Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Techno-economic analysis of electricity and heat generation from

case study
farm-scale biogas plant: iekdag
Abdullah Akbulut*
Mechanical Engineering Department, Engineering Faculty, Dumlupinar University, 43270 Kutahya, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 30 November 2011
Received in revised form
19 April 2012
Accepted 6 June 2012
Available online 29 June 2012

Conventional energy usage has various environmental effects that cause global warming. Renewable
energy sources are, thus, more favorable, because they have nearly zero emission. Biogas was merely
seen as a sub-product obtained from anaerobic decomposition (without oxygen) of organic residue. One
of the key concerns of biogas plants with energy generation is the disposal of comparatively large
amounts of digestate in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner. In this article, the
economic performance of the given biogas plant has been analyzed based on net present value (NPV) and
energetic pay-back time (EPBT) concepts. The case study has produced an electricity yield of
2,223,951 kWh per year of feedstock digested. The hourly producible electricity energy has been
277.99 kWh. The producible heat energy has been 2,566,098 kWh per year and 320.76 kWh per day,
respectively. The produced solid fertilizer and liquid fertilizer, respectively, have been 2047 t/a and
26,055 t/a. The plant with dairy cows and stall is a good economic situation under 3.4 years pay-back
time, earning prots and showing a positive NPV of V27.74 million. The co-generation system has
reduced emissions by 7506 t CO2 per year.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Anaerobic digestion
Biogas plant
Methane yield
NPV
Co-generation
Greenhouse gas

1. Introduction
Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic
feedstock, the most common being animal waste and crop residues,
dedicated energy crops, domestic food waste, and Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW); the integrated process included feedstock supply
and pre-treatment and use of digestate. Biogas consists of 50e70%
methane (CH4), 25e45% carbon dioxide (CO2), 2e7% water (H2O) at
20e40
C, 2e5% nitrogen (N2), 0e2% oxygen (O2), and less than 1%
hydrogen (H2), 0e1% ammonia (NH3), and 0e6000 ppm hydrogen
sulphide (H2S) [1]. The biogas system developed from predominantly small on-farm plants, using liquid manure and crop residue
mixtures for feedstock.
Manure residues from livestock industries have long been
identied as a major source of environmental pollution. Energy
generated from manure, via anaerobic digestion, reduces atmospheric emissions of methane, and signicant economic value can
be obtained from manure as fertilizer if adequate crop production is
possible [2]. Livestock industries are seeking alternatives for
managing manure residues in an economically, feasible, and environmentally friendly manner. Several studies have shown that AD

* Tel.: 90 274 2652031/4129; fax: 90 274 2652066.

E-mail address: aakbulut1@gmail.com.
0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.017

of organic wastes has the potential to manage these problems in

a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable manner [3e6].
Interest has recently been growing in using the AD process of
organic waste of farm origin, such as manure, crop residues, and
organic residues from food and agro-industries, to generate
renewable energy [7]. Processing manure to biogas through AD
recovers the energy that contributes no net carbon to the atmosphere and reduces the risk from pathogens from land spreading, as
thermophilic or mesophilic AD with a sanitization step destroys all
or virtually all pathogens [8]. Besides biogas, AD produces digestate, which consists of a mixture of liquid and solid fractions.
Applying digestate to land is the most attractive option in terms of
environmental issues, because it allows nutrients to be recovered
and reduces the loss of organic matter (OM) suffered by soils under
agricultural exploitation [9]. A reliable and generally accepted
means of disposing of the comparatively large amounts of digestate
produced is of crucial importance for the economic and environmental viability of biogas plants [3].
Previous studies have documented that residual biogas
production [10e13] is likely to occur during digestate storage, as it
retains signicant undigested organic matter. As these authors
suggest, abandoning the potential that remains within the digestate may lead to two critical downsides d additional environmental pollution and lost plant revenue. Pollution results from
methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), the main components of

382

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

biogas, which are also greenhouse gases (GHG) that affect the
global environment and climate. Thus, gaseous loss abatement
during the digestate storage phase will likely make environmental
sustainability of anaerobic digestion even more attractive.
The nal objectives to be achieved are various: a decrease in air
and soil pollution, production of an excellent amendment, and an
increase in the amount of energy derived from renewable sources.
The AD of manure is a technique that has been applied for several
decades. The advantages of biogas plants are varied:
 Economically attractive investment
 Easily operated and safe installation
 Production of renewable electricity and heat resulting in
a reduction of CO2 emissions
 Reduction of methane emissions from manure storage
 Improvement of fertilizing qualities of manure.
Analyses of energy balance in the life-cycle of biogas systems
that have been reported to-date often lack bases for comparison,
due to varying accounting system and boundaries [14]. Many
studies on energy balance have focused on specic raw material
[15e20], specic biogas system [16,18,21,22], different waste
management strategies [23,24], and on specic utilization options
for biogas [25,26].
The aim of this study is to analyze the technical and economic
performance of AD of a given farm-scale biogas plant. Technical
analysis is carried out on the basis of quantity and description of the
substrates, gas yield, size of the components, electricity and heat
energy production, electricity and heat energy consumption of
biogas plant, and available energy. The economic performance of
the given system has been carried out on the basis of net present
value (NPV) and energetic pay-back time (EPBT) concepts. None of
the analyses reviewed have coupled the investment costs accounted for include land value, stall value, dairy cow value, and biogas
plant construction value and process chains (production, conversion and utilization) on energy balance of biogas systems. The farmscale biogas plant is located at the center Anatolia of Turkey. Largescale biogas plants typically produce more than 1.8 million m3 of
biogas per annum, with feedstock handling capacity of 20,000 t per
annum [27]. The plant is a relatively large plant with an installation

capacity of 29,930 t of input on an annual basis. The plant produces

electricity, heat, and digested solid and liquid fraction via the
separator unit.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Case-study description

