Stimulating national biogas production : The case of Swedish agricultural wastemanagement

STIMULATING NATIONAL BIOGAS PRODUCTION

The case of Swedish agricultural waste management

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE

Stimulating national biogas production

The case of Swedish agricultural waste

management

Prepared by

Manoj Dammur

16 October 2020

Examined by Stefan Anderberg

Supervised by Marcus Gustafsson

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering Master’s thesis, 30 credits| Master’s programme autumn 2020| LIU-IEI-TEK-A--20/03927—SE

Linköping University

Environmental Technology and Management Dept. of Management and Engineering 58330, Linköping, Sweden.

Acknowledgements

This thesis subject was offered to me by the department of Management and engineering

under the division of Environmental technology and management at Linköping university,

under the supervision of assistant senior lecturer Marcus Gustafsson. For whom I will always

be grateful for having such a confidence in me with this kind of opportunity, for guiding me

throughout the thesis and connecting me to prominent people at biogas research center who

could provide me the contacts and make the interviews possible. Also, for having trust in me

with the distant online presentations so that the thesis went smooth even at times like

COVID pandemic.

I would also like to thank my examiner, Prof. Stefan Anderberg for enduring my terrible

writing and unmatched counselling to improve my academic writing. For being optimistic

with my time plans and understanding me when I failed to keep up with the timeline. While

being jovial and making work seem easy.

My thesis opponent Mr. Adarsh also needs to be mentioned for his valuable constructive

critiques on my report and presentations, though he is a student in Mechanical engineering

and new to Sustainability and environmental technology. It is always an advantage to have an

outsider to understand different perspectives.

I am thankful for the cooperation of Kristian Petersson, Erik Erjeby from Lantbrukarnas

Riksförbund-LRF (The federation of Swedish farmers) and John Benjaminsson from Gasfuels

in connecting me to the local farmer and producers of biogas. Also, to the participation of

farmers and biogas producers in my interviews, and for their time in answering my

questions. Their names are mentioned later in this report.

Abstract

Swedish state has been promoting alternative renewable fuels like biogas to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels and to curb related greenhouse gas emissions. Owing to many policies like subsidies and tax exemptions for using biogas, the country has seen a surge in demand for biogas. Meanwhile, the increase in production of biogas in Sweden has been modest in recent years, though many studies have estimated substantially higher potentials from many sources. Agricultural feedstock/biomass is one among these sources where production and use of biogas could address many challenges faced by farmers like agricultural waste management, soil nutrient management, methane emissions from manure etc. while closing the nutrient cycle and contributing to sustainability.

This work is an investigation on how to stimulate the growth of biogas production based on agricultural feedstock/biomass production in Sweden. Since policies give different results in different states/countries depending on the local preconditions, locally developed policies, national policies and EU policies should integrate well in all the policy sectors in that particular region to give the intended result. The current production capacity is about 2 TWh worth of biogas/year but the theoretical potential is estimated to be up to 15 TWh that has been claimed by many researches and literature works like in (Westlund, et al., 2019). Much of the potential has not been explored especially in the field of agriculture. It is asserted in many articles that the true potential of biogas production from Swedish agriculture is far greater than what is produced today. Yet, all the regulations, financial and other financial instruments failed to stimulate local biogas production in Sweden to attain its full theoretical potential. The results presented in this study show where these policies failed and what else apart from the policies could be improved in order promote biogas production.

Farmers are hesitant to invest in biogas production because of the complexity and unpredictability of the existing policies. There has been significant negative impact from lack technological training of anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. This is also reflected as difficulties in finding trained and dedicated staff for biogas plant operations. Low profitability of biogas business exists ever since the production started and the financial aids are insufficient. Strict digestate regulations along with worsening substrate competition also creates problems. Permits to run the biogas plants are perceived to be expensive alongside increasing investment costs and taxes, affecting already low profitability. There is also a lack of infrastructure in terms of electricity/gas grid connectivity. Feed in tariffs for electricity produced from renewable sources are not bringing enough profitability to the business. Technological improvements are needed in terms of agricultural machinery that can use upgraded biogas as fuel and treatment of digestate to eliminate heavy metal content. Producers need more long term, sure market for their biogas.

List of Abbreviations

•

EU – European Union.

•

FQD – Fuel Quality Directives

•

GHG – Greenhouse gases.

•

KLIMP - Klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program).

•

OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

•

Swedish EPA/SEPA – Swedish environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket).

•

SNAO – Swedish National Audit Office.

•

RED – Renewable Energy Directives.

•

AD – Anaerobic digestion.

•

FQD – Fuel quality directives.

Relevant Term definitions

Anaerobic digestion (AD):

The process where different substrates like manure, agricultural crop residues etc., are left to ferment(decompose) in an enclosed reactor (digester) to produce renewable gas (biogas) is called Anaerobic Digestion.

Digestate:

The byproduct of AD process, the solid leftover after fermentation that can be used as biofertilizer in the farms.

EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS):

The legislative framework operates in all EU countries plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The EU ETS works on the ‘cap and trade’ principle. A cap is set on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by installations covered by the system. Within the cap, companies receive or buy emission allowances, which they can trade with one another as needed (European commission, 2020). The cap is reduced over time so that total emissions fall and not reducing emissions will become less favorable for the companies since allowances will become rarer and their price will presumably increase.

Flaring:

Biogas from a production plant must be allowed to escape the high-pressure gas circuits and vessels in case of any equipment malfunction or if the pressure is too high. However, methane (biogas) is much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If left into the atmosphere, it causes greater impact than CO2. For this reason, biogas producers are required to burn this methane and allow the resulting CO2 to escape into the atmosphere. This process is called flaring.

Policy targets:

The targets/ambitions that are envisaged by policy makers put in quantitative terms are policy targets. For example, the ambition to mitigate the GHG emission from the energy sector could be expressed as a quantitative target, say, share from renewable sources within a certain timeframe (Union, 2020). Nonetheless, these targets can only be met if there is proper and full integration of the jointly framed policies among all the actors or policy sectors.

Policy instruments:

Set policy targets are met with the help of tools called policy instruments (including economic tools). These can be decided at EU level, national level or local level, and are of two kinds, general instruments and specific instruments. General instruments include exemption or reduction of energy and CO2 taxes, which are applied on fossil transport fuels. Specific instruments have targeted distribution infrastructure as well as the supply and demand side (Lonnqvist, 2017). These instruments are used to incentivize the actors who can influence and promotes them to contribute towards achieving the policy targets.

Substrate:

The organic matter (food waste, agricultural waste, sewage sludge) digested in a reactor of a biogas plant to produce biogas.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. Purpose and Aim ... 3

1.2. Research questions ... 3

1.3. Limitations... 4

1.4. Thesis Outline ... 4

2. Background ... 5

2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden ... 6

2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential ... 9

2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential ... 9

2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential ... 11

2.3. Policies ... 11

2.3.1. Policies promoting demand ... 11

2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply... 13

3. Method of research ... 17

3.1. Literature review ... 17

3.2. Interviews ... 18

3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments ... 19

3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments ... 19

3.3. Methodology discussion ... 19

4. Results ... 20

4.1. Summary of results ... 20

4.2. Analysis of results ... 22

4.2.1. Complexity and unpredictability of the policies ... 22

4.2.2. Lack of skill and training on AD technology ... 22

4.2.3. Lack of dedicated supporting staff/ skilled manpower ... 23

4.2.4. Low profitability ... 23

4.2.5. Strict digestate regulations are a hinderance ... 24

4.2.6. Expensive permits and huge initial investment ... 24

4.2.9. Assured, long term source of revenue ... 25 5. Discussion ... 25 6. Conclusions ... 28 6.1. Recommendations ... 29 6.2. Reflection ... 29 6.3. Future scope ... 30 References ... 1 Annexure 1: ... 32 Annexure 2: ... 34

1.

Introduction

One of the most concerning global issues present today both in Electricity and transport sectors is extreme dependency on fossil fuels and related emissions of Green House Gasses (GHG). More than 50 percent of the contribution in GHG emissions are made by fossil (IPCC, 2007), a major contribution towards global warming hence comes from fossil fuels. Even International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a continued increase in energy demand, especially in the non-OECD countries (Motherway , 2019). While curbing GHG emissions related to fossil fuel use is a major concern, another significant problem that affects the environment negatively is agricultural waste management. The agricultural sector accounts for about one fifth of the GHG emissions that are not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) (Westlund, et al., 2019). One of the most difficult challenges of climate change is to reduce these agricultural emissions and emissions of methane from poor manure management account for a significant proportion of the agricultural climate impact (Westlund, et al., 2019). In addition, we currently need an answer to the questions posed by waste management and nutrient recirculation in agriculture. How to reduce the release of excess nutrients into soil and ground water? How to stop odor and toxic effluents from being released into the atmosphere? How to bring back the soil fertility by giving back what is taken from earth and close the nutrient cycle?

There are policies coming up at national level and international level (EU level) from quite a while. EU’s short term strategies demand at least 40% reduction of GHG emission compared to 1990 levels and at least 32% share of renewable energy by 2030 and long-term strategy demands reduction of GHG emissions by 85- 90 percent by 2050 as of 1990 across the EU member states (Bonde, et al., 2019). Also, the Paris agreement requires the signatory states to keep the global warming well under 2 oC above the preindustrial era. EU aims to be climate neutral, an economy with zero net GHG emissions by 2050 (European commission, 1999). The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) which is established in the European framework obliges EU member states to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 2020 (European commission, 1999). EU also introduced the Fuel Quality Directives (FQD) which mandates blending of renewable fuels with fossil petrol and diesel. The union framed the Landfill Directive in 1999 that mandates member nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European commission, 1999). This is particularly to promote the use of organic waste to produce biogas. The Swedish transport sector has its sector-specific climate targets like greenhouse gas emissions should at least be 63% lowered by 2030 and 75% lowered by 2040 than 1990 emissions in transport sector, which are not included in the trading system (Bonde, et al., 2019). Overall (GHG) emissions in Sweden have decreased by 26% since 1990. Most of this reduction happened between 2003 and 2014. Thereafter the rate of reduction slowed, and 2017 was the third consecutive year in which emissions decreased by less than 1% (Bonde, et al., 2019). Under current conditions and decisions, the transport sector will only reach halfway to these targets (Lantz, 2013). Meeting those targets require strong policy measures already during the current mandate period (ibid). Measures introduced to reach these targets focus on energy efficiency and replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy carriers.

2 | P a g e

Biofuels like biogas are key solutions present today for energy and transport sectors for their problem of extreme dependency on fossil fuels. Production and use of these renewable source of energy helps bring the nutrients back into the loop by recirculating, an essential function to create circular economy (Lantz, 2013). Besides, biogas produced from agricultural waste, like manure, provide excellent solution for the mentioned problems of agricultural waste management, nutrient recirculation and diverts organic waste from ending up in landfills. Apart from these benefits, the digestate is rich in nutrients and can be used as biofertilizer in farms. There are also numerous societal goals at different levels (from global to local) where it is possible to see that production and/or use of biogas can provide benefits that facilitate goal attainment (Hagman & Eklund, 2016). For example, the production and use of biogas can help improve the conditions for achieving about half of the sixteen environmental quality targets that the Swedish parliament “Riksdagen” has decided (Westlund, et al., 2019). Some of these targets where biogas use can help are Reduce climate impact, Clean air, Zero Eutrophication, Good quality ground water and Varied agricultural landscape”. At the same time, the short term and long-term targets set by EU like those mentioned in the last paragraphs also can benefit from biogas production and use. Hence biogas can be considered as solution for all the problems we saw.

In today’s established technology, biogas is mostly produced through anaerobic digestion (AD), where in the organic waste from different sources like, agriculture, municipal organic waste, sewage sludge etc. are digested with limited supply of oxygen (Lantz, 2013). The interest in biogas production and use in Sweden emerged after the oil crisis in 1970’s. At first, the production was developed at municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants. Simultaneously, there were also some small-scale biogas plants installed mainly on pig farms large enough for producing sufficient substrate for biogas production. In the 90’s the first ever large-scale co-digestion plant was built which produced biogas from industrial waste and manure (Berglund , 2006).

For promoting the use of biogas and its demand, there have been numerous policies and regulation in Sweden that were successful. For example, the “Tax exemptions” on vehicles that use biogas as fuel. These policies and regulation were intended to stimulate biogas use and demand, to make producers interested by creating a market and thereby stimulate production. This has in fact led to a significant expansion of biogas production in the past decade and a half until 2015 to reach close to 2 TWh/year. However, since 2016, the growth in biogas production has been modest and the current production is just over 2 TWh/year (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019), while the potential has been estimated to be more than 15 TWh/year (Berglund , 2006). The growth of Swedish biogas production is moderate and not matching the growth of demand because the indigenous producers are facing difficulties in competing with the imported biogas. Currently, Sweden is importing biogas from countries like Denmark (Sherrard, 2019). To rely heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country is too risky. Consumption of biofuels is expected to increase globally at the same time as demand for biomass from other sectors is expected to increase (Westlund, et al., 2019). Thus, causing the increase in the prices of biofuels. According to the Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to rely on imports to such a high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the country (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are yet many reasons for reducing imports. High and

volatile prices of biogas, supply uncertainty, political instability among the countries makes supply from those countries uncertain, these reasons might cause another situation like “Biogas crisis” much like already seen “Oil crisis”. This is something that needs attention in order to improve the local production.

There are different sectors/industries like food and slaughter industry, agricultural sector, sewage treatment etc. where there is a higher potential of biogas production than what is produced today. Specifically, the production potential of biogas from digesting substrates from agriculture and the waste sector is judged to be significant. There are considerable substrate assets, from arable land, and from the waste sector, for example food waste (Westlund, et al., 2019). The agricultural sector has a huge potential of producing biogas because of the amount of waste (dry) and manure (wet) produced as byproducts in this sector, yet it is largely unexploited today. This is understood by looking at the estimated potential for biogas production from agricultural waste to be 3.1 TWh from dry agricultural waste (excluding energy crops) and up to 2.6 TWh from manure (Westlund, et al., 2019). While the current overall production from agricultural residues is only around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019). A higher potential from agricultural sector could be exploited by improving policy stability, reduced permit expenses and providing stronger financial support which will make the biogas business more profitable.

1.1. Purpose and Aim

The purpose of this project is to investigate how to stimulate the growth of biogas production within Sweden, using policies as tools, with special emphasis on utilizing available agricultural feedstock/biomass as substrate.

The aim is to find out why existing policies/regulations did not address the challenges faced by farmers and biogas producers, and to provide suggestions create conditions that promote biogas production from agricultural sector.

1.2. Research questions

The following two research questions have been used throughout the research as a guidance to achieve the purpose and aim.

a) Why are the current policies failing to stimulate agricultural bases biogas production in Sweden?

i. Why did not the production grow, despite increasing demand?

ii. Is there a gap between policy making and potential biogas agricultural biogas producers? What does it consist of?

4 | P a g e

In order to address these research questions, we need to investigate the existing policies, analyze their shortfall, understand the circumstances of farmers and the technological support for biogas systems (both for production and use). Thus, the scope of this project includes:

• Critical review and analysis of various existing policies intended to promote the production/use of biogas.

• Analysis of established technological systems that support/limit the production and use of biogas.

• Analysis of socio-economic benefits for the producers and potential users of biogas. These steps are based on a literature study and interviews of experts and farmers.

1.3. Limitations

The focus is confined to the biogas production only from agricultural waste. The interviews are limited to farmers and biogas producers to understand their perspective and the challenges they face.

1.4. Thesis Outline

The structure of the report is summarized here. This introductory section gives a quick glance of all the information related to different headings coming later in this document. You can read about them in detail by jumping to the particular heading that you are interested in after looking at the outline here.

In the next section "2. Background" the evolution of the biogas market in Sweden is presented along with discussions on current state of production, agriculturally based biogas potential, barriers, incentives and strategies used to improve biogas production from agricultural waste. The following section is "3 Method of research" which describes how this research was performed. The methods used to get the intended result for this thesis and to serve its purpose. How the interviews were performed, who were involved etc.

After the methods sections comes the "4. Results" section in which the results obtained from the research are presented. The summary is presented in the beginning and then the deeper analysis in "4.2 Analysis of results". There are different subheadings each emanating the information of a different issue/problem faced in biogas production. Any correlation and coherence between results found in this research by interviews and previous researches mentioned in this report are discussed in “5.Discussion” section. The conclusion and learnings are summarized in "6. Conclusion".

2.

Background

Biofuels like biogas are comparatively new to the energy sector unlike fossil fuels. Three different fuels ethanol, biodiesel and biogas dominate the Swedish biofuels market, amounting to 1.14 TWh, 16.6 TWh and 1.59 TWh respectively in 2017 (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019). Like mentioned earlier, AD is the technology that has evolved well enough to be widely used to produce biogas. Although there are other more advanced and complex technologies like lignocellulose chemical processing. Perhaps the simplicity of the AD technology and economic viability made it more accessible and widespread. The flow of biogas production process using AD is illustrated in the Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Anaerobic Digestion Process

Organic waste from all the various sources is collected and digested together in a co-digester (in case of farm-based biogas plants, only the organic waste from the farm like manure, crop residues are digested in the digester). The produced biogas is supplied for various applications like heat, electricity etc. It can also be upgraded to pure biomethane (CH4) to be used as vehicle fuel. The byproduct of the process, digestate, can be used as biofertilizer.

Advanced biofuels (2nd generation biofuels) production involves production from waste and byproducts rather than dedicated energy crops. Since, energy crop cultivation rises concerns over land use change and food security, advanced biofuels are preferred

6 | P a g e

2.1. Current state of biogas in Sweden

In 2001, the production of biogas in Sweden was not seen as an interesting future possibility (Hjalmarsson, 2013). At that time, energy policies promoted incineration of collected municipal organic waste, which has now become, one of the most important raw materials for production of biogas (Hjalmarsson, 2013). The developments of the biogas market have, to a large extent, taken place within the last two decades. In the past 14 years, production has increased by more than 50 percent. However, there is almost no increase in Swedish biogas production since 2016 (Westlund, et al., 2019).

In contrast, the demand for biogas in Sweden is soaring high and has reached above 3.7 TWh in the year 2018 from 2.9 TWh in 2017 (Klackenberg, 2019). Looking at the current state of biogas in Sweden, it is evident that the increasing demand for biogas is not enough for stimulating growth of biogas production.

Since the national biogas production is almost half of the national demand for biogas, currently the demand is met by importing biogas from the neighboring countries like Denmark. Denmark produced 4.52 TWh of biogas in 2019, while in Sweden, the production was around 2.05 TWh (Eurostat, 2020). This is not a small difference for a country with a 10th _{of the Swedish land area,} and a population almost half of Sweden.

The brief statistics of import, indigenous production and consumption are presented in Figure 2 below. From the figure, it can be seen clearly that the production of biogas in Sweden has essentially not grown since 2016 to 2018. The amount of imported biogas contributed to about 10% of the total consumption in 2016, but sharply rose to 43% in 2018 (Westlund, et al., 2019), almost half of the total consumption.

Figure 2 comparison of indigenous production and import of biogas in Sweden till 2018 (Sherrard, 2019) & (Swedish Energy

Agency, 2019)

43%

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total biogas consumption (GWh)

Swedish Biogas

Imported biogas

Owing to the growing demand, the Swedish government wants to push the production so that the local biogas production is sufficient to meet the national demand (Westlund, et al., 2019). This is because relying heavily on imports of biofuels to meet the demands within the country considered to be too risky. Consumption of biofuels can be expected to increase globally at the same time as demand for biomass from other sectors can be expected to increase. This worsens the global demand and will increase the prices of biofuels at least in the EU countries. According to Swedish government’s official investigation, it is hence too risky to rely on imports to such a high degree as today, to meet the demands of the biogas within the country (Westlund, et al., 2019). Sweden has already struggled looking for alternative fuels during the “Oil crisis” in the 70’s.

The ambitious goal of making the transport sector independent of fossil fuels by 2030 and climate neutral by 2050 (Holmberg, 2012) can only be achieved by considering different alternatives, policies that can push the energy sector to shift from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources like biogas. By having simple policies in place that can provide stronger economic support while existing in the market for a prolonged period. There are several goals set at EU-level, which influence the framing of policy instruments and actions considered to promote biofuels within Sweden. When choosing alternative energy sources, and framing policies to develop those fuels, there must be proper integration among all the independent actors (technical and non-technical). Policy integration among these actors is necessary for the development of biogas industry (Hjalmarsson, 2013) and wider system perspective to avoid problem shifting or sub-optimization. To achieve proper integration, governmental support is necessary and involvement of all the actors while framing the policies is essential to achieve full integration (Deremince, et al., 2017).

A study conducted at KTH university (Lonnqvist, 2017) has estimated the potential of biogas production from different sectors which is presented in Table 1 below. The difference between theoretical potential and practical potential is because practical potential includes losses, transport feasibility, economic feasibility etc.

Substrate category Theoretical potential (TWh) Practical potential (TWh) Food waste 1.3 0.68 Sewage sludge 1 0.89 Industrial waste 2 1

Wet agricultural residues 4.2 2.22

Dry agricultural residues 8.1 0.98

Energy crops from abandoned land

2.84 1.42

8 | P a g e

Table 1 Estimated biogas production potential for 2020 (Lonnqvist, 2017)

Since the use of biogas solves many environmental problems, since we need more biogas to meet demand in Sweden and since estimated practical potential is higher, the national investigation commissioned by the Swedish state (Westlund, et al., 2019) is proposing new targets to expand local biogas production. These targets are distributed among different sectors and technologies as shown in the Figure 3 depending on their potentials, to cumulatively increase 10 TWh of production per year by 2030 (Westlund, et al., 2019).The proposed target is to reach 7 TWh of biogas solely from AD technology. The remaining 3 TWh should come from more advanced technologies like “Lignocellulose chemical processing”

In Figure 3 below, there are two columns for 2030 (high and low) which indicates that it is needed to push production from these sectors to reach at least the first minimum target by 2030 (low), if not to the full potential/maximum target (high). Data from (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019).

Figure 3 Sector Specific targets and comparison with current scenario (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019) & (Westlund, et al., 2019)

As it is evident, even to reach the minimum target, manure and agriculture-based biogas production needs to increase radically from 0.45 TWh to 1.5 TWh and 0.02 TWh to 2 TWh respectively. In the system that has developed today, the most common type of biogas production plant in Sweden is connected to a sewage treatment plant. However, the largest amount of gas is produced in so-called co-digestion plants where a mix of different substrate can be digested, such as manure and food waste. The largest volumes of biogas are produced primarily in the

metropolitan and agricultural regions i.e. in Skåne, Västra Götaland and Stockholm counties (Westlund, et al., 2019). Because of the amount of waste (wet and dry) generated in agricultural sector, which could be a potential substrate for biogas production, this sector has a considerable potential of about 3.2 TWh / year as estimated in Table 1.

2.2. Agriculture based biogas potential

The pollution emitted from animal waste from livestock farming can imply some serious environmental impact and health concerns (for example: manure deposits on ground can cause eutrophication in the nearby water body after erosion). Before discharging waste on to the land, into a nearby water body or to the atmosphere, farmers and agricultural facilities are required to obtain the permission by meeting some prerequisites set by regulatory agencies. They need to follow certain guidelines in feedstock handling, manure collection and storage, strategies to reduce odor, dust release and liquid effluents into the atmosphere (Correa, et al., 2017).

Anaerobic treatment of organic waste reduces GHG emissions, nutrient and odor. Hence the agricultural facilities that include the anaerobic digestion technology as a complement to their farms are promoted by the comprehensive agricultural policies (Correa, et al., 2017). The estimation form another study including only accessible agricultural waste like manure from big enough animal population and residues from crop cultivation (excluding dedicated energy crops) again shows the same potential of 3.2 TWh, in Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). But the current overall production from agricultural residues is around 0.45 TWh (Swedish Energy Agency, 2019). When we compare the utilization of potential from agricultural sources with Denmark, which is exporting biogas to Sweden, 85.3% of total biogas produced is from AD of agricultural substrates (Gustafsson, et al., 2019). Whereas in Sweden, it is only around 23% (0.47 of 2.04 TWh) from the Figure 3. An important indicator that we need to improve and exploit on agriculture-based biogas production. Being small in area and population, Denmark is capable of producing biogas more from agricultural waste than Sweden. One of the reasons behind this is their farm-based AD plants are more in numbers and losses due to flaring are 10 times lower (Gustafsson, et al., 2019).

The agricultural residues that are potential substrates for biogas production are divided into two types, dry agricultural residues and wet agricultural residues. Residues obtained from crop cultivation (including both waste farm weed/straw & energy crops) are dry agricultural residues. Residues derived from animal farming (manure) are wet agricultural residues. An observation was made by BIOSURF (Barre, et al., 2016), that the emission performance of biogas and biomethane plants can be enhanced by increasing the share of animal manure, slurry and waste in the feedstock and by improving the performance of the production facility itself.

2.2.1. Wet agricultural waste-based potential

Wet residues like manure are generated from the animal population. These residues are often from rural areas from poultry, sheep, horses, swine and cattle. Only one example of wet residues from urban areas is from horses (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). Normally in agriculture, the manure is

10 | P a g e

stored for several months in storage tanks, methane is produced in these tanks due to anaerobic conditions and released to the atmosphere. Methane is a much more potent GHG than carbon dioxide (Lantz, 2013). If the manure is utilized for biogas production, these methane emissions could be significantly reduced, while closing the nutrient cycle by using the digestate as biofertilizer.

The volume of the wet residue is the key factor affecting the potential from these residues. Animal population must be big enough and at least part of the manure must be produced in the stable to make it profitable for collection, transportation and production. While assessing the potential, the animals considered are cattle, poultry, horses, swine and sheep. It was estimated in 2013 that these animals together produce around 2700 kton of manure yearly in whole of Sweden (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). The yield of biogas from manure differs from animal to animal, for instance, manure from pig gives higher yield than cattle. Whether the manure is in liquid form or solid form also matters (BioMil AB & Envirum, 2008). Animal manure represents a biogas potential estimated to be 9.2 PJ/year or 2.5TWh/year (Lantz, et al., 2007). Another estimate from (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013) assuming decreasing animal population was of 2.22 TWh/year.

Though it is argued that methane emissions due to manure depends on bad agricultural practices, the reduction of methane emissions is often included in environmental assessments of biogas production from manure. Thus, the reduction of GHG emissions is particularly marked in the case of manure-based biogas production (Lantz, 2013) and the significance of this can be understood from Figure 4. The figure shows a comparison of reduction in GHG emissions made in terms of grams of CO2 eq/MJ of energy produced from different substrates including sludge from wastewater treatment plant (WWTP sludge), municipal solid organic waste (MSOW), industrial waste, liquid manure and other agricultural products.

The analysis is from different researches which show some deviation in the results, possibly because the varying system limitations or variations in biogas yield considerations from different animal manure. However, even if we consider the result showing least reduction in GHG emission from the biogas produced from liquid manure, it is -40 g of CO2 eq/MJ. Compared to fossil fuels which is +80 g, this is still way better than any other type of substrate.

2.2.2. Dry agricultural waste-based potential

The residues that are obtained from plants, food and feed production are considered as dry agricultural waste. After the harvest, the remnant plant/straw material including leaves and roots which are of no economic value to farmers can be used for biogas generation. There are number of studies that point out the potential to improve the biogas production form available waste and agricultural by-products within Sweden. However, if this waste is to be used for biogas production, it incurs costs like handling and transport. Many of these studies have differences in their assessment of potential for biogas from dry agricultural waste in terms of various assumptions like gas output, availability, substrates used, co-digestion or mono-digestion etc (Martin, 2015).

Swedish agriculture produces mostly residues like hay, potato leftovers, potato tops, chaff and husks from crops, which are of interest for biogas generation, which amount to 4807 kton per year measured in dry substance (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013). In the same article, it is established that the hay is left mostly unused at farms since it is expensive to collect and handle. Moreover, hay needs efforts to digest and needs longer residence time in the digester. It has been estimated that the potential of potato residues and other food crop residues is approximately 0.98 TWh, which is around 31% of the total potential of the agricultural residues (Lönnqvist, et al., 2013).

2.3. Policies

Anaerobic digestion is the technology that can produce biogas from agricultural crop waste and manure and since the biogas production from agricultural by products must be promoted, this section speaks about some of the attempts to promote AD and their outcomes.

Some policies have been launched by the Swedish government to achieve its GHG emission mitigation commitments, that have stimulated biogas use and demand. These policies promote production from AD plants. Other policies are also directly aimed at promoting biogas production from various sectors and technologies including from agriculture-based AD method. They can be divided and categorized depending upon whether they impact on production and supply or demand.

2.3.1. Policies promoting demand

There are reductions or complete exemption of tax for biofuels, while fossil fuels are targeted by particularly two tax schemes. One is energy tax, which is determined individually for different fuels and is not proportional to energy content of the fuels. The other is carbon tax, which is proportional to the carbon content of the fuels. Biofuels including ethanol, fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and biogas are exempted from both energy tax and carbon tax (RFR7, 2009). Swedish

12 | P a g e

National Audit Office performed an audit on tax exemption on biofuels in 2011 (SNAO, 2011). The results showed that the tax reduction on biofuels for (both CO2 and energy tax) has played a key role in promoting biofuels (in their low blends) and helped reaching the climate goals set by the Swedish Parliament. However, at an expensive price. The revenue loss for the state has been steadily increasing since 2000 and now amounting to around 2 billion SEK every year. Thus, the GHG emission reduction achieved using biofuels has incurred a cost of 3 SEK/kg CO2. In comparison to the carbon dioxide tax of 1.05 SEK/kg of CO2, it is relatively expensive way to curb GHG emissions. Also, for making use of biofuels in high blends, like E85, investments in infrastructure and vehicles are also needed apart from tax exemptions (SNAO, 2011). The tax exemptions depended upon the applications sent by fuel suppliers (the taxpayers) and the decisions were only on short term basis. Meaning those exemptions were granted for 1 to 2 years and not always granted for the same reason. In their report, SNAO state that the tax exemptions did not have the intended impact on technology development.

Some of the policies are also framed at the EU level that influence the development of biogas in the member states. The Biofuels directive of 2003 required a lower target of 2% of total energy used in the transport sector to come from biofuels by 2005 and 5.75% by 2010 (EU, 2003). The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) established a European framework for the European Member States for the promotion of renewable energy. According to this, the member states were obliged to meet 10% renewable energy target in transport sector by 20201 (Luc Pelkmans, eds., 2018).

However, to reduce the risk of undesirable effect of land use change (arable land used for energy crops instead of growing food crops and thus raising concerns over food security), EU promoted the transition towards advanced biofuels by making following amendments (Luc Pelkmans, eds., 2018):

• A limit of only 7% of biofuels that can come from crops grown on agricultural land of the total biofuels by 2020,

• As a reference to the national targets for the biofuels, 0.5% should be from advanced biofuels,

• A requirement that biofuels produced in new installations (which have started operation after October 5, 2015) achieve a minimum GHG saving of 60% compared to fossil fuels, • stronger incentives (higher multiplication factors) for the use of renewable electricity in

transport.

Apart from the above amendments, the FQD was also introduced by EU in 2010. According to this, a mandatory blending rates of 10%vol of biofuels are to be blended with gasoline and 7%vol in diesel. Further, according to the FQD, fuel suppliers in the union should reduce GHG emissions by 6% per energy unit until 2020 (Biogasmarknadsutredningen, 2019). This regulation was introduced since, according to EU, member states cannot pay more in aid than what differs in production costs compared to fossil fuels, as it would distort competition in the market because of overcompensation.

1 _{For reaching the transport target, multiplication factors can be applied for several types of options (advanced/waste}

based biofuels, renewable electricity in road vehicles). So, the target can be reached with an actual share lower than 10%.

Another example of policies that is recently introduced to push the demand of biogas is the Swedish bonus-malus system of taxing vehicles based on tailpipe emissions. The idea of the bonus malus system is to reward vehicles that emit relatively small amounts (up to 70 grams per kilometer) of carbon dioxide, with a maximum bonus of 60,000 SEK, while burdening vehicles that emit relatively large amounts of CO2 with higher vehicle tax for the first three years. Though the bonus-malus is now updated with clearer definitions of different engine types, previously, the introduction of similar policy instruments have drawn criticism for considering only tailpipe emissions and even some fossil fueled vehicles, with low tailpipe emissions, were placed on bonus side, in this policy (Westlund, et al., 2019).

2.3.2. Policies promoting production & supply

Policies and regulations that promote biogas production and supply to the public also have been introduced (like GHG emissions reduction obligation for suppliers). According to the fuel quality directive (EC 2009(a)), the fuel suppliers are required to report and reduce at least 10% of GHG emission on a life cycle basis compared to 2010 standards. These requirements can be met in following three ways:

1. Increased use of biofuels by reducing flaring and rejection at production sites.

2. Implementing CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) technology for vehicles or use electrical vehicles.

3. To buy CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) credits.

The introduction of the pump law (Pumplagen) in 2006 in Sweden significantly increased the number of filling stations with provision for renewable fuels. According to this law, it is required for gas stations above a certain size to provide renewable fuels. However, this law was very beneficial for ethanol pumps instead of biogas pumps since the cost of installing a gas pump was 4 million SEK whereas the cost to install an ethanol pump was only 0.2 million SEK (RFR7, 2009). Thus, number of ethanol pumps grew drastically, from 385 (10% of all the filling stations in Sweden) in December 2005 to 1610 (90% of all the filling stations in Sweden) in September 2009 (RFR7, 2009). There were also subsidies for installing biogas pumps or other than ethanol pumps. However, the amount of grant was limited to 30% of the cost difference between the gas pump and alternative fuel pump (i.e., 3.8 MSEK). Due to the limitations of grants to 30% and the cost difference between ethanol and gas pump, there were limited grants used and grants were not given for ethanol pump either (Holmberg, 2012).

Apart from these, there have been some miscellaneous grants like the program named “Second generation biofuels and other energy technology” in 2008. The same year, biogas was mentioned as one of the climate-efficient energy technologies that is not yet commercially competitive and a new grant for energy technology which aims at stimulating its use was decided. The Swedish Energy Agency SEA also administered an 875 Million SEK under this program to commercialize the new technology. This program supported all the second-generation biogas production, not just from agricultural sector. Gobigas was a project which benefited from this

14 | P a g e

grant. It was the demonstration of a unit that gasifies woody biomass that produces bio-SNG/methane which is in Gothenburg with a capacity of 20 MW (Holmberg, 2012).

A specific subsidy was given for investments made towards biogas plants where major part of the substrate was manure. Investeringsgasstod för biogasanläggningar (Investment support for biogas production) was introduced in 2009 and implemented in the EU-funded rural development program, meaning it wa s exclusive to farmers. The maximum subsidy was limited to 200 000 €, or 30 – 50% of the investment, whichever is maximum (SJV, 2009).

Another tool for reaching the Swedish climate objective that was formulated in the Swedish climate strategy in 2002 is KLIMP- klimatinvesteringsprogram (Climate Investment Program), which finance both production facilities and fueling stations (Hence can be considered both production side and supply side policies). KLIMP has made provisions of grants for municipalities and other local actors for their long-term investments to curb GHB emissions. Those grants were administered by Swedish EPA and the money has been granted between 2003-2008. A total of 1.8 billion SEK was granted among which, 660 million SEK (37% of the total) was for biogas projects (Holmberg, 2012). As stated by (RFR7, 2009), 50% of the 660 MSEK were granted to production and upgrading installations for biogas. Among the rest, 120 million SEK were granted to biogas systems for vehicle use (mainly pump stations and gas pipes). For investments in gas vehicles (buses and personal cars), 25 MSEK were granted. The rest was granted for collection and handling of waste. No more KLIMP grants have been given since 2008 and the accomplishment of the programs was finalized in 2012 (Holmberg, 2012). A similar program named “Klimatklivet (Climate change)” have been introduced since then, which is also monitored by Swedish EPA.

Currently there are some financial instruments like “Gödselgasstöd” (Manure/fertilizer gas support) which are indirectly focused on stimulating biogas production in Sweden and thereby internalizing some of the benefits which can be associated with this production (Westlund, et al., 2019). However, these subsidies are also limited to shorter periods of time (Gödselgasstöd project began in 2014 and will end by 2023). It is also important to keep in mind that the fertilizer gas support is primarily aimed at reducing methane emissions from manure management, rather than contributing to a highly efficient production of biogas. The support provided by this program is limited to 40 Öre/ kWh worth of biogas produced. But according to EU, member states must not pay more in aid to avoid overcompensation. So, if the difference between production price of fossil energy and biogas is less than 40 Öre/ kWh, the biogas producers get less than 40 Öre/ kWh.

Targets regarding renewable energy generation such as the EU renewable energy target (RET) of 20% by 2020 have in some cases, benefitted biogas producers. As the upgraded biogas and biomethane from AD plants can be mixed or interchanged with CNG for vehicle, or as natural gas in case of heat and electricity production, policies and regulations which are intended to promote renewable energies have also stimulated the biogas production facilities, hence developing AD technology. Many countries of the EU have their own RET’s specific to biogas and biomethane. In order to meet the targets, production requirements have been established by governments for renewable energies and many incentives which would stimulate the production

are introduced. In, Germany, for example, the renewable source act of 2000, which was amended in 2014, offers higher feed in tariffs (FiT’s) for generation of electricity from renewable sources, offers priority connection rights to feed into the grid and the transmission system costs are also transferred to the consumers (Correa, et al., 2017). To complement this, Germany has the biofuels quota act introduced in 2007 which requires a minimum share of biofuels to be sold in the energy market and “Eergiewende (Energy transition)” which promotes transition from coal fired power plants to renewable sourced power plant. These policies make Germany the country with the highest number of AD plants, constituting to 5.4% of total electricity generated, 1.3% total heat generated and 0.1% of total fuel used from biogas in 2018. A total of 58% of biogas produced was used for electricity generation, 33% for heat production, 1% as vehicle fuel and rest 7% was losses due to flaring (Gustafsson, et al., 2019).

2.3.2.1. Policies supporting AD

While framing the policies and regulations, those which are not actually intended to promote biogas production also have promoted AD technology and hence promoted biogas production, for instance, GHG emission reduction targets. Some countries in EU like Finland, the UK and Germany have agreed to reduce GHG emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050 (Correa, et al., 2017). These countries, apart from providing investment support for carbon capture and storage to coal condensed power plants, also took initiatives to promote renewable energy sources which included AD plants to meet GHG emission reduction targets. In the EU, Renewable Energy Directives (RED), which lays the foundation for its member countries to reach their goal of GHG emission reduction, also encourages the development and use of AD technology because of its advantages in bioenergy generation using organic waste and GHG savings potential (Correa, et al., 2017).

The technology of AD also benefits, in some parts of the world, from the rural development policies and regulations. This is because of the quantity of bio-based feedstock that is available in these rural areas. Some of these policies provide support to develop the AD technology by providing direct financial investment support, training and other support to farmers. For instance, in UK, most of the aids for AD facilities are granted from rural development and rural community renewable energy funds (Lukehurst, 2017).

Policies regarding agricultural activities have made their own impact in promoting AD plants, like “Agricultural policies and regulations” Since agricultural waste like manure emit lot of nutrients in soil and ground water and methane into the atmosphere which pose serious health and environmental issues, farmers are required to get permissions to discharge agricultural waste into the land, water body or atmosphere. They need to meet the preset standards, practices and some guidelines regarding collection, handling, transport and storage of agricultural waste. Meanwhile, AD can reduce the emissions, odor and nutrient release caused from these agricultural wastes from farms and cattle. So, agricultural policies also, in a way, promote AD technology. AD plants integrated with farms have become prominent in some countries, due to the policies that regulate the amount of nitrate and phosphate use from the animal manure. For example, the UK government aims to curb the amounts of nitrates and phosphates entering into the land surface and groundwater, by making a regulation of nitrate pollution prevention that

16 | P a g e

limits the amount of time the manure can be stored (Joel, et al., 2015). It also permits farmers to transfer manure to the nearby sites without license.

Regulations regarding water and air emissions from agricultural activities promote AD technology as well. As established previously, agricultural activities release huge amounts of nutrients to ground water, odor and methane into the atmosphere. Countries that have uncompromising water and air pollution regulations would generally promote AD technology development. For instance, in Italy, farms of above certain size are required to invest in best available technologies for waste collection, handling, transport and storage under National Environmental Framework Law (Correa, et al., 2017). They also need to ensure best spreading and monitoring of environmental parameters.

Requirements for avoiding organic waste ending up in landfills and diverting them are also drivers for AD plants. EU introduced the Landfill Directive in 1999 that mandates member nations to reduce the organic waste ending up in landfills (European commission, 1999). Integrating AD facility with the farms can reduce the burden of organic waste management.

2.3.2.2. Proposed aid for production, upgradation and liquefaction

The Swedish agricultural board has proposals for supporting production, upgradation of raw gas to biomethane and liquefaction of biogas that is produced from manure by digestion. Aid under this regulation is granted subject to availability of funds (Westlund, et al., 2019). There are certain conditions (suggested) to be met in order to be eligible for these grants. They are summarized below:

Conditions on production support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019))

• This regulation contains provisions on state aid to companies for the production, upgrading and liquefaction of biogas as aims to increase the production and processing of biogas in Sweden.

• Support may be provided to companies for the production of manure gas. • Support may only be provided for manure gas produced by digestion.

• Support shall not be provided for the proportion of raw gas that can be assumed to have originated from substrates other than manure.

• Support shall not be provided for production at facilities where manure is mixed with sewage sludge.

• Aid may only be granted for production at establishments which, in cases where such approval is required, are approved according to the rules for animal by-products.

• Aid may only be granted for production at facilities that have connected equipment for flaring or burning gas as in case of overproduction or malfunction.

However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 40 öre, the aid will also be less than 40 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.

Conditions on upgradation support: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019)) • Support may be provided to companies for upgrading raw gas to biofuels. • Support may only be provided for upgrading raw gas produced by digestion. • Aid may not be provided for the production of raw gas from landfills.

• Support may be provided with a maximum of 30 öre per kilowatt hour worth of raw gas which is upgraded to biofuels.

• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.

However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 30 öre, the aid will also be less than 30 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.

Conditions on support for liquefaction of biogas: (data from (Westlund, et al., 2019)) • Aid may be provided to companies for the production of liquefied manure gas.

• Support may only be provided for liquefaction of raw gas produced only by digestion. • Support may be provided with a maximum of 15 öre per kilowatt hour of energy as the

raw gas contains which are liquefied.

• The Swedish Board of Agriculture shall by regulations determine the number of öres left per kilowatt hour of energy with which aid is received.

However, if the difference between the market price and the production cost is less than 15 öre, the aid will also be less than 15 öre. This maximum amount per kilowatt hour also applies to the total aid if other aid provided in accordance with this regulation.

3.

Method of research

This thesis is carried out mainly in two phases, literature studies and interviews with farmers and other biogas producers who use AD technology.

3.1. Literature review

Although the results for this thesis were mainly derived from the interviews, the literature study was a key step towards reaching those results. Reading through the numerous existing researches and articles gave me the reference points and data required to carry out the interviews. Literature study also helped in understanding why some of the policies failed and what can be improved. It has given answers to some of the questions like “Why, though the demand is stimulated, production did not grow? Where is the gap in policy making and improved result?”, etc. It also

18 | P a g e

helped in composing questions for the interviews and stood as a beacon throughout the research in guiding me towards the end.

3.2. Interviews

Interviews with farmers and biogas producers gave answers to my research questions. These interviews are vital to this thesis for arriving at the final results, which are presented in the

section 4- results of this thesis. Since the farmers who have AD plants on their farms play a crucial role in producing the biomass for use as substrates, managing agricultural waste and overlooking nutrient cycle, I have interviewed those who have AD plants successfully running and producing biogas. These interviews were conducted in order to understand what kind of challenges are faced by the farmers while producing biogas, identify the gap between policy intentions and farmers expectations and to draw suggestions for improving policies.

The participants in the interviews and their characteristics are detailed in the Table 2 below.

Name of the company Plant size (amount of biogas produced, e.g. GWh / years or m3_/year) Biogas substrate (biomass, wet or dry) the farm

generates annually (Tons/ m3₎ Amount of substrate going to biogas production. Substrates used in the plant: Karl-Johan Gunnarsson (Skottorp Säteri)

1 GWh/year 25550 m3 30%. Rest is used

as Fertilier Manure Långhult Biogas ab 260000 m 3 _{of raw} gas 3500 Ton 100% Manure; Sewage sludge Frigiva gård 150 Mwh/year 6500 m3 _100% Manure; Agricultural waste/straw SLU Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet 5 Gwh electricity & heat from

biogas

21 000 ton 100 % Manure; Energy

crops Lägda Gård 50-60000 m 3 /year 2700m 3 _{100% Manure} Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk 200 000 m 3_{/year 7200 ton 100%} Manure; Agricultural waste/straw

Högryds farm 700 MWh 1150 m3 _{100% Manure}

3.2.1. Economic and policy assessments

This assessment was done with an intention to know how far the existing policies have reached the farmers. How were they received by the farmers? Are these policies addressing the expectations of the biogas producers? And how big is the gap between expectations and policies? The interview questions framed particularly for this assessment are 6,7,8,9 and 12 (see annexure 1 of appendices). They qualitatively assess what type of regulations push farmers to consider producing biogas, which incentives, policies or regulations motivate them or demotivate them and finally what more do they expect from the policies or the Government.

3.2.2. Technological evolution assessments

To check how widespread the AD technology has reached, how much the farmers are familiar with it and what difficulties are associated with it, this assessment was made. Because the technological reach and associated support also plays an important role in boosting the production.

The questions in the interview that are focused on this assessment are 10 and 11. Question 10 assesses the difficulties faced by the farmers, who are already familiar with AD, while using the technology and questions 11 assesses how accessible is the training/familiarity with the AD technology.

Though there have been responses to questions 8 and 9 which were intended for policy and economic assessment, that addressed technological evolution and for question 10 that addressed economic and policy support.

After analyzing all the responses to the questions, it was found that each of these responses addressed one or multiple challenges faced by the farmers while running a biogas plant. The challenges could be categorized into 9 major issues. For example, if a farmer’s response to the question “What difficulties or problems have you encountered in connection with running a biogas plant?” is “Strange rules for grants”, it is pointing out at the complexity and unpredictability of existing policies. The responses are thus categorized as outlaid in Table 3.

3.3. Methodology discussion

Getting the list of farmers who had AD plant integrated to their farms was a challenge.

John

Benjaminsson from Gasfuels handed me a

name list of 30 biogas plants (there are 43 in Sweden (Jonas Ammenberg, 2019)). Once I had the list of biogas producers, the next challenge was to get access of their contact details. I searched the internet for the names of the plants and could access the contact details of 18 of them.

In the interview phase, the biggest hurdle was to involve as many farmers/ biogas producers as possible, and to get their answers for the interview questions. Since I was not able to physically meet them at their farms because of ongoing pandemic “COVID-19” at the time, involving them

20 | P a g e

and getting responses through emails was tougher. The questions were composed meticulously after the literature review, so that the responses were comprehensive enough and will answer our research questions. They are attached in page 32 in the appendix section of this thesis, with the

responses in appendix 2 in the page Error! Bookmark not defined. as embedded excel sheet.

The questions were written in Swedish in order to get more responses since in my opinion, people tend to show interest if the questions are in their preferred language. Some were also objective type (Multiple choice) questions to make it quick and easy for the respondents. The google forms with questions were sent to the contact persons of all the 18 biogas plants of which I could find the contact details. However, after multiple reminders through repeated emails, I could get only 7 complete and qualitative responses in which I could find answers to my research question. Perhaps the time of the interview was wrong as it was summer and most of the farmers were too busy in their agricultural activities to complete the form.

These 7 responses were chosen since they were the ones completely answering the most required fields. Even in these 7 responses, there were some fields left unanswered in the google forms. Other responses had answers only for some of the simple multiple-choice or Yes – No type question, with which I could not arrive at any result. For those responses considered, the raw, one lined, answers had deeper meaning and were pointing at each loophole in the system. These responses had to be analyzed conscientiously to extract the answers for our research questions. The answers are described in the section 4 “Results” of this report.

From Table 2, looking at the characteristics of the interviewees, it is evident that all the interviewees mixed manure in the substrate if not used manure alone. And almost everyone used 100% of the biomass generated for biogas production except Skottorp Säteri where only 30% of the biomass generated went for biogas production, rest was used a biofertilizer.

4.

Results

4.1. Summary of results

The first and foremost challenge faced by farmers was the loophole of complexity and unpredictability of policies, which was found in the interviews. Two of the respondents strongly agree that the policies are complex and unpredictable (Table 3 shows which respondents point out at which challenge).

The next challenge was lack of training on AD technology. This was the most pointed out challenge (meaning faced by most of the farmers). Also, not finding skilled and dedicated staff is another difficulty that the farmers face which may be linked to lack of training.

Low profitability is one among the difficulties that is faced by most of the respondents. From Table 3, four respondents agree that they face low profitability.

A respondent from Skottorp Säteri indicated that strict digestate regulations from Swedish EPA are also hindering production.

In the interviews, it was noted that the permits are highly expensive, and investments are huge as stressed in the responses of SLU and Långhult Biogas AB.

Another challenge was the lack of infrastructure. Connectivity to gas/ electricity grid was inaccessible for most and if connected, feed in tariffs were not satisfactory along with complex regulations regarding connection and tariffs.

Frigiva gård was the only respondent who also pointed out that the technology of overall biogas systems needs to improve. They wanted to be completely self-sufficient for their energy needs on farming activity, hence required agricultural machinery that used biogas from their own farms as fuel.

Some farmers also lacked long term, assured source of revenue from their biogas (like long term contracts to buy the biogas for example). This was identified by the responses from Skottorp Säteri and Frigiva gård.

Interviewees Karl-Johan Gunnarsson (Skottorp Säteri) Långhult Biogas AB Frigiva gård SLU, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet Lägda Gård Kulbäckslidens Lantbruk Högryds farm Challenges faced by farmers Policy Complexity & unpredictability X X Lack of training on AD technology X X X X X X Lack of skilled labor/dedicated staff X Low profit X X X X Strict digestate regulations X X Expensive permits & huge investments/Tax X X Lack of infrastructure & low feed in rates X X X Technology needs to improve X Need assured X X