Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

The feasibility of the sustainable energy supply from bio wastes for a small scale
brewery e A case study
Barbara Sturm a, *, Matthew Butcher a, Yaodong Wang a, Ye Huang b, Tony Roskilly a
a
b

Sustainable Energy and Power Research Group, Newcastle Institute for Research on Sustainability, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Centre for Sustainable Technologies, School of Built Environment, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, BT37 0QB, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 5 July 2011
Accepted 15 January 2012
Available online 24 January 2012

Due to rising fuel costs and a need for the reduction of CO2 emissions, renewable energy sources have
gained growing importance in industrial energy concept planning. In the food industry, a signicant
percentage of raw materials used leaves the process as biological waste. In this study a small scale
brewery situated in Northeast England was audited. Based on the data obtained, the feasibility of biogas
generation was modelled. The model included a planned extension to production capacity. Several
scenarios for conversion were simulated, their gas demand determined, performance compared and
economic viability calculated.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Brewery
Anaerobic digestion
Energy supply
CHP
System design and performance
Economic evaluation

1. Introduction
Environmental concerns over increasing green house gas
emission and tightening legislative requirements and nancial
constraints are currently changing the industrial world. As a result,
many companies are seeking solutions to reduce their fossil fuel
consumption, emissions, waste and costs in order to make their
business sustainable. In breweries a large amount of heat is
required for the process; consequently large oil fed boilers are
usually in operation on site to meet the demand. There also is
a need for cooling, particularly after fermentation and in the
storage areas. Presently this often is supplied via electrical air
conditioning units and chillers. This equipment is not particularly
energy efcient and is heavily reliant upon fossil fuels for operation.
The process also produces a large quantity of solid waste in form of
spent grain and hops. Usually this is disposed of as animal feed.
1.1. Energy consumption in breweries
The energy consumption in breweries is often expressed in
terms of their specic energy consumption. This is dened as the
amount of energy required per unit of nished product (MJ per
hectolitre or kWh per hectolitre). These values will depend on the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 44 0 191 246 4951; fax: 44 0 191 222 6920.
E-mail address: BarbaraSturm@daad-alumni.de (B. Sturm).
1359-4311/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.01.036

brewerys size, age, geographical location, the processes and

equipment employed, the type of packaging used and the level of
energy efcient measures already put in place [1]. Looking at the
market there is an important heterogeneity of production capacities in the brewing industry. While in 2002 the production capacity
of the 10 largest brewing groups summed up to almost 50% of the
world production, a micro brewery may start its activities with an
annual production of 1000 hl [2].
The reduction in energy costs is often cited as the most important reason for companies to consider reducing their energy
consumption through an energy management strategy. The energy
demand can be divided into thermal energy needed for heating and
cooling on one hand and electrical energy on the other [2]. In
general the greatest users of electricity within a brewery are electrical motors and refrigeration, 46% and 32% respectively [3]. The
amount used for heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC)
and lighting will depend on the design and size of the facility but it
is generally considered to be a minimal proportion of the total
consumption. The heating requirement of a brewery is normally
much larger than that of electricity. This is due to the numerous
processes requiring heating or a supply of hot water including
mashing and boiling. Hence it is not surprising that a study by
Anheuser-Busch estimates that the brew house consumes 64% of
the total thermal energy requirement of a facility [3]. Within the
brew house itself, the largest single heat consuming process is
normally wort boiling [4].

46

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

1.2. Waste management

Water management and waste disposal have become a signicant cost factor and an important aspect in the running of
a brewery operation [2]. A study in German breweries states that
spent grains, Kieselguhr sludge, yeast surplus and waste labels
represent the major wastes [5]. Various studies deal with brewery
waste treatment and come up with several biological and technical
alternatives for treatment which are described by Fillandeau et al.
[2]. Amongst them the anaerobic digestion of the wastes and waste
water represents a promising means of reduction of the amount of
organic substances. At the same time the anaerobic digestion
produces biogas which can be used for heating, running a CHP
system or a trigeneration system to provide energy for the processing [3]. The efuent from the digester can be used as fertiliser.
The basic requirements of an anaerobic digester are to allow for
a continuously high and sustainable organic load rate, a short
hydraulic retention time and to produce the maximum volume of
methane [6].
For the production of one barrel (164.7 l) of beer an average of
20 kg of agricultural products (mostly corn and corn products) are
consumed. Of the input grains and malt, an average of 25% (4.5 kg
per barrel of beer produced) is recovered as dry brewers grain or
disposed as wet feed [7]. The composition of this waste product
makes it a good feedstock for the digestion process [8].
Co-digestion of wastes from the food industry with animal
waste can improve the production of anaerobic digestion processes
[6]. A particularly strong reason for co-digestion of feedstocks is the
adjustment of the carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio. Microorganisms
generally utilise carbon and nitrogen in the ratios of 25e30:1, but
C:N ratios can often be considerably lower than that of the ideal
ones [9]. Beside the fact that methane production is enhanced;
there are other reasons to consider co-digestion. Braun & Wellinger
[10] state that anaerobic co-digestion of manure and digestible
wastes from the food industry, is very important for the corporate
economy of the biogas plants and for the socioeeconomic reasons.
1.3. Combined heat and power and trigeneration
Co-generation is the production of heat and electricity. Trigeneration includes refrigeration energy alongside heat and electricity
from the system with the purpose of using cogeneration technology
more efciently. An absorption refrigeration system can be operated utilising the heat energy of a cogeneration system [11]. For
most large scale applications, thermal and electrical loads of an
industrial plant are almost constant throughout the year, so the
optimum size of a CHP or even trigeneration plant is generally xed
by the average thermal demand, leaving it to the electric grid to
play the role of keeping the plant electricity balanced by either
selling or buying electricity [12]. In small scale breweries, characterised by large uctuations of electricity demand as well as by
dramatic variations of heating and cooling demand (related to
climatic conditions and production of different goods a totally
different situation occurs) [12].
1.4. Governmental initiatives
In the UK several funding schemes dealing with renewable
production of electricity and thermal energy are in place. Especially
for small scale companies this provides a lucrative opportunity to
not only safe on fuel and electricity costs but also create an additional income. The Feed In Tariff (FIT) which relates to electricity
generated using renewable energy sources has been in place for
some time. It grants 0.121 /kWhel generated from biogas and
another 0.031 /kWhel sold to the national grid for systems

<200 kWel. In July 2011 the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) was
introduced [13]. This applies to biogas fuelled boilers and CHP of up
to 200 kW at a rate of 0.065 /kWh produced and used. Both
schemes guarantee the funding for a period of 20 years. This makes
production of biogas from bio waste attractive for small food
producing companies.
The work presented investigates the potential of anaerobic
digestion of brewing waste and cattle manure and implementation
of a CHP or biogas driven steam boiler with or without generation
of refrigeration using a gas red absorption chiller in a micro
brewery to cover the thermal (and electrical) energy demand on
the production site and its consequences on reduction of fossil fuel
consumption and CO2 emission. Although micro breweries are only
responsible for about 2% of the UKs beer production they are an
important part of the market. Between 2000 and 2009 alone the
number of breweries in the UK increased by 50% from around 500
to around 750, almost all of them being micro breweries [14].
Therefore it is of increasing importance to evaluate energy use and
potential strategies for its supply in this part of the sector especially
as most companies of that size dont have the personnel and
expertise to deal with energy related measures themselves. The
brewery in question was chosen as the management is very keen on
implementing renewable energy sources to make the brewing
process more sustainable and to reduce fuel costs at the same time.
2. The brewery investigated
The brewery investigated is a micro brewery located in Northeast England, producing both lagers and ales. An energy audit was
carried out. Based on oil and gas bill data as well on information
from the head brewer and measurements the brewerys current
energy consumption was analysed. Depending on the season the
brewery produces up to 12 brews a week with an average of 250
production days per year. Usually only Monday to Friday are
production days. Within the next few years the brewery intends to
increase production signicantly, resulting in an average of 15
brews a week.
The in depth analysis of the process showed that there is a good
accordance with the data presented in literature [1e3]. The brew
house turned out to be the major energy consumer and in it the
wort boiling needs by far the most energy as a single unit operation.
Currently the average energy demand per brew sums up to
160 kWh for heating the hot liquor from 70  C to 80  C, 270 kWh for
wort boiling and roughly 200 kWh for cleaning and kegging
purposes. Roughly 7% of the wort is boiled off. On a Monday the
energy demand for heating the hot liquor in the morning is
signicantly higher than the average as the hot liquor cools
signicantly over the weekend and sums up to approximately
500 kWh.
The amount of solid waste produced sums up to roughly
1100 tons per year. This currently is given to a local farmer as
animal feed free of charge. Theoretically it could be sold as animal
feed or alternatively used for anaerobic digestion. The brewerys
location also allows for the use of cattle slurry, including fodder
remains, from farms nearby. The farm currently receiving the
brewers waste can provide up to 4000 t/a of manure. The resulting
residue will be used as fertiliser. Other farmers are willing to
provide additional manure if needed.
The calculations and results presented are based on a scenario of
three brews a day, ve days a week, which is feasible using the
existing system. Only an addition to the fermentation vessels and
the cold storage room would be necessary.
The resulting energy demand can be summed up to an average
of 140 kW thermal energy over a period of 16 h a day for heating,
24 kW thermal energy for cooling 24/7 and 20 kW electrical power

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

over the period of 16 h per workday. Fig. 1 gives an overview of the

energy demands and their timing of peaks occurring during
production for the case of use of a 200 kW boiler as is installed.
3. Materials and methods
The system proposed consists of an anaerobic digester which
produces the amount of biogas necessary to replace diesel to run
the generation systems, a newly installed generation system (3.1)
and the original brewery set up, extended by additional fermentation vessels and an extended cold store.
In a rst step the resulting consumption for 3 brews a day based
on the existing system was calculated. Heating oil costs were estimated to be 0.55 /l, electricity costs were estimated to be 0.099 /
kWh [15]. The resulting costs were used as references for the
economic evaluation of the new systems. For the calculation of the
nancial benets generated by the RHI and FIT were used as
described in 1.4. It was assumed, that the brewery uses the electricity generated and only sells the actual excess electricity and
buys electricity back only when the CHP is turned off.
The brewery would have to take a loan to be able to realise the
investments inicted by the modications. It was assumed, that in
all cases investigated the brewery needs a loan that will cover the
full investment costs. The resulting interest rate was assumed to be
at 5%/a with a xed payback (10,000 /month) plus varying interest
payments for all cases investigated on top of it.
Component prices were gathered from manufacturers and
suppliers. As this information is subject to condentiality, only the
resulting total investment costs for the whole systems are given in
this paper instead of individual costs.
According to Ben-Hamed et al. [16] the brewers waste could be
sold for up to 38 /t. However for the economic evaluation it was
regarded as 0 /t as the brewery currently gives it to the farmer free
of charge. The manure necessary to top up the brewing waste will
be delivered by the same farmer. The farm is situated 10 km from
the brewery. For the calculation of costs generated for the delivery
of the manure and removal of the efuent the following assumptions were made: The farmer uses a Fendt 708 tractor (130 hp;
0.210 kgred diesel/kWh), the average speed of the tractor was
assumed at 30 km/h [17]. For the transport of the slurry a Major
2600 LPG (11,820 l) tanker, using a 12,000 l/h pump, was chosen.
The hourly wage of a farm worker was estimated to be 7.45 which
correlates to Grade 3 of the Agricultural Wage Order 2011 [18].
The farmer will charge the brewery for the fuel and workforce
required for the delivery of the manure. He will not charge for the

47

removal as the digestate is a valuable fertiliser (3.6 /twet [19]).

Nevertheless the theoretical costs for digestate removal and the
value of the digestade itself were evaluated (Table 2). It can be seen
that costs for digestate removal and value of fertiliser are almost
identical. For all scenarios where the amount of extra manure
needed exceeds 4000 t/a the same conditions were used as
described above to make the results more comparable although the
other farms are situated closer to the brewery. The loss of solids
during digestion was estimated to be 7% as recommended by the
NNFCC [19].
The brewery has a well on its premises; therefore the water
needed for the AD plant can be taken from there and does not inict
additional costs apart from the electricity needed for the pumps.
For all calculations presented it was assumed that the gas
production is uninterrupted and the biogas generated sufcient for
covering of the total energy demand. In case of any interruption of
biogas production the system designed could be run on alternate
fuels.
3.1. Energy generation
Four scenarios based on state of the art technological solutions
for providing for the energy needed were evaluated economically
and regarding their environmental impact represented by amount
and composition of their exhaust (4.2). Prices were obtained from
manufacturers and the existing steam boiler (Fulton 20e) could be
modied to run on biogas. However this converted system would
not qualify for the RHI. Furthermore the boiler was built in 1992
and therefore needs to be replaced sooner rather than later. So this
is not an alternative. As the heat and electricity demands for
production are intermittent while the base load for cooling is
constant application of a trigeneration system was not considered.
Gas red absorption chilling, directly using biogas, qualies for the
RHI. Therefore this solution was taken into account.
Technical equipment considered:
1. Fulton 20j combined gas, oil and dual red steam boiler, net
efcniency 89% c.v.; 320 kgsteam/h; gas consumption: 23.3 m3/h
on natural gas type H (85% CH4, 8% C2H6, 2.9% C3H8, 1% C4H10,
0.7% N2, 2% CO2)
2. Robur Series GA gas-red ammoniaewater absorption chiller,
model RTCF 120-00-LB gas red absorption chiller; nominal
cooling capacity: 25.6 kW; thermal input: 47.48 kW, COP 0.52
3. Lister-Petter diesel generator, model LLO 100/150(A); 50 Hz,
1500 r/min, 120 kW electricity output, three phase, 415/240 V;
Fuel consumption is 35.1 l/h at full load. The waste heat available is around 200 kW, diesel demand when used as dual fuel
engine 2% of total fuel demand.
Technological and economic evaluation for the system was
based on technical equipment selected and the RHI and feed in
tariffs currently applying. Four different scenarios were calculated:
CASE 1 the existing boiler is replaced by the Fulton 20j (1)
CASE 2 the boiler (1) is combined with the absorption chiller (2)
CASE 3 a CHP system is implemented (3), When the CHP system is
not running electricity for the cooling as well as the AD
plant have to be imported from the grid.
CASE 4 the CHP (3) system is combined with the absorption chiller
(2). In this case there still is a small amount of electricity
that needs to be imported to run the AD plant when the
CHP system is off line.

