Business Models For Bionergy - Success Stories

Best Practice – Business Models
I. Introduction ENCROP
The objective of the proposed action is to promote the production and utilization of lingo-cellulosic
energy crops at the European level. The project aims at increasing the knowledge of different actors
along the energy crop production chain, as well as the general public, on the ecological, technical,
economic, logistic and administrative matters re1ated to energy crop production and utilization. The
present contribution focuses on the two pathways with most prominent application at European level
at present for conversion of lingo-cellulosic energy crop biomass to bio-fuels and/or energy: direct
combustion and conversion into biogas. The main direct outcomes will be in the form of practical
demonstrations, associated info days and training courses in each country involved, national and
European seminars, international study tours, handbooks in both national languages and English, and
information DVD in English. Furthermore, the development of the market for the energy crop
production and utilization will be facilitated by bringing together the actors from the different parts of
the crop-to-energy production chain, namely the producers and users of agro-biomass, examining the
different business models and designing tailor made advice services.
Several initiatives, e.g. research programs, demonstration projects and commercial applications,
related to production and use of lingo-cellulosic energy crops covering the complete chain from
cultivation and harvesting, to conversion and utilization of crop biomass in energy production have
been developed in recent years.
The purpose of the present contribution is to promote the dissemination of results and best practices
obtained in these projects, dealing with e.g. policy issues, research, demonstration and commercial
activities concerning the production and utilization of energy crops, leading to increased knowledge
and acceptance and more widespread application of energy crop cultivation in Europe. Increasing the
use of biomass, including energy crops is one of the main objectives of the European Union energy
policy both on national and regional levels in different European countries. The source of biomass as
well as the main means of converting the biomass to energy varies in different countries.
The main emphasis of the project will be on lingo-cellulosic crops with varying means of conversion.
The present contribution will focus on the two pathways with most prominent application at European
level at present: direct combustion and conversion into biogas. In this project six different countries
are representing widely the situation in European level (Table I).
March 2009 1
Country Main crops of interest Principal conversion process
Finland Reed canary grass (RCG) Direct combustion
Sweden Reed canary grass (RCG) Direct combustion
Germany Maize, rye grass Production of biogas
Austria Maize, corn, grass, sunflower Production of biogas
Italy Poplar, black locust, fibre sorghum Direct combustion
Spain Poplar, straw Direct combustion
Table 1:The main lingo-cellulosic energy crops and principal conversion processes in the participating
countries
Starting from existing good practices and examples, some of the main questions ENCROP is trying to
answer are the following:
 What are the key factors of success and sustainability of existing and future bio-energy initiatives?
 How to establish effective local and regional partnership among producers and beneficiaries?
This document is focused on the first question. The different available business models are examined
the most suitable business models for each country are selected. The existing business models in each
country are described and the good and weak points of each model for type of activity are discussed in
this document by using a template which was developed during the FP6-project KISOLL.
The goal of this template is in our case to compare different success stories to evaluate the key criteria
in detail. The more details are known about different success stories, the more opportunities will be
available to give future bio-energy success stories inputs to bring it to success. The original sense of
this template is to identify projects in the run up which positively influence the regional and economic
development. We decided to use this template to compare different success stories to evaluate
important key criteria concerning bio-energy success stories which will bring along positive effects for
the region.
This template is arranged into four main groups of important information on the success stories.
These groups are:
 frame and conditions
 facts and figures
 information, steps
 background and comments
Furthermore each of these four main groups is divided into two subcategories. The subcategories are:
 legal conditions: regional strategy for research, technology etc.
 funding and financing: regional or national funding possibilities for actual phase
 consortium: project team for actual phase
 project steps: work packages and deliverables to be done in this phase
 output, results: outputs and results of the respective phase
 further effects: indirect effects for the regions
 crucial decisions: decisions in order to continue and/or to change the project process
 important background: backgrounds for influencing decisions which are not mentioned in the
descriptions
As every project/success story is dynamically it has to be distinguished between different steps.

Therefore the matrix is vertical arranged in different project phases:
March 2009 2
 Phase I (idea, beginnings)
 Phase II (analysis, planning phase)
 Phase III (implementation phase)
 Phase IV (enlargement of implementation)
 Phase V (changes of the project)
 Phase VI (ongoing of the project)
It is clear that these six phases don’t exist in every project but in most cases these phases can be
identified.
Further on an evaluation scheme was created. This evaluation scheme is based on figures and letters
whereas the height of the figures can be chosen by oneself. Therefore it is necessary to rate every
information in the matrix. First of all the “maximum of points which can be given” must be defined. In
our case 10 points for the maximum which can be given was chosen. The following table shows the
meaning of these 10 evaluation points.
Rating Evaluation (not fulfilled)

1 Very bad
2 Bad
3 Acceptable
4 Below average
5 Average (partly fulfilled)
6 Above average
7 Good
8 Very good
9 Excellent
10 Perfect (completely fulfilled)
Table 2: Meaning of the 10 evaluation points
More information on www.kisollproject.eu.
Common recommendations for a successful implementation of such business models are developed out
of this template and published in this document. The approach is very practical and these
recommendations should support people who are interested in initiating bio-energy success stories.
March 2009 3
Contents
Best Practice – Business Models............................................................................................................ 1

I. Introduction ENCROP .................................................................................................................. 1
II. Business Models – Best Practice Examples.................................................................................. 6
1. AUSTRIA - Biogas production exceptionally out of green material in South Burgenland ... 6
A. Business Model Description................................................................................................................. 6
B. Business Model Analysis .................................................................................................................... 10
C. Contract Model .................................................................................................................................. 18
2. ITALY – “Clean Energy” Apiro ............................................................................................ 23
A. Business Model Description............................................................................................................... 23
3. SPAIN - VALORIZA Plant - Energy production out of Orujillo and other autochthonous
biomasses in Puente Genil, Andalucía,(Spain)............................................................................... 32
C. Contract Model .................................................................................................................................. 44
4. FINLAND: Kokkolan Voima Oy – Integrated reed canary grass processing and feeding
system in the large scale CHP plant ................................................................................................ 48
C. Contract Model .................................................................................................................................. 61
5. GERMANY - From a biogas plant to a green energy community......................................... 65
C. Contract Model .................................................................................................................................. 76
6. SWEDEN - ENA Enköping – Integration of salix plantation, wastewater treatment, ash-
sludge recycling and energy production.......................................................................................... 81
C. Contract Model:................................................................................................................................. 93
III. Common Recommendations for successful bio-energy stories.............................................. 97
1. Detailed description of the project phases .............................................................................. 97
A. Phase I: Idea, beginnings................................................................................................................... 99
March 2009 4
B. Phase II: Analysis, planning phase .................................................................................................. 101
C. Phase III: Implementation phase ..................................................................................................... 103
D. Phase IV: Enlargement of implementation ...................................................................................... 105
E. Phase V: Changes of the bio-energy project.................................................................................... 107
F. Phase VI: Ongoing of the project..................................................................................................... 110
2. Summary................................................................................................................................ 112
IV. Index of tables, charts and pictures ...................................................................................... 114
V. Index of charts ........................................................................................................................... 116
VI. Index of pictures.................................................................................................................... 118
March 2009 5
II. Business Models – Best Practice Examples
1. AUSTRIA - Biogas production exceptionally out of green
material in South Burgenland
A. Business Model Description
(a) Short overall description of the country/region, including geographical area, land use features
and type of biomass resources, policy, juridical, administrative and socio-economic context
Burgenland is one of 9 counties of Austria.

Burgenland: 283.179 inhabitants; Area:
3.965,46 km²; Distance north-south: 143 km
west-east: 85 km; Density of population: 71
inhabitants/km²; 7 districts; 171
communities (13 cities);
Strem is a small structured community in the district Güssing

near to the border to Hungary (3 km) and it is close to the
district capital Güssing (10 km). Strem: 931 inhabitants; area:
23,8 km²; density of population: 71 inhabitants/km²
Picture 1: Location of the community Strem
Due to the enlargement of the European Union farming implicated heavy structural upheavels. Thus
also in Strem - a small community in South Burgenland - numerous farmers had to reorganize their
farms from a regular to a sideline basis: On these areas where - in former times - sheeps and cows
were grazed, today there are fallows and not used grasslands. Not only the loss of animal husbandry
caused an ebbing of a source of income, but also the dependency on EU-subsidies is not the preferred
circumstance for the farmers in the future. Shortly after this realization a group of farmers decided to
use reasonably fallows and particularly to be active as a farmer further on. This group of farmers was
engaged initiatively in planning a biogas plant with the technology of fermentation of only green
materials.
(b) Short local description, scale of the initiative, technical aspects, integration of different
planning levels (spatial, rural, energy, etc.), involvement of stakeholders, public consultation
Since 2003 Strem has a biomass heating plant with an integrated local heating grid - a good starting
position for a reasonable economic installation of a biogas plant. Due to the reorganisation of many
March 2009 6
farms from regular to a sideline basis, animal husbandry was reduced to a minimum, grasslands were
not used because of the discontinuation of animal husbandry and farmlands were converted into
fallows, i.e. in the surrounding area of the biogas plant are enough areas available for planting
renewable resources, which are able to grow under environmental agricultural conditions. This is an
important fact in regard to collect the required green material with a minimum of transport efforts.
2003 Öko Energie Strem together with the Institute for Agrobiotechnology (IFA) of the University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences as new members of the national research network
RENET started to plan the innovative biogas plant on the basis of fermentation of green material.
With the large-scale implementation of the biogas plant to ferment green material they trod new trails,
because the green material is comparatively dry for the fermentation and the use of liquid manure was
not planned. The project team decided to build a 500 kWel biogas plant together with the partners IFA
Tulln, GE Jenbacher, Öko Energie Strem, Thöni and the Institute for Chemical Engineering
(Technical University Vienna). The proposal for the implementation had been verified as well as
funding plans had been accepted by public authorities. The biogas plant had been also accepted as a
research plant in connection with the national research network RENET Austria. Consequently higher
funding rates could be achieved. This research plant is scientificly overseen by the RENET-Austria
network with the following focuses: efficient and quick starting up the plant by doing process analysis
and microbiological monitoring "Start-up-plan", optimization of solid fermentation of renewable
resources, material flow and energy balance of the biogas plant Strem compared to different
locations, innovative silage films - quality inspection of the silage and silo balance, partial
reformation.
Involvement of stakeholders: Mr. Reinhard Koch as an experienced plant planner and biomass
operator; Mr. Werner Trinkl (former Mayor), Mr. Legath Sigfried (farmer and current biogas plant
operator)
(c) Quantitative indicators (production, use, number of final users/beneficiaries, job and revenues,
any other locally-adapted)
With the large-scale implementation of the biogas plant to ferment green material they trod new trails,
because the green material is comparatively dry for the fermentation and the use of liquid manure was
not planned. For the realization of the project several partners cooperated within the competence
network RENET: EEE, IFA Tulln, GE Jenbacher, Öko Energie Strem, Thöni Industriebetriebe, TU
Wien and the Strem district heating utility. The solid fermentation of clover, corn and complete crops
silage at a temperature of 49,5 °C occurs in two thermally insulated silos made of ferroconcrete with
a capacity of 1.500 cubic meter each. The produced biogas is supplied to two block heat and power
utilities, which are situated in the power supply center of the already existing biomass heating plant.
One of the two gas engines is always on stand-by, so that in case of accident or inspection the biogas
can be converted into electricity via the second gas engine at once. The plant, which started operation
in 2004, currently operates for 8,500 hours per year and has a capacity of 526 kW electric power and
600 kW heat for district heating with a feed rate of 15 tons green material (grass, clover) and 15 to
corn silage per day. 10 to 15 % of the produced heat and 5 % of the produced electricity are used for
the station supply. Thus, 1.200 households are supplied with electricity and 40 household are supplied
with heat all over the year. During winter the already existing biomass heating plant is additionally
operating. The fermented material is removed from the second fermenter after a period of 70 days and
is separated into a solid and a liquid phase by using a separator. The solid phase with a dry matter
content of 30 % is a valuable mineral fertiliser for farming.
 Economic calculation: investment costs: 2.096.800 Euros;

 electric power 500 kW (station supply 25 kW) = feed-in 475 kW;
March 2009 7
 thermal output 600 kW (thermal station supply: 90 kW) = local heating supply 510 kW; operating
hours: 8.700; operating hours for producing electricity: 8.500; operating hours for produced
heat: 2.175;
 economical life: 20 years;
 feed-in tariff electricity: 14,50 cent/kWh;
 tariff for heat sale: 2,18 cent/kWh;
 commodity price: 2,20 cent/kWh;
(d) Overall expected and/or achieved results
 producing biogas out of pure green material

 legal examination as a green electricity plant
 increasing added value by the delivery of regional resources
 maximum of the production regarding electricity and heat acceptance of the inhabitants
 new model of an ecological and economical way of energy generation out of renewables
 savings regarding purchases of resources
(e) Lessons learnt (strengths, weaknesses)
One modification of this project is the planned share holder structure. It was planned that all farmers
of Strem will take a financial holding in the biogas plant to operate the plant and furthermore to get
the required green material from these farmers. Thus, only three of approx. 30 farmers were
interested, this idea was rejected soon. So, the company's founders were the Europäisches Zentrum für
Erneuerbare Energie Güssing and the Fernwärme Strem (district heating plant). During the
construction of the plant three further companies which are situated in the district of Güssing were
getting co-owners of this biogas plant.
After a simulation and testing phase for producing heat and electricity out of green biomass the plant
is operating very well and is reliable on principle. But the main discussion is to optimise the biogas
plant towards reducing the needed quantity of green material, because the prices for the materials are
still raising.
In 2007 the fermenter were fed only with grass for a longer period because of economic
circumstances, which traced back to the fact that the price for corn was strongly increasing. Given
that grass has a more labour-intensive character referring to the process of solid fermentation than
corn, a few components of the biogas plant had to be enforced to guarantee the common operation
and thus to reach a maximum of output. During the first ensilaging of the required material the
problem occurred that parishioners felt harassed because of noise disturbance of driving tractors
which were driving the whole day and night (because the storage silos had to be filled as quick as
possible). Given that this situation is existing twice a year the Öko Energie Strem reacted at once and
constructed an own access road.
March 2009 8
(f) Photos - impressions
Picture 2: Impressions from the biogas plant in Strem
(g) Contact
Siegfried Legath (plant operator)

Biogas Strem Errichtungs- und Betriebs GmbH
Feldgasse 27, 7522 Strem, Burgenland
Phone: 0043 3324 6416
Email: office@eee-info.net
March 2009 9
B. Business Model Analysis
(a) Phase I: Idea, Beginnings
legal conditions
10
9
important 8 funding and
background 7 financing
6
5
4
3
2
1
crucial decisions 0 Consortium
further effects Project steps
output, results
Chart 1: Phase I - AT
Within the first phase the most important criterions are the “consortium” and the “important
background”. The “legal conditions”, “funding & financing”, the implementation of the “project
steps” and the “crucial decisions” are also important for a successful setting of a project. Only the
“output & results” as well as “further effects” in regard to output and results are not that important
in this initial phase.
Points Criterions Description
10 Consortium initiation of a consortium by Koch Reinhard, Legath Siegfried and the
former mayor Werner Trinkl
10 Important background Strem is in the surrounding of Güssing. The energy self-sufficient
model of Güssing is - in connection with Reinhard Koch - famouse all
over the word
8 Legal conditions existing local district heating; research network supported the idea of
a biogas plant
8 Funding & financing research is supported by different mechanism; green electricity law
8 Project steps analysis of existing biogas technologies and usable materials, analysis
of financing and funding
8 Crucial decisions Installation of a new biogas plant or enlargement of existing district
heating boilers to meet the heat demand of the community of Strem
7 Output & results choice of technology -> producing biogas out of pure green material
6 Further effects to get in contact with researchers, hope for a further source of income
for farmers
65 Points in total
Table 3: Rating of the criterions – phase I AT
Key factors
 Availability of enough useable area in the closest surrounding of the planned location of the
biogas plant - limited transportation efforts
 Decision: use of green material exclusively
 Reinhard Koch as a leader person
March 2009 10
(b) Phase II: Analysis, Planning
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 2: Phase II - AT
During the second phase "Analysis and planning" the “important background” is the most important
criteria. Now the criterions “funding & financing” the project as well as “further effects” and
“crucial decisions” gained more importance compared to the first phase. “Consortium” and
“results” are still important. The “legal conditions” are already analyzed and the “project steps” are
difficult to carry out because of mistrust of respective persons.

10 Important background A biomass district heating company was still existing and additionally
heat was needed all over the year, farmers of Strem were offered to
have a further source of income.
9 Funding & financing examination of the plant as a green electricity plant, so that a higher
feed-in tariff for 13 years is guaranteed.
9 Further effects political acceptance concerning the biogas plant, higher regional
added value
9 Crucial decisions discussions about the implementation of the biogas plant, mainly with
the local population
8 Consortium Enlargement of the consortium with respective financing partners
8 Output & results positive examination by authorities for building the plant, providing
financing, supply contracts, letters of intent with material suppliers
7 Legal conditions legal examination by authorities for building the plant
7 Project steps letters of intent for the sales of heat and electricity; providing
financing, risk management, letters of intent with material suppliers.
67 Points in total
Table 4: Rating of the criterions – phase II AT
Key factors
 enlargement of the existing biomass district heating plant with a CHP unit
 examination of a "green electricity plant"
March 2009 11
(c) Phase III: Implementation
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 3: Phase III - AT
Phase III (implementation phase) is one of the most important phases during the whole project. The
criterions "funding and financing", "project steps", "output and results" and "further effects" all got
10 points. The “consortium” was still important and the “important background” that the network
RENET Austria defined further research focuses for the biogas plant Strem too. The “legal
conditions” were unchanged and not that important during this phase.

10 Funding & financing acceptance of the plant as a green electricity plant; new member of the
research network RENET
10 Project steps construction of the biogas plant and start - up
10 Output & results successful start-up, production of electricity and heat
10 Further effects the delivery of regional resources for the biogas production caused an
increasing of the added value of this region
9 Consortium Consortium
8 Important background The network RENET Austria defined further research focuses for the
biogas plant in Strem
5 Crucial decisions a few abutting owners still have doubts; discussions about the
implementation of the biogas plant
69 Points in total
Table 5: Rating of the criterions – phase III AT
Key factors
 new member of the research network RENET
 availability of enough useable area in the closest surrounding of the planned location of the
 successful start-up; no break-downs
March 2009 12
(d) Phase IV: Enlargement of implementation
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 4: Phase IV - AT
During this phase a unobstructed operation of the plant as a green electricity plant was the most
important criterions to gain a maximum of biogas to feed in the power supply system on the base of a
funded feed-in tariff and the local farmers have a further source of income (“funding & financing”,
“output & results” and “further effects”). A further important step for the “consortium” was to sign a
contract with Legath Siegfried for the plant management to have one responsible person for the plant.
Some components of the biogas plant were optimized and a new access road for the delivery of the
green materials were constructed (“project steps”) so all abutting owners are satisfied and the
production process is further optimized to gain further higher outputs. The “legal conditions” are
unchanged. The only “crucial decision” which was a bit exhausting was to define reasonable
expedience of different optimization actions and R&D projects regarding the network RENET
respectively.
10 Funding & financing unchanged general conditions
10 Output & results maximum of the production regarding electricity and heat acceptance
of the inhabitants
10 Further effects increasing added value by the delivery of regional resources
10 Important background successful implementation of the "biological path" within the research
network RENET
9 Consortium Legath Siegfried contract for plant management
9 Project steps optimisation of several components of the biogas plant; Construction
of a new access road for the delivery of the green materials
7 Legal conditions unchanged general conditions
7 Crucial decisions discussion of reasonable expedience of different optimisation actions
and R&D projects regarding the network RENET respectively
72 Points in total
Table 6: Rating of the criterions – phase IV AT
Key factors
 further initiatives of the RENET-network
 stable working process
March 2009 13
(e) Phase V: Changes
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 5: Phase V - AT
A stable process enabled the implementation of R&D projects for this further optimization
(“important background”). So the “further effect” of a new model of an ecological and economical
way of energy generation out of renewables was created. An additional owner strengthened the
financial structure of the company after having discussion about the involvement (“consortium”) and
Mr. Legath is still successfully fulfilling his contract as a plant manager. Because of the
implementation of further optimization actions because of R&D projects still a higher result of output
was reached. So the “crucial decisions” about the implementation of research projects and its
financing are running more professional.

