Techno-economic assessment of biomass-based natural gas substitutes against the background of the EU 2018 renewable energy directive

Kraussler, Michael; Pontzen, Florian; Müller-Hagedorn, Matthias; Nenning, Leopold; Luisser, Markus; Hofbauer, Hermann

doi:10.1007/s13399-018-0333-7

Cited by 17 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth mentioning that an additional compression stage following biogas upgrading is not needed since it was assumed that the natural gas tank operates at a similar pressure to that of the biomethane produced [52]. It was considered that the lifetime of the project is 20 years [53] and that the discount rate (r d ) is 6%. This value was calculated by summing the Portuguese inflation rate in 2019 (0.3% [12]), the SME financing costs in Portugal in the first semester of 2019 (median, 1.85% [50]) and a term accounting for the risk (3.85%).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Sustainability: Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Source of Biomethane in Regions Far from a High-Pressure Grid. A Real Portuguese Case Study

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) located in regions far from a high-pressure grid can produce renewable biomethane, which can partially substitute the natural gas locally consumed. However, the economic viability of implementing biomethane plants in WWTP has to be guaranteed. This paper uses the discount cash flow method to analyze the economic viability of producing biomethane in a WWTP located in Évora (Portugal). The results show that, under the current conditions, it is unprofitable to produce biomethane in this WWTP. Since selling the CO2 separated from biogas may result in an additional income, this option was also considered. In this case, a price of 46 EUR/t CO2 has to be paid to make the project viable. Finally, the impact of potential government incentives in the form of feed-in premia was investigated. Without selling CO2, the project would only be profitable for feed-in premia above 55.5 EUR/MWh. If all the CO2 produced was sold at 30 EUR/t CO2, a premium price of 20 EUR/MWh would make the project profitable. This study shows that the economic attractiveness of producing biomethane in small WWTP is only secured through sufficient financial incentives, which are vital for developing the biomethane market with all its associated advantages.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting Sustainability: Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Source of Biomethane in Regions Far from a High-Pressure Grid. A Real Portuguese Case Study

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of the different support schemes on biomethane have been rarely compared and are mostly within the framework of the EU RED [18,19] and RED II [20]. At the same time, the market for biomethane and its competitiveness with other advanced fuels have not been taken into account [21].…”

Section: Scope Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomethane from Manure, Agricultural Residues and Biowaste—GHG Mitigation Potential from Residue-Based Biomethane in the European Transport Sector

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomethane from manure, agricultural residues, and biowaste has been prioritized by many energy strategies as a sustainable way to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transport sector. The technology is regarded as mature; however, its implementation is still at an early stage. At EU level, there are currently two major instruments relevant for promoting the production of biomethane from waste and residues and which are likely to contribute to unlocking unused GHG mitigation potentials: the Renewable Energy Directive 2018/2001 (RED II) and the European Emission Trading System (EU ETS). Our study analyzes the effects of these two instruments on the competitiveness of biomethane as an advanced transport fuel in relation to different policy scenarios within the RED II framework and under EU ETS conditions. Within the RED II market framework for advanced biofuels, biomethane concepts that use manure as a substrate or as a cosubstrate show significantly lower GHG mitigation costs compared to advanced biofuels. With respect to the current EU ETS conditions for bioenergy, it is helpful to consider the GHG reduction potential from the non-ETS agricultural sector as a way to unlock unused potential for reducing GHG emissions.

show abstract

“…further have a large influence on the biomass prices. According to (Kraussler et al, 2018), the plant size on the other hand does not have a large cost reducing factor above 40 MW.…”

Section: Biomass Gasificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentials and Costs of various Renewable Gases: A Case Study for the Austrian Energy System by 2050

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This analysis estimates the technically available potentials of renewable gases from anaerobic conversion and biomass gasification of organic waste materials, as well as power-to-gas (H2 and synthetic natural gas based on renewable electricity) for Austria, as well as their approximate energy production costs. Furthermore, it outlines a theoretical expansion scenario for plant erection aimed at fully using all technical potentials by 2050. The overall result, illustrated as a theoretical merit order, is a ranking of technologies and resources by their potential and cost, starting with the least expensive and ending with the most expensive. The findings point to a renewable methane potential of about 58 TWh per year by 2050. The highest potential originates from biomass gasification (~49 TWh per year), while anaerobic digestion (~6 TWh per year) and the power-to-gas of green CO2 from biogas upgrading (~3 TWh per year) demonstrate a much lower technical potential. To fully use these potentials, 870 biomass gasification plants, 259 anaerobic digesters, and 163 power-to-gas plants to be built by 2050 in the full expansion scenario. From the cost perspective, all technologies are expected to experience decreasing specific energy costs in the expansion scenario. This cost decrease is not significant for biomass gasification, at only about 0.1 €-cent/kWh, resulting in a cost range between 10.7 and 9.0 €-cent/kWh depending on the year and fuel. However, for anaerobic digestion, the cost decrease is significant, with a reduction from 7.9 to 5.6 €-cent/kWh. It is even more significant for power-to-gas, with a reduction from 10.8 to 5.1 €-cent/kWh between 2030 and 2050.

show abstract

Techno-economic assessment of biomass-based natural gas substitutes against the background of the EU 2018 renewable energy directive

Cited by 17 publications

References 9 publications

Promoting Sustainability: Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Source of Biomethane in Regions Far from a High-Pressure Grid. A Real Portuguese Case Study

Promoting Sustainability: Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Source of Biomethane in Regions Far from a High-Pressure Grid. A Real Portuguese Case Study

Biomethane from Manure, Agricultural Residues and Biowaste—GHG Mitigation Potential from Residue-Based Biomethane in the European Transport Sector

Potentials and Costs of various Renewable Gases: A Case Study for the Austrian Energy System by 2050

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About