1 Executive Summary and Recommendation
This Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) on Biogas Infrastructure Development in Armenia, commissioned by the American University of Armenia (AUA) and executed by Renew Energy A/S (RE), aims to assess the techno-economic and environmental potential for developing a sustainable biogas sector in Armenia. This study builds upon the growing need for energy independence, effective waste management, agricultural development, and environmental and climatic sustainability, aligning with Armenia’s national priorities and global commitments.
Armenia’s energy sector is highly reliant on imports, leaving it vulnerable to external risks. Meanwhile, significant organic waste remains underutilized and poorly managed, posing environmental and public health challenges. Biogas offers a multiple angled solution by converting waste into domestically produced renewable energy, managing organic waste, and supporting development of farm practices, thus supporting energy security, waste management improvements, and economic growth.
The study outlines potential benefits, including reduced reliance on fossil fuels, lower greenhouse gas emissions, improved waste management, and rural development through job creation and new revenue streams. However, the study also identifies challenges, such as inadequate infrastructure, regulatory gaps, reliance on international funding, weak economic incentives, and cooperative cultural barriers.
This midterm report reflects the current progress and preliminary findings of the study. Preliminary recommendation categories provided at this stage may be subject to change in the final report as additional data and insights are gained throughout the project’s execution. These updates will be informed by ongoing dialogue with local stakeholders and the development of subsequent chapters.
To advance biogas development in Armenia, the following strategic actions are preliminarily proposed, subject to refinement:
· Invest in efficient waste collection systems, improve transportation logistics for feedstock, and support access to modern biogas technologies.
· Foster public-private partnerships, engage local communities to build trust, and provide training programs for skilled biogas professionals.
· Secure long-term power purchase agreements, develop bio-fertilizer and biomethane markets, and leverage international funding opportunities.
· Introduce biogas-specific incentives (e.g. feed-in tariffs and tax exemptions), streamline permitting, and establish standards for digestate and biogas utilization.
· Prioritize high-potential locations like Yeremyan Livestock Farm and Aparan Consolidated Community, rehabilitate existing infrastructure (i.e., Lusakert Biogas Plant), and strategically locate facilities near agricultural hubs to optimize transport and resource use.
These preliminary recommendation categories serve as a framework for discussion and refinement, acknowledging their midterm nature and the evolving scope of the study. The final report will incorporate updated findings and feedback to present actionable strategies for biogas infrastructure development in Armenia.
1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the collaboration between the American University of Armenia and Renew Energy A/S to explore the biogas potential in Armenia. It outlines the partnership’s objectives, historical and national motivations for the project, and the alignment with Armenia’s strategic priorities. Additionally, it details the scope of the prefeasibility study, including its timeline and deliverables, serving as a foundation for understanding the project’s goals and approach.
1.1 Introduction to RE and AUA
Renew Energy A/S (RE) is a Danish consulting engineering company, providing focused consulting on sustainable bioenergy production and RE has wide and long-term experience in the biogas sector.
RE has been awarded the tender organized by the American University of Armenia (AUA) to prepare a Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) of the biogas potential in Armenia as presented in the Terms of Reference (ToR) prepared by AUA. RE and AUA have agreed to be committed to the ToR and, the submitted technical proposal and further document titled “Requests for Clarifications to Renew
Energy dated 6th of August 2024” by RE as a formal reply to the ToR.
1.2 Historical Context and Motivation
Armenia’s energy sector has historically depended on imported fossil fuels, leaving the nation exposed to geopolitical and market risks. This dependence has coincided with increasing challenges in waste management, particularly the underutilization of organic waste, which often ends up in the natural environment. The development of biogas infrastructure presents a solution by converting organic waste into renewable energy, addressing both energy and waste management challenges (IEA, 2022).
1.3 Alignment with National Priorities
The development of biogas infrastructure aligns with Armenia’s national objectives, including energy independence, environmental sustainability, and rural economic development. The Armenia Development Strategy for 2014-2025 emphasizes the importance of renewable energy and sustainable waste management (RA Government Decree, 2014) . Biogas initiatives support these goals by reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and creating economic opportunities in rural areas (UNDP, 2022).
1.4 Overall Objectives
The main objective of this study, titled “Prefeasibility Study on Biogas Infrastructure Development in Armenia”,is to evaluate and assess the techno-economic and environmental aspects of biogas infrastructure development in Armenia.
We foresee this study serving as a market evaluation for government entities and businesses, guiding the development of national biogas strategies, promulgation of new policies and regulations, and the creation of business cases. These efforts aim to positively impact Armenia’s national energy security and independence, reduce reliance on conventional fossil fuels, and lower greenhouse gas emissions by fostering the growth of an economically viable biogas market sector in Armenia.
1.5 Methodology
RE uses a data- and information-driven approach to the extent at all possible, which, coupled with the extensive experiences of the RE team and their deep understanding of anaerobic digestion, provides the outcome at hand.
In acknowledgment of RE not having explicit Armenian experiences prior to this study, field visits, interviews and collaboration with AUA is also a part of the operational efforts.
1 National-Level Background and Scope – Task 1
This chapter examines the national context that constitutes the foundation for identifying opportunities and addressing both current and future challenges associated with biogas infrastructure in Armenia. This includes:
· A flyover to an industrial biogas approach, and what that implies in terms of size of facilities.
· An overview of the political context and socio-economic conditions.
· An introduction to the relevant market sector, that naturally couple’s biogas being a multiple solution and value stream technology.
1.1 Industrialized biogas- and biomethane production
Mega trending across large parts of the world are targets of:
· decarbonization and sustainability of fuel and energy production and consumption,
· decarbonization and sustainability of agricultural production,
· waste reduction, handling and reutilization,
· rural development, as well as
· domestic and decentralized production of both fuel, energy and food.
This leads to a natural focus on regions which are far with said efforts and attempt to replicate to the extent possible and viable, given, in this case, the specificity of Armenia.
When it comes to sustainable gas production, and utilization of various waste streams, the Scandinavian region is very developed, why, with a background from that system, but with worldwide other experiences, RE describes and dissects the potential for a similar course of action in Armenia when it comes to producing biogas and subsequently biomethane or electricity.
Biogas production per se is a naturally occurring process, which can be utilized in many different scales, and contains roughly 60 percent methane (CH4) and 40% CO2. Biogas in its origin can be (i) utilized as fuel for biogas engines producing heat and electricity, can be (ii) purified into these two separate streams providing a pure methane stream, close to equivalent to natural gas and biogenic CO2, or biogas and biomethane may be (iii) utilized as an input to produce more advanced fuels. The more advanced a utilization desired, the larger and more industrial facilities will in general need to be, to maintain a reasonable cost level, since there are non-trivial economies of scale, as well as to ensure a professional and low emitting process, noting also that methane on a 100 year basis has roughly 30 times the GWP as CO2 itself (ipcc, 2023). For the current report only electricity and heat production and biomethane production will be considered, with the exception of utilization of CO2 in some specific cases.
Based on RE’s vast experience in the field of biogas and biomethane, the following is noted:
· For CAPEX perspective it stands that bigger is more efficient, however OPEX will tend to be opposite as one of the key OPEX drivers is something as simple as logistics: feedstock and digestate will have to be transported to and from the facility, and the larger the facility the larger distances need to be covered. This is especially impactful if the feedstock is low yield, for instance like liquid animal waste.
· For electricity production a production of 1MWel is considered an absolute minimum viable size of a facility, equivalent to slightly above 2 MCM of CH4 per year. For electricity production, achieving an optimal facility size is in the range 5 – 10 MCM of CH4 per year, meaning 2,5 – 5 MWel.
· For upgrading, a production of 5 MCM CH4 per year is considered an absolute minimum viable size of a facility. Optimal size is expected in the range of 10 – 20 MCM CH4 per year.
The assessments provided in this report, shall be seen in the light of the above, in which an industrialized approach to biogas production is considered the most viable method to utilize the potential in Armenia. As such, and in the attempt to focus on clear recommendations and expectations also in terms of clustering as a means to describe an area in which biogas production may be feasible, a cluster will be assuming a feedstock requirement of yielding 10 MCM CH4 per year, allowing for both electricity and upgrading, and above what is considered minimum for upgrading. Any increment will be added only when this minimum extra volume is surpassed.
1.2 Political Context
This section explores the foundational aspects of Armenia’s energy sector, focusing on its heavy reliance on imported fossil fuels and the government’s shift towards renewable energy. It highlights key policies, international commitments, and socio-economic drivers shaping Armenia’s renewable energy landscape. The discussion also considers political stability, climate goals, and investment landscapes as critical factors influencing the energy transition and thus the potential development of a biogas sector in Armenia.
1.2.1 National Energy Policies Related to Renewable Energy
Armenia’s energy sector is heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels, primarily from Russia and, to lesser extent, Iran (GET, 2024). This dependency has driven the Armenian government to explore alternative energy sources to reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports, diversify its energy portfolio and prioritize the development of indigenous energy sources, particularly renewable energy, to enhance energy security and sustainability (WEG, 2015).
The Armenian Energy Sector Development Strategic Programme, approved in January 2021, is considered a major cornerstone of the Armenian governments progressive actions and efforts over the past years (Armenian Energy Agency, 2024). Replacing previous policies, this roadmap outlines Armenia’s energy transition through a long-term plan extending to 2040. One of the most significant priorities in this strategy is to maximize and unlock Armenia’s renewable energy potential to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency. Initiatives include extending the lifespan of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (ANPP) beyond 2026 with plans for its replacement, constructing a “North-South Corridor” to enhance power transmission links with Georgia and Iran, and gradually liberalizing the domestic electricity market (IEA, 2022) ; (Armenian Energy Agency, 2024)
The Armenian government has since 2015 worked to implement different policies aligned with European Union energy standards. For instance, the National Programme on Energy Saving and Renewable Energy for 2021-2030, adopted in March 2022, aims to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. Since 2015 Armenia has also been actively harmonizing its energy policies and practices with the standards of the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. This includes adopting internationally recognized energy statistics methodologies and publishing energy balances in globally comparable formats (IEA, 2023). The Armenian government has also addressed electricity affordability through subsidy schemes. In 2015, for example, over 78.8% of consumers received compensation for electricity consumption, amounting to a total of 534.5 million AMD a year for resident consumers (Armenpress, 2016).
Following this Armenia signed Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with EU which envisages gradual implementation of the EU energy related directives and was ratified in 2018 and entered into force on 1 March 2021. In 2022, Armenia and the European Union launched a monitoring platform for the Agreement. The environment chapter of CEPA includes about 100 activities, while some other activities listed in CEPA relate to the environment including about 20 dedicated to addressing climate change. This partnership aims to support Armenia in reshaping its economy and to align national legal acts, laws and regulations with EU directives to meet ambitious climate goals and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 (SEI, 2024).
Armenia has also committed to international climate goals. Under the Paris Agreement, the country aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. This target is articulated in Armenia’s updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), submitted in April 2021, which emphasize the integration of climate change measures into national policies and strategies (Sukiasyan, 2021) ; (UN Environment Programme, 2022) . To meet these goals, Armenia’s Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy (extending to 2050) focuses on:
· Doubling Renewable Energy Share: By 2030, Armenia aims to increase the share of renewable energy by doubling energy penetration, thereby reducing dependency on fossil fuels (Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, 2021); (UN Environment Programme, 2022).
· Enhancing Energy Efficiency: The Armenian government has set different measures to improve energy efficiency across different sectors, aiming to reduce overall energy consumption and mitigate the GHG emissions.
· Promoting Sustainable Land Use and Forestry: The Armenian government has made significant efforts, including a commitment to increase forest cover to 12.9% by 2030, to enhance carbon sequestration and biodiversity (Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, 2021); (World Bank Group, 2021).
Armenia has further demonstrated its commitment to renewable energy through participation in multilateral climate agreements. These include:
· UNFCCC: Armenia ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1993, signaling its commitment to addressing climate change (IEA, 2022) .
· Kyoto Protocol: In 2002, Armenia joined the Kyoto Protocol, supporting global emission reduction goals with no commitment on emission reduction targets (IEA, 2022) .
· Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol: Armenia ratified the amendment on substances that deplete the ozone layer in 2019 and committed to reducing the use of HFCs by 80-85% by 2045, with reductions starting in 2024 (World Bank Group, 2021).
· Doha Amendment to Kyto Protocol: Armenia ratified the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto protocol in February 2017, setting new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change (Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, 2021).
Armenia has adopted a National Adaptation Plan (NAP) to build resilience against climate-related hazards. Approved in May 2021, the NAP outlines various measures to be implemented from 2021 to 2025, focusing on water resource management, climate-resilient agriculture and disaster risk reduction (Republic of Armenia, 2021); (UN Environment Programme, 2022).
1.2.2 Political Development
Political stability plays a role in attracting foreign investment, international grants, and aid to support infrastructure development, including in the energy sector. Conversely, political uncertainty can create challenges that might hinder or halt renewable energy transition planning in any country. Armenia has experienced periods of political change that have influenced the pace of renewable energy development.
Armenia marked a turning point with the 2018 democratic reforms and anti-corruption efforts, which have generally had a positive influence on energy policy. These reforms have placed a focus on renewable energy initiatives aimed at reducing reliance on imports from external energy suppliers (Harvard International Review, 2019). While these reforms have been a driving force for progress, Armenia continues to navigate a complex political landscape, following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which presents both challenges but also opportunities for fostering peace and stability in the region (Council on Foreign Relations, 2021); (Nikoghosyan & Ter-Matevosyan, 2021).
Armenia’s energy sector is shaped by its reliance on imported natural gas from Russia and Iran, with its national gas pipeline network owned by Gazprom, a company owned by the Russian Federation. These challenges have prompted the Armenian government to develop and implement new strategic energy planning at national level to address current issues and unlock potential opportunities. Enhancing energy independence and diversification has become a strategic priority, which could contribute to the development of biogas infrastructure (WFD, 2023).
Policy continuity is crucial for development of new renewable energy sectors, as stable governance ensures the consistent implementation of energy projects and encourages long-term investment. Foreign investment in renewable energy, is influenced by Armenia’s efforts to diversify energy partnerships, particularly with the European Union and the United States. These efforts aim to reduce reliance on external energy imports, which can expose the sector to vulnerabilities and pose risks to national energy security, potentially disrupting other sectors as well (Integrated Country Strategy, 2022); (Le Monde, 2024). Moreover, regional cooperation and peace negotiations have the potential to open cross-border energy initiatives, facilitating infrastructure projects that could enhance biogas development and energy security.
Overall, while Armenia has made strides in creating a supportive policy environment for renewable energy, ongoing political and regional challenges may impact the pace and consistency of biogas infrastructure implementation.
1.2.3 Environmental Goals and Commitments
Armenia has established regulations to address environmental concerns, including air and water quality, biodiversity and waste management. The Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with EU, effective since March 2021, strengthens the legal framework on environmental protection in Armenia. Full implementation of CEPA is expected to lead to advancements in environmental protection, waste management and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (European Union External Action, 2021).
1.2.3.1 Air Quality
The government is implementing policies to reduce industrial emissions and promote cleaner transportation options to improve air quality and includes a section on air quality and a revised law air protection amended in 2022 (UNECE, 2024). CEPA includes approximation of the Industrial Emissions Directive, for which national legislation must be in place by March 2025, but with implementation allowed over a longer timescale of six to 13 years. Armenia is party to the Air Convention (Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution) but has only ratified 1 out of 8 protocols, namely the EMEP Protocol back in 2014, which is the monitoring program to provide governmental bodies with qualified scientific information on air pollution. In December 2022, Armenia adopted the latest amendment of its 1994 Law on Air Protection that basically constitutes a new framework law providing legal basis for fulfilling the obligations required by the Protocols. However, ratification of the remaining Protocols is still being considered (UNECE, 2024).
There are no laws, regulations or standards relating to odors, which are within the competence of both the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health (UNECE, 2024).
1.2.3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment
The country adopted the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment and Expertise in 2014. A considerably revised Law was adopted in May 2023 (Law No. HO-150) The revision brings in many modifications, such as: recognizing civil society organizations as stakeholders, adding explicitly an environmental management plan and improving the environmental impact monitoring programme, as well as aligning the list of activities and threshold sizes with European Union directives. However, the legislation is still not sufficient to fully implement the Espoo Convention, particularly in terms of lacking subsidiary legislation (UNECE, 2024).
1.2.3.3 Water Resource Management
Armenia has worked to improving accessibility to adequate and affordable water and sanitation services are a committed to improve water resource management aligned with meaning the requirements in the CEPA. (UNECE, 2024). CEPA imposes many requirements regarding water quality and resource management, mostly to be implemented within four to six years from CEPA had come into force, which include the following European directives:
· The Drinking Water Directive
· The Nitrates Directive
· The Water Framework Directive
· The Floods Directive
· The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
1.2.3.4 Nature Protection
The Armenian government are working to aligning national legal acts, laws and regulations with EU directives and international compulsory acts on biodiversity and natural conservation. The 1999 Law on Flora was amended in 2017 and 2018, to cover green areas in settlements and to add the power to approve methodological guidelines on maintaining the flora cadastre, while the 2000 Law on Fauna was amended in 2014, 2018 and 2022 to cover the keeping of wild animals in captivity, extend the Government’s powers and to better protect the use of wild animals for different purposes, Armenia’s commitment under CEPA requires action on the European Union Birds and Habitats Directives.
Armenia is experiencing a critical forest degradation and deforestation due to mining operations, illegal logging (use for firewood), pests and wildfires which are critical to obtaning its Climate Goals and maintain Economic Sustainability. The World Bank are currently involved in the “10 million trees” environmental pan-Armenian project and the restoration of riparian zones (World Bank Group, 2021).
1.2.3.5 Waste Management
Armenia is implementing a national waste policy program that includes efforts and actions to develop sustainable waste management systems, including the sound management of waste and chemicals to reduce environmental and health risks (UNECE, 2024). Also here CEPA imposes requirements regarding the implementation of serval European Directive within 4-8 yeas, such as:
· The Waste Framework Directive (except for a full cost recovery mechanism in accordance with the polluter pays principle and extended producer responsibility principle, which may take an additional two years)
· The Landfill Directive
· The Directive on the management of waste from extractive industries
1.2.4 Socio-Economic Drivers
The development of biogas infrastructure in Armenia has the potential to play a role in enhancing the potential of socio-economic benefits by supporting local (domestic) energy production, creating new jobs, empowering and boosting rural economic sectors, and reducing fossil fuel consumption.
1.2.4.1 Domestic Production and Energy Security
The development of biogas infrastructure strengthens Armenia’s domestic energy production by utilizing local feedstocks potential such as agricultural, industrial and municipal waste. This reduces dependency on imported fossil fuels, enhances energy security, and provides stability against fluctuations in global energy prices (IEA, 2023); (Pasoyan & Sakanyan, 2019).
1.2.4.2 Job Creation and Rural Development
The development of the biogas sector in Armenia will create diverse opportunities across various fields, including construction, equipment manufacturing (if produced locally), and plant operations by converting agricultural and organic waste into energy. It will also enhance waste management and reduce environmental pollution. These opportunities will bring benefits and promote equitable development to both urban and particularly rural areas with limited economic activity. Additionally, they will foster workforce skills development, support professional training for junior graduates in local communities, and contribute to renewable energy transition planning through the growth of the biogas sector (IEA, 2022); (Folk, 2019).
1.2.4.3 Waste Treatment and Environmental and Public Health Protection
Armenia is struggling with challenges related to waste management and treatment. The development of the biogas sector will offer a multiple solution platform to enhance waste management and reduce environmental pollution by converting organic waste into energy, thus potentially reducing contamination of water bodies and air. AD will handle and process organic materials in closed atmosphere systems instead of allowing uncontrolled decomposition in the open environments, thereby reducing emissions, such as methane from landfills, and improving air quality (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2019); (World Bank Group, 2014). Additionally, biogas plants manage agricultural waste, organic municipal waste, slaughterhouse waste, and food waste, and potentially prevent contaminants from polluting water bodies by establishing improved waste handling in organized value chains. By introducing AD being a heated waste treatment process with guaranteed retention time these plants have the potential to reduce or eliminate pathogens and reduce the risk of disease spreading. This approach improves water quality and minimizes the prevalence of waterborne diseases, aligning with the World Health Organization’s emphasis on the importance of clean water in improving public health (WHO, 2024).
1.2.4.4 Economic Diversification and Circularity
The development of biogas infrastructure in Armenia will diversify energy production sources, particularly by reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels. This will strengthen the economy, which is heavily reliant on the energy sector and thus vulnerable to disruptions caused by dependence on a dominant importer. Additionally, it will help mitigate the risks associated with energy price fluctuations (IEA, 2023); (GET, 2024); (Pasoyan & Sakanyan, 2019). Biogas projects contribute to a green circular economy by converting organic waste into renewable energy and valuable agricultural by-products. This enhances resource efficiency and supports sustainable development in Armenia (AUA Newsroom, 2024).
1.2.5 Investment landscape
Armenia has recognized the importance of foreign direct and indirect investments in improving the economy, enhancing efficiency, creating new jobs in urban and particularly rural areas, and supporting technological advancements. Such investment requires an adaptable environment and a robust legal framework to facilitate development. This includes addressing existing challenges such as complex regulations and policies, as well as making broader improvements to create a conductive environment for investment. In the context of Armenia’s biogas sector development, the investment landscape is shaped by historically supportive government policies, international collaborations, and considerations of geopolitical and energy security. The government has prioritized renewable energy development to strengthen energy security and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, positioning biogas as a strategic area for investment (Generis Incorporation, 2024); (IEA, 2023).
This commitment is underscored by policies such as the “Law on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency” (2004), which introduced feed-in tariffs and subsidies for electricity generated from renewable sources. These measures guaranteed long-term purchase prices for produced electricity, making projects financially viable and attracting private investment (Integrated Country Strategy, 2022). Further emphasis on renewable energy was articulated in Armenia’s “Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Programme Investment Plan” (2014), developed as an update to the 2011 “Renewable Energy Roadmap”. This plan analyzed Armenia’s renewable energy potential and identified biogas as a priority for development, aligning with the country’s broader goals of energy diversification and security (IEA, 2023).
1.2.5.1 Supportive Policies and Incentives
The Armenian government has implemented initiatives such as the Energy Sector Development Strategic Programme, that highlights the importance of renewable energy to attract investments and foster energy sustainability. This program, alongside international funding and collaborations, continues to play a significant role in shaping Armenia’s renewable energy priorities (IEA, 2022); (Generis Incorporation, 2024). Several factors influence the overall investment environment in Armenia:
· Political Stability: Stable governance is essential for attracting both foreign and local investments. Political instability can impact Armenia’s investment landscape, as investors, both national and international, generally seek politically stable countries to secure and protect their investments. Political stability in Armenia, along with its partnerships with EU, will enhance the biogas sector development and facilitate the potential flow of grants and funding (World Bank Group, 2024); (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024).
· Legal Framework: Armenia is making efforts to strengthening transparency and implementing anti-corruption measures to enhance its investment climate and support project development. Efforts are being made to create a more secure environment for investors and developers by addressing regulatory and governance issues (Integrated Country Strategy, 2022).
· Macroeconomic Conditions: Armenia’s efforts to stabilize its economy, including managing inflation rates and the Armenian dram, aiming to reduce financial risks for investors. However, the country’s dependence on imported energy makes it vulnerable to external price fluctuations, underscoring the need for renewable energy investments to enhance economic resilience (World Bank Group, 2024).
· Infrastructure Development: Robust infrastructure, including roads, energy connections, water and telecommunication networks, is vital for facilitating biogas plant operations. However, certain areas in Armenia face challenges with existing infrastructure, which will be a barrier for the implementation of large-scale projects (Eurasian Fund for Stabilization and Development, 2022).
· Human Capital and Technology: Armenia’s biogas sector development requires qualified technical labor and access to modern technologies. However, high levels of emigration, particularly among younger, educated individuals, and limited access to biogas-specific expertise constrain local capacity. Training programs and incentives for talent retention are critical to support the development of biogas infrastructure (European Training Foundation, 2020).
1.2.5.2 International Funding and Partnerships
Armenia benefits from financial and technical assistance from international organizations such as the European Union, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These collaborations provide funding, expertise, and capacity-building support that is relevant as financial partners in the development of biogas projects (European Union, 2019); (World Bank Group, 2021).
1.2.5.3 Geopolitical Considerations
Regional dynamics, including Armenia’s geopolitical challenges, can impact investment in biogas infrastructure. However, the government’s efforts to strengthen relationships with Western partners and diversify energy alliances aim to create a more stable investment environment, which is essential for long-term biogas project success (Le Monde, 2024); (Campbell, 2024).
1.2.5.4 Technological and Market Factors
Armenia, a landlocked country, faces logistical challenges as it relies on air transport and neighboring countries for trade and the delivery of goods. However, Armenia is improving and adopting high-tech solutions and establishing liberalized trade policies which could improve market conditions and attract foreign investments. These efforts enable foreign companies to invest and establish branches in Armenia, fostering increased investment, diverse business opportunities, and enhanced competitiveness. This, in turn, promotes the adoption of higher quality standards for exported goods and improvements in production efficiency. Additionally, the government amendments to tax laws and support for high-tech industries strengthen Armenia’s competitiveness and ability to attract international investors (Generis Incorporation, 2024).
1.3 Sector Coupling Introductions (Biogas Interdependencies and Synergies)
Biogas infrastructure development in Armenia intersects with various sectors, creating a network of interdependencies and synergies that enhance economic, environmental, and social outcomes. This section introduces key sectors in Armenia such as agriculture, waste management, energy and transport, and explains how biogas can integrate and provide benefits across these areas.
1.3.1 Agriculture
Agriculture remains a cornerstone of Armenia’s economy, employing a significant portion of the population and contributing substantially to GDP. The sector is recognized for its livestock production, fruit cultivation, and crop farming, with wine and dairy products holding a prominent role in the agricultural landscape. Biogas development presents an opportunity to utilize organic waste from these activities, such as livestock manure, crop residues, and waste from dairy and wine production, transforming them into renewable energy and a nutrient-rich and homogeny digestate. This not only addresses pressing waste management challenges but also enhances soil fertility, reducing dependency on imported chemical fertilizers and supporting sustainable farming practices (AUA Newsroom, 2024).
1.3.1.1 Manure Management
Manure management practices in Armenia vary significantly based on farm scale and livestock type. The dominant livestock cattle breeds include Caucasian Brown, Holstein Friesian, and crossbreeds, with Caucasian Brown and crossbreeds adapted to Armenia’s mountainous terrain and low-input systems (Nalbandyan, 2024). On average, 70% of the total cattle population is raised for meat production, with 30% used for dairy (Karapetyan, 2024). Approximately 95% of farms have fewer than nine cows, and manure management practices are predominantly traditional, meaning relying on manual handling, using labor-intensive methods that depend on available resources, as mechanical equipment is rarely deployed (Urutyan, 2024). Traditional liquid washing systems or manual shoveling are common on small-scale farms, while modern larger commercial farms have scraper systems installed with minimal use of bedding materials (Nalbandyan, 2024).
In large and modern dairy complexes, manure is predominantly collected in sealed pits and later spread to farmland as a slurry. In contrast, smaller farms predominantly rely on traditional methods, where manure is stored outdoors. In these cases, manure is likely stored directly on the ground which means that liquid manure potentially seeps into the soil or runs off into the environment. Meanwhile, the solid part decomposes but ultimately dries out due to sun and wind exposure (Nalbandyan, 2024). This drying generates solid “cakes” (dung cakes) prior to either spreading on fields or dumping in local dump sites (MoEc, 2024).
For pigs and poultry, manure management practices also vary. Pig manure, often in liquid form due to the typical housing systems, is commonly stored in slurry tanks or lagoons, though proper treatment and utilization practices are limited. Poultry manure, rich in nutrients, is primarily used as a solid fertilizer in agricultural fields, but improper handling and storage tends to lead to eutrophication, ammonia emissions and water pollution.
In rural areas, particularly in highland regions, the dry manure (dung cakes) is used as a fuel for heating and cooking which is driven by limited access to firewood or modern costly energy sources like natural gas or electricity. This is likewise the predominant practice for sheep manure collected in barns, which is processed into dry manure cakes named “atar” (MoEc, 2024). According to the Socio-Economic Survey of the South Caucasus (2021), around 37% of households rely on livestock manure for heating, with higher usage rates in isolated, mountainous communities. While this practice provides cheap energy it contributes to air pollution and forfeits the organic material’s potential to enhance soil fertility (Nalbandyan, 2024).
Manure contamination with soil and sand, as well as inconsistent collection methods, pose logistical challenges for a feasible biogas business case (Urutyan, 2024); (FV1, 2024). Animal manure from Armenian farms, such as cattle, pigs, and poultry, represents a significant yet underutilized resource Armenian farms lack structured waste management practices. Most farms dispose of manure informally, spreading it on nearby fields. This unregulated approach hinders efficient utilization for biogas production (LEG & GAG, 2024).
A recent government decision has introduced requirements for manure management in Armenia. These regulations require manure storage facilities to be constructed with hard-surfaced floors and walls to prevent groundwater contamination and ensure proper ventilation (Arlis, 2023). Additionally, manure must undergo biological, chemical or physical processing to mitigate disease risks, with the end products utilized as organic fertilizer, fuel, or for biogas production. Dense storage is also recommended to minimize nitrogen and organic matter loss (Arlis, 2023).
1.3.1.2 Slaughterhouse Waste
In addition to manure, slaughterhouse waste presents an opportunity for biogas development in Armenia. The country has approximately 40 slaughterhouses distributed across its regions, with cattle, pigs, and sheep as the primary sources of livestock waste. Most of the cattle processed in these facilities originate from small to medium household farms, with 3 – 10 cattle per farm. Despite the government mandating in 2020 that animals must be slaughtered in licensed facilities, enforcement remains weak, leading many farmers to bypass slaughterhouses and conduct slaughtering themselves. Slaughterhouses in Armenia are categorized by size and capacity: Small slaughterhouses process 1 – 2 cattle per day, medium slaughterhouses have a production potential of 10 cattle per hour and large slaughterhouses can process up to 500 sheep within 6 hours (Karapetyan, 2024).
