Stimulating national biogas production

STIMULATING NATIONAL BIOGAS PRODUCTION

The case of Swedish agricultural waste management

OCTOBER 16, 2020

LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY

LINKÖPING

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering

Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme

autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE

Linköping University

SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Stimulating national biogas production

The case of Swedish agricultural waste

management

Prepared by

Manoj Dammur

16 October 2020

Examined by Stefan Anderberg

Supervised by Marcus Gustafsson

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering

Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme

autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se


Environmental Technology and Management

Dept. of Management and Engineering

58330, Linköping, Sweden.

https://liu.se/en/organisation/liu/iei/miljo

https://liu.se/en/organisation/liu/iei/miljo



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Acknowledgements

This thesis subject was offered to me by the department of Management and engineering under the division of Environmental technology and management at Linköping university, under the supervision of assistant senior lecturer Marcus Gustafsson. For whom I will always be grateful for having such a confidence in me with this kind of opportunity, for guiding me throughout the thesis and connecting me to prominent people at biogas research center who could provide me the contacts and make the interviews possible. Also, for having trust in me with the distant online presentations so that the thesis went smooth even at times like COVID pandemic. I would also like to thank my examiner, Prof. Stefan Anderberg for enduring my terrible writing and unmatched counselling to improve my academic writing. For being optimistic with my time plans and understanding me when I failed to keep up with the timeline. While being jovial and making work seem easy. My thesis opponent Mr. Adarsh also needs to be mentioned for his valuable constructive critiques on my report and presentations, though he is a student in Mechanical engineering and new to Sustainability and environmental technology. It is always an advantage to have an outsider to understand different perspectives. I am thankful for the cooperation of Kristian Petersson, Erik Erjeby from Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund-LRF (The federation of Swedish farmers) and John Benjaminsson from Gasfuels in connecting me to the local farmer and producers of biogas. Also, to the participation of farmers and biogas producers in my interviews, and for their time in answering my questions. Their names are mentioned later in this report.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Abstract Swedish state has been promoting alternative renewable fuels like biogas to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and to curb related greenhouse gas emissions. Owing to many policies like subsidies and tax exemptions for using biogas, the country has seen a surge in demand for biogas. Meanwhile, the increase in production of biogas in Sweden has been modest in recent years, though many studies have estimated substantially higher potentials from many sources. Agricultural feedstock/biomass is one among these sources where production and use of biogas could address many challenges faced by farmers like agricultural waste management, soil nutrient management, methane emissions from manure etc. while closing the nutrient cycle and contributing to sustainability. This work is an investigation on how to stimulate the growth of biogas production based on agricultural feedstock/biomass production in Sweden. Since policies give different results in different states/countries depending on the local preconditions, locally developed policies, national policies and EU policies should integrate well in all the policy sectors in that particular region to give the intended result. The current production capacity is about 2 TWh worth of biogas/year but the theoretical potential is estimated to be up to 15 TWh that has been claimed by many researches and literature works like in (Westlund, et al., 2019). Much of the potential has not been explored especially in the field of agriculture. It is asserted in many articles that the true potential of biogas production from Swedish agriculture is far greater than what is produced today. Yet, all the regulations, financial and other financial instruments failed to stimulate local biogas production in Sweden to attain its full theoretical potential. The results presented in this study show where these policies failed and what else apart from the policies could be improved in order promote biogas production. Farmers are hesitant to invest in biogas production because of the complexity and unpredictability of the existing policies. There has been significant negative impact from lack technological training of anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. This is also reflected as difficulties in finding trained and dedicated staff for biogas plant operations. Low profitability of biogas business exists ever since the production started and the financial aids are insufficient. Strict digestate regulations along with worsening substrate competition also creates problems. Permits to run the biogas plants are perceived to be expensive alongside increasing investment costs and taxes, affecting already low profitability. There is also a lack of infrastructure in terms of electricity/gas grid connectivity. Feed in tariffs for electricity produced from renewable sources are not bringing enough profitability to the business. Technological improvements are needed in terms of agricultural machinery that can use upgraded biogas as fuel and treatment of digestate to eliminate heavy metal content. Producers need more long term, sure market for their biogas.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

List of Abbreviations

• EU – European Union.

• FQD – Fuel Quality Directives

• GHG – Greenhouse gases.

• KLIMP - Klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program).

• OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

• Swedish EPA/SEPA – Swedish environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket).

• SNAO – Swedish National Audit Office.

• RED – Renewable Energy Directives.

• AD – Anaerobic digestion.

• FQD – Fuel quality directives.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Relevant Term definitions

Anaerobic digestion (AD): The process where different substrates like manure, agricultural crop

residues etc., are left to ferment(decompose) in an enclosed reactor (digester) to produce renewable gas (biogas) is called Anaerobic Digestion.

Digestate: The byproduct of AD process, the solid leftover after fermentation that can be used as

biofertilizer in the farms.

EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS): The legislative framework operates in all EU

countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU ETS works on the ‘cap and trade’ principle. A cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by installations covered by the system. Within the cap, companies receive or buy emission allowances, which they can trade with one another as needed (European commission, 2020). The cap is reduced over time so that total emissions fall and not reducing emissions will become less favorable for the companies since allowances will become rarer and their price will presumably increase.

Flaring: Biogas from a production plant must be allowed to escape the high-pressure gas circuits and

vessels in case of any equipment malfunction or if the pressure is too high. However, methane (biogas) is much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If left into the atmosphere, it causes greater impact than CO2. For this reason, biogas producers are required to burn this methane and allow the resulting CO2 to escape into the atmosphere. This process is called flaring.

Policy targets: The targets/ambitions that are envisaged by policy makers put in quantitative terms are

policy targets. For example, the ambition to mitigate the GHG emission from the energy sector could be expressed as a quantitative target, say, share from renewable sources within a certain timeframe (Union, 2020). Nonetheless, these targets can only be met if there is proper and full integration of the jointly framed policies among all the actors or policy sectors. Policy instruments: Set policy targets are met with the help of tools called policy instruments

(including economic tools). These can be decided at EU level, national level or local level, and are of two kinds, general instruments and specific instruments. General instruments include exemption or reduction of energy and CO2 taxes, which are applied on fossil transport fuels. Specific instruments have targeted distribution infrastructure as well as the supply and demand side (Lonnqvist, 2017). These instruments are used to incentivize the actors who can influence and promotes them to contribute towards achieving the policy targets.

Substrate: The organic matter (food waste, agricultural waste, sewage sludge) digested in a reactor of a

biogas plant to produce biogas.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose and Aim ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Research questions ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.3. Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Thesis Outline ................................................................................................................................ 4

2. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden ................................................................................................ 6

2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential ............................................................................................... 9

2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential ............................................................................... 9

2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential ............................................................................... 11

2.3. Policies ........................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.1. Policies promoting demand ................................................................................................ 11

2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply............................................................................. 13

3. Method of research ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.1. Literature review ......................................................................................................................... 17

3.2. Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments ...................................................................................... 19

3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments ................................................................................. 19

3.3. Methodology discussion ............................................................................................................. 19

4. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 20

4.1. Summary of results ..................................................................................................................... 20

4.2. Analysis of results ....................................................................................................................... 22

4.2.1. Complexity and unpredictability of the policies .................................................................. 22

4.2.2. Lack of skill and training on AD technology ........................................................................ 22

4.2.3. Lack of dedicated supporting staff/ skilled manpower ....................................................... 23

4.2.4. Low profitability .................................................................................................................. 23

4.2.5. Strict digestate regulations are a hinderance ..................................................................... 24

4.2.6. Expensive permits and huge initial investment ................................................................... 24

4.2.7. Lack of infrastructure & low feed in rates ........................................................................... 24

4.2.8. Technology needs to improve ............................................................................................. 24

4.2.9. Assured, long term source of revenue ................................................................................. 25

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 25

6. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 28

6.1. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 29

6.2. Reflection .................................................................................................................................... 29

6.3. Future scope ............................................................................................................................... 30

References .................................................................................................................................................... 1

Annexure 1: ................................................................................................................................................. 32

Annexure 2: ................................................................................................................................................. 34

1 | P a g e Linköping University


+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

1. Introduction

One of the most concerning global issues present today both in Electricity and transport sectors

is extreme dependency on fossil fuels and related emissions of Green House Gasses (GHG).

More than 50 percent of the contribution in GHG emissions are made by fossil (IPCC, 2007), a

major contribution towards global warming hence comes from fossil fuels. Even International

Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a continued increase in energy demand, especially in the non-

OECD countries (Motherway , 2019). While curbing GHG emissions related to fossil fuel use is

a major concern, another significant problem that affects the environment negatively is

agricultural waste management. The agricultural sector accounts for about one fifth of the GHG

emissions that are not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) (Westlund, et al.,

2019). One of the most difficult challenges of climate change is to reduce these agricultural

emissions and emissions of methane from poor manure management account for a significant

proportion of the agricultural climate impact (Westlund, et al., 2019). In addition, we currently

need an answer to the questions posed by waste management and nutrient recirculation in

agriculture. How to reduce the release of excess nutrients into soil and ground water? How to

stop odor and toxic effluents from being released into the atmosphere? How to bring back the

soil fertility by giving back what is taken from earth and close the nutrient cycle?

There are policies coming up at national level and international level (EU level) from quite a

while. EU’s short term strategies demand at least 40% reduction of GHG emission compared to

1990 levels and at least 32% share of renewable energy by 2030 and long-term strategy demands

reduction of GHG emissions by 85- 90 percent by 2050 as of 1990 across the EU member states

(Bonde, et al., 2019). Also, the Paris agreement requires the signatory states to keep the global

warming well under 2 oC above the preindustrial era. EU aims to be climate neutral, an economy

with zero net GHG emissions by 2050 (European commission, 1999). The Renewable Energy

Directive (2009/28/EC) which is established in the European framework obliges EU member

states to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 2020 (European commission,

1999). EU also introduced the Fuel Quality Directives (FQD) which mandates blending of

renewable fuels with fossil petrol and diesel. The union framed the Landfill Directive in 1999

that mandates member nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European

commission, 1999). This is particularly to promote the use of organic waste to produce biogas.

The Swedish transport sector has its sector-specific climate targets like greenhouse gas emissions

should at least be 63% lowered by 2030 and 75% lowered by 2040 than 1990 emissions in

transport sector, which are not included in the trading system (Bonde, et al., 2019). Overall

(GHG) emissions in Sweden have decreased by 26% since 1990. Most of this reduction

happened between 2003 and 2014. Thereafter the rate of reduction slowed, and 2017 was the

third consecutive year in which emissions decreased by less than 1% (Bonde, et al., 2019). Under

current conditions and decisions, the transport sector will only reach halfway to these targets

(Lantz, 2013). Meeting those targets require strong policy measures already during the current

mandate period (ibid). Measures introduced to reach these targets focus on energy efficiency and

replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy carriers.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Biofuels like biogas are key solutions present today for energy and transport sectors for their

problem of extreme dependency on fossil fuels. Production and use of these renewable source of

energy helps bring the nutrients back into the loop by recirculating, an essential function to

create circular economy (Lantz, 2013). Besides, biogas produced from agricultural waste, like

manure, provide excellent solution for the mentioned problems of agricultural waste

management, nutrient recirculation and diverts organic waste from ending up in landfills. Apart

from these benefits, the digestate is rich in nutrients and can be used as biofertilizer in farms.

There are also numerous societal goals at different levels (from global to local) where it is

possible to see that production and/or use of biogas can provide benefits that facilitate goal

attainment (Hagman & Eklund, 2016). For example, the production and use of biogas can help

improve the conditions for achieving about half of the sixteen environmental quality targets that

the Swedish parliament “Riksdagen” has decided (Westlund, et al., 2019). Some of these targets

where biogas use can help are Reduce climate impact, Clean air, Zero Eutrophication, Good

quality ground water and Varied agricultural landscape”. At the same time, the short term and

long-term targets set by EU like those mentioned in the last paragraphs also can benefit from

biogas production and use. Hence biogas can be considered as solution for all the problems we

saw.

In today’s established technology, biogas is mostly produced through anaerobic digestion (AD),

where in the organic waste from different sources like, agriculture, municipal organic waste,

sewage sludge etc. are digested with limited supply of oxygen (Lantz, 2013). The interest in

biogas production and use in Sweden emerged after the oil crisis in 1970’s. At first, the

production was developed at municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants.

Simultaneously, there were also some small-scale biogas plants installed mainly on pig farms

large enough for producing sufficient substrate for biogas production. In the 90’s the first ever

large-scale co-digestion plant was built which produced biogas from industrial waste and manure

(Berglund , 2006).

For promoting the use of biogas and its demand, there have been numerous policies and

regulation in Sweden that were successful. For example, the “Tax exemptions” on vehicles that

use biogas as fuel. These policies and regulation were intended to stimulate biogas use and

demand, to make producers interested by creating a market and thereby stimulate production.

This has in fact led to a significant expansion of biogas production in the past decade and a half

until 2015 to reach close to 2 TWh/year. However, since 2016, the growth in biogas production

has been modest and the current production is just over 2 TWh/year (Swedish Energy Agency,

2019), while the potential has been estimated to be more than 15 TWh/year (Berglund , 2006).

The growth of Swedish biogas production is moderate and not matching the growth of demand

because the indigenous producers are facing difficulties in competing with the imported biogas.

Currently, Sweden is importing biogas from countries like Denmark (Sherrard, 2019). To rely

heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country is too risky. Consumption

of biofuels is expected to increase globally at the same time as demand for biomass from other

sectors is expected to increase (Westlund, et al., 2019). Thus, causing the increase in the prices

of biofuels. According to the Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to

rely on imports to such a high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the

country (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are yet many reasons for reducing imports. High and



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

volatile prices of biogas, supply uncertainty, political instability among the countries makes

supply from those countries uncertain, these reasons might cause another situation like “Biogas

crisis” much like already seen “Oil crisis”. This is something that needs attention in order to

improve the local production.

There are different sectors/industries like food and slaughter industry, agricultural sector, sewage

treatment etc. where there is a higher potential of biogas production than what is produced today.

Specifically, the production potential of biogas from digesting substrates from agriculture and

the waste sector is judged to be significant. There are considerable substrate assets, from arable

land, and from the waste sector, for example food waste (Westlund, et al., 2019). The

agricultural sector has a huge potential of producing biogas because of the amount of waste (dry)

and manure (wet) produced as byproducts in this sector, yet it is largely unexploited today. This

is understood by looking at the estimated potential for biogas production from agricultural waste

to be 3.1 TWh from dry agricultural waste (excluding energy crops) and up to 2.6 TWh from

manure (Westlund, et al., 2019). While the current overall production from agricultural residues

is only around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019). A higher potential from agricultural

sector could be exploited by improving policy stability, reduced permit expenses and providing

stronger financial support which will make the biogas business more profitable.

1.1. Purpose and Aim

The purpose of this project is to investigate how to stimulate the growth of biogas production

within Sweden, using policies as tools, with special emphasis on utilizing available agricultural

feedstock/biomass as substrate.

The aim is to find out why existing policies/regulations did not address the challenges faced by

farmers and biogas producers, and to provide suggestions create conditions that promote biogas

production from agricultural sector.

1.2. Research questions

The following two research questions have been used throughout the research as a guidance to

achieve the purpose and aim.

a) Why are the current policies failing to stimulate agricultural bases biogas production in

Sweden?

i. Why did not the production grow, despite increasing demand?

ii. Is there a gap between policy making and potential biogas agricultural biogas

producers? What does it consist of?

b) What, apart from the policies and regulation, motivate farmers to produce more biogas?



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

In order to address these research questions, we need to investigate the existing policies, analyze

their shortfall, understand the circumstances of farmers and the technological support for biogas

systems (both for production and use). Thus, the scope of this project includes:

• Critical review and analysis of various existing policies intended to promote the

production/use of biogas.

• Analysis of established technological systems that support/limit the production and use of

biogas.

• Analysis of socio-economic benefits for the producers and potential users of biogas.

These steps are based on a literature study and interviews of experts and farmers.

1.3. Limitations

The focus is confined to the biogas production only from agricultural waste. The interviews are

limited to farmers and biogas producers to understand their perspective and the challenges they

face.

1.4. Thesis Outline

The structure of the report is summarized here. This introductory section gives a quick glance of

all the information related to different headings coming later in this document. You can read

about them in detail by jumping to the particular heading that you are interested in after looking

at the outline here.

In the next section "2. Background" the evolution of the biogas market in Sweden is presented

along with discussions on current state of production, agriculturally based biogas potential,

barriers, incentives and strategies used to improve biogas production from agricultural waste.

The following section is "3 Method of research" which describes how this research was

performed. The methods used to get the intended result for this thesis and to serve its purpose.

How the interviews were performed, who were involved etc.

After the methods sections comes the "4. Results" section in which the results obtained from the

research are presented. The summary is presented in the beginning and then the deeper analysis

in "4.2 Analysis of results". There are different subheadings each emanating the information of a

different issue/problem faced in biogas production. Any correlation and coherence between

results found in this research by interviews and previous researches mentioned in this report are

discussed in “5.Discussion” section. The conclusion and learnings are summarized in "6.

Conclusion".



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

2. Background

Biofuels like biogas are comparatively new to the energy sector unlike fossil fuels. Three

different fuels ethanol, biodiesel and biogas dominate the Swedish biofuels market, amounting to

1.14 TWh, 16.6 TWh and 1.59 TWh respectively in 2017 (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019).

Like mentioned earlier, AD is the technology that has evolved well enough to be widely used to

produce biogas. Although there are other more advanced and complex technologies like

lignocellulose chemical processing. Perhaps the simplicity of the AD technology and economic

viability made it more accessible and widespread. The flow of biogas production process using

AD is illustrated in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Anaerobic Digestion Process

Organic waste from all the various sources is collected and digested together in a co-digester (in

case of farm-based biogas plants, only the organic waste from the farm like manure, crop

residues are digested in the digester). The produced biogas is supplied for various applications

like heat, electricity etc. It can also be upgraded to pure biomethane (CH4) to be used as vehicle

fuel. The byproduct of the process, digestate, can be used as biofertilizer.

Advanced biofuels (2nd generation biofuels) production involves production from waste and

byproducts rather than dedicated energy crops. Since, energy crop cultivation rises concerns over

land use change and food security, advanced biofuels are preferred



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden

In 2001, the production of biogas in Sweden was not seen as an interesting future possibility

(Hjalmarsson, 2013). At that time, energy policies promoted incineration of collected municipal

organic waste, which has now become, one of the most important raw materials for production of

biogas (Hjalmarsson, 2013). The developments of the biogas market have, to a large extent,

taken place within the last two decades. In the past 14 years, production has increased by more

than 50 percent. However, there is almost no increase in Swedish biogas production since 2016

(Westlund, et al., 2019).

In contrast, the demand for biogas in Sweden is soaring high and has reached above 3.7 TWh in

the year 2018 from 2.9 TWh in 2017 (Klackenberg, 2019). Looking at the current state of biogas

in Sweden, it is evident that the increasing demand for biogas is not enough for stimulating

growth of biogas production.

Since the national biogas production is almost half of the national demand for biogas, currently

the demand is met by importing biogas from the neighboring countries like Denmark. Denmark

produced 4.52 TWh of biogas in 2019, while in Sweden, the production was around 2.05 TWh

(Eurostat, 2020). This is not a small difference for a country with a 10th of the Swedish land area,

and a population almost half of Sweden.

The brief statistics of import, indigenous production and consumption are presented in Figure 2

below. From the figure, it can be seen clearly that the production of biogas in Sweden has

essentially not grown since 2016 to 2018. The amount of imported biogas contributed to about

10% of the total consumption in 2016, but sharply rose to 43% in 2018 (Westlund, et al., 2019),

almost half of the total consumption.

Figure 2 comparison of indigenous production and import of biogas in Sweden till 2018 (Sherrard, 2019) & (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019)

43%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2015 2016 2017 2018

Total biogas consumption (GWh)

Swedish Biogas Imported biogas

10%



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Owing to the growing demand, the Swedish government wants to push the production so that the

local biogas production is sufficient to meet the national demand (Westlund, et al., 2019). This is

because relying heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country

considered to be too risky. Consumption of biofuels can be expected to increase globally at the

same time as demand for biomass from other sectors can be expected to increase. This worsens

the global demand and will increase the prices of biofuels at least in the EU countries. According

to Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to rely on imports to such a

high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the country (Westlund, et al.,

2019). Sweden has already struggled looking for alternative fuels during the “Oil crisis” in the

70’s.

The ambitious goal of making the transport sector independent of fossil fuels by 2030 and

climate neutral by 2050 (Holmberg, 2012) can only be achieved by considering different

alternatives, policies that can push the energy sector to shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy

sources like biogas. By having simple policies in place that can provide stronger economic

support while existing in the market for a prolonged period. There are several goals set at EU-

level, which influence the framing of policy instruments and actions considered to promote

biofuels within Sweden. When choosing alternative energy sources, and framing policies to

develop those fuels, there must be proper integration among all the independent actors (technical

and non-technical). Policy integration among these actors is necessary for the development of

biogas industry (Hjalmarsson, 2013) and wider system perspective to avoid problem shifting or

sub-optimization. To achieve proper integration, governmental support is necessary and

involvement of all the actors while framing the policies is essential to achieve full integration

(Deremince, et al., 2017).

A study conducted at KTH university (Lonnqvist, 2017) has estimated the potential of biogas

production from different sectors which is presented in Table 1 below. The difference between

theoretical potential and practical potential is because practical potential includes losses,

transport feasibility, economic feasibility etc.

