Biogas development in the u s current trends and future opportunities

Your unpublished thesis, submitted for a degree at Williams College and administered by the
Williams College Libraries, will be made available
foir research use. You may, through this form,
provide instructions regarding copyright, access, dissemination and reproduction of your thesis.
-
The faculty advisor to the student writing the thesis wishes to claim joint authorship
in this work.
In
each section, please check the
ONE
statement that reflects your wishes.
I.
PUBLICATION
AND
QUOTATION:
LITERARY
PROF'ERTY
RIGHTS
A
student author automatically owns the copyright to hisfher work, whether or not a copyright symbol and
date are placed on the piece. The duration of
U.S.
copyright on a manuscript and Williams theses are
considered manuscripts is the life of the author plus
70
years.
-
IJwe do not choose to retain literary property rights to the thesis, and
I
wish to assign
them immediately to Williams College.

Selecting
ti-iis
option will assign copyighr to iiie College. This
i~t
iio way precludes
21
sli~c!c~it
author from later pilhlishirig hisihzr ~:orh; the ~rucicnt
moultl,
howe\:er. need
to
contact [he
Arei-tihes for a pcrrnission
form.
TIle ,-\rchiveh
LVOLIIC!
be fice
in
this
case
to
also grant pcrrn'i~sioo
to
another i.e.;carcher-
to
pul?lish small secrions
i'r.olil
ille thesis. liar-el) \voulci ihzi-e be zany reaxttn
for the Archives
to

grant perniission
to
si1otllc.r pai.ly to publish the thesis
in
its eritirely:
ii'wcll
a
siti~ation arose. thc Archi\.cs xc~tild
he
in toucli iviiiiLh the author
to
lei rhi-ni h~io~v
Il~i~t
si~ch
a
rcijuest liac! beer1 made.
IJwe wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a period of three years, at
which time the literary property rights shall be
assigned to Williams College.
Select~ng ih15
opi~on
gt\e\ the author
LL
feu bears
ro
niil,c:
eucltib~ve use
ot
the 11tev\ tn
up-corning

/
prolec1L ~rticle\. ldter rcearch. etc
IJwe wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a period of years, or
until my death, whichever is the later, at which
time the literary property rights shall be
assigned to Williams College.
Selecting this option allows tl-te ailrl~or great flexibility in extending or shortening thc time of
hisiher automatic copyright period. Son~e striderit:; are in~crcsied in using their tijesis
ii;
gi-adualc
shoal
mork. In this casc. it \vould rnake sense for them
to
cnter a uunlher sucli as
'
10
year>'
iii
the
hlz!nh,
and line
out
the twrds
'or
un~il
my
cleatl~, \vhichever
is
the Inter.' 111 ail!; e\zilt. it
is

eaiier for the .Archives
to
actminister copjrigllt
011
a nlanuscript
it'
the period cnds u,irh the
i11clividti;tl's death our staff won't have to seal-cli
for
estate csccrttors in this case hi11 riiis is
entirely up to each studenr.
11.
ACCESS
The Williams College Libraries are investigating the posting of theses online, as well as their retention in
hardcopy.
J
Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis
in hardcopy and via the Web both on and off campus.
"ilettrng
T~I>
opl~on ailokxi re\eaiche~> diotinci
iht~
v~o~lci
10
,ic~e\\ tire dlgrtdi
C~I\IO~I
01
)otIr
v,
c>rh

-
Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis
in hardcopy and via the Web for on-campus use only.
Seie~i~ng tixi opt~oil ailov
\
acceki
to
tke dig~tnl
\ei\ion
oi
5
oiir
norh
troni ths on-cdnlpub
nctaork
0111)
-
The thesis is to be maintained and made available in hardcopy form only.
Selecting this option allows access io yottr
work
only Liotn the ltardcopy yoii subinit. S~ich access
pertains
to
the entirety of your work, irlciuding any
media
that it comprises
or
includes.
111.
COPYING

