Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
www.elsevier.com/locate/renene
Evaluating livestock manures for biogas production:
a GIS based method
F.A. Batzias*, D.K. Sidiras, E.K. Spyrou
Department of Industrial Management and Technology, University of Piraeus,
80 Karaoli and Dimitriou, GR 18534 Piraeus, Greece
Received 1 October 2003; accepted 23 September 2004
Available online 19 November 2004
Abstract
The Animals (data)Base for Energy Potential Estimation (ABEPE), presented in this paper, is a
GIS based biomass resource assessment application using a relational database management system
to estimate biogas production from livestock manures. Energy and biogas potential of livestock
residues of all major groups of stock-raising animals (cattle, pigs, sheep/goats, poultry, etc.) were
evaluated. The calculations were based on geographical and time-depending data of Greece. Typical
input data included population of animal groupings, by-product factors, availability factors, energy
factors, etc. for the period 1970–1998. Output included manure production, available energy and
biogas quantities. Furthermore, ‘ABEPE’ can perform time-depending prediction of all types of
output, based on past and present trends. As a case example, the prediction results for the year 2010
are herein presented. The possibility of biogas upgrading in order to be distributed through the
national natural gas network is also discussed.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Anaerobic digestion; Biogas; GIS; Livestock manures; Natural gas
1. Introduction
The conversion of animal waste to biogas through anaerobic digestion (AD) processes
can provide added value to farm livestock manure as an energy resource, while the
operation of the corresponding agro-industrial AD-units will significantly contribute to
regional development. As a matter of fact, when used in a fully engineered system,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C30 104 142369; fax: C30 104 142366.
E-mail address: [email protected] (F.A. Batzias).
0960-1481/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2004.10.001
1162 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
AD-technology not only prevents pollution, but also allows for sustainable energy
production, as well as for compost and nutrient recovery. Nowadays, decentralized farm-
based manure facilities represent probably the most common AD-technology in low-
income agricultural countries; e.g. six to eight million family sized low-technology
digesters are used in China and India to provide biogas for cooking and lighting [1].
Moreover, in several African countries biogas-producing units are dispersed in most of the
regions, where animal dung is one of the main substrate sources; these units range from
small/medium digesters with a gas production capacity less than 100 m3/day to larger
digesters with a gas production capacity up to 500 m3/day [2].
Centralised energy schemes of AD are under detailed investigation by industries and
governments in many high-income industrial countries. In fact, there are now over 800
farm-based digesters operating in Europe and North America [1]. In addition, energy
production using AD-technology has been extensively studied in Denmark, where many
centralized animal waste digesters are in place. The supply to the plants ranges from
approximately 50–500 tons/day of manure mixed with 10–30% organic waste mainly
from industries. The resulting daily gas production from each plant is usually in the range
of 1000–15,000 m3 [3]. The installation operation of biogas plants using mixed organic
raw materials (see Fig. 1) is an attractive/promising investment when evaluated with
socio-economic criteria as shown by several cases in Sweden, Holland and Germany.
However, the requirements for using AD as a conversion process for energy production
differ significantly among European countries; this is due to dissimilarities in (a) the
organisation of the agriculture, (b) the energy distribution systems (gas, electricity or
heat), and (c) the environmental and energy policies [4,5].
The AD biogas-production technology for animal manure and agro-industrial waste
treatment is not currently widespread in Greece. Some applications for biogas production
were carried out in the 1980s but finally fell into disuse, owing mainly to the lack of (a)
sensitisation of stakeholders, (b) know-how, (c) proper infrastructure, (d) state interest,
and (e) financial incentives. Some additional drawbacks were the increased investment
cost, the rural area morphology and the required efficient cooperation of the local agro-
industrial units in providing part of the raw materials. Nevertheless, the European Union
targets for renewable energy sources (RES) and the changes in national socio-economic
conditions (public awareness for environmental protection, the change of regulations in
the energy market, etc.) are expected to eliminate the above-mentioned negative
aspects [6,7].
