IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/renene/v156y2020icp440-458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-economic and environmental assessment of the main biogas upgrading technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Lombardi, Lidia
  • Francini, Giovanni

Abstract

Five biogas-to-biomethane upgrading technologies were compared from the environmental and economic points of view: High-Pressure Water Scrubbing (HPWS), Amine Scrubbing (AS), Potassium Carbonate Scrubbing (PCS), Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) and Membrane Permeation (MP). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) methods were used for the comparison. In order to provide a wider picture of the conversion system and its impacts, the biogas production processes, starting from source sorted organic fraction of municipal solid waste, were included. The intention was to maintain the same object for the LCA and the LCC, given that the cost of biogas production had to be included for the calculation of the economic indicators. The cost analysis included also the evaluation of the external costs, derived from the monetization of the air emissions of the systems. The selected functional unit was the upgrading of 1 Nm3 of raw biogas. Data were collected directly from companies providing upgrading plants and confirmed by literature review. A biogas-to-biomethane plant proved to have environmental and economic benefits and, as expected, for larger plant sizes the economic performances improved. AS showed the best environmental performances mainly due to its limited CH4 losses and lower electricity consumption. Considering the contribution from only the upgrading part, AS showed the lowest impacts for the global warming potential (GWP) indicator (respectively 13%, 1%, 23% and 3% less than HPWS, PCS, PSA and MP). However, the results changed for other impact categories: for human toxicity indicator PSA showed lower impacts compared to the other technologies, respectively 7%, 144%, 1% and 9% less compared to HPWS, AS, PCS and MP. For small size plants, HPWS proved to be slightly more cost-effective compared to other technologies. For large size plants, PCS showed the highest net present value. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis showed that the electricity consumption is a key parameter for the economic and environmental results. Its variation proved that for the 60% of cases AS was the best solution in terms of GWP, however 35% and 5% of cases respectively indicated that PCS and MP had the lowest GWP.

Suggested Citation

  • Lombardi, Lidia & Francini, Giovanni, 2020. "Techno-economic and environmental assessment of the main biogas upgrading technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 440-458.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:renene:v:156:y:2020:i:c:p:440-458
    DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.083
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148120306157
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.renene.2020.04.083?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Wang, Jinman & Wang, Ruogu & Zhu, Yucheng & Li, Jiayan, 2018. "Life cycle assessment and environmental cost accounting of coal-fired power generation in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 374-384.
    2. Barbera, Elena & Menegon, Silvia & Banzato, Donatella & D'Alpaos, Chiara & Bertucco, Alberto, 2019. "From biogas to biomethane: A process simulation-based techno-economic comparison of different upgrading technologies in the Italian context," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 663-673.
    3. Ciro Florio & Gabriella Fiorentino & Fabiana Corcelli & Sergio Ulgiati & Stefano Dumontet & Joshua Güsewell & Ludger Eltrop, 2019. "A Life Cycle Assessment of Biomethane Production from Waste Feedstock Through Different Upgrading Technologies," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Hahn, Henning & Krautkremer, Bernd & Hartmann, Kilian & Wachendorf, Michael, 2014. "Review of concepts for a demand-driven biogas supply for flexible power generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 383-393.
    5. Hosseinipour, Sayed Amir & Mehrpooya, Mehdi, 2019. "Comparison of the biogas upgrading methods as a transportation fuel," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 641-655.
    6. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    7. Amit Agarwal & Benjamin Kickhöfer, 2018. "The correlation of externalities in marginal cost pricing: lessons learned from a real-world case study," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 849-873, May.
    8. Jensen, Ida Græsted & Skovsgaard, Lise, 2017. "The impact of CO2-costs on biogas usage," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 289-300.
    9. Collet, Pierre & Flottes, Eglantine & Favre, Alain & Raynal, Ludovic & Pierre, Hélène & Capela, Sandra & Peregrina, Carlos, 2017. "Techno-economic and Life Cycle Assessment of methane production via biogas upgrading and power to gas technology," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 282-295.
    10. Sun, Qie & Li, Hailong & Yan, Jinying & Liu, Longcheng & Yu, Zhixin & Yu, Xinhai, 2015. "Selection of appropriate biogas upgrading technology-a review of biogas cleaning, upgrading and utilisation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 521-532.
    11. Patrizio, P. & Leduc, S. & Chinese, D. & Kraxner, F., 2017. "Internalizing the external costs of biogas supply chains in the Italian energy sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 85-96.
    12. Pöschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Evaluation of energy efficiency of various biogas production and utilization pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 3305-3321, November.
    13. Mao, Chunlan & Feng, Yongzhong & Wang, Xiaojiao & Ren, Guangxin, 2015. "Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 540-555.
    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. Barbera, Elena & Menegon, Silvia & Banzato, Donatella & D'Alpaos, Chiara & Bertucco, Alberto, 2019. "From biogas to biomethane: A process simulation-based techno-economic comparison of different upgrading technologies in the Italian context," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 663-673.
    2. Khan, Muhammad Usman & Lee, Jonathan Tian En & Bashir, Muhammad Aamir & Dissanayake, Pavani Dulanja & Ok, Yong Sik & Tong, Yen Wah & Shariati, Mohammad Ali & Wu, Sarah & Ahring, Birgitte Kiaer, 2021. "Current status of biogas upgrading for direct biomethane use: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Ramos-Suárez, J.L. & Ritter, A. & Mata González, J. & Camacho Pérez, A., 2019. "Biogas from animal manure: A sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-150.
    4. Wantz, Eliot & Benizri, David & Dietrich, Nicolas & Hébrard, Gilles, 2022. "Rate-based modeling approach for High Pressure Water Scrubbing with unsteady gas flowrate and multicomponent absorption applied to biogas upgrading," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 312(C).
    5. Ghafoori, Mohammad Samim & Loubar, Khaled & Marin-Gallego, Mylène & Tazerout, Mohand, 2022. "Techno-economic and sensitivity analysis of biomethane production via landfill biogas upgrading and power-to-gas technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PB).
    6. Muhamed Rasit Atelge & Halil Senol & Mohammed Djaafri & Tulin Avci Hansu & David Krisa & Abdulaziz Atabani & Cigdem Eskicioglu & Hamdi Muratçobanoğlu & Sebahattin Unalan & Slimane Kalloum & Nuri Azbar, 2021. "A Critical Overview of the State-of-the-Art Methods for Biogas Purification and Utilization Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-39, October.
    7. Yusuf, Noor & Almomani, Fares, 2023. "Recent advances in biogas purifying technologies: Process design and economic considerations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. Apoorva Upadhyay & Andrey A. Kovalev & Elena A. Zhuravleva & Dmitriy A. Kovalev & Yuriy V. Litti & Shyam Kumar Masakapalli & Nidhi Pareek & Vivekanand Vivekanand, 2022. "Recent Development in Physical, Chemical, Biological and Hybrid Biogas Upgradation Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-30, December.
    9. Zheng, Lei & Cheng, Shikun & Han, Yanzhao & Wang, Min & Xiang, Yue & Guo, Jiali & Cai, Di & Mang, Heinz-Peter & Dong, Taili & Li, Zifu & Yan, Zhengxu & Men, Yu, 2020. "Bio-natural gas industry in China: Current status and development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    10. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Biogas from Agri-Food and Agricultural Waste Can Appreciate Agro-Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of Emilia Romagna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    11. Ramírez-Arpide, Félix Rafael & Espinosa-Solares, Teodoro & Gallegos-Vázquez, Clemente & Santoyo-Cortés, Vinicio Horacio, 2019. "Bioenergy production from nopal cladodes and dairy cow manure on a farm-scale level: Challenges for its economic feasibility in Mexico," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 383-392.
    12. Ardolino, F. & Cardamone, G.F. & Parrillo, F. & Arena, U., 2021. "Biogas-to-biomethane upgrading: A comparative review and assessment in a life cycle perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    13. Josipa Pavičić & Karolina Novak Mavar & Vladislav Brkić & Katarina Simon, 2022. "Biogas and Biomethane Production and Usage: Technology Development, Advantages and Challenges in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-28, April.
    14. Susanne Theuerl & Christiane Herrmann & Monika Heiermann & Philipp Grundmann & Niels Landwehr & Ulrich Kreidenweis & Annette Prochnow, 2019. "The Future Agricultural Biogas Plant in Germany: A Vision," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-32, January.
    15. Andrea Baccioli & Lorenzo Ferrari & Romain Guiller & Oumayma Yousfi & Francesco Vizza & Umberto Desideri, 2019. "Feasibility Analysis of Bio-Methane Production in a Biogas Plant: A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.
    16. Robert Bedoić & Goran Smoljanić & Tomislav Pukšec & Lidija Čuček & Davor Ljubas & Neven Duić, 2021. "Geospatial Analysis and Environmental Impact Assessment of a Holistic and Interdisciplinary Approach to the Biogas Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-20, August.
    17. Song, Guohui & Xiao, Jun & Yan, Chao & Gu, Haiming & Zhao, Hao, 2022. "Quality of gaseous biofuels: Statistical assessment and guidance on production technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    18. D’Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Huisingh, Donald & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2021. "A circular economy model based on biomethane: What are the opportunities for the municipality of Rome and beyond?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1660-1672.
    19. Ciuła, Józef & Generowicz, Agnieszka & Gronba-Chyła, Anna & Kwaśnicki, Paweł & Makara, Agnieszka & Kowalski, Zygmunt & Wiewiórska, Iwona, 2024. "Energy production from landfill gas, emissions and pollution indicators–Opportunities and barriers to implementing circular economy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    20. Bekkering, J. & Hengeveld, E.J. & van Gemert, W.J.T. & Broekhuis, A.A., 2015. "Will implementation of green gas into the gas supply be feasible in the future?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 409-417.

    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:renene:v:156:y:2020:i:c:p:440-458. 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.journals.elsevier.com/renewable-energy .

    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.