[Gerard]

Hello everyone,

Maybe “cheaper biogas” is not the perfect title — what I’m really interested in is this:

How are you structurally improving the economics of your plant?

With rising feedstock costs, tighter incentives, and increasing pressure on margins, simply “running stable” is no longer enough. The real question is: Where are the next 10–20% improvements coming from?

I’m particularly interested in practical innovations and field experience, such as:

· Advanced pre-treatment (cavitation, mechanical/thermal/biological methods)

· AI-driven process management and predictive control

· Alternative or lower-cost feedstocks

· Enzymes and biological additives

· Reduction of internal consumption (heat, power, parasitic loads)

· O&M optimization and predictive maintenance

· Digestate valorisation strategies

· Hybrid models (biogas + biochar, CO₂ recovery, etc.)

· Not theoretical ideas — but what is actually working in your plant?

If you had to point to one intervention that truly moved the needle on €/Nm³ or €/MWh, what was it?

Looking forward to learning from your experiences.

[Natalia Bourenane]

Gerard, thank you very much for additional details. I am hoping some of our participants including @Scott.McKay , @bioimpec , @prodeval_david , @azuraassociates_trisha @AzuraAssociates.Deidre can offer their point of view.

[Laura]

The lowest cost biogas projects are not the largest or the most subsidized; they are the ones with optimized feedstock mix, stable digestion, efficient solids management, and minimal transport exposure.

[Natalia Bourenane]

Very true, Laura. Subsidized projects, anecdotically, are more expensive to run.

[Trisha]

Moving from running stable to running optimally is like the experience of going from an average fit person into an athlete. Digesters are biological systems. We (and digester microbes) train to become athletes by eating a diet that sustains the effort of pushing ourselves out of our comfort zone.

For digesters, pushing to optimal performance looks like:

· Looking for the highest caloric feedstocks (e.g. fats)

· Reducing the lowest value feedstocks (e.g. slow degraders, high lignin content, etc.)

· Like in weightlifting, maximizing the organic loading rate with progressive overload

· Addressing nutritional deficiencies, if any (e.g. trace metals, balancing the diet)

Optimal performance also depends on your anatomy, which in our case is the equipment:

· Clearing up “dead zones” in the digester tank* (e.g. floating layer of plastic, crusts, settled grit, etc.)

· Heating up feedstock storage tanks to ferment and break down the feedstocks prior to the digester

· Running the digester and feedstock tank at a consistent and optimal temperature

· Thorough digester and feedstock tank mixing

In Azura’s experience, the 10-20% improvements come from progressively increasing fat content, supplementing any nutritional deficiencies, and operating the feedstock storage tank like a fermentation tank.

*I’ve linked an article about dead zones since I believe people often underestimate its impact on what optimal performance looks like for their system. Or maybe have never heard of it before.

azuraassociates.com

Is Your Digester Smaller Than You Think? – AZURA

Is Your Digester Smaller Than You Think? – AZURA

[Natalia Bourenane]

Trisha, thank you for sharing!

[Hatem]

Hi,

I think a digester is only as stable as the substrate it receives. Full characterization—BMP, C/N ratio, macro‑ and micronutrients, inhibitors, biodegradability fractions—allows operators to design the process around real biological needs rather than assumptions. When this step is done well, the system rarely requires interventions later, prevents nutrient deficiencies before they occur, avoids over‑supplementation of trace elements, reduces risk of VFA accumulation and ammonia shocks and ensures predictable methane yield from day one.

This is the single most cost‑saving rule across the plant’s life cycle.

If the substrate mix is optimized, the digester naturally receives the trace elements and nutrients it needs. This eliminates or drastically reduces the need for commercial additives. In fact, co‑substrates can correct C/N ratio, manure or sludge can supply missing trace elements, fibrous materials can stabilize digestion kinetics. To conclude, a well‑balanced recipe is cheaper and more effective than chemical supplementation.

Thanks

Hatem

[Nikan]

This while a great question, I believe should be altered to ” How to create more revenue from my Biogas product?” And the answer to this question would be much more flexible to your specific system. Cheaper might be the solution in the short term, but what is the Biogas being utilized for? Ask yourself, can I upgrade this into RNG and take the envieronmental attributes? Can I utilize ( sell ) my biogas as utility to your own project ( still possible for Carbon attributes) or to adjacent projects? Can I pull my Biogas with adjacent projects and then upgrade? Once these are all explored, now there would be some more time to maximize the efficiency and reduce costs!

[Vanita]

Hi How to produce cheaper biogas? Means maximum ROI which means less CAPAX and OPEX. Or

We can say the cost of biogas mainly depends on how much methane we extract from the same feedstock and infrastructure. Our team improves the Plants ROI by improving the conversion efficiency of organic waste into methane, which reduces the cost per unit of biogas produced by using our innovative product and services.

REVY Team helps biogas and CBG plants reduce the cost of gas production by improving methane conversion efficiency inside the digester. By optimizing feedstock composition, organic loading rate, and microbial balance, we help plants generate more methane from the same amount of waste. This increases gas output without increasing feedstock or operational costs, effectively lowering the cost per unit of biogas produced. The result is improved plant economics and stronger profitability.

[Hatem]

Maximum ROI which means less CAPEX and OPEX. So they are tightly related.

[Vanita]

Yes Maximum ROI is not achieved by the cheapest plant.

It is achieved by the lowest cost per cubic meter of methane produced.