IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/foi/wpaper/2014_03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector

Author

Listed:
  • Mikkel Bojesen

    (Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen)

  • Luc Boerboom

    (Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, University of Twente)

  • Hans Skov-Petersen

    (Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

Promotion of bioenergy production is an important contemporary topic around the world. Vast amounts of research are allocated towards analysing and understanding bioenergy systems, which are by nature multi-faceted. Despite a focus on the deployment of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods for planning of bioenergy systems, only little research has addressed the location component of bioenergy facility planning. In this paper the authors develop a model for sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector allowing for an identification and prioritization of suitable locations for biogas production. The model builds on a framework for spatial planning and decision making through the application of spatial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE). The paper is structured around a case study including four Danish municipalities in order to demonstrate the power of the spatial multi-criteria evaluation model. The model allows a two level comparison of suitability, within municipalities as well as between municipalities. Criteria weights for generation of alternatives are obtained through an analytical hierarchy process (AHP), carried out among a group of Danish central governmental decision makers. We find that resource and production economic criteria are given highest priority followed by environmental and social criteria. In all four case study municipalities, the identified alternatives are compared through incorporating economic, environmental and social criteria. It is found that a sustainable facility location has the potential of reducing overall production costs by 3% as compared with current biogas plants. The results of this paper can provide support to central governmental decision makers, regarding regional allocation of subsidies in the country. Likewise local decision makers can obtain important information for planning and decision support, allowing for a more inclusive and transparent planning procedure.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikkel Bojesen & Luc Boerboom & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2014. "Towards a sustainable capacity expansion of the Danish biogas sector," IFRO Working Paper 2014/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:foi:wpaper:2014_03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2014/IFRO_WP_2014_03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sultana, Arifa & Kumar, Amit, 2012. "Optimal siting and size of bioenergy facilities using geographic information system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 192-201.
    2. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    3. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    4. Bojesen, M. & Birkin, M. & Clarke, G., 2014. "Spatial competition for biogas production using insights from retail location models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 617-628.
    5. Angus J. Winchester & Della Hooke & Mike Parker Pearson & N. James & Bill Britnell & Edith Evans & Ian Dormor & Andy Wigley & Tom Williamson & Peter Herring & David Stone & Brian Rich & Barbara Englis, 2013. "Reviews," Landscape History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 91-116, May.
    6. Mikkel Bojesen & Hans Skov-Petersen & Morten Gylling, 2013. "Forecasting the potential of Danish biogas production: spatial representation of Markov chains," IFRO Working Paper 2013/16, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    7. Russell L. Ackoff, 1981. "The Art and Science of Mess Management," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 20-26, February.
    8. Beck, Jessica & Kempener, Ruud & Cohen, Brett & Petrie, Jim, 2008. "A complex systems approach to planning, optimization and decision making for energy networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2803-2813, August.
    9. Bojić, Sanja & Đatkov, Đorđe & Brcanov, Dejan & Georgijević, Milosav & Martinov, Milan, 2013. "Location allocation of solid biomass power plants: Case study of Vojvodina," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 769-775.
    10. Keeney, Ralph L., 1996. "Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 537-549, August.
    11. Islas, J. & Manzini, F. & Martínez, M., 2003. "Cost-benefit analysis of energy scenarios for the Mexican power sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 28(10), pages 979-992.
    12. Höhn, J. & Lehtonen, E. & Rasi, S. & Rintala, J., 2014. "A Geographical Information System (GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and sites for biogas plants in southern Finland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Robert T. Eckenrode, 1965. "Weighting Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 180-192, November.
    14. Mark Birkin & Richard Culf, 2001. "Optimal Distribution Strategies," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Graham Clarke & Moss Madden (ed.), Regional Science in Business, chapter 12, pages 223-241, Springer.
    15. Diakoulaki, D. & Karangelis, F., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 716-727, May.
    16. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    17. Theodorou, Savvas & Florides, Georgios & Tassou, Savvas, 2010. "The use of multiple criteria decision making methodologies for the promotion of RES through funding schemes in Cyprus, A review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7783-7792, December.
    18. Buchholz, Thomas & Rametsteiner, Ewald & Volk, Timothy A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2009. "Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 484-495, February.
    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. Khan, Ershad Ullah & Nordberg, Åke, 2019. "Thermal integration of membrane distillation in an anaerobic digestion biogas plant – A techno-economic assessment," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 1163-1174.

    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. Khishtandar, Soheila & Zandieh, Mostafa & Dorri, Behrouz, 2017. "A multi criteria decision making framework for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies with hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: The case of Iran," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1130-1145.
    2. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    3. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    4. Franco, Camilo & Bojesen, Mikkel & Hougaard, Jens Leth & Nielsen, Kurt, 2015. "A fuzzy approach to a multiple criteria and Geographical Information System for decision support on suitable locations for biogas plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 304-315.
    5. Soha, Tamás & Papp, Luca & Csontos, Csaba & Munkácsy, Béla, 2021. "The importance of high crop residue demand on biogas plant site selection, scaling and feedstock allocation – A regional scale concept in a Hungarian study area," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    7. Vukasinovic, Vladimir & Gordic, Dusan & Zivkovic, Marija & Koncalovic, Davor & Zivkovic, Dubravka, 2019. "Long-term planning methodology for improving wood biomass utilization," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 818-829.
    8. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2013. "Strategic sourcing in the UK bioenergy industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 478-490.
    9. Xiang Zhao & Xiaoya Ma & Kun Wang & Yuqing Long & Dongjie Zhang & Zhanchun Xiao, 2017. "A Spatially Explicit Optimization Model for Agricultural Straw-Based Power Plant Site Selection: A Case Study in Hubei Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, May.
    10. Sarker, Bhaba R. & Wu, Bingqing & Paudel, Krishna P., 2019. "Modeling and optimization of a supply chain of renewable biomass and biogas: Processing plant location," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 343-355.
    11. Klein, Sharon J.W. & Whalley, Stephanie, 2015. "Comparing the sustainability of U.S. electricity options through multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 127-149.
    12. Vukašinović, Vladimir & Gordić, Dušan, 2016. "Optimization and GIS-based combined approach for the determination of the most cost-effective investments in biomass sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 250-259.
    13. Mohamed Ali Elleuch & Marwa Mallek & Ahmed Frikha & Wafik Hachicha & Awad M. Aljuaid & Murad Andejany, 2021. "Solving a Multiple User Energy Source Selection Problem Using a Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    15. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    16. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    17. Seyed Hashem Mousavi-Avval & Sami Khanal & Ajay Shah, 2023. "Assessment of Potential Pennycress Availability and Suitable Sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Refineries in Ohio," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Zhang, Xingping & Luo, Kaiyan & Tan, Qinliang, 2016. "A feedstock supply model integrating the official organization for China's biomass generation plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 276-290.
    19. Tomaž Levstek & Črtomir Rozman, 2022. "A Model for Finding a Suitable Location for a Micro Biogas Plant Using Gis Tools," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-21, October.
    20. Doukas, Haris, 2013. "Modelling of linguistic variables in multicriteria energy policy support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(2), pages 227-238.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bioenergy facility location; spatial MADM modelling; biogas; GIS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • R12 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity; Interregional Trade (economic geography)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:foi:wpaper:2014_03. 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: Geir Tveit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/foikudk.html .

    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.