University of Kassel

Faculty of Ecological Agricultural Sciences

Department of Agricultural Engineering in the Tropics and Subtropics
Kassel/Germany

In cooperation with

Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL)

Institute of Technology and Biosystems Engineering
Braunschweig/Germany

Biogas production from forage and sugar beets

Process Control and Optimization –
Ecology and Economy

Dissertation for
THE DOCTOR DEGREE
of Engineering (Dr.-Ing.)

By

Elhussein Abdien Hassan

Kassel / Witzenhausen 2003

Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde vom Fachgebiet Agrartechnik im Fachbereich Landwirtschaft,
Internationale Agrarentwicklung und Ökologische Umweltsicherung der Universität
Gesamthochschule Kassel als “Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der
Ingenieurwissenschaften (Dr.-Ing.) angenommen.

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 04. Juli 2003

Prüfungskommission:

1. Gutachter Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Krause

2. Gutachter Prof. Dr. Konrad Scheffer
3. Gutachter Prof. Dr.-Ing. Peter Weiland
Prüfer Prof. Dr. Ralf Bokermann
Prüfer Prof. Dr. Ezzat S. Tawfik

Ó im Selbstverlag

Bezugsquelle Universität Kassel

Fachgebiet Agrartechnik
Nordbahnhofstraße 1a
D-37213 Witzenhausen
To my parents
Acknowledgments

The Institute of Technology and Biosystems Engineering of the Federal Agricultural Research
Centre (FAL), Braunschweig-Germany is a leading research Institute in production of biogas in
agriculture, and I was drawn to this study by the influence of Professor Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger
Krause, my immediate supervisor. I would like to thank him for the opportunity, and express
my delight in being able to work under his supervision. He has been generous and gracious to
me at all times.

I am deeply indebted to Professor Dr.-Ing. Peter Weiland, my co-supervisor, for his insight,
unlimited help and valuable advice during this study. I am thankful for his willingness to spend
time discussing my research questions and for his generosity in involving me in one of his
projects.

I also wish to express my thanks to Prof. Scheffer for taking on the role of a co-referee.

Recognition is due to my colleagues, Christa Rieger, Alexander Schattauer and Thorsten

Ahrens for their co-operation, interesting discussions and for being such a wonderful team.
Thanks to our laboratory personnel, specially, Anna Friedrich and Hans Berg for all help with
analytical equipment and creating a great working environment.

Part of this research was supported by 'Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernaehrung
(BLE), Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMVEL)
and the University of Kassel, for which I am deeply grateful.

Outside the research area, my deepest gratitude to my parents in the Sudan for their
encouragement; their belief in me gives me the strength to persevere.
Finally, I wish to give special recognition to my wife for her patience and understanding during
the execution of this task.
Preface

Human power and energy very soon comes to its limitations. But people very early learnt to
use support by draught animal power, wind- and water energy and later by energy carriers of
high energetic density like coal, petroleum or natural gas for heating, driving machines (like
steam engines) or internal combustion engines, especially for locomotion.

At least since the oil crisis’s during the seventies of last century everybody knows the vital role
of energy and I am afraid mankind will suffer more wars for access to energy wells. While
fossil energy resources are becoming scarce and expensive, research is focusing on renewable
energy. Organic matter is one of the traditional but again promising feed stuffs,
biomethanization one of the possible technologies to produce gas for energetic use.

In this thesis the author presents his thoroughly elaborated, valuable results, investigating the
gas production potential of fodder – and sugar beets, also mixed with cow dung.
Systematically he investigates the effect of composition of feedstock, frequence and rate of
load, process temperature, batch and nearly continuous flow, the quantity and the quality of
produced gas. He also looks for the impact of beet-denaturalizing-chemicals. Important is the
attempt to compare ecological consequences of the full production line of beets compared with
fossil fuel which biogas is able to substitute.

Concerning economy of beet-based biogas production realistic calculations demonstrate that

only under optimal conditions a very limited profit is possible. This is especially now
important when many farmers, attracted by not very serious calculations based on less
thoroughly basic data are in the phase of thinking over high investment into biogas technology.
Working on such an important aspect as renewable energy I am convinced that Dr.-Ing.
Elhussein Abdien Hassan can contribute to future energy safety, here in Germany or in his
home country, the Sudan.

Rüdiger Krause, Witzenhausen im Juli 2003

Abstract

For the energetic use of renewable resources the anaerobic digestion of forage and sugar beets
silage as well as their mixtures with cow manure were examined in batch and semi-continuous
reactors under different process conditions in order to efficiently compare biogas production
from beets to conventional electricity production with respect to energy balance, ecological
balance and economy. Generally, the results show that forage and sugar beets silage are
suitable for mono- and co-fermentation. Mixing of beets with cow manure reduces the
degradation efficiency and hence the methane production but on the other hand increases the
process stability. In the semi-continuous experiments, the maximum organic loading rate that
could be reached for forage and sugar beets under stable conditions was 4 g organic total solid
per liter per day [oTS/l*d]. This increased to 4.5 g oTS/l*d as a result of the addition of manure
to the beets. Through the anaerobic digestion the NH4-N content increased to more than 50 %,
which increased the efficiency of using the digested substrates as fertilizer. Regarding
energetic aspects, it was found that producing electricity from forage and sugar beets can have
4 times higher Output/Input factor compared to conventional energy which can save fossil
energy. The use of biogas from 1 hectare forage (sugar) beets for electricity could avoid the
release of 21 (20) tons CO2-equivalent when using fossil energy. From today’s perspective, the
biogas production from beets can not be economically recommended.

Biogasproduktion von Futter- und Zuckerrüben, Prozesssteuerung und Optimierung -

Ökologie und Ökonomie
Für die energetische Nutzung von Nachwachsende Rohstoffen wurden in diskontinuierlichen
und quasi-kontinuierlichen Reaktoren die anaerobe Vergärung von Futterrübensilage und
Zuckerrübensilage sowie deren Mischungen mit Rindergülle unter verschiedenen Parameter
genau untersucht, um eine effiziente Energiebilanz, Ökobilanz und die Wirtschaftlichkeit des
gesamtes Prozesses beim Wechsel von fossilen Energieträgern zur Energieproduktion auf Basis
von Biogas zu ermitteln. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Futter- und Zuckerrübensilage
grundsätzlich für Mono- und Kofermentation geeignet sind. Durch Beimischung von
Rindergülle sinkt der Abbaugrad und infolgedessen auch die Methanausbeute, jedoch wird
gleichzeitig die Prozeßstabilität erhöht. In den quasi-kontinuierlichen Versuchen betrug die
maximal erzielbare Raumbelastung unter stabilen Prozessbedingungen für Futter- und
Zuckerrüben 4 g oTS/l*d. Durch die Beimischung von Gülle stieg dieser Wert auf 4.5 g
oTS/l*d. Durch die Vergärung nahm der NH4-N-Gehalt um bis zu 55 % zu, wodurch die
Effizienz bei der Verwendung der Gärrückstände als Wirtschaftdünger verbessert wird. Von
der energetischen Seite her betrachtet wurde festgestellt, dass bei der Betrachtung der
elektrischen Energieproduktion aus Futterrüben (Zuckerrüben) ein 4 (4) mal größerer
Output/Input–Faktor gegenüber einem dem der fossilen Energieträgern erzielt werden kann,
der zu Einsparungen von fossile Energie führt. Durch die Produktion von Biogas aus Futter-
bzw. Zuckerrüben kann im Vergleich zur Verwendung von Fossilenergie pro Hektar die
Freisetzung von 21 bzw. 20 Tonnen CO2-Äquivalenten vermieden werden. Aufgrund der
ökonomischen Analyse ist die Biogasproduktion aus Futter- bzw. Zuckerrüben derzeit
wirtschaftlich noch nicht empfehlenswert.
Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations and Symbols ____________________________________________ I

List of Tables ____________________________________________________________ III
List of Figures ____________________________________________________________IV
1 Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 15
2 Literature review ________________________________________________________ 18
2.1 Energy _____________________________________________________________ 18
2.1.1 Energy resources ________________________________________________ 18
2.1.2 Energy situation in Germany_______________________________________ 19
2.1.2.1 Electrical energy__________________________________________ 19
2.1.2.2 Renewable energy ________________________________________ 19
2.1.2.3 Energy policy ____________________________________________ 20
2.1.3 Energy from biomass_____________________________________________ 21
2.1.3.1 Energy crops_____________________________________________ 22
2.1.3.2 Biogas production ________________________________________ 23
2.2 Anaerobic fermentation ________________________________________________ 24
2.2.1 Principles of anaerobic fermentation_________________________________ 24
2.2.1.1 Hydrolysis ______________________________________________ 25
2.2.1.2 Acidogenesis ____________________________________________ 26
2.2.1.3 Acetogenesis_____________________________________________ 26
2.2.1.4 Methanogenesis __________________________________________ 26
2.2.2 Factors affecting the anaerobic fermentation __________________________ 27
2.2.2.1 Type of substrate _________________________________________ 27
2.2.2.2 pH and buffer capacity _____________________________________ 28
2.2.2.3 Temperature _____________________________________________ 29
2.2.2.4 Toxicity effects___________________________________________ 29
2.2.2.5 H2S 30
2.2.2.6 Loading rate and retention time ______________________________ 31
2.2.2.7 Mixing 31
2.3 Co-fermentation ______________________________________________________ 32
2.4 Biogas plants ________________________________________________________ 33
2.4.1 Requirements of biogas plants______________________________________ 33
2.4.2 Types of biogas reactors __________________________________________ 36
2.4.2.1 Batch reactor ____________________________________________ 36
2.4.2.2 Continuously stirred tank reactor _____________________________ 37
2.4.2.3 Two-phase reactor ________________________________________ 37
2.4.3 Purification of biogas ____________________________________________ 38
2.4.4 Storage of biogas ________________________________________________ 39
2.5 Biogas as energy source________________________________________________ 40
2.5.1 Gas composition and quality _______________________________________ 40
2.5.2 Biogas application _______________________________________________ 41
2.6 Principles of system evaluation __________________________________________ 42
 2.6.1 Description and methods of analysis systems __________________________ 42
2.6.2 Energy balance _________________________________________________ 43
2.6.3 Ecological balance_______________________________________________ 49
3 Materials and Methods ___________________________________________________ 57
3.1 Laboratory experiments ________________________________________________ 57
3.1.1 Type of reactors used_____________________________________________ 57
3.1.1.1 Batch reactors ____________________________________________ 57
3.1.1.2 Semi-continuous reactors ___________________________________ 58
3.1.2 Necessary analysis_______________________________________________ 59
3.1.2.1 Gas production and composition _____________________________ 60
3.1.2.2 pH 61
3.1.2.3 Dry matter (TS) and organic dry matter (oTS)___________________ 61
3.1.2.4 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) ____________________________ 62
3.1.2.5 Ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) _______________________________ 63
3.1.2.6 Total nitrogen (Total-N)____________________________________ 64
3.1.2.7 Phosphate-phosphorus (PO4-P) ______________________________ 64
3.1.2.8 FOS/TAC _______________________________________________ 65
3.1.2.9 Volatile fatty acids (VFA) __________________________________ 66
3.1.3 Controlling and measuring parameters _______________________________ 67
3.1.3.1 Loading rate and hydraulic retention time ______________________ 67
3.1.3.2 Methane yield ____________________________________________ 68
3.1.3.3 Methane productivity ______________________________________ 69
3.1.3.4 Degradation efficiency _____________________________________ 69
3.1.4 Substrate properties ______________________________________________ 71
3.1.4.1 Experiment with forage beets silage (EXP1) ____________________ 71
3.1.4.2 Experiment with sugar beets silage (EXP2)_____________________ 73
3.1.5 Description of the experiments _____________________________________ 74
3.1.5.1 Experiments with forage beets silage (EXP1) ___________________ 75
3.1.5.1.1 Batch experiments ________________________________ 75
3.1.5.1.2 Semi-continuous experiments _______________________ 76
3.1.5.2 Experiments with sugar beets silage (EXP2) ____________________ 80
3.1.5.2.1 Batch experiments ________________________________ 80
3.1.5.2.2 Semi-continuous experiments _______________________ 80
3.2 Systems evaluation____________________________________________________ 82
3.2.1 Method of energy balance _________________________________________ 84
3.2.2 Method of ecological balance ______________________________________ 85
4 Results and discussion____________________________________________________ 86
4.1 Experimental results___________________________________________________ 86
4.1.1 Mesophilic experiments___________________________________________ 86
4.1.1.1 Batch experiments ________________________________________ 86
4.1.1.1.1 Inoculum________________________________________ 86
4.1.1.1.2 Forage beets silage ________________________________ 88
4.1.1.1.3 Sugar beets silage _________________________________ 90
4.1.1.1.4 Sugar beets silage with manure ______________________ 91
4.1.1.2 Semi-continuous experiments _______________________________ 93
4.1.1.2.1 Methane productivity ______________________________ 93
4.1.1.2.1.1 Forage beets silage ______________________ 93
 4.1.1.2.1.2 Forage beets silage with manure ____________ 95
4.1.1.2.1.3 Sugar beets silage _______________________ 96
4.1.1.2.1.4 Sugar beets silage with manure _____________ 97
4.1.1.2.2 Biogas composition _______________________________ 99
4.1.1.2.3 Degradation efficiency _____________________________ 99
4.1.1.2.4 Laboratory analyses ______________________________ 101
4.1.1.2.4.1 Chemical oxygen demand ________________ 101
4.1.1.2.4.2 Total and ammonium-nitrogen ____________ 102
4.1.1.2.4.3 Phosphate-phosphorus___________________ 104
4.1.1.2.4.4 FOS/TAC and volatile fatty acids __________ 105
4.1.1.2.4.5 pH __________________________________ 108
4.1.1.2.5 Experiments of FBS containing plant denaturation agents 109
4.1.2 Thermophilic experiments________________________________________ 112
4.1.2.1 Batch experiments _______________________________________ 112
4.1.2.1.1 Inoculum_______________________________________ 112
4.1.2.1.2 Forage beets silage _______________________________ 113
4.1.2.1.3 Forage beets silage with manure ____________________ 114
4.1.2.2 Semi-continuous experiments ______________________________ 116
4.1.2.2.1 Methane productivity _____________________________ 116
4.1.2.2.1.1 Forage beets silage _____________________ 116
4.1.2.2.1.2 Forage beets silage with manure ___________ 118
4.1.2.2.2 Biogas composition ______________________________ 119
4.1.2.2.3 Degradation efficiency ____________________________ 119
4.1.2.2.4 Laboratory analyses ______________________________ 120
4.1.2.2.4.1 Chemical oxygen demand ________________ 120
4.1.2.2.4.2 Total and ammonium-nitrogen ____________ 121
4.1.2.2.4.3 Phosphate-phosphorus___________________ 122
4.1.2.2.4.4 FOS/TAC and Volatile fatty acids _________ 123
4.1.2.2.4.5 pH __________________________________ 126
4.1.3 Comparison between forage beets and sugar beets _____________________ 127
4.2 Energy balance______________________________________________________ 129
4.3 Ecological balance ___________________________________________________ 134
4.4 Economical evaluation________________________________________________ 141
5 Error discussion________________________________________________________ 146
6 Conclusions ___________________________________________________________ 147
7 Summary _____________________________________________________________ 149
8 Zusammenfassung ______________________________________________________ 152
9 References ____________________________________________________________ 155
10 Appendix _____________________________________________________________ 164
List of Abbreviations and Symbols

hCOD COD-degradation degree

h(fluid) Degradation efficiency throughout fluid phase
h(gas) Degradation efficiency throughout gas phase
r Density
C Methane concentration
CH4 Methane
CHP Combined heat and power engine (plant)
CM Cow manure
C:N Carbon nitrogen ratio
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
COD Chemical oxygen demand
CSTR Continuously stirred tank reactor
EXP1 First experiment
EXP2 Second experiment
FBS Forage beets silage
FM Fresh mass (wet mass)
FOS Volatile organic acids
Total-N Total nitrogen
GWP Global warming potentials
IPCC Intergovernmental panel on climatic change
ha Hectare
H2 Hydrogen
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
H2SO3 Sulfurous acid
H2SO4 Sulfuric acid
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
HRT Hydraulic retention time
HS Reactor head space
IN Inoculum
kWh Kilo watt hour
l Liter
LCA Life cycle assessment
m Mass
m(feed) Daily organic matter added to the reactor
m(effl.) Daily organic matter removed from the reactor
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Dinitrogen oxide
NH3 Ammonia
NH4+ Ammonium
NH4-N Ammonium-nitrogen
NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbon
oTS Organic total solid (organic dry matter)
OLR Organic loading rate
PDA Plant denaturation agent
PCH4 Methane productivity
PO4-P Phosphate-phosphorus

I
PPA Plant protection agent
ppm Parts per million
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
REA Renewable energy act
RI Refractive index detector
SBS Sugar beets silage
t Time
TAC Total anorganic carbon
Total-N Total nitrogen
TS Total solid (dry matter)
UV Ultra-Violet
VFA Volatile fatty acids
VR Reactor volume
Vbiogas Biogas production rate
VCH4 Methane production rate
V& feed Daily substrate volume fed to reactor
YCH4 Methane yield

II
List of Tables

Table 1: Some benefits and risks of the application of co-fermentation________________ 33

Table 2: Technical options in biogas plants _____________________________________ 35
Table 3: Overview of techniques used for biogas treatment _________________________ 39
Table 4: Characteristics of biogas components___________________________________ 41
Table 5: Mean calorific value of fossil energy sources_____________________________ 45
Table 6: Mean calorific value of some bio-energy sources _________________________ 45
Table 7: Diesel consumption of different tractors and applications ___________________ 46
Table 8: Energy input in fertilizer production____________________________________ 47
Table 9: Physical calorific values of main biomass constituents _____________________ 49
Table 10: Global warming potentials (GWP) given in kg CO2-eq./kg gas ______________ 53
Table 11: Acidification potentials (AP) for acidifying substances ____________________ 54
Table 12: Characteristics of the substrates and inoculum used in EXP1 _______________ 72
Table 13: Concentration of organic acids in substrates (EXP1) ______________________ 72
Table 14: Characteristics of the substrates and inoculum used in EXP2 _______________ 73
Table 15: Concentration of organic acids in substrates (EXP2) ______________________ 73
Table 16: Concentration of alcohol and sugar in substrates (EXP2) __________________ 74
Table 17: Weights of substrates mixture used in batch reactors (EXP1) _______________ 75
Table 18: Hydraulic retention times and loading rates of EXP1______________________ 77
Table 19: Operational plan of semi-continuous reactors with PDA ___________________ 78
Table 20: Weights of substrates mixture used in batch reactors (EXP2) _______________ 80
Table 21: Hydraulic retention times and loading rates of EXP2______________________ 81
Table 22: Mean results of the batch experiments (mesophile) _______________________ 93
Table 23: Biogas composition (mesophilic experiments) ___________________________ 99
Table 24: Mean results of batch experiments (FBS) under different temperatures ______ 116
Table 25: Biogas composition (thermophilic experiments) ________________________ 119
Table 26: Energy input for forage beets silage per hectare_________________________ 131
Table 27 :Energy input for sugar beets silage per hectare _________________________ 132
Table 28: Energy balance of biogas (FBS) and fossil cycle ________________________ 133
Table 29: Energy balance of biogas (SBS) and fossil cycle ________________________ 133
Table 30: Emission of toxic substances from biogas and fossil cycles________________ 140
Table 31: Forage (and sugar) beets production and biogas running costs _____________ 143
Table 32: Investment cost and annual income of biogas plant ______________________ 144

III
List of Figures

Figure 1: Energy life cycle from biomass _______________________________________ 21

Figure 2: Stages of anaerobic fermentation______________________________________ 25
Figure 3: Principle layout of biogas plant _______________________________________ 34
Figure 4: Energy flux scheme ________________________________________________ 44
Figure 5: Energy output scheme ______________________________________________ 48
Figure 6: Phases of life cycle analysis (LCA)____________________________________ 50
Figure 7: Batch reactor _____________________________________________________ 58
Figure 8: Semi-continuous reactor ____________________________________________ 59
Figure 9: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for mesophilic experiments (EXP1) __ 79
Figure 10: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for thermophilic experiments
(EXP1)_________________________________________________________ 79
Figure 11: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for EXP2 ______________________ 82
Figure 12: Energy production cycles of biogas and fossil fuel _______________________ 83
Figure 13: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for mesophilic FBS batch
experiments _____________________________________________________ 87
Figure 14: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for mesophilic SBS batch
experiments _____________________________________________________ 87
Figure 15: Accumulative methane of mesophilic FBS batch experiments ______________ 88
Figure 16: Daily methane production of mesophilic FBS batch experiments ___________ 89
Figure 17: Accumulative methane of mesophilic SBS batch experiments ______________ 90
Figure 18: Daily methane production of mesophilic SBS batch experiments ___________ 91
Figure 19: Accumulative methane of mesophilic SBS:CM batch experiments __________ 92
Figure 20: Daily methane production of mesophilic SBS:CM batch experiments ________ 92
Figure 21: Methane productivity of FBS in semi-continuous reactors _________________ 94
Figure 22: Methane productivity of FBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors _____________ 95
Figure 23: Methane productivity of FBS and FBS:CM under different OLR ___________ 96
Figure 24: Methane productivity of SBS in semi-continuous reactors _________________ 97
Figure 25: Methane productivity of SBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors _____________ 98
Figure 26: Methane productivity of SBS and SBS:CM under different OLR ___________ 98
Figure 27: Degradation efficiency of substrates with different loading rates according to
gas phase ______________________________________________________ 100
Figure 28: Chemical oxygen demand of effluent at different OLR. __________________ 101
Figure 29: Total-N and NH4-N concentration of FBS and FBS:CM effluent. __________ 102
Figure 30: Total-N and NH4-N concentration of SBS and SBS:CM effluent. __________ 103
Figure 31: PO4-P concentration of effluent for mesophilic EXP1 and EXP2___________ 104
Figure 32: FOS/TAC-value with different OLR throughout the mesophilic experiments _ 105
Figure 33: VFA concentration of FBS throughout mesophilic experiments ___________ 106
Figure 34: VFA concentration of FBS:CM throughout mesophilic experiments ________ 106

IV
Figure 35: VFA concentration of SBS throughout mesophilic experiments ___________ 107
Figure 36: VFA concentration of SBS:CM throughout mesophilic experiments ________ 107
Figure 37: pH-value of reactors for mesophilic EXP1 and EXP2 ___________________ 108
Figure 38: Methane productivity of FBS mixed with PDA in semi-continuous reactors __ 109
Figure 39: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Tieröl _________________________ 110
Figure 40: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Arcotal ________________________ 111
Figure 41: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Arbin__________________________ 111
Figure 42: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for thermophilic FBS batch
experiments ____________________________________________________ 112
Figure 43: Accumulative methane of thermophilic FBS batch experiments ___________ 113
Figure 44: Daily methane production of thermophilic FBS batch experiments _________ 114
Figure 45: Accumulative methane of thermophilic FBS:CM batch experiments _______ 115
Figure 46: Daily methane production of thermophilic FBS:CM batch experiments _____ 115
Figure 47: Methane productivity of FBS in semi-continuous reactors ________________ 116
Figure 48: Methane productivity of FBS at different OLR_________________________ 117
Figure 49: Methane productivity of FBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors ____________ 118
Figure 50: Degradation efficiency of substrates with different loading rates ___________ 120
Figure 51: COD of FBS and FBS:CM throughout the experiment___________________ 121
Figure 52: Total-N and NH4-N concentration for effluent of FBS and FBS:CM ________ 122
Figure 53: PO4-P concentration of effluent for FBS and FBS:CM___________________ 123
Figure 54: FOS/TAC-value of FBS throughout the thermophilic experiments _________ 124
Figure 55: FOS/TAC-value of FBS after feeding break throughout the thermophilic
experiments ____________________________________________________ 124
Figure 56: VFA concentration of FBS after feeding break throughout thermophilic
experiments ____________________________________________________ 125
Figure 57: FOS/TAC-value of FBS:CM throughout the thermophilic experiments______ 125
Figure 58: pH-value of FBS and FBS:CM under thermophilic digestion______________ 126
Figure 59: Methane production from FBS and SBS ______________________________ 127
Figure 60: NH4-N concentration in influent and effluent of FBS and SBS ____________ 128
Figure 61: Methane productivity of FBS and SBS with different OLR._______________ 129
Figure 62: CO2-equivalent emission from biogas production and fossil life cycle ______ 135
Figure 63: N2O-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle ________________________ 136
Figure 64: SO2-equivalent emission from biogas and fossil life cycle ________________ 137
Figure 65: NOx-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle ________________________ 138
Figure 66: NH3-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle ________________________ 138
Figure 67: NMHC-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle ______________________ 139
Figure 68: Reactor specific investment________________________________________ 143

V
1 Introduction

The world energy demand is continually increasing due to the increase in the world’s
population, economic growth, and energy usage (Heinloth, 1997). At today’s rate of increase
the sources of fossil energy, which meet the majority of the current world energy demand, will
not be sufficient in the centuries to come. Moreover, CO2 emissions, which are the main cause
of the greenhouse effect, and other atmospheric pollutants from energy generation using fossil
fuels, cause environmental pollution.

In 1997, over 180 nations, including Germany, met in Kyoto, Japan, to finalize negotiations on
a legally binding international treaty aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The use of
renewable energy sources can contribute to solving present and future energy problems.
Replacing fossil fuels as an energy source with energy derived from agricultural crops is one of
Germany’s policies for reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The neutral CO2-emission
from renewable resources is only realized when the emission from fossil energy used in the
production of renewable resources is less than the emission from production and use of
equivalent fossil energy.

Anaerobic digestion, as a source of biogas, has been used in the past mainly for degradation of
waste materials or toxic compounds. Recently, there has been great interest in producing
biogas from energy crops. Since the Renewable Energy Sources Act (REA) became effective
in Germany in 2000, the interest in anaerobic fermentation of energy crops as a source of
electrical energy has increased. In 2002, the REA supports the production of electricity from
biogas through a refund of approx. 0.1023 Euro per kWh.

Forage and sugar beets are considered to be important energy crops for biogas production
because of their high organic matter yield per hectare. Additionally, they contain a high
fraction of light degradable components. Moreover, forage and sugar beets have optimal
conditions for easily ensiling so that they can be stored and used for the whole year. Another
advantage of forage beets is the low dry matter which makes forage beets pumpable and hence
the possibility of fully automated biogas plants.

15
Generally, the anaerobic degradation of organic matter to produce methane relies on the
complex interaction of several different groups of bacteria. Effective anaerobic biodegradation
of organic material can be reached by achieving the optimal condition for the bacteria. On the
other hand, the adaptation of the bacteria to the substrate used in the digestion is also an
important factor in the evaluation of the process. Therefore, the adaptation of new substrates
must be examined.
Until now there are no data available about the anaerobic degradation of sugar beets. The data
found for forage beets showed large variations. A detailed examination of the anaerobic
processes of forage and sugar beets is therefore essential to obtain a thorough evaluation of the
process.
Defining the optimal conditions of anaerobic processes is not enough to identify or to evaluate
the whole system. Additional energetic, ecological, and economical analysis must be achieved
to completely identify the system. For energetic and ecological evaluation the entire life cycle
of the system must be considered.

Objectives of the thesis

The general purpose of this study is to report the status and the prospects of the production and
utilization of biogas from forage and sugar beets silage as a source of alternative energy. The
primary objective of this study is to obtain and examine under laboratory conditions the
parameters within the anaerobic digestion system that contribute the largest impacts. These
include:

· Characteristic of forage and sugar beets silage ingredients which can affect the degradation.
· Determination of the maximum degradation degree conversion and associated methane
yields under different process temperatures.
· Determination of the maximum methane content of the gas.
· Determination of the optimal operating range of the process under continuous conditions.
· Examination of the suitability of forage and sugar beets for co-fermentation with cow
manure.
· Determination of the efficiency of effluent as a secondary fertilizer.
· Determination of the effect of plant denaturation agent on the process of forage beets.

16
The objectives also include energetic, ecological and economical evaluation of the total
process. The aim is to compare the whole life cycle of biogas production from energy crops
with the fossil life cycle from an energetic and ecological point of view, so that the advantages
and disadvantages of the substitution of fossil energy can be determined. Another objective it is
to determine the economic efficiency of the production of electricity from energy crops.

Hypothesis

Forage and sugar beets are carbohydrate crops which have high organic dry matter yield per
hectare. The current research was carried out to test the following hypotheses.

· Forage and sugar beets have high biogas production with 50–65 % methane content.
· Ensiling forage and sugar beets, so that they are available throughout the whole year, do
not affect the anaerobic digestion process.
· Production of biogas from beets will have positive energy balance due to the high biogas
production per hectare.
· The total CO2-emission from biogas have a lower ecological impact than from fossil energy
because of the neutral CO2 emission of biogas burning.
· The selling the biogas electricity covers the input costs.

17
2 Literature review

2.1 Energy

We are aware of energy in our life in many forms. Energy, for example, transports us, fuels
machines, cooks our food. In short, energy maintains our entire economic system and supplies
us with comfortable lives. Energy also allows plants to grow through the process of
photosynthesis from the sunlight. Moreover, the sun supplies us with the bulk of our fuels,
primarily the fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), which are the stored energy of the sun
resulting from plant growth millions of years ago. Nevertheless, the amount of energy that
fossil fuels can provide is ultimately limited. This means that the energy supply of the future
needs solutions at the present. In order for sufficient energy to be available in future centuries,
it is essential to further develop the use of renewable energy sources.

2.1.1 Energy resources

Energy resources can be divided into renewable and non-renewable resources. Non-renewable
resources can be divided into a) fossil fuels which are divided into coal, crude oil and natural
gas and b) uranium ores – nuclear power. Renewable resources can be divided into geothermal,
hydro-electric, solar, wave, tidal, wind, biomass, etc. Fossil fuels are the most widely used
energy resources.
Renewable energy resources can be defined as energy resources that are replaced rapidly by
natural processes. Renewable energy is beginning to grow out of its fledgling status and has
experienced exponential growth in usage over recent years. There can be no doubt that it will
play a major role in the global, regional and local energy supply systems of the 21st century
and beyond. Non-renewable energy resources are energy resources that are not replaced or are
replaced only very slowly by natural processes; i.e., they are being used up at rates much
greater than rates of formation of new resources. The problem with non-renewable energies, in
addition to limited resource, is that they cause environmental pollution. Burning fossil fuel
produces CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants.

18
2.1.2 Energy situation in Germany

Germany is one of the world's largest energy consumers. Germany imports most of the energy
to meet its energy needs because it has limited local energy resources (except for coal and
natural gas). The total primary energy consumption in Germany for the year 2001 was
14501*1015 Joule (AGEB, 2002).
The current energy consumption is primarily based on petroleum (39,5 %), natural gas
(21.5 %), and hard coal and lignite (13.1 and 11.2 % respectively) – the main causes of the
greenhouse effect and climatic changes. Behind them are nuclear power (12.9 %), and hydro
and wind power (together just under 0.8 %). Slightly less than 2 % was provided by the other
renewable energies such as solar energy and biomass (AGEB, 2002). In the case of final
energy used by the consumer, transportation is the dominant sector (30 %). Households
account for 29 % of overall final energy consumption, followed by industry (26 %), and crafts,
trade, and services at 16 % (BMWi, 2002).

2.1.2.1 Electrical energy

More than a third of primary energy consumption in Germany is converted to electricity in

power stations. In 2001, Germany generated 561.5 billion kilowatt hours of electricity (BMWi,
2001). Nearly 100 % of electricity needs in Germany are met by domestic production. The
main shares are accounted for by atomic energy (33 %), lignite coal (29 %), and hard coal
(22 %). Natural gas (7 %) and renewable energies (7 %) presently have only slight importance;
oil no longer plays a role of any significance (2 %) (VDEW, 2002). The electricity generated
by hydropower and wind energy represents 54.8 % and 31.8 % of the electricity produced from
regenerative sources respectively. The remaining 13.4 % is generated by other regenerative
energy sources (VDEW, 2002).

2.1.2.2 Renewable energy

The German Government supports and encourages energy production from renewable
resources to reduce the environmental pollution from fossil energy. The German government is
also hoping to use renewable energy sources to compensate for the loss of atomic power

19
through better conservation and new technology, particularly renewable resources. The Federal
Environment Minister has stated that up to 3/5 of nuclear power could be replaced by wind
energy by 2030, though only a few of the additional plants have been built yet.
Germany's main renewable resource is wind power. The opening of the Europe's largest wind
farm in Paderborn, Germany in 2001 has increased Germany's total wind power electricity
capacity to 700 MW. The use of renewable energy sources for electricity production would
increase by 6 % in 2000 to 21 % in 2020. Electricity production from biomass (including
biogas) would expand twelve-fold relative to its 1999 level to reach a level of 4.5 % of the total
electricity production. Electricity production from wind energy would rise to 10 % in 2020.
Under today's conditions, many renewable energies cannot compete with conventional energy
sources for electricity generation. Electricity production costs with wind-driven units are two to
three times higher and with solar units twenty-five times higher than average electricity
generation costs featured by conventional power stations (about 3 cents per kWh).

2.1.2.3 Energy policy

Reduction of carbon emissions is a major German international and domestic policy objective.
The total CO2 emissions in Germany declined by 15.4 % to some 859 million tons from 1990
to 1999. Energy-related CO2 emissions fell in the same time period by 15.6 % to roughly 833
million tons (UBA 2002). The 1991 Act on Feeding Electricity from Renewable Energies into
the Public Grid which sought to promote the production of electricity from renewable energy
sources was improved and replaced on April, 2000, by the Renewable Energy Act (REA). The
REA considerably improves and expands the feed-in provisions to include all renewable
energies. In the future, regenerative forms of energy like wind power, solar energy, and
biomass will have a greater role in energy supply.
The federal government and the operators of nuclear power plants signed an agreement in June,
2001, which serves as a basis for the controlled termination of the use of nuclear power in
Germany to reduce the environmental pollution. Nuclear power is approximately a third of
Germany's total electricity production. The replacement of CO2-free nuclear power by fossil
energy sources results in additional CO2 emissions and the emission of other climate-relevant
trace gases that have an impact on the climate. Therefore, coverage of the replaced nuclear
energy is expected with renewable energy resources.

20
Also, one of the German policies to reduce the environmental pollution is to save energy use
by increasing the energy taxes (eco-tax). At the same time encouraging and supporting energy
from renewable resources (REA, 2000). In a study supported by the Federal Ministry of
Economics and Technology it was found that the eco-tax will be continued and increased (it
was assumed that the increase will be for example in 2020 to 11 fold for gasoline, double for
natural gas and three times for electricity).

2.1.3 Energy from biomass

The world's energy markets rely heavily on the fossil fuels coal, petroleum crude oil, and
natural gas as sources of energy, fuels and chemicals. Biomass is the only other naturally-
occurring, energy-containing carbon resource known that is large enough to be used as a
substitute for fossil fuels.

