BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -1

Introduction to biofuels
Biofuels are a type of fuel derived from organic matter (broadly described as biomass) produced
by living organisms i.e. plants and animals. Biofuels can also be referred to as substitutes for
fossil fuel sourced mainly from a range of agricultural and energy crops, forests and waste
streams1. Examples of sources include energy crops such as Jatropha and Camelina, short
rotation coppice (SRC) willow and timber, waste oils and kitchen/food waste, agricultural and
forestry residues, industrial bio-wastes and more novel feedstocks such as algae.

Figure 1: Some types of biofuel feedstock

The uses of biofuels are varied; unprocessed biomass can be used to generate electricity via
steam turbines and gasifiers, or heat by directly combusting the raw material. Biomass can also
be converted to bioliquids and used as fuels for transport, as is the case with bioethanol and
biodiesel. Finally, biomass can be converted to an energy-rich gas (biogas or bio-SNG) that can
be used in boilers and gas turbines to generate heat and electricity, used in gas-fuelled transport
SESSION 2014-18 Page |1
BIOFUELS GIT DME
as compressed biomethane (CBM) or supplied to the gas grid. Although biofuels have the
potential to be a renewable alternative to conventional fossil fuels, there are various social,
economic, environmental and technical issues surrounding their production and final end-use.
Currently, many governments around the world have implemented goals to replace a certain
percentage of transportation fuel and natural gas demand with biofuels and this trend looks
likely to continue. In the EU, member states are mandated under the Renewable Energy
Directive (RED) to replace a proportion of land transport fuel with renewable fuels. In the UK,
as of April 2012, vehicle fuel companies are obligated under the Renewable Transport Fuel
Obligation (RTFO) to blend fuel sold with 4.5% biofuel2, increasing to 10% by 2020. Meeting
such goals will require adopting measures to ensure that the issues surrounding the use of
biofuels are dealt with, and the fuel itself is sourced sustainably.

Figure 2: Examples of 1st and 2nd generation bio-fuel sources (corn and algae)

SESSION 2014-18 Page |2

BIOFUELS GIT DME
Biofuels can be categorised into two major types: 1st generation biofuels and 2 nd generation
biofuels. 1st generation biofuels are biofuels currently on the market today produced largely
from food crops e.g. corn (see Figure 2 above) and 2nd generation biofuels are those fuels
produced by utilising the whole plant rather than just the sugar/oil component of the food crops
(these are usually referred to as lignocellulosic feedstocks). Novel sources such as algae (see
above) are also referred to as 2nd generation. The main reason why 2nd generation biofuels are
being considered is to avoid the “food vs. fuel” controversy around the use of 1st generation
biofuels. Although they are more difficult (and expensive) to process and the energy yields per
kilogram of input material may appear to be less, 2nd generation biofuels are able to use the
non-food part of food crops, waste materials and most importantly they could be grown on land
that is not suitable for growing food crops e.g. very poor quality land, land on slopes and
brownfield land. As a result the use of 2nd generation biofuels could potentially contribute to
increasing the economic competitiveness of biofuels against conventional oil and gas.

1.1 What are the main drivers behind biofuels?

The main factors driving the use of biofuels forward include the need to secure our energy
supplies, the need to reduce our over-dependence on fossil fuels and the legallybinding
obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions5. Also, the fact that biofuels can be
sourced and produced locally is a major driver and an added advantage for countries highly
dependent on importing energy supplies, as well as for rural villages that are off any energy
grid. The International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests that by 2050, biofuels could meet
about 27% of total global transport fuel demand, as well as save 2.1 gigatonnes (109 tonnes) of
CO2 emissions per year that would otherwise have been produced from fossil fuels6. This claim
has been reflected in the amounts of biofuels traded globally. In 2010 the global production of
biofuels increased by 17% to 105 billion litres, up from 90 billion litres the year before.
Comparing this figure with the amount of oil consumed in the same period, recorded at 5074
billion litres, puts the global production of biofuels into perspective.

SESSION 2014-18 Page |3

BIOFUELS GIT DME

Figure 3: Global trend in bio-fuel production by region (IEA data)

1.2 What are the potential impacts of using biofuels?

Due to the possible reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions achievable, biofuels are
regarded as viable substitutes to fossil fuels. This possible reduction is mainly due to the carbon
present in the plant matter of biofuel feedstocks which originates from the CO2 absorbed from
the atmosphere by the plants during their lifecycle. This is effectively the same carbon matter
emitted as CO2 during the use of biofuels as a result they are referred to as carbon neutral i.e.
does not emit additional carbon to the atmsophere. However, there is still a lot of concern on the
production of the feedstocks used to manufacture biofuels; most of which are based on their
overall impact on the environment and the wider economy. There are also some technical
constraints such as the amount of fossil energy used during production which could act as
blockers to the development of biofuels. The potential impact of using biofuels depends on a
number of factors. The largest and most important factor is the environmental impact of
producing and using biofuels which depends on how the feedstocks are produced and how much
pollution the final product causes when it is assessed on a ‘cradle to grave’ basis. Table 2
presents a visual representation of the categorisation of the various impacts of biofuels.

1.2.1 Environmental impacts of biofuel production and use

The impacte biofuel production has on the environment are very delicate issues. These include
the issues associated with land used for biofuel feedstock production, the stress that cultivation
SESSION 2014-18 Page |4
BIOFUELS GIT DME
of biofuel crops put on water resources (water is required for irrigation purposes in some
climates), the threat of possible biodiversity loss and the net change in carbon emissions as a
result of the final biofuel end-use. Issues on biodiversity and land-use go hand in hand.
Biodiversity loss in a given ecosystem usually depends on the type of biofuel crop being
planted, as well as the previous use of the land. This loss occurs when land with high
biodiversity is converted into a mono-cultural plantation. Also if the land is used to grow energy
crops rather than food crops, as is the case with the Cerrado in Brazil, it then begins to attract a
lot of negative publicity. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) the Cerrado,
which is one the world’s most diverse savannah, is now used to grow soya and has resulted in a
less diverse plantation. This monoculture has also led to the destruction of the local habitat at a
rapid rate, similar to the scale of destruction experienced by the Amazon rain-forest due to
logging and land clearance8.

In terms of atmospheric pollution, biofuels are reported to be able to achieve significant carbon
reductions when compared to fossil fuels. But there is still a lot of debate around these carbon
savings as some arguments suggest that any potential reduction in carbon is partially offset by
the fossil energy required for the cultivation, harvesting, processing and transportation of the
biofuels produced. This again depends on the type of crop that is cultivated, as the levels of
energy produced and used in these activities vary significantly with different crops.

Previous land-use is another factor in the net difference in carbon emissions from the
production and use of biofuels. An illustration is a scenario where a piece of land tha thas not
been cultivated before, such as woodland or forest, is converted to produce Soya and the
Cerrado feedstock for biofuels. When that piece of land is cultivated for the first time, it may
release substantial amounts of carbon that were previously stored and buried in the soil and in
the plant life previously present on it. Such land-use changes could result in the net increase in
carbon emissions on a ‘field to wheel’ basis, until the crop production is carried out over many
decades. Finally, water is needed for irrigating land used for the cultivation of crops in some
climates. Using water to irrigate land used for biofuels therefore puts a strain on the water
resources available for other uses in that geographical area. The issue of water pollution also
arises from runoffs and the waste created during the production of biofuels. Other water-related
issues include intricate issues such as eutrophication (the measure of how an ecosystem
responds to the addition of artificial resources), nutrient losses and oxygen depletion that could
affect ecological functioning in surface waters.

SESSION 2014-18 Page |5

BIOFUELS GIT DME
1.2.2 Social and economic impacts of biofuel production and use
The social implication of using 1st generation biofuels is the risk of diverting precious resource
from where it is needed most, for example, using corn which is a major foodstuff to produce
biofuels. This usually leads to the increase in the global market price of the commodity because
of the reduced quantities produced specifically for feeding. Some research studies have cited
examples in the US where corn is used to produce ethanol; 26% of the country’s corn harvest
was used to produce ethanol in 2009 which led to a 21% increase in the price of corn.
ActionAid11, a major international anti-poverty and non-governmental organisation, argue that
global food prices which have been pushed up in recent times is as a result of the huge amount
of food crops currently used for biofuel production. Nevertheless, there are still some positive
socio-economic impacts of producing biofuels. Some researchers argue that growing,
cultivating and utilising energy crops creates green jobs in developed countries and alleviates
poverty. However, it should be noted that, in an economic context, the production and supply of
biofuels largely depends on policy, regulatory or investment support (usually in the form of
subsidies) from the government. Recent research commissioned by Friends of the Earth12
suggests that motorists in the UK could be paying up to £2 billion extra at the pump by 2020,
due to the use of biofuel in petrol and diesel mandatory under the EU’s Renewable Energy
Directive (RED).

1.2.3 Technical issues that could act as blockers

There are a number of technical issues associated with biofuels, most of which are around the
amount of energy used in the farming and cultivation stages of the feedstocks and the amount of
energy (in terms of fossil fuels) used to transport and convert the feedstocks into the final
biofuel product. This is characterised by the “net energy gain” which is defined as the amount
of energy released from the fuel less the amount of energy put into the manufacture of the fuel.
The biofuel is regarded as unsustainable if this works out to be a negative number. Indeed
biofuels may require higher energy input per unit of energy content produced than fossil fuels.
This energy input, however, varies with the biomass stock used and the geographical
characteristics specific to where they are produced.

the GHG savings possible with biofuels based on the life-cycleassessments (LCA) of some
selected biofuel feedstocks. The percentage values indicate the net GHG savings compared with
allowing the plants to grow and naturally fall on the forest floor to decay. For example, the
GHG savings for bioethanol obtained from sugar cane that can be achieved is between 70-
143%. The upper limit is greater than 100% because the natural decay of sugar cane produces
methane which is 20 times more potent as a GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2)13. In effect, using
these plants as feedstock for biofuels avoids the release of methane that would have otherwise
SESSION 2014-18 Page |6
BIOFUELS GIT DME
occurred if it was allowed to grow and decay naturally. Palm oil, from according to the figure,
could cause a 2070% increase in GHG. This excessively large increase may be due to a different
way of calculating the GHG emissions based on the LCA. One common assumption with GHG
calculations is that virgin rainforest may have been cleared to make land space for the palm oil
plantation and the argument is that this new plantation, during its growing process, is much
slower and absorbs substantially less CO2 than the rainforest it replaced. This means the
rainforest was absorbing more CO2 per hectare of land than the new palm oil plantation

Figure 4: GHG savings of biofuels compared to fossil fuels

IGEM understands that the use of life-cycle-analysis (LCA) at present is controversial

because there is still no globally accepted standard way of performing LCA calculations.
IGEM understands that the main issue with this technique is that of ‘how far back down
the biofuel chain do you go’ in the calculation process in terms of what is included or
excluded (e.g. fertilizers used to grow feedstock, energy used during the mining process of
the minerals used to manufacture fertilisers, etc).
IGEM, however, understands great strides are being made by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to come to a global agreement on LCAs.

SESSION 2014-18 Page |7

BIOFUELS GIT DME

1.2.4 How can we ensure biofuels are sourced sustainably?

Improvements to biofuel systems can be achieved by finding ways to mitigate some of the
adverse effects they have on the environment, human lives and natural resources. On the
production side, biofuels made from organic waste are environmentally more favourable and
cheaper than biofuels sourced from energy or food crops.
On the utilisation side, there are a number of initiatives that can ensure biofuels are sourced
sustainably. For example, UK fuel companies are currently obligated under the 15 Menichetti,
E. and Otto, M. (2008) Existing knowledge and limits of scientific assessment of the
sustainability impacts due to biofuels by LCA methodology. Final report. Renewable Transport
Fuel Obligation (RTFO) to blend 4.5% biofuel in the fuel they sell. However, the RTFO also
obligates the suppliers of biofuels to report on the carbon emissions savings and sustainability
of the products they have supplied. Suppliers who do not provide the necessary documentation
will not be eligible for the RFTO certificates issued. Sourcing biofuels from sustainable areas is
absolutely vital to the future use of this alternative energy. This, according to the World Wide
Fund (WWF), is the only way governments can start to permit biofuels to be used on a larger
scale. They argue that biofuels must deliver GHG and carbon life-cycle benefits over
conventional fuels and ensure the effective use of natural resources and land-use planning in
order to safeguard grasslands and natural forests16. Another study titled the “Gallagher Review
of the indirect effects of biofuel production” suggests that the production of biofuels must target
idle and marginal land and the use of wastes and residue streams. This would ensure that biofuel
production activities are sustainable by not competing with land for food crops and not result in
the net emissions of GHGs and the loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction17.
IGEM understands that sourcing biofuels sustainably is important if it is to command a
major share of the UK energy mix. However, IGEM believes this cannot happen unless
there is some sort of sustainably certified supply chain that encompasses all the different
individual biofuel interest areas.

IGEM welcomes the increasing UK interest in 2nd generation biofuels including more
novel feedstock options such as algae and waste-derived supplies. IGEM believes that
biofuels sourced from organic waste, are not only more environmentally favourable and
cheaper to source than biofuels grown from energy crops, but can also go a long way to
ensuring this energy option starts to effectively compete both economically and
environmentally with other
renewable options.

SESSION 2014-18 Page |8

BIOFUELS GIT DME
CHAPTER -2

2 Biofuel production from biomass

Biomass refers to the biological material derived from living or recently dead organisms that is
used as feedstock to manufacture biofuels. Although biomass can either be combusted in
isolation or co-combusted with coal to generate electricity, it can also be converted to liquid
transportation fuels (bioliquids) or biogas for gas-specific power generation.

2.1 What quantities of biomass are currently produced?

Biomass became the largest source of renewable energy in 2008 generating around 50
exajoules (EJ) (1200 million tonnes of oil equivalent) of bioenergy globally, which accounted
for a 10% share of the total primary energy demand in the same period. Projected world primary
energy demand by 2050 is expected to be in the range of 600 to 1000 EJ and various scenarios
indicate that the future demand for bioenergy could be up to 250 EJ/yr, representing between a
quarter of the future global energy mix.
2.2 What are the sources of raw biomass?
Most of the biomass used today is sourced from three main areas: forests, agriculture and
waste. This includes virgin wood from the conventional cutting of trees, wood residues from
sawmills and other wood processing industries, agricultural energy crops, agricultural residues
and waste18. All the sources of biomass can be broadly categorised into woody and non-woody,

2.3 Biomass pre-treatment and utilisation

Biomass can be converted into energy via combustion. During the combustion process biomass
initially loses its moisture after which volatile gases (such as CO, CH4) are released. These
gases contribute to about 70% of the heating value of the biomass. Finally, the char oxidises and
ash remains. The quality of the biomass depends on the type of raw material used and
pretreatment method applied prior to combustion. Pre-treatment is applied in order to lower
handling, storage and transportation costs, as well to reduce the need for installing expensive
combustion technology. There are a range of pre-treatment methods available which are usually
matched to the type of combustion technology chosen. Some pretreatment options include
compacting and drying using heat. In some cases wood may be left outside for a number of
weeks to dry before they are chipped and fed into a combustion plant20.
Co-firing biomass with coal using conventional coal-fired stations is another utilisation option
that is becoming popular for a number of reasons. One reason is that the concept of co-firing
capitalises on the existing infrastructure already in place and can enable the stations attain net
reductions in GHG emissions. Also, biomass-derived fuels contain far less sulphur than coal;
SESSION 2014-18 Page |9
BIOFUELS GIT DME
therefore co-firing can have a positive impact on SOX emissions. Finally, the net efficiency of
burning biomass by co-firing in existing power stations is much higher than using it in dedicated
biomass plants. This is to do with the efficiencies of scale – because co-firing is usually done in
a large scale plant that costs less per tonne of product to build, it is therefore possible to afford a
much more sophisticated energy cycle that can attain much higher efficiencies.
In terms of equipment modification, co-firing 5-10% biomass requires only minor changes in
handling techniques and equipment; however, equipment changes areneeded for biomass co-
firing exceeding 10%.

