Opportunities and Challenges for Biogas Development: a Review in 2013–2018

  • Mingxue Gao
  • Danmeng Wang
  • Yanbo Wang
  • Xiaojiao Wang
  • Yongzhong FengEmail author
Air Pollution (H Zhang and Y Sun, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Air Pollution


Biogas is a recyclable, renewable, and cleaning energy source that can be used directly as a fuel. Due to the rapid development of technology, progress in various aspects of biogas research has been greatly advanced. This study focus on the dynamic changes in the past 5 years, and the purpose is to provide reference for future biogas development. First of all, the article mainly reviewed the advantages of biogas development in three aspects, which fully reflected the positive impact of environment, society, and humanities. These include energy conservation and emission reduction. These include energy conservation and emission reduction, the conduction of guidance on great social atmosphere (the ecological livable social), and the digestate used as fertilizer. Then, the study summarized the risks in biogas development, including pollution and economic disadvantages, which would be the obstacles to biogas development. In response to these problems, this study further refines the advances in biogas purification and harmless treatment technologies in recent years. Finally, the article summarized the international policy background in recent years, and illustrated two typical cases of the developed and developing countries respectively: Germany and China. The results showed that the opportunities and challenges of biogas development were coexisting, but the advantage was extraordinary. Therefore, to maximize the advantages of biogas, not only the technology and policy should be improved, but also the difficulty of economic cost needs to be overcome.


Biogas Development risk Biogas benefits Research progress Review 


Funding Information

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (41871205). And thanks for the support of Shannxi Engineering Research Center of Circular Agriculture.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. We have read and understood your journal’s policies, and we believe that neither the manuscript nor the study violates any of these. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Reichenberg L, Hedenus F, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. Tailoring large-scale electricity production from variable renewable energy sources to accommodate baseload generation in europe. Renew Energy. 2018;129:334–46. Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Esteban M, Portugal-Pereira J, McLellan BC, Bricker J, Farzaneh H, Djalilova N, et al. 100% renewable energy system in Japan: smoothening and ancillary services. Appl Energy. 2018;224:698–707. This article offers a model to describe the amount of electricity that would be produced throughout the year through forecasted meteorological data. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andriamanohiarisoamanana FJ, Saikawa A, Kan T, Qi G, Pan Z, Yamashiro T, et al. Semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of dairy manure, meat and bone meal and crude glycerol: process performance and digestate valorization. Renew Energy. 2018;128:1–8. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rahman MA, Moller HB, Saha CK, Alam MM, Wahid R, Feng L. Anaerobic co-digestion of poultry droppings and briquetted wheat straw at mesophilic and thermophilic conditions: influence of alkali pretreatment. Renew Energy. 2018;128:241–9. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taherdanak M, Zilouei H. Improving biogas production from wheat plant using alkaline pretreatment. Fuel. 2014;115:714–9. Scholar
  6. 6.
    You Z, Wei T, Cheng JJ. Improving anaerobic codigestion of corn stover using sodium hydroxide pretreatment. Energy Fuel. 2014;28(1):549–54. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alkanok G, Demirel B, Onay TT. Determination of biogas generation potential as a renewable energy source from supermarket wastes. Waste Manag. 2014;34(1):134–40. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scano EA, Asquer C, Pistis A, Ortu L, Demontis V, Cocco D. Biogas from anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes: experimental results on pilot-scale and preliminary performance evaluation of a full-scale power plant. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;77:22–30. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohutskyi P, Betenbaugh MJ, Bouwer EJ. The effects of alternative pretreatment strategies on anaerobic digestion and methane production from different algal strains. Bioresour Technol. 2014;155:366–72. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miao H, Wang S, Zhao M, Huang Z, Ren H, Yan Q, et al. Codigestion of Taihu blue algae with swine manure for biogas production. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;77:643–9. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abubaker J, Risberg K, Pell M. Biogas residues as fertilisers - effects on wheat growth and soil microbial activities. Appl Energy. 2012;99:126–34. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shindell DT, Faluvegi G, Koch DM, Schmidt GA, Unger N, Bauer SE. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science. 2009;326(5953):716–8. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shiratori Y, Oshima T, Sasaki K. Feasibility of direct-biogas SOFC. Int J Hydrog Energy. 2008;33(21):6316–21. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen Y, Yang G, Sweeney S, Feng Y. Household biogas use in rural China: a study of opportunities and constraints. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2010;14(1):545–9. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Britz W, Delzeit R. The impact of German biogas production on European and global agricultural markets, land use and the environment. Energy Policy. 2013;62:1268–75. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deng L, Hagg M-B. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas upgrading process using CO2 facilitated transport membrane. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control. 2010;4(4):638–46. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo MX, Song WP, Buhain J. Bioenergy and biofuels: history, status, and perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;42:712–25. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahmad S, Tahar RM. Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: a case of Malaysia. Renew Energy. 2014;63:458–66. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uddin W, Khan B, Shaukat N, Majid M, Mujtaba G, Mehmood A, et al. Biogas potential for electric power generation in Pakistan: a survey. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016;54:25–33. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar A, Kumar N, Baredar P, Shukla A. A review on biomass energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2015;45:530–9. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iqbal T, Dong C-Q, Lu Q, Ali Z, Khan I, Hussain Z et al. Sketching Pakistan’s energy dynamics: prospects of biomass energy. J Renew Sustain Energy. 2018;10(2). doi:
  22. 22.
    Jana C, Bhattacharya SC. Sustainable cooking energy options for rural poor people in India: an empirical study. Environ Dev Sustain. 2017;19(3):921–37. Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Putra RARS, Liu Z, Lund M. The impact of biogas technology adoption for farm households - empirical evidence from mixed crop and livestock farming systems in Indonesia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017;74:1371–8. This paper evaluates the effects of biogas technology on smallholder farmers and people behavior by a cross-sectional survey. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whiting A, Azapagic A. Life cycle environmental impacts of generating electricity and heat from biogas produced by anaerobic digestion. Energy. 2014;70:181–93. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scaglia B, D'Imporzano G, Garuti G, Negri M, Adani F. Sanitation ability of anaerobic digestion performed at different temperature on sewage sludge. Sci Total Environ. 2014;466:888–97. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feng L, Casas ME, Ottosen LDM, Moller HB, Bester K. Removal of antibiotics during the anaerobic digestion of pig manure. Sci Total Environ. 2017;603:219–25. Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Sun W, Gu J, Wang X, Qian X, Peng H. Solid-state anaerobic digestion facilitates the removal of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements from cattle manure. Bioresour Technol. 2018;274:287–95. This article shows the change about antibiotic resistance genes, mobile genetic elements and microbial communities under different states and temperatures. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang L, Gu J, Wang X, Zhang R, Tuo X, Guo A, et al. Fate of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements during anaerobic co-digestion of Chinese medicinal herbal residues and swine manure. Bioresour Technol. 2018;250:799–805. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang R, Chen M, Feng F, Zhang J, Sui Q, Tong J, et al. Effects of chlortetracycline and copper on tetracyclines and copper resistance genes and microbial community during swine manure anaerobic digestion. Bioresour Technol. 2017;238:57–69. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang J, Mao F, Loh K-C, Gin KY-H, Dai Y, Tong YW. Evaluating the effects of activated carbon on methane generation and the fate of antibiotic resistant genes and class I integrons during anaerobic digestion of solid organic wastes. Bioresour Technol. 2018;249:729–36. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang J, Zhang L, Loh K-C, Dai Y, Tong YW. Enhanced anaerobic digestion of food waste by adding activated carbon: fate of bacterial pathogens and antibiotic resistance genes. Biochem Eng J. 2017;128:19–25. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sun W, Qian X, Gu J, Wang X-J, Zhang L, Guo A-Y. Mechanisms and effects of arsanilic acid on antibiotic resistance genes and microbial communities during pig manure digestion. Bioresour Technol. 2017;234:217–23. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang J, Liu J, Wang Y, Yu D, Sui Q, Wang R, et al. Profiles and drivers of antibiotic resistance genes distribution in one-stage and two-stage sludge anaerobic digestion based on microwave-H2O2 pretreatment. Bioresour Technol. 2017;241:573–81. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Das I, Jagger P, Yeatts K. Biomass cooking fuels and health outcomes for women in Malawi. Ecohealth. 2017;14(1):7–19. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Capuno JJ, Tan CAR Jr, Javier X. Cooking and coughing: estimating the effects of clean fuel for cooking on the respiratory health of children in the Philippines. Global Public Health. 2018;13(1):20–34. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Neupane M, Basnyat B, Fischer R, Froeschl G, Wolbers M, Rehfuess EA. Sustained use of biogas fuel and blood pressure among women in rural Nepal. Environ Res. 2015;136:343–51. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhao X, Cai Q, Li S, Ma C. Public preferences for biomass electricity in China. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2018;95:242–53. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu W, Wang C, Mol APJ. Rural public acceptance of renewable energy deployment: the case of Shandong in China. Appl Energy. 2013;102:1187–96. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kim J, Park SY, Lee J. Do people really want renewable energy? Who wants renewable energy?: discrete choice model of reference-dependent preference in South Korea. Energy Policy. 2018;120:761–70. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cici G, Cembalo L, Del Giudice T, Palladino A. Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: insights from an Italian national survey. Energy Policy. 2012;42:59–66. Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Ntanos S, Kyriakopoulos G, Chalikias M, Arabatzis G, Skordoulis M. public perceptions and willingness to pay for renewable energy: a case study from Greece. Sustainability. 2018;10(3):687. This article describes the relationship among renewable energy advantages, people willingness and social factors, and public opinion have a positive attitude towards renewable energy sources. Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mistur EM. Health and energy preferences: rethinking the social acceptance of energy systems in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;34:184–90. Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dragicevic I, Eich-Greatorex S, Sogn TA, Horn SJ, Krogstad T. Use of high metal-containing biogas digestates in cereal production - mobility of chromium and aluminium. J Environ Manag. 2018;217:12–22. Scholar
  44. 44.
