Technical and Financial Feasibility Study of Anaerobic Digestion Plants in Spain and Italy, from Dairy

Cattle and Swine Manure

 

Nancy Fabiola María Chacón Calderón de Del Cid

Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg


 


Abstract:

The aim of this investigation is to find out the feasibility of anaerobic digestion process for dairy cattle and swine manure in Spain and Italy. The study analyzed three main phases: Country framework (country economy, biogas background, energy policies and farmers traditions), Energy potential (co- substrates availability, manure and energy potential) and Financial Framework (transport cost and economical analyzes). As result, was found for Spain is only feasible biogas plants fed by free cost substrates (as manure) with a IRR=18-20%, due to the low electricity price 13,5068 c€/kWh. Instead, for Italy was obtained profitable results IRR= 67-73% including maize silage cost (36 €/ton), due to the high electricity price 30c€/kWh. Nevertheless, in Italy, some decrees have been not created, to allow the application of the price.

 

Key words: anaerobic digestion, biogas, co-digestion, energy policy, renewable energy.

 

1.    INTRODUCTION

 

Poverty, malnutrition, violence, overpopulation and drug trafficking, are several problems affecting the world. These terms are heard every day in the news, but overall the main issues nowadays are “increase of oil prices” and “energy scarcity”.

 

New ways to produce energy, which does not negatively affect the earth, should be found. A solution in long term which ensures world sustainability is needed. Renewable energies could be the solution for these problems, if they are applied with the right technical and ethical way.

 

Energy can be produced by means of anaerobic digestion of organic matter in absence of oxygen, to produce biogas; a mixture of methane and carbon dioxide. This biogas can be transformed into electrical and thermal energy by means of an engine.

 

Spain and Italy are countries with high energy potential for biogas. The aim of this thesis is to find out the country market feasibility from three main issues:  country framework (facilities and limitations), energy potential from biogas production of swine and dairy cattle manure and the financial framework.

2.    METHODOLOGY

 

The first phase of the study will be based in the understanding of the general framework of the countries. The next phase will be to continue with the investigation of the biomass potential, which could be digested in a biogas plant, from this, will be calculated the energy potential. In the third phase, several economical feasibility cases will be analyzed, with the same amount of substrates and energy yields. In order to understand the influence of the different energy policies, in each country. At the end, some recommendations will be suggested.  

 

3.    RESULTS

 

3.1      Country framework.

 

3.1.1 Country economy.

In order to analyze the feasible potential of the two countries, the general framework should be recognized.

Country

Spain

Italy

Official Language

Spanish

Italian

EU accession

January, 1986

March, 1957

Area

504.030 km2

301.318 km2

Population (2007)

45.200.737

59.619.290

Density

90 people/km2

197.6 people/km2

GDP(Nominal, 2007)

908 trillion

1.304,3 trillion

GDP per capita

19.858,0

22.328,6

Currency

Euro

Euro

    Table 1. General country data. [1-2]

 

Spain: Spain has a strong economy, it is the fifth largest in Europe (and eight worldwide) with strong sectors in real estate at 16% GDP, tourism at 5% GDP, and agriculture, livestock and fishing at 2,9% GDP. Livestock activities represent 40% of the final agrarian production, with a high swine production (the second largest of Europe). Spanish economic drawbacks are high inflation, decreasing of education level and a large underground economy.

 

Italy: Italy is the fourth largest economy in Europe (seventh worldwide). Italy´s economy is based in industry (chemicals, vehicles, fashion and food), tourism and agriculture (rice, wheat, maize, olive and wine). Industry represents 32% GDP, services 62% GDP and agriculture 5,5% GDP.  Unfortunately, the economic growth rate is held back due to the political bureaucracy, corruption, dependency on raw materials importation and energy scarcity (75% of energy needed is imported). [3]

 

3.1.2      Biogas background and present situation.

 Spain: In Spain biogas plants installed capacity was 45 MW at 1999 and grew to a 141 MW in 2004. New objectives were established for 2005-2010 to complete 235 MW installed capacity in 2010 and 700 MW installed capacity in 2030.

 

Biogas production in Spain is generated from these main sources: Livestock residues (with low development), organic residues from landfills (with 80% of the new installations in 1999-2004), industrial organic residues and sewage sludge from municipal water treatment.

Italy: In 2007 a biogas installation census was presented in Italy, the census was focused mainly on biogas installations from livestock residues, organic residues and energy crops. This census showed there are 154 biogas plants (115 operating and the other 39 are under construction and/or authorization) which generate approximately 50 MWe; these amount of installations have increase 108% from the last census on 1999.

In 2007 has been estimated a capacity of 158 MW in Spain and 194 in Italy. Figure 1, shows the biogas capacity along the past years for both countries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Figure 1. Spain and Italy biogas installed capacity.  Calculated data. [6-8,16].

 

3.1.3      Farmer traditions.

One of the most important issues, at the moment of planning the implementation of a biogas plant is to understand, the livestock traditions and farmers techniques, to evaluate if biogas plants are suitable for them. The most important parameters are the housing and manure recollection. There are two main housing systems: extensive farming is when the animals live in big extensions of land, outside stables and intensive housing, is the accommodation of animals inside stables. Intensive housing is a requirement for farms which want to construct a biogas plant, due to the recollection of manure is possible.

 

In order to recognize the farming practices, a small survey was done to farmers. The aim of the interview was to identify the common practices done by the farmers.

Spain:

QUESTION

Swine Farming

Dairy Cattle Farming

Average  animals / farm

3.000-12.000 pigs/farm.

Average 70-100 cows/farm. A big farm will have 300-500 cows/farm

Type of Housing

99,9% Inside stables

Inside stables. Only cows with low milk production are outside.

Type of bed

They are not using straw.

Use of wood residues, sawdust, or sand. Not straw (expensive).

Manure recollection

Almost all farmers use "slotted floor”.

Almost all farmers use "scraper" system.

Manure use after  recollection

Used as fertilizer or it is transported to a third person.

It is used as fertilizer. Some of them apply separation systems.

 

Italy:

QUESTION

Swine Farming

Dairy Cattle Farming

Average  animals / farm

Average 650 animals / farm. A big farm will have 5.000 heads.

Average 10-500 animals /farm. Depend on the location.

Type of

Housing

Almost all the farms practice intensive stables.

Most of the farms use intensive housing with stables.

Type of bed

 

Straw, sawdust or shaving wood.

Straw, others use rubber carpet, sand or sawdust.

Manure recollection

Slotted floor.

Almost all use scraper.

Manure use after recollection

Manure is applied on land as fertilizer; other farms are starting to use manure to produce energy (biogas).

It is used as fertilizer (some make separation) others move or sell the manure, or use it for biogas.

From the previous survey can be concluded, that both Spanish and Italian structure farms are suitable for install biogas plants.

 

3.1.4      Energy policies.

Spain: “Real Decreto 661/2007” describes in Spain the regulation of electric energy production from anaerobic digestion. Two main possibilities: a Fixed tariff: 13,5068 c€/kWh ; for the first 15 years, and 6,7281 c€/kWh  for the following years (for biogas plants  ≤ 500kW). Or Bonus: an additional benefit to the electricity free market price. Bonus value: 10,5607 c€/kWh; this price have an inferior (12,7637 c€/kWh) and superior limit (15,8436 c€/kWh).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Comparison between fixed tariff and bonus incentive, in Spain policies.  [18, 21]. 

 Italy: Italian renewable energy policies are defined by “Legge Finanziaria 2008”, (24/12/2007 n.244). Depending on the power capacity could be: Fixed tariff: For biogas plants capacity lower than 1 MW, a fixed price for 15 years of: 30 c€/kWh. Or Certificati Verdi (CV) for biogas plants, with power capacity equal or higher than 1 MW, an increase of the CV value, by a coefficient of 1,8 plus the electricity sold to the grid. The law includes byproducts obtained at intensive or short chain (70km or less from the biogas plant).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Comparison between fixed tariff and CV incentive, at Italian policies. [20, 22].

 

3.2         Energy Potential.

3.2.1      Animal inventory statistics and estimation in 2008.

At this part of the study will be calculated; the energy potential from biogas plants, supplied by swine and dairy cattle manure.

 

In order to estimate the amount of manure produced by the animals, census statistics have been studied to estimate the amount of animals in 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Number of animals (swine and dairy cattle), in thousands for Spain and Italy. [10-11].