10 Further effects new model of an ecological and economical way of energy generation
out of renewables
10 Important background a stable working process enables the implementation of new projects
9 Project steps positive results for further optimization actions because of R&D
projects
9 Output & results heat and power
8 Legal conditions additional owners
8 Funding & financing new co-financing partners
8 Crucial decisions implementation of research projects; financing of these single projects
71 Points in total
Table 7: Rating of the criterions – phase V AT
Key factors
 new owner's structure
 new co-financing partner
March 2009 14
(f) Phase VI: Ongoing
legal conditions
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 6: Phase VI - AT
Within this period the problem occurred that because of the increasing commodity prices a financial
burden emerged (“legal conditions”). Because of this general situation a special tariff for biogas
plants were decided for easing its financial tension (“funding & financing”). Mr. Legath is still
managing the plant (“consortium”). Regarding to the increasing commodity prices further
optimization activities to reduce the quantity of green material for the operation were planned
(“project steps”). Therefore an improved operation of the biogas plant was reached (“Output &
results”) and savings regarding the purchase of needed resources were gained (“further effects”).
Contract negotiations with resource suppliers with the focus on a new pricing are still going on. At the
same time local activities are carried out to encourage the local farmer's relation to the biogas plant
and make it easier to negotiate (“important background”).

10 Output & results improved operation of the biogas plant
10 Further effects savings regarding the purchase of resources
9 Funding & financing special tariffs for biogas plants are decided for easing of financial
tension of biogas plants
9 Project steps planning of further optimization activities to reduce the quantity of
green material
7 Crucial decisions contract negotiations with resource suppliers with the focus on a new
pricing
8 Important background local activities are encouraging the local farmer's relation to the
biogas plant and makes it easier to negotiate
5 Legal conditions financial burden because of increasing of commodity prices
67 Points in total
Table 8: Rating of the criterions – phase VI AT
Key factors
 new pricing for the needed green material
March 2009 15
(g) General visualization
legal conditions
60
55
50
important background 45 funding and financing
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
crucial decisions 0 consortium
further effects project steps
output, results
Chart 7: General visualization - AT
legal funding & project output, further crucial important

conditions financing consortium steps results effects decisions background Total
Phase I 8 8 10 8 7 6 8 10 65
Phase II 7 9 8 7 8 9 9 10 67
Phase III 7 10 9 10 10 10 5 8 69
Phase IV 7 10 9 9 10 10 7 10 72
Phase V 8 8 9 9 9 10 8 10 71
Phase VI 5 9 9 9 10 10 7 8 67
Total 42 54 54 52 54 55 44 56 411
Table 9: Ratings of Strem - AT
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “important background” and “further effects”
as well as “funding and financing”, “consortium” and “output and results” is between 54 and 56
points, which represent a surpassing result. Only the two sectors “legal conditions” and “crucial
decisions” with 42 and 44 points show an average result.
Phase IV (Enlargement) and phase V (Changes) got the highest rating in this success story. The
enlargement of the biogas plant was realizable because of unchanged general conditions and the
improved production of a maximum of energy with regards to electricity and heat. During the
development of this success story up to now the regional added value was increasing mostly by the
purchase of resources from regional farmers at a fair price (win-win-situation). This is mainly
responsible for the gained acceptance of the inhabitants. Moreover the successful integration of
research was very important for this success story, because this makes the biogas plant something
special.
In general the first important step was to find a consortium with strong people and the closeness to
Güssing which is famous for the “energy self-sufficiency”. Further on the existing biomass district
heating company needed additional heat all over the year and the farmers of Strem were offered to
have a further source of income. Moreover the acceptance of the plant as a green electricity plant was
March 2009 16
very important and so the plant became a new member of the research network RENET. The fast
construction of the biogas plant and the successful start – up was the result of the well organized
planning phase.
Key factors - summary

Phase I
 Decision: use of green material exclusively
Phase II
 enlargement of the existing biomass district heating plant with a CHP unit
 examination of a "green electricity plant"
 limited transportation efforts
Phase III
 new member of the research network RENET
Phase IV
 further initiatives of the RENET-network
Phase V
 new owner's structure
 new co-financing partner
Phase VI
 new pricing for the needed green material
March 2009 17
C. Contract Model
(a) Description of the whole contract model
Wood Supplier
1 3
Green Material Biogas Plant District heating
Supplier Strem plant Strem
5
2
Green
Electricity Heat customers
Corporation
picture 3: Altogether there are 5 different contracts in the business model of the biogas plant Strem:
1. green material supply contract: between the biogas plant (Biogas Strem Errichtungs- und
Betriebs GmbH. & Co KG) and the farmers delivering the green material
2. electricity supply contract: between the biogas plant and the Green Electricity Corporation
(Abwicklungsstelle für Ökostrom AG, OeMAG)
3. heat supply contract: between the biogas plant and the ökoEnergie Strem regGenmbH
(district heating plant)
4. wood supply contract: between the farmers delivering the wood and the district heating plant
5. heat supply contract: between the district heating plant and the heat customers in the village
of Strem
March 2009 18
The picture of the contracting model shows that the situation in Strem is characterized by the
circumstance that two energy plants were built: a district heating plant and a biogas plant. The legal
form of the ökoEnergie Strem regGenmbH. (district heating Strem - chairman Siegfried Legath) is a
farm cooperative. Its members are heating consumers on the one hand and on the other hand they are
partly wood supplier.
The legal form of the Biogas Strem Errichtungs- und Betriebs GmbH. & Co KG (manager Siegfried
Legath) is a limited partnership with a limited liability company as general partner which is financed
by investors. Farmers are engaged in this business in a moderate extent.
Why was this biogas plant built next to a district heating station?
In 2003 the district heating station was built (approx. 1.7 Mio Euro) with a heat capacity of 1 MW.
After only one year a heat supply squeeze was noticed. Therefore different strategies to raise the
capacity of the heat production were developed. The best strategy was to implement a biogas plant.
This biogas plant was built in 2005 and started to operate in the same year. The CHP-unit of the
biogas plant (600 kW electrical power) is producing thermal waste heat all over the year and is sold
to the District Heating Strem with the advantage that the District Heating Strem didn’t have to invest
in an own capacity enlargement. At the same time the biogas plant has a 100% discharging of the
waste heat. This synergy effect is a big advantage for both – District Heating Strem and Biogas Strem.
The farmers who supply wood to the district heating plant only supply just a small part of the needed
green material for the biogas plant. The main part of the green material is supplied by the farmers of
the community and its adjoining communities. These farmers do not get back heat as a reciprocal
business deal – heat is neither free of cost nor available at a reduced rate for these farmers. Most of
this required green material is supplied by the farmers of the community. Members of the District
Heating Strem which are delivering wood to the district heating station are offset with the respective
heat consumption. Thereby the wood chips per cubic meter are evaluated and offset with regard to the
humidity of the wood chips. The green materials which are required for the biogas plant are also
weighted; the dry matter content is evaluated and – depending on the product (grass, clover, corn,
sunflower, etc.) – billed respectively.
The ENCROP project handles with the topic of energy crops. So the next chapter concentrates on the
contract between supplier and buyer of energy crops:
March 2009 19
(b) The contract model between energy crop supplier and buyer in more detail
Green Material Biogas Plant

Supplier Strem
picture 4: contract between supplier and buyer
To reach an economic efficiency it is important to supply the materials within the radius of 30 km of
the biogas plant. The main crop (time of delivery) is in the end of July and beginning of August, where
corn and sunflowers are harvested. Furthermore clover and grass are harvested three times a year.
The crop harvesting, delivery and storage are organized by Siegfried Legath. Harvesting and
transportation are carried out at the expense and risk of the supplier. In this process Mr. Legath is
working closely with the „Maschinenring Südburgenland“as a service provider. The return of the
residual materials is stipulated in the contracts with the material suppliers. This supply contracts
regulates the delivery area (in hectare) which has to be supplied from the respective farmer to the
biogas plant Strem as well as the quantity of solid and liquid residual materials which have to be
taken back without a financial compensation from the farmers. Deadlines for taking back the residual
materials are not specified, the farmers pick up the residual materials according to requirements. The
only limited fact is that it is not allowed by law to deploy the liquid residues on the fields before
February, 15.
Important key data of the green material supply contract:
 The “supplier” is contracted to supply the whole amount of the crops of the contracted area
 “BG Strem” is bound to take the whole amount of these crops
 The supplier is bound to take the final residues which are produced by the fermentation process of
the supplied crops
 The recommended harvesting date of the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences is obligatory. The supplier is bound to harvest the contracted areas at this date
 The harvesting is carried out at the expense and risk of the supplier. The crop has to be supplied
finely chopped
 Place of delivery of the green material is the silage clamp of the “BG Strem”
 The weigh, volume and the average dry matter content is documented in the handover protocol
 Place of execution for the supplier concerning the final residues is the place of discharge out of the
last fermenter as well as out of the separator
 The supplier is obligated to remove the final residues within an adequate period of time at his own
expenses and risk, with regard to the period of time in which fertilization is prohibited
March 2009 20
 The basis for the remuneration is the determined weigh of the delivered materials which are
corrected by the determined dry matter content at the delivery date
 The operator is entitled to charge weigh deductions in proportion to the difference of the dry
matter content. In the case that the dry matter content is more than 40 %, it will be unconsidered
 The prices are negotiated every year
 Remuneration for delivered green material: 50 % of the total amount within 4 weeks after delivery;
30 % within 8 weeks and 20 % after removing the final residues
(c) Advantages and Disadvantages of this contract model
Most important advantages:
 100 % discharging of the waste heat:

The heat supply contract between the biogas plant and the district heating plant guarantees 100 %
discharging of the waste heat of the biogas plant. So there is a very high overall efficiency and an
additional fix income through the heat sale.
 Remuneration of energy crop depends on quality:

The green material supply contract guarantees, that the remuneration of the energy crops (green
material) depends on the quality. A handover protocol which is filled out at the silage clamp includes
the determined weigh as well as the volume of the delivery and the average dry matter content. This
dry matter content is determined by existing analytical equipments at the plant. The weigh is
determined by a weighbridge.
The common charging base for the contracted price per ton is a dry matter content of 32.5 %. Because
of a reduced silage ability caused by a bad quality of the supplied material, the operator is entitled to
charge weight deductions in proportion to the difference of the dry matter content. In the case that the
dry matter content is more than 40 %, it will be unconsidered.
 Manageable amount of clients:

The „Biogas Strem Errichtungs- und Betriebs GmbH. & Co KG” has approximately 30 green
material supply contracts with farmers. This is a manageable amount of clients and Mr. Legath knows
every supplier personally. This is the basis to solve occurring problems fast and effective.
Most important disadvantage:
 Supply of crops refers to contracted area (in hectare):

The biggest disadvantage in the green material supply contract is, that the farmers are contracted to
supply the whole amount of the crops of the contracted agricultural area. The amount of energy crops
(in tones) which has to be supplied is not contracted.
March 2009 21
If there is for example a dry summer, the harvested yields per hectare are low. As a consequence the
„Biogas Strem Errichtungs- und Betriebs GmbH. & Co KG” has to buy additional amounts of energy
crops to run the biogas plant the whole year.
So within the next year the contracts will be corrected from contracted areas to contracted amounts of
energy crops.
March 2009 22
2. ITALY – “Clean Energy” Apiro
(a) Short overall description of the country/region,

including geographical area, land use features and type of
biomass resources, policy, juridical, administrative and
socio-economic context
The Municipality of Apiro is a small village of the central Italy

located in the province of Macerata (MC) in the Marche
Region: the municipality covers an area of 53,65 square km.
As of the last census of 2001, the population is constituted by
2431 people with 1293 houses and 904 families: since 2004
the Apiro Municipality is the owner of a farm which manages
autonomously 122 ha of the municipal fields.
Picture 5: Location of the community Apiro
(b) Short local description), scale of the initiative, technical aspects, integration of different
The “Clean Energy Project” was introduced by the municipality of Apiro, with the aim of promoting
the adoption of innovative and sustainable land management and the production of renewable energy
in the territory of the municipality.
The project is based on the implementation of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant that supplies
district heating to 5 large buildings owned by the municipality itself (the city hall, two schools, a
theatre and a hospice) and that will eventually be extended in the future to supply heat to private
residential and commercial buildings.
The supply of woody biomass is partly provided by the establishment of a short rotation forestry (SRF)
of poplar in the farm owned by the municipality of 122 hectares. The farm is situated at a distance of
4km from the plant, and has two depots with roof cover for the safe storage and drying of woodchips,
located at a distance of 0,5 km from the plantations. To date 10 hectares of SRF poplar have been
already established (in 2007) and
will be harvested in 2009, but the
target is to scale up to 60 hectares of
SRF, and additionally fibre sorghum
for energy use and traditional crops
(cereals, legumes etc.). Furthermore
it is expected that 30-40% of the
Picture 6: District heating in Apiro
especially derived from the ordinary
activities of river banks management.
March 2009 23
woody biomass will be produced by a supply chains managed by local farmers through the
establishment of other plantations and the collection of forest residues
To date the boiler and the district heating network are already operating (the inauguration was on
March 31 2008), whereas the CHP unit will be installed in the future. All the public buildings are
already served by the district heating, whereas the connection of the residential blocks close to the
plant will be executed in the forthcoming months. The heat generator is a 1,44 MW boiler equipped
with a moving grid in the combustion chamber, that will allow to burn several feedstock with different
moisture and ash contents. The CHP unit should be based on a steam turbine of 180 kWel power
output; the high pressure steam necessary to run the turbine will be supplied by the boiler and then
condensed to produce hot water for the district heating unit. The ashes and wastes of the combustion
process will not be disposed in landfill but spread in the fileds of local farms.
The expected environmental benefits:

 10.000Tonnes of CO2 savings per year;
 1.600 Toe of fossil fuel savings per year;
 Reduction up to 50% of noxious gas emissions (NOx, COx, particles) compared to traditional
fossil fuel heating systems
 Better land management and rural development at local scale
The Apiro Municipality achieved the energy independency but also demonstrated the feasibility of
such kind of initiatives stimulating the implementation of similar experiences in the agricultural sector
at local level.
 The Apiro Municipality manages all the steps of the chain: of course one and only responsible
simplifies the whole process from the production to the utilization.
 The optimization of the transports is a key issue (the storage at a distance of 0.5km from the SRF
field and 4km from the thermal plant).
 The funding possibilities were more than 75%: this explains that a concrete idea supported by
realistic local conditions has still to be supported by strong political mechanisms.
(f) Contacts
Comune di Apiro
Assessorato alle politiche agricole ed ambientali
Piazza Baldini, 1-62021 APIRO MC
TEL. (0733) 611131 - 611623 FAX. (0733) 611835
March 2009 24
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 8: Phase I - IT
The main idea was to set up at first a district heating plant and in a second step a CHP plant. The
Municipality and the local agro-farmers owned by the municipality decided to invest in bio-energy
(good co-financing possibilities; more than 75%). The crucial decision was to have the storage at a
distance of 0.5km from the SRF field and 4km from the thermal plant. Also important was the
availability of 122 hectares owned by the municipal farm. The output of this phase was to have a
concrete idea supported by realistic local requirements.
10 Funding & financing finding subsidies for investment costs, green electricity law
10 Crucial decisions technical and economical availability of biomass, signing pre-contracts with
suppliers, general demand for energy products,
8 Legal conditions depends on companies' strategies of different levels (reg., nat., intern.)
8 Project steps system identification, potential local availability of biomass, preliminary
feasibility studies (techn./econom.), action plan
8 Output & results sort/location of biomass, quality & quantity, … idea of financing & funding
possibilities, legal framework (private/public, size)
8 Important background to find decision makers (companies,..); idea of the location of the plant
6 Consortium key persons: the less person the more activities (business man, municipalities,
potential investors
6 Further effects trend making image; employment; environment, reducing the dependency of
energy imports; climate change
64 Points in total
Table 10: Rating of the criterions – phase I IT
Key factors
 Good co-financing possibilities (75%)
 The availability of fields owned by the Municipality, availability of local resources
 Distance between the SRF fields and the plant
 Only one actor as leader of the project (The Apiro Municipality)
March 2009 25
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 9: Phase II - IT
Funding & Financing” and the “project steps” are very import during this phase of analyzing. Also
the choice of technology which was the “result” of the pre-feasibility studies built the basis of the next
phases. This phase is the most important one during the development of this whole success story. The
storage was planned inside a distance of 0.5km from the SRF field and 4km from the thermal plant.
The Apiro Municipality manages all the steps of the chain= one and only responsible!!
10 Funding & financing payback time; financing parameters; present value (net); regional
influence; influence of political/financial changes
10 Project steps feasibility study, sensitivity analysis, multi-criteria analysis, analyzing
price for commodities, electricity, heat etc., system design;
construction; business plan, operation plan
10 Output & results choice of technology; pre-Feasibility study (economic, technical);
contracts/agreements of biomass suppliers; interaction of BM
suppliers - find an owner structure; financing & funding; legal
permissions, feed in contracts (el. & heat); ensure water reserves; area
for spreading residues
10 Crucial decisions economic feasibility, logistic plan; business plans; signing of
agreements (heat,..)
10 Important background open minded manager, risky entrepreneurs, participation of
municipalities
8 Legal conditions funding policy, influence of the emission trade system, knowledge
about legal environmental framework (restrictions, loans,..)
8 Consortium customers, fuel suppliers, constructors
6 Further effects trend making image; employment; environment, reducing the
dependency of energy imports; climate change; plus creation of a new
business (logistics, transports, collecting, storing,…); environmental
impacts
72 Points in total
Table 11: Rating of the criterions – phase II IT
Key factor
 The decision to use an advanced example of biomass boiler able to burn several feedstock with
different moisture and ash contents
March 2009 26
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 10: Phase III - IT
This phase is also very important for this success story and is similar to the second phase. But now the
“consortium” became more important and the “crucial decisions” became less important. So far the
boiler and the district heating network (1 km) were fully functional: five public buildings are
connected. The heat generator is a 1,44 MW boiler equipped with a moving grid in the combustion
chamber, that will allow to burn several feedstock with different moisture and ash contents. The plant
is supplied with wood chips and straw.

10 Consortium customers, fuel suppliers, constructors/installers have an great impact
(responsible for quality), investors
10 Project steps successful implementation and start-up; flexibility regarding changes
10 Output & results construction, start up, monitoring, starting business (buy biomass, sell
energy, cooling)
10 Important background business know how
8 Legal conditions permission, contracts (fuels, price changes)
8 Crucial decisions interruptions caused by neighbours, well skilled stuff for operation
8 Funding & financing financial risk (rising interests), energy price
6 Further effects acceptance by the inhabitants, positive impact on environment, local
economy, increasing value of the land, job creation; negative impact:
traffic, emissions, noise
70 Points in total
Table 12: Rating of the criterions – phase III IT
Key factors
 The main key factor is the coherence with the initial idea: no changes
March 2009 27
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 11: Phase IV - IT
Due to the reason that the plant had to be enlarged (new investors, additional sort of biomass,
improvement of the operating plant) the “consortium” for awareness building and for organizing all
matters is the most important criterions.

