Great expectations—future scenarios for production and use of biogas and digestate in Sweden

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Swedish biogas market 2005–2020 by source [40].

Figure 2. Overview of the methodology of the study.

Figure 3. Overview of the scenario development process.

Table 1. Summary of the three scenarios for production and use of biogas/biomethane and biofertilizers.

Key element	Large-scale centralized	Decentralized	Regional systems
National policies and policy instruments	Directed support to large AD plants Support for upgrading and liquefaction of biogas Support for the use of biomethane in road transport	Directed support to small AD plants Increased incentives for agricultural feedstock in AD Increased incentives for the use of AD digestate as a biofertilizer Increased policy focus on sustainable agriculture	Stricter requirements on companies to reduce CO₂ emissions and increase the share of renewable energy Support for upgrading and liquefaction of biogas
Regional policies and policy instruments	Collaboration between regions to facilitate cross-regional markets and feedstock uptake Procurement of biomethane in public transport	Integrate agriculture Coordinate efforts Regional sustainability goals	Coordinate efforts Regional sustainability goals Regional self-sufficiency goals Race to become the most sustainable region
Mobilization of feedstock	Agricultural feedstock Industrial organic waste Household organic waste	- Focus on agricultural feedstock	Agricultural feedstock Industrial organic waste Household organic waste
Infrastructure for feedstock, digestate and gas	Increased liquefaction or extended gas grid for long-distance distribution Increased need for transport of feedstock and digestate	Short-distance distribution of feedstock and digestate Gas grid for biogas from AD to (centralized) upgrading	Increased liquefaction or extended gas grid for long- distance distribution Increased need for transport of feedstock and digestate
Mobilization of actors	Existing producers continue to be central, especially large companies Farmers supply feedstock and use digestate	Farmers supply feedstock and use digestate Biogas companies contribute with expert knowledge in technology, markets, etc., and may run production National agriculture organization contributes to more collaboration	Companies using biogas take a leading role to increase demand and build up production Biogas companies contribute with expert knowledge in technology, markets, etc., and may run production Farmers supply feedstock and use digestate
New production facilities	Large-scale co- digestion AD plants Mainly in regions with high feedstock density	Small agricultural AD plants Located near cattle farms and crop fields Some centralization of upgrading and liquefaction	Large-scale co-digestion AD plants and small agricultural AD plants Located in regions with high feedstock density or regions with large industries where biogas can be used
Stable and increasing demand	Biomethane (compressed/liquefied) used in road transport, RoRo-ferries and industry	Biomethane (compressed/liquefied) used in road transport and industry	Biomethane (compressed/liquefied) used in industry, road transport and RoRo-ferries
	Use of digestate (biofertilizer) in agriculture	Local use of biogas (heat, electricity, machines) and digestate (biofertilizer) in agriculture	Use of digestate (biofertilizer) in agriculture

Figure 4. Biogas production in 2020 and the three future scenarios by type of feedstock.

Figure 5. Number of biogas plants and total digester volume by type of production plant in 2020 and the three future scenarios.

Figure 6. Biogas production in 2020 and the three future scenarios by type of production plant.

Figure 7. Biofertilizer production in 2020 and the three future scenarios by type of production plant.

Figure 8. Use of biogas and biomethane in 2020 and the three future scenarios.

Table A1. Division of substrates per type of biogas plant in 2020 [51] and the three future scenarios.

Division of substrates per type of plant, %
Scenario	AD plant type	Municipal solid organic waste	Municipal wastewater	Manure	Industrial food waste	ILUC-free crops	Industrial wastewater
2020	WWTP	8%	100%	0%	10%	0%	2.5%
	Co-digestion	92%	0%	64%	73%	100%	0%
	Agricultural	0%	0%	36%	1.5%	0%	0%
	Industrial	0%	0%	0%	15.5%	0%	97.5%
Large-scale centralized	WWTP	10%	100%	0%	10%	0%	0%
	Co-digestion	90%	0%	75%	75%	75%	0%
	Agricultural	0%	0%	25%	0%	25%	0%
	Industrial	0%	0%	0%	15%	0%	100%
Decentralized	WWTP	10%	100%	0%	10%	0%	0%
	Co-digestion	90%	0%	40%	70%	40%	0%
	Agricultural	0%	0%	60%	10%	60%	0%
	Industrial	0%	0%	0%	10%	0%	100%
Regional systems	WWTP	10%	100%	0%	10%	0%	0%
	Co-digestion	90%	0%	60%	75%	60%	0%
	Agricultural	0%	0%	40%	0%	40%	0%
	Industrial	0%	0%	0%	15%	0%	100%

TABLE A2. Biogas yield and production potential per substrate type.

Municipal solid organic waste		Municipal wastewater	Manure	Industrial food waste	ILUC-free crops	Industrial wastewater
Biogas yield, Nm³/ton wet weight^a	148	15	26	66	150	12
Biogas production 2020, GWh^b	400	590	180	260	30	380
Biogas production potential 2030, GWh	700-1,000^c,d	900-1,000^c	2,200-2,600^c,e	1,000^c	2,400-10,000^c,d,f	700^g,h

Sources: ^aCarlsson and Uldal [9], ^bKlackenberg [51], ^c Lönnqvist [57], ^dPrade et al. [72], ^e Dahlgren et al. [14], ^fAhlgren et al. [1], ^gBjörn et al. [7], ^hEkstrand et al. [19].

Table A3. Typical properties (2020 average) of different types of biogas plants in Sweden.

WWTP	Co-digestion		Agricultural	Industrial
Digester volume, m³	2,600	7,500	940	10,800
Energy output, MWh/m³·y	2.07	4.12	1.26	1.79
Methane content in biogas, %	62%	63%	59%	72%

Source: Klackenberg [51].

Klackenberg L. Production of biogas and digestate and their use in 2020 (Produktion av biogas och rötrester och dess användning år 2020). Eskilstuna, Sweden: Swedish Energy Agency (Energimyndigheten); 2021b.

 Google Scholar

Silva Oliveira A, Duarte de Barros M, de Carvalho Pereira F, et al. Prospective scenarios: a literature review on the Scopus database. Futures. 2018;100:20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.03.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lyng K-A, Brekke A. Environmental life cycle assessment of biogas as a fuel for transport compared with alternative fuels. Energies. 2019;12(3):532. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12030532.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Geels FW, McMeekin A, Pfluger B. Socio-technical scenarios as a methodological tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon transitions: bridging computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK electricity generation (2010–2050). Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020;151:119258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Björn A, Borgström Y, Ejlertsson J, et al. Biogas production in Swedish pulp and paper production – synthesis of opportunities and limitations and technical evaluation (Biogasproduktion inom svensk pappers- och massaproduktion – Syntes av möjligheter och begränsningar samt teknisk utvärdering). Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Scandinavian Biogas Fuels and Pöyry; 2016.

 Google Scholar

McCarty T, Sesmero J. Uncertainty, irreversibility, and investment in second-generation biofuels. Bioenerg Res. 2015;8(2):675–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9549-y.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hagman L, Blumenthal A, Eklund M, et al. The role of biogas solutions in sustainable biorefineries. J Clean Prod. 2018;172:3982–3989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.180.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahmadi Moghaddam E, Ahlgren S, Hulteberg C, et al. Energy balance and global warming potential of biogas-based fuels from a life cycle perspective. Fuel Process Technol. 2015;132:74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.12.014.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

French Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition. Decree no. 2020-456 of April 21, 2020 relating to the multi-year energy programme (Décret no 2020-456 du 21 avril 2020 relatif à la programmation pluriannuelle de l’énergie) (no. TRER2006667D). J Officiel Répub Française. 2020:3.

 Google Scholar