Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Opportunities in Biogas
A Comparison Between Germany and
the United States
Teresa Santilena
Client: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Rudower Chausse 16 10099 Berlin
PR Faculty Advisor: Douglas Houston
Spring Quarter 2012
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Department of Planning, Policy and Design University of California, Irvine
1
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the supporters of this project, especially Doug Houston,
Gabrielle Buschmann, Alessia Contarato, Ilona Pohlmann, George Schiller, Simon Six and Fabian Zepezauer.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……...Page 6
Abstract…………………………………….……………………..…………………………….….………Page 6
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………...Page 6
Problem Statement…………………………………..…………………………………………...….Page 7
Significance…………………………………………………………………………………….………….Page 9
Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………...…….Page 9
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………....….Page 10
German Methods……………………………………………………………………………………..Page 10
Literature Review……………………………………………………………………….…Page 10
Site Visits………………………………...……………………………………………………Page 11
Survey………………………………………………………………………….……………….Page 11
U.S. Methods………………………………………………………………………………...……..….Page 12
Literature Review………………………………………………………………………….Page 12
Case Studies………………………………………………………………………………….Page 13
Overview of Natural Gas and Biogas Production……………………………………………….…Page 14
Traditional Natural Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing…………………….…………….…Page 14
Overview of Biomass Energy Production………………………………………………….Page 17
Solid Biomass…………………………………………………………….………………….Page 17
Biofuels…………………………………………………………………….…………………..Page 19
Biogas…………………………………………………………………………..………………Page 22
3
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Page 25
Biogas Production and Use in Germany…..................………………..……………..Page 25
The German Political Context………………………………………………....……Page 26
The German Economic Context……………………………………………….…...Page 29
The German Social Context……………………………………………..…….……..Page 31
Summary of Site Visits………………….……………………………..…………….…………….Page 34
Die Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien…………………………………....…Page 34
The Farm in Ronnenberg…………………………………………..……………….…Page 36
Survey Results……………………………………………………………………………………….…Page 39
Problematic U.S. Practices…………..…………………………………………….…………………….....Page 41
Hydraulic Fracturing ………………………………………………………………….…Page 41
Biofuels…………………………………………………………….……………...………....Page 44
Current Status of Biogas in the United States………………………………………..…Page 47
The U.S. Political Context…………………………..……….…………….…….……Page 47
The U.S. Economic Context…………………………………………………………..Page 49
The U.S. Social Context…………………………………………………………….…..Page 51
Biogas Potentials for the United States: Three Case Studies………………..…..Page 53
Manure-Based Biogas at the Haubenschild Farms………….………..…..Page 53
Landfill Gas at the Jackson County Green Energy Park……...………….Page 57
Food Waste Gas at the East Bay Municipal Utility District……….……Page 60
Lessons from Germany and The United States…………...………...…………………………....Page 64
Recommendations for the United States……………..………………………………………....….Page 66
4
Research Recommendations…………………………………………………………………….Page 65
Policy Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………Page 67
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………….....Page 69
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....Page 75
5
Figures
Figure 1: Chart of 2010 Natural Gas Consumption………………...……………………..Page 15
Figure 2: Diagram of Fracking Well...……………………………………………………….….Page 16
Figure 3: Image of CHP………………………………………………………...……………………..Page 18
Figure 4: Chart of Biodiesel Sales in Germany……………………………………………...Page 21
Figure 5: Two-Fermenter Biogas Model………………………………………………………Page 23
Figure 6: 2010 Map of Biogas Plants and Electrical Output in Germany………...Page 26
Figure 7: Biogas Plants and Electrical Output in Germany Chart 1992-2010…Page 28
Figure 8: Atomkraft? Nein Danke………………………………………...……….……………..Page 33
Figure 9: Photo of raw maize at Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien …………..Page 35
Figure 10: Photo of the dual digesters in the farm in Ronnenberg………………..Page 37
Figure 11: Photo of Marcellus Shale Fracking Site…………………...……………….….Page 42
Figure 12: U.S. Ethanol Production 1980 – 2007…………………………………………Page 44
Figure 13: Chart of Emissions Reductions from Anaerobic Digestion…………...Page 55
Figure 14: Diagram of Landfill Gas Collection System……………..…………………....Page 58
Figure 15: Chart of U.S. Solid Waste by Material 2010……………………………….…Page 61
6
Introduction
Abstract
The problems associated with global climate change, including adverse
effects on weather patterns, changes in agricultural yields and habitat destruction,
and the goal of energy independence are becoming increasingly urgent issues
throughout the world. Renewable energy policy in the United States has focused on
replacing fossil fuels with sources of energy that produce fewer carbon dioxide
emissions, such as the development of biofuels for the transportation sector, rather
than utilizing existing sources of methane biogas for the production of heat and
power. Biogas is gas that is produced through anaerobic digestion of organic
material and refined to natural gas quality. As illustrated by the German example,
biogas is a less environmentally harmful and less expensive form of biomass energy
than the heavily subsidized biofuel, ethanol. This report draws from a literature
review, site visits and survey responses to evaluate the potential of biogas as an
alternative energy source, and concludes that the German feed-in tariff model is an
effective governmental approach to encouraging investment in biogas production.
Executive Summary
The problems associated with global climate change, include adverse effects
on weather patterns, changes in agricultural yields and habitat destruction.
Simultaneously, the goal of energy independence is gaining in popularity. Both are
becoming increasingly urgent issues for the United States. Current U.S. energy
policy, which is predominately focused on development of petroleum and natural
gas, may overlook some opportunities for renewable energy sources, such as biogas.
Allowing gas companies exemptions to important environmental regulations has left
human health and the environment damaged. Policy discussion has focused on
replacing fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy that produce fewer carbon
dioxide emissions, such as the development of biofuels for the transportation sector,
rather than utilizing existing sources of methane biogas for the production of heat
7
and power. Biogas is gas that is produced through anaerobic digestion of organic
material and refined to natural gas quality. As illustrated by the German example,
biogas is a less environmentally harmful and less expensive form of biomass energy
than the heavily subsidized biofuel, ethanol. This report draws from a literature
review, site visits and survey responses to evaluate the potential of biogas as an
alternative energy source, and concludes that the German feed-in tariff model is an
effective governmental approach to encouraging investment in biogas production.
Currently, U.S. policy is fragmented across the fifty states. The United States must
create effective policy at the federal level, focusing on renewable energy resources
like biogas, to achieve energy independence goals. The most effective policies
would focus on utilizing existing sources of methane emissions, such as animal
waste, landfill gas and food waste gas, to produce biogas for heat and electricity.
Problem Statement World population is projected to equal 9 billion by the year 2050 and 10.1
billion by 2100, according to the United Nations (Gillis & Dugger, 2011). These
trends suggest that continuing urbanization, rising demand for power and
increasing requirements to maintain environmental quality are central issues to
future planners. As fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, are finite and environmentally
damaging sources of energy, alternatives must be explored. Though the United
States has been pursuing energy independence and clean energy solutions, the
efforts of this country pale in comparison to the activities of some of our global
neighbors. Germany, for example, has taken a leading role in the promotion of
renewable energy, viewing it as the best way to generate economic growth during
these times of financial crisis (Jaeger et al, 2011). The social, political and economic
conditions that exist within Germany each contribute to that country’s dedication to
renewable energy sources. An analysis of successful techniques of German biomass
energy production can be beneficial to shaping policy in the United States.
Many energy advocates point to natural gas as the best alternative to coal
and oil for the United States to become energy independent (Nelder, 2012). Though
natural gas has a smaller carbon footprint than oil or coal, the processes for
8
obtaining this resource are becoming more environmentally damaging as easily
accessible gas is becoming scarcer. For instance, the practice of hydraulic
fracturing, “fracking”, which pumps hundreds of chemicals deep underground to
free natural gas, pollutes air and water and can endanger public health. In addition
to the subsidies for oil and gas exploration, the U.S. government supports the
growth of energy crops to create biofuels for the transport sector, though
privatization of the biofuels industry has its advocates (Mol, 2010). Questions have
arisen as to whether there is enough land in the United States to continue growing
crops for biofuels (Converse, 2007) and whether farmers are adequately
compensated for doing so (Morris, 2004). Biogas, however, possesses qualities that
may make it a superior form of energy to biofuels and a more practical policy option
for the United States. It is less environmentally harmful than biofuels, which
contribute to global climate change. Biogas has a wider range of applications than
biofuels, as it can be used for generation of electricity and heat. With the
development and utilization of Natural Gas Vehicles for individual use, there may
even be the opportunity for biogas to be used in the transport sector. Finally, biogas
can be utilized either on-site by its producers or a source of income when sold into
the natural gas energy grid.
The U.S. government is best suited to create legislation and programs
benefiting newer forms of energy, such as biogas. However, incentives for the
capture of methane at existing farms, landfills and from food waste to produce
biogas are currently lacking. Utilizing methane from organic waste is less
dangerous, invasive and environmentally damaging than hydraulic fracturing, and
has inherently fewer land use conflicts than the current methods used in the
development of biofuels. This report will explain why one particular form of
biomass energy, biogas, has the potential to become a significant part of the solution
to the U.S. energy problem, though it is often overlooked by the federal government.
By looking at the history, benefits and processes of the three types of biomass
energy, this report argues that biogas is a less harmful form of energy than biofuels
that could be widely utilized in United States with substantial investment.
9
Significance
This report evaluates the potential of biogas as an energy source for the
United States, and makes three significant contributions. First, it provides insights
into whether biogas can be part of the United States’ strategy toward energy
independence. Second, it evaluates how this source can be a part of the country’s
goals to maintain environmental quality, combat global climate change and restore
ecological balance. Third, this report identifies important ways that a biogas sector
could have significant economic impact. This not only includes creating
employment opportunities within the country, but, potentially, increasing exports to
other countries.
Objectives
The primary objective of this report is to examine the potential of biogas
energy and to give recommendations for its application in the United States. First,
an overview of the current methods used in natural gas production is provided.
This study then includes an analysis of the conditions surrounding German biogas
production as a potential guide for U.S. policy. It also seeks to explain how the
production of biogas is less environmentally harmful than both hydraulic fracturing
for natural gas and biofuel generation. Additionally, an examination of the current
status of biogas in the United States including the social, political and economic
conditions and potential methods of production, such as manure-based biogas,
landfill gas and food waste gas is included. This report concludes with
recommendations for effective biogas policy for the United States.
10
Methods
This study examines the biogas industry in Germany through a thorough case
study of the German social, economic and political parameters and historical
context. Direct observation of biogas facilities through site visits and surveys with
farmers involved in biogas energy production aid in understanding the context of
German energy policy. Second, it draws from a literature review and case studies to
examine the social, economic and political challenges and context to identify
opportunities that exist for biogas production in the United States. This includes in-
depth reviews of existing biogas facilities, as well as a review of the current policies
of the U.S. government. Finally, this report provides recommendations for the
United States based upon the literature review and the German case study will be
provided.
German Methods
Due to time constraints in Berlin, Germany, research for this report was
conducted in two phases. Initially, the focus was the German conditions
surrounding biogas production as well as a study of the different forms of biomass
energy production – solid biomass, biofuels and biogas. A literature review, visits to
two biogas production sites and distribution of a survey to farms across Germany
that have biogas facilities were completed. These methods lent insight into the
political conditions, economic incentives and social attitudes surrounding biogas
production in Germany.
Literature Review
The first step of this research was composed of an extensive literature review
on renewable energy sources. First, documents describing the background and
context of renewable energy in the European Union were examined before
narrowing the focus to the German renewable energy situation. With a broad
understanding of the existing German renewable energy policy framework, it
became clear that biomass energy production plays a significant and growing role in
11
Germany, with several opportunities to identify best practices. Biomass projects in
Germany, especially the social, political and economic conditions that encourage
these projects became the primary focus of this research. By studying the different
types of biomass, the production methods involved with each, and the various
applications for energy produced by biomass, it became apparent that biogas is the
most versatile of the forms of biomass, and that there are many opportunities to
produce biogas through existing endeavors.
Site Visits
Two sites with working biogas anaerobic digesters were visited in Germany.
These oxygen-free tanks regulate temperature and water to maintain proper
environmental conditions to produce and capture biogas through the fermentation
of organic material. Observing the process of biogas generation first hand imparted
a greater understanding of the science behind anaerobic digestion. It also
underscored the commitment needed to maintain and operate these facilities;
without the dedication of the site operators, the Germany biogas industry would not
be as successful as it is.
Survey
In conducting research of biomass energy production, specifically biogas, in
Germany, it became clear through the literature that the agricultural sector plays the
leading role in developing this form of energy. While a literature review was helpful
in understanding the conditions within Germany that allow for aggressive pursuit of
biomass energy, insight into the motives of the individuals involved goes toward
understanding whether similar conditions can be replicated in the United States,
and, indeed, if they should. Therefore, understanding the role farms and farmers
have to energy policy in Germany is important for assessing the social, political and
economic conditions that drive biogas energy production in that country. With the
help of Humboldt University and a PhD student who was previously a dairy farmer,
Juhl Joergensen, the addresses for 258 farms located throughout Germany which
were said to contain biomass facilities were obtained.
These farmers were contacted by Humboldt University through a letter
explaining the reason for the questionnaire and assuring anonymity to respondents
12
accompanied the survey. The study recruitment was conducted through the
German postal service because many rural areas in Germany do not have a readily
available Internet connection. The survey and accompanying letter were presented
to the sampled individuals in German.
Because this report seeks to understand the social, political and economic
conditions that create biomass energy production in Germany, the survey touches
upon each of these aspects. Accordingly, the questionnaire asks about motivation,
government incentives and subsidies received. Additionally, the type of biomass
energy (biogas, biofuel, or cogeneration of heat and power) produced by each site
and how that energy is used (on site, fed into the grid) is important to ascertain and
is included in the survey. Finally, questions regarding how much labor is involved in
building and maintaining these facilities and whether the hiring of additional
laborers was necessary and overall profitability of the facilities are asked. The
survey in both German and English is available in the appendix, as are the usable
survey responses, in German.
U.S. Methods
The second phase of research for this report focused upon conditions
surrounding biogas production within the U.S. While biogas in Germany is mainly
conducted in rural areas, the United States presents opportunities for urban
applications. An understanding of the extraction and applications of natural gas
within the United States was also a necessary component of the research, as this
report argues that biogas could be used to augment natural gas and reduce
dependence upon this resource. Finally, a literature review and an in-depth study of
three different biogas facilities within the United States illustrate how this form of
energy is currently being used domestically.
Literature Review
The literature review examined the different social and political structures of
Germany and the United States and has highlighted the vast differences in energy
policy. The literature immediately revealed that while German policy is based upon
the broader context of the European Union, policies within the United States vary
13
from state to state. Economic incentives, including the structure of subsidies and tax
benefits, are also quite different between the two countries, making for a stark
comparison. Specifics about the context of each country are detailed in the main
body of this report. Some states within the U.S. have various programs for the
production of biogas. This report looks at case studies for successful manure-based
biogas, landfill gas and food waste gas programs within the United States to provide
recommendations for potential federal-level policies.
Case Studies
Biogas is produced in various ways throughout the United States. An in-
depth study of the Haubenschild Farms in Minnesota lends insight into the
contributions of rural applications of biogas. In addition to rural applications, there
are opportunities in urban areas. The development of a landfill gas system at the
Jackson County Green Energy Park and a food waste gas system at the East Bay
Municipal Utility District illustrate two of the ways that cities may contribute to
biogas energy production.
14
Overview of Natural Gas and Biogas Production
Traditional Natural Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United
States uses approximately 24 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas annually, mainly
for the generation of electricity and use in industrial, residential and commercial
facilities. Figure 1 depicts the consumption by end use of natural gas in the United
States for the year 2010. Of these 24 Tcf, about 17% is imported from other
countries, most often from Canada (U.S. Energy Information Administration).
Although natural gas is often discussed as an alternative to coal and petroleum, it is
not a source of renewable energy. As demand for this resource rises, gas companies
are using extraction methods that are more harmful to human health and the
environment than traditional drilling. Technological advances have made the
practice of hydraulic fracturing, “fracking”, more efficient and less costly. Currently,
nearly half of all natural gas produced in the United States is obtained through this
method, and that proportion is expected to grow in the future (Svoboda, 2010).
Hydraulic fracturing involves drilling deeply, often two kilometers or more,
into subterranean shale, coal or tight sand rock layers. Once the borehole reaches
the appropriate depth, it is drilled horizontally across the rock layer for thousands
of feet. After a cement casing is put in place, electrical charges are sent through the
borehole to create tiny cracks in the rock layer. A mixture of water, particulate
materials such as sand or tiny pieces of ceramics, and hundreds of lubricant
chemicals are then pumped at high pressure through the borehole and into the
cracks, which allows natural gas to escape into the casing and flow to the surface
(National Geographic, 2010). Figure 2 depicts the depth, structure and components
of a hydraulic fracturing well.
15
Figure 1: Chart of U.S. 2010 natural gas consumption by end use.
Source: naturalgas.org
Fracking has rapidly become a common practice among gas companies, but
there are many questions regarding the health impacts of the process (Food &
Water Watch, 2011; NRDC, 2007; New York Times, 2011). In the rush to exploit this
now-accessible source of natural gas, several environmental and public health
concerns have been overlooked. Currently, hydraulic fracturing is exempt from
many U.S. regulations, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, portions of the Clean
Air Act and the Superfund Law, according to the National Resources Defense
Council. There are also no regulations regarding the containment of the discharged
fracking fluid. This creates a situation in which gas companies have little incentive
to ensure the quality of the environment in the vicinity of fracking wells.
Despite these concerns, hydraulic fracturing continues to increase in the U.S.
This is mainly due to the financial benefits of the process. The gas industry asserts
that the economic potential of hydraulic fracturing is considerable, especially during
this time of high unemployment and slow national growth. It argues that opening
up new areas for fracking will create thousands of new jobs, provide new revenue
for local economies and introduce a new tax base for states. For example, “[i]n
16
Pennsylvania in 2008, development of the Marcellus Shale generated $2.3 billion in
economic impact, created more than 29,000 jobs and resulted in $240 million in
state and local taxes” (naturalgas.org). Figure 2: Diagram of a fracking well.
Source: naturalgas.org
Environmental advocates, however, dispute these claims, arguing that while
hydraulic fracturing may cause growth in the short-term, in the long-term local
economies can be harmed because “distant energy companies typically do not buy
from local businesses and out-of-town roughnecks fill short-term jobs” (Food &
Water Watch, 2011 p. 11). In addition, the initial gains made in employment,
construction and housing demand diminish quickly. The large number of heavy
truck trips can damage street infrastructure and create more hazardous conditions
on roads. Property value is diminished by natural gas rigs located close-by. Local
17
farms can be harmed if livestock drinks tainted water and die, as happened in
Louisiana in 2009, and organic farmers can lose premiums for their products if their
farms become polluted. This same pollution can have negative impacts on the
hunting, fishing and tourism industries. Finally, the quality of life of residents close
to fracking wells suffers from the constant noise of the wells and the loss of scenic
views (Food & Water Watch, 2011). Decision-makers must weigh the economic
benefits against these costs before enacting new policy.
Because fracking is an important source of natural gas in the United States, it
is not feasible to slow or stop this act without presenting alternate sources of
energy. This report investigates whether and under what conditions biogas may
present an available alternative.
Overview of Biomass Energy Production
To understand why biogas may be the most suitable energy alternative for
the United States, it is first necessary to understand the three types of biomass
energy production and their historical uses in the United States and abroad. There
are three main types of bioenergy that are used to provide energy for heating and
electricity, and fuels for the transportation sector.
• Solid Biomass
• Biofuels
• Biogas
Solid Biomass
The first form, solid biomass, is the oldest and most commonly used form of
bioenergy. Throughout this report, the term “solid biomass” refers to all dried plant
material, including wood and peat. Burning dried plant material has been the
primary method for generating heat and energy, for example, for cooking, globally
for centuries (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena). Modern uses
of solid biomass seek to harness the energy potential of plant material while
reducing carbon dioxide and particulate matter emissions. The most recent
iteration of solid biomass utilizes wood in the form of split logs, chips or pellets and
18
burns them in furnaces and boilers. Furnaces can be manually operated, partially
automated or fully automated and use electronically regulated firing systems to
time the burning of solid biomass, making the process up to 90% efficient.
Generally, the smallest boilers can be used in a room, apartment or flat; slightly
larger boilers are used for the heating residential buildings, such as houses and
apartment buildings. The largest commercial boilers can supply heat for a greater
area, such as a small community or town (Biomass Power & Thermal Magazine).
Figure 3: A biomass CHP plant in Pfaffenhofen, Germany
Source: Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena
Wood can also be used to create both on-grid and off-grid electricity. When
burned in furnaces that have been designed for the cogeneration of heat and power
(CHP), solid biomass becomes a highly efficient process. In these furnaces, as
electric power is produced, the waste heat can be used for heating or cooling for
industrial purposes, such as cold storage units and large refrigerators. Figure 3
depicts a CHP furnace in Pfaffenhofen, Germany. Finally, solid biomass can be
“gasified” in specialized fixed bed, fluidized bed or entrained flow gasifiers. Gas
19
created by this process can be used to produce electricity when fed in to combustion
engines or gas turbines (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena).
Though solid biomass has been used on earth for hundreds of years, modern
technology allows for greater efficiency and fewer negative environmental
externalities.
Biofuels
The second type of bioenergy currently being developed is biofuels used as a
substitute for gasoline in the transportation sector. Throughout this report, the
term “biofuel” refers specifically to bioenergy that can be used as an alternative to
fossil fuels for transport purposes. Biofuels come in two main forms – ethanol
(called bioethanol in Germany) and biodiesel, both of which have the aim of
lowering carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Ethanol is made from agricultural
crops that contain sugar and starch. The main crops used for the creation of ethanol
are corn, mainly used by the United States, cereal crops and sugar beets, primarily
used by Germany, and sugar cane, the main energy crop produced by Brazil. The
starches in these crops are converted into sugars through a process of grinding the
crops into powder, mixing them with water and heating them before adding an
enzyme. This mixture is then fermented using yeast to create a brew that is
composed of about 10% alcohol. Once the alcohol is distilled and the remaining
water is disposed of, a small amount of gasoline is added to the mixture, finalizing
the production (Halperin, 2006).
Ethanol is used in various concentrations in gasoline. One mix that is
commonly available in Germany and the United States, E10, is composed of 10% of
ethanol and 90% unleaded gasoline. Based upon the 2009/30/ED directive, E10 has
been available at German gas stations since early 2011. More than 90% of all
passenger cars and nearly every new car produced in Germany can use E10 for
fueling. In the U.S., E10 has been approved for use in any vehicle sold in the country
(American Coalition for Ethanol). Flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs) are able to run on a
much higher concentration of ethanol. E85, with an ethanol content of 85%, creates
about half as many carbon dioxide emissions as gasoline from fossil fuels. FFVs
contain a sensor that recognizes the gas-to-ethanol ratio of fuel and adjusts the
20
engine’s ignition timing based on the specific composition. Ethanol is also used in
the fuel additive ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE). ETBE is composed of 47%
ethanol and is used to prevent engine knocking. ETBE can replace methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE), an additive used to oxygenate fuel, which is made entirely of
fossil fuels. ETBE was first used in the United States in 2006 (Halperin, 2006).
The use of ethanol continues to rise globally year-over-year. In the year
2010, 70 million tons of ethanol were produced globally, 3.5 million tons were
produced within the European Union and 0.6 million tons were produced in
Germany alone. The United States produces approximately 13 billion gallons of
ethanol annually (American Coalition for Ethanol). In the year 2010, 1.6 million
tons of ethanol were used, up from 0.9 million tons in 2009. In 2009, ethanol made
up 4.5% of volume of gasoline. In 2010, that number rose to 5.9% (Federal Ministry
of Economics and Technology & dena).
The other commonly produced biofuel, biodiesel, can be created from any
vegetable oil. In the European Union, the primary source of biodiesel is rapeseed,
while soy bean oil is more commonly used in South America and the United States.
One problem with the production of biodiesel has to do with the fat content of
various vegetable oils. The cold filter plugging point (CFPP) refers to the
temperature at which fats solidify and cause blockages in vehicles in cold climates,
which make certain biodiesels more appropriate for colder weather. For example,
palm oil, with a CFPP of 5 degrees Celsius, can only be utilized during summer in
colder climates, while rapeseed has a CFPP of -12 degrees Celsius, making it more
suitable for colder climates (Biodiesel.org).
Though biodiesel is not used as commonly as ethanol, sales continue to
increase. Figure 4 depicts a year-over-year chart of biodiesel sales in Germany from
1998 through 2007. Biodiesel is produced through a process called fatty acid
methyl ester (FAME), which is a catalyzed reaction between fatty acids and
methanol. In Germany, several hundred thousand tons of biodiesel are produced
every year. The United States produced 315 million gallons of biodiesel in 2010 and
consumes approximately 250 gallons annually (Energy Future Coalition). The
byproduct of biodiesel production -- rape or soy grist -- can also be used as high-
21
protein feed for farm animals. Each 100kg of rapeseed creates about 57kg of rape
grist and 43kg of rapeseed oil, while every 100kg of soybeans create 80kg of grist
and 20kg of oil. The process of transesterification creates fuel similar in quality in
both viscosity and energy density as regular diesel fuel, with the byproduct of
glycerin (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena).
Figure 4: Sales of biodiesel in Germany 1998 – 2007
Source: GRIN.com
Biodiesel is used in differing concentrations in vehicles. B100, fuel composed
100% of biodiesel, can be used in many types of commercial vehicles, such as buses
and agricultural vehicles. For private vehicles, mixtures of up to 7% biodiesel can
be sold in Europe, based on the European standard for diesel (EN 590). Many states
in the U.S. offer B20 for diesel vehicles. In 2010, approximately 18 million tons of
biodiesel were produced globally, up from 14 million tons in 2009. The European
Union produced 61% of the world’s biodiesel in 2010, with Germany, the world’s
largest producer of biodiesel, creating over 4.9 million tons. Of total production of
biodiesel, 26% was produced in South America and 13% of biodiesel in the United
22
States in 2010. In Germany, 8% of total diesel consumption, or 2.6 million tons was
composed of biodiesel (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena).
Biogas
The third form of bioenergy, biogas, is created from the fermentation of
organic substances. Throughout this paper, the term “biogas” refers to organic
material that has been fermented to create gas that is of the same quality as natural
gas and can utilize the natural gas grid for storage of electrical energy. Organic
waste can come from animal manure, landfills, municipal wastewater, food waste,
industrial uses, domestic garbage, commercial solid waste and agricultural plant
residues. Energy crops grown specifically for this purpose are also a large source of
biogas (Weiland, 2006).
These organic substances must be fermented in an oxygen free environment.
When anaerobic bacteria are introduced into this environment, they stimulate the
microbiological gasifying processes. Various types of bacteria can be used,
depending upon the desired temperature and pH levels required to create biogas. In
most agricultural plants, liquid manure is used as a base material, and energy crops
such as corn, sugar beets or soybeans, are used to increase gas yields. This process
of converting raw materials into energy, while simultaneously disposing of waste is
called anaerobic digestion (House, 2008).
There are two main methods of anaerobic digestion used in the creation of
biogas: wet-fermentation and dry-fermentation. The primary difference between
the wet-fermentation process and the dry-fermentation process is the amount of
solid material involved in the fermentation. In a wet-fermentation process,
approximately 8-10% of the contents of the digester are composed of solid material,
while a dry-fermentation process contains at least 20% of solid materials (Weiland,
2006). Wet-fermentation is, by far, the most commonly used method in biogas
fermentation. Dry-fermentation is generally still in the experimentation phase, and
is rarely used in large scale by farms. Currently, approximately 90% of agricultural
biogas facilities use the wet fermentation method. Figure 5 illustrates a farm that
uses a two-fermenter biogas facility utilizing wet fermentation. Wet-fermentation is
usually achieved within a vertical continuously stirred tank, which keeps the
23
substrates, whether solid or liquid, in continuous motion. To achieve continuous
stirring, which is necessary to prevent the formation of scum, wet-fermentation
tanks contain mixers that are placed vertically, horizontally or diagonally into the
tank (Weiland, 2006).
Figure 5: A model of a two-fermenter agricultural biogas facility and its grid connection
Source: Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena
The gas that is produced in anaerobic processing plants is composed of 50 –
75% methane, 25 – 45% carbon dioxide, and 2 – 7% water, hydrogen sulphide [sic],
oxygen, ammonia and hydrogen. Any un-decomposed organic material left after
digestion can be mixed with water and various minerals to create digestate, which
can be used as a fertilizer in the cultivation of crops (House, 2008). By removing the
carbon dioxide and other trace gases from the gas produced by processing plants,
biogas in the form of methane can be refined to natural gas quality and fed into the
grid. This bio-methane is composed of up to 98% methane and can be used in areas
with high demand for heat while simultaneously producing electrical power. Bio-
methane can be used in developing nations as a less expensive alternative to natural
gas or wood for the generation of heat and power. Biogas also attains a high degree
of efficiency when burned in CHP processes. The electricity produced by this
process can be used publically when it is fed into the grid, in industrial and
24
commercial applications, or used as an independent energy source in areas with no
grid connections. The heat produced by this process can be used for heating, drying
or refrigeration (Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena).
Biomethane can also be sold to natural gas stations and used as fuel for
natural gas vehicles. Natural gas vehicles, though currently a small percentage of
vehicles on the road, has been a growing trend. In 2010, 12.7 million natural gas
vehicles were in use globally, which represents a 12% increase over the year 2009.
These vehicles are mainly used in Pakistan, Iran, Argentina, Brazil, Italy and
Germany. There are also more than 18,000 natural gas stations in use globally
(Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & dena). Natural gas vehicles are
also becoming more affordable for U.S. consumers. The 2012 Honda Civic Natural
Gas retails for about $26,000 and has become a part of the Honda marketing plan,
largely due to consumers looking for alternative that will provide relief from the
current high prices for gasoline (Honda, 2012).
Continued research and development and improvements in the design of
biogas plants are necessary to create a more efficient process. Over 50% of vertical,
continuously stirred tanks store gas in the top of the fermenter, and have a roof
composed of a single or double layer membrane that prevents gas from leaking into
the air (Weiland, 2006). However, storage tanks can allow gas to leak out;
approximately 70% of biogas plants built since 2004 lack an airtight storage tank
(Weiland, 2006). This is a concern for the efficiency of biogas production. With
methane having such a high global warming potential -- 21 times greater than
carbon dioxide -- any gas leakage can reduce the effectiveness of methane capture
(Weiland, 2006). Tank design must, therefore, be improved. Additionally, new
configurations and processes for anaerobic digestion may provide further stability
and improve the process. Specifically, the “microflora” that is involved in the
anaerobic digestion process and is currently not well understood must be further
studied for potential improvements in the digestion process (Weiland, 2006 p. 308).
Finally, different energy crops must be tested to find the most efficient in terms of
methane yield, harvesting time and environmental conservation, depending on the
specific climatic conditions (such as annual rainfall) of the area (Weiland, 2006).
25
Results
Biogas Production and Use in Germany
The link between renewable energy production, especially biogas, and
agriculture is a strong one, as the majority of biogas energy in Germany is created
on farms. In Germany, energy crops, crop by-products and manure are all utilized in
the production of biogas. Conversely, organic household waste and municipal
wastewater have lower energy potential, making urban areas less utilized in
German biogas production (Weiland, 2006). Over the past 20 years, the use of
biogas in Germany has become both more widespread and efficient for production
of heat and power. Figure 6 is a map of the distribution of biogas plants in Germany
and electrical output produced by these plants in 2010. The growth in renewable
energy production, including biogas, in Germany can be attributed to the political,
economic and social conditions that exist within the country. Studying these
conditions and how they interact lends insight into the German situation and can
offer guidance to other countries that wish to emulate Germany’s success.
26
Figure 6: 2010 map of biogas plants and size of electrical output in Germany
Source: German Biomass Research Center
The German Political Context
German policies regarding renewable energy were largely shaped during the
1990s. During this decade, the government introduced the feed-in-tariff (FIT)
model that still functions today as an important form of support for renewable
27
energy producers. The basic structure of an FIT creates long-term contracts offering
compensation to producers of renewable energy to offset the expenses involved in
production. In Germany, the FITs pay producers a higher rate for the energy they
produce, which is lowered over a period of several years (Laird & Stefes, 2009). The
1990s also saw the creation of partnerships in the social and political realms and
between the public and the private sectors that fostered growth of renewable
energy research and development. One important development in the German
political environment was the development of a coalition between the Green Party
and the Social Democrats in the late 1990s that cemented Germany’s political
commitment to renewable energy. This coalition government set ambitious energy
goals, created a market incentive program and, in the year 2000, introduced the
Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), Germany’s renewable energy legislation,
which creates economic incentives for renewable energy production.
Reaching renewable energy goals, while enforcing sustainability standards,
comes with a variety of concerns. Increasing bioenergy production has several
layers of challenges that require policy makers to command a nuanced
understanding of the potential costs and benefits. Among the challenges are:
making more advanced bioenergy technology available to producers of biomass
energy, supporting additional research for bioenergy through governmental
programs, and ensuring that biomass energy is produced and consumed in a
sustainable manner (BMU, 2009 p. 3 – 4). To answer these concerns, the German
government has created an extensive policy framework in regard to the
implementation of increased bioenergy usage. The National Biomass Action Plan for
Germany provides specific solutions to the problems associated with increased
bioenergy production.
In 2005, the European Union drafted The EU Biomass Action Plan, with the
goals of 8% of total energy use in the EU to be provided by biomass energy and
5.75% of fuel demand to be met by biofuels by the year 2010. The European Union
also encouraged each member state to complete it’s own action plan. Using the EU
plan as a template, Germany created a national plan for biomass energy production
in 2009. The National Biomass Action Plan seeks to utilize sustainable techniques
28
and significantly increase production of biomass energy throughout Germany (BMU,
2009). Germany’s goals are somewhat more ambitious than the goals set by the EU,
with the aim to approximately double use of biomass energy within Germany by the
year 2020, based on 2007 levels. As of 2007, biomass energy accounted for 4.9% of
energy consumption in the country (BMU, 2009 p. 4). At that time, 3.9% of
electricity, 6.1% of heat and 7.3% of fuel in Germany was provided by biomass
energy. Bioenergy is anticipated to provide 11% of overall primary energy
consumption in Germany by 2020, with 8% of electricity and 9.7% of heat being
powered by biomass energy (BMU, 2009). This firm commitment to the exploration
of biomass energy resources has caused Germany to build the highest number of
biogas plants in agricultural areas of any European nation (Weiland, 2006). Figure 7
charts the increase of biogas plants and electrical output in Germany for each year
from 1992 to 2010.
Figure 7: Number of biogas plants and total electrical output power in Germany 1992 – 2010
Source: Julius Kühn-Institut
29
The German Economic Context
This political commitment to renewable energy in general and biogas in
particular has been supported by a number of economic incentives. Germany’s
agricultural policies exist within the larger governmental framework of the
European Union. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has historically
provided farmers with relatively stable incomes based on their production of food.
The CAP subsidizes crops directly while simultaneously providing price supports,
which include tariffs and quotas on imported goods, as well as guaranteed minimum
prices (Wilkinson, 2011). Yet, due to fluctuations in the CAP budget, many farmers
have been motivated to seek out additional sources of income. “The CAP’s portion
of the EU budget has dropped from a peak of nearly 70% in the 1970s to a projected
34% over the period 2007-2013…the corresponding budget for Regional Policy in
the EU is projected to increase to 36% by 2013” (Wilkinson, 2011 p. 1618). Thus,
the countries of the European Union now receive more money from the governing
body through regional development funds than from agricultural food production.
Additional regional development incentives at the European Union level include
payments for land that is set-aside from food production and additional payments of
for production of biomass energy crops that are grown on non-set-aside land, which
has lead to increased cultivation of energy crops all over the EU (Wilkinson, 2011).
Germany, in particular, has been aggressive in pursuing a policy agenda that
would take advantage of the incentives offered by the European Union. German
farming, with its emphasis on meat and dairy production, is particularly well suited
to biogas energy production. Strict environmental regulations throughout the
European Union and within Germany, including the EU’s Nitrates Directive, which
protects water against nitrate pollution, has also led farmers to dispose of waste in
environmentally responsible ways, such as through anaerobic digestion (Wilkinson,
2011). European Union policies regarding agriculture, regional development and
pollution, therefore, complement each other and encourage farmers to install
anaerobic digesters and become active in the production of biogas.
The National Biomass Action Plan aims to utilize existing sources of capital
while encouraging development of new funding sources. Emissions trading funds
30
have been made available, both at the EU and the German level, to aid in climate
change mitigation technology. Approximately €400 million was available in 2008.
The BMU aims to obtain some of these funds by implementing cost-effective
measures in pursuing emission reductions while simultaneously creating model
projects. Yet, the National Biomass Action Plan acknowledges, “[s]tate assistance
can only ever play a supporting role” (BMU, 2009 p. 15). Biogas producers must
provide some investment, as well. To encourage this investment, the German
government has created a High Technology Strategy that funds research and
development projects pertaining to renewable energy that have public-private
partnerships.
While the European Union lends economic support to renewable energy
creation in Germany, incentives at the country-level have had the largest impact on
biogas energy production. The German government provides export opportunities
such as the Renewable Energy Export Initiative and the Energy Efficiency Export
Initiative (BMU, 2009). One of the largest contributors to the success of Germany’s
biogas energy production comes from the feed-in-tariffs that the country introduced
in 1991. “The FIT reflected a growing consensus among German parliamentarians
that renewable energy needed and deserved state support to become competitive in
the energy market” (Laird & Stefes, p. 2622). Once the FIT was established in
German policy, detractors of renewable energy have never been able to shift policy
away from these subsidies. The vocal support of renewable energy of much of the
German electorate aids in maintaining these policies.
In addition to feed-in-tariffs, the EEG has played an important role in the
promotion of biogas energy. The EEG guarantees that utility companies pay a
premium to producers of renewable energy for 20 years. To ensure that renewable
energy producers continue to pursue greater efficiency, the EEG has built-in a 1%
digression rate (Wilkinson, 2011). Having a fixed price during times of volatility in
electricity prices has given investors confidence that the venture would be reliable
over the long-term (Laird & Stefes, 2009). Under the 2004 revision of the EEG, a
strategy specific to anaerobic digestion, rather than the larger umbrella of
renewable energy, caused a large increase in the number of anaerobic digestion
31
plants to be built, with approximately 600-800 new plants built per year in 2005
and 2006 (Wilkinson, 2011). The EEG remains a popular and important piece of
legislation, even though it adds to the already higher than average price of
electricity in Germany by about 5%.
The German Social Context
While the political and economic incentives have encouraged investment in
biogas energy resources, it can be argued that the social pressure applied to the
Germany government was the catalyst for action. Many advocates for renewable
energy claim that the German population has been more successful in pressuring
government leaders to pursue renewable energy policy than their counterparts in
the United States. The German parliamentary system, with its system of
proportional representation, allows for a greater variety of opinion in government
than the two-party U.S. political system (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
The major social impetus for Germany’s pursuit of renewable energy
technology was the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
Though Germany is several thousand miles away from Chernobyl, the country was
subject to some fallout, and radiations levels became elevated after the disaster,
creating some anxiety among German citizens (Laird & Stefes, 2009). In addition to
this, Germany relies upon coal for the majority of its production of electricity. Coal
is a dirty form of energy, creating greenhouse gas emissions, soot and particulates
that are damaging to air quality. In the 1980s, German policy makers recognized the
environmental danger in using coal power and began to understand of the problem
of climate change as it was related to energy consumption. Yet, perhaps even more
important from a policy implementation perspective, coal in Germany is expensive
to mine and had historically been heavily subsidized by the government. The social
response to these two factors aided in creating a political environment that was
receptive to exploring renewable energy possibilities (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
Social and lobbying groups, such as the Federation of German Farmers have
significant strength to influence German policy. The actions of the German
government in incentivizing renewable energy resources on agricultural lands were,
in large part, a result of the lobbying efforts of German farmers. Concerned with
32
how global climate change may impact weather patterns and available arable land,
the Federation of German Farmers, “has advocated for strategic elements to adapt to
climate change and possible contributions by the agriculture and forest sector to
mitigate climate change, such as with renewable energy” (Hambrick et al, 2010 p.
16). The German agricultural sector is interested in preserving their sources of
income as well as pursuing an additional stream of revenue through the creation of
renewable energy. Banks, especially those involved in the agricultural sector, such
as the Agriculture Pension Bank (“Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank”), have seen
increased demand for investment in renewable energy projects on farmland. This
increased demand has created more investment from the German financial sector
and has given the government incentive to create policies supportive of renewable
energy (Hambrick et al, 2010).
In May of 2011, the German government, responding to increased public
concern, committed to shutting down all nuclear power plants by the year 2022.
This decision has placed an even greater importance on the development of
renewable energy resources, especially biogas energy for the production of
electricity. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has long been a proponent of
nuclear energy, but the reaction of German society to the catastrophe at Japan’s
Fukushima reactor in March of 2011 caused her to reverse her position and become
supportive of plans to abolish nuclear energy (Baetz, 2011). As many citizens of
Germany have vocally opposed nuclear power since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster,
the events at Fukushima spurred several demonstrations, with tens of thousands of
protesters. Figure 8 is the image of a commonly used banner rejecting the use of
atomic energy, one of the strategies employed by German protesters.
33
Figure 8: “Atomic energy? No, thanks.” A commonly used slogan by German citizens in protest of
atomic energy production
Source: Plugs and Cars
Germany currently has 17 nuclear reactors. The seven oldest reactors, all
built prior to 1980, were taken offline for safety inspections after Fukushima and
were not brought back online. The goal to eliminate nuclear energy by 2022 will
perpetuate momentum in Germany to develop other sources of power, including
renewable energy from wind, solar, hydroelectric and biomass sources (Baetz,
2011). This new goal will create billions of Euros of additional costs in developing
new power plants and updating the electrical grid. Additionally, the German
population may face increased electricity prices and be asked to use less electricity
in order to reach this goal. Many in German society, however, would rather pay
higher prices to subsidize safer and cleaner sources of energy than the dirty coal
industry or imports of foreign oil and gas. Many Germans also believe that
renewable energy subsidies are temporary and will be phased out as access and
efficiency improve (Wilkinson, 2011).
34
Summary of Site Visits
Understanding the science of anaerobic digestion and the labor involved in
maintaining biogas facilities is an important factor in determining if biogas energy
can be beneficial to the United States. These anaerobic digesters operate 24-hours-
a-day and 365-days-a-year. There are multiple components to an operation, each
one of which can have serious implications if they are not properly maintained. Site
visits to biogas production facilities, therefore, perform and important function for
this research. The first of two biogas facilities was visited on December 9, 2011 and
the second on December 16, 2011.
Die Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien
The first facility was located in the Lüchow-Dannenberg region of Germany
(a rural area in Lower Saxony, close to Hamburg and northwest of Berlin) at the
Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien (The Academy of Renewable Energies). The
Academy was established in 2008 to provide students with the opportunity to learn
about renewable energies, from the economic to the biological aspects, for the
purpose of working within the renewable energy field. The Academy is funded by
the European Regional Development Fund, and is home to all forms of renewable
energy, including a single-fermenter biogas facility. Lüchow-Dannenberg is well
known for development of alternative forms of energy; it has developed a bio-
tourist industry and is a magnet for individuals and corporations seeking to expand
their knowledge of renewable energy. With the help Gabrielle Buschmann,
Dorothea Angel, one of the regional managers for bio-tourism related renewable
energy, was contacted. Ms. Angel arranged a tour of the biogas facility that was
being attended by the current master class at the Academy.
The first noticeable thing upon approaching the biogas facility is the smell.
The decomposition of silage and the digestate mix creates a thick, unpleasant odor,
similar to warm corn and fertilizer. The primary crop used in this fermenter is
maize, with liquid pig manure used to speed the fermentation process. The maize is
processed through a machine, similar to a wood chipper, creating smaller and more
easily fermented particles. Once the crop has been run through the machine, it is
35
stored for future use in the fermenter. There is a loss of efficiency at this particular
facility because the maize is stored outside, where it is exposed to the elements and
begins to oxidize. Figure 9 is a photo of the maize as it is currently stored outside.
Figure 9: Raw maize stored outside at the Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien
Source: Teresa Santilena
This facility also houses a CHP generator, which was developed by General
Electric. The engine is so loud that it requires its own sheet metal containment area
within a cinder-block building. Since Lüchow-Dannenberg aims to become 100%
energy efficient, CHP units are a practical investment. There is also a viewing
window located at the top of the fermenter. The silage within the fermenter is
brown in color and is constantly agitated, so that it resembled a giant mixing bowl of
liquid manure. The single-fermenter model is not as efficient as a facility that has
two or more fermenters because the fermentation process is shorter and less biogas
is produced. This facility succeeds as an educational tool, however, as it illustrates
36
the entire process of biogas production, from the harvesting of energy crops to the
on-site use of the biogas.
The Farm in Ronnenberg
The second visit took place on December 16, 2011 at a facility in Ronnenberg,
a small town just outside of Hanover. The facility is owned and operated by five
farmers and provided insights into the potential and challenges of biogas production
outside an educational setting. One of the farmers, Herr Eckehardt Baumgarte was
available to provide a tour of the system. This system, manufactured by MT-Energie
GmbH & Co. KG, was constructed in 2007 and was commissioned on 3/13/2008.
The size of the system is 1.4 megawatts electrical generation or 650 normal cubic
meters of biogas, in the form of biomethane, generated per hour. The original
design of the facility called for a size of 700 kilowatts electrical generation per hour,
but, during construction, the operators decided to double the capacity to increase
efficiency and profitability. The feed for the system is composed of maize silage,
which is grown on the farms owned by the five operators. The farms are, on
average, 4.5 kilometers from the facility. The biomethane produced at this facility
goes through a refinement process and fed into the natural gas network through
enercity, the Hanover public utility company. All of these functions take place on-
site (Baumgarte, 2011).
This facility is composed of two digesters, each 26 x 7 meters in size. Figure
10 is a photo of the dual digesters. There is also a post-digester, which is 30 x 7
meters and two digestate storage tanks, which are 30 x 7 and 26 x 7 meters,
respectively. The silo used for storage of the silage is composed of four chambers,
for a total capacity of 28,000 tons, 33% of which is generally dry maize. There is
approximately 4% of silage loss from the silo system, mainly from bird
consumption. Any liquid from the fermentation process, “silage juice” and all
rainwater is routed to a retention basin or back through the system to aid in the
fermentation process. It is vital to keep the “silage juice” away from waterways
used for drinking water because it is toxic (Baumgarte, 2011).
37
Figure 10: The dual anaerobic digesters at the farm in Ronnenberg
Source: Teresa Santilena
Each of the two digesters is fed by a wheel loader, which deposits
approximately 28 tons of maize silage into each digester each day. Every 30
minutes, silage is deposited into the fermenters through two solids feeders with
pushing floors. Unlike the first facility, this particular system does not use any
animal manure. The maize is retained for a total of 180 days, first in the two
digesters and then in the post-digester. This long retention time helps ensure that
the optimal amount of biogas is created. Both fermenters, as well as the digestate
storage tank, are equipped with a gas-tight storage membrane to trap any residual
gas and reduce emissions. This system, along with other efficiencies helps create an
environment of high gas yields. In 2008 – 2009, 239 normal cubic meters of
biomethane were produced per ton of maize, with a content of 33% dry silage
(Baumgarte, 2011).
38
The temperature of the fermenters and the post-digester are controlled to
provide a suitable environment for bacterial growth, which converts the biomass to
biogas. A series of plastic pipes surrounds each of these components and sends
heated water through to keep the temperature at approximately 40 degrees Celsius.
During the winter, heating costs are higher, as there is frequently snow in
Ronnenberg. Even so, 40 degrees is the optimal temperature for bacterial growth –
higher temperatures would be too expensive to maintain, while lower temperatures
would not provide enough heat to encourage the fermentation process. The
substance within the fermenters, substrate, is agitated by submersible motor mixers
within the fermentation tanks. This keeps the substrate from separating, creating
floating layers or settling (Baumgarte, 2011).
As the silage decomposes, the digestate becomes increasingly liquefied; the
average amount of dry silage in the digester is 9%. “Silage juice” is taken from the
post-digester and deposited into the digesters to provide sufficient liquid to aid in
the fermentation process, while preserving resources. Once the silage has been
fermented and the optimum amount of gas has been extracted, the “outgassed
material” resembles, in both odor and appearance, liquid cow manure. This
“outgassed material” is used in the fields after an intermediate time in the digestate
storage tanks. This material is high-quality organic manure, which aids in the
growth of more energy crops. All told, approximately 37 – 42 tons of every
harvested 55 – 65 tons of silage maize are used as digestate (Baumgarte, 2011).
An electronic monitoring system keeps track of each of the components of
the facility. On this visit, the computer screen of the monitoring system indicated
that one of the submersible motor mixers was not functioning. It would be replaced
the following week. The mixers are individually removable from the system for
replacement so that the tanks do not have to be emptied and fermentation can
continue uninterrupted when repaired (Baumgarte, 2011).
Once the biogas leaves the fermenters and post-fermenter, the crude gas is
cooled, dried and pressurized for further processing. The biogas is processed by
enercity, the Hanover public utility company. During processing, carbon dioxide is
removed from the gas through a chemical washing process, which uses pressure and
39
temperature. The crude gas contains 52% methane, 47% carbon dioxide and 1%, or
10 parts per million of hydrogen sulfide. After the crude gas has been processed, it
is composed of 90% biomethane, which is of high enough quality to comply with the
natural gas in the enercity gas grid. The gas is fed into the grid through a gas
pressure regulation station located at the Ronnenberg biogas facility (Baumgarte,
2011).
Survey Results
Based on the literature review, it was anticipated that the majority of survey
respondents would be involved in the production of biofuels and that they would
have received some financial support from the German government for this
production. As for their motivation, Hambrick, et al, 2010, assert that German
farmers become involved in biomass energy for three basic reasons: (1) because it
is a source of income for them, (2) because they want to do what they can to protect
themselves and their crops from the threats posed by global climate change and, (3)
because, as farmers, they are invested in the idea of becoming producers of a
product.
This report is unable to fully investigate these motivations in the survey of
farmers due to limited survey responses. The sample was obtained through a PhD
student who has done extensive research on agricultural economics within
Germany, and who stated that each of the farms in the sample had installed biogas
facilities. The surveys were sent to 258 farms throughout Germany, but,
unfortunately, only 8 of the responses are usable. The main difficulty is that many of
the farms do not have biomass facilities on-site, though the PhD student asserted
that they did. With such a low response rate, no statistical conclusions can be
drawn. There are still observable patterns, however, that can give insight into the
motivations and processes of biogas production, even with this low response rate.
As for the energy production method, six of the respondents indicate that
they have installed biogas fermenters. One respondent uses wood in the
cogeneration of heat and power. One respondent did not answer the question, but
did state that heat and electricity are both produced by his farm, which indicates
40
that either a biogas fermenter or a CHP unit is used on his farm. All six of the
respondents who confirmed that they have installed biogas facilities used both
energy crops and animal waste in fermentation. Five of these six use corn, and two
use sugar beets and grass in addition to corn. Six of the eight respondents produce
heat and electricity. One of the eight produces heat only and one produces only
electricity.
Of the eight respondents, six of them provided an installation date for their
facilities. Of these six, only one installed facilities prior to 2007. This is important
for a number of reasons. First, Germany had reached its goal of 12.5% of energy
from renewable sources by 2010 in mid-2007, at which time the country introduced
more ambitious plans. Second, increases in employment, reductions of greenhouse
gas emissions and the government’s commitment to renewable energy, illustrated
by The Renewable Energy Sources Act, EEG, were well established by 2007 and gave
investors confidence that renewable energy would continue to be an important
aspect to the political and economic future of Germany. The earliest installation was
in 1994, prior to the introduction of the EEG, though this facility was expanded in
2007, indicating that even prior to the EEG, an investment in biogas had proven to
be worthwhile.
When asked about motivation for their biomass projects, seven respondents
gave financial reasons as the answer, such as cost savings, greater economic stability
or subsidies paid by the German government. Of these seven, one stated that saving
money and becoming independent of oil and gas was the primary reason; two
directly referenced the EEG; three sited that economic stability from biogas helped
to offset the fluctuating prices of farm products. When asked if the farm was
receiving governmental support, seven of the eight respondents indicated that the
guaranteed price of electricity through the EEG was the only financial incentive they
receive. Additionally, all eight respondents answered that their facility produces
profits, though one response stated that monetary savings was the profit. One also
sited that in addition to money, the reduction in GHG emissions was a form of profit.
As for how the energy is used, four of the eight respondents state that it is
used onsite (three of these state that heat, specifically, is used onsite). Seven
41
respondents state that the energy is used locally (in the neighborhood or village) or
sold into the public electricity grid.
Five of the respondents answered affirmatively to the question of the need to
hire additional labor. This varies from one part-time employee (on one farm) to
three additional workers (on one farm). Two respondents hired two additional
workers each and one hired 2.5 workers per year.
Based on these responses, it can be concluded that the EEG is vital to biogas
production in Germany. The 20-year guaranteed fixed prices for electricity appear
not only to create profit, but also to encourage initial construction of biogas
facilities. Two of the respondents indicated that environmental concerns (either
reducing GHG emissions or becoming independent of oil and gas, though this is also
a financial motivation) also played a role in their decision to produce biomass
energy. This indicates that environmental concern is less a driver of behavior than
financial motivation, though it is still an important consideration for potential
biogas producers. The United States can use the German example, especially the
success of the EEG, to shape biogas legislation.
Problematic U.S. Practices
The United States continues certain practices that are problematic to the
environment. Additionally, U.S. policy concerning biomass also has some
problematic aspects. In order for the U.S. to become energy independent and
improve the environment, alternative solutions for some practices must be
explored.
Hydraulic Fracturing
As easily attainable sources of the non-renewable energy product natural gas
are diminished, gas companies have sought sources that are much more difficult to
obtain. One of the methods for extracting hard-to-reach natural gas, hydraulic
fracturing, accounted for 42% of U.S. natural gas production in 2007 (Svoboda,
2010). There have been several recent studies that have documented the resource
requirements and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. Fracking fluid
42
requires large amounts of water. “The EPA estimated that 70 to 140 billion gallons
of water are pumped into 35,000 fracking wells annually” (Food & Water Watch,
2011 p. 4). There is no regulated standard recipe for fracking fluid and currently,
gas extraction companies are not required to disclose the exact make up of their
fracking fluid. A New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYDEC) study, however, found over 260 chemicals in fracking fluid, including
diesel fuel, chemical lubricants and biocides (antimicrobial poisons). In addition,
brine and methane are often freed from underground sources and are commonly
discharged from hydraulic fracturing wells. All of these substances have the
potential to leak into ground and surface water and, in some cases, they have (Biello,
2010). Figure 11 is a photo of a fracking well in Pennsylvania.
Figure 11: A photo of fracking activities at the Marcellus Shale Gas formation in Pennsylvania
Source: towneforcongress.com
There is also the potential for air and water pollution from fracking wells. “A
2011 Cornell University study found that shale gas has a greater greenhouse gas
footprint than conventional gas or oil” (Food & Water Watch, 2011 p. 7). The main
contributor to these greenhouse gas emissions is methane, which is released into
the atmosphere when tight sands, coal or shale are cracked during the hydraulic
43
fracturing process. Methane gas has far greater global warming potential than
carbon dioxide and is far more dangerous to human health. When methane enters
the water system, it can be transported into homes through pipes. It is flammable,
as illustrated by some homeowners being able to set their tap water on fire in Josh
Fox's 2010 documentary “Gasland.” Methane can also cause asphyxiation in
enclosed spaces. The EPA has found houses in Wyoming and Texas, both close to
fracking wells, that contained such high concentrations of methane, that residents
could not drink their water and their homes were in danger of exploding (Food &
Water Watch, 2011). Beyond methane, fracking wells can emit other dangerous air
pollutants. The town of Dish, Texas, a town in close proximity to five hydraulic
fracturing facilities, has been found to have high airborne levels of benzene, a known
carcinogen. “Similarly, xylene and carbon disulfide (neurotoxicants), along with
naphthalene (a blood poison) and pyridines (potential carcinogens) all exceeded
legal limits, as much as 384 times levels deemed safe” (Biello, 2010).
In addition to these environmental hazards, the underground fluid injections
involved in hydraulic fracturing causes seismic activity. “A study in the journal
Earthquake Science pinpointed the location of more than 150 microearthquakes
caused by hydraulic fracturing, and the Dallas–Fort Worth region of Texas—a
fracking hub—experienced 11 mini quakes in less than a month between November
and December 2008” (Svoboda, 2010). Though no major seismic event has yet been
directly caused by fracking, continued fluid injections have caused larger
earthquakes. In 1967, outside of Denver, Colorado, a 5.5-magnitued earthquake was
triggered by the disposal of chemical waste, which had been injected underground
over the course of several years (Svoboda, 2010).
In contrast, the process of producing biogas has little, if any, of these public
health and environmental problems. It does not use the vast amounts of water that
fracking does, and it does not have the same potential for air and water pollution.
Biogas facilities do no require any chemical additives and have never been know to
cause any seismic activity or upset other natural earth systems. The greatest
environmental hazard of biogas is the toxic “silage juice” that must be kept separate
from drinking and irrigation water. Normally the liquid is reused in the fermenting
44
process or kept in a separate retention basin to ensure that it is not consumed.
Additionally, biogas facilities have the potential for methane gas to escape into the
atmosphere. Yet, biogas facilities seek to capture the methane that is already given
off by organic waste, so one can argue that any methane emissions are not adding to
the emission problem, but merely failing in its purpose.
Biofuels
Certain forms of bioenergy are more harmful than others. Liquid biofuels
developed from dedicated energy crops grown on farms are particularly
problematic (Advisory Council, 2008). Unfortunately, proponents of bioenergy
often tout the use of biofuels to alleviate dependence upon fossil fuels, while failing
to place as much attention on biogas. Many government regulations in the United
States focus heavily upon augmenting liquid fossil fuels with biofuels for transport
purposes. “Blending quotas,” which call for mixing biofuels with diesel or gasoline
for use in automobiles, are often used as an example as a way to reduce dependence
upon liquid fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the harmful land use changes involved
growing energy crops for the production of biofuels may negate the benefits of
reducing the use of liquid fossil fuels used for transportation.
Figure 12: U.S. Ethanol Production 1980 - 2007
Source: ethanol.org
Specific concerns over the environmental impacts of dedicated energy crops
have to do with the ability of the land to support the more intensive cultivation
required for energy crops and the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, which
45
can have harmful effects upon biodiversity. Additionally, there is the question of
using set-aside land to cultivate biofuel crops. “Between 2003 and 2008 more
ploughing [sic], due partly to increased cultivation of maize and rapeseed, reduced
permanent grassland by 3.4 percent… Considered a ‘carbon sink’, grassland fixes
60g carbon/m2/year, but ploughing [sic] it releases about twice as much” (Franco,
et al, 2010 p. 678). There have also been proposals to convert forests and other
carbon capturing areas to energy crop growth. This would cause massive carbon
emissions, undermining the reasoning for biofuel production. Overall, “biomass
conversion into combined heat and power offers significantly higher energy
potential than its conversion into liquid fuels” (Franco, et al, 2010 p. 679).
There is also an argument for increased use of electric or natural gas vehicles
operated using biogas that is supported by the technological problems associated
with biofuel usage in automobiles. While production of biofuels is advancing,
technology in automobiles is not moving at a similar pace. With many automobiles
unfortunately unable to technically support fuel mixtures that contain higher
percentages of biofuels, mixture quotas and goals had to be adjusted downward
(Franco, et al, 2010). “It would be better to give priority to bioenergy pathways that
generate electricity and heat from residues or from perennial crops… and for the
[blending quotas] scheme to be replaced by an expansion of electro-mobility”
(Advisory Council, 2008 p. 6). Additionally, there is the issue of land availability for
biofuels production. Growing enough energy crops to allow all gasoline and diesel
to contain just 6.75% of biofuels would create a situation in which all arable land is
used in the production of energy (Franco, et al, 2010). Though the United States
contains more arable land than many countries, there are other environmental
considerations regarding the production of biofuels that the U.S. must consider.
Most developed nations promote biofuel production as being a way to
become energy independent, to increase development in rural areas and to preserve
environmental quality when compared to fossil fuels. However, these arguments
must be examined closely to weigh the true costs and benefits of biofuel energy
production. Negative externalities regarding the growth of dedicated energy crops
can exist, especially when ethanol or biodiesel are imported from the global South.
46
The issue has two primary concerns. First is the question of whether biofuel
producers in the global South are neglecting their own food production needs by
servicing the energy needs of the North. Second is the question of how much
environmental benefit can be attained when biofuels must be transported from the
South to the North due to the environmental and economic costs associated with
transport (Franco, et al, 2010).
There is no question the central governments of Germany and the United
States have enabled the rise of the biofuels industry, “by means of market creation
via setting mandatory targets for biofuel use; by subsidizing farmers, ethanol and
biodiesel processing companies and biofuel users, by protecting domestic markets
against imports via tariff and non-tariff trade barriers; by installing large subsidies
R&D programmes [sic], and by financing experiments with various transport
technologies and programmes [sic]” (Mol, 2010 p. 67). Though U.S. biofuel policy
emphasizes sustainability, many environmentalists are against continued
government support of ethanol. They have noted that greenhouse gas emissions
may not be reduced, and in some cases may even increase, due to more intense
framing practices, destruction of forests and land use changes (Franco, et al, 2010).
While the growth of energy crops can cause changes in land use and in
cultivation that can increase greenhouse gas emissions, biological waste does not
have the same impact. This ensures “that the contribution to climate change
mitigation is determined primarily by the conversion into bioenergy carriers and
their application in energy systems” (Advisory Council, 2008 p. 10). Conversely,
cultivation of energy crops includes the release of greenhouse gases through
farming practices as well as the potential of damaging environmental impacts
through conversion to energy. The ecological impacts converting woodlands, forest
and wetlands into agricultural land for the growth of dedicated energy crops,
including losses in biodiversity and carbon storage negate any positive effects of
reducing the use of fossil fuels (Advisory Council, 2008).
Liquid biofuels are the most controversial form of biomass energy and have
many complex problems that biogas production avoids. Though transportation
creates the greatest amount of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, increased
47
production and use of biofuels are not the only ways to offset global climate change.
Increased use of electric and natural gas vehicles, which can operate on biogas, can
also achieve a reduction in fossil fuel usage in the transport sector. Use of these
types of vehicles is currently expanding and becoming more accessible to
individuals. Harnessing existing sources of biogas, such as manure, landfill gas and
food waste gas also avoids the concerns associated with cultivation of energy crops
for biofuels. These sources of biogas do not require intensive agricultural
techniques or land use changes, both of which can be harmful to the environment.
Additionally, utilizing existing sources of biogas prevents externalities associated
with biofuel production from being disproportionately placed upon poor and
developing nations. Finally, conflicts involving the use of farmland for growth of
food versus energy crops can be avoided when existing sources of biogas are
utilized.
Current Status of Biogas in the United States
There are many aspects of biogas production in the United States that differ
from the conditions in Germany. While the German government has focused on
enabling the development of renewable energy sources, the United States has not
been successful in creating a consistent policy. Yet, the United States has also shown
more innovation in the sources of biogas, utilizing both rural and urban resources.
The U.S. Political Context
Biomass energy production in the United States began in the 1970s, when the
U.S. energy sector faced a series of challenges. The oil embargo of 1973 and
increased prices for fuels drove the government to explore alternative energy
sources. In 1977, the Department of Energy was created, which included a division
dedicated to the research and development of renewable energy. In 1980, the
budget for renewable energy R&D was $542 million, which could have set the
United States on an aggressive path for alternative energy (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
By the early 1980s, however, sustainable energy had become a politically
polarizing issue, with Democrats being seen as for renewable energy and
Republicans as against. As such, President Regan advocated for cuts to the research
48
and development budget of renewable energy (Laird & Stefes, 2009 p. 2621). Not
until the start of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 did a new push for investment in
renewable energy emerge. The first President Bush was able to pass the 1992
Energy Policy Act that gave a tax break to producers of renewable electricity. Yet,
despite providing authorization for a research and development program in
renewable energy, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 did not fund any R&D. In fact, the
bill provided more funding for nuclear programs and development of fossil fuel
resources than to renewable energy. “These policies set the broad pattern for the
rest of the 1990s, production tax credits that needed almost yearly renewal,
occasionally lapsing, and a constant battle in Congress over the renewable energy
R&D budget, which resulted in an unstable budget that never grew significantly”
(Laird & Stefes, 2009 p. 2622).
In the United States, renewable energy’s popularity is largely based on the
volatile prices of gasoline. Additionally, the partisan nature of renewable energy in
the U.S. has made it impossible to guarantee a steady source of funds. “As a result,
the renewable energy R&D budget went up and down during the 1990s and into the
2000s, with Congress sometimes cutting the President’s requested budget for
renewables and sometimes increasing it” (Laird & Stefes, 2009 p. 2625). With
research and development limited, universities, industry researchers and investors
could not pursue long-term projects. This helped to create the cycle of fluctuation in
funding for renewable energy. Without a guarantee of steady funding, researchers
did not pursue studies that would create a demand for funding, which allowed
politicians to further reduce funding. As a result, industry and academic lobbying
groups have struggled to organize and gain traction (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
Currently, support for biomass energy is focused primarily upon production
of ethanol. There is no specific policy aimed at biogas, though some federal
programs broadly focused on all renewable energy sources give incentives to biogas
producers. Biogas producers can apply for grants, such as the Renewable Energy
Grants funded by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or loans such as Clean
Renewable Energy Bonds. Yet, with austerity measures in place, federal renewable
energy incentives are beginning to be defunded. Included among these is the
49
recently expired 1603 program, which funded renewable energy projects through
the U.S. Department of the Treasury until September 30, 2011 (USEPA).
With federal funding becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, many biogas
producers depend upon state funding. Several states, including California, Oregon,
Minnesota and New York have ambitious energy goals and offer incentives to
renewable energy producers. Yet, the fragmentation created by the lack of a
cohesive federal policy makes for an inefficient system, allows companies to locate
in states with less environmental and energy regulation, and slows efforts to pursue
clean energy technologies.
