1 / 30

Michael Köttner Belgrade , Serbia 19 February , 2014

Michael Köttner Belgrade , Serbia 19 February , 2014. GIZ DKTI Program „Development of a susatinable bioenergy market in Serbia “ Framework conditions for biogas production in Serbia Assessment of the biogas sector in Serbia – Summary of findings.

henrik
Download Presentation

Michael Köttner Belgrade , Serbia 19 February , 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Michael Köttner Belgrade, Serbia 19 February, 2014 GIZ DKTI Program „Development of a susatinablebioenergymarket in Serbia“Framework conditionsforbiogasproduction in SerbiaAssessmentofthebiogassector in Serbia – Summaryoffindings

  2. Development in Germany related to Biogas technology • Over 100 regions, town and communities have +/- 100% supply in RE, ‏partly based on biogas • Special bioenergy villages supply heat and power with biogas as a base load • Some regions have biogas as their main electricity source • Town of Kirchberg an der Jagst has 105% RE coverage in electricity • Town has 3 biogas plants, 5 wind energy plants, 5 hydro power stations, many photovoltaic plants

  3. Cumulated number of biogas plants

  4. Tasks conducted Background assessment Stakeholder interviews public stakeholders commercial stakeholders private stakeholders Site visits at biogas plants

  5. Background assessment Basis: available literature on biogas or biomass sector in Serbia (e.g. UNDP Baseline Assessment, Guide for Investors, relevant legislation, papers from GIZ and others)  Assumptions & hypothesis: Permitting procedure is too complicated „One stop-shop“ is needed Difficult financing due to late issuing of priviledged power producer status and secure biomass supply Low level of knowledge on various administrative levels and at farmers

  6. Stakeholder interviews Interviews have been conducted with Ministries on the national level National energy agency Provinical secretariat of energy and mineral ressources (Vojvodina) Universities of Belgrade (Faculty of Mechanical engineering) and Novi Sad (Faculty of Technical Science)

  7. Stakeholder interviews Operators / Investorsofbiogasplantsorrepresentative Financial institution (Erste Bank) Biogas association Energyconsultant LawyerforEnergy Law

  8. Existingbiogasplants in Serbia Vist & Interview Interview Vist & Interview Interview Interview

  9. Velvet Farm, ČurugKey data / Site visit • throughputapprox. 37.500 t/a • feedstock: cattleslurryanddung, sugarbeetpulp, cornsilage • 4.000 m³ digestervolumeHRT = 40 d • CHP: 635 kWelinstalled

  10. Velvet Farm, ČurugPlausibility check plant sizing

  11. Mirotin Group, VrbasKey data / Site visit • throughput: 45.960 t/a • feedstock: cattleslurry, sugarbeetpulp, agriculturalresidues • 5.300 m³ digestervolumeHRT = 60 d • CHP: 1,6 MWelinstalled

  12. Velvet Farm, ČurugPlausibility check plant sizing • Not enoughdataavailable

  13. Lazar Dairy, BlaceKey data / interview • throughput: approx. 27.000–30.000 t/a • feedstock: cattleslurry, whey, cornsilage (oldone), molasses (non-continuous?) • 3.750 m³ digestervolume (estimationbased on oral information)HRT = 45-50 d (calculated) • CHP: 1,0 MWelinstalled; real outputbetw. 600 kWeland> 900 kWel(appro-ximation) www.dvoinc.net/howitworks.php

  14. Plausibility check plant sizingLazar Dairy, Blaze, nomolasses

  15. Plausibility check plant sizingLazar Dairy, Blace, withmolasses

  16. Findings Positive results Biogas is on the agenda Legal framework conditions (e.g. gridconnec-tion, feed-in-tariff (FiT)) have been established Responsiblities of the authorities are defined Procedures for aquiring permits are defined and have beenpublished Buttherearemanybarriers.

  17. Findings & BarriersEnergySector 1 FiTistoolow (andhasbeendecreasedcomparedtofirstimplementation) anddoesnot recognizethe real productioncosts SerbiahasthelowestFiT in theregion Applicationforpriviledged power producerstatusonly after completionofconstructionandstartofengine→ElectricitycannotbesoldtofullFiTfromthebeginning→ lost income Low levelofknowledgeaboutbiogasatutilitycompanies

  18. Findings & BarriersLegislation & Permits 1 Varyinglevelofknowledgeaboutbiogas (anddifferencebetweenbiogasandbiomassplants) both in national andin localauthorities→ longapprovalprocess Applicationforpriviledged power producerstatusonly after completionofconstructionandstartofengine→ElectricitycannotbesoldtofullFiTfromthebeginning→ lost income High level (national) but lowpriorityfiresafetyapproval→ delay

  19. Findings & BarriersLegislation & Permits 2 Approvalprocedure / permittingprocedureis easy, wheninvestorhas a strong position in theregionandknowsthelocalauthoritieswell WasteLaw: differentiationbetweenbiomassandwasteissometimesdifficult→barriertoutilise non-problematicwasteforenergyproduction (e.g. residuesfromjuiceproduction)

  20. Findings & BarriersFinancing 1 Financingisonlypossiblewith high shareofownequityand / orownsupplyofsubstrates Return on investmentis 12 yearsorlonger→toolongtobeattractive Low trustofinvestors in thestabilityofSerbiangovernment, frequentchangesofframeworkconditions& no legal protectionofstatus quo (e.g. existingconstructionpermitbecomes illegal after amendmentoflaw) →hesistantinvestment

  21. Findings & BarriersFinancing 2 Bad economicsituationoffarmers→difficulttoaccessfinancing (noattractivecustomer) Population in South-Serbiapaysa lowpriceforelectricityandheat (crosssubventionfromthe northern consumers) →lowwillingnesstoinvest in a technologythat will increasecosts Sometimesinvestorhastoco-financegridextensiontobiogasplant

  22. Findings & BarriersAgriculturalSector 1 Highestbiogas potential isseen in agriculture, but agriculturalinstitutionsare not involved in deve-lopmentofbiogassector Generally lowproductivityofagriculture Underserbianconditionsonlythevery large agriculturalcompanieshavethemeansandknowledgetoimplementbiogasplants Concentration in animalhusbandry→lowernumberoffarmswithhighernumberofheads

  23. Findings & BarriersAgriculturalSector 2 Deliverycontractswithfarmersare not reliable, iffarmercansellthecropatbetterconditionssomewhereelse→ high degreeofownproductionrequiredtosecurebiomasssupply→ landdemand Weakmeatindustryandreducednumberofanimalheadscomparedtopre-war times, supplyonlytolocalmarket Slaughterhousesrun in averageon 50% capacity→ lowprofitability→ noinvestment in biogastechnology

  24. Findings & BarriersBiogas Sector Technology supplyfrom European orinternational companies→relatively high investmentcosts No national database on substratespecific gas yields, German valuesaretakenasreference No national laboratorytosupportorsupplyservicestothe national biogassector

  25. RecommendationsLegislation 1 Re-calculation of FiT to make biogas plants econo-mically viable (maintenance & repair, replacements must be possible) →min 18 €ct/kWh would berequiredtobeattractive 1 coordinating authoritiy for the approval (one stop-shop) to reduce barriers for investors Extend preliminary status of priviledged power producer to biogas plants (apply for status parallel to construction permit) → to smoothen thetransitionbetweentest-operationand normal operation + eliminatefinanciallossesfortheinvestor

  26. RecommendationsLegislation 2 Involve agricultural sector with its structure & training facilities (manure management, demon-stration plant, agricultural advisors) Investment subsidies to promote biogas technology as an emmission reduction technology Fire safety assessment on local level to speed up permitting procedure Establish an independent complaint office at higher level to open at least a 2. complaint instituton

  27. RecommendationsAgriculture Manure management and methane emissions are an issue → biogas plants help to solve this Knowledge and a strategic approach is existing in the Ministry of Agriculture (e.g. Unit for Programming and Promotion of Rural Development) → should be involved more

  28. RecommendationsGeneral Capacitybuilding on all levels (ministry, localauthorities, farmers / investors, banks) Collective residuedisposalplacesforsmallerfarms→feedstockfor „communal“ biogas plant →possiblywithdistrictheating „bioenergyvillage“ Serbianresearch on biogas→ national capacity / knowledge, biogas plant benchmarkingandsupportforoperators, might also be valid for WWT plants

  29. Suggestion fornextsteps • Establishcontactandexchangeinformationwithotherprojects (e.g. dealingwithwastemanagement, manuremanagement, wastewatertreatment) toseewherecommongoalsmightbe • Involveagriculturalsectoranduseexistingstructure (e.g. agricultureextensionofficers, agricultureschools) fordemonstrationandpromotionofbiogas • Check optionstoestablish a national biogaslaboratory • Kick startwith a fewmore expert workshopsortrainingcourses

  30. GIZ DKTI Program „Development of a susatinablebioenergymarket in Serbia“Framework conditionsforbiogasproduction in SerbiaAssessment ofthebiogassector in Serbia – Summary offindings Questions? IBBK Fachgruppe Biogas GmbH Am Feuersee 6 D-74592 Kirchberg / Weckelweiler Germany Tel. 0049 (0)7954 926203 Fax. 0049 (0)7954 926204 www.biogas-zentrum.de m.koettner@biogas-zentrum.de

More Related