Submitted:
11 May 2024
Posted:
13 May 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- the possibility of using biogas as a fuel for internal combustion engines [27];
- an increase in regional/national energy security through the development of distributed energy [28];
- a reduction in the cost of disposing of organic waste [29];
- mitigation of adverse climate change [30];
- use of local energy resources [31];
- production of wholesome manure [32].
2. Materials and Methods
- Due to voltage exceedances at the agricultural biogas plant’s connection point, it is impossible to run the second generator.
- Increasingly frequent cluster malfunction - voltage error displayed.
- Mains frequency is the number of repetitions in the time waveform of the fundamental component of the supply voltage measured over a specified time interval. The frequency deviation is the difference between a given value and the rated frequency value exhibited during regular power system operation over at least a few seconds. The frequency deviation should, in most cases, not exceed +/- 1% of the rated grid frequency.
- Voltage deviation (slow voltage variation) is the difference between the actual and rated mains voltage values. In most cases, the free voltage variation should not exceed +/- 10 % of the rated mains voltage value.
-
Voltage fluctuations (rapid changes in voltage). Indicators that characterise voltage fluctuations include:
- -
- The amplitude of voltage fluctuations is expressed as the ratio of the voltage variation value to the rated voltage. In most cases, this value should not exceed 3 %,
- -
- frequency of voltage fluctuation amplitudes or, in the case of periodic fluctuations, the frequency of voltage fluctuations;
- -
- Short-term flicker index Pst (index indicating the annoyance of flickering light over a few minutes). Pst = 1 is the conventional threshold for the annoyance of light flicker;
- -
- the long-term flicker index Plt (an index indicating the annoyance of flickering light over a long period, of the order of a few hours). In most cases, the index Plt should not exceed 1. The value of the index is determined from successive values of Pst, according to the relation:in which Psti (i = 1, 2, 3, ... 12) are successive values of the short-term flicker indices Pst .
-
Voltage asymmetry – unequal voltage values and/or unequal angles between successive phase voltages. The asymmetry of the system of supply voltages results, among other things, in the appearance of symmetrical components of the opposite order. The parameter describing this condition is the voltage asymmetry factor αU% (opposite voltage asymmetry) [37,40]:where: U1 , U2 - the composite values of the symmetrical components of the consensual and opposite order of the voltageIn most cases, the voltage asymmetry factor should not exceed 2 %.
- The distortion of the voltage waveform, defined by the total harmonic distortion factor (THD) [41]:where: U1 - rms value of voltage for the first harmonic, Uh - rms value of voltage for the h-th harmonic, h - order of harmonic.
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of the Supply Network Parameters of the Agricultural Biogas Plant under Study

3.2. Analysis of the Feeding System of the Biogas Plant under Study
3.3. Analysis of the Main Supply Parameters of the Studied Agricultural Biogas Plant after Changing the Supply Cable
3.4. Analysis of the Main Supply Parameters of the Studied Agricultural Biogas Plant after Changing the Supply Cable
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Monteny, G.-J.; Bannink, A.; Chadwick, D. Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 163-170. [CrossRef]
- Scheftelowitz, M.; Thrän, D. Unlocking the energy potential of manure-An assessment of the biogas production potential at the farm level in Germany. Agriculture 2016, 6, 20. [CrossRef]
- Akyürek, Z. Potential of biogas energy from animal waste in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. J. Energy Syst. 2018, 160-167. [CrossRef]
- Saracevic, E.; Frühauf, S.; Miltner, A.; Karnpakdee, K.; Munk, B.; Lebuhn, M.; Wlcek, B.; Leber, J.; Lizasoain, J.; Friedl, A.; et al. Utilisation of food and agricultural residues for a flexible biogas production: Process stability and effects on needed biogas storage capacities. Energies 2019, 12, 2678. [CrossRef]
- Friedlingstein, P.; O’sullivan, M.; Jones, M.W.; Andrew, R.M.; Hauck, J.; Olsen, A.; Zaehle, S. Global carbon budget. Earth Sys. Sci. Data 2020, 12, 3269-3340. [CrossRef]
- Korberg, A.D.; Skov, I.R.; Mathiesen, B.V.. The role of biogas and biogas-derived fuels in Denmark’s 100% renewable energy system. Energy 2020, 199, 117426. [CrossRef]
- Angelidaki, I.; Treu, L.; Tsapekos, P.; Luo, G.; Campanaro, S.; Wenzel, H.; Kougias, P.G. Biogas upgrading and utilisation: Current status and perspectives. Biotechnol. Adv. 2018, 36, 452-466. [CrossRef]
- Tymińska, M.; Skibko, Z.; Borusiewicz, A. The Effect of Agricultural Biogas Plants on the Quality of Farm Energy Supply. Energies 2023, 16, 4600. [CrossRef]
- Meneses-Quelal, O.; Velázquez-Martí, B. Pretreatment of animal manure biomass to improve biogas production: A review. Energies 2020, 13, 3573 . [CrossRef]
- Kaltschmitt M., Scholwin F., Gattermann H., Schattauer A., Weiland P., Biogas - Production Utilisation, in: Institut für Energetik und Umwelt Gmbh, Leipzig, 2005.