From a 300 kg cattle, it is estimated that the yield includes approximately 150 kg of meat, 30 liters of blood, 30 kg of bones, and 15 – 20 kg of skin and other materials. The waste generated includes blood, offal, bones, skin, and wastewater, much of which remain unutilized. While some blood is repurposed as feed for fish and other animals, and skin is exported or disposed of locally, most of the waste is dumped in nearby areas or poorly managed, creating environmental concerns. Bones and blood often end up in unregulated dumping sites, and some are burned or used for feeding stray animals. The situation is further complicated by the limited financial capacity of many slaughterhouses, while many are over dimensioned to the local market need and the insufficient infrastructure for waste management. While new farms equipped with modern dairy and meat production technologies have emerged, comprising about 10% of total livestock farms, 90% of the cattle population still resides in small and medium-sized household farms (Karapetyan, 2024). Seasonal variations also affect waste generation. Higher quantities of waste are produced during peak slaughter periods, which align with traditional holidays and specific agricultural cycles. Strict regulations on slaughterhouse waste exist in Armenia, mandating handling and treatment to prevent the spread of diseases. However, enforcement is minimal, with inspections occurring only one month per year from region to region (Karapetyan, 2024). This lack of oversight urges the need for structured waste management solutions which could include the integration of biogas.
1.3.1.3 Opportunities for Organic Fertilizers
Armenia consumes an estimated 50,000 – 70,000 tons of ammonium nitrate annually, primarily imported from Russia, Georgia, and Iran. Its affordability makes it the most widely used artificial fertilizer in the country. Cereal production, including wheat and barley, is the largest consumer of ammonium nitrate, followed by high-value crops like vegetables and fruits. Key cereal production regions include Shirak, Gegharkunik, and Aragatsotn, which are primarily non-irrigated mountainous zones (Nalbandyan, 2024). While the use of ammonium nitrate has supported agricultural productivity, it underscores Armenia’s dependence on imported chemical fertilizers and highlights the risks associated with their overuse including eutrophication of water bodies and depletion of soil health, as the practice outcompete the use of organic fertilizers.
The promotion of organic fertilizers presents an opportunity to address challenges in Armenia’s agricultural sector. As interest in sustainable agricultural practices grows, organic fertilizers offer a pathway to improving soil health and increasing soil organic matter across various cultivation types (Nalbandyan, 2024). However, Armenia’s agricultural lands face severe depletion and are at risk of desertification, making the promotion of organic fertilizers both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity.
Despite their potential, awareness of organic fertilizers among Armenian farmers remains limited, as the concept is still relatively new to many. Comprehensive education and awareness campaigns will be essential to unlock this market’s full potential (Nalbandyan, 2024). Organic fertilizers should complement chemical inputs to create a balanced approach. They are particularly effective in orchards, vegetable farming, and as a partial substitute in cereal production, where they can enhance soil health and reduce dependency on chemical fertilizers (Nalbandyan, 2024).
1.3.1.4 Biogas Infrastructure and Digestate Potential
Developing biogas infrastructure could address these challenges by modernizing manure management, improving collection processes, and mitigate environmental issues such as methane emissions. In addition to generating renewable energy, biogas could further enhance the adoption of organic fertilizers by producing nutrient-rich digestate, which can be used to mitigate soil erosion and nutrient deficiencies caused by decades of monoculture and limited soil management (Nalbandyan, 2024).
Anaerobic digestate (AD) offers potential as a nutrient-rich fertilizer and soil amendment, addressing nutrient-depleted soils and enhancing long-term agricultural productivity. It is particularly effective for horticulture, orchards, cereal production, and sustainable pasture management. AD digestate also enables closed-loop systems in livestock and bioenergy operations. Post-treatment processes, such as solid-liquid separation, drying, and pelletizing, improve digestate transportability and usability, while nutrient enrichment and odor reduction make it suitable for high-value crops.
Strategic opportunities include cost-effective post-treatment infrastructure, subsidies for digestate equipment, and farmer education on its benefits (Nalbandyan, 2024). Lucine Nalbandyan has identified several potential locations for biogas facilities. Geghashen Village in the Kotayk Region stands out for its geographical and logistical advantages. Other recommended sites are near large cattle farms, ensuring a consistent supply of organic waste. Additionally, locations near rivers are highlighted, where anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities help reduce the risks associated with manure dumping and improve water quality.
Nalbandyan also emphasizes the importance of proximity to feedstock availability for economic and operational efficiency. Locating AD facilities near diverse feedstocks can significantly enhance their viability. In addition to cow manure, feedstocks with strong volumetric potential include poultry litter, crop residues, food processing waste, and household organic waste. To ensure long-term sustainability, Nalbandyan advocated for a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, involving municipalities, private investors, and agricultural cooperatives to secure a consistent feedstock supply and ensure long-term viability.
1.3.2 Waste Management
Waste management has long been a significant challenge in Armenia, compounded by growing urbanization and increased waste generation. Landfill and dump sites are often poorly managed or unregulated, lacking adequate systems for leachate or landfill gas collection. Instead, these sites often function as dumping zones underground, leading to substantial methane emissions and hazardous run-off (LEG & GAG, 2024); (AUA Acopian Center for the Environment, 2020).
This waste handling system shares similarities with waste handling systems structured around waste landfilling, such as the predominant practices for MSW handling in the United States (Center for Sustainable Systems, 2024). However, in the U.S., there is well-enforced regulation in place to secure against run-off of leached and emission of landfill gas. Additionally, a regulated public waste market exists, which means that waste disposal is subject to a disposal (tipping) cost. Food waste is the largest component of landfilled waste in the U.S. which generate an economical driver to re-direct food waste and the disposal cost to a biogas production value chain (Environment Protection Agency, 2024).
In Armenia, organic waste, a major component of municipal and agricultural waste, is often discarded in unmanaged dumping sites or, to a smaller extent, burned. In Yerevan, approximately 60% of household waste consists of food and organic materials, highlighting the dominance of organic waste in urban waste streams. The presence of such a high proportion of food waste underscores the pressing need for effective management strategies (LEG & GAG, 2024).
Currently, organic waste from agriculture and food industries remains underutilized. Greenhouse waste, such as tomato and cucumber plant and fruit residues, is often burned, due to a lack of resources for proper disposal (Urutyan, 2024). Similarly, agricultural waste from food processing industries, such as grape and fruit residues, is often left unutilized, with minimal composting initiatives (Nalbandyan, 2024).
Currently, organic waste from agriculture and food industries remains underutilized. Greenhouse waste, such as tomato and cucumber plant and fruit residues, is often burned, due to a lack of resources for proper disposal (Urutyan, 2024). Similarly, agricultural waste from food processing industries, such as grape and fruit residues, is often left unutilized, with minimal composting initiatives (Nalbandyan, 2024).
By converting organic waste into renewable energy, Armenia could reduce its reliance on landfills, mitigate the environmental risks associated with open dumping and burning and make better use of organic waste resources (FV1, 2024); (FV1, 2024); (IEA, 2022).
Armenia’s waste management system is governed by the “Law on Waste” (Arlis, 2005); (Republic of Armenia, 2004), which establishes the legal framework for waste handling, including standards for landfill operations. This law outlines requirements for waste collection, transportation, processing and disposal to ensure environmental protection and public health. In addition to the “Law on Waste,” the Armenian government adopted a resolution on January 4, 2023, setting minimum standards for the operation, improvement, and closure of existing landfills. This resolution prohibits the disposal of explosive and flammable materials, medical and biological waste, electronic equipment waste, mercury-containing products, and liquid waste without special containers in landfills. It also bans the open burning of waste at landfill sites to reduce harmful emissions and align practices with environmental safety standards (Ecolur, 2024).
Despite regulations, Armenia continues to face challenges in achieving effective waste management. There is ambiguity in managing prohibited waste, complicating enforcement efforts. Additionally, limited information exists on greenhouse gas emissions from unregulated dumpsites. As of June 2020, 297 landfill sites had been inventoried and mapped, with waste collection services covering 443 out of 501 communities. However, 1,6% of the population, primarily in rural areas, remains without access to formal waste collection services. Annually, about 688.937 tons of garbage are generated nationwide. This lack of infrastructure contributes to unmanaged waste disposal, worsening environmental degradation and posing public health risks (Ecolur, 2024).
1.3.2.1 Wastewater Disposal and Biogas Opportunities
Wastewater disposal in Armenia is governed by comprehensive legislative frameworks aimed at ensuring environmental protection and sustainable resource use. The Water Code of the Republic of Armenia (Parliament, 2002) provides the legal basis for managing water resources, including regulations for wastewater treatment and discharge. It emphasizes the sustainable use and protection of water resources, setting standards to prevent contamination and promote efficient management
The RA Government Decision No. 1228-N (Arlis, 2003) outlines specific rules for the use of drainage systems and the treatment of discharged water. This decision mandates that wastewater systems adhere to strict quality standards to minimize environmental impact.
Incorporating anaerobic digestion technology into wastewater treatment processes offers opportunities to generate biogas. However, wastewater treatment plants in Armenia lack the infrastructure to support biogas production (FV1, 2024). Modernizing these facilities could enable the conversion of organic waste into biogas, contributing to Armenia’s renewable energy goals while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
1.3.3 Energy
Armenia’s energy sector remains heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels, with approximately 75% of its energy needs met through imports, primarily from Russia, and to a lesser extent, Iran (GET, 2024). This high reliance urges Armenia to enhance energy security through the integration of renewable and decentralized energy sources.
1.3.3.1 Armenia’s Gas Supply System
Armenia’s gas supply system is currently managed by two licensed entities: Gazprom Armenia, CJSC and Transgaz LLC. Gazprom Armenia CJSC oversees the import of natural gas, operational and technological control of the system, as well as the distribution and sale of natural gas to consumers. Transgaz LLC, a subsidiary of Gazprom Armenia CJSC, is the technical operator of the national gas transmission system and of an underground gas storage and is responsible for its operation under quality, safety, efficiency and environmental conditions. (PSRC, 2024). The structure of Armenia’s gas transmission system is illustrated in Figure 2: Gas Transmission Grid in Armenia (Gaxprom Armenia, 2024). Additionally, other entities, such as Butan, are involved in the reception, storage and transport of LNG, as well as the conversion of vehicle engines to CNG and autogas services. Armavir Gasmash supports the sector by supplying equipment and providing engineering expertise to various distribution branches (ENVIROS, 2017). Notably, Armenia’s national natural gas demand is approximately 2.46 BMCPY (IEA, 2022).
Biogas represents a promising solution by providing a renewable energy source that complements intermittent solar and wind power. Unlike these sources, biogas can deliver consistent energy generation, making it a valuable addition to Armenia’s energy mix. Discussions during the field visit emphasized the potential of biogas to diversify the country’s energy portfolio and reduce reliance on imports (FV1, 2024). An opportunity lies in the potential to upgrade biogas into biomethane for injection into the national gas grid. However, with the grid privately owned by Gazprom Armenia, this would necessitate negotiations and collaboration to establish technical and regulatory frameworks. Alternative uses for biogas were also explored, including producing biomethane for transportation fuel and generating heat and power (CHP), which could reduce transportation emissions or serve localized energy needs, respectively (FV1, 2024); (Urutyan, 2024). By integrating biogas into its energy strategy, Armenia can strengthen its energy independence, improve sustainability, and support its transition to a greener economy.
1.1.1.1 Electricity
Armenia’s electricity infrastructure consists of transmission and distribution networks, with distinct entities managing each segment. The transmission network is overseen by state-owned entities, including High Voltage Electricity Networks CJSC and Settlement Center CJSC, which serve as the transmission system operator. The structure of Armenia’s electricity transmission network is illustrated in Figure 3: Structure of Electricity Transmission Network in Armenia (Data Catalog Armenia, 2011). These entities are responsible for managing the operational and technological aspects of the high-voltage electricity grid (International Trade Administration, 2023). The distribution network is managed by Electric Networks of Armenia CJSC, a privately-owned company under the Tashir Group. This entity handles the delivery of electricity to end-users across Armenia (Electric Networks of Armenia, 2023). The regulatory framework governing these networks is established by the RA Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC). This includes the Commercial Rules of the RA Wholesale and Retail Electricity Market, as well as the Transmission and Distribution Network Rules, among others, approved through key Commission decisions (No. 516-N, 517-N, 522-N, and 523-N, of December 25, 2019). These regulations ensure operational standards and compliance within the electricity sector. To monitor electricity reliability, PSRC publishes detailed metrics on the frequency and duration of power outages through indicators such as SAIDI (System Average Interruption Duration Index), SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency Index), and CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index) (PSRC, 2024).
In 2021, the total electricity production in Armenia was approximately 7,7 TWh, derived from the following energy resources: natural gas (44%), nuclear (26%) and renewables including hydro (30%) (IEA, 2023). However, Armenia’s total energy demand in 2020 was approximately 3,59 Mtoe (equivalent to 41,75 TWh), indicating that only about 27% of the demand is met by domestic energy production (IEA, 2023). The remaining electricity demand is met through imports, primarily from neighboring countries such as Georgia and Iran. In 2022, Armenia imported approximately 123,8 million kWh of electrical energy, with the majority coming from Georgia (about 101,2 million kWh) and the remainder from Iran (around 22,6 million kWh) (WITS, 2022).
1.1.1 Transport
The structure of Armenia’s transport sector is illustrated in Figure 4: Structure of Transport Sector in Armenia (Data Catalog Armenia, 2023). While fuel prices in Armenia are approximately 22% lower than the European average, there is potential for economic incentives to adopt cleaner fuel options (GlobalPetrolPrices, 2024); (Mappr, 2024).
Upgraded biogas, or biomethane, used as compressed natural gas (CNG), presents a sustainable and cost-effective alternative for the transportation sector. It could be distributed through existing petrol stations, making it viable for urban transport and heavy vehicles (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017); (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017). The logistical feasibility of biogas depends on proximity to feedstock sources and transportation hubs, reducing costs and challenges (Nalbandyan, 2024); (FV1, 2024). Transporting manure up to 40 km is inefficient due to its low density, whereas higher-density feedstocks like food waste are more cost-effective for long distances. Additionally, manure impurities like sand and dirt require pretreatment before use in biogas plants. The logistical feasibility of biogas depends on proximity to feedstock sources and transportation hubs, reducing costs and challenges (Nalbandyan, 2024); (FV1, 2024). Transporting manure up to 40 km is inefficient due to its low density, whereas higher-density feedstocks like food waste are more cost-effective for long distances. Additionally, manure impurities like sand and dirt require pretreatment before use in biogas plants.
Investments in monitoring systems to track manure volumes and composition at farms are recommended to improve biogas integration. Such systems are increasingly adopted on larger farms implementing modern technologies (LEG & GAG, 2024).
Armenian truck regulations allow a maximum weight of 22 metric tons for three-axle trucks and 36 metric tons for four-axle trucks. However, the average operational load is typically around 20 tons, constrained by road conditions and vehicle specifications (LCA, 2024).