2.4 How do you convert biomass?

There are 3 primary ways of converting biomass directly into energy21:
Thermally – biomass can be directly burnt for heating and cooking purposes, or indirectly in
order to generate electricity.
Thermochemically – biomass can be broken down into solids, liquids and gases by heating up
the plant matter and chemically processed into biogas and liquid fuels.
Biochemically – biomass liquids can be converted into alcohol by adding bacteria, yeasts or
enzymes to cause the liquids to ferment.

Figure 7: The main steps for the fermentation of sugar-containing crops to ethanol

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 10
BIOFUELS GIT DME

2.4.2 Converting biomass to biodiesel

The production of biodiesel from biomass involves the conversion of various types of waste
feedstocks, including vegetable oils, animal fats or waste oils, in a reaction process known as
transesterification. Transesterification is the reaction between a triglyceride and an alcohol, such
as ethanol, in the presence of a catalyst (usually potassium hydroxide) to produce alkyl esters
and glycerol. Alkyl ester is the chemical name for the final biodiesel product and glycerol is the
by-product of the reaction.
Figure 8 below shows the chemical process for the production of methyl ester biodiesel:

Figure 8: The production process of methyl ester (biodiesel) and glycerol

After the process has been completed, the catalyst is recovered and the glycerol is separated out
either by drawing it off the bottom of the settling vessel under gravity, or by using a centrifuge.
One major problem with converting biomass to biodiesel is the lack of a market for the glycerol
by-product required to absorb the quantities created if biodiesel was produced on a large scale.
An example of waste vegetable oil feedstock and biodiesel product is illustrated.

Figure 9: Comparison between biodiesel finished product and waste vegetable oil

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 11
BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -3

3 Biofuels used for transport – a UK perspective

The use of biofuels in the transportation sector is vital to the UK’s plan to comply with the 10%
by 2020 renewable energy targets in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED)26. The RED
also enforces different mandatory criteria for biofuels around where these fuels are sourced. In
response, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) was introduced in 2005 in an effort
to bring the UK in line with the RED targets. RTFO is a legislation that mandates UK transport
fuel suppliers to source a certain amount of the fuel they supply from renewable sources. It
applies to all organisations supplying more than 450,000 litres of fossil fuel within a given year.
So far under the RTFO, 4.3 billion litres of biofuel have been supplied to the UK fuel market
since April 200827. Between April 2010 and April 2011, 1.4 billion litres of biofuel was
supplied to the UK under the RTFO which was equivalent to 3.1% of total road transport fuel
used within that period. Biodiesel and bioethanol accounted for 59% and 41% of the total share
respectively, with a negligible amount taken by biogas (<0.1%)28. Biodiesel and bioethanol can
be safely used in small quantities in current road vehicles without additional modifications.
Currently, blends of up to 5% ethanol (E5) can be sold in the UK without additional labelling,
and a revision following BS EN 590:2009 on requirements for diesel fuel increased the
biodiesel blend from 5% to 7% in 201029. 100% pure biofuels can also be supplied but will not
be compatible with all vehicles and must be labelled with “Not suitable for all vehicles: consult
vehicle manufacturer before use”. Of the two fuels, biodiesel is more widely used across the
UK, with the website “Biodiesel Filling Stations” (biodieselfillingstations.co.uk) providing a
list of all the UK biodiesel outlets that provide higher percentage blends.
3.1 Types of feedstock
In 2011, the main feedstock contributors to bioethanol production in the UK included corn,
wheat, sugar cane and sugar beet (see Figure 10 below). In comparison, much cheaper sources
such as used cooking oil, soy, oilseed rape and tallow formed the feedstock mix for biodiesel
production (see Figure 11).
3.1.1 Sources of biofuel to the UK
Most of the biofuels currently supplied to the UK are sourced domestically (22%), followed by
imports from the USA (17%), Argentina (13%), Germany (9%), Netherlands (9%) and Spain
(6%).

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 12
BIOFUELS GIT DME

3.2 Companies in the UK making bio-ethanol and biodiesel

British Sugar began producing bio-fuels in September 2007 at the first UK bio-ethanol plant
located in Wessington, Norfolk. The plant produces up to 70 million liters of bio-ethanol per
year, all of which are produced from fermenting sugar beet.

Figure 12: Britain’s first bio-fuels refinery owned by British Sugar

Another company, Ensues, operates one of the world’s largest cereal grain bio-refineries at
Wilton on Teesside. The refinery processes locally grown animal feed wheat from which over
400 million liters of bio-ethanol, 350000 tones of high protein animal feed, and 300000 tonnes
of CO2 (used for soft drinks and food production), are produced each year. However, at the time
of writing, the refinery had been closed down since May 2011 due to increasing global prices of
1st generation bio-fuel feedstock which form the bulk of the feedstock used at the plant31.

Figure 13: The Ensus plant was opened in 2009

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 13
BIOFUELS GIT DME

Additionally, a new biorefinery in Salt End, Hull, is set to be commissioned byVivergo Fuels
later this year, with the capacity to produce 420 million litres of ethanol and 500,000 tonnes of
mid-protein per annum32. Vivergo Fuels, a joint venture with BP, DuPont and British Sugar,
aim to supply over 30% of UK ethanol requirements under its Renewable Transport Fuel
Obligation33.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 14
BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -4

4 Biogas
Biogas is the gas produced from the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen.
The raw gas is typically composed of 60% methane (CH4) and 40% carbon dioxide, however,
depending on the source, other components can exist which include oxygen (O2), hydrogen
(H2), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), siloxanes, ammonia (NH3) and water vapour (moisture). Table
3 below shows the typical composition of the biogas mixture.
For most purposes, biogas can be divided into two categories: land-fill type and anaerobic
digestion type. Land-fill (LF) type biogas is produced by allowing natural decay to occur within
a land-fill producing a gas that is captured, while anaerobic digestion biogas is produced in
purpose-designed above-ground plants to optimise the gasproducing decay process for greater
efficiencies. There is a major environmental driver to capture the gas produced from the
breakdown of organic matter. Naturally decayed waste, both household waste which is usually
land-filled and farm waste, produce a lot of CH4 which is 20 times more potent as a GHG than
CO2. As a result, from a policy point of view, there is a huge amount CO2 reduction achieved
when waste is enclosed in a sealed tank and the captured methane is burned or flared to produce
CO2 as the main byproduct. Biogas can be produced from a range of feedstock including some
biomass sources and waste streams. Waste sources including those from food waste, energy
crops, crop residues, slurry or sewage waste, landfill gas and manure from animals can all be
processed to biogas via AD. The type of feedstock processed is critical to the performance and
overall efficiency of the AD process. The faster the feedstock breaks down, the better the
overall efficiency and gas yields obtained per unit of raw material.
IGEM believes using the anaerobic digestion route (AD) to treat waste, with the potential
to provide energy at the same time, has an important role to play as a means of avoiding
the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from landfill disposal, some of which are 20
times more potent as a GHG than carbon dioxide(CO2).

4.1 Production of biogas from anaerobic digesters

The anaerobic digestion (AD) process for biogas production can be classified according to the
following categories34:
The operating temperature of the digester: Mesophilic (25-45°C) or Thermophilic (50-60°C)
The state of the organic matter in the digester: Wet feed (5-15% dry matter) or dry (over 15%
dry matter)
The mode of operation: Continuous or batch process Single or multistage digesters

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 15
BIOFUELS GIT DME
Thermophilic systems are known to provide much faster biogas production rates per unit of
feedstock and cubic metre of digester than mesophilic systems35. The degree of wetness (or
dryness) of the AD system is also a critical operating factor. Dry AD operations tend to be
cheaper to run because there is less water to evaporate but have high set-up costs per unit of
feedstock. Wet AD processes, on the other hand, have lower set-up costs but higher operating
costs than dry AD processes.
Biogas digesters can also be operated in either batch or continuous mode. There are usually
technical justifications behind operating the AD in either mode such as the need to overcome
peaks or troughs in gas production which can be accomplished by operating multiple batch
digesters in parallel. It is also possible to run continuous digesters provided there is a gas holder
available on-site big enough to deal with the variations.
Anaerobic digestion is essentially a 3 stage biological process. The first stage is the breakdown
of the complex organic molecules into simpler molecules, volatile fatty acids (VFAs), NH3,
CO2 and H2S. The simpler molecules are then further digested to produce more CO2, hydrogen
and acetic acid. The final stage involves further breakdown of the fatty acids into CH4, CO2
and water. Each of these 3 stages uses completely different bacteria that operate at different
conditions. In a single stage digester, all the bacteria needed for the process work at a
compromise because none of them operate at their optimum efficiency. In a multistage digester,
the 3 stages of the AD process can be optimised to get bigger gas yields per unit of feedstock.
Multistage digesters, however, are more expensive to build and more complex to control.

Figure 14: Example of an AD plant configured to produce energy from bio-waste feedstock
In addition to generating energy in the form of biogas, AD also produces digestate. This
digestate can be treated and used as a form of renewable fertiliser containing critical nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus. However, the nutrient composition depends on the feedstock,
which implies that, in addition to nitrogen and phosphorus, the digestate may contain heavy

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 16
BIOFUELS GIT DME
metals and other persistent organic compounds which may be difficult and expensive to remove
for subsequent use.

4.2 Composition of biogas from anaerobic digesters

The composition of biogas varies according to origin of the feedstock used in the AD process.
Biogas produced from the various sources vary in the level of CH4, CO2, H2S, O2, moisture,
siloxanes and other contaminants it contains. For example farm biogas – biogas converted from
farm waste – usually has much higher concentrations of H2S, micro-organisms and traces of
extra contaminants such as pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Farm gas also has high NH3
content37.
Waste water biogas – biogas obtained from converting sewage sludge from wastewater plants –
contains siloxanes and other organic compounds such as aldehydes, as well as low levels of
particulate matter and metals such as arsenic and mercury, all unique to the source. Organic
solid wastes from industry also contain low levels of arsenic and mercury which, from a UK gas
grid perspective, exceeds the current UK Export Sales Gas Limit38. Biogas from landfill gas
sources contain high levels of hydrogen, organic sulphides and thiols which all need to be
removed for subsequent use. The technical implication of the varying composition of biogas
from AD, from a gas grid utilisation point of view, is that it requires expensive purification
technology in order to meet Gas Safety Management Regulations (GS[M]R).

4.3 Processing biogas from anaerobic digesters

Biogas from anaerobic digesters can be processed to a gas with higher CH4 content referred to
as biomethane or renewable gas. The amount of unwanted contaminants removed from the
produced biogas depends on the final end-use of the gas. Most often water vapour and H2S
removal is required, except when the gas is to be compressed and used as a vehicle fuel then it
is recommended that CO2 is also substantially removed39. When the gas is to be fed into the
gas grid it has to meet standards imposed by gas quality regulations within a particular region,
for example the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations (GS[M]R) for gas conveyance in the UK
which requires a CH4 content of about 95% so it resembles the qualities of natural gas (see
section 4.4.4.1.).
The need for processing biogas is significant, not least because of the corrosive nature of H2S,
bacteria (via microbially-induced corrosion) and water vapour in the gas. As a result various
methods are deployed to purify biogas, which include processes whereby the raw biogas stream
is absorbed or scrubbed to remove the contaminants, leaving up to 98% methane per unit
volume of the gas stream.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 17
BIOFUELS GIT DME

4.3.1 Biogas cleaning methods

4.3.1.1 Water vapour removal

Water vapour must be removed in order to meet pipeline quality standards or CNG vehicle fuel
standards. The removal methods for water vapour are either based on the physical separation of
condensed water or chemical drying. Physical separation
The simplest way of removing water vapour is through refrigeration. The condensed water
droplets are entrapped and separated by either using a demister, where liquid is separated using
microscopic pores, or cyclone separators in which water droplets are separated using centrifugal
forces. Adsorption drying
The chemical method of gas drying involves elevating the pressure of the gas and feeding it
through a column containing an adsorbent component such as silica. This is a continuous cyclic
process and the bed is regenerated thermally to release the water as water vapour every few
hours.

4.3.1.2 H2S removal

H2S removal is required to avoid corrosion issues in piping, compressors, gas storage tanks and
engines. H2S is extremely reactive with most metals, and this reactivity is enhanced by the
presence of water, elevated temperatures, pressures and concentrations. It reacts with iron oxide
or iron hydroxide to form iron sulphide and water, the iron oxide can then be regenerated using
oxygen.
4.3.1.3 CO2 removal
CO2 removal is essential for enhancing the energy value of biogas. As the CO2 is removed, the
relative density of the gas is decreased and the calorific value increased - increasing the Wobbe
Index. There are 3 main methods used commercially for the removal of CO2 from biogas.
Physical CO2 absorption . One of method of separating CO2 from CH4 is by scrubbing the
raw gas with water to remove CO2, capitalising on the fact that CO2 is more soluble in water
than CH4. In this process, the raw gas is introduced to the bottom of a vertical column at
pressure (typically between 1000-2000kPa). Water is then fed to the top of the column which is
usually equipped with random packing to provide the surface area needed to facilitate mass
transfer between the gas and liquid40. As the gas flows up the column the concentration of CO2
decreases during which the gas becomes richer in CH4. The processed biogas then leaves from
the top of the column. In order to remove the methane from the water, the water leaving at the
bottom of the column is partially depressurised in a flash tank. This releases the CH4 rich gas
which is recycled with the untreated biogas. Water is regenerated using a desorption column,
where it is brought in contact with air or steam to strip the CO2 from it.
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 18
BIOFUELS GIT DME

Figure 15: Overview of the physical absorption of CO2

Chemical absorption
Alternatively, CO2 can be removed by chemically absorbing it. This method uses an amine at
slightly elevatedamine at slightly elevated pressures to absorb the CO2 present in biogas. The
amine is then regenerated with steam or heat to separate and recover the CO2. This is, however,
an energy intensive process compared to other methods for absorbing CO2.
Cryogenic separation
CH4 has a boiling point of -161°C while CO2 boils at -78°C which means that CO2 can be
separated from biogas as a liquid by cooling the gas mixture at elevated pressure. CH4 can be
extracted as a liquid or vapour depending on how the system has been designed41. This, too, is
an energy intensive process.