The objective of the work presented herein was to develop a Geographical Information
System (GIS) based livestock manure assessment tool, ‘ABEPE’, using a relational
database management system. ABEPE emerged from the experience gained by the
development of ‘BIOBASE’, a spreadsheet-using application [8], and ‘BIOBASE IC’, an
Excel biomass resource management tool, incorporating ‘MapInfo’ as a GIS [9]. Energy
and biogas potential of livestock residues of all major groups of stock-raising animals were
estimated. The calculations were based on nationwide livestock data according to the
yearly editions of the National Statistical Service of Greece—NSSG [10] concerning
animal capital and production for the period 1970–2000. Furthermore, available energy
and biogas quantities were predicted for the year 2010 by means of a simple forecasting
model.
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1163
Fig. 1. A simplified diagram for biogas production from manure and related animal waste mixed with
lignocellulosics coming from crop residues: (a) the overall production schedule, and (b) certain details from the
process of anaerobic digestion, which is the ‘heart’ of the system.
2. Methodology
The main goal of this project was to develop a fully parametric tool for estimating the
regional distribution of biogas potential based on livestock residues. This tool should be
capable of calculating the biogas quantities separately: per animal grouping (cattle, pigs,
sheep/goats, poultry, etc.), region and year; thus, comprehensive analysis can be
performed on the results. Since the biogas produced can be used as a RES supplement, the
energy potential should also be calculated. Another goal of the project was to make
predictions about the potential of manure, dry solids and biogas quantities (e.g. for year
2010). By accomplishing the above, ABEPE can be used as a decision-making tool
helping the local authorities to make more justified decisions regarding the type, number,
location and capacity of biogas producing agro-industrial units.
1164 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
Fig. 2. Flow diagram describing the operation steps of ‘ABEPE’ its contribution to decision making in optimal
RES investment at local level.
The workflow diagram, which best describes the operation steps of ABEPE, is
presented in Fig. 2. The computation-cells encapsulate the model choosing procedure, the
goodness of fit-tests and the final forecasting procedure. The biogas production is assumed
proportional to the volatile solids (the organic matter) content of the feedstock, although a
good approximation is to consider proportionality to the dry solids content [11].
The amount DSyra in tonnes of dry solids produced by animal grouping a in region r for
the year y is calculated by the following formula:
DSyra Z Pyra BFyra (1)
where Pyra, in heads counted in region r for the year y, is the population of animal grouping
a and BFyra is the dry solids byproduct factor of animal a in region r for the year y in terms
of tonnes per heads.
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1165
The estimated biogas potential from available manure Byra from animal a in region r for
the year y is given by the following expression (in terms of m3)
Byra Z DSyra BYFyra AFyra (2)
where BYFyra is the biogas yield factor of animal grouping a in region r for the year y (in
terms of m3/dry ton) and AFyra is the availability factor (0!AFyra!1) of animal grouping
a in region r for the year y.
The total amount of dry solids DSyr in tonnes estimated in region r for the year y is
given by:
X
DSyr Z DSyra (3)
a
The estimated available biogas quantity Byr (m3) in region r for the year y is obtained by
the following summation:
X
Byr Z Byra (4)
a
The spatial density Dyr of biogas potential in region r for the year y is estimated by the
following formula (in terms of m3/km2)
Byr
Dyr Z (5)
Ar
where Ar is the area of region r in km2.
The total amount of dry solids DSy in tonnes produced in Greece for the year y is given
by the following formula:
X
DSy Z DSyr (6)
r
The estimated available biogas quantity By (m3) in national level for the year y is
obtained by:
X
By Z Byr (7)
r
Therefore, the energy potential Ey (TJ) derived from biogas for the year y is given as
follows
Ey Z 21:6 !10K6 By (8)
3
where 21.6 is a typical mean calorific value estimate for biogas in MJ/m [12].
The statistical data input and the intermediate/final results output, referring to present
and future estimations, are stored into a Relational Database Management System
(RDBMS). The RDBMS model provides a user friendly and efficient tool to handle large
quantities of data, and compatibility for hosting GIS ready data. In addition to the
interoperability, the RDBMS wisely utilises the powerful programming language
(Structured Query Language: SQL) as well as the unrivalled performance and scalability
of the GIS. Moreover, since SQL is an ANSI standard, widely accepted by the computer
1166 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
industry, a large amount of other commercial software can cooperate with SQL
applications and increase/expand functionality. Since there are natural language
interpreters translating voice or keyboard entered commands into SQL statements (e.g.
Microsoft English Query), the potential ABEPE user can submit queries in a natural
language.
The broad availability of MS Access and its friendly interface with the GIS used
renders this RDB the most suitable development environment. Not to mention that such an
implementation of ABEPE could be easily upsized to a multiprocessor system running
SQL Server RDBMS because of the transparent migration of an Access application to
SQL Server.
The GIS software used was ArcView version 8.2; in this software version, ArcView can
extract data from an RDBMS through an OLE DB provider interface. In the present work,
the OLE DB Provider for Jet Database 4.0 was used. Many thematic maps can be created
on the distribution of biogas or bioenergy for a specific year or its predicted values for the
year 2010. In addition, (a) the geographical density of biogas, (b) the productivity and (c)
the distribution of livestock manures per region and animal grouping for a specific year as
well as the predictions for the year 2010 can be illustrated.
An SQL Select query was created as an ADD-ON software device to combine the by-
product factors with the actual statistical data and calculate the dry solids potential for all
livestock manures, per year, region and animal grouping. Having computed the dry solids
potential, another SQL Select query was formed combining the previous query with the
biogas yields factors and the availability factor table; the result was the biogas potential per
year, region and animal grouping. In fact, the use of a RDBMS has been proven effective,
since the formation of complex queries comes easily through the exploitation of SQL.
Finally, a customised forecasting routine was built to predict livestock manure
production for a given year in the future. Four models have been initially incorporated
within the routine: linear, parabolic, exponential, logistic; the linear model runs by default
but the user can choose any of the other models by means of a menu. Automatic best-fit
model selection is possible on the basis of the minimal standard error of estimate. All
parameters are estimated through least squares regression; the exponential and the logistic
model are used in their linearized version to obtain first estimates for the parameters and
then non-linear regression of the original model is performed through three methods to
avoid convergence of the objective function to local minima. The sets of data used by
default refer to each animal grouping in every administrative region but the user can obtain
more detailed estimates based on community level, a valuable option when selecting
proper sites to build a manure treatment facility. The forecasted total biogas potential B^ y
for any year y is given by the corresponding summation:
XX
B^ y Z B^ yra (9)
r a
Similarly, summations can be obtained for any geographical territory defined on the
GIS, independently of the totally or partially involved administrative regions, provided
that adequate data on community level exists. This is especially useful for spatial
policymaking, concerning agriculture/livestock development and RES exploitation.
For this purpose, the marginal cost of the energy that can be produced by a central unit
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1167
in an administrative region (input to corresponding step in the flow diagram of Fig. 2) is
compared with the marginal cost of the energy that can be produced by an other RES
giving the best alternative (known as ‘second best’ in Welfare Economics). The latter
datum is obtained by similar dataBases built or under construction to deal with the rest
RES as well as with conventional energy sources (see the last paragraph in Section 4).
3. Results
The study presented herein was conducted for the years 1970–2000. Stock-raising
animals can be classified in six main groupings: cattle, pigs, sheep/goats, birds, horses and
rabbits. The statistical data were collected by authorized sources, i.e. the annual NSSG’s
editions of the nationwide livestock data [10], and entered the database. They were stored
in a table hosting the population (in heads) per year, region and animal grouping. A
thorough check of the overall data was performed prior to any analysis phase.
The factors used in the computations were extracted by literature [12–18] and, after a
comprehensive cross-reference and adaptation to the local conditions, were stored in a
separate domain of the database (see Table 1), together with their derivation procedures.
Consequently, any modifications of the numerical data or the derivation procedures can be
easily made in a way that guarantees consistency over the whole time series record. The
by-product factors [13,14,17] regarding total manure and dry solids production (in tonnes
of residue per number of animal heads), as well as the biogas yield factors [12,17,18]
(in m3 per tonnes of by-product on dry basis), for each animal grouping, were adjusted to
the local livestock manure production conditions.
Moreover, the availability factors [15,16] (in tonnes of not used by-product per tonnes
of by-product) were estimated according to the local production conditions for each
animal grouping. Due to the alternative uses of livestock manures, biomass availability for
biogas production may vary significantly among regions, animal groupings and years.
Availability should not be an insuperable problem in those cases where waste biomass
feedstock applications can compete with alternative uses. However, the confinement of the
animals and collectability of the wastes are important factors. Therefore, a careful
Table 1
Selected values for various factors used as input data in calculation process of ABEPE forecasting model
Animal By-product factors
grouping Total manure Dry solids Availability Biogas yield fac- Energy factor
(t/head year) (t/head year) factor tor (m3/dry t) (MJ/m3)
Cattle 10.8 1.54 0.45 281 21.6
Pigs 1.89 0.216 0.80 649
Sheep/Goats 0.64 0.222 0.35 120
Poultry 0.034 0.01 0.70 359
Horses 8.82 2.6 0.10 160
Rabbits 0.056 0.029 0.05 359
1168 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
Table 2
Estimated biogas and energy potential from livestock manure generated in Greece for the year 2010
Animal grouping Total manure Dry solids Biogas production Energy potential
(kt) (kt) (106 m3) (TJ)
Cattle 3521 501 63.4 1369
Pigs 2456 281 145.8 3149
Sheep and Goats 9710 3368 141.5 3056
Poultry 965 284 71.3 1540
Horses 148 44 0.7 15
Rabbits 94 49 0.9 19
Total 16,894 4527 423.6 9148
assessment of availabilities is necessary to develop strategies for the commercial
development of livestock manure as waste biomass feedstock.
The estimated biogas production (in million m3) and energy potential (in TJ) as
forecasted through ABEPE for the year 2010 are presented in Table 2. The two largest
biogas producers are the animal groupings of pigs (34.4%) and sheep/goats (33.4%)
preceding those of poultry (16.8%) and cattle (15%), while the biogas quantities from
rabbits and horses are negligible. As a result, the total available biogas potential of all
animal excreta is about 0.42 billion m3, an amount approximately equal to 20% of the
natural gas (NG) sales in Greece for the year 2001 considered on volume basis [19].
In Fig. 3, a sample screenshot of the developed ABEPE is shown. In the second window
(upper right), the FID_code interconnects numerical data and corresponding regions in the
map through the GIS, the area of each community (represented by its name and code-
number) is expressed in 104 km2, and the code number in the last column refers to the
administrative region where the community belongs. By marking (through the keyboard or
Fig. 3. Sample screenshot of the developed ‘ABEPE’ with three windows: density biogas Dy map on community
basis, list of communities included with part of data from Access, and time series/forecasted path from biogas, all
referring to the geographical department of Thessaly.
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1169
the cursor), a number of neighbouring communities that constitute a homogeneous
territory (in terms of favourable conditions for livestock development/growth),
estimations and future trends for manure potential can be obtained. As these estimates
represent potential supply of raw material, the biogas production capacity of an agro-
industrial unit, which can be installed in this area, can be determined. As the scale
economies of such agro-industrial units are known, both, mean and marginal cost of biogas
production can be calculated to be used as input for performing the last two steps depicted
in the flow diagram of Fig. 2.
In Fig. 4, the forecasted path of total biogas potential in Greece (in 106 m3/year) is
presented. The layers within the diagram correspond to the evolution of the most
substantial animal groupings during the years 1970–2000 as well as to the corresponding
ABEPE predictions for the next 10 years. The animal grouping of cattle seems to be
responsible for the declining trend, which is mainly due to the significant reduction of the
corresponding stockbreeding population. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, with the
exception of cattle, the biogas potential appears to be increasing.
In addition, the density of estimated biogas production for each region (in m3/km2) and
its trend was defined. Analytical predictions about biogas potential of all Greek
administrative regions for the year 2010 are quoted in Table 3. Epirus has the greatest
potential with a biogas production density estimated to be approximately 6000 m3/km2
while Central Greece and Crete’s potential were up to 4000 m3/km2.
Greece is divided into 52 administrative regions, which constitute nine geographical
departments. These regions include more than 1100 municipalities resulted from the
merging of more than 6000 municipal departments according to the ‘KAPODISTRIAS’
project, 1999. The predicted total biogas production density for the year 2010, as provided
by the GIS software for the above-mentioned regions, is illustrated in Fig. 5. In fact, the
regions that produced the greatest quantity of biogas can be spotlighted. The ABEPE
application is capable of estimating the biogas potential for each of the above-mentioned
municipal departments. In order to be more explanatory, the GIS map is focused on the
geographical department of Thessaly (see Fig. 6). This department caters for a substantial
part of Greek livestock manure production, for which the biogas potential was predicted
Fig. 4. Forecasted path of biogas potential from the available livestock manures in Greece.
1170 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
Table 3
Biogas potential from livestock manures for the nine geographical department of Greece as predicted through
ABEPE for the year 2010
Geographical Number of Forecasted bio- Area (km2) Biogas pro- Share of biogas
Department administrative gas potential duction density production (%)
regions (106 m3) (1000 m3/km2)
Central Greece 8 98.8 24,702 4.0 23.3
Peloponnissos 7 44.4 21,381 2.1 10.5
Ionian Islands 4 4.7 2290 2.1 1.1
Epirus 4 52.7 9180 5.7 12.4
Thessaly 4 46.7 13,988 3.3 11.0
Macedonia 13 90.4 34,022 2.7 21.3
Thrace 3 20.8 8502 2.5 4.9
Aegean Islands 5 31.2 9079 3.4 7.4
Crete 4 33.9 8330 4.1 8.0
Greece 52 423.6 131,474 3.2 100.0
through the ABEPE application for the year 2010. This potential was equal to
approximately 46.7 million m3, contributing in the overall Greek biogas potential by 11%.
4. Discussion
Considering biogas end-use application as the enrichment of the NG grid, several
upgrading practices of stationary biogas have been developed in order to reach the
requirements of pipeline quality. Although for both gases the main component is methane
Fig. 5. Year 2010 predicted total biogas potential density for the 52 Greek administrative regions.
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1171
Fig. 6. Year 2010 predicted total biogas potential density for the municipalities of the geographical department of
Thessaly.
(CH4), biogas content of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is
significantly high. From a technical point of view, the most important difference is that
the Wobbe index for NG is approximately twice the value of that of biogas [20]. However,
gases with a similar Wobbe index can substitute each other while the injection of biogas
into the gas grid is limited by the difference in this index. Moreover, the adjustment of the
Wobbe index by removing the CO2 can upgrade biogas close to NG quality. What is more,
hydrogen sulphide has to be removed, as it causes corrosion (in compressors, gas storage
tanks, engines, etc.) and pollution from sulphur oxides generated by the H2S combustion.
The most common technologies used for biogas upgrading (CO2 removal) and
purification (H2S removal) are the following:
† the Water Scrubbing method using the higher solubility of CO2 and H2S in water to
separate the methane. The pressurized biogas is fed to the bottom of a packed column,
while water is fed on the top (the physical absorption process is counter-current).
Regeneration or large water volumes are required. Alternatively, a caustic solution (e.g.
NaOH) or an organic solvent (e.g. dimethylether of polyethylene glycol) can be used
[1,21,22].
† the Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) method using the differential adsorption
characteristics of CH4 and CO2 on activated carbon to separate the two gases. This
is carried out at high pressure and the methane is released by reducing the pressure.