AND
DISSEMINATION
Because theses are listed on
FRANCIS,
the Libraries receive numerous requests every year for copies of
works.
Iflwhen a hardcopy thesis is duplicated for a researcher, a copy of the release form always
accompanies the copy. Any digital version of your thesis will include the release form.
d
Copies of the thesis may be provided to any researcher.
Sclcctii~g
this
option alIc>.ivs an! rescar-ci~cs
to
rccjucst
a
copyfson~ the Willia~rrs College Libraries.
or
to
nialte orle fron~
311
electronic versirtn.
-
Copying of the thesis is restricted for
-
years, at which time copies may be provided to
any researcher.
'i'l~is oprjoii allows the auil~or to set a tiine limit
on
copyiiip ssstl-ictioiis. 1)uring i.11is period. an

cicctroiiic ver-\ion of the thesis will he prorected agaiilst duplication,
-
Copying of the thesis or portions thereof, except as needed to maintain an adequate
number of research copies available in the Williams College Libraries, is expressly
prohibited. The electronic version of the thesis will be protected against duplication.
Sele~tllig
ihii
opilon
dtJou>
iro
r
cproductroni
:o
be llnciile
iol
rc\e,~icllers The eizctritnic
\
el51on
of
the llle\t\ n~ll
he
plitle~ieii
,)gnrn\t
CIJ~IIC~~IOII
1
ill\
optioil ~Ii>es
1101
dl\-nllou te\elucheri i~on~
iedcl~ng/\ te\~ing the

i\~i)l
k
111
e~thc~ hnr~cop
or
d~g~tdl
101m
Thesis title
5
-
v
s
,,a
,w
,rf*~fY~-sb~
Accepted for the Libraries
Date accepted
5-47
BIOGAS DEVEILOPMENT IN THE U.S.:
CURRENT TRENDS AND
FUTURE
OPPOlRTUNITIES
Amelia Grace Bishop
Sarah
Ciardner, Advisor
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors
in Environmental Studies.
Williams College
Williamstown, MA 01267

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS

List of Figures
3

List of Tables
-3
Acknowledgements

4

Abstract
5
Introduction

-6
Chapter
1:
Biogas in the
U.S
Problem Overview

10
Anaerobic Digestion as an Energy So~irce

10

Where in the World is Anaerobic Digestion? Setting the Stage

12
Energy Problem Overview

15

Biogas as a Partial Solution to the Energy Problem
18

Chapter
2:
Resources for Biogas Development in the U.S
24
Federal Resources

25
Federal Laws/Policies

26
Federal Programs by Agency

28
Combined Agency EfSort

36
State Analysis: California, Vermont. and Massachusetts

37
State Resources Summary

37

California

42

Renewable Portfolio Standard/' Energy Trust Fund
42
Biogas Energy Policy Overview

43

California Programs for Biogas
45
.

a Net Metering
45
b
.
GrantsLoans
45

c
.
Tdroduction Inc'entives
47
California Non-governmental Initiatives

48
California Summary

49
Vermont

50

Renewable Portfolio Standard/' Energy Trust Fund
51

Biogas Energy Policy Overview
52

Vermont Programs for Biogas
54
.

a Net Metering
54
.
b
GrantsLoans
55

c . Tax/Production Incentives
57

Vermont Non-governmental Initiatives
58
Vemont Summary

60

Massachusetts

61

Renewable Porgolio Standard,
'
Energy Trust Fund
62
Biogas Energy Policy Overview

63

Massachusetts Programs for Biogas
64

a
.
Net Metering
64

b
.
Grants/Loans
64

c
.
Tax/Production Incentives
67

Massachusetts Non-governmental Initiatives
69

Massachusetts Summary
70

Chapter
2
Conclusions
71

Chapter
3:
Resources for Biogas Development Abroad
79
Introduction

79

Geography
80

Foreign
80

United States
80

Summary
81

Laws and Policies
82

Foreign
83

Regional
87
United States

87

Summary
-90

Technology Development
91

Foreign
91

United States
92

Summary
94
Dialog and Information Sharing

95

Foreign: International

95

Foreign: European
96
United States

97

Summary
-99

Chapter
3
Conclusions
100

Chapter
4:
Biogas in the U.S Barriers to Widespread Application
104

Barriers to Biogas Development in the U.S
104

Overcoming the Barriers
110
Conclusions

116

Research Conclusions
116

Recommendations
118
Appendix A: Recommendations to a Municipality. Retrofitting Digesters to Generate

Electricity
122

Sources
123
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1:
Biogas Production

11
.
Figure 2: Renewable Energy vs Total Energy Consumption in the U.S 2004
13
Figure 3
:
The Origins of Biomass Energy

14

Figure 4: United States Fossil Fuel
Productiocl/Consumption

16
Figure 5: Federal Biogas Incentives Summary

25
Figure
6:
Impact of AgSTAR on the Number of Digesters in the U.S
30
Figure 7: SARE Grant Regions

31

Figure 8: EQIP Grant Program Allocations by State 33

Figure 9: United States Renewable Portfolio S'tandards
38
Figure 10: How Net Metering Works

40
Figure 11: United States Net Metering Programs by State 41

Figure 12: Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Awards by Municipality
66
Figure 13: New England
Greenstart vs . National Grid Energy Resources
(Massachusetts)

69

Figure 14: Net Metering Size Limits; CA, VT!. MA
73

Figure 15: State Renewable Portfolio Standard Comparison; CA, MA 76

Figure 16: Sources of Japanese Electricity Generation, 2002 85

Figure 17: Sources of United States Electricity Generation, 2003
85
Figure 18: United States, Dairy Cows per Farrn -2001

107
LIST
OF
TABLES

Table 1
:
U.S. States with Renewable Energy Trust Funds
39

Table 2: State Renewable Energy Trust Fund Comparison; CA, VT. MA 72

Table 3: United States Net Metering Customers by State and Customer Class 7 4-75
Table 4: State and Federal Grant Comparison
77
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost

I
would like to thank my advisor, Sarah Gardner, for her time and effort in
making this project happen.
I
also owe a great deal to Professor David Dethier for his
patience, comments, and guidance; all were instrumental in this process. Thanks also to
my father, who not only facilitated my digestion project but has inspired me to challenge
myself over the years.
I
owe a great deal to my contacts in California, Vermont, and
Massachusetts; this project was only possible with your time and consideration.
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the potential for farm and municipal wastewater treatment plant
anaerobic digestion facilities in the United States.
In
light of rising oil
and
gas prices
indicating increasing petroleum scarcity, this type of biogas is an important energy
alternative to consider. While current use of on-farm and municipal wastewater biogas
represents a minimal portion of the renewable energy sector, there is considerable room
for improvement. Biogas is surely not the only solution, but this thesis establishes that its
potential contribution both to the renewable
energy sector and to emissions reduction
makes more widespread integration worthwhile.
This paper looks first at how on-farm and
niunicipal wastewater biogas is currently
used in the United States and then at how it can be further developed. Through a
comparative case study of three states, this paper addresses current U.S. policies,
compares U.S. initiatives with those of other countries, and establishes where there is

room for improvement. The thesis finds that,
cln the whole, policies in foreign countries
have been successful because they set requirements that generate more widespread and
complex digester development, innovating
ancl
sharing information that fuel and are a
result of these incentives.
This paper ends with a set of conclusions based on the results of the comparative case
studies and barriers to biogas development in the U.S. It also proposes a set of
recommendations, based on these conclusions, to increase the use of this simple and
valuable resource.
INTROIDUCTION
In 2003 the world consumed 15,450,000,000,000
kwh
of electricity. Of this, the
United States consumption, the world's
greatest at 3,656,000,000,000
kwh,
was equal to
nearly
24%
of global consumption.' Approximately 30% of the fossil fuels consumed in
the U.S. are devoted to electricity production. Of the electricity consumed in the United
States, 70% comes from fossil fuel
resource^.^
Biogas is one of the most simple, yet least well known, technologies providing an
alternative to fossil fuel use.
Unllke wind, vvater, and solar mechanisms, however,
anaerobic digestion produces a gas with a number of different potentials for use.
Capturing biogas for energy production is

a
unique approach to the energy concerns
facing the world today, yet there is much
room for improvement in this technology and
its application. The leading countries in on-farm and municipal wastewater biogas
production are located abroad in countries
such as Germany, Nepal, and China, while
comparatively less has been done within the United States. Even the United Nations'
Food and Agriculture Organization is well
(aware of potential in this arena and
proclaimed so in
1992:
"Anaerobic digestion provides some exciting possibilities and
solutions to such global concerns as alternative energy production, handling human,
animal, municipal and industrial wastes safely, controlling environmental pollution, and
expanding food
supplies."3
'
The World Factbook. "Rank Order
-
Electricity
-
consumption."

Last Updated 4.20.2006.
Viewed 5.4.2006.
The Greening Earth Society. "Electricity Production Overview."

production.htm1. 01998-
1999-2000 byDesign and PowervisioN for The Greening Earth Society. Last updated 2.19.2004.

