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 in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3586259
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact