Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has recently emerged as a promising substitute maritime fuel, due to its potential of reducing GHG emissions with respect to heavy fuel oils. This paper analyses and compares from a techno-economic point of view different technological pathways for renewable LNG production to be used as bunker fuel in North-Eastern Italy. Specifically, CO2 hydrogenation (a process also known as methanation) is considered, either starting from carbon dioxide captured from industrial flue gases (e-LNG), or from the biogas obtained via anaerobic digestion of biomass (bio-LNG). Moreover, both chemical (via the Sabatier reaction) and biological (exploiting hydrogenotrophic microorganisms) methanation have been considered. Results show that the bio-LNG route is more economically feasible with a Levelized Cost of Methane (LCOM) of about 150 €/MWh, but feedstock availability strongly limits the LNG throughput. On the other hand, the e-LNG route can reach larger production capacity, with a LCOM of around 200 €/MWh. Biological methanation is currently slightly less profitable compared to the chemical route mainly due to large investment costs, however technological advancements could significantly improve the economic performances.
A techno-economic comparison of biological and chemical routes for CO2 methanation in renewable LNG production
Treu, Laura;Barbera, Elena
2026
Abstract
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has recently emerged as a promising substitute maritime fuel, due to its potential of reducing GHG emissions with respect to heavy fuel oils. This paper analyses and compares from a techno-economic point of view different technological pathways for renewable LNG production to be used as bunker fuel in North-Eastern Italy. Specifically, CO2 hydrogenation (a process also known as methanation) is considered, either starting from carbon dioxide captured from industrial flue gases (e-LNG), or from the biogas obtained via anaerobic digestion of biomass (bio-LNG). Moreover, both chemical (via the Sabatier reaction) and biological (exploiting hydrogenotrophic microorganisms) methanation have been considered. Results show that the bio-LNG route is more economically feasible with a Levelized Cost of Methane (LCOM) of about 150 €/MWh, but feedstock availability strongly limits the LNG throughput. On the other hand, the e-LNG route can reach larger production capacity, with a LCOM of around 200 €/MWh. Biological methanation is currently slightly less profitable compared to the chemical route mainly due to large investment costs, however technological advancements could significantly improve the economic performances.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1-s2.0-S2212982026000570-main.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Published (Publisher's Version of Record)
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
2.59 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.59 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.




