%0 Journal Article %1 Gissen2014Comparing %A Gissén, Charlott %A Prade, Thomas %A Kreuger, Emma %A Nges, Ivo A. %A Rosenqvist, Hakan %A Svensson, Sven-Erik %A Lantz, Mikael %A Mattsson, Jan E. %A Börjesson, Pal %A Björnsson, Lovisa %D 2014 %J Biomass and Bioenergy %K review bioenergy energy renewables crop %R 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061 %T Comparing energy crops for biogas production – Yields, energy input and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061 %X Highlights • Six crops have been compared for production of biogas. • Crop cultivation related costs, energy inputs and yields are presented. • Methane yield per ha twice as high for sugar beet as for ley and hemp. • Energy input 1/3 lower when digestate replaces mineral fertilizer in cultivation. • Crop production costs range from 9 (fresh triticale) to 22 (hemp silage) €/GJ CH4. Abstract Analyses of six crops grown in southern Sweden for biogas production (hemp, sugar beet, maize, triticale, grass/clover ley, winter wheat) showed varying performance regarding methane yield per hectare and energy input and costs in the production and supply of crops as biogas feedstock. The highest biomass and biogas yield was observed for sugar beet. Crops with lower risk of negative environmental impact in cultivation, such as ley and hemp, produced less than half the methane energy yield per hectare. Triticale, also having less risk of negative environmental impact, gave an energy yield similar to that of winter wheat grain and maize. Replacing most of the mineral fertiliser with biogas digestate did not, with the exception for hemp, influence crop yields per hectare, but energy input in cultivation decreased by on average 34\% for the six crops tested. For hemp and sugar beet the biogas feedstock costs for the freshly harvested crop per GJ methane were close to that of the economic reference crop, winter wheat grain. For maize, beet tops and first and second year ley, the feedstock costs were lower, and for triticale much lower. When ensiled crops were used for biogas the feedstock costs increased and only those of triticale silage remained slightly lower than the cost of dried wheat grain. However, all feedstock costs were so high that profitable biogas production based solely on ensiled crops would be difficult to achieve at present Swedish biogas sales prices.

@article{Gissen2014Comparing, abstract = {Highlights • Six crops have been compared for production of biogas. • Crop cultivation related costs, energy inputs and yields are presented. • Methane yield per ha twice as high for sugar beet as for ley and hemp. • Energy input 1/3 lower when digestate replaces mineral fertilizer in cultivation. • Crop production costs range from 9 (fresh triticale) to 22 (hemp silage) €/GJ CH4. Abstract Analyses of six crops grown in southern Sweden for biogas production (hemp, sugar beet, maize, triticale, grass/clover ley, winter wheat) showed varying performance regarding methane yield per hectare and energy input and costs in the production and supply of crops as biogas feedstock. The highest biomass and biogas yield was observed for sugar beet. Crops with lower risk of negative environmental impact in cultivation, such as ley and hemp, produced less than half the methane energy yield per hectare. Triticale, also having less risk of negative environmental impact, gave an energy yield similar to that of winter wheat grain and maize. Replacing most of the mineral fertiliser with biogas digestate did not, with the exception for hemp, influence crop yields per hectare, but energy input in cultivation decreased by on average 34\% for the six crops tested. For hemp and sugar beet the biogas feedstock costs for the freshly harvested crop per GJ methane were close to that of the economic reference crop, winter wheat grain. For maize, beet tops and first and second year ley, the feedstock costs were lower, and for triticale much lower. When ensiled crops were used for biogas the feedstock costs increased and only those of triticale silage remained slightly lower than the cost of dried wheat grain. However, all feedstock costs were so high that profitable biogas production based solely on ensiled crops would be difficult to achieve at present Swedish biogas sales prices.}, added-at = {2018-06-18T21:23:34.000+0200}, author = {Giss\'{e}n, Charlott and Prade, Thomas and Kreuger, Emma and Nges, Ivo A. and Rosenqvist, H\r{a}kan and Svensson, Sven-Erik and Lantz, Mikael and Mattsson, Jan E. and B\"{o}rjesson, P\r{a}l and Bj\"{o}rnsson, Lovisa}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b6e306b9a6371b61408999b94f7a1335/pbett}, citeulike-article-id = {13144181}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061}, doi = {10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061}, interhash = {382fec27998bb92314c36c9ca30f3938}, intrahash = {b6e306b9a6371b61408999b94f7a1335}, issn = {09619534}, journal = {Biomass and Bioenergy}, keywords = {review bioenergy energy renewables crop}, month = apr, posted-at = {2014-04-22 10:31:10}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2018-06-22T18:34:20.000+0200}, title = {Comparing energy crops for biogas production – Yields, energy input and costs in cultivation using digestate and mineral fertilisation}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.061}, year = 2014 }