1.1.1 Public and Social
Social transition is critical for biogas sector development in Armenia. As highlighted during the field visit, trust between communities and government is essential for successful implementation ( (FV1, 2024). Biogas infrastructure in rural areas offers opportunities to address energy access disparities, improve waste management, and reduce health risks associated with poor waste disposal and air pollution. For instance, rural households often burn dry manure for heating, a practice that contributes to air pollution and poses health hazards (Urutyan, 2024). By replacing these practices with biogas-derived energy, communities can benefit from cleaner and more reliable energy sources. Additionally, biogas projects create jobs in rural areas, reduce energy costs, and enhance agricultural productivity through digestate use. They align with Armenia’s goals of reducing urban-rural disparities, promoting equity, and improving community well-being (AUA Newsroom, 2024).
1.1.2 Industry
Armenia’s industrial sector, particularly food processing, beverage manufacturing, and greenhouse operations, produces significant amounts of organic waste, including tomato peels, grape residues, cucumber plants, and greenhouse waste from vegetables and flowers. Greenhouse operations, classified into small (up to 1000 m²), medium (1000–5000 m²), and large sizes (over 5000 m²), contribute significantly to organic waste production. Around 30–35% of Armenia’s 3500 hectares of greenhouses use hydroponic systems, with larger greenhouses, such as those operated by Spayka, focusing on tomato exports to Russia and the UAE (Davoodi, 2024).
Greenhouses produce approximately 30% of their total yield as plant residues annually, with waste predominantly generated during two cleaning periods: July to August, when market prices are low, and January to February, when heating costs are high. Annually, greenhouse waste amounts to an estimated 175–210 tons, with 10–15% generated daily through pruning and the remaining 75–80% during the cleaning periods (Davoodi, 2024). While some of this waste is composted or sold as heating material, much of it remains unutilized or poorly managed, often being burned or discarded due to limited infrastructure and resources for proper disposal (Nalbandyan, 2024). The breakdown of greenhouse crop production is as follows: tomatoes account for 25% of production, cucumbers 20%, strawberries 20%, eggplants and zucchini 5–7%, bell peppers 10%, leafy greens 5%, and flowers, including roses, 12–15%. These crops generate significant plant residues, particularly in hydroponic systems, where tomato plants typically remain productive for 10 months (Davoodi, 2024).
Energy challenges exacerbate inefficiencies in greenhouse operations. Most farmers rely on outdated boilers burning wood, old tires, or crop residues, which are both inefficient and environmentally harmful. Heating costs are a major issue, with natural gas prices consistently high, which has an energy content of approximately 10,5 kWh per cubic meters. LPG offers a slightly higher energy output per cubic meter, but its fluctuating price makes it less affordable for farmers.
Only 20% of greenhouses use CO₂ injection systems to boost yields, sourced from natural gas burners equipped with filters. However, inefficient systems and high gas prices further increase costs. Subsidies are available for natural gas (20% lower prices) and electricity (USD 0,13/kWh during the day and USD 0,10/kWh at night for registered businesses), but many farmers avoid registering their businesses due to bureaucratic hurdles and mistrust of government processes (Davoodi, 2024)
Biogas technology provides a sustainable solution to these challenges. Organic residues from greenhouses, such as tomato stems and cucumber plants, can be redirected to biogas facilities, reducing the environmental impact and creating valuable energy resources. Similarly, grape residues from wine and brandy production, which are currently underutilized or discarded, present a promising feedstock for anaerobic digestion. The integration of biogas systems into greenhouse and industrial operations can reduce reliance on imported energy, lower operational costs, and significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions. This aligns with Armenia’s energy efficiency goals and environmental targets, as outlined in its renewable energy policies (IEA, 2022). Additionally, the nutrient-rich digestate produced through biogas can address soil quality issues, enabling the reclamation of Armenia’s uncultivated arable land, approximately 45–48% of which remains unused due to poor soil quality and lack of irrigation. The government aims to reclaim 50% of this land over the next five years (Davoodi, 2024).
1 Framework Conditions and Revenue Streams – Task 2
This chapter explores the overall framework conditions that form the basis for identifying opportunities and addressing challenges for biogas infrastructure in Armenia. This includes:
· Licensing and Environmental Permitting in 9.1
· Financial landscape in 9.2
· Gas market and potential energy off-takes in 9.3
· Electricity Market in 9.4
· Agricultural Regulations Governing Digestate and Land Use in 9.5
· Potential Revenue Streams and Off-takers in 0
1.1 Permitting
1.1.1 Licensing
Generally, businesses in Armenia are permitted through a licensing system provided in the Law on Licensing to set requirements for obtaining the operation license from an official licensing body. (Law on Licensing, 2001)
While there aren’t pre-specified requirements for obtaining licensing for a biogas plant operation, the authorized state governmental body shall specify the lists of norms and rules on environmental protection, hygiene and sanitary epidemiological safety or fire safety, which the operation must comply with. It is expected that biogas production falls under the activity type number 8.1 or 8.2 to the Article 43 in the law having and having the Energy Commission of the Republic of Armenia as the responsible licensing authority (Law on Licensing, 2001).
1.1.2 Environmental Impact Assessment
When the biogas production, or a power generation using biogas, is being equal or exceeding a capacity of 1 MW, an environmental impact assessment must be part of the documentation to obtain the license, which will impact the procedure for licensing. This activity is listed within the impact category B which leads to the following required content of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Amedment to the law on environmental impact assessment and expert examination, 2023).
(3) description of the area of the activity proposed by the design document, including the description of the environment, natural conditions, resources, as well as the purpose of their use, infrastructures, affected community and the spatial planning documents, the scheme or map of the situation provided by the competent body reflecting their location with the unified geodetic coordination system operating in the Republic of Armenia;
(4) characteristics of the activity proposed by the design document in the phases of construction, exploitation, closure and post-closure (production capacities, natural resources and materials used, technical and technological solutions);
(5) potential impacts on the environment in the phases of construction, exploitation
and closure;
(6) potential impacts, factors, risks on human health;
(7) the environmental management plan provided for by the design document;
(8) justifications of the compliance of the activity proposed by the design document with the approved fundamental documents;
(9) programme for monitoring the impact of the activity proposed by the design document
1.1.3 Zoning
The Law on Urban Development (FAO, 1998) establishes land use planning criteria, emphasizing the need to locate biogas facilities in industrial or agricultural zones. The regulation is today governed by the Law No. HO-36-N on Control over Use and Preservation of Land of Armenia (Faolex, 2008); (ARLIS, 2008)
1.2 Financial Incentives
Armenia has implemented several subsidy programs and policy frameworks aimed at promoting renewable energy development. While not all programs specifically target biogas infrastructure, their structure and incentives can be applied to aid financing of biogas projects.
1.2.1 Feed-in Tariffs
Feed-in Tariffs (FiT) are a key mechanism in Armenia’s renewable energy strategy, designed to encourage investments by offering guaranteed prices for electricity produced from renewable sources. (Council of European Energy Regulators, 2022); (IEA, 2023). These tariffs typically provide stable, long-term revenue, ensuring the financial viability of renewable energy projects. Currently no biogas-specific FiT exists in Armenia.
1.2.2 Tax Incentives
While Armenia offers general tax incentives for renewable energy projects, specific incentives tailored exclusively for biogas initiatives are not well-documented. The government’s support includes value-added tax (VAT) payment postponements for up to three years on imported equipment and goods within investment projects, as outlined in the RA Law “On Value Added Tax”. Additionally, profit tax privileges may be available for projects that create new jobs, as per the RA Law “On Profit Tax” (ilex, 2011). These measures aim to reduce upfront costs and encourage investment in the renewable energy sector.
1.2.3 Grant Programs
International organizations, such as the European Union, USAID, and others have funded renewable energy initiatives in Armenia. For example, the EU-supported “Integrated Support for Sustainable Economic Development in Rural Mountainous Areas of Armenia” project facilitated the establishment of a biogas plant and greenhouse in the Geghamasar community of the Gegharkunik region (European Union, 2019); (Gharabegian, Hambarian, Søndergaard, & Touryan, 2020).
1.3 Gas market and potential energy off-takes
Armenia’s energy generation system is heavily reliant on imports, with natural gas accounting for 81% of the country’s primary energy supply (GET, 2024). In 2022, 76,3% of Armenia’s total energy imports were natural gas, sourced predominantly from Russia (Armstat, 2022). By 2024, Russia supplies 88% of Armenia natural gas, used for both electricity production and heating. Furthermore, 73% of vehicles in Armenia run on natural gas, underscoring its dominance in the transportation sector (Civilnet, 2024).
This dependency exposes the country to price volatility and supply risks, particularly given geopolitical tensions in the region. In addition to natural gas, Armenia’s energy mix includes hydro, nuclear, and a growing share of solar photovoltaic systems (IEA, 2022).
Biogas energy can play an important role in utilizing local available resources such as agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste. This could provide cost stability and reduce reliance on imported fuels. Comparing biogas generation costs with existing electricity costs can support the development of new and existing policies, as well as several business cases, demonstrating how biogas production can be an economically feasible, viable, and sustainable energy source.
1.3.1 Gas prices (private and commercial)
In January 2019 Armenia and Russia agreed to fix the import price of natural gas to 165 US $ per 1000 Nm3 (Approx. 65.000 AMD/1000 Nm3 @ Jan 2025 prices) for a period of 25 years. This agreement is set to keep a low price of natural gas for Armenia until 2044 and is assessed still to be the case in 2025.
The adjacent Figure 5 retrieved from Armenia 2022 Energy Policy (IEA) shows the different tariffs for the consumption of Natural gas for different customer segments including the standard VAT rate of 20%, which applied to the sale of natural gas.
1.1.1 Gas Injection
Even though it has become the most targeted end-use of biogas in Europe, to upgrade biogas into bio-methane and inject it into the gas grid, there exists no previous cases on injection Armenian produced gases into the natural gas grid in Armenia.
Gazprom Armenia has a monopoly over the gas grid, and its operations are driven by profitability and strategic interests. Persuading Gazprom to allow biogas injections may require negotiations emphasizing mutual benefits, development of supportive regulations, and demonstrating technical solutions.
Therefore, it is assessed only to be a long-term possibility for injection of upgraded biogas in Armenia.
1.1.2 Gas prices on transportation fuels
The price of compressed natural gas in transportation sector in Armenia (2015 IEA) is approximately 20 – 25 $/MWh including VAT and Tariffs when assuming a 10 kWh/m3 Low Heating Value. This corresponds to the average natural gas price of approximately 0,2-0,25 US $/m3 i.e. 80 – 100 AMD /m3, which is cheaper than vehicle fossil fuel alternatives by a factor of 3 – 5 (IEA, 2022).
There are currently more than 360 CNG fueling stations in Armenia and by 2022, 80 % of Vehicles in Armenia were running on Natural Gas (IEA, 2022). The CNG is assumed to be extracted and compressed from the natural gas distribution grid directly on the stations.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) offers potential as a revenue stream in Armenia’s transportation sector, particularly for urban vehicles and heavy-duty transport. With existing petrol station infrastructure adaptable for CNG distribution, this market presents opportunities to upgrade biogas into biomethane, pressurize it and sell it as bio CNG product. Current market trends indicate a growing interest in cleaner fuels, driven by global commitments to reduce emissions (Lambert, 2024); (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2017).
In Armenia, tax incentives for CNG adoption, such as reduced vehicle import taxes for CNG-compatible vehicles, further enhance market attractiveness. However, investment in infrastructure and the proximity of biogas production facilities to distribution points are critical factors for economic feasibility (IEA, 2022);(Ayvazyan, 2022).
Although Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) is not within the current project scope, it remains an emerging technology with potential future applications in long-haul transport. This offers additional opportunities for diversification and revenue generation in Armenia’s transportation fuel market.
1.1.3 Opportunities for CHP production
While off-taking gas in its pure form, either being a transportation fuel or constituting an energy carrier (which can easily be storage) replacing foreign and fossil natural gas, the burning of biogas in dedicated engines to produce electricity and heat (Combined Heat & Power) might constitute a more realistic off-take scenario in a short-term scenario. This end-use option will inject, and off-take produced power to the electricity transmission grid, while a co-location with a small to medium low heat consumer to off-take some of the heat not required for the biogas process will be ideal for the business case. With no FiTs in place, this is expected to be valued to around 8 AMD per kWh (USD 0,02) [TBC, Gegham Hovhannisyan, 2024].
1.2 Electricity Market
This section examines Armenia’s power market dynamics, including historical electricity price trends, factors influencing pricing, and projected demand growth. It highlights the socio-economic and regulatory factors shaping the energy sector and explores future opportunities for merchant projects.
1.2.1 Historical Power Prices
The historical trends in electricity prices in Armenia reflect regulatory decisions, economic conditions and external factors such as currency fluctuations and ownership changes in the energy sector. These trends have influenced both residential and business electricity tariffs.
Electricity prices for residential consumers have remained relatively stable in recent years, with residential electricity at AMD 43,28 per kWh (USD 0,109) and business electricity slightly lower at AMD 42,48 per kWh (USD 0,106) as of March 2024. These prices reflect efforts by the PSRC to maintain stability despite global market fluctuations (GlobalPetrolPrices, 2024). For example, in December 2022, the PSRC decided against increasing tariffs, prioritizing affordability for consumers despite rising global energy costs (Arka, 2022).
In 2015, Armenia experienced a significant event in its energy sector when the Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC) approved an AMD 6,93 per kWh (USD 0,017) increase in electricity tariffs, effective August 1, 2015 (Armradio, 2015). This decision raised the daytime tariff to 48,78 AMD per kilowatt-hour and the nighttime tariff to 38,78 AMD per kilowatt-hour (Panorama, 2015). The tariff hike led to mass protests, known as “Electric Yerevan,” reflecting public discontent over rising energy costs (Grigoryan, 2015). The “Electric Yerevan” protests highlighted the socio-economic sensitivity of energy pricing in Armenia and underscored the challenges of implementing tariff adjustments amid economic pressures. The government’s response, including the sale of ENA and the suspension of the proposed tariff increase, aimed to address public concerns and stabilize the energy sector (BBC, 2015).
Several factors have influenced historical electricity pricing trends in Armenia. Currency fluctuations, particularly the depreciation of AMD, have played a role in driving up costs. The PSRC has worked to balance the financial sustainability of electricity providers with the goal of maintaining affordable energy prices for consumers (Arka, 2022). Ownership changes within the energy sector have also impacted electricity pricing. In 2015, the Electric Networks of Armenia was sold to the Tashir Group, marking a shift in the management and financial strategies of the electricity sector (Tashir, 2015).
1.2.2 Projected Trends in Electricity Pricing and Demand
Armenia’s electricity market is projected to experience growth in the coming years. According to Statista, electricity generation is expected to reach 10,37 billion kWh in 2024, with an annual growth rate of 2,11% anticipated from 2024 to 2029, resulting in a market volume of 11,51 billion kWh by 2029 (Statista, 2024); (CountryEconomy, 2022).
1.2.3 Future Power Demand and Price Projections
Armenia’s electricity demand is expected to grow due to urbanization, industrial expansion, and population growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that increasing renewable energy capacity, including biogas, will be essential to meeting this demand and reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels (IEA, 2023).
