Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Scenarios for the integration of renewable gases into the German natural
gas market – A simulation-based optimisation approach
Sebastian Kolb a, *, Thomas Plankenbühler a, Jonas Frank a, Johannes Dettelbacher a,
Ralf Ludwig b, Jürgen Karl a, Marius Dillig a
a
Chair of Energy Process Engineering, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Fürther Straße 244f, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
b
Department of Geography, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Luisenstraße 37, 80333 Munich, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Natural gas plays an essential role in Germany’s energy system, both in the heating and electricity sectors. In
Energy system modeling order to achieve climate goals, numerous technologies aim at substituting fossil with renewable gas. Those
Power-to-Methane technologies start reaching technical maturity, yet they are mostly not economically competitive under the
Power-to-Hydrogen
current market conditions. To find transition paths to resolve this issue this paper introduces the simulation-
Synthetic natural gas
based optimisation model MIREG (Model for the Integration of Renewable Gases). Combining a system-
Biomethane
Scenario analysis dynamic simulation of the various renewable gas options with an optimisation model of the gas market, the
model puts strong focus on the reproduction of gas market’s mechanisms and the implications of a rising
penetration of renewable gases. The model is then applied to analyse the effects of different developments of
market conditions and funding strategies on the possible share of renewable gases in the German gas mix until
2050. Results show that if renewable gases are supposed to account for a significant share of gas consumed in
Germany they either need to be funded substantially or market conditions have to change. For a share of 23%
renewable gas in the gas mix CO2 prices for example would have to reach a level of 150 €/tCO2 by 2050 (300
€/tCO2 for 54%). The scenarios also indicate that in order to meet significant amounts of the German gas con­
sumption with renewable gases, international solutions need to be aimed at e.g. by importing renewable gas from
locations with high potential of renewable energy or by importing biomass.

biomass with CO2 separation to biomethane (BioCH4). Also, the pro­

1. Introduction
In order to achieve national and international climate goals, efforts
in the German energy system mainly focused on the electricity markets
so far. As a result of the German “Energiewende”, the share of renewable
electricity of the gross national electricity consumption increased from
3.4% in 1990 to 36% in 2017 [1]. In contrast, heat and transportation
sectors are still highly dependent on fossil fuels. In Germany, about 46%
of the heat demand was covered by natural gas (NG) in 2017 [2], with
only 13.4% of the overall heat being provided by renewable sources [3].
Consequently, the German energy system is highly dependent on the
import of NG. In order to further increase the share of renewable en­
ergies also in the gas sector, numerous technologies allow for the sub­
stitution of fossil gas with green gas from renewable sources. Those
technologies include the conversion of biomass by either gasification of
ligneous biomass (to synthesis gas, SynGas) and subsequent methana­
tion to Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) or the anaerobic digestion of wet
duction of hydrogen from renewable electricity (Power-to-Hydrogen,
PtG-H2) via electrolysis or partial steam methane reforming (SMR)
constitute promising approaches. In this context, the methanation of
hydrogen from electrolysis to synthetic natural gas (Power-to-Methane,
PtG-CH4) could play a major role in the future system, too.
Recent studies investigated the potential of some of those technolo­
gies for the energy system, mostly focusing on sector coupling between
the electricity and gas sector via PtG-H2 and PtG-CH4 (cf. section 2.1).
Other studies proposed models to derive the optimal use of bioenergy for
the future energy system, also considering biogenous gases (cf. section
2.2). However, those studies mostly focus on the electricity and/or heat
market, neglecting market mechanisms and developments on the gas
market which are crucial for the assessment of renewable gas technol­
ogies. Indeed, there are models for the system analysis of gas markets (cf.
section 2.3), but those do not offer a framework for the simulation of a
transition towards renewable gases. They mostly focus on the impacts of
changes in supply and demand structures of fossil gas only (such as

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sebastian.kolb@fau.de (S. Kolb).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110696
Received 28 January 2020; Received in revised form 17 October 2020; Accepted 30 December 2020
Available online 20 January 2021
1364-0321/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Kolb et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

Nomenclature LCOG levelised costs of gas

m monthly
Latin Letters NG natural gas
a annuity factor oper operating
c costs per energy (in € MWh− 1) ps power stations
C costs (in € MWh) PtGCH4 Power-to-Methane
CS consumer surplus (in € MWh) PtGH2 Power-to-Hydrogen
D average gas demand (in MWh) PV photovoltaics
D gas demand (in MWh) RG renewable gas producers
E energy (in MWh) RGc costant renewable gas producers
F average filling level of the gas storage in the beginning of RGv volatile renewable gas producers
each year (in MWh) st storage
F filling level of the gas storage (in MWh) sub substrate
gen generation of the renewable gas plant tot total
inv investment (in €) var variable
k ratio between minimum and maximum substrate price
Abbreviations
k1 − k5 fitting parameters of the electricity price function
AER Absorption Enhanced Reforming
lst storage losses (in MWh)
BAU business as usual
n number of plant types
BioCH4 biomethane
o number of simulation years
CAPEX capital expenditure
p average price (in € MWh− 1)
CDC Climate Data Center of the German Meteorological Service
p price of energy (in € MWh− 1)
CNG compressed natural gas
P power (in MW)
DFB dual fluidised bed gasifier
Δp variation of gas price (in € MWh− 1)
DSM demand-side-management
q gradient of the demand curve (in € MWh− 1)
EEX European Energy Exchange
R2 coefficient of determination
ENTSO-E European Network of Transmission System Operators for
RMSE root mean square error (in € MWh− 1)
Electricity
S supply (in MWh)
FR forest residues
st gas storage operation (in MWh)
GIS geographic information system
t ordinate intercept of the demand curve (in €)
HPR Heatpipe-Reformer
WTP willingness to pay (in € MWh)
IP imported wood pellets
x renewable gas plants expansion matrix
LCA life cycle assessment
X seasonal distribution of gas demand of a consumer group
LNG liquefied natural gas
y share in total gas demand of a consumer group
LP linear programming
z ratio of monthly and annual average gas price
MILP mixed integer linear programming
Greek Letters MINLP mixed integer non-linear programming
α, β, γ, δfitting parameters of the volatile renewable gas supply MIREG Model for the Integration of Renewable Gases
function NG natural gas
ε elasticity of the demand/supply function NCG NetConnect Germany
ηst storage efficiency NLP non-linear programming
ρ biomass utilisation factor PEM Proton Exchange Membrane
PtG-CH4 Power-to-Methane
Subscripts PtG-H2 Power-to-Hydrogen
0 value at the beginning of a year PtL Power-to-Liquid
12 value in the end of a year PV photovoltaics
a annual S/C ratio steam-to-carbon ratio
CAPEX capital expenditure SMR steam methane reforming
conv conventional and nuclear power SNG substitute natural gas
dom fossil gas from domestic sources SOEC Solid Oxide Electrolyser Cell
el electrical SRF short rotation forestry
g consumer group (industry, households, power stations) SynGas synthesis gas
gas produced gas TRL Technology Readiness Level
hh households WTP willingness to pay
im imported
ind industry

increasing shares of liquefied natural gas (LNG), new suppliers, etc.),
while the interconnection of the electricity and gas sectors as well as the
integration of significant shares of biogenous gases are not considered.
In order to close this gap, this paper’s research objective is to develop
a novel modelling framework allowing to analyse possible long-term
scenarios for the development of the gas market taking into account
the variety of renewable gas technologies as well as different govern­
mental funding strategies. The paper also aims at demonstrating the
applicability of the model investigating the influence of different de­
velopments in CO2 and gas prices, funding mechanisms and biomass
availabilities on the penetration of renewable gases until 2050.
To this end, section 3 presents the simulation-based optimisation

2
S. Kolb et al.
model MIREG (Model for the Integration of Renewable Gases). The
strong focus on the gas market’s mechanisms as well as the integration of
electricity and biomass markets and its interdependencies enable to
calculate possible future perspectives of renewable gases. Section 4
displays and interprets exemplary results of the model, analysing the
effects of different developments of market conditions and funding
schemes until the year 2050. A discussion of the methodology proposed
and the results is presented in chapter 5.
2. Literature review
2.1. Models for the integration of Power-to-Methane and Power-to-
Hydrogen
As energy systems worldwide experience a transition from conven­
tional to renewable and mostly volatile power, the need for energy
storage is coming to the fore. The worldwide capacity of renewable
energy carriers doubled from 1.224 TW in 2010 to 2.536 TW in 2019.
During this time, installed wind power increased from 180.8 GW to
622.4 GW and solar PV from 40.3 GW to 578.6 GW [4]. Those volatile
power producers gradually replace dispatchable generation capacities
(e.g. coal-fired or nuclear power stations) in the electricity sector. This
leads to a demand for storage options in order to harmonise electricity
demand and supply as well as sector coupling technologies in the course
of the defossilisation of the entire energy system.
In the electricity sector, battery storage, demand side management or
pumped-storage stations are ways to compensate short- or medium-term
fluctuations of renewable energies. In order to bridge longer periods of
insufficient wind and solar energy supply (dark doldrum), chemical
storage inter alia by means of Power-to-Methane and Power-to-
Hydrogen are important. In the heating sector, direct electrification (i.
e. Power-to-Heat) is an option for sector coupling. However, the existing
gas infrastructure and the widespread use of NG in domestic heating [2]
will determine the use of gaseous energy carriers in the mid-term at
least. Furthermore, NG plays an essential role for the generation of
process heat in industrial applications. Also in the mobility sector direct
electrification is possible especially in private transportation. For other
transportation tasks such as shipping, aviation and long-distance heav­
y-duty traffic the high energy densities of gaseous and liquid energy
carriers will likely remain of high importance. Here, PtG-CH4/H2 can be
a mean to defossilise these transportation tasks as well. The importance
of Power-to-Methane and Power-to-Hydrogen for future energy systems
can also be observed in the field of energy system analysis, as mirrored
by the multitude of reviews and studies on possible future potentials of
storage options.
An extensive review of more than 65 studies doing model-based
analysis on the possible role of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 technologies can
be found in Ref. [5]. Whilst some of the studies under consideration
focus on life cycle assessment (LCA), costs or process design, many
works assess business models and potentials of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 in
future energy systems. Special attention is laid on the storage needs in
renewable energies only scenarios and the potential of PtG-CH4/H2 in
such systems. Ref. [6] reviews energy system analyses, economic as­
sessments as well as real-life projects on Power-to-Methane and
Power-to-Hydrogen in order to derive potentials and challenges of the
technology. At this point, special reference is made to their classification
of different models especially regarding their modelling approach,
spatial and temporal resolution as well as the sectors taken into account.
Ref. [7] reviews studies on Power-to-Methane in energy systems to
analyse and collect the status-quo recommendations for actions. A re­
view of different Power-to-Methane options with a focus on their
respective technological and economic performances can be found in
Ref. [8]. Ref. [9] reviews the current cost structure and future demand
potentials for PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 and derives possible reduction sce­
narios for CAPEX and gas production costs taking into account dynamic
learning and scaling effects.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
For an overview of the multitude of different studies reference is
made to the reviews mentioned above. Nonetheless, this section presents
some approaches that are closely linked to the research question and
methods presented in this contribution. Their analysis also shows the
necessity for the new methods presented in chapter 3. Table 1 gives an
overview of the reviewed studies on the integration of renewable gases
(both for Power-to-Methane/Hydrogen (section 2.1) and biogenous
gases (section 2.2)). The modelling approaches in the studies are as
diverse as their scopes. Ref. [6] divides the model types into six classes:
simulation [10–12], linear programming (LP) [13–16], non-linear pro­
gramming (NLP) [17,18], mixed integer linear programming (MILP)
[19–25], mixed integer non-linear programming (MINLP) [26,27] or a
mixture of those techniques. Other studies also make use of time series
analysis [28–30].
Most of those studies focus on the possible effects on the electricity
market and infrastructure, such as less need for network expansion,
fewer curtailment of renewable energies and a reduction of congestions.
In doing so, many investigate the future storage need in general and the
role Power-to-Methane/-Hydrogen can play in competition to other
storage techniques using market models. Ref. [28] for example in­
tegrates and compares different storage technologies (Power-to-­
Methane, pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage) in a
time series and unit commitment approach model described by
Ref. [31]. The authors analyse the effect of different storage technolo­
gies and capacities under different wind penetration levels in the Dutch
electricity system. Similar studies can be found in Ref. [29], analysing
the contribution of Power-to-Methane and Power-to-Liquid (PtL) tech­
nologies in a 100% renewable energy system in Germany scaling up
2012 time series. Ref. [16] has a similar focus, using a linear cost opti­
misation model for the determination of the optimum storage capacities
(Power-to-Methane, battery storage, pumped hydro storage) in different
renewable energy scenarios in Germany. Ref. [32] assesses the technical
potential for Power-to-Methane with respect to the available resources
(CO2, storage and transportation capacities) in Germany and compares it
to other storage options.
Other studies use electricity market models and add the electricity
grids to their analysis, taking into account possible energy flows and
therefore possible locations for PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 plants (cf. also [6]).
On the transmission grid level, Ref. [23] for example uses a unit
commitment model, solving the resource planning in a MILP optimisa­
tion. Subsequently, they search for the economic optimum of
Power-to-Methane in a German scenario of 85% renewable energy
penetration considering both the temporal and spatial dimension. A
description of the model and further scenarios can be found in Ref. [22].
Ref. [33] investigates the role of sector coupling – including
Power-to-Hydrogen – in a least-cost 100% renewable energies system in
Brazil using the optimisation model REMix. A more regional approach is
applied by Ref. [18]. The authors combine a non-linear programming
market model developing cost optimised scenarios and a multi-node
transmission grid model. They investigate possible renewable energy
scenarios for the region of Brandenburg and Berlin, Germany, also
focusing on storage technologies. A comparable case study for a region
in Southern Germany on the distribution network level is in Ref. [30].
The studies mentioned above have in common that they consider the
impacts of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 on the electricity system, neglecting the
interdependencies with the gas network. This is where for example Refs.
[34,35] introduce an approach combining a two-stage direct current
optimal power flow model and a gas network analysis model. They apply
the model for the gas and electricity network in Great Britain and show
that including the gas system in system analysis of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2
is essential. They highlight that neglecting the gas system leads to
shortcomings in the considerations of gas grid and market limitations.
Another approach to include the gas sector in the investigation of
Power-to-Methane is proposed by Refs. [19,20]. They set up an energy
system model including the gas, electricity and (as they call it) CO2
sector where Power-to-Methane plants serve as one coupling between
 S. Kolb et al.
Table 1
Details of the reviewed studies on the integration of renewable gases (including studies reviewed in Ref. [6]).
study modelling approach spatial and temporal representation technologies markets grids

