1 Biogas production from small-scale anaerobic digestion plants on European farms

2 O’Connor, S.1.*, Ehimen E.1, Pillai S.C.13, Black A.2, Tormey D.3, Bartlett J.1,3
1
3 Department of Environmental Science, School of Science, Institute of Technology Sligo, Ash
4 Lane, Sligo, Ireland.
2
5 InnoTech Centre, South West College, Cookstown, Tyrone, Northern Ireland, United
6 Kingdom.
3
7 Centre for Precision Engineering, Materials and Manufacturing Research (PEM), Institute
8 of Technology Sligo, Ash Lane, Sligo, Ireland
9 * = corresponding author details, sean.oconnor2@mail.itsligo.ie
10 Abstract

11 Small-scale anaerobic digestion (SSAD) is a promising technology for the treatment of

12 livestock manure and the organic fraction of municipal wastes, especially in low population
13 communities or in stand-alone waste treatment facilities. SSAD systems can transform organic
14 matter into biogas (a mixture, mainly composed of carbon dioxide and methane), making the
15 technology suitable for a variety of applications in energy, agriculture and, potentially, the
16 emerging bio-products and bio-processes sector. Small-scale farming processes can further
17 exploit the portable and flexible options made available by implementing SSAD systems to
18 effect on-demand conversion of organic waste streams to useful heat (and, potentially,
19 electricity), with significant economic benefits accruable (especially when such energy carriers
20 are exported). SSAD is particularly applicable to the European agricultural sector, where the
21 average individual farm sizes and land productivities are currently insufficient to meet the
22 feedstock requirements of medium and large-scale plants. Despite the apparent benefits of
23 SSAD, the technology is still not well utilised. Much of the research previously conducted has
24 focused on large-scale systems.
25 This study explores the current status of SSAD technology in Europe by identifying process
26 design and operational characteristics, influential EU policies, the recent progress related to
27 SSAD, and the issues encountered. The study sheds light on an area with limited research by
28 providing an overview of the technology’s present status in Europe by identifying areas of
29 future study.
30
31
32

1
 1 Highlights:
2  Small-scale anaerobic digestion; a promising renewable energy technology for rural
3 agricultural industries.
4  Beneficial for its capability to produce bio-energy, bio-fertiliser, and mitigate
5 emissions.
6  Items related to plant design, energy utilisation, policy implications, and limiting
7 barriers were examined.
8
9 Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Bioenergy; Farm-scale; Plant design; Policy drivers; Issues
10 and barriers
11
12 Word count: 8,273 words
13
14 Abbreviations: AD, anaerobic digestion; EU, European Union; GHG, greenhouse gas;
15 ammonia (NH3) CH4, methane; N2O, nitrous oxide; SSAD, small-scale anaerobic digestion;
16 CHP, combined heat and power; OLR, organic loading rate; TS, total solids; CSTR,
17 continuously stirred tank reactor; AFBI, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute; HRT, hydraulic
18 retention time; UASB, Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket; H2S, hydrogen sulphide; N2,
19 nitrogen; H2, hydrogen; CO2, carbon dioxide; H2O, water; NGV, natural gas vehicle; CO,
20 carbon monoxide; EC, European Commission; EEG, Renewable Energy Sources Act; FIT,
21 feed-in tariffs; kW, kilowatt.
22
23 1. Introduction
24 A recent increase in the implementation and use of anaerobic digestion (AD) systems
25 globally has been observed, mainly due to the need for more renewable energy production and
26 for sustainable waste reduction solutions. The growth and development of AD has been
27 primarily driven by the immediate threat of climate change and the need for the increased use
28 of non-fossil fuel sources to meet global domestic, industrial and commercial energy
29 requirements. In response to addressing the pressing climate change impacts, the European
30 Commission adopted a long-term vision to achieve a climate-neutral Europe by 2050 [1],
31 requiring the rapid transformation of the European Union’s (EU) biggest greenhouse gas
32 (GHG) emitting sectors, including: energy supply (24.9%); transport (18.1%); industry
33 (16.5%); residential/commercial (11.2%); and agriculture (9.9%) [2]. Of the renewable energy
34 technologies available, AD is especially promising for the mitigation of GHG emissions
35 resulting from both the energy and the agricultural sectors. The technology is particularly
36 applicable to the agricultural sector as manure management alone accounts for 31% of the GHG

2
 1 emissions and nearly all ammonia (NH3) emissions released from the production of livestock
2 in the EU‐28 [3]. Unlike other renewable technologies, AD can uniquely capture harmful
3 methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions released from manure, while simultaneously
4 producing renewable bioenergy [4–6].
5 AD is a natural process that uses microorganisms to biodegrade material over four stages
6 (hydrolytic, fermentative, acetogenic and methanogenic) in the absence of oxygen, producing
7 a CH4 rich gaseous output known as biogas. In dealing with agricultural wastes, these systems
8 reduce waste loads, generate bio-energy and produce nutrient-rich fertilisers (in digester
9 effluents) (Fig. 1). Other benefits include the reduction of odours, pathogen loads, and GHG
10 emissions stemming from agricultural processes.

11
12 Fig. 1. Schematic of farm-scale anaerobic digestion plant
13
14 At present, the EU is the global leader in the production of electricity derived from biogas,
15 with an installed capacity of 9,985 MWe across 17,662 plants [7]. International and national
16 climate change reduction and energy supply targets have been the leading drivers in the
17 technology’s deployment, attracting extensive investment from public and private institutions
18 [8]. Even accounting for the recent growth, the technology is still underutilised, with the
19 potential biomass resources from the agricultural sector far exceeding current use [9]. Slow
20 adoption can be partly attributed to the concentration on large-scale AD systems across Europe,

3
 1 where the location of such centralised facilities has been dependent on the availability of large
2 quantities of biomass feedstock. However, smaller available biomass quantities in stand-alone
3 agricultural environments, which are outside the catchment area, or where the cost of supplying
4 such agricultural wastes, by-products or biomass to the centralised AD plants cannot be
5 justified, are largely not captured in bioenergy (including AD) conversion schemes. This is a
6 significant issue because the average individual farm holding in the EU-28 consists of only
7 16.1 ha (i.e. insufficient to meet the feedstock requirements of centralised AD plants) [10].
8 Small-scale anaerobic digestion (SSAD) is a promising technology to overcome this
9 barrier, as, deal with smaller organic feedstock sources. Despite the apparent benefits of SSAD,
10 the technology is still not well utilised, with much of the research to date focused on large-
11 scale systems [11–20]. To bridge this research gap, this study presents a comprehensive review
12 of SSAD technologies across Europe, in order to evaluate the technologies potential in
13 producing renewable energy from feedstock sourced from small to medium agriculture
14 environments. The following objectives were set: (i) review the current state of the art of plant
15 design and operating characteristics; (ii) identify suitable commercial applications for the
16 utilisation of bioenergy; (iii) examine the influence of government policy on the technologies
17 deployment, and (iv) summarise the major challenges limiting widespread adoption to date.
18 The ultimate aim of this study is to provide an effective guide to allow academics, decision
19 makers, and operators gauge the technology.
20
21 2. Methods and Materials
22 2.1 Review Methodology
23 A comprehensive evaluation of the scientific literature was undertaken to provide a
24 thorough understanding of the development and current status of SSAD technologies across
25 Europe. The studies were sourced largely from international databases and information sources
26 such as Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, Emerald and Elsevier. These
27 databases were searched for relevant articles, book-chapters and conference proceedings.
28 Furthermore, technical reports and statistics were retrieved from official international
29 databases including Eurostat, International Energy Agency, and European Biogas Association.
30 The decision to include or exclude studies was based on the SSAD classification criteria
31 described in the following sub-section. Fig. 2 provides an illustration of the screening process
32 used to construct the literature database. Irrelevant studies are those that fell outside the criteria
33 described in Section 2.2. Of the items examined, a total of 86 studies met the requirements,

4
 1 sourced from scientific articles (57 research papers and reviews – 66.3%), technical documents
2 and reports (27 documents – 31.4%) and book chapters and indexed conference proceedings (2
3 documents – 2.3%). A detailed breakdown of the studies used to build this literature database
4 is provided in Appendix A.

5
6 Fig. 2. Flow chart of the screening process used for the literature database
7
8 2.2 Classification of Anaerobic Digestion Plants
9 AD plants can typically be categorised by their feedstock input quantities, gas outputs, or,
10 where a further energy conversion is available, the electrical or thermal output of the integrated
11 combined heat and power (CHP) unit [21]. The terms “micro”, “small”, “medium”, and “large”
12 scale anaerobic digestion plants have been widely used in the research literature without a
13 quantitative basis for the ranges covered by such labels [22–26], with different countries
14 creating their own classifications [27–29]. These classifications in the European context have
15 been tied to FIT payments, which are based on the quantity of electricity generated by the plant.
16 FIT’s are national policy mechanisms that provide payments and long-term contracts to
17 renewable electricity producers, proportional to the amount of power generated. The payments
18 are often dependent upon the size of the plant in terms of installed electrical capacity, reflecting
19 the higher generation costs associated with small and medium sized projects [27]. Table 1
20 displays a sample of the various classifications used in the EU for AD plants, with no unifying
21 definition apparent. This study builds on the various definitions identified in the literature and
22 Table 1, to propose a unifying range to classify AD plants. To support the proposed range,
23 further clarification with reference to the industry and literature is provided in the following
24 sub-sections.

5
Table 1. National FIT payment categorises. Adapted with permission from Pablo-Romero, M. del P. et al. (2017) ‘An overview of feed-in tariffs,
premiums and tenders to promote electricity from biogas in the EU-28’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 73, pp. 1366-1379. Copyright
2017 Elsevier.
Countries Contract Duration Determining factors of the prices
Croatia 14 years The tariff for plants using biogas
generated from plant and animal origin,
crops and organic residues, sewer and
landfill gas, and biodegradable waste
varies depending on the plant’s capacity
France 15 years The tariff is dependent upon the plant’s
energy performance and capacity
Hungary Not greater than the term of Payment rates subject to the plant’s
amortisation of the plant. capacity and the time period in which
the electricity was generated (peak,
valley, and deep-valley periods)
Luxembourg 15 years Payment rates reliant on the nominal
electricity capacity of the plant
United Kingdom 20 years The tariff applied is subject to the
installed capacity of the plant
Payment for biogas
Capacity ≥ 300 to < 400 kW: €ct 19 per kW h
Capacity ≥ 400 kW to < 1 MW: €ct 16.5 per kW h
Capacity ≥ 1 MW to < 2 MW: €ct 16 per kW h
Capacity ≥2 MW to < 5 MW: €ct 15 per kW h
Capacity of ≤ 150 kW: €ct 9.745 per kW h
Capacity ≥ 2 MW: €ct 8.121 per kW h
Plants with an energy performance of at least 70% may
have a bonus of €ct 4, also applied for plants using a
share of 60% or higher of livestock manure.
Capacity of ≤ 150 kW: €ct 9.745 per kW h
Capacity ≥ 2 MW: €ct 8.121 per kW h
Plants with an energy performance of at least 70%
may have a bonus of €ct 4, also applied for plants
using a share of 60% or higher of livestock manure.
Capacity ≤ 150 kW: €ct 14.7 per kW h
Capacity > 150 kW to ≤ 300 kW: €ct 13.7 per kW h
Capacity > 300 kW to ≤ 500 kW: €ct 12.7 per kW h
Capacity > 500 kW to ≤ 2.5 MW: €ct 11.7 per kW h
Capacity ≤ 250 kW: €ct 8.83 per kW h
Capacity > 250 kW to ≤ 500 kW: €ct 8.15 per kW h
Capacity > 500 kW: €ct 8.4 per kW h
6
 1 2.2.1 Micro-scale AD (CHP electrical output < 15 kWe)
2 The application of micro-scale anaerobic digestion systems is considered to be limited to
3 treating smaller organic waste quantities, with the biogas generated used for local heating and
4 domestic purposes. This study uses Walker et al.'s (2017) interpretation of micro-scale
5 anaerobic digestion as a plant with a CHP electrical capacity ranging between 5 to 15 kW e, or
6 equivalent. This range is comparable to other research studies in the area of micro AD [24,26].
7
8 2.2.2 Small-scale AD (CHP electrical output between > 15 and < 99 kWe)
9 SSAD installations are generally used to serve farm-scale applications and have a
10 significant net energy (heat and power) output based on the biomass available in such farm
11 environments. To further illustrate this scale, the estimated energy production from the EU-
12 28’s average farm holding of 16.1 hectares via growing and digesting of maize would be
13 between 431 to 586 MWe annually [10]. This corresponds to a CHP electrical capacity of 49
14 to 67 kWe. This assumption is based on a methane yield of 7,500 to 10,200 m3/ha, an energy
15 density of CH4 of 10.49 kWh/m3, a CHP electrical efficiency of 40%, and an operating time of
16 85% [30–33]. Based upon these figures and other literature, a CHP electrical capacity ranging
17 from 15 to 100 kWe has been deemed appropriate to define SSAD [34].
18
19 2.2.3 Medium-scale AD (CHP electrical output between > 100 and < 299 kWe)
20 Medium-scale AD systems include plants that fall between the spectrum of small-scale
21 plants described above and large utility systems. Medium-scale AD plants in this study have
22 been defined as systems with a CHP electrical capacity ranging from 100 to 300 kWe, which is
23 an energy output that could meet small community demands (i.e. 15 to 20 households) [35,36].
24
25 2.2.4 Large-scale AD (CHP electrical output > 300 kWe)
26 An extensive analysis of the industrial and research literature on AD systems showed that
27 plants with an electrical output of >300 kWhe or feedstock consumption exceeding 5,000
28 tonnes per annum have typically been classified as large-scale systems. Recent large AD
29 installations in France have involved by plants of greater capacity, with the installations having
30 an average plant capacity of 115,400 tonnes annually [8]. Large-scale plants are typically more
31 complex to maintain and operate, but benefit from greater economies of scale [8].
32
33