- Lansing S., Botero R., Martin J. F., Waste treatment and biogas quality in small-scale agricultural digesters, Bioresource Technology, Volume 99, Issue 13, 2008, 5881-5890. [CrossRef]
- Czekała W., Nowak M. and Bojarski W. Anaerobic Digestion and Composting as Methods of Bio-Waste Management. Agricultural Engineering, 2023, Vol.27 (Issue 1), pp. 173-186. [CrossRef]
- Derehajło S., Tymińska M., Skibko Z., Borusiewicz A., Romaniuk W., Kuboń M., Olech E., Koszel M.. Heavy Metal Content in Substrates in Agricultural Biogas Plants. Agricultural Engineering. 2023;27(1): 315-329. [CrossRef]
- Giesy R., Wilkie A., De Vries A., Nordstedt R. Economic Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion To Produce Electricity on Florida Dairy Farms1. EDIS. 2006. [CrossRef]
- Gloy B. A., Dressler J. B., Financial barriers to the adoption of anaerobic digestion on U.S. livestock operations, Agricultural Finance Review, 03 Aug 2010, Vol. 70, Issue 2, 157 - 168. [CrossRef]
- Soljan Z, Holdyński G, Zajkowski M. Decomposition of the load’s current supplied from a sinusoidal and asymmetrical voltage source in accordance with the Currents’ Physical Components (CPC) Theory. In: Rusek S, Goňo R, eds. Proceedings of the 2019 20th International Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engineering (EPE). ; 2019:389-394. [CrossRef]
- Klavon K. H., Lansing S. A., Mulbry W., Moss A. R., Felton G., Economic analysis of small-scale agricultural digesters in the United States, Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 54, 2013, 36-45. [CrossRef]
- Larina Y., Galchynska J., Kucheruk P., Zghurska O., Ortina G., Al-Nadzhar F., Marusei T., Kuboń M. and Dzieniszewski G. Estimation of the Domestic Agricultural Sector Potential for the Growth of Energy Cultures for Bioenergy Fuel Production. Agricultural Engineering, 2021, Vol.25 (Issue 1), pp. 73-82. [CrossRef]
- Dach, J.; Boniecki, P.; Przybył, J.; Janczak, D.; Lewicki, A.; Czekała, W.; Witaszek, K.; Rodríguez Carmona, P.C.; Cieślik, M. Energetic efficiency analysis of the agricultural biogas plant in 250 kWe experimental installation. Energy 2014, 69, 34-38. [CrossRef]
- Saaty T. L., Vargas L. G., Dellmann K.L.: The allocation ofintangible resources: The analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Socioecon. Plann. Sci., No. 37, 2003. [CrossRef]
- San Cristobal J. R.: Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in Spain: The Vikor method. Renew. Energy, No. 36, 2011. [CrossRef]
- Stoltmann A., Bućko P.: Analysis of the biogas plant location using analytic hierarchy process (ahp) and numerical taxonomy methods - methods comparison. Zeszyty Naukowe Wydziału Elektrotechniki i Automatyki Politechniki Gdańskiej Nr 53. 2017. ISSN: 1425-5766 (in polisch) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-291c516d-5758-4f23-815e-62df0afc8864/c/ZN_WEIAPG_53-29.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjyp4rTxuWFAxU6PxAIHeHoDagQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1nDzQXR50HzVDrOTZ0pMa1.
