Economic viability and geographic distribution of centralized biogas plants: case study Croatia

Current promising increase of agricultural investments in Croatia not only leads us to the implementation of new technologies and procedures but also leads to an increase of public awareness toward modern agricultural production. As a side effect, renewable energy sources, with special emphasis on biogas, are quickly coming under the loop. Because of this effect, a question of total biogas potential for the farming sector in Croatia becomes very important. One of the biggest obstacles in utilizing biogas on Croatian farms is its geographical displacement and small size. Through this paper economic viability and geographical distribution, as key parameters in determining realistic biogas potential on family farms, will be presented with special emphasis on the two most promising farming sectors: cows and pigs. As already mentioned, one of the biggest barriers in utilizing biogas in Croatia is the relatively small size of farms that are not capable of having economically viable biogas production. That is why community biogas plants will be important in increasing biogas utilization in Croatian farming sector. Presented methodology represents basics for regional analysis of biogas potential of a farming sector with Croatia as a case study with cost assessment of community biogas power plants considering transport distances, transport costs, and size of the power plants and family farms involved in community biogas production. The value of finding Croatia’s farming biogas potential is also important since farms are high-volume energy consumers in their everyday operations and part of that energy consumption can be compensated from renewable energy sources like biogas.

[1]  Chitra Kalyanaraman,et al.  Optimization of inoculum to substrate ratio for bio-energy generation in co-digestion of tannery solid wastes , 2012, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy.

[2]  Suneerat Pipatmanomai,et al.  Economic assessment of biogas-to-electricity generation system with H2S removal by activated carbon in small pig farm , 2009 .

[3]  Ros Taplin,et al.  Towards a sustainable energy future—exploring current barriers and potential solutions in Thailand , 2010 .

[4]  Goran Krajačić,et al.  How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal? , 2011 .

[5]  Bill Freedman,et al.  Potential Environmental Benefits from Increased Use of Bioenergy in China , 2007, Environmental management.

[6]  Neven Duić,et al.  Modeling the energy potential of biomass – H2RES , 2009 .

[7]  Igor Bulatov,et al.  Cost estimation and energy price forecasts for economic evaluation of retrofit projects , 2003 .

[8]  Neven Duić,et al.  Geographic distribution of economic potential of agricultural and forest biomass residual for energy , 2011 .

[9]  Emmanuel K. Yiridoe,et al.  Nonmarket cobenefits and economic feasibility of on-farm biogas energy production , 2009 .

[10]  Dhiman Chakraborty,et al.  A techno-economic feasibility study on removal of persistent colour and COD from anaerobically digested distillery effluent: a case study from India , 2006 .

[11]  L M Svensson,et al.  Biogas production from crop residues on a farm-scale level in Sweden: scale, choice of substrate and utilisation rate most important parameters for financial feasibility , 2006, Bioprocess and biosystems engineering.

[12]  Neven Duić,et al.  Biogas potential in Croatian farming sector , 2009 .

[13]  Jaroslav Oral,et al.  Efficient and environmentally friendly energy systems for microregions , 2010 .

[14]  Christoph Walla,et al.  The optimal size for biogas plants , 2008 .

[15]  Anton Friedl,et al.  Modeling and simulation of coupled ethanol and biogas production , 2010 .

[16]  Fayez Abdulla,et al.  Mitigation of methane emissions from sanitary landfills and sewage treatment plants in Jordan , 2008 .

[17]  Hans-Peter Bader,et al.  Modeling the contribution of pig farming to pollution of the Thachin River , 2010 .

[18]  Karl W. Steininger,et al.  Exploiting the Medium Term Biomass Energy Potentials in Austria: A Comparison of Costs and Macroeconomic Impact , 2003 .

[19]  J. Jaber,et al.  Sustainable energy and environmental impact: role of renewables as clean and secure source of energy for the 21st century in Jordan , 2004 .

[20]  Henrik Lund,et al.  The implementation of renewable energy systems. Lessons learned from the Danish case , 2010 .

[21]  Albert Magrí,et al.  Manure treatment technologies: on-farm versus centralized strategies. NE Spain as case study. , 2009, Bioresource technology.

[22]  Erwin Schmid,et al.  Impacts of biogas plant performance factors on total substrate costs , 2011 .

[23]  Joshua Lelemia Irvine,et al.  EMMC technology for treatment/reuse of dilute dairy wastewater , 2009 .

[24]  Anton Friedl,et al.  Analysis of methane yields from energy crops and agricultural by-products and estimation of energy potential from sustainable crop rotation systems in EU-27 , 2010 .

[25]  Joshua Lelemia Irvine,et al.  Integrating an anaerobic Bio-nest and an aerobic EMMC process as pretreatment of dairy wastewater for reuse: a pilot plant study , 2010 .

[26]  Jon Hill,et al.  Resource mapping and analysis of farm livestock manures—assessing the opportunities for biomass-to-energy schemes , 2000 .

[27]  Neven Duić,et al.  Mapping the potential for decentralized energy generation based on renewable energy sources in the Republic of Croatia , 2007 .

[28]  Donald W. Kirk,et al.  Analysis of small-scale biogas utilization systems on Ontario cattle farms , 2011 .