Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Current status of bioenergy technologies in Germany MARK

⁎
Rafal Strzalka , Dietrich Schneider, Ursula Eicker
University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart, Research Center Sustainable Energy Technologies, Schellingstrasse 24, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Bioenergy conversion technologies have been frequently described and analysed in the literature, but a
Bioenergy comprehensive and detailed comparison between the complex individual characteristics of each technology is
ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) process still lacking. Therefore, the paper contains a description of the technical, economic and environmental
Renewable cogeneration properties of each technology with a special focus on the German bioenergy sector. The study presents an
Biomass conversion
analysis of different bioenergy applications with regard to their specifications, power/heat output range and
their areas of application. Due to the fact, that biomass combustion applications are the most widespread and
market proven renewable conversion technologies, a detailed analysis of decentralised, biomass-fired CHP
plants is presented in the paper.
The overview of the individual characteristics of different biomass conversion routes shows that biogas plants
achieve high electrical efficiencies, are available with a broad range of capacities and belong to the established
technologies. Although the investment costs of biogas plants are relatively high, biomass conversion with
anaerobic digestion can be seen as one of the most promising option for a sustainable energy supply in Europe.

1. Introduction increased energy efficiency. Especially the promotion of decentralised

The worldwide energy consumption is constantly growing and the
utilization of primary fossil energy sources is already approaching their
natural limits. The actual, mostly fossil-fuel based energy generation is
linked with emissions of large quantities of pollutants, causing serious
negative environmental effects. The limited potentials and availability
of petroleum, natural gas and coal as well as growing environmental
concerns provided the impetum for a massive development of renew-
able energy applications in recent years, as a promising alternative for
sustainable global energy supply [1–3].
Among alternative energy sources, biomass plays the most impor-
tant role, accounting for about 80% of the energy generated by
renewable energy carriers worldwide. The main difference between
biomass and other renewables is the possibility of its utilization as a
fuel. Biomass is the only carbon-based renewable energy source which
can directly substitute fossil fuels. Biomass is also the only renewable
energy source that can be stored and applied to produce heating,
electricity and fuels when they are needed. The environmental benefit
of using biomass as an energy source is the ability to reduce CO2
emissions compared to fossil fuels. The liquid or solid biomass feed-
stock can be directly used to provide energy or converted to more
convenient energy carriers.
The promotion of the use of renewable energies is a major objective
of the European energy policy together with energy savings and
energy production from biomass and other renewables is an important
part of the EU energy policy, because of its many benefits, including the
utilization of local energy sources, increased local security of energy
supply, shorter transport distances and reduced energy transmission
losses. Biomass is an integral part of the development of the European
renewable energy sector with the policy goal of a 20% target for the
overall share of energy from renewable sources and a 10% target for
energy from renewable sources in the transport sector until 2020.
Biomass can also contribute a significant part to the development of
district heating and cooling, which is an integral objective of the EU
Directive on the promotion of the use of renewable energies [4].
The above mentioned EU Directive obligates each Member State to
adopt a national renewable energy action plan. These action plans
should take into account national measures related to achieving
defined minimum levels of energy from renewable sources for district
heating and cooling. These priorities provide a good basis for the future
development of modern decentralised bioenergy systems and their
implementation within communal and municipal energy supply con-
cepts. However, research and development activities are still needed to
develop efficient bioenergy supply schemes, because biomass conver-
sion technologies should achieve conversion efficiency of at least 85%
for residential and commercial applications and at least 70% for
industrial applications [4].
Bioenergy is already a significant contributor to the European

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rafal.strzalka@hft-stuttgart.de (R. Strzalka).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.091

Available online 23 January 2017

1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

Nomenclature Greek symbols

APH Air preheater Δ delta

CON Condenser η efficiency
E Emission factor
EBU Efficiency of biomass utilization Subscripts
EVA Evaporator
EXF Exhaust fan 0 reference point
e Physical exergy CO2 carbon dioxide emissions
ε Exergetic efficiency D destruction
FBCB Fixed bed combustion boiler EB fossil fuel boiler efficiency
GEN Generator el electrical
h Enthalpy F emission factor for the production of electricity from fossil
IAF Intake air fan fuels
M Motor i identification number
ORC Organic Rankine Cycle k system component
REC Recuperator L loss
SOP Silicone oil pump P Product
S Entropy ph physical
TOECO Thermal oil economiser R emission factor for energy generation from fossil fuels
TOP Thermal oil pump tot total
TUR Turbine
y Ratio

energy mix and it is anticipated that biomass will provide 20,000 ktoe
electricity, 90,000 ktoe heat and 29,000 ktoe biofuels in 2020. The
bioenergy sector in Europe is showing steady growth patterns across
the different market segments and covers about 8% of the total final
European energy consumption. Although biomass potentials are lim-
ited, the efficient utilization of modern bioenergy technologies will be of
high importance for the future development of the European energy
supply system, especially in balancing out fluctuations in energy
generation from wind and solar.
Related to the actual development of alternative energy generation
technologies and the role biomass is anticipated to play within the
future renewable energy market, the paper analyses the possibilities of
efficient biomass integration within innovative energy supply concepts.
Biomass applications will be described using the example of Germany,
because the German bioenergy sector is one of the most well-developed
in Europe; in 2014 biomass contributed with 326.9 TWh to cover about
7,6% of the European energy demand. Energy produced from biomass
contributes with 66% to the total final energy produced from renew-
ables. The German bioenergy installations provide about 49.1 TWh of
electricity and thus account for about 8% of the total electricity
consumption. Additionally biomass is the most important energy
source for heat generation, meeting more than 90% of renewable-
based heating demand. Since 1995, the share of biofuels in the
transport sector increased by a factor of nearly 120; in 2014, about
3.4 Mio t. fuels were generated from biogenic substrates, 5.1% of the
total fuel consumption in Germany [5–10].
There are numerous technologies for the conversion of biomass into
useful forms of energy. Bioenergy can be provided as solid, gaseous or
liquid fuel and is mainly used to generate heat, as well as electricity and
transport fuels and its wide application spectrum is one of the main
reasons for constantly growing amounts of energy produced from
biomass. Basically, the processes utilized for energy production from
biomass can be divided into three main categories: thermochemical,
physical-chemical and biological conversion routes. The thermochemi-
cal conversion processes of biomass include: combustion, pyrolysis and
gasification. The physical-chemical conversion processes can be applied
for the production of biodiesel. The biological conversion routes of
biomass are used to convert biomass into biogas or bioethanol [11].
With the recent rapid development of biomass conversion technol-
ogies and increasing demand for decentralised, low-emission genera-
tion, the knowledge of efficient applications of modern bioenergy
systems is important in the context of energy shortage and climate
change. From technical and ecological aspects, biomass is a suitable
substitute to fossil fuels, especially in the sector of power generation.
While the technology for biomass-based electricity generation above
2 MW electrical power output using steam turbines are now state-of-
the-art appliances, the technologies available below this capacity are
less established and display several new and innovative approaches
[12]. Hence, the ongoing development of these technologies and the
current status of decentralised biomass power supply systems will be
reviewed in the paper.
The scarcity of resources and the necessity for long-term energy
security have increased the attention to the production of biofuels as an
alternative fuel in the transportation sector. Biomass in the form of
biofuels can be used as fuel in several kinds of vehicles and be
additionally used in cogeneration plants for the generation of heat
and electricity. Bioliquids offer advantageous storage and transporta-
tion characteristics which make them an integral part of most future
energy scenarios [13]. Although biofuels offer several advantages as
plant-based fuels from a renewable source, the utilization of bioliquids
for energy purposes is not always the most sustainable option.
Therefore an overview on actual issues related to production and
utilization of biofuels is presented in the paper.
Over the last years a lot of information about the individual
characteristics of different biomass conversion technologies has been
published. However, a direct and comprehensive comparison of the
specification, cost-efficiency and performance of the different bioenergy
appliances is still lacking. Therefore review reports that systematically
compare, analyse and evaluate the suitability of the individual biomass
conversion technologies with emphasis on the relevant performance
parameters and realistic commercial potential are needed. Hence, the
final section of the study contains a characterisation and evaluation of
the relevant parameters of the versatile biomass conversion processes.
While the development of the bioenergy sector gained momentum
in recent years, the practical experience from existing plants and
numerous research studies have shown that not all technologies are
reliable and cost efficient. Yang et al. [14] used a cumulative exergy
method for the evaluation of the sustainability of the corn-ethanol
production in China and indicate that the production process is not
sustainable for the conditions prevailing in China. Another study

