A perspective on methodologies and system boundaries to develop abatement cost for on-farm anaerobic digestion

References

• EC. 2050 long-term strategy. Climate Action - European Commission 2016. [cited September 1, 2021]. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en
   Google Scholar
• Pilzecker A, Fernandez R, Mandl N, et al. Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2019 and inventory report 2021 —European Environment Agency. European Environment Agency; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Aertsens J, De Nocker L, Gobin A. Valuing the carbon sequestration potential for European agriculture. Land Use Policy. 2013;31:584–21. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McEldowney J. EU agricultural policy and climate change. European Parliamentary Research Service, European Parliament; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Liebetrau J, O’Shea R, Wellisch M. Potential and utilization of manure to generate biogas in seven countries. IEA Bioenergy Task 37; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth BM, Murphy JD, O’Brien CM. What is the energy balance of grass biomethane in Ireland and other temperate northern European climates? Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2009;13(9):2349–2360. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auer A, Vande Burgt NH, Abram F, et al. Agricultural anaerobic digestion power plants in Ireland and Germany: policy and practice. J Sci Food Agric. 2017;97(3):719–723. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.8005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wall DM, O’Kiely P, Murphy JD. The potential for biomethane from grass and slurry to satisfy renewable energy targets. Biores Technol. 2013;149:425–431. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manyi-Loh CE, Mamphweli SN, Meyer EL, et al. Microbial anaerobic digestion (bio-digesters) as an approach to the decontamination of animal wastes in pollution control and the generation of renewable energy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(9):4390–4417. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10094390
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvist T, Aryal N. Methane loss from commercially operating biogas upgrading plants. Waste Manage. 2019;87:295–300. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebetrau J, Clemens J, Cuhls C, et al. Methane emissions from biogas-producing facilities within the agricultural sector. Eng Life Sci. 2010;10(6):595–599. doi: 10.1002/elsc.201000070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F, Fahl F. Biogas: developments and perspectives in Europe. Renewable Energy. 2018;129:457–472. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2018.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farghali M, Osman AI, Umetsu K, et al. Integration of biogas systems into a carbon zero and hydrogen economy: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2022;20(5):2853–2927. doi: 10.1007/s10311-022-01468-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauer M. Methodology guideline on techno economic assessment (TEA). Generated in the framework of thermal Net WP3B economics, Graz. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Krey V, Masera O, Blanford G, et al. Annex II: metrics & methodology. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al., editors. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of working groups iii to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. United Kingdom and NY, USA:Cambridge University Press; 2014
   Google Scholar
• Murthy GS. Techno-Economic Assessment. Bioenergy: principles and applications. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016; 2016. pp. 507–520.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien D, Shalloo L, Crosson P, et al. An evaluation of the effect of greenhouse gas accounting methods on a marginal abatement cost curve for Irish agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Sci Policy. 2014;39:107–118. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod M, Moran D, Eory V, et al. Developing greenhouse gas marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural emissions from crops and soils in the UK. Agric Syst. 2010;103(4):198–209. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Climate Action Plan 2019 n.d. [cited October 15, 2020]. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/ccb2e0-the-climate-action-plan-2019/
   Google Scholar
• Lanigan GJ, Donnellan T. An analysis of abatement potential of greenhouse gas emissions in Irish agriculture 2021-2030 - teagasc | agriculture and food development authority. Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland: Teagasc; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• McKinsey & Company. Pathways to a low-carbon economy. version 2 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• McKinsey & Company. Impact of the financial crisis on carbon economics. version 2.1 of the global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Rajendran K, Murthy GS. Techno-economic and life cycle assessments of anaerobic digestion – a review. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2019;20:101207. doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2019.101207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan EU, Mainali B, Martin A, et al. Techno-economic analysis of small scale biogas based polygeneration systems: Bangladesh case study. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess. 2014;7:68–78. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2014.03.004
   Google Scholar
• Wresta A, Andriani D, Saepudin A, et al. Economic analysis of cow manure biogas as energy source for electricity power generation in small scale ranch. Energy Procedia. 2015;68:122–131. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.03.240
   Google Scholar
• Imeni SM, Puy N, Ovejero J, et al. Techno-economic assessment of anaerobic co-digestion of cattle manure and wheat straw (raw and pre-treated) at small to medium dairy cattle farms. Waste Biomass Valor. 2020;11(8):4035–4051. doi: 10.1007/s12649-019-00728-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostafa Imeni S, Pelaz L, Corchado-Lopo C, et al. Techno-economic assessment of anaerobic co-digestion of livestock manure and cheese whey (Cow, Goat & Sheep) at small to medium dairy farms. Biores Technol. 2019;291:121872. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• di Perta ES, Cervelli E, di Campagna MP, et al. From biogas to biomethane: techno-economic analysis of an anaerobic digestion power plant in a cattle/buffalo farm in central Italy. J Agricult Engineer. 2019;50(3):127–133. doi: 10.4081/jae.2019.939
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villarroel-Schneider J, Mainali B, Martí-Herrero J, et al. Biogas based polygeneration plant options utilizing dairy farms waste: A Bolivian case. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess. 2020;37:100571. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2019.100571
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Connor S, Ehimen E, Pillai SC, et al. Economic and environmental analysis of small-scale anaerobic digestion plants on Irish dairy farms. Energies. 2020;13(3):637. doi: 10.3390/en13030637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aui A, Li W, Wright MM. Techno-economic and life cycle analysis of a farm-scale anaerobic digestion plant in Iowa. Waste Manage. 2019;89:154–164. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxatto Vega G, Voogt J, Sohn J, et al. Assessing new biotechnologies by combining TEA and TM-LCA for an efficient use of biomass resources. Sustainability. 2020;12(9):3676. doi: 10.3390/su12093676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayal FS, Mammadov A, Ciliz N. Environmental assessment of energy generation from agricultural and farm waste through anaerobic digestion. J Environ Manage. 2016;184:389–399. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.058
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardo G, Moral R, Del Prado A. SIMSWASTE-AD - a modelling framework for the environmental assessment of agricultural waste management strategies: Anaerobic digestion. Sci Total Environ. 2017;574:806–817. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams PWR, McManus MC. Characterisation and variability of greenhouse gas emissions from biomethane production via anaerobic digestion of maize. J Clean Prod. 2019;218:529–542. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones P, Salter A. Modelling the economics of farm-based anaerobic digestion in a UK whole-farm context. Energy Policy. 2013;62:215–225. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noun project: free icons & stock photos for everything n.d. [cited September 24, 2021]. https://thenounproject.com/
   Google Scholar
• Browne J, Nizami A-S, Thamsiriroj T, et al. Assessing the cost of biofuel production with increasing penetration of the transport fuel market: A case study of gaseous biomethane in Ireland. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2011;15(9):4537–4547. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AgSTAR. Project development handbook. A handbook for developing anaerobic digestion/biogas systems on farms in the United states. EPA; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Gebrezgabher SA, Meuwissen MPM, Oude Lansink AGJM, et al. Costs of producing biogas at dairy farms in the Netherlands. 2010. doi: 10.22004/AG.ECON.91139.
   Google Scholar
• Tolessa A, Louw TM, Goosen NJ. Probabilistic techno-economic assessment of anaerobic digestion predicts economic benefits to smallholder farmers with quantifiable certainty. Waste Manage. 2022;138:8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.11.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan WE, Liew PY, Tan LS, et al. Life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis for anaerobic digestion as cow manure management system. Energies. 2022;15(24):9586. doi: 10.3390/en15249586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RES Legal. Legal sources on renewable energy. Renewable energy policy database and support n.d. [cited August 30, 2021]. http://www.res-legal.eu/search-by-country/germany/single/s/res-e/t/promotion/aid/feed-in-tariff-eeg-feed-in-tariff/lastp/135/
   Google Scholar
• Pablo-Romero MDP, Sánchez-Braza A, Salvador-Ponce J, et al. An overview of feed-in tariffs, premiums and tenders to promote electricity from biogas in the EU-28. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2017;73:1366–1379. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Non-domestic RHI tariff table. Ofgem n.d. [cited October 14, 2021]. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications/non-domestic-rhi-tariff-table
   Google Scholar
• Sustainable energy authority of Ireland. Support scheme for renewable heat n.d. [cited May 29, 2021]. https://www.seai.ie/business-and-public-sector/business-grants-and-supports/support-scheme-renewable-heat/
   Google Scholar
• Herbes C, Rilling B, Ringel M. Policy frameworks and voluntary markets for biomethane – How do different policies influence providers’ product strategies? Energy Policy. 2021;153:112292. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavas J-P, Kim K. Economies of diversification: A generalization and decomposition of economies of scope. Int J Prod Econ. 2010;126(2):229–235. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacharof M-P, Mandale SJ, Williams PM, et al. Nanofiltration of treated digested agricultural wastewater for recovery of carboxylic acids. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:4749–4761. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasco-Correa J, Khanal S, Manandhar A, et al. Anaerobic digestion for bioenergy production: global status, environmental and techno-economic implications, and government policies. Biores Technol. 2018;247:1015–1026. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajendran K, O’Gallachoir B, Murphy JD. The combined role of policy and incentives in promoting cost efficient decarbonisation of energy: A case study for biomethane. J Clean Prod. 2019;219:278–290. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltelli A, Aleksankina K, Becker W, et al. Why so many published sensitivity analyses are false: A systematic review of sensitivity analysis practices. Environ Modell Software. 2019;114:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jovanović P. Application of sensitivity analysis in investment project evaluation under uncertainty and risk. Int J Project Manage. 1999;17(4):217–222. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00035-0
   Google Scholar
• Fuess LT, Zaiat M. Economics of anaerobic digestion for processing sugarcane vinasse: applying sensitivity analysis to increase process profitability in diversified biogas applications. Process SafEnviron Prot. 2018;115:27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teymoori Hamzehkolaei F, Amjady N. A techno-economic assessment for replacement of conventional fossil fuel based technologies in animal farms with biogas fueled CHP units. Renewable Energy. 2018;118:602–614. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.11.054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Short W, Packey D, Holt T. A manual for the economic evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. NASA STI/Recon Technical Report N; 1995p. 95. doi: 10.2172/35391
   Google Scholar
• Directive EU. 2001 of the European parliament and of the council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. European Parliament, Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium 2018. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj.
   Google Scholar
• Czyrnek-Delêtre MM, Smyth BM, Murphy JD. Beyond carbon and energy: the challenge in setting guidelines for life cycle assessment of biofuel systems. Renewable Energy. 2017;105:436–448. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.043
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sathaye JA, Meyers S. Greenhouse gas mitigation assessment: a guidebook. Springer Netherlands; 1995. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8466-1.
   Google Scholar
• Eory V, Topp CFE, Moran D. Multiple-pollutant cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in the UK agriculture. Environ Sci Policy. 2013;27:55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. Low-carbon development for mexico. ESMAP. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Eory V, MacLeod M, Topp CFE. Review and update of the UK agriculture marginal abatement cost curves (SRUC, Ricardo Energy). Climate Change Committee; n.d.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. S.I. No. 605/2017 - European Union (Good agricultural practice for protection of waters) regulations 2017. Dublin, Ireland: Stationery Office; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• USDA. Beef feedlot industry manual. the United States department of agriculture. Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Public Spending Code. Supplementary guidance - measuring & valuing changes in greenhouse gas emissions in economic appraisal. Department Of Public Expenditure And Reform. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kesicki F, Ekins P. Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution. Clim Policy. 2012;12(2):219–236. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2011.582347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng B-B, Xu J-H, Fan Y. Modeling uncertainty in estimation of carbon dioxide abatement costs of energy-saving technologies for passenger cars in China. Energy Policy. 2018;113:306–319. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjöstrand K, Lindhe A, Söderqvist T, et al. Marginal abatement cost curves for water scarcity mitigation under uncertainty. Water Resour Manage. 2019;33(12):4335–4349. doi: 10.1007/s11269-019-02376-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunant CF, Skelton ACH, Drewniok MP, et al. A marginal abatement cost curve for material efficiency accounting for uncertainty. ResouConserv Recycl. 2019;144:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Arias J, Baena-Moreno FM, Gonzalez-Castaño M, et al. Unprofitability of small biogas plants without subsidies in the Brandenburg region. Environ Chem Lett. 2021;19(2):1823–1829. doi: 10.1007/s10311-020-01175-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopes TF, Carvalheiro F, Duarte LC, et al. Techno-economic and life-cycle assessments of small-scale biorefineries for isobutene and xylo-oligosaccharides production: a comparative study in Portugal and Chile. Biofuel Bioprod Biorefin. 2019;13(5):1321–1332. doi: 10.1002/bbb.2036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oreggioni GD, Luberti M, Tassou SA. Agricultural greenhouse CO2 utilization in anaerobic-digestion-based biomethane production plants: A techno-economic and environmental assessment and comparison with CO2 geological storage. Appl Energy. 2019;242:1753–1766. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Wahaibi A, Osman AI, Al-Muhtaseb AH, et al. Techno-economic evaluation of biogas production from food waste via anaerobic digestion. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15719. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72897-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regional waste management planning offices.The national waste management plan for a circular economy is Ireland’s framework for the prevention and management of waste. Mywaste n.d. [accessed September 5, 2023]. https://www.mywaste.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/SRWMO-National-Waste-Management-Plan-for-a-Circular-Economy-Volume-IV-Supporting-Documentation-AW-Onscreen.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Government of Ireland. Conditions for animal by product processing operations 2019. [accessed May 16, 2023]. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/8c7cd-conditions-for-abp-processing-operations/
   Google Scholar
• GMI Agriculture Subcommittee. SuccessfuL applications of anaerobic digestion from across the world. GMI. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Fawzy S, Osman AI, Mehta N, et al. Atmospheric carbon removal via industrial biochar systems: A techno-economic-environmental study. J Clean Prod. 2022;371:133660. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar