Perspective

Biogas upgrading technology

overview, comparison
and perspectives for the future
Fredric Bauer, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Tobias Persson, Swedish Gas Technology Center, Malm, Sweden
Christian Hulteberg, Lund University and Hulteberg Chemistry & Engineering, Malm, Sweden
Daniel Tamm, BioMil, Gteborg, Sweden

Received March 18, 2013; revised May 20, 2013; and accepted May 28, 2013
View online July 11, 2013 at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com); DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1423;
Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013)

Abstract: The utilization of biogas produced from organic materials such as agricultural wastes
or manure is increasing. However, the raw biogas contains a large share of carbon dioxide which
must be removed before utilization in many applications, for example, using the gas as vehi-
cle fuel. The process biogas upgrading can be performed with several technologies: water
scrubbing, organic solvent scrubbing, amine scrubbing, pressure swing adsorption (PSA), and gas
separation membranes. This perspective presents the technologies that are used commercially
for biogas upgrading today, recent developments in the field and compares the technologies with
regard to aspects such as technology maturity, investment cost, energy demand and consumables.
Emerging technologies for small-scale upgrading and future applications of upgraded biogas
such as liquefied biogas are also discussed. It shows that the market situation has changed rap-
idly in recent years, from being totally dominated by pressure swing adsorption (PSA) and water
scrubbing to being more balanced with new technologies (amine scrubbing) reaching significant
market shares. There are significant economies of scale for all the technologies investigated,
the specific investment costs are similar for plants with a throughput capacity of 1500 Nm3 raw
biogas per hour or larger. Biogas production is increasing in Europe and around the globe, and
so is the interest in the efficient use of upgraded biogas as vehicle fuel or in other applications.
The market for biogas upgrading will most likely be characterized by harder competition with
the establishment of new upgrading technologies and further optimization of the mature ones to
decrease operation costs. 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Keywords: biogas; biogas upgrading; CO2 removal; physical scrubbing; chemical scrubbing; pressure
swing adsorption; gas separation membranes

Correspondence to: Fredric Bauer, Lund University, Dept of Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 124 Lund SE-221 00, Sweden.
E-mail: fredric.bauer@chemeng.lth.se

2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 499
F Bauer et al. Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies

Introduction described by the research literature, a project was initi-

ated in 2012 by the Swedish Gas Technology Centre to
Background collect and thoroughly review the latest available data on
biogas upgrading and compare the different technolo-
decade ago, only a limited number of plants for

A biogas upgrading were in operation, and the technol-

ogies available were still immature. Since then, the
development has been fast, with regard to both technology
gies with respect to investment cost, energy demand,
consumables, future development, and applications.
The project was performed in cooperation with manu-
facturers of biogas upgrading equipment to ensure that
and market, and much new experience has been gained in the data reflect current state-of-the-art and not plants
the meantime. Biogas upgrading is, in this context, under- delivered and installed several years ago. End-users of
stood to be the removal of carbon dioxide from biogas to upgrading equipment were also contacted during the
produce a gas with a high methane content, suitable for project and supplied valuable information about the
substituting natural gas in different applications, for exam- operation of the upgrading plants. The stakeholder group
ple as vehicle fuel or for heat and power production. providing the data presented in this perspective and
A first report on biogas upgrading was published by
reviewing the report comprised 22 different organiza-
Persson ten years ago, giving a comprehensive view on
tions from Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, and the
the situation at that time.1 During recent years, there have
Netherlands, representing mainly manufacturers but also
been a number of publications on the subject. A review of
users of biogas upgrading equipment. The data presented
biogas purification processes was published by Abatzoglou
are thus not data found in the research literature but rep-
and Boivin.2 The paper however mostly focuses on the
resent what can be expected from state-of-the-art biogas
removal of contaminants such a hydrogen sulfide, ammo-
upgrading equipment at the time of publishing. Th is per-
nia, and siloxanes, whereas the removal of carbon dioxide
spective presents the specific investment cost and energy
is only briefly mentioned. Weiland presented an overview
demand within intervals covering all data collected in
of the whole biogas production and utilization chain, but
this project. The cost and performance of a specific plant
did not present any details on upgrading technologies.3
will depend on site-specific circumstances, manufac-
A paper on biomethane production by Ryckebosch et
turer, and investment options. The approach to actively
al. focused mainly on the removal of other compounds
engage the manufacturers and end users, i.e. stakeholder-
than carbon dioxide.4 Another paper by Bekkering et al.
engagement-based research, proved to be very successful
excluded an economic evaluation of the different upgrad-
in this project. As the project was fi nanced and mainly
ing options, and did not present updated data regarding
performed by Swedish actors, the focus has been on the
the technical performance of the different upgrading
European market, but the results are likely to be highly
technologies.5 A very ambitious report on the subject was
interesting for researchers in other countries as well.
published by the Fraunhofer Umsicht institute.6 The report
Th is perspective summarizes the work in this project and
does however strongly focus on the German market and
highlights the key results of interest to researchers in the
emphasizes legislation and economy rather than techni-
field of biogas utilization and distribution.
cal details. It has a rather broad view on gas upgrading,
The technologies that are used commercially for
including removal of sulfur and other compounds, but
biogas upgrading today water scrubbing, organic
does not include all technologies used commercially today
solvent scrubbing, amine scrubbing, pressure swing
for CO2 removal. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
adsorption, and membrane technology are brief ly
also published a short report on biogas upgrading tech-
described in the next section. Cryogenic upgrading has
nologies; the report covered many technologies but did
been omitted as the technology is not yet reliable and
not intend to give detailed descriptions of the technical or
in stable operation to the authors knowledge, only
economical performance of the technologies.7 In 2012, a
one plant using this technology is in operation today.
brief review of conventional upgrading technologies was
Thereafter follows a comparison of the technologies
published by the Vienna University of Technology.8
with regard to parameters such as maturity, investment
cost and energy demand, then a section on future appli-
Scope and outline cations for upgraded biogas. Finally a few concluding
As the most recent developments of the technologies and remarks on the development of the biogas market are
markets for biogas upgrading did not seem to have been presented.

500 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
Technologies for biogas upgrading
Water scrubbing
In a water scrubber, carbon dioxide is absorbed from
the raw biogas by the water in the absorption column at
high pressure. The carbon dioxide is then released from
the water again in the desorption column, by using air at
atmospheric pressure as stripper medium. Earlier, water
scrubbers operating without recirculation of the water
were built.1 Some of them are still in operation today,
but modern plants have a recirculating system (Fig. 1).
Units with a recirculating water system have a lower water
demand and more stable operation.
The biogas, at 610 bar(a) and up to 40 C, is injected
into the bottom of the absorption column, which is nor-
mally fi lled with a random packing to increase the gas-liq-
uid-contact, and water is injected at the top of the column.
Countercurrent flow of gas and liquid is crucial to ensure a
high efficiency, i.e. minimize the energy consumption and
methane loss and maximize the CO2 removal rate. The
carbon dioxide and a small share of methane are physi-
cally absorbed in the water. The selectivity of the process
depends on the much higher solubility (approx. 25 times)
of carbon dioxide in water compared to methane.
In order to minimize the methane slip, i.e. the methane
lost to the off-gas stream, from the water scrubber, the
pressure is first decreased to around 2.53.5 bar(a) in a
flash column. The main share of absorbed methane, as well
as a small share of the carbon dioxide, is released from
the water and recirculated to the compressor and mixed
with the raw biogas entering the scrubber. The water then
enters the top of the desorption column, where the carbon
Figure 1. Simplified process flow diagram of a recirculating water scrubber.
2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
F Bauer et al.
dioxide is desorbed, while air enters from the bottom to
increase the driving force for CO2 desorption by lower-
ing the partial pressure. The water that is transported to
the desorption column will contain the main part of the
carbon dioxide but less than 1% of the methane in the raw
biogas. A water scrubber designed to upgrade 1000 Nm3/h
raw biogas will typically need to circulate about 200 m3/h
water if operated at 8 bar(a) and 20 C. Cooling the water
further will decrease the needed water flow, whereas
decreasing the operating pressure will increase the needed
water flow. However, the methane concentration in the
raw biogas has no influence on the needed water flow; the
water flow is only dependent on the total gas flow through
the absorption column, the pressure and the temperature
dependent solubility constant of carbon dioxide.
Organic solvent scrubbing
Several organic solvents can be used to absorb carbon diox-
ide, for example methanol, N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP)
and polyethylene glycol ethers (PEG). In the context of
biogas upgrading, the most common choice is the Genosorb
process which uses a mixture of dimethyl ethers of poly-
ethylene glycol as solvent. The process itself is similar to the
water-scrubbing process as it is also a physical scrubbing
process, however the solubility of carbon dioxide is about
five times higher in the organic solvent than in water.9 Due
to the higher solubility of carbon dioxide in the solvent, the
volume of solvent that must be recirculated in the system
decreases significantly compared to a water scrubber. An
organic solvent scrubber system is shown in Fig. 2.
The biogas is compressed to 68 bar(a) and thereaf-
ter cooled before it is injected into the bottom of the
501
F Bauer et al.
Figure 2. Simplified process flow diagram of an organic solvent scrubber.
absorption column. The organic solvent is added to the
top of the column so that the gas and the liquid have a
counter current flow. The organic solvent is cooled before
being injected into the column to keep the absorption col-
umn around 20 C. The organic solvent that is leaving the
bottom of the absorption column is heat exchanged with
the organic solvent that will be injected to the top of the
column. Thereafter, the organic solvent is injected into the
flash column, where the pressure is decreased. The main
part of the dissolved methane, as well as some carbon
dioxide, is released and circulated back to the compres-
sor. To regenerate the organic solvent, it is further heated
to around 40 C before entering the desorption column.
The solvent is injected into the top of the column and the
pressure is decreased to 1 bar(a). All heat required in the
process is waste heat, which can be generated by the com-
pressor and the regenerative thermal oxidation (RTO) unit
that oxidizes the methane in the off-gas.
Due to the anticorrosive characteristics of the organic
solvent, the pipework does not have to be made of stainless
steel. Further, the low freezing point of the organic solvent
makes it possible for the system to operate at temperatures
down to 20 C without supplying extra heat.
Amine scrubbing
The use of reactive systems for removing CO2 from
biogas is not a new notion, but has been less common
in this context compared to other technologies such as
PSA and water scrubbing. The synopsis of features of
the technology is to use a reagent that chemically binds
to the CO2 molecule, removing it from the gas. This is
most commonly performed using a water solution of
amines. The most common amines used historically for
502 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
the purpose of sour gas treatment (CO2 and H2S removal)
are methyldiethanolamine (MDEA), diethanolamine
(DEA) and monoethanolamine (MEA). Today, a common
option is to use a mixture of MDEA and piperazine (PZ),
which is sometimes called activated MDEA (aMDEA).10
The aMDEA has a significantly higher absorption capac-
ity compared to using only MDEA, the reason being that
secondary and primary amines such as PZ have high reac-
tion rates for CO2 absorption and an ability to react the
CO2 further with the tertiary amine (MDEA), which with
its relatively low heat of reaction makes the regeneration
energy efficient.11,12
In general terms, an amine scrubber system (Fig. 3)
consists of an absorber, were the CO2 is removed from the
biogas, and a stripper in which the CO2 is removed from the
amine solution by addition of heat. The raw biogas enters
the absorber from the bottom. In the absorber the gas is
contacted with the amine solution flowing from the top. The
CO2 in the biogas reacts with the amine and is absorbed
in the liquid phase. This is an exothermic reaction, heating
the solution from 2040 C to 4565 C. The absorption is
favored by low temperatures from a thermodynamic stand-
point, as the solubility of carbon dioxide in water increases
with decreasing temperature, but at higher temperatures
from a kinetic standpoint, as the reaction rate between
carbon dioxide and the amine increases with increasing
temperature. The product gas stream exits from the top. The
operating pressure of the absorber is 12 bar(a).13
The liquid is then, via a heat exchanger, pumped to the
top of the stripper column, in which the liquid is distrib-
uted and passed through a packing material where it is
contacted with steam and CO2 is released throughout
thestripper column. The bottom part of the stripper col-
umn is equipped with a reboiler in which heat is added
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies F Bauer et al.

