Deploying liquid biomethane in the Dutch transport sector

University of Groningen
CIO, Center for Isotope Research
IVEM, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Master Programme Energy and Environmental Sciences
Deploying liquid biomethane in
the Dutch transport sector
Analysing economic, environmental and
organisational sustainability
Jelco Breeuwer
EES 2012-159 M

Master report of Jelco Breeuwer
Supervised by: Prof.dr. H.C. Moll (IVEM)
Dr. R.M.J. Benders (IVEM)
Dhr. R. van der Velde, Msc. (Witteveen+Bos)
University of Groningen
CIO, Center for Isotope Research
IVEM, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Nijenborgh 4
9747 AG Groningen
The Netherlands
http://www.rug.nl/fmns-research/cio
http://www.rug.nl/fmns-research/ivem

INDEX p.
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
FOREWORD
SUMMARY (EN)
SAMENVATTING (NL)
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Background 1
1.2. Problem setting 2
1.3. Production and usage of LBM 4
1.4. Research set-up 5
1.5. Structure of this report 7
2. POTENTIAL AVAILIBITY OF BIOMASS FOR LBM PRODUCTION 9
2.1. Current situation for biomass usage 9
2.1.1. Situation for the Netherlands 9
2.1.2. Situation for Overijssel 11
2.2. Biomass available for production of end-use biogas 12
2.2.1. Total potential in the Netherlands and Overijssel 13
2.2.2. Government objectives 14
2.2.3. Total overview 14
2.3. Trends and developments 15
2.3.1. Trends from the years 1990-2011 16
2.3.2. Projections to 2020 18
2.4. Scenarios for LBM production till 2020 20
3. POTENTIAL FOR LBM USAGE 23
3.1. Feasibility users stage 23
3.1.1. The LNG and LBM chain 23
3.1.2. Technical feasibility users stage 24
3.2. Potential for use in different types of transport 25
3.2.1. Usage in heavy duty vehicles 25
3.2.2. Usage in shipping 30
3.2.3. Possible usage in trains 30
4. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE FOR LBM USAGE 31
4.1. Environmental sustainability 31
4.2. Emission patterns for LBM use in trucks & buses 32
4.2.1. Well-to-wheel emissions 32
4.2.2. CO2 reduction 34
4.2.3. NOx and PM10 reduction 35
4.3. Contribution to sustainability goals 36
5. ECONOMICS OF LBM PRODUCTION AND USE 39
5.1. LBM production options 40

5.2. Production costs 41
5.2.1. Financeability 41
5.2.2. Costs of producing biogas 42
5.2.3. Costs of upgrading biogas to LBM 43
5.2.4. Total costs for producing LBM 44
5.3. Production capacity and transport kilometres 45
5.3.1. Optimal production scale 45
5.3.2. Properties of LBM fuel 46
5.3.3. Production scale related to transport 47
5.4. Marketing possibilities and LNG overlap 48
5.4.1. The LBM comparison: diesel or LNG? 48
5.4.2. Possibilities to distribute LBM 49
5.4.3. Revenue picture 51
5.4.4. Price setting of LBM fuel 51
6. ORGANISING AN LBM INFRASTRUCTURE 53
6.1. Production & distribution 53
6.2. Filling stations 55
6.3. Preconditions for successful introduction 56
6.4. Other considerations 57
6.4.1. Bio tickets 58
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS 61
7.1. Conclusions 61
7.2. Recommendations 64
8. REFERENCES 67
last page 74
APPENDICES number of p.
I Characteristics of LBM & LNG 3
II Overview of current subsidy schemes and tax regulations 3
III Regulations relevant to the LBM infrastructure 3
IV Values of parameters used in this study 2
V Summary of the LNG4Trucks&Ships workshop (in Dutch) 10
VI Overview of the current active stakeholders in the industry 3

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Anaerobic digestion - Oxygen free breakdown of biomass by microorganisms.
Bi-fuel - Engine that runs either on LNG/LBM or on diesel.
Biodiesel - Renewable equivalent of diesel. Produced from vegetable
oil or animal fats.
Bio-ethanol - Renewable equivalent of petrol. Produced by the fermentation
of different kinds of biomass.
Biogas - Gas which is generated by (accelerated) natural proc -
esses.
Biomethane - Biogas upgraded to almost pure methane.
Bio tickets - Commodity to support the administrative trade in bio fuels.
Boil-off - Vaporized LBM or LNG due to heat input from the environment.
CBM - Compressed Biomethane
CBS - Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Dutch agency for collecting
statistical data.
CHP - Combined heat and power.
Co-digestion - Anaerobic digestion of manure mixed with other biomass.
Cryogenic technique - Biogas upgrading technique where the gas is cooled and
the CO2 is removed as a liquid.
Dual-fuel - Engines running on a mixture of diesel and LNG/LBM.
EC - European Commission.
End-use biogas - Biogas available for upgrading (i.e. not used for the generation
of heat or electricity.
EU - European Union.
Gas cleaning - Biogas upgrading technique where the CO2 is removed by
dissolving it in a liquid which is run through the gas.
Gasification - Technique which uses dry biomass to produce syngas.
Green gas - Biogas which is upgraded to natural gas quality.
Holding time - The maximum time a LNG tank can hold boil-off without
venting it into the atmosphere.
Hub - A collection point of biogas produced from multiple digesters.
IEA - International Energy Agency.
Industrial digestion - Anaerobic digestion of waste from the food industry or nature.
Landfill gas - Captured biogas from landfill sites.
LBM - Liquid Biomethane.
LNG - Liquefied Natural Gas.
LPG - Liquid Petroleum Gas.
NVWA - Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit. Supervises the
abidance of environmental law.
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Single-fuel - Engines running solely on LNG/LBM.
Syngas - A mixture of hydrogen- and carbon monoxide gas.
Thermal conversion - Burning biomass to power a steam-turbine.
VPSA - Vacuum swing pressure adsorption. Biogas upgrading
technique where the CO2 of the biogas is adsorbed by active
carbon.

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Sustainability objectives at different levels of government in the EU ....... 1
Table 1.2. Production costs of different biomass options .......................................... 3
Table 1.3. Factors relevant to LBM research............................................................. 7
Table 2.1. Energy production from biogas producing plants in 2011 ........................ 9
Table 2.2. Energy production from biogas producing plants in 2011 in Overijssel . 12
Table 3.1. Application of alternative fuels in different vehicle types ........................ 25
Table 3.2. Technical specifications of available LNG trucks in Europe ................... 26
Table 3.3. Number of heavy duty vehicles after 10, 20, 30 and 40 years ............... 29
Table 4.1. Comparing different biomass options ..................................................... 32
Table 4.2. Well-to-wheel emissions for trucks 1 ........................................................ 33
Table 5.1. Size of Dutch digestion plants and trends .............................................. 46
Table 5.2. Raw prices for LNG, diesel and LBM ..................................................... 49
Table 5.3. LBM cost and revenue trajectory for different options ............................ 51
Table 5.4. Pricing of different fossil and renewable fuels in EUR*GJ -1 ................... 51
Table 7.1. Pro’s and con’s for LBM compared with other biomass options ............ 62
Table 7.2. Financial picture for LBM production ...................................................... 63

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Energy produced from biomass in the Netherlands in 2011 1 ................... 3
Figure 1.2. Distribution of energy use in transport in 2009 (563 PJ) .......................... 4
Figure 1.3. Representation of the LBM system and the followed research line 1 ........ 6
Figure 2.1. Energy from biogas producing plants in 2011 1 ....................................... 10
Figure 2.2. Energy production from biomass in 2011 in the Netherlands ................ 11
Figure 2.3. Energy from biogas producing plants in Overijssel in 2011 1 .................. 12
Figure 2.4. Figures of the energy potential for LBM production ............................... 15
Figure 2.5. Energy production for biogas and biomass as a whole .......................... 16
Figure 2.6. Produced biogas for the four types of production facilities ..................... 17
Figure 2.7. Production of final energy from biogas and efficiency 1 .......................... 18
Figure 2.8. Growth paths for the production of end-use biogas in the Netherlands 1 19
Figure 2.9. Growth paths for the production of end-use biogas in Overijssel 1 ......... 19
Figure 2.10. LBM production for the Netherlands 1 ...................................................... 20
Figure 2.11. LBM production for the province of Overijssel ........................................ 21
Figure 3.1. LBM and LNG chain from production till end-use ................................... 23
Figure 3.2. The first operation public LNG filling station in Zwolle ........................... 24
Figure 3.3. The Volvo FM Methane-Diesel ............................................................... 26
Figure 3.4. Linear growth patterns for the number of LNG/LBM vehicles ................ 28
Figure 3.5. Exponential growth patterns for the number LNG/LBM vehicles 1 .......... 28
Figure 3.6. Development of the amount of kilometres driven on LBM/LNG trucks .. 29
Figure 4.1. Well-to-wheel emissions for different transport fuels 1 ............................ 32
Figure 4.2. Relative reduction potential for different well-to-wheel emissions ......... 33
Figure 4.3. Projected CO2 emissions for the Netherlands 1 ....................................... 34
Figure 4.4. Projected CO2 emissions for the province of Overijssel ......................... 35
Figure 4.5. Well-to-wheel PM10 emissions for heavy duty vehicles in the
Netherlands ............................................................................................. 36
Figure 4.6. Well-to-wheel NOx emissions for heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands .
................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 4.7. Potential contributions to sustainability goals for 2020 1 ......................... 38
Figure 5.1. Production routes for biomethane .......................................................... 40
Figure 5.2. Production possibilities for LBM 1 ............................................................ 41
Figure 5.3. Investment costs for LBM production facilities 1 ...................................... 42
Figure 5.4. Cost development of biogas production with scale 1 ............................... 43
Figure 5.5. Cost development of LBM production with scale 1 .................................. 44
Figure 5.6. Total production costs for LBM 1 .............................................................. 45
Figure 5.7. LBM installations needed to drive x trucks y kilometres per year 1 ......... 48
Figure 5.8. Options to distribute LBM 1 ...................................................................... 50
Figure 5.9. Relative build-up of the prices of different fuels ..................................... 52
Figure 6.1. Production and location options parallel to development LNG sector ... 55

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank Raphaël van der Velde for providing me with the opportunity to do my
graduate internship at Witteveen+Bos. I want to thank all my colleagues there for providing
an excellent working atmosphere.
From the University of Groningen, I would like to thank Henk Moll and René Benders for
supervising this project and providing the necessary input.

SUMMARY (EN)
The Dutch government has set sustainability goals for the year 2020. In that year, 16 % of
the energy use must come from renewable sources and the emissions of greenhouse
gasses must be reduced by 20 % with respect to 1990. These goals are part of a plan
which must eventually reduce the Dutch dependence on fossil fuels and the related
emissions of greenhouse- and other harmful gasses. LNG fuel usage is internationally
considered as a viable option to replace oil products in the transport sector. LBM is the
“green” variant of LNG and can expand in the wake of the LNG market development. LBM
usage may be an option to achieve the government goals. The central research question is:
‘What is needed to maximise the use of LBM in the Dutch transport sector and what is the
optimum from an economic, environmental and organisational perspective?’
To maximise LBM use in the Netherlands a strong growth of the LNG sector is necessary
along with government support for producing LBM. The organisation of an LBM
infrastructure is preferably fully integrated with the LNG infrastructure. From an economic
point of view LBM is more advantageous for the government than grid injected green gas,
but the environmental benefits only become apparent after 2020.
LNG is natural gas which is liquefied by cooling it to a temperature of -162 °C. This is then
transported by bunker ship to well isolated LNG storage terminals in Zeebrugge and
Rotterdam. LBM is produced by upgrading biogas and then liquefying it. LBM is an option
to extract energy from biomass, next to green gas and CHP. An analysis of the production
costs of LBM shows that these are about 2 times higher than the market price of LNG and
what LNG distributors are willing to pay. In the total picture however, LBM is probably a
cheaper option than green gas injected in the natural gas grid. Therefore LBM should be
incorporated in the SDE+ scheme. To create a level playing field between LBM and green
gas, the excise taxes for these fuels have to be equalised. The price of LNG at the pump is
currently lower than that of diesel, but it is uncertain how these prices develop when the
LNG market grows. The Dutch availability of biomass for the production of energy is limited
to about 8 % of the primary energy use. Gasification is not expected to take-off before
2020, but has the most potential. Anaerobic digestion has less potential and, on top of that,
is used for different forms of energy generation. Moreover, the current government policies
are focussed on stimulation the production of green gas instead of LBM. LBM production
thus has limited potential and can only fuel a part of the transport sector. LBM fuel is best
suited for use in heavy duty vehicles and shipping. For shipping, large storage bunkers
have to be realised along harbours. A network of refilling stations has to be created to
service heavy duty vehicles. The properties of an LNG truck are comparable to diesel and
investments pay themselves back in three years. LNG and LBM are most likely offered as
single fuel at the filling stations. If all heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands would run on
LBM, CO2 emissions would be reduced by 3 % with respect to 1990 levels. The energy
usage would then be about 2 % of the Dutch primary energy use. This scenario is unlikely,
given the limited availability of biomass. The shipping sector approximately has the same
environmental potential but LNG use develops even more slowly there. The contribution to
the 2020 goals is almost nothing, mainly because the number of LNG trucks grows slowly
in the coming years. The conclusion must be that, although LBM is an interesting option to
reduce the CO2, NOx and PM10 emissions in a part of the transport sector, the total
potential is limited. Moreover, the development of the LNG market is in a too early stage to
already start introducing LBM next to it. Short term introduction of LBM thus means a high
risk compared to other forms of biomass conversion and generates relatively little
advantages. Replacing LBM with LNG is preferably done when LNG has established itself
firmly as a transport fuel in the Netherlands.

SAMENVATTING (NL)
Om minder afhankelijk te worden van fossiele brandstoffen en om de uitstoot van
broeikasgassen en andere schadelijke stoffen terug te dringen, is men in Nederland op
zoek naar alternatieven voor de huidige energievoorziening. Voor het jaar 2020 heeft
Nederland hier specifieke doelstellingen voor gesteld: 20 % van de energievoorziening
moet dan hernieuwbaar zijn en de uitstoot van broeikasgassen moet met 20 % verminderd
zijn ten opzichte van 1990. Een mogelijke optie om deze doelen te bereiken is de inzet van
bio-LNG in de transportsector. Bio-LNG is de “groene” variant van het fossiele LNG. LNG
gebruik als brandstof, ter vervanging van olieproducten, is een markt die internationaal in
ontwikkeling is en waar bio-LNG op kan meeliften. De centrale onderzoeksvraag is:
‘Wat is er nodig om het gebruik van bio-LNG in de Nederlandse transportsector te
maximaliseren en wat is het optimum vanuit milieukundig, economisch en organisatorisch
oogpunt?’
Om LBM gebruik in Nederland te maximaliseren is er een sterke groei nodig van de LNG
sector. De organisatie van een LBM infrastructuur wordt dan bij voorkeur volledig
geïntegreerd met de LNG infrastructuur. Vanuit economisch oogpunt is LBM voor de
overheid voordeliger dan geïnjecteerd groen gas, hoewel de milieuvoordelen zich pas na
2020 zullen laten gelden.
LNG is aardgas wat vloeibaar gemaakt is door het te koelen naar een temperatuur van -
162 °C. Dit wordt per schip aangeleverd bij LNG terminals in de havens van Zeebrugge en
Rotterdam. Bio-LNG wordt geproduceerd door biogas, uit vergisting of vergassing van
biomassa, op te werken. Een analyse van de productiekosten van bio-LNG uit (co-
)vergisting laat zien dat deze ongeveer 2 keer hoger liggen dan wat LNG distributeurs
bereid zijn ervoor te betalen. Om dit op te lossen moet bio-LNG worden opgenomen in de
SDE+ regeling. De accijns op bio-LNG is gelijk aan LNG maar hoger dan CNG. Dit moet
worden gelijkgetrokken omdat dit een oneerlijk voordeel voor CNG is. In Nederland is de
beschikbaarheid van biomassa voor energieproductie beperkt tot ongeveer 8 % van het
primaire energieverbruik. Vergassing van droge biomassa heeft het meeste potentieel
maar lijkt pas na 2020 zijn intrede te gaan doen. Vergisting heeft minder potentieel en moet
bovendien worden verdeeld over elektriciteit, warmte en gas. Het productiepotentieel van
bio-LNG is dus beperkt en kan slechts een deel van de vervoerssector van brandstof
voorzien. Vrachtvervoer en de scheepvaart zijn de meest geschikte sectoren voor de inzet
van bio-LNG. Voor de scheepvaart moeten er grootschalige opslagbunkers nabij havens
worden gerealiseerd. Voor het vrachtvervoer moet er een netwerk van tankstations komen.
De rijeigenschappen van een LNG voertuig zijn vergelijkbaar met die van diesel en de
terugverdientijd is ongeveer drie jaar. Het meest waarschijnlijk is dat bio-LNG en LNG als
dezelfde brandstof wordt aangeboden aan de pomp, gemengd of per tankstation. Als al het
vrachtvervoer in Nederland gaat rijden op bio-LNG wordt de CO2 uitstoot met ongeveer
3 % verminderd t.o.v. 1990 en heeft dit een aandeel van 2 % op het totale energieverbruik.
Gegeven de beperkte hoeveelheid biomassa is dit een onwaarschijnlijk scenario. De
bijdrage van bio-LNG aan de doelstellingen voor 2020 zal nihil zijn. Dit komt doordat het
aantal vrachtwagens op LNG in de eerste jaren langzaam zal groeien. Concluderend kan
worden gezegd dat, hoewel bio-LNG een interessante optie is om de CO2, NOx, en PM10
uitstoot in de scheepvaart- en vrachtvervoersector te verminderen, het totale potentieel
beperkt is. Bovendien is de LNG sector nog onvoldoende ver ontwikkeld om daar nu al bio-
LNG naast te gaan introduceren. Op korte termijn bio-LNG produceren levert dus een
hoger economisch risico op dan andere vormen van bio-energie en relatief weinig
voordelen. Het vergroenen van LNG met bio-LNG kan dus beter wachten totdat LNG
gebruik zich in Nederland zich stevig heeft geïntroduceerd.

1. INTRODUCTION
Within the context of sustainability, deploying liquid biomethane (LBM) in the Dutch
transport sector appears to be an interesting option. The usage of LBM in the transport
sector has the potential to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions, improve local air
quality and reduce the dependence on fossil fuel imports for the Netherlands. LBM is a
liquid fuel which consists almost entirely of methane (CH4) and is stored at a temperature of
-162 °C. LBM can be produced by upgrading biogas to biomethane and cooling this to the
required temperature. Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion or gasification of (waste)
biomass. The EU and the Dutch government consider the usage of biomass to produce
some form of useable energy as a viable route to achieve the goals set out by the Kyoto
Protocol. Different subsidy programs are currently running in order to support this.
This report gives an assessment on the sensibility & viability on- and different options of
introducing LBM in the Dutch transport sector. An analysis is made of different factors
associated with successfully introducing LBM as a transport fuel. The three main aspects
studied are the economic, environmental and organisational sustainability. This project was
carried out at Witteveen+Bos Deventer in co-operation with the University of Groningen.
1.1. Background
Global warming, resource depletion and air pollution are some of the most important
environmental problems that today’s world faces. These problems are inextricably linked to
the use of fossil fuels. Humanity is largely depended on the Earth’s fossil supplies. It is
estimated that oil reserves are depleted before the end of this century (Mckinney et al,
2007).
To prevent escalation of global warming, most countries in the world have constructed and
signed the Kyoto Protocol. They have agreed to cut CO2 emission by 5 % in 2012 with
respect to 1990 levels. For the EU and the Netherlands an 8 % cutback was agreed (United
Nations, 1998). It is unclear whether these target are met before the end of 2012, but
governments in the EU have set out new goals for the year 2020. The province of
Overijssel has set its own goals within the policy framework of the Netherlands. These
goals are summarised in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. Sustainability objectives at different levels of government in the EU
objective
reduce greenhouse gas emissions 3
European
target percentage for 2020
Commission Dutch government
20 % 20 %
Province of
Overijssel
increase share renewable energy use 20 % 16 % 20 % 1
increase share renewable energy use transport 10 % 10 % 2
Source: Eurostat (2011), Rijksoverheid (2012a), Rijksoverheid (2012b), Rijksoverheid (2012c), European Commission,
(2012) & Provincie Overijssel (2011).
1 70 % of this number must come from biomass.
2
3
This must be 10 % bio fuels.
With respect to 1990 levels.
The transport sector plays a key role in achieving the emission reduction targets. The
following numbers illustrate this. In 2010, the Dutch transport sector was responsible for
21 % of all the CO2 emissions and 42 % of the total emission of particulate matter in the
Netherlands (CBS, 2012a). The transport sector accounted for 25 % of the total final
1

energy consumption in the Netherlands in 2009 (IEA, 2011). Furthermore, carbon
emissions in this sector are expected to increase by 50 % in the year 2030 (OECD/IEA,
2009). The EC and the Dutch government have set out special targets for the transport
sector, which are displayed in Table 1.1.
Renewable energy in the Dutch transport sector mainly has to come from the use of waste
biomass. Different options are available:
- burning biomass to produce electricity;
- chemical processing of biomass to produce biodiesel;
- anaerobic digestion of biomass to produce bio-ethanol or biogas
- gasification of biomass to produce syngas.
Bio-ethanol and biodiesel are the fossil equivalents of petrol and diesel respectively.
Syngas and biogas can be used to produce electricity or can be upgraded to produce green
gas, CBM (compressed biomethane) or LBM. Electricity can be used to power battery
electric vehicles. Green gas, CBM and LBM are vehicle fuels.
LBM has a relative high energy density compared to green gas or CBM (approximately
60 % the energy density of diesel). Therefore the higher the mileage average of a vehicle,
the more suitable LBM becomes. The combination of these two factors makes LBM ideal
for usage in freight and public transport.
The development of an infrastructure for LBM use runs parallel to the development of the
use of liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is essentially the fossil equivalent of LBM. The
differences and similarities between LBM and LNG are analysed further on in this research.
1.2. Problem setting
LBM is not yet used as a transport fuel in the Netherlands. Successful implementation of
this energy commodity generally depends on the economic, environmental and
organisational sustainability. Large scale introduction of LBM as a fuel in the Dutch
transport sector is hampered by several issues:
- uncertainty about the potential of LBM production compared to other uses of biomass;
- unclarity on how to make LBM production and use profitable, also in light of LNG use;
- uncertainty about the potential for LNG use in different parts of the transport sector;
- government subsidies, taxes, environmental law and safety regulations;
- uncertainty on the possible contribution to the climate goals for 2020;
- lack of an infrastructure in the Netherlands to produce, distribute and use LBM.
Biomass can be used in different ways to produce energy. Figure 1.1 gives the situation for
energy production from biomass in the Netherlands in 2011. A total amount of 34.1 PJ was
produced from biomass. The largest part of the biomass is burned to produce electricity.
Only 2.60% of the energy used from biomass is actually used as biogas itself. Since
biomass energy use accounted for only 1.05 % of the total energy use (CBS, 2012b), the
energy use from biogas is very low in the Netherlands (only 0.0272 % in 2011). The relative
distribution of biomass usage as depicted in Figure 1.1, illustrates that a lot is needed to
introduce LBM as a fuel is the Dutch transport sector. More specifically: if the Netherlands
wants 10 % of the energy used in transport (563 PJ in 2009) to come from biogas (or
related fuels), the production of biogas would have to grow by a factor 64, given the fact
that only 0.89 PJ of biogas was produced in 2011 which was not used for the generation for
electricity and heat.
2

Figure 1.1. Energy produced from biomass in the Netherlands in 2011 1
electricity production burning
electricity production anaerobic
digestion
electricity production landfill gas
heat production burning
heat production anaerobic
digestion
heat production landfill gas
biogas production anaerobic
digestion
biogas production landfill gas
Source: CBS (2012c).
9%
1 This picture gives the relative distribution of final energy produced from biomass in the Netherlands in 2011.
1%
56%
The total amount of final energy produced in that year was 43,5 PJ.
Financial survey for different biomass options
Different options exist to produce and use energy from biomass. The ECN (Dutch research
centre for sustainable energy) publishes annual reports to determine the average
production costs of different types of sustainable energy. The Dutch ministry of economic
affairs, agriculture and innovation uses these numbers to determine subsidy schemes (see
section 6.4). Taking some numbers out of the 2011 report, allows one to compare the
economic viability of different options. This is displayed in Table 1.2 (production- and
investment costs)
Table 1.2. Production costs of different biomass options
production costs (EUR*GJ -1 )
conversion option heat CHP green gas
industrial digestion (hub) 15.10 19.20 18.91
industrial digestion 14.80 27.30 18.50
co-digestion (hub) 18.40 22.50 22.13
co-digestion 17.70 30.80 22.78
landfill gas 22.10 11.59
gasification 30.47
thermal conversion
Source: ECN (2011).
Heat production is on average the cheapest option but production and use of heat is very
confined in terms of the location and is therefore limited. The heat produced in a CHP plant
is often not used. The production of green gas (or biogas) then appears to be the best
22.20
29%
3%
0%
2%
1%
3

option for energy production from biomass. Chapter 5 deals with the business case for the
production of LBM out of this biomass.
1.3. Production and usage of LBM
The technical feasibility for the production of LBM from biogas is already established in
practice. For example, in the United Kingdom the company of Gasrec already produces
LBM for the transport sector, albeit still only at a relatively small scale. Different production
options for LBM are elaborated in section 5.1. 180 PJ worth of biomass energy was
available in 2009 (SenterNovem, 2009). Given the total energy use of the Dutch transport
sector that year (563 PJ) (Compendium voor de leefomgeving, 2012), the technical
potential to use bio energy in the transport sector is 32 % at best. The combination of a
growing transport sector and the expected growth of the biomass availability determines if
the technical potential for 2020 goes up or down. To give an indication of the potential for
LBM usage (from the available biomass) in different parts of the transport sector, Figure 1.2
displays the distribution of the energy use in the Dutch transport sector in 2009. The
sectors of freight transport and shipping appear to be interesting for the deployment of
LBM.
Figure 1.2. Distribution of energy use in transport in 2009 (563 PJ)
4
passenger cars
light commercial vehicles
large goods vehicles
motorcycles
shipping
aviation
rail transport
other equipment
1%
16%
Source: Compendium voor de leefomgeving (2012).
17%
0% 7%
2%
Storage and distribution are also part of an LBM infrastructure. LBM first has to be stored at
the production site, to accommodate differences between production and collection. LBM
then has to be distributed to the filling stations where it must again be stored. LBM and
LNG can be transported by ship or truck. LNG-ships are used to export LBM or LNG to
other countries via the seas. Trucks are used to transport LBM and LNG over the land. To
keep the LBM/LNG at the right temperature, special tank containers are required. These
containers are often double walled with a vacuum to provide isolation. Rolande LNG for
example, transports LNG in containers with a 30-day holding time (Rolande LNG, 2012).
This means that excess boil off due to warming only has to be vented when the LNG has
10%
47%

een stored for a period longer than 30 days. This maximum duration for LBM storage at
the production and filling station site is also of importance. The production- and abatement
capacities have to be harmonised to prevent boil-off wastes. Not only is boil-off a waste of
fuel, boil-off also affects the quality of LNG (see Appendix I) and venting the excess boil-off
is a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
1.4. Research set-up
Aim
All the factors related to the economic, organisational and environmental sustainability and
their interdependence are researched in this report and are put into context. One can then
get a good overview on the optimal strategy for LBM implementation in the Netherlands.
The aim of this research is two-fold. The first is to analyse the potential for introducing LBM
in the Netherlands. This is done by considering the economic, environmental and
organisational aspects specifically for the Dutch situation. The second goal is to determine
what is actually needed to introduce LBM in the Netherlands. A case-study was made of
the province of Overijssel, analysing opportunities to contribute to the development of LBM
in that province.
Questions
The following question is central in this research.
Main research question
‘What is needed to maximise the use of LBM in the Dutch transport sector and what is the optimum from an
economic, environmental and organisational perspective?’
An answer to this question is formulated by considering the following three research subquestions.
Sub-question 1
‘What is the potential for the usage of LBM in the transport sector as a replacement of fossil fuels and how can this
be organised in an optimal way?’
Sub-question 2
‘What is the environmental performance of LBM use in terms of energy and emissions of CO2 & particulate matter
and what will consequently be the contribution to the sustainability directives of the government?’
Sub-question 3
‘What are the current drawbacks and obstacles encountered in creating a viable business case for LBM usage and
what are possible solutions?’
Methodology
The research on the introduction of LBM as a transport fuel in the Netherlands is performed
along the following scheme in this study.
1. Exploring the options for LBM use in general.
2. Analysing the business case for LBM production.
3. Determining the price setting for LBM fuel in contrast to LNG and diesel.
4. Assessing the availability of biomass for LBM production and the potential for use.
5. Establishing the subsequent environmental consequences.
5

6. Considering ways to organise LBM as a fuel.
The ‘LBM system’ and the followed line of research are displayed graphically in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3. Representation of the LBM system and the followed research line 1
6
LBM system Research items and sequence related to different parts of the LBM
system
biomass supply
potential
available
description of the
available for LBM
biomass in the
available types of
production
Netherlands
biomass
LBM production
and distribution
LBM usage
LBM
infrastructure
business case
LBM production
usage in different
transport
commodities
obstacles,
solutions and
stakeholders
optimal scale for
LBM production
plant
determine actual
usage potential
reviewing needed
infrastructure to
introduce LBM
price setting LBM
fuel
establish
environmental
consequences
1 The LBM system is displayed on the left side and the corresponding research topics for each part of the
system on the right side. The grey block demarks the starting point of the research. From there the arrows can
be followed for each next step.
After a general survey of the possibilities for LBM fuel, the economic feasibility of LBM
production is established, to get a good feeling of a reasonable production scale. The price
setting of LBM fuel is determined secondly. The price setting of LBM is interlinked with
prices for diesel and LNG. The availability of biomass and the subsequent potential for
usage in different parts of the transport sector is determined thirdly, using the established
parameters for the production scale. This information is then used to determine the
possible environmental consequences. Having established the desirability of LBM fuel from
an economic and environmental point of view, the organisational aspects of introducing
LBM in the Netherlands are assessed.
Most data used in this study comes from literature sources and statistical databases.
Missing data comes from personal contact with companies and can be extrapolated from
other data. Excel sheets are used to process all the data. The development of energy
production from biomass, and the environmental contribution for LBM use in the truck fleet
will also be modelled in Excel for different scenarios.
If the economic, environmental and organisational aspects are ‘plotted’ against a people,
planet and profit outline, one gets a good overview of the important factors relevant to this
research. This is displayed in Table 1.3 and may serve as guidance.

Table 1.3. Factors relevant to LBM research
economic aspects cost of LBM fuel
people planet profit
transition costs
bio tickets
environmental aspects environmental law
use potential
organisational aspects convenience and
1.5. Structure of this report
practicality
use scale
available biomass
production scale
other use of biomass
greenhouse gas emissions
pollutant emissions
infrastructure needed
relation to other fuels
profitable LBM production
subsidies
marketing
sustainability goals
government
exploitation of filling
stations
supply & demand chain
This report is read as follows. Chapter 2 begins with an assessment on the potential for
LBM production from Dutch biomass. Chapter 3 assesses the potential for LBM usage in
different types of transport. Chapter 4 then analyses the potential consequences for the
environment and the contribution to the sustainability goals. Chapter 5 provides an
economic analysis of LBM production and usage. Chapter 6 determines how to organise an
LBM infrastructure optimally. The conclusions and recommendations can be found in
chapter 7.
7

2. POTENTIAL AVAILIBITY OF BIOMASS FOR LBM PRODUCTION
To analyse how much biomass is available in the future to produce LBM in the Netherlands
an analysis is needed of the current situation and the expected developments. A number of
studies have made projections for the availability of biomass for energy production in the
future. Together with statistical data from the CBS they can be used to make realistic
assumptions about how LBM production (for the moment disregarding the economic
issues) develops from now to 2020.
2.1. Current situation for biomass usage
The analysis of the potential for LBM production begins with a detailed analysis of the
current use of biomass in the Netherlands.
2.1.1. Situation for the Netherlands
For LBM production, it is important to know how and how much biogas is currently
produced in the Netherlands and how this is used. Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 provide a good
overview of this.
Table 2.1. Energy production from biogas producing plants in 2011
# installations
produced
biogas (TJ)
flared biogas
(TJ)
electricity
produced final energy
(TJ) heat (TJ) biogas (TJ) total (TJ) efficiency
co-digestion 97 5,632 - 1858 447 0 2305 41 %
industrial
digestion
sewage
treatment
20 3,091 - 688 352 520 1560 50 %
74 2,315 159 605 161 71 837 39 %
landfill sites 41 1,663 345 274 55 295 624 47 %
total 232 12,701 504 3424 1015 886 5325 44 %
Source: (Rijksoverheid, 2012d; CBS, 2012i).
9

Figure 2.1. Energy from biogas producing plants in 2011 1
10
energy (PJ)
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
produced
biogas
total final
energy
electricity heat end-use
biogas
landfill sites
sewage and wastewater
treatment
industrial digestion
co-digestion
1 Total final energy is the sum of the produced electricity, heat and end-use biogas. The energy of the produced
biogas minus the total final energy is the efficiency loss due to the conversion process.
In the Netherlands, a total amount of 12,196 TJ of biogas was produced in 2011. Should all
this biogas be used for the production of LBM, 5.8*10 8 litres of LBM fuel could be
generated theoretically. This is enough to have 20,000 trucks run 40,000 km per year,
covering almost 13 % of the total energy use of heavy duty vehicles in 2010.
The reality is that only a fraction of the produced biogas is used as ‘biogas’. The rest is
mostly used to generate heat and electricity. Biogas as an end product is used in transport
or injected into the natural gas grid of the Netherlands. With the amount produced in 2011,
one would only cover 1 % of the energy need of heavy duty vehicles.
Energetic use of biomass
There are three streams of biomass in the Netherlands: production, import and export. The
Netherlands is a net importer of biomass. The most part, about 85 %, of our biomass is
used for food production (either directly or indirectly). The remaining 15 % can, in theory,
be used for the production of energy. Exporting less biomass is also an option to increase
the availability but is unlikely because the biomass exported by the Netherlands is mostly
food. Figure 2.2 displays the biomass streams and energy generation in the Netherlands.

Figure 2.2. Energy production from biomass in 2011 in the Netherlands
BIOMASS STREAMS ENERGY PRODUCTION FINAL ENERGY
export
(35 %)
domestic
production
(46 %)
import
(54 %)
food & feed
(86 %)
net amount
available
(100 %)
manure &
other
incineration
92 PJ
(78 %)
energy
production
(117 PJ)
digestion
12 PJ
(10 %)
electricity
22 PJ
(52 %)
heat
20 PJ
(46 %)
biogas
0.9 PJ
(2 %)
Source: this picture was produced with data from CBS (2012i) & Platform Groene Grondstoffen (2006).
The total energy embodied in the biomass used for energy production was 117 PJ in 2011.
The production of final energy from this biomass was 43.5 PJ. The efficiency of the energy
conversion from biomass to a final form of energy, was thus 37% (excluding bio fuels).
Biogas production
One can deduce from Figure 2.2 that only a small part of the generated energy from
biomass was produced as “biogas”. Most biogas derived from digestion was used to
generate heat or electricity. The remaining part can be upgraded and used in transport, for
example by producing LBM from it.
2.1.2. Situation for Overijssel
Within the province of Overijssel the situation for energy produced from biomass is as
follows.
At this moment a total number of 25 installations are active in producing energy from
biomass streams. Three of these installations incinerate waste or biomass to produce
electricity and heat. The other installations produce biogas which is used for different
purposes. There are:
- 6 co-digestion plants;
- 2 industrial digestion plants;
- 8 sewage and wastewater treatment plants;
- 6 landfill sites producing biogas.
Combining this data with data on the total generated primary energy in Overijssel from
biomass, the situation of Overijssel can be depicted analogues to section 2.1.1. This is
depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3.
11

Table 2.2. Energy production from biogas producing plants in 2011 in Overijssel
12
produced biogas
(TJ)
flared biogas
(TJ)
electricity
produced final energy
(TJ) heat (TJ) biogas (TJ) total (TJ) efficiency
co-digestion 172 0 57 14 0 70 41 %
industrial
digestion 57 0 13 7 10 29 50 %
sewage
treatment 230 16 60 16 7 83 39 %
landfill sites 172 36 28 6 31 65 47 %
total 631 51 158 42 47 247 43 %
Source: data on the number of installations (Rijksoverheid, 2012d) and the total amount of primary energy produced
from biogas in Overijssel (Provincie Overijssel, 2012e) is combined with the efficiencies in Table 2.1 to
calculate the figures for the produced final energy. For the province of Overijssel, data is available on how
much energy was generated with anaerobic digestion.
Figure 2.3. Energy from biogas producing plants in Overijssel in 2011 1
1
energy (TJ)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
produced
biogas
total final
energy
electricity heat end-use
biogas
landfill sites
sewage and wastewater
treatment
industrial digestion
co-digestion
The figures for the produced electricity heat and end-use biogas are estimates on the basis of the national
figures. The actual distribution of the production of heat, electricity and end-use biogas may therefore be
slightly different in reality.
The produced biogas in Overijssel is mostly used to produce electricity. With the current
capacity, an amount of 2.7*10 7 litres of LBM could be produced annually. This is enough to
have 400 trucks run 100,000 km a year.
2.2. Biomass available for production of end-use biogas
The availability of biomass for the production of LBM for 2020 and beyond depends on
several factors. Predictions on future development paths always have an inherent degree
of uncertainty which cannot be quantified. Therefore, it is best to make a number of

scenarios for the development of LBM production. These scenarios vary between zero LBM
production and the maximal potential for LBM production. To do this, data on the total
potential for energy generation from biomass is combined with data on the expected
availability for transport and the government objectives for biomass usage. Subsequently,
past trends of biomass energy production is used to make future predictions. Combining
these results gives a number of development scenarios for the production of LBM to 2020.
2.2.1. Total potential in the Netherlands and Overijssel
The total potential for energy generation from biomass consists mainly of the biomass
produced in the Netherlands. Importing biomass, (additional biomass specifically for energy
generation) is not considered in this study. The total energy content of the biomass
produced in the Netherlands is given by SenterNovem (2009) as 843 PJ HHV (Higher
Heating Value). Only a part of this is available for the production of energy. An estimated
amount of 450 PJ is potentially available according to Platform Groene Grondstoffen
(2006).
For the Province of Overijssel the potential for energy generation is 14 PJ (G3 Advies,
2008). With the current efficiency for energy conversion (37 %) this comes down to a gross
availability of 38 PJ. The potential for the production of final energy from consists of two
parts.
Yearly energy potential from digestion
Using data from SenterNovem (2009) it is calculated that the gross energy available for
digestion is 91 PJ in 2020, out of a total availability of 281 PJ. This study expects that only
13 PJ of final energy is available as green gas, in the most optimistic scenario (based on
certain policy scenarios). The rest is used for the generation of electricity and heat.
Platform Groene Grondstoffen (2006) gives the amount of biomass available for electricity
and production as 355 PJ. 35 PJ of this is available for the production of biogas (gross
energy).
Another study by SenterNovem (2007) estimates the potential for the production of green
gas at 1,500 million m 3 , equivalent to 48 PJ of final energy or roughly 80 PJ of gross
energy.
In the province of Overijssel, anaerobic digestion has a potential of 8.5 PJ of final energy
(G3 advies, 2008). Under the present market conditions this equals 20 PJ gross energy.
This equals roughly 12 PJ of green gas.
Yearly energy potential for gasification
The potential for energy production from gasification of biomass is larger than for digestion.
However, this technique is expected to become available commercially no sooner than 5
years from now. Gasification will thus probably not play a role before 2020.
Gasification is expected to compete with thermal conversion of biomass in the future. The
efficiency of energy conversion is much higher with this process (75 % compared with 30 %
(ECN, 2011a)).
The potential for thermal conversion of biomass is 190 PJ of gross energy in 2020
(SenterNovem, 2009). This is equivalent to 133 PJ green gas.
13

Another study by SenterNovem (2007) gives the potential for gasification as 3.5 million m 3
green gas, equivalent to 112 PJ.
No exact figures are available for the province of Overijssel, but with the above figures one
can make an estimation of 21 PJ of green gas from gasification.
2.2.2. Government objectives
Also important are the government objectives for green gas. The current policy regarding
green gas is focussed entirely on producing green gas for injection in the natural gas grid.
In theory, this green gas can also be used to produce LBM (directly upgraded from biogas).
Therefore this objective can still be taken into account in the calculations.
The Dutch government has set no specific objectives for biogas use in transport. The goals
for 2020 are 24 PJ worth of green gas injected in the grid.
Platform Nieuw Gas (2007) aims at a green gas production (injected in the grid) between
121 PJ and 181 PJ, which is ambitious to say the least.
The province of Overijssel has set no specific objectives for the production of green gas.
2.2.3. Total overview
An overview of the different most realistic potentials and objectives is given in Figure 2.4,
also indicating the equivalent amount of LBM that can be produced.
14

Figure 2.4. Figures of the energy potential for LBM production
final energy (PJ)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
133
A - Dutch potential for gasification SenterNovem (2009)
112
B - Dutch potential for gasification SenterNovem (2007)
55
C - Dutch potential for anaerobic digestion SenterNovem (2009)
48
D - Dutch potential for anaerobic digestion SenterNovem (2007)
21
E - Dutch potential for anaerobic digestion Platform Groene
Grondstoffen (2006)
13
23 21
De maximum availability for the production of green gas (or potentially LBM) is no more
than 190 PJ, which is equal to 9 billion litres of LBM.
2.3. Trends and developments
The Dutch market for the generation of energy from biomass took off in the late
eighties/early nineties. The CBS has kept track of these developments from 1990 onwards.
F - Expected production of green gas in the Netherlands in 2020
SenterNovem (2009)
G - Total energy potential for biomass in Overijssel G3 Advies
(2008)
H - Gasification potential for Overijssel (estimation)
12
I - Potential for anaerobic digestion in Overijssel G3 Advies (2008)
151
J - Production objective green gas Task Force Green Gas (2007)
24
K - Production goal green gas from Dutch government
15

The development of bio-energy generation in de years 1990-2011 may give some
indications on how it develops in the future (to the year 2020 and beyond). The predictions
have a certain degree of uncertainty because the developments are very depended on
market conditions and government policies. For developments to the year 2020 the
predictions, in combination data from the previous paragraph, provides a good handle,
nonetheless.
2.3.1. Trends from the years 1990-2011
Figure 2.5 gives the development of primary energy from the total biomass energy
production and anaerobic digestion and the total final energy produced from those two
types. Important to notice is that the produced primary energy has risen more rapidly than
the produced final energy, especially for biogas. This means that the efficiency of energy
conversion has declined.
Figure 2.5. Energy production for biogas and biomass as a whole
16
energy from biomass (PJ)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Source: adaptation from CBS (2012i).
year
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
energy from biogas (PJ)
primary energy biomass
final energy biomass
primary energy biogas
final energy biogas
Zooming in specifically at anaerobic digestion of biomass in the Netherlands, Figure 2.6
indicates the trend for the past years. Co-digestion made a strong march from 2005
onwards and is now the largest source of biogas. This strong march was supported by a
new system of government subsidies which made it possible to use manure for digestion
purposes. With the arrival of a new subsidy system and the fact that these subsidies only
run for a certain time span, a number of digesters have gone bankrupt recently because
they did not receive subsidies anymore. This partly explains the apparent dip in 2011. The
production of landfill gas had peaked from 1995 till 2002 and is now slowly declining, due to
government policies. Less waste is brought to landfill sites nowadays and the existing
landfill sites produce less biogas each year because they have already given up most of
their potential. Biogas production from sewage- and wastewater treatment plants has
remained more or less constant.

Figure 2.6. Produced biogas for the four types of production facilities
primary energy (PJ)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Source: adaptation from CBS (2012i).
year
total biogas
co-digestion
industrial digestion
sewage treatment
landfill sites
The produced biogas can be used for the generation of heat and electricity or for other
purposes (such as upgrading it to green gas). If one looks at the past development of the
ratios (electricity/heat/biogas) of these three types of final energy production, two alarming
trends come to light. This is displayed in Figure 2.7. Next to a decline in the total amount of
end-use biogas produced (because biogas is increasingly used for the generation of
electricity), the percentage of biogas which is used as end-use biogas has also declined
from 36 % in 1990 to only 7 % in 2011. The preferred method of biogas usage thus
appears to be going towards the production of electricity and heat. This trend is concerning
for the prospects of the production of green gas or LBM. If the preference for the generation
of electricity and heat from biogas persists in the future (possibly supported by increasing
prices for electricity), there will be little or no production of LBM and green gas in the future.
17

Figure 2.7. Production of final energy from biogas and efficiency 1
18
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Source: adaptation from CBS (2012i).
year
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
end-use biogas
heat
electricity
produced biogas
total efficiency
1 In this picture, end-use biogas means produced biogas which was not used for the generation of electricity
2.3.2. Projections to 2020
and heat. The electricity and heat may be produced separately or in CHP plants.
With the obtained data, one can make different projections for the development of biogas
production, which can be converted to LBM or green gas, to the year 2020. In any case the
real value lies between 0 PJ (no production of green gas or LBM in 2020 at all) or 188 PJ
(the potential of digestion and gasification in the Netherlands is used to its full capability).
Between these two extreme values, there are four more scenarios. This gives six possible
growth paths to 2020.
- Maximum potential: the potential of gasification and digestion is used maximally. This
requires a growth of 81 % per year.
- Extrapolation trend 1990-2011: extrapolation of the 1990-2011 trend for biogas
production. This requires a growth of 62 % per year, mainly because of the rapid rise of
co-digestion.
- Anaerobic digestion potential: only the potential of anaerobic digestion is used
maximally. This requires a growth of 58 % per year.
- Government objective: government objectives for green gas production in 2020. This
requires a growth 51 % per year.
- Expectation: projected production of green gas in 2020 by SenterNovem (2009). This
requires a growth of 35 % per year.
- No growth: no growth of the produced biogas for upgrading.
Elaborating these scenarios for the period 2012-2020, assuming constant annual growth
percentages, gives Figure 2.8 for the Netherlands as a whole and Figure 2.9 for the
province of Overijssel. Four of the above scenarios are shown in these figures.

Figure 2.8. Growth paths for the production of end-use biogas in the Netherlands 1
produced final energy (PJ)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
year
maximum potential
extrapolation trend
government objective
expectation
1 The annual growth percentages for the displayed scenarios are 81 %, 62 %, 51 % and 35 % respectively. The
figure starts in 2012 at a value of 886 TJ, which was the produced final biogas not used for the generation of
electricity and heat.
Figure 2.9. Growth paths for the production of end-use biogas in Overijssel 1
produced final energy (PJ)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
year
maximum potential
extrapolation trend
government objective
expectation
1 The annual growth percentages for the displayed scenarios are 105 %, 83 %, 71 % and 52 %. The
government objective for Overijssel is not an actual goal, but is deduced from the national goal for green gas.
The figure starts in 2012 at a value of 47 TJ, which was the produced final biogas not used for the generation
of electricity and heat.
19

2.4. Scenarios for LBM production till 2020
The growths scenarios, as depicted in Figure 2.8 and Figure 2.9, only display the technical
potential and not the growth paths which are realistically possible. Scenarios 1-4 can be
regarded as technically possible, but unrealistic for the indicated period of development.
These scenarios are not in agreement with the current status of renewable energy
production from biogas. The actual development path is somewhere between zero growth
and a maximum of 13 PJ of produced final energy. The zero growth scenario is when the
government decides not to support any kind of LBM production. The 13 PJ scenario is the
expected amount of green gas produced in 2020 (SenterNovem, 2009). With the proper
developments in the LNG sector and proper government stimulation, this could also LBM
production instead of green gas production. For the development of LBM production, one
can then project more realistic growth paths.
Figure 2.10 and Figure 2.11 give these growth paths for the Netherlands and Overijssel.
The higher the growth path, the more the government must do to stimulate the production
of LBM instead of green gas. The maximum production would be able to fuel approximately
25,000 average heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands or travel almost 1 billion kilometres.
Figure 2.10. LBM production for the Netherlands 1
20
millions of litres of produced LBM
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
year
LBM, no green gas
75 % LBM, 25 &
green gas
25 % LBM, 75 %
green gas
green gas, no LBM
1 The zero-line in this graph (green gas, no LBM) means no domestic LBM production in 2020. The other
scenarios represent different production scenarios of green gas and LBM.

Figure 2.11. LBM production for the province of Overijssel
millions of litres of produced LBM
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
year
LBM, no green gas
75 % LBM, 25 &
green gas
25 % LBM, 75 %
green gas
green gas, no LBM
1 The zero-line in this graph (green gas, no LBM) means no domestic LBM production in 2020. The other
scenarios represent different production scenarios of green gas and LBM.
21

3. POTENTIAL FOR LBM USAGE
LBM and LNG are actually the same fuels produced from two different sources. LNG is
produced from natural gas. LBM is produced from upgrading biogas. The differences in the
origin of natural and the inherent differences between LBM and LNG give rise to quality
differences. The exact characteristics of LBM and LBM are given in appendix I. Since LNG
and LBM are essentially the same fuel, projections for usage in the transport sector can be
done without making a distinction between LNG and LBM
3.1. Feasibility users stage
3.1.1. The LNG and LBM chain
Developing an industry around LBM cannot be seen apart from developments in the LNG
sector. The whole chain, from production till end-use, is displayed in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1. LBM and LNG chain from production till end-use
regasification (to
gas grid)
passenger cars
commercial vans
natural gas
reserves
biomass
LNG LBM
CNG/CBM
filling station
LNG-terminal
buses
trucks
LNG/LBM filling
station
ships
trains
aviation
production of
LNG and LBM
distribution to
LNG terminal
via ship or
truck; direct
distribution of
LBM to filling
station is also
possible
regasification
to grid and/or
production of
CNG/CBM
using the fuel
in different
means of
transport
In the whole LBM and LNG chain, there are a vast number of different stakeholders active,
ranging from LNG distributors to governments and suppliers of different technologies. An
23

overview of the most important stakeholders currently involved in the industry is given in
Appendix VI.
3.1.2. Technical feasibility users stage
The technical feasibility of the LBM users stage is determined by the technical feasibility of:
1. dispensing LBM;
2. LBM engines.
The users stage begins when the LBM is delivered to a filling station. A filling station could
potentially also be available at the production site. Filling stations are often combined with
the possibility to deliver CBM as well as LBM, because this conversion is relatively simple.
The technical feasibility of LNG and LBM filling stations is well demonstrated in practice
(UK, USA, Sweden). The speed of refuelling a truck running on LBM/LNG is equivalent to
that of fuelling a diesel truck. LNG24, Rolande LNG, LNG Europe and BER are the main
companies in the Netherlands currently involved with the construction and exploitation of
filling stations and the delivery of LNG and LBM. Operational LNG filling stations in the
Netherlands can be found in the cities of Oss and Zwolle. Figure 3.2 gives a photograph of
the latter. This is the first publically accessible filling station. LNG24 Clean Fuel exploits this
station.
Figure 3.2. The first operation public LNG filling station in Zwolle
Three techniques are available for engine technology: bi-fuel, single-fuel and dual-fuel. Bifuel
engines appear to be interesting mainly for CNG applications. Dual-fuel and single-fuel
engines are most interesting for heavy duty vehicles. These engines are essentially an
adaptation of the CNG engine. Special tanks have to be built in to store the LNG/LBM. The
24

LBM has to be vaporised and pressurised pre-injection. Most major truck producing
companies are concerned with the development of LNG vehicles. Two examples are
Scania, which has developed a single-fuel LNG truck with a range of 450 km (Scania,
2011) and Volvo, which has developed a dual-fuel LNG truck. This truck runs on a mixture
of diesel and LNG/LBM (stored in separate tanks), but can run solely on diesel as well
(Volvo, 2011). These trucks meet the emission norms set by the EU. For the shipping
sector similar engines are available. The methane number of the LNG/LBM is the most
important quality parameter relevant for smooth running of the engines (see appendix I).
3.2. Potential for use in different types of transport
Natural gas or biogas - in liquid or compressed form - is actually the only fuel which can be
applied in virtually all types of transport compared with other fossil fuel alternatives together
with other liquid bio fuels. However, natural gas is the only fuel which can satisfy the entire
energy need of the transport sector, given the world’s natural gas reserves. Table 3.1
displays an overview of different alternative fuel options for different vehicle types.
Table 3.1. Application of alternative fuels in different vehicle types
vehicle type present fuel LPG
liquid
biofuels full electric hybrid
biogas or
natural gas
three wheelers petrol yes (refit) yes (max. %) no no yes (CNG)
cars petrol/diesel yes (refit) yes (max. %) yes (city use) yes yes (CNG)
commercial vans diesel yes (refit) yes (max. %) yes (city use) yes yes (CNG)
heavy urban trucks diesel no yes (max. %) no yes yes (CNG)
buses diesel no yes (max. %) yes (wired) yes yes (LCNG 1 )
coaches diesel no yes (max. %) no no yes (LNG)
heavy on-road trucks diesel no yes (max. %) no no yes (LNG)
heavy off-road trucks diesel no yes (max. %) no no yes (LCNG)
trains electric/diesel no yes (max. %) yes (wired) no yes (LNG)
ships diesel yes (inland) yes (max. %) no no yes (LNG)
aircrafts kerosene no yes (max. %) no no yes (LNG)
Source: NGVA Europe (2012).
1 LCNG means liquid or compressed (natural) gas.
Usage of LNG or LBM in airplanes is not considered here. The development of such a
plane is still in the experimental stage.
3.2.1. Usage in heavy duty vehicles
LNG/LBM usage in heavy duty trucks appears to have the largest potential in terms of
energy. As indicated, there are currently four trucks types available in Europe which run on
LNG/LBM. Another option which some companies offer is to refit a CNG truck or bus with
an LNG tank. Table 3.2 displays some technical specifications of the four LNG trucks.
Figure 3.3 displays a photograph of the Volvo FM Methane-Diesel. One can see the LNG
tank in the foreground.
25

Table 3.2. Technical specifications of available LNG trucks in Europe
26
dual-fuel single-fuel
Volvo FM
Methane-Diesel Iveco Stralis Mercedes Econic Scania P310 LNG
power 460 HP 270-330 HP 270 HP 305 HP
Maximum torque 2,300 Nm 1,100 Nm 1,100 Nm 1,250 Nm
LNG tank capacity 280 L 250-330 kg variable (145 + 100) kg
Diesel tank capacity 240 L 0 L 0 L 0 L
driving range 1,000 km 600 km variable 450 km
minimal tank pressure 6 bar 7 bar 16 bar 7 bar
maximum tank pressure 16 bar 16 bar 24 bar 24 bar
filling system vapour collapse vapour collapse vapour return vapour return
Figure 3.3. The Volvo FM Methane-Diesel
To get a grip on the potential for LBM usage in heavy duty vehicles, an overview of the
present situation is needed. At the reference date of January 1, 2012, 152,018 heavy duty
vehicles were registered in the Netherlands and 11,592 specifically in Overijssel. Only 0.4
% of these trucks ran on CNG (CBS, 2012o). The number of trucks which run on LNG is no
more than 50 at this moment in the Netherlands.
The average age of a heavy duty vehicle in the Netherlands is 8.6 years (CBS, 2012p).
Assuming that the amount of 2 nd hand vehicles in the Netherlands is minimal, this means
that an average heavy duty vehicle has a service span of 8.6 years before it is written of.
This has to be kept in mind when introducing trucks running on alternative fuels. The

success or failure of this introduction can only be really determined at the end of the
average write-off period.
The most limiting factor to the development of LNG and LBM for trucks use appears to be
the renewable rate of the vehicle fleet. It is unlikely that companies replace their diesel
trucks by LNG trucks when they are not fully written of yet. In other words, every new diesel
trucks introduced in the fleet today remains in service for another 8.6 years, averagely.
The average service lifetime of 8.6 year for a truck means that the Dutch heavy duty
vehicle fleet can welcome 17,681 new vehicles each year (1,350 for Overijssel). This figure
corresponds with figures given on the sold vehicles and the exported and demolished
vehicles. In the timeframe 2000-2010, 15,310 heavy duty vehicles were sold each year and
16,555 vehicles exited the fleet (due to export or retirement) each year on average (CBS,
2012j; CBS, 2012m). The number of heavy duty vehicles stayed more or less constant in
the past 12 year, averaging at 155,222 vehicles.
For now, it is assumed that 17,500 new heavy duty vehicles enter the Dutch fleet on a
yearly basis. This determines the possibilities for the introduction of a new fuel. The
development of this depends on the percentage of vehicles sold as LNG trucks each year.
Assuming that LNG/LBM fully replaces diesel at some unknown point in history, this
percentage increases from virtually 0 % today to 100 % at a given point. After the 100 %
point each reached, it still takes a number of years before diesel is phased out. One can
make projections on the possible growth paths of the LNG/LBM truck fleet. This can be
done by analysing different scenarios for the growth of this “replacement percentage”.
The replacement percentage can grow linearly or by a certain factor each year to 100 %.
For both cases, 4 scenarios are analysed:
1. a “crash” scenario where the replacement percentage grows to 100 % in 10 years;
2. a 20-year scenario where the replacement percentage grows to 100 % in 20 years;
3. a 30-year scenario where the replacement percentage grows to 100 % in 30 years;
4. a realistic scenario where the replacement percentage grows to 100 % in 40 years.
In the calculations, it is assumed that the average age of a truck is 9 years and that 17,500
trucks are replaced yearly. The results for the linear growth are given in Figure 3.4 and the
results for exponential growth are given in Figure 3.5, assuming one starts in 2013. The
graphs contain the lines for the crash scenario and the realistic scenario. The other
scenarios lie between these two extremes.
27

Figure 3.4. Linear growth patterns for the number of LNG/LBM vehicles
28
number of heavy duty vehicles (*1000)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
crash scenario
realistic
scenario
Figure 3.5. Exponential growth patterns for the number LNG/LBM vehicles 1
1
number of heavy duty vehicles (*1000)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
crash scenario
realistic
scenario
This graph starts at a number of 50 LNG trucks. For the “realistic scenario” the annual growth percentage
between 2020 and 2050 is 16 %. In comparison: the NGVA assumes an annual growth for trucks and buses of 14 %.
The linear growth paths have the advantage that the number of vehicles develops relatively
quickly within a ten year timeframe. The exponential growth paths are more likely to occur,
which means a slow start of the growth. The NGVA (Natural Gas Vehicles Administrations)

expects a 14 % annual growth on the number of natural gas trucks in the period 2012-
2020. This is even less than the 40 years exponential growth pattern suggests. This
scenario is thus the most optimistic scenario, and the other scenarios can only happen
under (extreme) pressure of the government. Table 3.3 gives for all scenarios, for the
Netherlands and the province of Overijssel the expected number of heavy duty vehicles on
LNG/LBM for 10, 20, 30 and 40 years after the introduction. For the most realistic scenario
of a 40 years introduction path, the halfway point (50 % of the trucks are LNG) lies in the
year 2051.
Table 3.3. Number of heavy duty vehicles after 10, 20, 30 and 40 years
years
linear growth scenarios (thousands) exponential growth scenarios (thousands)
crash 20 30 40 crash 20 30 realistic
Netherlands 10 100 53 36 27 39 3 2 1
20 158 128 86 65 158 64 12 5
30 158 158 137 104 158 158 82 22
40 158 158 158 142 158 158 158 94
Overijssel 10 8 4 3 2 3 0.3 0.1 0.1
20 12 10 7 5 12 5 0.1 0.4
30 12 12 10 8 12 12 6 2
40 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 7
The average mileage of a Dutch heavy duty vehicle in the Netherlands was 38,100 km.
Assuming a growth of 161 km each year (obtained by linearly extrapolating data from CBS
(2012e) and CBS (2012g), one can calculate the expected amount of kilometres driven on
a LNG/LBM truck in the Netherlands and Overijssel. This is displayed in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Development of the amount of kilometres driven on LBM/LNG trucks
kilometres driven on LNG/LBM trucks (billions)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
Netherlands
Overijssel
Any scenario which develops faster than displayed in Figure 3.6 requires coercive
government measures or escalating oil prices.
29

3.2.2. Usage in shipping
Deploying LNG and LBM as a fuel in inland as well as sea shipping is also possible. It is
currently not yet permitted to use LNG for inland navigation on a large scale. A legal
framework thus has to be established first. Since the Dutch energy usage for shipping is
approximately the same as the energy usage for heavy duty vehicles (96 PJ and 92 PJ
respectively in 2010; (Compendium voor de Leefomgeving, 2012)) the potential reduction
of CO2 emissions is about the same as the potential reduction for trucks. The potential
reduction for PM10 and NOx emissions is higher because the shipping sector uses fuel oil
which is more polluting than diesel. Ships can emit up to three times as much NOx per
kilogram of used fuel than trucks. In this report no scenarios are given for the reduction
trends in shipping. The future for the shipping industry is more difficult to predict, and the
replacement of the shipping fleet takes considerably longer given that a ship has to last
much longer than a truck, on average. The average age of a ship before it is recycled is 28
years (Mikelis, 2007). Changing the fuel use in the shipping sector is thus a slow dynamic
process. Converting a ships engine to run on LNG/LBM is also a possibility. At this moment
it is unclear which ships are eligible for such a conversion and what the costs of such a
conversion would be.
3.2.3. Possible usage in trains
LNG or LBM can also be used to replace diesel as a fuel in trains. An example of this can
be found in Russia, where a locomotive is running on LNG. The advantage of replacing
train diesel with LNG could be that there are fixed locations for filling stations. The potential
for the Netherlands is limited, because most trains are electrified and the diesel energy use
of trains is only 0.25 % of the total transport energy usage (Compendium voor de
Leefomgeving, 2012). LNG/LBM usage in trains is therefore not taken into account in this
analysis.
30

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE FOR LBM USAGE
4.1. Environmental sustainability
LBM fuel usage must also be sustainable from an environmental point of view. This is the
reason for introducing LBM in the first place. The environmental performance depends on
the following factors:
- the amount of LBM used;
- where and how the LBM is produced;
- where LBM is used;
- contribution to the government goals for 2020;
- Interdependence of LBM fuel and other renewable energy production from biomass.
The potential for LBM usage in trucks and buses (from chapter 3) is coupled to the specific
emissions for these vehicles to determine the development of the emission savings and the
contribution to the 2020 goals.
Desirability
The main reason for the introduction of LBM in the transport sector is to decrease the
negative influence of this sector on the environment. Prior to any research regarding the
implementation of LBM, one would like to confirm the general environmental benefits of
LBM. To do this, the lifecycle CO2 emissions of LBM have to be compared to other
transport fuels as well as other energy uses of biomass. Once the general environmental
sustainability is established, one can investigate the specific environmental benefits for the
Netherlands. To compare the well-to-wheel emissions of different transport fuels, data from
multiple literature resources are combined. The results are displayed in Figure 4.1. They
are given for passenger cars, to make a valid comparison. The error bars for CO2 indicate
the standard deviation of the values found in literature. For the NOx and PM10 emissions
there are less data available so no error bars are indicated for these two. They are large for
the bio-fuels because of the different production options. It is clear that LBM and CBM are
cleaner than fossil fuels and can compete with other bio fuels.
31

Figure 4.1. Well-to-wheel emissions for different transport fuels 1
32
CO2 emissions (g*km -1 )
250
200
150
100
50
0
petrol
diesel
carbondioxide particulate matter nitrogen oxides
LPG
LNG/CNG
electric
bio-ethanol
bio-diesel
LBM/CBM
Source: Milieu Centraal (2012), FUELswitch (2012), TNO/CE Delft (2011), CE Delft (2008) & Wikimobi (2012).
1 The error bars for the CO2 emissions indicate the standard deviation of the values found in literature.
Comparing the emissions of different options for biomass usage is difficult because that
depends on the end-use. In this case, it is better to look at the life-cycle emissions per MJ
of delivered energy. Natuur & Milieu has looked at the amount of avoided CO2 emissions
for certain types of biomass usage and related costs. The data is presented in Table 4.1. It
must be noted that electricity can also be used in transport, leading to a greater reduction in
CO2 emissions. From the figures in this table it appears that LBM/CBM use in transport is
the most cost-effective route to reduce CO2 emissions. Heat production has the highest
potential in terms of CO2 avoidance, but the production of heat is often confined to specific
locations where there is a demand and is therefore limited.
Table 4.1. Comparing different biomass options
option for biomass replacing energy source avoided CO2 (g*MJ -1 ) additional cost (EUR*MJ -1 )
electricity electricity from gas turbine 26 0.030
CHP plant electricity from gas turbine 57 0.026
green gas injection natural gas 48 0.019
driving on green gas diesel 52 0.013
driving on LBM/CBM diesel 55 0.010
heat production natural gas 56 0.010
Source: Natuur & Milieu (2011).
4.2. Emission patterns for LBM use in trucks & buses
4.2.1. Well-to-wheel emissions
To calculate the reductions for the emissions of CO2, PM10, and NOx, the well-to-wheel
emissions of trucks are used. These well-to-wheel for trucks and passengers cars given by
different sources are put together to obtain the three values for the truck well-to-wheel
0.7
0.56
0.42
0.28
0.14
0
emissions of PM10 and Nox (g*km -1 )

emissions. Sometimes, the emissions are given for passenger cars only and have to be
converted to trucks on the basis of the specific energy use of these vehicles. Well-to-wheel
emissions mean the emissions of LNG/LBM use in trucks and buses from the production
source till the power transfer to the wheels. These well-to-wheel emissions will of course
vary with truck type, origin of the LNG, origin of the LBM and how the LBM is produced.
The values used here therefore only give an “average” value. When the LNG and LBM
market has scaled up in a later stage, these numbers can be made more specific. These
numbers are displayed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Well-to-wheel emissions for trucks 1
emissions in g*km -1
CO2 PM10 NOx
diesel trucks 695 0.23 7
LNG trucks 587 0.04 0.3
LBM trucks 112 0.03 0.2
Source: Milieu Centraal (2012), FUELswitch (2012), TNO/CE Delft (2011), CE Delft (2008) & Wikimobi (2012), DENA
(2010) and Torchio & Santarelli (2010).
1 The numbers for passenger cars are converted to number for trucks and buses on the basis of specific energy
use of these vehicles. Some sources give a certain range for the well-to-wheel emissions, dependent on how
the fuel is produced and where the biomass comes from. The lowest values are taken in this case.
In comparison, CBS (2012r) gives the following emissions (the Dutch average, in g*km -1 )
for the total cycle: CO2 - 870; PM10 - 0.1; NOx - 6.4. These are the total emissions for trucks
and buses as calculated by the CBS. The well-to-wheel emissions used in this report thus
seem to agree reasonably with these numbers. The potential reduction is displayed in
Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2. Relative reduction potential for different well-to-wheel emissions
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CO2 particulate matter nitrogen oxides
diesel
LNG
LBM
33

4.2.2. CO2 reduction
Assuming the development path as displayed in Figure 3.6, one can calculate the
emissions when replacing diesel trucks fully with LNG or LBM trucks. In this projection, the
yearly increase in transport kilometres and the trend of yearly improving CO2 emissions per
kilogram are taken into account. The results are displayed Figure 4.3 for the Netherlands
and in Figure 4.4 for Overijssel.
Figure 4.3. Projected CO2 emissions for the Netherlands 1
34
CO 2 emissions (million tonnes)
5
4
3
2
1
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0
0%
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
saving percentage
100 % diesel
LNG replacement
LBM replacement
savings (LNG)
savings (LBM)
1 This picture represents the emission paths of either 100 % LNG replacement or 100 % LBM replacement.
With the potential production of LBM from Dutch biomass, the most likely scenario will be a mixture of LNG
and LBM. The actual emission path will thus lie between the LNG and LBM lines, dependent on the mixing
percentage.

Figure 4.4. Projected CO2 emissions for the province of Overijssel
CO 2 emissions (thousand tonnes)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
4.2.3. NOx and PM10 reduction
100%
86%
71%
57%
43%
29%
14%
0
0%
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
saving percentage
100 % diesel
LNG replacement
LBM replacement
savings (LNG)
savings (LBM)
To project the development of NOx and PM10, the projections of Figure 3.6 are also used,
but the average mileage and the specific emissions of NOx and PM10 are kept constant,
because it is difficult to project how these specific emissions develop in the future. The
results are displayed in Figure 4.5 for PM10 and in Figure 4.6 for NOx. The saving
percentages are identical for the Netherlands and Overijssel. In the calculations, the
emission data for LNG is used, because these are approximately the same as LBM.
35

Figure 4.5. Well-to-wheel PM10 emissions for heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands
36
PM 10 emissions (tonnes)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
100%
86%
71%
57%
43%
29%
14%
0
0%
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
year
saving percentage
emissions
savings
Figure 4.6. Well-to-wheel NOx emissions for heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands
NO X emissions (thousand tonnes)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
100%
89%
78%
67%
56%
44%
33%
22%
11%
0
0%
2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 2062
4.3. Contribution to sustainability goals
year
saving percentage
emissions
savings
Introducing LNG and LBM as a transport fuel is environmentally beneficial. It can
successfully reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses and pollutants and LNG can,
potentially, fully replace fossil fuels in transport. It remains to be seen however, whether

LBM and LNG can significantly contribute to environmental sustainability in the next 20
years. Recalling Table 1.1, the governments have set out specific sustainability goals for
the year 2020.
The contribution of LBM to these goals for 2020 mainly depends on four factors.
1. Financial feasibility.
2. Production potential.
3. Speed of adoption.
4. Government policy.
Factors one and four cannot be quantified when determining the 2020 sustainability
potential. Assuming that factors one and four are optimal in this case, one can quantify
factors 2 and 3 and determine the potential for the 2020 government goals for the EU, the
Netherlands and Overijssel.
The potential for the reduction of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is limited by the
speed of introduction of new LNG/LBM vehicles. In the most favourable scenario, requiring
the immediate start of LBM production and coercive replacement of diesel trucks, there are
no more than 35,000 heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands and 3,000 in Overijssel in
2020. The most realistic scenario is a growth to about 1,000 vehicles in the Netherlands in
and 100 in Overijssel in 2020.
CO2 reduction in 2020
The total CO2 emission was 159 million tonnes in 1990. The required reduction in 2020
must thus be 32 million tonnes. The maximal potential for CO2 reduction is when all heavy
duty vehicles run on LBM. This saves 84 % in CO2 emissions in the heavy duty transport
sector. This is a total saving of 82 % in that sector and a saving of 3 % of the Dutch total
with respect to 1990 levels. Consequently, the contribution to the 20 % reduction goal is
2.9 pp (percentage point). In the realistic scenario of introducing LBM vehicles this
contribution is only 0.02 pp.
Share of renewable energy in 2020
The exact figures for the renewable energy share in 2020 can only be calculated when the
exact energy use of the Netherlands is known for 2020. This is not the case, this study
does not provide an analysis of the development of the total energy. However, using 2010
values for the energy use in the Netherlands, a good enough indication can be provided.
Compendium voor de leefomgeving (2012) gives the total energy in transport as 558 PJ
and the energy use of heavy duty vehicles as 96 PJ. The maximal share of renewable
energy in transport by replacing diesel for LBM in heavy duty vehicles is thus 17 %. This
value is more or less equal for the Netherlands and Overijssel. When following the realistic
introduction path the expected share of renewable energy in transport in 2020 is 0.1 %. If
the total realistic potential for green gas (13 PJ, see chapter 2), is used for LBM production
the renewable energy share is 2.3 %.
The total energy usage in transport was 14.1 % of the Dutch total in 2010 (CBS, 2012s).
This means the maximum share of renewable energy of heavy duty transport is 2.4 %. This
means a maximum contribution of 12 % to the renewable energy goal of Overijssel and a
contribution of 17 % to the Dutch renewable energy goal.
The results for the contribution to the sustainability goals for 2020 are summarised in
Figure 4.7. These are the potentials for LBM usage in heavy duty transport in the
37

Netherlands. The potential for 2020 is very limited for Overijssel as well as for the
Netherlands. Significant environmental benefits are possible, but not before the year 2020.
Figure 4.7. Potential contributions to sustainability goals for 2020 1
38
maximum and LBM production potential
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
CO2 reduction renewable
energy
renewable
energy
Overijssel
renewable
energy
transport
0.10%
0.09%
0.08%
0.07%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
potential for expected truck fleet size
maximum
LBM production 2020
truck fleet 2020
1 The maximum potential indicates the percentages when all heavy duty vehicles run on LBM (left axis). LBM
production 2020 indicates the potential when the expected green gas production is used as LBM (left axis)
and truck fleet 2020 indicates the potential if the truck fleet grows in a normal growth pattern (right axis).

5. ECONOMICS OF LBM PRODUCTION AND USE
Successful introduction of LBM depends on whether there is a business case to produce
and use it. From the production side this depends on:
- the production scale;
- competition with other fuels and other usage of biomass;
- the combination with LNG usage;
- subsidy schemes.
Firstly, the agricultural sector in the Netherlands determines to a large extend the optimal
production scale. A small scale means relatively high production costs but choosing the
scale to large means that the transport costs of biomass get too high. The construction of
LBM production hubs (equivalent to green gas hubs) may also be interesting (see the
glossary for the explanation of a hub). Secondly, LBM production must be competitive
compared to the production of other bio fuels and other uses of biomass. This is closely
related to subsidy schemes. Subsidy regulations may, intentionally or unintentionally, lead
to an unfair playground when it comes to the production of renewable energy. Lastly LNG
production and availability plays a role. Differences between costs and quality between
LNG versus LBM determine in part the feasibility of LBM fuel.
From the users side, successful LBM implementation depends on:
- the presence of sufficient demand for LBM;
- sufficient means to distribute LBM;
- fuel taxes and the price setting of LBM fuel;
- advantages and disadvantages compared to other fuels.
Demand for LBM will only develop if there is enough production and distribution capacity.
LNG usage can help in creating this capacity, because the creation of an LNG
infrastructure automatically generates infrastructure needed for LBM. Creating sufficient
distribution options for LBM is also important. The number of filling stations for LBM in the
Netherlands determines which transport companies are willing to make a switch to LBM
fuel. The types of LBM propulsion technologies (single or dual fuel for example) are also
related to this. The price setting of LBM fuel is also vital. If this turns out to be too high
compared to diesel for example, the payback time for investing in LBM trucks is too high
resulting in a lowered willingness of transport companies to invest in LBM. The user
friendliness of LBM fuel may not differ greatly compared to already established fuels.
The whole LBM chain, from biomass to end use, can actually be split up into three phases:
1. the supply of biomass;
2. the production of LBM;
3. distribution and usage of LBM.
Production and usage of LBM do not appear to be linked to each other in a geographical
sense. This is equivalent to the production and usage of other fuels. For example, LPG and
diesel are available throughout the country, but are transported from a single source.
It must be determined whether LBM production can be made profitable under the present
market situation. Different companies are contacted to review the possibilities for
distributing and selling LBM. The price setting of LBM fuel can be determined from the
obtained information and is compared with other transport fuels. The influence of
government subsidies and extra incomes from the production of by-products is also
considered.
39

5.1. LBM production options
LBM is produced from upgrading syngas or biogas. The different production options for
LBM can be regarded as a two-stage composition:
1. the production of biogas or syngas;
2. the production of LBM out of biogas or syngas.
Before LBM can be produced, the biogas first has to be upgraded to biomethane. In
principle there are four techniques to do this: gas cleaning, cryogenic techniques, VPSA
and membrane filtration (Platform Nieuw Gas, 2009). Syngas is produced by gasification of
woody biomass and can be converted directly to methane. Biogas can be produced from
co-digestion, industrial digestion, industrial water treatment and landfill gas. This is
displayed graphically in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. Production routes for biomethane
The obtained biomethane consists for more than 98 % of CH4. This can be compressed to
obtain CBM or cooled to -162 °C to obtain LBM. For the production of LBM the cryogenic
techniques to upgrade biogas seems to best suited. The cooling trajectory during the
upgrading process can then be continued to immediately obtain LBM. Production of LBM
out of landfill gas, waste water treatment and gasification is location bound for the most
part. For industrial digestion and co-digestion, which have the most production potential,
the situation is more nuanced. For the end production of LBM three routes are thinkable
(independent of the used production technique). These routes are depicted in Figure 5.2.
40
production of
biogas
anaerobic codigestion
industrial
digestion
gasification
biogas upgrading
biogas
waste water
treatment
landfill gas
gas cleaning
cryogenic
techniques
VPSA
biomethane

Figure 5.2. Production possibilities for LBM 1
ROUTE 1 ROUTE 2 ROUTE 3
biomass
at farm
biogas
prod.
LBM
prod.
biogas
producer
biogas
producer
LBM
prod.
biogas
producer
biogas
producer
biomass biomass
biogas
production
LBM
production
1 This figure represents the different options for LBM production. Route 1 indicates a single farm producing and
upgrading biogas. Route 2 depicts multiple biogas producers connected to a LBM production hub via
pipelines. In route three the biomass of different farms (and other sources) is collected to be digested and
upgraded in a single location.
The total cost for the production of LBM via digestion of biomass generally depends on the
production scale. The production cost asymptotically approaches a constant value when
one makes size of the production plant sufficiently large.
5.2. Production costs
The production costs of biogas and the costs of upgrading biogas to LBM consist of the
investment costs and the operational costs. In this report, data of different studies on the
production costs related to scale are combined. Given that these are two separate stages,
the production cost of biogas and for LBM are determined separately. These results can be
added together to determine the overall production costs of LBM.
5.2.1. Financeability
Financing a LBM production facility actually consists of three parts.
1. Financing the facility for biogas production from:
2. Financing the facility for upgrading the biogas to biomethane by:
3. Financing a small-scale liquefaction plant to cool the obtained biomethane.
One can combine the cryogenic upgrading technique with the small-scale liquefaction plant
to obtain cost- and environmental benefits. These advantages are difficult to quantity at this
moment. Existing biogas plants could also be linked via pipelines to obtain a cost
advantage for the production of biomethane.
Getting finance for steps 2 and 3 is difficult due to the current subsidy scheme SDE+ (see
Appendix II). Only the production of renewable heat, electricity and grid injected green gas
are subsidised at this moment. Moreover, gas and electricity companies are obliged to buy
41

this electricity and green gas. This gives banks the guaranty of a stable income stream.
Banks are thus more interested in financing renewable gas and electricity projects, than a
project for LBM, at this moment.
Investment costs
The investments costs of different plants depend highly on the location and the chosen
technique. To give an indication, some numbers found in literature for the investment costs
of different plants are given here. Figure 5.3 gives an overview of these investment costs at
a glance.
Figure 5.3. Investment costs for LBM production facilities 1
42
investment costs
€ 30,000,000
€ 25,000,000
€ 20,000,000
€ 15,000,000
€ 10,000,000
€ 5,000,000
€ -
average biogas plant reference size (18 million litres
of LBM per year)
co-digestion
upgrading
liquefication
1 These values are deduced with data on the investments costs for co-digestion, green gas or biomethane
upgrading and liquefication plants from ECN (2011), HIT (2008), E-Kwadraat Advies (2011) and CE Delft
(2010). The “error” bars represent the standard deviation of the values found in literature.
The total investment cost for a LBM production facility from co-digestion, with an equivalent
production capacity of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 is about EUR 21 million. This comes
down to EUR 9,500 per (litre LBM*hour -1 ) production capacity.
5.2.2. Costs of producing biogas
As mentioned in section 5.1, biogas can be produced in five ways: co-digestion, industrial
digestion, land fill gas, waste water treatment and gasification. Gasification of woody
biomass is as of this moment far more expensive than other processes of converting woody
biomass or producing biogas from digestion processes (ECN, 2011). Gasification is a
technique still under development and could be interesting for the future given the high
conversion yield of 70% (ECN, 2011a). Biogas produced by waste water treatment plants is
usually used to power the plant itself and is therefore also excluded in this study. From
different sources, the total production costs of biogas related to the production scale are put
together. A trend (production costs versus production scale) is determined with this. The
results are displayed in Figure 5.4.
total

Figure 5.4. Cost development of biogas production with scale 1
production costs (EUR*GJ -1 )
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
production scale (m 3 green gas*hour -1 )
Source: adaptation of E-Kwadraat Advies (2011), CE Delft (2010), ECN (2011) & HIT (2008).
co-digestion
industrial digestion
landfill gas
1 These graphs represent a trend of the production costs related to production scale, for a single production
plant (route 3).
Landfill gas is by far the cheapest option and this is logical because this gas is essentially
produced for free, only some light installations are needed to capture the gas. Transport
distances of biomass and other digestible material does not seem to have an effect on the
production costs for larger scales (for the scale indicated). Industrial digestion is on
average 23 % cheaper than co-digestion. This is because of the differences in market price
of different digestible waste streams. The waste streams used for industrial digestion often
have a negative value.
5.2.3. Costs of upgrading biogas to LBM
Data for the production costs of LBM from biogas is scarcely available from literature
(because there is little experience in practice). With the obtained data, the production costs
depending on the scale are determined similarly to section 5.2.2. The results are displayed
in Figure 5.5. In comparison with the production costs for biogas, LBM production takes up
about 20 % of the production costs of co-digestion for the indicated range of production
scales. The relative distribution of the LBM production costs for different scales is larger
however.
43

Figure 5.5. Cost development of LBM production with scale 1
44
production costs (EUR*GJ -1 )
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
production scale (m 3 green gas*hour -1 )
Source: adaptation from E-Kwadraat Advies (2011), CE Delft (2010) & HIT (2008).
LBM production
1 This graph represent a trend of the production costs related to production scale, for a single production plant
(route 3).
5.2.4. Total costs for producing LBM
The combination of the two trends obtained in section 5.2.2 and section 5.2.3 gives the
total costs of producing LBM out of biomass for a specific scale of production. The three
routes displayed in Figure 5.2 come in to play here. The transport costs are already taken
into account in Figure 5.4. Having done a short analysis it appears that the cost of route 1
is always larger than route 3. Route 2 is also analysed and is also more expensive then
route 3 in every case. This finding corresponds with conclusions from ECN (2011). The
total cost for route 3 for landfill gas, industrial digestion and co-digestion are finally
displayed in Figure 5.6.

Figure 5.6. Total production costs for LBM 1
production costs (EUR*GJ -1 )
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
production scale (m 3 green gas*hour -1 )
co-digestion
industrial digestion
landfill gas
1 This graph represent a trend of the production costs related to production scale, for a single production plant
(route 3).
5.3. Production capacity and transport kilometres
Up to now, the discussion of LBM has focussed on production scales in m 3 green gas*hour -
1 and pricing in EUR*GJ -1 . LBM production can be compared with other forms of producing
energy from biomass and LBM usage can be compared with the performance of other fuels
this way. To make this more tangible, these units have to be linked to data from the
transport sector.
5.3.1. Optimal production scale
The determination for an optimal production scale is subject to a number of criteria:
- Indications for LBM/LNG pricing;
- transport distance of biomass streams;
- the amount of biomass needed for a certain installation;
- the current situation of the biogas facilities in the Netherlands and the expected
development.
The production price of LBM has to compete with LNG prices. The current landed price for
LNG in Belgium is EUR 6.38 per GJ. To retain a sufficient margin of profit for LNG/LBM
distributers, LBM prices cannot be much higher than this. One would thus like to produce
LBM at such a scale the production costs remain constant more or less. In Figure 5.6 this
appear to happen at an equivalent production scale of about 2000 m 3 green gas*hour -1 .
The costs, energy use and CO2 emissions due to the transport of biomass, will at some
point be greater than the benefits from producing LBM. For the production costs, this effect
is not significant for the production range 0-10,000 m 3 green gas*hour -1 . Biomass has to be
transported at least 200 km before the energy use exceeds the yield (Berglund &
45

Börjesson, 2006). This factor is thus not relevant for the Netherlands. The same goes for
the CO2 emissions from transporting biomass over the road (CE Delft, 2010).
From a cost perspective it appears, at first glance, that the higher the production capacity
the better. Commissioning large plants however has two potential dangers. In the first
place, a large LBM plant is consequently also dependent on a continuously large stream of
biomass. For large production plants this has to come from large regions. The reliability of a
constant supply decreases with larger volumes (because it has to come from multiple
sources), which compromises business operations. The second danger is then that larger
production facilities pay higher biomass prices or receive less for biomass with a negative
market value in order to ensure a continuous supply of biomass. As a consequence,
(production) prices for LBM will go up. Unfortunately it is difficult to quantify this exactly
because it is dependent on a lot of different factors.
To further demarcate the optimal LBM production scale it is also important to look at the
current size of digesters in the Netherlands and the expected trends. This is displayed in
Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Size of Dutch digestion plants and trends
46
size (m 3 green gas*hour -1 )
average 2011 reference ECN 2012 linear trend 2020 1
expectations 2
co-digestion 227 280 627 5000
industrial digestion 603 527 no clear trend 5000
landfill gas 158 80 not applicable not applicable
Source: CBS (2012c), ECN (2011) & CE Delft (2010).
1 Calculated with data from 2005-2011 (extrapolation).
2 Term of development unknown.
The expectations for a 5,000 m 3 green gas*hour -1 co-digestion plant do not correspond with
the linear extrapolation. Given that co-digestion plants will not grow significantly in capacity
in the coming years, it may still be the case in practice that some co-digestion plants are
interconnected via a hub. For industrial installation the trend does lean towards larger
installations (examples to be found in Denmark and Sweden for example (CE Delft, 2011)).
Production of biogas from land fill site is expected to decline in the future, because of a
lowering in the number of landfill sites and the amount of disposed waste (Compendium
voor de leefomgeving, 2012a).
Considering the issues set out in this paragraph as well as the current subsidy regulations
and the willingness of banks to finance these installations, a production scale bandwidth
between 1,000 and 2,000 m 3 green gas*hour -1 is considered optimal forthwith. This report
therefore works with a production scale equivalent of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 . For a
green gas hub, (ECN, 2011) gives a reference scale of 1,250 m 3 green gas*hour -1 . This
confirms that 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 is indeed a reasonable scale. To give another
indication: in the region of Salland in the province of Overijssel the potential to produce
green gas from different forms of waste is 22 million m 3 *year -1 . This comes down to a scale
of 2,750 m 3 *hour -1 . Without making further assumptions, two production installations would
suffice in this instance.
5.3.2. Properties of LBM fuel
To make link between production scale and transport capacity, some general parameters of
LBM fuel are discussed first. An overview of all the values and parameters used in this

study is given in Appendix IV. This report works with a methane content in the LBM of 100
%. The actual value lies between 97 % and 99 %. Pure methane has an energy content of
5.0*10 7 J*kg -1 and, at standard temperature and pressure, a density of 0.72 kg*m -3 . LBM
has got a density of 424.14 kg*m -3 . This means that LBM contains 589 times more energy
in the same space as the gas biomethane.
2.3577 litres of LBM equals 1 kilogram. This means LBM has and energy density of
21 MJ*L -1 . One cubic metre of green gas produces approximately 1.5 litres of LBM fuel.
5.3.3. Production scale related to transport
The number of kilometres trucks are able to run on 1 litre of LBM depends on the type of
engine (dual-fuel or single fuel) and the engine efficiency. For dual-fuel applications the
engine efficiency is equal to that of diesel engines and for single fuel application the
efficiency is slightly lower. Given the lack of any solid practical data on the energy use of
different LNG/LBM trucks, the energy efficiency is assumed to be the same as diesel.
Subsequently, statistical data of 2010 is used to calculate the capacity for a certain
production scale to fuel a number of heavy duty vehicles in the Netherlands.
In 2010, a total number of 178,612 heavy duty vehicles (registered with a Dutch license
plate) drove around in the Netherlands (CBS, 2012e; CBS, 2012g). Together they
consumed 96 PJ worth of energy (Compendium voor de leefomgeving, 2012). A total
distance of 6,805,200,000 km was travelled (CBS, 2012f). This means the following.
1. The average annual distance travelled by a heavy duty vehicle is 38,100 km.
2. The average amount of energy used by a heavy duty vehicle annually is 537 GJ.
3. The average specific energy use of a heavy duty vehicle was 1,411 MJ * 100 km -1 .
This energy use comes down to about 39 litres of diesel per 100 km. An LBM production
facility with a capacity of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 , produces 18.2 million litres of LBM fuel
in a year. This is enough for 27.2 million kilometres or 714 heavy duty vehicles. Such a
production capacity would replace 10.7 million litres of diesel fuel on an annual basis. This
accounts for 0.1388 % of the Dutch diesel use in transport in 2010 (CBS, 2012h). To satisfy
the total fuel demand of the heavy duty vehicles, 250 of these installations are required.
250 installations would replace 35 % of the Dutch diesel need and this number corresponds
with data given in Compendium voor de leefomgeving (2012), which gives 36 % for 2010.
To give a graphical indication on how much facilities are needed for a certain number of
vehicles and mileages, a 3D graph is presented in Figure 5.7.
47

Figure 5.7. LBM installations needed to drive x trucks y kilometres per year 1
1
48
LBM production installations
180,000
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
number of trucks
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
0
50,000
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
150,000 0
100,000
km*year -1
This concerns production facilities with a capacity of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 . If the LBM is used in dual fuel
applications or is mixed with LNG, the number of installations is simply multiplied with the mixing percentage.
5.4. Marketing possibilities and LNG overlap
5.4.1. The LBM comparison: diesel or LNG?
The development of an LBM infrastructure, next to the LNG infrastructure is not equivalent
to the development of, for example, a biodiesel infrastructure next to a diesel infrastructure.
This is also true for the development of other bio fuels next to their fossil equivalents. In the
case of LBM and LNG, there are two fundamental differences:
1. biodiesel was introduced next to an already existing infrastructure for normal diesel,
whereas LBM must by introduced simultaneously with LNG;
2. the quality of LBM is generally speaking higher than LNG whereas the quality of
biodiesel or bio-ethanol is lower than diesel or petrol respectively.
Introducing LBM next to the developing infrastructure of LNG could both have advantages
and disadvantages. The advantage is that, while the LNG sector develops more rapidly
than the LBM sector, the introduction of LBM can be run congruent with the developments
in the LNG sector. Introduction of, for example mixing obligations of LBM and LNG fuel
could however slow down developments in the LNG sector, due to the limited availability of
LBM in the early stages of development.
Successful introduction of LBM fuel also depends on the price setting. LNG can be
successfully introduced, because the pump price in lower than that of diesel. It is wrong
however to make the same comparison for LBM. A lower pump price of LBM than that of
diesel does not imply that LBM can be successfully introduced. LBM is the replacement of
the fossil fuel LNG and not the replacement of diesel. Prices of LBM and LNG therefore
have to be kept equal at the pump. This puts limits on the price at which a production

company (a farm for example) can sell LBM to the market. Table 5.2 displays the current
situation regarding raw prices.
Table 5.2. Raw prices for LNG, diesel and LBM
raw prices in EUR * GJ -1
landed LNG price off-terminal price maximum price for
LBM 1
refinery price diesel LBM production
price 2
6.39 9.05 12.07 17.81 19.49
1 From personal communication with Rolande LCNG and LNG 24 CleanFuel.
2 For a facility of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 , based on co-digestion.
Table 5.2 shows that an LBM production plant cannot run without government support.
However, this is also the case for production facilities of green gas and renewable
electricity. Subsidising LBM fuel instead of grid injected green gas is the cheapest option
for the government because the cost-revenue deficit if lower for LBM. At the current offterminal
price for LNG, the difference would already be EUR 1,67 per GJ at the least, for a
facility of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 . Large scale implementation could save the
governmental a substantial amount on subsidy spending yearly.
5.4.2. Possibilities to distribute LBM
Once the LBM is produced one way or another there are essentially three options to
distribute it.
1. In option one, a LBM fuelling station is directly attached to the LBM production facility.
2. In option two, the produced LBM is collected by LNG trucks and then distributed to
LNG/LBM fuelling stations.
3. In option three, the produced LBM is collected and transported to storage and or mixing
facilities for LNG and LBM. From there is can be distributed to LNG fuelling stations or
regasified into the Dutch gas grid.
These three options are depicted schematically in Figure 5.8.
49

Figure 5.8. Options to distribute LBM 1
50
LBM
production
distribution
by
trucks
storage
or
mixing distribution
by
OPTION 3
trucks
OPTION 1
distribution
by
trucks
OPTION 2
1 With option 1, the LBM fuel station is directly linked to the LBM production site.
regasification
LBM
fuel
station
Option 1
Option one appears to be the cheapest option for the producer. Placing a fuelling station
directly adjacent the LBM production facility avoids the need for third parties distributing the
LBM and exploiting the filling stations. However, the LBM producer does take on the
additional concern of running the fuelling station. The outflow of LBM is also more
discontinuous which has consequences for the production and storage capacity. Option
one is in most cases unsuitable when it comes to strategically localizing LNG/LBM fuelling
locations.
Option 2
Option 2 is considered to be the most likely scenario in this report. In this case the LBM
supplier can make arrangements with distribution companies to collect the LBM on a
regular basis. The supplier can then count on a periodical outflow of LBM which benefits
the business continuity. The distributors of LNG/LBM take care of placing and exploiting the
fuelling station and creating a demand for LBM/LNG.
Option 3
Option 3 appears to be unlikely when the LNG market is still small, but could be interesting
nevertheless. At this moment there are two LNG terminals supplying LNG for the
Netherlands: one in the port of Zeebrugge and one in the port of Rotterdam. Currently, only
Zeebrugge has the ability to load LNG into LNG trucks. In Rotterdam the LNG is regasified
into the grid. It could be interesting to bring LBM to these terminals (or possibly other
terminals constructed in the future) and mix it with the regular LNG. This possibility does
not exist currently. The advantage would be that LBM can be produced without waiting for
the development of a market for LBM use in transport. The LBM can in this be regasified
into the grid anyway. This option would be the most interesting when the government sets
regulations for mixing a certain percentage of LBM into LNG. The capacity of the LNG
terminals in Zeebrugge and Rotterdam is so large that it would be uninteresting for them to
accept LBM truck loads. With smaller inland terminals this would be less of a problem.

