A comprehensive comparison of three renewable natural gas production technologies: Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental assessments

IF 9.9 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENERGY & FUELS Energy Conversion and Management Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.enconman.2025.119615
Yu Zhang, Mingjing Fan, HaoZe Wang, Hao Wang, Youjun Lu
{"title":"A comprehensive comparison of three renewable natural gas production technologies: Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental assessments","authors":"Yu Zhang,&nbsp;Mingjing Fan,&nbsp;HaoZe Wang,&nbsp;Hao Wang,&nbsp;Youjun Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.enconman.2025.119615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparison of three technologies for producing renewable natural gas (RNG) from biomass, evaluating their technical, economic, and environmental perspectives: (i) Catalytic hydrothermal gasification (CHG) technology; (ii) Gasification and methanation (G&amp;M) technology; (iii) Anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. Energy analysis reveals that the CHG system achieves the highest energy efficiency (81.30 %), attributed to its superior energy recovery and utilization capabilities. The AD system exhibits 50.17 % lower energy efficiency compared to the CHG system, primarily due to incomplete biomass conversion into biogas. Exergy analysis indicates that the CHG system demonstrates the highest exergy efficiency (63.38 %). The reaction unit constitutes the primary source of exergy losses across the three RNG production systems. Energy utilization diagram (EUD) analysis of the RNG production reaction in the CHG and G&amp;M systems reveals that the CHG system experiences lower exergy losses, owing to its single-step conversion and milder reaction conditions. Economic evaluation highlights that the CHG system offers the most favorable economic performance, driven by its moderate investment cost (24.50 M€), high RNG and steam production, and a competitive RNG break-even cost of 0.41 €/Nm<sup>3</sup>. Raw material costs and by-product steam prices are critical factors influencing the economic viability of the process. Life cycle assessment reveals that the CHG and G&amp;M systems exhibit superior environmental performance, whereas the AD system performs poorly due to the significant volume of digestate requiring treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11664,"journal":{"name":"Energy Conversion and Management","volume":"328 ","pages":"Article 119615"},"PeriodicalIF":9.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Conversion and Management","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890425001384","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparison of three technologies for producing renewable natural gas (RNG) from biomass, evaluating their technical, economic, and environmental perspectives: (i) Catalytic hydrothermal gasification (CHG) technology; (ii) Gasification and methanation (G&M) technology; (iii) Anaerobic digestion (AD) technology. Energy analysis reveals that the CHG system achieves the highest energy efficiency (81.30 %), attributed to its superior energy recovery and utilization capabilities. The AD system exhibits 50.17 % lower energy efficiency compared to the CHG system, primarily due to incomplete biomass conversion into biogas. Exergy analysis indicates that the CHG system demonstrates the highest exergy efficiency (63.38 %). The reaction unit constitutes the primary source of exergy losses across the three RNG production systems. Energy utilization diagram (EUD) analysis of the RNG production reaction in the CHG and G&M systems reveals that the CHG system experiences lower exergy losses, owing to its single-step conversion and milder reaction conditions. Economic evaluation highlights that the CHG system offers the most favorable economic performance, driven by its moderate investment cost (24.50 M€), high RNG and steam production, and a competitive RNG break-even cost of 0.41 €/Nm3. Raw material costs and by-product steam prices are critical factors influencing the economic viability of the process. Life cycle assessment reveals that the CHG and G&M systems exhibit superior environmental performance, whereas the AD system performs poorly due to the significant volume of digestate requiring treatment.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Energy Conversion and Management
Energy Conversion and Management 工程技术-力学
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
11.50%
发文量
1304
审稿时长
17 days
期刊介绍: The journal Energy Conversion and Management provides a forum for publishing original contributions and comprehensive technical review articles of interdisciplinary and original research on all important energy topics. The topics considered include energy generation, utilization, conversion, storage, transmission, conservation, management and sustainability. These topics typically involve various types of energy such as mechanical, thermal, nuclear, chemical, electromagnetic, magnetic and electric. These energy types cover all known energy resources, including renewable resources (e.g., solar, bio, hydro, wind, geothermal and ocean energy), fossil fuels and nuclear resources.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Advancements in biodiesel production from castor oil: A comprehensive review Energy, exergy, economic, and environmental analysis of waste heat source heat pump industrial steam generation system Clustered carbon capture as a technologically and economically viable concept for industrial post-combustion CO2 capture Towards intelligent management of regional building energy systems: A framework combined with deep reinforcement learning for hybrid energy storage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1