Figure 3. Simplified process flow diagram of an amine scrubber.

at 120150C and part of the amine solution is boiled.
The purpose of the reboiler is two-fold it provides the
required heat of reaction for the release of CO2 from the
amine and it generates steam which lowers the partial
pressure of the CO2 in the column which improves the
kinetics of the desorption. The stripper pressure is slightly
higher than the absorber pressure, usually 1.53 bar(a).13
Pressure swing adsorption
PSA is a dry method used to separate gases via physi-
cal properties, i.e. the physical interaction between the
gas molecules and the adsorbent material.14 The adsorb-
ents used are porous solids with high specific areas to
maximize the gas-adsorbent contact. The adsorbents are
either of the equilibrium type, adsorbing a larger load
of carbon dioxide than methane, or of the kinetic type,
adsorbing carbon dioxide faster than methane due to con-
trolled diff usion rates. Common materials are activated
carbons, natural and synthetic zeolites, titanosilicates,
silica gels, and carbon molecular sieves.15,16 The adsorbents
are commonly irreversibly damaged by hydrogen sulfide,
which thus must be removed from the gas before the PSA
columns.17 Figure 4 shows a simplified process flow dia-
gram for a PSA unit.
A PSA column cycle principally consists of four phases:
pressurization, feed, blowdown, and purge. During the

Figure 4. Simplified process flow diagram of a pressure swing adsorption unit.

2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 503
F Bauer et al.
feed phase, the column is fed with raw biogas pressurized
to about 410 bar(a). The carbon dioxide is adsorbed in the
column bed while the methane passes through the column
unretained by the adsorbent. When the bed is saturated
with carbon dioxide, the inlet is closed and the blowdown
phase is initiated. The pressure is decreased to ambient
or lower pressure to desorb the carbon dioxide from the
adsorbent and the carbon dioxide rich gas is evacuated
from the column. As the column in the beginning of this
phase was fi lled with raw biogas, some methane is lost
with the desorbed carbon dioxide. At the lowest column
pressure, the purge phase is initiated. Upgraded gas is
blown through the column to empty it from all the carbon
dioxide that has desorbed from the column bed. The col-
umn is regenerated and can be repressurized, either with
raw biogas or with upgraded gas.14,18
As the cycle consists of several phases in which the col-
umn is not fed with raw biogas, a continuously operating
PSA unit has several parallel columns, designs with two
or four columns are common. Thus one of the columns
is always engaged in adsorption while the other(s) are
in different phases of regeneration. To reduce the loss of
methane from the process the columns are usually inter-
connected so that the exiting gas flow from one column
during blowdown is used to pressurize another column
in a pressure equalization phase, which also reduces the
energy consumption of the process. PSA unit character-
istics include feed pressure, purging pressure, adsorbent,
cycle time, and column interconnectedness, among other
things. When using several columns there are many ways
of modifying the process cycle to increase the yield of
methane from raw biogas to upgraded gas, reduce the
methane loss and reduce energy demand.14,19
Membranes
A membrane is a dense fi lter that can separate the com-
ponents in a gas, most often based on molecular size.
Membranes have been used for CO2 removal in natural gas
processing for about three decades, the technology is thus
Figure 5. Simplified process design for a membrane upgrading process.
504 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
well known.20 The membranes used for biogas upgrad-
ing retain methane while the carbon dioxide is able to
permeate through the membrane. During the separation
of carbon dioxide from the raw gas, other compounds
such as water vapor and hydrogen are removed from the
biomethane. Although the technology has been used for
several years for biogas upgrading, the developments
of more selective membranes and process designs with
higher methane recovery rates during recent years have
increased the interest in membranes and made the tech-
nology a viable alternative to the other technologies. The
advantages usually presented for membrane technology is
the lack of demand for water or chemicals and the ability
to scale down the process without large efficiency losses.21
The process for upgrading biogas with membrane technol-
ogy is shown in Fig. 5.
The biogas is first cleaned from important contaminants,
for example, water and hydrogen sulfide, before it is com-
pressed to 520 bar(a) and fed to the membrane unit. In
the membrane itself, the carbon dioxide is separated from
the main gas stream as it permeates through the mem-
brane wall.
Different process designs for membrane gas separation
units are available today, depending on the manufacturer
of the system and the membranes being used, using single
membranes or several membranes in a cascade set-up with
recirculation.21 The simplest design option includes no
internal circulation of the gas and therefore lower energy
consumption for the compression. The methane loss can
be rather high when using only a single membrane and it
is thus important to have cost-efficient treatment of the
off-gas. The second design option increases the methane
recovery by using double membranes. The permeate from
the first membrane is removed from the system while
the permeate from the second membrane is recirculated
back to the compressor to minimize the methane slip. In
a third possible design, the retentate from the first stage is
polished in the second membrane stage to obtain a prod-
uct gas with a higher quality. Additionally the permeate
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
of the first stage is polished in a third membrane stage to
minimize the methane content in the off-gas. The perme-
ate stream of the second stage and the retentate of the
third stage are then mixed and recycled to the compressor.
As the membrane upgrading technology has developed,
the more advanced design options have become more
accepted. Today, the second and third design options are
the ones most commonly offered by the manufacturers.
Comparison
Technology maturity and market
development
The technologies which dominate today are water scrub-
bing, PSA, and amine scrubbing. This situation differs
significantly to the situation a few years ago when amine
scrubbing was still considered a rather unestablished tech-
nology, for example, it was not considered commercial in
the Fraunhofer study.6 Organic solvent scrubbing is also a
mature technology, but still has only a smaller share of the
biogas upgrading market with no clear trend whether this
share is increasing or decreasing. The development of these
Cryogenic separation
200
Membrane separation
Organic solvent scrubber
Amine scrubber
PSA
150
Number of upgrading plants
Water scrubber
100
50
0
<2001 2001 2002 2003
Figure 6. The growth of biogas upgrading plants. The figure shows upgrading plants that are in operation today
listed by year of start-up and grouped by technology.22
2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
F Bauer et al.
technologies relates mainly to optimization and smaller
adjustments, for example gas recirculation schemes, pres-
sure levels, and flow rates. PSA can be further developed
by new, more selective and less sensitive adsorbents.
Metal-organic frameworks are materials which previ-
ously have been used to store gases such as hydrogen, but
they also show a large potential for use in PSA systems.
Further, new process cycles, for example with several pres-
sure equilibrium phases, are being developed to optimize
methane yield and energy demand. Membrane technol-
ogy for biogas upgrading is less mature, but is rapidly
gaining interest and market shares. The main challenge
for some manufacturers of membrane upgrading equip-
ment is to show stable operation for a longer time and
economic feasibility for large installations with the latest,
most advanced designs. Questions have also been raised
regarding the lifetime of the membranes, which is com-
monly claimed to be about 510 years. Some of the newer
membrane types have not been tested in operation for
more than a few years, which makes it difficult to state the
lifetime with certainty.
The number of upgrading plants in operation has
increased rapidly over the last decade (Fig. 6). In the early
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year of commissioning
505
F Bauer et al.
2000s, only about 20 upgrading plants were operating
globally, whereas 2012 the number has increased by a
factor of ten, to more than 220 upgrading plants, accord-
ing to a list continuously updated by IEA Bioenergy Task
37.22 The majority of the upgrading plants is however still
concentrated in Germany (96) and Sweden (55). Then a
large gap follows to the other countries on the list, the next
being Switzerland (16), the Netherlands (14), the USA (12)
and then a number of European countries with just a few
plants, together with Japan, Canada, and South Korea.22 A
decade ago, the choice was mainly between using a water
scrubber or a pressure swing adsorption process for biogas
upgrading. These two technologies still cover the majority
of the market, with a 40% market share for water scrubbers
and 23% share for PSA. However, over the last five years,
amine scrubbers have become increasingly popular and
today about 22% of the upgrading plants use this technol-
ogy. Organic solvent scrubbers have throughout the years
had a smaller but stable market share and today cover about
7% of the market, which is marginally less than the share
for membrane technology which is about 8% and increas-
ing. Cryogenic upgrading technology is only utilized by a
single plant, thus reaching less than 0.5% market share.
Gas purity
When comparing the upgrading technologies with respect
to product gas purity, the most relevant parameter is
the ability to remove carbon dioxide and produce a gas
with a high methane content. All the technologies yield
a gas suitable for use as vehicle fuel, i.e. with a methane
concentration of 97%.23 Higher purity requirements do
however come at a cost of increased energy demand and/
or decreased total recovery, i.e. increased losses. However,
other compounds may also be present in the incoming
gas, for example if air is introduced anywhere in the sys-
tem. None of the technologies will remove the nitrogen
from the gas in their standard configuration. Oxygen is
not removed by physical scrubbers whereas the perform-
ance of amine scrubbers will be irreversibly damaged by
oxidation of the amines.13 Membranes are able to partly
remove oxygen from the gas. PSA units with advanced
kinetic adsorbents do however have the possibility to at
least partly remove oxygen and nitrogen from the biogas.
This means that if the raw biogas contains air, all the
nitrogen in the gas will end up in the product gas and the
product purity will thus decrease. By using more com-
plex adsorbent bed configurations it is possible to remove
both nitrogen and oxygen with PSA technology, but it is a
costly extra investment for a minor purification issue. Air
506 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
is commonly only present if biological sulfur removal is
used or when upgrading landfi ll gas. As mentioned ear-
lier, all the technologies except the water scrubber require
pre-treatment of the raw biogas to remove H2S which will
otherwise damage the adsorber bed and the membranes,
and in the amine scrubber case it is removed to get a CO2
stream with high purity that can be used for other pur-
poses. A thorough investigation of the presence of other
contaminants in the raw gas, the effect on upgrading
equipment and the presence in the upgraded biomethane
has been published earlier.24
All the reviewed technologies have the opportunity to ful-
fill the requirements for compressed natural gas vehicle fuel,
for example, as defined by the Swedish standard SS 155438,
requiring the methane content of the fuel gas to be 97 2%.
Discussions on establishing a common European standard
for grid distribution are ongoing and there are some indica-
tions that this standard will require 98% methane in the
product gas, which the five technologies will also manage to
comply with, although it may require some re-optimization.
Investment costs
The specific investment cost for a biogas upgrading plant
is largely dependent on the throughput capacity of the
plant, i.e. there are significant economies of scale (Fig. 7).
As seen in Fig. 7, the investment cost for an amine scrub-
ber is slightly higher in the lower end of the spectrum, but
converges with the investment cost for other technologies
at higher throughputs. On the other hand, the investment
cost for membrane upgrading plants is slightly lower than
the others in the low to mid-scale range, but seems to not
benefit as much from the economies of scale as the other
options. There is little to no difference between the dif-
ferent scrubber technologies and PSA for larger plants,
i.e. with a raw biogas capacity of more than 1500 Nm3/h.
The numbers presented in Fig. 7 should be understood as
indicative, presenting the specific investment cost for an
upgrading plant in its basic form. Supplementary equip-
ment and case specific requirements may cause the invest-
ment costs to differ from these values for a specific unit.
The investment cost graph presents the specific investment
cost for each technology within an interval correspond-
ing to the thickness of the line as the cost for a specific
plant will depend on site-specific circumstances, extra
investment options and manufacturer.
Energy demand
As is the case for the specific investment costs, the spe-
cific energy demand for the upgrading processes seems
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
6000
5000
Specific investment cost (/Nm3/h)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 500
Capacity raw biogas (Nm3/h)
Figure 7. Comparison of specific investment costs for the biogas upgrading technologies and the dependence on
raw biogas throughput capacity.
to decrease with increasing scale of the upgrading unit,
although it may also vary depending on parameters,
for example, ambient temperature and operating point.
Further, as described above the liquid flow in the physi-
cal scrubber is independent on the raw gas composition,
making the energy demand independent on raw gas
composition, whereas PSA units have a clearly decreas-
ing energy demand with decreasing carbon dioxide
content in the raw biogas. Complete data sets enabling
the comparison of the specific energy demand for dif-
ferent plant sizes for all technologies were not available.
The specific power consumption of a water scrubber is
approximately 0.3 kWh/Nm3 raw biogas for a small unit
(400 Nm3/h) but decreases towards 0.2 kWh/Nm3 in large
units (2000 Nm3/h). The water scrubber also has a rather
large seasonal variation in the electricity demand due
to the significantly higher cooling demand during sum-
mer. The electricity demand span for PSA units is about
0.20.3 kWh/Nm3 with larger units being close to the
lower limit which is applicable also for membrane units,
although the electricity demand for these depends highly
on membrane configuration, required methane purity and
2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
F Bauer et al.
Membrane
Organic solvent scrubber
Amine scrubber
PSA
Water scrubber
1000 1500 2000
accepted methane slip. Increasing demands on methane
purity and decreased slip requires increased recircula-
tion which increases the electricity demand. Amine
scrubbers have a significantly lower electricity demand,
about 0.120.14 kWh/Nm3 depending on plant size, but
amine scrubbers also have an external heat requirement
of about 0.55 kWh/Nm3. The heat is needed to regener-
ate the amines which have reacted with carbon dioxide,
but also to boil the water, which makes the heat demand
rather insensitive to raw gas methane content. The heat is
most commonly supplied by combusting a part of the raw
biogas; 80% of that heat may be reused in low-temperature
applications such as substrate pre-heating or heating of
the anaerobic digester. The heat needed to desorb the CO2
in the organic physical scrubber is supplied by a regen-
erative thermal oxidizer which is an integral part of the
upgrading plant, enabling the efficient use of the energy
in the off-gas but also reducing the methane recovery rate
slightly. Catalytic or thermal oxidation of methane in the
off-gas from water scrubbers, membrane and PSA units
can also be used to heat the anaerobic digester, but in
these cases the oxidizer is a supplement to the upgrading
507
F Bauer et al. Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies

0.6

0.5
Energy demand [kWh/Nm3]

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Water scrubber Amine scrubber PSA Membrane Organic solvent scrubber

Figure 8. Specific electricity demand for biogas upgrading per Nm3 raw biogas for all upgrading technologies. The
specific external heat demand for amine scrubbers is shown in light blue.

unit. The specific energy demand of each technology is
shown in Fig. 8. The electricity demand for each technol-
ogy is shown with a weighted average and an interval. It
is however also important to remember that the product
gas is available at different pressures from the technolo-
gies. Depending on the intended application, the pressure
requirements may be very strict and a higher gas pressure
after upgrading may thus in some cases limit the need for
further compression before the final application For use as
vehicle fuel, the product gas must however in all cases be
further compressed to about 250 bar(a).
Consumables
continuously replaced to not accumulate trace compounds
from the biogas. The water consumption is about 20200
L/h, depending on plant size and operating conditions.
Amine scrubbers may also demand anti-foaming agents,
and further, the amine scrubbers have a low demand for
make-up amine. The organic solvent scrubbers commonly
have an annual make-up demand of solvent that is lost to
the atmosphere during operation. As most technologies
preferably remove H2S before the upgrading process, there
is commonly a need for activated carbon for sulfur absorp-
tion. Water scrubbers generally absorb the H2S as well as the
CO2 and thus the activated carbon is redundant, unless local
environmental regulations require the capture of sulfur.

For all the technologies, the consumables demand is low.

New applications and possibilities
Water and amine scrubbers may have a demand for anti-
foaming agents as foaming, which reduces the contact
for the future
between gas and liquid and thus the absorption efficiency,
sometimes is a problem. The exact reasons and parameters
Small-scale biogas upgrading
involved in creating foaming, however, are not properly To upgrade biogas in a small scale (less than 200 Nm3/h)
investigated and understood. Further, although water scrub- has been too expensive to be really interesting, due to high
bers today recirculate the water, a part of the volume is specific investment costs of the upgrading equipment. For

508 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
a plant with low capacity, more or less the same number
of sensors, analysis equipment, control systems and valves
are needed as for a plant with much larger capacity. The
dimensions of the pipes and valves will be smaller, but the
specific investment cost will be high. Conventional water
scrubbing, PSA and biogas upgrading with membranes are
all available in small scale on the market today.25 There are
however also new approaches to small-scale applications
that differ from conventional approaches.
In Finland, Metener has developed a special type of
water scrubber for small-scale batchwise biogas upgrad-
ing.* The main difference to conventional water scrubbing
is the very high pressure (150 bar(a)) in the two absorp-
tion columns in the system. Biomethane is driven from
the absorption column with water, so at the end of the
batch cycle, the column is completely fi lled with water.
Thereafter, the column is evacuated and the cycle starts
anew. The water is thereafter treated as in a conventional
water scrubber, with a flash tank to minimize the meth-
ane slip and a desorption column to remove the carbon
dioxide. Due to the high pressure, the columns are much
smaller than in a conventional water scrubber system.
However, the pressure introduces new requirements on the
materials and components.
The Swedish company Biosling is developing a water
scrubber which uses a rotating coil in which the com-
pression and scrubbing occurs. Biogas and water with a
pressure of 2 bar(a) are alternately fed into coils of plastic
hoses that are rotating. The rotation increases the pres-
sure up to about 10 bar(a) and most of the carbon dioxide
will be dissolved in the water inside these coils. A product
gas with <97% CH4, which is commonly requested on the
market today, cannot be reached by just using the coils for
upgrading, as the process does not operate with counter
current flows. Thus, a small conventional water scrubber
must be used to remove the remaining carbon dioxide in a
final polishing step. The Biosling could be more suited for
applications in which a lower methane purity is sufficient
as the unit without the final polishing scrubber would
have a lower investment cost.
Other options that are being investigated are technolo-
gies such as in situ methane enrichment and the possibil-
ity to use wood ash as an absorbent for the carbon dioxide.
In the in situ methane enrichment process the carbon
dioxide is stripped from the digester sludge continuously
during the anaerobic digestion, thus increasing the meth-
ane content of the raw biogas leaving the digester, however
*www.metener.fi
www.biosling.se
2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
F Bauer et al.
not to vehicle fuel quality.26 The process has been tested in
lab scale and is being evaluated at a pilot facility. The new
wood ash based absorption process utilizes calcium oxide
(CaO) present in the wood ash. The CaO is carbonated to
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) by the carbon dioxide in the
raw biogas, yielding an upgraded gas with very high meth-
ane concentration. Initial studies have shown that it is
possible to capture the carbon dioxide with the wood ash,
but for large scale operation very large volumes of ash are
needed.27 Thus the method would probably be more suited
for smaller applications. Further research is needed to take
the process from proof-of-concept to a feasible upgrading
process.
Liquefied biogas
The introduction of liquefied biogas (LBG) to the market
has been delayed several times but now LBG is available in
limited quantities. In 2012, operation started at Lidkping
biogas in Sweden, one of the first large-scale production
sites for LBG, although several plants started liquefac-
tion of landfi ll gas earlier. Although the combination of
liquefaction and cryogenic upgrading technologies has
been proposed to offer a suitable integration of processes,
LBG is today produced from conventionally upgraded
biogas, 28 which was the projected path a few years ago and
will probably remain the most viable process path in the
near future.29 Cryogenic upgrading technology, which has
been viewed as a perfect match for LBG production, is still
not available for full-scale commercial operation and will
probably not be for another couple of years. LBG offers a
way of significantly increasing the energy density of biogas
and thus facilitate the transition to biogas for several new
applications, including long-distance transports. However,
the large-scale production of LBG in Europe is probably
several years away, not unlikely even a decade. Although
the trade of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is similar
to LBG, increases globally, the smaller scale applications
used in for example maritime and road transport appli-
cations are still rare. Typical applications are terminals
serving a few large customers with large demands, for
example, industrial clusters or ferry lines. The use of LBG
for heavy road transports is an interesting future applica-
tion, requiring LBG infrastructure at strategic nodes along
important highways.
Discussion and conclusions
The technologies which are dominating biogas upgrad-
ing today are water scrubbing, PSA and amine scrubbing.
509
F Bauer et al.
Thus, the situation has changed considerably compared
to only a few years ago when amine scrubbing was still
an unestablished technology. Organic solvent scrubbers
retain a minor share of the upgrading market. Upgrading
using membrane technology is now available and is rapidly
gaining interest from the market actors. Although LBG is
now being produced from conventionally upgraded biogas,
the cryogenic upgrading technologies are still struggling
with operational problems. The large interest in cryogenic
technologies by different stakeholders shows that the tech-
nology may break through within a short period of time, if
the problems are properly resolved.
Biogas production is increasing in Europe and around
the globe, and so is the interest in the efficient use of
upgraded biogas as vehicle fuel or in other applications.
The market for biogas upgrading will most likely be
characterized by harder competition with the establish-
ment of new upgrading technologies and further opti-
mization of the mature ones to decrease operation costs.
Important issues for the future development of the biogas
market relate to the implementation of new policy instru-
ments. The work with a common European standard
for gas distributed through the existing gas grids is one
issue that possibly can have a large effect on possibilities
for distribution and consumption of biogas. Except for
optimization of the upgrading plants to minimize the
need for energy and resources, the further integration of
biogas upgrading with end-user applications is interest-
ing for future development of the technologies. The future
further holds a possibility that the technologies devel-
oped for biogas upgrading will be used for upgrading of
synthetic natural gas from gasification of biomass. The
fi nal report 30 from this research project is freely avail-
able for download from the homepage of the Swedish Gas
Technology Centre.
References
1. Persson M, Utvrdering av Uppgraderingstekniker fr Biogas.
SGC Rapport 142. Swedish Gas Technology Centre, Malm
(2003).
2. Abatzoglou N and Boivin S, A review of biogas purification
processes. Biofuel Bioprod Bioref 3:4271 (2009).
3. Weiland P, Biogas production: Current state and perspectives.
Appl Microbiol Biot 85:849860 (2010).
4. Ryckebosch E, Drouillon M and Vervaeren H, Techniques for
transformation of biogas to biomethane. Biomass Bioenerg
35:16331645 (2011).
5. Bekkering J, Broekhuis AA and van Gemert WJT, Optimisation
of a green gas supply chaina review. Bioresource Technol
101:450456 (2010).
6. Urban W, Lohmann H and Girod K, Technologien und
Kosten der Biogasaufbereitung und Einspeisung in das
510 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies
Erdgasnetz. Fraunhofer-Institut fr Umwelt-, Sicherheits- und
Energietechnik UMSICHT, Oberhausen (2009).
7. Petersson A and Wellinger A, Biogas upgrading technologies
developments and innovations. [Online]. IEA Bioenergy Task
37 (2009). Available at http://tinyurl.com/iea-biogas-2009
[June 20, 2013].
8. Vienna University of Technology, Biogas to Biomethane
Technology Review. [Online]. Vienna University of Technology,
Vienna (2012). Available at: http://tinyurl.com/Vienna-review
[March 6, 2013].
9. Tock L, Gassner M and Marchal F, Thermochemical produc-
tion of liquid fuels from biomass: Thermo-economic modeling,
process design and process integration analysis. Biomass
Bioenerg 34:18381854 (2010).
10. Kohl AL and Nielsen RB, Gas Purification. Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston, pp. 4856 (1997).
11. Bishnoi S and Rochelle GT, Absorption of carbon dioxide into
aqueous piperazine: Reaction kinetics, mass transfer and
solubility. Chem Eng Sci 55:55315543 (2000).
12. Zhang X, Zhang C-F, Qin S-J and Zheng, Z-S, A kinetics study
on the absorption of carbon Dioxide into a Mixed Aqueous
Solution of Methyldiethanolamine and Piperazine. Ind Eng
Chem Res 40:37853791 (2001).
13. Abry RG and DuPart RS, Amine plant troubleshooting and
optimization. Hydrocarb Process April:4150 (1995).
14. Grande CA, Biogas upgrading by pressure swing adsorption,
in Biofuels Engineering Process Technology, ed by Santos
Bernardes MA, pp 6584. DOI: 10.5772/18428 (2011).
15. Alonso-Vicario A, Ochoa-Gmez JR, Gil-Ro S, Gmez-
Jimnez-Aberasturi O, Ramrez-Lpez CA, Torrecilla-Soria
J et al., Purification and upgrading of biogas by pressure
swing adsorption on synthetic and natural zeolites. Micropor
Mesopor Mat 134:100107 (2010).
16. Santos MPS, Grande CA and Rodrigues AE, Pressure swing
adsorption for biogas upgrading. Effect of recycling streams in
pressure swing adsorption design. Ind Eng Chem Res 50:974
985 (2011).
17. Zhou WH, Guo JP and Tan HY, Upgrading of methane from
biogas by pressure swing adsorption. Adv Mater Res 236
238:268271 (2011).
18. Rege SU, Yang RT, Qian K and Buzanowski MA, Air-
prepurification by pressure swing adsorption using single/
layered beds. Chem Eng Sci 56:27452759 (2001).
19. Spoorthi G, Thakur RS, Kaistha N and Rao DP, Process inten-
sification in PSA processes for upgrading synthetic landfill and
lean natural gases. Adsorption 17:121133 (2010).
20. Baker RW and Lokhandwala K, Natural gas processing with
membranes: An overview. Ind Eng Chem Res 47:21092121
(2008).
21. Makaruk A, Miltner M and Harasek M, Membrane biogas
upgrading processes for the production of natural gas substi-
tute. Sep Purif Technol 74:8392 (2010).
22. IEA Bioenergy Task 37, Upgrading Plant List. [Online]. Available
at: http://tinyurl.com/IEA-plant-list [March 6, 2013].
23. Svensson M, Utvrdering av svensk biogasstandard -
Underlag fr en framtida revision. SGC Rapport 229. Swedish
Gas Technology Centre, Malm (2011).
24. Arrhenius K and Johansson U, Characterisation of contami-
nants in biogas before and after upgrading to vehicle gas.
Perspective: Biogas upgrading technologies F Bauer et al.

SGC Rapport 246. Swedish Gas Technology Centre, Malm

(2012). Tobias Persson
25. Blom H, Mccann M and Westman J, Smskalig uppgradering Tobias Persson manages biogas
och frdling av biogas. [Online]. Agrovst, Skara (2012). research and development projects at
Available at: http://tinyurl.com/Agrovast [March 6, 2013].
the Swedish Gas Technology Centre.
26. Hansson M, Laurell J, Nordberg A, Rasmuson A, Liu J, Nistor He received a PhD in Chemical Engi-
M et al., In-situ methane enrichment of raw biogas in the neering for his research on membrane
anaerobic digestion process. SGC Rapport 280. Swedish Gas
separation processes in 2009 and
Technology Centre, Malm (2013).
later worked with developing biogas
27. Andersson J, Upgrading of biogas using ash from wood upgrading technology industrially.
fuels. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala
(2013).
28. Johansson N, Production of liquid biogas, LBG, with
cryogenic and conventional upgrading technology. Lund Christian Hulteberg
University, Lund (2008).
Christian Hulteberg is an Associate
29. hman A, Kryotekniskt behandlad flytande biogas - En utvr- Professor at the Department of Chemi-
dering med utgngspunkt i Stockholm. Lund University, Lund
cal Engineering at Lund University and
(2009).
a manager at Hulteberg Chemistry
30. Bauer F, Hulteberg C, Persson T and Tamm D, Biogas upgrad- & Engineering, developing process
ing Review of commercial technologies. SGC Rapport 270.
technology for renewable fuels and
Swedish Gas Technology Centre, Malm (2013).
chemicals.

Fredric Bauer Daniel Tamm

Fredric Bauer is a PhD student at the Daniel Tamm currently works with
Department of Chemical Engineering systems analyses and design of
at Lund University. He holds an MSc biogas plants at the Swedish company
in Sustainable Energy Systems from BioMil. He holds an MSc in Chemi-
Chalmers University of Technology. cal and Process Engineering and has
His current research relates to markets worked with biogas technology in
and processes for renewable fuels and both Germany and Sweden for several
chemicals. years.

2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd | Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 7:499511 (2013); DOI: 10.1002/bbb 511