4.7 Article

Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part I-A multi-criteria approach

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 122, Issue -, Pages 373-387

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.019

Keywords

Multi-criteria analysis; Biogas; Biofertilizer; Resource efficiency; Feasibility; Strategic decision making

Funding

  1. Energy Agency of Sweden, Linkoping University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Expansion of biogas production is dependent on the availability of suitable feedstocks (biomass). What feedstock is suitable is a question that can be tackled from many different perspectives it is a multidimensional problem. Therefore, a multi-criteria method has been developed that can be used to assess the suitability of feedstock for biogas and biofertilizer production. The method covers aspects of resource efficiency and feasibility, and the potential to supply renewable energy and recycle nutrients, operationalized via 16 indicators directed towards cost efficiency, technological feasibility, energy and environmental performance, accessibility, competition, policy and other issues. Thus it is relatively comprehensive method, yet simple enough to be used by practitioners. The main ambition, applying the method, has been to collect and structure relevant information to facilitate strategic overviews, communication and informed decision making. This is relevant for development within the biogas and biofertilizer industry, to define and prioritize among essential research projects, regarding policy, etc. This article, the first of two associated articles, is focused on the method itself. For illustration, the method is applied to assess the suitability of producing biogas from stickleback, which is a non-edible fish in the Baltic Sea region. In the companion article (Part II), four other feedstocks are assessed in detail, namely ley crops, straw, farmed blue mussels, and source-sorted food waste. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available