Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an

intensive swine livestock farm

Filipe Charrua da Costa Lopes Rodrigues

Intituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
filipe.charrua@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

ABSTRACT

Large amounts of agriculture waste generated, like animal manure, have caused major environmental problems throughout the world. Following the 20-
20-20 objectives set by the European Union, and under the scope of the cooperation programme Galp 20-20-20 the work was aimed at finding energy
cost reduction solutions for the intensive swine livestock farm Herdade do Gamoal, by increasing the energy efficiency and reducing the environmental
footprint. Energy inefficiencies, attitudes and consumptions are identified through an energy audit, from which several solutions are suggested and
evaluated, namely: adjustments to the water pump’s operational periods; replacement and maintenance to lightning and ventilation systems; a biogas
plant; a photovoltaic plant for self-consumption; a biogas upgrading plant and implementation of a “green farm” attitude. The work covers the use of
financial assessments to the proposed solutions, with focus on cash flow evolutions, payback periods and environmental advantages. The complete set
of solutions studied provides significant room for cost reduction, energy saving, efficiency growth and emissions reduction. Upgrading biogas to BioM
revealed to be the solution in this study with the greatest impact on cost reduction and energy re-purposing.

Keywords: Anaerobic Digestion, Swine Manure, Biogas, Biomethane, Photovoltaic, Energy, Efficiency.

generation [1], [2], [3], [4].

1. Introduction
Our planet’s environmental problems have been studied by leading
nations of the world since the 1990s. The greenhouse effect, caused
by greenhouse gases (GHG) like carbon dioxide (CO! ) and methane
(CH! ), leads to global warming and subsequent melting polar ice caps
and rising sea levels. Therefore, it is imperative to take actions to
reduce greenhouse effect. The European Union has been in this
topic’s forefront, thus the 20-20-20 objectives were born, which are:
reduce GHG emissions to at least 20% less than 1990 levels; improve
20% energy efficiency; increase the share of renewable energy
consumption to an average of 20% and an increase of 10% in the
share of biofuels in the transportation sector, all before 2020.
In 2007 Galp Energia created the Galp 20-20-20 cooperation
programme inspired by the 20-20-20 Objectives defined by the
European Commission, which each year supports 21 studies
conducted by undergraduate and master’s students aimed at
identifying rational energy attitudes, applicable in industry, as in the
case of Raporal, S.A. and to find improvement actions that enhance
energy efficiency and reduce operational costs. Raporal is a
Portuguese company positioned in the whole chain of pork and beef
production. The study took place at two of Raporal’s swine farms in
“Herdade do Gamoal”, Alentejo.
Public policy puts Portugal among the countries that are at the
forefront of climate policy. Policies like QEPiC, PNAC and ENAAC
2020 makes it possible to achieve national objectives; 31% share of
renewable sources of energy on total consumption by 2020 and 40%
by 2030. In 2014, of the 31% share 45% originated from biomass,
26% from hydro energy, 20% from wind energy and 6% from
biofuels.
Electricity generation from renewable sources in mainland
Portugal in 2014 was responsible for 62.7% of total electricity
Until 2015, decentralized electricity production from renewable
sources was aimed at selling electricity at relatively high prices. On
October 2014 Decree-Law 153/2014 was published which created
new legal framework that came into force in January 2015. The new
regime covers the generation of electricity for self-consumption in a
usage installation connected to the respective generation unit, with or
without a connection to the public energy grid, (referred to as UPAC
units); and through small generation units from renewable energy
sources and exclusively intended for sale to the public electric grid
(referred to as UPP units). The electricity generated by UPACs is
remunerated in accordance with market prices, since it is savings
oriented. UPPs – remuneration of electricity generated is calculated
through a bidding system in which producers offer discounts to a
reference tariff. The applicable tariff for each UPP will be the highest
amount resulting from the highest discount offered and for 2015 was
85.5 €/MWh [5], [6].
Global swine production has been increasing for the last years. In
Portugal, swine production is the second biggest livestock activity in
terms of livestock population, in April 2015 there were 2 038 253 pigs
[7]. The livestock sector is responsible for 61.8% of agricultural gas
emissions, attributable mainly to swine (14.6%) and bovine (28.4 %)
livestock. Regarding methane, most livestock emissions result from
swine manure, with 83% of emissions in 2012.
Considering agricultural residues, 73 037 ton of waste were produced
in Portugal in 2012 [8]. In the past, wastes ended up becoming a
source of pollution, especially when discharged in the water, but
waste policies are now aimed at transforming residues into resources.
One alternative is to create renewable energy from waste products
through anaerobic digestion (AD), which captures and utilizes
methane, decreases organic load on receiving waters, and creates a
high-nutrient, low-solid fertilizer. More importantly AD produces
biogas, an important energy source and allows for energetic
2 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm
valorisation of wastes. Biogas is a product of the microbial
decomposition of organic matter in a moist environment that excludes
air and is basically composed by methane, carbon dioxide, and
hydrogen sulphide (H! S). The AD process encompasses four steps
(hydrolysis, acidification, acetic acid formation, and methane
formation), each respectively involving different groups of
microorganism. Traditionally, AD was a single substrate treatment.
Recently, it has been realized that AD becomes more stable and
efficient when different substrates are applied at the same time in
anaerobic co-digestion (AcoD).A large number of organic substrates
can be used to obtain biogas, but using pig slurry (PS) form Heradade
do Gamoal as a substrate or co-substrate is the main motivation for
this study.
The objectives of this study encompass: identify energy inefficiencies
in the productive system of the farm; draft solutions to improve or
remove those inefficiencies; improve energy efficiency by increasing
the utilization of renewable sources by 20%; reduce 20% of GHG
emissions; evaluate the biogas potential from PS through AD and
AcoD, and subsequently assess the feasibility of a biogas plant for
different final purposes like feeding-in electricity and biogas
upgrading to biomethane (BioM); evaluate electricity generation
through photovoltaic conversion and adopting better practices of
sustainable farming.
2. Materials and methods
The present work focus on two swine farms located inside a 1000 ha
property called “Herdade do Gamoal”, 70 km from Lisbon in the
Alentejo region of Portugal. In this property, one farm is dedicated to
pig breeding and weaning, “Herdade do Gamoal de Cima”, and the
other is where piglets go through the finishing stage – “Engorda da
Herdade do Gamoal” – prior to slaughterhouse. The energy audit
starts with a survey of the farm, a mapping of the animal production
processes, and is followed by a collection of data about all electrical
and thermal equipment used in the farm. The farm’s current energy
profile includes only electricity contracted through Iberdrola, and
pellets used in two boilers providing the necessary heat. Regarding
water consumption, each farm has its own water well, capable of
providing enough drinking and cleaning water.
A single swine production centre composes the farrowing facilities in
Herdade do Gamoal de Cima, with a capacity for 1400 sows kept in
intensive breeding and their young. The Finishing farm “Engorda da
Herdade do Gamoal” has a simpler layout, characterised by four
identical long buildings where pigs have unrestricted access to food
and water. The productive cycle is divided into seven different stages:
breeding, echography, gestation, farrowing, lactation/nursing,
weaning and growing. After birth, piglets are nursed by their dams for
approximately 21 to 28 days and when piglets reach approximately 30
kg live weight are moved on to further accommodation - “Engorda da
Herdade do Gamoal” - to finish their growth prior to slaughter.
Mass and energy flows
Inside the control volume, mass exchanges occur at the productive
and waste management level. Inputs are only food, water and pellets
and regarding outputs, there are pigs leaving this farm to go to the
finishing farm, agricultural waste that can be used as fertilizer and
emissions from waste production.
For both farms, waste generated inside comes from livestock
production and social facilities. The livestock waste system is based
on liquid manure (slurry), since a great volume of water is used.
Slurry is removed periodically via channels and pipes to the outdoor
cesspit unit where liquid-solid separation occurs. After separation, the
liquid fraction is pumped to a lagoon system [9]. The current energy
profile includes electricity and heat from two boilers burning pellets,
thus, energy inputs are only the incident solar radiation, electricity and
pellets.
Figure 1 – Farrowing farm’s mass flow.
Energy audit
An energy audit is performed based on the review of electricity bills
for the period of 2014 and first months of 2015 and later on detailed
measurement of the electricity consumed for the period of one week.
Together both farms consumed a total of 572 194 kWh!"! of
electricity during the year of 2014, which corresponded to 54 485 €.
From electricity bills show it is possible to identify a consumption
decrease of about 30% during the warmer months – July to October –
and shows that 12% of yearly electricity is consumed during periods
of Peak tariff, 44% during Mid-peak, 29% during Off-peak and only
15% during the less expensive period of Super Off-peak tariff (Chart
2). According to the company supplying electricity, 246 ton!!! are
emitted.
To better understand the energetic demands at each different stage of
animal production, both current and active power were measured in
each building for the period of one week to allow to disaggregate the
electricity demand and find which stages of production are more
relevant to the electricity costs, using equipment that connects to
different segments of the farm’s electrical switchboard. One important
output from the measurements is the Week Load Diagram for the
entire farm. A daily pattern for the demanded active power shows two
power peaks taking place every day (Chart 1). The pump used to
pump water from the borehole into the tank was found to be the
responsible agent of the power peaks, twice a day the level gets lower
than the refill point the pump is switched on and refills it.
55% of electricity consumption comes from the farrowing sector due
to 294 infrared lamps and 23 ventilation fans running 24/7, and can
represent more than 310 MWh!"! on an annual basis.
Suggestions for improvement
The energy audit allows identifying simple and inexpensive
approaches to decrease consumption.
 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm 3

Chart 2 - Electricity consumption of Herdade do Gamoal in 2014.

60 000 kWh

50 000 kWh Super Off-peak

2014
Electricity [kWh]

40 000 kWh Off-peak 2014

30 000 kWh
Mid-peak 2014

20 000 kWh
Peak 2014
10 000 kWh
Total 2014
0 kWh
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Months

Chart 1 – Load diagram of Herdade do Gamoal de Cima on June 16th.