Viewed 5.8.2006.
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Corporate Document Repository. "Biogas Processes
for Sustainable Development."
I find it pressing to address this potential and even more interesting to determine to
what extent biogas can be harnessed as an alternative energy source in the United States.
I am also interested in exploring the extension of biogas use from farms to cities. As
human populations expand (some studies predict a 10 billion high in
2100), more and
more people move to cities. As Stokstad predicts, within 35-50 years the number of
people living in cities will
doub~e.~ This prediction leads me to believe that there would
be enough waste generated from these
metroplolises to produce a substantial amount of
energy needed to
run such bustling centers. It is both pertinent to the dwindling supplies
of fossil fuels and personally interesting to delve into these more unexplored aspects of
biogas application.
Not only is using fossil fuels an environmentally hazardous practice, it is an
unsustainable one.
In
his book "Out of Gas," David Goodstein discusses the end of
"American oil dominance" as worldwide discovery peaked around 1960, surpassed by
consumption rates by about
1980.~
In
a clearly unsustainable pattern, Goodstein notes
that "no discoveries, past, present, or future, are going to keep up with
demand."6 As
third world countries such as China and India industrialize amongst all time population
highs, dependency on this energy source

becomes an increasingly immediate problem.
There is simply not enough oil in existence to support current consumption levels. As
among the world's most wealthy and persistent consumers, it is feasible and arguably
necessary for the United States to promote alternative energy use. The United States has
-

~/documents/show
cdr.asp?url
file=/docrep/T0541E/T0541E03.htm.
0
1992.
Viewed
3.21.2006. 'Chapter
Two:
Introduction and Overview.'
Stokstad, Eric. "Will Malthus continue to be wrong?"
Science.
2005
Jul
1;309(573 1): 102.
Goodstein, David. "Out
of
Gas: The End of the Age of Oil". W.W. Norton
&
Company, Inc. New York,
NY.
0
2004.23.
Ibid,
128-129.

the capacity to be a leader in developing technologies that will help alleviate global
warming and economic (little oil left to discover) problems pressing on the planet. Biogas
is among the most biologically straightforward sources: using organic waste to produce
fuel not only alleviates environmental pressure through decreasing C02 production and
methane release, but it reduces landfill volume and creates a rich fertilizer byproduct.
Biogas can also potentially be used as a source for hydrogen for fuel cell technology on a
more massive scale: electricity generated
bjr the methane in biogas can be used to split
the hydrogen atom from a water molecule, isolating it for use in fuel cell production.
This essay explores two primary
research questions. First, why is on-farm and
municipal wastewater biogas not more widespread in the United States? Here
I
will
explore existing circumstances and what policies and programs currently facilitate
digester projects. Second, how can the United States improve its use of on-farm and
municipal anaerobic digestion systems?
In
answering this question
I
look at the current
culture and barriers in the U.S. and apply successful European strategies to this end.
Ultimately, this thesis applies the outcome
of this research to U.S. social and economic
systems in order to determine the most suitable approach to integration of biogas use in
the U.S.
This paper begins by examining the background and history of biogas and its role in
the United States. Most of Chapter
2
is devoted to a comparative case study among

California, Vermont, and Massachusetts to determine which policies and programs are
most successful in the U.S. and why. Chapter
3
is comprised of another comparative case
study between the U.S. and foreign countries in order to determine the differences and
what accounts for any disparity.
In
Chapter
4
this thesis assesses the barriers to digester
development in the United States. Finally, the conclusions section assesses the current
level of biogas development in the U.S.,
lessoins learned from abroad, and barriers to
development in the U.S. It culminates in a set of recommendations to improve the
integration
of
on-farm and municipal wastewater anaerobic digestion systems in the
United States.
CHAIPTER
1
BIOGAS IN THE
U.S.:
PROBLEM OVERVIEW
Anaerobic digestion is not a particularly well known source of renewable energy. In order
to discuss all aspects of improving the use
alf biogas as an energy source in the U.S., the
reader must be familiar with the background of the topic. Subsequent chapters expand on
the information discussed here. This
chapter seeks to familiarize the reader with biogas
production: what it is and how it measures as source of renewable energy.