7
 1 3. Process Design Characteristics and Operational Performance Considerations
2
3 Although all SSAD systems perform the same basic function, their designs can vary widely,
4 depending on geographical location, the available feedstock, climatic conditions and the overall
5 intent of the reactor-use, i.e. for reduction of the organic load, energy production or reduction
6 of bacterial content [37,38]. These systems can be broken into three main categories: passive
7 systems, low-rate systems, and high-rate systems. This section describes digester types for each
8 category, with the current practical application further illustrated through European case
9 studies.
10
11 3.1 Passive System
12 A passive system is defined as a plant where a biogas recovery unit is added to an existing
13 manure or waste digestion treatment component [39]. This system typically incorporates little
14 to no mixing or supplemental heating. The temperature profile generally follows seasonal
15 patterns, operating in psychrophilic and mesophilic temperature ranges [40]. Since methane
16 production reduces significantly at temperature levels below 20°C, these units are typically
17 located in warm regions [39]. A covered lagoon digester is an example of a passive system.
18
19 3.1.1 Covered Lagoon Digester
20 A covered lagoon digester is simply a manure lagoon with an impermeable cover (Fig. 3).
21 The system uses two lagoons operating in series. The liquid level in the first lagoon remains
22 constant, while the level in the second lagoon may rise or fall, depending on the farm’s storage
23 requirements. The stable conditions in the first lagoon promote the breakdown of the substrate,
24 with the biogas produced usually captured under a flexible cover and removed via a collection
25 system. This configuration has the added benefit of acting as a manure storage mechanism until
26 land application.
27 Properly designed covered lagoon digesters can produce biogas from dilute wastes with a
28 total solids concentration of <0.5 - 2% [41], such as flushed manure and dairy parlour
29 wastewater [42–44]. A pre-treatment separation unit is used to prevent coarse solids, such as
30 silage fibres and hay, from entering the lagoon. If such solids are not separated, they float to
31 the top and form a crust, resulting in reduced biogas production and eventual infilling of the
32 lagoon [42]. Excessive amounts of water from these flushing systems dilute the manure and
33 reduce the organic loading rate (OLR).

8
 1 Covered lagoon digesters are one of the most common systems used globally for the
2 processing of manure slurries and agriculture residues, particularly in North America [42,45].
3 Although these installations are the cheapest AD system available, they are not typically used
4 in Europe, as they require warm climates to maintain a sufficient digester temperature for
5 methanogenic bacteria to thrive [45].

7 Fig. 3. Schematic drawing of a covered lagoon digester

8
9 3.2 Low-Rate Systems
10 A low-rate system is defined as a system where feedstock is held in a digester for an
11 extended period of time (typically 10 to 30 days) to maximise biogas yield [40]. These systems
12 can operate in both the mesophilic (25 - 40° C) and thermophilic (50 - 65° C) temperature range
13 requiring the use of supplementary heating, often in the form of heat exchangers, to maintain
14 the desired temperature [40,42,43]. Unless there is a legal requirement for the pasteurisation of
15 manure to achieve a reduction in bacterial load, the mesophilic temperature range is normally
16 selected for farm applications [46]. The mesophilic temperature range can often provide
17 satisfactory degradation with the added benefit of having a reduced energy demand in
18 comparison to thermophilic systems [46]. Three types of low-rate systems are described here:
19 garage-type; plug-flow; and complete mix.
20
21 3.2.1 Garage-Type Digester
22 A garage-type digester uses a dry fermentation process operating in batch mode, often in
23 combination with a tank containing percolation fluid (a microbial rich fluid resulting from the
24 feedstock-microbial community interaction during the anaerobic digestion process) as seen in
25 Fig. 4 [47]. The digester uses a compact garage shaped design, allowing the feedstock to be
26 added or removed batch-wise [21]. To shorten the start-up process, the feedstock is inoculated

9
 1 with digestate before each feeding cycle to guarantee optimal conditions for methanogenic
2 bacteria [48–50]. The fermentation process lasts between 4 - 5 weeks with the percolate circuit
3 run continuously, or periodically, depending on the plant’s desired output [51]. Garage-type
4 digesters can operate in the mesophilic or thermophilic temperature range, with the temperature
5 maintained through an integrated system used to heat the walls and floors of the digester [51].
6 These digester types are suitable for the treatment of feedstock streams with a high total solids
7 (TS) content (TS > 15%) [52,53]. Garage type digesters can accept material with a greater level
8 of impurities, as it requires no mixing of the feedstock [51]. These impurities can be harmful
9 to other digester types, due to clogging of pumps and stirrers. During the last decade, numerous
10 garage-type digesters have been approved and constructed across Europe, primarily, in
11 Germany [54,55].

12
13 Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of a garage-type digester
14
15 3.2.1.1 Example of Garage-type Digester for SSAD Use - Thierry de Pas (Bois-Guilbert,
16 France)
17 Thierry de Pas farm specialises in breeding Icelandic horses in Bois-Guilbert, France. The
18 farm consists of 226 hectares, where 98 hectares are used for grassland, with the remaining

10
 1 land used for the cultivation of crops in rotation (wheat, maize, rapeseed, etc.) [24]. The stable
2 holding includes approximately 150 adult animals and roughly 50 foals.
3 In 2013, Thierry de Pas began operating a small-scale mesophilic dry percolation-based
4 digester on the farm, but, due to unexpected start-up problems, the plant only began operating
5 at full power in February 2014 (Plate. 1). The farm collaborated with local partners to increase
6 the organic input streams to the digestion facility. The added feedstock included the organic
7 fraction of roadside management and communal kitchens’ waste [24].
8 The plant uses a mesophilic dry digestion process, which consists of six modular digestion
9 containers with an individual reactor volume of 30 m³ [24]. Each container is gas-tight with
10 the necessary water connections, heating and gas collection equipment integrated into the
11 digester’s walls. To maintain a desirable microbial community, percolate is re-circulated at 250
12 l/h [24]. The residence time of the biomass is 25 to 30 days, with the biogas captured and stored
13 in a gas balloon. The electrical power of the CHP system is 50 kWe, with a yearly net electricity
14 production of 253 MWe [24]. Heat and electricity are utilised on-site, when possible. The on-
15 site heat use is 425 MWth, where the heat is partially used in a drying installation for hay, wheat
16 and other agricultural products. The substitution of electricity for on-site demand and the
17 subvention for the production of bioenergy amounts to approximately €45,500/year.
18 Substitution of heat produced by the system amounted to revenue of €49,000/year from the
19 displacement of gas and heating oil [24].

20
21 Plate 1. Thierry de Pas plant. Reprinted with permission from De Dobbelaere, A. et al. (2015)
22 ‘Small scale anaerobic digestion: Case studies in Western Europe’, Copyright 2015 Enerpedia.
23
24

11
 1 3.2.2 Plug-Flow Digester
2 The plug-flow digester concept consists of a rectangular tank that operates by horizontally
3 displacing old substrate with new substrate, removing the need for mixing (Fig. 5) [56]. New
4 material added to the digester tank displaces an equal portion of old material, which is pushed
5 out the discharge point [57]. There is typically no intermediate mixing of the tank contents in
6 the vertical direction of the tank contents. Therefore, as new feedstock enters, it pushes material
7 through the digester as a “plug”, resulting in the oldest material being driven out, ensuring all
8 substrate has the same hydraulic retention time. An expandable external gas collector (located
9 on the digester roof) captures the produced biogas [42,43,53].

10
11 Fig. 5. Schematic drawing of a plug-flow digester
12
13 3.2.3 Complete Mix Digester
14 A complete mix digester, also called a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) [38], in its
15 basic form consists of a round insulated tank made from reinforced concrete or steel, with
16 supplementary heating and mixing to achieve an active mass of microorganisms (Fig. 6)
17 [45,56]. Incoming substrate displaces an equal volume of mass from the digester. Biogas
18 production is sustained by adjusting the volume entering the digester to maintain a 20 to 30
19 day retention time [39]. Complete mix digesters are flexible in terms of the variety of wastes
20 they can treat, accepting wastes with total solids concentrations ranging from 3 to 10%, such
21 as dairy manure, processing waste and swine manure [38,44,56,58]. The contents of the reactor

12
 1 can be intermittently or continuously mixed to keep the solids in suspension. The types of
2 mixing systems that can be incorporated include mechanical propellers, circulation liquid, or
3 gas recirculation [42]. The performance of a complete mix digester may be improved by the
4 use of a two-phase configuration rather than a single phase [59–61]. In this configuration, the
5 feedstock is broken down by fermenting bacteria in the first phase with the methanogens
6 converting organic acids to biogas in the second phase [39].

7
8 Fig. 6. Schematic drawing of a complete mix digester
9
10 3.2.3.1 Example of Complete Mix Digesters for SSAD Use - Agri-Food and Biosciences
11 Institute AD plant (Large Park, Hillsborough, Northern Ireland)
12 In 2006, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) was formed as a merger between
13 the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland’s Department of
14 Agriculture and Rural Development - Science Service, with the purpose of carrying out
15 research for private companies, public bodies, and government departments (Plate. 2) [62]. The
16 farm in which the Institute is based covers 310 ha, primarily grassland used for the production
17 of dairy, beef, pig, and sheep [62,63]. Most of the livestock on the farm are dairy cows,
18 comprising of 340 adult cows and 180 young-stock [64].
19 AFBI commissioned a 600m3 mesophilic SSAD system on its farm in 2007, with the
20 primary motivation being for research purposes. The operating temperature range is 37°C, with
21 an average HRT of 28 days [65]. Digester mixing is achieved via biogas recirculation, through

13
 1 18 ports on the bottom of the tank [65]. A liquid recirculation system was later added to the
2 primary digester, to improve mixing and prevent floating layers developing at the surface of
3 the tank. Biogas is stored in a gas holder (capacity 200 m3), with the gas utilised in a heat only
4 120 kW boiler and a Tedom 95 kWe CHP unit [63]. The electrical power produced by the CHP
5 unit is sold to the national grid. The thermal energy produced is used in AFBI’s offices and
6 buildings to provide space heating and hot wash-water.

7
8 Plate 2. AFBI AD plant (Large Park, Hillsborough, Northern Ireland)
9
10 3.3 High-Rate Systems
11 High-rate systems are defined as systems where the low energy density fraction of the
12 feedstock liquid stays in the digester for a short period of time, whereas solids are held for
13 longer [39]. This provides a greater concentration of microorganisms in the reactor per unit of
14 volume than would otherwise have been possible, thus reducing retention times (< 10 days)
15 [66]. Advantages include the promotion of high biogas production, due to the retention of
16 methanogenic-forming bacteria, with the added benefit of having a smaller reactor size. Two
17 examples of high-rate systems are given here: Fixed Film Digesters; Induced Bedded Reactor.
18

14
 1 3.3.1 Fixed Film Digester
2 The basic fixed-film digester design consists of a reactor that contains a bio-reactive
3 medium, which increases the surface area for microbes to grow and propagate (illustrated in
4 Fig. 7). This reduces the hydraulic retention time (HRT) while maintaining a reasonable level
5 of biogas production. Immobilisation of the relevant AD bacterial flora as a biofilm prevents
6 washout of the slower growing cells, providing a biomass retention time that is independent of
7 the hydraulic retention time. The high microbial biomass per unit volume in the reactor allows
8 for shorter hydraulic retention times, typically in the range of 2 to 6 days [21,67]. The main
9 disadvantage of the fixed film digester is that feedstock with a high solid content can clog the
10 medium [68]. To avoid this, the feedstock is typically passed through a solid separator, to
11 remove particles before entering the digester. The efficiency of the digester is dependent on the
12 solid separator, with the influent concentration needing to be adjusted to maximise the
13 separator’s performance (usually to 1-5 % TS). As a consequence, some potential biogas yields
14 are lost due to the removal of carbon-rich solids to meet the size requirement. Fixed-film
15 digesters are smaller in size than conventional digesters, a key consideration when land
16 availability is limited [68].

17
18 Fig. 7. Schematic drawing of a fixed-film digester
19
20 3.3.1.1 Example of Fixed Film Digesters for SSAD Use - Van der Schans SSAD plant
21 (Dan Eelder, Netherlands)
22 The Van der Schans family based in Den Eelder, Netherlands, have a dairy farm consisting
23 of 150 ha grassland and 70 ha maize [24]. In 2014, the farm began operating a fixed film SSAD

15
 1 plant which digests 7,500 m³ of dairy slurry, in addition to a small amount of wastewater from
2 the milking parlour activities [24]. The vertical tank reactor has a volume of 130 m³ with a
3 residence time of 8 - 12 days. The system uses a 65 kW CHP unit, to supply 40 to 50% of the
4 electrical demand of the site, with the thermal heat generated used to maintain the reactor
5 temperature at 40 °C [24]. The plant CHP system generates 500 MWh of electricity and 1 GWh
6 of heat annually [69]. The digestate produced is partially used on the farm crops and grassland
7 with the remainder sent to a composting plant, where it is pasteurised and exported.
8 The investment cost of the plant (including pre/post-treatment, and storage of the digestate)
9 was €300,000, plus €150,000 for the CHP unit. The operational cost of the plant is between
10 €15,000 and €20,000 a year. This cost covers the maintenance of the CHP unit, biogas storage
11 installation and labour, which consists of 0.5 hours per day. There is no additional cost
12 associated with processing the digestate [24]. The revenue generated by the plant includes
13 electricity production for proprietary use; its value is €40,000 per year (depending on the tariff).
14 The operating grant and subventions provide €110/MWhe, which amounts to €52,800/year
15 [24]. The estimated payback period is 6 to 8 years. No revenue has been generated from the
16 production of heat, as it is fully utilised to maintain the reactor’s temperature.

17
18 Plate 3. Den Eelder biogas plant. Reprinted with permission from IEA Bioenergy Task 37.
19 (2017) ‘Biogas in society - Den Eelder Farm’, Copyright (2017) International Energy Agency
20 (IEA) Bioenergy

16
 1 3.3.2 Suspended Media Digesters
2 Suspended Media digesters use a constant upward flow of liquid to suspend microbes
3 resulting in smaller particles being washed out while retaining larger particles in the digester
4 (shown in Fig 8) [39]. Microorganisms form biofilms around the larger particles, increasing
5 the volume of methanogens within the reactor [39]. The two most common Suspended Media
6 digesters are the Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) and the Induced Media Digester,
7 with the key distinction between the two being the dry matter content of the applicable
8 feedstock. UASBs are suited to dilute waste streams (< 3% TS) [39], whereas Induced Media
9 Reactors operate most efficiently with highly concentrated waste streams (6 – 12% TS) [39,70].

10
11 Fig. 8. Schematic drawing of Induced Media Digester
12
13 3.4 Overview of SSAD System Characteristics and Application
14 Although all AD systems perform the same basic function (holding the organic matter in
15 the absence of oxygen, providing conditions for methanogens to cultivate), the case studies
16 explored in this chapter have demonstrated the wide variety of plant design configurations and
17 applications available (Table 2). The case studies explored have confirmed that the selection
18 of the SSAD plant design needs to be farm-specific, with key considerations including
19 feedstock availability, climatic conditions, and investment available.

17
Table 2. Characteristics of digester types suitable for on-farm SSAD systems [39,41,71,72]

AD Categories Passive System Low-Rate Systems High-Rate Systems

Garage-Type Complete Mix Induced Blanket Up-flow Anaerobic

Digester Types Covered Lagoon Plug-Flow Digester Fixed Film Digester
Digester Digester Digester Sludge Blanket
In-ground clay or Rectangular in- In/above ground In/above ground
Digestion Vessel Above ground In/above ground tank In/above ground tank
synthetically lined storage ground tank tank tank
Temperature Mesophilic /
Psychrophilic/ Mesophilic Mesophilic Mesophilic Thermophilic Thermophilic Thermophilic
Range Thermophilic
Ease of operation
Low Medium Low Medium High High High
& maintenance
Supplemental heat No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total solids
0.5 – 2% 15 - 50% 11 – 14% 3 – 10% 2 – 4% 6 – 12% < 3%
concentration
Solids
Coarse Fine to coarse Coarse Medium to coarse Fine Medium to coarse Fine
characteristics
Hydraulic
30-45 days < 14 days 15 – 20 days 20 – 30 days 3 – 5 days 3 – 5 days 3 – 5 days
retention time
Optimum climatic
Warm climates All climates All climates All climates All climates All climates All climates
conditions
- High organic
- Low capital and
dry material is - Operation and - Provides good - Highly Efficient - Reduced need
maintenance costs
applicable maintenance mixing of substrate - Bacteria is retained for solid
- Easily applicable to - Efficient process
Advantages - Can operate in relativity simple in the reactor by the bed separation
hydraulic flushing - Bacteria is retained
aerobic and - Energy crops are - Adequate solids - Small reactor size - Fast hydraulic
- Low maintenance
anaerobic applicable degradation - Low retention time retention time
requirements
conditions
- Substrate does not - Retention time - Difficult to operate
- Low biogas yields - Requires mix longitudinally not guaranteed due to the increased
- Relativity
- Bacteria wash-out if stackable - Low biogas - Bacteria wash-out mechanical
Expensive
short-circuiting occurs material production if short-circuiting components - Relativity Expensive
- Complex
Disadvantages - Highly dependent on - Difficult to - Difficult to occurs - Periodic cleaning is - Complex operation
operation
ambient temperature operate remove settled - Capital and necessary - Does not accept fat
- Does not accept
- Large area required - Relativity solids energy costs is - It is necessary to
fat
- Solid settling issues expensive - Periodic cleaning relatively replace the film
is required expensive periodically

18
 1 4. Relevant applications for the utilisation of bioenergy
2 4.1 Background
3 Biogas generated through AD can be used to substitute natural gas and fossil fuels for a
4 variety of applications, depending on its quality. Its composition typically consists of 50–70%
5 CH4, 30–50% CO2 and trace amounts of hydrogen sulphide (H2S), NH3, nitrogen (N2), and
6 hydrogen (H2). Choosing an appropriate biogas utilisation method for a site is of crucial
7 importance to plants’ financial viability, with the technology’s selection process generally
8 being dependent on local circumstances. Furthermore, the political framework conditions of
9 the given site or application environment can heavily influence the technology selection
10 process from both a financial and operational perspective.
11 Biogas can be cleaned or upgraded to a higher heating value, therefore meeting the
12 requirements of various gas appliances. This process involves the removal of trace gases, which
13 can corrode equipment due to the presence of H2S and water. In practice, the majority of
14 operational plants use the biogas generated on-site to meet local heating and electricity needs.
15 Cleaned biogas (H2S<100 ppm) is suitable for local application such as cooking, burning in
16 boilers, or generating electricity and heat via CHP units [73–75]. Therefore, the storage
17 requirements in these circumstances are temporary in nature and used to compensate for the
18 lag between production and consumption peaks. Biogas can be further enhanced by upgrading
19 to biomethane (>97% CH4) through the removal of impurities (CO2, H2S, and H2O) [76,77].
20 These utilisation pathways typically include injection into the natural gas grid (H2S<4ppm) or
21 the conversion into a vehicle transportation fuel (H2S<16ppm) [78]. Fig. 9 illustrates the biogas
22 cleaning and upgrading processes needed for standard applications.

23
24 Fig. 9. Biogas cleaning and upgrading processes for various applications

19
 1 4.2 Production of heat and steam
2 The generation of thermal (heat) energy using biogas can be accomplished through the use
3 of a boiler or internal combustion engine. Typically, the heat generated is utilised to maintain
4 the digester at its desired temperature and for on-site applications. However, difficulties can be
5 encountered in matching energy production to consumption for these local applications,
6 particularly for farms, where consumption patterns are seasonal. Modified or specially built
7 boilers can be used for the combustion of biogas by adjusting the air to gas ratio [42]. The
8 process involves gas being combusted in a burner with the resulting heat used to warm water.
9 The advantage of this method is that the quality of the gas can be relatively low, requiring an
10 H2S level of below 1000 ppm, a gas pressure of 8 to 25 mbar, and maintaining a dew point of
11 150°C to prevent condensation [75]. Efficient gas boilers are rarely used alone, as the potential
12 revenue stream from electricity generation is significantly higher than from alone heat.
13
14 4.3 Combined heat and power (CHP)
15 One of the most widely used biogas utilisation technologies for SSAD plants is CHP,
16 mainly because of its cost-effectiveness and reliability. CHP systems operate by converting
17 chemical energy (biogas) into electrical and thermal (heat) energy. The conversion
18 technologies that are commercially available to achieve this include internal combustion
19 engines, spark-ignition engines, and gas turbines [45]. Of the conversion processes available,
20 the most commonly used is the internal combustion engine. However, gas engines have shown
21 promise in recent times as they do not require a high-quality gas, have relatively low
22 maintenance costs and have comparable efficiencies to other engines [79]. One of its major
23 advantages in comparison to other available technologies is the lack of complexity i.e. no gas
24 upgrading required, nor does it need a large infrastructure network. To prevent corrosion in
25 these systems the concentration of H2S should be maintained below 100 ppm, and water vapour
26 removed. Securing a connection to the national grid for the sale of electricity generated is often
27 a key component in the financial viability of these systems, sometimes making it unviable.
28 Another consideration is the utilisation of excess thermal energy generated after the plant’s
29 own consumption has been met. A recent study of AD plant operators found that the utilisation
30 of excess thermal energy is only 56% on average [80]. However, finding a suitable application
31 can prove difficult as SSAD plants are often located in rural agricultural environments.
32 Successful utilisation methods include space and water heating of residential and office
33 buildings, heating of piggery houses, and drying processes (i.e. wood chips) [81–83].

20
 1 4.4 Biogas upgrading to biomethane for use in natural gas grids and vehicle fuels
2 Since many SSAD plants are often situated in rural standalone environments finding a
3 suitable energy utilisation method is often difficult. A possible process to overcome this barrier
4 is the upgrading of biogas to biomethane which presents a range of new technological
5 opportunities including the use of biomethane in the natural gas grid and natural gas vehicles
6 (NGVs). The preferred end-use of biomethane is typically site-specific, with the selected
7 process based on the investment available, the site’s national framework, and the CH4 and
8 impurities specifications [73,83].
9 In order for biogas to be injected into the natural gas grid, it must be upgraded to comply
10 with stringent gas purification requirements. These specifications can change depending on the
11 location of the site with many countries in Europe having established their own national
12 standards [84,85]. The reasoning for these requirements is to prevent the injection of poor-
13 quality gas which could subsequently result in considerable damage to the network’s
14 infrastructure. Several solutions are commercially available for the upgrading of biogas to
15 biomethane, which include water scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption, amine scrubbing, and
16 membrane technologies. Generally, the integration of these technologies on SSAD plants is
17 financially unviable, mainly because of the competitiveness of other gas suppliers combined
18 with the high investment and maintenance costs incurred.
19 An alternative use of biomethane is for fuel for specially built or modified vehicles
20 configured to operate on natural gas. Over 1 million NGVs are operating on biogas globally,
21 which demonstrates the capacity of the technology at large scale [75]. NGVs available include
22 cars, buses, and trucks, with the majority of vehicles being retrofitted with the addition of a gas
23 supply system and gas tank. The reliable provision of high quality upgraded biomethane is vital
24 to the technology’s application as high contaminant levels can extensively damage the engine
25 of the vehicle [86]. Overall, the overwhelming barrier to these technologies is the expenditures
26 involved in the upgrading of biogas as presented in Table 3.

21
 1 Table 3. Technical availability and maintenance costs of biogas upgrading technologies.
2 Adapted with permission from Khan, I. U. et al. (2017) ‘Biogas as a renewable energy fuel–A
3 review of biogas upgrading, utilisation and storage’, Energy Conversion and Management,
4 150, pp. 277-294. Copyright 2017 Elsevier.
Technical availability Maintenance cost
Technology Cost (€/m3)
per year (%) (€/year)
Pressure swing adsorption 94 56,000 0.26
High pressure water
96 15,000 0.15
scrubbing
Organic physical scrubbing 96 39,000 -
Chemical scrubbing process 91 59,000 -
Membrane separation 98 25,000 0.22
Cryogenic separation - - 0.40
5
6 4.5 Third Generation Utilisation Routes
7 In addition to the more established biogas utilisation methods previously discussed, third
8 generation utilisation routes have gained significant research attention as they can potentially
9 solve other goals via anaerobic digestion, such as fuel generation, energy storage and chemical
10 production. One such method includes the capture and storage of excess electrical energy via
11 the combination of hydrogen production through electrolysis and the application of the Sabatier
12 process to achieve the methanation of the CO2 content of the biogas outputs into methane. This
13 significantly increases the overall methane yield from the SSAD systems, which is also of a
14 higher energy value and quality to be injected directly into the gas grid or used in natural gas
15 applications. A case study demonstrating this technology’s potential application was presented
16 in Jürgensen et al. [87], where it was reported that the 480 mainly small-scale biogas plants in
17 Northern Germany could potentially utilise up to 0.7 TWh of available surplus electricity and
18 produce 100,000 m3 of upgraded methane (at standard temperature and pressure) annually.
19 Another promising technology that has recently gained considerable attention is biomass
20 gasification, which is an efficient means for the utilisation of dry biomass, such as solid
21 digestate, forest waste, or short rotation coppice [88]. The process involves the heating of
22 biomass in various fluids to a temperature in the range of 850 to 1,300°C with the gaseous
23 mixture released undergoing a methanation process. The final step is to produce and purify (via
24 Fischer-Tropsch) the synthetic natural gas released (also known as syngas) which comprises a
25 mixture of H2 and carbon monoxide (CO) [89]. Syngas can be used in numerous applications,
26 including the generation of heat, power, and various biofuels [90–92].

22
 1 5. Development and Current Status of SSAD in Europe
2 5.1 Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion in the EU
3 From 2011 to 2016, the installed electrical capacity of AD plants operating on agricultural
4 substrates in Europe increased from 3,408 MW to 6,348 MW [7]. Even with this rapid
5 development, the potential biomass resources from the agricultural sector in Europe far exceeds
6 what is currently utilised in AD processes [9]. Although some European countries are
7 characterised by already having a significant penetration and knowledge of AD system
8 implementation (e.g. Germany, Italy, France and Denmark) [93], there is still a noticeably, low
9 uptake of the technology in some countries with large agricultural sectors (e.g. Ireland,
10 Bulgaria, Romania and Greece) [93]. SSAD holds promise as a technology to further expand
11 the deployment of AD in Europe, due to its ability to operate economically in small to medium-
12 sized farms with lesser available biomass quantities [34]. These farms have been previously
13 unable to adopt the standardised large centralised AD plant configurations typically used in
14 Europe, due to issues related to the large feedstock quantities required, high investment costs,
15 or uneconomical biomass transport distances.
16 Policymakers within the EU have recognised the advantages associated with SSAD and
17 have subsequently implemented initiatives at the EU, state, and regional level to accelerate the
18 technology’s adoption. National biogas subsidy schemes have been shown to have a significant
19 impact on the rate of biogas plant deployment among European countries over the past decade
20 [21]. Countries that have implemented favourable framework conditions for the operation of
21 biogas plants have experienced a surge in plant installations and in the number of companies
22 to develop, construct, and service said plants [21]. Of the EU-28 countries, Germany, in
23 particular, has oriented itself towards small-capacity plants. A sharp increase in German SSAD
24 plant installations was observed since the German government introduced an amendment to
25 the Renewable Energy Source Act or EEG (German: Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz) in 2012
26 [94]. This amendment provided a special allowance for biogas plants with an installed electrical
27 capacity up to 75 kW, greatly improving the economics of operating such a plant [94]. In 2016,
28 approximately 560 small manure-based biogas plants (<75 kW) were in operation with a total
29 installed plant capacity of 40.3 MWe producing 271.3 GWhe annually [94].
30 The Flemish region in Belgium has experienced a rapid increase in SSAD plants in the past
31 five years, where over eighty micro and small-scale biogas plants are active [24]. Many of the
32 installations have been supported through the Flemish Climate Fund, which was set up to
33 provide a financial framework for measures that support the government’s long term climate

23
 1 policy [24,95]. Initial installations typically used a manure bag type digester, later replaced by
2 a complete mix digester with the majority of installations constructed by the Belgium company
3 Bioelectric [21,96].
4 One of the most impactful European initiatives focused on expanding the deployment of
5 SSAD installations has been the Bio-Energy Farm project, funded under the Intelligent Energy
6 Europe Programme. The project aimed to ‘open the market for small-scale digesters’ by first
7 assessing the technology’s suitability, and then aiding in deployment [97]. The project
8 commenced in 2010 with the objective of the first phase being to evaluate the feasibility of AD
9 on farms. This was achieved by [98]:
10  Developing online and offline feasibility calculators resulting in 1,000 feasibility
11 checks.
12  Providing training to farmers (approx. 75) and farmer advisors (approx. 100).
13  Aiding farmers in the development of business plans through workshops and face to
14 face meetings, resulting in the drafting of 802 business plans and 32 letters of intent
15 [97].

16 Phase two of the project focused on the implementation of the business plans developed in
17 the project’s first phase. This involved following up with farmers whose business plans
18 indicated positive results and advising on the next steps required in the implementation process.
19 Information provided included guiding farmers with regards to permit procedures, subsidies
20 available, the application process, manufacturing, and other related questions [97]. Phase two
21 resulted in the installation and commissioning of 86 biogas plants with a total capacity of 14
22 MW, producing 112 million kWh/a which equates to a CO2 equivalents reduction of 34,700
23 tonnes [97]. The project’s final report found that small-scale farm AD is slowly becoming the
24 new standard, where its value has already been recognised by farmers, farming
25 association/organisations, and political bodies [97].
26 It is expected that the growth of SSAD installations will continue to increase in Europe
27 over the next decade with the main drivers being the increasing demand for measures to reduce
28 the environmental impact (e.g. GHG emissions and water quality) of residual waste streams
29 and for renewable energy production from EU legislation [99,100]. For example, SSAD can
30 play a significant role in the European Commission’s target of having renewable energy
31 comprise of 27–30% of the energy supply by 2030 [101]. SSAD plants can further maximise
32 the biomass resources available in these countries to produce renewable energy, while
33 mitigating the environmental impact from livestock wastes.

24
 1 5.2 European Regulatory Considerations and Incentives for SSAD
2 5.2.1 Policy Background
3 Europe generally experienced slow adoption rates of AD installations until the early 1970s
4 and 1980s, where two global oil crises drove farmers to search for an alternative energy supply
5 [37,102]. The further development of the biogas industry in Europe was driven by farmers
6 concerns in relation to waste management, water quality, and eutrophication issues in Austria,
7 Germany, and Scandinavian countries [102,103]. These plants emerged as a means to reduce
8 net energy imports for farmers. These plants were financed primarily on energy sales with little
9 to no national subsidies in place [102].
10 In 1985, the first EU-wide legislation stimulus related to the deployment of AD was
11 adopted. The legislation (EEC No. 797/85 on Improving the Efficiency of Agricultural
12 Structures) provided a capital grant for the installation of new, or the improvement of existing,
13 farm equipment that contributed to the reduction of farm effluent pollution [104].
14 European policy related to AD is largely coloured by the GHG-reduction agenda, combined
15 with the desire to increase energy security by reducing the EU’s dependence on imported fuels
16 [103]. One of the most significant pieces of legislation for EU renewable energy policy was
17 the “White Paper for a Community Strategy and Action Plan” which identified the need for all
18 sectors of the economy to contribute to national targets to reduce GHG emissions. Adopted in
19 1997 by the European Parliament and the European Council, the legislation embraced AD as
20 one of many technologies that can be used to meet EU climate and energy targets [105]. Much
21 of the subsequent legislation that has aided in the development of the biogas industry and the
22 subsequent deployment of SSAD has stemmed from this primary legislation.
23 Over the last decade, the EU has vastly improved the legal framework conditions associated
24 with the adoption of AD, as seen in Table 4. On a long-term basis, the EU has set an ambitious
25 goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80-95%, when compared to 1990 levels, by 2050 [106].
26 An important milestone in achieving this goal is the EU’s 2030 Policy Framework for climate
27 and energy, which sets EU-wide policy objectives and targets related to energy efficiency,
28 renewable energy, and the reduction of GHG emissions [100]. Such measures are foreseen to
29 have a positive influence on the biogas production industry and the subsequent adoption of
30 SSAD plants.

25
Table 4. European Legislation which has aided the development of AD. Adapted with permission from Wilkinson, K. G. (2011) ‘A comparison
of the drivers influencing adoption of on-farm anaerobic digestion in Germany and Australia’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(5), pp. 1613-1622.
Copyright 2011 Taylor & Francis.

