IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v86y2009i1p25-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technical and economic analysis of biogas production in Ireland utilising three different crop rotations

Author

Listed:
  • Murphy, J.D.
  • Power, N.

Abstract

The Biofuels Directive sets reference values for the quantity of biofuels and other renewable fuels to be placed on the transport market. Biogas from agricultural crops can be used to meet this directive. This paper investigates biogas production for three crop rotations: wheat, barley and sugar beet; wheat, wheat and sugar beet; wheat only. A technical and economic analysis for each crop rotation was carried out. It was found that wheat produces significantly more biogas than either barley or sugar beet, when examined on a weight basis. However sugar beet produces more biogas and subsequently more energy when examined on an area basis. When producing biofuels, land is the limiting factor to the quantity of energy that may be produced. Thus if optimising land then a crop rotation of wheat, wheat and sugar beet should be utilised, as this scenario produced the greatest quantity of energy. This scenario has a production cost of [euro]0.90/mN3, therefore, this scenario is competitive with petrol when the price of petrol is at least [euro]1.09/l (VAT is charged at 21%). If optimising the production costs then a crop rotation of wheat only should be utilised when the cost of grain is less than [euro]132/ton. This scenario has the least production cost at [euro]0.83/mN3, therefore, this scenario is competitive with petrol when the price of petrol is at least [euro]1.00/l. But as this scenario produces the least quantity of biogas, it also produces the least quantity of energy. In comparing with other works by the authors it is shown that a biomethane system produces more energy from the same crops at a cheaper cost than an ethanol system.

Suggested Citation

  • Murphy, J.D. & Power, N., 2009. "Technical and economic analysis of biogas production in Ireland utilising three different crop rotations," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 25-36, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:86:y:2009:i:1:p:25-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306-2619(08)00090-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murphy, J.D. & McKeogh, E., 2004. "Technical, economic and environmental analysis of energy production from municipal solid waste," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 1043-1057.
    2. Murphy, J. D. & McKeogh, E. & Kiely, G., 2004. "Technical/economic/environmental analysis of biogas utilisation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(4), pages 407-427, April.
    3. Murphy, J.D. & McCarthy, K., 2005. "The optimal production of biogas for use as a transport fuel in Ireland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(14), pages 2111-2127.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gómez, Antonio & Zubizarreta, Javier & Rodrigues, Marcos & Dopazo, César & Fueyo, Norberto, 2010. "Potential and cost of electricity generation from human and animal waste in Spain," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 498-505.
    2. Singh, Anoop & Smyth, Beatrice M. & Murphy, Jerry D., 2010. "A biofuel strategy for Ireland with an emphasis on production of biomethane and minimization of land-take," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 277-288, January.
    3. Rubí Medina-Mijangos & Luis Seguí-Amórtegui, 2020. "Research Trends in the Economic Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Systems: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1980 to 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Browne, James & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Thamsiriroj, T & Murphy, Jerry D., 2011. "Assessing the cost of biofuel production with increasing penetration of the transport fuel market: A case study of gaseous biomethane in Ireland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4537-4547.
    5. Daniela Szymańska & Aleksandra Lewandowska, 2015. "Biogas Power Plants in Poland—Structure, Capacity, and Spatial Distribution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Lindfeldt, Erik G. & Saxe, Maria & Magnusson, Mimmi & Mohseni, Farzad, 2010. "Strategies for a road transport system based on renewable resources - The case of an import-independent Sweden in 2025," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(6), pages 1836-1845, June.
    7. Murphy, J.D. & McCarthy, K., 2005. "The optimal production of biogas for use as a transport fuel in Ireland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 30(14), pages 2111-2127.
    8. Cong, Rong-Gang & Caro, Dario & Thomsen, Marianne, 2017. "Is it beneficial to use biogas in the Danish transport sector?–An environmental-economic analysis," MPRA Paper 112291, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Van Dael, Miet & Van Passel, Steven & Pelkmans, Luc & Guisson, Ruben & Reumermann, Patrick & Luzardo, Nathalie Marquez & Witters, Nele & Broeze, Jan, 2013. "A techno-economic evaluation of a biomass energy conversion park," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 611-622.
    10. Singh, Anoop & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Korres, Nicholas E. & Murphy, Jerry D., 2011. "The effect of reactor design on the sustainability of grass biomethane," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 1567-1574, April.
    11. Thamsiriroj, T. & Murphy, J.D., 2011. "The impact of the life cycle analysis methodology on whether biodiesel produced from residues can meet the EU sustainability criteria for biofuel facilities constructed after 2017," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 50-63.
    12. Fierro, Julio & Gómez, Xiomar & Murphy, Jerry D., 2014. "What is the resource of second generation gaseous transport biofuels based on pig slurries in Spain?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 783-789.
    13. Esfilar, Reza & Bagheri, Mehdi & Golestani, Behrooz, 2021. "Technoeconomic feasibility review of hybrid waste to energy system in the campus: A case study for the University of Victoria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    14. Murphy, J.D. & McKeogh, E., 2006. "The benefits of integrated treatment of wastes for the production of energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 294-310.
    15. Morin, Philippe & Marcos, Bernard & Moresoli, Christine & Laflamme, Claude B., 2010. "Economic and environmental assessment on the energetic valorization of organic material for a municipality in Quebec, Canada," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 275-283, January.
    16. Konečná, Eva & Teng, Sin Yong & Máša, Vítězslav, 2020. "New insights into the potential of the gas microturbine in microgrids and industrial applications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Li, Yangyang & Jin, Yiying & Li, Hailong & Borrion, Aiduan & Yu, Zhixin & Li, Jinhui, 2018. "Kinetic studies on organic degradation and its impacts on improving methane production during anaerobic digestion of food waste," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 136-147.
    18. Jingura, Raphael Muzondiwa & Musademba, Downmore & Kamusoko, Reckson, 2013. "A review of the state of biomass energy technologies in Zimbabwe," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 652-659.
    19. Lauer, Markus & Hansen, Jason K. & Lamers, Patrick & Thrän, Daniela, 2018. "Making money from waste: The economic viability of producing biogas and biomethane in the Idaho dairy industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 621-636.
    20. Hao, Xiaoli & Yang, Hongxing & Zhang, Guoqiang, 2008. "Trigeneration: A new way for landfill gas utilization and its feasibility in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3662-3673, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:86:y:2009:i:1:p:25-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.