Energy crops Harvest residues Organic by-products Wastes

Harvest, collection, preparation

Preparation Transport Storage

Thermochemical process Physical-chemical Biochemical process

process
Pressing/extraction
Gasif. Alcoholic Anaerobic Aerobic
Coalif. Pyrolysis
ferment. ferment. ferment.
Esterification

Coal Producer gas Pyrol. oil Plant oil PME Ethanol Biogas

Solid fuel Gas fuel Fluid fuel

Burning
Electrical energy Heat energy

Heat-mechanical conversion

Power Heat

Source: Kaltschmitt, et al., 2000

Figure 1: Energy life cycle from biomass

21
Biomass resources include any organic matter available on a renewable basis, including
dedicated energy crops and trees, agricultural food and feed crops, agricultural crop wastes and
residues, wood wastes and residues, aquatic plants, animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other
waste materials. Kaltschmitt, et al., 2001, (Figure 1) divided biomass into four main groups;
energy crops, harvest residues, organic by-product (manure), and wastes (i.e., slaughter house
wastes, sludge). Energy from biomass (organic matter) is the sun's energy stored through
photosynthesis. That energy is released when biomass is used. The technologies of releasing
this energy include a variety of thermal and thermochemical processes for converting biomass
by combustion, carbonization, gasification and liquefaction, physical-chemical processes to
convert biomass to oil, and the microbial conversion of biomass to obtain gaseous and liquid
fuels by fermentative methods (i.e., biomass can substitute all forms of energies; solid, liquid
and gas).
Solid biomass can be burned directly or after carbonization to produce energy (e.g., heat and
steam for electricity production). Biomass can also be used to produce energy in the form of
alternative transportation fuels. The two most common bio-fuels (liquid) are Ethanol and
Biodiesel. Even gas can be produced from biomass for generating energy. Through the
gasification process, biomass can be converted into a combustible gas (producer gas) which
can be burned directly for space heat or drying, or it can be burned in a boiler to produce
steam. The degradation of biomass in an oxygen-free environment (anaerobic fermentation)
also produces a gas (biogas) that can be burned or combusted to produce electricity. All
sources of biomass (except lignin) are suited for anaerobic fermentation, but produce different
biogas yields depending on their properties.
For energy production biomass must be prepared and made available. Usually in the energy
production process transportation is essential. In many cases biomass must be treated
mechanically (e.g., chopped up) before it can be used as energy source. Often, storage of
biomass is important to adapt the amount of biomass to the energy required.

2.1.3.1 Energy crops

Many different types of crops can be grown for the specific-purpose of energy production.
There are two main factors that determine whether a crop is suitable for energy use. A good
energy crop has a very high yield of dry material per unit of land (dry matter ton/hectare)
which reduces land requirements and lowers the cost of producing energy from biomass.

22
Similarly, the amount of energy to be produced from a biomass crop must be more than the
amount of energy required to grow the crop. Also it is important to clarify, if such a crop is
convenient for the process used (or vice versa ) and if there is another energy crop that could
potentially produce more energy with the same process. The key to the large-scale production
of energy from biomass is to grow suitable crop species at costs that permit the biomass to be
grown as a profitable energy crop.
Just as with human and animals, proper plant nutrition is fundamental to satisfactory plant
growth and crop production. It has been established that plants need sixteen essential plant
nutrients for satisfactory growth and development (Helsel, 1987). All sixteen nutrients are
vital, but they are required in different quantities by different crops. Carbon, hydrogen, and
oxygen are obtained from water and air. The remaining thirteen nutrients are supplied by the
soil. The most important nutrients that each plant needs are nitrogen, phosphorus, and
potassium. Deficiency of even a single nutrient would adversely affect the agronomic
efficiency of other plant nutrients and crop productivity. However, soils have limited reserves
of these nutrients. Consequently, in a continuous cropping system where harvested products
remove nutrients from the soil, these nutrients need to be continuously replenished in order to
maintain soil fertility and crop productivity. The main sources of plant nutrients include
organic manure, plant residues, biological nitrogen fixation, and chemical fertilizers.

2.1.3.2 Biogas production

Biogas is the mixture of gases, mainly methane, CH4, and carbon dioxide, CO2, resulting from
the anaerobic fermentation of organic matter. It contains 50-70 % methane and can be used as a
fuel for heating or electrical power generation. Production of biogas from agricultural plants
offers several environmental benefits including production of renewable energy (CO2-neutral),
and the nutrient rich stabilized liquor (NH4+ is directly available for plants). Further, anaerobic
digestion may also assist in reducing and destroying pathogens to acceptable levels, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, and aid in reducing odors often associated with storing and handling
liquid wastes. Biogas production, when compared to other biomass energies, has the advantage
that it can be produced from specially grown energy crops as well as from organic waste
products.
There is still lack of information of biogas yield from anaerobic fermentation of various
organic substrates and on the influence of different operational regimes.

23
2.2 Anaerobic fermentation

The biological treatment processes of organic materials can be classified into two major
groups; anaerobic and aerobic. The anaerobic fermentation can be defined as the use of
biological processes, in the absence of oxygen, for the breakdown of organic matter by
conversion to methane, carbon dioxide, trace levels of other gases such as hydrogen, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen sulfide, and a nearly stable residue.
The organic fraction of almost any form of biomass, including sewage sludge, animal wastes
and industrial effluents, can be broken down through anaerobic digestion.

2.2.1 Principles of anaerobic fermentation

Knowledge of the fundamentals of the anaerobic fermentation is useful in the design and
operation of efficient digesters, and in understanding how unfavorable (upset) conditions can
occur and how to avoid them. Anaerobic fermentation is a complex process consisting of a
mixed biological system in which organic materials such as carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins
are utilized by microorganisms in their normal metabolic activities. It occurs in four basic steps
as the result of the activity of a variety of microorganisms (Figure 2).
Initially, the hydrolysis group, which is the enzymatic breakdown of large complex organic
molecules, converts organic material to a form that can be directly utilized by the anaerobic
organisms. The second group (acidogenesis) utilizes the simple organic molecules to form
organic acids and alcohol as well as carbon dioxide and hydrogen. The product of the
acidogenesis is then degraded by the third group (acetogenesis) to acetate, carbon dioxide and
hydrogen. The Methane-producing (methanogenesis) anaerobic bacteria utilize these products
and complete the decomposition process. Provided that anaerobic degradation is possible at all,
complex organic matter can be transformed into methane and carbon dioxide according to the
Equation 1.

æ a bö æn a bö æn a bö
C n H a O + ç n - - ÷ H 2 O ® ç - + ÷CO2 + ç + - ÷CH 4 [1]
b è 2 4ø è 2 8 4ø è 2 8 4ø

24
 polymer
fat, protein, carboydrates, etc.

Hydrolysis

monomer
amino acids, fatty acids, sugar

Acidogenesis

carboxylic acids - alcohols

Acetogenesis

acetate - H2, CO2

Methanogenesis

biogas

Source: Bryant, 1977

Figure 2: Stages of anaerobic fermentation

2.2.1.1 Hydrolysis

Hydrolysis is the first and often the rate-limiting step. In the hydrolysis stage, polymeric
compounds are converted by extra-cellular enzymes to soluble smaller substrate molecules.
The polymeric components in substrate that need to be hydrolyzed can be found in different
physical states, in particles, dissolved or emulsified. Particles are the most commonly found.
Sanders, et al., (2000) showed that the hydrolysis rate of particulate substrates is limited by the
amount of surface available to the hydrolytic enzymes. Hydrolytic reactions generally limit the
amount of methane produced during anaerobic digestion of biomass (Chynoweth, et al., 1987).

25
2.2.1.2 Acidogenesis

Acidogenesis (fermentative bacteria) converts soluble organic material mainly to acetate,

propionate, butyrate, H2 and CO2. Certain fermentative reactions proceed only at low H2
concentrations and depend on H2 removal by H2-oxidising bacteria (methanogenesis). The
resulting low H2-concentration accompanies formation of acetate as the major soluble product.
When H2 removal by methanogenesis is less efficient, H2 blocks electron disposal by proton
reduction, and fermentative bacteria must channel electrons to other disposal sites (Chynoweth,
et al., 1987).

2.2.1.3 Acetogenesis

Acetogenic organisms are the vital link between hydrolysis/acidogenesis and the
methanogenesis in anaerobic digestion. Acetogenesis provides the two main substrates for the
last step in the methanogenic conversion of organic material, namely hydrogen and acetate.
Both the acidogenesis and acetogenesis produce the methanogenic substrates, acetate and H2-
CO2. The important distinction between these two types is that the fermentative bacteria have
the possibility of using various electron acceptors for the disposal of electrons. The
acetogenesis is an obligate proton-reducer and can utilize only protons as electron acceptors
and only when the H2-concentration is low. At very low H2 concentrations, however,
methanogenesis from H2 and CO2 becomes unfavorable (Chynoweth, et al., 1987). The
oxidations catalyzed by obligate proton reducers, however, yield only small amounts of energy,
provided that the concentration of the produced hydrogen is kept low (Zehnder, 1988).

2.2.1.4 Methanogenesis

Methanogenesis is the last stage of the fermentation process. The two major methanogenic
intermediate products are acetate and H2-CO2. Approximately 70 % of the fermenter methane
comes from acetate and the remainder from CO2 reduction to CH4. Methanogenesis are strictly
anaerobic bacteria. However, there are marked differences in oxygen-sensitivity among the
methanogenesis. The oxidation-reduction potential required for methanogenesis may be as low
as –300mV or even lower (Large, 1983).

26
In the presence of electron acceptors such as metal oxides [Fe(OH), MnO2], nitrogen oxides
(NO3, NO2), or oxidized sulfur compounds (SO4, SO3), methanogenesis may be inhibited
and/or altered (Zehnder, et al., 1982). Methanogenic bacteria are more sensitive to changes in
temperature than other organisms present in the digester. This is due to the faster growth rate of
the other groups, such as acetogens, which can achieve substantial catabolism even at low
temperature. Ammonia acts as a strong inhibitor of the formation of methane from H2 and CO2.
It has only a minor effect on the formation of methane from acetate. The inhibition of hydrogen
consumption leads to an inhibition of propionate breakdown, which acts as an inhibitor of the
acetate-consuming methanogens (Wiegant and Zeeman, 1986).
The most notable feature of the anaerobic process is that its successful operation depends on
the interaction of metabolically different bacteria. To maintain an anaerobic stable treatment
system, the nonmethanogenic and methanogenic bacteria must be in a state of dynamic
equilibrium. To establish and maintain such a state, all the parameters affecting the process
performance should be monitored and kept within the acceptable range. The most important of
these parameters are pH, alkalinity, temperature, nutrients, retention time, C:N-ratio, toxic
material, and organic loading.

2.2.2 Factors affecting the anaerobic fermentation

A variety of factors affect the rate of digestion and biogas production.

2.2.2.1 Type of substrate

Substrate composition is a major factor affecting the anaerobic process which affects methane
yield and production rates. The microbial populations involved in anaerobic digestion require
nutrients to grow and multiply. C:N:P:S ratio at a rate of 600:15:5:3 will be sufficient, since the
nutrients requirements are very low due to low biomass formation (Weiland, 2001). At the
same time, the balance of carbon and nitrogen in a feed material is important. It is often
suggested that an optimum C:N ratio is between 20:1 and 30:1. If there is too little nitrogen
present, the bacteria will be unable to produce the enzymes which are needed to utilize the
carbon. If there is too much nitrogen, then it can inhibit the growth of the bacteria through NH3
toxic concentration (Braun,1982).

27
Generally, celluloses are resistant to hydrolysis by enzymes or acids because of their structure
and the lignin barrier. Carbohydrates are converted to equal amounts of methane and carbon
dioxide, methanol and lipids to more methane than carbon dioxide, formic acid and oxalic acid
to more carbon dioxide than methane (Gujer, et al., 1983). The biogas yield changes with
different substrates e.g., fat (1200-1000 Nl/kg oTS), carbohydrate (700-800 Nl/kg oTS),
protein (600-700 Nl/kg oTS ), biowaste (350-500 Nl/kg oTS), and lignin (ca. 0 Nl/kg oTS)
(Weiland, 2001).

2.2.2.2 pH and buffer capacity

pH is one of the first indication factors of inhibition in anaerobic reactors. The optimum pH for
anaerobic digestion is normally in the range of 7 –8 (Chynoweth, et al., 1987). Low pH levels,
for example, can be a sign of digester imbalance. As volatile acid concentrations increase, the
pH in the digester decreases. At pH levels below 6, the acidic conditions produced can become
toxic to methane bacteria. However, high pH can also become a problem if high levels of
ammonium are generated at high organic loading rates.

A factor which tends to prevent the pH conditions from changing is the alkalinity due to
bicarbonate. The bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) concentration is directly proportional to the carbon
dioxide content in the gas and the pH. Thus if the organic matter is being broken down too
quickly for the methane bacteria to utilize the acetate and the released carbon dioxide, there
will be an excess of carbon dioxide in the gas, and hence a greater concentration of CO2
dissolved in the liquid as bicarbonate. This will tend to prevent the pH from falling.

There are two main operational methods for correcting an unbalanced, low pH condition in a
digester. The first approach is to stop the feed and allow the methanogenic population time to
reduce the fatty acid concentration and thus raise the pH to an acceptable level of at least 6.8.
The second method involves the addition of chemicals to raise the pH and provide additional
buffer capacity. An advantage of chemical addition is that the pH can be stabilized
immediately, and the unbalanced populations allowed to correct themselves more quickly.
Calcium hydroxide (lime) is often used (Marchaim, 1992).

28
2.2.2.3 Temperature

Anaerobic fermentation can occur under three temperature ranges; the psychrophilic range (10-
20ºC), the mesophilic range (33-37ºC), and the thermophilic range (50-55ºC). Conventional
anaerobic digesters are commonly designed to operate in either the mesophilic or thermophilic
range. The rate of digestion increases with increasing temperature.
In the thermophilic range, decomposition and biogas production occur more rapidly than in the
mesophilic range. However, the process is highly sensitive to disturbances such as changes in
feed materials or temperature. While all anaerobic digesters reduce the viability of weed seeds
and disease-producing (pathogenic) organisms, the higher temperatures of thermophilic
digestion result in more complete destruction. On the other hand, most biogas plants in
agricultural sector work under mesophilic range to reduce high heating costs (Weiland, 2000)
which is the highest running cost of the biogas plant.

All bacterial populations in digesters are fairly resistant to short-term temperature upsets, up to
about two hours, and return rapidly to normal gas production rates when the temperature is
restored. However, numerous or prolonged temperature drops can result in unbalanced
populations, and lead to low pH problems (Marchaim, 1992).

2.2.2.4 Toxicity effects

Toxic compounds affect digestion by slowing down the rate of metabolism at low
concentrations, or by poisoning or killing the organisms at high concentrations. Excess
quantities of organic and inorganic substances, including volatile fatty acids, ammonia, metal
ions and antibiotics can create toxicity for the anaerobic bacteria. Although all groups involved
in digestion can be affected, the methanogenic bacteria are generally the more sensitive.
At concentrations between 1500 and 3000 mg/l of total ammonia nitrogen, and a pH greater
than 7.4, the ammonia concentration may inhibit methane production (Braun, 1982). At
concentrations above 3000 mg/l, ammonia becomes toxic regardless of pH. It is generally
recommended that the concentration of total ammonia nitrogen be maintained below 2000
mg/l. Ammonia toxicity is often a problem of feedstocks with a high protein content.

29
High concentration of volatile acids such as acetate, propionate or butyrate, are associated with
toxicity effects. Although low concentrations of metal ions such as copper, zinc, and chromium
stimulate the bacterial activity, they cause disruption at high concentrations (Seyfried, et al.,
1990). Antibiotics can also inhibit or completely stop methane production. In addition, a small
amount of oxygen (> 0.1 mg/l O2) act toxic on the fermentation process (Weiland, VDI 2001).

In order to control and adjust operation, to minimize toxic effects, it is important to identify
inhibition in its early stages. The two main indicators of inhibition are: Reduction in methane
yield and increase in volatile acids concentration, generally occurring when the total volatile
acids (expressed as acetic acid) exceed the normal range of about 250 to 500 ppm (mg/l).

2.2.2.5 H2S

The sulfide species equilibrates among different forms, hydrogen sulfide, H2Sg in the gas phase
and H2Ssol in aqueous phase, hydrosulfide, HS-, and sulfide, S2-, according to reaction in
Equation 2.

H 2 S gas Û H 2 S sol Û H + + HS - Û 2 H + + S 2 - [2]

Sulfide in anaerobic reactors normally originates in biological reduction of sulfate with

hydrogen. Sulfate reducing organisms have a complex competition function with hydrogen use
and lead to an accumulation of acetic acid (Polomski, 1998). Sulfide level is normally
inhibitory to anaerobic organisms at levels of above 100 mg/l and completely inhibits at levels
above 200 mg/l. The associated form (H2S) is thought to be the inhibitory agent at 50-
100 mg/l. Polomski (1998) reported that H2S-concentration of 85 mg/l will inhibit the
methanogenic bacteria to 50 %. Weiland (2001) reported that a lower concentration of 50 mg/l
is toxic.
Moreover, hydrogen sulfide, H2S, is highly corrosive to metal, particularly copper, Cu, iron,
Fe, and mild steel (Constant, et al., 1987). This will reduce the utility of biogas that contains a
certain amount of H2S as fuel. The solution to this problem will be discussed in Chapter
(2.4.3).

30
2.2.2.6 Loading rate and retention time

The loading rate is the term used to designate the daily amount of organic substance fed into
the digester in relation to the digester’s total volume. If the loading rate is too low, the bacteria
will exhibit a lower metabolic activity, and very small quantities of gas will be produced. If the
loading rate is too high, an overload situation will be produced in which volatile fatty acids
(VFA) build up, gas production drops, and the proportion of carbon dioxide rises. The loading
rate changes with substrate type.

The retention time (residence time) is the time needed for the fed substrate to remain in the
digester under proper reaction. The retention time of a digester is calculated by dividing the
total capacity of the digestion tank by the rate at which organic matter is fed into it. If the
retention time is too short, the bacteria in the digester are washed out faster than they can
reproduce, so that fermentation practically comes to a standstill. The longer a substrate is kept
under proper reaction conditions, the more complete its degradation will become. But the
reaction rate will decrease with increasing residence time. The disadvantage of a longer
retention time is the increasing reactor size needed for a given amount of substrate to be
treated.

2.2.2.7 Mixing

Mixing is important in anaerobic fermentation to ensure adequate contact between bacteria and
substrate and also to help strip gas out of the liquid. Another reason for using mixing is to
reduce scum formation which reduces the overall capacity of the digester. It was reported early
(Dague, et al., 1970) that intermittent mixing resulted in an increased biogas production and
increased COD and solids reduction, compared to continuous mixing. Recently, Stroot, et al.,
(2001) reported that minimally mixed digesters demonstrated a much more stable operation
than digesters that were continuously and vigorously mixed; vigorous, continuous mixing
inhibited relationships between syntrophs and their methanogenic partners, possibly by
disrupting the side by side position between these organisms. Mixing is normally carried out by
either mechanical agitation, digester contents re-circulation, or gas re-circulation.

31
2.3 Co-fermentation

The growing awareness of the pollution problems, associated with inadequate management of
animal manure and organic waste, emphasizes the need for appropriate solutions to deal with
the problem. An integrated process to solve this problem is co-fermentation which is defined as
the co-digestion of mainly animal manure and other types of suitable organic waste in biogas
plants. Recently, numerous agricultural and non-agricultural organic wastes have been
introduced to farm digesters as co-substrates. The additional feedstocks applied are mainly
derived from the agro- and food industries as well as from municipalities (biogenic wastes).
Typical feedstocks are:

· food remains from large kitchens, hospitals, etc.

· flotation slimes, fat separation sludges, spent edible oils etc.
· animal wastes from slaughterhouses and rendering plants.
· source separated, organic fraction of municipal solid waste.
· organic wastes from the food processing industries, biochemical industries, etc.

The feedstocks for anaerobic digestion vary considerably in composition, homogeneity, fluid
dynamics and biodegradability. For example, the dry matter content varies widely. In intensive
animal farming, pig and cow slurries are reported to contain dry matter contents in the range of
3 to 12 %. Chicken manure contains 10 to 30 % TS. (Braun, 1982; Wellinger, 1991). Some
agro-industrial wastes may contain less than 1 % TS, while others contain high TS contents of
more than 20 %. This results in some substrates being able to be fermented only when mixed
with other substrate or diluted (Weiland, 1998).
In addition, the overall nutrient ratio in waste materials is of major importance for the
microbial biodegradation process. The C:N-ratio in wastes can vary in a considerably wide
range between ca. 6 (e.g., animal slurries) and more than 500 (e.g., wood shavings).
Furthermore, the feedstocks have a different distribution of organic macromolecules like
proteins, fats and carbohydrates in which their degradation is of great importance. The
degradation of feedstocks with high fat contents increases VFA considerably, whereas that of
high protein content leads to large amounts of ammonia (NH4+).

32
Thus, a combination of two or more substrates, i.e., co-fermentation, will optimize the
degradation properties of the feedstocks and hence increase the methane yield. It has been
reported that the performance of digesters could be considerably improved by means of co-
substrate addition and hence increase degradation efficiency and biogas production (Weiland,
1998, Kaparaju, et al., 2001). An additional advantage of co-fermentation is the ecological
disposal of organic waste and at the same time gain of energy. However, co-fermentation
application is not always useful and could have some disadvantages (Table 1).

Table 1: Some benefits and risks of the application of co-fermentation

Benefits for agriculture Risks for the agriculture

Income from wastes disposal Entry of heavy metals
Gain of renewable energy Entry of organic harmful substances
Free nutrient input Excess of nutrients
Supply of humus Introduce diseases
Improve digestion quality of manure Entry of unwanted matters
Free manure treatment Disorder in digester
Source: Weiland, 1997

2.4 Biogas plants

2.4.1 Requirements of biogas plants

Generally, there are two main different types of digesters for producing biogas; storage
technique (batch) and flow technique (continuous or semi-continuous feeding). Both
techniques will be described in Chapter (2.4.2). The most commonly and used one is the flow
technique. Therefore, biogas plants in this chapter will be referred to this technique.
The principle layout of biogas plant is shown in Figure 3. The substrate is collected (after
preparing) in a collecting tank near the digester and then fed semi-continuously by a pump to
the digester (input). The completely gas-tight digester is made mainly of steel or concrete. It is
isolated to keep the optimum temperature (by heating) for the organisms inside the digester
constant, i.e., 37°C or 55°C.

33
The digester content is mixed with a mixer at least several times a day to ensure homogeneity.
The outputs of the digester are biogas and digested effluent. The latter is stored in a storage
tank to be used later on as a fertilizer. Biogas is collected in gas holder, possible for short
periods without compression, to be used at a constant rate. A gas handling system is needed to
remove biogas from the digester (gas holder) and transports it to the end-use, such as an engine
or boiler. Gas handling includes: piping; gas pump or blower; gas meter; pressure regulator.

Figure 3: Principle layout of biogas plant

Digester operation requires successful start-up. The general start-up procedure initially
involves addition of an inoculum containing the micro-organisms required for digestion to the
reactor. The biomass feedstock is then added to the culture at a low loading rate in order to
ensure stable digester performance. As the micro-organisms in the culture grow, a balance
between the groups of organisms performing several metabolic functions is maintained. The
biomass loading rate is gradually increased until the planned feed loading is achieved. The rate
of start-up is affected by the characteristics of the inoculum, the biomass feed, the
configuration and size and operating conditions of the digester. It takes sometimes up to 2-3
months.

34
The input and output of the digester identify the technique used in the biogas plant and
sometimes require additional treatments. For example, fermentation of manure does not require
additional treatment (Weiland, 1999). On the other hand, co-fermentation and industrial or
agricultural wastes require supplementary pretreatment such as sorting, chopping, shredding,
sieving, pasteurization before they can be fed to the digester.
The end product, biogas, can contain corrosive and disturbing components such as water vapor,
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The use of biogas defines the degree of elimination which
ranges from null, i.e., direct use (cooking) to total removal (in fuel cell). A summarized
category of several techniques used in biogas plants is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Technical options in biogas plants

Stage Technique option

Preparation of Wastes · Shredding
· Sieving
· Sorting
· Pasteurization
Fermentation · One-/two step fermentation
· Meso-/thermophilic fermentation
· Dis /continuous fermentation
· Wet-/dry fermentation
Preparation of Products Effluent
· Dewatering
· Composting
Biogas
· Condensate removal
· Sulfur removal
Source: Weiland, 1999

There are also serious safety and environmental considerations associated with biogas plants
because methane is a potent greenhouse gas and forms explosive mixtures when mixed with
air. This can be achieved by installation of sensors and safety equipment. Biogas flares are also
used to safely burn biogas that is surplus to the demand of energy recovery plant or where
recovery plant fails.

35
2.4.2 Types of biogas reactors

Anaerobic digesters (reactors) are made out of concrete, steel, brick, or plastic. They are
shaped like silos, troughs, basins or ponds, and may be placed underground or on the surface.
There are numerous designs and configurations of anaerobic digesters, and each has its
advantages and drawbacks.

There are two basic types of digesters: batch and continuous. Batch-type digesters are the
simplest to build. Their operation consists of loading the digester with organic materials and
allowing it to digest. The retention time depends on temperature and other factors. Once the
digestion is complete, the effluent is removed and the process is repeated.
In a continuous digester, organic material is constantly or regularly fed into the digester. Unlike
batch-type digesters, continuous digesters produce biogas without the interruption of loading
material and unloading effluent. They may be better suited for large-scale operations. There are
many types of continuous digesters; the most common types are: continuously stirred tank
reactor (CSTR), up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), plug-flow reactor, attached film
reactors (anaerobic filter, fluidized-bed), two-phase reactor. The most commonly used reactors
in agriculture are batch reactors, continuously stirred tank reactors and two phase reactors.
Therefore, only these types will be described briefly.

2.4.2.1 Batch reactor

The batch reactor is the simplest type of digestion used. It represents a non-continuous process
that is particularly suited for seasonally produced biomass feeds and for feeds with very high
solids content. In batch processes, feed is added to an inoculum derived from a previous
digester or other source and then placed in the batch reactor and allowed to digest
anaerobically over a period of time depending upon the feed material. The fermentation is
allowed to proceed until gas production stops or becomes negligible. The reactor contents are
usually heated and maintained at the desired temperature; they are agitated occasionally and
this releases bubbles of gas from the feed material.

36
A batch reactor is very simple to run, since little attention needs to be paid to it between
starting up and emptying out. The main use of batch reactors is to assess the digestibility of a
particular waste before a full-scale unit is built. A major disadvantage of batch digestion is that
it is relatively unstable and uncontrollable due to change in the bacterial population during the
course of the fermentation. These changes can lead to population imbalance, digester failure,
and variations in the quantity and composition of product gas.

2.4.2.2 Continuously stirred tank reactor

The continuously-stirred tank reactor (CSTR) is the most common design used in wastewater
and farm applications treating feeds with > 3 % solids. It is an adaptation of a batch reactor in
which the substrate is continuously pumped into the reactor while the reaction mixture is
removed at the same rate. The CSTR is usually heated, mixed continuously or intermittently,
and fed intermittently rather than continuously.
Since it is possible in such a system that some substrate molecules can move through the
reactor unchanged (washout of unreacted solids and active micro-organisms at higher loading
rates), the gas yield will usually be lower than in a batch process. By mixing, a good contact
between biomass and the organic material to be digested is maintained. CSTR is the simplest
among the continuous reactors and has the following advantages: uniform distribution of the
substrate throughout the digester, good control of process parameters may be established,
prevention of scum layer formation when properly mixed, easily modeled and does not require
high operating costs.

2.4.2.3 Two-phase reactor

Generally, anaerobic digestion is carried out by two groups of bacteria (nonmethanogenic and
methanogenic) that differ significantly with respect to their requirements (Chynoweth, et al.,
1987). In a one-phase reactor (e.g., CSTR), all the bacteria groups are working in the same
reactor in which the reaction condition is not ideal for each bacteria. In two-phase reactor the
hydrolysis/acid formation and methane formation are physically separated so that each reaction
can take place under optimal conditions.

37
If the hydrolysis is the rate-limiting step, the first phase must be optimized so that the
hydrolysis have enough time for the decomposition of biopolymers. In case of light hydrolyzed
substances the first step occurs quickly before the generation of the methanogenesis and the
separation between the two processes can be achieved. Otherwise, from economical
consideration, the two phase process will not be optimal (Edelmann, 2001).
The two-phase technology has numerous benefits: hydrolysis and acidification occur quicker
than in conventional systems; the common problems of foaming in single-tank systems are
reduced by the destruction of biochemical foaming agents before they reach the methane
forming reactor; and the biogas produced is typically rich in methane. On the other hand, the
two-stage systems are the most complex, and most expensive, of all systems.

2.4.3 Purification of biogas

The use of the product gas will determine, in most cases, the extent of gas cleanup. A natural
gas substitute fuel would have high requirements including moisture removal, carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide scrubbing. The requirements of using biogas in a fuel cell (low
temperature) is higher and include even the removal of slight concentration of irrelevant gases.

Hydrogen sulfide, H2S, is the most important factor limiting the utility of biogas as fuel. It is
highly corrosive to metal, particularly copper, iron, and mild steel (Constant, et al., 1987).
Moreover, biogas is usually saturated with water vapor, and humidity is an important factor for
accelerating the rate of corrosion. Hydrogen sulfide can be oxidized into sulfur oxides, SO2 and
SO3, during biogas combustion and by reaction with water vapor leads to the formation of
sulfurous, H2SO3, and sulfuric acid, H2SO4. These acids are also corrosive to metals especially
when, after condensation, they accumulate locally. The removal of H2S may also be necessary
because of its own toxicity (1000 ppm H2S is fatal).
The moisture content of the biogas depends on the temperature of the gas as it is collected.
Generally, the biogas leaves the methane digester saturated with water. Accumulation and
freezing of water has to be systematically avoided throughout the whole system. Also, when
biogas is compressed, water removal is required to prevent the storage devices from corrosion.
The removal of carbon dioxide for some applications is not necessary because its elimination
will only increase the biogas calorific value. However, its removal is essential for use, as fuel
for automobile or feed to natural gas networks, for quality assurance and volume reduction

38
(Werner, 2001). Whenever biogas is compressed, carbon dioxide has to be eliminated because
it becomes a highly corrosive agent under these conditions.
In general, biogas can be purified by biological, chemical, physical and physical-chemical
methods. Table 3 lists the techniques that can be used for the treatment of biogas in relation to
the compound to be removed.

Table 3: Overview of techniques used for biogas treatment

Compound removed Technique Principle

H2S Air oxygen dosing biological
FeCl3 dosing to digester slurry chemical
Adsorption to Fe2O3 pellets physical-chemical
Absorption with caustic solution physical-chemical
Absorption with iron solution physical-chemical
Membrane separation physical
Biological filters biological
Activated carbon physical-chemical
Molecular sieves physical
Water Demister physical
Cyclone separator physical
Moisture trap physical
Water tap physical
Adsorption to silica physical
Glycol drying unit physical
CO2 Pressure swing adsorption physical-chemical
Membrane separation physical
Absorption techniques physical-chemical
Source: Schomaker, et al., 1999

2.4.4 Storage of biogas

Methane can only be liquefied at temperatures lower than –82.5°C (critical point), therefore,
the suitable form for storing methane or biogas is in a gas form that needs large space. A
biogas plant generally includes a gas storage system for balancing out the fluctuations in gas
production, quality, and consumption. For economical reasons, the volume of the gas holders is
usually limited to daily production of biogas.

39
The gas storage devices can be classified according to their running pressure. In low pressure
gas holders, the gas is kept at a pressure below the maximum of 50 mbar. A common example
for low pressure gas holder is a gas bag and digester head space with a foil membrane. Their
volume capacity ranges between 1 and 1000 m³ (Edelmann, 2001). High pressure gas holders
(separate gas cylinders or tanks) are usually used when biogas has to be compressed and used
as fuel. In 30 to 50 liter cylinders biogas can be compressed to a pressure of 200 to 300 bar
(Edelmann, 2001). Moreover, a drastic purification of the biogas is necessary to avoid the
corrosive action. A floating digester cover can also be used for gas storage as well as for gas
collection. This is simply a pontoon cover which floats on the liquid surface and has skirt
plates extending down into the liquid to provide a seal. The weight of the floating cover
provides a pressure head and allows the gas to be withdrawn as it is needed.

2.5 Biogas as energy source

2.5.1 Gas composition and quality

Biogas composition is dependent on the type of feedstocks and to some extent on the technique
used in the digestion process (Weiland, 2000a). The feedstocks used for anaerobic digestion
vary considerably in composition, homogeneity and biodegradability.
Biogas is primarily composed of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), with smaller
amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and ammonia (NH3). Slight concentrations of hydrogen
(H2), nitrogen (N2), carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen (O2) are occasionally present in the
biogas. Moreover, the biogas is usually saturated with water and might contain dust particles.
CH4 gas is considered as a valuable fuel. The gas is non-toxic, non-odorous, and is lighter than
air. When burned, CH4 is converted into a molar equivalent amount of CO2 and water. CO2 is
an inert colorless, odorless gas and is heavier than air. CO2 is mildly toxic, is an asphyxiate. A
higher CO2 concentration in the biogas results in a lower calorific value of the biogas. H2S is a
colorless gas. Since H2S is heavier than air, it might cause extra danger at low levels. At low
concentrations this gas has the typical smell of rotten eggs. In addition to its toxicity H2S is
corrosive, which can cause problems during combustion of the biogas. Water vapor, although a
harmless product, becomes corrosive in combination with the NH3, CO2 and especially the H2S
of the biogas. The maximum water content of the biogas is governed by the gas temperature.

40
When water saturated biogas leaves the digester, cooling of the gas will result in condensation
of water. The quality of biogas is determined from the percentages to these constituents. Table
4 shows some characteristics of biogas components.