, 180 km from
The case study was carried out in iekdag
Ankara. The farm-scale biogas plant was projected in 2008 and
inaugurated in May 2010 by 2200 dairy cow stables, with an
installation capacity of 29,200 t of input on an annual basis. The
installation, in addition to dairy cow manure, uses other codigestion materials, such as sheep dung. Stages of the biogas
production system are depicted in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 shows the study
boundary, encompassing feedstock resources and transport, biogas
plant operation, biogas-to-energy conversion technologies, and
digestate handling. Such plants are organized in farms and produce
approximately 125e250 m3/h (0.5e1 MW) of biogas from a wide
_ farm, livestock, and
range of feedstock. The Turkish company of Ilci
energy is credited with developing the rst biogas plant running

, Krsehir, with a capacity of
with animal manure at iekdag
500 kWhel.
Fresh manure derived from 2200 dairy cow stables was
collected by means of the scraper system. The dairy cows were
a constant during the experimental period. Dairy cow manure was
extracted from the dung pit and then discharged into the slurry
tank of the biogas plant (Fig. 2). Dairy cow stables, scraper systems,
and dung pits are shown in Fig. 2. Sheep dung was transported by
a tractor to the slurry tank of the biogas plant. The input materials
are mixed and pumped to the main digester and stay there for 33
days at 40
C.
The slurry tank, AD, produced gas recovery unit, separator unit,
solideliquid digested manure reservoirs, and lagoon are shown in
Fig. 3. The slurry tank was constructed with open-cellars storage
with a 12 m (D) and 6 m (H). Methane production in the slurry unit
will lower the biogas yield of the digester. In the case of an open
slurry unit, methane emissions are also undesirable for an animals
well-being. Therefore, it is best to transport the manure from the
slurry unit to the digester as soon as possible. This was done

Fig. 1. Stages of biogas production system.

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

383

Fig. 2. Layout view of the whole farm.

regularly in this study by means of a substrate pump. The total

slurry volume was about 680 m3. In the digester, the substrates are
heated, and fermentation process takes place. The two end products of this process are biogas and digested substrate. The fresh
substrate should be periodically stirred to realize an even

temperature in the digester and to improve the metabolism of the

bacteria. The AD plant has one identical 2713 m3 (diameter 24 m,
walls of height 6 m) double membrane and an upright digester
heated to 40
C by stainless steel heating pipes (60.3  2 mm and
pipe length 288 m) positioned on the chamber inner walls. The

-town.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the given biogas plant in iekdag

384

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

walls and bottom of the digester are insulated with extruded

polystyrene with a thickness of about 80 mm to reduce the loss of
heat. The oor and walls of the upright digester are made of reinforced concrete. The digester has the constructed air sealed. For the
purpose of integrated gas storage, the cover is made of a exible,
synthetic membrane roof. Biogas contains about 1% hydrogen
sulphide (H2S). This has a corrosive effect on metals and will,
therefore, damage the engine and the piping. It is, therefore,
important to remove the H2S. In this study, this has been done by
adding some air (4%) into the upper part of the digester, close to
where the biogas outlet to the biogas storage has been located.
Three stirring devices in the AD plant of the case study are screw
propellers. A screw propeller system consists of an electric motor
with a load capacity of 15 kW, which drives a screw propeller.
Within the digester, three stirring units have been operated at
20 min per hour. During the investigation period, the plants were
fed with dairy cow manure and sheep dung by-products. To
transport the substrate, by means of a pump, substrates piping with
a diameter of 160 and 200 mm have been used. At a longer distance,
a diameter of at least 150 mm is required. The main parameters of
the AD and digestate storage unit have been reported in Table 1.
Approximately 82 m3 of fresh mixed (93.9% dairy cow manure, 6.1%
sheep dung) was loaded daily into the slurry tank. The fresh feedstocks were loaded to the AD by means of the pumping unit of the
slurry tank running at 5 min per hour. The biogas from the AD,
produced by digesting dairy cow manure and sheep dung, was used
for combined heat and power (CHP) generation. All of the produced
biogas was burned in a CHP unit to generate electric power and
heat. The biogas plant was supported with an installed electric
capacity of 289 kWh producing the electrical energy equivalent to
8000 h load operating time per year. The produced electrical energy
in a CHP unit is fed into the public grid at a Turkish market price of
V0.1 kWh1. Thermal energy as a side product of the combustion
process is used to heat the AD plant in order to maintain the
anaerobic process. The market for heat is currently non-existent.
Besides biogas, the farm-scale biogas plant produces digestate,
which is separated into a solid and liquid fraction via the separator
unit. First, the digested solid and liquid fraction are fed to the
lagoon, which has a total volume of 300 m3 (height 3 m, length
10 m, and width 10 m) with installed mixing and pumping systems.
The digested solid fraction is stored in a static heap on an uncovered concrete platform. The liquid fraction is stored within
a 28,800 m3 pond (height 6 m, length 80 m, and width 60 m)
without a gas-tight covering system.
2.2. Quantity and description of the substrates
The main feedstock of the digester was raw dairy cow manure
and sheep dung, which had been mixed in a ratio of 93.9% and
6.01%, respectively, within a slurry tank and pumped to the digester

at 5 min per hour. The dairy and sheep manure were obtained from

, Turkey. This farm raises 2200 cows and 2500
a farm in iekdag
sheep that produce 77 t and 5 t of wet manure daily, respectively.
The digester was lled with a mixture of 77 t of fresh dairy cow
manure and 5 t of sheep dung in a dry matter (DM) ratio of 9.5% and
30%, respectively. The wet digestion process was deployed for
feedstock DM content of up to 10%, to allow for pumping and stirring. The DM content of 9.5% was achieved by adding 3 t of water
per 1 t for sheep dung. The initial organic dry matter content was
85% for dairy cow manure and 80% for sheep dung. The biogas yield
was observed as being 300 m3/t ODM for dairy cow manure and
450 m3/t ODM for sheep dung. The quantity and description of the
substrates are shown in Table 2.
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Size of the components
The main components are the digester, insulation, CHP unit,
mixers, pumps, and piping. On the basis of the main components of
the digester and their size, ones own estimate of the investment
costs for the installation should be made. As a rule of thumb, the
following formula can be used to calculate the required size or
volume of the digester:

