ghg project plan in accordance with iso 14064 period … · 1 climate protection by small scale...

1

Climate protection by small scale biogas in Switzerland

GHG Project plan in accordance with ISO 14064

Period 01/01/2017 - 31/12/2017 and

Period 01/01/2018 - 31/12/2018

Report of 28/05/2019

Version 2

2

Table of contents

Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Project title .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 The project’s purpose(s) and objective(s) are: .............................................................. 4

1.3 Expected lifetime of the project ............................................................................................ 6

1.4 Type of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal project ............................. 6

1.5 Legal land description of the project or the unique latitude and longitude ........ 7

1.6 Conditions prior to project initiation ............................................................................... 10

1.7 Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or

removal enhancements ................................................................................................................. 11

1.8 Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity ..... 13

1.9 Total GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements, stated in tonnes

of CO2 e, likely to occur from the GHG project (GHG Assertion) ................................... 15

1.10 Identification of risks ........................................................................................................... 17

1.11 Any information relevant for the eligibility of the GHG project under a GHG

program and quantification of emission reductions ......................................................... 18

1.12 Summary environmental impact assessment ............................................................ 19

1.13 Relevant outcomes from stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-

going communication. ................................................................................................................... 19

1.14 Chronological plan ................................................................................................................ 20

2 Selection and justification of the Baseline Scenario ............................................................................ 21

3 Description of how the Project leads to emission reductions that are additional to

the status quo ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

4 Inventory of Sources, Sinks and Reservoirs (SSRs) for the Project and Baseline........................ 30

5 Quantification and calculation of GHG emissions/removals ............................................................. 34

5.1 Calculation of Baseline Emissions from Manure Management .............................. 34

5.1.1 Adjustment of Baseline Emission calculation ........................................................... 37

5.2 Calculation of Baseline Emissions from fossil fuel heating ..................................... 38

5.3 Project Emissions..................................................................................................................... 40

3

5.3 Emission reductions ............................................................................................................... 44

6 Description of how each of the ISO 14064 guiding principles has been respected or

addressed ............................................................................................................................................................ 46

7 Monitoring the Data information management system and data controls ................................... 48

4

P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N

1 . 1 P r o j e c t t i t l e

Climate protection by small scale biogas in Switzerland

1 . 2 T h e p r o j e c t ’ s p u r p o s e ( s ) a n d o b j e c t i v e ( s ) a r e :

Project activity is the operation of ten small scale agricultural biogas plants in

Switzerland. The plants use manure from animal farms and Co-Substrates to

produce renewable heat and electric energy. In this matter, they reduce greenhouse

gas emissions by avoiding open storage of manure where methane emits into the

atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. All installations are already in operation,

but they face a difficult legal and economical background, so the continuation of

operation is endangered.

Economical operation of biogas plants strongly depends on a sufficient income from

both, the production of the renewable energy and the revenues from disposal of

non-agricultural biomass (biomass that is not the result of agricultural business like

e.g. manure).

The further operation of the plants shall be ensured by marketing of the climate

protection benefit in form of voluntary emission reduction units. The project

description and the emission reductions of 2010 have initially been documented in a

greenhouse gas project plan titled Climate protection by small scale biogas in

Switzerland dated 07/06/2012. This initial GHG project plan has been successfully

verified after the ISO 14064-2 Standard.

In the present report the same methodologies are applied for the Monitoring of the

emission reductions in the years 2017 and 2018. While the methodology remains

the same, two adjustments to the assumptions are introduced in this monitoring

report. Reason for these adjustments is the introduction of more precise and

updated data (e.g. temperature, manure management systems). However, the

changes only have marginal impacts on the amount of calculated emission

reductions. Both adjustments will be explained in chapter 5.1.1.

5

From the original 11 plants in this bundle, the plant Biogas Kaltbrunn has ceased

operation in 2015. It is possible that the plant will revive operation in the future.

Over the period of 2015 and 2016, 10 biogas plants remained for monitoring in the

bundle.

Now, for the year 2017, those 10 biogas plants were still in operation and are

subject of this monitoring report. But, since the biogas plant Altishofen was put out

of service on the 04.09.2017, only 9 biogas plants remain in this bundle for the

monitoring period of 2018.

The usage of manure in biogas plants strongly reduces the uncontrolled emissions

of methane to the atmosphere that appear during open manure storage. The heat

that is captured from the combustion of the biogas can be used for applications

where fossil fuels have been used before. CO2 Emissions from the combustion of

fossil fuels can be reduced this way.

Beside of the production of renewable energy and of the reduction of GHG, the

plants contribute to an augmented use of manure as energy source. The findings in

the initial report (dated 07/06/2012) concerning the difficult market background

are still applicable and in the meantime additional regulatory barriers have

appeared.

Situation in Switzerland is that manure remains the only source where the potential

is not already bailed out. It is important to realize that biogas farmers in Switzerland

do not voluntary switch to a strengthened use of manure but as a consequence of

the disappearance of other (non-agricultural) biomass fractions. This statement is

underlined by the rising share of manure in the substrate mix of the biogas plants

and the resulting increase in emission reductions. More information about the

circumstances in Switzerland’s biomass market is provided in chapter “Description

of how the Project leads to emission reductions that are additional to the status quo”

in chapter 3.

6

Further project objectives are the creation of additional employments in local and

regional areas with the focus to remain the added value in rural environment, and to

fit the needs of sustainability such as the sanitation impact of fermented manure, the

reduction of manure’s odor, improved quality of fertilizers and smaller amounts of

biomass road transports. Another important purpose is the complete closure of the

plant nutrient cycle which means that all nutrient elements from the input material

remain in the output in order to fertilize agricultural land. No plant nutrient will be

destroyed or burned.

1 . 3 E x p e c t e d l i f e t i m e o f t h e p r o j e c t

Calculated lifetime for biogas Projects in Switzerland is 20 years beginning with the

starting date of operation. This expected lifetime is also used within the legal base

of the Swiss feed in tariffs.

1 . 4 Ty p e o f g r e e n h o u s e g a s e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n o r r e m o v a l p r o j e c t

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

The project will generate clean electricity from biogas in a combined heat and

power plant (CHP). To avoid double counting (in terms of emission reductions) or

double aiding (in terms of financial support) the production of renewable electric

energy itself is not considered. The project activity also reduces CO2 emission via

heat generation by the CHP. In absence of the project, the heat would partially be

produced with fossil fuels depending on the single project and it’s Baseline.

Methane (CH4)

The project activity collects biogas that is generated by anaerobic digestion of

manure and co-substrates in a closed system. After collection and processing biogas

is combusted in a CHP. In absence of the project the methane would emit into the

atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner during its storage.

7

1 . 5 L e g a l l a n d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t o r t h e u n i q u e l a t i t u d e a n d

l o n g i t u d e

The projects are located nearby existing animal breeding farms spread over

Switzerland.

Figure 1: Project locations (Source : Google Earth 2018)

8

PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADRESS LONGITUTDE

LATITUDE

Biogas Altishofen

GmbH

Wiggerhof,

6246 Altishofen

47°12'37.91"N

7°58'21.67"E

Öko Energie Riethof

GmbH

Riethof 4,

8360 Eschlikon

47°27'12.96"N

8°57'55.43"E

Fillgas Hinterdorf 14,

8564 Wagerswil

47°36'26.80"N

9° 4'4.31"E

BGL BioGas Lindau Holgenbühlacker,

8315 Lindau

47°26'43.31"N

8°41'12.30"E

ForzAgricula GmbH Stalla

Pundschermaun,

7424 Zuoz

46°35'50.41"N

9°57'42.96"E

Biopower Schürch AG Steingasse 28,

4934 Madiswil

47° 9'48.76"N

7°47'9.45"E

Lampart Biogas Bognau,

6216 Mauensee

47°10'11.98"N

8° 5'20.55"E

Sprenger Bioenergie

Gewinnung

Anetswiler Straße 14,

9545 Wängi

47°30'21.52"N

8°58'30.65"E

Loorenhof Loorenhof,

8305 Dietlikon

47°25'36.06"N

8°36'24.20"E

BAWA Biogas Höhleweg 4,

5746 Walterswil

47°20’12.61"N

7°59’15.47 "E

Table 1: Project locations

The following table shows the contact data and the owners of the projects:

Project name Biogas Altishofen GmbH Öko Energie Riethof GmbH Fillgas

Street Eichbühlmatte 12 Riethof 4 Hinterdorf 14

City Altishofen Eschlikon Wagerswil

State/Region Luzern Thurgau Thurgau

Postal Code 6246 8360 8564

Country Switzerland Switzerland Switzerland

Project Owner Meinrad Pfister Michael Müller Ernst Fillinger

Phone +41(0)79 91 60 041 +41 (0)79 69 87 450 +41 (0)71 65 71 276;

+41 (0)79 55 18 154

E-Mail [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Project name BGL BioGas Lindau ForzAgricula GmbH Biopower Schürch AG

Street Nüresdorfstr. 4 Villa Monod Steingasse 28

City Lindau Zuoz Madiswil

State/Region Zürich Graubünden Bern

Postal Code 8315 7524 4934


Project Owner Hanspeter Frey Casty Andri Peter Schürch

Phone +41 (0) 79 4305938 +41 (0) 78 671 40 48 +41 (0) 62 965 40 51;


9

Project name Lampart Biogas Sprenger Bioenergie GewinnungLoorenhof

Street Bognau Anetswilerstr. 14 Loorenhof 40

City Mauensee Wängi Dietlikon

State/Region Luzern Thurgau Zürich

Postal Code 6216 9545 8305


Project Owner Daniel Lampart Jürg Sprenger Christian Flach

Phone +41 (0) 92 18 675 +41 (0) 52 3781 685 +41 (0) 246 345 2


Project name BAWA Biogas

Street Höhleweg 4

City Walterswil

State/Region Solothurn

Postal Code 5746

Country Switzerland

Project Owner Philipp Barmettler

Phone +41 (0) 79 334 06 93

E-Mail [email protected]

Table 2: Addresses and responsible persons

All biogas plants (their operators respectively) in this bundle are organized in

“Ökostrom Schweiz”, a cooperative of mainly small farming enterprises for the

promotion of local renewable energy from biogas in Switzerland. Those operators

assigned Ökostrom Schweiz to organize this climate protection program and to

commercialize the resulting certificates, both run in entire bundles due to reduce

transaction costs.

In addition, Ökostrom Schweiz runs a platform for external (non-agricultural)

biomass, because large suppliers of external biomass produce more volume than

one single agricultural plant is able to process. Therefore, the platform closes the

bargain and distributes the substrates to several biogas plants close to the locations

of the supplier. Also, Ökostrom Schweiz takes over the political lobbying in order to

maintain good general framework conditions, provides exchange and education

courses for both, farmers who start with their plants and farmer who already runs

their plant a longer period. Every project owner has closed a contract with

Ökostrom Schweiz that grants the ownership of the resulting certificates to

Ökostrom Schweiz.

10

Ökostrom Schweiz assigned GES Biogas GmbH with the GHG project plan, but

remains the legal owner of the resulting certificates, which means that the

certificates will be transferred to an Ökostrom Schweiz account on a registry

account to be defined. After having sold the certificates, Ökostrom Schweiz will pay

out the net benefit to every single biogas plant in this bundle, according to their

reduction volume. The roles and responsibilities concerning the Carbon

Management are summarized in the table below:

Organization: GES Biogas GmbH Ökostrom Schweiz

Role

Report author & developer of

projects set up as climate

protection projects

Report contributor &

owner of the certificates

Street /P.O. Box Domstrasse 11 Oberwil 61

City Hamburg Frauenfeld

State/Region Hamburg Thurgau

Postal code 20095 8500

Country Germany Switzerland

Contact person Ms. Pauline Kalathas Dr. Victor Anspach

Phone +49 (0)40 80 90 63 220 +41 (0) 56 444 24 71

Fax +49 (0)40 80 90 63 199 +41 (0) 56 444 24 90

Email [email protected] victor.anspach@oekostro

mschweiz.ch

Table 3: Responsibility for Carbon Management

1 . 6 C o n d i t i o n s p r i o r t o p r o j e c t i n i t i a t i o n

The manure when kept in open-top basins, storage pits or lagoons open to the

atmosphere will undergo anaerobic fermentation and release greenhouse gases

(methane, CO2 and N2O) to the atmosphere.

If agricultural biogas plants use co-substrates (biogenic waste) from industrial,

private or state origin such as lop, those materials were prior usually applied in

composting. As composting is an aerobic biological process, GHG such as methane

11

will end up uncontrolled in the atmosphere. By using those materials in agricultural

biogas plants, both advantages were used at the same time: the production of green

energy and the prevention of GHG from the formerly usage in composting. The latter

won’t be taking into account, due to the lack of reliable databases concerning the

emissions of the composting process.

The polluting effect of the manure will be reduced by the fermentation process not

only in the aspect of greenhouse gas emission reductions but also by reducing the

odor from fertilizing with untreated manure. Need for externally bought artificial

fertilizer decreases because the utilization of biomass from agricultural area and

related business closes the nutrient cycle when the digestate is brought back to the

field. The emission reductions from the lower application of artificial fertilizer won’t

be taking into account neither, because of the relatively small additional GHG-

reduction compared with the expected costs for project plans and monitoring.

Agricultural enterprises will also benefit from biogas by diversification of their

production. In general, if a diversification is run, the farming system by trend

switches to a lower intensity of soil-use with its positive consequences on fertility

and shape.

The Baseline for fossil fuel heating differs between the projects. In some projects

heating systems were replaced that were run with fossil fuels. In other projects

there has been no heating systems run by fossil fuel in the time before the

construction of the biogas plant. In essence, project activity will avoid open storage,

reduce the demand for long distance transports and will partially also replace fossil

fuel heating systems.

1 . 7 D e s c r i p t i o n o f h o w t h e p r o j e c t w i l l a c h i e v e G H G e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s

o r r e m o v a l e n h a n c e m e n t s

The project activity is the technical production of biogas using manure that

otherwise would emit uncontrolled methane into the atmosphere during its storage.

In absence of oxygen bacteria in the manure will automatically begin to form

12

methane. The longer the storage and depending on the storage type the more

methane is formed.

During project activity the manure will be brought directly into the digesters of the

biogas plant and the formed methane is captured in a gastight system. Together

with other gases that occur during decay of the substrates it forms the biogas with a

methane content of 50-67,6 %1.

The collected biogas will be combusted and destroyed in a CHP. Result of the

combustion process is CO2. CO2 also is a greenhouse gas but those emissions cannot

be addressed as emissions caused by the project for two reasons:

1. The greenhouse gas potential of CO2 is 28 times less than the potential of the CH4

that is burned and destroyed in the CHP.

2. The Combustion process of biomass is considered to be CO2 neutral in the

calculations following the IPCC principles2. The amount of CO2 that is emitted by

biomass combustion is the same amount that has been bound by the plant during its

growth. The carbon cycle of (non-wood) biomass is short in contrast to fossil fuels

which have been formed over decades. This does not mean that Biomass utilization

does not cause Carbon emissions. Emissions from processing and transport for

example are considered as project emissions.3 Other possible emissions like land

use change can be excluded for this project and will be discussed in the chapter

about the project emissions. This process will reduce the CH4 emissions from open

storage of manure. As there is no obligation at the moment to change (also see the

chapter about the baseline) this reduction can only happen by the proposed project

activity.

The electric energy produced by the CHP will replace an amount of electricity

generated with conventional technology and will reduce emissions corresponding to

the technology mix used for power generation in Switzerland. Despite the Suisse

1 The range is derived from the theoretical gas potential in the specific manure and co-substrates that are used here. See

the calculation sheet for references.

2 IPCC 2006 Guidelines do not have emission factors for Biomass (See Chapter 1.4.2.1). Eventual emissions from biomass

occur from land use change which is included in the AFOLU sector.

3 Also see FAQ at IPCC (Q1-2-10): http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/faq/faq.html

13

power production already causes low emissions (29,8 g CO2/kWh in 2019) the

consumed energy has significantly higher emissions (181,5 g CO2/kWh in 20194)

caused by import of power from European countries.

Even with only assuming the Swiss power production mix as the Baseline, the

production of renewable energy from installations in this bundle reduced emissions

to the extent of 370 t CO2e in 2017 and 372 t CO2e in 2018.

However, the net GHG mitigation from the electricity approach is neutralized in

order to avoid conflicts with double counting (direct or indirect influence on

installations under the EU ETS). Although Switzerland does not take part in the

European Emission Trading System (EU ETS) there might be an indirect influence

on installations with emission reduction obligations, because Switzerland is

connected to the European electricity grid. The production of renewable energy

from the demand site could cause less production in another installation. This

activity would set free allowances and grant reduction certificates at the same time.

The thermal energy from CHP will in some cases be used for heating where a fossil

fuel heating was used before. The avoided usage of fossil fuels can be addressed as

emission reduction.

1 . 8 P r o j e c t t e c h n o l o g i e s , p r o d u c t s , s e r v i c e s a n d t h e e x p e c t e d l e v e l o f

a c t i v i t y

The project is an anaerobic wet fermentation setup with a grid connected Combined

Heat and Power plant (CHP) attached. The source of biogas in the projects is a share

of 50 – 80 % of manure and a variety of co-ferments like vegetable wastes or wastes

from the food industry.

The plants use very different types of substrates, mainly a mixture of a high share of

manure and a variety of organic wastes.

4 See https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/klima/publikationen-studien/publikationen/projekte-

programme-emissionsverminderung-inland.html (p. 92) and „Umweltbilanz Strommix Schweiz“

http://treeze.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/589-Umweltbilanz-Strommix-Schweiz-2014-v3.0.pdf (p. 5)

14

This is a typical composition for biogas plants in Switzerland which is caused by the

conditions for governmental support. The projects in this bundle use a minimum of

50% of manure in their total input mix. Usage if manure has partially increased due

to a lack of available co-substrates. To avoid high investment costs for digesters,

highly energetic substrates are added to the substrate mix.

The process of biogas production is similar in all plants and follows the standard

processes in developed countries. The biogas production starts with collection of

manure in the mixing tank. Manure that comes from the own farm will be directly

transported via pipeline.

From the mixing tanks the digesters are continuously fed with manure and co-

substrates. In the anaerobic environment of the digesters methane bacteria

metabolize the methane at a temperature of 38-45°C (mesophile). The process is

very complex and includes the sub steps hydrolysis, acidification, acetic acid

generation, and methane generation.

Because of its complexity the process is very vulnerable to temperature changes and

substrate composition. Result of this process is biogas with a methane content of ca.

50-65% depending on the methane building potential of the substrates. The biogas

will be collected under a membrane top and directed from there to the CHP plant.

The top can also serve as gas storage.

After processing (removal of sulphur and water) the biogas is burned in a gas

engine. A Generator converts the mechanical energy to electric energy. The

electricity will be directed to a transformer station and from there fed into the

electrical grid, which in Switzerland is owned by Swissgrid.

In the Swiss biogas sector it has become state of the art to install a second CHP or a

stationary or mobile flare in order to avoid methane emissions during non

operation of the main engine.

The use of a second CHP, a stationary or mobile flare that can combust Methane

during non-operation of the first gas engine and avoid methane emissions from not

combusted biogas became a standard in Switzerland’s biogas sector within the last

few years.

15

The digestate will be either moved to a post digester or directly to the digestate

storage, depending on the technical setup of the biogas plant.

The digestate is a good fertilizer because it still contains the nutrients that are

necessary for plant growth but with a reduced amount of Carbon that has been

converted to Methane and combusted.

Figure 2: Biogas process scheme

All of the plants in this bundle follow the above shown schematic process of biogas

utilization. The projects use a variety of different substrate types which means a

challenge to the operation because the biology is more difficult to control with

varying amounts of different substrates.

1 . 9 To t a l G H G e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s a n d r e m o v a l e n h a n c e m e n t s , s t a t e d i n

t o n n e s o f C O 2 e , l i k e l y t o o c c u r f r o m t h e G H G p r o j e c t ( G H G A s s e r t i o n )

The total reduction of emissions of the project activity in 2017 was 5.171 t CO2e

The total reduction of emissions of the project activity in 2018 was 5.013 t CO2e

16

Emission reductions by activity in 2017:

Greenhouse Gas Altishofen Riethof Fillgas BioGas Lindau Forz Agricula

Methane recovery

CH4 [t CO2e]283 552 165 1.295 56

Heat Recovery

CO2 [t]

0 85 86 311 7

Greenhouse Gas Biop. Schürch Lampart Sprenger Loorenhof BAWA Biogas

Methane recovery

CH4 [t CO2e]999 275 155 131 463

Heat Recovery

CO2 [t ] 92 0 52 0 164

Table 4: GHG emission reductions of 2017

Emission reductions by activity in 2018:

Greenhouse Gas Altishofen Riethof Fillgas BioGas Lindau Forz Agricula

Methane recovery

CH4 [t CO2e]0 588 148 1.468 60

Heat Recovery

CO2 [t]

0 85 86 258 7

Greenhouse Gas Biop. Schürch Lampart Sprenger Loorenhof BAWA Biogas

Methane recovery

CH4 [t CO2e]940 291 183 152 453

Heat Recovery

CO2 [t ] 92 0 47 0 155

Table 5: GHG emission reductions of 2018

17

When compared to the results of the last monitoring report with 4.603 t CO2e for

2015 and 5.021 t CO2e for 2016, it can be noticed that the emission reductions have

remained stable in 2017 and 2018. Even if the amounts of treated manure in the

substrate mix has slightly decreased, so that the amount auf emission reductions

have fallen accordingly, the new approved value for Global Warming Potential

(GWP) of CH4 used for the emission reduction calculation (28 instead of 25, s. Ch.

5.1.1 for explanations) leads to an increase of the emission reductions.

The GHG assertion is verified by TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH towards

a reasonable Level of Assurance applying a materiality threshold of 5% which is the

highest Level of Assurance possible in ISO 14064-2.

1 . 1 0 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f r i s k s

The technical operation of biogas plants faces considerable risks. The fermentation

process within the digesters is depending on several factors. The most important

factor is the bacteria which are producing enzymes. These enzymes are starting a

fermentation process which begins with breaking up the manure into its

components. In other words, the fermentation in the biogas plant is a biological

process which relies on microbiological deposition of the materials used in the

process. Manure is commonly used in numerous biogas plants around the world.

The technology and substrates applied in the fermentation process are pretty much

standardized which reduces operational risks. Anyhow, there is a certain risk that

once the process is running it could be disrupted by failures resulting from

fluctuations of the material quantity or quality into the digester. Especially leftovers

vary in their composition and are difficult to deal with. The fermentation process

could be interrupted by these or other issues. An interruption could cause a

complete operation breakdown and would make a complete restart of the process

necessary.

18

The risk that the biogas plant might not be able to continue operation due to market

reasons like a lack of co-substrates or other barriers is covered in the chapter about

additionality.

1 . 11 A n y i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t f o r t h e e l i g i b i l i t y o f t h e G H G p r o j e c t u n d e r

a G H G p r o g r a m a n d q u a n t i f i c a t i o n o f e m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s

ISO 14064 focuses on GHG projects or project-based activities specifically designed

to reduce GHG emissions or increase GHG removal. The proposed biogas power

plants are designed to recover the methane emission from the manure management

system and utilize it to generate electricity and heat, which is eligible for a GHG

project.

The Swiss government has set the baseline emissions of electric power production

above 0 g CO2/kWh for the first time in its 2015 revision of the “Vollzugsweisung”5

taking into consideration that the power production actually does cause a certain

amount of emissions from fossil fuel combustion (29,8 g CO2/kWh).

Still the consumed electrical energy mix in Switzerland is even higher polluted by a

181.5 g CO2e/kWh6.

However, due to regulation of EU-ETS, the net GHG mitigation from the electricity

approach (replacement of fossil fuel generated electricity) is neutralized in order to

avoid (indirect) double counting effects that would come up by feeding electricity to

the grid. Therefore, this report only involves the emission reduction from methane

recovery from manure management and thermal energy generation.

The presented project activity is considered by CDM Methodology AMS III.D

“Methane recovery in animal manure management systems” in its 18th version.

5 http://www.bafu.admin.ch/klima/13877/14510/14760/index.html?lang=de, Projekte und Programme zur

Emissionsverminderung im Inland - Ein Modul der Mitteilung des BAFU als Vollzugsbehörde zur CO2-Verordnung. 2.

aktualisierte Version. 2015

6 http://treeze.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/589-Umweltbilanz-Strommix-Schweiz-2014-v3.0.pdf

19

1 . 1 2 S u m m a r y e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t a s s e s s m e n t

An environmental impact assessment is legally binding in Switzerland for

installations with a total treatment capacity of at least 5,000 tons of total input

material7. Nine of eleven installations in this bundle exceed this threshold and

conducted an impact assessment: Sprenger Bioenergie Gewinnung, Lampart Biogas,

Biopower Schürch, BGL BioGas Lindau, ForzAgricula GmbH, öko-energie GmbH

Riethof, Fillgas, BGA Altishofen and BAWA Biogas.

The result of the impact assessment was that the installation were not eligible to

seriously harm the environment. For biogas plants using more than 5,000 t of input

material, the environmental impact assessment is always part of the construction

permit. In additional, all agricultural biogas plants of this existing bundle contribute

to a significant higher ecological sustainability compared to a reference scenario

without manure’s treatment by using biogas plants. This especially means the

improved quality of digestated manure and the reduction of odor emissions. The

complete listing of environmental surpluses is described in chapter “Project’s

purpose(s) and objective(s)” on page 4 of this report.

1 . 1 3 R e l e v a n t o u t c o m e s f r o m s t a k e h o l d e r c o n s u l t a t i o n s a n d m e c h a n i s m s

f o r o n - g o i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n .

Stakeholders are the community that may be affected by operation of the biogas

plant. A negative impact could be induced by odor or increased traffic from biomass

transports.

As a part of the building permit, residents have the possibility to object to the

construction. Even if in some cases there has been complains about possible

disturbances from odor, the building permit has been granted in every case so a

negative impact on the relevant stakeholders cannot be expected. A biogas plant

does, if operated properly, not emit more odor or cause significantly more traffic

than an agricultural enterprise under common practice would do anyway.

7 http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19880226/201312010000/814.011.pdf Appendix 2, 21.2a), page 15

20

Contrary, plant operators often feel a support for small peripheral green energy

producers from stakeholders such as neighbors, administration or other farmers

supplying the biogas plants with their own manure. Since Swiss government’s

decision of 2011 to leave nuclear electricity production soon, this support has even

significantly increased.

1 . 1 4 C h r o n o l o g i c a l p l a n

Project name Start of construction Start of operation

Biogas Altishofen GmbH 01.06.2004 04.11.2004

Öko Energie Riethof GmbH 14.04.2008 10.10.2008

Fillgas 10.03.2006 15.08.2006

BGL BioGas Lindau 01.09.2006 02.08.2007

Forz Agricula GmbH 01.05.2007 21.12.2007

Biopower Schürch AG 28.08.2006 20.04.2007

Lampart Biogas 21.11.2002 20.04.2003

Sprenger Bioenergie Gewinnung Mai 2006 11.12.2006

Loorenhof August 1999 Februar 2000

BAWA Biogas 22.08.2005 17.06.2006

Table 6: Dates of construction and operation start

21

2 S E L E C T I O N A N D J U S T I F I C A T I O N O F T H E B A S E L I N E

S C E N A R I O

This project applies Kyoto standards for the determination of Baseline and

additionality. Because a project in Switzerland would equal a Joint Implementation

project (Annex I country), the JI standard is closer to the projects reality than the

CDM.

The Decision 9/CMP.1 of the conference of the Parties (COP) serving as the meeting

of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol defines the Baseline of a Joint Implementation

Project in Annex I, Appendix B, paragraph 1 as follows:

“The baseline for an Article 6 project is the scenario that reasonably represents the

anthropogenic emissions by sources or anthropogenic removals by sinks of

greenhouse gases that would occur in the absence of the proposed project.”

In other words, the baseline regarding manure management represents the most

plausible scenario in absence of the project activity and must be the basis to

calculate the emissions that are expected in this scenario. The Baseline according to

the CDM Methodology AMS III.D in its 18th Version8:

“The baseline scenario is the situation where, in the absence of the project activity,

animal manure is left to decay anaerobically within the project boundary and

methane is emitted to the atmosphere.”

The simplest and most possible scenario possible in absence of project activity is the

continuation of current common practice. In the chapter 1.6 in this report about the

8 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/H9DVSB24O7GEZQYLYNWUX23YS6G4RC

The version 18 has been used in the initial project plan for the first Monitoring of the year 2010 and will consistently be

used for the following project plans and monitoring years

22

“Conditions prior to project initiation”, this practice is described. Manure is stored in

manure management systems that do not avoid the emission of methane into the

atmosphere.

An alternative scenario that would significantly reduce emissions is the gastight

storage of manure and the flaring. There is no legal requirement to take measures

that mitigate methane emissions from manure storage. It is implausible that farmers

would implement such an investment in the amount of several ten thousand CHF

without any return.

When determining the Baseline for the heating system (Applicable Methodology is

the AMS I.C that covers fossil fuel replacement by renewable energy9), it must be

considered if the old heating system would have been replaced also in absence of

project activity.

This might be the case because of legislation, because the lifetime of the installed

heating is overdue or because another alternative is more cost efficient.

If the Baseline is a renewable energy heating system, no reductions can be claimed

for the utilization of CHP heat.

There is no legislation in force that requires the farmers to install renewable

heating. The already installed fossil heating systems are all run by heating oil,

natural gas or Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) which is cost effective and there would

be no economic reason to replace them.

The rest lifetime is long enough, so it is not likely for the heating systems to be

replaced in the middle term.

9 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/JSEM51TG3UVKADPA25IPUHXJ85HE8A

23

3 D E S C R I P T I O N O F H O W T H E P R O J E C T L E A D S T O E M I S S I O N

R E D U C T I O N S T H A T A R E A D D I T I O N A L T O T H E S T A T U S Q U O

This chapter refers to the question why the installations would not continue

operation without the additional income from sale of the carbon credits. This is

called “additionality” in UNFCCC terminology. It is defined in the COP decision

4/CMP.1, Annex II, paragraph 2610 as:

“A [small-scale] CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of

greenhouse gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in

the absence of the registered [small-scale] CDM project activity”

As shown in chapter “Selection and justification of the baseline scenario” (page 21),

the baseline is the business as usual scenario. In the following approaches from the

“Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”11 will be used to show

that CO2-certificates are absolutely needed in order to avoid negative economical

results and a possible laying in of the biogas plants. The barriers will be identified

that hinder the biogas plants from further successful operation. To give a better

understanding, the situation on the Swiss biogas market is evaluated in the

following.

Biogas plants are usually supported by governmental funds to encourage their

spreading because conventional energy production is more competitive. The main

motivations for support of biogas are: Local value for the community resulting in

positive macroeconomic effects, energy independence and international obligations

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide the biogas technology is only

10 http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/repository/entri/docs/cop/Kyoto_COP001_004.pdf

11 https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-01-v5.2.pdf/history_view

24

present in countries with a strong support from the government. This shows the

strong dependency of biogas technology from financial aids12.

The initial development in Switzerland differs a little. The installations received no

feed-in-tariff when they started operation. Feed in tariffs have been introduced in

January 2009, when all of the installations were already in operation13. Before the

feed in tariff, the economical operation was only possible because the plants

received payments from the disposal of organic wastes. Today the payments are

lower or have even turned into costs.

Another share resulted from the bundled sale of the green electricity by Ökostrom

Schweiz. Today, the market for domestic green electricity made from biomass broke

down, because more and more buyers (i.e. electricity entities) supply their request

by contracting cheaper green energy from wind and water overseas. On auction

platforms like green-energy-marketplace, it can be observed that (even small) green

electricity offers meet no demand 14. Green electricity here is mainly sourced by

solar power. Green electricity from biomass is not sold at all.

Increasing competition

Agricultural biogas plants in Switzerland were initially intended to dispose both,

manure and organic wastes for example from gastronomy and the food industry in a

ratio of 50 %/50 %. This ratio was commonly used due to legal position of land-use

regulation politics, which means that agricultural biogas plants were allowed (and

still are allowed) to convert a maximum of 50% of non-agricultural biomass into

their plants situated in the agricultural zone of Switzerland’s zoning plan. The

revenues from disposal have been very important parts of the economic calculation

12Reason for the growth of Biogas markets is always governmental support, see

http://www.ecoprog.com/publikationen/energiewirtschaft/biogas-to-energy.htm

13 http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=43276

14 http://www.green-energy-marketplace.ch/index.php?section=procure

25

and the availability of co-substrates is essential for the economic operation of the

plant. But with the introduction of feed-in-tariffs in 2009 and with increasing

numbers of installations - particularly large scale industrial biogas plants and

wastewater treatment installations also producing biogas - the competition became

much stronger and disposal prices decreased rapidly. The price deterioration of co-

substrates was massive, as shown exemplarily in the following two samples:

- From disposal of biomass waste from the purification of wheat, biogas farmers

earned up to CHF 90 per ton in 2008, while in 2013 the price referred to CHF 0.-15.

This tendency continued and the price for the wastes turns from revenues to costs16

due to the fact that some industries seem to be ready to pay for organic waste in

order to use it as substitution of fossil combustible.

- Around 2010, biogas farmers could realize a disposal revenue of CHF 30 per ton of

glycerin, a high energy density liquid co-substrate. In the Period 2013 to 2018, the

market demanded a payment of CHF 350 per ton 17.

What those two examples show is in general applicable to every single co-substrate

which can be used to produce biogas. The price deterioration doesn’t occur that

extremely for all co-substrate of course, but it is clearly to adhere that the revenue

that farmers receive for the disposal of co-substrates are steadily decreasing and, in

some cases, have even turned to costs.

There is absolutely no indication for a reverse of this trend, in contrary – disposal

fees (and availability) for co-substrates will definitely continue to sink in the next

decade (see below). Some substrates will even cause costs instead of disposal

revenues.

In summary, we can state for the Swiss co-substrate market that a veritable battle

about digestible input material broke out with serious consequences on quantities

and prices for non-agricultural co-substrates. There are some geographical regions

in Switzerland where a lack of co-substrates for agricultural biogas plants can be

15 Division of external biomass coordination of Ökostrom Schweiz, Milchstrasse 9, 3072 Ostermundigen



26

observed.18 Moreover this trend will be intensified by an increasing number of

biogas plants.

It is obvious that a growing number of biogas plants in operation and construction

will additionally aggravate the lack of co-substrates in very few years.

As a result of this development the biogas plants in this bundle have increased their

share of manure in the substrate mix. Manure as a substrate has comparative low

energy potential and as a result has higher costs of handling and storage per

produced cubic meter of biogas. From an economic point of view co-substrates are

favored over manure. Manure input is mainly driven by the requirements of the feed

in tariff and eventually the amount of manure that is produced in the agricultural

enterprise that is connected to the plant.

But the high costs and low availability of co-substrates made manure less

unfavorable again. The use of manure also leads to additional emission reductions.

The income that the biogas plants receive from the marketing of the climate benefit

does in this aspect contribute to the calculation in favor of manure.

But the market situation for co-substrates is not the only severe barrier for biogas

plants in this bundle, following some other barriers will be listed.

The role of industrial competitors

In the past years, also big industrial biogas plants had been installed in Switzerland.

Those plants are not associated with a farm and operate with an average required

biomass input of 20.000 to 30.000 tons each (while the average input of plants in

this bundle is ~5,000 t including manure). With increasing scale plants are able to

pay higher prices because the relation between (investment and operation) costs

and electricity production capacity is more favorable. For those reasons, bigger

plants can pay more (or receive less) for the co-substrates than the small

18 See Article “Mirko Biogasanlagen bieten Alternativen” in Bauernzeitung 15.02.2013, that promotes very small scale

plants that only run with manure because of the lack of co-substrates

27

agricultural plants. It is not only the fact, that those large industrial biogas plants

directly compete against agricultural plants about the digestible material; but in

most cases, owner of those plants are some of the biggest electric enterprises in

Switzerland19. So, in case of financial losses, those enterprises are in a strong

position to support the plants in a monetary way and they already do it. Agricultural

biogas plants in this bundle belong to small farming enterprises that cannot afford

to compensate losses from the operation of a biogas plant. Kompogas plays the most

important part in the development of large-scale industrial biogas plants in

Switzerland. Kompogas is a company owned by Axpo, one of the biggest electric

utilities in Switzerland20.

A similar situation can be stated by analyzing the market behavior of wastewater

treatment plants (ARA:“Abwasserreinigungsanlage”): After introducing Swiss feed-

in-tariffs, many large waste water treatment plants started to dispose co-substrates

in raw quantities in order to produce green electricity. Because the infrastructure to

overtake external biomass was already installed by the majority, those plants were

able to dispose organic material by using very low disposal prices. In this context it

should be mentioned that wastewater treatment plants are owned by the public

authorities and are financed through fees21. Moreover, those plants do not close

nutrition cycles because of mixing harmless co-substrates with harmful household

wastewater in the same digesters. The consequence of this operation is that all dried

slurry has to be burnt and the included nutrition elements such as azotes, potash

and especially phosphor can’t be recycled as fertilizer.

The lack of alternatives

Observing the common practice of biogas digester feeding in other European

countries may lead one to the use of energy crops as an alternative for biogas plants

19 For example Groupe E: http://www.greenwatt.ch/de/news.18/die-biogasanlage-von-seedorf-fr-offnet-ihre-

ture.152.html or Axpo (see below)

20 http://www.axpo-kompogas.ch/index.php?path=home&lang=fr

21 ARA Bern, as an example of ~700 ARAs in Switzerland: http://www.arabern.ch/unternehmung/ueber-uns.html?&L=1

28

in this bundle. Energy crops are plants or parts of them that are intentionally

produced for the production of renewable energy. In contrast co-substrates can be

addressed as by-products or wastes. Energy crops are no alternative in Switzerland.

On the judicial point of view, the law about Swiss feed-in-tariffs punishes biogas

plants using a significant volume of energy crops by paying lower tariffs if the biogas

plant uses more than 20 % of input material that is not manure22. Despite rising

prices, co-substrates are still cheaper than energy crops. On the other side, all

stakeholders (administration, public opinion, neighbors, politics, etc.) in

Switzerland are explicitly against biogas plants operating with energy crops. They

are not accepted due to the problematic with the use of farmland for energy

production instead of comestible goods23.

Another alternative could be the switch from the use of co-substrates to the

enhanced use of manure. But this does not solve the economic problem. Beside the

fact, that manure has a much lower energy density per unit, existing biogas plants

have been configured to operate with up to 50% of co-substrates. This means that

the entire plant concept wouldn’t fit anymore. In additional, the enhanced use of

manure for already existing plants would lead to longer transport ways. This is

ecologically not worthwhile and has its economical limits due to transportation

costs.

Upcoming new requirements on technical and operational issues

After the introduction of Swiss’ feed-in-tariffs for biogas plants in 2009, a wide

range of new regulations for its operation had been installed. Some of them are still

in the phase of a political debate, but independently of the finalized result, it can

22 http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983391/201404010000/730.01.pdf, page 70, paragraph 6.5,

point e

23 Biomass strategy of Switzerland:

https://www.infothek-biomasse.ch/images//180_2010_BFE_Biomasse_Energiestrategie_Schweiz.pdf, page 16, paragraph

VIII .

29

already be clearly stated that those regulations will impact in higher requirements

and costs for managing and operating for both, new and existent biogas plants.

As always when new regulations are introduced, it is clear that some of the

measures are appropriated, but some are far away from workability, especially

under a cost analysis perspective. Many of the new requirements will either

increase administrational/managing costs or provoke constructional cost over-runs.

Large share of low energetic manure

A requirement for the subsidy and especially the land-use regulations is a share of at

least 50 % of animal manure. Animal manure has a very low energy content

(compared to energy crops or co-substrates) and hence requires a lot of digester

volume. Bigger digesters mean higher investments and make the CHF/kW ratio

unfavorable. Also, the volume of digestate increases which leads to further problems

such as conflicts with legal acts about land-use planning for example. This finding

from the last report still remains true despite the profitability of co-substrates has

decreased in a way that increased manure usage is an option again.

As a result of the above barriers the agricultural biogas plants face several severe

challenges that make economic operation difficult even with the feed in tariff. The

sale of the emission reductions from these projects will lead to additional income

that can compensate the decrease of disposal revenues and the increase of co-

substrate costs. As the projects are endangered of discontinuation and the

marketing of carbon credits can lower that risk, the emission reductions can be

addressed as additional.

30

4 I N V E N T O R Y O F S O U R C E S , S I N K S A N D R E S E R V O I R S ( S S R S )

F O R T H E P R O J E C T A N D B A S E L I N E

BASELINE SSRS Controlled Related Affected How the GHG SSR change from the

baseline scenario to the project?

GHG Source

1) CO2 emission

from fossil fuel

consumption to

generate electricity

and/or heat in

absence of the

project

√

The thermal energy generated by

the project activity will replace

thermal energy that has -in some

of the installations- been generated

by fossil fuels and in this aspect

reduce the CO2 emission.

2) CH4 emission

released during the

degradation

process of manure

√

The project will collect CH4 via

biogas digester and combust it in a

CHP. In absence of the project

activity the CH4 will be released

into the atmosphere in an

uncontrolled manner.

3) N2O and CO2

emission from the

production of

artificial fertilizer

√

The closed nutrient cycle of project

activity will make some of the

artificial fertilizer redundant,

reducing the demand for it.

Production of artificial fertilizers is

energy intensive and greenhouse

gases are formed during the

process.

31

PROJECT ACTIVITY

SSRS Controlled Related Affected

How the GHG SSR change from the

baseline scenario to the project?

GHG Source

4) CO2 emission

emitted from the

project activities

consumption of

electricity or heat

produced with

fossil fuels.

√

There will probably be

consumption of electricity or heat

produced with fossil fuels by the

project activity, which will emit

CO2.

5) CO2 emission

from burning of

diesel fuel by

trucks transporting

manure and co-

ferments

√ More transports than in baseline

scenario are likely to appear.

6) CH4 emissions

from leakage or

incomplete

methane

combustion.

√

Biogas may escape through not

tight tubes or cracks in the digester

or the membrane roofs.

GHG Sink

7) CO2 and

Nitrogen sink in

the co-ferments

probable used in

the project

√

The project will possibly use co-

ferments to augment electrical

production or to supplement the

nutrient element in the biogas

digester. In that case, part of CH4 is

generated by the degradation of

co-ferment, which is against GHG

sink.

Table 7: Inventory of sources sinks and reservoirs

32

Criterion for relevance of a source, sink or reservoir is an emission (reduction) that

counts for at least 1% of the calculated total emission reduction of project activity24.

SSRs that do not meet this criterion will not be considered. Also, only SSRs

controlled by project activity will be considered.

Source 4, in spite being relevant by definition above, will not be considered because

no reductions were claimed for the production of renewable electric energy. Project

activity has a positive balance regarding emission from electric energy production.

Considering the emissions from energy consumption while not considering the

reductions from production of renewable energy would result in an unfair

valuation. According to a study from the German “Fachagentur Nachwachsende

Rohstoffe” (FNR) the own consumption of biogas accounts for 7,9% of the produced

energy in average.25

Source 5 usually does account for less than 1% of total emission reductions.

Experience showed that biogas plants with a small radius of substrate supply do not

cause relevant emissions from transport of biomass. By far, most of the manure

comes from the farm that is connected to the biogas plant and no transport takes

place. Co Substrates with low energy value have usually low transport distances

because transport costs are relatively high if energy density is low. Only highly

energetic substrates like glycerine will be transported over distances > 10 km.

Source 6 is estimated as irrelevant because state of the art technique is not

supposed to leak a significant amount of methane. The Swiss federal environmental

authority BAFU publishes guidelines for the implementation of environmental

regulations for the building and operation of biogas plants that the responsible

24 „Guidance on criteria for baseline setting and monitoring, Version 2 §14(a)iii”, JISC

25 Biogas Messprogramm II, 61 Biogasanlagen im Vergleich (FNR, 2009)

33

authorities (those who give the permits) have to follow26. Gas storages for example

“…must be gastight, compression proof, media and UV durable according to the state

of the art.” (page 29). Requirements for gas installations in general are: “… must be

gastight and be able to stand the pressure.” (page 51). In practice, implementation

of this guidelines means that after construction of the digesters the contracted

company has to approve and certify the tightness. Manufacturers of gaspipes and

membrane roofs also have to certify that their products will not cause gas leakage.

Not only this legal but also economic aspects motivate the project owner to keep the

system gastight. Methane combustion is the process that generates energy and

therefore the income of the plant. A high loss of methane would make a biogas plant

economical unfeasible. Technical measurements to avoid methane leakage here

include gastight gas pipes and digesters as well as tested plastic roofs especially

made for gas storage.

26 Biogasanlagen in der Landwirtschaft: Ein Modul zur Vollzugshilfe Umweltschutz in der Landwirtschaft, BAFU 2016

https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/wasser/publikationen-studien/publikationen-wasser/biogasanlagen-in-

der-landwirtschaft.html

34

5 Q U A N T I F I C A T I O N A N D C A L C U L A T I O N O F G H G

E M I S S I O N S / R E M O V A L S

5 . 1 C a l c u l a t i o n o f B a s e l i n e E m i s s i o n s f r o m M a n u r e M a n a g e m e n t

The calculation of avoided CH4 emissions from manure management is based on

UNFCCC CDM small scale methodology AMS III.D in its 18th version. As this project

was initially verified with this Methodology version, it will be kept during future

monitoring as well for reasons of consistency. This approach is common practice for

projects under the flexible Kyoto mechanisms too.

The AMS III.D leaves the choice to estimate the baseline emissions based on the

quantity of manure and its specific volatile solids content (option B in paragraph 9)

or based on the number of animals (option A in paragraph 9).

In our case, the approach with manure input is more applicable because the number

of animals contributing to the manure input can hardly be determined especially

when the manure comes from different sources.

The formula used for Baseline calculation:

BEy Baseline Emissions in year y (t CO2e)

GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential of CH4 (28)

DCH4 Density of CH4 (0,00067 t/m³ at room temperature (20 °C) and 1 atm pressure)

UFb Correction factor to equal model uncertainties (0,94)

J Manure management system

MCFj Annual methane conversion factor (MCF) for manure management system j

Qmanure, j,LT,y Quantity of manure treated from livestock type LT and animal manure management system j

35

(tonnes/year, dry basis)

SVSj,LT,y Specific volatile solids content of animal manure from livestock type LT and animal manure

management system j in year y (tonnes/tonnes dry basis)

B0,LT Maximum methane producing potential of the volatile solid generated for animal type LT (m³

CH4 / kg dm)

Deviant from the methodology, the manure input is not measured on a dry base but

the amount of fresh manure is stated by the farmers in an annual report to either

the cantonal ministry of agriculture respectively the ministry of environment or to

Swissgrid, in order to calculate the exact feed-in-tariff (which depends on the

amount of used manure). The concrete responsible authority is always the authority

that has also issued the operation permit and differs between cantons.27 Basis of

this report is the GRUD (Grundlagen für die Düngung = principles of fertilization in

agricultural and feed cultivation). The GRUD publishes scientifically measured

values for manure production of different animal stock types in Switzerland. GRUD

is the official reference for reporting nutrient balances to the authorities28.

Both authorities annually control the manure fluxes based on the plant operator’s

report and they use the instrument of spot test to verify/inspect the annual reports

on site. The basis to run this report is given by national law of energy29 and

agricultural/environment30 respectively.

In additional, every biogas plant is obliged to handle a substrate log, where every

single lot (manure and co-substrates) has to be noted. This journal is part of the

requirements written in the individualized handling permit.

Both, biogas farmers and authorities, operate with fresh manure. Average values for

dry matter, organic dry matter or specific manure formation per animal have been

27 Example for canton Luzern: http://www.uwe.lu.ch/index/themen/energie/erneuerbare_energien/biogas.htm and Bern:

http://www.bve.be.ch/bve/de/index/direktion/organisation/awa.html

28 http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/gewaesserschutz-stoffhaushalt/00755/07276/index.html?lang=de

29 Energieverordnung (ENV): http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983391/201408010000/730.01.pdf ,

Appendix 6 Nr. 6.10. page 72

30 Direktzahlungsverordnung (DZV): http://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-

compilation/20130216/201401010000/910.13.pdf ,

36

taken from a list of substrates and their gas potential that is specific for Switzerland

and regularly maintained by “Biomasse Suisse” and “Ökostrom Schweiz”.

The manure is often diluted with water from the cleaning of the stables or the

mechanical milker for example. Therefore, and in order to estimate the methane

potential of the non-diluted manure, it is multiplied by an average factor for dilution.

This factor has been calculated by Ökostrom Schweiz from a database of 43 planned

or operating agricultural biogas installations and can be addressed as

representational, because it includes most of the Swiss agricultural biogas plants.

The calculation is included in the Excel spreadsheet handed out to the verifier.

In additional and generally, it can be clearly stated that biogas farmers always try to

minimize water quota in the input material, because water in digesters only

requires and blocks space and doesn’t contribute to the gas production.

Application of the above formula leads to the following results for the single projects:

For the monitoring year 2017:

Project nameBaseline emissions of manure

management [t CO2e]

Altishofen 315

Riethof 614

Fillgas 183

BioGas Lindau 1.438

Forz Agricula 62

Biopower Schürch 1.110

Lampart Biogas 306

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 173

Loorenhof 146

BAWA Biogas 514

SUMME 4.861

Table 8: Baseline Emissions from manure storage in 2017

37


Project name

Baseline emissions of

manure management

[t CO2e]

Altishofen -

Riethof 588

Fillgas 148

BioGas Lindau 1.468

Forz Agricula 60

Biopower Schürch 940

Lampart Biogas 291

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 183

Loorenhof 152

BAWA Biogas 453

SUMME 4.283

Table 9: Baseline Emissions from manure storage in 2018

5 . 1 . 1 A d j u s t m e n t o f B a s e l i n e E m i s s i o n c a l c u l a t i o n

For the previous Monitoring of the emission reductions of 2015 and 2016, two

adjustments have been made that both they affect the Methane Conversion Factor

(MCF):

1. Solid cattle manure has been divided into conventional cattle manure and cattle

manure deep litter. Deep litter has a higher MCF but the overall impact on the

emission reductions remains low because only 18,1% of solid cattle manure is

allocated to deep litter. The allocation is done by a percentage that has been derived

from a study about agricultural emissions in Switzerland.31 Consistency is granted

because the source for the MCF value is the same IPCC table that is used to

determine all types of manure.

2. The calculation of the Methane Conversion Factor for liquid manure has been

updated. The initial Monitoring reports already introduced a MCF that has been

calculated under consideration of the specific agricultural practice in Switzerland.

31 Kupper et al.: Ammoniakemissionen in der Schweiz 1990-2010 und Prognose bis 2020

38

The newly calculated MCF uses formula from the IPCC guidelines and actual Swiss

climate data.

For this Monitoring of emission reductions of 2017 and 2018, the Global Warming

Potential (GWP) of CH4 has been adjusted to the actual international recognized

value of 28, published in the latest IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)32.

The IPCC compiles and evaluates the results of current scientific, technical and

socio-economic literature published worldwide on climate change. The evaluations

appear in reports ("IPCC Assessment Reports") that are intended to

comprehensively reflect the current state of research on climate change. Because

the works on IPCC reports involve hundreds of scientists and are open, verifiable

and under effective control procedures, their statements are regarded as state of the

art on climate change33. The GWP value of CH4 has evolved in accordance with the

latest scientific findings. In the previous IPCC Assessment Report 4 that appears in

2007, the validated value of GPW for CH4 was 25.

5 . 2 C a l c u l a t i o n o f B a s e l i n e E m i s s i o n s f r o m f o s s i l f u e l h e a t i n g

The CO2 emissions due to the use of fossil fuels to generate heat are determined

using formula from approved UNFCCC methodology AMS-I.C in its 19th version,

“Thermal energy production with or without electricity”. For ex-post calculation of

the substitution of fossil fuels, a possible change of the heating system must be

considered. If the heating consumer is likely to change to a system with renewable

fuels, the claimable emission reductions would equal zero. A change in the heating

system would only be likely if the old system has to be replaced.

32 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2014: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_all_final.pdf, chapter

8, table 8.7, page 714 (over 100 Years).

33 https://wiki.bildungsserver.de/klimawandel/index.php/IPCC

39

Another requirement for the replacement of fossil fuels is that the heat consumer

has actually been heated with fossil fuels before. The initial fuels for the heating

systems are shown in the calculation tables.

The formula used for Baseline calculation:

BEII,y Baseline Emissions of fossil heat replaced by project activity in the year y [t CO2e]

EGthermal,y Net heat supplied by project activity in year y [TJ]

η BL,thermal Efficiency of fossil fuel based system in absence of project activity in year y [%]

EF FF,CO2 CO2 Emission factor of fossil fuel in the baseline scenario [t CO2 / TJ]

An efficiency factor has not been considered for reasons of conservativeness.

Efficiency of modern fossil fuel heating systems is usually above 95%34.

Thermal energy used is measured as monitoring parameter TEP and converted from

kWh to TJ by the factor 0.0000036.

In cases where no heat meter is installed, the replaced thermal energy will be

determined by the historical annual fossil fuel demand and the present fossil fuel

demand for the same purpose. The difference between historical and actual demand

is the amount of fossil fuel that has been saved. The amount of fuel is converted with

its specific energy content into the corresponding amount of thermal energy.

34 „Taschenbuch der Heizungs- und Klimatechnik" Table 19 page 2111 (column „after 1995“):

http://www.energieverbraucher.de/files/download/file/0/1/0/183.pdf

40


Project name Emission reduction [t CO2e]

Altishofen -

Riethof 85

Fillgas 86

BioGas Lindau 311

Forz Agricula 7


Lampart Biogas -

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 52

Loorenhof -

BAWA Biogas 164

SUMME 797

Table 10: Baseline emissions fossil fuel heating in 2017


Project name Emission reduction [t CO2e]

Altishofen -

Riethof 85

Fillgas 86

BioGas Lindau 258

Forz Agricula 7


Lampart Biogas -

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 47

Loorenhof -

BAWA Biogas 155

SUMME 730

Table 11: Baseline emissions fossil fuel heating in 2018

5 . 3 P r o j e c t E m i s s i o n s

The AMS I.C Methodology describes the following possible project emissions:

41

a) CO2 emissions from on-site consumption of fossil fuels due to the project activity

b) CO2 emissions from electricity consumption by the project activity

Potential sources of project emissions are also included in project emissions for

AMS III.D and will be discussed below.

The AMS III.D Methodology describes the following possible project emissions:

a) Physical leakage of biogas in the manure management systems, which includes

production, collection and transport of biogas to the point of flaring/combustion or

gainful use

b) Emissions from flaring or combustion of the gas stream

c) CO2 emissions from use of fossil fuels or electricity for the operation of all the

installed facilities

d) CO2 emissions from incremental transportation distances

e) Emissions from the storage of manure before being fed into the anaerobic

digester.

The listing of project emissions from methodology AMS I.C and AMS III.D shows that

the project emissions of AMS I.C are already included in AMS III.D. (AMS I.C a) and

b) corresponds to AMS III.D).

The methodologies are applied to the same activity: the production of biogas from

animal manure and combustion for power and heat production in a CHP.

Considering the project emissions from both methodologies would lead to a double

counting. For this project bundle, the project emissions are estimated to be overall

10 % of total emission reductions. This estimate is based on calculation for several

biogas projects in different countries and under different standards. In the

following, the different project emissions and their relevance will be discussed. This

approach shall make it possible for small scale biogas plant to take part in

certification by reducing the efforts of calculation and documentation. It can also be

42

addressed as a conservative approach. This is the result of discussion of the above

sources of project emissions:

a) Emissions from physical leakage of biogas:

The physical leakage of biogas in AMS III.D is determined at 10 %. This value can be

addressed as too high considering experiences from practice. The system of the

biogas plant starting at the input of manure is gastight. The operator has an interest

to keep the system gastight for security reasons, but also because biogas is the fuel

that runs the engine and creates the income. Severe discrepancies between the

biogas potential of the substrates and the produced electric energy would become

apparent to the operator.

b) Emissions from flaring :

Most of the projects in the bundle have a stationary or mobile gas flare available,

that will burn the biogas, if the CHP is not running. When looking at the CHP

capacities and the actually produced energy, it becomes clear that times of gas

surplus do practically not occur. In CHP downtimes (during maintenance), the gas

storage within the membrane roof can store the gas that is not burned. Gas flares

claim to have a burning efficiency of at least 99 %, which does equal the efficiency of

the CHP. Considering this efficiency, the emissions will in every case be below the

threshold for significant emission reductions.

c) Emissions from use of fossil fuels or electricity:

Project activity will not make use of fossil fuels for heating. The thermal energy for

the digestion process comes from the heat in the CHP, that is won by burning of the

biogas. The electrical energy used is taken from the grid and is, to some extent,

produced by fossil fuels. But the project will also produce CO2 neutral electric

energy that will replace the fossil fuel generated energy in the grid. To avoid

possible double counting, the energy fed into the grid is not taken into account for

the calculation of emission reductions. It would be unjustified to subtract the own

consumption of energy as project emissions while ignoring the reduction from the

43

production of renewable energy. The own consumption usually is around eight

percent of the energy produced.

d) Emissions from transport of biomass:

Transport of biomass to the biogas plant causes emissions from the combustion of

fossil fuels. Usually the emissions from transportation are below 1 % of total

emission reductions by the project and do not exceed the criterion for significance

(1 % of total emission reductions or 2,000 t CO2e). It must be considered that

transportation of manure and agricultural goods is part of agricultural activity and

will take place even in absence of project activity. The reduction of volume during

anaerobic digestion (usually 15-20 %) will also lead to a reduction of number of

transports. It could be argued that emissions from transporting manure are lower

than in the reference case due to the partially use of pipes between the plant and the

involved neighbor farms. On the other side, we suppose that emissions from non-

agricultural transport remain the same than in the reference case, because if earlier,

co-substrates have been composted by farmers, now co-substrates will be digested

by other farmers. The overall transportation distance may so remain at the same

level and decreases with an augmented number of biogas plants which is likely to

occur in the present.

e) Emissions from the storage of manure before being fed into the anaerobic

digester:

The manure from the own farm is directed into a mixing tank and from there into

the anaerobic digester. Internal manure will not be stored for longer than 24 hours.

Concerning the fraction of external manure, the storage duration again will be

supposed to be low, because every plant operator is dependent on a prompt

treatment to exploit the entire gas potential of manure as calculated in the primary

economical presetting. However, eventual project emissions from manure storage

are covered by the 10 % of emission reductions.

44


Project name Project emissions [t CO2e]

Altishofen 32

Riethof 62

Fillgas 18

BioGas Lindau 143

Forz Agricula 6


Lampart Biogas 31

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 18

Loorenhof 15

BAWA Biogas 51

SUMME 487


Project name Project emissions [t CO2e]

Altishofen -

Riethof 65

Fillgas 16

BioGas Lindau 164

Forz Agricula 7


Lampart Biogas 33

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 21

Loorenhof 17

BAWA Biogas 50

SUMME 477

5 . 3 E m i s s i o n r e d u c t i o n s

The total GHG reduction caused by the project activity is determined ex-post by

BEtotal = BEI + BE II – PE

Table 12: Project Emissions in 2017

Table 13: Project Emissions in 2018

45


Project name Emission Reduction [t CO2e]

Altishofen 283

Riethof 637

Fillgas 251

BioGas Lindau 1.606

Forz Agricula 63


Lampart Biogas 275

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 207

Loorenhof 131

BAWA Biogas 627

SUMME 5.171

Table 14: Total emission reductions in 2017


Project name Emission Reduction [t CO2e]

Altishofen -

Riethof 673

Fillgas 234

BioGas Lindau 1.726

Forz Agricula 67


Lampart Biogas 291

Biogas Kaltbrunn -

Sprenger 230

Loorenhof 152

BAWA Biogas 608

SUMME 5.013

Table 15: Total emission reductions in 2018

46

6 D E S C R I P T I O N O F H O W E A C H O F T H E I S O 1 4 0 6 4 G U I D I N G

P R I N C I P L E S H A S B E E N R E S P E C T E D O R A D D R E S S E D

Relevance

Relevance criterion was adapted from JI Guidelines. The criterion is a share of at

least 1 % of the baseline emissions or an amount of 2,000 t CO2e emission reduction

per project site, depending on which value is lower. Because of the small scale

characteristic, the 2,000 t threshold is not applicable though. As explained above,

project activity has a positive balance regarding emission from electric energy

production.

Completeness

The formula of CDM small scale Methodology AMS III.D was used to calculate

emission reductions. Calculations of project emissions have been simplified to

better meet the efforts that such small projects can take.

Consistency

Formulas are adapted from approved UNFCCC methodologies and IPCC values.

Literature values are mainly taken from a list that is maintained by Biomasse

Schweiz and Ökostrom Schweiz, which is a trustworthy source of local data for

Switzerland. For the Monitoring of 2017 and 2018, the same methodologies and

assumptions were employed that were used for the initial Monitoring of 2010 and

the following Monitorings.

Accuracy

Accuracy of measurement is supposed to be very high because the measuring

instruments in the CHP or weighing scales are state of the art in thousands of

installations worldwide.

47

Formulas from approved methodologies have undergone several revisions and

improvements. The results are expected to be accurate.

Transparency

An excel sheet is provided to the verifying entity, which contains all formula and

data used with the corresponding source.

The handwritten data like the operation manual (where the substrates inputs are

archived in absence of computer logging systems) can be viewed any time.

Conservativeness

Conservative assumptions have been made in all key questions, like the relevance of

SSRs (that have to be identified according to ISO 14064), calculation of project

emissions and choice of calculation factors, that affect the emission reductions such

as the Methane Conversion Factor (MCF) in AMS III.D, for example.

48

7 M O N I T O R I N G T H E D A T A I N F O R M A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M A N D D A T A C O N T R O L S

SSR identifier

or name

Data parameter Estimation, modeling,

measurement or

calculation

approaches

Data Recording

(electronic or

paper)

Data

unit

Sources /

Origin

Monitoring

frequency

Description and

justification of

monitoring method

Uncertainty QA/QC

Source 1 TEP (Thermal

energy produced for

external utilisation)

Monitored Analysis report,

Electronic or paper

kWh or

MWh

Heat Counter

or fuel bills

Continuously To determine the

displaced fossil fuels

of the baseline

scenario (only for

phase 2).

Low

(approx.<1%)

Heat counters are

standard installations

being highly precise,

additionally normally

referred to delivery

accounting.

Source 1 EEP (Electrical

energy produced)


Electronic or paper

kWh Power meter Continuously To cross-check the

biogas produced and

destroyed by the CHP

engines.

Very low

(approx.<0.5%)

Power meters are

standard installations

being highly precise,

additionally referred to

delivery accounting.

Source 2 MCOFi (Mass of

each co-ferment i

fed into digester)


Electronic or paper

t Scales

recording at

supplier

When applicable To determine the

biogas potential for

cross checking with

actual energy

production

Low

(approx.<3%)

High mass scales are

very robust mechanical

instruments being

resistant of deviation

within the uncertainty

level.

Source 2 MANURE (Volume

of manure fed into

digester)


Electronic or paper

t Annual report

to Ministry of

Agriculture,

Environment

or Swissgrid

Continously Value is used to

calculate the

emission reductions.

Low

(approx.<3%)

Annual report is the

basis for financial

support or

verification/control of the

farmers and is

supervised by several

different Swiss

authorities

Source 5,6 FT (Fraction of time) Monitored Analysis report,

Electronic or paper

h Runtime

counter

Continuously This parameter is

used to control that

the biogas produced

is destroyed in the

CHP engines.

Low

(approx.<1%)

Runtime hour recording

is a standard

measurement method.

ghg project plan in accordance with iso 14064 period … · 1 climate protection by small scale...

Documents