IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2230-d331845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greenhouse Gas Abatement Potentials and Economics of Selected Biochemicals in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Frazer Musonda

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
    Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management, University Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Markus Millinger

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Daniela Thrän

    (Department of Bioenergy, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
    Institute for Infrastructure and Resources Management, University Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, Germany
    DBFZ Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gemeinnützige GmbH, Torgauer Straße 116, 04347 Leipzig, Germany)

Abstract

In this paper, biochemicals with the potential to substitute fossil reference chemicals in Germany were identified using technological readiness and substitution potential criteria. Their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were quantified by using life cycle assessments (LCA) and their economic viabilities were determined by comparing their minimum selling prices with fossil references’ market prices. A bottom up mathematical optimization model, BioENergy OPTimization (BENOPT) was used to investigate the GHG abatement potential and the corresponding abatement costs for the biochemicals up to 2050. BENOPT determines the optimal biomass allocation pathways based on maximizing GHG abatement under resource, capacity, and demand constraints. The identified biochemicals were bioethylene, succinic acid, polylactic acid (PLA), and polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA). Results show that only succinic acid is economically competitive. Bioethylene which is the least performing in terms of economics breaks even at a carbon price of 420 euros per ton carbon dioxide equivalent (€/tCO 2 eq). With full tax waivers, a carbon price of 134 €/tCO 2 eq is necessary. This would result in positive margins for PHA and PLA of 12% and 16%, respectively. From the available agricultural land, modeling results show high sensitivity to assumptions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sequestration in biochemicals and integrated biochemicals production. GHG abatement for scenarios where these assumptions were disregarded and where they were collectively taken into account increased by 370% resulting in a 75% reduction in the corresponding GHG abatement costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Frazer Musonda & Markus Millinger & Daniela Thrän, 2020. "Greenhouse Gas Abatement Potentials and Economics of Selected Biochemicals in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2230-:d:331845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2230/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2230/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Codina Gironès, Víctor & Moret, Stefano & Peduzzi, Emanuela & Nasato, Marco & Maréchal, François, 2017. "Optimal use of biomass in large-scale energy systems: Insights for energy policy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 789-797.
    2. Paul B. Thompson, 2012. "The Agricultural Ethics of Biofuels: The Food vs. Fuel Debate," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Bentsen, Niclas Scott & Jack, Michael W. & Felby, Claus & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2014. "Allocation of biomass resources for minimising energy system greenhouse gas emissions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 506-515.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louw, Jeanne & Dogbe, Eunice S. & Yang, Bin & Görgens, Johann F., 2023. "Prioritisation of biomass-derived products for biorefineries based on economic feasibility: A review on the comparability of techno-economic assessment results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Sören Richter & Nora Szarka & Alberto Bezama & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "What Drives a Future German Bioeconomy? A Narrative and STEEPLE Analysis for Explorative Characterisation of Scenario Drivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-32, March.

    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. Tse, H. & Leung, C.W. & Cheung, C.S., 2015. "Investigation on the combustion characteristics and particulate emissions from a diesel engine fueled with diesel-biodiesel-ethanol blends," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 343-350.
    2. Zang, Guiyan & Zhang, Jianan & Jia, Junxi & Lora, Electo Silva & Ratner, Albert, 2020. "Life cycle assessment of power-generation systems based on biomass integrated gasification combined cycles," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 336-346.
    3. Monia El Akkari & Nosra Ben Fradj & Benoit Gabrielle & Sylvestre Njakou Djomo, 2023. "Spatially-explicit environmental assessment of bioethanol from miscanthus and switchgrass in France [Évaluation environnementale spatialement explicite du bioéthanol produit à partir de miscanthus ," Post-Print hal-04369771, HAL.
    4. Jacek Wasilewski & Grzegorz Zając & Joanna Szyszlak-Bargłowicz & Andrzej Kuranc, 2022. "Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emission Levels during the Combustion of Selected Types of Agricultural Biomass," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Sosa, Amanda & Acuna, Mauricio & McDonnell, Kevin & Devlin, Ger, 2015. "Managing the moisture content of wood biomass for the optimisation of Ireland's transport supply strategy to bioenergy markets and competing industries," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 354-368.
    6. Gomes, Gabriel & Hache, Emmanuel & Mignon, Valérie & Paris, Anthony, 2018. "On the current account - biofuels link in emerging and developing countries: do oil price fluctuations matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 60-67.
    7. Zailan, Roziah & Lim, Jeng Shiun & Manan, Zainuddin Abdul & Alwi, Sharifah Rafidah Wan & Mohammadi-ivatloo, Behnam & Jamaluddin, Khairulnadzmi, 2021. "Malaysia scenario of biomass supply chain-cogeneration system and optimization modeling development: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    8. Elena Claire Ricci & Massimo Peri & Lucia Baldi, 2019. "The Effects of Agricultural Price Instability on Vertical Price Transmission: A Study of the Wheat Chain in Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Mingming Zhang & Dequn Zhou & Hao Ding & Jingliang Jin, 2016. "Biomass Power Generation Investment in China: A Real Options Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-22, June.
    10. Panos, Evangelos & Kannan, Ramachandran, 2016. "The role of domestic biomass in electricity, heat and grid balancing markets in Switzerland," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1120-1138.
    11. Vidal-Amaro, Juan José & Østergaard, Poul Alberg & Sheinbaum-Pardo, Claudia, 2015. "Optimal energy mix for transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources – The case of the Mexican electricity system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 80-96.
    12. de Paula Protásio, Thiago & Roque Lima, Michael Douglas & Scatolino, Mário Vanoli & Silva, Alanna Barishinikov & Rodrigues de Figueiredo, Izabel Cristina & Gherardi Hein, Paulo Ricardo & Trugilho, Pau, 2021. "Charcoal productivity and quality parameters for reliable classification of Eucalyptus clones from Brazilian energy forests," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 34-45.
    13. Florian Felix Klein & Agnes Emberger-Klein & Klaus Menrad, 2020. "Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, January.
    14. Pradhan, Anup & Mbohwa, Charles, 2014. "Development of biofuels in South Africa: Challenges and opportunities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1089-1100.
    15. Piotr Ziembicki & Joachim Kozioł & Jan Bernasiński & Ireneusz Nowogoński, 2019. "Innovative System for Heat Recovery and Combustion Gas Cleaning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    16. Ma, Y. & Li, Y.P. & Mei, H. & Nie, S. & Huang, G.H. & Li, Y.F. & Suo, C., 2024. "Potential way to plan China's power system (2021–2050) for climate change mitigation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    17. van Dijk, Mathilde & Goedegebure, Robert & Nap, Jan-Peter, 2024. "Public acceptance of biomass for bioenergy: The need for feedstock differentiation and communicating a waste utilization frame," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    18. Martin L. Battaglia & Wade E. Thomason & John H. Fike & Gregory K. Evanylo & Ryan D. Stewart & Cole D. Gross & Mahmoud F. Seleiman & Emre Babur & Amir Sadeghpour & Matthew Tom Harrison, 2022. "Corn and Wheat Residue Management Effects on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Mid-Atlantic USA," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Liu, Beibei & Wu, Qiaoran & Wang, Feng & Zhang, Bing, 2019. "Is straw return-to-field always beneficial? Evidence from an integrated cost-benefit analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 393-402.
    20. Cai, Lei & He, Tianzhi & Xiang, Yanlei & Guan, Yanwen, 2020. "Study on the reaction pathways of steam methane reforming for H2 production," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2230-:d:331845. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.