Presentation in the BBW ForWerts Workshop: The Social Science Perspective on Bioeconomy

BIOLOGICAL METHANATION IN THE GERMAN BIOGAS VALUE CHAIN: STAKEHOLDERS RISK PERCEPTION Presentation prepared by J. Perez Sierra, M.Sc. Research Assistant and Doctoral Student at the University of Hohenheim Thesis Advisory Committee: Prof. Dr. Claudia Bieling Head of the Chair Societal Transition and Agriculture, University of Hohenheim Prof. Dr. Cordula Kropp Head of the Department of Sociology with a focus on risk and technology research, University of Stuttgart Source: c_wolfgang_jargstorff_-_fotolia_56254718_l

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY 4/1/2017

Dr. Dirk Scheer Senior Researcher at the Institute of Technology Assessment and System Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)

CONTENT  Problematic

German biogas sector – risks and opportunities  Methodology

Data collection and assessment  Expected results

Implications  References WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

2

PROBLEMATIC GERMAN BIOGAS SECTOR – RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES  Biogas allows multiple uses: electricity, heat, vehicle fuel and a substitute to natural gas

(Strzalka et al. 2017).  Historic political support as an alternative to fossil and nuclear energy sources

(Markard et al. 2016).  By 2013, Germany was the frontrunner in agricultural biogas (Markard et al. 2016): o around 7,700 installed plants, o 25 TWh electricity generated, o equivalent to 4.7% of the country’s electricity consumption.

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

3

PROBLEMATIC GERMAN BIOGAS SECTOR – RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES  Despite the growth in the sector, the technology is

accompaigned by strong criticism, linked with: o competition with food production, o causing corn monocultures, affecting soil quality

and biodiversity,

o increased rental prices for arable land, o odor and traffic nuisances in the surrounding

communities (Kabasci et al., 2012; Sperling, 2012; Emmann and Theuvsen, 2012).  Additional negative image due to subsidies for

renewable energy, paid ultimately by consumers (Leprich et al., 2013).

Fig. 1. Development of biogas installations in Germany.

Source: Strzalka et al., 2017 4/1/2017

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4

PROBLEMATIC GERMAN BIOGAS SECTOR – RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES  Consequence: the government

has reduced previously favorable regulatory support for biogas production;  This provokes a collapse in the

biogas market and leaves the technology with an uncertain future (Markard et al. 2016).

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

Parallel strategy to expand Renewables and reduce emissions Biological Methantion in the Biogas sector

Fig. 2: Comparison of Feed-In-Tarifs for biogas installations under the EEG 2009, 2012 and 2014. Source: Thrän et al. 2015.

4/1/2017

Flexibility, Storage of excess renewable electricity

5

PROBLEMATIC GERMAN BIOGAS SECTOR – RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES  Fig. 3: Contrast between the traditional biogas value chain vs. its innovation through biological methanation.

Source: Götz, 2014 WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

6

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT Research questions  Which risks do stakeholders of the German biogas

sector perceive when assessing biological methanation as part of the domestic biogas value chain?  How relevant do they perceive these risks to be?

Which implications may these risks entail?

 Which risk management options do they suggest? Who

do they expect should take action?

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

Additionally  What do they believe led to the current

situation of the biogas sector in Germany? and  What future do they expect for the German

biogas industry?

4/1/2017

7

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT

Semi-structured interviews Topic I – Drivers and barriers of biological methanation (BM) Topic II – BM and the biogas value chain Topic III – BM and the German energy transition

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

8

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT Risk categories

Risk indicators

Economic Aspects

(I2) Large transportation costs when large demand on manure and biowaste.

(I3) Not profitable biomethane production from biogas plants fed only with manure and biowaste.

Table 1. List of indicators for the survey assessment.

Assessment with a Likert Scale  Probability (Likelihood)  Severity (Relevance) 1= Not probable / Not severe 5= very probable / very severe

(I1) High investment costs for the establishment of electrolysis reactors.

(I4) Existence of technologies competing for the use of excess renewable electricity.

(I5) Alternative and more profitable uses of hydrogen.

Political Conditions

Technology Performance

Environmental Impact Social Issues

(I6) Insufficient economic incentives for the implementation of biological methanation.

(I7) Missing incentives to support the use of biomethane in the chemical industry.

(I8) Missing incentives for the environmental benefits of the biogas sector.

(I9) Possible explosions by handling hydrogen in biogas facilities.

(I10) Low conversion efficiency of CO2 and H2 into CH4 in biogas reactors.

(I11) Unpractical management of pure cultures in upscaled installations.

(I12) Not enough locally available feedstock (manure and biowaste).

(I13) GHG emissions from long transportation distances of manure and biowaste.

(I14) Persistent methane leakages in biogas plants.

(I15) Impact on water bodies by not appropriate management of digestate.

(I16) Intense odor emissions.

4/1/2017 (I17) Skeptical or negative public perception of this innovation as part of the biogas sector.

Source: own elaboration.

9

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT Criteria for the identification of stakeholders 





A person who has been working with the biogas or biomethane technology for several years in science, industry or politics.

Someone who has published or is currently researching on biogas, biomethane and the nexus with the bioeconomy or directly with the technology of biological methanation.

A participant who works for an association or political organization in the field of biogas and the uses of biomethane (energy/fuel/chemical platform).

Search Strategy     

Publications – Journal Databases (Scopus, Science Direct), Google Scholar Conferences – Speakers, Proceedings, List of participants Research projects and institutes – Google, FNR database Companies - Google, conferences Associations and political organizations – Google, conferences

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

Fig. 4: Sector’s distribution of the interview partners.

Associations 20% Science 33%

Politics 20%

Industry 27%

Source: own data, n=30.

4/1/2017

10

METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT Fig. 5: Process for Thematic Qualitative Text Analysis.

Source: Kuckartz (2014)

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

11

PRELIMINARY RESULTS RISK CATEGORIES Fig. 6: Risk Assessment of Integrating Biological Methanation into the German Biogas Value Chain.

Probability 5= very probable / Very severe

Severity

5,00

4,00

3,62

3,52

3,00

3,14

2,96

2,98 2,62

2,62 2,51

2,10

1,93

2,00

1= Not probable / Not severe

1,00

Economic Aspects

Political Context

Technology Performance

Environmental Impact

Societal Issues Source: own data, n=14.

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

12

PRELIMINARY RESULTS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS Fig. 7: Stakeholders Assessment of the Risk Category Political Context. Fig. 8: Stakeholders Assessment of the Risk Category Economic Aspects.

Probability 5,00

Severity

Probability 5,00

4,50 4,14

Severity

3,86

4,00

4,00 3,21

3,00

2,86

3,64 3,29

2,86

3,43

3,14

3,00 2,11

2,00

2,00

1,00

1,00

Insufficient economic incentives for the implementation of biological methanation.

Missing incentives to support the use of biomethane in the chemical industry.

Source: own data, n=14.

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

Missing incentives for the environmental benefits of the biogas sector.

3,21

High investment costs for the establishment of electrolysis reactors.

2,18

2,29

2,50 2,21

Alternative and Existence of Not profitable Large more profitable technologies biomethane transportation costs when large production from competing for the uses of hydrogen. use of excess biogas plants fed demand on renewable only with manure manure and electricity. and biowaste. biowaste.

Source: own data, n=14.

4/1/2017

13

EXPECTED RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS  Assessment of risks and management options for the implementation of Biological Methanation in the

German Biogas value chain, and the feasibility of upscaling the use of biomethane in the chemical industry.

 Identification of research gaps in the Nexus:

Biogas & Technological Innovations – Energy/ Climate Protection – Economic Growth  Snapshot on current stakeholders perceptions and additional input in the discussion about the future of

the German Biogas Sector.

 Support in the (German) (Bio-) Energy Policy.

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

14

REFERENCES 1.

Emmann, C.H., Theuvsen, L. 2012. Einfluss der Biogasproduktion auf den regionalen Pachtmarkt – Empirische Erhebung in fünf niedersächsischen Landkreisen mit hoher Anlagendichte. Berichte über Landwirtschaft. Z.Agrarpolit. Landwirtsc. Band 90, 84–112.

2.

Götz, M.; Koch, A. M.; Graf, F. (Eds.). 2014. State of the Art and Perspectives of CO2 Methanation Process. Concepts for Power-to-Gas Applications. Copenhagen: International Gas Union Research Conference (Paper Code: TO5-4).

3.

Kabasci, S., Ehrenstein, U., Strauch, S., Linneweber, V., Schweizer-Ries, P.,Hildebrand, J. 2012. Abschlussbericht zum Projekt Imageanalyse und Imagewandel der Biogastechnologie unter Einbeziehungsozialwissenschaftlicher und technologischer Aspekte. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Berlin.

4.

Kuckartz, U. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. Sage Publications Ltd. ISBN-10: 1446267741.

5.

Leprich, U., Grashof, K., Guss, H., Klann, U., Weber, A., Zipp, A., Bofiner, P., Ritzau, M.,Kremp, R., Schemm, R., Schuffelen, L. 2013. Stromsystem-Design: Das EEG 2.0und Eckpfeiler eines zukünftigen Regenerativwirtschaftsgesetzes: Endbericht.IZES gGmbH, Universität Würzburg, BET Büro für Energiewirtschaft undtechnische Planung GmbH, Saarbrücken, Würzburg, Aachen.

6.

Markard, J.; Wirth, S.; Truffer, B. 2016. Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology. Research Policy, 45, 330-344.

7.

Sperling, F. 2012. The angry countryside – the installation of biogas plants as acontested issue in a German region. In: Welz, G., Sperling, F., Blum, E.-M. (Eds.),Negotiating Environmental Conflicts: Local Communities, Global Policies.Kulturanthropologie Notizen, vol. 81, Frankfurt am Main.

8.

Strzalka, R.; Schneider, D.; Eicker, U. 2017. Current status of bioenergy technologies in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 72, p. 801–820.

9.

Thrän, D., Krautz, A., Scheftelowitz, M., Lenz, V., Liebetrau, J., Daniel-Gromke, J., Nelles, M. 2015. Auswirkungen der gegenwärtig diskutierten Novellierungsvorschläge für das EEG-2014, 7. http://www.bhkw-infozentrum.de/download/Hintergrundpapier-bioenergie-eeg-2014-dbfz.pdf (14.10.15).

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

15

Affiliation

Membership

Funding

THANK YOU!

Ms. Johanny A. Perez Sierra, M.Sc. Research assistant and Doctoral student University of Hohenheim Schloss Hohenheim 1C, D- 70599 Stuttgart Email: j.perezsierra@uni-hohenheim.de Phone: +49 711 459 22655

WORKSHOP - SOCIAL RESEARCH IN THE BIOECONOMY

4/1/2017

16