related costs, electricity sale price
as well as revenues from the biowaste valorization represent the main factors
influencing plant profitability. Their evolution can generate risks but also
opportunities for plant operators. A technical assessment leads to the
estimation of energetic efficiencies for the most profitable plant sizes over
the whole supply chain. The most profitable plant sizes identified in the
simulation model appear as plausible with regard to the legal framework
conditions of EEG 2014 which is favourable to small manure plants and large-
scale biowaste installations. For plants smaller than 150 kWel an economic
comparison with the new EEG 2017 is realized. This new legal framework only
has a very slight negative impact on the profitability in comparison with the
results observed under EEG 2014.

In a further step, future capacity expansion and electricity production from

biogas are estimated up to the year 2030 with the help of a regional
optimization model. The model’s objective is to maximize the total operating
profit over all plant sizes, the whole time period and all Federal States
combined. This aims to provide information regarding future mid-term
developments for biogas in Germany from a plant operator perspective.

258
 10.1 Summary

Several constraints apply concerning biomass potential limitations as well as

annual capacity expansion caps. A “base scenario” is defined on the basis of
the costs and revenues data employed in the previous simulation model. A
methodology for determining energy crop costs at the Federal State level is
developed and leads to a regionalization of the optimization model. These
data sets are completed by the evaluation of the existing biogas plant park in
each Federal State according to the three reference plant types. Current and
future regional biomass potentials for electricity production are further
estimated based on literature data.

The results show that the EEG 2012 framework – if maintained – would have
strengthened the development of agricultural plants and especially co-
digestion plants valorizing energy crops and manure. The EEG 2014
framework stops the initially expected development of energy crops mono-
digestion plants which will not be built anymore as they are unprofitable
(negative specific operating profit for all plant sizes in all regions and over the
whole time period). At the end of 2030 and under the EEG 2014 framework,
an installed electric power of about 4 GWel should be reached over all Federal
States. This total capacity is split into 1.94 GWel linked to base-load capacities
and 2.06 GWel related to existing and new built flexible capacities. Further
scenarios quantify the robustness of the optimization model in reaction to
shocks applied to revenues from the annual average EPEX-Peak electricity
sale, to the energy crop costs and to biowaste valorization revenues between
the years 2020 and 2025. A strong EPEX-Peak electricity price increase favours
the development of large-scale plants and limits the expansion of small-scale
manure installations. A strong energy crop costs increase generates
unprofitability in several Federal States which limits future capacity
developments. An important decrease of biowaste valorization revenues
freezes future capacity expansion. The results linked to these “shock
scenarios” represent precious information for policymakers and plant
operators as they contribute to quantify the potential threats and
opportunities for the future German biogas market on a mid-term horizon. A

259
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

forecast comparison with existing studies as well as with the recently enacted
EEG 2017 legal framework is further realized.

The transferability of the developed methodological framework towards

other countries and other bioenergy conversion pathways is then evaluated.
Both the simulation and optimization models could be implemented in France
where the biomethane injection into the natural gas grid is strongly
developing. A robust legal framework combined with available regional data
offer adequate conditions for a future model integration. The combustion of
woody biomass for district heating in Finland is a subsidized and mature
bioenergy conversion technology. It plays a major role in the national heat
demand and already benefits from best practices exchange issued from
projects in the eastern region. The simulation model developed for the
analysis of current electricity production from biogas in Germany is applicable
to Finnish biomass district heating plants. It would lead to the identification
of most profitable plant sizes and types under current legal framework
conditions. Unavailable regional data especially regarding biomass potentials,
prices and quality renders the optimization model transfer at the regional
scale difficult. An implementation at the national Finnish level remains
however possible. The transferability of the methodology to the liquid biofuel
sector has been further examined through the cases of bioethanol in Brazil
and biodiesel production from jatropha in Indonesia. On the basis of existing
economic studies and projects, a simulative approach as well as an
optimization model minimizing the total Brazilian bioethanol production
costs up to the year 2030 are implementable. Future developments for
bioethanol in Brazil should however take into account environmental and
social aspects in particular concerning greenhouse gas balance, impacts on
biodiversity, water and air, as well as regarding the “food versus fuel” debate.
The valorization of jatropha into biodiesel in Indonesia represents at the first
sight a promising pathway for biofuels production, as jatropha does not
compete with food value chain. However, the low production yields currently
observed in Indonesia and a lack of reliable data do not provide suitable
conditions for a future model transfer. Technical process improvements are

260
 10.2 Conclusions

required in order to reach profitable yields and the implementation of Clean

Development Mechanisms (CDM) would represent possible financing options
for future projects. In all case studies a robust forecast of productions costs
and revenues as well as stable legal frameworks and regional data are
prerequisites for a further model implementation.

10.2 Conclusions
Several conclusions and recommendations can be formulated in relation to
the analysis of current and future electricity production from biogas in
Germany. Currently only discrete economic analyses of individual German
biogas plants exist. The added-value of the simulation model developed is
thus to enable a continuous profitability assessment under variable biomass
input and taking into consideration different legal frameworks (versions 2012
and 2014 of the Renewable Energy Sources Act). The simulative approach
further provides indications regarding the most profitable biogas plant sizes
to be built under various legal frameworks. The identification of the most
profitable plant sizes combined with the quantification of the main
profitability drivers through a sensitivity analysis provides a useful assistance
to plant operators. It enables more strategic installation design taking into
account existing legal frameworks for biogas in Germany. The simulation
model thus gives valuable insights for plant operators wishing to operate their
installation in the most profitable way.

The optimization model developed delivers strategic outcomes concerning

the evolution of future regional developments for biogas plants in Germany.
The modelling approach is considered from the plant operator perspective
and represents an added value in comparison with other existing studies.
These assessments are based on a systemic approach and do not quantify the
regional evolution of various biogas plant types and sizes. The model results
show that the German biogas market will thus face a paradigm shift and move
to strong development of small-scale manure plants and large-scale biowaste

261
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

plants. The development of these plant types and sizes should lead to the
highest profitability from the plant operator perspective. This forthcoming
shift into the development of waste and residues-based plants should clear
the main acceptance problems which have raised in the past years for biogas
in Germany [15]. Acceptance problems in Germany concern notably the “food
versus fuel” debate and in particular the increasing use of maize silage for
biogas production. In addition, citizens are potentially concerned by the
commissioning of new biogas plants close to their housings. They fear
negative impacts due to biogas like increasing road traffic or odour emissions
[15]. The model results further show that a generalized decommissioning will
occur starting from 2020 for plants older than 20 years. This aspect must be
balanced by a continuously improved integration of biogas into the German
electricity market. According to the model results, about 50% of the electricity
from biogas will be produced in 2030 by flexible plants based on the direct
electricity marketing model. The simulation and optimization models deliver
insights for plant operators regarding the current and future electricity
production from biogas in Germany. Based on these outcomes,
recommendations are addressed.

A first recommendation consists in improving the economic balance for small

to mid-scale biowaste plants which are not profitable under the EEG 2014
framework. A future development of this installations type would establish
local circular bio-economies and decentralized markets both for biowaste and
for the produced digestate. A better involvement of local actors in biowaste
plant projects should be encouraged and could lead to an increase of the
municipal fee revenues dedicated to biowaste valorization in biogas plants.

A second recommendation concerns the need for developing biogas plants

based on agricultural residues. Residues are generally available for free and
do not compete with the food value chain. This development would provide
new perspectives especially for agricultural biogas plants whose profitability
was strongly impacted by the energy crops and manure subsidy cut under the
EEG 2014 framework.

262
 10.3 Outlook

A third recommendation is related to the development of small-scale manure

biogas plants. The subsidy level linked to this plant type has to be maintained
in order to ensure a continuous valorization of manure potentials of which
only 50% are used by 2013 [172]. A new generation of local farming systems
could thus emerge and contribute to the integration of biogas plants into
small farming systems. This would contribute to a revitalization of the rural
economy and facilitate the German energy transition by new job creation.

Another recommendation concerns the flexibilization degree of existing and

new built plants which has to be improved by enlarging the flexibilization
possibility to all plant sizes including small-scale manure plants. The
flexibilization of future biogas plant should thus be fostered, especially
regarding the set objective of 80% renewable energy sources in the national
gross electricity consumption by 2050 [93]. This ambitious target implies a
strong increase of fluctuating electricity sources like wind power or
photovoltaics and thereby the need of flexible biogas plants in order to
stabilize the electricity grid [288].

The methodological framework applied to the case of biogas in Germany is

further transferable to other countries and to other conversion pathways
under certain conditions. Robust and stable framework conditions involving
e.g., Feed-In-Tariffs as well as consistent regional data for biomass potentials
and prices are required. Lessons learned and best practices from past projects
would further lead to substantial profitability improvements. For example,
the developed methodology and models could be used for the analysis of the
biomethane injection in France and the biomass district heating in Finland.
This would contribute to reach specific targets for bioenergy and to facilitate
the national energy transition in these countries.

10.3 Outlook
Future challenges and research needs for biogas in Germany are remaining
and should be pointed out. In the context of volatile biomass feedstock and

263
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

electricity prices, biogas plant operators must be able to understand and

master the financial risks impacting the profitability of their installations. The
models results show that the current economic balance as well as the future
development of German biogas plants are highly sensitive to this volatility.
The acquisition of new competencies and deep knowledge in the field of
energy economics, commodities and electricity markets could thus help plant
operators to strategically manage their installations.

The identification of model regions for biogas in Germany represents a

strategic aspect for the European biogas sector. As Germany is by far the
European biogas leader, best practices can be gathered and transferred to
other European countries. The results of the optimization model show in
particular that Lower-Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia will be leading the
future German biogas market and represent respectively about 25% and 15%
of the total base-load biogas plant capacities at the end of 2030. These two
“flagship regions” could be the seat of research and innovation projects.
Innovative business models, applied to both agricultural and biowaste plants,
could thereby be developed. In particular a first challenge remains in a better
approach to flexibility from the feedstock side as well as from the gas storage
side. Further research needs to be carried out on the optimization and
strategic planning of biomass input loading and/or gas storage.
Complementarily to gas storage, another possibility would be to operate
flexible biogas plants by loading the biomass feedstock input and producing
biogas only during high electricity price hours. For this a digitalization of
existing and future biogas plants is necessary. This can be achieved by
information and communication technologies (ICT) with an access to online
data monitoring e.g., regarding process parameters or EPEX electricity prices
[289]. In [290] the operation of flexible biogas plants following the electricity
demand and price is described. The biomass loading step and the gas storage
are strategically combined in order to maximize plant flexibility. A case study
highlights cooperative approaches and strategies that have been
experimented for a pool of flexible biogas plants in Switzerland. All flexible
biogas plants in the pool are connected to a centralized control and regulation

264
 10.3 Outlook

system. This control system synchronizes the operation of all connected

biogas plants. This enables economically optimal and demand-driven
electricity production occurring in peak times and linked to a high price level.
In addition, modelling approaches such as an agent-based simulation of single
decentralized biogas plants represent further research needs. These models
would enable the simulation of interactions between individual installations
belonging to a pool of flexible biogas plants. Flexibility options could be
simulated according to biomass feedstock price and availability or depending
on EPEX electricity price level. This would deliver insights regarding the
optimal integration of flexible biogas plants into the German electricity
system.

Another challenge is to increase the collection, mobilization and valorization

rates of biowaste potentials for biogas plants. A separate collection of
biowaste in households is compulsory according to the Waste Management
Act 2012. However, continuous optimization measures must be applied at the
household level in order to improve the biowaste collection rates. According
to [291] these optimization measures can be divided into three major steps.
The first step concerns the evaluation of the connection rate of a given
municipality or a district to biowaste bins. Streets, districts or areas showing
low connection rates should thereby be identified. In a second step a
biowaste sorting analysis has to be performed in the settlement areas
characterized by low connection rates. The content of biowaste bins must be
qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Further research work in this area
would consist in deploying questionnaires in various German municipalities in
order to better characterize biowaste management habits. This would lead to
the formulation of concrete optimization measures for a more sustainable
biowaste use.

A further aspect concerns synergies and mutualization effects to be found

between biowaste fermentation and composting pathways. Household
biowaste can be divided into green waste and kitchen biowaste which can
generate biogas by fermentation but also a humus rich fertilizer through an

265
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

aerobic composting process. According to [292] and [293] about 300

composting plants and 113 biowaste fermentation plants were operated in
Germany at the end of 2014. Composting plants essentially valorize woody
green waste with a high lignin-content. Fermentation processes employ easily
degradable feedstock with a low lignin-content. The competition of use
between these two valorization routes therefore remains limited. In [294] an
economic and environmental comparison of biowaste composting and
biowaste fermentation processes is carried out. Fermentation processes tend
to show a better greenhouse gas and energy balance than composting
technologies but are generally characterized by higher investment and
operating costs. Current trends consist in finding complementary solutions
between composting and fermentation processes, which should be combined
and not opposed. As mentioned in [292], about 80 combined plants exist in
Germany and employ both composting and fermentation processes on the
same installation site. This hybrid plant model creates synergy effects
especially if high fee revenues for biowaste valorization or high heat sale
revenues are reached. In the future continuous development of this
combined installations type must be politically encouraged. An optimal
allocation of the household biowaste mass flows between composting and
fermentation plants represents another important issue for the German
biogas industry. For this, optimal logistic channels should be defined and the
collection process of the biowaste should be coordinated and managed from
centralized control platforms. To this aim further research work have to focus
on the model-based assessment of logistic supply chains dedicated to
biowaste valorization. This would contribute to identify optimal logistical
pathways and to minimize transport costs as well as environmental impacts.

Biogas plants are more and more involved in local approaches dedicated to
autonomous energy supply. In Germany the “Bioenergiedorf” concept has
been developed in several villages like in Jühnde [295]. In this village a
decentralized energy supply is deployed and includes citizen participation. A
biogas plant valorizing energy crops and manure in co-digestion, as well as a
wood chip heating plant connected to a local heating network fully satisfy the

266
 10.3 Outlook

local energy demand. A research project dealing with the profitability analysis
of a flexible biogas plant has been launched there and highlights the
importance of local heat valorization in the plant profitability. The European
Institute for Energy Research (EIFER) also analysed the “Bioenergiedorf”
concept in six villages located in Germany and in France [296]. In each village
a case study has been developed. In a first step, biomass potentials and the
energy consumption have been spatialized. Sociological, environmental as
well as economic studies have been further carried out. This led to the
elaboration of scenarios for local authorities, based on local data and
dedicated to a local valorization of biomass resources. Most of the developed
concepts had a positive impact on the heat production costs in comparison
with a “Business as usual” scenario. Local pollutant emissions could be
significantly reduced (especially CO2 , SO2 and fine particles), e.g., by
replacing the fuel oil energetic use by woody biomass or by implementing
more efficient energy conversion systems (e.g., micro-cogeneration). Further
research work is required in order to enlarge the “Bioenergiedorf” approach
to new villages and to identify the main barriers and drivers for a future
implementation.

A last challenge concerns the increase of the biogas contribution to the

German heat transition75. At the end of the year 2015 the German heat mix
was dominated by fossil energy sources with a share of 86.8% and 12% were
related to bioenergy sources (the remaining 1.2% correspond to geo-thermal
and solar thermal energy sources) [297]. The realization of the German heat
transition is thereby deeply linked to the development of bioenergy sources.
Solid biomass, mainly used in combustion or gasification process, shows the
highest share in the renewable heat mix with approximatively 74.6% followed
by biogas, sewer gas and landfill gas with about 12% [298]. An optimized
valorization of the heat produced by biogas plants would therefore
significantly contribute to reaching the objective of the German heat

75
In the context of the German heat transition a share of 14% of renewable energy sources of the
heat demand has to be reached by 2020 [87].

267
10 Summary, conclusions and outlook

transition. However, planning uncertainty for a future increase of heat

valorization remains [299]. This is especially the case for a plant operation
after the 20 years EEG subsidy period. The development of renewable district
heating networks connected to existing and future biogas plants would
increase the valorization rate of the heat produced. A diversification of heat
sinks (e.g., valorization in hospitals, schools, buildings for wood and cereals
drying) and optimized heating contracting could further improve plants
profitability [299]. Seasonal heat storage could there-by easily store the heat
produced and feed it into district heating networks during high thermal
demand time [300]. Further research work has to focus on the spatialization
of heat sinks close to biogas plants, e.g., by using Geographical Information
Systems (GIS). This would then facilitate the acquisition of supplementary
heat sinks and also increase the contribution of biogas to the German
renewable heat transition.

268
Appendix

Tables
Table A. 1: Current support schemes for the electricity production from biogas in each
European country [70]

Quo Net
Prem ta Tax R Grid
FI ium Ten Syst Mete Investmen Subs Lo regula & conne Ot N
T Tariff ders em ring t grants idy an tion D ction her /A
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Republic of
Cyprus
Czech
Republic
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Luxembou
rg
Lithuania
Malta
Netherlan
ds
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
United
Kingdom

269
Appendix

Table A. 2: Numerical values of the methane formation rate for each plant type

Specified values for methane formation

rate k (d-1)
Agricultural plant EM 0.00044
Agricultural plant E 0.00052
Biowaste plants B 0.00113

Table A. 3: Technical input data for the estimation of the flexibility premium

Unit Value
Existing base-load biogas plant
Initial installed electric power (input data) [kWel] 1,000
Electric efficiency of the initially installed [%] 42.62 (see Figure
CHP (input data) A.15)
Full-load hours of the initially installed CHP [h] 8,000
(input data) (own author’s
assumption)
Electricity amount fed into the grid and [kWhel] 8,000,000
linked to the initially installed CHP
(calculated)
Methane concentration in biogas (input % 52 [162]
data)
Biogas volume flow for the initially installed [m3/h] 453
CHP (calculated)
Daily gas production in baseload (calculated) [m³] 10,862
Existing effective gas storage volume (input [m3] 4,000
data) (own author’s
assumption)
Plant upgrading: flexibilization
Installed electric power for the [kWel] 800
supplementary flexible CHP (input data)
Electric efficiency for the supplementary [%] 39.7 (see Figure
flexible CHP (input data) A.15)
Biogas volume flow for supplementary CHP [m³/h] 391
in part-load (calculated)
Global plant
Total installed electric power (calculated) [kWel] 1,800
Installed electric power linked to part-load for [kWel] 800
flexible CHP (input data)
Full-load hours of the global flexible plant [h] 4,713
(calculated)

270
 Appendix

Table A. 4: Estimation of the flexibilization costs and flexibility premium

Unit Value

Supplementary flexible electric CHP power [kWel] 800

(input data)
Investment for supplementary flexible CHP [€] 347,931
(calculated according to [150])
Specific investment-related costs for [ct/kWhel] 0.71
supplementary flexible CHP (calculated)
Gas storage expansion: supplementary [m³] 32
required volume (calculated)
Investment for gas storage (calculated as a [€] 15,572
function of storage volume based on [188])
Specific costs for gas storage (in ct/kWhel) linked [ct/kWhel] 0.02
to the initially installed CHP running 8000 h per
year (calculated).
Flexibility premium under the EEG 2012 [ct/kWhel] 1.13
framework (calculated according to Eq. 3.2)

Table A. 5: Regional hectare yields for maize silage [191]

Hectare yields maize silage (t/ha)

Baden-Württemberg 46.22
Bavaria 50.04
Brandenburg 31.24
Hesse 49.41
Mecklenburg-Western 34.50
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 44.86
North Rhine-Westphalia 46.64
Rhineland-Palatinate 45.97
Saarland 44.23
Saxony 40.07
Saxony-Anhalt 36.29
Schleswig-Holstein 36.65
Thuringia 41.43

271
Appendix

Table A. 6: Regional hectare yields for rapeseed [191]

Hectare yields rapeseed (t/ha)

Baden-Württemberg 39
Bavaria 34
Brandenburg 37
Hesse 40
Mecklenburg-Western 33
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 40
North Rhine-Westphalia 40
Rhineland-Palatinate 39
Saarland 37
Saxony 39
Saxony-Anhalt 41
Schleswig-Holstein 43
Thuringia 38

Table A. 7: Regional hectare yields for grass silage [192]

Hectare yields grass silage (t/ha)

Baden-Württemberg 16.57
Bavaria 21.14
Brandenburg 14.14
Hesse 14.86
Mecklenburg-Western 12.57
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 23
North Rhine-Westphalia 17.86
Rhineland-Palatinate 15.14
Saarland 16.43
Saxony 19.86

272
 Appendix

Saxony-Anhalt 13.71
Schleswig-Holstein 21.71
Thuringia 18.71

Table A. 8: Regional hectare yields for cereal grain [191]

Hectare yields cereal grain (t/ha)

Baden-Württemberg 6.55
Bavaria 6.01
Brandenburg 4.86
Hesse 6.66
Mecklenburg-Western 5.74
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 6.56
North Rhine-Westphalia 6.78
Rhineland-Palatinate 6.33
Saarland 6.03
Saxony 5.64
Saxony-Anhalt 5.86
Schleswig-Holstein 7.07
Thuringia 6.38

Table A. 9: Regional hectare yields for cereal silage [191], [193]

Hectare yields cereal

silage (t/ha)
Baden-Württemberg 37.11
Bavaria 34.07
Brandenburg 27.56
Hesse 37.75
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 32.50

273
Appendix

Lower Saxony 37.20

North Rhine-Westphalia 38.42
Rhineland-Palatinate 35.85
Saarland 34.19
Saxony 31.96
Saxony-Anhalt 33.21
Schleswig-Holstein 40.07
Thuringia 36.16

Table A. 10: Regional surface area for each energy crops type

Maize Grass Cereal Cereal

silage silage silage grain (ha)
(ha) (ha) (ha)
Baden-Württemberg 98,523 30,822 7,760 14,979
Bavaria 283,284 62,987 25,352 48,935
Brandenburg 64,540 19,806 6,196 11,961
Hesse 22,356 6,854 1,714 3,309
Mecklenburg- 71,638 16,480 6,665 12,866
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony 324,419 79,957 28,329 54,681
North Rhine- 81,314 29,537 7,638 14,744
Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate 17,855 6,768 1,734 3,347
Saarland 1,404 418 126 244
Saxony 35,621 10,744 2,888 5,575
Saxony-Anhalt 55,437 10,664 3,762 7,261
Schleswig-Holstein 99,511 31,634 9,195 17,749
Thuringia 43,136 10,886 3,668 7,079

274
 Appendix

Table A. 11: Number of existing milk cows and remaining cattle at the end of the year 2012
[197], [198]

Number of Number of remaining

milk cows cattle
Baden-Württemberg 353,715 661,271
Bavaria 1,244,456 2,111,455
Brandenburg 160,303 394,189
Hesse 149,180 314,472
Mecklenburg- 171,573 372,585
Western Pomerania
Lower Saxony 769,283 1,715,346
North Rhine- 392,466 988,357
Westphalia
Rhineland-Palatinate 118,501 250,379
Saarland 14,255 36,116
Saxony 187,011 302,033
Saxony-Anhalt 123,562 213,294
Schleswig-Holstein 364,240 772,932
Thuringia 111,478 224,895

Table A. 12: Regional manure mass flows

Manure mass flows (t)

Baden-Württemberg 12,624,361
Bavaria 42,587,596
Brandenburg 6,524,606
Hesse 5,626,776
Mecklenburg-Western 6,564,118
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 29,812,244
North Rhine-Westphalia 16,171,861
Rhineland-Palatinate 4,474,541

275
Appendix

Saarland 589,235
Saxony 6,270,098
Saxony-Anhalt 4,259,527
Schleswig-Holstein 13,781,874
Thuringia 4,118,872

Table A. 13: Regional energy crop costs for the base year 2013

Maize Grass silage Cereal Cereal

silage costs year silage costs grain costs
costs year 2013 (€/t) year 2013 year 2013
2013 (€/t) (€/t) (€/t)
Baden- 31.70 27.69 33.22 182.87
Württemberg
Bavaria 25.23 24.23 33.32 187.59
Brandenburg 44.94 29.77 33.27 187.48
Hesse 30.35 28.73 33.51 186.94
Mecklenburg- 36.03 27.14 31.40 186.55
Western
Pomerania
Lower Saxony 34.02 29.56 37.28 204.74
North 32.47 31.63 33.90 186.75
Rhine-
Westphalia
Rhineland- 31.61 30.11 33.33 185.69
Palatinate
Saarland 31.65 30.11 32.90 184.85
Saxony 36.27 25.64 33.10 187.50
Saxony-Anhalt 42.16 27.64 33.90 189.20
Schleswig- 44.77 29.81 34.75 190.83
Holstein
Thuringia 34.62 32.93 33.54 189

276
 Appendix

Table A. 14: Feedstock specific electric yields

Specific electric yield in kWhel/t

Maize silage 401.45
Grass silage 333.96
Cereal silage 343.45
Cereal grains 1,068.02

277
Appendix

Figures

Figure A. 1: Example of a technical flowsheet for a 2,000 kWel EM plant

278
 Appendix

Figure A. 2: Example of a technical flowsheet for a 75 kWel small manure EM plant

279
Appendix

Figure A. 3: Example of a technical flowsheet for a 2,000 kWel E plant

280
 Appendix

Figure A. 4: Example of a technical flowsheet for a 3,000 kWel B plant

281
Appendix

kWel
10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 t/a

Figure A. 5: Electric power as a function of the biomass input mass flow (E plant)

kWel
10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 300.000 t/a

Figure A. 6: Electric power as a function of the biomass input mass flow (B plant)

282
 Appendix

Bavaria
Lower Saxony
North Rhine-Westphalia
Baden-Württemberg
Schleswig-Holstein
Mecklenburg-West…
Brandenburg
Saxony-Anhalt
Saxony
Hesse
Thuringia
Rhineland-Palatinate
Saarland
Berlin
Hamburg
Bremen
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TWhel
EM plant E plant B plant

Figure A. 7: Allocated biomass potentials for electricity production at the end of the year 2012
in each Federal State

TWhel
25
20
15
10
5
0
Plant E Plant EM Plant E Plant EM Plant E Plant EM Plant E Plant EM
2015 2020 2025 2030
BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure A. 8: Evolution of biomass potentials for E and EM plants up to the year 2030 at the
Federal State

283
Appendix

TWhel
4

0
2015 2020 2025 2030
BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure A. 9: Evolution of biomass potentials for B plants up to the year 2030 at the Federal State
level

€/m3
400
350
300
250
200 y = 1189.9x-0.282
150
100
50
0
0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 m3

Figure A. 10: Specific acquisition costs for fermenter as a function of the fermenter working
volume (EM plants)

284
 Appendix

€/kWel
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel

Figure A. 11: Specific acquisition costs for fermenter as a function of the installed electric power
(EM plants)

€
150.000

120.000

90.000

60.000

30.000

0
0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 m3

Figure A. 12: Capital investment for gas storage as a function of the storage volume [188]

285
Appendix

ct/kWhel
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure A. 13: Energy crop cost contribution in the total electricity production costs for E plants
and in each Federal State (year 2013)

ct/kWhel
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BW BY BB HE MV NI NRW RP SL SN ST SH TH

Figure A. 14: Energy crop cost contribution in the total electricity production costs for EM plants
and in each Federal State (year 2013)

286
 Appendix

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 kWel
Electrical efficiency initially installed base-load CHP
Electrical efficiency supplementary flexible CHP
Thermal efficiency initially installed base-load CHP
Thermal efficiency supplementary flexible CHP

Figure A. 15: Thermal and electric CHPs efficiency for base-load CHPs and supplementary flexible
CHPs as a function of the installed electric power [150]

10

0
0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000 kWel

Figure A. 16: Number of CHP gas engines as a function of the installed electric power

287
Appendix

ct/kWhel
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Investment-related costs Process utilities costs
Electricity consumption costs Flexibilization costs
CHP-maintenance costs Personnel costs
Transport costs Energy crop costs

Figure A. 17: Specific annual costs for E plants as a function of the electric power for the base
year 2015

ct/kWhel
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Revenues from digestate sale Revenues from heat sale
Revenues from electricity sale

Figure A. 18: Specific annual revenues for E plants as a function of the electric power for the base
year 2015 and under the EEG 2014 framework

288
 Appendix

ct/kWhel
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Electricity production costs Revenues

Figure A. 19: Specific electricity production costs and revenues for E plants as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2015 and under the EEG 2014 framework.

ct/kWhel
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Investment-related costs Process utilities costs
Digestate treatment costs Electricity consumption costs
Flexibilization costs Maintenance costs
Personnel costs Biowaste transport costs

Figure A. 20: Specific annual costs for B plants as a function of the electric power for the base
year 2015

289
Appendix

ct/kWhel
30

25

20

15

10

0
10 100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Revenues from digestate sale
Revenues from heat sale
Revenues from electricity sale
Revenues from biowaste valorization

Figure A. 21: Specific annual revenues for B plants as a function of the electric power for the base
year 2015 and under the EEG 2014 framework

ct/kWhel
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100 1.000 10.000 kWel
Electricity production costs Revenues

Figure A. 22: Specific electricity production costs and revenues for B plants as a function of the
electric power for the base year 2015 and under the EEG 2014 framework

290
Bibliography
1. Röttgen N.: Energiewende ist ein nationales Gemeinschaftsprojekt –
Bundesumweltminister, Börsen-Zeitung, 03.09.2011, Nummer 170, p. B1
(2011)

2. Pfeifer, J., Ferchau, E.: Bioenergie – das Multitalent der Energiewende,

Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie, Vortrag im
Rahmen des Vereins zu Förderung von Biomasse und nachwachsenden
Rohstoffen, Freiberg e.V., Niederbobritzsch, 23. August 2014 (2014)

3. Agentur für Erneuerbare Energien e.V.: Die Bioenergie in der

Bioökonomie, Renews Kompakt, 30th edition, June 2016,
https://www.unendlich-viel-
energie.de/media/file/442.AEE_RK_Bioenergie_in_derBiooekonomie_J
un16_online.pdf, viewed in October 2016

4. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen e.V.: Importabhängigkeit der

deutschen Energieversorgung, Nr. 04, July 2016, Berlin, www.ag-
energiebilanzen.de, viewed in September 2016

5. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2015, p.9, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2015)

6. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 1 (2015)

291
Bibliography

7. Krautkremmer, B.: Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse: dezentral, effizient

und grundlastfähig, Fraunhofer institute for solar energy technology, FVS
Themen 2006 (2006)

8. Häring, G, Sonnleitner, M., Wiedemann, L., Zörner, W., Aschmann, V.:

Technische Anforderungen an Biogasanlagen für die flexible
Stromerzeugung, Biogas Forum Bayern, ALB Bayern e.V.,
http://www.biogas-forum-bayern.de/media/files/0002/Technische-
Anforderungen-an-Biogasanlagen-fuer-die-flexible-Stromerzeugung.pdf
, viewed in March 2014, p.2 (2013)

9. European Biogas Association, Biomethane and biogas report 2015,

http://european-biogas.eu/2015/12/16/biogasreport2015/ , viewed in
November 2015

10. Biogas sector statistics 2015/2016,

http://www.biogas.org/edcom/webfvb.nsf/id/DE_Branchenzahlen/$file
/16-07-28_Biogas_Branchenzahlen-2015_Prognose-2016_engl_final.pdf
, last update July 2016, p. 1, viewed in September 2016

11. Renewable Energy Sources Act- EEG 2014, Part 4, §44, 21st July 2014, p.
23 (2014)

12. Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V.: BDEW-

Strompreisanalyse May 2017 Haushalte und Industrie, oral presentation,
Berlin 31st May 2017 (2017)

13. Kost, C., Mayer, J., Thomsen, J., Hartmann, N., Senkpiel, C., Philipps, S.,
Nold, S., Lude, S., Schlegl, T.: Studie Stromgestehungskosten erneuerbare
Energien, Fraunhofer institute for solar energy systems, ISE, Freiburg, p.
2 (2013)

292
 Bibliography

14. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie: Marktanalyse Biomasse,

position paper, p. 6-7 (2012)

15. Stiehler, W., Decker, T., Menrad, K.: Wahrnehmung, generelle

gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz der Technologie Biogas sowie
Anwohnerakzeptanz von bestehenden und fiktiven Biogasanlagen
Standorten, oral presentation and proceedings of the 22 nd German
Biogas Association Annual Conference, Leipzig, p. 43-49 (2013)

16. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H.: Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen,

Techniken und Verfahren, Springer (2001)

17. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden feste

Brennstoffe, p. 58, Order Nr. 189, Gülzow (2014)

18. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2.
neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, p. 345 (2009)

19. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2.
neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, p. 428 (2009)

20. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Bioenergie,

Planung, Betrieb und Wirtschaftlichkeit von Bioenergieanlagen p. 91-96,
Gülzow (2000)

21. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2.
neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, p. 432 (2009)

293
Bibliography

22. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2.
neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, p. 449 (2009)

23. Bridgwater, T.: Biomass pyrolysis, oral presentation IEA Bioenergy, York,
October 2010 (2010)

24. Woolf, D., Amonette, J., Alayne Street-Perrott F., Lehmann J., Joseph, S.:
Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change, Nature
Communications 1 (5), p. 1–9, August 2010 (2010)

25. Kaltschmitt, M., Thrän D., Smith, K. R.: Renewable energy from biomass,
Encyclopaedia of Physical Science and Technology, Vol. 14: 203-228,
Meyers RA ed., San Diego (2003)

26. Chen, L., de Haro Marti, M., Moore, A., Falen, C.: The composting process,
dairy compost production and use in Idaho, University of Idaho, June
2011 (2011)

27. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 23, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

28. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 69, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

29. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 70, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

30. Kern, M., Raussen, T., Graven, T., Bergs, C.-G., Hermann, T., Radde, C.-A.:
Ökologisch sinnvolle Verwertung von Bioabfällen. Anregungen für
kommunale Entscheidungsträger, Bundesministerium für Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU), Umweltbundesamt (UBA), 1.
Auflage, March 2012, p. 10 (2012)

294
 Bibliography

31. European Parliament and council: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 19th November 2008 on waste and
regarding certain Directives, Official Journal of the European Union, p.13
(2008)

32. Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz-KrWG: Gesetz zur Förderung der

Kreislaufwirtschaft und Sicherung der umweltverträglichen
Bewirtschaftung von Abfällen, §11, February 2012, last change in April
2016, p. 12 (2016)

33. Nelles, M., Schüh, A., Morscheck, G., Scholwin, F.: Energie aus biogenen
Abfällen und Reststoffen – Potenziale, Perspektiven und Beispiele,
Vortrag auf dem 7. Rostocker Bioenergieforum, Rostock (2013)

34. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 169, 5. vollständig überarbeitete Auflage,
Gülzow (2010)

35. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2012, §27a, p. 27, 30th June 2011
(2011)

36. European Parliament and council: Regulation No 1069/2009 of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 21st October 2009 laying down
health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not
intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation Nr.
1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation)

37. Bioabfallverordnung – BioAbfV: Verordnung über die Verwertung von

Bioabfälle auf landwirtschaftlich, forstwirtschaftlich und gärtnerisch
genutzten Böden, 21st September 1998, last change in April 2012 (2012)

295
Bibliography

38. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 138, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

39. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Biogas: Pflanzen,

Rohstoffe, Produkte, p. 27, 7. vollständig überarbeitete Auflage, Order
Nr. 175, August 2011, Gülzow (2011)

40. Eder, B., Krieg, A.: Biogas – Praxis, Grundlagen, Planung, Anlagenbau,
Beispiele, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Umwelt, 5. überarbeitete Auflage 2012,
ökobuch Verlag, May 2012, Staufen bei Freiburg (2012)

41. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 197, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

42. Bioabfallverordnung – BioAbfV: Verordnung über die Verwertung von

Bioabfälle auf landwirtschaftlich, forstwirtschaftlich und gärtnerisch
genutzten Böden, p.39, 21st September 1998, last change in April 2012
(2012)

43. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2.
neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (2009)

44. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p.
911, 2. neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (2009)

45. Fuchs, G.: Allgemeine Mikrobiologie, Thieme Verlag, p. 377 (2008)

46. Schieder, D., Gronauer, A., Lebuhn, M., Bayer, K., Beck, J., Hiepp, G.,
Binder, S.: Prozessmodell Biogas, Biogasforum Bayern Nr. III 3/2010
(2010)

296
 Bibliography

47. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 21, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

48. Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H., Hofbauer, H.: Energie aus Biomasse.
Grundlagen, Techniken und Verfahren, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p.
881, 2. neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage (2009)

49. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 22, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

50. Weiland, P.: Grundlagen der Methangärung – Biologie und Substrate:

VDI-Berichte, Nr. 1620 “Biogas als regenerative Energie – Stand und
Perspektiven”, S. 19-32, VDI-Verlag (2001)

51. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 31 (2015)

52. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Gülzower

Fachgespräche Band 24, Trockenfermentation – Stand der Entwicklung
und weiterer F+E Bedarf, Gülzow (2006)

53. Institut für Energetik und Umwelt gGmbH (IE): Biogaserzeugung durch
Trockenvergärung von organischen Rückständen, Nebenprodukten und
Abfällen aus der Landwirtschaft – Abschnitt 2 – Erhebung der
Trockenfermentationsverfahren erschließbaren energetischen
Potenziale in Deutschland. Vergleichende ökonomische und ökologische
Analyse landwirtschaftlicher Trockenfermentationsanlagen, January
2007 (2007)

54. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas: von

der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 52, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow (2013)

297
Bibliography

55. Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V.: Erläuterung der RAL-

Prüfzeugnisse und hinterlegter Qualitäts- / Prüfkriterien, Merkblatt
Prüfzeugnisse, Kompost RAL-GZ 251, p.2, February 2010, Köln (2010)

56. German Federal Environment Agency (UBA): Aufwand und Nutzen einer
optimierten Bioabfallverwertung hinsichtlich Energieeffizienz, Klima- und
Ressourcenschutz, Förderkennzeichnung 3707 33 304, p. 96, August
2010, Dessau-Roßlau (2010)

57. Petersson, A., Wellinger, A.: Biogas upgrading technologies –

developments and innovations, IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 Energy from
biogas and landfill gas, October 2009, p. 5 (2009)

58. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p.32 (2015)

59. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p.23 (2015)

60. Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW): Technische
Regel – Arbeitsblatt DVGW G260 (A) Gasbeschaffenheit, April 2013, Bonn
(2013)

61. Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW): Technische
Regel – Arbeitsblatt DVGW G262 (A), Nutzung von Gasen aus
regenerativen Quellen in der öffentlichen Gasversorgung, September
2011, Bonn (2011)

298
 Bibliography

62. Petersson, A., Wellinger, A.: Biogas upgrading technologies –

developments and innovations, IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 Energy from
biogas and landfill gas, October 2009, p. 8 (2009)

63. Petersson, A., Wellinger, A.: Biogas upgrading technologies –

developments and innovations, IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 Energy from
biogas and landfill gas, October 2009, p. 9 (2009)

64. Petersson, A., Wellinger, A.: Biogas upgrading technologies –

developments and innovations, IEA Bioenergy, Task 37 Energy from
biogas and landfill gas, October 2009, (2009)

65. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Biomethane, p. 24,

Order Nr. 623, Gülzow (2013)

66. European Biogas Association: 6th statistical report http://european-

biogas.eu/2016/12/21/eba-launches-6th-edition-of-the-statistical-
report-of-the-european-biogas-association/, viewed in May 2017

67. Deremince, B.: State of the art and future prospects of biogas and
biomethane in Europe, European Biogas Association, oral presentation,
21st April 2017, Bologna, http://www.geotechnical.it/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/EBA-B.-DEREMINCE-CONVEGNO-BIOGAS-
SOSTENIBILE.pdf, viewed in September 2017

68. Kampman, B., Leguijt, C., Scholten, T., Tallat-Kelpsaite J., Brückmann, R.,
Maroulis, G., Lesschen, J. P., Meesters, K., Sikirica, N., Elbersen, B.:
Optimal use of biogas from waste streams – An assessment of the
potential of biogas from digestion in the EU beyond 2020, report for the
European Commission, p.20, March 2017 (2017)

69. Biomass Policies Toolkit:

http://www.biomasspolicies.eu/tool/index.php, viewed in June 2017

299
Bibliography

70. Kampman, B., Leguijt, C., Scholten, T., Tallat-Kelpsaite J., Brückmann, R.,
Maroulis, G., Lesschen, J. P., Meesters, K., Sikirica, N., Elbersen, B.:
Optimal use of biogas from waste streams – An assessment of the
potential of biogas from digestion in the EU beyond 2020, report for the
European Commission, p.36, March 2017 (2017)

71. Meers, E., De Keulenaere, B., Pflüger, S., Stambasky, J.: COP 21 –
Anaerobic digestion’s and gasification’s contribution to reduced
emissions in EU’s transport, agricultural and energy sectors, European
Biogas Association, December 2015 (2015)

72. European Biogas Association: Greening gas for a more sustainable future,
press release EBA Conference 2016, 30th September 2016 (2016)

73. Renewable Energy Sources Act- EEG 2012, 30th June 2011, p.36 (2011)

74. Renewable Energy Sources Act- EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p.5 (2014)

75. Balussou, D., Kleyböcker, A., McKenna, R., Möst, D., Fichtner, W.: An
economic analysis of three operational co-digestion biogas plants in
Germany. Waste and Biomass Valorization 3(1), DOI: 10.1007/s12649-
011-9094-2 (2011)

76. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2015, p .4, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2015)

77. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2015, p. 5, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2015)

78. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2015, p. 38, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2015)

300
 Bibliography

79. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2015, p. 39, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2015)

80. Energiewirtschaftsgesetz - EnWG; Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und

Gasversorgung, 7th July 2005, last change in July 2016, p. 8 (2016)

81. Heymann, E.: German “Energiewende”: Many targets out of sight,

Deutsche Bank Research, p. 2, June 2016 (2016)

82. Energiewirtschaftsgesetz – EnWG: Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und

Gasversorgung, 7th July 2005, last change in July 2016, p. 68 (2016)

83. Erneuerbare-Energien-Wärmegesetz - EEWärmeG: Gesetz zur Förderung

Erneuerbaren Energien im Wärmebereich 7th August 2005, last change in
October 2015, p. 2 (2015)

84. Erneuerbare-Energien-Wärmegesetz - EEWärmeG: Gesetz zur Förderung

Erneuerbaren Energien im Wärmebereich 7th August 2005, last change in
October 2015, p. 5 (2015)

85. Erneuerbare-Energien-Wärmegesetz - EEWärmeG: Gesetz zur Förderung

Erneuerbaren Energien im Wärmebereich 7th August 2005, last change in
October 2015, p. 15 (2015)

86. Erneuerbare-Energien-Wärmegesetz - EEWärmeG: Gesetz zur Förderung

Erneuerbaren Energien im Wärmebereich, 7th August 2005, last change
in October 2015, p. 6 (2015)

87. Merkel, E.: Analyse und Bewertung des Elektrizitätssystems und des
Wärmesystems der Wohngebäude in Deutschland, PhD. thesis, Karlsruhe
Institute of Technology, KIT scientific publishing, p. 64 (2016)

301
Bibliography

88. Gesetz zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Wärmeenergie in Baden-Württemberg

(Erneuerbare-Wärme-Gesetz – EWärmeG), 17th March 2015 (2015)

89. Kraft-Wärme-Kopplungsgesetz KWKG (2011): Gesetz für die Erhaltung,

die Modernisierung und den Ausbau der Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung, 21st
December 2015, last change in August 2016, p. 3 (2016)

90. Gores, S., Jörss, W., Zell-Ziegler, C.: Aktueller Stand der KWK-Erzeugung,
December 2015, Öko-Institut e.V., Berlin, p. 9 (2015)

91. Kraft-Wärme-Kopplungsgesetz KWKG (2011): Gesetz für die Erhaltung,

die Modernisierung und den Ausbau der Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung, 21st
December 2015, last change in August 2016, p. 7 (2016)

92. Biomassestrom-Nachhaltigkeitsverordnung - BioSt-NachV; Verordnung

über Anforderungen an eine nachhaltige Herstellung von flüssiger
Biomasse zur Stromerzeugung, 23rd July 2009, last change in October
2016, p. 5 (2016)

93. German Federal Government: “Energy concept for an environmental

friendly, reliable and affordable energy supply”, Deliberation of the
Federal Ministry, September 28th 2010 (2010)

94. European Parliament and council: Directive 2009/28/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the
use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, p. 46 (2009)

95. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie: Zeitreihen zur

Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland, unter
Verwendung von Daten der Arbeitsgruppe Erneuerbare Energien-
Statistik (AGEE-Stat), August 2016 (2016)

302
 Bibliography

96. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2009, 25th October 2008, last change
in April 2011 (2011)

97. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW): DIW Glossar:

https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.411881.de/presse/diw_glossar/eeg_
umlage.html, viewed in January 2015

98. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie: EEG-Umlage 2017:

Fakten und Hintergründe, https://www.erneuerbare-
energien.de/EE/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/eeg-umlage-2017-fakten-
hintergruende.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 , viewed in November
2016

99. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p. 6 (2014)

100. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p. 11 (2014)

101. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2009, 25th October 2008, last
change in April 2011, p.4 (2011)

102. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p. 23 (2014)

103. Bioabfallverordnung – BioAbfV: Verordnung über die Verwertung von

Bioabfälle auf landwirtschaftlich, forstwirtschaftlich und gärtnerisch
genutzten Böden, p. 19, 21st September 1998, last change in April 2012
(2012)

104. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p. 24 (2014)

105. Biomass Ordinance: Verordnung über die Erzeugung von Strom aus
Biomasse (Biomasseverordnung – BiomasseV), consolidated version
starting from 1st January 2012, annex 1, 2 and 3 (2013)

303
Bibliography

106. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014 (2014)

107. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän,
D., Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 2 (2015)

108. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2012, 30th June 2011, p. 37 (2011)

109. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2012, 30th June 2011, p. 81 (2011)

110. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2012, 30th June 2011, p. 82 (2011)

111. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2014, 21st July 2014, p. 27 (2014)

112. Renewable Energy Sources Act-EEG 2017, 13th October 2016 (2016)

113. Balussou, D., McKenna, R., Fichtner, W.: Vergleichende

Untersuchungen an großtechnischen Biogasreaktoren –
mikrobiologische, verfahrenstechnische, ökologische und ökonomische
Bewertung und Optimierung: OPTGAS project (end report), p. 8, funding
code 03KB018F,https://www.energetische-
biomassenutzung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Steckbriefe/dokumente/0
3KB018F_Endbericht_KIT.pdf, viewed in August 2013

114. Schultz, R., Fulton J., Hochi, J., Koop, J., Personn, H.: Biogas und
Landwirtschaft, Biogasrat e.V. Berlin, p. 13 (2001)

115. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 128 (2009)

304
 Bibliography

116. Wagner, R.: Wirtschaftlichkeit von Güllekleinanlagen, Block 2.1.: (Gülle-

)kleinanlagen als Chance für landwirtschaftliche (Öko-)betriebe, 24.
Jahrestagung Fachverband Biogas e.V., Biogas-Fachmesse, January
2015, Bremen (2015)

117. Arlt, A.: Systemanalytischer Vergleich zur Herstellung von

Ersatzbrennstoffen aus biogenen Abfällen am Beispiel von
kommunalem Klärschlamm, Bioabfall und Grünabfall, Dissertation,
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, December 2003, Karlsruhe, p. 190
(2003)

118. Reichmuth, M., Bohnenschäfer, W., Daniel, J., Fröhlich, N., Lindner, K.,
Müller, M., Weber, A., Witt, J., Seefeldt, F., Kirchner, A., Michelsen, C.:
Auswirkungen der Änderungen des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes
hinsichtlich des Gesamtvolumens der Förderung, der Belastung der
Stromverbraucher sowie der Lenkungswirkung der Fördersätze für die
einzelnen Energiearten (Anhang zum Endbericht), Institut für Energetik
und Umwelt Leipzig, Prognos AG Basel, November 2006, Leipzig, p. A-16
(2006)

119. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe (2009)

120. German Federal Environment Agency (UBA): Aufwand und Nutzen

einer optimierten Bioabfallverwertung hinsichtlich Energieeffizienz,
Klima- und Ressourcenschutz, Förderkennzeichnung 3707 33 304,
August 2010, Dessau-Roßlau (2010)

121. u.e.c. Berlin: Bewertung der vorhandenen

Bioabfallbehandlungsstandorte in Schleswig-Holstein im Hinblick auf
eine Ergänzung um Vergärungsstufe, February 2010 (2010)

