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

IF 10.9 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":10.9000,"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
三种可再生天然气生产技术的综合比较:能源、能源、经济和环境评估
本研究旨在对从生物质中生产可再生天然气(RNG)的三种技术进行全面比较,并从技术、经济和环境的角度对其进行评估:(1)催化水热气化(CHG)技术;气化和甲烷化(G&;M)技术;(三)厌氧消化(AD)技术。能量分析表明,由于CHG系统具有优越的能量回收和利用能力,其能源效率最高(81.30%)。与CHG系统相比,AD系统的能源效率低50.17%,主要是由于生物质转化为沼气的不完全。火用分析表明,CHG系统的火用效率最高(63.38%)。在三个RNG生产系统中,反应单元构成了火用损失的主要来源。对CHG和G&;M系统中RNG生成反应的能量利用图(EUD)分析表明,CHG系统由于其单步转化和较温和的反应条件,其火用损失较小。经济评估表明,CHG系统具有最有利的经济效益,其投资成本适中(2450万欧元),可再生天然气和蒸汽产量高,具有竞争力的可再生天然气盈亏平衡成本为0.41欧元/Nm3。原料成本和副产品蒸汽价格是影响该工艺经济可行性的关键因素。生命周期评估表明,CHG和G&;M系统表现出优越的环境性能,而AD系统由于需要处理的消化物量很大而表现不佳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 Techno-economic analysis of an integrated desalination-renewable-hydrogen system for zero-emission freshwater and electricity production Comparative techno-economic analysis of a directly coupled production of methanol and formalin as example for improved hydrogen management in the chemical industry A Sub-Atmospheric hydrogen power generation system Combining Near-Ambient-Temperature Phase-Change heat absorption and Hydrogen-Oxygen direct combustion Editorial Board
×
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:604180095
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