Anaerobic Digestion as an Energy Source
Biogas technology is actually quite old. ]Research by the Vermont Methane Project
found that it has been around "since the
timie of the Assyrians in the 10th century B.C.
where it was used to heat bath
~ater."~ It w,as first developed in the United States in the
1970s and 1980s when energy costs were
high and people first realized that the quantity
of some natural resources is limited.
In
the United States, the first farm digester was
constructed in Iowa in
1972.~ Well before that, for example, inl895, biogas from a
sewage treatment facility in Exeter,
Devon ((England) was used to power street lamps.9 It
has also been used in rural communities
thrloughout the globe for heating and cooking.
In
the 1970s and 1980s a number of digesters .were constructed in the U.S. but only a
fraction of these are in use today. In 1998
tliroughout the U.S. there were 28 usable
farrn/manure digesters and 29 working but not used.''
The mechanics of biogas are straightforward. The name anaerobic digestion indicates
Scruton, Dan. "Vermont Methane Pilot Project Initial Literature Search Paper," To Vermont Methane
Pilot Project Advisory Committee. April
22, 1999. 1, quoting
Methane Recovery from Animal
Manures, The Current Opportunities
Casel7ook.
Phil

Lusk.
1998, NRELISR-580-25
145.
Ibid.
Goldstein, Jerome. "Around the World With Anaerobic Digestion." BioCycle, April 2003.
10
Scruton, Dan. "Vermont Methane Pilot Project Initial Literature Search Paper," To Vermont Methane
Pilot Project Advisory Committee. April
22,
1999. 1.
that the process takes place in the absence of oxygen. During aerobic digestion the
bacteria break down the
'sludge' (any mixture of organic waste and water; animal or
human excrement, food, leaves, or organic industrial waste) and consume any oxygen in
the system. Then, lacking oxygen, "bacteria convert the acids and alcohols into methane
and carbon dioxide."
In
the end, the gas that results will be approximately 60 to 70%
methane and 30 to 40% carbon dioxide." The carbon dioxide is nothing new to the
global system, however, since it was already contained in the organic material in the
original sludge mixture. Some of the gas produced from the digester must be used to heat
the system, for these reaction temperatures take place at high temperatures approaching
100 degrees
F.
Figure
1:
Biogas Production
Biogas
-
die Grundlagen. Biogas,

63
2006 MR
Wetterau
e.V. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Viewed: 4.24.2006.
"
Tyner, Wallace
E.
and Adams, John. "Rural Electrification in India: Biogas versus Large-Scale Power."
Asian
Survey,
Vol.
17,20.
8
(Aug.,
1977),
724-734.
University of California Press.
725
There are three major types of digesters used in different situations based on the
concentrations of solids in the sludge. There are covered lagoons, complete mix digesters,
and plug flow systems each with different qualities based on the geography, amount of
manure available, etc. The users of this technology are certainly not limited to farms.
Indeed, rural households across the globe have used it for centuries for heating and
cooking. Municipalities use digesters as
well; Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant in
Boston, the second largest waste treatment facility in the nation, uses the gas produced
from its 12 egg-shaped digesters to help power the
plant.'2 Regional projects also exist
with towns or areas compiling their resources and reaping the benefits (one such project

is being contemplated in Pittsfield,
~assachusetts'~). Digesters are built by a number of
companies such as RCM Digesters that conduct feasibility studies, perform the design
and construction management, look at power market development, address regulatory
compliance, and assess by-product market clevelopment for individuals, farms, or
municipalities looking to adopt digester
technology.'4
In
this thesis I discuss only farm
and municipal wastewater treatment systems.
Where in the World is Anaerobic Digestion? Setting the Stage.
Biogas is one small piece of a much larger energy puzzle.
In
2004 the United States
consumed a total 100.278 Quadrillion Btus of energy. Of this 100.278, 86.186 consisted
of fossil fuels while 6.1 17 of these consisted of renewable energies.
l5
Among the
l2
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. "The Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant."
us/03s~wer/ht~sewditp.htm.
visited 10.15.2005. 2.
l3
Landry, Thomas, Chief Operator of Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Interview on 12.6.2005.
14
RCM Digesters, Inc.
di~esters.corn/bio~as
use.aspx.
O
Copyright 2000,2001,2002,

2003, 2004 Resource Conservation Management, Inc., all rights reserved. Viewed 8.2005.
15
Energy Information Administration: Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. "Energy
Overview:
1949-2004."
htt~:llwww.eia.doe.~ov/emew'aer/overview.html.
Viewed 1.11.06. Note
other components include:
Electxicity Net Imports
=
,039 and Nuclear Electric Power
=
8.232.
renewable energies (Conventional Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Biomass, Wind, and Solar),
Biomass consists of 2.845 Quadrillion Btus, or approximately
3
percent of the total
energy consumption in the
U.S,
just- ahead of hydroelectric power at
2.725
to make it the
most consumed renewable resource of 2004.
Total
=
100.278 Quadrillion Btu Total
=
6.1 17 Quadrillion Btu
Natural
Gas

Coal
Petroleum
40%
Geothermal
6%
Hydroelectric
45'h
Figure
2:
Renewable Energy vs. Total Energy Consumption in the U.S.,
2004
U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Renewablle Energy Trends,
2004
Edition."

