IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2022i1p264-d1013419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Increasing Biowaste and Manure in Biogas Feedstock Composition in Luxembourg: Insights from an Agent-Based Model

Author

Listed:
  • Alper Bayram

    (RDI Unit on Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Circularity, Environmental Research & Innovation (ERIN) Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), 5 Avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
    Computational Sciences, Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Luxembourg, 2 Avenue de l’Université, L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg)

  • Antonino Marvuglia

    (RDI Unit on Environmental Sustainability Assessment and Circularity, Environmental Research & Innovation (ERIN) Department, Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), 5 Avenue des Hauts-Fourneaux, L-4362 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg)

  • Maria Myridinas

    (Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands)

  • Marta Porcel

    (Naturgas Kielen, Route N12, L-8205 Kehlen, Luxembourg)

Abstract

Biowaste and manure are resources readily available as feedstock for biogas production. Possible scenarios with increased use of biowaste and manure for biogas production in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are investigated in this study using an Agent-Based Model (ABM) coupled with Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). ABMs are particularly suitable to simulate human-natural systems, since they allow modelers to consider behavioral aspects of individuals. On the other hand, when it comes to the assessment of a system’s environmental sustainability, LCA is largely recognized as a sound methodology and widely used in research, industry, and policy making. The paper simulates three different scenarios that reproduce 10 years and can help policymakers building emission mitigation strategies. The aim is to increase the number of biogas plants or change the feedstock composition for anaerobic digestion in Luxembourg whilst observing the expected environmental impacts generated by these changes. The first scenario ( Scenario A ) is the baseline scenario, which simulates the current situation, with 24 operating biogas plants. The results of Scenario A show that, on average, 63.02 GWh of electricity production per year is possible from biogas. The second scenario ( Scenario B ) foresees an increase in the manure share (which is initially 63%) in the biogas feedstock composition along with an increase in the number of biogas production plants. The third scenario ( Scenario C ) only concerns increasing the amount of manure in the feedstock composition without the introduction of new plants. The results of Scenario C show that an 11% increase in electricity production is possible if more farms contribute to the production by bringing their excess manure to the biogas plant. This value is even higher (14%) in Scenario D where more biowaste is made available. The aggregated life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) single scores, calculated with the ReCiPe method, show that Scenario C has the lowest impacts (although by only around 7% compared to the worst performing scenario, i.e., Scenario D ), while Scenario D allows the highest electricity production (71.87 GWh in the last year of the simulation). As a result, the inclusion of more livestock farms into already established biogas cooperatives (as in Scenario C ) can pave the way for an increase in electricity production from renewables and can bring a reduction in environmental impacts (more than 35% for the Terrestrial Ecotoxicity impact category and more than 27% in categories such as Agricultural Land Occupation, Marine Eutrophication and Water Depletion), thanks to the exploitation of manure for biogas production.

Suggested Citation

  • Alper Bayram & Antonino Marvuglia & Maria Myridinas & Marta Porcel, 2022. "Increasing Biowaste and Manure in Biogas Feedstock Composition in Luxembourg: Insights from an Agent-Based Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-26, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:264-:d:1013419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons & Kellermann, Konrad, 2004. "The agricultural policy simulator (AgriPoliS): an agent-based model to study structural change in agriculture (Version 1.0)," IAMO Discussion Papers 71, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    2. Nugroho, Yohanes Kristianto & Zhu, Liandong & Heavey, Cathal, 2022. "Building an agent-based techno-economic assessment coupled with life cycle assessment of biomass to methanol supply chains," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    3. Kremmydas, Dimitris & Athanasiadis, Ioannis N. & Rozakis, Stelios, 2018. "A review of Agent Based Modeling for agricultural policy evaluation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 95-106.
    4. Thomas Schaubroeck & Simon Schaubroeck & Reinout Heijungs & Alessandra Zamagni & Miguel Brandão & Enrico Benetto, 2021. "Attributional & Consequential Life Cycle Assessment: Definitions, Conceptual Characteristics and Modelling Restrictions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-47, July.
    5. Bartoli, A. & Cavicchioli, D. & Kremmydas, D. & Rozakis, S. & Olper, A., 2016. "The impact of different energy policy options on feedstock price and land demand for maize silage: The case of biogas in Lombardy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 351-363.
    6. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    7. Appel, Franziska & Ostermeyer-Wiethaup, Arlette & Balmann, Alfons, 2016. "Effects of the German Renewable Energy Act on structural change in agriculture – The case of biogas," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 172-182.
    8. Yazan, Devrim Murat & Fraccascia, Luca & Mes, Martijn & Zijm, Henk, 2018. "Cooperation in manure-based biogas production networks: An agent-based modeling approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 820-833.
    9. Sorda, G. & Sunak, Y. & Madlener, R., 2013. "An agent-based spatial simulation to evaluate the promotion of electricity from agricultural biogas plants in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 43-60.
    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. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Venus, Terese E. & Strauss, Felix & Venus, Thomas J. & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "Understanding stakeholder preferences for future biogas development in Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Stelios Rozakis & Andrea Bartoli & Jacek Dach & Anna Jędrejek & Alina Kowalczyk-Juśko & Łukasz Mamica & Patrycja Pochwatka & Rafał Pudelko & Kesheng Shu, 2021. "Policy Impact on Regional Biogas Using a Modular Modeling Tool," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Lauven, Lars-Peter & Geldermann, Jutta & Desideri, Umberto, 2019. "Estimating the revenue potential of flexible biogas plants in the power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 402-410.
    5. Cord-Friedrich von Hobe & Marius Michels & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "German Farmers’ Perspectives on Price Drivers in Agricultural Land Rental Markets—A Combination of a Systematic Literature Review and Survey Results," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    6. Linmei Shang & Jifeng Wang & David Schäfer & Thomas Heckelei & Juergen Gall & Franziska Appel & Hugo Storm, 2024. "Surrogate modelling of a detailed farm‐level model using deep learning," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 235-260, February.
    7. Herbes, Carsten & Halbherr, Verena & Braun, Lorenz, 2018. "Factors influencing prices for heat from biogas plants," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 308-318.
    8. Eugenio Demartini & Anna Gaviglio & Marco Gelati & Daniele Cavicchioli, 2016. "The Effect of Biogas Production on Farmland Rental Prices: Empirical Evidences from Northern Italy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-23, November.
    9. Lisa Baldi & Arfini, Filippo & Calzolai, Sara & Donati, Michele, 2023. "CAP reform and GHG emissions: policy assessment using a PMP agent-based model," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334520, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Paria Sefeedpari & Rafał Pudełko & Anna Jędrejek & Małgorzata Kozak & Magdalena Borzęcka, 2020. "To What Extent Is Manure Produced, Distributed, and Potentially Available for Bioenergy? A Step toward Stimulating Circular Bio-Economy in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Giovanna Croxatto Vega & Juliën Voogt & Joshua Sohn & Morten Birkved & Stig Irving Olsen, 2020. "Assessing New Biotechnologies by Combining TEA and TM-LCA for an Efficient Use of Biomass Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-35, May.
    12. 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).
    13. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    14. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    15. Heinrich, F. & Appel, F., 2018. "Do investors ruin Germany s peasant agriculture?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277171, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Arianne Provost‐Savard & Guillaume Majeau‐Bettez, 2024. "Substitution modeling can coherently be used in attributional life cycle assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(3), pages 410-425, June.
    17. Lauer, Markus & Hansen, Jason K. & Lamers, Patrick & Thrän, Daniela, 2018. "Making money from waste: The economic viability of producing biogas and biomethane in the Idaho dairy industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 621-636.
    18. Coronese, Matteo & Occelli, Martina & Lamperti, Francesco & Roventini, Andrea, 2023. "AgriLOVE: Agriculture, land-use and technical change in an evolutionary, agent-based model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    19. Anshuka Anshuka & Floris F. Ogtrop & David Sanderson & Simone Z. Leao, 2022. "A systematic review of agent-based model for flood risk management and assessment using the ODD protocol," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(3), pages 2739-2771, July.
    20. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.

    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:15:y:2022:i:1:p:264-:d:1013419. 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.