CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 299Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas ProductionBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentRenewable energy and sustainable power systems

Barriers to the wider implementation of biogas as a source of energy: a state of the art review

Open access
Nevzorova, Tatiana, Kutcherov, Vladimir·2019·Energy Strategy Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100414
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Many countries have realised that biogas as a source of energy is an important component for sustainability transition. However, the total production volume of biogas is still relatively low. Such slow development raises a fundamental question—what are the current barriers hindering the wider uptake of biogas as a source of energy? In order to answer the question, a systematic state-of-the-art review of the barriers was conducted based on the Scopus database. The results of the review were summarised by country and were divided into two broad categories: developed and developing economies. Each group was analysed separately according to six types of barriers: (1) technical, (2) economic, (3) market, (4) institutional, (5) socio-cultural, and (6) environmental barriers. By analysing the barriers through different contexts, the most frequent and crucial constraints the biogas industry currently faces were identified and integrated into a systematic classification. In addition, possible solutions on how to overcome the most critical barriers were added.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.esr.2019.100414

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A shortage of suitably qualified researchers is a common problem in developing countries.

    “Inadequate financial budgets, a shortage of suitably qualified researchers and a lack of focus on sustainability planning are common problems in these countries (Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019).”

    From A critical review for the impact of anaerobic digestion on the sustainable development goals (2024) · cites this paper as Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019

    Section 3.7 identifies a shortage of skilled local personnel as a major technical barrier in developing countries. Section 3.1 likewise discusses shortages of qualified specialists and technologists in biogas work. Neither passage identifies a shortage of researchers, so the claim changes the type of expertise described. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inadequate financial budgets are common problems in developing countries.

    “Inadequate financial budgets, a shortage of suitably qualified researchers and a lack of focus on sustainability planning are common problems in these countries (Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019).”

    From A critical review for the impact of anaerobic digestion on the sustainable development goals (2024) · cites this paper as Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019

  • A lack of focus on sustainability planning is a common problem in developing countries.

    “Inadequate financial budgets, a shortage of suitably qualified researchers and a lack of focus on sustainability planning are common problems in these countries (Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019).”

    From A critical review for the impact of anaerobic digestion on the sustainable development goals (2024) · cites this paper as Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019

  • Government strategies such as cancelling tax exemptions for biomethane can negatively impact the wider adoption of AD and slow down the growth of these technologies.

    “Furthermore, government strategies such as cancelling tax exemptions for biomethane can negatively impact the wider adoption of AD and slow down the growth of these technologies (Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019).”

    From A critical review for the impact of anaerobic digestion on the sustainable development goals (2024) · cites this paper as Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019

  • Lack of research and development funding in developing countries is an important barrier to the development of AD.

    “Another important barrier to the development of AD is the lack of research and development funding in developing countries.”

    From A critical review for the impact of anaerobic digestion on the sustainable development goals (2024) · cites this paper as Nevzorova and Kutcherov, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 116