The World Bank estimates that end-user electricity tariffs may need to increase by 70–270% to cover planned investments in Armenia’s energy infrastructure, depending on the energy mix (Kochnakyan, et al., 2013). This creates a favorable environment for renewable energy projects, which can offer more stable pricing and local energy generation.
1.2.4 Regulatory Framework for Electricity off-take
Armenia has implemented a regulatory framework to encourage renewable energy development towards green energy transition, but specific provisions for biogas remain limited. Existing legislation includes:
· The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Energy Saving and Renewable Energy (2004): This law provides foundational support for renewable energy by offering feed-in tariffs and tax exemptions to incentivize project development (IEA, 2022); (Republic of Armenia, 2004).
· The Law on Energy (2001): Provides the foundational framework for Armenia’s energy sector (IEA, 2022). It regulates relations between legal entities in the energy sector and provides the legal basis for producing and delivering electricity, heating, and natural gas to consumers (International Trade Administration, 2023).
· The Law on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2004): Seeks to identify mechanisms to improve energy efficiency and develop additional sources of renewable energy. It facilitates the development of renewable energy resources by mandating that all renewable energy produced is to be purchased by the electricity distribution company. (International Trade Administration, 2023).
· Grid Connection Regulations: Issuing production licenses only if the applicant agrees to follow grid restriction rules as during certain periods, the system operator has the right to limit access to the grid (Energy Community, 2024) .
· National Program on Energy Saving and Renewable Energy (2007): Establishes renewable energy targets and strategies for improving energy efficiency. While the program highlights the importance of renewable energy, it does not specifically prioritize biogas (IEA, 2023).
· Energy Sector Development Strategic Program to 2040 (2021): Highlights the importance of renewable energy diversification, though biogas is not explicitly prioritized (IEA, 2023)
1.3 Agricultural Regulations Governing Digestate and Land Use
1.3.1 Fertilizer Logistics and Storage
The production of biogas generates digestate, which can be processed into bio-fertilizer, offering substantial benefits for Armenia’s agricultural sector. Agriculture accounts for 8,5% (2023) of Armenia’s gross domestic product (GDP), making this by-product an important resource for improving soil fertility and supporting a circular economy (World Bank Group, 2023).
Digestate logistics are governed by environmental standards to prevent nutrient leaching and contamination of water sources. Facilities storing digestate must comply with guidelines set by Armenia’s Law on Waste Management (Republic of Armenia, 2004), which regulates the storage and handling of waste products. Additionally, Government Decision No. 2107-N of December 7, 2023, provides specific provisions for the storage, transportation, processing, use, and disinfection of manure and poultry litter in Armenia. This regulation addresses environmental safety and ensures the sustainable use of organic waste in agriculture (MoEc, 2024); (Arlis, 2023). To further enhance the regulatory discussion:
Digestate logistics are governed by environmental standards to prevent nutrient leaching and contamination of water sources. Facilities storing digestate must comply with guidelines set by Armenia’s Law on Waste Management (Republic of Armenia, 2004), which regulates the storage and handling of waste products. Additionally, Government Decision No. 2107-N of December 7, 2023, provides specific provisions for the storage, transportation, processing, use, and disinfection of manure and poultry litter in Armenia. This regulation addresses environmental safety and ensures the sustainable use of organic waste in agriculture (MoEc, 2024); (Arlis, 2023). To further enhance the regulatory discussion:
· The Law “On Licensing” and the Law “On Environmental Impact Assessment and Expertise” also establish broader regulatory obligations for waste handling and its environmental impacts (MoEnv, 2024).
· Hazardous waste management, relevant to manure containing contaminants, is addressed by RA Government Decree No. 121-N dated January 30, 2003, and the Order of the Minister of Nature Protection No. 430-N dated December 25, 2006, which classifies waste by hazardousness levels (MoEnv, 2024).
However, significant gaps remain in their execution. According to feedback from government agencies, many of these regulations are “mostly written on paper but not properly executed,” particularly in rural areas where traditional practices persist. This lack of enforcement undermines the full potential of utilizing manure and digestate as high-quality bio-fertilizers and hampers progress in modernizing waste management practices.
To ensure economic feasibility, effective logistics systems are needed to transport digestate from biogas plants to agricultural hubs. Strategic placement of biogas facilities near agricultural centers can minimize transport costs and improve adoption rates. Storage solutions must meet environmental standards to prevent leaching or contamination of water sources, with sealed lagoons or tanks being commonly used (EBA, 2024)To ensure economic feasibility, effective logistics systems are needed to transport digestate from biogas plants to agricultural hubs. Strategic placement of biogas facilities near agricultural centers can minimize transport costs and improve adoption rates. Storage solutions must meet environmental standards to prevent leaching or contamination of water sources, with sealed lagoons or tanks being commonly used (EBA, 2024) . To enhance adoption, promoting the benefits of bio-fertilizer, such as improved soil health and its organic nature, can create demand within Armenia’s agricultural sector. Partnerships with agricultural cooperatives and government bodies can further facilitate distribution and market development.
1.3.2 Regulations Governing Digestate and Land Use
Armenia’s waste management framework is primarily governed by the “Law on Waste,” adopted on November 24, 2004. This legislation regulates activities related to waste collection, transportation, storage, processing, recycling, and disposal, aiming to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment (Republic of Armenia, 2004).
In addition to the “Law on Waste,” Armenia has implemented the “Law on Organic Agriculture,” adopted on April 8, 2008. This law stipulates the process of organic production and outlines labeling requirements for organic products, supporting the development of organic farming practices within the country (FAOLEX, 2008 (2023)).
Furthermore, the “Land Code of the Republic of Armenia,” effective from March 15, 1991, regulates land relations to ensure effective land use, environmental protection, and the creation of conditions for equal development of all economic forms based on a variety of property (FAOLEX, 1991). Furthermore, the “Land Code of the Republic of Armenia,” effective from March 15, 1991, regulates land relations to ensure effective land use, environmental protection, and the creation of conditions for equal development of all economic forms based on a variety of property (FAOLEX, 1991). These legislative measures collectively establish a framework for waste management, organic agriculture, and land use in Armenia, promoting environmental sustainability and public health.
1.1 Potential Revenue Streams and Off-takers
Biogas infrastructure development in Armenia presents diverse revenue streams that enhance its economic feasibility. These include income from energy sales, by-product utilization, waste management fees, and additional incentives. Table 2: Revenue Streams and Stability summarizes the potential revenue streams and factors influencing their stability and robustness.
1.1.1 Potential Off-Takers for Biogas Energy
Identifying reliable off-takers for biogas energy is essential to ensuring project viability and long-term sustainability. Biogas energy has diverse applications across various sectors in Armenia, which presents opportunities for economic and environmental benefits. Key potential off-takers include:
· Agricultural Sector: Farms and agribusinesses can utilize biogas energy to offset operational costs, particularly for powering irrigation systems, machinery, or storage facilities. Additionally, integrating biogas systems helps manage agricultural waste streams such as crop residues and livestock manure (IEA Bioenergy, 2022).
· Food Processing Industry: High-energy-demand industries, including dairy, meat processing and winemaking, can benefit from biogas energy for heating, electricity, and process energy needs. These industries also generate significant organic waste that can serve as biogas feedstock, creating a circular waste-to-energy model. Industries leverage biogas for processing heating, steam production, and electricity generation, utilizing biogas in industrial boilers and CHP plants (PowerUP, 2024).
· Municipalities: Local governments can use biogas energy to power street lighting, water treatment plants, and other public facilities. Municipal solid waste management, often a challenge in urban areas like Yerevan, can be improved through biogas facilities that process organic waste into energy. For example, wastewater treatment plants produce biogas from sewage sludge or organic waste, which can be harnessed for combined heat and power generation, reducing reliance on external energy sources (2G Blog, 2023).
· Industrial Enterprises: Large-scale energy consumers, e.g. manufacturing and mining operations, are ideal candidates for biogas energy adoption. These enterprises may sign Power Purchase Agreements with biogas producers to secure a stable and renewable energy supply. Industries with high heat requirements can benefit from biogas combined heat and power systems by utilizing waste heat for their operations (2G, 2023).
European Union-funded initiatives in Armenia have demonstrated the viability of integrating renewable energy solutions into agricultural operations. For example, pilot projects in rural areas have successfully shown the use of biogas systems to process agricultural waste, generate energy, and support local economies. These projects underscore the potential for biogas to provide economic and environmental benefits while addressing waste management challenges. The EU-supported “Integrated Support for Sustainable Economic Development in Rural Mountainous Areas of Armenia” project led to the establishment of a large biogas plant and a greenhouse in Geghamasar community.
10 Resource Assessment – Task 3
There will be little biogas production without feedstock to digest in the anaerobic digestion process, which is why feedstock assessment is a central element in assessing the overall potential. As such, this chapter examines the biomass resources available in Armenia, focusing on their potential for biogas production. While in almost any thinkable setup across the world, some, or most, specific resources are not viably retrievable in a ‘business as usual’ situation. However, to assess the maximum potential of such a region, assessing the total volumes of the feedstock is the initial focus, and this section will do just that. The retrievability, and what is suggested adjusted in terms of legislation, best practices etc. is addressed in Task 8 – 10. As such, the Resource Assessment’s primary focus is on assessing the total volumes and associated biomethane potentials of them.
The analysis draws from data on animal waste (cattle, pigs, and poultry), residential food waste, straw waste, greenhouse farm waste, and agro-industrial food waste. The data used for this assessment were provided by AUA and public datasets from the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia, the Ministry of Environment of the republic of Armenia, and the Statistical Committee Republic of Armenia, Armstat.
Most of the data has been analyzed at regional/provincial level using historical datasets over the years. Animal manure waste has been analyzed at community level, based on the Agricultural Census 2014. RE understood that community-level data is typically published every 10 years by the Armstat team. According to responses from AUA (Q&A), it was not possible to obtain updated community-level data for 2024 due to a delay in its publication, which is not expected until 2026.
Despite this limitation, it has been possible to analyze and utilize the data from the Agricultural Census 2014 to gain insights into the distribution and location of the highest concentrations of cattle, pigs and poultry across communities in Armenia. By assuming that the overall distribution remains relatively unchanged, this data enables visualization and interpreting the intra-regional distribution of CH4 potential of animal waste by 2024.
This analysis contributes to identifying potential clustering areas within relevant regions across Armenia in the next chapter. It also allows the estimation of both the gross annual potential of animal manure waste and the gross annual potential of biomethane.
On top of the above, potential site locations are in question, i.e., where could biogas facilities around Armenia potentially be located, considering various feedstocks’ different properties, access to farms and farmland, grids etc. as described previously.
Results of this assessment are discussed and described in the last sections of the current chapter
1.1 Methodology
The task is highly data driven, preferably from publicly available resources, but has also been updated with information from interviews, AUA input and when needed also with assessments based on RE’s experience.
From a practical perspective, the approach is driven by the feedstock assessments of typical feedstock considered waste to comply with sustainability standards.
The types of waste looked at are:
· Animal waste in the form of cattle manures, pig slurry and poultry droppings
· Straw as a byproduct of grain production
· Industrial organic by- products
· Greenhouse site’s waste
· Organic household waste
The different waste types have different ex- and implicit characteristics, which in turn yield different best practices. The different categories and RE’s approach are described below.
1.1.1 Animal waste
Animal waste as an anaerobic digestion resource is typically considered as sustainable as it gets. This is due to feedstock typically not utilized well as is, emits methane and laughing gas emissions if untreated, is sometimes even disposed of unregulated, and is typically found in areas where there are also agricultural lands that are fertilized, using this type of feedstock in anaerobic digestion yields a high emission rate reduction.
In general, feedstock for anaerobic digestion process should be ‘fresh’ in the sense that a decomposing begins, possibly aerobically similar to composting, if left by itself for a time and especially since feedstock itself possesses a fairly low methane potential per ton of feedstock to start with, compared to other waste types, animal waste should be utilized in anaerobic digestion soon after its production.
The feedstock’s fairly low methane potential per ton has the implication that from a practical perspective, this feedstock should not be moved too far, and an average transportation distance of around 20 kilometer is typically the limit. Depending on truck sizes, road quality, etc. this may be higher or lower, but in any case, the reasonable transportation distance will be limited. This property means that assessing animal waste in a higher granularity than feedstock with a higher methane potential can prove a valuable, even if time consuming, endeavor.
Animal waste, specifically from cattle, pigs and poultry have been assessed based on available data from public sources. The data allows for identification of the regions in which the animal waste is most abundant, which in turn implies in which regions, biogas facilities can most likely thrive. However, the regional data does not show where within a region, facilities should likely be located. In some cases, doing a deeper dive may reveal why intra-regional data mining on the cattle, pigs and poultry’s data has been performed for all the regions. This intra-regional CH4 potential analysis has proven that the intra-regional analysis is only relevant to perform on the cattle as the intensity and volumes of other animal waste feedstock are not large enough to give real impact but definitely pigs and poultry manure would be used as additional feedstock to the cattle manure. This allows for estimation of the gross CH4 potential originating from animal manure waste to all communities located in each region concluding that the highest CH4 potential in certain communities will contribute significantly to select an expected cluster nearby.
1.1.2 Straw
Straw and similar feedstock that may be considered agricultural by-products typically have a much higher biogas potential per ton of feedstock and is often overlooked in its potential as a feedstock because of fairly low utilization and few other uses.
Data for straw per se has not been evident but has been assessed by calculating backwards from the production of various grains and using typical ratios of straw to produce. A CH4 estimation based on the data provided by the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia based on straw yield originating from grain crops emphasis that such amount of straw is also used for other purposes such as heating sources, animal feeding, etc. is corrected for. This leads to determining how much CH4 potential from straw waste excluding other uses and is estimated in the whole supply chain for national food balance for relevant categories (like Wheat, Barely, etc.).
Contrary to animal waste, even if density is naturally low on straw, it is considered reasonable to move such feedstock physically from one region to another due to a high gas potential, why a detailed assessment of production unit locations does not add value per se. As such the volumes of straw are assessed based on the reasonable assumption that even if no biogas facility is in the near vicinity of the production, it may still be utilized.
1.1.3 Agro-industrial waste
The industrial by-products have been the ones most difficult to obtain solid information on. This is not uncommon, even for highly industrialized countries, since it is often somewhat overlooked on a larger scale. However, some information has been obtained from ministries and with the assistance of AUA has been assessed. Normally, a concentration of industrial by-products in a would provide an opportunity to co-locate a biogas facility in the vicinity, however the geographic dispersion of the production units has not been able to assess, as the addresses obtained seem in many cases to be administrative offices rather than production units.
As the feedstock will in most cases be viable to distribute due to a medium to high biomethane potential, it is considered unfortunate but not prohibitive for utilization, since it is assumed to be redistributable.
1.1.4 Greenhouse site’s waste
RE has estimated waste potential generated by greenhouse sites based on data retrieved from published study by the Dutch embassy in Armenia by 2022 (ARGUMENT Consulting Bureau, 2022). This published report listed more than 600 greenhouse sites with their relevant information such as name, crop types, village and size (ha). The total area of listed Greenhouse sites in the current assessment covers about 328 hectares and could be considered and used as additional feedstock potential to biogas facilities. Other greenhouse sites are not considered in this latest report. It has been difficult to collect more information as the total greenhouse area is expected to be expanded by the Ministry of Economy to reach approximately 4,000 hectares by 2025, however this is not met as indicated with reference to (Davoodi, 2024). It has been considered that the perceived feedstock potential from greenhouse sites is low due to data availability with focusing on listing the largest greenhouse sites across each region in Armenia of area greater than 1 hectare and it is emphasized that greenhouses are expected to be more relevant in terms of potential co-location, utilizing heat, power and CO2, and perhaps as an off taker for nutrients, rather than a major contributor to feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
1.1.5 Organic household waste
There is little actual data on organic household waste, so an assessment based on population and utilizing findings from other studies on the ratio between overall volumes and organic content has been applied. Also, for such feedstock, post purification, moving the feedstock is considered reasonable.
1.2 Key findings
As a summary and to summarize the resource assessment in metrics for the potential feedstock availability focusing on the most important parameter which is CH4 potential estimated from those previous feedstocks in Armenia.
The gross CH4 from animal manure waste across Armenia is approximately about 144,16 MCMPY originated from cattle, pigs and poultry, where cattle manure is the dominant feedstock across all regions in Armenia, excluding Yerevan. This CH4 potential from animal manure waste represents about 60 % of the total available potential feedstock in Armenia. The regional analysis of high CH4 potential from animal manure waste available are Gegharkunik, Lori and Shirak, exceeding 20 MCMPY.
The gross CH4 potential from Straw waste in Armenia is approximately about 54,17 MCMPY which represents 22 % of the total available potential feedstock in Armenia. Regions of high CH4 potential available are mainly in Shirak (13 MCMPY) followed by Kotayk, Gegharkunik and Aragatsotn of CH4 potential close to 7 MCMPY.
The gross CH4 potential form residential food waste based on population density in Armenia is approximately 24,77 MCMPY representing about 10 % of the total available potential feedstock. Regions of high residential food waste correspond to regions of high population density exceeding one million inhabitants living in the capital (Yerevan). The capital itself has about 11 MCMPY and represents about 44,50 % with respect to the total gross CH4 generated from residential food waste. Following Yerevan, other regions of medium CH4 potential between 1 and 2 MCMPY are Kotayk, Armavir, Ararat, Shirak and Gegharkunik.
The gross CH4 potential from greenhouse sector is about 1,38 MCMPY which is of low feedstock waste potential due to data availability. This estimation represents about 1 % by total available potential feedstock in Armenia. RE considered this potential as additional feedstock to biogas facilities where greenhouse sites are more relevant in terms of heat, power, nutrients and potential colocation.
At last, the CH4 potential from agro-industrial food processing facilities is estimated to be approximately 16,83 MCMPY based on latest data retrieved from the Ministry of economy in Armenia published by 2022. This CH4 potential represents about 7 % by total gross CH4 feedstock in Armenia. This potential is considered as a significant input for the biogas facilities. The regions where high volumes of agro-industrial waste are there followed by this order: Yerevan and Ararat of 7 MCMPY, Armavir of 1,79 MCMPY followed by Aragatsotn (0,87 MCMPY).
The gross CH4 potential estimated from those above feedstock availability is close to 241,31 MCMPY which contributes to approximately 10 % compared to the total natural gas consumption in Armenia and is also accompanied by other benefits.
When it comes to the distribution of the various waste streams, it is not evenly distributed across Armenia. Based on the 10 MCM requirement for a cluster, it is expected that clusters will most likely be able to be established as follows (Table 3).
1.1 Animal Manure
This chapter examines each category of animal manure individually, with a specific focus on the following biomass types: cattle, pigs, and poultry, which are the animal productions with the highest likelihood of producing a relevant feedstock for biogas production.
1.1.1 Cattle population
The total population of cattle in Armenia decreased drastically from 2007 to 2024, with fluctuations observed during this period. The graph (Figure 6Figure 6: Variation in Cattle distribution in Armenia (2007-2024)illustrates years of growth and decline between 2007 and 2024, showing that the cattle population (in thousands of heads) increased from 620 in 2007 to a peak of 701 in 2015, followed by a sharp decline to 492 in 2024.
1.1.1.1 Gross Cattle Manure Estimate by Region
It is important to highlight the following assumptions regarding cattle distribution in Armenia. Cattle are divided into two main categories: Cattle Type A and Cattle Type B.
• Cattle Type A represents local Caucasian cattle, comprising approximately 85% of the total cattle population in Armenia.
• Cattle Type B represents Holstein cattle, which make up around 15% of total cattle population in Armenia.
Additionally, the remaining cattle are classified and split into heifers and calves for each cattle type. Heifers and calves are assumed to account for 70% and 30%, respectively, of the remaining cattle population. These assumptions are based on RE’s expertise and input from AUA steering workgroup. The standard estimates for cattle manure production are as follows:
• Cattle Type A: 10,22 TPY
• Cattle Type B: 19,86 TPY
These estimates will be used to evaluate the gross potential of cattle manure in Armenia at the regional level and will be visualized through maps.
The gross potential of cattle manure in Armenia (Figure 7: Gross Cattle Manure Waste by Region) is estimated at approximately 6,44 MTPY based on 2024 data. The regions with the highest concentration of cattle manure waste are Shirak, Lori and Gegharkunik, each contributing close to 1 MTPY, which represents around 15% of total cattle manure in Armenia.
Regions with medium potential, exceeding 0,57 MTPY but less than 1 MTPY, include Aragatsotn, Armavir and Kotayk in descending order. These regions account for 8-12% of total cattle manure in Armenia. The remaining regions are categorized as having low potential.
1.1.1.1 Gross CH4 Potential Estimate by Region
The gross CH4 potential of cattle manure waste in Armenia is estimated at approximately 137 MCMPY based on 2024 data. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from cattle manure is about 21,30 Nm3/ton from RE database, based on various types of animal waste and taking into account the feeding habit in Armenia in which straws of different types are utilized.
The overall volume marks a decrease compared to previous years, with a peak value of approximately 199 MCMPY in 2016, attributed to a higher cattle population during that period. The regions with the highest CH4 potential from cattle manure waste (Figure 8: Gross CH4 Potential from Cattle Manure by Region) are Shirak, Lori and Gegharkunik, each contributing close to 20 MCMPY, representing around 14% of the gross annual CH4 potential for cattle in Armenia. Regions with medium potential, ranging from 10-20 MCMPY are Aragatsotn, Armavir, Kotayk and Ararat, in descending order. These regions account for 7-12% of the gross annual CH4 potential.
The remaining regions, including Syunik, Tavush and Vayots Dzor, are categorized as having low potential with less than 10 MCMPY, contributing less than 7% of the gross CH4 potential.
1.1.1 Pig Population
The total population of pigs in Armenia has gradually increased from 2007 to 2024, with notable fluctuations during this period. The graph (Figure 9: Variation of Pigs & Sows distribution in Armenia in periods (2007-2024) & (2017-2024) respectively) illustrates periods of growth and decline, showing that the pig population (in thousands of heads) decreased from 152 in 2007 to 84 in 2009, then gradually increased, peaking at 223 in 2020. This was followed by a decrease to 166 before rising again to 186 in 2024.
The significant variation in the pig population over the years, ranging from a minimum of 84 thousand heads to a maximum of 223 thousand heads is noted. The available data for sows, is further limited to the years 2017 to 2024, with values ranging between 30 and 42 thousand heads. Based on these available data, the average pig population for the period from 2007 and 2024 has been computed as well as the average number of sows from 2017 to 2024. These averages were then applied to estimate the gross annual CH4 potential of pig manure waste, ensuring the estimates reflect realistic conditions in Armenia.
Additionally, the remaining pig population, split between Pigs > 30 kg (excluding sows) and Small Pigs (7-30 kg), is assumed to consist of 75% and 25%, respectively, of the remaining number of pigs. These assumptions are based on RE’s expertise and feedback from AUA steering workgroup.
The standard estimate for manure production in these classifications are:
• Small Pigs (7-30 kg): 0,128 TPY
• Pigs > 30 Kg (excluding sows, gilts and boars): 0,527 TPY
• Sow, gilts and boars: 4,12 TPY
These assumptions will be applied to evaluate the gross annual potential of pig manure in Armenia at the regional level, with the results visualized through maps.
The gross potential of pig manure in Armenia is estimated at approximately 194,08 kTPY (0,19 MTPY), based on average data from 2007 to 2024, as previously assumed.
The regions with the highest concentration of pig manure waste (Figure 10: Gross Pigs Manure Waste by Region) are Yerevan, Armavir and Kotayk, with estimated potentials of 28,9 kTPY, 24,18 kTPY, and 21,3 kTPY, respectively. These values account for 14,89 %, 12,46 % and 10,97 % of the total pig manure in Armenia. Regions with medium potential, ranging from 15 to 22 kTPY, include Ararat, Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Gegharkunik and Syunik, in descending order. These regions collectively contribute between 7,5% and 10% of the total pig manure in Armenia. The remaining region, Vayots Dzor, is categorized as having low potential, with an estimated 2,77 kTPY, representing 1,43% of total pig manure in Armenia.
The gross CH4 potential of pig manure waste in Armenia is estimated at approximately 1,87 MCMPY, based on average values of historical data from Armstat (total pigs from 2017 and 2024 and sow data from 2017 to 2024) due to the volatility of registrations. This estimated value is equivalent to 18,7 GWh of annual energy production. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from pigs’ manure is about 9,70 Nm3/ton from RE database. The highest CH4 potential from pig manure waste (Figure 11: CH4 Potential from Pig Manure by Region), although relatively small, is found in the following regions: Yerevan, Armavir and Kotayk, each with more than 200 kCMPY i.e. Kotayk, Armavir and Yerevan have 11%, 12,50% and 14,89% of total gross annual CH4 potential respectively in Armenia. Regions with medium potential, less than 200 kCMPY, include Ararat, Shirak, Lori, Tavush, Aragatsotn, Gegharkunik and Syunik, in descending order.
• Shirak and Ararat have relatively high contributions of 10%
• Lori and Tavush contribute around 8,5%
• Aragatsotn, Gegharkunik and Syunik contribute lower amounts, at approximately 7,5 % by total gross CH4 potential in Armenia
The region Vayots Dzor has the lowest annual CH4 potential compared to all the other regions in Armenia.
1.1.1 Poultry Population
The total population of poultry in Armenia (Figure 12: Distribution of Poultry and Laying Hens in Armenia (2017-2024)) has remained relatively stable between 2017 and 2024, despite experiencing periods of growth followed by declines in subsequent years. The poultry population (in millions of heads) increased from 3,81 in 2007 to 4,43 in 2024, with a maximum of 4,83 in 2022 and a minimum of 3,81 in 2017.RE identified this slight variation in poultry population as an opportunity to use the average values of poultry and laying hens over the years in terms of accuracy and precisions to estimate the gross annual potential of poultry manure waste, ensuring the figures reflect realistic conditions in Armenia.
Poultry is categorized into two main groups: Laying hens and remaining types of poultry. It is assumed that the “remaining type of poultry” includes a mix of broilers (60%) and other types such as turkeys and ducks (40%). These assumptions are based on RE’s expertise and data provided by AUA steering workgroup. The standard manure production estimate for laying hens is 0,018 TPY. Manure from broilers and other types of poultry is converted using a laying hens’ factor to estimate the gross annual potential of poultry manure in Armenia. This analysis will be conducted at regional level and will be visualized through maps. The gross potential of poultry manure in Armenia is estimated at approximately 48,53 kTPY (0,05 MTPY), based on average data from 2017 to 2024 as retrieved from Armstat. Regions with the highest concentration of poultry manure waste (Figure 13: Poultry Manure potential by region) are Armavir, Kotayk and Aragatsotn, contributing 22,22%, 20,31% and14,21% respectively, to the total poultry manure potential in Armenia. Regions with medium potential, contributing less than 5 kTPY, include Ararat, Gegharkunik, Shirak, Lori and Tavush, in descending order. These regions account for 4-10% of the total poultry manure in Armenia. The regions with the lowest potential are Vayots Dzor, Syunik and Yerevan, collectively representing 3,5% of total poultry manure in Armenia.
1.1.1.1 Gross CH4 Potential Estimate by Region
The gross CH4 potential of poultry manure waste in Armenia is estimated at approximately 5,39 MCMPY, based on average values of available historical data from Armstat (total poultry numbers and laying hens data from 2017 to 2024). This estimate accounts for the volatility in registration data and is equivalent to 53,9 GWh of annual energy production. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from poultry’s manure is about 111,2 Nm3/ton from RE database, based on a variety of pultry feedstock. Regions with the highest CH4 potential from poultry manure waste (Figure 14: CH4 Potential from Poultry Manure by Region), while relatively small, are Armavir, Kotayk and Aragatsotn, each exceeding 600 kCMPY i.e. Kotayk, Armavir and Aragatsotn have 20,31%, 22,22% and 14,21% of total gross annual CH4 potential respectively in Armenia.
Regions with medium CH4 potential, ranging from 200 to 600 kCMPY, include Ararat, Gegharkunik, Shirak, Tavush and Lori, in descending order. These regions contribute between 4% and 10% of the total gross annual CH4 potential. The regions with the lowest annual CH4 potential, contributing less than 200 kCMPY, are Vayots Dzor, Syunik and Yerevan.
1.1.1 Animal Manure Waste – Summary
This section summarizes the gross waste potential originated from animal manure waste across Armenian regions with their relevant regional mapping waste potential. Then, the analysis has been expanded in scope from regional to intra-regional analysis to select communities of highest CH4 potential across the regions of more than 1MCMPY and then assign a ranking number among national level. It is noticed that some regions do not have communities of at least 1 MCMPY as a CH4 potential and therefore, selecting the highest potential community in these cases. Such selected communities will be listed in the intra-regional analysis with their ranks to show that the expected cluster might be centered there but limited to techno-economic and logistics barriers.
1.1.1.1 Regional Analysis
The cattle manure is the dominant animal manure across all regions in Armenia as compared to Pigs and Poultry as shown in Figure 15: Animal Waste Potential by Region and Figure 16: Animal Manure Waste by Region. In a similar manner to that of cattle manure regional analysis, regions of highest cattle manure potential are the regions with highest amount of animal manure waste upon summing up pigs and poultry manure waste. This is due to the small amount of pig and poultry manure waste as compared to cattle manure waste.
The regional analysis of each region in Armenia in terms of animal waste is summarized as follows:
· Cattle manure waste potential lies between 94 & 98 % by the total animal manure waste for each region excluding Yerevan.
· Pigs manure waste potential lies between 1,41 % & 4 % by the total animal manure waste for each region excluding Yerevan.
· Poultry’s manure waste potential lies between 0,2 % & 1,64% by the total animal manure waste for each region excluding Yerevan.
As a summary, regions of highest potential of animal waste are Gegharkunik, Lori and Shirak representing about 15 % with respect to the total animal waste potential in Armenia (Figure 17: CH4 Potential from Animal Waste by Region).
Regions of medium potential of animal waste are Aragatsotn and Armavir representing about 12 % & 10 % by total respectively following by Ararat, Syunik and Tavush. Eventually, regions of lowest potential are Tavush, Vayots Dzor &, unsurprisingly, Yerevan.
The gross CH4 potential in Armenia from animal waste (cattle, pigs & poultry) is currently estimated at app. 144 MCM per year, equivalent to 1440 GWh of annual energy production. Each region is referred to bar graph (Figure 17: CH4 Potential from Animal Waste by Region and Figure 18: CH4 Potential from Animal Manure Waste by Region) showing the dominant animal manure by region.
As the cattle manure potential is dominant, regions of highest potential are identical to the cattle manure potential: Gegharkunik, Lori & Shirak. While regions of medium potential for CH4 based on the animal waste is in Aragatsotn, Armavir & Kotayk followed by Ararat & Syunik. Eventually, regions of lowest potential are Tavush, Vayots Dzor &, unsurprisingly, Yerevan.
Returning to the number of clusters, in this case based on animal waste alone, and considering that animal waste is a feedstock which is least likely to be moved far, the map reveals that the following should be expected (Table 4 Clusters based on animal waste only.).
Straw waste is one of the feedstock availabilities in Armenia as it is based solely on production of grain crops. Data for straw yield is provided by the Ministry of Economy in Armenia where it is based on the 3-year average of gross harvest of grain crops which was multiplied by a factor of 1.1 for correction and data accuracy. No data has been received at community level, which is not considered critical as feedstock like straw which has high CH4 potential can be transported to other areas.
The straw yield which is used solely in this assessment as waste is represented in Figure 19: Gross Straw Waste from Grain Crops by regions in Armenia. The gross annual potential waste of straw is about 259 kTPY.
The highest region of straw waste is Shirak of 25,46 % with respect to the gross straw potential in Armenia followed by Gegharkunik (14 % by total), Kotayk (14 % by total), Aragatsotn (13 %) and Syunik (12 %). Other regions of medium potential as Lori (7 %), Armavir (7 %), Ararat (4 %) and Tavush (4 %). The lowest straw waste potential is Vayots Dzor (1 %) ending with Yerevan where straw potential is negligible.
On the one hand these potential volumes seem quite low, compared to ex ante expectations, and while some of the straw waste is used for other purposes such as feeding animals, heating etc. such that the gross CH4 potential may be lower.
According to Armstat database for section (Ra National Food Balances by food commodity groups/food commodity, indicator and year) from 2005 until 2022 the average value for Wheat, Rye, Barley, Oats, Maize, Rice and other Cereals has been used. These are considered the major source of straw waste, excluding Potatoes, Vegetables & melons, Fruits & Berry and other irrelevant categories. The whole supply chain for the national food balance in Armenia is described as follows:
Total Supply Chain (kTPY) = Food consumption+ Feed use + Waste + Seed + Export + Other uses+ Closing stock = Opening Stock + Production + Import
In the following Table 5, RE considered only the waste value in this whole supply chain for each category relevant to the straw excluding food consumption, Feed use, Seed, Exports and other uses.
Basically, reducing the potential from straw to only 20% of the previous volume.
1.1.1 Regional CH4 Straw Waste Potential Estimate
The gross CH4 potential in Armenia from straw waste is app. 54.20 MCM per year, equivalent to 542 GWh of annual energy production. The regional CH4 potential from gross straw waste is shown in Figure 20: Gross CH4 potential from Straw Waste by regions in Armenia. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from straw is about 209 Nm3/ton from RE database, based on a variety of straws.
• The region of highest CH4 potential is Shirak with close to 14 MCMPY, followed by these regions of more than 6 MCMPY: Kotayk, Gegharkunik, Aragatsotn, & Syunik.
• Medium potential, between 2 and 4 MCMPY are: Lori, Armavir, Ararat & Tavush
• Remaining regions have the lowest potential, including Yerevan where the potential is negligible for obvious reasons.
However, by considering unavailability of straw due to other usages, as described in the above table, the total average of estimated waste from straw is close to 51 kTPY which contributes to produce around 11 MCMPY of CH4 potential excluding other straw uses.
1.1 Agro-industrial Waste
Agro-industrial waste is one of the major parts of the economic sector in Armenia. This sector according to the Ministry of Economy (Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Armenia, 2024), involves the following categories which are close to 23 as a total listed of more than 1581 industrial locations in different sectors are included based on the MoEc including 129 larger ones. These categories will be described in Table 6: Agro-industrial processing sectors in Armenia with their relevant production capacity and estimated waste at national levelwith their relevant total production processing capacity by 2022 including data for flour milling facilities, bread baking, coffee and tea processing from 2019 as there were not counted by 2022 in addition to slaughterhouse waste originated from assumption made by expert Ashot Karapetyan.
RE highlighted the sectors with ID4, 5 and 6 originated from data by 2019 from Ministry of Economy while the slaughterhouse waste has been estimated based on Ashot’s expert.
The slaughterhouse sector in Armenia is composed of 40 sites across different regions as stated previously in Task 1. Small sites of capacity 1 to 2 cattle per day is slaughtered, medium site for 10 cattle per hour is slaughtered and large site of slaughtering capacity equivalent to 500 sheep per 6 hours. RE has used the values provided by Ashots and assumes the following:
· The working hours at slaughterhouse sites are assumed to be 6 hours per day
· Assume the cow weight is 500 kg, and the sheep weight is 100 kg.
As a brief, each slaughtered cow is equivalent to 5 slaughtered sheep at those sites leaving an assumption of average number of cattle slaughtered per day in this sector in Armenia is close to 161 cattle per day. The amount of meat production is 50 % of the total weight of slaughtered cow i.e. almost 14783 TPY is the remaining 50 % in which are made of skins, meat residues, blood, bones etc. are considered waste from slaughterhouse sites. RE has derived a relative factor considering the cattle farms type and the usage factor for cattle whether it is for meat or milk production. This factor is estimated to be 0,63 for more accuracy as these slaughtered cattle from small or medium household farms including 70 % of those are dedicated to meat production. The total waste from slaughterhouse sector is estimated to be 9,31 kTPY.
1.1.1 Regional Agro-industrial Gross Waste Potential
RE has applied based on its expertise the following assumptions as a waste factor for these above sectors to estimate the waste fraction from those total production agro-process facilities. RE assumed 12,5 % as a waste factor for all sectors excluding sugar and 25 % for sugar sector and the slaughterhouse waste is estimated previously separately. RE used assumed values for industrial sites, with regional distribution inspired by the Ministry of Economic / Environmental data received from AUA to derive a relative factor where the regions of high waste generations. The gross waste potential from industrial food facilities is close to 260 kTPY and these waste potentials are mapped in Figure 21: Industrial Food Waste potential from Agro processing facilities by region.
1.1.1 Regional CH4 Gross Agro-industrial Waste Potential
The gross CH4 potential in Armenia from industrial food waste is app. 23 MCM per year, equivalent to 230 GWh of annual energy production. A variety of assumptions are applied due to unavailability of data. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from agro-industrial food waste is about 64,70 Nm3/ton from RE database. Regions of highest potential (Figure 22: CH4 gross potential from Agro processing facilities by region) more than 1 MCMPY are Yerevan & Ararat, followed by Armavir and Aragatsotn. The remaining regions are considered to have very low potential.
1.1 Greenhouse Sites Waste
RE team collected and retrieved the data from the latest published study in 2022 in this report of title: Greenhouse Subsector analysis in Armenia, delegated by the Embassy of Netherlands and implemented by Argument Consulting Bureau. This report lists more than 600 greenhouse sites ranging from small to large scale, specifying crop types, area and village/town locations allowing RE to summarize the following
Table 7: Listed Greenhouse sites and their relative area by region
The total area of listed Greenhouse sites in this table is about 328 hectares although other greenhouse sites are not considered in this latest report as the total area of greenhouse sector in Armenia reached up to 4.000 hectares as anticipated expansion by Ministry of Economy in Armenia by 2025 (Davoodi, 2024). RE considered that the perceived feedstock potential from greenhouse sites is low due to data availability and RE emphasizes that Greenhouses are expected to be more relevant in terms of potential co-location, utilizing heat, power and CO2, and perhaps as an off taker for nutrients, rather than a major contributor to the total area of listed Greenhouse sites in Table 7 is about 328 hectares although other greenhouse sites are not considered. RE considered that the perceived feedstock potential from greenhouse sites is low due to data availability and RE emphasizes that Greenhouses are expected to be more relevant in terms of potential co-location, utilizing heat, power and CO2, and perhaps as an off taker for nutrients, rather than a major contributor to feedstock for anaerobic digestion. feedstock for anaerobic digestion.
The gross waste potential from greenhouse sites as listed in the stated report previously is about 39,32 kTPY based on the assumption that average greenhouse site might generate approximately about 120 ton/ha/year, and it is mapped in Figure 23: Gross Waste residues potential from those listed Greenhouse sites by region in Armenia. Regions of highest waste potential are Ararat of 14 kTPY (35 % by total), Kotayk of 11 kTPY (28 % by total) and Yerevan of 7,2 kTPY (18,3 % by total) while other remaining regions are considered low and very low potential based solely on those greenhouse sites.
1.1.1 Regional Gross CH4 Greenhouse Sites’ Waste Potential
The Gross CH4 potential in Armenia from greenhouse waste (Figure 24: Gross CH4 potential from greenhouse waste based on listed sites by region) based on more than 600 installations (as listed by study from 2022) across different regions is app. 1.38 MCM per year, equivalent to 13.8 GWh of annual energy production. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from greenhouse sites waste is about 35 Nm3/ton from RE database. It is important to note that these residues are considered as a mix of food waste including vegetables, fruits, plants, leaves etc.
• Regions with highest CH4 potential, greater than 0.20 MCMPY are Ararat, Kotayk & Yerevan.
• Remaining regions have very low potential from these types of installations.
1.1 Residential Food Waste
Residential food waste is one of the feedstock availability potentials in Armenia, related to the food consumption by the population. Table 8: (LL Bolagen , 2020) *Over 50% (weight) of the MSW is organic (kitchen and garden waste)shows the regions of Armenia and their respective population number, retrieved from Armstat 2024. Yerevan stands out as the region with the highest population density, housing over one million citizens.
1.1.1 Regional Residential Food Waste Estimate
Residential food waste is estimated based on population density provided by Armstat 2024, assumptions from RE and data retrieved from AUA. Based on (LL Bolagen , 2020), RE used the assumed values for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) which is slightly different from the Capital (Yerevan) and other regions in Armenia. The report states that close to 50 % of MSW is organic, originating from kitchen and garden waste. In turn, RE used these values, combined with the population density projections for 2024 in each region to estimate the annual residential food waste in Armenia. MSW is assumed to be approximately 300 kg/person/year in Yerevan while it is 220 kg/person/year in other regions in Armenia. It is important to consider these assumptions in estimating the annual residential food waste, where approximately 0,15 TPY and 0,11 TPY are respectively corresponding to Yerevan and other regions in Armenia. The gross residential food waste in Armenia is estimated to be approximately 383 kTPY (Figure 25: Gross Residential Food Waste potential across regions in Armenia).
Residential food waste is estimated based on population density provided by Armstat 2024, assumptions from RE and data retrieved from AUA. Based on (LL Bolagen , 2020), RE used the assumed values for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) which is slightly different from the Capital (Yerevan) and other regions in Armenia. The report states that close to 50 % of MSW is organic, originating from kitchen and garden waste. In turn, RE used these values, combined with the population density projections for 2024 in each region to estimate the annual residential food waste in Armenia. MSW is assumed to be approximately 300 kg/person/year in Yerevan while it is 220 kg/person/year in other regions in Armenia. It is important to consider these assumptions in estimating the annual residential food waste, where approximately 0,15 TPY and 0,11 TPY are respectively corresponding to Yerevan and other regions in Armenia. The gross residential food waste in Armenia is estimated to be approximately 383 kTPY (
Figure 25: Gross Residential Food Waste potential across regions in Armenia).
Residential food waste is subjected to collection and sorting by municipalities or assigned private companies, with the majority eventually being diverted to the landfill in Nubarashen. Approximately 45% of the gross residential waste in Armenia is available in Yerevan, followed by Kotayk Armavir and Ararat represent about 8% by total. Shirak and Lori represent about 7% by total, and Gegharkunik (6 %), Aragatsotn (4 %), Syunik (3 %), Tavush (3 %) and lastly, Vayots Dzor (1 %) as it has lowest population density in Armenia.
1.1.1 Regional CH4 Potential Estimate
The gross CH4 potential in Armenia from residential food waste (Figure 26: Gross CH4 Potential from Residential Food Waste across regions in Armenia) is app. 25 MCM per year, equivalent to 250 GWh of annual energy production. This estimation is based on population
density for each region by 2024. The standard assumption for CH4 potential from residential food waste is about 64,70 Nm3/ton from RE database.
• The only region with a potential greater than 10 MCMPY is Yerevan
• Regions of Medium Potential, between 1 and 2 MCMPY are Kotayk, Armavir, Ararat, Shirak, Lori & Gegharkunik.
• Remaining regions have a potential of less than 1 MCMPY due to the low population in these regions
1.1 Feedstock Summary (Gross Waste and Gross CH4 Potential)
This section summarizes the resource assessment of feedstock availability from Animal waste. Residential food waste, straw waste, greenhouse site waste and industrial food waste. The gross waste potential is estimated to be close to 7,62 MTPY where the animal waste is the dominant feedstock across all regions excluding Yerevan where residential food waste is the dominant in Armenia as shown in Figure 27: Gross Waste potential by region in Armenia. Majority of waste are available in regions of Gegharkunik, Shirak and Lori with almost 14 % by total gross waste potential in Armenia followed by Aragatsotn, Armavir, Ararat, Kotayk, Syunik, Tavush, Yerevan and Vaoyts Dzor in descending order.
By summing up all the prior values, the gross CH4 potential in Armenia from is currently estimated at app. 242 MCM per year which is equivalent to 2420 GWh of annual energy production, representing approximately 10 % of total natural gas demand in Armenia by 2022 (2.46 BCMPY). This gross cH4 potential composed of 60 % of CH4 originated from animal manure waste, 22 % of CH4 from Straw waste, 10 % from residential food waste, 7 % from industrial food waste and 1 % from greenhouse sites waste. Figure 28: Gross CH4 potential from gross waste by region in Armenia showing the map for regional CH4 potential from gross waste in Armenia.
Regions of highest potential is Gegharkunik & Shirak while the regions of medium potential between 20 & 30 MCMPY are in Lori, Aragatsotn, Ararat, Kotayk, Yerevan followed by Syunik. Regions of lowest potential of less than 12 MCMPY: Tavush followed by lowest potential at Vayots Dzor.
This means that the expected number of clusters, based on the criteria, is as follows (Table 9 Cluster expectation. Yerevan potential is expected to be redistributed to other regions.).
A rational approach would be to initially target establishing clusters in regions with the highest concentration of feedstock, and perhaps include feedstock sourced further away with high gas yields. As such, focusing on Shirak, Gegharkunik, and Lori for initial clusters and facilities, would appear to be the logical approach. In the following sections contain a description of where in the regions, facilities would most likely be able to be established.
1.1 Clustering and potential siting of facilities
Siting of a biogas facility is often not an easy task, as there are many aspects to consider. Fundamentally, a biogas facility is not much different than any other factory, but it does stand out that often both governments, municipalities as well as local communities may have strong opinions on such site locations, and that biogas taps into many different aspects of society.
From a high level the most important aspects to consider are generally connected to OPEX and logistics, since feedstock is often a key driver on the operational costs, and the operational cost, over the lifetime of a facility, by far exceeds the NPV of the CAPEX.
As such, the primary criteria are:
· Logistics, i.e.,
o Distance to feedstock
o Distance to land for application of digestate
· Synergies with other industries, examples include industries that:
o Produce feedstock for biogas
o Consume fuel or energy
o Industries that use CO2
· Connectivity to grids, i.e., gas or electricity and possibly heat is naturally also of importance but is generally less important than logistics and synergies.
1.1.1 Siting based on animal waste
Generally, an abundance of animal waste is one aspect which may lead to a good siting. First of all, this means that feedstock is in the area, but also, with a high probability, farmland, upon which the digestate may be utilized, is also nearby. Thirdly, the communities in these areas will be used to, and for many even depend on the prosperity of, the agricultural sector. As such, determining the communities in which the intensity of farming is highest or where the largest farms are located, is one way of assessing where biogas facilities with the highest likelihood can be located.
Another way of assessing potential site locations is by searching for synergies with other industries. This could be factories with by-products that are useful for biogas or other producing units which may need for instance gas, electricity, heat and / or CO2.
A third important aspect is connected to waste streams, for instance landfills and similar sites, regulated or not. In such areas, waste, incl. organic waste, will often be found in an abundance. This is an opportunity to tap into existing value chains without interrupting them, and further these sites will often be known to have good logistical access. Such sites may be used to co-locate biogas per se but can alternatively be used to locate pulping units that produce a medium-high yield produce, which may be moved by truck to biogas facilities in other regions.
In this section, RE summarizes in tables and mapped the large Agricultral installations in Armenia including the largest cattle, pigs, poultry and greenhouse sites farms in Armenia. Additionally, RE mapped in the potential sites for biogas plants visited during field visit 1 and, pointing out the non-operating biogas facilities that are located in Geghamasar village in Gegharkunik and also, the Lusakert biogas plant in Nor Geghi, Kotayk region.
1.1.1.1 Intraregional analysis of animal waste
For clustering location purposes, animal waste has been analyzed on community level. The results of this are shown in animal waste summary, and that the extensive analysis can be found in Annex II – Intraregional animal waste distribution and Annex III – Intraregional Analysis at National Level. Top CH4 potential communities for each region have been ranked, as this may play a crucial role for clustering location selection.
The following maps (Figure 126: Gross CH4 waste potential from Animal Waste by communities at national level and Figure 127: Selected communities of high gross CH4 potential from Animal Waste greater than 0,5 MCMPY at national level marked in yellow color ) covers all regions excluding Yerevan as it will be analyzed separately. The first figure shows the communities of high gross CH4 potential originating from animal waste at national level where categorization is applied equally by all communities simultaneously.
The map is shown in higher resolution in Annex, as it contains a lot of information.
The selected communities by all regions excluding Yerevan are shown in
Figure 127: Selected communities of high gross CH4 potential from Animal Waste greater than 0,5 MCMPY at national level marked in yellow color
where communities of highest CH4 potential It is observed that communities of high CH4 potential are distributed across all regions where the number of selected communities varied from one region to another, but has indeed an overlap to the regions in which more clusters are expected potentially established.
As an alternative to generally high animal waste density, larger farms of cattle, pigs and poultry have also been analyzed and mapped for potential sitings
1.1.1.1 Largest Cattle Farms
1.1.1 Siting based on waste concentration zones
The map (Figure 36: Dumping concentrated zones which are available in Armenia) shows the dumping sites and zones across regions in Armenia. There is little actual data on this field, but it still gives an insight that most of these dumping sites are located near rivers such as Armavir, Ararat, Yerevan where the Nubarashen landfill is, Vayotz Dzor & Tavush.
These sites and areas, regulated or not, hold an implicit site potential as the logistics should be in place for food waste already. Whether appropriate zoning, health and safety, and environmental permitting can be obtained, it is obviously not certain why this overview will be considered in the PFS, as a foundation only. Data is retrieved from (hetq, 2024).
Landfills and similar may not co-locate well with respect to utilized farmland. Hence a location in conjunction with landfills and similar can also potentially be used as a steppingstone to set up food waste purification facilities, pulping facilities and similar, such that food wastes are purified and prepared for digestion at a different site than at this preprocessing in order to optimize the logistics on the wastes.
1.1.1 Siting based on wastewater treatment plant
This sector is only for indication purposes to get an overview of how much CH4 potential could be generated from the household wastewater in Armenia, to give an impression of whether co-locating facilities of biogas production with digestion of wastewater sludge can potentially make sense. While there may be potential for co-locating facilities which digest wastewater sludge with facilities that digest other feedstock, the digestate from the two should not be co-digested in the same digestion process, as this will generally complicate or even prevent utilization on farmland of the digestate.
Data has been retrieved from SDG report estimating the volume of household wastewater generated, collected and safely treated in Armenia by 2020, Table 14: Household wastewater estimation in Armenia (2020) (WHO, 2020).
The technology applied to the wastewater from households is complex where the household wastewater cannot be flown directly in the digester at biogas plant. The wastewater from household is classified as raw sewage and should be converted to conventional activated sludge (CAS) then sludge thickening to get an AD sludge. This requires a separate process design to estimate the sludge and their relevant estimate biogas production. As a summary, and for theoretical case, assume that the biodegradable sewage COD is ~ 200 mg/l and the ultimate CH4 yield of COD is 350 Nm3 CH4/ ton COD. The ultimate CH4 yield from biodegradable sewage with a COD of 200 mg/L is 0.07 Nm³ CH4/m3 of wastewater. The total collected wastewater from household in Armenia is 75,39 million m3/year where 41,50 million m3/year is safely treated and consequently, the remaining volume which is not safely treated is approximately 33,89 million m3/year. This volume is estimated to generate about 2,37 MCMPY of CH4 potential.
According to external information, some of wastewater treatment plants are not operating due to financial gaps or other reasons (The Republic of Armenia: Waste Quantity and Composition Study March 2020) (aen, 2016), which may or may not be contained in the numbers above.
According to public information, some of wastewater treatment plants are not operating due to financial gaps or other reasons (The Republic of Armenia: Waste Quantity and Composition Study March 2020) (aen, 2016), which may or may not be contained in the numbers above.
1.1.1 Larger Installations Summary
As a sum-up of the previous sections, the following mapping is provided, showing the larger industrial installations jointly.
1.1.1 Potential Biogas Plants Sites by RE Field Visit
As a final potential siting foundation, several sites, some of which coincide with others already defined, have been inspected by the RE team, and may to some extent also be utilized when finding the optimal sites for facilities.
1.1 Clustering and siting summary
Clustering analysis is important to examine where the biogas plant will be located within a region and which factors are significant in such analysis and should be considered.
A cluster is defined as a circular geographic area with a radius distance of approximately 15 to 25 km (i.e., 700 – 2.000 km2) to the biogas plants, which simultaneously must include a relatively high potential of feedstock within it. Optimally, one large facility is built to cover this distance, but whether that is feasible requires in-depth analysis of that specific area.
RE has performed regional resource assessment of various feedstock availability across all regions in Armenia where intra-regional analysis for animal manure waste is performed for each region allowing an expectation of the possible number of clusters in each region.
As a summary and based on the volumes of animal waste availability and considerations on other additional feedstocks of high CH4 potential such as straw, agro-industrial and residential food waste in certain regions, the following number of clusters in these regions could potentially be implemented.
Based on the information so far, the following clusters in each region considering relevant criteria in determining these cluster numbers from high gross CH4 potential into low relevant CH4 potential based heavily on animal manure waste potential excluding Yerevan as the residential food waste, agro-industrial waste and other waste streams are the dominant one unlike other regions in Armenia. RE has summarized and listed the clustering potentials as below:
1.1.1 Gegharkunik
Number of anticipated clusters: 3.
Gross CH4 Waste potential (31,32 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (22 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential of Straw (7,69 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (1,53 MCMPY) as Population region (216.000 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
· Existing one electric sub-station
Siting possibilities (3)
· Two wastewater treatment plants exist at Martuni and Vardenis
· Large Cattle farm
· Concentrated Waste Zone near Lake
· Intraregional communities of CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY:
o Gavar (1,39 MCMPY)
1.1.1 Shirak
Number of anticipated clusters: 3.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (35,85 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (20,2 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· High CH4 potential of Straw (13,79 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste(1,72MCMPY) as Population region (242.000 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
· Existing one electric substation
Siting possibilities (5)
· Existing Wastewater treatment at Gyumri
· Large agricultural installations
· Intraregional communities of CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY:
o Ashotsk (2,29 MCMPY)
o Sarapat (1,53 MCMPY)
o Arpeni (1,51MCMPY)
o Amasia (1,38 MCMPY)
1.1.1 Lori
Number of anticipated clusters: 2.
Observations
Gross CH4 waste potential (26,70 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of animal waste (21,14 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential from Straw (3,91 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (1,63 MCMPY) as Population region (229.000 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 & 110 kV)
· Existing two electric substations
Siting possibilities (8)
· Existing Wastewater treatment at Vanadzor
· Large agricultural installations (Cattle farms & poultry farms)
· Intraregional communities of CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY:
o Tumanyan (1,78 MCMPY)
o Tashir (1,36 MCMPY) where largest cattle modern farm is located (Yeremyan Farm)
Table 18: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Lori
1.1.2 Aragatsotn
Number of anticipated clusters: 2.
Observations
Gross CH4 waste potential (26,32 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of animal waste (17,57 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks:
· Medium CH4 potential from Straw (6,90 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (0,96 MCMPY) as Population region (135.000 Inhabitants)
· CH4 potential of agro-industrial waste (0,90 MCMPY)
Infrastructure Accessibility:
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
· Existing one electric substation
Siting possibilities (7)
· Large agricultural installations (2 Cattle farms & poultry farms and 2 greenhouse sites)
· Existing Wastewater treatment at village of Paraqar which is managed by the community, carries out mechanical and partially biological cleaning
· Intraregional communities of highest CH4 potential from animal waste in region
o Aragats Talin (Aragatsavan) (0,79 MCMPY)
o Shamiram (0,62 MCMPY)
Table 19: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Aragatsotn
1.1.3 Armavir
Number of anticipated clusters: 2.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (22,25 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (14,76 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential of Straw (3,78 MCMPY)
· Medium Ch4 potential of Agro-industrial waste (1,80 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (1,91 MCMPY) as Population region (268.000 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
· Existing one wastewater treatment plants at Vagharshpat
· Highest Concentrated Waste zone
Potential sitings (4)
· Large agricultural installation (Armavir poultry/pigs farm of Arzni branch and Araxs poultry farm)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste in region
o Karakert (0,72 MCMPY)
o Jrarati p/f (0,54 MCMPY)
o Yeghegnut (0,52 MCMPY)
1.1.1 Kotayk
Number of anticipated clusters: 2.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (23,37 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (13,45 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential of Straw (7,69 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (2,08 MCMPY) as Population region (292.400 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV) and substations
Siting possibilities (18)
· Existing one wastewater treatment plants at Hrazdan
· Existing Municipal landfill, Hrazdan with high concentration waste zone near rivers
· Large agricultural installation (larger Greenhouse sites & 4 large poultry including pigs)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY
o Geghashen (1,11 MCMPY) followed by Garni (0,89 MCMPY)
Table 21: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Kotayk
1.1.2 Ararat
Number of anticipated clusters: 2.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (22,03 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (10,66 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential of Straw (2 MCMPY)
· Medium CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (1,90 MCMPY) as Population region (266.300 Inhabitants)
· High CH4 potential from Agro-industrial waste (7 MCMPY)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV) and substation
Siting possibilities (7)
· Existing wastewater treatment plants near boundary with Yerevan and Aragatsotn
· Urban landfill at Ararat city town
· Large agricultural installations (larger Greenhouse sites from Spayka, large Cattle farm and one large poultry farm at Masis) (X)Large agricultural installations (larger Greenhouse sites from Spayka, large Cattle farm and one large poultry farm at Masis)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY
o Urtsadzor (1,1 MCMPY)
Table 22: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Ararat
1.1.3 Syunik
Number of anticipated clusters: 1.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (17,54 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (10,19 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
Medium CH4 potential of Straw (6,48 MCMPY)
Low CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (0,83 MCMPY) as Population region (116.700 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV) and substation
Siting possibilities (6)
· Existing wastewater treatment plants at Kapan
· Large agricultural installation (Large Cattle farm and one large poultry farm)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY
o Urtsadzor (1,1 MCMPY)
Table 23: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Syunik
1.1.4 Tavush
Number of anticipated clusters: 1.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (11,60 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (8,77 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Medium CH4 potential of Straw (1,88 MCMPY)
· Low CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (0,84 MCMPY) as Population region (117.600 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV) in northern part
Possible sitings (4)
· Existing wastewater treatment plants at Dilijan
· Large agricultural installation (Greenhouse site)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste greater than 1 MCMPY
o Noyemberyan (1,71 MCMPY)
o Dilijan (1,15 MCMPY)
Table 24: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Tavush
1.1.5 Vayots Dzor
Number of anticipated clusters: 0.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (4,96 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Animal waste (4,29 MCMPY)
Additional Feedstocks
· Low CH4 potential of Straw (0,36 MCMPY)
· Low CH4 potential of Residential Food Waste (0,35 MCMPY) as Population region (49.100 Inhabitants)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
Siting possibilities (4)
· Existing wastewater treatment plants at Jermuk
· Large agricultural installation (Large cattle and poultry/pigs farms) (X)
· Intraregional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste
o Zaritap (0,72 MCMPY)
o Jermuk (0,54 MCMPY)
Table 25: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Vayots Dzor
1.1.6 Yerevan
Number of anticipated clusters: 0, despite feedstock potential. Feedstock is anticipated to be relocated to other regions. Further, it should be investigated if data incorrectness / interpretation is the cause of apparent larger farms within Yerevan.
Observations
Gross CH4 Waste potential (19,44 MCMPY)
· High CH4 potential of Residential Food waste (11 MCMPY) due to high population density in Capital of Armenia (Over 1 million inhabitants are living there)
Additional Feedstocks
· Low CH4 potential of animal waste (1,17 MCMPY)
· Large CH4 potential of agro-industrial waste (7 MCMPY)
Infrastructure Accessibility
· Road and Water network accessibility
· Gas Transmission line accessibility
· Electrical Transmission line accessibility (220 kV)
Possible sitings (7)
· Existing wastewater treatment plants
· Existing largest landfill at Nubarashen
· Large agricultural installation (Large poultry/pigs farms etc.)
· Intra-regional communities of high CH4 potential from animal waste:
o Shengavit District (0,49 MCMPY)
o Erebuni District (0,33 MCMPY)
Table 26: Expected recommended clustering locations based on various resource assessments in Yerevan.