Danish biogas governance, innovation, current barriers & way forward

First full-scale farm biogas plant in Denmark established in 1974 by farmer Hans Aage Jespersen in Nr. Åby on Funen.

Associate Prof. Ph.D. Rikke Lybæk University of Roskilde, Denmark

Agenda

• Policy regime & Innovation history

• Lessons learned on biogas innovation in short

• Newest biogas ’governance’

• Current barriers

• New stakeholder actions - Municipalities

- Energy companies

- Farmers

Policy regimes & innovation history (From 1978 until 2009) [See Rikke Lybæk, et. al., 2013]

1. Research Program STUB (1978-1986) • Focus of the program:

- Small scale Farm Biogas plants.

- Demonstration plants & laboratory experiments (e.g. Gråsten, Gadebjerg Farm & Bygholm Test Facility, Horsens).

• Innovation and diffusion:

- Test and optimization of various existing and new biogas concepts (1st & 2nd generation plants).

- No real maturing and reliable operation of the biogas technology obtained.

- No technical achievements providing standard concept, but ‘batch- operated’ plants abandoned.

- The use of ‘agricultural equipment’ not developed for biogas really problematic!

- Gas yield not only dependent on tech., but also on the type of livestock.

- No knowledge exchanges with grassroots developing promising plants.

• Development drivers:

- Biogas plants provide an energy substitute to costly imported oil.

- The use of indigenous resources for RE production & energy security.

- 20,000 farm plants and 7 % RE target by 1995 (Energy Plan 81).

- Biogas = A response to the energy crisis in DK beginning 1973/74.

3

- One of 3 STUB demo plants ‘Gadebjerg Farm’ near Viborg with farmer and plant owner in front; Ole Skadborg.

1. generation STUB demonstration plants. (3 individual farm-tests). 1976

2. generation STUB demonstration plants. (2 plants build & tested at Bygholm Test Facility). 1982

- Test plant with horizontal reactor build by Folk Center for Renewable Energy (FCRE) in North Jutland, ‘Gyllefryd’. - Later (1984) the FCRE developed the promising ‘black-smith-plant’ with Preben Maagård, as a front pioneer. - No support from STUB. = All STUB 1st and 2nd demo plants very abandoned due to technical problem and unstable gas production !!

- Biogas plant in Alslev. 1980. Grassroot biogas plant operated successfully from 1980-1999. - The reactor tank was a re-cycled insulated steel tank. - No support from STUB.

2. The Coordinating Committee for Centralized Biogas plants (1986-1990) • Focus of the program: - Small scale Centralized Biogas plants.

- Demonstration plants & laboratory experiments (e.g. Vester Hjermitslev & Vegger plants).

• Innovation and diffusion: - Emphasis on technical achievements on Centralized plants only.

- All plants now designed as ‘fully-mixed continuous-operated’ plants, but

- No technical innovations lead to a well-functioning standard concept.

- No knowledge sharing with grassroots developing well-functioning plants e.g. ‘Black-Smith’ &

Alslev farm plant running successfully for 20 years.

• Development drivers: - Nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from Danish agriculture big issue (NPO-plan from 1985).

- Farmers required to establish 6 then 9 month storage capacity for manure (no manure pits -

møddinger - directly in the fields!).

- Good manure storage established; now attractive for farmers to join Centralized Biogas plants.

- Biogas = A response to agricultural related environmental problems of aquatics’.

5

- Construction of Vester Hjermitslev Centralized biogas plant. - Expected to obtain a better plant profitability, compared to farm plants, due to economy of scale & supply of DH as base load.

Individual support to Centralized biogas plants, here the first in Denmark. 1985

Here Vegger, and later Skovsgård Centralized biogas plant, also received governmental support. 1986

- But with the NPO-plan farmers grew interested in biogas., as they now could store and get a better fertilizer back for their crop. - Trucks were collecting and delivering manure between farm and the biogas plants.

- The first Centralized biogas plants were not a great success and farmers shoved limited interest.

3. Biomass Committee (1991-1998)

• Focus of the program: - Large Centralized Biogas plants.

- Demonstration plants & laboratory experiments (e.g. Helsingør, Sindinge, Studsgård).

• Innovation and diffusion: - Focus on large plants, but grants given to individual research activities on Farm biogas plants.

- No groundbreaking technical innovations leading to a well-defined standard concept.

- Still challenges with inefficient motors, manure pumps and reactor stirring, etc.

- New important knowledge from laboratory experiments on process understanding

and stability etc. (mesophilic temp. & gas yield of feedstocks).

- Access to heat markets found important for biogas plants’ profitability.

• Development drivers: - Farmers handling of manure (reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution).

- The use of Centralized Biogas plants as org. household waste processors.

- Biogas = A response to agricultural & waste related environmental problems.

7

4. Biogas Program (1998-2001)

• Focus of the program: - Very large Centralized Biogas plants.

- Demonstration plants & laboratory experiments (2 demo plants/year).

• Innovation and diffusion: - Emphasis on technical achievements on Centralized plants primarily.

- Relatively reliable & stable biogas tech. gradually developed, but household waste difficult!

- Plant profitability now improved due to e.g. increased gas yield from org. industrial waste.

- Research in how to open fibers using enzymes strongly emphasized.

- Knowledge sharing in the biogas sector continuously relative week.

• Development drivers: - Farmers handling of manure (reduce nitrogen and phosphorous emissions).

- Centralized biogas plants as processors of household waste, organic industrial waste

and sludge from WWTP’s.

- Generation of non-fossil renewable energy from biogas plants (9 PJ in 2005 / Energy 2000); KP!

- Biogas = A response to agricultural & energy & multiple waste related environmental problems.

8

5. Green Growth Strategy (2009)

• Focus of the strategy:

- Even larger Centralized Biogas plants.

- Demonstration plants & laboratory experiments (e.g. Mors Centralized biogas plant).

• Innovation and diffusion: - Lack of org. waste as gas-booster a barrier for the biogas sector, thus

- Governmental focus on biogas plants operated on manure alone!

- Almost complete stop in biogas implementation changes this; Thus new feedstock boosting the

gas yield should be identified.

- Real challenges in locating large Centralized Biogas plants due to public resistance (NIMBY).

• Development drivers: - Farmers handling of manure (reduce nitrogen and phosphorous emissions).

- Prod. of renewable energy on farms (20 PJ in 2020) & Generate extra income for farmers.

- Use of energy crops as new gas-boosters slowly emerging.

- Biogas = A response to agricultural & energy related problems & provide extra income.

9

Helsingør Biogas plant operated from 1991-1996 treating org. household waste. 1997.

-Deconstruction of the plant due to malfunctions and wrong location. -Technical problem in source-separating the waste, and final pulp for digestion contained glass and plastic. -The plant was smelly & located in a dense populated area, so the local resistance from citizen’s was high.

Mors Centralized biogas plant. 2009

- The plant designed to run on manure alone. - Plant profitability very low due to many technical problems and insufficient gas yield. - Purchase of feedstock from industry increasing gas yield, but - Just added to economic problems, as prices increased fast.

Lessons learned on biogas innovation in short • Innovation has primarily happened in two tracks; grassroots and public supported innovation.

• Grassroot innovations focused on small scale Farm plants, and public supported innovations - after STUB - on large scale Centralized plants.

• The biogas innovation has been strongly shaped by changing policy regimes, shifted from:

Energy security → aquatic environmental protection → org. waste processing → non-fossil fuel energy production → surplus income for farmers.

• Today, focus is mainly on → RE energy (flex gas, transport) & circular economy (recycle resources).

• The shifting focus has impacted the set-up of the plants, the technology applied, the type of research and grants connected to the biogas sector throughout years.

• Incremental innovation has taken place all along, focusing on real life problems with no specific end-point.

• Knowledge sharing is important! = Work together!

• Don’t select a specific technology-tract too early!

11

Newest biogas ‘governance’

12

Danish Energy Agency & Ministry of Environment: -Provided higher FIT for biogas power to the grid ≈16.4 euro/GWh & 30 % const. grant. -Legalized biogas upgrading, distribution on the Ngas network, and biogas for transportation. -(Still not legal to send raw biogas directly to e.g. industry). -Biogas is focus in Governments: ‘Resource Strategy’ focusing on digesting organic household waste (not incinerate it), and -Recirculate nutrient, minerals & phosphor back to the soil (circular thinking).

The Danish Government’s Resource Strategy, 2013 Promote Circular economy; only

possible with biogas technology

13

Danish Natural Environment Agency: -Provide good examples of how to successfully implement biogas plants via visualizations’ software & Graphic Information System (GIS), etc. -Publish literature about how to conduct biogas planning within municipalities, and -Set up meetings / visits / workshops in municipalities to promote biogas, thus -Work to increase knowledge sharing between biogas stakeholders, farmers and others.

Challenge:

-Some political sceptic of the high economic support to biogas compared to e.g. offshore wind energy (total 6,7 euro-cent/kWh vs. 3,3 euro-cent/kWh). -Do not fully understand the benefits of biogas, as an energy & environmental tech. -We need to disseminate the multiple benefits of biogas much more in the future !

