CO2 abatement costs of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation by different biogas conversion pathways

Biogas will be of increasing importance in the future as a factor in reducing greenhouse gas emissions cost-efficiently by the optimal use of available resources and technologies. The goal of this study was to identify the most ecological and economical use of a given resource (organic waste from residential, commercial and industry sectors) using one specific treatment technology (anaerobic digestion) but applying different energy conversion technologies. Average and marginal abatement costs were calculated based on Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodologies. Eight new biogas systems producing electricity, heat, gas or automotive fuel were analyzed in order to identify the most cost-efficient way of reducing GHG emissions. A system using a combined heat and power station (which is connected to waste treatment and digestion operation facilities and located nearby potential residential, commercial or industrial heat users) was found to be the most cost-efficient biogas technology for reducing GHG emissions. Up to € 198 per tonne of CO2 equivalents can be saved by replacing the “business as usual” systems based on fossil resources with ones based on biogas. Limited gas injection (desulfurized and dried biogas, without compression and upgrading) into the gas grid can also be a viable option with an abatement cost saving of € 72 per tonne of CO2 equivalents, while a heating plant with a district heating grid or a system based on biogas results in higher abatement costs (€ 267 and € 270 per tonne CO2 eq). Results from all systems are significantly influenced by whether average or marginal data are used as a reference. Beside that energy efficiency, the reference system that was replaced and the by-products as well as feedstock and investment costs were identified to be parameters with major impacts on abatement costs. The quantitative analysis was completed by a discussion of the role that abatement cost methodology can play in decision-making.

► CO2 eq. abatement costs of ten biogas concepts. ► CHP concepts perform better than pure electricity, heat and fuel based concepts. ► Strong dependence on investment, substrate and reference system costs.