Biogas Plants as Hydrogen Production Facilities and Greenhouse Gas Sinks: Technology Comparison, Challenges and Potentials for Carbon Negative Hydrogen Production (HyBECCS)

Full, Johannes; Baumgarten, Yannick; Dokur, Yagmur; Miehe, Robert; Sauer, Alexander

doi:10.1016/j.procir.2022.04.031

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The basic requirements are, however, the deduction of all GHG emissions occurring over the entire process chain to determine the amount of negative emissions, economic viability, and a reliable long-term CO 2 storage [30]. Considering biogas plants, there are several possibilities to retrofit existing plants to HyBECCS facilities [35]. The technical approach considered in this work combines biogas-steam reforming with CCS, as described in the following section.…”

Section: The Hybeccs Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of Biogas Plants as BECCS Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Biomethane vs. Biohydrogen Production with Carbon Capture and Storage or Use (CCS/CCU)

Full,

Hohmann,

Ziehn

et al. 2023

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition to a carbon-neutral economy requires innovative solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and promote sustainable energy production. Additionally, carbon dioxide removal technologies are urgently needed. The production of biomethane or biohydrogen with carbon dioxide capture and storage are two promising BECCS approaches to achieve these goals. In this study, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches regarding their technical, economic, and environmental performance. Our analysis shows that while both approaches have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy security, the hydrogen-production approach has several advantages, including up to five times higher carbon dioxide removal potential. However, the hydrogen bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (HyBECCS) approach also faces some challenges, such as higher capital costs, the need for additional infrastructure, and lower energy efficiency. Our results give valuable insights into the trade-offs between these two approaches. They can inform decision-makers regarding the most suitable method for reducing GHG emissions and provide renewable energy in different settings.

show abstract

Section: The Hybeccs Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of Biogas Plants as BECCS Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Biomethane vs. Biohydrogen Production with Carbon Capture and Storage or Use (CCS/CCU)

Full,

Hohmann,

Ziehn

et al. 2023

Energies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The biogas itself contains 50-75% methane (CH 4 ) and 25-45% carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), as well as trace amounts of other gases (hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), hydrogen (H)) [14][15][16]. Its production is not associated with the formation of most harmful gases, i.e., nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Manure Use for Energy Purposes on the Economic Balance of a Dairy Farm

Mazurkiewicz

2023

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of methane fermentation in mesophilic conditions for the energy use of cow manure and additional co-substrates from the farm can bring a small dairy farm (140 dairy cows) financial benefits of up to EUR 114,159 per year. Taking into account the need to pay for emissions calculated as carbon dioxide equivalent, this profit could be reduced to EUR 81,323 per year. With the traditional direct use of manure, this profit would drop by as much as 60% to the level of EUR 33,944 per year. Therefore, the introduction of fees for emissions may significantly burden current dairy farms. As has already been shown, just compacting and covering the manure (which costs approx. EUR 2000 per year for 140 cows) would give almost twice as much profit—EUR 64,509 per year. Although an investment in a small biogas plant with a cogeneration unit on a family dairy farm may have a payback period of less than 6.5 years and a return of capital employed of 16%, most small farms in the world will not be able to afford its construction without external subsidies. At the same time, it would make it possible to reduce emissions by almost 270 times—from 41,460 to 154 tons of CO2eq per year—and the possibility of preserving valuable nutrients and minerals and supporting soil properties in the digestate. Therefore, it seems necessary for Europe to introduce a support system for small- and medium-sized farms with this type of investment in the near future in a much larger form than it has been so far.

show abstract

Carbon-negative hydrogen production (HyBECCS): An exemplary techno-economic and environmental assessment

Full,

Geller,

Ziehn

et al. 2024

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biogas Plants as Hydrogen Production Facilities and Greenhouse Gas Sinks: Technology Comparison, Challenges and Potentials for Carbon Negative Hydrogen Production (HyBECCS)

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Perspectives of Biogas Plants as BECCS Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Biomethane vs. Biohydrogen Production with Carbon Capture and Storage or Use (CCS/CCU)

Perspectives of Biogas Plants as BECCS Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Biomethane vs. Biohydrogen Production with Carbon Capture and Storage or Use (CCS/CCU)

The Impact of Manure Use for Energy Purposes on the Economic Balance of a Dairy Farm

Carbon-negative hydrogen production (HyBECCS): An exemplary techno-economic and environmental assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About