305
Bibliography

122. König, A.: Ganzheitliche Analyse und Bewertung konkurrierender

energetischer Nutzungspfade für Biomasse im Energiesystem
Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2030, PhD. thesis, Universität Stuttgart (2009)

123. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ): Vorbereitung und

Begleitung der Erstellung des Erfahrungsberichts 2014 gemäß §65 EEG,
Vorhaben IIa Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse, Wissenschaftlicher Bericht,
Leipzig, July 2014, p. 50 (2014)

124. Zeddies, J., Bahrs, E., Schönleber, N., Gamer, W., Empl, J-B.:
Optimierung der Biomassenutzung nach Effizienz in Bereitstellung und
Verwendung unter Berücksichtigung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen und
Welternährungssicherung (Schlussbericht), FK 11NR039, Universität
Hohenheim, December 2014, p. 114 (2014)

125. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR):

Biogasmessprogramm II, 61 Biogasanlagen in Vergleich, 1. Auflage 2009,
aktualisiert 2010 (2010)

126. Karellas S., Boukis, I., Kontopoulos, G.: Development of an investment

decision tool for biogas production from agricultural waste, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 1273-1282, DOI:
10.1016/j.rser.2009.12.002 (2010)

127. Walla, C., Schneeberger, W.: The optimal size for biogas plants,
Biomass & Bioenergy 32, p. 551-557 (2008)

128. Pantaleo, A., De Gennaro, B., Shah, N.: Assessment of optimal size of
anaerobic co-digestion plants: an application to cattle farms in the
province of Bari (Italy), Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 20, p.
57-70 (2013)

306
 Bibliography

129. Zeddies, J., Bahrs, E., Schönleber, N., Gamer, W.: Globale Analyse und
Abschätzung des Biomasse-Flächennutzungspotenzials, Institut für
landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre, Universität Hohenheim (2012)

130. Seyfert, U., Bunzel, K., Thrän, D.: Biomassepotenziale in Deutschland

2008 bis 2020, DBFZ Report Nr. 8-Kompakt, Deutsches
Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig (2011)

131. Fritsche, U., Dehorst, G., Jenseit, W., Hünecke K., Rausch, L.:
Stoffstromanalyse zur nachhaltigen energetischen Nutzung von
Biomasse (end report), funded by the German Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Darmstadt,
Berlin, Oberhausen, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Saarbrücken, Braunschweig,
Münster (2004)

132. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden

Biogasaufbereitung und -Einspeisung, 5. vollständig überarbeitete
Auflage, Order Nr. 211, Gülzow, p. 72 (2014)

133. Rosen, J.: The future role of renewable energy sources in European
electricity supply, PhD. thesis, Universität Karlsruhe (TH),
universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 64 (2016)

134. Schaefer-Stradowsky, S., Rostankowski, A., Lange, A., Doderer, H.:

Optimale Konzepte für eine steuerbare und bedarfsorientierte
Stromerzeugung aus Biogas und Biomethan: OptiKoBi2 project (end
report), funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economy and Energy
(funding code 0325236), Kassel, Berlin (2014)

135. Thrän, D., Arendt, O., Ponitka, J., Braun, J., Millinger, M., Wolf, V.,
Banse, M., Gärtner, S., Rettenmaier, N., Huenecke, K., Baur, F., Fritsche,
U., Gress, H-W.: Meilensteine 2030- Elemente und Meilensteine für die
Entwicklung einer tragfähigen und nachhaltigen Bioenergiestrategie,

307
Bibliography

Band 18, Förderprogramm “Energetische Biomassenutzung”, ISSN 2199-

2762, Leipzig (2015)

136. Scheftelowitz, M., Thrän, D.: Biomasse im EEG 2016 – Hintergundpapier

zur Situation der Bestandsanlagen in den verschiedenen
Bundesländern, Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), March
2016 (2016)

137. Guss, H., Pertagnol, J., Hauser, E., Wern, B., Baur, F., Gärtner, S.,
Rettenmaier, N., Reinhardt, G.: Biogas – Quo vadis? (Endbericht),
Institut für Zukunftsenergiesysteme (IZES), Institut für Energie und
Umweltforschung Heidelberg (ifeu), April 2016, Saarbrücken (2016)

138. Möst, D.: Energy economics and energy system analysis – Methods for
decision support and its application in energy markets, kumulative
Habilitationsschrift, Karlsruher Institut für Techologie (KIT) / Universität
Karlsruhe (TH) (2010)

139. Roels, J.A.: Energetics and kinetics in biotechnology, Elsevier Biomedical

Press, Amsterdam (1983)

140. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2012, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2012)

141. Witzenhausen Institut: Optimierung der biologischen Abfallbehandlung

in Hessen, Hessischens Ministerium für Umwelt, ländlicher Raum und
Verbraucherschutz, Witzenhausen, p. 120 (2008)

142. Eastman, J.A., Ferguson, J.F: Solubilization of particulate organic carbon

during the acid phase of anaerobic digestion, Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 53, No. 3, March 1981, p. 352-366 (1981)

308
 Bibliography

143. Gerber, M., Span, R.: An Analysis of Available Mathematical Models for
Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Substances for Production of Biogas,
International Gas Union research conference, Paris (2008)

144. Buswell, A.M., Neave, S.L.: Laboratory studies of sludge digestion,

Bulletin No. 30, State of Illinois, Department of registration and
education, division of the State water survey (1930)

145. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL) und Fachverband

Biogas e.V.: Einsatzstoffe nach Biomasseverordnung,
https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/iba/dateien/einsatzstoffe_eeg_
2012.pdf, viewed in February 2013

146. Evans, G.M., Furlong, J.C.: Environmental biotechnology-theory and

application, Wiley-Blackwell, p. 240 (2011)

147. Balussou, D., Heffels, T., McKenna, R., Möst, D., Fichtner, W.: An
evaluation of optimal biogas plant configurations in Germany, Waste
and Biomass Valorization, 5(5), DOI: 10.1007/s12649-013-9284-1 (2013)

148. u.e.c. Berlin: Bewertung der vorhandenen

Bioabfallbehandlungsstandorte in Schleswig-Holstein im Hinblick auf
eine Ergänzung um Vergärungsstufe, February 2010, p. 34 (2010)

149. Deublein, D., Steinhauser, A.: Biogas from Waste and Renewable
Resources – An introduction, 1. Auflage 2008, 1. Nachdruck 2008,
Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim (2008)

150. ASUE e.V.: BHKW-Kenndaten, Module, Anbieter, Kosten, Stadt

Frankfurt am Main (2011)

151. Hahne, E.: Technische Thermodynamik: Einführung und Anwendung.

Oldenburg Verlag, ISBN 3-486-59231-9, p. 406-408 (2010)

309
Bibliography

152. Heitmann, N.: Modellierung von Investitionsentscheidungen und

Kraftwerkeinsatzplanung unter Unsicherheit mittels Stochastischer
Optimierung und Multi-Agenten-Ansatz am Beispiel des deutschen
Strommarktes, PhD. thesis, Universität Augsburg, November 2010, p. 3
(2010)

153. Keles, D.: Uncertainties in energy markets and their consideration in

energy storage evaluation, PhD. thesis, KIT Scientific Publishing,
Karlsruhe, p. 3 (2013)

154. Keles, D.: Uncertainties in energy markets and their consideration in

energy storage evaluation, PhD. thesis, KIT Scientific Publishing,
Karlsruhe, p. 1 (2013)

155. Möst, D., Fichtner, W., Grunwald A.: Energiesystemanalyse,

Tagungsband des Workshops “Energiesystemanalyse” vom 27.
November 2008 am KIT Zentrum Energie, Karlsruhe, universitätsverlag
Karlsruhe, p. 20 (2009)

156. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Sauter, P.,

Naumann, K., Krautz, A., Beil, M., Beyrich, W., Peters, W., Schicketanz,
W., Schultze, C., Deumelandt, P., Reinicke, F.: Stromerzeugung aus
Biomasse 03MAP250, Zwischenbericht, Project Nr.: 3310025, June
2013, Leipzig, p. 18 (2013)

157. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 17 (2015)

158. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V.,

Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Ziegler, D., Witt, J., Beil, M., Beyrich, W.:

310
 Bibliography

Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse (project IIa biomass), Intermediary

report, June 2014, Leipzig, p. 15 (2014)

159. Renewable Energy Sources Act EEG 2014, §28, 21 st July 2014, p. 17
(2014)

160. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 2 (2009)

161. Renewable Energy Sources Act- EEG 2012, p. 26, 30th June 2011 (2011)

162. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V.:

Faustzahlen Biogas, 2. Auflage, Darmstadt (2009)

163. Archea Service GmbH: Gaserträge und Nährstoffgehalte – Abfall,

http://www.archea-biogas.de/_mediafiles/9-substrate.pdf , viewed in
May 2014

164. Balussou, D., McKenna, R., Fichtner, F.: Ökologische und energetische
Analysen von Co-Vergärungsanlagen, Proceedings Forum Econogy, 09.
November 2011, Linz (2011)

165. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 34 (2015)

166. Scholwin, F., Holzhammer, U., Grope, J., Schüh, A.: Beitrag von
Biomethan im Energiesystem, November 2014, p. 1 (2014)

167. Federal Office for Agriculture of Thuringia (TLL), flexibility premium

calculator according to EEG 2012,

311
Bibliography

http://www.tll.de/ainfo/prog/eegr1211.xls, version of the 3rd May 2012,

viewed in August 2013

168. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V.,

Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Ziegler, D., Witt, J., Beil, M., Beyrich, W.:
Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse (project IIa biomass), Intermediary
report, June 2014, Leipzig, p. 13 (2014)

169. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 42 (2015)

170. Fachverband Biogas : Branchenzahlen 2015 und Prognose der

Branchenentwicklung 2016, p.4:
http://www.biogas.org/edcom/webfvb.nsf/id/DE_Branchenzahlen/$file
/16-09-23_Biogas_Branchenzahlen-2015_Prognose-2016.pdf, p. 3,
viewed in October 2016

171. Fichtner, W., Genoese, M., McKenna, R., Schäfer, S., Büchelmaier, A.,
Ringler, P., Ziegahn, F.: Die Weiterentwicklung der Energiewirtschaft in
Baden-Württemberg bis 2025 unter Berücksichtigung der Liefer- und
Preissicherheit, Gutachten (2012)

172. Scholwin, F.: Potenziale und Beitrag zum Energiesystem,

Vorbereitungsmaterial zum Biogasfachgespräch IV, p.26 (2013)

173. Statistical Federal Office: Land und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei,

Bodenfläche nach Art der tatsächlichen Nutzung, DESTATIS, technical
serie 3, number 5.1, Wiesbaden (2015)

312
 Bibliography

174. Statistical Federal Office: Land und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei, query in

the GENESIS Database with the code 41311-0001, viewed in November
2015

175. Raussen, T., Kern, M.: Stand und Perspektive der Bioabfallvergärung in
Deutschland, Biogas Atlas 2014/2015, Witzenhausen Institut, p. 26
(2015)

176. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI): Economic efficiency of building

installations. Fundamentals and economic calculation, VDI Guideline
2067, p. 13 (2012)

177. Remmers, J.: Zur Ex-ante Bestimmung von Investitionen bzw. Kosten
für Emissionsminderungstechniken und den Auswirkungen der
Datenqualität in mesoskaligen Energie-Umwelt-Modellen, PhD. thesis,
Univeristät Karlsruhe (TH), p. 49 (1991)

178. Remmers, J.: Zur Ex-ante Bestimmung von Investitionen bzw. Kosten
für Emissionsminderungstechniken und den Auswirkungen der
Datenqualität in mesoskaligen Energie-Umwelt-Modellen, PhD. thesis,
Univeristät Karlsruhe (TH), p. 51 (1991)

179. Schleef, H.-J.: Zur techno-ökonomischen Bewertung des gestuften

Ausbaus vom Kombikraftwerken. PhD. thesis, Universität Karlsruhe
(TH), p. 157 (1999)

180. Mähnert, P.: Kinetik der Biogasproduktion aus nachwachsenden

Rohstoffen und Gülle, PhD. thesis, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen
Fakultät der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (2007)

181. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Leitfaden Biogas:

von der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, p. 156-157, Order Nr. 208, Gülzow
(2013)

313
Bibliography

182. Perry, R.J., Chilton, C.H.: Chemical engineers handbook, McGraw-Hill,

New-York (1973)

183. Strauch, U.: Modulare Kostenschätzung in der chemischen Industrie -

Konzept eines integrierten Systems zur Abschätzung und Bewertung des
Kapitalbedarfes für die Errichtung einer chemischen Anlage, Berlin, p.
42-43 (2008)

184. Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D., West, R.E.: Plant design and economics
for chemical engineers, vol. 17, p. 988, McGraw-Hill, Boston (2003)

185. Haase, M.: Entwicklung eines Energie- und Stoffstrommodells zur

ökonomischen und ökologischen Bewertung der Herstellung chemischer
Grundstoffe aus Lignocellulose, PhD. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, KIT Scientific Publishing (2012)

186. Trippe, F.: Techno-ökonomische Bewertung alternativer

Verfahrenskonfigurationen zur Herstellung von Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL)
Kraftstoffen und Chemikalien, PhD. thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of
Technology, KIT Scientific Publishing (2013)

187. Heinzle, E., Biwer, A., Cooney, C.: Development of sustainable

bioprocesses: scenario and assessment, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2006)

188. DLG-Merkblatt 396: Flexibilitätsprämie bei Biogas, Chancen, technische

und rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen, Fachzentrum Land- und
Ernährungswirtschaft, 1. Auflage, p. 14 (2014)

189. Reise, C., Liebe, U., Musshoff, O.: Design of substrate supply contracts
for biogas plants, 56th AARES annual conference, Fremantle, Western
Australia, February 2012 (2012)

314
 Bibliography

190. Raiffeisen: Maize price (Euronext):

http://www.raiffeisen.com/markt/telegramm/produkt/euronext/mais/i
ndex_html , viewed in November 2016

191. Statistical Federal Office: Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei (Code

41): Ernte- und Betriebsberichterstattungen (EBE) (Code 41241),
available online;
https://www.regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/logon, viewed in
January 2013

192. Statistical Federal Office: Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei,

Wachstum und Ernte-Feldfrüchte-2011, technical serie 3, number 3.2.1,
Wiesbaden (2012)

193. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): interview with Dr.

Schüsseler and Mr. Stolte in December 2012

194. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR): Basisdaten

Bioenergie Deutschland 2012, Order Nr. 469, Gülzow (2012)

195. Aretz, A., Hirschl, B.: Biomassepotenziale in Deutschland – Übersicht

maßgeblicher Studienergebnisse und Gegenüberstellung der Methoden.
Dendrom-Diskussionspapier Nr. 1, Eberswalde, March 2007, (2007)

196. Eder, B., Schulz, H.: Biogas-Praxis. Grundlagen, Planung, Anlagenbau,

Beispiele, Wirtschaftlichkeit. 4. Auflage, ökobuch Verlag, Staufen (2007)

197. Scholwin, F.: Potenziale und Beitrag zum Energiesystem,

Vorbereitungsmaterial zum Biogasfachgespräch IV, p. 7 (2013)

198. Statistical Federal Office: Agrarstrukturen in Deutschland. Einheit in

Vielfalt. Regionale Ergebnisse der Landwirtschaftszählung 2010,
Stuttgart (2011)

315
Bibliography

199. Statistical Federal Office: Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Fischerei (Code

41): Landwirtschaftszählung 2010 – Haupterhebung (Code 41141),
available online:
https://www.regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/logon, viewed in
January 2013

200. Landwirtschaftsamt Ilshofen: interviews with Mr. Balbach in January

and February 2013

201. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V.: KTBL-
Datensammlung. Energiepflanzen. Daten für die Planung des
Energiepflanzenanbaus. 2. Auflage, Darmstadt (2012)

202. Agrarmarkt Informations-GmbH: interview and transmission of grass

silage, hay, wheat, triticale and rye prices for the years 2010 to 2012 in
February 2013

203. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V.:

interview with Mr. Sauer and Mr. Hartmann in January 2013

204. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Sauter, P.,

Naumann, K., Krautz, A., Beil, M., Beyrich, W., Peters, W., Schicketanz,
W., Schultze, C., Deumelandt, P., Reinicke, F.: Stromerzeugung aus
Biomasse 03MAP250, Zwischenbericht, Project. Nr.: 3310025, June
2013, Leipzig, p. 57 (2013)

205. Toews, T.: Bestimmung der Erntekosten von Silomais und deren
Relevanz für die Wirtschaftlichkeit von Biogasanlagen, oral presentation
Fachhochschule Bingen (2010)

316
 Bibliography

206. Gömann, H., Witte, T., Peter, G., Tietz, A.: Auswirkungen der
Biogaserzeugung auf die Landwirtschaft: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-
Institut, Thünen Report 10, Braunschweig, p. 15 (2013)

207. Schulze, M., Holm-Müller, K.: Thunen rings of biogas production- the
effect of differences in transport costs of energy crops in the choice of
renewable resources by biogas plants, GJAE 59, Heft 1 (2010)

208. Dilger, M., Faulhaber, I.: Materialsammlung Futterwirtschaft. Daten,

Fakten und Berechnungsgrundlagen zu den Kosten der
Grundfuttererzeugung und der Futterwirtschaft, Institut für
Agrarökonomie, p. 22, 4. Auflage, July 2006, Munich (2006)

209. Dilger, M., Faulhaber, I.: Materialsammlung Futterwirtschaft. Daten,

Fakten und Berechnungsgrundlagen zu den Kosten der
Grundfuttererzeugung und der Futterwirtschaft, Institut für
Agrarökonomie, p. 15, 4. Auflage, July 2006, Munich (2006)

210. Dilger, M., Faulhaber, I.: Materialsammlung Futterwirtschaft. Daten,

Fakten und Berechnungsgrundlagen zu den Kosten der
Grundfuttererzeugung und der Futterwirtschaft, Institut für
Agrarökonomie, p. 21, 4. Auflage, July 2006, Munich (2006)

211. Heuwieser, W.: Management nach der Abkalbung, FU Berlin, Clinic of

Animal Reproduction, oral presentation at the Rinderallianz,
http://rinderallianz.de/fileadmin/user_upload/1_Heuwieser_1-
111_6_Folien.pdf, viewed in November 2014

212. Statistical Federal Office: Gebiet und Bevölkerung – Fläche und

Bevölkerung, http://www.statistikportal.de/Statistik-
Portal/de_jb01_jahrtab1.asp, viewed in October 2016

317
Bibliography

213. Seyfert, U., Bunzel, K., Thrän, D., Mauky, E., Fritsche, B., Schreiber, A.,
Liebetrau, J., Schmidt, T., Ulbricht, T., Lenz, V.: DBFZ Report Nr. 8 –
Kompakt, Biomassepotenziale in Deutschland 2008 bis 2020, p. 18
(2011)

214. German Solar Energy Society, Ecofys: Planning and Installing Bioenergy
Systems: A Guide for Installers, Architects and Engineers, p. 83 (2004)

215. Reblecken, Y.: Die Traktor- oder-Lkw-Frage bei Gülletransport,

Bauernblatt, p. 38 (2014)

216. State Office for the Environment, Measurements and Nature

Conservation of the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg (LUBW): Bio-
und Grünabfälle – Optimierung der Erfassung und Verwertung von Bio-
und Grünabfälle in Baden-Württemberg, p. 27 (2010)

217. State Office for the Environment, Measurements and Nature

Conservation of the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg (LUBW): Bio-
und Grünabfälle – Optimierung der Erfassung und Verwertung von Bio-
und Grünabfälle in Baden-Württemberg, p. 30 (2010)

218. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 123 (2009)

219. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Sauter, P.,

Naumann, K., Krautz, A., Beil, M., Beyrich, W., Peters, W., Schicketanz,
W., Schultze, C., Deumelandt, P., Reinicke, F.: Stromerzeugung aus
Biomasse 03MAP250, Zwischenbericht, Project. Nr.: 3310025, June
2013, Leipzig, p. 40 (2013)

220. German Federal Environment Agency (UBA): Aufwand und Nutzen

einer optimierten Bioabfallverwertung hinsichtlich Energieeffizienz,

318
 Bibliography

Klima- und Ressourcenschutz, Förderkennzeichnung 3707 33 304,

August 2010, Dessau-Roßlau, p. 127 (2010)

221. Statista: Gehalts- und Lohnentwicklung in Deutschland gegenüber dem

Vorjahr von 1992 bis 2016:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/75731/umfrage/entwickl
ung-der-bruttoloehne-in-deutschland/, viewed in January 2017

222. EWI/Prognos AG/GWS: Entwicklung der Energiemärkte-

Energiereferenzprognose, Project Nr. 57/12, Federal ministry of
economy and technology, Basel/Cologne/Osnabrück, p. 16 (2014)

223. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Sauter, P.,

Naumann, K., Krautz, A., Beil, M., Beyrich, W., Peters, W., Schicketanz,
W., Schultze, C., Deumelandt, P., Reinicke, F.: Stromerzeugung aus
Biomasse 03MAP250, Zwischenbericht, Project. Nr.: 3310025, June
2013, Leipzig, p. 49 (2013)

224. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 22 (2015)

225. Scheftelowitz, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Denysenko, V., Sauter, P.,

Naumann, K., Krautz, A., Beil, M., Beyrich, W., Peters, W., Schicketanz,
W., Schultze, C., Deumelandt, P., Reinicke, F.: Stromerzeugung aus
Biomasse 03MAP250, Zwischenbericht, Project. Nr.: 3310025, June
2013, Leipzig, p. 41 (2013)

226. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 21 (2015)

319
Bibliography

227. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Wärme und Heizwirtschaft: Der

Energieeffizienzverband für Wärme, Kälte und KWELK e.V.,
Fernwärmepreisübersicht, Frankfurt am Main (2012)

228. VHE- Verband der Humus- und Erdenwirtschaft e.V.: compost value
evolution from 2005 to 2015.
http://www.vhe.de/kompost/landwirtschaft/kompostwert/, viewed in
April 2015

229. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 126 (2009)

230. Scheftelowitz, M., Rensberg, N., Denysenko, V., Daniel-Gromke, J.,

Stinner, W., Hillebrand, K., Naumann, K., Peetz, D., Hennig, C., Thrän, D.,
Beil, M., Kasten, J., Vogel, L.: Stromerzeugung aus Biogas (project IIa
biomass), Intermediary report, May 2015, Leipzig, p. 29 (2015)

231. Jurgensen, L.: Dynamic Biogas Upgrading for Integration of Renewable

Energy from Wind, Biomass and Solar. Department of Energy
Technology, Aalborg University, p. 30 (2015)

232. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 192 (2009)

233. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)
: Finanzielle Förderung von Biogasanlagen gemäß EEG 2014,
http://daten.ktbl.de/downloads/biogas/EEG2014_Berechnungsbeispiel.
pdf, viewed in February 2016

320
 Bibliography

234. Wagner, R., Glötzl, M., Rauh, S., Schober, J., Haberstetter, S., Geltner,
H.: Wirtschaftlichkeit von Kleinbiogasanlagen auf Gülle Basis, Biogas
Forum Bayern Nr. V., 21/2015, ALB Bayern e.V., http://www.biogas-
forum-bayern.de/media/files/0002/Wirtschaftlichkeit-von-
Kleinbiogasanlagen-auf-Gullebasis.pdf, p. 13, viewed in April 2016

235. ECN, Phillis 2, Miller, S.M., Miller, B.G.: The occurrence of inorganic
elements in various biofuels and its effect on the formation of melt
phases during combustion,
https://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2/Biomass/View/2773, viewed in January
2017

236. Wellacher, M.: Aufbereitung von organischen Abfällen für die

Nassvergärung – Technologie Komptech, Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Stoffspezifische Abfallbehandlung ASA e.V., September 2012, 9th
recycling days (2012)

237. Pries, M.: Fütterungsaspekte bei der Sortenwahl beachten,

Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen, Münster, p. 3,
https://www.dsv-saaten.de/export/sites/dsv-
saaten.de/extras/dokumente/innovation/fuetterung-sortenwahl-4-
09.pdf, viewed in August 2010

238. LFUA Nordwest, Institut für Futtermittel, Grassilage Ernte 2012,

http://www.lufa-nord-
west.de/data/documents/Downloads/IFF/Grassilage_Endauswertung_2
012.pdf , viewed in May 2013

239. Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachen: Mit Getreide-GPS Futterlücken

füllen, https://www.lwk-
niedersachsen.de/index.cfm/portal/1/nav/752/article/29703.html,
viewed in August 2016

321
Bibliography

240. Technologie und Förderzentrum (TFZ): Heizwerttabellen für

verschiedene Halmgutbrennstoffe, Kompetenzzentrum für
nachwachsende Rohstoffe, August 2008, Straubing,
http://www.tfz.bayern.de/mam/cms08/festbrennstoffe/dateien/heizw
erttabellen_halmgutbrennstoffe.pdf , viewed in March 2011

241. Stenull, M.: Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie Baden-Württemberg, Forum für

nachhaltige Biogaserzeugung in Baden-Württemberg, Beitrag zur
Arbeitsgruppe 3 Systemanalyse, Teil
Klimaschutz/Treibhausgasemissionen (2010)

242. Balussou, D., McKenna, R., Fichtner, W.: Vergleichende

Untersuchungen an großtechnischen Biogasreaktoren –
mikrobiologische, verfahrenstechnische, ökologische und ökonomische
Bewertung und Optimierung: OPTGAS project (end report), p. 5, funding
code 03KB018F,,https://www.energetische-
biomassenutzung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Steckbriefe/dokumente/0
3KB018F_Endbericht_KIT.pdf, viewed in August 2013

243. König, A.: Ganzheitliche Analyse und Bewertung konkurrierender

energetischer Nutzungspfade für Biomasse im Energiesystem
Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2030, PhD. thesis, Universität Stuttgart, p. 58
(2009)

244. Koch, K., Lübken, M., Gehring, T., Wichern, M., Horn, H.: Biogas from
grass silage – Measurements and modelling with ADM1. Bioresource
Technology, p. 21-41 (2011)

245. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 107 (2009)

322
 Bibliography

246. Koch, M.: Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung von Co-

Vergärungsanlagen und deren Standortwahl, PhD. thesis, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH), universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, p. 119 (2009)

247. Würdemann, H., Kleyböcker, A., Lienen, T., Liebrich, T., Brehmer, M.,
Kraume, M., Daniel-Gromke, J., Lorenz, H., Balussou, D., McKenna, R.,
Moeller, L., Görsch, K., Müller, R., Zehnsdorf, A., Zirkler, D.,
Kaupenjohann, M.: Optgas – Vergleichende Untersuchungen an
großtechnischen Biogasreaktoren, Neue Wege zur Prozessoptimierung
in Biogasanlagen, FK 03KB018F, Schriftenreihe des BMU-
Förderprogramms “Energetische Biomassenutzung”, Band 11, Leipzig, p.
21 (2014)

248. Cail, S., Bchini, Q., McKenna, R., Fichtner, W., Percebois J., Benhmad.
F. : Analyse théorique et modélisation de la formation des prix de
l’électricité en France et en Allemagne, financement par le Conseil
Français de l’Energie, Karlsruhe, p. 183 (2014)

249. GBC AG Investment Research: Research study for KTG Energie AG

Research, March 2015,
http://www.equitystory.com/Download/Research/20150302_KTGEnerg
ie_Anno.pdf, viewed in November 2015

250. Fachverband Biogas: Branchenzahlen 2015 und Prognose der

Branchenentwicklung 2016,
http://www.biogas.org/edcom/webfvb.nsf/id/DE_Branchenzahlen/$file
/16-09-23_Biogas_Branchenzahlen-2015_Prognose-2016.pdf, p. 4,
viewed in October 2016

251. Dağaşan, P., Schulz, S., Trockel, S.: Das neue EEG 2014 – Was ändert
sich?, EnergieDialog.NRW, http://www.energiedialog.nrw.de/das-neue-
eeg-2014-was-aendert-sich/, viewed in January 2015

323
Bibliography

252. German Federal Environment Agency (UBA): Erneuerbare Energien in

Zahlen, AGEE-Stat, http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-
energie/erneuerbare-energien/erneuerbare-energien-in-
zahlen#textpart-1, viewed in June 2017

253. De Singly, B., Garret, M.: Renewable gas French panorama 2016, p. 6,
http://www.grtgaz.com/fileadmin/medias/communiques/2017/EN/Ren
ewable-gas-french-panorama-2016.pdf, viewed in May 2017

254. De Singly, B., Garret, M.: Renewable gas French panorama 2016, p. 2,
http://www.grtgaz.com/fileadmin/medias/communiques/2017/EN/Ren
ewable-gas-french-panorama-2016.pdf, viewed in May 2017

255. Ministère de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer, en charge des

relations internationales sur le climat : Arrêté du 24 Avril 2016 relatif
aux objectifs de développement des énergies renouvelables, Article 3
(2016)

256. Bastide, G. : Estimation des gisements potentiels de substrats

utilisables en méthanisation, ADEME, April 2013, p. 6 (2013)

257. Bastide, G., Theobald, O.: French Biomethane Roadmap and Proposed
Action Plan for the Period up to 2030, ADEME, November 2013, p. 8
(2013)

258. Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et

du logement : Arrêté du 23 novembre 2011 fixant les conditions d’achat
du biométhane injecté dans les réseaux de gaz naturel, November 2011,
Annexe 2 (2011)

259. Ministère de l’environnement, de l’énergie et de la mer, en charge des

relations internationales sur le climat : Ordonnance n° 2016-411 du 7
avril 2016 portant diverses mesures d'adaptation dans le secteur gazier,

324
 Bibliography

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/ordonnance/2016/4/7/DEVR152432
9R/jo/texte, viewed in August 2016 (2016)

260. E-Cube strategy consultants : Etat des lieux de la filière biogaz,

http://atee.fr/sites/default/files/2015-11-26_etat-des-lieux-
biogaz_rapport_final.pdf, viewed in August 2017, final report, Paris
(2015)

261. GAYA project website: http://www.projetgaya.com/en/, viewed in

August 2017

262. ATEE Club Biogaz: Biomethane tariff calculator:

http://atee.fr/biogaz/injection-du-biogaz-dans-le-r%C3%A9seau,
viewed in August 2017

263. Watermeyer, P.: Handbook for Process Plant Project Engineers, Wiley,
ISBN: 978-1-86058-370-4, p. 98 (2002)

264. Groupe de Travail Pyrogaz: Pyrolyse et gazéification, une filière

complémentaire pour la transition énergétique et le développement de
l’économie circulaire, http://green-news-
techno.net/fichiers/201602021004_GNT_588.pdf, viewed in August
2017

265. European Commission: State of the Energy union, country factsheet

Finland, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015SC0223&from=FI, viewed in
August 2017

266. Sherrars, A.: Finland: a global leader in forest-based biomass for

energy, online article in Bioenergy International:
https://bioenergyinternational.com/opinion-commentary/finland-a-

325
Bibliography

global-leader-in-forest-based-biomass-for-energy, viewed in August

2017

267. The Bioenergy Association of Finland (FINBIO): EU Handbook – District

Heating Markets,
http://www.crossborderbioenergy.eu/fileadmin/crossborder/DH_Mark
etHandbook_Finland.pdf , viewed in August 2017, p. 7 (2015)

268. Bioenergy Promotion: North Karelia Finland – Creation of jobs and local
prosperity with wood chip district heating plant, lowering dependence
of external energy sources, final report for Demo Regions,
http://www.bioenergypromotion.net/bsr/publications/north-karelia-
finland-creation-of-jobs-and-local-prosperity-with-wood-chip-district-
heating-plant-lowering-dependence-of-external-energy-sources, viewed
in August 2017

269. Monteiro Salles-Filho, S.L., Drummond de Castro, P. F., Bin, A., Edquist,
C., Portilho Ferro, A.F., Corder, S.: Perspectives for the Brazilian
bioethanol sector: The innovation driver, Energy Policy, 108 (2017), DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.037, p. 70 (2017)

270. Monteiro Salles-Filho, S.L., Drummond de Castro, P. F., Bin, A., Edquist,
C., Portilho Ferro, A.F., Corder, S.: Perspectives for the Brazilian
bioethanol sector: The innovation driver, Energy Policy, 108 (2017), DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.037, p. 71 (2017)

271. Monteiro Salles-Filho, S.L., Drummond de Castro, P. F., Bin, A., Edquist,
C., Portilho Ferro, A.F., Corder, S.: Perspectives for the Brazilian
bioethanol sector: The innovation driver, Energy Policy, 108 (2017), DOI:
10.1016/j.enpol.2017.05.037, p. 72 (2017)

326
 Bibliography

272. Koizumi, T.: Biofuels and Food Security in Brazil, SpringerBriefs in

Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-
319-05645-6_2, p. 13-30 (2014)

273. De Souza Ferreira Filho, J.B. Horridge, M.: Land Use Change, Ethanol
Production Expansion and Food Security in Brazil. In: Khanna M.,
Zilberman D. (eds) Handbook of Bioenergy Economics and Policy:
Volume II. Natural Resource Management and Policy, Vol. 40., Springer,
New York, NY, p. 304 (2017)

274. Aditiya, H. B., Mahlia, T. M. I., Chong W. T., Nur H., Sebayang A. H.:
Second generation bioethanol production: A critical review, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, Vol. 66, DOI:
10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.15, p. 631-653 (2016)

275. Jonker, J. G. G., Van der Hilst, F., Junginger, H. M., Cavalett, O., Chagas,
M. F., Faaij, A. P. C.: Outlook for ethanol production costs in Brazil up to
2030, for different biomass crops and industrial technologies, Applied
Energy, Elsevier, Vol. 147, DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.090, p. 593-
610 (2015)

276. Wright, T., Rahmanulloh, A.: Indonesia Biofuels Annual Report 2017,
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report Number, ID714 (2017)

277. Salvi, B.L, Panwar, N.L.: Biodiesel resources and production

technologies – A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 16, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.050, p. 3682 (2012)

278. The London School of Economics and Political Science: National

Medium-Term Development Plan 2015-2019 (RPJMN 2015-2019),
ww.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/law/national-medium-term-
development-plan-2015-2019-rpjmn-2015-2019, viewed in August 2017

327
Bibliography

279. Asian development bank: Indonesia - Energy sector assessment,

strategy, and road map, July 2016, ISBN 978-92-9257-513-7, p. 26
(2016)

280. Parawira, W.: Biodiesel production from Jatropha curcas: A review,

Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 5, ISSN 1992-2248, p. 1799 (2010)

281. Brittaine, R., Lutaladio. N.: Jatropha: A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop –

The potential for Pro-Poor Development, Integrated Crop Management,
Vol. 8 (2010)

282. Thomas, R., Sah, N. K., Sharma, P. B.: Therapeutic biology of Jatropha
curcas: a mini review, Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Vol. 9, p.
315-24 (2008)

283. Devappa, R. K., Makkar, H. P., Becker, K.: Jatropha toxicity - a review,
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B Critical Reviews,
Vol. 13, DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2010.499736 (2010)

284. Van Eijck, J., Romijn, H., Balkema A., Faaij, A.: Global experience with
jatropha cultivation for bioenergy: An assessment of socio-economic
and environmental aspects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 32, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.028, p. 869-889 (2014)

285. Tjeuw, J.: Is there life after hype for Jatropha? Exploring growth and
yield in Indonesia, PhD. thesis, Wageningen University, ISBN 978-94-
6343-192-7, DOI: 10.18174/413528, p. 28 (2017)

286. Tjeuw, J.: Is there life after hype for Jatropha? Exploring growth and
yield in Indonesia, PhD. thesis, Wageningen University, ISBN 978-94-
6343-192-7, DOI: 10.18174/413528, p. 29 (2017)

328
 Bibliography

287. Delzeit, R., Britz, W., Kreins, P.: An economic assessment of biogas
production and land use under the German Renewable Energy Source
Act, Kiel Working Paper No. 1767, April 2012 (2012)

288. 18. CA.R.M.E.N.-Forum Proceedings "Erneuerbarer Strom – stabiles

Netz dank Biomasse“, March 2011, Straubing, ISBN 978-3-937441-24-5
(2011)

289. Neumann, J.: IKT-Gateway als Brücke zwischen BHKW und Smart Grid,
etz elektrotechnik & automation Zeitschrift, Heft 7/2012, p. 2-4 (2012)

