The effect of feedstock cost on biofuel cost as exemplified by biomethane production from grass silage.

Abstract: The potential variance in feedstock costs can have signifi cant implications for the cost of a biofuel and the fi nancial viability of a biofuel facility. This paper employs the Grange Feed Costing Model to assess the cost of on-farm biomethane production using grass silages produced under a range of management scenarios. These costs were compared with the cost of wheat grain and sugarbeet roots for ethanol production at an industrial scale. Of the three feedstocks examined, grass silage represents the cheapest feedstock per GJ of biofuel produced. At a production cost of €27/tonne (t) feedstock (or €150/t volatile solids (VS)), the feedstock production cost of grass silage per gigajoule (GJ) of biofuel (€12.27) is lower than that of sugarbeet (€16.82) and wheat grain (€18.61). Grass biomethane is also the cheapest biofuel when grass silage is costed at the bottom quartile purchase price of silage of €19/t (€93/t VS). However, when considering the production costs (full-costing) of the three feedstocks, the total cost of grass biomethane (€32.37/GJ of biofuel; intensive 2-cut system) from a small on-farm facility ranks between that of sugarbeet (€29.62) and wheat grain ethanol (€34.31) produced in large industrial facilities. The feedstock costs for the above three biofuels represent 0.38, 0.57, and 0.54 of the total biofuel cost. The importance of feedstock cost on biofuel cost is further highlighted by the 0.43 increase in the cost of biomethane when grass silage is priced at the top quartile (€46/t or €232/t VS) compared to the bottom quartile purchase price.

Determining the regional potential for a grass biomethane industry

Grass biogas/biomethane has been put forward as a renewable energy solution and it has been shown to perform well in terms of energy balance, greenhouse gas emissions and policy constraints. Biofuel and energy crop solutions are country-specific and grass biomethane has strong potential in countries with temperate climates and a high proportion of grassland, such as Ireland. For a grass biomethane industry to develop in a country, suitable regions (i.e. those with the highest potential) must be identified. In this paper, factors specifically related to the assessment of the potential of a grass biogas/biomethane industry are identified and analysed. The potential for grass biogas and grass biomethane is determined on a county-by-county basis using multi-criteria decision analysis. Values are assigned to each county and ratings and weightings applied to determine the overall county potential. The potential for grass biomethane with co-digestion of slaughter waste (belly grass) is also determined. The county with the highest potential (Limerick) is analysed in detail and is shown to have ready potential for production of gaseous biofuel to meet either 50% of the vehicle fleet or 130% of the domestic natural gas demand, through 25 facilities at a scale of ca. 30ktyr of feedstock. The assessment factors developed in this paper can be used in other resource studies into grass biomethane or other energy crops. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

The indirect effects of biofuels and what to do about them:The case of grass biomethane and its impact on livestock

Grass biomethane surpasses the 60% greenhouse gas (GHG) savings relative to the fossil fuel replaced required by EU Directive 2009/28/EC. However, there are growing concerns that when the indirect effects of biofuels are taken into account, GHG savings may become negative. There has been no research to date into the indirect effects of grass biomethane; this paper aims to fill that knowledge gap. A causal-descriptive assessment is carried out and identifies the likely indirect effect of a grass biomethane industry in Ireland as a reduction in beef exports to the UK. Three main scenarios are then analyzed: an increase in indigenous UK beef production, an increase in beef imported to the UK from other countries (EU, New Zealand and Brazil), and a decrease in beef consumption leading to increased poultry consumption. The GHG emissions from each of these scenarios are determined and the resulting savings relative to fossil diesel vary between -636% and 102%. The significance of the findings is then discussed. It is the view of the authors that, while consideration of indirect effects is important, an Irish grass biomethane industry cannot be held accountable for the associated emissions. A global GHG accounting system is therefore proposed; however, the difficulty of implementing such a system is acknowledged, as is its probable ineffectualness. Such a system would not treat the source of the problem - rising consumption. The authors conclude that the most effective method of combating the indirect effects of biofuels is a reduction in general consumption. © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Can grass biomethane be an economically viable biofuel for the farmer and the consumer?

Farm incomes in Ireland are in decline and many farmers would operate at a loss in the absence of subsidies. Agriculture is responsible for 27% of Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions and is the largest contributing sector. Penetration of renewable energy in the heat and transport sectors is falling short of targets, and there is no clear plan for achieving them. The anaerobic digestion of grass to produce biogas or biomethane is put forward as a multifaceted solution, which could help meet energy and emissions targets, reduce dependence on imported energy, and provide additional farm income. This paper addresses the economic viability of such a system. Grass biogas/biomethane fares poorly under the current combined heat and power tariff structure, which is geared toward feedstock that attracts a gate fee. Tariff structures similar to those used in other countries are necessary for the industry to develop. Equally, regulation should be implemented to allow injection of biomethane into the gas grid in Ireland. Blends of natural gas and biomethane can be sold, offering a cost-competitive green fuel. Sale as a renewable transport fuel could allow profitability for the farmer and savings for the consumer, but suffers due to the lack of a market. Under current conditions, the most economically viable outlet for grass biomethane is sale as a renewable heating fuel. The key to competitiveness is the existing natural gas infrastructure that enables distribution of grass biomethane, and the renewable energy targets that allow renewable fuels to compete against each other. © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A biofuel strategy for Ireland with an emphasis on production of biomethane and minimization of land-take

Increasing energy consumption has exerted great pressure on natural resources; this has led to a move towards sustainable energy resources to improve security of supply and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the rush to the cure may have been made in haste. Biofuels in particular, have a bad press both in terms of competition with good agricultural land for food, and also in terms of the associated energy balance with the whole life cycle analysis of the biofuel system. The emphasis is now very much on sustainable biofuel production; biofuels from wastes and lignocellulosic material are now seen as good sustainable biofuels that affect significantly better greenhouse gas balances as compared with first generation biofuels. Ireland has a significant resource of organic waste that could be a potential source of energy through anaerobic digestion. Ireland has 8% of the cattle population of the EU with less than 1% of the human population; as a result 91% of agricultural land in Ireland is under grass. Residues such as slurries and slaughter waste together with energy crops such as grass have an excellent potential to produce biogas that may be upgraded to biomethane. This biomethane may be used as a natural gas substitute; bio-compressed natural gas may then be an avenue for a biofuel strategy. It is estimated that a maximum potential of 33% of natural gas may be substituted by 2020 with a practical obtainable level of 7.5% estimated. Together with biodiesel from residues the practical obtainable level of this strategy may effect greater than a 5% substitution by energy of transport. The residues considered in this strategy to produce biofuel (excluding grass) have the potential to save 93,000 ha of agricultural land (23% of Irish arable land) when compared to a rapeseed biodiesel strategy. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

What is the energy balance of grass biomethane in Ireland and other temperate northern European climates?

Biofuels have had bad press in recent years. There are primarily two distinct issues. The biofuel crops with the best yields (such as sugarcane or oil palm) grow in tropical countries where habitat destruction has occurred in association with the biofuel system. First generation indigenous energy crops commonly used for transport fuel in Europe (such as rapeseed and wheat) have low yields and/or the energy balance of the associated biofuel system is poor. This paper shows that grass is a crop with significant yields and grass biomethane (a gaseous renewable transport biofuel) has a very good energy balance and does not involve habitat destruction, land use change, new farming practices or annual tilling. The gross and net energy production per hectare are almost identical to palm oil biodiesel; the net energy of the grass system is at least 50% better than the next best indigenous European biofuel system investigated. Ten percent of Irish grasslands could fuel over 55% of the Irish private car fleet. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Can we meet targets for biofuels and renewable energy in transport given the constraints imposed by policy in agriculture and energy?

The deployment of biofuels is significantly affected by policy in energy and agriculture. In the energy arena, concerns regarding the sustainability of biofuel systems and their impact on food prices led to a set of sustainability criteria in EU Directive 2009/28/EC on Renewable Energy. In addition, the 10% biofuels target by 2020 was replaced with a 10% renewable energy in transport target. This allows the share of renewable electricity used by electric vehicles to contribute to the mix in achieving the 2020 target. Furthermore, only biofuel systems that effect a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with the fuel they replace are allowed to contribute to meeting the target. In the agricultural arena, cross-compliance (which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy) dictates the allowable ratio of grassland to total agricultural land, and has a significant impact on which biofuels may be supported. This paper outlines the impact of these policy areas and their implications for the production and use of biofuels in terms of the 2020 target for 10% renewable transport energy, focusing on Ireland. The policies effectively impose constraints on many conventional energy crop biofuels and reinforce the merits of using biomethane, a gaseous biofuel. The analysis shows that Ireland can potentially satisfy 15% of renewable energy in transport by 2020 (allowing for double credit for biofuels from residues and ligno-cellulosic materials, as per Directive 2009/28/EC) through the use of indigenous biofuels: grass biomethane, waste and residue derived biofuels, electric vehicles and rapeseed biodiesel. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

How much gas can we get from grass?

Grass biomethane has been shown to be a sustainable gaseous transport biofuel, with a good energy balance, and significant potential for economic viability. Of issue for the designer is the variation in characteristics of the grass depending on location of source, time of cut and species. Further confusion arises from the biomethane potential tests (BMP) which have a tendency to give varying results. This paper has dual ambitions. One of these is to highlight the various results for biomethane potential that may be obtained from the same grass silage. The results indicated that methane potential from the same grass silage varied from 350 to 493 L CH4 kg−1 VS added for three different BMP procedures. The second ambition is to attempt to compare two distinct digestion systems again using the same grass: a two stage continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR); and a sequentially fed leach bed reactor connected to an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (SLBR–UASB). The two engineered systems were designed, fabricated, commissioned and operated at small pilot scale until stable optimal operating conditions were reached. The CSTR system achieved 451 L CH4 kg−1 VS added over a 50 day retention period. The SLBR–UASB achieved 341 L CH4 kg−1 VS added at a 30 day retention time.