1172 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
When the pressure is further reduced, the other compounds extracted from biogas are
desorbed as well [22–24].
† the Membranes method including two alternative techniques: high-pressure gas
separation and gas-liquid adsorption. The high-pressure gas membranes selectively
separate H2S or CO2. The separation is performed in three stages progressively
achieving up to 96% purity. The gas–liquid adsorption is a new development for biogas
and uses microporous hydrophobic membranes that allow the interface between the gas
and liquids. The H2S and CO2 can dissolve in the liquid solvent whilst the less soluble
methane remains in the gas and is collected for use [21].
Biogas is usually fully saturated with water vapour, a part of which may be condensed
and generate water-particles. However, this is an undesirable prospect, due to the
formation of hydrates, substances that may sink down and cause obstructions. Therefore,
biogas goes through the ‘drying’ process before distributed through the NG network. This
involves cooling the gas, e.g. by routing it through an underground pipe, in order to
condense the excess water vapour. When the gas warms up again, its relative vapour
content decreases [12].
After the upgrading process, biogas can be managed and used at the same way as NG.
Pilot-scale plants of biogas upgrading for NG pipeline enrichment are installed in several
EU countries such as Denmark and Sweden, while large-scale industrial plants have been
established in Holland and Switzerland [25]. In addition, similar biogas-upgrading
industrial plants have been also installed in the USA [1].
The NG participation in the Greek energy balance has been insignificant since the late
1990s. The state-owned Public Gas Corporation (PGC) was established in 1988, as a
subsidiary of the Public Petroleum Corporation in order to manage two gas supply
contracts signed with Russia (natural gas) and Algeria (liquefied natural gas: LNG) and to
construct/operate a distribution network. After the planning and construction of the central
pipeline, the commercial/industrial use of the high-pressure national NG transport system
was launched in 1996. Nevertheless, considerable delay is observed in the constructio-
n/operation of the medium/low pressure local networks, which will distribute NG to
households. Macroeconomic impacts of NG introduction in Greece have been evaluated
concluding that this innovation will constitute an important structural development
providing a substantial boost to the economy as a whole [26].
By now, the major part of NG quantities is consumed in electricity power stations of
Greece, which belong to the Public Power Corporation (PPC). There is a 25-year contract
signed between PGC and PPC for NG supply of 1.3 billion m3 per year. It is anticipated
that the NG supply will increase by 300–400 million m3 after the operation of the new
power station in Komotini (Thrace) [27]. The remaining NG supply is mainly directed to
the industrial sector. Further increase of NG use is supposed to take place due to the urban
sector applications. Less than 20% of the planned low-pressure network has been
constructed. The growth rate is expected to rise due to (a) the year 2000 sale of 49% shares
of PGC and (b) the 30-year management concession to three gas supply companies which
are Italgas for Thessalonica and Thessaly, and Cinergy of the US and Shell International
for Attica. Moreover, the Ministry of Development has announced its intention to establish
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1173
Fig. 7. The natural gas central pipeline of Greece; the biogas availability (in m3/cap) is also shown in the
administrative regions where the pipeline passes through.
three more gas supply companies. The national transportation system of NG with high-
pressure branches is illustrated in Fig. 7.
The total consumption of NG in Greece for the year 2001 was approximately
2.1 billion m3. The long-run predictions for the year 2020 are assumed to be 7.3
billion m3 [27]. The increased use of NG will result in the decrease of average CO2
emissions, thus contributing to fulfilling the environmental commitments of the
country [28]. Therefore, the government has signed a NG agreement with the Iranian
National Oil Company in order to increase NG imports. Furthermore, the
transportation of NG quantities from Iran to Greece will be achieved by an extension
to the existing NG pipeline currently running from Iran’s Tabriz to the capital of
Turkey, Ankara. In order to cover rising energy demand in view of the Athens
Olympic Games, this project has been designed to finish by August 2004.
