Biogas Research Center- för utveckling av resurseffektiva biogaslösningar -
Learnings and reflections from
system studies during phase 2
Roozbeh Feizbiträdande universitetslektor
2018-11-29
System thinking: Seeing the bigger picture, for good!
Coordination, Alignment,
Inter-relations
Broad perspectives
Complementary perspectives
• Potentials (how much?)
• Performance (how sustainable? how efficient?)
• Feasibility (how easy to implement?)
• Comparison (which option?)
• Analysis (what drivers and barriers?)
• Learning (how/what to improve?)
• Decision support
(what should we know to make
better decisions?)
Our approaches to systems study
System StudyResearch Question
• Decision support
(what should we know to make
better decisions?)
Overview of a few of our system studies
Multi-Criteria Analysis
(qualitative & quantitative)
Life-Cycle Assessment
(quantitative)
Key Performance / Feasibility Indicators
Uncertainty management
Mass/energyanalysis
(quantitative)
Participatory Other(ex. Potential
study)
System study of biogas production from food waste (4 cases)
Systematic assessment of feedstock for biogas production
Land-based salmon farming and biogas production (Smögen Lax)
Biogas in sea-food processing cluster (Rena Hav)
Biogas role in biorefinery development (Skogn/SBF)
Biogas role in biorefinery development (Lantmännen Reppe)
Biogas production and market potential in Norrköping municipality
Indicators for well-to-wheel assessment of public transportation
12.9 0.4 21.7 10.6 1.7 11.856.5
24.5 35.071.8
45.190.2
15.7 26.757.1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
GW
h/y
ear Production potential, 2030
16.5 4.0 3.7 35.0 123.0 9.3 113.6 30.0
456.0
135.2271.6
438.2
996.8
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
GW
h/y
ear Market potential, 2030
Biogas potential in Norrköping Ex1: Biogas potential in Norrköping
Marcus Gustafsson, Axel Lindfors, Stefan Anderberg, Jonas Ammenberg, Mats Eklund (2018). Biogaslösningar i Norrköping — Potential för produktion och marknad
• Potential feedstock exist mainly in:
– agricultural sector (although divided among many actors/farms)
– industries (mainly papermills – Braviken and Skärblacka).
• Potential demand exists mainly in:
– the transport sector, particularly heavy transports (trucks) and cars
• Potential demand is far higher than the potential production
– But, not all of the demand is expected to be covered by biogas
18-12-03
Biogas potential in Norrköping
Ex1: Biogas potential in Norrköping
Marcus Gustafsson, Axel Lindfors, Stefan Anderberg, Jonas Ammenberg, Mats Eklund (2018). Biogaslösningar i Norrköping — Potential för produktion och marknad
Biogas role in biorefinery development
• Lantmännen Reppe wheat-ethanol biorefinery in Lidköping; produces ethanol,gluten, starch and syrup from wheat
• What are the most suitable ways of treating the byproduct, stillage? (produce fodder, directly use as biofertilizer, or anaerobically digest and produce biogas and biofertilizer?)
• Comparison of the scenarios using multi-criteria analysis
Ex2: Lidköpingwheat-ethanol
biorefinery
Linda Hagman and Roozbeh Feiz (manuscript, 2018). Assessing the sustainability of a Swedish wheat-ethanol biorefinery through a method focusing on feasibility and life-cycle performance
Key area Indicator FOD FERT INCIN LB Fuel
LB Power
DB Fuel
Profitability or cost efficiency (performance)
Profitability or cost efficiency
Good
***
Poor
***
Very Poor
***
Good
***
Fair
***
Good
***
Transportation efficiency
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Reduced load on waste systems
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Poor
***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Energy and environmental performance, nutrients and resource economy (performance)
Nutrient recirculation
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Energy efficiency Fair ***
Fair ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
GHG efficiency Fair ***
Poor ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
Local/regional environmental impact
Good **
(Poor)
Fair
**
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Geographical and physical suitability
Geographical and physical suitability
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Technical feasibility (feasibility)
Technological readiness Good
*** Good ***
Very Poor ***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Infrastructural readiness
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Poor
**
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Organisational feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Actor’s readiness
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Good
**
Public acceptance and institutional feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Public acceptance
Good
***
Fair
**
(Good)
Very Good
***
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Institutional support and administration
Fair
**
Fair
**
(Poor)
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Planning horizon and clarity of business
Fair
***
Fair
***
(Good)
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Market accessibility and control (low risk)
Upstream accessibility and control
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Good)
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Downstream accessibility and control
Good
***
Fair
***
Very Good
***
Good
**
Very
Good
***
Good
**
Sidestream accessibility and control
Irrel-
evant Irrelevant
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Risk avoidance
(low risk)
Long-term risk-avoidance
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Bio cascading Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Very Good
***
Biogas role in biorefinery development
Ex2: Lidköpingwheat-ethanol
biorefinery
Linda Hagman and Roozbeh Feiz (manuscript, 2018). Assessing the sustainability of a Swedish wheat-ethanol biorefinery through a method focusing on feasibility and life-cycle performance
• From almost all the studied aspects, the scenarios involving biogas production from stillage showed goodperformance and feasibility
• Biogas has helped the growth of the studied biorefinery
Key area Indicator FOD FERT INCIN LB Fuel
LB Power
DB Fuel
Profitability or cost efficiency (performance)
Profitability or cost efficiency
Good
***
Poor
***
Very Poor
***
Good
***
Fair
***
Good
***
Transportation efficiency
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Reduced load on waste systems
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Poor
***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Energy and environmental performance, nutrients and resource economy (performance)
Nutrient recirculation
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Energy efficiency Fair ***
Fair ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
GHG efficiency Fair ***
Poor ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
Local/regional environmental impact
Good **
(Poor)
Fair
**
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Geographical and physical suitability
Geographical and physical suitability
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Technical feasibility (feasibility)
Technological readiness Good
*** Good ***
Very Poor ***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Infrastructural readiness
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Poor
**
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Organisational feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Actor’s readiness
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Good
**
Public acceptance and institutional feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Public acceptance
Good
***
Fair
**
(Good)
Very Good
***
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Institutional support and administration
Fair
**
Fair
**
(Poor)
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Planning horizon and clarity of business
Fair
***
Fair
***
(Good)
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Market accessibility and control (low risk)
Upstream accessibility and control
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Good)
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Downstream accessibility and control
Good
***
Fair
***
Very Good
***
Good
**
Very
Good
***
Good
**
Sidestream accessibility and control
Irrel-
evant Irrelevant
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Risk avoidance
(low risk)
Long-term risk-avoidance
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Bio cascading Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Very Good
***
Biogas role in biorefinery development
Ex2: Lidköpingwheat-ethanol
biorefinery
Key area Indicator FOD FERT INCIN LB Fuel
LB Power
DB Fuel
Profitability or cost efficiency (performance)
Profitability or cost efficiency
Good
***
Poor
***
Very Poor
***
Good
***
Fair
***
Good
***
Transportation efficiency
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Reduced load on waste systems
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Poor
***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Very Good ***
Energy and environmental performance, nutrients and resource economy (performance)
Nutrient recirculation
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Poor
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Energy efficiency Fair ***
Fair ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
GHG efficiency Fair ***
Poor ***
Very Poor ***
Very Good
***
Very Good
***
Very Good ***
Local/regional environmental impact
Good **
(Poor)
Fair
**
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Geographical and physical suitability
Geographical and physical suitability
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Good
***
Good
***
Poor
***
Technical feasibility (feasibility)
Technological readiness Good
*** Good ***
Very Poor ***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Infrastructural readiness
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Poor
**
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Organisational feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Actor’s readiness
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Fair)
Good
**
Public acceptance and institutional feasibility (feasibility, low risk)
Public acceptance
Good
***
Fair
**
(Good)
Very Good
***
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Institutional support and administration
Fair
**
Fair
**
(Poor)
Fair
**
Good
**
Good
**
Good
**
Planning horizon and clarity of business
Fair
***
Fair
***
(Good)
Fair
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Market accessibility and control (low risk)
Upstream accessibility and control
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
(Good)
Very Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Very Good
***
Downstream accessibility and control
Good
***
Fair
***
Very Good
***
Good
**
Very
Good
***
Good
**
Sidestream accessibility and control
Irrel-
evant Irrelevant
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Risk avoidance
(low risk)
Long-term risk-avoidance
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Fair
**
Bio cascading Good
***
Good
***
Good
***
Very
Good
***
Good
***
Very Good
***
Linda Hagman and Roozbeh Feiz (manuscript, 2018). Assessing the sustainability of a Swedish wheat-ethanol biorefinery through a method focusing on feasibility and life-cycle performance
• From almost all the studied aspects, the scenarios involving biogas production from stillage showed goodperformance and feasibility
• Biogas has helped the growth of the studied biorefinery
• Considering four co-digestion plants that use food waste for producing biogas
– More biogas (Kalmar), Tekniska verken (Linköping), Scandinavian biogas (Södertörn), VMAB (Mörrum)
• Assess the life-cycle environmental and economic performance of biogas production from
food waste
– systems analysis, energy analysis
– key performance indicators
– uncertainty analysis
18-12-03
System analysis of biogas from food waste
Ex3: Biogas fromfood waste
System analysis of biogas from food waste
SysBiogas v.1: an Excel-based model for life-cycle analysis of biogas solutions• Flows: mass (wet, dry), energy,
macro nutrients, water
• GWP, PE, Cost, etc.