Table 4: Characteristics of biogas components

CH4 CO2 H2 S Natural Biogas

Characteristics
gas (65% CH4)
Calorific value (kWh/m³) 10 - 6,3 10 6
Ignition temperature (°C) 650 - 270 650 700
Critical pressure (bar) 47 75 90 - 75-89
Critical temperature (°C) -82,25 31 100 - -82,5
Density (kg/m³) 0.72 1,98 1.54 0.7 1.2
Density relation (gas/air) 0.55 1,5 1,2 0.54 0.9
Flame speed (cm/s laminar) 47 - 73 39 25
Source: Beitz, 2000 / Anonym, 1998

2.5.2 Biogas application

Biogas has numerous end-use applications compared to other renewable energy resources. It
has a calorific value typically between 50 % and 70 % of natural gas. The calorific value of
biogas ranges between 17 and 25 MJ/m3 depending on the amount of methane in biogas.
Biogas can be used for cooking (in developing countries), heating, mechanical power
generation, and electrical power generation. Treated biogas can also be supplied to the local
natural gas net.
Biogas can be burned in boilers with high efficiency (79 %) to produce hot water and steam
used for other industrial uses. Two types of biogas engines are in common use for electricity
generation; internal combustion engine and gas turbine engine. In either case, the engine drives
a generator which produces an alternating current for use locally or to supply the national grid.
For the electrical use of biogas only 35 % of the energy value is converted to electrical energy,
the remaining 65 % is thermal and waste energy. An excellent way to extract the maximum
benefit from biogas is to make use of the waste heat that results from generating electricity,
using a combined heat and power (CHP) plant. Waste heat recovery can increase the energy
efficiency of the system by 40 to 55 percent to reach 85 %. This heat can be used to heat the
digester and/or provide hot water or space heat to the facility.

41
Ongoing research and development is focusing on the use of stirling engine, microturbines and
fuel cells for converting biogas to electricity. Stirling engine may be used in CHP plant to
increase the overall efficiency up to 95 %. Microturbines are high-speed, small-scale (typically
less than 100 kW) gas-driven turbine systems that produce electricity efficiently, have low
emissions and require little maintenance. Fuel cells can convert fuel to electricity at efficiencies
close to 40 %. These techniques are still under research and are expensive.
In the case of direct-gas use, water and H2S removal will be the appropriate treatment steps. If
the gas is to be used by gas engines, or if it is upgraded to a natural gas quality, the biogas
composition should comply with the appropriate requirements. For upgrading biogas to natural
gas quality removal of CO2, H2S, NH3, water and dust is essential in order to achieve the
required quality. If it is worthwhile to install a digester, it is equally worthwhile to find the
most efficient use for the gas. Obviously this depends in the first instance on how much gas is
produced. At the same time as considering the uses for the gases, we should take stock of all
fuel requirements in order to find the least wasteful system of energy use.

2.6 Principles of system evaluation

Performance evaluation is one of the core activities of mankind. Some time ago the
performance of any system was mainly evaluated only from the economical side of view.
Nowadays, it is essential to consider energetic, ecological and social aspects for evaluation,
even from the economical point of view. The social evaluation will not be considered in the
thesis.

2.6.1 Description and methods of analysis systems

The evaluation and analysis of systems with energetic and ecological balances is not simple
(Moerschner, et al., 1997). Hartmann, et al., (1995) referred this to many reasons. First, the
methods of calculation and analysis are not clearly defined and standardized. Secondly, are the
different values of various energy inputs and outputs. For example fuel and electrical energy
can not be directly compared with each other. Moreover, assessment of by-products in biomass
processes is problematic, especially when the by-product is not used in an energetic form but as
fertilizer.

42
The first important step in evaluating any system is to define its boundaries. Through the
selected boundaries can be determined whether a parameter could be considered in the
balancing or not, which can strongly affect the balancing results. Reinhardt (1993) classified
the system boundaries into subjects, time, and space limitations. The subject limitation is given
through the considered element (material, energy, information). The time limitation defines the
time interval of the input and output variables (vegetation period). The space limitation keeps
the system with in a defined space (continent, region, field, etc.).

In establishing evaluation it is also important that the comparable energy sources have the same
end use, especially when comparing bioenergy fuel with fossil fuel. For example, electricity
production from biogas has to be compared with that fossil fuel from which the same amount
of electricity is produced. Moreover, within the scope of bioenergy source production, it is
needed to evaluate the by-products. Normally, it is aimed to assess the by-product within the
life-cycle of bioenergy production.

2.6.2 Energy balance

Energy production and use are normally presented in the form of an energy balance in which
the individual energy sources are shown in a way that they can be compared and added on the
basis of physical aspects such as calorific value. A major aim of energy analysis is to estimate
the total quantity of energy required to produce a good or service to a final user.
The simplified way of energy balance takes into account only the efficiency of converting the
main stream of direct production energy into useful energy losing in the converter of energy
losses as a part of direct production energy (FAO, 1984). This method is usually applied when
investigating simple mechanisms. The general way of balance takes into account all
components of energy balance creating a complex chain of energy conversion. This can be
achieved in terms of energy outlay (output) and energy gain (input).
The growing of crops as a source of energy or fuels is potentially a renewable and sustainable
system of harnessing solar energy. However, this potential is realized only if the energy
obtained from the crop material exceeds the fossil fuel energy inputs used in growing the crop
and in any processes used to convert it to a desired fuel form. This thesis will emphasize
energy balancing for agricultural crops.

43
Energy input

In the determination of the energy input of a process, not only the raw materials for energy
gain, but also all the basic material within the considered system will be considered (Reinhardt,
1993) i.e., the total production chain of direct and indirect energy sources inside that system.
According to Heyland & Solansky (1979) energy inputs can be differentiated for direct and
indirect types. The energy flux scheme in Figure 4 clarifies the system boundaries selected for
the included field cropping experiments and the resulting energy fluxes.
In modern agriculture, human power is insignificant relative to the total energy use. Therefore,
it will not be considered in energy balancing analysis in this thesis. Since the solar energy is
renewable and free it will also not be taken into account.

Energy Input Energy Output

Direct Indirect
Solar
energy

Seeds

PPA
Main product
Diesel oil Min. Fertilizer

Org. Fertilizer By-product

Fuel oil
Machines
Losses
Electricity Equipments

Buildings

Other plants
Human

Source: Kalk, et al., 1995

Figure 4: Energy flux scheme

Direct energy input

Direct energy used in crop production includes electricity, heating fuel and machinery fuel
used in crop production, grain drying, transportation of farm products and personal energy use
(Biermann, et al., 1999). Two methods can be used for evaluation of direct energy sources.
They can either be evaluated only through their calorific value for the generation of efficient

44
energy (Werschnitzky, et al., 1987). In this case losses occurring during the conversion of
primary energy into the final energy form are not considered. Or they can be evaluated by
considering all energies involved in the production and handling process of the used direct
energy source (Reinhardt, 1993). For example, for diesel oil as energy source Reinhardt (1993)
assumed an additional calorific value of 11.5 % for diesel production chain. Tables 5 and 6
show some energy sources and their calorific values.

Table 5: Mean calorific value of fossil energy sources

Calorific value Density

Energy source
[MJ/kg] [kg/l]
Hard coal 29.78 0.8-0.9
Lignite coal 8.49 0.7-1
Gasoline 43.54 0.72-0.8
Diesel 42.71 0.84
Natural gas 50.2 0.79 (kg/m³)
Lubricant 54 0.893
Electricity 3.6 MJ/kWh
Source : Beitz, 2000 / Patyk, et al., 1997 / Mauch, 1996

Table 6: Mean calorific value of some bio-energy sources

Calorific value Density

Energy source
[MJ/kg] [kg/m3]
Biogas 17.9-20.8 1.05-1.2
Methane 37.82 0.72
Ethanol 26.8 0.79 (kg/l)
Rape oil 36.0 0.95 (kg/l)
RME 37.2 0.88 (kg/l)
Source: Hartmann, 1995 / VDI, 2001

The amount of direct energy used (mainly fossil fuel) depends on the types of equipment
(indirect energy) used, since they determine their consumption. Fossil fuel is used in
agriculture for irrigation, machinery (for whole growing process; including fertilizers, harvest),
transport, storage and food processing. It is a major part of energy input. Because of the strong
variation in the machinery, even for the same work, used in agriculture and because of the
different ground type and ground situation it is not possible to summarize the fuel consumption

45
throughout the field work in a standardized form. So, in establishing energy balance each field
must be analyzed separately according to the plant and machinery present. The diesel
consumption of different tractors for different applications is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Diesel consumption of different tractors and applications

Power (kW) 32a 52b 60c 74a

Diesel consumption
Application
[kg Diesel/h]
Hard field work 6.21 8.76 10.03 14.84
Normal field work 3.69 4.98 5.51 9.48
Simple field work 2.01 2.52 2.99 6.54
Transportation 3.05 3.97 4.14 8.06
Running without load 0.70 0.69 0.86 1.15
Source: Gräf, et al., 1994a / Krahl, 1993b / Wörgetter, et al., 1993c

Indirect energy input

In addition to energy consumed directly in agriculture, many farm inputs have indirect energy
components. Indirect energy consists of the energy used in the production of most of the farm
inputs paid for by operators, including commercial fertilizers, plant protection agents,
machinery, seeds, transportation, farm buildings.
Fertilizers fall into two categories: organic and inorganic. Organic fertilizers are primarily crop
residues, manure and organic waste. Inorganic fertilizers are man-made compounds based on
the essential elements; nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Energy consumption for mineral
fertilizers has a great affect on agriculture energy balancing. According to Mudahar, et al.,
(1987), energy used in the production of fertilizers accounts for about 40 % of total energy
used in agricultural plant production in developed countries. Most of this energy was
consumed in the production of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers. Another recent
study (Biermann, et al., 1999) reported that the portion of mineral nitrogen fertilizer may come
up to 50 % of the whole input of fossil energy. Nitrogen fertilizer is by far the most important
chemical fertilizer in terms of the amount of plant nutrient used and even more so in terms of
energy requirements. Data about the energy consumption of mineral fertilizers differs widely.
Average energy requirements for production of individual fertilizers are reported in Table 8.

46
Table 8: Energy input in fertilizer production

Energy consumption [MJ/kg]

Fertilizer
Only production Total *
Nitrogen 42.4 49.1
Phosphorus 8.73 17.7
Potassium 8.41 10.5
Lime 1.03 2.39
Source: Patyk, et al., 1997, * include supply and transportation

Little information is found in literature about the energetic evaluation of organic fertilizers
other than for mineral fertilizers (Hülsbergen, et al., 1997). The simplest and most common
means of estimating the value of organic materials is to consider them as substitutes for
mineral fertilizers. When the organic wastes of acceptable quality are returned to agricultural
soils on a regular basis they increase not only the soil fertility but also contribute greatly to the
overall maintenance of soil structure and productivity, and reduce the need for mineral
fertilizers (Helsel, 1987). Such values are often highly variable depending on the origin of the
material and the mode/method of processing and storage.
Plant protection agents (PPA) – herbicides, insecticides and fungicides – are used to protect
agricultural crops. They essentially substitute for human and mechanical labor otherwise
needed to control weeds, insects and fungus. Their manufacturing requires considerable
energy. Green (1987) calculated mean energy consumption values for various PPA groups: 265
MJ/kg for herbicides, 214 MJ/kg for insecticides and 173 MJ/kg for fungicides. According to
Gaillard, et al., (1997), each plant protection agent should be evaluated separately. Although
the total energy content of PPA is about several times more than that of fertilizers, their
application rates per hectare is very small and range between 0.3 to 4 liter (Kaltschmitt, et al.,
1997). Therefore the total energy input for application of PPA is clearly less than that of
fertilizer.
The energy input for seed material includes energy used for breeding, production,
transportation and storage. It varies within a wide range depending on the type of seed. For
example 0.7 MJ is needed for 1 kg potato while for 1 kg sugar beets 30.14 MJ is used
(Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997). Since the energy balance for agriculture is usually expressed per
hectare, the amount of seeds per hectare play an important role in the energy input for seeds.

47
Energy input for machinery manufacturing covers the whole energy used for technical
construction, equipment and tractors. Due to the variation in the production it is not simple to
estimate a generalized value. The energy needed for a finished part step alone ranges between
3.96 and 10.08 GJ/ton finished product (Oheimb, 1987). According to Diepenbrock, et al.,
(1995) the part of indirect energy input for agricultural building is not easy to estimate.

Energy output

Generally, energy output includes all products that leave the system. According to Heyland, et
al., (1979), agricultural outputs can be divided into main products, by-products and residues.
The energy output can by categorized under these groups. Residues are that part of output
products from the main- or/and by-product that can not be used. This part is considered as
losses. The energy in the main- and by-product is produced in three forms, namely: food, feed
and renewable energy resource. These can be used directly or after some management (Figure
5). Food is normally produced only as a main product whereas feed and renewable energy are
produced in agriculture as main- and by-products.

Main product

food forage ren. energy

direct direct
use ensiling use

treatment treatment
use
use use

by-product by-product by-product

Fertilizers

Figure 5: Energy output scheme

48
The energetic value of agricultural products depends mainly on their constituents which differ
from one plant to another. The main contents of agricultural products and their calorific value
are shown in Table 9. Food as an output source of energy can be used directly by humans or
after being treated (e.g., vegetable oil). In the latter case, additional energy will be required to
produce the final output. In this case, the main agricultural product will considered as a sub-
product (stage) for the final output and the additional energy needed for the treatment must be
regarded as additional input energy. Feed and renewable energy sources can also be used
directly or after additional treatment (Figure 5). The energy output from renewable biomass
energy can be in the form of heat, mechanical power and electricity.

Table 9: Physical calorific values of main biomass constituents

Calorific value
Constituent
[MJ/kg]
Protein 23.04
Fat 38.96
Fiber 17.59
Nitrogen-Free extract (NFE) 17.17
Lignin 26.39
Source: Greef, et al., 1993

2.6.3 Ecological balance

Ecological assessment is an important component of any product system by assessing the

impacts of those energies and materials uses and releases to the environment. The assessment
includes the entire life cycle of the product or activity, encompassing extracting and processing
raw materials, manufacturing, distribution, use, re-use, maintenance, recycling and final
disposal, and all transportation involved (Lindors, et al., 1995). A standardized technique for
measuring and comparing the environmental consequences of providing, using and disposing
of a product is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA addresses environmental impacts of the
system under study in the areas of ecological systems, human health and resource depletion. It
does not address economic or social effects.

49
LCA has become a widely recognized method in the public and private sectors for analyzing
and assessing the environmental performance of product and process systems. According to
ISO 14040 (1997) the LCA shall include definition of goal and scope, inventory analysis,
impact assessment and interpretation of results, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Goal
and scope
definition

Direct applications:
- Product development
Inventory Interpretation and improvement
- Strategic planning
analysis
- Public policy making
- Marketing
- Other

Impact
assessment

Source: ISO 14040, 1997

Figure 6: Phases of life cycle analysis (LCA)

Definition of goal and scope

The definition of the goal and scope is the critical part of an LCA due to the strong influence
on the results of the LCA. They contain the following main issues: goal, scope, functional unit,
system boundaries, and data quality.
The goal definition has to define the intended use of the results and users of the result. The
definition of the scope sets the limits of the assessment - what is included in the system and
what detailed assessment methods are to be used. The functional unit determines equivalence
between systems. Its primary purpose is to provide a reference to which the inputs and outputs
are related. The system boundaries define the processes/operations (e.g., manufacturing,
transport, and waste management processes), and the inputs and outputs to be taken into

50
account in the LCA. The input can be the overall input to a production as well as input to a
single process - and the same is true for the output. According to Patyk, et al., (1997) the
system boundary defines also the geographical and time related-boundaries. The quality of the
data used is naturally reflected in the quality of the final LCA. It is important that the data
quality is described and assessed in a systematic way that allows others to understand and
control for the actual data quality.

Inventory analysis

According to ISO 14041 (1998) a life-cycle inventory consists of data collection and
calculations to quantify the inputs and outputs of a product life-cycle. The data have to be
collected from all single processes in the life cycle. These data can be quantitative or
qualitative. The quantitative data are important in comparisons of processes or materials, but
often the quantitative data are missing or the quality is poor (too old or not technologically
representative etc.).
Life-cycle inventory data are often incomplete or inaccurate, largely because the resources
necessary to gather high-quality data are not available. Sometimes inventory data cannot be
obtained because it is proprietary. Sometimes the inventory data that is available is aggregated
so that air and waterborne emissions are quantified as totals rather than given as quantities for
individual constituents, making a thorough impact assessment impossible. Moreover, the data
are subject to obsolescence; the use of obsolete data can therefore cause distortions.
Another source of uncertainty in life-cycle inventories is the use of "average" or "typical'
values instead of values specific to a facility or region. For example, when evaluating the
energy requirements of a product, both the raw materials and the inputs and outputs from the
generation and use of the energy flow must be included. The inputs and outputs of energy
generation vary widely among the different methods of power generation.

Impact assessment

In assessing impacts, life-cycle inventory data are combined with information on the
environmental characteristics of the inputs and outputs for the product's life cycle, so that the
varying potency of effects from different emissions are accounted for. It is also a follow-up of
the decisions made in the goal and scoping phase.

51
Impact assessment contains many categories (ISO, 14042). They are selected in order to
describe the impacts caused by the considered products or product systems. The impact
categories considered are:

· Resource depletion
· Land use
· Global warming
· Stratospheric ozone depletion
· Acidification
· Eutrophication
· Human- and ecotoxicological impacts
· Photochemical oxidant formation

Resource depletion:
The current generations are using up resources that will make future generations unable to
develop or maintain a quality of life equivalent to our own. Resource depletion includes water
resources, fossil fuels, and mineral resources. The issue here is whether the resources used in
producing agricultural products can be replaced or renewed. Fossil fuel burning is a classic
example of a resource that cannot be replaced. On the other hand, water used for irrigation and
other uses can be, to some extent, replaced.

Land use:
Land use and transformation can be seen from two perspectives (Finnveden, 1996):

· Land as a resource for humans, i.e., area for food production

· Land use related to ecosystem and landscape degradation, landscape fragmentation,
desiccation, habitat alterations and impacts on, e.g., biodiversity

It is an unavoidable effect of agriculture that we replace natural ecosystems with crops.

Without question, agricultural activity has led to the loss of more species and habitats than any
other human activity. We need to farm to feed our populations, but there are ways to help
maintain species diversity and healthy ecosystems in agricultural settings.

52
Greenhouse effect:
The greenhouse effect is a result of reflecting the heat radiation by carbon dioxide (CO2), and
other greenhouse gasses (e.g., methane (CH4), dinitrogen oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons
etc.). The problem with greenhouse gases is that over the past hundred years (since the
industrial revolution), the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2,
has increased significantly. That is because we are burning lots of fossil fuel to produce power
and heat. The possible consequences of the greenhouse effect include an increase of the
temperature level leading to melting of the polar ice caps, resulting in elevated sea levels. The
increasing temperature level may also result in regional climate changes.
The greenhouse effect is normally quantified by using global warming potentials (GWP) for
substances having the same effect as CO2 in reflection of heat radiation. GWP for greenhouse
gases are expressed as CO2-equivalent, i.e., their effects are expressed relative to the effects of
CO2. GWP for some known greenhouse gases are shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Global warming potentials (GWP) given in kg CO2-eq./kg gas

GWP Life time,

Substance Formal
20 years 100 years 500 years years
Carbon dioxide CO2 1 1 1 150
Methane CH4 62 25 7.5 10
Dinitrogen oxide N2O 290 320 180 120
CFC-11 CFCl3 5000 4000 1400 50
HCFC-22 CHF2Cl 4300 1700 520 13
HFC-23 CHF3 9200 12100 9900 250
Source: Albritton, et al., 1996

Many of the greenhouse gases that derive from agricultural products come from the use of
fossil fuels to provide power and transportation, not only on-farm but also in food processing
and storage. But there are also significant on-farm sources of greenhouse gases. Ruminants
such as cows, goats and sheep produce large quantities of methane as a by-product of their
digestion. Methane and dinitrous oxide also come from rice fields and from manure
management practices.

53
Stratospheric ozone depletion:
The thin layer of ozone protects all life on earth from the harmful effects of ultra-Violet
radiation (UV radiation). Too much UV radiation causes skin cancer and cataracts, and also is
very detrimental to plants. There are several man-made compounds (freons and other
halogenated compounds) that act to destroy ozone in the atmosphere. These compounds are
usually used in refrigeration (many agricultural products are refrigerated to maintain their
freshness) and in fire suppression, although they also have some other applications as solvents.
Over the years, the release of these compounds through leaks in refrigeration systems and the
like has led to the creation of ozone holes at the North and South Poles. Just like greenhouse
gases, a scale has been developed that compares the strength of different ozone depleters to a
standard, in this case to CFC-11.

Acidification:
Acidification is the process by which acid gases are deposited in air. This deposition can be as
dry deposits, or it can be as rain, snow, fog or other precipitation. Acidification alters soil
chemistry, leading to toxic effects on plants. It also can cause lakes and rivers to become
acidified, killing many of the organisms that live there. The potential effects are strongly
dependent on the nature of the receiving ecosystem. Some soils have a high neutralization
capacity, and relatively little occurs as a result of acid deposition. Some soils have very little
soil neutralization capacity, and cause the dying off of trees and other plants.

Table 11: Acidification potentials (AP) for acidifying substances

AP
Substance formula
kg SO2/kg
Sulfur dioxide SO2 1
Sulfur trioxide SO3 0.80
Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.70
Nitrogen oxide NO 1.07
Hydrogen chloride HCL 0.88
Nitric acid HNO3 0.51
Sulfuric acid H2SO4 0.65
Phosphoric acid H3PO4 0.98
Hydrogen fluoride HF 1.60
Hydrogen sulfide H2S 1.88
Ammonia NH3 1.88
Source: Hauschild, et al., 1998

54
Acid gases are primarily derived from combustion processes in transportation and in heating
and electricity generation. Lindfors, et al., (1995) recommend that the following substances
should be considered: SO2, NOx, NH3 and HCl but other substances having a proton releasing
effect also have to be considered (Table 11). The acidification potential (AP) can be estimated
as SO2 equivalents. The acidification potentials for acidifying substances are given in Table 11.

Eutrophication:
Eutrophication is the enrichment of aquatic ecosystems with nutrients leading to a deterioration
of the water quality and a reduction in the value of the utilization of the aquatic ecosystem.
Eutrophication of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems can be caused by surplus nitrogen,
phosphorus and degradable organic substances.
The primary effect of surplus nitrogen and phosphorus in aquatic ecosystems is the growth of
algae. The secondary effect is the decomposition of dead organic material (e.g., algae) and
anthropogenic organic substances. The decomposition of organic material is an oxygen
consuming process leading to decreasing oxygen saturation and sometimes anaerobic
conditions. The anaerobic conditions in the sediment at the bottom of lakes or other inland
waters may furthermore result in production of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) which may lead to
incidents and liberation of toxic hydrogen sulfide to the surrounding water. Excessive use of
fertilizers on farms, and poor manure management mean that nutrients are released from the
farm into the air and the waterways.

Human- and ecotoxicological impacts:

These impacts are exactly what they sound like. They are based on the release of toxic
substances into the air or the water. The approach is to calculate the concentrations of toxic
substances in air and water at the property or field boundaries and report both individual
substances exceeding the no-effects level. Although every toxic substance has a different
mechanism of action, and different responses in different species, there is no consensus in the
scientific literature as to how to combine these different effects.
Human toxicological impacts depend on exposure to and effects of chemical and biological
substances. The potential effect on humans depends on the actual emission and fate of the
specific substances emitted to the environment as for ecotoxicological impacts. Human
toxicological effects can be: acute toxicological effects, irritation, allergenic reactions,
genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity and teratogenicity.

55
Photochemical smog:
Smog results from the action of sunlight on volatile organic compounds in the presence of
nitrogen oxide (NOx). The reactions are complex, but the outcome is the creation of ozone and
other noxious chemicals ("smog" as a local impact and "tropospheric ozone" as a regional
impact). The limiting factors for the production of smog in agricultural areas are the presence
of sunlight and nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides come primarily from the burning of fossil
fuels (in farm).
Ozone is toxic to all life. It causes mutations that can lead to cancer and to birth defects and
premature aging. Exposure of plants to ozone may result in damage of the leaf and finally the
whole plant. Exposure of humans to ozone may result in eye irritation, respiratory problems,
and chronic damage of the respiratory system.

Interpretation

Interpretation is the fourth phase in life cycle assessment. Its aim is to reduce the number of
quantified data and/or statements of the inventory analysis and/or impact assessment to the key
results to facilitate a decision making process based on, among other inputs, the LCA study.
This reduction should be robust to uncertainties in data and methodologies applied and should
give an acceptable coverage and representation of the preceding phases.

Interpretation contains the following main issues (ISO 14043, 1998):

· Identification of significant environmental issues

· Evaluation
· Conclusions and recommendations

56
3 Materials and Methods

This chapter provides the details of the methods and materials used to accomplish the
objectives of this research. The experimental approach is explained first. Secondly, the
methods used for the evaluation of the energetic and ecological balance are described.

3.1 Laboratory experiments

The laboratory investigations in this thesis include the operation of bench-scale anaerobic
digestion systems under controlled laboratory conditions. Two main experiments were
conducted in the laboratory of the Institute of Technology and Biosystems Engineering of the
Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL), Braunschweig-Germany. The first experiment
has been carried out with forage beets silage (FBS). In the second experiment sugar beets
silage (SBS) were examined. Both experiments were run approximately in the same manner.
Most chemical analyses were performed according to standard methods.

3.1.1 Type of reactors used

Within the scope of this thesis two different types of reactors were used, namely discontinuous
reactors (batch reactors) with a total number of 17 reactors and 16 semi-continuous reactors. 11
batch reactors and 12 semi-continuous reactors have been carried out under mesophilic
temperature (37 °C) and the rest were operated under thermophilic temperature (55 °C).

3.1.1.1 Batch reactors

The mesophilic batch experiments were performed in 30-liter glass reactors. The reactors had a
cylindrical shape (inside diameter is 25 cm) and a half sphere at the top of the reactor (the
height of the half sphere is 7 cm) with a gas sampling port at the center. The biogas generated
in the reactor was collected via a tube attached to the gas sampling port in a special gas bag
from TESSERAUX company. A sketch of this batch test setup is illustrated in Figure 7.

57
 Gas sampling port

Gas bag

Figure 7: Batch reactor

The reactors were filled with substrate only at the beginning and covered gas-tight with the half
spherical cover. Then they were placed in a temperature controlled chamber (37 °C). To keep
the temperature for the batch experiments within the thermophilic range of 55 °C semi-
continuous reactors with water jacket were used as batch reactors which were filled only once
at the beginning. The water jackets were connected to the thermostat heated to 57 °C. Biogas
production and composition were also measured.
The batch experiments used for the determination of maximum possible degradation efficiency
and methane yield.

3.1.1.2 Semi-continuous reactors

For semi-continuous experiments 20-liter acrylic glass reactors were used. The reactors had a
cylindrical shape (inside diameter is 24 cm). The biogas generated in the reactor was collected
via a tube attached to the gas sampling port using similar gas bags to that used for batch
experiments. A sketch of a semi-continuous reactor is illustrated in Figure 8.

58
 Gasbeutel
Agitator

Waste sampling Gas bag

port
Gas sampling port

Feeding port

Treatment unit

Figure 8: Semi-continuous reactor

Feeding of new material and withdrawal of digested substrate (or sample for analysis) were
done through the sampling port on the top of the reactor (Figure 8). The sampling port was
installed so that its lower end was placed under the treated substrate surface to prevent air from
entering into the digester.
The temperature in the reactor was kept within the required range (37 °C or 55 °C) by using
two methods; by placing the reactors in temperature controlled room and by using water
jackets (circulating hot water around the outside of the reactor). In the temperate room it was
only possible to achieve the mesophilic temperature range (37 °C). The reactor content was
mixed using electrical motor. The stirrer was placed into the reactor through the cover on
which a water cup was installed to prevent the entrance of air. Programmable timers were used
to control the operation. Samples were taken periodically for substrate analysis.

3.1.2 Necessary analysis

Several types of analyses were performed to determine the stability and performance of
anaerobic digestion processes: these include gas production and composition, reduction in
organic matter, pH, alkalinity, volatile acids, and other parameters such as oxidation-reduction
potential, FOS/TAC, phosphorus concentration, and ammonium concentrations.

59
The analyses were used for samples, including analysis of reactor effluent samples as well as
characterization of the feed substrates. Analytical methods from Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (Deutsche Einheitsvorschrift, 2001) were used in most
cases. The description of the analytical techniques employed in the determination of the
parameters mentioned are discussed in the following sections.

3.1.2.1 Gas production and composition

The ultimate products of biomethanogenesis are methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and
small amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Gas production and composition are an indicator of
microbial activity. Methane content is probably one of the best indicators of overall digester
performance and its economic efficiency. During stable digestion with a non-variable feed,
relatively stable gas production with a predictable methane content can be expected. When gas
production or composition is not stable, there is an indication of digester instability. Low
methane content is an initial indicator of the inhibition of methanogenic bacteria, as the amount
of gas produced and its composition are relatively simple to measure.
The effect of H2S was already discussed in (2.2.2.5). High amounts of H2S is an indicator for
the accumulation of toxic sulfide which affects the methanogenesis. Since CH4, CO2 and H2S
constitute the main components of biogas (with small amount of trace gases < 1 %), decrease
in the total measured percentage (< 95 %) will indicate a leakage in the system.

The biogas produced in the experiments was analyzed for composition by using three
measuring devices installed serially. Methane and carbon dioxide content were measured using
instruments from the MAIHACK (Type FINOR) and SIEMENS (Type ULTRAMAT1)
companies (Manual book, 1988; 1990). The devices utilized infrared-absorption measuring
method for determining the gases concentration. Hydrogen sulfide was measured using an
instrument from the HARTMANN&BRAUN company (Type Radas 2) which based is on the
NDUV measuring method (Manual book, 1997). The volume of gas was then measured by a
gas meter from the RITTER company. A graphical representation of this system is illustrated
in Appendix 1.

60
3.1.2.2 pH

As described in 2.2.2.2 pH is considered as one of the first control parameters in anaerobic

reactors. Deviation in pH from the optimum range is an indication of unstable conditions in the
anaerobic process. The pH-value of all the examined substrates was measured at the beginning
of the experiment. Since the two main substrates in the research (FBS and SBS) have a lower
pH-value than that for optimal condition in anaerobic digestion, it was necessary to measure
the pH value regularly.
The pH of the reactors contents was determined by pH-meter (Type pH 91) from the WTW
company. The normal limits of accuracy reported for this method are plus or minus 0.1 unit.

3.1.2.3 Dry matter (TS) and organic dry matter (oTS)

Dry matter is defined as the mass which remains when the water content is removed by drying
in an oven at 105°C until it maintains a constant mass. Within the scope of this thesis the dry
matter is expressed as total solids (TS). The concentration of total solids (TS) in a substrate is a
critical factor in materials handling and in digester design and operation (Chynoweth, et al.,
(1987). It affects the hydraulic retention time and the feed heating requirements for anaerobic
digestion and hence the capital and operational costs of anaerobic digestion. Although
anaerobic fermentation is possible up to 50 % TS-content, only up to 20 % is applied in a
continuously automated process because of pumping ability.

Dry matter (TS) is a mixture of inert inorganic matter (e.g., metals and mineral matter) and
organic matter (oTS) including the biodegradable part. The determination of oTS is achieved
by heating the dry matter in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 6 hours, where oTS is defined as the
solids lost after ignition. The organic dry matter (oTS), sometimes expressed as volatile solids
(VS), analyses are used as a basis for determining loading rates and evaluating digester
performance.

TS and oTS can be measured using the Equations 3 and 4 below.

m( dry )
TS = * 100% [3]
m( wet )

61
 m( dry ) - m( Ash )
oTS = *100% [4]
m( wet )

where:

TS = dry matter
oTS = organic dry matter
m(wet) = wet mass
m(dry) = dry mass
m(ash) = remaining mass after ignition

3.1.2.4 Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) has been cited as an important parameter in the evaluation of
anaerobic fermentation. It provides a gauge of the completeness of the digestion process. COD
is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of that portion of organic matter that is susceptible to
oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) was determined using the cuvette test from the
DR.LANGE company (Type LCK 514). The analysis sample was diluted according to its
measuring range. Then 2 ml from the diluted sample was poured into the cuvette and then
heated to 148 °C for two hours in pulping block. Through this time COD is measured by
oxidizing the organic matter with potassium bichromate in boiling sulfuric acid. As a result,
and due to the release of Cr3+ the color of sample become green. The intensity of the green
color was evaluated by the photometer from the DR.LANGE company, Type ISIS 9000 (Dr.
Lange, 2001). For each sample three analyses were applied. The value of COD can be
calculated from the following equation (Equation 5).

color intensity * dilution (g)

COD = [5]
weighted sample (g)

The unit of COD is mg of oxygen per liter of substrate examined. COD expresses the number
of mg O2 required to oxidize the organic matter present in 1 liter of water or substrate
examined by chemical means.

62
Due to the following reaction 1g COD corresponds 0.35 liter CH4. Since 10 % of the
degradable COD is needed for biomass generation only 0.32 liter CH4 will be considered for 1
g COD (ATV-FA, 1993). With this method the theoretical methane production can be
estimated.

CH4 + 2O2 ® CO2 + H2O

1 mole CH4 @ 22,4 liter
2 mole O2 @ 2 x 32g ® 64g

22.44 l CH 4 CH 4
1 g COD @ @ 0 .35 l [6]
64 g O2 g O2

Most compounds are almost completely oxidized with the exception of certain aromatic
compound (ATV-FA 7.5, 1993). This method does not differentiate between organic or volatile
solids which may or may not be biodegradable and thus gives an overestimate of the amount of
the material available for biological treatment.

3.1.2.5 Ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N)

In anaerobic fermentation most of the organic nitrogen will be converted to ammonium-

nitrogen. Ammonium (NH4+) is an important parameter for the anaerobic process. It is
considered as a nitrogen source for the bacteria growth, but high concentration may inhibit the
digestion process (see 2.2.2.4).
Ammonium-nitrogen was determined according to the distillation procedure. About 5 ml
sample was weighted in analysis flask. Additionally, 50 ml boric acid (2 %) and 200 hl mix
indicator were mixed in 250 ml Erlenmeyer-flask. The two flasks were placed in the distillation
instrument form the GERHARDT company, Type Vapodest 12. After adding NaOH to the
sample flask the distillation took 7 minutes through which the ammonium transferred to the
Erlenmeyer-flask. Finally, the Erlenmeyer-flask was titrated with 0.1 n sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
until the color changed to light violet.

63
The calculation of ammonium-nitrogen concentration was done according to the following
equation (Equation 7).

consumption of (H 2 SO4 ) * 1.4

NH 4 -N = = g NH 4 -N / kg sample [7]
weighted sample (g)

3.1.2.6 Total nitrogen (Total-N)

Total nitrogen is composed of ammonium-nitrogen and organic bounded nitrogen. Through

anaerobic digestion no change will take place in the amount of total nitrogen; only trace
amount of ammonia has been registered in biogas (Wellinger, 1991). Measuring total nitrogen
is an important parameter for the application of digester effluent as fertilizer.
The established method for the measurement of total-ammonium is the Kjeldahl method.
Soluble samples (about 5 g, depending on the concentration) were weighted in flasks and filled
with small amount of distilled water. A Kjeltab (5 g Potassium Sulfate + 5 mg Selenium),
stones and anti-foaming agent were added to the sample. Then the sample was acidified with
10 ml concentrated sulfuric acid and brought in a pulping block from the GERHARDT
company to be heated up to 410 °C for three and half hours. Through this process the nitrogen
compounds were converted to ammonium sulfate.
The samples then were titrated in instrument from the GERHARDT company (Type
Vapodest 6). In Vapodest 6 the samples were first alkalized with sodium hydroxide whereby
the ammonium sulfate was converted to ammonia and then distillated in boric acid-indicator-
solution. The concentration of total-ammonium is equivalent to the acid consumption. The
calculation of the total-N was done by the Vapodest 6 instrument after giving the values of the
samples weight to it. Samples were generally analyzed in duplicate.

3.1.2.7 Phosphate-phosphorus (PO4-P)

Phosphorus is considered in addition to nitrogen an important nutrient for anaerobic

microorganisms. It is also an essential parameter for the application of effluent as fertilizer.
Since through the anaerobic degradation no phosphate exhausts in gas form, the concentration
of phosphate-phosphorus in effluent will only be affected by the feed type.

64
Preparation and pulping of PO4-P were done similarly to the procedure used for total-nitrogen.
The soluble samples were alkalized to pH value range between 3-4 using sodium hydroxide
and then filtered and diluted into 250 ml graduated flask. 5 ml of sample was added to a
cuvette test from the DR.LANGE company (Type LCK 049). The concentration of PO4-P is
then evaluated by a photometer from the DR.LANGE company, Type ISIS 9000 (Dr. Lange,
2001). For each sample three analyses were applied. The value of PO4-P can be calculated
from Equation 8.

color int ensity * 250

PO4 -P = = g PO4 -P / kg sample [8]
weighted sample (g)

3.1.2.8 FOS/TAC

The relation of volatile organic acid (FOS) to total anorganic carbon (TAC) characterizes the
stability of the anaerobic digestion process. Accumulation of FOS (formic acid, acetic acid,
propionic acid, lactic acid and butyric acid), which are formed in the acidogenesis and
converted in the acetogenesis and methanogenesis to methane and carbon dioxide, will inhibit
the anaerobic process.

In a steady anaerobic process the decrease in pH value, which can be a result of an increase in
organic acid concentration, is prevented as long as bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) concentration is
sufficient for the buffer capacity. The TAC plays an important role since it defines the buffer
capacity. Generally, a FOS/TAC value > 0.3 indicates an overloaded process.
For the determination of FOS and TAC the samples were first centrifuged at 15000 * g for 20
minutes. The supernatant were diluted at a ratio of 1 to 3 and then titrated with 0.05 molar
sulfuric acid to pH value of 5.0 using the titrator from the SCHOTT company (Type 154).
From the consumption of H2SO4 the TAC can be calculated according to the following
equation (Equation 9).

20 ml
TAC = 250* *consumption of (H 2 SO4 )to pH 5 [9]
weighted sample (ml)

65
With further titration from pH 5.0 down to 4.4 the FOS value can be obtained from the next
equation (Equation 10).

20 ml
FOS = [[consumption (H 2 SO4 )to pH 4 .4* * 1.66 ] - 0 .15 ] * 500 [10]
weighted sample (ml)

3.1.2.9 Volatile fatty acids (VFA)

The concentration of VFA has been recognized for a long time to be an important control
parameter for anaerobic digestion. It is a key piece of information for understanding and
controlling the anaerobic process. Inhibition of the final stages of methanogenesis and
generation of VFA in a rate higher than that of the methanogenesis consumption will increase
the concentration of VFA in the digester medium. High concentration of VFA will result in
unstable anaerobic process and lead to break down of the whole process.
The VFA concentration was determined by High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC). Refractive Index (RI) and Ultra-Violet (UV) detectors were used for the
determination. The (RI) detectors measure the ability of sample molecules to bend or refract
light. The (UV) detectors measure the ability of a sample to absorb light. In addition to organic
acids (formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, lactic acid and butyric acid) volatile alcohol can
also be determined using this method. The disadvantage of this system, is that it recognizes
only substances that already calibrated in the standard sample.

For determination of VFA the samples were acidified to pH value of 3 by adding sulfuric acid
(10 %) and then diluted at a ratio of 1:1 with 0.05 molar sulfuric acid. The samples were then
centrifuged at 15000 * g for 20 minutes. The supernatants were diluted again at a ratio of 1 to
10 and then filtered into the sample vials which they were stored in the refrigerator and
laterally analyzed by chromatography from the SHIMADZU Company (IR-Detector Type
8110, UV-Detector Type SPD-6AV). The determination has been completed within 80 minutes
using a 30 cm long, 7.8 mm i.d. column (Aminex HPX-87H Ion). The eluent (moving phase)
used was 0.05 molar sulfuric acid with a flow rate of 0.8 ml/min.

66
3.1.3 Controlling and measuring parameters

The main criteria used to monitor and evaluate the performance of anaerobic digestion of
different feeds or new digester reactor designs in addition to laboratory analysis are methane
yield and production rate, organic loading rate, retention time, and degradation efficiency.

3.1.3.1 Loading rate and hydraulic retention time

One of the most important parameters in digester operation is the organic loading rate (OLR)
which expresses the amount of solid organic material per unit volume that will be introduced
into the digester and which, in turn, can be converted to methane. Too low OLR as well as too
high OLR will cause problems in the anaerobic fermentation. It is preferable to run the digester
with high loading rate in a way that no accumulation to volatile acids could occur.
The organic loading rate (OLR) was expressed here in oTS and was calculated according to the
following equation (Equation 11).

m(oTS)
OLR = [11]
VR*t

where:

OLR = organic loading rate [g-oTS/l*d]

m = mass of organic material [g]
VR = reactor volume [l]
t = time [d]

The retention time is a very important factor in digester operation. It is calculated by dividing
the total capacity of the digestion by the rate at which organic matter is fed into it. The
retention time can be accurately defined in batch reactors. For continuous systems, it can be
differentiated between hydraulic retention time (HRT), solids retention times (SRT) and micro-
organism retention times (MRT). The simplest form is HRT and is determined by calculating
the number of days required for displacement of the fluid volume of the culture.

67
In a completely mixed continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) all three forms are similar and
can be measured by the following equation (Equation 12).

VR
HRT = SRT = MRT = [12]
V&feed

where:

VR = reactor volume [l]

& feed =
V daily substrate volume fed to reactor [l]

Longer retention time promotes greater biodegradation of less biodegradable materials and
enhances digester stability. Longer SRT and MRT can be established in several reactor designs
without increasing the HRT (Chynoweth, P., et al., 1987). From an economical point of view
low retention time is desired. This is achieved by a high loading rate. On the other hand too
low retention time will wash the bacteria out of the digester before they can reproduce, which
in turn arrests the whole process. Therefore, economically the HRT must be chosen with high
OLR so that there will be sufficient time for the bacteria reproduction.

3.1.3.2 Methane yield

Methane yield is the quantity of methane produced relative to the quantity of organic matter
added to the reactor, and is usually reported as l/g [or m³/kg] added. The organic matter added
can be expressed in term of COD or oTS.
Methane yield is one of the parameters for determining unbalance in the digester at least when
the amount and the composition of the feed remains more or less constant. But it is often too
late for corrections when the production drops. Methane yield is calculated on the basis of
normalized conditions to ensure that data are comparable and can be measured from the
following equation (Equation 13).

68
 V (CH 4)
Y (CH 4) = [13]
m( feed )

where:

Y(CH4) = methane yield [l/g]

V(CH4) = methane production within specific time [l/d]
m(feed) = organic matter added in the same period of time [g/d]

3.1.3.3 Methane productivity

Methane productivity refers to the quantity of methane generated in volumes of methane per
volume of active reactor per day. It is an important factor in the economical of the biogas
plants. The goal is to produce methane at high production rates to create a more economical
system. Increasing the loading rate (decrease in HRT) will increase the methane production
rate until a point where hydraulic retention time is not sufficient to prevent the washout of
bacteria from the reactor. Then any increase in OLR will have an opposite effect i.e., reduction
in methane production rate.
The methane productivity was obtained by correcting the biogas production to standard
temperature and pressure and measured according to the following equation (Equation 14).

V(CH4)
Ρ(CH4) = [14]
VR

where:

P(CH4) = methane productivity [l/l*d]

V(CH4) = methane production rate [l/d]
VR = reactor volume [l]

3.1.3.4 Degradation efficiency

Organic degradation efficiency is an important performance parameter in anaerobic digestion

because it influences methane yield and is related to the quantity of process residues requiring
further processing or disposal. It shows how far the substrate added to the digester is degraded.

69
The degradation efficiency can be measured throughout gas phase or fluid phase. The
degradation efficiency from the gas phase is based on the assumption that 0.35 l methane will
be produced from 1 g COD. The part of the degradable COD needed for new biomass
generation will be disregarded. The degradation efficiency can be calculated according to
Equation 15.

V(CH4)
η(gas) = * 100 [15]
0.35l/gCOD * (m(feed)/ρ(feed))* COD(feed)

where:

h(gas) = degradation efficiency throughout gas phase [%]

V(CH4) = daily methane production [l/d]
m(feed) = daily organic matter added [g/d]
r(feed) = feed density [g/l]
COD(feed) = feed chemical oxygen demand [g/l]

The degradation efficiency from fluid phase can be calculated according to the following
equation (Equation 16).

COD(feed) * m(feed) - COD(effl.) * m(effl.)

η(fluid) = * 100 [16]
COD(feed) * m(feed)

where:

h(fluid) = degradation efficiency throughout fluid phase [%]

m(feed) = daily organic matter added [g/d]
m(effl.) = daily organic matter removed [g/d]
COD(feed) = feed chemical oxygen demand [g/l]
COD(effl.) = effluent chemical oxygen demand [g/l]

70
3.1.4 Substrate properties

As it has been mentioned in the beginning of this chapter two main experiments have been
conducted within the scope of this thesis. The first experiment (EXP1) has been carried out
with forage beets silage (FBS). In the second experiment (EXP2) sugar beets silage (SBS) were
examined. In both experiments cow manure and inoculum were used in addition to the main
substrates. The two experiments were run approximately in the same manner.
Large amounts of the main ensiled substrates were stored and examined so that the same
substrate with the same properties could be used for the whole experiment. Cow manure (CM)
was collected once every month to drive the experiments for at least several weeks with
constant properties. However, there was no significant change in the CM batch for each
experiment and the inoculum (IN) used in each experiment had the same characteristics.

3.1.4.1 Experiment with forage beets silage (EXP1)

The first experiment was carried out for forage beets silage (FBS) and a mixture (FBS:CM) of
FBS and screened cow manure (CM) at a volumetric ratio of 1:1. The FBS can be described as
pulp, homogeneous and pumpable. The manure was screened with rotational cylinder (cylinder
diameter is 26 cm, screen dimension is 12.5 x 0.75 mm) to prevent plugging the laboratory-
scale system. The CM used in the mixture was obtained from the FAL experimental station.
The FBS was brought from a farm in Bad-Bentheim, Germany, and stored at 4 °C temperature.
For starting up the experiments inoculum from different sources was used.
As inoculum for the mesophilic batch experiments (INmesophile) sludge from the sewage plant in
Gifhorn was applied. Fermented cow manure (FCM) was used as inoculum for mesophilic
semi-continuous experiments. It was obtained from the FAL biogas plant. For the thermophilic
semi-continuous experiments sludge from the biowaste treatment plant in Braunschweig-
Watenbuettel was applied as inoculum (INthermophile). The characteristics of the substrates and
inoculum used in EXP1 are shown in Table 12.
The FBS1 was used throughout the mesophilic experiments and only at the beginning of the
thermophilic experiments. Then the thermophilic experiments were continued with the second
forage beets silage batch (FBS2). The second batch (FBS2) was first applied on the 42nd
experiment day for only the reactors with FBS and on the 56th experiment day for the reactors
with mixture FBS:CM.

71
Table 12: Characteristics of the substrates and inoculum used in EXP1

TS oTS COD Total-N NH4-N PO4-P pH

Substrate [%] [%] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [-]
FBS1 10.6 9.4 138 1.64 0.45 0.42 3.6
FBS2 11.2 9.8 159 1.84 0.35 0.25 3.3
CM 3.1 1.9 31 2.37 1.50 0.45 7.7
FCM 2.5 1.5 24 2.34 1.57 0.44 7.8
IN (mesophile) 3.5 2.1 33 2.13 - 0.60 7.6
IN (thermophile) 7.9 5.1 87 4.95 2.23 0.17 -

The pH of the ensiled forage beets was measured to have a value of £ 3.6 through which high
concentrations of organic acids were indicated in FBS. The concentrations of organic acids of
FBS compared with CM are shown in Table 13.

Table 13: Concentration of organic acids in substrates (EXP1)

Lactic acid Acetic acid Propionic acid

Substrate [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg]
FBS1 34.0 11.1 8.0
FBS2 39.4 12.9 6.2
CM 0.02 0.02 0.0

Additional experiments were carried out for FBS mixed with plant denaturation agent (PDA) to
examine their effect on the digestion process. Three different types of PDA (Tieröl, Arcotal
and Arbin) were examined. These could be found in low concentrations in forests and
landscaping for the protection from red- and roedeer biting.
Arcotal and Arbin were procured from the Stähler Agrochemie company. They are classified as
dangerous to health and poisonous to fish. Arcotal is considered to be poisonous to algae and
consists of 28 % active agent Thriam. Arbin is composed mainly of fats and oils whereas
Tieröl consists mainly of fatty acid nitrile. Tieröl was obtained from the Carl Ullmann GMBH
company. Additional sludge from the sewage plant in Gifhorn was used as inoculum for
starting the experiments with PDA.

72
3.1.4.2 Experiment with sugar beets silage (EXP2)

The second experiment (EXP2) was carried out for sugar beets silage (SBS) and a mixture
(SBS:CM) of SBS and screened cow manure (CM) at a weight ratio of 20 % to 80 %. The
mixture percentage was chosen so that its dry matter be in the same range of the mixture
SBS:CM from the first experiment so that they can be significantly compared. The EXP2 was
carried out only under mesophilic conditions (37 °C).
Sugar beets from the FAL experimental station was cleaned, chopped and then ensiled in two
containers (200 liter each). All ensiling factors were ideal (Wenner, 1986) and no additives
were needed. The SBS can be described as hard pulp, not easy to mix and difficult to pump.
The CM used in the mixture was obtained from the FAL experimental station. Sludge from the
sewage plant in Gifhorn was used as inoculum (IN-S) for starting the experiments. Table 12
shows the characteristics of the substrates and inoculum used in EXP2.

Table 14: Characteristics of the substrates and inoculum used in EXP2

TS oTS COD Total-N NH4-N PO4-P pH

Substrate [%] [%] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [-]
SBS 21.1 20.5 247 1.62 0.20 0.40 3.4
CM 3.0 2.1 39 1.96 1.08 0.39 7.6
IN-S 2.5 1.9 20 2.05 1.18 0.55 -
SBS:CM 6.6 5.8 79 1.89 0.90 0.39 6.5

The low pH value of the ensiled sugar beets (< 3.4) was an indication of high concentrations of
organic acids. The concentrations of organic acids of SBS and that of mixture SBS:CM are
shown in Table 15. Because of the high sugar content in sugar beets high amount of saccharose
and alcohol were expected to be in the silage substrates. The concentration of saccharose and
alcohol in SBS and SBS:CM are shown in Table 16.

Table 15: Concentration of organic acids in substrates (EXP2)

Lactic acid Formic acid Acetic acid Propionic acid Butyric acid
Substrate [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg]
SBS 7.97 2.88 8.67 4.71 1.02
SBS:CM 7.30 0.15 3.95 1.21 0.81

73
Table 16: Concentration of alcohol and sugar in substrates (EXP2)

Fructose Glucose Ethanol Methanol

Substrate [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg] [g/kg]
SBS 60.0 10.0 7.5 1.44
SBS:CM - - 1.4 1.0

3.1.5 Description of the experiments

As mentioned before two experiments (EXP1 & EXP2) have been conducted in a series. EXP1
(with FBS) has been carried out in the period from July, 2000 to October, 2001 followed by
EXP2 (with SBS) which has been carried out in the period from December, 2001 to May,
2002. In both experiments batch- and semi-continuous reactors were applied. Batch reactors
were operated for approximately 8 weeks whereas the semi-continuous reactors were operated
until the maximum loading rate was reached.

The batch reactors were filled with substrate (mixed with inoculum) only at the beginning of
each experiment. At the beginning the reactors gassed with N2 to assure optimum anaerobic
conditions. The reactors were hand-shaken daily to improve homogeneity in the digester.
Biogas (methane) amount and composition were also measured daily. To avoid over foaming,
the reactors were not completely filled (leaving up one third to half reactor as headspace). The
headspace of batch reactors significantly affects the percentage of the methane produced
specially with low total biogas production. The measured methane was therefore corrected
according to equation 17.

VCH 4(t 2 ) + HS*CCH 4(t 2 ) - HS*CCH 4(t 1 )

CCH 4 (korr) = [17]
VBiogas(t 2 )

where:

t = point of time [t2>t1]

C = methane concentration [%]
VCH4 = methane in gas bag [l]
HS = head space [l]
Vbiogas = biogas in gas bag [l]

74
No correction was needed for the head space of the semi-continuous reactors because of the
daily constant biogas production (methane) which corrects the error automatically. The semi-
continuous reactors were started up with 100 % inoculum and then gassed with N2 to assure
optimum anaerobic conditions. The following is a description of the methodology for sampling
and measuring EXP1 and EXP2.

3.1.5.1 Experiments with forage beets silage (EXP1)

In EXP1 5 batch experiments and 7 semi-continuous experiments have been carried out for
FBS and a mixture of FBS:CM. All experiments were run in duplicate.

3.1.5.1.1 Batch experiments

The batch reactors were filled with a mixture of inoculum and the tested substrates (FBS &
FBS:CM) in a ratio of 2:1 oTS. Inoculum was used to apply enough bacterial concentration in
the digester. Batch reactors with pure inoculum have been also started to determine the
methane produced from inoculum. This value has been subtracted from the methane production
of the other batch experiments to determine the specific methane production of the FBS and
FBS:CM. Table 15 shows details of the substrates weights used in batch reactors (EXP1).

Table 17: Weights of substrates mixture used in batch reactors (EXP1)

Weight [g]
Reactor
IN FBS FBS:CM
M(G1) 20 000 - -
Mesophilic

M(G2) 20 000 - -
M(G3) 18 045 1 955 -
M(G4) 18 045 1 955 -
T(G5) 13 000 - -
T(G6) 13 000 - -
Thermophilic

T(G7) 10 220 2 780 -

T(G8) 10 220 2 780 -
T(G9) 8 922 - 4 078
T(G10) 8 922 - 4 078

75
The mesophilic reactors were each charged with 20 liters of the relevant mixture whereas the
thermophilic reactors were each charged with 13 liters. After introduction of the desired
amount of mixture a certain amount of NaOH was added to adjust the pH value to the optimal
range (7.5) for the bacteria and then flushed with nitrogen gas and closed.
The mesophilic batch tests were located in the temperature controlled chamber (37 °C) whereas
for the thermophilic condition semi-continuous reactors with water jackets were used as batch
reactors. The produced biogas volume and composition were measured daily. The fermented
substrates were analyzed only at the end of the batch experiments.

3.1.5.1.2 Semi-continuous experiments

Four mesophilic semi-continuous reactors were started by seeding them with fermented cow
manure (FCM) as inoculum. The other four thermophilic reactors were seeded with
(INthermophile). Two reactors of each method were fed with FBS and the other two with mixture
FBS:CM of the considered concentration. The operating volume of the reactors was kept
constant at 15 liters.
Before starting the experiments the oxygen in the head space of the reactors was replaced with
nitrogen and the inoculum were allowed to stand overnight before starting feeding. Then the
reactors were fed stepwise increasing the loading rate starting with 1 g oTS/l*d and with 0.5 g
oTS/l*d interval. The reactors were fed in this manner until process failure occurred as
evidenced by the decrease in methane production and reduction in substrate utilization as
measured by chemical analysis (COD). Each loading rate step has was until a steady state
condition was attained. Once steady-state operation was achieved at a particular loading rate
(OLR), the system parameters were measured over a period for that OLR.

The initial parameters used in determining whether the steady state condition was achieved
were: stable biogas production and composition and the pH value which were measured daily.
These parameters were later confirmed with the analytical methods that were done only after
changing the loading rate.
The reactors were fed on a once-daily basis. The quantity of daily feed introduced to the
reactors was measured according to OLR. The amount of feed and their corresponded OLR and
HRT are shown in Table 18.

76
Table 18: Hydraulic retention times and loading rates of EXP1

Mesophilic Thermophilic
FBS Mixture FBS Mixture
M(K1) & M(K2) M(K3) & M(K4) T(K5) & T(K6) T(K7) & T(K8)
Day

Day
OLR mfeed HRT OLR mfeed HRT OLR mfeed HRT OLR mfeed HRT
[g/l*d] [g/d] [d] [g/l*d] [g/d] [d] [g/l*d] [g/d] [d] [g/l*d] [g/d] [d]

1 1.0 159.5 94.1 1.0 264.2 56.8 1 1.0 166.8 89.9 1.0 267.9 55.9
8 2.0 318.9 47.0 2.0 528.3 28.4 8 2.0 333.9 44.9 2.0 535.8 27.9
15 2.5 398.6 37.6 2.5 660.4 22.7 15 2.5 417 35.9 2.5 669.8 22.4
29 3.0 478.4 31.5 3.0 792.5 18.9 22 3.0 500.4 29.9 3.0 803.7 18.7
36 3.5 558.1 26.9 3.5 924.5 16.2 36 3.5 583.8 25.7 3.5 937.7 15.9
50 4.0 637.8 23.5 4.0 1056.6 14.2 42 3.5 533.9 28.1 3.0 803.7 18.7
60 4.5 717.5 20.9 4.5 1188.7 12.6 50 4.0 610.2 24.6 3.2 857.3 17.5
79 5.0 - - 5.0 1320.8 11.4 56 4.0 610.2 24.6 3.2 776.6 19.3
64 4.2 640.7 23.4 3.5 849.5 17.6
79 4.5 686.5 21.8 3.7 898.0 16.7
92 4.7 716.9 20.9 4.0 970.8 15.5
96 4 days not fed
102 3 457.6 32.8 2.5 606.7 24.7
106 3.5 533.9 28.1 3.0 728.1 20.6
108 4 610.2 24.6 3.5 849.5 17.6
111 4.3 655.9 22.8 3.7 898.0 16.7
112 4.5 686.5 21.8 3.85 934.4 16.1
121 4.2 640.7 23.4 4.0 970.8 15.5
126 3.8 579.7 25.9 4.2 1019 14.7
132 3 days not fed 4.2 1019 14.7
137 3.5 533.9 28.1 4.3 1043 14.4
156 3.5 533.9 28.1 4.5 1092 13.7
(bold numbers are for the second substrate batch)

The gas produced during each feeding period was measured daily. Samples were collected
when changing OLR for analysis of TS, oTS, COD, NH4-N, total-N, PO4-P, FOS/TAC and
VFA. The pH was measured every 2-3 days.
The temperature inside the reactors was controlled in the range of 55 °C with the
thermostatically controlled re-circulating water (water jacket). Under mesophilic conditions the
reactors were located in temperature controlled chamber (37 °C). The reactors content was
mixed by mechanical agitation. The mixer operated for 3 minutes every 45 minutes. The
analysis samples were taken after a period of 5 minutes of mixing.

77
Four additional semi-continuous experiments were performed to indicate the effect of three
plant denaturation agents (PDA) on the anaerobic process. Three reactors were fed with FBS
displaced with small amount of PDA (Tieröl, Arcotal and Arbin). The fourth reactor was
applied only with FBS for comparison. The reactors were operated similar to the previous
reactors. They were started with 1 g oTS/l*d with PDA concentration of 0.5 g PDA per
kilogram FBS. The PDA concentration was raised twice at constant OLR to reach a
concentration of 1.5 g PDA per kilogram FBS. The concentration of PDA fed into the digester
was then increased indirectly by increasing OLR. Table 19 provides a summary of the
operation parameters of the reactor with PDA. All the semi-continuous reactors for EXP1 were
operated without any problems.

Table 19: Operational plan of semi-continuous reactors with PDA

Mesophilic
M(K09): pure FBS
Reactors

M(K10): FBS with Tieröl

M(K11): FBS with Arcotal
M(K12): FBS with Arbin
days OLR mfeed HRT PDA
[g/l*d] [g/d] [d] [g/kg] Remark
1 - 28 1.0 160 93.8 0.5
29 - 46 1.0 160 93.8 1.0 On 8th and 15th days of the
47 - 70 1.0 160 93.8 experiments an additional 0.75 g
71 - 81 1.5 240 62.5 1.5 PDA were added to the
82 - 87 2.0 320 46.9 corresponding reactors
88 - 100 2.5 400 37.5

The HRT and OLR are both a function of organic matter fed to the anaerobic digester.
Decreasing HRT will cause an increase in OLR. Economically, low HRT and high OLR are
required to reduce the reactor volume and hence biogas plant costs. To achieve low HRT the
semi-continuous experiments were started with high HRT and stepped down until the lowest
HRT was reached. The lowest HRT has been reached where there was no wash up of bacteria.
HRT, and hence OLR, were changed approximately every 2 weeks (after steady state was
reached). The HRT relationship with OLR for the mesophilic experiments as well as
thermophilic experiments is shown in Figures 9 and 10.

78
 100
hydraulic retention time [d]

80 FBS 1

(FBS:CM) 1

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 9: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for mesophilic experiments (EXP1)

50
FBS 1
hydraulic retention time [d]

FBS 2
40 (FBS:CM) 1
(FBS:CM) 2

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 10: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for thermophilic experiments
(EXP1)

79
3.1.5.2 Experiments with sugar beets silage (EXP2)

In EXP2 three batch experiments and two semi-continuous experiments have been carried out
under mesophilic condition for SBS and a mixture of SBS:CM. All experiments were run in
duplicate with exception of inoculum batch experiments which were run in triplicate. All the
reactors were placed in temperature controlled chamber (37 °C).

3.1.5.2.1 Batch experiments

The batch reactors in EXP2 were filled with mixture of inoculum (IN-S) and the tested
substrates (SBS & SBS:CM) and analyzed similarly to that of the batch reactors of EXP1.
Since pH value of the mixture was within the optimal range no additional NaOH was needed.
The reactors were each charged with only 15 liters of the relevant mixture to have enough head
space in case of over-foaming. Table 20 shows details of the substrates weights used in batch
reactors (EXP2).

Table 20: Weights of substrates mixture used in batch reactors (EXP2)

Weight [g]
Reactor
IN-S SBS SBS:CM
M(G11) 15044 - -
M(G12) 15015 - -
Mesophilic

M(G13) 15035 - -
M(G14) 14374 642 -
M(G15) 14369 643 -
M(G16) 1968 - 2063
M(G17) 1968 - 2056

3.1.5.2.2 Semi-continuous experiments

The four mesophilic semi-continuous reactors were started by seeding them with inoculum
(IN-S). Two of the reactors (M(K13) & M(K14)) were fed with SBS and the other two
(M(K15) & M(K16)) with mixture SBS:CM. The reactors were fed and analyzed in similar
fashion to the semi-continuous reactors of EXP2 (3.1.5.1.2). Therefore, the procedure of
feeding and sampling that is only different to that in EXP2 will be described here.

80
In comparison to EXP1 some difficulties occurred throughout this experiment (EXP2). Due to
the high oTS of the SBS (18-20 %) feeding the reactors M(K13) and M(K14) was not easy and
smooth, care must be taken to prevent oxygen from entering into the system. This problem
arose with the increase in OLR. This problem was solved by feeding the reactor slowly and
very carefully. On the 92nd day, one of the reactors with SBS, M(K14), had to be changed due
to a crack in the reactor. The reactor content was changed to a new reactor followed by filling
the head space with nitrogen to remove oxygen. The new reactor could operate normally within
two days parallel to the duplicate reactor M(K13). Another problem resulted from the feeding
of low pH of SBS; the reactors foamed heavily directly after feeding. This problem was solved
by increasing the mixing time to 20 minutes after feeding and for 10 minutes every 45 minutes.
The amount of feed and the corresponded OLR and HRT are shown in Table 21.

Table 21: Hydraulic retention times and loading rates of EXP2

Mesophilic
SBS Mixture
M(K13) & M(K14) M(K15) & M(K16)
Day OLR mfeed HRT OLR mfeed HRT
[g/l*d] [g/d] [d] [g/l*d] [g/d] [d]

1 1.0 73.3 204.6 1.0 269.8 55.6

16 1.5 109.9 136.5 1.5 404.7 37.1
41 2.0 148.9 100.7 2.0 519.0 28.9
58 2.5 186.2 80.6 2.5 662.5 22.6
72 3.0 156.7 58.4 3.0 793.7 18.9
95 3.5 277.1 54.1 3.5 864.9 17.3
114 4.0 323.2 46.4 4.0 985.2 15.2
130 4.5 401.8 37.3 4.5 1110.2 13.5
142 5.0 1277 11.7

81
 250
hydraulic retention time [d]

SBS
200
(SBS:CM)

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 11: Hydraulic retention time and loading rate for EXP2

HRT, and hence OLR, were changed approximately when a steady state was reached. The
HRT relate to OLR for the second experiments are shown in Figure 11.

3.2 Systems evaluation

The entire spectrum of preparation possibilities of biogas energy source from biomass and the
fossil energy sources that they can substitute will be reviewed in this thesis. The cycle of
biogas energy that can be extracted potentially from forage and sugar beets was investigated.
By parameter selection, only those that under the present basic conditions were chosen. Two
Scenarios were used in the evaluation; Scenario 1 compares biogas with natural gas and
Scenario 2 compares electricity (and heat) from biogas with conventional electricity and heat
(Figure 12).

82
 Biogas cycle from beets Fossil fuel cycle

Seed Ferti. PPA Mac. Exploration

Fuel

Haulage
Chopping
Pumping Transport
Storing
Refining
Fermentation:
Heating, stirring
reactor, pumping Transportation

Biogas compare
Fuel
(Scenario 1)

Heating CHP Burning

oil

compare
Heat Electricity Electricity Heat
(Scenario 2)

Figure 12: Energy production cycles of biogas and fossil fuel

Although the beets yield is a function of climatic conditions, soil and crop rotation, these
parameters have been considered in this thesis as independent parameters. High forage and
sugar beets yield of 120 and 65 t/ha per year, respectively, were assumed. To present more
specific results from the assessment of energy and ecological balance two farm Models were
assumed; Model 1 represents 20 hectares whereas Model 2 represents 80 hectares.
For simplifying the assessment, the cycle of forage beets was divided into three main stages:

Stage 1 – production of forage and sugar beets

Stage 2 – preparation of beets to the biogas plant
Stage 3 – Production of biogas.

83
3.2.1 Method of energy balance

As described previously energy consumption by the agricultural sector can be categorized into
either direct or indirect energy use. The effective direct energies considered in the first stage
are the consumption of diesel and oil to operate tractors and farm machinery; no irrigation
pumps, drying equipment, refrigeration, and trucks for transportation were needed. According
to Reinhardt (1993) not only the energy content of diesel and oil will be considered but also the
energy included in their production. This will result in an additional energy value of 11.3 %
which will increase the diesel energy factor to 46.97 MJ/kg (39.45 MJ/l). The amount of diesel
used for all field work for forage beets is considered to be 125 l/ha (105 kg/ha) (Stephen,
1999). The consumption amount of lubricant oil will be assumed to be 4 % of diesel
consumption (Oheimb, 1987).

For high forage beets yield fertilizer is needed to recover the withdrawal of nutrients. This can
be done by chemical and organic fertilizers. The amount of chemical fertilizers needed for high
forage and sugar beet yield per hectare are 275 and 220 kg N, 130 and 180 kg P2O5, 350 and
380 kg K2O, and 700 kg CaO (KTBL-Taschenbuch 2002). The reactor effluent can be used as
organic fertilizer to substitute, to some extent, the high energetic value mineral fertilizers. The
reactor effluent has the advantage of returning minerals that are not contained in chemical
fertilizer. Since the anaerobic digestion increases the availability of nutrients to plant and 10 %
of the organic nitrogen can be available by soil microorganisms, in addition to the return of
leaves to soil, it was assumed that about 75 % of the mineral fertilizers can be recovered
through the forage beets cycle. The unused leaves can return 60 – 100 kg N, 30 – 40 kg P2O
and 140 – 160 kg K2O to soil (BAL, 1992).
According to Kaltschmitt, et al., (1997) a mean energy consumption factor of 241 MJ/kg active
substance will be used in the energy balance for plant protection agents (PPA) – herbicides,
insecticides and fungicides. The energy factor for production of seed material is considered to
have the value 30.14 MJ/kg (Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997). For machinery and equipment
manufacturing an energy factor of 70 MJ/kg is assumed in this thesis (Kalk and Hülsbergen,
1996). This value is dependent on the area used (e.g., 20 ha) and the lifetime of the machines.
Energy input for silos and fermentation reactor will be estimated.
Two Scenarios were used in the evaluation of the energy output. In Scenario 1 the production
of biogas was evaluated. In the second Scenario (Scenario 2) the production of electrical and
heat energies were evaluated.

84
3.2.2 Method of ecological balance

Ecological evaluation in this thesis was achieved due to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
method. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of biogas production from forage and
sugar beets and their application. Since in practice the biogas is burned in engines (not fed to
natural gas net) for the energetic use, only Scenario 2 was considered in the ecological
assessment. The ecological balance includes the energies and materials used in the energy
balance.

The following parameters were considered in the ecological evaluation:

· Resources depletion
· Land use
· Global warming
· Stratospheric ozone depletion
· Acidification
· Eutrophication
· Human- and ecotoxicological impacts
· Photochemical oxidant formation

In the balancing system natural gas and electrical energy from fossil fuel were substituted by
biogas and energy generated from biogas. As land a set-aside agricultural land was considered.
The equivalents of CO2, CH4 and N2O emission were evaluated as greenhouse effect. For
stratospheric ozone depletion N2O-emission was calculated. SO2-equivalents for SO2, NOx,
NH3 and HCl were estimated as acidification parameters. In the eutrophication assessment only
the nitrogen compounds (NOx and NH3) were considered. Moreover, NOx and NMHC
emission were measured as photochemical smog. Additionally, air harmful substances were
estimated under human- and ecotoxicological aspects.

85
4 Results and discussion

4.1 Experimental results

4.1.1 Mesophilic experiments

4.1.1.1 Batch experiments

The batch experiments were done primarily for examination of the suitability of the digested
substrates. They were also used for the determination of maximal possible degradation
efficiency and methane yield. Within the scope of this thesis, 11 batch reactors were operated
under mesophilic condition.

4.1.1.1.1 Inoculum

The accumulative methane curves of mesophilic FBS batch experiments and mesophilic SBS
batch experiments of the inoculum are given in Figures 13 and 14, respectively. The
accumulative methane represents the total methane production from the fermented substrate at
the measured time. The shapes of the curves show an expected increase of methane production.
Figures 13 and 14 cannot be compared directly with each other since the inoculum used was
different (had different characteristics).
Figure 13 shows the curves progression of reactors M(G1) & M(G2). The two curves show
identical value up to the 13th day of experiment. They then started to move along different
gradients. The reason for this variation is most probably due to inhomogeneity of inoculum in
the two reactors. Moreover, the Figure shows that until the 44th day of the experiments, the
methane accumulative curves were still increasing. This means that the degradation is not
completed and the difference between the curves might be corrected later.
The methane yield of inoculum within the considered period of the experiment (35 days) is 0.4
and 0.47 l CH4 per kilogram inoculum for reactors M(G1) and M(G2), respectively. This value
is low and indicates that the degradable anaerobic parts in inoculum are small. Since the

86
methane yield per kilogram inoculum used to be subtracted from other batch experiments to
indicate the specific methane production of the substrate, the mean value of the curves was
used.

0.7
methane yield [l/kg inoculum]

0.6
M (G1) inoculum
0.5
M (G2) inoculum

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

time [day]

Figure 13: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for mesophilic FBS batch
experiments

0.9

0.8
M(G11) inoculum
methane yield [l/kg inoculum]

0.7 M(G12) inoculum

M(G13) inoculum
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46

time [day]

Figure 14: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for mesophilic SBS batch
experiments

87
The run of the curves for reactors M(G11), M(G12) & M(G13) in Figure 14 is similar and
indicates that the inoculum in the three reactors was homogeneous. They produce a methane
yield of 0.47 to 0.49 CH4 per kilogram inoculum throughout the considered period of the
experiments. In contrast to the curves in Figure 13, the horizontal shifting of the curves in
Figure 14 indicates that the biogas production is negligible. This indicates that all the
degradable materials were consumed by the anaerobic bacteria. Although the two Figures can
not be compared directly, the curves outward of Figure 14 and that inward of Figure 13,
specially in the first two weeks, show that the inoculum used in EXP2 is more active.

4.1.1.1.2 Forage beets silage

Figure 15 illustrates the accumulative methane curves of mesophilic forage beets silage (FBS)
batch experiments. Generally, the two reactors (M(G3) &M(G4)) show similar results. The run
of the curves shows a sudden increase in the methane production on the 3rd day and then takes
a calm phase up to the 8th day after which it started to increase again to reach a maximum value
on the 14th day. The progression of the curves can be shown more clearly in Figure 16 which
shows the daily methane production. The explanation of the first peak is due to the very light
degradable substances in the substrate (i.e., Glucose) which are directly converted from the
bacteria methane.

60
max. theoretical methane yield
methane yield [l/kg FBS]

50

40
M(G3) FBS
M(G4) FBS
30

20

10

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36
time [day]

Figure 15: Accumulative methane of mesophilic FBS batch experiments

88
The next phase (up to 10th day) can be described as an adaptation phase; the bacteria need some
time to adapt to the new substrate. After the 8th day, the bacteria have adapted to the milieu and
could convert the light degradable substances to methane. In this phase 85 % of the organic
matter has been degraded. After a second calm phase the methane production started to
increase again (23rd day of the experiment). This increase could be a result of the conversion of
the hard degradable substances to methane. After the 27th experiment day, no methane
production was reported in Figure 16. This indicates that all degradable substances were
converted.

10
methane [l/kg FBS per day]

M(G3) FBS
M(G4) FBS
6

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36

time [day]

Figure 16: Daily methane production of mesophilic FBS batch experiments

From Figure 15, the maximum amount of methane that could be produced from 1 kg FBS is
47 l per kilogram FBS. This value is high and when compared to the stoichiometric calculation
(1 gram COD produces 0.32 liter methane) it shows a high degradation efficiency of about
90 % which will make the application of FBS in biogas plant very interesting. These results
have obviously lower values than those obtained in agricultural engineering institute Bornim
(Linke, 1999). They have obtained more than 90 liter methane from 1 kg FBS which is not
possible. The results reported by Beck (2001) substantiate the results obtained in this research.
Experiments of FBS with manure could not be done due to technical reasons.

89
4.1.1.1.3 Sugar beets silage

The results of the experiments with sugar beets silage (SBS) under mesophilic batch conditions
are demonstrated in Figures 17 and 18. Figure 17 represents the accumulative methane curves
whereas Figure 18 shows the daily methane production. The direct increase in the methane
production in the starting phase of the curves for reactors M(G14) and MG(15) indicates that
microorganisms did not need time to acclimatize to the substrate (Figure 18). This is because
of the active inoculum used (Figure 14).

100
max. theoretical methane yield
methane yield [l/kg SBS]

80

60

M(G14) SBS
40
M(G15) SBS

20

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
time [day]

Figure 17: Accumulative methane of mesophilic SBS batch experiments

The continuous increase in methane production has reached its maximum value of 9.28 and
10.7 liter methane per kilogram and day on the 7th day for reactors M(G14) and M(G15),
respectively (Figure 18). Then the methane production decreased gradually until the 10th day
on which the light degradable substances were degraded. After the 18th (15th) day the bacteria
started to convert the hard substances and continued to produce methane at a very low rate
during the last days. The maximum theoretical methane production of SBS according to its
COD was calculated to be 86.5 liter per kg SBS. Throughout the batch experiments the
maximum methane production from 1 kg SBS were 74.6 and 85.8 l methane for reactors
M(G14) and M(G15), respectively (Figure 17). Although both results show noticeable

90
variation, they agree in that SBS have a high degradation efficiency. The difference in the
degradation efficiencies (86.7 % and 99 %) could be a result of the inhomogeneity of the
samples applied (only ca. 640 g sample with high dry matter in 15000 g reactor content).

12
methane [l/kg SBS per day]

10
M(G14) SBS

8 M(G15) SBS

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
time [day]

Figure 18: Daily methane production of mesophilic SBS batch experiments

4.1.1.1.4 Sugar beets silage with manure

Figures 19 and 20 illustrate the results of the mesophilic sugar beets silage with cow manure
(FBS:CM) for the batch experiments. Figure 19 shows the accumulative methane curves
whereas Figure 20 reflects the daily methane production. Generally, the progressive curves of
reactors M(G16) and M(G17) are similar to those of pure SBS experiments (Figure 17 and 18).
The degradation of light degradable substances in the first phase of the process was proceeded
by the degradation of the hard substances.

The maximum theoretical methane yield on the basis of the stoichiometric calculation for the
SBS:CM is 27.9 liter per kilogram SBS:CM. In Figure 19 the batch reactors show a maximum
methane value of 18.1 and 16.69 l methane per kg mixture for reactors M(G16) and M(G17),
respectively. From maximum methane production the degradation efficiencies were calculated
to be 64.87 % and 59.8 %. These values are less than the degradation efficiency of pure SBS.

91
The reduction in efficiency is due to small degradation efficiency of manure which is normally
about 50 % (Wellinger, 1991). However, the addition of manure to SBS gave more stability to
the degradation process as it can be seen in the smooth curve progression of Figure 19.

30
methane yield [l/kg (SBS:CM)]

25
max. theoretical methane yield

20

15

10 M(G16) SBS:CM (1:4)

M(G17) SBS:CM (1:4)

5

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
time [day]

Figure 19: Accumulative methane of mesophilic SBS:CM batch experiments

3.0
methane [l/kg (FBS:CM) per day]

2.5

M(G16) SBS:CM (1:4)

2.0
M(G17) SBS:CM (1:4)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
time [day]

Figure 20: Daily methane production of mesophilic SBS:CM batch experiments

92
The results of batch experiments of forage beets silage (FBS) in comparison with sugar beets
silage (SBS) are summarized in Table 22. The higher dry matter of SBS resulted in higher
methane yield per fresh material (FM) than FBS. Comparing the methane yield of FBS and
SBS on the basis of organic dry matter, the FBS has produced higher methane yield than SBS.
However, both FBS and SBS have shown high degradation efficiency. The lower methane
yield and lower degradation efficiency of the mixture SBS:CM is due to the addition of
manure.

Table 22: Mean results of the batch experiments (mesophile)

Methane yield Methane yield Degradation efficiency

Substrate
[l/kg-FM] [l/kg-oTS] [%]
FBS 47 468 95
SBS 83 400 92
SBS:CM (1:4) * 17 294 62
*
FBS:CM (1:1)mesophile results are not available

4.1.1.2 Semi-continuous experiments

4.1.1.2.1 Methane productivity

The importance of methane productivity or methane production rate has already been discussed
in 3.1.3.3. It plays a major role in the economic efficiency of biogas plants. The higher
methane productivity, the smaller the reactor volume – the lesser costs.

4.1.1.2.1.1 Forage beets silage

Figure 21 shows the methane productivity with different loading rates for reactors M(K1) and
M(K2) with pure forage beets silage (FBS). Generally, the methane productivity in both
reactors is similar confirming the result obtained. In the starting phase, the curves of Figure 21
show irregular methane production with the constant loading rates. This is similar to the results
obtained from the batch experiments. This means that the bacteria have not yet completely

93
adapted to the new substrate (FBS). FBS could not be degraded totally. The daily feed of FBS
into the reactors coupled with insufficient degradation of FBS results in lower methane
production. The adaptation period took about two weeks after which the microorganisms
started to degrade the accumulated substances. This explains the high methane production in
the beginning with organic loading rate of 2.5 g oTS/l*d. After the 31st day, the methane
productivity increased with increasing OLR at a constant rate: this is a sign of stable process.
The methane productivity started to decrease with increase in OLR when it reached an OLR of
4.5 g oTS/l*d (Figure 21).

2.5 6

M(K1) FBS
methane productivity [l/l*d]

M(K2) FBS 5
2.0

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

OLR-oTS

4
1.5

1.0
2

0.5
1

0.0 0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81

time [day]

Figure 21: Methane productivity of FBS in semi-continuous reactors

The reduction in methane productivity is a sign that the fed FBS were not totally degraded and
with continual feeding the process becomes over loaded and disturbed as it can be seen in the
Figure. Therefore, maximum methane productivity of FBS that can be reached in stable system
is 1.92 l/l*d with an OLR of 4 g oTS/l*d.
It is also important to notice that after one to two days without feeding the bacteria needs some
time to acclimatize again to its last stage before feed break. This can be seen clearly in Figure
21 in the methane reduction after feed break (in Figure 21 no feed º OLR line without dots).

94
4.1.1.2.1.2 Forage beets silage with manure

The results of methane productivity from forage beets silage with manure (FBS:CM) in Figure
22 is similar to the experiments with pure FBS (Figure 21). Reactors M(K3) and M(K4) show
identical results with different loading rates. After the adaptation period the methane
productivity increased with increasing OLR at a constant rate indicating a stable process. The
maximum methane productivity of FBS:CM could be reached with OLR of 4.5 g oTS/l*d
which is higher than the maximum OLR of FBS and has the amount of 1.75 l/l*d.

2.5 7

M(K3) FBS:CM (1:1)

methane productivity [l/l*d]

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

M(K4) FBS:CM (1:1)
2.0
OLR-oTS
5

1.5
4

1.0
3

2
0.5
1

0.0 0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91

time [day]

Figure 22: Methane productivity of FBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors

The comparison between mean methane productivity at constant loading rate of pure FBS and
the mixture FBS:CM is represented in Figure 23. The Figure shows the linear relationship
between methane productivity and OLR. The reduction in methane productivity at high OLR
due to inhibition of process is also distinguished. The maximum loading rate within which
methane from FBS can be produced under a stable condition is 4 g oTS/l*d. This value is
raised to 4.5 g oTS/l*d when mixing FBS with manure. Although, reactors with FBS:CM can
achieve higher OLR than those with pure FBS their methane productivity is still lower than
that produced by reactors with pure of FBS. This is due to manure’s low methane production.

95
 2.5
methane productivity [l/l*d]

2.0 FBS

FBS:CM (1:1)
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 23: Methane productivity of FBS and FBS:CM under different OLR

4.1.1.2.1.3 Sugar beets silage

Reactors M(K13) and M(K14) in Figure 24 represent methane productivity with different
loading rates for pure sugar beets silage (SBS). The curves progression of the two reactors is
identical until the 85th day after which a variation from the expected value is noticed in both
reactors. This variation is most probably due to difficulties in feeding the reactors. SBS with
pH value equal to 3.6 resulted on one hand in high foaming in reactors after feeding, which
then made it necessary to mix the reactors for a long time. On the other hand, it was not easy to
feed the reactors with homogenate SBS (due to its structure and high TS concentration ca.
20 %). The methods used in the experiment to reduce this effect were: feeding the reactors
carefully and weighting the SBS more attentively which produced improved results.

Due to the active inoculum used, as batch results showed, no adaptation time was needed for
the bacteria and it started producing a constant rate of methane from the beginning. The
methane productivity increased with increasing OLR at a constant rate. The critical reduction
in methane productivity at OLR of 4.5 g oTS/l*d is a sign of overloading the process
indicating, in addition to analytical results, that to OLR of 4.0 g oTS/l*d the reactors can be
operated under a steady state condition.

96
 2.5 7
methane productivity [l/l*d]

M(K13) SBS

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

6
2.0 M(K14) SBS
OLR-oTS 5

1.5
4

3
1.0

2
0.5
1

0.0 0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131

time [day]

Figure 24: Methane productivity of SBS in semi-continuous reactors

4.1.1.2.1.4 Sugar beets silage with manure

Figure 25 represents the methane productivity of sugar beets silage mixed with manure
(SBS:CM) at different loading rates throughout the entire experiments. The progressive curves
of reactors M(K15) and M(K16) show similar results to those obtained from reactors M(K13)
and M(K14) with pure SBS. It is also noticeable after OLR of 3.5 g oTS/l*d that the methane
productivity fluctuated around the expected value which can be attributed to the same reasons
explained in the previous section (4.1.1.2.1.3).
The maximum methane productivity for SBS:CM reached in these experiments is 1.91 l/l*d at
an OLR of 5 g oTS/l*d. This value is not accurate because the experiments were stopped prior
operating for enough days under OLR of 5 g oTS/l*d (before reaching steady state). Therefore,
OLR of 4.5 g oTS/l*d will be considered as the maximum OLR at which the maximum
methane productivity can be reached under stable condition. In light of this the maximum
methane productivity will then be 1.58 l/l*d.
Figure 26 shows the results of mean methane productivity at a constant loading rate of pure
SBS and SBS:CM comparatively. Figure 26 shows similar results to those found Figure 23
with the only difference being in the maximum methane production values measured. The in-
linearity of the curves of SBS and SBS:CM with OLR is due to the fluctuation in methane
production rate with constant OLR.

97
 2.5 8
methane productivity [l/l*d]

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

M(K15) SBS:CM (1:4)
2.0
M(K16) SBS:CM (1:4) 6
OLR-oTS
5
1.5
4
1.0 3

2
0.5
1

0.0 0
1 16 31 46 61 76 91 106 121 136

time [day]

Figure 25: Methane productivity of SBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors

2.5
methane productivity [l/l*d]

2.0
SBS
SBS:CM (1:4)
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 26: Methane productivity of SBS and SBS:CM under different OLR

98
4.1.1.2.2 Biogas composition

Throughout the experiments the biogas composition has shown constant values under steady
state conditions. These are shown in Table 23. Exceptions were noticed in the starting phase
which showed minor variation and in the end phase when the reactors were over loaded which
showed an acute decrease in methane production. Moreover, low variations were also recorded
directly after increasing OLR. The concentration of H2S was within the safe range for
anaerobic digestion so that no inhibition occurred, even for the mixture SBS:CM with its high
H2S concentration of 850 ppm. Additionally, for standard biogas application no purification
was needed for the energetic use of the produced biogas except for SBS:CM.
The methane content obtained in this research is much lower than the 73 % which is reported
by Linke (1999). The value obtained by Linke seems to be unrealistic; forage beets composed
mostly from carbohydrates which cannot result to such high methane content of more
than 70 %.

Table 23: Biogas composition (mesophilic experiments)

Reactor CH4 (%) CO2 (%) H2S (ppm)

FBS 53 ± 1 46 ± 1 100
FBS:CM (1:1) 55 ± 1 44 ± 1 100
SBS 53 ± 1 46 ± 1 350
SBS:CM (1:4) 56 ± 1 43 ± 1 850

4.1.1.2.3 Degradation efficiency

The degradation efficiency was calculated according to equation 15 in 3.1.3.4. Figure 27 shows
the mean degradation efficiency of the semi-continuous mesophilic experiments according to
the gas phase. The degradation efficiency according to the fluid phase is not considered
because the results obtained were not representative. The reason is that the effluent analysis is a
main parameter in the calculation which is strongly affected by the inoculum used. This means
it can take a long time until the influent displace the inoculum completely under a constant
loading rate, and then the effluent can represent the degradable value of influent.

99
 120
degradation efficiency [%]

100

80

60

40 FBS
SBS
FBS:CM (1:1)
20
SBS:CM (1:4)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 27: Degradation efficiency of substrates with different loading rates according to
gas phase

Generally, the Figure shows that the degradation efficiency of pure substrates is higher than
that of mixtures. This is because of the added amount of manure which has lower degradation
efficiency. In this context, the degradation efficiency of the mixture SBS:CM is lower than that
of the mixture FBS:CM because of the higher amount of manure in the SBS:CM mixture. Pure
FBS and SBS show on the other hand nearly identical values. The unrealistic degradation
efficiency (> 100 %) of SBS with OLR 3 g oTS/l*d is due to the unexpected high amount of
methane production in this period (Figure 24).
The run of the curves for degradation degree of FBS and FBS:CM shows the expected values;
with increasing loading rate more organic materials will be removed from the reactors resulting
in a less effective process. This does not apply to SBS because they have high HRT due to their
high oTS and therefore shows stable degradation efficiency. The fluctuation in the degradation
efficiency of SBS:CM is most probably due to the variation in the methane production which
could falsify the results. Figure 27 shows clearly that beets silage have high degradation
efficiency of more than 90 % at high OLR. After OLR for more than 4 g oTS/l*d for pure
substrates and more than 4.5 g oTS/l*d for FBS:CM the degradation degree fell sharply down
which is a sign of an over loaded system. The degradation degree curve of SBS:CM will be
expected to follow in the same manner unless the experiment was not ended.

100
4.1.1.2.4 Laboratory analyses

4.1.1.2.4.1 Chemical oxygen demand

The average chemical oxygen demand (COD) of effluent measurements obtained during
different loading rates are shown in Figure 28. For all the experiments, the COD of effluent of
mono-substrate were lower than those mixed with manure. This is due to the lower degradation
efficiency of manure which results in less degradable substances.
Since the COD of inoculum is low (20-24 g/kg), any increase above this value will be due to
the effect of influent. The curves progressions show an expected increase in COD with increase
in OLR. However, the effluent COD value is also a function of reactor content (inoculum) and
the actual value can be considered when all the inoculum is replaced by the influent. This can
be done by operating the reactors for long time. Because this is not a common practice under
experimental condition (due to the length of time it takes), the longer feeding the reactors under
constant OLR the less is the effect of reactor content until full replacement. Therefore, the
trend was to consider the latest measured value.

40

35
COD [g/kg effluent]

30

25

20

15 SBS:CM (1:4)
SBS
10
FBS:CM (1:1)
FBS
5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 28: Chemical oxygen demand of effluent at different OLR.

101
4.1.1.2.4.2 Total and ammonium-nitrogen

The average total nitrogen (Total-N) and ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) concentrations

obtained during EXP1 (with FBS) and EXP2 (with SBS) are shown in Figures 29 and 30,
respectively. As explained in section 3.1.2.6 no change will take place in the amount of total
nitrogen through anaerobic digestion. In spite of this statement both Figures show variation in
total nitrogen concentration. The reason for that is the effect of reactor content. The slight
decrease of total nitrogen concentration in Figure 29 is because of the replacement of the
reactor content material with influent material which have lower Total-N. The concentration of
Total-N of FBS:CM and FBS, are 2.1 and 1.84 g/kg, respectively, compared to 2.34 g/kg for
inoculum. Similarly, the slight decrease of SBS and the increase of SBS:CM Total-N
concentration in Figure 30 is due to the change of reactor content with influent. The Total-N
concentration tends to run at a constant rate which is due to the long experiment period.

2.4
N - concentration [g/kg effluent]

2.1

1.8

1.5

1.2
Total-N FBS:CM (1:1)
0.9 Total-N FBS
NH4-N FBS:CM (1:1)
0.6 NH4-N FBS

0.3

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 29: Total-N and NH4-N concentration of FBS and FBS:CM effluent.

102
On the other hand, in anaerobic fermentation most of the organic nitrogen will be converted to
ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N). An expected NH4-N concentration increase through both
experiments cannot be recognized in Figures 29 and 30. An explanation for this as mentioned
above is the higher NH4-N concentration of the reactors content. Therefore, the curves
progression explaining that the NH4-N concentration measured moves primarily from reactors
concentrations range to actual range of the degradable influent. This can be seen clearly in
Figure 30 (EXP2) at which the NH4-N concentration tend to have constant rate indicating that
all original reactor content were displaced. This stage was reached after 110 experiment days.

However, NH4-N concentrations of EXP1 in Figure 29 had not reached their actual value at the
end of the experiments on the 85th day. The decreasing trend of the curves explains this result.
Nevertheless, it could be expected that the curves would tend to show horizontal progression in
short time. Therefore, the last measured concentrations of 0.91 and 0.75 g/kg for FBS:CM and
FBS, respectively, were considered to be effluent concentration. The effluent NH4-N
concentration of SBS:CM and SBS were measured to be 1.2 and 0.3 g/kg, respectively.

3.0
Total-N SBS:CM (1:4)
N - concentration [g/kg effluent]

Total-N SBS
2.5 NH4-N SBS:CM (1:4)
NH4-N SBS

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 30: Total-N and NH4-N concentration of SBS and SBS:CM effluent.

103
4.1.1.2.4.3 Phosphate-phosphorus

Since no phosphate exhausts in gas form through anaerobic degradation, the concentration of
phosphate-phosphorus in effluent will only be affected by the substrates fed to the reactors.
The average PO4-P concentrations obtained during EXP1 (with FBS) and EXP2 (with SBS) are
shown in Figure 31. The decrease of PO4-P concentration of FBS and FBS:CM was due to the
effect of reactor content dilution with influent material which had low concentration of PO4-P.
However, phosphate is generally quite insoluble, so it is associated with the solids portion of
the substrate. Until complete replacement of reactors content occurred, variation of PO4-P
concentration between reactor content concentration and influent concentration were expected.
This can explain the fluctuation of SBS and SBS:CM PO4-P concentration in the beginning
phase. Moreover, settling of phosphate could happen during sampling.
However, the curves’ progression in Figure 31 tends to show stable results at the end of the
experiments. These results can represent the PO4-P effluent concentration of the substrates
used.

0.8
PO4-P concentration [g/kg effluent]

SBS
SBS:CM (1:4)
FBS:CM (1:1)
0.6 FBS

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 31: PO4-P concentration of effluent for mesophilic EXP1 and EXP2

104
4.1.1.2.4.4 FOS/TAC and volatile fatty acids

As described before, the relation FOS/TAC characterizes the stability of anaerobic digestion
process. Generally, a FOS/TAC value of less than 0.3 refers to a stable process. Figure 32
shows the FOS/TAC-values at different OLR under mesophilic condition.

0.8
FBS
0.7 FBS:CM (1:1)
SBS limit of stability
FOS/TAC - value [-]

0.6 SBS:CM (1:4)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 32: FOS/TAC-value with different OLR throughout the mesophilic experiments

At the beginning the FOS/TAC-value recorded was too high and started to decrease during the
experiment to reach a stable value. The high FOS/TAC-value at low OLR was due to the
adaptation of the bacteria to the process so that they could not degrade all the organic acids.
This result is confirmed with the HPLC results in Figures 33, 34, 35 and 36. Then the reactors
were operated under stable condition showing FOS/TAC-value within the stability limit up to
OLR of 4 g oTS/l*d for FBS and SBS and up to 4.5 g oTS/l*d for FBS:CM and SBS:CM. The
high FOS/TAC-value for OLR of more than 4 g oTS/l*d for FBS and SBS and more than 4.5 g
oTS/l*d for FBS:CM and SBS:CM coupled with the results of HPLC explain the lower
methane productivity at the same OLR and subsequently the break down of the process.

105
Because of the high concentration of total volatile fatty acids (VFA) of raw FBS and SBS eight
volatile fatty acids were identified and quantified during the steady state operation (lactic,
formic, acetic, propionic, i-butyric, n-butyric, i-valeric, n-valeric, and capronic acid) of which
acetic acid and propionic were the predominant volatile acids. Figures 33, 34, 35 and 36 are a
summary of the measured concentration for FBS, FBS:CM, SBS and SBS:CM, respectively.

2.0
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

1.6 lactic acid

acetic acid
1.2 propionic acid

0.8

0.4

0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 33: VFA concentration of FBS throughout mesophilic experiments

0.7

0.6
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

0.5
lactic acid
0.4 acetic acid
propionic acid
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 34: VFA concentration of FBS:CM throughout mesophilic experiments

106
Generally, all Figures show similar results; high concentration of VFA in the starting phase due
to the adaptation to the system and high concentration at ORL 4 g oTS/l*d for pure substrate
and 4.5 g oTS/l*d for mixture substrate which indicate an over-loaded system. There was
problem with HPLC at the end of EXP2, therefore the results of SBS and SBS:CM for OLR 4
and 4.5 oTS/l*d could not be measured. Nevertheless, it can also be expected that at higher
OLR the VFA concentration will increase.

0.9

0.8
methanol
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

0.7 butyric acid

propionic acid
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 35: VFA concentration of SBS throughout mesophilic experiments

1.0

0.9
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

0.8 methanol
butyric acid
0.7 propionic acid
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 36: VFA concentration of SBS:CM throughout mesophilic experiments

107
Because of the high sugar content in sugar beets the concentration of another eight substances
(fructose, glucose, methanol, ethanol, i-propanol, n-propanol, i-butanol, and n-butanol) were
quantified after OLR 2 g oTS/l*d. Figures 35 and 36 show that the very high concentration of
fructose and the concentration of glucose and methanol measured in the influent substrates
were totally degraded through the anaerobic digestion process. The concentration of methanol
was reduced through the digestion process and seems to be constant with increased OLR. It
should be noted that this statement is not enough and the results of OLR 4 and 4.5 were
needed, which failed, to correctly describe the process. This will be the same for butyric acid
concentration.

4.1.1.2.4.5 pH

One of the important indication factors in anaerobic reactors is the pH-value. Since the main
substrates used in this thesis have a pH-value lower than the optimum pH for anaerobic
digestion it was necessary to control the pH regularly. Figure 37 represents the pH-values of
the reactors during the experiments. Generally, the Figure shows that the pH-values were
within the optimal range for anaerobic digestion. This indicates that the substrates can be used
in anaerobic digestion regardless of their low pH-value and without additional pH corrector
additives such as NaOH.

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5
pH-value [-]

6.0 FBS
FBS:CM (1:1)
5.5 SBS
SBS:CM (1:4)
5.0

4.5

4.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

time [day]

Figure 37: pH-value of reactors for mesophilic EXP1 and EXP2

108
4.1.1.2.5 Experiments of FBS containing plant denaturation agents

Figure 38 represents the results of methane productivity with different loading rates for the
experiments of FBS containing plant denaturation agents (PDA). Similar to the previous
experiments the methane production has varied in the beginning during the adaptation period
and then showed constant rate.
The gradual increase in the PDA concentration in FBS from 0.5 to 1.5 g per kg FBS at constant
OLR which is equivalent to an increase from 0.0795 to 0.239 g PDA per reactor and day, has
not shown any change in the methane productivity. However, the additional amount of PDA
added to the reactors on the 7th and 14th days of the experiment has clearly affected the
digestion process of the reactor with FBS-Arcotal which results in the high acid concentration
in Figure 40 and hence low methane productivity. On the other hand the reactors with FBS-
Tieröl and FBS-Arbin could not be affected by the additional amount of PDA and showed no
accumulation of acids as shown in Figures 39 and 41 and hence no change in methane
production.

1.4 5

FBS
1.2
methane productivity [l/l*d]

FBS(Tieröl)
4
oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

FBS(Arcotal)
1.0 FBS(Arbin)
oTS-OLR
3
0.8

0.6
2

0.4

1
0.2

0.0 0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101

time [day]

Figure 38: Methane productivity of FBS mixed with PDA in semi-continuous reactors

109
Figure 38 also shows that only with higher OLR (> 2 g oTS/l*d), which results in higher PDA
concentration (> 0.032 g PDA per liter reactor and day), all the reactors with PDA were over
loaded. The high concentration of propionic acid (> 1.6 g/kg) in all reactors indicates the break
down of the reactors (Figures 39, 40 and 41). The acetic acid concentration of the reactor with
FBS-Tieröl in Figure 39 shows that it increased gradually with low concentration throughout
the experiment. It is assumed that the concentration will keep increasing as a result of addition
of Tieröl without considering the effect of the propionic acid on the 94th experiment day. The
result concludes that the stated amount of Tieröl, which is less than 0.2 g/kg forage beets (BLE,
2002), will not affect the digestion process.

2.0
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

1.6
lactic acid
acetic acid
propionic acid
1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
14 18 82 94

time [day]

Figure 39: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Tieröl

The effect of PDA-Arcotal on the digestion process is clearly seen in Figure 40. The additional
amount of Arcotal on the 8th and 14th experiment days results in high propionic concentration
which were degraded throughout the experiment. On the other hand, the acetic acid
concentration increased during the experiment to reach a concentration of 1.4 g/kg on the 94th
experiment day regardless of the high propionic acid concentration.

110
Contrary to Tieröl and Arcotal, the results of Arbin in Figure 41 show that neither the
additional amounts of Arbin on the 8th and 14th days nor the low concentration have resulted in
an organic acid accumulation. Generally, low concentration of Tieröl and Arbin (< 0.024 g per
liter reactor and day) show no inhibition affect on the digestion process whereas Arcotal shows
significant effect. Increasing the OLR, the PDA concentration per reactor increased, which
resulted in the breakdown of the digestion process.

2.0
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

lactic acid
1.6 acetic acid
propionic acid

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
14 18 82 94

time [day]

Figure 40: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Arcotal

2.0
VFA - concentration [g/kg]

1.6 lactic acid

acetic acid

propionic acid
1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
14 18 82 94

time [day]

Figure 41: VFA concentration of FBS mixed with Arbin

111
4.1.2 Thermophilic experiments

4.1.2.1 Batch experiments

4.1.2.1.1 Inoculum

The methane accumulative curves of thermophilic FBS batch experiments of the inoculum are
represented in Figure 42. The shape of the curves signifies the pattern of methane production
over the examined period and shows an expected progression. The curves progression of
reactors T(G5) & T(G6) are identical which is an indication of inoculum homogeneity in the
two reactors.
Until ending the experiments on the 44th day the methane accumulative curves were still
increasing which is a sign of unfinished degradation. The methane yield of inoculum within the
considered period of the experiment (33 day) is 3.0 l CH4 per kilogram inoculum for each
reactor. This value compared to inoculum used for the mesophilic experiments is too high and
indicates that the inoculum is active. Similar to the mesophilic experiments, the methane yield
per kilogram inoculum is subtracted from other batch experiments to indicate the specific
methane production of the substrate.

4.0
methane yield [l/kg inoculum]

3.5 T(G5) inoculum

T(G6) inoculum
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41

time [day]

Figure 42: Methane accumulative curve of inoculum used for thermophilic FBS batch
experiments

112
4.1.2.1.2 Forage beets silage

The results of batch experiments for the thermophilic forage beets silage FBS are shown in
Figures 43 and 44. Figure 43 shows the accumulative methane curves of the reactors T(G7) and
T(G8). Generally, the curves progression are similar to that of FBS under mesophilic
condition. In the first phase the light degradable substances were converted to methane (85 %
of organic matter). After the 15th day the hard degradable substances were converted to
methane. On the 27th day no methane production was reported which indicates that all the
degradable substances were degraded. Figure 44 shows the curves progression more clearly as
daily methane production. The main difference in the presented results of the thermophilic
batch experiments to that of the mesophilic, is that the thermophilic bacteria did not need any
adaptation time to adapt to the milieu. This is mainly referred to the very active inoculum used.
It is also important to ascertain here that the delay in the mesophilic batch experiments was due
to the less active inoculum.
From Figure 43 the amount of methane that can be produced from 1 kg FBS is 45 and 43 l per
kilogram FBS for reactors T(G7) and T(G8), respectively. This value represents ca. 90 %
degradation efficiency.

50

max. theoretical methane yield

40
methane yield [l/kg FBS]

30

T(G7) FBS
20 T(G8) FBS

10

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29

time [day]

Figure 43: Accumulative methane of thermophilic FBS batch experiments

113
 9

8
methane [l/kg FBS per day]

7 T(G7) FBS

6 T(G8) FBS

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31

time [day]

Figure 44: Daily methane production of thermophilic FBS batch experiments

4.1.2.1.3 Forage beets silage with manure

The results of the thermophilic forage beets silage mixed with manure (FBS:CM) batch
experiments are shown in Figure 45 and 46. Figure 45 shows the accumulative methane curves
whereas Figure 46 shows the daily methane production. The Figures are duplicates from
Figures 43 and 44. The curves progression in the two experiments is similar, but they
differentiate in that only 78 % of the organic matter is degraded at the beginning for the
mixture of FBS with cow manure, and within a short time the degradable materials available
for the anaerobic bacteria were consumed.
The maximal theoretical methane value on the basis of the stoichiometric calculation for the
FBS:CM is 29 liter per kilogram FBS:CM. The maximal measured values are 23 and 22 l
methane per kg mixture for reactors T(G9) and T(G10), respectively. From these values the
COD degradation efficiency is calculated to have a value of ca. 85 %. The reduction in the
efficiency compared to that of pure FBS is due to the low degradation efficiency of manure
which is normally around the range of 50 % (Wellinger, 1991).

114
 35
max. theoretical methane yield
methane yield [l/kg (FBS:CM)]

30

25

20

15
T(G9) FBS:CM (1:1)

10 T(G10) FBS:CM (1:1)

0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
time [day]

Figure 45: Accumulative methane of thermophilic FBS:CM batch experiments

5
methane [l/kg (FBS:CM) per day]

4
T(G9) FBS:CM (1:1)

T(G10) FBS:CM (1:1)

3

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31

time [day]

Figure 46: Daily methane production of thermophilic FBS:CM batch experiments

The mean results of the batch experiments of forage beets silage (FBS) under mesophilic and
thermophilic temperatures are listed in Table 24. The Table shows no variation in the batch
experiments under mesophilic and thermophilic conditions.

115
Table 24: Mean results of batch experiments (FBS) under different temperatures

Methane yield Methane yield Degradation efficiency

Substrate
[l/kg-FM] [l/kg-oTS] [%]
FBSmesophile 47 468 95

FBSthermophile 45 468 95

FBS:CM (1:1)thermophile 23 400 85

4.1.2.2 Semi-continuous experiments

4.1.2.2.1 Methane productivity

4.1.2.2.1.1 Forage beets silage

The methane productivity of the thermophilic experiments for reactors T(K5) and T(K6) is
shown in Figure 47. The curves progression are similar to the results produced from FBS under
mesophilic condition, i.e., with increasing OLR the methane productivity increases. After
reaching the maximum loading rate of 4 g oTS/l*d (under stable condition) the methane
productivity has decreased with increasing in OLR.

2.5 6
T(K5) FBS
methane productivity [l/l*d]

T(K6) FBS
oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

OLR-oTS 5
2.0

4
1.5
3
1.0
2

0.5
1

0.0 0
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161

time [day]

Figure 47: Methane productivity of FBS in semi-continuous reactors

116
Feeding the reactors at 3 g oTS/l*d OLR after 5 days feeding-break after the 103rd experiment
day caused an over loading of the process. Therefore, it was necessary, after an additional rest
day to degrade the accumulated substances, to start feeding again with low OLR in increasing
stepwise. This method also was not sufficient to operate the reactors again with its last
obtained OLR and led to process disruption (less methane production). The reason is that the
thermophilic bacteria could not adapt to the high increase in OLR. An attempt was made to
avoid the accumulation by reducing OLR in the reactors: it did not improve the situation. It
was therefore necessary to stop feeding until the accumulated substances were degraded and
then return to feeding with low OLR (3,5 g oTS/l*d) until a steady state was reached. The
methane productivity obtained during this period (31 days) was within the normal methane
production range at the same OLR. Anyhow, this result is not enough to describe the stability
of the digestion process and must be compared with the results in section 4.1.2.2.4.4.

2.5
methane productivity [l/l*d]

thermophilic
2.0
mesophilic

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 48: Methane productivity of FBS at different OLR

Figure 48 demonstrates the methane productivity of FBS under thermophilic condition

compared to mesophilic conditions. It is clear from Figure 48, starting from OLR of
2.5 g oTS/l*d, that the thermophilic methane productivity increased slightly above the
mesophilic methane productivity until both reached their maximum at OLR of 4 g oTS/l*d.
The maximum measured methane productivity under thermophilic condition was 2.1 l/l*d.

117
This result reflects that under thermophilic condition (55 °C) methane can be more efficiently
produced than under mesophilic condition (37 °C). On the other hand, the results under
thermophilic conditions reveal that the digestion process is very sensitive to any disruption
which can occur in real plants. Moreover, the thermophilic process consumes more heating
energy than the mesophilic which increases the input cost.

4.1.2.2.1.2 Forage beets silage with manure

Similar to the results of pure FBS Figure 49 shows the results of methane productivity from
forage beets silage with cow manure (FBS:CM) for reactors T(K7) and T(K8). Increasing OLR
resulted in increasing the methane productivity to reach its maximum 4.5 g oTS/l*d.
The feeding of FBS:CM after the 43rd experiment day did not produce the expected amount of
methane which is a sign of substances accumulation (see result of FOS/TAC, Figure 57). This
disruption might be due to the jump from OLR 3 to 3.5 g oTS/l*d coupled with short HRT.
Therefore, to prevent over loading the OLR was first reduced to 3 g oTS/l*d and then increased
in shorter intervals which helped to overcome the disruption. Feeding the reactors with lower
OLR after feeding break on the 108th experiment day was successful and no disruption was
recorded. This indicates that the addition of manure to FBS increases the stability of the
process even under thermophilic condition.

2.5 7

T(K7) FBS:CM (1:1)

6
methane productivity [l/l*d]

T(K8) FBS:CM (1:1)

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

2.0
OLR-oTS
5

1.5
4

3
1.0

2
0.5
1

0.0 0
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161

time [day]

Figure 49: Methane productivity of FBS:CM in semi-continuous reactors

118
4.1.2.2.2 Biogas composition

The biogas produced throughout the thermophilic experiments for FBS and FBS:CM under
steady state conditions, has shown similar composition to that of the mesophilic experiments.
Table 25 shows the measured biogas compositions under thermophilic conditions. Variation in
the biogas composition was noticed when the operated conditions were not stable. This was the
case when the OLR increased, or at the starting phase, or under over loading phase, or even
after one day feeding’s break. The percentage of methane in biogas obtained is similar to the
results found by Beck, et al., (2002).

Table 25: Biogas composition (thermophilic experiments)

Reactor CH4 (%) CO2 (%) H2S (ppm)

FBS 53 ± 1 46 ± 1 100

FBS:CM (1:1) 55 ± 1 44 ± 1 100

4.1.2.2.3 Degradation efficiency

The degradation efficiency of the semi-continuous thermophilic experiments was evaluated in

a similar way to mesophilic experiments. Figure 50 shows the mean degradation degree
according the gas phase. The lower degradation efficiency of FBS:CM is due to the lower
degradation efficiency of manure.
With exception of the unrealistic degradation efficiency (> 100 %) in the starting phase in
Figure 50 the curves show horizontal progression. This indicates that all the organic materials
were degraded before they were removed from the reactor despite the increase in OLR. The
high degradation efficiency with high OLR is an advantage of thermophilic experiments over
the mesophilic experiments. The very high degradation efficiency at the beginning can be
attributed to the active methane productivity of inoculum.

119
 120
degradation efficiency [%]

100

80

60

FBS
40
FBS:CM (1:1)

20

0
1 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

Figure 50: Degradation efficiency of substrates with different loading rates

4.1.2.2.4 Laboratory analyses

4.1.2.2.4.1 Chemical oxygen demand

The average chemical oxygen demand (COD) of effluent of FBS and FBS:CM for different
loading rate throughout the thermophilic experiments is shown in Figure 51. As explained
before, the effluent COD value is a function of reactor content (inoculum) and the actual value
can be considered when all the inoculum is replaced by the influent. This can explain clearly
the run of Figure 51 which shows that the COD throughout the experiment, beginning with
high COD, decreased rapidly until the 80th experiment day for FBS:CM and 120th experiment
day for FBS after which tended to maintain a constant low value. The low COD is a result of
continued biological stabilization. During the COD decline period it was not easy to calculate
the actual COD value of the degraded substrate because of the high COD of inoculum.
Therefore, the longer the reactor operated under steady state condition, the closer the COD got
to the actual value.

120
 80

FBS
60
COD [g/kg effluent]

FBS:CM (1:1)

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200

time [day]

Figure 51: COD of FBS and FBS:CM throughout the experiment

4.1.2.2.4.2 Total and ammonium-nitrogen

Figure 52 presents the average total nitrogen (Total-N) and ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N)
concentrations for FBS and FBS:CM throughout the thermophilic experiment. Similar to the
explanation of the mesophilic experiments, no considerable change took place in the amount of
total nitrogen throughout the anaerobic digestion. The decrease seen in this Figure is due to the
replacement of high Total-N concentration of inoculum with the concentration of FBS and
FBS:CM. The horizontal curve progression of Total-N indicate steady state condition and the
ending of the reactor replacement effect. The concentration of Total-N for FBS and FBS:CM
was measured at the end of the experiment to be 2.1 and 2.49, respectively.
Generally, because of the conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonium-nitrogen in anaerobic
digestion the concentration of NH4-N was expected to increase. The decrease in NH4-N in
Figure 52 was due to reactor replacement explained before. The longer feeding the reactors the
less is the effect of replacement, which can be shown in the horizontal trend of the curves in
Figure 52. Therefore, the measured NH4-N concentration in this period can represent the actual
effluent concentration. The effluent NH4-N concentration for FBS and FBS:CM was measured
at the end of the experiment to have a value of 0.94 and 1.34 g/kg, respectively. These values
are higher than the concentration in FBS and FBS:CM and can improve the fertilizer efficiency
of the effluent.

121
 5
Total-N FBS
N - concentration [g/kg effluent]

Total-N FBS:CM (1:1)

4
NH4-N FBS
NH4-N FBS:CM (1:1)

0
0 50 100 150 200
time [day]

Figure 52: Total-N and NH4-N concentration for effluent of FBS and FBS:CM

4.1.2.2.4.3 Phosphate-phosphorus

Figure 53 shows the average PO4-P concentrations of FBS and FBS:CM throughout the
thermophilic experiment. As explained before the concentration of phosphorus in effluent will
only be affected by the substrates fed to the reactors. The Figure shows the expected result. At
the beginning of the experiment PO4-P concentrations were in the range of the inoculum.
During the experiment the concentration of PO4-P was directed towards the concentration of
influents. The PO4-P concentration on the 176th experiment day were measured to be 0.23 and
0.34 g/kg for FBS and FBS:CM, respectively. These values were considered to represent the
effluent concentration.

122
 0.4
PO4-P concentration [g/kg effluent]

FBS

0.3 FBS:CM (1:1)

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 50 100 150 200

time [day]

Figure 53: PO4-P concentration of effluent for FBS and FBS:CM

4.1.2.2.4.4 FOS/TAC and Volatile fatty acids

As mentioned before FOS/TAC–value of 0.3 is considered as a limit value for determining the
stability of the anaerobic process. For the thermophilic experiments with FBS the FOS/TAC-
values were measured within the stable range (<0.3) until the 102nd experiment day. Figure 54
represents these results through which no feeding break was achieved. Until OLR of 4.2
oTS/l*d (102nd day) no VFA could be found in the analyzed samples.
After the feeding break the FOS/TAC-value had increased above the stability limit (Figure 55)
indicating high concentration of VFA which results in a decrease in the methane production
rate. This result is confirmed with the result of VFA analysis in Figure 56. To remove the
inhibition effect of the high concentration of propionic acid recorded on the 127th experiment
day it was necessary to stop feeding the reactors again so that the accumulated VFA could be
degraded. After the second feeding break the FOS/TAC concentration had increased again and
showed after the 162nd day a falling trend that then started to stabilize. Although the
FOS/TAC-values were above the stability limit, the constant methane productivity indicates no
sign of inhibition.

123
 0.5 5

FOS/TAC

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

0.4 OLR-oTS 4
FOS/TAC - value [-]

limit of stability

0.3 3

0.2 2

0.1 1

0.0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

time [day]

Figure 54: FOS/TAC-value of FBS throughout the thermophilic experiments

Comparing this result with the HPLC-measurements in Figure 56 it was found that the
concentration of propionic acid has increased after the second feeding break. This indicates that
in spite of constant methane production rate the digestion process was not stabilized properly.
The result obtained shows that the thermophilic process is highly sensitive to any change in the
process conditions which can in the end cause a break-down of the entire process.

0.6 5

0.5
4
oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]
FOS/TAC - value [-]

0.4
3

0.3

limit of stability 2
0.2
FOS/TAC
OLR-oTS
1
0.1

0.0 0
100 120 140 160 180

time [day]

Figure 55: FOS/TAC-value of FBS after feeding break throughout the thermophilic
experiments

124
VFA - concentration [g/kg] 3.0

2.5 acetic acid

propionic acid
2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
127 149 169 176

time [day]

Figure 56: VFA concentration of FBS after feeding break throughout thermophilic
experiments

0.5 5

FOS/TAC

oTS-loading rate [g/l*d]

OLR-oTS
0.4 4
FOS/TAC - value [-]

0.3 3

limit of stability
0.2 2

0.1 1

0.0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

time [day]

Figure 57: FOS/TAC-value of FBS:CM throughout the thermophilic experiments

Figure 57 shows the FOS/TAC-value for the mixture FBS:CM under thermophilic condition.
In addition to the adaptation period the FOS/TAC has reached high value on the 45th
experiment day. This value was close to reaching the stability limit. To avoid over loading and

125
hence a break down of the process the OLR was reduced and increased again after reduction in
FOS/TAC. This method has helped in degrading the high concentration of organic acids. After
the feeding break the FOS/TAC-value did not increase over the stability limit until OLR of 4.5
g oTS/l*d (end of experiment). Moreover, no accumulation of VFA was recorded in the
HPLC-analysis indicating that the mixture of FBS with manure had increased the stability of
the digestion.

4.1.2.2.4.5 pH

Figure 58 shows the pH-value throughout the thermophilic experiments for FBS and FBS:CM.
In spite of low pH-value of substrates used, the Figure shows, similar to the mesophilic
experiments, that the pH-values were within the optimal range. This indicates that the FBS and
FBS:CM have good buffer capacity.

8.0

7.5

7.0
pH-value [-]

6.5

6.0
FBS

5.5 FBS:CM (1:1)

5.0

4.5

4.0
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161

time [day]

Figure 58: pH-value of FBS and FBS:CM under thermophilic digestion

126
4.1.3 Comparison between forage beets and sugar beets

The comparison between forage beets and sugar beets will be on the basis of energy production
from FBS and SBS in form of biogas. Although forage and sugar beets are from the same crop
family they have different characteristics which result in different levels of methane
production. From the results obtained before it was found that from 1 kg fresh material of FBS
and SBS, 45 and 81 liter methane could be produced, respectively (Figure 59). The higher
methane of SBS is due to its higher organic matter per selected fresh material. Presenting these
results in dry matter or organic dry matter, which is a more important parameter in anaerobic
digestion, FBS will have higher methane production as it can be seen in Figure 59.
Since different energy crops have different yield production per area and year, they will
produce different quantities of methane according to their yield production variation.
Therefore, the area (hectare) is an important parameter in comparing energy crops for methane
production. Hectare per year is a sharing factor in crop production. Considering this factor FBS
can produce more methane than SBS and therefore has the advantage of producing ca. 20 %
more output energy (difference between the energies input is not significant since forage and
sugar beets are from the same crop family and the effluent can be used back as organic
fertilizer).

5640 m³
FBS 5300 m³

SBS
methane yield

459 l 380 l
45 l 81 l

CH4/kg-fresh CH4/kg-oTS CH4/hectar*year

Figure 59: Methane production from FBS and SBS

127
Using effluent as organic fertilizer plays a significant role in evaluation anaerobic digestion
process. The conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonium-nitrogen through anaerobic
digestion is the limiting factor; simple availability of NH4-N for plant. Assuming that the NH4-
N of FBS-effluent in Figure 29 will not keep decreasing and will have constant value of 0.70
g/kg FBS, then through anaerobic digestion process the NH4-H content of FBS will be
increased by 55 % (Figure 60). Comparing this with the increase in NH4-N content of SBS
which has increased 50 %, the FBS shows another advantage over SBS.

0.8

influent
NH4-N-concentration [g/kg]

effluent
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

FBS SBS

Figure 60: NH4-N concentration in influent and effluent of FBS and SBS

Figure 61 shows the methane productivity of FBS compared to SBS and that of FBS:CM
compared to SBS:CM at different OLR. Methane productivity is an important factor in
specifying the reactor volume which is a major parameter in the economical assessment of
biogas plant. The higher methane productivity, the smaller the reactor and hence the lower
costs. FBS as well as FBS:CM show an advantage over SBS and SBS:CM for same OLR.
Additionally, the low dry matter of FBS (ca. 10 %) makes it possible to pump which simplifies
its handling. This will enable FBS to be treated entirely automatically in a biogas plant. On the
other hand, the high dry matter of SBS (ca. 21 %) makes its pumping difficult.

128
 methane productivity [l/l*d] 2.5

FBS
2.0 SBS
FBS:CM (1:1)
SBS:CM (1:4)
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
oTS-loading rate [g/ld]

Figure 61: Methane productivity of FBS and SBS with different OLR.

4.2 Energy balance

As mentioned before, the cycle of forage and sugar beets will be divided into three main stages.
The first stage includes the energy input in the production of forage and sugar beets from a
specific areas. The second stage covers the preparation of forage and sugar beets including
chopping, ensiling, and storing. The final stage is the converting of energy stored in forage and
sugar beets silage through anaerobic digestion to biogas (or electrical and heat energy) for its
final use. For the final stage two Scenarios were used; Scenario 1 compares biogas with natural
gas and Scenario 2 compares electricity (and heat) from biogas with conventional electricity
and heat (Figure 12). Two farm Models were assumed; Model 1 represents 20 hectares whereas
Model 2 represents 80 hectares.
Due to the advantages of forage beets over sugar beets (see 4.1.3), more emphasis will be given
to forage beets. The relative contributions to the total energy requirements for forage and sugar
beets production are outlined in Tables 26 and 27, respectively. The total energy consumption
in the first stage (production of forage beets) without calculating the effluent as fertilizer is
estimated to be 32.1 GJ/ha. The largest energy input in the first stage is in the form of nitrogen
fertilizer (13.5 GJ/ha) which is necessary to recover the uptake with the plant. Returning the
reactor effluent to land will replace the withdrawn nutrient up to 75 % and hence the chemical

129
fertilizers. As a result, the energy for chemical fertilizers will be reduced from 21.4 to 5.35
GJ/ha. The second high energy input is for fuel consumption. An amount of 110 kg diesel and
4 kg lubricant are necessary to achieve the mechanical work per hectare for forage beets
production. This is equal to 5.17 GJ/ha. Another effective part in energy input in forage beets
production is the energy for machinery and equipment production. The total energy for
machinery, according to Stephen (1999), is estimated to be 4 GJ/ha. In spite of the small low
application of plant protection agents (PPA) they were estimated to have an energy input value
of 1.1 GJ/ha because of their high energy production factor (241 MJ/kg). The total energy input
for production of forage beets was estimated to have a value of 15.95 GJ/ha. The total energy
input for sugar beets was estimated to have a value of 15.26 GJ/ha (Table 27).
An amount of 120 t forage beets was assumed to be produced per hectare and year. The
harvested forage beets have to be chopped, pumped and stored in silos before being fed into the
biogas reactor. The input energy for chopping, pumping and storing of 120 ton forage beets per
hectare is assumed to be 0.69 and 0.64 GJ/ha for Models 1 and 2, respectively. Sugar beets
with a yield of 65 t per hectare and year was estimated to have lower energy input for
chopping, pumping and storing, with a value of 0.42 and 0.38 GJ/ha for Models 1 and 2,
respectively, (Table 27).

From the laboratory results, 1 kg FBS have produced 47 liters of methane. Similarly, digesting
one hectare forage beets with yield of 120 t will produce 5640 m3 methane. This is equivalent
to 203.04 GJ/ha. The equivalent amount of energy from one hectare sugar beets is 191.52
GJ/ha. Converting methane energy to electrical energy will result in reduction of the energy
efficiency. A combined heat and power unit (CHP) is the most efficient way of generating
electricity and heat from a given amount of fuel. It saves between 15-40 % of energy when
compared with the separate production of electricity.
For the assumed Models, 20 and 80 hectares of forage beets, about 160/640 m3 reactor volume
is needed to digest the FBS (compare Figure 61). Due to the lower methane productivity of
SBS, a bigger reactor is needed (180/720 m3 reactor volume). To burn the produced biogas, a
50–60 kW generator for Model 1 and 200–240 kW generator for Model 2 will be sufficient.
The efficient motor will, in this case be, the pilot injection gas engine (PIGE) for Model 1 and
gas engine for Model 2 (Appendix 2). They could have an electrical efficiency of 35 % and
heat efficiency of 55 %. The disadvantage of PIGE is that it needs additional heating oil which
increases the energy input. The amount of heating oil is considered to be 10 % of the total
energy used. In this case, an additional 564 and 532 liters of heating oil are considered per

130
hectare for reactors with FBS and SBS, respectively. The heating oil consumption has
increased the energy input by 24.6 and 23.25 GJ/ha*a. The energy for the production of the
CHP unit is assumed to be 1.0 GJ/ha*a (Kalk and Hülsbergen, 1996 and Stephen, 1999). The
energy needed for pumping and mixing in the biogas plant is assumed to be 5 % of the
electrical output energy and that needed for heating 25 % of the heat output energy (Weiland,
2001). The biogas plant operating energy for forage beets as well as for sugar beets represents
75 %, 75 %, 77 % and 66 % of the total input energy for Models 1 and 2 in Scenario 1 and
Models 1 and 2 in Scenario 2, respectively.

Table 26: Energy input for forage beets silage per hectare

Amount Energy Energy input (GJ/ha)

per ha factor Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Seed 6 kg a,b,* 30.1 MJ/kg b 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Nitrogen 275 kg a 49.1 MJ/kg c 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
Phosphorus 130 kg a 17.7 MJ/kg c 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
Potassium 350 kg a 10.5 MJ/kg c 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68
Calcium 700 kg 2.39 MJ/kg c 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67
Effluent - - -16.04 -16.04 -16.04 -16.04
PPA 4.7 kg i,* 241 MJ/kg b 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Diesel 110 kg d,* 46.9 MJ/kg e 5.17 5.17 5.17 5.17
Lubricant 4 kg f 54.0 MJ/kg h 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Machines - - 4.0 d,g,* 4.0 d,g,* 4.0 d,g,* 4.0 d,g,*
Sum 15.95 15.95 15.95 15.95
a j,*
Chopping 120 t 2.16 MJ/t 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
Pumping 120 t a 0.288 MJ/t j,* 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Silo 125 m³ * - 0.40 * 0.35 * 0.40 * 0.35 *
Sum 0.69 0.64 0.69 0.64
k # #
Heating ca. 25 % produced heat 38.7 38.7 27.9 27.9
Mixing # #
ca. 5 % produced electricity k 11.1 11.1 3.5 3.5
Pumping
Reactor 160-640 m³ - 0.5 * 0.4 * 0.5 * 0.4 *
CHP - - - 1.0 d,g,* 1.0 d,g,*
Heating oil 564 l 43.7 MJ/l # - - 24.6 0
Sum 50.36 50.25 57.5 32.8
Total Energy input (GJ/ha) 67.0 66.84 74.14 49.39
Source: KTBL, 2002a / Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997b / Patyk, et al., 1997c / Stephen, 1999d / Reinhardt, 1993e /
Oheimb, 1987 f / Kalk, et al., 1996g / Mauch, 94h / Hartman, et al., 1995i / Dülmen, 1993 j /
Weiland, 2001k / own calculation and estimation *.
#
include energy production (11.4 MJ/kWhb, 1.11 MJ/MJ heating oilb + 80 % production efficiency)

131
Table 27 :Energy input for sugar beets silage per hectare

Amount Energy Energy input (GJ/ha)

per ha factor Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Seed 4 kg b 30.1 MJ/kg b 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
Nitrogen 220 kg a 49.1 MJ/kg c 10.8 10.8 10.8 10.8
Phosphorus 180 kg a 17.7 MJ/kg c 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.19
Potassium 380 kg a 10.5 MJ/kg c 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99
Calcium 700 kg a 2.39 MJ/kg c 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67
Effluent - - -14.74 -14.74 -14.74 -14.74
PPA 4.47 kg i 241 MJ/kg b 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Diesel 105 kg d 46.9 MJ/kg e 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.93
Lubricant 4 kg f 54.0 MJ/kg h 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
Machines - - 4.0 d,g 4.0 d,g 4.0 d,g 4.0 d,g
Sum 15.26 15.26 15.26 15.26
a j
Chopping 65 t 2.16 MJ/t 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
Pumping 65 t a 0.288 MJ/t j 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Silo 70 m³ * - 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.21
Sum 0.42 0.38 0.42 0.38
#
Heating ca. 25 % produced heat k
36.5 36.5 # 26.3 26.3
Mixing
ca. 5 % produced electricity k 10.4 # 10.4 # 3.3 3.3
Pumping
Reactor 180-720 m³ - 0.56 * 0.45 * 0.56 * 0.45 *
CHP - - - - 1.0 d,g,* 1.0 d,g,*
Heating oil 532 l 43.7 MJ/l # - - 23.25 0
Sum 47.46 47.35 54.41 31.05
Total Energy input (GJ/ha) 63.14 62.99 70.09 46.69
Source: KTBL, 2002a / Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997b / Patyk, et al., 1997c / Stephen, 1999d / Reinhardt, 1993e /
Oheimb, 1987 f / Kalk, et al., 1996g / Mauch, 94h / Hartman, et al., 1995i / Dülmen, 1993 j /
*
Weiland, 2001k / own calculation and estimation .
#
include energy production (11.4 MJ/kWhb, 1.11 MJ/MJ heating oilb + 80 % production efficiency)

There is no significant change in the input energy in Scenario 1 for Models 1 and 2. Both
Models have a net energy of approximately 136 GJ/ha (128 GJ/ha) by producing 203.04 GJ/ha
(191.52 GJ/ha) (Tables 28 and 29). To produce the same amount of fossil energy (natural gas)
an additional 145.6 GJ/ha (137.36 GJ/ha) are needed. This means that 145.6 GJ per hectare in
the case of FBS and 137.4 GJ per hectare in the case of SBS can be saved when the biogas is
used to substitute natural gas energy. This represents a saving of 68 % of the produced fossil
energy. The net energy production in Scenario 2 was calculated to have the values 77.11
(72.61) and 101.86 GJ/ha (96 GJ/ha) for Models 1 and 2, respectively, which represents a

132
savings of 77 % and 85 % of fossil energy for the same energy output for both forage and sugar
beets. This is equivalent to a saving of 256 and 281 GJ of fossil fuel per hectare in the case of
forage beets and a saving of 241 and 265 GJ/ha in the case of sugar beets. Tables 28 and 29
show the energy balance of biogas production compared to fossil fuel per hectare for FBS and
SBS, respectively.

Table 28: Energy balance of biogas (FBS) and fossil cycle

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Fossil fuel

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Natural Electricity Elect. &
Gas heat
Input (GJ/ha) 67.0 66.84 74.14 49.39 212.6 * 212 * 330 *
151.25 151.25
Output (GJ/ha) 203.04 203.04 203.04 67.5 151.25
(67.5) (67.5)
2.04 3.06
O/I 3.03 3.04 0.95 0.318 0.458
(0.91) (1.36)
Net energy 77.11 101.86
136.04 136.2 - 9.56 - 144.5 - 178.75
(GJ/ha) (- 6.64) (18.11)
Saved fossil 255.86 280.61
145.6 145.76 - 212.6 - 212 - 330
energy (GJ/ha) (137.9) (162.6)
*
- fossil energy needed to produce equivalent amount of bio-energy, Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997 (1.047 MJ/MJ
natural gas, 11.4 MJ/kWh, 1.11 MJ/MJ heating oil + 80 % production efficiency)
- results between brackets represents electricity part

Table 29: Energy balance of biogas (SBS) and fossil cycle

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Fossil fuel

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Natural Electricity Elect. &
Gas heat
Input (GJ/ha) 63.14 62.99 70.09 46.69 200.5 * 201.7 * 311.3 *
142.7 142.7
Output (GJ/ha) 191.52 191.52 191.52 63.7 142.7
(63.7) (63.7)
2.04 3.06
O/I 3.03 3.04 0.95 0.316 0.458
(0.91) (1.36)
Net energy 72.61 96.01
128.38 128.53 - 8.98 - 138 - 168.4
(GJ/ha) (- 6.39) (17.01)
Saved fossil 241.2 264.6
137.36 137.51 - 200.5 -201.7 -311.3
energy (GJ/ha) (131.6) (155.0)
*
- fossil energy needed to produce equivalent amount of bio-energy, Kaltschmitt, et al., 1997 (1.047 MJ/MJ
natural gas, 11.4 MJ/kWh, 1.11 MJ/MJ heating oil + 80 % production efficiency)
- results between brackets represents electricity part

133
Advantages of biogas energy from forage beets

The growing of forage beets as well as sugar beets as a source of biogas energy is potentially a
renewable and sustainable system of harnessing solar energy. However, this potential is
realized only when the energy obtained from beets exceeds the fossil fuel energy inputs used in
growing beets and preparing processes as is shown in Table 28 and 29. Besides producing
environmentally friendly energy, biogas from beets has various advantages even over other
renewable energies. These include:

· Positive energy balance.

· The whole plant can be used for energy production.
· Simple energy balance (closed system).
· Return of the mineral back to soil (reduce energy).
· No additives were needed (less energy).
· No problems in storage (possibility to store biogas in the form of FBS and SBS).
· Effective form of power (electrical energy).
· Increase energy efficiency of manure (mixing FBS and SBS with manure).

4.3 Ecological balance

The environmental effects of biogas production and use from forage and sugar beets were
investigated in a comparable form to fossil energy through the ecological balance. The
environmental categories used in the investigation were: resource-depletion, land use,
greenhouse potential, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication,
photochemical smog, overall and human toxicity. A detailed representation of the all the
emission data is shown in Appendix 3. As mentioned before, only Scenario 2 was considered
in the ecological assessment (Figure 12).

Resource Depletion and Land Use

Generally, the substitution of fossil fuel with renewable energies will reduce depletion of
energy resources. In the evaluation of the fossil energy that can be saved by using renewable
energy, the part of non-renewable energy used in the production of renewable energy must be

134
considered. Producing biogas from forage and sugar beets can save up to 68 % of the
equivalent fossil energy (natural gas). Converting biogas from beets to electrical and heat
energy will reduce the consumption of non-renewable energy up to 77 % and 85 % for Models
1 and 2, respectively. Moreover, forage beets is licensed to be grown on a set-aside agricultural
land (BLE, 2002) which represents 10 % of German farmland.

Greenhouse Effect
The greenhouse effect was quantified by using global warming potentials (GWP) expressed as
CO2-equivalents (CO2, CH4 and N2O). The CO2 emission gases from the energetical use of
biogas is considered to be neutral. The reason is that the CO2 produced from the burning
process is equivalent to the CO2 taken up from the plant through its growth. The greenhouse
gases derived from agricultural production came mainly from the use of fertilizers and fossil
fuels to provide power and transport. The use of effluent as a substitute for mineral fertilizers
has reduced the total CO2-emission from biogas production from FBS and SBS to 40 %.

25
CO2-equivalent emission [ton/ha]

biogas emission
20
heat
electricity
15

10

0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 62: CO2-equivalent emission from biogas production and fossil life cycle

The necessary heating oil used in Model 1 (20 ha farm) alone presented about 60 % of the total
CO2-emission of the biogas cycle. This explains the lower CO2-emission in Model 2 (80 ha
farm). It is assumed here that there is no escape of CH4 from the biogas plant. Figure 62
(detailed data in Appendix 3) shows the CO2-equivalents for the biogas production from FBS

135
and SBS and their equivalent fossil energy. The results show that the production of electrical
energy alone from forage and sugar beets can avoid the release of 10.5 and 9.9 tons CO2 per
hectare and year for Model 1 (20 hectare farm) and 12.3 and 11.6 tons CO2 per hectare and
year for Model 2 (80 hectare farm). Taking the heating energy into account, this will avoid the
release of additional of 9.1 and 8.8 tons CO2 per hectare and year for both Models for forage
and sugar beets, respectively.

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Figure 63 (detailed data in Appendix 3) demonstrates the N2O concentration that can be
released throughout the biogas production from forage and sugar beets and their equivalent
fossil fuel cycles. The N2O emission through nitrification and de-nitrification in the soil is not
estimated and assumed to be low (IPCC, 1995). The biogas cycles show higher harmful effects
from ozone through the higher concentration of N2O. The high N2O concentration in the biogas
cycle was mainly due to the high N2O-emission in nitrogen production (Appendix 3). Despite
the usage of effluent as fertilizers, the N2O-emission from nitrogen production still represents
in the case of FBS, 66 % and 75 %, and in the case of SBS, 62 % and 72 %, of the total biogas
emissions for Models 1 and 2, respectively.

2.0

biogas emission
1.6 heat
electricity
N 2O-emission [kg/ha]

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 63: N2O-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle

136
Acidification
The estimated SO2-equivalents for SO2, NOx, NH3, H2S and HCl for biogas production cycle
and its equivalent fossil energy cycle is presented in Figure 64 (detailed data in Appendix 3).
The Figure shows an advantage of biogas cycle over fossil cycle. The use of biogas for
electrical energy production can reduce SO2-emissions from fossil fuel by 22.6 and 36.4 kg
SO2 per hectare in the case of FBS and 14.1 and 27.1 kg SO2 per hectare in the case of SBS
for Models 1 and 2, respectively. Despite high H2S concentration in biogas from SBS, the SO2
concentration from biogas is lower than that from fossil fuel.

60
SO 2-equivalent emission [kg/ha]

50 H2S in Biogas
biogas emission
heat
40 electricity

30

20

10

0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 64: SO2-equivalent emission from biogas and fossil life cycle

Eutrophication
Figures 65 and 66 (detailed data in Appendix 3) demonstrate the amount of NOx and NH3,
respectively, that can be released through the biogas production and their equivalent fossil
cycle. Generally, only NOx-emission from the biogas cycle of Model 2 (80 ha) shows an
advantage over emission from fossil fuel (Figure 65). The higher emission of the NOx from
biogas cycle in Model 1 was due to the burning of heating oil which alone represents 63 % of
the total emission. On the other hand, 95 % of NH3 emission from the biogas cycle was derived
from the production of nitrogen fertilizer. Moreover, the application of reactor effluent to soil
will contribute to additional NH3 emissions. NH3 emission of 8 % from NH4-N is considered

137
with the assumption that the ideal application methods and the anaerobic digestion reduces
NH3 emissions (Wulf, et al., 2001). The release of 7.18 and 1.7 kg NH3 through the biogas
cycle for forage and sugar beets compared to no release from the fossil cycle is considered as a
negative effect. It is assumed that through the anaerobic process no NH3 was gauged.

35

30 biogas emission
NOx-emission [kg/ha]

heat
electricity
25

20

15

10

0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 65: NOx-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle

8.0
NH3-emission [kg/ha]

effluent application
biogas emission
6.0
heat
electricity

4.0

2.0

0.0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 66: NH3-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle

138
Photochemical Smog
In addition to NOx, the non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emission affect the photochemical
smog. Figure 67 (detailed data in Appendix 3) shows the emission of NMHC from the biogas
cycle and its equivalent fossil fuel cycle. The use of biogas for electrical energy production has
not shown less NMHC emissions than from fossil fuel. The main source of NMHC in the
biogas cycle is the burning of fossil fuel. The absence of the heating oil in Model 2 reduces the
NMHC emission by 71 %.

5.0
NMHC-emission [kg/ha]

4.0 biogas emission

heat
electricity
3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
Fossil FBS FBS Fossil SBS SBS
energy (20 ha) (80 ha) energy (20 ha) (80 ha)

Figure 67: NMHC-emission from biogas and fossil life cycle

Human- and ecotoxicological impacts

Under the aspect of human and ecotoxicological impacts, the substances in Table 30 (detailed
data in Appendix 3) were considered. The Table shows different effects of the substances. The
emissions of SO2, HCL, dust and NOx in Model 2 (electricity and heat) show less emissions
than fossil fuel and hence an advantage over fossil fuel. The rest substance show more
emissions than from fossil fuel inducing negative effects. Nevertheless, their concentrations
were considered to be low. The burning of biogas shows less emission of toxic substances than
fossil fuel. The higher concentration of toxic substances from biogas cycle was mostly caused
by the burning of fossil fuels.

139
Table 30: Emission of toxic substances from biogas and fossil cycles

Fossil Biogas Balance

Elec.+Heat Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
kg/ha
36.8 1.96 1.45 34.8 35.8
SO2 (+) (+)
31.8 1.98 1.50 29.8 30.6
4.94 10.9 5.36 5.95 0.42
CO (-) (-)
4.21 10.4 5.14 6.15 0.92
17.5 30.2 11.1 12.7 6.36
NOx (-) (+)
14.6 28.6 10.7 13.9 3.95
1.70 4.38 1.25 2.68 (+) 0.45
NMHC (-)
0.59 4.17 1.22 3.57 (-) 0.62
0.15 2.01 0.35 1.87 0.21
Particle (-) (-)
0.11 1.92 0.36 1.82 0.25
0.93 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46
Dust (+) (+)
0.79 0.46 0.46 0.33 0.33
0.75 0.02 0.02 0.73 0.73
HCL (+) (+)
0.71 0.02 0.02 0.69 0.69
0.0 7.19 7.18 7.19 7.18
NH3 (-) (-)
0.0 2.09 2.08 2.09 2.08
0.03 0.34 0.07 0.31 0.04
Formaldehyde (-) (-)
0.02 0.32 0.07 0.3 0.05
0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.0
Benzol (-) (-)
0.01 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.01
(+) = emission reduction through biogas application
(-) = emission increase through biogas application
- italics values are for sugar beets

Ecological cycle
The cycle of biogas production from forage beets has ecological advantages, not only over
fossil energy but also over many other renewable fuels. The only by-product of the anaerobic
digestion process is the reactor effluent, which contains nearly all the original nutrients in the
crop, and can be returned back to the soil as a fertilizer. On the other hand, the hard degradable
carbon compounds in the effluent can improve soil quality. These points improve the
sustainability of crop-to fuel production system. Moreover, the use of effluent as a fertilizer can
reduce environmental pollution caused by the energy used for the production of mineral
fertilizer. Additional advantages can be seen as:

140
 · Closed production cycle (the whole plant can be used and returned back to soil)
· No additives were needed for preparation such as sodium hydroxide and acids
· Simple process
· No production of hazardous materials
· Fast biological degradation
· Alternative for set-aside of agricultural land

4.4 Economical evaluation

The economics of methane production by anaerobic conversion of agricultural crops vary

depending on a number of factors. These factors can be categorized into four main groups:
Beets production costs, operational costs, investment costs, and cash income. The cash income
will be from selling electricity and heat for 0.1023 and 0.025 Euro per kWh, respectively
(REA, 2000). The growing of beets on set-aside agricultural land will not cancel the cash
income of 325 Euro per hectare and year for set-aside agricultural land. In the short run, cash
income must be sufficient to cover the beets production costs and the running costs. In the long
run, the income should be sufficient to cover all costs of production including investment costs.
The cost estimates are representative of average costs for a small (20 ha) and a large (80 ha)
farm. For the valuation, only Scenario 2 was considered (Figure 12).

Beets production
The cost estimates are not meant to represent the costs for any one specific farm. Rather, they
are meant to represent an average. Due to differences in soil productivity, quantity of inputs,
price of inputs, management (own, rented land), and other factors, forage and sugar beets
production costs will vary substantially from farm to farm. Table 31 shows the estimated
forage and sugar beets production costs. The use of effluent as fertilizer reduced the input cost
for mineral fertilizers. Machinery costs reflect both new and used equipment. Taking into
account seeds, plant protection agents, fuels and labor, the annual forage and sugar beets
production cost is estimated to be 880 and 823 Euro/hectare, respectively, for Models 1 and 2.

141
Biogas plant
The annual cost of an agricultural biogas plant is mainly determined by investment (capital)
costs and operational costs. The operational cost (Table 31) is the cost for heating oil (Model
1), cost for maintenance and repair, cost for Tieröl (12 liter per hectare, BLE, 2002), and cost
for labor. It is assumed here that the biogas plant is completely automated and the cost of labor
accounts for one hour per day. The total operational cost were assumed to be 663 and 251
Euro/ha and year in the case of forage beets and 593 and 196 Euro/ha and year in the case of
sugar beets for Models 1 and 2, respectively. The investment cost is calculated from the charge
of the life-time of the unit.
The investment cost varies within a wide range depending on:

· Reactor material (steel, concrete, thermal isolation)

· Heating system (floor, wall, circulation)
· Stirring and mixing (mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic)
· Gas cleaning and gas storage (bag, container, etc. )
· Gas and substrate transport material
· Gas use unit (gas motor, injection motor with heating oil tank)
· Additional buildings and equipments
· Electrical installation
· Heat use connections

The investment costs associated with producing biogas from beets have been estimated based
on a model developed by Oechsner and Knebelspieß (1999). They categorized the investment
costs into total reactor-cost and total gas use-cost. The total reactor-costs include the costs of
the reactor and all equipment attached to the reactor (e.g., mixer, heating, pump, etc.). The total
gas use-costs include the CHP unit and all units dealing with the produced gas. The investment
costs for preparing beets (chopping, pumping, storage) will be considered separately.
The data collected by Oechsner and Knebelspieß (1999) showed that the total reactor cost
varied within a wide range. For example, the cost of the smallest reactor (100 m3) varied in a
range between 29,500 and 90,000 Euro. From the obtained data, Oechsner and Knebelspieß
have estimated a relationship between the reactor volume and the cost of volumetric unit in
cubic meter which can be seen in Figure 68. The Figure shows great variation in the specific
investment especially for small reactors. For this thesis, reactors were assumed at a costs of
50,000 and 84,000 Euro for Models 1 and 2, respectively.

142
 Table 31: Forage (and sugar) beets production and biogas running costs

Amount Price Model 1 Model 2

per (ha*a) Euro/unit Euro/ha*a
Seeds (unit) 1.8 (0.91) 90 (150) 160 (140) 160 (140)
N (kg) 65 (55) 0.44 29 (24) 29 (24)
P2O5 (kg) 30 (45) 0.40 12 (18) 12 (18)
K2O (kg) 85 (95) 0.21 18 (20) 18 (20)
Production cost

CaO (kg) 100 (100) 0.025 3 (3) 3 (3)

Plant PA (kg) 4.7 (4.5) 240 (220) 240 (220)
Diesel (liter) 130 (120) 0.7 91 (84) 91 (84)
Lubricant (liter) 4 (4) 0.7 3 (3) 3 (3)
Labor (hour) 10 (9) 12.5 125 (112) 125 (112)
Machines - - 200 (200) 200 (200)
Sum 880 (823) 880 (823)
Heating oil (liter) 564 (530) 0.43 243 (228) 0
Running cost

Service 125 (75) 1.0* 125 (70) 125 (70)

Tieröl - - 70 (70) 70 (70)
Labor (hour) 365/20(80) 12.5 225 (225) 56 (56)
Sum 663 (593) 251 (196)
Total 1,542 (1,416) 1,131 (1,019)
Source: Anonym, 2001 / KTBL, 2002 / BLSF, 2002 /Keymer, 2001 / Trenkel, 1999 /own estimation
-* chopping, pumping and maintenance (Keymer, 2001)
- results between brackets represents sugar beets

350

300
Investment [Euro x 10³]

250

200

150

100

50

0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500

reactor volume [m³]

Source: Oechsner, et al., 1999

Figure 68: Reactor specific investment

143
Similar to the total reactor-costs the total gas-use costs has been estimated. There was no wide
variation in the data collected by Oechsner and Knebelspieß (1999). For Models 1 and 2 a total
gas-use cost of 45,000 and 140,000 Euro were assumed respectively. Table 32 shows the total
investment cost of biogas plant and the annual income. The total investment costs include
equipment and buildings used for the preparation of biogas (chopping, pumping and storing).
The total costs amount to about 2,602 and 1,926 Euro/ha*a for FBS, and 2,476 and 1,814
Euro/ha*a for SBS, for Models 1 and 2, respectively. The annual investment costs alone cover
45 % of the total cost without government aid. Enlarging the scale of biogas production from
beets (Model 2) has decreased the total cost. Considering Model 1, the electricity price alone
will not cover the total cost. On the other hand, scaling up the biogas plant (Model 2) has
reduced the costs so that the electricity price alone nearly cover the total price.

Table 32: Investment cost and annual income of biogas plant

Investment cost
Life time Model 1 Model 2
[Euro]
20 ha 80 ha year Euro/ha*a
Chopping 15,000 15,000 10 75 25
Pumping 4,000 4,000 10 20 5
Silo 100,000 400,000 16 320 320
Rest container 10,000 30,000 16 35 25
CHP 45,000 140,000 5 450 350
Reactor 50,000 84,000 16 160 70
Sum 224,000 673,000 1,060 795
Forage beets 2,602 1,926
Total cost
Sugar beets 2,476 1,814
Annual income Amount/ha*a Euro/kWh FBS SBS
FBS SBS
Electricity (kWh) 18,600 17,700 0.1023 1,903 1,810
(15,500) (13,950) (1,586) (1,422)
Heat (kWh) 24,900 22,950 0.025 623 574
(20,750) (18,050) (519) (450)
Total income (Euro/ha*a) 2,526 2,384
(2,105) (1,872)
Source: KTBL, 2002 / Oechsner, et al., 1999 /Keymer, 2001 / Scholz, et al., 2000 / own estimation
* results between brackets represents hectare yield equals 100 ton forage beets and 55 ton sugar beets

144
In order to balance the input/output cost for both Models, the heat benefits cost must be
considered. Taking this into account, the production of biogas electricity from beets still can
not cover the total cost for Model 1 and have a profit of 600 Euro/ha and year for forage beets,
and 570 Euro/ha and year for sugar beets for Model 2. To simplify the analysis, it is assumed
that the total capital are available funds and can be recovered without interest through the life-
time of biogas plant. This assumption is not realistic, since a sum of 224,000 and 673,000 Euro
is not easy to fund. Considering an annual rate of 6 % interest would increase the investment
cost. However, most of the agricultural biogas plants in Germany are built with government
aid, which reduces the total investment costs (an average of 25 % of the investment costs can
be paid from government aid).
A very important assumption in this analysis is the beets yield per hectare (120 and 65 t/ha*a
for forage and sugar beets, respectively). When a lower beets yield per hectare is obtained, for
example 100 and 55 t/ha*a for forage and sugar beets (Table 32), the profitability of the plant
of Model 1 will be beyond the safe range. Generally, the economical analysis of biogas plant is
not easy to estimate. The values must be measured from a practical biogas plant, so that a
precise analysis can be achieved.
Generally, from the estimated costs, the investment in a biogas plant for small farms for pure
forage and sugar beets without government aid can not be recommended, even when the heat
output is added to the system.

145
5 Error discussion

There were many types of errors that occurred throughout this thesis. They can be classified
into two groups: experimental errors and analytical errors (errors through the energy,
ecological and economical analysis).

Experimental errors
The experimental errors include all the errors that happened during the experiments, from
preparing the samples to the biogas production including the laboratory analyses. More
attention has been given to preparing the samples (weighing, mixing, etc.) to minimize errors
that could occur through the experimental analyses. Furthermore, the laboratory analyses were
conducted in duplicate or triplicate to ensure the results. Nevertheless, some errors were not
avoidable which can be summarized as follows:
There sometimes occurred a leakage in the biogas measuring system. This error could be
detected immediately from the low biogas production, by comparing the duplicates, and the
error was avoided (leakage was removed). The high performance liquid chromatography used
for determining the volatile fatty acids could recognize only the substances that had already
been calibrated with the standard samples. The SBS samples were repeated many times using
different standards to recognize all the detected peaks. The effluent results of the semi-
continuous experiments were directly affected by the original reactor content (inoculum). This
error was solved only after a total replacement of inoculum with influent. The high dry matter
of sugar beets silage has caused difficulties in feeding the reactors smoothly. This problem
affected the results and rose with the increase in OLR. The problem was solved by feeding the
reactor slowly and very carefully.

Analytical errors
Most of the data used in the energetic, ecological and economical analysis were taken from the
literature. The data varied significantly from source to source. For the analysis, the latest data,
sometimes average values, were used instead of the specific values. This could cause
uncertainty in the results. Furthermore, little information was found in the literature about the
energetic, ecological and economical evaluation for beets, especially forage beets. In this case
estimations were made according to other data which could also affect the results. Particularly,
the estimation of the forage and sugar beets yield of 120 and 65 t/ha per year may have a great
influence on the calculation.

146
6 Conclusions

The ultimate objective of this research, on anaerobic digestion of forage and sugar beets
feedstocks, is the production of a fuel that is competitive with fossil fuel. Based on the results
of this investigation, it can be concluded that:

· The batch experiments show that forage and sugar beets silage, as well as their mixture
with manure, have very good degradability. With degradation efficiency of 90 %, 47 l/kg
FBS and approx. 82 l/kg SBS could be produced. The mixtures show lower degradation
efficiency due to the low degradation degree of manure and hence lower methane
production. On the other hand, considering beets as co-substrate could increase the low
efficiency of manure.

· In the semi-continuous experiments, a maximum organic loading rate of 4 g oTS/l*d could

be reached under stable condition for forage and sugar beets. The addition of manure to
FBS and SBS have increased the maximum loading rate to 4.5 g oTS/l*d and at the same
time the stability of the process.

· The maximum methane productivity, which is an important factor in determining reactor

volume and hence the economic of biogas plant, have reached 1.92 l/l*d and 1.8 l/l*d for
FBS and SBS, respectively.

· Constant methane content of 53 % was measured for FBS and SBS in all experiments. This
value has increased to 55 % as a result of manure addition. The highest H2S content from
forage beets was measured to be less than 100 ppm so that no removal is required for the
energetic use of the gas.

· The high concentration of organic acids resulting from the ensiling process did not affect
the process indicating a high buffer capacity.

· The anaerobic digestion enhanced the efficiency of forage and sugar beets as fertilizer
through the increment of NH4-N content to more than 50 %.

· Energy production, in the form of methane, from forage beets is more effective than from
sugar beets due to the higher methane production per hectare of forage beets.

147
· When comparing renewable energy with fossil energy, it was found that from 1 hectare
forage (sugar) beets up to 280 GJ (264 GJ) fossil energy can be saved per year (Scenario 2,
Model 2).

· The important effect of environmental pollution through biogas techniques is the very low
release of greenhouse gases. The production of electrical energy from forage (sugar) beets
can avoid the release of 20.5 tons (20 tons) CO2-equivalent per hectare and year (Scenario
2, Model 2).

· The anaerobic digestion alternative of beets silage results in lower acidification than from
fossil fuel and generally low contribution to global warming gases.

· Optimization of anaerobic digestion of forage and sugar beets for high methane yield and
rates may not be consistent with obtaining the best economics (dependent mainly on
investment costs).

· The implications of anaerobic digestion (beets) for an alternative energy producing system
or pollution reduction mechanism will depend upon local conditions as well as a country’s
policy with respect to energy use and thus costs.

The research has shown that all the hypotheses except possibly the profitability of selling
biogas electricity are true. A small increase in the biogas electricity could make the production
of biogas from beets profitable.
As a result of the findings of this study, the following areas are suggested as possible topics for
future research:

· The storage of effluent must be examined (emission effect).

· Detailed investigation of the effects of effluent as a substitute for chemical fertilizers.
· Precise economical analysis through a realized biogas plant.
· Verification of the sustainability of the system.

148
7 Summary

The limited resources of fossil energy in addition to the environmental pollution caused by
their generation and use has made the production of energy from renewable resources very
interesting in the last decades. A currently available and potential alternative energy source is
the anaerobic digestion (biogas production) from energy crops which has been encouraged in
German policy (REA, 2000). Forage and sugar beets, due to their high organic dry matter
(oTS) yield per hectare, are energy crops which are thought to have high biogas production.
Moreover, they can be easily ensiled and stored to be used for the whole year. Until now there
has been no accurate data available on the anaerobic digestion of forage and sugar beets.
Furthermore, the combination of ensiling and digestion is considered to be a new technology.

The first objective of this thesis was to exactly examine the anaerobic digestion of forage and
sugar beets silage. Therefore, laboratory scale tests (17 batch reactors and 16 semi-continuous
reactors) were performed to determine the anaerobic capacity of forage and sugar beets silage
(FBS & SBS) and to determine their methane yield and the biogas properties under different
process conditions. The feasibility of co-fermentation of beets with cow manure (CM) was also
included in this study. The effect of the digestion process on parameters such as chemical
oxygen demand, ammonium nitrogen and volatile fatty acids was determined. The second
objective of the thesis was to compare biogas production from beets to conventional electricity
production with respect to energy balance, ecological balance and economy, so that a possibly
optimized balance methods with all measurable and affecting factors could be determined.

Generally, the results show that FBS and SBS are suitable for mono- and co-fermentation. The
results of the batch experiments show that forage and sugar beets contain fast degradable
substances and have a high degradation efficiency. On the other hand, the lower degradation
efficiency of manure resulted in lower degradation efficiency of the mixture of beets with cow
manure and hence lower methane production. The mean results of the batch experiments are
shown in the Table below.

149
Mean results of the batch experiments
Methane yield Methane yield Degradation efficiency
Substrate
[l/kg-FM] [l/kg-oTS] [%]
FBS 47 468 95
temperature
Mesophilic

SBS 83 400 92

SBS:CM (1:4) 17 294 62

Thermophilic
temperature

FBS 45 468 95

FBS:CM (1:1) 23 400 85

In the semi-continuous experiments, the maximum organic loading rate that could be reached
for forage and sugar beets under stable conditions was 4 g oTS/l*d. This increased to 4.5
g oTS/l*d as a result of the addition of manure to the beets. The Table below shows the
methane productivity under maximum organic loading rates and the methane and H2S contents,
which are important factors for the economy of the biogas plant.
The experiments also show an increase in NH4-N content to more than 50 % which increased
the efficiency of using the digested substrates as fertilizer. The high concentration of organic
acids resulting from ensiling process did not affect the pH of the digestion process indicating a
high buffer capacity. The study also provided information on the effect of plant denaturation
agent on the process of FBS.

Mean results of the semi-continuous experiments

Methane productivity Methane content H2S content
Substrate
[l/l*d] [%] [ppm]
FBS 1.92 53 100
temperature
Mesophilic

SBS 1.80 53 350

FBS:CM (1:1) 1.76 55 100

SBS:CM (1:4) 1.58 56 850

Thermophilic
temperature

FBS 2.10 53 100

FBS:CM (1:1) 1.90 55 100

150
Regarding energetic aspects, it was found that producing only electricity from forage and sugar
beets can have an Output/Input factor of 1.36 compared to 0.32 from conventional energy. The
Output/Input factor of biogas from beets increases to 3.06 when the heat production is taken
into account. Substituting conventional energy with biogas energy which has higher
Output/Input factor and positive energy balance, can save up to 280 GJ (264 GJ) fossil energy
per hectare and year. Furthermore, the use of the whole plant and the application of reactor
effluent as fertilizer characterize the energy gain from beets biogas as a simple and close
energy balance system.
In comparison to fossil energy the application of biogas from beets results in better ecological
balance. The use of biogas from 1 hectare forage (sugar) beets for electricity could avoid the
release of 21 (20) tons CO2-equivalent when using fossil energy. Generally, the anaerobic
digestion of forage and sugar beets indicates low contribution to global warning gases.
From today’s perspective, the biogas production from beets can not be economically
recommended. This could be changed by including the heat energy in the system and/or by
increasing the price of biogas electricity (> 0.1 Euro/kWh). However, an assessment of energy
balance, ecological balance and economy of biogas production from forage and sugar beets
came out in favor of forage beets.

151
8 Zusammenfassung

Sowohl die begrenzten Ressourcen an fossilen Energien als auch die durch Gewinnung und
Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe hervorgerufenen Umweltbelastungen geben in der letzten Zeit der
Energieproduktion aus erneuerbaren Rohstoffen einen hohen Stellenwert. Eine der momentan
verfügbaren und verwendbaren alternativen Energiequellen ist die anaerobe Vergärung
(Biogasproduktion) von nachwachsenden Rohstoffen, die von der deutschen Bundesregierung
gefördert wird. Futter- und Zuckerrüben sind aufgrund ihres hohen organischen
Trockenmassegehalts (oTS), der pro Hektar erzielt wird, sehr energieeffiziente Pflanzen, die
daher für eine Biogasproduktion besonders geeignet erscheinen. Sie können einfach siliert und
gelagert werden und stehen somit ganzjährig für die Biogasproduktion zur Verfügung. Bisher
liegen aber keine abgesicherten Daten über die anaerobe Vergärung von Futter- und
Zuckerrüben vor. Zudem stellt die Kombination von Silierung und Fermentation eine neuartige
Verfahrenskette dar.
Das erste Ziel dieser Arbeit war die genaue Untersuchung der anaeroben Vergärung von
Futter- und Zuckerrübensilage (FRS & ZRS). Hierzu wurden Untersuchungen im Labor (17
diskontinuierliche Reaktoren und 16 quasi-kontinuierliche Reaktoren) durchgeführt, um den
maximalen Abbaugrad von Futter- und Zuckerrübensilage, sowie den Biogasertrag, den
Methan- und H2S–Gehalt des Biogases unter verschiedenen Bedingungen zu bestimmen. Die
Möglichkeit der Kofermentation von Rüben mit Rindergülle (RG) wurde ebenfalls in dieser
Arbeit untersucht. Der Einfluss des Vergärungsprozesses auf verschiedene Eigenschaften des
Gärrückstandes (chemischer Sauerstoffbedarf, Ammonium-Stickstoff-Gehalt, flüchtige
organische Säuren, etc.) wurde bestimmt. Das zweite Ziel dieser Arbeit bestand in der
Untersuchung der Energiebilanz, Ökobilanz und Ökonomie beim Wechsel von fossilen
Energieträgern zur Energieproduktion auf Basis von Biogas. Dabei sollten möglichst
optimierte Bilanzmethoden definiert werden, mit welchen alle beeinflußten und meßbaren
Parameter berücksichtigt werden.
Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass FRS und ZRS grundsätzlich für Mono- und Kofermentation
geeignet sind. Durch Beimischung von Rindergülle sinkt der Abbaugrad und infolgedessen
auch die Methanausbeute, jedoch wird gleichzeitig die Prozeßstabilität erhöht. Die Ergebnisse
der Batch-Versuche sind in der folgenden Tabelle dargestellt.

152
Durchschnittliche Ergebnisse der Batch-Versuche
Methanausbeute Methanausbeute Abbaugrad
Substrate
[l/kg-FM] [l/kg-oTS] [%]
FRS 47 468 95
Temperatur
Mesophile

ZRS 83 400 92

ZRS:RG (1:4) 17 294 62

Thermophile
Temperatur

FRS 45 468 95

FRS:RG (1:1) 23 400 85

In den quasi-kontinuierlichen Versuchen betrug die maximal erzielbare Raumbelastung unter

stabilen Prozessbedingungen für Futter- und Zuckerrüben 4 g oTS/l*d. Durch die Beimischung
von Gülle stieg dieser Wert auf 4.5 g oTS/l*d. Die folgende Tabelle zeigt die
Methanproduktivität bei maximaler Raumbelastung sowie den H2S- und Methan-Gehalt, die
für die Ökonomie der Biogasanlage von Bedeutung sind.

Durchschnittliche Ergebnisse der quasi-kontinuierlichen Versuche

Methanproduktivität Methangehalt H2S Gehalt
Substrate
[l/l*d] [%] [ppm]
FRS 1.92 53 ± 1 100
Temperatur
Mesophile

ZRS 1.80 53 ± 1 350

FRS:RG (1:1) 1.76 55± 1 100

ZRS:RG (1:4) 1.58 56 ± 1 850

Thermophile
Temperatur

FRS 2.10 53 ± 1 100

FRS:RG (1:1) 1.90 55 ± 1 100

Die Versuchsergebnisse zeigen eine Zunahme des NH4-N-Gehalts um bis zu 55 %, wodurch

die Effizienz bei der Verwendung der Gärrückstände als Wirtschaftdünger verbessert wird. Die
durch den Silierungsprozess hervorgerufene hohe Konzentration von organischen Säuren in

153
den Gärsubstraten beeinflusste den pH-Wert des Vergärungsprozesses nicht, was auf eine hohe
Pufferkapazität des Gärsubstrates hinweist. Die Arbeit gibt ebenfalls Informationen über den
Einfluss von Denaturierungsmitteln auf den Vergärungsprozess.
Von der energetischen Seite her betrachtet wurde festgestellt, dass bei alleiniger Betrachtung
der elektrischen Energieproduktion aus Futterrüben (Zuckerrüben) ein Output/Input–Faktor
von 1,36 gegenüber einem Output/Input–Faktor von 0,32 bei fossilen Energieträgern erzielt
werden kann. Mit Berücksichtigung der Wärmeproduktion erhöht sich der Output/Input–Faktor
der Biogasenergie auf 3,06. Ein Ersatz von fossilen Energieträgern kann durch den höheren
Output/Input–Faktor und die positive Biogasenergie zu Einsparungen von 280 (264) GJ fossile
Energie pro Hektar und Jahr führen. Von Vorteil ist weiterhin, dass die Verwendung der
ganzen Pflanze und die Benutzung der Gärrückstände als Wirtschaftsdünger die
Biogasgewinnung durch eine einfache und geschlossene Energiebilanz kennzeichnet.
Im Vergleich zu fossiler Energie ergibt sich bei der Verwendung von Biogas aus Rüben eine
bessere Ökobilanz. Durch die Produktion von Biogas aus Futter- bzw. Zuckerrüben kann im
Vergleich zur Verwendung von Fossilenergie pro Hektar die Freisetzung von 21 bzw. 20
Tonnen CO2-Äquivalenten vermieden werden. Generell hat die anaerobe Fermentation einen
sehr geringen negativen Einfluss auf die globale Umwelt.
Aufgrund der ökonomischen Analyse ist die Biogasproduktion aus Futter- bzw. Zuckerrüben
derzeit wirtschaftlich noch nicht empfehlenswert. Durch die Nutzung der Wärmeenergie sowie
bei Erhöhung der derzeitigen Einspeisevergütung (> 0.1 Euro/kWh) kann die Biogasproduktion
aus Futter- bzw. Zuckerrüben jedoch wirtschaftlich werden. Grundsätzlich ist die Energie- und
Ökobilanz sowie die Ökonomie der Biogasproduktion aus Futterrüben vorteilhafter im
Vergleich zu Zuckerrüben.

154
9 References

1. AGE (1995): Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen: Energiebilanzen der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland 1992, Essen.

2. AGEB (2001): AG Energiebilanz. Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen, Köln.

3. Albritton, D., Derwent, R., Isaksen, I., Lal, M. and Wuebbles, D. (1996): Trace gas
radioactive forcing indices. In Houghton, JT., Meira Filho, LG., Callander, BA., Harris,
N., Kattenberg A, Maskell K(eds.). Climate change 1995. Cambridge University Press.

4. Amon, T., Hackl, E., Jeremic, D., Amon, B. and Boxberger, J. (2001): Biogas production
from animal wastes, energy plants and organic wastes, in 9th World Congress, Anaerobic
Digestion, Anaerobic Conversion for Sustainability. Proceedings part 1. Antwerpen –
Belgium, September 2-6, 2001.

5. Anonym, (1995): Die landwirtschaftliche Verwertung von kommunalem Klärschlamm in

Niedersachsen: ein Beitrag zur Stoffstrombewirtschaftung / Niedersachsen / Landesamt
für Ökologie. Nachhaltiges Niedersachsen: dauerhaft umweltgerechte Entwicklung,
Hildesheim.

6. Anonym, (1998): Sicherheitsregeln für landwirtschaftliche Biogasanlagen, eine

Planungshilfe für Bauherren, Ingenieure und Fachbehörden / Baden-Württemberg /
Wirtschaftsminister – Stuttgart.

7. Anonym, (2001): Datensammlung für die Betriebsplanung und die betriebswirtschaftliche

Bewertung landwirtschaftlicher Produktionsverfahren im Land Brandenburg, Ackerbau,
Grünlandwirtschaft, Tierproduktion, Binnenfischerei. 3. überarbeitete Auflage.
Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Schriftenreihe Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft,
Band II.

8. ATV-FA 7.5 (1993): Technologische Beurteilungskriterien zur anaeroben

Abwasserbehandlung. Korrespondenz Abwasser, 40.Jg., H. 2, S. 217-223.

9. Baaske, W., Zwoch, H. P. (1995): Kleine Blockheizkraftwerke – eine Zukunft für die
Landwirtschaft. Rationalisierungs- Kuratorium für Landwirtschaft (RKL). Osterrönfeld,
In: Kartei für Rationalisierung : 0.4 / S. 567-586, 1995.

10. BAL Veröffentlichungen (1992): Produktion, Verwertung und Ökonomik der Futterrübe.
Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft (BAL), Heft 16.

11. BSLF-Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Landwirtschaft und Forsten (2002): Rüben -

Kalkulationsdaten und Deckungsbeiträge. Internet: http://www.stmelf.bayern.de/.

12. Beck, J. (2001): Grundlagen und Bewertung von Verfahren zur Behandlung und
Entsorgung von Gärresten aus landwirtschaftlichen Biogasanlagen. In Bio-Solar
Fachtagung, 20. Feb. 2001, Borken.

155
13. Beck, J. Abdel-hadi, M., Jungbluth, T. (2002): Methane Generation from liquid beet mash
silage. Paper no. 02-PM-073, AG-ENG, Budapest.

14. Beitz, W. and Grote K.-H. (2000): Dubbel Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau, 20.
Neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Springer, Berlin.

15. Biermann, S., G.-W. Rathke, K.-J., Hülsbergen and W. Diepenbrock (1999): Energy
recovery by crops in dependence on the input of mineral fertilizer. Martin-Luther-
university Halle-Wittenberg, Agroecological Institute and Institute of Agronomy and Crop
Science. Final Report, Halle (Saale), May 1999.

16. BLE (2002): Merkblatt zur Verwendungskontrolle Nachwachsender Rohstoffe in (nicht)

hofeigenen Biogasanlagen. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, Anstalt des
öffentlichen Rechts.

17. BMU (1999): Klimaschutz durch Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien; Studie im Auftrag des
Bundesmininsteriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und des
Umweltbundesamtes, Berlin. Kurzfassung 1999.

18. BMWi (2002): Sustainable Energy Policy to Meet the Needs of the Future; Energy
Report, No: 508. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie.

19. Borken, J., Patyk, A. and Reinhardt, G. (1999): Basisdaten für ökologische
Bilanzierungen: Einsatz von Nutzfahrzeugen in Transport, Landwirtschaft und Bergbau.
Vieweg, Braunschweig.

20. Braun, R. (1982): Biogas-Methangärung organischer Abfallstoffe: Grundlagen und

Anwendungsbeispiele. Springer-Verlag, Wien.

21. Chynoweth, D. P. and Isaacson, R. (1987): Anaerobic digestion of biomass, Elsevier

applied science, London.

22. Constant, M., Naveau, H., Ferrero, G.-L. and Nyns, E.-J. (1989): Biogas end-use in the
European community. Commission of the European Communities Directorate-General
for Energy. Elsevier applied science, London, New York.

23. DECHEMA e.V. (1998): Technik anaerober Prozesse. Fachgespräche Umweltschutz -

Beiträge einer Veranstaltung des Sonderforschungsbereiches 238 der DFG in
Zusammenarbeit mit dem DECHEMA – Forschungsausschuß Biotechnologie, 7.- 9.
Oktober 1998.

24. Deutsche Einheitsvorschrift 51 (- 2001): Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-,

Abwasser- und Schlamm- Untersuchung : physikalische, chemische, biologische und
bakteriologische Verfahren ; Bd. 1-5. Deutsches Institut für Normung / Normenausschuß
Wasserwesen. Weinheim ; Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, New York.

25. Diepenbrock, W., Pelzer, B. and Radtke, J. (1995): Energiebilanz im Ackerbaubetrieb.

Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL), Münster-Hiltrup
KTBL-Schriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverl., (KTBL-Arbeitspapier; 211).

156
26. Döhler, H. (1996): Kurz- und langfristige Wirkung von Klärschlamm- und Kompost-
Stickstoff: theoretische Ableitung und Quantifizierung des Düngebedarfes. In:
Aufbereitung und Verwertung organischer Reststoffe im ländlichen Raum. VDI/MEG
Kolloquium Agrartechnik, Heft 25, 3. und 4. Juli, Potsdam.

27. Dr. Lange, (2001): Verarbeitungsvorschrift, Küvettentest LCK 514.

28. Duarte, A.C. and Anderson, G. K. (1983): Inhibition modelling in anaerobic digestion.
Wat. Sci. Tech. 14: 749-763.

29. Dülmen (Hydro-Agri-GmbH) (1993): Faustzahlen für Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau. 12.
Überarbeitete Auflage. Münster-Hiltrup, München, Frankfurt a. M. Landwirtschaftsverlag.

30. Edelmann, W. (2001): Biogaserzeugung und –nutzung. In: Energie aus Biomasse;
Kaltschmitt, M., Hartmann, H. (Hrsg.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. S. 641-694.

31. Eggersglüß, W. and Kraschinski, S. (2001): Biogas II. Rationalisierungs- Kuratorium für
Landwirtschaft (RKL). Rendsburg, In: Kartei für Rationalisierung : 0.4 /S. 601-655, 2001.

32. FAO (1987): Changes and trends in the quantity and balance of energy consumption in
agriculture :(case studies) Economic Commission for Europe; Food and Agriculture
Organization. AGRI-MECH report No. 116; ECE/AGRI/WP.2/87- New York, United
Nations.

33. FAO (1985): Changes and trends in the quantity and balance of energy consumption in
agriculture : (general methodology) Economic Commission for Europe; Food and
Agriculture Organization. AGRI-MECH report No. 105; ECE/AGRI/WP.2/66- New York,
United Nations.

34. Finnveden, G. (1996). Part III: "Resources" and related impact categories. In: Udo de
Haes (ed.). Towards a methodology for life cycle impact assessment. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) - Europe. Brussels.

35. Fritsche, U.R., Leuchtner, J. Matthes, F.C., Rausch, L., Simon, K.H. (1995): Gesamt-
Emissions-Modell Integrierter Systeme (GEMIS) Version 2.1. Im Auftrag des Hessischen
Ministeriums für Umwelt, Energie und Bundesangelegenheiten, Wiesbaden.

36. Gaillard, G., Crettaz, P. and Hausheer, J. (1997): Umweltinventar der landwirtschaftlichen
Inputs im Pflanzenbau; Daten für die Herstellung von Energie- und Ökobilanzen in der
Landwirtschaft. Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik
(FAT) Tänikon.

37. Greef, J., Hansen, F., Pasda, G., Diepenbrock, W. (1993): Die Strahlungs-, Energie- und
Kohlendioxidbindung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen – Ergebnisse und
Modellrechnung. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 71, 554-566.

38. Green, M. B. (1987): energy in pesticide manufacture, distribution and use. In: Stout,
B.A., Energy in world agriculture. Band 2: Helsel, Z.R., Energy in plant nutrition and pest
control. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

157
39. Gräf, D., Barnefsky, K., König, W., Maurer, K. and Reiser, W. (1994): Projekt
Naturdiesel. Zwischenergebnisse eines laufenden Projekts zu den Abgasemissionen von
Ackerschleppern, Uffenheim.

40. Gujer, W. and Zehnder, A.J. (1983): Conversion processes in anaerobic digestion. Wat.
Sc. Tech. 15:127-167.

41. Hartmann, H. and Strehler, A. (1995): Die Stellung der Biomasse : im Vergleich zu
anderen erneuerbaren Energieträgern aus ökologischer, ökonomischer und technischer
Sicht. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe, Schriftenreihe “Nachwachsende
Rohstoffe“ Band 3; Institut für Landtechnik Weihenstephan.

42. Hauschild, M. Z. and Wenzel, H. (1998): Acidification as a criterion in the environmental

assessment of products. In Hauschild MZ, Wenzel H (eds.). Environmental assessment of
products. Volume 2: Scientific background. London; Chapman & Hall.

43. Heinloth, K. (1997): Die Energiefrage : Bedarf und Potentiale, Nutzen, Risiken und
Kosten.

44. Vieweg Handbuch – Umweltwissenschaften. Braunschweig; Wiesbaden, 1997.

45. Heinzer, L., Gaillard, G., Dux, D., and Stettler, C. (2000): Ökologische und ökonomische
Bewertung von Bioenergieträgern : vergleichende Untersuchungen von Stückholzheizung,
Rapsmethylester und Fernwärme aus Heu / Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für
Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT), Tänikon.

46. Helsel, Z. R. (1987): Energy in Plant Nutrition and Pest Control; Energy in World
Agriculture. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

47. Heyland, K.-U., and Solansky, S. (1979): Energieeinsatz und Energieumsetzung im

Bereich der 41 Pflanzenproduktion. Berichte über Landwirtschaft, Sonderheft 195, 15-30.

48. Hülsbergen, K.-J., and Kalk, W.-D., (1997): Stoff- und Energiebilanzen im
Dauerfeldversuch. In: Produktionspotentiale in der Landnutzung - Genetische
Voraussetzungen und Umweltwirkungen. Wiss. Beiträge der 5. Hochschultagung der
Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Halle, S. 192-200.

49. Kalk, W.-D., Biermann, S., and Hülsbergen, K.-J. (1996): Standort- und betriebsbezogene
Stoff und Energiebilanzen zur Charakterisierung der Landnutzungsintensität.
Forschungsbericht 1995/10, Institut für Agrartechnik Bornim e.V. (ATB), Potsdam.

50. Kalk, W.-D. and Hülsbergen, K.-J. (1995): Methodik zur Einbeziehung des indirekten
Energieverbrauchs mit Investitionsgütern in Energiebilanzen von
Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. Kühn.-Arch. 90 S. 41-56.

51. IPPC (1995): Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, Climate Change 1994 –
Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission
Scenarios. University Press, Cambridge.

158
52. ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental management- Life cycle assessment- Principles and
framework. International Organisation for Standardisations.

53. ISO 14041 (1998a): Environmental management- Life cycle assessment- Goal and scope

54. definition and inventory analysis. International Organisation for Standardisations.

55. ISO 14042 (1998b): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle
impact assessment. International Organisation for Standardisations (ISO).

56. ISO 14043 (1998c): Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Life cycle
interpretation. International Organisation for Standardisations (ISO).

57. Kaltschmitt, M. and Hartmann, H. (Hrsg.) (2001): Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen,
Techniken und Verfahren; Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg.

58. Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A. (Hrsg.) (1997): Nachwachsende Energieträger –

Grundlagen, Verfahren, ökologische Bilanzierung; Vieweg, Braunschweig;
Wiesbaden, 1997.

59. Kaparaju, P., Luostarinen, S., Kalmari, E., Kalmari, J. and Rintala, J. (2001): Co-digestion
of energy crops and industrial confectionery by-products with cow manure: batch scale
and farm-scale evaluation. In Anaerobic Digestion; Anaerobic Conversion for
Sustainability. 9th World Congress. Antwerpen – Belgium, September 2-6, 2001.

60. Keymer, U. (2001): Nachwachsende Rohstoffe in Biogasanlagen. Rationalisierungs-

Kuratorium für Landwirtschaft (RKL). Neumünster, In: Kartei für Rationalisierung
0.4 /S. 587, 2001.

61. Krahl, J. (1993): Bestimmung der Schadstoffemissionen von landwirtschaftlichen

Schleppern beim Betrieb mit Rapsölmethylester im Vergleich zu Dieselkraftstoff.
Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, Reihe 15, Nr. 100. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf.

62. Krieg, A. and Fischer, T. (1999): In OTTI – Technologie-Kolleg (1999): Anwenderform

Energetische Nutzung von Pflanzenöl und Biogas, Ostbayerisches Technologie-Transfer-
Institut e.V. (OTTI) Regensburg.

63. Kroiss, H. (1985): Anaerobe Abwasserreinigung. Wiener Mitteilung Bd. 62, Wien:
Technische Universität Wien.

64. KTBL-Taschenbuch Landwirtschaft (2002): Daten für die Betriebskalkulation in der

Landwirtschaft. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft. - 21. Aufl.
- KTBL-Schriften-Vertrieb im Landwirtschaftsverlag, Münster.

65. KTBL (1998): Kofermentation, Arbeitspapier 249. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen
in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), Landwirtschaftverlag Münster-Hiltrup, Münster.

66. Large, J. L. (1983): In: (J. A. Cole, et al., Eds.) Aspects of Microbiology 8, AMS
publications, Washington DC, pp. 11-24.

159
67. Lindfors G., Christiansen K., Hoffmann L., Virtanen Y., Juntilla V., Hanssen J., Ronning
A., Ekvall T., Finnveden G. (1995): Nordic Guidelines on Life-Cycle Assessment. Nord
1995:20. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

68. Linke, B. (1999): Versuchsbericht zur Gewinnung von Biogas aus Rübensilage, Institut
für Agrartechnik Bornim.

69. Machold, C. and Dobbins, C. (1991): Auswirkungen auf das Motoröl beim Betrieb von
Dieselmotoren mit Biodiesel. In: Wörgetter, M. und Mitarbeiter (Hrsg.): Pilotprojekt
Biodiesel Teil 1. Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik Wieselburg, Heft
Nr. 25, Abschnitt V. Wiesel/Erlauf: Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik.

70. Manual Book (1988): CH4-Messgerät, Maihack Finor M1,Maihack, 1988.

71. Manual Book (1990): CO2-Meßgerät, Siemens Ultramat 21P, Siemens, 1990.

72. Manual Book (1997): H2S-Meßgerät, Hartmann&Braun Radas2, Hartmann&Braun, 1997.

73. Marchaim, U. (1992): Biogas processes for sustainable development. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO Agricultural Service
Bulletin 95.

74. Mauch, W. (1994): Kumulierter Energieaufwand von Lastkraftwagen. ATZ

Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 96, Heft 2.

75. Moerschner, J., Gerowitt, B. and Lücke W. (1997): Vergleiche sind schwierig.
Agrarmanagement, Trend + Perspektiven. DLG Mitteilungen, 1997/12, S. 54-57.

76. Oechsner, H. and Knebelspieß, M. (1999): Ermittlung des Investitionsbedarfs und der
Verfahrenskosten von landwirtschaftlichen Biogasanlagen.: Kuratorium für Technick und
Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, KTBL-Sonderveröffentlichung 036, Münster.

77. Oheimb, R. (1987): Indirekter Energieeinsatz im agrarischen Erzeugerbereich in der

Bundesrepublik Deutschland, In: Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der
Landwirtschaft (Hrsg.): KTBL-Schrift 320 – Energie und Agrarwirtschaft. Münster-
Hiltrup: Landwirtschaftsverlag 1987,S. 50-92.

78. Patyk, A. and Reinhardt, G. A. (1997): Düngemittel - Energie- und Stoffstrombilanzen.

Vieweg, Braunschweig.

79. Polomski, A. (1998): Einfluß des Stofftransports auf die Methanbildung in Biogas-
Reaktoren. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI, VDI Verlag GmbH. Düsseldorf, 1998.

80. Radtke, J. (1997): Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung – Energie- und Emissionsbilanzen von

annuellen und perennierenden Energiepflanzen. Dissertation, Universität Halle-
Wittenberg.

81. REA (2000): Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz). Gesetz für
den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien, Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz,
Ernährung und Landwirtschaft.

160
82. Reinhardt, G. A. and Zemanek, G.(2000): Ökobilanz Bioenergieträger; Basisdaten,
Ergebnisse, Bewertungen. Initiativen zum Umweltschutz; 17. Berlin 2000. Erich Schmidt
Verlag.

83. Reinhardt, G. A. (1993): Energie- und CO2-Bilanzierung nachwachsender Rohstoffe:

theoretische Grundlagen und Fallstudie Raps. Vieweg, Braunschweig.

84. Rünzi, M. (2001): Klimawirkung landwirtschaftlicher Biogasanlagen – Versuch einer

monetären Bewertung, In: Erneuerbare Energie in der Land(wirt)schaft 2001. Michael C.
Medenbach (Hrsg.).

85. Sanders, W.T.M., Geerink, M. and Lettinga, G. (2000): Anaerobic hydrolysis kinetics of
particulate substrate, Water Science and Technology, (2000) 41(3):17-24.

86. Scholz, V. and Linke, B. (2000): Biogas in der Landwirtschaft: Leitfaden für Landwirte
und Investoren im Land Brandenburg. Arbeitsgruppe Bioenergie, Brandenburgische
Energie Technologie Initiative / Ministerium für Landwirtschaft, Umweltschutz und
Raumordnung – Potsdam.

87. Schomaker, M., Boerboom, M., Visser, A. and Pfeifer, E. (1999): Anaerobic digestion of
agro-industrial wastes: information networks; Technical summary on gas treatment, AD-
NETT. Project FAIR-CT96-2083 (DG12-SSMI), 6500 AD Nijmegen.

88. Seyfried, C.F., et al., (1990): Anaerobe Verfahren zur Behandlung von
Industrieabwässern. Korrespondenz Abwasser 37:1247-1251.

89. Stroot P. G., McMahon K. D., Mackie R. I. and Raskin L. (2001): Anaerobic codigestion
of municipal solid waste and biosolids under various mixing conditions: I. Digester
performance. Water Research, 35(7), 1804-1816.

90. Stelzer, T. (1999): Biokraftstoffe im Vergleich zu konventionellen Kraftstoffen-

Lebensweganalysen von Umeltwirkungen. Forschungsbericht - Band 57, Institut für
Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung – Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart.

91. Stephan, C. (1999): Verfahrenstechnische Bewertung von Zuckerrübenanabauverfahren

unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Energiebilanz. Forschungsbericht Agrartechnik des
Arbeitskreises Forschung und Lehre der Max-Eyth-Geselschaft Agrartechnik im VDI
(VDI-MEG), Dissertation, Universität Bonn.

92. Traulsen, H. (2002): Erfahrungen mit Biodiesel. Rationalisierungs- Kuratorium für

Landwirtschaft (RKL). Neumünster, In: Kartei für Rationalisierung 0.4 /S. 657-673, 2002.

93. Trenkel, H. E. (1999): Kostenanalyse und Erfolgsfaktoren im Betriebszweig

Zuckerrübenanbau. Dissertation, Universität-Bonn. AgriMedia, 1999.

94. UD (2002): Umwelt Deutschland: Internet www.umwelt-deutschland.de.

Umweltbundesamt; Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.

95. UBA (2002): Umweltdaten Deutschland 2002, Umweltbundesamt für Mensch und
Umwelt.

161
96. VDEW (2002): Jahresbericht 2001 Energiethemen gemeinsam kommunizieren. Der
Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft.

97. Weiland, P. and Rozzi, A. (1991): The start-up, operation and monitoring of high-rate
anaerobic treatment systems Wat. Sci. Tech. 24:257-277.

98. Weiland, P. (1997): Potentiale und Vorschriften bei der Cofermentation. Bericht zur
6.Biogastagung an der Bauernschule Hohenlohe Kirchberg-Weckelweiler, 07.-10.01.97.

99. Weiland, P. (1998): Kofermentation. KTBL, Arbeitspapier 249. Kuratorium für Technik
und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (KTBL). Münster-Hiltrup.

100. Weiland, P., Thomsen, H. and Wulfert, K. (1988): Entwicklung eines Verfahrens zur
anaeroben Vorreinigung von Brennereischlempen unter Einsatz eines Festbettreaktors. In:
Verfahrenstechnik der mechanischen, thermischen, chemischen und biologischen
Abwasserreinigung, Bd. 2. Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag 1988, 169-186.

101. Weiland, P (1999): Technik von Biogasanlagen. In: OTTI – Technologie-Kolleg (1999):
Anwenderform Energetische Nutzung von Pflanzenöl und Biogas, Ostbayerisches
Technologie-Transfer-Institut e.V. (OTTI) Regensburg. S. 73-82.

102. Weiland, P. (2000): Stand und Perspektiven der Biogasnutzung und -erzeugung in
Deutschland. In: Energetische Nutzung von Biogas: Stand der Technik und
Optimierungspotenzial, (Schütte, A.). Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR),
Gülzower Fachgespräche: Band 15. Weimar, Oktober 2000. S. 8-27.

103. Weiland, P. (2000a): Strom aus der Vergärung landwirtschaftlicher Stoffe: Die rasante
Entwicklung der letzten Jahre dargestellt anhand von Beispielen. In: Energetische
Nutzung von Biomasse durch Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung: Stand der Technik und
Perspektiven für den ländlichen Raum (Schütte, A.). Fachagentur Nachwachsende
Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), Gülzower Fachgespräche: Gülzow, 16./17. Mai 2000a. S. 90-104.

104. Weiland, P (2001): Grundlagen der Methangärung – Biologie und Substrate. In: Biogas
als regenerative Energie – Stand und Perspektiven; Tagung Hannover, 19. Und 20. Juni
2001 / VDI – Gesellschaft Energietechnik. VDI – Berichte 1620. S. 19-32.

105. Wellinger, A. (1991): Biogas-Handbuch : Grundlagen, Planung, Betrieb

landwirtschaftlicher Biogasanlagen. Wirz, Aarau.

106. Wenner, H. (1986): Landtechnik Bauwesen; Verfahren – Arbeit – Gebäude. Lehrbuch für
die Landwirtschaft. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft München.

107. Werschnitzky, U., Prothmann, G. and Sergeois, C. (1987): Direkter Energieeinsatz im

agrarischen Erzeugerbereich in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In: Kuratorium für
Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft (Hrsg.): KTBL-Schrift 320 – Energie und
Agrarwirtschaft. Münster-Hiltrup: Landwirtschaftsverlag.

162
108. Wörgetter, M., Prankl, H., and Schauflen, H. (1993): Untersuchung der Emissionen eines
Tracktors mit Mischungen aus Dieselkraftstoff, Rapsölmethylester und N-Butanol.
Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik, Heft Nr. 38, Wieselburg.

109. WULF S., MAETING M., BERGMANN S., CLEMENS J. (2001): Simultaneous
Measurement of NH3, N2O, and CH4 to assess efficiency of trace gas emission abatement
after slurry application, Phyton, 41, 131-142.

110. Zehnder, A.J.B. (1988): Biology of Anaerobic Microorganisms. New York: Wiley.

Publication and poster

Hassan, E., Weiland, P. (2000): Energetische Nutzung von Futterrüben. FAL-Jahresbericht

2000, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL).

Hassan, E., Weiland, P. (2001): Untersuchungen zur Vergärung von Futterrüben.

Projektbericht, Institut für Technologie und Biosystemtechnik, Bundesforschungsanstalt für
Landwirtschaft Braunschweig, 2001.

Hassan, E., Weiland, P. (2001): Energiegewinnung aus Rüben. Jahresbericht 2001,

Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL).

Hassan, E., Weiland, P. (2000): Gülle clever verwerten. Euro-Tier, Hannover 28.11-01.12.
2000 (Poster).

Hassan, E., Weiland, P. (2001): Gewinnung von Biogas aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen.
Agritechnica, Hannover 11.11-17.11. 2001 (Poster).

Hassan, E. and Weiland, P. (2001): Vergärung von Futterrüben unter mesophilen

Betriebsbedingungen – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. In Bio-Solar Fachtagung, 20. Feb. 2001,
Borken.

Weiland, P. and Hassan, E. (2001): Production of biogas from forage beets, In: 9th World
Congress, Anaerobic Digestion, Anaerobic Conversion for Sustainability. Proceedings part 1.
Antwerpen – Belgium, September 2-6, 2001.

163
10 Appendix

Appendix 1: Gas measuring system used in the experiments

11 4

10 5

Exhaust
air 9 8 7

1. Gas measurement bag

2. Condensed water separator
3. Pumps
4. Three way valve
5. Needle valve
6. Humidity controller
7. CH4 – Measure device Type MAIHACK
8. H2S – Measure device Type HARTMANN&BRAUN
9. CO2 – Measure device Type SIEMENS
10. Gas meter Type RITTER
11. Bypass pathway (to quick empty the gas bag)

164
Appendix 2: Properties of different types of biogas engines

Characteristics Benzine motor Injection Diesel Gas motor

Gas-Otto engine
Efficiency [%] 22-27 28-35 ³ 35
Life time low medium high
Maintenance high high low
Operating hour 10000 30000-40000 80000
Invest. Cost low medium high
Power [kW] 5-30 30-150 > 150
Source: Weiland, 2000

165
166
Appendix 3a: Emissions from biogas production (FBS) and fossil life cycle

Amount CO2 CH4 N2O CO2-equivalent SO2 CO NOx NMHC

1/ha.a g/kg g/kg g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha
Beets production
Seed (kg) 6 1774.6 0.2 4.2 0.0252 3182.6 19.10 6.6 0.0396 2.6 0.0156 12.9 0.0774 0.8 0.0048
N (kg) 275 2829 7.45 15.1 4.1525 7847.3 2157.99 5.16 1.419 2.8 0.77 15.8 4.345 0.57 0.15675
P2O5 (kg) 130 1117 2.07 0.038 0.00494 1180.9 153.52 12 1.56 1.42 0.1846 8.58 1.1154 0.53 0.0689
K2O (kg) 350 617 1.38 0.49 0.1715 808.3 282.91 0.27 0.0945 0.42 0.147 1.15 0.4025 0.13 0.0455
CaO (kg) 700 284 0.29 0.019 0.0133 297.3 208.13 0.11 0.077 3 2.1 0.52 0.364 0.051 0.0357
Reactor effluent -3.26 -7600.34 -2101.91 -2.36 -2.40 -4.67 -0.23
Plant PA (kg) 4.7 4921 0.18 1.51 0.007097 5408.7 25.42 17.4 0.08178 2.66 0.012502 6.92 0.032524 0.29 0.001363
Diesel (kg) 110 368.12 0.534 0.00897 0.0009867 384.3 42.28 2.037 0.22407 0.3023 0.033253 1.558 0.17138 0.679 0.07469
Lubricant (kg) 4 368.12 0.534 0.00897 0.0000359 384.3 1.54 2.037 0.008148 0.3023 0.0012092 1.558 0.006232 0.679 0.002716
Fuel burning (kg) 110 3155.5 0.13664 0.32879 0.0361669 3264.13 342.73 0.8967 0.098637 9.821 1.08031 33.733 3.71063 5.551 0.61061
Machines (kg) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 1.15 1131.70 1.24 1.89 5.39 0.74
Biogas production
Chopping (MJ/t) * 120 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.00 200.75 52.03 0.466 0.12 0.044 0.01 0.183 0.05 0.00472 0.00
Pumping (MJ/t) * 120 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.00 200.75 6.94 0.466 0.02 0.044 0.00 0.183 0.01 0.00472 0.00
Silo (m³) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.00 58.97 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.00
Energy production
Heating, stirring, etc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gas burning (MJ) 203040 85** 0.0025** 0.0011** 0.223344 85.4** 17342.56 0.0004** 0.081216 0.017** 3.45168 0.028** 5.68512 0.0025** 0.5076
Heating oil (kg) 564 3155.5 0.13664 0.32879 0.1854376 3264.13 1840,97 0.8967 0.5057388 9.821 5.539044 33.733 19.025412 5.551 3.130764
Sum 0.41 1840.97 0.59 8.99 24.71 3.64
Total 20ha (kg/ha) 1.56 3031.64 1.96 10.90 30.15 4.38
Total 80h (kg/ha) 1.38 1190.67 1.45 5.36 11.13 1.25
Fossil energy emission
MJ g/MJ g/MJ g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha
Electricity 67500 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.46845 199.166 13550.68 0.466 31.455 0.044 2.97 0.183 12.3525 0.00472 0.3186
Heat (burning) *** 104700 74.4 0.003 0.001 0.1047 74.795 7831.04 0.021 2.1987 0.0143 1.49721 0.03 3.141 0.003 0.3141
Heat (production) *** 104700 8.479 0.123 0.00021 0.021987 11.6212 1216.74 0.0304 3.18288 0.00455 0.476385 0.019 1.9893 0.0102 1.06794
Sum fossil (kg/ha) 271.209 0.534 0.029927 0.595137 22598.46 36.83658 4.943595 17.4828 1.70064
Natural gas burning 203040 58.753 0.1235 0.00125 0.2538 61.7625 10900.80 0.000434 0.0881194 0.07846 15.930518 0.1287 26.131248 0.00351 0.7126704
Source: (Kaltschmitt, et al.,1997 / Patyk, et al., 1997) from (AGE, 1995 / Fritsche, et al., 1995)
*
electricity emissions, ** units are in g/MJ, *** 80% fuel efficiency assumed
 Appendix 3a: continue

Partikel Dust HCL NH3 Formaldehy Benzol SO2-equivalent H2S

g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg Kg/ha ppm kg/ha
Beets production
Seed 0.5 0.003 0.6 0.0036 0.1 0.0006 2 0.012 0.067 0.000402 0.0167 0.0001002 19.48 0.12
N 0.095 0.026125 2.31 0.63525 0.068 0.0187 6.69 1.83975 0.021 0.005775 0.0074 0.002035 28.7 7.89
P2O5 0.51 0.0663 1.11 0.1443 0.021 0.00273 0.012 0.00156 0.032 0.00416 0.0083 0.001079 18.05 2.35
K2O 0.047 0.01645 0.85 0.2975 0.074 0.0259 0.0019 0.000665 0.0081 0.002835 0.0022 0.00077 1.07 0.37
CaO 0.02 0.014 0.95 0.665 0.013 0.0091 0.00092 0.000644 0.0035 0.00245 0.00088 0.000616 0.46 0.32
Reactor effluent -0.09 -1.31 -0.04 -1.38 -0.01 -0.00 -8.20
Plant PA 0.043 0.0002021 0.94 0.004418 0.21 0.000987 0.16 0.000752 0.013 0.0000611 0.0056 0.0000263 22.73 0.11
Diesel 0.0785 0.008635 0.0414 0.004554 0.00213 0.0002343 0.001836 0.0002020 0.004697 0.0005167 0.003587 0.0003946 3.13 0.34
Lubricant 0.0785 0.000314 0.0414 0.0001656 0.00213 0.0000085 0.001836 0.0000073 0.004697 0.0000188 0.003587 0.0000144 3.13 0.01
Fuel burning 2.946 0.32406 0 0 0.0009821 0.000108 0.020069 0.0022076 0.4697 0.051667 0.11102 0.0122122 24.55 2.70
Machines - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.35 0.45 0.02 0.48 0.05 0.01 5.89
Biogas production
Chopping* 0.00167 0.00 0.01083 0.00 0.0111 0.00 5.55E-06 0.00 0.000183 0.00 0.0001027 0.00 0.603 0.07
Pumping* 0.00167 0.00 0.01083 0.00 0.0111 0.00 5.55E-06 0.00 0.000183 0.00 0.0001027 0.00 0.603 0.07
Silo - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14
Energy production
Heating, stirring, etc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gas burning 0 0.0001** 0.020304 0 0 0 0 0.00009** 0.0182736 0 0 0.02** 7.14 100 1.638
Heating oil 2.946 1.661544 0 0 0.0009821 0.0005539 0.020069 0.0113190 0.4697 0.2649108 0.11102 0.0626153 24.55 13.85
Sum 1.66 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.06 24.57 20.99
Total 20ha (kg/ha) 2.01 0.47 0.02 0.49 0.34 0.08 27.02
Total 80h (kg/ha) 0.35 0.47 0.02 0.48 0.07 0.01 13.18
Fossil energy emission
g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha
Electricity 0.00167 0.112725 0.01083 0.731025 0.0111 0.74925 5.55E-06 0.0003746 0.000183 0.0123525 0.0001027 0.0069323 0.603 40.70
Heat (burning) *** 0 0.001 0.1047 0 0 0.00E+00 0 0.0001 0.01047 0 0 0.042 4.40
Heat (production) *** 0.00031 0.032457 0.00093 0.097371 0.000048 0.0050256 2.00E-05 0.002094 0.000069 0.0072243 0.00002 0.002094 0.043 4.50
Sum fossil (kg/ha) 0.145182 0.933096 0.7542756 0.0024686 0.0300468 0.0090263 49.60
Natural gas burning 0 0 0.00164 0.3329856 0 0 0 0 0.00019 0.0385776 0.00015 0.030456 0.0905 18.38
Source: (Kaltschmitt, et al.,1997 / Patyk, et al., 1997) from (AGE, 1995 / Fritsche, et al., 1995)
*
electricity emissions, ** units are in g/MJ, *** 80% fuel efficiency assumed

167
168
Appendix 3b: Emissions from biogas production (SBS) and fossil life cycle

Amount CO2 CH4 N2O CO2-equivalent SO2 CO NOx NMHC

1/ha.a g/kg g/kg g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha
Beets production
Seed (kg) 4 1774.6 0.2 4.2 0.0168 3123.60 12.49 6.6 0.0264 2.6 0.0104 12.9 0.0516 0.8 0.0032
N (kg) 220 2829 7.45 15.1 3.322 7847.25 1726.40 5.16 1.1352 2.8 0.616 15.8 3.476 0.57 0.1254
P2O5 (kg) 180 1117 2.07 0.038 0.00684 1180.91 212.56 12 2.16 1.42 0.2556 8.58 1.5444 0.53 0.0954
K2O (kg) 380 617 1.38 0.49 0.1862 808.30 307.15 0.27 0.1026 0.42 0.1596 1.15 0.437 0.13 0.0494
CaO (kg) 700 284 0.29 0.019 0.0133 297.33 208.13 0.11 0.077 3 2.1 0.52 0.364 0.051 0.0357
Reactor effluent 2.65 7600.34 1840.68 2.61 2.35 4.37 0.23
Plant PA (kg) 4.47 4921 0.18 1.51 0.0067497 5408.70 24.18 17.4 0.077778 2.66 0.0118902 6.92 0.0309324 0.29 0.0012963
Diesel (kg) 105 368.12 0.534 0.00897 0.00094185 384.34 40.36 2.037 0.213885 0.3023 0.0317415 1.558 0.16359 0.679 0.071295
Lubricant (kg) 4 368.12 0.534 0.00897 0.00003588 384.34 1.54 2.037 0.008148 0.3023 0.0012092 1.558 0.006232 0.679 0.002716
Fuel burning (kg) 105 3155.5 0.13664 0.32879 0.03452295 3264.13 342.73 0.8967 0.0941535 9.821 1.031205 33.733 3.541965 5.551 0.582855
Machines (kg) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.94 1034.86 1.29 1.87 5.25 0.74
Biogas production
Chopping (MJ/t) * 65 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.00 200.75 28.19 0.466 0.07 0.044 0.01 0.183 0.05 0.00472 0.00
Pumping (MJ/t) * 65 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.00 200.75 3.76 0.466 0.01 0.044 0.00 0.183 0.01 0.00472 0.00
Silo (m³) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.00 31.94 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.00
Energy production
Heating, stirring, etc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gas burning (MJ) 191520 85** 0.0025** 0.0011** 0.210672 85.41** 16358.59 0.0004** 0.076608 0.017** 3.25584 0.028** 5.36256 0.0025** 0.4788
Heating oil (kg) 532 3155.5 0.13664 0.32879 0.17491628 3264.13 1736.52 0.8967 0.4770444 9.821 5.224772 33.733 17.945956 5.551 2.953132
Sum 0.39 1736.52 0.55 8.48 23.31 3.43
Total 20ha (kg/ha) 1.33 2803.32 1.92 10.36 28.61 4.17
Total 80h (kg/ha) 1.15 1066.80 1.44 5.13 10.67 1.22
Fossil energy emission
MJ g/MJ g/MJ g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha
Electricity 63700 188.33 0.408 0.00694 0.442078 200.75 12787.83 0.466 29.6842 0.044 2.8028 0.183 11.6571 0.00472 0.300664
Heat (burning)*** 98750 74.4 0.003 0.001 0.09875 74.80 7386.01 0.021 2.07375 0.0143 1.412125 0.03 2.9625 0.003 0.29625
Heat (production)*** 98750 8.479 0.123 0.00021 0.0207375 11.62 1147.59 0.0304 3.002 0.00455 0.4493125 0.019 1.87625 0.0102 1.00725
Sum fossil (kg/ha) 271.209 0.534 0.00815 0.5615655 21321.43 34.759950 4.664238 16.4959 1.604164
Natural gas burning 191520 58.753 0.1235 0.00125 0.2394 61.7625 11828.75 0.000434 0.08311968 0.07846 15.0266592 0.1287 24.648624 0.00351 0.6722352
Source: (Kaltschmitt, et al.,1997 / Patyk, et al., 1997) from (AGE, 1995 / Fritsche, et al., 1995)
*
electricity emissions, ** units are in g/MJ, *** 80% fuel efficiency assumed
 Appendix 3b: continue

Partikel Dust HCL NH3 Formaldehy Benzol SO2-equivalent H2S

g/kg Kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha g/kg kg/ha ppm kg/ha
Beets production
Seed 0.5 0.002 0.6 0.0024 0.1 0.0004 2 0.008 0.067 0.000268 0.0167 0.0000668 19.48 0.08
N 0.095 0.0209 2.31 0.5082 0.068 0.01496 6.69 1.4718 0.021 0.00462 0.0074 0.001628 28.7 6.31
P2O5 0.51 0.0918 1.11 0.1998 0.021 0.00378 0.012 0.00216 0.032 0.00576 0.0083 0.001494 18.05 3.25
K2O 0.047 0.01786 0.85 0.323 0.074 0.02812 0.0019 0.000722 0.0081 0.003078 0.0022 0.000836 1.07 0.41
CaO 0.02 0.014 0.95 0.665 0.013 0.0091 0.00092 0.000644 0.0035 0.00245 0.00088 0.000616 0.46 0.32
Reactor effluent 0.11 1.27 0.04 1.11 0.01 0.00 7.72
Plant PA 0.043 0.00019221 0.94 0.0042018 0.21 0.0009387 0.16 0.0007152 0.013 0.00005811 0.0056 0.000025032 22.73 0.10
Diesel 0.0785 0.0082425 0.0414 0.004347 0.00213 0.00022365 0.001836 0.00019278 0.004697 0.000493185 0.003587 0.000376635 3.13 0.33
Lubricant 0.0785 0.000314 0.0414 0.0001656 0.00213 0.00000852 0.001836 0.000007344 0.004697 0.000018788 0.003587 0.000014348 3.13 0.01
Fuel burning 2.946 0.30933 0 0 0.0009821 0.000103121 0.020069 0.002107245 0.4697 0.0493185 0.11102 0.0116571 24.55 2.58
Machines - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.36 0.44 0.02 0.38 0.05 0.01 5.67
Biogas production
Chopping* 0.00167 0.00 0.01083 0.00 0.0111 0.00 5.55E-06 0.00 0.000183 0.00 0.0001027 0.00 0.603 0.04
Pumping* 0.00167 0.00 0.01083 0.00 0.0111 0.00 5.55E-06 0.00 0.000183 0.00 0.0001027 0.00 0.603 0.04
Silo - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08
Energy production
Heating, stirring, etc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CHP - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gas burning 0 0.0001** 0.019152 0 0 0 0 0.00009** 0.0172368 0 0 0.02** 13.96 350 5.39
Heating oil 2.946 1.567272 0 0 0.0009821 0.000522477 0.020069 0.010676708 0.4697 0.2498804 0.11102 0.05906264 24.55 13.06
Sum 1.57 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.06 24.57 27.02
Total 20ha (kg/ha) 1.92 0.46 0.02 0.39 0.32 0.07 32.77
Total 80h (kg/ha) 0.36 0.46 0.02 0.38 0.07 0.01 19.71
Fossil energy emission
g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha g/MJ kg/ha
Electricity 0.00167 0.106379 0.01083 0.689871 0.0111 0.70707 5.55E-06 0.000353535 0.000183 0.0116571 0.0001027 0.00654199 0.603 38.41
Heat (burning)*** 0 0.001 0.09875 0 0 0.00E+00 0 0.0001 0.009875 0 0 0.042 4.15
Heat (production)*** 0.00031 0.0306125 0.00093 0.0918375 0.000048 0.00474 2.00E-05 0.001975 0.000069 0.00681375 0.00002 0.001975 0.042 4.15
Sum fossil 0.136992 0.880459 0.711810 0.002329 0.028346 0.008517 46.7061
Natural gas burning 0 0 0.00164 0.3140928 0 0 0 0 0.00019 0.0363888 0.00015 0.028728 0.0905 17.33
Source: (Kaltschmitt, et al.,1997 / Patyk, et al., 1997) from (AGE, 1995 / Fritsche, et al., 1995)
*
electricity emissions, ** units are in g/MJ, *** 80% fuel efficiency assumed

169
 Erklärung

„Hiermit versichere ich, daß ich die vorliegende Dissertation selbständig und ohne unerlaubte
Hilfe angefertigt und andere als die in der Dissertation angegebenen Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt
habe. Alle Stellen, die wörtlich oder sinngemäß aus veröffentlichten oder unveröffentlichten
Schriften entnommen sind, habe ich als solche kenntlich gemacht. Kein Teil dieser Arbeit ist in
einem anderen Promotions- oder Habilitationsverfahren verwendet werden.“

Braunschweig, 2003

..........................................
Elhussein Abdien Hassan

170