Multiple benefits of the biogas technology

14

Current barriers Drawbacks/barriers:

• Lack of feedstock ‘boosting’ the gas yield:

- Slaughterhouse, fish residues, oily/protein rich food wastes, etc.

- Government roof on the utilization of energy crops (12 % in 2018) now 25 %.

• Local resistance towards Centralized biogas plants due to noise/dust from large

trucks transporting manure & Visual plant pollution.

• Low plant profitability, high techn. & operational costs, and long realization timeframe.

- Farmers want to make profit now; not only to get a valuable fertilizer.

• Lack of farmers engaging in biogas:

- The financial crises hit the agricultural sector hard; no surplus £ & banks say no!

- Stakeholders deploying biogas is now mainly energy companies, but

- Important still to include farmers to

- focus on soil quality, nutrients, crops etc., and

- Not only on the amount of gas produced!

Actions by Municipalities:

Support mapping of & utilization of new feedstock for biogas:

• Deep litter, straw from cereal production, biomass residues from municipal conservation of natural areas, organic waste from source separated household waste, blue biomass, etc.

‘15

New stakeholder actions (How to overcome barriers identified) [See Rikke Lybæk & Tyge Kjær, 2015]

16

Improve municipal energy planning:

• Municipal ‘heat planning’ should include supply of biogas in the future by e.g.: -Substitute Ngas with supply of raw biogas to existing residential areas (who now uses fossil Ngas in small heat boilers, but could switch to raw biogas). -Supply of raw biogas to larger industries now using Ngas for process heat purposes.

• Require decentralized CHP plants to utilize raw biogas instead of Ngas in their boilers, through the ‘Energy Supply Law’.

• Facilitate and push for public transport to be fueled by biogas, to promote local vehicles to run on renewable energy and improve air quality.

Domestic Ngas boiler Stove using cooking gas Biogas bus

17

Actions by energy companies: Energy companies can support a market enhancement for biogas by:

• Today, energy companies set-up Centralized biogas plants jointly with farmers. • Energy companies now upgrade biogas to Ngas & distribute on the national Ngas network. • Provide more biogas for transportation purposes, which still is infant in Denmark. • E.ON. energy company in e.g. Copenhagen only have few biogas fuel stations, and gas

stations normally only provide fossil Ngas). • Sell certified bio-natural gas to Corporate Social Responsibility engaged companies. • Speed up mix of Ngas & raw biogas and distribute in cities as cooking-gas (up to 30 % mix

possible before the flame stop).

Danish ‘Nature Energy’ extend their Ngas pipelines

18

Heat

Export power Heat farmhouse

Heat stables

CHP

Farm biogas plant Manure

storage

Heat farmhouse

Heat stables

Manure pipe

Export heat

Farm # 1 Farm # 2

“Neighbor-model”

- Makes it economic possible for smaller farm plants to connect to a large biogas plant.

- Thus, the manure will actually be utilize for energy purposes & good fertilizer produced.

Actions by farmers

New types of cooperation between farmers leading to innovation in technical concepts

[See Rikke Lybæk, 2014]

19

Heat

Export power Heat farmhouse

Heat stables

Heat export

Heat used in: Nursing home

School Swimming pool Sports facility

CHP Farm biogas

plant

“Institutional-model”

- Provide a heat market for surplus heat on larger farm biogas plants, thus

- Increase the plant profitability.

- Help to fulfill renewable energy targets in local municipalities (national & EU targets).

20

Manure storage

Large scale biogas plant Manure

storage

Manure storage

Manure storage

Manure storage

Manure storage

Export heat

CHP

Local community: District heating to

households

Exp

ort

po

wer

Manure pipes

”Star-model”

- Avoid heavy truck transportation of manure & associated environmental problems.

- Good mix of pig and cattle manure: better balance between phosphorus and

potassium (kalium).

21

Thank You

Rikke Lybæk & Tyge Kjær (2015), ”Municipalities as facilitators, regulators and energy consumers: enhancing the dissemination of biogas

technology in Denmark”. In International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, Vol. 8, Nr. 2246-2929, 12.2015, p.17.

Rikke Lybæk (2014), Development, Operation, and Future Prospects for Implementing Biogas Plants. In Use, Operation and

Maintenance of Renewable Energy Systems: Experiences and Future Approaches. red. / M.A. Sanz-Bobi (ed.). Vol. 111

Switzerland: Springer Publishing Company, 2014. s. 111-144 (Green Energy and Technology).

Rikke Lybæk, Thomas Budde Christensen, Tyge Kjær (2013), ”Governing innovation for sustainable development in the Danish biogas

sector – a historical overview and analysis of innovation”. In Sustainable Development, Vol. 21, p. 171-182, 2009. Elsevier.