An additional practice to meet the future needs could be the injection of upgraded
biogas from livestock manures into the NG network. Biogas is actually a local RES but it
can also be considered as a supplement to NG, especially in the case that the distribution
network operates under very low pressure due to excessive demand at certain localities,
although the difference in gas quality between biogas and NG is a significant problem,
leading to costly upgrading technologies. Research on new low-cost upgrading methods is
ongoing, aiming to increase the combined biogas and NG use [20]. Under the present
1174 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
circumstances and for the near future, biogas can be used by certain consumers who
otherwise would spend NG in case they are installed in districts with NG distribution
network. These districts are mainly the administrative regions where the central pipeline
passes through. Consequently, biogas can act partially as a substitute to NG in these
regions, contributing to decrease of expected NG demand by both sectors, industrial and
domestic. In Fig. 7, the biogas availability (expressed in m3/cap) in these regions is shown.
Similar to ABEPE, relational databases are under construction by members of our
Research Group on Systems Analysis, concerning (in the place of Animals) the rest
agricultural Byproducts, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro energy, Lignite-fields, rest
Coal-fields, Oil-fields, NG availability (named BBEPE, SBEPE, WBEPE, GBEPE,
HBEPE, LBEPE, CBEPE, OBEPE, NBEPE, respectively). In these bases, the availability
of each source at local level is used for determining the site and the potential capacity of an
industrial unit installed for energy production/transformation in certain administrative
regions. Depending on scale economies, the production/transformation cost can be
derived; the minimum of these costs determines the ‘second best’ alternative used for
decision making on optimal choice of energy investment (see Chapter on Methodology).
5. Conclusions
ABEPE is a flexible, open structured, GIS-based calculating tool, with a relational
database, presently covering all the stock-raising animal groupings and their waste
potential of the last three decades in Greece. This application tool can be used for (i)
assessing the biogas potential from livestock manures at national and regional level, and
(ii) forecasting this potential by choosing the best-fit model. As the geographical area
under consideration is determined by the user, it is possible to estimate manure supply for
an anaerobic digestion industrial unit that is designed to cover this area; to the extent that
the scale economies of such a unit are known, the mean and the marginal cost can be
determined. In view of this, ABEPE can also be useful in decision making on best
investment for RES exploitation. Moreover, considering that the fuel gas needs of the
country are increasing while the biogas upgrading cost is expected to fall, the option of
biogas local use either for the replacing of NG directly in certain consumers’ facilities or
for the enrichment of low pressure NG network appears to be more and more promising.
The same tool can be used for trans-boundary (i.e. between neighbouring countries)
application to achieve scale economies. This is of special interest for Balkan countries,
where (i) the agricultural sector forms a significant part of their economy and (ii) there is a
tendency for establishing sustainable agro-industrial units to reach the European
standards, as two of these countries are expected to enter the EU in 2007.
References
[1] International Energy Agency. Biogas upgrading and utilisation. Bioenergy task 24: energy from biological
conversion of organic waste. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: AEA Technology Environment; 2001.
F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176 1175
[2] Akinbami J-FK, Ilori MO, Oyebisi TO, Akinwumi IO, Adeoti O. Biogas energy use in Nigeria: current
status, future prospects and policy implications. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2001;5:97–112.
[3] Maeng H, Lund H, Hvelplund F. Biogas plants in Denmark: technological and economic developments.
Appl Energy 1999;64:195–206.
[4] Dagnall SP. UK strategy for centralised anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol 1995;52(3):275–80.
[5] Tafdrup S. Viable energy production and waste recycling from anaerobic digestion of manure and other
biomass materials. Biomass Bioenergy 1995;9:303–14.
[6] Koukios, EG, Sidiras, DK, Daouti-Koukios, I, Rakos, C, Kunze, G, Danielsen O, Halkier, B, Danielsen E.
An express path to biomass use for sustainable regional development, driving forces and barriers for
technology diffusion in Denmark, Austria and Greece. Eighth european biomass conference, Vienna; 1994.
[7] Danielsen O, Hackstock R, Koukios E, Kunze G, Rakos C, Sidiras D. What makes renewable energy work.
EVA: Energieverwertungsagentur—the Austrian Energy Agency, http://www.eva.wsr.ac.at/publ/pdf/ren_-
work.pdf; 2001.
[8] Sidiras DK, Koukios EG. Biobase. A database for accessing the biomass potential in national and regional
level. Proceedings of the ninth European bioenergy conference, biomass for energy and the environment,
Copenhagen, Denmark; 1996. p. 787.
[9] Sidiras DK. BIOBASE IC an agricultural solid residues management system. Second international
conference on ecological protection of the planet earth, bio-environment and bio-culture, Sofia, Bulgaria;
2003
[10] National Statistical Service of Greece. Agricultural Statistics of Greece: Livestock capital holdings. Years
1970–2000.
[11] Dagnall SP, Hill J, Pegg D. Resource mapping and analysis of farm livestock manures-assessing the
opportunities for biomass-to-energy schemes. Bioresour Technol 2000;71:225–34.
[12] Information and Advisory Service on Appropriate Technology. Biogas digest. German agency for technical
cooperation, Eschborn; 2000.
[13] American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Manure production and characteristics. ASAE Standards 2000;
D384.1:DEC99.
[14] Barker JC, Hodges SC, Walls FR. Livestock manure production rates and nutrient content. North Carolina
agricultural chemicals manual. Chapter X: fertilizer use; 2002.
[15] Kaygusuz K, Turker MF. Biomass energy potential in Turkey. Renewable Energy 2002;26:661–78.
[16] Klass DL. Biomass for renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. San Diego: Academic Press; 1998.
[17] Chongrak P. Organic waste recycling (2nd ed.). Environmental Engineering Program, Asian Institute of
Technology, Bangkok, Thailand. New York: Wiley; 1996.
[18] Ramachandra TV, Joshi NV, Subramanian DK. Present and prospective role of bioenergy in regional energy
system. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2000;4:375–430.
[19] Public Gas Corporation of Greece (DEPA); 2001. http://www.hellenic-petroleum.gr/english/activities/
main/a_7.htm#
[20] Jensen JK, Jensen AB. Biogas and natural gas fuel mixture for the future. First world conference and
exhibition on biomass for energy and industry, Sevilla; 2000.
[21] International Energy Agency. Biogas and more! systems and markets overview of anaerobic digestion.
Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: AEA Technology Environment; 2001.
[22] Truong LV-A, Abatzoglou N. An adsorption/reaction process for the purification of biogas prior to its use as
energy vector. In: Brebbia CA, Sakellaris I, editors. Proceedings of the first international conference on
sustainable energy planning and technology in relationship to the environment. Southampton/Boston: WIT
Press; 2003. p. 43–52.
[23] Siriwardane RV, Shen M-S, Fisher EP, Poston JA. Adsorption of CO2 on molecular sieves and activated
carbon. Energy Fuels 2001;15:279–84.
[24] Sarkar SC, Bose A. Role of activated carbon pellets in carbon dioxide removal. Energy Convers Manage
1997;38:105–10.
[25] Wolfgang Tentscher. Biogas in the internal market of gas. Compensation for biogas injected into the Gas
Grid. New Possibilities. 12th european conference and technology exhibition on biomass for energy,
industry and climate protection, Amsterdam; June 2002.
1176 F.A. Batzias et al. / Renewable Energy 30 (2005) 1161–1176
[26] Caloghirou YD, Mourelatos AG, Roboli A. Macroeconomic impacts of natural gas introduction in Greece.
Energy 1996;21(10):899–909.
[27] Polychroniou G. The natural gas market in Greece in the new international business environment.
International congress, energy 2002, Athens; June 2002.
[28] Christodoulakis NM, Kalyvitis SC, Lalas DP, Pesmajoglou S. Forecasting energy consumption and energy
related CO2 emissions in Greece: an evaluation of the consequences of the community support framework II
and natural gas penetration. Energy Econ 2000;22:395–422.