10 Consortium operators, customers, fuel suppliers, constructors/installers have an
great impact (responsible for quality), investors
8 Legal conditions additional contractors, permission, contracts (fuels, price changes)
8 Output & results new investors, additional sources of biomass; improvement of the
operating plant; successful operations - new plant?; new business?
Waste management of the plant (recycling); dissemination activities,
know how transfer
8 Crucial decisions now how transfer, feasibility, to solve problems concerning technology,
logistics, operation
8 Important background business know how; awareness - strong people - risky entrepreneurs
6 Funding & financing financial risk (rising interests), energy price; but it is easier to finance
this projects because of the well running the plant
6 Project steps further negotiations, maintenance
6 Further effects acceptance by the inhabitants,; official authorities
60 Points in total
Table 13: Rating of the criterions – phase IV IT
Key factors
No changes during the development of this success story.
March 2009 28
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 12: Phase VI - IT
A constant improvement of the financial issues regarding the market development is very important
now. Next steps are to connect the residential blocks close to the plant in the forthcoming months
(“project steps”). The CHP unit should be probably based on a ORC turbine of around 180 kWel
power output; the residual heat will be used to produce hot water for the district heating unit. The
ashes and wastes of the combustion process will not be disposed in landfill but spread in the fields of
local farms.

10 Funding & financing financial analysis technical analysis, social analysis, environmental
anaylsis - constant improvement process
10 Important background Market development
8 Legal conditions keeping up to date with legal conditions
8 Consortium stakeholders
8 Output & results evaluation of process/business, revision of business plan, new

contracts, evaluation of suppliers/alternatives, reorganize logistics
6 Crucial decisions to change suppliers, business plan, logistics concerning new market
framework
6 Project steps monitoring, evaluation, operation, controlling system; adaption of new
action caused by the evaluation
6 Further effects increasing benefits and added value
62 Points in total
Table 14: Rating of the criterions – phase VI IT
Key factors
March 2009 29
legal conditions
60
55
50
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
output, results
Chart 13: General visualization - IT
legal funding & project output, further crucial important

Phase I 8 10 6 8 8 6 10 8 64
Phase II 8 10 8 10 10 6 10 10 72
Phase III 8 8 10 10 10 6 8 10 70
Phase IV 8 6 10 6 8 6 8 8 60
Phase V - - - - - - - - -
Phase VI 8 10 8 6 8 6 6 10 62
Total 40 44 42 40 44 30 42 46 328
Table 15: Ratings of Apiro - IT
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “important background” and “funding &
financing” as well as “output & results” is between 46 and 44 points, which represent a surpassing
result. Only the sector “further effects” got the result of only 30 points, which shows that this criterion
is not that important for this success story.
In general the first important steps were to evaluate the technical and economical availability of
biomass and the general demand for energy products, signing pre-contracts with suppliers, finding
subsidies for investment costs and the availability of the green electricity law. During the
implementation the consortium - customers, fuel suppliers, constructors/installers and investors - was
very important (also for the enlargement phase). Because of the flexibility in regard to the
construction of the plant, a successful start-up was possible and the business as usual started to work.
March 2009 30
Now it is important to improve constantly the process. This will happen because of the interpretation
of financial analysis, technical analysis, social analysis and environmental analysis. It is also very
important for future activities to study the on-going market development.
Phase II (Planning and analysis) got the highest rating. A detailed planning was done like the
calculation of the payback time, financing parameters and the present value (net). Also the regional
influence, the influence of political/financial changes were analyzed. Moreover a detailed feasibility
study, a sensitivity analysis, a multi-criteria analysis and the analysis of pricing for commodities,
electricity, heat etc. was done carefully. After choosing the technology the system design, the
construction, the developed business plan and operation plan were implemented. Also
contracts/agreements with biomass suppliers were signed and because of the interaction of BM
suppliers an owner structure had to be found. All required legal permissions were granted and the
feed in contracts concerning electricity and heat were negotiated. Concerning the operation of the
plant the required water reserves and the required area for spreading the residues are ensured and
the logistic plan was developed. All these actions were only possible with the integration of open
minded manager, risky entrepreneurs and the participation of the municipalities who were mainly
responsible for this success story (“consortium”).

Phase I
 Good co-financing possibilities (75%)
 The availability of fields owned by the Municipality, availability of local resources
 Distance between the SRF fields and the plant
 Only one actor as leader of the project (The Apiro Municipality)
Phase II
 The decision to use an advanced example of biomass boiler able to burn several feedstock with
different moisture and ash contents
Phase III, IV & VI
March 2009 31
3. SPAIN - VALORIZA Plant - Energy production out of Orujillo
and other autochthonous biomasses in Puente Genil,
Andalucía,(Spain)
Andalucía is one of 19 regions of Spain.

Andalucía population: 8.202.220 inhabitants; Area: 87.268 km² (17,2%of Spain); Density of
population: 92,12 inhabitants/km²; 8 provinces; 770 communities (15 cities);
Picture 7: Location of Puente Genil
Puente Genil is a medium small structured community in the province of Cordoba near to the border
to Sevilla (3 km) and it is 68 km far from the province capital Cordoba.
Puente Genil population: 29.503 inhabitants; Area: 171,05 km²; Density of population: 172,48
inhabitants/km²
Spain with more than 280 million trees planted, is producing about a million tons of olive oil and is
the world’s leading producer. This sets a landscape of 2 million hectares of olive groves, a quarter of
the surface olive world, of which 1.6 million hectares belong to Andalusia (16% of its surface).
Significance of olive groves in Andalusia - Southern Spain: Crop growth
In Andalucía, olive is cultivated in around 1.600.000 ha
Oil production: The only virgin oil that can be consumed untreated. The importance to health is
recognized by the medical and nutritional impacts.
March 2009 32
The olive is an ordered, cultivated and registered forest: C02 sink by its enormous leaf area and
photosynthetic capacity. Cultural practices favoring photosynthesis and development of the leaf
surface.
This led to a generation of wealth and manpower. This olive areas build a green containment barrier
to the influence of desert areas (20% of the area of Andalusia in area of low rainfall <550 mm of
water / year) and there is a need of a biannual pruning of the foliage mass and a need to remove the
biomass of the crop to avoid pests.
Puente Genil (Spain) in the Andalucía olive grove tree’s heart, Valoriza Energía (Sacyr Vallehermoso
Group Company), launched in the autumn of 2006 an industrial pioneer, which is a good example of
the energy of the many existing Mediterranean biomasses and a flexible model of recovery
bioenergetics. Pioneer industrial complex dedicated to the energy industry of olive oil and other
biomass Mediterranean.
Picture 8: Puente Genil – olive grove trees
The plant is additionally innovative concerning high developed technologies. Energy efficiency is a
real research laboratory for the recovery of various used biomasses. The main idea was to make a
plant which is feeding especially olive products (olive kernel or the logging tree), due to the reason
that Andalusia is an area of great availability of olives. The main objective is to use every available
agricultural biomass. This is a smart solution for generating electricity and to improve rural
economies. Initially one of its main decisions was to choose the cooling system; finally it is done
through aerocapacitors, minimizing the water consumption needs and the discharges of industrial
process. This ability to mix and investigate different types of biomass is due to two factors: a supply
system with double entry and the availability of a continuous supply of 45,000 tonnes per year of
biomass as a homogeneous orujillo is 10% humidity .The olive crop receives different EU grants.
Involvement of stakeholders: Mr. Juan Luis Casimiro (Plants responsible); Mr.Francisco Mesa
Herrador (Puente Genil Plant Responsible), Ms Sara Casimiro- Soniguel Baum (Biomass responsible
person).
The plant is operated by three companies, which Valoriza Energy is the majority partner. Secaderos
de biomasa S.A. (SEDEBISA) is the company that will develop activities related to obtaining orujo de
oliva oil. Compañía Energética Pata de Mulo (CEPALO) is the operator of a waste water treatment
plant and the aim was the reduction of sludge with olive cogeneration combined cycle., equipped with
a gas turbine of 13 MW, a recovery boiler and a steam turbine of 4.4 MW. The exhaust gases from the
March 2009 33
gas turbine are used for drying “alperujo”. This plant consists of a steam turbine of 9.8 MW and a 13
MWe gas turbine, a recovery boiler and a steam turbine of 4,4 MWe. The steam boiler has been
designed by the firm Standard Biomass. It burns about 10,350 kg / h biomass to produce 41.6 t / h
steam continuously at 42 bar pressure and 403 º C temperature. The steam drives a turbine, unless
the removal is not controlled, for feeding the cycle of the degasser 2 t / h. The boiler is operating
about 7,800 h / year at full load.
In this region there are annually between 150,000 and 300,000 t per year of olive residues
(“alperujo") processed, stored, dried and extraction of orujo oil. These facilities meet their thermal
and electrical demand and additionally they are generating a surplus electrical energy which is
discharged to the public network. The relative average humidity of alperujo is around 65%. They
reduce moisture in three drying machines to a value of 10%. The result of this drying process is
obtained by "fat dry orujo”, which is subjected to an extraction process which, by treatment with
hexane and steam was obtained "orujo oil” and "dry orujillo" serves as a fuel for the biomass boiler.
Economic data: The budget for the entire project amounts to 46 M €, it took 18 months to build the
plant and occupies an area of 16 ha.
Main parameters of installation of 9,8 MWe:
 Vapor pressure 0.08 bar (a)
 Turbine speed 8.760 rpm
 Alternator speed 1.500 rpm.
 Fuel availability 82.800 t/year
 Operation 8.000 h/year
 Fuel consumption 36.661 t/h
 Turbine Electric Power 10.235 kW
 Auxiliary Medium Power 921 kW
 Gross return 24%
 Net return 21,8%
 operating hours: 8000; Operating hours generating electricity: 7800;

 economical life: 20 years;
 feed-in tariff electricity: Depends on used biomass type;
 commodity price: Depends on used biomass type;
 Producing electricity out of using autochthonous biomasses

 Minimize the water consumption and the environmental impact
 Improve the farmer’s economy by purchasing their pruning residues previously wasted
 Good example of a flexible model for recovering bio-energy
 Plant creates jobs in the region
 One modification of this project is the used biomass. Until 2007 the biomass boiler was working
only with orujillo, but in 2008 they decided to use other biomasses, actually they use more than
50% autochthonous biomass, and poplar in the future.
 This biomass type don´t admit long journeys, so all of it is obtained from the region. Before, these
wastes were non-used, now they are purchased and they are creating an important benefit for the
farmers’ economy.
March 2009 34
 In addition the whole system of cooling water in the industrial process is done through
aerocapacitors, minimizing the water consumption needs and the discharges of industrial process.
 Economic benefit of obtaining orujo oil and the elimination of the environmental impact that
would generate the water.
March 2009 35
Picture 9: Impressions from the biomass plant in Puente Genil
(g) Contacts (full address and possibly name of people)
Francisco Mesa Herrador (Plant responsible)

Address: Ctra. Puente Genil – Santaella, Km 25-26, cruce Patamulo.
Puente Genil (Córdoba – SPAIN)
March 2009 36

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 14: Phase I - ESP
Phase I is (together with phase IV) the most important phase during the development of this Spanish
success story. A lot of basic information was collected and a lot of time was investigated for
awareness building to solve barriers in advance. The main idea was to make a plant that was fed
especially with olive products (olive kernel or the logging tree), due to the reason that Andalusia is an
area of great availability of olives. First steps: Making a market survey, developing the idea, doing a
study of the necessary machinery for the industrial process. Main decision was to choose the cooling
system, finally it is done through aerocapacitors, minimizing the water consumption needs and the
discharges of industrial process.
9 Project steps system identification, potential local/availability of biomass,
preliminary feasibility study (techn./econom.), action plan
9 Output & results sort of biomass/location, quality & quantity, … legal framework
(private/public, size)
8 Crucial decisions biomass availability (technically + economically); signing pre-
contracts with supplier; choose cooling system
8 Important background idea of the location of the plant (investors);
7 Funding & financing finding subsidies for investment costs, green electricity law
7 Consortium key persons:
6 Legal conditions depends on companies' strategies of different levels (reg., nat., intern.)
3 Further effects trend making
57 Points in total
Table 16: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase I ESP
Key factors
 To do a study of the necessary machinery for the industrial process
 Making a market survey
 Developing the idea
 To choose the cooling system
March 2009 37
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 15: Phase II - ESP
Phase II is characterized by doing the important fundamental planning. Therefore the consortium was
found (“Consortium”: Valoriza Energía is the main owner, Secaderos de Biomasa, S.A. (SEDEBISA),
Compañía Energética Pata de Mulo, SL. (CEPALO)), feasibility studies were worked out and a system
design with the chosen technology was defined. Also the “legal conditions” and “funding &
financing” were important during this phase. On the other hand, the “public criterions” like “further
effects”, “crucial decisions” and “important background” were not so attractive like in other phases.

8 Consortium customers, fuel suppliers, constructors. A main owner (Valoriza)
8 Project steps feasibility study, system design; construction; business plan, operation
plan
8 Output & results choice of technology; Pre-Feasibility study (economic, technical);
contracts/agreements biomass suppliers;
7 Legal conditions subsity police, knowledge about legal environmental framework (
restrictions, loans,..)
7 Funding & financing payback time; influence of political/financial changes
6 Further effects trend making image; creation of new business (logistics, transports,
collecting, storing,…); environmental impacts;
5 Crucial decisions economical feasibility, logistic plan;
5 Important background open minded manager, risky entrepreneurs,
54 Points in total
Table 17: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase II ESP
Key factors
 Main parameters of installation
 Consortium
March 2009 38
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 16: Phase III - ESP
During the implementation of the plant “funding & financing” was paid the most attention to ensure
the financial risks. Also the legal steps like getting all required permissions, signing contracts for fuels
and to assure pricing were important. After the successful start-up the monitoring as well as the
business as usual started to work. One problem to solve was to find a well skilled staff for the
operation of the plant (business know how). The “consortium” had to find customers as well as fuel
suppliers. They were also still working on the acceptance by the inhabitants.

8 Funding & financing financial risk (rising interests), energy price
7 Legal conditions permission, contracts (fuels, price changes)
7 Project steps successful implementation and start-up;
7 Output & results construction, start up, monitoring, starting business (buy biomass, sell
energy)
7 Crucial decisions well skilled staff for operation
6 Consortium customers, fuel suppliers
6 Further effects acceptance by the inhabitants, positive impact on environment
5 Important background business know how
53 Points in total
Table 18: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase III ESP
Key factors
 The budget for the entire project
 Time to have the plant built
 Quantity (t/year) of biomass
 Output (MWe)
 Building of the plant and start - up
March 2009 39
 No enlargement was planned.
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 17: Phase V - ESP
Until 2007 the biomass boiler was working only with orujillo, but in 2008 they decided to use other
biomasses, actually they use over 50% autochthonous biomasses and poplar in the future. Therefore
they had to solve some problems with the technology. After implementation the plant it was accepted
by the inhabitants as well as by the official authorities, which was very important for the ongoing
status.

9 Further effects acceptance by the inhabitants; official authorities
8 Funding & financing financial risk (rising interests), energy price; but it is easier to finance
this projects because of the well running the plant
8 Crucial decisions know how transfer, feasibility, to solve problems concerning
technology, logistics, operation
7 Legal conditions additional contractors, permission, contracts (fuels, price changes)
7 Consortium operators, customers, fuel suppliers, constructors/installers have an
great impact (responsible for quality), investors
7 Important background business know how; awareness
6 Project steps further negotiations, maintenance
5 Output & results new investors, additional sources of biomass;
57 Points in total
Table 19: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase V ESP
Key factors
 Decision and use of another additional biomass
March 2009 40
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 18: Phase VI - ESP
The orujillo residue (40%) and other biomass (60%) are enhanced and improved and this
dramatically eliminated the impact with respect to conventional systems. In addition the whole system
of cooling water in the industrial process is done through aerocapacitors, minimizing the water
consumption needs and the discharges of industrial process.

8 Funding & financing financial analysis technical analysis, social analysis, environmental
analysis - constant improvement process
8 Further effects increasing benefits and added value, elimination of environmental
impact because minimized water consumption
7 Output & results evaluation of process/business,
7 Crucial decisions to change, logistics concerning new market
6 Legal conditions keeping up to date with legal conditions
6 Project steps adaption of new action caused by the evaluation
6 Important background market development
5 Consortium steak holders
53 Points in total
Table 20: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase VI ESP
Key factors
 The orujillo residue (40%) and other biomass (60%) are enhanced and improved dramatically
and eliminated the impact with respect to conventional systems
 To minimize the water cooling consumption needs
 Decrease of the environmental impact
March 2009 41
legal conditions
60
55
50
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
output, results
Chart 19: General visualization - ESP
funding
legal & project output, further crucial important
Phase I 6 7 7 9 9 3 8 8 57
Phase II 7 7 8 8 8 6 5 5 54
Phase III 7 8 6 7 7 6 7 5 53
Phase IV - - - - - - - - -
Phase V 7 8 7 6 5 9 8 7 57
Phase VI 6 8 5 6 7 8 7 6 53
Total 33 38 33 36 36 32 35 31 274
Table 21: Ratings of Puente Genil – ESP
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “funding and financing” and “project steps”
as well as “output and results” is between 38 and 36 points, which represent a surpassing result. Only
the two sectors “important background” and “further effects” with 31 and 32 points show an average
result. It is distinctive that no rate is higher than 9 points.
During this success story the phases I (Idea, Beginning) and Phase V (Changes) got the highest
ratings. In the beginning of this success story the needed technology was identified, the potential oaf
the local availability of the required biomass was evaluated and the technical and economical
preliminary feasibility study was done (including legal framework). Thereupon an action plan was
developed. So all basic information for a successful development of a bio-energy project was
collected. Because of the comprehensive preliminary work the second phase (planning and analysis)
was characterized by designing the plant and signing contracts with fuel suppliers. During the
March 2009 42
implementation the main step was to calculate the financial risks. When they were changing the initial
condition only to use one sort of fuel, they gained a high acceptance by the inhabitants because of
using further regional sources as well as by the official authorities, which was very important for the
ongoing status. Now it is important to do the financial, technical, social and environmental analysis to
have a constant improvement process to optimize the plant and to have an on-going success story.

