IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v22y2020i8d10.1007_s10668-019-00463-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The implications of economic instruments on biogas value chains: a case study comparison between Norway and Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Kari-Anne Lyng

    (Ostfold Research
    Norwegian University of Life Sciences)

  • Lise Skovsgaard

    (Technical University of Denmark)

  • Henrik Klinge Jacobsen

    (Technical University of Denmark)

  • Ole Jørgen Hanssen

    (Ostfold Research
    Norwegian University of Life Sciences)

Abstract

This paper studies biogas value chains and the effect from various economic support instruments on these value chains. This is done by comparing two European countries that are quite similar in size, income levels and environmental ambitions, but which are using very different instruments to support biogas development. Norway provides investment support combined with support for inputs, while Danish support is focused on the biogas output side. The aim of the comparison is to clarify whether the policies in use have affected the design of biogas value chains such that they are determined by national support and are not viable under alternative support structures. Based on the findings, possible modifications of national support and other biogas regulation policy are suggested. The comparative study assesses the costs and income of an exemplary Norwegian value chain and a Danish value chain. The cases are evaluated by assessing the economic consequences of implementing the Danish instruments for a Norwegian value chain and vice versa. We find that structural and regulatory conditions have a large impact on the configuration of the value chains. The Danish value chain in Norwegian settings results in a large deficit (− 12.7€/tonne), while it was profitable in Denmark (+ 4.9€/tonne). The same is observed for the Norwegian value chain, but to a lesser extent. The policy implication of end-use support in Denmark is large-scale plants, maximising the output through co-digestion of manure and high-yield substrates, while avoiding losses. Investment support in Norway has increased biogas production from organic waste with less emphasis on efficient gas usage, while input support regarding manure has led to an increase in the usage of manure as substrate.

Suggested Citation

  • Kari-Anne Lyng & Lise Skovsgaard & Henrik Klinge Jacobsen & Ole Jørgen Hanssen, 2020. "The implications of economic instruments on biogas value chains: a case study comparison between Norway and Denmark," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7125-7152, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00463-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00463-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00463-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-019-00463-9?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. Jensen, Ida Græsted & Münster, Marie & Pisinger, David, 2017. "Optimizing the supply chain of biomass and biogas for a single plant considering mass and energy losses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 744-758.
    2. Poeschl, Martina & Ward, Shane & Owende, Philip, 2010. "Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(7), pages 1782-1797, September.
    3. Asma Shahzad & Sara Hanif, 2014. "Techno-economic feasibility of biogas generation in Attari village, Ferozepur road, Lahore," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 977-993, October.
    4. Raven, R.P.J.M. & Gregersen, K.H., 2007. "Biogas plants in Denmark: successes and setbacks," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 116-132, January.
    5. De Clercq, Djavan & Wen, Zongguo & Gottfried, Oliver & Schmidt, Franziska & Fei, Fan, 2017. "A review of global strategies promoting the conversion of food waste to bioenergy via anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 204-221.
    6. 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.
    7. Carrosio, Giovanni, 2013. "Energy production from biogas in the Italian countryside: Policies and organizational models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 3-9.
    8. Rikke Lybæk & Thomas Budde Christensen & Tyge Kjær, 2013. "Governing Innovation for Sustainable Development in the Danish Biogas Sector – a Historical Overview and Analysis of Innovation," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 171-182, May.
    9. Skovsgaard, Lise & Jacobsen, Henrik Klinge, 2017. "Economies of scale in biogas production and the significance of flexible regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 77-89.
    10. Skovsgaard, Lise & Jensen, Ida Græsted, 2018. "Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 503-522.
    11. Brudermann, Thomas & Mitterhuber, Corinna & Posch, Alfred, 2015. "Agricultural biogas plants – A systematic analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 107-111.
    12. Vanmala Hiranandani, 2010. "Sustainable agriculture in Canada and Cuba: a comparison," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 763-775, October.
    13. William Grant & Thomas Lawrence, 2014. "A simplified method for the design and sizing of anaerobic digestion systems for smaller farms," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 345-360, April.
    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. Kari-Anne Lyng & Mia Bjerkestrand & Aina Elstad Stensgård & Pieter Callewaert & Ole Jørgen Hanssen, 2018. "Optimising Anaerobic Digestion of Manure Resources at a Regional Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Derick Lima & Gregory Appleby & Li Li, 2023. "A Scoping Review of Options for Increasing Biogas Production from Sewage Sludge: Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Energy Self-Sufficiency in Wastewater Treatment Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-34, March.
    3. Diego Teixeira Michalovicz & Patricia Bilotta, 2023. "Impact of a methane emission tax on circular economy scenarios in small wastewater treatment plants," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6575-6589, July.
    4. Catalin Vrabie, 2021. "Converting Municipal Waste to Energy through the Biomass Chain, a Key Technology for Environmental Issues in (Smart) Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Sesini, Marzia & Cretì, Anna & Massol, Olivier, 2024. "Unlocking European biogas and biomethane: Policy insights from comparative analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    6. Takman, Johanna & Andersson-Sköld, Yvonne, 2021. "A framework for barriers, opportunities, and potential solutions for renewable energy diffusion: Exemplified by liquefied biogas for heavy trucks," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 150-160.
    7. Skovsgaard, Lise & Jensen, Ida Græsted, 2018. "Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 503-522.

