Dung, sludge, and landfill: Biogas technology in the Netherlands, 1970-2000

Technology and Culture

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 519-539

  Raven, Rob ^a   Verbong, Geert ^a  

^a EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 6344233278     PISSN: 0040165X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/tech.2004.0149     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Jan Bieleman, "Landbouw," and Ernst Homburg, "Chemie," in Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, vol. 2, ed. Johan Schot et al. (Zutphen, 2000), 11-234 and 269-408; Jan Luiten van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands (New York, 1997).
2. Jan Bieleman, "Landbouw," and Ernst Homburg, "Chemie," in Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, vol. 2, ed. Johan Schot et al. (Zutphen, 2000), 11-234 and 269-408; Jan Luiten van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands (New York, 1997).
3. Jan Bieleman, "Landbouw," and Ernst Homburg, "Chemie," in Techniek in Nederland in de twintigste eeuw, vol. 2, ed. Johan Schot et al. (Zutphen, 2000), 11-234 and 269-408; Jan Luiten van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands (New York, 1997).
4. The Netherlands is nine times smaller than Germany, for example, with a population density of 372 people per square kilometer, in contrast to Germany's 228 per square kilometer.
5. These groups confronted chemical factories in particular over their negative effects on the environment. The Society against Air Pollution was founded by activists in the Rijnmond area (the Rhine estuary, near Rotterdam) in 1963. A group named Progil successfully opposed the establishment of a new petrochemical plant near Amsterdam. Progil in particular was characteristic of a new environmental movement emerging in the late 1960s; it recruited scientists to counter arguments advanced by the scientific establishment and mobilized people for actions ranging from protest meetings to distributing posters and leaflets describing potential dangers (explosions, stench) to planting weeping willows in the vicinity of the planned factory, all of which succeeded in drawing the attention of the mass media. See Jacqoline Cramer, De groene golf: Geschiedenis en toekomst van de milieubeweging (Utrecht, 1989), 30.
6. Several works explore these structural changes in Dutch society. Sociologists have emphasized the importance of the baby boom generation; see Henk Becker, Generaties en hun kansen (Amsterdam, 1992). Becker's work builds on Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, 1977), and Ivan Gadourek, Social Change as Redefinition of Roles (Assen, 1982); the generation thesis is further elaborated in Hans Righart, De eindeloze jaren zestig Geschiedenis van een generatieconflict (Amsterdam, 1995). Others dispute the emphasis on the 1960s and trace the roots of change instead to the preceding decade; see Paul Luykx and Pim Slot, Een stille revolutie? Cultuur en mentaliteit in de lange jaren vijftig (Hilversum, 1997).
7. Several works explore these structural changes in Dutch society. Sociologists have emphasized the importance of the baby boom generation; see Henk Becker, Generaties en hun kansen (Amsterdam, 1992). Becker's work builds on Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, 1977), and Ivan Gadourek, Social Change as Redefinition of Roles (Assen, 1982); the generation thesis is further elaborated in Hans Righart, De eindeloze jaren zestig Geschiedenis van een generatieconflict (Amsterdam, 1995). Others dispute the emphasis on the 1960s and trace the roots of change instead to the preceding decade; see Paul Luykx and Pim Slot, Een stille revolutie? Cultuur en mentaliteit in de lange jaren vijftig (Hilversum, 1997).
8. Several works explore these structural changes in Dutch society. Sociologists have emphasized the importance of the baby boom generation; see Henk Becker, Generaties en hun kansen (Amsterdam, 1992). Becker's work builds on Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, 1977), and Ivan Gadourek, Social Change as Redefinition of Roles (Assen, 1982); the generation thesis is further elaborated in Hans Righart, De eindeloze jaren zestig Geschiedenis van een generatieconflict (Amsterdam, 1995). Others dispute the emphasis on the 1960s and trace the roots of change instead to the preceding decade; see Paul Luykx and Pim Slot, Een stille revolutie? Cultuur en mentaliteit in de lange jaren vijftig (Hilversum, 1997).
9. Several works explore these structural changes in Dutch society. Sociologists have emphasized the importance of the baby boom generation; see Henk Becker, Generaties en hun kansen (Amsterdam, 1992). Becker's work builds on Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, 1977), and Ivan Gadourek, Social Change as Redefinition of Roles (Assen, 1982); the generation thesis is further elaborated in Hans Righart, De eindeloze jaren zestig Geschiedenis van een generatieconflict (Amsterdam, 1995). Others dispute the emphasis on the 1960s and trace the roots of change instead to the preceding decade; see Paul Luykx and Pim Slot, Een stille revolutie? Cultuur en mentaliteit in de lange jaren vijftig (Hilversum, 1997).
10. Several works explore these structural changes in Dutch society. Sociologists have emphasized the importance of the baby boom generation; see Henk Becker, Generaties en hun kansen (Amsterdam, 1992). Becker's work builds on Ronald Inglehart, The Silent Revolution (Princeton, 1977), and Ivan Gadourek, Social Change as Redefinition of Roles (Assen, 1982); the generation thesis is further elaborated in Hans Righart, De eindeloze jaren zestig Geschiedenis van een generatieconflict (Amsterdam, 1995). Others dispute the emphasis on the 1960s and trace the roots of change instead to the preceding decade; see Paul Luykx and Pim Slot, Een stille revolutie? Cultuur en mentaliteit in de lange jaren vijftig (Hilversum, 1997).
11. For an overview of Dutch opinion and practice regarding nature conservation, see Henny van der Windt, En dan wat is natuur nog in dit land: Natuurbescherming in Nederland 1880-1990 (Amsterdam, 1995).
12. On the Dutch environmental movement, see Egbert Tellegen and Jaap Willems, Milieu-aktie in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1978). On environmental debates in the Netherlands, see Maarten A. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford, 1995), chap. 5.
13. On the Dutch environmental movement, see Egbert Tellegen and Jaap Willems, Milieu-aktie in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1978). On environmental debates in the Netherlands, see Maarten A. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (Oxford, 1995), chap. 5.
14. Ministerie van VROM, Voor-ontwerp van het beleidskader van het landelijk afvalbeheersplan (The Hague, 2001); Afval Overleg Orgaan, De afvalmarkt: Structuur en ontwikkelingen (Utrecht, 2000). In 1976, the Wet Chemische Afvalstoffen (governing chemical waste products) was passed (Stb, 1976, 214), followed in 1977 by the Afvalstoffenwet, a general law regulating waste products (Stb, 1977, 425).
15. Ministerie van VROM, Voor-ontwerp van het beleidskader van het landelijk afvalbeheersplan (The Hague, 2001); Afval Overleg Orgaan, De afvalmarkt: Structuur en ontwikkelingen (Utrecht, 2000). In 1976, the Wet Chemische Afvalstoffen (governing chemical waste products) was passed (Stb, 1976, 214), followed in 1977 by the Afvalstoffenwet, a general law regulating waste products (Stb, 1977, 425).
16. Dutch regulations were very strict in comparison to those of other European countries; they were also implemented earlier. The European Union established guidelines for waste incinerator emissions in 1989, while regulations for landfill sites remained an important issue on the political agenda of the European Commission throughout the 1990s. See John McCormick, Environmental Policy in the European Union (New York, 2001).
17. This general idea of a ranking of options formed the basis for the waste treatment policy component of a national environmental plan (the Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan) in 1989. In support of this policy the government established a national program for research into waste reuse (the Nationaal Onderzoeksprogramma Hergebruik van Afvalstoffen, NOH), which fit within the existing framework of national energy research programs set up in response to the first energy crisis. Early on the NOH concentrated on improvements in waste management at the end of the production chain, but later the focus shifted toward prevention and reuse.
18. The shift in political and administrative control and the trend toward increasing scale provoked organizational changes. The government established a consultative body for waste management (Afval Overleg Orgaan) in 1990, while the waste industry organized itself a year later into the Vereniging Voor Afval Verwerkers (VVAV).
19. This broadening of the concept of sustainable energy was not uncontested, but rather provoked a national debate in which the environmental movement, waste treatment companies, and the government all played important roles. Waste as a sustainable energy source also became a topic of discussion at the European Union level, mainly because the Dutch government succeeded in including organic waste in the European definition of sustainable energy. Rob Raven and Geert Verbong, "Biomassa," in Een kwestie van lange adem: De geschiedenis van duurzame energie in Nederland, ed. Geert Verbong (Boxtel, 2001), chap. 8.
20. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
21. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
22. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
23. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
24. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
25. The concept of a waste regime derives from sociological and historical works on technology. Arie Rip and Rene Kemp define a technological regime as "the rule-set or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems-all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures." This is a reinterpretation of the idea of the technological regime put forward by Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, who use the term to refer to a cognitive framework, embedded in the minds of engineers. Rip and Kemp argue that a technological regime is the outcome of the coevolution of the technological, economic, and societal elements. This differs from both Nelson and Winter's conceptualization of technological development through regimes and Giovani Dosi's of development through paradigms, because a technological regime not only exists in the cognitive heuristics or guidelines of designers but is embedded in legislation, dominant technological practices, and institutions. It is a coevolutionary approach because elements in the technological regime develop together and interact with the development of new technologies. See Arie Rip and Rene Kemp, "Technological Change," in Human Choice and Climate Change-Resources and Technology, ed. Steve Rayner and Elizabeth L. Malone (Columbus, Ohio, 1998), chap. 6; Arie Rip, "Introduction of New Technology: Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology," Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 7, no. 4 (1995): 417-31; Remco Hoogma et al., Experimenting for Sustainable Transport (London, 2002); Rene Kemp, Peter Mulder, and Carl H. Reschke, Evolutionary Theorising on Technological Change and Sustainable Development (Maastricht, 1999); Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, 1982), chap. 11; Giovani Dosi, "Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories," Research Policy 11 (1982): 147-62.
26. In 1965 there were 275 sewage treatment plants in the Netherlands; by the mid-1980s that number had almost doubled. Jan Luiten van Zanden and Wybren Verstegen, Groene geschiedenis van Nederland (Utrecht, 1993).
27. Sewage treatment plants started to use anaerobic processes early in the twentieth century. In succeeding decades anaerobic sewage treatment technology improved greatly, particularly in England and Germany, then later in the United States as well. See J. van Brakel, The Ignis Fatuus of Biogas (Delft, 1980).
28. Erwin Vermeij, Contextuele verschillen in de ontwikkeling van technische toepassingen van methaangisting (Eindhoven, 1990).
29. Brakel.
30. Vermeij.
31. Brakel.
32. Vermeij.
33. Jaap van de Woestijne, "Anaerobe zuivering heeft de toekomst," Beta 17, no. 9 (14 April 1981). Wim M. Wiegant, "De anaerobe zuivering van afvalwater," Biotechnologie in Nederland 2 (1987): 76-78.
34. Jaap van de Woestijne, "Anaerobe zuivering heeft de toekomst," Beta 17, no. 9 (14 April 1981). Wim M. Wiegant, "De anaerobe zuivering van afvalwater," Biotechnologie in Nederland 2 (1987): 76-78.
35. Woestijne.
36. Increasing awareness of the problem spurred international cooperation in efforts to reduce and control river pollution from 1970 onward, and agreements between Germany, France, and the Netherlands regulated a variety of polluting substances. See John Robert McNeill, Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World (London, 2000); Flok G. de Ruiter, In het milieu (Amsterdam, 1990).
37. Increasing awareness of the problem spurred international cooperation in efforts to reduce and control river pollution from 1970 onward, and agreements between Germany, France, and the Netherlands regulated a variety of polluting substances. See John Robert McNeill, Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World (London, 2000); Flok G. de Ruiter, In het milieu (Amsterdam, 1990).
38. Cramer (n. 3 above).
39. Wet Verontreiniging Oppervlaktewateren (Stb, 1969, 526).
40. Klaas Visscher and W. van Starkenburg, "Anaerobe zuivering: Ontwikkelingen en onderzoek in Nederland," Biotechnologie in Nederland 2 (1987): 73-75.
41. Jaap W. Voetberg, "Anaerobe zuivering in de aardappelverwerkende industrie," Biotechnologie in Nederland 2 (1987): 79-81.
42. Voetberg; S. Nederhorst, W. van Starkenburg, and Klaas Visscher, Toepassing anaerobe afvalwaterzuivering: Een inventaristatie van de stand van zaken (The Hague, 1986).
43. P. J. F. M. Hack, "Anaerobe waterzuivering steeds breder toepasbaar," Biotechnologie in Nederland 2 (1987): 87-89.
44. Nederhorst, Starkenburg, and Visscher.
45. The basic knowledge about anaerobic digestion and the UASB reactor was freely accessible to companies interested in producing parts of the reactor, and several new firms emerged from the early intensive cooperation between industry and research institutes. Companies such as Biothane and Biopaq patented partial improvements to the reactor and have become leaders in this field.
46. Nederhorst, Starkenburg, and Visscher.
47. M. Heselmans, "Oude rot; Milieutechnoloog Lettinga wil kleinschalige waterzuivering," NRC Handelsblad, 2 December 2000, 55.
48. Nederhorst, Starkenburg, and Visscher (n. 27 above).
49. Denmark had fifty anaerobic manure digestion facilities in 2001, while in Germany the number exceeded fifteen hundred. The total number of plants can give a distorted view of installed processing capacity, as they vary in size. In Denmark, twenty of the fifty plants were centralized biogas facilities in which up to one hundred farmers cooperated; the remaining thirty were single-farm facilities (some very large). In 2001, total annual energy production from all fifty Danish plants was about 1.3 petajoules. In Germany, almost all anaerobic manure digesters were small-scale, single-farm facilities; total annual energy production by these facilities was about 3.7 petajoules in 2001. See Jens B. Holm-Nielsen and Teodorita A. Seadi, "State of the Art of Biogas in Europe," and C. da Costa Gomez, "State-of-Art and Future Development in German Diogas," in Bio Energy 2001-Nordic and European Bioenergy Conference Proceedings, ed. Teodorita A. Seadi, G. Kirsten, and Jens B. Holm-Nielsen (Esbjerg, 2001), 44-50 and 126-34; T. A. Seadi, Danish Centralised Biogas Plants (Esbjerg, 2000); O. Elmose, Gådbiogas (2002).
50. Denmark had fifty anaerobic manure digestion facilities in 2001, while in Germany the number exceeded fifteen hundred. The total number of plants can give a distorted view of installed processing capacity, as they vary in size. In Denmark, twenty of the fifty plants were centralized biogas facilities in which up to one hundred farmers cooperated; the remaining thirty were single-farm facilities (some very large). In 2001, total annual energy production from all fifty Danish plants was about 1.3 petajoules. In Germany, almost all anaerobic manure digesters were small-scale, single-farm facilities; total annual energy production by these facilities was about 3.7 petajoules in 2001. See Jens B. Holm-Nielsen and Teodorita A. Seadi, "State of the Art of Biogas in Europe," and C. da Costa Gomez, "State-of-Art and Future Development in German Diogas," in Bio Energy 2001-Nordic and European Bioenergy Conference Proceedings, ed. Teodorita A. Seadi, G. Kirsten, and Jens B. Holm-Nielsen (Esbjerg, 2001), 44-50 and 126-34; T. A. Seadi, Danish Centralised Biogas Plants (Esbjerg, 2000); O. Elmose, Gådbiogas (2002).
51. Denmark had fifty anaerobic manure digestion facilities in 2001, while in Germany the number exceeded fifteen hundred. The total number of plants can give a distorted view of installed processing capacity, as they vary in size. In Denmark, twenty of the fifty plants were centralized biogas facilities in which up to one hundred farmers cooperated; the remaining thirty were single-farm facilities (some very large). In 2001, total annual energy production from all fifty Danish plants was about 1.3 petajoules. In Germany, almost all anaerobic manure digesters were small-scale, single-farm facilities; total annual energy production by these facilities was about 3.7 petajoules in 2001. See Jens B. Holm-Nielsen and Teodorita A. Seadi, "State of the Art of Biogas in Europe," and C. da Costa Gomez, "State-of-Art and Future Development in German Diogas," in Bio Energy 2001-Nordic and European Bioenergy Conference Proceedings, ed. Teodorita A. Seadi, G. Kirsten, and Jens B. Holm-Nielsen (Esbjerg, 2001), 44-50 and 126-34; T. A. Seadi, Danish Centralised Biogas Plants (Esbjerg, 2000); O. Elmose, Gådbiogas (2002).
52. Denmark had fifty anaerobic manure digestion facilities in 2001, while in Germany the number exceeded fifteen hundred. The total number of plants can give a distorted view of installed processing capacity, as they vary in size. In Denmark, twenty of the fifty plants were centralized biogas facilities in which up to one hundred farmers cooperated; the remaining thirty were single-farm facilities (some very large). In 2001, total annual energy production from all fifty Danish plants was about 1.3 petajoules. In Germany, almost all anaerobic manure digesters were small-scale, single-farm facilities; total annual energy production by these facilities was about 3.7 petajoules in 2001. See Jens B. Holm-Nielsen and Teodorita A. Seadi, "State of the Art of Biogas in Europe," and C. da Costa Gomez, "State-of-Art and Future Development in German Diogas," in Bio Energy 2001-Nordic and European Bioenergy Conference Proceedings, ed. Teodorita A. Seadi, G. Kirsten, and Jens B. Holm-Nielsen (Esbjerg, 2001), 44-50 and 126-34; T. A. Seadi, Danish Centralised Biogas Plants (Esbjerg, 2000); O. Elmose, Gådbiogas (2002).
53. P. A. de Boks and Wim J. van Nes, De haalbaarheid van een rendabele biogasinstallatie voor de middelgrote melkveehouderij (Delft, 1983); Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 1899-1994 vijfennegentig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen (The Hague, 1994).
54. P. A. de Boks and Wim J. van Nes, De haalbaarheid van een rendabele biogasinstallatie voor de middelgrote melkveehouderij (Delft, 1983); Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 1899-1994 vijfennegentig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen (The Hague, 1994).
55. Samenwerkende Electriciteits Producenten, Elektriciteit in Nederland (Arnhem, 1982).
56. K. W. van der Hoek, Methaangaswinning en -benutting op melkveebedrijven (Wageningen, 1984). One of the reasons for shifting their attention to digestion of cattle manure was that van Velsen already knew a lot about digestion of pig manure. P. Hoeksma and H. Arkenhout, Bouw en toetsing van een installatie voor biogaswinning in combinatie met een gasmotor-generator op een melkveebedrijf (Wageningen, 1984).
57. K. W. van der Hoek, Methaangaswinning en -benutting op melkveebedrijven (Wageningen, 1984). One of the reasons for shifting their attention to digestion of cattle manure was that van Velsen already knew a lot about digestion of pig manure. P. Hoeksma and H. Arkenhout, Bouw en toetsing van een installatie voor biogaswinning in combinatie met een gasmotor-generator op een melkveebedrijf (Wageningen, 1984).
58. Hoeksma and Arkenhout.
59. Hoeksma and Arkenhout.
60. Boks and Nes (n. 36 above).
61. On the basis of such hopes, the Centrum voor Energiebesparing (Center for Energy Saving), an organization that consults on alternative energy sources, set up a digestion facility on an experimental farm in Assendelft, in the northern Netherlands, working in cooperation with Oostwouder Inc. and Genap, two manufacturers of biogas installations, within the framework of the Nationaal Onderzoeksprogramma voor Hergebruik van Afvalstoffen. The experimental digester combined the production and gas storage tanks, which substantially reduced investment costs. The disadvantage was that plant operations became more complex, which increased maintenance work. Despite the best efforts of all involved, the experiment produced disappointing results-persistent technical problems and bleak economic prospects. See Wim van Nes, De ontwikkeling van een goedkopere mestvergistingsinstallatie voor de middelgrote melkveehouderij (Delft, 1987).
62. Raven and Verbong (n. 11 above).
63. McNeill (n. 22 above) argues that chemical fertilizers and irrigation beyond the immediate confines of river valleys permitted Europe (after 1920) and the United States (after 1930) to forgo net cropland expansion; by the 1960s almost all efforts to expand food production in Europe and North America focused on obtaining more harvest per acre rather than on farming more acres. The Green Revolution brought this trend to the Third World by introducing high-yield hybrids from the International Rice Research Institute. One of the disadvantages of these developments, however, was that the high yields depended on heavy, and increasing, use of chemical fertilizers. See Ken A. Gourlay, World of Waste (London, 1992).
64. Bieleman (n. 1 above).
65. In 1990 there were almost one hundred million chickens and fourteen million pigs in the Netherlands-about as many pigs as human inhabitants.
66. Zanden and Verstegen (n. 13 above).
67. Though manure has, of course, always been an essential resource for farmers, extensive reliance on chemical fertilizers has made it much less important, and in any case the amount of manure produced by industrial farms greatly exceeds the farmers' ability to use it as fertilizer.
68. Meststoffenwet (Stb, 1986, 598).
69. At first the law had exactly the opposite of its intended effect. Because it prohibited the expansion of livestock farming, many farmers increased production before it took effect, and even after it did the number of animals continued to increase for a few years, because of applications submitted prior to enactment. See Zanden and Verstegen.
70. The renewed interest was due to increasing concern over climate change and national targets for sustainable energy.
71. Hooker Chemical Company dumped more than twenty thousand tons of chemical waste in Love Canal from the 1940s to 1952. The company later sold the site to the local board of education, which built a school there, and a housing development followed shortly after. In 1978, 237 families were forced to leave their homes after cases of cancer and physical deformities in children were linked to the liquid and sludge seeping into the basements of the houses. In the 1980s other Hooker dump sites also appeared to be heavily polluted; Gourlay (n. 45 above).
72. Gas fires and explosions occurred regularly in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s at landfill sites that had been covered to reduce odors. In the literature this development is called the transition from dumping to sanitary landfill sites. H. Lanier Hickman Jr., A Brief History of Solid Waste Management in the U.S., 1950-2000, http:// www.forester.net/msw_0101_history.html; J. Hoeks and J. Oosthoek, "Gaswinning unit afvalstortterreinen," Gas 11 (1981): 563-68.
73. Gas fires and explosions occurred regularly in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s at landfill sites that had been covered to reduce odors. In the literature this development is called the transition from dumping to sanitary landfill sites. H. Lanier Hickman Jr., A Brief History of Solid Waste Management in the U.S., 1950-2000, http:// www.forester.net/msw_0101_history.html; J. Hoeks and J. Oosthoek, "Gaswinning unit afvalstortterreinen," Gas 11 (1981): 563-68.
74. J. Oonk, M. J. J. Scheepers, and J. W. Takke, Overzicht stortgasprojecten in Nederland (1983-1991) (Apeldoorn, 1993).
75. I b i d.
76. This was less than the estimated potential production from manure digestion, but still represented a considerable amount of energy. Algemene Energieraad, Duurzame energie; Knelpunten bij introductie van duurzame energie (The Hague, 1982).
77. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Gaswinning uit Nederlandse stortterreinen (Bilthoven, 1985).
78. M. J. J. Scheepers, "De toepassing van stortgas in Nederland," Gas 5 (1991): 200-205.
79. The Netherlands banned the dumping of numerous organic wastes in 1996, while in other European countries discussions on banning such wastes continued throughout the 1990s; McCormick (n. 8 above).
80. Scheepers.
81. Stortbesluit Bodembescherming (Stb, 1993, 55).
82. Oonk, Scheepers, and Takke (n. 56 above).
83. G. J. Kremers, W. F. T. Tromp, and J. W. Takke, Winning en benutting van stortgas in Nederland (Deventer, 1990).
84. Adviescentrum Stortgas, Stortgaswinning en -benutting in Nederland (Utrecht, 1997).
85. The largest biogas producer is the United States, although production efficiency there is "far below the potential level" of between 20 percent and 40 percent. Sweden scores highest in terms of production efficiency, with a realized potential of 30 percent; the realized potential in the Netherlands was about 20 percent. Improved landfill designs and the development of new landfill technologies, such as biofills, can contribute significantly to increasing the efficiency of landfill gas recovery. See IEA Bioenergy, International Perspective on Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas (Harwell, 2000), 1-4.