The U.S. Economic Context
Most economic incentives for bioenergy in the United States pertain to the
production of biofuels, including the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which was
established by the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. This act introduced the
Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which pays $0.51 per gallon for
ethanol producers. The VEETC also subsidizes ethanol refineries that produce
fewer than 15 million gallons per year with an additional $0.10 per gallon (Jessup,
2009 p. 283). Biodiesel was also subsidized by the VEETC. It provided $1.00 per
gallon for the production of biodiesel from agricultural feedstocks and $0.50 per
gallon for the production of biodiesel from used oil and grease (Jessup, 2009 p. 283).
These investments by the federal government spurred growth of ethanol and
biodiesel production. For example, according to the National Biodiesel Board,
biodiesel production in the United States increased from 75 million gallons per year
in 2005, when the EPAct was introduced, to 700 million gallons per year in 2008
(Jessup, 2009 p. 283). Additional subsidies have also been introduced and revised
through the Farm Bill.
Yet subsidies are not the only means of financial support that the United
States offers to producers of biofuels. A 2.5% tariff and a $0.54 per gallon import
barrier on ethanol produced outside of the United States discourage foreign
competition in the ethanol market (Jessup, 2009 p. 284). Federal funds have also
been directed toward research for biofuel technology. The EPAct of 2005 gave
“$632 million in 2007, $743 million in 2008, and $852 million in 2009” (Jessup,
50
2009 p. 284) for biofuel research. In addition to the economic incentives at the
federal level, several states have also introduced financial incentives for biofuel
production. These state incentives include renewable energy portfolio standards
and excise tax exemptions for biofuel production (Jessup, 2009 p. 284). These
figures indicate that government subsidies are an effective means to creating
innovation in biomass energy technology.
As discussed above, the production of biofuels create many environmental
and land use problems that biogas avoids. U.S. policy should aim to diversify and
expand the types of bioenergy that are incentivized, focus on creating more efficient
energy crops and utilize other potential bioenergy producers, such as animal waste.
Methane emissions from animal waste account for approximately 10.5% of the
agricultural sectors greenhouse gas emissions (Key & Sneeringer, 2011 p. 2). Yet
methane’s harmful properties can be eliminated through combustion. “Burning one
ton of methane is equivalent to eliminating about 24 tons of carbon dioxide” (Key &
Sneeringer, 2011 p. 2). When methane emissions are contained and stored for
future use, reductions in harmful emissions can be achieved, while energy is
simultaneously created. The use of anaerobic digesters in this process helps to
optimize the production of methane by adjusting temperature and water content.
Noting that biogas anaerobic digesters have many potential benefits to
livestock farms, Key & Sneering seek to find a way to make their installation and
operation more affordable. “Despite their benefits, digesters have not been widely
adopted, mainly because the costs of constructing and maintaining these systems
have exceeded the benefits accruing to operators” (Key & Sneeringer, 2011 p. 1).
The authors suggest that creating a carbon offset program and putting a price upon
the production of carbon is one way to stimulate investment in biogas facilities on
dairy and swine farms. In this way, farms would be incentivized to reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions and to generate biogas for profit.
Among the many factors that can contribute to the success of biogas
production, the method of manure storage and local climate are the most significant
determinants of a farm’s methane production potential. In general, a lagoon storage
system creates more emissions than a pit system, and warmer climates create more
51
emissions than do cooler climates (Key & Sneeringer, 2011). These considerations
make some operations more suitable than others for biogas production. Yet, as the
German example illustrates, these factors can be controlled through the frequency
of manure collection and the use of heating systems.
Another deterrent to manure based biogas production has to do with the size
of swine and dairy herds. Currently, the economies of scale involved in biogas
production make it prohibitively expensive for smaller farms to invest in anaerobic
digester facilities. Key & Sneeringer, (2011), argue that finding an appropriate price
for carbon would stimulate greater investment. “At a carbon price of $13,
greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 9.8 and 12.4 million ton (carbon- dioxide
equivalent) for the dairy and hog sectors, respectively. This amounts to reductions
of 61-62 percent of manure-generated methane in these sectors. A doubling of the
carbon price to $26 would cause manure-based methane emissions from dairy and
hogs together to be reduced by 78 percent” (Key & Sneeringer, 2011 p. 6). Yet, there
are other methods that would also stimulate investment in biogas. Greater
government support in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, net metering laws and
higher minimum renewable energy requirements for utility companies could aid in
the expansion of biogas production, even if a price for carbon offsets is not
implemented (Key & Sneeringer, 2011).
The U.S. Social Context
As noted above, the power of the farm lobby in Germany has been influential
in persuading political players to create economic incentives for the production of
all forms of renewable energy. Hambrick, et al (2010), have argued that the
agriculture lobby in the United States is missing this opportunity. Rather than
embracing renewable energy as a potential new form of profit, U.S. farmers view
greenhouse gas emission caps as a financial disincentive. The American Farm
Bureau Federation is concerned that “many more farmers [will be] exposed to
higher fuel prices resulting from carbon emission caps” (Hambrick, et al, 2010 p.
28). There are two aspects of this argument that make the social context of the
United States different from that of Germany. The first is that while German
consumers may be willing to pay a higher price for renewable energy sources, there
52
is evidence that U.S. consumers will not. Second is the attitude among many
Americans that the science regarding global climate change is questionable, while in
Germany, it is an accepted reality.
Many scholars argue that these two forces have prevented the United States’
electorate from applying pressure upon political leaders to become more proactive
in the legislation and regulation of renewable energy. However, Laird & Stefes
(2009), point out that this argument may have some inherent flaws. “First, public
opinion does not always drive policy making; while there is a relationship, it is a
complex and contingent one. Second, public opinion in the United States and
Germany on environmental protection in general and renewable energy in
particular has not been very different” (Laird & Stefes, 2009 p. 2620). What social
pressure does exist in the United States is channeled into production of biofuels,
rather than biogas. The massive lobbying power of the U.S. agriculture industry
focuses on the production of ethanol, which may not be the best energy alternative
for the country.
There is evidence, however, that lacking political leadership, certain
American interest groups have attempted to take control of the issue of biomass
production. An example of this is the Council on Sustainable Biomass Production,
which creates standards for biomass energy producers and includes members from
government agencies, academia, conservation groups and farmers (Hambrick, et al,
2010). Though this initiative is commendable, it relies upon voluntary compliance.
Unfortunately, there will always be political and industrial leaders who will pursue
less expensive and more damaging energy over more expensive and safer
alternatives. The social context of biogas production in the United States is,
therefore, defined by fragmentation. Disagreements regarding the science of
climate change, the cost of developing renewable energy sources and the types of
biomass energy that should be produced have led to a disjointed and confused
American electorate.
53
Biogas Potentials for the United States: Three Case Studies
Manure-Based Biogas at the Haubenschild Farms
There are several compelling arguments in favor of utilizing manure to
produce biogas energy. Many diary and hog farms in the United States have the
potential to improve environmental quality and obtain an additional source of
income by installing anaerobic digesters on their farms. The Haubenschild Dairy
Farms in Princeton, Minnesota is an example of a successful manure-based biogas
facility in the United States (The Minnesota Project, 2002). The Haubenschild’s
installed an anaerobic digester in 1999. At the outset, the farm expected to benefit
from the installation of an anaerobic digester through increased odor control,
production of renewable energy, reduction in dangerous pathogens, reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions and benefits to aquatic systems through reduction in
oxygen demands of treated manure. Because the application of manure can
introduce weeds into the cropland, the Haubenschild Farms also expected a
reduction in the number of weeds by using the digested manure. A three-year study
of the farm conducted by The Minnesota Project and completed in 2002 examined,
in depth, the requirements for and outcomes of manure-based biogas to observe
whether these expected benefits were realized (The Minnesota Project, 2004).
The Haubenschild Farms has many characteristics that make it suitable for the
installation of anaerobic digesters. The management of manure is the first
consideration in determining if an anaerobic digester is appropriate. Ideally,
manure should come in a liquid, slurry or semi-solid form and be collected, at a
minimum, on a weekly basis. Additionally, the manner in which manure is stored
can increase the production of biogas, with the best methods of storage being open
pits, ponds and lagoons (USEPA, 2010). The installation of the digester coincided
with an overall expansion of the Haubenschild’s operations, which allowed for a
manure management system to be designed specifically to be compatible with the
digester. In this case, it included installing a 350,000-gallon in-ground concrete tank
that moves manure into a heated anaerobic digester (Rudd, 2006). Additionally, the
Haubenschild Farms, in pursuing long-term goals to maintain farm profitability,
54
increased the herd size, which allowed the farm to take advantage of the economies
of scale (larger herds produce greater efficiency in anaerobic digestion) involved in
biogas energy production. For a biogas system to recover costs in constructing and
operations, “dairy operations with milking herds of at least 500 cows and swine
operations with at least 2,000 total head of confinement capacity” (USEPA, 2010 p.
5) are the optimal size. Finally, anaerobic digestion improves the quality of manure,
which the Haubenschild’s also use in growth of crops. “By applying digested effluent
to the fields instead of raw manure, the Haubenschilds expected to increase the
useable nutrient value of the manure, and thereby phase-out the use of commercial
starter fertilizer” (The Minnesota Project, 2002 p. 13).
The environmental goals of the Haubenschild Farms have been met or
exceeded with the installation of the anaerobic digester. The reduction of odor has
been noticeable to the Haubenschild’s and their neighbors. Additionally,
greenhouse gas emissions, particularly methane emissions have been greatly
reduced. “In the first 10 months, it was estimated that the equivalent of
approximately 680 tons of carbon dioxide were mitigated” (The Minnesota Project,
2002 p. 25). Finally, water pollution was mitigated in two ways. The anaerobic
digestion at the Haubenschild Farms is done at mesophilic temperatures (95°–
105°F), which kills many pathogens and reduces the potential for this type of water
pollution. Also, anaerobic digestion reduces the total oxygen demand of manure,
which is important for the health of aquatic life. If untreated manure spills into
surface waters, the high oxygen content can damage or kill aquatic life.
Unless there is financial incentive, including financing opportunities, however,
environmental benefits alone are probably not enough to implement a widespread
biogas program. The Haubenschild Farms took advantage of various resources to
raise the money necessary to install the anaerobic digester. AgSTAR, a national
program sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture and the EPA,
qualified the Haubenschild Farms as a “Charter Farm” and provided design and
operational assistance in the construction of the digester. Figure 13 is an AgSTAR
chart of estimated emissions reductions in the United States for each year between
55
2000 and 2010. Additionally, the Haubenschild’s received financial assistance from
The Onanegozie Resource Conservation and Development Council, The Minnesota
Project, Minnesota Department of Commerce, Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance, and Minnesota Department of Agriculture. The Haubenschild’s were
able to secure funding from these agencies by agreeing to become a pilot program
study to increase understanding of biogas production and ascertain its viability for
other Minnesota farms (The Minnesota Project, 2002). With $87,500 worth of
grants and a $150,000 no-interest loan, the Haubenschild Farms directly paid only
$77,500 for the installation of the digester.
Figure 13: Chart of estimated annual emissions reductions from anaerobic digestion in the U.S. 2000 -
2010
Source: U.S. EPA
Energy costs are also a component to profitability of anaerobic digestion. The
economic benefits of biogas recovery sited by the EPA include the ability to use
energy on site to reduce purchases of energy, as well as selling energy to the electric
grid. With many states utilizing renewable energy credits or paying a premium for
renewable sources of energy, biogas can provide a source of income. The
Haubenschild Farms secured a contract to sell surplus power with East Central
56
Energy, a local electric cooperative. The co-op “offered to buy all excess electricity
produced at the full retail rate (at the time, 7.25 cents per kilowatt-hour; currently
7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour), as well as giving them the same retail rate for all
electricity generated and used on-farm. East Central Energy sees this as… providing
a reliable source of electricity for its green power program, which it sells to its
customers at a slight premium” (The Minnesota Project, 2002 p. 16). Biogas
producers can see energy savings in the utilization of waste heat in water or space
heating, as well. The Haubenschild’s save approximately $4000 per year by heating
their water with heat recovered from the digester’s engine. Additionally, the
Haubenschild Farms became one of the first farms in the country to sell carbon
credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange. The farm is issued carbon credits in the
amount of methane that is prevented from entering the atmosphere and can then
sell these credits for cash (Rudd, 2006).
The energy potential from biogas at these farm facilities is substantial.
“Nationally, swine and dairy operations could generate more than 13 million MWh
of electricity each year – equivalent to more than 1,670 MW of electrical grid
capacity or more than 44 million MMBtus of displaced fossil fuel use…swine and
dairy operations could potentially generate $1.3 billion annually in avoided
electricity purchases” (USEPA, 2010 p. 5). The Haubenschild Farms have seen a
steady increase in electricity production since the installation of the facility. By
2002, the Haubenschild Farms were producing approximately 4-kilowatt hours
(kWh/hr) per cow per day. The Minnesota Project’s case study of the Haubenschild
Farms confirm that, overall, there is a strong argument in favor of installing
anaerobic digesters for the production of biogas at existing diary and swine farms.
The study concluded that the Haubenschild’s investment has been profitable, thanks
to beneficial energy prices, grants and a no-interest loan for the facilities. Additional
benefits have included cost savings on heat and electricity, odor reduction and the
sale of digestate as fertilizer. As noted in the report, “even without the non-energy
benefits a digester may still be cheap ‘insurance’ against odor complaints and
lawsuits even if operating at a loss” (The Minnesota Project, 2004 p. 21).