- Mazurkiewicz, J. The Impact of Manure Use for Energy Purposes on the Economic Balance of a Dairy Farm. Energies 2023, 16, 6735. [CrossRef]
- Vilas Bôas, T.F.; Barros, R.M.; Pinto, J.A.; dos Santos, I.F.S.; Lora, E.E.S.; Andrade, R.V.; Tiago Filho, G.L.; Almeida, K.A.; de Oliveira Machado, G. Energy Potential from the Generation of Biogas from Anaerobic Digestion of Olive Oil Extraction Wastes in Brazil. Clean. Waste Syst. 2023, 4, 100083. [CrossRef]
- Furtado, L.A.; Guerreiro Ribeiro, S.; Pradelle, F.; Parise, J.A.R. Modeling and Techno-Economic Analysis of a Hybrid Sugarcane Plant Fed by Vinasse Biogas and Bagasse Surplus for Electricity Generation. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 413, 137511. [CrossRef]
- wind, Solar Payback Times under a Year in Some Parts of World, Says Rystad. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/10/14/wind-solar-payback-times-under-a-year-in-some-parts-of-world-says-rystad/ (accessed on 23.04.2024).
- Hagman, L.; Blumenthal, A.; Eklund, M.; Svensson, N. The role of biogas solutions in sustainable biorefineries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3982-3989. [CrossRef]
- Kuboń, M.; Skibko, Z.; Tabor, S.; Malaga-Toboła, U.; Borusiewicz, A.; Romaniuk, W.; Zarajczyk, J.; Neuberger, P. Analysis of Voltage Distortions in the Power Grid Arising from Agricultural Biogas Plant Operation. Energies 2023, 16, 6189. [CrossRef]
- Burg, V.; Bowman, G.; Haubensak, M.; Baier, U.; Thees, O. Valorization of an untapped resource: Energy and greenhouse gas emissions benefits of converting manure to biogas through anaerobic digestion. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 53-62. [CrossRef]
- Tamburini, E.; Gaglio, M.; Castaldelli, G.; Fano, E. A. Biogas from Agri-Food and Agricultural Waste Can Appreciate Agro-Ecosystem Services: the Case Study of Emilia Romagna Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8392. [CrossRef]
- Jeung, J.H.; Chung, W.J.; Chang, S.W. Evaluation of Anaerobic Co-Digestion to Enhance the Efficiency of Livestock Manure Anaerobic Digestion. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7170 . [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ren, G. Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 540-555 . [CrossRef]
- Rao P. V., Baral S. S., Dey R., Mutnuri S., Biogas generation potential by anaerobic digestion for sustainable energy development in India, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 14, Issue 7, 2010, 2086-2094. [CrossRef]
- Garrison M. and Richard T., Methane and Manure: Feasibility Analysis of Price and Policy Alternatives. Transactions of the ASAE. 48. 2005. [CrossRef]
- Chen Y., Yang G., Sweeney S., Feng Y., Household biogas use in rural China: A study of opportunities and constraints, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 14, Issue 1, 2010, 545-549. [CrossRef]
- Korberg, A.D.; Skov, I.R.; Mathiesen, B.V.. The role of biogas and biogas-derived fuels in a 100% renewable energy system in Denmark. Energy 2020, 199, 117426. [CrossRef]
- Hołdyński, G., Skibko, Z., Borusiewicz, A. (2023). Analysis of the Influence of Load on the Value of Zero-Voltage Asymmetry in Medium-Voltage Networks Operating with Renewable Energy Sources. Energies, 16, 1-13. [CrossRef]
- EN 50160:2010; Supply Voltage Parameters for Public Distribution Networks. E.U.: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2010.
- Regulation of the Minister of Economy of May 4, 2007 on detailed conditions for the operation of the electric power system (in polisch). Dz.U. 2007 nr 93 poz. 623.
- Robak S., Pawlicki A., Pawlicki B., The analysis of the voltage and current asymmetry in the power transmission lines. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny, R. 90 NR 7, 2014. [CrossRef]
- Kosicki Ł., Typańska D., The research of current and voltage distortions generated by luminaries with the light emmiting diodes. Electrical Engineering No 92, 2017. [CrossRef]
- IEC 61000-4-30:2015+AMD1: 2021 CSV Consolidated version, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 4-30: Testing and measurement techniques - Power quality measurement methods.














| Parameter | Before the changes | After changes | ||
| Frequency | Deviation from rated value | Frequency | Deviation from rated value | |
| [Hz] | [%] | [Hz] | [%] | |
| Average value | 49.995 | -0.010 | 49.996 | -0.008 |
| Minimum value | 49.910 | -0.180 | 49.900 | -0.200 |
| Maximum value | 50.080 | 0.160 | 50.070 | 0.140 |
| Quantile 95 | 49.970 | 0.040 | 49.970 | 0.040 |
| Parameter | L1 phase | L2 phase | L3 phase | |||
| phase voltage | deviation from the rated voltage | phase voltage | deviation from the rated voltage | phase voltage | deviation from the rated voltage | |
| [V] | [%] | [V] | [%] | [V] | [%] | |
| Before the changes | ||||||
| Average value | 238.913 | 3.452 | 238.120 | 3.109 | 233.096 | 0.934 |
| Minimum value | 203.260 | -11.986 | 200.130 | -13.341 | 197.070 | -14.666 |
| Maximum value | 258.650 | 11.999 | 257.120 | 11.336 | 248.810 | 7.738 |
| Quantile 95 | 253.480 | 9.760 | 252.110 | 10.167 | 244.450 | 10.850 |
| After changes | ||||||
| Average value | 242.655 | 5.073 | 241.368 | 4.515 | 240.101 | 3.967 |
| Minimum value | 214.320 | -7.197 | 212.130 | -8.145 | 208.580 | -9.682 |
| Maximum value | 254.120 | 10.037 | 254.280 | 10.106 | 251.760 | 9.015 |
| Quantile 95 | 250.980 | 8.678 | 251.737 | 9.005 | 247.690 | 7.253 |
| Parameter | Before the changes | After changes |
| αU | αU | |
| [%] | [%] | |
| Average value | 0.315 | 0.350 |
| Minimum value | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Maximum value | 1.230 | 1.120 |
| Quantile 95 | 0.610 | 0.620 |
| Before the changes | After changes | |||||
| Parameter | PltL1 | PltL2 | PltL3 | PltL1 | PltL2 | PltL3 |
| Average value | 2.688 | 2.762 | 2.887 | 0.993 | 1.141 | 1.074 |
| Minimum value | 1.540 | 1.620 | 1.690 | 0.720 | 0.830 | 0.790 |
| Maximum value | 3.840 | 3.960 | 4.160 | 2.180 | 1.830 | 1.860 |
| Quantile 95 | 3.500 | 3.580 | 3.767 | 1.384 | 1.691 | 1.440 |
| Parameter | Before the changes | After changes | ||||
| THDUL1 | THDUL2 | THDUL3 | THDUL1 | THDUL2 | THDUL3 | |
| [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | |
| Average value | 4.366 | 3.641 | 4.693 | 2.114 | 1.821 | 1.925 |
| Minimum value | 2.360 | 2.020 | 2.820 | 1.220 | 1.010 | 1.010 |
| Maximum value | 13.380 | 7.190 | 10.750 | 7.330 | 6.050 | 6.290 |
| Quantile 95 | 8.557 | 5.470 | 7.550 | 2.760 | 2.530 | 2.700 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).