VD mmanure mcs 

HRT
365

(1)

where VD, mmanure, and mcs are the digester volume (m3), manure
quantity (t/a), and co-substrate quantity (t/a), respectively. Design
of a biogas plant is directly linked to its hydraulic retention time
(HRT), which may be dened as time period during which mixture
of feedstock stays in digester to produce biogas [28]. The required
retention time for optimal biogas production depends on the
temperature. The mesophilic temperature range requires a retention time of 25e40 days.
For the biogas membrane, the size of the required membrane to
cover the digester is determined by the diameter of the upright
digester. The amount of gas stored under the double membrane is
relatively small. This can increase if the digester is not entirely lled, as well excess volume can be used for gas storage. The diameter
of the digester is, therefore, equal to

D2

4  VD
HP

(2)

where D, VD, and H, respectively, are dened as the diameter of the

digester, digester volume, and height of the digester. In practice, it
may be useful to choose a bigger digester in order to increase the
biogas storage capacity.
In many cases, it is practical or required to store the digestate. In
most manure cellars with semi-open oors, it is not practical to
separate the fresh manure from the digestate. In this case, external
storage for the digestate is required. This can be an existing storage

Table 1
The main parameters of the AD and digestate storage unit.
Table 2
The quantity and description of the substrates.

AD and digestate storage

Number of digester
Diameter (m)
Usable height (m)
Usable digester volume (m3)
Average retention time (d)
Needed digestates storage capacity time (months)
Total required storage capacity (m3)
Stored volume in digester (m3)
Needed solid digestates storage capacity (m3)
Needed liquid digestates storage capacity (m3)
Organic loaded rate (OLR) (kg ODM/m3 d)

1
24
6
2713
33
6
14501.05
2706
1056.5
13444.55
2.51

Quantity and description of the substrates

Manure
Total manure (t/a)
Input manure (t/d)
Dry matter DM (%)
Organic dry matter ODM (%)
Biogas yield (m3/t ODM)
Biogas (m3/d)
Methane concentration (%)
Organic loaded rate (OLR) (kg ODM/m3 d)

Dairy cow
28,105
77
9.5
85
300
2309.19
55
2.29

Sheep
1825
5
30
80
450
542.02
55
0.44

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

(such as a silo or a manure bag) or a new storage. The size of the

post-digestion storage can be calculated as follows:

Vpds mmanure mcs 


ts
 VD
12

(3)

where Vpds (m3) and ts (months), respectively, dene the postdigestion storage volume and required storage time.
The biogas storage is done either in an external gas bag or by
means of a membrane that covers the digester. In practice, a storage
capacity of 20e50% of the daily biogas production is sufcient for
use in a CHP unit. This might be even less if the CHP unit is
constantly operational.

Vbs

Vbiogas
 0:2
365

(4)

where Vbs (m3) and Vbiogas (m3/d), respectively, dene the biogas
storage volume and daily biogas production.
The insulation for the walls and bottom of the digester is
given by

Ainsulation H  D  P
2

Abottom;insulation D  0:785

For this reason, conversion in two energy forms will be given by

the equivalence; therefore, 1 m3 of biogas produces hourly
2.14 kWh of electricity, and 2.47 kWh of heat energy considering
the total energy value of biogas is 5.5 kWh/m3. The electricity
generation of the biogas produced from the given manure is
determined as follows:

Eel

where Ainsulation and Abottom,insulation are the area of the wall insulation and the area of the bottom insulation of the digester,
respectively.
The type and size of the manure pump depend on the amount of
slurry and its dry matter content and also on the height to which
the slurry has to be pumped.
The type and size of the mixer largely depend on the dry matter
content in the digester and also on the size of the digester. The
capacity of the mixer is in the range of between 2 and 25 kW.
2.3.2. Biogas yield
Biogas potential can be evaluated, considering the average
yields obtained from the anaerobic digestion process of organic
matter (OM), contained in the efuents, expressed as % of dry
matter. The total quantity of biogas produced on average from the
amount of manure is determined. The following formula can be
used to calculate the biogas yield:

Vbiogas mmanure  DMmanure  ODMmanure  BYmanure mcs

 DMcs  ODMcs BYcs
(7)
where Vbiogas and BYmanure, respectively, dene the biogas yield
(m3/a) and conversion index of the given manure (m3biogas/tODM).
Here, DMmanure and ODMmanure dene the dry matter and the
organic dry matter content, respectively, in % of the given manure.
Here, DMcs, ODMcs, and BYcs, respectively, dene the dry matter,
organic dry matter, and conversion index of the co-substrate.
Obviously, also calculating differently, that is, directly considering the whole content of organic matter in the volume of
manure, the biogas yield remains the same. As previously stated,
at this stage, the biogas obtained can be used to generate electricity and/or heat by means of the CHP unit. Biogas to CHP
represents the most common utilization in Germany. The generated electricity is fed into the public grid, whereas the heat may
be consumed via district heating networks, with typical transmission losses. A part of the generated heat is issued in the AD
process control, and for sterilization of feedstock, if required. In
this study, efciencies of the CHP unit are 39% for electricity and
45% for heat.

mmanure  DMmanure  ODMmanure  BYmanure  5:5  hel

t
(8)

where Eel (kWh/h), 5.5 (kWh/m3), and hel (39%) are the amount of
electricity energy from biogas, total energy value of biogas, and
electricity efciency value, respectively. Operating time parameter,
t (h/a) commonly ranges between 8000 and 8760. In this study, it
assumes the value of 8000 (h/a).
The heat generation of the biogas produced from the given
manure is calculated by the following equation:

Eth

(5)
(6)

385

mmanure  DMmanure  ODMmanure  BYmanure  5:5  hth

t
(9)

where Eth (kWh/h) and hth (45%) are the amount of thermal energy
from biogas and thermal efciency value, respectively.
The residual heat is the heat that still remains when the heat
demand of the digester is subtracted from the total heat production
of the CHP unit. The amount of the residual heat can be formulated
as follows:

Qr;h Eth  QD

(10)

where Qr,h (kW) and QD (kW) are the amount of residual heat
demand and the total heat losses through the digester, respectively.
2.3.3. Energy balance of the biogas reactor
The basic time-dependent energy balance equation concerning
the manure in the biogas reactor is given next. Assuming that the
manure in the biogas reactor is always well mixed and consequently at a uniform temperature that varies only with time, the
energy balance for the manure in the reactor can be written as

dTm
Q_ th  Q_ m  Q_ D
dt

rm $Vm $Cpm $

(11)

where rm is the density of the manure (kg m3), Vm is the volume of

the manure (m3), Cp is the specic heat of the manure
(kJ kg1
C1), Qth is the rate of thermal heat energy delivered from
the CHP unit to the reactor (kW), Qm is the rate of energy delivered
to the incoming manure (kW), and QD is the total heat losses
through the digester (kW).
A large part of the heat produced is used for maintaining the
temperature in the digester. Therefore, heat is required to warm up
the fresh substrate, and to compensate for energy losses through
transmission. The latter depends on the isolation of the digester
and the temperature outside the digester. The heat demand of the
digester can be calculated as follows:

Q_ D



2  p  H  kinsulation  TD  Tm;a
 kinsulation





ln
D=2 LD Linsulation = D=2 LD



TD  Tm;a

Linsulation
(12)

where TD, LD, Linsulation, and Tm,a, respectively, dene the digester
temperature (
C), digester wall thickness (m), insulation material
thickness (m), and minimum ambient temperature (
C).

386

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

Table 3
The calculation of the investment cost of the case study.

Digester
Slurry unit
CHP unit
Insulation
Lagoon for solid fertilizer with agitators
and pump
Liquid fertilizer pond including pump
Installation container
Heat distribution bar
Flow meter with digital display
Heat transfer pump
Compressor
Pneumatic compressor
Hand valve
Gas analysis
Air supported membrane
Wood structure
External membrane (weather protection)
Internal membrane (gas storage)
Low pressure air fan
Under and lower pressure
protection device
U-prole with press hose for
membrane xing
Wood beams
PVC substrate pipelines
Substrate pipeline
Substrate pipeline
Aggitation system (3 units)
Submersible agitators Flygt
PC and control cabinet
Monitor, Printer and telephone
Frequency converter
Air blower
Submerged pump and sensor
Pressure sensor
Switch for condensation pump
Temperature sensor
Climate control for cabinet
Fire safety
Separator unit
Condensate trap (SS-316 L)
Biogas blower
Biogas are unit
Other mechanic instruments for CHP
Project management
Total costs

Size

Unit

Cost (V)

2713
680
289
115
300

m3
m3
kW
m3
m3

119,200
29,900
165,000
23,000
13,200

28,800

m3

50,980
115,600

288

98,000

42,800
160
200

mm
mm

15

kW

19
22

inch
kW

1.50
1e4

kW
bar

kW

5.5

kW

115
100

m /h
m3/h

Q_ m mmanure  Cpm  TD  Tm

88,500
10,000

35,800
5500
7000
24,500
41,000
10,000
766,380

L_ p QD Qm =Q

2.3.4. Economic analysis

As for all investments, the economic feasibility is an important
factor in the nal go/no-go decision. In this section, the cost and
benets of a biogas plant system, including dairy cows and stall
prices, are discussed. The whole system includes various cost
components, which are investment costs, operation and maintenance costs, insurance and taxes, and intake and end use of the
whole system. The investment cost for a dairy cow stall was taken as
V80 per m2 of the stall. The investment costs for an anaerobic
digester will vary from case to case, depending on the specic needs
of the installation. As a result, it is difcult to specify investment costs
beforehand. For a clear understanding of what has been said thus far,
it is necessary to mention that the total investment costs for an
anaerobic digester can vary from V2500 to V7500 per kWh/h electricity generation [29]. Table 3 shows the calculation of the investment cost of the case study for the digestion of 28,105 t/a of dairy cow
manure plus 1825 t/a sheep dung. In this study, total investment
costs for an anaerobic digester were taken as 2700 V/kWh. Total
investment costs for a dairy cow were taken as V2500 per cow.
The various components of an anaerobic digester may be subject
to malfunctions, and in all cases, they will be subject to repair.
Therefore, maintenance is periodically required. The CHP unit is
serviced every 2000 and 20,000 operational hours and needs an
overhaul every 60,000 operational hours. The pumps need to be
overhauled every 3e5 years. Under normal circumstances, the
other components of the installation are not likely to wear out
before the end of the technical lifetime (10e20 years), but some
repairs may be necessary.
The investment costs for periodic maintenance were taken as
V2500 per 2000 operational hours, V42,000 per 60,000 operational hours for overhaul, and V21,000 per 20,000 operational
hours for periodical maintenance.
To analyze the protability of the system, net present value
(NPV) and internal rate of return concepts are used as valuation
criteria. The NPV is the sum of expected net cash ow measured in
todays currency and is given as follows [30]:

NPV I

N
X

CFt

t
t 0 1 r

Tw;a  TD
2

3
Dp
7
6
2
2
2
7



6
4Dp  2  Lp;w 5
D
Dp  2  Lp;w
p
2P 
 102  ho
 102  hi
2P 
P  kp
2
2

where Qp is the heat capacity of the heating pipe installed digester

per meter (W/m), Tw,a (
C) is the average temperature of water, Dp
(mm) is the diameter of the pipe, Lp,w (mm) is the wall thickness of
the pipe, kp (W/m K) is the heat transfer coefcient of the heating
pipe material, hi (W/m2 K) is the coefcient of internal convective

(15)

where Lp (m) is the total length of the heating.

