Expert Risk Perceptions of Integrating Power-to-Gas into the German Biogas Sector Johanny Perez Sierra1,*, Claudia Bieling1, Dirk Scheer2, Cordula Kropp3 1 University of Hohenheim, Chair of Societal Transition and Agriculture, Stuttgart, Germany 2 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Technology Assessment and System Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe, Germany 3 University of Stuttgart, Department of Sociology with Focus on Risk and Technology Research, Stuttgart, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail address: j.perezsierra@uni-hohenheim.de
Research area Biogas
Introduction and Goals The implementation of Power-to-Gas (PtG) into biogas through the concept of biological methanation (BM), allows the storage of excess renewable electricity in the form of chemical energy: biomethane. Besides, it can help reduce CO2 emissions from the biogas sector (Persson et al., 2014; Krautwald and Baier 2016). This innovation has the potential of making the production of biogas more efficient and environmentally friendly. However, biogas plants in Germany have been perceived negatively by the general public, which has linked the generation of biogas with extensive maize monocultures, accidents, odor emissions and high energy prices (Kabasci et al., 2012; Sperling, 2012). To sustainably implement the concept of PtG into a biogas value chain, it is important to identify its potential implications and formulate strategies to help avoid obstacles to its diffusion and final adoption. The aim of this project is to outline and describe potential risks embedded in the implementation of BM as perceived by experts in biogas, identify research gaps for its further development, and to provide management options for a viable application of this promising innovation within the German biogas sector.
Method This investigation comprised a semi-standardized questionnaire with 15 open-ended questions. The study was carried out with 27 stakeholders with expertise on biogas and knowledge on the concept of PtG. Among the contributors, the stakeholders came from sciences (e.g., Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technology - UMSICHT), industry (e.g., Electrochaea GmbH), politics and state authorities (e.g., Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Energy Economy Baden-Württemberg UMBW), and associations, including professional groups (e.g., Fachverband Biogas e.V.). The interviews were done until theory saturation was reached. With the help of the software MAXQDA®, the data was studied systematically, following the method of qualitative content analysis.
Results Potential risks of environmental impacts derived from biogas and criticism from the society are in general perceived as less likely. Experts identify rather political and economic aspects as the most probable risks, which influence the implementation of BM in biogas. Some of them relate to costs, competing technologies, lack of incentives for BM, and of the biogas sector as a greenhouse-gassaving technology. The stakeholders consider essential to explain the role of biogas as a PtG / energy storage technique with a climate protection function and from there, the derived costs. Central research gaps include the identification of suitable biogas
plants for the concept of PtG and the assessment of its CO2 saving-potential. Fig. 1 shows actors identified and stakeholders‘ recommendations to handle risks and challenges.
“One has to explain clearly to the media what this innovation in biogas means, why it is useful. One has to take that bad mood away… If you want to get a positive image again, you have to make it clear, and actually, by doing good things.” – Statement of an expert in biogas
Politicians
Media
• Support biogas as a CO2mitigating technology, in addition to its energybalancing service
•Diffusion of information on the role of PtG in connection with biogas: provision of energy and environmental services
Civil groups and Biogas • Dialogue: present benefits to citizens and explain strategies to tackle potential risks
Researchers • Investigation on the effects of PtG /BM, demanding CO2 from biogas plants, which are fed with different types of substrates
Fig. 1: Actors identified and recommended risk management options to adopt PtG in Biogas.
Conclusions There is a general agreement among the stakeholders, regarding the importance of the economic and political challenges. Environmental risks, such as potential gas leakages and accidents, together with potential societal criticism are perceived as less probable but with a relatively high significance.
References 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. Krautwald, J. and Baier, U. 2016. Biologische Methanisierung: Methanogenese als mikrobiologische Alternative zur katalytischen Methanisierung. Fachartikel: AQUA & GAS No 7/8. Energieforschung SCCER Biosweet. Persson, T., Murphy, J. D., Jannasch, A., Ahern, E., Liebetrau, J., Trommler, M., Toyama, J. 2014. A perspective on the potential role of biogas in smart energy grids. In: David Baxter (Ed.), Bioenergy Task 37: Energy from biogas. International Energy Agency (IEA). Sperling, F. 2012. The angry countryside: the installation of biogas plants as a contested 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, p. 145161.
Member of:
Project funded by: