IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v114y2016icp1176-1186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of biomethane technologies in Europe – Technical concepts under the scope of a Delphi-Survey embedded in a multi-criteria analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Billig, Eric
  • Thrän, Daniela

Abstract

Methane from biomass is a well suited renewable energy carrier with a wide range of applications. The main technologies for its production out of biomass are biochemical conversion from the upgrading of biogas and thermochemical conversion by gasification and methanation. Presently there exists no methodology to compare the process alternatives for methane production from biomass. This paper investigates a comprehensive evaluation method based on a multi-criteria analysis. Due to the comparable well developed biomethane market in Europe, compared to other regions in the world, the study area was restricted to Europe. The weighting of the different criteria is carried out in two rounds as a pair-to-pair comparison of the criteria by experts from different technology fields in a Delphi-Survey. As a result, the prioritisation can be used to classify the biomass conversion technologies to convert biomass to biomethane. According to the weightings given by experts, the two criteria energy efficiency and production costs are of great importance compared to the other criteria.

Suggested Citation

  • Billig, Eric & Thrän, Daniela, 2016. "Evaluation of biomethane technologies in Europe – Technical concepts under the scope of a Delphi-Survey embedded in a multi-criteria analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1176-1186.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:114:y:2016:i:c:p:1176-1186
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544216311975
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2016.08.084?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. Makkonen, Mari & Pätäri, Satu & Jantunen, Ari & Viljainen, Satu, 2012. "Competition in the European electricity markets – outcomes of a Delphi study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 431-440.
    2. Ribeiro, Lauro A. & da Silva, Patrícia Pereira & Mata, Teresa M. & Martins, António A., 2015. "Prospects of using microalgae for biofuels production: Results of a Delphi study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 799-804.
    3. de Boer, Harmen Sytze & Grond, Lukas & Moll, Henk & Benders, René, 2014. "The application of power-to-gas, pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage in an electricity system at different wind power penetration levels," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 360-370.
    4. Celiktas, Melih Soner & Kocar, Gunnur, 2010. "From potential forecast to foresight of Turkey's renewable energy with Delphi approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1973-1980.
    5. Al-Shemmeri, Tarik & Al-Kloub, Bashar & Pearman, Alan, 1997. "Model choice in multicriteria decision aid," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 550-560, March.
    6. Dinca, Cristian & Badea, Adrian & Rousseaux, Patrick & Apostol, Tiberiu, 2007. "A multi-criteria approach to evaluate the natural gas energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5754-5765, November.
    7. Dinwoodie, John & Landamore, Melanie & Rigot-Muller, Patrick, 2014. "Dry bulk shipping flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of early career specialists," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 64-75.
    8. Tang, Yong & Sun, Honghang & Yao, Qiang & Wang, Yibo, 2014. "The selection of key technologies by the silicon photovoltaic industry based on the Delphi method and AHP (analytic hierarchy process): Case study of China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 474-482.
    9. Ghafghazi, S. & Sowlati, T. & Sokhansanj, S. & Melin, S., 2010. "A multicriteria approach to evaluate district heating system options," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 1134-1140, April.
    10. Qu, Mei & Ahponen, Pirkkoliisa & Tahvanainen, Liisa & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2010. "Chinese academic experts' assessment for forest bio-energy development in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 6767-6775, November.
    11. Tafarte, Philip & Das, Subhashree & Eichhorn, Marcus & Thrän, Daniela, 2014. "Small adaptations, big impacts: Options for an optimized mix of variable renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 80-92.
    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. Jiashun Huang & Weiping Li & Xijie Huang & Lijia Guo, 2017. "Analysis of the Relative Sustainability of Land Devoted to Bioenergy: Comparing Land-Use Alternatives in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, May.
    2. Selleneit, Volker & Stöckl, Martin & Holzhammer, Uwe, 2020. "System efficiency – Methodology for rating of industrial utilities in electricity grids with a high share of variable renewable energies – A first approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Chun-Chieh Tseng & Jun-Yi Zeng & Min-Liang Hsieh & Chih-Hung Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Guillermo Ivan Pereira & Patrícia Pereira Silva & Deborah Soule, 2018. "Policy-adaptation for a smarter and more sustainable EU electricity distribution industry: a foresight analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 231-267, December.
    5. Billig, E. & Thraen, D., 2017. "Renewable methane – A technology evaluation by multi-criteria decision making from a European perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 468-484.
    6. Eric Santos-Clotas & Alba Cabrera-Codony & Alba Castillo & Maria J. Martín & Manel Poch & Hèctor Monclús, 2019. "Environmental Decision Support System for Biogas Upgrading to Feasible Fuel," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Kathrin Bienert & Britt Schumacher & Martín Rojas Arboleda & Eric Billig & Samiksha Shakya & Gustav Rogstrand & Marcin Zieliński & Marcin Dębowski, 2019. "Multi-Indicator Assessment of Innovative Small-Scale Biomethane Technologies in Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-32, April.
    8. R. C. Assunção, Lorena & A. S. Mendes, Pietro & Matos, Stelvia & Borschiver, Suzana, 2021. "Technology roadmap of renewable natural gas: Identifying trends for research and development to improve biogas upgrading technology management," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    9. Feiz, Roozbeh & Ammenberg, Jonas, 2017. "Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—A multi-criteria approach," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 373-387.

    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. Prasad, Ravita D. & Bansal, R.C. & Raturi, Atul, 2014. "Multi-faceted energy planning: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 686-699.
    2. Ian Belton & Kerstin Cuhls & George Wright, 2022. "A critical evaluation of 42, large‐scale, science and technology foresight Delphi surveys," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), June.
    3. Paweł Ziemba & Jarosław Wątróbski & Magdalena Zioło & Artur Karczmarczyk, 2017. "Using the PROSA Method in Offshore Wind Farm Location Problems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Dinwoodie, John & Tuck, Sarah & Rigot-Müller, Patrick, 2013. "Maritime oil freight flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of maritime specialists," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 553-561.
    5. Rahman, Abul & Khanam, Tahamina & Pelkonen, Paavo, 2017. "People’s knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards stump harvesting for bioenergy production in Finland," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 107-116.
    6. Kolb, Sebastian & Plankenbühler, Thomas & Frank, Jonas & Dettelbacher, Johannes & Ludwig, Ralf & Karl, Jürgen & Dillig, Marius, 2021. "Scenarios for the integration of renewable gases into the German natural gas market – A simulation-based optimisation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    7. Fichter, Tobias & Soria, Rafael & Szklo, Alexandre & Schaeffer, Roberto & Lucena, Andre F.P., 2017. "Assessing the potential role of concentrated solar power (CSP) for the northeast power system of Brazil using a detailed power system model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 695-715.
    8. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    9. Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi, 2009. "Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5484-5493, December.
    10. Kargbo, Hannah & Harris, Jonathan Stuart & Phan, Anh N., 2021. "“Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: Critical review on techno-economic feasibility and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Prasanna, U.R. & Umanand, L., 2011. "Modeling and design of a solar thermal system for hybrid cooking application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(5), pages 1740-1755, May.
    12. Arévalo Quijada, Mª T. & Gómez Domínguez, D. & Vázquez Cueto, Mª J. & Zapata Reina, A., 2002. "Un estudio de las Cajas de Ahorros Andaluzas mediante el método multicriterio promethee," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 20, pages 5-27, Abril.
    13. Ghadi, Mojtaba Jabbari & Azizivahed, Ali & Mishra, Dillip Kumar & Li, Li & Zhang, Jiangfeng & Shafie-khah, Miadreza & Catalão, João P.S., 2021. "Application of small-scale compressed air energy storage in the daily operation of an active distribution system," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    14. Aikaterini Papapostolou & Charikleia Karakosta & Kalliopi-Anastasia Kourti & Haris Doukas & John Psarras, 2019. "Supporting Europe’s Energy Policy Towards a Decarbonised Energy System: A Comparative Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, July.
    15. Wang, H., 2015. "A generalized MCDA–DEA (multi-criterion decision analysis–data envelopment analysis) approach to construct slacks-based composite indicator," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 114-122.
    16. Alessio Ishizaka & Philippe Nemery, 2013. "A Multi-Criteria Group Decision Framework for Partner Grouping When Sharing Facilities," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 773-799, July.
    17. Chun-Chieh Tseng & Jun-Yi Zeng & Min-Liang Hsieh & Chih-Hung Hsu, 2022. "Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-25, October.
    18. Vasić, Goran, 2018. "Application of multi criteria analysis in the design of energy policy: Space and water heating in households – City Novi Sad, Serbia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 410-419.
    19. Karunathilake, Hirushie & Hewage, Kasun & Mérida, Walter & Sadiq, Rehan, 2019. "Renewable energy selection for net-zero energy communities: Life cycle based decision making under uncertainty," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 558-573.
    20. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.

    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:energy:v:114:y:2016:i:c:p:1176-1186. 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/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.