    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. 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.
    2. Skovsgaard, Lise & Jacobsen, Henrik Klinge, 2017. "Economies of scale in biogas production and the significance of flexible regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 77-89.
    3. Masayasu Asai & Takashi Hayashi & Mitasu Yamamoto, 2019. "Mental Model Analysis of Biogas Energy Perceptions and Policy Reveals Potential Constraints in a Japanese Farm Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Skovsgaard, Lise & Jensen, Ida Græsted, 2018. "Recent trends in biogas value chains explained using cooperative game theory," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 503-522.
    5. Wirth, Steffen, 2014. "Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 236-246.
    6. Edwards, Joel & Othman, Maazuza & Burn, Stewart, 2015. "A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 815-828.
    7. Ricardo Situmeang & Jana Mazancová & Hynek Roubík, 2022. "Technological, Economic, Social and Environmental Barriers to Adoption of Small-Scale Biogas Plants: Case of Indonesia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Bidart, Christian & Fröhling, Magnus & Schultmann, Frank, 2014. "Electricity and substitute natural gas generation from the conversion of wastewater treatment plant sludge," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 404-413.
    9. Uusitalo, V. & Soukka, R. & Horttanainen, M. & Niskanen, A. & Havukainen, J., 2013. "Economics and greenhouse gas balance of biogas use systems in the Finnish transportation sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 132-140.
    10. Daniela Szymańska & Aleksandra Lewandowska, 2015. "Biogas Power Plants in Poland—Structure, Capacity, and Spatial Distribution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-19, December.
    11. Zubaryeva, Alyona & Zaccarelli, Nicola & Del Giudice, Cecilia & Zurlini, Giovanni, 2012. "Spatially explicit assessment of local biomass availability for distributed biogas production via anaerobic co-digestion – Mediterranean case study," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 261-270.
    12. 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.
    13. Stürmer, Bernhard & Novakovits, Philipp & Luidolt, Alexander & Zweiler, Richard, 2019. "Potential of renewable methane by anaerobic digestion from existing plant stock – An economic reflection of an Austrian region," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 920-929.
    14. Chinese, D. & Patrizio, P. & Nardin, G., 2014. "Effects of changes in Italian bioenergy promotion schemes for agricultural biogas projects: Insights from a regional optimization model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 189-205.
    15. Suberu, Mohammed Yekini & Bashir, Nouruddeen & Mustafa, Mohd. Wazir, 2013. "Biogenic waste methane emissions and methane optimization for bioelectricity in Nigeria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 643-654.
    16. Bartoli, Andrea & Hamelin, Lorie & Rozakis, Stelios & Borzęcka, Magdalena & Brandão, Miguel, 2019. "Coupling economic and GHG emission accounting models to evaluate the sustainability of biogas policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 133-148.
    17. Yan, Cheng & Muñoz, Raúl & Zhu, Liandong & Wang, Yanxin, 2016. "The effects of various LED (light emitting diode) lighting strategies on simultaneous biogas upgrading and biogas slurry nutrient reduction by using of microalgae Chlorella sp," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 554-561.
    18. Uusitalo, V. & Havukainen, J. & Soukka, R. & Väisänen, S. & Havukainen, M. & Luoranen, M., 2015. "Systematic approach for recognizing limiting factors for growth of biomethane use in transportation sector – A case study in Finland," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 479-488.
    19. Clodnițchi Roxana & Nedelcu Alexandra Cătălina, 2018. "Key elements of an entrepreneurial (business) model in the biogas sector. Insights from Romania," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 209-228, May.
    20. Laura Dardot Campello & Regina Mambeli Barros & Geraldo Lúcio Tiago Filho & Ivan Felipe Silva Santos, 2021. "Analysis of the economic viability of the use of biogas produced in wastewater treatment plants to generate electrical energy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2614-2629, February.

    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:spr:endesu:v:22:y:2020:i:8:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00463-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.