Abstract
In the pioneering phase of the development, biogas generation was associated with low-tech applications. The technology was regarded as a marginal topic in the German research landscape of the 1970s and 1980s, drawing attention only from a small circle of scientists from agricultural research institutes, nonuniversity research institutions and a few universities. So far the innovation process has undergone six phases. Transition from the pioneering phase to the inception phase was initiated by the Electricity Feed-in Act of 1990. The adoption of the Renewable Energy Sources Act in 2000 spurred on the innovation process. Its revision in 2004 allowed for a great increase in the number of plants constructed, which ultimately led to the sector’s boom phase. After 2006 the process of biomass innovation exhibited a changing dynamic.
Generating electricity from biogas is still expensive, since the efficiency rates of converting biogas into electricity are limited. A cost degression effect similar to that in the wind power sector has not set in to date because of the heavy dependence on substrate prices. The biogas sector is occasionally faced with conflict at the local and regional level. Unlike in the other energy sectors, these conflicts are not only caused by the increasing concentration of biogas plants, but also by the fact that substrate production (especially corn cultivation) requires large expanses of land.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Biogas is produced in oxygen-free (anaerobic) conditions when biomass breaks down into its component building blocks. For the decomposition of organic materials to take place, certain bacteria are needed which exist in anaerobic conditions, at temperatures between 30 C and 37 C and which generate methane (CH4). Biogas consists of about two thirds methane and one third carbon dioxide. The gas also contains limited quantities of hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other trace elements (FNR 2006b, 25–26).
- 2.
In the 1920s, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Karl Imhoff, the “father of wastewater treatment”, built the first digestion tower for the anaerobic treatment of sewage sludge in Essen.
- 3.
In the cities of Halle, Pforzheim, Essen, Erfurt, Pößneck, Munich and Heilbronn.
- 4.
The terms semi-liquid manure and slurry are applied synonymously.
- 5.
For example methane formation, ammonia damage, and nitrogen leaching into the ground water.
- 6.
See Mutert (2000, 31 sqq.) for innovation research and innovation policy in the 1970s.
- 7.
Slurry regulations (based on the power vested in the Federal Water Act to issue statutory instruments) regulate the conditions (time periods, minimum areas per livestock unit) under which semi-liquid manure can be introduced to areas of land in an effort to reduce the contamination of groundwater by nitrates.
- 8.
Full title: “Energieforschung und Energietechnologien”, period of operation: 1977–1980 and 1981–1990. The second energy research program (1981–1990) focused on topics such as the further development of incineration/gasification/pyrolysis plants, testing/adaptation of biogas plants for various waste materials and plant sizes, optimization of processing techniques of fermentation substrates, testing of largely energy self-sufficient systems in agriculture as well as first investigations into combined energy and food plant use.
- 9.
At the Federal Agricultural Research Center, Braunschweig (FAL) a 100 m3 volume “bihugas plant” (see Section 4.2.1.5) was being built at the time. The plant was equipped with adequate measurement technologies and was run in order to investigate questions that were largely still concerned with composting or fertilizer production. However, according to Weiland (2008, pers. comm.) the “bihugas plant” was also the starting signal for considerations in terms of the use of semi-liquid manure for generating power.
- 10.
This program supports research and pilot projects for the cultivation and use of renewable resources. The thematic orientation of the support program is determined in the “Gülzower Fachgespräche” (Gülzow Expert Talks) that have been taking place since 1993.
- 11.
A plant with closed silos was built in Nordhausen. These silos were also used in conventional sewage treatment plants (Linke 2008, pers. comm.).
- 12.
The plants used for the treatment of semi-liquid manure were not adjusted to run on solid manure or substrates such as straw. The consequences were blockages and insufficient mixing of the substrate (Weiland 2008, pers. comm.).
- 13.
Only beginning in the mid 1990s the development concentrated on a few new building types and technical versions, which are today regarded as technologically mature and well proven.
- 14.
In the former GDR, animal production was centralized. Large facilities for the fattening and breeding of swine and cattle kept up to 190,000 animals in one place in so-called combined fattening and breeding facilities.
- 15.
In the 1980s, Fiat produced a small CHP plant in small batches (Fiat TOTEM), which could be run on biogas. The alternative biogas scene in West Germany knew of these power plants, but demand was low since oil only cost 10 pfennigs per liter. Fiat therefore stopped the production of the TOTEM-motor after a short while.
- 16.
The “Bundschuh-Biogasgruppe” developed from a (successful) protest movement against a planned Daimler-Benz test track in Baden-Württemberg.
- 17.
Dr. Heinz Schulz was the co-founder of the Fachverband Biogas e.V. in 1992.
- 18.
The KTBL is an institution in the operational division of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMVELV), which is responsible for the transfer of technologies into agricultural practice. See http://www.ktbl.de/index.php?id = 9 (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 19.
For example Haase Energietechnik GmbH, which has worked in the area of mechanical-biological treatment of municipal waste (MBT), landfill engineering (landfill gas, leachate) and energy systems since 1981. See http://www.haase-energietechnik.de (accessed August 17, 2009).
- 20.
Indicated by the two circles in Fig. 4.3.
- 21.
The sources for the legal information used in this chapter are given in the Index of Legal Sources.
- 22.
The StrEG amendments of 1996 and 1998 did not develop momentum within the constellation.
- 23.
For more details on the role of the Committee of Inquiry, see Section 3.4.2.2.
- 24.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 334/93 of 15 February 1993, last modified by Regulation (EC) No 2991/95. These directives contain detailed procedural specifications for the cultivation of energy crops on set-aside land.
- 25.
For the origin of the StrEG and its aims, see Section 3.7.1.
- 26.
Even as early as at this point, it became clear that there was a need for readjustments, as the digestion of organic waste was associated with the release of pollutants and the question of the disposal of contaminated digester residues needed to be resolved. See Section 4.2.3.3 concerning the enactment of the Biomass Ordinance.
- 27.
The media also reported on the environmental problem of the production and storage of large quantities of slurry in slurry lagoons.
- 28.
Slaughterhouse waste, organic waste from industrial kitchens, biogenic industrial waste such as fat from the food industry.
- 29.
See history of the Wittmund co-fermentation plant on www.biogasanlage-wittmund.de (accessed August 17, 2009).
- 30.
See http://www.bkwk.de/bkwk/infos/chronik/ (accessed August 17, 2009).
- 31.
For example in the case of individual scientists from the research facilities who became self-employed plant designers.
- 32.
These were the Institut für Düngungsforschung at the Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften in Potsdam and the Institut für Energetik (Leipzig) (IE Leipzig).
- 33.
Today known as the Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim.
- 34.
Since 1999, the association has been based in Freising, near Munich: See http://www.biogas.org/ (accessed September 29, 2009).
- 35.
Dr. Heinz Schulz (dec. 1998) was both the leader of the Environment and Energy Technology department of the Bavarian Landesanstalt für Landtechnik (State Institute for Agricultural Technology) as well as director of the Landtechnischer Verein (Association of Agricultural Technology) in Bavaria.
- 36.
This is documented in the association’s conference proceedings from 1997 concerning the main topic of Europe, with reports from Luxembourg, England, Austria und Italy.
- 37.
During the yearly conference of 2004, the Association expanded its focus area to include EU candidate countries such as the Czech Republic.
- 38.
http://www.biogasunion.de (accessed August 21, 2009) based in Berlin.
- 39.
The reform of the CAP led to the introduction of a single payment scheme for determining direct payments to farmers. The size of the payment is partly determined by the previously received direct payments and partly by the standardized amounts per hectare of eligible land. The payment is linked to compliance with certain standards (cross compliance). See BMELV (2006, 68 sqq.) and http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/capreform/index_de.htm (accessed June 13, 2007).
- 40.
For example Kaltschmitt & Wiese (1993); Nitsch & Langniß (1999).
- 41.
Since 1999, the price of grain was lower that its value as fuel. The price of rye eventually fell to 7 euro/dt (Schütte 2008, pers. comm.).
- 42.
Interestingly, the use of rapeseed oil – a high quality food product – was not subjected to the same degree of criticism.
- 43.
Cf. BT-Drs. 16/6418 of October 18, 2007. This was justified by saying that securing food supplies whilst avoiding rising costs had priority and that problems resulting from the release of unwanted emissions during combustion have not been satisfactorily solved yet.
- 44.
EEG 2000, EEG 2004 (see Index of legal references), BiomasseV 2001, privileges under building law in EAG-Bau 2004.
- 45.
For information on the establishment of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) see Section 3.7.2.
- 46.
Degression refers to the process of the relative or absolute reduction of one parameter with the rise of a correlated parameter.
- 47.
See Hoffmann (2002, 73).
- 48.
Within the scope of the EEG, the BiomasseV specifies which materials count as biomass, which procedures for power generation from biomass fall within the scope of the law and which environmental requirements are to be followed when generating power from biomass. For the purposes of this regulation, those things which count as biomass are most significantly plants and parts of plants, plant and animal waste and byproducts, and biological waste, including waste wood.
- 49.
The support program follows the support framework for the period 1996–2000.
- 50.
Data concerning profitability were collected in a nationwide monitoring program, which included 60 of the 317 biogas plants which were put into operation between 1999 and 2002. For information on the results see FNR (2005a and 2005b).
- 51.
Between 1998 and 2002 the Ministry of Economy was led by Minister Werner Müller (independent), and from 2002 by “superminister” (Minister for Economics and Labour) Wolfgang Clement (SPD). In both cases the politicians were closely associated with the energy sector and did not support the national renewables strategies.
- 52.
The management level of the conservation associations, for example, had in principle committed themselves to the aims of climate protection (NABU 1998).
- 53.
Inter alia Ammermann (2005); Rode et al. (2005).
- 54.
European Law Adaptation Act (see Index of Legal Sources).
- 55.
For example the increased requirements of land area in order to make agriculture more extensive and ecologically friendly, as well as areas for the cultivation of fodder and foodstuffs in areas of intensive stock rearing. Within agriculture, further competition also existed in the material utilization of renewable resources.
- 56.
For example, the entitlement – as enshrined in conservation law – to 10% of the area for the wildlife corridor, the demand for areas of land in order to compensate for ecosystem interference caused by building and infrastructure projects, areas for contractual nature conservation and conservation measures integrated with cultivation.
- 57.
Such as afforestation, especially in sparsely wooded regions.
- 58.
For information on the crisis in food supply and food price see Section 3.1.5.
- 59.
This argument might have applied on the national level, however, regionally (e.g. in intensive stock-farming areas) shortages and increasing fodder production costs still occurred as a result of increasing lease prices and higher costs of transport for the procurement of fodder.
- 60.
See § 8, Abs. (2), Nr. 1, (a).
- 61.
The possibility of using the gas grid for biogas was first granted during the parliamentary discussion on the EEG of 2004. The remuneration for power generated from upgraded biogas is paid whether the power is produced locally or – having been injected into the gas grid – somewhere else.
- 62.
The Federal Environment Ministry published a guide for interpretation in March 2007 under
http://www.umweltministerium.de/erneuerbare_energien/downloads/doc/39019.php (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 63.
Item (24) of the preamble obliges member states to ensure “that biogas and gas from biomass or other types of gas are granted non-discriminatory access to the gas system”. In the previous directive 98/30/EC, which was replaced by the new directive 2003/55/EC, biogas feed-in had not been explicitly considered.
- 64.
If there is any free capacity, biogas is to be given priority in the local distribution network level. When net capacities are insufficient, however, the grid operator may refuse gas injection.
- 65.
See also research project on the conditions of gas injection cf. Fraunhofer UMSICHT; Projekthomepage, http://www.biogaseinspeisung.de (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 66.
The minimum injection volume, up to 500 m3/h biomethane, can only be fed into grids with a high flow-rate. Local grids (usually < 1 bar) are not adequate for this.
- 67.
This included, amongst others, the German Biogas Association and the political party BÜNDNIS 90/Die GRÜNEN http://gaseinspeisegesetz.de/CorneliaBehm_MdB_B90Gruenen.pdf (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 68.
In a statement on the EU Biomass action plan, the Federal Government declared that, given the successes achieved so far, there was no need for a biogas feed-in law along the lines of the EEG. The Federal Network Agency also objected to it.
- 69.
An operator survey showed that, so far, more than half (approximately 55%) of the plants had been approved according to BImSchG and approximately 44% according to building legislation (Scholwin & Thrän 2008, 44).
- 70.
Up to the amendment of 2004, biogas plants in the outer zone were only considered privileged in compliance with Section 35 BauGB if they were either mainly fed with materials from their own agricultural operations or if the energy generated by them was mainly used by the farmer himself.
- 71.
Thus, there must be a spatial and functional connection with a farm or a stockfarm and more than 50% of the biomass must originate on this farm or similar farms nearby. Privileged status is restricted to one plant per farm or operating location.
- 72.
The term Außenbereich comes from German zoning law and describes a category of areas which are not within the area designated by a binding land-use plan and which are not part of the already built-up area (Innenbereich); see Section 35 (3) of the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch – BauGB).
- 73.
On the basis of a model ordinance of the technical commission for urban development of ARGEBAU of 22 March 2006.
- 74.
The federal state of Brandenburg manifested the restoration obligation in the form of an ordinance. (Erlass des Ministeriums für Infrastruktur und Raumordnung zur Rückbauverpflichtung und Sicherheitsleistung as per § 35 Abs. 5 Satz 2 and 3 BauGB in combination with § 67 Abs. 3 Brandenburgische Bauordnung of 28 March 2006).
- 75.
