Assessment of grassland as biogas feedstock in terms of production costs and greenhouse gas emissions in exemplary federal states of Germany

Auburger, Sebastian; Petig, Eckart; Bahrs, Enno

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.03.008

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Auburger, Jacobs, Märländer, and Bahrs () optimize regional feedstock production costs throughout Germany using linear programming and assess the introduction of sugar beet in the feedstock on the GHG balance. In the same way, the opportunity costs for energy crops, risk factors for indirect land use changes (iLUC) and a fixed GHG mitigation potential on the competitiveness of grassland are assessed (Auburger, Petig, & Bahrs, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, parameters like the TS content vary throughout different regions and have strong influence on the AD process, the SMY and thereby also KPI like LCOE. In the same way cost, area yield and GHG emissions of crop production vary considerable for different regions as shown by Auburger et al (2016) and have a large impact if iLUC are regarded (Auburger et al, 2017). Especially if the number of plants and the study area are increasing, this has to be taken into account and the model has to be adapted to a more differentiated data base.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Model Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A plant‐specific model approach to assess effects of repowering measures on existing biogas plants: The case of Baden‐Wuerttemberg

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Up to the latest versions of the German renewable energy act (EEG), there had been a constant growth of new biogas plants (BGPs). After reaching a stagnation in the last years, today the focus has shifted to improving the existing BGPs. Assuming that most plants have not reached the technical end of life, the question arises on how an operation can be realized beyond the initial EEG support period of 20 years. In addition, new legal and economic conditions require the implementation of adjustments, that is, “repowering measures.” Based on a method review, a plant‐specific model approach is presented to assess repowering measures for a wide range of BGPs differing in capacity, substrate mixture and agricultural structures. The techno‐economic model includes different performance indicators like levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and temporal aspects like technical progress. Using a data set for BGPs in the state of Baden‐Wuerttemberg (Germany), results are illustrated for the different model modules and three repowering scenarios of an extended operation period of ten years. The scenarios regard different options to meet the requirements of the current EEG, namely the flexibilization and restrictions on energy crops, in comparison with a reference case. While in repowering scenarios, the number of plants decreases between 54% and 69% and the overall power capacity changes between −48% and 13% until 2035. The results further show a reduction potential in the specific area demand and GHG emission up to 12% and 24%, respectively. Technical progress, additional revenues and capacity premiums are shown to be an important factor for efficient substrate utilization, low LCOE and thereby the enabling of an extended operation period. The scenario results indicate that the agricultural areas for energy crop cultivation and the amount of manure used in BGPs will be reduced considerably, inducing new chances and challenges in the future.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Model Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

A plant‐specific model approach to assess effects of repowering measures on existing biogas plants: The case of Baden‐Wuerttemberg

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although AD is not a new technology, it has changed enormously in recent years. Although the following quotation from Grandoa et al () appears questionable based on, for example, Jacobs et al () or Auburger et al, (), it shows the sustainable potential of biogas production: “Anaerobic digestion technology for biogas production constitutes today the most sustainable way of using the energy present in biomass and other wastes, because it also increases nutrient recovery and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.” One of these major advances is the flexible, demand‐oriented production, and use of biogas. When decentralized, this can make a significant contribution to stabilizing the electricity grids, which will be burdened by the fluctuating electricity production of photovoltaics and wind power plants and their rapid expansion (Lemmer & Krümpel, ).…”

Section: Technical Framework Conditions For Biogas Production In the mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other substrates can be ecologically better at this point. Depending on the region and type of production, these may include grasses, the mixed silphy, but also F I G U R E 3 Share of generated energy from biogas in the EU member states (as of 2015) based on EBA (2015) and CE Delft (2016) miscanthus (Auburger, Petig, & Bahrs, 2017;Popp et al, 2017). Such perennial crops have the advantage over annual crops, such as maize, of requiring fewer resources and increasing the positive or decreasing the negative environmental impact per product unit (Kiesel, Wagner, & Lewandowski, 2017).…”

Section: Substratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status quo and perspectives of biogas production for energy and material utilization

Bahrs

Angenendt

2018

GCB Bioenergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biogas is in many respects a serious alternative to other fossil resources and complements other renewable energy sources from wind and sun. Biogas can be produced in many places decentrally. Its energy potential is high, and it is widely used in the EU and all over the world. With more than 16,000 ktoe of oil equivalent in the EU in 2016, it corresponds to approximately 8% of the total primary energy produced by renewable energies in the EU, produced with nearly 17,000 biogas plants. Nevertheless, the production costs of biogas and its products like energy, heat, and fuel are still too high. Kost et al. (2018) show a comparison of electricity generation costs of different renewable energies and their future potentials. While electricity from huge biogas plants offers generation costs from 10 to 15 ct/kWh, electricity from onshore wind and huge solar systems offers generation costs from 4 to 8 ct/kWh. Although substantial progress has been made with regard to substrate use, production techniques and market designs, many more innovations are needed throughout the biogas value chain for it to be competitive in energy markets without high subsidies. As several papers in the special issue on biogas show, there are numerous innovations and product designs with regard to energy and material uses that could maintain or even increase the importance of biogas production both within and outside of the EU. There are many potential benefits of biogas, as it offers high shares of produced renewable energies as well as large amounts of material products like digestates and in future maybe products of higher value such as proteins or lactic acids.

show abstract

“…What on the surface appears obvious, however, may not make sense economically. While research into the economic viability of different feedstocks has occupied a central place in the literature on biogas [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], the economics of using aquatic biomass have received almost no attention. Some studies have considered algal biomass [17][18][19][20][21], but algae are not comparable to the biomass obtained from de-weeding waterways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using aquatic plant biomass from de-weeding in biogas processes—an economically viable option?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Landscape maintenance in Germany today requires regular and extensive de-weeding of waterways, mostly to ensure water runoff and provide flood protection. The costs for this maintenance are high, and the harvested biomass goes to waste. Methods: We evaluated the economic feasibility of using water plant biomass as a substrate in biogas generation. We set up a plausible supply chain, used it to calculate the costs of using aquatic water biomass as a seasonal feedstock to generate biogas, and compared it against maize silage, a standard biogas substrate. We also calculated the costs of using the aquatic biomass mixed with straw silage.

show abstract

Assessment of grassland as biogas feedstock in terms of production costs and greenhouse gas emissions in exemplary federal states of Germany

Cited by 20 publications

References 35 publications

A plant‐specific model approach to assess effects of repowering measures on existing biogas plants: The case of Baden‐Wuerttemberg

A plant‐specific model approach to assess effects of repowering measures on existing biogas plants: The case of Baden‐Wuerttemberg

Status quo and perspectives of biogas production for energy and material utilization

Using aquatic plant biomass from de-weeding in biogas processes—an economically viable option?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About