  1. M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E.J. Highwood, K.P. Shine, Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: a significant revision of the methane radiative forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 (2016) 12,614-12,623, https://doi.org/ 10.1002/2016GL071930. · DOI · Paper page
  2. T. Abbasi, S.M. Tauseef, S.A. Abbasi, Biogas Energy (2012), https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-4614-1040-9. · DOI
  3. P.N. Walekhwa, J. Mugisha, L. Drake, Biogas energy from family-sized digesters in Uganda: critical factors and policy implications, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2754-2762, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.018. · DOI
  4. M. Saunois, P. Bousquet, B. Poulter, A. Peregon, P. Ciais, J.G. Canadell, E. J. Dlugokencky, G. Etiope, D. Bastviken, S. Houweling, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. N. Tubiello, S. Castaldi, R.B. Jackson, M. Alexe, V.K. Arora, D.J. Beerling, P. Bergamaschi, D.R. Blake, G. Brailsford, V. Brovkin, L. Bruhwiler, C. Crevoisier, P. Crill, K. Covey, C. Curry, C. Frankenberg, N. Gedney, L. H€ oglund-Isaksson, M. Ishizawa, A. Ito, F. Joos, H.S. Kim, T. Kleinen, P. Krummel, J.F. Lamarque, R. Langenfelds, R. Locatelli, T. Machida, S. Maksyutov, K.C. McDonald, J. Marshall, J.R. Melton, I. Morino, V. Naik, S. O'Doherty, F.J.W. Parmentier, P. K. Patra, C. Peng, S. Peng, G.P. Peters, I. Pison, C. Prigent, R. Prinn, M. Ramonet, W.J. Riley, M. Saito, M. Santini, R. Schroeder, I.J. Simpson, R. Spahni, P. Steele, A. Takizawa, B.F. Thornton, H. Tian, Y. Tohjima, N. Viovy, A. Voulgarakis, M. Van Weele, G.R. Van Der Werf, R. Weiss, C. Wiedinmyer, D.J. Wilton, A. Wiltshire, D. Worthy, D. Wunch, X. Xu, Y. Yoshida, B. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Q. Zhu, The global methane budget 2000-2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8 (2016) 697-751, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016. · DOI
  5. P.J. Jørgensen, Biogas-Green Energy Process. Des. Energy Supply Environ. Fac. 36 (2009). http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl¼en&btnG¼Search&q¼intitle: Biogasþ-þGreenþenergy#0.
  6. M. Alam Hossain Mondal, L.M. Kamp, N.I. Pachova, Drivers, barriers, and strategies for implementation of renewable energy technologies in rural areas in Bangladesh-An innovation system analysis, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4626-4634, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.018. · DOI
  7. K.C. Surendra, S.K. Khanal, P. Shrestha, B. Lamsal, Current status of renewable energy in Nepal: opportunities and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4107-4117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.022. · DOI
  8. M. Ashraf Chaudhry, R. Raza, S.A. Hayat, Renewable energy technologies in Pakistan: prospects and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1657-1662, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.025. · DOI
  9. P. Fenton, W. Kanda, Barriers to the diffusion of renewable energy: studies of biogas for transport in two European cities, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60 (2017) 725-742, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1176557. · DOI
  10. Y. Shen, J.L. Linville, M. Urgun-Demirtas, M.M. Mintz, S.W. Snyder, An overview of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the United States: challenges and opportunities towards energy- neutral WWTPs, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 346-362, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.129. · DOI · Paper page
  11. M. Poeschl, S. Ward, P. Owende, Prospects for expanded utilization of biogas in Germany, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 1782-1797, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2010.04.010. · DOI
  12. Y. Chen, W. Hu, Y. Feng, S. Sweeney, Status and prospects of rural biogas development in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39 (2014) 679-685, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.119. · DOI
  13. K.C. Surendra, D. Takara, A.G. Hashimoto, S.K. Khanal, Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing countries: opportunities and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31 (2014) 846-859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2013.12.015. · DOI
  14. E.U. Khan, A.R. Martin, Review of biogas digester technology in rural Bangladesh, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 247-259, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2016.04.044. · DOI
  15. H. Katuwal, A.K. Bohara, Biogas: a promising renewable technology and its impact on rural households in Nepal, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2668-2674, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.002. · DOI
  16. M.M. Crossan, M. Apaydin, A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature, J. Manag. Stud. 47 (2010) 1154-1191, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x. · DOI
  17. E. Susur, A. Hidalgo, D. Chiaroni, A strategic niche management perspective on transitions to eco-industrial park development: a systematic review of case studies, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140 (2019) 338-359, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.resconrec.2018.06.002. · DOI
  18. A. Chadegani, H. Salehi, M.M. Md Yunus, H. Farhadi, M. Fooladi, M. Farhadi, N. Ale Ebrahim, A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases, Asian Soc. Sci. 9 (2013) 18-26, https://doi. org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18. · DOI
  19. A. Martín-Martín, E. Orduna-malea, M. Thelwall, E.D. L� opez-c� ozar, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05053, 2019, 12-1160-1177. · arXiv
  20. A. Martín-Martín, E. Orduna-Malea, E. Delgado L� opez-C� ozar, Coverage of highly- cited documents in Google scholar, Web of science, and scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison, Scientometrics 116 (2018) 2175-2188, https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2820-9. · DOI
  21. G. Halevi, H. Moed, J. Bar-Ilan, Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation-review of the Literature, J. Inform. 11 (2017) 823-834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. joi.2017.06.005. · DOI · Paper page
  22. S.L. De Groote, R. Raszewski, Coverage of Google scholar, scopus, and Web of science: a case study of the h-index in nursing, Nurs. Outlook 60 (2012) 391-400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007. · DOI
  23. E. Karakaya, C. Nuur, Social sciences and the mining sector: some insights into recent research trends, Resour. Policy 58 (2018) 257-267, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.014. · DOI
  24. B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 1-29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003. · DOI
  25. A. Pazera, R. Slezak, L. Krzystek, S. Ledakowicz, G. Bochmann, W. Gabauer, S. Helm, S. Reitmeier, L. Marley, F. Gorga, L. Farrant, V. Suchan, J. Kara, Biogas in Europe : Food and Beverage (FAB) Waste Potential for Biogas Production, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1021/ef502812s. · DOI
  26. R.G. Cong, D. Caro, M. Thomsen, Is it beneficial to use biogas in the Danish transport sector? -an environmental-economic analysis, J. Clean. Prod. 165 (2017) 1025-1035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.183. · DOI
  27. A.K.P. Meyer, E.A. Ehimen, J.B. Holm-Nielsen, Bioenergy production from roadside grass: a case study of the feasibility of using roadside grass for biogas production in Denmark, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93 (2014) 124-133, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.003. · DOI
  28. M. Lauer, D. Thr€ an, Biogas plants and surplus generation: cost driver or reducer in the future German electricity system? Energy Policy 109 (2017) 324-336, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.016. · DOI
  29. D. Christensen, L.T. Bach, A Danish-Vietnamese partnership for business and technology development in solid waste management, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 105 (2015) 123-133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.019. · DOI
  30. K.H. Zemo, M. Termansen, Farmers' willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: a discrete choice experiment study, Resour. Energy Econ. 52 (2018) 87-101, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.12.001. · DOI
  31. F. Appel, A. Ostermeyer-Wiethaup, A. Balmann, Effects of the German Renewable Energy Act on structural change in agriculture -the case of biogas, Util. Policy 41 (2016) 172-182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.02.013. · DOI
  32. A. Purkus, E. Gawel, N. Szarka, M. Lauer, V. Lenz, A. Ortwein, P. Tafarte, M. Eichhorn, D. Thr€ an, Contributions of flexible power generation from biomass to a secure and cost-effective electricity supply-a review of potentials, incentives and obstacles in Germany, Energy Sustain. Soc. 8 (2018), https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s13705-018-0157-0. · DOI
  33. B. Blumenstein, T. Siegmeier, D. M€ oller, Economics of anaerobic digestion in organic agriculture: between system constraints and policy regulations, Biomass Bioenergy 86 (2016) 105-119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.01.015. · DOI
  34. D. Balussou, T. Heffels, R. McKenna, D. M€ ost, W. Fichtner, An evaluation of optimal biogas plant configurations in Germany, Waste Biomass Valoriz. 5 (2014) 743-758, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-013-9284-1. · DOI
  35. M. Larsson, S. Gr€ onkvist, P. Alvfors, Upgraded biogas for transport in Sweden - effects of policy instruments on production, infrastructure deployment and vehicle sales, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 3774-3784, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.08.056. · DOI
  36. M. Martin, Potential of biogas expansion in Sweden: identifying the gap between potential studies and producer perspectives, Biofuels 6 (2015) 233-240, https:// doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2015.1090769. · DOI
  37. T. L€ onnqvist, A. Sanches-Pereira, T. Sandberg, Biogas potential for sustainable transport -a Swedish regional case, J. Clean. Prod. 108 (2015) 1-10, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.036. · DOI
  38. A. Sanches-Pereira, T. L€ onnqvist, M.F. G� omez, S.T. Coelho, L.G. Tudeschini, Is natural gas a backup fuel against shortages of biogas or a threat to the Swedish vision of pursuing a vehicle fleet independent of fossil fuels? Renew. Energy 83 (2015) 1187-1199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.006. · DOI · Paper page
  39. L. Hjalmarsson, Biogas as a boundary object for policy integration -the case of Stockholm, J. Clean. Prod. 98 (2015) 185-193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.10.042. · DOI
  40. N.P.E. Karlsson, F. Halila, M. Mattsson, M. Hoveskog, Success factors for agricultural biogas production in Sweden: a case study of business model innovation, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 2925-2934, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.10.178. · DOI
  41. J. Ammenberg, R. Feiz, Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part II-results for strategic decision making, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122 (2017) 388-404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.020. · DOI
  42. J. Ammenberg, S. Anderberg, T. L€ onnqvist, S. Gr€ onkvist, T. Sandberg, Biogas in the transport sector-actor and policy analysis focusing on the demand side in the Stockholm region, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129 (2018) 70-80, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.010. · DOI
  43. T. L€ onnqvist, S. Gr€ onkvist, T. Sandberg, Forest-derived methane in the Swedish transport sector: a closing window? Energy Policy 105 (2017) 440-450, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.003. · DOI
  44. C. Herbes, S. Chouvellon, J. Lacombe, Towards Marketing Biomethane in France -French Consumers ' Perception of Biomethane, vol. 7, 2018.
  45. T. Hoppe, M.P.T. Sanders, Agricultural green gas demonstration projects in The Netherlands. A stakeholder analysis, Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 13 (2014) 3083-3096, https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2014.347. · DOI
  46. D. Hidalgo, J.M. Martín-Marroquín, P. Nieto, Anaerobic co-digestion of agro-food waste mixtures in a fed-batch basis, Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom). 37 (2016) 2590-2598, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2016.1155654. · DOI
  47. M. Patziger, Efficiency and development strategies of medium-sized wastewater treatment plants in central and Eastern Europe: results of a long-term investigation program in Hungary, J. Environ. Eng. 143 (2017), 04017008, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-7870.0001185. · DOI
  48. A. Piwowar, M. Dziku� c, J. Adamczyk, Agricultural biogas plants in Poland - selected technological, market and environmental aspects, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016) 69-74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.153. · DOI
  49. B. Igli� nski, R. Buczkowski, M. Cichosz, Biogas production in Poland -current state, potential and perspectives, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 50 (2015) 686-695, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.013. · DOI
  50. M. Muradin, Z. Foltynowicz, Potential for producing biogas from agricultural waste in rural plants in Poland, Sustain 6 (2014) 5065-5074, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su6085065. · DOI
  51. A.J. Satchwell, C.D. Scown, S.J. Smith, J. Amirebrahimi, L. Jin, T.W. Kirchstetter, N.J. Brown, C.V. Preble, Accelerating the deployment of anaerobic digestion to meet zero waste goals, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 13663-13669, https:// doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04481. · DOI
  52. B.C. Murray, C.S. Galik, T. Vegh, Biogas in the United States: estimating future production and learning from international experiences, Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 22 (2017) 485-501, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-015-9683-7. · DOI
  53. A.G. Capodaglio, A. Callegari, M.V. Lopez, European framework for the diffusion of biogas uses: emerging technologies, acceptance, incentive strategies, and institutional-regulatory support, Sustain 8 (2016) 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/ su8040298. · DOI
  54. R. Einarsson, U.M. Persson, Analyzing key constraints to biogas production from crop residues and manure in the EU -a spatially explicit model, PLoS One 12 (2017) 1-23, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171001. · DOI
  55. J. Dahlin, C. Herbes, M. Nelles, Biogas digestate marketing: qualitative insights into the supply side, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 104 (2015) 152-161, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.013. · DOI · Paper page
  56. D. Mahachi, L.L. Mokgalo, J. Pansiri, Exploitation of renewable energy in the hospitality sector: case studies of gaborone sun and the cumberland hotel in Botswana, Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 16 (2015) 331-354, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15256480.2015.1090253. · DOI
  57. M.G. Mengistu, B. Simane, G. Eshete, T.S. Workneh, A review on biogas technology and its contributions to sustainable rural livelihood in Ethiopia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 306-316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.04.026. · DOI · Paper page
  58. L.M. Kamp, E.B. Forn, Ethiopia's emerging domestic biogas sector: current status, bottlenecks and drivers, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 475-488, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.068. · DOI
  59. N. Abadi, K. Gebrehiwot, A. Techane, H. Nerea, Links between biogas technology adoption and health status of households in rural Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Energy Policy 101 (2017) 284-292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2016.11.015. · DOI
  60. H.E. Kelebe, Returns, setbacks, and future prospects of bio-energy promotion in northern Ethiopia: the case of family-sized biogas energy, Energy Sustain. Soc. 8 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0171-2. · DOI