ref. year market/ expansion grid region spatial temporal temporal PtG- PtG- SNG SynGas BioCH4 power gas power gas
dispatch planning resolution resolution horizon CH4 H2a

[10] 2016 – – Newton nodal GBR exemplary gas steady state n/a x x x
simulation grid with 11/
12 nodes
[11] 2017 – – Newton loop – exemplary gas steady state n/a x x
simulation grid with 9
nodes
[12] 2017 – – non- central ITA transmission steady state n/a x x x x
isothermal gas grid with
nodal 80 nodes
simulation
[15] 2018 LP LP DC power EU28, CHE, 1 node per 12 2010–2050 x x x x x x x
optimisation optimisation flow, simple NOR, ISL country representative
trade time slices, 24
processes for power
sector
[16] 2014 LP exogenous – GER copper plate hourly 2010, x x
optimisation scenarios, LP 2022,
optimisation 2032, 2050
for storage
[17] 2008 – – NLP – exemplary steady state n/a x x
optimisation transmission
gas grid with
17 nodes, 3
4

pipelines and 2
compressor
stations
[18] 2014 nodal merit- NLP multi-node Berlin- 1 node for NLP hourly 2020, 2030 x x x
order dispatch optimisation transmission Brandenburg, optimisation, 6
grid GER nodes for
simulation transmission
grid in multi-
node model
[19,20] 2014/ MILP exogenous – BEL copper plate quarter-hourly 1 x x x
2015 optimisation scenarios exemplary

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

future year
[22,23] 2014 MILP exogenous DC power GER 18 nodes hourly 2020, x x x
optimisation scenarios flow 2030, 2050
[28] 2014 iterative unit- exogenous – NLD copper plate hourly 1 x x
commitment scenarios exemplary
with 7 day future year
forecast
window (12 h
for storage)
[29] 2015 – exogenous – GER copper plate hourly 2050 x (x)
scenarios aggregated to
annual excess
energy
[30] 2016 – exogenous – Bavaria, GER copper plate, quarter-hourly 2015–2025 x (x)
scenarios different aggregated to
voltage levels annual excess
considered energy
(continued on next page)
 Table 1 (continued )

S. Kolb et al.
study modelling approach spatial and temporal representation technologies markets grids

ref. year market/ expansion grid region spatial temporal temporal PtG- PtG- SNG SynGas BioCH4 power gas power gas
dispatch planning resolution resolution horizon CH4 H2a

[31] 2007 iterative unit- exogenous – NLD copper plate hourly 1 x x

commitment scenarios exemplary
with 7 day future year
forecast
window
[33] 2017 LP LP DC power BRA 13 nodes hourly 2050 x x x
optimisation optimisation flow
[34,35] 2015 NLP exogenous Newton nodal GBR 79 nodes half-hourly 2030 x x (x) x x
optimisation scenarios gas grid transmission
simulation, gas grid, 29
DC electrical busbar
power flow electrical
transmission
grid
[39] 2019 – – Newton- IRN n/a steady state n/a x x
Raphson
simulation
[40] 2017 – – energy-based municipality exemplary 1 hourly 168 h x x
simulation in ITA pipeline gas
network
[42] 2014 – – Hardy Cross GBR exemplary gas steady state n/a x x
simulation grid with 13
nodes
[43] 2017 – – non- POL exemplary 1 5 min 6 days x x
isothermal pipeline gas
5

flow network
simulation
[46] 2009 LP LP DC power GER n/a time slicing 2005–2030 x x x x x x
optimisation optimisation flow, simple
trade
processes
[47] 2015 general myopic based – GER grid of 5′ × 5′ 5 years 2010–2050 x x x
equilibrium on production resolution for
(resource costs determining
market) biomass
potentials

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

[48] 2008 – myopic – AUT n/a annual 2011–2050 x x (x) (x)
optimisation
(formulation
unknown)
[49] 2013 – agent-based – North Rhine- municipality annual 2008–2028 BG x
NPV Westphalia level
assessment and Bavaria,
GER
[50,51] 2008 – agent-based – CHE municipality annual 2006–2025 BG x
NPV level
assessment
[52,53] 2019 – – non- ITA 78 nodes gas steady state, n/a x x
isothermal distribution hour-by-hour
nodal network analysis
simulation
[54] 2016 – agent-based – NLD n/a annual 30 years BG (x) (x)

(DC = direct current, NPV = net present value, BG = biogas, (x) = indirect consideration).
a
In some studies (focusing on the gas grid) not explicitly assumed as PtG-H2 but as hydrogen injection into the gas grid in general.
S. Kolb et al.
the sectors. The model aims at minimising the total operational costs
solving a MILP problem. Ref. [36] assesses the effects of coupling elec­
tricity distribution grids and gas networks using Power-to-Methane and
-Hydrogen in the Emsland region in Germany. Using the partial equi­
librium linear optimisation model JRC-EU-TIMES (for more details see
Ref. [37]), Ref. [15] investigates the potential of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 on
the European level, laying special focus on a high degree of detail in the
temporal and spatial dimension. The authors do not solely focus on
Power-to-Methane but integrate different flexibility options to deal with
surpluses of renewable electricity (such as demand-side-management
(DSM), Power-to-Liquid (PtL), Power-to-Heat), allowing them to anal­
yse the respective potentials taking into account the market environ­
ment and technological competition. Furthermore, the upgrading of
biogas to biomethane is considered as another renewable gas technology
in the study.
Yet other studies focus on the gas networks when investigating the
potential role and challenges of Power-to-Gas, as [6] highlights. Some of
those focus on the injection of Power-to-Hydrogen in order to analyse
the effects of different shares of H2 on the gas grid [11,17,38–41]. Others
take into account PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 in order to investigate the oper­
ation of the gas grids with multiple, decentral, non-conventional gas
sources [10,12,42,43]. Ref. [44] assesses the potential for PtG-CH4/H2
in Germany in a GIS-based analysis taking into account the gas distri­
bution grid, local potentials for renewable electricity as well as regula­
tory, legal and economic factors.
To sum up, studies carried out to date mainly focus on the electricity
market, sometimes including electricity and/or gas grids. The current
contribution therefore aims at adding value to the following areas:
• Consider the competition of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 with other renewable
gas technologies: As Ref. [45] highlights, the competition with other
renewable gas technologies such as biomethane and the market
value of such gases are a crucial parameter for the economic profit­
ability of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2. For this reason, the proposed
modelling approach includes a high variety of different technological
options, taking into account their interdependencies.
• Focus on modelling the gas market: While the electricity market and
grid but also the gas network are subject to multiple studies, ap­
proaches for a detailed modelling of the gas market considering
Power-to-Methane and -Hydrogen remain scarce. As the gas market
is (one of) the sales markets of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2, a modelling of
the pricing and decision making mechanisms thereof is substantial in
order to evaluate the competitiveness of those technologies.
2.2. Models for the integration of biogenous gases
Bioenergy – mostly in the form of electricity and heat from biogas or
the combustion of woody biomass – plays a role in many studies
investigating future national and international energy systems, such as
Refs. [55–57]. In those studies, bioenergy constitutes one out of many
technological options. Others put a stronger focus on biogenous energy
carriers, seeking to take account of the multitude of technological op­
tions as well as the usage competition (plate-tank-debate as well as
competition between heat, electricity and transportation sector).
Ref. [46] for example compares 55 different conversion technologies
for the energetic use of biomass, including the treatment of biogas to
biomethane as well as the gasification of woody biomass in a circulating
fluidised bed linked to a cogeneration plant (direct use of SynGas). The
author aims at comparing the conversion technologies especially
regarding their energy efficiency, costs, substitution potential and CO2
footprint. He then integrates the technologies under investigation in the
linear optimisation model TIMES (cf. e.g. Ref. [58]) in order to optimise
the use of available biomass resources in different scenario frameworks
(with and without subsidies on renewables, with and without CO2-tar­
gets) until the year 2030.
Ref. [47] investigates a sustainable bioenergy strategy until 2050 for
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
Germany, inter alia regarding the relevance of different technological
options – including the production of biomethane from anaerobic
digestion as well as SNG from gasification of woody biomass –, their
implications on markets, infrastructure, society and environment. They
implement the technologies in a model compound, consisting of the
simulation model BENSIM (plant fleet), the equilibrium model MAGNET
(biomass market) and the land use model LandSHIFT in order to simu­
late the effects of different bioenergy pathways. Ref. [48] has a similar
focus, analysing the optimal integration of bioenergy in Austria aiming
at a minimisation of CO2 emissions. The authors integrate technologies
using biomass for electricity, heat or transportation including bio­
methane and SNG into their dynamic simulation tool Green-XBio-Austria.
Other studies put focus on the investigation of biogas technologies,
meaning the fermentation of wet biomass and direct combustion in a
combined heat and power unit. Ref. [49] for example investigates the
influence of funding strategies (especially regarding feed-in tariffs) on
the development of German biogas plants. In doing so, they set up an
agent-based model, modelling decision making based on simple decision
rules. A description of the model setup and an application on the Swiss
case can be found in Refs. [50,51]. Refs. [52,53] analyse the impact of
biogas and biomethane injection on the distribution level of the gas grid
applying a transient fluid-dynamic model. Other energy system analyses
focusing on biogas can be found in Refs. [54,59,60].
Current studies either focused on involving few technological op­
tions using bioenergy in a complex energy system, therefore neglecting
the complexity and variety of different technologies, or on the
comparative analysis of bioenergy without the consideration of other
energy carriers. This study aims at integrating a large variety of avail­
able options for biogenous gases into an energy system, also including
competing technologies such as PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2. In doing so, syn­
ergy effects but also competitions as well as their interactions with the
market can be taken into account.
2.3. Gas market models
Existing gas market models can be divided into dispatch and market
models. Dispatch models focus on the optimisation of gas flows mini­
mising the overall system costs. The gas infrastructure is modelled in a
high degree of detail, allowing to image the grid regarding spatial and
temporal dimension close to reality. Market models focus on the
description of market mechanisms, considering the behaviour and
market power of the different stakeholders and participants. This allows
– in contrast to dispatch models – to maximise the profit of each market
participant, stepping back from the assumption of perfect competition
[61].
An example for dispatch models is the TIGER model as described in
Refs. [62,63]. It describes the European gas infrastructure assuming
perfect competition. It features the depiction of gas flows, storage op­
erations or utilisation of LNG terminals in monthly resolution. Other
models focus on an even more detailed description of the physics of the
gas infrastructure, such as Refs. [64,65]. Refs. [66–68] propose a
dispatch model framework for the integrated simulation of gas and
electricity grids. They model the interconnections between the elec­
tricity and gas sector by means of NG demand for power generation,
electricity demand for gas compressors, for underground storage as well
as for LNG terminals.
Market models comprise for example the World Gas Model as
described in Refs. [69–72]. It is a deterministic market model, analysing
the worldwide gas market for the upcoming three decades simulating
the different market participants (e.g. producers, retailers, pipeline op­
erators, storage operators, traders, customers and the like). The market
participants all try to maximise their profits. The different countries are
modelled as single nodes, very important or big countries as multiple
nodes. Modelling the market participants and their behaviour and in­
terests in high detail, the model allows optimising investments in
pipelines, storages and LNG-terminals under different scenario-based
S. Kolb et al.
boundary conditions such as changes in demand or supply structures as
well as prices and costs. Other worldwide gas market models include the
COLUMBUS model explained in Refs. [62,73] and the linear optimisa­
tion model MAGELAN in Ref. [74].
Other models lay their focus on the European market, such as the
GaMMES model [75] or NATGAS [76]. GaMMES models the European
market including the most important foreign producers. The gas market
is divided into the upstream and a downstream level of the supply chain:
The upstream level consists of producers as well as dependent and free
traders that all have market power. The downstream level includes the
consumers that are supplied by the traders. The competition is modelled
as a Cournot-Nash-Oligopoly. Storage and transportation are regulated
by global operators. Special feature of GaMMES is the integration of
substituting energy carriers such as coal or oil, moderating the market
power of gas providers. For a detailed review and comparison of
different gas market models, see Refs. [61,75].
The current gas market models focus on the modelling of the future
of the conventional gas market, considering changes in conventional
supply and demand structures. However, in possible future gas markets
with an increased share of renewable gases and a progressive sector
coupling, the arising new suppliers certainly will have an impact on the
gas market. The approach presented here aims at considering those
interactions.
3. Modelling approach in MIREG
The hereby proposed modelling approach combines system-dynamic
simulation with MILP and NLP optimisation techniques. It is a pure
market model, searching for the economic optimum without taking into
account gas or electricity networks. Fig. 1 displays the schematic setup
of the MIREG model. Section 3.1 presents the simulation parts of the
model. This includes the plant fleet, which simulates the parameters and
Inputs (Scenarios)
- current plants
- construction, price and performance parameters
- boundary conditions (e.g. demand and price projections)
Optimisation
gas market expansion planning
monthly gas annual plant
prices construction
Simulation
electricity market
hourly electricity
prices
plant fleet
hourly performance
data biomass market
annual biomass
prices
Outputs
projections until 2050 (CO2 emissions, prices, gas mix)
Fig. 1. Schematic setup and main resulting parameters of the model parts in
the MIREG model.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
performances of the plant types on an hourly basis. Special focus lays on
the interaction of the plants with their feedstock markets (electricity and
biomass market). Sections 3.2 and 3.3 explain the optimisation steps.
Section 3.2 presents the NLP optimisation approach used in the gas
market model. Here, the interaction of the renewable gas plants and the
gas market are considered especially regarding the mutual influence on
prices and operating conditions. Varying monthly gas prices, the gas
market model maximises the consumer surplus. Section 3.3 introduces
the expansion planning, aiming at an optimisation of the ideal increase
or decrease of renewable gas plant constructions under a given set of
scenario-based boundary conditions.
The sequence of operation starts with the execution of the plant fleet,
which simulates the renewable gas plants’ performance parameters (e.g.
supply curves, total amount of gas produced, costs) for one year on an
hourly basis. After this year the simulation run pauses and the optimi­
sation steps are executed. In the first place, the expansion planning
identifies the ideal number and type of renewable gas plants to be built
in the upcoming simulation year. Subsequently, the gas market model
optimises storage operation and gas prices on a monthly basis for the
next year. The results from expansion planning and gas market model
are then implemented in the plant fleet which again simulates the
plants’ performance data for another year.
3.1. Plant fleet
The plant fleet simulates the performance and operation of the
renewable gas plants under consideration. This serves as the data basis
for the optimisation steps and allows a detailed evaluation of different
scenarios. The plant fleet consists of a system-dynamic model of the
renewable gas plants (section 3.1.1), which interact with the electricity
(section 3.1.2) and biomass market (section 3.1.3). The implementation
of the model is realised in the multimethod simulation environment
AnyLogic.
3.1.1. Description of renewable gas plants
The MIREG framework considers a multitude of technological op­
tions to produce renewable gas using both biogenous resources and
electricity. Technologies converting biomass include the fermentation of
wet biomass (corn, manure, or residues) to biogas and its subsequent
CO2 separation to biomethane (BioCH4). The framework also considers
Substitute Natural Gas (SNG) plants gasifying ligneous biomass (short
rotation forestry (SRF), forest residues (FR), straw, or imported wood
pellets (IP)) with different gasification technologies (Güssing-type dual
fluidised bed (DFB) with/without Absorption Enhanced Reforming
(AER) [77], Heatpipe-Reformer-type (HPR) [77–81]). The gasification
step produces a hydrogen-rich synthesis gas (SynGas) which subse­
quently passes through a methanation step. Technologies converting
electricity to gaseous energy carriers cover Power-to-Hydrogen plants
with different electrolysis options (Solid Oxide Electrolyser Cells (SOEC)
[82–85], Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolysis [86]) as well as
partial steam methane reforming (SMR), where methane is partially
reformed to hydrogen at low steam-to-carbon (S/C) ratios using
renewable electricity [87,88]. It has to be noted that hydrogen from
partial SMR is not a green gas as it is – at least given the current gas mix –
processed from fossil methane. However, as it uses renewable electricity
for the reforming process it represents a technology to store green
electricity in gaseous energy carriers and is therefore considered in the
model. Furthermore, Power-to-Methane plants where the renewable
hydrogen from electrolysis is converted to methane by means of either
catalytic or biological methanation [89–92] need to be considered.
The technologies produce synthetic methane or hydrogen which is
injected into the gas grid in the model. Additionally, a Güssing-type
gasifier producing synthesis gas from forest residues is considered. This
gas is directly combusted for the provision of process heat in order to
substitute NG in some industrial applications, similar to historic coal-
derived town-gas applications of the last century. A schematic
S. Kolb et al.
representation of the different conversion paths considered in the model
is displayed in Fig. 2.
The technologies cover different discretised power ranges and
technological maturities. The different plants are individually simu­
lated, clustering plants of the same generation to reduce simulation
time. One of the main parameters to be calculated is the levelised costs of
the renewable gas cLCOG produced by the single plants.
/ To access consumption costs of PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 and their
∑( ∑(
cLCOG = inv ⋅ a + coper + cvar
)
Egas
)
(1)
t t
The annual depreciation of capital expenditure is derived from the
investment inv and the annuity factor a, as commonly used in energy
system models (e.g. in DIMENSION [93], MARKAL [94] or TIMES [58]).
The investment is determined using the learning curve approach (cf. e.g.
Refs. [95–98] for PtG-H2 and PtG-CH4, and Refs. [99–101] for bio­
methane and SNG). This allows to consider economies of scale. Oper­
ating costs coper are considered as a fixed percentage of the total
investment depending on the technology. Variable costs cvar are mainly
determined by electricity costs for PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 and biomass
costs for SNG, SynGas and biomethane. Those values are calculated
endogenously (cf. section 3.1.2). Variable costs in MIREG also take into
consideration costs for heating, auxiliary materials and disposal as well
as possible revenues for excess heat. Additionally, CO2 costs are included
in the variable costs using the scenario-based development of CO2 pri­
ces, assuming that all gas producers have to pay for CO2 emitted during
their production steps.
The operation decisions of the different PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 plants
are modelled using a simple decision rule: The plants are running only
when it is economically feasible, meaning that their marginal costs are
below the current gas market price computed by the gas market model
(cf. chapter 3.2). The plants therefore simulate the costs at which they
could produce gas in the corresponding hour. As soon as those costs are
below the current gas market price obtained from the gas market model
they start running. The marginal costs consider variable consumption
costs, only.
The productivity of the plants is based on time dependent effi­
ciencies. Those allow taking into account progress in research and
development. Furthermore, the model comprises dedicated efficiencies
for each of the discretised power classes of the renewable gas plants (see
Table A 1 in the supplementary data). The simulation does not consider
start-up and shut-down times. This assumption is mainly due to the
chosen time steps in the model but seems to be justifiable especially
when investigating flexible PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 production. SNG and
biomethane plants produce at constant annual marginal costs in the
model and therefore do not face – given the gas market model
renewable electricity
partial SMR
(wind, PV, hydro)
electrolysis
PEM
methanation
SOEC
fermentation
corn, residues, ...)
biomass (wood,
gasification
HPR SynGas
treatment
Güssing
Güssing + AER
Fig. 2. Renewable gas conversion paths considered in the MIREG model.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
computing monthly gas prices – situations to start-up and shut-down in
an hourly cycle. The assigned lifetimes are fixed values dependent on the
respective technology. An overview of the most relevant parameters
describing the different technologies can be found in Table A 1 in the
supplementary data.
3.1.2. Electricity market model
behaviour with varying demand and production, an electricity market
model is integrated in MIREG. This model is based on the results of Refs.
[102–104]. The authors investigate the effects of renewable energies on
the day-ahead spot market in Germany from 2011 until 2013. In order to
reconstruct historic stock market prices without wind and PV power, the
authors characterise the non-renewable generation system by its mar­
ginal cost curve. This curve represents the marginal costs for each
conventional power offered or realised during a year. It therefore allows
approximating the hourly day-ahead electricity price setting in at a
certain power of non-renewable electricity production based on historic
market data. A dual exponential function was used to approximate the
curve
(( )/ ) (( )/ )
p = 0.5 ⋅ exp Pel,conv − k1 k2 − exp Pel,conv − k3 k4 + k5 (2)
determining the factors k1 to k5 using regression analysis (R2 = 0.595
for the data fitting; RMSE = 15.3 € /MWh when testing the function with
the year 2018). The expectable hourly marginal day-ahead price p
therefore can be determined by calculating the hourly production of
conventional, non-renewable power generation Pel,conv . This value in
turn is the difference of the total supply Pel,tot and the hourly wind Pel,Wind
and PV Pel,PV production. The total supply is based on the hourly
resolved electricity demand of Germany in the year 2017, taken from
ENTSO-E [105]. Additionally, the endogenously calculated consump­
tion of PtG-CH4 Pel,PtGCH4 and PtG-H2 Pel,PtGH2 plants must be added.
Pel,conv = Pel,tot + Pel,PtGCH4 + Pel,PtGH2 − Pel,Wind − Pel,PV (3)
Regional weather data from the Climate Data Center (CDC) of the
German Meteorological Service [106] in hourly resolution allow deter­
mining the volatile production of wind and PV. The currently installed
capacities are allocated to the weather locations using their postal codes,
as presented in Table A 2 in the supplementary data. The development of
the electricity market’s installed renewable capacities and the total en­
ergy consumption Pel,tot is taken from scenario A of the network devel­
opment plan electricity of the German Federal Network Agency (v2019)
[107] and allocated to the postal codes based on the current distribution.
The performance of wind and PV plants are then modelled fundamen­
tally, using exemplary data sheets and system data (PV: SUNTECH
PtG-H2
PtG-H2
gas grid
PtG-CH4
catalytic CO2
SNG
separation
biological
BioCH4
SynGas
process
heat
S. Kolb et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

STP200S-24/Ad+, Wind: Vestas V112–3.3).
3.1.3. Biomass market model
The driver of variable costs of technologies running on biogenous
resources are their substrate procurement costs. The latter depend
heavily on supply and demand in a market characterised by usage
competitions and restricted potentials. A high utilisation factor of the
available biomass potential results in increasing prices. In order to take
this effect into account, a modified sigmoid function is used as suggested
by Ref. [49]. It indicates the resulting substrate prices psub as a function
of the utilisation factor ρ, the factor between the minimum and
maximum price k as well as the average reference price psub .
psub = psub ⋅(1 + k ⋅ ( − 1 + 2 / (1 + exp( − 12 ⋅ (ρ − 0.5))))) (4)
At an utilisation factor of ρ = 0.5 the resources are traded with the
reference price psub . In line with Ref. [49], the factor k = 0.5 is defined.
The current reference price psub and maximum potentials for the
different substrates are taken from literature. Table A 3 in the supple­
mentary data displays the considered ranges of potentials as well as the
reference prices psub . psub itself is a function of time, as biomass prices are
also supposed to rise over time. The annual increase in the reference
prices is based on Ref. [108].
There is a multitude of other approaches for modelling biomass
markets in literature, such as static cost-resource-curves. This concept is
explained in Refs. [109,110] and applied in Refs. [111–113]. In this
approach, the potentials of the different renewable energy carriers are
identified with high spatial resolution, clustered by their economic
properties and sorted by their expected costs. Subsequently, new plants
are filled into this scheme, beginning at the most economic location
[110]. Due to the national focus of the model and the resulting high
computation efforts and complexity of highly resolved
cost-resource-curves, the simplifying approach of superordinate sigmoid
curves is applied in MIREG.
3.2. Gas market model
WTPm is a function of demand structure as will be shown in section
3.2.1. The costs Cm are determined by supply which will be explained in
chapter 3.2.2.
The main outcome of the optimisation is the final monthly gas price
pm which is the sum of the average monthly gas price pm and the monthly
price change optimised Δpm .
pm = pm + Δpm = pa ⋅zm + Δpm (6)
The ratio zm of monthly gas prices pm and the annual average gas
price pa is derived from gas prices at the European Energy Exchange
(EEX) in the years 2012–2016. The schematic setup of the model as well
as its interface to the plant fleet is displayed in Fig. 3. As the gas market
model is executed ex-ante for an upcoming year, the plants’ hourly
performance and price data from the plant fleet of the previous year are
aggregated to monthly supply curves and used for the optimisation of
the upcoming year. Plants which are newly being built are assumed to
have the same supply curve as the newest already existing plant.
To respect the constraints of both mathematic modelling and market
and to mimic the market’s behaviour, the following boundary condi­
tions are predefined for the optimisation:
• The demand of all consumers must be negative at all time, as it is
taken from the system.
Dg,m ≤ 0 (7)
• The residual demand prior to the injection of renewable gas must be
negative.
DRG,m ≤ 0 (8)
• The storage level always must be positive, but below the maximum
storage capacity.
0 ≤ Fm ≤ Fmax (9)

A transformation from a fossil only gas market to a market with

multiple renewable gas technologies comes along with changes both in • The storage operations are smaller than the maximum charging and
supply and price structures, as also shown in Ref. [114]. In order to discharging values.
dynamically include the impacts of the changing energy system on the
resulting gas prices and storage operations, a non-linear economic − stmax ≤ stm ≤ stmax (10)
equilibrium optimisation model is proposed. This model allows simu­
lating the behaviour of a strategically acting storage operator,
compensating the high seasonal changes in demand by strategically • No inter annual arbitrage is possible: the annual operation of the
storing and releasing gas. storage needs to be balanced, i.e. the filling level in the end of a year
The economic gas market model optimises the monthly gas price F12 is the same as in the beginning of the year F0 .
depending on supply and demand, with the supply parameters of the F12 = F0 (11)
renewable gas plants being simulated endogenously in the plant fleet. In
doing so, it controls the operation of the plants in turn as they produce
gas in situations where their production costs are below the current gas • The demand must be met at all time.
price only. Contrarily to the electricity market where the production and
Dm = Sm + stm (12)
consumption of energy needs to be balanced at every time step, there is
no such constraint for the gas market due to its large storage capacities.
During times with high demand (especially in wintertime) those reserves
empty to fulfil the demand without full dependency on gas production
and imports, whilst at low demand (summertime), the storage refills
3.2.1. Modelling demand structures
again. The gas market model needs to represent this strategic behaviour.
In a first step, the monthly WTPm is derived by solving the integral of
The proposed optimisation model therefore maximises the consumer
the demand curves until the equilibrium price. The total monthly de­
surplus CSm – which is defined as the difference between willingness to
mand is divided into the groups households, industry and power stations
pay WTPm and costs Cm – for the whole upcoming simulation year by
with different shares in the gas consumption and varying elasticities. In a
varying monthly gas prices by a factor Δpm and by determining storage
first step, the model derives the average monthly reference demand Dg,m
operations stm .
for each of those groups g, which sets in at the reference price, from the
( ) ( )
∑ ∑ total annual gas consumption Da . Da is an exogenous scenario-based
max CSm = max (WTPm − Cm ) (5) parameter, taken from Ref. [115]. The value is multiplied with the
Δpm ,stm Δpm ,stm
relative monthly gas consumption per group Xg,m to consider seasonality
m m

9
S. Kolb et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

hourly performance monthly supply optimisation of monthly demand

and price data curves monthly gas market curves
operation
domestic NG

€/MWh
industry
MWh

€/MWh
imported NG storage filling level
MWh

€/MWh

TWh
households
MWh month

€/MWh
PtG-CH4/H2 PtG-CH4/H2 gas prices
MWh
€/MWh

€/MWh

€/MWh
power plants
h MWh month

€/MWh
SNG/BioCH4 SNG/BioCH4
MWh
€/MWh

€/MWh

h MWh

plant fleet gas market

Fig. 3. Schematic setup of the proposed gas market model and its interface to the plant fleet.

and the general share yg of the respective consumer group at the total
consumption. Values for Xg,m and yg are based on Ref. [116], assigning
about 50% of the German gas consumption to industry and the service
sector, 30% to households and 20% to power stations. Thus, the average
monthly reference gas demand of consumer group g is
Dg,m = Da ⋅yg ⋅Xg,m
Accounting for the production of SynGas, which can replace natural
gas in some industrial applications, the industrial NG demand decreases
by the amount of SynGas produced. The resulting monthly demand Dg,m
of each group considering the final gas price is then derived using linear
elasticity functions.
/ production and storage activities. For the determination of the supply of
Dg,m = Dg,m + εg ⋅Δpm pm ⋅Dg,m (14)
Ref. [76] estimates that gas demand elasticity are in the range of ε =
0 to ε = − 0.650, depending on the respective consumer. For domestic
households, the elasticity is close to zero as their possibilities to switch
fuels or to reduce demand are very limited. Industrial customers have a
high inertia to react on short-term changes of gas prices as well. A
reduction of demand is often linked to a reduction of productivity for
industrial processes. In contrast, gas-fired power stations strongly react
to gas price changes as their position in the merit-order and hence their
profitability is directly linked to fuel costs. Elasticities for households
and industry are therefore assumed to be close to zero while values for
power stations are expected to be in the range of − 0.650. Holding all
other parameters constant, varying demand elasticities in the range of
their assumed values and comparing the resulting gas prices with his­
toric values leads to values of εind = − 0.100 for industrial consumers,
εhh = − 0.025 for households and εps = − 0.650 for power stations. For
the year 2015 for example this parameter setting leads to a RMSE =
2.96 € /MWh.
Integration of the sum of the demand Dm of all consumer groups g
leads to WTPm
WTPm = 0.5⋅D2m ⋅qm + tm ⋅Dm
where qm is the slope of the monthly demand curve
/( )
qm = − pm
( )
yhh ⋅ εhh + yind ⋅ εind + yps ⋅ εps ⋅ Dm (16)
and tm is the ordinate intercept
(13)
tm = pm + qm ⋅Dm (17)
3.2.2. Modelling supply structures
In the second step of the gas market model, the monthly costs Cm are
calculated from the supply structure. The model includes gas originating
from renewable gas plants, fossil imports, domestic German fossil gas
fossil gas from domestic sources, the model uses an elasticity function.
/
Sdom,m = Sdom,m + εdom ⋅Δpm pm ⋅Sdom,m (18)
The final supply Sdom,m from domestic sources is a function of the
monthly price variation Δpm and the price elasticity εdom accounting for
deviations from the monthly average reference production Sdom,m at the
monthly reference price pm . Parameter studies show the best correlation
with the gas market’s behaviour at an supply elasticity of εdom = 0.1. The
trend of a decrease in domestic gas extraction forecasted in the network
development gas [117] is extrapolated linearly to consider the declining
German gas resources leading to the assumption that domestic gas
production reaches its end by 2040. The imports of fossil gas Sim,m are
determined using an elasticity function as described in equation (18),
too. Based on Refs. [118,119], the import supply elasticity is set to εim =
0.8.
In the model, the gas storage aggregates the total storage capacities
of the German gas sector which is assumed to remain constant during the
entire simulation period. It is assumed that no inter annual arbitrage is
possible, i.e. the filling at the beginning of each year reaches a constant
predefined filling level F. Comparing the average January’s level of the
(15) gas storage between 2010 and 2017 in Ref. [120], this factor is set to F =
0.7. Furthermore, the model considers storage operation costs modelled

10
S. Kolb et al.
using storage losses lst,m . Those are entirely economical and are assumed
to occur fully during the filling process of the gas storage.
{ supply. In doing so, only costs for new plants are considered, as already
(1 − ηst )⋅stm , stm < 0
lst,m = (19)
0, stm ≥ 0
Biogenous renewable gases (SNG and biomethane) are considered to
be constant producers in the model. That is, they are assumed to produce
a constant amount of gas SRGc,m at a constant (within one simulation
year) price. The full load hours are uniformly distributed throughout the
whole year. The performance data of those plants are calculated
endogenously for each generation in the plant fleet, depending on the
current scenario parameters and the status quo of the simulation. For the
integration of those plants, a differentiation between two cases is made
depending on the modes of subsidies chosen:
• Subsidised plants: The total possible production is assumed to be fed
into the gas grid. The required subsidies (i.e the difference between
the production costs of the renewable gas and the current monthly
gas price) is then calculated to assess the exogenous costs of such a
scenario.
• Non-subsidised plants: These plants have to actively participate in
the market (i.e. they only produce gas when their marginal costs are
lower than the actual market price).
From imports, domestic natural gas, constant renewable gas pro­
ducers and the beforehand planned storage operations, the monthly
residual demand DRGv,m which has to be provided by volatile renewable
gas providers PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 can be derived.
DRGv,m = Dm + Sdom,m + Sim,m + SRGc,m + stm + lst,m (20)
For each PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 plant and its corresponding genera­
tion, monthly supply curves are derived from hourly marginal costs
simulated endogenously in the plant fleet. This allows to include the
volatile nature of prices of those technologies in the model but also to
consider technological process by distinguishing between plants of
different years of construction. The values are converted into cumulated
density functions which then are approximated with a cotangent func­
tion, where α, β, γ and δ are fitting coefficients determined by means of a
least squares analysis using a Levenberg-Marquardt-algorithm.
SRGv,m = α⋅tan− 1 (β⋅pm + γ) + δ (21)
Ultimately, the monthly costs Cm can be calculated by multiplying
the sum of the different gas supplies (imported and domestic NG,
renewable gas from constant and volatile producers) with the final
monthly gas price pm .
( )
Cm = Sdom,m + Sim,m + SRGc,m + SRGv,m ⋅pm (22)
3.3. Expansion planning
The development of the plant fleet is an endogenous parameter in the
MIREG model resulting from a MILP expansion planning minimising the
total costs of the gas supply. Based on the historic performance data from
the plant fleet as well as scenario-based assumptions on the development
of e.g. gas prices and demand, the expansion planning optimises the
type, amount and timing of constructions of new renewable gas plants in
the beginning of each simulation year. To take into account the long-
term planning behaviour of investment decisions, the optimisation al­
ways optimises the full time horizon until 2050, with only the decisions
for the upcoming simulation year being implemented in the plant fleet
(rolling planning). The exogenous scenario parameters gas demand, gas
price and CO2 prices are taken from Ref. [115].
An optimal expansion path x ∈ Zn×o takes into account a mixture
between economic, environmental and social aspects. x is a matrix
containing integer values for the expansion of each plant type n for each
year o until 2050. As the economic aspect is the predominant one in the
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
investment decision making processes, an economic optimum is targeted
in the expansion planning by minimising the overall costs Ctot of gas
existing plants cannot be deconstructed in the model and therefore are
not a variable for future costs.
( ( ) )
minCtot = min x ⋅ Cvar + CCAPEX + Coper + CNG (23)
x x
The total costs consist on the one hand side of variable costs Cvar ,
depreciation of capital expenditure CCAPEX and operating costs Coper of
the renewable gas production facilities. The depreciation of capital
expenditure is calculated using the annuity method. Variable costs
mainly include expenses for CO2 and resources. For each of them, the
scenario-based price predictions are considered in the optimisation. If
the lifetime of a plant ends within the simulation time, the whole costs of
the plant are considered. Otherwise, only the costs within the simulation
period are included. This way, no data beyond the final year 2050 need
to be forecasted. The gas demand of a simulated year that cannot be met
by renewable gas plants according to the optimum expansion path x is
assumed to be satisfied by domestic and/or imported natural gas.
Sdom,a + Sim,a = Da − SRG,x,a (24)
The costs CNG for this gas include CO2 prices. Here, scenario-based
price projections are considered, too.
Some major assumptions need to be considered in the expansion
planning of MIREG:
• Renewable gas plants can only be built in the beginning of a year.
Their lifetime is determined when being built and can neither be
extended nor reduced.
• As the gas storage decouples supply and demand temporally, the
annual distribution of producing and consuming gas is not consid­
ered in the expansion planning.
• Imported and domestic NG are treated equally regarding price and
emissions.
The following boundary conditions are established:
• Annual gas demand is fully met by supply. Not inter annual arbitrage
possible.
• The maximum amount of plants is restricted by the potential avail­
able. This is important for biogenous gases. Usage competitions be­
tween the different plants are considered.
• The maximum annual installation rate of all plants is restricted in the
model. However, this maximum rate cannot be exploited from the
beginning. In order to consider first- and late-mover effects, the
annual installation rate is additionally restricted as a function of the
currently existing number of plants as well as the TRL of the
technology.
• The maximum share of hydrogen in the gas grid is restricted to 2%-
vol [121]. This limits the maximum amount of Power-to-Hydrogen
plants in the model. As the model does not comprise a grid repre­
sentation, this threshold is considered on balance.
• Not all technologies considered in the model are ready for the mar­
ket, yet. As suggested in Ref. [100], the large Güssing-gasifier with
AER can be built in 2025 at the earliest.
4. Results
The main outcome of the MIREG model is the economically opti­
mised change in the German gas mix resulting from different de­
velopments in market conditions as well as funding strategies and
amounts. Furthermore, varying governmental strategies such as envi­
ronmental targets leading to different biomass potentials can be
considered. The coupling with a detailed simulation model allows the
time-resolved evaluation of effects on CO2 emissions of the gas
S. Kolb et al.
producing system. The gas market model enables to assess the changes
on gas prices resulting from these scenarios.
This section focuses on the possible effects of different market con­
ditions and funding strategies on the development of the German gas
mix.
4.1. Scenario definition
In order to assess the impact of different funding strategies and
market conditions a business as usual (BAU) case serves as a reference.
The base projections of those parameters in the BAU are taken from
Ref. [115] (Fig. 4). These prognoses are in line with other literature.
Predicted gas prices in Germany for 2050 range from 32.4 € /MWh [56]
to 73.3 € /MWh [122] (value used in BAU: 36.6 € /MWh [115]). CO2
prices in 2050 vary from 30 € /tCO2 to 100 € /tCO2 [123] (value used in
BAU 76 € /tCO2 [115]). Literature assumptions for NG consumption are
ambiguous: While some studies predict an increase in gas demand (e.g.
Ref. [124] up to 794.4 TWh in 2035) other studies assume a decrease (e.
g. Ref. [122] to 497.8 TWh in 2050). The value used in the BAU repre­
sents a decrease in gas consumption to 510.9 TWh in 2050 [115].
Based on the BAU, the following scenarios are defined:
• Increasing CO2 prices: The CO2 price scenarios assumes that all gas
suppliers have to pay for the emissions occurring during their pro­
duction. For NG, an emission factor of 250 kgCO2 /MWh including its
production and perfect combustion (meaning at 100% efficiency) is
considered [125–127]. The scenarios suppose a 200% and 400%
development of CO2 prices compared to the BAU (cf. Fig. 4).
• Increasing gas prices: In the gas price scenarios the exogenously
determined increase of fossil gas prices is 150% and 200% of the
development in the BAU (cf. Fig. 4). This refers to rising extraction
costs or a governmental penalisation of NG (e.g. by additional tariffs
or taxes).
• Investment subsidies: Since renewable gas technologies (except for
biomethane) did not yet find broad application their high specific
investment can be an inhibitor of their expansion. The investment
subsidies scenarios assume a governmental partial financing of the
investment, hence the costs for erecting new renewable gas plants
decrease by 25% resp. 50%.
• Agricultural subsidies: In these scenarios a governmental funding
supports growing and providing agricultural feedstock for energy
purposes. This leads to a reduction in biomass costs by 15% and 25%
with regard to the BAU.
4.2. Scenario results
The structure of the gas production in 2050 under the funding
schemes presented in section 4.1 is displayed in Fig. 5 and compared to
the status-quo in 2017. Colour grading represents different feedstock
within the same technology. In 2017, around 1% of the German gas
consumption was provided by renewable gases, almost exclusively by
biomethane plants [128]. The biomass potentials assumed in the results
presented in Fig. 5 refer to the upper boundaries in Table A 3 in the
3.5
3.0
2)
2.5
2.0
CO2 prices (
1.5
1.0
0.5 historical
forecast [115]
0.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Fig. 4. Development of gas prices, CO2 prices and gas demand (based on lower heating values) in the BAU (values from Ref. [115]).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
supplementary data.
Results show that given the current market conditions and their
expected changes in the BAU, a significant increase in the share of
renewable gases by 2050 is not to be expected. Merely, the share of
biomethane increases in the scenario from 1% to 12%. This leads to a
mitigation of 18% of CO2 compared to a fossil only supply in 2050
mainly due to the CO2 credits and therefore negative emissions from the
use of manure. The main reason for the low increase in renewable gas is
that price projections for fossil gas predict too small prices for renewable
gases to enter the market. A stronger increase in CO2 prices than ex­
pected in the BAU (reaching 76 € /tCO2 in 2050 [115]) reduces this ef­
fect: Doubling the CO2 prices leads to a share of approximately 23% in
gas production or 28% of CO2 mitigation (especially due to SynGas
additionally replacing some fossil gas applications), quadrupling to
more than 50% in gas production or 54% of CO2 in the model. CO2 prices
in 2050 would then reach a level of 152 €/tCO2 or 304 €/tCO2
respectively.
The annual development of gas production in the BAU compared to
the scenario assuming a development of 200% and 400% of the pre­
dicted CO2 prices is displayed in Fig. 6. Additionally, a 400% CO2 price
scenario considering the lower biomass potential in Table A 3 is shown
to analyse sensitivity on available biomass resources. Biomethane plants
are the first to be built in all scenarios due to their technological read­
iness and availability. In the BAU, no additional technologies enter the
market until 2050. In the midterm, SNG and SynGas are built with rising
CO2 prices. The potential for SynGas plants is realised first, as the
absence of the methanation step is economically beneficial. PtG-CH4 and
PtG-H2 do not play a role until the end of the simulation period, whereat
the potential for PtG-H2 is exploited first. By that time, the ratio of
electricity and gas prices has reached a point at which the plants are able
to run economically feasible. A large contribution of renewable gases in
the scenario with 400% CO2 prices comes from imported biomass: In
2050, some 13% are provided by SNG plants using imported pellets as
feedstock (black and darkish grey). In the 400% CO2 price scenario the
overall available biomass potential is almost fully exploited by 2042.
The upper potential has to be considered a very ambitious value. The
comparison to the moderate biomass potential scenario shows consid­
erably lower shares in renewable gases (53% vs. 35%).
Similar developments as in the CO2 price scenarios can be seen in the
scenarios with a higher increase in fossil gas price. In the scenario with
an increase of 150% with regard to the BAU, the average fossil gas price
in 2050 is 73 €/MWh (91 €/MWh for the scenario with a 200% increase).
This leads to possible shares of 22% resp. 45% of renewable gases. In the
results of the scenario, parts of the expansion of SNG plants are shifted to
PtG-CH4 compared to the CO2 price scenarios. With 150% fossil gas
prices, SNG does not play a role at all as gas market prices do not reach a
level allowing an economic operation. The main barrier are the high
costs for substrate provision and investment of this technology. PtG-CH4
and PtG-H2 start entering the market by 2045 in this scenario.
Little positive effects can be observed from investment and agricul­
tural subsidies. A reduction of the specific investment by 50% only
slightly effects the share of PtG-CH4 in the scenario. Still, with the pre­
dicted fossil gas and CO2 prices, renewable gas in these scenarios is too
80
800
annual gas demand (in TWh)
70
60
600
50
40 400
30
20 200
historical historical
10 forecast [115] forecast [115]
0 0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
12
S. Kolb et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696

100%
fossil
SynGas FR
SNG HPR straw
80% SNG Güssing SRF
SNG Güssing FR
SNG AER IP

Share in Gas Supply

SNG HPR IP
60% BioCH4 residues
BioCH4 manure
BioCH4 corn
40% PtG-H2
PtG-CH4

20%

2017
0%
BAU 200% 400% 150% 200% 25% 50% 15% 25%
BAU CO2 Prices Gas Prices Investment Subsidies Agricultural Subsidies

Fig. 5. Structure of the predicted gas supply in 2050 with different funding strategies and amounts compared to the status-quo in 2017.

Fig. 6. Annual development of gas supply under different boundary conditions (a: BAU, b: 200% CO2 prices, c: 400% CO2 prices, d: 400% CO2 prices at lower
biomass potential).

expensive to act on the market economically.
5. Discussion
The proposed combination of simulation and optimisation allows to
take advantage of both techniques: The system-dynamic approach
relying on the simulation of individual renewable gas plant types and
generations in a market environment in high temporal resolution en­
ables to model the technologies’ performance data in a very detailed
way. This helps to provide input data which are endogenously calculated
and adjusted to the respective scenario and simulation progress to the
optimisation steps. Furthermore, it enables the detailed and time
resolved evaluation of the effects of different scenarios on the plant fleet.
This is especially crucial when it comes to Power-to-Methane and
Power-to-Hydrogen options which interact between the electricity and
gas market. Using simulation techniques, this interaction can be
executed frequently mimicking plant operators’ decision making pro­
cess. The integration of optimisation techniques allows to approximate
market effects without the exogenous specification of too many pa­
rameters. Especially the penetration of renewable gases into the previ­
ously oligopolistic gas market and the effects of the diversification in the
supply structure can be taken into account with the approach presented.
In existing approaches, this point remained considered only sparsely due
to the strong focus on the electricity market and/or the depiction of grids
and networks.
The gas market model relies on deterministic, predefined values (e.g.

13
S. Kolb et al.
regarding elasticities, demand developments, reference prices or storage
capacities). Those are either adjusted to historical values or obtained
from literature projections. This deterministic approach simplifies the
optimisation processes but has the potential not to sufficiently take into
account future changes and disruptions in market conditions. As an
example, changes in future electricity markets (e.g. the decrease of nu­
clear and coal-fired power stations or a strong increase of CO2 prices)
would change the place of gas-fired power stations in the merit-order.
This in turn could affect their bidding behaviour and hence alter the
demand elasticity of gas-fired power stations εps . Furthermore, as the
total annual gas consumption is another exogenous parameter, the in­
crease of gas consumption coming along with the above-mentioned
hypothetical change in future electricity markets is not considered as
well.
In order to evaluate the possible impact of the exogenously defined
parameters on the results of the gas market model, Table 2 presents the
results of a sensitivity analysis. Relevant parameters from the supply,
demand, storage and price dimension are varied in order to observe their
effects on the relevant outputs. The observed outputs include the
resulting average final gas price and the maximum gas price spread. The
first directly impacts the profitability of renewable gases in the model as
their operational hours are simulated in dependence of the resulting gas
market price. The latter comprises the difference between the optimised
maximum and minimum monthly gas price of a year and is hence a
criterion for the variability of resulting gas prices. The BAU parameter
setting of the first simulation year 2018 serve as reference case. In order
to allow for comparability, the sensitivities of the outputs are indicated
as change in gas price (in €/MWh) per percent (based on the BAU) of
change of the respective input parameter. The analysis shows nearly
perfect linear correlations which enables to describe the sensitivity by
this parameter.
The analysis indicates that the most sensitive inputs on the average
final gas price in the gas market model are the average monthly NG
import, the annual gas consumption and – obviously – the average NG
price. The scenarios in section 4.1 only consider different average NG
prices so far. In future work, the other parameters should be considered
in detail in a scenario analysis in order to further investigate their impact
on the overall results. The definition of NG imports has a high impact on
the maximum gas price spread as well. Due to its large contribution to
the gas mix, the supply elasticity of NG has a high effect on price vari­
ability. The underlying value therefore was chosen carefully in accor­
dance with literature. Storage parameters, demand elasticities as well as
parameters describing the domestic NG production do not show high
influence on the relevant output parameters.
With regard to the regional dimension, in a first step the model does
not take into account the spatial scale and therefore the grids. Especially
when modelling PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2, the availability of CO2 sources as
well as an appropriate gas and electricity connection could alter the
Table 2
Results of the sensitivity analysis of the gas market model.
input parameter variation
category parameter unit min
price average NG price pa €/MWh 19.0
supply average monthly NG import Sim,m TWh/m 15
average monthly domestic NG production Sdom,m TWh/m 0 5
supply elasticity NG imports εim – 0.2
supply elasticity domestic NG production εdom – 0
demand total annual gas consumption Da TWh/a 570
demand elasticity households εhh – -0.140
demand elasticity industries εind – -0.3
demand elasticity power stations εps – -0.75
storage maximum storage capacity Fmax TWh 150
storage start filling level F0 % 35
14
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
results mainly regarding the plant erections. In this approach, these
prerequisite was assumed to be fulfilled at any time.
Same as in the gas market, the spatial allocation of production ca­
pacities to weather locations in the electricity market remained rough,
as the total production capacity was assigned to six weather stations.
The integration of further locations could increase the model accuracy.
The electricity market model as such is based on historic pricing
mechanisms and structures for predicting future prices. Indeed, the
changes in renewable energy production are considered but the con­
ventional power plant fleet as well as boundary conditions (e.g. com­
modity prices) are assumed to remain as is. While this seems negligible
for near future predictions, in the far future it may lead to forecasting
errors.
The assumed maximum of 2%-vol hydrogen in the grid refers to
limitations in German gas networks with filling stations for CNG (com­
pressed natural gas) vehicles connected. However, there is no general
national legislative restriction for hydrogen blending into the gas
network as [129] highlights. In light of maximum values for Germany
ranging from 0.2 to 10%-vol of hydrogen blending [129], it is uncertain
if the limitation of 2%-vol will remain steady until 2050. In addition to
potential technologies allowing for higher shares of hydrogen in the
existing gas grid, a parallel infrastructure e.g. by means of liquid
hydrogen or dedicated hydrogen pipelines is thinkable. Furthermore,
applications (especially in industry) to date using fossil NG from the gas
network could produce hydrogen on-site to replace their demand for NG
[130]. This would allow to further increase the share of hydrogen in the
gas mix. In scenarios where PtG-H2 plants are built at all this factor has
direct implications of the results of MIREG. Raising the limitation of
hydrogen in the grid to 10%-vol in the scenario with 400% CO2 prices
increases the contribution of PtG-H2 to 16.2 TWh in 2050 (compared to
3.0 TWh with the 2%-vol restriction). Due to the cost degression of the
electrolyser capital expenditures also the contribution of PtG-CH4 in­
creases (in 2050 from 27.1 TWh to 30.7 TWh). The results of PtG-H2 in
the simulated scenarios hence need to be apprehended in light of the
assumption of a 2%-vol hydrogen limitation.
Applying the model on the development of different market condi­
tions and funding strategies shows that if renewable gases are supposed
to account for a significant share of gas consumed in Germany, they
either need to be funded substantially or market conditions have to
change. In the scenarios with around 20% of renewable gases in 2050,
the resulting market price in the gas market model was found to be in the
range of 60 €/MWh to 65 €/MWh. In scenarios with some 50% of
renewable gas, gas prices reached levels of 100 €/MWh in 2050. This
exemplifies the efforts that have to be undertaken in order to promote
renewable gases when they are supposed to actively act on the gas
market. However, in order to achieve climate goals for the whole energy
system, renewable energies in the gas sector are unavoidable. The ne­
cessity to replace NG by green gas is even increased given the discussion
1
output change (in €/MWh⋅%−input)
BAU max average final gas price maximum gas price spread
30.4 40.0 0.305 0.095
50 85 -0.398 -0.123
10 -0.022 -0.001
0.8 0.9 0.012 -0.234
0.10 0.28 2.12 E-05 -0.001
640 780 0.239 0.065
-0.025 0 -2.04 E-04 0.002
-0.1 0 -2.09 E-04 -0.001
-0.65 0 -0.002 0.035
259 330 8.74 E-07 -1.2 E-04
70 85 1.07 E-05 -8.14 E-05
S. Kolb et al.
on upstream methane leaks in NG production. An increasing number of
studies (e.g. Refs. [131,132]) question the low CO2-emissions allocated
to NG, especially pointing at the insufficient data basis for emissions
during extraction.
Furthermore, the model results imply that the available potential of
renewable gas in Germany is not sufficient to meet a demand in the
magnitude of today’s gas consumption in an environmentally respon­
sible way. In fact, strong increases in CO2 and gas prices turn out to
strongly promote the propagation of especially biogenous renewable
gases at first, but this expansion practically stagnates when the available
biomass potential is exploited. Importing biomass (or SNG directly, cf
[133]) is an option which could help here. Also for PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2,
resources are a limiting factor: The results indicate that the planned
expansion of renewable electricity in Germany is not sufficient to keep
electricity prices on a level that PtG-H2 and PtG-CH4 can become
competitive on the gas market in each scenario before 2040.
However, it has to be mentioned that the business case for PtG-H2
and PtG-CH4 in the model is to purchase electricity at the day-ahead
market and sell the produced gas in the same time step. Other busi­
ness cases were not within the scope of this study but would certainly
affect the economic performance of Power-to-Methane and Power-to-
Hydrogen. Those include but are not limited to
• the possibility to act as auxiliary service or as a flexibility option on
the balancing power market,
• the integration of a methane storage in order to decouple prices on
the electricity and gas market in terms of time, or
• the integration of a hydrogen storage (which would allow to run a
smaller methanation unit at high full load hours for continuous
production, e.g. in industrial applications).
Still, renewable electricity potential in areas near the equator for
example is significantly higher than in Germany. Possible solutions
therefore might be to produce renewable gas in such areas and then
import it. Recent studies show the economic and environmental po­
tential of such options (cf. Ref. [134]for a LCA and Ref. [135] for a
technical analysis of PtG-H2 from Qatar, Refs. [136,137] for a
techno-economic assessment of PtG-H2 from Patagonia, Refs. [138,139]
comparing PtG-H2 from different locations). Blue hydrogen is an option
to be considered as well [140]. Having said this, for a transition towards
a green gas supply, European and/or international solutions have to be
searched for.
The simulation runs also shows that renewable gases always have to
be seen as a combination of different technological options in order to
achieve a noteworthy contribution. Even though the public opinion of
biogas and biomethane has suffered in the last years in Germany (inter
alia due to the high share of biogas/biomethane from energy crops and
the consequential discussion on monocultures and its potential negative
impacts on the environment and landscape aesthetics [141–143]), from
an economic point of view it is the short-term option to green the gas mix
as it is already available. SNG and SynGas might help in the mid-term
and PtG-CH4 and PtG-H2 as solutions in the longer term.
6. Conclusion
This paper presented the simulation-based optimisation model
MIREG. The model focuses on gas market mechanisms and includes a
variety of renewable gas technologies with different feedstock and
power ranges. It endogenously considers the interactions among the
different technological options and with relevant markets (i.e. gas,
electricity and biomass markets). A scenario analysis showed the
sensitivity of the model on different market projections and funding
strategies. It displayed the effectiveness of CO2-prices in promoting
renewable gases but also emphasised that these prices need to increase
significantly in order to have a steering effect. The main issue is that NG
is too cheap (and according to recent studies is supposed to stay too
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
cheap) for renewable gases to compete on the market without subsidies.
However, given the recent developments in the German energy
sector gaseous energy carriers are supposed to remain of high impor­
tance. In the electricity sector, the government’s plans are to phase out
nuclear power until 2023 and coal-fired units until 2038 at the latest.
The decline in dispatchable power generation increases the importance
of flexible gas-fired power stations, inter alia to bridge dark doldrums.
Chemical storage options such as renewable gases are supposed to play a
key role here. Renewable gases can also contribute to defossilising other
sectors. In the heating sector, 49.5% of the housing stock was equipped
with gas heating in 2019, 36.7% of new housings were built with gas
heating [144]. Gas infrastructure is well-developed in this sector and
thus gas is supposed to continue playing a major role. In mobility
renewable gases constitute a way to defossilise applications where the
high energy densities of liquid and gaseous energy carriers outweigh the
advantages of electric mobility (e.g. in aviation or shipping).
Indeed, there is a clear need for renewable gases and the techno­
logical options are known. Thus, the main objective is to derive sus­
tainable, economically and socially acceptable transition paths towards
a green gas market.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sebastian Kolb: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal anal­
ysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - re­
view & editing, Visualization. Thomas Plankenbühler: Methodology,
Software, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing. Jonas Frank: Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investi­
gation. Johannes Dettelbacher: Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation. Ralf Ludwig: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data
curation. Jürgen Karl: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision. Marius
Dillig: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry for Eco­
nomic Affairs and Energy within the “SustainableGas” project (www.
sustainablegas.de) under the funding code 03ET4033A. Responsibility
for this publication lies with the authors.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110696.
References
[1] Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. Time series for the
development of renewable energy sources in Germany. Dessau-Roßlau; 2019.
[2] Ziesing H-J. Anwendungsbilanzen für die Endenergiesektoren in Deutschland in
den Jahren 2013 bis 2017. Berlin. 2018.
[3] Umweltbundesamt. Erneuerbare. Energien in Deutschland - daten zur
Entwicklung 2018. Dessau-Roßlau; 2019.
[4] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable energy statistics 2020. Abu
dhabi. 2020.
[5] Blanco H, Faaij A. A review at the role of storage in energy systems with a focus
on Power to Gas and long-term storage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:
1049–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.062.
[6] Quarton CJ, Samsatli S. Power-to-gas for injection into the gas grid: what can we
learn from real-life projects, economic assessments and systems modelling?
S. Kolb et al.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;98:302–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.09.007.
[7] Hüttenrauch J, Müller-Syring G, Krause H, Fichtner W, Christoph N, Hauser P,
et al. Abschlussbericht KonStGas: Integration fluktuierender erneuerbarer
Energien durch konvergente Nutzung von Strom- und Gasnetzen. Freiberg; 2017.
[8] Götz M, Lefebvre J, Mörs F, McDaniel Koch A, Graf F, Bajohr S, et al. Renewable
Power-to-Gas: a technological and economic review. Renew Energy 2016;85:
1371–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.07.066.
[9] Böhm H, Zauner A, Rosenfeld DC, Tichler R. Projecting cost development for
future large-scale power-to-gas implementations by scaling effects. Appl Energy
2020;264:114780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114780.
[10] Abeysekera M, Wu J, Jenkins N, Rees M. Steady state analysis of gas networks
with distributed injection of alternative gas. Appl Energy 2016;164:991–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2015.05.099.
[11] Hafsi Z, Elaoud S, Akrout M, Hadj-Taïeb E. Numerical approach for steady state
analysis of hydrogen–natural gas mixtures flows in looped network. Arabian J Sci
Eng 2017;42:1941–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-016-2393-y.
[12] Pellegrino S, Lanzini A, Leone P. Greening the gas network – the need for
modelling the distributed injection of alternative fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;70:266–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.11.243.
[13] Dodds PE, McDowall W. The future of the UK gas network. Energy Pol 2013;60:
305–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.030.
[14] Dodds PE, Demoullin S. Conversion of the UK gas system to transport hydrogen.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38:7189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2013.03.070.
[15] Blanco H, Nijs W, Ruf J, Faaij A. Potential of Power-to-Methane in the EU energy
transition to a low carbon system using cost optimization. Appl Energy 2018;232:
323–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.027.
[16] Schill W-P. Residual load, renewable surplus generation and storage requirements
in Germany. Energy Pol 2014;73:65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENPOL.2014.05.032.
[17] Tabkhi F, Azzaro-Pantel C, Pibouleau L, Domenech S. A mathematical framework
for modelling and evaluating natural gas pipeline networks under hydrogen
injection. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:6222–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJHYDENE.2008.07.103.
[18] Moeller C, Meiss J, Mueller B, Hlusiak M, Breyer C, Kastner M, et al. Transforming
the electricity generation of the Berlin-Brandenburg region, Germany. Renew
Energy 2014;72:39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.042.
[19] Vandewalle J, Bruninx K, D’haeseleer W. A mixed-integer linear operational
model of a coupled electricity, natural gas and carbon energy system with power
to gas. Leuven. 2014.
[20] Vandewalle J, Bruninx K, D’haeseleer W. Effects of large-scale power to gas
conversion on the power, gas and carbon sectors and their interactions. Energy
Convers Manag 2015;94:28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.01.038.
[21] Sveinbjörnsson D, Ben Amer-Allam S, Hansen AB, Algren L, Pedersen AS. Energy
supply modelling of a low-CO2 emitting energy system: case study of a Danish
municipality. Appl Energy 2017;195:922–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2017.03.086.
[22] Jentsch M, Trost T. Analyse von Power-to-Gas-Energiespeichern im regenerativen
Energiesystem. Kassel; 2014.
[23] Jentsch M, Trost T, Sterner M. Optimal use of power-to-gas energy storage
systems in an 85% renewable energy scenario. Energy Procedia 2014;46:254–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.01.180.
[24] Devlin J, Li K, Higgins P, Foley A. A multi vector energy analysis for
interconnected power and gas systems. Appl Energy 2017;192:315–28. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.08.040.
[25] Deane JP, Ó Ciaráin M, Ó Gallachóir BP. An integrated gas and electricity model
of the EU energy system to examine supply interruptions. Appl Energy 2017;193:
479–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2017.02.039.
[26] Qadrdan M, Abeysekera M, Chaudry M, Wu J, Jenkins N. Role of power-to-gas in
an integrated gas and electricity system in Great Britain. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40:5763–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2015.03.004.
[27] Qadrdan M, Ameli H, Strbac G, Jenkins N. Efficacy of options to address
balancing challenges: integrated gas and electricity perspectives. Appl Energy
2017;190:181–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.11.119.
[28] de Boer HS, Grond L, Moll H, Benders R. The application of power-to-gas, pumped
hydro storage and compressed air energy storage in an electricity system at
different wind power penetration levels. Energy 2014;72:360–70. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2014.05.047.
[29] Varone A, Ferrari M. Power to liquid and power to gas: an option for the German
Energiewende. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:207–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.049.
[30] Estermann T, Newborough M, Sterner M. Power-to-gas systems for absorbing
excess solar power in electricity distribution networks. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:13950–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.05.278.
[31] Schenk NJ, Moll HC, Potting J, Benders RMJ. Wind energy, electricity, and
hydrogen in The Netherlands. Energy 2007;32:1960–71. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2007.02.002.
[32] Hartmann N, Eltrop L, Bauer N, Schwarz S, Schmidt M. Stromspeicherpotenziale
für Deutschland. Stuttgart. 2012.
[33] Gils HC, Simon S, Soria R. 100% renewable energy supply for Brazil—the role of
sector coupling and regional development. Energies 2017;10:1859. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en10111859.
[34] Clegg S, Mancarella P. Integrated modeling and assessment of the operational
impact of power-to-gas (P2G) on electrical and gas transmission networks. IEEE
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
Trans Sustain Energy 2015;6:1234–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSTE.2015.2424885.
[35] Clegg S, Mancarella P. Storing renewables in the gas network: modelling of
power-to-gas seasonal storage flexibility in low-carbon power systems. IET Gener,
Transm Distrib 2015;10:566–75. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2015.0439.
[36] Hüttenrauch J, Zöllner S, Müller-Syring G, Steffens P, Stötzel M, Köppel W, et al.
Nutzen der Power-to-Gas-Technologie zur Entlastung der 110-kV-
Stromverteilungsnetze. DVGW Energ | Wasser-Praxis 2015;4:44–9.
[37] Simoes S, Nijs W, Ruiz P, Sgobbi A, Radu D, Bolat P, et al. The JRC-EU-TIMES
model. Assessing the long-term role of the SET Plan. Petten. 2013. https://doi.
org/10.2790/97596.
[38] Haeseldonckx D, D’haeseleer W. The use of the natural-gas pipeline infrastructure
for hydrogen transport in a changing market structure. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32:1381–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHYDENE.2006.10.018.
[39] Deymi-Dashtebayaz M, Ebrahimi-Moghadam A, Pishbin SI, Pourramezan M.
Investigating the effect of hydrogen injection on natural gas thermo-physical
properties with various compositions. Energy 2019;167:235–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.10.186.
[40] Guandalini G, Colbertaldo P, Campanari S. Dynamic modeling of natural gas
quality within transport pipelines in presence of hydrogen injections. Appl Energy
2017;185:1712–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.03.006.
[41] Cavana M, Lanzini A, Leone P. Hydrogen blending into the gas distribution grid:
the case study of a small municipality. Luzern: EFCF - Eur. Fuel Cell Forum; 2017.
[42] Abeysekera M, Rees M, Wu J. Simulation and analysis of low pressure gas
networks with decentralized fuel injection. Energy Procedia 2014;61:402–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2014.11.1135.
[43] Chaczykowski M, Zarodkiewicz P. Simulation of natural gas quality distribution
for pipeline systems. Energy 2017;134:681–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENERGY.2017.06.020.
[44] Haumaier J, Hauser P, Hobbie H, Möst D. Grünes Gas für die Gaswirtschaft –
regionale Power-to-Gas-Potentiale aus Onshore-Windenergie in Deutschland.
Z Energiewirtschaft 2020;44:61–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12398-020-
00274-w.
[45] Brunner C, Michaelis J, Möst D. Competitiveness of different operational concepts
for power-to-gas in future energy systems. Z Energiewirtschaft 2015;39:275–93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12398-015-0165-0.
[46] König A. Ganzheitliche Analyse und Bewertung konkurrierender energetischer
Nutzungspfade für Biomasse im Energiesystem Deutschland bis zum Jahr 2030.
Universität Stuttgart; 2009.
[47] Thrän D, Arendt O, Ponitka J, Braun J, Millinger M, Wolf V, et al. Meilensteine
2030 - elemente und Meilensteine für die Entwicklung einer tragfähigen und
nachhaltigen Bioenergiestrategie. Leipzig. 2015.
[48] Kranzl L, Haas R, Kalt G, Diesenreiter F, Eltrop L, König A, et al. Strategien zur
optimalen Erschließung der Biomassepotenziale in Österreich bis zum Jahr 2050
mit dem Ziel einer maximalen Reduktion an Treibhausgasemissionen. Berichte
Aus Energie- Und Umweltforsch 2008:44.
[49] Sorda G, Sunak Y, Madlener R. An agent-based spatial simulation to evaluate the
promotion of electricity from agricultural biogas plants in Germany. Ecol Econ
2013;89:43–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.01.022.
[50] Schmid C, Madlener R. Diffusion der Biogastechnologie in der Schweiz: eine GIS-
basierte Multiagenten-Simulation. Z Energiewirtschaft 2008;4:271–9. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12398-008-0035-0.
[51] Madlener R, Schmid C. Spatial diffusion of biogas technology in Switzerland: a
GIS-based multi-agent simulation approach. Int J Environ Pollut 2009;39:28–43.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijep.2009.027141.
[52] Cavana M, Leone P. Towards renewable gases distribution networks: the
importance of a transient and multi-component fluid-dynamic gas model. In:
Carvalho M d G, Scarlat N, Grassi A, Helm P, editors. Pap. 27th eur. Biomass
Conf., Lisbon: ETA-Florence renewable energies; 2019. p. 1754–61. https://doi.
org/10.5071/27thEUBCE2019-5BO.4.5.
[53] Cavana M, Leone P. Biogas blending into the gas grid of a small municipality for
the decarbonization of the heating sector. Biomass Bioenergy 2019;127:105295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.105295.
[54] Verhoog R, Ghorbani A, Gpj Dijkema. Modelling socio-ecological systems with
MAIA: a biogas infrastructure simulation. Environ Model Software 2016;81:
72–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.011.
[55] Capros P, De Vita A, Tasios N, Siskos P, Kannavou M, Petropoulos A, et al. EU
Reference Scenario 2016 - energy, transport and GHG emissions Trends to 2050.
Luxembourg. 2016.
[56] Nitsch J, Pregger T, Scholz Y, Naegler T, Sterner M, Gerhardt N, et al.
Langfristszenarien und Strategien für den Ausbau der Erneuerbaren Energien in
Deutschland bei Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in Europa und global.
Stuttgart. 2012.
[57] Child M, Bogdanov D, Breyer C. The Baltic Sea Region: storage, grid exchange and
flexible electricity generation for the transition to a 100% renewable energy
system. Energy Procedia 2018;155:390–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
EGYPRO.2018.11.039.
[58] Loulou R, Goldstein G, Kanudia A, Lettila A, Remme U, Noble K. Documentation
for the TIMES Model PART I - concepts and Theory. 2016.
[59] Ramos-Suárez JL, Ritter A, Mata González J, Camacho Pérez A. Biogas from
animal manure: a sustainable energy opportunity in the Canary Islands. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2019;104:137–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSER.2019.01.025.
[60] Zareei S. Evaluation of biogas potential from livestock manures and rural wastes
using GIS in Iran. Renew Energy 2018;118:351–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RENENE.2017.11.026.
S. Kolb et al.
[61] Eberl B, Ott J, von Roon S. Enwicklung eines Dispatchmodells im Gasmarkt. 13.
Graz: Symp. Energieinnovation; 2014. p. 1–10.
[62] Bothe D, Lochner S. Erdgas für Europa: die ewiGAS2008 Prognose.
Z Energiewirtschaft 2008;1:22–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12398-008-0003-8.
[63] Lochner S. Identification of congestion and valuation of transport infrastructures
in the European natural gas market. Energy 2011;36:2483–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.040.
[64] Gugat M, Leugering G, Martin A, Schmidt M, Sirvent M, Wintergerst D. MIP-based
instantaneous control of mixed-integer PDE-constrained gas transport problems.
Comput Optim Appl 2018;70:267–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-017-
9970-1.
[65] Burlacu R, Egger H, Groß M, Martin A, Pfetsch ME, Schewe L, et al. Maximizing
the storage capacity of gas networks: a global MINLP approach. Optim Eng 2019;
20:543–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-018-9414-5.
[66] Pambour KA, Erdener BC, Bolado-Lavin R, Gpj Dijkema. Development of a
simulation framework for analyzing security of supply in integrated gas and
electric power systems. Appl Sci 2017;7:47. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app7010047.
[67] Pambour KA, Cakir Erdener B, Bolado-Lavin R, Gpj Dijkema. SAInt – a novel
quasi-dynamic model for assessing security of supply in coupled gas and
electricity transmission networks. Appl Energy 2017;203:829–57. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.142.
[68] Pambour KA, Sopgwi RT, Hodge B-M, Brancucci C. The value of day-ahead
coordination of power and natural gas network operations. Energies 2018;11:
1628. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11071628.
[69] Egging R, Holz F, Gabriel SA. The World Gas Model. A multi-period mixed
complementarity model for the global natural gas market. Energy 2010;35:
4016–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.03.053.
[70] Egging R, Holz F, Von Hirschhausen C, Gabriel SA. Representing GASPEC with
the world gas model. Energy J 2008;30:97–118. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.1429213.
[71] Egging R, Gabriel SA, Holz F, Zhuang J. A complementarity model for the
European natural gas market. Energy Pol 2008;36:2385–414. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.044.
[72] Huppmann D, Egging R, Holz F, Ruester S, von Hirschhausen C, Gabriel S. The
world gas market in 2030: development scenarios using the world gas model. Int
J Global Energy Issues 2011;35:64–84. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJGEI.2011.039985.
[73] Hecking H, Panke T. Columbus – A global gas market model. Köln; 2012.
[74] Seeliger A. Entwicklung des weltweiten Erdgasangebots bis 2030: eine
modellgestützte Prognose der globalen Produktion, des Transports und eines
internationalen Handels sowie die Analyse der Bezugskostensituation
ausgewählter Importnationen. München: Oldenbourg Industrieverlag; 2006.
[75] Abada I, Gabriel S, Briat V, Massol O. A generalized nash-cournot model for the
northwestern European natural gas markets with a fuel substitution demand
function: the GaMMES model. Network Spatial Econ 2013;13:1–42. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11067-012-9171-5.
[76] Zwart G, Mulder M. NATGAS: a model of the European natural gas market. 2006.
[77] Karl J, Pröll T. Steam gasification of biomass in dual fluidized bed gasifiers: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;98:64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2018.09.010.
[78] Leimert JM, Treiber P, Neubert M, Sieber A, Karl J. Performance of a 100 kW
Heatpipe reformer operating on lignite. Energy Fuels 2017;31:4939–50. https://
doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00286.
[79] Leimert JM, Dillig M, Karl J. Hydrogen production from solid feedstock by using a
nickel membrane reformer. J Membr Sci 2018;548:11–21. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2017.10.059.
[80] Leimert JM, Neubert M, Treiber P, Dillig M, Karl J. Combining the Heatpipe
Reformer technology with hydrogen-intensified methanation for production of
synthetic natural gas. Appl Energy 2018;217:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.02.127.
[81] Leimert JM, Treiber P, Karl J. The Heatpipe Reformer with optimized combustor
design for enhanced cold gas efficiency. Fuel Process Technol 2016;141:68–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2015.04.026.
[82] Dillig M, Plankenbühler T, Karl J. Thermal effects of planar high temperature heat
pipes in solid oxide cell stacks operated with internal methane reforming. J Power
Sources 2018;373:139–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.11.007.
[83] Dillig M, Meyer T, Karl J. Integration of planar heat pipes to solid oxide cell short
stacks. Fuel Cell 2015;15:742–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/fuce.201400198.
[84] Dillig M, Biedermann T, Karl J. Thermal contact resistance in solid oxide fuel cell
stacks. J Power Sources 2015;300:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2015.09.031.
[85] Grimm F, Menzler NH, Lupetin P, Guillon O. Screening of cathode materials for
inert-substrate-supported solid oxide fuel cells. ECS Trans 2019;91:1397–411.
https://doi.org/10.1149/09101.1397ecst.
[86] Martinaiou I, Shahraei A, Grimm F, Zhang H, Wittich C, Klemenz S, et al. Effect of
metal species on the stability of Me-N-C catalysts during accelerated stress tests
mimicking the start-up and shut-down conditions. Electrochim Acta 2017;243:
183–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELECTACTA.2017.04.134.
[87] Großmann K, Treiber P, Karl J. Steam methane reforming at low S/C ratios for
power-to-gas applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41:17784–92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.007.
[88] Großmann K, Dellermann T, Dillig M, Karl J. Coking behavior of nickel and a
rhodium based catalyst used in steam reforming for power-to-gas applications. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:11150–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2017.02.073.
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
[89] Neubert M, Hauser A, Pourhossein B, Dillig M, Karl J. Experimental evaluation of
a heat pipe cooled structured reactor as part of a two-stage catalytic methanation
process in power-to-gas applications. Appl Energy 2018;229:289–98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.002.
[90] Neubert M, Treiber P, Krier C, Hackel M, Hellriegel T, Dillig M, et al. Influence of
hydrocarbons and thiophene on catalytic fixed bed methanation. Fuel 2017;207:
253–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.06.067.
[91] Thema M, Weidlich T, Hörl M, Bellack A, Mörs F, Hackl F, et al. Biological CO2-
methanation: an approach to standardization. Energies 2019;12:1670. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en12091670.
[92] Neubert M, Widzgowski J, Rönsch S, Treiber P, Dillig M, Karl J. Simulation-based
evaluation of a two-stage small-scale methanation unit for decentralized
applications. Energy Fuels 2017;31:2076–86. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
energyfuels.6b02793.
[93] Richter J. Dimension - A Dispatch and Investment Model for European electricity
Markets. Köln. 2011.
[94] Loulou R, Goldstein G, Noble K. Documentation for the MARKAL family of
Models. Paris. 2004.
[95] Schoots K, Ferioli F, Kramer GJ, Van Der Zwaan BCC. Learning curves for
hydrogen production technology: an assessment of observed cost reductions. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:2630–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2008.03.011.
[96] Sterner M, Thema M, Eckert F, Brainpool E, Lenck T, Götz P. Bedeutung und
Notwendigkeit von Windgas für die Energiewende in Deutschland. Regensburg/
Hamburg/Berlin. Studie im Auftrag von Greenpeace Energy; 2015.
[97] Sterner M. Energiespeicher - bedarf, Technologien, Integration. 2. korrigi.
Regensburg: Springer Vieweg; 2017.
[98] Fürstenwerth D, Waldmann L, Sterner M, Thema M, Eckert F, Moser A, et al.
Stromspeicher in der Energiewende. Berlin. 2014.
[99] Billig E. Bewertung technischer und wirtschaftlicher Entwicklungspotenziale
künftiger und bestehender Biomasse-zu-Methan-Konversionsprozesse. Universität
Leipzig; 2016.
[100] Müller-Langer F. Analyse und Bewertung ausgewählter zukünftiger
Biokraftstoffoptionen auf der Basis fester Biomasse (DBFZ Report Nr. 9).
Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg; 2011.
[101] Thrän D, Ponitka J, Arendt O, Lenz V, Daniel-Gromke J, Stinner W, et al.
Konversionspfade zur energetischen Biomassenutzung im 21. Jahrhundert.
Leipzig: Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ); 2015.
[102] Dillig M, Jung M, Karl J. The impact of renewables on electricity prices in
Germany - an estimation based on historic spot prices in the years 2011-2013.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.12.003.
[103] Dillig M, Jung M, Karl J. Kurzstudie „Deutschland ohne Erneuerbare Energien?" -
stromkosten und Versorgungssicherheit ohne die Einspeisung Erneuerbarer
Energien in den Jahren 2011-2013. Nürnberg; 2014.
[104] Kolb S, Dillig M, Plankenbühler T, Karl J. The impact of renewables on electricity
prices in Germany - an update for the years 2014–2018. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2020;134:110307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110307.
[105] European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E).
ENTSO-E transparency platform. 2020. https://transparency.entsoe.eu/.
[Accessed 16 June 2020].
[106] Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD). Climate Data Center (CDC) des Deutschen
Wetterdienstes (DWD). 2019. https://www.dwd.de/DE/klimaumwelt/cdc/cdc_
node.html. [Accessed 3 September 2018].
[107] Rippel KM, Wiede T, Meinecke M, König R. Netzentwicklungsplan strom 2030.
Berlin/Dortmund/Bayreuth/Stuttgart; 2018.
[108] Thrän D, Fischer E, Pfeiffer D, Schmersahl R, Schröder T, Zeller V, et al. Methoden
zur stoffstromorientierten Beurteilung für Vorhaben im Rahmen des BMU-
Förderprogramms “Energetische Biomassenutzung” - TEIL I:
technologiekennwerte, Gestehungskosten, Treibhausgasbilanzen. Lepizig; 2010.
[109] Haas R, Eichhammer W, Huber C, Langniss O, Lorenzoni A, Madlener R, et al.
How to promote renewable energy systems successfully and effectively. Energy
Pol 2004;32:833–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00337-3.
[110] Resch G, Faber T, Haas R, Huber C. Experience curves vs dynamic cost-resource
curves and their impact on the assessment of the future development of
renewables. Energy Environ 2004;15:309–21. https://doi.org/10.1260/
095830504323153496.
[111] Tsioliaridou E, Bakos GC, Stadler M. A new energy planning methodology for the
penetration of renewable energy technologies in electricity sector-application for
the island of Crete. Energy Pol 2006;34:3757–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2005.08.021.
[112] Haas R, Resch G, Panzer C, Busch S, Ragwitz M, Held A. Efficiency and
effectiveness of promotion systems for electricity generation from renewable
energy sources - lessons from EU countries. Energy 2011;36:2186–93. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.06.028.
[113] Müller A, Biermayr P, Kranzl L, Haas R, Altenburger F, Bergmann I, et al. Heizen
2050 - systeme zur Wärmebereitstellung und Raum- klimatisierung im
österreichischen Gebäudebestand: technologische Anforderungen bis zum Jahr
2050. Wien. 2010.
[114] Kolb S, Plankenbühler T, Pfaffenberger F, Vrzel J, Kalu A, Holtz-Bacha C, et al.
Scenario-based analysis for the integration of renewable gases into the German
gas market. In: Carvalho M d G, Scarlat N, Grassi A, Helm P, editors. Pap. 27th
Eur. Biomass Conf. Lisbon: ETA-Florence Renewable Energies; 2019. p. 1863–8.
https://doi.org/10.5071/27thEUBCE2019-5BV.3.32.
S. Kolb et al.
[115] Schlesinger M, Hofer P, Kemmler A, Kirchner A, Koziel S, Ley A, et al.
Entwicklung der Energiemärkte – energiereferenzprognose. Basel, köln,
osnabrück. 2014.
[116] Bundeverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft. Energiemarkt Deutschland:
zahlen und Fakten zur Gas-. Berlin: Strom- und Fernwärmeversorgung; 2012.
[117] FNB-Gas - Die Fernleitungsbetreiber. Entwurf netzentwicklungsplan Gas 2018-
2028. Berlin. 2016.
[118] Labandeira X, Labeaga JM, López-Otero X. A meta-analysis on the price elasticity
of energy demand. Energy Policy; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2017.01.002.
[119] Krichene N. World crude oil and natural gas: a demand and supply model. Energy
Econ 2002;24:557–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00061-0.
[120] Bundesnetzagentur. Monitoringbericht 2016. Bonn. 2016.
[121] DIN EN 16723-2:2017, Erdgas und Biomethan zur Verwendung im
Transportwesen und Biomethan zur Einspeisung ins Erdgasnetz – teil 2:
festlegungen für Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge. 2017.
[122] Kirchner A, Schlesinger M, Weinmann B, Hofer P, Rits V, Wünsch M, et al. Modell
deutschland - klimaschutz bis 2050: vom ziel her denken. Basel, Berlin. 2009.
[123] Pfluger B, Tersteegen B, Franke B. Langfristszenarien für die Transformation des
Energiesystems in Deutschland. Aachen, Heidelberg: Karlsruhe; 2017.
[124] Federal Ministry for the environment Nature conservation and Nuclear safety.
Projektionsbericht der Bundesregierung 2015. Bonn. 2015.
[125] Rechenberger D. Erdgas ist der klimafreundlichste fossile Energieträger in der
Stromproduktion. Kassel; 2018.
[126] Fritsche UR, Schmidt K. Endenergiebezogene Gesamtemissionen für
Treibhausgase aus fossilen Energieträgern unter Einbeziehung der
Bereitstellungsvorketten - kurzbericht im Auftrag des Bundesverbands der
deutschen Gas- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V. (BGW). Darmstadt. 2007.
[127] Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft eV. Basisdaten zur Bereitstellung und
Umwandlung von Brennstoffen. München; 2009.
[128] German Federal Network Agency (BNetzA). Monitoringbericht 2018. Bonn. 2019.
[129] Dolci F, Thomas D, Hilliard S, Guerra CF, Hancke R, Ito H, et al. Incentives and
legal barriers for power-to-hydrogen pathways: an international snapshot. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:11394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2019.03.045.
[130] Staffell I, Scamman D, Velazquez Abad A, Balcombe P, Dodds PE, Ekins P, et al.
The role of hydrogen and fuel cells in the global energy system. Energy Environ
Sci 2019;12:463–91. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee01157e.
[131] Peischl J, Eilerman SJ, Neuman JA, Aikin KC, de Gouw J, Gilman JB, et al.
Quantifying methane and ethane emissions to the atmosphere from central and
western U.S. Oil and natural gas production regions. J Geophys Res Atmos 2018;
123:7725–40. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028622.
18
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 139 (2021) 110696
[132] Clark CE, Han J, Burnham A, Dunn JB, Wang M. Life-Cycle Analysis of shale Gas
and Natural Gas. Argonne, USA. 2011.
[133] Batidzirai B, Schotman GS, van der Spek MW, Junginger M, Faaij APC. Techno-
economic performance of sustainable international bio-SNG production and
supply chains on short and longer term. Biofuels, Bioprod Biorefining 2019;13:
325–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.1911.
[134] Al-Breiki M, Bicer Y. Comparative life cycle assessment of sustainable energy
carriers including production, storage, overseas transport and utilization. J Clean
Prod 2020;279:123481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123481.
[135] Al-Breiki M, Bicer Y. Investigating the technical feasibility of various energy
carriers for alternative and sustainable overseas energy transport scenarios.
Energy Convers Manag 2020;209:112652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.112652.
[136] Heuser PM, Ryberg DS, Grube T, Robinius M, Stolten D. Techno-economic
analysis of a potential energy trading link between Patagonia and Japan based on
CO2 free hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:12733–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.156.
[137] Watanabe T, Murata K, Kamiya S, Ota K-I. Cost estimation of transported
hydrogen, produced by overseas wind power generations. Proc. 18th World
Hydrog. Energy Conf. 2010;78(Essen):547–57.
[138] Teichmann D, Arlt W, Wasserscheid P. Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers as an
efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2012:18118–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.066.
[139] Reuß M, Grube T, Robinius M, Preuster P, Wasserscheid P, Stolten D. Seasonal
storage and alternative carriers: a flexible hydrogen supply chain model. Appl
Energy 2017;200:290–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.05.050.
[140] Timmerberg S, Kaltschmitt M, Finkbeiner M. Hydrogen and hydrogen-derived
fuels through methane decomposition of natural gas – GHG emissions and costs.
Energy Convers Manag X 2020;7:100043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecmx.2020.100043.
[141] Kortsch T, Hildebrand J, Schweizer-Ries P. Acceptance of biomass plants - results
of a longitudinal study in the bioenergy-region Altmark. Renew Energy 2015;83:
690–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.04.059.
[142] Radics R, Dasmohapatra S, Kelley SS. Systematic review of bioenergy perception
studies. BioResources 2015;10:8770–94. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.10.4.
Radics.
[143] Dobers GM. Acceptance of biogas plants taking into account space and place.
Energy Pol 2019;135:110987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110987.
[144] AG Energiebilanzen e.V. Energieverbrauch in Deutschland: daten für das 1. und 2.
Quartal 2020. Stuttgart: Münster, Bergheim; 2020.