Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of the Backward-Facing Step Technique on Small-Scale Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine Rotor Blades
Previous Article in Journal
Feasibility Investigation of Geothermal Energy Heating System in Mining Area: Application of Mine Cooling and Aquifer Thermal Energy Exploitation Technique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Performance of the Polish Biofuel Industry after Accession to the European Union in the Area of Sustainable Development Concepts
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perspectives of Electricity Production from Biogas in the European Union

by
Piotr Bórawski
1,*,
Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska
1,
Zuzana Kapsdorferová
2,
Tomasz Rokicki
3,
Andrzej Parzonko
4 and
Lisa Holden
5
1
Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
2
Institute of Economics and Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
3
Management Institute, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Economics and Organization of Enterprises, Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland
5
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(5), 1169; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051169
Submission received: 5 January 2024 / Revised: 31 January 2024 / Accepted: 26 February 2024 / Published: 1 March 2024

Abstract

:
Biogas is a renewable energy source (RES). The aim of this research was to analyze the perspectives of electricity production from biogas in the European Union. The main source of information was data from Eurostat. We analyzed electricity production from biogas in the European Union (EU). The scope of this research was data from 2012 to 2021. First, we presented biogas production by feedstock type across the world. Then, we presented changes in electricity production from biogas in the EU. We used different methods to evaluate the changes in biogas production. First, we used the ARiMA (Autoregressive Moving Average) model to evaluate the stationarity of the time series. Our electricity production from biogas data proved to be stationary. Second, we elaborated on the prognosis of future changes in electricity production from biogas. The largest producer of biogas is the EU, and it is produced from crops, animal manure, and municipal solid waste. Our research found that the largest production from biogas in 2021 took place in Germany, Italy, and France. These countries have the greatest potential for electricity production from biogas, and they have spent significant funds on facilities and technology. Such countries as Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and Sweden increased their electricity production from biogas in 2021 compared to 2020. According to our prognosis, the global production of biogas will increase from 62.300 TWh to 64.000 TWh in 2019–2026 (2.7% increase). In 2022–2026, such countries as Estonia (60.4%), Latvia (29.6%), Croatia (27.6%), Slovenia (10.9%), and Poland (8.2%) will increase their electricity production from biogas the most. In 2022–2026, such countries as Italy (0.68%), Portugal (1.1%), Greece (1.5%), Slovakia (2.3%), and Germany (2.6%) will increase their electricity production from biogas the least. Only Romania (−17.6%), Finland (−11.5%), Lithuania (−9.1%), and Malta (−1.06%) will decrease their production of electricity from biogas in 2022–2026. Such countries as Bulgaria (2344%), Denmark (590.9%), Croatia (449%), and France (183%) increased biogas consumption in 2013–2022. A decrease in the inland consumption of biogas in 2013–2022 was observed in Spain, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Austria, and Slovenia.

1. Introduction

Global population growth and technological advancement have caused an increased consumption of energy, which is the driving force for economic growth. Energy was traditionally delivered from fossil fuels, but recently, the need to acquire renewable energy sources (RESs) has increased [1]. The negative impact of climate change as a result of fossil fuel utilization caused people to look for alternative sources of energy. The most important RESs include biomass, photovoltaics, wind energy, hydropower, and biogas.
Biogas can be made in both enterprises and specialized dairy and pork farms. The installation of digesters to use biogas requires an investment in facilities on farms. This source of RESs consists of methane (50–75%), carbon dioxide (25–50%), and other gasses. In total, 1 kg of carbohydrates produces an average of 0.42 m3 CH4 From 1 kg of proteins, –0.47 m3 of CH4, and from fats 0.75 m3 CH4. The calorific value of methane is 35 MJ/m3. The average calorific value of biogas obtained from municipal bio-waste is estimated at approx. 21.54 MJ/m3. The energy contained in 1 m3 from such biogas corresponds to the energy contained in 0.93 m3 of natural gas [2].
The materials that are used in biogas production are transformed in the anaerobic digestion (AD) process [3]. The materials that are used in biogas production include the following: organic waste, biowaste, sludge, manure, and others. Animal manure used as fertilizers creates problems for the environment, and the legislative process in the EU created permitting rules for the use of manure [4]. Livestock farming has developed in recent years, causing many problems for the environment, such as greenhouse gas emissions and the contamination of water resources [5]. The ingredients of manure gas depend on feeding patterns and diet ingredients, diet digestibility, microorganisms, and other factors. Methane, which is the main biogas ingredient, can be used in electricity, heat, and as biofuel for cars, decreasing environmental emissions [6]. The utilization of agricultural biomass in the process of biogas production is widespread. The production generates heat, which can be used for heating the digesters, farm buildings, greenhouses, and other buildings on the farm. Its usage can even be expanded for heating local community facilities such as swimming pools in nearby places. Biogas can be used to produce electricity and heat, but it requires constant investment in facilities and technologies. The production of biomass from organic waste converts it to energy, and the residues can be used as natural fertilizers [7].
Biogas is playing a role in bridging the gap because the EU’s economy is focused on decarbonization. The low carbon economy utilizes non-carbon energy sources, and thus, biogas plays an important role. However, the development of this sector requires large investments to increase production. More strategies focused on a national level for biogas production should be developed. Such strategies require the application of different biogas technologies [8]. Biogas is a sustainable energy technology and can be an alternative to fossil fuels [9].
Agriculture has the potential for the production of livestock manure, which is used as a fertilizer and, if not used properly, can create problems such as environmental pollution, contamination, and odors. Therefore, the utilization of agricultural manure for biogas brings many benefits, such as a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions the elimination of methane emissions, and odors with manure storage [10]. The EU has great potential to produce biogas, but it is diversified regionally [11].
The current situation with the European energy market is favorable for biogas production using agricultural slurry. Countries with large animal production are pioneers in biogas production [12]. Biogas is a substitute for conventional sources of energy, and it is promising for economic growth. This kind of energy is environmentally friendly, renewable, and resource-efficient [13].
Biogas production can increase efficiency through different innovations, including access to raw materials, the pretreatment of feedstock, utilization of milling, communication, hydrolysis, and other processes [14]. Moreover, the feedstock for biogas is also important because it should be prepared for digestion by eliminating debris, including metals and plastic, which can contaminate the fodder and harm animals [15]. Methane is the ingredient that determines the calorific value of biogas [16]. Based on the European Union’s environmental policy, more biogases should be produced to fulfill increasing energy needs.
Data about the production of electricity from biogas are available. However, little attention is paid to prognosis and data analysis in the literature. We wanted to fill in the gaps and evaluate the stationarity of electricity production from biogas in the EU and the world. We focused on changes and statistics for electricity production and evaluated the coefficient of variation, skewness, and kurtosis. Data concerning future renewable energy policies are available. Our research contribution is the prognosis of electricity production from biogas, elaborated for each country of the European Union (EU). Moreover, we discussed the problem of biogas production in the literature, pointing out our problems, barriers, and environmental aspects of biogas production.
The aim of this research was to analyze the perspectives of electricity production from biogas in the EU. To achieve this goal, the following questions should be addressed:
  • What is the production of biogas in the world?
  • How has the production of electricity from biogas changed in 2012–2021 in the EU?
  • What is the future of electricity production from biogas in the EU?
  • What is the prognosis of electricity production from biogas in European Union countries?
The following hypothesis has been evaluated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
The production of electricity from biogas increased due to stricter climate and environmental policies in the EU.
To achieve the goals of this research, the authors used different methods. First, we used descriptive statistics to analyze the changes in electricity from biogas production in the world and in the European Union. Another method was the ARiMA model, which helped us to evaluate the stationarity of the ranks. Finally, we elaborated on the prognosis both for the world and the European Union’s (EU’s) production of electricity from biogas.
This paper is organized as follows: First, we present an introduction and gaps in the research. Then, we present a literature review describing biogas in the energy strategy of the EU. Next, we describe the research method. Then, we present the stationarity analysis and conduct a prognosis. The final parts are the conclusions and policy implications.

1.1. The Role of Biogas in the Energy Strategy of the European Union (EU)

Biogas is one of the RESs that can increase the productivity and sustainability of farms. One of the problems with farms is the high production of manure. An increase in farm size has caused the greater production of manure and forced farmers to invest in manure tanks and containers. These farms spread manure on fields only at particular times of the year. Moreover, the manure contributes to greenhouse gasses because it emits carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and other gases. The most important sources of material for biogas production include livestock fertilizers (cattle manure, mink manure, pig manure, and poultry manure), agricultural wastes (barley, corn fruit, meadow grass, palm oil, rice straw, wheat, and others), household, municipal and industrial wastes (kitchen wastes, organic fraction, sewage sludge and other) and microalgae [4]. The production of biogas gained attention after problems with the hazardous impact of fossil fuels on the environment occurred. Its production is environmentally friendly because anaerobic digestion provides the opportunity for electricity, heat, and fuel production [17].
The EU developed a strategy of decarbonization by 2050, which includes goals to reach a 40% reduction in GHG emissions compared to 1990 and a 27% share of RESs [17,18]. These concepts include such topics as climate change, food security, sustainability, and renewable energy sources and are called bioeconomic strategies [19,20,21]. The EU is the biggest producer of biogas. The reasons for biogas production in the EU are numerous. The infrastructure of biogas utilization in these countries is well-developed. Germany biomethane plants are connected to distribution gas networks and transport grass networks. The main source of biogas production in Germany, Croatia, Serbia, and Slovakia is corn silage. The waste production of agricultural waste and secondary products is widely used in countries such as Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, and Cyprus [22].
Europe is undoubtedly the leader in the field of biogas production, which is shared mainly between Europe (54%), Asia (31%), and America (14%). Biogas production has increased over the last 20 years. Between 2000 and 2017, global biogas production was more than quadrupled, from 78 to 364 TWh, which corresponds to a global yearly volume of 61 billion m3 of biogas [23,24].
Biogas is undoubtedly an important element in the bioeconomy. Unlike fossil fuels, biogas is a RES. It is produced from different sources of biomass through the process of anaerobic digestion. Its role is environmental protection, and its conservation of the environment is unparalleled [25]. The production of biogas is a future challenge that will substitute natural gas. Environmental contamination, oil crises, and other problems fostered the creation of biogas plants worldwide. Biogas plants can be placed on livestock farms or as centralized biogas plants where other farms have access to and are connected to the facility [26].
Biogas contributes to economic growth and development. It is competitive with fossil fuels and has increased global interest. It is a competitive energy and is an alternative to fossil fuels. It has potential value in animal farms and households. It provides benefits because it improves sustainable development and the economy [27]. The EU elaborated an important target to develop the RESs by 2020. The European Union (EU) should use 20% of RESs in its final energy consumption [28].
The United States (US) is also an important biogas producer worldwide. The USA biogas market value was USD 60.06 billion in 2021 and is still developing. Large farms produce manure, which can be used for biogas production. The US also introduced a policy for natural resource preservation. The US is the second largest emitter of GHG, and the US Congress has decided to introduce climate legislation. The US Environmental Protection Agency plays an important role because it regulates GHG emissions [28]. Biogas is used in different applications such as electricity, heat, vehicle fuel, and cooking. The demand for biogas is increasing in the US. The market would not have been developing without support. This support includes favorable regulatory and political support, environmental support, customer support, geopolitical support, and agricultural and economic support.
In 2018, the US biogas industry’s power generation capacity was (2.4 GW), whereas Germany had (6.2 GW), Italy had (1.4 GW) and the United Kingdom had (1.7 GW). These results demonstrate the scale of investment in this source of renewable energy. Germany, which is the largest economy in the European Union, has the largest investment, exceeding the US [29]. The world’s installed biogas capacity in the US was 19.7% in 2016, and this country is the second largest after Germany [30]. In dairy farms, manure is converted into biogas and fertilizers for use in agricultural areas [31].

1.2. Problems and Barriers to Biogas Production

Biogas can be used in different sources of energy for electricity production, transport, and heating [32]. Biogas has multiple applications, including various sources that use energy, for example, electricity, cooking, gas-powered vehicles, cooking, and others. It can also be used in the production of fertilizers. Biogas has a positive meaning on the reduction in GHGs in transport, where (60–80% reductions are possible compared to gasoline operations) [33].
Another important issue is the cost of production of biogas. The cost depends on sources of feedstock materials and plant capacity. Biogas can be produced from plants, and that is why the cost increases. Biogas production from industrial organic waste and residues has lower capital costs (the difference lies between 25 and 30%) compared to energy crops. Small-scale plants also have significantly high costs [34]. The technology of production and handling is also an important problem. If handling systems are not properly designed and maintained, biogas production can result in the release of methane [35].
Biogas production has many problems and barriers, including technical, economic, market, institutional, socio-cultural, and environmental [36]. The production of biogas can lead to water pollution. Using manure for biogas production impacts soil fertility and nitrogen release into the atmosphere and groundwater, highlighting the importance of NH3 emissions. Moreover, improper disposal increases water pollution and contamination in soil and groundwater [37].
The production of biogas does not solve GHG emissions. It can be released into the atmosphere during the production of crops and manure. Biogas contains carbon dioxide and methane, which impacts global warming and climate change. Manure has environmental impacts on cows and other animals. That is why the diet and its diversification impact manure’s characteristics and influence the components of biogas [38]. Biogas can also impact human health. Biogas contains carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, siloxanes, nitrogen oxides (NOx), ammonia, and halogens. These substances can affect the environment and health and have detrimental effects. According to Werkneh [39], biogas impurities can cause different public health concerns (like pulmonary paralysis, asthma, respiratory diseases, and deaths) and environmental impacts (such as global warming, climate change, and their indirect impacts like drought and flooding). These impurities have an impact on biogas conversion devices and create harmful consequences to human health and the environment in the form of emissions when their presence is above their threshold limits [40,41].

1.3. Environmental Aspects on Biogas Production

For agriculture, investments in the field of RESs are an opportunity to build technological advantages, innovate the industry, reduce dependence on imported energy resources, and improve environmental conditions. Biogas plants are starting to play such a role in rural areas. A biogas plant is an installation that produces gas from biomass in the process of methane fermentation. This biogas finds unlimited possibilities for use in the energy sector—both locally to generate electricity and heat, as well as in transport. Agricultural biogas can be independently used in the industry or the energy sector after it is injected into the gas distribution network and for a farm’s own needs. An agricultural biogas plant is a plant that produces biogas from plant biomass, animal manure, organic waste (for example, from the food industry), slaughterhouse waste, or biological sludge from sewage.
The main component of biogas is methane (CH4), which is the simplest aliphatic saturated hydrocarbon and the main component of natural, mine, and mud gas. It is used as fuel, the main source of hydrogen, water, and gas, and as a raw material in the petrochemical and other industries. The amount and composition of biogas generated during fermentation depends on the type of feedstock and the number of organic compounds contained in it.
Biogas production undoubtedly has environmental aspects. Biogas production solves many environmental problems. The main substrate for biogas production is biomass, which is carbon-neutral and a source of C (carbon), H (hydrogen), and O2 (oxygen) elements. To produce biogas, we can use maize and other agricultural products. Such production increases competition in the market for agricultural prices and, of course, is responsible for price increases [42]. Other substrates can be animal manure, which, in the AD process, produces biogas. Summing up, in the process of biogas production, we can use many products that are utilized in the nutrition, agriculture, and chemical industries [43].
There are at least two options for biogas production. First, it can be produced in plants, which need to buy products for biogas production. It can also be used in agricultural products. Such plants need to be actively managed to reduce costs of production and increase incomes [44]. The second option is the production of biogas from animal waste on farms. It is a good way to use animal waste at low costs. Using animal waste, the use of agricultural products can be decreased. Pollution can be reduced, and the remaining part can be used as a good fertilizer [45]. Animal slurry may be harmful to the environment, and the production of biogas in the process of anaerobic digestion has an important role in climate protection because greenhouse gases are reduced [46,47].
Agricultural biogas is a gaseous fuel obtained in the process of the methane fermentation of agricultural raw materials, agricultural by-products, liquid or solid animal manure, by-products, or residues from the processing of agricultural products or forest biomass, excluding gas obtained from raw materials, sewage treatment plants, and landfills [48].
Slurry from both pig and cattle farms is suitable for biogas production. A comparison of the unit efficiency of these substrates is in favor of pig slurry. In addition, biogas from cattle slurry has a lower biomethane content. These differences result from the fact that in the stomachs of ruminant cattle, the initial fermentation of organic compounds is already taking place, which makes the slurry slightly poorer.
The anaerobic fermentation of excrements of farmed animals and birds in the context of fertilization has the following effects:
  • Improvement in fertilization conditions in agricultural fields compared to raw slurry;
  • Reducing the amount of nitrate nitrogen in favor of ammonium nitrogen;
  • Ability to maintain humus balance in the soil;
  • Destruction of weed seeds—reduction in herbicide consumption;
  • Elimination of pathogens thanks to, e.g., hygienist processes;
  • Reducing the use of artificial fertilizers;
  • Reducing the risk of contamination in ground and surface waters, limiting the spread of pathogens contained in animal feces, such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, tuberculosis bacteria, foot and mouth disease, viruses, etc.;
  • Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, including nitrous oxide and methane emitted during the storage of natural fertilizers [49,50,51].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

Data sources included Eurostat, which is the most important source in our paper. The browser of Eurostat enabled us to gather data, including electricity production from biogas. We collected data from 2012 to 2021. Figure 1 depicts the electricity production from biogas in 2021, expressed in thousand tons of oil equivalents. The largest production is in Germany, Italy, France, and Czechia. The production of biogas requires the development of the biogas industry, which is the best developed in Germany, Denmark, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Italy. Biogas plants in the European Union (EU) are diversified. We can observe large-scale, joint co-digestion plants and farm-scale plants. Co-digestion plants use a mixture of two or more substrates. They are mostly used for generating heat and electricity in the European Union (EU). The second kind of farm is the farm-scale biogas plant that uses animal manure and energy crops. These farms are large pig farms because of problems with slurry production [52].
The main source of information was Eurostat data. Eurostat is considered to be the most important data source. It includes data that are verified before publication. It is gathered from all member states of the European Union. These data include the 2012–2021 period because only the newest data were available. Moreover, we presented data without Great Britain because this country left the European Union (EU) in 2020. We also present the data for all member states and the whole European Union (EU) and Euro area (Table 1).
We also analyzed documents describing biogas development perspectives. Directives on waste, including the policy of recycling recovery, restricting landfill disposal, and final residues, had a positive impact on biogas production’s increase. These regulations have been described in many documents [53]. Biogas production in the European Union (EU) would not be developed without supporting policy. As we know from official documents, the most important directives impacting biogas production in the European Union (EU) include the Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) [54], the Directive on Waste Recycling and Recovery (2008/98/EC) [55] and the Directive on Landfills (1999/31/EC) [Directive on Landfills (1999/31/EC)] [56,57,58,59].
In 2012–2021, six countries decreased the production of electricity from biogas as follows: Sweden (−40%), Slovenia (−32.9%), the Netherlands (−19.2%), Malta (−18.7%), Ireland (−12.4%) and Austria (−6.2%). The biggest increase was observed in Bulgaria (3708.8%), Croatia (679.3%), Lithuania (273.1%) and Slovakia (203.6%). In fact, the production of electricity from biogas increased the most among small producers. The production of electricity from biogas increased by 29.4% in the 27 countries of the European Union in 2012–2021.
When analyzing the data in 2020–2021, we observed a decrease in electricity production from biogas in member states of the European Union (EU). Only Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and Sweden increased their electricity production in 2021 compared to 2020. COVID-19 did not have a negative impact on electricity production from biogas in these countries. Other countries of the European Union (EU) recorded a decrease in electricity production from biogas in 2021–2022.

2.2. Methods

Different methods were used to check the changes in biogas production in the EU (Figure 2). We analyzed the changes in biogas production in EU countries. The method that we used first was statistical analysis. We used such descriptive statistics as the average, median, minimal, maximal, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, skewness, and kurtosis.
The average is the average arithmetic electricity production from biogas in European Union (EU) countries. The minimal is the minimal amount of electricity production in EU countries. The maximal is the maximal value of electricity production in EU countries from 2012 to 2021. Standard deviation describes a random variable and the square root of its variance [60]. The coefficient of variation is a very important statistical measure of the dispersion of data points in a data series around the mean. Skewness is a measure of the asymmetry of a random variable about the mean. It can be positive, negative, zero, or undefined [61]. In negative skewness, the left tail is longer. It can be described as a right-leaning curve. Positive skewness has a longer right tail. The right-skewed distribution is the left-leaning curve. The final measure is kurtosis shows the “tailedness” of the probability distribution of a variable. Finally, the authors of the paper prepared a prognosis to evaluate future changes. Before that, we conducted the ARiMA model, which is a method used for stationarity evaluation. Both our prognosis and the evaluation of the ARiMA model were optimistic for the development of biogas production in European Union countries and biogas production in the world.
The classic forecasting model is ARiMA. It is comprised the following components [60]:
Autoregression (AR): the model displays the variable’s regression with respect to its prior values.
Data are replaced by the integration (I) of the difference between their values and previous meanings.
Moving Average (MA) is a model that analyzes the correlation between an observation and the residual errors of a Moving Average model that is used for lagged data.
The sesonal model ARIMA is a very useful tool used for forecasting. It is also used for stationarity analysis and is useful in prognosis elaboration [61].
There were two theories investigated. It was established that the time series was stationary in the first hypothesis, and r = 1 was checked. The second premise determined whether the time series was stationary. The alternative hypothesis H1, which states that the series does not have a unit root, is accepted if we reject H0. The series remains in place [62].
The Autoregressive Moving Average Model was then run (ARIMA model). This model is dependent on the series’ autocorrelation patterns [59]. The following is a description of the ARIMA model: the order of the Moving Average process is represented by the MA, the difference order is represented by I, and the order of the autoregressive process is represented by AR [63].
This model uses historical values to explain a specific time series [64]. The ARIMA model was used to examine electricity production from biogas trends. Their form is as follows:
Yt = B1Yt−1 + B2Yt−2 + … + BpYt−p + Et + θ1Et−1 + θ2Et−2 + … + θqEt−q
where:
  • B—the delay operator;
  • Y—the analyzed variable;
  • E—the random component;
  • θ—autoregression parameters;
  • q—the amount of delay [57].
We used the process of the Auto-Correlation Function (ACF) and Partial Auto-Correlation Function (PACF). The use of the Auto-Correlation Function (ACF) and Partial Auto-Correlation Function (PACF) for the same data [65] was suggested by Box and Jenkins [66]. The analyzed features, which are a linear mixture of the future and current values of the process, are predicted using time series models. A random process with uncorrelated components and finite variance is known as an autoregressive model [67,68,69]. The ARIMA model was used to generate the prediction of the examined variable to identify the order of the ARIMA model in the current study, which employed data from biogas from 2012 to 21. For the analysis of upcoming changes in the markets and the execution of business plans, the use of prediction methods is crucial [70,71]. It is well-liked. This model is well recognized and is appropriate for the analysis of research results. This model enabled us to elaborate on the prognosis of electricity production from biogas in the EU.

3. Results

3.1. Biogas Production in the World

The production of biogas is increasing in the world due to the development of THE bioeconomy and sustainability concepts. Biogas production is diversified and has different sources, and the EU is the leading producer [39]. This is the result of the relevant action plans of the European Commission (EC) of a public–private partnership (PPP) titled “Biobased Industries” (BBI) that spent EUR 3.7 billion for research projects and demonstration facilities in 2013–2020. This project helped to develop clusters that involved around 140 partners from Europe [24]. The European Commission was responsible for managing and implementing the EU Framework Programs in Biotechnology and Life Sciences. The aim of this program, organized and realized within the European Union, was to promote scientific excellence and solve the global problems with the environment [72].
The sector of biogas is developing well. The annual growth rate was 9% during 2000–2018 (Figure 3). Such a large increase was the effect of its supply to a variety of users and markets, including electricity, heat, and transportation. The EU is the leader in biogas production. It produced 30.3 billion m3 of biogas in 2018. The second place is taken by Asia with the production of 19.3 billion m3 and the third by America with 8.34 billion m3.
In 2022, the global biogas market size was evaluated at USD 55.84 billion. The prediction is that the market will increase to USD 78.8 billion (Figure 4). This is a tremendous increase, showing the potential for development. In 2021, most of the biogas was used for electricity (31%). Biogas production increased from 0.29 exajoules to 1.46 exajoules in 2020 (Figure 4).
The biogas market is estimated to reach USD 78.8 billion by 2023 (Figure 5). This is a tremendous growth that will impact the world’s economy [73].
China is a very big country and has the world’s largest energy demand. But its economy is based on coal. So, this country is the largest emitter of CO2 and CH4 but has also achieved success with photovoltaic development and other RESs based on biomass [66,67,68]. China is also an important producer of biogas. However, biogas is produced not only from animal manure but also from straw. Using modern technologies, a reduction in carbon emissions alongside environmental protection can be achieved [9]. The diversification of biogas production in world regions depends on many factors, such as their development level, dietary habits, animal production efficiency, population density, straw resources, and others (Figure 6). In Europe, for example, factors differentiating biogas production and distribution are population sizes, dietary habits, and historical background [5].

3.2. Stationarity and Prognosis for Global Biogas Production

The authors of this paper conducted the prognosis of global biogas production. It is clear from our analysis that the global production of biogas will increase in the coming years. First, we conducted the ARiMA model to evaluate the changes in global biogas production (Table 2). This model belongs to a wide variety of models, and its application is the evaluation of a time series. The ARMA model was used to develop a forecast of vegetable fat consumption. Models were analyzed for all combinations (p,q) in which p <= P and q <= Q. The version of the model for which the information criterion had the minimum value was selected. The Kalman filter test was used to evaluate the model. The research shows that the hypothesis about the normality of the residual distribution cannot be rejected. From the analysis of the data in Table 2, it can be concluded that the model parameters are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Based on these data, we can conclude that the time series are stationary.
Our prognosis of global biogas production proves the development of this market in the future. The reasons for this development are numerous. First, the world has undertaken the policy of renewable energy to meet the increase in global energy consumption. Second, the war impacted the breakdown of the supply chain of fossil fuels. Moreover, the demand for energy is increasing worldwide (Table 3). Global biogas production will increase from 62.300 TWH to 64.000 TWh in 2019–2026.

3.3. Descriptive Statistics of Electricity Production from Biogas in EU Countries in 2012–2021

The authors used descriptive statistics to analyze the changes in biogas production in EU countries. The arithmetic value of the average shows that the biggest value of electricity production from biogas was achieved in such countries as Germany, Italy, and France [76]. These data show that these countries have the biggest potential and the largest outlays for facilities of biogas production.
The smallest minimal value of electricity production from biogas was achieved in 2012–2021 in Bulgaria, Malta, and Sweden. The undoubted leader in biogas production in the European Union (EU) is Germany. There are more than 9000 biogas plants in Germany. Moreover, it has 28.1% of the world’s installed biogas capacity [77]. These results are the effect of favorable subsidization schemes in European Union (EU) countries. France, Spain, Italy, and Sweden are also growing markets for biogas. These countries are adopting German solutions in the market [78]. Spain also has good prospects for biogas development because of its high position in animal production in the European Union (EU). The production of manure is high in Spain, and this country takes the fourth position. Spain is the second-largest producer of swine and the sixth-largest producer of cattle, making Spain the largest producer of animal manure [79].
The largest coefficient of variation was achieved by Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, and Slovakia. This means that these countries noted the largest changes in electricity production from biogas in 2012–2021.
Skewedness and kurtosis are the measures of asymmetry of random variables. The value of skewness was negative in the majority of countries. Only Greece, Spain, France, Cyprus, Luxemburg, Malta, and Austria achieved positive skewness. Kurtosis was also negative in most countries. However, only Belgium, Czechia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and Romania achieved positive kurtosis (Table 4).
The descriptive statistics presented in Table 4 show the changes in electricity production from biogas. The EU is a very diversified region in the production of electricity from biogas. Bearing in mind that this region should use more RESs for energy production, the future of this energy is very diversified. Poland, for example, has about 300 biogas plants on farms, whereas its neighbor, Germany, has about ten thousand. The possibilities of creating biogas plants are numerous in all countries of the EU.

3.4. Prognosis of Electricity Production from Biogas in EU Countries in 2022–2026

A clean source of energy can be produced from organic waste. Many organisms’ feedstock has the potential to be utilized for biogas production. Many farmers undertake the construction of small installations because they provide many benefits to farms. First, they make you independent of energy supplies, and this is especially important in peripheral areas where voltage drops are very high and power outages are frequent. Surplus energy can be sold to the grid and generate additional income for the farm. Such biogas plants stabilize the power grid in rural areas.
In biogas plants, by-products from agriculture and the agri-food industry can be used, which is important for environmental protection because the disposal of these products generates high costs. The zero-carbon balance of energy production (not counting transport issues), as well as a reduction in greenhouse gases, mainly methane, are also important for the environment. The production of biogas embodies the idea of a circular economy. This additional source of energy can be used for producing heat and electricity. It also offers contributions to decrease environmental pollution and increase ecological balance [80]. Biogas is produced in the process of anaerobic digestion and is a substitute for conventional sources of energy. Conventional sources deplete fossil fuels and create environmental problems [81]. Biogas production is undoubtedly part of the bioeconomy, which could adapt to the changes that take place in the environment [82].
To elaborate on this prognosis, we used the Autoregressive Moving Average model (ARiMA model). This model is a simple way to evaluate the stationarity of the variables. We used biogas production as the dependent variable. Our research proved that these data can be classified as stationary. Based on the p-value, we can conclude that the ARiMA model used for prediction can be a good tool for prognosis (Table 5 and Table 6). The r-squared determination coefficient was quite high, confirming the good choice of the model.
Because they control how the moving operator q and the autoregressive operator p are applied, the ACF and PACF functions are crucial [83]. This approach controls errors due to seasonal variation and other flaws, making it very versatile [84].
A relatively common statistical method for assessing variables and projecting their future values is the ARIMA model. It is possible to examine the energy management system using biogas forecasts. This approach can reduce expenditure overall while also enhancing the network and quality of biogas [85]. Like Phinikarides et al. [86], our investigation demonstrates how the length of the time series has an impact on the decomposition procedure. These methods do not include the seasonal component in time series [87]. Although our time series was stationary, the model was rigorously run. The ARIMA model’s prediction is crucial for the integration of biogas systems. It is significant because it informs the utility of the biogas scenario that could possibly occur. This research’s findings led us to the conclusion that time series patterns improve predicting outcomes [88].
Finally, the authors of this paper elaborate on the prognosis of electricity production in EU countries. The production of electricity from biogas will likely increase in the EU as a whole region. However, not all countries will record an increase in electricity from biogas. Four countries from the EU, according to our prognosis, will record a decrease in biogas production Finland, Lithuania, Malta, and Romania. This prognosis shows the big mistakes of statistical analysis (Table 7).
According to our prognosis, such countries as Estonia (60.4%), Latvia (29.6%), Croatia (27.6%), Slovenia (10.9%), and Poland (8.2%) will increase their electricity production from biogas the most in 2022–2026. Such countries as Italy (0.68%), Portugal (1.1%), Greece (1.5%), Slovakia (2.3%), and Germany (2.6%) will increase their electricity production from biogas the least in the same period. Such countries as Romania (−17.6%), Finland (−11.5%), Lithuania (−9.1%), and Malta (−1.06%) will decrease their production from biogas in 2022–2026.
Our prognosis coincides with the European Biogas Association data, according to which the sector of biogas production and its utilization will increase. Nowadays, the production of biogas in Europe is about 21 bcm (billion cubic meters), whereas in 2030, production will increase to 35–45 bcm (billion cubic meters) and 167 bcm (billion cubic meters) by 2050. The potential for biogas production in Europe is big, and this sector will provide 1.7 million jobs by 2050 [88].

