ORIGINAL PAPER
Energetic and economic efficiency of agricultural biogas plant working with different substrates
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Poznaniu, Instytut Inżynierii Biosystemów, ul. Wojska Polskiego 28, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
 
 
Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering 2016;61(3):72-76
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Ensuring the profitability of working biogas plants is a key factor for the development of biogas market. Apart from the price obtained for sold electricity, the substrates are the most important factor, particularly the ratio of their acquisition cost to methane efficiency. Thus, the objective of this paper was energy and economic analysis of the typical biogas plant with a capacity of 1 MWe working in new, favorable market situation (higher prices for blue certificates and in auction system) and using different biomass and waste substrates. After biogas efficiency tests and economic calculations of 4 different agricultural and waste substrates (maize silage, beet pulp, refood and chicken manure) it has been stated that the chicken manure was the most energy effective, just after maize silage. However chicken manure is 5 times cheaper. However, refood is the most profitable substrate for biogas plant working in both variants (certificates and auctions), and slightly less favorable - chicken manure. It is related to the best price - methane efficiency ratio, since the adoption of refood for biogas plants receives payment in the amount of 20 PLN per ton. In vast majority of analyzed substrates, investment in agricultural biogas plant is now becoming a very profitable venture, because annual profit before tax fluctuated in the range of 1-4 million PLN.
REFERENCES (8)
1.
Berlian S., Sukandar, Seno D.P.: Biogas recovery from anaerobic digestion process of mixed fruit -vegetable wastes. International Conference on Sustainable Energy Engineering and Application. Energy Procedia, 2013, 32, 176-182.
 
2.
Bruni E., Jensen A. P., Pedersen E. S., Angelidaki I.: Anaerobic digestion of maize focusing on variety, harvest time and pretreatment. Applied Energy, 2010, 87, 2212-2217.
 
3.
Carmona, P.C.R., Dach, J., Mazur R., Witaszek K., Janczak D., Czekała W., Lewicki A.: Methane fermentation as a way of managing waste from the grain coffee production. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Energy & Environment: Bringing Together Engineering and Economics, 2015, 686-692.
 
4.
Cieślik M., J. Dach, Lewicki A., Smurzyńska A., Janczak D., Pawlicka-Kaczorowska J., Boniecki P., Cyplik P., Czekała W., Jóźwiakowski K.: Methane fermentation of the maize straw silage under meso- and thermophilic conditions. Energy (in progress), 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.06.070.
 
5.
Dach J., Boniecki P., Przybył J., Janczak D., Lewicki A., Czekała W., Witaszek K., Rodríguez Carmona P. C., Cieślik M.: Energetic efficiency analysis of the agricultural biogas plant in 250 kWe experimental installation. Energy, 2014, 69, 34-38.
 
6.
Janczak D., Dach, J., Czekała W., Przybył J., Lewicki A., Bugała A., Boniecki P., Zaborowicz M., Carmona, P.C.R.: Energy use of greenhouse waste materials by methane fermentation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Energy & Environment: Bringing Together Engineering and Economics, 2015, 293-299.
 
7.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Energy & Environment: Bringing Together Engineering and Economics, 2015, 714-720.
 
8.
Szulc R., Dach J. (red): Kierunki rozwoju ekoenergetyki w polskim rolnictwie. Praca zbiorowa, Wydawnictwo WiR, 2014. ISBN 978-83-64377-06-8.
 
eISSN:2719-423X
ISSN:1642-686X
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top