{"title":"Flexibilization or biomethane upgrading? Investment preference of German biogas plant operators for the follow-up of guaranteed feed-in tariffs","authors":"Daniel Schröer, Uwe Latacz-Lohmann","doi":"10.1111/gcbb.13111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article reports the results of a discrete choice experiment with 183 German biogas plant operators designed to elicit the respondents' plans for biogas utilization pathways after the end of guaranteed feed-in tariffs. Participants could choose between ‘flexibilization’ for demand-based electricity generation and conversion to biomethane upgrading for direct feed-in into the natural gas grid. A binomial logit model revealed a 37% probability of switching to biomethane upgrading. These plants are characterized by higher capacities, several involved shareholders, secured succession, costly digestate disposal and belonging to the upper performance quartile. Mixed logit estimations conducted separately for the two investment concepts revealed a very high overall willingness to invest: 71% for flexibilization and 82% for biomethane upgrading. The respondents demand a return on investment of 19% for flexibilization and 26% for biomethane upgrading. Within the flexibilization, twofold overbuilding (installed capacity equals 2 times the rated power) is clearly preferred to fivefold overbuilding. For the biomethane upgrading, private ownership of the upgrading plant is preferred to a joint investment in a central upgrading facility. Limiting the use of energy crops reduces the propensity to invest in both models, while a longer utilization period enhances it. The respondents consider lack of planning reliability as the biggest obstacle to invest, followed by long approval procedures and high investment costs due to restrictive legal requirements.</p>","PeriodicalId":55126,"journal":{"name":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","volume":"16 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcbb.13111","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Change Biology Bioenergy","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.13111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article reports the results of a discrete choice experiment with 183 German biogas plant operators designed to elicit the respondents' plans for biogas utilization pathways after the end of guaranteed feed-in tariffs. Participants could choose between ‘flexibilization’ for demand-based electricity generation and conversion to biomethane upgrading for direct feed-in into the natural gas grid. A binomial logit model revealed a 37% probability of switching to biomethane upgrading. These plants are characterized by higher capacities, several involved shareholders, secured succession, costly digestate disposal and belonging to the upper performance quartile. Mixed logit estimations conducted separately for the two investment concepts revealed a very high overall willingness to invest: 71% for flexibilization and 82% for biomethane upgrading. The respondents demand a return on investment of 19% for flexibilization and 26% for biomethane upgrading. Within the flexibilization, twofold overbuilding (installed capacity equals 2 times the rated power) is clearly preferred to fivefold overbuilding. For the biomethane upgrading, private ownership of the upgrading plant is preferred to a joint investment in a central upgrading facility. Limiting the use of energy crops reduces the propensity to invest in both models, while a longer utilization period enhances it. The respondents consider lack of planning reliability as the biggest obstacle to invest, followed by long approval procedures and high investment costs due to restrictive legal requirements.
期刊介绍:
GCB Bioenergy is an international journal publishing original research papers, review articles and commentaries that promote understanding of the interface between biological and environmental sciences and the production of fuels directly from plants, algae and waste. The scope of the journal extends to areas outside of biology to policy forum, socioeconomic analyses, technoeconomic analyses and systems analysis. Papers do not need a global change component for consideration for publication, it is viewed as implicit that most bioenergy will be beneficial in avoiding at least a part of the fossil fuel energy that would otherwise be used.
Key areas covered by the journal:
Bioenergy feedstock and bio-oil production: energy crops and algae their management,, genomics, genetic improvements, planting, harvesting, storage, transportation, integrated logistics, production modeling, composition and its modification, pests, diseases and weeds of feedstocks. Manuscripts concerning alternative energy based on biological mimicry are also encouraged (e.g. artificial photosynthesis).
Biological Residues/Co-products: from agricultural production, forestry and plantations (stover, sugar, bio-plastics, etc.), algae processing industries, and municipal sources (MSW).
Bioenergy and the Environment: ecosystem services, carbon mitigation, land use change, life cycle assessment, energy and greenhouse gas balances, water use, water quality, assessment of sustainability, and biodiversity issues.
Bioenergy Socioeconomics: examining the economic viability or social acceptability of crops, crops systems and their processing, including genetically modified organisms [GMOs], health impacts of bioenergy systems.
Bioenergy Policy: legislative developments affecting biofuels and bioenergy.
Bioenergy Systems Analysis: examining biological developments in a whole systems context.