3.5. Hydrogen, Biomethane and Green Methanol Production in the EU

The European Union is transforming the biogas market into producing new low-carbon gases. The most important and new biogases are hydrogen, biomethane, and green methanol.
Hydrogen (H2) is considered to be the cornerstone of the renewable energy portfolio. Hydrogen is a very promising factor that can help replace fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions. Hydrogen production can be made from biogas [89]. Moreover, hydrogen can be used not only as a fuel in heat production but also as an energy carrier [90]. Hydrogen can be produced via natural gas from thermochemical methods [91]. Global hydrogen production reached almost 95 Mt in 2022: an increase of 3% compared to 2021 (Figure 7). The sector of hydrogen is constantly increasing due to increasing demand in industries [92]. In 2040, global hydrogen production will reach the level of 240 MT H2. Asia and Oceania will share 55%, North and South America 28%, Europe 15% and MENA 12%. The sectors that will consume the most are the manufacturing industry (48%), mobility (30%) and energy sectors (15), and the heating of buildings (7%).
Another promising gas is biomethane, which is derived from biomass. Biomethane production worldwide is achieved by anaerobic digestion followed by upgrading and biomass gasification followed by methanation [93]. As we can see from Figure 8, the production of biogas increased in Europe from 6.8 bcm in 2011 to 16.8 bcm in 2022 (an increase of 147%). In the same period, the production of biomethane increased from 0.5 bcm to 4.2 bcm (an increase of 740%). These data prove the big potential of biomethane production, which only increased to 20% in 2022 compared to 2021.
The production of biomethane is diversified in Europe. Germany is the most important producer of biomethane and produces about 30% (12.8 TWh), followed by the UK (6.2 TWh), Denmark (5.7 TWh), and France (4.5 TWh). The average plant sizes across Europe are about 460 m3/h, in Germany 582 m3/h, and in Denmark 1.431 m3/h [95].
Green methanol is another promising low-carbon gas. It is also called renewable methanol, which is “a liquid, flammable chemical compound with very low carbon dioxide emissions produced from biomass, then called biomethanol, or obtained from carbon dioxide and hydrogen using renewable electricity”. Catalytic CO2 hydrogenation to methanol is a green process that produces valuable methanol. This gas is neutral compared to conventional methanol, which is produced from coal or natural gas [96]. The value of the market size of green methanol reached in 2022 was –88 thousand tons, whereas it is projected in 2032 to be –460 thousand tons. Green methanol is projected to be mainly used by the automotive sector (58%), chemicals (28%), power generation (8%), and others (6%) by 2032 (Figure 9). The green methanol market is evaluated at USD 156.06 million and is set to rise to USD 3149.05 million in 2031. The growth of the green methanol market is closely tied to the growing demand for green methanol from the maritime industry as a clean and sustainable fuel source [97].

3.6. Biogas Consumption in the EU

The consumption of biogases is depicted in Table 8. The biggest consumers of biogas are Germany, Italy, and France. These countries also have the largest production of biogas and the highest number of biogas and biomethane plants with prepared infrastructure. In 2022, there were about 20,000 biogas and biomethane plants, and in 2018, there were 18,202. Germany has 11,084 biogas plants, Italy has 1655, France has 837, and Poland has 300. In 2021, The energy production from biogas reached the level of 14.9 billion cubic meters (bcm). By 2030, the EU’s biomethane production needs to reach 35 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year. Until 2050, sustainable biogas can cover up to 30–40% of the EU’s gas consumption (60–70 bcm). Biogas is used in various sectors, including transportation, service, industrial, agricultural, and municipal. Biogas plants in Europe are powered by agricultural substrates (silage of energy crops, slurry, agricultural waste); 16% operate at sewage treatment plants and 8% at landfills. In total, 4% are “municipal” biogas plants fed with bio-waste, with the remaining industrial plants using distillery or brewery waste [99]. Most of the biogas is used to generate electricity and heat. Around 30% was consumed in buildings, mainly in the residential sector, for cooking and heating, with the remainder upgraded to biomethane and blended into the gas networks or used as a transport fuel [100].
The biggest changes in biogas consumption have been observed in Bulgaria (2344%), Denmark (590.9%), Croatia (449%), and France (183%) in 2013–2022. Countries such as Spain, Cyprus, and Latvia. Luxembourg, Austria, and Slovenia decreased their inland consumption of biogas in 2013–2022. In the analyzed period, the EU increased the consumption of biogas by 29% and in the Euro area by 23%.

4. Discussion

Biogas production is developing sufficiently worldwide. Farms that have large resources of biomass and fertilizers have great potential for the utilization of waste, both manure and food waste, in the process of biogas production. Biogas (biomethane) causes slow GHG emissions compared to fossil fuels and biodiesel or advanced biofuels [27]. Biogas production helps to achieve environmental, economic, and social benefits. The production of biogas from agricultural manure and other sources of waste is a very good solution in a decarbonization era. This kind of energy is a substitute for conventional fuels [102].
Our research proved big changes in the development of biogas production worldwide and its use in electricity production. The EU increased production, and so did the US. The reason for this increase was the world policy aiming at the decarbonization of the economy and national policies. The EU is striving to be a carbon-neutral economy without carbon emissions by 2050.
The size of the global biogas market was USD 55.84 billion. The market is set to increase. Biogas is used for heating. Biogas is also used for electricity production worldwide. From the possible ways biogas utilization is increasing, its use in vehicles is an example.
The production of electricity from biogas changed from 2012 to 2021. This was the effect of policies introduced in the EU and at the national level. Countries that have large resources of biomass and animal manure are dominant in the production of biogas, including Germany, Italy, France, and Czechia.
The changes in the EU are particularly visible in Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, and Slovakia. These countries showed the largest changes in the coefficient of variation. All countries in the EU showed increases in biogas production.
However, our prognosis proved that not all countries are likely to have an increase in biogas production. Reasons for this are numerous, including the effects of plant production usage in biogas production, increasing competition for agricultural products, and huge and expensive outlays for technology and machinery for biogas production. Biogas production does not eliminate the problem of GHG production, but it can be useful in decreasing the production of these gases.
The production of biogas also has implications for agriculture and animal production. Production could decrease in the future for various reasons, such as problems with the environment, lower employment in agriculture, and strong worldwide competition for agricultural products. According to our prognosis, a decrease in biogas production will most likely occur in Finland, Lithuania, Malta, and Romania.
The COVID-19 pandemic did not have a tremendous impact on the energy market in the EU. Some countries were strong enough to overcome the problems and increased their production of electricity from biogas (Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and Sweden) in 2021 compared to 2020.
The consumption of biogas is correlated with production. Most of the biogas is consumed domestically for electricity, heat, and transportation. The biggest producers of biogas, such as Germany, Italy, and France, are also the biggest consumers. They have the largest investments in biogas and have better infrastructure for biogas production, storage, and utilization.
The utilization of biogas requires investments in appliances for the storage and distribution of biogas, especially in the smaller countries of the EU. The storage of biogas is a bigger problem than production. Many small farms in countries such as Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia do not have access to gas pipelines. That is why the development of the biogas market also depends on infrastructure development.
In the research, we demonstrate that the first Hypothesis 1 (H1)the production of electricity from biogas increased due to the stricter climate and environmental policies of the European Union (EU)—was positively verified.
The EU introduced strict policies aimed at reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful greenhouse GHGs. In the meantime, the production of RESs increased, hitting the target of 20% of its share in total energy. The EU is a leader in the production of biogas for electricity. The biggest producers are Germany, Italy, France, and Czechia. The development of biogas depends not only on access to biomass and animal manure but also on technology.
Big companies have business in biogas production. Small farms, which are the majority in countries such as Romania, Estonia, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, are not strong enough to produce biogas. They require special funding and training. Countries that have the least production of biogas also have the lowest number of biogas plants. Such countries do not have a great opportunity to produce biogas because they have low animal production. Countries with many small farms and low biogas production could use special funds to install biogas production and be competitive.

5. Conclusions

Biogas is considered to be a promising source of renewable energy used in electricity and heating. This source of energy requires investment outlays, as establishing the technology is expensive. However, many farms worldwide have decided to develop biogas production from animal manure. Biogas production is based on the concepts of bioeconomy and sustainability. Animal production has global impacts on the environment and can produce 20 million tons of dry matter and 10 million tons of organic matter through manure. If not used in an environmentally friendly manner, this manure can create environmental issues [5].
The number of agricultural biogas plants in the EU is constantly growing, but the main barrier is formal and legal problems during the investment phase. The public administration is largely unaware of the potential of these new investments. High investment outlays and a high degree of complexity make such projects difficult to build and operate. This is very important in the case of small investments because unit costs increase dramatically, and such projects must be supported more extensively, which is proposed in the draft act on RESs. The lack of qualified design and construction staff results in difficulties in the implementation of such investments. In addition, there is often resistance from the local community, which is largely due to a lack of awareness. Despite so many obstacles, one can observe interest in the implementation of such projects. A particularly important issue is the feedstock for biogas production. Innovative methods should be used to eliminate indigestible parts such as metals, plastic, and other items before waste is pumped into the digester.
The development of biogas is a challenge for policymakers because the elaboration and realization of global bigas production requires strategies. New biogas technologies should increase the supply of biomethane and fulfill the demand for biogas [8].
The expansion of biogas in the EU requires policies that are congruent with agriculture and the energy sector, as well as focused on energy and climate goals. The composition of manure, feedstock, and other sources of biomass is critical for success [37]. The EU is a leader in biogas production [102]. Friendly policies that stimulate the biogas market are needed. Countries with the largest production and consumption of biogas have such policies. Countries with low production of biogas should rethink their policies and increase support to increase production [103].
The most important sources of biogas include crops, animal manure, municipal solid waste, and municipal wastewater. There is controversy about using crops as they can also be used for feeding people and animals. The production of biogas increases competition for agricultural crops and, subsequently, their prices. As the prices of crops increase, the production of biogas is less profitable. The other source of biogas is animal manure. Using manure does eliminate GHGs. These gases are exposed to the atmosphere in barns during intensive animal production. Municipal solid waste and municipal wastewater have a lower impact because their share in biogas production is low.
The production of biogas also has implications for agriculture and animal production. Production could decrease in the future for various reasons, such as problems with the environment, lower employment in agriculture, and strong worldwide competition for agricultural products. According to our prognosis, the decrease in biogas production will be most pronounced in Finland, Lithuania, Malta, and Romania.
The EU is the largest producer of biogas in the world. The global production of biogas is estimated at 59.3 billion m3. Each year, this sector is increasing by about 9%. The reasons for this are numerous; for example, it is used as an energy source in markets, including electricity, heat, and transport. The second biggest producer of biogas is Asia, and the third is America.
The COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on electricity production from biogas. Only ten countries from the EU increased their production of electricity from biogas. This group consisted of Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, and Sweden. Seventeen countries decreased their production of electricity from biogas in the EU [104].
The future of the biogas market in the EU and all energy markets should be connected to production in Ukraine, which is one of the biggest producers of agricultural products in the world. Policymakers should consider Ukraine as an important producer of biomass, which can be used for biogas production for electricity, heat, and transportation. The potential for biogas production in Ukraine is large [105].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.-B. and P.B. methodology, A.B.-B. and P.B.; software, A.B.-B. and P.B.; validation, A.B.-B., P.B. and L.H., formal analysis, A.B.-B. and P.B. investigation, A.B.-B. and P.B.; resources, A.B.-B. and P.B.; data curation, A.B.-B. and P.B., writing—original draft preparation, A.B.-B., P.B., Z.K., T.R., A.P. and L.H.; writing—review and editing, A.B.-B., P.B., Z.K., T.R., A.P. and L.H.; visualization, A.B.-B. and P.B.; supervision, A.B.-B. and P.B.; project administration, A.B.-B. and P.B.; funding acquisition, A.B.-B. and P.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study financed by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness (Grant. No 30.610.012-110).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

ADAnaerobic digestion
ARiMAAutoregressive Moving Average
BBIBiobased Industries
BCMBillion cubic meters
CCarbon
CH4Methane
CO2Carbon dioxide
ECEuropean Commission
EUEuropean Union
GDPGross Domestic Product
GHGGreenhouse gas
GWGiga Watt
H2Hydrogen
MGMegagram
M3Cubic meter
NOxNitrogen oxides
NH4Ammonium
O2Oxygen
PPP Public–private partnership
REDRenewable Energy Directive
RES Renewable energy sources
TTon
USAUnited States of America
USDUnited States Dollar

References

  1. Noorollahi, N.; Kheirrouz, M.; Asi, H.F.; Yousefi, H.; Hajinezhad, A. Biogas production potential from livestock manure in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sikora, J.; Stawowski, W.; Woźniak, A.; Zemanek, J. Determining the amount of biogas derived from various municipal wastes. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural. Areas 2008, 8, 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  3. Plugge, C.M. Biogas. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 1128–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kougias, P.G.; Angelidaki, I. Biogas and its opportunities—A review. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2018, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chávez-Fuentes, J.J.; Capobianco, A.; Barbušová, J.; Hutňan, M. Manure from our agricultural animals: A quantitative and qualitative analysis focused on biogas production. Waste Biomass Valor 2017, 8, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rasi, S.; Veijanen, A.; Rintala, J. Trace compounds of biogas from different biogas production plants. Energy 2007, 32, 1375–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alhassan, K.A.; Abdullahi, B.T.; Shah, M.M. A review on biogas production as the alternative source of fuel. J. Appl. Adv. Res. 2019, 4, 61–65. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Shah-33/publication/331473386_A_review_on_biogas_production_as_the_alternative_source_of_fuel/links/5c7ad9b0299bf1268d333993/A-review-on-biogas-production-as-the-alternative-source-of-fuel.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2023). [CrossRef]
  8. Hamelin, L.; Møller, H.B.; Jørgensen, U. Harnessing the full potential of biomethane towards tomorrow’s bioeconomy: A national case study coupling sustainable agricultural intensification, emerging biogas technologies and energy system analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yu, Q.; Liu, R.; Li, R.; Ma, R. A review of crop straw pretreatment methods for biogas production by anaerobic digestion in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Scarlat, N.; Dallemand, J.F.; Fahl, F. Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe. Renew. Energy 2018, 129, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dagnall, S.; Hill, J.; Pegg, D. Resource mapping and analysis of farm livestock manure– assessing the opportunities for biomass-to-energy schemes. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 71, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moeller, H.B.; Sommer, S.G.; Ahring, B.K. Methane productivity of manure, straw, and solid fractions of manure. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 26, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Demirbas, A.; Taylan, O.; Kaya, D. Biogas production from municipal sewage sludge (MSS). Energy Resour. Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2016, 38, 3027–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Salihu, A.; Alam, M.Z. Pretreatment methods of organic wastes for biogas production. J. Appl. Sci. 2016, 16, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Patinvoh, R.J.; Osadolor, O.A.; Chandolias, K.; Horváth, I.S.; Taherzadeh, M.J. Innovative pretreatment strategies for biogas production. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 224, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yang, S.; Liu, Y.; Wu, N.; Zhang, Y.; Svoronos, S.; Pullammanappallil, P.P. Low-cost, Arduino-based, portable device for measurement of methane composition in biogas. Renew. Energy 2019, 138, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Scarlat, N.; Fahl, F.; Dallemand, J.F.; Monforti, F.; Motola, V. A spatial analysis of biogas potential from manure in Europe. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 915–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. COM. 15 Final. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. Communication to the Commissions to the European Parliament. 2014. Available online: http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0960-1481(18)30301-X/sref17 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  19. Lainez, M.; González, J.M.; Aguilar, A.; Vela, C. Spanish strategy on bioeconomy: Towards a knowledge based sustainable innovation. New Bioeconomy 2018, 40, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. 013/743/EU: Council Decision of 3 December 2013 Establishing the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) and Repealing Decisions. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013D0743 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  21. EPSO. The European Bioeconomy in 2030: Delivering Sustainable Growth by Addressing the Grand Societal Challenges; European Plant Science Organization, 2011; Available online: http://www.europabio.org/EU%20Projects/bioeconomy-2030-becoteps-final-white-paper.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2016).
  22. Countries-Leaders in the Production of Biomethane. Available online: https://uabio.org/en/materials/analytics/14227/ (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  23. WBA. WBA Global Bioenergy Statistics 2019. Available online: https://www.worldbioenergy.org/uploads/191129%20WBA%20GBS%202019_HQ.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  24. Bremond, U.; Bertrandias, A.; Steyer, J.-P.; Bernet, N.; Carrère, H. A vision of European biogas sector development towards 2030: Trends and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McCormick, K.; Kautto, N. The bioeconomy in Europe: An overview. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2589–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Staffas, L.; Gustavsson, M.; McCormick, K. Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2751–2769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ollikainen, M. Forestry in bioeconomy—Smart green growth for the humankind. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Abanades, S.; Abbaspour, H.; Ahmadi, A.; Das, B.; Whyaei, M.A.; Esmaeilion, F.; Haj Assad, M.; Hajilounezhad, T.; Jamali, D.H.; Hmida, A.; et al. A critical review of biogas production and usage with legislations framework across the globe. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 3377–3400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lubaek, R.; Kjaer, T. Biogas Technology as an “Engine” for facilitating circular bioeconomy in Denmark—The case of Lolland&Falster Municipalities within region Zealand. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 695685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tasmaganbetov, A.B.; Ataniyazov, Z.; Basshieva, Z.; Muhammedov, A.U.; Yessangeldina, A. World practice of using biogas as alternative energy. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2020, 10, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. European Commission 2012. The EU. Climate and Energy Package. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/primary-and-final-energy-consumption (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  32. Murray, B.C.; Galik, C.S.; Vegh, T. Biogas in the United States: Estimating future production and learning from international experiences. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2017, 22, 485–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Available online: https://www.precedenceresearch.com/biogas-market (accessed on 21 February 2023).
  34. IEA. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth/an-introduction-to-biogas-and-biomethane (accessed on 21 February 2023).
  35. Mustafi, N.N.; Agarwal, A.K. Biogas for Transport Sector: Current Status, Barriers, and Path Forward for Large-Scale Adaptation. In Alternative Fuels and Their Utilization Strategies in Internal Combustion Engines; Singh, A., Sharma, Y., Mustafi, N., Agarwal, A., Eds.; Energy, Environment, and Sustainability; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. IRENA. Biogas for Road Vehicles: Technology Brief; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2018; Available online: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Mar/IRENA_Biogas_for_Road_Vehicles_2017.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2023).
  37. Yoo, M.; Han, S.-J.; Wee, J.H. Carbon dioxide capture capacity of sodium hydroxide aqueous solution. J. Environ. Manag. 2003, 114, 512–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nevzorova, T.; Kutcheroy, V. Barriers to the wider implementation of biogas as a source of energy: A state-of-the-art review. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 26, 100414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alam Hossain Mondal, J.M.; Kamp, L.M.; Pachova, N.I. Drivers, barriers, and strategies for implementation of renewable energy technologies in rural areas in Bangladesh-An innovation system analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4626–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Valerio, P.; Francesco, P.; Marco, S.; Laura, T.; Nour, N.; Angelo, C. Environmental impact of biogas: A short review of current knowledge. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2018, 53, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thiangchanta, S.; Khiewwijit, R.; Mon, Y. Environmental impact of the biogas production from dairy cows. 7th International Conference on Advances on Clean Energy Research, ICACER 2022 April 20–22, 2022, Barcelona, Spain. Energy Rep. 2022, 8 (Suppl. 16), 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Werkneh, A.A. Biogas impurities: Environmental and health implications, removal technologies and future perspectives. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Paglini, R.; Gandiglio, M.; Lanzini, A. Technologies for Deep Biogas Purification and Use in Zero-Emission Fuel Cells Systems. Energies 2022, 15, 3551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Papurello, D.; Silvestri, S.; Tomasi, L.; Belcari, I.; Biasioli, F.; Santarelli, M. Biowaste for SOFCs. Energy Procedia 2016, 101, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Herrmann, A. Biogas production from maize: Current state, challenges and prospects. 2. Agronomic and environmental aspects. BioEnergy Res. 2013, 6, 372–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jung, S.; Lee, J.; Moon, D.H.; Kim, K.-H.; Kwon, E.E. Upgrading biogas into syngas through dry reforming. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 143, 110949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Stürmer, B.; Theuretzbacher, F.; Saracevic, E. Opportunities for the integration of existing biogas plants into the Austrian electricity market. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 138, 110548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hewitt, J.; Holden, M.; Robinson, B.L.; Jewitt, S.; Clifford, M.J. Not quite cooking on gas: Understanding biogas plant failure and abandonment in Northern Tanzania. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 165, 112600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Maranon, E.; Salter, A.M.; Castrillon, L.; Heaven, S.; Fernandez-Nova, Y. Reducing the environmental impact on methane emission from dairy farms by anaerobic digestion of cattle waste. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 1745–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Novak, S.M.; Fiorelli, J.L. Greenhouse gases and ammonia emissions from organic mixed crop-dairy systems: A critical review of mitigation options. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Act of August 19, 2011 Amending the Energy Law and Some Other Acts, Journal of Laws No. 205, Item 1208. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20112051208 (accessed on 1 March 2023). (In Polish)
  52. Curkowski, A. Biogaz Rolniczy—Produkcja i Wykorzystanie MAE Sp.z.o.o., 2009. Available online: http://www.mae.com.pl/files/5_biogaz-rolniczy_farma_sobotkak.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).
  53. Maczyszyn, B. Małe Biogazownie Rolnicze—Mini Poradnik KRIR. 2010. Available online: https://cdr.gov.pl/images/wydawnictwa/2013/2013-ODNAWIALNE-ZRODLA-ENERGII-W-GOSPODARSTWACH-ROLNYCH.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).
  54. Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC). Available online: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC088009 (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  55. Directive on Waste Recycling and Recovery (2008/98/EC). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02008L0098-20180705&from=SV (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  56. Directive on Landfills (1999/31/EC). Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/pdf/wte-euro.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  57. Kozyra, J. Nowe Wyzwania dla Rolnictwa w Dobie Zmian Klimatu” IUNG PuławyMinisterstwo Gospodarki (2011 r.) „Przewodnik dla Inwestorów Zainteresowanych Budową Biogazowni Rolniczych”. Available online: https://www.cdr.gov.pl/images/Radom/pliki/oze/243E%20BIOGAZOWNIE%20ROLNICZE.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2023).
  58. Horváth, I.S.; Tabatabaei, M.; Karimi, K.; Kumar, R. Recent updates on biogas production—A review. Biofuel Res. J. 2016, 10, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_BAL_PEH__custom_4565358/default/table?lang=e (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  60. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste Brussels, 2008. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0098 (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  61. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 Amending Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste Brussels, 1991. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A31991L0156 (accessed on 2 January 2024).
  62. Commission Of The European Communities—EU. Regulation Amending Annexes VI and VIII to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the EU Parliament and of the Council as Regards Processing Standards for Biogas and Composting Plants and Requirements for Manure EU Commission Regulation 208/2006; Brussels, Belgium, 2006; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R0208&from=SK (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  63. Brownlee, J. How to Create an ARIMA Model for Time Series Forecasting in Python, Machine Learning Mastery. Available online: https://machinelearningmastery.com/arima-for-time-series-forecasting-with-python/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  64. Dittmann, I.; Dittmann, P.; Szabela-Pasierbińska, E.; Szpulak, A. Prognozowanie w Zarządzaniu Sprzedażą i Finansami Przedsiębiorstwa; Wolters Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  65. Fattah, J.; Ezzine, L.; Aman, Z.; Moussami, H.E.; Lachhab, A. Forecasting of demand using ARIMA model. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2018, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dickey, D.A.; Fuller, W.A. Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1979, 74, 427–431. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ozturk, S.; Ozturk, F. Forecasting energy consumption of Turkey by ARIMA model. J. Asian Sci. Res. 2018, 8, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Khan, F.M.; Gupta, R. ARIMA and NAR based prediction model for time series analysis of COVID-19 cases in India. J. Saf. Sci. 2020, 1, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bórawski, P.; Guth, M.; Truszkowski, W.; Zuzek, D.; Bełdycka-Bórawska, A.; Mickiewicz, B.; Szymańska, E.J.; Harper, J.K.; Dunn, J.W. Milk price changes in Poland in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. Agric. Econ. Czech 2020, 66, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Box, G.E.P.; Jenkins, G. Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control; Holden-Day: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kashpruk, N. Identyfikacja i prognozowanie szeregów czasowych na przykładzie modeli Boxa–Jenkinsa. In Nauka–Technika–Technologia, Tom 1; 2021; pp. 91–100. Available online: https://winntbg.bg.agh.edu.pl/skrypty4/0591/NTT_tom1_091.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  72. Żurek Ziółkowski, J.; Borucka, A. Research of automotive vehicles operation process using the Markov model, Safety and Reliability. In Proceedings of the Theory and Applications, ESREL, Portorož, Slovenia, 18–22 June 2017; pp. 2353–2362. [Google Scholar]
  73. European Parliament. Resolution on Sustainable Agriculture and Biogas: A Need of Review of the EU Legislation; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  74. GLOBAL BIOENERGY STATISTICS. World Bioenergy Association. 2020. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiyrvCOpYX9AhX_S_EDHcF9CKcQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldbioenergy.org%2Fuploads%2F201210%2520WBA%2520GBS%25202020.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1wSZN5RqQ7sWpVX9rbJywb (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  75. IEA 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/biogas-production-by-region-and-by-feedstock-type-2018 (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  76. Yousuf, A.; Khan, M.R.; Pirozzi, D.; Ab Aahid, Z. Financial sustainability of biogas technology: Barrers, opportunities, and solutions. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2016, 11, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Available online: https://www.terega.fr/en/lab/what-is-the-difference-between-biogas-and-biomethane (accessed on 1 March 2023).
  78. Outlook for Biogas and Biomethane: Prospects for Organic Growth; World Energy Outlook Special Report; IEA: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth/the-outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-to-2040 (accessed on 24 January 2024).
  79. JRamos-Suárez, J.L.; Ritter, A.; González, J.M.; Pérez, A.C. Biogas from animal manure: A sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 104, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yücenur, G.N.; Çaylak, S.; Gönül, G.; Postalcioğlu, M. An integrated solution with SWARA&COPRAS methods in renewable energy production: City selection for biogas facility. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 2587–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Al Seadi, T.; Rutz, D.; Prassl, H.; Köttner, M.; Finsterwalder, T.; Volk, S.; Janssen, R. Biogas Handbook; University of Southern Denmark: Esbjerg, Denmark, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  82. Maciejczak, M. Bioeconomy as a complex adaptive system of sustainable development. J. Int. Bus. Res. Mark. 2017, 2, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pieri, E.; Kyprianou, A.; Phinikarides, A.; Makrides, G.; Georghiou, G.E. Forecasting degradation rates of different photovoltaic systems using robust principal component analysis and ARIMA. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2017, 11, 1245–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Phinikarides, A.; Makrides, G.; Kindyni, N.; Kyprianou, A.; Georghiou, G.E. ARIMA modeling of the performance of different photovoltaic technologies. In Proceedings of the Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Tampa, FL, USA, 16–21 June 2013; pp. 797–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wan, C.; Zhao, J.; Song, Y.; Xu, Z.; Lin, J.; Hu, Z. Photovoltaic and solar power forecasting for smart grid energy management. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 2015, 1, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Phinikarides, A.; Makrides, G.; Zinsser, B.; Schubert, M.; Georghiou, G.E. Analysis of photovoltaic system performance time series: Seasonality and performance loss. Renew. Energy 2015, 77, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lindig, S.; Kaaya, I.; Weiss, K.-A.; Moser, D.; Topic, M. Review of statistical and analytical degradation models for photovoltaic modules and systems as well as related improvements. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2018, 8, 1773–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sharagda, H.; Hajimirza, S.; Balog, R.S. Time series forecasting of solar power generation for large-scale photovoltaic plants. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 797–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vidola-Barrero, F.; Baena-Moreno, F.; Preciado-Cárdenas, C.; Villanueva-Perales, Á.; Reina, T.R. Hydrogen production from landfill biogas: Profitability analysis of a real case study. Fuel 2022, 324, 124438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hrycak, B.; Mizeraczyk, J.; Czylkowski, D.; Dors, M.; Budnarowska, M.; Jasiński, M. Hydrogen production by the steam reforming of synthetic biogas in atmospheric-pressure microwave (915 M Hz) plasma. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 2204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kumar, R.; Kumar, A.; Pal, A. Hydrogen Production from Biogas: Methods and Economic Analysis. Available online: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-457836/v1/624beb21-1a29-4d05-b1f9-fb5a08736158.pdf?c=1631884212 (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  92. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c5bc75b1-9e4d-460d-9056-6e8e626a11c4/GlobalHydrogenReview2022.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  93. Li, H.; Mehmood, D.; Thorin, E.; Yu, Z. Biomethane production via anaerobic digestion and biomass gasification. The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy—ICAE2016. Energy Procedia 2017, 105, 1172–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Available online: https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/biomethane-production-up-20-in-2022-boosting-renewable-gas-ramp-up/ (accessed on 29 January 2024).
  95. Market State and Trends in Renewable and Low-Carbon Gases in Europe a Gas for Climate Report. December 2023. Available online: https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Gas-for-Climate-Market-State-and-Trends-report-2021.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  96. Alotaibi, M.A.; Ud Din, I.; Alharthi, A.I.; Bakht, M.A.; Centi, G.; Shaharun, M.S.; Naeem, A. Green methanol synthesis by catalytic CO2 hydrogenation, deciphering the role of metal-metal interaction. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2021, 21, 100420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Available online: https://bisresearch.com/industry-report/green-methanol-market.html (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  98. Available online: https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/green-methanol-market-310 (accessed on 30 January 2024).
  99. Growth Potential. Available online: https://www.europeanbiogas.eu/benefits/#growth-potential (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  100. Geographical Analysis of Biomethane Potential and Costs in Europe in 2050. Biomethane: Potential and Cost in 2050.ENGIE 2023. Available online: https://www.engie.com/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-07/ENGIE_20210618_Biogas_potential_and_costs_in_2050_report_1.pdf (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  101. Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_cb_rw/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  102. The Outlook for Biogas and Biomethane to 2040. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-prospects-for-organic-growth/the-outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane-to-2040 (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  103. Raboni, M.; Urbini, G. Production and use of biogas in Europe: A survey of current status and perspectives. An Interdisciplinary J. Appl. Sci. 2014, 9, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Torrijos, M. State of Development of Biogas Production in Europe. International Conference on Solid Waste Management, 5IconSWM 2015. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 881–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Havrysh, V.; Kalinichenko, A.; Mentel, G.; Olejarz, T. Commercial Biogas Plants: Lessons for Ukraine. Energies 2020, 13, 2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Electricity production from biogas in the European Union (EU) in 2021 (thousand tons of oil equivalents). Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Figure 1. Electricity production from biogas in the European Union (EU) in 2021 (thousand tons of oil equivalents). Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Energies 17 01169 g001
Figure 2. Diagram of conducted research. Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Figure 2. Diagram of conducted research. Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Energies 17 01169 g002
Figure 3. Biogas production globally (billion m3). Source: our own elaborations based on [73].
Figure 3. Biogas production globally (billion m3). Source: our own elaborations based on [73].
Energies 17 01169 g003
Figure 4. Biogas production worldwide from 2000 to 2020 (in exajoules). Source: our own elaborations based on research [73].
Figure 4. Biogas production worldwide from 2000 to 2020 (in exajoules). Source: our own elaborations based on research [73].
Energies 17 01169 g004
Figure 5. Biogas global market size (US billion). Source: our own elaborations based on [73,74].
Figure 5. Biogas global market size (US billion). Source: our own elaborations based on [73,74].
Energies 17 01169 g005
Figure 6. Biogas production by feedstock type, 2018. Crops include energy crops, crop residues, and sequential crops. 1 Mtoe = 11.63 terawatt-hours (TWh) = 41.9 petajoules (PJ). Source: our own elaborations based on [75]. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/biogas-production-by-region-and-by-feedstock-type-2018 accessed on 1 March 2023.
Figure 6. Biogas production by feedstock type, 2018. Crops include energy crops, crop residues, and sequential crops. 1 Mtoe = 11.63 terawatt-hours (TWh) = 41.9 petajoules (PJ). Source: our own elaborations based on [75]. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/biogas-production-by-region-and-by-feedstock-type-2018 accessed on 1 March 2023.
Energies 17 01169 g006
Figure 7. Global hydrogen production (MT H2). Source: our own elaborations based on [92] Global Hydrogen Review 2022 (windows.net, accessed on 1 March 2023).
Figure 7. Global hydrogen production (MT H2). Source: our own elaborations based on [92] Global Hydrogen Review 2022 (windows.net, accessed on 1 March 2023).
Energies 17 01169 g007
Figure 8. Biomethane and biogas production in Europe. Source: EBA 2023 [94]. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/biomethane-production-up-20-in-2022-boosting-renewable-gas-ramp-up/ accessed on 1 March 2023.
Figure 8. Biomethane and biogas production in Europe. Source: EBA 2023 [94]. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/biomethane-production-up-20-in-2022-boosting-renewable-gas-ramp-up/ accessed on 1 March 2023.
Energies 17 01169 g008
Figure 9. Green methanol share by end-use and volume in 2022 and 2032. Source: our own elaboration based on [98] https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/green-methanol-market-310 accessed on 1 March 2023.
Figure 9. Green methanol share by end-use and volume in 2022 and 2032. Source: our own elaboration based on [98] https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/green-methanol-market-310 accessed on 1 March 2023.
Energies 17 01169 g009
Table 1. Electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (Mg megagram).
Table 1. Electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (Mg megagram).
EU Countries2012201320142015201620172018201920202021
European Union—27 countries (from 2020)3494.3884056.9944375.534626.1144733.2064784.9274737.3944728.444794.984523.057
Euro area—19 countries (2015–2022)3260.7163730.5443998.9774227.3264307.3724333.1924279.1384271.5874319.0594045.928
Belgium57.05166.51874.93682.49485.40880.67181.2381.4187.2483.947
Bulgaria0.051.445.33410.24216.40818.55318.25419.83819.40118.593
Czechia126.198197.213222.129224.502222.616226.936224.179217.376223.254222.939
Denmark32.46432.84638.76539.60342.85548.73952.56553.85957.83352.67
Germany2348.5812515.4772672.9152845.9162898.6242913.072853.0522833.3622880.312579.123
Estonia1.3551.722.3224.2993.8693.593.2673.342.6641.414
Ireland16.94815.86917.50917.6091.,88217.46315.82916.16514.42414.852
Greece17.56618.60818.88719.80823.18525.81625.97932.46234.72939.281
Spain74.46383.66377.98884.43777.90280.91179.36477.7375.75284.179
France111.467132.822137.013157.683171.206181.744203.762222.659237.879271.168
Croatia4.8576.6829.83315.1420.40726.62930.51634.49736.06237.85
Italy397.238640.385704.94706.095710.123713.596713.634711.66702.188698.557
Cyprus4.2844.2024.3414.4064.4734.454.8924.985.2135.154
Latvia19.20724.64230.09733.68134.12734.85532.16330.30129.63525.098
Lithuania3.6115.0736.7077.39510.57610.94112.02913.27612.84613.474
Luxembourg4.974.8555.2035.2976.2516.2356.4896.1235.4325.243
Hungary18.10322.97224.73825.19328.65729.92328.89127.60127.85925.365
Malta0.7650.5070.5550.5710.7140.8370.770.550.5060.622
Netherlands86.7384.25286.45689.28885.45479.52176.66776.96374.79470.101
Austria55.17453.5552.73454.47357.24157.63954.02552.61154.05951.728
Poland48.61259.30570.18777.93688.35994.27696.95897.593106.092112.41
Portugal18.01121.46123.82625.27424.46724.63723.33422.73922.3123.012
Romania1.6684.2724.3635.2265.5795.7336.0334.6274.566.27
Slovenia13.16512.11911.15611.37612.22111.18710.2198.1139.7178.826
Slovakia16.33718.31541.18746.51849.52751.07546.34645.91643.85241.874
Finland13.79326.50630.20530.70634.12234.95436.08731.22725.50928.292
Sweden1.721.721.2040.9460.9530.9460.861.4620.861.032
Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Table 2. ARIMA model characteristics for global world biogas production (TWh).
Table 2. ARIMA model characteristics for global world biogas production (TWh).
SpecificationArithmetic Mean of the Dependent VariableMean of Random PerturbationsR-Squared Determination CoefficientLikelihood LogarithmCritical Bayesian Schwarz CriterionStandard Deviation of Dependent VariableStandard Deviation of Random DisturbancesCorrected R-SquareCritical Information Akaike CriterionCritical Hannan–Quinn Criterion
Global world biogas production53.3400.6580.905−12.03930.5149.1642.6870.87332.07727.884
ARMA
SpecificationCoefficientStd. errorZp valuecoefficientStd. errorZp value
Global world biogas production0.5770.1384.1750.002−1.0000.899−1.1130.266
Source: our own elaborations based on [75].
Table 3. Prognosis of global biogas production (TWh).
Table 3. Prognosis of global biogas production (TWh).
SpecificationPrognosis
20192020202120222023202420252026
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
PredictionStd.
Error
Global biogas production62.3002.69063.0002.92063.5002.99063.7003.01063.8003.00063.9003.03064.0003.03064.0003.030
Source: our own elaborations based on [75].
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
CountriesAverageMedianMinimalMaximalStd. Dev.Coefficient of VariationSkewednessKurtosis
Austria54.32354.04251.72857.6391.92070.0353580.57645−0.69096
Belgium78.09181.32057.05187.2409.45760.12111−1.29670.48233
Bulgaria12.81117.3310.05000019.8387.86290.61374−0.66501−1.2564
Croatia22.24723.5184.857037.85012.5810.56553−0.14034−1.5232
Cyprus4.63954.46154.20205.21300.379820.0818660.42960−1.4497
Czechia210.73222.78126.20226.9430.8810.14654−2.34673.9676
Denmark45.22045.79732.46457.8339.12990.20190−0.14232−1.4061
Estonia2.78402.96551.35504.29901.05110.37755−0.12421−1.3568
Finland29.14030.45613.79336.0876.42220.22039−1.33181.3409
France182.74176.47111.47271.1750.9030.278550.29540−0.97870
Germany2734.02839.62348.62913.1194.700.071212−0.86121−0.62686
Greece25.63224.50017.56639.2817.56930.295310.60054−0.98220
Hungary25.93026.48318.10329.9233.51120.13541−1.04430.44426
Ireland16.45516.55614.42417.8821.21340.073743−0.40709−1.1697
Italy669.84705.52397.24713.6398.2070.14661−2.45194.3545
Latvia29.38130.19919.20734.8554.99390.16997−0.81316−0.34778
Lithuania9.592810.7593.611013.4743.61020.37634−0.44879−1.2901
Luxembourg5.60985.36454.85506.48900.600640.107070.25833−1.5422
Malta0.639700.596500.506000.837000.121500.189940.38421−1.3862
Netherlands81.02381.88670.10189.2886.29160.077653−0.31302−1.1513
Poland85.17391.31748.612112.4120.6790.24278−0.47981−0.92065
Portugal22.90723.17318.01125.2742.06860.090306−1.29031.2214
Romania4.83314.92651.66806.27001.32060.27324−1.32821.3773
Slovakia40.09544.88416.33751.07512.3870.30895−1.2823−0.0080354
Slovenia10.81011.1718.113013.1651.58420.14655−0.31059−0.88804
Spain79.63978.67674.46384.4373.54030.0444550.15088−1.2747
Sweden1.17030.992500.860001.72000.341580.291880.76945−1.0407
Source: own elaborations based on [53].
Table 5. ARIMA model of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
Table 5. ARIMA model of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
ARMA
CountryCoefficientStd. ErrorZp ValueCoefficientStd. Errorzp Value
Austria0.0040.6040.0070.9940.9990.3742.6690.008
Belgium0.8030.2233.6010.0000.4470.3011.4870.137
Bulgaria0.8490.1087.8380.0000.4890.4831.0130.312
Croatia0.9710.05617.4200.0000.4130.6560.6300.529
Cyprus0.8630.4625.3280.0000.1210.2600.4660.642
Czechia0.7650.2762.7740.0061.0000.7321.3670.172
Denmark0.8270.1994.1490.0000.3820.4080.9370.349
Estonia0.4060.5840.6950.4870.4660.4061.1470.251
Finland0.5880.3621.6250.1041.0000.3163.1680.002
France0.9530.06714.1200.0000.6750.3451.9550.051
Germany0.5010.3541.4150.157−0.1621.538−0.1050.916
Greece0.9310.0949.9150.0000.2650.2591.0240.306
Hungary0.4580.8740.5250.5600.3561.0580.3360.737
Ireland0.7470.6561.1390.254−0.0100.759−0.1320.895
Italy0.2280.0395.7690.0000.3600.3491.0310.302
Latvia0.5360.1972.7240.0060.9990.6521.5340.125
Lithuania0.9250.1029.0290.0000.2690.2920.9230.356
Luxembourg0.6310.3271.9320.0530.1571.0090.1560.876
Malta0.0000.4880.0000.9990.6000.4231.4180.156
Netherlands0.8430.1714.9290.0000.9990.2953.3950.000
Poland0.8750.0949.2580.0000.1120.4080.2750.784
Portugal0.3930.5240.7510.4530.3660.4590.7960.426
Romania0.5250.7410.7100.4780.1460.9960.1460.884
Slovakia0.5580.1194.6950.000−0.3870.436−0.8890.374
Slovenia0.7470.3102.4130.016−0.0330.406−0.0840.933
Spain−0.9790.209−4.6860.0000.7691.3390.5750.566
Sweden0.6260.1773.5430.000−0.9990.535−1.8670.062
Source: our own elaboration on the basis of [53].
Table 6. ARIMA model characteristic of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
Table 6. ARIMA model characteristic of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
CountryArithmetic Mean of the Dependent VariableMean of
Random
Perturbations
R-Squared
Determination
Coefficient
Likelihood
Logarithm
Critical Bayesian/ Schwarz
Criterion
Standard
Deviation of Dependent Variable
Standard
Deviation of Random
Disturbances
Corrected R-SquareCritical
Information Akaike
Criterion
Critical Hannan–Quinn Criterion
Austria54.229−0.1100.524−15.41039.6092.0121.3410.45638.82037.117
Belgium78.0901.6310.736−31.16971.5499.4574.9750.70370.33969.011
Bulgaria14.2290.1660.933−17.61744.0246.8511.7140.92443.23541.533
Croatia24.1800.0870.984−15.85240.49311.6651.4080.98239.70438.001
Cyprus4.6400.0490.7862.3944.4220.3800.1760.7593.2111.884
Czechia 210.7345.6560.693−45.16999.54930.88117.8410.65498.33997.011
Denmark45.2201.0340.836−28.08665.3839.1293.6570.81564.17362.845
Estonia2.9430.0090.377−9.93128.6510.9790.7290.28827.86226.159
Finland29.1400.9120.659−29.11167.4326.4223.7000.61666.22164.894
France182.7408.8290.944−43.52096.25050.90315.3900.93795.03993.712
Germany2776.872−1.1500.449−54.564117.916148.355103.9260.371117.127115.425
Greece25.6321.3390.895−26.16961.5497.5692.9190.88260.33859.011
Hungary26.8000.0040.65115.05838.9042.3151.2890.60138.11536.413
Ireland16.400−0.0070.354−12.45533.6991.2740.9660.26132.91031.208
Italy700.1310.1060.938−28.25065.28922.9985.5840.92965.50062.798
Latvia30.511−0.4430.728−18.41745.6243.6991.8730.68944.83543.132
Lithuania9.5930.6670.881−18.47446.1573.6101.3580.86644.94843.621
Luxembourg5.6810.0070.511−4.29517.3780.5910.3900.44116.59014.887
Malta0.639−0.0070.2368.507−7.8040.1220.1010.140−9.014−10.342
Netherlands81.023−0.5840.887−24.29857.8066.2922.1650.87256.59655.268
Poland89.2350.0060.976−20.94550.67917.1872.4800.97349.89148.188
Portugal23.4510.0100.589−10.04028.8691.2190.7380.53128.08026.377
Romania4.8330.2210.226−15.68640.5831.3211.1330.12939.37338.045
Slovakia42.734−0.3630.682−28.00564.7999.7075.4340.63664.01162.308
Slovenia10.810−0.2490.466−15.76340.7361.5841.1260.39939.52538.198
Spain79.639−0.1260.472−23.80056.8113.5402.4530.40655.60154.273
Sweden1.1090.0400.6692.3524.0850.2990.1860.6223.2961.594
Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Table 7. Prognosis of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
Table 7. Prognosis of electricity production from biogas in EU countries in 2012–2021 (MG Megagram).
Countries2022Error2023Error2024Error2025Error2026Error
Austria51.9281.340854.1861.90054.1961.90054.1961.90054.1961.900
Belgium87.7664.87488.5217.96589.3249.40290.14210.15391.15411.865
Bulgaria19.0521.71319.7902.86320.4173.46320.9493.83821.4014.087
Croatia40.6641.40843.5952.40546.4413.05949.2033.56851.8853.989
Cyprus5.1730.1765.2880.2465.3320.2895.3980.3165.3980.335
Czechia223.94517.840224.40436.185233.63743.459239.22947.195239.85849.248
Denmark57.3023.65758.10157.40359.2856.80759.4467.45159.7517.861
Estonia1.7450.7292.3890.9682.6501.0012.7561.0072.7991.008
Finland30.3553.69928.7206.64327.7587.75427.1928.016526.8608.104
France273.76915.3902277.90629.404282.24837.857286.80444.181287.56349.211
Germany2738.199103.9262775.953109.72912794.856111.1362804.320111.4872809.000111.574
Greece39.7762.1939.9664.55240.0036.59540.2616.36240.3566.959
Hungary25.5581.28926.5001.66326.9321.73127.1291.74527.2201.748
Ireland15.0830.96515.2491.15015.3731.24115.4651.28915.5351.316
Italy704.6915.584708.3986.478709.2426.522709.4356.524709.4796.524
Latvia24.3491.87327.9963.34329.9503.76230.9963.85231.5573.877
Lithuania13.4051.35713.0612.11412.7442.59212.4502.94012.1783.201
Luxembourg5.3790.3895.4970.4965.5720.5335.6190.5475.6490.552
Malta0.6580.1010.6510.1170.6510.1180.6510.1180.6510.118
Netherlands69.0262.16570.6784.53872.0705.64773.2436.31874.2326.754
Poland115.9232.480118.7963.484121.3094.089123.5084.498125.4314.787
Portugal23.5340.73823.6930.92623.7560.95323.7810.95723.7900.957
Romania5.7431.1335.2241.3654.9511.4224.8071.4384.7321.442
Slovakia46.0985.43446.6215.51346.9135.53747.0765.54547.1685.547
Slovenia9.3831.1269.7601.38310.0421.50810.2531.57410.4111.609
Spain84.3042.45387.4732.50688.5652.55689.6532.60690.4312.913
Sweden0.8830.1860.9070.1990.9220.2030.9310.2050.9370.206
Source: our own elaborations based on [53].
Table 8. Inland consumption of biogases in EU countries in 2013–2022 (TJ).
Table 8. Inland consumption of biogases in EU countries in 2013–2022 (TJ).
EU Countries2013201420152016201720182019202020212022Changes (%)
European Union—27 countries (from 2020)497,823.315530,918.025551,325.869568,982.066581,985.260580,267.668592,251.404614,908.409625,835.295641,002.324128.0
Euro area—20 countries (from 2023)451,411.483480,224.794497,847.621509,626.081519,596.712515,202.221524,627.337540,838.083545,597.788555,207.273122.9
Belgium8358.6009129.9009860.4009814.4009423.1009546.6009698.00010,261.40010,291.50010,575.000126.5
Bulgaria93.000435.000820.0002511.0001958.3902244.6732133.3112231.6742499.3932180.2532344.3
Czechia23,910.00025,457.00025,681.00025,161.00025,443.78925,279.12724,331.89524,888.83925,529.52926,000.000108.7
Denmark4587.8325561.2316285.2489047.98510,906.27813,333.41016,481.51421,151.58126,194.57631,695.437690.8
Germany280,646.000298,275.000314,418.000320,998.000323,250.000318,527.000317,935.000325,115.000314,773.000317,236.000113.0
Estonia302.000403.000550.000722.000540.000571.000581.000832.000762.400700.000231.8
Ireland2061.6612186.8422317.4992327.7242321.7802108.2482120.0852105.0062178.9732229.546108.1
Greece3704.0003640.0003826.0004258.0004484.0004723.9005232.8305665.0005325.6426215.269167.8
Spain20,072.00014,791.00010,954.00011,557.00012,237.00012,374.00012,184.00013,539.00013,644.00013,902.57969.3
France24,013.60725,423.32128,801.24831,412.41233,817.19036,609.29240,716.53845,640.31458,793.00468,115.438283.6
Croatia693.3701096.4941506.1331952.0422671.6343081.2433441.7623480.5164154.1803811.788549.7
Italy76,013.00082,105.00078,355.00078,505.00079,452.90879,220.55184,288.21384,484.09487,007.19685,115.660111.9
Cyprus466.000475.000471.000492.000504.345553.550578.767556.275559.040231.61949.7
Latvia2695.0003136.0003674.0003762.0003902.0113643.2533376.0393358.8772763.4212322.85386.2
Lithuania649.000876.000981.0001341.0001350.0001554.0001632.0001617.0001682.0001750.000269.6
Luxembourg653.087701.203739.381832.910866.983915.433753.191755.440690.900548.26683.9
Hungary3336.0003323.0003335.0003708.0004141.0003916.0003785.0003748.0003518.0004085.000122.4
Malta59.00073.00077.00080.00077.00069.83473.38160.39854.54770.677119.8
Netherlands12,777.00013,094.00013,733.05913,377.41013,508.67113,696.22614,913.29717,428.54217,926.82417,617.699137.9
Austria8006.15811,899.03412,340.90112,515.18313,021.3359504.8788983.3958787.1626684.9027420.47892.7
Poland7593.0008685.0009581.00010,924.00011,738.62012,068.30112,498.05313,498.14813,371.97413,355.326175.9
Portugal2763.0003432.0003457.0003364.0003561.2843453.0403355.1583464.3213651.9913418.598123.7
Romania822.000810.000767.000739.000755.471864.936794.294772.084970.035970.035118.0
Slovenia1454.0001290.0001242.0001264.0001076.4711018.173929.6811128.7381044.2681014.80369.8
Slovakia2300.0004025.0006223.0006357.0006384.0006228.0005984.0005479.0005472.0005500.000239.1
Finland3725.0004173.0004321.0004694.0007147.0007804.0007851.0007080.0008138.0007411.000198.9
Sweden6070.0006422.0007009.0007265.0007445.0007359.0007600.0007780.0008154.0007509.000123.7
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bórawski, P.; Bełdycka-Bórawska, A.; Kapsdorferová, Z.; Rokicki, T.; Parzonko, A.; Holden, L. Perspectives of Electricity Production from Biogas in the European Union. Energies 2024, 17, 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051169

AMA Style

Bórawski P, Bełdycka-Bórawska A, Kapsdorferová Z, Rokicki T, Parzonko A, Holden L. Perspectives of Electricity Production from Biogas in the European Union. Energies. 2024; 17(5):1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bórawski, Piotr, Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska, Zuzana Kapsdorferová, Tomasz Rokicki, Andrzej Parzonko, and Lisa Holden. 2024. "Perspectives of Electricity Production from Biogas in the European Union" Energies 17, no. 5: 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17051169

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop