energies

Review
A Review of Commercial Biogas Systems and Lessons
for Africa
Francis Kemausuor 1,2,3 , Muyiwa S. Adaramola 3, * and John Morken 4
1 Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana; [email protected]
2 The Brew-Hammond Energy Center, KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana
3 Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, 1433 Ås, Norway
4 Faculty of Science and Technology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-67-23-1793




Received: 1 October 2018; Accepted: 30 October 2018; Published: 1 November 2018


Abstract: Many African countries have vast biomass resources that could serve as feedstock for
methane production through the adoption of commercial biogas plants. However, due to many
inhibiting factors, these resources are under-utilised. This article reviews commercial biogas
systems that treat organic waste from municipalities, large livestock farms, large plantations/crop
farms, food/beverage production facilities, and other industries, to identify essential lessons
which African countries could use to develop/disseminate such biogas systems. The review
identified the critical barriers to commercial biogas development to be high initial capital costs,
weak environmental policies, poor institutional framework, poor infrastructure and a general lack of
willpower to implement renewable energy policies and set challenging targets. In African countries
where feed-in-tariffs, quota obligations and competitive bidding programmes have been instituted,
implementation has been poor, and most state-owned utilities have been unsupportive. Using
knowledge from more experienced countries such as Germany and China, some key lessons have were
identified. Among the key lessons is the need to institute and enforce environmental management
policies to ensure that waste from medium and large livestock farms and industries are not disposed
of indiscriminately, a tool China has recently used to promote commercial biogas plants to a high
degree of success.

Keywords: anaerobic digestion; commercial biogas systems; bioenergy; electricity; Africa

1. Introduction
In many African countries, access to electricity and modern cooking fuels is still a challenge
for both residential and commercial activities. Households in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) form the
majority of over 2.7 billion people globally that rely predominantly on traditional biomass as cooking
fuel [1]. With regards to electricity, only 38% of the population had access in 2014 [2]. There are vast
opportunities for African countries to expand access to energy using indigenous renewable energy
resources, following the growing global trend. In 2016, modern renewable energy is said to have
supplied a 10.4% share of global total final energy consumption, with traditional biomass supplying
7.8% [3]. The modern renewable energy share included energy generated from biomass fuels, such as
solid biomass and biogas for electricity and heat generation using modern technologies. The biogas
component is produced through anaerobic digestion using feedstock sources such as livestock manure,
agro-industrial residues and landfills [4]. Compared with photovoltaics and wind energy, biogas can
be stored and used on demand, providing an opportunity for use as a base load [5].

Energies 2018, 11, 2984; doi:10.3390/en11112984 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 2984 2 of 21

In Asia and Africa, biogas installations are mainly family-sized plants [6] which generate biogas
for use at the household level, though there is increasing effort in China and India to install larger
plants for electricity and heat applications. In Europe and the Americas, however, biogas installations
have been restricted to large-scale plants, providing heat and electricity to municipal or national
grids, with several MW scale installations. In Europe, some of the biogas produced is upgraded
and fed into the natural gas grid or used as transport fuel [7]. Family-sized biogas plants are often
used as cooking fuel substituting fuelwood and dung [8,9], whereas large-scale commercial biogas
plants, managed by private or public-private partnerships, aim to meet internal energy needs for
processing/manufacturing or yield financial benefits by selling electricity and/or heat [10]. Biogas
production from agricultural residues, industrial and municipal waste/wastewater is an attractive
option also in developing countries. Unlike liquid biofuels, biogas produced from the sources
mentioned above does not compete with food crops for land, water and fertilisers [11], and can
help improve sanitation and organic waste management at the household, community and industrial
level [12].
Jiang et al. [13] report of surveys indicating that medium and large-scale biogas plants provide
more benefits to the user and society than household biogas digesters. The cost per unit of gas
produced is lower due to economies of scale, and the use of advanced technologies could increase
financial returns [13]. Among the key benefits are job creation and improvement in technical skills,
reduced fuel import leading to improved energy security, improved sanitation, improved waste and
wastewater management, and reduced risk of deforestation and land degradation [12].
Feedstocks for large-scale biogas plants originate from a wide range of activities and industries
such as sewage, food waste, crop waste, livestock waste, municipal solid waste (MSW), agriculture
waste and agro-processing residue. Several studies point to a high potential for these resources
globally and in many countries [14–21], with most of the resources directly correlating with increased
population and industrial expansion. The use of some of these resources as biogas feedstock engenders
multiple benefits. For example, releasing untreated municipal and industrial wastewater into the
environment leads to pollution of rivers and other water bodies [22–25]. Dumping solid waste and
manure in landfills is not only expensive but also leads to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
into the atmosphere [26]. Biogas technologies can assist in improving the environmental management
of solid and liquid waste from municipal and agro-processing facilities [27].
Notwithstanding the potential for large-scale biogas systems in Africa, its development is still
emergent. Potential target users of large-scale biogas technology in Africa could be; crop and livestock
farmers, small to medium and large food processing industries, wastewater and excreta management
(sanitation) institutions and municipalities, and solid waste management municipalities [28]. The list
also includes schools, universities, hospitals and commercial buildings. Other countries have used
commercial biogas facilities for many years and gained much experience in the sector. There is an
opportunity for African countries to learn from these countries in order to adopt large-scale biogas
technology [11].
This article, therefore, reviews commercial biogas systems with the aim of identifying the lessons
that Africa could learn to facilitate the development/dissemination of such biogas systems. In the
context of this review, commercial biogas systems are based on the definition of Rupf et al. [27],
as “large-scale systems that treat organic waste from municipalities, large livestock farms, large
plantations/crop farms, food/beverage production facilities, and other industries with significant
quantities of organic waste”. The emphasis is on biogas plants focussing on larger-scale, farm based
and commercial, electricity and heat systems [29], and not domestic-scale digesters that are used to
provide fuel for cooking in developing countries. The review is not restricted to large systems that only
sell power and heat to the grid, but also those that provide electricity and heat for internal consumption
within their premises, and which may or may not be selling excess heat and power.
The study used a systematic search of published literature to identify relevant articles that deal
with ongoing biogas programmes and statistics in Africa and other regions, best practices in commercial
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 3 of 21

biogas systems, biogas potential in Africa, and some of the critical barriers hindering progress in
the African region. Key databases consulted include Google Scholar, Scopus, Science Direct and
SpringerLink. Literature related to biogas and supporting policies from government portals was also
reviewed. As much as practicable, literature published in the last three years was selected. However,
where necessary, and for the sake of emphasis on historical perspectives, literature more than three
years old was consulted. While the scope of the review is limted to commercial biogas systems, there
were instances where for the sake of emphasis, especially in the case of China and India, efforts made
to promote family-sized biogas plants are briefly captured.

2. Overview of Commercial Biogas Systems in Africa and Barriers to Dissemination

2.1. Overview of Large Biogas Systems in Africa

Africa is one of the regions with high potentials in biogas production, though it has achieved
little in developing the sector. While the continent has made progress in small-scale or household
biogas systems [30–35], commercial bio-digesters are still in their infancy [27]. Several national and
regional studies have been conducted on the potential of biogas in Africa, ranging from technical
issues to economic and policy analysis. Studies conducted in South Africa, the country with the largest
installed electricity generation capacity in Africa, noted that although about 700 biogas plants had
been installed in the country, only 300 may have been in operation as of 2107 [26,36]. Of the number
under operation, about 90% are household systems. The rest are commercial plants with capacities
of between 30 kW and 19 MW (see Table 1), all private initiatives and generating power for internal
consumption. Commercial biogas production potential in South Africa is estimated at approximately
118 million cubic meters, based on estimates of feedstock sources from the wineries industry, pig farms,
poultry slaughterhouses, and from agricultural and agro-processing waste, with electricity generation
potential of 148 GWh [26].
Estimates for biogas potential in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, is 6.8 million cubic
meters per day from animal manure [37] and 913,440 tonnes of methane from MSW, equivalent to
482 MW of electricity [38]. Furthermore, Giwa et al. [39] estimated that up to 171 TJ of energy could be
generated from biogas by 2030 in Nigeria. In Kenya, a 2.2 MW commercial biogas plant inaugurated
in 2017 is reportedly the largest grid-connected biogas power plant in Africa [40], selling surplus
power to the grid at $0.10 per kWh. The biogas plant, located in Naivasha, about 76 km from Nairobi,
is operated by Bio-joule Kenya, an independent power producer. About 0.2 MW of the electricity
produced is used internally, and the 2 MW surplus is fed into the grid to meet the power needs of
close to 6000 rural homes. Table 1 shows other smaller commercial biogas plants installed in Kenya.
Estimates of electricity generation potential from agro-industrial waste and wastewater in Kenya using
biogas technology is estimated at 624 GWh [26]. Bio-waste from maize, cotton, barley, sugarcane and
tea residues have biogas potential of about 3284 million m3 of CH4 , with the gross annual electrical
energy potential of 3.92 TWh [41]. Other notable studies that have assessed the potential and viability
of commercial biogas technology in Kenya include Hamid and Blanchard [42] and Kiplagat et al. [43].
Commercial biogas plants in Ghana include a 2000 m3 oil palm waste digester and a 900 m3
fruit waste digester which process wastes from an oil palm mill and a fruit processing company
respectively. The only grid-connected biogas plant in the country, a 100 kWe plant treating human
faecal matter and market organic waste, began feeding electricity into the national grid in September
2016. Studies on biogas potentials have been conducted in Ghana, where a plethora of resources
exist for biogas production [44]. The technical potential of biogas generation from crop residues,
forestry residue, animal manure and municipal waste is estimated at 2700 Mm3 /year [45]. There is
considerable potential for biogas generation from MSW, particularly for cities where 600−800 tonnes
of waste is generated daily [46]. Ofori-Boateng et al. [47] estimates that biogas technology can be
used to produce 1–1.5 GWh electricity/year from MSW. The German Development Agency (GIZ) [48]
estimates biogas production potential capacity from oil palm processing waste in Ghana as 11,755 m3
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 4 of 21

