Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Economiceenvironmental analysis of handling biogas from sewage

sludge digesters in WWTPs (wastewater treatment plants) for energy
recovery: Case study of Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway)
G. Venkatesh a, *, Rashid Abdi Elmi b
a

Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, SP Andresensv 5, Valgrinda,
Trondheim 7491, Norway
Oslo Water and Wastewater Authority, Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 20 August 2012
Received in revised form
22 February 2013
Accepted 21 May 2013
Available online 29 June 2013

This paper outlines a methodology for a systematic economiceenvironmental analysis of realistic and
realisable options for recovering and utilising energy from biogas produced in sewage sludge digesters in
WWTPs (wastewater treatment plants). Heat, electricity and transport fuel can be produced from biogas,
consumed in-plant or even sold to external end-users. The paper initially considers global warming as
the environmental impact of concern, but later also stresses on the necessity of avoiding problem shifting
by factoring in other environmental impact categories as well. The methodology is subsequently applied
to the Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway). Five different options for handling biogas are considered, in
addition to the status quo e the business-as-usual in year-2012, and a baseline case, where it is assumed
that all biogas generated is ared completely and not utilised for energy recovery of any kind. Seven
different cost scenarios e for electricity, natural gas, wood pellets, bio-methane and diesel e are constructed. This gives a total of 49 combinations, for each of which the net costs and net environmental
impacts (global warming, eutrophication and acidication) are determined for the 10-year period 2012
e2021. The changes (in percentages) with respect to the corresponding values for the baseline case, are
recorded; suitable weighting factors are considered after interaction with experts and personnel associated with the plant, and the options are evaluated using this double-bottom-line approach (economic
and environmental).
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Anaerobic digester
Combined Heat and Power Plant
Biogas
Transportation fuel
Wastewater treatment plant

1. Introduction
Energy recovered from organic wastes fulls several desirable
objectives at the same time e effective management of the wastes,
combating energy scarcity and curtailing green-house gas emissions. The biogas produced in sewage sludge digesters in WWTPs
(wastewater treatment plants) is poised strategically at the intersection of energy, solid wastes and water/wastewater. However,
investments and operating/maintenance expenses are called for, if
one wishes to harness the energetic-value inherent in wastes like
sewage sludge. Energy recovered from biogas may also become a
source of revenue for the WWTPs.
In this paper, a methodology to consider both the economic and
the environmental aspects of energy recovery from biogas has been
proposed. The paper initially considers (GHG emissions and) global
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: venkatesh.govindarajan@ntnu.no (G. Venkatesh).
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.025

warming as the environmental impact of concern, but later also

stresses on the necessity of avoiding problem shifting by factoring
in other environmental impact categories. Application of the
methodology to the Bekkelaget WWTP in Oslo (Norway) constitutes the latter part of the paper.
2. Literature review
Biogas in general e and sewage sludge digester biogas in
particular e has been a subject of interest for several researchers in
the elds of energy and water/wastewater, with the watereenergyecarbon nexus gaining increasing importance as a eld of
research and analysis [1,2].
The volume of biogas captured and utilised in the two WWTPs
of the Norwegian capital city of Oslo rose from 8.1 million cubic
metres (m3) in year-2000 to 14.6 million m3 in year-2007 [3]. The
electricity generated from the biogas for in-plant consumption in
one of the two plants rose from 7.1 GWh in year-2000 to 9.5 GWh in

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

year-2007. Heat was recovered and utilised in both plants. At the

time of writing, the plant which has not been utilising biogas for
electricity generation, renes most of the biogas generated to
transportation fuel and sells the same to the public-transport buses
in the city [4]. In an analysis of the Baix Llobregat WWTP in the
Barcelona metropolitan area in Spain, the authors have mentioned
that 75% of the biogas captured was used for heat generation in a
boiler, while 25% was used in a cogenerator with natural gas for
electricity generation; the waste heat in the exhaust being used to
heat water to be supplied to the mesophilic anaerobic digester [5].
There are 1900 WWTPs in Japan, but less than 30 of these are
equipped with infrastructure to utilise all the biogas produced [6].
There is a need to include economic data to complete the analysis
carried out in Ref. [5]. In a Danish case study using the EnergyPLAN
model, of technologies to extract heat, electricity and transportation fuel from solid wastes, the authors have noted the boiler
heat generation efciency, electric efciency (CHP (Combined Heat
and Power) e engine) and heat efciency (CHP engine) for energy
recovery from biogas sourced from organic wastes, as 85.5%, 19.5%
and 65.4% respectively, while the efciency of upgrading crude
biogas to transport fuel is reported as 94.3% [7]. This paper also
notes the lower heating value of digester biogas as 23 MJ/m3. The
highest reduction in GHG emissions in Denmark can be achieved by
utilising organic waste (if which sewage sludge is a signicant part)
in biogas plants for CHP production e a reduction of 1.4 million
tonnes of CO2 per year [7].
In a survey carried out in Finland with sewage digester gas,
landll biogas and farm biogas, it was determined that the sewage
digester biogas was by far the richest in methane, and least
contaminated with benzene, hydrogen sulphide and nitrogen [8].
The paper concluded that if biogas has to be used as a vehicle fuel
(in addition to being a source of heat and electricity), it would be
advisable to consider sewage digester biogas or manure courtesy
the lower content of nitrogen, and halogenated and silicon compounds, which makes the biogas easier to upgrade (remove carbon
dioxide and other constituents and make it richer in methane). The
technologies identied for upgrading the biogas emanating from
the sludge digester and transforming it to transportation fuel, are
water and polyethylene scrubbing (costs put at 0.13 Euro/Nm3),
pressure swing adsorption using molecular sieves (0.4 Euro per
Nm3), chemical absorption (0.17 Euro per Nm3), bio-lter, cryogenic
separation (0.44 Euro per Nm3) and membrane separation (0.17
Euro per Nm3) [9]. The authors of this paper also point out that in
year-2004, there were 10,000 biogas-driven buses and cars, and 3.8
million natural gas fuelled vehicles across the world e especially in
Argentina, Brasil, Pakistan, Italy, India and the USA. Talking of
biogas-upgrading technologies, the economic and labour-saving
benets associated with biological hydrogen sulphide removal
from digester biogas are also of interest [10].
Anaerobic digestion, beyond its role in treatment and stabilisation systems for sludge and wastewater, can also contribute to the
reduction of GHG emissions by either capturing potential methane
emissions or producing energy that substitutes fossil fuels [11].
Among different sources of bio-methane e manure, landlls and
sewage sludge from WWTPs e Poland and Czech Republic derive a
signicant percentage from sewage sludge, with Italy, Spain and the
UK extracting between 10 and 15% of their total bio-methane from
anaerobic digesters in WWTPs [11]. This paper has also indicated
that about 380 PJ of bio-methane can be extracted from landlls,
manure and sewage sludge in the EU annually, potentially
substituting 9.07 billion kg of gasoline. Bioenergy can potentially
provide about 30% of the energy demand in China [12]. Of course, the
main message is the urgent need to harness bioenergy to reduce the
carbon footprint of the Polish electricity mix which is dominated by
coal, with solid biomass coming a very distant second.

221

In southern France, anaerobic ponds yielded biogas with 83%

methane and over 14% nitrogen, with the carbon dioxide being
dissolved in the water and converted to bicarbonates, as the biogas
bubbled up from the sludge at the pond-bed towards the surface
[13]. Thus, anaerobic ponds can be considered to yield richer biogas
(with a high energy content), vis--vis the one generated in
anaerobic digesters (which could have a methane content between
60% and 75%). The methane content in biogas from anaerobic ponds
could even be as high as 90% [14]. Thus, while the production rate in
terms of m3 of biogas per kg of volatile solids added, is usually
higher in psychrophilic anaerobic ponds, than that for mesophilic
anaerobic digesters, the volumetric biogas production rate in terms
of m3/m2/d can be much lower in comparison. They have also
concluded that if biogas from all psychrophilic anaerobic ponds
treating dairy and piggery wastewater (and thereby the sludge
therefrom) in New Zealand e over 1000 in number e were
captured and converted into electricity, 1.3 MWh/day could be
generated and 6.2 tonnes of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions/day,
could be reduced.
The production of biogas in the EU was estimated to be around
69 TWh in year-2007; and has grown ever since [15]. The upgrading of biogas to bio-methane has gained increasing attention due to
rising oil and natural gas prices and increasing targets for renewable fuel quotas in many countries; in 2009, there were 100
upgrading plants in operation globally [15]. The oldest biogasupgrading plant delivering vehicle fuel is in Los Angeles (USA),
and has been in operation since 1993, while the oldest one in
general upgrading biogas (from landlls, for addition to the natural
gas grid) is in Staten Island (New York, USA) since 1981. In Norway,
the city of Fredrikstad was the pioneer (vehicle fuel) in 2001, followed by Oslo (vehicle fuel) and Stavanger (gas grid); both in 2009.
As far as the number of operating plants is concerned, Sweden and
Germany dominated the list of 14 countries (as in 2009) [15].
Nascent upgrading technologies include the use of the enzyme
carboanhydrase (which catalyses the dissolution of carbon dioxide
in water in the human body; transports it to the lungs, and then
catalyses the reverse reaction, emitting carbon dioxide and water
vapour during exhalation), to separate carbon dioxide from
methane in biogas. In Ref. [16], where a life-cycle analysis has been
performed to compare different bio-methane upgrading options,
the specic consumption of diethyl amine for chemical scrubbing of
biogas has been reported as 1.2 kg per tonne of carbon dioxide
removed. For monoethanolamine, this value is 1.4 kg per tonne. It
must be noted that the amine used is regenerated and there are
some losses which occur in the process. The specic value indicated
is the mass which is replenished every year to make up for the
losses [17].
3. Methodology
If the purpose of anaerobic sludge digestion in WWTPs is merely
to reduce the volume/mass of the sludge which would then have to
be handled/disposed, and in-plant energy recovery is not resorted
to, the plant may be tempted to simply release the biogas to the
atmosphere. However, WWTPs are intent on reducing their carbon
footprints and would at least are the biogas and ideally convert all
methane to biogenic carbon dioxide. This can be considered to be
the reference/baseline case in this paper, against which various
degrees and methods of capture, conversion, utilisation and sale
can be evaluated. In general however, it must be mentioned that
the existing state-of-affairs in a WWTP e whatever that may be e
would be the reference case. The various possibilities or combinations of possibilities which one could think of, as far as handling the
biogas from the sludge digesters in WWTPs is concerned, are
tabulated in Table 1 (also refer Fig. 1).

222

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Table 1
What could be done with the biogas from anaerobic sludge digesters.

Biogas released without aring (all methane escapes to air). Some of the trace
constituents may have adverse environmental impacts e unlikely. No
investments in energy-recovery infrastructure; dependence on external
purchases.

Biogas aring e Methane combusted and biogenic carbon dioxide released
along with other products of combustion. While complete oxidation of some
of the trace constituents (VOCs) augurs well for the environment, that of
some others may result in adverse environmental impacts e nitrous oxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, dioxins etc. No energy recovery.
Investments may however be done for scrubbing and cleaning the exhaust.
This would reduce environmental impacts other than global warming e
acidication and toxicity for instance. Total dependence on external
purchases of energy.

Heat utilisation in plant e for anaerobic digester heating, interior heating etc.
Investments in boiler, heat exchanger and piping. Operational and
maintenance expenses. Reduction in dependence on external heat sources e
natural gas for instance. Some fuel oil may be needed for the boiler. Exhaust
gas would need to be cleaned/scrubbed.

Electricity generation within plant. Investments in piping, turbine-generator
setup, wiring, pre-treatment of crude biogas, etc. Operational and
maintenance expenses. Cleaning of exhaust gas may be done for the reasons
referred to earlier. Reduction in dependence on grid electricity. Biogas may be
utilised along with other fuels in cogeneration engines. Purchasing the fuel to
be combusted along with the biogas would thus be an operational
expenditure in this case.

Combined heat and power e where electricity is generated in using gas engines,
micro-gas turbines or duel fuel diesel engines, and the exhaust heat is
recovered in a heat exchanger, and utilised. Investments in the necessary
infrastructure would be greater in this regard, vis--vis electricity generation
only and heat recovery only.

Sale of heat (hot water or steam) to proximal users willing to purchase it, by
piping hot water or steam. Investments in heat exchange tubing, and piping
to the site/s of the end-user/s. Lesser the distance between the plant and the
end-users site, the better. Of course, this would mean that there would be a
greater dependence on purchases of fuel elements from the market. Excess
heat (or low temperature heat) e in case that is so e may be sold in this
fashion, if there exist uses for the same in the vicinity.

Sale of electricity to grid. If all electricity generated is sold, total dependence on
grid electricity for in-plant consumption. Hence, it is unlikely that a plant
would resort to such a measure. Investments, needless to say, would be the
same as for electricity generation and consumption within the plant.

Upgrading/rening and conversion to transport fuel and sale to the publictransport sector. The biogas needs to be enriched in methane, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulphide, volatile organics, halogenated compounds, silicon
compounds etc. have to be removed, in order to convert it into good-quality
automotive fuel. Common technologies available for biogas upgrading
include water and polyethylene scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption using
molecular sieves, chemical absorption, bio-lter, cryogenic separation and
membrane separation [9,18]. Such upgrading would also be needed if the
plant decides to feed the biogas into natural gas pipelines e the end-uses
would then be varied. Investments in upgrading setups, and operational/
maintenance expenses

Piping biogas without rening to end-users who may either directly use it for its
heat content (as a substitute for cooking fuel e Liquid petroleum gas e for
instance); or a sub-contractor who would undertake the responsibility of
converting the biogas into energy forms for sale; and pay (or not) only for the
biogas he receives. Here, the plant would invest only in piping to the
consumer. What the consumer does with the biogas received, is not then the
plants concern. Again here, there would be total dependence on electricity
from the grid and heat sources.

As mentioned earlier, the baseline/reference case is compared to

a plethora of alternatives (combinations of possibilities) for energy
recovery from biogas (Table 1). The net expenditure and the net
GHG emissions are compared and the increase/decrease with
respect to the reference case recorded.
As shown in Table 2, the baseline case is dened as one in
which sludge is digested, dewatered, dried, conditioned and
disposed; the motive behind the investments in sludge handling
prior to and after digestion, being the reduction in mass and
volume of the sludge to facilitate easier transport and disposal/
recycling in landlls, agriculture, silviculture, incinerators etc.

All biogas is ared e combusted and the constituents oxidised.

The exhaust is not cleaned or scrubbed before release to the atmosphere. In the absence of 100% combustion, some methane will
be released into the atmosphere. There will however be other
products of combustion, albeit in smaller quantities. While complete oxidation of some of the trace constituents (VOCs) augurs
well for the environment, that of some others may result in
adverse environmental impacts e nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide,
sulphur dioxide, dioxins etc. If the focus is only on reducing the
carbon footprint by curtailing the GHG emissions contributing to
global warming, and if the fact that these other emissions are in
relatively smaller quantities can be upheld, they and their associated impacts may be ignored. However, a more comprehensive
analysis would entail the inclusion of all emissions and all environmental impacts. No energy recovery would mean that there
would not be any investments in gas capture, combustion and
energy-recovery infrastructure. Likewise, there would not be a
need to consume energy and chemicals required for the recovery
processes e like polyethylene glycol, amines, hydroxides of alkali
metals, zeolite etc., for upgrading crude biogas to transportation
fuel for instance. The treatment plant will have to source all its
electricity from the grid, and fuel for heat generation from the
market, in the absence of any in-plant generation of these energy
forms. There will not be any prospects for revenue generation by
sale of energy.
The energy-related expenditure in this case includes that on
electricity from the grid, fuel material to full the heating needs
of the plant, and scrubbing of the products of aring. The GHG
emissions include those related to the electricity generation
upstream, life-cycle emissions of the fuels utilised for heat
generation and the non-CO2 GHG emissions from aring of
biogas. Only methane is accounted for here as a non-CO2 GHG;
nitrous oxide may result if all ammonia is not completely oxidised to nitrogen dioxide, but it is neglected for the sake of this
analysis.
The generalised energy-recovery case is assumed to include all
possibilities. The additional cost categories are listed in Table 2 in
the second column as entries A(4e13). Likewise, revenues from
possible sale of heat, crude biogas, electricity and transport fuel are
considered. The GHG (and avoided GHG) emissions which are
considered, have been listed as items B(1e10) in the second column
in Table 2. The variables (and constants) which would be used in the
calculations, are tabulated in the Appendices 1e5.
The real costs and real prices (thereby the real value of
revenues generated), as well as the total volumes of biogas
generated and captured are likely to change over time. On a
year-to-year basis, all average annual real costs and prices may
not be constant. The nominal values would have changed at
rates different from the general annual ination/deation rates.
Further, with a rise in population serviced, the volume of
sewage treated may also increase; and subsequently a greater
organic content in the sewage sludge would yield more biogas.
Decision-making would thus entail a reasonably good prescience of how real costs, real prices and volumes of biogas are
likely to change in the future. Investing in energy-recovery
systems would entail lock-ins introducing some xed costs for
the WWTP, irrespective of whether the systems are used for
energy recovery or not at any time. In an ideal case, a WWTP
would like to be exible enough to be able to avail of all possible
opportunities to recover, utilise and/or sell energy from biogas
generated in the digester. However, protability (or at least a
full cost recovery over the systems lifetime) should be one of
the guiding principles behind investing in a given energy-recovery system, even though environmental benets may be the
driving forces.

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

3.1. Net energy-related expenses

3.1.1. Baseline case
This is simply the sum of the cost of electricity purchased from
the grid, and the cost of fuel purchased for heating requirements. If
the analysis is being done with annual aggregate values or averages,
as the case may be, and the time period being considered for the
analysis is a few years, the net energy-related expenses for the
baseline case would have to be recalculated for each year, taking
into account the expected changes in the variables. The subscript p
is added on in the Eq. (1), to make this clear. Cnet, energy-related, baseline,p stands for the net energy-related expenditure in year p for the
baseline/reference case. The units of the variables should be
appropriately chosen, in cases where they can be expressed in
different ways.