4.4 Bio-methane utilisation

Purified biogas or biomethane can be utilised in a variety of ways. The main uses are
listed below42:
It can be burnt in boilers to provide heat
It can be used to generate electricity in gas turbines or engines.
It can be compressed for use as a vehicle fuel
It can be injected to the gas grid for subsequent use

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 19
BIOFUELS GIT DME

4.4.1 Heat production

Biomethane can be used to produce heat by burning the gas in boilers or industrial furnaces.
The biomethane content requirements for boilers are not as stringent as those for other
utilisation options, however, H2S, which could lead to the formation of sulphuric acid, poses a
corrosion problem and therefore needs to be removed. It is not absolutely necessary to remove
CO2 and water vapour present in the gas; however, water vapour can also be a source of
corrosion problems in gas nozzles.

4.4.2 Electricity production

The use of biomethane for electricity generation or combined heat and power (CHP) is done in
gas turbines and engines. These are both long established and reliable technologies with
thousands of units operating on gases with differing specifications in different places all around
the world. Gas engines have high gas quality requirements, for example it is typically
recommended to reduce the H2S content to values lower than 1ppm (parts per million) and the
siloxanes content to 1ppb (parts per billion)43.

4.4.3 Vehicle fuel

Biomethane can be compressed in the same way as natural gas and used to run vehicles. This is
usually referred to as compressed biomethane (CBM). There are currently about 13 million
compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles globally. There are also vehicles modified to run on
liquid biomethane (LBM), however, these are mostly used in heavy duty type vehicles.
Commercial trials of biogas vehicles have suggested that CNG or CBM vehicles could achieve
significant CO2 reductions compared with equivalent diesel vehicles. Also, lower nitrous oxide
emissions and negligible particulate emissions are achievable with CBM vehicles. However the
gas specifications are quite high; it should contain above 95 vol% CH4 which means that CO2,
H2S, NH3, particulate matter and H2O all have to be removed (although different quality
specifications may be applied in different countries).
There are 2 ways to get the vehicles to burn CNG or CBM. The first is to convert existing
vehicles so they can run on CNG or CBM. There are gas conversion kits available on the market
to do this. The second way is to use original equipment manufacture (OEM) dedicated vehicles.

4.4.3.1 Biomethane for vehicle use – UK case studies

Sheffield City Council, in association with Veolia Environmental Services and CNG Services,
successfully trialled biomethane fuelled lorries in 2010. The fleet consisted of 10 Mercedes-
Benz Econic lorries (see Figure 16) which were used to collect rubbish across the city of
Sheffield. During the same year, Volkswagen’s Passat Ecofuel made its UK debut at a Low
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 20
BIOFUELS GIT DME
Carbon Vehicle event held at Millbrook Proving Ground. The car, which runs on both CNG and
CBM, does 0 – 60 mph in 9.5 seconds and can achieve substantially less CO2 emissions per km
than equivalent performance diesel vehicles.

Figure16: Econic refuse truck trialled in Sheffield

Gasrec, a leading producer of liquid methane fuel in Europe, entered into a trial in 2009 to run
an East Midlands Airport transfer bus powered by liquid biomethane (LBM) (see Figure 17
below). The LBM used was produced from organic waste in existing landfill sites and by-
products obtained from the digestion of biomass sourced from industries such as food and retail
waste.

Figure 17: East Midlands Airport’s bus powered by Gasrec-produced biomethane

4.4.4 Injecting biomethane into the UK gas grid

The most promising method of utilising biomethane would be introducing it into the natural gas
distribution network. There is some work going on in the UK looking into the feasibility of the
concept. The final composition of the injected biomethane depends on the grid specifications.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 21
BIOFUELS GIT DME
The requirements are mainly focussed on the amount of CH4, CO2, O2, H2S and halogen
compounds the final gas product contains.

4.4.4.1 UK compliance requirements

Biomethane injected into the UK gas network must meet the specifications outlined in the Gas
Safety (Management) Regulations (GS(M)R). The GS(M)R approach was initially developed by
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and the former British Gas. The approach uses Wobbe
Number, which is a measure of the energy input through an appliance based predominantly on
the discharge through a burner nozzle, as the main parameter to compare between different gas
qualities.
The gas distribution network operators (GDNOs) also have to enter a Network Entry
Agreement (NEA) with the suppliers of biomethane into their network. This usually sets entry
requirements detailed under GS(M)R and refines the limits as required to account for other
operational factors.
The calorific value (CV) of the biomethane is the most important parameter when it comes to
using it. The calorific value is a measure of heating power representing the amount of heat
released as a gas is burnt. It is dependent on the composition of the gas.
In the UK, gas passing through the national transmission system (NTS) must have a CV
between 37.5 MJ/m3 to 43.0 MJ/m3.
In order to avoid transmitting a low energy gas, biomethane is either enriched with propane to
meet the local Flow Weighted Average Calorific Value (FWACV) target or commingled
(blended) with local grid gas (essentially natural gas)47 to minimise the use of propane.
46 Hazards arising from conveyance and use of gas from Non-Conventional Sources (NCS).
Research Report (RR882) prepared by GL Noble Denton for the Health and Safety Executive
2011.
The calorific value can be measured at 110 different locations on the National Grid (NG)
pipeline system. These are inputted into 13 charging areas in the UK, where a daily CV average
is calculated in order to meet regulations: The daily CV average for each charging area is
calculated using the product of the CV for all the inputs and dividing by the total volume of gas
entering the charging area. Regulations48 mandate that the difference between the maximum
daily CV average (FWACV) and the measured daily CV average of the input into the charging
area must not exceed 1 MJ/m3.

4.4.4.2 How does a biomethane producer connect to the gas network?

In the UK, physical connection to the network is facilitated by a licensed Gas Transporter (GT)
(e.g. National Grid, Scotia Gas Networks) or one of the registered Utility Infrastructure
Providers (UIPs) (e.g. Fulcrum, Denholm Pipecare Ltd). The connection charges are dependent
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 22
BIOFUELS GIT DME
on the size and location of the connection. For example, if the pipeline nearest to the
biomethane plant isn’t large enough to take the volume of gas produced, additional pipe-work
may be required; the costs of which are incurred by the biomethane producer. At present any
connecting pipe-work has to be owned by a licensed GT49.
Alongside the physical connection arrangements, biomethane producers are required to enter a
Network Entry Agreement (NEA) with the GT. This agreement defines how the network entry
facility will operate i.e. who takes ownership of the plant and equipment, maintenance and
operational responsibilities, gas quality specifications and Local Operating Procedures (LOPs).

4.4.4.3 What equipment is needed for biomethane injection?

The following points highlight DECC’s published guidelines on equipments that most
biomethane injection facilities need to have for injection into the gas grid:
Biogas clean-up facilities – this will enable the gas to meet quality requirements.
Enrichment unit – to increase the energy content (calorific value) to the level required.
Gas quality monitoring equipment – monitoring equipment is used in order to demonstrate
and ensure to the gas transporters and the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) that biomethane
injected is compliant with Gas Safety Management Regulations.
Metering equipment – to measure the volume of gas injected into the gas network.
Odourisation equipment – to give the gas its characteristic smell and for it to be detectable in
case of a leak.
Pressure control equipment – pressure of biomethane needs to be increased by compression
or reduced by a pressure reduction valve to enable safe injection.
Automatic valve – a valve is required to stop injection if it is not of appropriate quality.
Telecommunications equipment – to send data for billing and operational reasons.

4.4.4.4 Biomethane to Grid (BtG) - UK case studies

Biomethane was injected into the UK gas grid for the first time when sewage from over 30,000
homes in Oxfordshire was processed in the Didcot sewage treatment works producing
biomethane which was supplied to about 200 homes.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 23
BIOFUELS GIT DME

Figure 18: Didcot’s biomethane to grid process overview

The biomethane production facility was a joint venture between Scotia Gas Networks and
Thames Water, an overview of the process in illustrated in Figure 18 above. The biogas that was
produced at the site underwent a clean-up and upgrading process which used water wash
technology provided by Chesterfield Biogas51. In order to meet regulations, the biomethane
was enriched with propane before it was added to the national grid52. The Health & Safety
Executive (HSE) issued a GS(M)R exemption to Scotia Gas Networks to allow biomethane to
be conveyed in a limited area around Didcot. This allowed the oxygen content of up to 2% -
compared with the limit of 0.2% set by the GS(M)R - on the grounds that there would be no
increased risk to either the gas consumers or to the public. The whole process, from the
production of sewage to injection of biomethane, takes around 23 days.
Another project that led to the injection of biomethane in the UK was at the Adnams Brewery,
Southwold. Adnams Bio Energy delivered the first biomethane produced from brewery and
food waste. The plant harnessed methane from malted barley and local food waste. The gas
produced was pumped into the national grid to heat around 235 homes. There are a few other
UK BtG projects in the pipeline.
IGEM calls for more work looking into the feasibility of the ‘biomethane to grid’ (BtG)
concept so as to identify principal learning points that can facilitate widespread
development of the associated technology. IGEM would like to see biomethane being a big
part of the UK government’s gas generation strategy. IGEM understands that the
maximum oxygen (O2) content in biomethane for injection into the Gas Distribution
Network (GDN) set under GS(M)R at 0.2% is difficult for biomethane producers to meet.
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 24
BIOFUELS GIT DME
IGEM echoes one of the main principal learning points from the Didcot project which is
that the allowable level of O2 detailed under GS(M)R needs a careful review in the context
of modern network conditions.
IGEM recognises that Wobbe number is a major issue because biomethane injected into
the Gas Distribution Network (GDN) must meet GS(M)R, which is usually done by
propane enrichment, hereby increasing the per unit cost of biomethane post clean-up and
decreasing the value of propane added. IGEM encourages the use of comingling where
possible by companies in order to meet GS(M)R regulations.

4.4.4.5 What is IGEM doing?

Currently, IGEM is involved with the Ofgem review group looking into energy market issues
for biomethane projects (EMIB). The purpose of the EMIB review group is to provide a
platform for debate on the potential barriers to the commercial development of biomethane
projects within the energy market, as well as finding the appropriate means of addressing such
barriers. Some of the issues currently on the table for debate along with corresponding
recommendations are detailed below53:
The current GDN policies for connecting biomethane projects. The review group
considered whether the existing connections policies offered any barriers or uncertainty to
facilitating biomethane connections to the grid. At the moment, current connection policy
requires those connecting to the network to meet the full costs of all the work necessary to
support the connection. In the context of biomethane entry, this would involve the biomethane
producer meeting the costs associated with developing the entry facility as well as other
investments associated with situations where there is insufficient downstream demand to
accommodate planned flows, such as compression, to support a change in flow patterns with gas
being moved upstream.
The review group recognised that enabling the GDNs to be responsible for providing all aspects
of the entry facility could prove to be a barrier to biomethane entry. As a result, a minimum
connection policy approached was agreed upon whereby the GDN would undertake the
minimum level of investment needed in order to comply with its obligations. This, again, would
require the GDN to specify the requirements that any equipment installed at an entry point
would have to meet.
Issues around the amount of biomethane going into the GDN system. The review group
recommended that entry capacity rights should be set out in the Network Entry Agreement
(NEA) for the relevant entry point. On the basis of steady flow for 365 days a year, the group
accepted that the maximum capability that could be offered will be equal to the minimum
demand downstream of the entry point. In the instant where the minimum demand is insufficient
to accommodate biomethane, additional investment may be able to increase capacity availability
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 25
BIOFUELS GIT DME
mainly in the form of compression such that the gas can be moved upstream in an effort to
address demand elsewhere of the GDN.
The review group also agreed that it would be appropriate for the entrant to bear the costs of
any such investment and recommended that Ofgem confirm that they would expect it to be
treated in the same way as other economically and efficiently incurred network investment.
Existing standards for biomethane CV measurement, and the associated governance
regime. Dave Lander Consulting undertook some analysis to address this issue. A summary of
the full report can be found at Appendix 5 in the reference54.
Gas quality regulation. The review group reviewed the existing requirements for gas quality
to determine if they were fit for the injection of biomethane. The group agreed that the
requirements set out functional specification (document that covers requirements for integrated
biomethane to grid injection facility) was fit for purpose and should be incorporated in the
individual NEAs. The specification will initially be maintained by the GDNOs but the group
recommended that it becomes an IGEM standard in the future.

Data requirements and transmission. The review group reviewed the current industry
processes for transmitting flow/calorific value which were originally designed for large
offtakes. The group recommended that further work be undertaken to identify the risks and
benefits of alternative approaches for transmitting data. IGEM are currently working with the
GDNOs on a technical standard that will cover the distribution of biogas and injection of
biomethane into the GDN, which will include the design, construction, inspection, testing,
operation and maintenance of entry facilities. There is conflicted interest between the
biomethane producers who desire a cheap method to measure properties in relatively small-
scale plant, and networks who desire accuracy by using expensive equipment for both gas
quality control and fiscal metering. Therefore, the standards will try to address the issues behind
injection.
IGEM/TD/16 is the standard that will aim to cover the requirements for the design,
construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of the entry facility used for
the injection of biomethane into the Gas Distributionb Network (GDN).
Additionally, the proposed IGEM standard will cover the requirements for the design,
construction, inspection, testing, operation and maintenance of the different pipeline types used
for the distribution of biogas. Standards for biogas are very important as the costs of cleaning up
the gas, especially for small biogas producers such as farms, is expensive. This is because the
biogas from such facilities has a lot more impurities (see paragraph 55) which make it
imperative to select the right pipeline material and assess how the chemical content of the gas
could potentially impact on the chosen material.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 26
BIOFUELS GIT DME
IGEM understands that accurate monitoring of the composition of biomethane entering
the Gas Distribution Network (GDN) can be very expensive, however, lessons from the
Didcot prototype plant have identified that it is possible to reduce costs significantly
without causing any adverse effects to the integrity of the network or consumers.
IGEM understands that biogas clean-up equipment is expensive per GJ of product and
that pipeline material selection for biogas produced from small installations, such as
plants located on small farms, is a pressing technical issue. IGEM would work towards
producing standards that outline the minimum requirements for the odorisation and gas
quality measurement equipment.
4.5 The biogas utilization outlook
In the UK, the main sources of biogas include waste streams such as wastes from sewage
works. Most of the biogas produced has mostly been used to generate electricity due to the
provision of cash incentives for the generation of low carbon or green electricity i.e. the
Renewables Obligation (RO)55 and the Feed-in Tariffs (FITs)56 scheme. In August 2011,
anaerobic digester (AD) plants were included in the range of technologies that would be eligible
for the FITs scheme, with tariffs paid on a plant capacity basis. The FITs scheme currently
provides 14p/kWh for installations up to 250kW and 13p/kWh for installations between 250 and
500kW.
On the heat generation side, the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI)57 has incentivized the use of
biomethane for the generation of heat. Since its inception in November 2011, the 1st phase of
the RHI has provided the owners of renewable heat installations commissioned since July 2009
a cash back subsidy for the first 20 years of use. This offers an attractive reward for AD plant
owners and guarantees a good return on initial investment. The grant for AD-generated
biomethane of all scales is currently at 7.1p/kWhtherm This, in turn, has increased appeal of
using biomethane to generate heat here in the UK and, hence, the number of biomethane to grid
projects.
Another scheme, the Green Gas Certification Scheme (GGCS)59, has been introduced as
means of tracking the commercial transactions or contractual flows of biomethane (or ‘green
gas’) through the supply chain. The scheme is open to anyone involved in the biomethane
supply chain; from producers who can register the gas they’ve injected to the grid, to suppliers
and other traders who register gas sale contracts they’ve agreed. When final end-users of the gas
purchase it, a Renewable Gas Guarantees of Origin (RGGOs) is listed on the consumer’s
certificate which acts as an identifier for each kWh of gas purchased. This identifier contains
information about where, when and how the gas was produced which increases the
attractiveness of using green gas to major endusers e.g. big supermarkets and other big
organisations.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 27
BIOFUELS GIT DME
Within the continent, the major players include Sweden, Germany andSwitzerland. Sweden, for
example, have gone down the transportation route mainly because of 2 factors: one is the lack of
a gas grid and the other is the low electricity prices which forces biogas into areas other than the
electricity market, therefore, there are positive incentives available for the use of biogas as a
vehicle fuel60. The use of biogas as a vehicle fuel isn’t practical here in the UK because the
vehicles are currently more expensive to buy compared with petrol or diesel vehicles, and the
filling stations cost a lot more to build than conventional petrol stations. Biogas, however, could
be used to run truck fleets but this cannot be done in isolation as demand will still not be
enough to accommodate the volumes of gas that could be produced.
Germany is another example of a country that currently leads in terms of the primary energy
output produced from biogas. In 2009, Germany had 5000 fully operational biogas plants with a
combined electricity capacity of 1893MW. A further 1093 biogas plants are to be built before
the end of 2012, adding an extra 516MW of electrical capacity. Germany’s positive outlook to
biogas is largely down to the legal framework provided by the German renewable energies law
(EEG)61.
The law, first passed in 2000 and amended in 2004 and 2009, implements the EU Directive on
the Promotion of Renewable Energies - which sets ambitious targets for renewable energies in
the EU. The EEG is very pro-renewable energy in that it mandates the grid operators to pay a
government-specified feed-in-tariff to the energy generators supplying energy to the grid from
renewable sources. It also provides a 20-year guarantee on remuneration rates and add-on
premiums if innovative technology is used, for example using manure for biogas production62.
This acts as an incentive for biomethane suppliers as they are given priority to the grid and the
responsibility for a major part of the associated costs of biomethane injection is transferred to
the grid operators. This has resulted in a growth in the area of biomethane injection.
However, the German biogas industry struggled between 2007 and 2008. This was due to a
number of reasons which included the adoption of corn silage by many of the plants as
feedstock, and the fact that many of the plants were used only for electricity production, wasting
the heat produced. This led to economic problems up until 2009 when the new legislation was
updated and implemented. Since the 1st of January 2009, the basic rate applied to biomethane
(excluding biomethane produced from wastewater plant) has been €0.1167/kWh (£0.098/kWh)
for installation capacities of 150kW or below. This rate drops to €0.0918/kWh (£0.077/kWh)
for up to 500 kilowatts, €0.0825/kWh (£0.069/kWh) for up to 5MW and €0.0779/kWh
(£0.065/kWh) for up to 20 MW63.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 28
BIOFUELS GIT DME

