Question How to Start Bio CNG Business with an Industry Overview

[samadhansamiti]

The Bio CNG industry revolves around generating renewable natural gas, and its significant impact on waste reduction cannot be understated. Comprising approximately 92-98% methane and only 2-8% carbon dioxide, Bio CNG is primarily derived from agricultural waste, kitchen waste, napier grass, and municipal solid waste. The strategic roadmap outlined in the Bio CNG business plan ensures efficient production, with benefits such as the utilization of renewable biomass resources and a reduced carbon footprint.

 

[Hartmann352]

Biogas is such a renewable alternative, and there is potential to increase the biogas production in the world.

In recent decades, many countries have increasingly been upgrading biogas to vehicle fuel. In the last few years, the interest has also increased in liquefying biogas for heavier transports. Biogas can also be a raw material for other fuels by gasifying the biogas, for example Fischer-Tropsch fuels, methanol, dimethyl ether and hydrogen. Vehicle fuels that can be produced from biogas, their technological maturity and their respective potentials as substitutes for fossil fuels in the transport system. A common factor for all of them is that they are most often produced from fossil fuels. Compressed and liquefied methane are the only fuels being commercially produced using biogas. The other fuels all have strengths that both compressed and liquefied methane lack, for example the possibility of emission-free fuel cell vehicles. However, they are all less mature technologies than compressed and liquefied methane. The greatest short-term potential is thus for expanded use of biogas as compressed and liquefied biomethane.

Over 80% of the energy supply in the world in 2017 came from fossil sources [Citation1]. To avoid undesirable global warming, this current fossil regime must be transformed into one that is based on renewable energy. However, in contrast to fossil fuels, there is not yet any easy way to produce huge amounts of storable and easily utilizable renewable fuels from a single source. In 2018, less than 20% of the energy used in the European Union (EU) came from renewable sources, and a variety of different raw materials and energy carriers had to be used to achieve even that limited share [Citation2]. A system of different raw materials and energy solutions that work together to solve the problem must thus be developed to achieve a global, large-scale transition to renewable energy.

Biogas, which is a methane and carbon dioxide mix produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass, is one alternative that could be a part of this system. Biogas is especially interesting as an alternative fuel since it is not only a renewable fuel, but because biogas production also can help solve other societal problems – mostly by improving waste treatment, but also through positive secondary effects like improvement of soil structures [Citation3,Citation4] and reduced use of mineral fertilizers [Citation5,Citation6]. Many different biomass sources can be used to produce renewable methane, and all countries have at least some potential to produce biogas, but only 0.2% of the total primary world energy supply came from biogas during 2014 [Citation7]. However, the biogas potential in the world from just waste (i.e. urban waste, agro-industry and sewage sludge) has been estimated to around 3% of the fossil fuel use in 2017.

In most countries, biogas is primarily used for producing electricity and heat. However, biogas can also be used for other purposes, such as for producing vehicle fuels. Biogas is in many countries increasingly being upgraded to compressed biomethane (CBG), as a renewable version of compressed natural gas (CNG) for use in especially cars and buses. During the last few years, there has been an increased interest in liquefied biomethane (LBG) for use in heavier transports instead of liquefied natural gas (LNG). There are also other options available. Apart from CBG and LBG, biogas can also be used to produce syngas, which in turn can be used to produce renewable versions of fuels such as hydrogen, methanol or DME. These fuels have different characteristics and potentials than CBG and LBG, which might make them suitable for other parts of the renewable energy system that needs to be developed. However, like compressed and liquefied methane, they are currently all produced from primarily fossil fuels.

The purpose of this study is to contribute with an overview and an increased understanding of fuels that can be produced from biogas and their potential to be used as a substitution for fossil energy in the transport sector. The study answers the following research questions:

• For what purpose have the different fuels been developed?
• What strengths and weaknesses do these fuels have?
• How far have the fuels come in their development, and how are they produced and used today?

A literature inventory was made to be able to identify what possible fuels can be produced from biogas and their potentials. This inventory was wide and included both academic literature and grey literature, newspaper articles and reports from companies based on previously found newspaper articles, depending on where information could be found. In some cases, especially with the alternative fuels that are less mature and used, information is scarce and hard to access. Some journal articles, such as one by Ahmadi Moghaddam et al, had previously studied either one or several of the possible biogas-based fuels. Such overview articles were used to create an overview of the alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses. Journal articles were also used to show the historical context of the fuels and what the current research is focused on. Grey literature, such as governmental or organizational reports, e.g. [Citation18,Citation19], were valuable sources for statistics on the different fuels and applications as well as on new or planned developments. Newspaper articles were used to find information on recent developments, such as decisions to build new production sites. This information were then corroborated by the company’s annual report or their homepage.

A bibliometric search for each fuel was conducted to complement the inventory. This was done to get an indication of how the interest in the fuels developed throughout the years. The bibliometric search was performed using the Scopus database, and the search looked in the titles, keywords and abstracts for the terms presented. Several of the fuels, for example hydrogen, are common in chemical production and the distinction of adding the word ‘fuel’ to the search terms was considered needed. However, it was assumed that there was no need to add the word ‘fuel’ to the search terms when doing the bibliometric search of CBG and LBG since methane gas used for other purposes is not usually compressed or liquefied. In most cases, the figures produced from the bibliometric search were cut off around the year 2000, since after then, the number of hits rapidly increased for all search terms, which made it hard to distinguish the earlier interest.

See: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2020.1821571

Biogas is competitive, viable, and generally a sustainable energy resource due to abundant supply of cheap feedstocks and availability of a wide range of biogas applications in heating, power generation, fuel, and raw materials for further processing and production of sustainable chemicals including hydrogen, and carbon dioxide and biofuels. The capacity of biogas based power has been growing rapidly for the past decade with global biogas based electricity generation capacity increasing from 65 GW in 2010 to 120 GW in 2019 representing a 90% growth.
Hartmann352

 

[TheWalrus]

Biogas is such a renewable alternative, and there is potential to increase the biogas production in the world.

In recent decades, many countries have increasingly been upgrading biogas to vehicle fuel. In the last few years, the interest has also increased in liquefying biogas for heavier transports. Biogas can also be a raw material for other fuels by gasifying the biogas, for example Fischer-Tropsch fuels, methanol, dimethyl ether and hydrogen. Vehicle fuels that can be produced from biogas, their technological maturity and their respective potentials as substitutes for fossil fuels in the transport system. A common factor for all of them is that they are most often produced from fossil fuels. Compressed and liquefied methane are the only fuels being commercially produced using biogas. The other fuels all have strengths that both compressed and liquefied methane lack, for example the possibility of emission-free fuel cell vehicles. However, they are all less mature technologies than compressed and liquefied methane. The greatest short-term potential is thus for expanded use of biogas as compressed and liquefied biomethane.

Over 80% of the energy supply in the world in 2017 came from fossil sources [Citation1]. To avoid undesirable global warming, this current fossil regime must be transformed into one that is based on renewable energy. However, in contrast to fossil fuels, there is not yet any easy way to produce huge amounts of storable and easily utilizable renewable fuels from a single source. In 2018, less than 20% of the energy used in the European Union (EU) came from renewable sources, and a variety of different raw materials and energy carriers had to be used to achieve even that limited share [Citation2]. A system of different raw materials and energy solutions that work together to solve the problem must thus be developed to achieve a global, large-scale transition to renewable energy.

Biogas, which is a methane and carbon dioxide mix produced by anaerobic digestion of biomass, is one alternative that could be a part of this system. Biogas is especially interesting as an alternative fuel since it is not only a renewable fuel, but because biogas production also can help solve other societal problems – mostly by improving waste treatment, but also through positive secondary effects like improvement of soil structures [Citation3,Citation4] and reduced use of mineral fertilizers [Citation5,Citation6]. Many different biomass sources can be used to produce renewable methane, and all countries have at least some potential to produce biogas, but only 0.2% of the total primary world energy supply came from biogas during 2014 [Citation7]. However, the biogas potential in the world from just waste (i.e. urban waste, agro-industry and sewage sludge) has been estimated to around 3% of the fossil fuel use in 2017.