• Uncertainty management,Monte-Carlo simulation
• Sensitivity analysis
Ex3: Biogas fromfood waste
• A few Key Performance
Indicators are suggested
to capture the
performance of biogas
production from food
waste
• Example: effective
methane yield
System analysis of biogas from food waste
Ex3: Biogas fromfood waste
250
300
350
400
450
500
Lab estimate Usable CH4/tonnemeal
DeliveredCH4/tonne meal
DeliveredCH4/tonnecollected
foodwaste
Usable CH4/tonnecollected
foodwaste
DeliveredCH4/tonne
foodwaste (atsource)
Nm
3C
H4/
t V
S
Effective methane yield
A1 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D1
Key Performance Indicators for biogas production—Integrated assessment of producing biogas from food waste (manuscript, 2018). Roozbeh Feiz, Maria Johansson, Emma Lindkvist, Jan Moestedt, Sören Nilsson Påledal, Niclas Svensson
Environmental and economic systems analysis of biogas production from household food waste—multiple cases from Sweden (manuscript, 2018). Roozbeh Feiz, Maria Johansson, Emma Lindkvist, Niclas Svensson
KPIs: cumulative performance curves
Ex3: Biogas fromfood waste
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FW (at source) FW (beforepretreatment)
FW (beforeAD)
Raw biogasand digestate
(produced)
Upgradedbiogas
(delivered)
Digestate(delivered)
Digestate(applied)
Avoidedmineral
fertilizersgr
CO
2-eq
/MJ
met
han
e d
eliv
ered
GWP of delivering 1 MJ methane (cum.)
A1 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D1
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A1 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 D 1
gr C
O2-
eq /
MJ d
eliv
ered
met
han
e
KPI---Global warming potential (ISO)
KPI---Global warming potential (RED)
Key Performance Indicators for biogas production—Integrated assessment of producing biogas from food waste (manuscript, 2018). Roozbeh Feiz, Maria Johansson, Emma Lindkvist, Jan Moestedt, Sören Nilsson Påledal, Niclas Svensson
Environmental and economic systems analysis of biogas production from household food waste—multiple cases from Sweden (manuscript, 2018). Roozbeh Feiz, Maria Johansson, Emma Lindkvist, Niclas Svensson
• Each of the studied biogas production systems has unique characteristics• In addition to the efficiency of digestion process itself, among the most important factors
that affect the performance of biogas production from food waste are:• Losses of organic material in separation, collection, and pretreatment• Amount and type of energy used for heating the plant• The need for additional digestate treatment due to excessive distance to farm areas
• Versatile and complex
• Great potential for growth
• Values are much more than the biogas itself
• Role in biorefineries and biobased industrial development
– “enablers of growth”
• Technology, often not the main barrier
• Uncertain policies can act as barrier
• Developed and tested approaches, methods, frameworks, models, and tools
– Can be used for many different types of studies in future
• Learnings among the researchers, and hopefully all other colleagues and participants
What have we learned?
Our main learnings are with our people!
• Jonas Ammenberg
– Docent, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Igor Cruz
– Doktorand, IEI-ENSYS, [email protected]
• Marcus Gustafsson
– Postdoc, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Linda Hagman
– Doktorand, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Maria Johansson
– Biträdande universitetslektor, IEI-ENSYS, [email protected]
• Magnus Karlsson
– Universitetslektor, IEI-ENSYS, [email protected]
• Axel Lindfors
– Doktorand, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Emma Lindkvist
– Doktorand, IEI-ENSYS, [email protected]
• Niclas Svensson
– Universitetslektor, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Roozbeh Feiz
– Biträdande universitetslektor, IEI-MILJÖ, [email protected]
• Life-cycle performance of various biogas production pathways;
and their competing alternatives
• Effect of scale, location, feedstock, and technology on the life-
cycle performance of biogas systems
• Life-cycle performance of different products and services, before
and after using biogas/biofertilizer in their system
• Effect of LBG on the expansion of the biogas market in the heavy
transport; potential, performance and feasibility
• Feasibility and performance of biogas solutions in international
contexts with Swedish relevance
• Potential role of biogas solutions for better nutrient recirculation
in the regions, considering real-world constraints
• How to better capture the diverse values of biogas solutions in
communicable terms?
• ...
Reflections on the way forward
Lets use tomorrow’s workshop for more discussion about this!
Sure, models are always a bit different than reality, ...
... but I now know a bit more about biogas solutions and the strengths and weaknesses of systems analysis! Perhaps, this can only work by dialogue, sharing, flexibility and openness; and a curious but forgiving mind supported by a little bit of playfulness and endurance, and hopefully immune from arrogance!
Thank you for your attention!Roozbeh