5.4.3. Revenue picture
Table 5.3 indicates the yearly operational costs and revenues for the different options
described in section 5.4.2.
Table 5.3. LBM cost and revenue trajectory for different options
costs/revenues EUR*GJ -1 EUR*year -1
liquid CO2 1
LBM sale 2
LBM production 4
(co-digestion)
LBM production 5
(ind. digestion)
transport 6
total (co-
digestion)
total (ind.
digestion)
option 1 option 2 option 3
3.78 1,453,000 3
EUR*GJ -1 EUR*year -1
EUR*GJ -1 EUR*year -1
3.78 1,453,000 3.78 1,453,000
22.97 8,819,000 12.07 4,634,000 9.05 3,475,000
-19.26 -7,396,000 -19.26 -7,396,000 -19.26 -7,396,000
-16.06 -6,166,000 -16.06 -6,166,000 -16.06 -6,166,000
0.00 0 0.00 0 0.24 91,000
7.49 2,876,000 -3.41 -1,310,000 -6.19 -2,377,000
10.69 4,106,000 -0.21 -79,000 -2.99 -1,147,000
1 The current market price of liquid CO2 is around EUR 100,- per tonne, i.a. (European Commission, 2010).
2 Option 1 concerns the pump price (see section 4.6.). Option 2 concerns price indications given, in personal
interviews, by Rolande LNG and LNG24. Option 3 concerns the off-terminal LNG price corrected for the
energy content in LNG compared to LBM.
3 The figures for the yearly costs are rounded.
4,5 For a production scale of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 .
6
This is an estimate on the basis of data from E-Kwadraat Advies (2011) and a transport distance of 100 km.
5.4.4. Price setting of LBM fuel
Companies are reluctant when it comes to giving information on LBM/LNG pricing. With the
information obtained however, a reasonable picture can be formed on the gross profit
margins for different fuels. To place LNG and LBM into a broader perspective Table 5.4
and Figure 5.9 gives the pricing for different fossil and renewable fuels.
Table 5.4. Pricing of different fossil and renewable fuels in EUR*GJ -1
petrol diesel LPG LNG CNG
bio-
ethanol biodiesel LBM CBM
refinery 16.52 17.81 14.63 9.05 5.96 20.14 15.24 15.81 1
15.07 1
stock tax 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.18 0.12 0.00
excise tax 22.14 11.97 3.64 3.37 0.00 22.85 12.08 3.37 0.00
energy tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29
VAT 2
gross margin
8.33 6.39 5.11 3.67 3.11 11.27 7.30 3.67 3.11
5.02 3.70 8.50 6.76 9.11 16.07 10.92 0.00 0.00
pump price 52.18 40.03 32.00 22.97 19.47 70.62 45.73 22.97 19.47
Source: Bovag (2012), Bovag (2012a), Bovag (2012b), LNG24 (2012), Orangegas (2012), FuelSwitch (2012a), EUBIA
(2012) & EUBIA (2012a).
1 These are the maximum ‘refinery’ prices so that the gross profit margin is zero. In the current situation, a
2
higher price means the gross profit margin turns negative.
Based on the old VAT tariff of 19 %. On October, 1 2012, the VAT tariff is increased to 21 %.
51

Figure 5.9. Relative build-up of the prices of different fuels
52
CBM
LBM
biodiesel
bio-ethanol
CNG
LNG
LPG
diesel
petrol
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
refinery
stock tax
excise tax
energy tax
gross profit margin
For the end-user, LBM en LNG are the cheapest fuels with respect to other liquid fuels.
Costs like the transport of the fuels and the exploitation of filling stations still have to be
paid out of the gross profit margin. It is unclear what an acceptable profit margin would be
for LBM. Rolande LNG however, has indicated that they are able to purchase LBM (from
production facilities) for a price of around EUR 0,60*kg -1 . At this price, it would appear that
EUR 3.75*GJ -1 (16.3 %) is an acceptable gross profit margin for LBM.
VAT

6. ORGANISING AN LBM INFRASTRUCTURE
A number a factors determine whether an LBM infrastructure can be organised effectively.
These factors include:
- production of liquid biomethane;
- distribution of liquid biomethane;
- environmental law;
- safety regulations.
Enough biomass has to be available to produce LBM in large quantities. A positive
business case for the production of LBM does not necessarily mean that LBM usage is
viable. LBM must be produced in such quantities, that a significant portion of the transport
sector can use it. There is also a time factor related to this. LBM as a fuel has to be realised
within a reasonable term, to be viable as a “transition” fuel. European and Dutch
environmental- and safety laws may impose restrictions on LBM production and usage.
This chapter describes how to introduce and organise an infrastructure for LBM in the most
optimal way. This is done apart from the question whether one wants to introduce LBM at
all. That question ultimately has to be answered by governments and producers and is
more difficult to answer given all the different interrelated factors in the industry of bio
energy.
To come to a successful introduction of LBM, the entire chain from production till delivery
must be organised optimally. This is considered in section 6.1 and section 6.2. In section
6.3, the preconditions needed for LBM introduction are analysed. The last paragraph
includes the role of the government and gives some other considerations.
6.1. Production & distribution
The development of a production and distribution chain for LBM runs parallel with the
developments of LNG in the transport sector. Organising this optimally basically boils down
to two issues:
- production location;
- production scale.
LBM is distributed by trucks or ships. The trucks and ships which are able to transport LNG
and LBM are already available. LNG trucks can transport LBM from the production location
or terminal to the filling stations. Bunkering ships are used for more large scale transport of
LBM. Distribution by ships is only possible when the entire LNG sector has grown
significantly. In the start-up phase, the produced LBM is most probably distributed directly
to small, dedicated LBM filling stations. In the case of a larger LBM production market, it is
most likely mixed with LNG first.
Production scale
The optimal production scale was partly discussed in chapter 5. To keep the cost of
biomass and the continuous supply of biomass under control, it is important not to choose
the production scale too large. To start up a LBM production chain it would be wise to begin
with small-scale production plants, given the fact also that the use of LNG in the transport
sector is still in the start-up phase.
An example to start up LBM production would be to place an LBM upgrading plant near a
landfill site producing biogas. This way, the financial risks are limited. Biogas from landfill
sites is much cheaper than from co-digestion and because of the relatively low production
53

scale there are enough possibilities to sell the LBM. This also ensures a continuous outflow
of LBM, in a still growing LNG market. For the future the potential for LBM from landfill gas
is limited, but this way one can at least start-up a relative low cost LBM project. In the UK
there is already an example of a plant which produces LBM from landfill gas.
A second step would be to connect different, already existing, biogas producing facilities to
a hub via biogas pipelines. This hub would then process the biogas to produce LBM. This
way the risk is spread out over multiple biogas producers and only the upgrading facility
would have to be built. The scale of production is higher in this case and the facility would
have to process a continuous stream of biogas. This means there has to be a continuous
demand for LBM, to avoid storage problems. This production form is more expensive than
production of LBM from landfill gas and is, just like green gas production, not possible
without government support at present. The development of the hub itself can be seen
separate from LBM, because one can also do other things with the biogas.
The last option would be to build larger combined facilities for the digestion or gasification
of biomass and upgrading to LBM. Given the problems of financing such facilities and the
uncertainty regarding the price development of LNG fuel, it stands to reason that these
facilities can only be realised when the use of LNG in the transport sector has grown
sufficiently to allow for larger amounts of LBM. This is also one of the differences when
comparing LBM with biodiesel or green gas. Biodiesel and green gas are already ensured
of a large diesel sector and a large natural gas grid to accommodate this.
Production location
The location of a LBM production facility depends on the production scale, the marketing
possibilities and the availability of biomass or biogas. It also depends on how LBM and
LNG are combined in the future (see section 7.2.).
In a starting LBM and LNG market, the production locations for small scale LBM plants are
probably, except for restrictions imposed by different laws, not restricted. These locations
are thus determined by the locations of landfill gas sites or the possibilities to create a
biogas hub in a certain region. Because of the low production scale few trucks transports
are needed to distribute the LBM to a filling station. The most important thing is to offer the
LBM at a competing price with LNG. Distributers of LNG are then interested in collecting
the LBM and transporting it to the filling stations they exploit.
Larger production facilities are most conveniently located near major inland waterways or
LNG buffering terminals. This limits the amount of transport needed over the road to
distribute and re-distribute LBM. Production near an LBM buffering facility has the
advantage that LBM can be mixed with LNG thereby ‘greening’ the LNG. Such buffering
facilities would also be ideally localized near major inland waterways to have LNG supplied
by ships. In the case of a production plant near an inland waterway, there is also a
possibility of loading the LBM directly in a LNG bunkering ship. This bunkering ship can
supply future filling stations near inland waterways or transport the LBM back to LNG
terminal in the port of Rotterdam where it can be mixed with LNG.
The different possibilities for the production and distribution, running parallel to
developments in the LNG sector, are displayed again in Figure 6.1.
54

Figure 6.1. Production and location options parallel to development LNG sector
6.2. Filling stations
production of LBM on a
small scale, for example
from landfill gas
anywhere where there is
a landfill gas producing
site. no problem for
distribution given low
scale production
PRODUCTION OPTIONS LBM
production of LBM from
different biogas
sources; a "LBM hub"
LOCATION OPTIONS LBM PRODUCTION
use with existing biogas
producers which can be
connected via a pipeline
DEVELOPMENT LNG TRANSPORT SECTOR
production of LBM from
an a single factory for
digestion and upgrading
depended on
possibilities to distribute
the LBM. an option
would along inland
waterways near future
LNG bukering facilities
To stimulate driving on LNG requires the presence of sufficient and well-working refilling
stations. This means the filling operation itself must be easily manageable and the refilling
technique must be standardised. The way the LNG infrastructure is set-up along with the
LBM infrastructure must be unambiguous. Especially with single-fuel engines, it is
important to have new refilling capacity available within driving range of the truck.
Technical set-up
The technical details of the filling stations itself are described in Appendix V (in Dutch).
Important to mention is that there is no uniform technique for LNG filling and no standard
for LNG/LBM fuel quality. For different trucks there currently exists different ways to fill the
tank with LNG. Offering different filling techniques at a refilling station makes the refilling
process more difficult. An additional difficulty is that for LNG refilling, 2 hoses have to be
connected instead of one.
To scale-up LNG use, truck manufacturers and filling station constructors have to come to
a uniform technique for LNG tanks and the filling process. The industry is working on this.
The EU supports a project to make it possible to fuel with LNG along major highway routes
in Europe. The quality of the LNG can vary with where it is imported from. LBM is usually of
even higher quality than LNG. This means that a standard for LNG fuel quality has to be set
or that the pump price has to vary according to the actual quality. The first option is
preferable because one than gets one standard fuel quality at every filling station in the
Netherlands. Different prices at different filling stations for LNG and LBM creates confusion.
55

Organisational set-up
The organisational set-up of the LBM/LNG refilling stations relates to the size and location
of these stations, but the most important thing how LNG fuel and LBM fuel is combined.
Location and size
In a still small and growing LNG market, the best option is to start with small-scale LNG
refilling stations. Small-scale refilling stations are actually the only viable option in a small
market because LNG/LBM can only be stored for a limited amount of time (because of the
boil-off problem) and the demand is small in the beginning. The best way is thus to begin
with refilling station which are compact, easy to build up and break down and relatively
easily transportable to other locations. Potential new customers for LNG or LBM can be
served quickly in this way. If the market for LNG fuel use has expanded sufficiently, the
small stations can be replaced with larger more permanent constructions. These smallscale
refilling stations are most probably situated at industrial or business areas, mainly to
serve regional transport. To serve national and international transport the filling stations
have to be situated along major roads (European “LNG blue-corridors project”, see
Appendix V, in Dutch).
Combination of LBM & LNG
There are basically a number of options to organise the combination of an LNG and LBM
infrastructure (partly discussed in chapter 5). One option would be for one or more
transport companies to make contract to directly purchase LBM from a production facility.
Concluding such separate contracts is not wise because a dangerous interdependency is
created in this way. If the transport company decides to stop using LBM or goes bankrupt,
the LBM facility would have a problem selling its LBM.
The second option is to create a separate infrastructure for LNG and LBM, where both fuels
are publically available. This scenario is also not recommendable. The introduction of LBM
as a transport fuel is actually hampered when choosing this scenario, because it cannot
fully profit from the developments in the LNG sector. Moreover LBM will never exceed LNG
in terms of capacity and the fuel price of LBM is higher. Transport companies will then of
course choose LNG as the fuel.
The most likely scenario is the option where it is assumed that refilling stations offer a
single fuel called “LNG”. This can then be LNG, LBM or a mixture. In a small market for
LNG use, some refilling stations are dedicated to LBM and the most for LNG. In a larger
market it is thinkable that all refilling stations receive a mixture of LNG and LBM at a certain
percentage (just like biodiesel and bio-ethanol).
6.3. Preconditions for successful introduction
Successful introduction of LBM only happens when LNG is introduced successfully as a
transport fuel in the Netherlands. The potential scale for the production of LBM from Dutch
biomass is too small to introduce this separate from LNG. LNG cannot be replaced fully by
LBM when applied in shipping and heavy duty transport.
LNG can be introduced successfully if transport companies “voluntarily” make the transfer
from diesel trucks. This happens when 5 important conditions are met.
1. There must be a financial advantage.
2. The reliability and performance of the trucks has to be equal to established standards.
3. There has to be ample capacity to refuel and the ease of use must not be
compromised.
56

4. The environmental advantages must be obvious and meet the different norms
5. LNG must compete with other alternative options for diesel.
Condition one is of vital importance. If there is no financial advantage when replacing diesel
trucks with LNG trucks, transport companies will not switch. The financial advantage
depends on the prices of diesel and LNG at the pump and the capital costs of trucks. The
payback time for and LNG of Methane-Diesel truck lies in the range of 3 to 5 years at the
present market prices. However, this can change in both directions given the variations of
diesel and LNG prices at the pump.
Conditions 2, 4 and 5 are met for the most part. The performances of LNG trucks no not
deviate significantly from the performances of diesel trucks. The environmental
performance is also secured. LNG trucks meet the strictest European emission norms for
truck and there is a noise reduction of 50 % on top of that.
Condition 3 is the only one which has to develop. An extensive network of refilling stations
has to be developed to get enough capacity to fuel a significant amount of trucks and make
travelling over longer distances possible. This develops slowly because supply and
demand have to balance each other. More over issues regarding standardisation of filling-
and engine technologies and the quality of LNG fuel still have to be solved.
6.4. Other considerations
Basically, there are three ways to implement LBM in combination with LNG:
1. completely separate introduction of LBM and LNG;
2. the government requires a certain amount of blending of LNG and LBM;
3. the involved industry decides whether they will include LBM in their fuel mix.
Option 1 seems unlikely, because of the similarities between LNG and LBM. Separate
implementation of these two tracts would be unbeneficial to the speed of LBM introduction.
Moreover mixing also occurs of bio- and fossil fuels also occurs with biodiesel and bioethanol
for example.
With option 3, the financial aspect plays a large role. Assuming that the cost of LBM and
LNG at the pump station are equal, the willingness of LNG/LBM suppliers to distribute LBM
depends on the market price of LBM. That price has to be comparable to LNG market
prices.
Option 2 would be comparable to the current system of bio ticket trade for biodiesel and
bio-ethanol and the trade of green gas certificates for green gas and natural gas in
transport. The government has to require a minimum percentage of mixing LBM with LNG.
This system would be less dependent on the production costs of LBM but quality control
would be more of an issue with this system. In the case of bio tickets, LBM can also be
seen as a replacement for diesel (see section 6.4.1).
Environmental effects and emission trading
Emission trading (of CO2 and NOx) and the total environment consequences of introducing
LBM in the Netherlands are related to each other. This could potentially be important for
governments, oil companies (or other companies) that produce and distribute LNG and
LBM and large transport companies.
57

Regulations for the production of biogas
Production of LBM usually begins with the digestion of biomass to produce biogas. The
commissioning of a (co-) digestion plant in the Netherlands is subject to a number of
restrictions an regulations. The ‘Meststoffenwet’ determines whether the waste product of
digestate may be used as fertiliser or must be view as waste. Only when 50 % of the
digested biomass is manure, the digestate may be marked as fertiliser. Less than 50 %
manure means the digestate has to be disposed of as waste and that has consequences
for the economics of a digestion plant. Moreover limitations are set for which materials may
or may not be used in a digestion plant. The reader is referred to Appendix III for an
overview of the requirements regarding biogas production.
Regulations regarding LBM storage, distribution and filling stations
It is assumed that the building and safety standard for the entire LBM/LNG infrastructure is
the same. Much of the regulatory requirements for LBM and LNG are still under
development or are still to be developed (LNGBrandstof, 2012). An overview of the current
situation is given in Appendix III.
Subsidies and tax regulations
Sustainability policies often change due to switching governments. It is therefore difficult to
predict how subsidy schemes and tax regulations are arranged in the future. This report
does not intend to do so. This report only considers different kinds of subsidies and taxes
which are useful for or adverse to the introduction of LBM as a transport fuel. Taxes are
important for the purchase of vehicles running on LNG/LBM and the purchase of the fuel.
Subsidies can be important for the production of LBM and the purchase of LBM vehicles.
An overview of the current subsidy schemes and tax regulations at different levels of
governments which are relevant to the introduction of LBM are given in Appendix II.
The key to the development of an LBM market in transport currently lies with the national
government. They have the power to stimulate LBM production and use via a number of
methods:
- subsidy policies for alternative trucks;
- subsidy policies for the production of LBM;
- tax policies for different fuels;
- making a certain mixing percentage for biofuels and fossil fuels obligated;
- creating norms for vehicle emissions.
The subsidies for alternatives trucks are already in place, but LBM production is being held
back, because the important SDE+ subsidy is only given for the production of green gas
injected in the grid. Moreover there is still an unclear tax policy regarding the prices of LNG,
CNG and their green variants at the pump. The best option would be to delete taxes on
these fuels all together to speed up their introduction. This has little financial consequences
for the government, because these fuels are currently only used on a very small scale. An
obligated mixing percentage for biofuels of 10 % is currently in place in the Netherlands.
The European union has set truck emissions standards for newly build trucks.
6.4.1. Bio tickets
Another option for producers of LBM would the emission of bio tickets. Producers of diesel
can then administratively comply with the so called “bijmengverplichting” in the
Netherlands. LBM would be a replacement of diesel in this case. For the producers or
distributors of LBM this would generate extra income, making it more interesting to start
with LBM.
58

It can be calculated how much LBM bio tickets would fetch at current market prices. In the
Netherlands the value of a bio ticket are the additional costs made in letting 1 m 3 of diesel
comply with the “bijmengverplichting”. For the year 2012 the “bijmengverplichting” was
4.5 %, which means that 4.5 % of the marketed fuels have to consist of biofuels, physically
of administratively. The 4.5 % number is on the basis of the energy content of the fuels.
Calculation example bio tickets for LBM
The price of a bio ticket for diesel was EUR 9.25 per m 3 diesel at august 13, 2012 (STX
Services, 2012). 1,000 litres of diesel is equal to 36 GJ. When 1,000 litres of diesel are
marketed, the equivalent amount of biofuels added must thus be:
4.5 % * 36 GJ = 1.6 GJ.
The bio ticket price is thus EUR 9.25 / 1.6 GJ = EUR 5.71 per GJ.
This means producers of biofuels can earn an additional EUR 5.71 per GJ with the
emissions of bio tickets. In some cases one could even double count these bio tickets, but
this heavily depends on what type of biomass was used for the production of the biofuel.
For biodiesel this means that 49 litres of biodiesel must be marketed. Producers of
biodiesel thus receive an additional EUR 0.19 per litre.
For LBM this means that 77 litres or 33 kilograms of LBM must be marketed for the
“bijmengverplichting” of 1000 L of diesel. Producers of LBM thus receive an additional EUR
284,- per 1000 kg of produced LBM deployed in the transport sector.
For LBM distributors and exploiters of refilling stations such an additional income would
mean that LBM can be bought at approximately the same price as LNG from the refinery
and that the gross profit margin when selling LBM at a refilling station is approximately the
same as for LNG. For LBM producers this would mean a higher income and more certainty
of selling the liquid biomethane.
It should be noted that the prices of bio tickets can vary significantly and that there is no
certainty that the emitted bio tickets are actually bought, or how much bio tickets are
marketed. Thus, while emitting bio tickets when producing LBM is possible and does
improve the financial situation of LBM production, it is unwise to construct a business case
solely of the basis of income out of bio tickets.
59

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS
7.1. Conclusions
The main research question was:
‘What is needed to maximise the use of LBM in the Dutch transport sector and what is the
optimum from an economic, environmental and organisational perspective?’
To maximise LBM use in the Netherlands a strong growth of the LNG sector is necessary
along with government support for producing LBM (by including it in the SDE+). The
organisation of an LBM infrastructure is preferably fully integrated with the LNG
infrastructure. For the short term environmental goals (2020), the contribution of LBM will
be limited. The advantages will become more apparent in a later stage. Supporting the
production of LBM is financially attractive for the government when comparing it with green
gas.
Production of liquid biomethane (LBM) is a way to extract usable energy from wet biomass
(via anaerobic digestion) and dry biomass (via gasification).
The LBM can be used as a fuel in the transport sector. It is especially suited for use in
shipping and heavy duty transport, because of the high energy density compared to CNG
(a CNG tank is about 4 times as big as an LNG tank for the same amount of fuel) and the
higher operational time of these two types of transport. Just like bio-ethanol is the
replacement of fossil petrol and biodiesel is the replacement of fossil diesel, LBM can be
seen as the replacement of the fossil LNG. The difference is that while bio-ethanol and
biodiesel replace the fossil fuels of an already established sector, LBM has to be produced
simultaneously with LNG. LNG use in transport is itself a sector which is just beginning to
develop.
Assuming that LNG is successfully introduced as a transport fuel, the feasibility of
introducing LBM as a transport fuel in the Netherlands depends on two tracks.
1. The specific financial, environmental and organisational sustainability.
2. The specific advantages of LBM compared to other bio energy options.
Point one also depends on how the LNG sector develops. Production and usage of LBM
thus has to compete with fossil LNG and other options of using biomass.
LBM compared to other bio energy options
The comparison and competition of LBM with respect to other biomass options partly
determines the potential to use LBM in the Netherlands. LBM has to compete with the
production of grid injected green gas or the production of heat and electricity from biogas.
Every option has advantages and disadvantages in the financial, environmental and
organisations sense. The findings on LBM in this study can be compared with the known
advantages and disadvantages of other biomass options. The results can be put in a matrix
which gives a good insight in which factors are important. This “matrix” is displayed in Table
7.1.
61

Table 7.1. Pro’s and con’s for LBM compared with other biomass options
biomass option advantages disadvantages
anaerobic digestion directly applicable, established
62
technologies, solves methane emissions
CHP - provides electricity for the installation
- guarantied marketing for electricity
grid injected green gas - extensive gas grid already present
- guarantied marketing for green gas
LBM - highest environment benefits per MJ
- lowest production cost profile
gasification larger potential, better efficiency and
applicable to coal
incineration - most cost-efficient option
- multiple deployment options
limited potential and possible interference
with food production
- heat often not used effectively
- relative low conversion efficiency
- quality issues for produced gas
- relative low environmental benefits
- no significant market present
- slow development of LNG vehicles
not commercially available before 2020,
competition with other dry biomass use
- competition with coal power plants
- limits green gas options
chemical processing - dependent on type of processing - dependent on type of processing
biodiesel - can be mixed directly with diesel
- certain marketing options
LBM - low energy loss
- best option to produce fuel
- lowest environmental benefits
- higher energy loss
- uncertainty about costs
- uncertain development LNG market
Overall feasibility of a LBM infrastructure
Introduction of an extensive LBM infrastructure, especially on the short term (before 2020),
is heavily depended on the development of the market for LNG fuel usage. LBM replaces
diesel as a transport fuel, but is de facto a replacement of LNG. This means LBM has to be
competitive with LNG and must be compared with LNG rather than with diesel. If LBM can
be made competitive with LNG, one way or the other, the LBM market expands
automatically, when the LNG market has sufficiently expanded.
The market for LNG fuel usage is only just beginning to develop in the Netherlands and the
rest of Europe. Technical standards still have to be set pertaining to refilling stations and
engine technology. It is also unclear how to deal with different fuel qualities. A network of
LNG distribution and refilling stations has to be unrolled. Unrolling this infrastructure and
exploiting the refilling stations is at this moment a loss making business and depends on
the companies currently investing in such an infrastructure. For LBM, this means that the
most prudent course of action is to wait with the introduction until the LNG sector has
established itself more firmly in the Netherlands. Decisions on how to introduce the LBM
infrastructure which possibly prove unwise in a later stage can then be avoided.
Production and distribution possibilities & costs
Production of LBM out of biogas is technically possible and proven in practice. LBM is most
likely produced from co-digestion or industrial digestion of biomass. Industrial digestion is
on average 23 % cheaper than co-digestion. The optimal production scale lies around a
capacity of 1,500 m 3 green gas*hour -1 (equivalent). The cost of upgrading biogas goes up
at a smaller scale. At a larger scale, cost and supply of biomass becomes a problem. The
financial picture for LBM production from co-digestion at a capacity of 1,500 green
gas*hour -1 is as follows in the most favourable and least favourable cases (Table 7.2):

Table 7.2. Financial picture for LBM production
costs and revenues (EUR*GJ -1 )
most favourable case least favourable case
LBM production 19.26 19.26
LBM sale 12.07 9.05
sale liquid CO2 3.78 0.00
bio tickets 5.71 0.00
business case 2.30 10.21
The most optimal circumstances give a slight positive business case. In the most negative
case LBM production is still a cheaper option than producing green gas injected in the
natural gas grid. Including LBM in the SDE+ subsidy scheme therefore provides a financial
benefit for the government. For reference, the SDE+ subsidy for producing green gas lies in
the range of 7.37 – 15.06 EUR*GJ -1 .
Given that LBM can only replace LNG as a fuel up to a certain percentage, the
infrastructure must be organised in such a way that LBM can be integrated directly with
LNG. At a larger scale, LBM can possibly be mixed with LNG in storage terminals. These
storage terminals can fuel LNG ships when located near inland waterways. At a smaller
scale, refilling station can be alternately supplied with LNG or LBM. The pump price of LBM
is thus the same as LNG. This price must be lower than diesel, if transport companies are
to switch to LNG trucks. LNG currently is about 50 % cheaper than diesel. Investments in
LNG trucks pay themselves back in 3 to 5 years at this price. The tax policy for vehicles on
natural- or biogas currently favours the compressed from instead of the liquid form,
because the government distinguishes between the phase of the gas.
Potential for LBM
The availability of biomass for energy production in the Netherlands is limited. On top of
that, production of combined heat and power, grid injected green gas and LBM compete for
the same biomass. One cannot just assume that all the potentially available biomass is
used for LBM production.
Most of the biomass is used for food or feed. A small part (less than 15 %) can be used for
energy production. The total availability of biomass for energy production is estimated to be
approximately 281 PJ of gross energy from digestion and gasification. This is equivalent to
181 PJ of green gas (final energy). Currently, about 13 PJ of gross energy is produced out
of biomass, which means only 4.5 % of this potential is used at this moment. An analysis of
the 1990-2011 trend of energy production from biogas shows that this has increased
sharply from 2005 onwards due to the rapid march of co-digestion. Most important is the
trend that the produced biogas was increasingly used for the production of heat and power
from 1990 onwards and less for the production of green gas. This trend has to be turned to
make production of LBM realistic.
The most optimistic estimate for the production of green gas in 2020 is 13 PJ of final
energy. The rest is produced as heat and power. This potentially available biogas for green
gas production could also be used for LBM production. To reach 13 PJ in 2020, an annual
growth rate of 35 % is needed. 13 PJ of final energy is equivalent to about 600 million litres
of LBM.
The most limiting factor for LBM introduction is the growth rate of the heavy duty vehicle
fleet and LNG ships. The most realistic growth path indicates that about 1,000 vehicles
drive on LNG in 2020. This rises to almost 17,000 in 2040. In the shipping sector, the
63

introduction of LNG goes even slower, because the average age of a ship is about 3.2 time
as high as for heavy duty vehicles. For heavy duty vehicles as well as for trucks it takes a
long time before the diesel variants are completely phased out. Starting immediately with
large scale LBM production is pointless, because transport companies do not write-off their
vehicles sooner than normal. Faster introduction of LNG and LBM vehicles thus requires
explicit governmental measures or escalating oil prices.
LBM and consequences for the environment
Using LNG and LBM in the transport sector can reduce emissions of CO2, NOx and PM10
into the atmosphere. LBM use in heavy duty vehicles can reduce CO2 emissions with 84 %,
NOx emissions with 97 % and PM10 emissions with 85 % with respect to diesel. NOx
reductions for LBM used in shipping are somewhat higher, because the shipping sector
currently uses fuel oil which is more polluting.
The total potential to reduce the emissions of these three substances by using LBM in
heavy duty vehicles and ships is limited because these two sectors use up a relative small
amount of energy with respect to the total energy use in the Netherlands (about 5 % and
heavy duty vehicles and shipping use an equal amount of energy). The Dutch CO2
emissions can be reduced by maximally 3 % with respect to the 1990 total when LBM
replaces all heavy duty vehicles.
Because the market for LNG vehicles only grows slowly in the coming years, the
contribution that LBM can make to the government’s 2020 sustainability goals is small. The
slow growth dynamic of the LNG vehicle sector is the most critical factor for the
development of LBM. The CO2 emissions reduction goal is 20 % with respect to 1990, to
which LBM can contribute 0.02 pp maximally. The total share of renewable energy use is
then 0.01 %, compared to the 16 % goal for the Netherlands and 20 % goal for Overijssel.
The market for LNG and LBM usage does not develop fast enough make significant
contributions to the sustainability goals on the short term.
7.2. Recommendations
For the longer term there are environmental advantages for introducing LBM in conjunction
with LNG. For the government, it is important to make definite choices regarding the use of
biomass. When the Dutch government chooses to stimulate LBM as an option it is best to:
- Simultaneously stimulate developments in the LNG sector and wait until this market
has matured more, before integrating LBM into it. It is unwise to create an entirely
separate infrastructure for the distribution of LBM;
- try to create the conditions in which transport companies automatically switch to LNG,
by ensuring a low vehicle payback time and providing enough refilling locations);
- begin production of LBM on a small scale (i.e. starting with low risk and manageable
projects).
To stimulate the introduction of LNG fuel use in the transport sector, the following things
should happen:
- the excise tax on LNG must be separated from the excise tax on LPG;
- the difference between the excise taxes on LNG and CNG must vanish, by lowering the
LNG tax to the CNG level;
- agreements with the industry must be made on how to cope with different fuel qualities;
- It must be made possible for inland shipping to use LNG as a fuel.
To introduce LBM next to LNG, at least the following things should happen:
- production of LBM should be incorporated in the SDE+ subsidy scheme;
64

- the possibility of distributing LBM to the LNG terminal with LNG trucks must be
considered.
Further research
The results of this study could be further optimised by more research of the following
topics:
- an in-depth comparison of different bio energy options (heat, electricity, green gas,
LBM and chemical use);
- an analysis of the energy requirements and payback times for different production
forms of LBM;
- a detailed life-cycle analysis of LBM use in trucks and ships;
- a comparison of LBM fuel with other potential options for the truck and shipping sector.
65

8. REFERENCES
AgentschapNL. (2010). Intelligent Energy Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/intelligent-energy-europe-iee
AgentschapNL. (2010). Groen beleggen en financieren. Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/nl/programmas-regelingen/groen-beleggen-enfinancieren
AgentschapNL. (2011). Zevende Kaderprogramma (KP7). Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/nl/node/100372
AgentschapNL. (2011a). Marco Polo II. Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/nl/node/100478
AgentschapNL. (2011b). Co-vergisten en regelgeving. Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/nl/node/178427
AgentschapNL. (2012). Maak kennis met de SDE+ 2012. Zwolle: NL Energie en Klimaat.
AgentschapNL. (2012a). MIA (Milieu Investeringsaftrek) en Vamil (willekeurige afschrijving
milieu-investeringen). Retrieved from http://www.agentschapnl.nl/nl/node/100318
AgentschapNL. (2012b). Energie Investeringsaftrek (EIA). Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/energie-investeringsaftrek-eia
AgentschapNL. (2012c). Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie (SDE). Retrieved from
http://www.agentschapnl.nl/programmas-regelingen/stimulering-duurzameenergieproductie-sde
Arcadis. (2011). Gaskwaliteit voor de toekomst [part 2]. Rotterdam: Klooster, J., Metselaar,
E., Warringa, G., Levinsky, H., & van Rij, M.
Belastingdienst. (2012). Kleinschaligheidsinvesteringsaftrek (KIA). Retrieved from
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/zakelijk
/ondernemen/bedrijfskosten_en_investeren/investeringsregelingen/kleinschaligheid
sinvesteringsaftrek
Berglund, M., & Börjesson, P. (2006). Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle
of biogas production. Biomass and Bioenergy 30 254-266
Bovag. (2012). Opbouw bezineprijs Euro 95 [Data file].
Bovag. (2012a). Opbouw Dieselprijs [Data file].
Bovag. (2012b). Opbouw LPG prijs [Data file].
Bovag. (2012c). 1.1 Ontwikkeling van het autopark. Retrieved from
http://www.bovagrai.info/auto/2012/1.1.html
CBS. (2012). Hernieuwbare energie; eindverbruik en vermeden fossiele energie [Data file].
Retrieved from
67

68
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=7516&D1=0&D2=a&D3=l
&D4=20&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2,G3&VW=T
CBS. (2012a). Luchtverontreiniging, feitelijke emissies door alle bronnen [data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37221&D1=0,2,8&D2=0,
15&D3=l&VW=T
CBS. (2012b). Energiebalans; kerncijfers [data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37281&D1=11&D2=0&D
3=l&VW=T
CBS. (2012c). Hernieuwbare energie; capaciteit, binnenlandse productie en verbruik [Data
file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71457NED&D1=2,5,8,12
-18&D2=26-44&D3=l&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2&VW=T
CBS. (2012d). Heffingen op energiedragers [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=7522&D1=0-
3&D2=a&D3=l&VW=T
CBS. (2012e). Verkeersprestaties vrachtvoertuigen; kilometers, laadvermogen,
grondgebied [Data file] Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=80392NED&
D1=6-9&D2=1%2c4&D3=0&D4=a&HDR=G2%2cT&STB=G3%2cG1&VW=T
CBS. (2012f). Verkeersprestaties; kilometers naar voertuigtype en grondgebied [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80302NED&D1=4&D2=3
-5&D3=a&HDR=T,G1&STB=G2&VW=T
CBS. (2012g). Verkeersprestaties autobussen; kilometers, bouwjaar en grondgebied [Data
file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=80589NED&
D1=a&D2=0&D3=0&D4=a&HDR=T&STB=G2%2cG3%2cG1&VW=T
CBS. (2012h). Motorbrandstoffen voor vervoer; afzet [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80101NED&D1=53&D2=
1&D3=240&HDR=G1,G2&STB=T&VW=T
CBS. (2012i). Hernieuwbare energie; capaciteit, binnenlandse productie en verbruik [Data
file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71457NED&D1=a&D2=2
6-44&D3=a&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2&VW=T
CBS. (2012j). Motorvoertuigen; sloop, export en overige uitval per regio [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=80360NED&
D1=4-5%2c7&D2=0&D3=0&D4=a&VW=T
CBS. (2012k). Motorvoertuigen; sloop, export en overige uitval per regio [Data file].
Retrieved from

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80360NED&D1=4-
5,7&D2=0&D3=8&D4=a&HDR=T&STB=G1,G2,G3&VW=T
CBS. (2012l). Motorvoertuigen; aantal voertuigen en autodichtheid per provincie [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=7374HVV&D
1=11-12%2c14&D2=0%2c8&D3=a&HDR=G2%2cT&STB=G1&VW=T
CBS. (2012m). Motorvoertuigen; verkopen naar voertuigtypen, per maand [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37803HVV&D1=48-
50&D2=0-
1,18,35,52,69,86,103,120,137,154,171,188,205,222&HDR=T&STB=G1&VW=T
CBS. (2012o). Motorvoertuigen; bedrijfvoertuigen per periode naar technische kenmerken
[Data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=71407NED&D1=4,13-
19&D2=2-3,5&D3=l&D4=0&VW=T
CBS. (2012p). Motorvoertuigen; bedrijfvoertuigen per periode naar technische kenmerken
[Data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71407NED&D1=
0&D2=2-3,5&D3=l&D4=0,13-124&HD=121017-1136&HDR=G3,T&STB=G1,G2
CBS. (2012q). Luchtverontreiniging, feitelijke emissies door wegverkeer [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/default.aspx?DM=SLNL&PA=7063&D1=12
%2c16%2c24&D2=5-7&D3=a&HDR=T%2cG1&STB=G2&VW=D
CBS. (2012r). Luchtverontreiniging, feitelijke emissies door wegverkeer [Data file].
Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=7063&D1=44,48,56&D2=
5-7&D3=a&VW=T
CBS. (2012s). Energiebalans; aanbod, omzetting en verbruik [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70846NED&D1=0&D2=1
5&D3=0,27&D4=15&VW=T
CE Delft. (2008). STREAM: Studie naar Transport Emissies van Alle Modaliteiten versie
2.0 (publicatienummer 08.4482.11). Delft: den Boer, L.C., Brouwer, F.P.E., & van
Essen, H.P.
CE Delft. (2010). Kosten en milieueffecten van aardgas en groen gas in transport
(publicatienummer 10.4124.43). Delft: Kapman, B.E., Croezen, H.J., Verbaak,
G.M., & Brouwer, F.P.E.
Compendium voor de leefomgeving. (2012). Energieverbruik door verkeer en vervoer,
1990-2010 [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0030-Energieverbruikdoor-verkeer-en-vervoer.html?i=6-40
Compendium voor de leefomgeving. (2012a). Stortplaatsen, aantal en capaciteit, 1991-
2010. Retrieved from
69

70
http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0393-
Stortplaatsen.html?i=1-3
Compendium voor de leefomgeving. (2012b). Emissies broeikasgassen, 1990-2011 [Data
file]. Retrieved from
http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/indicatoren/nl0165-
Broeikasgasemissies-in-Nederland.html?i=5-20
DENA. (2010). The role of natural gas and biomethane in the fuel mix of the future in
Germany. Required action and potential solutions to accelerate adoption in
transport applications. Berlin.
DR-Loket. (2012). Co-vergisting. Retrieved from
http://www.hetlnvloket.nl/onderwerpen/mest/dossiers/dossier/mestbewerking-enverwerking/co-vergisting
ECN. (2011). Basisbedragen in de SDE 2012 - Conceptadvies ten behoeve van de
marktconsultatie (projectnummer 5.1123.01.01). Petten: Lensink, S.M., Wassenaar,
J.A., Mozaffarian, M., Luxembourg, S.L., & Faasen, C.J.
ECN. (2011). Basisbedragen in de SDE+ 2012 - Eindadvies (projectnummer 5.1123.09.01).
Petten: Lensink, S.M., Wassenaar, J.A., Mozaffarian, M., Luxembourg, S.L., &
Faasen, C.J.
ECN. (2011a). Vergassing van biomassa. Alkmaar: van der Drift, B.
EG. (1999). RICHTLIJN 1999/100/EG VAN DE COMMISSIE van 15 december 1999 tot
aanpassing aan de technische vooruitgang van Richtlijn 80/1268/EEG van de Raad
betreffende de emissie van kooldioxide en het brandstofverbruik van
motorvoertuigen. Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen.
E-Kwadraat Advies. (2011). Biogas in de mobiliteit - Lokale productie, transportsystemen
en afzet in de mobiliteit (projectnummer 100604).Leeuwarden: Verbeek, H.
EU. (2005). Bijlage II - Energie-inhoud van geselecteerde brandstoffen voor het
eindgebruik [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ow2c-t6KFyQJ:eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri%3DOJ:C:2006:286E:0187:0187:NL:P
DF+energie+inhoud+LPG&hl=nl&gl=nl&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShKokCaIXuSSl0P-
9LIKGVvWioCh7FPmS0B0Idvlgz5Y16Ue468laVxrooAnoiNV4PDqjDdEPykXTsJJ721oRfDMpHO0Ytwf4iLKYl1OwWwBfdQAU9gRfRDInTHlIHN05RXcw&sig=AHIEtbSg1aMgcgQIAMo5uv6
91Hhj-6ChLQ
EU. (2012). Intelligent Energy Europe - about the program. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/about/index_en.htm
EUBIA. (2012). Biodiesel. Retrieved from http://www.eubia.org/214.0.html
EUBIA. (2012a). Bioethanol. Retrieved from http://www.eubia.org/212.0.html

European Commission. (2010). Betreft: steunmaatregel N 208/2010 - Nederland (kenmerk
C(2010)8949 definitief).
European Commission. (2012). Biofuels and other renewable energy in the transport
sector. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/biofuels_en.htm
Eurostat. (2011). Europe 2020 indicators: Headline indicators. Retrieved from
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/europe_2020_indicators/headlin
e_indicators
FERC. (2012). Natural gas overview: World LNG Prices [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ferc.gov/oversight
FERC. (2012). World LNG Estimates October 2012 Landed Prices. Retrieved from
http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-gas/overview/ngas-ovr-lng-wld-pr-est.pdf
FUELswitch. (2012). Emissies. Retrieved from
http://www.fuelswitch.nl/index.php?mod=pages&item=37
FUELswitch. (2012a). Brandstofkosten. Retrieved from
http://www.fuelswitch.nl/index.php?mod=pages&item=28
G3 Advies. (2008). Energiekansenoverzicht In Overijssel Eindrapport (projectnumber
06.029-2). Waardenburg: Voogd, W., Maris, M.J., & van Twillert, H.J.
GIE. (2011). GIE Position Paper on Gas Quality [reference 11GIE129]. Brussels: Gas
Infrastructure Europe.
Google. (2012, august 8). euro dollar. Retrieved from
http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&q=euro+dollar&oq=euro+dollar&gs_l=serp.3..0l10.2665
.2665.2.4433.1.0.0.1.1.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.v6K4rJYA6rI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp
=693a86e11ed54b0b&biw=1280&bih=883
HIT. (2008). Productie en inzetbaarheid van Bio-lNG in de Nederlandse transportsector.
Rotterdam: Gaag van der, P., Sapulette, N., & Stenhuis, E.
IEA. (2011). 2009 Energy Balance for Netherlands [data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=NL
ILT. (2012). Gevaarlijke stoffen: Wet- en Regelgeving. Retrieved from
http://www.ilent.nl/onderwerpen/transport/gevaarlijke_stoffen/wetenregelgeving/
ISO. (2012). ISO/CD 16924 - Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) vehicle filling stations. Retrieved
from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57960
LNG24. (2012). Wat kost LNG? - LNG is kostenconcurrerend met Diesel. Retrieved from
http://www.lng24.com/nl/rijden-op-lng/wat-kost-lng/
LNGBrandstof. (2012). Welke eisen stelt de overheid? Retrieved from
http://www.lng.nl/veiligheidoverheid.html
71

McKinney, M.L., Schoch, R.M., & Yonavjak, L. (2007). Environmental Science: Systems
and Solutions (4th ed). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Mikelis, N.E. (2007). A statistical overview of ship recycling. Athens: International
Symposium on Maritime safety.
Milieu Centraal. (2012). Factsheet nieuwe brandstoffen januari 2012.
Natuur & Milieu. (2011). Heldergroen gas: een visie op de duurzaamheid van groen gas.
Utrecht: Wiskerke, W.
NEN. (2012). NEN. Retrieved from http://www.nen.nl/web/Home.htm
NGVA Europe. (2012). LNG & LBG in Europe and the world - The LNG Blue
Corridor project. Amsterdam: Lage, M.
NVON. (2004). Binas (5th ed.). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
OECD/IEA. (2009). Transport, energy and CO2. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Orangegas. (2012). Prijs aan de pomp. Retrieved from http://www.orangegas.nl/prijs-aande-pomp/
Peace Software (2012). Berechnung der thermodynamischen Zustandsgrößen von
Methan. Retrieved from http://www.peacesoftware.de/einigewerte/methan.html
Platform Groene Grondstoffen (2006). Duurzame productie en ontwikkeling van biomassa,
zowel in Nederland als in het buitenland. Sanders, J.P.M. et al.
Platform Nieuw Gas. (2007). Vol gas vooruit! De rol van groen gas in de Nederlandse
energiehuishouding. Werkgroep Groen Gas.
Platform Nieuw Gas. (2009). Van biogas naar groengas: opwaarderingstechnieken en
leveranciers. AgentschapNL: Dumont, M.H.M.
Policy Research Corporation en NEA (2007). Nota Toekomstverkenning vrachtvervoer over
de weg (eindrapport). Rijswijk/Rotterdam.
Provincie Overijssel. (2011). Bio-energie. Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/thema's/economie/nieuweenergie/energiebronnen/biomassa-bio-energie/
Provincie Overijssel. (2012). Duurzame energieopwekking en energiebesparing, subsidie.
Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/loket/loketverwijzing/productcatalogus/?PdcItmIdt=143060
Provincie Overijssel. (2012a). Haalbaarheidsstudies nieuwe energie en energiescans,
subsidie. Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/loket/loketverwijzing/productcatalogus/?PdcItmIdt=153761
Provincie Overijssel. (2012b). Logistieke biomassa projecten, subsidie. Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/loket/loketverwijzing/productcatalogus/?PdcItmIdt=168110
72

Provincie Overijssel. (2012c). Rijden op groengas en electriciteit, subsidie. Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/loket/loketverwijzing/productcatalogus/?PdcItmIdt=164489
Provincie Overijssel. (2012e). Nieuwe energie. Retrieved from
http://www.overijssel.nl/overijssel/cijfers-kaarten/staat-overijssel-1/milieuenergie/nieuwe-energie/
Rijksoverheid. (2012). Duurzame economie - Green Deal. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-economie/green-deal
Rijksoverheid. (2012a). Duurzame energie: bio-energie. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-energie/bio-energie
Rijksoverheid. (2012b). Doel: meer duurzame energie. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-energie/doel-meer-duurzameenergie
Rijksoverheid. (2012c). Klimaatverandering en klimaatbeleid. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/klimaatverandering/klimaatverandering-enklimaatbeleid
Rijksoverheid. (2012d). Bestaande Bio-energieinstallaties [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.b-i-o.nl/
RIVM. (2012). Risico's van stoffen - gevaarsindeling (methaan). Retrieved from
http://www.rivm.nl/rvs/Gevaarsindeling/Eindresultaat?groep=gevaarsindeling&waar
de=methaan,sterkgekoeld,vloeibaarofaardgas,sterkgekoeld,vloeibaar,methoogmeth
aangehalte&lijst=adr&veld=substancename_tagged
Rolande LNG. (2012). Transport. Retrieved from http://www.rolandelng.nl/nl/transport.htm
Scania. (2011). Scania LNG truck voldoet aan verwachtingen. Retrieved from
http://www.scania.nl/about-scania/media/press-releases/2011/Q4/Scania-LNGtruck-voldoet-aan-verwachtingen.aspx
SenterNovem. (2007). Groen Gas - Gas van aardgaskwaliteit uit biomassa, update van de
studie uit 2004 (concept). Weling, J., Dumont, M., Kwant, K.
SenterNovem. (2009). Beschikbaarheid van Nederlandse biomassa voor elektriciteit en
warmte in 2020 (projectnumber 200809). The Netherlands: Koppejan, J., Elbersen,
W., Meeusen, M., & Bindraban, P.
STX Services. (2012). STX Market Update. STX Services newsletter issue 33.
Technisch Weekblad (2011). Kunnen we overschakelen op duurzame energie? Retrieved
from http://www.technischweekblad.nl/rubrieken/energieserie/kunnen-weoverschakelen-op-duurzame-energie.151296.lynkx
TNO/CE Delft. (2011). Brandstoffen voor het wegverkeer: kenmerken en perspectief.
Verbeek, R., & Kampman, B.
Torchio, M.F., & Santarelli, M.G. (2010). Energy, environmental and economic comparison
of different powertrain/fuel options using well-to-wheels assessment, energy and
73

74
external costs - European market analysis. Energy 35 4156-4171
United Nations. (1998). Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on
climate change.
Volvo. (2011). A high-performing, competitive vehicle - and a sustainable solution.
Retrieved from http://www.volvotrucks.com/trucks/global/en-gb/trucks/newtrucks/Pages/volvo-fm-methanediesel.aspx
Wesport Power Inc. (2011). What is Boil-off? Brussels: The LNG taskforce meeting.
Wikimobi. (2012). Personenauto. Retrieved from
http://wikimobi.nl/wiki/index.php/Personenauto
Wikipedia. (2012). British thermal unit. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_thermal_unit
WUR. (20??). Biobased economy infosheet. Wageningen: Food & Biobased
research.

APPENDIX I LBM & LNG CHARACTERISTICS

LNG and LBM are produced from different sources. LNG is produced by just cooling natural
gas to a temperature of -162 °C. LBM is produced by upgrading biogas (which essentially
comes down to removing the CO2) and then cooling it to the required temperature. Since
LBM and LNG must be stored at -162 °C to keep it liquid, they produce boil/off. If the
pressure in the storage tanks gets to high the excess gas is vented into the atmosphere,
wasting fuel and contributing to the greenhouse gas effect. In the US and Canada, vehicle
LNG tanks are required to be able to hold the LNG for at least 5 days before it must be
vented. Another effect off the boil-off process is that the relative concentration of other
substances in the LBM and LNG increases, which means a decrease in the quality of the
fuel.
I.1. Quality parameters of LNG and LBM
Equivalent to the differences in petrol of diesel qualities, there are also differences in LBM
and LNG qualities. To monitor these differences in quality, different parameters to measure
this have been called into life. Here follows an account of the most important parameters.
1. Calorific value. The calorific value of the fuel is given as [MJ*kg -1 ] and gives the energy
output by combusting one kilogram of LNG org LBM.
2. Wobbe-index. Applies to biomethane and natural gas. The Wobbe-index is given as
[MJ*kg -1 ] and basically indicates the effect on the energy output by mixing different
gasses. This is important when different sources of LNG are mixed, for example.
3. Propane equivalent. The propane equivalent is usually given in [Mol%] or [Vol%] and
measures the presence of other alkanes in the fuel. This had and influence on the
calorific value and the methane number.
4. Methane number. The methane number is given as a value in the range [0-100].
Different methods are used to calculate the methane number, but in principle pure CH4
has methane number 100 and pure H2 has methane number zero. The methane
number of LNG and LBM is equivalent to the octane number of petrol and the cetane
number for diesel. It indicates the possibility of engine knocking, which may cause
damage to LNG or LBM engines. This is an important parameter for the quality of LNG
or LBM if it is used as a transport fuel.
5. CO2 emission factor. Given in [kg*MJ -1 ]. Determines the emission of CO2 into the
atmosphere.
I.2. Composition of LNG and LBM
LNG is produced in and imported from different places in the world. LBM is also produced
from different sources. Therefore, there are different compositions for LBM and LNG. Table
I.1 gives an overview of the possible compositions and effects on the quality. The other
substances mentioned can also be present in the gas biomethane or during the production
of biogas. This is of importance when it comes to mixing LNG and LBM of different
qualities.
Table I.1. Composition of LNG and LBM
gas LNG (Vol%) 1
LBM (Vol%) 2 description
CH4 89.4 % > 98 % the main component
C2H6 6.2% 0 % these alkanes influence negatively influence the
C3H8 1.7 % 0 %
C4H10 0.62 % 0 %
C5H12 0 % 0 %
methane number
N2 2.045 % < 2 % influences the methane number

gas LNG (Vol%) 1
LBM (Vol%) 2 description
CO2 0 % 0 % removed during liquefaction process
O2 0 % present increased installation corrosion
other substances
sulphur present present presence of toxic H2S
ammonia not present present risk of corroding equipment
siloxanes not present present create deposits on the internal surfaces of engines
halocarbons not present present production of harmful dioxins during combustion
poly aromatic carbons not present present production of soot when combusted
carbon monoxide not present present health risk
particulate matter not present present clogging of filters
biological components present present corrosion and clogging
quality
propane equivalent 5.7% 0 %
methane number 76.5 ~100 determines the possibility of engine knocking
calorific value (MJ*kg -1 ) 38 3
Wobbe-index (MJ*kg -1 ) 37 3
Source: (GIE, 2011; Arcadis, 2011).
50 4
65 4
determines the energy output
quality parameter for mixed gasses
1 These are average number for the LNG’s in the world. The methane number has a standard deviation of 8.6.
2 Dependent on the production process these other substances may or may not be present in the end product.
3 On the basis of natural gas from Groningen.
4 On the basis of 100 % methane.

APPENDIX II OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SUBSIDY SCHEMES AND TAX
REGULATIONS

II.1. Subsidies
European Union
The EU currently has three subsidy programs running which may be relevant to the
LNG/LBM sector. In
Table II.1 one finds a complete overview of all the relevant subsidies.
1. IEE - Intelligent Energy Europe. (AgentschapNL, 2010; EU, 2012).
2. FP7 - Seventh Framework Program. (AgentschapNL, 2011).
3. Marco Polo II. (AgentschapNL, 2011a).
The IEE program is meant to help increase the share of renewable energy in Europe. It
supports projects where different stakeholders collaborate to expand the market for a
certain type of renewable energy. FP7 is a large EU subsidy program, divided in different
categories. For LBM/LNG development the categories of transport and energy are relevant.
Development of renewable energy technologies (for transport) to reduce CO2 emissions is
central in this program. Marco Polo II supports projects which shift freight transport from the
road to other, more sustainable forms of transport.
Dutch government
The following subsidies and tax deductions are currently in effect in the Netherlands. In
Table II.1 one finds a complete overview of all the relevant subsidies.
1. KIA - Kleinschaligheidsinvesteringsaftrek (tax deduction). (Belastingdienst, 2012).
2. Vamil - Willekeurige afschrijving milieu investeringen (tax decution). (AgentschapNL,
2012a).
3. MIA - Milieu Investeringsaftrek (tax deduction). (AgentschapNL, 2012a).
4. EIA - Energie Investeringsaftrek (tax deduction). (AgentschapNL, 2012b).
5. SDE - Stimulering Duurzame Energieproductie. (AgentschapNL, 2012c).
6. Green deal. (Rijksoverheid, 2012d).
7. Regeling groenprojecten. (AgentschapNL, 2010).
The KIA, EIA, MIA and Vamil are measures in which companies can deduct taxes when
certain investments in company assets are made. The goal of these arrangements are to
make in interesting for companies to invest in renewable or sustainable solutions.
The green deals and ‘regeling groenprojecten’ are less focussed on finance but more on
government support, in terms of bringing different party’s together and creating a
framework in which a companies can develop their sustainable endeavours.
The SDE is the most important subsidy in the Netherlands for supporting energy generation
from biomass (and other types of renewable energy). The SDE focuses on bridging the gap
between the cost prices of fossil energy and the corresponding ‘green energy’. Currently,
the SDE support the production of renewable heat, renewable electricity and green gas.
Other forms of gas production (biogas or LBM for example) are not supported.
Province of Overijssel
The province of Overijssel has got an extensive subsidy program running to support the
development of renewable energy in that region. Four subsidies in particular are relevant in
this report. In
Table II.1 one finds a complete overview of all the relevant subsidies.
1. Duurzame energieopwekking en energiebesparing. (Provincie Overijssel, 2012).

2. Haalbaarheidsstudies nieuwe energie en energiescans. (Provincie Overijssel, (2012a).
3. Logistieke biomassa projecten. (Provincie Overijssel, 2012b).
4. Rijden op groengas en electriciteit. (Provincie Overijssel, 2012c).
Table II.1. Overview of different subsidy regulations
program available budget (EUR) 1 description
IEE 727,000,000 2 provides subsidy for projects designed to eliminate barriers for increasing
the share of renewable energy
FP7 energy 2,300,000,000 2 supports research on how to achieve the sustainability goals (with
respect to energy) of the EU
FP7 transport 4,200,000,000 2 supports research on the development of new transport commodities and
the transport system in general
MPII 450,000,000 2 commercial projects focused on shifting road freight transport to other
forms of transport are subsidized
KIA - relative small investments are eligible for a certain tax deduction of the
profit.
Vamil 24,000,000 Vamil allows for arbitrary write-off of investments which generates a tax
advantage
MIA 101,000,000 a tax deduction of the profit is possible of up to 36 % over the investment
in a environmentally friendly technique
EIA 151,000,000 a tax deduction of the profit is possible of up to 41.5 % over the
investment in a renewable energy technique
SDE 1,700,000,000 the difference between the production cost of fossil energy and the
production cost of the equivalent renewable energy is covered, up to a
certain maximum
Overijssel 1 1000,000 a maximum of EU 199,000 is being granted to projects (investments)
meant to produce renewable energy, including biomass
Overijssel 2 300,000 a maximum of EUR 15,000 is being granted for feasibility studies for
renewable energy production
Overijssel 3 100,000 a maximum of EUR 20,000 is begin granted to project which organise
and develop the harvest and transport of biomass
Overijssel 4 700,000 subsidy is being grant for a maximum of 50 vehicles on (liquid) gas or
1 For the year 2012.
2 For the period 2007-2013.
dual fuel per company with a maximum of EUR 50,000
II.2. Tax
There are currently no programs running which give a tax advantage for renewable cars
and trucks. With the elections in the Netherlands of 2012, it is unclear how such programs
take shape in the future.
LBM fuel is also subject to taxes. The government has set the tax policy for LBM and LNG
fuel equal to the tax policy of LPG fuels. This means a stock charge of EUR 5.90 per 1000
kg and an excise duty of EUR 167.54 per 1000 kg (CBS, 2012d). On top of this the normal
turnover tax of 21 % has to be paid.

APPENDIX III REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO THE LBM INFRASTRUCTURE

Regulations relevant to the entire LBM infrastructure are divided in two parts:
- the production of biogas and LBM;
- the subsequent distribution and storage of LBM.
The last part has an overlap with LNG because the fuel is essentially the same. This
appendix gives an overview of the relevant regulations.
III.1. Production of biogas
The operation of a (co-) digestion plant to produce biogas is subject to government
regulations. A summary is now given of which factors are important. The provided
information is obtained from (AgentschapNL, 2011b; DR-Loket, 2012).
Fertiliser law (Meststoffenwet)
This law determines how and by who the transport of animal manure from farms takes
place. It sets requirement on which materials may be used for co-digestion and determines
when the produced digestate can be used as fertiliser or must be treated as waste.
Administrative requirements for a biogas plant are incorporated in this law. Moreover
additional rules in this law apply when the digestate is indeed used as fertiliser.
An important factor of the fertiliser law is the so-called “Bijlage Aa”. This annex gives a list
of which substances can be legally co-digested with 50 % animal excrements. The annex
also lists the substances which can be traded as fertiliser or must be treated as waste. The
extensiveness of this determines the success of co-digestion. If to little substances are
recognised as digestible products, this works oppressive to the development of codigestion.
Enactment Animal By-products (Verordening Dierlijke Bijproducten)
This enactment deals with the transport, treatment and disposal of animal by-products. This
law sets additional requirements for the use of digestate as fertiliser. A bio mass digestions
installation must me recognised as such according to this law. Transporters of animal byproducts
also have to deal with this law.
Law Spatial Planning (Wet Ruimtelijke Ordening)
When one wants to build a digestion plant it has to fit in the current development plan of the
specific regions. This law deals with that.
Law Environmental Management (Wet Milieubeheer)
A digestion installation may cause environmental damage or nuisance to the region.
Environmental damage may be caused, for example, by leaching of harmful substances.
Nuisance to people is often cause by noise or smell. This law sets requirements for the
construction of the digestion plant and regulates the transport of the in- and outgoing
substances to prevent these kinds of trouble.
In order to protect wildlife and natural area’s in the Netherlands, one also has to deal with
the “Wet natuurbescherming”. Most of the above regulations are integrated in a single law
called “Omgevingswet” in the future. This law is still under development.
Other requirements
Next to the specific regulations mentioned above one also has to obey the general
regulations regarding work and safety. On top of this one has to deal with several bureaus
and authorities in order to obtain the necessary permits. The municipality must provide the
permit ‘Milieu & Bouw’, required when one wants to digest biomass. Furthermore the

digestion installation have to be recognized by the nVWA. Additionally one also has to
register with multiple other government bodies.
III.2. Distribution and storage of LBM
Given that LBM and LNG can be classified as possibly dangerous substances, certain rules
apply for transporting them. LBM and LNG are described in the ADR (Accord européen
relatif au transport international des marchandises Dangereuses par Route) as liquefied
and strongly cooled methane or natural gas. It falls under the category of flammable
gasses. Transport of dangerous substances in Europe is arranges in the ADR system.
Requirements regarding LBM/LNG can be found in (RIVM, 2012) and subsequently in (ILT,
2012).
The International organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is currently developing a standard
for LNG filling stations (ISO, 2012). The Dutch bureau of normalisation already has a
number of directives in effect regarding LNG facilities, NEN-EN 1474:2002, NEN-EN
13645:2002 and NEN-EN 1473:2007 (NEN, 2012). Building LNG/LBM facilities of course
also has to meet the requirement of the spatial planning law.

APPENDIX IV VALUES OF PARAMETERS USED IN THIS STUDY

Energy contents and densities
Energy content gasoline - 3.3*10 10 J*m -3
Energy content LPG - 4.6000*10 7 J*kg -1
Energy content Diesel - 3.6*10 10 J*m -3
Energy content CNG - 4.97*10 7 J*kg -1
Energy content biogas - 2.1*10 7 J*m -3
Energy content natural gas - 3.2*10 7 J*m -3
Energy content methane - 3.58*10 7 J*m -3
Energy content biodiesel - 3.28*10 10 J*m -3
Energy content bio-ethanol - 21.1*10 10 J*m -3
Density natural gas - 0.833 kg*m -3
Density Methane - 0.72 kg*m -3
Density LPG - 0.538 kg*L -1
LNG properties
Density - 424.14 kg*m -3
Energy content - 4.97 J*kg -1
2.1*10 7 J*L -1
LNG/methane - 1.7 L*m -3 methane
LNG/natural gas - 1.8 L*kg -1 natural gas
LNG (L/kg) - 2.36 L*kg -1
Other values
CO2 content biogas - 40 %
Density CO2 - 1.986 kg*m -3

APPENDIX V SUMMARY OF THE LNG4TRUCKS&SHIPS WORKSHOP (IN DUTCH)

onderwerp
datum
projectcode
referentie
opgemaakt door
datum opmaak
bijlagen
aanwezig
afwezig
kopie
LNG4Trucks&Ships Workshop
24 september 2012
ZL460-2-1
-
BREJ4
24 september 2012
workshop presentaties
foto's LNG tankinstallatie
BREJ4
-
VELR2
1. INTRODUCTIE
verslag
Witteveen+Bos
Postbus 233
7400 AE Deventer
telefoon 0570 69 79 11
fax 0570 69 73 44
In het kader van mijn onderzoek naar de inzet van vloeibaar biomethaan in de Nederlandse
transportsector heb ik van 19 tot en met 21 september de workshop “LNG4Trucks&Ships”
in Amsterdam bijgewoond. Deze workshop ging over de inzet van LNG en bio-LNG
voornamelijk in het vrachtvervoer en de scheepvaart (niet specifiek voor Nederland). LNG
staat voor “Liquefied Natural Gas” en is dus vloeibaar gemaakt aardgas. Bio-LNG is
eigenlijk dezelfde brandstof (zij het met een wat hogere energie-inhoud) maar wordt
gewonnen door de vergisting van biomassa en kan dus beschouwd worden als
biobrandstof.
1.1 LNG & bio-LNG
LNG op zichzelf gezien is niet nieuw, maar komt de laatste jaren pas onder de aandacht
als geschikte brandstof voor bijvoorbeeld vrachtauto’s. In de directe omgeving van
Nederland zijn twee zogeheten LNG terminals: één in Rotterdam en één in Zeebrugge
(België). LNG wordt per schip naar geïmporteerd. Dit LNG kan uit meerdere bronnen over
de hele wereld komen. Het geïmporteerde LNG wordt vervolgens in het gasnetwerk
hervergast, of kan (momenteel alleen in Zeebrugge) ook afgenomen wordt door LNG
vrachtwagens om zo over het continent getransporteerd te worden naar bijvoorbeeld
tankstations.
De inzet van LNG in de transportsector kent een aantal mogelijke voordelen. Ten eerste
verminderd de uitstoot van fijnstof, NOx en SOx drastisch bij inzet van LNG t.o.v. diesel.
Verder kan LNG een zeker energietoekomst leveren voor de transportsector vanwege de
enorme aardgasreserves in de wereld. Ook is LNG waarschijnlijk prijsstabieler in
vergelijking met diesel omdat de aardgasreserves in de wereld gelijkmatiger zijn verspreid
dan de oliereserves. Bovendien is rijden op LNG onder de huidige marktprijzen goedkoper,

met een terugverdientijd voor transportbedrijven van slechts een paar jaar. De inzet van
bio-LNG levert mogelijk, naast de eerdergenoemde milieuvoordelen, ook een grote CO2uitstoot
reductie op.
1.2 Marktontwikkeling
De ontwikkeling van een infrastructuur voor LNG gebruik in transport (met alles wat daarbij
hoort) staat nu nog in de kinderschoenen, maar de verwachting is dat dit de komende jaren
een vlucht gaat nemen, in alle delen van de wereld. Gegeven dit feit, ligt het ook in lijn der
verwachting dat er voor alle afdelingen binnen Witteveen+Bos ook voldoende
mogelijkheden zijn om een rol te gaan spelen in deze sector. In dit verslag zal ik trachten
om de belangrijkste gegevens die uit deze workshop naar voren zijn gekomen zo goed
mogelijk samen te vatten.
2. SAMENVATTING
De workshop was opgedeeld in drie dagen. Dag één betrof een technische excursie naar
Zwolle om daar de werking van een LNG tankstation te aanschouwen. Dagen twee en drie
waren gereserveerd voor presentaties over verschillende aspecten gerelateerd aan LNG.
Hierbij kwamen onder andere aan bod:
1. technische aspecten met betrekking tot LNG motoren (voor scheepvaart en
vrachtvervoer), tankstations, import- en opslag terminals, liqueficatie en hervergassing;
2. milieutechnische aspecten;
3. marktontwikkeling: trends en verwachtingen en voorbeelden uit verschillende landen;
4. productie en distributie van LNG en bio-LNG;
5. veiligheidsaspecten en regelgeving (bijvoorbeeld met betrekking tot de bouw van
installaties;
6. financieringsvraagstukken.
2.1 Dag 1 - Technische excursie naar LNG tankstation Zwolle
Deze dag stond in het teken van een technische demonstratie van het eerste openbare
LNG tankstation voor vrachtwagens en bussen in Nederland. Dit tankstation is geopend op
5 september jl. in Zwolle en is gebouwd door Ballast Nedam IPM. Een foto van dit
tankstation staat in Afbeelding 1. Ballast Nedam exploiteert dit tankstation onder de
bedrijfsnaam “LNG24 Clean fuel”.
Het tankstation
Het tankstation is zodanig ontworpen dat het klein en “draagbaar” is en ook relatief
makkelijk te bouwen. Zodoende kan het makkelijk verplaatst worden en eventueel
plaatsmaken voor een permanente installatie. Op deze manier is het ook makkelijk om
soortgelijke installaties elders in het land neer zetten om de markt snel te kunnen
ontwikkelen. De tank op de foto heeft een inhoud van 20 m 3 . Deze kan voor 90 % gevuld
worden met LNG, wat neerkomt op 8000 kg. Dit komt (ongeveer) overeen met 11.000 liter
diesel. Het tankstation heeft de capaciteit om maximaal 8 vrachtwagens per uur te vullen.
Omdat LNG een cryogene brandstof is (vloeibaar bij -162° C) produceert het boil-off. Dit
mag niet worden geventileerd naar de atmosfeer. Naast een goed geïsoleerde tank heeft
dit station daarom ook een systeem om deze boil-off af te vangen. Zodoende vindt er,
afgezien van noodgevallen, geen vent-off van CH4 plaats.