(13)

The amount of heat per meter of the heating pipe can be

calculated as follows:

Qp

heat ow of the heating pipe, and ho (W/m2 K) is the coefcient of

external convective heat ow of the heating pipe.
The total heat pipe length for heating the digester for anaerobic
fermentation can be written as

CFt pt Oi  vt Xt  FC

(16)

(14)

(17)

where CF is the expected cash ow at time t, r is the discount factor,

and I is the initial capital investment cost. CF is a function of income
pt from i outputs (O), where output relates to electricity, heat, and

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

digestate; variable costs (Xt) include feedstock prices, operating and

maintenance costs, and disposal costs of digestate and water; and
FC is all xed costs, such as labor cost and interest expense. The
total investment cost is V10.262 million, which accounts for stall,
dairy cows, digester, CHP unit, separator, slurry, lagoon, and land. It
was assumed that the average life span of the plant is 20 years.
Economic analysis is based on a subsidy level of V0.1 kWh for 10
years. It was assumed that discount rate is 14%. Total labor cost,
transport cost for sheep dung, operating and maintenance cost,
animal feed cost, taxes, electricity consumptions cost, and heat
consumption cost, respectively, were taken as V11,520, V106,20,
V4000, V3,372,600, V150,960, V59,500, and V6626 per year.
Operating and maintenance costs include maintenance of digester,
CHP unit, pump and agitators, and separator. The CHP unit, pumps,
and agitators need an overhaul every 4 h. The overhaul cost was
taken as V42,000.
To compare the environmental performance of the case study,
greenhouse gas emissions cost was made. As a result of the
combustion, the 1 m3 biogas produces 1.87 kWh/h electricity,
which is equivalent to 1.96 kg CO2. The cost of greenhouse-gas
emission should be added to the plant cost from the view point
of global warming; thus, the cost of CO2 works out to approximately
V6.84/t CO2 for the combustion of biogas in the CHP generation unit
[31,32].
The energetic investment is embodied energy for the
construction of an anaerobic digestion treatment plant. The energetic investment can be related to the capital cost. According to the
cost of the AD plant, a plant with a capacity of 289 kW electricity
generations requires an energetic investment of V786,980. The
energetic pay-back time in year (EPBT) was used to evaluate the
energetic aspect and represents the number of years required to
pay-back the energetic investment according to the energy balance
of the process.

EPBT

EI
EG  EC

(18)

Here, EI is the energetic investment (V), EG is the gain from

energy production of the process, including electricity and heat
(V/a), and EC is the outgoings of energy production during the
process (V/a).
3. Results

387

Table 4
Technical results of the case study, showing biogas and energy yield, and
characteristics of biogas.
Biogas and energy yield
Output balance
Total gas yield per hour (m3/h)
Total gas yield per day (m3/d)
Total gas yield per year (m3/a)
Caloric value of biogas (kWh/m3)
Methane concentration (%)
Biogas density (kg/m3)
Produced biogas per year (t/a)
Produced digestates per year (t/a)
Estimated dry matter digestates (% DM)
Gross energy per year (kWh/a)
Gross energy per day (kWh/d)
Gross energy per hour (kWh/h)
(included fuel oil)

Average annual
operating hours

8000

129.60
2851.22
1,036,807
5.5
55
1.23
1,275,273
29002.17
7.06
5,795,959
263452.7
724.49

The CHP system is dimensioned to cover the basic load. This allows
running times of more than 5000 h per year to be reached. A case

, and the JMS 208 GS-N. L.
study has been conducted in iekdag
Jenbacher CHP unit has been installed and used for producing
electricity and heat. This CHP unit allows running times of more
than 8000 h per year. The power class of this generating unit is
generally in excess of 280 kW electrical power. The generation of
electricity from biogas takes place via the CHP generator, which
extracts mechanical energy from the thermal energy. In the case
study, the maximum attainable conversion efciency for electricity has been around 40%. The remaining energy with an efciency of 45% has continued to exist as heat. The case study has
produced an electricity yield of 2,223,951 kWh per year of the
feedstock digested. The producible electricity energy has been
277.99 kWh per hour. The producible heat energy has been
2,566,098 kWh per year and 320.76 kWh per day, respectively. The
heat requirements of the input material with the temperature of
8
C and the average heat energy consumption of the input
material with the temperature of 7.5
C, respectively, have been
126.94 kWh and 145.85 kWh per hour. The maximum heat
demand of the digester calculated by Eqs. (12) and (13) has been
157.20 kWh/h according to the minimum outside temperature
of 12
C. The average electricity energy consumption of the AD
plant has been 25.01 kWh per hour.

3.1. Technical results of the case study

Gas production quantity and total production of biogas are
a function of the feedstocks organic content and biodegradability.
Biogas productions, cumulative production, methane content, and
digestion were measured during the experiment in the case study.
The results are summarized in Table 4. The methane content in the
biogas produced in experiments ranged between 52% and 58%.
Table 4 presents technical results of the case study, showing biogas
and energy yield and characteristics of biogas. Table 4 depicts the
daily and yearly biogas production rates throughout the experimental period. The reactor started being fed with 77 t/d dairy cow
manure and 5 t/d sheep dung in May at an HRT of 33 days and
a mean OLR (organic load rate) of 2.29 and 0.44 kg ODM/m3d,
respectively, for dairy cow manure and sheep dung. The total biogas
yield per hour was 2851.6 m3, which represents 300 m3/t ODM and
450 m3/t ODM for dairy cow manure and sheep dung, respectively.
The co-digestion of cow manure and sheep dung resulted in
1275.27 t biogas/a of combined ODM waste. The AD process
produced 29,002 t digested fertilizer per year.
Table 5 shows the production and consumption of electricity
and heat energy results for the feedstock received by the AD plant.

Table 5
Production and consumptions of electricity and heat energy results for the
feedstock.
Production and consumption of electrical & heat energy
Average annual operating hours
Electrical efciency
Producible electrical energy per year
Producible electrical energy per hour
Thermal efciency
Producible heat energy per year
Producible heat energy per hour
Average electrical energy consumption per hour (kWh/h)
Digester temperature (
C)
Temperature of input material (
C)
Heat requirements of the input material (kWh/h)
Minimum outside temperature (
C)
Heat requirement digester per hour by 12
C (kW)
Annual average temperature (
C)
Average yearly heat energy consumptions of digester (kW)
Maximum heat energy consumption by 12
C (kWh/h)
Average heat energy consumption per hour (kWh/h)
Total heat energy consumption biogas plant per year (kWh/a)

8000
39
2,223,951
277.99
45
2,566,098
320.76
25.01
40
8
126.94
12
30.26
7.5
18.91
157.20
145.85
1,277,672

388

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

Table 6
Usable electricity and heat energy rates.
Available energy
Producible electrical energy per hour (kWh/h)
Electrical energy consumption biogas plant
per hour (kWh/h)
Usable electrical energy (kWh/h)
Usable electrical energy per year (kWh/a)
Producible heat energy per hour (kWh/h)
Heat requirements biogas plant (kWh/h)
Usable heat energy (kWh/h)
Usable heat energy per year (kWh/a)

277.99
25.01
252.98
2,023,871
320.76
145.85
174.90
1,399,274

In Table 6, usable electricity and heat energy rates are depicted.

The reactor started being fed in May 2010 at an HRT of 33 days and
a mean feedstock of 82 t/d. The usable electricity and heat energy
rate for this period, respectively, were 252.98 kWh and 174.90 kWh
per hour.
As a result of the heating of the substrate in the digester,
a large proportion of the pathogens and seeds have been killed.
The higher the process temperature, the higher is the degree of
reduction. The separator produced a solid fraction and a liquid
fraction. The amounts of these fractions were collected in the
lagoon unit and the pond. About 7.06% and 89.8% of the digested
manure mass were found in the solid fraction and liquid fraction, respectively. In this study, the farm-scale biogas plant
produced digestate, which is separated into a solid and liquid
fraction via the separator unit. The solid fertilizer and liquid
fertilizer produced, respectively, have been 2047 t/a and
26055 t/a.
3.2. Economic results of the case study
Further to the biogas quantity and digested fertilizer in the

, Krsehir, the economic analyses for the AD plant that
iekdag
used dairy cow manure and sheep dung as a substrate have been
investigated for the NPV analysis. Table 7 shows the gross revenues,

costs, prot before taxes, net present value, and internal rate return

. The economic
for the case study that was conducted in iekdag
results follow from the technical results. Higher NPV values
represent greater economic benets. The plant cost including the
price of dairy cows and stalls is a good economic situation under 3.4
years pay-back time, earning prots and showing a positive NPV of
V9.88 million.
According to Table 7, the total initial investment cost is
approximately V10.26 million, and the total revenue is close to
V6.79 million for the rst year. The total cash ow is V3.48 million
for the rst year. The selling prices of the electricity, solid and liquid
fertilizer, and milk have a signicant impact on its protability. The
prices of V0.1/kWh, V120/t, V32/t, and V0.28/kg milk, respectively,
were used for the calculation of electricity energy, solid fertilizer,
liquid fertilizer, and milk. The cost of short-distance transportation
within the boundary of the farm with the total amount of 1825 t/
a sheep dung is V10,620. However, the good price for this period
leads to a pay-back time on the whole system investment of 3.4
years.
If the electricity were produced from biogas, then the
reduction of GHG emission would be more important. In terms
of greenhouse gas production for the biogas systems, there are
two situations: CO2 production with the escape of biogas and
CO2 with the combustion of biogas equating, respectively, 9.2 kg
CO2/m3 biogas and 1.96 kg CO2/m3 biogas. In this case study, the
biogas generated has been combusted in the CHP unit and then,
it can be noted that the greenhouse gas production (CO2) per m3
of biogas production is equal to 2032 t per year. If the AD
process had not occurred, then the escape of biogas would have
produced 9538 tons CO2 per year. The reduction of GHG emission has been more important. The co-generation system has
reduced emissions by 7506 t CO2 per year.
An AD plant for its animal manure built and operated by Ilci

has
Agricultural, Livestock & Biogas Company in iekdag
a reasonable energetic pay-back time (EPBT) of 3.7 years, and
a higher reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with 7506 t CO2 by
controlling feedstock.

Table 7
Economic results of case study based on NPV model.
Years
Present

Investment
The cost of initial investment
10.262.10930 e
Transport cost for sheep dung
10,620,00
Dairy cow manure
000
Labor cost
138,240,00
Periodic maintenance and overhaul cost
4,000,00
Animal feed cost
337260000
Electricity consumption cost
59,500,00
Heat consumption cost
6626.28
150,960,00
Taxes (CO2)
Total
10.262.10930 3,742,546.28
Cash ow
Electricity revenue
21250000
Heat revenue
59636.52
Solid fertilizer revenue
18,000,00
Liquid fertilizer revenue
7680000
Milk revenue
642400000
Scrap revenue
0.00
Total
6790.936.52
Total cash ow
3048390.24
Cumulative cash ow
10262109.30 7.213.71906
Discount rate (14%)
1.00
0.877
Present value
10262109.30 2.674.02652
NPV
9.881.05701

12

16

20

e
10.620,00
000
138.24000
4.00000
3.372.60000
59.50000
6.62628
150.96000
3.742.54628

e
10.62000
000
138.24000
42.00000
3.372.60000
59.50000
6.62628
150.96000
3.780.54628

e
10.62000
0.00
138.24000
42.000,00
3.372.60000
59.50000
6.626,28
150.96000
3.780.54628

e
10.62000
0.00
138.24000
42.00000
3.372.60000
59.50000
6.626,28
150.96000
3.780.54628

e
10.62000
0.00
138.24000
42.00000
3.372.60000
59.50000
6.626,28
150.96000
3.780.54628

e
10.62000
0.00
138.24000
42.00000
3.372.60000
59.500,00
6.626,28
150.96000
3.780.54628

212.50000
59.63652
18.00000
76.80000
6.424.000,00
0.0
6.790.93652
3.048.39024
4.165.32882
0.769
2.345.63730

212.50000
59.63652
18.00000
76.80000
6.424.00000
0.00
6.790.93652
3.010.39024
1.893.45165
0.592
1.782.39269

212.50000
59.63652
18.00000
76.80000
6.424.00000
3.20000
6.794.13652
3.013.59024
14.052.21260
0.351
1.056.44135

212.50000
59.63652
18.00000
76.80000
6.424.00000
0.00
6.790.93652
3.010.39024
26.207.77355
0.208
624.83390

212.50000
59.636,52
18.000,00
76.80000
6.424.00000
3.20000
6.794.13652
3.013.59024
38.366.53450
0.123
370.34508

212.50000
59.636,52
18.000,00
76.80000
6.424.00000
39.95400
6.830.89052
3.050.34424
50.562.04945
0.073
221.94830

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

4. Discussion and conclusions

Nomenclature

This article aimed at analyzing the techno-economical analysis

of electricity generation from the AD of a given biogas plant at

, Krsehir. An integrated manure managea location in iekdag
ment process in the farm using anaerobic digestion was the focus
of this study. With HRT as 33 days, the performance of a 2713 m3
volume AD plant showed stable operations reaching the total
biogas yield per hour close to 2851.6 m3. Under these conditions,
the producible electricity energy and the producible heat energy,
respectively, have been 277.99 kWh and 320.76 kWh per day. If
the selling price of electricity follows the Turkish market cost of
V0.1/kWh, then the energetic pay-back time will be 3.7 years. The
residual heat can be used for heating AD or surrounding houses
during a signicant part of the year and for drying digested
manure. If the residual heat is not used, then the pay-back time
increases to 5.3 years. A lower energetic pay-back time could be
obtained with a lower disposal cost of digestate. The most
important issue to be considered in the use of co-substrate is to
obtain higher biogas quantity and lower transportation cost.
Energy balance was assessed to be negative for feedstock transportation distances in excess of 18 km, 70 km, 107 km, and 126 km
for cow manure, sheep dung, sugar beet, and energy maize,
respectively, which denes the operational limits for the respective feedstock transportation.
Economic analysis done in this study was based on the NPV
model. Higher NPV values represent greater economic benets. The
investment costs accounted for include land value, stall value, dairy
cow value, and biogas plant construction value, which, in the given
situation, are treated as industrial segment. The average price for an
industrial segment is more than the average price for agricultural
land. The lower price of land overestimates the economic performance relative to when the land is treated as an industrial segment.
Analysis based on the NPV model yields useful insights into the
performance of a biogas plant in a farm. This study can be further
extended to incorporate and address the uncertainties associated
with the methane yields produced, subsidies, and the price of
digestate.
As a conclusion, biogas technology could make a signicant
contribution toward the meeting the national targets for
renewable energy deployment in Turkey, but only 0.8% of the
total technical potential from municipal solid waste (21.3 MW) is
currently utilized. This suggests that existing technology and
policy drivers and accompanying incentives need to be
enhanced. In Turkey, biogas is mainly produced from municipal
solid waste (MSW) for electricity generation and feed into the
national grid. Biogas plant implementation to AD process
management and the biogas utilization process should be
improved in farm practices. Animal manure, energy crops, and
agricultural residue feedstock in the AD process in farm practices
provide environmentally safe digestate disposal. On the other
hand, the use of organic fertilizer allows for integrated waste
management with energy generation. Based on its economic
performance, the utilization of the biogas produced in a CHP unit
is more protable than the utilization of biogas in a combustion
unit that produces only heat.

A
a
BY
Cpm
CHP
D
DM
E
EI
EG
EC
EPBT
FC
ho

Acknowledgements
This project was funded by The Scientic and Technological
_
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK),
Project No: 3080301. The
author would also like to acknowledge the Scientic and Technological Research Council of Turkey for nancial support. The author
_ Farm, Energy and Biogas Incorporated Company for
also thanks Ilci
his help in the application.