In most countries, biogas is primarily used for producing electricity and heat. However, biogas can also be used for other purposes, such as for producing vehicle fuels. Biogas is in many countries increasingly being upgraded to compressed biomethane (CBG), as a renewable version of compressed natural gas (CNG) for use in especially cars and buses. During the last few years, there has been an increased interest in liquefied biomethane (LBG) for use in heavier transports instead of liquefied natural gas (LNG). There are also other options available. Apart from CBG and LBG, biogas can also be used to produce syngas, which in turn can be used to produce renewable versions of fuels such as hydrogen, methanol or DME. These fuels have different characteristics and potentials than CBG and LBG, which might make them suitable for other parts of the renewable energy system that needs to be developed. However, like compressed and liquefied methane, they are currently all produced from primarily fossil fuels.

The purpose of this study is to contribute with an overview and an increased understanding of fuels that can be produced from biogas and their potential to be used as a substitution for fossil energy in the transport sector. The study answers the following research questions:

• For what purpose have the different fuels been developed?
• What strengths and weaknesses do these fuels have?
• How far have the fuels come in their development, and how are they produced and used today?

A literature inventory was made to be able to identify what possible fuels can be produced from biogas and their potentials. This inventory was wide and included both academic literature and grey literature, newspaper articles and reports from companies based on previously found newspaper articles, depending on where information could be found. In some cases, especially with the alternative fuels that are less mature and used, information is scarce and hard to access. Some journal articles, such as one by Ahmadi Moghaddam et al, had previously studied either one or several of the possible biogas-based fuels. Such overview articles were used to create an overview of the alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses. Journal articles were also used to show the historical context of the fuels and what the current research is focused on. Grey literature, such as governmental or organizational reports, e.g. [Citation18,Citation19], were valuable sources for statistics on the different fuels and applications as well as on new or planned developments. Newspaper articles were used to find information on recent developments, such as decisions to build new production sites. This information were then corroborated by the company’s annual report or their homepage.

A bibliometric search for each fuel was conducted to complement the inventory. This was done to get an indication of how the interest in the fuels developed throughout the years. The bibliometric search was performed using the Scopus database, and the search looked in the titles, keywords and abstracts for the terms presented. Several of the fuels, for example hydrogen, are common in chemical production and the distinction of adding the word ‘fuel’ to the search terms was considered needed. However, it was assumed that there was no need to add the word ‘fuel’ to the search terms when doing the bibliometric search of CBG and LBG since methane gas used for other purposes is not usually compressed or liquefied. In most cases, the figures produced from the bibliometric search were cut off around the year 2000, since after then, the number of hits rapidly increased for all search terms, which made it hard to distinguish the earlier interest.

See: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2020.1821571

Biogas is competitive, viable, and generally a sustainable energy resource due to abundant supply of cheap feedstocks and availability of a wide range of biogas applications in heating, power generation, fuel, and raw materials for further processing and production of sustainable chemicals including hydrogen, and carbon dioxide and biofuels. The capacity of biogas based power has been growing rapidly for the past decade with global biogas based electricity generation capacity increasing from 65 GW in 2010 to 120 GW in 2019 representing a 90% growth.
Hartmann352

Actually, biogas would result in the starvation of millions of people after the billions of acres are planted with non edible crops, so it's a really dumb idea in the long run

 

[Cheryl88]

Actually, biogas would result in the starvation of millions of people after the billions of acres are planted with non edible crops, so it's a really dumb idea in the long run

In the long run, millions of people is really a small number. Millions of people starving, yes, but millions of people who never existed? No.

Overpopulation is akin to the human race being greedy vs. the rest of Earth. Like one person can be too greedy vs everyone else, to the ridiculous point of everyone else starving to death and the greedy person being left all alone with all their money and nothing to spend it on.

