Currently applied filters
Other Bio-EnergyAuthor(s): SAC
Published: 2001
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
This document is a final project report for the project titled 'A review of the potential of giant grasses for UK agriculture'.
Grasses such as reed canary grass, spartina and switchgrass have been studied to only a modest extent in the UK in comparison with miscanthus and short rotation coppice. In addition, other less widely known species of energy crops have been examined in various countries across the world, but their comparative potential has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this desk study is to assess the competitive position of all these giant grasses, particularly the lesser known species, for cultivation in the UK. An objective of this work is to draw together the disparate studies conducted. It is aimed to present an evaluation of the agronomic and economic performances of giant grasses with a view to identifying any species with promise for UK conditions that merit more detailed study.
This report details:
Author(s): Ricardo-AE A Ltd
Published: 2018
Publisher: Science and Technology Facilities Council
This document is a report for STFC for the project titled 'Ammonia on-farm Life cycle assessment of different ammonia uses on a farm'.
Using life cycle assessment, this study compared three uses of ammonia produced via a Haber-Bosch facility on a remote farm in Scotland. The three ammonia uses compared in this study are:The study found that aqueous ammonia fertiliser provided the largest environmental benefit out of the three ammonia uses. While ammonia vehicle fuel and ammonia CHP were found to provide environmental benefits across most indicators, in some areas the traditional alternative was preferred. This was not the case for ammonia fertiliser.
This report is divided into the following sections:Author(s): Future Energy Solutions
Published: 2005
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
This report examines the current levels of methane emission from livestock manures and slurries in the UK and then explores possible options and routes for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions within a methane generation and recovery strategy for England.
Methane emissions from manures and slurry management make up 14% of the total methane emissions from livestock husbandry in the UK. Although slurry based management systems make up less than 40% of the manure management infrastructure, they account for 74% of methane emissions from manures and slurries.
In this study, we have looked in detail at the economics for options for on-farm AD and centralised AD in England. All the options proved uneconomic without some extra Government support. However, a small number of larger CAD may be economic, especially if higher levels of industrial waste (up to 20%) were treated in the CAD. A cost benefit analysis based on the options and assuming Government support in the form of capital grants suggests that greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to up to 0.03MtC could be saved annually at a cost of £60/tC, if 20 CAD plants were built. However, this would result in lifetime costs to Government of £ 143M. On-farm AD would need significant support to be economic.
This report is divided into the following sections:Author(s): IGER
Published: 2008
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
To assess and improve the production from European biogas plants a specific targeted research or innovation project (Project no. 513949) entitled 'European Biogas Initiative to improve the yield of agricultural biogas plants' involved collating data from 13 biogas plants across Europe. Data was collected by four means; the use of periodic data from the biogas plant, weak-point analysis from each of the biogas plant operators; a questionnaire and a schematic of each plant. The information revealed that although the biogas plants were performing relatively well, with an average specific biogas yield 0.44 m3.methane.kg-1 VS and an average methane productivity of 1.25 m3.m3, there was considerable capacity to improve the performance of each of the biogas plants by a range of different means.
Economic comparison of these biogas plants across Europe was difficult. However, about 90% of the revenue was realised from electricity sold. The average specific capital expenditure for the 13 biogas plants was about 4,400 € per installed electric capacity (kW) or at 5% discount rate and 15 years economic life, 5.3 €-Cent per kWh of electricity. The average costs of feedstock was 5.6 €-Cent per kWh electricity produced. Also the average cost was 67 €-Cent per Nm3 of methane produced. The average total costs were 19.5 €-Cent per kWh electricity produced which was slightly above the price paid in most of the countries involved.
Development of improved means of both introducing and treating the feedstock was important for improved biogas yields. The hydrolysis of crops and crop residues could significantly reduce the HRT of some digesters to below 100 days. The type and mixture of feedstock also influenced the biogas yield and optimisation of the inputs would be of benefit. However each feedstock may ferment at different rate and/or require different conditions so process control could produce more biogas. High levels of manure required up to 4 times as much volume as other feedstocks to produce the same amount of biogas. There was up to 3 times the methane output per kg VS from different biogas plants. Some biogas plants had a variability (on standard deviation) of the specific methane yield as low as 7% others could be considered unstable with values over 100% of their mean values. Feedstocks were considered responsible for this variability, however such a range suggests that process monitoring and control would provide more stable biogas production and improved biogas yields. Monitoring fermentation parameters was limited to pH and volume of the various vessels for all biogas plants. Sensors did include means of measuring VFAs (36% of the total) and conductivity (18%) and redox potential (9%) for the 13 biogas plants. The outcome of this study will be used to identify demonstration projects at different biogas plants and research facilities.
Author(s): Baringa Partners LLP
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): ETI
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2015
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Croxton, S., Hogan, G., Wall, M., Weatherstone, S., Connolly, T., Quick, W. and Forster, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Croxton, S., Hogan, G., Wall, M., Weatherstone, S., Connolly, T., Quick, W. and Forster, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2015
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Croxton, S., Hogan, G., Wall, M., Weatherstone, S., Connolly, T., Quick, W. and Forster, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Forest Research
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Hogan, G., Croxton, S. and Quick, W
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Hogan, G. and Croxton, S
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Croxton, S., Hogan, G., Wall, M., Weatherstone, S., Connolly, T., Quick, W. and Forster, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): McKay, H., Croxton, S., Hogan, G., Wall, M., Weatherstone, S., Connolly, T., Quick, W. and Forster, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): ETI
Published: 2014
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): WRC
Published: 2009
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Good quality waste characterisation data are fundamental to Defra's policies and strategies to manage environmental challenges, yet the UK dataset for the new generation of treated wastes was poor. This project aimed to fill some of the gaps in understanding the characteristics of residues from the treatment of municipal solid waste and industrial process wastes.
The overall objectives were to:
A consistent approach to the sampling and testing of the residues has been used as advocated in the Environment Agency's sampling and testing guidance (2005). This includes the use of scenario-specific sampling plans to enable future replication of testing and the full characterisation toolbox (e.g. composition, leachability, biodegradability testing). The datasets have been imported into leachXS and the benefits of this data management and expert tool to technical specialists and policy developers can be seen, for example the rapid comparison of the characteristics of the new generation of treatment residues with more traditional waste streams.
The nitrogen fertilizer value of most organic wastes is much lower than that of sewage sludge. More organic waste would therefore be needed to be applied to soils to provide the same fertiliser value as sewage sludge. The partially stabilized organic wastes have a high requirement for oxygen. There is a risk that the soil system would be unable to sustain the oxygen needed for respiration by the in situ microbial population and so adverse anoxic conditions are likely to exist in the soil.
Author(s): AEA Energy & Environment
Published: 2006
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
This document is a report for the project titled 'Outline Feasibility of Centralised Anaerobic Digestion Plants linked to Dairy Supply Chain'.
Dairy UK and AEA Energy & Environment have undertaken a high level assessment of the feasibility of centralised anaerobic digestion (CAD) in the dairy processing sector. This was based on the identification of 10 potential sites that could host centralised anaerobic digestion plants. The work comprised technical, economic and environmental assessments.
This work has confirmed our previous findings that centralised anaerobic digestion plants, based at or close to industrial dairy sites, have the potential to be economically attractive, as several positive factors would combine in their favour, with payback periods as low as 3 years. This is because they can be designed to co-treat organic wastes from industrial dairy sites along with animal wastes from nearby livestock farms and other food manufacturing wastes. As the cost of landfilling will continue to rise due to the Landfill tax, producers of industrial food waste will increasingly need outlets such as AD plants. Inclusion of these will help to increase the viability of the CAD by providing a diverse feedstock and by providing an additional income stream to the plant operator.
The successful exploitation of CAD depends on gaining the full economic benefit of the outputs combined with full exploitation of ancillary benefits. Generation and utilisation of biogas is one of the key benefits of adopting anaerobic digestion process for treating biodegradable wastes. The Government already provides incentives that contribute to improving the economics of biogas utilisation, through the Renewable Obligation, Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption and Enhanced Capital Allowance. There is potential for additional energy income from the sale of heat generated from the combined heat and power (CHP) scheme, but this would depend on the development of infrastructure to deliver the heat to where it is needed within a few hundred meters. Assessment of land use around the 10 identified potential CAD sites showed that there would be sufficient area to return digestate to land within a 7.5 km radius.
The CAD schemes can provide the industrial dairies with several environmental benefits that will also help them to consolidate or secure new market outlets. For instance, a significant proportion of their carbon footprint could be reduced -which will help those dairies to link up favourably with C-labelling schemes which are being planned by retail chains and the Carbon Trust.
This report contains and executive summary, and is divided into the following sections:Author(s): Wynn, S., Alves, L. and Carter, R.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wynn, S., Carter, R., Turner, C. and Huxley, C.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wynn, S., Elliott, J., Wilson, L., Hockridge, B., Brunton, S., Taylor, R., Konopka, P., Slade, R., Lindegaard, K. and Richardson, W.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wynn, S., Elliott, J., Wilson, L., Hockridge, B., Brunton, S., Taylor, R., Konopka, P., Slade, R., Lindegaard, K. and Richardson, W.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wynn, S., Carter, R., Turner, C., and Huxley, C.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wilson, L. and Hockridge, B.
Published: 2015
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Wynn, S., Alves, L. and Carter, R.
Published: 2016
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Holliday, L.
Published: 2005
Publisher: Department of Trade and Industry
This project investigates ryegrass as a wet energy crop and is believed to be the first of its kind in the UK. It is hoped that this research will help towards the Government's target to produce 20% of our energy through renewable sources by 2020 in a move towards a carbon neutral economy. The growing of energy crops creates a diversification opportunity for UK farmers with the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy moving away from subsidised farming. Most energy crop development to date has been directed towards the production of low moisture content biomass which is transformed into useful energy by thermal processes. In contract this project examines the harvesting of rye-grass as a high moisture energy crop to be transformed into useful energy by anaerobic digestion.
The key features of such a concept are:
In summary, the process has the potential of creating a sustainable cycle, as summarised in the simple flow diagram in Figure 1, where the biogas plant includes a boiler or CHP unit, which produces energy and an exhaust gas.
This project has provided very firm grounding for Greenfinch's current research within Cropgen, A European consortium investigating the production of biogas using agri wastes and energy crops. In Germany, at the time of writing, there are 3000 farm biogas plants being run on crops and agri wastes proving that biogas technology is viable. The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy forcing farmers to grow crops that have real monitory value, combined with the continuing rise in the price of oil, will make anaerobic digestion a real option for energy production
This report is divided into the following sections:Author(s): DTI
Published: 2005
Publisher: Department of Trade and Industry
The overall aim of this project is to prove that rye-grass in the UK is a viable energy crop for conversion to biogas.
The trials have shown that ryegrass requires more fertiliser that it can provide itself through its own digestate. It is suggested that slurry would be an ideal organic fertiliser to provide the grass with the extra nutrients it requires; it could also become an additional feedstock to co-digest with the grass enhancing the digestion process. This is especially important on a commercial scale where maximising methane production is vital.
This summary provides information on:Author(s): Evans, G.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Evans, G.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Taylor, R., Westerbeeke, H., German, L., Bauen, A., Brownbridge, G., Bhave, A., Bianco, N., Wong, R., Lawal, A., Shah, N., Martinez, L., Eastwood, M., Hughes, K. and Pourkashanian, M.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Taylor, R., Konopka, P., Howes, J., Bauen, A., Eastwood, M., Martinez, L., Milne, T., Shah, N., MacDowell, N., Fennell, Pl, Huges, K., Pourkashanian, M. and Jones, J.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Taylor, R., Howes, J., Shah, N., Eastwood, M. and Hughes, K.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): Taylor, R., Bauen, A., Robson, P., Eastwood, M., Webb, A., Martinez, L., Milne, T. and Shah, N.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): ETI
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Author(s): WRC
Published: 2008
Publisher: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
This document is the final report to Defra for the project titled 'UK support for EU LEACHXS expert database on waste characterisation'.
Strategies to manage the environmental challenges posed by wastes require good quality data on waste characteristics such as leachability and composition. Public domain datasets for UK wastes tend to be limited in number and extent and those that are available are stored in disparate locations and media. The data cannot easily be evaluated or compared either with other UK data or with more extensive non-UK datasets. Information on the quality of residues arising from new waste technologies and treatments are particularly sparse.
LeachXS© is an expert system for managing and modelling waste characterisation data. It has been developed by ECN (Netherlands), DHI (Denmark) and Vanderbilt University (US), contains 5M€ waste data and incorporates:
WRc and ECN obtained Defra funding under the "understanding waste composition and trends" theme of the Waste Evidence programme:
LeachXS© is a powerful secondary research tool containing appropriate publicly available data on the composition and leachability of approximately 2000 European waste samples including data for UK and German wastes collated for this project. The UK dataset can therefore be interrogated by end-users in the context of the wider, pan-European leachXS database.
Simple data management tools enable the novice user to rapidly compare the characteristics of different wastes, allowing for example comparison of characteristics of:
Author(s): Winstanley, P.
Published: 2017
Publisher: ETI
Show more results