802
R. Strzalka et al.
recently published by Yang et al. [15] also showed that 1.70 times more
energy investment is needed for the corn-ethanol production in China
than was delivered. Thus, corn-ethanol cannot be used to substitute
conventional gasoline, but to convert the embodied coal equivalent into
the gasoline equivalent. The results published by Chen et al. [16] show
that also the production of rapeseed-biodiesel in China has a negative
energy return due to the relatively low rapeseed yield and intensive
chemical fertilizer use. The work published by Wu et al. [17] indicates
that integrated biogas systems can achieve a higher level of sustain-
ability than that of conventional agriculture systems, but only when the
biogas application operates well for at least 8 years. Depending on the
type of conversion technology, bioenergy systems have certain advan-
tages and disadvantages and each have different operating conditions
[18]. Therefore, the key biomass based energy technologies will be
investigated in this paper using Germany as the principle market.
Several forecasts related to the future development of the global
energy market have shown that the global energy demand may at least
double within the next decades [19–21]. It is clear that biomass alone
cannot provide sufficient energy to bridge the gap between the demand
and the provision of energy, but without the contribution of biomass a
100% renewable supply system cannot be achieved. Biomass utilization
for energy needs is CO2-neutral if none or little fossil fuels are used in
its production. One of the most important advantages of biomass is its
availability as a combustible fuel, which is suitable for storage in
contrast to other sources like PV or wind energy, for which storage
systems have yet to be provided. Heat from biomass is generated on
demand, but also power generation from biomass can provide balan-
cing energy in order to compensate electricity fluctuations from wind
and solar systems. The growing share of fluctuating renewable elec-
tricity from solar and wind plants in Europe leads to increasing
electricity storage needs for surplus energy. The conversion of biomass
and renewable electricity into renewable methane is a promising
solution for the stabilisation of the power supply, even if the shares
of wind and solar power generation will increase strongly [22].
However, biomass also has some disadvantages. The potential
disadvantage for energy production from biomass is that the biomass
resources may be in demand for other purposes such as food or feed.
One of the barriers that hinders a meaningful increase of bioenergy
shares are the relatively high energy generation cost. Research is
needed to reduce the cost of biomass based energy use and in order
to enhance the efficiency of bioenergy systems. An example is the
project “Efficiency enhancement of biomass-fired cogeneration plants”,
which was supported by the German Agency for Renewable Resources
and carried out by the authors. Another project which intends to
promote biomass utilization for energy needs is the European
Greenfoods project which, amongst other topics, aims to highlight
the possibilities for the utilization of biomass as energy source for
industrial purposes.
The paper contains a review of different bioenergy technologies,
which was carried out within the above mentioned project activities.
Based on the collective knowledge from literature and practical
experience from existing plants, biomass to energy systems were
analysed with regard to their parameters, areas of application and
cost-efficiency.
2. Biomass combined heat and power technologies
Fossil fuel fired power plants dominate the electricity sector in
Germany, more than 45% of the electrical energy was generated from
coal in 2013. The amount of electricity generated from natural gas
increased last year and actually about 10% of the electricity demand is
covered by natural gas. The utilization of fossil fuels for the generation
of electricity is a large source of CO2 emissions. The emission factors
and efficiency parameters for electricity production from fossil fuels are
listed in Table 1.
Biomass can efficiently reduce the environmental impact related to
803
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
CO2 emissions if fossil-fueled plants are replaced by district heating
from biomass-based combined heat and power generation. The amount
of potential CO2 emission savings ΔCO2 that can be achieved by
substitution of fossil fuels with biomass can be calculated using
following equation [24]:
EUB − ηel
∆CO2 = *ER+ηel *EF
ηeB (1)
where:
EUB efficiency of biomass utilization in the cogeneration plant, EUB
=0.7
ηel electric efficiency of the biomass plant, [%]
ηEB fossil fuel boiler efficiency, [%]
The results presented in Fig. 1 show the potential of CO2 emissions
reduction if biomass is utilized as a fuel for combined heat and power
generation systems to substitute fossil fuels. The CO2 emission savings
were plotted in the function of electrical efficiency.
The results presented in Fig. 1 show that a relatively high reduction
of CO2 emissions can be achieved if lignite-based electricity generation
is substituted by biomass plants. Even at relatively low electric
efficiencies of about 15%, which are typical for ORC (Organic
Rankine Cycle) plants, more than 400 kg of CO2 emissions can be
saved with each MWh of electricity produced from biomass. Biomass
cogeneration plants are of central importance for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions if one considers that coal and nuclear power
are now the main energy carriers applied to produce electricity in
Europe and lignite is actually the main energy source utilized to
generate power in Germany. The substitution of coal with biomass will
not only lead to lower CO2 emissions but will also reduce other negative
effects (lake and ocean acidification, mercury emissions) related to
energy generation from coal. A significant reduction of CO2 emissions
can even be achieved if efficient gas-fired plants are substituted by
biomass. Another important advantage of replacing natural gas with
biomass is the possibility of reducing the dependency on gas imports.
One of the most important aspects related to energy generation
from biomass is its limited potential. Hence, the utilization of biomass
for energy purposes has to be characterised by high efficiency. Today
biomass is most efficiently used in decentralised cogeneration plants as
they combine high efficiency with reasonable fuel transport distances.
Therefore, there is a significant interest in small-scale biomass-fueled
combined heat and power technologies that can operate using local
wood fuels of which there is a considerable resource base available
[25]. The technologies for decentralised cogeneration have the unique
advantages of reducing the environmental impact of power generation
and increasing the effectiveness of biomass utilization [26,27].
Decentralised systems below 2 MW electricity generation play an
important role in the renewable energy mix. The typical power range of
decentralised bioenergy plants is listed in the Table 2.
The thermo-chemical conversion of biomass in cogeneration plants
above 2 MW electrical power is well established using steam turbines.
The biomass-based cogeneration technologies applied below this power
range are less well-developed, but display several innovative and
Table 1
Fossil fuels plant parameters [23].
Energy Electrical Boiler EF [kgCO2/ ER [kgCO2/
carrier efficiency [%] efficiency [%] MWh] MWh]
Lignite 38.0 82 1175 364
Coal 41.0 88 931 341
Natural gas 44.4 90 518 202
where:
EF – emission factor for the production of electricity, [kgCO2/MWh]
ER – reference emission factor for energy generation from fossil fuels, [kgCO2/MWh]
R. Strzalka et al.
Fig. 1. CO2 emissions reduction by substitution of fossil fuels with biomass [24].
Table 2
Typical sizes of decentralised biomass cogeneration plants.
Technology Typical power range
Stirling engines 1–100 kW
Organic Rankine modules 30–2700 kW
Gasification plants ≤50–500 kW
Backpressure steam turbines 100–1000 kW
Biogas plants 100–2500 kW
promising energy supply alternatives [12]. In terms of cogeneration
systems there are four main energy conversion technologies based on
the thermo-chemical conversion of biomass: Stirling engines, gasifica-
tion systems, Organic Rankine modules and small-scale backpressure
steam turbines. The biological conversion processes of biomass are
applied in biogas plants for cogeneration of electricity and heat. The
comparison of electrical efficiencies of different decentralised biomass
cogeneration technologies is presented in Fig. 2.
The comparison of the efficiencies of the main biomass cogenera-
tion technologies shows that Stirling engines applied in small-scale
plants below 100 kW power output achieve relatively high electrical
efficiencies. The electrical efficiency of gasification plants is even
higher, which is one the main reasons for the growing interest in
utilization of this technology. In general gasification is a promising
technology due to the relatively high efficiency, but there is still a lack
of standardisation which prohibits the widespread application of this
technology [29]. Although the electrical efficiency of Organic Rankine
Cycle plants ranges below 20%, these plants are an interesting
alternative for biomass-based cogeneration systems working in heat
driven mode. The ORC plants have several advantages compared to
classical water steam plants due to the lower investment and main-
tenance costs, better part-load performance and higher flexibility and
safety [30]. In comparison to other decentralised cogeneration applica-
tions, the efficiency of small-scale steam turbines is relatively low.
However, these systems are an economically viable option for energy
generation when considerable amounts of steam are required as
process energy. The electrical efficiency of biogas plants is rather
difficult to estimate due to a wide range of methods available to
calculate it. There is no single method for estimating the efficiency of
biogas plants. The most common two methods for evaluation of the
biogas systems efficiency are: energy output divided by energy input
and energy input divided by energy output. Other methods define the
COP of biogas plants as a ratio of mechanical energy delivered by a
tractor to incoming energy or estimate the system efficiency by
combining four biogas plant performance aspects: biogas production,
biogas utilization, environmental impacts and socio-economic effi-
ciency. There is a lack of a coherent method for analysing biogas plant
efficiency, but the output-input ratio has primarily been used and
provides the best possibility to compare different plant types. The
energy efficiency of biogas plants calculated on the basis of output-
804
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
input ratio achieves relatively high values in the range between 20%
and 40% [31–33].
Another commonly used technology for energy generation from
biomass is a large steam power station that achieves a relatively high
electrical efficiency. This is due to economy of scale and installation of
complex and cost-intensive equipment. However, the fuel supply of
large-scale biomass power stations is a critical issue due to the long
transport distances and problems related to collection of large amounts
of biomass resources [34].
3. Direct combustion chp systems
Due to their reliability, efficiency and commercial availability,
combustion-based biomass appliances provide over 90% of the global
bioenergy production. One of the main advantages of combustion is, in
comparison to other biomass conversion technologies, the nonselective
biomass utilization which allows to use a wide variety of raw material
as a fuel [35–38]. Other important advantages of biomass combustion
that also contribute to a widespread utilization of biomass furnaces is
the ease of operation and the cost-efficiency of biomass burning
systems. Biomass combustion units can be applied in a wide power
range from a few kW up to more than 100 MW [39].
The ongoing research and development activities led to a significant
improvement in combustion efficiency and environmental performance
of biomass burning installations. Especially decentralised biomass
cogeneration heat and power plants based on combustion systems
can significantly contribute to the sustainability of energy supply in the
respective regions. The utilization of modern control systems of
biomass boilers in combination with the utilization of natural fuel
sources determines in particular the environmental performance of
decentralised biomass cogeneration systems based on combustion [40].
The high investment cost of biomass combustion based plants in
comparison to fossil fuels plant and the relatively low cost of fossil
fuels are the main reasons why bioenergy does not contribute a higher
proportion of the energy generated in the EU. The investment costs for
a coal-fired steam power plant are in the range of 1500 and 2500 EUR
per kW of installed power output. Compared to that, the investment
cost for ORC plants are significantly higher (Fig. 4). Even if the fossil
fuel prices (coal: 40 EUR/MWh, fuel oil: 60 EUR/MWh and natural
gas: 70 EUR/MWh) are actually still higher than the price of biomass
fuels (wood chips 30 EUR/MWh), the fuel price difference is not large
enough to compensate the higher investment cost during the lifetime of
a biomass plant.
Among technological solutions applied for biomass combustion-
based cogeneration in decentralised plants only ORC-modules (Organic
Rankine Cycle) and Stirling engines have achieved the commercial
stage of development and are available in many different fields of
application.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the efficiencies of biomass CHP technologies [6,7,12,18,21,27,28].
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

3.1. ORC plants

Decentralised biomass-fired CHP plants provide an energy efficient

possibility for biomass-based cogeneration, because of the relatively
low energy transport losses and relatively short fuel transport distances
[41]. ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) plants are the most advanced
decentralised cogeneration technology. One of their main advantages is
the energy generation mode which is adequate to the typical energy
demand structure in Europe (75% heat, 25% electricity). Due to the
favourable energy policy conditions (Renewable Source Act), the
largest part of the ORC plants has been installed in Germany.
Resulting from its main advantages which are efficient part-load
operation and reduced operating costs, ORC systems have become a
well-established technology within the bioenergy sector [42]. The
energy is generated in ORC plants on the similar basis to the classical
water-steam process, but instead of water, silicone oil is used as the Fig. 4. ORC plant cost in €/kW [12,47,48].
working fluid. The utilization of an organic fluid as the working
medium allows production of electricity at much lower temperature
and pressure levels in comparison to the classical steam power plants.
The ORC process is a thermodynamic cycle which is connected to a
thermal energy source as shown in Fig. 3. A heat transport medium,
mainly thermal oil, is applied to transport the thermal energy from the
biomass boiler to the evaporator of the cogeneration module. The hot
thermal oil generates superheated steam in the evaporator. The
superheated steam is forwarded to the turbine which drives a gen-
erator. After that, the working medium flows to the condenser which
can serve as a heat source for a district heating system. The electrical
efficiency of ORC modules is linked with combustion efficiency as well
as efficiency of heat recovery and ranges between 6% and 20% [43].
Actually there are more than 150 biomass fueled ORC plants in
operation all over Europe. The main part (85) from the European ORC
modules has been installed in Germany. A large part of the biomass- Fig. 5. ORC module cost in €/kW [12,47,48].

based ORC cogeneration plants works in heat-driven mode and feeds

heat into district heating grids [44,45].
The ORC modules have several positive properties in comparison to
the classic water-steam power generation plants. The main advantages
of the ORC technology are favourable operating conditions of the
turbine, excellent part-load behaviour, long operating time and high
level of automation. Due to the favourable operating parameters a
significant reduction of the operation and maintenance costs can be
achieved [46].
In terms of the financial investment required Fig. 4 provides the
total costs of ORC plants (including boiler) against their gross electrical
output. The figure shows that there is a clear decrease of cost per kW
electrical output installed for small-size plants within the power range
of < 500 kW. The financial investment required to construct an ORC
plant with power output above 500 kW remains almost constant even
when the power output increases.
Fig. 5 provides a comparison of ORC module costs against their
gross electrical output. The results show that the investment costs of
small-sized ORC modules ( < 500 kW electric output) are significantly
higher compared to the investment costs of larger systems. The
diagram shows a steady decline in costs of middle-sized and large
ORC plants with increasing electric output.
Although the ORC technology is already highly advanced, detailed

Fig. 3. ORC plant based on biomass combustion [26,37,44].

805
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

information on the long term performance of biomass combustion
based plants is still rare. Through the analysis of data material gathered
by the authors during the operation of a 1 MWel and 5.3 MWth ORC
plant located near Stuttgart, Germany a detailed performance evalua-
tion of the OR-Cycle data could be performed. The measurement
results presented in Fig. 6 show that the installation achieves an
electrical efficiency of 15% at nominal load, which is a relatively high
value in comparison to water-steam plants in this power output range.
However, a significant decrease of the electrical efficiency during part-
load operation was observed.
Practical experience has shown that one of the main reasons for the
relatively low electric efficiency during part load operation is the low
performance of the ORC-regenerator. With the failing performance of
the regenerator the mass flow of silicone oil at the condenser inlet
decreases which causes a feed pump pressure reduction. Due to the fact
that the temperature of the ORC-evaporator does not reduce during
part-load operation, the working medium vapour will be overheated
strongly. This causes a declining pressure drop between turbine inlet
and outlet. Additionally the bearing friction of the generator shaft
remains nearly constant in the whole performance range which leads to
declining efficiency of the generator during part-load operation. This
complex interaction of the ORC plant components causes a significant
drop in the electric efficiency during part load operation as shown in
Fig. 6.
3.2. Exergy-based CHP-system analysis
The most effective and meaningful method for system performance
evaluation is the exergy analysis which enables a detailed insight into
the efficiency of each plant component. In most studies the perfor-
mance of biomass conversion plants is discussed from the energy point
of view (either during the plant's designing phase or during its
operation). However, while the energy balance mainly considers the
quantity of energy, it ignores the quality of energy. On the other hand,
the quality of thermal and chemical energy depends on various
parameters and it is obvious that electricity has a greater quality than
low-pressure steam or a cooling water stream in a power plant. The
quality of a given quantity of energy is characterised by its exergy. The
concept of exergy based on the first two laws of thermodynamic
provides us with an ideal, unifying measure to analyse thermodynamic
inefficiencies in processes or systems.
Energy based plant efficiencies cannot recognise that CHP plants
may be less efficient than condensing plants or that fossil fuel-based
plants should be always more efficient than any biomass plant because
irreversibilities from biomass spontaneous thermo-chemical reactions
are much higher than with coal or natural gas. The exergy analysis is
based on the real value, namely work, of the system's inputs and
outputs. As the cost and energy policies are different from country to
country, there is a need to evaluate power plant efficiencies purely on a
technical basis. The exergy analysis methodology offers a possibility to
calculate the true technical efficiency of an energy generation system,
which is the benefit and important property of the exergy concept [49].
Exergy-based analysis has been applied in numerous studies for a
comprehensive system analysis. Chen et al. [50] introduced a holistic
methodology based on cosmic exergy in order to analyse the wetland
ecosystem in Beijing. Shao and Chen [51] published a study in which
the cosmic exergy analysis and an input-output analysis was applied to
assess the sustainability of a production system by tracing the historical
renewable resources use along the supply chain. Zhang et al. [52] used
the concept of exergy to provide a chemical exergy-based unifying
assessment of environmental emissions by Chinese industry.
There is still a lack of information related to practical experience
from existing biomass ORC cogeneration plants and the performance of
most systems has been analysed only from the energy viewpoint.
Considering the fact that data on ORC system efficiency is lacking, a
comprehensive exergy analysis for the woodchip cogeneration plant in
Scharnhauser Park was carried out. This analysis includes not only a
detailed parameter study conducted to an existing CHP plant but also
enables the definition of the optimisation potential related to improve-
ment of combustion air management system.
At the beginning of the exergy analysis the thermodynamic proper-
ties are used to define the enthalpy and entropy of each stream, which
are used to calculate each stream's physical exergy through the
equation below: [53].
ei ph=(hi −h 0 )−T0 (si −s0 ) (2)
where:
ei ph : Physical exergy of ith stream, hi and si are the enthalpy and
entropy of the corresponding stream respectively.
T0 : Reference temperature (taken to the average reference environment
temperature of 15 °C).
h 0 : Enthalpy of the corresponding stream at reference condition
(temperature 15 °C and pressure 1.104 bar).
s0 : Entropy of the corresponding stream at reference condition
(temperature 15 °C and pressure 1.104 bar).
It is well known that all thermodynamic processes are governed by
the laws of mass and energy conservation. On the other hand, exergy is
not conserved but it could be destroyed by irreversibility within a
system.
Consequently, an exergy balance must contain a destruction term
that vanishes only in a reversible process. Furthermore, exergy could be
lost when a material or energy stream is rejected to the environment.
So exergy destruction (ED, k ) and exergy loss (EL, k ) indicate the
inefficiencies associated with the irreversible processes at the K th
system component. By choosing the components’ boundaries at
reference temperature (T0 ), the value of (EL, k ) will be always zero, as
all the thermodynamic inefficiencies within the component will be
charged to the component's exergy destruction (ED, k ), and consequently
for k th component of an energy conversion system. [53].
EḞ , k =Eṗ , k +EḊ , k (3)
Where:
EḞ , k : Exergy of the k th component's fuel.
Eṗ , k : Exergy of the k th component's product.
The exergy balance for an overall energy conversion system can be
expressed as: [53].
EḞ , tot =EṖ , tot +EḊ , tot +EL̇ , tot (4)
where:
EḞ , tot : Exergy of the overall system's fuel.
Fig. 6. Electrical efficiency as a function of the thermal power input [44].

806
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

EṖ , tot : Exergy of the overall system's product. overall exergy loss to the exergy of the fuel provided to the overall
EḊ , tot : Exergy destruction throughout the overall system. system [53].
EL̇ , tot : Exergy loss of the overall system (includes the exergy flow rates of
all streams rejected by this system to the surroundings). EL̇ , tot
yL =
Exergetic efficiency (, ) is one of the most important indicators used EḞ , tot (9)
for performance evaluation based on exergetic analysis. An appropri-
ately defined exergetic efficiency precisely characterizes the perfor- A mathematical model of the cogeneration plant was developed in
mance of a system or a system's component from the thermodynamic order to analyse the system performance, and process parameters
viewpoint. The exergetic efficiency is defined as the ratio between measured at the plant served as input for the performance analysis. The
exergy of product and exergy of fuel, so for the k th component. [53]. structure of the mathematical model was based on the principle of
operation of the cogeneration plant which enables to analyse the
EṖ , k EḊ , k
εk = =1 − performance of each component within the system. For the purpose
EḞ , k EḞ , k (5) of the exergetic analysis the mathematical description of the plant was
And for the overall system: [53]. simplified into 16 components, namely: Intake Air Fan (IAF), Exhaust
Fan (EXF), Thermal Oil Pump (TOP), Silicone Oil Pump (SOP),
EṖ , tot EḊ , tot + EL̇ , tot Generator (GEN), Air Preheater (APH), Fixed Bed Combustion Boiler
εtot = =1 −
EḞ , tot EḞ , tot (6) (FBCB), Thermal Oil Economiser (TOECO), Evaporator (EVA),
Turbine (TUR), Recuperator (REC), Condenser (CON) and four
There are a couple of other important exergy related performance
Motors (Motor 1 to Motor 4). The mathematical model of the
indicators that could be introduced as outcomes of proper exergy
cogeneration plant was based on mass and exergy balance equations.
analysis, such as the exergy destruction ratio ( yD, k ), the relative exergy
MATLAB was used to solve the equations of the mathematical model.
destruction ratio ( yD*, k ) and the exergy loss ratio ( yL ). Improving an
The exergy system performance analysis based on mathematical
energy conversion system according to exergetic analysis results means
modelling of plant components enables the definition of process steps
improving components with the highest values of the exergy destruc-
with lowest efficiency and highest exergy destruction ratios. The
tion (EḊ , k ) or the exergy destruction ratio ( yD, k ). [53].
structure of the model is presented in Fig. 7. The analysis results can
EḊ , k be applied to define targeted optimisation measures with the greatest
yD, k =
EḞ , tot (7) influence on the overall plant performance.
The results of the exergetic analysis presented in Fig. 8, have shown
Alternatively, the component exergy destruction rate can be com- that the boiler and evaporator are the components with the highest
pared to the total exergy destruction rate within the system (EḊ , tot ) exergy destruction ratios. Together, both cogeneration plant compo-
leading to the relative exergy destruction ratio ( yD*, k ) [53]. nents have with 88% the main share of the total exergy destruction
EḊ , k within the whole system. The boiler contributes to about 58% of the
yD*, k = total destructed exergy, while the ORC evaporator contributes to about
EḊ , tot (8)
30% of the total destructed exergy. The exergetic analysis has also been
where: used to calculate the exergetic efficiency of plant components.
EḊ , tot : Exergy destruction throughout the overall system (summation of According to the results of exergetic efficiency estimation shown in
exergy destruction within all system's components, EḊ , tot = ∑ EḊ , k ). Fig. 9, the evaporator and the boiler are also the components with the
The exergy loss ratio ( yL ) can be defined similarly, by comparing the lowest exergy efficiency of 49%. Based on the results of the exergy

Fig. 7. Wood-fired ORC cogeneration plant model [54].

807
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

low investment and operational costs. However, the power-to-heat

ratio of the ORC modules is notably lower in comparison to the
biomass gasification. Therefore, gasification appears to be a better
solution for combined heat and power generation. Nevertheless, it
should be kept in mind that gasification plants require high quality fuel
and significantly increased investment [43]. Although the installation
rates of ORC plants are getting lower, the OR-Cycle still offers an
interesting alternative for cogeneration systems that utilise solid
biomass as the fuel.

3.3. Stirling engines

Fig. 11 shows the configuration of a biomass-fired cogeneration

Fig. 8. Relative exergy destruction ratios of the plant components [54]. plant with Stirling motor. Stirling engines are indirectly heated gas
engines operating by cyclic gas compression and expansion, with air,
helium or hydrogen as the working medium. Stirling engines enable
energy generation in a closed cycle with the advantage that various heat
sources can be used to power the system. The engine can be driven by
almost any kind of heat source with a flue gas temperature of
approximately 1000 °C with low levels of particles and ashes. The
typical electrical capacities of Stirling plants range between 1 kW and
100 kW and the efficiency of power production is in the range of 12–30
per cent [56,57]. In comparison to the internal combustion engine, the
Stirling engine can be characterised by relatively low maintenance
requirements, high electrical efficiency, good part-load performance,
low emission level, low vibration and low noise level [58].
Fig. 9. Exergetic efficiency of cogeneration plant components [54].
The experience that has been gathered during the operation of a
74 kWel Stirling-DK engine in Liebenau (Germany) put into operation
analysis, the boiler is the most important plant component to be
2008 has shown that problems still occur due to changing fuel quality
optimised in order to reduce the overall exergy destruction ratio within
and reliability of the plant components. The fuel quality must be as
the system. Therefore a simulation based optimisation was carried out
high as possible in order to avoid problems with the plant operation
in order to improve the overall exergetic efficiency of the conversion
and the combustion gases from the biomass furnace should be as clean
system [54].
as possible. The biomass fuels used as combustible for Stiriling plants
On the basis of the exergy analysis results, the exergy efficiency
shouldn’t have any impurities, the ash melting temperature of the fuel
enhancement of the biomass furnace was defined as the main goal of
should be relatively high and the fine particle content of the fuel should
the optimisation measures at the analysed cogeneration plant. A
be as low as possible. Particles contained in the gases used for heating
mathematical model for biomass combustion applications developed
can form deposits on the heat exchanger surface which can negatively
by the authors was used in order to define the optimisation potential of
affect the process efficiency. The fuel prices for high quality wood
the analysed plant [55]. The combustion model is based on the
scraps are significantly higher (140 EUR/t) in comparison to wood
mathematical description of each step of the burning process and can
chips with lower quality 50–70 EUR/t) and therefore the utilization of
be used for a precise determination of optimal system parameters.
high quality fuel can lead to problems with achieving of a profitable
Each step (drying, pyrolysis, gasification, gas phase combustion) of the
system operation. The cost of Stirling plants is relatively high; equating
complex biomass combustion process was described by using mass and
to approx. 3300 – 3900€ per kW electric output which is higher than
energy balance equations. This modelling approach is suitable for
comparable ORC systems. Another drawback of Stirling engines is the
model-based performance analysis and optimisation of biomass plant
relatively low electrical efficiency; when solid fuels are used as
control strategies. The influence of the combustion management
combustible the power generation efficiency can be as low as 15%
settings on the cogeneration plant performance were analysed within
[59]. Fig. 12 presents the energy flow chart of a 35 kW Stirling engine
the scope of the mathematical modelling of the complex thermoche-
fired by solid biomass.
mical conversion of biomass within a burning system.
A parameter overview of four commercial Stirling cogeneration
The combustion system performance was simulated at optimised
plants installed in Germany is given below in Table 3. The operational
air to fuel ratio of 1.4 which is significantly lower compared to the
parameters show that Stirling engines have a suitable electricity/heat
normally achievable air to fuel ratio of 1.8. The results of the
ratio for energy supply of residential buildings which makes it very
optimisation analysis which are presented in Fig. 10 have shown that
attractive for small-scale CHP plants using biomass fuels.
lower excess air ratios ensure a significant increase in the exergetic
efficiency of the combustion system. The exergetic efficiency of the
biomass boiler increases to 50.5% if an air to fuel ratio of 1.4 is
achieved.
The detailed exergy analysis has defined the biomass boiler as the
cogeneration plant component with lowest exergy efficiency. The
optimisation of the plant performance by means of mathematical
modelling has shown that improved combustion air management
settings can lead to a significant increase in the overall system
efficiency.
In general, the ORC technology offers a solution for decentralised
cogeneration based on biomass which can be characterised by relatively
Fig. 10. Exergetic efficiency of cogeneration plant components after optimisation [54].

808
R. Strzalka et al.
Fig. 11. Biomass Stirling CHP system [37,56].
Although the Stirling process is already well known, practical
experience from existing plants based on biomass combustion shows
that there are still unsolved problems related to fast corrosion or
fouling of the heat exchanger surface. Due to the relatively low power
output range and still unsolved technical problems, the application of
Stirling engines in biomass-fired plants is currently limited. Despite
considerable research and development efforts, it has not been possible
to achieve the level of development which would enable a wide-spread
application of Stirling motor based cogeneration plants [56].
4. Biomass gasification
Another alternative for efficient use of biomass in cogeneration
schemes are gasification systems. Biomass gasification and the use of
fuel gas for the production of power and heat offers high generation
efficiency and is therefore one of the most promising technologies for
distributed power generation. Gasification plants can be applied in a
wide power range, from a few kW up to several MW depending on the
system configuration [62]. The main advantage of biomass gasification
is the possibility to build decentralised CHP plants on a scale that has
not been sufficient efficient before [63]. Due to its high power efficiency
potential (35 – 40%) compared to conventional technology, the
combination of biomass gasifier and gas engine is a very promising
alternative for small-scale plants [64]. Among the biomass based
electricity generation technologies, gasification is becoming one of
the best technology routes for distributed cogeneration. In addition to
the high electrical efficiency gasification offers many benefits for
decentralised cogeneration: low investment cost, compact structure
and small system capacity [65]. Gasification enables conversion of low
and negative value fuels into marketable fuels and products [66].
Fig. 12. Energy flow chart of biomass-fired 35 kW Stirling cogeneration plant [60,61].
809
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
Table 3
Stirling cogeneration plants system data.
Electrical Thermal Thermal input E/H Heat utilization
output [kW] output [kW] [kW] ratio [%]
9.5 26 37 37 Process heat and
heating
35 120 200 29 Process heat and
heating
72 480 600 15 District heating
140 600 800 23 Process heat and
heating
However, there are still unsolved problems regarding the operation of
gasification systems. Gasification plants require adaptation to the fuel
properties and enable little operating flexibility [67]. Due to technical
problems with gas cleaning, gas composition and impurities, the
efficiency and reliability of large scale gasification plants still need to
be fully explored. The complexity of gasification system operation is the
main reason for the relatively low value ( < 25 MWel) of the total
electrical power output of gasification plants installed in Germany.
The working principle of a biomass cogeneration plant based on the
gasification process is shown in Fig. 13. Biomass gasification is applied
to convert biomass into producer gas where the fuel is partially
oxidised to a secondary energy carrier. The resulting gas mixture is
called syngas or producer gas and consists of hydrogen, carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide and methane [68]. Producer gas is in most
cases currently used as a fuel for heat and power generation in highly
efficient CHP systems. Syngas may also be used for the synthesis of
several chemical products or it may be applied as base material for the
production of biofuels.
The main advantage of biomass gasification is the high power-to-
heat ratio which enables a considerable reduction of pollutant emis-
sions from power generation. Other advantages of biomass gasification
are the multiple possibilities for the use of producer gas which can be
applied for the production of heat, power and biofuels. The disadvan-
tages of biomass gasification are the relatively complex plant operation,
problems with gas cleaning and the lack of long term practical
experience with biomass gasification plants.
One of the main challenges is the pretreatment of the producer gas
in order to match the requirements of the downstream system that
converts the fuel energy to high-grade finally energy carriers.
Depending on the final use of the gas it has to be cleaned from tars,
particles and unfavourable trace elements. Tar removal is especially
important when the producer gas is used in combustion engines
because the gas has to be cooled down before it fills the cylinders.
Gas cleaning and conditioning systems are relatively expensive,
particularly for small- and medium-sized systems and can be an
economic barrier for the wide-spread application of this technology.
Additional obstacles for establishing of new gasification plants is their
complex construction and relatively strict requirements in relation to
the fuel parameters. This may hinder the dissemination of the
R. Strzalka et al.
Fig. 13. Working principle of a biomass gasification plant [56].
technology as the prices of good-quality biomass fuels have risen
significantly during the last years. The practical experience from
German gasification plants has shown that, besides the economic
uncertainties the experience of the plant operator is an important
factor for a successful project deployment. The same type of plant can
achieve significantly higher degrees of efficiency if more time and effort
is put into finding optimal process parameters.
Biomass gasification plays a key role in the development of renew-
able energy generation in Germany and the amount of thermo-
chemical gasification plants installed in Germany has grown rapidly
in recent years. This is particularly due to the high electrical efficiency
of gasification plants thus leading to higher revenues from electricity
generation. The rapid development of the amount of biomass gasifica-
tion plants installed in Germany is shown in Fig. 14.
Biomass gasification, along with the water-steam power process
and the ORC process is one of the few proven technologies for heat and
power generation from biomass fuels. The rising fuel prices and good
performance of gasification plants are the main reasons for the rapid
expanding use of this technology in Germany [70].
Biomass is gasified either in small-scale plants with a power output
below 50 kWel, which are mainly used to cover the energy demand in
the agricultural and commercial sectors. Gasification systems in the
middle power range between 50 and 500 kWel power output are
operated mainly in heat driven mode in systems with relatively high
heat demand. The development of plants in the highest power range of
more than 500 kWel is basically stagnating. This is due to the relatively
high maintenance effort of large plants and the resulting low economic
efficiency of large biomass gasification systems. This cost tendency can
be seen in the results presented in Fig. 15. Considering the relatively
high electric efficiencies, small-scale plants can be characterised by
reasonable investment cost. Compared with the ORC technology,
gasification plants have significantly higher cost.
The operational parameters of gasification plants of various per-
formance classes are listed in Table 4. In small-scale plants, mainly
fixed-bed reactors are used for biomass gasification due to their simpler
technology and lower investment cost. However, the technology has
some disadvantages related to insufficient purification of gas and often
permanent need of control and service [73]. Due to the relatively high
tar content of producer gas (up to 150 g/m3), updraft gasifiers are not
suitable for engines without comprehensive gas cleaning [74]. In small
gasification systems, air is used as a gasification agent, which leads to
higher nitrogen content and consequently lower calorific value of the
producer gas. On the other hand small-scale gasification plants achieve
relatively high power-to-heat ratios for bioenergy systems in the lower
capacity range, which makes them an attractive alternative for decen-
tralised applications.
In medium-sized plants (between 50 and 500 kW output) more
810
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
complex plant construction can be applied. The gasification plant can
be separated from the combustion process, which achieves higher
conversion efficiencies. A promising gasification type in the middle
capacity range is the heat pipe reformer installed in the bioenergy
region Achental. The heat pipe reformer is an allothermic gasifier
consisting of a combustion chamber that provides the gasification heat
and the gasification reactor. Heat is transferred between the combus-
tion chamber and the gasification part of the plant via so-called heat
pipes [75]. With an electrical output of 360 kW and a heat output of
670 kW the heat pipe gasification system achieves a very favourable
power–to-heat ratio for decentralised plants. The verification of long-
term availability has already shown that the plant operation can be
economically feasible [76]. Practical experience has shown that the
most important prerequisite for an economic plant operation is the
securing of the fuel supply by a long-term agreement [77].
In large-scale plants fluidised bed gasification is applied. The
technology was developed at the Vienna University and is used at the
gasification plant in Senden. The plant achieves an electric output of
4900 kW and a heat output of 6500 kW a very high electrical efficiency
for this power range of solid fuel based plants. However, the invest-
ment cost (33 million Euro) are relatively high related to the plant
capacity. Practical experience has shown that due to the complex
process control stable plant operation is rather difficult to achieve.
In conclusion, it can be said that gasification plants offer the most
developed and efficient systems for biomass-based power generation in
small-scale plants with a power output below 500 kWel. Although the
development progress of gasification systems has been much slower
than expected, small- and medium-sized applications are no longer
Fig. 14. Development of the gasification based power generation from biomass in
Germany [69].
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

combustion based systems, especially in decentralised plants with a

power output below 500 kW.

5. Biomass pyrolysis

Since 1990's the pyrolysis of biomass has shown rapid development

because it was considered to be an efficient method of conversion of
biomass to liquid fuels compared to other thermo-chemical conversion
methods [81]. Pyrolysis can be used to produce bio-oil which is
regarded as substitute for petroleum fuels and can be used for diesel
engines and turbines at small-scale plants; in large-scale plants bio-oil
can be co-fired [82,83]. However, the quality of bio-oil, its long-term
stability and economic uncertainties are the main reasons why the
Fig. 15. Gasification plant cost in €/kW [71,72]. biomass pyrolysis technology is not yet widely applied. The pyrolysis of
biomass involves a great deal of physical and chemical transformations,
Table 4 which makes the process difficult to control. High amounts of
Gasification CHP plants system data. contaminants and water are the major drawbacks for the utilization
of pyrolysis products as a fuel [84,85]. To deal with this issues, new
Electrical output [kW] Thermal output [kW] E/H ratio [%] Heat utilization
plant concepts for upgrading of bio-oil to valuable and low-cost crude
30 80 37.5 District heating oil substitute have to be developed. The current status of pyrolysis
30 70 43 Heating technology and its potential for commercial applications is described in
45 120 37.5 Heating the following section of the paper.
50 115 43 Heating The pyrolysis of biomass is a thermal treatment at a temperature of
150 300 50 District heating
270 460 59 Process heat
approx. 500 °C, which results in a production of liquid products that
380 630 60 District heating can be used as a secondary energy carrier or as chemical products. The
4900 6500 75 District heating main advantage of pyrolysis is the possibility of generating liquid
energy resources that can be used in fuel oil burners and diesel engines.
Pyrolysis of biomass can be defined as a process by which the biomass
pilot plants or prototypes [78]. Small-scale gasification plants seem to is converted into liquid fuels, pyrolysis-gas and biochar in the absence
work reliably as some of them achieve more than 7000 full load hours. of oxygen. In contrast to gasification where syngas and ash are the
However, there are still areas of uncertainty concerning mainly the lack main products, the technology of biomass pyrolysis is used for the
of long-term experience with biomass gasification. Compared to proven production of liquid and solid energy carriers.
small-scale systems large biomass gasification plants can be charac- Pyrolysis processes can be categorized as slow and fast pyrolysis.
terised by relatively high operational and maintenance costs, which in The fast pyrolysis process occurs at moderate temperatures and short
the worst case lead to the insolvency of plant operating companies. The residence time, which are optimal conditions for the production of
gasification of biomass has to compete with mature and proven liquid fuels. In fast pyrolysis the thermo-chemical decomposition of
technologies such as combustion and anaerobic digestion. biomass occurs very quickly in order to generate mostly vapours and
Nevertheless, due to the high power-to-heat ratio gasification is a very aerosols as well as some gas and charcoal. After the reaction products
promising alternative for biomass-based cogeneration [79,80]. It is an condensate, a dark brown liquid called bio-oil is formed which has a
effective technology which provides an attractive alternative to biomass heating value of about half that of conventional fuel oil [86,82]. Slow

Fig. 16. Pyrolysis process of biomass [87].

811
R. Strzalka et al.
pyrolysis is defined as thermal decomposition of biomass which occurs
at a slow heating rate. Conventional pyrolysis is mainly used in order to
achieve a high charcoal content of reaction products [68]. Fast
pyrolysis is the preferred technology for the thermo-chemical proces-
sing of biomass because solid biomass and wastes can be rapidly
converted into liquid products. Fig. 16 shows a diagram of a pyrolysis
plant applied for the production of bio-oil.
The main product of fast pyrolysis, bio-oil is composed of a complex
mixture of hydrocarbons and contains a relatively high fraction of
moisture. The moisture cannot be extracted because the liquid
pyrolysis products would crack at temperatures above 100 °C. Bio-oil
exhibits several advantages compared to solid biomass fuels such as
better handling and storage efficiency at lower cost. The production
yield of bio-oil is relatively high and can achieve up to 75% of the dry
feed mass. Liquid products of fast pyrolysis can be used for chemical
production or substitute fuel oil and diesel in static applications. The
potential of bio-oil is increasingly being recognised as the benefits of
the utilization of liquid fuels are widely established and appreciated.
There is a growing interest for the use of bio-oil as a fuel in properly
modified turbines and diesel engines as they can achieve high
efficiencies (up to 45%) in power generation. Another attractive option
for the utilization of bio-oil is the substitution of fossil fuels in the
transport sector. However, bio-oil still cannot be used as transportation
fuel mainly due to its high acidity, low thermal stability, low calorific
value and high viscosity [88–90].
There are no commercial pyrolysis plants installed in Germany so
far. The pyrolysis plants installed in Europe have not reached the
commercial stage of development yet, therefore the pyrolysis plant cost
can be only estimated on the basis of theoretical assumptions. The
equations that can be used to calculate the investment cost of pyrolysis
plants are summarized in Table 5.
In order to compare the pyrolysis plant cost with other bioenergy
technologies, a calculation of the specific investment cost for a power
generation plant based on biomass pyrolysis was carried out. The
investment costs of a power generation system were estimated on the
assumption that the power generation unit would achieve electrical
efficiencies of about 20% and biomass with a calorific value of 19 MJ
per kilogram of dry fuel would be used as a combustible. Fig. 17 shows
the estimated plant investment cost in relation to the plant perfor-
mance.
The investment cost of a pyrolysis plant are relatively high for small
units and decrease significantly for larger ones. This is a result of a
great economy of scale effect related to the pyrolysis and biomass
pretreatment parts of the electricity generation system. The influence
of the plant size on the investment cost is substantial for plants of up to
5000 kW electrical output and continues to decrease with increasing
plant output performance.
Although biomass pyrolysis in an attractive option for the conver-
sion of biomass and wastes into clean energy, the technology has not
been brought to market maturity in Germany. Fast pyrolysis in
Germany plays a minor role and is only deployed in two demonstration
plants. One of the pilot plants for pyrolysis of biomass was installed at
KIT (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) and is based on the Bioliq
process. The aim of the process is to produce synthetic fuels and
chemicals from a biomass substrate which is generated using fast
pyrolysis. Another German pyrolysis plant was constructed in
Hamburg and is based on the BTO process (Biomass to Oil). The
BTO process uses an innovative solution for the production of bio-oil,
where biomass is converted into liquid fuels in an ablative reactor with
a design capacity of 6 t per day [92,93].
Several biomass pyrolysis plants were put into operation all over
Europe. However, this technology has not reached the commercial
stage of development. Table 6 summarises the information about
pyrolysis plants being installed in Europe, their parameters and stage
of development. Some of the installed plants are on the edge of
commercial application, but the technology has still to overcome
812
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
several challenges related to the reliability of pyrolysis reactors and
viability of the technology for commercial applications [94–96].
Pyrolysis offers a good opportunity for biomass conversion into
refined secondary energy sources, especially the production of liquid
fuels which can be utilized as fuel in the transportation sector is
promising. However, research is still needed in order to improve the
technology with respect to bio-oil quality, plants reliability, investment
and operating costs as well as environmental concerns.
6. Anaerobic digestion
One of the most versatile secondary energy carrier generated from
biomass is biogas and therefore its utilization as a fuel and for
electricity and heat generation plays an important role in achieving
EU energy policy objectives. Especially the promotion of the develop-
ment of the biogas sector by means of feed-in tariffs has proven to be a
successful instrument and it is the main reason why Germany has
become a global market leader in the development and application of
biogas technology. Biogas plants in Germany currently produce more
than 50% of the total biogas production in Europe [98]. Modern biogas
plants are built to address a range of environmental, economic as well
as social needs and have become recognised as a significant contributor
to reducing fossil fuels emissions through the use of bioheat, bioelec-
tricity and biofuel [99]. The biogas process can be applied to produce
energy from municipal solid waste which makes anaerobic digestion a
potential and eco-friendly way for the utilization of biodegradable
waste [33]. Biogas is primarily produced in small-scale installations on
farms; landfill and sewage gas plants produce biogas on a large scale.
The gaseous fuel is mainly used for power generation, which is fed into
the electricity network. The waste heat from the production of
electricity can be used as process heat or to cover the heat demand
of residential and commercial buildings. One of the most important
advantages of biogas-based electricity generation is the possibility of
demand driven power production. Biogas plants have relatively short
start-up phases, which makes them suitable for demand-driven gen-
eration. Biogas can also be stored and applied to produce electricity at
demand peaks, which is an interesting alternative to balance power
demand fluctuations. Another promising possibility for biogas utiliza-
tion is the upgrading to biomethane. Biomethane is a methane-rich gas
with properties similar to natural gas and can be distributed via natural
gas grids. Biogas conversion to biomethane is an important aspect
related to achieving increasing biomass-based energy production since
it can be used in heating applications, in cogeneration plants, for
flexible electricity production and as a fuel in vehicles that can run on
gaseous fuels. Biomethane is a very interesting alternative fuel source
for buses, taxis and other vehicles that have small operating distances.
If biogas is used as a transportation fuel, the GHG emission reductions
are significantly higher compared to biogas use in electricity and heat
production [100]. Another interesting and innovative option for the
Table 5
Equations for the estimation of pyrolysis plant investment and bio-oil production cost.
Pyrolysis plant
⎛x⎞
TPCpyr =3404. 2 ln ⎜ ⎟−8301 (k €)
⎝ 24 ⎠
Pyrolysis plant
TPCpyr =3595. 8 ln (x )+2659. 5 (k €)
Pyrolysis plant
TPCpyr =6. 98*10−3*x 0.67 (k €)
Cost of production of bio-oil
CPBpyr =1.1*10−3*[B + (H *16935*F −0.33)]*Y −1 (€/t )
where x is plant capacity, dry t/h.
B is the biomass cost in €/dry t.
H is the capital and capital related charges.
F is the biomass feed rate in dry t/y.
Y is the fractional bio-oil yield weight.
R. Strzalka et al.
Fig. 17. Total plant cost (TPC) for pyrolysis plants in relation to the output performance
[90,91].
utilization of biogas are the power-to-gas applications. Such applica-
tions utilise surplus electricity generated by wind and solar plants for
hydrogen production by hydrolysis. The hydrogen generated at times of
renewable energy oversupply can react with carbon dioxide from a
biogas plant which results in generation of biomethane. This technol-
ogy offers not only a possibility to store surplus renewable electricity in
form of biomethane, but also to utilise the stored gas in order to
equalize energy supply deficits if not enough power can be delivered by
wind and solar.
Biogas is produced during a biological decomposition of biomass in
the absence of oxygen; where organic matter is broken down to form a
gas mixture called biogas. Biogas is produced by microorganism from
organic substrates and can be applied as a secondary energy carrier.
There are mainly three categories of substrates which can be used for
the production of biogas: substrates of farm origin, waste from private
households and municipalities and industrial by-products [101]. The
generation of biogas is based on the anaerobic digestion process which
produces a gas mixture that consists mainly of methane (50–75 vol%)
and carbon dioxide (25–50 vol%) as well as small quantities of
hydrogen, hydrogen sulphide, ammonia and other trace gases. The
calorific value of biogas ranges between 19.7 and 23.3 MJ/m3 which is
equal to about 60% of the commercial natural gas calorific value. The
properties of biogas that have significant impact on the selection of
end-use conversion technology are mainly influenced by the type of
digestion process and the substrates used. The gas mixture produced by
means of anaerobic digestion is considered a CO2-neutral biofuel and
as a versatile renewable energy source for the production of electricity
or/and heat [102–104]. Aside from the production of heat and
electricity, biogas systems offer a possibility to reduce manure volume,
produce a nutrient-reach effluent and reduce methane emissions,
which has a global warming potential of 21 times that of carbon
dioxide [105].
Due to their many advantages biogas systems are widely employed
Table 6
Pyrolysis plants – stage of development [97].
Plant Stage of development
Pitea, Sweden TRL 4–5
Joensuu, Finland TRL 8
Tampere, Finland TRL 6–7
Espoo, Finland TRL 4–5
Hegenlo, Netherlands TRL 8 Commercial, demo
Enschede, Netherlands TRL 4–5
Hamburg, Germany TRL 4–5
Oberhausen, Germany TRL 1–3
Eggenstein Leopoldshafen, Germany TRL 4–5
TRL – Technology Readiness Level – Based on technology readiness criteria (respectively 1–9) that include: scale, area of growing/harvesting, yield, fidelity.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
in Germany. The production of biogas is considered a promising
alternative to electricity generation from biomass in decentralised
CHP plants. The most common type of biogas plants in Germany are
decentralised systems which operate on farms. Fig. 18 presents the
mode of operation of an anaerobic digestion system which was
engineered to optimize the production of biogas.
Basic elements of an agricultural biogas plant are substrate store,
digester with the stirring unit, post-digester and the utilization system
for the biogas – a CHP unit. In the storage tank the substrates are
stored on an interim basis. They are then sent into an insulated and
heated digester. On farm biogas plants horizontal steel tanks are used
for the production of biogas. The walls of the digester contain heating
elements which keeps the biomass at the desired temperature by using
excess heat from the motor/generator. The outcome of the anaerobic
digestion is biogas which is used mainly as fuel for CHP units and the
digested substrate, which is transported into the digestate storage tank.
The fluid or solid residues of the biogas production process are mainly
used by farmers as organic fertilizer, because of their high nutrient
content [107].
The power capacity of biogas plants lies in the range between 100
and 2500 kW. The main share of biogas plants installed in Germany
has a power output between 70 and 1000 kW. The electrical efficiency
of biogas plants in relation to the biomass energy at input is relatively
high for decentralised plants and lies in the range between 20% and
40%. The investment cost of biogas plants can be generally divided into
two categories: the investment cost of large plants amount to about
3000 EUR per kW of electric capacity and the investment cost of small-
sized plants exceeds 10,000 EUR per kilowatt electric output. Fig. 19
provides the cost of biogas plants against electrical output installed.
The diagram shows a sharp decline in investment cost with increasing
plant performance. Additionally, the electrical efficiency of the CHP
modules is also greater with increasing power output leading to lower
variable cost as well.
Germany is currently the world leader in the production and
utilization of biogas, especially for the generation of electricity. In
recent years the number of plants increased from 360 in 1996 to 7960
in 2014 and the installed capacity also increased from 1.360 MWel in
2001 to 3800 MWel in 2014. This is mainly due to the implementation
of the Renewable Sources Act (EEG) which resulted in a sharp increase
in the amount of produced biogas. Under the EEG there is a payment
for the supply of energy from renewable sources, which made the
generation of biogas an economically attractive alternative for the
conversion of biomass to energy. The support of biogas production and
utilization offered by the EEG in 2004 and continued in 2009 has given
rise to the creation of a considerable number of biogas system
producers and equipment suppliers, which has enabled Germany to
become a market leader in the field of planning and construction of
biogas plants [94,110]. However, a dramatic worsening of the financial
support of biogas projects in the EEG 2014 has led to a massive
decrease in the amount of newly installed plants. Fig. 20 shows the
Status Input Output
Pilot Lignocellulosic crops 20 kg/h Bio-oil 11 kg/h
Demo Forrest residues 10,000 kg/h Bio-oil 6313 kg/h
50,000 tones/year
Demo Forrest residues Bio-oil 1 tones oil/day
Pilot Various Bio-oil
Wood pellet processing waste 5000 kg/h Bio-oil 3200 kg/h
Pilot Various 200 kg/h Bio-oil 150 kg/h
Pilot Woodchips 250 kg/h Bio-oil 150 kg/h
Research Various 10 kg/h Bio-oil
Pilot Wheat straw 10 kg/h Other 8 kg/h
813
R. Strzalka et al.
Fig. 18. Working principle of a biogas plant [106].
Fig. 19. Total cost of biogas plants in relation to the output performance [108,109].
development of the German biogas sector in the last 15 years. The
changing energy policy framework, problems with follow-up financing
and suboptimal plant operation are the main challenges that investors
and plant operators have to deal with. New, optimised anaerobic
digestion technologies, which would allow flexible plant operation
and could be integrated within innovative power and heat supply
concepts, are the only solution which is able to generate new growth
impulses for the biogas sector. However, an effective subsidies me-
chanism is still a crucial prerequisite to realize an economically feasible
production of electricity, heat and biomethane injection into the grid by
means of biogas production.
Over 14,500 biogas plants with an electric capacity of more than
7850 kW have been already installed in Europe. Biogas generated in
decentralised agricultural plants has the main share (63%) of the
Fig. 20. Development of biomass plants in Germany [111].
814
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
overall production, about 27% are produced from landfill and about
10% from sewage sludge. The main part of generated biogas goes to the
power and heat sector due to favourable subsidies. The amount of
biomethane plants is growing steadily and reached more than 280
plants across Europe in 2014, which produced more than 1350 billon
m3 gas. The biogas production capacities vary significantly across
Europe, depending on renewable energy policy, natural gas supply
schemes and availability of biomass resources [112]. Germany clearly
leads in European biogas production with a share of 61% due to the
effective support schemes of the Renewable Sources Act which
remained favourable up to the novel in August 2014.
Biogas is mainly used as a secondary fuel for combined heat and
power systems. The CHP plants fueled with biogas utilise mostly Otto-
gas-engines for the combined production of electricity and heat from
biomass. Other conversion technologies that include ORC modules,
Stirling engines, micro gas turbine and fuel cells have only been applied
on a pilot scale [113]. The main part of the biogas plants installed in
Germany is used for the production of electricity on-site. Biogas plants
achieve an average power output of 450 kW. The utilization of biogas as
a transport fuel plays a minor role in Europe. The widespread
deployment of biogas as an alternative to petroleum has been hindered
by a less developed infrastructure and the high cost of implementation
[114]. Another promising alternative for biogas utilization is upgrading
to biomethane and injection in the natural gas grid [115]. Biomethane
injection offers high conversion efficiency because the gaseous fuel can
be easily distributed via the existing natural gas grid and provides a
possibility for flexible electricity generation. There are about 160 biogas
upgrading plants installed in Germany with a production capacity of
about 1.6 billion cubic meters gas per year. The energy industry
estimates that about 6 billion cubic meters of biomethane could be
R. Strzalka et al.
available for utilization by 2020 [110]. However, the relatively low cost
of natural gas and high investment cost for biomethane remain the
main barriers for a widespread deployment of biogas upgrading
installations.
Biogas generation is a proven and mature technology for the
conversion of biomass to qualitatively more attractive secondary energy
carriers. Although there is a potential to improve system components
and plant efficiency, biogas utilization can be seen as one of the most
important options for a sustainable energy supply in Europe.
Considering the fact that only 13.4 mtoe of primary biogas were
produced last year, which is only a small part of the estimated
theoretical potential for Europe of 166 mtoe in 2020, it can be expected
that the biogas European biogas sector will continue to expand strongly
in the future [116].
7. Biofuel production
The limited potential of fossil fuels necessitates the consideration of
alternative fuels from renewable sources. Biofuels can be used in a short
time to replace petrol and diesel in conventional driving concepts. The
term biofuels describes biomass-based fuels which include above all
bioethanol and biodiesel. Biodiesel is the most commonly used and
widespread biogenic fuel in Germany. This diesel substitute is a vegetable
oil methyl ester which can be used as a fuel for diesel engines. Biodiesel is
produced by chemical reaction of vegetable oil or animal fat with an
alcohol and is a promising alternative to conventional diesel fuel because
it can be pumped, stored and handled using the existing devices for
mineral oil-based fuels. The biomass-based diesel substitute is an
attractive alternative for classic driving concepts, because its utilization
is almost CO2 neutral and this diesel engine fuel can be synthesized from
edible and non-edible oils. The substrates for the production of biodiesel
are non-toxic, biodegradable, renewable sources. The disadvantages of the
production of biodiesel are however, the relatively high energy demand of
the biodiesel generation process and the formation of glycerine as by-
product in biorefineries [117–119].
The relatively high production cost, the concerns regarding the
impact on the cost of food and the relatively high production carbon
emissions are the main reasons why the efforts to support the
development of the European biofuel sector were reduced.
Additionally, the high cost of vegetable oil, increased taxes and the
relatively low prices of fossil fuels are the factors that result in a limited
amount of biofuels being used. Nevertheless, bioliquids have several
advantages like: they are safe, non-toxic and biodegradable and there-
fore they are still considered an important alternative for fossil fuels
[120]. Within the European bioenergy market the development of the
German biofuel sector can be used as a best practice example for the
integration of bioliquids within the energy sector. The most important
aspects of the biofuels policy are the development of 2nd generation
biofuels and certification criteria for sustainable biofuel production.
Liquid biofuels are expected to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels in
the transport sector, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and revitalize
the local economy [121,122]. They may offer a promising alternative
for sectors in which liquid fuels are indispensable, for example aviation.
However, due to the sustainability criteria, biomethane and hydrogen
seem to offer more advantages for other technologies such as electric
engines and public transport.
The information about the development and main parameters of
the German biodiesel sector is given in Table 7. The raw materials that
are currently used in the German biofuels sector for the production of
biodiesel are above all rapeseed oil, soybean oil and palm oil as well as
animal fats and used cooking oils/fats. The production capacities for
biodiesel are constantly being extended and increased from 0.35
million tons per year in 2000 to currently approximately 4.7 million
tons per year. The current utilization rate of German production
capacities for biodiesel is at about 70%. The reasons for the incomplete
production capacity utilization are the high production costs and less
815
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
supportive legislation within the renewable energy policy.
Due to the political framework conditions, the German biofuel sector
is dominated by biodiesel. The blending market became very important in
the biofuels supply chain, which enabled the oil industry to act as a key
player within the German biofuel sector. Blending biodiesel into conven-
tional diesel fuel is a promising alternative to reduce the dependency of
the transport sector from fossil fuels. However, the relatively low prices of
petroleum-based fuels reduce the utilization of biodiesel, which is
currently more expensive. But there is still a lot of uncertainty concerning
petroleum reserves and further development of mineral oil prices which
makes the utilization of biodiesel an essential alternative for the future of
European transport sector.
Biodiesel also dominates the European biofuel market with about
350 biodiesel plants and a production capacity of about 30 million tons
per year. The production capacities for biodiesel have been grown
steadily, however the highest growth rates were reached before 2009.
Capacity utilization has been decreasing in recent years, from 80% in
2006 to about 40% currently. European biodiesel production is
dominated by Germany and France, which are the only European
countries with production above one million tons per year.
Bioethanol is produced by the fermentation of sugars from sugar-
containing plants (sugar beet, sugar cane) or starch-containing plants
(potatoes, corn, grain). The sugar contained in plants is converted
during fermentation by yeast and enzymes to ethanol and CO2. Alcohol
fermentation is the most well-known and widely used technical process
for the production of bioethanol. Although the energy balance of
bioethanol production is positive and the fuel can be used to improve
the quality of petrol, there are also disadvantages of the utilization of
bioethanol as a fuel for petrol engines. The disadvantage of bioethanol
are mainly related to the highly hygroscopic and corrosive properties of
the fuel which can lead to damage of engine parts [124].
Since 2005 the production facilities for bioethanol in Germany
enable the generation of this fuel on an industrial scale. Table 8
describes the development of the production capacities within the
German bioethanol sector. The production capacity for bioethanol are
constantly being extended and increased in the last years from 0.48
million tons in 2005 to approximately 1 million tons in 2011. The
current utilization rate of production capacities is at approximately
60%. The incomplete capacity utilization is caused by relatively low
demand for biofuels and the relatively low fossil fuel prices [125].
The current production capacities for bioethanol in Europe are around
8.7 million tons per year, which can be generated in 140 plants. Production
capacities have remained at a constant level since 2012, and the production
of bioethanol has been growing steadily in Europe from 0.3 million tons in
2003 up to about 3.8 million tons in 2014. France and Germany are the
countries with the highest bioethanol production capacities.
Bioethanol can be used as an alternative for petrol as it is similar in
many of its parameters and can be therefore utilized as a fuel in highly-
developed combustion engines with relatively simple modifications.
However, the traditional technological production path based on
fermentation can substitute only a part of mineral fuels. The additional
Table 7
Production, capacity and utilization of biodiesel in Germany.
Year Production million Capacity Fuel consumption
tons/year million tons/ million tons/year
year
2007 2.92 4.75 3.25
2008 2.50 4.83 2.67
2009 2.42 4.83 2.50
2010 3.08 4.83 2.58
2011 2.38 4.71 2.42
2012 2.60 4.35 2.06
2013 2.60 3.97 1.78
2014 3.00 3.97 1.98
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

Table 8
Production, capacity and utilization of bioethanol in Germany [123].

Year Production million Capacity Fuel consumption

tons/year million tons/ million tons/year
year

2007 0.3 0.58 0.46

2008 0.45 0.83 0.63
2009 0.58 0.88 0.88
2010 0.61 0.92 1.04
2011 0.67 0.93 1.21
2012 0.61 1.25 1.25
2013 0.67 1.00 1.21
2014 0.73 1.00 1.23

Fig. 21. Average plant investment cost [12,47,48,71,72,90,91,108,109].

part of fuel demand can be covered by bioethanol produced from

cellulosic material. The substrates used for bioethanol production from
cellulosic material are mainly wood, grass and non-edible parts of
various plants, whereby the fuel is produced from carbohydrates
located in the plant cell walls.
Due to its pioneering role in the promotion of biofuels, Germany is a
good example for studies and analyses with regard to the development
and perspectives of the European biofuels sector. The promotion of
alternative fuels started in the early 2000s and first-generation biofuels
gained momentum after European Union enabled crops cultivation for
fuels and due to the political support for biofuels in Germany. However,
detailed studies have shown, that there are serious adverse effects of first-
generation biofuels, such as their inefficiency and the tendencies to
increase deforestation and possibly famine. Since 2006/2007 biofuel
producers have had not only to deal with less supportive legislation but
they had also to fulfil clearly defined sustainability criteria. As the effect of
critical studies related to the utilization of first-generation biofuels and
reduced financial as well as legislative support, the development of
German biofuel sector has stagnated since 2006. The investors are
currently unlikely to start new project within that sector in the coming
years. On the basis of actual research results, the utilization of biofuels
makes only sense in sectors where they are indispensable as for example
aviation. In other transportation technologies hydrogen power systems,
biomethane and electric engines might be a more efficient and sustainable
solution [13].
Biofuels will certainly be involved in any future energy mix, but the
amount of biofuels that will be utilized to cover the future energy demand
remains a subject for debate. The EU wants to move forward to second-
generation biofuels which are based on sustainable chemical products and
utilise modern and proven green chemical technologies such as biopro-
cessing including pyrolysis. Second-generation biofuels include lignocel-
lulosic ethanol, microalgae biodiesel and Fisher-Tropsch fuel and are
produced from agricultural residues, woods and grasses that are abundant
in most land areas of the world and their utilization for biofuel production
does not necessarily compete for arable land against food and feed
production. However, at present the production of such fuels is not
economically feasible because there are number of technical barriers that
need to be overcome before their potential can be realised. The develop-
ment of modern biotechnologies and the increasing possibility of repla-
cing fossil fuels with more sustainable second-generation biofuels could
potentially address many challenges related to both energy and food
security in a relatively sustainable manner. The support of second-
generation biofuels should, however, be balanced with support for other
alternative mobile energy sources. The support programs for second-
generation biofuels have to be flexible and should be able to be terminated
at short notice if it becomes clear that alternative technologies are more
desirable in the long run [126–129].
bioenergy projects have been chosen in order to compare biomass-
based energy generation technologies:
– Costs – investment costs are the main decisive factor for new
bioenergy projects. Expensive technologies can achieve investment
costs above 10,000 EUR per kW electric output and economically
attractive technologies achieve investment costs below the cost level
of natural gas cogeneration plants (300–2000 EUR per kW electric
output). The Investment costs of the individual technologies are
shown in Fig. 21.
– Electrical efficiency – the electrical efficiency of a biomass plant
has a direct influence on the sustainability and economic feasibility
of bioenergy projects. Less effective technologies achieve electrical
efficiencies below 10% and on the other hand there are technologies
with relatively high electrical efficiencies (above 40%) which are
comparable to the efficiencies of large steam plants. Fig. 22 Shows
the electrical efficiencies of the individual bioenergy technologies.
– Environmental impact – describes the environmental impact of
biomass-based energy generation technologies and is related to CO2
emissions reduction potential that can be realised if bioenergy
technologies substitute fossil-fueled plants. Coal-fired plants have
been taken as reference for the evaluation of emissions-related
environmental impact of the bioenergy technologies. The CO2
emission reduction potential ΔCO2 was calculated using Eq. (1).
Fig. 23 Shows the theoretical potential of the individual bioenergy
technologies for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
– Level of development – defines the level of technological devel-
opment of the individual bioenergy systems. Level 1 refers to
systems that were are at present still in the concept stage and have
not even been tested in pilot and demonstration plants yet. Level 6
points out technologies that are mature, work reliably and are
available on the market. The levels of development of the individual

8. Discussion
Fig. 22. Average electrical efficiencies of different biomass technologies
Six general criteria that have a decisive role for the applicability of [6,7,12,18,21,27,28].

816
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

positive influence on the cost-effectiveness of the system.

Pyrolysis plants offer the possibility to generate liquid fuels from
biomass and waste material. The product of fast pyrolysis, bio-oil, can
be one among other fuels used in efficient CHP plants. Although there
is a growing interest in the utilization of pyrolysis products, the
technology has not yet been brought to market maturity.
The production and utilization of biogas is one of the most
important bioenergy technologies, as anaerobic digestion enable op-
erators to produce a high-quality gaseous energy carrier from renew-
able materials [130,131]. They are available with a broad spectrum of
capacities – from few kW up to systems with several megawatts of
power output. Biogas plants can be characterised by relatively high
electrical efficiency and relatively low environmental impact. Due to the
improvements in the technologies used, biogas systems are at an
Fig. 23. Average CO2-emission reduction potential [12,18,28,37,56,70].
advanced stage of development. The comparison of plant economies
has shown that the main disadvantage of anaerobic digestion are the
relatively high investment costs for small-scale applications. Although
bioenergy technologies are shown in Fig. 24.
the technology for biogas production is well developed and offers high
conversion efficiencies, the technology still relies on government
– Fuel requirements and availability – this category describes
subsidy to remain economically feasible [110].
the fuel requirements of the individual bioenergy technologies. Level
1 refers to technologies with specific requirements regarding the fuel
9. Conclusions
quality, where availability is limited and their price is relatively high.
Level 6 defines bioenergy systems that have no specific requirements
This paper reviews the current issues related to energy generation
regarding fuel parameters and can be fed with a large variety of
from biomass in Europe, and Germany is given as example because of its
fuels. The evaluation of fuel requirements is shown in Fig. 25.
pioneer role in applying bioenergy-based energy supply schemes. The
presented results concentrate on recognizing the most reliable, sustainable
– Plant size – defines the performance range of the biomass-fueled
and cost-efficient bioenergy technologies on the basis of practical
systems. Some of the bioenergy technologies are available with only
experience from German biomass plants where a large variety of
a small performance range, but there are also technologies with a
biomass-based energy generation systems has been applied and tested.
large power range from few kilowatts up to more than 2 megawatts.
The information summarized in the article gives a comprehensive
The average plant sizes of the respective bioenergy technologies are
and detailed insight into the individual and unique characteristics of
shown in Fig. 26.
different biomass-fueled energy supply systems. Many technical and
economic obstacles limit the deployment of bioenergy projects.
The performance of each technology has been evaluated and illu-
Considering the need for information about the individual character-
strated in the diagrams shown in the figures above. These estimations
istics of the complex bioenergy technologies, the paper contains a
allow a direct comparison of different bioenergy technologies on the basis
direct comparison of conversion routes for energy generation from
of their key parameters. The presented results are based on long term
biomass. This comparison shows the strong and weak points of every
experience from existing bioenergy plants in Germany, but they have to
technology and how versatile the technologies are:
be, however, viewed with a critical eye, because of their general,

•
approximate nature [59]. The overview of the individual parameters for
Decentralised cogeneration plants offers the best compromise
each biomass-based bioenergy technology is presented in Table 9.
between efficiency, fuel transport distances and chances of effective
The ORC technology is one of the most suitable technologies for the
implementation of bioenergy technologies within new energy supply
generation of electricity in biomass-fired plants if the size of the
concepts.
•
application is too small for a steam power plant. The output range of
Biogas plants and ORC plants are the best-developed biomass-based
ORC systems fills the performance gap between small-scale gasification
renewable energy technologies. However, their investment costs are
plants and large steam turbine power plants. The technology has
relatively high
•
reached market maturity and offers the important advantage of
Due to their relatively high electrical efficiency, gasification plants
utilising fuels with varying quality. The comparison of investment cost
offer a promising alternative for future bioenergy projects. However,
of different technologies has shown that ORC plants are relatively
expensive and their electrical efficiency is relatively low.
Stirling engines which can be applied at biomass-fired plants offer
several advantages: relatively high electrical efficiency, relatively low
investment cost and low emission levels. Biomass-fired Stirling engines
can utilise a large variety of biomass fuels, but operational experience
has shown that fluctuations in fuel parameters can lead to operating
problems due to the formation of deposits on the heat exchanger
surface. Still unresolved operational problems related to corrosion and
fouling of the heat exchanger components remain a strong barrier that
prevents the wide application of this technology.
The weak points of the gasification technology are the relatively
high investment cost and still unresolved operational problems in
large-scale plants related mainly to the complex process control.
Therefore, the application of gasification plants is likely to be limited
to small-scale systems. On the other hand, gasification plants can be
characterised by relatively high power-to-heat ratio which has a
Fig. 24. Level of development of decentralised CHP technologies [28,37,69,90].

817
R. Strzalka et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820

From 2 MW up to more
Variety of fuels can be
Commercial available.
Large-scale steam

than 1 GW.
2000–7000
ΔCO2=500
turbine

ηel≈35%
17–40

used.
Variety of fuels can be
Commercial available.

4000–12,000
100–2500
ΔCO2=493
ηel≈33%
Biogas

20–40

used.
Fig. 25. Fuel requirements of the individual bioenergy technologies [28,41,56,69].

Variety of fuels can be

From few kW up to
more than 2 MW.
Pilot, demo.

1900–7500
Pyrolysis

ΔCO2=421
ηel≈20%
10–25

used.
plants. Problems with gas cleaning still

Low quality fuels can cause technical

Commercial available for small-scale

From 50 kW up to 50 MW
Gasification

2800–7000
ΔCO2=493

problems.
unsolved.
Fig. 26. Average plant size [28,37,47,57,61,71,82,102].

ηel≈33%
22–40

in large-scale applications the technology still suffers from several

unsolved problems
•
considerable technical problems.
Stirling engines and pyrolysis plants have not reached the commer-
Commercial available, some

Low quality fuels can cause

cial stage of development yet
•
problems still unsolved.

The development stage of the individual bioenergy technologies is

the main factor which determines the chances of their implementa-
tion. Due to the maturity of their development, biogas and ORC
plants are the most widespread technologies, although their invest-
3300–3900
ΔCO2=449

ment costs are the highest

Stirling

ηel≈25%

•
1–100

It is of high importance to analyse long-term practical experiences

12–0

from existing biomass plants in order to select proper solutions and

technologies for modern bioenergy projects
quality fuels have negative influence on plant

•
Commercial available, mature technology.

The results of the performance analysis of a biomass-fired cogenera-

Large variety of fuels can be used. Low

tion plant have shown, that even modern bioenergy technologies still
offer potential for the improvement of their efficiency
• Lessons learned from the implementation of first-generation biofuels
have shown, that the support programs for second-generation biofuels
should be flexible and their development should be balanced with the
development of other, alternative mobile energy sources.
Parameter characteristics of bioenergy technologies.

6000–12,000

While numerous new plants for the transformation of biomass into

Category

ΔCO2=394

efficiency.
30–2700

usable forms of energy were installed in recent years in Europe, the

ηel≈15%
7 −20
ORC

practical experience from German bioenergy applications shows that not all
technologies are reliable and cost-efficient. The overview of the individual
parameters of each bioenergy technology presented in the study enables the
Plant size (electrical output)
Environmental impact [kg

evaluation of the relevant performance parameters of the versatile biomass

Specific investment costs
Electrical efficiency [%]

conversion processes, which is crucial to project success.

Level of development

Fuel requirements

[EUR/kWel]

Acknowledgements
CO2/MWh]
Plant type

[kW]

The research work was founded by the German Federal Ministry of

Table 9

Food and Agriculture and by the Agency of Renewable Resources

(FNR).

818
R. Strzalka et al.
The research work was financially supported by the European
Commission. The authors would like to thank for the financial support
within the GREENFOODS project.
References
[1] Kraxner F, Nordström EM, Havlik P, Gusti M, Mosnier A, Frank S, Valin H, Fritz
S, Fuss S, Kindermann G, McCallum I, Khabarov N, Böttcher H, See L, Aoki K,
Schmid E, Mathe L, Obersteiner M. Global bioenergy scenarios – Future forrest
development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass- Bioenergy
2013;57:86–96.
[2] Park SR, Pandey AK, Tyagi VV, Tyagi SK. Energy and exergy analysis of typical
renewable energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:105–23.
[3] Interantional Energy Agency. Bioenergy project development & biomass Supply.
IEA; 2007.
[4] Oficial Journal of the European Union. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of
energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing
Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC: European Union; 2009.
[5] Krug, M., Martikainen, A. Country policy assessment report on bioenergy –
Germany: BMU; 2012.
[6] BMU. Renewable Energy Sources in Figures - National and International
Development: BMU; 2013
[7] Fritsche UR, Hennenberg K, Hünecke K, Thrän D, Witt J, Hennig C, Rensberg N. IEA
Bioenergy Task 40: Country Report Germany: German Biomass Research Centre; 2009.
[8] BMWi . Energy data. Berlin: BMWi; 2015.
[9] European Biomass Association. European bioenergy outlook 2012: AEBIOM; 2012.
[10] FNR. Energy data: FNR; 2015.
[11] Saidur R, Abdelaziz E, Demirbas A, Hossain MS, Mekhilef S. A review of biomass
as a fuel for boilers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2262–89.
[12] Hood, D. L., McGinnes, D., Littlewood, J., Wingeroth, P., Wiseman, A. Current
status of small scale biomass CHP technology development. Bioenergy
Conference: Jyvaskyla, Finland: 2013: 254-260.
[13] Kaup F, Selbmann K. The seesaw of Germany's biofuel policy - Tracing the
evolvement to its current state. Energy Policy 2013;62:513–21.
[14] Yang Q, Chen B, Ji X, He Y, Chen G. Exergetic evaluation of corn-ethanol
production in China. Commun Nonlinear Sci Nr Simul 2009;14:2450–61.
[15] Yang Q, Chen G. Nonrenewable energy cost of corn-ethanol in China. Energy
Policy 2012;41:340–7.
[16] Chen H, Chen G. Energy cost of rapeseed-based biodiesel as alternative energy in
China. Renew Energy 2011;36:1374–8.
[17] Wu X, Wu X, Li J, Xia X, Mi T, Yang Q, Chen GQ, Chen B, Hayat T, Alsaedi A.
Ecological accounting for an integrated "pig-biogas-fish" system based on ener-
getic indicators. Ecol Indic 2014;47:189–97.
[18] IEA. Technology Roadmap - Bioenergy for Heat and Power: OECD/IEA; 2012.
[19] Atabani A, Silitonga A, Badruddin I, Mahila T, Masjuki H, Mekhilef S. A
comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its
characteristics. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2070–93.
[20] Pina A, Silva C, Ferrao P. The impact of demand side management strategies in the
penetration of renewable electricity. Energy 2012;41:128–37.
[21] Twidell J, Weir T. Renewable energy resources. New York: Routledge; 2015.
[22] Lehner M, Tichler R, Steinmüller H, Koppe M. Power-to-Gas: technology and
Business Models. Springer; 2014.
[23] Icha P. Development of the specific carbon dioxide emissions of the German power
mix in the years 1990–2015 (in German). Umwelt Bundesamt; 2016.
[24] Kalina J. Analysis and optimisation of decentralised power plants combined with
biomass gasification. Gliwice: Silesian University of Technology; 2013.
[25] Wood S, Rowley P. A techno-economic analysis of small-scale, biomass-fuelled
combined heat and power for community housing. Biomass- Bioenergy
2011;35:3849–58.
[26] Strzalka, R., Ulbrich, R., Eicker, U. Analysis of biomass ORC plant connected to
district heating network. 18th European biomass conference. Lyon; 2010, 1347–1351
[27] Zahoransky RA. Energetics - systems for energy conversion (in German).
Wiesbaden: Vieweg + Tuebner; 2009.
[28] FNR. Planing guide for bioenergy projects. FNR; 2014.
[29] Prando D, Renzi M, Gasparella A, Baratieri M. Monitoring of the energy
performance of a district heating CHP plant based on biomass boiler and ORC
819
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
generator. Appl Therm. Eng 2015;79:98–107.
[30] Algieri A, Morrone P. Energetic analysis of biomass-fired ORC systems for micro-
scale combined heat and power (CHP) generation. A possiblie application to the
Italian residential sector. Appl Therm Eng 2014;71:751–9.
[31] Joelsson JM, Gustavsson L. Redution of CO2 emission and oil dependency with
biomass-based cogeneration. Biomass- Bioenergy 2010;34:967–84.
[32] Wang C, Zhang L, Chang Y, Pang M. Biomass direct-fired power generation system
in China: an integrated energy, GHG emissions and economic evaluation for Salix.
Energy Policy 2015;84:155–65.
[33] Havukainen J, Uusitalo V, Niskanen A, Kapustina V, Horttanainen M. Evaluation
of methods for estimating energy performance of biogas production. Renew
Energy 2014;66:232–40.
[34] Pöschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas
production and utilization pathways. Appl Energy 2010;2010(87):3305–21.
[35] Strzalka R, Ulbrich R, Eicker U, Gül Ö. Relevance of fuel parameters for operation
conditions of biomass furnaces. In: Proceedings of the 17th European biomass
conference & exhibition. Hamburg, Germany; 2009, 1294–1298;.
[36] Mehrabian R, Shiehnejadhesar A, Scharler R, Obernberger I. Multi-physics
modelling of packed bed biomass combustion. Fuel 2014;122:164–78.
[37] Van Loo S. KJ. The handbook of biomass combustion and co-firing. London:
Earthscan; 2008.
[38] Obernberger I. Reached development of biomass combustion technologies and
future outlook. In: Proceedings of the 17th European biomass conference.
Hamburg, Germany; 2009 20–37.
[39] Nussbaumer T. Combustion and co-combustion of biomass: fundamentals,
technologies, and primary measures for emission reduction. Energy Fuels
2003;17:1510–21.
[40] Swithenbank J, Chen Q, Zhang X, Sharifi V, Pourkashanian M. Wood will burn.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2011;35:999–1007.
[41] Dong L, Liu H, Riffat S. Development of small-scale and micro-scale biomass-
fuelled CHP systems – A literature review. Appl Therm Eng 2009;29:2119–26.
[42] Tanczuk M, Ulbrich R. Implementation of a biomass-fired co-generation plant
supplied with an ORC (Organic Rankine Cycle) as a heat source for small scale
heat distribution system – A comparative analysis under Polish and German
conditions. Energy 2013;62:132–41.
[43] Rentizelas A, Karellas S, Kakaras E, Tatsiopoulos I. Comparative techno-economic
analysis of ORC and gasification for bioenergy applications. Energy Convers
Manag 2009;50:674–81.
[44] Erhart, T., Eicker, U., Infield, D. Part-load characteristics of Organic-Rankine-
Cycles. 2nd European conference of polygeneration. Tarragona, Spain; 2011, 1–11
[45] Maraver D, Sin A, Royo J, Sebastian F. Assesment of CCHP systems based on
biomass combustion for small-scale applications through a review of the tech-
nology and analysis of energy efficiency parameters. Appl Energy
2013;2013(102):1303–13.
[46] Strzalka, R., Ulbrich, R., Eicker, U., Duminil, E. Analysis of a biomass tri-
generation system in an urban area. 17th European Biomass Conference.
Hamburg, Germany; 2009, 2167-2171
[47] Turboden. References. Available at: 〈http://www.turboden.eu/en/references/
references.php〉; 2015
[48] Adoratec. References. Available at: 〈http://www.adoratec.com/referencenav.html〉; 2015
[49] Taillon J, Blanchard R. Exergy efficiency graphs for thermal power plants. Energy
2015;88:57–66.
[50] Chen Z, Chen B, Chen G. Cosmic exergy based ecological assesment for a wetland
in Beijing. Ecol Model 2011;222:322–9.
[51] Shao L, Chen G. Exergy based renewability assessment: case study to ecological
wastewater treatment. Ecol Indic 2015;58:392–401.
[52] Zhang B, Chen G, Xia X, Li S, Chen Z, Ji X. Environmental emissions by Chinese
industry: exergy-based unifying assesment. Energy Policy 2012;45:490–501.
[53] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. New York:
Wiley; 1996.
[54] Strzalka R, Aly A, Schneider D, Eicker U. Exergy analysis and optimisation of a
decentralised woodchip-fired cogeneration plant. In: Proceedings of the 23rd
European Biomass Conference and Exhibition: Vienna, Austria: 760-768; 2015.
[55] Strzalka R, Erhart T, Eicker U. Analysis and optimisation of a cogeneration plant
based on biomass combustion. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50:1418–26.
[56] Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H, Hofbauer H. Bioenergy – fundamentals, technology
and process engienering (in German)Berlin-Heidelberg. Springer; 2009.
[57] ida.dk. Stirling DK Introduction - Ida. 〈www.ida.dk〉; 2014.
[58] Salomon M, Tuula S, Martin A, Fogelholm C, Fransson T. Small-scale biomass
CHP plants in Sweden and Finnland. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
R. Strzalka et al.
2011;15:4451–65.
[59] Alanne K, Saari A. Sustainable small-scale CHP technologies for buildings: the
basis for multi-perspective decision-making. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2004;8:401–31.
[60] Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden-
Württemberg. Flagship projects to use renewable energies in Baden-Württemberg
(in German). Stuttgart: UBW; 2007
[61] MAWERA. Utilisation of wood for power geneation by means of the Stirling
engine - (in German). 〈www.mawera.com〉; 2015.
[62] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno J, Coronas A. Modeling of trigeneration configurations
based on biomass gasificaiton and comparison of performance. Appl Energy
2014;114:845–56.
[63] Ahrenfeldt J, Thomsen T, Henriksen U, Clausen L. Biomass gasification cogen-
eration - A review of state of the art technology and near future perspectives. Appl
Therm Eng 2013;50:1407–17.
[64] Pereira E, Noguier da Silva J, de Oliviera J, Machado C. Sustainable energy: a
review of gasification technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:4753–62,
〈www.urbas.at〉, [2015].
[65] Asadullah M. Barriers of commercial power generation using gasification gas: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:201–15.
[66] Puig-Arnavat M, Bruno J, Coronas A. Review and analysis of biomass gasification
models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:2841–51.
[67] Ruiz J, Morales M, Munoz P, Mendivil M. Biomass gasification for electricity
generation: review of current technology and barriers. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;18:174–83.
[68] Balat M, Balat M, Kirtay E, Balat H. Main routes for the thermo-conversion of
biomass into fuels and chemicals. Part 2: gasification systems. Energy Convers
Manag 2009;50:3158–68.
[69] DBFZ. Monitoring of the impact of the EEG directive on the electricity generation from
biomass – final report for the period 2009-2011 (in German). Berlin: BMU; 2012
[70] FNR . Road map bioenergy: planing, operation and economic efficiency of biomass
based systems (in German). Gülzov: FNR; 2005.
[71] Urbas. References. 〈www.urbas.at〉; 2015.
[72] Biollanz S, Jansohn P. Biomass gasification – State-of-the-art and future trends
for power and biofuels. 〈www.holzenergie-symposium.ch〉; 2012.
[73] Kaltschmitt M, Themelis N, Bronicki L, Söder L, Vega L. Renewable energy
systems. New York: Springer; 2013.
[74] Mandl C, Obernberger I, Biedermann F. Modelling of an updraft fixed-bed gasifier
operated with softwood pellets. Fuel 2010;89:3795–806.
[75] DBFZ-Energetic Use of Biomass. New wood gasification plant in the bioenergy
region Achental/Germany. 〈www.energetische-biomassenutzung.de〉; 2014.
[76] Wimmer W, Huber J, Epp C, Schauberger B. Final report – optimisation of
regional cycles for the provision of biogenic fuels for energy generation using the
example of Achental biomass centre. Grassau: Biomasseh of Achental; 2013.
[77] Gallmetzer G, Ackermann P, Schwieger A, Kienberger T, Gröbl T, Heimo W, Zankl
M, Kröner M. The agnion Heatpipe Reformer – operating experiences and
evaluation of fuel conversion and syngas composition. Biomass- Convers
Biorefinery 2012;2:207–15.
[78] Neubauer Y, Liu H. Biomass gasification. Biomass combustion science, technology
and engineering, 40. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; 2013. p.
106–29.
[79] Kern S, Pfeifer C, Hofbauer H. Gasification of wood in a dual fluidized bed gasifier:
influence of the fuel feeding on process performance. Chem Eng Sci
2013;90:284–98.
[80] Kiendl I, Klemm M, Clemens A, Hermann A. Dilute gas methanisation of synthesis
gas from biomass gasification. Fuel 2014;123:211–7.
[81] Qiang L, Wen-Zhi L, Xi-Feng Z. Overview of fuel properties of biomass fast
pyrolysis oils. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50:1376–83.
[82] Bridgwater A. Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2012;38:68–94.
[83] Chiaramonti D, Oasmaa A, Solantausta Y. Power generation using fast pyrolysis
liquids from biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007;11:1056–86.
[84] Wan Isahak W, Hisham M, Yarmo M, Hin T. A review on bio-oil production from
biomass by using pyrolysis method. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:5910–23.
[85] Neves D, Thunman H, Matos A, Tarelho L, Gomez-Barea A. Characterization and
prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog Energy Combust Sci
2011;37:611–30.
[86] Wright M, Daugaard D, Satrio J, Brown R. Techno-economic analysis of biomass
fast pyrolysis to transportation fuels. Fuel 2010;89:2–10.
[87] International Energy Agency. Bioenergy project development & biomass supply.
Paris. IEA; 2007
[88] Braimakis K, Atsonios K, Panopoulos K, Karellas S, Kakaras E. Economic
evaluation of decentralised pyrolysis for the production of bio-oil as an energy
carrier for improved logistics towards a large gasification plant. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2014;35:57–72.
[89] Nachenius R, Ronsse F, Venderbosch R, Prins W. Biomass pyrolysis. Adv Chem
Eng 2013;42:75–139.
[90] Bridgwater A. Fast pyrolysis of biomass for the production of liquids. Biomass
Combustion Science, Technology and Engineering. Woodhead Publ Ser Energy
2013;40:130–71.
[91] Rogers J, Brammer J. Estimation of the production cost of fast pyrolysis bio-oil.
Biomass- Bioenergy 2012;36:208–17.
[92] Meier D, van de Beld B, Bridgwater A, Elliott D, Oasmaa A, Preto F. State-of-the-
art of fast pyrolysis in IEA bioenergy member countries. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;20:619–41.
[93] Faix A, Schweinle J, Schöll S, Becker G, Meier D. (GTI-tcbiomass) life-cycle
820
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72 (2017) 801–820
assesment of the BTO-process (biomass-to-oil) with combined heat and power
generation. Envirionmental Prog Sustain Energy 2010;29:193–202.
[94] Jahirul M, Rasul M, Chowdhury A, Ashwath N. Biofuels production through
biomass pyrolysis – a technological review. Energies 2012;5:4952–5001.
[95] Papari S, Hawboldt K. A review on the pyrolysis of woody biomass to bio-oil: focus
on kinetic models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1580–95.
[96] Sharma A, Pareek V, Zhang D. Biomass pyrolysis – A review of modelling, process
parameters and catalytic studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1081–96.
[97] Interntational Energy Agency. Pyrolysis demoplants. Available at: 〈http://
demoplants21.bioenergy2020.eu/projects/displaymap/twhWVt〉; 2015.
[98] Hahn H, Karutenkremer B, Hartmann K, Wachendorf M. Review of concepts for
demand-driven biogas supply for flexible power generation. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2014;29:383–93.
[99] Swaaij W, Kersten S, Palz W. Biomass power for the world. Vienna: Pan Stanford
Publishing Pte. Ltd.; 2015.
[100] Uusitalo V, Havukainen J, Manninen K, Höhn J, Lethonen E, Rasi S, Soukka R,
Horttanainen M. Carbon footprint of selected biomass to biogas production chains
and GHG redution potential in transportation use. Renew Energy 2014;66:90–8.
[101] Gomez Da Costa, Biogas C. as an energy option: an overview. In: Wellinger A,
Murphy J, Baxter D, editors. The Biogas Handbook.. Oxford: Woodhead
Publishing; 2013.
[102] FNR. Guide to biogas - From production to use. Gülzow: FNR; 2010.
[103] Kaparaju P, Rintala J. Generation of heat and power from biogas for stationary
applications: boilers, gas engines and turbines, combined heat and power (CHP)
plants and fuel cells. In: Wellinger A, Murphy J, Baxter D, editors. The biogas
handbook. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2013.
[104] Yingjian L, Qi Q, Xiangzhu H, Jiezhi L. Energy balance and efficiency analysis for
power generation in internal combustion engine sets using biogas. Sustain Energy
Technol Assess 2014;6:25–33.
[105] White AJ, Kirk DW, Graydon J. Analysis of small-scale biogas utilisation in
Ontario cattle farms. Renew Energy 2011;36:1019–25.
[106] FNR. Bioenergy. Gülzow: FNR; 2009.
[107] Lybaeck R. Development, operation, and future prospects for implementing
biogas plants: the case of Denmark. In: Sanz-Bobi M, editor. Use, Operation and
Maintenance of Renewable Energy Systems.. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014.
[108] UTS. Biogas references. Available at: 〈http://www.uts-biogas.com/de/anlagen/
referenzen.html〉; 2015.
[109] Schmack Biogas. Biogas references. Available at: 〈http://www.schmack-biogas.
com/de/referenzen.html〉; 2015.
[110] Poeschl M, Shane W, Owende P. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in
Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;2010(14):1782–97.
[111] German Biogas Association. Biogas sector statistics 2014. GBA; 2015.
[112] Forrest F. Perspectives for biogas in Europe. Oxford: University of Oxford,
Institute for Energy Studies; 2012.
[113] Trogisch, S., & Baaske, W. Biogas Powered Fuel Cells. Austria: Tauner; 2004.
[114] Smyth B, Murphy J, O'Brien C. What is the energy balance of grass biomethane in
Ireland and other temperate northern European climates. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2009;13:2349–60.
[115] Hinterberger R. Biogas as transportation fuel: economic viability and technical
feasibility (in German). Vienna: Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and
Technology; 2011.
[116] Institute for Energy and Environment. Possibilities of an European Biogas
Strategy. Leipzig; 2007.
[117] Yusuf NN, Kamarudin SK, Yaakub Z. Overview on the current trends in biodiesel
production. Energy Convers Manag 2011;52:2741–51.
[118] Eevera T, Rajendran K, Saradha S. Biodiesel production process optimisation and
characterisation to assess the suitability of the product for varied environmental
conditions. Renew Energy 2009;34:762–5.
[119] Bozbas K. Biodiesel as an alternative motor fuel: production and Policies in the
European Union. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2008;2008(12):542–52.
[120] Aransiola E, Ojumu T, Oyekola O, Madzimbamuto T, Ikhu-Omoregbe D. A review
of current technology for biodiesel production: state of the art. Biomass-
Bioenergy 2014;61:276–97.
[121] Demirbas A. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: a review.
Appl Energy 2009;86:108–17.
[122] Demirbas A. Biofuels securing the planet's future energy needs. Energy Convers
Manag 2009;50:2239–49.
[123] FNR. Base data on bioenergy in Germany 2015 (in German). Gülzow: FNR; 2015.
[124] FNR. Biofuels. Gülzow: FNR; 2006.
[125] DBFZ. DBFZ Report Nr. 11 – Monitoring of the biofuel sector in Germany (in
German). Leipzig: DBFZ; 2012.
[126] Padula AD, dos Santos MS, Santos OIB, Borenstein D. Liquid Biofuels: emergence,
Development and Prospects. London: Springer; 2014.
[127] Hakeem KR, Jawaid M, Alothman OY. Agricultural Biomass Based Potential
Materials. Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
[128] Mohr A, Raman S. Lessons from first generation biofuels and implications for the
sustainability appraisal of second generation biofuels. Energy Policy
2013;63:114–22.
[129] De Vries SC, van de Ven GWJ, van Ittersum MK. First or second generation
biofuel crops in Brandenburg, Germany? A model-based comparison of their
production-ecological sustainability. Eur J Agron 2014;52:166–79.
[130] German Biogas Association. Biogas an all-rounder - new opportunities for farming,
industry and the environment. Freising: German Biogas Association; 2013
[131] Tricase C, Lombardi M. State of the art and prospects of Italian biogas production
from animal sewage: technical-economic considerations. Renew Energy
2009;34:477–85.