Utilization of biogenic CO₂ (bio-CO₂) presents a promising strategy to combat climate change while making use of renewable resources. However, it is an early stage market. This study therefore aims to explore the barriers and drivers for bio-CO₂ utilization and their implications for shaping the bio-CO₂ market, using Sweden as an example due to its diverse bio-CO₂ sources and existing initiatives. Twenty-four actors were interviewed, representing different types of market actors, which enabled differences between actors to be identified. For example, producers emphasized economic and market-related barriers, while users addressed uncertainties related to the supply chain and quality requirements. Among the key barriers identified are an uncertain policy landscape, as well as economic and market-related barriers that hinder bio-CO₂ utilization. Improving environmental performance is identified as a key driver for bio-CO₂ utilization but requires overcoming barriers such as high costs and payback requirements to become enacted. Other identified key drivers are the potential for new market opportunities for CO₂, such as e-fuel production, and an increased interest in bio-CO₂ over its fossil-based counterpart. There is a need for a diverse set of actions to support the development of the bio-CO₂ market, such as long-term, stable policies and regulations that support investment and market creation, along with better coordination among governmental organizations. This study thus contributes a holistic perspective on the prerequisites for bio-CO₂ utilization by exploring barriers and drivers for bio-CO₂ from different market actor perspectives and identifying policy implications, using Sweden as a case study. Future research can explore other regions and strategies.

Producing and using biogas through anaerobic digestion (AD) is a unique way of addressing multiple sustainability issues at the same time, including renewable energy production, waste management, climate change mitigation, and sustainable agriculture. Potential feedstocks for biogas include most wet organic wastes and by-products, such as animal manure, crop and other agricultural residues, household, commercial and industrial food waste, sewage sludge and industrial wastewater. AD technology enables improved sustainability performance of several sectors—including agriculture, wastewater and solid waste treatment of municipalities as well as industry—by capturing fugitive methane emissions and converting the energy potential in residues and wastes into useful forms of renewable energy. In addition, the co-products of AD can provide several positive effects. Digestate, the liquid or semi-solid residue of the input feedstock, holds the undegraded carbon and almost all of the nutrients from the feedstock, and can be used a soil amendment and fertilizer. When biogas is upgraded to biomethane, it is also possible to recover biogenic CO₂ as an additional co-product. Although not widely implemented so far, CO₂ from biogas has plenty of potential areas of use where it could replace fossil-based products in, for example, the food industry, chemical production and power-to-gas, further lowering the carbon footprint of AD. Last but not least, the energy rich biomethane can be used to replace fossil fuels in the energy and transport sectors reducing CO₂ and particulates emissions, or as a renewable feedstock for the chemical industry.

Renewable energy production from waste streams is generally considered to be the main purpose of AD, and therefore the capacity of AD plants is usually defined in terms of energy output or volume of biogas produced. Nevertheless, the co-products and other services provided by AD are key to its the overall economic and environmental sustainability performance.

Some highlights of the report:

China has the highest number of biogas plants among the reporting IEA Bioenergy Task 37 member countries, with more than 100,000 biogas plants, followed by Germany with over 10,000 and France with over 1,600 plants. Of the other reporting countries, Brazil has more than 800 biogas plants, UK has over 700 and the others have less than 500. With the exception of China, these are total numbers and include digesters of all sizes and technical configurations.Germany has the highest annual biogas production, around 87 TWh/y. China produces around 81 TWh per year, UK 32 TWh, France 25 TWh, Brazil 12 TWh and Denmark 7 TWh. The other reporting countries produce less than 3 TWh.The production systems differ between the reporting countries, both in terms of biogas plant types and upgrading plants. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada, both wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and plants based on mixed bio-waste play a more substantial role in biogas production than in other reporting countries. Agricultural plants constitute the majority of the biogas produced in China, Denmark, France and Germany. Landfilling of organic waste is being phased out in many countries, but landfill gas continues to be produced for many years and is the largest source of biogas in Brazil, Ireland and Canada.Regarding the upgrading of biogas to biomethane – where only half of the countries have reported recent data – membrane separation is the most common technology. With 364 upgraders, France also has the highest number of upgrading plants among the reporting countries.Use of biogas: Electricity and heat generation are the most common uses of biogas in Germany, Brazil, Canada, France and Finland. In Denmark and Switzerland, a large share of the produced biogas is upgraded into biomethane and injected into the gas grid. Sweden and Finland also have notable shares of biomethane production, but there it is mainly used as vehicle fuel, either as compressed (bio-CNG) or liquefied (bioLNG) gas. Industrial use is relatively common in France, Norway and Brazil.Policy frameworks and financial conditions for biogas production have developed in various directions as they are context-specific, that is, they depend on the country’s energy and industrial infrastructure and its objectives related to clean energy, climate change and waste management. Subsidizing electricity production from biogas through feed-in-tariffs has served as a common starting point in many European countries and North America, and is still the predominant support system in Brazil. Although biogas is used for heat, especially in WWTP and industrial biogas plants, only Ireland and France noted programs that support AD for heat production, and the UK has recently closed its Renewable Heat Incentive program. In recent years, in most European countries, Brazil and North America, the focus of biogas support has been shifting towards biomethane production for grid injection or for use as vehicle fuel. Sweden, Norway and Finland use tax exemptions for biogas use and investment support for new biogas plants as their main financial instruments. Many European countries have incentives for producing biogas from manure to mitigate agricultural methane emissions, and China has supported numerous AD demonstration projects for different types of manure.There is a lot of promising technical progress and innovation in the biogas sector, with projects from food grade CO₂ production to sustainable aviation fuel. In particular, there are many examples of projects aiming to exploit the biogas potential in lignocellulosic biomass, to increase the conversion of CO2 via methanation and power-to-gas, as well as projects that are investigating greater use of straw and intermediate crops in AD. Along with innovative system integration projects, these examples reflect growing momentum in this space, and increased societal relevance for the biogas sector in the future.

The agricultural sector holds great potential for contributing to European biomethane production, but how to best exploit it is still not clear. This study compares three technical solutions for producing liquefied biomethane from manure in Sweden: centralized biogas production and liquefaction, decentralized biogas production and centralized liquefaction, and decentralized biogas production and liquefaction. Technical and practical aspects of the three configurations are assessed through interviews with professionals, and the economic performance is compared through life cycle cost analysis. Depending on the conditions, the most cost-efficient alternative is either a gas pipeline from decentralized biogas production to a centralized liquefaction, or fully centralized production. The economic benefit of centralization increases with the number of farms involved but decreases with the biogas capacity of the system and the transport distance. The pipeline solution provides simple logistics and operation, although concession for pipe laying can be challenging. Moreover, a partly or fully centralized setup improves the delivery security of the system and reduces downtime. However, decentralized biomethane production can be an option for remote farms where centralization is not possible. For existing biogas plants, small-scale liquefaction or a pipeline to centralized liquefaction can be options for developing more biomethane production.

Biogas production from waste biomass can create many sustainability-related benefits. However, the CO₂ produced in the process is rarely put to use, although it is often pure and could potentially add value and improve the climate performance if utilized or stored. This study applies life cycle assessment methodology to estimate the overall environmental performance of a biogas system including utilization (CCU) or storage (CCS) of CO₂, comparing six different utilization options and geological storage. The results show that CCU can improve many aspects of the environmental performance of biogas, for example by using CO₂ with renewable hydrogen to produce methane or methanol, as the CO₂ from biogas production can then replace fossil-based processes. Meanwhile, CCS only reduces the climate impact, but increases environmental impact in all other studied categories, as it requires additional processes to treat the CO₂. Utilizing CO₂ from biogas, on the other hand, could be an instrument in the work towards a bioeconomy with reduced fossil resource dependence and improved environmental sustainability. © 2024, ETA-Florence Renewable Energies. All rights reserved. 

Policy is decisive to stimulate biogas expansion; but policy-related factors may also inhibit the development. This study explores policy risks in the Swedish biogas sector and identifies strategies to mitigate these risks. The study is based on three workshops and a survey with participation of biogas stakeholders. The findings reveal that two major policy risks significantly impact the Swedish biogas sector: the ‘lack of long-term strategies’ and the ‘long and complicated permitting processes.’ ‘Limitations of permitted feedstocks’ and ‘limited system perspective—benefits of circular economy and sustainable food system’ are also among the most probable risks. More clearly defined roles for authorities at different administrative levels and the promotion of life cycle perspectives are critical to mitigate these risks. The research emphasizes that both EU and national governments play vital roles in reducing policy risks through predictable and long-term biogas strategies. Without these interventions, the potential of the Swedish biogas sector may remain underutilized.

I denna studie undersöktes potentialen för etableringen av nya biogassystem inom ett geografiskt område som utgjordes av Region Sörmlands kommuner samt kommunerna Södertälje, Nykvarn, Norrköping och Söderköping. Anledningen till studien är det studerade områdets förhållandevis låga nuvarande biogasproduktion samt den stora potentiella efterfrågan på biogas i området, då SSAB i framtiden kommer behöva biogas till sin fossil-fria stålbearbetning. I studien studerades den tekniska och administrativa potentialen, det vill säga vad som är möjligt att producera under dagens administrativa villkor samt med dagens (och en nära framtids) teknik. Potentialen undersöktes utifrån fyra olika potentialer: rötbar biomassapotential, biogaspotential, koldioxidproduktionspotential och näringscirkulationspotential. Resultatet visar på en biogaspotential mellan 380 och 540 GWh per år vilket skulle motsvara en stor ökning från dagens produktion på mellan 50 och 60 GWh per år. Ytterligare 100 GWh per år skulle kunna produceras av koldioxiden genom biometanisering men då krävs stora mängder vätgas. Angående näringscirkulationspotentialen så kan biogödseln (som samproduceras med biogas i biogasanläggningar) uppfylla cirka tre fjärdedelar av kvävebehovet, nära hela fosforbehovet och fyra gånger kaliumbehovet i det studerade områdets jordbruk. Det studerade området delades upp i fem produktionsområden för att öka upplösningen i studien. Dessa områden valdes för att de skulle kunna utgöra delområden som är stora nog för att etablera biogasanläggning av den storlek som krävs för att förvätska biogasen och samtidigt undvika alltför långa transportsträckor för substrattransporter. Detta svarar upp mot trenden att etablera större och större biogasanläggningar samt ett ökat fokus på förvätskad biogas. Dock kan mindre anläggningar vara nödvändiga för att uppnå vissa delar av potentialen i områden med små, men betydelsefulla, substratmängder. Det produktionsområde med störst potential var Söderköping/Norrköping men det betyder nödvändigtvis inte att det är det mest lovande produktionsområdet att börja mer fokuserade implementeringsstudier i då andra faktorer så som lönsamhet inte undersökts i denna studie. Fortsatta studier bör fokusera på hur lantbruksrelaterade substrat kan användas inom biogasproduktion. Här kan studier fokusera på olika områden, exempelvis hur biogasanläggningar kan drivas stabilt på enbart grönmassa (till exempel vall och mellangrödor) och hur ökad odling för biogasproduktion påverkar mat- och foderproduktion, individuella lantbrukare samt åkermarkens långsiktiga hälsa. Dessutom behövs implementeringsstudier för att realisera potentialen, dessa bör fokusera på att undersöka specifika etableringsmöjligheter utifrån ekonomiska, tekniska, logistiska och administrativa perspektiv.

Sweden aims to increase biogas production from anaerobic digestion (AD) from 2 to 7 TWh/year until 2030. This paper investigates the requirements, challenges and implications of such a development through qualitative and quantitative assessment of three scenarios. Seven key elements—national policies and policy instruments, regional policies and policy instruments, mobilization of feedstock, infrastructure for feedstock and gas, mobilization of actors, new production facilities, and stable and increasing demand—were defined for the scenario construction and were also used to structure the comparative analysis. Quantitatively, increasing the biogas production from 2 to 7 TWh is estimated to require up to 5 times larger digester volume and up to 12 times more AD plants, meanwhile producing 6 – 8 times more biofertilizers. While a centralized production structure would be more efficient, a decentralized structure with small biogas plants would facilitate the logistics of agricultural substrates and biofertilizers. New production capacity could be incentivized through new and increased production subsidies, as well as an increased demand for renewable energy. Regardless of how the goal is to be achieved, it will require collective efforts from both public and private actors to overcome the many challenges on the way.

Design is described as the main factor influencing a product’s sustainability. Life cycle assessment is used to determine the environmental impact of a product during its life cycle. However, conducting an LCA requires large amounts of information that can be difficult to obtain. For this reason, together with the fact that an LCA is time-consuming, there is reason to explore the possibilities for a simplified life cycle assessment (SLCA). The aim of this paper is to investigate how an SLCA tool could be developed to support decision making in product development processes. The SLCA tool developed for product designers includes e.g. climate impact results. The tool gives the designers an understanding of where efforts to reduce the climate impact can be allocated.