Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Biogas upgrading via membrane process: Modelling of pilot plant scale and the
end uses for the grid injection
A. Molino a,⇑, M. Migliori b, Y. Ding c, B. Bikson c, G. Giordano b, G. Braccio a
a
ENEA, National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, UTTRI S.S. 106 Ionica, km 419+500, 75026 Matera, Italy
b
University of Calabria, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials, Via P. Bucci, Cubo 44a, I-87036 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy
c
PoroGen Corporation, 6C Gill Street, Woburn, MA 01778, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

" Simulation results with an hollow fiber polymeric membrane fueled with simulated biogas.
" Feasibility study for the biogas upgrading plant.
" Economical analysis for biomethane production from biogas.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper show the techno economical indications for the upgrading process started from biogas with the
Received 24 August 2012 scope to produce biomethane for the grid injection and delivered to households and industry or alterna-
Received in revised form 10 October 2012 tively, it can be used as a fuel for CNG-vehicles. The present work give the numerical simulation with a
Accepted 23 October 2012
commercial polymeric membrane, PEEK-SEP™ hollow fiber membranes of the PoroGen Corporation, a US
Available online 25 December 2012
based company that specializes in industrial separation process. The membrane, for the numerical sim-
ulation, was fueled with methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and nitrogen with a composition similar to
Keywords:
the real biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of the organic waste. This study will show the feasibility
Biomethane
Biogas
of integrating anaerobic digestion plant with on site polymeric membrane purification system for condi-
Decentralised power generation tioned biomethane production.
CO2 removal Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Grid injection

1. Introduction [7,8]. However, commercially available polymeric membranes

Several research center have shown the industrial feasibility of
upgrading biogas with polymeric membranes [1,2], infact at the
actually state, the polymeric membranes show a good level of com-
petitiveness with conventional technologies for the separation of
CO2 and H2S from biogas, such as pressure swing adsorbption
(PSA), temperature swing adsorbption (TSA) or amine solution both
for what concerns the performance and for the operating costs.
Membrane technology was used to separate carbon dioxide from
the biogas in order to obtain biomethane of suitable quality for plac-
ing into the national distribution network [3,4]. Most of the litera-
ture related to the use of polymeric membranes for carbon dioxide
removal, however, is directed to natural gas purification [5,6].
State of the art polymeric membranes are economically com-
petitive in separating CO2 and H2S from the biogas as compared
to conventional technologies in both capital and operating costs
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0835 974736; fax: +39 0835 974210.
E-mail address: antonio.molino@enea.it (A. Molino).
are typically susceptible to degradation by a number of biogas
components such as ammonia and thus require extensive feed
gas pre-treatment to protect membranes from degradation which
increases purification cost, in particular for hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia and siloxane removal with other system for cleaning
biogas [9–14]. At the end of the purification process the biogas still
contains methane, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and trace of sulphi-
dric acid and ammonia (<100 ppm) that must be removed from
the stream to produce biomethane.
Different are the environmental advantages in the use of biom-
ethane, biohydrogen [15] or biodiesel [16,17] respect to the others
fossil fuels, in fact using biomethane in the automotive sector is
possible to reduce the CO2 emissions from 75% to 200% as shows
in Fig. 1.1.
Fig. 1.1 shows that using Hydrogen with the mix EU as combus-
tible for automotive sector the CO2 emission are greater than the
others fuels inclusive the fossil fuels, while with the biomethane
is possible to reduce the CO2 emission equal to using the electric
car, with a production of CO2 of about 5 gr/km; at the other hand

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.10.058
586 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592
Fig. 1.1. CO2 emissions in the automotive sector for different fuels [18].
using methane with 20% of biomethane is also possible to reduce of
20% the GHG emissions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Membrane upgrading unit description
Recently in ENEA Trisaia we have initiated a project for biogas
upgrading with polymeric membranes to increase caloric value of
the gas and to purify the gas to natural gas pipeline specifications.
ENEA has selected membrane technology from PoroGen Corpora-
tion as a main component of biogas upgrading system. PoroGen’s
membrane technology was selected because of the superior mem-
brane chemical durability (membranes do not require specialized
pretreatment to protect from aggressive biogas components that
can caused degradation of most commercial membrane systems),
because of the compact membrane module size and high mem-
brane separation efficiency.
Polymeric membrane modules utilized in the process were pro-
vided by PoroGen Corporation, a US based company that specializes
in industrial separation process. PEEK-SEP™ hollow fiber mem-
branes composed of poly ether ketone, polymer were used. The
membranes are designed to remove acid gases and water vapors
from raw natural gas or biogas to improve gas quality.
The membrane modules used for biogas upgrading are shows in
Fig. 2.1.
The Fig. 2.1 show the polymeric membrane used in this upgrading
plant built by PoroGen Corporation, that has a technology based on
melt extruded porous poly (ether ether ketone), PEEK, membranes.
PoroGen products are made from VICTREXÒ PEEK high performance
polymers and are used in the most demanding separation applica-
tions. The VICTREXÒ PEEK polymer was chosen for its outstanding
combination of high heat and chemical resistance. Membrane pore
size and surface chemistry of each membrane product is tailored to
meet a specific separation application. For high precision separation
composite membranes are manufactured by depositing an additional
ultra-thin separation layer on top of the porous PEEK membrane.
Composite membrane technology platform enables rapid commer-
cialization of new applications by tailoring separation layer material
characteristics towards the target application.
PEEK-SEP™ membranes can operate at temperatures as high as
200 °C and are not affected by aggressive chemicals present in
‘‘real life’’ process streams. PoroGen membranes are inexpensive,
yet sufficiently durable to be employed in industrial applications
(high temperature gas separations, natural gas treatment, and
aggressive solvent filtration) under operating conditions in which
other polymeric membranes cannot be used.
2.2. Separation device and data treatment
2.2.1. Data analysis
The membrane module input–output scheme is reported in
Fig. 2.2 were the retentate flow R (CH4 enriched phase) and perme-
ate P are the unique out streams.
Aiming at compare simulation results under different process
conditions, the biogas purity (BP) expressed as methane molar
fraction in the retentate xRCH4 was calculated. Also the hydrocarbon
yield of the process Y was considered as the ratio between the
methane outlet in the retentate phase and the methane inlet flow
rate as it follows:
R  xRCH4
Y¼ ð1Þ
F  xFCH4
In addition, when varying the methane content on the inlet bio-
gas, the process performance was also evaluated by calculating H
parameter as the percentage relative increase of methane molar
fraction between the feed and retentate stream:
xRCH4  xFCH4
H¼  100 ð2Þ
xFCH4
In order to estimate the module productivity as defined below,
simulations where run by varying the most relevant process
parameters:
 The inlet gas composition (from 40% to 70% in methane; step
10%).
 The feed pressure (from 5 to 30 bar; step 5 bar) at constant per-
meate pressure (0.1 bar).
 The mass flow rate (from 5 to 80 kg/h; step 5 kg/h up to 40 kg/h
and step 10 kg/h up to 80 kg/h).
The membrane module input–output scheme is reported in
Fig. 2.2 were the retentate flow R (CH4 enriched phase) and perme-
ate P are the unique out streams.
The simulation results were carried out with a model ad hoc for
the prediction both of the purity and the recovery in methane [19].
3. Simulation results with the single stage
3.1. Effect of feed pressure
In Fig. 3.1 are reported the results for a fixed 50% (mol/mol) in
methane feed as a function of total flow rate and at different inlet
pressure.
 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592 587

Fig. 2.1. PEEK-SEP™ membrane for biogas upgrading.

data of Fig. 3.1. In fact, the methane recovery is improved for lower
inlet pressure with respect to the higher ones (see Fig. 3.2).
This effect can be explained if the relative amount of permeate
and retentate is considered: when increasing pressure, the perme-
ate flow rate is increased and the retentate amount is decreased as
a consequence. Therefore, despite an augmented pureness of the
stream R, due to the reduced flow rate, the methane yield is lower
than the case of a low pressure runs.

3.2. Effect of feed composition

Fig. 2.2. Membrane module scheme.

In Fig. 3.3 the methane molar fraction in the retentate is re-

1 ported for different stream compositions as a function of inlet
gas pressure, at a fixed feed of 40 kg/h. Simulations show an in-
crease in hydrocarbon fraction when the process pressure is aug-
0.9
mented. For low operating pressures the lower is the methane
content in the feed, the lower will be the hydrocarbon fraction in
0.8
the purified biogas. On the contrary, when increasing the process
BP [-]

pressure the retentate enrichment in methane is favoured for less

0.7 pure inlet gas, event though this effect at the higher investigated
pressures (above 20 bar) (see Fig. 3.4).
0.6
1
5 bar 10 bar 15 bar 20 bar 25 bar 30 bar
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.8
Mass Flow Rate [kg/h]

Fig. 3.1. Methane in the enriched stream (retentate) for 50% CH4 feed. 0.6
Y [-]

0.4
Simulations reveal that the separation process increases the
methane content of the biogas out stream for any of the investi-
0.2
gated condition. Moreover an increase in the process flow rate
causes a drop of the process efficiency as the methane molar frac- 5 bar 10 bar 15 bar 20 bar 25 bar 30 bar
0
tion is reduced. This effect is less evident at higher feed pressure 0 20 40 60 80 100
(above 20 bar), where the hydrocarbon content is weakly depen-
Mass Flow Rate [kg/h]
dent on the process flow rate. On the contrary, if the hydrocarbon
yield Y is considered, different considerations can be derived from Fig. 3.2. Methane yield for 50% CH4 feed.
588 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592

1 1

0.8
0.9

0.6
BP [-]

Y [-]
0.8
0.4

0.7
0.2

70% 60% 55% 50% 40% 70% 60% 55% 50% 40%
0.6 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Inlet Pressure [bar] Inlet Pressure [bar]

Fig. 3.3. Methane in the enriched stream (feed 40 kg/h). Fig. 3.5. Methane yield (feed 40 kg/h).

Also in this case it should be bear in mind that the retentate
flow rate decreases when increasing the operating pressure there-
fore a compromising condition should be find between high pure-
ness and high productivity in terms of flow rate. If the relative
increase in methane content H is considered (Fig. 3.3), again the
best process performance is found for low methane content to feed
(increase up 140%) but, in this case, the increase in operative pres-
sure positively acts for any of the investigated feed.
If the methane yield is considered (Fig. 3.5) it is confirmed that
an increase in operative pressure causes a decrease in process per-
formance and this evidence does not depend on the feed composi-
tion. Moreover if this process parameter is considered, an increase
in inlet biogas pureness, will favourably impact in the hydrocarbon
recovery in the entire range of the investigated pressure.
4. Simulation results with the double stage
In order to investigated more performing layout based on mem-
brane module, the validated simulation tool was used to asses dif-
ferent processes based on double separation step.
The numericals simulation was carried out with the polymeric
membranes that have the characteristics showed in the paragraph
2, fixed the membrane area.
The constraints set for the numerical simulations, in addition to
the characteristics of the membrane, surface area and permeability
of the gases, have been the feed biogas in input to the process, its
In the first instance, it was evaluated the effect on the single
stage separative under the operating conditions shown in Table 4.2,
in the case of fixing the purity in biomethane equal to 95 vol.% and
the outlet pressure from stage to separative 31 bar g, according to
Fig. 4.1.
The numerical simulations were carried out starting with a gas
having the same composition of the biogas product from anaerobic
digestion of biomass the input stage separative, in the configura-
tion shown below (see Fig. 4.2).
The results of the numerical simulations have been achieved
through the use of a software created ad hoc [19] for the separative
stage while the energetic simulations with a commercial simulator,
CHEMCAD, whose results are shown below.
Table 4.2 shows that to obtain 3.6 kg/h of biomethane with a
single stage at a pressure of 31 bar and with a purity of about
95 vol.% is necessary a preliminary stage of compression at a pres-
sure of 31.01 bar and that the stream of permeate (Tag.303), repre-
sents 90% of the flow fed to the process with a methane content
still very high. Defining the recovery into methane as the difference
between the methane content in the stream of retentate and that
contained in the biogas, as shown in the equation below:
Q retentate  yret
Recov ery ¼ CH4
feed
 100 ð3Þ
Q feed biogas  yCH4
where Qret and yret
CH4 are respectively the volumetric flow rate and

composition and purity into methane required, in order to evaluate the molar fraction of the methane contained in the retentate
different process configurations enabling technical economic eval- stream, while Qfeed_biogas e yfeed
CH4 are the volumetric flow rate and

uations aimed for industrial development. the mole fraction of methane contained in the feed biogas. Applying
The Table 4.1 shows the main characteristics of the biogas used the (3) at the single stage derives a recovery of about 30% which is
for the numerical analysis. unacceptable from an application point of view to the actual condi-
tions of industrial processes, in fact from the economic evaluations
derives a cost of electrical energy required for the compression
160% stage equal to 6.28 kW h for 3.6 kg/h of methane production. At
the end, through the single stage separative membranes, the spe-
140% cific energy required is equal to 1.74 kW h/kg. In Italy the cost of
120%

100%
Table 4.1
Θ [%]

80% Main characteristics of the biogas used in input at the numericals simulation for the
upgrading process.
60%
Biogas characteristics
40%
Methane (CH4) 55 vol.%
20% Carbon dioxide (CO2) 39 vol.%
70% 60% 55% 50% 40% Hydrogen (H2) 5 vol.%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 Nitrogen (N2) 1 vol.%
Feed biogas 35.3 kg/h
Inlet Pressure [bar] Pressure (bar) 1
Temperature (°C) 30
Fig. 3.4. Relative increase of methane fraction (feed 40 kg/h).
 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592 589

Table 4.2 the electrical energy is equal to 0.191 €/kW h [20] and than, in order
Simulation results for the single stage of polymeric membrane. to obtain 1 S m3 of gas at 31 bar and purity standards set by the gas
300 Feed biogas 301 Feed biogas network, will have an operating cost of about 25 € cent/S m3 for the
Methane (vol.%) 55 55
upgrading of biogas. This value is acceptable only if takes into ac-
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 39 39 count which is representative of the only cost for the upgrading
Hydrogen (vol.%) 5 5 of biogas and the specific cost of natural gas in the domestic market
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1 1 amounted in the range of 46–68 € cent/S m3 [21], although for most
Feed biogas (kg/h) 35 35
part of households, the average cost is approximately 41 € cent/
Pressure (bar) 1 31.01
Temperature (°C) 30 30 S m3. A possible solution for reduce the energy demand for the
upgrading process consists in recovering the methane still con-
302 Biomethane 303 Permeate
tained in the stream of permeate, equal to 12.6 S m3/h, by means
Methane (vol.%) 95.62 47.4
of a two-stage separative with a compression of the permeate out-
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 3 45.7
Hydrogen (vol.%) 0.23 5.9 put from the first stage and the sending to a second stage separative
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.15 1.0 in order to obtain a permeate from the second stage with a lower
Feed biogas (kg/h) 3.6 31.4 methane content respect to the single stage and recirculate the
Pressure (bar) 31 1.72‘ biomethane produced at the second stage in the supply stream of
Temperature (°C) 30 30
the process as shown in Fig. 4.3.

Fig. 4.1. Rendering of the single stage for separation of the carbon dioxide from biogas.

Fig. 4.2. Configuration process for the single stage.

Fig. 4.3. Double stage with a ‘‘tandem’’ configuration.

590 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592

Fig. 4.4. Simulation flowchart for the double stage with a ‘‘tandem’’ configuration.

Table 4.3 Fig. 4.3 shows the tandem configuration where the biogas fed at
Numerical results for the double stage with a ‘‘tandem’’ configuration. 31 bar. The simulation scheme with the CHEMCAD software is re-
101 102 ported in the picture.
Fig. 4.4 shows that the biogas stream before the compression is
Methane (vol.%) 55 55.08
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 39 38.89 mixed with the biomethane stream from the second stage, at high-
Hydrogen (vol.%) 5 4.81 er pressure than the atmospheric. With this configuration is possi-
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1 1.23 ble to have higher performance at the first stage respect to the
Feed biogas (kg/h) 35 48.59 single stage in order to maximize the purity in methane, while
Pressure (bar) 31 31
Temperature (°C) 30 27
with the second stage is also possible to maximize the methane
recovery. The numerical results are showed in the Table 4.3.
103 Biomethane 104
Table 4.3 shows that using the tandem configuration is possible
Methane (vol.%) 95.40 28.79 to have biomethane production significantly higher than the single
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 2.98 62.30
stage configuration and with a recovery, calculated according to (3)
Hydrogen (vol.%) 0.022 7.8
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.4 1.11 equal to 94%; among other things in this way it is possible to con-
Feed biogas (kg/h) 12.36 36.23 centrate the CO2 to values higher than 80 vol.% and therefore lends
Pressure (bar) 31 1.72 itself well to the production process of biomethane via Sabatier
Temperature (°C) 15 15.1
reactions [22] or for the carbon sequestration CCS [23].
105 106 Permeate This complication involves a further because with this configu-
Methane (vol.%) 28.79 6.99 ration is necessary the energy compression of the intermediate
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 62.30 81.81 permeate to the first stage of approximately 3.95 kW h e which
Hydrogen (vol.%) 7.8 10.68
are added to 6.28 kW h for the initial compression of biogas, for a
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.11 0.52
Feed biogas (kg/h) 36.23 22.91
total required energy of about 10.23 kW h, nevertheless the electri-
Pressure (bar) 31 1.72 cal energy necessary for the process is equal to about 0.82 kW h/kg
Temperature (°C) 19 19 CH4, about half of that required with the single stage. In these oper-
107 ating conditions the cost of upgrading the biogas is approximately
Methane (vol.%) 55.27
11.6 € cent/S m3 and therefore begins to have an industrial value
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 38.60 the process of upgrading if compared with the cost of methane
Hydrogen (vol.%) 4.29 set by the authorities for electricity and gas AEEG. Further
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.83 improvements of the process are possible if the retentate obtained
Feed biogas (kg/h) 13.31
in outlet from the first stage is fed to the second separative stage
Pressure (bar) 31
Temperature (°C) 19 and while the outlet of the second stage permeate is reflux after
compression to the feed biogas, as shown in Fig. 4.5.

Fig. 4.5. Cascade configuration for the double separative stage.

 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592 591

Fig. 4.6. Cascade configuration for the double separative stage.

Table 4.4
energy required for the compression of the permeate in outlet at
Simulation results for the cascade configuration. the second stage is equal to 1.44 kW h, about 1/3 of the intermedi-
ate in tandem configuration, for a total energy necessary equal to
201 202
7.72 kW h, which corresponds in specific terms to 0.73 kW h/kg
Methane (vol.%) 55 54.78 of biomethane production obtaining also in this case a recovery
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 39 39.18
in excess of 80% methane.
Hydrogen (vol.%) 5 4.88
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1 1.16 A comparison between both the compression energy and the to-
Feed biogas (kg/h) 35 46.16 tal operative cost [24] for the three configurations is showed in
Pressure (bar) 31 31 Table 4.5.
Temperature (°C) 30 30
The operative cost showed in Table 4.5 does not count the puri-
203 204 Permeate fication of biogas obtained from fermentation processes of anaero-
Methane (vol.%) 79.28 19.60 bic digestion [25,26].
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 17.37 70.49 Table 4.5 emphasizes the importance of the double stage at the
Hydrogen (vol.%) 1.93 9.12 end to combine high purities to methane with the levels of recov-
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.42 0.79
Feed biogas (kg/h) 21.39 24.78
ery such as to make the processes applicable on an industrial scale.
Pressure (bar) 31 1.72 The main differences between the two dual-stage configura-
Temperature (°C) 22 21.5 tions are essentially linked to the productivity and at the specific
205 Biomethane 206 energy necessary for the compression, in fact, although the config-
Methane (vol.%) 95.67 54.09
uration cascade is less energy-consuming respect to the tandem
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 2.82 39.74 configuration (0.52 kW h/N m3 vs. 0.58 kW h/N m3), its productiv-
Hydrogen (vol.%) 0.26 4.49 ity is lower than the tandem configuration (10.56 kg/h vs.
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.25 1.69 12.36 kh/h).
Feed biogas (kg/h) 10.56 10.84
Different studies show that the cost of biogas production
Pressure (bar) 31 1.72
Temperature (°C) 15 15.9 including the raw material, has a variable cost between 8 and
13 € cent depending on whether it is big size plant from MSW or
207
a small plant from cattle [27].
Methane (vol.%) 54.09
Assuming the methane content in the biogas equal to 50% in
Carbon dioxide (vol.%) 39.74
Hydrogen (vol.%) 4.49 volume, to produce 1 S m3 of biomethane are necessary approxi-
Nitrogen (vol.%) 1.69 mately 2 S m3 of biogas and therefore the total cost of biomethane
Feed biogas (kg/h) 10.84 production will be oscillating in the range of 26–36 € cent/S m3
Pressure (bar) 31 that are lower than the current prices of natural gas market and
Temperature (°C) 30
therefore still leave room for feasibility for the development of
the processes for biomethane production from agricultural waste,
or better yet of MSW.
Table 4.5 The parameter typically used to determine the combustible
Energetically and economical comparison for the differents configuration plant. quality of the gas is the Wobbe index.
Config. plant Compression energy for Compression cost for The Wobbe index (WI) or Wobbe number is an indicator of the
the upgrading process the upgrading process interchangeability of fuel gases such as natural gas, liquefied petro-
(kW h/N m3) (€ cent/N m3) leum gas (LPG), and town gas and is frequently defined in the spec-
Single stage 1.23 24.71 ifications of gas by customers and utilities.
Double stage tandem 0.58 11.64 If Vc is the higher heating value, or calorific value, and Gs is the
Double stage cascade 0.52 10.37
specific gravity, the Wobbe index, Iw is defined as:

Fig. 4.5 shows that in the cascade configuration the compres-

Iw ¼ V c =ðGs Þ0:5
sion is performed downstream of a double stage separative in ser-
ies and with the backflow of the permeate yet rich in methane in
Table 5.1
inlet at the first separative stage.
Wobbe index specifications for town gas, natural gas and LPG.
The Fig. 4.6 shows the flow sheet obtained with the CHEMCAD
software that was used for the numerical simulations. Family Type of gas Wobbe index Wobbe number
range (MJ/S m3) range from [8]
The numerical result are showed in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 shows that through the series of the two modules and 1 Town gas/syngas 22.5–30 24–29
2L Natural 39–45
reflux of the permeate to the feed it was obtained a total produc-
2H 45.5–55 48–53
tivity lower than the tandem configuration, in fact, the flow rate 3 LPG 73.5–87.5 72–87
in methane produced is was equal to 10.56 kg/h, however, the
592 A. Molino et al. / Fuel 107 (2013) 585–592
Table 5.2
Gas specifications for gas grid injection in Germany.
Parameter Unit Value
Wobbe index MJ/N m 3
46.1–56.5 H
37.8–46.8 L
Relative density – 0.55–0.75
Dust – Technically free
Water dew point °C <t2 (where t is the earth temperature)
CO2 vol.% <6
O2 vol.% <3 (in dry distribution grids)
S mg/N m3 <30
The Wobbe index is used to compare the combustion energy
output of fuel gas of different quality for use in an appliance (fire,
cooker etc.). If two fuels have identical Wobbe indices then for gi-
ven pressure and valve settings the energy output will also be
identical. Typically variations of up to 5% are allowed as this would
not be noticeable to the consumer.
The Wobbe index is a critical factor to minimize the impact of
the changeover when analyzing the use of substitute natural gas
(SNG) fuels such as propane–air mixtures.
There are three ranges or ‘‘families’’ of fuel gases that have been
internationally agreed upon based on the Wobbe index. Family 1
covers manufactured gases, family 2 covers natural gases (with
high and low ranges) and family 3 covers liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG). Combustion equipment is typically designed to burn a fuel
gas within a particular family: hydrogen-rich town gas, natural
gas or LPG (see Table 5.1).
The simulation results show that the biomethane produced by
cascade configuration has the Wobbe index in the range of 46–
51 corresponding to the family 2H, i.e. similar to the natural gas.
It is thus possible to use this biomethane in the natural gas grid.
Currently there are no unified, European technical standards
which regulate the conditions for injecting biogas into the natural
gas grid.
The European Commission is currently working on developing
such standards and determining quality specifications for the
biomethane.
In some European Union countries, such as Germany, the quality
specification for the biogas (biomethane) is based on natural gas spec-
ifications. The regulations allows for injection into natural gas grid of
two types of biogas: Type ‘‘H’’ (High), a gas having a high calorific va-
lue and type ‘‘L’’ (Low) – having a low heating value. Table 5.2 shows
German biogas specifications for gas to be injected into gas grid.
As one can see the biomethane produced by AD process has the
prerequisite quality for the gas grid injection, in fact the only prob-
lem can be caused by the sulfur content in the biogas, because typ-
ically the sulphidric acid content in the biogas is 0.01–0.2% by
volume depending on the organic matter processed. With the Poro-
Gen’s PEEK-SEP™ membrane is also possible to remove H2S from
the biomethane and obtain a product stream with suphidric acid
content lower than 30 mg/N m3.
5. Conclusions
Biomethane is an alternative gas source to that of the natural
gas. The European Directive 2003/55 has authorized connection
to the natural gas grid. Of particular interest is the possibility to in-
ject biomethane, refined biogas with quality comparable to that of
natural gas (CH4 concentration greater than 95%), which can be
used in place of fossil fuels in all its network applications, and in
transportation. In the automotive sector, the use of biomethane
produce can reduce the GHG emissions from 75% to 200%.
To produce pipeline quality biomethane starting from the biogas
generated by AD process it is necessary to remove water, sulfur
compounds, halogenated organic molecules, carbon dioxide, oxygen
and metals.
Preliminaries experimental test show a good performance of the
biogas upgrading in terms of purify in methane with the PEEK-SEP™
hollow fiber membranes but the same results shows that, fixed the
membrane area, is necessary another stage for higher the recovery
in methane contained in the biogas. In this direction we are working
for the implementation the ENEA’s plant (PEEK-SEP™ hollow fiber
membranes) with another separation stage at the end to maximize
both purity and the recovery in methane.
References
[1] Richard W, Baker and Kaaeid Lokhandawa. Natural Gas processing with
membranes: an overview. Membrane technology and research, Inc. 1360
Willow Road, Suite 103, Menlo Park, California 94025. Inf Eng Chem Res 2008;
47: 2109–21.
[2] Deng Liyuan, Hagg May-Britt. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas
upgrading process using CO2 facilitated transport membrane. Int J
Greenhouse Gas Control 2010;4:638–46.
[3] Biogas upgrading to vehicle fuel standards and grid injection. IEA Bioenergy
Task 37 – Energy from biogas and landfill gas. Persson, Jönsson, Wellinger
Sweden & Switzerland; 2006 <www.iea-biogas.net>.
[4] Makaruk, Miltner, Harasek. Membrane biogas upgrading processes for the
production of natural gas substitute. Sep Purif Technol 2010;74:83–92.
[5] Singh A, Smyth B, Murphy J. A biofuel strategy for Ireland with an enphasis on
production of biomethane and minimization of land-take. Renew Sust Energy
Rev 2010;14:277–88.
[6] Singh A, Nizami N, Korres J. Murphy The effect of reactor design on the
sustainability of grass biomethane. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2011;15:1567–74.
[7] Sridhar S, Smitha B, Aminabhavi TM. Separation of carbon dioxide from natural
gas mixtures through polymeric membranes: a review membrane separations
division, center of excellence in polymer science, Karnatak University – India.
Sep Purif Rev 2007;36(2):113–74.
[8] Review of technology for cleaning biogas to natural gas pipeline quality
Krzysztof BIERNAT, Izabela SAMSON-BRE˛K – Automotive Industry Institute
PIMOT, Warsaw Please cite as: CHEMIK 2011; 65(5): 435-44.
[9] IEA Task 37 Project biogasmax. Biogas as vehicle fuel – Market expansion to
2020 air quality report on technological applicabilità of existing biogas
upgrading processes; 2007.
[10] Treloar RD. Gas installation technology. Blackwell; 2005. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-
4051-1880-4.
[11] Lancia A, Musmarra D, Pepe F, Prisciandaro M. Model of oxygen absorption
into calcium sulfite solutions. Chem Eng J 1997;66:123–9.
[12] Karatza D, Lancia A, Musmarra D, Pepe F, Volpicelli G. Kinetics of adsorption of
mercuric chloride vapors on sulfur impregnated activated carbon. Combust Sci
Technol 1996;112:163–74.
[13] Di Natale F, Erto A, Lancia A, Musmarra D. Mercury adsorption on granular
activated carbon in aqueous solutions containing nitrates and chlorides. J
Hazard Mater 2011;192(3):1842–50.
[14] Prisciandaro M, Lancia A, Musmarra D. Gypsum nucleation into sodium
chloride solutions. AIChE J 2001;47(4):929–34.
[15] Frontera P, Macario A, Aloise A, Crea F, Antonucci PL, Frusteri F, et al. Catalytic
dry-reforming on Ni-zeolite supported catalyst. Catal Today 2012;179:52–60.
[16] Macario A, Verri F, Diaz U, Corma A, Giordano G. Pure silica nanoparticles for
liposome/lipase system encapsulation: application in biodiesel production.
Catal Today 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2012.07.014.
[17] Macario A, Katovic A, Giordano G, Forni L, Carloni F, Filippini A, et al.
Immobilization of Lipase on microporous and mesoporous materials: studies
of the support surfaces. Stud Surf Sci Catal 2005;155:381–94.
[18] DENA: German Energy Agency.
[19] Giglia S, Bikson B, Perrin JE. Mathematical and experimental analysis of gas
separation by hollow fiber membranes. Innovative membrane systems, Znc.,
Norwood, Massachusetts 02062. American Chemical Society; 1991.
[20] Delibera Autorità Energia Elettrica e Gas AEEG. ARG/elt 199/11.
[21] Condizioni economiche di fornitura del gas naturale per il servizio di tutela.
Autorità energia elettrica e gas. Delibera ARG/gas 195/11; 2012.
[22] Centi Gabriele, Perathoner Siglinda. Opportunities and prospects in the
chemical recycling of carbon dioxide to fuels. Catal Today 2009;148:191–205.
[23] Stefan Bachu. Sequestration of CO2 in geological media: criteria and approach
for site selection in response to climate change. Energy Convers Manage
2000;41(9):953–70.
[24] Biogas upgrading technologies – developments and innovations. IEA bioenergy
Task 37 – energy from biogas and landfill gas Peterson, Wellinger, Sweden &
Switzerland; 2009 <http://www.iea-biogas.net>.
[25] Miltner Makaruk, Krischan Harasek. Chemical-oxidative scrubbing for the
removal of hydrogen sulphide from raw biogas: potentials and economics.
Water Sci Technol, 2012;66(6):1354–60.
[26] Murphya JD, McKeogh E, Kiely G. Technical/economic/environmental analysis
of biogas utilisation. Appl Energy 2004;77:407–27.
[27] Pettenella D, Gallo D. Progetto ‘‘BIOGAS’’. Analisi economico-ambientale degli
impianti a biogas; 2008.