Bitte benutzen Sie diese Kennung, um auf die Ressource zu verweisen: http://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-13350
Langanzeige der Metadaten
DC ElementWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorFull, Johannes-
dc.contributor.authorHohmann, Silja-
dc.contributor.authorZiehn, Sonja-
dc.contributor.authorGamero, Edgar-
dc.contributor.authorSchließ, Tobias-
dc.contributor.authorSchmid, Hans-Peter-
dc.contributor.authorMiehe, Robert-
dc.contributor.authorSauer, Alexander-
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-31T14:11:20Z-
dc.date.available2023-07-31T14:11:20Z-
dc.date.issued2023de
dc.identifier.issn1996-1073-
dc.identifier.other1854282085-
dc.identifier.urihttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:93-opus-ds-133691de
dc.identifier.urihttp://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/handle/11682/13369-
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.18419/opus-13350-
dc.description.abstractThe transition to a carbon-neutral economy requires innovative solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and promote sustainable energy production. Additionally, carbon dioxide removal technologies are urgently needed. The production of biomethane or biohydrogen with carbon dioxide capture and storage are two promising BECCS approaches to achieve these goals. In this study, we compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches regarding their technical, economic, and environmental performance. Our analysis shows that while both approaches have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy security, the hydrogen-production approach has several advantages, including up to five times higher carbon dioxide removal potential. However, the hydrogen bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (HyBECCS) approach also faces some challenges, such as higher capital costs, the need for additional infrastructure, and lower energy efficiency. Our results give valuable insights into the trade-offs between these two approaches. They can inform decision-makers regarding the most suitable method for reducing GHG emissions and provide renewable energy in different settings.en
dc.description.sponsorshipGerman Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energyde
dc.description.sponsorshipMinistry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy Sector Baden-Wuerttembergde
dc.description.sponsorshipGerman Federal Ministry of Education and Researchde
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Regional Development Fund (ERDF)de
dc.language.isoende
dc.relation.uridoi:10.3390/en16135066de
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessde
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/de
dc.subject.ddc333.7de
dc.titlePerspectives of biogas plants as BECCS facilities : a comparative analysis of biomethane vs. biohydrogen production with carbon capture and storage or use (CCS/CCU)en
dc.typearticlede
dc.date.updated2023-07-07T08:23:46Z-
ubs.fakultaetEnergie-, Verfahrens- und Biotechnikde
ubs.fakultaetKonstruktions-, Produktions- und Fahrzeugtechnikde
ubs.fakultaetExterne wissenschaftliche Einrichtungende
ubs.fakultaetFakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.institutInstitut für Energieeffizienz in der Produktionde
ubs.institutInstitut für Industrielle Fertigung und Fabrikbetriebde
ubs.institutFraunhofer Institut für Produktionstechnik und Automatisierung (IPA)de
ubs.institutFakultätsübergreifend / Sonstige Einrichtungde
ubs.publikation.seiten16de
ubs.publikation.sourceEnergies 16 (2023), No. 5066de
ubs.publikation.typZeitschriftenartikelde
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:04 Fakultät Energie-, Verfahrens- und Biotechnik

Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Datei Beschreibung GrößeFormat 
energies-16-05066.pdf1,34 MBAdobe PDFÖffnen/Anzeigen


Diese Ressource wurde unter folgender Copyright-Bestimmung veröffentlicht: Lizenz von Creative Commons Creative Commons