Stimulating national biogas production
Transcript of Stimulating national biogas production
STIMULATING NATIONAL BIOGAS PRODUCTION
The case of Swedish agricultural waste management
OCTOBER 16, 2020
LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY
LINKÖPING
Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme
autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Stimulating national biogas production
The case of Swedish agricultural waste
management
Prepared by
Manoj Dammur
16 October 2020
Examined by Stefan Anderberg
Supervised by Marcus Gustafsson
Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme
autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Linköping University
Environmental Technology and Management
Dept. of Management and Engineering
58330, Linköping, Sweden.
https://liu.se/en/organisation/liu/iei/miljo
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Acknowledgements
This thesis subject was offered to me by the department of Management and engineering under the division of Environmental technology and management at Linköping university, under the supervision of assistant senior lecturer Marcus Gustafsson. For whom I will always be grateful for having such a confidence in me with this kind of opportunity, for guiding me throughout the thesis and connecting me to prominent people at biogas research center who could provide me the contacts and make the interviews possible. Also, for having trust in me with the distant online presentations so that the thesis went smooth even at times like COVID pandemic. I would also like to thank my examiner, Prof. Stefan Anderberg for enduring my terrible writing and unmatched counselling to improve my academic writing. For being optimistic with my time plans and understanding me when I failed to keep up with the timeline. While being jovial and making work seem easy. My thesis opponent Mr. Adarsh also needs to be mentioned for his valuable constructive critiques on my report and presentations, though he is a student in Mechanical engineering and new to Sustainability and environmental technology. It is always an advantage to have an outsider to understand different perspectives. I am thankful for the cooperation of Kristian Petersson, Erik Erjeby from Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund-LRF (The federation of Swedish farmers) and John Benjaminsson from Gasfuels in connecting me to the local farmer and producers of biogas. Also, to the participation of farmers and biogas producers in my interviews, and for their time in answering my questions. Their names are mentioned later in this report.
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Abstract Swedish state has been promoting alternative renewable fuels like biogas to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and to curb related greenhouse gas emissions. Owing to many policies like subsidies and tax exemptions for using biogas, the country has seen a surge in demand for biogas. Meanwhile, the increase in production of biogas in Sweden has been modest in recent years, though many studies have estimated substantially higher potentials from many sources. Agricultural feedstock/biomass is one among these sources where production and use of biogas could address many challenges faced by farmers like agricultural waste management, soil nutrient management, methane emissions from manure etc. while closing the nutrient cycle and contributing to sustainability. This work is an investigation on how to stimulate the growth of biogas production based on agricultural feedstock/biomass production in Sweden. Since policies give different results in different states/countries depending on the local preconditions, locally developed policies, national policies and EU policies should integrate well in all the policy sectors in that particular region to give the intended result. The current production capacity is about 2 TWh worth of biogas/year but the theoretical potential is estimated to be up to 15 TWh that has been claimed by many researches and literature works like in (Westlund, et al., 2019). Much of the potential has not been explored especially in the field of agriculture. It is asserted in many articles that the true potential of biogas production from Swedish agriculture is far greater than what is produced today. Yet, all the regulations, financial and other financial instruments failed to stimulate local biogas production in Sweden to attain its full theoretical potential. The results presented in this study show where these policies failed and what else apart from the policies could be improved in order promote biogas production. Farmers are hesitant to invest in biogas production because of the complexity and unpredictability of the existing policies. There has been significant negative impact from lack technological training of anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. This is also reflected as difficulties in finding trained and dedicated staff for biogas plant operations. Low profitability of biogas business exists ever since the production started and the financial aids are insufficient. Strict digestate regulations along with worsening substrate competition also creates problems. Permits to run the biogas plants are perceived to be expensive alongside increasing investment costs and taxes, affecting already low profitability. There is also a lack of infrastructure in terms of electricity/gas grid connectivity. Feed in tariffs for electricity produced from renewable sources are not bringing enough profitability to the business. Technological improvements are needed in terms of agricultural machinery that can use upgraded biogas as fuel and treatment of digestate to eliminate heavy metal content. Producers need more long term, sure market for their biogas.
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
List of Abbreviations
• EU – European Union.
• FQD – Fuel Quality Directives
• GHG – Greenhouse gases.
• KLIMP - Klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program).
• OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• Swedish EPA/SEPA – Swedish environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket).
• SNAO – Swedish National Audit Office.
• RED – Renewable Energy Directives.
• AD – Anaerobic digestion.
• FQD – Fuel quality directives.
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Relevant Term definitions
Anaerobic digestion (AD): The process where different substrates like manure, agricultural crop
residues etc., are left to ferment(decompose) in an enclosed reactor (digester) to produce renewable gas (biogas) is called Anaerobic Digestion.
Digestate: The byproduct of AD process, the solid leftover after fermentation that can be used as
biofertilizer in the farms.
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): The legislative framework operates in all EU
countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU ETS works on the ‘cap and trade’ principle. A cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by installations covered by the system. Within the cap, companies receive or buy emission allowances, which they can trade with one another as needed (European commission, 2020). The cap is reduced over time so that total emissions fall and not reducing emissions will become less favorable for the companies since allowances will become rarer and their price will presumably increase.
Flaring: Biogas from a production plant must be allowed to escape the high-pressure gas circuits and
vessels in case of any equipment malfunction or if the pressure is too high. However, methane (biogas) is much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If left into the atmosphere, it causes greater impact than CO2. For this reason, biogas producers are required to burn this methane and allow the resulting CO2 to escape into the atmosphere. This process is called flaring.
Policy targets: The targets/ambitions that are envisaged by policy makers put in quantitative terms are
policy targets. For example, the ambition to mitigate the GHG emission from the energy sector could be expressed as a quantitative target, say, share from renewable sources within a certain timeframe (Union, 2020). Nonetheless, these targets can only be met if there is proper and full integration of the jointly framed policies among all the actors or policy sectors. Policy instruments: Set policy targets are met with the help of tools called policy instruments
(including economic tools). These can be decided at EU level, national level or local level, and are of two kinds, general instruments and specific instruments. General instruments include exemption or reduction of energy and CO2 taxes, which are applied on fossil transport fuels. Specific instruments have targeted distribution infrastructure as well as the supply and demand side (Lonnqvist, 2017). These instruments are used to incentivize the actors who can influence and promotes them to contribute towards achieving the policy targets.
Substrate: The organic matter (food waste, agricultural waste, sewage sludge) digested in a reactor of a
biogas plant to produce biogas.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Purpose and Aim ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Research questions ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Thesis Outline ................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden ................................................................................................ 6
2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential ............................................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential ............................................................................... 9
2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential ............................................................................... 11
2.3. Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1. Policies promoting demand ................................................................................................ 11
2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply............................................................................. 13
3. Method of research ............................................................................................................................ 17
3.1. Literature review ......................................................................................................................... 17
3.2. Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments ...................................................................................... 19
3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments ................................................................................. 19
3.3. Methodology discussion ............................................................................................................. 19
4. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1. Summary of results ..................................................................................................................... 20
4.2. Analysis of results ....................................................................................................................... 22
4.2.1. Complexity and unpredictability of the policies .................................................................. 22
4.2.2. Lack of skill and training on AD technology ........................................................................ 22
4.2.3. Lack of dedicated supporting staff/ skilled manpower ....................................................... 23
4.2.4. Low profitability .................................................................................................................. 23
4.2.5. Strict digestate regulations are a hinderance ..................................................................... 24
4.2.6. Expensive permits and huge initial investment ................................................................... 24
4.2.7. Lack of infrastructure & low feed in rates ........................................................................... 24
4.2.8. Technology needs to improve ............................................................................................. 24
4.2.9. Assured, long term source of revenue ................................................................................. 25
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 25
6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 28
6.1. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 29
6.2. Reflection .................................................................................................................................... 29
6.3. Future scope ............................................................................................................................... 30
References .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Annexure 1: ................................................................................................................................................. 32
Annexure 2: ................................................................................................................................................. 34
1 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
1. Introduction
One of the most concerning global issues present today both in Electricity and transport sectors
is extreme dependency on fossil fuels and related emissions of Green House Gasses (GHG).
More than 50 percent of the contribution in GHG emissions are made by fossil (IPCC, 2007), a
major contribution towards global warming hence comes from fossil fuels. Even International
Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a continued increase in energy demand, especially in the non-
OECD countries (Motherway , 2019). While curbing GHG emissions related to fossil fuel use is
a major concern, another significant problem that affects the environment negatively is
agricultural waste management. The agricultural sector accounts for about one fifth of the GHG
emissions that are not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) (Westlund, et al.,
2019). One of the most difficult challenges of climate change is to reduce these agricultural
emissions and emissions of methane from poor manure management account for a significant
proportion of the agricultural climate impact (Westlund, et al., 2019). In addition, we currently
need an answer to the questions posed by waste management and nutrient recirculation in
agriculture. How to reduce the release of excess nutrients into soil and ground water? How to
stop odor and toxic effluents from being released into the atmosphere? How to bring back the
soil fertility by giving back what is taken from earth and close the nutrient cycle?
There are policies coming up at national level and international level (EU level) from quite a
while. EU’s short term strategies demand at least 40% reduction of GHG emission compared to
1990 levels and at least 32% share of renewable energy by 2030 and long-term strategy demands
reduction of GHG emissions by 85- 90 percent by 2050 as of 1990 across the EU member states
(Bonde, et al., 2019). Also, the Paris agreement requires the signatory states to keep the global
warming well under 2 oC above the preindustrial era. EU aims to be climate neutral, an economy
with zero net GHG emissions by 2050 (European commission, 1999). The Renewable Energy
Directive (2009/28/EC) which is established in the European framework obliges EU member
states to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 2020 (European commission,
1999). EU also introduced the Fuel Quality Directives (FQD) which mandates blending of
renewable fuels with fossil petrol and diesel. The union framed the Landfill Directive in 1999
that mandates member nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European
commission, 1999). This is particularly to promote the use of organic waste to produce biogas.
The Swedish transport sector has its sector-specific climate targets like greenhouse gas emissions
should at least be 63% lowered by 2030 and 75% lowered by 2040 than 1990 emissions in
transport sector, which are not included in the trading system (Bonde, et al., 2019). Overall
(GHG) emissions in Sweden have decreased by 26% since 1990. Most of this reduction
happened between 2003 and 2014. Thereafter the rate of reduction slowed, and 2017 was the
third consecutive year in which emissions decreased by less than 1% (Bonde, et al., 2019). Under
current conditions and decisions, the transport sector will only reach halfway to these targets
(Lantz, 2013). Meeting those targets require strong policy measures already during the current
mandate period (ibid). Measures introduced to reach these targets focus on energy efficiency and
replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy carriers.
2 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Biofuels like biogas are key solutions present today for energy and transport sectors for their
problem of extreme dependency on fossil fuels. Production and use of these renewable source of
energy helps bring the nutrients back into the loop by recirculating, an essential function to
create circular economy (Lantz, 2013). Besides, biogas produced from agricultural waste, like
manure, provide excellent solution for the mentioned problems of agricultural waste
management, nutrient recirculation and diverts organic waste from ending up in landfills. Apart
from these benefits, the digestate is rich in nutrients and can be used as biofertilizer in farms.
There are also numerous societal goals at different levels (from global to local) where it is
possible to see that production and/or use of biogas can provide benefits that facilitate goal
attainment (Hagman & Eklund, 2016). For example, the production and use of biogas can help
improve the conditions for achieving about half of the sixteen environmental quality targets that
the Swedish parliament “Riksdagen” has decided (Westlund, et al., 2019). Some of these targets
where biogas use can help are Reduce climate impact, Clean air, Zero Eutrophication, Good
quality ground water and Varied agricultural landscape”. At the same time, the short term and
long-term targets set by EU like those mentioned in the last paragraphs also can benefit from
biogas production and use. Hence biogas can be considered as solution for all the problems we
saw.
In today’s established technology, biogas is mostly produced through anaerobic digestion (AD),
where in the organic waste from different sources like, agriculture, municipal organic waste,
sewage sludge etc. are digested with limited supply of oxygen (Lantz, 2013). The interest in
biogas production and use in Sweden emerged after the oil crisis in 1970’s. At first, the
production was developed at municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants.
Simultaneously, there were also some small-scale biogas plants installed mainly on pig farms
large enough for producing sufficient substrate for biogas production. In the 90’s the first ever
large-scale co-digestion plant was built which produced biogas from industrial waste and manure
(Berglund , 2006).
For promoting the use of biogas and its demand, there have been numerous policies and
regulation in Sweden that were successful. For example, the “Tax exemptions” on vehicles that
use biogas as fuel. These policies and regulation were intended to stimulate biogas use and
demand, to make producers interested by creating a market and thereby stimulate production.
This has in fact led to a significant expansion of biogas production in the past decade and a half
until 2015 to reach close to 2 TWh/year. However, since 2016, the growth in biogas production
has been modest and the current production is just over 2 TWh/year (Swedish Energy Agency,
2019), while the potential has been estimated to be more than 15 TWh/year (Berglund , 2006).
The growth of Swedish biogas production is moderate and not matching the growth of demand
because the indigenous producers are facing difficulties in competing with the imported biogas.
Currently, Sweden is importing biogas from countries like Denmark (Sherrard, 2019). To rely
heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country is too risky. Consumption
of biofuels is expected to increase globally at the same time as demand for biomass from other
sectors is expected to increase (Westlund, et al., 2019). Thus, causing the increase in the prices
of biofuels. According to the Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to
rely on imports to such a high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the
country (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are yet many reasons for reducing imports. High and
3 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
volatile prices of biogas, supply uncertainty, political instability among the countries makes
supply from those countries uncertain, these reasons might cause another situation like “Biogas
crisis” much like already seen “Oil crisis”. This is something that needs attention in order to
improve the local production.
There are different sectors/industries like food and slaughter industry, agricultural sector, sewage
treatment etc. where there is a higher potential of biogas production than what is produced today.
Specifically, the production potential of biogas from digesting substrates from agriculture and
the waste sector is judged to be significant. There are considerable substrate assets, from arable
land, and from the waste sector, for example food waste (Westlund, et al., 2019). The
agricultural sector has a huge potential of producing biogas because of the amount of waste (dry)
and manure (wet) produced as byproducts in this sector, yet it is largely unexploited today. This
is understood by looking at the estimated potential for biogas production from agricultural waste
to be 3.1 TWh from dry agricultural waste (excluding energy crops) and up to 2.6 TWh from
manure (Westlund, et al., 2019). While the current overall production from agricultural residues
is only around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019). A higher potential from agricultural
sector could be exploited by improving policy stability, reduced permit expenses and providing
stronger financial support which will make the biogas business more profitable.
1.1. Purpose and Aim
The purpose of this project is to investigate how to stimulate the growth of biogas production
within Sweden, using policies as tools, with special emphasis on utilizing available agricultural
feedstock/biomass as substrate.
The aim is to find out why existing policies/regulations did not address the challenges faced by
farmers and biogas producers, and to provide suggestions create conditions that promote biogas
production from agricultural sector.
1.2. Research questions
The following two research questions have been used throughout the research as a guidance to
achieve the purpose and aim.
a) Why are the current policies failing to stimulate agricultural bases biogas production in
Sweden?
i. Why did not the production grow, despite increasing demand?
ii. Is there a gap between policy making and potential biogas agricultural biogas
producers? What does it consist of?
b) What, apart from the policies and regulation, motivate farmers to produce more biogas?
4 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
In order to address these research questions, we need to investigate the existing policies, analyze
their shortfall, understand the circumstances of farmers and the technological support for biogas
systems (both for production and use). Thus, the scope of this project includes:
• Critical review and analysis of various existing policies intended to promote the
production/use of biogas.
• Analysis of established technological systems that support/limit the production and use of
biogas.
• Analysis of socio-economic benefits for the producers and potential users of biogas.
These steps are based on a literature study and interviews of experts and farmers.
1.3. Limitations
The focus is confined to the biogas production only from agricultural waste. The interviews are
limited to farmers and biogas producers to understand their perspective and the challenges they
face.
1.4. Thesis Outline
The structure of the report is summarized here. This introductory section gives a quick glance of
all the information related to different headings coming later in this document. You can read
about them in detail by jumping to the particular heading that you are interested in after looking
at the outline here.
In the next section "2. Background" the evolution of the biogas market in Sweden is presented
along with discussions on current state of production, agriculturally based biogas potential,
barriers, incentives and strategies used to improve biogas production from agricultural waste.
The following section is "3 Method of research" which describes how this research was
performed. The methods used to get the intended result for this thesis and to serve its purpose.
How the interviews were performed, who were involved etc.
After the methods sections comes the "4. Results" section in which the results obtained from the
research are presented. The summary is presented in the beginning and then the deeper analysis
in "4.2 Analysis of results". There are different subheadings each emanating the information of a
different issue/problem faced in biogas production. Any correlation and coherence between
results found in this research by interviews and previous researches mentioned in this report are
discussed in “5.Discussion” section. The conclusion and learnings are summarized in "6.
Conclusion".
5 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
2. Background
Biofuels like biogas are comparatively new to the energy sector unlike fossil fuels. Three
different fuels ethanol, biodiesel and biogas dominate the Swedish biofuels market, amounting to
1.14 TWh, 16.6 TWh and 1.59 TWh respectively in 2017 (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019).
Like mentioned earlier, AD is the technology that has evolved well enough to be widely used to
produce biogas. Although there are other more advanced and complex technologies like
lignocellulose chemical processing. Perhaps the simplicity of the AD technology and economic
viability made it more accessible and widespread. The flow of biogas production process using
AD is illustrated in the Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Anaerobic Digestion Process
Organic waste from all the various sources is collected and digested together in a co-digester (in
case of farm-based biogas plants, only the organic waste from the farm like manure, crop
residues are digested in the digester). The produced biogas is supplied for various applications
like heat, electricity etc. It can also be upgraded to pure biomethane (CH4) to be used as vehicle
fuel. The byproduct of the process, digestate, can be used as biofertilizer.
Advanced biofuels (2nd generation biofuels) production involves production from waste and
byproducts rather than dedicated energy crops. Since, energy crop cultivation rises concerns over
land use change and food security, advanced biofuels are preferred
6 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden
In 2001, the production of biogas in Sweden was not seen as an interesting future possibility
(Hjalmarsson, 2013). At that time, energy policies promoted incineration of collected municipal
organic waste, which has now become, one of the most important raw materials for production of
biogas (Hjalmarsson, 2013). The developments of the biogas market have, to a large extent,
taken place within the last two decades. In the past 14 years, production has increased by more
than 50 percent. However, there is almost no increase in Swedish biogas production since 2016
(Westlund, et al., 2019).
In contrast, the demand for biogas in Sweden is soaring high and has reached above 3.7 TWh in
the year 2018 from 2.9 TWh in 2017 (Klackenberg, 2019). Looking at the current state of biogas
in Sweden, it is evident that the increasing demand for biogas is not enough for stimulating
growth of biogas production.
Since the national biogas production is almost half of the national demand for biogas, currently
the demand is met by importing biogas from the neighboring countries like Denmark. Denmark
produced 4.52 TWh of biogas in 2019, while in Sweden, the production was around 2.05 TWh
(Eurostat, 2020). This is not a small difference for a country with a 10th of the Swedish land area,
and a population almost half of Sweden.
The brief statistics of import, indigenous production and consumption are presented in Figure 2
below. From the figure, it can be seen clearly that the production of biogas in Sweden has
essentially not grown since 2016 to 2018. The amount of imported biogas contributed to about
10% of the total consumption in 2016, but sharply rose to 43% in 2018 (Westlund, et al., 2019),
almost half of the total consumption.
Figure 2 comparison of indigenous production and import of biogas in Sweden till 2018 (Sherrard, 2019) & (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019)
43%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Total biogas consumption (GWh)
Swedish Biogas Imported biogas
10%
7 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Owing to the growing demand, the Swedish government wants to push the production so that the
local biogas production is sufficient to meet the national demand (Westlund, et al., 2019). This is
because relying heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country
considered to be too risky. Consumption of biofuels can be expected to increase globally at the
same time as demand for biomass from other sectors can be expected to increase. This worsens
the global demand and will increase the prices of biofuels at least in the EU countries. According
to Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to rely on imports to such a
high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the country (Westlund, et al.,
2019). Sweden has already struggled looking for alternative fuels during the “Oil crisis” in the
70’s.
The ambitious goal of making the transport sector independent of fossil fuels by 2030 and
climate neutral by 2050 (Holmberg, 2012) can only be achieved by considering different
alternatives, policies that can push the energy sector to shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy
sources like biogas. By having simple policies in place that can provide stronger economic
support while existing in the market for a prolonged period. There are several goals set at EU-
level, which influence the framing of policy instruments and actions considered to promote
biofuels within Sweden. When choosing alternative energy sources, and framing policies to
develop those fuels, there must be proper integration among all the independent actors (technical
and non-technical). Policy integration among these actors is necessary for the development of
biogas industry (Hjalmarsson, 2013) and wider system perspective to avoid problem shifting or
sub-optimization. To achieve proper integration, governmental support is necessary and
involvement of all the actors while framing the policies is essential to achieve full integration
(Deremince, et al., 2017).
A study conducted at KTH university (Lonnqvist, 2017) has estimated the potential of biogas
production from different sectors which is presented in Table 1 below. The difference between
theoretical potential and practical potential is because practical potential includes losses,
transport feasibility, economic feasibility etc.
Substrate category Theoretical potential
(TWh)
Practical potential
(TWh)
Food waste 1.3 0.68
Sewage sludge 1 0.89
Industrial waste 2 1
Wet agricultural residues 4.2 2.22
Dry agricultural residues 8.1 0.98
Energy crops from abandoned
land
2.84 1.42
Total 19.44 7.19
8 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Table 1 Estimated biogas production potential for 2020 (Lonnqvist, 2017)
Since the use of biogas solves many environmental problems, since we need more biogas to meet
demand in Sweden and since estimated practical potential is higher, the national investigation
commissioned by the Swedish state (Westlund, et al., 2019) is proposing new targets to expand
local biogas production. These targets are distributed among different sectors and technologies as
shown in the Figure 3 depending on their potentials, to cumulatively increase 10 TWh of
production per year by 2030 (Westlund, et al., 2019).The proposed target is to reach 7 TWh of
biogas solely from AD technology. The remaining 3 TWh should come from more advanced
technologies like “Lignocellulose chemical processing”
In Figure 3 below, there are two columns for 2030 (high and low) which indicates that it is
needed to push production from these sectors to reach at least the first minimum target by 2030
(low), if not to the full potential/maximum target (high). Data from (Swedish Energy Agency,
2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019).
Figure 3 Sector Specific targets and comparison with current scenario (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019)
As it is evident, even to reach the minimum target, manure and agriculture-based biogas
production needs to increase radically from 0.45 TWh to 1.5 TWh and 0.02 TWh to 2 TWh
respectively. In the system that has developed today, the most common type of biogas production
plant in Sweden is connected to a sewage treatment plant. However, the largest amount of gas is
produced in so-called co-digestion plants where a mix of different substrate can be digested, such
as manure and food waste. The largest volumes of biogas are produced primarily in the
9 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
metropolitan and agricultural regions i.e. in Skåne, Västra Götaland and Stockholm counties
(Westlund, et al., 2019). Because of the amount of waste (wet and dry) generated in agricultural
sector, which could be a potential substrate for biogas production, this sector has a considerable
potential of about 3.2 TWh / year as estimated in Table 1.
2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential
The pollution emitted from animal waste from livestock farming can imply some serious
environmental impact and health concerns (for example: manure deposits on ground can cause
eutrophication in the nearby water body after erosion). Before discharging waste on to the land,
into a nearby water body or to the atmosphere, farmers and agricultural facilities are required to
obtain the permission by meeting some prerequisites set by regulatory agencies. They need to
follow certain guidelines in feedstock handling, manure collection and storage, strategies to
reduce odor, dust release and liquid effluents into the atmosphere (Correa, et al., 2017).
Anaerobic treatment of organic waste reduces GHG emissions, nutrient and odor. Hence the
agricultural facilities that include the anaerobic digestion technology as a complement to their
farms are promoted by the comprehensive agricultural policies (Correa, et al., 2017). The
estimation form another study including only accessible agricultural waste like manure from big
enough animal population and residues from crop cultivation (excluding dedicated energy crops)
again shows the same potential of 3.2 TWh, in Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). But the current
overall production from agricultural residues is around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency,
2019). When we compare the utilization of potential from agricultural sources with Denmark,
which is exporting biogas to Sweden, 85.3% of total biogas produced is from AD of agricultural
substrates (Gustafsson, et al., 2019). Whereas in Sweden, it is only around 23% (0.47 of 2.04
TWh) from the Figure 3. An important indicator that we need to improve and exploit on
agriculture-based biogas production. Being small in area and population, Denmark is capable of
producing biogas more from agricultural waste than Sweden. One of the reasons behind this is
their farm-based AD plants are more in numbers and losses due to flaring are 10 times lower
(Gustafsson, et al., 2019).
The agricultural residues that are potential substrates for biogas production are divided into two
types, dry agricultural residues and wet agricultural residues. Residues obtained from crop
cultivation (including both waste farm weed/straw & energy crops) are dry agricultural residues.
Residues derived from animal farming (manure) are wet agricultural residues. An observation
was made by BIOSURF (Barre, et al., 2016), that the emission performance of biogas and
biomethane plants can be enhanced by increasing the share of animal manure, slurry and waste in
the feedstock and by improving the performance of the production facility itself.
2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential
Wet residues like manure are generated from the animal population. These residues are often
from rural areas from poultry, sheep, horses, swine and cattle. Only one example of wet residues
from urban areas is from horses (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). Normally in agriculture, the manure is
10 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
stored for several months in storage tanks, methane is produced in these tanks due to anaerobic
conditions and released to the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent GHG than carbon
dioxide (Lantz, 2013). If the manure is utilized for biogas production, these methane emissions
could be significantly reduced, while closing the nutrient cycle by using the digestate as
biofertilizer.
The volume of the wet residue is the key factor affecting the potential from these residues.
Animal population must be big enough and at least part of the manure must be produced in the
stable to make it profitable for collection, transportation and production. While assessing the
potential, the animals considered are cattle, poultry, horses, swine and sheep. It was estimated in
2013 that these animals together produce around 2700 kton of manure yearly in whole of
Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). The yield of biogas from manure differs from animal to
animal, for instance, manure from pig gives higher yield than cattle. Whether the manure is in
liquid form or solid form also matters (BioMil AB & Envirum, 2008). Animal manure represents
a biogas potential estimated to be 9.2 PJ/year or 2.5TWh/year (Lantz, et al., 2007). Another
estimate from (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013) assuming decreasing animal population was of 2.22
TWh/year.
Though it is argued that methane emissions due to manure depends on bad agricultural practices,
the reduction of methane emissions is often included in environmental assessments of biogas
production from manure. Thus, the reduction of GHG emissions is particularly marked in the
case of manure-based biogas production (Lantz, 2013) and the significance of this can be
understood from Figure 4. The figure shows a comparison of reduction in GHG emissions made
in terms of grams of CO2 eq/MJ of energy produced from different substrates including sludge
from wastewater treatment plant (WWTP sludge), municipal solid organic waste (MSOW),
industrial waste, liquid manure and other agricultural products.
Figure 4 GHG emissions from biogas production based on different substrates (Lantz, 2013).
11 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
The analysis is from different researches which show some deviation in the results, possibly
because the varying system limitations or variations in biogas yield considerations from different
animal manure. However, even if we consider the result showing least reduction in GHG
emission from the biogas produced from liquid manure, it is -40 g of CO2 eq/MJ. Compared to
fossil fuels which is +80 g, this is still way better than any other type of substrate.
2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential
The residues that are obtained from plants, food and feed production are considered as dry
agricultural waste. After the harvest, the remnant plant/straw material including leaves and roots
which are of no economic value to farmers can be used for biogas generation. There are number
of studies that point out the potential to improve the biogas production form available waste and
agricultural by-products within Sweden. However, if this waste is to be used for biogas
production, it incurs costs like handling and transport. Many of these studies have differences in
their assessment of potential for biogas from dry agricultural waste in terms of various
assumptions like gas output, availability, substrates used, co-digestion or mono-digestion etc
(Martin, 2015).
Swedish agriculture produces mostly residues like hay, potato leftovers, potato tops, chaff and
husks from crops, which are of interest for biogas generation, which amount to 4807 kton per
year measured in dry substance (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). In the same article, it is established that
the hay is left mostly unused at farms since it is expensive to collect and handle. Moreover, hay
needs efforts to digest and needs longer residence time in the digester. It has been estimated that
the potential of potato residues and other food crop residues is approximately 0.98 TWh, which
is around 31% of the total potential of the agricultural residues (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013).
2.3. Policies
Anaerobic digestion is the technology that can produce biogas from agricultural crop waste and
manure and since the biogas production from agricultural by products must be promoted, this
section speaks about some of the attempts to promote AD and their outcomes.
Some policies have been launched by the Swedish government to achieve its GHG emission
mitigation commitments, that have stimulated biogas use and demand. These policies promote
production from AD plants. Other policies are also directly aimed at promoting biogas
production from various sectors and technologies including from agriculture-based AD method.
They can be divided and categorized depending upon whether they impact on production and
supply or demand.
2.3.1. Policies promoting demand
There are reductions or complete exemption of tax for biofuels, while fossil fuels are targeted by
particularly two tax schemes. One is energy tax, which is determined individually for different
fuels and is not proportional to energy content of the fuels. The other is carbon tax, which is
proportional to the carbon content of the fuels. Biofuels including ethanol, fatty acid methyl ester
(FAME) and biogas are exempted from both energy tax and carbon tax (RFR7, 2009). Swedish
12 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
National Audit Office performed an audit on tax exemption on biofuels in 2011 (SNAO, 2011).
The results showed that the tax reduction on biofuels for (both CO2 and energy tax) has played a
key role in promoting biofuels (in their low blends) and helped reaching the climate goals set by
the Swedish Parliament. However, at an expensive price. The revenue loss for the state has been
steadily increasing since 2000 and now amounting to around 2 billion SEK every year. Thus, the
GHG emission reduction achieved using biofuels has incurred a cost of 3 SEK/kg CO2. In
comparison to the carbon dioxide tax of 1.05 SEK/kg of CO2, it is relatively expensive way to
curb GHG emissions. Also, for making use of biofuels in high blends, like E85, investments in
infrastructure and vehicles are also needed apart from tax exemptions (SNAO, 2011). The tax
exemptions depended upon the applications sent by fuel suppliers (the taxpayers) and the
decisions were only on short term basis. Meaning those exemptions were granted for 1 to 2 years
and not always granted for the same reason. In their report, SNAO state that the tax exemptions
did not have the intended impact on technology development.
Some of the policies are also framed at the EU level that influence the development of biogas in
the member states. The Biofuels directive of 2003 required a lower target of 2% of total energy
used in the transport sector to come from biofuels by 2005 and 5.75% by 2010 (EU, 2003). The
Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) established a European framework for the European
Member States for the promotion of renewable energy. According to this, the member states
were obliged to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 20201 (Luc Pelkmans,
eds., 2018).
However, to reduce the risk of undesirable effect of land use change (arable land used for energy
crops instead of growing food crops and thus raising concerns over food security), EU promoted
the transition towards advanced biofuels by making following amendments (Luc Pelkmans, eds.,
2018):
• A limit of only 7% of biofuels that can come from crops grown on agricultural land of the
total biofuels by 2020,
• As a reference to the national targets for the biofuels, 0.5% should be from advanced
biofuels,
• A requirement that biofuels produced in new installations (which have started operation
after October 5, 2015) achieve a minimum GHG saving of 60% compared to fossil fuels,
• stronger incentives (higher multiplication factors) for the use of renewable electricity in
transport.
Apart from the above amendments, the FQD was also introduced by EU in 2010. According to
this, a mandatory blending rates of 10%vol of biofuels are to be blended with gasoline and 7%vol
in diesel. Further, according to the FQD, fuel suppliers in the union should reduce GHG
emissions by 6% per energy unit until 2020 (Biogasmarknadsutredningen, 2019). This regulation
was introduced since, according to EU, member states cannot pay more in aid than what differs
in production costs compared to fossil fuels, as it would distort competition in the market
because of overcompensation.
1 For reaching the transport target, multiplication factors can be applied for several types of options (advanced/waste
based biofuels, renewable electricity in road vehicles). So, the target can be reached with an actual share lower than
10%.
13 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Another example of policies that is recently introduced to push the demand of biogas is the
Swedish bonus-malus system of taxing vehicles based on tailpipe emissions. The idea of the
bonus malus system is to reward vehicles that emit relatively small amounts (up to 70 grams per
kilometer) of carbon dioxide, with a maximum bonus of 60,000 SEK, while burdening vehicles
that emit relatively large amounts of CO2 with higher vehicle tax for the first three years. Though
the bonus-malus is now updated with clearer definitions of different engine types, previously, the
introduction of similar policy instruments have drawn criticism for considering only tailpipe
emissions and even some fossil fueled vehicles, with low tailpipe emissions, were placed on
bonus side, in this policy (Westlund, et al., 2019).
2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply
Policies and regulations that promote biogas production and supply to the public also have been
introduced (like GHG emissions reduction obligation for suppliers). According to the fuel quality
directive (EC 2009(a)), the fuel suppliers are required to report and reduce at least 10% of GHG
emission on a life cycle basis compared to 2010 standards. These requirements can be met in
following three ways:
1. Increased use of biofuels by reducing flaring and rejection at production sites.
2. Implementing CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology for vehicles or use
electrical vehicles.
3. To buy CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits.
The introduction of the pump law (Pumplagen) in 2006 in Sweden significantly increased the
number of filling stations with provision for renewable fuels. According to this law, it is required
for gas stations above a certain size to provide renewable fuels. However, this law was very
beneficial for ethanol pumps instead of biogas pumps since the cost of installing a gas pump was
4 million SEK whereas the cost to install an ethanol pump was only 0.2 million SEK (RFR7,
2009). Thus, number of ethanol pumps grew drastically, from 385 (10% of all the filling stations
in Sweden) in December 2005 to 1610 (90% of all the filling stations in Sweden) in September
2009 (RFR7, 2009). There were also subsidies for installing biogas pumps or other than ethanol
pumps. However, the amount of grant was limited to 30% of the cost difference between the gas
pump and alternative fuel pump (i.e., 3.8 MSEK). Due to the limitations of grants to 30% and the
cost difference between ethanol and gas pump, there were limited grants used and grants were
not given for ethanol pump either (Holmberg, 2012).
Apart from these, there have been some miscellaneous grants like the program named “Second
generation biofuels and other energy technology” in 2008. The same year, biogas was mentioned
as one of the climate-efficient energy technologies that is not yet commercially competitive and a
new grant for energy technology which aims at stimulating its use was decided. The Swedish
Energy Agency SEA also administered an 875 Million SEK under this program to
commercialize the new technology. This program supported all the second-generation biogas
production, not just from agricultural sector. Gobigas was a project which benefited from this
14 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
grant. It was the demonstration of a unit that gasifies woody biomass that produces bio-
SNG/methane which is in Gothenburg with a capacity of 20 MW (Holmberg, 2012).
A specific subsidy was given for investments made towards biogas plants where major part of
the substrate was manure. Investeringsgasstod för biogasanläggningar (Investment support for
biogas production) was introduced in 2009 and implemented in the EU-funded rural
development program, meaning it wa s exclusive to farmers. The maximum subsidy was limited
to 200 000 €, or 30 – 50% of the investment, whichever is maximum (SJV, 2009).
Another tool for reaching the Swedish climate objective that was formulated in the Swedish
climate strategy in 2002 is KLIMP- klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program),
which finance both production facilities and fueling stations (Hence can be considered both
production side and supply side policies). KLIMP has made provisions of grants for
municipalities and other local actors for their long-term investments to curb GHB emissions.
Those grants were administered by Swedish EPA and the money has been granted between
2003-2008. A total of 1.8 billion SEK was granted among which, 660 million SEK (37% of the
total) was for biogas projects (Holmberg, 2012). As stated by (RFR7, 2009), 50% of the 660
MSEK were granted to production and upgrading installations for biogas. Among the rest, 120
million SEK were granted to biogas systems for vehicle use (mainly pump stations and gas
pipes). For investments in gas vehicles (buses and personal cars), 25 MSEK were granted. The
rest was granted for collection and handling of waste. No more KLIMP grants have been given
since 2008 and the accomplishment of the programs was finalized in 2012 (Holmberg, 2012). A
similar program named “Klimatklivet (Climate change)” have been introduced since then, which
is also monitored by Swedish EPA.
Currently there are some financial instruments like “Gödselgasstöd” (Manure/fertilizer gas
support) which are indirectly focused on stimulating biogas production in Sweden and thereby
internalizing some of the benefits which can be associated with this production (Westlund, et al.,
2019). However, these subsidies are also limited to shorter periods of time (Gödselgasstöd
project began in 2014 and will end by 2023). It is also important to keep in mind that the
fertilizer gas support is primarily aimed at reducing methane emissions from manure
management, rather than contributing to a highly efficient production of biogas. The support
provided by this program is limited to 40 Öre/ kWh worth of biogas produced. But according to
EU, member states must not pay more in aid to avoid overcompensation. So, if the difference
between production price of fossil energy and biogas is less than 40 Öre/ kWh, the biogas
producers get less than 40 Öre/ kWh.
Targets regarding renewable energy generation such as the EU renewable energy target (RET) of
20% by 2020 have in some cases, benefitted biogas producers. As the upgraded biogas and
biomethane from AD plants can be mixed or interchanged with CNG for vehicle, or as natural
gas in case of heat and electricity production, policies and regulations which are intended to
promote renewable energies have also stimulated the biogas production facilities, hence
developing AD technology. Many countries of the EU have their own RET’s specific to biogas
and biomethane. In order to meet the targets, production requirements have been established by
governments for renewable energies and many incentives which would stimulate the production
15 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
are introduced. In, Germany, for example, the renewable source act of 2000, which was amended
in 2014, offers higher feed in tariffs (FiT’s) for generation of electricity from renewable sources,
offers priority connection rights to feed into the grid and the transmission system costs are also
transferred to the consumers (Correa, et al., 2017). To complement this, Germany has the
biofuels quota act introduced in 2007 which requires a minimum share of biofuels to be sold in
the energy market and “Eergiewende (Energy transition)” which promotes transition from coal
fired power plants to renewable sourced power plant. These policies make Germany the country
with the highest number of AD plants, constituting to 5.4% of total electricity generated, 1.3%
total heat generated and 0.1% of total fuel used from biogas in 2018. A total of 58% of biogas
produced was used for electricity generation, 33% for heat production, 1% as vehicle fuel and
rest 7% was losses due to flaring (Gustafsson, et al., 2019).
2.3.2.1. Policies supporting AD
While framing the policies and regulations, those which are not actually intended to promote
biogas production also have promoted AD technology and hence promoted biogas production,
for instance, GHG emission reduction targets. Some countries in EU like Finland, the UK and
Germany have agreed to reduce GHG emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050
(Correa, et al., 2017). These countries, apart from providing investment support for carbon
capture and storage to coal condensed power plants, also took initiatives to promote renewable
energy sources which included AD plants to meet GHG emission reduction targets. In the EU,
Renewable Energy Directives (RED), which lays the foundation for its member countries to
reach their goal of GHG emission reduction, also encourages the development and use of AD
technology because of its advantages in bioenergy generation using organic waste and GHG
savings potential (Correa, et al., 2017).
The technology of AD also benefits, in some parts of the world, from the rural development
policies and regulations. This is because of the quantity of bio-based feedstock that is available
in these rural areas. Some of these policies provide support to develop the AD technology by
providing direct financial investment support, training and other support to farmers. For instance,
in UK, most of the aids for AD facilities are granted from rural development and rural
community renewable energy funds (Lukehurst, 2017).
Policies regarding agricultural activities have made their own impact in promoting AD plants,
like “Agricultural policies and regulations” Since agricultural waste like manure emit lot of
nutrients in soil and ground water and methane into the atmosphere which pose serious health
and environmental issues, farmers are required to get permissions to discharge agricultural waste
into the land, water body or atmosphere. They need to meet the preset standards, practices and
some guidelines regarding collection, handling, transport and storage of agricultural waste.
Meanwhile, AD can reduce the emissions, odor and nutrient release caused from these
agricultural wastes from farms and cattle. So, agricultural policies also, in a way, promote AD
technology. AD plants integrated with farms have become prominent in some countries, due to
the policies that regulate the amount of nitrate and phosphate use from the animal manure. For
example, the UK government aims to curb the amounts of nitrates and phosphates entering into
the land surface and groundwater, by making a regulation of nitrate pollution prevention that
16 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
limits the amount of time the manure can be stored (Joel, et al., 2015). It also permits farmers to
transfer manure to the nearby sites without license.
Regulations regarding water and air emissions from agricultural activities promote AD
technology as well. As established previously, agricultural activities release huge amounts of
nutrients to ground water, odor and methane into the atmosphere. Countries that have
uncompromising water and air pollution regulations would generally promote AD technology
development. For instance, in Italy, farms of above certain size are required to invest in best
available technologies for waste collection, handling, transport and storage under National
Environmental Framework Law (Correa, et al., 2017). They also need to ensure best spreading
and monitoring of environmental parameters.
Requirements for avoiding organic waste ending up in landfills and diverting them are also
drivers for AD plants. EU introduced the Landfill Directive in 1999 that mandates member
nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European commission, 1999).
Integrating AD facility with the farms can reduce the burden of organic waste management.
2.3.2.2. Proposed aid for production, upgradation and liquefaction
The Swedish agricultural board has proposals for supporting production, upgradation of raw gas
to biomethane and liquefaction of biogas that is produced from manure by digestion. Aid under
this regulation is granted subject to availability of funds (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are
certain conditions (suggested) to be met in order to be eligible for these grants. They are
summarized below:
Conditions on production support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))
• This regulation contains provisions on state aid to companies for the production,
upgrading and liquefaction of biogas as aims to increase the production and processing of
biogas in Sweden.
• Support may be provided to companies for the production of manure gas.
• Support may only be provided for manure gas produced by digestion.
• Support shall not be provided for the proportion of raw gas that can be assumed to have
originated from substrates other than manure.
• Support shall not be provided for production at facilities where manure is mixed with
sewage sludge.
• Aid may only be granted for production at establishments which, in cases where such
approval is required, are approved according to the rules for animal by-products.
• Aid may only be granted for production at facilities that have connected equipment for
flaring or burning gas as in case of overproduction or malfunction.
• Support may be provided with 40 öre per kilowatt hour worth of manure gas.
17 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 40 öre,
the aid will also be less than 40 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the
total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.
Conditions on upgradation support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))
• Support may be provided to companies for upgrading raw gas to biofuels.
• Support may only be provided for upgrading raw gas produced by digestion.
• Aid may not be provided for the production of raw gas from landfills.
• Support may be provided with a maximum of 30 öre per kilowatt hour worth of raw gas
which is upgraded to biofuels.
• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left
per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.
However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 30 öre,
the aid will also be less than 30 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the
total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.
Conditions on support for liquefaction of biogas: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))
• Aid may be provided to companies for the production of liquefied manure gas.
• Support may only be provided for liquefaction of raw gas produced only by digestion.
• Support may be provided with a maximum of 15 öre per kilowatt hour of energy as the
raw gas contains which are liquefied.
• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left
per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.
However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 15 öre,
the aid will also be less than 15 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the
total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.
3. Method of research
This thesis is carried out mainly in two phases, literature studies and interviews with farmers and
other biogas producers who use AD technology.
3.1. Literature review
Although the results for this thesis were mainly derived from the interviews, the literature study
was a key step towards reaching those results. Reading through the numerous existing researches
and articles gave me the reference points and data required to carry out the interviews. Literature
study also helped in understanding why some of the policies failed and what can be improved. It
has given answers to some of the questions like “Why, though the demand is stimulated,
production did not grow? Where is the gap in policy making and improved result?”, etc. It also
18 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
helped in composing questions for the interviews and stood as a beacon throughout the research
in guiding me towards the end.
3.2. Interviews
Interviews with farmers and biogas producers gave answers to my research questions. These
interviews are vital to this thesis for arriving at the final results, which are presented in the
section 4- results of this thesis. Since the farmers who have AD plants on their farms play a
crucial role in producing the biomass for use as substrates, managing agricultural waste and
overlooking nutrient cycle, I have interviewed those who have AD plants successfully running
and producing biogas. These interviews were conducted in order to understand what kind of
challenges are faced by the farmers while producing biogas, identify the gap between policy
intentions and farmers expectations and to draw suggestions for improving policies.
The participants in the interviews and their characteristics are detailed in the Table 2 below.
Name of the
company
Plant size (amount of
biogas produced, e.g. GWh / years
or m3/year)
Biogas substrate (biomass, wet or
dry) the farm generates annually
(Tons/ m3)
Amount of substrate going
to biogas production.
Substrates used in the plant:
Karl-Johan Gunnarsson
(Skottorp Säteri) 1 GWh/year 25550 m3
30%. Rest is used as Fertilier
Manure
Långhult Biogas ab 260000 m3 of raw
gas 3500 Ton 100%
Manure; Sewage sludge
Frigiva gård 150 Mwh/year 6500 m3 100% Manure;
Agricultural waste/straw
SLU Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet
5 Gwh electricity & heat from
biogas 21 000 ton 100 %
Manure; Energy crops
Lägda Gård 50-60000 m3
/year 2700m3 100% Manure
Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk
200 000 m3/year 7200 ton 100% Manure;
Agricultural waste/straw
Högryds farm 700 MWh 1150 m3 100% Manure
Table 2. Interviewees and their characteristics
19 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments
This assessment was done with an intention to know how far the existing policies have reached
the farmers. How were they received by the farmers? Are these policies addressing the
expectations of the biogas producers? And how big is the gap between expectations and policies?
The interview questions framed particularly for this assessment are 6,7,8,9 and 12 (see annexure
1 of appendices). They qualitatively assess what type of regulations push farmers to consider
producing biogas, which incentives, policies or regulations motivate them or demotivate them
and finally what more do they expect from the policies or the Government.
3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments
To check how widespread the AD technology has reached, how much the farmers are familiar
with it and what difficulties are associated with it, this assessment was made. Because the
technological reach and associated support also plays an important role in boosting the
production.
The questions in the interview that are focused on this assessment are 10 and 11. Question 10
assesses the difficulties faced by the farmers, who are already familiar with AD, while using the
technology and questions 11 assesses how accessible is the training/familiarity with the AD
technology.
Though there have been responses to questions 8 and 9 which were intended for policy and
economic assessment, that addressed technological evolution and for question 10 that addressed
economic and policy support.
After analyzing all the responses to the questions, it was found that each of these responses
addressed one or multiple challenges faced by the farmers while running a biogas plant. The
challenges could be categorized into 9 major issues. For example, if a farmer’s response to the
question “What difficulties or problems have you encountered in connection with running a
biogas plant?” is “Strange rules for grants”, it is pointing out at the complexity and
unpredictability of existing policies. The responses are thus categorized as outlaid in Table 3.
3.3. Methodology discussion
Getting the list of farmers who had AD plant integrated to their farms was a challenge. John Benjaminsson from Gasfuels handed me a name list of 30 biogas plants (there are 43 in Sweden
(Jonas Ammenberg, 2019)). Once I had the list of biogas producers, the next challenge was to
get access of their contact details. I searched the internet for the names of the plants and could
access the contact details of 18 of them.
In the interview phase, the biggest hurdle was to involve as many farmers/ biogas producers as
possible, and to get their answers for the interview questions. Since I was not able to physically
meet them at their farms because of ongoing pandemic “COVID-19” at the time, involving them
20 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
and getting responses through emails was tougher. The questions were composed meticulously
after the literature review, so that the responses were comprehensive enough and will answer our
research questions. They are attached in page 32 in the appendix section of this thesis, with the
responses in appendix 2 in the page Error! Bookmark not defined. as embedded excel sheet.
The questions were written in Swedish in order to get more responses since in my opinion,
people tend to show interest if the questions are in their preferred language. Some were also
objective type (Multiple choice) questions to make it quick and easy for the respondents. The
google forms with questions were sent to the contact persons of all the 18 biogas plants of which
I could find the contact details. However, after multiple reminders through repeated emails, I
could get only 7 complete and qualitative responses in which I could find answers to my research
question. Perhaps the time of the interview was wrong as it was summer and most of the farmers
were too busy in their agricultural activities to complete the form.
These 7 responses were chosen since they were the ones completely answering the most required
fields. Even in these 7 responses, there were some fields left unanswered in the google forms.
Other responses had answers only for some of the simple multiple-choice or Yes – No type
question, with which I could not arrive at any result. For those responses considered, the raw,
one lined, answers had deeper meaning and were pointing at each loophole in the system. These
responses had to be analyzed conscientiously to extract the answers for our research questions.
The answers are described in the section 4 “Results” of this report.
From Table 2, looking at the characteristics of the interviewees, it is evident that all the
interviewees mixed manure in the substrate if not used manure alone. And almost everyone used
100% of the biomass generated for biogas production except Skottorp Säteri where only 30% of
the biomass generated went for biogas production, rest was used a biofertilizer.
4. Results
4.1. Summary of results
The first and foremost challenge faced by farmers was the loophole of complexity and
unpredictability of policies, which was found in the interviews. Two of the respondents strongly
agree that the policies are complex and unpredictable (Table 3 shows which respondents point
out at which challenge).
The next challenge was lack of training on AD technology. This was the most pointed out
challenge (meaning faced by most of the farmers). Also, not finding skilled and dedicated staff is
another difficulty that the farmers face which may be linked to lack of training.
Low profitability is one among the difficulties that is faced by most of the respondents. From
Table 3, four respondents agree that they face low profitability.
A respondent from Skottorp Säteri indicated that strict digestate regulations from Swedish EPA
are also hindering production.
21 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
In the interviews, it was noted that the permits are highly expensive, and investments are huge as
stressed in the responses of SLU and Långhult Biogas AB.
Another challenge was the lack of infrastructure. Connectivity to gas/ electricity grid was
inaccessible for most and if connected, feed in tariffs were not satisfactory along with complex
regulations regarding connection and tariffs.
Frigiva gård was the only respondent who also pointed out that the technology of overall biogas
systems needs to improve. They wanted to be completely self-sufficient for their energy needs on
farming activity, hence required agricultural machinery that used biogas from their own farms as
fuel.
Some farmers also lacked long term, assured source of revenue from their biogas (like long term
contracts to buy the biogas for example). This was identified by the responses from Skottorp
Säteri and Frigiva gård.
Interviewees
Karl-Johan
Gunnarsson
(Skottorp
Säteri)
Långhult
Biogas
AB
Frigiva
gård
SLU, Sveriges
lantbruksuniversitet
Lägda
Gård
Kulbäckslidens
Lantbruk
Högryds
farm
Challenges
faced by
farmers
Policy
Complexity &
unpredictability X X
Lack of training
on AD
technology X X X X X X
Lack of skilled
labor/dedicated
staff X
Low profit X X X X Strict digestate
regulations X X
Expensive
permits & huge
investments/Tax X X
Lack of
infrastructure &
low feed in
rates
X X X
Technology
needs to
improve X
Need assured X X
22 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
long-term
revenue source/
market Table 3 Responses from the interviewees translated to answers and categorized
4.2. Analysis of results
All the respondents except one had one reason in common to tell for the question “Which of the
existing policies or regulations make farmers like you produce biogas?” and that is “Mål om
produktion av förnybar energi” (Responses can be found in annexure 2 of appendices section).
Meaning “target on production of renewable energy”. It is clear from this statement that the
targets set by state on renewable energy generation has a great impact on production of biogas
from agricultural waste. Along with this reason, some pointed at regulations regarding GHG
emissions, fertilizer storage, management of nutrients and emissions to soil and ground water. A
clear indicator that all these regulations have a cumulative impact on driving the biogas
production. It can also be inferred that regulations regarding fertilizer storage, manure nutrient
management and emissions to soil and groundwater are the reason behind 100% usage of all the
manure generated in their farms. The raw, one lined, layman answers had deeper meaning and
were pointing at each loophole in the system or challenges faced by the farmers. Meticulous
analysis of these answers had the following outcome.
4.2.1. Complexity and unpredictability of the policies
Two of the respondents, namely Skottorp Säteri and Långhult Biogas AB in the survey pointed
out at one major loophole in the government policies while answering the question “What
difficulties or problems have you encountered in connection with running a biogas plant?”. The
answer of Skottorp Säteri was “Strange rules for grants” and of Långhult Biogas AB was
“Bureaucracy and ignorance”. These answers were pointing out the unpredictability and
complexity of the policies that quickly change in time. The respondents needed a reliable support
from the government bodies like rural development authority or environmental protection
agency, which could provide them aid in the huge investments they make for the betterment of
the environment while being self-sufficient in their energy needs. The response “bureaucracy and
ignorance in the governance” points out that there are hassles while understanding the policies
properly to reap in the intended benefits out of them.
4.2.2. Lack of skill and training on AD technology
I have also received responses regarding lack of skills and lack of market competence. Almost all
of the interviewees answered “No” to the question “Have you received any training in the
technology of biogas production (anaerobic digestion) from regional development authorities or
other authorities?”. Meaning that those who are interested in making use of the technology, only
after knowing about the AD technology, have to voluntarily get familiar and train themselves.
Only one of the Frigiva gård had received training/technological familiarity. Those who do not
know about such technology or have marginal information/interest about AD are left behind.
It is important that the farmers are trained and given technical support in order to encourage
farmers with slight interest towards the technology and show them what benefits biogas
23 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
production can give. Technological training can make them competent in the market. This is very
significant in order to bring the prices of locally produced biogas lower to that of imported
biogas. It is a question of competition among the Swedish farmers/ biogas producers to those
outside Sweden. Some farmers needed technical know-how and training from experts since the
technology of AD is relatively new to them. Adequate training can also make them efficient
while operating AD plant to reduce malfunctions and losses due to flaring.
4.2.3. Lack of dedicated supporting staff/ skilled manpower
SLU indicated at difficulties finding dedicated staff. Agriculture is a full-time job with great
responsibility which requires complete attention. If they are to also produce biogas from the
byproducts with attention towards new policies that provide financial aid, regulations on manure
and digestate standards/metal content limits, they need a supporting hand at the facility,
especially from one who knows the technology well. Lack of technological training on AD may
also be one of the causes for this issue. There could be more possibility of finding trained and
dedicated staff if more and more small-time farmers are also technologically trained.
4.2.4. Low profitability
When we watch closely, the gap between the biogas production potential and actual production
partly lies in the low profitability of biogas production. This was noted when Långhult Biogas
AB and Frigiva gård answered, “Profitability drives us, rest of the policies and benefits are an
added bonus” to the question “Which of the policies and guidelines do you think will motivate
farmers like you produce biogas?”. Though this is customary in order to run any business, it is a
subtle aspect that we tend to overlook thinking that there must be enough profit in the business
and no support is needed. One effective policy that would make the production more profitable,
along with the existing regulations and policies, could stimulate the production dramatically. The
interviews have brought the light on this subtle aspect to show that all of those Swedish state
policies including measures taken to improve renewable energy share, soil and ground water
nutrient management and those mentioned in the earlier sections of this report have failed to
answer one important question of profitability. Frigiva gård also stated that biogas should be
more profitable than fossil fuels. This seems quite true if we intend to meet our ultimate goal of
zero net emissions of GHG by 2050, which requires absolute zero usage of fossil fuels.
4.2.4.1. Economic subsidies are the key:
When questioned about which particular policies among all the measures taken for renewable
energy production keeps their motives up for biogas production, all of the responses have one
common answer as “Skattebefrielse eller skattelättnad” The Swedish tax exemption or tax relief.
This indicates not only tax exemptions, but any form of economic support is quite influential and
makes sense to extend this type of policies, in order to make the production more profitable so
that producers are kept driven. If the tax reliefs are proving expensive to the state, it is justifiable
to review the demand side tax exemptions since the demand is already stimulated and we are
unable to meet the demands with indigenously produced biogas. Apart from tax exemptions, the
survey also proved that feed in tariffs, CO2 certificates and certificate for reduced land and water
eutrophication are of interest to those who have AD facility as a complement to their farms. All
of these make the process more profitable.
24 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
4.2.5. Strict digestate regulations are a hinderance
For the question “What hinders the production?”, Skottorp Säteri answered, “Environmentally
hazardous activity” and for the question “Have you encountered any policies or regulations that
hinder the production of biogas?” Långhult Biogas AB answered, “Rules regarding food residue
substrate”. This is referring to the strict regulations on heavy metal content in digestate set by
Swedish EPA. This further worsens the competition for particular type of substrate that leads to
digestate which meets the requirements set by Naturvårdsverket. This also means spike in
substrate prices.
4.2.6. Expensive permits and huge initial investment
For the larger plants, apart from energy taxes, they need to have expensive permits. When SLU
wanted to increase the capacity of the facility from 21000 tons of digestate output to 30000 tons,
they had to spend around half a million SEK to get a new environmental permit/certificates from
the consultants. They might make profits out of it later using the permits to get the tax
relaxations and other benefits; however, this is a huge initial investment and not all the farmers
can afford. Långhult Biogas AB also stated, “Energy tax if you have too large a facility” in
response to the question “Have you encountered any policies or regulations that hinder the
production of biogas?”. Now along with the huge initial investment, taxes are also a burden.
4.2.7. Lack of infrastructure & low feed in rates
A major hindrance that came up in the survey was grid connectivity. Högryds farm and Lägda
Gård, who were involved in the investigation had no electricity grid connectivity. Without gas
grid connectivity, the produced biogas has to be transported by other means (trucks for example).
And electricity can not be produced except in small amounts for on-farm equipment purposes
without electricity grid connectivity. So, the biogas produced must be stored for a longer period
of time in high pressure vessels and circuits. This needs greater care and attention towards
equipment management, which is often difficult, giving rise to disasters or flaring. This must be
one of the reasons that flaring is 10 times higher in Sweden compared to Denmark.
Though some respondents had grid connectivity, to some, feed in tariffs were not satisfactory.
According to Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk, it could be made more profitable to sell electricity
through subsidies for grid fees and taxation. This means feed in tariffs given right now are not
satisfactory. This is again the issue of low profitability.
4.2.8. Technology needs to improve
Another interesting factor which could also impact production is agricultural machinery that
could use biogas as fuel. Half of the interviewees produced biogas to be self-sufficient in their
energy needs. They wanted their heavy machinery, like harvester, to run on biogas. This was a
new and interesting outcome from the interviews. Frigiva gård stated that along with lack of
competence, they lacked advanced agricultural machinery that used biogas as fuels. Though the
technology is so evolved to have on farm heating systems, convert produced biogas to electricity
and supplied for their own needs, Having heavy machinery like harvesters that can use biogas as
fuels brought them a sense of complete independence in their energy needs. It can be understood
25 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
that energy independence is a subtle aspect that can entice farmers to have biogas production.
Who doesn’t like to have surplus energy supply for all their agricultural activities, which can
improve productivity owing to reliable and timely supply of energy, thus increased overall
economy of the comprehensive biogas plants with agriculture? In my interview, I received three
responses from Lägda Gård, Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk and Högryds farm stating self-sufficiency
in their energy needs motivates them to produce biogas for the question “What, apart from
policies and guidelines, motivates you to produce biogas?”. Although, materializing this vision
might take much more integration between multiple other sectors like automobile industry, a
wider system boundary and longer time of technological evolution. Apart from those, farm scale
biogas plants also need to have gas upgrading facility in order to be able to use produced biogas
in vehicle and harvesters.
4.2.9. Assured, long term source of revenue
Upon asking “What are your expectations form the government and market?”, two of the farmers
stated, they needed a constant reliable source who can buy all their products like biogas for
vehicles and food from their animals and farms. Putting it simply, they needed long term
contracts on their products including biogas. This could be easy to achieve since we have the
demand required for establishing long term contracts. Contracts from transport sector, fuels
distributers and suppliers can help solve this issue. Also, long term reliable support comes from
stable, simple and predictable supporting policies form the government. State must think of
making it profitable to sell biogas through subsidies on grid fees and taxation, along with proper
grid connectivity. This will ensure smooth operation of consistent, long term business.
5. Discussion
After the interviews, I found that some of the problems have already been talked about in the
previous researches and articles. Although, there were many new, insightful and diverse answers
from different respondents for all the interview questions, cumulatively making up answers for
my research questions in this thesis.
Analyzing the results, for my first research question “Why are the policies failing to stimulate
indigenous biogas production though there is considerable demand for biogas in Sweden?”, I
found out one reason is that there are very few and weak incentives. This is similar to the
conclusion of (Lantz, et al., 2007). The potential of Agri-based biogas production in Sweden is
high because of the amount of waste that is generated which is of no economic value to the
farmers. However, to utilize this waste as substrate, handling is needed which incurs some cost.
This makes the production less profitable. Also, there are multiple environmental and
socioeconomic benefits from utilizing this waste like better nutrient circulation and reduced
eutrophication. However, there are no targets set by the Swedish parliament on the production or
use of biogas in Sweden as mentioned in (Westlund, et al., 2019). Crop residues, manure and
other agricultural wastes are anyways generated whether they are used for biogas production or
not, yet there are no regulations or legislations that require any kind of treatment for these
residues however (Lantz, 2013).
26 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
On the other hand, only two of the interviewees stated that profitability drives them to produce
biogas. Like it is said in (Lantz, 2012) and (Lantz, et al., 2012), even from this research, I could
see low profitability is one of the issues faced by biogas production based on feedstock from the
agricultural sector. For these reasons, we need more, clearer and simple policies that incentivize
production to make it more profitable. Even among the those few incentives present, there is
complexity and unpredictability in the policies pertaining to biofuels in Sweden. Our
interviewees required a simple, comprehensive, long-term, single policy instead of multiple,
complex and quickly changing policies, this was also mentioned in (Westlund, et al., 2019). For
example, KLIMP existed for a short period from 2003 till 2008 before Klimatklivet replaced it.
Five years is a very short period for an industry to grow. Generally, policies will be framed with
fair amount of complexity in order to subsidize only the legitimate organizations and to avoid
over-subsidizing. This complexity makes it hard to understand and properly utilize for the public,
which takes time. If they keep changing as quickly as every 5 years, by the time much of the
public would know of such policy, gather funds and make investments in AD technology, it
would have either changed or vanished. Respondents needed a reliable and long-term support as
understood when you see the answer given by Långhult Biogas AB for the question “In addition
to the policies mentioned above, is there anything more you expect the government and
authorities to do to support farmers who produce biogas? If so, what?”.
More-over, the financial support provided by these complex policies is inadequate, just as
mentioned in the background about manure/fertilizer gas support, which provides limited support
of 0.4 SEK/ kWh or even lesser. Even the proposed support mentioned in (Westlund, et al.,
2019) states “However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less
than 0.4 SEK, the aid will also be less than 0.4 SEK. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour
also applies to the total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.” Meaning
that, like fertilizer gas support, this program also provides a maximum of 0.4 SEK/ kWh or lesser
depending on the market price difference. Apart from these constraints, the maximum support of
0.4 SEK/ kWh applies to the total aid, meaning that if the farmer is eligible to get support from
other programs, he/she shall cumulatively get 0.4 SEK/ kWh from all the supporting programs
(Westlund, et al., 2019). This is already very complex to understand for a limited economic
support.
The tax exemptions, investment supports and feed in tariffs for electricity produced from biogas
make the production a little more profitable, but other expenses like permit costs are subsiding
the support given by those policies. From the results of this thesis, it also seems that there is less
emphasis on training and technological development activities pertaining to AD technology. The
state and the rural development authorities need to have some programs that makes investments
towards training of local farmers. Like in UK for instance, many grants and training support
come from regional development programs (Correa, et al., 2017). In current circumstances of
Sweden, farmers are not provided well-structured, systematic training from any government
bodies or rural development programs or agricultural unions. Such training can bring in more
investments towards the technology, and better yield by reducing losses due to flaring. Flaring is
caused mainly because of two reasons. One is lack of adequate training on AD plant operation,
which leads to improper safety measures, poor equipment management and disaster (or at least
flaring to avoid disaster). The other is lack of proper infrastructure like grid connectivity, which
27 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
is discussed later in this section. Training also helps in improving the number of farm scale
biogas plants in Sweden. When compared to Denmark from where Sweden imports most of the
biogas, Denmark has 86 farm scaled biogas plants and the share of Agri-based biogas among the
total biogas produced is 85.3% (Gustafsson, et al., 2019)
From the background study and literature review, it can also be inferred that the incentives and
financial aids are still provided to improve the demand. However, if these financial supports can
be diverted to incentivize production, the current demand for biogas in Sweden can be met by
local production.
To overcome the problem of strict digestate rules without compromise on digestate standards and
leaving the nutrients and metal content in digestate unregulated, the AD technology might also
be improved by developing and integrating digestate filtering system to make the digestate meet
the strict regulations set by Swedish environmental Protection Agency. We simply cannot expect
farmers to produce biogas, with the substrate available in the market that already contain heavy
metals and are rich in nutrients and the digestate to meet all the requirements set by
Naturvårdsverket. This is worsening the already existing competition for substrates which in turn
shoots up the prices for these substrates.
Moving on to the second research question in this thesis, “What motivated farmers to produce
biogas apart from the government policies and regulations?”, Profitability was once again an
answer like in other previous researches (Lantz, 2012) and (Lantz, et al., 2012). Looking at the
current scenario of biogas market in Sweden (higher demand and lower production), and
profitability being the drive for production as we saw in the interviews, it is understandable that
currently biogas production is not so profitable business. This might as well be one of the
reasons behind the shortfall in number of farm scale AD plants.
Among other things that motivate agriculture-based biogas production, self-sufficiency in energy
needs is also one significant fact. Three of the farmers interviewed wanted to be independent in
their electricity needs related to their farms. Infrastructure needs to be improved as well. In terms
of grid connectivity, a biogas plant that is connected to the electricity grid or the gas grid is much
more efficient than the one that has no connectivity. With grid connection in place, there is no
need for a plant to have large, high pressure vessels to store produced biogas for a relatively long
time. The produced biogas is fast dispensed, hence reducing flaring due to any equipment
malfunction, which is avoided in the first place. Also, the connectivity to electricity grid could
yield higher feed in tariffs and subsidies in grid fees and taxation. Though it can be said that
currently it is a burden on government to provide grid connectivity, make the feed in possible
and provide higher feed in rates. With all the complex administration and huge investments.
However, having a well-connected grid (if not higher feed in today) might help promote biogas
production by reducing transportation hassles. Feed in rates can be looked after at a later stage,
may be by diverting funds from promoting demand towards promoting production.
A very insightful observation made from this research is that some farmers are interested in
agricultural machinery that could use biogas from their farms as fuel. They wanted technology to
help them become independent of all the energy needs including vehicle fuel needs. It meant
28 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
integration of other sectors including automobile design and manufacturers. But this vision is
difficult to materialize as the biogas needs to be upgraded to biomethane to make it vehicle grade
fuel and not all farm scale biogas plants are large enough to have upgrading facility.
6. Conclusions
After getting the interview results and comparing them with the results of other researches, the
answers to my research question would be summarizes as follows.
My first research question “Why are the policies failing to stimulate indigenous biogas
production in Sweden?” and its sub questions, had these answers:
• Complexity and unpredictability of existing policies. This was one of the well noted
issues that caused trouble bringing more investments towards biogas production. The
policies are too complex and would change before understanding them. The rules must be
stable and reliable for a relatively longer time in the market to make an impact on biogas
production.
• The profit margin is low in biogas business. Today’s biogas market is not generating
enough revenue because of many reasons. One among them is expensive permits and
taxes (for example, for a facility beyond certain size). Expensive substrate price is also
one reason for low profitability.
• AD plants demand relatively huge investments. Farmers’ need more economic support
than what they are provided with today. Even the relaxation in permits and taxes on large
plants might help.
• The need of digestate to meet strict regulations by Naturvårdsverket has a negative
impact on biogas production. For the digestate to meet these stringent regulations of
heavy metal content, the substrate needs to meet those standards. This worsens the
substrate competition and in turn substrate prices, reducing profitability.
The second question in this research was “What apart from the policies and regulative, motivate
farmers to produce more biogas?”, to which, the answers found were:
• Efficient use of AD technology needs training. Currently the Swedish farmers are not
being trained by any government bodies or rural development authorities. Because of
this, the reach of AD technology is low. Only the farmers who get to know of such
technology will have to train themselves from experts they know.
• Difficulties finding dedicated staff at the AD facility creates hassles while running a
biogas plant. Since agriculture is a full-time job and needs lot of attention, farmers need a
29 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
supporting hand at the biogas plant. Especially, from those who are well trained on AD
and those who can keep an eye on the policies and financial aids.
• Infrastructure also needs improvements (for example electricity grid connectivity).
Connectivity to gas grid of electricity grid will reduce transportation hassles and losses.
This in turn could make the whole biogas business more profitable. Also, farm-based
biogas plants need not store the produced gas for much longer time if they are well
connected through the grid. Reduced storage time means reduced flaring losses and risk
of accidents.
• Biogas system as a whole needs technological improvements (for example: agricultural
machinery that could use biogas as fuel). If the farmers could use the biogas from their
farms as fuel for their own needs, they can be completely independent for energy needs.
This way, they become much more efficient, alongside the whole agricultural and biogas
business brings more profit to them.
• Biogas producers need an assured long-term source of income (for example: contracts
from transport dept.). Revenue assurance could draw more investments towards AD
technology, wherein farm-based biogas plants could grow in numbers.
6.1. Recommendations
It is always better to have a comprehensive policy for a long term though it becomes complex.
AD plant owners/ farmers just need time to understand complex policies, once the farmers are
familiar with the policy and how the application for support works, it is no more so complex.
This single comprehensive policy should provide enough economic support on its own. This
saves farmers a lot of attention needed to look out for all the policies that come at their way,
while making biogas production more profitable. Reducing the taxes/permits costs on facilities
beyond certain size may attract more investments.
AD technological training campaigns would result in improved yield by reduced losses, attract
more investments and increase competence. It would also create a pool of dedicated staff for
those who need supporting hand at their facility. Establishing long term contracts between
producers and transport department/ CHP plants could bring more interest among producers by
creating assured source of income. Along with this, improved gas grid connectivity to nearby
upgrading facility would eliminate hassles in supplying the produced biogas.
6.2. Reflection
Though the research yielded a fair amount of results and I could learn different perspectives and
expectations of different actors, this thesis would have produced more results with wider
perspective had it been given more time. Even the on-going pandemic (COVID-19) situation did
not permit the physical meet with farmers and visit to their facility which I think would have
generated more fruitful results. Visiting the facility would have given a closer look into the
30 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
situation, a deeper analysis that would have manifested a different perspective all together. Also,
if not for the pandemic, I would have found and contacted more farmers for the interviews, with
far greater percentage of responses than I received through emails.
Literature review would have been fast and more effective if I had a partner who could read
Swedish and translate it for the report, since many of the previous researches are presented in
Swedish as we are looking at biogas in Swedish context. With many concepts and fairly large
data that could divert the focus on multiple occasions, it would have been better to have a partner
or a helping hand on some parts of the project.
6.3. Future scope
Since major portion of the biogas produced is consumed in the form of vehicle gas (upgraded to
biomethane), biogas upgrading facilities could have been involved in the research. Investigation
could be made on what proportion of the biogas coming to upgrading facility is from the regional
farms, how biogas is transported from the local farms to the upgrading facility, what is the cost
difference in transporting by gas grid and by other means (trucks for example). Involving
upgrading facilities is intriguing since there is demand for upgraded biomethane, however, it is
not profitable for biogas producers. Ideally demand for any commodity should bring profits, but
in this case, it is not seen.
Comparisons also could be made with other sectors that are successful in making profit out of
biogas production (Sewage treatment/ municipal organic waste treatment plants for example).
1 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
References
Barre, C. et al., 2016. Inventory and analysis of the EU and national regulatory framework, s.l.: Biosurf.
Berglund , M., 2006. Biogas Production from a Systems Analytical Perspective, Lund: Lund University.
Biogasmarknadsutredningen, 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, s.l.: s.n.
BioMil AB & Envirum, 2008. DEN SVENSKA BIOGASPOTENTIALEN FRÅN INHEMSKA RESTPRODUKTER,
Lund: Uppdrag Sverige.
Bonde, I. et al., 2019. Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council, Stockholm: Swedish Climate Policy
council.
Correa, J. V., Khanal, S., Manandhar, A. & Shah, A., 2017. Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy production:
Global status, environmental and techno-economic implications, and government policies. Bioresource
technology, pp. 1015-1026.
Deremince, B., Scheidl, S., Stambasky, J. & Wellinger, A., 2017. Biogas action, s.l.: s.n.
E. 2., 2009. Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending. s.l., s.n., p.
Directive 98/70/EC.
EU, 2003. Official Journal of the European Union. s.l., s.n., p. L 123/43.
European Comission 1, 2030. Climate action. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en
European commission, 1999. Environment. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm
[Accessed 31 12 2019].
European commission, 2020. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/nitrates.pdf
European commission, 2020. Climate action. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en
[Accessed 2020].
Eurostat, 2020. Renewable energy statistics, s.l.: EU.
Eurostat, 2020. Supply, transformation and consumption of renewables and wastes. [Online]
Available at: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do
[Accessed 19 09 2020].
2 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
GMI, 2014. A Global Perspective of Anaerobic Digestion Policies and Incentives, s.l.: Global methane
initiative.
Gustafsson, M., Ammenberg, J. & Murphy, J. D., 2019. Country report summaries, s.l.: IEA Bioenergy Task
37 Energy from Biogas.
Hagman, L. & Eklund, M., 2016. The role of biogas solutions in the circular and bio-based economy, s.l.:
BRC.
Hjalmarsson, L., 2013. Cleaner Production. Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration - the case
of Stockholm.
Holmberg, K., 2012. POLICIES PROMOTING BIOFUELS IN SWEDEN, s.l.: An f3 synthesis report.
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptations and Vulnerabilities, s.l.: Cambridge university
press.
Joel, E., Othman, M. & Burn , S., 2015. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic
digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
Jonas Ammenberg, 2019. Country Report Sweden, Tartu, Estonia: Biogas research center.
Jordbruksverket, 2020. Jordbruksverket. [Online]
Available at: https://jordbruksverket.se/stod/fornybar-energi/godselgasstod
[Accessed 23 8 2020].
Klackenberg, L., 2019. Produktion och användning av biogas och rötrester år 2018, s.l.:
Energimyndigheten.
Lantz, M., 2012. The economic performance of combined heat and power from biogas produced from
manure in Sweden – A comparison of different CHP technologies, Lund: Environmental and Energy
System Studies, Lund University.
Lantz, M., 2013. Biogas in Sweden Opportunities and challenges from a systems perspective, s.l.: Lund
University.
Lantz, M., Björnsson, L. & Kreuger, E., 2012. Impact of energy crop selection on process parameters and
economy in the production of biogas as vehicle fuel, s.l.: s.n.
Lantz, M., Svensson, M., Bjornsson, L. & Borjesson, P., 2007. The prospects for an expansion of biogas
systems in Sweden—Incentives, barriers and potentials, s.l.: s.n.
Lonnqvist, T., 2017. Biogas in Swedish transport-A policy driven systematic transition, s.l.: KTH.
3 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Lönnqvist, T., Silveira, S. & Sanches-pereira, A., 2013. Swedish resource potential from residues and
energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renewable and sustainable energy review, pp. 298-314.
Luc Pelkmans, eds., 2018. Bioenergy policies and status of implementation, s.l.: IEA-bioenergy.
Lukehurst, C., 2017. UK Country Report, s.l.: IEA bioenergy.
Martin, M. A., 2015. Potential of Biogas Expansion in Sweden- Identifying the Gap between Potential
Studies and Producer Perspectives. Biofuels, pp. 233-240.
Motherway , B., 2019. IEA. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/energy-efficiency-is-the-first-fuel-and-demand-for-it-
needs-to-grow
Motherway, B., 2019. IEA. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/energy-efficiency-is-the-first-fuel-and-demand-for-it-
needs-to-grow
RFR7, 2009. Pumplagen – uppföljning av lagen om skyldighet att tillhandahålla förnybara drivmedel.
Stockholm, RFR 7.
Sherrard, A., 2019. Bioenergy international. [Online]
Available at: https://bioenergyinternational.com/markets-finance/biogas-made-in-sweden-reduced-
emissions-2018
SJV, 2009. Jordbruksverket.se. [Online]
Available at: https://jordbruksverket.se/stod/fornybar-energi/investeringsstod-for-biogas
SNAO, 2011. Biofuels for a Better Climate – How does the tax relief work?, s.l.: Riksrevisionen .
Swedish Energy Agency, 2019. Energimyndigheten > facts and figures > documents > energy in sweden
2019. [Online]
Available at: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/facts-and-figures/statistics/
Swedish environemtal protection agency, 2012. Sweden's environmental objectives - an introduction,
Vaxio: naturvårdsverket.
Union, E., 2020. Climate action. [Online]
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en
Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB.
Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB.
Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, s.l.: s.n.
4 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
You-Kwan, O. et al., 2018. Recent developments and key barriers to advanced biofuels: A short review.
Bioresource technology.
Appendices
32 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Annexure 1: Interview questions (In English)
1. Name of the organization
2. Plant capacity (Cubic meters of biogas produced/kWh worth of biogas produced)
3. How much of substrates (Biomass) both "Wet and dry" will your facility generate
yearly?
4. What part of the generated substrates/biomass is actually going to production
facility/reactor and what happens to the rest?
5. Select all the substrates that you use as digestate?
• Manure
• Agricultural waste/ Straw
• Dedicated energy crops
• Sewage sludge
• Kitchen waste/other (food waste)
6. Which of the following policies/regulations do you think, are driving farmers like
you to produce biogas?
• Renewable energy Generation targets
• Greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations
• Regional development policies
• Air emissions regulations
• Water emission regulations
• Manure storage regulations
• Nutrient (Soil/ground water health) management
Appendices
33 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
7. Please mention if you have come across any policies or regulations that hinder the
production of biogas?
8. Which of the following incentives are you interested in for producing biogas?
• Feed in tariffs
• Tax exemptions and tax credits
• Credits for nutrient load reduction on soil and water
• Credits for CO2 reduction
• Please mention if any other
9. What motivates you to produce biomass apart from Government incentives?
10. What difficulties/problems do you face while running a biogas plant?
11. Did you receive training on the technology of biogas production (Anaerobic
digestion) from regional development agencies or any other government bodies?
• Yes
• No
12. In addition to the policies mentioned above, is there anything more you expect the
government and authorities to do to support farmers who produce biogas? If so,
what?
Appendices
34 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Annexure 2: Answers of different respondents (Translated from Swedish)
<---
Nam
e o
f th
e c
om
pa
ny
Pla
nt
size
(am
ou
nt
of
bio
gas
pro
du
ced
, e.g
. in
mo
nth
s /
year
s o
r kW
h /
ye
ars)
Ho
w m
uch
po
ten
tia
l bio
gas
sub
stra
te (
bio
mas
s,
we
t o
r d
ry)
do
es
the
far
m g
en
era
te a
nn
ual
ly?
Ho
w m
uch
of
the
po
ten
tia
l su
bst
rate
go
es
to
bio
gas
pro
du
ctio
n?
Wh
at h
app
en
s to
th
e
rem
ain
ing
bio
mas
s?
Ind
icat
e a
ll su
bst
rate
s u
sed
in t
he
pla
nt:
Wh
ich
of
the
fo
llow
ing
typ
es
of
po
licie
s an
d
guid
elin
es,
do
yo
u t
hin
k, g
et
farm
ers
like
yo
u t
o
pro
du
ce b
ioga
s?
Wh
ich
of
the
fo
llow
ing
po
licy
inst
rum
en
ts w
ou
ld
mak
e y
ou
mo
re in
tere
ste
d in
pro
du
cin
g b
ioga
s?
Hav
e y
ou
en
cou
nte
red
an
y p
olic
ies
or
regu
lati
on
s
that
hin
de
r th
e p
rod
uct
ion
of
bio
gas?
Wh
at, a
par
t fr
om
po
licie
s an
d g
uid
elin
es,
mo
tiva
tes
you
to
pro
du
ce b
ioga
s?
Wh
at d
iffi
cult
ies
or
pro
ble
ms
ha
ve y
ou
en
cou
nte
red
in c
on
ne
ctio
n w
ith
ru
nn
ing
a b
ioga
s
pla
nt?
Hav
e y
ou
re
ceiv
ed
an
y tr
ain
ing
in t
he
te
chn
olo
gy
rega
rdin
g b
ioga
s p
rod
uct
ion
(an
aero
bic
dig
est
ion
)
fro
m r
egi
on
al d
eve
lop
me
nt
au
tho
riti
es
or
oth
er
auth
ori
tie
s?
In a
dd
itio
n t
o t
he
po
licie
s m
en
tio
ne
d a
bo
ve, i
s
the
re a
nyt
hin
g m
ore
yo
u e
xpe
ct t
he
go
vern
me
nt
and
au
tho
riti
es
to d
o t
o s
up
po
rt f
arm
ers
wh
o
pro
du
ce b
ioga
s? If
so
, wh
at?
Kar
l-Jo
han
Gu
nn
arss
on
Ca
10
00
00
0kW
25
55
0 m
3 Is
wh
at is
use
d
30
%, F
erti
lizer
Man
ure
Tax
exem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f; C
ert
ific
ate
for
red
uce
d la
nd
an
d w
ater
eutr
op
hic
atio
n
Envi
ron
men
tally
haz
ard
ou
s ac
tivi
ty
Eco
no
my
Stra
nge
ru
les
for
gran
ts
No
Bu
y th
e ga
s fo
r th
eir
veh
icle
s, b
uy
the
foo
d
fro
m o
ur
anim
als
for
thei
r sc
ho
ols
etc
.
Lån
ghu
lt B
ioga
s ab
26
00
00
m3
raw
gas
35
00
To
n
10
0%
Man
ure
; Se
wag
e sl
ud
ge
Ob
ject
ives
fo
r
ren
ewab
le e
ner
gy
pro
du
ctio
n; P
rofi
tab
ility
Tax
exem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f; C
O2
cer
tifi
cate
Ener
gy t
ax if
yo
u h
ave
too
larg
e a
faci
lity.
Ru
les
rega
rdin
g fo
od
resi
du
e su
bst
rate
.
Envi
ron
men
tally
sm
art
Bu
reau
crac
y an
d
ign
ora
nce
No
Lon
g-te
rm r
ule
s o
f th
e
gam
e, L
on
g-te
rm
sup
po
rt
Frig
iva
gård
15
00
00
kwh
65
00
m3
10
0%
Man
ure
; A
gric
ult
ura
l
was
te/s
traw
Pro
fit
dri
vin
g, it
mu
st
pro
vid
e p
rofi
tab
ility
th
e
rest
is a
bo
nu
s
Tax
exem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f
No
Sust
ain
abili
ty, C
ircu
lar
Eco
no
my
Lack
of
com
pet
ence
,
lack
of
mar
ket,
few
agri
cult
ura
l mac
hin
es
that
can
use
bio
gas
as
fuel
.
Yes
Bio
gas
mu
st b
eco
me
mo
re p
rofi
tab
le t
han
fo
ssil
fuel
s.
Appendices
35 | P a g e Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
SLU
Sve
rige
s la
ntb
ruks
un
ive
rsit
et
5 0
00
00
0 k
wh
ele
ctri
city
& h
eat
21
00
0 t
on
10
0 %
go
es t
o b
ioga
s p
rod
uct
ion
Man
ure
; En
ergy
cro
ps
Ob
ject
ives
fo
r th
e p
rod
uct
ion
of
ren
ewab
le e
ner
gy;
Reg
ula
tio
ns
to r
edu
ce g
ree
nh
ou
se g
as e
mis
sio
ns;
Reg
ula
tio
ns
rega
rdin
g st
ora
ge o
f m
anu
re
Tax
exem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f; C
O2
cer
tifi
cate
We
wan
t to
incr
ease
th
e am
ou
nt
of
sub
stra
te f
rom
21
,00
0 t
on
s to
30
,00
0 t
on
s, w
as f
orc
ed t
o p
rod
uce
a
new
en
viro
nm
en
tal p
erm
it a
t a
cost
of
1/2
mill
ion
to c
on
sult
ants
.
Envi
ron
men
tal a
nd
so
ciet
al b
enef
its,
met
han
e fo
r
elec
tric
ity
and
hea
t.
Fin
d c
om
mit
ted
sta
ff
No
Tax
red
uct
ion
Lägd
a G
ård
50
-60
00
0 N
m3
27
00
m3
10
0%
Man
ure
Ob
ject
ives
fo
r
the
pro
du
ctio
n
of
ren
ewab
le
ener
gy
elec
tric
ity
net
wo
rk
Wan
t to
be
self
-su
ffic
ien
t
The
tech
niq
ue
No
Ku
lbäc
kslid
en
s La
ntb
ruk
Ca
20
0 0
00
m3
/yea
r
72
00
to
n
10
0%
Man
ure
; A
gric
ult
ura
l was
te/s
traw
Ob
ject
ives
fo
r th
e p
rod
uct
ion
of
ren
ewab
le
ener
gy; R
egu
lati
on
s re
gard
ing
the
man
agem
ent
of
nu
trie
nts
an
d e
mis
sio
ns
to
lan
d a
nd
wat
er
Fee
d-i
n t
arif
f; T
ax e
xem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f;
CO
2‚ c
erti
fica
te
Self
-su
ffic
ien
cy w
ith
en
ergy
No
Mak
e it
pro
fita
ble
to
sel
l ele
ctri
city
th
rou
gh
sub
sid
ies
for
grid
fee
s an
d t
axat
ion
Hö
gryd
s fa
rm
70
0 M
Wh
11
50
m3
10
0%
Man
ure
Ob
ject
ives
fo
r
the
pro
du
ctio
n
of
ren
ewab
le
ener
gy
Tax
exem
pti
on
or
tax
relie
f
elec
tric
ity
net
wo
rk
Deg
ree
of
self
-
suff
icie
ncy
The
tech
niq
ue
No