Perspectives of Biogas Plants as BECCS Facilities: A Comparative Analysis of Biomethane vs. Biohydrogen Production with Carbon Capture and Storage or Use (CCS/CCU)

Johannes Full (), Silja Hohmann, Sonja Ziehn, Edgar Gamero, Tobias Schließ, Hans-Peter Schmid, Robert Miehe and Alexander Sauer
Additional contact information
Johannes Full: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Silja Hohmann: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Sonja Ziehn: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Edgar Gamero: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Tobias Schließ: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Hans-Peter Schmid: WS Reformer GmbH, Allmandring 35, Dornierstraße 14, 71272 Renningen, Germany
Robert Miehe: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Alexander Sauer: Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobelstraße 12, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 13, 1-16

Abstract: The transition to a carbon-neutral economy requires innovative solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and promote sustainable energy production. Additionally, carbon dioxide removal technologies are urgently needed. The production of biomethane or biohydrogen with carbon dioxide capture and storage are two promising BECCS approaches to achieve these goals. In this study, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches regarding their technical, economic, and environmental performance. Our analysis shows that while both approaches have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy security, the hydrogen-production approach has several advantages, including up to five times higher carbon dioxide removal potential. However, the hydrogen bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (HyBECCS) approach also faces some challenges, such as higher capital costs, the need for additional infrastructure, and lower energy efficiency. Our results give valuable insights into the trade-offs between these two approaches. They can inform decision-makers regarding the most suitable method for reducing GHG emissions and provide renewable energy in different settings.

Keywords: HyBECCS; hydrogen; BECCS; biogas; biohydrogen; biomethane; CDR; NET; carbon-negative hydrogen; steam methane reforming; SMR (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/13/5066/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/13/5066/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:13:p:5066-:d:1183639

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().