  61. M. Berhe, D. Hoag, G. Tesfay, C. Keske, Factors influencing the adoption of biogas digesters in rural Ethiopia, Energy Sustain. Soc. 7 (2017), https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s13705-017-0112-5. · DOI
  62. B.K. Sovacool, M. Kryman, T. Smith, Scaling and commercializing mobile biogas systems in Kenya: a qualitative pilot study, Renew. Energy 76 (2015) 115-125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.070. · DOI
  63. A.D. Tigabu, F. Berkhout, P. van Beukering, The diffusion of a renewable energy technology and innovation system functioning: comparing bio-digestion in Kenya and Rwanda, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90 (2015) 331-345, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.019. · DOI
  64. A. Shane, S.H. Gheewala, Y. Kafwembe, Urban commercial biogas power plant model for Zambian towns, Renew. Energy 103 (2017) 1-14, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.017. · DOI
  65. O. Adeoti, T.A. Ayelegun, S.O. Osho, Nigeria biogas potential from livestock manure and its estimated climate value, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 243-248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.005. · DOI
  66. A. Giwa, A. Alabi, A. Yusuf, T. Olukan, A comprehensive review on biomass and solar energy for sustainable energy generation in Nigeria, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 (2017) 620-641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.160. · DOI
  67. Z.M.A. Bundhoo, S. Mauthoor, R. Mohee, Potential of biogas production from biomass and waste materials in the Small Island Developing State of Mauritius, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 1087-1100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.12.026. · DOI
  68. G.V. Rupf, P.A. Bahri, K. De Boer, M.P. McHenry, Barriers and opportunities of biogas dissemination in Sub-Saharan Africa and lessons learned from Rwanda, Tanzania, China, India, and Nepal, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52 (2015) 468-476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.107. · DOI
  69. A. Roopnarain, R. Adeleke, Current status, hurdles and future prospects of biogas digestion technology in Africa, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 1162-1179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.087. · DOI
  70. Z. Gebreegziabher, L. Naik, R. Melamu, B.B. Balana, Prospects and challenges for urban application of biogas installations in Sub-Saharan Africa, Biomass Bioenergy 70 (2014) 130-140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.036. · DOI
  71. J. Mwirigi, B.B. Balana, J. Mugisha, P. Walekhwa, R. Melamu, S. Nakami, P. Makenzi, Socio-economic hurdles to widespread adoption of small-scale biogas digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review, Biomass Bioenergy 70 (2014) 17-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.018. · DOI
  72. H. Clemens, R. Bailis, A. Nyambane, V. Ndung'u, Africa Biogas Partnership Program: a review of clean cooking implementation through market development in East Africa, Energy Sustain. Dev. 46 (2018) 23-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. esd.2018.05.012. · DOI
  73. B. Amuzu-Sefordzi, K. Martinus, P. Tschakert, R. Wills, Disruptive innovations and decentralized renewable energy systems in Africa: a socio-technical review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46 (2018) 140-154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2018.06.014. · DOI
  74. E.R. Orskov, K. Yongabi Anchang, M. Subedi, J. Smith, Overview of holistic application of biogas for small scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, Biomass Bioenergy 70 (2014) 4-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.028. · DOI
  75. S.S. Msibi, G. Kornelius, Potential for domestic biogas as household energy supply in South Africa, J. Energy South. Afr. 28 (2017) 1, https://doi.org/10.17159/ 2413-3051/2017/v28i2a1754. · DOI
  76. F. Kemausuor, M.S. Adaramola, J. Morken, A review of commercial biogas systems and lessons for Africa, Energies 11 (2018) 1-21, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en11112984. · DOI
  77. Z. Song, C. Zhang, G. Yang, Y. Feng, G. Ren, X. Han, Comparison of biogas development from households and medium and large-scale biogas plants in rural China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33 (2014) 204-213, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.084. · DOI
  78. D. Chadwick, J. Wei, T. Yan'an, Y. Guanghui, S. Qirong, C. Qing, Improving manure nutrient management towards sustainable agricultural intensification in China, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 209 (2015) 34-46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2015.03.025. · DOI
  79. Y. Chen, W. Hu, P. Chen, R. Ruan, Household biogas CDM project development in rural China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 184-191, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.052. · DOI · Paper page
  80. Q. Chen, T. Liu, Biogas system in rural China: upgrading from decentralized to centralized? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78 (2017) 933-944, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.113. · DOI
  81. B. Gu, L. Fan, Z. Ying, Q. Xu, W. Luo, Y. Ge, S. Scott, J. Chang, Socioeconomic constraints on the technological choices in rural sewage treatment, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (2016) 20360-20367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7267- z. · DOI
  82. C. Li, Y. Liao, X. Wen, Y. Wang, F. Yang, The development and countermeasures of household biogas in northwest grain for green project areas of China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 835-846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.01.027. · DOI
  83. Y. Deng, J. Xu, Y. Liu, K. Mancl, Biogas as a sustainable energy source in China: regional development strategy application and decision making, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 35 (2014) 294-303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.031. · DOI
  84. L. Chen, R.G. Cong, B. Shu, Z.F. Mi, A sustainable biogas model in China: the case study of Beijing Deqingyuan biogas project, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78 (2017) 773-779, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.027. · DOI
  85. X. Wang, X. Lu, G. Yang, Y. Feng, G. Ren, X. Han, Development process and probable future transformations of rural biogas in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55 (2016) 703-712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.097. · DOI
  86. D. Yin, W. Liu, N. Zhai, Y. Wang, C. Ren, G. Yang, Regional differentiation of rural household biogas development and related driving factors in China, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67 (2017) 1008-1018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2016.09.023. · DOI
  87. G. Shen, W. Lin, Y. Chen, D. Yue, Z. Liu, C. Yang, Factors influencing the adoption and sustainable use of clean fuels and cookstoves in China -a Chinese literature review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51 (2015) 741-750, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.049. · DOI
  88. S. Cheng, M. Zhao, H.-P. Mang, X. Zhou, Z. Li, Development and application of biogas project for domestic sewage treatment in rural China: opportunities and challenges, J. Water, Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 7 (2017) 576-588, https://doi.org/ 10.2166/washdev.2017.011. · DOI
  89. Y. Hu, H. Cheng, S. Tao, Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in China and their mitigation, Environ. Int. 107 (2017) 111-130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.003. · DOI
  90. X. Huang, S. Liu, W. Zhao, A. Shukla, Feasibility study on merging biogas into the natural gas pipe-network in China, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 35 (2016) 615-628, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2014.923888. · DOI
  91. F. Li, S. Cheng, H. Yu, D. Yang, Waste from livestock and poultry breeding and its potential assessment of biogas energy in rural China, J. Clean. Prod. 126 (2016) 451-460, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.104. · DOI
  92. P. Kumaran, D. Hephzibah, R. Sivasankari, N. Saifuddin, A.H. Shamsuddin, A review on industrial scale anaerobic digestion systems deployment in Malaysia: opportunities and challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 56 (2016) 929-940, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.11.069. · DOI
  93. C.P.C. Bong, W.S. Ho, H. Hashim, J.S. Lim, C.S. Ho, W.S. Peng Tan, C.T. Lee, Review on the renewable energy and solid waste management policies towards biogas development in Malaysia, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70 (2017) 988-998, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.004. · DOI
  94. P.Y. Hoo, H. Hashim, W.S. Ho, Opportunities and challenges: landfill gas to biomethane injection into natural gas distribution grid through pipeline, J. Clean. Prod. 175 (2018) 409-419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.193. · DOI
  95. Y.H. Poh, H. Haslenda, S.H. Wai, T.T. Sie, Potential biogas generation from food waste through anaerobic digestion in peninsular Malaysia, Chem. Eng. Trans. 56 (2017) 373-378, https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1756063. · DOI
  96. A. Quek, A. Ee, A. Ng, T.Y. Wah, Challenges in Environmental Sustainability of renewable energy options in Singapore, Energy Policy 122 (2018) 388-394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.055. · DOI
  97. M. Malahayati, T. Masui, Challenges in implementing emission mitigation technologies in Indonesia agricultural sector: criticizing the available mitigation technologies, Open Agric 3 (2018) 46-56, https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018- 0006. · DOI
  98. W. Thepsaskul, W. Wongsapai, S. Koonnaphapdeelert, C. Chaichana, S. Daroon, Business model for the commercialisation of compressed bio-methane gas by substituting conventional fossil fuels in the Thai Industrial Sector, Chem. Eng. Trans. 63 (2018) 331-336, https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1863056. · DOI
  99. E.U. Khan, B. Mainali, A. Martin, S. Silveira, Techno-economic analysis of small scale biogas based polygeneration systems: Bangladesh case study, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 7 (2014) 68-78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. seta.2014.03.004. · DOI
  100. A. Matter, M. Ahsan, M. Marbach, C. Zurbrügg, Impacts of policy and market incentives for solid waste recycling in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Waste Manag. 39 (2015) 321-328, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.032. · DOI
  101. T.S. Schmidt, S. Dabur, Explaining the diffusion of biogas in India: a new functional approach considering national borders and technology transfer, Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 16 (2014) 171-199, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10018-013-0058-6. · DOI
  102. D. Raha, P. Mahanta, M.L. Clarke, The implementation of decentralised biogas plants in Assam, NE India: the impact and effectiveness of the National Biogas and Manure Management Programme, Energy Policy 68 (2014) 80-91, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.048. · DOI
  103. G. Nahar, D. Mote, V. Dupont, Hydrogen production from reforming of biogas: review of technological advances and an Indian perspective, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76 (2017) 1032-1052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.031. · DOI
  104. H. Dhar, S. Kumar, R. Kumar, A review on organic waste to energy systems in India, Bioresour. Technol. 245 (2017) 1229-1237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2017.08.159. · DOI
  105. A. Tiwary, I.D. Williams, D.C. Pant, V.V.N. Kishore, Emerging perspectives on environmental burden minimisation initiatives from anaerobic digestion technologies for community scale biomass valorisation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 883-901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.052. · DOI
  106. W. Uddin, B. Khan, N. Shaukat, M. Majid, G. Mujtaba, A. Mehmood, S.M. Ali, U. Younas, M. Anwar, A.M. Almeshal, Biogas potential for electric power generation in Pakistan: a survey, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 25-33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.083. · DOI
  107. A. Yasar, S. Nazir, A.B. Tabinda, M. Nazar, R. Rasheed, M. Afzaal, Socio- economic, health and agriculture benefits of rural household biogas plants in energy scarce developing countries: a case study from Pakistan, Renew. Energy 108 (2017) 19-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.044. · DOI
  108. M. Arshad, I. Bano, N. Khan, M.I. Shahzad, M. Younus, M. Abbas, M. Iqbal, Electricity generation from biogas of poultry waste: an assessment of potential and feasibility in Pakistan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (2018) 1241-1246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.007. · DOI
  109. A. Ghafoor, T.U. Rehman, A. Munir, M. Ahmad, M. Iqbal, Current status and overview of renewable energy potential in Pakistan for continuous energy sustainability, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 1332-1342, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.020. · DOI
  110. B.S. Moraes, M. Zaiat, A. Bonomi, Anaerobic digestion of vinasse from sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: challenges and perspectives, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44 (2015) 888-903, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.023. · DOI
  111. L. Ferrer-Martí, I. Ferrer, E. S� anchez, M. Garfí, A multi-criteria decision support tool for the assessment of household biogas digester programmes in rural areas. A case study in Peru, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 95 (2018) 74-83, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.064. · DOI
  112. T. L€ onnqvist, T. Sandberg, J.C. Birbuet, J. Olsson, C. Espinosa, E. Thorin, S. Gr€ onkvist, M.F. G� omez, Large-scale biogas generation in Bolivia -a stepwise reconfiguration, J. Clean. Prod. 180 (2018) 494-504, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.01.174. · DOI
  113. I.L. Moreda, The potential of biogas production in Uruguay, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54 (2016) 1580-1591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.099. · DOI
  114. M. Garfí, J. Martí-Herrero, A. Garwood, I. Ferrer, Household anaerobic digesters for biogas production in Latin America: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 599-614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.071. · DOI
  115. S. Cheng, Z. Li, H.P. Mang, E.M. Huba, R. Gao, X. Wang, Development and application of prefabricated biogas digesters in developing countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 34 (2014) 387-400, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2014.03.035. · DOI
  116. E. Buysman, A.P.J. Mol, Market-based biogas sector development in least developed countries -The case of Cambodia, Energy Policy 63 (2013) 44-51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.071. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nevzorova, T., & Kutcherov, V.
Affiliations
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas (RU)
Corresponding author
Nevzorova, Tatiana
ORCID
Venue
Energy Strategy Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-11
Volume
26
Pages
100414
ISSN
2211-467X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.esr.2019.100414
OpenAlex
W2981105738
Cited by
299
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 1
FWCI
18.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Energy Strategy Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Council on grants of the President of the Russian Federation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Bioeconomy and Sustainability Development
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Renewable energy and sustainable power systems
Keywords
biogas, barriers to adoption, renewable energy, sustainability transitions, technical challenges, economic barriers, market barriers, institutional barriers, socio-cultural barriers, environmental barriers, developed and developing countries, biogas industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review