Phase I
 To do a technical for the industrial process
 Making a market survey
 Developing the idea
 To choose the cooling system
Phase II
 Main parameters of installation
 Consortium
Phase III
 The budget for the entire project
 Time to have the plant built
 Quantity (t/year) of biomass
 Output (MWe)
 Building of the plant and start - up
Phase V
 Decision and use of another additional biomass
Phase VI
 The orujillo residue (40%) and other biomass (60%) are enhanced and improved and this
dramatically eliminated the impact with respect to conventional systems
 To minimize the water cooling consumption needs
March 2009 43
C. Contract Model
Contracting scheme for Puente Genil Biomass Plant.
Biomass Plant
Biomass Puente Genil Endesa
supplier distribución
SEDEBISA CEPALO
picture 10: Altogether there are different contracts in the business model of the biomass plant Puente Genil.
- Biomass material supply contract: between biomass plant (Puente Genil, Valoriza owner) and
the farmers as producers of raw material delivered to the plant. The main biomass producer is
SEDEBISA.
- Electricity supply contract: Between the biomass plant and the Electricity Company for
Distribution – Endesa Distribución –
- Heating and steam contract: Between biomass plant (Puente Genil, Valoriza owner) and
Sedebisa (producer of orujo oil and orujillo as residue). The Biomass Plant sells heat and
steam to SEDEBISA and CEPALO (Treatment plant and reduction of agricultural mud)
The contracting model scheme indicates that Puente Genil Valoriza Plant is a part of an industrial
complex, where 3 main companies are strongly integrated: Biomass Puente Genil (Electricity
producer from biomass, including energy crops), SEDEBISA biomass producer and heat and steam
consumer, and CEPALO treatment plant and heat and steam consumer.
Valoriza is the only owner of Puente Genil Biomass Plant, as a limited society; other Valoriza
Biomass plants are negotiating the incorporation of farmers as minor participants on the business.
Building a factory complex in the same area provides numerous advantages, since they can take
advantage of the existing synergies between them. SEDEBISA produces orujillo and sells it to
BIPUGE (Biomass Plant of Puente Genil), CEPALO sells to SEDEBISA the necessary thermal energy
March 2009 44
to dry the orujillo, and BIPUGE sells hot water and steam to SEDEBISA and CEPALO. Furthermore,
there are lots of common services, such as: Laboratories, storage, scale, maintenance, industrial risk
prevention, environment, management, and others.
The total budget for the 3 plants project amounts up to 46*106 €, it took 18 moths to build them, and
they occupy an area of 16 Ha. The construction of the Puente Genil Biomass Plant, 9,8 MWe, needed
an investment of 17,7*106 €, it received subsidies of 20% of the total budget. A capacity increase is
being considered for the future.
There are several kinds of biomass suppliers: The Orujo Oil Factories (orujillo suppliers), farmers
(they provide olive prune and stumps), and energy crops producers (Energy crop poplar provider).
Service companies buy biomass from the farmers, pre-treat the product, and then sell it to BIPUGE;
one example of this kind of companies is CGC (Compañía General de Carbones), which sells biomass
to large clients.
Different sizes of biomass suppliers exist: Wholesalers (7-10 suppliers), farmer associations, and
retailers (Small suppliers in larger numbers). The share of biomass supplies received from
wholesalers and retailers varies, at the time being, the share is 80% from wholesalers and 20% from
retailers.
The only partner in Puente Genil Biomass Plant is Valoriza. In other Valoriza plants (Escusas -
Granada), the Poplar Producers Association is negotiating to become a partner of the power plant,
thus being able to participate on the administrative board.
The amount of energy crop (poplar) used in the Biomass Plant in Puente Genil (Cordoba) depends on
the market, the prices of other biomass, and the supply of orujillo, which is the main fuel at the time.
In other plant (Granada) the Poplar Producers Association made a deal with the plant to provide it
100% of the total biomass supply, estimating 150000 t/year of poplar with a 20% humidity. If there is
more production than expected, the poplar excess is sold to other plants, but if the production falls
short of meting the estimates, the plant buys from other suppliers. This system is flexible and favours
both companies. The particular area used as poplar fields are not included in the contract.
In Biomass Puente Genil Plant, most of the biomass supply comes from the Orujillo Company
(SEDEBISA), on the other hand the Plant that’s located in Granada gets most of its biomass supply
form the Poplar Producers Association.
The price depends on the type of Biomass (energy crops, residues), weight and humidity. The
negotiated price represents the price of the biomass when it’s delivered to the plant with certain
conditions, for poplar the negotiated price is 80 €/t with 20% humidity.
The company has a contract with general clauses, which are valid for every provider (master
contract), and other particular clauses for each kind of provider.
The next chapter focuses on the contract between the biomass supplier and buyer, including specific
aspects that apply to energy crops.
March 2009 45
(b) Detailed description of the contract model between supplier and buyer.
In order to achieve a better economic profit it’s important to get the biomass supply from within a 30
km radius. In Biomass Puente Genil Plant’s case, this radius can go up to 100 km, while in the case of
the other plant in Granada, the distance between the plant and the poplar fields is in the range from
10 to 35 km.
The harvest period of poplar is during December-March, Orujillo during November-April, and olive
prune during February-May. The harvesting process is carried out by the farmers and service
companies, the gathering and storage in a nearby deposit and executed by the farmer or provider, the
transportation is responsibility of the provider, which in some cases uses a service company.
The ashes produced by the power plant are sold to be used in areas with shifting lands, in order to fix
them. Ashes, when mixed with dirt, have the ability to compact the land.
The trucks carrying the biomass are weighted when they get to the plant, and a sample of biomass is
taken, in order to analyze it, find out its humidity, and fix the price.
The more common penalizations are because of impurities and inadequate granulometry. There can
also be delivery delays. For each case the causes are analyzed and a penalization takes place, but
these penalizations are not included in the contract.
Key data in the biomass supply contract.

 The buyer must buy all of the biomass offered by the supplier.
 The supplier must deliver all the available biomass, indicated in the contract.
 The harvest is carried out by the supplier, whom assumes all the cost and risk of this
process. The biomass must be delivered in chips format.
 The storage and transportations are carried out by the supplier, whom assumes all the
costs and risks of the process.
 The location of delivery is the storage area of Biomass Puente Genil Plant.
 Defines how to determine the humidity of the biomass, measurement protocol, is a main
issue.
 The price of the biomass delivered is based on the weight of this biomass corrected by the
percentage of dry material, percentage of humidity and by the presence of impurities.
 Prices are negotiated for periods of several years.
 Poplars basis price is 80 €/t, at humidity of 20%, which is the form that is delivered.
March 2009 46
(c) Advantages and disadvantages of the contract model:
+ 100% of the biomass produced by the supplier is bought by the biomass consumer
(Power Plant), according to contract quota.
+ The price of the biomass depends on its quality.
+ The farmers that produce poplar come together within an association; this favours
the negotiation between Power Plant and farmers, additionally it helps the farmers to
have strength in the negotiation processes. As a consequence of this, the number of
suppliers to deal with is reduced, making it more manageable.
+ The farmer harvests every year (annual rotation), and receives money for the sales of
the product every year, which means that the farmer doesn’t have a lot of money tied
up.
+ The product that the farmer sells last for several years (He plants one time, and
harvest for 10 to 12 years)
± Most of the risk is on the side of the supplier, which produces, prepares and delivers
the energy crop. In addition, the Power Plant buys the whole product in the pre-
established conditions.
± The Farmer knows the selling price, with correction indexes for CPI and oil prices;
this could make the prices vary in a positive or negative way.
- When the energy crop is harvested it has a 55% humidity, it’s sold with a 20%
humidity, after months of storage; the loss of weight and storage costs should be
included in the final price. A huge storage area is necessary.
March 2009 47
4. FINLAND: Kokkolan Voima Oy – Integrated reed canary grass
processing and feeding system in the large scale CHP plant
Kokkola (36.000 inhabitants) is a classical small town on the coast of the

Gulf of Bothnia. The town was founded in 1620. Kokkola is a bilingual
town and almost 18% of the inhabitants are Swedish-speaking. The
distance from Kokkola to the Arctic Circle is the same as to the capital
city Helsinki in the south. About 70% of the jobs are on the service sector
and 22% on the industry (metal and chemical industry).
Picture 11: Location of Kokkola
In 2006-2007 Kokkolan Voima Oy invested in the integrated reed canary grass (RCG) processing and
feeding system. Kokkolan Voima Oy wanted to invest in new innovative solutions in the field of
renewable energy. Besides the use of regional energy sources this consideration was important.
Furthermore the operational environment was favourable. Earlier there was no experience of systems
designed for reed canary grass processing and feeding to the boiler.
First Steps:
 The main shareholder company was seeking for new possibilities to produce renewable energy
(trend-maker image)
 The CHP plant director of Kokkolan Voima Oy was willing to invest in an innovative pilot system
(open minded for new ideas)
=> Kokkolan Voima Oy decided to seek possibility to invest in integrated RCG processing and feeding
system in CHP plant.
Since the beginning, the managers of the plant wanted to promote renewable energy sources, to
replace peat and recover wood based fuels. They also wanted to support regional economy by offering
energy crop production opportunity to the farmers in the region. Subsidy Policy for agriculture and
Emission Trade system also promoted the decision.
March 2009 48
Investment figures:
 Processing and feeding system 30 000 €
 Storage hall
 Planning & maintenance done by the company staff
 System got 30 % subsidies for the investment
 The introduction of CHP plant

The CHP plant was established in 2001. The electricity production capacity is 20 MW and the district
heat production capacity 50 MW. In 2007 the annual electricity production was 70 GWh and district
heat production 240 GWh. In the future the plant will supply 70 GWh process heat for local process
industry. In 2008 the share of solid biomasses in fuel supply is about 50 procent. The plant will use
about 170 GWh peat, 50 GWh side products from wood processing industry, 95 GWh wood chips of
forestry and 5 GWh reed canary grass (RCG). The process industries provide process heat with the
capacity of 15 MW. It is converted to district heat.
 The overview in RCG processing and feeding system

In 2006-2007 Kokkolan Voima Oy invested in the integrated reed canary grass processing and feeding
system. It suits for straw management as well. The technical layout and design of the integrated
system were provided by Kokkolan Voima Oy itself due to this system is the pilot system in the field of
reed canary grass use in energy production. The targets were to minimize the disadvantages of co-
management of reed canary grass and other biomasses and improve the conditions of reed canary
grass utilisation. The reed canary grass processing and feeding system consist of the large shed for
the storage and crushing line and pneumatic boiler feeding system. In winter 2007-2008 the system
was adjusted and some minor changes was done.
 RCG Crushing
The crushing technology is based in the Reka company solutions that are originally designed for the
crushing of cubic straw bales. The rated capacity of the drum crusher is about 1000 kg/h. The drums
are rotated by two electricity motors of 7,5 kW capacity. The length of the conveyer that takes the
bales to the crusher is almost 50 meters. Therefore there is a need to load the conveyer only a couple
times in day. At other times the crusher is unoccupied. The bales are crushed slowly between the drum
and the counter cutters. The slow speed reduces the dust formation. Furthermore the fire safety as
well safety increase and the environment contamination decreases.
 RCG transportation to the boiler

There is the conveyer screw under the crusher. It transports the chopped RCG to the pipeline that
takes pneumatically the chopped RCG to the boiler. The diameter of the pipeline is 100 mm and the
length more than 100 meters. The feeding point for RCG is located in the same side and height as the
inlets for other fuels. It is in between of two other feeding points for solid biomasses. There were some
improvements made in feeding system during the piloting phase.
March 2009 49
 RCG supply
The processing and feeding system is designed for 15 GWh annual RCG utilisation. This corresponds
the annual production of 600 hectares. RCG is about 5 procent of Kokkolan Voima Oy fuel
utilisation. The energy crop (RCG) is mainly purchased from 50 local farmers. With them Kokkolan
Voima Oy has long term contracts. The large number of small contracts causes quite high
management costs per contract. Kokkolan Voima Oy purchases RCG also from Vapo Oy who is
national level operator in bioenergy business.
The RCG bales are transported to the storage with tractors or with trucks. The average truck load is
about 70 round bales (about 15 tons of RCG). The cubic bales are more efficient in logistical terms.
In 2007 the processing and feeding system was built up. In winter 2007-2008 the system was adjusted
and some minor changes were done. There have been some problems in crushing if the RCG bales
have been too wet. Also loose and broken bales have caused some problems. The ropes around the
bales haven’t caused any problems but the nets have been more risky.
Overall it is too early to evaluate the total benefit of the investment.
Benefits and challenges in integrated reed canary grass processing and feeding system in the large
scale CHP plant
+ RCG is delivered in bales to the plant area. It enables the efficient transportation logistics
+ Good storage conditions ensure the quality of RCG preserves and that the system is almost
independent of transportation logistics
+ The chopped RCG has stable quality and the process has low energy demand
+ RCG is not limiting the processing and feeding of other biomass based energy sources
- The system requires investment decisions and some space in the CHP plant facility
Picture 12: The combined heat and power plant

Kokkolan Voima Oy in Kokkola town.
(photo: Kokkolan Voima Oy)
March 2009 50
Picture 13: The RCG bale storage (photo: Kirsi
Knuuttila, Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd)
Picture 14: The cutters in the drum crusher (photo:

Kirsi Knuuttila, Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd)
Picture 15: The feeding points solid biomasses,

the small diameter for RCG and large for wood
based biomasses (photo: Kokkolan Voima Oy)
March 2009 51
Picture 16: Reed canary processing system
(photo: Kokkolan Voima Oy)
(g) Contacts (full address and possibly name of people)
Kokkolan Voima Oy
Kemirantie 8
FI-67900 Kokkola
Finland
Pohjolan Voima Oy
PL 40
FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland (www.pohjolanvoima.fi)
March 2009 52
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 20: Phase I - FIN
During the phase Idea & Beginnings ”important background” is essential. “Legal conditions”,
“crucial decisions” and “output, results” are not so important yet. The leaders of the plant wanted to
promote renewable energy sources, to replace peat and recover wood based fuels. They also wanted
to support regional economy by offering energy crop production opportunities to the farmers in the
region. Subsidy Policy for agriculture and the Emission Trade System also promoted the decision.

9 Important background Promotion of renewable energy sources to replace peat and recover
wood based fuels
8 Funding & financing Subsidies for investments, fuel supply (agricultural subsidies), RES
energy production
8 Consortium The director of the production plant was initiator, main owner positive,
farmers interested in RCG production
8 Project steps Potential regional biomasses, Availability of biomasses, Action plan,
Preliminary feasibility study, Preliminary Evaluation studies
7 Legal conditions EU level legislation, strategies in company, national and European
level
7 Output & results Decision to invest in RCG
7 Further effects Committing the farmers to produce RCG for energy production
6 Crucial decisions To support regional economy by offering energy crop production
opportunity to the farmers in the region
60 Points in total
Table 22: Rating of the criterions – phase I FIN
Key factors
 the strong will and opinion of the leaders of the plant
 availibity of RCG near of the plant
March 2009 53
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 21: Phase II – FIN
In the planning phase many “crucial decisions” have to be done. The planners decided to combine
two different technologies which was risky. Also “background” is still important. “Consortium” and
“output” are not so important in this phase. Net Present Value and Return of Investment seemed to be
positive for investment. There was also possibility to get investment support from the government.
They managed to do enough contracts with fuel suppliers. There was not totally suitable technology
on the market, but the planners combined crushing system and blowing system from different
manufacturers.
9 Crucial decisions Innovative combination of two existing technologies
9 Important background RCG remains straw as a fuel and there are suitable applicable
technologies available
8 Legal conditions Subsidy Policy, Emission Trade system, Legal conditions of Investment
implementation (social, environmental), Loans related to fiscal laws
8 Funding & financing Net Present Value, Return of Investment,
Influence of changes in the financial conditions
8 Project steps Feasibility studies, Operation plan, Contracts with fuel suppliers,
constructors, system suppliers
8 Further effects Good Image as the RES promoter
6 Consortium System supplier, fuel suppliers, owner
6 Output & results Choosing the technology and system supplier, Operation plan,
Contracts with fuel suppliers
62 Points in total
Table 23: Rating of the criterions – phase II FIN
Key factors
 the investment seemed to be profitable
 possibility to get investment support
 nearly suitable technology was on the market
March 2009 54
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 22: Phase III - FIN
During the implementation phase “funding and financing” must be in good order. Also permissions
and contracts (“legal conditions”) are important here. The building of the storage hall and feeding
system happened rather fast, but start-up process was slow and some modification had to be done to
match two different technologies together.

9 Legal conditions Permissions, Contracts
9 Funding & financing Financial commitments
8 Output & results The construction of system for processing RCG and construction of the
storage
8 Further effects The difficulties in start up, The great interest in energy and agro
sciences and businesses
7 Consortium System supplier, constructors, owner
7 Project steps Implementation of system and storage, Start-up
7 Important background The start-up was long process and there were many changes done in
technical systems during first year
6 Crucial decisions The national level promotion of RCG
61 Points in total
Table 24: Rating of the criterions – phase III FIN
Key factors
 the building was fast
 some problems to fit two technologies together
 delays in start-up
March 2009 55
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 23: Phase IV - FIN
Enlargement is more or less theoretical, because they haven't done it yet. This analyze is based on
hypothesis of enlarge the use of energy crops.

9 Legal conditions legal conditions in agricultural and energy matters are essential
9 Project steps Increasing the processing of RCG
9 Crucial decisions Political decision concerning energy crop production
9 Important background International and national legal frame
7 Output & results Possible changes in operational activity
7 Consortium Farmers and suppliers
6 Funding & financing No remarkable risk
6 Further effects Ethical questions?
62 Points in total
Table 25: Rating of the criterions – phase IV FIN
Key factors
 To find an appropriate sort of biomass
March 2009 56
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 24: Phase V - FIN
Changes in fuel and agricultural product prices are risks, as well as changes in agricultural policy.
This can be seen for example in high points of important background.

9 Legal conditions Investment support, ETS, Agricultural frame
9 Project steps Duplicate system
9 Output & results Same fuel suppliers, system suppliers, same maintenance & storage
9 Further effects Stronger commitment with stakeholders
9 Important background Fuel prices, ETS, Agricultural policies
8 Crucial decisions Decisions in to increase the use of RCG
8 Consortium farmers, System suppliers
5 Funding & financing Changes in ownership, in operation of owner, in public policies, in
agricultural product prices
66 Points in total
Table 26: Rating of the criterions – phase V FIN
Key factors
 changes in fuel and agricultural product prices are risks
 changes in agricultural policy are risks
March 2009 57
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 25: Phase VI - FIN
Constant improvement is important when we consider the ongoing of the process. That is why "output,
results" has attained high points. Better economy, better price for energy and better regional
acceptance are the targets. Co-operation in crop-to-energy chain development could help in this.

9 Legal conditions Constant follow-up of legal frame
9 Output & results Better efficiency for operation
8 Project steps Monitoring fuel supply and properties
8 Further effects Better economy, better price for fuel, better regional acceptance
7 Funding & financing Constant improvement based on: financial analysis, operational
analysis
7 Consortium all stakeholders
7 Crucial decisions Co-operation in crop-to-energy chain development
7 Important background Public support for developing activities
62 Points in total
Table 27: Rating of the criterions – phase VI FIN
Key factors
 targets: better energy price, better economy and better regional acceptance
March 2009 58
legal conditions
60
55
50
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
output, results
Chart 26: General visualization FIN
At this chart the whole evaluation of the project can be seen. The maximum which can be reached for
every criteria is 60 points and for every phase it is 80 points.
funding
Phase I 7 8 8 8 7 7 6 9 60
Phase II 8 8 6 8 6 8 9 9 62
Phase III 9 9 7 7 8 8 6 7 61
Phase IV 9 6 7 9 7 6 9 9 62
Phase V 9 5 8 9 9 9 8 9 66
Phase VI 9 7 7 8 9 8 7 7 62
Total 51 43 43 49 46 46 45 50 373
Table 28: Ratings of Kokkola – FIN
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “funding and financing” and “project steps”
as well as “output and results” is between 38 and 36 points, which represent a surpassing result. Only
the two sectors “important background” and “further effects” with 31 and 32 points show an average
result. It is distinctive that no rate is higher than 9 points.
During this success story the phases V (Changes) got the highest ratings, because it is very important
to have a lot of information about the development of fuel and agricultural product prices. This seems
to be the basis for the on-going status because if you have this information you can react on certain
circumstances.
March 2009 59
In the beginning of this success story the aim was to promote renewable energy sources, to replace
peat and recover wood based fuels. Therefore you need strong opinion leaders and the needed
renewables in the closest surrounding. During the planning phase there was the decision to choose an
innovative combination of two existing technologies which can convert. RCG to a fuel. After designing
the plant the next great step was to meet the financial issues and to get the needed permissions from
different authorities. This detailed planning formed the basis for a well running implementation with a
fast construction of the plant. The next enlargement will be to extend the use of energy crops.
Therefore the legal conditions in agricultural and energy matters are essential and the political
decision concerning energy crop production is a crucial point. Also changes in fuel and agricultural
product prices are risks, as well as changes in agricultural policy. Knowledge about these problems is
very important background. Target of the on-going process is to have a constant follow-up of the legal
frame and to optimize the plant to gain a better efficiency of the operation.
Key factors
Phase I
 the strong will and opinion of the leaders of the plant
 availability of RCG near of the plant
Phase II
 the investment seemed to be profitable
 possibility to get investment support
 nearly suitable technology was on the market
Phase III
 the building was fast
 some problems to fit two technologies together
 delays in start-up
Phase IV
Phase V
 changes in fuel and agricultural product prices are risks
 changes in agricultural policy are risks
Phase VI
 targets: better energy price, better economy and better regional acceptance
March 2009 60
C. Contract Model
(a) Jyväskylä Energy Ltd, Rauhalahti CHP plant, Jyväskylä, Finland
Jyväskylän Energiantuotanto Oy, the subsidiary company of Jyväskylä Energy Ltd, has
tested the combustion of reed canary grass at the Rauhalahti CHP plant since 2006. The
reed canary grass is always combusted as a fuel-mixture with peat or wood chips in the
large scale combined heat and power (CHP) systems. The reed canary grass is
transported as bales to the Rauhalahti plant by Vapo Ltd (biomass fuel supply company).
The bales are chopped at the site and mixed to the main fuel.
The production capacity of the Rauhalahti CHP plant is 87 MW electricity, 140 MW

district heat and 40 MW steam. During the first testing years the energy production of
reed canary grass was about 5 GWh, but in 2009 the energy production of reed canary
grass was already 11,6 GWh. In the future the aim is still to increase the share of reed
canary grass. Annually, Rauhalahti CHP plant uses 1,8 TWh different kind of fuels,
mainly local fuels.
(b) Description of the whole contract model
Forest biomass Reed canary Industrial by- Oil & Coal

suppliers (wood grass suppliers products (saw supplier
Peat suppliers
chips, stumps) dust, bark)
Vapo Ltd
Rauhalahti
CHP plant
Customers for Customers for Customers for

district heating electricity process steam
picture 17 Altogether there are 8 different contracts in the business model of the Rauhalahti CHP plant:
March 2009 61
 Reed canary grass supply contract: Between the Rauhalahti CHP plant and Vapo
Ltd delivering the reed canary grass. Suo Ltd’s (Vapo’s daughter company) line
of business is cultivation of reed canary grass. Suo Ltd sells the straw material to
Vapo Ltd which sells it to the CHP plant. Additionally, Vapo Ltd has several
contracts with the local farmers. The local farmers sell the straw material to Vapo
Ltd which sells it to the CHP plant. At the moment Vapo Ltd is only reed canary
grass supplier to Rauhalahti CHP plant. Vapo Ltd is responsible of organizing the
transportation of the bales from the field side.
 Peat supply contract: Between the Rauhalahti CHP plant and several local peat
producers, Vapo Ltd is one producer
 Forest biomass supply contract: Between the Rauhalahti CHP plant and several
local forest biomass producers, Vapo Ltd is one producer
 Industrial by-products supply contract: Between the Rauhalahti CHP plant and
several local companies (saw mills), Vapo Ltd is one producer (bark)
 Oil and coal supply contract: Between the Rauhalahti CHP plant and oil / coal
companies (national / international companies)
 District heat and electricity supply contract: district heat and electricity is
delivered to networks owned by Jyväskylän Energia Oy and Vattenfall Oy
 Process steam supply contract: steam was delivered to paper mill owned by Sappi
Finland Oy but the mill was closed in spring 2010 and therefore no steam delivery
any more.
(c) The contract model between energy crop suppliers and buyers in more detail
The ENCROP project handles with the topic of energy crops. So the next chapter
concentrates on the contract between suppliers and buyers of energy crops.
Reed canary grass Vapo Ltd Rauhalahti

farmer
CHP plant
picture 18 Vapo Ltd is the contract partner between farmers and users of energy crops
March 2009 62
 To reach an economic efficiency it is important to supply the reed canary grass within the
radius of 70 km of the Rauhalahti CHP plant (at the moment sometimes during the year
the transportation distance is even 100 km but that is not profitable).
 At the moment two trucks per day (one in the day-time and one in the night-time) are
transporting reed canary grass bales to Rauhalahti.
 Trucks deliver reed canary grass through the year (Vapo is responsible of organizing the
transportation).
 During Bioenergy 2009 conference, ENCROP organised a study tour to Rauhalahti CHP.
This was the first when the reed canary grass bales were transported by train. Large
square balers have higher capacity, produce tighter bales and are of a better shape than
those produced by round balers. It is possible to make 30–50% heavier loads for
transportation by using good large square bales rather than round bales. The test was
successful and now the company is studying train transportation more carefully, then it
would be possible and more profitable to transport bales from further off.
 At the plant yard the bales are crushed by a low speed crusher or by a mobile crusher.
This is exceptional in Finland because in most cases reed canary grass is crushed and
mixed with the main fuel at the fuel terminals, the ready-made mix is truck transported
and fed it into the boiler.
Some selected notes from the contract between the farmer and Vapo Ltd:
 The farmers own the bales until the bales are transported from the side of the field.
 The farmer will be paid after the bales are transported from the side of the field (in 30
days).
 The contract is valid usually five years, after that it is possible to renew the contract
again for five years.
 The price is based on energy content (MWh – moisture, weight, heating value in dry
matter)
 If target moisture is 10-14%, if delivery moisture is 20% or more, the price is 20% lower
 If the size of the bales differs from the contract, the price is 20% lower.
 The pricing is checked during the duration of the contract if some fundamental changes in
the principles of the pricing
 The farmer is responsible of storing and binding the bales according to the instructions
until the transportation.
Some selected notes from the contract between Vapo Ltd and Rauhalahti CHP plant:
 At the moment Vapo Ltd is the only supplier who supplies reed canary grass to
Rauhalahti CHP plant
March 2009 63
 Vapo Ltd is responsible of organizing the transportation of bales to the CHP plant.
 The bale trucks are weighted when driving into the plant yard and when leaving, the
weight of the bales is one basis of pricing.
 The moisture is one basis of the pricing.
 The heating value (MWh) is the main basis of the pricing
 Long-term contract is desirable.
(d) Advantages and Disadvantages of this contract model

Contract between the farmer and Vapo Ltd
 The quality and the price of RCG are defined exactly
 The duties of both actors are defined exactly (except day of transportation)
Contract between Vapo Ltd and Rauhalahti CHP plant
 Only one reed canary grass supplier; in total CHP plant has tens of fuel contracts
and the aim is to minimize the number of the contracts.
 To measure the moisture is difficult and time-consuming because loads are so
different (even during one day)

 Sometimes it takes more than a year before the bales are collected and transported
from the side of the yield, this is a long time for the farmer to wait for the payment
and try to keep bales dry => hopefully this inconvenience will disappear in the near
future when the demand of RCG will increase on the power plants.
 When the energy production is outside emission trading, energy plants have very little
incentives to use energy crops because RCG is much more expensive fuel (c. 20
€/MWh), than e.g. peat (12 €/MWh); the high price is largely due to the emission
trading, since it boosts the price and demand of biomass fuels compared to e.g. peat
(which carries the highest CO2 cost in emission trading). Furthermore, when
producing electricity with forest chips, there is a subsidy of 6,90 € per MWh
electricity produced - which accounts for 2 - 2,5 € per MWh forest fuels used. This
doesn’t apply for RCG, which obviously decreases the profitability its use for CHP
plants.
March 2009 64
5. GERMANY - From a biogas plant to a green energy community
Agriculture in Bavaria is part of an European Common policy. The local aim is to support family
farms throughout Bavaria. This is against the trend, more and more people have to close farms and
find jobs in other industries.
Middle Franconia is one of three Frankish governmental districts in Bavaria. It is in the northwest of
Bavaria and borders on the federal state Baden-Würtemberg.
Middle Franconia has a surface of 7,244 kms ² and about 1.7 million residents. With approx. 236
residents on the square kilometer, its population density of all districts in Bavaria is quite high. The
landscape is partly hilly (highest Mountain has got 689m), but there is enough horizontal space for
agricultural cultivation. Nürnberg is the most metropolitan conglomeration with important industries
and companies in this region, but most of the other parts are rural areas.
The biogas plant in Rodheim is located in a rural area between the capital of Middle Franconia,
Ansbach, and the local capital of Lower Franconia, Würzburg.
(b) Short local description), scale of the initiative, technical aspects, integration of different
The biogas plant presented predominantly ferments grains. Pure grain fermentation has barely
asserted itself up to now even though from an energy point of view it is very interesting because gas
extraction of up to 400 litres of methane per kg o DS have been measured and the high level of energy
density promises low spatial needs for transportation, storage, fermentation and application on top of
that. One major reason for that is certainly the rapid acidification tendency of this substrate. Grain
decomposes extremely quickly and leads to rapid acidification in the fermenter. Using the
conventional one-stage process, the acidification cannot be buffered if there is too much grain and the
process comes to a standstill.
However, a two-stage system in which the acidification occurs in a separate stage, preventing
interference in the methane formation process in the 2nd stage, was seldom economical in the past.
But now the context has been improved and, through the NaWaRo bonus, it is easier to get financing
for the accessories required for the process engineering. For that reason, interest in pure grain
fermentation has grown. Practical experiences, however, will only be available in some years.
The plant in the Engert operation (97258 Uffenheim, OT Rodheim) was completed at the end of 2005
and still exhibits the state of the art: daily, about 5 tons of corn (grain, maize) and approx. 6 m³ cattle
manure from the hydrolysis stage (the 1st fermentation stage) are conveyed into the actual fermenter.
The cattle manure comes from four local farms and is picked up by the operator himself. In return, the
farmers pick up the fermented manure from the 2000 m³ disposal site, which is located on the plant
premises. Part of the required substrates is grown on the operation’s own areal (40 ha) and the
remainder is procured externally.
March 2009 65
In the grain delivery hall, 630 tons of grain is processed for a dry silo and approx. 350 t (500 m3) for
a wet silo (ligavator from the company Lipp). The advantage of wet storage is that corn threshed
longer during harvesting and corns with a moisture content of up to 25% in grains and up to 40% in
maize corns can be stored. The dry grain is threshed, mixed in a paste maker (Ligamix from Lipp Co.)
with water and pumped into the ligavator. This substrate, as compared with silo maize, has three times
the energy density.
About every 6 days, a new mixture is charged in the hydrolysis container. To do that, 30 m3 ligavator
pulp, already acidified through storage (pH 3.9 and 50% solids), is pumped into the hydrolysis pit. In
addition, the cattle manure and recirculated product from final storage are added so that the dry
content of the mixture is about 26%.
The hydrolysis container with 160 m3 capacity is equipped with a powerful, stationary paddle-type
agitator (from the company Rohn, 12 kW power) so other substances like silo maize can also be co-
processed. The agitator runs approximately every three hours for 2 minutes. The hydrolysis is heated;
the temperature is set between 10 and 40°C depending on the type of substrate.
The retention time in hydrolysis is about 6 days. Every 3 hours, approx. 2.5 m3 substrate are pumped
into the fermenter (1000 m3 steel fermenter from the company Lipp with integrated 300 m3 gas
accumulator). That amounts to a retention time of 50 days. The agitator in the fermenter is a flow
conduction pipe with an integrated rod mixer and a power of 2 x 18 kW. It is run 8 times daily 8 for
approx. 15 minutes.
The fermenter is run at an operating temperature of 38°C. The loading rate lies at about 3 kg o DS/ m³
and day. The plant is automatically controlled by a PC. Remote data monitoring is possible. The
desulphurization is performed by flowing in air. The gas analyzer from the company Chemec
continuously measures sulphur, methane, CO and oxygen.
The gas is converted into electricity in a 330 kW gas engine unit from the company MDE. It has an
electrical efficiency of 36.5%. One can then calculate that an average power of 300 kW can be
generated continually (365 days/a). The heat is utilized nearly 100% by ten connected residential
houses and 2 cots. For that reason, the plant receives the cogeneration of heat and power bonus. The
local heating network and the substitute heating oil burner with 220 kW power were financed by the
10 participating households. Per household, about 6,000 to 7000 € investment costs arose, which are
accounted for via heat delivery. 50% of the heating oil price will be calculated as the heating price.
According to the planners, the investment costs of the plant without heat connection lies at 3000 -
3500 € /kW.
 Start of building: 2005

 Start of operation: 2005
 Externally procured manure 7.300 m³ per year
 Silo maize 1.825 m³ per year
 Rye 2.000 tons per year
 Wheat 180 tons per year
 Mangel-wurzel (turnips).1.000 tons per year
 Operating temperature .40°C
 Residence time in the digester 30 days
March 2009 66
 Average expenditure of human labour1,5 hours per day
 Wet preservation: using LIPP ligavator 496 m³

 Reception 150 m³
 (heated external hydrolysis stage, equipped with 18.5 kW Staro agitator)
 Fermenter: LIPP combi bioreactor 1.000 m³
 with feed chute mixer and high-gravity solids extraction.
 Final storage: LIPP Spiral-fold engineering …2.000 m³
 CHP MDE gas motor 300kW
In the village, a syndicate was founded for heat utilization which includes the operator and 9
neighbours. Based on their individual heat consumptions, they financed the heat network with varying
shares (5,500 – 8,000 €). Up to amortization of the plant (about 2 years), the 10 shareholders received
heat free of charge. The basis for the concluding heating-price is half (referenced to the energy
content) of the heating oil price. An oil burner is available as emergency heating (safety reserve).
 Biogas makes it possible that the small village could use more renewable energy sources. The
biogas plant would have been build anyway. The main question was about the surplus heat that
should be used
 Up to about 30 people are due to join the syndicate and are going to found a legal firm to have the
option of funding. This means, that the village is going to be more self sufficient from traditional
energy sources. Therefore, there is the option to extend the plant up to 700 kW electrical.
Since 2005, the operator could gain experiences with grain fermentation. During high energy crop
prices, the plant was not operating on full scale
(f) Photos – impressions
Picture 19: Biogas plant Rodheim
March 2009 67
(g) Contacts
Karl-Heinz Engert
Torstraße 21
97258 Rodheim
Telefon 0049 9842 208-0
March 2009 68
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 27: Phase I - GER
Farmer Karl Heinz Engert and other people from the village Rodheim in Bavaria close to Würzburg
were planning a biogas plant that mainly ferments grains. In addition, a small grid for using the
surplus heat of the biogas plant to have lower costs for energy consumption was intended. The usage
of biomass as renewable energy source should have a high degree of efficiency. One major step in the
beginning was the building of a syndicate to use the surplus heat.

10 Legal conditions idea of a biogas plant and local district heating
10 Consortium initiation of a consortium by Karl Heinz Engert
10 Important background Biogas makes it possible that the small village could use more
renewable energy sources.
9 Project steps analysis of existing biogas technology and usable materials, analysis of
financing and funding
8 Funding & financing Renewable energy law
8 Further effects hope for a further source of income for farmers
8 Crucial decisions Installation of a new biogas plant and installation of district heating
boilers to meet the heat demand
7 Output & results choice of technology -> producing biogas out of mainly grains
70 Points in total
Table 29: Rating of the criterions – phase I GER
Key factors
 decision: fermenting ferments grains
 A small grid for using the surplus heat
 The usage of biomass as renewable energy source
 Lower costs for energy consumption
March 2009 69
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 28: Phase II - GER
During the second phase of the project implementation "Analysis & planning phase" the “important
background” is the most important criteria (9 points). In the village, a syndicate was founded for heat
utilization which includes the operator and 9 neighbours who made the decisions. Based on their
individual heat consumptions, they financed the heat network with varying shares (5,500 – 8,000 €).
Up to amortization of the plant (about 2 years), the 10 shareholders received heat free of charge. The
basis for the concluding heating-price is half (referenced to the energy content) of the heating oil
price. Important events to inform about the plans to gain support of neighbours and other inhabitants
in the small village took place. They made the decision to build the plant as well as a first small grid
for district heating and planned the size of the plant and length of the district heating. The grid was
planned only on community area to avoid legal conflicts in the future. The other criterions are still
important.

9 Important background The biogas plant would have been build anyway. The main question
was about the surplus heat that should be used
8 Funding & financing examination of the plant so that a higher feed-in tariff for 20 years is
guaranteed.
8 Further effects political acceptance concerning the biogas plant
8 Crucial decisions discussions about the implementation of the biogas plant, mainly with
the local population
7 Consortium Founding of the consortium
7 Project steps support of other village inhabitants for the idea
7 Output & results positive examination by authorities for building the plant
60 Points in total
Table 30: Rating of the criterions – phase II GER
Key factors
 the support of other village inhabitants for the idea
March 2009 70
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 29: Phase III - GER
Phase III (implementation phase) is one of the most important phases during the whole project. Most
criterions have the same important evaluation (8 points).They represent a stable and well organized
implementation and a successful start-up of the plant.

8 Consortium Unchanged consortium
8 Project steps construction of the biogas plant and district heating and start – up
8 Output & results successful start-up, production of electricity and heat
8 Further effects gain experiences with grain fermentation
8 Important background backgrounds for influencing decisions which are not mentioned in the
descriptions
5 Crucial decisions no main decisions during implementation
59 Points in total
Table 31: Rating of the criterions – phase III GER
Key factors
March 2009 71
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 30: Phase IV - GER
During this phase an unobstructed operation of the plant as a green electricity plant was the most
important criterions to gain a maximum of biogas to feed in the power supply system on the base of a
funded feed-in tariff. The main problem was that the prices for grains became very high and as
important decision the plant could not operated on full scale for a certain time.

10 Important background … the plant was not operating on full scale
8 Consortium Consortium
8 Project steps optimization of several components of the biogas plant;
8 Output & results improved operation of the biogas plant
8 Further effects gain experiences with grain fermentation
6 Legal conditions unchanged general conditions
6 Crucial decisions decisions in order to continue and/or to change the project process
were taken during high energy crop prices,...
62 Points in total
Table 32: Rating of the criterions – phase IV GER
Key factors
No changes
Key factors
March 2009 72
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 31: Phase VI - GER
More people in the village are convinced by the stable biogas process and energy supply with surplus
heat. They support the project more than in the beginning. And there is even the option to extend the
plant up to 700 kW electrical and up to about 30 people are due to join the syndicate. Now it is
important to found a legal firm to have the option of “funding”. This means, that the village is going
to be more self sufficient from traditional energy sources. For the further success of the project is an
enlargement of the plant the next main “project step”. All criterions like “background”, “effects” and
“results” show that the project is on a good way and could be successful help to reduce the use of
traditional energy sources in the village.

10 Consortium Up to about 30 people are due to join the syndicate and are going to
found a legal firm to have the option of funding.
10 Output & results More people in the village are convinced by the stable biogas process
and energy supply with surplus heat
10 Further effects They support the project more than in the beginning
10 Important background This means, that the village is going to be more self sufficient from
traditional energy sources.
9 Project steps conventional operating
8 Legal conditions new renewable energy law 2009
8 Funding & financing new renewable energy law 2009
8 Crucial decisions And even there is the option to extend the plant up to 700 kW electrical
73 Points in total
Table 33: Rating of the criterions – phase VI GER
Key factors
 enlargement of the existing biogas plant
March 2009 73
legal conditions
60
55
important 50
45 funding and financing
background 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
output, results
Chart 32: General visualization - GER
every sector is 60 points and for every phase it is 80 points. The radar chart shows that the most
important criterion in this success story is the “general background”.
funding
Phase I 10 8 10 9 7 8 8 10 70
Phase II 6 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 60
Phase III 6 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 59
Phase IV 6 8 8 8 8 8 6 10 62
Phase V - - - - - - - - -
Phase VI 8 8 10 9 10 10 8 10 73
Total 36 40 43 41 40 42 35 47 324
Table 34: Ratings of Rodheim - GER
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “important background” is 47 points. Also the
work with the “consortium” was very important. Only the two sectors “legal conditions” and “crucial
decisions” with 36 and 35 points show an average result.
The initial idea was to build a biogas plant and a local district heating grid. The initiator was Mr.
Engert, who had in mind that every small village could use more renewable energy source by
producing and using biogas, is a very important opinion leader and was initially hardly criticized by
the inhabitants. The biogas plant was built anyway. The main question was about the surplus heat that
March 2009 74
should be used and therefore a heat concept was developed. After the construction of the plant which
was very stable and well organized, a successful start-up of the plant followed. They represent a stable
and well organized implementation and start-up of the plant. During this phase an unobstructed
operation of the plant as a green electricity plant was the most important criterions to gain a
maximum of biogas to feed in the power supply system on the base of a funded feed-in tariff. The main
problem was that the prices for grains got very high and as important decision the plant could not
operated on full scale for a certain time. But now these problems are solved and after having this
discussion to find a solution for the price problems the inhabitants were able to indentify with this
plant in a certain way because of having more information about this success story.
During this success story the phases VI (On-going) got the highest ratings, because now the
inhabitants accepted the biogas plant and support it after having big reservations. Up to 30 people are
due to join the syndicate and they are going to found a legal firm to have the option of funding. More
people in the village are convinced by the stable biogas process and energy supply with surplus heat.
They support the project more than in the beginning. This means, that the village is going to be more
self sufficient from traditional energy sources.

Phase I
 decision: fermenting ferments grains
 A small grid for using the surplus heat
 The usage of biomass as renewable energy source
 Lower costs for energy consumption
Phase II
 the support of other village inhabitants for the idea
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase VI
 enlargement of the existing biogas plant
March 2009 75
C. Contract Model (general view)
Natural Gas
Wood
Company
Supplier
Substrate Digestate
District
Supplier Biogas Plant heating ???
Electricity Heat
Company customers
picture 20: a general view of the whole contract model
In terms of energy crops, there is only one important contract for biogas plant operators. That is the
one with the substrate suppliers. This text describes a substrate supplier contract between the biogas
plant and the farmers delivering the energy crops. But a biogas plant operator needs definitely also
other contracts. The figure above shows further opportunities in a contracting model.
An agricultural biogas plant operator normally produces electricity and surplus head from biogas and
energy crops, nowadays. But it could be even an option to upgrade biogas to biomethane for the
national gas grid in the future. At the moment, there are only profitable upgrading units on the market
for large scales biogas plants. In this case, farmers act as substrate suppliers and depend on the
success of the plant that is financed by large companies. Small scale upgrading units exist, but are less
profitably than CHP units.
The German feed in laws gives preferentiality to electricity or biomethane produced from biogas.
Therefore, it should be possible to close easily a contract with energy supplying companies. Since the
compensation rates for electricity are fixed, one has not to debate on the prices any longer. The price
for upgraded biomethane is not fixed. There is only the priority to accept the gas by law.
March 2009 76
In the case of CHP, the surplus head should by completely used. Many solutions for heat utilization
exist. But heat supply contracts between the biogas plant and the heat users have to be closed on the
free market. If one uses wood as a security and back up system, a wood supply contract between
farmers delivering the wood and the CHP operator are necessary. Furthermore, single heat supply
contracts between the district heating grid operator and the heat customers have to be done.
Many times, the supplier of energy crops is bound to take the final residues which are produced by the
fermentation process.
Substrate Biogas Plant

Supplier
picture 21: contract between energy crop supplier and buyer
Aims of Energy Crops supply contracts
 Biogas plants aim to have long term economic planning reliability to yield a stable profit.
o To reach an economic efficiency it is important to supply the materials within the
radius of 30 km of the biogas plant.
 Suppliers want to have long term and reliable buyers as well as secure and predictable
income from selling substrates.
Contents of Energy Crops supply contracts
Important Information:
 Contract partners with contact and address details, Bank account of the supplier
 Brief, exact subject description of the contract
Price basis essentials:

 Area of cultivable land, amount of crops, price in €/ha
o Amount of crops (t), price in €/t fresh matter or €/t dry matter
o Biomethane (m³), Price of payment in €/m³ raw gas (conversion of t fresh matter in m³
raw gas: for example 1 t fresh matter yield 200 m³ raw gas at 33 % dry matter
content)
March 2009 77
Quantity determination based on the price basis:
 Proof of area under cultivation through register of land parcel
 Kind of weighing; e. g.: Weigh station or entry of quantities through harvester
 Responsibility for weighing and reporting results (Biogas plant or supplier)
Quality criteria of substrates determination based on the price basis

 Content of dry matter
 Content of biomethane
 Degree of pollution
 Responsibility (costs) for analysis of quality, for example: laboratory examination and
reporting results (Biogas plant or supplier)
Transport and Delivery:
 “at the field”, The biogas plant operator buys the substrates at the field and takes care of
harvesting. (including transport and harvesting costs)
 “at the silo”, The place of delivery concerning the materials of the supplier is the clamp silo.
The supplier has to take care of harvesting, especially of the harvesting costs and the
transport to the biogas plant's clamp silo.
 Regulation of responsibility to coordinate harvest and delivery of the substrates to the silo
clamps of the biogas plant.
 Definition and determination of the delivery date. For example, the responsible person for
harvesting and delivery determines the period of time for the delivery of substrates. It is
advisable to check the field stocks in time before harvest to define harvesting and delivery.
 Pick up of digestates by suppliers
o Calculation of the digestate quantities (calculation base could be the delivered
quantity of the substrates)
o Place of pick up for digestates by the suppliers (for example: at the biogas plant
means that the responsibility for the digestates goes to the supplier. The supplier takes
the digestates out of the final storage of the biogas plant, bears the costs for transport
and spreads the digestate.
o Price of the digestate: The digestate contains nutrients that have a value. It can be
released either without any charges or with additional payment for the biogas plant
operator or supplier based on the price calculation for the substrates.
Consequences for biogas plant operators in case of non-compliant behavior.

 If the operator does not accept the contractually fixed quantities, he has to pay compensation.
 In case of delayed payment, the biogas operator has to pay interest for delay.
Consequences for supplies in case of non-compliant delivery.

 Delivery of not enough substrates: The supplier has to pay additional cost for buying missing
substrates from third party sources.
 If the quality varies form the determined standard, the supplier has to pay as well extra
charges or accept deductions of the payout prices.
March 2009 78
 If the pollution is higher than the agreed threshold, the biogas plant operator must not accept
the supplied substrates. (Determinations for the maximum degree of pollution and for
reductions in payments within a acceptable frame)
 A biogas plant in Germany risks a loss of specific extra compensation (for example: energy
crop bonus) by using not suitable substrates. In this case the supplier must pay compensation.
 Late delivery: additional costs for re-opening the silo clamps
Price calculation and method of payment

 Agreement on price variation. (for example: link to a price index)
 The calculation of the payout price has to be transparent in the relation to the price basis with
extra costs or reductions
 Exact determination of payment dates, deadlines or partial payments
Extraordinary notice of contract cancellation

 by biogas plant operator:
o if the delivery is repeatedly non-compliant with the contract (in terms of quality,
quantity or date of delivery)
o if the regulatory framework changes or if the plant loses an additional bonus caused
by the delivery of the supplier.
 by supplier: if the biogas plant …
o … refuses the delivery
o … repeated delayed payments
o … declares bankruptcy or chances the owner
Regulations in case of disputes

 arbitration clause (to avoid a court)
 arbitrators: agricultural / energy industry experts
 fast decision making
important information for long term contracts

 Objective criteria for price finding
 Market price with index-linking to a reference price (government publications, biogas
associations, ...)
 Limitations of price adjustments (fluctuating market price) by setting margins lead to a better
planning dependability for both parties.
 Risk diversification for the quantity of delivery
 Supplier takes the obligation for a fixed delivery quantity.
 Storage capacity
 Human factor
 Brief contract (6 pages) + annexes
Contract options
 Common interests: The common target should be a successful biogas production though tight
cooperation between biogas plant operator and farmers/suppliers.
March 2009 79
 Farmers could form a joined cultivation and supplier ownership. The Supplier gets an
additional payment if the plant generates power far above average.
 Supplier becomes joint partner and gets shares in profits (for example as silent partner)

-

-
March 2009 80
6. SWEDEN - ENA Enköping – Integration of salix plantation,
wastewater treatment, ash-sludge recycling and energy production
Uppsala län is one of the 24 counties in Sweden. Enköping is one of the eight communities in the
counties. It is situated about 70 km west of Stockholm. There are about 20 000 inhabitants living in the
whole area of 1044 hectare.
(Source: Kartbolaget i Norden AB) (http://sv.wikipedia.org)
Picture 22: Location of the community Enköping
ENA Energy is situated in City Enköping and owned by Enköping Municipality. Following the intent
of Swedish state energy policies, ENA Energy converted its oil and coal to biofuel in early 1990’s last
century. However, concerns about a long term biofuel supply began almost immediately after the
fossil fuels were replaced in the CHP. The area consists mostly of farming land and forest resource is
rather poor.
Enköping is located close to lake Mälaren that is linked to the Baltic Sea. Decrease nitrogen leakage
to Baltic Sea was a big demand from Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Since end of 1970’s
there had been a request from the Swedish Armed Forces to ensure heat supply using domestic fuel.
March 2009 81
ENA energy’s CHP (combined heat and power) plant in Enköping has a capacity of producing 23 MW
electricity and 55 MW heat, with the steam of 100 bars and 540°C. The fuel used in ENA Energy is to
100 % biofuel. To supply the city with enough electricity and heat, approximately 400 GWh biofuels
are needed each year. Plantation of salix in agricultural fields will help to compensate the resource
shortage.
A 80 hectare of salix plantation was planned initiatively.
Salix is a fast-growing plant but requires a generous
supply of water and fertilizer in order to have a good
yield. To make it possible, an irrigation system and 3
ponds had to be built to connect a waste water treatment
plant and salix fields. The water used for the irrigation
purpose has been through the conventional purifying
process, then it is pumped
out into the ponds. Reject- and decant-water, which is
very nutritious, is blended with the outgoing purified
water and after filtration it is stored in the ponds. The
water, approx 200 000 m3 each year, is then distributed
through the 350 km irrigation hoses covering the 80
hectares salix plantation. The all planning was initiated
in 1993-94.
Picture 23: Process design from Enköping
Ideas of the project got support from state LIP (Lockal Investering Program), local district heating
companies, waste water treatment plants and municipality. Technique selection and contract setting
were among the major tasks at the stage of planning. Cost analyses and environment assessments
were conducted. By the end, positive results of examination came from authority. The decision was
made in 1998. Financing was then provided. Supply contracts were signed.
The project was implemented 1999-2000. Three waste water ponds were built and 80 hectares of salix
plantation nearby the CHP and waste water treatment plant were established. ENA Energy rents
farming lands within the region, in collaboration with Agroenergy that is a company in the Swedish
farmer’s Association. Salix are irrigated by waste water and fertilized by mixture of bottom ash and
sludge. The waste water treatment is financed or subsidised by partners (WWT) and government.
Farmers get also subsidy about 1000 €/ha at start.
In total, there is an about amount of 250-300 kg of nitrogen per hectare dispersed every year. The
willow tree plantation takes up nitrogen and phosphorous effluence, which otherwise would pollute
Lake Mälaren and the Baltic Sea even more The digested sludge from the municipal sewage water
treatment plant is mixed with bottom ash from CHP and supplied as solid fertilizers in the salix fields.
The ash and digested sludge are controlled regarding heavy metal content.
March 2009 82
A phytoremediation of heavy metals’ contamination in soils were included in the project later. Studies
have shown that the uptake of heavy metals in Salix is higher than what the ash and sludge mix
contains. Salix can actually clean farming land from some heavy metals.
Salix is harvested after the leaves are dropped. Preferably in the winter when the ground is frozen and
moisture content in biomass is low. Salix is harvested after 3-5 years of growth. The crop is harvested
and chipped directly on the field and transported to our CHP for a direct combustion.
The salix chips currently contribute up to 20% of fuel mixture. This depends on the fact that the fuel of
salix contains a higher amount of problematic elements in combustion (corrosion, slagging etc.) than
other wood fuels, although it has almost the same heating value as the wood fuels, approx 18.2 MJ/kg
DM.
About 90% of salix ash is bottom ash that can be mixed with digested sludge and spread onto Salix
fields. The fly-ash particles that follow the gas stream and may contain evaporated heavy metals are
collected in an electrostatic filter and is buried as municipal landfill. In this way the environmental
risk of heavy metals is largely reduced.
The ENA Energy company produces 350 GWh (100 GWh electricity 250 GWh heat) every year and
supplies for all the heat demand in the city and produces about 60% of the electricity demand by using
renewable biofuels. This helps the town already now fulfilling the European Union goals for 2020.
The production of Salix fuel can reach approx 12 ton DM/ha and year if the conditions are favourable
and the plantation is well taken care of. Only 5 % of the extracted energy is used for machines and
transports.
Salix can be stored beside the field, either chipped or in a bundle. Bundles can be stored for a longer
time and still hold good quality. To store Salix evens out the supply of fuel. If the energy companies
can have the fuel delivery guaranteed, the value of the fuel increase.
So far, the Enköping project has proved to be a success, greatly due to the commendable cooperation
between the local farmers, the waste water treatment plant, Environment conservation board, County
council, Agroenergi and ENA Energy.
Benefits upon ENA concept may be summarised:

 Use of local energy resource - shorter distances and less expenses for transporting fuel
 The wastes from society can be recycled as fertilizer – reduces uses of commercial fertilizers and
environmental problems
 Reduction of nitrogen leakage to Baltic Sea – also minimizing environmental risks
 Save the costs for building conventional de-nitrogen facilities
 Save energy used to handle wastes
 Improvement of soil environment via filtration and mediation by salix’s take-up
Farmers get long term contracts for energy supply (20-25 years), which may on one side be good in
terms of a stable and longterm cooperation, but on the other hand may makes it difficult for farmer to
cope with changes in market and politics, in a comparison to growing annual crops.
During 2003 the total primary energy supply in Europe was 81 EJ (exajoule, exa=1018). More than
50 % is losses of energy. We need to change the European energy system and build smarter societies
in order to achieve the EU Climate Action proposal: 20-20-20 goals. The EU proposal says that in the
March 2009 83
year 2020: GHG will be reduced with 20 %, 20 % of energy use will be renewable and that the energy
use will be 20 % more efficient.
Today ENA manages approx 150 ha of Salix, with a goal of > 1000 ha by 2010. The success is also
attributed to the collaboration between ENA Energy and farmers association – Agroenergi. ENA rents
farming lands within the region any buys the products – salix chips; Agroenergi provides expertise in
everything concerning salix farming.
The area of Enköping Municipality is 1184 km2. Most of the area consists of farming land.
Enköoing municipality has a demand of about 400 GWh biofuels. The natural growth of biofuel from
forest in the region of Enköping is approx 100 GWh/year only. The salix production within the region
gives approx 35 GWh/year today. However, if 10 % of the farming land in Enköping municipal would
be used for growing salix, people could get approx 140 GWh/year, which is 35% of the fuel demand.
Future development
ENA Energy started a new salix project in 2004. The aim has been to plant 50 GWh new Salix before
2008 within Enköping Municipality.
The production cost is calculated to be lower than 8 €/MWh. ENA wants to rent approx 2200 ha of
farming land to grow Salix ourselves, using existing expertise from the universities, Agroenergi,
landscape architects to create a winning concept.
A general output: ash and sludge are used as fertilizers, salix chips as fuels for direct combustion, the
water is cleaned by salix plantation. Such a system can largely reduce the costs of energy production,
waste water treatment and environment maintenance. The production cost of salix fuel is calculated to
be lower than 8 €/MWh. ENA Energy concept has attracted national and international interests.
Business of trading the concept to other cities in Sweden and other countries are going on.
March 2009 84
(f) Photos, impressions
Picture 24: Enköping – Integration of salix plantation, wastewater treatment, ash-sludge recycling and energy
production
(g) Contacts
Camilla Åhlund
ENA Energy
P.O. Box 910
SE-745 25 Enköping
Sweden
Phone: 0046 171 62 50 66
Email: camilla.ahlund@enae.se
March 2009 85
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 33: Phase I – SWE
In 1993-94 ENA energy initiated to plan plantation of salix for energy purposes and reuse ash and
sludge. That is the beginning of project “Cycling in Enköping” - integrating wastewater treatment and
salix plantation with cogeneration of heat and electricity. District heating companies, waste water
treatment plants and municipality provided the financial support for the planning.

9 Consortium district heating company, waste water treatment plant, municipal of
Enköping
9 Project steps Reuse ash from district heating plant and sludge from municipal waste
water treatment plant
8 Output & results choice of technology
7 Crucial decisions decisions in order to continue and/or to change the project process
6 Legal conditions Decrease nitrogen leakage to Baltic Sea, demand from Swedish EPA.
6 Funding & financing Financed by the parties; district heating company, waste water
treatment plant
5 Important background The geographical situation of the parties involved
2 Further effects to get in contact with researchers, hope for a further source of income
for farmers
52 Points in total
Table 35: Rating of the criterions – phase I SWE
Key factors
 Government subsidies for sustainable society
 Location of CHP plant, Waste-water-treatment-plant and farming field
March 2009 86
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 34: Phase II - SWE
The ideas got also support from state LIP (Lockal Investering Program). Choosing proper techniques
and setting contracts were among the major tasks. Cost analyses and environment assessments were
conducted. By the end, positive results of examination came from authority. The decision was made in
199X. Financing was then provided. Supply contracts were signed.

9 Funding & financing Financed by the parties; district heating company, waste water
treatment plant
9 Project steps setting up contract for landuse
8 Output & results positive examination by authorities for building the plant, providing
financing, supply contracts, letters of intent with material suppliers
8 Crucial decisions decision to build
7 Consortium district heating company, waste water treatment plant, municipal of
Enköping + consultants and the landowners
5 Legal conditions the changing of the municipal detail planning, the permission to build
from the board of the region. The permission from EPA.
5 Further effects political acceptance concerning the plant
5 Important background the analyse was correct and the parties agreed to invest money
56 Points in total
Table 36: Rating of the criterions – phase II SWE
Key factors
 Apply to The County Administrative Board for permissions
 Establish network, connect people (farmers, employees at municipal, employees at CHP-plant and
Waste-water-treatment-plant)
 Engage expertise from Universities and associations concerned
 Investigation in the best available techniques for handling sludge in storage ponds
 Planning of logistic
March 2009 87
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 35: Phase III - SWE
The project “Cycling in Enköping” - integrating wastewater treatment and salix plantation began
1998. Three waste water ponds were bult. 80 hectares of salix plantation were established. ENA
Energy rents farming lands within the region, in collaboration with Agroenergy that is a company in
the Swedish farmer’s Association. Salix are irrigated by waste water and fertilized by mixture of
bottom ash and sludge. The waste water treatment is financed/subsidied by partners (WWT) and
government. Farmers get also subsidy about 1000 €/ha in the beginning.

9 Consortium No change
9 Further effects cooperation with the university of Uppsala
9 Crucial decisions no change
7 Funding & financing The financing from the parties and a government subsidy.
5 Legal conditions Municipal permission to build.
5 Project steps construction of the plant and start – up
5 Output & results finished plant, reuse of ash and sludge as fertilizer to Salix, cleaning
water and soil from heavy metals
5 Important background no change
54 Points in total
Table 37: Rating of the criterions – phase III SWE
Key factors
 Involvement of regional farmers
 Irrigation of the salix area by waste water and fertilization by ash and sludge
 Good financial situation
March 2009 88
legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 36: Phase IV - SWE
2004 Plantation of salix increased from 80 to 150 ha. It is planned that salix plantation will be about
1000 ha after 2010.

9 Further effects environmental benefits
9 Crucial decisions no change
8 Funding & financing the agency of waste collector and the waste water treatment agency.
8 Consortium the agency of waste collector and the waste water treatment agency
and the landowners
6 Project steps Agreement between the parties and constructors.
5 Legal conditions To solve the problem for private sewer and smaller waste water
treatment plants.
5 Output & results finished plant, reuse of ash and sludge as fertilizer to Salix, cleaning
water and soil from heavy metals
5 Important background To solve the problem for private sewer and smaller waste water
treatment plants and the whole municipal. To increase production of
energy crop in the region.
55 Points in total
Table 38: Rating of the criterions – phase IV SWE
Key factors
 Availability of additional supplying areas
No changes
March 2009 89
legal conditions
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
output, results
Chart 37: Phase VI - SWE
As a general output ash and sludge are used as fertilizers, salix chips as fuels for a direct combustion,
the water is cleaned by salix plantation. Such a system can largely reduce the costs of energy
production, waste water treatment and environment maintenance. The production cost of salix fuel is
calculated to be lower than 8 €/MWh. ENA Energy concept has attracted national and international
interests. Business of trading the concept to other cities in Sweden and other countries are going on.

9 Legal conditions to continue analyzing emissions to air and soil.
9 Funding & financing the parties
9 Output & results Environmental and economic benefits
7 Further effects National and international interest
7 Important background Cooperation within the municipal
6 Crucial decisions No changes
5 Consortium ENA Energy, Waste water treatment plant, the agency of waste
collector and landowners
5 Project steps conventional operating
57 Points in total
Table 39: Rating of the criterions – phase VI SWE
Key factors
 Driving force, enthusiasm for sustainable societies and environmental issues
March 2009 90
legal conditions
60
55
50
important backgroung 45 funding and financing
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
output, results
Chart 38: General visualization - SWE
every criterion is 60 points and for every phase it is 80 points.
funding
Phase I 6 6 9 9 8 2 7 5 52
Phase II 5 9 7 9 8 5 8 5 56
Phase III 5 7 9 5 5 9 9 5 54
Phase IV 5 8 8 6 5 9 9 5 55
Phase V - - - - - - - - -
Phase VI 9 9 5 5 9 7 6 7 57
Total 30 39 38 34 35 32 39 27 274
Table 40: Ratings of Enköping SWE
The radar chart shows that the evaluation of the sector “funding and financing”, “crucial decisions”
as well as “Consortium” is between 38 and 39 points, which represent a surpassing result. Only the
sector “important background” shows an average result. It is distinctive that no rate is higher than 9
points.
In the beginning of this success story the aim was to build a biogas plant with the participation of the
district heating company, the waste water treatment and the municipal of Enköping. The important
consortium was found by these 3 parties. They want to reuse ash from the district heating plant and
sludge from municipal waste water treatment plant in this biogas plant to build a “recycling
management”. The main problem during this initial phase was to get in contact with researches.
Therefore there were discussions in order to continue and/or to change the project process. Due to the
March 2009 91
circumstance of the dependency of fossil energy sources (Baltic Sea) there was the demand for energy
independency. The geographical situation of the participating parties was ideal to build a biogas plant
between the involved parties, who also financed this biogas plant. A further aim was to open a new
source of income for the local farmers. Additionally the contract for the landuse was set up during the
planning phase. During the implementation they started to co-operate with the University of Uppsala.
The enlargement of this project took place in 2004. The plantation of salix increased from 80 to 150
ha and therefore they gained more and more environmental benefits. Now they are continuing to
analyse the emissions to the air and to the soil to check the environmental and economic benefits for
the region to have good respective arguments for the future.
During this success story the phases VI (On-going) got the highest ratings, because the ENA Energy
concept has attracted national and international interest. So the main aim for the future is to develop
a business for trading the concept to other cities in Sweden and to other countries.

Phase I
 Government subsidies for sustainable society
 Location of CHP plant, Waste-water-treatment-plant and farming field
Phase II
 Establish network, connect people (farmers, employees at municipal, employees at CHP-plant and
Waste-water-treatment-plant)
 Engage expertise from Universities and associations concerned
 Investigation in the best available techniques for handling sludge in storage ponds
 Planning of logistic
Phase III
 Involvement of regional farmers
 Irrigation of the salix area by waste water and fertilization by ash and sludge
 Good financial situation
Phase IV
Phase VI
March 2009 92
C. Contract Model:
The details of the concept can be found in an attached file that was reported earlier. The concept is
though briefed as below.
1
Agroenergi AB 6
2 ENA Energi AB District heating
3
CHP
Salix plantation
(farmers) 5
4
Electricity Nord
Pool Heat customers
Wastewater
treatment plant Market
picture 25: A layout of the contract model
Altogether there are 6 different contracts in the business model of the Salix multifunctional plantation:
1. Fuel feed stock supply contract: between the ENA Energi CHP and the biofuel company
Agroenergi AB (Old name: Agrobränsle) delivering the salix chips
2. Contact of Salix plantation service package: between the farmers who cultivate salix and
Agroenergi AB who provides salix propagules (cuttings), technical supports, harvest managements
and even purchase of salix chips.
3. Ash fertilizer supply contract: between the farmers of salix plantation and ENA Energi CHP who
provides ash that can be mixed with sludge and used as fertilizer for salix plantation.
4. Contract of wastewater for irrigation: between the farmers and wastewater treatment plant who
delivers filtrated reject- and decant-water after a conventional purifying process and sludge that can
be used as fertilizers for salix plantation.
5. Eelectricity supply contract: between the ENA Energi CHP and the open market of electricity
NORD POOL.
6. Heat supply contract: between the ENA Energi CHP selling the heat and the district heating
company buying the heat from CHP and delivering the heat to customers via its piping network.
March 2009 93
The picture of the contracting model shows that the Enköping concept is characterized by the
circumstance that several partners are involved: the biofuel company, the farmers, the municipal
company and the energy producer. It ought to be mentioned that the local municipality is involved in
the way of managing the coordinating the partner ships. Another important element, that is not
included in the contract structure, is research institutes at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
(SLU) who has been researching salix and acting as an independent authority for permits.
The legal forms and major roles of the major partners are summarized in the table below:
Partner Legal form Role
ENA Energi Local municipal company Energy producer
Agroenergi Owned by Swedish Farmers Technical support for salix production
Association and salix biofuel dealer
Farmers Private company Salix plantation and production
Wastewater Local municipal company Supplier of wastewater for irrigating
treatment and sludge for fertilizing salix
District heating Local municipal company Heat buyer
Nord Pool International open market in Northern Electricity buyer
Europe
The contract between the farmers and the biofuel company Agroenergi is one of the most important
links between the elements of the whole concept. It includes usually several aspects (Figure 2 below).
Propagule (cuttings) sell
Farmers Technical consult, machine rental Agroenergi AB
Salix chips/bundles selling
picture 26: contract between energy crop supplier and buyer
March 2009 94
The farmers are suppliers of feedstock (mostly salix chips), but indirectly through Agroenergi to the
energy producer ENA energi.
Besides being the buyer of salix chips from the farmers, Agroenergi has several other functions in the
production chain. It is a developer of salix varieties and owner of the intelligent rights of salix
cultivars. Agroenergi is also the owner of special planting and harvest machines that are designed for
“twin-row” salix plantation. Therefore Agroenergi sells the salix cuttings for propagation before the
plantation is established, provides the service in technical consulting during salix growing, and rents
out the machines to farmers for planting when the plantation is establishing and for harvesting when
biomass is ready for biofuel.
Salix plantation can grow as long as 20-25 years with 6-8 harvest occasions. It takes 3-4 years for
new shoots to be good biofuel for a harvest.
The crop harvesting, delivery and storage are usually organized by Agroenergi. Harvesting and
transportation are carried out at the expense and risk of Agroenergi. The best harvest time is in winter
when moisture content in the biomass is low and soil is frozen and stable for a tractor operation.
Most important advantages of ENA concept may be summarised:

 Use of local energy resource - shorter distances and less expenses for transporting fuel
 The wastes from society can be recycled as fertilizer – reduces uses of commercial fertilizers
and environmental problems
 Reduction of nitrogen leakage to Baltic Sea because salix takes up nutrients – also minimizing
environmental risks
 Save the costs for building conventional de-nitrogen facilities
 Save energy used to handle wastes
 Improvement of soil environment via filtration and mediation by salix’s take-up
Farmers get long term contracts to be energy supplier (20-25 years), which may on one side be good
in terms of a stable and long-term market, but on the other hand may makes it difficult for farmer to
cope with changes in market and politics, in a comparison to growing annual crops. The wastewater
for irrigation and sludge-ash for fertilization reduced farmers’ costs considerably, but the rental of
planting and harvest machinery may cost farmers extra.
Salix plantation is apparently different from classic annual crop cultivation. The integration of the
wastewater treatment into cultivation and the use of ash and sludge as fertilizers need strong scientific
knowledge to have environmental friendly consequences including not only soil and water quality but
also burning and emission. The machinery are specially designed and based on state-of-the-art
technology. They are also expensive. Guidance and services including renting machines from an
March 2009 95
expertised company/organization (Agroenergi in this case) are needed to reach an economic
efficiency.
Remuneration of salix biomass depends on dry mass and fuel quality. Agroenergi manages most
handling processes including harvesting, delivery and storage, which makes the fuel quality easier to
be controlled and standardized. In future, however, multiple players must be encouraged to increase
competition and reduce the costs.
March 2009 96
III. Common Recommendations for successful bio-energy
stories
Initiating bio-energy success stories will be an important step for our business in future, because this
is the best way to create awareness for renewable energy. In addition to the positive environmental
impact of these success stories there is a big chance for the local farmers in the respective regions to
have a new source of income and it is a contribution to work against the climate change.
Following you will find some common recommendations for developing such success stories as well as
for implementing bio-energy projects. These recommendations, which are educed from the analysis
results of 6 different success stories from Austria, Italy, Spain, Finland, Germany and Sweden, are
also split into 6 phases to have a more detailed overview:
 Phase I (idea, beginnings)

 Phase II (analysis, planning phase)
 Phase III (implementation phase)
 Phase IV (enlargement of implementation)
 Phase V (Changes of the project)
 Phase VI (ongoing of the project)
In November 2008 there was a project workshop concerning the comparability of business models
respectively success stories. During this workshop all project partners together prepared one kisoll-
template to have a common result, which can be compared with the more detailed results from the
other countries. Therefore after having this workshop all partners had to prepare an own kisoll-
template of his own success story.
1. Detailed description of the project phases

In the following table the total result of each criterion out of the analysis is showed. Collectively the
criterion “funding & financing” was the most important criterion over the whole success stories of the
respective bio-energy projects (it was the most important one in the phases: analysing & planning,
implementation, ongoing). This result is the same as the output of the workshop. Also the criterion
“important background“ is a crucial factor for the development of bio-energy projects because having
a certain information – or not - can influence the development/implementation dramatically (it is the
most important criterion in the phase “enlargement of the project”. Defining the “project steps” and
having an “output & results” seems to be also relatively important, because if you always have some
results it is motivating to work on. Also founding a permanent and resistant “consortium” gives the
direction of such a bio-energy story - the more influence, the more results.
The most important phases were the “ongoing phase” as well as the “planning & analysis phase”.
The ongoing phase is very important because nowadays a lot of changes concerning bio-energy plants
are visualized. These changes can be positive or negative one. In some countries there are new
funding models for bio-energy plants (which is a result of previous good practice bio-energy plants),
in some regions the price for the fuels are raising very quick, etc. The “planning and analysis phase”
is the basic phase during the implementation of a whole bio-energy project which should be a success
story in the future. The more details are considered during the planning phase with respect to the
defined project steps the less problems will arise in the following phases.
March 2009 97
funding
Phase I 45 47 50 51 46 32 47 50 368
Ranking 7 4 2 1 6 8 4 2
Phase
41 51 44 49 47 42 49 48 371
II
Ranking 8 1 6 2 5 7 2 4
Phase
42 50 49 47 48 47 40 43 366
III
Ranking 7 1 2 4 3 4 8 6
Phase
35 38 42 38 38 39 39 42 311
IV
Ranking 8 5 1 5 5 3 3 1
Phase V 24 21 24 24 23 28 24 26 194
Ranking 3 8 3 3 7 1 3 2
Phase
45 51 44 43 53 49 41 48 374
VI
Ranking 5 2 6 7 1 3 8 4
Total 232 258 253 252 255 237 240 257 1984
Ranking 8 1 4 5 3 7 6 2
Workshop 40,33 45,33 42,92 40,08 40,87 44,00 45,00 38,47
Ranking 6 1 4 7 5 3 2 8
Table 41: Total result of each criterion
All of these criterions are important but this importance depends mainly on the respective phase.
Following you can find the detailed results of each phase.
March 2009 98
A. Phase I: Idea, beginnings
Phase I legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
conditions financing steps results effects decisions background
Total 45 47 50 51 46 32 47 50
Ranking 7 4 2 1 6 8 4 2
Min 6 6 6 8 7 2 6 5
Max 10 10 10 9 9 8 10 10
Average 7,50 7,83 8,33 8,50 7,67 5,33 7,83 8,33
Ranking 7 4 2 1 6 8 4 2
Workshop 6,50 7,00 8,25 8,75 7,20 3,00 7,00 7,80

Ranking 7 5 2 1 4 8 5 3
Table 42: Summary of phase I
legal conditions
10
9
important 8
7 funding & financing
background
6
5 AT
4
3 IT
2
1 ESP
FIN
D
S
output, results
Chart 39: Phase I – all projects
On this radar chart the first phase (idea, beginnings) of all success stories are showed. After adding
all ratings of each bio-energy story from the first phase it is quiet clear that in the beginning of such a
success story defined “project steps”, a deliberate “consortium” and information about” important
backgrounds” are responsible for a successful initial phase. Far behind in this rating is the criterion
“further effects”. It seems to be that these effects are expected in the following project
implementation.
March 2009 99
legal conditions
10
9
important 8 funding &
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Average
WS
Min
output, results
Chart 40: Phase I – comparison
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating out of all the given ratings. The minimum
perceives as a core of all ratings. After building the average (red line) it is visible that these above
given statements are confirmed by the results of the workshop (yellow line).
Key factors – summary Phase I

 Defining and developing the precise idea
 Founding a consortium with opinion leaders and/or representatives of communities/municipalities
but only one actor as leader of the project
 Feasibility studies: Availability of enough useable area in the closest surrounding - limited
transportation efforts, idea of a heat consumption concept (at a lower price-level), knowledge
about the respective market)
 Decision of technology for using renewable energy sources
 Detailed knowledge about financing/funding possibilities
 Background information about existing plants to cooperate
March 2009 100

B. Phase II: Analysis, planning phase
Phase II legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
Total 41 51 44 49 47 42 49 48
Ranking 8 1 6 2 5 7 2 4
Min 5 7 6 7 6 5 5 5
Max 8 10 8 10 10 9 10 10
Average 6,83 8,50 7,33 8,17 7,83 7,00 8,17 8,00
Ranking 8 1 6 2 5 7 2 4
Workshop 7,50 8,67 8,33 7,67 7,67 6,00 7,33 5,67

Ranking 5 1 2 3 3 7 6 8
Table 43: Summary of Phase II
legal conditions
10
9
8
important background 7 funding & financing
6
5
4 AT
3
2
IT
1 ESP
FIN
D
S
output, results
Chart 41: Phase II – all projects
On this radar chart the second phase (analysis, planning phase) of all success stories are showed.
After adding all ratings of each bio-energy story from the second phase it is visible that “funding &
financing” of the planned project is very important. The knowledge of the financing possibilities
together with still well defined “project steps” and the solutions for “crucial decisions” are essential
for this particular important phase. Because the more details are known and included in the different
required feasibility studies, the less problems you will have in the following phases. The criterions
“further effects” and “legal conditions” are still non-relevant during this phase, because you won’t
have an idea of a bio-energy project if you don’t know the legal status in advance.
March 2009 101

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Min
Average
WS
output, results
Chart 42: Phase II – comparison
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating from all the given ratings. After building
the average it is visible that these above given statements are partly confirmed by the results of the
workshop. One exception is the importance of the “Consortium”, because the result from the
workshop shows that it is still important to have a strong one.
Key factors – summary Phase II

 Cost effectiveness study, funding possibilities
 Detailed planning of the bio-energy plant with all specifications ("green electricity plant”, main
parameters of installation
 Involvement of existing plants (e.g. waste water treatment plant, district heating plant, etc.) in the
planning
 Fuel supply: limited transportation efforts - planning of logistic
 Strong consortium
 Engagement of Universities, establishment of a network (farmers, employees at
municipalities/communities, employees in existing CHP-plant, Waste-water-treatment-plant etc.)
March 2009 102

C. Phase III: Implementation phase
Phase III legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
Total 42 50 49 47 48 47 40 43
Ranking 7 1 2 4 3 4 8 6
Min 5 7 6 5 5 6 5 5
Max 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 10
Average 7,00 8,33 8,17 7,83 8,00 7,83 6,67 7,17
Ranking 7 1 2 4 3 4 8 6
Workshop 6,00 7,33 8,67 5,67 6,00 8,00 8,33 5,00

Ranking 5 4 1 7 5 3 2 8
Table 44: Summary of phase III
legal conditions
10
9
8
6
5
4 AT
3
2 IT
1 ESP
FIN
D
S
output, results
Chart 43: Phase III – all projects
On this radar chart the third phase (implementation) of all success stories are showed. After adding
all ratings of each bio-energy story from the third phase it is visible that “funding & financing” of the
planned project, the “Consortium” and “output & results” and “further effects” are very important.
Besides the already known important criterions “funding & financing” and “Consortium”, now it is
also important to gain “Outputs & results” as well as “further effects” (like more jobs for the region,
emission reduction, etc.) during the implementation to continue working motivated and to achieve
public awareness. During this phase it seems to be that – because of the detailed planning in the
second phase – no “crucial decisions” have to be reached, “legal conditions” are unchanged and the
“important backgrounds” have to be known because of earlier phases to have a sustainable planning
of the plant.
March 2009 103

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Min
Average
WS
output, results
Chart 44: Phase III – all projects
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating out of the given ratings in phase III. The
minimum perceives as a core of all ratings. After building the average (red line) it is visible that just a
few of these above given statements are confirmed by the results of the workshop (yellow line).
Key factors – summary Phase III

 Long-term financing - good financial situation
 New funding possibilities (e.g. new member of a research network)
 Consortium: Coherence with the initial idea
 No overhasty construction => Output: successful start-up; no break-downs; heat & electricity
 Quantity (t/year) of biomass; involvement of regional farmers
 Possible recycling management: e.g. irrigation of the willow area by waste water and fertilization
by ash and sludge
March 2009 104