    Barbosa DBP, Nabel M, Jablonowski ND. Biogas-digestate as nutrient source for biomass production of Sida hermaphrodita, Zea mays L. and Medicago sativa L. In: Bruckman VJ, Hangx S, Ask M, editors. European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2014, Egu Division Energy, Resources & the Environment. Energy Procedia, 2014. p. 120–6.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jabeen N, Ahmad R. Growth response and nitrogen metabolism of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) to vermicompost and biogas slurry under salinity stress. J Plant Nutr. 2017;40(1):104–14. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tampio E, Salo T, Rintala J. Agronomic characteristics of five different urban waste digestates. J Environ Manag. 2016;169:293–302. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Holm B, Heinsoo K. Influence of composted sewage sludge on the wood yield of willow short rotation coppice. an Estonian case study. Environ Prot Eng. 2013;39(1):17–32. Scholar
  48. 48.
    Holm B, Heinsoo K. Biogas digestate suitability for the fertilisation of young Salix plants. Balt For. 2014;20(2):263–71.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hupfauf S, Bachmann S, Juarez MF-D, Insam H, Eichler-Loebermann B. Biogas digestates affect crop P uptake and soil microbial community composition. Sci Total Environ. 2016;542:1144–54. Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nkoa R. Agricultural benefits and environmental risks of soil fertilization with anaerobic digestates: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014;34(2):473–92. Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Riva C, Orzi V, Carozzi M, Acutis M, Boccasile G, Lonati S, et al. Short-term experiments in using digestate products as substitutes for mineral (N) fertilizer: agronomic performance, odours, and ammonia emission impacts. Sci Total Environ. 2016;547:206–14. This article assesses several metrics of digestion residue as mineral (N) fertilizer via short-term experiments, and emphasized its advantages. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Knudsen MT, Meyer-Aurich A, Olesen JE, Chirinda N, Hermansen JE. Carbon footprints of crops from organic and conventional arable crop rotations - using a life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod. 2014;64:609–18. Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zirkler D, Peters A, Kaupenjohann M. Elemental composition of biogas residues: variability and alteration during anaerobic digestion. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;67:89–98. Scholar
  54. 54.
    Meng X, Dai J, Zhang Y, Wang X, Zhu W, Yuan X, et al. Composted biogas residue and spent mushroom substrate as a growth medium for tomato and pepper seedlings. J Environ Manag. 2018;216:62–9. Scholar
  55. 55.
    •• Xia A, Murphy JD. Microalgal cultivation in treating liquid digestate from biogas systems. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34(4):264–75. This article comprehensively explained the trends for microalgal cultivation technology to treat digestate, integration of microalgal cultivation with biogas industry, and future perspectives. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ortner M, Rachbauer L, Somitsch W, Fuchs W. Can bioavailability of trace nutrients be measured in anaerobic digestion? Appl Energy. 2014;126:190–8. Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pham Minh T, Ketheesan B, Yan Z, Stuckey DC. Trace metal speciation and bioavailability in anaerobic digestion: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2016;34(2):122–36. Scholar
  58. 58.
    Knoop C, Dornack C, Raab T. Nutrient and heavy metal accumulation in municipal organic waste from separate collection during anaerobic digestion in a two-stage laboratory biogas plant. Bioresour Technol. 2017;239:437–46. Scholar
  59. 59.
    Chen JL, Ortiz R, Steele TWJ, Stuckey DC. Toxicants inhibiting anaerobic digestion: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32(8):1523–34. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Insam H, Gomez-Brandon M, Ascher J. Manure-based biogas fermentation residues - friend or foe of soil fertility? Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;84:1–14. Scholar
  61. 61.
    Choong YY, Norli I, Abdullah AZ, Yhaya MF. Impacts of trace element supplementation on the performance of anaerobic digestion process: a critical review. Bioresour Technol. 2016;209:369–79. Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bian B, Zhou LJ, Li L, Lv L, Fan YM. Risk assessment of heavy metals in air, water, vegetables, grains, and related soils irrigated with biogas slurry in Taihu Basin. China Environ Sci Pollu Res. 2015;22(10):7794–807. Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gusiatin ZM, Kulikowska D. The usability of the I-R, RAC and MRI indices of heavy metal distribution to assess the environmental quality of sewage sludge composts. Waste Manag. 2014;34(7):1227–36. Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fuess LT, Klein BC, Chagas MF, Alves Ferreira Rezende MC, Garcia ML, Bonomi A, et al. Diversifying the technological strategies for recovering bioenergy from the two-phase anaerobic digestion of sugarcane vinasse: an integrated techno-economic and environmental approach. Renew Energy. 2018;122:674–87. Scholar
  65. 65.
    Leme RM, Seabra JEA. Technical-economic assessment of different biogas upgrading routes from vinasse anaerobic digestion in the Brazilian bioethanol industry. Energy. 2017;119:754–66. Scholar
  66. 66.
    Van Dael M, Kreps S, Virag A, Kessels K, Remans K, Thomas D, et al. Techno-economic assessment of a microbial power-to-gas plant - case study in Belgium. Appl Energy. 2018;215:416–25. Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ranieri L, Mossa G, Pellegrino R, Digiesi S. Energy recovery from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: a real options-based facility assessment. Sustainability. 2018;10(2):368. Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hu Z. Risk analysis and assessment model on investment of biogas power generation. (Doctoral dissertation). North China Electric Power University (Beijing). 2016. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    •• Duran I, Alvarez-Gutierrez N, Rubiera F, Pevida C. Biogas purification by means of adsorption on pine sawdust-based activated carbon: Impact of water vapor. Chem Eng J. 2018;353:197–207. This paper’s highlights include biogas upgrading by PSA on a lignocellulosic-based activated carbon, and shows that pre-adsorbed water reduces adsorption capacity but facilitates selectivity to CO2. Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gibson JAA, Gromov AV, Brandani S, Campbell EEB. Comparison of amine-impregnated mesoporous carbon with microporous activated carbon and 13X zeolite for biogas purification. J Porous Mater. 2017;24(6):1473–9. Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zhou J, Cao X, Yong X-Y, Wang S-Y, Liu X, Chen Y-L, et al. Effects of various factors on biogas purification and nano-CaCO3 synthesis in a membrane reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2014;53(4):1702–6. Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jiang Y, Ling J, Xiao P, He Y, Zhao Q, Chu Z, et al. Simultaneous biogas purification and CO2 capture by vacuum swing adsorption using zeolite NaUSY. Chem Eng J. 2018;334:2593–602. Scholar
  73. 73.
    Liu X, Zhou J, Zhang Y, Liu X, Chen Y, Yong X, et al. Continuous process of biogas purification and co-production of nano calcium carbonate in multistage membrane reactors. Chem Eng J. 2015;271:223–31. Scholar
  74. 74.
    Awe OW, Zhao Y, Nzihou A, Minh DP, Lyczko N. A review of biogas utilisation, purification and upgrading technologies. Waste and Biomass Valoriz. 2017;8(2):267–83. Scholar
  75. 75.
    Juarez MF-D, Mostbauer P, Knapp A, Mueller W, Tertsch S, Bockreis A, et al. Biogas purification with biomass ash. Waste Manag. 2018;71:224–32. Scholar
  76. 76.
    Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Development of biogas combustion in combined heat and power generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2014;40:868–75.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Castrillon MC, Moura KO, Alves CA, Bastos-Neto M, Azevedo DCS, Hofmann J, et al. CO2 and H2S removal from CH4-rich streams by adsorption on activated carbons modified with K2CO3, NaOH, or Fe2O3. Energy Fuel. 2016;30(11):9596–604. Scholar
  78. 78.
    Giraudet S, Boulinguiez B, Le Cloirec P. Adsorption and electrothermal desorption of volatile organic compounds and siloxanes onto an activated carbon fiber cloth for biogas purification. Energy Fuel. 2014;28(6):3924–32. Scholar
  79. 79.
