Value chain models for effective biogas production and utilization – case study from Østfold region in Norway Nordic Biogas Conference, Reykjavik Kari-Anne Lyng

Østfoldforskning Norwegian research institute (private, non profit) located in Fredrikstad 15 researchers with expertise in sustainable innovation and life cycle assessments 5 main markets: –Building and construction –Waste resources and energy –Food and packaging –Textiles and furniture –Regional innovation –Environmental impact tools

Case study: Østfold region in Norway Environmental impacts and economy for the actors in the value chain: Questions What is the best use of the biogas produced in the region? What is the optimal number of pre-treatment plants? What is the optimal number of biogas plants?

Biogas production in Norway Main motivation: treatment of organic waste and sewage sludge Climate mitigation measure Use of biogas: heat, electricity – newest biogas plants: fuel for buses and renovation trucks There is a great potential for better utilization of organic waste and manure in Norway as a resource for biogas production.

Purpose of biogas model Documentation of net GWP and other environmental indicators (benefits and emissions) and economy (costs and income) –Through the value chain of biogas production –In a region, for a specific biogas plant or for treatment of a certain amount of waste/manure Simulate the effect of different solutions such as: Size on new plants (amount and type substrate) Analyze consequenses of localisation alternatives (transport distances) Different utilizations of biogas

Models developed in 3 phases Contributors Norwegian Agricultural Authority (SLF) Norwegian Research Council Avfall Norge The Norwegian Farmers Union (Bondelaget) Cambi NHO Mat og Drikke Agricultural department, Østfold and Vestfold County (Fylkesmannens landbruksavdeling) Research collaboration between: Østfoldforskning NMBU Bioforsk Telemark University College TelTek RebioKonsult DTU Management engineering University of Southern Denmark

Environmental impact model + Direct emissions from biomass + Indirect emissions - Avoided burdens = Net environmental impact Functional unit (reference flow): Amount of substrate (1 tonne of DM) Current practice for LCA of waste management systems Storage Transport Pre-treatment Anaerobic digestion Transport and storage Use and application on land Avoided burdens from substitution of mineral fertiliser or soil improvement products Manure Organic waste Use of biogas Avoided emissions from substitution of fuels, heat or electricity Sequestration of biogenic carbon in soil

Economic model Life Cycle Costing (LCC): –All costs associated with the investment throughout the service life. –Investment costs (minus investment support), plus operating costs adjusted for interests every year. Annual costs: –Yearly capital costs (investment costs distributed per year) –Annual operating costs –Annual transport costs –Includes annual depreciation and interest costs

Østfold: Analysed scenarios Treatment of all organic household waste and 30 % of the manure in the region 0Reference scenario: current treatment of organic waste (14% compost og 86% energy recovery) and manure spread locally as fertiliser. 1One central biogas plant + one local farm based plant. One pre-treatment facility 2Two biogas plants + one local farm based plant. a) One pre-treatment facility b) Two pre-treatment facilities 3Three biogas plants + one local farm based plant. Two pre-treatment facilities. All scenarios: upgraded and used as fuel in buses and renovation trucks, liquid digestate used as fertilizer tonnes organic waste tonnes manure from cattle tonnes manure from pig

Results for Global Warming Potential tonnes CO 2 -eqiv./year 1 biogas plant 2 biogas plants3 biogas plants

Results for global warming potential Use of biogas in the transport sector is more preferable than producing heat, electricity or a combination. No large differences between the different options Larger scale result in more impact from transport and increased production of biogas gives a benefit Other environmental impact categories

Resuls for LCC 1 biogas plant 2 biogas plants 3 biogas plants

Results for annual costs Gate fee for waste Income upgraded biogas

Årlige kostnader per verdikjedeledd, scenario I Costs for the farmers are equal for all scenarios Two smaller pre-treatment facilities: investment and maintenance costs increases, while transport costs are reduced Two or three smaller biogas plants: upgrading, investment and maintenance costs increases, while transport costs are reduced

Conclusions for value chain economy Transport affect the annual costs and should be optimised It is more profitable to build one large scale biogas plant rather than several medium sized plants. This may change if political measures are introduced

Developments in the Østfold region A new biogas plant has been established in accordance with the results from the study Østfold County has set as a requirement in new tender for bus transport in the region that the buses should use biogas as a fuel, resulting in about 100 new buses using biogas from the local plant

Further work Through the research projects BioValueChain and BioChain: Continue to improve models by verifying data, including more environmental impact indicators, performing sensitivity analysis, work on integration of the models Test the model through more Norwegian case studies for existing biogas plants and planned plants Perform comparative analysis of biogas in Norway and Denmark: framework conditions, political measures Assess how to optimise biogas value chains in Norway and in Denmark