 

From this graph and with the tendencies lines, was estimated the amount of animals for both countries, in 2008:

 

Spain: 26.926 thousands pigs and 984 thousand cows

 

Italy: 9.300 thousands pigs and 1.903 thousand cows

 

3.2.2      Availability of co-substrates.

 

Spain: Spain has several sources of co-substrates. About 35% of Spanish total area is used for crops; 84% of this area is used for grain cereals, land fallow, olive grove, grapevines and non citric fruit. Main agricultural production (tons/year) is cover by: wine and grape, alfalfa, sugar beet, tomato, barley maize and wheat. On other hand, the strong Spain food industry is based on: meet industry, dairy industry, food animal products, fats and oils, bread, wine and conserves of fruits and vegetables.

Spanish communities with more surfaces dedicated to agriculture are: Andalucía, Aragón, Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha and Extremadura, they cover 78% of all Spain cultivated area.

 

Italy: Numerous types of co-substrates can be obtained in Italy as: sweet maize residues, potato residue, fruit residues, and cereals.  Italy use around 48% of Italy region for crops. The main agricultural area (80% of the land used for crops) is used for: fodder crops, cereals and rice, olive trees, grasslands and meadows. Main food industry is base in sugar, wine, pasta, eggs, cheese, olive oil and milk.

The regions most utilized for agriculture are: Piemonte, Lombardia, Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, Toscana, Puglia, Sicilia and Sardegna

3.2.3      Potential animal manure production.

In order to calculate the amount of energy that can be produced from animal manure, should be studied the amount of manure produced per animal.

 

In average pigs and dairy cattle produce:

 

Animal

Manure production

Unit

Swine

6,5

kg/animal-day

Dairy cattle

45

kg/animal-day

Table 1. Average manure production. [29-31]

 

Swine Manure Production:

Item

Unit

Spain

Italy

Animal estimated census 2008

Units

26.926.000

9.300.000

Manure production

ton/ animal-year

2,37

2,37

Total manure production

ton/year

63.881.935

22.064.250

Table 2. Estimation of the swine manure generated per country.

 

Dairy Cattle Manure Production:

Item

Unit

Spain

Italy

Animal estimated census 2008

Units

984.000

1.903.000

Manure production

ton/animal-year

16,43

16,43

Total manure production

ton/year

16.162.200

31.256.775

Table 3. Estimation of the cattle manure generated per country.

 

3.2.4      Manure Energy Potential.

After estimate the amount of manure produced from the animals, the following parameters to analyze are the composition of the manure, which will determine the amount of biogas to be produced (potential energy per ton). Manure composition will vary depending on several factors as:   type of installation, quality and quantity of food and water, livestock practices, dilution of waste water and rain water, cleaning systems, etc.(See annexes)

 

Estimations realized with typical manure compositions and energy yields (see annexes), achieve the following results:

 

§  Swine manure: 39,31kWh/ton manure

§  Cattle manure: 32,34kWh/ton manure

 

Parameter

Unit

Spain

Italy

Pig manure

Cattle manure

Pig manure

Cattle manure

Substrate input

million ton/year

63,88

16,16

22,06

31,25

Energy Potential

MW

314

65

108

126

Total Energy Potential

MW

379

235

Table 4. Potential energy capacity from swine and cattle manure, for Spain and Italy. (Estimated for 2008).

 

Table 4, illustrates the amount of energy that could be obtained from swine and cattle manure, for both countries. In the case of Spain, there is enough manure to produce around 379 MW. If it is considered the total biogas installed in 2007, 158 MW; the potential energy is more than the double, that the current energy capacity. Around 83% of the potential energy comes from the swine manure, due to the intensive swine farming.

 

On other side, Italian swine and cattle manure could produce an estimated 235 MW. Comparing with the current 194 MW installed in 2007; the potential energy could duplicate the actual capacity. In this case, 54% of the potential energy capacity comes from the dairy cattle farming and the other 46% from swine farming.

 

3.3 Financial Framework.

 

3.3.1      Transport cost.

Substrate transport cost will influence dramatically the cash flow results in a biogas plant design. Therefore, the biogas plant has to be installed as near as possible from the substrates.

 

Transport costs, depends on several factors as:

-   Fixed costs: truck depreciation, taxes, licensing fees, insurances, etc.

-   Variable costs: distance traveled, employer costs, maintenance, additional labor, etc.

 

Several studies have been revised, in order to determine an average price of manure transport. Even if the costs will decrease with the increase of distance, an average price can be established as: 0,097€/km-ton for 2008. [32-35].

 

3.3.2      Economical Analyzes.

For both countries was analyzed the financial estimations with the fixed tariffs, if electricity is sell to the grid.

Spain: Biogas plants (500kW) in Spain are profitable only if they are fed by free cost substrates as animal manure or organic wastes (food residues, organic industrial residues, etc.). And if, only 35% of the total substrates (ton/year) are transported in a short distance (25km). With these conditions is obtained a result of: IRR= 18-20%. (See Annexes)

 

 Italy: Biogas plants (500kW) in Italy are profitable combining swine or cattle manure with maize silage (cost: 36 €/ton), achieving an IRR= 67-73%. Results will decrease when all substrates are transported 70km, into IRR= 32-36%.(See Annexes)

 

Recommendations:

§  The current study describes an energy potential. It is recommended to investigate the available energy, as a consequence of the technical limits. For example no possible access to the manure due to low density of animals per farm, limitation of connection to the grid, farms with extensive housing, etc.

§  It is suggested to investigate the procedures and authorization processes, required to obtain the permission for the biogas installations in each country.

§ Biogas companies should develop smaller systems, for example offer 150kW plants to farmers with low concentration of animals.

4. CONCLUSION

Spain and Italy have a high energy potential for biogas production from swine and cattle manure. In 2007 were estimated, a biogas installed capacity of 158 MW and 194 MW in Spain and Italy respectively. At present both countries are trying to impulse renewable energies including biogas production, establishing policies to increase the biogas investment. Spain paid a fixed tariff of 13,5068 c€/kWh (for the first 15 years) and Italy a fixed tariff of 30c€/kWh (price for 15 years), to the energy sold to the grid.

 

Spanish and Italian structure farms are appropriate for the construction of biogas installations. Mainly due to the manure recollection systems; use of slotted floor at swine farms and scraper at cattle farms.

 

With the amount of manure produced by the animals (pigs and dairy cattle) in each country, was estimated a total energy potential. Was calculated 379MW in Spain (314MW from swine manure and 65MW from cattle) and 235 MW in Italy (108 from swine and 126 from cattle).

 

Even if there is enough manure in both countries to install biogas facilities, is required the use of co-substrates or energy crops, due to the low total solids content in manure. Spain and Italy have several possible sources of co-substrates from agriculture, food industry, and organic residues.

 

Biogas installations at Spain (500kW) are only feasible (IRR=18-20%) if they are fed by free cost substrates as manure or organic waste, there are not profitable with the use of energy crops. In other hand, biogas facilities at Italy will be very lucrative (IRR=63-73%), even with the use of energy crops (maize silage cost at 36 €/ton), nevertheless some decrees have not been created at the time to apply the fixed tariff.



 

4.      REFERENCES

 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain

 

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy

 

[3] http://www.ambitalia.com.uy/economia/economia-italiana.php

 

[4] Plan de energías renovables en España 2005-2010. ÁREA DEL BIOGAS. Capitulo 3.7 pp.231-245

 

[5] IDEA/ Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Resumen plan de energías renovables en España. 2005-2010. 21 Julio 2005. Capítulo 5.7  pp.80

 

[6] Julio Artigas. La situación del biogás en España per 2005-2010 y real decreto 661/2007. Jefe departamento de Biomasa. Abril 2008. pp.39

 

[7] Eurobserv’ER. Biogas Barometer. 2006. pp. 11

 

[8] Eurobserv’ER. Biogas Barometer. 2007. pp. 11

 

[9] Sergio Poccinini, Mariangela Soldano, Claudio Fabbri. Lo stato dell’arte del settore secondo un censimento del CRPA. Supplemento a Línformatore Agrario. Le scelte politiche lanciano il biogas. Febbraio 2008. pp6.

 

[10] Ministerio de medio ambiente y medio rural y marino. El sector de la carne de cerdo en cifras. Principales indicadores económicos en 2007. Subd. Gral. De mercados exteriores y producción porcina y avícola y otras. May 2008. pp.92

 

[11] Ministerio de medio ambiente y medio rural y marino. Censo de Vacuno (1992-2007). España. pp.8

 

[12] Ministerio de medio ambiente y medio rural y marino. El sector lácteo en la unión europea. Estructura . 2002.  España. pp.8

 

[13] www.delaval.es

 

[14]  www.vacaconbotas.com

 

[15] http://www.anaborapi.it/Allev-manza-1.htm

 

[16] http://www.rotaguido.it/prodotti/bufalini/stabulazione-libera.html

 

[17] www.inea.uva.es

 

[18] Real Decreto 661/2007, Spain. 2007. pp.41

 

[19] Real Decreto 222/2008, Spain. 2008. pp.23

 

[20] Articolato Legge Finanziaria 2008 in material di energia ed edilizia e fonti rinnovabili. Italy. 2008. pp.11

 

[21] OMEL. Mercado de Electricidad. Operador del mercado ibérico de energía –polo español, S.A. August 2008.

 

[22]  www.mercatoelectrico.org

 

[23] APER, Associazione Produttori Energia da Fonti Rheinnovabili. Report Bioenergie 2007-2008.. 2008.pp.4

 

[24] Avance Anuario MAPA 2005. Superficies y producciones agrícolas. Subdirección General de Estadísticas Agroalimentarias. Hechos y cifras  de la agricultura, la pesca y la alimentación. España. pp.61-65

 

[25] Elaboración de la S.G. de industrias, innovación y comercialización agroalimentaria. (D.G. de Industria Agroalimentaria y Alimentación del MAPA). Cifras de los principales indicadores de la industria alimentaria por subsectores. Año 2006. España. pp.19

 

[26] CRPA Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali. Biogas: L´analisi di fattibilità técnico-económica. Opuscolo CRPA 6.20 – N. 4/2008. May 2008. pp.10

 

[27] Ministerio Delle Politieche Agricole Alimentari E Forestali. www.politicheagricole.it 

 

[28] Instituto Nazionale Di Economía Agraria. L´Agrocultura Italiana Conta. 2007, www.idea.it

 

[29] Fraisoro, Laboratorio Agroambiental. http://www.fraisoro.net/documentos/ProyectoAnexo2.pdf  pp.11

 

[30] Jesús Mangado/ Anayet Sanz Olleta / Beatriz Soret Lafraya. ITG Ganadero. Parte I Caracterización. Producción De Purines En Vacuno De Leche.. Año 2006. pp. 41-48

 

[31] ITG Ganadero. Tablas referencia y composición de estiércoles y purines. January 2005. pp.6

 

[32] Kelvin Leibold. Economics Of Manure Transportation And Utilization. Comercial Manure Applicator Certification. ISU Farm Management. Field Specialist. Iowa State University Extension. 2006. pp.44

 

[33] Norman Astle. Manure Transport Project. Eastern Shore Agriculture Collaborative. July 22, 2008.. Maryland Department of Agriculture. pp.20

 

[34] Peter Flynn. Biomass Energy: Cost And Scale Issues. Poole Chair in Management for Engineers. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta. 2006. pp. 44

 

[35] David B. Layzell, Jamie Stephen and Susan M. Wood. Exploting The Potential For Biomass Power In Ontario. BIOCAP Canada Foundation. Queen´s University. February 2006. pp.27

 

[36] Claudio Fabbri. Il Biogas: Modello Di Calcolo A Supporto Della Fattibilitá Técnico-Economica. I parametri tecnico-economici per lo studio di fattibilitá. Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali. CRPA. Reggio Emilia, Reggio E., 20 maggio 2007. www.crpa.it  pp. 13

 

[37] Prof. Angelo Frascarelli /Saverio Patacca. Analisi Tecnico-Economica Di Un Impianto Per La Generazione Di Biogas. Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Estimative e degli Alimenti. Universita degli Studi di Perugia. Facoltá di Agraria. pp.18

 

[38] Kees de Roest . Analisi Economica Biogas. Seq-Cure. Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali. CRPA. Reggio Emilia www.crpa.it. pp.18

 

[39] Francesco Dugoni. Le Energie Rinnovabili Ed Il Recupero Energetico In Provincia Di Mantova. Agenzia per la gestione intelligente delle risorse energetiche. AGIRE. Giovedí Agricoli Mantovani 2007. 1 Febbraio 2007.  pp.34

 

[40] Ing. Mauro Venturini. Produzione Di Energia Da Biomasse. Biogas E Turbine A Gas. Universitá degli Studi Ferrara. Dipartimento di Ingegneria.. Unitá di ricerca di Sistemi Energetici. pp.28

 

[41] Faustzahlen, Biogas. KTBL Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V.  Fachangetur Nachwachsende Rohstoff e.V. 2007 Darmstadt.

 

[42] Richtwerte für die Düngung in Niedersachen. September 2003. Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachen. pp.6

 

[43] ITG Ganadero. Fertilización Con Purines De Ganado Porcino Equipos De Reparto. September 2004. IZA Navarra. pp



 

5.      ANNEXES

 

 

Parameter

Unit

Pig manure

Cattle manure

Maize silage

Chicken manure

Organic Waste

Substrate input

ton/year

1

1

1

1

1

Weight conversion

kg/ton

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Substrate input

kg/year

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

Total Solids (TS)

%

6%

8%

34%

45%

40%

Total Solid Matter

kg/year

60,00

80,00

340,00

450,00

400,00

Organic Matter (%)

%

78%

75%

96%

75%

50%

Total Solid Organic Matter

kg/year

46,80

60,00

326,40

338

200,00

Biogas Yield

lt biog/kg TS OM

400

280

600

500

620

Biogas Yield

m3 biog/kg TS OM

0,40

0,28

0,60

0,50

0,62

Biogas Yield

m3 biogas/year

18,72

16,80

195,84

169

123,00

Methane Content

%

60%

55%

52%

65%

60%

Methane Yield

m3 methane/year

11,23

9,24

101,84

109,69

73,80

Engine efficiency

%

35%

35%

35%

35%

35%

Methane Heating Value

kWh/m3 methane

10

10

10

10

10

Energy Yield

kWh/year

39,31

32,34

356,43

384

258,30

Energy Yield

kWh/ton manure

39,31

32,34

356,43

383,91

258,30

Energy Capacity

kW

0,0049

0,0040

0,0446

0,0480

0,0323

 

 Table 5. Energy yields estimation from various substrates. [41]

 

 

SUBSTRATES:

 

 

Swine manure

ton/animal-year

2,37

Swine manure dry matter

%

6%

Dairy cattle manure

ton/animal-year

16,43

Cattle manure dry matter

%

8%

Chicken manure

ton/animal-year

0,055

Chicken manure dry matter

%

45%

Maize silage

ton/ha

53

Maize dry matter

%

34%

 

 

 

ENERGY YIELDS:

 

 

Swine manure

kWh/ton manure

39,31

Cattle manure

kWh/ton manure

32,34

Maize silage

kWh/ton manure

356,43

Chicken manure (45% TS)

kWh/ton manure

383,91

Organic waste (40% TS)

kWh/ton manure

258,30

Energy self consumption

%

7%

Working hours

hrs/year

8.000

 

 

 

 

DISCOUNT RATE:

 

 

Repayment period

Years

10,00

Own funds (%)

%

25%

Financing (%)

%

75%

Interest rate

%

8,5%

Own capital demand

%

8,5%

Inflation

%

4%

Taxes

%

35%

Discount rate:

%

12,84%

 

 

 

INVESTMENT:

 

 

Investment 

€/kWe

3.600

Project life

year

15

 

 

 

INCOMES:

 

 

Energy price for Spain

€/kWh

0,13510

Energy price for Italy

€/kWh

0,30

Price of manure treatment

€/m3

4

 

 

 

EXPENSES:

 

 

Operational and Maintenance costs

€/kWe-year

280

Maize silage cost

€/ton

36

Manure cost

€/ton

0

Transport cost

€/km-ton

0,097

 

Table 6. Factors used to estimate financial studies. [36-40]

 

FEASIBILITY STUDIES:

 

CASE I:

 

SWINE MANURE AND MAIZE SILAGE: First situation is the case of a farmer who produces maize silage and has swine exploitation. Considerations:

        Only income is obtained from electricity sold to the grid.

        No transport and no manure cost.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:

SUBSTRATES:

 

 

 

ENERGY YIELD:

 

 

Quantity swine

Units

8.650

 

Biogas Yield

m3 biogas/year

2.304.383

Swine manure

ton/year

20.522

 

Energy Yield

kWh/year

4.301.545

Hectares

Ha

185

 

Energy Yield

kWh/ton substrate

142

Maize silage

ton/year

9.805

 

Electrical Energy Capacity

kWe

500

Total substrate

ton/year

30.327

 

Thermal Energy Capacity

kWth

550

RESULTS:                                                          SPAIN:                                        ITALY:

 

Net Present Value (NPV)

-2.008.669 €

 

1.417.009 €

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

N/A

 

67,6.%

Discounted Payback Period

N/A

 

2         years

 

If the same situation for Italy will be calculated, except with the addition of transport cost of all substrates in a 70 km distance (policies limit distance). The following results will be obtained:

Net Present Value (NPV)

347.571

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

31,7%

Discounted Payback Period

4 years

 ITALY:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE II:

 

CATTLE MANURE AND MAIZE SILAGE: In this situation is supposed a farmer who produces maize silage and treat the cattle manure from other farm. Considerations:

        Incomes: electricity sold to the grid and revenue from treat cattle manure 4€/ton.

        No transport and no manure cost.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:

SUBSTRATES:

 

 

 

ENERGY YIELD:

 

Quantity dairy cattle

units

980

 

Biogas Yield

m3 biogas/year

2.346.334

Cattle manure

ton/year

16.097

 

Energy Yield

kWh/year

4.298.722

Hectares

Ha

200

 

Energy Yield

kWh/ton substrate

161

Maize silage

ton/year

10.600

 

Electrical Energy Capacity

kWe

500

Total substrate

ton/year

26.697

 

Thermal Energy Capacity

kWth

550

RESULTS:                                                               SPAIN:                                       ITALY:

 

Net Present Value (NPV)

-1.723.615 €

 

1.600.953€

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

N/A

 

73,2%

Discounted Payback Period

N/A

 

2 years

 

Once more, the same situation for Italy will be calculated, with the addition of transport cost of all substrates (70 km); but in this evaluation will be taken 10% as annual increment of transport costs, due to fuels prices usually increase more than the average inflation.  Results:

 

          ITALY:

 

 

Net Present Value (NPV)

235.967 €

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

36,1%

Discounted Payback Period

3 years

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE III:

 

SWINE MANURE, CATTLE MANURE AND CHICKEN SLURRY:

In this situation is the case of a farmer with swine exploitation, whom receives cattle and chicken manure to treat. Considerations:

-          Incomes: electricity price to the grid                     

-          No substrate costs.

-          Transport of cattle manure and chicken slurry 25 km to biogas plant.

 

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:

SUBSTRATES:

 

 

 

ENERGY YIELD:

 

 

Quantity swine

units

12.050

 

Biogas Yield

m3 biogas/year

1.579.263

Swine manure

ton/year

28.589

 

Energy Yield

kWh/year

3.441.217

Quantity dairy cattle

units

600

 

Energy Yield

kWh/ton substrate

79

Cattle manure

ton/year

9.855

 

Electrical Energy Capacity

kWe

400

Quantity chicken

units

95.000

 

Thermal Energy Capacity

kWth

440

Chicken manure

ton/year

5.206

 

 

 

 

Total substrate

ton/year

43.650

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RESULTS:                                                                          SPAIN:                                  ITALY:

 

Net Present Value (NPV)

174.349 €

 

2.410.005 €

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

20%

 

114%

Discounted Payback Period

9 years

 

1 year

 

 

CASE IV:

 

CATTLE MANURE AND ORGANIC WASTE:

This simulation supposes a biogas plant which receives organic wastes from industries and the cattle manure from a farm. Organic wastes could be from food industry or the separated organic waste from households. Considerations:

-          Incomes: electricity price to the grid                     

-          No substrate costs.

-          Transport of cattle manure 50 km to biogas plant.

-          No transport cost from organic wastes; industries pay for it.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS:

SUBSTRATES:

 

 

 

ENERGY YIELD:

 

 

Organic waste

ton/year

10.000

 

Biogas Yield

m3 biogas/year

2.064.259

Quantity dairy cattle

Units

750

 

Energy Yield

kWh/year

4.298.726

Cattle manure

ton/year

12.319

 

Energy Yield

kWh/ton substrate

157

Total substrate

ton/year

22.319

 

Electrical Energy Capacity

kWe

500

 

 

 

 

Thermal Energy Capacity

kWth

550

 

 

 


RESULTS:                           SPAIN:                                                                ITALY:

 

Net Present Value (NPV)

144.500 €

 

2.937.253 €

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

18%

 

112%

Discounted Payback Period

11 years

 

1 years