The human race needs a good sized population to be a healthy living race. But too much? Earth can take only so much. The human race cannot be so greedy in wanting too much people. Not as long as Earth is the only home to humans. Imagine living in a home and inviting everyone everywhere to come live with you in that little home of yours?

If giving back to Earth helps Earth, well, we can’t just keep on taking and taking. That’s too greedy! And if it means cutting back on sex and having less children in the future, well, that sounds like an affordable cost compared to the human race being made extinct. Or millions starving.

If the human race becomes immortalized and colonizes many planets in space through terra-forming, then we talking at least trillions or quadrillions, not just a million. But we get none of that if we rush too soon. In the long run, millions of people not much. Millions of people suffering is. But millions less being born is affordable.

China gave up citizen’s rights to freely procreate for awhile. Families could legally have only one child for awhile. It was a harsh thing to do, but it was temporary and it worked. We shouldn’t be so concerned about creating non-edible crops as we should be about not overpopulating ourselves. In other words, we need to learn the value of keeping our legs crossed. Or keeping it in our pants, lol!

When we can maintain a reasonable amount of people on Earth, then food does not become such a big worry. And then we can finally give Earth a little break from ourselves. Mother Earth seems to have her house full.

 

[Debed]

In the long run, millions of people is really a small number. Millions of people starving, yes, but millions of people who never existed? No.

Overpopulation is akin to the human race being greedy vs. the rest of Earth. Like one person can be too greedy vs everyone else, to the ridiculous point of everyone else starving to death and the greedy person being left all alone with all their money and nothing to spend it on.

The human race needs a good sized population to be a healthy living race. But too much? Earth can take only so much. The human race cannot be so greedy in wanting too much people. Not as long as Earth is the only home to humans. Imagine living in a home and inviting everyone everywhere to come live with you in that little home of yours?

If giving back to Earth helps Earth, well, we can’t just keep on taking and taking. That’s too greedy! And if it means cutting back on sex and having less children in the future, well, that sounds like an affordable cost compared to the human race being made extinct. Or millions starving.

If the human race becomes immortalized and colonizes many planets in space through terra-forming, then we talking at least trillions or quadrillions, not just a million. But we get none of that if we rush too soon. In the long run, millions of people not much. Millions of people suffering is. But millions less being born is affordable.

China gave up citizen’s rights to freely procreate for awhile. Families could legally have only one child for awhile. It was a harsh thing to do, but it was temporary and it worked. We shouldn’t be so concerned about creating non-edible crops as we should be about not overpopulating ourselves. In other words, we need to learn the value of keeping our legs crossed. Or keeping it in our pants, lol!

When we can maintain a reasonable amount of people on Earth, then food does not become such a big worry. And then we can finally give Earth a little break from ourselves. Mother Earth seems to have her house full.

All the humans on earth today, can fit in the grand canyon.
I recall reading a study decades ago, that estimated that the earth could substain 20 billion people.
And there has been quite a few new innovations when it comes to producing food since then, so I recon the potential is even higher these days.

 

[Cheryl88]

All the humans on earth today, can fit in the grand canyon.
I recall reading a study decades ago, that estimated that the earth could substain 20 billion people.
And there has been quite a few new innovations when it comes to producing food since then, so I recon the potential is even higher these days.

Yes, just like a bunch of teenagers can fit into a Volkswagen bug, but can they go anywhere? All the humans on Earth can fit into the city of Los Angeles, too, but can they live that way?

One study does not an exact science make. And even an exact science cannot state a fact. Look at Isaac Newton’s work on gravity. Terrific work for many decades, but eventually it was replaced by Albert Einstein’s work. And one study is almost nothing compared to what Isaac Newton did.

If a science was created that took into account the economy as well as the ecology, that would be a start. But then that science would have to be flexible in considering every technological invention that came along. Plus the current fashions of the economy. For example, decades ago there were only gasoline automobiles, no electric ones. The percentage usage of that one technology has an effect on the amount of population the ecology can maintain. And that percentage changes according to “fashion”.