57
Landfill Gas at the Jackson County Green Energy Park
Landfill gas (LFG) presents another opportunity for biogas energy
production in the United States. The U.S. EPA developed the Landfill Methane
Outreach Program (LMOP) in 1994 to assist companies, local and state agencies,
organizations and landfills in harnessing the economic potential of landfill gas, while
contributing to a cleaner environment. Municipal solid waste is a large source of
methane emissions, making it both one of the biggest producers of greenhouse
gases, and one of the greatest opportunities for biogas. Unlike manure gas
generators, landfill gas is not dependent upon anaerobic digesters for the
production of biogas. Instead, a series of wells are installed in a closed landfill, and a
vacuum system direct “the collected gas to a central point where it can be processed
and treated depending upon the ultimate use for the gas” (U.S. EPA). Figure 14 is a
diagram of a landfill gas retrieval system. Landfill gas, like other forms of biogas can
be used to generate electricity, produce heat, or be refined to natural gas quality and
fed into the energy grid. The EPA identifies the Jackson County Green Energy Park
in Dillsboro, North Carolina, as one of the success stories of the LMOP.
58
Figure 14: Diagram of a vertical well landfill gas collection system
Source: U.S. EPA
The Jackson County Green Energy Park in is a good example of a landfill gas
recovery program for a number of reasons. First, Dillsboro exemplifies the most
common system of landfill gas collection, a vertical well system, which “involves
drilling vertical wells in the waste and connecting those wellheads to lateral piping
that transports the gas to a collection header using a blower or vacuum induction
system” (EPA, 2010 p. 1). Additionally the small size of the landfill and the artisan
purposes the biogas fuels, including glass blowing studios, blacksmithing, metal art
foundry, pottery and greenhouses that are powered by the landfill gas portray how
biogas can be applied to a variety of purposes, allowing communities flexibility in
design and application. Finally, the project’s stated goals of economic development,
environmental protection and education illustrate the variety of ways that biogas
can provide benefits to a community (Jackson County Green Energy Park).
The environmental benefits provided by the Jackson County Green Energy
Park include greenhouse gas emissions reduction and reduction in the use of fossil
fuels for heat and electricity. Collection of the landfill gas prevents approximately
59
222 tons of methane from entering the atmosphere each year. The collected gas,
which has a methane content of 58%, provides 40 standard cubic feet of LFG per
minute and yields approximately 1.2 million Btu of heat per hour. These statistics
equal approximately “[c]arbon sequestered annually by 1,010 acres of pine or fir
forests, annual greenhouse gas emissions from 910 passenger vehicles, or carbon
dioxide emissions from 11,000 barrels of oil consumed… Estimated emissions
reductions of 0.0013 million metric tons of carbon equivalents” (U.S. EPA).
Additionally, the Green Energy Park provides odor control and area beautification
through the growth of grasses and trees on top of the landfill site.
Like the Haubenschild Farms, the Jackson County Green Energy Park receives
funds for financing from a variety of sources. The Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC) has paid the park $100,000 in grants since 2007. State and local
government agencies have also aided in the funding of the park. The county
invested approximately $400,000 into the building of the park that would have
normally gone toward site cleanup, as the methane levels at the landfill prior to the
biogas recovery system installation were dangerously high. In addition to local
funding sources, the park has received state and federal grants for more than
$600,000 since it opened. This includes $140,000 from the State Energy Office and
$120,000 from the North Carolina Rural Center (Morris, 2010).
The economic benefits of the Jackson County Green Energy Park include job
creation, energy savings, and increased tourism. The redevelopment of an old
industrial site into artist studios have created 20 jobs and created a new retail
center for the area. The building next to the landfill that was once home to a
transfer station and recycling center now houses a blacksmith, a glassblowing
studio and a ceramics house, three artistic endeavors that require great amounts of
heat. The energy from the biogas has saved these tenants thousands of dollars in
fuel costs and has reduced the need for artist to obtain large loans for their
businesses. Greenhouses are used for propagation by a local florist and the county’s
grounds department and are heated with methane gas from the landfill. The county
saves approximately $40,000 per year by using these greenhouses (Miller, 2011).
The tourist industry has also improved. The park offers tours and classes to aid in
60
educating others in the benefits of LFG, and hosts 800 - 1000 visitors from around
the world annually, which has benefited the surrounding community.
The Jackson County Green Energy Park is continuing to develop its programs
and energy resources. The landfill is estimated to have enough methane to provide
25 years of gas, and can support 10 additional wells (Morris, 2010). The park also
plans to install anaerobic digesters and solar collectors to meet future energy needs
in an environmentally friendly way. Additional artist studios, galleries and a larger
educational center are also planned (Kansas Department of Health and
Environment).
Food Waste Gas at the East Bay Municipal Utility District
One component of municipal solid waste that normally ends up in landfills,
food waste, has the potential to be separately disposed of and utilized in the
production of biogas. Municipalities have the incentive to mitigate climate change
through reduced greenhouse gas emissions, as well as benefit financially through
monetary savings and generation of electricity. In 2008, the Environmental
Protection Agency completed a study of the California East Bay Municipal Utility
District’s anaerobic digestion of food waste. The study sought to determine how
cities have the potential to utilize existing anaerobic digesters at wastewater
treatment plants to create additional renewable energy resources and to
demonstrate the benefits of food waste digestion (East Bay Municipal Utility
District, 2008).
61
Figure 15: U.S. Solid Waste 2010
Source: U.S. EPA
The East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) Main Wastewater
Treatment Plant (MWWTP) has several characteristics that make it suitable for the
study of food waste anaerobic digestion. First, given it’s location in the Bay Area of
California, EBMUD is located an area in which food waste is the largest source of
municipal solid waste and represents an opportunity for urban development of
biogas. Figure 15 itemizes, by percentage, the most common types of municipal
solid waste in the U.S. for the year 2010. Several municipalities are exploring
alternative methods of food waste disposal as they attempt to meet federal, state
and local solid waste diversion goals. Some cities, such as Portland, Oregon focus on
composting as an alternate method (Visse, 2004). The second reason that EBMUD
makes a good case study is that the MWWTP already contains two anaerobic
digesters, which are used in the conversion of wastewater solids into methane,
carbon dioxide and water. It is not unusual for municipalities to have this type of
infrastructure, making EBMUD an appropriate comparison for district seeking to
62
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “In California, approximately 137 wastewater
treatment plants have anaerobic digesters, with an estimated excess capacity of 15 –
30% (Shang et. al., 2006)” (EBMUD, 2008 p. 1). Finally, the facility was able to
handle 15-day, 10-day, and 5-day mean cell residence times at both mesophilic (95°
– 105°F) and thermophilic (135° – 160°F) temperatures, so that efficient time and
temperature parameters for food waste gas could be determined.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District study showed that environmental
benefits of food waste digestion include capture of methane and reduction of solid
waste. Many municipal wastewater facilities already produce methane from
wastewater solids. Food waste, however, has some advantages of over wastewater
solids. Food waste has half of the residual waste after digestion than wastewater
solids, and the residual waste can be composted. Results of the study also show that
food waste is more easily biodegraded than wastewater solid and allows for a
shorter digestion period. Additionally, digesters can process more food waste at
one time than wastewater solids without displaying adverse effects (USEPA, 2010).
Digestion of food waste also has environmental advantages over composting. While
composting presents an opportunity for some cities to reduce solid waste and
improve environmental health, generating biogas from food waste has the
additional benefit of creating energy to meet power demands. “While composting
provides an alternative to landfill disposal of food waste, it requires large areas of
land; produces volatile organic compounds (smog precursors), which are released
into the atmosphere; and consumes energy” (EBMUD, 2008).
It is estimated that investing in food waste digestion can have a relatively
short payback period, as little as three years, depending upon the existing
infrastructure at the wastewater facility. The East Bay Municipal District received
funding for the project by the EPA, who in 2006, awarded EBMUD a $50,000 grant
(Environment News Service, 2009). There are several additional funding sources
available for cities that want to pursue this alternate source of energy. Additionally,
loans, grants and rebates are offered by the federal government and by many states.
Private funding is also possible through performance contracting, in which a
63
contractor will pay the up-front fees for the facility and are paid back by the city’s
energy savings. After the contractor is paid back, the city begins collecting income
from the energy (USEPA, 2010).
Economic benefits for a municipality using anaerobic digestion to reduce
food waste include energy savings and selling the residual waste left over after food
waste has gone through digestion as fertilizer. This fertilizer has the added benefits
of reducing the need for chemical fertilizers, improving plant health, reducing
erosion and nutrient run-off, improving water retention of soil and alleviating
compaction of soil, all of which can have economic costs. Additionally, the shorter
period required for digestion means that smaller digesters can be used in food
waste digestion as compared to wastewater solids, which translates to a smaller
upfront investment cost (USEPA, 2010).
The energy potential of food waste is significant. ”[A]naerobically digesting
100 tons of food waste per day, five days a week, provides sufficient power for
approximately 1,000 homes” (U.S. EPA). Given that food waste is one of the largest
forms of municipal solid waste in the United States, the energy impacts could be
very large. “If 50% of the food waste generated each year in the U.S. was
anaerobically digested, enough electricity would be generated to power over 2.5
million homes for a year” (U.S. EPA). The current economic problems faced by many
cities, the challenges to lowering greenhouse gas emissions and the desire to reduce
dependence upon foreign oil could make food waste digestion to produce biogas an
important strategy for municipalities.
64
Lessons from Germany and the United States
Laird and Stefes (2009) argue that the usual assumptions explaining the
differences in renewable energy policies between Germany and the United States
may not fully explain why the two countries have developed divergent renewable
energy strategies. Germany and the U.S. have several similarities that could
potentially create similarities in their renewable energy policies. “Both countries
have large and sophisticated manufacturing systems and both countries invested
heavily in research and development beginning in the 1970s” (Laird & Stefes, 2009
p. 2620). Beyond these similarities in capacity, Germany and the United States both
have economic incentive to pursue new production capabilities. The job creation
that would accompany manufacturing, installation and maintenance of biogas
anaerobic digesters could be beneficial to both countries, especially during the
current period of slow growth and high unemployment (Laird & Stefes, 2009).
Despite these similarities, energy policy, especially in regard to the development of
renewable technology has differed between the countries.
Perhaps the biggest difference between German and U.S. renewable energy
policy is cohesion. This is evident in the literature. The European Union has set
minimum goals and standards for energy efficiency, which Germany has used as a
guide to create even more ambitious guidelines. While in the United States, there is
no federal standard. Each state in the U.S. creates its own goals and standards. This
fragmentation is prevalent throughout U.S. renewable energy policy and poses the
greatest challenge, and the best opportunity for policy-makers.
Laird & Stefes (2009) also argue that the most significant difference between
German and American policy, however, is the adoption by Germany of the feed-in-
tariff (FIT) through the EEG. This argument is supported by the results of my
research survey, with nearly all respondents citing stable electricity prices as a
motivation for installation of biogas facilities. “The FIT reflected a growing
65
consensus among German parliamentarians that renewable energy is needed and
deserved state support to become competitive in the energy market” (Laird & Stefes,
2009 p. 2622). Once the FIT was established in German policy, detractors of
renewable energy have never been able to shift policy away from these subsidies.
The vocal support of renewable energy of much of the German electorate aids in
maintaining these policies.
The intertwining of the political, economic and social conditions surrounding
biogas production have created different results in the United States versus
Germany. Without strong political leadership, research and development of
renewable energy in the United States has lagged behind that of Germany. Lacking
strong manufacturing and farm lobbying groups, renewable energy has not become
as large contributor to the American economy as it has in Germany. Fragmented
advocacy groups in the United States have thus far failed to focus political attention
on biogas production technology. Additionally, “orientation toward market-friendly
policies in the United States increased the political parries that subsidies for
renewable energy needed to overcome” (Laird & Stefes, 2009 p. 2626). Renewable
energy technologies in the United States must compete against one another, rather
than the entire renewable sector competing against traditional fossil fuels. Yet,
these obstacles to biogas energy production can be overcome with continued
research and changes in policy.
66
Recommendations for the United States
Research Recommendations
Future Surveys
Future surveys could go into greater detail regarding the profitability of
biogas facilities on farms. Specifically, questions regarding government subsidies,
carbon exchange markets, environmental benefits and fixed energy prices can be
explored. Understanding the motivation of biogas producers can help inform policy
and encourage others to become involved in the process.
Better Fermentation Tank Design
Research and development of anaerobic tank design can lead to less methane
leakage and greater energy potential of biogas. It could also increase efficiency and
potentially allow for shorter fermentation periods. This would potentially allow
biogas producers to become more profitable, sooner.
Determine Efficient Types of Anaerobic Bacteria
There is still much to learn about several of the elements involved in the
process of anaerobic digestion. Perhaps the area of greatest learning potential is
how different anaerobic bacteria aid in the process of creating biogas.
Understanding how these bacteria interact with climate, different types of digestate
material and water content may lead greater biogas yields and a more efficient
digestion process.
Test Dedicated Energy Crops for Methane Yield, Harvesting Time and
Environmental Conservation
Though there are many existing sources of biogas that should be exploited
before dedicated energy crops are used, understanding what the most efficient
energy crops are could strengthen the process of producing biogas. This includes
studying various climatic conditions, such as average temperatures and annual
rainfall, to determine what crops would be most appropriate in differing climatic
67
zones. With this knowledge, potential land use conflicts and certain intense
agricultural practices could be avoided.