Figure 19: Biogas production in Germany between 2000 and 2009

Research carried out by the German biomass research centre puts the potential for Germany’s
biomethane output at between 11.5 and 13.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe) per annum
compared to the annual natural gas consumption of 76.6 mtoe per annum. In effect, Germany
can reduce its dependency on natural gas imports by one-sixth by tapping into biomethane.
Unlike Germany, the UK has not so far opted for AD biogas from energy crops and has
preferred to rely on energy recovery from landfill gas (LFG). According to the Department for
Energy and Climate Change (DECC), 1723 ktoe of biogas was produced in 2009, of which
1474.4 ktoe was landfill biogas (about 85%).

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 29
BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -5

5 Bio-SNG
The gasification of coal provided a much cleaner and sustainable way of utilizing the resource
when it was first introduced, offering a more versatile form of the energy source. The process
converts coal into a gaseous fuel, known as syngas, retaining most of its useful energy and can
be readily purified and transported/distributed. Coal gasification also offers a number of
advantages over the conventional combustion of coal which include eliminating the difficulty of
handling large quantities of the material at customers’ premises. As well as coal, biomass can be
used to produce SNG which could be advantageous from an emissions point of view. Other
forms of feedstock include fossiland solid waste.
Several products can be produced from gasification; ‘Old fashioned’ towns gas and various
industrial fuel gases can be produced, as well as substitute natural gas or synthetic natural gas
(SNG) for gas-grid purposes. The product, SNG, is such that it is fully interchangeable with
natural gas without the need of further conversion downstream.
SNG produced by the gasification of any type of biomass is known as bio-SNG. Bio-SNG can
be used in a similar way to biomethane generated via anaerobic digestion with the added
advantage that the production can accommodate a much wider range of input biomass
feedstocks, not commonly suitable for AD, including woody biomass (this is usually subject to
the gasifier type used). This is also the reason why bio-SNG is believed in some quarters to be
crucial to the use of renewable gas to achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions past
2050. The argument is that biomethane produced by AD is a limited resource because of the
feedstock inflexibility. A consultation report, prepared by Progressive Energy Ltd and CNG
Services, on the feasibility of bio- SNG for National Grid, Centrica and NEPIC, reports that for
bio-SNG the majority of the mass and energy flow produce the product gas rather than just the
biodegradable fraction (as is the case with biomethane). This effectively means the gasification
route to renewable or bio-SNG has higher conversion efficiencies and can be executed on a
more substantial scale65, with plant sizes of the order of 100,000-1,000,000 tpa (as compared to
AD capacities of 10,000-100,000 tpa).

5.1 Bio-SNG production using gasifies

The process and technology for bio-SNG production is similar to that required for the
production of SNG from coal. A wide range of gasifier types are be available, all of which can
be categorised into two main types: dry ash gasifiers and slagging gasifiers. The ash formed
from the gasification of any hydrocarbon fuel is thermoplastic i.e. it doesn’t turn from solid to

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 30
BIOFUELS GIT DME
liquid at a single phase change temeperature. Operating the gasifier between 850°C and 1000°C
produces predominantly dry ash at the bottom of the vessel while operating between 1400°C
and 2000°C produces ash that is melted to a liquid slag with relatively low viscosity at the
bottom. The key difference between the two types of gasifiers with respect to waste and coal,
which are both ‘dirty’ fuels, is where all the heavy metals, minerals and all other contaminants
present end up. In a dry ash gasifier using waste or coal, all the contaminants end up in the ash
posing a disposal problem. If the ash is land-filled, heavy metals are leachable in solution out of
65 Bio-SNG. Feasibility Study. Establishment of a regional Project. Progressive Energy & CNG
Services, landfill as rainwater percolates through it. In a slagging gasifier, the heavy metals are
vitrified in the resulting product and cannot be leached out66.
Gasifiers can also be air blown or oxygen blown. The decision to go with either, for the most
part, is usually based on the economics of the proposed plant and the final end-use of the gas.
The majority of dry ash gasifiers used to process biomass are air blown. This is because such
plants are usually small scale, low pressure and temperature plants with relatively low
thermodynamic efficiencies. This also means that the syngas produced contains lots of nitrogen
(N2). In an oxygen blown gasifier, pure oxygen is injected in the vessel along with the steam
producing a syngas that doesn’t have a high percentage of inert nitrogen gas and therefore has a
high calorific value. As a result, such plants are large scale with high thermodynamic
efficiencies. Other advantages of using oxygen blown slagging gasifiers to process biomass
include:
Typical high plant pressure which means process vessels can be smaller
Solubility of the product gases are higher which is an advantage when the gases are cleaned-u

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 31
BIOFUELS GIT DME
There is less compression needed if the bio-SNG is to be injected in the NTS (because they
are usually large scale plants operated at high pressure

Figure 20: A schematic diagram of the British Gas Lurgi slagging-bed-gasifier

The product gas leaving the slagging gasifier is usually quenched and cooled to remove tar, oil
and liquor, leaving a gas that contains mainly carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2) in a
ratio of about 2:1. There is also a subtantial amount of methane in the stream together with other
sulphur compounds such as H2S, Carbonyl sulphide (COS) and carbon disuphide (CS2). For
SNG production, the remaining gases are chemically processed in reaction process known as
methanation. The final products from this stage including steam, methane and carbion dioxide,
are then separated. The stream is cooled to remove steam while CO2 is extracted using
commercially available processes to leave CH4 as the only product. Figure 21 shows an
overview of the bio-SNG production process.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 32
BIOFUELS GIT DME
Bio-SNG production from biomass mixes and waste have been tested at small to medium scale.
A 1MW SNG demonstration plant has been built in Gussing, Austria for the complete process
demonstration from woody biomass to SNG. A much bigger 200MW biomass gasification plant
is to be built in Sweden from 2013 under the E.ON Bio2G project.
The bio-SNG fuel can be integrated into the existing energy system in the same way as natural
gas or biogas (usually as processed biomethane), either for use in vehicles or injection into the
NTS. To meet the specifications required for gas utilization in vehicles or gas injection into the
existing natural gas infrastructure, the produced bio-SNG will need to be further processed (this
is much the same as AD gas processing).
67 B. Buttker, R. Giering, U. Schlotter, B. Himmelreich, K.Wittstock, Full Scale Industrial
Recovery trials of shredder residue in a high temperature slagging-bed-gasifier in Germany,
SVZ report, pp. 7113. Although proven technically feasible, the bio-SNG option is not as
widespread as other renewable options for gas. In the UK, bio-SNG needs to be considered
because of the potential benefits it can offer. Some of the recognised benefits of this option
include:
High process speed for conversion of feedstock to energy (process speed is of the order of
hours)
Potential to execute on a gas-grid scale at cost-competitive capital per GWtherm of energy
input
Versatile/flexible fuel/feedstock types which include dry solid fuel, municipal commercial
and industrial wastes, woody and contaminated biomass, coal, petcoke, plastics, sewage sludge,
solvents, inks, bio hazardous/chemical/genetic wastes, persistent organic pollutants, landfill and
slag tip mined material, etc.
High process efficiency (77% for BGL Oxygen-blown gasifier)
Potential to reuse waste produced from the process as an environmentally friendly
construction material or fracking material
Potential to capture CO2 using highly efficient post-methanation technologies
IGEM welcomes the development and use of bio-SNG as a renewable gas option due to the
potential benefits it offers in terms of process speeds, feedstock flexibility and reusable
wastes (or recyclates). IGEM sees bio-SNG as a long
term interchangeable option to North Sea natural gas that can ensure the future of the gas
industry for generations to come. IGEM encourages more investment into the bio-SNG
concept and the associated technologies to demonstrate its feasibility to policy makers and
the wider public. IGEM would like to see bio-SNG embedded in future energy policies
relating to the use of renewable gas here in the UK.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 33
BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -6

6 Summary of conclusions
IGEM understands that the use of life-cycle-analysis (LCA) at present is controversial because
there is still no globally accepted standard way of performing LCA calculations. IGEM
understands that the main issue with this technique is that of ‘how far back down the biofuel
chain do you go’ in the calculation process in terms of what is included or excluded (e.g.
fertilizers used to grow feedstock, energy used during the mining process of the minerals
used to manufacture fertilisers, etc). IGEM, however, understands great strides are being made
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to come to a global
agreement on LCAs. IGEM understands that sourcing biofuels sustainably is important if it is to
command a major share of the UK energy mix. IGEM, however, believes this cannot happen
unless there is some sort of sustainably certified supply chain that encompasses the feedstock
needs of all the different individual biofuel interest areas.
IGEM welcomes the increasing UK interest in 2nd generation biofuels including more novel
feedstock options such as algae and waste-derived supplies. IGEM believes that biofuels
sourced from organic waste, are not only more environmentally favourable and cheaper to
source than biofuels grown from energy crops, but can also go a long way to ensuring this
energy option starts to effectively compete both economically and environmentally with other
renewable options. IGEM believes using the anaerobic digestion route (AD) to treat waste, with
the potential to provide energy at the same time, has an important role to play as a means of
avoiding the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from landfill disposal, some of which are 20
times more potent as a GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2).
IGEM calls for more work looking into the feasibility of the ‘biomethane to grid’ (BtG) concept
so as to identify principal learning points that can facilitate widespread development of the
associated technology. IGEM would like to see biomethane being a big part of the UK
government’s gas generation strategy. IGEM understands that the maximum oxygen (O2)
content in biomethane for injection into the Gas Distribution Network (GDN) set under
GS(M)R at 0.2% is difficult for biomethane producers to meet. IGEM echoes one of the main
principal learning points from the Didcot project which is that the allowable level of O2 detailed
under GS(M)R needs a careful review in the context of modern network conditions.
IGEM recognises that Wobbe number is a major issue because biomethane injected into the Gas
Distribution Network (GDN) must meet GS(M)R, which is usually done by propane
enrichment, hereby increasing the per unit cost of biomethane post clean-up and decreasing the
value of the propane added.
SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 34
BIOFUELS GIT DME
IGEM encourages the use of comingling where possible by companies in order to meet GS(M)R
regulations. IGEM/TD/16 is the standard that will aim to cover the requirements for the
design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of the entry facility used
for the injection of biomethane into the Gas Distribution Network (GDN).
IGEM understands that accurate monitoring of the composition of biomethane entering the Gas
Distribution Network (GDN) can be very expensive, however, lessons from the Didcot
prototype plant have identified that it is possible to reduce costs significantly without causing
any adverse effects to the integrity of the network or consumers. IGEM understands that biogas
clean-up equipment is expensive per GJ of product and that pipeline material selection for
biogas produced from small installations, such as plants located on small farms, is a pressing
technical issue. IGEM would work towards producing standards that outline the minimum
requirements of planting, odorisation and gas quality measurement equipment. IGEM welcomes
the development and use of bio-SNG as a renewable gas option due to the potential benefits it
offers in terms of process speeds, feedstock flexibility and reusable wastes (or recyclates).
IGEM sees bio-SNG as a long term interchangeable option to North Sea natural gas that can
ensure the future of the gas industry for generations to come.
IGEM encourages more investment into the bio-SNG concept and the associated technologies to
demonstrate its feasibility to policy makers and the wider public. IGEM would like to see bio-
SNG embedded in future energy policies to the use of renewable gas here in the UK.

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 35
BIOFUELS GIT DME

CHAPTER -7
References
1. J. Van Gerpen, B. Shanks, and R. Pruszko, D. Clements, and G. Knothe, “Biodiesel
Production Technology”, Report from Iowa State University
for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-36244, July 2004.
2. Jon Van Gerpen, “Business Management for Biodiesel Producers”, Report from Iowa State
University for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-510-36242, July 2004.
3. K. Shaine Tyson, Joseph Bozell, Robert Wallace, Eugene Petersen, Luc Moens, “Biomass Oil
Analysis: Research Needs and Recommendations”, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/TP-510-34796, June 2004.
th
4. Steven Hobbs, “Bio-diesel, farming for the future”, Presentation to the 11 Australian
Agronomy Conference, 2003.
5. Tickell, Joshua, 2003. “From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank”, Bookmasters: Ashland, OH.
6. St. Louis biodiesel club discussion forum

SESSION 2014-18 P a g e | 36