Need Legislation
Climate change:
Directive 2001/77/EC (later repealed by Directive 2009/98/EC) focuses on the promotion of electricity from renewable sources in
the internal energy market (EC Directive, 2001; EC Directive 2009) [107] [108]. This directive sets the framework regarding how
AD operates, providing the first legal definition of biomass (art. 2, b).
Directive 2004/8/EC promotes cogeneration/CHP by providing a framework for the technology to supply the useful heat demand in
the internal energy market [109].
 In 2005, the European Commission issued the “Biomass Action Plan” which identified biomass as a key element in energy
policy [110].
Environmental
 In 2007, the EU Treaty of Lisbon set out “An energy policy for Europe” which provided legal solidarity in matters of
changes to the energy policy and energy supply within the EU [111].
 In 2009, the Climate and Energy Package was promulgated in which the key objectives for 2020 are: [99].
o A reduction of GHG emissions by 20% based on 1990 levels.
o Increasing the proportion of energy consumed in the EU derived from renewable resources by 20%.
o A 20% improvement in energy efficiency.
Water quality:
Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC concerned with the protection of water against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
Nutrient management:
Agriculture
National Emissions Ceiling Directive 2001/81/EC, works to control ammonia emissions.
Health and hygiene:
Health Regulation (EC) no. 1774/2002 of the European Parliament states the health-related rules concerning animal by-products not
intended for human consumption.
Waste disposal legislation and policy:
The Landfill Directive 1999/31/EC was introduced to reduce landfill disposal by regulating waste management in EU states
Waste reduction, The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC introduces regulations for separate waste collections and environmentally sound
recovery and recovery of organic wastes [112]. This framework defines wastes which among other things apply to feedstock such as the residues
recycling of agri-processing and food.
The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 2015/720 sets out recycling and recovery targets and deadlines for the EU Member
States.

26
 1 5.2.2 Incentives Offered
2 To overcome the cost barrier associated with many renewable energy technologies,
3 European countries have established a variety of national and state policy incentives
4 targeted at lowering the construction and/or operating cost of a renewable energy
5 installation, as seen in Table 5. Such mechanisms are fundamental to the economic
6 success of many renewable energy-producing projects, as they provide long-term
7 financial certainty, a key criteria in gaining investment [113,114]. Nicolini & Tavoni
8 (2017) found that a 1% (c€) increase in the incentive (tariff) led to an increase in
9 incentivised renewable generation of 0.4–1%. Regarding the use of biogas, European
10 governments have been global leaders in adopting policies and promoting mechanisms
11 for the adoption of the technology [116]. This is highlighted in Germany, where the EEG
12 Act, particularity the 2004 amendment, resulted in the doubling of the total number of
13 biogas plants between 2006 and 2011 [117,118]. In 2017, the EEG act was amended to
14 replace the previous set tariffs with an auction system in an effort to control costs. The
15 construction of new biogas plants has begun to stagnate in recent years, increasing by
16 only 1.11% (+122 new plants) in 2017 in comparison to the 8.24% average annual growth
17 between 2008 and 2013 [119,120]. The goal of the most recent amendment is to slowly
18 eliminate government support for biogas over an eight-year period [121]

27
1 Table 5. Range and types of incentives used to accelerate the deployment of SSAD in the EU. Adapted with permission from Lukehurst & Bywater
2 (2015) ‘Exploring the viability of small-scale anaerobic digesters in livestock farming’, Copyright 2015 IEA Bioenergy.
Incentive
Incentive Details
Type
Feed-in tariffs (FIT) The FIT rates paid by country vary widely [29]

Basic rates/kWe Index-linked guaranteed price over a defined period. Banded in relation to the kWe capacity with a higher level for smaller plants; e.g. UK £0.1013 /kWh for <250
kWe, Austria 0.1950 €/kWh for < 250 kW and a minimum of 30% manure; Denmark 0.056 €/kWh -minimum 50% fresh weight manure; France 0.1182-0.2110 €/kWh
for
AD plants; German tariff before July 2014, 0.25 €/kWh for < 50kWe and; post-July 2014, 0.2373 €/kWh for <75 kWe only and must use 80% fresh weight of manure;
Ireland 0.15 €/kWh for <500 kWe; Switzerland 0.28 CHF/kWh for <50 kWe; the Netherlands 0.07 €/kWh increases in 6 phases to 0.15 €/kWh (not kWe capacity
limited).
Electricity-
related
The ‘virtual power Swiss innovation that serves 65 farmers who are already linked to a sales cooperative, manages small outputs, sells certificates, etc. through an intelligent control system
plant’ with modern technology [122].

Commercial spot Competitive bidding at auction can double or triple a wholesale price where electricity is exported to the grid. Although better suited to the larger producers, power
market sales at auction purchase companies can act as a co-operative for sale of block supply from some small producers

Electricity certificates The specific incentive names vary from country to country, the number issued/MWh varies; purchased by users who cannot meet the statutory obligation for carbon
reduction. Bidding process/auctions, e.g. average price range 170-220 SEK/MWh in Sweden; £42/MWh in the UK.
Heat to increase CHP Conditions attached to encourage the beneficial use of heat; e.g. Switzerland 0.025 CHF/kWh for <50 kWe added to base rate tariff, but non-detachable from the CHP;
efficiency UK
£0.076
Supplement
examples
Agricultural bonus Germany: Before July 2014, no bonus for <75 kWe plants; for <150 kWe 0.06-0.08  €/kWh; post-July 2014, basic bonus only dependant on crop and manure mix; Post-
including manure July
2014, no bonus (See above) Switzerland 0.18 CHF/kWh for <50 kWe Norway 250NOK/dry tonne manure
Heat only E.g. £0.076 for producers with <200 kWth capacity, applies to domestic and business consumers in the UK; Ireland 0.11 €/kWh for non-CHP application for <500 kWth;
Netherlands total budget sum available
Non-CHP
incentives
Bio-methane feed into Varies between countries; e.g. Sweden tax exemptions and consumption incentives; UK £0.068/kWh for gas to the grid: voluntary support programme by Swiss Gas
the gas grid Association to achieve 399GWh biomethane in 6 years; for the Netherlands (see Persson and Baxter (Eds), page 42, 2015)
Tax Used to encourage biogas energy, e.g. exemption from carbon and energy taxes; value-added taxes on renewable electricity sales; priority allocation for parking places,
incentives etc.
Some governments offer up-front payments, e.g. in Sweden up to 45%; France 38% for demonstration plants; England and Wales, up to £30,000 for feasibility studies
Investment Grants and loans and loan for up to 50% capital cost (England only) capital grant for a demonstration plants in the UK.
Also offered by companies with an emphasis on clean water/manure management; From EU via Common Agricultural Policy Regional
Package of grants, loans and energy payments to reduce water pollution, e.g. Norway manure payment 250 NOK /tonne TS not tied to CHP; See also Development
Environment Manure linked
programmes (van Nes, 2006) and http://www.snvworld.org
3

28
 1 Vast differences can be seen in the support mechanisms for SSAD within EU
2 countries, where some countries provide special support schemes dedicated to small-scale
3 energy production (Denmark, United Kingdom, Luxembourg) [24], others make no
4 distinction between plant sizes, and others have little or no supports in place. These
5 supports, where available, have been shown to have had a significant impact on SSAD
6 deployment, as countries with little or no supports exhibit low installation rates. Countries
7 with a simplified planning procedure also showed a significant increase in adoption levels
8 [123].
9 One of the most effective and widely used incentives are Feed-in Tariffs (FITs), which
10 offer fixed prices guaranteed by the national government for each kilowatt (kW)
11 generated and used for self-consumption, or exported to the national grid. The primary
12 benefit of such incentives is the financial certainty they provide, often ensuring a project
13 will be financially sustainable into the future. To account for the economics of scale, FITs
14 typically have different tariff bands in recognition of the greater proportional costs
15 associated with smaller installations [124]. Table 6 describes the various European tariff
16 rates and conditions applicable to manure-based SSAD units.
17
18 Table 6. FIT incentives which would apply to manure-based SSAD units. Adapted with
19 permission from Lukehurst & Bywater (2015) ‘Exploring the viability of small-scale
20 anaerobic digesters in livestock farming’, Copyright 2015 IEA Bioenergy.

Country Limits Rate Plant capacity

Norway Enshrined in law with the 250 NOK/t TS Not limited
annual rate negotiated between manure
Government and farmers
Switzerland Linked to electricity 0.18 CHF/kWh <50 kW
England Use of heat from CHP Heat 0.075 £/kWh <250 kW
and Wales only non-CHP
Ireland Not specifically for manure 0.11 €/kWh < 500 kW
(non CHP)
Germany Linked to electricity Must 0.2373 €/kWh <75 kW
include fresh weight manure: >
80%
Austria Must include minimum 30% 0.1950 €/kWh basic <250 kW
manure tariff
Denmark Must include minimum 50% 0.056 €/kWh basic
manure tariff
Italy Special tariff for plants using 0.25 €/kWh [125] Italy
>80% manure
Sweden 0.26 €/kWh <50 kWe [126]
21

29
 1 6. Barriers and Issues Limiting Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion
2 Implementation
3 6.1 Access to Finance
4 One of the major barriers experienced by developers of SSAD plants is accessing
5 capital from financial institutions, particularly for countries with immature markets (such
6 as Romania, Greece, and Ireland) as the number of reference case studies is limited [113].
7 Consequently, financial institutions have had little to no experience or expertise
8 processing such applications, which has increased the technology’s perceived risk.
9 Bywater (2011) discusses the first-hand difficulties SSAD developers have experienced:
10 “We have had chats with bank managers who say that they will not fund the plant
11 without equity and are asking for the farming business to cover the whole costs,
12 assuming the digester does not produce any income at all. There are not many farming
13 businesses who can service large loans at 6%. Banks are looking for 100% security.
14 Unachievable for about 99% of farmers.”
15 Conversely, a lack of understanding of the type and level of information financial
16 institutions require to evaluate a potential project can make financiers reluctant to invest
17 due to the perceived risk [113]. As a result, loans that are offered can come with pre-
18 conditions that require high-guarantees such as long-term agreements for feedstock
19 supply [127].
20
21 6.2 Technology and Expertise
22 The relatively small number of SSAD case studies and companies in the marketplace
23 has been problematic for developers, as it limits the number of expert stakeholders that
24 can be contacted or referred to in the event of an issue occurring. Furthermore, due to the
25 difficulty in accessing information, developers and operators have been trained to
26 different degrees, leading to variations in ability and skill to design, build, and operate
27 such systems [114,128]. Unfortunately, this has, in some cases, led to poorly constructed
28 and maintained plants, which have been abandoned due to breakdowns, design errors,
29 and equipment failures [114,128].
30 Issues often arise in the early stages of a plant’s operation due to the difficulties in
31 designing and estimating a plant’s eventual operating conditions. For example, a SSAD
32 plant located in Hogryd, Sweden experienced a range of start-up problems including
33 clogging of pipes, sedimentation, and a thick crust developing within the digester [129].