Cnet;energyrelated;baseline;p Elecgrid; p *celec; p *1; 000; 000

n 

X

Heatf ;purchase;p *cf ; heat; p * 1; 000; 000

(1)

With time, as the volume of sewage handled increases, the

electricity requirement will rise. As the electricity mix changes,
which is bound to happen with time, the real cost of electricity from
the grid may also change (rise generally). Heating needs may increase as the volume of sludge to be handled rises; and the real
costs of fuel elements (some of which are getting scarcer and
thereby dearer by the day) may also go up.
3.1.2. Generalised energy-recovery case
In a generalised energy-recovery case, all possible cost terms
and revenue terms are included. The ones which are not relevant in
the year under consideration can be set to zero. The subscript p is
included in order to account for the changes that may occur from
year to year. All the annualised capital costs are bracketed together
in Eq. (2). The units of the variables should be appropriately chosen,
in cases where they can be expressed in different ways.

recovered and utilised/sold. The unit costs of energy recovery e

cb,electricity, cb,heat, cb,CHP and cb,transport fuel e and the unit prices of
heat, electricity and fuel sold are in terms of the energy content in
kWh. The unit costs referred to do not include the cost of electricity
and heat consumed during the energy-recovery processes e these
have been included separately in Eq. (2). The values of Elecgrid and/
or Heatf,purchase in Eq. (2) are less than the corresponding ones in Eq.
(1), as when there is energy recovery, the electricity sourced from
the grid or heating elements purchased from the market or both
decrease. For example

hn
Elecgrid;p Eq: 2 Elecgrid;p Eq: 1  ap eb;capt * hb;electricity;p *
o

 Vb;capt;electricity;p Vb;capt;CHP;p
i
 Elecb;sold;p
(3)

f 1

Cnet;energyrelated;energy recovery;p

223

The ap in Eq. (3) stands for the fraction of the biogas-derived

electricity which is utilised in-plant for processes not related to
energy recovery from biogas, in year p. This may vary from year to
year and hence the inclusion of the subscript p. The energy content
(lower heating value) of the crude biogas e eb,capt e in terms of kWh
per m3, is lower than that of the upgraded biogas e eb,upgraded e
which retains almost all the energy of the crude biogas, but is less
voluminous owing to the removal of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and
other constituents of the crude biogas. The efciency of electricity
generation is the same for both cases e electricity-only and CHP;
the difference being that in the latter case, exhaust heat is recovered and utilised.
If there is no sale of energy at all, the subtractive terms in the
latter half of Eq. (2) would be zero. However, that would mean that
there is no transport fuel production within the plant. If both
electricity and heat are generated and consumed in-plant, then the
expenditure on purchasing electricity and fuel will decrease. In
some cases, all the biogas may be converted into transportation fuel
and sold, especially when electricity is relatively cheaper. In cases

n 


X
Heatf ;purchase; p *cf ; heat; p *1; 000; 000
Elecgrid; p *celec; p *1; 000; 000
f 1


Cb;heat;capital Cb;electricity;capital Cb; transport fuel;capital Cb;scrubbing;capital Cb;CHP;capital Cb;piped gas;capital
 


cb;scrubbing;p *Vb;flared;p cb;transport fuel;p *eb; capt *hb;transport fuel;p * Vb;capt;transport fuel;p cb;heat;p *eb;capt * hb;heat;p * Vb;capt;heat;p
 


cb;electricity;p *eb;capt * hb;electricity;p * Vb;capt;electricity;p cb;CHP;p *eb;capt * hb;CHP;p * Vb;capt;CHP;p


n 
X
f 1

Heat f ;for energy recovery;p * cf ;heat;p * 1; 000; 000



Elecgrid;for energy recovery;p *celec;p *1; 000; 000


 
 
 Elecb;sold;p *pb;elec;p *1; 000; 000  Heatb;sold;p *pb;heat;p *1; 000; 000  Vb;capt;transport;fuel;p *m*eb;upgraded *pb;transport fuel;p




 Vb;capt;piped crude;p *pb;piped crude;p  m*Vb;capt; added to NG pipeline;p *pb;capt;added to NG pipeline;p


(2)

Of course, it is unreasonable to expect both Cb,electricity,capital and

Cb,CHP,capital to be incurred together. The same applies to the associated operational costs. However, Cb,CHP,capital and Cb,heat,capital can
very well be incurred concurrently; where some biogas is fed to a
boiler solely for heat generation; while some is fed to a CHP plant
for electricity production primarily, with the exhaust heat

where electricity supply from the grid is unreliable and thus may
impact adversely on the stability of the operations in the plant,
preference would be given to utilising all the biogas for electricity
generation for internal consumption. In cities where there is a
heavy dependence on private automobiles and absence of a robust
public-transportation system, conversion of the biogas to transport

224

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Fig. 1. Schematic sketch of the possible ways of handling biogas from anaerobic sludge digesters in WWTPs (wastewater treatment plants).

fuel will be ruled out as an option. The efciencies of conversion e

hb,heat, hb,electricity, hb,CHP and hb,transport fuel e are more or less constant and can be maintained thus, by adhering to a strict maintenance regimen (maintenance expenses are included in the unit
costs of recovery). However, in order to accommodate possible
changes, the subscript p is included in these terms, to denote
possible variability from year to year.
For each year, the percentage differences between the net
energy-related costs in the baseline case on the one hand (Eq. (1))
and a set of possible realistic and realisable combinations of energy recovery/utilisation in-plant/sale on the other hand (Eq. (2)) is
estimated. If the value of the net energy-related costs in the baseline case is greater, the percentage difference is negative (and
desirable); if it is less, the percentage difference is positive. Realistic and realisable would be very much context-specic, and can
be assumed to be applicable throughout the time period considered
for this evaluation. (This ensures that energy-recovery systems
function continuously throughout their respective lifetimes, even
though at times, they may be operated much below their maximum
capacity.) For instance, if there is no market for biogas-derived
transport fuel in the city or region, it would be unrealistic to
setup biogas-upgrading systems for the production of transport
fuel. If the WWTP is located far away from potential users of heat,
the possibility of piping hot water (selling heat generated from
biogas) to them is not realisable. If the plant is located in a city
which has warm summers, the heat demand in the summer
months would be lower, enabling the production of a greater volume of transport fuel. In the winter months (if extremely cold), heat
demand would be higher, but the generation of heat e even when
all the biogas is utilised for heat generation e could be lower than
the demand [6]; necessitating probably the prioritisation of heat

recovery vis--vis transport fuel production. The sets of possible

combinations could be constructed as illustrated in Fig. 2 with an
example e Generation of heat only, Production of transport fuel,
Flaring, Utilisation of heat generated in-plant and Sale of transport
fuel. All electricity and part of the heat need to be purchased.
This is repeated for each set of combinations for every year of
the time period of the analysis, paying particular attention to the
changes in the values of real costs, real prices, efciencies, volumes,
etc. In every case where there is a partitioning of the biogas
generated e as shown in Fig. 3 e different sets of partitioning coefcients are experimented with, while staying within the bounds
of the possibilities dening the case concerned. For instance, in the
case exemplied in Fig. 3, if all the heating needs are being exactly
fullled by 25% of the volume of biogas being sent to the boiler,
excess heat must not be generated by increasing this partitioning
coefcient above 0.25, as sale of heat has been ruled out as an
option. On the other hand, reducing the coefcient to 0.2 would
make available more biogas for transport fuel production and sale.
The revenue from this sale would then be offset slightly by the
expenditure incurred on fuels for heating. The percentage differences in the net costs for these alternatives (and sub-alternatives)
are tabulated for every year of the time period of analysis. An
average percentage difference is then calculated for each of these.
3.2. Net energy-related GHG emissions
Fig. 3 depicts the energy ows within the WWTP and between
the plant and the technosphere. The black arrows depict the money
ows (expenses on purchases of electricity and fuel; and income
from sale of heat, electricity, transport fuel and crude/rened
biogas), while the dotted thick arrows represent the avoidance

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

225

Table 2
Costs, earnings, GHG emissions and avoided GHG emissions for baseline (reference) case and energy-recovery alternative/s.
Baseline case

Generalised energy-recovery case

A. Net energy-related costs to the WWTP

1. Real cost of grid electricity
2. Real cost of fuels for heat
B. Net energy-related GHG emissions
1. GHG emissions upstream due to electricity generation
2. Life-cycle GHG emissions of the fuels utilised for heat
generation in-plant
3. Non-CO2 GHG emissions from aring of biogas (when
the combustion is not complete and some
methane escapes)

A. Net energy-related costs to the WWTP

1. Real cost of grid electricity
2. Real cost of fuels for heat
3. Annualised xed capital cost for installing the exhaust
cleaning/scrubbing system
4. Real cost of fuel/s for cogeneration with biogas
5. Annualised xed capital cost for heat recovery system
6. Real operational cost of heat recovery from biogas
7. Annualised xed capital cost for electricity generation system
8. Real operational cost of electricity generation for biogas
9. Annualised xed capital cost for CHP system
10. Real operational cost of CHP from biogas
11. Annualised xed capital cost for setting-up transport fuel production system
12. Real operational cost of upgrading and producing transportation fuel from biogas
13. Annualised xed capital cost of infrastructure (piping) to either lead
upgraded biogas to natural gas pipelines or crude, unrened biogas to end-user
14. Real cost of cleaning/scrubbing ared digester biogas (which is a
part of 5, 7, 9 and 11)
15. Real value of revenue from sale of heat (hot water/steam)
16. Real value of revenue from sale of electricity to grid
17. Real value of revenue from sale of crude biogas
18. Real value of revenue from sale of transport fuel
19. Real value of revenue from supplying upgraded biogas to natural gas pipelines
C. Net energy-related GHG emissions
1. GHG emissions upstream due to electricity generation
2. Life-cycle GHG emissions of the fuels utilised for heat generation in-plant and for
cogeneration with biogas, activated carbon used in scrubbing the exhaust, and amine
used in the bio-methane upgrading process
3. Non-CO2 GHG emissions from aring of biogas (when the combustion is not complete
and some methane escapes without being removed by the exhaust cleaning system)
4. Non-CO2 GHG emissions from biogas combustion in boilers/co-generators, where
methane escapes into the air, without being cleaned.
5. Non-CO2 GHG emissions (methane) from the incomplete combustion of upgraded
biogas used as transport fuel
6. Avoided GHG emissions by replacing fossil diesel or gasoline in the
transportation sector
7. Avoided GHG emissions by supplying crude biogas to replace natural gas at the
receivers ends.
8. Avoided GHG emissions by adding upgraded biogas to natural gas pipelines, and
reducing consumption of an equivalent amount of natural gas
9. Avoided GHG emissions upstream by selling electricity to grid
10. Avoided GHG emissions by selling heat generated from biogas
11. Possible methane emissions by the combustion of the upgraded biogas
added to natural gas pipelines and the crude biogas piped to end-users are
not accounted for, by assuming near-complete combustion (or on grounds
of difculty in estimation, as the end-uses
could be diverse)

potential of the energy recovered from the biogas e both within the
plant and in the technosphere to which it may wish to sell a part of
the energy recovered from the biogas. Emissions to the atmosphere
are either biogenic (carbon dioxide from biogas) or potential greenhouse gases. The avoidance potential as regards the use of fossilsourced energy (electricity and heat) translates into avoided GHG
emissions.
3.2.1. Baseline case
In the baseline case, the GHG emissions are attributed to
electricity generation upstream (dependent on the electricity

GHGnet;energyrelated;baseline; p

1; 000; 000* Elecgrid;p *

m 
X
f 1

mix), the life-cycle GHG emissions of the fuels used for heating
purposes, the methane content of the crude biogas, the degree of
combustion of the ared biogas, and the degree of methane
removal by the exhaust gas cleaning/scrubbing unit. Biogas carbon dioxide is biogenic and does not contribute to global warming. Nitrous oxide emissions are neglected; on the assumption
that all the nitrogen gets oxidised completely to nitrogen dioxide.
As dened before, in this case, no biogas is released into the atmosphere without aring. The units of the variables should be
appropriately chosen, in cases where they can be expressed in
different ways.

af ;Elgrid;p * ghgf ;Elgrid;p 1; 000; 000 *

n 
X
f 1

Heatf ;purchase;p *ghgf ;p


. 
n
4400
16*pmethane;crude biogas;p
Vb;flared;p * 1  0:01*qb;plant;p *Densitybiogas *
o 

 28*pmethane;crude biogas;p * 1  0:01*qmethane removal;exhaust;p * CFmethane


(4)

226

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

The efciency of the exhaust gas cleaning system, and the degree of combustion of biogas may change with time. Likewise, with
an increase in volume of sewage (and biodegradable organic con-

release to the atmosphere. Upgrading crude biogas for addition to

natural gas pipelines is considered to be similar to the upgradation
to transport fuel.

m 
 X


af ;Elgrid;p * ghgf ;Elgrid;p
GHGnet;energyrelated;energy recovery;p 1; 000; 000* Elecgrid;for energy recovery;p Elecgrid;p *
f 1

n n

o 

X
Heatf ;purchase;for energy recovery Heatf ;purchase;p *ghgf ;p Vb;flared;p Vb;electricity;p Vb;heat;p Vb;CHP;p *
1; 000; 000*
f 1


.
o

n
4400  28*pmethane;crude biogas;p *
 1  0:01*qb;plant;p * Densitybiogas * 16*pmethane;crude biogas;p


.
o
n
 1  0:01*qmethane removal;exhaust;p * CFmethane 
eNG *
Vb;capt;piped crude;p * eb;capt Vb;capt;added to NG pipeline;p * eb;upgraded * m
 n
 
o

 ghgnatural gas;p  Vb;capt;transport fuel;p *mp *eb;upgraded * 4diesel;p * ghgdiesel;p =ediesel 4gasoline;p *ghggasoline;p =egasoline
n 



X
Vb;capt;transport fuel;p *m* pmethane;upgraded biogas;p * Densitymethane * 1  0:01*qtransport fuel * CFmethane
Heatb;f ;sold;p *ghgf ;p
f 1

 hn
.
o

4400  28*pmethane;crude biogas;p
Vb;capt;transport fuel;p Vb;capt;added to NG pipeline;p * Densitybiogas * 16*pmethane;crude biogas;p
i 
 


 mp *pmethane;upgraded biogas;p * Densitymethane * 1  0:01*qmethane removal;exhaust;p * 1  0:01*qb;plant;p Mac * ghgac


Mamine * ghgamine
(5)

tent in the sludge), and improved anaerobic digestion, the methane

content of the crude biogas is likely to increase. The electricity mix
may change from year to year, electricity generation may become
less carbon-intensive with time, and ghgf,El-grid may decrease for
several sources of power. The production processes of heating fuels
may have truncated carbon footprints in the future, and ghgf may
decrease with time. Hence, the subscript p has been introduced in
Eq. (4), to accommodate the possibility of variations.

Akin to the exercise carried out for the net costs, the percentage
differences between the net GHG emissions for the baseline case on
the one hand (Eq. (4)), and the same combinations of possible
realistic and realizable combinations of energy recovery/utilisation
in-plant/sale on the other hand (Eq. (5)), are estimated, for each year.
An average percentage difference is then calculated for each of these.
3.3. Economiceenvironmental analysis methodology

3.2.2. Generalised energy-recovery case

In Eq. (5), just as in Eq. (4) the subscript p has been introduced
to accommodate variations from year to year. It is assumed that
the upgraded biogas is essentially methane (pmethane,upgraded biogas
is 90e100%, according to Ref. [9]); the volume of the transport fuel
delivered is multiplied by the density of methane directly to
obtain the mass of methane in the fuel. Both piped crude and
upgraded biogas added to natural gas pipelines are considered to
avoid the production and usage of equivalent amounts (in energy
terms) of fossilenatural-gas. Heat sold (as hot water) may substitute alternate sources of heat. Upgraded transport fuel replaces
gasoline and/or diesel. Electricity sold to the grid avoids the
generation of an equivalent amount of electricity in power plants
upstream.
Within the plant, the degree of combustion of biogas in the
boiler, cogeneration unit and during aring as well as the possible
removal/conversion of methane which leaves the cogeneration
unit/boiler in the exhaust gas cleaner/scrubber are taken into
consideration. The percentage by volume of methane in the crude
biogas has been converted into the corresponding percentage by
mass, by assuming that the biogas is composed of only carbon dioxide and methane. The units of the variables should be appropriately chosen, in cases where they can be expressed in different
ways. For instance, the value of ghgdiesel, may be expressed in terms
of kg CO2-eq per kg or per m3 or per l, in the literature source it is
obtained from. The methane lost during the upgrading process is
assumed to be ared and the exhaust cleaned/scrubbed before

It is obvious that decreases in the net expenses and net GHG

emissions are what a WWTP would ideally target. The relative
importance of emissions reduction, vis--vis cost control can be
factored in by introducing weighting factors for each of these
changes. A decrease can be indicated by a negative sign and an
increase by a positive sign. Multiplying the percentages by the
weighting factors, retaining the appropriate sign (negative or positive) and adding up would provide an aggregate number which
would be useful in making a decision, taking both costs and GHG
emissions into consideration. In effect, the lesser this aggregate
number, the better. Table 3 illustrates this approach for ve hypothetical alternatives AeE, with random percentage changes
considered; and three sets of weighting factors. Alternative E reigns
supreme when the weighting ratios are 1:1 and 2:1. Alternative D is
the optimal one, when the GHG emissions are prioritised over costs.
If a specic cost could be assigned to the GHG emissions e Euros
per kgCO2-equivalent; by factoring in the Carbon Emission Allowance Charges or Carbon Taxes, the net GHG emissions can be converted into net costs and added on to the net expenses. This would
do away with the subjectivity of assigning weighting factors, and
yield single percentage change values.
3.4. Extension to other environmental impact categories
The focus often is only on GHG emissions, global warming
and climate change. When this environmental impact is in the

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

227

and net energy-related expenses are then weighted and aggregated

to yield a single value, which serves as a metric for decisionmaking.
4. Case study description

Fig. 2. Example of a set of possible combinations of recovery/utilisation and sale e

indicated by the ovals.

limelight, the others get overshadowed and fade into the background. This is certainly not advisable. Problem shifting is to be
avoided at all costs. Of course, a perfect solution does not exist.
Optimality entails assigning weightages on the basis of relative
importance or criticality. The exercise carried out above, could
include, in addition to the emission factors ghgf, ghgEl-grid and
ghgb,capt, the ones listed in Appendix 7 for eight other environmental impact categories. These emission factors could be obtained
from any LCA database, after adjusting for the specic case being
considered. Having done that, the average percentage changes in
net acidifying emissions, net eutrophicating emissions, net photochemical oxidation causing emissions, net ozone-depleting emissions, net toxicity-causing emissions and net abiotic depletion are
calculated and recorded for the energy recovery/utilisation/sale
combinations being studied.
The next step would be to assign weighting factors for these 9
environmental impact categories (perhaps more or less), as shown
in Table 4. The changes in the overall net environmental impacts

The source of the data and information in this section is Ref. [19].
Fig. 4 (sourced from Ref. [19] and the labels duly translated into
English) illustrates the chain of processes happening inside the
Bekkelaget WWTP.
Since October 2001, the Bekkelaget WWTP has been operated
by Bekkelaget Vann AS, a company which is full owned by the
Swedish Laeckeby Water Group. The WWTP which is located on
the east of the Oslo fjord, receives and treats wastewater from
the eastern parts of Oslo and also parts of the neighbouring
Nittedal and Oppegrd municipalities. The quantity of wastewater treated corresponds to 290,000 PE (a total of 42 million m3
annually), of which industrial sewage accounts for 30%. The
wastewater is subjected to physical (screening, sand and grease
separation, pre-sedimentation), chemical (coagulation followed
by precipitation/ltration) and biological treatment (anoxic, oxic,
including nitrogen removal), prior to discharge through a 50-m
deep outfall into the Oslo fjord. The sewage sludge is subjected
to anaerobic digestion at 55  C (which generates biogas), followed by dewatering and distribution to end-use as a fertiliser
substitute. Most of the biogas is upgraded into bio-methane and
sold to the public-transportation sector, while some of it is used
as a source of heat for in-plant consumption. The biogas
upgrading adopts the LP COOAB absorption process, in which an
amine is used to dissolve carbon dioxide; and is then regenerated
by heating. The biogenic carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. The capacity of production of the upgraded biomethane (over 97% methane by volume; with methane loss less
than 0.1%) is in the range of 195 and 488 m3 (measured at NTP
conditions) per h.

Fig. 3. Interactions between the wastewater treatment plant and the technosphere, and avoided GHG emissions.

228

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Table 3
Hypothetical possibilities considered, with three sets of weighting factors e 1:1; 1:2; 2:1 (arbitrary percentages assumed for the sake of illustration)
Alternative

Average change in
net expenses with
respect to baseline (%)

Change in net GHG

emissions with respect
to baseline (%)

1.5
0.5
2
3
2

1
1
3
2.5
1

Weighting factors (Cost:GHG emissions)

1:1

1:2

2:1

0.16
0.5
2.66
L0.67
0

0.67
0
2.33
1.17
L1

Weighted aggregate
A
B
C
D
E

As the focus of this paper is on energy recovery from biogas, it

would be apt to write about the details of energy production and
consumption at the WWTP in the recent past. It was in year-2010
that BEVAS started upgrading the biogas to transportation fuel. In
year-2010, 40.6 million m3 of wastewater were handled, and 3.53
million m3 of biogas were generated, 59% of this was upgraded to
yield 1.03 million m3 of bio-methane. The remaining 41% served as
the source of 7.6 GWh of heat energy for in-plant use. In year-2011,
the biogas generated increased to 3.61 million m3 (owing in part, to
a rise in wastewater volumes handled that year to 48 million m3).
About 61% of this was upgraded to 1415 million m3 of bio-methane,
a small fraction (129,089 m3) was ared, while 1400 million m3
were converted into in-plant heat equivalent to 9.1 GWh. The
electricity, oil and pellets consumed in year-2010 were 13.2, 0.7 and
3.32 GWh respectively; and the corresponding values for year-2011
were 11.5, 0.5 and 2.47 GWh respectively.
4.1. Data gathering and application
Year-2012 is considered to be the beginning of the 10-year study
time period (2012e2021). A reference case, with respect to biogas
handling is chosen e all biogas ared completely. The various options considered (labelled AeC, etc.more about them later in the
section) are compared with this reference case. One of these options is the one being adopted by BEVAS, as in year-2012. The increase in wastewater volumes handled over time is determined by
regressing the known values for the period 2004e2012. Averages of
each of the following with respect to the volume of wastewater
handled, are calculated for the period 2004e2012: specic electricity consumption, specic biogas generation, specic gassourced heat demand and specic oil consumption are calculated
for the period 2004e2012. The same is done for pellets use for the
period 2010e2012. These average specic values are then used to
determine the respective absolute values for each year of the period

0.25
0.25
2.5
0.25
L0.5

2013e2021 (Refer Appendix 8). A set of scenarios (numbered IeIII

etc.) for the trends in the costs of purchase of electricity, oil,
pellets and natural gas, and the selling price of bio-methane is also
constructed. This gives a series of option-scenario combinations AI,
AII, BI, etc.
4.1.1. Options considered baseline
This is a hypothetical case, where there is no energy recovery at
all at BEVAS. All biogas generated is ared out. Complete combustion occurs, so that all methane is converted into carbon dioxide, all
hydrogen sulphide to sulphur dioxide and all ammonia to nitrogen
dioxide. Table 5 lists the wastewater volumes, biogas generated and
ared, natural gas, fuel oil and pellets consumed, and electricity
drawn from the grid, for this baseline case, for the period 2012e
2021. The specic heat demand in 2012 (with respect to wastewater
volume treated) was considered as a constant for the entire period,
and this ratio was used to derive the natural gas consumption
values for the years 2013e2021. Natural gas would be the source of
heat, in the absence of energy recovery from biogas. Most of the
other numbers are also found in Appendix 8.
4.1.1.1. Business-as-usual (BAU). This is simply the existing state-ofaffairs in year-2012. Table 6 lists the relevant numbers (some of
which are also found in Appendix 8).
The grid electricity consumed in the BAU case is greater than in
the baseline case, as some electricity is consumed in the biogasupgrading process (to enrich it in methane and convert it into
transport fuel). Heating needs are fullled by a part of the biogas
(15% of the total generated), pellets and fuel oil. Some biogas is
ared out, while most of it (over 75%) is upgraded to transport fuel
to replace diesel in public-transport buses. The biogas-volumes (in
m3), when multiplied by 6.5 (kWh per Nm3), yield the corresponding energy content of the shares upgraded, used as heat and
ared. The volume of diesel replaced in the transport sector, can

Table 4
Including all environmental impacts along with costs in evaluation (arbitrary percentages assumed for the sake of illustration).
Environmental impact category

Weighting factors

Global warming
5
Acidication
3
Abiotic depletion
1.5
Eutrophication
3
Human toxicity
1.4
Ozone depletion
3
Photochemical oxidation
2
Marine toxicity
1
Terrestrial toxicity
1.5
Aggregate
21.4
Change in net expenses (%)
Change in overall environmental impacts (%)
Weighted aggregate (%) (Increase is positive and decrease is negative)
1.58%
0.57%
2.3%

Increase ()/decrease () (%)

Weighted increase/decrease (%)

4
2
3
4
1
1
1.5
6
3

50.93
0.28
0.21
0.56
0.065
0.14
0.14
0.28
0.21
L1.145

4%
1.145%
Weighting factors (costs:environmental impacts)
1:1
1:2
2:1

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

229

Fig. 4. Chain of processes within the Bekkelaget WWTP [19].

then be easily determined. The degree of biogas combustion (the

portion which is combusted for heat recovery and also that which is
ared) is assumed to be complete e 100%.
4.1.1.2. Other options (AeE.). Five different possibilities for
handling of biogas are envisaged. These are labelled AeE and are as
follows:
A All biogas put through generator for electricity generation (30%
electrical efciency assumed Error! Reference source not
found.); waste heat (55% of biogas energy content Error!
Reference source not found.) used within plant. The heat obtained is greater than what is actually needed (from the BAU
case). One may explore possibilities and benets of using any
excess heat for preheating inuent wastewater to improve the
efciency of treatment. Opportunities to reduce the use of fuel
oil and/or pellets can also be explored. Grid electricity
requirement decreases. The degree of biogas combustion is
assumed to be complete e 100% (Table 7).
B All biogas is combusted for heat recovery (85% of energy is
recovered Error! Reference source not found.). As with (A),

excess heat is redundant and may be used for preheating

inuent wastewater. Opportunities to reduce the use of fuel oil
and/or pellets can also be explored. All electricity requirement
fullled by the grid. The degree of biogas combustion is
assumed to be complete e 100% (Table 8).
C All the biogas is upgraded to bio-methane. Heat needs (from
BAU case) met by combusting natural gas. All electricity
(including the demand for biogas-upgrading) sourced from the
grid (Table 9).
D 50% of biogas converted into transport fuel, 50% converted into
electricity (30% electrical efciency and 55% heat recovery).
Biogas heat is used within the plant; if there is a decit with
respect to the BAU case, it is met by purchasing natural gas.
Electricity demand from the grid decreases, thanks to the inplant generation. The degree of biogas combustion (the
portion which is combusted in the CHP plant) is assumed to be
complete e 100% (Table 10).
E 50% of biogas converted into transport fuel and the remaining
combusted for heat recovery (85% of the energy content
recovered). If there is a decit, it is met by purchasing natural
gas. All electricity needs (including the requirement for bio-

Table 5
Baseline case e all biogas ared completely
Year

Wastewater
treated (million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed (GWh)

Biogas produced
and ared
(thousand m3)

Natural gas
consumed (GWh)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

10.5
10.4
10.7
10.9
11.2
11.5
11.8
12.0
12.3
12.6

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

3995
3872
3965
4060
4157
4257
4359
4464
4571
4680

3.84
3.89
3.99
4.08
4.18
4.28
4.38
4.49
4.59
4.70

230

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Table 6
BAU case e state-of-affairs in year-2012.
Year

Wastewater treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas produced
(thousand m3)

Biogas-derived
heat (thousand m3)

Biogas ared
(thousand m3)

Biogas upgraded
to transport fuel
(thousand m3)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

12.3
12.7
13.0
13.3
13.6
13.9
14.3
14.6
14.9
15.3

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

3995
3872
3965
4060
4157
4257
4359
4464
4571
4680

591
599
613
628
643
658
674
690
707
724

333
126
129
132
135
138
142
145
149
152

3071
3147
3223
3300
3379
3461
3543
3629
3715
3804

Table 7
Case A.
Year

Wastewater treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas produced
(GWh)

Biogas-derived
heat (GWh)

Biogas electricity
(GWh)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

2.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.8

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

13.8
13.4
13.7
14.1
14.4
14.8
15.1
15.5
15.8
16.2

7.6
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.0
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8

methane production) sourced from the grid. The degree of

biogas combustion is assumed to be complete e 100%
(Table 11).
For all these possibilities, it is safe to assume that opportunities
for sale of electricity to the grid, heat recovered from biogas to
potential external users, or rened gas to natural gas pipelines, are
either non-existent or not of interest to BEVAS.
Having dened the scenarios and also determined the quantities
of the different energy elements consumed/sold, the logical next
step is to tabulate the annual purchase costs (and selling prices) of
these energy elements over the study period. Parallel to these ve
possibilities e AeE e seven cost/price scenarios (IeVII) are dened
in the next sub-section.
4.1.2. Cost scenarios
The average selling price of bio-methane in 2012 was 3.01 NOK per
m3. At an exchange rate of 7.4 (from www.xe.com), this is equivalent

to 4 Euro cents per m3 (Ref. [19] and internal BEVAS report obtained
from Ref. [20]). The electricity tariff in 2012 (sourced from reports
from BEVAS obtained from Rashid Abdi Elmi, one of the authors of
this paper) was 0.6 NOK per kWh; equivalent to 8 Euro cents.
For those scenarios in which the bio-methane selling price
would be assumed to be a constant, it is assumed to 0.044 Euro
cents per kWh. In those scenarios where an increase in the unit
price is assumed, the values for the real unit prices for years 2010e
2012 (3.13 NOK, 3.32 NOK and 3.29 NOK resp.; considering an
constant annual ination rate of 2%) are regressed to get a best-t
logarithmic relationship (y 0.157 ln(x) 3.15; R2 0.77; where
x 1,2,3. for years 2010e2012.). The unit prices then are as
shown in Table 2 for the corresponding scenarios.
Similar exercises are performed to forecast the prices for heating
oil [21] and electricity [22] in the future for those scenarios in
which these are assumed to increase, by regressing historical
annual average real prices. For electricity, the best-t line equation
is of the exponential form (y 45.4e0.0195x; R2 0.62; where

Table 8
Case B.
Year

Wastewater treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas produced
(GWh)

Biogas-derived
heat (GWh)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

10.5
10.4
10.7
10.9
11.2
11.5
11.8
12.0
12.3
12.6

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

21.4
20.7
21.2
21.7
22.3
22.8
23.3
23.9
24.5
25.1

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

231

Table 9
Case C.
Year

Wastewater treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas produced
(thousand m3)

Natural gas
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas upgraded
to transport fuel
(GWh)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

12.9
12.7
13.0
13.3
13.7
14.1
14.4
14.7
15.0
15.4

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

3.84
3.89
3.99
4.08
4.18
4.28
4.38
4.49
4.59
4.70

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

Table 10
Case D.
Year

Wastewater
treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets
consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas
produced
(GWh)

Biogas
electricity
(GWh)

Biogas-derived
heat (GWh)

Biogas upgraded
to transport fuel
(GWh)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

7.9
7.9
8.2
8.3
8.5
8.8
9.0
9.1
9.4
9.6

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

3.8
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4>4

6.9
6.7
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.9
8.1

12.6
12.2
12.5
12.8
13.1
13.4
13.7
14.1
14.4
14.7

x 1,2,3,4.corresponds to years 1992e1994.). For heating oil

however, the price for year-2012 obtained from internal BEVAS
reports is an outlier when compared with the real prices in years
2009e2011 (assuming a constant annual ination rate of 2%, as in
the earlier instances). Hence, a rough relationship is derived based
on the three values in years 2009e2011 (y 0.142ln(x) 0.79;
R2 0.69; where x 1,2,3. corresponds to years 2009e2011).
Average annual nominal purchase costs of natural gas were
obtained from Ref. [23]. These were adjusted to 2012-Euro values,
by considering a constant annual ination rate of 2%, regressed
thereafter to estimate the possible real average annual purchase
costs for 2012e2021. A linear t is obtained (y 0.173x 2.24;
R2 0.7; where x 1,2,3. corresponds to years-2000e2002.).
Average purchase costs for consumers of wood pellets for the years
2007e2010 were obtained from Ref. [23]. These were converted
into 2012-Euro values, by considering a constant annual ination
rate of 2%. A caloric value of 4.8 kWh per kg was used to transform
the unit costs from per kg to per kWh. Regression yielded the
average purchase costs for years 2011e2021.

Refer Table 12. In Scenario I, the real costs of the energy elements (and real price of bio-methane) increase with time. In Scenarios IIeVI, the real cost (or real price) of natural gas, pellets, biomethane, oil and electricity respectively is kept constant at the
corresponding year-2012 value. In Scenario VII, all the values are
assumed to remain constant all through the study time period.
Table 13 has been constructed by taking recourse to cost data
from page 639 of Ref. [7]. In Ref. [7], data from Denmark have been
reported and these can be considered to be reasonably accurate
proxies to the Oslo case study. A discount rate (opportunity cost of
money invested in energy-recovery systems in other words) of 4%
has been assumed. The investment costs reported in Ref. [7] pertain
to year-2004. These have been assumed to remain constant over
time; and an average annual ination rate of 2% has been considered to convert year-2004eyear-2012 values. Different maximum
generation capacities are assumed for the different cases. The energy recovered in each case increases with time, but the capacity
utilisation remains below 100% all throughout the 20-year lifetime
assumed [7]. The maintenance expenses here include the expenses

Table 11
Case E.
Year

Wastewater treated
(million m3)

Electricity drawn
from grid (GWh)

Pellets consumed
(tonnes)

Fuel oil
consumed
(GWh)

Biogas produced
(GWh)

Biogas-derived
heat (GWh)

Biogas upgraded to
transport fuel
(thousand m3)

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

46.8
47.5
48.6
49.8
51.0
52.2
53.4
54.7
56.0
57.4

11.7
11.6
11.9
12.1
12.4
12.7
13.1
13.3
13.7
14.0

925
749
767
785
804
823
843
863
884
905

0.22
0.96
0.98
1
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.10
1.13
1.15

25.2
24.4
25.0
25.6
26.2
26.8
27.5
28.1
28.8
29.5

10.7
10.4
10.6
10.9
11.1
11.4
11.7
12.0
12.2
12.5

12.6
12.2
12.5
12.8
13.1
13.4
13.7
14.1
14.4
14.7

232

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Table 12
Purchase cost (or selling price) scenarios for electricity, heating oil, natural gas and pellets for the period 2012e2021. (Real prices in 2012-Euros per kWh; constant exchange
rate assumed to convert from NOK to Euros where needed).
Scenario

II

III

IV

VI

VII

Energy element

Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas
Electricity
Oil
Bio-methane
Pellets
Natural gas

Euros
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

0.08
0.106
0.044
0.071
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.071
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.071
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.071
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.071
0.045
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.094
0.138
0.045
0.073
0.046
0.094
0.138
0.045
0.073
0.045
0.094
0.138
0.045
0.07
0.046
0.094
0.138
0.044
0.073
0.046
0.094
0.106
0.045
0.073
0.046
0.08
0.138
0.045
0.073
0.046
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.096
0.141
0.046
0.076
0.048
0.096
0.141
0.046
0.076
0.045
0.096
0.141
0.046
0.07
0.048
0.096
0.141
0.044
0.076
0.048
0.096
0.106
0.046
0.076
0.048
0.08
0.141
0.046
0.076
0.048
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.098
0.144
0.0464
0.079
0.05
0.098
0.144
0.0464
0.079
0.045
0.098
0.144
0.0464
0.07
0.05
0.098
0.144
0.044
0.079
0.05
0.098
0.106
0.0464
0.079
0.05
0.08
0.144
0.0464
0.079
0.05
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.1
0.147
0.0467
0.082
0.0519
0.1
0.147
0.0467
0.082
0.045
0.1
0.147
0.0467
0.07
0.0519
0.1
0.147
0.044
0.082
0.0519
0.1
0.106
0.0467
0.082
0.0519
0.08
0.147
0.0467
0.082
0.0519
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.102
0.149
0.047
0.085
0.0536
0.102
0.149
0.047
0.085
0.045
0.102
0.149
0.047
0.07
0.0536
0.102
0.149
0.044
0.085
0.0536
0.102
0.106
0.047
0.085
0.0536
0.08
0.149
0.047
0.085
0.0536
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.104
0.151
0.0472
0.088
0.057
0.104
0.151
0.0472
0.088
0.045
0.104
0.151
0.0472
0.07
0.057
0.104
0.151
0.044
0.088
0.057
0.104
0.106
0.0472
0.088
0.057
0.08
0.151
0.0472
0.088
0.057
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.106
0.153
0.0475
0.091
0.058
0.106
0.153
0.0475
0.091
0.045
0.106
0.153
0.0475
0.07
0.058
0.106
0.153
0.044
0.091
0.058
0.106
0.106
0.0475
0.091
0.058
0.08
0.153
0.0475
0.091
0.058
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.108
0.154
0.0477
0.094
0.06
0.108
0.154
0.0477
0.094
0.045
0.108
0.154
0.0477
0.07
0.06
0.108
0.154
0.044
0.094
0.06
0.108
0.106
0.0477
0.094
0.06
0.08
0.154
0.0477
0.094
0.06
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

0.11
0.156
0.0478
0.098
0.062
0.11
0.156
0.0478
0.098
0.045
0.11
0.156
0.0478
0.07
0.062
0.11
0.156
0.044
0.098
0.062
0.11
0.106
0.0478
0.098
0.062
0.08
0.156
0.0478
0.098
0.062
0.08
0.106
0.044
0.07
0.045

on chemicals consumed for instance, in bio-methane upgrading

(Electricity consumption however is accounted for in the total
expenditure on electricity purchased from the grid). Every energyrecovery system includes the exhaust cleaning/scrubbing setup as
well, and the capital investments and O&M expenses for the latter
are included in the values tabulated in Table 13. These O and M
expenses are assumed to be constant over time (in real currency
values).
At the time of writing, environmental taxes (or for that matter,
subsidies for efforts made to cut down on GHG emissions), are not
in place. They would have been included in the analysis, if they had
existed.
4.1.3. Environmental impacts
There are environmental impact categories other than global
warming which need to be taken into account e Acidication,
Eutrophication, Ozone depletion, Photochemical-oxidant formation, Terrestrial Eco-toxicity, Marine Eco-toxicity, Human Toxicity,
Abiotic Depletion, among others. In order to nd the net emissions
for each of these categories, Eqs. (4) and (5) are suitably modied
and recourse is taken to LCA databases like Ecoinvent [25] associated with the LCA software SIMAPRO [26]. For Oslo, by general
consensus, the three environmental impact categories which are
relevant and of concern, are global warming, eutrophication and
acidication. The scope is thereby narrowed down to these three.
While the hydrogen sulphide and ammonia content of biogas is
not necessary to calculate the global warming impact, these are
required while determining the other environmental impacts.

These are considered to be 0.4% and 0.01% respectively [24]. Also to

be considered in that case is the degree of removal of hydrogen
sulphide, ammonia, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, inter alia,
using activated carbon, when fuel oil, natural gas and biogas are
combusted (aring, heat generation, or in a CHP plant) e which is
the exhaust cleaning method adopted at the WWTP. If complete
combustion of the biogas is assumed, ammonia and hydrogen
sulphide are absent in the exhaust. One would then have the corresponding products of complete combustion e nitrogen dioxide
and sulphur dioxide. As detailed data are not available from BEVAS,
a 100% adsorption of these on the activated carbon can be assumed
and the regeneration would entail separating the adsorbates
using suitable solutions and thus averting their release to the atmosphere. This assumption would thus cut out any emissions of
sulphur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide into the atmosphere, from
BEVAS. (For instance, if lime scrubbing is resorted to, the sulphur
dioxide would be separated out as calcium sulphate and would
perhaps nd an end-use as gypsum in the construction sector).
The environmental impacts associated with the setting-up of
the infrastructure have not been included. The Nordic electricity
Table 13
Annualised capital investments maintenance expenses for energy-recovery systems in the cases considered (values in million 2012-Euros).
Energy-recovery type/case

Biogas CHP
Biogas Waste Heat
Biogas Transport fuel

4.3

BAU

0.2
4.2

0.1
7.0

2.6
0.4
8.2

4.2

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

Table 14
Weighting factors e economic versus environmental considerations
Criterion/set of percentages

Average value

Economic considerations in decision-making (%)

10 80 45
Environmental considerations in decision-making (%) 90 20 55

mix has been considered, both for direct consumption, as well as for
consumption upstream in the production of the other energy elements and substances. During the bio-methane upgrading process
at the plant using the LP COOAB process, diethanolamine is used
and regenerated. If there are no losses during the absorption process, theoretically, all the amine introduced into the absorption
column initially can be recycled endlessly; in other words, all
through the lifetime of the upgrading setup. In that case, the annual
environmental impacts attributed to the production of the mass of
amine (total divided by the lifetime of the setup in years, at the end
of which the amine would also be discarded) can be considered to
be negligible. However, in practice, there are losses. To make up for
the losses which occur during regeneration, 1.2 kg of amine per ton
of carbon dioxide removed from the raw biogas, is added. The
environmental impacts associated with the upstream production of
this make-up mass is considered. As far as the activated carbon is
concerned, the annual consumption details are not known. But if
one assumes that it can be regenerated many times, the masses
needed for replenishment every year can be considered to be small;
thereby the production-related environmental impacts may be
neglected.
Global warming, acidication and eutrophication associated
with the production of diethanolamine and activated carbon.
Transport of chemicals/fuel elements to the site of use is excluded
from the analysis. Emissions avoided by replacing diesel in buses
with bio-methane are considered; and complete combustion in the
IC engines of the buses is assumed e such that bio-methane releases just water vapour and (biogenic) carbon dioxide. Appendices
9 and 10 tabulate the emission factors and characterisation factors
which have been used in the calculations.

233

4.1.4. Weighting and prioritisation

Weighting is a purely-subjective process and in this case is done
by consulting Norwegian experts with long experience working in/
with the water-wastewater sector in the country, not necessarily
the one in Oslo though. Averaging the weightage-percentages
assigned by the respondents, yields the weighting factors for this
analysis. The respondents have been referred to as A and B in
Tables 14 and 15 [27,28]. The author contacted several potential
respondents but elicited responses from only two of them.
Economic/environmental: While respondent A puts economic
considerations far below the environmental ones, respondent
B adopts a converse stance, rendering both almost equally
important, when the averages are derived.
Environmental impact categories: Among global warming, acidication and eutrophication, global warming by far is accorded
much greater priority than the other two. Respondent A totally
disregards eutrophication and acidication, while respondent
B prefers not to totally exclude them from the analysis.
5. Results and discussions
Plotting the weighted aggregated percentage changes for the
net costs and net environmental impacts, for the 42 different
option-cost scenario combinations (BAU-1 to E7) in Fig. 5 presents a
graphical comparison among these combinations. The lower the
point is below the X-axis, the better the combination, from a
double-bottom-line point of view. If percentage increases had been
registered for all the 42 combinations, the baseline case would have
emerged as the most-preferred one. But Fig. 5 shows that this is not
so. While 14 combinations (A1eA7, D1eD7) register percentage
increases ranging between 11.9% and 56.6%, all the remaining register decreases e between 28.4% and 85.2%. Five of the BAU cases
register decreases above 80%; followed by the combinations E1eE5
which fall in the range of 70.4% and 72.9%. Combinations C1eC5
are not very far behind. The BAU option converts over 75% of the
biogas to transportation fuel, while option E converts 50% each to

Fig. 5. Weighted aggregated percentage change w.r.t the baseline, for the different option-cost scenario combinations.

234

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

with the Chief of Oslo VAV and an esteemed Norwegian academician with longstanding experience in this eld.

Table 15
Weighting factors e environmental impacts,
Environmental impact/set of percentages

Average value

Global warming (%)

Eutrophication of water bodies (%)
Acidication (%)

100
0
0

60
30
10

80
15
5

transport fuel and heat. As mentioned earlier, there is surplus

(redundant) heat which is effectively lost. If the heat could be sold
to nearby users e and thus enable a reduction in fossil-fuel consumption e both economic and environmental benets could be
obtained. This would be true for any of the 42 combinations, if
surplus heat is sold and a revenue stream thus uncovered.

6. Conclusions and limitations

This paper proposed to present a methodology for an economice
environmental analysis of different options that can be availed of to
handle sewage sludge biogas in WWTPs. A baseline/reference case
where all the biogas generated is ared to the atmosphere, was
dened. Thereafter, the different costs e capital investments and
operating/maintenance costs e associated with energy consumption and energy recovery in WWTPs; and also identied potential
revenue streams which the plant could avail of, by the sale of one or
more of the following: heat, electricity, transportation fuel, crude
biogas and rene biogas, were dened. The analyst would identify
potential combinations for energy recovery from biogas, and
compare the net energy-related expenses for each of them, vis--vis
the baseline case. It was recommended that variations in costs and
prices over time in the future ought to be taken into consideration;
and the average annual percentage change in net energy-related
expenditure for the treatment plant for every energy-recovery
combination considered, vis--vis the reference case, be calculated
for the time period considered for the analysis.
Thereafter, the method to be adopted to determine the percentage change in the net energy-related GHG emissions was
described, with attention being paid to the avoidance potential of
the energy recovered from the biogas e substituting electricity,
natural gas and other heating fuels, diesel and gasoline, inter alia.
Weighting and aggregating the percentage changes, was recommended as one option, and the possibility of converting the net
GHG emissions into net costs was also introduced. Lastly, the parochial focus on global warming and GHGs was criticised and the
necessity of avoiding problem shifting by factoring in other environmental impact categories was put forth.
This methodology was subsequently applied to the Bekkelaget
WWTP in Oslo (Norway), by considering 49 different option-cost
scenario combinations e 7 options (baseline, business-as-usual,
and 5 others labelled AeE), and 7 cost scenarios for natural gas, biomethane, wood pellets, electricity, and fuel oil. The uncertainty in
purchase prices of the energy elements and the selling cost of biomethane, was thus taken into consideration by assuming the seven
hypothetical scenarios referred to. One could go a step further by
dening probability measures for each of these seven scenarios (by
interacting with subject experts) and calculate a single percentage
change value for each of the six options e AeE and BAU. A 10-year
time period was considered for the analysis.
Some exclusions were made and proxy values were assumed
where real data were not available. These were necessary for the
analysis and can be justied. However, the analysis can certainly
benet from better data availability. The nal results are very
sensitive to the weighting factors used. This author could have
performed a sensitivity analysis with a range of weighting factors,
but preferred to work with averages obtained by corresponding

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Prof Emeritus Hallvard degaard, NTNU (Trondheim)
for his invaluable help. Thanks to Per Kristiansen, Chief, Oslo VAV,
Rashid Elmi, Oslo VAV for access to data from internal documents
and reports of Bekkelaget WWTP, and to Dr Bhawna Singh, NTNU,
for help with some of the LCA data.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.025.
References
[1] Venkatesh G, Dhakal S. An international look at the water-energy nexus.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 2008;104(5):93e6.
[2] Venkatesh G. The water-energy-carbon nexus. Asian Water 2012;28(2):
32e3.
[3] Venkatesh G, Bratteb H. Environmental impact analysis of chemicals and
energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants: case study of Oslo,
Norway. Water Science and Technology 2011;63(5):1018e31.
[4] Venkatesh G, Ugarelli R. Oslo consumers willing to pay more for improved
services. Journal of the American Water Works Association 2010;102(11):
26e9.
[5] Bravo L, Ferrer I. Life-cycle assessment of an intensive sewage treatment plant
in Barcelona (Spain) with focus on energy aspects. Water Science and Technology 2011;64(2):440e7.
[6] Bin Basrawi MF, Yamada T, Nakanishi K, Katsumata H. Analysis of the performances of biogas-fuelled micro-gas turbine cogeneration systems (MGTCGSs) in middle- and small-scale sewage treatment plants: comparison of
performances and optimisation of MGTs with various electrical power outputs. Energy 2012;38:291e304.
[7] Mnster M, Lund H. Use of waste for heat, electricity and transport e challenges when performing energy system analysis. Energy 2009;34:636e44.
[8] Rasi S, Veijanen A, Rintala J. Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas
production plants. Energy 2007;32:1375e80.
[9] Zhao Q, Leonhardt E, MacConnell C, Frear C, Chen S. Purication technologies
for biogas generated by anaerobic digestion. Chapter 9, Climate Friendly
Farming, CSANR Research Report 2010 - 001. Accessed at http://csanr.wsu.
edu/publications/researchreports/CFF%20Report/CSANR2010-001.Ch09.pdf,
on 10th August 2012.
[10] Nishimura S, Yoda M. Removal of hydrogen sulde from an anaerobic
biogas using a bio-scrubber. Water Science and Technology 1997;36(6-7):
349e56.
[11] Tilche A, Galatola M. The potential of biomethane as a biofuel/bio-energy for
reducing GHG emissions: a qualitative assessment for Europe in a life-cycle
perspective. Water Science and Technology 2008;57(11):1683e92.
[12] Budzianowski WM. Can negative net carbon dioxide emissions from decarbonized biogas-to-electricity contribute to solving Polands carbon capture
and sequestration dilemmas? Energy 2011;36:6318e25.
[13] Picot B, Paing J, Sambuco JP, Costa RHR, Rambaud A. Biogas production, sludge
accumulation and mass balance of carbon in anaerobic ponds. Water Science
and Technology 2003;48(2):243e50.
[14] Park JBK, Craggs RJ. Biogas production from anaerobic waste stabilization
ponds treating dairy and piggery wastewater in New Zealand. Water Science
and Technology 2007;55(11):257e64.
[15] Petersson A, Wellinger A. Biogas upgrading technologies e developments and
innovations. Task 37 e Energy from biogas and landll gas. IEA Bioenergy;
October 2009.
[16] Starr K, Gabarrell X, Villalba G, Talens L, Lombardi L. Life-cycle assessment of
biogas upgrading technologies. Waste Management 2012;32(5):991e9.
[17] Starr K. University of Barcelona, Spain. Personal communication on the 7th of
February 2013.
[18] Kee Lam Man, Lee Keat Teong. Renewable and sustainable bio-energies
production from palm oil mill efuent (POME): win-win strategies toward better environment protection. Biotechnology Advances 2011;29(1):
124e41.
[19] rsrapport Bekkelaget renseanlegg 2011. Oslo, Norway: BEVAS; 2011.
[20] Rashid Abdi Elmi, Oslo VAV, Oslo, Norway. Personal communication in
January and February 2013.
[21] Statistics Norway (1). Deliveries of petroleum products e prices of heating oils
and engine fuel, NOK/litre. Accessed in January 2013 at, http://www.ssb.no/
english/subjects/10/10/10/petroleumsalg_en/tab-2013-01-18-02-en.html.
[22] Holstad M. Statistics Norway (2). Industrial activities e prices for electricity
and grid rent in re per kWh. Accessed in January 2013 at, http://statbank.ssb.

G. Venkatesh, R.A. Elmi / Energy 58 (2013) 220e235

no/statistikkbanken/Default_FR.asp?
PXSid0&nvltrue&PLanguage1&tilsideselecttable/hovedtabellHjem.
asp&KortnavnWebelektrisitetaar.
[23] Venkatesh G, Brattebo H. Analysis of chemicals and energy consumption as
cost components in water and wastewater treatment: case study of Oslo,
Norway. Urban Water Journal 2011;8(3):189e202.
[24] Page 19, Global wood pellet industry market and trade study: Task 40:
Sustainable international bioenergy trade. IEA Bioenergy; December
2011.

235

[25] Ecoinvent database, vol. 2.01. Swiss Centre for Life-cycle Inventories. Technical report, www.ecoinvent.org; 2008.
[26] PR Consultants. Simapro 7.1.5. Amersfoort, The Netherlands: Pr Consultants;
2008.
[27] Hallvard degaard, Professor Emeritus, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim (Norway) & CEO, Scandinavian Environmental Technology AS, Saupstad (Norway). Personal communication on 18th February 2013.
[28] Per Kristiansen, Chief, Oslo Water and Wastewater Utility, Oslo, Norway.
Personal communication on 19th February 2013.