IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v122y2017icp373-387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I—A multi-criteria approach

Author

Listed:
  • Feiz, Roozbeh
  • Ammenberg, Jonas

Abstract

Expansion of biogas production is dependent on the availability of suitable feedstocks (biomass). What feedstock is suitable is a question that can be tackled from many different perspectives—it is a multi-dimensional problem. Therefore, a multi-criteria method has been developed that can be used to assess the suitability of feedstock for biogas and biofertilizer production. The method covers aspects of resource efficiency and feasibility, and the potential to supply renewable energy and recycle nutrients, operationalized via 16 indicators directed towards cost efficiency, technological feasibility, energy and environmental performance, accessibility, competition, policy and other issues. Thus it is relatively comprehensive method, yet simple enough to be used by practitioners. The main ambition, applying the method, has been to collect and structure relevant information to facilitate strategic overviews, communication and informed decision making. This is relevant for development within the biogas and biofertilizer industry, to define and prioritize among essential research projects, regarding policy, etc. This article, the first of two associated articles, is focused on the method itself. For illustration, the method is applied to assess the suitability of producing biogas from “stickleback”, which is a non-edible fish in the Baltic Sea region. In the companion article (Part II), four other feedstocks are assessed in detail, namely ley crops, straw, farmed blue mussels, and source-sorted food waste.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:373-387
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917300307
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019?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. Budzianowski, Wojciech M., 2016. "A review of potential innovations for production, conditioning and utilization of biogas with multiple-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 1148-1171.
    2. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    3. Ruth Offermann & Thilo Seidenberger & Daniela Thrän & Martin Kaltschmitt & Sergey Zinoviev & Stanislav Miertus, 2011. "Assessment of global bioenergy potentials," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 103-115, January.
    4. Kaygusuz, K. & Türker, M.F., 2002. "Biomass energy potential in Turkey," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 661-678.
    5. Wedley, William C., 1990. "Combining qualitative and quantitative factors--an analytic hierarchy approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 57-64.
    6. Elghali, Lucia & Clift, Roland & Sinclair, Philip & Panoutsou, Calliope & Bauen, Ausilio, 2007. "Developing a sustainability framework for the assessment of bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6075-6083, December.
    7. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521182935, January.
    8. Lantz, Mikael & Svensson, Mattias & Bjornsson, Lovisa & Borjesson, Pal, 2007. "The prospects for an expansion of biogas systems in Sweden--Incentives, barriers and potentials," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1830-1843, March.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    12. Lönnqvist, Tomas & Silveira, Semida & Sanches-Pereira, Alessandro, 2013. "Swedish resource potential from residues and energy crops to enhance biogas generation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 298-314.
    13. Global Energy Assessment Writing Team,, 2012. "Global Energy Assessment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107005198, January.
    14. Hiloidhari, Moonmoon & Das, Dhiman & Baruah, D.C., 2014. "Bioenergy potential from crop residue biomass in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 504-512.
    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. Zhang, Lihui & Wang, Jianing & Li, Songrui, 2022. "Regional suitability analysis of the rural biogas power generation industry:A case of China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 293-306.
    2. Michał Bembenek & Vasyl Melnyk & Bolesław Karwat & Tomasz Rokita & Mariia Hnyp & Yurii Mosora & Łukasz Warguła, 2024. "Study of the Technical and Operational Parameters of Injectors Using Biogas Fuel," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Catalano, Giovanni & D'Adamo, Idiano & Gastaldi, Massimo & Nizami, Abdul-Sattar & Ribichini, Marco, 2024. "Incentive policies in biomethane production toward circular economy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    4. Suzy C. Cortez & Adriana C. Cherri & Daniel Jugend & Gessica M. K. Jesus & Barbara S. Bezerra, 2022. "How Can Biodigesters Help Drive the Circular Economy? An Analysis Based on the SWOT Matrix and Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, June.

    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. Holmatov, B. & Schyns, J.F. & Krol, M.S. & Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. & Hoekstra, A.Y., 2021. "Can crop residues provide fuel for future transport? Limited global residue bioethanol potentials and large associated land, water and carbon footprints," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    2. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Roozbeh Feiz & Jonas Ammenberg & Annika Björn & Yufang Guo & Magnus Karlsson & Yonghui Liu & Yuxian Liu & Laura Shizue Moriga Masuda & Alex Enrich-Prast & Harald Rohracher & Kristina Trygg & Sepehr Sh, 2019. "Biogas Potential for Improved Sustainability in Guangzhou, China—A Study Focusing on Food Waste on Xiaoguwei Island," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    4. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    5. Saygin, D. & Gielen, D.J. & Draeck, M. & Worrell, E. & Patel, M.K., 2014. "Assessment of the technical and economic potentials of biomass use for the production of steam, chemicals and polymers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1153-1167.
    6. 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.
    7. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    8. Lauri, Pekka & Havlík, Petr & Kindermann, Georg & Forsell, Nicklas & Böttcher, Hannes & Obersteiner, Michael, 2014. "Woody biomass energy potential in 2050," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 19-31.
    9. Vassilis Stavrakas & Niki-Artemis Spyridaki & Alexandros Flamos, 2018. "Striving towards the Deployment of Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): A Review of Research Priorities and Assessment Needs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-27, June.
    10. Lönnqvist, Tomas & Anderberg, Stefan & Ammenberg, Jonas & Sandberg, Thomas & Grönkvist, Stefan, 2019. "Stimulating biogas in the transport sector in a Swedish region – An actor and policy analysis with supply side focus," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Jonas Ammenberg & Sofia Dahlgren, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part I—A Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    12. Anne-Maree Dowd & Michelle Rodriguez & Talia Jeanneret, 2015. "Social Science Insights for the BioCCS Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-19, May.
    13. Fankhauser, Samuel & Jotzo, Frank, 2017. "Economic growth and development with low-carbon energy," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86850, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Tilmann Rave, 2013. "Innovationsindikatoren zum globalen Klimaschutz – FuE-Ausgaben und Patente," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 66(15), pages 34-41, August.
    15. Daniel Moran & Richard Wood, 2014. "Convergence Between The Eora, Wiod, Exiobase, And Openeu'S Consumption-Based Carbon Accounts," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 245-261, September.
    16. Lykke E. Andersen & Luis Carlos Jemio, 2016. "Decentralization and poverty reduction in Bolivia: Challenges and opportunities," Development Research Working Paper Series 01/2016, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    17. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    18. Chen, Han & Huang, Ye & Shen, Huizhong & Chen, Yilin & Ru, Muye & Chen, Yuanchen & Lin, Nan & Su, Shu & Zhuo, Shaojie & Zhong, Qirui & Wang, Xilong & Liu, Junfeng & Li, Bengang & Tao, Shu, 2016. "Modeling temporal variations in global residential energy consumption and pollutant emissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 820-829.
    19. Inglesi-Lotz, Roula, 2017. "Social rate of return to R&D on various energy technologies: Where should we invest more? A study of G7 countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 521-525.
    20. Tom Mikunda & Tom Kober & Heleen de Coninck & Morgan Bazilian & Hilke R�sler & Bob van der Zwaan, 2014. "Designing policy for deployment of CCS in industry," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 665-676, September.

    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:recore:v:122:y:2017:i:c:p:373-387. 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: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    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.