This study presents a conceptual techno-economic analysis of a compressed biogas plant in Punjab, India, examining the impacts of digester temperature phases (mesophilic and thermophilic) and total solids (TS) content on energy efficiency and economic viability. India has immense potential for utilizing its agro-residues for energy generation. However, many challenges, such as parameter control, with digester thermal management being one of the major ones, often hinder operational performance. This research evaluates six operational scenarios combining varying TS levels (10%, 20%, 30%) with mesophilic and thermophilic temperature conditions. The key metrics assessed include gross and net energy output, parasitic energy demand, thermal and electrical energy consumption, capital/operational costs, and environmental impact assessment. The results indicate that mesophilic digestion with higher TS (30%) offers the highest net energy output (234.82 GJ/day) and the lowest thermal energy demand (18.33 GJ/day), enhancing system efficiency. Conversely, low-TS thermophilic scenarios require higher heating, reducing net gains. A techno-economic trade-off is highlighted where increased TS reduces the digester volume, cost of production, fresh water demand, and the amount of liquid slurry to be disposed of. The freshwater requirement ranges from 12 to 88 L per kilogram of biomethane, depending on the TS content and slurry recirculation ratio, with a similar trend observed for liquid slurry. A substantial portion, ranging from 10% to 47% of the plant’s total energy output, is diverted for internal thermal energy consumption. Sensitivity and environmental analyses emphasize the importance of optimal TS and temperature combinations for cost-effective, sustainable operation. These findings can guide design strategies for an efficient, scalable biogas plant framework in global contexts.
Press Information Bureau-PIB (2024) Ministry New and Renewable Energy. Renewable energy now constitutes more than 46.3% of total capacity. Posted on 13 Nov 2024.
2.
Press Information Bureau-PIB (2019) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. India to achieve about 50 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030. Posted on 03 APR 2023.
3.
Government of India – GOI. India’s Updated First Nationally Determined Contribution Under Paris Agreement (2021–2030). 2022.
4.
International Energy Agency – IEA. Implementation of bioenergy in India. 2021.
5.
Deep SinghA, GajeraB, SarmaAK. Appraising the availability of biomass residues in India and their bioenergy potential. Waste Manag, 2022; 152:38–47; doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2022.08.001
6.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy – MNRE. Waste to Energy Programme. Gov of India. 2022.
7.
BandgarPS, JainS, PanwarNL. Current status, opportunities and challenges in anaerobic digestion in Indian context: An overview. Bioresour Technol Reports, 2021; 16:100830; doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100830
8.
YadavK, SircarA. Fundamentals and developments of compressed biogas in city gas distribution network in India: A review. Pet Res, 2022; 7(3):409–418; doi: 10.1016/j.ptlrs.2021.12.003
JainR. (2023) High Time to Recreate Biogas Development & Training Centres to Sustain India’s Compressed Biogas Sector. Down To Earth.
11.
RubiaMAD, PerezM, RomeroLI, SalesD. Anaerobic mesophilic and thermophilic municipal sludge digestion. Chem Biochem Eng Q, 2002; 16:119–124; doi: 10.1080/01430750.2018.1562975
12.
RiauV, De la RubiaMÁ, PérezM. Temperature-phased anaerobic digestion (TPAD) to obtain class a biosolids: A semi-continuous study. Bioresour Technol, 2010; 101(8):2706–2712; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.11.101
13.
LawsonN, Alvarado-MoralesM, TsapekosP, AngelidakiI. Techno-Economic assessment of biological biogas upgrading based on Danish Biogas Plants. Energies (Basel), 2021; 14(24):8252; doi: 10.3390/en14248252
14.
LombardiL, FranciniG. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of the main biogas upgrading technologies. Renew Energy, 2020; 156:440–458; doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.083
15.
KhanEU, MainaliB, MartinA, SilveiraS. Techno-economic analysis of small scale biogas based polygeneration systems: Bangladesh case study. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments, 2014; 7:68–78; doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2014.03.004
16.
GajeraB, DattaA, KumarY, et al.Comprehensive physicochemical analysis of paddy straw varieties in Punjab for prospective energy generation applications. Biomass Conv Bioref, 2025; doi: 10.1007/s13399-025-06670-x
GatkalNR, NalawadeSM, SahniRK, et al.Present trends, sustainable strategies and energy potentials of crop residue management in India: A review. Heliyon, 2024; 10(21):e39815; doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39815
20.
PalDB, TiwariAK, MohammadA, et al.Enhanced biogas production potential analysis of rice straw: Biomass characterization, kinetics and anaerobic co-digestion investigations. Bioresour Technol, 2022; 358:127391–127395; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127391
21.
SinghR, KumarS. A review on biomethane potential of paddy straw and diverse prospects to enhance its biodigestibility. J Clean Prod, 2019; 217:295–307; doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.207
22.
MishraA, MishraTK, NandaS, et al.Bioenergy potential of different varieties of paddy straw biomass. Bioresour Technol Reports, 2022; 20:101229; doi: 10.1016/j.biteb.2022.101229
23.
GuoP, ZhouJ, MaR, et al.Biogas production and heat transfer performance of a multiphase flow digester. Energies (Basel), 2019; 12(10):1960; doi: 10.3390/en12101960
24.
AhmadiA, AvilaM, BarnaL. Pathways for the thermally optimal design and practice of anaerobic digestion in large-scale biogas plants: Heat transfer modeling and energy analysis. Chem Eng Res Des, 2023; 197:884–907; doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2023.08.024
25.
KimS, MostafaA, ImS, et al.Production of high-calorific biogas from food waste by integrating two approaches: Autogenerative high-pressure and hydrogen injection. Water Res, 2021; 194:116920; doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.116920
26.
GrayN, O’SheaR, SmythB, et al.What is the energy balance of electrofuels produced through power-to-fuel integration with biogas facilities? Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2022; 155:111886; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111886
27.
HavukainenJ, UusitaloV, NiskanenA, et al.Evaluation of methods for estimating energy performance of biogas production. Renew Energy, 2014; 66:232–240; doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.12.011
28.
BalciogluG, JeswaniHK, AzapagicA. Evaluating the environmental and economic sustainability of energy from anaerobic digestion of different feedstocks in Turkey. Sustain Prod Consum, 2022; 32:924–941; doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.011
29.
ToribioL, CastroG, FloresW, et al.Calorific value of biogas obtained by Cavia Porcellus biomass. Chem Eng Trans, 2020; 80:271–276; doi: 10.3303/CET2080046
30.
JinguraRM, KamusokoR. Methods for determination of biomethane potential of feedstocks: A review. Biofuel Res J, 2017; 4(2):573–586; doi: 10.18331/BRJ2017.4.2.3
31.
LabatutRA, AngenentLT, ScottNR. Biochemical methane potential and biodegradability of complex organic substrates. Bioresour Technol, 2011; 102(3):2255–2264; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.035
32.
IRENA. Road Transport : The Cost of Renewable Solutions. International Renewable Energy Agency; 2013.
33.
HendricksonC. Project Management for Construction: Fundamental Concepts for Owners, Engineers, Architects, and Builders. Business & Economics; 1989. 537.
34.
PalS, BelloA, MuratovaE, ChekanovA. A review of the materials utilized in the design and fabrication of biogas digesters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2025; 211:115167; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.115167
35.
HurtadoOD, ÁlvarezA, OrtizAR, et al.Evaluation of steel ratio limits for reinforced concrete beams using reliability analysis and Bayesian methods. Structures, 2024; 70:107611; doi: 10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107611
36.
IS 456. Plain and Reinforced Concrete: CODE; 2000.
37.
IS 3370. Concrete Structure for Storage of Liquids: CODE. Word press; 2009, 1–4.
38.
UgochukwuSC, NwobuEA, Udechukwu-UkohahEI, OdenigboOG, EkweozorEC. Regression models for predicting quantities and estimates of steel reinforcements in concrete beams of frame buildings regression models for predicting quantities and estimates of steel reinforcements in concrete beams of frame buildings. JSRR, 2020:60–74; doi: 10.9734/JSRR/2020/v26i730285
39.
Yuki JuniorGM, SochardS, Dela PierreF, et al.Combining thermal model and kinetics: Implications in dynamic simulation of anaerobic digesters. Bioresour Technol, 2024; 413:131343; doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2024.131343
40.
NwokeOA, OziokoIC, OgwoV, AnekeNN. Kinetic analysis of mud insulation’s impact on fixed dome biogas digester performance. Energy Reports, 2024; 12:3743–3769; doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2024.09.027
Purchase price of compressed biogas (CBG) under SATAT scheme. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 2023.
43.
Guidelines on MDA for promotion of organic fertilizers. Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers. 2023.
44.
GodaraR, GakkharN, JhaMK, VijayV. Comprehensive thermal assessment of anaerobic digestion process in biogas plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2026; 226:116265; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2025.116265
45.
CzekałaW, GawrychK, SmurzyńskaA, et al.The possibility of functioning micro-scale biogas plant in selected farm. J Water L Dev, 2017; 35(1):19–25; doi: 10.1515/jwld-2017-0064
46.
NaegeleHJ, LemmerA, OechsnerH, JungbluthT. Electric energy consumption of the full scale research biogas plant “unterer lindenhof”: Results of longterm and full detail measurements. Energies (Basel), 2012; 5(12):5198–5214; doi: 10.3390/en5125198
47.
GarkotiP, NiJ-Q, ThenganeSK. Energy management for maintaining anaerobic digestion temperature in biogas plants. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2024; 199:114430; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114430
48.
WangZ, HuY, WangS, et al.A critical review on dry anaerobic digestion of organic waste : Characteristics, operational conditions, and improvement strategies. ☆ Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 2023; 176:113208; doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113208
49.
SganzerlaWG, CostaJM, Tena-VillaresM, et al.Dry anaerobic digestion of Brewer ‘ s spent grains toward a more sustainable brewery: Operational performance, kinetic analysis, and bioenergy potential. Fermentation, 2022; 9(1):2; doi: 10.3390/fermentation9010002
50.
Tariff structure for FY 2023-24 as per Tariff order. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd; 2023.
WuS, NiP, LiJ, et al.Bioresource Technology Integrated approach to sustain biogas production in anaerobic digestion of chicken manure under recycled utilization of liquid digestate : Dynamics of ammonium accumulation and mitigation control. Bioresour Technol, 2016; 205:75–81.