Policy Recommendations
Create a Cohesive Federal Policy
Perhaps the most important step the United States can make toward utilizing
biogas is to create a cohesive federal policy on renewable energy. The
fragmentation that currently exists pertaining to energy policy has caused the
United States to fall behind other countries in both reduction of GHG emissions and
potential economic benefits in development of energy technology. The lack of
political leadership has allowed U.S. investment in renewable energy generally and
biogas specifically to languish. Only with committed government support will the
potential of this form of energy be realized.
Modify Regulation and Subsidization of Oil and Gas Companies
Create Feed-In Tariffs
As illustrated by the German example, the feed-in tariff approach not only
provides the necessary financial support for producers of biogas, it also gives
investors confidence by signaling that prices for energy will remain constant for
several years. My survey results display how important this tool has been for
Germany. Rather than focusing on subsidies for specific forms of energy or specific
crops (i.e. corn in the production of ethanol), the United States should incentivize
the creation of electricity by whatever means. This would allow producers to decide
how to utilize existing circumstances to best benefit financially.
Shift Focus from Biofuels to Biogas
Current U.S. policy favors the production of ethanol over biogas, though
biogas is both environmentally and economically superior. “Methane obtained from
the anaerobic digestion of both manure and energy crops has proven to be more
cost effective than other biomass energy forms” (Hambrick, et al, 2010 p. 24).
Taking current subsidies from the production of biofuels and channeling that
investment into electric and natural gas vehicles provides the opportunity to reduce
emissions from the transportation sector without the environmental dangers
represented by ethanol production.
68
Create a Greenhouse Gas Exchange Market
Creating a federal greenhouse gas exchange market will provide incentives
for biogas production. It would allow biogas producers to profit from production, as
well as providing a disincentive to greenhouse gas emitters. Using a basket strategy
in which various greenhouse gases are weighted according to their climate change
potentials would give methane gas a heavy weight, and further encourage
development of biogas. Additionally, a program at the federal level would avoid
race-to-the-bottom situations in which industries locate in states that have the
fewest environmental regulations.
Use Dedicated Energy Crops for Biogas Only After Existing Sources have
Been Exhausted
With rural sources, such as animal waste, and urban sources, such as landfill
and food waste gas already abundant, the United States should focus on harnessing
existing methane emissions before subsidizing growth of energy crops. Dedicated
energy crops should be considered the final phase of biogas production to offset
non-renewable energy sources and eliminate the need for dangerous practices such
as hydraulic fracturing. In this way, the inherent land use conflicts that arise, and
the potential environmental damage caused by the growth of energy crops can be
mitigated.
69
References
Akademie Für Eneuerbare Energien (The Academy of Renewable Energies) Site Visit, December 9, 2011 http://www.akademie-ee.de American Coalition for Ethanol http://www.ethanol.org/index.php?id=34&parentid=8 Baetz, Juegern (2011): “Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022” Salon.com online magazine, May 30 2011 Baumgarte, Eckehardt Farm Site Visit, December 16, 2011 Biogas Ronnenberg www.bbfm.de Beaumont, Justin (2011): “NEURUS – PPT Session on Comparative Research and In- Depth Interviewing,” September 21, 2011 Biello, David (2010): “What the Frack? Natural Gas from Subterranean Shale Promises the U.S. energy Independence –With Environmental Costs” Scientific American Magazine, March 30, 2010 Biodiesel.org http://www.biodiesel.org/ Bundesministerium fur Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (2009): National Biomass Action Plan for Germany City of Ann Arbor, Michigan http:// www.a2gov.org Converse, Alvin O. (2007): Renewable energy in the United States Is there enough land? Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Vol. 136-140, p. 611 – 624 East Bay Municipal Utility District (2008): “Anaerobic Digestion of Food Waste” Final Report, March 2008 Editors (2011): “Safety First, Fracking Second” Scientific American Magazine, October 19, 2011 Elbtalaue Wendland www.luechow-dannenberg.de Energy Future Coalition http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/biofuels/fact_ethanol.htm
70
Environment News Service “East Bay Utility Digests Food Waste to Produce Energy, Compost” July 15, 2009 http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2009/2009- 07-15-093.asp Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & Deutsche Energie-Agentur (the German Energy Agency ) GmbH (dena) http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/renewables-made-in- germany-start/bioenergy/biofuels.html http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/renewables-made-in- germany-start/bioenergy/biogas.html http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/renewables-made-in- germany-start/bioenergy/solid-biomass.html Food & Water Watch (2011): “The Case for a Ban on Gas Fracking” June 2011 Fox, Josh Gasland Documentary www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking Franco, Jennifer; Levidow, Les; Fig, David; Goldfarb, Lucia; Honicke, Mireille & Mendonca, Maria Luisa (2010): Assumptions in the European Union Biofuels policy: frictions with the experiences in Germany, Brazil and Mozambique Journal of Peasant Studies, 37:4, 661-698 German Advisory Council on Global Change (2008): World in Transition Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use Summary for Policy-Makers German Biogas Association www.biogas.org Gillis, Justin & Dugger, Celia W. (2011): “U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century’s End” The New York Times May 3, 2011 GRIN.com http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/126922/rentability-of-biodiesel-plant- in-germany Halperin, Alex “Ethanol: Myths and Realities Ten questions – and answers – about the fuel that’s supposed to save the economy” Bloomberg Businessweek May 19, 2006 Hambrick, Wilson; Jungjohann, Arne; Chiu, Amanda & Flynn, Hilary (2010): Beyond Biofuels: Renewable Energy Opportunities for US Famers. A Transatlantic Comparison on a Growing Business for Agriculture The Green Political Foundation Honda http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural- gas/?ef_id=aD5Pkczzj0gAAMZy:20120420205411:s
71
House, David William The Complete Biogas Handbook Peace Press 1981 Isermann, K. & Isermann, R. (1998): Food production and consumption in Germany: N flows and N emissions Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 52, 289 – 301 Jaeger, Carlo C.; Paroussos, Leonidas; Mangalagiu, Diana; Kupers, Roland; Mandel, Antoine; Tavara, Joan David; Meissner, Frank & Lass, Wiebke (2011): A New Growth Path for Europe. Generating Prosperity and Jobs in the Low-Carbon Economy Final Report German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jackson County Green Energy Park http://www.jcgep.org/index.html http://www.jcgep.org/collection.html Jake Towne for U.S. Congress http://www.towneforcongress.com Jessup, Russell W. (2009): Development and Status of Dedicated energy crops in the United States In Vitro Cell.Dev.Biol.—Plant Vol. 45, p. 282–290 Julius Kühn-Institut http://www.jki.bund.de/en/startseite/institute/zuechtungsforschung- landwirtschaft/2-energetische-nutzung-von-nr.html Kansas Department of Health and Environment http://www.kdheks.gov/waste/workshops/works11/presentations/Muth- JacksonCoGreenEnergyPark.pdf Key, Nigel & Sneeringer, Stacy (2011): Carbon Prices and the Adoption of Methane Digesters on Dairy and Hog Farms US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service Laird, Frank N. & Stefes, Christoph (2009): The diverging paths of German and United States policies for renewable energy: Sources of difference Energy Policy Vol. 37, p. 2619 – 2629 Miller, Cynthia “Jackson County Green Energy Park Garbage to Gas To Arts” The Appalachian Voice Online December 21, 2011 http://appvoices.org/2011/12/21/jackson-county-green-energy-park/ Minnesota Project (2004): “Part A: Manure/Soil/Crop Interactions” Haubenschild Farm Case Study, 2004 Minnesota Project (2004): “Part B: Economic Viability Of Alternative Dairy Systems” Haubenschild Farm Case Study, 2004
72
Minnesota Project (2004): Part C: “Weed Seed Survival As Affected By Manure Handling” Haubenschild Farm Case Study 2004 Mol, Arthur P.J. (2010): Environmental authorities and biofuel controversies, Environmental Politics, 19:1, 61 – 79 Morris, D. (2004): Designing an Effective Federal Biomass Program Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology Vol. 113 – 116, p. 5 – 12 Morris, Giles “Jackson Green Energy Park gets its day in the sun” Smokey Mountain News August 10, 2010 National Geographic http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022- breaking-fuel-from-the-rock National Resources Defense Council “Drilling Down Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Production” October 2007 http://www.nrdc.org NaturalGas.org http://www.naturalgas.org http://www.naturalgas.org/business/demand.asp http://www.naturalgas.org/shale/fuelinggrowth.asp http://www.naturalgas.org/shale/shalewells.asp Nelder, Chris (2012): “Energy Independence, or Impending Oil Shocks?” www.smartplanet.com February 22, 2012 Nelson, Carl & Lamb, John (2002): “Final Report: Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester Updated!” The Minnesota Project August, 2002 Negro, Simona O. & Hekkert, Marko P. (2008): Explaining the success of emerging technologies by innovation system functioning: the case of biomass digestion in Germany Technology & Strategic Management, 20:4, 465 – 482 Plugs and Cars http://www.plugsandcars.blogspot.com Questionnaires from farmers distributed in fall 2011 Rountree, Stephen & Estrada, Stefan (2010): “Breaking Fuel From the Rock” National Geographic Online Magazine, 2010 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022-breaking-fuel- from-the-rock/ Rudd, Kari “Farm of the Future: the Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester” Clean Energy Resource Teams, February 2006
73
http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/community-projects/case- study/farm-future-haubenschild-farms-anaerobic-digester Simon, Sonja & Wiegmann, Kirsten (2009): Modelling sustainable bioenergy potentials from agriculture for Germany and Eastern European countries Biomass and Bioenergy, 33, 603 – 609 Stepmap Design Your Own Map http://www.stepmap.de/karte/a-biomassekraftwerke-in-deutschland- 136281 Svoboda, Elizabeth (2010): “The Hard Facts About Fracking” Popular Mechanics December 13, 2010 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/the-hard- facts-about-fracking U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm www.eia.gov/naturalgas/importsexport/annual/index.cfm U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/ http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projectscandidates/profiles/jacksoncountyncgre enenerg.html http://www.epa.gov/region9/waterinfrastructure/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) “Turning Food Waste into Energy at the East Bay Municipal Utility District: Investigating the Anaerobic Digestion Process to Recycle Post-Consumer Food Waste” August 16, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010): “Landfill Methane Outreach Program Project Development Handbook” September, 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010): Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery Systems at U.S. Livestock Facilities AgSTAR Visse, Dana “Food Waste Diversion Greenhouse Gas Analysis: Portland, Oregon” Portland State University School of Urban Studies and Planning, January 2004 Weiland, P. (2006): Biomass Digestion in Agriculture: A Successful Pathway for the Energy Production and Waste Treatment in Germany Engineering Life Science, 6:3, 302 - 309
74
Wilkinson, Kevin G. (2011): A comparison of the drivers influencing adoption of on- farm anaerobic digestion in Germany and Australia Biomass and Bioenergy, 35, 1613 – 1622
75
Appendix
Fragen Questionnaire
1. Wann wurden die Biomasseanlagen installiert? When did you install the biomass facilities? 2. Welcher war der wichtigste Grund damit anzufangen, Bioenergie zu produzieren? What was the driving reason behind your choosing to produce bioenergy? 3. Was für luftunabhängige Biokonvertoren wurden in diesem Bauernhof installiert? What type of bioenergy anaerobic digestors have been installed on this farm? 4. Auf welche Art und Weise wird Energie auf diesem Bauernhof produziert (Tierabfall, Energieanbaupflanzen)? What is the primary method used on this farm to produce energy (animal byproducts, energy crops)? 5. Welche Art von Energie wird am meisten produziert (Strom, Heizung, Biogas)? What is the primary type of energy produced (electricity, heat and power, biogas)? 6. Wurden Ihnen finanzielle Unterstützung oder andere Anreizen angeboten, bevor Sie die Biomasseanlagen installierten? Were any subsidies or other government incentives offered to you prior to you installing biomass facilities? 7. Wie viel kostete es, die Biomassaenlagen für die Energieproduktion zu installieren? How much did it cost to install biomass energy facilities? 8. Wird die Hilfe von zusätzlichen Arbeitskräften gebraucht, um die Biomasseanlagen zu unterhalten? Was it necessary to hire additional labor to help manage the biomass facilities? 9. Bekommen Sie finanzielle Unterstützung (or ‚Zuschüsse‘) oder andere Anreize von der Regierung für die Energieproduktion? Are you receiving any subsidies of other government incentives now that you are producing energy? 10. Beeinflusst die Bioenergieproduktion die anderen Funktionen des Bauernhofs? Does the production of bioenergy compete with the other functions of the farm? 11. Ist die Energieproduktion vorteilhaft für den Bauernhof? Does the production of energy create profit for the farm?
76
12. Wie viel Energie wird von diesem Bauernhof produziert? How much energy is produced by this farm? 13. Von wem wird die Energie benutzt (innerhalb des Bauernhofs, vor Ort) und wie wird sie verteilt? How is the energy used (on site, locally, fed into the grid)? 14. Mussten die Biomasseanlagen modernisiert werden seit sie installiert wurden? Wenn ja, haben Sie Hilfe von der Regierung oder von anderen Institutionen bekommen? Have you had to update the biomass facilities since installation? If so, did you receive aid from the government or other organizations?
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
![WIRTSCHAFTSUNIVERSITÄT WIEN DIPLOMARBEIT...Institutswebsites der WU-Wien, die den Anforderungen des WU-Web-Manuals [Kroe06] entsprechen. Insgesamt wurden vier Websites der 1. Gruppe](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5ed6e1dedf0eda5e752ae4c3/wirtschaftsuniversitt-wien-diplomarbeit-institutswebsites-der-wu-wien-die.jpg)