De vrachtwagens
Het tankstation in Zwolle is, na registratie bij Ballast Nedam, 24/7 publiekelijk toegankelijk
voor alle LNG vrachtwagen types in Europa. Momenteel zijn er vier types LNG voertuigen
op de markt: de Volvo Methaan-Diesel (rijdend op een mix van LNG en diesel, oftewel
“dual-fuel”), de Iveco Stralis, de Mercedes Econic en de Scania P310 LNG. Deze laatste
drie rijden puur op LNG, oftewel “single-fuel”. De Volvo en de Iveco maken bij het tanken
gebruik van een “vapour collapse” systeem (de druk in de tank bepaald wanneer de tank
vol is). De Mercedes en de Scania maken gebruik van een “vapour return” systeem (het
verdampte LNG in de tank wordt via een dampretour slang weer terug genomen).
Afbeelding 1. Openbaar LNG tankstation in Zwolle
Op dit moment bestaat er nog geen goede technologie om de tankinhoud in de
vrachtwagens zelf te meten (brandstofmeter). De vier verschillende vrachtwagens
verschillend onderling weer in tankdruk- en temperatuur waaronder ze opereren. Het
tankstation moet dus om kunnen gaan met deze verschillende specificaties. In vergelijking
met het tanken van andere brandstoffen is dit dus nog relatief ingewikkeld, gelet ook op het
feit dat er meerdere slangen moeten worden aangesloten. In het buitenland zijn nog weer
andere mogelijkheden om te tanken aanwezig. De uitdaging zal in de toekomst zijn om
hiervoor 1 of 2 standaarden te ontwikkelen.
Operatie & Veiligheid
Vrachtwagens die bij het tankstation willen tanken moeten zich registreren bij Ballast
Nedam. Dit komt neer op de registratie van het kenteken en de koppeling van de
technische specificaties van de vrachtwagens daaraan. Als een vrachtwagen arriveert op
het station is er een kentekenregistratiesysteem die via een verbinding met een online
server (op het hoofdkantoor van LNG24) de technische gegevens van de vrachtwagen

ophaalt en het tankstation goed instelt voor een tankbeurt. Vervolgens is het aan de
chauffeur om de slagen goed aan de sluiten. Één voor de LNG aanvoer en één voor de
damp retour of damp collapse. Op dat moment stromen er ook gegevens binnen over de
actuele toestand van de vrachtwagen (bijvoorbeeld temperatuur van de tank). Daarna kan
het tanken beginnen. De tanksnelheid varieert van 30 tot 100 kg*min -1 .
LNG tanken is momenteel ingewikkelder dan het tanken van andere brandstoffen die op de
markt zijn. Er moeten namelijk twee verschillende slangen op de tank worden aangesloten.
Bovendien moeten alle aansluitpunten eerst worden schoongeblazen met een derde slang.
Aangezien het een onbemand tankstation is zijn er dan toch een aantal veiligheidsissues.
Ten eerste kan de chauffeur de slangen verkeerd aansluiten. Uitgebreide tankinstructies bij
het station en kleurcodering van de aansluitpunten en de slangen moeten dit voorkomen.
Indien het toch gebeurt is ervoor gezorgd dat de installatie niet werkt of afslaat. Ten tweede
kan een voertuig worden bijgevuld op de verkeerde druk of temperatuur.
Voertuigherkenning d.m.v. kentekenregistratie en een dispenser switch moeten dit
voorkomen. Ten derde kunnen er gaslekken zijn. Daarom moet verplicht worden gebruik
gemaakt van de zogenoemde dodemansknop. Tevens is er een noodsysteem voorziening
die de hele installatie uitschakelt bij een te hoge of te lage temperatuur (als de druk in de
tank te hoog wordt kan het teveel aan gas worden geventileerd), als er gaslekken worden
gedetecteerd of als er sprake is van overvullen. Vanwege veiligheidsvereisten geschiedt
het vullen van de tankinstallatie zelf nu met een vaste buis in plaats van een slang. De
veiligheidsradius is ongeveer 35 meter.
Kwaliteit
De belangrijkste kwaliteitsparameter van de brandstof voor het goed lopen van de motor is
het methaangetal. Deze bepaalt of motoren klopgedrag gaan vertonen en derhalve hoe
snel de motoren slijten. De kwaliteit (methaangetal) wordt momenteel alleen bij de afname
van LNG bij de LNG terminals gecontroleerd. Hier wordt namelijk ook LNG geïmporteerd
van lagere kwaliteit. Bio-LNG is juist van zeer hoge kwaliteit. In de toekomst zou de
kwaliteit ook op een technische manier gecontroleerd kunnen worden, bijvoorbeeld d.m.v.
mengen.
Markant detail: tijdens het tanken wordt bij beide technieken LNG damp of gas terug
gewonnen. Vooral bij de Mercedes en de Scania is dit het geval omdat dat inherent is aan
het ontwerp. Deze retourdamp wordt echter niet weer van de brandstof prijs of het aantal
getankte kilogrammen afgetrokken, waardoor men dus per saldo meer betaalt voor een
kilogram LNG dan de pompprijs.
2.2 Dag 2 - Deel 1 workshop presentaties Amsterdam
Dit evenement werd georganiseerd door de NGVA, ofwel de “Natural & bio Gas Vehicle
Association”. Met ruim 150 leden in meer dan 38 landen, is het de organisatie die de
belangen behartigd van de industrie rond aardgasvoertuigen en productie & distributie van
aardgas en biogas voor transport doeleinden. NGVA stelt dat overgaan op aardgas voor
voertuigen de beste manier is om te gaan voldoen aan de aankomende Euro VI - norm.
Bovendien is er een grote energiezekerheid omdat er, bij het huidige verbruik, nog voor
340 jaar gas in de bodem zit. De markt voor aardgasvoertuigen groeit snel. In de periode
2006-2011 is deze markt in Europa met 16 % gegroeid. NGVA gaat uit van een groei naar
75 miljoen aardgasvoertuigen in 2023, wat dan een marktpercentage van 9 % zou
inhouden.

European LNG Blue Corridors
Aardgas en biogas zijn eigenlijk de enige alternatieve brandstoffen die geschikt zijn voor
alle vormen van transport. De vloeibare variant is met name geschikt voor lange afstand
transport. Op dit moment zijn er al een aantal vrachtwagens die kunnen rijden op LNG.
LNG kan ook worden toegepast in treinen en in de scheepvaart. Zelfs LNG in vliegtuigen is
een mogelijkheid. Momenteel worden er in de wereld in rap tempo LNG terminals
gebouwd, voor import of export van gewonnen aardgas. Om de ontwikkeling van LNG
gebruik in vrachttransport een boost te geven, loopt er nu een programma genaamd
“European LNG Blue Corridors”. Dit programma moet in eerste instantie 4 Europese routes
ontwikkelen waarlangs strategisch LNG vulstations worden geplaatst om zo vrachtvervoer
op LNG door Europa mogelijk te maken. Ter indicatie staat er een afbeelding van deze
mogelijke routes en de locatie van LNG terminals in Afbeelding 2.
In de Verenigde Staten lopen soortgelijke projecten. In de VS is een snelle groei van LNG
brandstof gebruik, door overheidsstimulatie en het aanboren van nieuwe gasbronnen.
Afbeelding 2. LNG Blue Corridors en bestaande en geplande LNG terminals
Productie & Distributie
LNG kan geproduceerd worden uit de conventionele aardgasbronnen, de onconventionele
aardgas bronnen (bijvoorbeeld schaliegas) en biogas. Het voordeel bij LNG is de
onafhankelijkheid van pijpleidingen. LNG wordt getransporteerd per vrachtwagen en per
schip. In de toekomst zullen er waarschijnlijk, naast grote terminals aan de kust, ook
kleinschalige terminals voor LNG opslag in het binnenland komen. Deze kunnen gevoed
worden door kleinschalige LNG (LBG) productiefaciliteiten. Nog een voordeel van
kleinschalige productie van LNG is dat het rendabel wordt om het affakkelen van aardgas
te stoppen en in plaats daarvan LNG te maken. Op dit moment wordt er jaarlijks nog 150
miljard m 3 aardgas afgefakkeld, wereldwijd.

Bio-LNG
Opwerken van biogas tot bio-LNG, lijkt goedkoper te zijn dan verschillende pijplijnroute
opties. Dit geldt voor zowel bio-CNG (niet geproduceerd uit pijplijngas) als bio-LNG, waarbij
bio-CNG iets in het voordeel is. De reden waarom deze twee opties moeilijk van de grond
komen in Nederland, is overheidsbeleid. Momenteel ontvangt men alleen een subsidie als
men groengas produceert wat in het aardgasnet geïnjecteerd wordt. Voor bio-LNG is er
nog een extra hindernis t.o.v. bio-CNG: de accijns hierop is namelijk 5 keer zo hoog, terwijl
het dezelfde stoffen zijn.
In Nederland wordt nog geen bio-LNG geproduceerd. Volgens Rolande LNG gaat er in
oktober een faciliteit draaien die 10.000 ton bio-LNG per jaar gaat produceren.
In het Verenigd Koninkrijk produceert het bedrijf Gasrec, als enige in Europa, bio-LNG uit
stortgas (5000 ton per jaar). Om aan de vraag te blijven voldoen kan dit zo mogelijk
gemengd worden met LNG uit andere bronnen.
Om bio-LNG succesvol te introduceren zou het verstandig kunnen zijn om eerst kleine
percentages te mengen met normaal LNG. Bovendien zou het ook naar LNG terminal
gebracht kunnen worden. De ISO standaarden voor brandstofkwaliteit zouden dan wel
moeten worden aangepast.
Rijden op LNG
AgentschapNL heeft op dit moment een testprogramma lopen genaamd “truck van de
toekomst”. Dit programma heeft als doel om zoveel mogelijk praktijkgegevens te
verzamelen over bijvoorbeeld het rijden op LNG vrachtwagens.
In Nederland is o.a. Rolande LNG bezig met het uitrollen van een infrastructuur voor het
rijden op (bio-)LNG. Zij hebben de mogelijkheid om specifieke klanten (bijvoorbeeld
distributie bedrijven voor supermarkten) te bedienen met mobiele tankstations die binnen 2
dagen kunnen staan. Ook leveren ze de vrachtwagens (ombouw van CNG vrachtwagens).
Het aanschaffen van een LNG truck is wel een meerinvestering t.o.v. een dieseltruck. De
terugverdientijd ligt op dit moment zo rond de 5 jaar.
Voor dual-fuel toepassingen ligt deze terugverdientijd lager, namelijk tussen de 16 en 24
maanden. Dual-fuel lijkt dus de voorkeur te hebben, mede omdat er bij dual-fuel geen
directe operationele gevolgen zijn voor het bedrijf. Er kan namelijk altijd worden
teruggevallen op 100 % diesel en de prestaties van dual-fuel trucks zijn hetzelfde als
gewone dieseltrucks. Dit zijn factoren die voor ondernemers belangrijk zijn bij de
overweging om over te stappen naar LNG.
De tankstations
Het tankstation van Ballast Nedam had twee technieken om vrachtwagens te vullen met
LNG. De Iveco en de Volvo werken bij een tankdruk van 8 bar of -153° C (gesatureerd
LNG). De Mercedes en de Scania werken bij een tankdruk van 18 bar of -110° C (super
gesatureerd LNG). Er is echter nog een derde mogelijkheid. Deze techniek wordt gebruik
bij het tanken van vrachtwagens met een Wesport HPDI motor (voornamelijk actief in
China en de VS). Deze werkt met een tankdruk van 3 bar of -153° C. Al deze technieken
hebben voor- en nadelen. Het is duidelijk dat hier standaardisatie nodig is. Belangrijk om te
noemen is dat het in Europa verboden is om boil-off gas in de atmosfeer te ventileren. Bij
alle tankstations moeten dus voorzieningen aanwezig zijn om dit te voorkomen.
Bij het tanken van LNG moet gemeten worden hoeveel brandstof er precies door de leiding
gaat. Hiervoor ontwikkeld Emerson Process Management de technologie, voor
verschillende toepassingen.

Momenteel zijn er ongeveer 51 LNG stations operationeel in Europa. Dit aantal zal snel
gaan groeien, gezien de vele projecten die nu lopen. De verwachting voor Nederland is dat
zij na de UK het grootste netwerk krijg van LNG tankstations. Dit komt o.a. door de centrale
ligging in Europa, de beschikbaarheid van nabijgelegen LNG terminals en de interesse
voor LNG als brandstof voor de binnenvaart.
Op het terrein van de veiligheid van tankstations is in Nederlands de richtlijn PGS 33 nog in
ontwikkeling. Deze zal standaarden neerzetten voor tankstations om de veiligheid te
optimaliseren. Bovendien wordt internationaal gewerkt aan verschillende ISO standaarden
gericht op verschillende onderdelen uit de LNG keten.
2.3 Dag 3 - Deel 2 workshop presentaties Amsterdam
LNG in de scheepvaart
LNG kan ook als brandstof worden gebruikt in de scheepvaart sector. Hierbij vaart het
schip dan meestal op het boil-off geproduceerd door het vloeibare LNG. Ook dual-fuel
toepassingen zijn mogelijk in de scheepvaart. Volgens MAN zou de terugverdientijd van
een schip op LNG niet meer dan 2 jaar zijn ten opzichte van scheepvaart diesel. Dit is ook
lager dan andere alternatieve toepassingen zoals bijvoorbeeld LPG.
Naast scheepvaart op open water, kan LNG kan met name ook interessant zijn voor de
binnenvaart, bijvoorbeeld op de Rijn en de Donau. Hierbij zijn momenteel nog twee grote
obstakels. 1: Het LNG moet getankt worden in Rotterdam of worden getransporteerd naar
nog niet bestaande tanklocaties aan grote scheepvaart routes. 2: Het is op dit moment nog
verboden om LNG te gebruiken op de binnenvaart. Alleen onder een aantal specifieke
voorwaarden kan nu toch een vergunning verkregen worden (via de CCNR). Hier moet dus
nog nieuwe wet- en regelgeving voor worden ontworpen.
Voor LNG scheepvaart dieper in Europa (bijvoorbeeld op de Donau) is dit een extra
probleem omdat deze nu nog ver verwijderd zijn van de LNG terminals aan de kust en het
dus moeilijker is om de brandstof daar naartoe te krijgen.
Marktontwikkeling LNG sector
De toename van het aantal LNG terminals in Europa en de rest van de wereld zal ervoor
zorgen dat er een constante en betrouwbare levering komt van LNG als transportbrandstof.
LNG biedt de beste kansen om de voorraden aardgas de wereld zo goed mogelijk te
benutten en te verspreiden. Bovendien geniet LNG ontwikkeling overheidssteun in veel
landen.
3. CONCLUSIE
De wereld staat aan de vooravond van grote veranderingen in de energievoorziening. De
verwachting is dat aardgas hierin de komende jaren een steeds grotere rol in gaat spelen.
Vooral het gebruik van aardgas in te transportsector, ter vervanging van diesel, lijkt in
opmars te komen. In 2035 zal naar verwachting bijna 40 % van het diesel gebruik in zwaar
transport zijn vervangen door aardgas. Aardgas zal steeds meer over de wereld verspreid
gaan worden via LNG tankers. Het gebruik van LNG in vrachtvervoer biedt eigenlijk 3
voordelen:
1. milieuvoordelen m.b.t. uitstoot van schadelijke gassen/stoffen;
2. kosten voordelen (LNG is goedkoper dan diesel aan de pomp);

3. betrouwbaarheid (aardasbronnen zijn er nog in overvloed en zijn goed verspreid over
de wereld.
De introductie van hernieuwbaar bio-LNG in deze markt biedt zo mogelijk nog grotere
milieuvoordelen, met name wat betreft de uitstoot van CO2.
Voor de succesvolle introductie van LNG (en later bio-LNG) als brandstof in het
vrachtvervoer en de scheepvaart zijn er een aantal hordes die nog genomen moeten
worden.
- Er moeten standaarden worden ontwikkeld voor LNG vulstations en vul methodes voor
LNG tanks.
- Voor de scheepvaart moet wet- en regelgeving worden aangepast om varen op LNG
mogelijk te maken op de binnenvaart.
- Er zal een strategisch netwerk van LNG vulstations uitgerold moeten worden om de
bedrijfszekerheid van vervoersbedrijven niet in gevaar te brengen (Europe LNG Blue
Corridors).
- Er zal een netwerk van LNG terminals moeten komen om ook de binnenvaart de
voorzien van LNG. In deze terminals zou bijvoorbeeld ook bio-LNG kunnen worden
bijgemengd.
- In Nederland moet de scheve verhouding tussen de accijns op CNG en LNG worden
opgeheven. Dit houd ook mede de productie van bio-LNG tegen.
- Er moet praktijkervaring worden opgegaan met het rijden op LNG om zo de voor- en
nadelen goed op een rij te krijgen. Meer informatie zal bedrijven stimuleren om over te
stappen naar LNG dan wel bio-LNG.
- Op het gebied van bio-LNG is nog vrij weinig bekend/onderzocht, anders dan de
milieuvoordelen die dit levert. Dit is dan ook onderwerp van mijn huidige
afstudeeronderzoek. Huidige marktontwikkelingen richten zich eigenlijk meer op LNG.
Bio-LNG wordt er dan vaak bijgezet om het verhaal aantrekkelijker te laten klinken.
Als laatste toevoeging staat in Afbeelding 3 nog een plaatje van de verspreiding van LNG
tankstations in Europa.

Afbeelding 3. LNG tankstations in Europa *
* Zwarte driehoekjes zijn operationele stations en witte driehoekjes zijn geplande stations.

APPENDIX VI OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT ACTIVE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE
INDUSTRY

Table VI.1. Overview stakeholders LNG/LBM industry
company/organisation description
production
Gasrec production of LBM in the United Kingdom
Fluxys LNG terminal in Zeebrugge
Gate terminal LNG terminal in Rotterdam
distribution
Rolande LCNG supplier of LBM and LNG and filling stations
LNG24 Clean Fuel supplier of LBM and LNG and filling stations
LNG Europe supplier of LBM and LNG and filling stations
Orangegas realisation of filling point for green gas fuel
technology
Westport engine technology for LNG and LBM for truck and ship applications
Clean Air Power dual-fuel retrofit technology for trucks
Cryostar deliverer of pump systems and liquefaction and degasification facilities
Ballast Nedam LNG filling stations
Vanzetti engineering technology for LNG filling stations
Emerson Process Management measurement and dispensing systems for LNG
Peters Shipyards construction LNG ship
Volvo Trucks supplier of methane-diesel technology
Mercedes single fuel LNG engine technology
Iveco single fuel LNG engine technology
Man single fuel LNG engine technology
Cryonorm systems vaporisation systems for cryogenic liquids
end-users
Vos Logistics operating trucks on LNG
Boeing operating trucks on LNG
Jumbo operating trucks on LNG
Peter Appel operating trucks on LNG
Portena Logistics operating trucks on LNG
research
Kiwa regulations regarding LBM/LNG
Ecofys consultancy firm renewable energy
TÜV Saarland regulations regarding LBM/LNG
AgentschapNL advice and support for government policy
Holland Innovation Team research regarding LNG and LBM
advocacies and governments
NGVA Europe organisation representing the interests of the natural gas vehicle industry
NGV Global new for the natural gas vehicle industry
NGV Holland stimulating the usage of natural gas and biogas in transport for the Netherlands
GIE representing the infrastructure industry of natural gas
CCNR representing the interests of inland shipping in Europe
pro Danube stimulating logistics on the Danube
LNG TR&D clustering of knowledge and expertise on the LNG chain
European Union interested in introducing LNG and LBM as transport fuel
Dutch Government interested in introducing LNG and LBM as transport fuel
Province of Overijssel interested in introducing LNG and LBM as transport fuel
Energy Valley development energy and sustainable energy in the north of the Netherlands