30
 1 In addition, the estimated electricity demand of the plant (60 MWh/yr) was far lower than
2 the actual demand (163 MWh/yr) requiring additional steps to be taken [129].
3 Other technical difficulties can be in securing a grid connection, where regulatory
4 constraints, standby charges, and licensing fees can be prohibitively complicated and
5 expensive, leading to excess biogas being flared [114,130]. Grid connections are typically
6 designed for large-scale exporters and are not always capable of integrating smaller
7 projects [113]. Costs can vary dramatically depending on the plant’s proximity to an
8 electric substation and the station’s capacity.
9
10 6.3 Policy Framework and Support Schemes
11 Policy framework and support schemes refer to the existence, stability, and reliability
12 of government legislation and incentives for biogas plants. Concerns associated with
13 these policies vary from country to country but have mainly centred on the unreliability
14 of such policies due to continued revision. Issues experienced include the increased
15 difficulty in gaining investment, as banks often request long-term assurances and non-
16 fluctuating income streams [114]. For example, in the Netherlands there has been
17 uncertainty regarding the viability of the support schemes beyond 2020, and there has
18 also been a lack of support for new plants in Italy [127].
19 Furthermore, some countries within the EU have regulated the use and disposal of
20 digestate due to the presence of manure in the substrate, with no distinction between
21 small-and-medium-sized AD plants. This has resulted in plants being treated equally in
22 terms of security and sanitation, thus requiring the same studies and facilities despite the
23 differences in risks [21]. Additionally, the digestate generated cannot be used as a mineral
24 fertiliser, even when the liquid portion is separated from the solids. Therefore, farmers
25 must comply with the same regulations established for the disposal of manure, such as
26 developing a plan for spreading and spreading distances [21].
27
28 6.4 Perception and Public Awareness
29 The limited expertise and information regarding SSAD systems have had negative
30 consequences for a range of shareholder groups. The general public has frequently
31 associated SSAD plants with the negative implications of waste treatment facilities [21].
32 For example, in France opposition has often been based on fears regarding odour
33 nuisance, risk of explosion and other perceptions association with waste treatment plants,

31
 1 leading to a "not in my backyard" mentality. Therefore, potential neighbours are wary
2 when there is a proposed biogas plant project in the region [131].
3 A lack of understanding has also been an issue in planning authorities, who have
4 subsequently taken precautionary measures, leading to the uneven treatment of the
5 technology [114]. Many governments have clearly stated their support for AD, but civil
6 servants operating in the relevant departments have in some cases not been informed or
7 given guidance regarding their deployment [114].
8 In recent years, the public perception of the bioenergy industry has worsened in some
9 EU countries because of the perceived financial burden of renewable energy for energy
10 consumers [127], consequently leading to a lack of political will to develop the local
11 biogas industry such as in Republic of Ireland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and
12 Estonia. In addition, the public perception of biogas plants in Germany has worsened in
13 recent years due to media coverage and public petitions [132].
14 The negative public perceptions cited are likely to lessen if the deployment of SSAD
15 plants increases, consequently allowing all stakeholders to become more knowledgeable,
16 as more systems pass through the development cycle and public awareness of the
17 technology grows [113].

18
19 Fig. 10. Overview of key issues slowing the development of SSAD

32
 1 7. Conclusions and Outlook
2 This study reports on the current status relating to SSAD technology in Europe and
3 its capacity to produce renewable energy from feedstock sourced from small to medium
4 agriculture environments. The results of this study are summarised as follows:
5 1. The literature explored has demonstrated SSAD systems to be effective in a wide
6 variety of plant configurations and financially sustainable for various bioenergy
7 utilisation applications. However, in-depth preliminary investigations are
8 necessary before implementation as the plant’s configuration is often site-specific.
9 2. The study found that the national support framework was a significant factor in
10 the rate of SSAD adoption within European countries, where improved conditions
11 significantly increased uptake rates.
12 3. The findings showed that the overriding obstacle hindering adoption was the high
13 upfront investment costs combined with the limited case studies available
14 resulting in investors feeling uneasy regarding the technology’s profitability. It is
15 likely that these concerns will begin to lessen as more plants pass through the
16 development cycle.

17 Over the next decade, continued growth is expected in the adoption of SSAD
18 installations across the European agricultural sector. Anticipated drivers of expansion
19 include a growing interest in renewable energy sector investments, rapid technology
20 advancement, and the increasing emphasis on reducing the environmental impact of
21 agriculture waste streams within the EU. Going forward, it is hoped that the insights
22 presented in this review will guide AD operators, academics and policy makers to better
23 gauge the technology’s applicability and potential.
24
25 Acknowledgements
26 The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s
27 INTERREG VA Programme, managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB),
28 with match funding provided by the Department for the Economy and Department of
29 Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in Ireland, grant number IVA5033.
30
31 Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
32
33

33
 1 References

2 [1] European Commission. The Commission calls for a climate neutral Europe by
3 2050. Brussels: 2018.

4 [2] European Environment Agency. GHG emissions by sector in the EU-28, 1990-
5 2016. Eur Environ Agency 2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
6 maps/daviz/ghg-emissions-by-sector-in#tab-chart_1 (accessed December 10,
7 2018).

8 [3] UNECE. Convention of long‐range transboundary atmospheric pollution.

9 Geneva: 2016.

10 [4] Chadwick D, Sommer S, Thorman R, Fangueiro D, Cardenas L, Amon B, et al.

11 Manure management: Implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim Feed Sci
12 Technol 2011;166–167:514–31.
13 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANIFEEDSCI.2011.04.036.

14 [5] Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, et al.

15 Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions
16 and mitigation opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
17 United Nations (FAO); 2013.

18 [6] Moral R, Bustamante MA, Chadwick DR, Camp V, Misselbrook TH. N and C
19 transformations in stored cattle farmyard manure, including direct estimates of
20 N2 emission. Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;63:35–42.
21 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2012.04.001.

22 [7] Deremince B, Königsberger S. Statistical Report of the European Biogas

23 Association 2017. Brussels, Belgium: European Biogas Association; 2017.

24 [8] Raboni M, Urbini G. Production and use of biogas in Europe: a survey of current
25 status and perspectives. Ambient e Agua - An Interdiscip J Appl Sci 2014;9.
26 https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1324.

27 [9] Meyer AKPKP, Ehimen EAA, Holm-Nielsen JBB. Future European biogas:
28 Animal manure, straw and grass potentials for a sustainable European biogas
29 production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2018;111:154–64.
30 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOMBIOE.2017.05.013.

31 [10] Eurostat. Farm structure statistics 2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

32 explained/index.php/Farm_structure_statistics (accessed July 19, 2018).

33 [11] Amani T, Nosrati M, Sreekrishnan TR. Anaerobic digestion from the viewpoint
34 of microbiological, chemical, and operational aspects — A review. Environ Rev
35 2010;18:255–78. https://doi.org/10.1139/A10-011.

36 [12] Carlsson M, Lagerkvist A, Morgan-Sagastume F. The effects of substrate pre-

37 treatment on anaerobic digestion systems: A review. Waste Manag
38 2012;32:1634–50.

39 [13] Nasir IM, Ghazi TIM, Omar R. Anaerobic digestion technology in livestock

34
 1 manure treatment for biogas production: a review. Eng Life Sci 2012;12:258–69.

2 [14] Jain SS, Jain SS, Wolf IT, Lee J, Tong YW. A comprehensive review on
3 operating parameters and different pre-treatment methodologies for anaerobic
4 digestion of municipal solid waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:142–54.
5 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.07.091.

6 [15] Rajagopal R, Massé DI, Singh G. A critical review on inhibition of anaerobic

7 digestion process by excess ammonia. Bioresour Technol 2013;143:632–41.

8 [16] Chen JL, Ortiz R, Steele TW, Stuckey DC. Toxicants inhibiting anaerobic
9 digestion: a review. Biotechnol Adv 2014;32:1523–34.

10 [17] Choong YY, Norli I, Abdullah AZ, Yhaya MF. Impacts of trace element
11 supplementation on the performance of anaerobic digestion process: a critical
12 review. Bioresour Technol 2016;209:369–79.

13 [18] Romero-Güiza MS, Vila J, Mata-Alvarez J, Chimenos JM, Astals S. The role of
14 additives on anaerobic digestion: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
15 2016;58:1486–99.

16 [19] Mussoline W, Esposito G, Giordano A, Lens PN. The Anaerobic Digestion of

17 Rice Straw: A Review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 2012;43.
18 https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2011.627018.

19 [20] Sawatdeenarunat C, Surendra KC, Takara D, Oechsner H, Khanal SK. Anaerobic

20 digestion of lignocellulosic biomass: challenges and opportunities. Bioresour
21 Technol 2015;178:178–86.

22 [21] Hjort-Gregersen K. Market overview micro scale digesters. Denmark: BioEnergy

23 Farm II publication; 2015.

24 [22] Gueterbock R, Sangosanya B. Developing on-site anaerobic digestion for Smaller

25 Businesses in the Food and Drink Sector. Inst Eng Technol 2017:1–16.
26 https://doi.org/10.1049/etr.2016.0128.

27 [23] McDonnell D, Burke M, Dowdall J, Foster P, Mahon K. Guidelines for

28 Anaerobic Digestion in Ireland. 2018.

29 [24] De Dobbelaere A, De Keulenaere B, De Mey J, Lebuf V, Meers E, Ryckaert B, et

30 al. Small scale anaerobic digestion: Case studies in Western Europe. Enerpedia
31 2015. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1502.0883.

32 [25] Walker M, Theaker H, Yaman R, Poggio D, Nimmo W, Bywater A, et al.

33 Assessment of micro-scale anaerobic digestion for management of urban organic
34 waste: A case study in London, UK. Waste Manag 2017;61:258–68.
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.036.

36 [26] Dong L, Liu H, Riffat S. Development of small-scale and micro-scale biomass-

37 fuelled CHP systems – A literature review. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2119–26.
38 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2008.12.004.

35
 1 [27] Couture TD, Cory K, Kreycik C, Williams E. A policymaker’s guide to feed-in
2 tariff policy design. 2010.

3 [28] Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy. Review of support for
4 anaerobic digestion and micro-combined heat and power under the feed-in tariff
5 scheme. 2017.

6 [29] Pablo-Romero M del P, Sánchez-Braza A, Salvador-Ponce J, Sánchez-Labrador

7 N. An overview of feed-in tariffs, premiums and tenders to promote electricity
8 from biogas in the EU-28. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;73:1366–79.
9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.132.

10 [30] Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Machmüller A, Hopfner-Sixt K, Bodiroza V,

11 et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy crops
12 grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:3204–12.
13 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2006.07.007.

14 [31] The German Solar Energy Society (DGS) and Ecofys. Planning and installing
15 bioenergy systems : a guide for installers, architects and engineers. First. UK and
16 USA: James & James; 2005.

17 [32] Murphy J, Braun R, Weiland P, Wellinger A. Biogas from crop digestion. 2011.

18 [33] Yanmar. YANMAR 35 kW CHP System Specifications. 2018.

19 [34] Remigio B, Hartmann K, Jaensch V, Hegarty M, Gavigan N, Faraldi M, et al.

20 Sustainable small-scale biogas from agri-food waste for energy self-sufficiency.
21 2015.

22 [35] Biogas World Media. What is the Future of Small-Scale Anaerobic Digestion?
23 Biogas World 2017. https://www.biogasworld.com/news/future-small-scale-
24 anaerobic-digestion/ (accessed January 29, 2018).

25 [36] Hegde S, Ebner JH, Williamson AA, Trabold TA. Feasibility assessment of
26 medium-scale anaerobic digesters for conversion of brewery and dairy farm
27 waste streams. ASME 2015 9th Int. Conf. Energy Sustain. collocated with
28 ASME 2015 Power Conf. ASME 2015 13th Int. Conf. Fuel Cell Sci. Eng.
29 Technol. ASME 2015 Nucl. Forum, ASME; 2015.
30 https://doi.org/10.1115/ES2015-49560.

31 [37] Fagbohungbe MO. Optimisation of small-scale anaerobic digestion technology.

32 Lancaster University, 2015.

33 [38] Wilkie AC. Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure: Design and Process
34 Considerations. Dairy Manure Manag. Treat. Handl. Community Relations,
35 Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service; 2005, p. 301–12.

36 [39] Hamilton DW. ANDIG3 Types of Anaerobic Digesters - Anaerobic Digestion

37 Course Series. 2007.

38 [40] Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel D, Inc M& E, Burton FL. Wastewater
39 engineering: treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill Education; 2003.

36
 1 [41] Singh SP, Prerna P. Review of recent advances in anaerobic packed-bed biogas
2 reactors. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:1569–75.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2008.08.006.

4 [42] Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale J, Benemann J, Rutledge B, Salour D.

5 Biomethane from Dairy Waste - A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of
6 Renewable Natural Gas in California. 2005.

7 [43] Lusk P. Methane recovery from animal manures the current opportunities
8 casebook. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-009-0520-5.

9 [44] Roos K., Martin JH, Moser MA. AgSTAR Handbook: A manual for developing
10 biogas systems at commercial farms in the United States, Second edition. 2004.

11 [45] Wilkinson KG. Development of on-farm anaerobic digestion. Integr Waste

12 Manag 2011;1:49–50. https://doi.org/10.5772/17243.

13 [46] Lukehurst C, Bywater A. Exploring the viability of small scale anaerobic

14 digesters in livestock farming. 2015.

15 [47] Vögeli Y, Lohri CR, Gallardo A, Diener S, Zurbrügg C. Anaerobic Digestion of

16 Biowaste in Developing Countries - Practical Information and Case Studies.
17 Dübendorf, Switzerland: 2014.

18 [48] Schievano A, D’imporzano G, Malagutti L, Fragali E, Ruboni G, Adani F.

19 Evaluating inhibition conditions in high-solids anaerobic digestion of organic
20 fraction of municipal solid waste 2010.
21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.02.032.

22 [49] Michele P, Giuliana I, Carlo M, Sergio S, Fabrizio A. Optimization of solid state

23 anaerobic digestion of the OFMSW by digestate recirculation: A new approach
24 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.09.009.

25 [50] Yang L, Xu F, Ge X, Li Y. Challenges and strategies for solid-state anaerobic

26 digestion of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;44:824–
27 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.01.002.

28 [51] Perez Garcia A. Techno-economic feasibility study of a small-scale biogas plant

29 for treating market waste in the city of El Alto. vol. Independen. 2014.

30 [52] Baere L De, Mattheeuws B. Anaerobic Digestion of MSW in Europe. Biocycle

31 2010;2:24–6.

32 [53] Li Y, Park SY, Zhu J. Solid-state anaerobic digestion for methane production
33 from organic waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:821–526.
34 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2010.07.042.

35 [54] Qian MY, Li RH, Li J, Wedwitschka H, Nelles M, Stinner W, et al. Industrial

36 scale garage-type dry fermentation of municipal solid waste to biogas. Bioresour
37 Technol 2016;217:82–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIORTECH.2016.02.076.

38 [55] BEKON. BEKON References and current contracts 2018.

37
 1 https://www.bekon.eu/en/references/ (accessed November 7, 2018).

2 [56] Manager R, Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale JP, Benemann J, Rutledge B, et al.

3 Biomethane from Dairy Waste - A Sourcebook for the Production and Use of
4 Renewable Natural Gas in California. 2005.

5 [57] Gunaseelan VN. Anaerobic digestion of biomass for methane production: A

6 review. Biomass and Bioenergy 1997;13:83–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-
7 9534(97)00020-2.

8 [58] Lazarus WF. Farm-Based Anaerobic Digesters as an Energy and Odor Control
9 Technology Background and Policy Issues. 2008.

10 [59] Kaseng K, Ibrahim K, Paneerselvam SV, Hassan RS. Extracellular enzymes and
11 acidogen profiles of a laboratory-scale two-phase anaerobic digestion system.
12 Process Biochem 1992;27:43–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-9592(92)80008-Q.

13 [60] Von Sachs J, Meyer U, Rys P, Feitkenhauer H. New approach to control the
14 methanogenic reactor of a two-phase anaerobic digestion system. Water Res
15 2003;37:973–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00446-3.

16 [61] Babel S, Fukushi K, Sitanrassamee B. Effect of acid speciation on solid waste

17 liquefaction in an anaerobic acid digester. Water Res 2004;38:2417–23.
18 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WATRES.2004.02.005.

19 [62] Agri Food and Bioscience Institute. AFBI Northern Ireland: Benefits and supply
20 chain of AD systems. 2013.

21 [63] Forbes EGA, Olave RJ, Johnston CR, Browne JD, Relf J. Biomass and bio-
22 energy utilisation in a farm-based combined heat and power facility. Biomass and
23 Bioenergy 2015;89:172–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.03.005.

24 [64] Agri Food and Bioscience Institute. Dairy innovation 2018 - Profiting from AFBI
25 research. 2018.

26 [65] Browne JD, Frost JP. Combined heat and power generation from biogas using
27 farm based biomass. Conf. Eur. Biomass Conf. Exhib., 2015, p. 3–7.
28 https://doi.org/10.5071/23rdEUBCE2015-2DV.1.69.

29 [66] Tauseef SM, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. Energy recovery from wastewaters with
30 high-rate anaerobic digesters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:704–41.
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2012.11.056.

32 [67] Wilkie AC. Fixed-film anaerobic digester: Reducing dairy manure odor and
33 producing energy. J Compost Org Recycl 2000.

34 [68] Chen L, Neibling H. Anaerobic Digestion Basics. Idaho: 2014.

35 [69] IEA Bioenergy Task 37. Small farm scale mono-digestion of dairy slurry for
36 energy independence and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. 2017.

37 [70] Dustin JS, Hansen CL. Hydrodynamic modeling of the induced bed reactor

38
 1 anaerobic digester. Proc Water Environ Fed 2010;14:2759–86.
2 https://doi.org/10.2175/193864710798170694.

3 [71] NRCS. An Analysis of Energy Production Costs from Anaerobic Digestion

4 Systems on U.S. Livestock Production Facilities. 2007.

5 [72] Ghosh R, Bhattacherjee S. A review study on anaerobic digesters with an Insight

6 to biogas production. vol. 2. 2013.

7 [73] Holm-Nielsen JBB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P. The future of anaerobic

8 digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:5478–84.
9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.12.046.

10 [74] Biogas Utilization and Cleanup . Farm Energy 2019. https://farm-

11 energy.extension.org/biogas-utilization-and-cleanup/ (accessed August 22, 2020).

12 [75] I. E. A. Bioenergy Task 24. Biogas upgrading and utilisation. 1999.

13 [76] Hakawati R, Smyth BM, McCullough G, De Rosa F, Rooney D. What is the

14 most energy efficient route for biogas utilization: Heat, electricity or transport?
15 Appl Energy 2017;206:1076–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.068.

16 [77] Capodaglio A, Callegari A, Lopez M. European Framework for the Diffusion of

17 Biogas Uses: Emerging Technologies, Acceptance, Incentive Strategies, and
18 Institutional-Regulatory Support. Sustainability 2016;8:298.
19 https://doi.org/10.3390/su8040298.

20 [78] Nguyen D, Nitayavardhana S, Sawatdeenarunat C, Surendra KC, Khanal SK.

21 Biogas production by anaerobic digestion: Status and perspectives. 2nd ed.
22 Elsevier Inc.; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816856-1.00031-2.

23 [79] Ullah Khan I, Hafiz Dzarfan Othman M, Hashim H, Matsuura T, Ismail AF,
24 Rezaei-DashtArzhandi M, et al. Biogas as a renewable energy fuel – A review of
25 biogas upgrading, utilisation and storage. Energy Convers Manag 2017;150:277–
26 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.08.035.

27 [80] Naumann K, Oehmichen K, Remmele E, Thuneke K, Zey-mer JM, K. Zech F.

28 Mu¨ller-Langer, Monitoring Biokraftstoffsektor3. Aufl. Leipzig: 2016.

29 [81] Goulding D, Power N. Which is the preferable biogas utilisation technology for
30 anaerobic digestion of agricultural crops in Ireland: Biogas to CHP or
31 biomethane as a transport fuel? Renew Energy 2013;53:121–31.
32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.11.001.

33 [82] Kumaran P, Hephzibah D, Sivasankari R, Saifuddin N, Shamsuddin AH. A

34 review on industrial scale anaerobic digestion systems deployment in Malaysia:
35 Opportunities and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:929–40.
36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.069.

37 [83] Sun Q, Li H, Yan J, Liu L, Yu Z, Yu X. Selection of appropriate biogas

38 upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation.
39 Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:521–32.

39
 1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.029.

2 [84] Hahn H, Hartmann K, Bühle L, Wachendorf M. Comparative life cycle

3 assessment of biogas plant configurations for a demand oriented biogas supply
4 for flexible power generation. Bioresour Technol 2015;179:348–58.
5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.12.007.

6 [85] Svensson M. Biomethane standards: Gas quality standardisation of biomethane,

7 going from national to international level. Brussels Green Gas Grids: 2014.

8 [86] Hakawati R, Smyth B, Daly H, McCullough G, Rooney D. Is the Fischer-

9 Tropsch Conversion of Biogas-Derived Syngas to Liquid Fuels Feasible at
10 Atmospheric Pressure? Energies 2019;12:1031.
11 https://doi.org/10.3390/en12061031.

12 [87] Jürgensen L, Ehimen EA, Born J, Holm-Nielsen JB. Utilization of surplus

13 electricity from wind power for dynamic biogas upgrading: Northern Germany
14 case study. Biomass and Bioenergy 2014;66:126–32.
15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.032.

16 [88] Wall DM, McDonagh S, Murphy JD. Cascading biomethane energy systems for
17 sustainable green gas production in a circular economy. Bioresour Technol
18 2017;243:1207–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.115.

19 [89] Siedlecki M, De Jong W, Verkooijen AHM. Fluidized Bed Gasification as a

20 Mature And Reliable Technology for the Production of Bio-Syngas and Applied
21 in the Production of Liquid Transportation Fuels—A Review. Energies
22 2011;4:389–434. https://doi.org/10.3390/en4030389.

23 [90] Russo M, La Parola V, Testa ML, Pantaleo G, Venezia AM, Gupta RK, et al.
24 Structural insight in TiO2 supported CoFe catalysts for Fischer–Tropsch
25 synthesis at ambient pressure. Appl Catal A Gen 2020;600:117621.
26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcata.2020.117621.

27 [91] De Kam MJ, Vance Morey R, Tiffany DG. Biomass Integrated Gasification
28 Combined Cycle for heat and power at ethanol plants. Energy Convers Manag
29 2009;50:1682–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2009.03.031.

30 [92] Yan Q, Guo L, Lu Y. Thermodynamic analysis of hydrogen production from

31 biomass gasification in supercritical water. Energy Convers Manag
32 2006;47:1515–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2005.08.004.

33 [93] Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F, Fahl F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in

34 Europe. Renew Energy 2018;129:457–72.
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2018.03.006.

36 [94] Daniel-Gromke J, Rensberg N, Denysenko V, Stinner W, Schmalfuß T,

37 Scheftelowitz M, et al. Current developments in production and utilization of
38 biogas and biomethane in Germany. Chemie-Ingenieur-Technik 2018;90:17–35.
39 https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201700077.

40 [95] Environmental Nature and Energy Department. Flemish Climate Fund -

40
 1 Programmadecreet 13/07/2012, art. 14. Flem Gov 2012.
2 https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/pams/belgium/name-50539-en.php
3 (accessed January 16, 2019).

4 [96] Biolectric. Bioelectric - Our Installation 2019. https://www.biolectric.be/en/

5 (accessed January 16, 2019).

6 [97] Bijnagte JW. Public final report BioEnergy Farm II. The Netherlands: BioEnergy
7 Farm II publication; 2017.

8 [98] Bijnagte JW. BioEnergy Farm 2. Biogas Conf. Brussels, 2016.

9 [99] EC Communication. 20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity 2008.

10 [100] EC Communication. A policy framework for climate and energy in the period
11 from 2020 to 2030. Brussels: 2014.

12 [101] Scheer J, Clancy M, Gaffney F. Ireland’s Energy Targets - Progress, ambition &
13 impacts. Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland; 2016.

14 [102] SLR Consulting Limited. European experience of small-scale and on-farm AD.
15 2010.

16 [103] Nielsen LS. Biogas value chain – Microeconomic incentives and policy
17 regulation. 2018.

18 [104] European Commission. Commission Decision of 15 June 1987 on improving the

19 efficiency of agricultural structures in Italy (Piedmont) pursuant to Council
20 Regulation (EEC) No 797/85. Off J Eur Communities 1987.

21 [105] EC Communication. Energy for the future: Renewable sources of energy - White
22 paper for a community strategy and action plan. vol. 97. Brussels: 1997.

23 [106] Hopfner-sixt K, Amon T. Monitoring of agricultural biogas plants in Austria -

24 Mixing technology and specific values of essential process parameters (2007).
25 Bioresourse Technol 2009;100:4931–44.

26 [107] EC Directive. Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the

27 Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from
28 renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. Off J Eur Union
29 2001:33–40.

30 [108] EC Directive. Commission Directive 2009/98/EC of 4 August 2009 amending

31 Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include boric
32 oxide as an active substance in Annex I thereto. Off J Eur Union 2009;L203:58.

33 [109] EC Directive. Directive 2004/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the

34 Council of 11 February 2004 on the promotion of cogeneration based on a useful
35 heat demand in the internal energy market and amending. Off J Eur Union
36 2004;L 052:50–60.

37 [110] EC Communication. Communication from the Commission. Biomass action

41
 1 plan. Brussels: 2005.

2 [111] EC Communication. An energy policy for Europe. Brussels: European

3 Commission; 2007.

4 [112] EC Directive. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the

5 Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Off J
6 Eur Union 2008;L31:3–28.

7 [113] Ricardo Energy & Environment Ltd. Assessment of Cost and Benefits of Biogas
8 and Biomethane in Ireland. 2017.

9 [114] Bywater A. A review of anaerobic digestion plants on UK farms - Barriers,

10 benefits and case studies. Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire: 2011.

11 [115] Nicolini M, Tavoni M. Are renewable energy subsidies effective? Evidence from
12 Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:412–23.
13 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.12.032.

14 [116] Methane Initiative G, Subcommittee A. A Global Perspective of Anaerobic

15 Digestion Policies and Incentives. 2014.

16 [117] Brunn T, Sprenger R. The Reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act
17 (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz/EEG) 2014 in Germany. Renew Energy Law
18 Policy Rev 2014;5:26–39.

19 [118] Appel F, Ostermeyer-Wiethaup A, Balmann A. Effects of the German Renewable

20 Energy Act on structural change in agriculture – The case of biogas. Util Policy
21 2016;41:172–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JUP.2016.02.013.

22 [119] Wolf C. Simulation , optimization and instrumentation of agricultural biogas

23 plants. National University of Ireland, Maynooth, 2013.
24 https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4875.2641.

25 [120] European Biogas Association. EBA Statistical Report 2018. Brussels, Belgium:
26 2019.

27 [121] Thrän D, Schaubach K, Majer S, Horschig T. Governance of sustainability in the

28 German biogas sector - Adaptive management of the Renewable Energy Act
29 between agriculture and the energy sector. Energy Sustain Soc 2020;10:3.
30 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0227-y.

31 [122] Mutzer S. Energy from biogas as operating reserve. 2013.

32 [123] Dobbelaere A De, Vervisch B, Annicaert B, Ryckaert B, Lebuf V, Driessche, et

33 al. Development of agro-sidestreams for bioenergy. 2015.

34 [124] Nolden C. Performance and Impact of the Feed-in Tariff Scheme: Review of
35 Evidence. 2015.

36 [125] Torrijos M. State of Development of Biogas Production in Europe. Procedia

37 Environ Sci 2016;35:881–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.043.

42
 1 [126] IEA Bioenergy Task 37. IEA Bioenergy Task 37 - Country Reports Summary.
2 2015.

3 [127] Kampman B, Leguijt C, Scholten T, Tallat-Kelpsaite J, Brückmann R, Maroulis

4 G, et al. Optimal use of biogas from waste streams - An assessment of the
5 potential of biogas from digestion in the EU beyond 2020. Eur Comm 2017:1–
6 158.

7 [128] Eastern Research Group. Barriers and constraints to implementation of anaerobic

8 digestion systems in swine farms in the Philippines. 2010.

9 [129] Parmlind E. Energy analysis of farm-based biogas plants in Sweden. Swedish

10 University of Agriculture Sciences, 2014.

11 [130] Edwards J, Othman M, Burn S. A review of policy drivers and barriers for the
12 use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia. Renew
13 Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:815–28.
14 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.07.112.

15 [131] Mirosz L, Amrozy M, Trząski A, Wiszniewska A. What Policymakers should

16 know about micro-scale digestion. 2015.

17 [132] Stiehler W, Decker T, Menrad K. Side Effects of Biogas Plants Perceived by

18 German Citizens - An Analysis of German (Mass) Media and an Online Survey
19 in Bavaria. 20th Eur. Biomass Conf. Exhib., 2012, p. 2439–44.
20 https://doi.org/10.5071/20thEUBCE2012-5AV.3.47.

21
22 Seán O’Connor is a PhD Researcher funded by the EU INTERREG VI Renewable
23 Engine Research Project at Institute of Technology Sligo. His work involves
24 collaborating with an industrial partner to develop a modular, cost-effective, small-scale
25 anaerobic digestion system for the treatment of agriculture waste. His educational
26 background includes a BEng (Hons) in Sustainable Energy Engineering from Cork
27 Institute of Technology and a MBS in International Entrepreneurship Management from
28 University of Limerick. His research interests include Environmental Science, Energy
29 Engineering, and Bioenergy.
30
31 Dr. Ehiaze Ehimen is currently the Research and Innovation Coordinator of the EU
32 INTERREG VI Renewable Engine Research Project at IT Sligo. He has an extensive
33 research experience in the renewable energy generation, supply and integration domains
34 (especially in the area of liquid and gaseous biofuels production from biomass). He also
35 has expertise in carrying out feasibility studies, life cycle and environmental impact
36 assessments, energy and process audits from previous work experiences. Previously, he

43
 1 has also worked as the principal investigator and as task lead on several EU and national
2 energy-related projects including the EU INTERREG 4A funded "Large Scale Bioenergy
3 Lab" project and the EU regional fund project "Algae Innovation Centre". Ehiaze has
4 extensively published peer-reviewed academic journals and book chapters on energy
5 generation, energy storage, energy systems modelling, heat integration, renewability
6 assessments and bioenergy/biomass systems.
7
8 Prof. Suresh C. Pillai obtained his PhD in the area of Nanotechnology from Trinity
9 College Dublin and then performed postdoctoral research at California Institute of
10 Technology (Caltech), USA. Upon the completion of this appointment he returned to
11 Trinity College Dublin as a Research Fellow before joining CREST-DIT as a Senior
12 Research Manager in April 2004. Suresh joined IT Sligo as a Senior Lecturer in
13 Nanotechnology in October 2013. He is an elected fellow of the UK’s Royal
14 Microscopical Society (FRMS) and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining
15 (FIMMM). Suresh was responsible for acquiring more than €4 million direct R&D
16 funding. He has published several scientific articles in leading peer-reviewed journals and
17 has presented papers in several international conferences. He has delivered over fifty
18 international invited talks including several keynote and plenary talks. His research work
19 was featured in the BBC London, BBC World Radio, Times UK, ‘The Investigators (RTE
20 TV)’ programme, RTE-1 TV News, Aljazeera TV, Ocean FM Radio and a number of
21 national and international news media. He was also the recipient of the ‘Hothouse
22 Commercialisation Award 2009’ from the Minister of Science, Technology and
23 Innovation and also the recipient of the ‘Enterprise Ireland Research Commercialization
24 Award 2009’. He is an editor for the journal Environmental Science and Pollution
25 Research (ESPR, Springer) and Editorial Board Member for the Chemical Engineering
26 Journal and Applied Catalysis B (Elsevier).
27
28 Aaron Black is Head of Business Development at South West College responsible
29 for the College’s research, development and innovation activities with local industry. Mr
30 Black has been engaged with bio-energy sector research since 2005 with a specific focus
31 on the development of biogas technology at scales applicable to the Irish agricultural
32 industry. As a Biological and Agricultural Scientist, he has assisted in the design,
33 development, implementation and testing of technology for the biogas industry and been

44
 1 involved in delivering laboratory analytical services for the industry. He has been
2 involved in delivering EU research through the INTERREG funded ANSWER, CREST
3 and Renewable Engine programmes which have involved investigation of effluent
4 recycling systems, renewable energy technologies, sustainable construction techniques
5 and the industrial application of energy research. Current research interests include the
6 cryogenic separation of biogas constituent components in order to drive energy mobility
7 and the useful utilisation of CO2 for industrial processes.
8
9 Dr. David Tormey is a Senior Lecturer in Mechanical and Manufacturing
10 Engineering at the Institute of Technology Sligo and Academic Director of the Institute's
11 Centre for Precision Engineering, Materials and Manufacturing Research (PEM Research
12 Centre). The PEM Centre is also a designated Technology Gateway, funded by Enterprise
13 Ireland, to support the applied research needs of the manufacturing industry. Previous
14 positions held in IT Sligo include Head of Department of Mechanical and Electronic
15 Engineering and manager of the Institute’s Centre for Design Innovation that was funded
16 under Enterprise Ireland’s Applied Research Enhancement (ARE) programme. David is
17 a Funded Investigator and executive committee member of the I-Form Advanced
18 Manufacturing Research Centre funded by SFI and Principal Investigator with the
19 Northwest Centre for Advanced Manufacturing (NWCAM) funded by Interreg VA.
20 David’s current research interests are in the areas of engineering design, additive
21 manufacturing, non-conventional machining and sustainable manufacturing. He has led
22 a number of industry projects in these areas secured from National and European
23 competitive funding (cumulative €7m) programmes. He was the lead Principal
24 Investigator and coordinator for the FP7 funded research project µECM - Development
25 of a next-generation Micro-ECM sinking machine for the Automotive, Aerospace, &
26 Medical device sectors (FP7- Benefit of SMEs - 262072). David received an Ireland’s
27 Champions of EU Research 2012' award from Enterprise Ireland for his work on this
28 project. He has published related research work in several peer-reviewed journals, book
29 chapters and conference proceedings. David has also been appointed to various expert
30 review panels by research agencies of the European Commission (EC) and European
31 Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) to evaluate research submissions to
32 Horizon 2020 programme calls and for monitoring the performance European funded

45
 1 projects in areas of engineering design, materials, energy, and advanced manufacturing
2 research.
3
4 Dr. John Bartlett is Head of Research at the Institute of Technology, Sligo,
5 responsible for developing a research culture based on scholarship, multi-disciplinarity
6 and collaboration, including the development of policy, strategy, administrative systems,
7 quality assurance, budgets, capital infrastructure and project initiatives with internal and
8 external stakeholders/agencies. Dr. Bartlett was founding Director of the Centre for
9 Sustainability and founder of the Contract Research Unit at IT, Sligo. An environmental
10 scientist, his work has included ecotoxicology, environmental impact assessment, waste
11 management technology, renewable energy technology, public access to environmental
12 information, decision making and justice, and public services innovation. He has been
13 Principal Investigator on a number of large-scale research programmes funded by HEA
14 (PRTLI), EPA, EU (INTERREG), and other agencies. Recent research includes
15 partnership in an INTERREG funded study into the use of marine algae for renewable
16 fuels. Current research includes support for businesses working in the area of renewable
17 energy and sustainable building technologies, public service systems innovation in the
18 health and environmental areas, and building research capacity in companies in the
19 renewable energy area. He has worked with a number of agencies to contribute to regional
20 and national policy development in Ireland in the areas of sustainability, public services
21 and health innovation.

46