100 000
90 000
Active Power [W]

80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000

Time [hh:mm:ss]

The practice of pumping water from the borehole to the tank often Gamoal” together. For this analysis PS formed by manure and water
takes place during periods of expensive electricity tariffs, however, was used as substrate. PS was obtained in the cesspit unit fed with
daily water demand for this farm’s livestock activities is only 95 m! slurry from the breeding farm “Herdade do Gamoal de Cima” on
[10], meaning that hypothetically, a single refill per day is enough to December 1st 2015. Three different 1 litre samples were collected: one
maintain the production activities. Thus it’s safe to reallocate the from the cesspit itself containing continuously mixed slurry coming
pump’s operational intervals into less expensive periods. Operational directly from the underground sewage system; a second one collected
periods add up to 35 hours and 20 min per week: 27.6% through Peak from the resulting solid fraction after slurry has gone trough the
periods, 56.6% through Mid-peak periods, 16% through Off-peak separation unit and a third sample collected from the remaining liquid
periods and only 0.6% through Super Off-peak periods. Wherefore, fraction.
it’s possible to use the entire Super Off-peak available time and pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total solids (TS), volatile solids
another 7.33 hours from Off-peak available time, eliminating the need (VS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen
to use expensive periods. Thus, the annual cost of this exercise (TKN), organic nitrogen (N!"# ), ammonium nitrogen (NH!! − N) and
decreases 38%, as it drops from 1 023 € to 635 €, which represents a total phosphorus (TP) were determined according to standard methods
decrease of 0.9% on total electricity costs. [13] (Table 1). The methane yield is estimated using Chen and
Total consumption of 310 T8 36W fluorescent lamps that illuminate Hashimoto’s (1978) adaptation of Contois (1959) model to describe
the facilities of “Herdade do Gamoal de Cima” is 67.9 MWh!"! , the kinetics of methane production from organic wastes under steady-
which costs 5 292 €/year and causes the emission of 29.3 ton!!! . state condition [14], [15].
Currently LED tube lighting solutions are able to use light and energy Table 1 - Characterization of raw PS and samples of solid and liquid faction.
65% more efficiently [11]. Replacing all lamps would reduce the Parameter Raw slurry Solid fraction Liquid fraction
pH 7.41 8.29 7.77
electricity consumption to 23.8 MWh!"! , electricity cost to 1 852 €/ EC (mS cm!! ) 12.11 2.11 10.18
year and CO! emissions to just 10.26 ton!!! The benefit is related to !!
TS (g L ) 38.98 27.58% 5.65
VS (g L!! ) 23.31 24.15% 2.57
cost saving, more precisely 3 440 €/year, which translates into a VS/TS (%) 59.80 87.56 45.49
COD (g L!! ) 36260 - 3479
payback 2 years and 3 months. TKN (g L!! ) 1.82 - 0.742
Ventilation blades and ducts were found to be covered with dust and NH!! − N (g L!! ) 1.11 - 0.625
N!"# (g L!! ) 0.71 - 0.117
dirt, which can cause a 35% decrease in efficiency [12]. After N!"!#$ (g L!! ) 1.82 - -
cleaning all ventilation systems, electricity consumption and cost PT (g L!! ) 178.7 - 11.42

should be 79.6 MWh!"! and 6 203 €/year, respectively (35% less).
Carbon dioxide emissions should decrease from 52.8 to 34.4 ton!!! .
Biogas Plant
AD can integrate waste management with renewable energy
production and greenhouse effect reduction. This is this work’s major
motivation and to assess the advantages of such promising technology
a methane yield evaluation is conducted to both farms in “Herdade do
The method to obtain the annual methane and biogas production
volumes through anaerobic digestion is presented below, from
Equation 1 to Equation 10. B! for pig manure is set at 0.48 m!!!! /
kg !" , which matches the feeding conditions and manure collection
techniques used in “Herdade do Gamoal”; digestion temperature is set
at 38 °C; influent total solids concentration ( C!" ) of the substrate is
equal to 38.98 kg !" m!!"#$%& and influent volatile solids (C!!! ) is
equal to 23.31 kg !" m!!"#$%& , representing 59.8 % of TS (Table 1)
4 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm

An hydraulic retention time of 20 days is assumed [14]. The effluent most of the biogas developers are currently requiring. The price for
feedstock for methane production is the livestock waste from Herdade concrete was set at 75 €/ m³. Cost values for CHP technology varies
do Gamoal, which is 113 m! /day, hence 2 634 kg !" day [16], [17]. with the installed power, and was set to 2 000 €/kW [22], [23]. The
Maximum specific growth µ! = 0.566 1 + 1110 exp −0.187×38 !!.!"#"
= 0.3974 day !!
Equation 1 initial investment of the biogas plant is:
Loading rate L=
!".!"
= 1.116 kg !" (m !!"#$%& . day) Invest = Cost !"#$%&$' + Cost !"# = 586 067 €
!" Equation 2 Equation 14
Kinetic parameter K = 0.6 + 0.0006. e (!.!!"#×!".!")
= 0.610
Equation 3
Depreciation is calculated over the investment costs, for a period of
Methane yield B = 0.441 m !!!! kg !" 25 years in the case of the digester (4%) and 10 years for the
Equation 4
Volumetric methane
γ! = 0.514 m !!!! (m !!"#$%& . day
technology (10%). It was assumed that the project would have a
production rate Equation 5
financing support of 50% with an interest rate of 4% and a yearly cost
Digester volume V!"# = 20 × 113.0 = 2 260 m !
Equation 6
of 0.5% of total initial investment for insurance [22]. Operational
VS per day M !" = 113.0 × 23.31 = 2 634.0 kg !" day
Equation 7 costs include all expenses related to maintenance, repairs and labour.
Daily methane production V!!! !"# = 0.441 × 2 634.0 = 1 162.4 m !!!! day
Equation 8 Every year, 2% of Cost !"# to cover any damage and any repairs;
!
Annual methane production V!!! !"#$ = 1 162.4 × 365 = 424 262.8 m !!! year
Equation 9 0.01 € kWh , for maintenance due to corrosive elements within
Annual biogas production V!" !"#$ = 424 262.8 0.60 = 707 104.6 m !!"#$%& year Equation biogas and lastly 17.65 € h is contemplated for labour costs [22].
10 Table 2 presents all annual costs for biogas production in a 50%
Considering the annual volume of methane produced through AD the financing scenario for the first 15 years.
annual energy production is 4 219 057.4 kWh available in the form
Table 2 - Annual costs for biogas production.
of gas [18]. With an electric efficiency of 40% and thermal efficiency
Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 … 15
of 45% for the CHP plant [19], the resulting overall efficiency is 85%, Capital in debt at …
[€] 293034 234427 175820 117213 58607 0 0 0
beginning of the period
wherefore the annual electrical and thermal energy productions can Amortisations at the end …
[€] 58607 58607 58607 58607 58607 0 0 0
reach 1 687 622.97 kWh!"! and 1 898 575.84 kWh!"#$% , of the period
…
Interest [€] 11721 9377 7033 4689 2344 0 0 0
respectively. …
Maintenance [€] 16876 16876 16876 16876 16876 16876 16876 16876
For a volume of 2 280.8 m! (a cylinder with a diameter of 22 m and …
Repairs [€] 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000 8000
6 m deep) he heat loss through the tops, walls and floors is …
Insurance [€] 2930 2930 2930 2930 2930 2930 2930 2930
determined as in Equation 11 [15], [14], [20], [21]. …
Labour [€] 18356 18356 18356 18356 18356 18356 18356 18356
Q !"#$ = 10 339.6 + 8 459.7 + 5 169.8 = 23 969.1 W Equation 11 …
Total [€] 57884 55540 53195 50851 48507 46163 46163 46163

The total thermal power required to maintain the digestion process at

The sources considered to forecast the income generated from the
a desired temperature is 130 7464.7 W, therefore, the amount of heat
biogas production were electricity and agricultural fertiliser, with the
demanded during one day can be determined as shown bellow:
Q !!"#$ = (Q !" + Q !"#$ )×24×3 600 seg = 3 138.4 kWh
biogas plant operating with no restrictions to the electricity injected
Equation 12
into the grid. Assuming that the established tariff discount is
Subtracting the heat demands from the available energy, the
2 €/MWh and that 10% of the electricity production is consumed by
remaining is 1 282.9 kWh, which shows that it is possible to maintain
the plant itself at a cost of 0.0956 €/kWh [22] and that the ton of
the digestion process using only the remaining heat, 29%. The excess
Nitrogen is valued at 10 € ton N . Thus, the annual revenue is
energy can be used in the breeding facilities, as a substitute or as a
determined as in Equation 15.
complement to the existing heat source, for instance to heat the
Revenue!"!#$ = 132 377, 15 + 1 501.32 = 133 878.46 €
Equation 15
farrowing nests.
Is important to perform a cash flow analysis to evaluate the project’s
feasibility, using NPV, IRR and Payback Period indicators. From
Financial instruments
Chart 4 it is possible to perceive that after 11.6 years the cumulated
Parameters for the project’s economic assessment are exposed by
cash flow becomes positive, with an IRR of 9% and NPV equal to
means of NPV (Net Present Value), IRR (Internal Rate of Return)
94 499 € after 15 years. If the analysis were extended to 25 years –
and Payback Period. A positive NPV indicates that the projected
lifetime of the equipment – the investment would have an IRR of 12%
earnings generated by a project or investment exceed anticipated costs
and a NPV of 274 881 €.
(in present euros). The discount rate used for NPV calculation is
Another major environmental benefit is related to the methane
7%/year. The following is the formula for calculating NPV:
!
C!
conversion into CO! . The CO! emissions from producing and burning
NPV = − C!
1+r ! Equation 13 biogas are − 4 779 780 kg !"! !" year meaning that, overall, CO! is
!!!

where C! is the net cash inflow during period t; C! represents total
initial investment costs; r the discount rate and t the number of time
periods. Internal Rate of Return calculation relies on the same formula
as NPV does, and is a metric used to measure and compare the
profitability of investments. The higher a project’s IRR, the more
desirable it is to undertake it, and is defined as the rate of return that
makes NPV of all cash flows, of an investment, equal to zero. The
Payback Period is also an important determinant of whether to
undertake the project. It is the period of time required to recover the
cost of an investment
Capital costs include the digester’s construction and both CHP
technology and related equipment acquisition. A budget price
quotation was requested to Wolf Systembau Gesellschaft m.b.H., a
well-experienced German company, and includes several options that
being captured instead of being emitted, which is beneficial.
3. Cost reduction options
Co-digestion
Anaerobic Co-digestion (AcoD) consists in the digestion of two or
more substrates simultaneously and offers a higher biogas production
as well as major cost reduction advantages. Manures are often
associated with poor methane yields. AcoD of manures with other
substrates has been applied as a cost-effective alternative to improve
process efficiency and consequently make plants economically
feasible. In the scope of this study, and in order to compare the
performance of mono digestion and co-digestion plants one more
financial analysis was made for the co-digestion of PS with
 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm 5

Chart 4 - Cash flows and cumulated cash flows for the biogas plant.
200 000
100 000
Cash flow [€]

0
- 100 000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 200 000
- 300 000
- 400 000
- 500 000
- 600 000
- 700 000
Years

Chart 4 - Cash flows and cumulated cash flows fot the AcoD biogas plant.
1 000 000
500 000
Cash &low [€]

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 500 000
-1 000 000
-1 500 000
-2 000 000 Years

slaughterhouse waste (SHW), because of its opportune interest
regarding Raporal’s activities – pig farming is usually linked to a
meat-processing factory, as in the case of Raporal’s operation. In that
regard calculations for this mixture’s methane yield are performed
using the same kinetic model as before but applying the increase of
specific methane yield and influent VS concentration described by
Hejnfelt & Angelidaki (2009), specifically 55.33 kg !" m!!"#!$%&$' .
The estimated annual methane and biogas production volumes
through AcoD are presented below, from Equation 16 to Equation 17.
Loading rate L=
!!.!! !
= 2.767 kg !" (m !"#!$%&$' . day)
!"
Kinetic parameter K = 0.6 + 0.0006. e(!.!!"#×!!.!!) = 1.022
1.022
Methane yield B = 1.40×0.48 1 –
0.3974×20 − 1 + 1.022
Volumetric methane 1.022
γ! = 0.672×2.767 1–
production rate 0.3974×20 − 1 + 1.022
VS per day M !" = 113.0 × 55.33 = 6 252.29 kg !" day
The annual electrical and thermal energy productions can now reach
5 317 690.65 kWh!"! and 5 982 401.98 kWh!"#$% , respectively. The
AcoD solution shares the same type of capital and operational costs as
the biogas plant dimensioned before. However, due to a more
powerful CHP plant, capital costs are greater and to account for any
additional costs related to the acquisition of co-substrate an extra 30%
over operational costs is considered. The sources considered
forecasting the income generated are the same as before: electricity
and digested substrate, but now the total revenue is 418 620.97 €.
Cash flows for a period of 15 years are presented in Chart 4 from
where it is possible to perceive a more optimistic scenario with a
positive cumulated cash flow after only 7.85 years. This solution is
characterised by a 15% IRR and 757 442 € of NPV. If the analysis
were extended to 25 years – lifetime of the equipment – the
investment would have an IRR of 16% and a NPV of 1 332 806 €.
Photovoltaic plant
There is the possibility to make use of solar energy – a clean
renewable source of immense potential – to generate electricity and
therefore reduce energetic and overall swine breeding expenses. A
small photovoltaic (PV) plant is dimensioned to operate under the
self-consumption scheme, capable of covering the farm’s least
onerous electric demand, in the 56 kW power range.
When dimensioning the photovoltaic plant, energy calculations are
completed according to a simplified model, capable of obtaining
figures and results very similar to actual values [25]. In that sense, the
resulting energy from PV conversion is determined using Equation
21.
E!" = H!" η!"#$% A
Equation 21
The photovoltaic plant is dimensioned considering the use of mono-
crystalline modules Q.Peak-G3 280W1, with 1.67 m! , manufactured
by the German company QCells for its good value for money. These
units have a power of 280 W and the overall power to be fitted is
56 000 W, thus the number of modules to form the panel was found to
Equation 16
be 200. Hence, the calculations for PV energy conversion are
performed as in Equation 22 to Equation 25.
Equation 17
P!"#$%&&'( = 200 mod × 280 W = 56 000W Equation 22
A!"#$%&& = 200 mod × 1.67 m! = 334 m!
= 0.586 m !!!! kg !" Equation 23
Equation 18
η!"#$% = 0.15
Equation 24
= 1.621 m !!!! (m !!"#!$%&$' . day) E!" = 1 935 × 0.15 × 334 = 96 944 kWh
Equation 19 Equation 25
The three loss factors add up to 4.5 % [25] and, assuming an
Equation 20 efficiency of 97.7 % for the inverters, the yearly amount of energy
delivered to the farm grid was found to be:
E!"# = E!" 1 − η! η!"#$ η!"#$% η!"# =
= 96 944 1 − 0.045 0.977 = Equation 26
= 90 452 kWh
Since both farms consumed a total of around 600 000 kWh!"! of
electricity during the year of 2014, the contribution from the PV plant
would represent 15.1 %. The price selected for the mono-crystalline
module Q.Peak-G3 280W is 200 €/mod plus an assembly cost of
30€/mod, which results on a total initial investment of 68 960 €.
During daylight hours each MWh the farm consumes costs 84.9 €.
Hence, this is the cost per MWh that the photovoltaic plant would
enable to save under the self-consumption scheme. Acquiring
electricity from Iberdrola during Peak periods was charged with an
additional overcost fee that translates into 9 839.4 € per year. Hence,
the annual revenue of this enterprise is 12 102€. A cash flow analysis
is presented in Chart 6 for a time window of 25 years and a discount
rate of 7 %. It’s possible to observe that the cumulated cash flow
would turn positive in 9 years and 5 months, with an IRR of 14 % and
NPV equal to 45 161€.
Biogas upgrading to biomethane
Technologies of gas separation applied on biogas, in order to separate
1
Modules characteristics can be found in:
http://www.q-
cells.com/fileadmin/Website_Relaunch_2014/4_Products/4.1_Solar_Modules/4.1.1_
Q.PEAK-G3/Hanwha_Q_CELLS_Data_sheet_QPEAK-G3_265-
280_2014_05_Rev07_EN.pdf
6 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm
methane from carbon dioxide and other impurities, produce a gas with
up to 99 % methane content called biomethane (BioM), which can be
made compatible with Natural Gas (NG) in any of its typical
applications, both for industry and also for public and private energy
consumers. It can be used in the coupled production of electricity and
heat (CHP), as fuel in natural gas vehicles and also as a natural gas
substitute in natural gas burners used for heating. In addition, there is
the possibility to use BioM as a raw material for the chemical
industry.
Based on the study done by A. C. Jardim (2013) the BioM production
calculations are made considering the membrane separation
technology (MS), where various degrees of permeability of polymer
membrane materials are used to separate unwanted constituent parts
of gas from the biogas.
The annual BioM production is estimated to be
422 141.4 m!!"#$ year assuming 99.5% of methane recover. The
MS technology implies a 35 % reduction on the initial investment
when compared to CHP equipment, hence, the initial investment of
the BioM plant would be 446 067 € . Depreciation, interest and
insurance were quantified using the same method as before, but
according to A. C. Jardim (2013) an additional 5% over operational
costs is taken into account. Income sources differ depending on the
solution scheme, which are: BioM consumption in Raporal’s
slaughterhouse, BioM injection in NG grid, BioM trading between
different industries and BioM as fuel for a vehicle fleet.
For BioM consumption in Raporal’s slaughterhouse, BioM is
considered as a substitute to the NG consumed in Raporal’s
slaughterhouse/meat processing factory, which has a consumption of
more than on million cubic meters, or 13.7 GWh per year. To quantify
the saving created from using 422 141.4 cubic meters of BioM as
part of the annual gas consumption it is necessary to find how much it
costs to use the same volume of natural gas. The statistical data
reported by Direção-Geral de Energia e Geologia (2016) in January
2016 indicates the NG price evolution where the average price for the
last seven semesters was 41.789 €/MWh . The resulting annual
saving form such tariff would be 175 427.1 €, 33% greater income
when compared to the revenue from the electricity generated on the
biogas CHP plant projected before. In Chart 6 it is possible to
perceive that the estimated Payback Period is 5.1 years with an IRR of
23% and NPV equal to 540 571 €. If the analysis were extended to
25 years the investment would have an IRR of 24% and a NPV of
60 000
40 000
Cash Flows, [€]
20 000
0 1 2 3 4 5
-20 000
-40 000
-60 000
-80 000
600 000
400 000
200 000
Cash &low[€]
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 200 000
- 400 000
- 600 000
810 683 €.
Portugal doesn’t have NG reserves and therefore there is no NG
production in national territory.
The NG that flows on the national NG grid needs to meet a series of
parameters admissible by ERSE (2013). However, a uniform standard
for the feed-in of biomethane does not yet exist in Europe, and neither
in Portugal, other than guidelines from projects like Biogasmax [29].
Portugal doesn’t have the legal framework for biomethane injection
into the NG grid, so it is not defined how to compensate for that.
It would also be interesting to consider direct contracts between BioM
producers (in this case Raporal – supplier) and BioM users (e. g.
nearby industry with heat requirements), or even the possibility of
suppliers using traders to marketing the BioM. In a more macro
perspective, BioM traders would purchase BioM from various
producers and market it to a variety of customers/consumers.
Lastly, BioM can also play an important role regarding vehicular
fuels, contributing to the share of biofuels in vehicular fuels, as
required by the European legislation [30], [31]. BioM can already be
used as a fuel for natural gas vehicles without any complications, and
one possibility would be to feed the BioM into the NG network and
afterwards make it available at NG fuelling stations, like what is
happening at some German fuelling stations [32]. An alternative to
this is the direct linking of a biogas production plant to a BioM
upgrading plant, with a vehicle fleet being fuelled using BioM, for
instance Raporal’s own fleet. However, the future market
development of BioM as a fuel is crucially dependent on the degree of
market take-up for natural gas vehicles, which is still hampered by the
commodity nature of Portuguese population.
“Greem farm”
The last solution concerns closing the phosphorus (P) cycle and
manure processing, due to the increasing concerns about limited
phosphate rock reserves. Phosphorus is an essential element that
cannot be replaced. The most important aspect of management of
animal waste is the prevention of CH! emissions due to storage.
Processing animal waste preferably by using simple separation
technologies can reduce this CH! emissions. These emission control
interventions could be greatly profitable if the avoided emission was
already being compensated. Some technical interventions can be
made in order to better close the P cycle, such as reducing the P input,
P-recovery and adopting the concept of Bio-refinery [33], [32].
Chart 6 - Cash flows and cumulated cash flows of the PV plant.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Lifetime of PV plant, [years]
Chart 6 - Cash flows and cumulated cash flows for the BioM plant for internal consumption.
Years
 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm 7

4. Conclusions dimensioned to treat 113 m! of waste manure per day. It would

The present study concerns the feasibility of energy and cost saving
solutions for livestock breeding activities, and had Raporal’s swine
farm as a case study. Major emphasis was given to the dimensioning
of a biogas plant for energy generation through CHP or biomethane
production through upgrading. Other solutions encompassed energy
efficiency measures for electric equipment and a photovoltaic park.
An energy audit was conducted to identify, disaggregate and
understand the current paradigm of Raporal’s swine farm in “Herdade
do Gamoal”, as well as to expose potential energetic inefficiencies.
Only then it was possible to introduce new attitudes for the pig-
farming sector. The proposed attitudes include: adjustments to the
water pump’s operational periods; replacement and maintenance to
the lightning and ventilation systems; a biogas plant; a photovoltaic
plant; biomethane production and implementation of a “green farm”
attitude.
The water borehole pump adjustments regarding the operational
timing was the measure with the least cost reduction impact, more
specifically a decrease of 388 €/year, mainly because the pump’s
functioning only represents 6% of the farm’s electricity costs, thus
there was a small margin for improvement.
Exchanging the entire fluorescent lightning system for LED tubes
doesn’t require an high initial investment and therefore makes the
project valuable in a little more than two years. Not making regular
maintenance interventions to avoid efficiency losses through the
ventilation fans can translate into a great energy waste, not only
concerning ambiance and climate conditions but also concerning
energy bills. It was concluded that maintaining ventilation ducts and
fans clean could save 42.9 MWh!"! or 3 334 € . Moreover, both
solutions could avoid the emission of 37.44 ton!!! .
This work also focused on using solar photovoltaic energy to enhance
the energetic and financial performance of the livestock activities in
“Herdade do Gamoal”. A relatively small plant of 200 PV modules
has proven to be a feasible and concrete solution regarding electrical
energy. This way, it would be possible to generate satisfactory extra
savings from unused areas outside the buildings, with confortable
investment and inviting payback period. Equally significant to the
extra financial advantage is the environmental gain promoted by the
non-emission of 877.78 ton!"! after 25 years.
Agricultural livestock production generates waste streams that are
currently not completely taken care of. This can be achieved using
anaerobic digestion techniques, thus using a significant portion of the
waste stream in the form of biogas and even fertilizer. This paper
evidences how the digester implementation for waste treatment and
consequential energy and fertilizer generation in a swine farm, can
help enhance its productivity and contribute to achieve a sustainable
production and solve environmental subjects. The biogas plant was
translate into a substantial initial investment with a low revenue
income, hence the unattractive final NPV and long payback period of
more than 11 years.
The combination of pig slurry with SHW was found to be a more
suitable path. This route has proven to be a much more effective
arrangement, both in financial and biogas production terms. It has
been demonstrated the possibility of using biogas to generate
electricity in a swine farm, in a greater amount than the consumed
electricity, namely 2.8 and 8.9 times greater, for mono- and co-
digestion respectively.
Another major advantage of anaerobic digestion is the environmental
aspect, in this case related to the non-emission of methane through the
conversion into CO! . Burning biogas from anaerobic digestion only
releases a small amount when compared to the removed figure,
meaning that overall CO! is being captured instead of being emitted -
this initiative would “remove” 4 779 780 kg !"! !" year from the
atmosphere.
Upgrading biogas to BioM has revealed to be the solution in this
study with the greatest impact on cost reduction and energy re-
purposing. In financial terms, upgrading biogas instead of burning it
in a CHP system has shown to be a much more attractive opportunity,
essentially because the technology would imply significant lower
investment. In the case of using BioM as 36.7% of Raporal’s
slaughterhouse annual NG consumption annual savings could reach
over 175 000 €, and consequently an enterprise like a BioM plant
would become a profitable project after just over 5 years.
The legislation for feeding-in biomethane into the NG network does
not yet exist in Portugal, which makes Portugal one of the European
countries that are developing this expertise at a slower rate. This slow
developing rate is also an additional difficulty in reaching European
energy and climate change targets, as defined in the
The European directives to incorporate 10% of renewable share in the
transportation sector by 2020 demonstrate the important role that
BioM can play as a vehicular fuel. The option that turned out to be
motivating for decreasing swine farming costs was to consider using
the produced BioM as fuel on the company’s own fleet of vehicles.
The last solution to be studied in this paper was the concept of the
“Green farm”, where a significant source of income by revenue and
savings can be achieved.
To summarize, the complete set of solutions studied in this work
provides significant room for cost reduction, energy saving, efficiency
growth and emissions reduction. Together, the water pump’s
adjustments, lightning and ventilation procedures and the biogas plant
can add up to more than 140 000 € of annual income, more than
1.6 GWh of energy production and more than 4 700 ton!"! !" year
removal. Even greater results are achievable when BioM solutions
and a PV plant are considered.

5. References

[1] A. C. Fernandes, M. D. Guerra, R. Ribeiro, and S. Rodrigues, “Relatório do Estado do Ambiente 2015,” 2015.
[2] E. Santos, A. P. Rodrigues, A. Daam, and J. Paulino, “QEPiC - Quadro Estratégico da Política Climática,” 2015.
[3] E. Santos, A. P. Rodrigues, A. Daam, J. Paulino, and J. V. da Silva, “PNAC - Programa Nacional Para As Alterações Climáticas,” 2015.
[4] E. Santos, J. Paulino, M. J. dos Santos, P. Canaveira, P. Baptista, and T. C. Lourenço, “ENAAC - Estratégia Nacional de Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas,” 2015.
[5] Diário da República, “Portaria n.o 15/2015,” Diário da República, 1.a série — N.o 16 — 23 janeiro 2015, pp. 1–2, 2015.
[6] Ministério Do Ambiente Ordenamento Do Território e Energia, “Decreto-Lei no 153/2014 de 20 de outubro,” Diário da República, pp. 5298–5311, 2014.
[7] I. de F. da A. e P. IFAP, “Declarações de existências de suínos 2015,” 2015.
[8] P. M. C. Ferrão, A. Lorena, M. Santos, S. P. de O. Niza, P. J. T. Ribeiro, I. F. Diogo, A. C. Carrola, A. S. Vaz, P. Santana, J. Sabino, I. Mateus, and L. Gonçalves, “PNGR - Plano Nacional de
Gestão de Resíduos: 2014-2020,” 2014.
[9] S. A. Raporal, “Plano de Gestão de Efluentes Pecuários Gamoal de Cima,” 2013.
[10] F. Rodrigues, “Análise de viabilidade de digestão anaeróbia de dejetos suínos para redução de emissões poluentes e produção de energia, RAPORAL S.A.,” 2015.
[11] R. Otto, “Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Intensive Rearing of Poultry or Pigs,” no. August 2015, 2015.
[12] F. Energy, “Energy efficient fans for swine production,” vol. PM 2089e, no. March, pp. 9–10, 2010.
[13] American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,” Stand. Methods,
p. 541, 1999.
8 Cost analysis of energy production from anaerobic digestion in an intensive swine livestock farm

[14] Y. R. Chen, “Kinetic analysis of anaerobic digestion of pig manure and its design implications,” Agric. Wastes, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 65–81, 1983.
[15] a G. Hashimoto and Y. R. Chen, “Anaerobic Fermentation of Beef Cattle Manure: Final Report,” 1981.
[16] R. T. Alves, D. L. Guntzel, C. G. Reghelin, and R. Barichello, “Geração de Energia Elétrica com Biogás : Um Caso Prático na Suinicultura,” 2010.
[17] J. Dias, “Código De Boas Práticas Agrícolas,” Drapn.Min-Agricultura.Pt, p. 53, 1997.
[18] Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), “Guia Prático do Biogás - Geração e Utilização,” p. 236, 2010.
[19] T. Daten and H. Tcg, “Technische Daten 50 Hz TCG 2016 V12 C, Biogas, 500 NOx,” p. 8000, 2016.
[20] Ipma, “Boletim Climatológico Anual – 2014 Portugal Continental,” pp. 1–7, 2014.
[21] C. E. Adams, J. Donald, B. A. L. Joseph, B. Jerry, L. B. Robert, D. B. Don, E. B. Larry, G. J. Crits, D. Dahlstrom, S. L. Daniels, D. W. F. Echelberger, J. Ronald, G. G. Louis, J. Brian, L. G.
Negib, H. R. David, H. S. Hong, D. T. A. Huibers, J. Mark, K. L. Béla, G. L. János, L. David, H. F. L. Francis, X. M. Thomas, J. Van T, N. Joseph, G. R. Leroy, H. R. Bernardo, O. Chakra, J. S. E.
Stuart, S. Frank, S. Gerry, L. S. Wen, K. S. John, R. S. Paul, and S. M. S. Switzenbaum, “Wastewater Treatment Origins of Industrial Wastewater,” 1999.
[22] B. Regions, “Biogas Calculator BioGC.” .
[23] M. Monte, “Contributo para o estudo da valorização energética de biogás em Estações de Tratamento de Águas Residuais,” 2010.
[24] A. Hejnfelt and I. Angelidaki, “Anaerobic digestion of slaughterhouse by-products,” Biomass and Bioenergy, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1046–1054, 2009.
[25] R. Amaro and I. Soares, “Estudo da Incorporação de Energias Renováveis Engenharia Nos Campi do IST: Alameda e TagusPark,” 2015.
[26] M. A. C. Jardim, “Biogas Economical Valorization: Electricity Generation vs. Biomethane Production For Grid Injection,” Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, 2013.
[27] Direção-Geral de Energia e Geologia, “Combustíveis fósseis - estatísticas rápidas - Janeiro 2016,” 2016.
[28] ERSE - Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos, Regulamento da qualidade de serviço do setor do Gás Natural - Abril 2013. 2013.
[29] P. Huguen, G. Le Saux, M. Beil, F. Cagnon, A. Greninger, A. Wellinger, and F. Bravin, “Perspectives for a european standard on biomethane: a biogasmax proposal,” Europe, no. December 2010,
p. 27, 2010.
[30] Biogasmax, “Biogasmax 2006/2010 the synthesis,” 2010.
[31] O. Schoumans, “Closing the Phosphorus cycle and manure processing,” 2013, no. November.
[32] J. Buysse, “Roadmap to the future nutrient management Economic and ecologic sustainability,” 2015.
[33] U. S. E. I. Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with projections to 2040,” 2015.