290. Persson, T., Murphy, J., Jannasch, A.K., Ahern, E., Liebetrau, J.,
Trommler, M., Toyama, J.: A perspective on the potential role of biogas
in smart energy grids, IEA Bioenergy, p. 11 (2014)

291. State Office for the Environment, Measurements and Nature

Conservation of the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg (LUBW):
Hochwertige Verwertung von Bioabfällen – Ein Leitfaden, 1. veränderte
Auflage, October 2015, Stuttgart (2015)

292. Raussen, T., Kern, M.: Geplante Novelle des EEG im Hinblick auf
Bioabfallvergärungsanlagen (§45), Diskussionspapier, Witzenhausen
Institut, p. 1 (2015)

293. Raussen, T. Kern, M.: Stand und Perspektive der Bioabfallvergärung in

Deutschland, Biogas Atlas 2014/2015, Witzenhausen Institut, p. 19
(2015)

294. Daniel, J.: Kriterien für eine anaerobe Behandlung von Bioabfällen
anstelle oder in Ergänzung zur Kompostierung, Vortrag im Rahmen des
Humustags 2006 der BGK e.V. (2006)

329
Bibliography

295. Bioenergiedorf Jühnde:

http://www.bioenergiedorf.de/index.php?id=5&L=0 , viewed in August
2017

296. Eyler, D.: Concepts énergétiques locaux, oral presentation, 2nd

trinational conference « Sustainable biomass use in the Upper-Rhine
region » (2014)

297. Agentur für erneuerbare Energien: Gesamtwärmeverbrauch 2015,

https://www.unendlich-viel-
energie.de/mediathek/grafiken/gesamtwaermeverbrauch-2015, based
on AGEE-Stat, viewed in October 2016

298. Agentur für erneuerbare Energien: Wärme aus erneuerbaren Energien

2015, https://www.unendlich-viel-
energie.de/mediathek/grafiken/waerme-aus-erneuerbaren-energien-
2015, based on BMWi, AGEE-Stat, viewed in October 2016

299. Herbes, C., Halbherr, V.: Stärkere Wärmenutzung in Biogasanlagen

kann sich lohnen, Biogas Journal, p. 68-71 (2017)

300. Rauh, S.: The role of biogas in the heat transition in Germany, oral
presentation, DBFW Conference, 13th October 2016, Paris (2016)

330
 PRODUKTION UND ENERGIE
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
Institut für Industriebetriebslehre und Industrielle Produktion
Deutsch-Französisches Institut für Umweltforschung

ISSN 2194-2404

Band 1 National Integrated Assessment Modelling zur Bewertung

umwelt­politischer Instrumente.
Entwicklung des otello-Modellsystems und dessen Anwendung
auf die Bundes­republik Deutschland.
ISBN 978-3-86644-853-7

Band 2 Erhöhung der Energie- und Ressourceneffizienz und

Reduzierung der Treibhausgasemissionen in der Eisen-,
Stahl- und Zinkindustrie (ERESTRE).
ISBN 978-3-86644-857-5

Band 3 Frederik Trippe

Techno-ökonomische Bewertung alternativer Verfahrens­-
konfigurationen zur Herstellung von Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL)
Kraftstoffen und Chemikalien.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0031-5

Band 4 Dogan Keles

Uncertainties in energy markets and their
consideration in energy storage evaluation.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0046-9

Band 5 Heidi Ursula Heinrichs

Analyse der langfristigen Auswirkungen von
Elektromobilität auf das deutsche Energiesystem
im europäisschen Energieverbund.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0131-2

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 6 Julian Stengel
Akteursbasierte Simulation der energetischen
Modernisierung des Wohngebäudebestands
in Deutschland.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0236-4

Band 7 Sonja Babrowski

Bedarf und Verteilung elektrischer Tagesspeicher im
zukünftigen deutschen Energiesystem.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0306-4

Band 8 Marius Wunder

Integration neuer Technologien der
Bitumenkalthandhabung in die Versorgungskette.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0319-4

Band 9 Felix Teufel

Speicherbedarf und dessen Auswirkungen auf
die Energiewirtschaft bei Umsetzung der politischen
Ziele zur Energiewende.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0341-5

Band 10 D. Keles, L. Renz, A. Bublitz, F. Zimmermann, M. Genoese,

W. Fichtner, H. Höfling, F. Sensfuß, J. Winkler
Zukunftsfähige Designoptionen für den deutschen
Strommarkt: Ein Vergleich des Energy-only-Marktes
mit Kapazitätsmärkten.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0453-5

Band 11 Patrick Breun

Ein Ansatz zur Bewertung klimapolitischer Instrumente
am Beispiel der Metallerzeugung und -verarbeitung.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0494-8

Band 12 P. Ringler, H. Schermeyer, M. Ruppert, M. Hayn,

V. Bertsch, D. Keles, W. Fichtner
Decentralized Energy Systems,
Market Integration, Optimization.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0505-1

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 13 Marian Hayn
Modellgestützte Analyse neuer Stromtarife für
Haushalte unter Berücksichtigung bedarfsorientierter
Versorgungssicherheitsniveaus.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0499-3

Band 14 Frank Schätter

Decision support system for a reactive management
of disaster-caused supply chain disturbances.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0530-3

Band 15 Robert Kunze

Techno-ökonomische Planung energetischer
Wohngebäudemodernisierungen: Ein gemischt-
ganzzahliges lineares Optimierungsmodell auf
Basis einer vollständigen Finanzplanung.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0531-0

Band 16 A. Kühlen, J. Stengel, R. Volk, F. Schultmann,

M. Reinhardt, H. Schlick, S. Haghsheno, A. Mettke,
S. Asmus, S. Schmidt, J. Harzheim
ISA: Immissionsschutz beim Abbruch - Minimierung
von Umweltbelastungen (Lärm, Staub, Erschütterungen)
beim Abbruch von Hoch-/Tiefbauten und Schaffung
hochwertiger Recyclingmöglichkeiten für Materialien
aus Gebäudeabbruch.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0534-1

Band 17 Konrad Zimmer

Entscheidungsunterstützung zur Auswahl und Steuerung
von Lieferanten und Lieferketten unter Berücksichtigung
von Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0537-2

Band 18 Kira Schumacher, Wolf Fichtner and Frank Schultmann (Eds.)

Innovations for sustainable biomass utilisation in the
Upper Rhine Region.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0423-8

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 19 Sophia Radloff
Modellgestützte Bewertung der Nutzung von Biokohle
als Bodenzusatz in der Landwirtschaft.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0559-4

Band 20 Rebekka Volk

Proactive-reactive, robust scheduling and capacity planning
of deconstruction projects under uncertainty.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0592-1

Band 21 Erik Merkel

Analyse und Bewertung des Elektrizitätssystems und des
Wärmesystems der Wohngebäude in Deutschland.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0636-2

Band 22 Rebekka Volk (Hrsg.)

Entwicklung eines mobilen Systems zur Erfassung und
Erschließung von Ressourceneffizienzpotenzialen beim
Rückbau von Infrastruktur und Produkten („ResourceApp“):
Schlussbericht des Forschungsvorhabens.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0653-9

Band 23 Thomas Kaschub

Batteriespeicher in Haushalten unter Berücksichtigung
von Photovoltaik, Elektrofahrzeugen und Nachfrage-
steuerung.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0688-1

Band 24 
Felix Hübner, Rebekka Volk, Oktay Secer, Daniel Kühn,
Peter Sahre, Reinhard Knappik, Frank Schultmann,
Sascha Gentes, Petra von Both
Modellentwicklung eines ganzheitlichen
Projektmanagementsystems für kerntechnische
Rückbauprojekte (MogaMaR):
Schlussbericht des Forschungsvorhabens.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0762-8

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 25 
Karoline Fath
Technical and economic potential for photovoltaic
systems on buildings.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0787-1

Band 26 Ann-Kathrin Müller

Decision Support for Biomass Value Chains for the
Production of Biochemicals Considering Uncertainties.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0820-5

Band 27 Jonatan J. Gómez Vilchez

The Impact of Electric Cars on Oil Demand and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Markets.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0914-1

Band 28 Carmen Schiel

Real Option Based Appraisal of Environmental Investments –
An Assessment of NOx Emission Control Techniques in Large
Combustion Plants.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0925-7

Band 29 Hannes Schwarz

Optimierung der Investitions- und Einsatzplanung
dezentraler Energiesysteme unter Unsicherheit.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0919-6

Band 30 nicht erschienen

Band 31 
Rupert Hartel, Viktor Slednev, Hasan Ümitcan Yilmaz,
Armin Ardone, Dogan Keles, Wolf Fichtner, Anke Eßer,
Marian Klobasa, Matthias Kühnbach, Pia Manz,
Joachim Globisch, Rainer Elsland, Martin Wietschel (Hrsg.)
Dekarbonisierung des Energiesystems durch verstärkten
Einsatz erneuerbaren Stroms im Wärme-, Verkehrs-
und Industriesektor bei gleichzeitigen Stilllegungen
von Kraftwerken – Auswirkungen auf die
Versorgungssicherheit in Süddeutschland.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0879-3

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 32 
Rebekka Volk, Richard Müller, Frank Schultmann, Jérémy Rimbon,
Thomas Lützkendorf, Joachim Reinhardt, Florian Knappe
Stofffluss- und Akteursmodell als Grundlage für
ein aktives Ressourcenmanagement im Bauwesen
von Baden-Württemberg „StAR-Bau“ –
Schlussbericht des Forschungsvorhabens.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0858-8

Band 33 Felix Hübner

Planung und Modellierung des Rückbaus kerntechnischer
Anlagen unter der Berücksichtigung von Unsicherheiten –
Ein Beispiel zur Planung von Großprojekten.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0911-0

Band 34 Kira Schumacher

Public acceptance of renewable energies – an empirical
investigation across countries and technologies.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0948-6

Band 35 Daniel Fehrenbach

Modellgestützte Untersuchung des wirtschaftlichen
Potenzials sektorgekoppelter Wärmeversorgung in
Wohngebäuden im Kontext der Transformation des
Energiesystems in Deutschland.
ISBN 978-3-7315-0952-3

Band 36 Mariana Burkhardt

Impacts of natural disasters on supply
chain performance.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1020-8

Band 37 Katrin Seddig

Elektromobile Flotten im lokalen
Energiesystem mit Photovoltaikeinspeisung
unter Berücksichtigung von Unsicherheiten.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1031-4

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
Band 38 Florian Diehlmann
Facility Location Planning in Relief Logistics:
Decision Support for German Authorities.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1120-5

Band 39 Richard Carl Müller

Entscheidungsunterstützung zur Planung und Bewertung
nachhaltiger industrieller Wertschöpfungsketten –
dargestellt am Beispiel von Fahrzeugteilen.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1149-6

Band 40 Miriam Isabelle Klein

Cross-Border Collaboration in Disaster Management.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1195-3

Band 41 David Balussou

An analysis of current and future electricity production
from biogas in Germany.
ISBN 978-3-7315-1035-2

Die Bände sind unter www.ksp.kit.edu als PDF frei verfügbar oder als Druckausgabe zu bestellen.
 INSTITUT FÜR INDUSTRIEBETRIEBSLEHRE UND INDUSTRIELLE PRODUKTION
DEUTSCH-FRANZÖSISCHES INSTITUT FÜR UMWELTFORSCHUNG

In this work a process simulation model coupled with an economic evaluation tool
identifies the most profitable German biogas plant types and sizes. The results show
that small manure and large-scale biowaste plants are currently the most economi-
cally attractive installations whereas the valorization of energy crops turns out to be
unprofitable. The future development of German biogas plants is assessed with an
optimization model. The objective function aims to maximize under constraints the
total operating profit for each of the main plant types using energy crops, biowaste
and manure up to the year 2030 at the Federal State level. Capacity expansion con-
cerns small-scale manure and biowaste installations rather than plants based on en-
ergy crops. The transferability of the methodology to other countries and bioenergy
pathways is examined. Stable framework conditions, the exchange of best practices
and lessons learned between actors are pre-requisites for successful implementation.

Gedruckt auf FSC-zertifiziertem Papier

ISBN 978-3-7315-1035-2

ISSN 2194-2404
ISBN 978-3-7315-1035-2 9 783731 510352