Fig. 1. Thermal energy demands of the brewery, the AD and the cooling base load as
a function of time.

For CASES 3 and 4 an additional buffer needs to be implemented

as the thermal energy needed for heating the AD as well as water

48

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

for cleaning needs to be provided by the CHP system and stored for
later use.
For CASES 2 and 4 only the cooling demand in the cold store and
for fermentation are covered by the absorption chiller. The rest of
the cooling demand, e.g. cooling the beer after fermentation to
storage temperature and pre-cooling the cold water that is used to
cool the wort to fermentation temperature will still be covered
using electrical chillers.
3.2. Simulation of the combustion systems
The combustion processes of diesel and the methane content in
natural and biogas are shown as the following equations:

C12 H26 18:5O2 3:76N2 /12CO2 13H2 O 69:56 N2

(1)

CH4 2O2 3:76N2 /CO2 2H2 O 7:52 N2

(2)

The simulations are based on the above equations and ECLIPSE

software is used to carry out the simulation for mass and energy
balance in the process. The cases simulated are CHP, boiler and
absorption chiller fuelled with three different fuels e diesel, natural
gas and biogas respectively. Sturm et al. [20] give an introduction of
the software.
For all calculations undertaken relating to energy demand the
following Lower Heating Value (LHV) were used: LHVdiesel 42.5 MJ/
kg; LHVnatural gas 47.1 MJ/kg and LHVbiogas 15.6 MJ/kg.
3.3. The fuelebiogas generation from brewing waste and cattle
slurry
Based on the energy demand of the systems described in 3.1 and
composition as well as availability of the substrates [12,13],
construction method, size and feed rate of the bio-digester were
dened. A Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) with a size of
680 m3 was chosen for all scenarios investigated. In this type of
reactor the substrate is added daily, either continuously or batch
wise and an according amount of efuent is withdrawn.
The digester is maintained at mesophilic temperatures (35  C)
and constantly stirred. It is insulated with 100 mm Styrofoam layer
on its outer skin and a heating system is integrated to keep its
temperature constant. When production is running, heat energy
required can be provided by the energy generation system. When
the production is stopped, depending on the scenario chosen,
an additional burner might have to be integrated to provide for
the thermal energy needed to maintain constant temperatures.
Alternatively stored energy from a thermal store can be used. Gas
production in this system is continuous and feed is automated
[12]. The efuent tank is designed to act as a store for at least 4
weeks worth of digestate. The sizing of the system was based on
the most energy intensive scenario investigated so the retention
times and other factors are varying signicantly for the different
cases.
For the operation of the AD an average electricity demand of
9 kW is needed throughout the year. For the calculation of the heat
losses through the digesters walls and the thermal demand to heat
the feedstock to the targeted temperature of 35  C an average
ambient temperature of 10  C was assumed. The amount of additional water in the feed was calculated based on a total solids
content within the digester of 15%. The water content of the manure
and the brewers waste had been determined to be 78% and 63%
respectively by measuring wet weight, using the AOAC standard
method [21] (105  C, 24 h).

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Biogas production
Biogas produced and its composition were calculated using the
National Non Food Corp Centre (NNFCC) Biogas Calculator [19]
(CH4 51%, CO2 45.4%, N2 3.6%, O2 < 0.01) and literature
data [22]. The total amount of gas needed varies depending on the
solution chosen. The maximum amount sums up to approximately 805,000 m3/a. Using the whole amount of bio-waste from
the brewing process (1130 t/a) between 3800 and 10,300 t/a of
cattle manure are necessary to provide for the amount of biogas
needed to run the systems compared and provide the thermal
energy to keep the AD plant on working temperature. As the
maximum total solid content in the AD plant must not exceed
15%, signicant amounts of water need to be added to the feedstock (3400 to 6200 t/a). Therefore the daily feed amounts to
23e48 m3 (Table 1).
As the brewing process is not continuous sufcient gas storage
has to be provided to store at least the amount of gas produced in
two and a half days (5520 m3). This is implemented by using
a digester with an integrated gas storage plastic lm roof and an
additional gas storage tank. With a suggested diameter of 14 m and
a height of 4.4 m the resulting volume of the integrated gas store to
be 1430 m3. Therefore the additional stores size would need to be
large enough to accommodate 4000 m3.
A feed storage as well as an efuent storage are necessary to
allow for continuous feeding. As the two substrates are very
different in their nature they must be mixed properly before
feeding, so a stirrer is provided. The feed tanks need to be large
enough to store the feed for the weekends with no or minimum
variability in its quality therefore it is suggested to build a 100 m3
store for the manure and a 20 m3 store for the brewers waste. A
certain amount of gas is produced in the efuent tank too, which
needs to be captured and transferred into the gas store. The actual
amount depends strongly on the mean retention time and duration
of storage in the efuent storage, a minimum storage time of 4
weeks was chosen (1300 m3).
The digester designed loses roughly 40 kWh/d thermal energy
through its walls. If the brewers waste was put into the digester
directly after leaving the process this energy could be provided
by the waste itself which leaves the process at a temperature
level of 60  C. As the waste is stored and mixed with cattle slurry
rst, this thermal energy is lost and the feedstock has to be
warmed up from ambient temperature to 35  C, which results in
a signicant additional energy demand which can be referred to
in Table 2.
The resulting thermal energy demand of the system (200 kW
boiler) is displayed in detail in Fig. 1. The AD plant has a constant

Table 1
Biogas produced to meet demands for different scenarios.

Dairy cow manure (t/a)

Brewers waste (t/a)
Water (t/a)
Feed rate (t/d)
Total biogas (m3/a)
Biogas (m3/d)
Biogas (m3/tFeedstock)
Retention time (d)
Digestate (t/a)
Irregular feed (%)
Manure (deliveries/a)
Digestate (removals/a)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Case 4

3800
1130
3400
23
380,710
1043
46
29
7877
10
321
666

7500
1130
5000
37
622,875
1707
46
18
12,889
10
635
1090

6350
1130
4500
33
545,500
1495
46
20
11,331
10
537
959

10,300
1130
6200
48
806,135
2209
46
14
16,671
10
871
1410

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

Table 2
Energy demands using biogas and economic evaluation of the systems proposed.
Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Fuel consumption
Methane (kg/a)
127,263
215,244
Biogas (kg/a)
451,288
763,277
367,498
621,561
Biogas (m3/a)
196,500
Electricity demand (kWhe/a) 256,569
Brewing (kWhe/a)
120,000
120,000
60,069
Base load (kWhe/a)
76,500
76,500
AD (kWhe/a)
732,087
1,284,455
Thermal energy demand
(kWhth/a)
Brewing (kWhth/a)
524,000
524,000
208,087
339,975
AD (kWhth/a)
e
420,480
Cooling (kWhth/a)
Electricity costs (k/a)
20.5
15.7
Electricity produced (kWhe/a)
e
e
e
e
Electricity sold (kWhe/a)
e
e
Electricity bought (kWhe/a)
Fuel costs (k/a)
e
e
Savings compared to base case
Electricity costs (k/a)
6.1
1.3
Fuel costs (k/a)
38.2
38.2
Total (k/a)
32.0
36.8
Feed stock related costs
Manure delivery (k/a)
14.7
29.1
Digestate removal (k/a)
30.5
50.0
Digestate value (k/a)
28.4
46.4
Renewable Energy Initiatives
RHI (k/a)
53.5
90.4
Feed in tariff generation (k/a)
e
e
Feed in tariff export (k/a)
e
e
Investment related information
Maintenance (k/a)
7.0
7.5
Investment Costs (k)
370
400
Interest (k)
31
36
Pay back period (a)
6.4
5.0
Additional Income
838
1310
(k/20 years)

188,850
669,682
545,343
256,569
120,000
60,069
76,500
822,904

Case 4
279,006
989,384
805,687
196,500
120,000
76,500
1,383,945

524,000
298,904
e
5.5
457,169
268,884
68,284
7.4

524,000
439,465
420,480
3.1
457,169
268,884
38,250
7.4

10.8
33.5
44.2

12.4
33.5
45.9

24.6
43.9
40.8

39.9
64.6
60.0

53.5
54.9
14.2

90.0
54.9
8.3

13.0
595
88
5.9
1515

13.5
625
97
5.4
1884

demand of between 40 and 80 kWth, depending on the scenario, for

maintaining the operational temperature of 35  C and 9 kWel for
machine drives and pumps. Energy required for the heating of the
AD plant needs to be provided by a gas burner that is installed for
this purpose or the heat needs to be provided by the boiler or CHP
system respectively.

49

4.2. Results of simulation

The performances and emissions of the different solutions
proposed were simulated using biogas compared to that of using
natural gas and diesel respectively, as seen in Tables 3 and 4.
For comparison, the fuel energy inputs (total thermal inputs)
from the three fuels, namely diesel, methane and biogas are kept
the same as that of original fuel consumptions of the engine, the
boiler and the absorption chiller run with diesel, i.e., 354.0 kWth for
the engine, 234.0 kWth for the boiler and 51.0 kWth for the
absorption chiller, as seen in Tables 3 and 4.
From Table 3, it can be seen that the fuel consumptions (by
mass) of the engine are very different: 8.3  103 kg/s for diesel;
7.0  103 kg/s for methane; and 24.7  103 kg/s for biogas; which
is due to the different heating values of the fuels. The electrical and
thermal outputs of the genset signicantly depend on the nature of
the fuel. While the electrical output is almost identical for the cases
of diesel and methane, biogas delivers roughly ten percent less due
to its lower combustion temperature in the combustion chamber
which resulted in a lower capacity of power generation. Regarding
the thermal output, biogas delivers the highest output while
combustion of diesel delivers roughly 10% less. This is because of
higher mass ow rate of exhaust gas from the case fuelled by
biogas. Looking at the overall efciency methane and biogas are
almost identical with 88.4 and 88.9% respectively, while combustion of diesel delivers only 79.2%. The CO2 emission from electricity
generation is 0.581 kg/kWh for methane and 0.635 kg/kWh for
biogas, which is lower than that fuelled with diesel (0.781 kg/kWh).
The higher CO2 emission from diesel is because diesel contains
a higher proportion of carbon than that of methane and biogas. For
the CHP system, the CO2 emission of per unit of useful energy
output including electricity and heat, is 0.219 kg/kWh for methane
and 0.220 kg/kWh for biogas, which is also lower than that fuelled
with diesel (0.335 kg/kWh). But as the biogas is generated from bio
wastes, the systems fuelled with biogas is seen as net zero carbon
emissions.
For the boiler, the total thermal inputs and outputs are identical
for all three fuels, but the amount of heat that can be recovered
from the exhaust gases is signicantly different. As the exhaust
temperatures of the methane is 150  C higher than of diesel and
120  C than biogas, signicantly more low grade waste heat can be
recovered. For example, if a condensing heat exchanger is used, low
grade heat available is 77 kW for methane, 46 kW for biogas and
only 36 kW for diesel at the exhaust temperature of 50  C at the exit

Table 3
Technical and emission results of CHP and boiler fuelled by diesel, methane and biogas.
Fuel used

Fuel input (kg/s)  103

Fuel input (kg/h)
LHV (MJ/kg)
Total thermal input (kWth)
Electrical output (kWe)
Heat outputtotal (kWth)
Electrical or Boiler efciency (%)
Engine exhaust temperature ( C)
Exhaust gas ow (kg/s)  103
Exhaust temperature at exit ( C)
Heat available from outlet (at 50  C)
Heat available from outlet (at 40  C)
Total useful energy output (kW)
Overall efciency
CO2 from combustion (kg/s)  103
CO2 emissions (kg/kWhe)
CO2 emissions (kg/kWhuseful)

CHP

Boiler

Diesel

Methane

Biogas

Diesel

Methane

Biogas

8.3
29.99
42.5
354.0
120.2
182.6
33.9
574
168.3
113
e

7.0
25.06
50.9
354.0
118.4
196.2
33.4
628
167.0
113
e
e
314.6
88.9
19.1
0.581
0.219

24.7
88.85
14.4
354.0
108.2
204.6
30.6
620.0
184.6
e
e

5.5
19.82
42.5
234.0
e
200
85.5
e
165.5
177
36
39
200
85.5
17.2

4.6
16.56
50.9
234.0
e
200
85.5
e
165.0
327
77
80
200
85.5
13.6

16.3
58.57
14.3
234.0
e
200
85.5
e
176.3
207
46
53
200
85.5
13.6

280.5
79.2
26.0
0.781
0.335

312.8
88.4
19.1
0.635
0.220

0.310

0.245

0.245

50

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

Table 4
Technical and emission results of the absorption refrigeration fuelled by diesel,
methane and biogas.
Fuel used

Diesel

Methane

Biogas

Fuel input (kg/s)  103

Fuel input (kg/h)
LHV (MJ/kg)
Total thermal input (kWth)
Exhaust gas ow (kg/s)  103
Exhaust temperature at exit ( C)
Heat available from outlet (at 50  C)
Heat available from outlet (at 40  C)
Cooling output (kW)
Total useful energy output (kW)
Coolant temperature (at 50  C)
COP
CO2 from combustion (kg/s)  103
CO2 emissions (kg/kWhe)
CO2 emissions (kg/kWhuseful)

1.2
4.32
42.5
51.0
35.3
456
18
19
26.6
26.6
10
0.52
3.7
e
0.507

0.9
3.27
47.141
51.0
30.0
390
16
17
26.6
26.6
10
0.52
2.5
e
0.334

3.2
11.52
15.633
51.0
36.4
370
17
18
26.6
26.6
10
0.52
2.5
e
0.336

of the chimney, respectively. Similar to that of diesel engine, the

CO2 emission fuelled by diesel is high, which is 0.310 kg/kWh and is
27% higher than that using methane or biogas; and for methane and
biogas, the CO2 emission is lower, which is 0.245 kg/kWh only. For
the same reason, the boiler fuelled with biogas is seen as net zero
carbon emissions.
As seen in Table 4, the cooling effect generated from the
absorption chiller is the same for all three fuels, i.e., 26.6 kW, with
the same thermal input of 51.0 kWth. The COP for all three cases is
0.52. Again combustion of diesel results in a signicantly higher
CO2 emissions than that from methane and biogas.
From the results above, it can be seen that biogas is a suitable
fuel to supply energy for the brewery. The performance, the efciencies and emissions of the cases studied fuelled by biogas, are
comparable to that fuelled by methane. The engine and the boiler
fuelled with diesel produced the worst overall efciency and
highest pollution rate.

Steam

Malted grain

Boiler/CHP

Process Water (68...70 C)

Electricity

HLT
(80 C)

Mashing
(65 C)

Buffer
Spent Grain

Gas Store

UB

Hops
Steam

Boiling
(101 C)

Spent hops

Chilled water (4 C)

AD Plant
(680 m3, 35 C)

Effluent Tank
(1,300 m3)

Fermentation
(20 C)

Feed Tank

Manure

Water

Absorption
Chiller

Cold store
(10 C)

Fig. 2. Schema of the proposed system, using a boiler or alternatively a CHP to provide the process heat (and electriticty) needed and an absorption refrigerator to cover the base
demand for cooling.

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

4.3. System integration and economic evaluation

The system proposed is shown in Fig. 2. The brewery is situated
on a former farm, therefore space is not restricted and an
Anaerobic Digester, including feed and efuent tanks as well as
a gas store as described in 4.1 can easily be accommodated. The
size and therefore the resulting equipment costs for gas storage
can be signicantly reduced by compressing the gas to about
13 bar. The compression would account for roughly 3% of the
energy available.
The implementation of CASE 1 would cause the least interruption for production and need for modication of the system as
the boiler selected is the follow up model of the one currently
installed. So the boiler could replace the old one without making
modications in the piping necessary. Only a gas pipe from the gas
store to the boiler would need to be installed. The boiler can
alternatively be run on diesel so the diesel supply system could be
left in place and in case of malfunction of the AD or a shortage of
gas production, the boiler could be switched to either run on diesel
or on dual fuel. Therefore no interruptions of production would
occur.
The absorption chiller would need to be installed in the cold
store, where the electrical chillers now are situated. This would
only cause minor or no disruptions of the production as the electrical chillers could be kept in working order until the new one
works. Again an additional gas pipe would need to be installed. As
back up the electrical chiller could be kept or in case of a shortage in
biogas the absorption chiller could be run on LPG.
Installation of the CHP system would necessitate signicant
changes within the boiler house and the thermal energy supply
system as such. The piping and junctions need to be modied or
replaced. For an efcient use of the CHP system it is necessary to
produce the heat needed for the AD, that runs 24/7, during
production or an additional gas burner needs to be installed. In the
former case the installation of an additional heat store would be
necessary which most probably would be needed anyways to
function as a thermal buffer for heating and cleaning purposes as
well. As the engine chosen is a modied diesel engine it needs to be
run as dual fuel engine with 2% diesel content. Therefore the diesel
pipe would be left in place and an additional gas pipe installed. A
converter needs to be installed to synchronise the electricity to be
fed into the national grid.
Except of CASE 1 for all solutions proposed the amount of
manure needed exceeds the capacities of the farmer currently
receiving the brewers waste for free signicantly. Therefore the
brewery needs to make sure that their manure supply is secure by
involving other farmers that commit to this long term. Another
alternative could be to improve the performance by buying in
energy crops. One of the major advantages for the farmers involved
would be that the digestate is a good fertiliser which is almost smell
free.
The economic evaluation of the different options was based on
the current oil and electricity prices, the actual demand, investment
and maintenance costs for the new equipment, provided by
component suppliers as well as electrical and thermal output and
the governmental funding schemes which are described in Chapter
3. The results of the economic evaluations carried out can be found
in Table 2.
All cases investigated apart from CASE 1 produce payback
periods of less than six years. CASES 2 and 4, including the
absorption refrigeration system (1130 /kW), have the shortest pay
back periods of 5.0 and 5.4 and result in an additional income over
the 20 years of system operation of 1310 k and 1884 k respectively. CASE 1 with the lowest initial cost has the highest payback
time and creates the lowest additional income of the systems

51

compared. While CASE 3 creates a higher income than CASE 2 the

initial investment costs are signicantly higher. The combined
systems of CASES 2 and 4 are both economically preferable to the
cases that do not include the absorption refrigeration system.
5. Conclusion
The use of production waste along with manure from nearby
farms proved to be suitable to provide the amount of fuel needed
for all scenarios investigated. The integration of an AD plant on the
premises of the brewery investigated would be very easy to realise
as it is situated on a former farm with its own well.
As process temperatures are comparatively low, a steam boiler
as well as a CHP system could be used to provide for the heat
needed. The use of the CHP would allow for simultaneous generation of heat and electricity required as well as a potential to export
excess electricity to the national grid. Both solutions qualify for the
governmental funding schemes both the thermal as well as the
electrical energy demand are below the maximum limit for
funding.
Implementation of a trigeneration system is not feasible as
refrigeration is needed constantly on a very low power level while
heat is only needed during production. Opposed to that running an
absorption chiller on the biogas produced is a solution to be
considered as it qualies for the RHI.
The combination of either, boiler or CHP with an absorption
chiller are considered the most viable solutions as they create the
shortest payback periods and higher additional income than the
solutions without. As the former solution is more than 200,000
cheaper than the latter and the integration in the existing system
would be easier this could be the preferable solution for a small
company although this also means a reduction of additional income
by roughly 30% from 1884 to 1310.
The application of biogas has an effect of net zero carbon
emission, and is potentially, making the enterprise more sustainable in future as well as creating an additional saving potential
regarding carbon trading.
Due to growing issues with complaints about odour nuisance
when applying slurry directly on the eld an additional advantage
of co-digesting brewers waste and cattle manure is the production
of highly valuable fertiliser that is free of smell.
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council of the UK (EPSRC Thermal Management of
Industrial Processes Consortium; and Biofuel Micro Trigeneration e
Cryogenic Energy Storage); and a fellowship within the PostdocProgramme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
The authors would like to thank the EPSRC and DAAD for their
nancial support for this research work.
References
[1] Lom and Assoc. Inc., Energy Efciency Opportunities in the Canadian Brewing
Industry, The brewers Association of Canada, 1998.
[2] L. Fillaudeau, P. Blanpain-Avet, G. Daun, Water, wastewater and waste
management in brewing industries, Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5)
(2006) 463e471.
[3] C. Galinsky, N. Martin, E. Worell, B. Lehman, Energy Efciency Improvement
and Cost Saving Opportunities in Breweries. An Energy Star Guide for Energy
and Plant Managers, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkley CA, 2003.
[4] The Brewers of Europe, Guidance Note for Establishing BAT in the Brewing
Industry, CBMC, Brussels, 2002.
[5] M. Knirsch, A. Penschke, R. Meyer-Pittroff, Disposal situation for brewery
waste in Germany e results of a survey, Brauwelt International 4 (5) (1999)
477e481.

52

B. Sturm et al. / Applied Thermal Engineering 39 (2012) 45e52

[6] A. Ward, P. Hobbs, P. Holliman, D. Jones, Optimisation of the anaerobic digestion

of agricultural resources, Bioresources Technology 99 (17) (2008) 7928e7940.
[7] W. Rudolf, Industrial Wastes, Their Disposal and Treatment, Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York, 1953.
[8] H. Kang, P. Weiland, Ultimate anaerobic biodegradability of some agroindustrial residues, Bioresources Technology 43 (2) (1993) 107e111.
[9] R. Kizilkaya, B. Bayrakli, Effects of N-enriched sewage sludge on soil enzyme
activities, Applied Soil Ecology 30 (3) (2005) 192e202.
[10] R. Braun, A. Wellinger, Task 37 - energy from biogas and landll gas 2003.
http://www.iea-biogas.net/ (accessed 16.06.2010).
[11] S. Campanari, L. Boncompagni, E. Macchi, Microturbines and trigeneration:
optimization strategies and multiple engine conguration effects, Journal of
Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power (TRANS ASME) 126 (1) (2004)
92e101.
[12] P. Maehner, Kinetik der Biogasproduktion aus nachwachsenden Rohstoffen
und Glle, PhD thesis, Humbold-Universitahet zu Berlin, Berlin, 2007.
[13] DECC, http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/funding/funding_ops/funding_
ops.aspx, accessed 09.12.2011
[14] The Brewers of Europe, Beer Statistics 2010 Edition (2010) Brussels, Belgium.

[15] National Statistics, Quarterly Energy Prices September 2011, Department of

Energy and Climate Change, UK, 2011.
[16] U. Ben-Hamed, H. Seddighi, K. Thomas, Economic returns of using brewerys
spent grain in animal feed, world academy of science, Engineering and
Technology 74 (2011) 701e704.
[17] AGCO GmbH, Fendt 700 Vario, Fendt Maketing, Marktoberdorf, Germany,
2011.
[18] The Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2011, DEFRA, 2011.
[19] NNFCC biogas calculator 2011, http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.php/adcalculator.html (accessed 15.05.2011).
[20] B. Sturm, Y.D. Wang, Y Huang, Y. Ammar, S. Joyce, A.P. Roskilly, Energy
Generation from Bio-wastes in a Brewery e A Case Study, Proceedings of the
SET 2010 9th International Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies,
24e27. August 2010, RE 222, Shanghai, China, 2010.
[21] AOAC, Ofcial Methods of Analysis, thirteenth ed. Association of Ofcial
Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C, 1980.
[22] J. Clemens, M. Trimborn, P. Weiland, B. Amon, Mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions by anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry, Agriculture, Economics &
Environment 112 (2e3) (2006) 171e177.