Release Date August,
2005.
Viewed
5.16.2006.
The biomass listed here in Figure 2 includes alll forms of biomass, of which anaerobic
digestion is a small but important part:
L
lnde~slr~al Refuse
Plan
t
Res~dues
Other
ffulsn~~fackircng
Source Energy In?ormatian
Administrat~on,

Office
of
Coa!. Nuclear Electric
and
Alternative
Fuels
Figure
3:
The Origins of Biomass Energy
U.S.
Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternative Fuels.
"Biomass Characteristics."

O
1992.
Viewed
5.16.2006.
For the purposes of this analysis, I am considering predominantly 'animal residues' and
'other manufacturing waste' under 'manufacturing process waste' in Figure
3
above. In a
more detailed analysis of
2004
renewable energy consumption separated by sector
(Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transportation, and Electric Power), sludge waste is
considered in the category of 'Other Biomass,' separated from
WoodIWood Waste and
Municipal Solid
WasteILandfill Gas. Yet this "Other Biomass" category includes
"agricultural

byproducts/crops, sludge waste, tires, and other biomass solids, liquids, and
gasses".16
In
total, the category of "Other Biomass" (of which sludge waste is still only a
portion) produced
.I17 of a Quadrillion Btus in 2004 out of a total 100.278, a final
contribution of
.I167 percent to the energy consumed in the United States during this
year.
Landfills also produce biogas than can similarly be harnessed for energy production.
While capturing the gas produced from landfilils is technically biogas and is an
increasingly explored source of renewable energy, this is not the type of biogas
I
explore
in my thesis. Hereafter when
I
use the term 'biogas7
I
refer to the anaerobic digestion
systems functioning at farms or municipal wastewater treatment facilities, excluding
landfill gas operations.
Energy Problem Overview
The
U.S.
Department of Energy notes that the fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas
comprise 85% of the energy used by the
Unite:d states.17 Fossil are consumed by U.S.
citizens at an increasingly unsustainable rate:
l6
Ibid.

Viewed 1.1 1.2006.
l7
U.S.
Department of Energy. "Fossil Fuels."
http://w~~w.ener~y.gov/enerll;ysources/fossilfuels.htm.
Viewed: 1.5.2006.
Figure
4:
United States Fossil Fuel Production/Consumption
Strategic Energy Initiative. "Energy Facts, Fossil Fuel Resources."

Georgia Institute
of
Technology. Viewed 5.16.2006.
Figure
5
reveals that the United States only produces about
40%
of the energy it
consumes, thus requiring approximately
601%
to be imported. How might the U.S.
reverse such a trend? There are a number
ofi alternative views reacting to impending
resource scarcity, some having little or
noth~ing to do with renewables. Some economists
predict that innovation and new resource use will account for potential scarcity and
prevent a crisis before it arises.
While these economists, such as Julian Simon, hold the view that modern society

innovates to avoid a collapse when oil resources become scarce, other individuals are
skeptical. Diamond notes that "optimists wlho make such claims ignore the unforeseen
difficulties and long transition times regularly
in~olved"'~ in switching resource use. One
of the issues with such a transition is the
aniount of time needed to substitute one source
with another (in this case heavy oil deposits or ethanol from corn to replace conventional
-
18
Diamond, Jared. "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed." Penguin Group hc. New York,
New York.
63
2005.506.
oil). This is described by David Goodstein in Ihis book "Out of Gas" as the rate-of
conversion problem: "the rising price of oil may make those alternative fuels
economically competitive, but even if they are net energy positive, it may not prove
possible to get them into production fast enough to fill the growing
gap."I9 Thus, even if
the production of these fuels could occur at a irate to meet the declining use of
conventional oil, their sustainability is
questiolnable because it relies upon increased corn
production where land availability and quality of soil are questionable variables.
If we cannot rely on simply switching to a similar resource (as the problem will be
postponed rather than solved), reliance on
innlovation is a rational measure. If we are to
do so, however, the increasing consumption
aind decreasing production of oil indicate that
now is the time to act. Gustave Speth calls for such action in Red
Sky
at

Morning;
"We
urgently need a worldwide environmental revolution in technology
-
a rapid ecological
modernization of industry and
agriculture."20 1Conservationists argue that changing
people's consumption patterns is a solution that would eliminate a need to shift resource
use, but these claims do not suggest enforcement mechanisms to see through substantial
reductions or take into account rising populations that would counter conservation efforts.
There are scientists, politicians, and industries alike who deny the existence of a crisis,
yet even the U.S. Department of Energy released a report on oil consumption stating that
"the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a
decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be
temporary."21
l9
Goodstein, David. "Out of Gas: The End of the Age
of
Oil." W.W. Norton
&
Company. New York,
London.
O
2004.
20
Speth,
James Gustave.
"Red
Sky
at Morning: America and the Crisis ofthe

Global
Environment.
"
Yale
University Press. New Haven and London.
O
2004.
Kunstler, James Howard. "The Long Emergency." Published on 24 Mar 2005 by Rolling Stone
Magazine. Archived on 25 Mar 2005.
Across the globe, more and more people acknowledge renewable energy as an integral
part of decreasing reliance on fossil fuels. Goodstein notes that "the solar power falling
on the United States alone amounts to about ten thousand times as much electric power as
even Americans
consume."22 While this is
a
magnificent suggestion, there are days when
the sun doesn't shine; while anaerobic
dige~~tion may not generate as much energy as
other renewable sources, it is a viable alternative with untapped potential.
Biogas as a Partial Solution to the Energy Problem
When discussing biogas as a remedy for energy concerns, it is useful to assess this
resource based on a number of characteristics that determine how successful any one
solution will be. Here
I
address the qualities of accessibility, cost, maintenance, and
environmental impact. While there are likely other elements to a successful solution,
I
find these four most important to establish before exploring further integration of biogas
systems in the U.S. The actual potential for biogas production depends on the number of
large dairy farms and municipal wastewater treatment facilities that can be retrofitted

with systems to capture the gas and
generate electricity from it.
I
discuss the areas with
the most potential for improvement in
Chapter
4.
To be successful, a renewable energy resource should be accessible to all individuals.
In
this respect, biogas is somewhat limited. While the technology itself is ancient,
scientifically uncomplicated, and can be
cre:ated and used by anyone (as my homemade
digester indicates), larger applications require more education and attention. Many
farmers do not know much about the process and prefer to use traditional methods of
treating waste. As Forward notes, "the
powers that be are entrenched in antiquated
22
Goodstein, David. "Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil."
W.W.
Norton
&
Company.
New
York,
London.
O
2004.40.
techn010~ies.l~~~ It is difficult to prove these norms wrong, especially when technologies
were notoriously unreliable in the 1970s and 1980s.
Anaerobic digestion is not commercially viable at the moment. The goals of the

Vermont Farm Methane Project, an undertaking started in 1998 by the Vermont
Department of Public Service and the Vermont Department of Agriculture to explore
opportunities for farm digester projects in
ver~nont,'~ were to identify the barriers to
widespread application and explore how to overcome those
barriers.25 Project leaders
wanted to see the technology self-sufficient in the marketplace. In the 70s and
80s, when
the technology was first developed due to
rising oil prices, digesters were heavily
subsidized by the government. As Forward rernarks, "when the subsidies dried up, so did
the
industry."26 The Vermont Farm Methane Project aimed to avoid that failure by
looking at how to make digesters self sufficient in the marketplace. While their project
alone, with only $700,000 in funds, did not
co:me up with a complete solution, it did fund
about
4
projects and helped to spread information on biogas throughout ~ermont.~~
Besides lack of inexpensive commercially available technologies, other barriers to
biogas accessibility include lack of education and few system manufacturers. Farmers
and municipalities need to be educated on the specifics of the systems, the monetary
returns, the benefits, and the drawbacks; when individuals know little, they are less likely
to seek the technology. Furthermore, since the-re is not a great demand for the systems,
23
Forward, Jeff, formerly of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and former consultant to the Vermont
Farm Methane Project. Personal Interview on 12.7.2005.
24
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. "Projects by State."

energy proframlproiect brief detail.cfm/pb id=76. Last
Updated
12.13.2005. Viewed 5.16.2006.
25
Forward, Jeff, formerly of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and former consultant to the Vermont
Farm Methane Project. Personal Interview on 12.7.2005.
26
Ibid.
"
Ibid.
there is little production of and improvemerit in existing systems. Forward notes RCM
Digesters and GHD Inc. are the primary
companies that produce these systems. With so
few investing in the technology, Forward states that even if there was a market for 1,000
digesters next year, there wouldn't be
anyone to build them.28 While surely increased
demand would prompt manufacturers to produce these systems, the current state of
production indicates the small size of the market today.
Above all, an energy solution must be
ec~onomically viable. While this can be true for
biogas, the initial investment is often high, deterring users. Return on investment in
a
digester might take seven to ten years, but the natural process of digestion requires little
maintenance, provides methane for heat and electricity, and produces a rich and
marketable compost that results naturally as a byproduct. As with Foster Brother's Farm
in Vermont, this product can be sold and a whole other source of income generated.
Thomas Landry of the Pittsfield Waste
Treatment Facility remarks, though, that one must
have a market for such ventures to make it
~orthwhile.~~

Though there can be issues with cleaning and maintenance, general operation of
biogas systems is fairly straightforward. This is advantageous, for digesters do not require
much extra work once the technologies are in place. Regardless of the systems' apparent
simplicity, however, concern over
maintenance issues continues to inhibit adoption.
Small farmers with already stressed budgets are particularly reluctant to add another
complication to their
routine^.^'
Also, it is rnore difficult to convert methane gas into
28
Ibid.
29
Landry, Thomas, Chief Operator of Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Personal Interview on
12.6.2005.
30
Forward, Jeffrey
W.
and Scruton, Dan. "Vermont Methane Project Quarterly Report."
0
April 22,2002
and July 15, 2002.
http:Npublicservice.vern1ont.gov1energv-
efficiencvlee
fileslmethane12nd2002.PDF.
9.
electricity than it is to use it for heat3' or bum it off to prevent direct release of methane
into the
atmosphere.32 While technology innovations make it easier to adopt digester
equipment by reducing chance of failure, this is a concern nonetheless. Depending on the
size, municipal wastewater plants do not

alwa~ys have the same operating concerns. Since
biogas can only be used at a plant that already has a digester (and just needs to harness
the energy), operators of these plants are already familiar with the process and are not as
wary of the technology.
The final quality of a solution
I
establish, the environmental impact, looks favorably
on anaerobic digestion. These systems have a low negative impact (releasing a miniscule
fraction of the methane that would otherwise be released) and indeed many positive
environmental benefits. They reduce odor, decrease waste volume, and the digestion does
not produce any more harmful greenhouse gasses (while
C02 is created along with the
methane, it is not new to the earth system but was contained in the digested organic
products). Furthermore, by removing nitrogen and chemicals, the digestion process
makes the fertilizer byproduct even healthier for the land, reducing the potential runoff of
nitrogen into waterways.
One environmental concern, especially when digesting human waste, is sanitation.
While this is taken care of largely due to the high temperatures of the digestion process,
people remain hesitant, especially in the use of the compost byproduct. Furthermore, both
phosphorous (predominantly from dung) and metals (from waste treatment facilities) are
potentially harmful elements if spread on the earth as compost. Phosphorous is
problematic in compost because it may leach into surface water and contribute to the
31
Ibid.
32
Dethier, David. Williams College Professor of Geosciences. Thesis revision, 5.12.2006.
production of algae which in turn chokes the fish and creates other environmental
hazards.33 There are strict regulations on levels of metals that can be used in land
application.
In

Massachusetts these restrictions are even more stringent than federal
requirements. Thomas Landry of the Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant notes that
their cadmium levels are too high to use the sludge on the land, so they must sent it to a
plant in Connecticut for
in~ineration.~~
here
are solutions to these issues (sanitation,
phosphorous and metals levels) that are being addressed by digester manufacturers. On
the whole, however, biogas systems are extremely environmentally benign, especially
when compared to fossil fuel burning alternatives.
Chapter
1
Conclusion
While it is clear that the use of biogas is ]problematic in some respects, the technology
is improving. With time and dedication of
leaders and farmers (and with impending
scarcity of oil reserves), ideally the technology will become more accessible and useful
on
a
widespread scale. How to facilitate this transition before emissions restrictions,
energy scarcity, or disposal expenses
become too costly is uncertain. Forward is
optimistic:
"I
think people are very concerned about energy prices," he notes,
"I
don't
want you to be discouraged. There are some: very good people working on some
innovative Before addressing how biogas can be further integrated into the social
and economic system in the United States, it is useful to examine what there is to work

with, what ventures are currently underway in this country.
In
Chapter
2
I
address this,
33
Ibid.
34
Landry, Thomas, Chief Operator of Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Personal Interview on
12.6.2005.
35
Forward, Jeff, formerly of the Biomass Energy Resource Center and former consultant to the Vermont
Farm Methane Project. Interview on
12.7.2005.