CH4 /h (equivalent to 37–45 MWe), fruit processing waste as 1.6–2.7 MWe, cocoa processing waste
as 2.0–2.4 MWe, and livestock waste as 7.4–9.1 MWe. Furthermore, Arthur and Glover [49] estimate
electricity generation potential from palm oil mill effluent to be more than 300 GWh of electricity
per year.
In Zambia, Shane and Gheewala [50] estimate about 1.473 × 109 m3 biogas from animal dung and
1.819 × 109 m3 from crop residues. A study in Cameroon showed good prospects for biogas use as
fuel for rural electrification, in a hybrid configuration combining biogas with photovoltaic, wind and
pumped hydro [51]. Studies on biogas potential have been done in several other African countries. Net
energy potential based on estimated feedstocks available for anaerobic digestion in sub-Saharan Africa
shows high potential for West and East Africa [27]. Table 1 shows some commercial biogas systems
that are in operation in Africa. Except for South Africa, there is very little in the scientific literature
with regards to the technologies deployed for commercial biogas systems in Africa. In South Africa,
technologies used are the lagoon, plug low, and up-flow sludge blanket (UASB) [36]. There have been
recent efforts to upgrade biogas in South Africa. A waste-to-energy plant opened in Athlone, near Cape
Town will process up to 600 tonnes/day of Wet Trade Waste, Pure Organic Waste and Municipal Solid
Waste to produce organic fertiliser, compressed biomethane, liquid carbon dioxide (CO2 ), recyclables
and refuse-derived fuel. The biogas produced will be upgraded using Pentair Haffmans’ Advanced
Plus biogas upgrading system that combines advanced membrane and cryogenic technology to split
the gas into high-purity biomethane (95.5%) and liquid CO2 . The biomethane will be compressed and
distributed as an alternative to LPG or diesel and the CO2 liquefied and stored for the agricultural and
wastewater treatment sectors [52].

Table 1. Example of commercial Biogas digesters in some African Countries [36,53].

Area Developer or Biomass Source Capacity (MW) Country

Alice University of Port Hare 0.2 South Africa
Athlone Clean Energy Africa and Wastemart 4.0 South Africa
Bredasdorp iBert 0.10 South Africa
Cavalter iBert 0.50 South Africa
EnviroServ/Chloorkop LFG
Cavalter 0.19 South Africa
Cullinan
Darling Uilenkraal Uilenkraal dairy farm 0.60 South Africa
Durban Bisasar road LFG 6.00 South Africa
Durban Marrianhill LFG 1.50 South Africa
Grabouw Elgin Fruit and Juices 0.50 South Africa
Jan Kempdorp iBert 0.135 South Africa
Jan Kempdorp Jacobsdale 0.15 South Africa
WEC Projects/Northern Waste Water Treatment
Johannesburg 1.20 South Africa
Works
Johannesburg Robinson Deep 19.00 South Africa
Klipheuwel Farmsecure 0.60–0.70 South Africa
Mossel Bay Biotherm Energy 4.20 South Africa
Paarl Drakenstein municipality 14.00 South Africa
Pretoria Bio2watt/Bronkhorst-Spruit 4.60 South Africa
Riverdale iBert 0.10 South Africa
Riverdale Robertson 0.15 South Africa
Springs BiogasSA/Morgan Springs Abattoir 0.40 South Africa
Springs Selectra 0.50 South Africa
Springs Selectra 1.00 South Africa
Springs Selectra 1.00 South Africa
Chaka Afrisol 0.060 Kenya
Dagoretti Slaughterhouse waste 0.030 Kenya
Isinya P. J. Dave Flower Farms Ltd (PPP) 0.10 Kenya
Keekonyoike Slaughterhouse waste 0.020 Kenya
Kericho James Finlay Ltd 0.160 Kenya
Kilifi Pine Power Ltd 0.150 Kenya
Naivasha Bio-joule Kenya 2.20 Kenya
Sagana Oilvado Company Ltd 0.340 Kenya
Simbi Roses Ereka Holdings Ltd (PPP) 0.055 Kenya
Adeiso Assorted fruit waste and poultry manure 0.90 Ghana
Ashaiman Market and faecal waste 0.10 Ghana
Kwae Oil palm waste 2.00 Ghana
PPP—Public-Private Partnership collaboration with the Ministry of Energy; LFG—Landfill gas.
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 5 of 21

2.2. Support for Commercial Biogas Systems

Over the years, some support policies have been put in place for general renewable energy
development in African countries. The support policies include renewable energy targets,
feed-in-tariffs (FiTs), utility quota obligations, tendering, and fiscal incentives [3]. According to
the Renewables Global Status Report for 2018 [3], most African countries have some form of renewable
energy target in place, either for energy, or power. Of the fifty-six (56) countries in Africa, only eleven
(11) do not have any form of renewable energy targets in place. However, with regards to regulatory
policies and incentives, many African countries fall short. Only ten (10) countries have FiTs or premium
payment for renewable energy projects; nineteen (19) countries either have policies on tendering or at
least held a tender in 2017, while twenty-three (23) countries do not have any policy or fiscal incentive
support for renewables at all.
The government of South Africa first introduced a FiT scheme for renewable energy projects in
2009, but the state electricity utility and the treasury opposed this as they feared additional cost to
the consumer [54]. It was rep laced by a competitive tender or auction-based-tariff (ABT) system in
2011 under the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme [55]. South
Africa supports commercial biogas plants with grants. For example, the funding for one of South
Africa’s prominent commercial biogas facilities, the 4.6 MW developed by Bio2watt/Bronkhorst-Spruit
(listed in Table 1) came from 24% equity, 11% Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) grant and 65%
loan from the Industrial Development Corporation [56].
Ghana uses a mix of policies, including grid access, FiTs, competitive bidding, and Renewable
Energy Purchase Obligation to promote renewable energy development, including electricity from
biogas plants [46,57,58]. The Ghana Renewable Energy Act states explicitly that “an operator of a
transmission or distribution system shall connect a generator of electricity from a renewable energy
source within the coverage area of the transmission or distribution system where a generator of
electricity from renewable energy sources so request” [59]. The Nigerian Renewable Energy Master
Plan aims for 100 MW electricity generation capacity from biomass by 2030, with expected contribution
from other renewables [37]. Under Nigeria’s “Regulations on feed-in tariff for renewable energy
sourced electricity in Nigeria” [60], the off-taker is obliged to connect to accredited plants generating
electricity from eligible renewable energy sources that are within the capacity limits set by the
Renewable Energy Master Plan.
Notwithstanding these policies and fiscal incentives granted by laws and regulatory documents
in some of the countries, progress in the deployment of renewable energy technologies in general, and
commercial biogas plants in particular, have been abysmal.

3. Barriers to Commercial Biogas Dissemination in Africa

Commercial biogas plants have enjoyed very little success in the African region. Barriers that
hinder the adoption of biogas plants in Africa, mainly family-sized plants, have been discussed
extensively in the literature [12,28,61]. Commercial biogas systems may have a unique set of
barriers, compared to family-sized systems. Among the critical barriers, in the African context, are
poor institutional framework and infrastructure, weak environmental policies, inadequate planning
policies, non-implementation of the existing policies, and lack of coordination and linkages in biogas
programmes. Other barriers are price distortions that have placed renewable energy at a disadvantage,
high initial capital costs, weak dissemination strategies, lack of skilled human resources, and weak
maintenance and after-sales services [1,12,28]. This section will discuss barriers to commercial biogas
adoption in Africa under four main sub-headings: financial and economic barriers, technical and
infrastructural barriers, regulatory and institutional barriers, and market barriers.
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 6 of 21

3.1. Financial and Economic Barriers

Financing is at the heart of the many challenges faced by energy and other infrastructural projects
in Africa. Admittedly, commercial biogas plants are expensive, and for many livestock farmers,
agro-industrial complexes and large institutions that are already struggling to finance their operations,
investing into biogas plants as a waste management option is often out of the question, especially in
areas where environmental policies are hardly enforced. The economy of a biogas plant consists of
large investments costs and some operation and maintenance cost [28]. The initial investment cost
is especially the major bottleneck to the adoption of commercial biogas technology in Africa [62,63].
Central Bank policy rates range from 14 to 17% in African countries such as Ghana, Egypt, Angola,
Sierra Leone, Malawi, Mozambique and Nigeria [64,65]. This has resulted in high lending rates, which
makes long-term financing options very expensive and often inaccessible, affecting the economic
viability of biogas projects [66] and an entry barrier for private developers [67]. Most financial
institutions are reluctant to provide financial packages because of the high risks and experiences
of low recovery [10]. Government support in the form of guarantees to project developers has
not been encouraging. Ghana’s Ministry of Energy, for example, has indicated its reluctance to
provide government guarantees in support of renewable power projects [46], leaving projects stranded.
Additional barriers arise in the financing of biogas systems due to the scattered efforts initiated by
investors, governments, local agencies, and policy-makers. [68]. In some countries where FiTs are in
place, it has been challenging for project developers to sign Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with
the utilities, which are in many instances, state-owned.

3.2. Technical and Infrastructural Barriers

Whereas there is a fair technical experience with family-sized biogas systems on the African
continent, there is little experience in commercial systems. Commercial biogas systems are larger
and more complex, requiring higher skills and expertise in their conception, design, construction and
management. Technical and infrastructural challenges start with feedstock supply. The inadequate
transportation infrastructure in some communities increases disruption risk of feedstock supply chains,
especially in areas where feedstock is not all available at the power plant [69]. Where biogas technology
has been tested, there are reports of setbacks, partly attributed to the failure of governments to support
the technology through a focused energy policy, lack of information regarding its economic viability,
poor designs and construction of digesters, wrong operation and lack of maintenance by users [70].
According to Gebreegziabher et al. [71], the extent to which users understand the technology is
essential, and this is often lacking, leading to a situation where technical challenges are difficult to
resolve, affecting the maintenance and sustainability of installed units.
Technical capacity for the construction and maintenance of commercial biogas plants is lacking
in many developing countries in general, though the impact may be country specific [12,72]. The
successful systems reported in South Africa, Kenya, and Ghana have depended on foreign engineering
and construction companies [56], a scenario that has cost implications, as foreign labour imported to
Africa is often more expensive than local labour. A study by Mukumba et al. [73] noted that there is
little biogas technology education at the different educational levels on the continent.
One of the very critical infrastructural barriers is the issue of poor grid network in many African
countries, which poses challenges even to existing power plants [57]. Grid infrastructure is not robust
enough in some parts of the continent, and that affects their capability to grant grid access to renewable
energy power plants in general. This has been reported in many countries, including Ghana [46],
Kenya [66], Nigeria [74], Zambia [75] and Uganda [76].

3.3. Regulatory and Institutional Barriers

Establishing commercial biogas plants in a country or region requires organisational capability
and initiative. According to Okello et al. [77], countries that have strong institutional support to biogas
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 7 of 21

programmes have registered significant success in promoting the technology. Where renewable energy
policies are in place in Africa, there is often a general lack of coherent strategy in place to promote
commercial biogas technology [28,62]. A 300 kW MSW-to-energy plant (Taka Gas Project in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania) that underwent vigorous planning and was supposed to generate 7.08 MWh/d of
electricity from 2368 m3 of methane per day [78] failed to take off due to what Parawira [28] describe as
‘bureaucracy’. The institutional structures failed to come to a consensus on the actual direction for the
project, whose main aim was to produce biogas from MSW and serve as a model for other urban areas
in Africa [28]. There is a reported general lack of coordination and linkup among important institutions
such as local and central governments agencies, research institutions and business institutions [68].
As the case has been in South Africa, the monopolistic nature of the utility was enough to kill
the FiT scheme, instead, introducing a bidding system where they had control. Unfortunately, the
bidding process was expensive and complicated “with the cost to the developer being in the region
of $2 million per bid, depending on the size of the contract, with the bulk of the fees due to legal
costs and raising of the bid bond” [37]. For example, the 4.6 MW Bio2watt/Bronkhorst-Spruit biogas
plant in South Africa encountered a problem during its development due to the tedious steps it had to
take to comply with rigid environmental legislation before construction could commence, spending
approximately 8 million Rand (US$ 0.8 million) in legal costs for about 7 years [56]. Notwithstanding
the progress made by South Africa in the development of commercial biogas systems, legislation in
the country did not permit this plant, which is grid connected, feeding surplus electricity back into the
grid [56].
In Ghana, it has been reported that project developers must obtain up to eleven licenses, approvals,
agreements and clearances from different institutions, with each increasing transaction costs and
opening up the system for corrupt practices [66].

3.4. Market and Awareness Barriers

Among the major obstacles to the uptake of commercial biogas plants in Africa is a lack of
cognisance on the viability of biogas as a source of electrical energy and/or heat production as well as
sustainable waste management method [26]. Many crop and livestock farmers, as well as processing
companies, are not informed about the opportunities offered by biogas technology as a dual “fuel
production and waste management technology” [79]. This barrier cuts across several African countries.
Electricity generated from biogas plants must compete with low-priced (often subsidised) electricity
from thermal plants and other sources. Even with free substrates in most instances, biogas technology
for electricity generation is expensive, especially in countries where technology is imported. Most
analyses, and indeed FiTs published by governments (e.g., that of Ghana), show that other renewable
sources like solar, hydro and wind are cheaper than anaerobic digestion based power generation [10,57].
FiTs have almost always been more expensive than existing electricity tariffs, and this is the main
reason why South Africa’s electricity utility kicked against the FiT scheme in South Africa, instead
opting for competitive bidding. Poor performing public utilities in African countries such as Ghana,
Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Niger [80], are not creditworthy, and there are too many risks engaging
with them on PPAs [66]. Also, not all governments are willing to provide the needed guarantees to
private investors [46].

4. Overview of Successful Commercial Biogas Programmes

4.1. Global Overview

There are currently more than 35 million biogas installations across the globe, though the majority
comprises of family-sized installations in India and China [81], with commercial-scale plants mostly in
Europe and North America (see Figure 1). Biogas production in Europe reached 14,120 toe in 2016 from
about 7934 toe in 2009, boosted primarily by the development of favourable conditions for electricity
production from biogas, such as FiTs in Germany, the obligation certification for energy renewability in
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 8 of 21

the UK, and the tax policy (i.e., economic exemptions) in Sweden [82]. European countries derive their
motivation from the EU legislation, which set a target of 20% renewable energy contribution by the
year 2020 [83], and also to meet the organic waste management directive [68]. In some of the developed
countries, for example, Denmark, Germany, the United States and Sweden, advanced technologies
have been employed to upgrade biogas into advanced fuels. The process is carried out either in-situ,
which involves the injection of hydrogen inside the digester, or ex-situ with hydrogen injection in a
separate reactor [84]. A compilation by the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation [52]
Energies 2018,
Energies 2018, 11,
11, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 88 of
of 21
21
provides examples of biogas plants that have advanced upgrading technologies, including one plant in
South Africa. Subsequent
technologies, including
technologies,
sub-sections
including oneone plant
plant in will review
in South biogas
South Africa. programmes
Africa. Subsequent in selected
Subsequent sub-sections
sub-sections will countries,
will review including
review biogas
biogas
Germany, China,
programmes
programmes inand
in India.
selected
selected countries, including
countries, including Germany,
Germany, China,
China, and
and India.
India.

16
16
14
14
12
12
Capacity (GW)

10
10

88

66

44

22

00
2007
2007 2008
2008 2009
2009 2010
2010 2011
2011 2012
2012 2013
2013 2014
2014 2015
2015 2016
2016
CC America
America++ Carib
Carib Africa
Africa MiddleEast
Middle East Oceania
Oceania Eurasia
Eurasia SS America
America Asia
Asia NNAmerica
America Europe
Europe

Figure
Figure 1.Global
1.1.
Figure Globalinstalled
Global
biogasplant
installed biogas
installed biogas plantcapacity
plant capacity
capacity between
between
between
2007
2007
2007 and and
and 20162016
2016 [85]. [85].
[85].

4.2. Germany
4.2. Germany
4.2. Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany is the
is leader
is the
the leaderofof
leader ofbiogas
biogas production
biogas production in
production inEurope,
in Europe,
Europe, helped
helped
helped by aby
by a number
a number
number of support
of support
of support measures.
measures.
measures.
As shown
As shown
As in
shown inFigure
in Figure 2,
Figure 2, there
2, there are
there are more
are more than
more than 8000
than 8000 biogas
8000 biogas plants
biogas plants currently
plants currently
currently in in operation
in operation
operation in in Germany,
in Germany, with with
Germany, with
totaltotal
electricity
total electricitygeneration
electricity generation capacity
generation capacity of
capacity of approximately
of approximately 5
approximately 55 GWGW
GW as as
as of of 2016
of 2016 [26,85].
2016 [26,85]. Biogas
[26,85]. Biogas production
Biogas production
production in in in
Germany
Germany
Germany is done
is done
is done mostly
mostly
mostly usingsmall
using
using smallto
small to medium-scale
medium-scale anaerobic
medium-scale anaerobic
anaerobic digesters,
digesters,
digesters, withwith
with an average
an average installed
an average installed
installed
capacity
capacity
capacity of about
of
of about about500 500
500kWe kWe
kWe [86].
[86].
[86].

9000
9000 66

8000
8000
55
7000
7000
Installed capcity (GW)

6000
6000 44
No. of plants

5000
5000
33
4000
4000

3000
3000 22

2000
2000
11
1000
1000

00 00
2007
2007 2008
2008 2009
2009 2010
2010 2011
2011 2012
2012 2013
2013 2014
2014 2015
2015 2016
2016

Number of
Number of plants
plants Installed Capacity
Installed Capacity (GW)
(GW)

Figure 2. Details of biogas plants in Germany at the end of 2016 [85,87].

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Details
Details of
of biogas
biogas plants
plants in
in Germany
Germany at
at the
the end
end of
of 2016
2016 [85,87].
[85,87].

The biogas
The biogas industry
industry in
in Germany
Germany is is supported
supported byby various
various policy
policy instruments.
instruments. TheThe Renewable
Renewable
Energy Sources Act (EEG), which has undergone several revisions since it was first
Energy Sources Act (EEG), which has undergone several revisions since it was first adopted closeadopted close to
to
three decades
three decades ago,
ago, outlines
outlines the
the critical
critical support
support measures.
measures. First,
First, there
there was
was the
the “Act
“Act on
on Feed-In
Feed-In of
of
Electricity” in
Electricity” in 1991,
1991, which
which set
set the
the pace
pace for
for the
the development
development of of biogas
biogas inin Germany
Germany [88].
[88]. This
This
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 9 of 21

The biogas industry in Germany is supported by various policy instruments. The Renewable
Energy Sources Act (EEG), which has undergone several revisions since it was first adopted close
to three decades ago, outlines the critical support measures. First, there was the “Act on Feed-In
of Electricity” in 1991, which set the pace for the development of biogas in Germany [88]. This
metamorphosed into the Renewable Energy Sources Act of 2000 (or EEG 2000), which provided the
following benefits to renewable energy developers: right of grid connection, obligation on the part of
grid operators for preferential purchase, and a guaranteed minimum FiT [86]. An amendment to the
Act in 2014 (EEG 2014), limited the annual expansion of biogas plant capacity to 100 MWe. The latest
version, adopted in July 2017 (EEG 2017), raised the annual expansion celling to 150 MWe until 2019,
and 200 MWe from 2020 onwards [89]. The 2017 version of the EEG also changed from a fixed tariff to a
tender system, in response to market trends. However, biowaste digestion plants and smaller manure
plants up to 75 kWe capacity can be built outside the tenders. Also, installations with a maximum
capacity of 150 kWe may decide to either use the FiT scheme or take part in tenders.

4.3. China
Asia in general, and China in particular, is one of the pioneer developers of biogas technology but
efforts in China have in the past focussed mainly on household biogas systems [90,91]. Data from Chen
et al. [92] indicates that by the close of 2015, there were 111,000 commercial biogas plants in China, of
which 103,898 were medium- to small-scale plants, 6737 were large-scale plants, 34 were super-large
plants, and 306 were industrial waste biogas projects. Commercial biogas plants, in addition to other
biomass power plants, has made China the world’s largest bioelectricity producer, with an installed
capacity of 14.9 GW and generation of 79.4 TWh in 2017 [3]. This compares to total grid-connected
electricity generation installed capacity in sub-Saharan Africa of 36 GW (excluding South Africa) in
2013 [93].
Like Germany, China’s biogas development programme is supported by a set of energy and
environmental policies, as well as economic policies, laws, and the development of standards [92].
The energy policies include the Rural Biogas Projects and the 12th Five-Year Plan for Bioenergy
Development (2011–2015). The laws include the Agricultural Law and the Renewable Energy Law
released in 2005 (and the revised version of 2009). The 2009 revised Renewable Energy Law stipulated
a full support system for power generated by renewable energy. Among the economic policies were
financial support and interest-free loans for both small, medium and large biogas plants, with supports
of 20,000 CNY or approximately US$ 2937 (at 1 US$ = 6.81 CNY; www.xe.com, 24 July 2018) per 100 m3
of large- and medium-scale [92]. After 2009, the subsidy programme was enhanced, with the central
government covering 25% to 45% of the total cost of biogas projects, and setting up policies similar to
FiTs [94]. This consisted of a state special fund and additional renewable energy surcharge of 0.002
CNY per kWh in the sale price of power, which is used to provide a premium price for power from
renewable energy generally.

4.4. India
The first anaerobic digestion plant in Bombay, India in 1859 is said to have generated biogas from
a treatment facility and used for lighting streets [4]. In the 1970s, India started programmes to promote
biogas in the country. Sensing the need to valorise agriculture waste, animal manure and other biomass
sources, India started programmes such as the National Biogas and Manure Management Program
and Off-grid Biogas Power Generation Program for providing renewable energy for cooking and
lighting [95]. At the end of 2017, about 300 MW capacity of commercial biogas production has been
installed in India.
Even though less successful than the Chinese biogas programme, the Indian government has
provided much support to the biogas industry in India. A Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has
been created to oversee biogas and other renewable energy investment programmes. The Ministry
has initiated some programmes and policies, as well as instituted subsidy programmes. The National
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 10 of 21

Biogas and Manure Management Program was also initiated to tackle sub-programmes such as the
“Biogas-Based Distributed/Grid Power Generation Programme”, “Recovery of Energy from Industrial
Wastes” and “Recovery of Energy from Urban Wastes” [1]. Incentives have been provided for the
setting up of community-scale biogas plants. The Railway Company in India is currently experimenting
with bio-based fuels, including biogas, on its networks [3].

4.5. Other Countries

Other major commercial biogas promotion countries include Italy, the United Kingdom, and
the United States. Italy is the second largest biogas producer in Europe, with more than 1300 biogas
plants and electricity generation of over 8 GWh [96]. The proliferation of biogas plants in Italy was
helped in part by a high feed-in-tariff of €0.28/kWh for plants with a capacity of less than 1 MW for
20 year duration [97]. A new feed-in-tariff instituted in 2012 varies based on the kind of substrate, the
installed power, the use of heat and the technology used, with an overall aim to favour small sized
plants (<500 kW) using animal and agricultural waste [97]. The United Kingdom (UK) is another
notable producer and user of biogas in Europe. Installed bioelectricity capacity in the UK reached
6 GW in 2017, with electricity generation of 31.8 TWh, from a combination of solid biomass fuels,
anaerobic digestion and MSW [3]. At the lower end, countries with moderate biogas production in
Europe include Denmark, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Austria. Denmark is very experienced in
the use of commercial biogas facilities and has been promoting technologies for treating co-digested
manure, clean organic industrial wastes and source-separated municipal solid waste (MSW) for
decades. Denmark uses “Green Pricing”, a policy tool that provides incentives for manufacturers
that use biogas to generate electricity, to promote the use of biogas [98]. The Czech Republic has a
subsidy system to support the construction of agricultural biogas plants that process purpose-grown
crops [99]. Bulgaria promotes biogas plants using the “credit line for energy efficiency and renewable
energy sources for Bulgaria”, in which projects can receive up to 20% grants [79]. Austria introduced a
green electricity act and feed-in-tariff in 2002 increasing installed capacity of biogas from 15 MW at
the beginning of 2002 to about 80 MW by the end of 2015 [100]. The feed-in-tariff varies, based on the
capacity and technology of the plant and origin of the biogas, such as sewage gas or landfill gas [101].
In 2013, Swedish biogas production reached 1.7 TWh, with the production sources being wastewater
treatment plants (40%), co-digestion plants (34%), landfill gas valorization (14%), industrial waste
treatment plants (7%), and farm-scale plants (5%) [102]. Over 50% of this is upgraded and used in
vehicles [102], making Sweden the world leader in the use of biogas for transportation.
Besides China and India, other Asian countries that have been promoting biogas systems include
Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand. As of 2013, Vietnam had constructed more than 1 million
biogas digesters, which includes 500,000 medium scale plants and 150,000 industrial plants treating
industrial wastewater [1]. A policy directive launched by the Government of Thailand calls for an
increase in local electricity generation from biogas from 120 MW in 2011 to 600 MW by 2021 [103].
Efforts in Japan to boost industrial biogas plants have been reported [104].
In the Americas, The United States and Brazil are among the prominent biogas developers in the
region. The American Biogas Council [105] reports that there are more than 2100 operational biogas
systems in the United States as of 2016, with more than 11,000 prospective sites. Biomethane potential
from livestock alone is estimated at 5,128,334.6 million gallons per year, which is equivalent to 4360.41
million gallons of diesel or 4883.29 million gallons of gasoline [106]. The United States Federal and
State Governments provide tax incentives, grants, performance-based incentives, soft loans, among
others, for commercial biogas projects. A few examples include: tax credits worth $0.015 per kWh for
ten years in Iowa; Oregon and Pennsylvania provide grants to agricultural plants of 25–50% of total
project costs; Massachusetts provides grants offer of 75% for the design-phase costs and 25% for the
construction-phase costs and six states provide incentives of $0.015 to $0.1 per kWh produced [107].
As of 2017, Brazil operates about 127 commercial biogas plants, fed mainly with livestock manure
and municipal waste [81]. Estimates are that about 100 million m3 methane could be generated daily
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 11 of 21

from livestock manure, agricultural waste, wastewater and municipal waste Brazil [81]. Biomethane
potential from livestock alone in Brazil is estimated at 1,961,171.9 million gallons per year, which could
replace 1667.42 million gallons of diesel or 1848.34 million gallons of gasoline [106]. Brazil is the largest
producer of bioelectricity in South America, with an estimated generation of 49 TWh [3].

4.6. Summary Lessons from Country Reviews

A number of lessons could be drawn from the commercial biogas programmes in the countries
reviewed above. Virtually all the countries that have a booming commercial biogas method have
one form of support or another for the sector. The support systems include priority grid access for
electricity, FiT for electricity, quota schemes, tax reduction for biomethane as a fuel, investment grants,
special aids for farm-based biogas from manure, tax exemption from vehicle tax, tax exemption for
biomethane application from CO2 tax and energy tax. Support systems in Germany are dynamic,
and evolves with changing market trends, aiming at all times, to create a win-win situation for both
the private sector and the federal government. China has drafted policies and laws to guide biogas
programmes in different sections of the economy, including rural, agricultural, and industrial sectors.
The same situation pertains in India, where there are separate programmes for rural areas, urban waste
and industrial waste. Other countries have unique support programmes, such as the green pricing
policy in Denmark, preferential FiTs based on plant sizes in Italy and federal/state government grants
in the United States. A summary of the countries presented in this section is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of other countries’ capacities and support systems.

Installed Biogas Power

Country Support for Biogas Projects
Capacity in 2016 (MW) *
Feed-in-tariff, which varies based on the capacity, the
Austria 194
technology of the plant and origin of the biogas
Brazil 451 Incentives for energy from waste resources
Bulgaria 30 Projects receive up to 20% grant
Czech Republic 369 Subsidy to support construction
Uses “Green Pricing” to provide incentives for
Denmark 110
manufacturers that use biogas to generate electricity.
Fee-in-tariff, which favours smaller plants with less than 500
Italy 1387
kW capacity
South Africa 22 Investment incentives
Vehicle fleet to be independent of fossil fuels by 2030.
Sweden 2
Methane will be one of the principal fuels
Thailand 435 Increase biogas capacity to 600 MW by 2030
United Kingdom 1667 Feed-in-tariff
The federal government provides tax incentives, grants,
United States 2438 performance-based incentives, soft loans. Various state
governments provide tax credits and grants.
* Capacity shown is for installed power only. Some of the countries also use a large portion of biogas as a
transportation fuel.

5. Lessons for Africa

Africa has been described as “the most powerful future biogas market” [68], but a lot remains
to be done if this accolade is to become a reality. Indeed, there is high potential and opportunities
to generate electricity from biogas, but Africa has so far failed to utilise these opportunities [63].
While Africa has a lot to learn from countries such as Germany and China where commercial biogas
programmes have flourished, it is also important to note that not all such support measures can be
wholly lifted and implemented in Africa. Based on the reviews of what we have termed “successful”
biogas programmes, important lessons have been grouped under four principal areas: enacting energy
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 12 of 21

and environmental policies; rolling out economic and policies; promoting research and development;
and other support schemes.

5.1. Energy and Environmental Policies

The commitment of governments and their ministries/agencies in charge of energy, agriculture,
science, technology, environment and local government are of the utmost importance to the promotion
of commercial biogas projects on the African continent [108]. Setting up appropriate policy and
institutional framework is needed to tackle the barriers hindering the adoption of commercial biogas
projects in Africa [109]. These policies, such as FiTs, quota obligations, grid access and competitive
bidding programmes, are already instituted in some African countries, but implementation has been
poor, and in some cases, repulsive to investors. An example of such is the South African situation,
where bidding processes alone cost about two million dollars, should be avoided. Grid access is
another critical area of concern for biogas power plants. Ghana and Nigeria are examples of two
countries whose laws and regulatory documents grants grid access to “approved or licensed” biogas
power plants. However, South Africa may not automatically grant access to the grid, as indicated
in earlier sections of this article by findings from a GIZ study [56]. As the case is in Ghana and
Nigeria, other African countries that do not currently have grid access must reconsider their positions,
especially for power plants that have been licensed or approved by the regulatory authorities.
Enforcement of environmental laws and policies has been a challenge in some countries, including
for example Ethiopia, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania [110,111], often leading to situations where
bio-waste is disposed of indiscriminately. Commercial biogas systems can be integrated into the waste
management systems, providing both sanitation and energy benefits [112]. They provide a treatment
platform for decreasing large amounts of complex organic materials, converting the majority of such
molecules into methane and carbon dioxide [113]. As the review has shown, countries/regions with
thriving commercial biogas systems have environmental policies and directives that require proper
management of bio-waste, which serves to motivate livestock farms and industries that generate
bio-waste. In other words, some biogas plants in these countries are constructed in response to stringent
environmental management policies. According to Chen et al. [91], China’s ambition to control
pollution from livestock production facilities led to the establishment of environmental regulations,
which resulted in the proliferation of biogas plants for waste management. The principal regulations
include: “Discharge Standard of Pollutants for Livestock and Poultry Breeding”, “Management
Approach for Pollution Prevention of Livestock and Poultry Farms”, “Criteria for Evaluating the
Environmental Quality of Livestock and Poultry Farm’s’ and “Technical Specifications for Pollution
Treatment Projects of Livestock and Poultry Farms”. These regulations recognised biogas technology
as an environmentally friendly measure that, in addition to energy production, may contribute to a
more efficient and safe recycling of manure to fields or fish ponds [13]. The 2010 revised version of the
China Renewable Energy Law provided regulations with a focus on medium and large-scale livestock
and poultry breeding farms. A deliberate attempt was made in the Law to promote biogas technology,
and regulations were prepared accordingly. To reduce pollution from livestock farms and agro-process
industries and provide better solid and liquid waste management, new and stricter regulations must
be established in African countries. Anaerobic digestion, producing biogas, is one of only a few
biotechnological processes, which utilise such wastes effectively while generating energy [1,114]. It
has been used widely in the waste stabilisation process because of the need to treat waste before
disposal, and the need to reduce methane emission into the environment [115,116]. A government
ban on disposal of MSW to landfills in Germany increased the demand of biogas plants for MSW
management [117]. Environmental policies and regulations in Africa should aim to enforce strict waste
management rules and promote segregation, especially in the cities, to promote biogas technologies.
This should trickle down to environmental objectives and developmental agenda of municipalities,
with the mindset to assess biogas technology not only for direct economic benefits but also for broader
environmental services [71]. Most important is to enforce such policies and regulations.
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 13 of 21

In countries where there are energy policies in place, implementation has been slow. Some of
the countries, such as South Africa, Nigeria and Ghana and for instance, have drafted (in the case of
Ghana) or approved Renewable Energy Masterplans that set targets for commercial biogas systems, but
implementation has been slow. While countries such as Germany and China are ahead of their biogas
targets, and in fact, Germany is controlling the rate of biogas proliferation in the latest Renewable
Energy Act of 2017, African countries tend to ignore their plans and policies. Again, Germany keeps
updating policy supports and targets for biogas electricity, in line with local and international trends,
and in response to industry concerns. This is something that African countries could quickly adapt.
Germany also switches from FiTs to tenders, as and when necessary, to always create a win-win
situation for both the state and the private sector. As stated earlier, Denmark uses “Green Pricing”, a
policy tool that provides an incentive for manufacturers that use biogas to generate electricity [4].
In line with renewable energy, environment, and climate change policies of the European Union
and other regions, it may be prudent for the African Union and other regional blocs to make
commitments or follow through on targets already in place. The Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS), for example, has set some impressive targets such as generating 10% of
peak electricity load from renewables by 2020 and 19% by 2030 (minus medium and large hydro) [118].
There are similar targets by the Eastern African Countries (EAC) regional bloc. Unfortunately, progress
made to date is not encouraging and cast doubts on the continent’s ability to achieve these targets,
unless the targets are enforced.

5.2. Economic and Financial Policies

As mentioned earlier, one of the most critical barriers to the adoption of commercial biogas plants
is the high capital costs. It has been pointed out that without government mandates and favourable
economic policies, it is difficult for electricity from commercial biogas plants to be competitive in the
electricity market [119]. This is more pronounced in regions where environmental externalities are
not associated with the final price of electricity from fossil fuels [10,120], leading to disinterest from
the private sector. Due to the immaturity of commercial biogas plants in Africa, economic policies,
including subsidies and favourable FiTs are needed to promote them. In a review of the Africa Biogas
Partnership Programme, it was noted by Clemens et al. (2018) that none of the partner countries in
East Africa has economic policies supporting biogas investment programme. As the case has been in
China, financial support from central and state governments are required to bridge the viability gap
and make commercial biogas plants viable [5,10]. Chinese government support for commercial biogas
plant construction on livestock farms includes special ‘interest-free’ energy loans [13]. Between 2003
and 2009, Chinese government support to the biogas industry reached 19.0 billion Chinese Yuen (CNY),
with approximately 10% going into the construction of commercial plants, and about 8% financing
service systems.
A South African study has estimated that an investment subsidy of about 54% is required to make
commercial biogas plants viable for piggeries in the country [121]. Many countries have provided
financial support to commercial biogas plants through the use of FiTs, tax reliefs, and technology
bonus. According to Seghal [1], biomethane plants in the UK enjoy FiTs of GBP 0.71/kWh and in
France, EUR 69–125/MWh depending on the plant’s production capacity. As shown from the country
reviews, Germany uses either a fixed FiT or tender system, depending on the plant capacity, to attract
commercial biogas plants. Experience from some of the other countries reviewed shows that there is a
need for demand-driven and market-oriented subsidy-led programmes to increase the adoption of
commercial biogas plants. Therefore, to motivate the private sector into building commercial biogas
plants, African governments must consider the possibility of using monetary incentives through
regulated loans or subsidies to bring down production costs [9,39].
According to Meyer [122], financial support is not a permanent issue, and that project costs reduce
gradually as more projects become successful. In effect, when there is legislative support through
FiTs or tendering arrangements, there is less need for project developers to receive capital aid for
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 14 of 21

installation. Instead, investors become confident enough to invest in projects. Also, the provision of
capital for investment goes hand-in-hand with technological support, since the establishment of new
technologies needs an initial push to the market [123,124].
Apart from making the right laws, policies and regulations, African governments can provide
other forms of support to commercial biogas plants. Many commercial biogas plants producing
electricity and heat in European Countries were built due to the strong public support for renewable
energies in general [125]. Germany supports biogas proliferation by refusing to tax biogas used
as a vehicle fuel [68]. In China, instead of subsidising conventional power, the government rather
surcharges them, using the additional funds to support power generation from renewable resources.
The higher credit rating of governments can be used to secure low-cost funds on the local and
international capital markets, which could be transferred at a relatively lower cost to commercial
biogas plant developers [46,126,127]. In some situations, governments may be needed to provide
capacity building support, so that private project developers can package projects to assess climate
funds and other multilateral grants available to the African region and respective countries.

5.3. Research and Development

Research and development has been at the heart of commercial biogas programmes globally, and
African countries cannot progress without doing the same, as part of the lessons it could take from
existing biogas programmes elsewhere. In India, a “Biogas Development and Training Centre” has
been instituted under the National Biogas and Manure Management Program to implement monitoring
of biogas installations. Also in China, the Biogas Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture (BIOMA), a
part of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), focuses on issues like fundamental
research on anaerobic microbiology and design of biogas projects [81]. Germany and the Netherlands
have emphasised the vital role that research and development has played in shaping their commercial
biogas sector. In Italy, the Research Center for Alternative and Renewable Energies has particular
research programmes dedicated to biomass and biofuels, with an annual budget of USD 6 million per
year [1].
Research support is much less intense in African countries, as governments fail to fund research
activities to support their programmes [63]. Where available, it has focussed on low-tech biogas
solutions for domestic use [112,128–130]. A study on the subject by Mshandete and Parawira [11]
has provided details of research needs and priorities for commercial biogas plants. Where there
is research in Africa, there is a lack of coordination. A study in Ethiopia, for instance, found that
“despite the existence of various research trials, both at private and institutional levels, they were
fragmented and lacked continuity” [61]. Ongoing research must identify, prioritise, and coordinate
relevant research activities so that the limited resource available is optimised [11]. The Africa Biogas
Partnership Programme must move beyond household biogas systems and additionally venture into
promoting commercial biogas programmes across the continent. The Ministries in charge of agriculture,
energy, environment, innovation, science and technology, must allocate funding from their budgetary
allocations to boost research into commercial biogas systems, and help scale up biogas production from
rural systems into those that can provide power and create jobs. Research must also tackle issues with
regards to the safety of commercial biogas systems since the industry is nascent in the African region.

5.4. Other Support Schemes

Governments must also come up with proper long-term objectives with appropriate planning and
strategies for commercial biogas development on the continent [131,132]. As noted by Parawira [28],
“new technologies often need to be nurtured for over decades, before sufficient socio-technical
momentum emerges, and alignment between the technical, economic, regulatory and social context
can provide the basis for building up momentum until the biogas technology can survive on its own”.
Government partnerships with the private sector will be crucial for success, as governments take
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 15 of 21

necessary steps to uplift biogas utilisation through existing programmes and facilities, and improve
harmonisation and communication between public and private sectors [68].

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Africa’s energy crisis is not due to lack of resources, but the inability to properly harness the
resources using appropriate technologies, infrastructure and policy. Organic resources such as crop
and animal waste, municipal and industrial wastewater, and municipal solid waste can be harnessed
in commercial biogas plants to supplement power supply for internal consumption and excess fed to
the grid. The African Union (AU) and the regional blocs have all prioritised or set targets for renewable
energy development in separate strategy and policy documents. Renewable energy development
is one of the critical areas of the AU’s Agenda 2063, the continent’s 50-year development agenda.
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is aiming to supply households with
decentralised energy systems by 2030 and has set targets for electricity from biomass. Others such as
the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Corporation (SADC) have
targets in place. Commercial biogas plants can supplement solar, wind, hydro and other renewable
energy resources towards achieving energy security in Africa and could serve as base loads in areas
where the grid has yet to reach.
Like family-type biogas systems, the development of commercial biogas systems will require
support from African governments as the case has been in other countries and regions. Successful
development and management of commercial biogas systems require not only technical expertise but
also serious attention to economic, energy and environmental policies.
Also, the various university and research campuses across the region must intensify research
on the subject. Research should deal with the challenges from a multidisciplinary perspective and
focus on generating practical evidence to support policy decisions, using case studies to investigate
the economic, logistic and technical feasibility of commercial biogas systems. African countries must
also promote commercial biogas training and capacity building programmes, and create links between
research institutions and potential beneficiary industries.
The private sector will require capacity building in the development of climate-smart projects
that can compete on the international financial market. Therefore, public-private partnerships are
needed, so that private companies and government agencies can tap into each other’s strengths and
complement their weaknesses.
Ultimately, sound environmental and sanitation policies and their enforcement are crucial to
the success of commercial biogas plants, and also key to ensuring environmental sustainability in
African countries.

Author Contributions: All authors actively participated in writing the review.

Funding: We acknowledge the support of the UPERCRET Project funded by the Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (Norad) for supporting research collaboration between Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology (KNUST) Kumasi Ghana and Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) Ås Norway
through its EnPe programme, as well as financial support for Francis Kemausuor’s research visit to Norwegian
University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sehgal, K. Current State and Future Prospects of Global Biogas Industry. In Biogas; Biofuel and Biorefinery
Technologies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 449–472, ISBN 978-3-319-77334-6.
2. Bos, K.; Chaplin, D.; Mamun, A. Benefits and challenges of expanding grid electricity in Africa: A review
of rigorous evidence on household impacts in developing countries. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018, 44, 64–77.
[CrossRef]
3. Renewable Energy Network of the 21st Century. Renewables 2018 Global Status Report. 2018. Available
online: http://www.ren21.net/status-of-renewables/global-status-report/ (accessed on 12 June 2018).
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 16 of 21

4. Ahammad, S.Z.; Sreekrishnan, T.R. Biogas: An Evolutionary Perspective in the Indian Context. In
Green Fuels Technology; Green Energy and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 431–443,
ISBN 978-3-319-30203-4.
5. Lebuhn, M.; Munk, B.; Effenberger, M. Agricultural biogas production in Germany—From practice to
microbiology basics. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2014, 4, 10. [CrossRef]
6. Cheng, S.; Li, Z.; Mang, H.-P.; Huba, E.-M.; Gao, R.; Wang, X. Development and application of prefabricated
biogas digesters in developing countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 387–400. [CrossRef]
7. Angelidaki, I.; Treu, L.; Tsapekos, P.; Luo, G.; Campanaro, S.; Wenzel, H.; Kougias, P.G. Biogas upgrading
and utilization: Current status and perspectives. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 452–466. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J.; Le Dinh, P.; Dinh Van, D.; Banout, J.; Roubík, H.; Mazancová, J.; Le Dinh, P.; Dinh
Van, D.; Banout, J. Biogas quality across small-scale biogas plants: A case of central Vietnam. Energies 2018,
11, 1794. [CrossRef]
9. Rajendran, K.; Aslanzadeh, S.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Rajendran, K.; Aslanzadeh, S.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Household
biogas digesters—A review. Energies 2012, 5, 2911–2942. [CrossRef]
10. Mittal, S.; Ahlgren, E.O.; Shukla, P.R. Barriers to biogas dissemination in India: A review. Energy Policy 2018,
112, 361–370. [CrossRef]
11. Mshandete, A.M.; Parawira, W. Biogas technology research in selected sub-Saharan African countries—A
review. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 116–125.
12. Rupf, G.V.; Bahri, P.A.; de Boer, K.; McHenry, M.P. Barriers and opportunities of biogas dissemination in
Sub-Saharan Africa and lessons learned from Rwanda, Tanzania, China, India, and Nepal. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 468–476. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, X.; Sommer, S.G.; Christensen, K.V. A review of the biogas industry in China. Energy Policy 2011, 39,
6073–6081. [CrossRef]
14. Ahmad Dar, R.; Ahmad Dar, E.; Kaur, A.; Gupta Phutela, U. Sweet sorghum-a promising alternative feedstock
for biofuel production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 4070–4090. [CrossRef]
15. Zareei, S. Evaluation of biogas potential from livestock manures and rural wastes using GIS in Iran. Renew.
Energy 2018, 118, 351–356. [CrossRef]
16. Namsaraev, Z.B.; Gotovtsev, P.M.; Komova, A.V.; Vasilov, R.G. Current status and potential of bioenergy in
the Russian Federation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 625–634. [CrossRef]
17. Tasnim, F.; Iqbal, S.A.; Chowdhury, A.R. Biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of cow manure with
kitchen waste and Water Hyacinth. Renew. Energy 2017, 109, 434–439. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, Q.; Qiang, T.C.; Zeng, G.; Zhang, H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Y. Sustainable and renewable energy from
biomass wastes in palm oil industry: A case study in Malaysia. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2017, 42, 23871–23877.
[CrossRef]
19. Al-Hamamre, Z.; Saidan, M.; Hararah, M.; Rawajfeh, K.; Alkhasawneh, H.E.; Al-Shannag, M. Wastes and
biomass materials as sustainable-renewable energy resources for Jordan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,
67, 295–314. [CrossRef]
20. Li, K.; Liu, R.; Sun, C. A review of methane production from agricultural residues in China. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2016, 54, 857–865. [CrossRef]
21. Biosantech, T.A.S.; Rutz, D.; Janssen, R.; Drosg, B. Biomass resources for biogas production. In The Biogas
Handbook; Wellinger, A., Murphy, J., Baxter, D., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Energy; Woodhead
Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 19–51, ISBN 978-0-85709-498-8.
22. Guimarães, C.; Maia, D.; Serra, E. Construction of biodigesters to optimize the production of biogas from
anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and sewage. Energies 2018, 11, 870. [CrossRef]
23. Mor, S.; Ravindra, K.; Dahiya, R.P.; Chandra, A. Leachate characterization and assessment of groundwater
pollution near municipal solid waste landfill site. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 118, 435–456. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
24. Mantis, I.; Voutsa, D.; Samara, C. Assessment of the environmental hazard from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment sludge by employing chemical and biological methods. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2005,
62, 397–407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Tatsi, A.A.; Zouboulis, A.I. A field investigation of the quantity and quality of leachate from a municipal
solid waste landfill in a Mediterranean climate (Thessaloniki, Greece). Adv. Environ. Res. 2002, 6, 207–219.
[CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 17 of 21

26. Mugodo, K.; Magama, P.P.; Dhavu, K. Biogas production potential from agricultural and agro-processing
waste in South Africa. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2017, 8, 2383–2392. [CrossRef]
27. Rupf, G.V.; Bahri, P.A.; de Boer, K.; McHenry, M.P. Broadening the potential of biogas in Sub-Saharan Africa:
An assessment of feasible technologies and feedstocks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 61, 556–571.
[CrossRef]
28. Parawira, W. Biogas technology in sub-Saharan Africa: Status, prospects and constraints. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 187–200. [CrossRef]
29. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Fahl, F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew. Energy 2018,
129, 457–472. [CrossRef]
30. Clemens, H.; Bailis, R.; Nyambane, A.; Ndung’u, V. Africa biogas partnership program: A review of clean
cooking implementation through market development in East Africa. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2018. [CrossRef]
31. Kinyua, M.N.; Rowse, L.E.; Ergas, S.J. Review of small-scale tubular anaerobic digesters treating livestock
waste in the developing world. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 58, 896–910. [CrossRef]
32. Kemausuor, F.; Bolwig, S.; Miller, S. Modelling the socio-economic impacts of modern bioenergy in rural
communities in Ghana. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2016, 14, 9–20. [CrossRef]
33. Orskov, E.R.; Yongabi Anchang, K.; Subedi, M.; Smith, J. Overview of holistic application of biogas for small
scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 4–16. [CrossRef]
34. Ghimire, P.C. SNV supported domestic biogas programmes in Asia and Africa. Renew. Energy 2013, 49,
90–94. [CrossRef]
35. Laramee, J.; Davis, J. Economic and environmental impacts of domestic bio-digesters: Evidence from Arusha,
Tanzania. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2013, 17, 296–304. [CrossRef]
36. Mutungwazi, A.; Mukumba, P.; Makaka, G. Biogas digester types installed in South Africa: A review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 172–180. [CrossRef]
37. Aliyu, A.S.; Dada, J.O.; Adam, I.K. Current status and future prospects of renewable energy in Nigeria.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 336–346. [CrossRef]
38. Suberu, M.Y.; Bashir, N.; Mustafa, M.W. Biogenic waste methane emissions and methane optimization for
bioelectricity in Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 643–654. [CrossRef]
39. Giwa, A.; Alabi, A.; Yusuf, A.; Olukan, T. A comprehensive review on biomass and solar energy for
sustainable energy generation in Nigeria. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 620–641. [CrossRef]
40. REUTERS. Africa’s First Grid-Connected Biogas Plant Powers Up. Available online: https:
//www.reuters.com/article/kenya-energy-biogas/africas-first-grid-connected-biogas-plant-powers-up-
idUSL5N1EZ1KL (accessed on 9 July 2018).
41. Nzila, C.; Dewulf, J.; Spanjers, H.; Kiriamiti, H.; van Langenhove, H. Biowaste energy potential in Kenya.
Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 2698–2704. [CrossRef]
42. Hamid, R.G.; Blanchard, R.E. An assessment of biogas as a domestic energy source in rural Kenya:
Developing a sustainable business model. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 368–376. [CrossRef]
43. Kiplagat, J.K.; Wang, R.Z.; Li, T.X. Renewable energy in Kenya: Resource potential and status of exploitation.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2960–2973. [CrossRef]
44. Kemausuor, F.; Nygaard, I.; Mackenzie, G. Prospects for bioenergy use in Ghana using Long-range Energy
Alternatives Planning model. Energy 2015, 93, 672–682. [CrossRef]
45. Kemausuor, F.; Kamp, A.; Thomsen, S.T.; Bensah, E.C.; Østergård, H. Assessment of biomass residue
availability and bioenergy yields in Ghana. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 86, 28–37. [CrossRef]
46. Sakah, M.; Diawuo, F.A.; Katzenbach, R.; Gyamfi, S. Towards a sustainable electrification in Ghana: A review
of renewable energy deployment policies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 544–557. [CrossRef]
47. Ofori-Boateng, C.; Lee, K.T.; Mensah, M. The prospects of electricity generation from municipal solid waste
(MSW) in Ghana: A better waste management option. Fuel Process. Technol. 2013, 110, 94–102. [CrossRef]
48. GIZ. Biogas in Ghana: Sub-Sector Analysis of Potential and Framework Conditions. Available online: https:
//www.giz.de/fachexpertise/downloads/giz2014-en-ghana-pdp-subsector-analysis-biogas.pdf (accessed
on 13 July 2018).
49. Arthur, R.; Glover, K. Biomethane potential of the POME generated in the palm oil industry in Ghana from
2002 to 2009. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 155–160. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Shane, A.; Gheewala, S.H. Missed environmental benefits of biogas production in Zambia. J. Clean. Prod.
2017, 142, 1200–1209. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 18 of 21

51. Yimen, N.; Hamandjoda, O.; Meva’a, L.; Ndzana, B.; Nganhou, J.; Yimen, N.; Hamandjoda, O.; Meva’a, L.;
Ndzana, B.; Nganhou, J. Analyzing of a Photovoltaic/Wind/Biogas/Pumped-Hydro Off-Grid Hybrid
System for Rural Electrification in Sub-Saharan Africa—Case Study of Djoundé in Northern Cameroon.
Energies 2018, 11, 2644. [CrossRef]
52. UNIDO. Biogas to Biomethane. Available online: https://www.biogas-to-biomethane.com/Download/
BTB.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2018).
53. Kenya Ministry of Energy. Biogas Development in Kenya. Available online: http://energy.go.ke/biogas/
(accessed on 13 July 2018).
54. Becker, B.; Fischer, D. Promoting renewable electricity generation in emerging economies. Energy Policy 2013,
56, 446–455. [CrossRef]
55. Walwyn, D.R.; Brent, A.C. Renewable energy gathers steam in South Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 41, 390–401. [CrossRef]
56. GIZ. Biogas Industry in South Africa: An Assessment of the Skills Need and Estimation of the Job Potential.
Available online: https://www.crses.sun.ac.za/files/research/publications/SAGEN%20Job%20Pot%20-
%20Digital%20(low-res).pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
57. Kemausuor, F.; Ackom, E. Toward universal electrification in Ghana. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ.
2016, 6, e225. [CrossRef]
58. Gyamfi, S.; Modjinou, M.; Djordjevic, S. Improving electricity supply security in Ghana—The potential of
renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 1035–1045. [CrossRef]
59. Parliament of the Republic of Ghana. Renewable Energy Act 2011. Available online: http://energycom.gov.
gh/files/RENEWABLE%20ENERGY%20ACT%202011%20(ACT%20832).pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
60. Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission. Regulations on Feed-in Tariff for Renewable Energy Sourced
Electricity in Nigeria. 2015. Available online: https://www.iea.org/media/pams/nigeria/NIGERIA_FIT_
regulation2015enteringintoforceFeb2016.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2018).
61. Mengistu, M.G.; Simane, B.; Eshete, G.; Workneh, T.S. Institutional factors influencing the dissemination of
biogas technology in Ethiopia. J. Hum. Ecol. 2016, 55, 117–134. [CrossRef]
62. Roopnarain, A.; Adeleke, R. Current status, hurdles and future prospects of biogas digestion technology in
Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 1162–1179. [CrossRef]
63. Mulinda, C.; Hu, Q.; Pan, K. Dissemination and problems of African biogas Technology. Energy Power Eng.
2013, 5, 506–512. [CrossRef]
64. Central Bank News Interest Rates. Available online: http://www.centralbanknews.info/p/interest-rates.
html (accessed on 24 July 2018).
65. Trading Economics Interest Rate: Countries List. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/country-
list/interest-rate (accessed on 24 July 2018).
66. Pueyo, A. What constrains renewable energy investment in Sub-Saharan Africa? A comparison of Kenya
and Ghana. World Dev. 2018, 109, 85–100. [CrossRef]
67. Schmidt, T.S.; Dabur, S. Explaining the diffusion of biogas in India: A new functional approach considering
national borders and technology transfer. Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2014, 16, 171–199. [CrossRef]
68. Yousuf, A.; Khan, M.R.; Pirozzi, D.; Wahid, Z.A. Financial sustainability of biogas technology: Barriers,
opportunities, and solutions. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2016, 11, 841–848. [CrossRef]
69. Tucho, G.; Moll, H.; Schoot Uiterkamp, A.; Nonhebel, S.; Tucho, G.T.; Moll, H.C.; Schoot Uiterkamp, A.J.M.;
Nonhebel, S. Problems with biogas implementation in developing countries from the perspective of labor
requirements. Energies 2016, 9, 750. [CrossRef]
70. Mohammed, M.; Egyir, I.S.; Donkor, A.K.; Amoah, P.; Nyarko, S.; Boateng, K.K.; Ziwu, C. Feasibility study
for biogas integration into waste treatment plants in Ghana. Egypt. J. Pet. 2017, 26, 695–703. [CrossRef]
71. Gebreegziabher, Z.; Naik, L.; Melamu, R.; Balana, B.B. Prospects and challenges for urban application of
biogas installations in Sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 70, 130–140. [CrossRef]
72. Kranert, M.; Kusch, S.; Huang, J.; Fischer, K. Anaerobic Digestion of Waste. In Waste to Energy; Green Energy
and Technology; Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 107–135, ISBN 978-1-4471-2305-7.
73. Mukumba, P.; Makaka, G.; Mamphweli, S. Biogas technology in South Africa, problems, challenges and
solutions. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Environ. Res. 2016, 5, 58–69. [CrossRef]
74. Aliyu, A.S.; Ramli, A.T.; Saleh, M.A. Nigeria electricity crisis: Power generation capacity expansion and
environmental ramifications. Energy 2013, 61, 354–367. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 19 of 21

75. Kesselring, R. The electricity crisis in Zambia: Blackouts and social stratification in new mining towns.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 30, 94–102. [CrossRef]
76. Murphy, P.M.; Twaha, S.; Murphy, I.S. Analysis of the cost of reliable electricity: A new method for analyzing
grid connected solar, diesel and hybrid distributed electricity systems considering an unreliable electric grid,
with examples in Uganda. Energy 2014, 66, 523–534. [CrossRef]
77. Okello, C.; Pindozzi, S.; Faugno, S.; Boccia, L. Development of bioenergy technologies in Uganda: A review
of progress. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 18, 55–63. [CrossRef]
78. Mbuligwe, S.E.; Kassenga, G.R. Feasibility and strategies for anaerobic digestion of solid waste for energy
production in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2004, 42, 183–203. [CrossRef]
79. Kolchakov, V.; Petrova, V.; Mitova, T.; Ivanov, P.; Marinova, S. Possibilities for Biogas Production from
Waste—Potential, Barriers, and Legal Notices. In Energy Solutions to Combat Global Warming; Lecture Notes in
Energy; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 181–191, ISBN 978-3-319-26948-1.
80. Trimble, C.P.; Kojima, M.; Perez Arroyo, I.; Mohammadzadeh, F. Financial Viability of Electricity Sectors in
Sub-Saharan Africa: Quasi-Fiscal Deficits and Hidden Costs; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016;
pp. 1–105.
81. Langeveld, J.W.A.; Peterson, E.C. Feedstocks for Biogas Production: Biogas and Electricity Generation
Potentials. In Biogas; Biofuel and Biorefinery Technologies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 35–49,
ISBN 978-3-319-77334-6.
82. Achinas, S.; Achinas, V.; Euverink, G.J.W. A technological overview of biogas production from biowaste.
Engineering 2017, 3, 299–307. [CrossRef]
83. Kougias, P.G.; Angelidaki, I. Biogas and its opportunities—A review. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2018, 12, 14.
[CrossRef]
84. Aryal, N.; Kvist, T.; Ammam, F.; Pant, D.; Ottosen, L.D.M. An overview of microbial biogas enrichment.
Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 264, 359–369. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2017. Available
online: http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Mar/IRENA_RE_
Capacity_Statistics_2017.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2018).
86. Daniel-Gromke, J.; Rensberg, N.; Denysenko, V.; Stinner, W.; Schmalfuß, T.; Scheftelowitz, M.; Nelles, M.;
Liebetrau, J. Current Developments in Production and Utilization of Biogas and Biomethane in Germany.
Chem. Ing. Tech. 2018, 90, 17–35. [CrossRef]
87. German Agency for Renewable Resources. Bioenergy in Germany: Facts and Figures 2016. Available online:
content/uploads/2017/03/Bioenergy_in_Germany_facts_and_figures_2016.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2018).
88. Heffels, T.; McKenna, R.; Fichtner, W. Direct marketing of electricity from biogas and biomethane: An
economic analysis of several business models in Germany. J. Manag. Control 2012, 23, 53–70. [CrossRef]
89. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2017).
Available online: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Downloads/renewable-energy-sources-act-2017.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (accessed on 2 July 2018).
90. Chen, L.; Zhao, L.; Ren, C.; Wang, F. The progress and prospects of rural biogas production in China. Energy
Policy 2012, 51, 58–63. [CrossRef]
91. Chen, Y.; Yang, G.; Sweeney, S.; Feng, Y. Household biogas use in rural China: A study of opportunities and
constraints. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 545–549. [CrossRef]
92. Chen, B.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A. History of Biogas Production in China. In Biogas Systems in China; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–15, ISBN 978-3-662-55496-8.
93. Eberhard, A.; Gratwick, K.; Morella, E.; Antmann, P. Independent Power Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons
from Five Key Countries; Directions in Development; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
94. Gu, L.; Zhang, Y.-X.; Wang, J.-Z.; Chen, G.; Battye, H. Where is the future of China’s biogas? Review, forecast,
and policy implications. Pet. Sci. 2016, 13, 604–624. [CrossRef]
95. Shukla, P.R. Biomass Energy Strategies for Aligning Development and Climate Goals in India. Available
online: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500101002.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2018).
96. Valenti, F.; Zhong, Y.; Sun, M.; Porto, S.M.C.; Toscano, A.; Dale, B.E.; Sibilla, F.; Liao, W. Anaerobic
co-digestion of multiple agricultural residues to enhance biogas production in southern Italy. Waste Manag.
2018, 78, 151–157. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 20 of 21

97. Torrijos, M. State of development of biogas production in Europe. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 881–889.
[CrossRef]
98. Aryal, N.; Kvist, T.; Aryal, N.; Kvist, T. Alternative of biogas injection into the Danish gas grid system—A
study from demand perspective. ChemEngineering 2018, 2, 43. [CrossRef]
99. Vochozka, M.; Maroušková, A.; Šuleř, P. Economic, Environmental and moral acceptance of renewable
energy: A case study-the agricultural biogas plant at Pěčín. Sci. Eng. Eth. 2018, 24, 299–305. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
100. Stürmer, B. Biogas—Part of Austria’s future energy supply or political experiment? Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2017, 79, 525–532. [CrossRef]
101. Pablo-Romero, M.D.P.; Sánchez-Braza, A.; Salvador-Ponce, J.; Sánchez-Labrador, N. An overview of feed-in
tariffs, premiums and tenders to promote electricity from biogas in the EU-28. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017, 73, 1366–1379. [CrossRef]
102. Larsson, M.; Grönkvist, S.; Alvfors, P. Upgraded biogas for transport in Sweden—Effects of policy
instruments on production, infrastructure deployment and vehicle sales. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3774–3784.
[CrossRef]
103. Chaiyapong, P.; Chavalparit, O. Enhancement of biogas production potential from Acacia leaf waste using
alkaline pre-treatment and co-digestion. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2016, 18, 427–436. [CrossRef]
104. Takeuchi, Y.; Andriamanohiarisoamanana, F.J.; Yasui, S.; Iwasaki, M.; Nishida, T.; Ihara, I.; Umetsu, K.
Feasibility study of a centralized biogas plant performance in a dairy farming area. J. Mater. Cycles Waste
Manag. 2018, 20, 314–322. [CrossRef]
105. American Biogas Council American Biogas Council Announces 2016 Biogas Industry Awardees. Available
online: http://americanbiogascouncil.org/pdf/ABC%20Press%20Release-2016%20Biogas%20Award%
20Winners.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2018).
106. Pasqual, J.; Bollmann, H.; Scott, C.; Edwiges, T.; Baptista, T.; Pasqual, J.C.; Bollmann, H.A.; Scott, C.A.;
Edwiges, T.; Baptista, T.C. Assessment of collective production of biomethane from livestock waste for urban
transportation mobility in Brazil and the United States. Energies 2018, 11, 997. [CrossRef]
107. Sam, A.; Bi, X.; Farnsworth, D. How incentives affect the adoption of anaerobic digesters in the United States.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1221. [CrossRef]
108. Wirba, A.V.; Abubakar Mas’ud, A.; Muhammad-Sukki, F.; Ahmad, S.; Mat Tahar, R.; Abdul Rahim, R.;
Munir, A.B.; Karim, M.E. Renewable energy potentials in Cameroon: Prospects and challenges. Renew.
Energy 2015, 76, 560–565. [CrossRef]
109. Mwirigi, J.; Balana, B.B.; Mugisha, J.; Walekhwa, P.; Melamu, R.; Nakami, S.; Makenzi, P. Socio-economic
hurdles to widespread adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Biomass
Bioenergy 2014, 70, 17–25. [CrossRef]
110. Salih, M.A.M.; Tedla, S. Environmental Planning, Policies and Politics in Eastern and Southern Africa; Springer:
London, UK, 2016; ISBN 978-1-349-27693-6.
111. Colby Environmental Policy Group. Environmental Policy Update 2012: Development Strategies and Environmental
Policy in East Africa; Colby College Environmental Studies Program: Waterville, ME, USA, 2012.
112. Lönnqvist, T.; Sandberg, T.; Birbuet, J.C.; Olsson, J.; Espinosa, C.; Thorin, E.; Grönkvist, S.; Gómez, M.F.
Large-scale biogas generation in Bolivia—A stepwise reconfiguration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 494–504.
[CrossRef]
113. Meyer, A.K.P.; Ehimen, E.A.; Holm-Nielsen, J.B. Future European biogas: Animal manure, straw and grass
potentials for a sustainable European biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 111, 154–164. [CrossRef]
114. Budych-Gorzna, M.; Smoczynski, M.; Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. Enhancement of biogas production at the
municipal wastewater treatment plant by co-digestion with poultry industry waste. Appl. Energy 2016, 161,
387–394. [CrossRef]
115. Gazda, W.; Stanek, W. Energy and environmental assessment of integrated biogas trigeneration and
photovoltaic plant as more sustainable industrial system. Appl. Energy 2016, 169, 138–149. [CrossRef]
116. Tufaner, F.; Avşar, Y. Effects of co-substrate on biogas production from cattle manure: A review. Int. J. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 2303–2312. [CrossRef]
117. Poeschl, M.; Ward, S.; Owende, P. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1782–1797. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2984 21 of 21

118. ECOWAS Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Renewable Energy Policy. Available online:
www.ecreee.org/sites/default/files/documents/ecowas_renewable_energy_policy.pdf (accessed on 22 July
2018).
119. Ojha, K. Status of MSW management system in northern India-an overview. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2011, 13,
203–215. [CrossRef]
120. Patrizio, P.; Leduc, S.; Chinese, D.; Kraxner, F. Internalizing the external costs of biogas supply chains in the
Italian energy sector. Energy 2017, 125, 85–96. [CrossRef]
121. Lutge, B.; Standish, B. Assessing the potential for electricity generation from animal waste biogas on South
African farms. Agrekon 2013, 52, 1–24. [CrossRef]
122. Meyer, N.I. Learning from wind energy policy in the EU: Lessons from Denmark, Sweden and Spain. Eur.
Environ. 2007, 17, 347–362. [CrossRef]
123. Emodi, N.V.; Ebele, N.E. Policies enhancing renewable energy development and implications for Nigeria.
Sustain. Energy 2016, 4, 7–16. [CrossRef]
124. Frondel, M.; Ritter, N.; Schmidt, C.M.; Vance, C. Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energy
technologies: The German experience. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4048–4056. [CrossRef]
125. Dinuccio, E.; Balsari, P.; Gioelli, F.; Menardo, S. Evaluation of the biogas productivity potential of some
Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3780–3783. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
126. Gaworski, M.; Jabłoński, S.; Pawlaczyk-Graja, I.; Ziewiecki, R.; Rutkowski, P.; Wieczyńska, A.; Gancarz, R.;
Łukaszewicz, M. Enhancing biogas plant production using pig manure and corn silage by adding wheat
straw processed with liquid hot water and steam explosion. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 259. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
127. Shrimali, G.; Srinivasan, S.; Goel, S.; Nelson, D. The effectiveness of federal renewable policies in India.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 70, 538–550. [CrossRef]
128. Surendra, K.C.; Takara, D.; Hashimoto, A.G.; Khanal, S.K. Biogas as a sustainable energy source for
developing countries: Opportunities and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 846–859.
[CrossRef]
129. Buysman, E.; Mol, A.P.J. Market-based biogas sector development in least developed countries—The case of
Cambodia. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 44–51. [CrossRef]
130. Bond, T.; Templeton, M.R. History and future of domestic biogas plants in the developing world. Energy
Sustain. Dev. 2011, 15, 347–354. [CrossRef]
131. Vaish, B.; Srivastava, V.; Singh, P.; Singh, A.; Singh, P.K.; Singh, R.P. Exploring untapped energy potential of
urban solid waste. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2016, 1, 323–342. [CrossRef]
132. Brunner, P.H.; Rechberger, H. Waste to energy—Key element for sustainable waste management. Waste
Manag. 2015, 37, 3–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).