Substrate category Theoretical potential

(TWh)

Practical potential

(TWh)

Food waste 1.3 0.68

Sewage sludge 1 0.89

Industrial waste 2 1

Wet agricultural residues 4.2 2.22

Dry agricultural residues 8.1 0.98

Energy crops from abandoned

land

2.84 1.42

Total 19.44 7.19



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Table 1 Estimated biogas production potential for 2020 (Lonnqvist, 2017)

Since the use of biogas solves many environmental problems, since we need more biogas to meet

demand in Sweden and since estimated practical potential is higher, the national investigation

commissioned by the Swedish state (Westlund, et al., 2019) is proposing new targets to expand

local biogas production. These targets are distributed among different sectors and technologies as

shown in the Figure 3 depending on their potentials, to cumulatively increase 10 TWh of

production per year by 2030 (Westlund, et al., 2019).The proposed target is to reach 7 TWh of

biogas solely from AD technology. The remaining 3 TWh should come from more advanced

technologies like “Lignocellulose chemical processing”

In Figure 3 below, there are two columns for 2030 (high and low) which indicates that it is

needed to push production from these sectors to reach at least the first minimum target by 2030

(low), if not to the full potential/maximum target (high). Data from (Swedish Energy Agency,

2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019).

Figure 3 Sector Specific targets and comparison with current scenario (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019)

As it is evident, even to reach the minimum target, manure and agriculture-based biogas

production needs to increase radically from 0.45 TWh to 1.5 TWh and 0.02 TWh to 2 TWh

respectively. In the system that has developed today, the most common type of biogas production

plant in Sweden is connected to a sewage treatment plant. However, the largest amount of gas is

produced in so-called co-digestion plants where a mix of different substrate can be digested, such

as manure and food waste. The largest volumes of biogas are produced primarily in the



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

metropolitan and agricultural regions i.e. in Skåne, Västra Götaland and Stockholm counties

(Westlund, et al., 2019). Because of the amount of waste (wet and dry) generated in agricultural

sector, which could be a potential substrate for biogas production, this sector has a considerable

potential of about 3.2 TWh / year as estimated in Table 1.

2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential

The pollution emitted from animal waste from livestock farming can imply some serious

environmental impact and health concerns (for example: manure deposits on ground can cause

eutrophication in the nearby water body after erosion). Before discharging waste on to the land,

into a nearby water body or to the atmosphere, farmers and agricultural facilities are required to

obtain the permission by meeting some prerequisites set by regulatory agencies. They need to

follow certain guidelines in feedstock handling, manure collection and storage, strategies to

reduce odor, dust release and liquid effluents into the atmosphere (Correa, et al., 2017).

Anaerobic treatment of organic waste reduces GHG emissions, nutrient and odor. Hence the

agricultural facilities that include the anaerobic digestion technology as a complement to their

farms are promoted by the comprehensive agricultural policies (Correa, et al., 2017). The

estimation form another study including only accessible agricultural waste like manure from big

enough animal population and residues from crop cultivation (excluding dedicated energy crops)

again shows the same potential of 3.2 TWh, in Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). But the current

overall production from agricultural residues is around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency,

2019). When we compare the utilization of potential from agricultural sources with Denmark,

which is exporting biogas to Sweden, 85.3% of total biogas produced is from AD of agricultural

substrates (Gustafsson, et al., 2019). Whereas in Sweden, it is only around 23% (0.47 of 2.04

TWh) from the Figure 3. An important indicator that we need to improve and exploit on

agriculture-based biogas production. Being small in area and population, Denmark is capable of

producing biogas more from agricultural waste than Sweden. One of the reasons behind this is

their farm-based AD plants are more in numbers and losses due to flaring are 10 times lower

(Gustafsson, et al., 2019).

The agricultural residues that are potential substrates for biogas production are divided into two

types, dry agricultural residues and wet agricultural residues. Residues obtained from crop

cultivation (including both waste farm weed/straw & energy crops) are dry agricultural residues.

Residues derived from animal farming (manure) are wet agricultural residues. An observation

was made by BIOSURF (Barre, et al., 2016), that the emission performance of biogas and

biomethane plants can be enhanced by increasing the share of animal manure, slurry and waste in

the feedstock and by improving the performance of the production facility itself.

2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential

Wet residues like manure are generated from the animal population. These residues are often

from rural areas from poultry, sheep, horses, swine and cattle. Only one example of wet residues

from urban areas is from horses (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). Normally in agriculture, the manure is



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

stored for several months in storage tanks, methane is produced in these tanks due to anaerobic

conditions and released to the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent GHG than carbon

dioxide (Lantz, 2013). If the manure is utilized for biogas production, these methane emissions

could be significantly reduced, while closing the nutrient cycle by using the digestate as

biofertilizer.

The volume of the wet residue is the key factor affecting the potential from these residues.

Animal population must be big enough and at least part of the manure must be produced in the

stable to make it profitable for collection, transportation and production. While assessing the

potential, the animals considered are cattle, poultry, horses, swine and sheep. It was estimated in

2013 that these animals together produce around 2700 kton of manure yearly in whole of

Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). The yield of biogas from manure differs from animal to

animal, for instance, manure from pig gives higher yield than cattle. Whether the manure is in

liquid form or solid form also matters (BioMil AB & Envirum, 2008). Animal manure represents

a biogas potential estimated to be 9.2 PJ/year or 2.5TWh/year (Lantz, et al., 2007). Another

estimate from (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013) assuming decreasing animal population was of 2.22

TWh/year.

Though it is argued that methane emissions due to manure depends on bad agricultural practices,

the reduction of methane emissions is often included in environmental assessments of biogas

production from manure. Thus, the reduction of GHG emissions is particularly marked in the

case of manure-based biogas production (Lantz, 2013) and the significance of this can be

understood from Figure 4. The figure shows a comparison of reduction in GHG emissions made

in terms of grams of CO2 eq/MJ of energy produced from different substrates including sludge

from wastewater treatment plant (WWTP sludge), municipal solid organic waste (MSOW),

industrial waste, liquid manure and other agricultural products.

Figure 4 GHG emissions from biogas production based on different substrates (Lantz, 2013).



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

The analysis is from different researches which show some deviation in the results, possibly

because the varying system limitations or variations in biogas yield considerations from different

animal manure. However, even if we consider the result showing least reduction in GHG

emission from the biogas produced from liquid manure, it is -40 g of CO2 eq/MJ. Compared to

fossil fuels which is +80 g, this is still way better than any other type of substrate.

2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential

The residues that are obtained from plants, food and feed production are considered as dry

agricultural waste. After the harvest, the remnant plant/straw material including leaves and roots

which are of no economic value to farmers can be used for biogas generation. There are number

of studies that point out the potential to improve the biogas production form available waste and

agricultural by-products within Sweden. However, if this waste is to be used for biogas

production, it incurs costs like handling and transport. Many of these studies have differences in

their assessment of potential for biogas from dry agricultural waste in terms of various

assumptions like gas output, availability, substrates used, co-digestion or mono-digestion etc

(Martin, 2015).

Swedish agriculture produces mostly residues like hay, potato leftovers, potato tops, chaff and

husks from crops, which are of interest for biogas generation, which amount to 4807 kton per

year measured in dry substance (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). In the same article, it is established that

the hay is left mostly unused at farms since it is expensive to collect and handle. Moreover, hay

needs efforts to digest and needs longer residence time in the digester. It has been estimated that

the potential of potato residues and other food crop residues is approximately 0.98 TWh, which

is around 31% of the total potential of the agricultural residues (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013).

2.3. Policies

Anaerobic digestion is the technology that can produce biogas from agricultural crop waste and

manure and since the biogas production from agricultural by products must be promoted, this

section speaks about some of the attempts to promote AD and their outcomes.

Some policies have been launched by the Swedish government to achieve its GHG emission

mitigation commitments, that have stimulated biogas use and demand. These policies promote

production from AD plants. Other policies are also directly aimed at promoting biogas

production from various sectors and technologies including from agriculture-based AD method.

They can be divided and categorized depending upon whether they impact on production and

supply or demand.

2.3.1. Policies promoting demand

There are reductions or complete exemption of tax for biofuels, while fossil fuels are targeted by

particularly two tax schemes. One is energy tax, which is determined individually for different

fuels and is not proportional to energy content of the fuels. The other is carbon tax, which is

proportional to the carbon content of the fuels. Biofuels including ethanol, fatty acid methyl ester

(FAME) and biogas are exempted from both energy tax and carbon tax (RFR7, 2009). Swedish



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

National Audit Office performed an audit on tax exemption on biofuels in 2011 (SNAO, 2011).

The results showed that the tax reduction on biofuels for (both CO2 and energy tax) has played a

key role in promoting biofuels (in their low blends) and helped reaching the climate goals set by

the Swedish Parliament. However, at an expensive price. The revenue loss for the state has been

steadily increasing since 2000 and now amounting to around 2 billion SEK every year. Thus, the

GHG emission reduction achieved using biofuels has incurred a cost of 3 SEK/kg CO2. In

comparison to the carbon dioxide tax of 1.05 SEK/kg of CO2, it is relatively expensive way to

curb GHG emissions. Also, for making use of biofuels in high blends, like E85, investments in

infrastructure and vehicles are also needed apart from tax exemptions (SNAO, 2011). The tax

exemptions depended upon the applications sent by fuel suppliers (the taxpayers) and the

decisions were only on short term basis. Meaning those exemptions were granted for 1 to 2 years

and not always granted for the same reason. In their report, SNAO state that the tax exemptions

did not have the intended impact on technology development.

Some of the policies are also framed at the EU level that influence the development of biogas in

the member states. The Biofuels directive of 2003 required a lower target of 2% of total energy

used in the transport sector to come from biofuels by 2005 and 5.75% by 2010 (EU, 2003). The

Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) established a European framework for the European

Member States for the promotion of renewable energy. According to this, the member states

were obliged to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 20201 (Luc Pelkmans,

eds., 2018).

However, to reduce the risk of undesirable effect of land use change (arable land used for energy

crops instead of growing food crops and thus raising concerns over food security), EU promoted

the transition towards advanced biofuels by making following amendments (Luc Pelkmans, eds.,

2018):

• A limit of only 7% of biofuels that can come from crops grown on agricultural land of the

total biofuels by 2020,

• As a reference to the national targets for the biofuels, 0.5% should be from advanced

biofuels,

• A requirement that biofuels produced in new installations (which have started operation

after October 5, 2015) achieve a minimum GHG saving of 60% compared to fossil fuels,

• stronger incentives (higher multiplication factors) for the use of renewable electricity in

transport.

Apart from the above amendments, the FQD was also introduced by EU in 2010. According to

this, a mandatory blending rates of 10%vol of biofuels are to be blended with gasoline and 7%vol

in diesel. Further, according to the FQD, fuel suppliers in the union should reduce GHG

emissions by 6% per energy unit until 2020 (Biogasmarknadsutredningen, 2019). This regulation

was introduced since, according to EU, member states cannot pay more in aid than what differs

in production costs compared to fossil fuels, as it would distort competition in the market

because of overcompensation.

1 For reaching the transport target, multiplication factors can be applied for several types of options (advanced/waste

based biofuels, renewable electricity in road vehicles). So, the target can be reached with an actual share lower than

10%.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Another example of policies that is recently introduced to push the demand of biogas is the

Swedish bonus-malus system of taxing vehicles based on tailpipe emissions. The idea of the

bonus malus system is to reward vehicles that emit relatively small amounts (up to 70 grams per

kilometer) of carbon dioxide, with a maximum bonus of 60,000 SEK, while burdening vehicles

that emit relatively large amounts of CO2 with higher vehicle tax for the first three years. Though

the bonus-malus is now updated with clearer definitions of different engine types, previously, the

introduction of similar policy instruments have drawn criticism for considering only tailpipe

emissions and even some fossil fueled vehicles, with low tailpipe emissions, were placed on

bonus side, in this policy (Westlund, et al., 2019).

2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply

Policies and regulations that promote biogas production and supply to the public also have been

introduced (like GHG emissions reduction obligation for suppliers). According to the fuel quality

directive (EC 2009(a)), the fuel suppliers are required to report and reduce at least 10% of GHG

emission on a life cycle basis compared to 2010 standards. These requirements can be met in

following three ways:

1. Increased use of biofuels by reducing flaring and rejection at production sites.

2. Implementing CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology for vehicles or use

electrical vehicles.

3. To buy CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits.

The introduction of the pump law (Pumplagen) in 2006 in Sweden significantly increased the

number of filling stations with provision for renewable fuels. According to this law, it is required

for gas stations above a certain size to provide renewable fuels. However, this law was very

beneficial for ethanol pumps instead of biogas pumps since the cost of installing a gas pump was

4 million SEK whereas the cost to install an ethanol pump was only 0.2 million SEK (RFR7,

2009). Thus, number of ethanol pumps grew drastically, from 385 (10% of all the filling stations

in Sweden) in December 2005 to 1610 (90% of all the filling stations in Sweden) in September

2009 (RFR7, 2009). There were also subsidies for installing biogas pumps or other than ethanol

pumps. However, the amount of grant was limited to 30% of the cost difference between the gas

pump and alternative fuel pump (i.e., 3.8 MSEK). Due to the limitations of grants to 30% and the

cost difference between ethanol and gas pump, there were limited grants used and grants were

not given for ethanol pump either (Holmberg, 2012).

Apart from these, there have been some miscellaneous grants like the program named “Second

generation biofuels and other energy technology” in 2008. The same year, biogas was mentioned

as one of the climate-efficient energy technologies that is not yet commercially competitive and a

new grant for energy technology which aims at stimulating its use was decided. The Swedish

Energy Agency SEA also administered an 875 Million SEK under this program to

commercialize the new technology. This program supported all the second-generation biogas

production, not just from agricultural sector. Gobigas was a project which benefited from this



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

grant. It was the demonstration of a unit that gasifies woody biomass that produces bio-

SNG/methane which is in Gothenburg with a capacity of 20 MW (Holmberg, 2012).

A specific subsidy was given for investments made towards biogas plants where major part of

the substrate was manure. Investeringsgasstod för biogasanläggningar (Investment support for

biogas production) was introduced in 2009 and implemented in the EU-funded rural

development program, meaning it wa s exclusive to farmers. The maximum subsidy was limited

to 200 000 €, or 30 – 50% of the investment, whichever is maximum (SJV, 2009).

Another tool for reaching the Swedish climate objective that was formulated in the Swedish

climate strategy in 2002 is KLIMP- klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program),

which finance both production facilities and fueling stations (Hence can be considered both

production side and supply side policies). KLIMP has made provisions of grants for

municipalities and other local actors for their long-term investments to curb GHB emissions.

Those grants were administered by Swedish EPA and the money has been granted between

2003-2008. A total of 1.8 billion SEK was granted among which, 660 million SEK (37% of the

total) was for biogas projects (Holmberg, 2012). As stated by (RFR7, 2009), 50% of the 660

MSEK were granted to production and upgrading installations for biogas. Among the rest, 120

million SEK were granted to biogas systems for vehicle use (mainly pump stations and gas

pipes). For investments in gas vehicles (buses and personal cars), 25 MSEK were granted. The

rest was granted for collection and handling of waste. No more KLIMP grants have been given

since 2008 and the accomplishment of the programs was finalized in 2012 (Holmberg, 2012). A

similar program named “Klimatklivet (Climate change)” have been introduced since then, which

is also monitored by Swedish EPA.

Currently there are some financial instruments like “Gödselgasstöd” (Manure/fertilizer gas

support) which are indirectly focused on stimulating biogas production in Sweden and thereby

internalizing some of the benefits which can be associated with this production (Westlund, et al.,

2019). However, these subsidies are also limited to shorter periods of time (Gödselgasstöd

project began in 2014 and will end by 2023). It is also important to keep in mind that the

fertilizer gas support is primarily aimed at reducing methane emissions from manure

management, rather than contributing to a highly efficient production of biogas. The support

provided by this program is limited to 40 Öre/ kWh worth of biogas produced. But according to

EU, member states must not pay more in aid to avoid overcompensation. So, if the difference

between production price of fossil energy and biogas is less than 40 Öre/ kWh, the biogas

producers get less than 40 Öre/ kWh.

Targets regarding renewable energy generation such as the EU renewable energy target (RET) of

20% by 2020 have in some cases, benefitted biogas producers. As the upgraded biogas and

biomethane from AD plants can be mixed or interchanged with CNG for vehicle, or as natural

gas in case of heat and electricity production, policies and regulations which are intended to

promote renewable energies have also stimulated the biogas production facilities, hence

developing AD technology. Many countries of the EU have their own RET’s specific to biogas

and biomethane. In order to meet the targets, production requirements have been established by

governments for renewable energies and many incentives which would stimulate the production



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

are introduced. In, Germany, for example, the renewable source act of 2000, which was amended

in 2014, offers higher feed in tariffs (FiT’s) for generation of electricity from renewable sources,

offers priority connection rights to feed into the grid and the transmission system costs are also

transferred to the consumers (Correa, et al., 2017). To complement this, Germany has the

biofuels quota act introduced in 2007 which requires a minimum share of biofuels to be sold in

the energy market and “Eergiewende (Energy transition)” which promotes transition from coal

fired power plants to renewable sourced power plant. These policies make Germany the country

with the highest number of AD plants, constituting to 5.4% of total electricity generated, 1.3%

total heat generated and 0.1% of total fuel used from biogas in 2018. A total of 58% of biogas

produced was used for electricity generation, 33% for heat production, 1% as vehicle fuel and

rest 7% was losses due to flaring (Gustafsson, et al., 2019).

2.3.2.1. Policies supporting AD

While framing the policies and regulations, those which are not actually intended to promote

biogas production also have promoted AD technology and hence promoted biogas production,

for instance, GHG emission reduction targets. Some countries in EU like Finland, the UK and

Germany have agreed to reduce GHG emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050

(Correa, et al., 2017). These countries, apart from providing investment support for carbon

capture and storage to coal condensed power plants, also took initiatives to promote renewable

energy sources which included AD plants to meet GHG emission reduction targets. In the EU,

Renewable Energy Directives (RED), which lays the foundation for its member countries to

reach their goal of GHG emission reduction, also encourages the development and use of AD

technology because of its advantages in bioenergy generation using organic waste and GHG

savings potential (Correa, et al., 2017).

The technology of AD also benefits, in some parts of the world, from the rural development

policies and regulations. This is because of the quantity of bio-based feedstock that is available

in these rural areas. Some of these policies provide support to develop the AD technology by

providing direct financial investment support, training and other support to farmers. For instance,

in UK, most of the aids for AD facilities are granted from rural development and rural

community renewable energy funds (Lukehurst, 2017).

Policies regarding agricultural activities have made their own impact in promoting AD plants,

like “Agricultural policies and regulations” Since agricultural waste like manure emit lot of

nutrients in soil and ground water and methane into the atmosphere which pose serious health

and environmental issues, farmers are required to get permissions to discharge agricultural waste

into the land, water body or atmosphere. They need to meet the preset standards, practices and

some guidelines regarding collection, handling, transport and storage of agricultural waste.

Meanwhile, AD can reduce the emissions, odor and nutrient release caused from these

agricultural wastes from farms and cattle. So, agricultural policies also, in a way, promote AD

technology. AD plants integrated with farms have become prominent in some countries, due to

the policies that regulate the amount of nitrate and phosphate use from the animal manure. For

example, the UK government aims to curb the amounts of nitrates and phosphates entering into

the land surface and groundwater, by making a regulation of nitrate pollution prevention that



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

limits the amount of time the manure can be stored (Joel, et al., 2015). It also permits farmers to

transfer manure to the nearby sites without license.

Regulations regarding water and air emissions from agricultural activities promote AD

technology as well. As established previously, agricultural activities release huge amounts of

nutrients to ground water, odor and methane into the atmosphere. Countries that have

uncompromising water and air pollution regulations would generally promote AD technology

development. For instance, in Italy, farms of above certain size are required to invest in best

available technologies for waste collection, handling, transport and storage under National

Environmental Framework Law (Correa, et al., 2017). They also need to ensure best spreading

and monitoring of environmental parameters.

Requirements for avoiding organic waste ending up in landfills and diverting them are also

drivers for AD plants. EU introduced the Landfill Directive in 1999 that mandates member

nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European commission, 1999).

Integrating AD facility with the farms can reduce the burden of organic waste management.

2.3.2.2. Proposed aid for production, upgradation and liquefaction

The Swedish agricultural board has proposals for supporting production, upgradation of raw gas

to biomethane and liquefaction of biogas that is produced from manure by digestion. Aid under

this regulation is granted subject to availability of funds (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are

certain conditions (suggested) to be met in order to be eligible for these grants. They are

summarized below:

Conditions on production support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))

• This regulation contains provisions on state aid to companies for the production,

upgrading and liquefaction of biogas as aims to increase the production and processing of

biogas in Sweden.

• Support may be provided to companies for the production of manure gas.

• Support may only be provided for manure gas produced by digestion.

• Support shall not be provided for the proportion of raw gas that can be assumed to have

originated from substrates other than manure.

• Support shall not be provided for production at facilities where manure is mixed with

sewage sludge.

• Aid may only be granted for production at establishments which, in cases where such

approval is required, are approved according to the rules for animal by-products.

• Aid may only be granted for production at facilities that have connected equipment for

flaring or burning gas as in case of overproduction or malfunction.

• Support may be provided with 40 öre per kilowatt hour worth of manure gas.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 40 öre,

the aid will also be less than 40 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the

total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.

Conditions on upgradation support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))

• Support may be provided to companies for upgrading raw gas to biofuels.

• Support may only be provided for upgrading raw gas produced by digestion.

• Aid may not be provided for the production of raw gas from landfills.

• Support may be provided with a maximum of 30 öre per kilowatt hour worth of raw gas

which is upgraded to biofuels.

• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left

per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.




Conditions on support for liquefaction of biogas: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))

• Aid may be provided to companies for the production of liquefied manure gas.

• Support may only be provided for liquefaction of raw gas produced only by digestion.

• Support may be provided with a maximum of 15 öre per kilowatt hour of energy as the

raw gas contains which are liquefied.

• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left

per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.




3. Method of research

This thesis is carried out mainly in two phases, literature studies and interviews with farmers and

other biogas producers who use AD technology.

3.1. Literature review

Although the results for this thesis were mainly derived from the interviews, the literature study

was a key step towards reaching those results. Reading through the numerous existing researches

and articles gave me the reference points and data required to carry out the interviews. Literature

study also helped in understanding why some of the policies failed and what can be improved. It

has given answers to some of the questions like “Why, though the demand is stimulated,

production did not grow? Where is the gap in policy making and improved result?”, etc. It also



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

helped in composing questions for the interviews and stood as a beacon throughout the research

in guiding me towards the end.

3.2. Interviews

Interviews with farmers and biogas producers gave answers to my research questions. These

interviews are vital to this thesis for arriving at the final results, which are presented in the

section 4- results of this thesis. Since the farmers who have AD plants on their farms play a

crucial role in producing the biomass for use as substrates, managing agricultural waste and

overlooking nutrient cycle, I have interviewed those who have AD plants successfully running

and producing biogas. These interviews were conducted in order to understand what kind of

challenges are faced by the farmers while producing biogas, identify the gap between policy

intentions and farmers expectations and to draw suggestions for improving policies.

The participants in the interviews and their characteristics are detailed in the Table 2 below.

Name of the

company

Plant size (amount of

biogas produced, e.g. GWh / years

or m3/year)

Biogas substrate (biomass, wet or

dry) the farm generates annually

(Tons/ m3)

Amount of substrate going

to biogas production.

Substrates used in the plant:

Karl-Johan Gunnarsson

(Skottorp Säteri) 1 GWh/year 25550 m3

30%. Rest is used as Fertilier

Manure

Långhult Biogas ab 260000 m3 of raw

gas 3500 Ton 100%

Manure; Sewage sludge

Frigiva gård 150 Mwh/year 6500 m3 100% Manure;

Agricultural waste/straw

SLU Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet

5 Gwh electricity & heat from

biogas 21 000 ton 100 %

Manure; Energy crops

Lägda Gård 50-60000 m3

/year 2700m3 100% Manure

Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk

200 000 m3/year 7200 ton 100% Manure;

Agricultural waste/straw

Högryds farm 700 MWh 1150 m3 100% Manure

Table 2. Interviewees and their characteristics



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments

This assessment was done with an intention to know how far the existing policies have reached

the farmers. How were they received by the farmers? Are these policies addressing the

expectations of the biogas producers? And how big is the gap between expectations and policies?

The interview questions framed particularly for this assessment are 6,7,8,9 and 12 (see annexure

1 of appendices). They qualitatively assess what type of regulations push farmers to consider

producing biogas, which incentives, policies or regulations motivate them or demotivate them

and finally what more do they expect from the policies or the Government.

3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments

To check how widespread the AD technology has reached, how much the farmers are familiar

with it and what difficulties are associated with it, this assessment was made. Because the

technological reach and associated support also plays an important role in boosting the

production.

The questions in the interview that are focused on this assessment are 10 and 11. Question 10

assesses the difficulties faced by the farmers, who are already familiar with AD, while using the

technology and questions 11 assesses how accessible is the training/familiarity with the AD

technology.

Though there have been responses to questions 8 and 9 which were intended for policy and

economic assessment, that addressed technological evolution and for question 10 that addressed

economic and policy support.

After analyzing all the responses to the questions, it was found that each of these responses

addressed one or multiple challenges faced by the farmers while running a biogas plant. The

challenges could be categorized into 9 major issues. For example, if a farmer’s response to the

question “What difficulties or problems have you encountered in connection with running a

biogas plant?” is “Strange rules for grants”, it is pointing out at the complexity and

unpredictability of existing policies. The responses are thus categorized as outlaid in Table 3.

3.3. Methodology discussion

Getting the list of farmers who had AD plant integrated to their farms was a challenge. John Benjaminsson from Gasfuels handed me a name list of 30 biogas plants (there are 43 in Sweden

(Jonas Ammenberg, 2019)). Once I had the list of biogas producers, the next challenge was to

get access of their contact details. I searched the internet for the names of the plants and could

access the contact details of 18 of them.

In the interview phase, the biggest hurdle was to involve as many farmers/ biogas producers as

possible, and to get their answers for the interview questions. Since I was not able to physically

meet them at their farms because of ongoing pandemic “COVID-19” at the time, involving them



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

and getting responses through emails was tougher. The questions were composed meticulously

after the literature review, so that the responses were comprehensive enough and will answer our

research questions. They are attached in page 32 in the appendix section of this thesis, with the

responses in appendix 2 in the page Error! Bookmark not defined. as embedded excel sheet.

The questions were written in Swedish in order to get more responses since in my opinion,

people tend to show interest if the questions are in their preferred language. Some were also

objective type (Multiple choice) questions to make it quick and easy for the respondents. The

google forms with questions were sent to the contact persons of all the 18 biogas plants of which

I could find the contact details. However, after multiple reminders through repeated emails, I

could get only 7 complete and qualitative responses in which I could find answers to my research

question. Perhaps the time of the interview was wrong as it was summer and most of the farmers

were too busy in their agricultural activities to complete the form.

These 7 responses were chosen since they were the ones completely answering the most required

fields. Even in these 7 responses, there were some fields left unanswered in the google forms.

Other responses had answers only for some of the simple multiple-choice or Yes – No type

question, with which I could not arrive at any result. For those responses considered, the raw,

one lined, answers had deeper meaning and were pointing at each loophole in the system. These

responses had to be analyzed conscientiously to extract the answers for our research questions.

The answers are described in the section 4 “Results” of this report.

From Table 2, looking at the characteristics of the interviewees, it is evident that all the

interviewees mixed manure in the substrate if not used manure alone. And almost everyone used

100% of the biomass generated for biogas production except Skottorp Säteri where only 30% of

the biomass generated went for biogas production, rest was used a biofertilizer.

4. Results

4.1. Summary of results

The first and foremost challenge faced by farmers was the loophole of complexity and

unpredictability of policies, which was found in the interviews. Two of the respondents strongly

agree that the policies are complex and unpredictable (Table 3 shows which respondents point

out at which challenge).

The next challenge was lack of training on AD technology. This was the most pointed out

challenge (meaning faced by most of the farmers). Also, not finding skilled and dedicated staff is

another difficulty that the farmers face which may be linked to lack of training.

Low profitability is one among the difficulties that is faced by most of the respondents. From

Table 3, four respondents agree that they face low profitability.

A respondent from Skottorp Säteri indicated that strict digestate regulations from Swedish EPA

are also hindering production.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

In the interviews, it was noted that the permits are highly expensive, and investments are huge as

stressed in the responses of SLU and Långhult Biogas AB.

Another challenge was the lack of infrastructure. Connectivity to gas/ electricity grid was

inaccessible for most and if connected, feed in tariffs were not satisfactory along with complex

regulations regarding connection and tariffs.

Frigiva gård was the only respondent who also pointed out that the technology of overall biogas

systems needs to improve. They wanted to be completely self-sufficient for their energy needs on

farming activity, hence required agricultural machinery that used biogas from their own farms as

fuel.

Some farmers also lacked long term, assured source of revenue from their biogas (like long term

contracts to buy the biogas for example). This was identified by the responses from Skottorp

Säteri and Frigiva gård.

Interviewees

Karl-Johan

Gunnarsson

(Skottorp

Säteri)

Långhult

Biogas

AB

Frigiva

gård

SLU, Sveriges

lantbruksuniversitet

Lägda

Gård

Kulbäckslidens

Lantbruk

Högryds

farm

Challenges

faced by

farmers

Policy

Complexity &

unpredictability X X

Lack of training

on AD

technology X X X X X X

Lack of skilled

labor/dedicated

staff X

Low profit X X X X Strict digestate

regulations X X

Expensive

permits & huge

investments/Tax X X

Lack of

infrastructure &

low feed in

rates

X X X

Technology

needs to

improve X

Need assured X X



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

long-term

revenue source/

market Table 3 Responses from the interviewees translated to answers and categorized

4.2. Analysis of results

All the respondents except one had one reason in common to tell for the question “Which of the

existing policies or regulations make farmers like you produce biogas?” and that is “Mål om

produktion av förnybar energi” (Responses can be found in annexure 2 of appendices section).

Meaning “target on production of renewable energy”. It is clear from this statement that the

targets set by state on renewable energy generation has a great impact on production of biogas

from agricultural waste. Along with this reason, some pointed at regulations regarding GHG

emissions, fertilizer storage, management of nutrients and emissions to soil and ground water. A

clear indicator that all these regulations have a cumulative impact on driving the biogas

production. It can also be inferred that regulations regarding fertilizer storage, manure nutrient

management and emissions to soil and groundwater are the reason behind 100% usage of all the

manure generated in their farms. The raw, one lined, layman answers had deeper meaning and

were pointing at each loophole in the system or challenges faced by the farmers. Meticulous

analysis of these answers had the following outcome.

4.2.1. Complexity and unpredictability of the policies

Two of the respondents, namely Skottorp Säteri and Långhult Biogas AB in the survey pointed

out at one major loophole in the government policies while answering the question “What

difficulties or problems have you encountered in connection with running a biogas plant?”. The

answer of Skottorp Säteri was “Strange rules for grants” and of Långhult Biogas AB was

“Bureaucracy and ignorance”. These answers were pointing out the unpredictability and

complexity of the policies that quickly change in time. The respondents needed a reliable support

from the government bodies like rural development authority or environmental protection

agency, which could provide them aid in the huge investments they make for the betterment of

the environment while being self-sufficient in their energy needs. The response “bureaucracy and

ignorance in the governance” points out that there are hassles while understanding the policies

properly to reap in the intended benefits out of them.

4.2.2. Lack of skill and training on AD technology

I have also received responses regarding lack of skills and lack of market competence. Almost all

of the interviewees answered “No” to the question “Have you received any training in the

technology of biogas production (anaerobic digestion) from regional development authorities or

other authorities?”. Meaning that those who are interested in making use of the technology, only

after knowing about the AD technology, have to voluntarily get familiar and train themselves.

Only one of the Frigiva gård had received training/technological familiarity. Those who do not

know about such technology or have marginal information/interest about AD are left behind.

It is important that the farmers are trained and given technical support in order to encourage

farmers with slight interest towards the technology and show them what benefits biogas



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

production can give. Technological training can make them competent in the market. This is very

significant in order to bring the prices of locally produced biogas lower to that of imported

biogas. It is a question of competition among the Swedish farmers/ biogas producers to those

outside Sweden. Some farmers needed technical know-how and training from experts since the

technology of AD is relatively new to them. Adequate training can also make them efficient

while operating AD plant to reduce malfunctions and losses due to flaring.

4.2.3. Lack of dedicated supporting staff/ skilled manpower

SLU indicated at difficulties finding dedicated staff. Agriculture is a full-time job with great

responsibility which requires complete attention. If they are to also produce biogas from the

byproducts with attention towards new policies that provide financial aid, regulations on manure

and digestate standards/metal content limits, they need a supporting hand at the facility,

especially from one who knows the technology well. Lack of technological training on AD may

also be one of the causes for this issue. There could be more possibility of finding trained and

dedicated staff if more and more small-time farmers are also technologically trained.

4.2.4. Low profitability

When we watch closely, the gap between the biogas production potential and actual production

partly lies in the low profitability of biogas production. This was noted when Långhult Biogas

AB and Frigiva gård answered, “Profitability drives us, rest of the policies and benefits are an

added bonus” to the question “Which of the policies and guidelines do you think will motivate

farmers like you produce biogas?”. Though this is customary in order to run any business, it is a

subtle aspect that we tend to overlook thinking that there must be enough profit in the business

and no support is needed. One effective policy that would make the production more profitable,

along with the existing regulations and policies, could stimulate the production dramatically. The

interviews have brought the light on this subtle aspect to show that all of those Swedish state

policies including measures taken to improve renewable energy share, soil and ground water

nutrient management and those mentioned in the earlier sections of this report have failed to

answer one important question of profitability. Frigiva gård also stated that biogas should be

more profitable than fossil fuels. This seems quite true if we intend to meet our ultimate goal of

zero net emissions of GHG by 2050, which requires absolute zero usage of fossil fuels.

4.2.4.1. Economic subsidies are the key:

When questioned about which particular policies among all the measures taken for renewable

energy production keeps their motives up for biogas production, all of the responses have one

common answer as “Skattebefrielse eller skattelättnad” The Swedish tax exemption or tax relief.

This indicates not only tax exemptions, but any form of economic support is quite influential and

makes sense to extend this type of policies, in order to make the production more profitable so

that producers are kept driven. If the tax reliefs are proving expensive to the state, it is justifiable

to review the demand side tax exemptions since the demand is already stimulated and we are

unable to meet the demands with indigenously produced biogas. Apart from tax exemptions, the

survey also proved that feed in tariffs, CO2 certificates and certificate for reduced land and water

eutrophication are of interest to those who have AD facility as a complement to their farms. All

of these make the process more profitable.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

4.2.5. Strict digestate regulations are a hinderance

For the question “What hinders the production?”, Skottorp Säteri answered, “Environmentally

hazardous activity” and for the question “Have you encountered any policies or regulations that

hinder the production of biogas?” Långhult Biogas AB answered, “Rules regarding food residue

substrate”. This is referring to the strict regulations on heavy metal content in digestate set by

Swedish EPA. This further worsens the competition for particular type of substrate that leads to

digestate which meets the requirements set by Naturvårdsverket. This also means spike in

substrate prices.

4.2.6. Expensive permits and huge initial investment

For the larger plants, apart from energy taxes, they need to have expensive permits. When SLU

wanted to increase the capacity of the facility from 21000 tons of digestate output to 30000 tons,

they had to spend around half a million SEK to get a new environmental permit/certificates from

the consultants. They might make profits out of it later using the permits to get the tax

relaxations and other benefits; however, this is a huge initial investment and not all the farmers

can afford. Långhult Biogas AB also stated, “Energy tax if you have too large a facility” in

response to the question “Have you encountered any policies or regulations that hinder the

production of biogas?”. Now along with the huge initial investment, taxes are also a burden.

4.2.7. Lack of infrastructure & low feed in rates

A major hindrance that came up in the survey was grid connectivity. Högryds farm and Lägda

Gård, who were involved in the investigation had no electricity grid connectivity. Without gas

grid connectivity, the produced biogas has to be transported by other means (trucks for example).

And electricity can not be produced except in small amounts for on-farm equipment purposes

without electricity grid connectivity. So, the biogas produced must be stored for a longer period

of time in high pressure vessels and circuits. This needs greater care and attention towards

equipment management, which is often difficult, giving rise to disasters or flaring. This must be

one of the reasons that flaring is 10 times higher in Sweden compared to Denmark.

Though some respondents had grid connectivity, to some, feed in tariffs were not satisfactory.

According to Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk, it could be made more profitable to sell electricity

through subsidies for grid fees and taxation. This means feed in tariffs given right now are not

satisfactory. This is again the issue of low profitability.

4.2.8. Technology needs to improve

Another interesting factor which could also impact production is agricultural machinery that

could use biogas as fuel. Half of the interviewees produced biogas to be self-sufficient in their

energy needs. They wanted their heavy machinery, like harvester, to run on biogas. This was a

new and interesting outcome from the interviews. Frigiva gård stated that along with lack of

competence, they lacked advanced agricultural machinery that used biogas as fuels. Though the

technology is so evolved to have on farm heating systems, convert produced biogas to electricity

and supplied for their own needs, Having heavy machinery like harvesters that can use biogas as

fuels brought them a sense of complete independence in their energy needs. It can be understood



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

that energy independence is a subtle aspect that can entice farmers to have biogas production.

Who doesn’t like to have surplus energy supply for all their agricultural activities, which can

improve productivity owing to reliable and timely supply of energy, thus increased overall

economy of the comprehensive biogas plants with agriculture? In my interview, I received three

responses from Lägda Gård, Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk and Högryds farm stating self-sufficiency

in their energy needs motivates them to produce biogas for the question “What, apart from

policies and guidelines, motivates you to produce biogas?”. Although, materializing this vision

might take much more integration between multiple other sectors like automobile industry, a

wider system boundary and longer time of technological evolution. Apart from those, farm scale

biogas plants also need to have gas upgrading facility in order to be able to use produced biogas

in vehicle and harvesters.

4.2.9. Assured, long term source of revenue

Upon asking “What are your expectations form the government and market?”, two of the farmers

stated, they needed a constant reliable source who can buy all their products like biogas for

vehicles and food from their animals and farms. Putting it simply, they needed long term

contracts on their products including biogas. This could be easy to achieve since we have the

demand required for establishing long term contracts. Contracts from transport sector, fuels

distributers and suppliers can help solve this issue. Also, long term reliable support comes from

stable, simple and predictable supporting policies form the government. State must think of

making it profitable to sell biogas through subsidies on grid fees and taxation, along with proper

grid connectivity. This will ensure smooth operation of consistent, long term business.

5. Discussion

After the interviews, I found that some of the problems have already been talked about in the

previous researches and articles. Although, there were many new, insightful and diverse answers

from different respondents for all the interview questions, cumulatively making up answers for

my research questions in this thesis.

Analyzing the results, for my first research question “Why are the policies failing to stimulate

indigenous biogas production though there is considerable demand for biogas in Sweden?”, I

found out one reason is that there are very few and weak incentives. This is similar to the

conclusion of (Lantz, et al., 2007). The potential of Agri-based biogas production in Sweden is

high because of the amount of waste that is generated which is of no economic value to the

farmers. However, to utilize this waste as substrate, handling is needed which incurs some cost.

This makes the production less profitable. Also, there are multiple environmental and

socioeconomic benefits from utilizing this waste like better nutrient circulation and reduced

eutrophication. However, there are no targets set by the Swedish parliament on the production or

use of biogas in Sweden as mentioned in (Westlund, et al., 2019). Crop residues, manure and

other agricultural wastes are anyways generated whether they are used for biogas production or

not, yet there are no regulations or legislations that require any kind of treatment for these

residues however (Lantz, 2013).



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

On the other hand, only two of the interviewees stated that profitability drives them to produce

biogas. Like it is said in (Lantz, 2012) and (Lantz, et al., 2012), even from this research, I could

see low profitability is one of the issues faced by biogas production based on feedstock from the

agricultural sector. For these reasons, we need more, clearer and simple policies that incentivize

production to make it more profitable. Even among the those few incentives present, there is

complexity and unpredictability in the policies pertaining to biofuels in Sweden. Our

interviewees required a simple, comprehensive, long-term, single policy instead of multiple,

complex and quickly changing policies, this was also mentioned in (Westlund, et al., 2019). For

example, KLIMP existed for a short period from 2003 till 2008 before Klimatklivet replaced it.

Five years is a very short period for an industry to grow. Generally, policies will be framed with

fair amount of complexity in order to subsidize only the legitimate organizations and to avoid

over-subsidizing. This complexity makes it hard to understand and properly utilize for the public,

which takes time. If they keep changing as quickly as every 5 years, by the time much of the

public would know of such policy, gather funds and make investments in AD technology, it

would have either changed or vanished. Respondents needed a reliable and long-term support as

understood when you see the answer given by Långhult Biogas AB for the question “In addition

to the policies mentioned above, is there anything more you expect the government and

authorities to do to support farmers who produce biogas? If so, what?”.

More-over, the financial support provided by these complex policies is inadequate, just as

mentioned in the background about manure/fertilizer gas support, which provides limited support

of 0.4 SEK/ kWh or even lesser. Even the proposed support mentioned in (Westlund, et al.,

2019) states “However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less

than 0.4 SEK, the aid will also be less than 0.4 SEK. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour

also applies to the total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.” Meaning

that, like fertilizer gas support, this program also provides a maximum of 0.4 SEK/ kWh or lesser

depending on the market price difference. Apart from these constraints, the maximum support of

0.4 SEK/ kWh applies to the total aid, meaning that if the farmer is eligible to get support from

other programs, he/she shall cumulatively get 0.4 SEK/ kWh from all the supporting programs

(Westlund, et al., 2019). This is already very complex to understand for a limited economic

support.

The tax exemptions, investment supports and feed in tariffs for electricity produced from biogas

make the production a little more profitable, but other expenses like permit costs are subsiding

the support given by those policies. From the results of this thesis, it also seems that there is less

emphasis on training and technological development activities pertaining to AD technology. The

state and the rural development authorities need to have some programs that makes investments

towards training of local farmers. Like in UK for instance, many grants and training support

come from regional development programs (Correa, et al., 2017). In current circumstances of

Sweden, farmers are not provided well-structured, systematic training from any government

bodies or rural development programs or agricultural unions. Such training can bring in more

investments towards the technology, and better yield by reducing losses due to flaring. Flaring is

caused mainly because of two reasons. One is lack of adequate training on AD plant operation,

which leads to improper safety measures, poor equipment management and disaster (or at least

flaring to avoid disaster). The other is lack of proper infrastructure like grid connectivity, which



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

is discussed later in this section. Training also helps in improving the number of farm scale

biogas plants in Sweden. When compared to Denmark from where Sweden imports most of the

biogas, Denmark has 86 farm scaled biogas plants and the share of Agri-based biogas among the

total biogas produced is 85.3% (Gustafsson, et al., 2019)

From the background study and literature review, it can also be inferred that the incentives and

financial aids are still provided to improve the demand. However, if these financial supports can

be diverted to incentivize production, the current demand for biogas in Sweden can be met by

local production.

To overcome the problem of strict digestate rules without compromise on digestate standards and

leaving the nutrients and metal content in digestate unregulated, the AD technology might also

be improved by developing and integrating digestate filtering system to make the digestate meet

the strict regulations set by Swedish environmental Protection Agency. We simply cannot expect

farmers to produce biogas, with the substrate available in the market that already contain heavy

metals and are rich in nutrients and the digestate to meet all the requirements set by

Naturvårdsverket. This is worsening the already existing competition for substrates which in turn

shoots up the prices for these substrates.

Moving on to the second research question in this thesis, “What motivated farmers to produce

biogas apart from the government policies and regulations?”, Profitability was once again an

answer like in other previous researches (Lantz, 2012) and (Lantz, et al., 2012). Looking at the

current scenario of biogas market in Sweden (higher demand and lower production), and

profitability being the drive for production as we saw in the interviews, it is understandable that

currently biogas production is not so profitable business. This might as well be one of the

reasons behind the shortfall in number of farm scale AD plants.

Among other things that motivate agriculture-based biogas production, self-sufficiency in energy

needs is also one significant fact. Three of the farmers interviewed wanted to be independent in

their electricity needs related to their farms. Infrastructure needs to be improved as well. In terms

of grid connectivity, a biogas plant that is connected to the electricity grid or the gas grid is much

more efficient than the one that has no connectivity. With grid connection in place, there is no

need for a plant to have large, high pressure vessels to store produced biogas for a relatively long

time. The produced biogas is fast dispensed, hence reducing flaring due to any equipment

malfunction, which is avoided in the first place. Also, the connectivity to electricity grid could

yield higher feed in tariffs and subsidies in grid fees and taxation. Though it can be said that

currently it is a burden on government to provide grid connectivity, make the feed in possible

and provide higher feed in rates. With all the complex administration and huge investments.

However, having a well-connected grid (if not higher feed in today) might help promote biogas

production by reducing transportation hassles. Feed in rates can be looked after at a later stage,

may be by diverting funds from promoting demand towards promoting production.

A very insightful observation made from this research is that some farmers are interested in

agricultural machinery that could use biogas from their farms as fuel. They wanted technology to

help them become independent of all the energy needs including vehicle fuel needs. It meant



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

integration of other sectors including automobile design and manufacturers. But this vision is

difficult to materialize as the biogas needs to be upgraded to biomethane to make it vehicle grade

fuel and not all farm scale biogas plants are large enough to have upgrading facility.

6. Conclusions

After getting the interview results and comparing them with the results of other researches, the

answers to my research question would be summarizes as follows.

My first research question “Why are the policies failing to stimulate indigenous biogas

production in Sweden?” and its sub questions, had these answers:

• Complexity and unpredictability of existing policies. This was one of the well noted

issues that caused trouble bringing more investments towards biogas production. The

policies are too complex and would change before understanding them. The rules must be

stable and reliable for a relatively longer time in the market to make an impact on biogas

production.

• The profit margin is low in biogas business. Today’s biogas market is not generating

enough revenue because of many reasons. One among them is expensive permits and

taxes (for example, for a facility beyond certain size). Expensive substrate price is also

one reason for low profitability.

• AD plants demand relatively huge investments. Farmers’ need more economic support

than what they are provided with today. Even the relaxation in permits and taxes on large

plants might help.

• The need of digestate to meet strict regulations by Naturvårdsverket has a negative

impact on biogas production. For the digestate to meet these stringent regulations of

heavy metal content, the substrate needs to meet those standards. This worsens the

substrate competition and in turn substrate prices, reducing profitability.

The second question in this research was “What apart from the policies and regulative, motivate

farmers to produce more biogas?”, to which, the answers found were:

• Efficient use of AD technology needs training. Currently the Swedish farmers are not

being trained by any government bodies or rural development authorities. Because of

this, the reach of AD technology is low. Only the farmers who get to know of such

technology will have to train themselves from experts they know.

• Difficulties finding dedicated staff at the AD facility creates hassles while running a

biogas plant. Since agriculture is a full-time job and needs lot of attention, farmers need a



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

supporting hand at the biogas plant. Especially, from those who are well trained on AD

and those who can keep an eye on the policies and financial aids.

• Infrastructure also needs improvements (for example electricity grid connectivity).

Connectivity to gas grid of electricity grid will reduce transportation hassles and losses.

This in turn could make the whole biogas business more profitable. Also, farm-based

biogas plants need not store the produced gas for much longer time if they are well

connected through the grid. Reduced storage time means reduced flaring losses and risk

of accidents.

• Biogas system as a whole needs technological improvements (for example: agricultural

machinery that could use biogas as fuel). If the farmers could use the biogas from their

farms as fuel for their own needs, they can be completely independent for energy needs.

This way, they become much more efficient, alongside the whole agricultural and biogas

business brings more profit to them.

• Biogas producers need an assured long-term source of income (for example: contracts

from transport dept.). Revenue assurance could draw more investments towards AD

technology, wherein farm-based biogas plants could grow in numbers.

6.1. Recommendations

It is always better to have a comprehensive policy for a long term though it becomes complex.

AD plant owners/ farmers just need time to understand complex policies, once the farmers are

familiar with the policy and how the application for support works, it is no more so complex.

This single comprehensive policy should provide enough economic support on its own. This

saves farmers a lot of attention needed to look out for all the policies that come at their way,

while making biogas production more profitable. Reducing the taxes/permits costs on facilities

beyond certain size may attract more investments.

AD technological training campaigns would result in improved yield by reduced losses, attract

more investments and increase competence. It would also create a pool of dedicated staff for

those who need supporting hand at their facility. Establishing long term contracts between

producers and transport department/ CHP plants could bring more interest among producers by

creating assured source of income. Along with this, improved gas grid connectivity to nearby

upgrading facility would eliminate hassles in supplying the produced biogas.

6.2. Reflection

Though the research yielded a fair amount of results and I could learn different perspectives and

expectations of different actors, this thesis would have produced more results with wider

perspective had it been given more time. Even the on-going pandemic (COVID-19) situation did

not permit the physical meet with farmers and visit to their facility which I think would have

generated more fruitful results. Visiting the facility would have given a closer look into the



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

situation, a deeper analysis that would have manifested a different perspective all together. Also,

if not for the pandemic, I would have found and contacted more farmers for the interviews, with

far greater percentage of responses than I received through emails.

Literature review would have been fast and more effective if I had a partner who could read

Swedish and translate it for the report, since many of the previous researches are presented in

Swedish as we are looking at biogas in Swedish context. With many concepts and fairly large

data that could divert the focus on multiple occasions, it would have been better to have a partner

or a helping hand on some parts of the project.

6.3. Future scope

Since major portion of the biogas produced is consumed in the form of vehicle gas (upgraded to

biomethane), biogas upgrading facilities could have been involved in the research. Investigation

could be made on what proportion of the biogas coming to upgrading facility is from the regional

farms, how biogas is transported from the local farms to the upgrading facility, what is the cost

difference in transporting by gas grid and by other means (trucks for example). Involving

upgrading facilities is intriguing since there is demand for upgraded biomethane, however, it is

not profitable for biogas producers. Ideally demand for any commodity should bring profits, but

in this case, it is not seen.

Comparisons also could be made with other sectors that are successful in making profit out of

biogas production (Sewage treatment/ municipal organic waste treatment plants for example).



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

References

Barre, C. et al., 2016. Inventory and analysis of the EU and national regulatory framework, s.l.: Biosurf.

Berglund , M., 2006. Biogas Production from a Systems Analytical Perspective, Lund: Lund University.

Biogasmarknadsutredningen, 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, s.l.: s.n.

BioMil AB & Envirum, 2008. DEN SVENSKA BIOGASPOTENTIALEN FRÅN INHEMSKA RESTPRODUKTER,

Lund: Uppdrag Sverige.

Bonde, I. et al., 2019. Report of the Swedish Climate Policy Council, Stockholm: Swedish Climate Policy

council.

Correa, J. V., Khanal, S., Manandhar, A. & Shah, A., 2017. Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy production:

Global status, environmental and techno-economic implications, and government policies. Bioresource

technology, pp. 1015-1026.

Deremince, B., Scheidl, S., Stambasky, J. & Wellinger, A., 2017. Biogas action, s.l.: s.n.

E. 2., 2009. Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending. s.l., s.n., p.

Directive 98/70/EC.

EU, 2003. Official Journal of the European Union. s.l., s.n., p. L 123/43.

European Comission 1, 2030. Climate action. [Online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en

European commission, 1999. Environment. [Online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/landfill_index.htm

[Accessed 31 12 2019].

European commission, 2020. [Online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/nitrates.pdf

European commission, 2020. Climate action. [Online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en

[Accessed 2020].

Eurostat, 2020. Renewable energy statistics, s.l.: EU.

Eurostat, 2020. Supply, transformation and consumption of renewables and wastes. [Online]

Available at: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

[Accessed 19 09 2020].



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

GMI, 2014. A Global Perspective of Anaerobic Digestion Policies and Incentives, s.l.: Global methane

initiative.

Gustafsson, M., Ammenberg, J. & Murphy, J. D., 2019. Country report summaries, s.l.: IEA Bioenergy Task

37 Energy from Biogas.

Hagman, L. & Eklund, M., 2016. The role of biogas solutions in the circular and bio-based economy, s.l.:

BRC.

Hjalmarsson, L., 2013. Cleaner Production. Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration - the case

of Stockholm.

Holmberg, K., 2012. POLICIES PROMOTING BIOFUELS IN SWEDEN, s.l.: An f3 synthesis report.

IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptations and Vulnerabilities, s.l.: Cambridge university

press.

Joel, E., Othman, M. & Burn , S., 2015. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic

digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

Jonas Ammenberg, 2019. Country Report Sweden, Tartu, Estonia: Biogas research center.

Jordbruksverket, 2020. Jordbruksverket. [Online]

Available at: https://jordbruksverket.se/stod/fornybar-energi/godselgasstod

[Accessed 23 8 2020].

Klackenberg, L., 2019. Produktion och användning av biogas och rötrester år 2018, s.l.:

Energimyndigheten.

Lantz, M., 2012. The economic performance of combined heat and power from biogas produced from

manure in Sweden – A comparison of different CHP technologies, Lund: Environmental and Energy

System Studies, Lund University.

Lantz, M., 2013. Biogas in Sweden Opportunities and challenges from a systems perspective, s.l.: Lund

University.

Lantz, M., Björnsson, L. & Kreuger, E., 2012. Impact of energy crop selection on process parameters and

economy in the production of biogas as vehicle fuel, s.l.: s.n.

Lantz, M., Svensson, M., Bjornsson, L. & Borjesson, P., 2007. The prospects for an expansion of biogas

systems in Sweden—Incentives, barriers and potentials, s.l.: s.n.

Lonnqvist, T., 2017. Biogas in Swedish transport-A policy driven systematic transition, s.l.: KTH.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Lönnqvist, T., Silveira, S. & Sanches-pereira, A., 2013. Swedish resource potential from residues and

energy crops to enhance biogas generation. Renewable and sustainable energy review, pp. 298-314.

Luc Pelkmans, eds., 2018. Bioenergy policies and status of implementation, s.l.: IEA-bioenergy.

Lukehurst, C., 2017. UK Country Report, s.l.: IEA bioenergy.

Martin, M. A., 2015. Potential of Biogas Expansion in Sweden- Identifying the Gap between Potential

Studies and Producer Perspectives. Biofuels, pp. 233-240.

Motherway , B., 2019. IEA. [Online]

Available at: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/energy-efficiency-is-the-first-fuel-and-demand-for-it-

needs-to-grow

Motherway, B., 2019. IEA. [Online]

Available at: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/energy-efficiency-is-the-first-fuel-and-demand-for-it-

needs-to-grow

RFR7, 2009. Pumplagen – uppföljning av lagen om skyldighet att tillhandahålla förnybara drivmedel.

Stockholm, RFR 7.

Sherrard, A., 2019. Bioenergy international. [Online]

Available at: https://bioenergyinternational.com/markets-finance/biogas-made-in-sweden-reduced-

emissions-2018

SJV, 2009. Jordbruksverket.se. [Online]

Available at: https://jordbruksverket.se/stod/fornybar-energi/investeringsstod-for-biogas

SNAO, 2011. Biofuels for a Better Climate – How does the tax relief work?, s.l.: Riksrevisionen .

Swedish Energy Agency, 2019. Energimyndigheten > facts and figures > documents > energy in sweden

2019. [Online]

Available at: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/facts-and-figures/statistics/

Swedish environemtal protection agency, 2012. Sweden's environmental objectives - an introduction,

Vaxio: naturvårdsverket.

Union, E., 2020. Climate action. [Online]

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2020_en

Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB.

Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB.

Westlund, Å. et al., 2019. Mer biogas! För ett hållbart Sverige, s.l.: s.n.



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

You-Kwan, O. et al., 2018. Recent developments and key barriers to advanced biofuels: A short review.

Bioresource technology.

Appendices



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Annexure 1: Interview questions (In English)

1. Name of the organization

2. Plant capacity (Cubic meters of biogas produced/kWh worth of biogas produced)

3. How much of substrates (Biomass) both "Wet and dry" will your facility generate

yearly?

4. What part of the generated substrates/biomass is actually going to production

facility/reactor and what happens to the rest?

5. Select all the substrates that you use as digestate?

• Manure

• Agricultural waste/ Straw

• Dedicated energy crops

• Sewage sludge

• Kitchen waste/other (food waste)

6. Which of the following policies/regulations do you think, are driving farmers like

you to produce biogas?

• Renewable energy Generation targets

• Greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations

• Regional development policies

• Air emissions regulations

• Water emission regulations

• Manure storage regulations

• Nutrient (Soil/ground water health) management

Appendices



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

7. Please mention if you have come across any policies or regulations that hinder the

production of biogas?

8. Which of the following incentives are you interested in for producing biogas?

• Feed in tariffs

• Tax exemptions and tax credits

• Credits for nutrient load reduction on soil and water

• Credits for CO2 reduction

• Please mention if any other

9. What motivates you to produce biomass apart from Government incentives?

10. What difficulties/problems do you face while running a biogas plant?

11. Did you receive training on the technology of biogas production (Anaerobic

digestion) from regional development agencies or any other government bodies?

• Yes

• No

12. In addition to the policies mentioned above, is there anything more you expect the

government and authorities to do to support farmers who produce biogas? If so,

what?

Appendices



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

Annexure 2: Answers of different respondents (Translated from Swedish)

<---

Nam

e o

f th

e c

om

pa

ny

Pla

nt

size

(am

ou

nt

of

bio

gas

pro

du

ced

, e.g

. in

mo

nth

s /

year

s o

r kW

h /

ye

ars)

Ho

w m

uch

po

ten

tia

l bio

gas

sub

stra

te (

bio

mas

s,

we

t o

r d

ry)

do

es

the

far

m g

en

era

te a

nn

ual

ly?

Ho

w m

uch

of

the

po

ten

tia

l su

bst

rate

go

es

to

bio

gas

pro

du

ctio

n?

Wh

at h

app

en

s to

th

e

rem

ain

ing

bio

mas

s?

Ind

icat

e a

ll su

bst

rate

s u

sed

in t

he

pla

nt:

Wh

ich

of

the

fo

llow

ing

typ

es

of

po

licie

s an

d

guid

elin

es,

do

yo

u t

hin

k, g

et

farm

ers

like

yo

u t

o

pro

du

ce b

ioga

s?

Wh

ich

of

the

fo

llow

ing

po

licy

inst

rum

en

ts w

ou

ld

mak

e y

ou

mo

re in

tere

ste

d in

pro

du

cin

g b

ioga

s?

Hav

e y

ou

en

cou

nte

red

an

y p

olic

ies

or

regu

lati

on

s

that

hin

de

r th

e p

rod

uct

ion

of

bio

gas?

Wh

at, a

par

t fr

om

po

licie

s an

d g

uid

elin

es,

mo

tiva

tes

you

to

pro

du

ce b

ioga

s?

Wh

at d

iffi

cult

ies

or

pro

ble

ms

ha

ve y

ou

en

cou

nte

red

in c

on

ne

ctio

n w

ith

ru

nn

ing

a b

ioga

s

pla

nt?

Hav

e y

ou

re

ceiv

ed

an

y tr

ain

ing

in t

he

te

chn

olo

gy

rega

rdin

g b

ioga

s p

rod

uct

ion

(an

aero

bic

dig

est

ion

)

fro

m r

egi

on

al d

eve

lop

me

nt

au

tho

riti

es

or

oth

er

auth

ori

tie

s?

In a

dd

itio

n t

o t

he

po

licie

s m

en

tio

ne

d a

bo

ve, i

s

the

re a

nyt

hin

g m

ore

yo

u e

xpe

ct t

he

go

vern

me

nt

and

au

tho

riti

es

to d

o t

o s

up

po

rt f

arm

ers

wh

o

pro

du

ce b

ioga

s? If

so

, wh

at?

Kar

l-Jo

han

Gu

nn

arss

on

Ca

10

00

00

0kW

25

55

0 m

3 Is

wh

at is

use

d

30

%, F

erti

lizer

Man

ure

Tax

exem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f; C

ert

ific

ate

for

red

uce

d la

nd

an

d w

ater

eutr

op

hic

atio

n

Envi

ron

men

tally

haz

ard

ou

s ac

tivi

ty

Eco

no

my

Stra

nge

ru

les

for

gran

ts

No

Bu

y th

e ga

s fo

r th

eir

veh

icle

s, b

uy

the

foo

d

fro

m o

ur

anim

als

for

thei

r sc

ho

ols

etc

.

Lån

ghu

lt B

ioga

s ab

26

00

00

m3

raw

gas

35

00

To

n

10

0%

Man

ure

; Se

wag

e sl

ud

ge

Ob

ject

ives

fo

r

ren

ewab

le e

ner

gy

pro

du

ctio

n; P

rofi

tab

ility

Tax

exem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f; C

O2

cer

tifi

cate

Ener

gy t

ax if

yo

u h

ave

too

larg

e a

faci

lity.

Ru

les

rega

rdin

g fo

od

resi

du

e su

bst

rate

.

Envi

ron

men

tally

sm

art

Bu

reau

crac

y an

d

ign

ora

nce

No

Lon

g-te

rm r

ule

s o

f th

e

gam

e, L

on

g-te

rm

sup

po

rt

Frig

iva

gård

15

00

00

kwh

65

00

m3

10

0%

Man

ure

; A

gric

ult

ura

l

was

te/s

traw

Pro

fit

dri

vin

g, it

mu

st

pro

vid

e p

rofi

tab

ility

th

e

rest

is a

bo

nu

s

Tax

exem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f

No

Sust

ain

abili

ty, C

ircu

lar

Eco

no

my

Lack

of

com

pet

ence

,

lack

of

mar

ket,

few

agri

cult

ura

l mac

hin

es

that

can

use

bio

gas

as

fuel

.

Yes

Bio

gas

mu

st b

eco

me

mo

re p

rofi

tab

le t

han

fo

ssil

fuel

s.

Appendices



+46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se

SLU

Sve

rige

s la

ntb

ruks

un

ive

rsit

et

5 0

00

00

0 k

wh

ele

ctri

city

& h

eat

21

00

0 t

on

10

0 %

go

es t

o b

ioga

s p

rod

uct

ion

Man

ure

; En

ergy

cro

ps

Ob

ject

ives

fo

r th

e p

rod

uct

ion

of

ren

ewab

le e

ner

gy;

Reg

ula

tio

ns

to r

edu

ce g

ree

nh

ou

se g

as e

mis

sio

ns;

Reg

ula

tio

ns

rega

rdin

g st

ora

ge o

f m

anu

re

Tax

exem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f; C

O2

cer

tifi

cate

We

wan

t to

incr

ease

th

e am

ou

nt

of

sub

stra

te f

rom

21

,00

0 t

on

s to

30

,00

0 t

on

s, w

as f

orc

ed t

o p

rod

uce

a

new

en

viro

nm

en

tal p

erm

it a

t a

cost

of

1/2

mill

ion

to c

on

sult

ants

.

Envi

ron

men

tal a

nd

so

ciet

al b

enef

its,

met

han

e fo

r

elec

tric

ity

and

hea

t.

Fin

d c

om

mit

ted

sta

ff

No

Tax

red

uct

ion

Lägd

a G

ård

50

-60

00

0 N

m3

27

00

m3

10

0%

Man

ure

Ob

ject

ives

fo

r

the

pro

du

ctio

n

of

ren

ewab

le

ener

gy

elec

tric

ity

net

wo

rk

Wan

t to

be

self

-su

ffic

ien

t

The

tech

niq

ue

No

Ku

lbäc

kslid

en

s La

ntb

ruk

Ca

20

0 0

00

m3

/yea

r

72

00

to

n

10

0%

Man

ure

; A

gric

ult

ura

l was

te/s

traw

Ob

ject

ives

fo

r th

e p

rod

uct

ion

of

ren

ewab

le

ener

gy; R

egu

lati

on

s re

gard

ing

the

man

agem

ent

of

nu

trie

nts

an

d e

mis

sio

ns

to

lan

d a

nd

wat

er

Fee

d-i

n t

arif

f; T

ax e

xem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f;

CO

2‚ c

erti

fica

te

Self

-su

ffic

ien

cy w

ith

en

ergy

No

Mak

e it

pro

fita

ble

to

sel

l ele

ctri

city

th

rou

gh

sub

sid

ies

for

grid

fee

s an

d t

axat

ion

Hö

gryd

s fa

rm

70

0 M

Wh

11

50

m3

10

0%

Man

ure

Ob

ject

ives

fo

r

the

pro

du

ctio

n

of

ren

ewab

le

ener

gy

Tax

exem

pti

on

or

tax

relie

f

elec

tric

ity

net

wo

rk

Deg

ree

of

self

-

suff

icie

ncy

The

tech

niq

ue

No

Documents

Stimulating national biogas production