Besides, 20 billion is a single number. That in itself tells me the study is no good. A better result would be a graph whereby a population range vs the danger of the human lives lost due to overpopulation would be a better answer. Just one number? Not a realistic answer at all.

Finally, this result is at least secondhand information. You could be wrong with what you remember. And so could wherever you read that from. The report might not be accurate. Reporters like to summarize and make things simple for their readers.

As for your other comment, I don’t care. I am interested in the overall picture - the health and well-being of the human race - not just one innovation or even a field of technologies.

 

[Debed]

Technically you could all live in little pods.
But it was more to visualize that while 7 billion people sounds a lot, it does not cover a lot.
And humans have not even started sea farming at big scales yet, so in regard to food, I would not worry.

 

[Cheryl88]

Technically you could all live in little pods.
But it was more to visualize that while 7 billion people sounds a lot, it does not cover a lot.
And humans have not even started sea farming at big scales yet, so in regard to food, I would not worry.

I don’t believe in worrying either. But I do believe in being cautious, in preparing for worst case scenarios, in being aware of possible dangers and doing things to prevent those things from happening. It is the smart thing to do. Sitting around making yourself sick with worry helps no one, not even yourself.

“Covering a lot” is not a danger, obviously. We can all squeeze into somewhere. And if worse came to worse, and the oceans didn’t provide enough yucky food like plankton, well, there’s ourselves that we can eat. As in the Charlton Heston movie, “Soylent Green”.

But the real danger that you do not seem to understand is balance. The environment continues as is because the various factors in it are at a balance. And when we have too much of something, like people, or fluorocarbons, or whatever, the ensuing imbalance would mean curtains for all life on Earth.

Compare Earth to Venus. As Carl Sagan pointed out, the two planets are very similar in size and distance from the sun. Yet the temperature on Venus is in the thousands. No life can exist there. I don’t think even water can exist on the surface of Venus. Only clouds in the air. Why?

The main reason theorized to be is the absence of an ozone layer and subsequent Greenhouse effect. Our ozone layer high up in our atmosphere traps a lot of the heat from the sun and keeps it from entering the Earth. Not so on Venus. Over there, the heat creates clouds and the clouds (aka water vapor) traps heat, like CO2, methane, fluorocarbons, etc. can. This cycle of heat going into clouds going back into heat and forming more clouds is the Greenhouse effect. Meanwhile oxygen and nitrogen, which is abundant on Earth but practically gone on Venus, does not trap heat. Heat goes right through those chemicals. And so Earth’s atmosphere does not trap nearly as much heat as Venus’s does.

This is the theory put forth. And I would rather not wait to see it proven. Too late by then. Besides, smaller models indicate the theory is true. Our understanding of science so far also backs up the theory. And the first signs are climate change, as in the melting of the polar ice caps which in turn creates temporary coldness and rainy weather. Temporary. Once we run out of our two polar ice caps there is no more.

How much people can Earth’s environment actually hold before too much becomes too much? Obviously you don’t have a clue. And I don’t either. This is what science really must investigate. Unfortunately, science mostly learns by discovering, not reading about life and reality like a textbook. And perhaps we are not ready to discover or fully understand the myriad of details of an ecosystem.

Obviously 7 billion is still okay, since we have that much and are alive, although we may be teeter tottering on the edge, I don’t know. But a few generations from now, and at our pace, the numbers go up exponentially. When did we break 1 billion? Was it 200 years ago? I think when I was born it was already 2 billion. Generations from now we can project dozens of billions. And centuries from now more. And another millennia? And that isn’t even in the long run. A thousand years isn’t even one percent of the age of the Universe. Or maybe you don’t care about the future? Maybe you only just care about what happens in your tiny life span?

If the human race is to go on forever, it needs to at least know and understand the dangers that lie ahead. And do what it can, not sit around worrying.