D. Phase IV: Enlargement of implementation
Phase IV legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
conditio financing steps results effects decisions background
ns
Total 35 38 42 38 38 39 39 42
Ranking 8 5 1 5 5 3 3 1
Min 5 6 7 6 5 6 6 5
Max 9 10 10 9 10 10 9 10
Average 7,00 7,60 8,40 7,60 7,60 7,80 7,80 8,40
Ranking 8 5 1 5 5 3 3 1
Workshop 6,00 8,00 7,67 6,33 5,67 9,67 8,00 7,00
Ranking 7 2 4 6 8 1 2 5
Chart 45: Summary of phase IV
legal conditions
10
9
important 8
background
6
5
4 AT
3
2 IT
1
crucial decisions 0 consortium FIN
D
S
output, results
Chart 46: Phase IV – all projects
On this radar chart phase IV (enlargement of implementation) the ratings of 5 success stories are
showed (the Spanish success story didn’t have any enlargements).
After adding all ratings of each bio-energy story phase IV it is visible that the criterions
“Consortium” and “important backgrounds are very important. Probably this is due to the reason
that someone (mostly part of the consortium) has to know the details concerning the operation which
call for the need of an enlargement and therefore a person with the respective background is
advantageous. During this phase crucial decisions (e.g. which specifications are affected by the
enlargement?) will appear and should be reached soon. During the workshop the criterion “further
effects” which can also lead to an enlargement (e.g. more jobs, additional fuel offer from regional
farmers, etc. If there is an enlargement planned the required “legal conditions” have to be known in
advance. For this reason this criterion is the less important one during this phase.
March 2009 105

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Min
Average
WS
output, results
Chart 47: Phase VI – comparison
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating out of the given ratings in phase IV. The
minimum perceives as a core of all ratings. After building the average (red line) it is visible that some
of these above given statements are confirmed by the results of the workshop (yellow line) and it
shows that the tendency of the rating is similar.
Key factors – summary Phase IV

 Consortium & further initiatives of a network (with the important background)
 Coherence with the initial idea
March 2009 106

E. Phase V: Changes of the bio-energy project
Phase V legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
ns
Total 24 21 24 24 23 28 24 26
Ranking 3 8 3 3 7 1 3 2
Min 7 5 7 6 5 9 8 7
Max 9 8 9 9 9 10 8 10
Average 8,00 7,00 8,00 8,00 7,67 9,33 8,00 8,67
Ranking 3 8 3 3 7 1 3 2
Workshop 6,00 6,67 4,33 5,67 6,33 9,00 7,67 6,67
Ranking 6 3 8 7 5 1 2 3
Table 45: Summary of phase V
March 2009 107

legal conditions
10
9
important 8
background
6
5
4
3
2 AT
1
crucial decisions 0 consortium ESP
FIN
output, results
Chart 48: Phase V – 3 projects
On this radar chart phase V (Changes) respectively the ratings of just three success stories are shown,
because the other success stories didn’t have any remarkable changes during the whole development.1
After adding all ratings of these bio-energy stories in phase V it is visible that the criterions “further
effects” is the very important one (this is also the result from the workshop). Probably this could be a
new model of an ecological and economical way of energy generation out of renewables or the
changes could lead to a stronger commitment to the stakeholders or that the inhabitants/authorities
accept the plant. Therefore also a certain “Background” is necessary.
1
So this result is not that significant like the results from the other phases.
March 2009 108

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Min
Average
WS
output, results
Chart 49: Phase V – comparison
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating out of the given ratings in phase V. The
minimum perceives as a core of all ratings. After building the average (red line) it is visible that the
different importance of half of the criterions is confirmed by the results of the workshop (yellow line)
and it shows that the tendency of the rating is similar.
Key factors – summary Phase V

 Long-term stable working process
 New owner's structure, new co-financing partner
 Use of another additional biomass
 Background: changes in fuel and agricultural product prices and agricultural policy
March 2009 109

F. Phase VI: Ongoing of the project
Phase VI legal funding & consortium project output, further crucial important
ns
Total 45 51 44 43 53 49 41 48
Ranking 5 2 6 7 1 3 8 4
Min 5 7 5 5 7 6 6 6
Max 9 10 10 9 10 10 8 10
Average 7,50 8,50 7,33 7,17 8,83 8,17 6,83 8,00
Ranking 5 2 6 7 1 3 8 4
Workshop 8,33 7,67 5,67 6,00 8,00 8,33 6,67 6,33
Ranking 1 4 8 7 3 1 5 6
Table 46: Summary of phase VI
legal conditions
10
9
8
6
5
4 AT
3
2 IT
1 ESP
FIN
D
S
output, results
Chart 50: Phase VI – all projects
On this radar chart phase VI (Ongoing) the ratings of all success stories are showed. After adding all
ratings of each bio-energy story phase VI it is remarkable that the total rating as well as the average
rating of all criterions from all of the success stories is the same rating as from the workshop. The
most important one is “output, results”. The more output (heat, electricity, a stable working process)
the more acceptance you will achieve. Moreover nowadays the criterion “funding & financing” is
more and more of importance because there is the need for a better energy price, a better economy
(raising fuel prices) and a better regional acceptance. The result of the workshop showed that the
“legal conditions” have to be changed in the direction to give energy production out of renewables
more support. The focus on decentralized energy production as a win-win-situation (ecological
benefits, new source of income for regional farmers) should be more promoted by such successful bio-
energy stories.
March 2009 110

legal conditions
10
9
6
5
4
3 Max
2
1 Min
Average
WS
output, results
Chart 51: Phase VI – comparison
This radar chart shows the maximum and minimum rating out of the given ratings in phase VI. The
minimum perceives as a core of all ratings. After building the average (red line) it is visible that the
tendency of the workshop rating is similar to the average rating of the six success stories.
Key factors – summary Phase VI

 Output: stable working process coherent with the initial idea, optimization measures
 Financing: new pricing for the needed green material
 Targets: better energy price, better economy and better regional acceptance
March 2009 111

2. Summary
Bio-energy projects are an excellent chance to become more and more independent from centralized
energy production units. Moreover local/regional farmers have the chance to open a new source of
income.
Following there are recommendations to implement bio-energy projects with the higher aim to create
a new success story.2
In the beginning of such a bio-energy project a strong person which is an opinion leader is needed.
This person has an overview about the legal conditions concerning bio-energy and knows
advantageously funding possibilities. Around this person a resistant consortium should be found. This
consortium has to define the aim of this bio-energy project and the respective experts for getting the
know-how has to be found and the decision concerning the technology has to be reached. The most
important work of this consortium is to define the detailed project steps. Moreover technical and
economical feasibility studies including the logistics and available fuels in the next surrounding have
to be made. The participants of this consortium have to be open-minded to gather all kind of
information from different backgrounds and they should look for any existing plants to combine them
with a new bio-energy plant.
The more detailed the feasibility studies are, the faster can be the planning of the bio-energy plant.
Therefore all available funding possibilities have to be known and a long-term financing should be
ensured. For receiving an additional funding often r&d-cooperations with universities are
preconditioned. In this case a special focus concerning the technology should be defined (e.g. energy
production out of only green materials). If there are existing plants to combine it with the new one, the
responsible persons should be integrated in the planning to avoid mistakes. The consortium has to
develop and define the project steps more and more detailed. Also pre-contracts and letter of interests
should be signed with fuel suppliers and heat customers. After finishing the planning, the permissions
of the County Administrative Board can be applied and the bid invitation can be published. Also the
2
No liability can be accepted for consequences
March 2009 112

call for a plant operator should be opened. Public awareness for this kind of energy production is very
important and should be promoted by the future plant owner.
After receiving the permissions from the official authorities and after finishing the negotiations with
the technicians the plant construction can start. Please have in mind that a permanent cost control has
to be provided. During the plant construction it is important not to hasten because if it is too quick a
successful start-up can not be guaranteed. The aim is not to have any break downs because they cost a
lot of money! Further more a plant operator (and employees) is needed. These effects “new job(s)”
and future emission reduction should achieve public awareness. Contracts with fuel suppliers have to
signed to ensure the required quantity of fuel.
After operating the bio-energy plant for a time, probably the plant will need an enlargement (it should
be coherent with the initial idea, because bio-energy projects should be really sustainable!). Therefore
the plant operator has to all details concerning the operation of the bio-energy plant which call for the
need of an enlargement and therefore a person with the respective background is advantageous and
should decide the enlargement together with the still active consortium. During this phase crucial
decisions (e.g. which specifications are affected by the enlargement?) will appear and should be
reached soon. Also for these enlargements all required permissions are needed and the financing
possibilities have to be known.
It is also possible that the bio-energy plant will need a change. Probably a new owner’s structure or a
new co-financing partner is needed. Possibly another sort of biomass is economically more attractive
and the plant has to be recalibrated on the new conditions or some parts of the plant have to be
changed. This is similar to an enlargement process. Probably this could be a new model of an
ecological and economical way of energy generation out of renewables or the changes could lead to a
stronger commitment to the stakeholders or that the inhabitants/authorities accept the plant.
If all teething troubles are overcome and stable process is day-to-day business it is also important
continuing being interested in different matters concerning the respective bio-energy plant. This is the
only way to react in time on changing situations like raising fuel prices, regional acceptance,
etc.).This is one way to create bio-energy success stories!
Everyone who is engaged in bio-energy stories has to show driving force, enthusiasm for sustainable
societies and environmental issues!
March 2009 113

IV. Index of tables, charts and pictures
Table 1:The main lingo-cellulosic energy crops and principal conversion processes in the
participating countries ............................................................................................................................ 2
Table 2: Meaning of the 10 evaluation points......................................................................................... 3
Table 3: Rating of the criterions – phase I AT ...................................................................................... 10
Table 4: Rating of the criterions – phase II AT..................................................................................... 11
Table 5: Rating of the criterions – phase III AT ................................................................................... 12
Table 6: Rating of the criterions – phase IV AT.................................................................................... 13
Table 7: Rating of the criterions – phase V AT ..................................................................................... 14
Table 8: Rating of the criterions – phase VI AT.................................................................................... 15
Table 9: Ratings of Strem - AT.............................................................................................................. 16
Table 10: Rating of the criterions – phase I IT ..................................................................................... 25
Table 11: Rating of the criterions – phase II IT.................................................................................... 26
Table 12: Rating of the criterions – phase III IT................................................................................... 27
Table 13: Rating of the criterions – phase IV IT................................................................................... 28
Table 14: Rating of the criterions – phase VI IT................................................................................... 29
Table 15: Ratings of Apiro - IT ............................................................................................................. 30
Table 16: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase I ESP ................................................................................ 37
Table 17: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase II ESP ............................................................................... 38
Table 18: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase III ESP.............................................................................. 39
Table 19: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase V ESP ............................................................................... 40
Table 20: Ratings of Puente Genil – Phase VI ESP.............................................................................. 41
Table 21: Ratings of Puente Genil – ESP ............................................................................................. 42
Table 22: Rating of the criterions – phase I FIN .................................................................................. 53
Table 23: Rating of the criterions – phase II FIN ................................................................................. 54
Table 24: Rating of the criterions – phase III FIN................................................................................ 55
Table 25: Rating of the criterions – phase IV FIN................................................................................ 56
Table 26: Rating of the criterions – phase V FIN ................................................................................. 57
Table 27: Rating of the criterions – phase VI FIN................................................................................ 58
Table 28: Ratings of Kokkola – FIN...................................................................................................... 59
Table 29: Rating of the criterions – phase I GER ................................................................................. 69
Table 30: Rating of the criterions – phase II GER................................................................................ 70
March 2009 114

Table 31: Rating of the criterions – phase III GER .............................................................................. 71
Table 32: Rating of the criterions – phase IV GER............................................................................... 72
Table 33: Rating of the criterions – phase VI GER............................................................................... 73
Table 34: Ratings of Rodheim - GER.................................................................................................... 74
Table 35: Rating of the criterions – phase I SWE ................................................................................. 86
Table 36: Rating of the criterions – phase II SWE................................................................................ 87
Table 37: Rating of the criterions – phase III SWE .............................................................................. 88
Table 38: Rating of the criterions – phase IV SWE............................................................................... 89
Table 39: Rating of the criterions – phase VI SWE............................................................................... 90
Table 40: Ratings of Enköping SWE ..................................................................................................... 91
Table 41: Total result of each criterion ................................................................................................ 98
Table 42: Summary of phase I............................................................................................................... 99
Table 43: Summary of Phase II........................................................................................................... 101
Table 44: Summary of phase III .......................................................................................................... 103
Table 45: Summary of phase V............................................................................................................ 107
Table 46: Summary of phase VI .......................................................................................................... 110
March 2009 115

V.Index of charts
Chart 1: Phase I - AT ............................................................................................................................ 10

Chart 2: Phase II - AT........................................................................................................................... 11
Chart 3: Phase III - AT.......................................................................................................................... 12
Chart 4: Phase IV - AT.......................................................................................................................... 13
Chart 5: Phase V - AT ........................................................................................................................... 14
Chart 6: Phase VI - AT.......................................................................................................................... 15
Chart 8: Phase I - IT ............................................................................................................................. 25
Chart 9: Phase II - IT ............................................................................................................................ 26
Chart 10: Phase III - IT......................................................................................................................... 27
Chart 11: Phase IV - IT......................................................................................................................... 28
Chart 12: Phase VI - IT......................................................................................................................... 29
Chart 14: Phase I - ESP ........................................................................................................................ 37
Chart 15: Phase II - ESP....................................................................................................................... 38
Chart 16: Phase III - ESP ..................................................................................................................... 39
Chart 17: Phase V - ESP....................................................................................................................... 40
Chart 18: Phase VI - ESP...................................................................................................................... 41
Chart 19: General visualization - ESP.................................................................................................. 42
Chart 20: Phase I - FIN ........................................................................................................................ 53
Chart 21: Phase II – FIN ...................................................................................................................... 54
Chart 22: Phase III - FIN...................................................................................................................... 55
Chart 23: Phase IV - FIN ...................................................................................................................... 56
Chart 24: Phase V - FIN ....................................................................................................................... 57
Chart 25: Phase VI - FIN ...................................................................................................................... 58
Chart 26: General visualization FIN .................................................................................................... 59
Chart 27: Phase I - GER ....................................................................................................................... 69
Chart 28: Phase II - GER...................................................................................................................... 70
Chart 29: Phase III - GER .................................................................................................................... 71
Chart 30: Phase IV - GER..................................................................................................................... 72
Chart 31: Phase VI - GER..................................................................................................................... 73
Chart 32: General visualization - GER................................................................................................. 74
Chart 33: Phase I – SWE ...................................................................................................................... 86
March 2009 116

Chart 34: Phase II - SWE...................................................................................................................... 87
Chart 35: Phase III - SWE .................................................................................................................... 88
Chart 36: Phase IV - SWE..................................................................................................................... 89
Chart 37: Phase VI - SWE..................................................................................................................... 90
Chart 38: General visualization - SWE................................................................................................. 91
Chart 39: Phase I – all projects ............................................................................................................ 99
Chart 40: Phase I – comparison ......................................................................................................... 100
Chart 41: Phase II – all projects......................................................................................................... 101
Chart 42: Phase II – comparison ...................................................................................................... 102
Chart 43: Phase III – all projects........................................................................................................ 103
Chart 44: Phase III – all projects........................................................................................................ 104
Chart 45: Summary of phase IV .......................................................................................................... 105
Chart 46: Phase IV – all projects........................................................................................................ 105
Chart 47: Phase VI – comparison....................................................................................................... 106
Chart 48: Phase V – 3 projects .......................................................................................................... 108
Chart 41: Phase V – comparison ........................................................................................................ 109
Chart 50: Phase VI – all projects........................................................................................................ 110
Chart 51: Phase VI – comparison....................................................................................................... 111
March 2009 117

VI. Index of pictures
Picture 1: Location of the community Strem........................................................................................... 6

Picture 2: Impressions from the biogas plant in Strem ........................................................................... 9
picture 3: Altogether there are 5 different contracts in the business model of the biogas plant Strem:18
picture 4: contract between supplier and buyer.................................................................................... 20
Picture 5: Location of the community Apiro ......................................................................................... 23
Picture 6: District heating in Apiro especially derived from the ordinary activities of river banks
management........................................................................................................................................... 23
Picture 7: Location of Puente Genil...................................................................................................... 32
Picture 8: Puente Genil – olive grove trees .......................................................................................... 33
Picture 9: Impressions from the biomass plant in Puente Genil........................................................... 36
picture 10: Altogether there are different contracts in the business model of the biomass plant Puente
Genil. ..................................................................................................................................................... 44
Picture 11: Location of Kokkola ........................................................................................................... 48
Picture 12: The combined heat and power plant Kokkolan Voima Oy in Kokkola town. ..................... 50
Picture 13: The RCG bale storage (photo: Kirsi Knuuttila, Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd)....................... 51
Picture 14: The cutters in the drum crusher (photo: Kirsi Knuuttila, Jyväskylä Innovation Ltd) ........ 51
Picture 15: The feeding points solid biomasses, the small diameter for RCG and large for wood based
biomasses (photo: Kokkolan Voima Oy) ............................................................................................... 51
Picture 16: Reed canary processing system (photo: Kokkolan Voima Oy)........................................... 52
picture 17 Altogether there are 8 different contracts in the business model of the Rauhalahti CHP
plant: ..................................................................................................................................................... 61
picture 18 Vapo Ltd is the contract partner between farmers and users of energy crops..................... 62
Picture 19: Biogas plant Rodheim ........................................................................................................ 67
picture 20: a general view of the whole contract model ....................................................................... 76
picture 21: contract between energy crop supplier and buyer.............................................................. 77
Picture 22: Location of the community Enköping................................................................................. 81
Picture 23: Process design from Enköping ........................................................................................... 82
Picture 24: Enköping – Integration of salix plantation, wastewater treatment, ash-sludge recycling
and energy production........................................................................................................................... 85
picture 25: A layout of the contract model............................................................................................ 93
picture 26: contract between energy crop supplier and buyer.............................................................. 94
March 2009 118

Business Models For Bionergy - Success Stories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Models For Bionergy - Success Stories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Models For Bionergy - Success Stories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practice – Business Models

As every project/success story is dynamically it has to be distinguished between different steps.

Rating Evaluation (not fulfilled)

More information on www.kisollproject.eu.

Best Practice – Business Models............................................................................................................ 1

A. Business Model Description

Burgenland is one of 9 counties of Austria.

Strem is a small structured community in the district Güssing

 Economic calculation: investment costs: 2.096.800 Euros;

(d) Overall expected and/or achieved results

 producing biogas out of pure green material

(e) Lessons learnt (strengths, weaknesses)

Picture 2: Impressions from the biogas plant in Strem

Siegfried Legath (plant operator)

(a) Phase I: Idea, Beginnings

further effects Project steps

further effects Project steps

Points Criterions Description

further effects Project steps

Chart 3: Phase III - AT

Points Criterions Description

further effects Project steps

further effects Project steps

Points Criterions Description

further effects Project steps

Points Criterions Description

further effects project steps

Chart 7: General visualization - AT

legal funding & project output, further crucial important

Key factors - summary

(a) Description of the whole contract model

Green Material Biogas Plant

picture 4: contract between supplier and buyer

Important key data of the green material supply contract:

(c) Advantages and Disadvantages of this contract model

Most important advantages:

 100 % discharging of the waste heat:

 Remuneration of energy crop depends on quality:

 Manageable amount of clients:

Most important disadvantage:

 Supply of crops refers to contracted area (in hectare):

(a) Short overall description of the country/region,

The Municipality of Apiro is a small village of the central Italy

Picture 5: Location of the community Apiro

The expected environmental benefits:

(d) Overall expected and/or achieved results

(e) Lessons learnt (strengths, weaknesses)

(a) Phase I: Idea, Beginnings

further effects Project steps

further effects Project steps

further effects Project steps

Chart 10: Phase III - IT

Points Criterions Description

further effects Project steps

Chart 11: Phase IV - IT

Points Criterions Description

(e) Phase V: Changes

No changes during the development of this success story.