    Prandini JM, Busi da Silva ML, Mezzari MP, Pirolli M, Michelon W, Soares HM. Enhancement of nutrient removal from swine wastewater digestate coupled to biogas purification by microalgae Scenedesmus spp. Bioresour Technol. 2016;202:67–75. Scholar
  80. 80.
    Yan C, Zhang L, Luo X, Zheng Z. Influence of influent methane concentration on biogas upgrading and biogas slurry purification under various LED (light-emitting diode) light wavelengths using Chlorella sp. Energy. 2014;69:419–26. Scholar
  81. 81.
    Almenglo F, Ramirez M, Manuel Gomez J, Cantero D, Gamisans X, David DA. Modeling and control strategies for anoxic biotrickling filtration in biogas purification. J Chem Technol Biotechnol. 2016;91(6):1782–93. Scholar
  82. 82.
    Liu Y, Li H, Wei G, Zhang H, Li X, Jia Y. Mass transfer performance of CO2 absorption by alkanolamine aqueous solution for biogas purification. Sep Purif Technol. 2014;133:476–83. Scholar
  83. 83.
    Khoei AJ, Joogh NJG, Darvishi P, Rezaei K. Application of physical and biological methods to remove heavy metal, arsenic and pesticides, malathion and Diazinon from water. Turk J Fish Aquat Sci. 2019;19(1):21–8. Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hashemi H, Hoseini M, Ebrahimi AA. Flat sheet membrane sequencing batch bioreactor for the removal of coliforms and heavy metals from stabilized composting leachate. J Environ Eng. 2018;144(4):04018015. Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tian Z, Zhang L, Shi G, Sang X, Ni C. The synthesis of modified alginate flocculants and their properties for removing heavy metal ions of wastewater. J Appl Polymer Sci. 2018;135(31). doi:
  86. 86.
    Yang S, Xu J, Wang Z-M, Bao L-J, Zeng EY. Cultivation of oleaginous microalgae for removal of nutrients and heavy metals from biogas digestates. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:793–803. Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fagbohungbe MO, Herbert BMJ, Hurst L, Ibeto CN, Li H, Usmani SQ, et al. The challenges of anaerobic digestion and the role of biochar in optimizing anaerobic digestion. Waste Manag. 2017;61:236–49. Scholar
  88. 88.
    • Mahar A, Wang P, Ali A, Awasthi MK, Lahori AH, Wang Q, et al. Challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation of heavy metals contaminated soils: A review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2016;126:111–21. This paper reviews the current status, challenges and opportunities in the phytoremediation for remediating heavy metals from contaminated soils, propose phytoextraction, and phytostabilization are the alternative methods for soil reclamation. Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    • Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F, Fahl F. Biogas: developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew Energy. 2018;129:457–72. This paper shows the development of bioenergy and biogas market, biogas production, trends biogas contribution to renewable energy generation, and targets issues and outlook. Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Poeschl M, Ward S, Owende P. Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2010;14(7):1782–97. Scholar
  91. 91.
    Scheftelowitz M, Becker R, Thraen D. Improved power provision from biomass: a retrospective on the impacts of German energy policy. Biomass Bioenergy. 2018;111:1–12. Scholar
  92. 92.
    Daniel-Gromke J, Rensberg N, Denysenko V, Stinner W, Schmalfuss T, Scheftelowitz M, et al. Current developments in production and utilization of biogas and biomethane in Germany. Chemie Ingenieur Technik. 2018;90(1–2):17–35. Scholar
  93. 93.
    China’s General Office of the State Council. Strategic action plan for energy development (2014–2020).; 2018[accessed 14 September 2018].
  94. 94.
    China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Law of the People’s Republic of China on energy conservation.; 2018[accessed 14 September 2018].Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    China’s National Energy Administration. The 13th five-year plan for biomass energy development.; 2018[accessed 14 September 2018].
  96. 96.
    China’s National Development and Reform Commission. National 13th five-year plan for rural biogas development.; 2018[accessed 14 September 2018].
  97. 97.
    China’s National Energy Administration. Circular of the national energy administration.; 2018[accessed 14 September 2018].

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mingxue Gao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Danmeng Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yanbo Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiaojiao Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yongzhong Feng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.College of AgronomyNorthwest A&F UniversityYanglingChina
  2. 2.Shaanxi Engineering Research Center of Circular AgricultureYanglingChina

Personalised recommendations