Land is a very scarce commodity in Germany nowadays. The continued removal of agricultural land for the realization of other land-use demands (e.g. transport, urban development) is continuously reducing the potential for cultivation (Reinhardt & Gärtner 2005, 400 sqq.). Opinions differ on the question of to what extent these losses can be compensated for, or even more than compensated for, by improving production methods. According to Reinhardt & Gärtner (2005, 401), the significant sustainability goals could only be implemented through a reduction in the degree of self-sufficiency (food production) to 80%.
- 76.
Assessments of the potential of biomass: Fritsche et al. (2004): Stoffstromanalyse zur nachhaltigen energetischen Nutzung von Biomasse; Nitsch et al. (2004): Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland; IE Leipzig (2005): Nachhaltige Biomassenutzungsstrategien im europäischen Kontext. EEA (2006): How much biomass can Europe produce without harming the environment.
- 77.
Power from the 500 kW plants running on renewable resources in the biogas park was remunerated at a rate of 16 cents/kWh (instead of 9.3 cents/kWh for a 20 MW large-scale plant) until the end of 2008.
- 78.
Over a period of 20 years, the plant would have had higher revenues of around 200 million euro due to the increased tariff rates (own calculations).
- 79.
Various scrubbing methods (high-pressure water scrubbing, non-pressurized amine wash, organic wash) as well as Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) are available for this purpose.
- 80.
In order to attain natural gas quality, the raw gas has to be dried and pollutant gases (e.g. hydrogen sulphide) as well as carbon dioxide have to be washed off.
- 81.
One example is the biogas plant in Pliening, Bavaria. With a capacity of 3.9 million m3 the plant produces biomethane and feeds 485 m3/h into the gas grid. E.ON Bayern is the buyer. The project was implemented by Schmack Biogas AG together with Renewable Energy Systems GmbH. http://www.biogas-netzeinspeisung.at/anlagenbeispiele/pliening.html (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 82.
The bonus system was supposed to make it possible to set specific incentives for the achievement of certain developments. So, for example, the NawaRo bonus was supposed to make other, hitherto unused, potentials accessible. The strengthening of CHP generation, as well as progress in terms of technological development, also formed a part of the explicit aims. In particular, the CHP bonus and the technology bonus were intended to provide incentives for increasing efficiency.
- 83.
Corporate enterprises (public and private limited companies) constitute about a quarter of the plant operators (ibid.). GmbH & Co. KG (limited partnership with a limited liability company as general partner) is particularly attractive in the case of revenue sharing models.
- 84.
For example, Schmack Biogas AG together with E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON Bayern, built a 10 MW biogas plant on their own premises for injection into the natural gas grid. www.schmack-biogas.com/wDeutsch/pdfpresse/2006_07_19.pdf (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 85.
From the point of view of nature conservation, the usable area for the environmentally sound cultivation of energy crops is an estimated 2–2.5 million hectares. This is equivalent to around 10–13% of the area used for agriculture today (NABU Positionspapier n.d.).
- 86.
Examples of this are the substitution of synthetics by using plant fibers such as hemp. According to Döhler (2008, pers. comm.), the car industry is developing an increasing demand for this. A significant demand for cellulose fibers will develop in the future for the production of packaging material and adhesives.
- 87.
See NABU (2007). In addition, it was feared that the cultivation of energy crops could be a gateway for the use of genetically modified plants – with consequences for wild animals and plants which, as yet, remain unknown.
- 88.
In the Federal Nature Conservation Act an area of 10% is designated as wildlife corridor.
- 89.
The indemnities paid within the context of these programs were not competitive in view of the new market opportunities.
- 90.
Also referred to as “Vermaisung” (“maizification“).
- 91.
In 2007 the Federal Cabinet held a closed conference in Meseberg, for the final passage of the IEKP (see Section 3.7.3.1).
- 92.
The resolution says that 6% of the present consumption of natural gas in Germany is supposed to be substituted with biogas by 2020 and 10% of it by 2030. cf. http://www.dena.de/de/themen/thema-reg/projekte/projekt/biogaspartner/ (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 93.
For information on this fundamental problem see Section 3.1.5. Only those aspects relevant to the bioenergy sector will be addressed here.
- 94.
For efficiency reasons, should the EEG set stronger incentives for large-scale plants or should the focus continue to be on small and medium-sized plants?
- 95.
The majority of the biogas sector, especially agriculturally related firms specializing in the production of biogas plants, would thus keep a significant fraction of their clientele.
- 96.
According to the new GasNZV, processed biogas is to be prioritized. The grid operator is responsible for the adjustment of the biomethane to the calibration legislation guidelines and the pressure conditions in the gas grid. The grid operator pays the operating costs, whilst resulting investment costs are split into two. The general gas costs of the grid operators are to be transferred onto general grid fees. The biogas injector receives a flat-rate of 0.7 cents/kWh for avoided grid fees (not to be confused with feed-in tariff).
- 97.
Orientation toward the biomethane or natural gas market offered the biogas companies who suffered under the sales slump new economic prospects. Schmack Biogas AG, for example, subsequently focused more strongly on biogas treatment and sought co-operation with large power suppliers: See http://isht.comdirect.de/html/audio/detail/main.html?ID = 12330 (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 98.
Usually entire corn plants but also parts of plants.
- 99.
For comparison: in 2005, it was 700 new plants that were built, with a capacity of around 420 MW.
- 100.
This includes the high-pressure water scrubbing, amine washing as well as the pressure swing adsorption.
- 101.
With increasing plant size, processing costs decrease. With a flow-rate of more than 250 m³/h, processing costs come down to about 2 cents/kWh, whilst they can be double or triple that for small plants of 50m³/h (4.5–6 cents/kWh). From an economical point of view, biogas injection is therefore not particularly attractive for small producers from the agricultural sector.
- 102.
Some of the advantages are low-maintenance operation combined with functioning gas upgrading (desulphurization and drying), low noise levels, hardly any vibrations as well as a low concentration of nitrogen oxide in the waste gas. Due to the low electrical efficiency of the process it is economically necessary for the high-temperature-heat to be used, for example, for drying processes, greenhouses or heating water.
- 103.
For information on the application of fuel cells see Kaufmann et al. (2007, 59 f.)
- 104.
One example for this model is the biogas treatment and injection plant Schwandorf. As a shareholder, E.ON now promotes the advantages of “biomethane”.
- 105.
This means that energy crops and crops grown for raw materials were cultivated on just under 17% of the arable land.
- 106.
At one million ha, the cultivation of rapeseed for biodiesel takes up just under 60% of cultivated land. Sugar and starch plants for ethanol make up just under 15% with an area of 250,000 ha.
- 107.
See Daniel (2007) inter alia; According to Kruska & Emmerling (2008, 69 sqq.), the proportion of silage corn in Rhineland-Palatinate has doubled and tripled in these communities, making silage corn the dominant crop on arable farmland.
- 108.
- 109.
The National Biomass Action Plan was created by the BMU together with the BMELV, of which the latter was responsible for coordination www.bmu.de/43839 (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 110.
See SRU (2009); http://www.umweltrat.de (accessed June 11, 2009).
- 111.
An expansion into gaseous and solid biofuels is supposed to follow.
- 112.
The aim is to enable the admixture of incidental agricultural residues on farms without reducing the NawaRo bonus.
- 113.
It would have been conceivable, for example, to have limited the proportion of corn silage in the fermentation substrate.
- 114.
Since only 10% of the slurry production in agriculture had been used for the production of biogas, the intention is to increase this rate. This improvement is justified by the lower net CO2 output of slurry fermentation in comparison with the fermentation of energy crops like corn silage.
- 115.
The plant bonus is supposed to compensate for the higher costs of making the substrate available and the lower yield of gas from this heterogeneous material.
- 116.
By the end of 2008, substrate prices were falling again. The world market price for wheat fell by half compared to its peak at the beginning of 2008 and ended up at around 140 euro/t. Similar developments occurred in the cases of corn and soya.
- 117.
The expenditure required for treatment and injection means that is only profitable for industrial-sized plants.
- 118.
The sustainability ordinance sets the requirements for the climatic impact of biofuels (a minimum 30% reduction of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels over the complete life cycle) and for nature conservation.
- 119.
Protection of certain natural areas (such as rainforests, moors), reduction of greenhouse gases by at least 35%, obligation to report on social standards, complete proof-of-origin.
- 120.
Following an EU initiative, evidence for the sustainability of biogenic fuels is supposed to become mandatory in the form of certification. At the end of 2008, the Federal Government and the European Commission began to set the sustainability criteria for this obligatory certification. The affected fuels are biofuels for transportation and power generation or CHP generation.
- 121.
121For further information on the state and further development of the biogas industry see Stolpp (2009).
- 122.
Cf. list of projects http://www.biogaspartner.de/index.php?id = 10074 (accessed August 21, 2009).
- 123.
This term describes the use of plant material which comes up in the course of maintainance and enhancement of grassland, shrubs, forests, hedges, etc.
References
Literature
Ammermann, K. (2005): Biomasseanbau und –nutzung aus Naturschutzsicht. Presentation text from DGL/WWF-conference, May 30.-31., 2005 in Berlin. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from download.dlg.org/pdf/fachgremien/DLG_WWF_Ammermann.pdf.
BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung). (Ed.). (2006). Bioenergie: Zukunft für ländliche Räume. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, Nr. 1/2. Bonn.
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). (Ed.). (2004). Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland. Berlin.
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). (Ed.). (2006). Erneuerbare Energien – Innovationen für die Zukunft. Berlin.
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit). (Ed.). (2007). Progress report on the Renewable Energy Act (Erfahrungsbericht 2007 zum Erneuerbaren-Energien-Gesetz). Draft, abbreviated version.
BMVEL (Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft). (2003). Nachwachsende Rohstoffe – Programm des Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft zur Förderung von Forschungs-, Entwicklungs- und Demonstrationsvorhaben. Berlin.
Bringezu, S., Ramesohl, S., Arnold, K., Fischedick, M., Geibler, J., Liedtke, C. (2007). What we know and what we should know: Towards a sustainable biomass strategy. Wuppertal papers, No. 163. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.wupperinst.org/de/publikationen/.
COM (2005). Communication from the Commission: Biomass Action Plan. December 7, 2005. Retrieved on March 30, 2009 from europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/renewable_energy/l27014_en.htm.www.lpv.de/
Daniel, J. (2007). Entwicklung der Flächenbelegung durch Energiepflanzenanbau für Biogas in Deutschland. Presentation within the workshop “Basisdaten zur Flächenausdehnung”, Berlin, November 15, 2007.
Dreher, B. (2005). Die neuen Vergütungsregelungen für Strom aus Biomasse im EEG. Natur und Landschaft, 80(9/10), pp. 394–395.
ecoprog & Fraunhofer UMSICHT. (2008). Der Markt für Biogasanlagen in Deutschland. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from www.ecoprog.com/.
EEA (European Environment Agency). (2006). How much biomass can Europe produce without harming the environment. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.eea.europa.eu/.
Ekardt, F., Schmeichel, A., Heering, M. (2009). Europäische und nationale Regulierung der Bioenergie und ihrer ökologisch-sozialen Ambivalenzen. Natur und Recht, 4, pp. 222–232.
FNR (Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V.). (2006a). Einspeisung von Biogas in das Erdgasnetz. Leipzig.
FNR (Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V.). (2006b). Handreichung Biogasgewinnung und -nutzung. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.fnr-server.de/.
FNR & Hartmann, H. (Eds.). (2007). Handbuch Bioenergie-Kleinanlagen. Gülzow. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from http://www.nachwachsenderohstoffe.de/index.
Fraunhofer UMSICHT & Partner. (2007). Beseitigung technischer, rechtlicher und ökonomischer Hemmnisse bei der Einspeisung biogener Gase in das Erdgasnetz zur Reduzierung klimarelevanter Emissionen durch Aufbau und Anwendung einer georeferenzierten Datenbank – Strategieentwicklung zur politischen und techno-ökonomischen Umsetzung. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.biogaseinspeisung.de/.
Fritsche, U. R., Dehoust, G., Jenseit, W., Hünecke, K., Rausch, L., Schüler, D. (2004). Stoffstromanalyse zur nachhaltigen energetischen Nutzung von Biomasse. Study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Environment. Final report.
Fritsche, U. R. & Wiegmann, K. (2005). Potenziale und Szenarien für die zukünftige Biomassenutzung. Natur und Landschaft, 80(9/10), pp. 396–399.
Graß, R. & Scheffer, K. (2005). Alternative Anbaumethoden: Das Zweikulturensystem. Natur und Landschaft, 80(9/10), 435–439.
Hoffmann, E. (2002). Bioenergie. In B. Hirschl et al. (Eds.), Markt- und Kostenentwicklung erneuerbarer Energien, 2 Jahre EEG – Bilanz und Ausblick). pp. 53–153. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
IE Leipzig (Institut für Energetik und Umwelt gGmbH). (Ed.). (2005). Nachhaltige Biomassenutzungsstrategien im europäischen Kontext. Analyse im Spannungsfeld nationaler Vorgaben und die Konkurrenz zwischen festen, flüssigen und gasförmigen Bioenergieträgern. Retrieved March 22, 2008, from http://www.bmu.de/erneuerbare_energien/.
IFEU & Partner (IFEU; IE Leipzig; Klinski, S.; Öko-Institut; TU Berlin). (2008). Optimierungen für einen nachhaltigen Ausbau der Biogaserzeugung und -nutzung in Deutschland. Commissioned by the Ministry of Environment, final report.
Jäkel, K. (2003). Zur Geschichte der Biogasproduktion. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (Ed.). Biogaserzeugung und -verwertung, pp. 5–6.
Kaltschmitt, M. & Wiese, A. (Ed.) (1993). Erneuerbare Energieträger in Deutschland – Potentiale und Kosten. Springer. Berlin.www.gruene-bundestag.de/.
Kaufmann, L., Kessler, A., Bagin, W. (2007). Biogas für Brennstoffzellen. Erste Erfahrungen mit einem Pilotprojekt in der Vergärungsanlage Leonberg. Das Energie Fachmagazin, 7(8), pp. 59–62.
Klinski, S. (2005). Überblick über die Zulassung von Anlagen zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien. Study commissioned in the context of the resarch project “Rechtliche und administrative Hemmnisse des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland”, funded by the Federal Enviromment Ministry, state September 2005. Retrieved January 27, 2006, from http://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/files/erneuerbare_energien/.
KTBL (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft). (1999). Umweltverträgliche Gülleaufbereitung und -verwertung. Summary and comparison of results within the respective funding program. KTBL-Arbeitspapier 242.
Mautz, R. & Byzio, A. (2005). Die soziale Dynamik der regenerativen Energien – am Beispiel der Fotovoltaik, der Biogasverstromung und der Windenergie. DFG-Projekt RO 465/8-1, Interim report, unpublished draft.
Müller, K. (2004). Strategien zur energetischen Nutzung von Anbau-Biomasse – Erfahrungen und Konzeptionen aus Schleswig-Holstein. In: BEE & FNR (Eds.), Perspektivforum “Ausbau der Bioenergie im Einklang mit dem Umwelt- und Naturschutz?!” am 10, pp. 1–9. Februar 2004 in Berlin. Tagungsband.
Mutert, S. (2000). Großforschung zwischen staatlicher Politik und Anwendungsinteresse der Industrie. Studien zur Geschichte der Deutschen Großforschungseinrichtungen, Band 14. Frankfurt/New York.
NABU. (1998). Positionspapier NABU 1998: Energiegrundsatzprogramm zur energetischen Biomassenutzung.
NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland e.V.) (Ed.) 2007. Position zur energetischen Nutzung von Biomasse. Retrieved on December 11, 2009, from nabu.de/themen/landwirtschaft/biomasse/.
NABU. (o. J.). Naturverträgliche energetische Nutzung von Biomasse. Retrieved on June 10, 2009 from www.nabu.de/imperia/md/content/nabude/energie/biomasse/2.pdf
Nitsch, J. & Langniß, O. (1999). Erneuerbare Energien – Potentiale und Perspektiven. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt; Institut für Technische Thermodynamik, Stuttgart. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2908/ www.gruene-bundestag.de.
Nitsch, J., Krewitt, W., Nast, M., Viebahn, P., Gärtner, S., Pehnt, M. (2004). Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland. Final version.
Oettel, E. (2001). State-of-the-art of Gasification of Biomass and Waste in Germany. Need for Research & Development. First Meeting of IEA International Energy Agency Thermal Gasification of Biomass Task in Germany, 21.-23.11.2001. TU Dresden. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from http://www.gastechnology.org/.
Peters, W. (2008). Umwelt- und Naturschutzanforderungen an die Planung und Genehmigung von Biogasanlagen. Materialband zum Teilprojekt “H”. IFEU & Partner (Eds.). (2008). Optimierungen für einen nachhaltigen Ausbau der Biogaserzeugung und -nutzung in Deutschland. Final report.
Reinhardt, G. A. & Gärtner, S. O. (2005). Biokraftstoffe made in Germany. Wo liegen die Grenzen? Natur und Landschaft, 80(9/10), pp. 400–402.
Reinhold, G. & Vollmer, R. (2003). Zur Geschichte der Biogaserzeugung in Thüringen. Schriftenreihe der Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (TLL). Geschichtsheft, 10, pp. 244–256.
Rode, M., Schneider, C., Ketelhake, G., Reißhauer, D. (2005). Naturschutzverträgliche Erzeugung und Nutzung von Biomasse zur Wärme- und Stromgewinnung. R & D-project funded by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. BfN-Skripten 136. Bonn.
Scheffer, K. (2005). Neue Fruchtfolgen mit Pflanzenvielfalt – Strategien zur Optimierung des Energiepflanzenanbaus. Presentation at the annual agricultural exposition “Grüne Woche” 2005, Berlin.
Scholwin, F. & Thrän, D. (2007). Monitoring zur Wirkung des novellierten Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG) auf die Entwicklung der Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse (= IE Leipzig – Institut für Energetik und Umwelt gGmbH, Leipzig (2007). Endbericht.
Scholwin, F. & Thrän, D. (2008). Monitoring zur Wirkung des novellierten Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG) auf die Entwicklung der Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse. Final report. Institut für Energetik und Umwelt Leipzig (Ed.), Leipzig.
Schultze, Ch. & Köppel, J. (2007). Gebietskulissen für den Energiepflanzenanbau? Steuerungsmöglichkeiten der Planung. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung, 39(9), pp. 269–272.
Schüsseler, P. & Daebeler, S. (2004). Ergebnisse der Diskussion und Zusammenfassung. FNR (Ed.). Trockenfermentation. Gülzower Fachgespräche, pp. 114–117.
SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen). (2007). Sondergutachten “Klimaschutz durch Biomasse”. Retrieved October 27, 2007, from http://www.umweltrat.de.
SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen). (2009). Kommentare des SRU zum Entwurf des Nationalen Biomasseaktionsplans. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from http://www.umweltrat.de/DE/Presse/Hintergrundinformationen/.
Staiß, F. (Ed.). (2000). Jahrbuch erneuerbare Energien. Radebeul: Stiftung Energieforschung Baden-Württemberg Bieberstein.
Staiß, F. (Ed.). (2007). Jahrbuch erneuerbare Energien. Radebeul: Stiftung Energieforschung Baden-Württemberg Bieberstein.
Stolpp, S. (2009). Lage und Entwicklung der Biogasindustrie in Deutschland und Europa. Presentation on February, 3, 2009. Fachverband Biogas e.V.
Thrän, D. & Kaltschmitt, M. (2007). Konkurrenzen bei der Bioenergieerzeugung – Hemmnis oder Anreiz für den weiteren Ausbau? Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft, 31 H(1), pp. 57–66.
Thrän, D., Witt, J., Hennig, C., Daniel-Gromke, J., Rensberg, N., Schwenker, A. (2009). Monitoring zur Wirkung des Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetzes (EEG) auf die Entwicklung der Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse. Zwischenbericht “Entwicklung der Stromerzeugung aus Biomasse 2008”, Leipzig/Jena 2009.
TU München & TU Berlin. (2007). Übertragbare Strategien zur naturverträglichen Biomassebereitstellung auf Landkreisebene am Beispiel der Regionen Ostprignitz-Ruppin/Brandenburg und Chiemgau/Bayern. Final report of a research project funded by the German Federal Environment Foundation (DBU).
Weiland, P., Rieger, Ch., Ehrmann, Th., Helffrich, D., Kissel, R., Melscher, F. (2004). Ergebnisse des bundesweiten Messprogramms an Biogasanlagen. Report on the 13th annual meeting of the Fachverband Biogas e.V. und AD-nett-Workshop “Biogas ohne Grenzen”, Leipzig.
WBA (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Agrarpolitik). (2007). Nutzung von Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung – Empfehlungen an die Politik. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.bmelv.de/.
WBGU (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen). (2008). Zukunftsfähige Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung. Zusammenfassung für Entscheidungsträger. Berlin. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.wbgu.de/.
Interviews
Döhler (2008, pers. comm). Interview with Helmut Döhler, head of department at the Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), on December 10, 2008.
Dürrschmidt (2007, pers. comm.). Interview with Dr. Wolfhart Dürrschmidt, head of division at the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, on October 2, 2007.
Eisenbeiß (2007, pers. comm.). Telephone interview with Dr. Gerd Eisenbeiß, former head of division at the German Federal Ministry of Research, on November 23, 2007.
Fangmeier (2008, pers. comm.). Interview with Eckhard Fangmeier, head and spokesman of Bioenergiedorf Jühnde eG, on April 18, 2008.
Holz (2008, pers. comm.): Interview with Gerrit Holz, executive director of BIOGAS NORD GmbH, Bielefeld, on April 28, 2008.
Justinger (2008, pers. comm.). Interview with Dr. Gerhard Justinger, former member of the “Renewable Energy department” in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture (BMELF), on September 2, 2008.
Linke (2008, pers. comm.). Interview with Prof. Dr. agr. Bernd Linke, head of the department “Bioengeneering” at the “Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engeneering Potsdam-Bornim e.V.”, on April 3, 2008.
Nitsch (2007, pers. comm.). Interview with Dr. Joachim Nitsch, director of the department of systems analysis and technology valuation of the DLR till 2005; Advisor and consultant for innovative energy systems, on October 30, 2007.
Schütte (2008, pers. comm.). Interview with Dr. Andreas Schütte, Executive director of the Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR) on March 6, 2008.
Weiland (2008, pers. comm.). Interview with Prof. Dr. Peter Weiland, head of department at the “von Thünen Institut” (former FAL), on February 19, 2008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., Wenzel, B., Köppel, J. (2011). Innovation Framework for Generating Biogas and Electricity from Biogas. In: Renewable Energies in Germany’s Electricity Market. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9905-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9905-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9904-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9905-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)