Hybrid Biogas Photovoltaic System

Supervised by:
Dr.-Ing. Bernd Krautkremer

University of Kassel & Fraunhofer IWES
M.Sc. Dirk Kirchner
Fraunhofer IWES

Reviewed by:
Prof. Albert Claudi
University of Kassel
Prof. Ahmed Elkousy
Cairo University

Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering in Cairo University and Faculty of Electrical Engineering/Computer
Science in University of Kassel in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency for the Middle East and North Africa Region
February, 2012

MODELING AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A
HYBRID BIOGAS-PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
Analysis of the Electrical and Thermal System in Eichhof Center, Germany - A Case Study in Jordan

By,
Rand Al-Zu'bi

Submitted to the Faculty of Engineering in Cairo University and Faculty of Electrical
Engineering/Computer Science in University of Kassel in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
for the Middle East and North Africa Region

Approved by the Examining Committee:

_______________________________________________
Prof. Albert Claudi University of Kassel

_______________________________________________
Prof. Ahmed Elkousy Cairo University

_______________________________________________
Prof. Mohammed ElSobki Cairo University

Faculty of Engineering
Cairo University
Faculty of Electrical Engineering/Computer Science
University of Kassel

February, 2012

MODELING AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF A
HYBRID BIOGAS-PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
Analysis of the Electrical and Thermal System in Eichhof Center, Germany - A Case Study in Jordan

By,
Rand Al-Zu'bi

iii

DISCLAIMER

To the best of my knowledge I do hereby declare that this thesis is my own work. It has not
been submitted in any form of another degree or diploma to any other university or other
institution of education. Information derived from the published or unpublished work of
others has been acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given.

Rand Al-Zubi
Kassel, 22.02.2012

iv

ABSTRACT

The integration of PV and biogas with a focus on biogas as a flexible electricity supplier is
thoroughly investigated in this thesis. The performance of the biogas/PV hybrid system at
Eichhof agricultural center in Germany is evaluated. The complete electrical and thermal
energy system is analyzed and modeled using Simulink. A proposed future scenario for a
more sustainable, reliable and autonomous system is developed. Finally, a case study to
determine the feasibility of this type of hybrid systems on a dairy farm in Jordan is carried on.
The investigated system at Eichhof consists of a biogas plant which has an average biogas
production of 720 m
3
/day and PV system with a peak power of 130 kW. The biogas is
distributed to a dual fuel engine (30 kW
el
, 48 kW
th
), a micro-gas turbine (28 kW
el
, 60 kW
th
)
and a gas burner (50 kW
th
). The PV system consists of three different structures and
contributes to 36% of the total energy generation. It was found that the electricity produced
from PV and biogas is capable of providing the entire load at Eichhof to a degree slightly
higher than 101%. The electricity, however, is produced with no relation to the load and has a
correlation coefficient of 0.03. Throughout the year, biogas is available to cover just 75% of
the required biogas volume. More than 80% of the thermal demand is supplied by natural gas.
The data used were for the year 2009.

In the proposed future scenario, the system was able to cover almost the entire load (over
99%) at all times throughout the year. This was accomplished through a suitable control
strategy that operates according to the demand (both thermal and electrical). The produced
biogas was set to a monthly average value with a minimum of 480 m
3
/day in summer and a
maximum of 1200 m
3
/day in winter. This control helped in limiting the biogas storage volume
to 5000 m
3
and increasing the biogas availability to 98%. The biogas withdrawal from the
storage tank was also controlled upon demand. Most of the PV output was directly consumed
at the time it is generated, leaving a small amount of excess energy to be stored in a battery
bank (33 Ah) until needed. The correlation coefficient improved to a value of 0.95.
Finally, it was concluded that in order to ensure the feasibility of a similar hybrid system in
Jordan the tariff at which the produced electricity is sold to the utility grid should be more
than 0.02 JD/kWh (0.021 /kWh) for a large size project (1.65 MW installed capacity) and
more than 0.03 JD/kWh (0.032 /kWh) for the smaller project (0.22 MW installed capacity).
The large scale system proved to be generally more feasible and had a levelized cost of
electricity of 0.136 JD/kWh (0.146 /kWh). The project has a total investment of 5.4 million
JD (5.78 million ).

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I owe my deepest appreciation to all those people who have made this thesis possible.
First of all I would like to thank my family for the enormous support, love and care that they
conveyed to me in my twenty months abroad. Without them the entire study would not have
been possible.
I would like to profoundly thank all my friends, most importantly, Maen for being my
greatest supporter from the beginning of my Masters, following each step of the thesis and for
his unbound love and support; Arabi for keeping me company in the REMENA journey and
lending me a hand whenever I needed; Hanan and Laila for their tremendous last minute
assistance and my colleagues from REMENA and in the student room at Fraunhofer IWES.
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the supervision of M.Sc. Dirk Kirchner from
Fraunhofer IWES who has been kindly helpful and has supported me in numerous ways. I
specially thank him for his continuous assistance and feedback and for providing me with
answers when I needed them.
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Bernd Krautkremer for giving me a part of his
time and for his keen guidance and input. I am thankful for Prof. Albert Claudi and Prof.
Ahmed Elkousy for reviewing my thesis.
Finally I would like to thank Hammoudeh Food Industries Company, especially Mr.
Mohammad Eid for providing me with the information I needed and answering my questions.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DISCLAIMER .......................................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xiv
NOMENCLATURE ................................................................................................................. xv
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS ......................................................................................... xvi
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Motivation ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Research Objectives .................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Scope of the Work ....................................................................................................... 2
2. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................... 4
3. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 6
3.1. Hybrid Systems ............................................................................................................ 6
3.2. Biogas .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.1. Substrates ............................................................................................................. 8
3.2.2. Biogas formation .................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3. Environmental conditions .................................................................................. 10
3.3. Photovoltaics ............................................................................................................. 12
3.3.1. Components ........................................................................................................ 12
3.3.2. Classifications .................................................................................................... 13
3.3.3. System sizing ...................................................................................................... 14
4. ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM OF EICHHOF AGRICULTURE CENTER 15
4.1. System Description .................................................................................................... 15
4.1.1. The existing gas grid .......................................................................................... 15
5. SIMULATION ................................................................................................................. 20
5.1. Biogas Production ...................................................................................................... 22
vii

5.1.1. Feed .................................................................................................................... 22
5.1.2. Fermenter ........................................................................................................... 24
5.1.3. Fermenter temperature model ............................................................................ 35
5.1.4. Biogas storage .................................................................................................... 43
5.1.5. Distribution model .............................................................................................. 45
5.1.6. Biogas burner ..................................................................................................... 47
5.1.7. Micro-gas turbine ............................................................................................... 49
5.1.8. Combined heat and power unit ........................................................................... 53
5.1.9. Natural gas burners ............................................................................................. 54
5.2. Photovoltaic System .................................................................................................. 56
5.2.1. Solar radiation on a tilted angle .......................................................................... 57
5.2.2. PV system power output .................................................................................... 61
5.3. System Analysis ........................................................................................................ 65
5.3.1. Demand side analysis ......................................................................................... 65
5.3.2. Current status ...................................................................................................... 67
5.4. Proposed Future Scenario .......................................................................................... 74
5.4.1. Battery model .................................................................................................... 77
5.4.2. Biogas control strategy ....................................................................................... 78
5.4.3. Substrate management ........................................................................................ 80
5.4.4. Results ................................................................................................................ 81
6. CASE STUDY: HAMMOUDEH DAIRY FARM IN JORDAN .................................... 85
6.1. Site Description ......................................................................................................... 85
6.2. Input Parameters ........................................................................................................ 86
6.2.1. Biogas ................................................................................................................. 86
6.2.2. PV ....................................................................................................................... 88
6.3. Simulation .................................................................................................................. 89
6.3.1. System design ..................................................................................................... 89
6.3.2. Results ................................................................................................................ 91
viii

6.4. Economical Analysis ................................................................................................. 94
6.4.1. Total investment ................................................................................................. 94
6.4.2. Annual costs ....................................................................................................... 96
6.4.3. Annual revenue .................................................................................................. 96
6.4.4. Extra costs .......................................................................................................... 97
6.4.5. Levelized cost of energy (LCE) ......................................................................... 97
6.4.6. Cash flow diagram ............................................................................................. 99
7. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 102
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX A: GAS CONSUMERS ..................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX B: EQUIPMENTS SPECIFICATIONS ........................................................... 107
APPENDIX C: SOLAR RADIATION .................................................................................. 108
C.1 Apparent solar time (AST) .......................................................................................... 108
C.2 Solar declination ()..................................................................................................... 108
C.3 Hour angle (h) .............................................................................................................. 109
C.4 Incidence angle () ...................................................................................................... 109
C.5 Solar altitude angle () ................................................................................................ 109
APPENDIX D: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS ................................ 110
APPENDIX E: REGMODHARZ .......................................................................................... 112

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Biogas-PV hybrid system. ....................................................................................... 7
Figure 3.2: Stages of anaerobic fermentation process. ............................................................... 9
Figure 3.3: Influence of the temperature on the time of fermentation. .................................... 11
Figure 3.4: Major PV system components. .............................................................................. 12
Figure 4.1: The layout of Eichhof agricultural center. ............................................................. 16
Figure 4.2: Gas grid layout. ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 5.1: Eichhof energy system simulation. ........................................................................ 21
Figure 5.2:Biogas production blocks. ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 5.3: Substrate input flow rate. ....................................................................................... 23
Figure 5.4: Feed properties. ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5.5: Fermenter model (Jan-Dec, 2009 feed). ................................................................ 26
Figure 5.6: Kinetic parameter versus volatile solids concentration. ........................................ 27
Figure 5.7: Fermenter Temperature throughout 2009. ............................................................. 28
Figure 5.8: corrected fermenter temperatures. ......................................................................... 29
Figure 5.9: Retention time in the fermenter. ............................................................................ 29
Figure 5.10: Methan content block. ......................................................................................... 30
Figure 5.11: Methane content throughout the year. ................................................................. 30
Figure 5.12: Exponential biogas accumulation model. ............................................................ 31
Figure 5.13: Methane production for substrate entering in 2009. ............................................ 32
Figure 5.14: Biogas output from substrate which is fed in the last fifty days of 2008. ........... 32
Figure 5.15: Actual biogas production block. .......................................................................... 33
Figure 5.16: Daily biogas production in 2009 (a) calculated, (b) actual. ................................. 34
Figure 5.17: Fermenter temperature model block. ................................................................... 35
Figure 5.18: Substrate volume in fermenter ............................................................................. 35
x

Figure 5.19: Area calculations of heating system components. ............................................... 37
Figure 5.20: Agitator block. ..................................................................................................... 37
Figure 5.21: Heat of agitation. ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 5.22: Density and specific heat capacity calculation. ................................................... 38
Figure 5.23: Overall heat transfer coefficient calculations. ..................................................... 39
Figure 5.24: Outlet temperature of water. ................................................................................ 41
Figure 5.25: Fermenter temperature model. ............................................................................. 42
Figure 5.26: Water flow rate required for heating of fermenter. .............................................. 43
Figure 5.27: Biogas storage modelling. ................................................................................... 44
Figure 5.28: Comparing biogas out to needed and available biogas in storage ....................... 44
Figure 5.29: Used storage volume for biogas storage throughout the year. ............................. 45
Figure 5.30: Biogas distribution block. .................................................................................... 46
Figure 5.31: Biogas flow rate in for biogas consumers. ........................................................... 46
Figure 5.32: Biogas burner model. ........................................................................................... 47
Figure 5.33: burner load and temperature dependency. ........................................................... 48
Figure 5.34: Biogas needed for burner ..................................................................................... 48
Figure 5.35: Gas consumption for burner. ............................................................................... 49
Figure 5.36: Heat output of burner. .......................................................................................... 49
Figure 5.37: Micro-gas turbine model. ..................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.38: Biogas needed for turbine. ................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.39: Efficiency and power of micro-gas turbine and their relation with temperature
through 2009. ........................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.40: Power output from micro-gas turbine. ................................................................. 52
Figure 5.41: Actual and calculated power output from the micro-gas turbine......................... 52
Figure 5.42: CHP unit model. .................................................................................................. 53
Figure 5.43: CHP electrical power output. ............................................................................... 54
Figure 5.44: Comparison between actual and calculated power out from CHP unit. .............. 54
xi

Figure 5.45: Natural gas consumers block. .............................................................................. 55
Figure 5.46: Natural gas needed for natural gas burners. ......................................................... 55
Figure 5.47: PV system model. ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 5.48: PV installations .................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.49: Global solar radiation at Grebenau in 2009. ........................................................ 57
Figure 5.50: Equation of time block. ........................................................................................ 58
Figure 5.51: Apparent solar time block. ................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.52: Radiation calculations block. ............................................................................... 59
Figure 5.53: Solar radiation on PV panels in the 15th of January, 2009.................................. 60
Figure 5.54: Solar radiation on PV panels in the 27th of July, 2009. ...................................... 61
Figure 5.55: PV power model. ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 5.56: Power output from PV systems in 2009, (a) PV1a, (b) PV1b, (c) PV2, (d) PV3.63
Figure 5.57: Actual measured PV output (black) compared to the calculated output for (a)
three days in 2009 for PV1b (b) four days in 2009 for PV2. ................................................... 63
Figure 5.58: Total PV power output in 2009. .......................................................................... 64
Figure 5.59: Load profile. ........................................................................................................ 65
Figure 5.60: Simplified electrical infrastructure at Eichhof showing production and
consumption loads. ................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 5.61: Estimated heat demand for 2009. ........................................................................ 66
Figure 5.62: Energy system analysis block. ............................................................................. 67
Figure 5.63: Inside energy analysis block. ............................................................................... 67
Figure 5.64: Penetration level calculations. ............................................................................. 68
Figure 5.65: Penetration level of electrical power from RE resources throughout the year
2009. ......................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.66: Penetration rate for heat produced from RE resources throughout 2009. ........... 69
Figure 5.67: Load profile versus production profile in 2009. .................................................. 71
Figure 5.68: Heat produced from CHP versus heat consumed for fermenter heating. ............ 72
Figure 5.69: Biogas availability in 2009. ................................................................................. 73
xii

Figure 5.70: Future scenario block. .......................................................................................... 74
Figure 5.71: PV residual load calculations block. .................................................................... 76
Figure 5.72: Residual load from PV produced electricity. ....................................................... 76
Figure 5.73: Battery model. ...................................................................................................... 77
Figure 5.74: Battery utilization block. ..................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.75: Number of days for heat storage calculations sample. ........................................ 78
Figure 5.76: Biogas control strategy flow diagram. ................................................................. 79
Figure 5.77: Needed biogas calculations after applying the control strategy. ......................... 80
Figure 5.78: Calculating monthly average needed biogas (for January here). ......................... 81
Figure 5.79: Comparison between inflow and outflow and needed biogas for the future case
scenario. .................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 5.80: Storage volume occupied by biogas in the future case scenario......................... 82
Figure 5.81: Production profile versus load profile in the future case scenario (excluding
batteries). .................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 5.82: Fermenter heat demand versus CHP heat generation in the future case scenario.
.................................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 5.83: Load profile versus power production with battery usage in the future case
scenario. .................................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 5.84: biogas availability in the proposed future scenario. ............................................ 84
Figure 6.1:Hammoudeh Food Industries Company's (a) dairy farm (b) dairy plant. ............... 86
Figure 6.2: Global solar radiation in Mafraq. ........................................................................... 88
Figure 6.3: Temperature profile throughout 2008 in Mafraq. .................................................. 88
Figure 6.4: Hybrid system model for Hammoudeh dairy farm and plant in Jordan. ............... 90
Figure 6.5: Micro-gas turbine power output changes throughout the year. ............................. 92
Figure 6.6: Solar radiation absorbed by the PV systems in its four configurations. ................ 92
Figure 6.7: PV system power output. ....................................................................................... 93
Figure 6.8: Satellite image of Hammoudeh dairy farm. ........................................................... 93
Figure 6.9: Total investment calculations. ............................................................................... 94
xiii

Figure 6.10: Annual costs and revenues. .................................................................................. 97
Figure 6.11: Economical analysis block. ................................................................................. 98
Figure 6.12: Discounted cash flow diagram, P: price for selling electricity. ......................... 100
Figure A.1: Natural and biogas consumers, nominal capacity and variable output. .............. 106
Figure B.1: Burner output range. (source: manufacturer) ...................................................... 107
Figure B.2: Net power and efficiency at ambient temperature. (source: manufacturer) ........ 107
Figure C.1: Solar declination. ................................................................................................ 108
Figure D.1: Correlation coefficient block for current situation and proposed future scenario.
................................................................................................................................................ 111
xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Typical properties of some substrates. ...................................................................... 8
Table 5.1: Simulation parameters. ............................................................................................ 20
Table 5.2: Substrate properties. ................................................................................................ 22
Table 5.3: Ultimate methane yield of substrates. ..................................................................... 27
Table 5.4: Mean biogas yield for the substrates. ...................................................................... 33
Table 5.5: Biogas production prediction evaluation. ............................................................... 33
Table 5.6: Properties of fermenter heating system components. ............................................. 36
Table 5.7: Dimensions and details of PV installations. ............................................................ 56
Table 5.8: Overall efficiency for PV systems. ......................................................................... 62
Table 6.1: Location of Hammoudeh dairy farm. ...................................................................... 85
Table 6.2: Properties of dairy manure. ..................................................................................... 86
Table 6.3: Simulation results for the Jordan study case. .......................................................... 87
Table 6.4: Simulation results over one year for the Jordan study case (scenario one: more
biogas). ..................................................................................................................................... 91
Table 6.5: Simulation results over one year for the Jordan study case (scenario two: more PV).
.................................................................................................................................................. 91
Table 6.6: PV system pricing indices. ...................................................................................... 95
Table 6.7: Factors for annual costs calculations. ..................................................................... 96
Table 6.8: suggested scenarios for Hammoudeh plant hybrid system. .................................... 99
Table 6.9: economical indicators for scenario one: more biogas. .......................................... 100
Table 6.10: economical indicators for scenario two: more PV. ............................................. 101
xv

NOMENCLATURE

A Area (m
2
) Greek letters
B methane yield of organic waste (m
3

CH
4
/kg VS),
o solar altitude angle
| surface tilt angle from the horizontal
CC correlation coefficient
C Capacity hydraulic retention time (day)
c
p

specific heat capacity (J/kg.K) incidence angle
CV calorific value (kWh/m
3
) mean value
C(x,x) variance of the data sequence viscosity (N.s/m
2
)
d Diameter (m) the maximum specific growth rate
(day
-1
) DOD battery depth of discharge
D
s
battery autonomy (day) | volume fraction
E Energy (Wh) | solar zenith angle
h the heat transfers coefficients
(W/m
2
.C)
Density (kg/m
3
)
h Hour angle
q
Efficiency
i discount rate Solar declination
I

Radiation (W/m
2
)
k thermal conductivities (W/m.C) Subscripts
k the first order kinetic constant (day
-1
) a Ambient
K kinetic parameter which indicates the
overall performance of the digester
ag Agitator
B battery
m

mass (kg) BG Biogas
m mass flow rate (kg/day) c concrete
n number of the years of a project c cell
N Number of readings cf correction factor
Nu Nusselt number e Equivalent
P Power (kW) el electrical
Pr Prandtl number f Fermenter
Q

rate of heat flow (W) G global
Re Reynolds number i Each substrate
S
t
volatile solids concentration (kg/m
3
) ins insulation
t time L Load
T temperature loss losses
T
m
log mean temperature difference NOCT nominal operating cell temperature
(
o
C) U overall heat transfer coefficient
(W/m
2
.C) m Microorganisms
V Volume (m
3
) o Ultimate value
V Voltage p Peak
V

volumetric flow rate (m3/day) ref reference
VHR

volumetric heat release (W/m
3
) s Substrate
w

mass fraction s Surface
y Biogas accumulation (m
3
/kg) th thermal
x

Thickness (m) tot total
Z azimuth angle w water

xvi

ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS

AC Alternating Current
AC Annual Cost
ADM1 Anaerobic Digestion Model no 1
BG Biogas
CC Capital Cost
CHP Combined Heat and Power
C/N Carbon Nitrogen ratio
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
DC Direct Current
DER Distributed Energy Resources
DS Daylight Saving
ET Equation of Time
GSM Global System for Mobile communications
HDPE High-Density Polyethylene
ISET Institut fr SolareEnergieversorgungstechnik
IWA International Water Association
IWES Institute for Wind Energy and Energy systems
JD Jordanian Dinar
LCE Levelized Cost Of Energy
LL Local Longitude
LST Local Standard Time
NERC National Center for Research & Development Energy Research Program
MENA Middle East and North Africa
SL Standard Longitude
SoDa Solar data
oTS organische Trockensubstanz
PV Photovoltaic
RE Renewable Energy
RegModHarz Regenative Modellregion Harz
ROI Return On Investment
ROR Rate Of Return
TAC Total Annualized Cost
TS Total Solids
VFA Volatile Fatty Acids
VS Volatile Solids

1. INTRODUCTION
1

1. INTRODUCTION

As the world is moving to a higher share of renewable energy, new questions and challenges
in the integration of these resources arise and novel answers are required to ensure an
economically and technically feasible integration.
The creation of an efficient energy infrastructure with optimal share of renewable energies is
the goal of any renewable energy integration scheme; this can be done by combining various
renewable energy producers and bringing out the strength of each resource.
Through the coordination of production, storage and consumption, a stable, reliable and
consumer-oriented supply of electrical energy should be possible, even with a high proportion
of renewable energy sources.
Bioenergy is gaining an increasing significance in the distributed energy resources (DER)
field as a storable form of energy. Bioenergy should be able to serve important roles in the
future in stabilizing the energy supply structure, decreasing the overall cost of a system and
utilizing the full potential of a given location. The strength of bioenergy comes from the fact
that it can supply energy exactly when needed and when other sources of renewable energy
cannot (such as wind and solar energy). On the other hand bioenergy has the ability of being
cut off when the supply is enough from other resources and therefore should not be
considered as a competitor to other energy resources but as a building block for base load and
smoothing of an energy system.
1.1. Motivation

This research is part of the RegModHarz project (Regenative Modellregion Harz)* which
aims at creating a virtual power plant depending on the maximum penetration of renewable
energy through supply, demand and storage management. Wind and solar energy are the most
abundant and economical renewable energy technologies available, however they also present
the biggest challenge of being intermittent and unpredictable on the long run. This is where
the bioenergys role comes, representing a storable, controllable and economical source in
areas that have good potential.
The Eichhof agricultural center is a perfect opportunity for optimizing, developing the
experience and more understanding of the function of biogas in completing the picture of the
maximum renewable energy mix in a country, city or society. Eichhof has the potential and
matches an energy consumption profile of a village and is equipped with the appropriate
measurement equipments and follows procedures that help in understanding the system,
improving it and taking it as a reference case for future development.
1. INTRODUCTION
2

Moreover, biogas, hybrid and off-grid systems are being considered increasingly as a
significant option for rural areas, agricultural sites and developing countries especially in the
MENA region (Middle East & North Africa) where the solar and wind potential is highly
available and desirable storage, integration and control options need to be studied and
optimized.
The results of the Eichhof center simulation and analysis, can be employed to further improve
the system and realize the maximum potential of the location within the environmental
conditions that portray a region with high bio potential, moderate solar potential and high heat
demand and also, by using the simulation itself in a location with the almost opposite
environmental conditions portraying a region with significant bio potential, high solar
potential and low heat demand. This all represents an excellent opportunity to build
innovative conclusions, understandings and maturity in the concept of integration of biogas as
a flexible energy supplier in hybrid energy systems under variant conditions.
1.2. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research can be summarized in two core ones:
1. To realize the optimum scenario in which a mix of two kinds of renewable energy
resources one of which is an intermittent source (solar in our case ) and the second is a
provider of base load (bioenergy) through maximizing the coverage of the electrical
and heating demands and minimizing the storage volumes and hence reducing the
overall costs.
2. To determine whether the studied system and the integration of biogas and PV can be
implemented in different environmental conditions.

1.3. Scope of the Work

In order to achieve the previous objectives, the scope of research will be divided into three
main stages:
1. Modeling the energy system of the Eichhof center through simulating the electrical
energy and heat producers (biogas and PV) and the electrical and heat energy
consumers. The simulation should be able to estimate and predict the half-hourly
electrical and thermal energy produced from the biogas plant by estimating the biogas
volume produced and modeling the electrical devices and heaters that consume the
biogas and also estimating the electrical energy produced by the PV system. Moreover
the model is continuously validated by comparing the results of each step with actual
1. INTRODUCTION
3

data from the site throughout the year 2009 which is described in details throughout
chapter five.
2. Evaluating the performance of the system in Eichhof at the current situation and
proposing an improved scenario that would bring the system closer to the goals stated
previously. This is done by using statistical analysis techniques that evaluate the
relations between consumption and production, through determining the renewable
energy penetration level in the given year and other evaluation methods. And by
modifying the existing system by controlling the energy production through
introducing a control scheme to the system, by adding units such as electrical engines
and storage units and by suggesting slight demand side management measures.
3. Applying the simulation that is created for Eichhof on the system that is chosen in the
MENA region. The location investigated is a dairy farm and plant in Jordan. The
electrical and thermal energy production will be calculated using the model that was
created for Eichhof and will be compared and analyzed in reference to the plants
electrical consumption and finally concluding whether the system and the potential are
able to meet the demand in the year as a whole and whether it is financially feasible or
not.

2. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
4


Many studies are available on hybrid systems including well-established renewable energy
resources such as PV and wind. The main focus of such studies is usually minimizing the cost
and storage requirements by enhancing the wind speed and direction and solar radiation
prediction techniques, developing control mechanisms and other measures. Many of the
studies include a diesel generator or another conventional fuel as base load provider in order
to fulfill the load requirements while reducing the cost. Biogas is being increasingly
introduced as an alternative to fossil fuel generators and large storage requirements and
therefore is starting to be a target of many more studies and papers.
Most of the researches about hybrid systems which contain biogas as a main component focus
on off-grid hybrid systems and their applications in rural areas and present the hybrid system
as a solution to provide electricity at relatively low prices for such locations. A few of these
studies and their main conclusions are summarized in this chapter.
Gupta and Sharma
[23]
proposed a system consisting of a photovoltaic array, biomass (fuel
wood), biogas, small/micro-hydro, a battery bank and a fossil fuel generator. They proposed a
mixed integer linear mathematical programming model that can be used in planning studies to
determine the optimum design of an autonomous hybrid energy system. They also applied the
model on a cluster of off-grid villages in India and concluded that hybrid energy systems can
theoretically reduce generation costs and increase the reliability of energy supply, the
calculated cost of energy had a mean value of 0.10 Euro per kWh. They also proposed an
optimized operation control algorithm of hybrid energy system based upon the combined
dispatch strategies.
Berglund and Brjesson
[24]
performed a life cycle assessment for large scale biogas plants.
They concluded that the overall energy input into biogas systems corresponds to 20-40% of
the energy content in the biogas produced. Large variations were found in energy efficiency
depending both on the properties of the raw materials and on the system design for the
different biogas plants studied. Therefore, an improved system design, more energy efficient
processes and energy-rich substrates were found to reduce the energy input of the system.
Thomas, Post, Durand and Rosenthal
[25]
conducted a performance analysis over three PV
hybrid systems representing three distinct types of remote electrical loads: large mini-grid
systems; single small residential systems and telecommunications repeaters. The hybrid
systems are integrated with diesel and propane generators. Compared to the generator-only
power system, each of the hybrid systems had a much larger initial cost, while reflecting
reduced fuel, maintenance, and replacement costs for the life of the system. The large system
demonstrated very high availability (99.6%) while the small system had the highest cost
effectiveness of the three systems.
5

Axaopoulos, Panagakis, Tsavdaris and Georgakakis
[26]
developed a mathematical model
that simulates a solar-heated anaerobic digester. The model investigates a below-ground-level
digester with a flat plate solar collector roof. The results of experimental performance analysis
on the system indicate that the use of solar collectors as a cover reduces the digester thermal
losses; the back heat losses from the solar also affect the heat balance of the digester in a
positive manner. They also concluded that the temperature of the digester is influenced by the
quantity and time of the input substrate. Also their mathematical model over the heat balance
of the system was able to predict the thermal behavior of the system.
Diaf, Diaf, Belhamel, Haddadi and Louche
[27]
proposed an optimization model for sizing
of an autonomous hybrid PV/wind system with battery storage. The model is based on the
Loss of Power Supply Probability (LPSP) and the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCE) concepts.
They concluded that in order to insure a 100% renewable energy contribution, more than 30%
of the energy production is wasted or very large storage is needed. Reducing the renewable
energy contribution to 85% rapidly decreases the excess energy to 5%. The use of a third
intermittent energy source (diesel in this case) was the best was of reducing the energy excess
while achieving the lowest LCE. The LCE values were ranging from 1.4 to 3 dollar per kWh.
Finally, Shaahid and El-Amin
[28]
presented a techno-economic evaluation of an off-grid
PV-diesel system in a rural area in Saudi Arabia, a location with high solar radiation and low
fuel prices. In the paper, the solar radiation of the location is first analyzed then the hybrid
system is design using HOMER simulation and then economically analyzed. The PV
penetration was 27% where as the cost of energy generation was 0.17 dollars per kWh. The
cost of energy increase as the battery capacity increases and the number of operational hours
of diesel generators decreases as the PV capacity increases.

3. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
6


3.1. Hybrid Systems

Through combining different sources of renewable energies such as solar, bio, hydro or wind
energy together with appropriate storage and control systems it is possible to be able to
feasibly produce energy in a reliable manner. Such arrangements are defined as hybrid energy
systems and are frequently used to provide electrical and thermal energy to rural areas,
agricultural communities and other off-grid locations.
The hybrid systems can also be connected to the grid to create a virtual power plant that
represents a large scale hybrid system. Many hybrid technological options are available in
practice, most commonly including diesel generator sets, renewable energies and storage.
Moreover, for certain locations such as areas at a high distance from the grid or locations with
high renewable energy potential and high electrical and heat consumption, the decentralized
or approach distributed energy resources or local supply can provide a competitive
economical option due to the lower overall costs compared to purchasing electricity from the
grid over a long life time and to large scale electrification projects.
Hybrid systems can create market opportunities for emerging energy technologies through the
combination of the strengths of each resource and overcoming its limitations. The goals of
such combinations include increasing the efficiency of the system and its reliability, reducing
storage requirements and emissions and decreasing the costs among other goals.
The hybrid system examined in this research is a PV-biogas hybrid system with a focus on the
biogas system. A graphical presentation of such system is shown in Figure 3.1. The figure
shows the main components of each of the biogas and PV systems and the flow of material
and energy throughout the system.
The inputs are solar radiation and substrate which includes animal waste (manure) and energy
crops (corn silage and grain wheat). The outputs are electricity and heat. This system also
solves the problem of disposing the manure in such an agricultural site, with opportunity of
utilizing the by-product from the fermentation process as a fertilizer.
The PV-biogas hybrid systems are supposed to rely on biogas for heat production, on PV for
regular load coverage and biogas for base load and for emergencies. Treated and conditioned
biogas can be fed into an existing natural gas grid to fulfill the heating purposes.
7

Nevertheless, in order to achieve day-time and seasonal stability amid production and
consumption; storage of somewhat large quantities of biogas and other energy management
measures are necessary.
The hybrid system studied in this research is still connected to the electrical grid and supplied
by natural gas. This gives more opportunities to investigate a real-life-scenario with its peaks
and fluctuations and presents more ways to control the system on both sides, demand and
supply.

Figure 3.1: Biogas-PV hybrid system.

8

3.2. Biogas

The formation of methane is a biological process that takes place naturally when organic
material (biomass) decomposes in a humid atmosphere in the absence of air and in the
presence of natural microorganisms which are metabolically active, i.e. methane bacteria. In
nature, methane is formed as marsh gas (or swamp gas), in the digestive system of ruminants,
in plants for wet composting, and in flooded rice fields. Biomass which is suitable to be
fermented is named substrate. The most currently used methane-rich gas is natural gas and it
has various differences depending on the origin.
3.2.1. Substrates
In general, any type of biomass can be used as a substrate for biogas production as long as it
contains carbohydrates, proteins, fats, cellulose, and hemi-cellulose as main components.
Table 3.1 shows the typical maximum gas yields per kg total solids for different substrates.
Total Solids (TS) is a measure of the total content of all inorganic and organic substances
contained in a liquid and is measured through drying the material to 103-105C and
measuring the mass of the sample before and after the drying process. The total solids value
(%) would be the mass of the dry matter divided by the wet matter. The same abbreviation is
widely used for total solids in the German literature and it is an abbreviation of
(Trockensubstanz).
The volatile Solids (VS) is the quantity of the organic constituents of a substance after
complete removal of all water and mineral components. This value is calculated by
contrasting the difference in weight between the dry state by heating the sample to a
temperature of 105 C and the weight after further heating it at 550 C to 600 C. The
corresponding term in German literature is (organische Trockensubstanz) abbreviated as
(oTS). This value is of high significance to biogas production.
Table 3.1: Typical properties of some substrates.
[1]

Substrate for biogas
production
TS (%) VS in TS
(%)
Biogas yield
(m
3
kg
-1
TS)
Retention
time (d)
Vegetable wastes 5-20 76-90 0.4 8-20
Hay 86 90-93 0.5 -
Maize straw 86 72 0.4-1.0 -
Bio waste 40-75 30-70 0.3-1.0 27
Leftovers (canteen kitchen) 9-37 75-98 0.4-1.0 -
Sewage sludge - - 0.2-0.75 17
Liquid dairy manure 6-11 68-85 0.1-0.8 -
Excreta from dairy 25-30 80 0.6-0.8 -
Liquid pig manure 3-10 77-85 0.3-0.8 -
Excreta from pigs 20-25 75-80 0.27-0.45 -
Excreta from chicken 10-29 67-77 0.3-0.8 -
9

3.2.2. Biogas formation
[1]

If the chemical composition of the substrate is known, the theoretical yield of methane from
biomass is calculated according to the following the equation:
2 2 3 4 2 s n o h c
x)CO (c S sH nNH xCH O yH S N O H C + + + + 3.1
Having,
3s) 3n 20 h (4c 1/4 y
2s) 3n 20 h (4c 1/8 x
+ + =
+ =

Methane fermentation is a complex process that inculudes many intermidiant steps between
inputs and outputs, it can be principally divided up into four stages of decomposotion:
hydrolysis, acidogenesis, acetogenesis, and methanation (Figure 3.2).
The individual phases are carried out by different groups of microorganisms, which partly
stand in syntrophic interrelation and place different requirements on the environment.

Figure 3.2: Stages of anaerobic fermentation process.

In the hydrolysis phase, undissolved compounds, like cellulose, proteins, and fats are cracked
into monomers by exoenzymes of facultative and obligatorily anaerobic bacteria. The
10

hydrolysis of carbohydrates takes place within a few hours and the hydrolysis of proteins and
lipids within few days. Hydrolysis is the rate-limiting step in the acid-forming phase.
In the second phase; acidogenesis, the monomers formed in the hydrolysis phase are taken up
by different facultative and obligatorily anaerobic bacteria and are degraded to short-chain,
alcohols, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide.
The acetogenesis reactions are endergonic (absorbing energy in the form of work) through
which acetate is produced by anaerobic bacteria. In this phase the homoacetogenic
microorganisms constantly reduce exergonic H
2
and CO
2
to acetic acid. The acetogenic phase
limits the rate of degradation in the final stage. From the quantity and the composition of the
biogas, a conclusion can be drawn about the activity of the acetogenic bacteria.
In the final stage, the methanation phase; the methane formation takes place under anaerobic
conditions and the reaction is classified as an exergonic reaction. The products of the acid
fermentation are converted into CO
2
and CH
4
. 70% of the methane arises from acetate during
the methanation phase. The energy released in the reaction of the four phases is partially used
for synthesis of the anaerobic bacteria populations.

3.2.3. Environmental conditions
The provision of nutrients, an optimum temperature, pH, frequent agitation and other
environmental factors are vital in order to maximize the activity of the bacteria. The type of
substrate also determines the rate of the anaerobic degradation; therefore process operation
and technology must take into consideration what substrate is dealt with. The operating
conditions thus must be monitored and controlled in order to enhance the microbial activity
and increase the efficiency and performance of the digester.
Sudden and severe changes in environmental conditions can cause process failure; for
example, fluctuations in fermenter temperature or in the case of hydraulic or organic shock
loading.
The formation of hydrogen and volatile acids occur simultaneously with their conversion to
methane and carbon dioxides, meaning that acidogenesis and methanogenesis organisms work
at the same time and rate and are in dynamic equilibrium.
This means that the levels of acids and hydrogen in a correctly working fermenter should
remain low. However when the methanation is disturbed, over acidification occurs, hydrogen
accumulates, methane production lags behind and the pH value drops.
The main challenge is that methanogenesis bacteria are inherently slow-growing, with their
doubling times in days and are affected by small changes in temperature and pH. On the other
hand, the doubling time of acidogenesis bacteria is measured in hours and they can work over
a wider range of environmental conditions than the methanogenesis bacteria.
11

For instance, temperature requirements for acidogenesis range between 25-35
o
C and a pH
value between 5.2-6.3, whereas for the range for methane formation is between 32-43
o
C for
mesophilic microorganisms and 50-58
o
C for thermophilic microorganisms (see Figure 3.3)
and a pH in the range of 6.7-7.5. Most of the methanogenic microorganisms however belong
to the mesophilic microorganisms and only a few are thermophilic.
The optimum temperature at which the fermenter should be kept varies with the substrate
composition and the type of the digester; however it should be remained relatively constant
throughout the retention time. Also, in reality, pH values are held within the neutral range by
natural procedures in the digester.

Figure 3.3: Influence of the temperature on the time of fermentation.
[1]

Other important environmental parameters are retention time, Carbon to Nitrogen ratio (C:N),
mixing, organic loading rate, ammonium (NH
4
+
) and ammonia (NH
3
), Nitrate (NO
3
-
), redox
potential, foaming and scum, among other parameters.

12

3.3. Photovoltaics

Photovoltaic (PV) is the well known technology in which direct current (DC) electrical power
is generated from semiconductors when illuminated by photons. Photovoltaic modules are
highly reliable, having no moving parts and requiring almost no maintenance and no external
inputs such as fuel but only a flux of solar energy. Solar cells produce direct current electricity
from sun light, which can be used to power equipment or to recharge a battery.
The first uses of PV as stand-alone systems were applications in which conventional resources
of energy were not available or costly to get such as space satellites, meteorological
measurement stations and marine warning lights.

3.3.1. Components
The major components of a PV system are (see Figure 3.4):
- PV module: converts sunlight instantly into DC electricity.
- Solar charge controller: regulates the voltage and current that is going to the battery
bank, it prevents battery from overcharging and prolongs the battery life.
- Inverter: converts DC output of PV panels into standard AC current for AC appliances
or feeds it back into grid line.
- Battery: stores energy when there is an excess and supplies electrical appliances when
there is a demand.
- Others: such as auxiliary energy sources (for example diesel generator), connected
load or utility meters.

Figure 3.4: Major PV system components.
13

3.3.2. Classifications
The two main classifications of PV-based systems are grid-connected and stand-alone
systems. The two types of systems differ in their functional operational requirements, their
components and how they deliver the produced power, i.e. how they are connected the load.
Grid Connected
When the solar array generates more power than is being used, the surplus is exported to the
grid and the difference is imported from the grid when it generates less power than the load.
Grid-connected systems use the PV array to produce electricity; it is designed to feed the
electric utility grid through a bi-directional interface. The inverter converts the DC power
produced by the PV array into AC power consistent with the voltage and power quality
required by the utility grid. The bi-directional interface allows the power produced by the PV
system to either supply on-site electrical loads, to back feed the grid when the PV system
output is greater than the on-site load demand or to take form the grid.
Grid connected PV systems can be categorized into centralized and decentralized systems.
Applications of the centralized ones are in utility power, joint ownership and sound barriers,
while decentralized systems are used for private rooftops, facade integration and institutes.
Stand Alone Systems
Stand-alone systems (off-grid) use PV systems to directly supply electricity to a consumer
unit or through a battery. These systems are intended to function independently of the electric
utility grid, and are designed to supply certain DC and/or AC electrical loads.
The simplest type of off-grid PV system is a direct-coupled system, where the DC output of a
PV panel is directly connected to a DC load. In this kind of off-grid systems, energy storage is
not available; therefore the load operates only during sufficient sunlight hours. Uses of direct-
coupled systems include ventilation fans and small circulation pumps for solar thermal water
heating systems. Many stand-alone PV systems require energy storage (mainly batteries) to
compensate for periods without sufficient solar irradiation, such as during the night or during
cloudy weather
Applications of stand-alone PV systems vary from remote location uses to industrial
applications and consumer applications. In remote areas such systems can be used for water
purification, irrigation, battery charging, lighting or village power supply. Industrial systems
are used for telecommunication applications, displays, remote monitoring, hotels restaurants,
etc. Other small-scale consumer applications include mobile phones, calculators, charging
devices and watches.

14

3.3.3. System sizing
The power produced by PV systems depends on several factors. The annual PV performance
is mainly determined by the cumulative PV irradiance, module power rating at standard
conditions, the operating temperature, the maximum power point voltage dependence on
irradiance level, soiling effects and optical losses caused by high angles of incidence (angle
between the suns rays and the normal on a surface).
The sizing of the solar generator and the storage devices plays an important role in the cost
reduction and reliability of a photovoltaic power supply. Major sizing and design steps
include:
- Determining the load and optimizing the consumption
- Choosing the system type
- Analyzing the solar radiation for the site location
- Estimating the array Size
- Sizing the battery storage
- Dimensioning the solar charge controller
4. ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM OF EICHHOF AGRICULTURE CENTER
15

4. ANALYSIS OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM OF EICHHOF
AGRICULTURE CENTER

The Eichhof agricultural center is an information and training institution under the Hessian
Service Center for Agriculture for rural areas. The responsibilities of the center include the
experimental activities in arable farming and plant cultivation, vegetation management, forage
production, nature protection, landscape conservation and biomass production.
The Eichhof center is a location that includes the existing biogas plant, the agricultural
experimental farm, the village-like structure, the photovoltaic system and the laboratories
under the cooperation of a cluster of several research and consulting entities. A satellite image
(using Google earth) of the center is shown in Figure 4.1 with the main buildings and systems
indicated.
4.1. System Description

4.1.1. The existing gas grid
The natural gas is supplied by the Stadtwerke Bad Hersfeld GmbH Company. The gas
producers (of which is the biogas plant) and consumers in Eichhof create a local micro gas
grid in which the different elements are independent and where operation of the grid requires
adequate supply, consumption and storage management.
The natural gas flows in a High-Density Polyethylene pipe (HDPE) with an outer diameter of
160 mm until the transfer point and then in a HDPE line with an outer diameter of 110 mm to
the individual buildings. Only the line from the stables to the biogas system building is made
out of steel with a nominal diameter of 80 mm. The total pipe length in the land of Eichhof is
about 950 m.
The gas net can be operated as a separate (island) net through detaching the inlet point. The
total supply of Eichhof is done be a single mainline and the line branching from the main line
do not lead to any other consumer outside the center.
4.1.2. Biogas plant and pipe lines
The biogas system at the Eichhof agricultural center was built by the BIOGAS NORD GmbH
Company and commenced operation in October, 2002. The biogas system consists of a 600
m
3
fermenter with an attached secondary fermenter; the latter is only used as final storage and
is not heated. The current mean retention time is 50 days. The fermenter feed has a VS value
of 1.5 kg/m
3
.day, this value can be increased to 3 kg/m
3
.day, and therefore can cause
significant improvement for the performance of the biogas system.
16

Figure 4.1: The layout of Eichhof agricultural center.
17

A galvanized steel pipe carries the biogas from the biogas system to the laboratories building.
A blower in the CHP unit room pushes the biogas through the pipes. Thereafter the biogas is
compressed and stored in a pressure vessel with a volume of 6 m
3
. The micro-gas turbine and
the pressure vessel are connected by a stainless steel pipe. The total length of the biogas
system piping is around 400 m.
4.1.3. Gas consumption
Figure 4.2 shows the natural and biogas consumers in Eichhof.
4.1.3.1. Natural gas consumption
The natural gas grid includes four radiators for the heating of halls and the stable. Each
radiator has a nominal power of 10.89 kW. For cooking purposes, an oven with a maximum
nominal capacity of 31 kW is available with six burners.
For heating and warm water dissemination, three 12 kW boilers can be found in each of the
three living houses (9 in total), each resident is billed separately for the use of the boiler. Two
more systems are found in the former managers house and the former workplace. A 200 kW
gas burner located in the basement of the castle is used for the castles heating.
The gas burners that produce heat for the local grid are located in the basement of the
laboratories building and have a nominal capacity of 400 kW and 200 kW. The two burners
supply the residential buildings, the green house, the class rooms and the laboratories with
heat and hot water.
An additional gas burner is located in the biogas plant building and has currently a nominal
capacity of 50 kW and can be alternatively operated by biogas, for that the burner setting
should be changed. The burner runs mainly on biogas.
The inlet natural gas pressure for all consumers is controlled with a pressure valve with a limit
of 20 mbar.
A gas meter is connected to each house, the measurement period is 1 hour and 10 impulses
produce 1 m
3
of consumption. The information read by the meter is sent and stored through a
GSM-sender.

18

Figure 4.2: Gas grid layout.

19

4.1.3.2. Micro-gas-turbine
The Micro-gas-turbine is located in the laboratories building and is designed for low calorific
value gases. The turbine started operation in December, 2004 and was a research and study
subject for ISET (IWES). The electrical output is controlled between 10 and 28 kW
el
. A heat
exchanger is connected to the exhaust gas of the turbine; in this heat exchanger the water for
the hot water loop is heated. At full load, the micro-gas-turbine system produces thermal
energy of 60 kW
th
. Since commissioning 591.27 MW heat energy was produced.
4.1.3.3. CHP unit
The ignition engine CHP unit is located in the area of the biogas plant. It has a generator with
installed capacity of 30 kW
el
. The waste heat from the CHP unit (around 48 kW
th
) is used for
preheating the recycled water that is used in the heat loop of the feeding station. The heat loop
of the feeding station includes a stable, an office and a seminar room. The waste heat is not
used for cooling of units in summer time in the current situation.
4.1.3.4. Biogas burner
The biogas burner is operated by using an adjusted gas burner with a nominal heat capacity of
50 kW and a variable output that ranges from 60 kW to 300 kW. It is located next to the CHP
unit in the feeding station and can be alternatively operated by natural gas. When operated
with natural gas, the burner produces a higher output.
5. SIMULATION
20

5. SIMULATION

To evaluate the performance and analyse the hybrid system in Eichhof, full process
simulation is initially carried out. The difference between the simulation results and the actual
process outcomes are expected especially for biochemical processes where microorganism
and many other parameters affect the output. The simulation software, Simulink developed by
MathWorks, is used in this research.
The main simulation parameters are summarized below:
Table 5.1: Simulation parameters.
Simulation parameter Value
Solver Ode45
Relative tolerance 1 10
-3

Maximum step 1
Minimum step 0.001
Initial step 0.01
Maximum order* 5
* Maximum order of the numerical differentiation formulas (NDFs)
The solver ode45 (Dormand-Prince) is the default variable step size solver, it computes the
model's state at the next time step using an explicit Runge-Kutta (4,5) formula (the Dormand-
Prince pair) for numerical integration. Ode45 is a one-step solver, and therefore only needs
the solution at the preceding time point.
The default value of 1 10
-3
was used as the relative tolerance which specifies the largest
acceptable solver error, relative to the size of each state during each time step. If the relative
error exceeds this tolerance, the solver reduces the time step size.
The procedure for process simulation includes three primary parts:
1. Biogas process modelling
2. PV system modelling
3. System analysis and suggested future scenario modelling

Figure 5.1 shows the entire model with the main blocks and relationships between different
parts.

Figure 5.1: Eichhof energy system simulation.
5. SIMULATION
22

5.1. Biogas Production

Figure 5.2:Biogas production blocks.

5.1.1. Feed
The biogas production model starts with the substrate input after being collected, processed
and pretreated. The substrates that were fed into the fermenter in the years 2008-2009 were
dairy manure, corn silage and wheat grain. The table below summarizes the characteristics of
the feed.
Table 5.2: Substrate properties.
Substrate
Average flow rate in 2009
(kg/day)
TS
[2]

(kg/kg input)
VS
[2]

(kg/kg input)
Density
[1]

(kg/m
3
)
Manure 9,965 0.11 0.09 990
Corn silage 2,016 0.35 0.34 720
Wheat grain 33 0.08 0.07 700

The feed is entered as time series with daily volumetric manure flow rate and daily mass flow
rate of corn and wheat.
5. SIMULATION
23

Figure 5.3: Substrate input flow rate.

The next block input parameters is simply used to calculate the total solid and volatile
solids content of the feed based on the number showed in Table 5.2. The following figure
shows an additional parameter that is calculated for each input S
T
.
The volatile solids concentration (S
t
) is found to be 89.1 kg/m
3
for manure, 244.8 kg/m
3
for
corn silage and 49 kg/m
3
for wheat grain after running the simulation.

5. SIMULATION
24

Figure 5.4: Feed properties.

5.1.2. Fermenter
Several studies come out with models describing the process of fermentation, however due to
the complex nature of the fermentation process it is difficult to find a simple accurate model
that fits with all conditions. Therefore it is necessary to treat each case individually and
optimize it based on experiences or trial and error methods. The actual biogas production data
obtained from the Eichhof biogas plant are kept as a reference to measure the accuracy of the
model.
Several models have been developed to describe the kinetics of anaerobic digestion and are
increasingly considered an important supporting tool for the design, operation and control of
biogas systems. There are generally three classes of mathematical kinetic model which vary in
complexity and accuracy used to describe and predict the anaerobic digestion process. These
three classes are as follows
[4]
:
1. The simplest class is the models that use steady-state solutions of first-order kinetic
equations, mainly because of the simplicity of its inputs. Steady state models are based
on the slowest process kinetic rate that governs the overall behavior of the system and
relates this process rate to the system design and operating parameters. The main
5. SIMULATION
25

drawback of these models is their in ability in most situations to predict operational
optima or failure which is due to the assumptions made in their derivation.
2. Models that use Monod kinetic which describes biochemical as well as
physiochemical processes. These models include differential and algebraic equation
which could reach more than 30 equation describing disintegration from homogeneous
particulates to carbohydrates, proteins and lipids; hydrolysis of these particulate
substrates to sugars, amino acids, and long chain fatty acids, acidogenesis from sugars
and amino acids to volatile fatty acids and hydrogen; acetogenesis of VFAs to acetate;
and separate methanogenesis steps from acetate and hydrogen/CO
2
. Such parameters
and equations are very difficult to determine for complex substrates and require
extensive computer analysis. Monod models have, as their major advantage,
unquestionable accuracy in predicting process failure and optima. A well-known
example of this model is the IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1).
3. The third model was introduced by Chen & Hashimoto (1979) as a modification of the
Contois model. This model can be considered to possess characteristics of both the
Monod kinetics model and the first order kinetics model. It has simplified inputs,
requiring only one kinetic parameter (K) and the ultimate microbial growth rate (J
-1
).
This model however has an ability to predict inhabitation; it can for example predict
process failure due to wash-out effects. This ability is, however, limited because of the
fact that the model is derived for the steady state and in the formation of its kinetic
equation; thus, it will not predict complete process failure due to inhibition of
microorganisms.
A comparison was made between the three models in order to determine which is more
suitable for the purposes of this study. Since it is not the objective of the research to design or
operate a biogas reactor but rather to predict the general behavior and output of the fermenter,
a compromise between the accuracy and complexity was made and the third model was found
to be able to accomplish the objective of the model with high accuracy and reasonable
complexity.
More accurate and detailed modeling is out of the scope of the research and can be considered
for future development procedures. The inability to predict complete process failure can be
tolerated in the stage of performance and evaluation of a system. The simulation model of the
anaerobic digestion process is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.5: Fermenter model (Jan-Dec, 2009 feed).
5. SIMULATION
27

The kinetics of methane production from organic waste under steady-state conditions can be
expressed as a function of the fermenter parameters, substrate properties and the ultimate
methane yield, this relation can be described as follows
[3]
:
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
K
K
B B
m
o
1
1
u
5.1

where,
is the hydraulic retention time expressed in days,
B is the methane yield of organic waste (m
3
of CH
4
per kg of VS added),
B
o
is the ultimate methane yield (the methane yield at infinite retention time, m
3
CH
4
/kg VS),
m
is the maximum specific growth rate of microorganisms (day
-1
),
K is the kinetic parameter which indicates the overall performance of the digester.

The ultimate methane yield of biogas substrate was investigated by several researchers. The
following table lists the ultimate methane yield for manure, corn and wheat and the
corresponding reference.
Table 5.3: Ultimate methane yield of substrates.
Substrate
Ultimate methane yield
B
o
(m
3
CH
4
per kg VS)
Reference
Manure 0.52 [3]
Corn 0.33 [5]
Wheat 0.30 [5]

The methane yield is seen from equation (1) to increase as the dimensionless kinetic
parameter K which depends on the volatile solids decreases. In animal manure digestion of
high concentrations of volatile solids and ammonia inhibits digester performance, which is
reflected in the value of K. K, is relatively constant for low volatile solids concentration as
seen in Figure 5.6. However for the manure feed, the S
t
value is calculated to be around 90
kg/m
3
which is out of the constant value range.

Figure 5.6: Kinetic parameter versus volatile solids concentration.
[4]
5. SIMULATION
28

For high volatile solids concentration values for anaerobic digestion of animal manure the
following relation
[4]
is used:

) 118 . 0 (
0006 . 0 6 . 0
t
S
e K + = 5.2

The same relation was used for the evaluation of the kinetic parameter of the wheat grain.
However this relation, does not estimate the K value accurately for the corn silage substrate.
The reason for that is that the volatile solid concentration is very high as mentioned earlier
(244.8 kg/m
3
) and therefore the equation is not able to estimate the K value at such high S
t

values. However, through studying and investigating the data in hand, which includes daily
input substrates and output biogas for 2008 and 2009 it was found that the same relationship
can be used with the correction of dividing the constant in the exponential term by the value
of density (720 kg/m
3
). Equation 2 then becomes:

) 0012 . 0 (
0006 . 0 6 . 0
t
S
e K + =

5.3

The maximum specific growth rate (
m
) of the microorganism depends on the digester
temperature.
m
can be considered as a linear function of the digestion temperature in the
range 30 - 60C:
129 . 0 013 . 0 = T
m
5.4

The temperature in the fermenter is kept through an integrated heating system at 38 2
o
C.
The variations in the temperature of fermenter in the year 2009, as measured by the operators
of the biogas plant, are shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.7: Fermenter Temperature throughout 2009.

As seen from Figure 5.7 the measured fermenter temperature seems highly fluctuating, for
example changing from 39 C to 37 C one day and then back to 39 C the next day, this of
course is not realistic and is in most case caused by errors in the temperature measurement
device; therefore, in order to avoid any inaccuracies caused by error of temperature reading, a
smooth polynomial curve is fitted to the measured data and the improved readings will be
used for the model. The result of the fitting curve is shown in the figure below.
5. SIMULATION
29

Figure 5.8: corrected fermenter temperatures.

The hydraulic retention time () is the theoretical average retention time of a volume of liquid
in a completely-mixed reactor and it is conventionally defined as the reactor volume divided
by the rate of liquid throughput. The average retention time in the fermenter is 50 days in our
case, however, since the substrate is entering the fermenter at variable flow rates and
densities, a more accurate approach is to calculate the retention time at each step especially
that the flow rate of substrate is much lower in the first months of the year which means it
would spend longer time in the fermenter. We can express the retention time as:
s
s
m
u

=
f
V
5.5
where,
V
f
is the volume of fermenter (m
3
),
s
is the density of substrate (kg/m
3
),
s
m is the mass flow rate of substrate (kg/day)
The total density of the substrates is calculated in the temperature model block that will be
presented in the following section. The calculated density is fed to the fermenter block and the
retention time is thus calculated. The retention time changes from 70 days to 40 days as the
feed changes as shown in Figure 5.9. The x-axis of the figure is the day of the year at which
the substrate enters the reactor, corresponding to the mass flow rate and density at that day.

Figure 5.9: Retention time in the fermenter.

5. SIMULATION
30

By applying equation 5.1 we get the methane output from each kg volatile solids of substrate,
to get the total biogas volume out (V
BG
) we need to multiply by the VS value then divide the
methane yield (B) by the methane content of the biogas which is changing with time
depending on the feed substrate. Each substrate has a mean methane content which is listed in
Table 5.4. The calculation block is shown below.

Figure 5.10: Methan content block.

The methane content is simply calculated as follows:
=
s
s s total
CH CH
1
4 4
% % | 5.6
where,
s
|
is the volume fraction of each biogas volume produced from each substrate at a given
time.
The resulting methane content throughout the year will be changing in the manner shown
below.

Figure 5.11: Methane content throughout the year.

5. SIMULATION
31

The value of methane yield (B), that determines the total volume of biogas produced from a
specific mass of substrate entering at a specific time, does not take into account the rate in
which the biogas is being generated throughout the time the substrate spends in the fermenter.
The biogas accumulation was simulated using an exponential rise to maximum function
which is used for continuous fermentation operations
[1]
. The course of biogas production thus
can be described using the following relation:
[16]

) 1 (
max
kt
e y y(t)

= 5.7

where,
y(t) is the accumulation at a given time t (m
3
/kg),
y
max
is the maximum biogas yield (m
3
/kg),
t is time throughout the retention time (day)
k is the first order kinetic constant (day
-1
).

Equation 5.7 can be rearranged, differentiated and then integrated to get the following form:
dt k t y y t y =
}
)) ( ( ) (
max
5.8

This equation is simulated as shown in the following figure for each of the substrates. The
values of k are taken as 0.06 for manure, 0.13 for corn and for wheat.
[17]

Figure 5.12: Exponential biogas accumulation model.

The calculated biogas production is shown in the following figure.
5. SIMULATION
32

Figure 5.13: Methane production for substrate entering in 2009.

Figure 5.13 shows that the biogas accumulation in the fermenter starts from zero m
3
/day. This
is only true if the fermenter was empty at the beginning of the process, therefore in order to
simulate the actual situation more accurately, we need to take into account the substrate that
entered the fermenter before the first of January of 2009. For this purpose the substrate that
was fed in the last 50 days (average retention time) of 2008 will be also simulated to
determine the remaining volumes of biogas that are produced in 2009 from these substrates.
This is simply done by re-running the simulation with substrate feed from 2008. The resulting
biogas out is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.14: Biogas output from substrate which is fed in the last fifty days of 2008.

The traces that are seen from day 0 need to be added to the first days of 2009. Therefore, the
biogas originated from substrate fed in 2008 is pre-calculated and saved and the values of
biogas produced in 2009 (days 0 to 50 in the figure) are then entered to the model as an input.
The total calculated biogas output from each substrate from the digestion process over the
year 2009 can be compared to both the total biogas output for the 2009 and the expected
biogas that results from each substrate separately. This can be estimated through the mean
biogas yields that are reported in many references as in the following table.
5. SIMULATION
33

Table 5.4: Mean biogas yield for the substrates.
[
6
]

Substrate
Biogas yield
(m
3
/ton)
Methane content
Manure 33 59 %
Corn 230 53 %
Wheat 40 60 %

The actual biogas readings were taken from meters connected to the three biogas consumers
(burner, CHP and micro-gas turbine), those values however were taken on daily basis and at
different times for each device. Therefore, taking an average daily consumption for each
month (by dividing the total monthly consumption over the number of days of the month) was
the most appropriate approach to deal with the meter readings and get a clear idea of the
actual biogas production. The calculation of the actual biogas production is shown in the
figure below.

Figure 5.15: Actual biogas production block.

The comparison between actual, calculated and expected biogas volume is shown in Table
5.5.
Table 5.5: Biogas production prediction evaluation.
Substrate Feed
Expected
biogas (m
3
)
Calculated
biogas (m
3
)
Actual
biogas (m
3
)
Manure 3,674 (m
3
) 120,029 120,962
N/A Corn silage 735,840 (kg) 169,243 145,800
Wheat grain 12,045 (kg) 481 413.1
Total 4,385,145 (kg) 289,810 267,175 264,600

The previous data show that the model used is highly accurate in representing the complex
anaerobic digestion process for each substrate and for the whole scenario. Figure 5.16 shows
the actual daily biogas production in contrast with the daily calculated values.
5. SIMULATION
34

(a)

(b)
Figure 5.16: Daily biogas production in 2009 (a) calculated, (b) actual.

The actual production curve does not reflect the actual daily production trend as explained
earlier and therefore it is safe to ignore the sharp edges in the actual production figure and
look at the entire graph in order to compare correctly. We see from the previous figure that
the calculated biogas production matches, to a high level, the trend and quantities of the actual
production.

5. SIMULATION
* Volume in the first 50 days is lower than actual because the fermenter is considered empty at time 0 in the model 35

5.1.3. Fermenter temperature model

Figure 5.17: Fermenter temperature model block.

Assumptions:
1. Steady state operating conditions exist.
2. Heat transfer is two dimensional (no change in the axial direction).
3. Thermal and physical properties are constant for each substance.
4. The fermenter is occupied mostly by substrate at any given time.

The fourth statement can be safely assumed by calculating the expected volume of substrate at
any time with the mean retention time being 55 days and assuming that the minimum time to
start producing biogas is 10 days
[7]
. As a rough estimate, volumes of input substrates are
subtracted from the fermenter after 40 days, the result is seen in the following graph. The
produced biogas goes directly to the storage tank which is not heated.

Figure 5.18: Substrate volume in fermenter.*
5. SIMULATION
36

For the mathematical analysis of the heating system of the fermenter, the substrate in the
digester is assumed to be always well mixed and therefore at a uniform temperature T
f
(
o
C)
which varies only with time. The heat balance for the digester can be expressed as:

loss s ag w
f
s p s s
Q Q Q Q
dt
dT
c V

+ =
,
5.9
Where,
V
s
is the substrate volume (m
3
),

c
p,s
is the substrate specific heat capacity (J/kg.K),
s
is the substrate density (kg/m
3
),
T
f
is the fermenter temperature (
o
C),
w
Q
is the rate of heat delivered by the heating water (W),
s
Q
is the rate of heat delivered to the substrate (W),

ag
Q
is the rate of heat dissipation by the agitator (W) and,

loss
Q
is the total heat losses from the fermenter to the surroundings (W).

The dimensions of the fermenter and the heating coils and properties of fluids are listed in the
following table.
Table 5.6: Properties of fermenter heating system components.

Property Symbol Value Unit
Volume of fermenter V
f
600 m
3

Radius of fermenter r
f
14 m
Wall thickness t 0.18 m
Coil radius (DN 125) r
coil
0.07 m
Number of coils n
coil
2 -
Insulation thickness t
ins
0.10 m
Density of concrete
c
2400 kg/m
3

Specific heat capacity of water @ 60
o
C c
p
,
w
4.18 kJ/kg.C
Specific heat capacity of man ure c
p
,
c
4.2 kJ/kg.C
Specific heat capacity of corn silage c
p
,
c
1.41 kJ/kg.C
Specific heat capacity of wheat c
p
,
c
1.63 kJ/kg.C
Thermal conductivity of the soil k
soil
0.9 W/m.C
Thermal conductivity of concrete k
soil
0.8 W/m.C
Thermal conductivity of insulation k
ins
0.033 W/m.C
Thermal conductivity of coils (steel) k
coil
43 W/m.C
Thermal conductivity of water @ 60
o
C k
w
0.654 W/m.C
Viscosity of water @ 60
o
C
w
4.467 10
-4
N.s/m
2

5. SIMULATION
37

The surface area of the fermenter is the summation of the top area (r
2
) and the cylindrical
side area (2rh), therefore the area of the jacket would be:
2 2
2
2
f
f
f
f f f j
r
r
V
r h r A t t t + = + =
5.10
And the heating pipes surface area would be:
coil f coil coils
n r r A = t t 2 2
5.11

Those calculations are done in the block shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.19: Area calculations of heating system components.

5.1.3.1. Rate of heat dissipation
The energy dissipated from the agitator can be expressed by the Volumetric Heat Release
(VHR) and the time of agitation per day fed into the model. The agitator is turned on for a
number of intervals, with an average value of 8 minutes per interval. The average number of
intervals throughout the year was 10 per day. The hour per day agitation time is calculated in
the block represented below.

Figure 5.20: Agitator block.

ag
Q
can be calculated using the following relation:

| |
3
3
m
day
h
time operation
h
3600s
W
J/s
m
W
VHR
f ag
V Q
(
5.12
where,
VHR is the volumetric heat release of the agitator = 10 W/m
3
.
5. SIMULATION
38

Figure 5.21: Heat of agitation.

5.1.3.2. Substrate heating
The rate of which heat is delivered to the incoming substrate is calculated as follows:
( )
s f s p s s
T T c m Q =
,
5.13

Where,
s
m

is the substrate flow rate (kg/s),

T
s
is the Temperature of the incoming substrate (
o
C) = ambient temperature,

The substrate specific heat capacity is a function of its components and is changing with time:
=
i p i s p
c w c
, ,
5.14
Where,
i
w
is the substrate mass fraction (kg substrate /kg total), calculated as shown in the following
figure.

Figure 5.22: Density and specific heat capacity calculation.

5. SIMULATION
39

5.1.3.3. Heat losses
To begin with, the heat loss by natural convection from the vertical wall and roof is
calculated. The overall heat transfer coefficient is estimated as follows:
c
c
ins
ins
air s w
k
x
k
x
h h U
A
+
A
+ + =
1 1 1
5.15
where,
U
w
is the overall heat transfer coefficient between substrate and air (W/m
2
.C),
h
s
and h
air
are the heat transfers coefficients of substrate and air respectively (W/m
2
.C),
k
ins
and k
c
are the thermal conductivities of insulation and concrete respectively (W/m.C),
x
ins
and x
c
are the thickness of insulation and concrete respectively (m)

The exact estimation of heat transfer coefficients for air and substrate can be a complicated
trial and error process, however the low value of the insulation conductivity and its thickness
makes it the dominant thermal resistance; the mean values of heat transfer coefficients will be
taken as reported in the literature since they would not change the value of the overall heat
transfer coefficient greatly. The heat transfer coefficient of the substrate is taken 8.2
[8]
W/m
2
.C
and for air 11.6
[9]
W/m
2
.C. Therefore,
.C W/m 29 . 0
8 . 0
18 . 0
033 . 0
10 . 0
6 . 11
1
2 . 8
1 1
2
~ + + + = U
U
w
as seen in the figure below.

Figure 5.23: Overall heat transfer coefficient calculations.

And
( )
a f j w wall loss
T T A U Q =
,
5.16
where,
T
a
is ambient temperature in
o
C.

Secondly, we calculate the floor heat losses; for a plate at temperature T
f
(fermenter
temperature) placed on a semi-infinite solid, the heat loss can be calculated as:
( )
a f soil f floor loss
T T k r Q = 4
,
5.17

5.1.3.4. Heating-water heat transfer
We can calculate the heat transferred from water using two relations:
5. SIMULATION
40

( )
out w
in
w w p w w
T T c m Q
,
,
,
=
5.18
where,
T
w
is the Temperature of the inlet water (
o
C),

And the well known formula for sizing heat exchangers presented below.
LMTD A U Q
coil c w
=
5.19
where,
U
c
is the overall heat transfer coefficient between water and substrate,
LMTD is the log mean temperature difference between water and substrate.

Since the water flow rate is yet unknown, equation 15 will be used to find out the temperature
at which the water is leaving the fermenter. To calculate the Overall heat transfer coefficient
U
c
between water and substrate:
water coil
coil
s c
h k
x
h U
1 1 1
+
A
+ =
5.20
where,
U
w
is the overall heat transfer coefficient between substrate and water (W/m
2
.C),

Heat transfer coefficient of water can be calculated by the following formula;
14 . 0
33 . 0 8 . 0
Pr Re
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
w
C Nu
5.21
where,
Nu is Nusselt number =
w
e w
k
d h
,
Re is Reynolds number =
w coils coil
w
n d
m
t
4
,
Pr is Prandtl number =
w
w w p
k
c
,
,
h
w
is inside coefficient, W/m
2
.C,
de is equivalent diameter, m = d
i
for tubes,
k
w
is water thermal conductivity, W/m.C,
,
w
are water viscosity at bulk temperature at the wall, respectively N.s/m
2
,
C
p,w
is water heat capacity, J/kg.C,
C = 0.023 for non-viscous liquids.

The log mean temperature difference is:
( ) ( )
( )
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|

=
f out w
in s in w
f out w in s in w
T T
T T
T T T T
,
, ,
, , ,
ln
LMTD
5.22
Into equation 18 we get:
5. SIMULATION
41

( )
( )
0
ln
) ( ) (
,
,
, , ,
=
|
|
.
|
\
|

coil c
w
f out w
f in w
f out w in s in w
A U
Q
T T
T T
T T T T

5.23

Equation 5.23 has one unknown (T
w,out
) and can be solved by feeding into the algebraic solver
block Simulink as seen in Figure 5.25.
w
Q
will be calculated using the energy balance that is

presented in the next section and the water flow rate is also fed after giving the initial value of
T
w,out
as 50 C. The change in outlet temperature can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 5.24: Outlet temperature of water.

5.1.3.5. Heat balance
By applying equations 5.12, 5.16, 5.17 and 5.19 into equation 5.9, we get the following
ordinary first order differential equation:
( ) ( ) ( ) LMTD A U T T k r T T UA T T c m Q
dt
dT
c V
coil c a f soil f a f j s f s p s ag
f
s p f s
+ = 4
, ,

5.24

To calculate
w
Q
needed to maintain the fermenter temperature, we can assume that the

temperature is constant at any given day. Thus equation 16 becomes:
( ) ( ) ( ) LMTD A U T T k r T T UA T T c m Q
coil c a f soil f a f j s f s p s ag
+ = 4 0
,

( ) ( ) ( )
ag a f soil f a f j s f s p s w
Q T T k r T T UA T T c m Q

+ + = 4
,
5.25

Energy balance and
w
Q
calculations are illustrated in Figure 5.25.

Figure 5.25: Fermenter temperature model.
5. SIMULATION
43

The amount of energy required to heat the water to keep the desired digester temperature will
be:
( )
out w in w w p
w
w
T T c
Q
m
, , ,

=

5.26

Figure 5.26: Water flow rate required for heating of fermenter.

The total heat consumption for fermenter in 2009 was around 2500 MWh. The daily heating
requirements will be later used to evaluate the CHP unit performance.

5.1.4. Biogas storage
The biogas storage block serves the purpose of ensuring that the biogas used by the next units
is not more than the available biogas in storage following the next relation and as shown in
Figure 5.27:
needed out BG
V V

=
,
for
needed stored BG
V V

>
,
5.27
stored BG out BG
V V
, ,
=
for
needed stored BG
V V

<
,
5.28

needed
V
is a feedback from the different units that consume biogas. A comparison between
the three values (Biogas in, out and needed) is illustrated in Figure 5.28.

5. SIMULATION
44

Figure 5.27: Biogas storage modelling.

Figure 5.28: Comparing biogas out to needed and available biogas in storage

Figure 5.28 shows that the required biogas volume is not always available (assuming that
more than 1000 m
3
biogas is already in the storage tank) and for the first the days of the year
the biogas used is equal to biogas in and less than two thirds of the required.
The required or used storage volume throughout the year can be calculated by performing a
mass balance over the storage volume:
5. SIMULATION
45

mass input mass output + mass accumulated = 0 5.29
therefore,
0
, ,
= +
dt
dV
V V
acc
out BG in BG

By integration we get
( )dt V V V
out BG in BG storage }
=
, ,

5.30

The calculated volume that is staying in the storage is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.29: Used storage volume for biogas storage throughout the year.

The actual available volume for biogas storage in Eichhof is less than 400 m
3
. The figure
shows that this storage volume is sufficient and that the biogas storage is empty most of the
days of the year
5.1.5. Distribution model
The biogas goes from the storage to the consumers which are divided into three main systems:
biogas burner, Micro-gas turbine and CHP unit. And as seen before, since the needed amount
of biogas is not always available, this block serves as a distribution point where each unit gets
a fraction proportional to its need in the case of shortage of biogas in storage, this is illustrated
in the following figure.
5. SIMULATION
46

Figure 5.30: Biogas distribution block.

The resulting biogas out of storage and into each of the consumers is shown below.

Figure 5.31: Biogas flow rate in for biogas consumers.
5. SIMULATION
47

5.1.6. Biogas burner
The biogas flow rate needed to supply the heat demand of the burner is calculated according
to the following relation:
4
4
CH burner
needed BG,
%CH CV
hours 24 P
V

=
5.31

where,
needed BG,
V
is the volumetric flow rate of biogas needed (m

3
/day)
P is the output of burner (kW),
4
CH
CV
is the calorific value of methane (= 10 kWh/m
3
),
4
%CH is the percentage of methane in biogas (%).

The biogas consuming burner was identified in chapter 4 with a capacity of 50 kW and a
variable output. The actual consumption requirement of the burner was approximately
estimated by giving a monthly average value of gas consumption in previous years in Eichhof
and by normalizing this value and scaling the maximum output of the burners through
multiplying it by the normalized value as seen in Figure 5.32.

Figure 5.32: Biogas burner model.

The expected gas consumption was calculated through a roughly estimated relationship with
temperature which was established through similar trends that were found in previous years
(2005 2008), the next graph was the result of this relation.
5. SIMULATION
48

Figure 5.33: burner load and temperature dependency.

The maximum value experienced in the burner load in Eichhof was determined to be
(246.6.44 kW), and then the load profile was divided by this value to get a factor between 0
and 1. This value is multiplied by the burner rated maximum output to get the approximate
gas consumption for the burner. However, the logs of Eichhof show that natural gas was used
as feed for this burner and therefore, the actual values of natural gas used were entered into
the model. After subtracting the natural gas consumption we get the biogas needed in 2009
seen in Figure 5.34.

Figure 5.34: Biogas needed for burner

The rate of heat output for the burner has a nominal value 50 kW with a variable output
between 60 and 300 kW as reported and seen in appendix A. The maximum heat output (300
kW) was assumed at the highest load (factor =1). The biogas and natural gas consumption is
shown in Figure 5.35 and the total heat output of the burner is shown in Figure 5.36.
5. SIMULATION
49

Figure 5.35: Gas consumption for burner.

The heat rate out of the burner is calculated by the summation of the heat produced from the
natural gas and from the biogas as follows:
NG thermal BG thermal thermal
Q Q Q
, ,
+ =
5.32

24 24
%
,
4
4 , NG in NG CH in BG
thermal
CV V CV CH V
Q

+

=
q q
5.33

Figure 5.36: Heat output of burner.

5.1.7. Micro-gas turbine
The second biogas consumer is the micro-gas turbine in the laboratories building. The model
describing the biogas electrical consumers is a simplified cogeneration model taking into
account the thermal and electrical efficiencies only. The biogas needed for the turbine was
calculated in the same approach as the biogas burner.
5. SIMULATION
50

Figure 5.37: Micro-gas turbine model.

The efficiency and power of the turbine depend highly on ambient temperature; therefore the
efficiency-temperature and power-temperature curves that are provided by the manufacturer
were fed into the model to get an accurate power and heat output. Those curves are show in
appendix B. The resulting change in power and efficiency throughout the year are shown in
Figure 5.39.
Accordingly, we calculate the needed biogas flow rate to reach this maximum power with a
specific temperature and efficiency using equation 5.31 with changing the terms for the
turbine. We get the following flow rate of biogas needed as shown below.

Figure 5.38: Biogas needed for turbine.
5. SIMULATION
51

Figure 5.39: Efficiency and power of micro-gas turbine and their relation with temperature through 2009.

The outside temperature is then fed into the model with the corresponding power and
efficiency and with the actual input biogas we calculate the power output using an equation
similar to equation 5.33 with removing the natural gas components of the equation. We get
the power output shown below.
24
%
4
4 , CH el in BG
electrical
CV CH V
Q

=
q
5.34

The effect of the main two parameters that influence the output electrical power is apparent in
the graph where in the last fifty days in the year enough biogas is available and the
5. SIMULATION
52

temperature is below 15
o
C. This conclusion has the exception of low power in few days in
December which is because of the high biogas consumption from the burners which are
located at the pig stables at the extremely low temperature in the given days.

Figure 5.40: Power output from micro-gas turbine.

The combustion air enters the generator of the micro-gas turbine and cools it down, causing
high temperature exhaust air. This air can be utilized by passing it in a heat exchanger, and
extracting the heat in the air. The turbine specifications show an effluent air with a
temperature of 275
o
C and mass flow of 0.31 kg/s and total energy of 327,000 kJ/hr (90.83
kW). This value, however, represents the maximum heat produced from the turbine at
optimum conditions. The actual heat produced by the turbine can be estimated by introducing
a heat efficiency term, this term is determined from actual heat produced from the turbine
throughout the years. This value was reported to be 50%. Thus using equation 5.34 with the
thermal efficiency given, an energy time series similar to the energy shown in Figure 5.40
scaled to reach a maximum of 55.56 kW
th
is generated.
Logs for electrical power produced from the turbine were available from august 2009 until the
end of the year and if it was compared to the calculated value to the actual power we find that
the results are accurate. A sample period comparing the actual and calculated electrical power
output from the turbine is show in Figure 5.41.

Figure 5.41: Actual and calculated power output from the micro-gas turbine.
5. SIMULATION
53

5.1.8. Combined heat and power unit
The third biogas consumer is the combined heat power unit which consists of a dual fuel
engine and a heat exchanger. As explained previously the same simplified model for the
micro-gas turbine will be used to describe the CHP unit. The efficiency of the dual fuel engine
decreased throughout the years of operation, the efficiency of this type of engine is reported to
range between 30% and 35% after few years. The efficiency is taken as 32.5% in this
simulation.

Similar to the procedure in the previous units, the needed biogas flow rate is first calculated
and as the temperature does not affect the performance of the engine, the needed flow rate
depends only on the methane content of the available biogas. Therefore, the needed biogas
volume is fluctuating around a value of 390 m
3
/day. Similar to equation 5.34 we calculate the
output electrical power as shown in Figure 5.42.

Figure 5.42: CHP unit model.

The resulting electrical power through the year 2009 is fluctuating with the available biogas
as shown in the following figure. The thermal output is calculated with an efficiency of 36%
according to the actual performance of the engine. The output thermal energy changes in a
trend similar to the electrical output throughout the year.
5. SIMULATION
54

Figure 5.43: CHP electrical power output.

Actual CHP electrical power output is available over the last three months of 2009, the mean
value of power generated was around 31.5 kW which indicates that the efficiency might be
higher than the used value of 32.5%, however the readings also show several off (zero kW)
periods and that would lower the total mean power out. Therefore we will keep the efficiency
and nominal capacity as specified in order not to augment the output more than reality. A
comparison between actual and calculated power output from CHP unit is shown in the
following graph.

Figure 5.44: Comparison between actual and calculated power out from CHP unit.

5.1.9. Natural gas burners
The rest of the burners in Eichhof (thirteen heaters and burners) are currently operating with
natural gas and in order to understand the entire situation of the heat consumption we need to
take into account this consumption (heat consumption will be discussed in more details in
chapter six). Since the natural gas is available upon demand we can simply find out the
needed natural gas by using the dependency relationship between temperature and heat
5. SIMULATION
55

consumption shown in Figure 5.33 and the known nominal capacity of each of the burners.
The natural gas burners maximum power outputs are shown in Figure 5.45, more details
about the burners can be found in Appendix B. The required flow rate is shown in Figure
5.46.

Figure 5.45: Natural gas consumers block.

Figure 5.46: Natural gas needed for natural gas burners.
5. SIMULATION
56

5.2. Photovoltaic System

Figure 5.47: PV system model.

There are three photovoltaic installations in Eichhof agricultural center. The center is located
at latitude 50.84 and longitude 9.68. We start the analysis by defining the three PV
installations on site; the details of area, tilt and orientation are presented in the following table
and shown in Figure 5.48.
Table 5.7: Dimensions and details of PV installations.
System number Dimensions Number Tilt angle Orientation angle
(1)
(a) 1.6 0.8 144 modules 15
o
15
o

(b)
27 3.8
38 3.8
On 2 roof
tops
20
o
45
o
(2) 33 12 1 panel 30
o
5
o
(3) 10 6.01 2 panels Tracking

5. SIMULATION
57

(1) (2) (3)
Figure 5.48: PV installations

The solar radiation data are obtained from the meteorological data stations of the Hessian
Agency for Environment and Geology
[12]
, Half-hourly average values of global radiation and
temperature are obtained from the station Grebenau located 20 km south west of Eichhof. The
measured solar radiation profile from 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 is shown in Figure 5.49.

Figure 5.49: Global solar radiation at Grebenau in 2009.

The most noticeable thing seen in the solar radiation profile is that there is frequent
fluctuation in radiation even in January and June, where a peak with high solar radiation is
appearing in the first few days of the year and also very low values of radiation for some days
in June. Those fluctuations will have apparent effects on the resulting PV production.

5.2.1. Solar radiation on a tilted angle
The global solar radiation is measured for a horizontal surface and the PV collectors are not
installed horizontally but as shown in Table 5.7 have several different configurations. The tilt
5. SIMULATION
58

and orientation of the PV panel increase the amount of radiation intercepted and reduce
reflection and cosine losses. Consequently we need to convert the horizontal global radiation
data to radiation on tilted surfaces.
The global radiation takes into account the two components of radiation, direct and diffused
radiation; therefore we will not calculate a separate value for each component but they will be
treated collectively. The solar radiation on a tilted angle (I) can be calculated as follows:
) cos(
) cos(
I I
G
|
u
=
B1
where,
u is the incidence angle, the angle between the suns ray and the normal on surface,
| is the solar zenith angle, the angle between the suns ray and the vertical,
I
G
is the global radiation (including direct and diffused radiation) W/m
2

o | =
o
90 B2
where,
o is the solar altitude angle

The details of the solar angle calculation are out of the scope of this research and are
described in Appendix C. The blocks that represent those equations are shown in the figures
below in a consequent manner.

Figure 5.50: Equation of time block.

Figure 5.51: Apparent solar time block.

Figure 5.52: Radiation calculations block.
5. SIMULATION
60

Since there are four different configurations of PV panels, the effect of different orientation
and tilt angles on the solar radiation reaching the panel can be easily seen. Two example days
are taken to demonstrate the variation, one day in winter and one day in summer as shown in
Figure 5.53 and Figure 5.54.

Figure 5.53: Solar radiation on PV panels in the 15th of January, 2009.

From Figure 5.53 we notice that the highest solar radiation which is captured by the tracking
PV system, it is very apparent especially at peak hours in this winter day, the rest three
configurations seem to have relatively close captured radiation where the orientation of 5 has
the highest of three and then comes the orientation of 45 then 15 which interchange the
position of having the least radiation between the first half and second half of the day.
The additional radiation of the tracking system is 170% - 210% compared to the fixed-mount
installation in this specific day. Also from the figure, we see that the highest radiation is
around 630 W/m
2
and that the sun is shining for almost 30% of the day (approximately 7
hours and 12 minutes).
As for a summer day, we can see the radiation profile throughout the day in Figure 5.53. It is
observed that the shining hours are much higher (approximately 14 hours and 30 minutes)
which is twice the duration in winter. Also the peak radiation is around 1100 W/m
2
.
Figure 5.54 shows that unlike the case in winter, the radiation captured by the PV panels
reaches almost the peak value for all configurations however the main difference is that for
the tracking system the peak value is captured at a wider range collecting more energy
throughout the day.

5. SIMULATION
61

Figure 5.54: Solar radiation on PV panels in the 27th of July, 2009.

5.2.2. PV system power output
Photovoltaic panel electrical performance depends on environmental conditions such as the
temperature, solar radiation, incidence angle, solar spectral (air mass), and the type of PV cell.
There are several models and equations and models that are used to predict the performance
of a PV panel, we will use a model that takes into account the outside temperature and
compare the calculated output to the actual PV produced in 2009 in order to validate the
model. The power output (P
out
) can be estimated by the following relation
[13]
:
)] 25 ( 0045 . 0 1 [ I A =
c
ref
T out
T P q
5.35
where,
ref
T
q
= 0.14,
A: module/panel area m
2
,
T
c
: cell operating temperature (
o
C).

and,
) 20 (
800
+ =
NCOT ambient c
T
I
T T
5.36

where,
T
NOCT
is the nominal operating cell temperature (
o
C),
T
ambient
is the ambient temperature (
o
C) = 43C
[14]

5. SIMULATION
62

Figure 5.55: PV power model.

The overall efficiency of each system was calculated from the manufacturers guides and by
comparing the output to the actual produced power that is measured in Eichhof, as listed in
the following table:
Table 5.8: Overall efficiency for PV systems.
System Overall efficiency
PV1a 0,112
PV1b 0,133
PV2 0,113
PV3 0,137

The output power throughout 2009 is shown in the following figures and also compared to the
actual produced in some days for two of the systems.
5. SIMULATION
63

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 5.56: Power output from PV systems in 2009, (a) PV1a, (b) PV1b, (c) PV2, (d) PV3.

(a)

(b)
Figure 5.57: Actual measured PV output (black) compared to the calculated output for (a) three days in
2009 for PV1b (b) four days in 2009 for PV2.

5. SIMULATION
64

The variation between actual and calculated PV output as seen Figure 5.57 is expected
because the measuring station for the solar radiation is not exactly in the position of the PV
panels and any cloud in the sky or any other small variation reasons will affect the output.
This however is acceptable for the purposes of our model where the calculated power is close
and accurate enough to represent the performance of the system.
The total output from the entire PV system is shown in the figure below.

Figure 5.58: Total PV power output in 2009.

5. SIMULATION
65

5.3. System Analysis

As clarified throughout the previous chapters, there are currently three sources of electrical
energy: PV, biogas and from the electrical grid and two sources of thermal energy: biogas and
natural gas.
5.3.1. Demand side analysis
5.3.1.1. Electrical demand
The first step of an energy system analysis and evaluation is to carry out a simple energy
demand analysis so as to understand the electrical consumption to be supplied.
The load profile over 2009 is shown below and it follows approximately the same trend when
compared to the consumption of 2007 and 2008, this makes it more accurate and simple to
reflect the findings on the future.

Figure 5.59: Load profile.

From the load profile we can notice that electrical energy system should be able to handle a
peak load of around 190 kW and evidently with a fluctuating load changing according to the
season and throughout the day. The maximum load however is as seen occurring at one
moment throughout the year and the following peak is around 170 kW, this implies, from the
first glimpse, that demand side management could reduce the peak and consequently could
reduce the required producers capacity.
5. SIMULATION
66

Demand side management studies and measures are being continuously conducted as
explained in chapter two and the importance of such measures will be further solidified in the
remaining of this chapter. The electrical system of Eichhof is connected through four 3-phase
transmission lines. A concise load and power production plan is shown in the following
figure.

Figure 5.60: Simplified electrical infrastructure at Eichhof showing production and consumption loads.

5.3.1.2. Heat demand
Records of heat consumption in 2009 were not accessible; however biogas and natural gas
consumption in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and partly in 2009 were available and were
used as a reference to estimate the consumption in 2009 through simple relationships between
outside temperature and gas consumption similar to the relations deduces in Figure 5.33 and
depending on the nominal heating capacity of heaters, burners and heat exchangers. The
maximum heat consumption (heat demand) was in the first part of the simulation, it includes
natural gas burners and heaters, the biogas/natural gas burner, the heat exchanger heater. The
resulting heat demand is shown in the figure below.

Figure 5.61: Estimated heat demand for 2009.
5. SIMULATION
67

5.3.2. Current status

Figure 5.62: Energy system analysis block.

Bearing in mind that the long-term goal in Eichhof is to realize a 100% renewable energy
system that utilizes the available potential, we start by evaluating the performance of the
current status of the electrical energy system measuring the penetration rate of renewables in
both the electrical and thermal energy systems.

Figure 5.63: Inside energy analysis block.

5. SIMULATION
68

5.3.2.1. Penetration level
- Electricity
The penetration of electricity produced from PV, micro-biogas turbine and biogas engine can
be calculated every 15 minutes and in total for the whole year. This is simply done by
dividing the power produced by all of the units over the load at the time, and by dividing the
total production over the load over the whole year as done in the penetration block which is
shown in Figure 5.64.

Figure 5.64: Penetration level calculations.

We begin with examining the 15-minutes penetration percentage; the results are highly
fluctuating ranging from 0.016 to 900 (1% and 80000%) the high values occur only at two
times and it is cause by very low consumption at the time (146.2 kW produced power and
0.16 load at this case), however such high values occurred only few times due to this match of
very low load with high production and most values fall in the region between 0.01 to 5 and
therefore the very high values will be left out of Figure 5.65 which shows how the penetration
level changes with time in order to have a clearer picture of the fluctuation around a
penetration of 100% .

Figure 5.65: Penetration level of electrical power from RE resources throughout the year 2009.

5. SIMULATION
69

The penetration level calculations demonstrate that the availability of power produced from
RE sources is highly fluctuation and does not at all match the load profile resulting in excess
of energy at times and shortage in many other times. To complete the picture we examine
now the yearly penetration which was already shown in Figure 5.64.
Surprisingly the value of penetration was 1.011 (101.1%). This value gives a very positive
indication that with only renewable energy sources the electrical consumption of Eichhof
center can be completely achieved.
We need to keep in mind however that this number was based on calculations and is variable
depending on the solar and bio resources available at that year and on the changing load
profile and therefore a higher value of penetration level could ensure a complete dependency
on renewable energy resources, this can be achieved by increasing the total production by
either adding more PV panels or increasing the amount of substrate fed to the fermenter or by
applying demand side management measures.
- Heat
The penetration level of heat produced from renewable energy resources is then calculated in
the same manner as done for the electrical value. The situation however for the heat
consumption is different because there are several natural gas consumers on the site that do
not rely on renewables. This is expected to lower the penetration level. The penetration level
including all heat consumers is shown in Figure 5.66.

Figure 5.66: Penetration rate for heat produced from RE resources throughout 2009.

It is apparent that the penetration levels are much lower than the electrical values and reach a
minimum value of 0.044. The penetration rate for the complete year was found to be 0.178
(17.86%). This value implies that the heat produced in Eichhof from renewable energies is at
this moment far from the actual consumption.
More intensive demand side management measures, adjustments to the burners and heaters to
be suitable for biogas usage and new sources of heat should be sought in order to achieve a
5. SIMULATION
70

higher level of penetration. The main consumers of heat are the laboratories (57%) and the
castle (24%).
Nevertheless, in order to properly evaluate the current situation we need to examine the
penetration of renewable energies in the heat consumer designed for renewables which are
here the natural gas burner, the fermenter heat exchanger and the hot water produced from the
micro-gas turbine. After repeating the previous procedure while excluding the natural gas
burners; the penetration level rises to a high value of 1.4 (141.7%).
5.3.2.2. Correlation coefficient
The correlation coefficient is briefly used to understand the relations between the load profile
and production profile. The correlation coefficient is a statistical tool that quantifies the
similarities of two time series and it has a value between -1 and 1 where 1 means a complete
positive (increasing) linear correlation (relation), -1 means a complete negative (decreasing)
linear correlation and 0 indicates that there is no correlation between the two sets of data.
More details about how the calculations were made are found in Appendix D.
The correlation coefficient is an important tool that can be investigated more in depth
however it will be considered as just an indication in this work.
- Electricity
The value of the correlation coefficient was fond to be 0.0324 for the current situation in
Eichhof. This shows that there is almost no relationship between production and consumption
and that electricity from renewable energies does not have and similarity to how the
consumption is.
The production profile versus load profile in the year 2009 is shown in the following figure
whilst magnifying four random days as samples to better inspect the curves.
Figure 5.67 supports the conclusion that the correlation coefficient gave, that there is no
relation between production and consumption and the electricity is being produced randomly
regardless of the consumption at the given time.
The four samples showed four different cases of supply-demand relationships. In case number
(1) the 147
th
day of the year (27
th
of May) shows a situation where the production fits the load
curve to a good degree, both on the quantity and pattern levels. The second case (occurring on
the 15
th
of December) shows a summer day with a lower consumption than case (1) but a
lower correlation between the two curves.
Cases number (3) (10
th
of January) and (4) (17
th
of August) show the opposite scenarios of
relatively higher load as in case (3) to excess in production as in case (4). The fourth case also
shows almost completely negative correlations, where the production behaves in an opposite
manner to the load.

5. SIMULATION
71

Figure 5.67: Load profile versus production profile in 2009.

- Heat
Such analysis cannot be performed over the heat demand of Eichhof because heat cannot be
easily accurately measured at desired time intervals for supply and demand and therefore the
correlation coefficient will not be calculated. However similar analysis like the one made in
Figure 5.67 can be done to compare the heat consumption of the fermenter and the heat
produced from the CHP unit.
Figure 5.68 shows that similar to the case in electricity there is no relation between the heat
demand of the fermenter and the generated heat from the CHP unit. Only in few days of the
year the two values do match.
Zooming into four weeks of the year we see the differences more clearly, it is apparent in
winter at the beginning of the year that there is a large shortage which is substituted by using
5. SIMULATION
72

natural gas heaters. The same is noticed in the following winter at the end of the year (days
350 to 365).
Between April and October a slightly better correlation is observed. The reason for that is that
the demand is lower in summer than in winter and has nothing to do with the generated heat.

Figure 5.68: Heat produced from CHP versus heat consumed for fermenter heating.

5.3.2.3. PV to biogas ratio
The PV participation in the electrical power production is calculated and found to equal
34.3% in the year 2009.

5. SIMULATION
73

5.3.2.4. Biogas availability
The biogas availability (biogas out of the storage / biogas needed) fluctuates from 0.34 to 1
throughout 2009. For the whole year it is found to equal 0.76 (76.33%). Figure shows how
this availability changes throughout the year.

Figure 5.69: Biogas availability in 2009.

5. SIMULATION
74

5.4. Proposed Future Scenario

Figure 5.70: Future scenario block.

After examining the current electrical and thermal energy situation in Eichhof we can present
a future plan for the energy production. Since a high electrical penetration level and a low
heat penetration level was found, the basis of the future scenario model will be to deploy the
electrical production capabilities of the system in order to achieve the highest possible
coverage of the load, with 100 % renewable energy sources for electricity production if
possible.
To begin with, the following assumptions and considerations are made in order to guide the
procedure and specify the target of the scenario to be proposed:
1. The PV power output will be considered unchanged in the proposed scenario in order
to focus on exploring the potential of the biogas components. There is always room for
further improvement through increasing the number of PV panels, adjusting the slope
and declination angles or using higher efficiency technologies.
5. SIMULATION
75

2. Fermentation process failure, deficiencies in the PV or biogas systems or any other
externally caused phenomenon will not be taken in consideration, based on the
assumption that the processes are efficiently controlled and devices are monitored and
periodically maintained.
3. The thermal energy output will be taken in a secondary level for decision making in
the strategy for controlling the system in the case of CHP heat output. However, for
the burner and turbine heat output, it will be dealt with throughout addressing the
changes on the thermal output that were caused by the changes in input parameters.
4. Any additions or improvements will be provoked and taken from the system itself, the
reason for that is to be able to discover the potential of the current configurations and
their ability to reach the goal with moderate modifications. Other renewable energy
sources could be suggested at other phases of the project such as small wind turbines.
5. The control strategy governing the biogas withdrawal from the storage into the
electrical devices is assumed to be available and fits the intended purposes. The
comprehensive and dynamic controller design is however not addressed and is out of
the scope of the study

The next step is to determine whether the electrical generators are able to cover the peak load
when operating at their highest capacity or not. By looking at the load profile (Figure 5.59)
we can instantly realize that the system can cover around 36% of the peak even at full
capacity. This is done by comparing the peak load (190 kW) with the summation of nominal
capacities of biogas electrical generators (CHP and turbine) and the PV output at that day (28
kW +30 kW + 12 kW = 158 kW) this means that in order to fulfill this peak, new electricity
generators should be added. Consequently, two additional CHP unit and micro-gas turbine
will be added to the system, which means there will be three engines and three turbines
operating for electricity production. The new device will have the same characteristics as the
old ones and therefore the nominal capacity will be simply multiplied by two in the
simulation. At the peak load day, this alteration makes the maximum possible production at
the day of the peak equal 186 kW. Thus the system is able to cover 97 % of the peak load
when needed.
Additional alterations in order to make the system suitable for the demand are storage devices
for the electrical and heat excess energy. Electrical storage for the biogas system is naturally
not needed because there will be theoretically no excess or lack of energy.
The following step is to evaluate the potential of the PV system. The evaluation is done based
the goal of reducing the PV storage size, accordingly, Whenever there is consumption and
there is day light, whatever electricity produced from the PV system will be directly sent to
the connected loads. Excess electricity is stored in a battery and when the produced electricity
is not sufficient biogas is used to produce the remaining demand.
5. SIMULATION
76

In order to do this assessment, the residual load (difference between production and
consumption) for the PV production will be calculated. Figure 5.71 shows the block for the
residual load calculations.

Figure 5.71: PV residual load calculations block.

Positive residual load mean excess energy and is then sent to the battery for sizing purposes.
The negative residual load means the PV output is out sufficient, this is communicated to the
biogas control system and consequently the production of electricity from the biogas system
should cover this negative residual load, in addition to using the energy stored in the battery if
needed. The PV residual load is shown below.

Figure 5.72: Residual load from PV produced electricity.

5. SIMULATION
77

As seen in Figure 5.72, most of the residual values are negative indicating that the PV load
cannot provide enough electricity at most times of the year. Moreover the residual load values
are far-away from zero in both positive and negative direction for most of the time. This
means that either there is too much or too less energy produced.
The positive residual load equals the excess energy and thus the quantity of surplus power is
sent to the battery block to calculate for battery sizing. The negative residual load is used to
calculate the needed power to cover this load. The resulting m
3
/day biogas needed is the sent
to the biogas storage and distribution blocks and continue the loop. This process is done in as
shown in the following figure.

5.4.1. Battery model
[15]

Battery storage is sized to meet the load demand during non-availability periods of renewable
energy source, commonly referred to as days of autonomy. Normally the number of days of
autonomy is taken to be 2 or 3 days. The main purpose for adding the battery to the system is
in order to store the excess power from the PV system and using this energy when the biogas
storage is empty or in the case of emergencies.
Battery sizing depends on factors such as maximum depth of discharge, temperature
correction, rated battery capacity and battery life. The total capacity of the battery bank (C
B
)
that is to be employed to meet the produced power is determined using the following
expression (model shown in Figure 5.73):
cf B
s L
B
T DOD V
D E
C
max
.
=
5.37
where,
E
L
is the battery load in Wh,
D
s
is the battery autonomy or storage days,
V
B
is the battery bank voltage in Volt,
DOD
max
is the maximum battery depth of discharge,
T
cf
is the temperature correction factor.

Figure 5.73: Battery model.
5. SIMULATION
78

With the battery back voltage equalling 12 V, a maximum battery depth of discharge of 0.65
and temperature correction factor of 0.9, required battery capacity is found to be 33.2 Ah.
The stored energy is used when there is a lack in energy, state of charge and discharge and
detailed battery modelling are not taken into consideration. The stored energy is simply
accumulated when not needed and withdrawn in the case of shortage. This is done as shown
in the following figure.

Figure 5.74: Battery utilization block.

5.4.2. Biogas control strategy
The biogas control strategy was based on several trials and runs of the simulation testing more
than an option.
The first option was to control the biogas withdrawal from the biogas storage tank without
taking the energy consumption for heating the fermenter. This means that the heat generated
from the CHP unit should be stored in order to meet the fermenter demand. If the option is to
be applied, at least 40 days of thermal storage are needed in order to ensure that heat demand
is met at all times. This is calculated by summing the entire heat generated in intervals of 1,
10, 20 and 40 days and the corresponding consumption and comparing them until the
generation is more or equal to the consumption at all times. The simple procedure is shown in
the following figure and is repeated for all the specified time intervals.

Figure 5.75: Number of days for heat storage calculations sample.

5. SIMULATION
79

Therefore it is neither practical nor feasible to consider this option with such large thermal
storage requirements. The other option is to put the fermenter heating requirements into
consideration in the control strategy as explained hereinafter.
The negative residual load from the PV production is used as load for the biogas units. The
required biogas volumetric flow rate needed to suffice the load is calculated with the
fermenter heat requirements in mind. Since the CHP unit should generate heat enough for the
requirements of the fermenter heating. We should make sure first that the required heat is
produce then what is left of the load is divided between the CHP and the turbine by using the
same relations used in the first loop of the model. The logical strategy flow diagram for
control is illustrated below.

Figure 5.76: Biogas control strategy flow diagram.

It is important to note that the signals sent to the CHP or the turbine can be positive, negative
or zero. Positive signals represent the actual needed biogas flow rate; negative signals mean
that an excess energy would be produced when the engine or turbine is started; this is the
result of adding the fermenter requirements to the CHP load, if the addition makes the total
output at that specific time larger than the total load system, it will result in negative values
after subtracting it from the turbine. Therefore negative and zero value means shutting down
the engine at these times.
5. SIMULATION
80

Figure 5.77: Needed biogas calculations after applying the control strategy.

The CHP thermal output after applying the control strategy is also analyzed in order to
determine whether thermal storage is needed also in this case and for how many days. It is
found that almost no thermal storage is needed under this control scheme and that one day
emergency heat storage should be sufficient.
The biogas continues through the distribution unit where the priority is given to the micro-gas
turbine and the CHP unit needs. The remaining biogas goes to the burner.

5.4.3. Substrate management
As mentioned earlier, the biogas output can be controlled in two methods; by controlling the
withdrawal of the biogas storage or by controlling the amount of biogas to be produced in the
first place. The control of the biogas produced prevents excess biogas production and
shortage. Without such measurements high shortage is experienced in winter and higher
excess in summer. When entering a constant volume of biogas to the storage (the actual
average value which equals 720 m
3
/day) resulting in almost 5 10
5
m
3
needed biogas storage.
5. SIMULATION
81

This means deciding 40 70 days ahead how much substrate should be fed into the fermenter
to produce the required amount of biogas. This however is not realistic to manage on hourly,
daily or even weekly basis; therefore, an average value of the required biogas volumetric
inflow (m
3
/day) is calculated as done in Figure 5.78. The calculated monthly averages of
biogas are the new input for into the storage block instead of the actual biogas production rate.

Figure 5.78: Calculating monthly average needed biogas (for January here).

5.4.4. Results
The simulation is run for a second loop after applying the previous changes. The main results
are explained below.
The first change can be seen in the biogas output of the fermenter, which is fed into the
storage and compared to the needed biogas. The resulting time series of the three values is
shown in the following figure.
The biogas inflow to the storage is apparently higher in winter and decreases as it gets
warmer. The needed substrate to produce such average for each month is out of the scope of
this research and can be approximated in future work. Nevertheless the figure shows that a the
biogas needed is available for most of the year (98%)

Figure 5.79: Comparison between inflow and outflow and needed biogas for the future case scenario.

An important observation is that the peak biogas demand (corresponding to the peak load) is
not achieved, as seen in Figure 5.79.
5. SIMULATION
82

The volume of storage capable of handling the system is found to equal 5000 m
3
. With such
volume the previous availability was achieved. The volume of the storage occupied by biogas
throughout the year is shown in the following figure.

Figure 5.80: Storage volume occupied by biogas in the future case scenario.

5.4.4.1. Correlation
After going through the rest of the stages, the power produced which includes electricity
produced from the biogas units and the from the PV panels excluding the energy stored in
batteries is calculated and compared to the load. An analysis similar to the one carried out for
the current scenario which was made in Figure 5.67 is done, the same days are used for
comparison.
It is clearly noticed that the power produced is in almost perfect positive correlation with the
load. The three other main observations are; firstly at most times the production is slightly
lower than the consumption, secondly at other times the production is relatively much higher
than the load, finally that the peak load is now partially covered unlike it was with the biogas
withdrawal from the storage.
The first observation is expected due to the large number of variables, iterations and
operations that take place to calculate the load. This difference could be higher or lower in
real life due to more reasons. The second observation is caused by the addition of the
fermenter heat demand to the control scheme of the biogas units, resulting in higher power
production in sometimes to satisfy the heater demand.
The third observation is obviously caused by the addition of the PV output to the biogas one.
The peak load however is yet not completely covered.

5. SIMULATION
83

Figure 5.81: Production profile versus load profile in the future case scenario (excluding batteries).

A comparison between the fermenter heating demand and the thermal energy generated from
the CHP unit is shown in the following figure. The fermenter demand is met at all times,
excess heat however is produced as expected.

Figure 5.82: Fermenter heat demand versus CHP heat generation in the future case scenario.
5. SIMULATION
84

After adding the electricity that was saved in the battery bank in to the whole picture, we get
the following.

Figure 5.83: Load profile versus power production with battery usage in the future case scenario.

We notice that the peak is now completely covered after the usage of the energy stored in the
battery. The small left uncovered part of the load can be simply covered by adding a PV panel
or increasing the biogas storage.
The correlation coefficient for the proposed future scenario jumped to a high value of 0.9515.

5.4.4.2. Biogas availability
The biogas availability also increased highly after controlling the input to the storage and the
needed biogas. The availability is 100% for most of the year with few drops that reach 0.3 in
some days of the year (figure). The availability is 0.98 (97.84%) for the whole year.

Figure 5.84: biogas availability in the proposed future scenario.
6. STUDY CASE: HAMMOUDEH DAIRY FARM IN JORDAN
85

6. CASE STUDY: HAMMOUDEH DAIRY FARM IN JORDAN

The last part of this thesis investigates the feasibility of the previously explained hybrid
system in Jordan. For this purpose the developed model will be used after making some
changes to fit the new inputs and then some economical indicators will be calculated to
determine whether it would be feasible or not.
Changes to the model will take place primarily because of the lack of detailed data due to the
fact that no hourly measurements are available; consequently, all calculations are done in
reference to one year. Also, some units are omitted from the model such as the biogas and
natural gas burners because there is no natural gas grid in Jordan, the heat generated will be
calculated none the less.
6.1. Site Description

The site chosen for this study is Hammoudeh Food Industries Company including its dairy
farm and dairy plant.
Hammoudeh Food Industries Company depends primarily on fresh milk, sourced from its
own farm, in the production of a wide range of dairy products. The factory is located in Marka
district of the capital Amman.
The Hammoudeh dairy farm is located in Al-Khaldieh in the Al-Mafraq city (see Table 6.1)
and is considered one of the largest farms in Jordan, with a herd of 3000 Holstein dairy cows.
Table 6.1: Location of Hammoudeh dairy farm.
Longitude 3617'22"E
Latitude 329'58"N

The farm utilizes the latest technology and machinery during all stages of milk production and
in feeding systems, in addition to animal care and monitoring systems. It also uses a computer
controlled, fully automated milking parlor. This causes a high electrical demand.
This farm is considered as an optimum location for a hybrid renewable energy project based
on PV and biogas because of the availability of both. Photos from the farm and the plant are
shown in Figure 6.1.
86

(a)

(b)
Figure 6.1:Hammoudeh Food Industries Company's (a) dairy farm (b) dairy plant.

The yearly electrical consumption reaches 4,000,000 kWh per year as reported by
Hammoudeh dairy plant.
6.2. Input Parameters

6.2.1. Biogas
The properties of the biogas substrate which is only dairy manure in this case study are as
reported by Hammoudeh as shown in the following table.

Table 6.2: Properties of dairy manure.
Property Value
Amount 14600 m
3
/yr (40 m
3
/day)
Moisture 23.9 %
Organic matter 31.8 %
Ash 44.3 %
C/N 12:1
Density 900 kg/m
3

The moisture content of the dairy excreta is very high and needs high dilution in order to be
pumped and digested. The goal is to get a TS value of 15% maximum which means the
moisture content should be increased to at least 75% (25% TS).
87

total
dry total
m
m m
moistsure

= 6.1
For 40 m
3
of manure: kg
m
kg
m V 36000 900 40
3
3
= = , of which 23.9% is water, thus;
m
water
= 8604 kg and m
manure
= 27396 kg
In order to increase the moisture content to 75% we need to add 73656 kg water, thus adding
a volume of almost 73.65 m
3
/day water. Making the new volume of manure = 113,656 m
3
/day
(2.84 times the original volume) with a density of 967.17 kg/m
3
.
The volatile solids value (organic matter) was 31.8% which equals 11448 kg/day. This mass
would make 10.41% of the new diluted manure mass.
The parameters needed for kinetic modeling and other design parameters are presented in
Table 6.3. The volume of the fermenter must be larger than 4800 m
3
in order to ensure a
minimum retention time of 40 days. The retention time might of course change if the inflow
rate is changed. Therefore, the existing value of 600 m
3
of fermenter volume is changed to
match the new settings.

Table 6.3: Simulation results for the Jordan study case.
Parameter Value
TS
15 %
VS
10.41%
S
t

102 kg/m
3

K
101.3

42 days
m
0.365 day
-1

V
f
(minimum)
4800 m
3
T
f

38 C 2 C

Hammoudeh group has other projects also with more organic waste such as the poultry
industry which produces large amounts of poultry that presents another option for substrates
that can be more investigated in the future because poultry manure has a low C/N ratio which
is 7:1 and therefore requires pretreatment stages, the amount of poultry waste is currently 50
m
3
/day.

88

6.2.2. PV
The solar radiation data were taken from the SoDa database
[29]
and temperature hourly data
were provided by National Center for Research & Development Energy Research Program
(NERC)
[30]
, in Jordan. Changes of both throughout the year 2005 are shown in the following
figures.

Figure 6.2: Global solar radiation in Mafraq.

Comparing the global solar radiation annual profile of the location in Jordan and the global
radiation profile of Eichhof, it is noticed that in both sites, a maximum global normal
radiation of about 1000 kW/m
2
is reached, the difference however stems from the consistency
of the profile. Taking the average irradiance (daily, weekly or monthly) for each of the
location would show the difference more clearly.
Such high and intense solar potential can be greatly utilized by providing a flexible base load
and minimizing the battery size.
The temperature profile throughout the year is shown in the following figure. The temperature
is considered moderate for more a large part of the year which reduces the heating
requirements of the system.

Figure 6.3: Temperature profile throughout 2008 in Mafraq.

89

6.3. Simulation

6.3.1. System design
In order to adopt the simulation to the new settings and conditions, few changes are made. As
explained earlier, the size of the fermenter is adjusted in order to handle the daily inflow of
biogas and still can keep the substrates for a reasonable retention time. Hence, dimensions of
the fermenter are modified.
In a moderately warm region, the fermenter heating system needs to be adapted to the new
environmental conditions. As seen from Figure 6.3, the temperature does not exceed 40
o
C
and is not expected to in the future, therefore cooling is not needed. Nonetheless, at the hours
when temperature is between 36 C and 40 C (the desirable temperature of the fermenter),
the heating system should be turned off, and in order not to raise the temperature of the
fermenter than the desired value, the heating water pumps must be shutdown. The fermenter
model is adjusted to realize this criterion by adding an if-condition block to run only if the
temperature is out of the range specified earlier.
Finally, in order to evaluate the full potential of the system, one biogas consumer is
considered, the micro-gas turbine. The micro-gas turbine has a higher efficiency than the
engine used in the CHP unit in Eichhof and it depends on temperature in its efficiency which
gives more realistic results. Also, the needed biogas volume is not calculated because the
nominal capacity (or number of turbines) is unknown yet. Thus, all produced biogas is
directly entered to the turbine and the output power will accordingly determine the required
turbine size.
Since the produced biogas goes directly to the turbine, the storage and distribution model are
removed. If a time series of electrical consumption is available, a controlled biogas system
can be suggested and the storage needed can be then calculated.
The PV system will be left out without changes in order to study the effect of orientation and
tilt on the output energy and in order to assess how much PV is actually needed to supply the
required load, therefore, the sizing of the PV system will be done after calculating the
penetration level of the current arrangements.
The design is made for a grid-connected system, the reason for that is that there is no
information about the hourly electrical consumption of the plant; therefore, unless the price of
kWh of electricity is much lower than the purchased price, there will be no economical
benefit to make the system off-grid.
An economical block is also added for feasibility analysis. The operations and calculations in
this block will be discussed in more details next.
The adjusted model is shown in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4: Hybrid system model for Hammoudeh dairy farm and plant in Jordan.
91

6.3.2. Results
The most significant results after running the simulation over a period of one year are
summarized in the following table.
Table 6.4: Simulation results over one year for the Jordan study case (scenario one: more biogas).
Parameter Value Unit
Daily biogas production 1276.5 m
3
/day
Total biogas produced 4.659 10
5
m
3
/year
Maximum turbine electrical power output 82 kW
el
Maximum turbine thermal output 154 kW
th
Maximum PV power output 109.7 kW
Peak of supply 188.4 kW
Total electrical energy production 905

MWh
Total thermal energy generation 1350 MWh
Penetration level of RE 22.64 %
PV share (in total) 35.09 %

We can see that the penetration level of both biogas and PV compared to the load is only
22.64%. This means that in order to fulfill the load, more production is required. There are
two options available, adding more PV panels or treating the poultry manure that was
mentioned earlier and using it as biogas substrate. Since high PV potential is available and the
poultry manure needs pretreatment and is in another location, requiring transportation, more
PV will be added to substitute the shortage. Nonetheless, Hammoudeh groups showed a high
interest in utilizing the poultry manure for biogas production, therefore it can be considered as
a future expansion step and add to the attractiveness of the project.
In order to raise the penetration level to higher than 100% we need to increase the PV
installed capacity to 15 times more than the previous value. This of course, represents the
extreme ideal scenario where the entire load is provided by renewable energy resources; in the
economical analysis both scenarios will be represented.
After making the changes we get the following results.
Table 6.5: Simulation results over one year for the Jordan study case (scenario two: more PV).
Parameter Value Unit
Daily biogas production 1276.5 m
3
/day
Total biogas produced 4.659 10
5
m
3
/year
Maximum turbine electrical power output 82 kW
el
Maximum turbine thermal output 154 kW
th
Maximum PV power output 1645 kW
Peak of supply 1724 kW
Total electrical energy production 4.2

GWh
Total thermal energy generation 1350 MWh
Penetration level of RE 105 %
Biogas share (in total) 19 %

92

The electrical output of the micro-gas turbine depends on the outside temperature which
reaches values higher than 15 C, and therefore the turbine efficiency decrease. The change in
turbine output is shown in the following figure.

Figure 6.5: Micro-gas turbine power output changes throughout the year.

The nominal power of the micro-gas turbine can be taken as the maximum power output of 82
kW
el
. This value however changes radically if the withdrawal of biogas from the storage is
controlled.
The direct radiation falling on each PV configuration is shown in the following figure. The
systems are abbreviated in the same manner as before.

Figure 6.6: Solar radiation absorbed by the PV systems in its four configurations.

The much higher radiation that the tracking system catches in summer is apparent in Figure
6.6. The next best configuration is a tilt of 30 and orientation of 5.
93

The following figure shows the power output from the PV system after increasing it 15 times.

Figure 6.7: PV system power output.

Adding this power to the one produced from the micro-gas turbine we get a peak of 1.7 MW
that the hybrid system can meet without any control of the biogas part.
For this ideal case, an area of 14,200 m
2
(0.014 km
2
) is required, which is a reasonable area
to install in the region of the dairy farm as seen from the satellite image shown in Figure 6.8.
The total are of the farm is 1.28 km
2
approximately, with a large unused space.

Figure 6.8: Satellite image of Hammoudeh dairy farm.
94

6.4. Economical Analysis

As mentioned earlier, two scenarios will be investigated, scenario one having more biogas and
scenario two having more PV. Nonetheless, the results for the second scenario will be
represented in the economical analysis. Since, as shown earlier, it is the ideal or extreme
scenario of 100% renewable energy penetration. There are several economical indicators for
hybrid energy systems, which can help in assessing its feasibility. Some of them are
determined and described briefly in this section.
The main factors that govern the feasibility of this project are:
- Capital cost including the entire biogas plant, the PV installations and micro-gas
turbine.
- Materials which only include water for substrate dilution.
- Operating costs
- The changes that the new system brings which include: buying manure or fertilizers
for the farm's needs.

6.4.1. Total investment
The total investment of the project is calculated in block installed cost in the model which is
shown in the following figure. All values are converted to Jordanian Dinars (JD) at the end of
each step.

Figure 6.9: Total investment calculations.
95

Biogas plant
The manure in Hammoudeh dairy plant is already collected and does not require further
pretreatment. The capital costs of the plant were estimated in reference to the actual costs for
building the biogas plant in Eichhof and on values mentioned in the literature.
[2]

That capital cost includes mainly the following equipment among others:
1. Fermenter tank, including: reinforced concrete tanks, reactor base, thermal insulation,
leak detection, man hole, agitator, pipes and sample valves and measurement devices
for temperature and pressure.
2. Fermenter heating system, including: heating pipes, heating distribution outlets,
pumps and flow meters.
3. Substrate management, including: substrate storage tank, pumps and inlet lines.
4. System control, including required devices and software.
5. Installation and commissioning of the system.
These costs are summed in one factor that depends on the size of the plant represented by the
volume of the fermenter. This factor is equal 200 /m
3
. With the volume of around 4700 m
3
,
the capital cost of the biogas plant equals 950,000 . This value is to be converted to JD later
on.
Micro-gas turbine
The investment cost of the micro-gas turbine depends on its nominal capacity. Including the
heat exchanger and the other attachments, a factor of 550 /kW
[2]
can be used for the cost
calculations. For an 85 kW
el
micro-gas turbine, the capital cost equals 46,750 .
Added to with the biogas plant capital cost, the total biogas system capital would equal
934,000 JD.
PV system
Retail solar price indices
[18]
for the module, the inverter and the battery were used to
determine the installed cost of the PV system. The following table summarizes the price
indices for the three components in January, 2012.
Table 6.6: PV system pricing indices.
Unit Pricing
Module (/W
p
) 2.31
Inverter (/continuous Watt) 0.548
Battery (/output Wh) 0.164

96

Since the time series of the electrical consumption and the system is grid connected, the size
of the battery will be taken as the previously calculated size for Eichhof 33 Ah multiplied
by the voltage (12 V) and by 15 times for the increment in PV size, we get a value of around
5100 Wh.
The maximum continuous Watt for inverter should be about 10% higher than the PV array
size to allow safe and efficient operation of PV power system.
[19]
Thus we get,
JD 4,470,000
4,792,062
kW
164 . 0 100 5
kW
548 . 0 kW 5 . 809 1
W
2.31 kW 645 1 CC
PV
=
=
+ + =

where,
CC
PV
is the capital cost of the entire PV system

The total investment for the entire project is 5,405,000 JD.

6.4.2. Annual costs
The annual costs include the operating costs of the biogas plant and the PV system. Those are
taken as factors from the capital cost and are summarized in the table below.
Table 6.7: Factors for annual costs calculations.
Costs related to Factor
PV Operating and maintenance 0.01
Biogas
Buildings 0.01
Technical 0.02

The annual costs for operating the biogas plant also include the price of water that is used for
dilution. The price of a meter cube of water for industrial uses in Jordan is around 1.8 JD/m
3
.
This makes the summation of water costs in one year equal 48,300 JD.
6.4.3. Annual revenue
According to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency law in Jordan, issued in 2010
[20]
,
any person or institute can produce electricity from renewable energy resources and sell the
energy through a contract with the government. Thus, yearly produced energy can be sold to
the grid and bring income to the owner. The maximum price at which the electricity is bought
from the grid for industrial consumers equals (0.046 JD/ kWh). To know whether it is feasible
to sell the electricity at this price, several cases will be studied; the first case by assuming that
97

the electricity price is at least equal to the upper limit price at which the electricity is bought,
following cases with higher price for selling electricity. The calculations are shown in Figure
6.10 among other annuity calculations for the project.
6.4.4. Extra costs
The manure that is used as substrate is currently used in the farms of Hammoudeh for
fertilization. A large part of the fertilizers must be bought to substitute the volume that is used
for biogas production. The fermentation by-product can be used for fertilization as well but
would not be enough. Price for a meter cube of manure in Jordan is around 4 JD/m
3
.
Calculations are shown in Figure 6.10.

Figure 6.10: Annual costs and revenues.

6.4.5. Levelized cost of energy (LCE)
The levelized cost of energy can be defined as the price per kWh (or MWh) at which
electricity must be generated causing the investment to just break even. Typically, LCEs are
calculated over 20 to 40 year life. It is a methodology used as a tool to assess the cost-
effectiveness of energy production technologies and compare between them. LCE can be
calculated using the following expression:
98

tot
E
TAC
LCE =
6.2
where,
LCE is the levelized cost of energy (/kWh),
TAC is the total annualized cost (),
and E
tot
is the annual total energy produced (kWh)

TAC is calculated as following:
AC CRF CC TAC + = 6.3
where,
CC is the capital cost at time =0 (),
AC is the annual cost (/year),
and CRF is the capital recovery factor and it equals:

1 ) 1 (
) 1 (
CRF
+
+
=
n
n
i
i i
6.4
where,
i is the discount rate which will be taken 6% in this study,
n is the number of the years of the project which will be taken as 20 years.
The LCE are made as in the block shown below.

Figure 6.11: Economical analysis block.

The hybrid system (second scenario) has an LCE value of 0.136 JD/kWh (= 0.146 /kWh).
99

6.4.6. Cash flow diagram
Since no feed-in-tariff schemes are established in Jordan until this moment, further
investigation aiming to determine the minimum price to make the project profitable is
required. In this section, the previously explained scenarios are studied through changing the
price at which the electricity is sold to the utility. The summary of each scenario is presented
in Table 6.8.
The total installed capacity was calculated assuming a capacity factor of 25% for PV and 90%
for biogas.
[22]

Table 6.8: suggested scenarios for Hammoudeh plant hybrid system.

Scenario one Scenario two
Dominating renewable energy source Biogas PV
Share of the other source 35% PV 19% biogas
Penetration level of both sources 22.64% 105%
Total investment (JD) 1,232,780 5,404,940
Total installed capacity (MW) 0.22 1.65
LCE (JD/kWh) 0.183 0.136

For each of the two scenarios, the cumulative discounted cash flow diagram is constructed
and the payback period is from the diagram. The return on investment and the rate of return
are also calculated to facilitate the comparison between the different options, the following
relations are used:
% 100
investment total
cost annual - revenue annual
investment total
profit annual
ROR = =
6.5
where,
ROR is the rate of return.

% 100
investment total
life project of end by the profit total
ROI =
6.6
where,
ROI is the return on investment.

The discounted cash flow diagram is shown in Figure 6.12 and the differences between the
two scenarios are very clear from the first glance.

100

Figure 6.12: Discounted cash flow diagram, P: price for selling electricity.

The numerical results for each scenario are presented in Table 6.9and Table 6.10 .
Table 6.9: economical indicators for scenario one: more biogas.
Price of electricity 0.046 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Annual revenue (JD) -74,640 -25,740 64,810 155,400 245,900 336,500
Payback period (years) > 20 > 20 > 20 10 5.5 3.8
Return of investment (%) N/A N/A N/A 53.22 142.56 231.81
Rate of return N/A N/A 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.29

For the first scenario, it is noticed that there is no revenue if the tariff at which the electricity
is sold is less than 0.02 JD/kWh, which means that the cost of producing energy is much
higher than the price of buying it which causes the cumulative cash flow diagram to decrease
with time and never reach zero, as seen in Figure 6.12. Also, it is concluded that in order to
101

get a practical payback period (less than project life), the tariff should be more than 0.02
JD/kWh.

Table 6.10: economical indicators for scenario two: more PV.
Price of electricity 0.046 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Annual revenue (JD) 35,110 261,800 681,600 1,101,000 1,521,000 1,941,000
Payback period (years) > 20 > 20 10 5.5 3.8 2.9
Return of investment (%) N/A N/A 53.32 147.77 242.20 336.73
Rate of return 0.006 0.05 0.13 0.22 0.3 0.38

For the second scenario, the project brings profit even if the electricity is sold at the same
price it is bought (0.046 JD/kWh), the payback period is, however, very long. If we increase
the tariff, the Payback period starts decreasing and it starts reaching a reasonable value when
the tariff is more than 0.01 JD/kWh.
When comparing the two scenarios at the same tariff, the second scenario has a higher return
on investment and rate of return. To be more exact, in order for scenario one to get the same
ROR and ROI values, as scenario two, the tariff should be 0.01 JD/kWh more in each case.
Points 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 6.12, show how each cash flow diagram of scenario one intersects
at cumulative discounted cash flow of zero with the 0.01 JD/kWh lower cash flow diagram of
the second scenario.
The total profit at the end of the project is always much higher for the second scenario. In
other words, selling the electricity to the utility for 0.05 JD/kWh in the first scenario brings a
total profit for the project which equals the profit that the second scenario brings by selling
the electricity for only 0.02 JD/kWh (Point 4 in Figure 6.12).
It can be concluded after examining the two scenarios, that in order for the project to be fairly
feasible, a tariff of more than 0.03 JD/kWh for the first scenario must be agreed on with the
government. For the second scenario, the tariff can decrease to 0.02 JD/kWh, with the same
payback period. The second scenario of 100% renewable energy and more PV share is more
profitable in all cases.

7. CONCLUSIONS
102

7. CONCLUSIONS

The model developed using Simulink was capable of predicting the outcome of the fermenter
using simplified kinetics with a high level of accuracy. The simulation also can calculate the
output of the electrical and thermal devices and of the PV panel and the results are found to
match the actual values on site.
Currently, the electricity produced in Eichhof is sold to the grid and is generated with the no
correlation to the load, with a correlation coefficient as low as 0.03. The penetration level of
renewable energy with respect to the load is calculated; it was found that the electricity
produced from renewable energy resources in one year can cover slightly more than 100% of
the entire electrical consumption of that year. That does not apply to the thermal consumption,
where the main source of heat in Eichhof is found to be natural gas, the thermal penetration
level of RE is currently only 17%. Nevertheless, the thermal energy generated by biogas is
capable of covering the entire yearly heating demand of the fermenter and the other current
biogas consumers. The biogas produced from the fermenter has an availability of only 76%.
This means that almost 25% of the times, biogas is not available upon demand. The Share of
PV is about 35%
In order to determine the capabilities of the system and to what level in can reach, a future
scenario is proposed. The scenario consists of adding a new control strategy that treats biogas
as flexible electricity supplier with the aim of covering the load completely through renewable
energy resources. The biogas cogeneration devices (CHP and micro-gas turbine) are to be
tripled (in nominal capacity) in order to cover the peak load. The peak load occurs only one
time, and the following peak occurs 20 kW lower than the first one, thus demand side
management measures are highly recommended.
Most of the PV output is directly consumed as it is generated and the excess energy is stored
in batteries until needed, the size of the battery bank equals 33 Ah. The control of biogas
system can be accomplished in reference to the either the electrical or thermal demands, or
both. If only the electrical load is considered as a reference while neglecting the fermenter
heating demand, thermal storage for over 40 days would be required. Therefore, it was found
that the best possible control is achieved through considering both electrical and thermal
demand. The control of biogas is done on two levels: controlling the substrate feed to the
fermenter and controlling the biogas withdrawal from the biogas storage tank. A monthly
average of substrate inflow is assumed and biogas output from the fermenter (into the biogas
storage) is controlled to vary from a minimum of 480 m
3
/day in summer to a maximum of
1200 m
3
/day in winter. The biogas availability equals 98% and the required volume for biogas
storage would be 5000 m
3
.
In the proposed scenario, the system is capable of covering 99% of the year's load. The peak
load (190 kW) is completely covered using biogas, PV and electricity stored in the battery
7. CONCLUSIONS
103

(also from PV). The correlation coefficient increases to a high value of 0.952 in the proposed
scenario.
In the case study of Hammoudeh dairy farm and plant in Jordan, the same system as in
Eichhof was able to cover about 22% of the load, with a total investment of 1.2 million JD
and a LCE that equals 0.183 JD/kWh. However, the system was only found feasible if the
electricity is sold to the grid with a tariff higher than 0.03 JD/kWh. The ROR and ROI remain
low and do not anticipate a profitable project.
Increasing the installed capacity, from 0.22 MW to 1.65 MW through adding more PV panels,
showed a much more feasible option for the dairy farm. The project is found to bring profit
even if the electricity is sold at the same tariff it is purchased (0.046 JD/kWh), nonetheless it
would have a very long payback period. The feed-in-tariff should be more than 0.01 JD/kWh
for the project to start being a practical option. If the electricity is sold at 0.02 JD/kWh to the
utility, the ROI would be 53.32% with a ROR of 13%.
To sum up, the hybrid biogas/PV system in Eichhof shows very high prospects with suitable
control systems and biogas is able to provide a flexible supply based on demand. Together,
PV and biogas are able to almost completely cover the load. In Jordan, three factors render the
project feasible: a relatively high installed capacity, a high share of PV and a feed-in-tariff
higher than 0.02 JD/kWh. This, however, only applies to consumers with a very high load and
might not apply to other cases in Jordan.

8. REFERENCES
104

8. REFERENCES

1 Dieter Deublein and Angelika Steinhauser, Biogas from Waste and Renewable
Resources, Wiley-VCH, 2008.
2 Institut fr Energetik und Umwelt gGmbH, Bundesforschungsanstalt fr
Landwirtschaft, Handreichung Biogasgewinnung und nutzung, Glzow, 2006.
3 Y. R. Chen, Kinetic Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion of Pig Manure and its Design
Implications, 1983.
4 D. T. Hill, Simplified Monod Kinetics of Methane Fermentation of Animal Wastes,
1983.
5 Andrew G. Hashimoto and Steven A. Robinson, Pilot-Scale Operation and
Economic Assessment of a Two Stage, Straw-Manure Fermentation System, 1984.
6 Institut fr Energetik und Umwelt gGmbH, Bundesforschungsanstalt fr
Landwirtschaft, Leitfaden Biogas Von der Gewinnung zur Nutzung, Glzow, 2010.
7 B.T Nijaguna, Biogas Technology, 2006
8 Ashrae, Handbook of Fundamentals , American McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
9 P. Axaopoulos, P. Panagakis, A. Tsavdaris and D. Georgakakis, Simulation and
Experimental Performance of a Solar Heated Anaerobic Digester, Solar Energy Vol.
70, No. 2, pg. 155164, 2001.
10 Martin Malenshek, Daniel B. Olsen, Methane number testing of alternative gaseous
fuels, Fuel Vol. 88 (pg650pg656), 2009
11 Dirk Kirchner, Die Wirkung von Speichern auf die Einspeisedynamik aus dem
Biogaspfad, Kassel University, 2008.
12 http://www.hlug.de/popups/luftmessdaten.html, The Hessian Agency for Environment
and Geology, retrieved in January, 2012.
13 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos, On the Temperature Dependence of the Photovoltaic
Module Electrical Performance: A Review of Efficiency/Power Correlation, Solar
Energy Vol. 83, pg. 614-624, 2009.
14 A. Fanney, B. Dougherty, M. Davis, Evaluating Building Integrated Photovoltaic
Performance Models, NIST, 2002.
15 M. Deshmukha, S. Deshmukh, Modeling of hybrid renewable energy systems,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Vol. 12, pg. 235249, 2008.
16 H. Lo, T. Kurniawan, M. Sillanp, T. Pai, C. Chiang, K. Chao, M. Liu, S. Chuang, C.
Banks, S. Wang, K. Lin, C. Lin, W. Liu, P. Cheng, C. Chen, H. Chiu,H. Wu,
Modeling biogas production from organic fraction of MSW co-digested with MSWI
ashes in anaerobic bioreactors, Bioresource Technology Vol. 101, pg 6329-6335,
2010.
17 Pia Mhnert, Kinetik der Biogasproduktion aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen und
Glle, 2007.
18 Retail Price Environment, http://solarbuzz.com, retrieved in January, 2012.
19 A. Chel , G. Tiwari, A. Chandra, Simplified Method of Sizing and Life Cycle Cost
Assessment of Building Integrated Photovoltaic System Energy and Buildings Vol.
41, pg 11721180, 2009.
20 Official newspaper in Jordan, January, 2010
21 R. Luna-Rubio, M. Trejo-Perea, D. Vargas-Vazquez, G.J. Ros-Moreno, Optimal
sizing of renewable hybrids energy systems, Solar Energy, 2011.
8. REFERENCES
105

22 R. Tidball, J. Bluestein, N. Rodriguez, and S. Knoke, Cost and Performance
Assumptions for Modeling Electricity Generation Technologies, NREL, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, 2010.
23 Ajai Gupta, R P Saini, M P Sharma "Computerized modelling of hybrid energy
system Part I: Problem formulation and model development" International
Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, pg 7-12, 2008.
24 Maria Berglund and Pl Brjesson, "Assessment of energy performance in the life-
cycle of biogas production", Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 30, pg 254-266, 2006.
25 Andrew L. Rosenthal, Steven J. Durand, Andrew L. Rosenthal and Steven J. Durand,
"Economics and Performance of PV Hybrid Power Systems: Three Case Studies",
Sandia National Laboratories, 2012.
26 P. Axaopoulos, P. Panagakis, A. Tsavdaris And D. Georgakakis, "Simulation and
Experimental Performance of a Solarheated Anaerobic Digester", Solar Energy Vol.
70, pg. 155164, 2001.
27 S. Diaf, D. Diaf, M. Belhamel, M. Haddadi and A. Louche, "A methodology for
optimal sizing of autonomous hybrid PV/wind system", Energy Policy Vol. 35, pg
5708-5718, 2007.
28 S.M. Shaahid and I. El-Amin, "Techno-economic evaluation of off-grid hybrid
photovoltaicdieselbattery power systems for rural electrification in Saudi Arabia
A way forward for sustainable development", Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews Vol. 13, pg 625-633, 2009.
29 www.soda-is.com, The project SoDa "SoDa. Integration and exploitation of networked
Solar radiation Databases for environment monitoring", retrieved in December, 2011.
30 National Center for Research & Development Energy Research Program (NERC),
Amman, Jordan. Contact person: Eng. Firas Alawneh.

APPENDIX A: GAS BURNERS AND HEATERS
106

APPENDIX A: GAS CONSUMERS

Figure A.1: Natural and biogas consumers, nominal capacity and variable output.
Type Location
Nominal capacity
(kW)
Span of the variable
output (kW)
Burner (BG) Biogas plant 50 60 to 300
Burner Laboratory 400 90 to 680
Burner Laboratory 200 60 to 300
Burner Eichhof castle 200 60 to 300
Radiator
Equipment
stores
10.89 --
Radiator
Equipment
stores
10.89 --
Radiator Stables 10.89 --
Radiator
Residential
building
10.89 --
Water heater
Residential
building
12 8 to 24
Water heater
Residential
building
3 12 10 to 24
Water heater
Residential
building
3 12 10 to 24
Water heater
Residential
building
3 12 10 to 24
Water heater
Residential
building
12 10 to 24
Heating
system
Workshops 46.52 --
Oven Eichhof castle 31 --

APPENDIX B: EQUIPMENTS SPECIFICATIONS
* Source: www.weishaupt.de 107
** Source: www.microturbine.com
APPENDIX B: EQUIPMENTS SPECIFICATIONS

Gas burner: *

Figure B.1: Burner output range. (source: manufacturer)

Micro-gas turbine: **

Figure B.2: Net power and efficiency at ambient temperature. (source: manufacturer)
APPENDIX C: SOLAR RADIATION
* Reference: S. Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering Processes and Systems, Elsevier, 2009. 108

APPENDIX C: SOLAR RADIATION *
C.1 Apparent solar time (AST)

DS LL) 4(SL ET LST AST + = C.3
where,
LST: local standard time,
ET: equation of time,
SL: standard longitude,
LL: local longitude,
DS: daylight saving (either 0 or 60 mins)

The dates of time change in Germany were in 29, March 2009 and 25, October 2009. And
Since the location is east of the standard meridian, the correction is added to the clock time.

1.5sin(B) 7.53cos(B) ) 9.87sin(2B ET + = C.4
and
364
360
81) (N B = C.5
where,
N is the day number
C.2 Solar declination ()

(
+ = ) 284 (
365
360
sin 45 . 23 N o C.6

Figure C.1: Solar declination.

APPENDIX C: SOLAR RADIATION
* Reference: S. Kalogirou, Solar Energy Engineering Processes and Systems, Elsevier, 2009. 109

C.3 Hour angle (h)

15 ) 12 AST ( = h C.7

C.4 Incidence angle ()

) sin( ) sin( ) sin( ) cos(
) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) cos( ) sin( ) cos( ) cos( ) cos( ) cos(
) cos( ) sin( ) sin( ) cos( ) cos( ) sin( ) sin( ) cos(
s
s
s
Z h
Z h L h L
Z L L
| o
| o | o
| o | o u
+
+ +
=
C.8
where,
|
is the surface tilt angle from the horizontal
Z
s
is is the surface azimuth angle, the angle between the normal to the surface from the true
south, westward is designated as positive

C.5 Solar altitude angle ()

) cos( ) cos( ) cos( ) sin( ) sin( ) cos( ) sin( h L L o o | o + = = C.9

APPENDIX D: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
* Reference: Y. Li, V. Agelidis, Wind-Solar Resource Complementarity and its Combined Correlation with
Electricity Load Demand, 2006 110

APPENDIX D: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS *

The correlation coefficient between two sets of data sequences (t,x) and (t,y) is defined as:
) , ( ). , (
) , (
CC
y y C x x C
y x C
= D.1
where,
) ).( ( ) , (
1
y n x
N
n
n
y x y x C =

=
D.2
N
x
N
n
n
x
=
=
1
D.3
N
y
N
n
n
y
=
=
1
D.4
where,
CC is the correlation coefficient
C(x,x) is the variance of the data sequence
N is the number of readings
is the mean value

The following figure shows how these calculations were implemented in Simulink.
APPENDIX D: CORRELATION COEFFICIENT CALCULATIONS
* Reference: Y. Li, V. Agelidis, Wind-Solar Resource Complementarity and its Combined Correlation with
Electricity Load Demand, 2006 111

Figure D.1: Correlation coefficient block for current situation and proposed future scenario.
APPENDIX E: REGMODHARZ
* Source: www.regmodharz.de 112

APPENDIX E: REGMODHARZ

The project "Regenerative Modellregion Harz" (RegModHarz) is one of the six projects from
the eEnergy-initiative of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) and the
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nuclear Safety and Climate Protection (BMU). Harz, a
region in Germany, is taken as a model region where the integration of renewable electricity
producers, electricity networks, consumption, business models and communication
technology solutions are investigated.
The Harz region has a population of 240,000 and had an energy consumption of 1,300 GWh
in 2008. The electrical generation in the region of Harz comes from wind, photovoltaic
systems, hydro, biomass, and natural gas-powered plants. In 2008 a total of 467 GWh of
electricity were generated in the Harz region. This corresponds to 36% of the total electricity
consumption, the share of wind and solar energy was 69% (321 GWh). In the RegModHarz
project, the flexible power generation from biogas plants is investigated.

Zusammenfassung:
In dieser Arbeit wird die Integration von PV und Biogas mit einem Fokus auf Biogas als
flexiblem Stromlieferanten untersucht. Hierzu wird die Leistung der Biogas/PV-Hybridanlage im
Landwirtschaftszentrum Eichhof, Deutschland ausgewertet. Dessen komplettes elektrisches und
thermisches Energiesystem wird analysiert und mit Simulink modelliert. Es wird ein Szenario fr
ein nachhaltiges, zuverlssiges und autarkes System vorgeschlagen. Abschlieend wird eine
Fallstudie fr einen Milchviehbetrieb in Jordanien angestellt, in der die Machbarkeit dieser Art
von Hybridsystemen berprft.
Im Gesamtsystem betrgt der Anteil der PV ca. 36% mit einer Spitzenleistung von 130 kW
p
. Als
restlicher Anteil werden tglich im Durchschnitt 720 m
3
Biogas erzeugt, welches mit Hilfe eines
Blockheizkraftwerks (30 kW
el
/ 48 kW
th
), einer Mikro-Gasturbine (28 kW
el
/ 60 kW
th
) und eines
Biogasbrenners (50 kW
th
) fr die thermische und elektrische Energieerzeugung verwendet wird.
Am Standort Eichhof knnen PV und Biogas 101% der gesamten elektrischen Last erneuerbar
bereitstellen. Derzeitig ist die Erzeugung nicht an die Last gekoppelt und somit unabhngig von
der Nachfrage (Korrelationskoeffizient zwischen Last und Erzeugung betrgt 0,03). ber das Jahr
betrachtet kann Biogas den bentigten Bedarf im Mittel nur zu 76% gnzlich decken und mehr als
80% der thermischen Nachfrage wird durch Erdgas bereitgestellt.
In dem vorgeschlagenen Zukunftsszenario ist das System in der Lage, nahezu die gesamte Last
(99%) whrend des gesamten Jahres zu decken. Dies wird durch eine geeignete
Steuerungsstrategie erreicht, die die thermische und elektrische Nachfrage bercksichtig und die
Anlage entsprechend betreibt. Das Biogas wird anhand eines monatlichen Durchschnittswerts
zwischen einem Minimum von 480 m
3
/Tag im Sommer und einem Maximum von 1200 m
3
/Tag
im Winter erzeugt. Diese Steuerung hat eine Begrenzung des Biogas-Speichervolumens bis
5000m
3
und eine Erhhung der Verfgbarkeit des Biogases auf 98% zur Folge. Zustzlich wird
der Abruf des gespeicherten Biogases durch nderungen der Nachfrage gesteuert. Der grte Teil
des aus PV erzeugten Stroms wird bei bestehender Nachfrage direkt eingespeist, whrend
berschssige Energie in Batterien (33 Ah) gespeichert wird. Als Konsequenz verbessert sich der
Korrelationskoeffizient zwischen Last und Erzeugung auf einen Wert von 0,95.
Als Ergebnis des letzten Teils stellte sich heraus, dass zur Sicherstellung der Realisierbarkeit eines
hnlichen Hybridsystems in Jordanien eine Einspeisevergtung von mehr als 0,02 JD/kWh (0,021
/kWh) fr ein Groprojekt (1,65 MW installierte Leistung) und mehr als 0,03 JD/kWh (0,032
/kWh) fr ein Kleinprojekt (0,22 MW installierte Leistung). Das gro angelegte System mit
einem Investitionsvolumen von 5,4 Mio. JD (5,78 Mio. ) besitzt Stromgestehungskosten von
0,136 JD/kWh (0,146 /kWh) und ist im Vergleich insgesamt konomischer.
MODELLIERUNG UND LEISTUNGSBEWERTUNG EINES HYBRIDEN PV-
BIOGAS ENERGIESYSTEMS
Analyse des elektrischen und thermischen Systems am Eichhof Zentrum in Deutschland - Einer Fallstudie in Jordanien

Masterarbeit im Master-Studiengang fr Erneuerbare Energien und Energieeffizienz (REMENA)
By, Rand Al-Zu'bi

" " -

(REMENA)
:

:
" Hybrid Energy Systems "
( Biogas ) ( PV ) .
" Eichhof "
" Simulink "

.
36 % 130 .
720
3
/
" Micro-gas turbine ( " 28 60 )
" Engine ( " 30 48 ) " Burner ( " 50
.)

"Correlation coefficient" ( 0.03 )
" Time-series " .
76 % .

( 99 )%
.
1200
3
/ 480
3
/
.
5000
3

98 %
.
( 33 . ) .

0.95 .

" Feed-in-tariff " 0.02
/ . ( 0.021 / . ) ( 1.65 )
0.03 / . ( 0.032 / . ) ( 0.22 .)

" Levelized cost of

electricity " 0.136 / . ( 0.146 / . .)
5.4 ( 5.78 .)

/

:

_______________________________________

_ ______________________________________

_______________________________________

/

2012

"
" -

:

.
/

:

/

2012

"
" -

:

Hybrid Biogas Photovoltaic System

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hybrid Biogas Photovoltaic System

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Supervised by:

Dr.-Ing. Bernd Krautkremer

is the rate of heat delivered to the substrate (W),

is the rate of heat dissipation by the agitator (W) and,

can be calculated using the following relation:

will be calculated using the energy balance that is

needed to maintain the fermenter temperature, we can assume that the

calculations are illustrated in Figure 5.25.

is the volumetric flow rate of biogas needed (m

" Levelized cost of

S-ar putea să vă placă și