H
HRT
I
K
L
_
m
ODM
Q
V

389

area (m2)
annual
biogas yield (m3/a)
specic heat of the manure (kJ/kg
C)
combined heat and power
diameter (m)
dry matter (%)
energy (kW)
energetic investment (V)
energy gain cost (V/a)
energy consumption cost (V/a)
energetic pay-back time (years)
all xed costs (V)
coefcient of external convective heat ow of heating
pipe (W/m2 K)
height (m)
hydraulic retention time
initial capital investment cost (V)
heat transfer coefcient (W/m2 K)
length (m)
mass ow rate (kg/s)
organic dry matter (%)
heat (kW)
volume (m3)

Greek symbols
hel
electrical efciency of the compressor
Subscripts
bs
biogas storage
cs
co-substrate
D
digester
el
electricity
m
manure
m,a
minimum ambient temperature
p
pipe
pds
post-digestion storage
p,w
wall thickness of pipe
r,h
residual heat
s
storage
w,a
average temperature of water
References
[1] Edelmann W. Biogas production and usage. In: Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H,
editors. Energy from biomass: basic principles, technologies and process.
Leipzig, Germany: Springer; 2001.
[2] Van Horn HH, Wilkie AC, Powers RA. Components of dairy waste management
systems. J Dairy Sci 1994;77:2008e30.
[3] Borjesson P, Berguld M. Environmental systems analysis of biogas systems e
part I: fuel-cycle emissions. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:469e85.
[4] Murphy JD, Power N. Technical and Economic analysis of biogas production in
Ireland utilizing three different crop rotations. Appl Energy 2008;10:3e15.
[5] Amon T, Amon B, Kryvoruchko V, Machmuller A, Hopfner-sixt K, Bodiroza V,
et al. Methane production through anaerobic digestion of various energy
crops grown in sustainable crop rotations. Bioresour Technol 2007;98:
3204e12.
[6] Weiland P. Biomass digestion in agriculture: a successful pathway for the
energy production and waste treatment in Germany. Eng Life Sci 2006;6:
302e9.
[7] Weiland P, Hassan E. Production of biogas from forage beets, In: Proceedings
of the Ninth World Congress, anaerobic conversion for sustainability, Antwerpen, Belgium, 2001; p. 631e3.
[8] Martin JH. Report submitted to US Environmental Protection Agency; 2003.
EPA Contract No. 68.
[9] Gomez X, Cuetos MJ, Garcia AI, Moran A. Evaluation of digestate stability from
anaerobic process by thermogravimetric analysis. Thermochim Acta 2005;
426:179e84.

390

A. Akbulut / Energy 44 (2012) 381e390

[10] Hansen TL, Sommer SG, Gabriel S, Christensen TH. Methane production during
storage of anaerobically digested municipal organic waste. J Environ Qual
2006;35:830e6.
[11] Lindorfer H, Corcoba A, Vasilieva V, Braun R, Kirchmayr R. Doubling the
organic loading rate in the co-digestion of energy crops and manure e a full
scale case study. Bioresour. Technol 2008;99:1148e56.
[12] Resch C, Braun R, Kirchmayr R. The inuence of energy crop substrates on the
mass-ow analysis and the residual methane potential at a rural anaerobic
digestion plant. Water Sci Technol 2008;57:73e81.
[13] Menardo S, Gioelli F, Balsari P. The methane yield of digestate: effect of
organic loading rate, hydraulic retention time, and plant feeding. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102:2348e51.
[14] Berglund M, Brjesson P. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle
of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy 2006;30:254e66.
[15] Grtner S, Mnch J, Reinhardt G, Vogt R. Eco-balances. Cooperative project
funded by BMU, Optimization for a sustainable expansion of biogas production and utilization in Germany. Berlin (Germany): Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation (BMU); 2008.
[16] Bohn I, Bjrnsson L, Mattiasson B. The energy balance in farm scale anaerobic
digestion of crop residues at 11e37
C. Process Biochem 2007;42:57e64.
[17] Gerin PA, Vliegen F, Jossart JM. Energy and CO2 balance of maize and grass as
energy crops for anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:2620e7.
[18] Lbken M, Wichern M, Schlattmann M, Gronauer A, Horn H. Modelling the
energy balance of an anaerobic digester fed with cattle manure and renewable energy crops. Water Res 2007;41:4085e96.
[19] Heller MC, Keoleian GA, Mann MK, Volk TA. Life cycle energy and environmental benets of generating electricity from willow biomass. Renew Energy
2004;29:1023e42.
[20] Lopez-Ridaura S, Werf HVD, Paillat JM, Le Bris B. Environmental evaluation of
transfer and treatment of excess pig slurry by life cycle assessment. J Environ
Manage 2009;90:1296e304.

[21] Hartmann JK. Life-cycle-assessment of industrial scale biogas plants. Department for Agricultural Science, Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen, Germany,
PhD; 2006. p. 205.
[22] Ishikawa S, Hoshiba S, Hinata T, Hishinuma T, Morita S. Evaluation of
a biogas plant from life cycle assessment (LCA). Int Congr Ser 2006;1293:
230e3.
[23] Cherubini F, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste
management strategies: landlling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy
2009;34:2116e23.
[24] Giovanni Z, Cocca P, Rossi D. Performance analysis of energy recovery in an
Italian municipal solid waste landll. Energy 2010;35:5063e9.
[25] Brrjesson P. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation.
Biomass and Bioenergy 1996;11:305e18.
[26] Brrjesson P, Mattiasson B. Biogas as a resource-efcient vehicle fuel. Trends
Biotechnol 2008;26:7e13.
[27] Pschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Evaluation of energy efciency of various biogas
production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 2010;87:3305e21.
[28] Singh KJ, Singh S. Comparative study of economics of different models of
family size of biogas plants for state of Punjab, India. Energy Convers Manage
2004;45:1329e41.
[29] German Solar Energy Society and Ecofys. Planning and Installing Bioenergy
System: a guide for installers, architect and engineers. 1st ed. UK: James &
James; 2005.
[30] Gebrezgabher SA, Meuwissen MPM, Prins BAM, Oude Lansink AGJM.
Economic analysis of anaerobic digestion e a case of green power biogas plant
in The Netherlands. Wageningen J Sci 2010;57:109e15.
[31] Morin P, Marcos B, Moresoli C, Laamme CB. Economic and environmental
assessment of the energetic valorization of organic material for a municipality
in Quebec, Canada. Appl Energy 2010;87:275e83.
[32] Arslan O. Technoeconomic analysis of electricity generation from wind energy
in Kutahya, Turkey. Energy 2010;35:120e31.